-------
   46264
  mltted to demonstrate that the  emissions
  sampled  or  viewed are consistently  repre-
  sentative (or several typical facility process
  operating conditions.               ...
    4.3 The owner or operator may perform a
  traverse to characterize any stratification of
  effluent gases that might exist In a stack or
  duct. If no stratification U present, sampling
  procedures under paragraph 4.1  may be  ap-
  plied even though the eight diameter criteria
  is not met.              .    .
    4.4 When single point sampling probes for
  extractive systems are  Installed  within  the
           stack or duct under paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2.1,
           the sample may not be extracted at any point
           less  than 1.0 meter from the otack or duct
           wall. Multipoint sampling  probea  Installed
           under paragraph 4.2.3 may be located at any
           points noceooary to-Obtain consistently rep-
           resentative aamploo.     .
           5. Continuous  Monitoring System  Perform-
           ance Specifications.
             The continuous monitoring system shall
           meet the performance specifications In Table
           2-1  to be considered acceptable under'this
           method.     ••             ~.  :.
                         TABLE 2-1.—Performance tpeciflcations
                    Parameter
                                                              Spcdficalfon
 1. Accuracy'	;

 2. Calibration error'.
 8. Zero drift (2 h)'	
 4. Zero drift (24 h) i	
 5. Calibration drift (2 h) >.
 6. Calibration drift (24 b)>
 7. Response time	
 8. Operational period..	-
             <20 pet of the mean value of the reference method test
              data.                             	.   -
             < 5 pet of each (SO pet, 90 pet) calibration gas mixture
              value.
             2 pet of span
                Do.
                Do.
             2.5  pet. of span
             IS min mniimum.
             168 h minimum.
   1 Expressed as sum of absolute mean value plus 95 pet confidence interval of a series of. tests.
   6. Performance Specification Test Proce-
 dures. The following test procedures shall be
 used to  determine conformance  with the
 requirements of paragraph 5. For NO, an-
 requlrements of paragraph 5. For NOj an-
 alyzers that  oxidize nitric  oxide (NO) to
 nitrogen  dioxide  (NO.), the  response time
 test under paragraph 6.3 of this method shall
 be  performed using nitric oxide (NO) span
 gas. Other tests for NO. continuous monitor-
 ing systems under paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 and
 all  tests for sulfur dioxide  systems shall be
 performed using the pollutant span gas spe-
 cified by each subpart.
   6.1 Calibration  Error  Test  Procedure. Set
 up  and calibrate the complete continuous
 monitoring system according to the manu-
 facturer's  wrlten  Instructions. This  may be
 accomplished either In the laboratory or In
 the field.
   6.1.1  Calibration Gas  Analyses. Triplicate
 analyses of the  gas mixtures shall  be  per-
 formed within two weeks prior to use using
 Reference Methods 6 for SO.  and 7 for NO«.
 Analyze each calibration gas  mixture (50%,
 90%) and record the results on the example
 sheet shown in Figure 2-1. Each sample test
, result must be within 20 percent of the aver-
 aged result or  the  tests shall be repeated.
 This step may be omitted for non-extractive
 monitors  where dynamic calibration gas mix-
 tures are  not used (6.1.2).
   6.1.2  Calibration  Error  Test Procedure.
 Make a total  of IS nonconsecutlve measure-
 ments by  alternately using zero gas and each
 callberatlon gas mixture concentration (e.g.,
 0%. 50%, 0%.  90%, 50%,  90%. 50%,  0%,
 etc.). For nonextractlve continuous monitor-/
 Ing systems, this test procedure may be  per-
 formed by using two or more  calibration gas
 cells whose concentrations  are  certified by
 the manufacturer to be functionally equiva-
 lent to these gas concentrations. Convert the
 continuous monitoring system output read-
 ings to ppm  and record the  results on the
 example sheet shown In  Figure 2-2.
   6.2 Field  Test  for  Accuracy  (Relative),
 Zero Drift, and Calibration Drift. Install and
 operate the continuous monitoring system In
 accordance with the manufacturer's written
 Instructions and drawings as  follows:
   6.2.1 Conditioning Period. Offset the zero
 setting  at least  10 percent of the  span so
 that negative zero drift can  be quantified.
 Operate the  system for  an  Initial 168-hour
 conditioning  period  In  normal operating
 manner.
   6.2.2 Operational. Test  Period. Operate the
 continuous monitoring system for an addi-
           tional 168-hour  period  retaining  the zero
           offset. The system shall  monitor the source
           effluent  at  all  times except  when  being
           zeroed, calibrated, or backpurged.
             6.2.2.1  Field Test for Accuracy  (Relative).
           For continuous monitoring systems employ-
           ing extractive sampling, the probe tip for the
           continuous monitoring system and the probe
           tip for the Reference Method sampling train
           should be placed at adjacent locations In the
           duct. For NOX continuous  monitoring sys-
           tems, make 27  NOX concentration measure-
           ments, divided  into nine sots, using the ap-
           plicable reference method. No more than one
           set of teats, consisting of three individual
           measurements,  shall  be  performed in  any
           one  hour.  All  individual measurements of
           each  set shall  be performed concurrently,
           or within a  three-minute Interval and the
           results averaged.  For  SO2 continuous moni-
           toring systems,  make nine SO. concentration
           measurements using the applicable reference
           method/ No  more  than  one  measurement
           shall be performed In any one hour. Record
           the reference method  test data and the con-
           tinuous , monitoring system  concentrations
           on the example data sheet shown in Figure
           2-3.
             6.2.25 Field Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
           bration Drift. For extractive systems, deter-
           mine the values given by zero and span gas
           pollutant concentrations at two-hour Inter-
           vals  until 15 sets of data are obtained. For
           nonextractlve measurement systems, tbe zero
           value may be determined by mechanically
           producing a  zero condition  that  provides a
           system check of the analyzer Internal mirrors
           and  all  electronic  circuitry including  the
           radiation source  and detector assembly  or
           by inserting  three or more calibration gas
           cells and computing the zero point from tbe
           upscale measurements. If this latter  tech-
           nique Is >used. a graph (s) must be retained
           by the owner or operator for each measure-
           ment system  that shows the relationship be-
           tween  the  upscale measurements and  the
           zero  point.  The span of the system shall be
           checked by using a calibration gas cell cer-
           tified by the manufacturer to be function-
           ally equivalent to 60 percent of span concen-
           tration. Record  the zero and span measure-
           ments  (or the computed  zero drift)  on the
           example 'data sheet  shown  in Figure  2-4.
           The two-hour periods over which measure-
           ments are conducted need not be consecutive
           but may  not overlap.  All measurements re-
           quired under this paragraph may bo  eon-
           ducted concurrent with  toote under para-
           graph 6.2.3.1.
  " 33.2.3 Adjustments, zero and calibration
  corrections and adjustments are allowed only
  at 24-hour  intervals or at such shorter in-
  tervals  as the  manufacturer's written in-
  otructlono  specify.   Automatic  corrections
  mado by tho measurement system without
  operator Intervention or Initiation ere allow-
  able at  any  time. During the entire 168-hour
  operational  teat period, record  on tbe ex-
  ample sheet shown In Figure  3-6 the values
  glvon by zero and span gas pollutant con-
  centrations  before and after  adjustment at
  24 -hour Intervals.
   6.3 Field Test for Response Tims.
   6.3.1  Scope of Test. Use the entire continu-
  ous monitoring system as Installed, Including
:  sample  transport  lines If  used. Flow rates,
  line diameters, pumping rates, pressures (do
  not  allow the pressurized calibration gas to
  change  the  normal operating pressure In the.
  sample  line),' etc., shall be at  tho nominal
  values  for normal operation  as specified In
  the  manufacturer's  written Instructions. If
  the analyzer is used to sample more than one
  pollutant source (stack), repeat this  teat for
  each sampling point.
   6.3.2  Response Time Test Procedure. In-
  troduce zero gas Into the continuous moni-
  toring system sampling interface or as close
  to the sampling Interface as possible. When
  the  system  output  reading  has stabilized,
  switch  quickly to  a  known concentration of
  pollutant gas. Record the time from concen-
  tration  switching to 95 percent of final stable
  response. For non-extractive  monitors, the
  highest available  calibration gas concentra-
  tion shall be switched into and out of the
  sample  path and response times  recorded.
  Perform this test  sequence three (3) times.
•  Record   the  results  of  each   test  on  the
  example sheet  shown In Figure 2-6. .
   7.  Calculations.  Data Analysis and Report-
  Ing.
   7.1 Procedure for  determination of mean
•  values and confidence Intervals.
   7.1.1  The  mean value  of  a data set la
  calculated according  to equation 2-1.."  .
                           .. Equation  2-1
 where:
   X| = absolute value of the measurements,
    1 = sum of tho Individual values.
    x=mean value, and
    n = number of date points.

   7.1.2 The 93. percent  confidence  interval
 (two-sided) Is calculated according to equa-
 tion 2-2:
                              Equation 2-2
 where:
     2xj=sum of all data points,
     t.»?j=t| — o/2, and
   C.I.ss=95 percent confidence  interval
          estimate of  the average mean
          value.

              Values fOF «.975 •'"
            1		    12.703
            2	    4.803
            3	    3.182
            4n_..:		    2.778
            S.....	    2.571
            6		    2.447
            7.....;	    2.885
            8—..-..--	    2.308
            9 -.—. .-  .       2.262
            10	    2.228
            12...	    2.201
            13	    2.179
            14	.,	    2.160
            15	    2.145
            18	    Z131

   The values in this table are already  cor-
 rected for  n-1  decrees of freedom.  Uoo n
F60EGAI BHGI5TEO, VOL. 40, NO.,
                                                                               . OCTODQQ. 6, |975
                                                             IV-9 5

-------
                                                  RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                               46265
 equal  to the number  ol sample* as data
 points. '  •                        .
   72  Data Analysis and Reporting.
   72.1  Accuracy (Relative). For each of the
 cine reference method test points, determine
 the average pollutant concentration reported
 by the continuous monitoring system. These
 average concentrations  shall be determined
 from the continuous monitoring system data
 recorded  under 7.2.2 by Integrating or aver-
 aging the pollutant concentrations over each
 of the time Intervals concurrent with each
 reference method testing period. Before pro-
 ceeding to the next step, determine the basis
 (wet or dry) of the continuous monitoring
 system data and reference method test data
 concentrations. If the  bases  are  not con-
 sistent, apply a moisture correction to either
 reference method concentrations or the con-
 tinuous  monitoring system  concentrations
 as appropriate.  Determine the  correction
 factor by moisture tests concurrent with the
 reference method testing periods. Report the
 moisture test method and the correction pro-
 cedure employed. For each of the  nine test
 runs determine the difference for each test
 run by subtracting the respective 'reference
 'method test concentrations (use average of
 each set  of three measurements for NO*)
 from the  continuous monitoring system Inte-
 grated  or  averaged concentrations.  Using
 these data, compute the mean difference and
 the 95 percent confidence Interval of the dif-
 ferences  (equations 2-1  and 2-2). Accuracy
 is reported as the sum of the absolute value
 of  the  mean difference  and the 95 percent
 confidence  Interval of  the  differences ex-
 pressed as a percentage of the mean  refer-
 ence  method value. Use the example sheet
 shown in Figure 2-3.
  132  Calibration Error.  Using the  data
 from paragraph 6.1, subtract the measured
 pollutant concentration determined  under
 paragraph 6.1.1 (Figure 2-1) from the value
 shown by the continuous monitoring system
 for each  of  the five readings  at each  con-
 centration measured under 6.1.2 (Figure 2-2).
 Calculate the mean of these difference values
 and the 95  percent  confidence Intervals ac-
 cording to equations 2-1  and 2-2. Report the
 calibration error  (the sum of the  absolute
 value of the mean difference and the 95 per-
 cent confidence Interval) as a percentage of
 each  respective calibration gas  concentra-
 tion. Use example sheet shown in Figure 2-2.
  7.2.3  Zero Drift (2-hour). Using the zero
 concentration values  measured each  two
 hours during the field teat, calculate the dif-
 ferences between consecutive two-hour read-
 Ings expressed In ppm. Calculate the mean
difference  and the confidence Interval using
  equation* 2-1 and 9-3. Report the zero drift
  as the sum of the absolute mean value and
  the  confidence Interval as a  percentage of
  spaa. Use  example sheet shown In Figure
  2-4.
   72.4  Zero Drift (21-hour). Using the zero
  concentration  values  measured  every  24
  hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
  ferences between the zero* point after .zero
  adjustment and the zero value 24 hours later
  just prior to zero adjustment. Calculate the
  mean value of these  points and the confi-
  dence Interval using equations 2-1 and 2-2.
  Report the zero drift  (the sum of the abso-
  lute mean and confidence Interval) as a per-
  centage of span. Use example sheet shown In
  Figure 2-6.
   72.5  Calibration Drift  (2-hour).  Using
  the calibration values obtained at two-hour
  Intervals during the field test, calculate the
  differences   between consecutive  two-hour
  readings expressed as ppm.  These values
  should be  corrected for the corresponding
 zero drift during that two-hour period. Cal-
 culate the'mean and confidence Interval of
 these corrected difference values using equa-
  tions 2-1 and 2-2. Do not use the differences
  between  non-consecutive  readings.  Report
 the calibration drift as the sum of the abso-
 lute  mean and confidence Interval as a per-
 centage of span. Use the example sheet ebown
 In Figure 2-4.
   72.6 Calibration Drift  (24-hour). .Using
 the  calibration values  measured  every  24
 hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
 ferences between the calibration concentra-
 tion  reading after zero and calibration ad-
 justment, and the  calibration concentration
 reading 24 hours later after zero adjustment
 but before calibration adjustment. Calculate
 the mean value of these differences and the
 confidence Interval using equations 2-1 and
 2-2. Report the calibration drift (the sum of
 the absolute mean and confidence  Interval)
 as a percentage of span.  Use the example
 sheet shown In Figure 2-5.
   7.2.7  Response  Time. Using  the  charts
 from paragraph 6.3. calculate the time Inter-
 val from concentration switching to 95 per-
 cent to the  final stable value for all upscale
 and downecale tests. Report the mean of the
 three upscale test times and the mean of the
 three downscale test times. The two aver-
 age times should not differ by more than 15
 percent of the slower time. Report the slower
 time as the system response time. Use the ex-
 ample sheet  shown in Figure 2-6.
  72.8 Operational  Test Period. During the
 168-hour performance  and operational  test
period,  the  continuous monitoring system
shall not require any corrective m*\Tit*n*nn*
repair, replacement, or adjustment other than
 that clearly specified as required la the op-
 eration and maintenance manuals as routine
 and expected during a  one-week period. If
 the continuous monitoring system  operates
 within  the specified performance parameters
 and does not require corrective maintenance,
 repair, replacement or adjustment other than
 as specified above during the  168-hour test
 period,  the operational period will be success-
 fully  concluded. Failure of the continuous
 monitoring system to meet this requirement
 shall call for a repetition of the 168-hour test
 period.  Portions of the test which were satis-
 factorily completed need not be repeated.
 Failure to meet any performance specifica-
 tions  shall call  for a repetition of the one-
 week  performance test period and that-por-
 tion of the testing which Is related to the
 failed specification. All maintenance and ad-
 justments  required  shall be recorded.. Out-
 put readings  shall be  recorded  before  and
 after all Adjustments.
  8. References.
  8.1  "Monitoring Instrumentation  for the
 Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide in Stationary
 Source Emissions," Environmental Protection
 Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C«  Feb-
 ruary 1973.
  8.2 "Instrumentation  for  the Determina-
 tion of  Nitrogen Oxides Content of Station-
 ary Source Emissions,"  Environmental  Pro-
 tection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, K.C..
 Volume 1, APTD-O847,  October 1871;  Vol-
 ume 2,  APTD-0942, January 1873.
  8.3 "Expertuental Statistics," Department
of Commerce, Handbook 81, 1983, pp. 3-31,
 paragraphs 3-3.1.4.
  8.4 "Performance  Specifications for  Sta-
 tionary-Source Monitoring Systems for Oases
and Visible Emissions," Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  N.C.,
EPA-650/2-74-013, January 1874.
                         •ifcnmo *tM U>f4.
                                                                                                     AMl/ili if Cilltntlm cn IHitgrm
                                FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 40. NO. 194—MONDAY OCTOUR 6. 1»7S
                                                           IV-9 6

-------
46266
                                              RULES-AND REGULATIONS
                                 Calibration Gas  Mixture Dau (From Figure 2-1)
                                 Mid (505) ;—	pp»       High (90%)	j»p«
Run I
                               Calibration Gas
                              Concentration, pom
Measurement System
  Reading,  pom
Differences,   ppm
                      n

                      14
                      15
                                                                                     Mid    High
                      Mean  difference
                      Confidence  interval
                      Calibration error =
                            Mean  Difference  + C.I.
                                         Average Calibration Gas Concentration
                                                          •x.100
                       Calibration  gas concentration - measurement system reading
                      "Absolute value                                  .
                                         Figure 2-2.  Calibration Error Determination
rest
no.
i
2
}
t
c
6
,
a
9
lean
c-U
lean

Date
and
Time









reference fl
value (S0?
difference
Reference Method Sdroles
SO.
Sampfe-1









. •
Sanpf* 3
,>
of.
                                           fljure 2'].  Accurjcj OeUrelnatlon (SOj ind NO,)
                               FIOfXAl REGISTER,  VOL 40, NO. I »4—MONDAY, OCTOBM *, 1»73
                                                   ,;  ,      iy-9.7

-------
                          RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                46267
lata
Set
to.
         Tim
       Bettn  End
                            Zero
 Zero
 Ortft
UZero)
          Spin
 Span-    .  Drift-
Reading     (iSpan)
Calibration
-   drift
( Span- Zero)
  Zero Drift • \flnn Zero Drift*
  Calibration Drift • [Heart Span Drift*
  •Absolute Value.
                                                   ISpanJ x 103 <
                                                     < [Span] x 10
                    Figure
                             Zero ana ulibratlcn Drift (2 Kaur)
Date!'                       Zero
and            Zero        Drift
Time         Reading      (AZero)
                                                   Span           Calibration
                                                Reading              Drift
                                        (After zero  adjustment)     (aSpan)
  Zero Drift « [Mean Zero Drift*   '_•'-     * C.I.  (Zero)

                   « [Instrument Span] x.100 » 	

  Calibration Drift'• [Mean  Span Drift*
                                                    + C.I.  (Span) _
                   « [Instrument Span] x 100
    Absolute  value
                 'Figure 2-5.   Zero and Calibration Drift (24-hour)
         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40. NO.  194—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975
                                   IV-9 8

-------
  46268
                       RULES AND  REGULATIONS
       Date of Test
       Span Gas Concentration._

       Analyzer Span Setting _
            ppm
                                       seconds
       Upscale
  2_

  3
                                       seconds
                                       seconds
                     Average  upscale response
                           seconds.
       Downscale
                                       seconds
            seconds
                           -3
                                       seconds
                     Average downscale response

   System average response time  (slower time) «
                                                     seconds
                           seconds
   ^deviation from slower
   system average response
:E
average upscale minus average downscale
              slower tine
x 100X
                          Figure 2-6.  Response Time
   Performance Specification 3—Performance
 specifications and  specification test proce-
 dures for monitors of CO, and O, from sta-
 tionary sources.
   1. Principle and Applicability.
   1.1  Principle. Effluent gases are continu-
 ously sampled and are analyzed for carbon
 dioxide or oxygen by a continuous monitor-
 ing system. Tests of the system are performed .
 during a minimum operating period to deter-
 mine  zero drift, calibration drift,  and re-
 sponse time characteristics.
   1.2 Applicability. This performance speci-
 fication is applicable  to evaluation of  con-
 tinuous monitoring systems for measurement
 of carbon dioxide or oxygen. These specifica-
 tions contain test procedures, installation re-
 quirements,  and data computation proce-
 dures for evaluating the acceptability of the
 continuous monitoring systems  subject  to
 appfovui  by  the Administrator.  Sampling
 may  Include either extractive or non-extrac-
 tive (In-situ) procedures.
   2. Apparatus.
   2.1  Continuous  Monitoring  System  for
 Carbon Dioxide or Oxygen.
   2,2 Calibration Gas Mixtures. Mixture  of
 known concentrations of carbon dioxide  or
 oxygen in  nitrogen or air. Mldrange and  90
 percent ,of span carbon dioxide or  oxygen
 concentrations are  required. The 90 percent
 of span gas mixture Is to be used to set and
 check the  analyzer span and is referred  to
 as  span  gas.  For oxygen  analyzers, If the
 span  Is higher than 21 percent  O., ambient
 air may be used In place of the 90 percent of
 span   calibration  gas  mixture.  Triplicate
 analyses of the gas  mixture  (except ambient
 air)  shall  be performed within  two weeks
 prior to, use using Reference Method 3  of
 this part.
  2.3 Zero Oas. A gas containing less than 100
 ppm of carbon dioxide or oxygen.
  2.4  Data Recorder.  Anai'og chart recorder
 or other  suitable device with Input voltage
range compatible with analyzer system out-
 put. The  resolution of the recorder's data
 output shall 'be sufficient to allow completion
of the test procedures within this specifica-
 tion.
  3. Definitions.
  3.1  Continuous  Monitoring System. The
total equipment required for the determina-
 tion of carbon  dioxide or oxygen In a given
                 source effluent. The system consists of  three
                 major subsystems:
                   3.1.1 Sampling Interface. That portion of
                 the continuous monitoring system that per-
                 forms one or  more of the following opera-
                 tions:  delineation, acquisition,  transporta-
                 tion,  and conditioning of a sample of the
                 source effluent or protection of the analyzer
                 from  the hostile aspects of  the sample or
                 source environment.
                   3.1.2 Analyzer. That portion of the con-
                 tinuous monitoring system which senses the
                 pollutant gas and generates a signal output
                 that Is a function of the pollutant concen-
                 tration.
                   3.1.3 Data Recorder. That  portion of the
                 continuous monitoring system that provides
                 a permanent record of the output signal In
                 terms of  concentration units.
                   3.2 Span. The value of oxygen or carbon di-
                 oxide concentration at which the continuous
                 monitoring system is  set that produces the
                 maximum data display output. For the pur-
                 poses  of  this method, the span shall be set
                 no less than 1.5  to 2.5 times the normal car-,
                 bon dioxide or normal oxygen  concentration
                 In. the stack gas of the affected facility.
                   3.3 Mldrange. The value of  oxygen or car-
                 bon dioxide concentration that .Is representa-
                 tive of the normal conditions In the stack
                 gas of, the affected facility at typical operat-
                 ing rates.
                   3.4 Zero Drift. The change  in the contin-
                 uous monitoring system output over a stated
                 period of  time of normal continuous opera-
                 tion when the carbon dioxide or oxygen con-
                 centration at the time for the measurements
                 is zero.                      .  .    .
                   3.5 Calibration Drift. The change In the
                 continuous monitoring system output over a
                 stated time period of normal continuous op-
                 eration when the carbon dioxide  or oxygen
                 continuous, monitoring system la measuring
                 the concentration of span gas.
                   3.8 Operational Test Period. A  minimum
                 period of time over  which the continuous
                 monitoring system is expected to' operate
                 within Certain  performance   specifications
                 without unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
                 adjustment.              .            .  .
                .   3.7 Response time. The  time  Interval from
                 a  step change In concentration at the Input
                 to the continuous monitoring system to the
                 time at which 95 percent  of the correspcnd-
"Ing final value la displayed on the contlnuovu
_ monitoring system data recorder.
   4. Installation Specification.
  'Oxygen or carbon dioxide continuous znon-
"Uorlng systems'shall be Installed at a loca-
 tion where measurements are directly repre-
 sentative  of -the  total  effluent  from the
-affected facility or representative of the same
 effluent sampled by a SO,  or NO, continuous
 * monitoring .system. This  requirement, shall
 be  complied  with by use of applicable re-
 quirements In Performance Specification 2 of
 this appendix as follows:
   4.1 Installation of Oxygen or Carbon Dl-
 'oxlde Continuous Monitoring  Systems Not
 Used to Convert Pollutant Data. A sampling
 location shall be selected In accordance with
 the  procedures  under - paragraphs  4.2.1 or
 4.2.2, or Performance Specification 3 of this
 appendix.     •
 •  4.2'Installation of Oxygen or Carbon Di-
 oxide Continuous Monitoring  Systems Used
 to Convert Pollutant Continuous Monitoring
 System- Data to Units  of  .Applicable Stand-
 ards. The diluent continuous monitoring sys-
 tem (oxygen  or carbon dioxide) shall be In-
 stalled at a sampling location where measure-
 ments that can be made are representative of
 the effluent  gases sampled by  the pollutant
 continuous monitoring system(s). Conform-
 ance with this requirement may be  accom-
 plished In any of the following ways:
   4.2.1 The sampling location for the diluent
 system shalfbe near the sampling location for
 the pollutant continuous monitoring system
 such  that the same approximate polnt(s)
 (extractive systems) or path  (In-situ sys-
 tems)  In  the cross section is sampled or
 viewed.
   4.2.2 The diluent and pollutant continuous
 monitoring systems may be installed at dif-
 ferent locations II the effluent gases at both
 sampling locations are nonstratlfled as deter-
 mined under  paragraphs 4,1 or 43, Perform-
 ance  Specification 2 of this appendix and
 there Is no In-leakage occurring between the
 two sampling locations. If the effluent gases
 are  stratified at either location, the proce-
 dures under  paragraph 4.2.2.  Performance
 Specification 2 of this appendix shall be used
 for installing  continuous monitoring systems
 at that location,
   5. Continuous Monitoring System Perform-
 ance Specifications.
   The continuous  monitoring system shall
 meet the performance specifications in Table
 3-1  to be considered acceptable under this
 method.                           . ..
   6. Performance  Specification  Teat Proce-
 dures.
   The following test procedures shall be used
 to determine  conformance  with  the require-
 ments of paragraph 4. Due to the wide varia-
 tion  existing in analyzer designs and  princi-
 ples of operation, theso- procedures  are  not
 applicable to all analyzers. Where this occurs,
 alternative procedures,  subject to the  ap-
 proval of the Administrator, may  be emr
 ployed. Any such alternative procedures must
 fulfill the same purposes  (verify response,
 drift, and accuracy) as  the following proce-'
 dures. and must  clearly  demonstrate con-
 formance with  specifications  In Table 3-1.

   6.1 Calibration Check. Establish a cali-
bration  curve for the continuous  moni-
 toring system using zero, midrange, and
span concentration gas mixtures. Verify
that the resultant curve of analyzer read-
ing  compared  with the  calibration gas
value is consistent with the expected re-
sponse curve  as described by the analyzer
manufacturer. If the  expected  response
curve is  not produced, additional cali-
bration gas measurements shall be made,
or additional steps undertaken to  verify
                                 KDMAl REGISTER, VOL 40,  NO. 194—MONDAY, OCTOBER  6, 1975

                                                         IV-S 9

-------
                                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                              46269
the accuracy of the response curve of the
analyzer.        .            .  •  .-
  6.2 Field Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
bration  Drift.  Install  and operate  the
continuous monitoring system in accord-
ance with the manufacturer's written in-
structions and drawings as follows:
  TABLE 3-1.—Performance specifications
       Parameter
                           Specification
I. Zero drift (2 h)'	  <0.4 pet O» or C0>.
2. Zero drift (24 h)'	  ..  <0.4 pet O> or CO».
4. CaUbretion drift (24 h)».  <0.5 pet Oj or CO».
o. Operational period	  168 h mlnlnmmi_ .
0. Response thoe	  lOmin. ~
  ' Expressed BS ram of absolute mean value plus-OS pet
confidence Interval of a series of testa.
  6.2.1 Conditioning Period.  Offset the zero"
setting at least 10 percent of span so that
negative zero drift may be quantified. Oper-
ate  the  continuous monitoring  system for
an Initial 168-hour conditioning  period In a
normal operational manner.
  6.2.2.~Operatlonal Test Period. Operate the
continuous monitoring system for an addi-
tional 168-hour period maintaining the aero
offset. The  system shall monitor the source
effluent  at  all times  except" when - being
zeroed, calibrated, or backpurged.
  8.2.3 Field Test for Zero Drift and Calibra-
tion  Drift.  Determine the  values  given by
zero and mtdrange gas concentrations at two-
hour Intervals until 13 sets  of data arc ob-
tained. For non-extractive continuous moni-
toring systems, determine the  zero value
glveu by a  mechanically produced zero con-
dition cr by computing  the zero value from
upscale measurements using calibrated gas
cells certified by the manufacturer. The mid-
range checks shall  be performed  by using
certified calibration  gas cells functionally
equivalent  to less than  60  percent of span.
Record these readings on the example sheet
shown In Figure 3-1. These two-hour  periods
need not be consecutive but may not overlap.
In-sltu CO, or O, analyzers which cannot be
fitted with  a calibration gas cell may be cali-
brated by alternative  procedures acceptable
to  the Administrator. Zero  and  calibration
corrections  and  adjustments are  allowed
only at 24-hour Intervals or at such  shorter
Intervals  as the manufacturer's  written In-
structions  specify.. Automatic  corrections
made by the continuous monitoring  system
without operator  Intervention or Initiation
are  allowable at any  time. During the en-
tire 168-hour test period, record the values
given by  zero  and span  gas concentrations
before and  after adjustment at 24-hour In-
tervals In the example  sheet shown In Figure
3-2.     .                .
  63 Field  Test for Response Time.
  6.3.1 Scope of Test.
  This test shall be accomplished -using the-
contlnuous monitoring system as Installed,
Including  sample transport lines If used.
Flow rates, line diameters,  pumping rates.
pressures (do not allow the pressurized cali-
bration gas to  change the -normal operating
pressure In the sample line),  etc., shall be
at the nominal values for normal operation
as  specified In the  manufacturer's written
instructions. If the analyzer Is used to sample
more than one source (stack), this test shall
be repeated for each sampling point.
  8.33 Response Time Test Procedure.
  Introduce zero  gas  Into the  continuous
monitoring system sampling interface or as
close to  the sampling Interface as possible.
When the system  output reading baa stabi-
lized, switch quickly to k-known concentra-
tion of gas at 90 percent of span. Record the
time  from concentration  switching  to  95
percent of final stable response. After the
system response has stabilized at the upper
level, switch  quickly to a  zero gas. Record
the time from concentration switching to 95
percent of final stable  response.  Alterna-
tively, for nonextractlve continuous monitor-
ing systems, the highest Available calibration
gas concentration shall be switched  Into and
out of the sample path and  response times
recorded. Perform this test sequence  three
(3) times. For each test, record the results
on  the  data  sheet shown  In Figure  3-3.
'  7. Calculations, Data Analysis, and Report-
Ing.
  7.1 Procedure for  determination  of mean
values and confidence Intervals.
 ' 7.1.1 The mean value of  a data set Is cal-
culated according to equation 3-1.
                   n 1=1     Equation 3-1
where:
  xt = absolute value of the measurements,
   2 = sum of the Individual values,
   x=mean value, and"
   n=number of data points.
  7.2.1 The 95 percent confidence Interval
(two-sided) is calculated according to equa-
tion 3-2:
    C.I.M--^2= Vn( Ear')-
           nVn-1
                             Equation 3-2
where:
    ZX= sum of all data points,
  '.975 = t, —a/2, and
  C.I,. = 95  percent  confidence Interval  es-
        timated of the average mean value.
          value.

              Values /or '.975
 n              .                     '.975
 2  	  12.708
 3  	  4.303
 4  ——	•___  3.182
 5  	'._	  2.776
 6	  2.571
 7	  2.447
 8		  2.365
 9	  2.306
10  	  2.262
11  	  2.228
12  	  2.201
13  	_	  2. 179
14  .-.-.--...I-.'..		  2.160
15  -r	  2.145
16	  2.131

The values In this table are already corrected
for n-1 degrees  of freedom: Use  n  equal to
the number  of  samples as data points.
  7.2  Data Analysis  and Reporting.
  7.2.1 Zero Drift (2-hour). Using  the  zero
concentration values  measured  each  two
hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
ferences between the  consecutive two-hour
readings expressed In  ppm.  Calculate  the
mean difference and the confidence interval
using equations  3-1 and 3-2. Record the sum
of the absolute  mean value and the confi-
dence Interval on the data sheet shown In
Figure 3-1.
  7.2.2 Zero Drift (24-hour). Using .the zero
concentration values  measured every   24
hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
ferences between the  zero point after  zero
adjustment  and the  zero value 24  hours
later Just prior to zero adjustment. Calculate
the mean value of these points and  the con-
fidence Interval using equations 3-1 and 3-3.
Record the zero drift  (the sum of the ab-
solute mean and confidence Interval) on the
data sheet shown in Figure 3-2.
  7.2.3 Calibration Drift (2-hour). Using the
calibration values obtained at two-hour In-
tervals during  the field test, calculate the
differences between  consecutive  two-hour
readings expressed  as ppm.  These  values
should be corrected  for the  corresponding
zero drift during that  two-hour period. Cal-
culate the mean, and confidence Interval of;
these corrected difference values using equa-
tions 3-1 and 3-2. Do not use the differences
between non-consecutive readings. . Record'
the  sum of  the  absolute mean and confi-
dence Interval  upon  the data sheet  shown.
InFieureS-l.
  7.2.4 Calibration Drift (24-hour). Using the'
calibration values measured  every  24 hours'
during  the  field test, calculate the  differ-
ences between  the calibration concentration
reading after zero and calibration adjust-'
ment and the calibration concentration read-
Ing 24 hours later after zero adjustment but
before calibration adjustment. Calculate the
mean value of these differences and the con-
fidence interval using equations 3-1 and 3-2.
Record the  eum of the absolute mean and
confidence Interval on the data sheet shown
In Figure 3-2.
  7.2.5 Operational Test Period. During the
168-hour  performance and  operational test
period, the  continuous  monitoring  system
shall not receive any corrective maintenance,
repair,  replacement,  or adjustment  other
than that clearly specified as required in the
manufacturer's written operation and main-
tenance  manual? as routine and  expected
during a one-week period. If the continuous
monitoring system operates within the speci-
fied performance parameters and does not re-
quire corrective maintenance, repair, replace-
ment or adjustment other than as specified
above during the 168-hour test period, the
operational  period will be successfully con-
cluded. Failure of the continuous monitoring
system to meet this requirement shall can
for a repetition of the 168 hour test period.
Portions of the test which were satisfactorily
completed need not be repeated. Failure to
meet  any performance  specifications  shall
call for a repetition of the one-week perform-
ance test period and that portion of the test-
Ing  which is related to the failed specifica-
tion. All  maintenance and  adjustments re-
quired shall be  recorded. Output readings
shall be recorded  before and after all .ad-
justments.
  7.2.6 Response Time. Using the data devel-
oped under paragraph 6.3, calculate the time
Interval from concentration switching  to 9E
percent to the final stable value for all up-
scale and downscale tests. Report the mean of
the three upscale test times and the mean of
the three downscale test tunes. The two av-
erage times  should not differ by more than
 15  percent  of  the slower  time. Report the
slower time as the system response time.'Re-
cord the results on Figure 3-3.
  8. References.
  8.1  "Performance Specifications for Sta-
tionary Source "Monitoring Systems for Oases
and Visible Emissions," Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle ParkvN.C..
EPA-850/2-74-013, January 1974.
  8.2 "Experimental Statistics," Department
of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards
Handbook 91.  1963.  pp.  3-31, paragraphs
3-3.1.4.      •  .. -    .

 (Sees. Ill and 114 of the Clean Air  Act,.as
amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-404. 84
Stat. 1678 (43 U.8.C. 1867c-6. by MC. 16(c) (2)
of Pub.  L. 91-604. 86 Stat.  1713 (43 U.8.C.
1867g)).
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40.  NO. 194—MONDAY. OCTOBER 6, 1975

                                                          IV^IO.0

-------
46270
                                                 RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                       Data
                       Set.
                       lo.
  Tin
Beo.1n  Cnd
                                            Date
                    7«ro
                              Zero
                              Drift
                                       Spin
Stan
Drift
(*$»«•)
CallbntlM-
  Drift
(*Soaa-iZero)
                       14
                       IS
                         ~Zero Drift • [tean Zero Drift
                          Calibration Drift * [Kean Span en ft
                         "•Absolute Value.
                                                      Fljure 1-1. Ziro *n«- CallbratlM Drift (2 H«ur).
                        ate                        2ero                 Span           Calibration
                        nd            Zero        Drift               Reading              Drift
                        Ime         Reading     (AZero)      (After zero  adjustment)     (aSpan)
                        Zero Drift «  [Mean Zero  Drift*
                                   •+ C.I. (Zero)
                        :a!1brat1on  Drift » [Mean Span Drift*
                                            .+ C.I.  (Span)
                          Absolute value
                                        Figure  3-2.  Zero and  Calibration Drift (24-hour)
                             I   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40. NO.  194—MONDAY, OCTOBER «, 1»73



                                                             IV-rlQl

-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                                         46271
                       Date of Test
                       Span Gas Concentration

                       Analyzer Span Setting
   Upscale
                                          2.

                                          3.
.ppra

.PPm

. seconds

. seconds

 seconds
                                    Average.upscale response
                                                  seconds
                       Downscale
                      1.

                      2.

                      3.
 seconds

. seconds

 seconds
                                    Average dovm'scale response
                                                   . seconds
                                                                        seconds
System average response time (slower time) =	

  CeAata)f'••from slower =  average upscale minus average downscale
[system average response                slower time
                                                                                    x 1002
                                               Figure 3-3.  Response
19
    Title 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION  AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
               (FRL442-3)

  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCE
     Delegation of Authority to State of
                New York
   Pursuant to the delegation of author-
 ity for the  standards of performance for
 new  stationary  sources (NSPS)  to  the
 State of New York  on August 6, 1975.
 EPA is today  amending 40 CFR 60.4, Ad-
 dress, to reflect this delegation. A Notice
 announcing this delegation  is published
 elsewhere in  today's FEDERAL REGISTER.
 The amended § 60.4,  which  adds  the  ad-
 dress of the New York State Department
 of Environmental Conservation, to which
 reports,  requests, applications, submit-
 tals, and communications to the Admin-
 istrator 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 Imme-
 diately 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
 delegatipn  which is reflected by this  ad-
 ministrative amendment was effective on
 August 6, 1975. and it serves no purpose
 to delay the technical change  of this
 addition of the State  address to the Code
 of Federal Regulations. This rulemnking
 is effective immediately, and Is issued
 under the authority of Section 111 of Uie
 Clean Air  Act,  as amended.  42  U.S.C.
 1857c-6.
                    (FR Doc.75-26665 Filed 10-3-76:8:46 am]

                       Dated: October 4.1975.

                                    STANLEY W. LECRO,
                                 Assistant Administrator
                                         for Enforcement.
                       Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
                     Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
                     as follows:
                       1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b) Is amended
                     by  revising subparagraph  (HH)  to read
                     as follows:
                     § 60.4  Address.
                          •      •       •       •      •
                       (b)  •  •  •
                       (HH)—New  York:  New York  State De-
                     partment of Environmental Conservation, 60
                     Wolf Road, New York 12233, attention: Divi-
                     sion of Air Resources.
                       |FR Doc.76-27682 Filed 10-14-76:6:46 am]

                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. JOO-

                           -WEDNESOAY, OCTOBER IS, 1975
                    20
                      PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM
                      ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY  SOURCE
                      Delegation of Authority to State of Coloradr
                         •  initials, and communications to the Ad-
                           ministrator pursuant to this part must
                           also be addressed. Is set forth below.
                            The Administrator finds Rood cause for
                           foregoing  prior public notice and, for
                           making  this  rulemaking effective Im-
                           mediately 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
                           August 27. 1975, and it serves no purpose
                           to delay the technical change of this ad-
                           dition of  the  State address to the Code
                           of Federal Regulations.
                            This  rulemaking  Is  effective  Im-
                           mediately, and Is  Issued under the au-
                           thority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
                           Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
                            Dated:  October 22. 1975.
                                        STANLEY W. LECRO.
                                      Assistant Administrator
                                              for Enforcement.
                            Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40  of the
                           Code of Federal Regulations is amended
                           as follows:
                            1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
                           by revising subparagraph (G) to read as
                           follows:
                        Pursuant to the delegation of authorll.<  § 60.4   Address.
                      /or  the standards of performance fo      .      *
                      eleven  categories  of  new   stationary
                      sources (NSPS) to the State of Colorado
                      on August 27. 1975, EPA Is today amend-
                      ing 40 CFR 60.4. Address, to reflect this
                      delegation.  A  Notice  announcing  this
                      delegation is published today In the  FED-
                      ERAL  REGISTER.  The  amended  § 60.4,
                      which adds the address of the Colorado
                      Air Pollution Control Division to which
                      all reports, requests, applications,  sub-
                             (b)  •  •  *
                             (G)—State of Colorado. Colorado Air
                          Pollution Control Division.  4210  East
                          llth Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80220.
                              •      •      •      •      •
                           (FR Doc.75-29334 Filed 10-30-76:8:45 am)

                              FEOEIAL REGISTER.  VOL  40, NO. 211-

                                 -fRIDAY, OCTOBER 31,  1975
                                                      IV-rl02

-------
 53340
     RUIIS AND REGULATIONS
'    Title 4O—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
               (FRL 437-4]
 PART 60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
    State Plans for the Control of Certain
      Pollutants From Existing Facilities
   On October 7, 1974  (39  FR 36102),
 EPA proposed to add a new Subpart B to
 Part 60 to establish procedures and re-
 quirements for submittal of State plans
 for control  of certain pollutants from
 existing facilities under  section  lll(d)
 of the Clean  Air Act, as amended (42
 U.S.C.  1857c-6(d)).  Interested persons
 participated in the rulemaking by send-
 ing comments to EPA. A total of 45 com-
 ment letters was received, 19 of which
 came from industry, 16 from State and
 local agencies, 5 from Federal  agencies,
 and  5 from other interested parties. All
 comments have  been carefully consid-
 ered, and  the proposed regulations have
 been reassessed. A number of changes
 suggested in comments have been made,
 as well as changes developed within the
 Agency.
   One significant change, discussed more
 fully below, is that different procedures
 and criteria will apply to submittal and
 approval of State  plans  where the Ad-
 ministrator determines that a particular
 pollutant may cause or contribute to the
 endangerment  of  public  welfare, but
 that adverse  effects  on public  health
 have not been demonstrated. Such a de-
 termination might be made, for example,
 in the case of a  pollutant that damages
 crops but has no known adverse effect on
 public  health. This change is  intended
 to allow States more flexibility  in estab-
 lishing plans  for  the control of such
 pollutants than is provided for plans in-
 volving pollutants that may affect public
 health.
   Most other changes were of a relatively
 minor nature and, aside from the change
 just  mentioned, the basic concept of the
 regulations  is unchanged. A number  of
 provisions have been reworded to resolve
 ambiguities  or otherwise  clarify their
 meaning,  and some were  combined  or
 otherwise  reorganized  to   clarify  and
 simplify the overall organization of Sub-
 part B.
              BACKGROUND

   When Congress enacted the Clean Air
 Amendments of  1970. i); addressed three
 general categories  of pollutants emitted
 from stationary sources. See Senate Re-
 port No. 91-1196,  91st  Cong..  2d Sess.
 18-19 (1970). The first category consists
 of pollutants (often referred to as "cri-
 teria pollutants") for which air quality
 criteria and national ambient air quality
 standards are established under sections
 108 and 109 of the Act. Under the 1970
 amendments, criteria pollutants are con-
 trolled by  State  implementation  plans
 (SIP's)  approved or promulgated under
 section 110 and, in some cases, by stand-
 ards of performance for new sources es-
tablished under section 111. The second
category consists of pollutants listed as
hazardous  pollutants under section 112
and controlled under that section.
  The third category consists of  pol-
lutants that are (or may be) harmful to
public health or welfare but are  not or
cannot be controlled  under sections
108-110 or 112. Section lll(d) requires
control of  existing sources of such pol-
lutants whenever standards of perform-
ance  (for  those pollutants)  are  estab-
lished under  section  lll(b)   for  new
sources of the same type.
  In  determining  which  statutory ap-
proach is appropriate for regulation of a
particular  pollutant, EPA considers the
nature and severity  of  the  pollutant's
effects on public health  or welfare, the
number and nature of its sources, and
similar factors prescribed by the  Act.
Where a choice of approaches is pre-
sented, the regulatory  advantages and
disadvantages of the various options are
also considered. As indicated above, sec-
tion lll(d) requires control  of existing
sources of  a pollutant if  a standard of
performance  is  established  for  new
sources under section lll(b) and the pol-
lutant is not controlled under sections
108-110 or 112.  In general, this  means
that control under  section lll(d) is ap-
propriate when the pollutant may cause
or contribute to endangerment of public
health or welfare but is not known to be
"hazardous" within the meaning of sec-
tion 112 and is not controlled under sec-
tions  108-110 because, for example, it is
not emitted from "numerous or diverse"
sources as required by section  108.
  For  ease of  reference, pollutants to
which section  lll(d)  applies as a result
of the establishment of standards of per-
formance for new sources are  defined in
5 60.21(a)  of  the  new  Subpart B as
"designated pollutants." Existing facil-
ities which emit designated  pollutants
and which would be subject to the stand-
ards of performance for those pollutants.
if new,  are defined  in  § 60.21 (b)  as
"designated facilities."
  As  indicated previously, the proposed
regulations have been revised to  allow
States more flexibility  in establishing
plans  where the  Administrator  deter-
mines that a designated pollutant may
cause or contribute to endangerment of
public welfare, but that adverse  effects
on public health have not been demon-
strated. For convenience of  discussion.
designated pollutants for which the Ad-
ministrator makes such a determination
are referred to in this preamble as "wel-
fare-related pollutants"  (i.e..  those re-
quiring control solely because of their
effects on  public   welfare^.   All other
designated  pollutants are referred to as
"health-related 'pollutants."
  To date, standards of performance have
been established under section 111 of the
Act for two designated pollutants—fluo-
rides  emitted  from five  categories of
sources in the phosphate fertilizer indus-
try (40 FR 33152, August 6,  1975)  and
sulfuric acid mist emitted from sulfuric
acid production units (36 FR 24877, De-
cember 23,  1971). In addition,  standards
of performance have been proposed ior
fluorides emitted from primary alumi-
num plants (39 FR 37730. October 23,
1974),  and final action on these stand-
ards will occur shortly. EPA will publish
draft guideline documents (see next sec-
tion)  for these  pollutants in the  near
future. Although a final decision has not
been made, it is  expected that  sulfuric
acid mist  will be  determined  to be  a
health-related pollutant and that fluo-
rides will be determined to be welfare-
related.
       SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS

  Subpart B provides that after a stand-
ard of performance applicable  to emis-
sions of a designated pollutant from new
sources is promulgated, the Administra-
tor will publish guideline documents con-
taining information pertinent to control
of the same pollutant  from designated
(i.e., existing)  facilities f§ 60.22(a) ].. The
guideline  documents will include "emis-
sion guidelines" (discussed below)  and
compliance times based on factors speci-
fied in  §60.22(b)(5)  and will be  made
available  for  public  comment  in' draft
form  before being published  in.  final
form. For health-related pollutants, the
Administrator will  concurrently propose
and subsequently promulgate the emis-
sion guidelines  and compliance  times
referred to above [§ 60.22(c)]. For wel-
fare-related pollutants, emission guide-
lines and compliance times will appear
only in the applicable guideline docu-
ments  [§60.22(d)(l)].
  The  Administrator's  determination
that a designated  pollutant  is heath-
related, welfare-related, or both and the
rationale  for the determination will be
provided in the draft guideline document
for that pollutant. In  making this  de-
termination, the Administrator will  con-
sider  such factors  as:  (1)  Known and
suspected effects of  the pollutant on pub-
lic health and welfare; (2) potential am-
bient concentrations of the pollutant;
(3) generation  of  any secondary  pol-
lutants for which the designated pollut-
ant may  be a precursor;  (4) any  syn-
ergistic effect with other pollutants; and
(5) potential effects from  accumulation
in the environment (e.g., soil, water and
food  chains).  After  consideration  of
comments and other information >a  final
determination and rationale will be pub-
lished  in the final  guidelines document.
  For  both health-related and welfare-
related pollutants,   emission guidelines
will reflect the degree of control attain-
able with the application of the best sys-
tems of emission reduction which (con-
sidering the cost of such reduction) have
been adequately demonstrated for desig-
nated facilities t§ 60.21 (e) L As discussed
more  fully below, the degree of control
reflected  in EPA's  emission guidelines
will take into account the costs of retro-
fitting existing facilities and thus will
probably be less  stringent than  corre-
sponding standards of performance  for
new sources.
  After publication of a final guideline
document for a designated pollutant, the
States  will have nine months to develop
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 222—MONDAY. NOVEMBEB 17. 1975
                                                     IV-103

-------
and submit  plans  containing  emission
standards for control  of that pollutant
from designated facilities  f§60.23 1 is a facility of the same type
as an affected facility, but one the con-
struction  of  which cgmmenced before
the date of proposal of applicable stand-
ards of performance. A.designated facil-
ity  [§60.2i]  is an; existing facility
which emits a designated pollutant.
  A few industry  comments argued that
the proposed regulations would permit
EPA to circumvent the legal  and tech-
nical safeguards required ynder sections
108, 109, and  110 of the  Act,  sections
which  the commentators characterized
as the basic statutory process'for control
of existing facilities. Congress clearly In-
tended control of existing facilities under
                                53341

sections other than 108,109, and 110. Sec-
tions 112 and 303 as well as lll(d) Itself
provide for control of existing facilities.
Moreover, action under section 11 Hd) is
subject to a number of  significant safe-
guards: (1)  Before acting under  section
lll(d)  the Administrator must  have
found under section 11 Kb) that a source
category may significantly contribute to.
air pollution which causes \5>r contributes
to the endangerment of public health or
welfare, and this finding must be tech-
nically supportable; (2)  EPA's emission
guidelines will be developed in consultc,- ,
tion  with industrial groups and the Na^
tional Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee, and they will  be-
subject to public comment before  they
are adopted; (3) emission standards and
other plan provisions must be subjected,
to public hearings prior to adoption; (4)
relief is available  under  § 60.24(f)  or
§ 60.27 (e) (2) where application of emis-
sion  standards  to  particular  sources'
would be unreasonable; and (5) judicial
review of the Administrator's action in
approving  or  promulgating plans (or
portions thereof) is available under sec-
tion  307 of the Act.
  A  number of commentators suggested
that special  provisions  for plans  sub-
mitted  under  section  lll(d)  are un-
necesssary since existing  facilities are
covered by State implementation plans
(SIPs)  approved or promulgated under
section 110 of the Act. By Its own terms,
however, section lll(d)  requires the Ad-
ministrator  to  prescribe regulations for
section lll(d) plans. In addition, the
pollutants to which section lll(d) ap-
plies (i.e., designated pollutants)  are not
controlled as such under the SIPs. Under
section 110, the SIPs only regulate cri-
teria pollutants; i.e., those for which na-
tional   ambient  air  quality  standards
have been established under section 109
of the Act. By definition, designated
pollutants  are  non-criteria  pollutants
[§60.21(a)l. Although  some designated
pollutants may occur In participate as
well as gaseous forms and thus may be
controlled  to  some degree under SIP
provisions requiring control of partlcu-
late  matter, specific rather than  Inci-
dental control of such  pollutants Is re-
quired by section lll(d). For these rea-
sons, separate  regulations are necessary
to establish the  framework for  specific'
control of designated pollutants under
section 111 (d).
  Comments of a similar nature argued
that if there  are demonstrable health
and  welfare effects from designated pol-
lutants, either  air quality criteria should
be established and SIPs submitted under
sections 108-110 of the Act, or the pro-
visions of section 112 of the Act should
be applied.  Section lll(d) of  the Act
was  specifically designed to require con-
trol  of pollutants which are not presently
considered  "hazardous"   within   the
meaning of section 112 and for which
ambient air quality standards have not
been promulgated. Health  and welfare
effects from these designated pollutants
often cannot be quantified or are of such
a nature that the effects are cumulative
and  not associated with any particular
                             FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL  40, NO. 2?2—MONDAY, NOVEMBER  17, 1975
                                                       IV-1Q4

-------
53342
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
ambient level.  Quite often, health and
welfare problems  caused by  such pol-
lutants are highly localized and thus an
extensive  procedure, such as  the  SIPs
require, is not justified.  As  previously
indicated,  Congress  specifically recog-
nized the need for control  of a third
category of pollutants; It also recognized
that  as  additional  information  be-
comes  available, these pollutants might
later be reclnssified as hazardous or cri-
teria pollutants.
  Other commentators  reasoned  that
since designated  pollutants are defined
as non-criteria and non-hazardous pol-
lutants, only harmless substances would
fall  within  this  category. These com-
mentators argued that the Administra-
tor should establish that a pollutant has
adverse effects  on public health or wel-
fare before  it could be regulated under
section lll(d). Before acting under sec-
tion lllfd), however, the Administrator
must establish a standard of perform-
ance under section 11 Kb). In so doing,
the Administrator must find under sec-
tion lll(b) that the source category cov-
ered by such standards  may contribute
significantly to  air pollution which causes
or contributes  to  the endangerment of
public health or welfare.
  (2) Basis for approval or disapproval
of State plans. A  number  of industry
comments questioned EPA's authority to
require, as a basis for approval of State
plans, that the  States establish emission
standards that (except in cases of eco-
nomic  hardship)  are equivalent  to  or
more  stringent  than EPA's  emission
guidelines. In general, these  comments
argued  that  EPA has authority only to
prescribe  procedural  requirements  for
adoption and submittal  of State  plans,
leaving the States free to establish emis-
sion standards on  any basis  they deem
necessary or appropriate. Most  State
comments  expressed  no  objection  to
EPA's  interpretation on  this  point, and
a few explicitly endorsed it.
  After careful consideration of these
comments, EPA continues to  believe, for
reasons summarized  below, that its in-
terpretation  of section lll(d)  is legally
correct. Moreover. EPA believes that its
interpretation is essential to the effective
implementation of section lll(d), par-
ticularly where health-related pollutants
are  involved. As  discussed  more  fully
below,  however, EPA has decided that it
is appropriate to allow States somewhat
more flexibility in establishing plans for
the control of welfare-related pollutants
and has revised the proposed  regulations
accordingly.
  Although section lll(d) does not spec-
ify explicit criteria for approval or disap-
proval  of State plans, the Administrator
must disapprove plans that are not "sat-
isfactory" (Section  lll(d) (2) (A) 1. Ap-
propriate  criteria   must therefore  be
inferred from the language and context
of section lll(d)  and from its legislative
history. It seems clear, for example, that
the Administrator must disapprove plans
not adopted and submitted  in accord-
ance with  the  procedural requirements
he prescribes under section lll(d), and
none of the  commentators questioned
this concept.  The principal  questions,
therefore,  are  whether  Congress  in-
tended  that the Administrator base ap-
provals and disapprovals on substantive
as well  as procedural criteria and, if so,
on what types of substantive criteria.
  A brief summary of the legislative his-
tory of  section lll(d) will facilitate dis-
cussion of these questions. Section 111
(d) was enacted as part of the Clean Air
Amendments of 1970. No comparable pro-
vision appeared in the House  bill.  The
Senate  bill, however,  contained a  sec-
tion 114 that would  have required the
establishment   of   national   emission
standards .for  "selected  air  pollution
agents." Although the term  "selected air
pollution agent" did  not  include pollu-
tants that might affect public welfare
[which  are subject to control under  sec-
tion lll(d)], its definition otherwise  cor-
responded  to  the description of pollu-
tants to be  controlled under section
lll(d). Section 114 of the Senate bill
was rewritten in conference to become
section  lll(d). Although the Senate re-
port and debates include references to
the intent of section 114, neither the con-
ference report nor subsequent debates in-
clude any discussion of section lll(d) as
finally  enacted. In the absence of such
discussion, EPA believes Inferences con-
cerning the legislative intent of section
lll(d)  may be drawn from the general
purpose of section 114 of the Senate bill
and from the manner in which it  was
rewritten in conference.
  After a careful examination of section
lll(d),  its statutory context,  and its
legislative history, EPA believes the fol-
lowing  conclusions may be  drawn:
  (1) As appears from the Senate report
and debates,  section  114  of the Senate
bill  was designed to address  a specific
problem. That problem was how to reduce
emissions of  pollutants  which  are (or
may be) harmful to health but which,
on  the  basis  of information likely to be
available in  the near term, cannot be
controlled  under other sections of the
Act as criteria pollutants or as hazardous
pollutants. (It was made clear that such
pollutants might be controlled as criteria
or hazardous  pollutants as  more defini-
tive information became available.)  The
approach taken in section 114 of the
Senate  bill was to require national emis-
sion standards  designed to assure that
emissions of  such pollutants would not
endanger health.
  (2)  The Committee  of Conference
chose to rewrite the Seriate provision as
part of section  111, which  in effect re-
quires maximum feasible control of  pol-
lutants   from  new  stationary  sources
through technology-based standards (as
opposed to standards designed  to assure
protection of health or welfare or both).
For reasons summarized below. EPA be-
lieves this choice reflected a decision in
conference that a similar approach (mak-
ing allowances for the costs of controlling
existing sources) was appropriate for the
pollutants to be controlled under section
lll(d).
  (3) As reflected in the Senate report
and debates,  the pollutants to  be  con-
trolled under section 114 of the  Senate
bill were considered a category distinct
from  the pollutants for which criteria
documents had been written or might
soon be written. In part, these pollutants
differed from  the criteria  pollutants in
that much less information was avail-
able concerning  their effects on public
health and welfare. For that reason,  it
would  have been difficult—if  not  im-
possible—to prescribe legally defensible
standards  designed  to  protect  public
health or welfare  for  these pollutants
until more definitive information became
available. Yet the pollutants, by  defini-
tion, were those which (although not cri-
teria  pollutants  and not known to be
hazardous)  had  or might  be  expected
to have adverse effects on health.
   (4) Under the  circumstances, EPA be-
lieves, the conferees decided  (a)  that
control of such pollutants on some basis
was necessary; (b)  that, given  the rela-
tive lack of information on their health
and welfare effects, a technology-based
approach  (similar  to   that  for   new
sources)  would be more feasible than one
involving an attempt to set standards
tied specifically to protection of health;
and (c)  that  the technology-based ap-
proach (making allowances for the costs
of  controlling  existing sources)  was  a
reasonable means of attacking the prob-
lem until more definitive Information be-
came known,  particularly  because  the
States would be  free under section 1.16
of the Act to adopt more stringent stand-
ardse if they believed additional  control
was desirable.  In short, EPA believes the
conferees chose to rewrite section 114 as'
part of section 111 largely because they
intended the technology-based approach
of that section  to extend (making allow-
ances for the costs of controlling existing
sources)  to, action under section  lll(d).
In  this  view,  it was  unnecessary  (al-
though it might have been desirable) to
specify  explicit substantive criteria in
section lll(d)  because the Intent to re-
quire a technology-based approach could
be  inferred from placement of the pro-
vision in section 111.
  Related considerations support this in-
terpretation of section  lll(d). For ex-
ample, section  lll(d)  requires the  Ad-
ministrator to prescribe a plan for  a
State that fails to submit a satisfactory
plan. It is obvious that he could only pre-
scribe  standards  on some  substantive
basis. The references to section 110 of the
Act suggest that (as in section 110) he
was intended  to  do generally what the
States in such cases should have done,
which in turn suggests that 'as in section
110) Congress intended the States to pre-
scribe  standards on some substantive
basis. Thus, it seems clear that some sub-
stantive criterion was intended to govern
not only the Administrator's promulga-
tion of standards but also his review of
State plans.
  Still  other  considerations  support
EPA's interpretation of  section lll(cl).
Even a cursory examination of the legis-
lative history of the 1970 amendments re-
veals that Congress was dissatisfied with
air- pollution control efforts at all levels
                             FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL  40, NO. 772—MONDAY, NOVEMBER  17, 1975


                                                      IV-105

-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        53313
of government and was convinced that
relatively drastic measures were neces-
sary to protect public health and welfare.
The result was a series of far-reaching
amendments which, coupled with  virtu-
ally  unprecedented statutory deadlines,
required EPA and the  States  to take
swift and  aggressive  action. Although
Congress left initial responsibility with
the States  for control of criteria pollut-
ants under section 110, it set tough mini-
mum criteria for such  action  and re-
quired Federal assumption of responsi-
bility where State action was inadequate.
It also required direct Federal action for
control  of  new stationary sources, haz-
ardous  pollutants, and mobile  sources.
Finally, in  an extraordinary departure
from its practice of delegating rulemak-
Ing authority to administrative'agencies
(a departure intented  to  force the pace
of pollution control efforts In the auto-
mobile industry), Congress itself enacted
what amounted  to  statutory  emission
standards  for the principal automotive
pollutants.
  Against  this background of Congres-
sional firmness, the overriding purpose of
which  was to protect public health and
welfare, it would make no sense to inter-
pret section lll(d) as  requiring the Ad-
ministrator to base  approval or  disap-
proval of State plans solely on procedural
criteria.  Under   that   interpretation,
States could set extremely lenient stand-
ards—even standards permitting greatly
Increased  emissions—so  long as  EPA's
procedural requirements were met. Given
that the pollutants in  question are (or
may be) harmful to public health and
welfare, and that section HHd)  is the
only provision of the Act requiring their
control, It is difficult to believe that Con-
gress meant to leave such a gaping loop-
hole in  a statutory scheme otherwise de-
signed to force meaningful action.
  Some of the comments on  the pro-
posed regulations assume  that the  States
were intended to set emission standards
based  directly on protection of  public'
health  and  welfare.  EPA believes this
view is  consistent with its own view that
the Administrator was  intended to base
approval or disapproval of State  plans on
substantive as well as procedural criteria
but believes Congress intended a  technol-
ogy-based  approach  rather than one
based  directly on protection of  health
and welfare. The principal factors lead-
ing  EPA to this conclusion are  sum-
marized above. Another is that if Con-
gress had  intended an approach  based
directly on protection of health and wel-
fare, it could have rewritten section 114
of the Senate bill as part of section 110,
which epitomizes that approach,  rather
than as part of section  111. Indeed, with
relatively  minor  changes in language,
Congress could simply have retained sec-
tion 114 as a separate section requiring
action  based directly  on protection of
health and welfare.
  Still another factor is that asking each
of the States, many of which had limited
resources and expertise in air pollution
control, to set standards protective of
health and welfare in the absence of ade-
quate Information would have made even
less sense than requiring the Administra-
tor to do so with the various resources at
his command. Requiring  a technology-
based approach, on the other hand, would
not only shift the criteria for  decision-
making to more solid ground (the avail-
ability and costs of control technology)
but would also take advantage of the in-
formation and expertise available to EPA
from its assessment of techniques for the
control of the same pollutants  from the
same types of sources under section HI
(b), as well as its power to compel sub-
mission of information about such tech-
niques under section  114 of the Act (42
U.S.C. 1857c-9). Indeed, section 114 was
made specifically applicable for the pur-
pose (among others)  of assisting in the
development of State plans under section
lll(d). For all of these reasons, EPA be-
lieves  Congress  intended  a technology-
based  approach rather than one based
directly on protection of. health and
welfare.
  Some of the  comments argued that
EPA's emission guidelines under section
lll(d)  will, in effect, be national emis-
sion standards for existing sources, a con-
cept they argue was  rejected in section
lll(d). In general, the comments rely on
the fact that although section 114 of the
Senate bill specifically  provided  for na-
tional emission standards, section lll(d)
calls for establishment of emission stand-
ards by States. EPA believes that the re-
writing of  section  114  in  conference  is
consistent with the establishment of na-
tional criteria by which  to judge the ade-
quacy of State plans, and that the ap-
proach taken in section lll(d)  may be
viewed as largely the result of  two deci-
sions: (1) To adopt a technology-based
approach similar to that for new sources;
and (2) to give States a greater role than
was provided in section  114. Thus, States
will have primary responsibility  for de-
veloping and enforcing  control plans
under section 11 Hd); under section 114,
they would only have been invited to seek
a delegation of authority to enforce Fed-
erally developed standards. Under EPA's
interpretation of section  lll(d). States
will" also have  authority  to  grant vari-
ances in cases of economic hardship; un-
der section  114, only the Administrator
would have had authority to grant such
relief. As with section 110, assigning pri-
mary responsibility to the States in these
areas is perfectly consistent with review
of their plans on some substantive basis.
If there is to be substantive review, there
must be criteria for the review, and EPA
believes it Is desirable (if  not legally re-
quired) that the criteria be made known
in advance to the States, to industry, and
to the general public. The emission guide-
lines, each of which will be subjected  to
public  comment before final  adoption,
will serve this function.
   In any event, whether or not Congress
"rejected" the concept of national emis-
sion standards for existing sources, EPA's
emission guidelines will not have the pur-
pose or effect of national emission stand-
ards. As emphasized elsewhere  in this
preamble, they will not be requirements
enforceable against any source. Like the
national ambient  air quality standards
prescribed  under  section  109 and  the
items set forth in section 110(a) (2) (A)-
(H), they will only be criteria for judging
the adequacy of State plans.
  Moreover, it is Inaccurate to argue (as
did one comment) that, because  EPA's
emission guidelines will reflect best avail-
able technology considering  cost. States
will  be unable to  set more stringent
standards.  EPA's emission guidelines will
reflect its judgment of the degree.of con-
trol  that  can  be  attained  by various
classes of existing sources without unrea-
sonable costs. Particular sources within
a class may  be able to achieve greater
control  without   unreasonable  costs.
Moreover,  States that believe additional
control is necessary or  desirable will be
free under section  116 of  the  Act to
require more expensive controls,  which
might have the effect of closing other-
wise marginal  facilities, or to ban par-
ticular categories  of sources outright.
Section 60.24(g) has been added to clar-
ify this point. On the other hand, States
will be free to set more lenient standards,
subject to  EPA review, as  provided In
§§ 60.24(d) and (f)  In  the case of wel-
fare-related  pollutants  and  In  cases of
economic hardship.
  Finally,  as discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, EPA's emission guidelines will
reflect  subcategorization  within source
categories  where  appropriate,  taking
into  account  differences  in sizes  and
types  of  facilities and  similar  con-
5§ 60.24 (d)  and (f) in the case of wel-
siderations, including differences in con-
trol  costs  that  may  be  involved for
sources located in different parts of the
country. Thus, EPA's emission guidelines
will  in effect be tailored to what Is rea-
sonably achievable by particular classes
of existing sources, and  States will be
free to vary from the  levels of control
represented by the emission guidelines in
the  ways  mentioned above. In most  If
not all cases, the result is likely to be sub-
stantial variation in the degree of control
required for particular sources,  rather
than identical standards for all sources.
   In summary,  EPA  believes  section
lll(d)  is a hybrid provision, intended to
combine primary State  responsibility for
plan development and enforcement (as In
section 110)  with the technology-based
approach  (making  allowances for the
costs  of  controlling existing  sources)
taken in section 111 generally.  As indi-
cated above,  EPA believes its interpreta-
tion of section  lll(d) is legally correct in
view of the language, statutory context
and legislative history of the provision.
   Even assuming some other interpreta-
tion  were  permissible,  however,  EPA
believes its  interpretation  is essential
to   the effective   implementation  of
section  lll(d),   particularly  where
health-related pollutants  are involved.
Most  of   the  reasons  for  this  con-
clusion are discussed above, but it may be
useful to summarize them here. Given
the relative lack of information concern-
ing the effects of designated pollutants on
public health and welfare, it would 'je
                             FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 40, NO.  222—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17,  1975


                                                       IV-106

-------
 53344
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
difficult—if  not  Impossible—for   the
States or EPA to prescribe legally defen-
sible  standards based directly  on  pro-
tection of  health  and welfare.  By  con-
trast, a technology-based approach takes
advantage of the Information  and ex-
pertise available to EPA from its assess-
ment of techniques for the control of the
same pollutants from the same types of
sources under section Ill(b), as well as
EPA's power to compel submission of In-
formation  about such techniques under
section 114 of the Act. Given the variety
of circumstances that may  be encount-
ered in controlling existing as opposed to
new sources, it makes sense to have the
States develop plans based on technical
information provided by EPA and make
judgments, subject to EPA  review,  con-
cerning the extent to which less stringent
requirements  are appropriate.  Finally,
EPA review of such  plans for their sub-
stantive adequacy is essential  (partic-
ularly for  health-related  pollutants) to
assure that meaningful controls will bo
imposed. For these reasons, given a choice
of permissible interpretations of section
lll(d), EPA would choose the interpre-
tation on which Subpart B is based on
the ground that  it is  essential to the
effective implementation of the provision,
particularly  where  health-related  pol-
lutants are involved.
  As  indicated previously, however, EPA
has decided that it is appropriate to
allow  the  States more  flexibility in es-
tablishing  plans  for  the   control  of
welfare-related pollutants than is pro-
vided  for plans involving health-related
pollutants.  Accordingly,  the  proposed
regulations have been revised to provide
that  States  may  balance the emission
guidelines, compliance  times and other
information  in EPA's  guideline docu-
ments against other factors in establish-
ing  emission   standards,   compliance
schedules, and variances for  welfare-
related pollutants, provided that appro-
priate consideration is given to the in-
formation presented  in  the  guideline
documents and at public hearings, and
. that all other requirements of Subpart B
are met C560.24(d)]. Where sources of
pollutants that cause only adverse effects
to  crops are located in nonagricultural
areas, for example, or where residents
of a local community depend on an eco-
nomically  marginal  plant for their liveli-
hood, such factors  could be taken into
account. Consistent with section 116 of
the Act,  of  course, States will remain
free to adopt requirements as stringent
as  (or more stringent than)  the corre-
sponding emission guidelines and  com-
pliance times  specified in EPA's guide-
line   documents  if  they  wish   [see
 §60.24(g)l.
   A number of factors influenced EPA's
 decision to allow States more flexibility
 in  establishing plans  for  control of •
 welfare-related pollutants  than is pro-
 vided for  plans involving health-related
 pollutants.  The  dominant  factor, of
 course, is that effects  on public health
 would not be expected to occur in such
 cases,  even  if  State plans  required no
 greater controls  than  are  presently in
 effect. In  a sense, allowing the States
' greater  latitude in such  cases simply
 reflects EPA's view (stated in the pre-
 amble to the proposed regulations) that
 requiring maximum feasible control of
 designated pollutants may be unreason-
 able  In  some situations. Although pol-
 lutants that cause  only damage to vege-
 tation, for example, are subject to con-
 trol  under section ill(d), few  would
 argue that requiring maximum feasible
 control is as important  for such pollut-
 ants  as it is for pollutants that endanger
 public health.
   This  fundamental   distinction—be-
 tween effects on public health and effects
 on public welfare—is reflected in section
 110 of the Act,  which  requires attain-
 ment of national air  quality standards
 that  protect public health within a cer-
 tain  time  (regardless of economic and
 social consequences) but requires attain-
 ment of national standards that protect
 public welfare only within "a reasonable
 time." The significance of this distinc-
 tion  Is reflected in  the legislative history
 of section 110; and the legislative history
 of section  lll(d), although inconclusive,
 suggests that Its primary purpose was to
 require  control  of pollutants  that en-
 danger public health. For these reasons,
 EPA  believes it Is both permissible under
 section  lll(d)  and appropriate  as  a
 matter of  policy to approve State plans
 requiring  less than maximum feasible
 control  of  welfare-related  pollutants
 where the States wish to take into ac-
 count considerations  other than  tech-
 nology and cost.
   On the other  hand, EPA believes sec-
 tion  lll(d) requires maximum  feasible
 control  of welfare-related  pollutants in
 the absence of such considerations and
 will  disapprove  plans  that require less
 stringent control without some reasoned
 explanation.  For similar  reasons, EPA
 will  promulgate plans  requiring maxi-
 mum feasible control if States fail to sub-
 mit satisfactory plans for welfare-related
 pollutants [§ 60.27(e) (1).] Under § 60.27
 (e) (2), however, relief will still be avail-
 able  for particular sources where eco-
 nomic hardship  can be shown.
   (3) Variances. One  comment asserted
 that neither the letter nor the intent of
 section  111 allows variances from plan
 requirements  based  on application of
 best  adequately demonstrated  control
 systems. Although section HKd) does
 not  explicitly provide  for  variances,  it
 does require consideration of the cost of
 applying standards to existing facilities.
 Such a  consideration is inherently dif-
 ferent than  for new  sources,  because
 controls cannot be included in  the de-
 sign  of  an existing facility and because
 physical limitations may make installa-
 tion  of particular control systems impos-
 sible or unreasonably  expensive in some
 cases. For these reasons, EPA believes the
 provision  tS 60.24(f)]  allowing States to
 grant relief in cases of economic hard-
 ship  (where health-related pollutants are
 involved)  is  permissible  under section
 lll(d). For the same reasons, language
 has  been included  in § 60.24(d) to make
 clear that variances are also permissible
where welfare-related pollutants are In-
volved, although the flexibility provided
by that provision  may make variances
unnecessary.
  Several commentators urged that pro-
posed  860.23(e)   [now  § 60.24(f) ] , be
amended to indicate that States are not
required to consider applications for var-
iances if they do not feel it appropriate
to do so. The commentators contended
that the proposed  wording would .invite
applications for variances, would  allow.
sources  to  delay compliance  by submit-
ting such  applications,  might  conflict
with existing State laws, and would prob-
ably impose significant burdens on State
and  local agencies. In  addition, there Is
some question whether  the  mandatory
review provision as proposed would 6e
consistent  with section 116 of the Act,
which makes  clear that States are free
to adopt  and  enforce  standards  more
stringent  than Federal  standards. Ac-
cordingly, the proposed wording has been
amended  to  permit,  but not  require.
State review of facilities for the purpose
of applying less stringent standards. To
give the States more  flexibility,  § 60.24
(f)   has also  been amended to permit
variances for particular classes of sources
as well as for particular sources.
  Other comments requested that EPA
make clear whether proposed § 60.23 (e)
fnow § 60.24(f) ] would allow permanent
variances  or whether EPA intends ulti-
mate compliance  with  the  emission
standards  that would  apply in the ab-
sence of variances. Section 60.24(f)  is
intended to utilize existing State vari-
ance procedures  as much  as possible.
Thus it is  up to  the States to decide.
whether less stringent standards are to
be applied  permanently or whether ulti-.
mate compliance will  be required;
  Another  commentator suggested that
compliance with or satisfactory progress
toward compliance with an existing State
emission standard should be a sufficient!
reason  for applying  a  less stringent
standard under 8 60.24(f). Such comply
ance is not necessarily sufficient becausd
existing standards have not always been
developed with the intention of requiring
maximum  feasible control. As indicated
in the preamble to the proposed regula-
tions, however, if an existing State emis-
sion standard  is  relatively close  to the
degree of control  that would otherwise
be required, and the cost of additional
control  would be  relatively  great, there
may be justification to apply a less  strin-
gent standard under § 60.24(f).
  One  thoughtful comment suggested
that consideration  of  variances  under
Subpart B could in effect undermine re-
lated SIP requirements; e.g., where des-
ignated pollutants occur in participate
forms and  are thus controlled to some
extent  under SIP requirements  appli-
cable to-particulate matter. Nothing  In
section  lll(d) or  Subpart  B, however,
will  preempt  SIP requirements. In the
event of a conflict, protection of health
and welfare under section 110 must con-
trol.
  (4) Public hearing requirement.  Based
on comments  that the requirement for a
public hearing on the plan In each A OCR
                              FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 40. NO. 722—MONDAY. NOVEMOiR 17,  197$
                                                       IV-107

-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                      53W5
containing a designated facility  is too
burdensome, the proposed regulation has
been amended to require only one hear-
ing per State per plan. While the Agency
advocates public participation in  en-
vironmental rulemaking, It also recog-
nizes  the expense  and  effort  involved
in holding multiple hearings. States are
urged to hold as many hearings as prac-
ticable to assure adequate opportunity
for public participation. The hearing re-
quirements have also been amended to
provide that a public hearing is not re-
quired In those States which have an
existing  emission   standard  that  was
adopted after a public hearing and is at
least as stringent as the corresponding
EPA emission  guidelines, and to permit
approval  of State  notice  and hearing
procedures different than those specified
in Subpart B In some cases.
   (5)  Compliance  schedules. The pro-
posed regtuation required that all com-
pliance schedules be submitted with the
plan.  Several  commentators suggested
that this requirement would not allow
sufficient  time for negotiation of sched-
ules and  could cause  duplicative work
If the emission standards were not ap-
proved. For this reason a new 8 60.24
(e) (2) has been added to allow submis-
sion of compliance  schedules after plan
submission but no  later than the date
of the first semiannual report required
by § 60.25(e).
   (6)  Existing regulations. Several com-
ments dealt with States which have ex-
isting emission standards for designated
pollutants. One commentator urged  that
such States be exempted from the re-
quirements of adopting  and  submitting
plans. However, the Act requires EPA to
evaluate both the adequacy of a State's
emission  standards and the  procedural
aspects of the plan. Thus, States with
existing  regulations must submit plans.
   Another commentator suggested  that
the Administrator should approve exist-
ing emission standards  which, because
they are established on a different basis
(e.g,  concentration standards vs. proc-
ess-weight-rate 'type  standards),   are
more stringent than the corresponding
EPA emission guideline for some facil-
ities and less  stringent for others.  The
Agency cannot grant  blanket  approval
for such  emission  standards;  however,
the Administrator may approve that part
of an emission standard which is equal
to or more stringent than the EPA emis-
sion guideline and  disapprove that  por-
tion which is less stringent. Also, the less
stringent portions may be approvable in
some cases under § 60.24 (d)  or (f). Fi-
nally, subcategorization by size of source
under  § 60.22(b) (5) will probably limit
the number of cases In which this situa-
tion will arise.
   Other  commentators  apparently  as-
sumed that some regulations for desig-
nated  pollutants were approved  In  the
State implementation  plans (SIPs). Al-
though some States may have submitted
regulations limiting emissions of desig-
nated pollutants with the SIPs, such reg-
ulations were  not considered In the ap-
proval or disapproval of those plans and
are not considered part of approved plans
because,  under section 110, SIPs, apply
only to criteria pollutants.
  (7) Emission inventory data and re-
ports. Section 60.24 of the proposed reg-
ulations  [now § 60.251 required emission
inventory data to be submitted on data
forms  which the Administrator was to
specify in  the  future.  It was expected
that a computerized subsystem to the Na-
tional  Emission Data  System  (NEDS)
would  be available that would accom-
modate emission inventory information
on  the designated pollutants.  However,
since this  subsystem and  concomitant
data form will probably not be developed
and approved in time for plan develop-
ment, the designated pollutant informa-
tion called for will not  be required in
computerized data format.  Instead, the
States will be permitted to submit this
information  in  a  non-computerized
format as outlined in a new Appendix D
along with the basic facility information
on NEDS forms (OMB  #158-R0095) ac-
cording  to procedures  in  APTD  1135,
"Guide for Compiling  a  Comprehensive
Emission Inventory" available from the-
Air  Pollution  Technical  Information
Center,  Environmental  Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. In addition, § 60.25(f) (5)
has been amended to require submission
of additional information with the semi-
annual reports In order to provide a bet-
ter tracking mechanism for emission In-
ventory and compliance monitoring pur-
poses.
  (8)  Timing.  Proposed § 60.27 (a) re-
quired proposal of emission guidelines
for designated pollutants simultaneously
with proposal of corresponding standards
of performance for new (affected) facil-
ities. This  section, redeslgnated § 60.22,
has been amended to require proposal (or
publication for public  comment) of an
emission guideline after promulgation of
the corresponding standard of perform-
ance. Two written comments and several
Informal comments from Industrial rep-
resentatives  Indicated that more time
was needed  to evaluate a standard of
performance  and  the  corresponding
emission guideline than would be allowed
by simultaneous proposal and promulga-
tion. Also, by proposing  (or publishing)
an  emission guideline after promulgation
of  the corresponding  standard  of per-
formance,  the Agency  can benefit from
the comments on  the  standard of per-
formance  In  developing the  emission
guideline.
  Proposed § 60.27(a)  required proposal
of sulfurlc acid mist emission guidelines
within 30  days after  promulgation of
Subpart  B. This provision was included
as an exception to the proposed general
rule (requiring simultaneous proposal of
emission guidelines  and standards of
performance) because  it was impossible
to propose the acid mist  emission guide-
line simultaneously with the correspond-
ing standard of performance, which had
been promulgated previously. The change
In  the general rule,  discussed  above,
makes the proposed  exception unneces-
sary, so it has been deleted. As previously
stated, the Agency intends to establish
emission guidelines for sulfuric acid mist
Cand for fluorides, for which new source
standards  were promulgated  (40  FB
33152) after proposal of Subpart B] aa
soon as possible.
  (9) Miscellaneous. Several commenta-
tors  argued that the nine months pro-
vided for development of State plans
after promulgation  of  an  emission
guideline by EPA would be Insufficient. In
most cases, much of the work involved in
plan development,  such as emission-in-
ventories, can be begun when an emis-
sion  guideline is proposed (or published
for comment)  by  EPA;  thus,  several
additional months will be gained. Exten-
sive  control strategies  are not required,.
and after the first plan is submitted, sub-
mitted,  subsequent  plans  will  mainly
consist of adopted  emission  standards.
Section  lll(d) plans will be much less
complex  than the  SIPs, and Congress
provided only nine  months for SIP de-
velopment. Also, States may already have
approvable procedures and legal author-
ity [see §§60.25(d)  and 60.26(b>], and
the number of designated facilities per
State should be few. For these reasons,
the  nine-month   provision  has  been
retained.
  Some  comments  recommended that
the requirements for adoption and sub-
mittal of section lll(d) plans appear in
40 CFR Part  51 or In some  part of 40
CFR other than Part 60, to allow differ-
entiation   among   such  requirements,
emission guidelines, new source stand-
ards and plans promulgated by EPA. The
Agency  believes that the section lll(d)
requirements neither warrant a separate
part nor should appear In Part 51, since
Part 51 concerns control under section
110 of the Act. For clarity, however, sub-
part B  of Part 60  will contain the re-
quirements for adoption and submittal
of section  lll(d)  plans; Subpart C of
Part 60 will contain emission guidelines
and  times for compliance promulgated
under § 60.22 (c); and a new Part 62 will
be used for approval or disapproval of
section lll(d) and for plans (or portions
thereof)  promulgated  by EPA  where
State plans are disapproved In whole or
In part.                            ' ;
  Two  comments  suggested that the
plans should  specify test methods and'
procedures to be used  In demonstrating
compliance with the emission standards.
Only when such procedures and methods
are  known can the stringency of the
emission standard  be  determined. Ac*
cordingly, this change has been Included
ln§60.24(b).
  A  new § 60.29 has been added to make
clear that the Administrator may revise
plan provisions he has promulgated un-
der  §60.27(d), and  § 60.27(e) has been
revised  to make clear  that he will con-
sider applications  for variances  from
emission standards promulgated by EPA.'

  Effective Date.  These regulations be-
come effective on December 17,1975.
(Sections 111, 114, and 301 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-
604,  84 Stat. 1678, and by sec.  16(c)(2) of
Pub.  L.  91-604, 84  Stat.  1713 (42 U.S.O.
1857C-6, and 1857C-9, 1857g).
  Dated: November 5,1975.
                    JOHN QHARLES,  ''
               Acting Administrator,'
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 222—MONDAY. NOVEMBER 17,  1975
                                                      IV-108

-------
53346

  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. The table of sections for  Part 60 Is
amended by adding a list of sections for
Subpart B and by adding Appendix D to
the list of appendixes as follows:
  Subpart B—Adoption and Submirtal of State
       Plans for Designated Facilities

Sec.
G0.20  Applicability.
80.21  Definitions.
30.22  Publication  of guideline documents,
       emission guidelines, and. final com-
       pliance times.
30.23  Adoption and  submlttal  of  State
       plans;  public hearings.
30.24  Emission  standards and compliance
       schedules.
60.26  Emission inventories,  source  sur-
       veillance,  reports.
BO.26  Legal authority.
B0.27  Actions  by  the  Administrator.
60.28  Plan revisions by the  State.
60.29  Plan revisions by the  Administrator.
APPENDIX  D—REQUIHED EMISSION INVENTORY
             INFORMATION

  2. The authority citation at the end of
the table of sections for Part 60 Is re-
vised  to read as follows:
  AUTHORITY: Sees. Ill and 114 of the .Clean
Air  Act. as amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L.
91-604. 84 Stat.  1678  (42 tJ.S.C. 1857C-6,
1867c-9).  Subpart B  also Issued under sec.
301 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by
see. 16(c)(2)  of  Pub.  L.  91-604.  84  Stat.
1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857g).

  3. Section 60.1 is revised to  read as
follows:

§60.1   Appliciiltililv.

  Except as provided in  Subparts B and
C,  the provisions of this part apply to
the owner or operator of any stationary
source which contains an affected facil-
ity, the construction  or  modification of
which is.  commenced after the date of
publication  in this part of any standard
(or. If earlier, the date of publication of
any proposed  standard!  applicable to
that facility.

  4. Part 60 is  amended by adding Sub-
part B as follows:

  Subpart B—Adoption and Submittal of
    State Plans for Designated Facilities

§ 60.20  Applicability.

  The provisions of this subpart apply
to  States upon publication  of  a  final
guideline document under  §60.22Ca).

§ 60.21  Definitions.

  Terms  used  but not  denned  in  this
subpart  shall have  the meaning given
them in  the Act and in subpart A:
  (a) "Designated pollutant" means any
air pollutant,  emissions of  which are
subject to a standard of performance for
new stationary sources but for which air
quality criteria have  not  been Issued,
and which is not Included on F. list pub-
lished under section I08(a)  or section
112(b)(l)(A) of the Act.
  (b) "Designated  facility" means  any
existing  facility (see 860.2(aa))  which
emits a designated pollutant and which
     RULES AND REGULATIONS

would be subject to a standard of per-
formance for that pollutant if the exist-
ing facility were* an affected facility (see
$60.2(e)).
  (c) "Plan"  means  a plan under sec-
tion lll(d) of the Act which establishes
emission standards for designated pol-
lutants  from  designated facilities and
provides for  the implementation and
enforcement of such emission standards.
  (d) "Applicable plan" means the plan.
or most recent  revision thereof,  which
has  been  approved under § 60.27(b)  or
promulgated under § 60.27fd).
  (e) "Emission  guideline"  means  a
guideline set forth in subpart  C of this
part, or in  a final guideline document
published"under  §60.22(a), which re-
flects the degree  of  emission  reduction
achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction which
(taking into  account, the cost of such
reduction)  the  Administrator  has  de-
termined  has been -adequately demon-
strated for designated facilities.
  (f) "Emission  standard"  means  a
legally  enforceable  regulation  setting
forth an allowable rate of emissions into
the  atmosphere,  or  prescribing  equip-
ment specifications for control of air pol-
lution emissions.
  (g) "Compliance  schedule"  means  a
legally  enforceable  schedule  specifying
a date or dates by which a source or cate-
gory or sources must comply with specific
emission standards contained  in a plan
or  with any  increments  of progress to
achieve such compliance.
  (h)  "Increments of progress"  means
steps to achieve compliance which must
be  taken by  an owner or operator of a
designated facility, Including:
  fl) Submittal of a final control plan
for the designated facility to the appro-
priate air pollution control agency;
  (2) Awarding: of  contracts  for emis-
sion control systems or for process modi-
fications,  or issuance of  orders for the
purchase of component parts to accom-
plish emission control or process modi-
fication.
  (3) Initiation of on-site construction
or installation of emission control equip-
ment or process change:
   (4) Completion  of on-site  construc-
tion or Installation of emission control
equipment or process change; and
   (5)  Final compliance.
   <1) of  this section, the emission guide-
lines and compliance times referred to
in paragraph (b) (5)  of this section will
be proposed for comment upon publica-
tion  of the draft guideline document.
and after consideration of comments will
be promulgated in Subpart C of  this part
with such modifications as  may be .ap-
propriate.
   il)  If the Administrator determinee
that  a designated pollutant may cause
or contribute to endangerment of public
welfare, but that adverse effects on pub-
lic  health have not been demonstrated,
he  will include the determination in the
draft guideline document and in the FED-
ERAL  REGISTER notice of its  availability.
Except as provided in paragraph (d) (2)
of  this section, paragraph  (c)  of this
section shall  be  Inapplicable  in  such
cases.
  (2) If the Administrator determines at
any time  on the basis of new  information
that a prior determination under para-
graph (d) (1) of this  section is Incorrect
or  no longer  correct, he  will publish
notice of  the determination  in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER, revise  the guideline docu-
ment as necessary under paragraph (a)
of this section, and propose and promul-
gate emission guidelines and compliance
times  under  paragraph  (c)  of   this
section.
                              FEDERAL REGISTER.  VOL. 40. NO. 222—MONDAY,  NOVEMBER  17. 1975
                                                     LV-109

-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS.
                                                                       53347
§ 60.23  Adoption and submillal of State
    plans; public hearings.
  (a) (1) Within nine months after no-
tice of the availability of a final guide-
line document Is published under 8 60.22
(a), each State shall adopt and submit
to the Administrator, in accordance with
§ 60.4, a plan for the control of the desig-
nated pollutant to which  the guideline
document applies.
  (2) Within nine months after notice of
the availability of a final revised guide-
line document is published as provided
in § 60.22(d)(2), each State shall adopt
and  submit to the Administrator any
plan revision necessary to meet the re-
quirements of this subpart.
  (b) If no designated facility is located
within a State, the State shall submit
a letter of certification to that effect to
the Administrator within the time spe-
cified In paragraph (a)  of this section.
Such certification shall exempt the State
from  the requirements of this subpart
for that designated pollutant.
  (c) (1)  Except  as provided  in para-
graphs (c) (2) and 
-------
                                               RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
  allowable   under  applicable   emission
  standards.
    (b)  Each plan shall provide for moni-
  toring the status of compliance  with ap-
  plicable emission standards.  Each plan
  shall, as a minimum, provide for:
    (1)  Legally enforceable procedures for
  requiring owners or operators of desig-
  nated facilities to maintain records and
  periodically report to the State informa-
  tion on the nature and amount of emis-
  sions from such facilities,  and/or such
  other information as  may be necessary
  to enable the State to determine whether
  such facilities are in compliance with ap-
  plicable portions of the plan.
    (2)  Periodic inspection and, when ap-
  plicable, testing  of desienated facilities.
    (c)  Each plan shall provide  that  in-
  formation obtained by  the State under
  paragraph  (b)  of this  section  shall be
  correlated  with  applicable   emission
  standards  (see  860.25(a))   and made
  available to the general public.
    (d)  The provisions referred to in par-
  agraphs (b) and (c) of this section rihall
  be specifically identified. Copies of such
  provisions shall  be submitted with the
  plan unless:
    (1)  They have been approved as por-
  tions of a preceding plan submitted un-
  der this  subpart or as  portions of  an
  implementation  plan  submitted under
  section 110 of the Act, and
    (2)  The State demonstrates:
    (i) That the provisions are applicable
  to the designated pollutant(s) for which
  the plan is submitted, and
    (11)  That the  requirements of § 60.26
  are met.
    (e)  The State shall submit reports on
  progress in plan  enforcement to the Ad-
  ministrator on a semiannual basis, com-
  mencing with the first full report period
  after approval of a plan or after promul-
  gation  of  a plan by the Administrator.
  The semiannual  periods are January 1-
  June 30 and July 1-December 31. Infor-
  mation required  under this  paragraph
  shall be included in the semiannual  re-
  ports required by § 51.7 of this chapter.
    (f)  Each progress report shall include:
    (1)  Enforcement   actions   initiated
/against designated facilities during the
  reporting  period,  under  any  emission
  standard or compliance schedule of the
  plan.
    (2)  Identification of the achievement
  of any increment of progress required by
  the applicable plan during the reporting
  period.
    (3)  Identification of designated facili-
  ties that have ceased  operation during
  the reporting period.
    (4)  Submission of emission inventory
  data  as described  in  paragraph (a) of
  this section for designated facilities that
  were not in operation at the time of plan
  development but began operation during
  the reporting period.
    (5)  Submission of additional  data as
  necessary to update the information sub-
  mitted under paragraph  (a)  of  this sec-
  tion or in previous progress reports.
    (6)  Submission of copies of technical
  reports on all performance  testing  on
  designated  facilities  conducted  under
paragraph (b) (2)  of this section, com-
plete with concurrently recorded process
data.  •

§ 60.26  Legal authority.
  (a). Each plan  shall  show  that  the
State has  legal authority  to carry  out
the plan, including authority to:
  (1) Adopt  emission  standards  and
compliance schedules applicable to des-
ignated facilities.
  (2) Enforce  applicable laws, regula-
tions, standards, and compliance sched-
ules, and seek injunctive relief.
  (3) Obtain  information  necessary to
determine  whether designated facilities
are in  compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, standards, and  compliance
schedules, including authority to require
recordkeeping and  to make  inspections
and conduct tests of designated facilities.
  (4) Require  owners or  operators of
designated facilities to Install/maintain,
and use emission monitoring  devices  and
to make  periodic reports to the State on
the  nature and amounts  of emissions
from such facilities; also authority for
the State to make such data available to
the public  as reported and as correlated
with applicable emission standards.
  (b) The provisions of law or regula-
tions which the State determines provide
the authorities  required by this section
shall be  specifically identified. Copies of
such laws  or  regulations shall be sub-
mitted with the plan unless:
  (1) They have been approved as por-
tions of  a preceding  plan  submitted
under this subpart or as portions of an
implementation plan  submitted under
section 110 of the Act, and
  (2) The State demonstrates that  the
laws or regulations are applicable to the
designated  pollutant(s)  for  which  the
plan is submitted.
  (c) The plan  shall show that the legal
authorities  specified in this  section  are
available to the State at the time of sub-
mission of the plan. Legal authority ade-
quate to  meet the requirements of para-
graphs  (a) (3)  and  (4)  of  this section
may be delegated to the State under sec-
tion 114 of the Act.
  (d) A   State  governmental  agency
other than  the  State air pollution con-
trol agency may be assigned responsibil-
ity  for carrying out a portion of  a plan
if the plan  demonstrates to the Admin-
istrator's satisfaction that the State gov-
ernmental agency has the legal authority
necessary to carry out that portion of the
plan.
  (e) The  State may authorize a local
agency to carry out a plan, or portion
thereof, within the local agency's juris-
diction if the plan  demonstrates  to  the
Administrator's  satisfaction  that   the
local agency has the legal authority nec-
essary to implement the  plan or portion
thereof, and that the authorization does
not relieve  the  State of responsibility
under the Act. for carrying out the plan
or portion thereof.

§ 60.27   Actions by llio Atlniinisirator.
  (a) The Administrator may, whenever
he determines necessary, extend the pe-
riod for submission of any plan or plan
revision or portion thereof.
   (b) After receipt of a plan or plai; • e-
vision, the Administrator will propose the
plan  or • revision  for  approval or dis-
approval. The Administrator will,' within
four months after the date required for
submission  of a plan or plan revision,
approve or disapprove such plan or revi-
sion or each portion thereof.
   'c) The Administrator will, after con-
sideration of any State  hearing  record,
promptly prepare and publish proposed
regulations  setting forth a plan, or por-
tion thereof, for a State if:
   CD The State fails to submit a plan
within the time prescribed;
   (2)  The State fails to submit a plan
revision required by § 60.23(a) (2) within
the time prescribed; or
   (3) The Administrator disapproves the
State plan or plan revision or any por-
tion thereof, as  unsatisfactory because
the requirements of this subpart have not
been met.
   (d) The Administrator will, within six
months after the date required for sub-
mission  of  a  plan  or  plan revision,
promulgate the regulations proposed un-
der  paragraph (c) of this  section with
such modifications as may be appropriate
unless, prior to such promulgation, the
State has adopted and submitted a plan
or-plan revision  which the Administra-
tor determines to be approvable.
   (e) d)  Except as  provided in para-
graph (e) (2) of this section, regulations
proposed and promulgated by the Admin-
istrator under this section will prescribe
emission  standards  of the  same  strin-
gency  as  the  corresponding emission
guideline's) specified in the  final guide-
line document published under § 60.22(ai
and will  require final compliance with
such standards as expeditiously as prac-
ticable but no later than the times speci-
fied in the guideline document.
   '2) Upon application by the owner or
operator of a designated facility to which
regulations  proposed and promulgated
under this  section will apply, the Ad-
ministrator may provide for the  appli-
cation of less stringent emission stand-
ards or longer compliance schedules than
those otherwise required by  this section
In accordance with the criteria specified
in§60.24(f).
   (f) If  a State  failed to hold a  public
hearing  as  required  by  560.23fc), the
Administrator  will provide opportunity
for a hearing within the State prior to
promulgation of a plan under paragraph
(d) of this section.

§ 60.28  Plan revisions Iij- the Stale.
   ia)  Plan  revisions  which have the
effect of delaying compliance  with ap-
plicable  emission standards  or  incre-
ments of progress or of establishing less
stringent  emission standards  shall be
submitted to the Administrator  within
60 days after adoption in accordance with
the procedures  and requirements appli-
cable to development and submission of
the original  plan.
   (b) More stringent emission standards,
or orders which have the effect  pf ac-
                               FEDERAL BEGISTEB. VOl. 40, NO. 2J2—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1975
                                                     IV-111
-------
                                                RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                            53349
celerating compliance, may be submitted
to  the Administrator as plan  revisions
In  accordance with  the procedures  and
requirements applicable to development
and submission  of the original plan.
    A revision of a plan, or any portion
thereof, shall not be considered part of
an applicable plan until approved by the
Administrator In accordance with  this
subpart.
§ 60.29   Plan revisions by  the  Adtninis-
     Irnlor.
  After notice and opportunity for pub-
lic  hearing in each affected State,  the
Administrator may revise  any provision
of an applicable plan if:
   (a)  The provision was promulgated by
the Administrator, and
   (b)  The plan, as revised, will be con-
sistent with the Act and with the require-
ments of this subpart.,

  5. Part 60 is amended by adding Ap-
pendix D as follows:
APPENDIX D—REQUIRED  EMISSION INVENTORY
              INFORMATION
  (a) Completed NEDS point source form(s)
for the entire plant containing the  desig-
nated facility. Including information on the
applicable criteria pollutants. If data con-
cerning the plant are already In NEDS, only
that Information  must be submitted which
Is necessary  to update  the  existing NEDS
record for that plant. Plant and point Identi-
fication codes for NEDS records shall cor-
respond  to   those  previously  assigned  In
NEDS: for plants  not  In NEDS,  these codes
shall  be obtained from the  appropriate
Regional Office.
  (b) Accompanying the basic NEDS Inforr
matlon  shall  be the following Information
on each designated facility:
  (1) The state  and  county Identification
codes, as well as  the complete  plant and
point Identification codes of  the  designated
facility  In NEDS.  (The codes are needed to
match these data with  the NEDS data.)
  (2) A description of the designated facility
Including, where appropriate:
  (1) Process name.
  (II)  Description  and  quantity  of  each
product (maximum per hour and average per
year).
  (Ill) Description and quantity  of  raw ma-
terials handled for each  product (maximum
per hour and  average per year).
•  (Iv) Types of fuels burned, quantities and
characteristics  (maximum  and  average
quantities per hour, average  per  year).
  (T)  Description and quantity  of  solid
wastes generated  (per year)  and method of
disposal.
  (3) A description of the air pollution con-
trol equipment In use or proposed to control
the designated pollutant.  Including:
  (1)  Verbal description of equipment.
  (11) Optimum control efficiency, In percent.
This  shall  be a combined efficiency when
more  than one device operate In series. The
method of  control efficiency determination
shall  be indicated  (e.g.,  design efficiency,'
measured efficiency, estimated efficiency).
  (ill) Annual average  control efficiency. In
percent, taking Into account control equip-
ment down time.  This  shall  be a combined
efficiency when more than one device operate
In series.
  (4)  An estimate of the designated pollu--
tant emissions from the designated facility
(maximum  per hour and average per year).
The method of emission determination shall
also  be specified  (e.g.,  stack test,  material
balance, emission factor).

(Sees. Ill, 114. and 301  of the Clean Air Act,
as amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604,
84 Stat. 1678, and by sec. 16(c) (2) of Pub. L.
91-604.  84  Stat.  1713  (43 UJ3.C.  1857C-4,
1857C-9, 1857g))

  [PR Doc.76-30011 Piled 11-14-75:8:46 am]
                              FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 40, NO. 222—MONDAY, NOVEMIU 17,  1975
                                                         IV-112
-------
  5841G

2 2  Title 40—Protection of Environment
       CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
                (FRL402-8)
  PART 60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
        Modification, Notification, and
              Reconstruction
    On October 15, 1974  '39  FR  36946),
  under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
  amended (42 U.S.C. 1857), the Environ-
  mental Protection Agency (EPA) pro-
  posed amendments to the general provi-
  sions of 40 CFR Part 60. These  amend-
  ments included  additions  and revisions
  to clarify  the definition  of the term
  "modification" appearing in the Act, to
  require  notification of construction or
  potential  modification,  and  to  clarify
  when standards  of performance  are ap-
  plicable to reconstructed sources. These
  regulations   apply to  all   stationary
  sources constructed or modified after the
  proposal  date of an applicable standard
  of performance.
    Interested  parties participated in  the
  rulemaking by sending comments to EPA.
  Fifty-three  comment letters  were  re-
  ceived, 43 of  which came from industry,
  with the remainder coming from State
  and Federal agencies. Copies of the com-
  ment letters received and  a summary of
  the comments with EPA's responses are
  available for public inspection and copy-
  ing at the EPA  Public Information Re-
  ference Unit. Room 2922 (EPA Library),
  401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. In
  addition, copies of the comment summary
  and  Agency  responses may  be  obtained
  upon written request from the EPA Pub-
  lic Information Center (PM-215), 401 M
  Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460 (spe-
  cify  Public Comment Summary—Modi-
  fication,  Notification, and Reconstruc-
  tion) .  The  comments have been care-
  fully considered, and where determined
  by the Administrator to be appropriate,
  changes have been made to the proposed
  regulations and are incorporated In the
  regulations   promulgated  herein.  The
  most significant comments and the differ-
  ences between the proposed and  promul-
  gated regulations are discussed below.
               TERMINOLOGY
    Understandably there has been some
  confusion as to  the difference  between
  the various types of "sources" and "facil-
  ities" defined in I 60.2 of these regula-
  tions. Generally speaking, "sources" are
  entire plants, while "facilities" are iden-
  tifiable pieces of process equipment or
  individual components which when taken
  together would  comprise a source. "Af-
  fected facilities" are facilities subject to
  standards of performance, and  are spe-
  cifically  identified in  the first section of
  each subpart of  Part 60. An  "existing
  facility" is generally a piece of equipment
  or component of the same  type as an
  affected facility, but which differs in that
  it was constructed prior to the date of
  proposal of  an applicable  standard of
  performance. This distinction  is some-
  what complicated because  an  existing
     RULES AND REGULATIONS

facility which  undergoes a modification
within the meaning of the Act and these
regulations becomes an affected facility.
However, generally speaking, the distlnc- ,
tion between  "affected  facilities"  and
"existing facilities" depends on the date
of construction. The  terms are intended
to be the direct regulatory counterparts
of  the  statutory definitions of "new
source"  and "existing saurce" appearing
in section 111 of the Act.
  "Designated facilities" form  a sub-
category of "existing facilities." A "des-
ignated  facility"  is  an  existing  facility
which emits a "designated  pollutant,"
i.e., a pollutant which is neither  a haz-
ardous pollutant,  as defined by section
112 of the Act, nor a pollutant subject to
national ambient air quality standards.
The term  "designated  facilities," how-
ever, has no special relevance to the issue
of modification.
  DEFINITION or "CAPITAL EXPENDITURE"
   Several commentators argued that the
proposed definition of "capital expendi-
ture," as applicable to the exemption for
increasing the production rate of an ex-
isting facility in §60.14(e)(2), was too
vague.  The  regulations  promulgated
herein correct this deficiency by incorpo-
rating by reference and by requiring the
application  of the procedure contained
in Internal Revenue Service Publication
534, which is available from any IRS of-
fice. The procedure set forth in IRS Pub-
lication  534  is  relatively  straightfor-
ward. First, the  total cost of increasing
the production or operating rate must be
determined. All expenditures necessary to
increasing the facility's operating  rate
must be included in this total. However,
for purposes of § 60.14(e) (2) this amount
must not be reduced by any "excluded
additions," as defined in IRS Publication
534, as  would be done for tax purposes.
Next,  the facility's  basis  (usually  its
cost), as defined by Section 1012 of the
Internal Revenue Code, must be deter-
mined. If the product of the appropriate
"annual asset guideline repair allowance
percentage" tabulated in Publication 534
and the facility's basis exceeds the cost
of increasing  the operating rate,  the
change will not be treated as a modifica-
tion. Conversely,  if  the cost of making
the change is more than the above prod-
uct and the emissions have increased, the
change will be treated as a modification.
   The advantage of adopting the proce-
dure in IRS Publication 534 is that firm
and precise guidance  is provided as to
what constitutes  a  capital expenditure.
The procedure involves concepts and in-
formation which are available to all own-
ers and operators and  with which they
are familiar, and it is the Administrator's
opinion  that  it  adequately  responds to
 the complaints  of  vagueness  made in
comments.

     NOTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION
   The  regulations promulgated  herein
contain a requirement that owners or op-
erators notify EPA within  30  days of
 the commencement of  construction of
an affected facility. Some commentators,
however, questioned tkt Agtney's legal
authority to require such a notification
and questioned the need for such infor-
mation.
  Section 301 (a)  of the Act provides the
•Administrator authority to issue regula-
tions "necessary  to carry out his  func-
tions under f the! Act." The Agency has
learned through experience with admin-
istering  the  new  source  performance
standards that knowledge of  the sources
which may  become subject to the stand-
ards is important to the effective imple-
mentation of section 111. This notifica-
tion will not be  used for approval or
disapproval of the planned construction;
 the purpose is to allow the Administrator
to locate sources  which will be subject to
the regulations appearing in this part,
and to enable the Administrator  to in-
form the sources about applicable regu-
lations in an effort to minimize  future
 problems. In the case of mass produced
 facilities, which  are purchased by  the
-ultimate user when construction is com-
 pleted, the construction notification re-
 quirement  will not  apply.  Notification
 prior  to startup, however will still be
 required.
       USE OF EMISSION FACTORS  •

   The proposed  regulations  listed emis-
 sion factors as one  possible method to
 be used in determining whether a facility
 has  increased its emissions.  Emission
 factors  have  two major  advantages.
 First, they are inexpensive to use. Second,
 they may be applied prospectively, i.e.,
 they can be used in some cases to deter-
 mine whether a particular change will in-
 crease a facility's emissions before the
 change is implemented. This  is important
 to owners  or  operators since they  can
 thereby obtain  advance  notice  of  the
 consequences of proposed changes  they
 are planning prior to commitment to  a
 particular course of action. Emission fac-
 tors do not, however, provide .results as
 precise as other  methods,  such as actual
 static  testing.  Nevertheless,  in  many
 cases the emission consequences of a pro-
 posed change can be reliably predicted
 by  the use of emission factors. In  such
 cases, where emissions will  clearly in-
 crease or will clearly  not increase, the
 Agency  will rely primarily  on emission
 factors. Only where the resulting change
 in emission rate is ambiguous, or where
 a  dispute  arises as  to the result ob-
 tained by the use of emission factors, will
 other methods be used. Section 60.14(b)
 has been revised to reflect this policy.
         THE  "BuiBLE CONCEPT"
   The phrase "bubble concept" has been
 used to refer to  the  trading off of emis-
 sion increases from  one facility  under-
 going a physical or  operational change
 with  emission reductions  from another
 facility, in order to achieve no  net in-
 crease in the amount of any air pollut-
 ant (to  which a  standard  applies) emit-
 ted into the atmosphere by the stationary
 source taken as a whole.
   Several commentators suggested  that
 the "bubble concept" be extended to cover
 "new construction." Under the proposed
 regulations, the  "bubble concept" could
 be  utilized to offset emission increases
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, N». 141—TUEStAY,  OECEMIER  1*. 1*75
                                                      IV-113
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                       58417
 from a facility undergoing a physical or
 operational  change  (as  distinguished
 from a "new facility") at a lower eco-
 nomic cost than would arise If the facil-
 ity undergoing the  change were  to  be
 considered by EPA as  being  modified
 within the meaning of section 111 of the
 Act and consequently required to meet
 standards  of performance.  Under  the
 suggested approach a new facility could
 be  added to  an existing source without
 having  to  meet  otherwise applicable
 standards of performance, provided the
 amount of any air pollutant (to which a
 standard  applies)   emitted  Into  the
 atmosphere  by the  stationary  source
 taken as a whole did  not Increase. If
 adopted, this suggestion could exempt
 most new construction at existing sources
 from having  to comply with otherwise
 applicable  standards  of  performance.
 Such an Interpretation of the section 111
 provisions of the Act would grant a sig-
 nificant and  unfair economic advantage
 to owners or operators of existing sources
 replacing facilities with new construc-
 tion as compared to someone wishing to
 construct an entirely new source.
  If the bubble concept were extended to
 cover new construction, large sources of
 air pollution  could avoid the application
 of new source performance standards In-
 definitely. Such sources could  continu-
 ally replace obsolete or worn out facili-
 ties with new facilities of the same type.
 If  the  same  emission controls were
 adopted, no   overall  emission  increase
 would result. In this manner, the source
 could continue Indefinitely without ever
 being required to upgrade air pollution
 control systems to meet standards of per-
 formance for new facilities. The Admin-
 istrator interprets section 111 to require
 that new producers of emissions be sub-
 ject  to  the   standards whether con-
 structed at a new plant site or an exist-
 ing one. Therefore, where a new facility
 Is constructed, new source performance
 standards must be met. In situations in-
 volving physical or operational changes
 to  an existing facility  which increase
 emissions from that facility,  greater
 fiexibilty Is permitted to avoid the Im-
 position of large control costs if the pro-
 jected Increase  can be  offset  by con-
 trolling other plant facilities.
  Several commentators argued that if
 the Administrator adopted the  proposed
 interpretation of  the term  "modifica-
 tion", which would consider a modifica-
 tion to  have  occurred even if there was
 only a relatively minor  detectable emis-
sion rate increase (thus requiring appli-
 cation of standards of performance), the
 Administrator would in effect prevent
owners or operators  from implementing
physical or operational  changes  neces-
 sary to switch from gas and oil to coal in
 comport with the President's policy  of
reducing gas  and oil consumption. The
Administrator has concluded that If such
situations exist, they will  be relatively
rare and, in  any event, will be peculiar
 to the group  of facilities  covered by a
particular  standard  of  performance
rather than to all facilities  in general.
Therefore, the Administrator has further
concluded that it would be more appro-
priate to consider  such circumstances
and possible avenues of relief in connec-
tion with the promulgation of or amend- •
ment to particular standards of perform-
ance  rather  than through the amend-
ment of the general  provisions of 40
CPR Part 60.
  Where the use of the bubble concept
Is elected by  an owner or operator, some
guarantee  is  necessary to  insure  that
emissions do not subsequently increase
above the level present before the physi-
cal or operational  change In  question.
For example, reducing a facility's oper-
ating rate Is  a permissible means of off-
setting emission Increases from another
facility undergoing a physical or  opera-
tional change. If the exemption provided
by  560.14(e)(2) as promulgated  herein
were  subsequently used to Increase the
first facility's operating rate back to the
prior level, the Intent of the Act would
be  circumvented  and  the compliance
measures previously adopted  would be
nullified. Therefore, in those cases where
utilization  of  the  exemptions  under
§ 60.14(e) (2), (3), or (4) as promulgated
herein would effectively negate the com-
pliance measures originally adopted, use
of those exemptions will not be permitted.
  One limitation placed on utilization of
the "bubble  concept"  by the  proposed
regulation was that emission reductions
could be credited only if achieved at an
"existing" or  "affected" facility. The pur-
pose of tills requirement was to limit the
"bubble concept" to those facilities which
could be source tested by EPA reference
methods. One commentator pointed out
that some facilities other than "existing",
or "affected" facilities (I.e., facilities of
the type for which no standards  have
been  promulgated) lend themselves to
accurate emission measurement. There-
fore, ! 60.14(d) has been revised to per-
mit emission reductions to be credited
from  all facilities whose emissions can
be measured  by reference, equivalent, or
alternative methods, as defined in 9 60.2
(s),  (t), and (u). In  addition, .when  a
facility which  cannot  be tested by any
of these  methods is permanently  closed,
the regulations have been revised to per-
mit emission rate reductions from  such
closures to be used to offset emission rate
Increases if  methods such as  emission
factors clearly  show, to the Administra-
tor's satisfaction that the reduction off-
sets  any Increase. The regulation  does
not allow facilities which cannot be tested
by any of these methods to reduce their
production as a means of reducing emis-
sions to offset emission rate Increases be-
cause establishing allowable emissions for.
such  facilities  and monitoring compli-
ance to Insure that the allowable emis-
sions  are not  exceeded would be  very
difficult and  even  impossible in many
cases.
  Also, under the proposed regulations
applicable to the "bubble concept," ac-
tual emission testing was  the  only  per-
missible method for demonstrating  that
there has been no increase in the total
emission  rate of any pollutant to which
a standard  applies  from  all  facilities
within the  stationary  source. Several
commentators correctly argued that if
methods  such  as emission  factors are
sufficiently  accurate to determine emis-
sion rates  under other sections  of  the
regulation  [I.e. §60.14(b)l, they  should
be adequate for the purposes of utiliza-
tion of the bubble concept Thus,  the
regulations have been revised to  permit
the use of emission factors in those cases
where It can be demonstrated to the Ad-
ministrator's satisfaction that they will
clearly show  that  total emissions will
or will not Increase. Where the Admin-
istrator is not convinced of the reliability
of emission factors in a particular case,
other methods will be required.        :
          OWNERSHIP CHANGE
  The regulation has been amended by
adding § 60.14(e) (6) which states that a
change in ownership   or  relocating a
source does not by Itself bring a source
under these modification regulations.
           RECONSTRUCTION
  Several commentators questioned  the
Agency's  legal  authority  to propose
standards  of  performance  on  recon-
structed sources.  Many commentators
further believed that the Agency Is at-
tempting to delete the emission increase
requirement from the definition of modi-
fication. The Agency's actual Intent is to
prevent circumvention of the law. Sec-
tion 111 of the Act requires compliance
with  standards  of  performance  in  two
cases, new construction and modifica-
tion. The reconstruction provision is in-
tended to apply where an existing facil-
ity's components are replaced to such an
extent that  it  is  technologically  arid
economically  feasible   for  the  recon-
structed facility to comply with the ap-
plicable standards  of  performance. In
the case of an entirely  new facility  the
proper time to apply the best adequately
demonstrated control technology Is when
the facility Is  originally constructed. As
explained In the preamble to the pro-
posed regulation, the purpose of the re-
construction  provision  Is  to recognize
that replacement of many of the com-
ponents of a facility can be substantially
equivalent to  totally replacing It at the
end of Its useful life with a newly con-
structed  affected facility.  For existing
facilities which substantially retain their
character as existing facilities, applica-
tion  of best  adequately  demonstrated
control technology is considered  appro-
priate when any physical or operational
change Is made which causes an Increase
in emissions to the atmosphere (this is
modification). Thus, the criteria for "re-
construction"  are Independent from  the
criteria for "modification."
  Sections 60.14 and 60.15 set up the pro-
cedures and criteria to be used in making
the determination  to  apply best ade-
quately demonstrated control technology
to  existing facilities  to which  some
changes have been made.
  Under  the proposed  regulations,  the
replacement of a substantial portion of
nn  existing facility's  components con-
stituted reconstruction.  Many commen-
tators questioned the meaning of "sub-
stantial portion." After  considering the
comments  and the  vagueness of this
term,  the  Agency decided to revise the
proposed  reconstruction provisions  to
                             FEDERAL  REGISTER. VOL. 40. NO. 242—TUESDAY. DECEMBER 16. 197*
                                                     IV-114
-------
 58-118
     RULES AND  REGULATIONS
better clarify to owners or operators what
actions they must take and what action
the Administrator will take. Section 60.15
of the  regulations as revised specifies
that reconstruction occurs upon replace-
ment of components if the fixed capital
cost of  the new components exceeds 50
percent of the  fixed capital cost that
would be  required to construct a com-
parable entirely  new facility and it is
technologically and  economically  feasi-
ble for the facility  after  the replace-
ments to comply with  the  applicable
standards of performance. The 50 per-
cent  replacement criteria  is  designed
merely  to key  the  notification to  the
Administrator; it is  not an independent
basis for the Administrator's determina-
tion. The term "fixed capital cost" is de-
fined as the capital needed  to provide all
the depreciable components and  is in-
tended to Include such things as the costs
of engineering,  purchase,  and installa-
tion of major process equipment, con-
tractors' fees,  instrumentation, auxiliary
facilities, buildings, and structures. Costs
associated with the purchase and instal-
lation of air pollution control equipment
(e.g., baghouses, electrostatic precipita-
tors, scrubbers, etc.) are not considered
In estimating  the fixed capital cost of a
comparable entirely new facility  unless
that  control  equipment Is required as
part  of the process (e.g., product re-
covery) .
   The revised § 60.15 leaves the final de-
termination with the Administrator as
to when  It Is technologically and eco-
nomically  feasible to comply with the
applicable  standards  of  performance.
Further clarification  and  definition Is
not possible because the spectrum of re-
placement projects  that will take place
In the  future at existing facilities is so
broad that it is not possible to be any
more specific. Section 60.15 sets forth
the criteria which the Administrator will
use  In  making his  determination. For
example, If  the estimated  life  of  the
facility  after the replacements  is  slg-
niflicantly less  than the estimated life
of a new facility, the replacement  may
not  be  considered reconstruction. If  the
equipment being replaced  does not emit
or cause an emission of an air pollutant,
It may be  determined that  controlling
the  components that do  emit air  pol-
lutants  is  not  reasonable  considering
cost, and standards of performance for
new  sources  should not  be  applied. If
there Is Insufficient space after the re-
placements at an existing  facility to in-
stall the  necessary air pollution control
system to comply with the standards of
performance,  then reconstruction would
not  be  determined  to  have occurred.
Finally, the Administrator will consider
all technical  and economic  limitations
•the facility may have  In complying with
the applicable standards of performance
after the proposed replacements.
   While  § 60.15  expresses  the   basic
Agency policy and Interpretation regard-
Ing  reconstruction,  Individual subparts
may  refine and delimit the  concept as
applied  to   Individual  categories  of
facilities.
      RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR
            DETERMINATION

  Section 60.5  has been revised to In-
dicate that the Administrator will make
a determination  of  whether an action
by an owner or operator constitutes re-
construction within  the  meaning  of
§ 60.15. Also, in response to a public com-
ment, a new 5 60.5(b) has been  added to
indicate the Administrator's intention to
respond  to  requests for determinations
within 30 days  of receipt of the request.
           STATISTICAL  TEST
  Appendix C of the regulation incorpo-
rates  a statistical procedure for deter-
mining whether an emission increase has
occurred. Several individuals commented
on the procedure  as proposed. After con-
sidering  all these comments  and  con-
ducting further study Into the subject,
the Administrator has  determined that
a statistical procedure is  substantially
superior to a method comparing average
emissions, and that no other statistical
procedure is clearly superior to the one
adopted  (Student's t test). A more de-
tailed analysis  of this Issue can be found
In  EPA's responses  to the comments
mentioned previously.
  Effective  date. These regulations are
effective on December 16, 1975.  Since
they  represent a  clarification of  the
Agency's  existing  enforcement policy,
good cause is found for not delaying the
effective date,  as required by  5 TJ.S.C.
553(d) (3). However, the regulations will,
in effect, apply retroactively to any en-
forcement activity now in progress since
they do  reflect present Agency  policy.
(Sections 111, 114, and 301 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.6.C. 1857c-«, 18570-9,
and 1857g))

  Dated: December 8,1975.
                 RUSSELL  E. TRAIN,
                       Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
   1. The table  of sections Is amended by
adding Si 60.14 and 60.15 and Appendix
C as follows:
        Subpart A—General Provisions
    *       O       O      O      0
Sec.
60.14  Modification.
60.15  Reconstruction.
 Appendix  C—Determination  of  Emission
  Rate Change.

  2. In § 60.2,  paragraphs (d> and (h)
 are  revised and paragraphs (aa)  and
 (bb) are added as follows:

 § 60.2  Definitions.
     O       O       O      O       O
  (d)  "Stationary source"  means  any
 building, structure, facility,  or installa-
 tion which  emits or may emit any air
 pollutant and which contains any one or
 combination of the following:
  (l) Affected facilities.
  (2) Existing facilities.
  (3) Facilities of the type for which no
 standards have been promulgated in this
 part.
  (h) "Modification" means any.physi-
cal change in, or change in the method
of operation of, an existing facility which
increases the amount of any air pollutant
(to which a standard applies)  emitted
Into the atmosphere by that facility or
which results in the emission of any air
pollutant (to which a standard applies)
into  the  atmosphere  not previously
emitted.
  (aa)  "Existing facility" means,  with
reference to a stationary source, any ap-
paratus of the type for which a standard
is promulgated in this part, and the con-
struction or  modification of which  was
commenced before the date of proposal
of  that standard;  or  any  apparatus
which could be altered in such a way as
to be of that type.
  (bb) "Capital expenditure" means an
expenditure for a physical or operational
change  to an existing  facility which ex-
ceeds the product of the applicable "an-
nual  asset  guideline  repair  allowance
percentage"  specified  in the latest  edi-
tion of  Internal Revenue Service Publi-
cation  534 and  the  existing facility's
basis, as defined by section 1012 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
  3. Section 60.5 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 60.5  Determination of eonstruction or
     modification.
   (a) When requested to do  so by an
owner  or  operator, the Administrator
will make  a determination  of whether
action taken or intended to be taken by
such owner or operator constitutes con-
struction (including reconstruction) or
modification   or  the  commencement
thereof within the meaning of this part.
   (b) The  Administrator will respond to
any request for a determination  under
paragraph (a) of this section within 30
days of receipt of such request.
  4. In  860.7, paragraphs (a)(l)  and
(a) (2)   are revised,  and  paragraphs
(a) (3).  (a) (4), and  (e) are  added as
follows:

§ 60.7  Notification and recordkceping.
   (a) Any owner or operator subject to
the provisions  of this  part shall furnish
the Administrator written notification
as follows:                „   - .
   (DA notification of the date construc-
tion (or reconstruction as defined under
§ 60.15)  of an affected facility is com-
menced  postmarked  no  later than 30
days after such date.  This requirement
shall not apply in the  case of mass-pro-
duced facilities which are purchased In
completed form.
   (2) A notification of  the anticipated
date of initial startup  of an affected
facility  postmarked not  more than 60
days nor less than 30 days prior to such
date.
   (3) A notification of  the actual date
of initial startup of an affected facility
postmarked  within 15 days after  such
date.
   (4)A  notification  of any physical or
operational change to an existing facil-
ity which may increase the emission rate
of any  air pollutant to which a stand-
ard applies,  unless that change is OPS-
                              FEDERAL  REGISTER. VOL.  40. NO. 242—TUESDAY.  DECEMBER  16. 1975
                                                      IV-115
-------
                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        58419
 :iflcally  exempted under an applicable
 ?ubpart or in § 60.Hie) and the exemp-
 tion is not denied under § 60.14(d> (4).
 Phis notice shall be postmarked 60  days
 or  as  soon as practicable before the
 rhange is commenced  and shall include
 information describing the precise na-
 ture of the change, present and  proposed
 emission  control  systems,  productive
 capacity of the facility before and after
 the change, and the expected comple-
 tion date of the change. The Administra-
 tor may  request additional relevant in-
 formation  subsequent to this notice.
     *      *      *       *       *
   (e> If notification substantially similar
 to that in paragraph (a) of this section
 is required by any other State or local
 agency,  sending the  Administrator a
 copy of that notification will satisfy the
 requirements of paragraph (a) of this
 section.
   5. Subpart A is -amended  by adding
 5§ 60.14 and 60.15 as follows:
 § 60.14  Modification.
   (a)  Except  as provided under para-
 graphs (d), (e)  and  (f)  of this section,
 any physical or operational  change  to
 an  existing facility which  results in an
 Increase  in the  emission  rate to the
 atmosphere of any pollutant to which a
 standard applies shall be  considered a
 'modification within the meaning of sec-
 tion 111  of the Act.  Upon  modification,
 an existing facility shall become an af-
 fected  facility for  each  pollutant  to
 which a standard applies and for which
 there Is an increase in  the emission rate
• to the atmosphere.
   (b) Emission rate shall be expressed as
 kg/hr of any pollutant discharged  into
 the atmosphere for which a standard is
 applicable.  The Administrator shall use
 the following to determine emission rate:
   (1)  Emission  factors  as specified in
 the latest issue of "Compilation of Air
 Pollutant Emission Factors,"  EPA Pub-
 lication No. AP-42,  or  other  emission
.factors determined by the Administrator
 to be superior to AP-42 emission factors,
 in cases  where  utilization of  emission
 factors demonstrate  that  the  emission
 level resulting  from the physical or op-
 erational change will either clearly in-
 crease or clearly not increase.
   (2) Material  balances,   continuous
 monitor data,  or manual emission tests
 In cases  where  utilization of emission
 factors as referenced in  paragraph (b)
 (1)  of this  section does not demonstrate
 to  the  Administrator's  satisfaction
 whether the emission level resulting from
 the physical or operational change  will
 either clearly increase or clearly not in-
 crease,  or where an  owner or operator
 demonstrates  to  the  Administrator's
 satisfaction that there are reasonable
 grounds to dispute the result obtained by
 the Administrator utilizing emission  fac-
 tors as referenced in paragraph (b)(l)
 of this  section. When the emission rate
 is based on  results from manual emission
 tests or continuous monitoring systems,
 the procedures specified in Appendix C
 of this  part 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
 based on representative performance of
 the facility.  At  least three valid test
 runs must be conducted  before and  at
 least three after  the physical or opera-
 tional change. All operating parameters
 which may affect emissions must be held
 constant to the maximum feasible degree
 for all test runs.
    (c)  The addition of an affected facility
 to a stationary source as an expansion
 to that  source or as a replacement for
 an existing facility shall not  by  itself
 bring within  the applicability of this
 part  any  other  facility  within   that
 source.
    (d) A modification shall not be deemed
 to occur if an existing facility undergoes
 a physical or operational  change where
 the owner  or operator demonstrates  to
 the Administrator's satisfaction (by any
 of the procedures prescribed under  para-
 graph (b) of this section)  that the total
 emission rate of  any pollutant has not
 increased from all facilities  within the
 stationary  source to which appropriate
 reference,  equivalent,  or   alternative
 methods, as defined in § 60.2 (s), (t) and
 (u), can be applied. An owner or operator
 may completely and permanently  close
 any facility within a stationary source
 to prevent an increase in the total  emis-
 sion rate regardless of  whether   such
 reference,  equivalent  or   alternative
 method can be applied, if the decrease
 in emission rate  from such closure can
 be adequately determined  by any of the
 procedures prescribed under paragraph
 (b) of this section. The owner or  oper-
 ator of the source shall have the burden
 of demonstrating compliance  with this
 section.
   (1)  Such demonstration  shall  be  in
 writing and shall include:  (i) The  name
 and address of the owner or operator.
   (ii)  The  location of the  stationary
 source.
   (iii) A complete description of the ex-
 isting facility undergoing the  physical
 or operational change resulting in an in-
 crease in emission  rate, any applicable
 control system, and the physical or op-
 erational change to such facility.
   (iv) The emission rates into the at-
 mosphere from the  existing facility  of
 each pollutant to which a standard ap-
 plies determined  before  and  after the
 physical  or operational   change  takes
 place, to the extent such information is
 known or can be predicted.
   (v)  A complete  description  of  each
 facility and the control systems, if any,
 for those facilities within the stationary
 source where the emission rate of each
 pollutant in question will be decreased
 to compensate for the increase  in emis-
 sion rate from the existing facility un-
 dergoing the  physical  or  operational
 change.
   (vi) The emission rates into the at-
 mosphere of the pollutants in  question
 from each facility described under para-
 graph (d) (1) (v) of this section  both be-
 fore and after the Improvement or in-
 stallation  of  any  applicable   control
 system  or any physical or operational
 changes to such facilities to reduce emis-
 sion rate.
   (vii) A complete  description of the
 procedures  and methods used to deter-
 mine the emission rates.
   (2)  Compliance with paragraph (d)
 of this section may be demonstrated by
 the methods listed in paragraph (b) jOf
 this section, where appropriate. Decreas-
 es in  emissions resulting from  require-
 ments of a State implementation plan
 approved or promulgated under  Part 52
 of this chapter will not be acceptable.
 The required reduction in emission rate
 may be accomplished through the instal-
 lation or improvement of a control sys-
'tem or through physical or operational
 changes to facilities including reducing
 the production of a facility or closing a
 facility.                            •  .
   <3>  Emission rates established for the
 existing facility which is  undergoing a
 physical or operational change resulting
 in an  increase in the emission rate, and
 established for the facilities described
 under paragraph  (dXIXv)  of this sec-
 tion shall become  the baseline for deter-
 mining whether such facilities  undergo
 a modification or are in compliance with
 standards.
   (4)  Any emission rate in excess of that
 rate  established  under paragraph'(d>
 (3) of this section shall be a violation,of
 these  regulations except  as otherwise
 provided  in paragraph (e) of this sec-
 tion.  However, any owner or operator
 electing to demonstrate compliance un-
 der this- paragraph (d) must apply to
 the Administrator to  obtain the use of
 any  exemptions under paragraphs (e)
 (2), (e)(3), and (e) (4) of this  section.
 The Administrator will grant such ex-
 emption only if,  in his judgment, the
 compliance originally  demonstrated un-
 der this paragraph  will not be  circum-
 vented.or nullified by the utilization .of
 the exemption.                      '
  (5>  The  Administrator  may  require
 the use of continuous monitoring devices
 and compliance with necessary reporting
 procedures for each  facility described'in
 paragraph (dXIXiii)  and (dXIXv) of
 this section.
  (e)  The following shall not, by them-
 selves, be considered modifications under
 this part:
  (1) Maintenance, repair, and replace-
 ment  which the  Administrator deter-
 mines to be routine for a source category,
 subject to the provisions of paragraph
 (c) of this section and 5 60.15.
  (2)  An increase in production rate of
 an existing  facility. If that increase can
 be accomplished  without a capital ex-
 penditure on the stationary source  con-
 taining that facility.
  (3)   An increase  in the hours of opera-
 tion.                               •
  (4>  Use of an alternative fuel or raw
 material if, prior to the date any stand-
 ard under this part becomes applicable
 to that source type, as provided by 8 60.1,
 the existing facility was designed to ac-
commodate  that  alternative   use.  A
facility shall be considered to be designed
to accommodate an  alternative fuel or
raw material If that use could be accom-
plished under the facility's construction
                              FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 40. NO. 242—TUESDAY. DECEMHFB 16  1975


                                                      IV-116
-------
58420
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
specifications,  as amended, prior to the
change. Conversion to coal required for
energy considerations, as specified In sec-
tion U9(d>(5>  of the Act, shall not be
considered a modification.
  (5) The addition or use of any system
or device whose primary  function Is the
reduction of air pollutants, except when
nn  emission control  system Is removed
or Is replaced by a system which the Ad-
ministrator  determines  to be less en-
vironmentally  beneficial.
  (6) The   relocation   or  change  In
ownership of an existing facility.
  (f) Special provisions set forth under
an  applicable subpart of this  part shall
supersede  any  conflicting provisions of •
this section.
  (g) Within  180 days  of the  comple-
tion  of  any   physical   or  operational
change subject to the control measures
specified  in paragraphs  (a)  or (d)  of
this section, compliance  with all appli-
cable standards must be achieved.
§ 60.15  Reconstruction.
  (a) An  existing  facility, upon recon-
struction,  becomes an  affected  facility,
Irrespective of any change In emission
rate.
  (b) "Reconstruction"  means  the  re-
placement of components of an existing
facility to such an extent that:
  (1) The fixed  capital cost of  the new
components exceeds 50  percent of  the
fixed capital cost that would be  required
to  construct a comparable entirely new
facility, and
  (2) It Is technologically and econom-
ical!:;  feasible to  meet  the  applicable
standards set forth In this part.
   (c) "Fixed  capital cost"  means  the
capital  needed to provide all  the  de-
preciable components.
   (d)  If an owner  or   operator of an
existing facility proposes to replace com-
ponents, and the fixed capital cost of the
new components exceeds 50  percent of
the fixed capital cost that wouW be re-
quired  to  construct a  comparable  en-
tirely  new facility, he  shall  notify  the
Administrator of the proposed  replace-
ments. The notice must be postmarked
60  days (or as soon  as  practicable)  be-
fore construction of  the replacements  Is
commenced and must Include  the fol-
lowing Information:
   (1)  Name and address of  the owner
or operator.
   (2)  The location of the existing facil-
ity.
   (3)  A brief description of the existing
facility and the components which are to
be replaced,
   (4)  A description of  the existing air
pollution  control  equipment  and  the
proposed sir  pollution control  equip-
ment.
   (5)  An estimate of the fixed  capital
cost of the replacements and  of con-
structing  a  comparable  entirely new
facility.
  (6) The estimated life of the existing
facility after the replacements.
  (7) A discussion of any economic or
technical limitations  the  facility  may
have in complying with the applicable
standards of performance after the pro-
posed replacements.               .  .
  (e) The  Administrator  will  deter-
mine, within 30 days of the receipt of the
notice required by paragraph (d) of this
section and  any  additional  information
he may reasonably require,  whether the
proposed   replacement  constitutes  re-
construction.
  (f) The Administrator's determination
under paragraph (e) shall be based on:
  (1) The fixed  capital cost of the re-
placements In  comparison to the  fixed
capital cost that would  be required  to
construct a  comparable  entirely  new
facility;
  (2) The estimated life  of the facility
after the replacements compared to the .
life of a comparable entirely new facility;
  (3) The extent to which the compo-
nents being replaced cause or contribute
to the  emissions from the facility:  and
  (4) Any economic or technical limita-
tions  on 'compliance  with applicable
standards of performance which are in-
herent in the proposed replacements.
  (g)  Individual  subparts of this part
may Include  specific provisions which
refine and delimit the concept of recon-
struction set forth in this section.
  6. Part 60 Is amended by adding Ap-
pendix C as follows:
ArrKNDix C—DETERMINATION  or  EMISSION  BAT*
                  CHANGE
  1.  Introduction.
  1.1  The following method shall be used to determine
whether a physical or operational change to an eilsllng
facility resulted In an Increase In the emission rate to the
atmrsphe.re. The method used Is the Student's t test,
commonly used to moko Inferences from small samples.
  5. Data.
  2.1  Each emission test shall consist of n rans (usually
three) which produce n emission rates. Thus two sots of
emission rates are generated, one before and one after the
change the  two sets being of equal slie.
  2.2 When  using manual emission tnsta, eicept as pro-
vided In  } CO.S(h) of tills p.irt, the reference methods of
Appendix A to this part shall he used In accordance with
the procedures specified in the applicable subpart both
before and after the change to obtain the data.
  2.3 Whenustngcnntinuous monitors, thcfacllltyshallh«
operated  as If a manun) emission tost were being per-
formed. Valid data using the averaging time which would
be romilred  If a manual emission test wore being con-
ductor] shall be used.
  3. Procedure.
  3.1 Subscripts a  and b denote precliange and post-
change respectively.
  3.2 Calculate the arithmetic mean emission rate, E, for
each set of data using Equation I.
 3.4 Calculate the pooled estimate, fl^ natof
Uon 3.
                          ... +E.
 where:
  Ei - Emission rate for the f tb run;
   B-numberof runs

  8.3 Calculate the sample variance, S>, for each set of
 date using Equation X
     (-1
                             / •    \l /
                           -(s»o /•
                             \i-i   //
   7:. and Of. where f Is the critical value of
f obtained from Table 1, then with 85% confidence the
difference between fc'i and /?, Is significant, and an la.
crease In emission rate to tbe atmosphere has occurred.
                                      (D
                                    f (SS
                 TABLE 1
                                    COTtfi-
                                    tenet
Drgree of freedom (n.+m— 2):              level)
   2 ............................................. i»20
   3 ........................................ ____ Z353
   4 .............. . .................... ; ......... I 132
   n ........................................... _ 1015
   8 ............................................. L943
   7 .......................... ...... ............. L885
   8..... ........................................ L8«0

  For greater than 8 degrees of freedom, see any standard
statistical handbook or teiL
  (.1 Assume the two performance testa produced the
following set of data:
Testa,-
   Run 1. 100.
   Run 2. 95..
   KunJ. 110.
                                   Testb
                                 	  115
                                 .	  120
                                 .._:' 125
6.2 Using Equation 1—

       _ _10O+95_+nO_
         *~      3

       _  ^115 f 120+125^
        *         3

6.3 Using Equation 2—
                            '102
                              loft
                              120
   (100-102)*+ (95-102)'+ (110-102)'
                    3-1
                                    -=58.5
 8,'

   (115-120)'+(120-120)'+(125-120)'
 =                 3-1
                                     «=25
  5.4 Using Equation 3—

 _    r(3-1)'(58.5)+ (3-1)  (25)1'"   .  R
 5'=|_	3 + 3=2	J   =6'46
                            = 3.412
  5.5 Using Equation 4—

               120-102
          1 =
             6.46   i+i
  5.« Since (m+ni-2) =4, f-2.132 (from Table 1). Thus
 dnee Of tbe difference In tbe values of E. and £'> b
 tignlflcant, and there has been an Increase In emission
 rate to tbe atmosphere.

  ft. Gmtlnuout Monitoring Data.
  ft.1 Hourly averages from continuous monitoring de-
 vices where available, should be used as data points and
 the above procedure followed.

 (Bees. Ill and 114 of the Clean Air Act, as amended by
 «ee. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-S04, 84 Btftt 1678 (42 U.S.C. lS57o-
 «. 18S7C-8))
                                      (2)    [PR Doc.76-33612 Piled 13-16-76;8:45 am]
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40,  NO. 242—TUESDAY, DECEMIU U,  1*75


                                                           IV-117
-------
                                                RULES AND REGULATIONS
23            (FRL471-8)

 PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Emission Monitoring Requirements and Re-
    visions to Performance Testing Methods;
    Correction
    In FR Doc. 75-26565 appearing at page •
  46250 in Uie FEDEHAL REGISTER of October
  6, 1975, the following changes should be
  made in Appendix B:
    1. On page 462CO. paragraph 4.3, line'
  21 is corrected to read as follows:

  log (1-0,)=(!,/!.) log (!-<),•>
    2. On page 462G3, paragraph  4.1, line 8
  is corrected to read as follows:

  of an air preheater in a steam generating
    3. On page 46269, paragraph 7.2.1, the
  definition  of C.I.w Is corrected to read
  as follows:

  C.I.u,=95  percent confidence  interval
    estimates of toe average mean  value.

    Dated: December 16,1975.

                   ROGER STRELOW,
          Assistant Administrator for
            Air and Waste Management.
   |F'R Doc.75-34514 Filed 12-19-76:8:45 am I
                [FRL 423-7)

  PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Emission Monitoring Requirements and Re-
  visions to Performance Testing Methods
                Correction

    In FR Doc. 75-26565, appearing at page
  46250 in the issue for Monday, October 6,
  1975, the  following changes  should  be
  made:
    1. In  the first  paragraph  on  page
  46250, the words "reduction, and report-
  ing requirements" should be inserted im-
  mediately  following the eighth line.
    2. In the seventh from last line of the
  first full paragraph on page  46254, the
  parenthetical phrase should read, "Octo-
  ber 6, 1975".
    3. In the second line of the second full
  paragraph  on  page 4.6254,  the  next  to
  FEDEBA1 MHMfTIX, VOL 4», HO. *4e—MON0*Y.
                                                                              24
                                              SUSCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
                                                     IFRL
 last word, now reading "capacity", should
 read "opacity".
   4. In paragraph (c)(2)(ili)  of } 60.13
 on page 46255, the parenthetical phrase
 "(date  of promulgation" should  read,
 "October 6, 1975".
   5. In  8 60.13,  the paragraphs desig-
 nated   (g)(l)  and  (g)(l)(i)  through
 (ix) on page 46256 should be designated
 paragraph (1) and (i> 1 through (9).
   6. In the second  line of the formula
 in paragraph 
-------
                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
25
                | FRL 477-7]

        SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
   PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
      FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
      Delegation of Authority to the State of
     ,             Michigan
     Pursuant  to the  delegation  of  au-
   thority  to  implement  and enforce the
   standards of performance for new sta-
   tionary sources (NSPS) to the State of
   Michigan on November 5, 1975, EPA is
   today amending 40 CFR 60.4 Address, to
   reflect  this delegation.1  The  amended
   5 60.4, which adds the address of the Air
   Pollution Control Division, Michigan De-
   partment of Natural Resources to that
   list of  addresses  to which  all  reports,
   requests,. applications, submittals,  and
   communications to  the Administrator
   pursuant to this  part must be sent, is
   •set forth below*
     ,The Administrator finds good cause for
   foregoing prior public notice  and  for
   making  this  rulemaking effective im-
   mediately 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-
   wjnistrative amendment was effective on
   November 5, 1975, and it serves no pur-
   pose to delay the technical change of this
   addition of the State address to the Code
   of Federal Regulations.
26
      > A Notice announcing  this delegation Is
    published in the Notices section of this Issue.
      This rulemaking. is effective immedi-
    ately, and is issued under the authority
    of section 111 of  the Clean Air Act, as
    amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6.

      Dated: December 31, 1976.

                 STANLEY W. LEGRO,
               Assistant Administrator
                        for Enforcement.

      Part 60 of  Chapter I, Title 40 of the
    Code of Federal Regulation is amended
    as follows:     ...
    ,  1.  In § 60.4, paragraph (h)  is amended
    by revising paragraph (b) X, to read as
    follows:

    60.4  Address.
         •      *      *       •       «
                  IFRL 447-81
      (b) * *  *
    '  (A)-(W)  • • •
      (X)—State  of  Michigan, Air Pollution
    Control Division,  Michigan Department of
    Natural Resources,  Stevens T. Mason Build-
    ing, 8th Floor, Lansing, Michigan 48926
        •      *       •     .  •       »
      [PR Doc.76-847 Filed 1-12-76:8:45 am]

       FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO.  I-

          -TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1976
                                                         [FRL 483-7)
 PART 60  STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
          Coal Preparation Plants
   On October 24.  1974  (39 FR 37933).
 under section 111 of the Cle&n Air Act,
 as amended, the Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency (EPA) proposed standards
 of performance for new and modified
 coal preparation plants. Interested par-
 ties were afforded an opportunity to par-
 ticipate In the rulemaking by submitting
 written comments.  Twenty-seven com-
 ment letters were received;  six from coal
 companies, four from Federal agencies,
 four  from  steel companies, four from
 electric utility  companies,  three from
 State and local  agencies, three from coal
 industry associations and  three from
 other interested parties.
   Copies of the comment letters and a
 supplemental volume of background  in-
 formation  which contains a summary
 of the comments with  EPA's responses
 are  available for public inspection  and
 copying at the  U.S. Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency, Public Information Ref-
 erence Unit, Room 2922, 401 M Street,
 S.W., Washington,  D.C. 20460. In addi-
 tion, the supplemental volume of back-
 ground Information which contains cop-
 ies of the comment summary with EPA's
 responses may be obtained  upon written
 request from the EPA Public Informa-
 tion  Center  (PM-215), 401 M Street
 S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20460  (specify
Background Information for Standards
of  Performance:  Coal   Preparation
Plants, Volume 3: Supplemental Infor-
mation) . The comments have been care-
fully considered, and where determined
by the Administrator to be appropriate,
changes have been made to the proposed
regulations and are incorporated In the
regulations promulgated herein.
  The bases for the proposed standards
are presented in "Background  Informa-
tion for Standards of Performance: Coal
Preparation Plants" (EPA 450/2-74-02la,
b). Copies of this document are available
on request from the Emission Standards
Protection Agency,  Research  Triangle
and Engineering Division, Environmental
Park, North Carolina 2,7711, Attention:
Mr. Don R. Goodwin.
  Summary of Regulation. The promul-
gated standards of performance regulate
particulate matter emissions  from coal
preparation and handling facilities proc-
essing more than  200 tons/day of  bitu-
minous coal (regardless of their location)
as follows: (1) emissions  from thermal
dryers may  not   exceed  0.070 g/dscm
(0.031 gr/dscf)  and  20%  opacity, (2)
emissions from pneumatic coal cleaning
equipment may not exceed 0.040 g/dscm
(0.018 gr/ dscf)  and 10% opacity, and
(3) emissions from  coal  handling and
storage  equipment   (processing   non-
bituminous as well as  bituminous  coal)
may not exceed 20% opactity.
   Significant Comments and Revisions to
the Proposed Regulations. Many of the
comment letters  received by EPA con-
tained  multiple  comments. These are
summarized as follows with discussions of
any significant differences between the
proposed and promulgated regulations.
   1.  Applicability.—Comments  were re-
ceived noting that the proposed stand-
ards  would apply to any coal  handling
operation  regardless of size and would
require even small tipple operations and
domestic coal distributors to comply with
the  proposed  standards  for fugitive
emissions.  In  addition,  underground
mining activities  may have been  inad-
vertently included under the  proposed
standards. EPA did not intend to regu-
late either these small sources or under-
ground  mining activities.  Only sources
which break, crush, screen, clean, or dry
large amounts of coal were intended to be
covered.  Sources which  handle  large
amounts of coal would include coal han-
 dling operations at sources such as barge
loading  facilities, power  plants,  coke
 ovens, etc. as  well as  plants  that pri-
 marily clean and/or dry coal. EPA con-
 cluded that  sources not Intended to  be
 covered  by the  regulation handle less
 than 200 tons/day; therefore, the regu-
 lation promulgated herein exempts such
 sources.
   Comments were received questioning
 the  application   of  the  standards  to
 facilities processing nonbituminous coals
 (including lignite). As was stated in the
 preamble to the  proposed regulation, it
 is  intended for the standards to have
 broad applicability when appropriate. At
the time the regulation  was  proposed.
EPA considered the parameters relating
to the control of emissions from thermal
                                  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO.  10—THURSDAY, JANUARY 15,  1976
                                                        IV-119
-------
                                            RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                       2233
dryers to be sufficiently similar, whether
bituminous or nonbituminous coal was
being dried. Since the time of proposal,
EPA has reconsidered the application of
standards to the thermal drying of non-
bituminous coal.  It lias concluded that
such application  is not prudent in the
absence of specific data demonstrating
the similarity of  the  drying  character-
istics  and  emission  control  character-
istics to those of bituminous coal. There
p.re currently very few thermal dryers or
pneumatic  air cleaners processing non-
bituminous fuels. The facilities tested
by EPA  to demonstrate  control equip-
ment representative of best control tech-
nology were processing bituminous coal.
Since the majority of the EPA test data
.and other  information used  to develop
the standards are based upon bituminous
coal  processing,  the particulate matter
standards for thermal dryers and pneu-
matic coal cleaning equipment have been
revised to apply  only to those  facilities
processing bituminous coal.
  The  opacity standard for  control  of
fugitive emissions is applicable  to non-
bituminous as well as bituminous coal
since  nonbituminous  processing facili-
ties will utilize  similar  equipment  for
transporting,  screening,  storing,  and
loading coal, and the  control techniques
applicable for minimizing  fugitive par-
ticulate  matter  emissions will be the
same regardless of the type of coal proc-
essed.  Typically  enclosures  with  some
type of low energy collectors are utilized.
The opacity of emissions can also be re-
duced by effectively covering or sealing
the process from the atmosphere so that
any avenues for escaping emissions are
small.  By minimizing the number and
the dimensions of the openings  through
which fugitive emissions can  escape, the
opacity and the total mass rate of  emis-
sions can be reduced  independently  of
the air pollution  control devices. Also,
water sprays have been demonstrated to
be very effective for suppressing fugitive
emissions and can be used to control even
the most difficult  fugitive emission prob-
lems. Therefore,  the control  of fugitive
emissions at all facilities will be required
since there are several control techniques
that can be  applied  regardless of the
type of coal processed.
  2. Thermal dryer standard.—One com-
mentator presented data  and   calcula-
tions which indicated that because of the
large amount of fine particles in the coal
his company processes, compliance with
the proposed standard would  require the
application of a  venturl  scrubber with
a pressure drop of 50 to 52 Inches of water
gage. The proposed standard was  based
on the application of  a venturi  scrubber
with a pressure drop  of 25 to 35 inches.
EPA thoroughly evaluated this comment
and concluded that the commentator's
calculations  and  extrapolations  could
have  represented the actual situation.
Rather than revise the standard on  the
basis  of the  commentator's estimates,
EPA decided to perform emission tests at
a plant which processes  the  coal under
Question. The plant tested is controlled
with a venturl scrubber and was operated
at a pressure drop of 29 Inches during
the emission tests. These tests  showed
emissions of 0.080 to 0.134 g/dscm (0.035
to  0.058  gr/dscf). These  results  are
numerically greater than the proposed
standard; however, calculations indicate
that if the pressure drop were increased
from 29 inches to 41 inches, the proposed
standard would be  achieved. Supplemen-
tal  information regarding estimates of
emission control needed to  achieve the
mass standard is contained in Section II,
Volume  3  of the  supplemental back-
ground information document.
  Since the cost analysis of the proposed
standard was based on a venturi scrubber
operating at 25 to 35 inches venturi pres-
sure loss, the costs of operating at higher
pressure losses were evaluated. These re-
sults  indicated that the added  cost  of
controlling pollutants to the level of the
proposed standard is  only 14 cents per
ton of plant product even if  a  50  Inch
pressure loss were used,  and only five
cents per ton in excess of  the  average
control level required by state regulations
in the major coal producing  states. In
comparison to  the $18.95 per  ton deliv-
ered price of U.S.  coal in 1974 and  even
higher  prices  today,  a maximum  five
cents per ton economic  impact attribut-
able to these regulations appears almost
negligible.  The total Impact of 14 cents
per ton for controlling particulate matter
emissions can easily be passed along to
the  customer  since  the  demand  for
thermal drying due to freight rate  sav-
ings,  the elimination  of handling prob-
lems  due to  freezing, and the needs  of
the customer's  process (coke ovens must
control bulk density  and power plants
must control plugging of pulverizers) will
remain unaffected  by these regulations.
Therefore, the economic impact of the
standard upon thermal drying will not
be large and the Inflationary  impact of
the standard on the price of coal will be
insignificant (one percent or less). Prom
the standpoint of  energy consumption,
the power requirements of the air ppllu-
tion control equipment are exponentially
related to  the  control level  such that  a
level  of  diminishing return is reached.
Because the highest  pressure loss  that
has been demonstrated by operation of
a  venturl  scrubber on  a coal dryer is
41 inches water gage, which is also the
pressure loss estimated by a scrubber
vendor to  be needed  to achieve the  70
mg/dscm standard, and because energy
consumption increases  dramatically  at
lower control levels «70 mg/dscm),  a
particulate matter standard lower  than
70 mg/dscm  was not selected. At the 70
mg/dscm control level,  the trade-off be-
tween control of emissions at the thermal
dryer versus the increase in  emissions at
the power plant supplying the energy is
favorable even though the mass quantity
of all air pollutants emitted by the power
plant (SO. NO», and particulate matter)
are compared only to the reduction in
thermal dryer  particulate matter emis-
sions.  At lower than 70 mg/dscm,  this
trade-off is not as favorable due to the
energy requirements of venturi scrubbers
at higher pressure drops. For this source,
alternative means of air pollution control
have  not been fully demonstrated. Hav-
ing considered all comments on the  par-
ticulate matter regulation proposed for
thermal dryers, EPA finds no reason suf-
ficient to alter the proposed standard of
70 mg/dscm except to restrict  its  ap-
plicability to thermal dryers processing
bituminous coal.
  3. Location  of  thermal  drying sys-
tems.—Comments were received on the
applicability of the standard for power
plants with closed  thermal  drying sys-
tems where the air used to dry the coal is
also used in the combustion process. As
Indicated in J 60.252(a), the standard is
concerned only with effluents which are
discharged into the atmosphere from the
drying equipment. Since the pulverized
coal transported by heated air is charged
to the steam generator in a closed system,
there  is no discharge from the dryer di-
rectly to the atmosphere, therefore, these
standards for therma'l dryers are not ap-
plicable. Effluents  from steam, generators
are regulated by  standards previously
promulgated (40  CFR Part  60  subpart
D). However,  these standards do apply
to all bituminous  coal drying operations
that discharge effluent to the atmosphere
regardless of their physical or geograph-
ical location.  In  additiona  to  thermal
dryers located in coal preparation plants,
usually in the vicinity of the mines, dry-
ers used to preheat coal at coke ovens are
alsoregulated by these standards. These
coke oven thermal  dryers used for pre-
heating are similar in  all  respects,  in-
cluding the air pollution control equip-
ment, to those used In coal  preparation
plants.
  4.   Opacity  standards.—The  opacity
standards for thermal dryer and pneu-
matic coal cleaners were reevaluated  as
a result of revisions to Method 9 for con-
ducting  opacity  observations   (39 FB
39872). The opacity stndards were pro-
posed prior to the revisions of Method 9
and were not based upon the concept of
averaging sets of 24 observations for six-
minute periods. As a result, the proposed
standards were developed in relation  to
the peak emissions of the facility rather
than the average emissions of six-minute
periods. The opacity data collected  by
EPA have been reevaluated in accordance
with  the revised  Method 9 .procedures,
and opacity standards for thermal dry-
ers and  pneumatic coal cleaners have
been  adjusted to levels consistent with
these new procedures. The opacity stand-
ards for thermal dryers and pneumatic
coal cleaners have been adjusted from 30
and  20 percent  to 20 and  10  percent
opacity, respectively. Since the proposed
standards were based upon peak rather
than  average opacity, the revised stand-
ards are numerically lower. Each of these
levels  is justified based primarily upon
six-minute averages of EPA opacity ob-
servations. These data are contained  in
Section in* Volume 3 of the supplemental
background information document.
  5. Fugitive   emission   monitoring.—
Several commentators  identified some
difficulties with the proposed procedures
for monitoring the surface  moisture  of
thermally dried coal. The purpose of the
proposed requirement was to determine
the probability of fugitive emissions oc-
curing from coal handling  operation*
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41,  NO.  10—THURSDAY, JANUARY  15, 1976
                                                     IV-120
-------
2231
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
and to estimate their extent. The com-
mentators   noted   that  the  proposed
A.S.T.M. measurement methods are diffi-
cult and cumbersome  procedures not
typically used by  operating  facilities.
Also, It was noted that there Is too little
uniformity of techniques within Industry
for measuring surface moisture  to spe-
cify a general method. Secondly,  esti-
mation of fugitive  emissions from such
data may not be consistent due to differ-
ent coal  characteristics. Since the opac-
ity  standard promulgated  herein can
readily be utilized  by enforcement per-
sonnel, the moisture monitoring require-
ment Is relatively unimportant. EPA has
therefore eliminated this  requirement
from the regulation.
  6. Open storage  piles.—The proposed
regulation applied  the fugitive emission
standard to coal storage systems, which
were defined as any facility used  to store
coal. It  was EPA's intention that this
definition refer to some type of structure
such as  a bin,  silo,  etc.  Several com-
mentators objected to the potential ap-
plication of the fugitive emission stand-
ard  to open storage piles. Since the
fugitive emission standard was  not de-
veloped for  application to open  storage
piles, the regulations promulgated here-
in clarifies that open storage piles of coal
are not regulated by these standards.
  7. Thermal dryer monitoring equip-
ment.—A number of commentators felt
that important variables were not being
considered for monitoring venturi scrub-
ber  operation on  thermal  dryers. The
proposed standards required monitoring
the  temperature  of the gas  from the
thermal  dryer  and  monitoring  the
venturi  scrubber   pressure  loss.  The
promulgated standard requires, in addi-
tion to the  above parameters, monitor-
ing of the water supply pressure to the
venturi scrubber.  Direct  measurement
of the water flow  rate was considered
but  rejected due to potential plugging
problems as  a result  of solids typically
found  In recycled scrubber  water. Also,
the higher  cost of  a flow  rate meter in
comparison to a simpler pressure moni-
toring device was a factor in the selec-
tion of a water pressure  monitor for
verifying that the scrubber receives ade-
quate water for proper operation.  This
revision  to  the  regulations  will insure
monitoring of major air pollution control
device  parameters  subject to  variation
which could go undetected and unnoticed
and  could grossly  affect proper opera-
tion of the control equipment. A pressure
sensor, two transmitters, and a two pen
chart recorder for  monitoring scrubber
venturi pressure drop and water supply
pressure, which are commercially avail-
able, will  cost approximately two to three
thousand dollars   Installed  for  each
thermal  dryer. This cost  is only one-
tenth of one percent of the total  invest-
ment cost of a 500-ton-per-hour thermal
dryer. The regulations also require moni-
toring  of the thermal dryer exit tem-
perature, but  no added cost will result
because  this  measurement system Is
normally supplied with the thermal dry-
ing equipment and  Is used as  a  control
point for the process control system.
  Effective, date.—In  accordance with
section 111 of the Act, as amended, these
regulations   prescribing standards  of
performance for coal preparation plants
are effective on January  15, 1976, and
apply to thermal dryers, pneumatic coal
cleaners, coal processing and conveying
equipment,  coal  storage  systems,  and
coal transfer and loading  systems, the
construction or modification of  which
was commenced after  October 24, 1974.

  Dated:  January 8, 1976.

                  RUSSELL E. TRAIN.
                      Administrator.

  Part 60 of Chapter I of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. The table of contents is amended by
adding subpart Y as follows:
    •        «      0       0       •
  Subpart V—Standards of Performance for Coal
            Preparation Plants
Sec.
60.250  Applicability and designation  of
        affected facility.
60.251  Definitions.
60.252  Standards for participate matter.
60.253  Monitoring of operations.
60.254  Test  methods and procedures.
  AUTHORITY: Sees. Ill and 114 of the Clean
Air Aot, as amended by sec. 4(6) of Pub. L.
91-304, 84 Stat. 1678 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-«, 1867
c-9).

  2. Part 60 is amended by adding sub-
part Y as follows:
    0        O      o       «       «
 Subpart Y—Standards of Performance for
         Coal Preparation Plants

§ 60.250  Applicability  and designation
    of affected facility.
  The  provisions  of  this  subpart are
applicable to  any of the  following af-
fected facilities in coal preparation plants
which  process more  than  200 tons per
day: thermal dryers,  pneumatic  coal-
cleaning   equipment  (air   tables), coal
processing and conveying equipment (in-
cluding .breakers  and  crushers), coal
storage systems, and coal  transfer and
loading systems.

§ 60.251   Definitions.

  As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined herein have  the meaning given
them in the Act and in subpart A of this
part.
  (a)  "Coal preparation plant" means
any  facility  (excluding   underground
mining operations) which prepares coal
by one or more of the following proc-
esses: breaking, crushing, screening, wet
or dry  cleaning, and thermal drying.
  (b) "Bituminous coal" means solid fos-
sil fuel classified  as bituminous coal by
A.S.T.M.  Designation D-388-66.
  (c) "Coal" means all solid fossil fuels
classified as anthracite, bituminous, sub-
bituminous,  or lignite by AJ5.T.M. Des-
ignation D-388-66.
  (d)  "Cyclonic flow" means a splraling
movement of exhaust gases within a duct
or stack.
  (e)  "Thermal dryer" means any fa-
cility In which the moisture content of
bituminous  coal is reduced by  eontacG
 with a heated gas stream which is ex-
 hausted to. the atmosphere.
   (f)  "Pneumatic  coal-cleaning equip-
 ment" means any facility which classifies
 bituminous coal by slza or separates bi-
 tuminous coal from refuse by application
 of air stream (s).
   (g)  "Coal processing and conveying
 equipment" means any machinery used
 to reduce the size of coal or to separate
 coal from refuse, and the equipment used
 to convey coal to or remove coal and
 refuse from  the machinery. This  In-
 cludes, but Is  not limited to, breakers,
 crushers, screens, and conveyor  belts.
   (h)  "Coal storage system" means any
 facility used to store coal except  for open
 storage piles.
   (i)  "Transfer  and loading  system"
 means any  facility used to transfer and
 load coal for shipment.

 § 60.252  Standards for purticulalc mnt-
     tor.
   .(a)  On and after  the date on  which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8  is completed, an  owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall  not cause to be dis-
 charged Into the atmosphere from any
 thermal dryer gases which:
   (1)  Contain partlculate matter  in ex-
 cess of 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf).
   (2)  Exhibit  20  percent  opacity  or
 greater.
   (b)  On and after the date on which the
 performance test  required to  be con-
 ducted by § 60.8  Is completed, an  owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall  not cause to be dis-
 charged into the atmosphere from any
 pneumatic  coal  cleaning  equipment,
 gases which:
   (1)  Contain particulate matter  in ex-
 cess of 0.040 g/dscm (0.018 gr/dscf).
   (2)  Exhibit  10 percent  opacity  or
 greater.
   (c)  On and  after the date on  which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8  is completed, an  owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 tliis subpart shall  not cause to be dis-
, charged Into the atmosphere from any
 coal  processing  and conveying equip-
 ment,  coal storage system, or coal trans-
 fer and loading system processing coal,
 gases  which exhibit 20 percent opacity
 or greater.
 § 60.253  Monitoring of operations.
   fa)  The owner or operator of any ther-
 mal dryer shall Install, calibrate, main-
 tain, and continuously operate monitor-
 ing d ev i ces as foil ows:
   (DA monitoring device for the meas-
 urement of  the temperature of  the  gas
 stream at the exit  of the thermal dryer
 on a continuous basis. The  monitoring
 device Is  to  be  certified by  the manu-
 facturer to be accurate within ±3° Fahr-
 enheit.
   (2) For affected facilities that use ven-
 turi scrubber emission  control equip-
 ment:
   (1) A monitoring device for the con-
 tinuous measurement of the pressure loss
 through the venturi constriction of the
                             FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10—THUQSDAY, JANUADV  15, 1976
                                                     IV-121
-------
 control equipment. The monitoring de-
 vice is to be certified by  the  manufac-
 turer to be  accurate  within ±1 Inch
 water gage.
   (ii)  A monitoring device for the con-
 tinuous measurement of the water sup-
 ply pressure  to the control equipment.
 The monitoring device is  to be certified
 by the manufacturer to be accurate with-
 in  ±5 percent of design water  supply
 pressure. The pressure sensor or tap must
 be located close to the water discharge
 point.  The Administrator may be con-
 sulted for approval  of alternative loca-
 tions.
   (b) All monitoring devices under para-
 graph (a) of this section are to be recali-
 brated annually in accordance with pro-
 cedures under § 60.13(b) (3)  of this part.
 g 60.254  Test methods and procedures.
   (a)  The reference  methods  in  Ap-
 pendix A of this part, except as provided
 In § 60.8(b). are used to determine com-
 pliance with the standards prescribed in
 { 60.252 as follows:
   (1) Method 5 for the concentration of
 particulate matter and associated .mois-
 ture content,
   (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses,
   (3) Method  2 for velocity and volu-
 metric flow rate, and
   (4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (b) For Method 5, the sampling time
 for each run  is at least 60 minutes and
 the minimum sample volume is 0.85 dscm
 (30 dscf)  except that shorter sampling
 times or smaller volumes,  when necessi-
 tated by process variables or other fac-
 tors, may be  approved by the Adminis-
 trator. Sampling is not to be started until
30 minutes after start-up and is to be
 terminated before shutdown procedures
 commence. The owner or operator of the
 affected facility shall eliminate cyclonic
flow during performance tests in a man-
ner acceptable to the Administrator.
   (c)  The owner or operator shall con-
struct  the facility  so  that particulate
emissions from thermal dryers or pneu-
matic coal cleaning equipment  can be
 accurately determined by applicable test
methods  and   procedures under  para-
graph (a) of this section.
  [FR Doc.76-1240 Filed 1-14-76:8:45 am)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10—THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976
                                               IV-122
-------
2332

   Title 4O— Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
              [FRL 452-3)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
    FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
 Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters
  On October 16, 1974  (39  FR  37040),
pursuant to section 111  of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, the Administrator  pro-
posed standards of performance for new
and modified sources within three -;ate-
goriesof stationary sources:  (1) primary
copper smelters, (2) primary zinc smelt-
ers, and (3) primary lead smelters. The
Administrator  also proposed  amend-
ments   to   Appendix   A,   Reference
Methods, of 40 CFR Part 60.
   Interested  persons  representing; in-
dustry, trade associations, environmental
groups, and Federal and State govern-
ments participated In the rulemaking by
sending cpmments to the Agency. Com-
mentators submitted 14 letters contain-
ing eighty-five comments. Each of these
comments has been carefully considered
and where determined  by the Adminis-
trator to be appropriate, changes  have
been made  to the proposed regulations
which are promulgated herein.
   The comment letters received, a sum-
mary of the comments contained in these
letters, and  the Agency's responses  to
these comments are available for public
Inspection at the Freedom of Information
Center, Room  202 West Tower,  iOl  M
Street,  S.W.,  Washington,  D.C.  Copies
of  the  comment  summary  and  the
Agency's responses may be  obtained  by
writing to the EPA Public  Information
Center (PM-215), 401  M Street. S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, and requesting
 the Public Comment Summary—Primary
 Copper, Zinc and Lead Smelters.
   The bases for the proposed standards
are presented In "Background Informa-
 tion for New Source Performance Stand-
 ards: Primary  Copper, Zinc and  Lead
 Smelters, Volume  1,  Proposed  Stand-
ards" (EPA-450/2-74-002a) and "Eco-
 nomic Impact of New  Source Perform-
 ance Standards  on the Primary  Copper
 Industry:  An  Assessment"  'EPA  Con-
 tract No.  68-02-1349—Task 2). Copies
 of these documents are available on re-
quest from the Emission Standards and
 Engineering  Division,  Environmental
 Protection  Agency, Research Triangle
 Park, North Carolina 27711. Attention:
 Mr. Don R. Goodwin.

        SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS

   The  promulgated  standards of  per-
 formance for new and modified primary
 copper smelters  limit emissions of par-
 tlculate matter  contained  In the  gases
 discharged  Into the atmosphere  from
 dryers to 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). In
 addition, the opacity of these gases  Is
 limited to 20 percent.
   Emissions of  sulfur dioxide contained
 In the gases discharged Into the atmos-
 phere from roasters, smelting furnaces
 and copper converters are limited to
     RUliS AND  REGULATIONS

0.065 percent by volume  (650 parts per
million) averaged over a six-hour period.
Reverberatory smelting furnaces at pri-
mary 'copper smelters which process an
average smelter charge containing a high
level of volatile impurities, however, are
exempt from this standard during those
periods when such a charge is processed.
A high level of volatile Impurities is de-
fined to be more than 0.2  weight percent
arsenic, 0.1 weight percent antimony, 4.5
weight percent lead or 5.5 weight percent
zinc. In addition, where  a sulfuric acid
plant is used to comply with this stand-
ard, the opacity of the gases discharged
Into the atmosphere Is limited to 20 per-
cent.
  The regulations  also require  any pri-
mary copper smelter that makes use of
the exemption provided  for  reverbera-
tory  smelting  furnaces  processing  a
charge of high volatile Impurity content
to keep a monthly record of the weight
percent of arsenic, antimony, lead and
zinc contained in  this charge.  In  addi-
tion, the regulations require continuous
monitoring systems to monitor and re-
cord the opacity of emissions discharged
into the atmosphere from any dryer sub-
ject to the standards and the concentra-
tion of sulfur dioxide  In the gases dis-
charged  Into the atmosphere from any
roaster, smelting furnace, or copper con-
verter subject to  the standard. While
these  regulations  pertain  primarily  to
sulfur dioxide emissions,  the Agency rec-
ognizes the potential problems  posed by
arsenic emissions and is conducting stud-
ies to  assess these problems. Appropriate
action will be taken at the conclusion  of
 these studies.
  The promulgated standards  of per-
formance for new  and modified primary
zinc smelters limit emissions of particu-
late matter contained In the gases dis-
charged into the atmosphere from sinter-
ing machines to 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/
dscf). The  opacity of  these  gases  is
limited to 20 percent.
  Emissions of sulfur  dioxide contained
in the gases discharged  into the atmos-
phere from roasters and from any sinter-
ing machine which eliminates more than
10  percent of the sulfur Initially con-
tained In  the zinc sulflde concentrates
processed are limited to 0.065 percent  by
volume (650 parts per million)  averaged
over   a  two-hour period.  In  addition,
where a  sulfuric  acid plant is used  to
comply with this  standard, the opacity
of the gases discharged  Into the atmos-
phere Is limited to 20 percent.
   The regulations also require continu-
ous monitoring systems  to monitor and
record the  opacity  of  emissions dis-
charged into the  atmosphere from any
sintering machine subject to the stand-
 ards, and the concentration of sulfur di-
 oxide in the gases discharged into the
 atmosphere from any roasters or sinter-
 ing machine subject to the standard lim-
 iting emissions of sulfur dioxide.
   The promulgated standards of per-
formance for new and modified primary
lead smelters limit emissions of particu-
late matter  contained In the gases dis-
 charged Into the atmosphere from blast
furnaces,  dross reverberatory  furnaces
and sintering machine discharge ends to
50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).The opacity
of these  gases is limited to  20 percent.
  Emissions of sulfur dioxide contained
In the gases discharged  Into the atmos-
phere from sintering machines, electric
smelting  furnaces and  converters  are
limited to 0.065 percent by volume (650
parts per million) averaged  over a' two-
hour period. Where a sulfuric acid plant
Is used to comply with this standard, the
opacity of the gases discharged into the
atmosphere is limited to 20 percent.
  The regulations   also  require  con-
tinuous monitoring systems to monitor
and record the opacity of emissions dis-
charged  Into the atmosphere from any
blast furnace, dross reverberatory fur-
nace, or sintering  machine discharge
end  subject to the  standards, and the
concentration of sulfur dioxide In the
gases discharged Into  the  atmosphere
from any  sintering machine,  electric
furnace  or  converter  subject  to the
standards.
MAJOR COMMENTS AND CHANGES MADE TO
       THE PROPOSED STANDARDS
       PRIMARY  COPPER  SMELTERS
   Most of the comments submitted to the
Agency  concerned the  proposed  stand-
ards  of performance for primary copper
smelters. As noted in the preamble to the
proposed standards,  the domestic copper
smelting industry expressed strong ob-
jections  to these standards  during their
development. Most of the comments sub-
mitted  by  the  Industry following  pro-
posal of these standards reiterated these
objections. In  addition,  a number  of
 comments were submitted by State agen-
cies,  environmental  organizations and
private  Individuals,  also expressing ob-
jections  to various  aspects of  the pro-
 posed standards. Consequently, it is ap-
 propriate to review the basis of the pro-
 posed standards before discussing  the
comments received, the responses to these
 comments and the changes made to the
 standards for promulgation.
   The proposed standards would  have
 limited  the concentration of sulfur di-
 oxide contained In gases discharged into
 the atmosphere from all new and modi-
 fied  roasters:  reverberatory,  flash and
 electric  smelting furnaces; and copper
 converters at primary copper smelters to
 650 parts per million. Uncontrolled roast-
 ers, flash and electric smelting furnaces,
 and  copper  converters  discharge  gas
 streams containing  more than 3','2 per-
 cent sulfur dioxide.  The cost of control-
 ling  these gas streams with sulfuric acid
 plants  was  considered reasonable.  Re-
 verberatory smelting furnaces, however.
 normally discharge gas streams contain-
 ing less than 3\'2 percent sulfur dioxide.
 and  the cost of controlling these gas
 streams through the use of various sul-
 fur dioxide scrubbing systems currently
 available  was considered  unreasonable
 in most cases. It was the Administrator's
 conclusion, however, that flash and elec-
 tric  smelting considered together were
 applicable to essentially  the full range
 of domestic primary copper smelting op-
 erations. Consequently, standards were
 proposed which applied equally  to new
                              FEDEQAl DEGISTEB, VO1. 11, NO. 10—THURSDAY, JANUAQY 15, 1976



                                                    IV-123
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        23.11
 flash, electric and revcrberatory smelting
 furnaces. The result was standards which
 favored  construction of new flash  and
 electric  smelting  furnaces  over  new
 rcverberatory smelting furnaces.
   Most of the Increase In copper produc-
 tion over the next few years will probably
 result from expansion of existing copper
 smelters. Of the sixteen domestic  pri-
 mary copper smelters, only one employs
 flash smelting and only two employ elec-
 tric smelting.  The  remaining  tlu'rteen
 employ reverberatory smelting, although
 one of these thirteen has initiated con-
 struction to convert to electric smelting
 and another has initiated construction to
 convert  to  a new  smelting process  re-
 ferred to as Noranda smelting. (The No-
 randa smelting process discharges a gas
 stream of high sulfur dioxide concentra-
 tion which is easily controlled at reason-
 able costs. By virtue of the definition of
 a  smelting  furnace,  the  promulgated
 standards also apply  to Noranda fur-
 naces.)
   In view of the Administrator's judg-
 ment that the cost of controlling sulfur
 dioxide  emissions  from reverberatory
 furnaces was unreasonable, the Adminis-
 trator concluded that an exemption from
 the standards was necessary for existing
 reverberatory smelting furnaces,  to per-
 mit expansion of existing smelters at rea-
 sonable  costs.  Consequently,  the  pro-
 posed standards stated that any physical
 changes or changes  in the method of
 operation   of  existing  reverberatory
 smelting furnaces, which resulted in an
 increase in sulfur dioxide emissions from
 these furnaces,  would  not cause these
 furnaces  to be  considered "modified"
 affected  facilities subject to the stand-
 ards. This exemption, however, applied
 only  where  total  emissions of sulfur
 dioxide from the primary copper smelter
 In question did not Increase.
  Prior to the proposal of  these stand-
 ards, the  Administrator commissioned
 the Arthur D. Little Co., Inc., to under-
 take an independent assessment of both
 the technical basis for the standards and
 the potential impact of the standards on
 the domestic primary copper smelting in-
dustry.  The  results  of this study have
been considered together with the com-
 ments submitted during the public re-
 view and comment period in determining
 whether the proposed standards should
be revised for promulgation.
  Briefly, the  Arthur  D.  Little  study
 reached the following conclusions:
   (1) The proposed  standards  should
have no adverse impact on  new primary
copper smelters processing materials con-
 taining low levels of volatile impurities.
   (2) The proposed standards could re-
duce the capability of new primary cop-
 per smelters located in the southwest U.S.
 to process materials of high impurity
 content.  This impact was foreseen since
 the capability of flash smelting to process
 materials of high impurity levels was un-
 known. Although electric smelting was
considered technically capable of process-
 ing these materials, the higher costs as-
 sociated with electric smelting, due to the
 high cost of electrical power In the south-
 west, were considered  sufficient to pre-
 clude its use in most cases.
  This conclusion was subject, however,
to qualification. It applied only to  the
southwest (Arizona, New Mexico and west
Texas)  and  not to other areas of  the
United States (Montana, Nevada, Utah
and Washington)  where primary copper
smelters currently operate; and It was
not viewed as applicable to large new ore
deposits of high Impurity content which
were  capable of  providing  the entire
charge to a new smelter. The  study also
concluded It was impossible to estimate
the magnitude of this potential  impact
since it was not possible to predict impur-
ity levels likely to  be produced from new
ore reserves.
  Although considerable doubt existed as
to the need for a new  smelter in  the
southwest to process materials  of high
impurity levels in  the future (essentially
all the Information and data  examined
indicated  such a  need  Is  not likely to
arise), the Arthur D. Little study con-
cluded it would be prudent to assume new
smelters In the  southwest should have
the flexibility to process these  materials.
To  assume  otherwise according to  the
study might place constraints on possible
future plans of  the American Smelting
and Refining Company.
  (3)  The  proposed standards  should
have  litUe or no  impact  on the ability
of existing primary copper smelters to
expand  copper production. This conclu-
sion was also subject to qualification. It
was noted that other means of expand-
ing smelter capacity might exist than  the
approaches  studied and that the pro-
posed standards might or might not in-
fluence the viability of these other means
of expanding capacity. It was also noted
that the 'study assumed existing single
absorption sulfuric acid plants could  be
converted to double absorption, but that
individual smelters were not visited and
this conversion might not be possible at
some smelters.
  Each of the comment letters received
by EPA  contained multiple comments.
The   most  significant  comments,  the
Agency's responses to these comments
and the  various changes  made  to  the
proposed  regulations for  promulgation
in response to these comments are dis-
cussed below.                     ;
  (1)  Legal autliority under section 111.
Four  commentators indicated that  the
Agency  would exceed its statutory au-
thority under section 111 of the Act  by
promulgating a  standard  of  perform-
ance that could not be  met by  copper
reverberatory smelting furnaces, which
are extensively used at existing domestic
smelters. The commentators believe that
the "best system of emission reduction"
cited  In  section  111  refers to  control
techniques that  reduce emissions, and
not to processes  that emit more easily
controlled effluent gas streams.  The com-
mentators  contend, therefore,  that a
producer may choose the process that is
most  appropriate  in his  view, and new
source performance standards must  be
based on the application of  the best
demonstrated techniques of emission  re-
duction to that process.
  The legislative  history  of  the 1970
Amendments to the Act Is cited by these
commentators as supporting this inter-
 pretation  of  section  111.  Specifically
 pointed out Ls the fact that the House-
 Senate Conference  Committee,  which
 reconciled competing House and Senate
 versions of the  bill,  deleted language
 from the Senate  bill  that  would have
 granted the Agency explicit authority to
 regulate processes. This action, accord-
 ing to these commentators,  clearly Indi-
 cates a CongressionaHntent not to grant
 the Agency such authority.
  The conference bill, however, merely
 replaced the phrase in  the Senate  bill
 "latest   available   control  technology,
 processes,  operating method or  other
 alternatives" with "best system of emis-
 sion reduction which  (taking into  ac-
 count the cost of achieving such  reduc-
 tion) the Administrator determines  has.
 been adequately demonstrated." The use^
 of the phrase "best system of emission
 reduction" appears  to be  inclusive of
 the terms in the Senate bill.  The absence
 of discussion  in  the conference  report
 on  this  issue  further  suggests that no
 substantive change was intended by the
 substitution of the phrase "best system
 of emission reduction"  for the phrase
 "latest   available   control  technology.
 processes, operating method or other al-
 ternatives" in the Senate bill.
  For  some classes of sources, the dif-
 ferent processes used in the production
 activity significantly affect the emission
 levels  of  the  source and/or  the  tech-
 nology that can be applied to control
 the source. For this reason, the Agency
 believes that the "best system of emis-
 sion reduction" includes the  processes
 utilized and does not refer only to emis-
 sion control hardware. It is clear that
 adherence to existing process utilization
 could serve to undermine the purpose of
 section 111 to  require maximum feasible
 control of new sources.  In general, there-
 fore, the Agency believes that section  111
 authorizes  the  promulgation of  one
 standard applicable to  all processes used
 by a class  of sources, in order that  the
 standard  may  reflect  the  maximum
 feasible control for that class.  When  the
 application  of a  standard  to a  given
 process would effectively ban the process.
 however, a separate standard must be
 prescribed for it unless some other proc-
 ess 'es) is available to perform the func-
 tion at reasonable cost.
  In determining whether the  use of dif-
 ferent processes  would  necessitate  the
 setting of different standards, the Agency
 first determines whether or not the proc-
 esses are functionally interchangeable.
 Factors such as whether the least pollut-
 ing process can be used in various loca-
 tions or  with  various  raw materials.01
 under  other conditions  are considered
 The second important consideration ol
 the Agency involves  the costs  of achiev-
 ing the reduction called for by a standard
 applicable  to  all  processes used  in f
source category. Where a single stand-
ard  would effectively  preclude using, f.
process which is much less expensive thar
 the permitted  process, the economic im-
pact of  the single standard must be  de-
termined to be  reasonable  or separatt
standards are  set. This does not  mean
however, that the cost of the alternatives
to the potentially prohibited process car
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10—THURSDAY. JANUARY IS. 1976



                                                      IV-124
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
be no grater Uian those which would be
associated with  controlling the process
under a less stringent standard.
  The Administrator  has determined
that the flash  copper smelting process Is
available and  will perform the function
of  the reverberntory  copper  smelting
process at  reasonable  cost, except that
flash smelting has not yet been commer-
cially  demonstrated for the processing
of feed materials with a  high  level of
volatile Impurities. The standards pro-
mulgated herein, which do not apply to
copper reverberatory  smelting  furnaces
when the smelter charge contains a high
level  of volatile Impurities,  are there-
fore authorized under section 111 of the
Act.
  (2) Control of reverberatory smelting
furnaces. Two commentators represent-
ing environmental groups and one com-
mentator representing a State pollution
control agency questioned the Adminis-
trator's judgment that the use of various
sulfur dioxide scrubbing systems to con-
trol sulfur dioxide emissions from rever-
beratory  smelting furnaces was unrea-
sonable, especially in view of his conclu-
sion that the use  of  these systems  on
large steam generators was reasonable.
These commentators  also pointed  out
that this conclusion was  based only on
an  examination of the use of sulfur di-
oxide scrubbing systems and that alter-
native means of control, such as the use
of  oxygen  enrichment of reverberatory
furnace combustion air,  or the mixing
of the gases from the reverberatory fur-
nace  wltli  the gases from roasters  and
copper converters  to  produce  a mixed
gas stream suitable for control, were not
examined.
  This comment was  submitted In re-
sponse to the  exemption Included In the
proposed standards for  existing rever-
beratory smelting furnaces. As discussed
below, the amendments recently promul-
gated by the Agency to 40 CFR Part 60
clarifying the  meaning of  "modification"
make  this  exemption  unnecessary. The
comment  Is still appropriate,  however,
since the promulgated standards now In-
clude an exemption for new reverbera-
tory smelting  furnaces at smelters proc-
essing materials containing high levels
of volatile impurities.
  Section 111  of the Clean Air Act dic-
tates that standards of performance be
based on "• °  "  the best system of emis-
sion reduction which  (taking Into ac-
count  the cost of achieving such reduc-
tion) the  Administrator determines has
been  adequately demonstrated."  Thus,
not only must various systems of emis-
sion control  be  investigated  to ensure
these systems  nre technically proven nnd
the levels to which emissions could be re-
duced through the use of these systems
identified, the costs of the
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        2335
of electric smelting at new primary cop-
per  smelters  located in  the  southwest
economically unattractive in most coses.
  Since the basis for the proposed stand-
ards  considered  electric smelting  as  a
viable alternative should  flash smelting
prove unable to process materials of high
impurity  levels, the  Administrator has
concluded the proposed standards should
be  revised  for  promulgation. Conse-
quently,   the   standards  promulgated
herein exempt new rcverbcratory smelt-
ing furnaces at primary copper smelters
which process a total charge containing
more than  0.2 weight percent arsenic,
0.1 weight percent antimony, 4.5  weight
percent lead or 5.5 weight percent zinc.
This  will permit new primary  copper
smelters  to be  constructed  to process
materials of high impurity levels without
employing electric smelting. The promul-
gated standards  of  performance  will,
however, apply to new roasters and cop-
per converters at these  smelters, since
the Administrator has concluded these
facilities can be operated to produce gas
streams containing greater than 3'/z per-
cent  sulfur  dioxide  and  that  the costs
associated with  controlling these  gas
streams are reasonable.
  Although  the Administrator  considers
it prudent to  promulgate the  standards
with  this  exemption for new reverbera-
tory smelting  furnaces, the Administra-
tor believes this exemption m?.y  not be
necessary. As  pointed out in  the com-
ments submitted by various environmen-
tal  organizations  and private citizens,
neither the use of oxygen enrichment of
reverberatory  furnace combustion  air,
nor the mixing of the gases from rever-
beratory furnaces with those from multi-
hearth roasters and copper converters
were investigated in depth by the Agency
In developing the proposed standards.
Either of  these approaches could prove
to be reasonable  for controlling sulfur
dioxide emissions from  reverberatory
smelting furnaces.
  Under the promulgated standards with
the exemptions provided  for new rever-
beratory smelting furnaces, new primary
copper smelters could remain among the
largest point  sources of sulfur dioxide
emissions  within the U.S. Consequently,
the Agency's program to  develop  stand-
ards of performance to limit sulfur diox-
ide emissions from primary copper smelt-
ers will   continue. This  program  will
focus on the use of oxygen enrichment of
reverberatory  furnace combustion  air
and the mixing of the gases from rever-
beratory smelting furnaces with  those
from  multi-hearth roasters and copper
converters.  If the Administrator  con-
cludes either or both of these approaches
can be employed to control sulfur dioxide
emissions  from  reverberatory  smelting
furnaces at reasonable costs, the Admin-
istrator will propose that this exemption
be deleted.
  (4) Copper smelter modifications. One
of the major issues associated  with the
proposed  regulations on  modification,
notification  and reconstruction (39 FR
36946) involved the  "bubble  concept."
The "bubble concept" refers to the trad-
Ing off of emission increases  from one
existing facility undergoing a physical
or operational change at a source  with
emission reductions from another exist-
ing facility at the same source. If there is
no  net increase in the amount of any
air pollutant  (to which a standard ap-
plies) emitted into the atmosphere by the
source as a whole, the facility which ex-
perienced an  emissions increase is not
considered modified. Although the "bub-
ble concept" may be  applied to existing
facilities which undergo  a physical or
operational change, it may not be applied
to cover construction  of new facilities.
  In commenting on the proposed stand-
ards of performance for primary copper
smelters,  two  commentators  suggested
that the bubble concept  be extended to
Include construction of new facilities at
existing copper smelters. These  com-
mentators indicated that this could re-
sult in a substantial reduction in the
costs,  while  at the  same time leading
to a substantial reduction in emissions
from the smelter.
  To support their claims, these  com-
mentators  presented  two hypothetical
examples of  expansions at  a copper
smelter that could occur through  con-
struction of  new facilities. Where  new
facilities were controlled to meet stand-
ards of performance,  emissions from the
smelter as  a  whole  increased. Where
some new facilities were  not  controlled
to meet standards of performance, emis-
sions from the smelter as a  whole de-
creased substantially.
  These results, however, depend on spe-
cial manipulation of emissions from the
existing facilities at the  smelter. In the
case where new facilities  are  controlled
to meet standards of performance, emis-
sions  from existing  facilities are not
reduced. Thus, with construction of new
facilities, emissions from  the smelter as
a whole increase. In the case where some
new facilities are not  controlled to meet
standards  of  performance,  emissions
from  existing  facilities   are reduced
through additional emission control or
production  cut-back. Since  emissions
from the existing facilities were assumed
to be very large initially,  a reduction in
these emissions results in  a net reduction
in emissions from the  smelter as a whole.
  These hypothetical examples, however,
appear  to represent contrived situations.
In many cases, compliance with State
implementation plans to  meet the  Na-
tional  Ambient Air  Quality Standards
will require  existing copper smelters to
control emissions to such a degree  that
the situations portrayed in the examples
presented by' these  commentators are
not  likely  to arise.  Furthermore,  a
smelter operator may petition the  Ad-
ministrator  for reconsideration of the
promulgated  standards  if  he believes
they would be infeasible when  applied to
his smelter.
  Another commentator  asked whether
conversion of  an existing reverberatory
smelting furnace from firing natural gas
to firing coal  would constitute a modi-
fication. This  commentator  pointed out
that although  the conversion  to firing
coal would increase sulfur dioxide emis-
sions from the smelter by 2 to 3 percent,
the costs of controlling  the  furnace  to
meet  the  standards  of  performance'
would be prohibitive.
  The primary objective of the promul-
gated standards is to  control emissions-
of sulfur dioxide from  the copper smelt-
ing process.  The data and information
supporting  the  standards  consider  es-
sentially  only  those  emissions arising
.from  the basic  smelting  process, not
those arising from fuel  combustion.  It>
is not the direct intent of these  stand-
ards, therefore, to control emissions from
fuel combustion  per  se.  Consequently,
since emissions from  fuel  combustion
are negligible in comparison  with those
from the basic smelting process, and a
conversion  of  reverberatory  smelting
furnaces to firing  coal  rather than nat-
ural gas will aid  in efforts  to conserve
natural gas resources, the standards pro-
mulgated herein include a provision ex-
empting fuel switching in reverberatory
smelting furnaces  from consideration as
a modification.
  (5) Expansion  of existing  smelters.
Two commentators expressed their con-
cern that the proposed standards would
prevent  the  expansion of existing pri-
mary copper smelters, since  the  stand-
ards apply to modified facilities as well
as new facilities.  These commentators
reasoned  that the costs associated with
controlling emissions from each roaster,
smelting  furnace  or  copper  converter
modified  during  expansion   would  in
many cases make  these expansions eco-
nomically unattractive.
  As noted above, the  Agency has pro-
posed amendments to the general provi-
sions of 40 CFR Part 60  covering modified
and reconstructed sources. Under these
provisions, standards of performance ap-
ply only where an existing facility at a .
source is reconstructed; where ti change
in an existing facility  results in  an  in-
crease in the total emissions at a source:
and where a new facility is constructed
at a source. Thus, unless total emissions
from a  primary copper smelter increase.
most alterations  to  existing  roasters.
smelting furnaces or copper  converters
which increase their emissions will not
cause these  facilities  to be  considered
modified and subject to standards of per-
formance.
  The Administrator does not believe the
standards promulgated herein will deter
expansion  of existing primary copper
smelters.  As discussed earlier, the Ad-
ministrator concluded  at proposal that
the  cost  of controlling  reverberatory
smelting  furnaces  was  unreasonable
(through the use of various sulfur dioxide
scrubbing systems currently  available),
and for this  reason included  an exemp-
tion in the proposed standards for ex-
isting reverberatory smelting furnaces.
The prime objective of this  exemption
was to ensure that existing primary cop-
per smelters could expand copper pro-
duction at reasonable costs.
  Also,  as discussed earlier,  the Arthur
D. Little study  examined this aspect  of
the proposed standards and  concluded
the standards would have little or no im-
pact on the ability of  existing primary
copper smelters to expand production.
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10—THURSDAY,  JANUARY 15,  1976



                                                     IV-126
-------
2336
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
This conclusion was subject to two quali-
fications:  other  means of  expanding
.smelter capacity might exist than those
examined and the impact of the proposed
standards on these means of expanding
rapacity is  unknown: and it was as-
sumed that existing single absorption sul-
i'liric acid plants could  be  converted to
double absorption, but at some smelters
this might not  be  possible.
  The  Administrator does not feel these
qualifications seriously detract from the
essential conclusion that the standards
are likely to have little impact on the ex-
pansion capabilities of  existing copper
smelters. The various  means of expand-
ing smelter capacity examined in the Ar-
thur D.' Little study represent commonly
employed techniques for increasing cop-
per production  from as little as 10 to 20
percent, to as much as 50 percent at ex-
isting  smelters. Consequently,  the  Ad-
ministrator  considers  the  approaches
examined In the study as broadly repre-
sentative of various means of expanding
existing primary copper smelters and as
a reasonable basis from which conclu-
sions regarding the potential  impact of
the standards on the expansion capabili-
ties  of the domestic primary copper
smelting industry can be drawn.
  The  Administrator  views the assump-
tion in the  Arthur D. Little report that
existing single  absorption  sulfuric  acid
plants can be converted to double absorp-
tion as a good  assumption. Although at
some existing primary  copper smelters
the physical plant layout might compli-
cate a  conversion from single absorption
to double absorption, the remote isolated
location of most smelters provides ample
space for the construction  of additional
plant facilities. Thus,  while the costs for
conversion  may vary from  smelter to
smelter, it is unlikely that at any smelter
a conversion could not be made.
  As proposed,  provisions were included
In the regulations specifically stating that
physical and operating changes to exist-
ing  reverberatory smelting   furnaces
which  resulted In an increase in sulfur
dioxide emissions  would not be consid-
ered modifications, provided total emis-
sions of sulfur dioxide from  the copper
smelter did not increase  above levels
specified in  State implementation plans.
  Since  proposal  of  the  standards,
amendments to 40 CFR Part 60 to clarify
the meaning of modification under sec-
tion 111  have been proposed. These
amendments permit changes to existing
facilities within a  source which increase
emissions from these facilities  without
requiring compliance  with  standards of
performance, provided  total  emissions
from the source do not increase. Since
this was the objective of the provisions
included in  the proposed regulations for
primary copper smelters with regard to
changes to existing reverberatory smelt-
ing  furnaces,  these  provisions are no
longer necessary and  have been deleted
from the promulgated regulations.
  (6)  Increased  energy  consumption.
Two commentators indicated that the
Agency's estimate of  the impact of the
standards of performance for primary
copper, zinc and lead smelters on energy
consumption was  much too  low. Since
the number of smelters which will be af-
fected by  the standards  is  relatively
small, the Agency has developed  a  sce-
nario on a smelter-by-smelter basis, by
which the  domestic industry  could in-
crease copper production by 400,000  tons
by 1980. This increase in copper produc-
tion represents a growth rate of about
3.5  percent per year and  is consistent
with historical industry growth rates of
3 to 4 percent per year.
  On this new basis, the energy required
to control all  new primary copper,  zinc
and lead smelters constructed by 1980 to
comply with both the proposed standards
and the standards promulgated herein is
the same and is estimated to be 320 mil-
lion kilowatt-hours  per year. This  is
equivalent  to  about 520,000  barrels of
number 6 fuel oil per year. Relative to
typical  State  implementation plan re-
quirements for primary copper, zinc and
lead smelters, the incremental energy re-
quired by these standards  is 50 million
kilowatt-hours per year, which is equiva-
lent to about 80,000 barrels of  number 6
fuel oil per year.
  The energy required to comply with the
promulgated  standards  at these  new
smelters by 1980 represents no more than
approximately 3.5 percent of the process
energy which would be required to oper-
ate these smelters in the absence  of any
control  of sulfur dioxide emissions.  The
incremental amount of energy required to
meet these  standards is somewhat less
than 0.5  percent of the  total energy
(process plus air pollution)  which would
be required to operate these new smelters
and meet typical State Implementation
plan emission  control requirements.
  One commentator stated the Agency's
initial estimate of the increased energy
requirements  associated with the  pro-
posed standards was low  because the
Agency  did not take into  account a 3
million Btu per ton of copper concentrate
energy debit, attributed by the commen-
tator to electric  smelting  compared to
reverberatory smelting. The new basis
used by the Agency to estimate the im-
pact of the standards  on  energy con-
sumption anticipates  no  new electric
smelting by 1980. Consequently, any dif-
ference in the energy consumed by elec-
tric smelting compared to reverberatory
smelting will  have  ho Impact on the
amount  of  energy required  to comply
with the standards.
  The Agency's estimates of the energy
requirements  associated with electric
smelting  and  reverberatory  smelting,
which are included in the background in-
formation  for the  proposed standards,
are based on  a review of the technical
literature and contacts with individual
smelter operators. These estimates agree
quite favorably with those  developed in
the Arthur D. Little study, which verified
the Agency's conclusion that the overall
energy requirements associated with re-
verberatory and electric  smelting  are
essentially the same. It remains, the Ad-
ministrator's conclusion, therefore, that
there is no energy debit associated with
electric  smelting compared to reverbera-
tory smelting.
  Another   commentator   feels   the
Agency's original estimates fail to take
into account the fuel necessary to main-
tain proper operating temperatures  in
sulfuric acid  plants. This commentator
estimates  that about 82,000 barrels  of
fuel oil per year are required to heat the
gases in a double absorption sulfuric acid
plant.  The commentator  then assumes
the  domestic  non-ferrous smelting in-
dustry will expand production by 50 per-
cent in  the immediate future,  citing the
Arthur D. Little study for support. Since
about  30  metallurgical  sulfuric  acid
plants  are  currently  in use within the
domestic smelting industry, the commen-
tator assumes  this means 15 new metal-
lurgical sulfuric acid plants will.be con-
structed in the future. This leads  to an
estimated energy impact associated with
the standards of performance of  about
I'A million barrels of fuel oil per year.
  It should be noted, however, that the
growth  projections  developed  In the
Arthur  D. Little study are only for the
domestic copper smelting  industry, and
cannot  be assumed to apply to the do-
mestic zinc and lead smelting Industries.
Over half the domestic zinc smelters, for
example, have shut down since 1968 and
zinc production has fallen sharply, al-
though  recently  plans  have  been an-
nounced for two new zinc smelters.  In
addition, the  domestic lead industry  is
widely viewed as a static  Industry with
little prospect for growth In the  near
future.
  Furthermore, the  Arthur  D.   Little
study does not project a 50  percent ex-
pansion of  the domestic copper smelting
industry in the  immediate future. By
1980, the study estimates  domestic cop-
per production will have Increased by  15
percent over 1974  and by  1985, domestic
copper production will have increased  by
35 percent.
  The Agency's growth projections for
the  domestic  copper  smelting Industry
are somewhat higher than those of the
Arthur D. Little study and forecast a  19
percent increase in copper production  by
1980 over 1974. The commentator's esti-
mate of a 50 percent expansion of the do-
mestic non-ferrous smelting industry  in
the immediate future, therefore, appears
much too high. Where the commentator
estimates that the standards of perform-
ance will affect the construction' of  15
new metallurgical sulfuric acid plants,
the Agency estimates the  standards will
affect  the  construction of  7  new acid
plants (6 In  the copper industry, 1  in
the zinc industry  and none in the lead
industry). In  addition, the Agency esti-
mates the standards will require the con-
version of  6  existing single absorption
acid plants to double absorption  (5  in
the copper industry, 1 in the zinc industry
and none in the lead industry).
  As noted above, the  commentator's
calculations also  assume  that these  15
new metallurgical  acid plants  do not
operate autothermally  (i.e., fuel  firing
is necessary to maintain proper operat-
ing temperatures). The commentator's
estimate that  a double absorption sul-
furic acid plant requires 82,000 barrels  of
fuel oil per year  is based on  operation
of  an  acid  plant designed  to operate
autothermally  at  4'/i  percent sulfur di-
oxide, but which operates  on gases con-
                              FEDERAl REGISTER. VOL. 41. NO. 10—THURSDAY,  JANUARY 15, 1976
                                                   IV-127
-------
                                             BUIES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                         £{.'17
taiulng only 3',5 percent sulfur  dioxide
40 percent of the time.
  Using tills same basis, the Agency cal-
culates that a sulfuric acid plant should
require less than 5,000 barrels of oil per
year. A review of these calculations with
two  acid  plant vendors and a  private
consultant has disclosed no errors. The
Administrator  must  assume,  therefore,
that the commentator's calculations are
In error, or assume an unrealistic-ally low
degree of  heat recovery in the acid plant
to preheat  the  incoming  gases,  or are
based  on a poorly  designed  or poorly
operated sulfuric acid plant which falls
to achieve the degree  of heat recovery
normally expected in a properly designed
and  operated sulfuric acid plant.
  Regardless of these calculations, how-
ever, the  Administrator feels that with
good design, operation and maintenance
of the roasters, smelting furnaces, con-
certers, sulfuric acid plant and the flue
gas collection system and ductwork, the
concentration of sulfur dioxide  In the
gases processed  by a sulfuric  acid plant
can be maintained above 3!& to 4 percent
sulfur dioxide. This level Is typically the
autothermal point  at  which no fuel
need  be fired to maintain proper oper-
ating temperatures  In a well designed
metallurgical  sulfuric  acid plant. Ex-
cept for occasional start-ups, therefore,
a well  designed and properly operated
metallurgical sulfuric acid plant should
operate autothermally and not require
fuel  for maintaining proper operating
temperatures. Thus, it remains the Ad-
ministrator's conclusion that the Impact
of the  standards on Increased  energy
consumption,  resulting  from  Increased
fuel consumption to operate sulfuric acid
plants. Is negligible.
  (7) Emission  control technology.  As
three commentators correctly  noted, the
proposed  standards  essentially require
the use of  one emission control tech-
nology—double absorption sulfuric acid
plants.  These commentators  feel, how-
ever, that this prevents the use of alter-
native emission control technologies such
as single absorption sulfuric acid plants
and  elemental  sulfur plants, and  that
these are equally effective and.  In the
case of elemental sulfur plants, place less
stress on the environment.
  Although   these   commentators   ac-
knowledge that double  absorption sul-
furic acid plants operate at a  higher ef-
ficiency  than  single  absorption  acid
plants (99.5  percent vs. 97 percent), they
feel the availability of double absorption
olants is lower than that of single absorp-
tion  plants  (90 percent vs. 92 percent).
These commentators  also point out that
double  absorption  acid plants require
more energy to operate than  single ab-
sorption plants. When the effect of these
factors  on overall sulfur dioxide emis-
sions is considered, these commentators
feel  there Is no essential difference be-
tween double and single absorption acid
plants.
  The difference in availability between
single and  double absorption sulfuric
acid plants cited by these commentators
was estimated from data gathered solely
on single  absorption acid plants, and is
due essentially to only one Item—that of
the acid coolers for the sulfuric acid pro-
duced in the absorption towers. The data
used by these commentators, however.
reflects "old technology" In this respect
If the  data are adjusted to reflect new
acid cooler technology, the availability of
single and double absorption acid plants
Is estimated to be 94  and 93.5 percent,
respectively.
  Taking into account these differences
In efficiency and availability, the instal-
lation   of  a  1000-ton-per-day  double
absorption acid  plant  rather than  a
single absorption acid plant results In an
annual  reduction in sulfur dioxide emis-
sions of about 4,500 tons. The difference
In annual availability between single and
double absorption acid plants, however,
does not Influence short-term  emissions.
Over short time periods the  difference In
emissions  between single  and  double
absorption acid plants is a reflection only
of their difference In operating efficiency.
Over a 24-hour period, for example,  a
1000-ton-per-day single absorption acid
pant will emit about  20 tons of sulfur
dioxide compared to about 3.5 tons from
a double absorption acid plant. Conse-
quently, the difference  In emission con-
trol obtained through  the use of double
absorption rather than single absorption
acid plants is significant.
  The  Increased sulfur dioxide emissions
released to the atmosphere to provide the
greater energy requirements  of  double
absorption over single absorption acid
plants  Is also minimal. For a nominal
1000-ton-per-day sulfuric acid plant, the
difference In sulfur dioxide emissions be-
tween  a single absorption  plant and  a
double  absorption  plant Is about 16.5
tons per day  as  mentioned above. The
sulfur  dioxide emissions from  the com-
bustion of a 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil to
provide the difference In energy required,
however, Is of the order of magnitude
of only 200 pounds per day.
  As mentioned above, these commenta-
tors also feel that elemental  sulfur plants
are as effective as double absorption sul-
furic acid plants and place less stress on
the  environment.  Elemental  sulfur
plants  normally achieve emission reduc-
tion efficiencies of only about 90 percent,
which Is significantly lower than the 994-
percent normally achieved in double ab-
sorption sulfuric  acid  plants. Conse-
quently, the Administrator does not con-
sider elemental sulfur  plants  nearly as
effective as double absorption sulfuric
acid plants.
  Although elemental sulfur presents no
potential water pollution problems and
can be  easily  stored, thus  remaining  a
possible  future resource, the' Adminis-
trator does not agree that production of
elemental sulfur places less stress on the
environment than production of sulfuric
acid. At every smelter now producing sul-
furic acid, an outlet  for this  acid has
been found, either In  copper leaching
operations to recover copper from oxide
ores, or In  the traditional acid markets,
such as the production of fertilizer. Thus,
sulfuric  acid,  unlike  elemental sulfur,
has found use as a current resource and
not required storage for use  as a possible
future  resource.
  The Administrator believes  that  this
situation  will also generally  prevail in
the future. If sulfuric acid must be neu-
tralized at  a specific smelter, however.
this can  be accomplished  with proper
precautions  without leading  to  water
pollution  problems,  as  discussed In the
background Information supporting the
proposed  standards.
  A major drawback associated with the
production of elemental sulfur, however,
is the large  amount of fuel required as a
reductant in the process. When compared
to  sulfuric  acid production  In  double
absorption  sulfuric  acid  plants,  ele-
mental sulfur production requires from
4 to  6 times as much energy.  Conse-
quently, the Administrator is  not con-
vinced that elemental sulfur production,
which releases about 20 times more sul-.
fur  dioxide into  the  atmosphere,  yet
consumes 4  to 6 times  as much energy,
could be considered  less stressful on the
environment than sulfuric acid produc-
tion.
        PRIMARY ZINC SMELTERS

  Only one  major  comment  was sub-
mitted to the Agency concerning the pror
posed standards of performance for pri-
mary zinc smelters. This comment ques-
tioned whether it would  be possible In
all cases to eliminate 90 percent or more
of the sulfur originally present In the
zinc concentrates during roasting.
  Most primary zinc  smelters  employ
either the electrolytic  smelting process
or  the roast/sinter smelting  process,
both of which require a roasting opera-
tion. The roast/sinter process, however,
requires- a sintering operation  following
roasting.  Sulfur not removed  from the
concentrates during roasting Is removed
during  sintering. Since the amount of
sulfur removed by sintering Is small, the
gases  discharged  from this  operation
contain a low concentration  of  sulfur
dioxide. As discussed in the preamble to
the proposed standards, the cost of con-
trolling these emissions was judged by
the Administrator to be unreasonable.
  The amount of sulfur dioxide emitted
from the sintering machine, however, de-
pends on  the sulfur  removal achieved In
the preceding roaster. To ensure a high
degree of  sulfur removal during roasting
which will minimize sulfur dioxide emis-
sions  from  the sintering machine, the
sulfur dioxide  standard applies  to  any
sintering machine which eliminates more
than  10 percent of the sulfur  originally
present in the zinc concentrates. This re-
quires 90  percent or more of  the sulfur
to be eliminated during roasting, which Is
consistent with good operation of roast-
ers  as presently practiced at the two zinc'
smelters In the United States which  em-
ploy the roast/sinter process.
  One commentator pointed out that cal-
cium and  magnesium which are present
as Impurities in some zinc concentrates
could combine with sulfur during roast-
Ing  to form calcium and magnesium sul-
fates. These materials would remain. In
the calcine  (roasted  concentrate).  If
these sulfates were reduced In the sinter-
ing operation,  this could lead to more
than 10 percent of the  sulfur originally
present in the zinc concentrates  being ,
                              FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL.  4), NO. 10—THURSDAY,, JANUARY IS, 1976



                                                       IV-128
-------
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
emitted  from  the sintering machine.
Under these  conditions  the sintering
machine  would  be required to  comply
with the  sulfur dioxide standard.
  Although it is possible that this situa-
tion could arise, as acknowledged by the
commentator  himself it does not seem
likely. Only a few zinc concentrates con-
tain enough calcium and  magnesium to
carry as much as 10 percent of the sulfur
in the concentrate over into the sintering
operation, even assuming all the calcium
and magnesium present combined with
sulfur during the roasting operation.
  In addition, a number of smelter opera-
tors contacted by  the Agency indicated
that It is quite possible that not all the
calcium  and magnesium  present would
combine with sulfur to form sulfates dur-
ing roasting. It  is equally possible,  ac-
cording to these operators, that not all
the  calcium  and magnesium  sulfates
formed would be reduced in the sintering
machine. Thus, even with those few con-
centrates which do contain a high level
of calcium and  magnesium, the extent
to which calcium and magnesium might
contribute to high sulfur emissions from
the sintering operation is questionable.
  Furthermore,  these smelter operators
indicated that at  most zinc smelters  a
number of different zinc concentrates are
normally blended  to provide a homoge-
neous charge  to the roasting operation.
As pointed out by these operators, this ef-
fectively  permits a smelter operator to
reduce the amount of calcium and mag-
nesium present in the charge by blending
off the high levels of calcium and mag-
nesium present  in one zinc concentrate
against the low levels present in  another
concentrate.
  The Agency also discussed this poten-
tial problem with a number of mill oper-
ators. These operators indicated  that ad-
ditional milling could be employed to re-
duce  calcium  and magnesium levels In
zinc concentrates.  Although  additional
milling would entail some additional  cost
and probably result in a somewhat higher
loss of zinc  to the tailings, calcium  and
magnesium  levels  could be reduced  well
below the point  where formation of  cal-
cium  and   magnesium  sulfate  during
roasting  would be of no concern.
  While  one may speculate that calcium
and magnesium  might lead to the forma-
tion of sulfates during roasting, which
might in turn be reduced during sinter-
Ing, the extent to which  this would
occur is unknown. Consequently,  whether
this would prevent a primary zinc smelter
employing the roast/sinter process from
limiting  emissions from sintering  to no
more than 10 percent of the sulfur orig-
inally present in  the zinc concentrates
is  questionable.  The fact  remains, how-
ever, that at the two primary zinc smelt-
ers currently operating in  the United
States which employ the roast'sinter
process  this has  not been  a problem.
Furthermore, it appears that if calcium
and magnesium were to present a prob-
lem In the future, a  number of appro-
priate measures,  such  as  additional
blending of zinc concentrates or  addi-
tional milling of those concentrates con-
taining  high  calcium and  magnesium
levels,  could be employed  to  deal  with
the situation. As a result, the standards
of performance promulgated herein for
primary  zinc smelters require a sinter-
ing machine emitting more than 10 per-
cent of the sulfur originally present In
the zinc concentrates to comply with the
sulfur  dioxide standard for roasters.
        PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
  No major comments were submitted to
the  Agency concerning  the proposed
standards  of performance for primary
lead smelters.  The proposed standards,
therefore,  are  promulgated  herein  with
only minor changes.
           VISIBLE EMISSIONS
  The  opacity levels  contained in the
proposed standards to limit visible emis-
sions have been reexamlned  to  ensure
they are consistent  with the  provisions
promulgated by the  Agency since  pro-
posal of these standards for determining
compliance with visible emissions stand-
ards (39  FR 39872). These  provisions
specify, in part, that the opacity of visible
emissions  will  be determined as  a  6-
minute average value of 24 consecutive
readings taken at  15 second intervals.
Reevaluation of the visible emission data
on  which the opacity levels In the  pro-
posed standards were based, in terms of
6-minute averages, indicates no need to
change the opacity  levels initially  pro-
posed.  Consequently,  the standards  of
performance are promulgated with the
same opacity limits on visible emissions.

             TEST  METHODS
  The  proposed standards of perform-
ance for primary  copper smelters, pri-
mary  zinc  smelters  and primary  lead
smelters  were  accompanied by  amend-
ments  to Appendix A—Reference Meth-
ods  of 40 CFR Part 60. The purpose of
these  amendments was  to  add to Ap-
pendix A a new test method (Method 12)
for use in  determining compliance  with
the  proposed standards of performance.
Method 12 contained performance speci-
fications for the sulfur dioxide monitors
required in the proposed standards and
prescribed  the procedures to follow in
demonstrating that a monitor met these
performance specifications.
  Since proposal of  these standards of
performance, the Administrator has pro-
posed  amendments to Subpart A—Gen-
eral Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, estab-
lishing a consistent set of definitions and
monitoring requirements applicable  to
all   standards  of  performance.  These
amendments  include a new appendix
(Appendix  B—Performance  Specifica-
tions)  which contains performance spec-
ifications and procedures to follow when
demonstrating that  a continuous moni-
tor  meets  these performance specifica-
tions.  A continuous  monitoring system
for measuring  sulfur dioxide concentra-
tions  that is  evaluated in  accordance
with the  procedures  contained in this
appendix will  be satisfactory for deter-
mining compliance  with  the standards
promulgated herein  for sulfur  dioxide.
  The  proposed Method 12 is therefore
withdrawn to  prevent an  unnecessary
repetition of information in 40 CFR  Part
60.
            EFFECTIVE DATE
  In accordance with section 111 of the
Act, these regulations prescribing stand-
ards of performance for primary copper
smelters, primary zinc smelters and pri-
mary lead smelters are effective on (date
of publication)  1975 and apply to all
affected  facilities  at these sources on
which construction or modification com-
menced after October 16, 1974.
  Dated: December 30. 1975.

                    JOHN QUARLES,
                Acting Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I,  Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. The table of sections is amended by
adding subparts P, Q and R as follows:
   Subpart P—Standards of Performance for
          Primary Copper Smelters

CO. 160  Applicability and designation of af-
         fected facility.
60.161  Definitions.
60.162  Standard for participate matter.
60.1G3  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
60.164  Standard for visible emissions.
60.165  Monitoring of operations.
60.166  Test methods and procedures.

   Subpart Q—Standards of Performance for
           Primary Zinc Smelters

60.170  Applicability  -and   designation  of
         affected facility.
60.171  Definitions.
60.172  Standard for particulate matter.
60.173  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
60.174  Standard for visible emissions. •
60.175  Monitoring of operations.
60.176  Test methods and procedures.

   Subpart R—Standards of Performance for
           Primary Lead Smelters

60.180  Applicability   and   designation  of
         affected facility.
60.181  Definitions.
60.182  Standard for particulate matter.
60.183  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
60.184  Standard for visible  emissions.
60.185  Monitoring of  operations.
60.186  Test  methods  and procedures.

  AUTHORITY: (Sees. Ill, 114 and  301 of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 18670-
6. 1857C-9, 1887g).)
  2.  Part 60 is amended by adding sub-
parts P, Q and R as follows:
Subpart P—Standards of Performance for
         Primary Copper Smelters
§60.160  Applicability aixl  drsignulion
     of ufTrctrd facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to the following affected facilities
in  primary   copper   smelters:  Dryer,
roaster,  smelting furnace,  and copper
converter.
§60.161  Definitions.
  As  used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall  have the meaning
given  them in the Act and in subpart
A of this part.
  (a)  "Primary copper smelter" means
any  installation  or  any  intermediate
process engaged  in  the  production of
copper from  copper sulfide  ore concen-
trates through the use of pyrometallurgl-
cal  techniques.
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 10—THURSDAY,  JANUARY 15,  1976
                                                     IV-129
-------
                                            BULiS AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        2339
  (b) "Dryer"  means  any facility  In
which a copper sulfide ore concentrate
charge Is heated in the presence of air
to eliminate a portion of  the  moisture
from the charge, provided less than 5
percent of the sulfur  contained  in the
charge is eliminated in the facility.
  (c) "Roaster"  means any facility  in
which a copper sulflde ore concentrate
charge is heated in the presence of air
to eliminate a significant portion (5 per-
cent or more)  of the sulfur contained
in the charge.
  (d) "Calcine" means the solid mate-
rials produced by a roaster.
  (e) "Smelting"   means   processing
techniques for  the melting of a copper
sulflde ore concentrate or calcine charge
leading  to the formation of separate lay-
ers of molten slag, molten copper, and/or
copper matte.
  (f) "Smelting  furnace"  means  any
vessel In which the  smelting of copper
sulflde ore  concentrates or calcines  is
performed and In which the heat neces-
sary for smelting Is provided by an elec-
tric current, rapid oxidation of a portion
of the sulfur contained in the concen-
trate as It passes through an  oxidizing
atmosphere, or the combustion of a fossil
fuel.
  (g) "Copper  converter"  means  any
vessel to which copper matte is charged
and oxidized to copper.
  (h) "Sulfuric acid  plant" means any
facility  producing sulfuric acid by the
contact process.
  (i) "Fossil fuel" means natural gas,
petroleum, coal, and any form of solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such
materials for the purpose of  creating
useful heat.
  (j) "Reverberatory smelting  furnace"
means any vessel in which the smelting
of copper sulflde, ore concentrates or cal-
cines Is  performed and In which the heat
necessary for smelting is  provided pri-
marily by combustion of a fossil fuel.
  (k) "Total smelter charge" means the
weight (dry basis) of all copper sulfldes
ore concentrates processed at a primary
copper  smelter, plus  the weight of  all
other solid materials Introduced Into the
roasters and smelting furnaces  at a pri-
mary copper smelter, except calcine, over
a one-month period.
  (1) "High level of volatile Impurities"
means a total smelter charge containing
more than 0.2 weight percent arsenic, 0.1
weight percent antimony, 4.5 weight per-
cent lead or 5.5 weight percent zinc,  on
a dry basis.
§ 60.162  Standard for pnrlieuliile  mai-
     ler.
  (a) On and  after the date on which
the performance test required to be  con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the  provisions  of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere from any dryer any
gases which  contain particulate matter
in excess of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
§ 60.163  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
  (b) On and  after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject  to the  provisions
of this  subpart shall cause to be  dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from  any
roaster, smelting furnace, or copper con-
verter  any gases which  contain  sulfur
dioxide  in excess of 0.065 percent by
volume, except  as provided In  para-
graphs (b) arid (c) of this section.
  (b) Reverberatory smelting furnaces
shall be exempted from  paragraph (a)
of this section during periods when the
total smelter charge at the primary COD-
per smelter  contains a  high  level of
volatile impurities.
  (c)  A change in the fuel combusted
in a reverberatory furnace shall not be
considered a  modification  under  this
part.
§ 60.164  Standard for visible emissions.
  (a) On and after the  date on  which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 Is completed, no  owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere from any dryer any
visible  emissions which exhibit greater
than 20 percent opacity.
  (b) On and after the  date on  which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by I 60.8 is completed, no  owner
or operator subject to the  provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from  any affected
facility that uses a sulfuric acid to com-
ply  with   the  standard  set  forth in
5 60.163, any visible emissions which ex-
hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.
§ 60.165  Monitoring of operations.
  fa) The owner or operator of any pri-
mary copper smelter subject to § 60.163
(b) shall  keep  a monthly record  of the
total smelter charge and the weight  per-
cent (dry basis) of arsenic, antimony,
lead and zinc contained  In this charge.
The analytical  methods and procedures
employed  to determine the weight of the
monthly smelter charge and the weight
percent of arsenic, antimony, lead  and
zinc shall be approved by the Adminis-
trator  and shall be accurate to  within
plus or minus  ten percent.
  (b) The owner or operator of any pri-
mary copper smelter subject to the  pro-
visions of this subpart shall install and
operate:
  (1) A continuous monitoring system
to monitor and  record  the opacity of
gases discharged into the atmosphere
from any dryer. The span of this system
shall be set at 80 to 100 percent opacity.
  (2) A continuous monitoring system
to monitor and record  sulfur dioxide
emissions  discharged into the  atmos-
phere from any roaster, smelting furnace
or copper converter subject to § 60.163
(a). The  span of this system  shall be
set at a sulfur  dioxide concentration of
0.20 percent by volume.
  (i) The continuous monitoring system
performance evaluation  required  under
§ 60.13(c)  shall be completed prior to the
initial performance test  required  under
§ 60.8. During the performance evalua-
tion, the span of the continuous  moni-
toring  system may be set at a  sulfur
dioxide concentration of 0.15 percent by
volume If necessary to maintain the sys-
tem  output between 20  percent and 90
percent of full scale. Upon completion
of the  continuous monitoring  system
performance evaluation, the span of the
continuous monitoring system shall be
set at a sulfur dioxide concentration of
0.20 percent by volume.
  (ii) For the  purpose of the continuous
monitoring system performance evalua-
tion  required  under i 60.13(c) the ref-
erence method  referred" to under the
Field Test for Accuracy (Relative)  In
Performance Specification 2 of Appendix
B to this part shall be Reference Method
6. For the performance evaluation, each
concentration  measurement shall be of
one  hour  duration. The pollutant gas
used to prepare the calibration gas mix-
tures required  under paragraph 2.1, Per-
formance Specification 2 of Appendix 3,
and for calibration checks under  § 60.13
(d),  shall be sulfur dioxide.
  (c) Six-hour average sulfur  dioxide
concentrations shall be  calculated  and
recorded daily  for the four consecutive 6-
hour periods of each operating day. Each
six-hour average shall be determined as
the arithmetic mean of the appropriate
six contiguous one-hour average sulfur
dioxide  concentrations provided by the
continuous monitoring system installed
under paragraph (b) of  this section.
  (d) For the purpose of reports required
under § 60.7(c), periods  of excess emis-.
sions that shall be  reported are  defined
as follows:
  (1) Opacity.  Any six-minute  period
during  which  the  average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitoring
system installed under paragraph (b) of
this section, exceeds the  standard under
I 60.164(a).
   (2) Sulfur  dioxide. Any six-hour pe-
riod, as described In paragraph  (c) of
this  section, during which  the average
emissions  of sulfur  dioxide, as measured
by the continuous monitoring system In-
stalled under paragraph  (b) of this sec-
tion,   exceeds  the  standard   under
I 60.163.
§ 60.166  Test methods  and procedures.
   (a)  The  reference  methods  in  Ap-
pendix A to this part, except as provided,
for in  § 60.8(b), shall be used to deter-
mine compliance   with  the standards
prescribed  In  |§  60.162,   60.163  and
60.164 as follows:
   (1) Method  5 for the concentration of
particulate  matter and  the associated
moisture content.
  (2) Sulfur dioxide concentrations shall
be  determined using  the continuous
monitoring  system  Installed In accord-
ance with i 60.165(b). One 6-hour aver-
age period shall constitute one run. The
monitoring system drift  during any run
shall not exceed 2 percent of span.
  (b) For Method 5, Method 1 shall be
used for selecting the sampling site and
the number of traverse points, Method 2
for determining velocity  and volumetric
flow  rate and  Method 3 for determining
the gas analysis. 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.
                              FEDERAL .REGISTER. VOl. 
-------
23JO

 Subpart Q—Standards of Performanca focr
         Primary Zinc Smelters
§60.170   Applicabilitj and deoi^nslioin
    off affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to the following affected  facili-
ties In primary zinc smelters: roaster and
sintering machine.
§ 60.171   Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have  the  meaning
given them in the Act and In subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Primary zinc smelter" means any
installation engaged in the production, or
any Intermediate process in the produc-
tion, of zinc or zinc oxide from zinc sul-
fide ore  concentrates through the use
of pyrometallurglcal techniques.
  (b)  "Boaster"  means  any facility in
which a  zinc sulflde ore  concentrate
charge Is heated in the  presence of air
to eliminate a significant portion (more
than  10 percent) of the sulfur contained
In the charge.
  (c)  "Sintering machine" means any
furnace In which calcines are heated in
the presence of air to agglomerate the
calcines Into a hard porous mass called
"sinter."
 . (d)  "Sulfuric acid  plant" means any
facility producing  sulfuric acid by the
contact process.
§ 60.172  Standard for paniculate  mat-
     ter.
  (a)  On and after  the date on which
 the performance test  required to be con-
ducted by  § 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or  operator subject to the provisions of
 tills subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere from  any sintering
machine any  gases which contain par-
 ticulate matter In excess of 50  mg/dscm
 (0.022 gr/dscf).
 § 60.173   Standard for sulfur dioxide.
   (a) On  and after  the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or  operator subject to the provisions of
 tills subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into  the  atmosphere  from any roaster
 any gases which contain sulfur dioxide in
 excess of 0.065 percent by volume.
   (b) Any  sintering  machine  which
 eliminates more than 10 percent of the
 sulfur initially  contained  in  the zinc
 sulflde ore concentrates will be consid-
 ered  as a  roaster under paragraph (a)
 of  this section.
 § 60.174   Standard for visible emissions.
   (a) On and after the date on which the
 performance  test  required to be  con-
 ducted by  I 60.8 is completed,  no owner
or  operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into  the atmosphere  from any sintering
 machine any  visible emissions which ex-
 hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.
   (b) On  and after  the date  on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by ! 60.8 is completed,  no owner
 or  operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into  the atmosphere from any affected
     RUtlS AND REGULATIONS

facility that uses a sulfurtc acid plant to
comply with the  standard set forth In
§ 60.173, any visible emissions which ex-
hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.

§ 60.175  Monitoring of operations.
   (a) The owner or operator of any pri-
mary zinc smelter subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall Install and
operate:
   (1) A continuous monitoring system to
monitor and record the opacity of gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from any
sintering machine. The span of this sys-
tem shall be set at 80 to 100  percent
opacity.
   (2) A continuous monitoring system to
monitor and record sulfur dioxide emis-
sions  discharged into  the  atmosphere
from any roaster subject to I 60.173. The
span of  this system shall be set at a
sulfur dioxide concentration of 0.20 per-
cent by volume.
   (i) The continuous monitoring system
performance evaluation required under
 5 60.13(c) shall be completed prior to the
initial performance  test required under
§ 60.8. During the performance  evalua-
tion, the span of the continuous monitor-
ing system may be set at a sulfur dioxide
concentration of  0.15 percent by volume
if necessary to maintain the system out-
put between 20 percent and 90  percent
of full scale. Upon completion of  the con-
tinuous monitoring system performance
evaluation,  the span of the  continuous
monitoring  system shall be set at a sulfur
 dioxide concentration of 0.20 percent by
 volume.
   (ii)  For the purpose of the continuous
 monitoring system performance evalua-
 tion required under i 60.13(c),  the ref-
 erence method referred  to  under  the
 Field  Test  for Accuracy  (Relative)  in
 Performance Specification 2 of Appendix
B to this  part shall be Reference Method
 6. For the performance evaluation, each
 concentration measurement shall be of
 one hour duration. The  pollutant  gas
 used to prepare the calibration gas mix-
 tures required under paragraph  2.1, Per-
 formance Specification  2 of Appendix B,
 and for calibration checks under § 60.13
 (d), shall be sulfur dioxide.
   (b)  Two-hour average  sulfur dioxide
 concentrations shall be calculated and
 recorded daily for the twelve consecutive
 2-hour periods of each operating day.
 Each  two-hour average shall be deter-
 mined as the arithmetic mean of the ap-
 propriate two contiguous one-hour aver-
 age sulfur  dioxide  concentrations  pro-
 vided  by  the continuous monitoring sys-
 tem installed  under paragraph (a)  of
 this section.
   (c)  For the purpose of reports  required
 under § 60.7(c), periods of excess emis-
 sions  that shall be reported are defined
 as follows:
   (1)  Opacity. Any six-minute period
 during which  the  average opacity,  as
 measured by the continuous monitoring
 system installed under paragraph (a) of
 this section, exceeds the standard under
 §60.174(a).
   (2)  Sulfur dioxide. Any two-hour pe-
 riod, as described  in paragraph (b)  of
 this section, during which the  average
 emissions of sulfur dioxide, as measured
by the continuous monitoring system In-
stalled under paragraph (a)  of this sec-
tion, exceeds the standard under § 60.173.

§ 60.176   Test  methods and procedures.
  (a) The reference methods in Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided for
in § 60.8(b), shall be used to determine
compliance  with  the  standards  pre-
scribed in §§ 60.172, 60.173 and 60.174 as
follows:
  (1) Method 5 for  the concentration of
partlculate matter  and the associated
moisture content.
  (2) Sulfur dioxide concentrations shall
be  determined using  the  continuous
monitoring system  installed in accord-
ance with § 60.175(a). One 2-hour  aver-
age period shall constitute one run.
  (b) For Method 5. Method 1 shall be
used for selecting the sampling site- and
the number of traverse points. Method 2
for determining velocity and volumetric
flow rate and Method 3 for determining
the  gas analysis. 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.
Subpart R—Standards of Performance for
          Primary Lead Smelters
§ 60.180  Applicability  and designation
     of affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable  to the following affected facili-
ties in primary lead smelters: sintering
 machine, sintering machine  discharge
end, blast furnace^ dross reverberatory
furnace, electric  smelting furnace, and
converter.
§60.181  Definitions.
  As used In this subpart, all  terms not
defined  herein shall have  the meaning
given them in  the Act and in  subpart A
of this part.
   (a) "Primary lead smelter" means any
installation or  any  intermediate process
engaged In the production of  lead from
 lead sulfide ore concentrates through
the use of pyrometallurgical techniques.
   (b)  "Sintering machine" means any
furnace  in which a lead sulfide ore con-
centrate charge is heated in the presence
of  air to eliminate sulfur contained  in
the charge  and   to  agglomerate  the
charge into  a  hard porous mass  called
 "sinter."
   (c) "Sinter bed" means the lead sulfide
ore  concentrate charge within a sinter-
 ing machine.
   (d) "Sintering machine discharge end"
means any apparatus which receives sui-
ter as it is discharged from the conveying
 grate of a sintering machine.
   
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        2341
centrate charge Is generated by passing
an electric current through a portion of
the molten mass in the furnace.
  (h) "Converter" means any  vessel to
which lead  concentrate  or bullion Is
charged and refined.
  M)  "Sulfuric  acid plant" means any
facility  producing sulfuric  acid by  the
contact process.
§ 60.182  Standard for parliruliile. mat-
    ter.
  (a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the  provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any blast fur- '
nace,  dross  reverberatory  furnace,  or
sintering  machine  discharge end  any
gases which contain particulate matter
in excess of 59 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
§ 60.183  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
  (a)  On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the  provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any sintering
machine,  electric smelting  furnace,  or
converter gases which contain sulfur di-
oxide in  excess of  0.065  percent  by
volume.
§ 60.181  Standard for  visible omissions.
  (a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the  provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any blast fur-
nace, dross  reverberatory  furnace,  or
sintering  machine  discharge end  any
visible emissions which exhibit greater
than 20 percent opacity.
  (b) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the  provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any affected
facility that uses a sulfuric acid plant to
comply  with the standard  set forth in
§ 60.183,  any visible  emissions  which
exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity.
§ 60.185  Monitoring of operation!).
   (a) The owner or  operator  of  any
primary lead smelter subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart shall Install and
operate:
   (1) A continuous  monitoring system
to monitor  and  record  the opacity  of
gases discharged into the  atmosphere
from any  blast  furnace, dross  rever-
beratory furnace, or sintering  machine
discharge end. The span of  this system
shall be set at 80 to 100 percent opacity.
   (2) A continuous  monitoring system
to monitor  and  record  sulfur dioxide
emissions discharged  into  the atmos-
phere  from   any  sintering  machine,
electric furnace  or converter subject  to
§ 60.183. The span of  this system shall
be set at a sulfur dioxide concentration
of 0.20 percent by volume.
   (i) The continuous monitoring system
performance  evaluation required under
§ 60.13(c) shall be completed prior to the
initial  performance test  required under
§ 60.8.  During the performance evalua-
tion, the span of the continuous moni-
toring  system may be set  at  a  sulfur
dioxide concentration of 0.15 percent by
volume if necessary to maintain the sys-
tem  output between 20 percent and  90
percent of full scale.  Upon completion
of the  continuous monitoring system
performance  evaluation, the span of the
continuous monitoring system  shall  be
set at a sulfur dioxide concentration  of
0.20  percent by volume.
   (ii) For the purpose  of the continuous
monitoring system performance evalua-
tion  required under § 60.13(c), the refer-
ence method  referred to under the Field
Test for Accuracy  (Relative)  in Per-
formance Specification 2 of  Appendix B
to this part shall be Reference Method
6. For the performance evaluation, each
concentration measurement shall be  of
one  hour duration. The pollutant gases
used to prepare the calibration gas mix-
tures required under paragraph 2.1, Per-
formance Specification 2  of Appendix  B,
and  for calibration checks under 5 60.13
(d),  shall be sulfur dioxide.
   (b) Two-hour  average sulfur dioxide
concentrations shall be calculated  and
recorded dally for the twelve  consecu-
tive two-hour periods of each operating
day. Each two-hour average shall be de-
termined as the arithmetic mean of the
appropriate  two  contiguous  one-hour
average  sulfur  dioxide  concentrations
provided by  the continuous monitoring
system installed under paragraph (a)  of
this section.
   (c) For  the purpose  of  reports  re-
quired under 5 60.7(c), periods of excess
emissions that shall  be reported are de-
fined as follows:
   (1) Opacity. Any six-minute  period
during  which  the average opacity,  as
measured by the continuous monitoring'
system installed under paragraph (a)  of
this section, exceeds the standard under
§60.184(a).
   (2) Sulfur dioxide. Any two-hour pe-
riod, as described  in paragraph  (b)  of
this section, during  which the average.
emissions of sulfur dioxide, as measured
by the continuous  monitoring system in-
stalled under paragraph  (a) of this sec-
tion, exceeds the standard under § 60.183.
§ 60.186  Test methods and procedures.
   (a) The reference methods  in Appen-
dix A to this part,  except as provided for
in 5 60.8(b), shall  be used  to  determine
compliance  with  the  standards  pre-
scribed in §§ 60.182, 60.183 and 60.184 as
follows:
   (1) Method 5 for the concentration
of particulate matter and the  associated
moisture content.
   (2) Sulfur dioxide concentrations shall
be  determined  using  the continuous
monitoring system installed in accord-
ance with § 60.185(a). One 2-hour aver-
age period shall constitute one run.
   (b) For MetHfrd 5, Method  1 shall  be
used for selecting  the sampling site and
the number of traverse points, Method 2
for determining velocity  and volumetric
flow rate and Method 3 for determining
the gas analysis. The sampling time for
each run shall be at least 60 minutes and
the minimum sampling vglume 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.
   |FB Doc.76-733 Filed l-14-76;8:45 am)
                              FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 41, NO. 10—THURSDAY, JANUARY 15,  1976
                                                     IV-132
-------
    3826
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
2 7    Title 40 — Protection of Environment

        CHAPTER  I— ENVIRONMENTAL
            PROTECTION AGENCY
         SUBCHAPTER C— AIR  PROGRAMS
                 |FRL
    PART 60— STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
    ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

          Primary Aluminum Industry

     On October 23.  1974 «39 FR 37730),
    under sections 111 and 114 of the Clean
    Air Act '42 U.S.C. 1857c-6, 1857c-9), as
    amended,  the  Administrator  proposed
    standards of performance  for new and
    modified primary  aluminum reduction
    plants.  Interested  persons participated
    in the rulemaking by submitting written
    comments to EPA. The comments have
    been carefully considered and, where de-
    termined by the Administrator to be ap-
    propriate, changes have been made in
    the regulations as promulgated.
     These regulations  will not, in  them-
    selves. require control of  emissions from
    existing  primary  aluminum reduction
    plants. Such control will be required only
    after EPA establishes emission guidelines
    for existing plants under section lll'd)
    of the Clean  Air Act, which will trigger
    the adoption of State emission standards
    for existing plants. General regulations
    concerning control of existing  sources
    under  section lll'd)  were proposed on
    October 7, 1975 (39 FR 3C102) and were
    promulgated  on November 17, 1975 (40
    FR 53339).
     The bases for the proposed standards
    are presented in the first two volumes of
    a background document entitled "Back-
    ground Information  for Standards of
    Performance:  Primary  Aluminum In-
    dustry." Volume 1  'EPA 450'2-74-020a,
    October 1974) contains the  rationale for
    the proposed standards  and Volume  2
    (EPA 450/2-74-020b,  October 1974) con-
    tains  a summary of the supporting test
    data.  An inflation impact statement for
    the standards and a summary of the
    comments  received  on  the  proposed
    standards along with  the Agency re-
    sponses arc contained in a new Volume 3
    (EPA 450/2-74-020C.  November  1975) of
    the background document.  Copies of all
    three  volumes nf the background docu-
    ments are available on request from the
   Emission Standards and Engineering Di-
   vision, Environmental Protection Agency,
   Research Triangle  Park, N.C. 27711, At-
   tention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.
          SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS
     The standards of performance promul-
   gated  herein  limit  emissions of gaseous
   and particulate fluorides  from  new and
   modified  affected facilities within  pri-
   mary  aluminum reduction  plants. The
   standard for fluorides limits emissions
   from each potroom group within Soder-
   berg plants to 2.0 pounds of total  fluo-
   rides per ton  of aluminum produced 'lb
   TF/TAP) ,  from each potroom  group
   within prebake plants to 1.9 lb TF/TAP,
   and from each anode bake  plant within
   prebake plants  to  0.1 lb  TF/TAP. Pri-
   mary and secondary emission from pot-
   room groups are limited to less  than 10
   percent opacity,  and  emissions  from
anode bake plant,-; arc limited to less than
20 percent opacity. The regulations re-
quire monitoring of raw  material feed
rates, cell or potliue voltages, and daily
production rnte of aluminum and an-
odes. Also  included with  the standards
is Reference  Method  14 which .specifics
equipment  and sampling procedures for
emission testing of potroom roof moni-
tors.  Fluoride samples collected during
performance  tests will be analyzed ac-
cording to Reference Method 13A or 13B
which  were  promulgated along  with
standards of  performance for the phos-
phate  fertilizer industry  on August  6,
1975 (40 FR 33152).
SIGNIFICANT  COMMENTS   AND  CHANCES
  MADE TO  THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS
  Mo;,t of the comment letters received
by  EPA contained multiple comments.
Copies of the comment letters received
and a summary  of the comments and
Agency responses are available for pub-
lic, inspection and  copying at the U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency, Pub-
lic  Information Reference Unit, Room
2922 (EPA  Library'. 401 M Street. S.W.,
Washington,  D.C.  20460.  In  addition,
copies of the  issue summary and  Agency
responses may be obtained upon  written
request from the EPA Public Informa-
tion Center (PM-215 ),401 M Street, S\V.,
Washington,  D.C. 20460 [specify  "Back-
ground Information  for  Standards of
Performance: Primary Aluminum Indus-
try Volume 3:  Supplemental Informa-
tion"  iEPA  45/2-74-020c> I.  The  most
significant  comments and  changes made
to the proposed regulations are discussed
below.
  (!)  Designation of Affected Facility.
Several comments questioned the "ap-
plicability  and designation  of  affected
facility" section of the proposed regu-
lations (§G0.190i  in view  of regulations
previously proposed by EPA with regard
to modification of existing plants (39
FR 36946, October 15, 1974'. In § 60.190
as proposed,  the  entire primary  alumi-
num reduction  plant was  designated as
the affected facility. The commentators
argued  that,  as a result of this  desig-
nation, addition  or modification  of  a
single  potroom at  an existing plant
would  subject all  existing potrooms at
the  plant  to  the  standards  for new
sources. The  commentators argued that
this situation would unfairly restrict ex-
pansion.  The Agency  considered these
comments and  agreed that there would
be an  adverse economic impact  on ex-
pansion  of existing plants unless the
affected  facility  designation were re-
vised.
  To  alleviate  the  problem, a new af-
fected  facility designation has been in-
corporated  in  §60.190. The affected
facilities  within   primary  aluminum
plants are  now each  "potroom  group"
and each anode bake  plant within pre-
bake plants. This redesignation in turn
required  splitting the fluoride standard
for prebake plants into separate stand-
ards for potroom groups and anode bake
plants 'see discussion in next section).
As defined in  § 60.191'd). the term "pot-
room group" means an uncontrolled pot-
 room, or a potroom which is controlled
 individually, or  a group  of 'potrooms
 ducted to the same control system. Under
 this revised designation,  addition  or
 modification of a potroom group at an
 existing plant will not subject the entire
 plant to the standards (unless the plant
 consists  of  only  one  potroom  group).
 Similarly, addition or modification of an
 anode bake  plant at an exiting prebake
 facility will not subject the entire pre-
 bake facility to the standards. Only the
 new or modified potroom group or anode
 bake plant  must meet  the applicable
 standards in such cases.
   (2)  Fluoride.  Standard. Many com-
 mentators  questioned  the level of the
 proposed standard; i.e.. 2.0 lb TF/TAP.
 A number of industrial  commentators
 suggested that  the standard be  relaxed
 or  that  it be specified in  terms of a
 monthly or  yearly emission limit. Some
 commentators argued that the test data
 did  not support the standard and that
 statistical techniques should have been
 applied to the test data in order to ar-
 rive at an emission standard.
  Standards of performance under sec-
 tion 111  are based on the best control
 technology which 'taking  into account
 control   costs)   has  been  "adequately
 demonstrated."   "Adequately   demon-
 strated"  means that  the Administrator
 must determine, on the basis of all in-
 formation available to him (including
 but not limited to tests and observations'
 of  existing  plants and  demonstration
 projects  or  pilot  applications)  and the
 exercise of sound engineering judgment.
 that the control technology relied upon
 in settinjt; a standard of  performance
 can  be made available and will be ef-
 fective to enable sources to comply with
 the standards. In other words, test data
 for existing plants are not the only bases
 for standard setting. As discussed in the
 background  document. EPA considered
 not  only test data for existing plants,
 but  also the expected  performance of
 newly constructed plants.  Some existing
 plants  tested did average less than  2,0
 lb TF.TAP.  Additionally, EPA believes
 new plants  ran be specifically designed
 for best  control  of air pollutants and,
 therefore, that.new plant emission con-
 trol  performance should exceed  that of
 well-controlled  existing plants. Finally,
 relatively simple changes in current op-
 erating methods (e.g.. cell tapping)  can
 produce significant reductions in emis-
 sions. For  these  reasons.  EPA  believes
 the 2.0 lb TF, TAP standard is both rea-
 sonable and achievable. A more detailed
 discussion of the rationale for selecting
 the 2.0 lb TF TAP standard is contained
 in Volume 1 of the background docu-
 ment, and EPA's responses to  specific
 comments on the fluoride standard are
 contained in Volume 3.
  As a  result of the revised affected fa-
cility designation, the 2.0 lb TF/TAP
standard for prebake  plants has  been
split into separate standards for potroom
groups  (1.9 lb TF/TAPi and anode bake
plants  '0.1 lb TF/TAP). The  proposed
2.0  Ib'TF/TAP limitation for  prebake
 plants  always consisted of these two
components, but was published as a.com-
                                FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 4), NO. 17—MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1976


                                                      IV-133
-------
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                                                                              3827
 bined standard to be consistent with the
 original  affected  facility  designation
 (i.e.,  the  entire  primary  aluminum
 plant).  At the  time  of  proposal,  the
 Agency had not foreseen the potential
 problems with modification of a two part
 affected facility. Data supporting each
 component of the standard as proposed
•is contained in  the background docu-
 ment (Volumes  1 and  2). In support of
 the potroom component of the standard,
 for example, two existing prebake  pot-
 rooms tested  by the  Agency averaged
 less than  1.9 Ib TF/TAP. Because no well
 controlled anode bake plants existed at
 the time of aluminum plant testing, the
 components for anode bake plants was
 based on  a conservatively assumed con-
 trol efficiency for technology demonstrat-
 ed in the phosphate fertilizer industry.
 Using the highest emission rate observed
 at two anode bake plants which were not
 controlled for fluorides and applying the
 assumed  control efficiency,  it was pro-
 jected that these plants would emit  ap-
 proximately 0.06 Ib TF/TAP (0.12 Ib TF/
 ton of carbon anodes produced). In addi-
 tion, as indicated in Volume 1 of  the
 background document, it  may be possi-
 ble to meet the standard for anode bake
 plants simply by better cleaning of anode
 remnants. The Agency also has estimates
 of emission rates for  a prebake facility
 to be built in  the near future. The esti-
 mates indicate that the anode bake plant
 at the facility will easily meet  the 0.1
 TP/TAP standard.
  One commentator questioned why  the
 standard  was not more  stringent con-
 sidering  the  fact that  Oregon  has
 promulgated the following standards for
 new primary  aluminum plants:  (a) a
 monthly average of 1.3 pounds of fluoride
 ion per  ton of aluminum produced, and
 (b) an  annual average of  1.0  pound of
 fluoride   ion  per  ton  of  aluminum
 produced.
  There  are  several  reasons  why the
Agency  elected not to adopt standards
equivalent to the Oregon standards. Per-
haps most important,  EPA believes that
 the Oregon standards would require  the
installation of relatively  inefficient  sec-
ondary scrubbing systems at most if not
all  new primary aluminum plants.  By
contrast, EPA's standard will require use
of secondary  control  systems only  for
 vertical  stud  Soderberg  (VSS)  plants
 (which  are unlikely to be built in  any
event)  and side-work  prebake  plants. A
standard  requiring secondary  control
systems on most if not all plants would
have a substantial adverse economic im-
pact on  the aluminum industry, as is
indicated  in the economic section of the
background   document.   Accordingly,
EPA has  concluded that considerations
of cost preclude establishing a standard
comparable to the Oregon standards.
  A  second  reason for  not  adopting
standards  equivalent  to  the  Oregon
standards stems from the fact that the
latter were based on  test data consist-
ing of six monthly averages (calculated
by averaging from three to nine individ-
ual tests  each month)  from a  certain
well controlled plant (which incorporates
both primary and  secondary  control).
Oregon  applied a statistical method  to
these data to derive the emission stand-
ards it adopted. As discussed in the com-
ment summary, EPA also  performed a
statistical  analysis of the  Oregon test
data,  which  yielded  results different
from those presented in the  Oregon tech-
nical report. If the Agency's results had
been used, less stringent emission stand-
ards might have  been  promulgated in
Oregon.
  A third consideration is  that the test
methods used by  Oregon were not the
sarnie as those used by  the  Agency to
collect emission data in  support of the
respective  standards.  Therefore,  Ore-
gon's test data and  the Agency's test
data are not directly comparable.
  Finally,  a comment on  the standard
for fluorides questioned whether or not
EPA had considered a new,  potentially
non-polluting primary aluminum reduc-
tion process  developed  by Alcoa.  The
commentator argued that if the process
had become commercially available, the
standard  should be set at  a  level  suffi-
ciently stringent to stimulate the devel-
opment of this new process. In response
to this comment, EPA has investigated
the process and has determined that it
is not yet commercially available. Alcoa
plans to test the process at  a  small pilot
plant which will begin production  early
next year. If  the  pilot plant performs
successfully, it will be expanded to full
design capacity by the early 1980's. EPA
will monitor the progress of this process
and other processes  under  development
and will reevaluate the standards of per-
formance for the primary aluminum in-
dustry,  as appropriate,  in  light of the
new technology.
  (3) Opacity. Some of the industrial
commentators objected to  the proposed
opacity standards  for  potrooms  and
anode  bake plants.  They  argued that
good control of total  fluorides will result
in good  control of particulate matter,
and therefore that the opacity standards
are unnecessary. EPA agrees that good
control of total fluorides will result in
good control of particulate matter;  how-
ever, the opacity standards  are intended
to serve as inexpensive enforcement tools
that will help to insure proper operation
and  maintenance  of  the air pollution
control   equipment.   Under  40   CFR
60.1 Hd),  owners and operators of af-
fected facilities are required  to operate
and  maintain their  control  equipment
properly at all times. Continuous moni-
toring instruments are often required to
indicate compliance  with 60.11(d), but
this  is  not  possible in the  primary
aluminum  industry because continuous
total fluoride monitors are not commer-
cially available. The data  presented in
the background document indicate that
the opacity standards can be easily met
at well controlled plants  that are prop-
erly operated and maintained. For these
reasons, the opacity standards have been
retained in the final regulations.
  EPA recognizes,  however, that in un-
usual circumstances  (e.g.,  where  emis-
sions exit from an extremely wide stack)
a source might meet the mass emission
limit but fail to meet the opacity limit.
In such cases, the  owner or operator of
the source may petition the Administra-
tor to establish a separate opacity stand-
ard under 40 CFR 60.11(e) as revised on
November 12, 1914 (39 PR 39872).
   (4» Control ol  Other Pollutants. One
commentator  was concerned that EPA
did  not  propose  standards  for carbon
monoxide (CO) and sulfur dioxide (SO*)
emissions from  aluminum plants.  The
commentator  argued  that  aluminum
smelters are significant sources of these
pollutants, and that although  fluorides
are the most toxic aluminum plant emis-
sions, standards for all pollutants should
have been proposed. As discussed in'the
preface to Volume 1 of the  background
document, fluoride control was  selected
as one area of emphasis to be considered
in implementing  the Clean  Air Act. In
•turn, primary aluminum  plants  were
identified as major  sources of  fluoride
emissions and were accordingly listed as
a category of sources for which standards
of performance would be proposed. Nat-
urally,  the   initial  investigation  into
standards for the  primary  aluminum
industry focused  on  fluoride  control.
However, limited  testing of CO and SO2
emissions was also carried out and it was
determined  (a)  that although primary
aluminum plants might be a significant
source of SO;, SOS control technology had
not been demonstrated in the industry,
and fb)  that CO emissions  from such
plants were insignificant. For these, rea-
sons, standards of performance were not
proposed for SO2 and CO emissions.
  It is possible that SO2 control technol-
ogy used in other industries might be ap-
plicable to aluminum plants, and recent
information indiK&tes that CO emissions
from such plants may  be significant. At
present,  however, EPA har- insufficient
data on which to base SO, and CO emis-
sion standards for aluminum plants. EPA
will consider the   factors   mentioned
above and other relevant information in
assigning priorities  for future standard
setting and invites submission of perti-
nent information  by  any  interested
parties. Thus, standards for CO and SO»
emissions from primary aluminum plants
may be set in the future.
   (5) Reference Methods  13A and 13B.
These methods prescribe sampling and
analysis  procedures  for  fluoride emis-
sions and are applicable to the testing
of phosphate  fertilizer plants  in addi-
tion to  primary aluminum plants.  The
methods were originally  proposed with
the primary  aluminum regulations but
have been promulgated with the stand-
ards of  performance for the phosphate
fertilizer industry (published August 6,
1975, 40 FR 33152) because the fertilizer
regulations  v/ere  promulgated  before
those for primary aluminum. Comments
on the methods were received from both
industries and mainly concerned pos-
sible changes  in procedures  and equip-
ment specifications. As discussed in the
preamble to the phosphate fertilizer, reg-
ulations, some minor changes were made
as a result of  these comments.
  Some commentators expressed a desire
to replace Methods  13A  and  13B with
totally different  methods  of  analysis.
They felt that they  should  not be re-
stricted to using only those methods pub-
lished by the Agency. In response to these
                              FEDEBAL BEGISTEB, VOL. 41. NO. 17—MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1976

                                                  IV-134
-------
  .'J828
      RULES  AMU REGULATIONS
 comments, an equivalent or  alternative
 method may be used if approved by the
 Administrator under 40 CFR 00.8'bi  as
 revised on March 8,  1074  '39 FR 03i,8>.
   '6)  Reference  Method  14. Reference
 Method 14 specifies sampling equipment
 and sampling procedures for measuring
 fluoride emissions from  roof  monitors.
 Most comments concerning this  method
 suggested  changes  in  the  prescribed
 manifold  system.  A  number of  com-
 mentators objected to the requirement
 that stainless steel be used as the struc-
 tural material for the manifold and sug-
 gested  that other, less expensive struc-
 tural materials would work as well. Data
 submitted by one  aluminum manufac-
 turer supported the use of aluminum for
 manifold construction. The  Agency re-
 viewed these data and concluded  that an
 aluminum manifold will provide satisfac-
 tory fluoride samples if the  manifold  is
 conditioned prior to  testing by  passing
 fluoride-laden  air  through the  system.
 By using aluminum instead  of stainless
 steel, the  cost of installing  a sampling
 manifold would be substantially reduced.
 Since the  Agency had no data on other
 possible structural materials,  it was not
 possible to endorse their use in the meth-
 od. However, the following wording ad-
 dressing this subject has  been added to
 the  method text (§2.2.1):  "Other ma-
 terials of construction may be used if  it
 is demonstrated  through comparative
 testing  that there is no loss of fluorides
 in the system."
   Some commentators also objected to
 the requirement that the mean velocity
 measured  during  fluoride sampling be
 within  ±10 percent of the previous 24-
 hour average velocity recorded through
 the system. In order to reduce the num-
 ber  of  rejected, sampling runs  due  to
 failure  to  meet the above criteria, the
 requirement has been amended such that
 the  mean sampling  velocity  must be
 within ±20 percent of the previous 24-
 hour average velocity. EPA believes that
 the relaxation  of  this requirement will
 not  compromise the  accuracy  of the
 method.
   (7) Economic Impact. Some comments
 raised questions regarding the economic
 impact  of the proposed regulations. The
 Agency has considered these  comments
 and responded  to them in the comment
 summary cited above. As  indicated pre-
 viously, an analysis of the inflationary
 and energy impacts of the standards ap-
 pears in Volume 3 of  the background
 document.  Copies  of  these  documents
 may be obtained as indicated previously.
  Effective date. In accordance with sec-
 tion 111 of  the Act. these regulations are
 effective January 26,  1976  and apply to
sources  the construction or modification
of which commenced after proposal of
 the standards;  i.e.,  after October 23,
 1974.
 (It Is hereby certified that the economic and
inflationary  Impacts of this regulation  have
been carefully evaluated In accordance with
Executive Order 11821)

  Dated: January 19,1976.

                RUSSELL  E.  TRAIN,
                      Administrator.
   Part 60 of  Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations, is amended
 as follows:
   1. The table of sections is amended by
 adding a list of  sections for Subpart S
 and by adding Reference Method 14 to
 the list of reference methods in Appen-
 dix A as follows:
    Subpart S—Standards of Performance for
      Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
 Sec.
 60.190  Applicability and designation of af-
         fected facility.
 60.191  Definitions.
 60.192  Standard for iluorldes.
 60.193  Standard for visible emissions.
 60.194  Monitoring of operations.
 60.195  Test methods and procedures.
     *****
    APPENDIX A—REFERENCE METHODS
     *****
 METHOD  14—DETERMINATION OF FLUORIDE
   EMISSIONS  FROM POTROOM ROOF  MONI-
   TORS OF PRIMARY ALUMINUM PLANTS
   AUTHORITY: Sees. Ill  and  114. Clean Air
 Act, as amended by sec. 4(a),  Pub. L. 91-604,
 84 Stat. 1678, 42 U.S.C. 1857 C-8, C-9.

   2. Part 60 is amended by adding sub-
 part S as follows:

 Subpart S—Standards of Performance for
    Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants

 §  60.190  Applicability and  designation
     of affected facility.

   The affected facilities in primary alu-
 minum reduction plants to which this
 subpart applies are potroom groups and
 anode bake plants.              .  .

 §60.191  Definitions.
   As used in this subpart,  all  terms not
 defined herein shall have  the meaning
 given them in the Act and in  subpart ,A
 of this part.
   (a)  "Primary   aluminum  reduction
 plant" means any facility manufacturing
 aluminum by electrolytic reduction.
   (b) "Anode bake plant" means a facil-
 ity which produces carbon anodes for use
 in a primary aluminum reduction plant.
   (c) "Potroom"  means a  building unit
 which  houses a group of electrolytic cells
 in which aluminum is produced.
   (d> "Potroom group" means  an uncon-
 trolled  potroom,  a  potroom  which  is
 controlled  individually, or  a  group  of
 potrooms ducted  to  the  same control
 system.
   (e) "Roof monitor" means that portion
 of the  roof of a potroom where gases not
 captured  at  the cell  exit  from the
 potroom.
   (f) "Aluminum equivalent"  means an
 amount of aluminum which can be pro-
 duced from a ton of anodes produced by
an anode bake plant as determined by
 §60.195(e).   .
   (g) "Total fluorides" means  elemental
fluorine and  all fluoride compounds as
measured by reference methods specified
 in § 60.195 or by equivalent or alternative
 methods fsee § 60.8 0.05 kg/metric ton (0.1 Ib/ton) of
 aluminum  equivalent  for  anode  bake
 plants.

 § 60.193  Standard for visible emissions.
   (a)  On and after  the date on which
' the performance test required to  be con-
 ducted  by § 60.8  is completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the  provisions of
 this subpart shall cause  to be discharged
 into the atmosphere:
   (1)  From  any  potroom group any
 gases which exhibit 10 percent opacity or
 greater, or
   (2)  From any anode  bake plant any
 gases which exhibit 20 percent opacity or
 greater.                    *

 §60.194  Monitoring of operations.
   (a> The owner or operator of any af-
 fected facility  subject to the provisions
 of this subpart shall install, calibrate,
 maintain, and operate monitoring devices
 which can  be  used to  determine daily
 the weight of aluminum and anode pro-
 duced. The weighing devices shall have
 an accuracy of  ±5 percent over their
 operating range.
   (b) The owner or operator of any af-
 fected facility shall maintain a record of
 daily production rates of aluminum and
 anodes, raw material feed rates, and cell
 or potline voltages.

 §  60.195  Tost methods and procedures.
   (a) Except as provided  in §60.8(b),
 reference methods specified in Appendix
 A of this part shall be used  to determine
 compliance with the standards prescribed
 in § 60.192 as follows:
   (1)  For  sampling  emissions from
 stacks:
    Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses.
   
-------
                                                RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                                      3829
   (ii)  Method 1  for sample and velocity
 traverses,
   (ill) Method 2 and  Method 14 for ve-
 locity and volumetric flow rate, and
   (iv) Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (3) For sampling emissions from roof
 monitors  not employing  stacks  but
 equipped with pollutant collection sys-
 tems,  the  procedures under  § 60.8(b)
 shall be followed.
   (b) For Method ISA or 13B, the sam-
 pling time for each run shall be at least"
 eight hours for any potroom sample and
 at least four hours for any anode bake
 plant sample, and  the  minimum sample
 volume shall be 6.8 dscm  (240 dscf)  for
 any potroom sample and  3.4 dscm (120
 dscf)  for any anode bake plant sample
 except that shorter sampling  times  or
 smaller volumes, when necessitated  by
 process variables or other factors, may
 be approved by the Administrator.
   (c)  The air pollution control system
 for  each affected facility  shall  be con-
 structed so that volumetric flow rates and
 total fluoride emissions can be accurately
 determined  using  applicable  methods
 specified  under paragraph  (a)  of this
 section.
   (d) The rate of aluminum production
 shall be determined as follows:
   (1)  Determine  the  weight of alumi-
 num in metric tons produced during a
 period from  the  last  tap  before a run
 starts until the first tap after the run
 ends using a monitoring  device which
 meets the requirements of § 60.194(a).
   (2)  Divide the  weight  of aluminum
 produced by the length of the period in
 hours.
   (e)  For anode bake plants, the alumi-
 num ' equivalent  for  anodes  produced ,
 shall be determined as follows:
   (1)  Determine   the  average  weight
 (metric tons)  of anode produced in the
 anode bake plant during a representative
 oven cycle  using  a monitoring device
 which meets  the  requirements  of  § 60.-
 194(a).
   (2)  Determine  the  average  rate   of
 anode production by  dividing  the  total
:weight of anodes  produced  during the
.representative oven cycle by the length
 of the cycle in hours.
1   (3)  Calculate  the  aluminum equiv-
 alent for anodes produced by multiplying
 the average rate of anode production by
 two. (Note: an owner or operator may
 establish a different multiplication factor
 by submitting production records of the
 tons of aluminum produced and the con-
current- tons of anode consumed by pot-
 rooms.)
   (f)  For each  run,  potroom  group
 emissions expressed in  kg/metric ton  of
 aluminum produced shall be determined
 using the following equation:
    E,,=

where:
(C.g.ji 10^ + (c.
-------
 3830
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  Ijornt.e the manifold  nlonc the length of
the roof monitor :;«> lha:  II Mrs  near Dip
mldscrtioti of the roof monitor. If tlic design
of a particular  roof nvmltor makes i.his Im-
possible, the manifold mny be located  else-
where  along the  roof  monitor, liul  avoid
locating  the manifold near the  ends of the
roof monitor or  In  :i  section  where  the
aluminum  reduction pot arrangement Is not
typical of 'he rest of the potroom. Center the
sample  nozzles  In  the throat  of  thr  roof
monitor. (Sec -Flgnvr 14-1.)  Construct  all
sample-exposed surfaces within  the nozzles.
manifold and sample duct of 3113  stainless
steel. Aluminum may ho used If ti new duct-
work  system Is conditioned  with  fKiorldc-
laden roof  monitor  air for a period of six
weeks prior to Initial testing. Other materials
of construction may he used If It Is demon-
strated  through  comparative  testing  that
there Is no  loss of fluorides In the system. All
connections In the ductwork shall  be  leak
free.
  Locate two sample ports In ft  vertical sec-
tion of  the duct between the roof monitor
and exhaust fan. The sample ports shall be at
least  10 duct  diameters  downstream  and
two diameters upstream from any  flow dis-
turbance such as a bend or contraction. The
two sample ports shall be  situated 90" apart.
One of the sample ports shall be situated so
that the duct can be traversed In the plane
of the nearest upstream duct bend.
  2.2.2 Exhaust /an. An  Industrial fan  or
blower to  be attached  to the sample  duct
at ground  level. (See Figure 14-1.)  This ex-
haust fan  shall have a  maximum capacity
such that a large enotigh volume of air can
be  pulled  throuph the ductwork to main-
tain an isoklnetlc sampling rate in all the
sample nozzles for all flow rates normally en-
countered  In the roof monitor.
  The exhaust fan volumetric flow rate shall
be  adjustable so that the roof  monitor air
can be drawn Isokinetically Into the sample
nozzles. This control of flow may be achieved
by a damper on the inlet to the exhauster or
by  any other workable method.
  2.3 Temperature  measurement apparatus.
  2.3.1 Thermocouple.. Installed In  the roof
monitor near the sample  duct.
  2.3.2  Signal   transducer.  Transducer  to
change the thermocouple voltage output to
a temperature readout.
  2.3.3 Thermocouple wire. To  reach from
roof  monitor  to  signal  transducer  and
recorder.
  2.3.4 Sampling  train.  Use  the  train  de-
scribed  In  Methods 13A and  13B—Determi-
nation of total fluoride emissions from sta-
tionary  sources.
  3. Reagents.
  3.1  Sampling  and  analysis. Use  reagents
described In Method  13A or  13B—Determi-
nation of total fluoride emissions from sta-
tionary  sources.
  4. Calibration.
  4.1  Propeller  anemometer.  Calibrate  the
anemometers so that their electrical signal
output corresponds to the velocity or volu-
metric flow they  are measuring. Calibrate
according to manufacturer's instructions.
  4.2 Mani/old  intake nozzles. Adjust the ex-
haust fan  to draw  a volumetric flow rate
(refer to Equation 14-1)  such that the en-
trance velocity  Into  each  manifold  nozzle
approximates the average  effluent velocity In
the roof monitor. Measure the velocity of the
air entering  each no//le  by Inserting an  S
type pilot tube Into a 2.B cm or less diameter
hole (s«e Figure  14 21 locatud  In the mani-
fold between each blast gate (or vnlvp) and
nozzle. The pilot tuho tip shall be  extended
Into the center of the  manifold. Take care
to insure that thert Is no  leakage around the
pilot probe which could affect  the indicated
velocity In the manifold  leg. If the velocity
of air being  drawn Into  each  nozzle Is  not
l,he same, open or close each  blast gate (or
valve) until the velocity in each nozzle Is the
same. Fasten  each blast  gate  (or valve)  so
that It will remain In this position and close
the pltot port holes. This calibration shall be
performed  when  the  manifold  system  Is In-
stalled.  (Note: It is recommended that this
calibration be repeated at least once a year.)
  5 "Procedure,
  5.1  Roof monitor velocity determination.
  5.1.1   Velocity value /or setting isohinetic
flow. During  the 24 hours  preceding a test
run. determine the velocity  Indicated by the
propeller anemometer In  the section of roof
monitor containing the sampling manifold.
Velocity  readings shall be  taken  every  15
minutes or at shorter equal time Intervals.
Calculate the average velocity for the 24-hour
period.
  6.1.2 Velocity determination  during a test
run. During the  actual test run. record  the
velocity or  volume readings  of each  propeller
anemometer  in the  roof monitor. Velocity
readings shall be  taken for each anemometer
every 15 minutes or  at shorter equal time
Intervals (or continuously).
  5.2  Temperature  recording. Record the
temperature of the roof  monitor every two
hours during  the test run.
  5.3 Sampling.
  5.3.1 Preliminary air  flow in duct. During
the 24 hours  preceding the  test, turn on the
exhaust  fan  and  draw  roof   monitor  air
through the manifold duct  to condition the
ductwork.  Adjust the fan to draw  a  volu-
metric flow through the duct such that the
velocity of  gas entering  the  manifold nozzles
approximates the average  velocity or the air
leaving the roof monitor.
  5.3.2  Isokinetic sample rate adjustment.
Adjust the fan so that the volumetric flow
rate In the duct is such that air enters Into
the  manifold  sample nozzles  at a  velocity
equal to the 24-hour  average velocity deter-
mined under  5.1.1. Equation 14-1 gives the
correct stream velocity which Is  needed In the
duct at the sample ports In  order for sample
gas to be drawn Isokinetically Into the mani-
fold nozzles. Perform a  pltot traverse of the
duct at the sample ports to  determine if the
correct average velocity  In the duct  has been
achieved.  Perform the  pitot determination
according to Method 2. Make this determina-
tion before the start  of a test  run. The  fan
setting need not be changed during the run.
                         1 minute
            8 (
where:
   Vd=deslred  velocity  In duct  at sample
        ports, meter/sec.
   Dn=
-------
28
    Title 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
              [FRL 483-7)

  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
    Delegation of Authority to Washington
             Local Agencies
   Pursuant to section 111 (c) of the Clean
 Air Act,  as amended, the Regional  Ad-
 ministrator of Region X, Environmental
 Protection Agency (EPA), delegated to
 the State of Washington Department of
 Ecology  on  February 28,  1975. the au-
 thority to Implement  and  enforce the
 program  for standards of performance
 for new stationary sources  (NSPS).  The
 delegation was announced In the FED-
 ERAL REGISTER on April 1,  1975  (40 FR
 14632). On April 25. 1975 (40 PR 18169)
 the Assistant Administrator for Air and
 Waste  Management  promulgated  a
 change to 40 CFR  60.4, Address to re-
 flect  the delegation  to the  State of
 Washington.
   On September 30 and October 8 and 9.
 1975, the State  Department of Ecology
 requested EPA's concurrence In  the
 State's sub-delegation of the NSFa pro-
 gram to  four local air pollution control
 agencies. After reviewing the State's re-
 quest,  the Regional Administrator de-
 termined  that the subdelegations  meet
 all  the requirements outlined In EPA's
 delegation of February 28, 1975. There-
 fore, the Regional Administrator on De-
 cember 5, 1975, concurred  In the sub-
 delegations  to  the  four local  agencies
 listed below with the stipulation that all
 the  conditions placed on  the original
 delegation to the State shall also apply to
 the sub-delegations to the local agencies.
 EPA Is today amending 40 CFR 60.4 to
 reflect the State's  sub-delegations.
   The amended 5 60.4  provides that all
 reports, requests, applications, submlttals
 and communications required pursuant
 to Part 60 which were previously to be
 sent to the Director of the State of Wash-
 ington Department of  Ecology  (DOE)
 will now be sent to the Puget Sound Air
 Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA), the
 Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NW
 APA), the Spokane County Air Pollution
 Authority (SCAPA) or the Southwest Air
 Pollution Control Authority (SAPCA) as
 appropriate. The amended  section Is set
 forth below.
   The Administrator finds good cause for
 foregoing prior  public notice  and  for
 making  this rulemaking effective  Im-
 mediately 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
 delegations which are reflected by the
 administrative amendment were effective
 on September 30 to the NWAPA, October
 7 to the PSAPCA and October 8 to the
 SCAPA and the SAPCA, and it serves no
 useful purpose  to  delay  the technical
 change of the addition of the local agency
 addresses to the Code  of Federal Regu-
 lations.  •
        RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  This rulemaking Is effective Immedi-
ately, and Is Issued under the authority
of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6.
  Dated: January 24,1976.
             STANLEY W. LEGRO,
           .Assistant Administrator
                    /or Enforcement.
  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:                       ,
  1.  In { 60.4, paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (WW) to read
as follows:
§ 60. t   Address.
  (b) • * •
  (WW) (1) Washington; State of Washing-
ton, Department of Ecology, Olympla, Wash-
ington 98504.
  (11) Northwest Air Pollution Authority. 207
Pioneer Building,  Second and Pine Streets,
Mount Vernon, Washington 98273.
  (Ill) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency, 410 West Harrison Street, Seattle,
Washington 98119.
  (Iv) Spokane County Air Pollution Control
Authority,  North  811 Jefferson,  Spokane,
Washington 99301.

   (v) Southwest  Air Pollution Control Au-
 thority. Suite 7601 H, NE Hnzel Dell Avenue,
 Vancouver, Washington 98665.
     •      •       •      •       •
    [FR Doc.76-2673 Filed 1-28-76;8:46 ami
   FEDERAL UGISTE*, VOL 41, NO. 20-

     -THURSDAY, JANUARY 29,  1976
29

    Title 40—Protection of Environment
               I FRL 492-3)

      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
 Delegation of Authority to State of Oregon
   Pursuant to the  delegation of author-
 ity for the standards of performance for
 new stationary sources  (NSPS)  to the
 State of  Oregon on November 10, 1975,
 EPA is today amending 40 CFR 60.4.
 Address, to reflect this delegation. A No-
 tice announcing this delegation is pub-
 lished  today  at 41  FR  7750  in the
 FEDERAL REGISTER.  The amended § 60.4
 which adds the address of  the State of
 Oregon Department of Environmental
 Quality to which  all  reports, requests,
 applications, submittals. and communi-
 cations pursuant to this part must be
 addressed, is set forth below.
   The Administrator finds good cause for
 foregoing prior  public notice and for
 making this rulemaking effective imme-
 diately 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
 November 10, 1975  and it serves no pur-
 pose 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^s Issued under the authority
 of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act; as
 amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-0.
   Dated:  February  11,1976.
                 STANLEY W. LEGRO,
         Assistant Administrator for
                       Enforcement.
   Part 60  of Chapter I, Title 40  of the
 Code of Federal Regulations  is amended
 as follows:
   1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b)  is amended
 by revising subparagraph (MM) to read
 as follows:

 § 60.4  Address.
    «      •       •      •       o
   (b)  •  •  •
   (A)-(LL) •  •  •
   (MM)—State of  Oregon,  Department
 of  Environmental  Quality. 1234  8W
 Morrison Street, Portland, Oregon 97205.
                                            [FR Doc.76-4964 Filed 2-19-76;8:4B am]


                                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 35-


                                                 -FRIDAY, FEBRUARY  20, 1976
                                                         IV-138
-------
                                                RULES AND  REGULATIONS
30

    Title 40—Protection of Environment
              (KRL 404-3)

     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Primary Copper. Zinc, and Lead Smelters;
               Correction
   In FR Doc. 76-733  appearing at page
 2331 in the FEDERAL REGISTER of January
 15, 1976, the ninth line of paragraph (a)
 in 8 60.165 is corrected to read as follows:
 "total smelter charge and  the  weight."

    Dated: February 20, 1976.
                  ROGER STRELON.
             Assistant Administrator
       lor Air and Waste Management.
    |FR Doc.76-5398 Filed 2-25-76:8:45 nui|
 60.4  AddrcM.
    •       •
  fb>  • • •
   State of Connecticut, Department
of Environmental Protection, State Of-
fice  Building,  Hartford,  Connecticut
06115.
    •      •      •      •      •
   [FR Doc.76-7067 Filed 3-18-76:8:45 am)
                                           FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO.  54-

                                                 -MONDAY, MARCH 92, 4976
31
               [FRL 495-4|

 PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
      FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
   Delegation of Authority to Commonwealth
                of Virginia
    Pursuant to the delegation of authority
  for  the  standards of performance  for
  new stationary sources  (NSPS)  to  the
  Commonwealth of Virginia on December
  30. 1975, EPA is today amending 40 CFR
  60.4, Address,  to reflect  this delegation.
  A Notice announcing this delegation  is
  published  today at 41  FR  8416  in  the
  FEDERAL REGISTER.  The  amended  § 60.4,
  which adds the address of  the Virginia
  State Air  Pollution Control Board to
  which all reports, requests,  applications,
  submittals, and  communications to the
  Administrator pursuant to this pai't must
  also be  addressed, is set forth below.
    The Administrator finds good cause for
  foregoing prior public  notice and for
  making  this  rulemaking  effective  im-
  mediately in that it is ap administrative
  change  and not one of .substantive con-
   tend. No additional substantive burdens
   are imposed on the parties  affected. The
   delegation which is reflected by this ad-
   ministrative amendment was effective on
   December 30,  1975, and  it serves no pur-
   pose to delay the technical change of this
   addition of the State address to the Code
   of Federal Regulations.
    This  rulemaking is effective inimedi-
   ai^ly, and is issued under tite authority of
   section  111 of  the Clean Air  Art.  as
   ajnended. 42 U.S.C, 1857c-6.
   42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
    Dated: February 21, 19"6.
                 STANLEY W. LE(;r,o,
              Assistant Administrator
                      for Enforcement.

    Part  60 of  Chapter I, Title 40 of the
   Code of Federal Regulations is Amended
   as  follows:
     1. In 5 6t>.4, paragraph (b) is amended
   by revising subparagraph  (W) to read
   as follows:
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS

              I FRL 607-4]
    Title 40—Protection of Environment

      CHAPTER t—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
               [FB.L, 529-3)
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCE
     Delegation of Authority to State of
               Connecticut
   Pursuant to the delegation of authority
 for the standards of performance for new
 stationary sources (NSPS) to the State
 of Connecticut on December 9,1975, EPA
 is  today amending 40 CFR 60.4, Address.
 to reflect this delegation.  A Nottca an-
 nouncing this delegation is published to-
 day at (41 FR 11874) In the FEDERAL REG-
 ISTER. The amended 5 00.4, which adds
 the address of the Connecticut Depart-
 ment of  Environmental Protection 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 Imme-
 diately 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
 December 9.  1975, and it serves no pur-
 pose to delay the technical change of this
  addition to the State address to the Code
  of Federal Regulations.
    This rulemaking is effective immedi-
  ately, and Is Issued under the authority

  of section 111 of the Clean Air Act,  u
  amended.
  (43 TJjS.C. 1867C-6)
    Dated: March 15,1976.
               STANLEY W. LEGRO,
             Assistant Administrator
                     for Enforcement.
   PART 60—STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCE
      Delegation of Authority to State of
              South Dakota
    Pursuant to the delegation of author-
  ity for the standards of performance for
  new stationary  sources  (NSPS)  to  the
  State of South Dakota on March 25,1976,
  EPA is today amending 40 CFH 60.4. Ad-
  dress, to reflect this delegation. A Notice
  announcing this delegation  is published
  today  at 41 FR 17600.  The amended
  8 60.4, which adds the address of Depart-
  ment  of Environmental Protection  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 imme-
  diately 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
  March 25, 1976, and it serves no purpose
  to delay the technical change of this ad-
  dition of the State address to the Code of
  Federal  Regulations.
    This rulemaking is  effective immedi-
  ately, and is issued under the authority
  of Section 111 of the Clean Air  Act, as
  amended.
  42 U.S.C. 18570-6.

    Date:  April 20, 1976.
                STANLEY W. LEGRO,
             Assistant Administrator
                     for Enforcement.
    Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
  Code of Federal Regulations is amended
  as follows:
    1. In  § 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
  by revising subparagraph QQ to read as
  follows:
    Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the § 60.4   Addrcw.
  Code of Federal Regulations is amended     •      •
  as follows:
    1. In 5 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
  by revising subparagraph (H)  to read as
  follows:
  § 60.4   Address.
    (b)
    (b) * * *
    (A)-(Z) •  •  *
    (AA)-(PP) * •  •
    (QQ)  State of South Dakota, Depart-
  ment of Environmental Protection, Joe
  Foss  Building,  Pierre,  South Dakota
  57501.
       FEDERAL  REGISTER. VOL 41, NO.  32-
         —TUESDAY,  APRIL  37, 1976
                                                        IV-139
-------
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              (FBL 509-3)
PART  60—STANDARDS  Or  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
     Ferroalloy  Production Faculties
  On October  21, 1974  (39 PR 37470).
under section 111 of  the Clean Mr Act,
as amended,  the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) proposed standards of
performance for  new and modified fer-
roalloy production  facilities. Interested
persons participated  In the rulemaklng
by  submitting  comments to EPA. The
comments have been carefully  consid-
ered,  and where determined by the Ad-
ministrator to be appropriate, changes
have  been made to the regulations  as
promulgated.
  The standards limit emissions of par-
ticulate  matter and  carbon  monoxide
from  ferroalloy electric  submerged arc
furnaces. The purpose of the standards Is
to require effective  capture and control
of emissions  from the furnace and tap-
ping station  by application of best sys-
tems  of  emission reduction. For ferro-
alloy  furnaces  the best system of  emis-
sion reduction  for participate  matter is
a  well-designed  hood in  combination
with a fabric filter collector or venturl
scrubber. For some alloys the best system
Is an  electrostatic preclpltator preceded
by  wet gas  conditioning or a  venturi
scrubber. The standard for carbon mon-
oxide repulres only that the gas stream be
flared  or  combusted in  some  other
manner.
  The environmental Impact of  these
standards is beneficial since the increase
in emissions due to growth of  the In-
dustry will be minimized. Also, the stand-
ards will remove the incentive for plants
to locate In areas  with less  stringent
regulations.
  Upon  evaluation  of the  costs  asso-
ciated with the standards and their eco-
nomic Impact,  EPA concluded that the
costs are reasonable and  should  not bar
entry into the  market or expansion of
facilities. Tn addition, the standards will
require at most a minimal increase  In
power consumption over that required  to
comply with the  restrictions  of  most
State regulations.
        SUMMARY OP REGULATION

  The promulgated standards limit par-
ticula.te  matter and  carbon monoxide
emissions from the electric submersed
arc furnace and limit  partlculate matter
emissions  from  dust-handling  equip-
ment.  Emissions  of  partlculate matter
from  the control device  are limited to
less than 0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99 Ib/MW-
hr) for furnaces producing high-silicon
alloys (in general) and to less  than 0.23
kg/MW-hr  (0.51  Ib/MW-hr)  for fur-
naces producing chrome and manganese
alloys. For both product groups, emis-
sions  from the control device must be
less than 15 percent opacity. The  regu-
lation requires that the collection hoods
capture all emissions generated within
the furnace and capture all tapping emis-
sions for at least 60 percent of the tap-
 ping time. The concentration of carbon
 monoxide In any gas stream discharged
 to the atmosphere must be  less than 20
 volume percent.  Emissions  from  dust-
 handling equipment may not equal or ex-
 ceed 10 percent opacity. Any owner or
 operator of a facility subject  to this regu-
 lation must continuously monitor volu-
 metric flow rates through the collection
 system and must continuously monitor
 the opacity of emissions from the control
 device.
        SUMMARY OP  COMMENTS
  Eighteen  comment .letters were  re-
 ceived on the proposed standards of per-
 formance. Copies of the comment letters
 and a report which contains a summary
 of the issues and EPA's responses  are
 available for public Inspection and  copy-
 ing  at the U.S. Environmental Protec-'
 tion Agency, Public Information Refer-
 ence Unit (EPA Library),  Room 2922,
 401  M Street, S.W.,  Washington, D.C.
 Copies of  the report also  may be  ob-
 tained upon written request from  the'
 EPA Public  Information Center  (PM-
 215), 401 M Street,  S.W.,  Washington,
 D.C. 20460  (specify—Supplemental  In-
 formation on Standards of Performance
 for Ferroalloy Production Facilities). In
 addition to the summary of the issues
 and EPA's responses, the report contains
 a revaluation of the opacity standard
 in light of revisions to Reference Method
 9 which  were published in  the FEDERAL
 REGISTER  November  12,  1974 (39  PR
 39872).
  The bases for the proposed standards
 are presented in "Background Informa-
 tion for Standards of Performance: Elec-
 tric  Submerged  Arc Furnaces for Pro-
 duction of  Ferroalloys"  (EPA 450/2-74-
 018a, b).  Copies  of  this document  are
 available on request from the Emission
 Standards  and  Engineering Division,
 Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
 search Triangle Park,  North Carolina
 27711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.

 SIGNIFICANT  COMMENTS AND  CHANGES TO
       THE PROPOSED  REGULATION

  Most of the comment letters contained
 multiple comments. The more significant
 comments and the differences between
 the  proposed and the final  regulations
 are discussed  below. In addition to  the
 discussed  changes,  several  paragraphs
 were reworded and some sections were
 reorganized.
  (1) Mass standard. Several comsnen-
ters questioned the representativeness of the
 data used to demonstrate the achlevabll-
 ity of the^0.23 hg/MW-hr (0.51 Ib/MW-
 hr) standard proposed for facilities pro-
 ducing chrome and  manganese alloys. .
 Specifically, the commenters were con-
 cerned that sampling only a limited num-
 ber of compartments  or control devices
 serving  a furnace,  nonlsokinetlc  sam-
 pling of some facilities,  and the proce-
 dures used to determine the total  gas •
 volume flow from open fabric filter col-
 lectors would bias the  data low. For these
 reasons, the commenters arnued that  the
 standard should be 0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99
 Ib/MW-hr) for all alloys. As additional i
 support for their position, they claimed
 that control equipment vendors will not
 guarantee  that  their  equipment will
 achieve  0.23 kg/MW-hr  (0.51 Ib/MW-

   Because  of  these  comments,  EPA
 thoroughly Devaluated the bases  for the
• two mass standards of performance and
 concluded that the standards are achiev-
 able by best systems of emission reduc-
 tion. For  open ferroalloy electric sub-
 merged arc furnaces, the best system of
 emission  reduction is  a well-designed
 canopy hood that minimizes the  volume
 of induced rlr and a well-designed and
 properly  operated fabric  filter collector
 or high-energy venturi  scrubber.  In  &
 few cases,  an  electrostatic  precipitator
 preceded by a venturi  scrubber  or wet.
 gas conditioning is a  bist system.  In
 EPA's opinion, revising the standard up-
 ward to 0.45 kg/MW-hr (0.99 Ib/MW-hr)
 would allow instpirtlen of systems other
 than the  best. Therefore,  the promul-
 gated standard' of performance for fur-
 naces producing chrome and manganese
 alloys Is  0.23 kg/MW-hr (0.51 Ib/MW-
 hr). The standard  for furnaces produc-
 ing-the specified high-silicon alloys  Is
 0.45 kg/MW-hr  CV99 Ib/MW-hr). The
 rationale for establishing the standards
 at these levels is summarized below.
   The reevaluation of the data bases for
 the standards showed that  the emission
 test procedures u?pd did not significantly
 bias the  results.  Therefore, contrary  to
 the commenter's  concerns, the  proce-
 dures did not result in  emission  limita-
 tions lower than those achievable by best
 systems of emls<-lan reduction. The de-
 viations and assumptions made  in the
 test procedures w?re Irased on considera-
 tion of the particle size of the emissions,
 an evaluation of the performance of the
 control system^, and factors  affecting the
 induction of air Into open  fabric filter
 collectors.
   EPA tests, and allows testing of, a rep-
 resentative number of stacks or compart-
 ments in a control device because sub-
 sections of a well-designed and properly
 operating control  device will perform
 equivalently. Evaluation of the  control
 system and the condition of the  control
 device by EPA engineers  at the time of
 the emission test showed that sections
 not tested were of equivalent design and
 in operating condition equivalent to or
 better than the tested sections. Thus, the
 performance of the non-tested portions
 of the control device are considered to be
 equivalent to or better th"n the per-
 formance of the sections emission tested.
 In addition, the particle size of emissions
 from well-controlled ferroalloy furnaces
 was investigated bv EPA and was found
 to consist of parti-les of less than two
 micrometers aerodynamic diameter for'
 all alloys. The mass and, hence,  inertia
 of these particles are negligible;  there-
 fore,  they follow the motion of the gas
 stream. For emissions of this size distri-
 bution,  concentrations   determined by
 nonlsokinetic sampling would not be sig-
 nificantly different  than those measured
 by Isoklnetic sampling.
   EPA determined  the total gas  volume
 flow rate from the open fabric filter col-
 lectors  by measuring the inlet volume
 flow rate and the volume-of air Induced
 into the collector. The inlet  gas volumes
                                FEDECAl DEGISTEU,  VOL. 41,  NO.  87—TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976
                                                     IV-140
-------
                                            BULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       18499
to the collectors were measured during
each run  of each  test; but the volume
of air Induced Into the collector was de-
termined once during the emission test.
The total  gas volume flow from the col-
lector was calculated as the sum of the
Inlet gas volume and the Induced air vol-
ume. Although the procedures used were
not Ideal, the reported gas volumes are
considered to be rer.sonably representa-
tive of  the total gas volumes  from the
facility. This conclusion is based on the
fact that the quantity ol air Induced
around  the bags in an open collector is
primarily  dependent  on  the open area
and the temperature  of  the  inlet gas
stream  and  the ambient air. Therefore,
equivalent fllr volumes are drawn into the
collector  under  similar  meteorological
and Inlet gas conditions. During the pe-
riods of emission testing at the facilities,
meteorological conditions  were uniform
and the volume of  Induced  air was ex-
pected  to be  constant.  Consequently,
measurement of the induced air volume
once during the emission test was ex-
pected to be sufficient for calculating the
total gas volume flaw from the  collector.
  Since conducting the test in  question,
EPA has  gained rdditional experience
and has concluded  that in general it is
preferable to measure the total gas vol-
ume flow during each run of a  perform-
ance  test.  This  conclusion,   however,
does not invalidate  the use of the test
data obtained by the less optimum pro-
cedure of a single.determination of in-
duced air volume.  EPA evaluated pos-
sibje variations in the amount of air in-
duced into the collector by performing
enthalpy  balances using reported tem-
perature data. The Induced air volumes
were calculated assuming adiabatic mix-
Ing (no heat transfer by  inlet gases  to
collector)  and, hence, are conservatively
high estimates. The calculated induced
air volumes did differ from the single
measured values; however, the effect on
the mass emission rate for the collectors
was not significant. EPA. therefore, con-
cluded  that the use of single measure-
ments of the induced air volume did not
affect the level of the standards.
  Another Issue  of  concern   to  com-
menters Is  the reluctance of control
equipment vendors to guarantee reduc-
tion of  emissions to less  than 0.23 kg/
MW-hr (0.51  Ib/MW-hr).  It  is EPA's
opinion that this  reluctance   does not
demonstrate  the unachievability of the
standard.  The vendors'  reluctance  to
guarantee this level Is not surprisins con-
sidering the variables which are beyond
their  control. Specifically,  they rarely
have any  control over the design of the
fume collection systems for the furnace
and tapping station. Fabric filter collec-
tors tend to control the concentration of
participate matter  in the effluent The
mass rate of emissions from the collec-
tor is determined by the total volumetric
flow rate from the control device, which
is not determined by  vendors. Further,
because of limited experience with emis-
sion testing to evaluate the performance
of. open fabric filter collectors, vendors
cannot  effective!:* evaluate the  perform-
ance of these systems over the guarantee
period. For vendors, establishment of thq
performance guarantes level is also com-
plicated by the fact that the performance
e>f the collector is  contingent upon its
bein? properly operated and maintained.
  Standards of performance are neces-
sarily  based  en  data from a  limited
number of best-controlled  facilities and
on   engineering- judgments regarding
performance of the control systems. For
this reason, there is a possibility of ar-
riving at different conclusions regarding
the  performance capabilities of  these
systems. Consequently, the question  of
vendors' reluctance to guarantee their
equipment to  achieve 0.23  kg/MW-hr
(0.51 Ib/MW-hr) was considered  along
with the'  results of additional  resent
emission tests  on fabric filter collectors.
Recognizing that the data base for the
standards was limited and that a  num-
ber  of  well-controlled  facilities  had
started operation since completion of the
original study, EPA obtained additional
data to better evaluate the performance
of emission control systems  of interest.
Under the authority of section  114  of
the Clean Air  Act, EPA requested copies
of all emission data for well-controlled
furnaces operated by 10  ferroalloy i'
standard is not justified. This  evaluation
ii discussed in detail in Chapter II of the
supplemental  Information document. If
and  when factual information Is  pre-
sented  to  EPA wh'ch  clearly demon-
strates  that use of finer chrome   and
manganese ores does prevent  a propbr'y
operated new furnace, which Is equipped
with  the  best demonstrated  system of
emission reduction (considering costs),
from meeting the 0.23 kg/MW-hr  (0.51
Ib/MW-hr) standard, EPA will propose a
revision to the standard. The best system
of e-nifion reduction (considering costs)
is considered to be a well-designed  col-
lection  hood in combination with a well-
designed fabric filter collector or high-
energy  venturi scrubber.
  The  emission data obtained by  'EPA.
and  the data  provided  by the industry
show that the standards of performance
for both product groups  are  achievable
and  the required control system clearly
Is adequately  demonstrated. The ques-
tion  of  the achlevablllty of and the va-
lidity of the data basis for both the 0.23
kg/MW-hr  (0.51  Ib/MW-hr)   and   0.45
kg/MW-hr  (0.99 Ib/MW-hr)  standards
Is discussed In more detail In Chapter II
of the  supplemental information docu-
ment.
  (2) Control device opacity standard.
On November 12. 1974 (39 FR 39872).
after proposal of the standards for  fer-
roalloy  facilities. Method 9 was revised to
require that  compliance with opacity
standards  be  determined by  averaging
sets of 24 consecutive observations taken
at 15-second intervals  (sis-minute  av-
erages). The proposed opacity standard
which limited emissions from the control
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41,  NO.  87—TUESDAY, MAY 4. 1976
                                                       IV-141
-------
 18500
      RULES  ANB>
device to less than 20 percent has been
revised In the  regulation promulgated
herein to require that emissions be less
than 15 percent opacity in order to retain
the Intended level of control.
   (3)  Control system capture require-
ments. Ten commenters criticized fume
capture requirements for the furnace and
tapping station  control systems on two
basic points: The arguments  were:  (1)
EPA  lacks  the  statutory authority  -to
regulate emissions  within the building,
nnd (2) the standards are not  technical-
ly feasible at all times.
  EPA has the statutory authority un-
der section 111 of the Act to regulate any
new stationary source which  "emits  or
may emit any air pollutant."  EPA does
not agre.i with the opinion of the com-
menters  that section  111 of the .Act ex-
pressly or implicitly limits the  Agency to
regulation only of  pollutants  which are
emitted  directly into the atmosphere.
Partlculate  matter emissions escaping
canture by  the  furnace control ey-tem
ultimately will be discharged  to the at-
mosphere outside of the shop;  therefore.
they may be regulated under section  111
of the  Act.  Standards  which regulate
pollutants at the point of emission inside
the building allow assessment.of the con-
trol  system without  interference  from
nonregulated sources located in the same
building. In addition, by requiring evalu-
ation of  emissions  before their dilution,
the standards will  resu't in better con-
trol  of  the  furnace emissions and will
regulate   affected  ferroalloy   fac'Ut'ps
more uniformly  than would  standards
llmltln? emissions from the shop,
  EPA believes the standards on the fur-
nace  and  tapping  station  collection
hoods are achievable because the stand-
ards are based on observations  of normal
operations at well-controlled  facilities.
The commenters who argued that the
standards are not technically  feasible at
all times cited examples of abnormal op-
erations  which would preclude achiev-
ing the standards.  For examnle, several
commenters cited the fact that violent
reactions due to Im'ia'ances in the alloy
chemistry occasionally can generate more
emissions than the  hood  was designed to
capture.  If the capture  system Is well-
designed, well-maintained, and properly
operated, only failures of the  process to
operate in the normal or usual manner
would cause the capacity of the system to
be exceeded. Such operating period are
malfunctions, and, therefore, compliance
with  the  standards  of  performance
would not be determined during  these
periods. Performance tests under 40 CPR
60.8(c)  are  conducted only during rep-
resentative  conditions, and periods  of
start-up,  shutdown,  and  malfunctions
are not considered  representative condi-
tions.
  Five commenters discussed  other op-
erating conditions  which  they believed
would preclude a source  from  complying
with the tapping station standard. These
conditions included blowing taps, period
of poling the tarhole, and periods of re-
moval of metal and slag from  the spout.
The commenters  argued  that blowing
taps should be exempted  from  the stand-
ard  and the  tapping station standard
should  be replaced  with  an  opacity
standard or emissions from the shop. The
comments v.erc revl:wed and EPA con-
cluded that exemption of blowing taps la
Justified.  The  regulation  promulgated
herein exempts blowing taps  from the
tap- ing station standard and Includes.a
definition of  blowing tap. EPA believes
that conditions which result in plugging
of th-: ta^hol: and mctftl In the spout are
malfunctions because they are unavoid-
able failures  of the process to operate
in the normal or  usual manner.  Discus-
sions  with experts In the ferroalloy in-
dustry, revealed that these conditions are
not predictable conditions for which a
preventative  maintenance or  operation
program could be established. As mal-
function?, th'F- period': are not subject
to the standards, and a performance test
would  not be  conducted  during such
periods. Therefore, the suggested revision
to the standard to exempt these periods
is not  necessary because of  the existing
provisions of 40 CFR 60.8(c) and 60.11.
In EPA's judsment, both the furnace and
tapping station standards are achievable
for all normal process operations at fa-
cilities  with  well-designed, well-main-
tain^'.  a~d To-erly operated emission
collection systems.
  Th? promulgated regulation  retains
the proposed  fume capture requirements,
but the  regulation  has  been revised  to
be more enforceable than the proposed
capture requirements, which could have
been  enforced only  on an  Infrequent
basis. The regulation has been  reorga-
nized to clarify that unlike the opacity
standards, the collection system capture
requirements  (visible emission  limita-
tions)  are subject to demonstration  of
compliance during the performance test.
To provide a  means for routine enforce-
ment of the capture requirements,  con-
tinuous  monitoring  of  the volumetric
flow rate(s) through the collection sys-
tem  Is  required for each affected  fur-
nace. An owner or operator may comply
with this requirement either by install-
ing a flow rate monitoring device in an
appropriate location in the exhaust duct
or by calculating the flow rate through
the system from fan operating data. Dur-
ing the  performance test, the baseline
operating flow rate(s) will be established
for the affected electric submerged arc
furnace. The regulation establishes emis-
sion capture standards which are appli-
cable only during the performance test
of the affected facility. At all other times,
the  operating volumetric  flow  rate(s)
shall  be maintained at  or greater than
the established baseline values  for the
furnace  load. Use of lower volumetric
flow rates than the  established  values
constitutes unacceptable operation and
maintenance .of  the affected facility.
These  provisions of the  promulgated
regulation will ensure continuous mon-
itoring of the operations of the emission
capture system and will simplify enforce-
ment of the emission capture require-
ments.
  The requirements for monitoring volu-
metric flow rates  will add negligible ad-
ditional  costs  to  the   total  costs  of
complying with the standards of  per-
formance. Flow rate monitoring devices
of sufficient accuracy  to  meet the re-
quirements of i 60.265(c) can be installed
for $600-$4000 depending on the flow
profile of the area being monitored and
the complexity of the monitoring; device.
A suitable  stiip chart recorder can be
installed for less than $600. The alter-
native provisions allowing Calculation of
the volumetric flow rate(s) through the
control system from continuous monitor-
ing of fan operations  will result in no
additional  costs  because  the Industry
presently monitors fan operations.
   (4)  Monitoring  of  operations.  The
promulgated regulation requires report-
Ing to  the Administrator any product
changes that wi'l result in a change in
the applicable standard of performance
for the affected electric submerged arc
furnace. This requirement is  necessary
because electric submerged arc furnaces
may be converted to production of alloys
other than the original design alloys by
physical alterations   to  the  furnace,
changes  to   the   electrode   spacing.
changes in the transformer capacity, and
changes in the materials charged to the
furnace. Thus, the emission rate from
the electric submerged arc furnace and
the standard of performance  (which Is
dependent  on the alloy produced)  may
change during the lifetime of the  facil-
ity. Conversion  of  the furnace to pro-
duction of alloys with significantly dif-
ferent emission  rates, such as changes
between the product groups for the two
standards,  may result in the facility ex-
ceeding the applicable standard. Conse-
quently, the reporting requirement was
added to ensure continued compliance
with  the applicable standards of per-
formance.  Th«se  reports  of product
changes will afford the Administrator an
opportunity to determine whether a per-
formance test should be conducted and
will simplify enforcement of  the  regu-
lation. As with the requirements appli-
cable under the proposed regulation, the
performance te.«t still must be conducted
while the electric submerged arc furnace
is producing the design alloy whose emis-
sions are the most difficult to  control of
the product fnmlly. Subsequent product
changes within  the product family will
not cause the facility to exceed the stand-
ard.
   (5)  Test methods and procedures. Sec-
tion 60.266(d) of the promulgated  regu-
lation requires the owner  or operator to
design and construct the  control device
to allow measurement of  emissions and
flow rates using applicable test methods
and procedures. This  provision permits
the use of  open  pressurized fabric filter
collectors  (and  other control devices)'
whose emissions cannot be measured by
reference methods currently in Appendix
A to  this part,  if compliance with the
promulgated  standard  can be demon-
strated by an alternative procedure. EPA
has not specified a single  test  procedure
for emission testing of open pressurized
fabric filter  collectors because  of the
large variations in the design of  these
collectors.  Test  procedures can be de-
veloped on a case-by-case basis, however.
Provisions  in 40 CFR 60.8 (b)  allow the
owner or operator upon approval by the
Administrator to use an "site-native" or
                                 FEDEGAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 97—TUESDAV, WAV 4, 1976
                                                      IV-142
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       18501
"equivalent" test procedure to rhow com-
pliance with the.standards. EPA would
like  to  emphasize  that development of
the  "alternative"  or "equivalent" test
procedure Is the responsibility  of any
owner or operator who elects to  use a
control device not amenable to testing by
Method 5 of Appendix A to this part. The
procedures  of  an  "alternative"  test
method for demonstration of compliance
are dependent on specific design features
and  condition of the collector and the
capabilities  of the sampling equipment.
Consequently, procedures acceptable for
demonstration of compliance will vary
with  specific situations. General  guid-
ance on possible approaches to sampling
of emissions from pressurized fabric filter
collectors is provided in Chapter  IV of
the supplemental information document.
  Dr.e to the costs of testing, the owner
or operator  should obtain  EPA approval
for a  specific test  procedure or  othe'r
means for determining compliance be-
fore construction of a new source. Under
the provisions of  ? 60 6,  the owner or
operator of  a new facility may  request
review of the acceptability of proposed
plans for construction and testing of con-
trol systems which are not amenable to
sampling by Reference Method 5. If an
acceptable "alternative" test procedure is
not developed by the owner or operator,
then  total enclosure of the pressurized
fabric filter collector  and testing by
Method 5 is  reo.uired.
  Effective date. In accordance with sec-
tion  111 of the Act. these regulations
prescribing standards of performance for
ferroalloy production facilities are effec-
tive  May 4, 1976, and apply to  electric
submerged arc furnaces and their asso-
ciated  dust-handling  equipment, the
construction or  modilcation  of  which
was commenced after October 21,  1974.
(Sees. Ill and 114  of the  Clean Air Act,
amended by  8eo. 4(a)  or Pub. L. 91-604, 84
Stat. 1678 (42 U.3.C. 1857C-6, 1867C-9).)

  Dated: April 23,1976.
                 RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
                      Administrator.

  Part  60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1.  The table of sections  is amended by
adding subpart Z as follows:
Subpart Z—Standards of Performance for Ferro-
          elioy Pfoduct.on Facil.tie*
Sec.
60.260- Applicability   and  designation  of
         affected facility.
60.961  Definitions.
60.262  Standard for partlculate matter.
60.263  Standard for carbon monoxide.
60.264  Emission monitoring.
60.263  Monitoring of operations.
60.266  Test methods and procedures.

  2.  Part 60 Is amended by adding sub-
part Z as follows:
Subpart Z—Standards of Performance for
          Ferroalloy Pro juction
§ 60.260  Applicability  and  ilcslgnntion
     of affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to  the following affected  facili-
ties:  Electric submerged arc  furnaces
which produce silicon metal, ferrosillcon,
 calcium silicon,  silicomanganese  zirco-
 nium, ferrochrome  silicon, silvery iron,
. hii.h-carbon ferrochrome, charge chrome
 standard  ferromangancse,  slUmanga-
 nese, ferrcmangane.se silicon, or calcium
 carbide; and dust-handling equipment.
 §60.261   Definitions.
   As used In this subpart, all terms not
 denned herein shall have the meaning
 given them in the Act and in subpart A
 of this part.
   (a) "Electric  submerged arc furnace"
 means any  furnace wherein  electrical
 energy is  converted to  heat  energy by
 transmission of  current between  elec-
 trodes partially subm:rged in the furnace
 charge'.	
   (b) "Furnace charge" me?ns any ma-
 terial introduced into the electric.sub-
 merged arc furnace and may consist of,
 but is not limited to, ores, slag, carbo-
 naceous mateilal, and limestone.
   (c)  "Product  change"  means  any
 change in the composition of the furnace
 charge that would cause the electric sub-
 merged  arc  furnace to tecorr.e subject
 to a different mass standard applicable
 under this subpart.
   (d) "Slag" means  the more or less
 completely fused and vitrified  matter
 separated  during the  reduction  of a
 metal from its ore.
   (e) "Tapping" means the' removal of
 slag or  product from trie electric sub-
 merged  arc  furnace under normal op-
 erating  conditions  such as  removal  of
 metal under normal pressure and  move-
 ment by gravity  down the spout into  the
 ladle.
   (f) "Tapping  period" means the time
 duration from initiation of the process
 of opening the tap hole until plugging of
 the tap hole is complete.
   (g) "Furnace  cycle" means the time
 period from completion  of  a furnace
 product tap to the completion of the next
 consecu'ive product tap.
   (h)  "Tapping station" means that
 general  area where molten product  or
 slag is removed from  the electric sub-
 merged arc furnace.              .
   (1)  "Blowing  tap" means any  tap In
 which an evaluation of gas forces or pro-
 jects  jets  of flame  or metal sparks  be-
 yond the ladle, runner, or collection hood.
   (j) "Furnace power input" means  the
 resistive electrical power consumption of
 an  electric  submerged  arc  furnace  as
 measured in kilowatts.
   (k) "Dust-handling equipment" means
 any equipment used to handle particu-
 Ir.te matter collected by th? air pollution
 control device (and located at or near
 such  device) servinp  any electric sub-
 merged arc  furnace subject to this sub-
 part.
   (1) "Control   device'' means the  air
 pollution control equipment used to re-
 move particulate matter generated by an
 electric submerged  arc furnace from an
 effluent gas stream.
   (m)  "Capture  system" means  the
 equipment (Including hoods, ducts, fans,
 dampers, etc.) used to capture or trans-
 port partlculate matter  generated by an
 affected electric submerged arc furnace
 to the control device.
  (n) "Standard ferromang&nese" means
that alloy as defined by A.S.T.M. desig-
nation A99-66.
  (o)  "Silicomanganese"  means- that
alloy as denned by A.S.T.M. designation
A483-C6.
  (ft) "Calcium carbide" means material
containing 70 to 85 percent calcium car-
bide by weight.
  (q> "High-carbon ferrochrome" means
that alloy as defined by A.S.T.M. desig-
nation A101-66 grades HC1 through HC6.
  (r) "Charge chrome" means that alloy
containing 52 U>  70 percent by weight
chromium, 5 to 8 percent by weight car-
bon, and 3 to 6 percent by weight silicon.
  (s) "Silvery Iron" means any ferro-
silicon, as defined by A.S.T.M. designa-
tion 100-69,  which  contains  less than
30 percent silicon.                .
  (t) "Ferrochrome silicon" means that
al'.oy as denned by A.S.T.M. designation
A482-CG.
  (u)    "Silicomanganese   rlrconium"
means that alloy containing 60 to 65 per-
cent by weight silicon, 1.5 to 2.5  percent
by  weight calcium,  5 to 7 percent by
weight zirconium, 0.75 to 1.25 percent by
wciC'ht aluminum,  5 to  7 percent,by
weight manganese, and 2 to 3 percent by
weight barium.
  (v)  "Calcium  silicon". means that
alloy as defined by A.S.T.M. designation
A405-C4.
  (w)  "Ferrosilicon" means that alloy as
defined by A.S.T.M. designation  A100-69
grades A. B, C, D, and E which contains
50 or more percent by weight silicon.
  (x) "Silicon metal" means any si'icon
alloy containing more than 96  percent
silicon by weight.
  (y)  "Ferromanganese  silicon" means
that alloy containing 63 to 66 percent by
weight manganese,  28 to 32 percent by
weight silicon, and a maximum of 0.08
percent by weight carbon.
§ 60.262  Stundurii for purticulalc mat-
     ter.
  (a) On and after the date on which the
performance test  required  to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the  atmosphere from  any  electric
submerged arc furnace any gases which:
  (1) Exit fronr. a control device and con-
tain particulate matter in excess of  0.45
kg/MW-hr  (0.99 Ib/MW-hr)  while sill-
con metal, ferrosillcon, calcium silicon,
or  silicomanganese  zirconium is being
produced.
  (2) Exit from a control device and con-
tain particulate matter In excess of  0.23
kg/MW-hr (0.51 Ib/MW-hr) while high-
carbon  ferrochrome,  charge  chrome,
standard ferromanganese,  silicomanga-
nese, calcium carbide, ferrochrome sili-
con, ferromanganese silicon,  or silvery
Iron is being produced.
  (3) Exit from a control device and ex-
hibit'15  percent opacity or greater..
  (4)  Exit from  an electric submerged
arc furnace and escape  the capture sys-
tem and are visible without the aid of
Instruments. The  requirements under
this subparagraph apply only during pe-
riods when  flow rates are being estab-
lished under 5 60.265(d).
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL 41, NO.  87—TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976
                                                      IV-143
-------
                                             RULES AWO> KEGUIUTONS
    (8) Escape- fflie capture system at the
 topping station and are  visible without
 the aid of instruments for more than 40
 percent of each tapping period. There are
 no limitations on visible emissions under
 this  sutnaragraph when  a  blowing tap
 occurs. The requirements under this sub-
 paragraph  apply only  during periods
 when flow rates  are being established
 under §60.265 (d).
    The owner or operator subject  to
 the provisions of this subpart shall in-
 stall,  calibrate, maintain  and operate a
 continuous monitoring system for meas-
 urement of the opacity of emissions dis-
 charged Into the atmosphere  from the
 control device (s).
   (b)  For the purpose of  .reports re-
 quired under 8 60.7(c), the owner or op-
 erator shall report as excess emissions
 all six-minute periods 'in which the av-
 erage opacity is 15 percent or greater.
   (c)  The owner or  operator subject to
 the provisions of this subnart shall sub-
 mit a  written  report of any  product
 change to the Administrator. Reports of
 product changes  must  be  postmarked
 not later  than 30 days after Implemen-
 tation of the product change.
 § &Q.26S  Motoitoripg of operations.
   (B> The owner or operator of any elec-
 tric submerged arc furnace subject to the
 provisions of this subpart shall  main-
 tain daily records of the following in-
 formation:
   (1) Produce feeing produced.
   (ZJ Description of constituents of fur-
 nace  charge.  Including, the quantity, by
weight.
   C3> Time and duration of each tap-
ping period and the Identification of ma-
terial tapped (slag or product.)
   (4)  All  furnace power Input data ob-
 tained under paragraph (b)  of this sec-
 tion.
   (5)  AB  flow rate data obtained  under
 paragraph (c) of this section or all fan
motor power consumption and pressure
 drop data obtained under paragraph (e)
 of this section.
   (b) The owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of this subpart shall in-
 stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate B
 device to measure and continuously re-
 cord the furnace power input. The fur-
 nace power input may be measured at the
 output or input side of the transformer.
 The device must have an accuracy of ±5
 percent over its operating range.
   (c) The owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of this sub^art shall In-
 stall, calibrate, and maintain a monitor-
 ins device  that  continuously  measures
 and  records  the volumetric  flow  rate
 through each separately ducted hood of
 the capture  system, except as provided
 under paragraph (e) of this section. The
 owner or operator of an electric  sub-
 merged arc furnace th?t is equipped with
 a water cooled cover which is designed
 to contain  and  prevent  escape  of  the
 generated  gas and ^articulate  matter
 shall monitor  only the volumetric  flow
 rate through the capture system for con-
 trol of emissions from the tapping sta-
 tion. The owner or operator may install
 tho monitoring device(s)  in any  appro-
 priate location in the exhaust duct such
 that reproducible flow rate monitoring
 will result. The flow rate monitoring de-
 vice must have an accuracy of ±10 per-
 cent over its normal operating range and
 must  be calibrated  According to the
 manufacturer's instructions.  The  Ad-
 ministrator may require  the  owner  or
 operator to demonstrate the accuracy of
 the monitoring device  relative to Meth-
 ods  1 and 2 of Anpendix A tc this port.
   (d) When  performance tests are con-
 ducted under the provisions of §  60.8 of
 this  part  to  demonstrate  compliance
 with the standards under §§60.262(a)
 (4)  and (5), the volumetric  flow  rate
 through  each separately ducted hood  of
 the  capture system must be determined
 using  the  monitoring device  required
 under paragraph  (c) of this section. The
 volumetric flow rates must be determined
 for furnace power input levels at 50 and
 100 percent of the nominal rated capacity
 of the electric submerged arc furnace.
 At all times  the electric  submerged arc
 furnace is operated, the owner or oper-
 ator shall maintain the volumetric flow
 rate at or  above the  appropriate levels
 for that furnace power input level de-
 termined during  the  most recent per-
 formance test  If emissions due to tap-'
 ping are captured and ducted separately
 from emissions of the electric submerged
 arc furnace, during each tapping  period
 the  owner or  operator shall  maintain
 the exhaust flow rates  through the cap-
 ture system over  the tapping station at
 or above the levels established during
 the most recent performance test. Oper-
 ation at lower flow rates may be consid-
 ered by the Administrator to  be  unac-
 ceptable  operation and maintenance of
 the affected facility. The owner or oper-
 ator may request that these flow rates be
 reestablished by  conducting  new per-
 formance tests under § 60.8 of  this part.
   (e) The owner or operator may as an
 alternative to paragraph (c) of this sec-
 tion determine the volumetric  flow rate
 through each fan of the capture system
from the fan power consumption, pres-
sure drop across the'fan and the fan per-
 formance curve. Only data specific to the
 operation  of the affected electric  sub-
 merged arc  furnace  are  acceptable for
 demonstration of compliance  with the
 requirements of  this  paragraph.  The
 owner or operator shall maintain on file
 & permanent record  of  the  fan  per-
 formance curve 'prepared for  a specific
 temperature) and shall:
   (1)  Install, calibrate, maintain,, and
 operate a device to continuously measure
 and record the power consumption of the
 fan motor fme^si'red In kilowatts), and
   (2)  Install, calibrate, maintain, and
 operate a device to continuously meas-
 ure fnd re-ord the pressure dron across
 the fan. The fan rower consumption and
 pressure dron measurements  must  be
 synchroni-ed to allo-v real time compar-
 isons of the data. The monitoring, de-
 vices must h?.ve an accuracv of ±5 per-
 cent over the'r normal operat'ng ranges.
   (f) The  vol'imetrlc flow rate through
 each fan of the capture system must be
 determined  from the  fan  power  con-
 sumntion,  fan pressure drop,  and  fan
 performance curve fnecifled under para-
 pra^h (e) of thij section, during anv per-
 formance test required under  3 60.8 of
 this p°rt to demonstrate comnlipnce with
 the standards under §§ 60.232 (a) (4) and
 (5). The o"-ner'or operator shall deter-.
 mire the volumetric flow rate at a repre-
 sentative temperature for furnace power
 input leve's of 50 and 100 percent of the  •
 nominal rated capacity of the electric
 submersed nrc furnace. At all times the
 e'ectric  submerged arc furnace  is  op-
 erated, the owner or operator shall main-
 tnin the fan power consumption and fan
 pressure drop at leve's such that the vol-  .
 umetric flow rat° is at or above  the levels
 established during the most recent per-
 formnnce te*t for that furnace power in-
 put level. If emissions due to tapping are
 captured and ducted serKwrately  from
 emissions of the electric submerged arc
 furnace, during each t^ppiner period the
 owner or operator shall maintain the fan
 power  consumption and  fan  pressure
 drop at levels such that the volumetric
 flow rate Is at or above the levels estab-
 lished  during the  most recent perform-
 ance test. Operation at lower flow rates
 may be considered bv the  Administrator
 to be unacceptable operation and main-
 tenance of the affected facility. The own-
 er or operator may request  th*t these
 flow rates be reestablished by conducting
 new performance  tests under  8 60.8  of
 this part. The Administrator may require
 the owner or operator to verify the fan
 performance curve by monitoring neces-
 sary fan operating parameters  and de-
 termining the gas volume moved relative
 to Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A to this
 part.
  (g) AH monitoring  devices  required
 under paragraphs (c)  and  (e) of  this
 section are to be checked for calibration
 annually in  accordance' with the proce-
 dures under §60.13(b>.

 §60.266 Test methods and? procedures.
  (a) Reference methods to Appendix A
of this part, except as provided  in fl 60.8
 (b), shall be used  to determine compli-
ance with the standards  prescribed in
§60.262 and  §60.263 as follows:
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 07—TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976
                                                     IV-144
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                       18503
   (1) Method 5 for the concentration of
 participate matter and the  associated
 moisture content except that the heating
 systems specified In paragraphs 2.1.2 and
 2.1.4 of Method 5 are not to be used when
 the carbon monoxide content of the gas
 stream  exceeds  10 percent by  volume.
 dry basis.
   (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses.
   (3) Method 2 for velocity and volumet-
 ric flow rate.
   (4) Method 3 for gas analysis, Includ-
 ing carbon monoxide.
   (b) For Method 5, the sampling time
 for each run Is  to include an Integral
 number of furnace cycles. The sampling
 time for each run must be at least 60
 minutes and  the  minimum sample vol-
 ume must be 1.8 dscm  (64 dscf)  when
 sampling emissions from  open electric
 submerged arc furnaces with wet scrub-
 ber control devices, sealed electric sub-
 merged  arc  furnaces, or semi-enclosed
 electric  submerged arc furnaces. When
 sampling emissions from other types of
 Installations,  the sampling time for each
 run must be at leist 200 minutes and the
 minimum sample .volume must  be 5.7
 dscm (200 dscf). Shorter sampling times
 or smaller sampling volumes, when ne-
 cessitated by process variables or other
 factors,  may be approved by the Admin-
 istrator.
   (c) During the performance test, the
 owner or operator shall record the maxi-
mum open hood  area  (in  hoods with
segmented or otherwise nioveable sides)
under which the process Is  expected to
be  operated  and remain in compliance
with all standards. Any future operation
of the hooding system with open areas In
excess of the maximum Is not permitted.
   (d)  The owner  or operator shall con-
struct the control device so that volu-
metric flow rates and participate matter
emissions can be accurately determined
by  applicable test methods and  proce-
dures.
   (e) During any performance' test re-
quired under § 60.8  of  this  part, the
owner or operator shall not allow gaseous
diluents  to be added to the effluent gas
stream after the fabric in an open pres-
surized fabric .filter  collector unless the
total gas volume flow from the collector
Is accurately determined and considered
in  the determination of emissions.
   (f) When  compliance with i 60.263 Is
to  be  attained  by combusting the gas
stream in a flare, the location  of the
sampling site for  participate  matter Is
to be upstream of  the flare.
   (g) For each run,  participate matter
emissions, expressed  in kg/hr (Ib/hr),
must be  determined for each exhaust
stream at which emissions are quantified
using the following equation:
where:
  £>=Emissions  of  partlculate matter In
       kg/hr (Ib/hr).
  C. ;= Concentration of partlculate matter In
       kg/dacm (lb/dscf) as determined by
       Method 6.
  g, = Volumetric flow rate of the effluent fai
       stream In dscm/hr (ds:f/hr) as do-
       termined by Method 2.

  (h) For Method 5. partlculate matter
emissions from the affected  facility,  ex-
pressed in kg/MW-hr Ub/MW-hr) must
be  determined  for each run using  the
following equation:
where:
   £ = Emissions of partlculate from the af-
       fected facility.' In  kg/MW-hr  (lb/
       MW-hr).
   Af=Total number of exhaust streams at
       which emissions are quantified.
  £»=Emission of  partlculate  matter from
    *  each exhaust stream In kg/hr (lb/
       hr). as determined In paragraph (g)
       of this section.
   p = Average furnace power Input during
       the sampling period. In megawatts
       as determined according to S 60.263
       (b).

(Sees.  Ill and 114  of the Clean Air Act. as
amended by sec.  4(a) of Pub.  L. 01-O04, Bi
Btat. 1678 (43 O.S.C. 18B7c-«, 1857C-9))

  (F» Doc.7«-13814>ued 6-3-76:6:49 •*•'
                                   IfKML ttOISTW, VOL 41, NO. 17—TUISOAY,  MAY 4, 1974
34
   TKIe 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
              | FRL 639-51

  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCE
  Delegation of Authority to Commonwealth
            of Massachusetts
   Pursuant to the delegation of  author-
 ity for the standards of performance for
 new stationary sources  (NSP3)  to  the
 Commonwealth of  Massachusetts  on
 January 23.1976, EPA is today amending
 40 CFB  60.4.  "Address,"  to reflect this
 delegation.  A  notice  announcing  this
 delegation  Is published  in the  Notices
 section of today's FEDERAL REGISTER. The
 amended § 60.4, which adds the  address
 of the Massachusetts Department of En-
 vironmental Quality Engineering, Divi-
 sion of Air Quality Control, to which all
 reports,  requests, applications,  submlt-
 tals,  and communications to the  Ad-
 ministrator 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  im-
mediately in that it  Is an administra-
tive  change and not one of substantive
content.  No additional substantive bur-
 dens are imposed on the parties affected.
 The delegation which is reflected by this
 administrative amendment was effective
 on January 23, 1976,  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 Section 111 of  the Clean Air Act, as
 amended.
 42 U.S.C.  1857C-6.
   Dated May 3, 1976.
               STANLEY W. LECRO,
            Assistant Administrator
                    /or Enforcement.
   Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
   1.  In § 60.4 paragraph (b)  is amended
 by revising subparagraph (W) to read
 as follows:
 § 60.4  Address.
  (b) • •  •  •
  (W) Massachusetts Department of En-
vironmental Quality Engineering, Divi-
sion of Air Quality Control, 600 Wash-
ington Street,  Boston.  Massachusetts

  (FB 000.76-13822 Filed 6-12-76;8:46 am]
 PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Delegation of Authority to State of New
              Hampshire
  Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources (NSPS)  to the
State of New Hampshire on February 17,
1978, EPA Is  today  amending  40  CFR
60.4,  "Address," to .-eflect  this  delega-
tion. A Notice announcing this delegation
Is published In the Notices section of to-
day's FEDERAL REGISTER. The amended
I! 60.4. which adds the address of the New
Hampshire Air Pollution Control Agency
to which  all reports, requests, applica-
tions, submittals, and communications to
the Administrator pursuant U, this part
must also be addressed, is set forth be-
low.
  The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately  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
February  17, 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.
                                                     IV-145
-------
                                               RUES AND  REGULATIONS
   This rulemaking Is effective immedi-
 ately, and is issued under the authority
 of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
 amended.
 42U.8.C. 1867C-6.
   Dated: May 3,1916.

                STANLEY W. LECRO.
             Assistant Administrator
                     of Enforcement.
   Part 60 of Chapter I, Title  40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
 as follows:
   1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b)  Is amended
 by revising subparagraph (EE) to read
 as follows:
 § 60.4  Addrcgn.
     *       •      •      *       •
   (b)  • * •
   (EE)  New Hampshire Air  Pollution
 Control Agency, .Department of Health
 and Welfare. State Laboratory Building.
 Hazen Drive, Concord, New  Hampshire
 03301.
  [FR Doc.76-13821 Filed 6-12-76;8:46 am]
     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41,  NO. 94-

       -THUKSDAY. MAY  13, 1976
35            (FRL 609-3)
   PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
       Ferroalloy Production Facilities.
                Correction
   In FR Doc. 76-12814 appearing atpaga
  18498 In the FEDERAL REGISTER of Tues-
  day, May 4, 1976 the following correc-
  tions should be made:
   1. On page 18498, second column, last
  paragraph designated "(1)", second line,
  fourth  word should  read  "representa-
  tiveness".
   2. On page 18501, first column, the sub-
  part heading Immediately preceding the
  text, should read "Subpart Z—Standards
  of Performance for Ferroalloy Produc-
  tion Facilities".
   3. On page 18501, In { 60.260,  second
  column, fourth line from the top,  the
  third word  should read "slllcomanga-".
   4. On page 18501, second column. In
  {60.261  (i). second  line,  third  void
 should read "evolution".
   ft. On page  18603, third column,  to
  J CO J66(h> the equation should hare ap-
 peared as follows:
                                         36,
       |OPP—260019: FEi 645-8)




      FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 99-

        -TMURSDAY, MAY  20, 1976
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
              (FBI. 648-4]

     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAFTER C—AIR  PROGRAMS
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation  of Authority to State of Cali-
  fornia on Behalf of Ventura  County and
  Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
  Control Districts
  Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources  (NSPS)  to the
State  of  California on  behalf of the
Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District  and  the   Northern  Sonoma
County Air Pollution Control District,
dated  February  2,  1976, EPA 15 today
amending 40 CFR 60.4, Address,  to re-
flect this delegation. A Notice announcing
this  delegation  is  published today  in
the  Notice section  of this  Issue.  The
amended 5 60.4 is set forth below. It adds
the addresses of the Ventura County and
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control Districts, to which must be ad-
dressed all reports, requests,  applica-
tions,  submlttals, and communications
pursuant to this part by  sources subject
to the NSPS  located within  these Air
Pollution Control Districts.
  The Administrator finds  good  cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately 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
Febraury 2, 1976, and It  serves no pur-
poses to delay the  technical  change  of
this  addition of  the Air  Pollution Con-
trol  District  addresses to the Code  of
Federal Regulations.
  This  rulemaking  Is effective imme-
diately.
(6ec. Ill of the dean Air  Act,  as amended
143TJJ3.C. 1857C-4J).

  Dated: May 3,1976.
             STANLEY W. LEGRO,
           Atsistant Administrator
                    for Enforcement.

  Part 60 of'Chapter I.  Title 40  of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
  1.  Section  60.4(b)  Is amended by
revising subparagraph F  to read as fol-
lows:
860.4
Address.
   •  " •
  (b) • •  •
  F California—
  Bay Area Air Pollution Control District.
•39 Ellis St.. San Francisco, CA 04109.
  Del Nort« County Air Pollution Control
District. Courthouse. Crescent City. CA 96431.
  Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District. 6600 a Broadway. Eureka, CA 9S6OL.
  Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
1700 Flower 8k (P.O. Box 097), Bakersfleld.
CA 98309.
  Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District. 420 Church  8t. (P.O.  Box 467).
Bnllnas. CA 93901.
  Northern  Sonoma County  Air  Pollution
Control District. 3313  Chanate • Hd..' Santo'
Rosa, CA 95404.
  Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, Box AJ, Weavervllie, CA 96093.
  Ventura County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. 625 E. Santa Clara St., Ventura, CA
93001.

     KDEtAL REGISTER, VOL 41,  NO, 103-
       -WEDNESDAY, MAY 26. 1976


 37
   Title 4O—Protection of Environment
              [FRL 562-8)
     CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
     SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW  STATIONARY  SOURCES
  Delegation of Authority to State of Utah
  Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance for
twelve  (12) categories of new stationary
sources (NSPS) to the State of Utah on
May 13, 1976, EPA is today amending 40
CFR 60.4, Address, to reflect this delega-
tion. A Notice announcing  this delega-
tion  Is published today In  the FEDERAL
REGISTER.  The amended  S 60.4,  which
adds the address of  the Utah Air Con-
servation  Committee to which, all re-
ports, requests, applications, submittals,
and communications to the  Administra-
tor 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  Im-
mediately 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
May  13, 1976, 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 section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857(5-6.
  Dated: June 10,1976.
              STANLEY W. LEGRO,
           Assistant Administrator
                    for Enforcement.
  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 (TT) to read
as follows:      •                     :

8 60.4   AddreM.
                                 (b)  •  •  *
                                 (TT)—State of Utah,  Utah Air Con-
                               servation Committee, State Division of
                               Health, 44 Medical Drive, Salt Lake City,
                               Utah 84113.
                                   •      •      .*       •       *   .
                                 [FR Doc.76-17433 Filed «-14-76;8:4S am]

                                   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO.  116-
                                       -TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1976
                                                       IV-146
-------
                                                 RULES AND  REGULATIONS
3 8 Title 4O— Protection of Environment

      CHAPTER  I — ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUBCH AFTER C — AIR PROGRAMS
                    864-81
39
          NEW SOURCE  REVIEW
    Delegation of Authority to the State of
                 Georgia
   The amendments below Institute cer-
 tain address changes for reports and ap-
 plications required from operators of new
 sources. EPA has delegated  to  the State
 of Georgia authority to review new and
 modified sources. The delegated author-
 ity  Includes  the reviews  under 40 CFR
 Part 52 for the prevention of significant
 deterioration. It also Includes the review
 under 40 CFR Part 60 for the standards
 of«  performance  for  new  stationary
 sources and  review  under 40 CPR Part
 61  for national emission standards for
 hazardous air pollutants.
   A notice announcing  the delegation of
 authority Is  published  elsewhere In the
 Notices section this  Issue  of the FEDERAL
 REGISTER.  These  amendments provide
 that  all reports, requests,  applications,
 submittals. and communications  previ-
 ously required for the delegated reviews
 will now  be  sent Instead to the Envi-
 ronmental Protection Division, Georgia
 Department  of  Natural  Resources, 270
 Washington Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
 30334, Instead of EPA's Region 'IV.
   The Regional Administrator finds good
 cause for  foregoing prior public  notice
 and for making this rulemaking effective
 Immediately  In that It is  an administra-
 tive change  and  not one of substantive
 content. No  additional substantive bur-
 dens are Imposed on the parties affected.
 The delegation which Is reflected by this
 administrative amendment  was effective
 on May 3, 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.
   This rulemaklng  Is effective immedi-
 ately. and Is Issued under the authority
 of  Sections 101, 110, 111.  112 and 301 of
 the Clean Air Act, as amended 42 U.8.C.
 1857, 1857C- 5, 6. 7 and 1857g;

    Dated: June 11. 1976.
                     JACK E. RAVAK,
               Regional Administrator.
  PART  60 — STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
      DELEGATION OP AUTHORITY TO THE
             STATE OF GEORGIA

     Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
  Federal Regulations, Is amended as fol-
  lows:
     2. In 5 60.4, paragraph  (b) (L)  is re-
  vised to read as follows:
  § 60.4  Address.
       *       •       *      *      •
   1   •  • •
     (L) Stole of Georgia,  Environmental Pro-
  tection Division, Department  of Natural Re-
  sources,  270  Washington  Street, 8.W, At-
  lanta, Georgia 30334.

     REDEtAl UOKTE*, VOL  41, NO. 120-

         -MONDAY, JUNE 21,  1976
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
              [FRL 574-3]

  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
 Delegation of Authority to  State of CaB-
   fomla on Behalf of Fresno, Mendoclno,
   San Joaquin,  and Sacramento County
   Air Pollution Control Districts
   Pursuant to the delegation of author-
 ity for the standards of performance for
 new stationary  sources  (NSPS) to the
 State  of California on behalf of the
 Fresno  County Air Pollution  Control
 District, the Mendoclno County Air Pol-
 lution Control District, the San Joaquin
 County  Air Pollution Control  District,
 and the Sacramento County Air Pollu-
 tion Control District, dated March  29,
 1976, EPA  Is today amending  40 CFR
 60.4, Address, to reflect this delegation.
 A Notice announcing  this delegation Is
 published today In the Notice Section of
 this Issue. The amended 5 60.4 is set forth
 below. It adds the addresses of the Fres-
 no County,  Mendoclno County, San Joa-
 quin County, and  Sacramento County
 Air Pollution Control Districts, to which
 must be addressed  all reports, requests,
 applications, submittals, and communi-
 cations pursuant to  this part by sources
 subject to the NSPS located within these
 Air Pollution Control Districts.
   The Administrator finds good cause for
 foregoing  prior public  notice  and for
 making  this rulemaklng effective Imme-
 diately in that It is  an administrative
 chenge 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
 March 29,1976, and it serves no purpose
 to delay the technical change of this ad-
 dition of the Air Pollution Control Dis-
 trict addresses  to  the Code  of Federal
 Regulations.
   This rulemaking  is effective  immedi-
 ately, and is Issued  under the authority
 of section  111 of  the Clean Air Act, aa
 amended [42 UJS.C. 1857c-6].
   Dated: June 15,1976.
                STANLEY W. LEGRO,
             Assistant Administrator
                     for Enforcement:

   Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40,  of the
 Code of Federal Regulations, is amended
 as follows:
   1. In 5 60.4, paragraph (b) is amended
 by revising subparagraph. F to read aa
 follows:

 § 60.4   Address.
     •      •      •      •       •
   (b)  • •  •
   (A)-(E)  • •  '
   (F) California:
 Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 939
   Ellis St.. Sao Francisco. CA 94109
 Del, Norte County Air Pollution Control Dis-
   trict, Courthouse, Crescent City,  CA 96631
 Fresno County Air PoUutlon Control District.
   SIB 8. Cedar Ave., Fresno, CA 93703
 Rumboldt County Air  PoUutlon Control Dis-
   trict, 6600 8. Broadway, Eureka, CA BB501
 Kern County Air  Pollution Control District,
   1700 Flower St. (P.O. Box 997), Bakenfleld.
   CA 93303
Mendoclno  County Air PoUutlon Control
  District, County Courteous*.  Uklab. CA
  95483
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
  District. 430 Church  8t (P.O. Bos 487),
  Salinas. CA 93901
Northern Sonoma County Air PoUutlon Con-
  trol District, 3313 Cbanate Bd., Santa Rosa,
  CA 96404
Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
  District, 3231 Stockton Blvd.. Sacramento,
  CA 96837
San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control
  District, 1601  E. Hazelton  St.  (P.O.  Bos
  3009). Stockton. CA 96301
Trinity County  Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict, Box AJ, WeavervlUe, CA 96093
Ventura County  Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict, 638 E. Santa Clara St., Ventura. CA
  93001
    FEOHA1 UGISTEI, VOL 41, NO.  132-

         -THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1976
                                                         IV-147
-------
  SECTION  V
  STANDARDS OF
 PERFORMANCE FOR
 NEW STATIONARY
     SOURCES

Amendments to Reference Methods
-------
   TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976
PART II:
ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
   STANDARDS OF
  PERFORMANCE FOR
  NEW STATIONARY
      SOURCES

 Amendments to Reference Methods
-------
 23060
          PROPOSED RULES
   ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION
               AGENCY

           [40CFRPart60]
              [FRL 536-4]
  STANDARDS OF  PERFORMANCE FOR
      NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
    Proposed Amendments to Referent*
               Methods
  On December 23,  1971,  the Environ-
mental Protection Agency promulgated
standards of performance  for five cate-
gories of stationary sources under sec-
tion  111  of  the Clean  Air  Act,  as
amended. An appendix to the regulation
contained Reference Methods 1-9, which
detailed requirements  for  performance
testing of  stationary  sources.  Since
promulgation of these reference methods
EPA has continued to evaluate them. As
a  result,  the  need  for a  number  of
changes which would clarify the methods
and/or improve   their accuracy and
reliability has become apparent. The
following proposed amendments  incor-
porate these changes to Reference Meth-
ods 1-8. Revisions to Reference Method
9 were promulgated on November  12,
1974 (39 FR 39872).
  Changes  common  to all eight of the
reference methods are:  (1) the clarifica-
tion of procedures and equipment spec-
ifications, and (2) the addition of metric
unite along with English units. Specific
changes to the methods are:
              METHOD 1

  A statement was added to clarify that
the method does not apply to stacks con-
taining cyclonic or swirling flow or stacks
smaller than 0.3 m (1 ft) in diameter or
0.07 m" (0.8 ft3) in cross sectional area.
A procedure  for verifying  the existence
of non-cyclonic or non-swirling flow was
added. For cases where large cross sec-
tional variation of the pollutant concen-
tration is suspected or for unusually large
diameter stacks, the method was revised
to provide that more than two traverse
diameters  may be  specified  by  the
Administrator.
              METHOD  2

  The use of the method has been limited
to  non-cyclonic  or non-swirling  gas
streams. Greater details for calibration
of the Type S pitot tube have been added
Including:  criteria for standard  type
pilot tubes;  specification of calibration
at 915 m/min (3000  ft/min); details of
acceptable  wind  tunnel  systems; and
additional  details for  calibrating iso-
lated pitot tubes and pitobe assemblies.
              METHOD  3

  For determining the molecular weight
of a stack gas Cample, it is now acceptable
 to  use  either an  Orsat analyzer  or  a
 Fyrite' type combustion analyzer. Previ-
 ously,  only  the  Orsat analyzer  was
 specified.  The integrated gas-sampling
 train for this method was altered to in-
 clude a surge tank before the rate meter
 in  order to eliminate pulsation effects
 caused  by the diaphragm pump.  Also,
 because this method  requires  propor-
 tional sampling, an inclined manometer
 was added to the train to measure veloc-
 ity head.
  Where low CO, (less than 4%) or high
 Oa  (greater than  15%)  concentrations
 exist, the  procedure has been revised to •
 require an Orsat having at least  0.1%
 subdivisions.  The  revised method alao
 provides sampling site selection criteria
 and criteria for determining the num-
 ber of sample points. More detail has
 been added to the analytical procedure.
 Finally, the  former criteria for ttane
 consecutive measurements  have  been
 changed to require three measurements
 within 0.3%  for greater than 3% CO.
 and 0.2%  for less than 3% CO*
              METHOD 4

  This method now contains two sepa-
 rate methods for  moisture  determina-
 tion:  (1)  a reference method for cases
 where the Method 5 train is not used, and
 (2) an approximation method for mois-
 ture content to be used for setting isoki-
 netlc  sampling  rates.  In the  moisture
 sampling  train  by the  approximation
 method, the.rate meter is now located
 before the dry gas meter.
              METHOD 5
  The  specification  for  temperatures
 around  the filter holder was revised  to
 read  "no  greater  than  120 ±14°  C
 (248 ±25°  F)., or such other temperature
 as specified by an  applicable subpart of
 the standards." The  revised wording off
 the temperature specification does not
 change  the procedure contained in the
 original method; it only clarifies the in-
 tended  procedure  by  providing  more
 specific instruction. The revised language
 also provides flexibility for the Adminis-
 trator to specify other temperature limits
in applicable subparts of the standards.
 Method 5  employs  an out-of stack filter
 to facilitate temperature  control.  This
 usage is not changed by these proposed
 amendments. Specifications  for  weight
 and volume measurements were changed
 to reflect the capabilities of most widely
used apparatus.  To further Insure the
validity of the sample, leak checks of the
sampling train are now required after
  1 Mention of trade names Is not intended
to constitute endorsement by EPA.
 sampling runs as well as before. Finally,
 the  gas-sampling train was altered to
 Include a stack gas temperature sensor.
              METHOD  6
  In the sampling train, the flow control
 valve is. now located before the pump in-
 stead of after to allow better leak checks.
 Samples collected by the train are to be
 diluted to 100 ml instead of 50 ml to al-
 low  the number of rinses of the implng-
 ers necessary for adequate sample recov-
 ery.  The average flow rate through the
 sampling train was reduced to 1 liter/
 mln to prevent reagent  carry-over from
 one  tapinger to the next.
              METHOD 7
  A  provision was added to require the
 potassium nflzate used  for preparation
 of the standard solution to be dried at
 185-110° C for a minimum of two hours.
 Currently,   during   sample  recovery,
 sodium hydroxide is added to the sample
 solution. These revisions  require' that
 only enough sodium hydroxide be added.
 to adjust the pH to 9-12. This will pre-
 vent a large excess of sodium hydroxide.
 Similarly, during the analysis procedure.
 «ay «nough ammonium hydroxide, may
 fee added to the sample to  raise toe pH
 to 10. This requirement prevents possible
 differences in color intensity due to an
 (excess  of ammonium hydroxide. Also
 during sample analysis, only one-half of
 the sample is to be analyzed to avoid toss
 of the sample due to analytical error.'
 Finally,  two  changes  concerning  the
 spectrophotometer were made: (1)  for
 spectrophotometer calibration, an equa-
 tion Is  provided  to determine a factor
 tfeat insures the best fit  through  the
 fOSaatioD. potato, and  (2)  the absorb-
 •ace measurement is now to be made at
 iiBnm instead of 420 nm.
              METHOD 8
  During sample analysis a 10 ml  ali-
 quot of SO, sample Is specified Instead of
 K ml to reduce the amount of titrant re-
 quired.  A stack gas temperature sensor
     added to the integrated  gas-sam-
     traln.
  finally, EPA is presently in the process
 off can verting the units in its standards to
 the International System of-Units (SI).
 fo beeping with this policy, we will soon
con veil the equipment specifications  and
 procedures of the reference methods to
 81. We anticipate that in some situa-
 tions it wfll be necessary, for practical
 application, to use a .mixture of SI  and
metric units. We solicit any comments
 that will expedite and facilitate  this
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL  41. NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976


                                                   V-2
-------
                                                     PROPOSED  RUiES
                                                                                                                       23061
  By this notice, the Administrator is in-
viting comments on the proposed revi-
sions. Submittals should, wherever pos-
sible,  be  supported  with  data  and/
calculations.
  Comments on  the proposed revisions
should be submitted, in triplicate, to  the
Emission  Standards  and  Engineering
Division, U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency, Research Triangle  Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention:  Mr. Don R.
Goodwin.  All comments post-marked no
later   than  July   23,  1976   will   be
considered.
  Copies of comments  received will be
available  for public  inspection during
normal business hours at the Public In-
formation   Reference  Unit  (EPA  Li-
brary), Room  2922, 401 M  Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C.
  This amendment is proposed under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended  (42 U.S.C. 1857c6).
 v Dated: May 27,1976.
                      JOHN QUARLES,
                 Acting Administrator.
  It  is  proposed to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Fed-
eral  Regulations by revising  Methods 1
through  8  of Appendix A—Reference
Methods as  follows:
      APPENDIX A—REFERENCE METHODS
METHOD 1—SAMPLE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSES
          FOB STATIONARY SOURCES
  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. A sampling  site and   the
number of traverse points are selected to aid
In the extraction of a representative sample.
  1.2  Applicability.  This method Is appli-
cable to sampling of gas streams contained
In ducts, stacks, or flues.
  It  Is Intended that all new sources con-
sider the requirements of this method before
construction of the affected facility. Should
they  be overlooked, some sites may not  lend
themselves to  this method and temporary
alterations to the stack or deviation from the
standard procedure may be required. Such
,cases are subject to approval by  the Admin-
istrator.
v  This  method  Is  not applicable  to stacks
containing cyclonic  or  swirling flow  (see
5 2.4)  or stacks smaller than about  0.3 m
•(1 ft) In diameter or 0.07 m2 (0.8 ft-)  In cross
•sectional  area.  When these cases are  en-
countered, an alternate procedure, subject to
approval of the Administrator, Is required.
i  2. Procedure.
*  2.1  Sampling site. Select a sampling site
-that  Is at least 8 stack or duct  diameters
downstream  and 2 diameters upstream from
any flow disturbance such as a bend,  ex-
pansion, contraction, or visible flame. If 1m-
^practlcal, select an alternate site that Is at
least 2 stack or duct diameters downstream
and  0.5 diameter  upstream from the  flow
disturbances. For a rectangular cross section,
use an equivalent diameter calculated from
the  following  eqxiation  to determine   the
respective distances:
               "*~L+W   Equation 1-1

•where:

         D.=equivalent diameter

          L=Length

         W = Width
  2.2  Minimum number of  traverse points.
When the 8 and 2 diameter criterion can be
met, the minimum number of traverse points
shall be 12 for stack diameters greater than
0.6m (24 In.)  and 8 for stack  diameters equal
to or less than 0.6 m (24 In.).
                                            When the 8 and 2 diameter criterion can-
                                          not be met, use Figure 1-1 to determine the
                                          minimum number of traverse points.  To
                                          use this figure, first  determine  the. dis-
                                          tances from the chosen  sampling location
                                          to the nearest upstream and downstream dis-
                                          turbances. Divide each distance by  the dlarn-
                                          .eter or equivalent diameter to determine the
                                          distance  In  terms  of the number of duct
                                          diameters. Then, determine from Figure 1-1
                                          the minimum number of traverse points that
                                          corresponds (1) to the number of duct diam-
                                          eters  upstream and  (2)  to  the number  of
                                          diameters downstream. Select the higher  of
                                          the two minimum numbers of traverse points,
                                          or  a  greater value,  such that for  circular
                                          stacks the number Is a multiple of four, and
                                          for rectangular stacks, the  number follows
                                          the criteria In section 2.3.2.
   50
    o.s
                         * NUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM-
                                      DISTANCE A

                       1.0                1.5
                                                             2.0
                                                                                2.5
   30
   20
3
Z
   10
T
T
A
\
'}
\
B
1
-j


1
1
i
THSTUflBANCE

_ SAMPLING
-~ SITE

DISTURBANCE
          »FROM POINT OF ANY TYPE OF
           DISTURBANCE (BEND, EXPANSION. CONTRACTION. ETC.)
                        I
                        4        S         6        7         8
                        'NUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM •
                                      DISTANCES

                     Figure 1-1. Minimum number ot traverse points.
  2.3  Cross scctiona.1 layout and location of
traverse points.
  2.3.1  Circular stacks. Locate  the traverse
points on two perpendicular diameters  ac-
cording to Table 1-1 and the example shown
In Figure 1-2.
  When large cross f.cctlonal variation of  the
pollutant concentration Is suspected, the Ad-
ministrator may  specify that more than two
diameters  which divide the stack cross sec-
tion Into equal parts shall be used. More than
two diameters may also be  vised with  ap-
proval from the Administrator for unusually
largo diameter stacks.
  One of the diameters shall be In  a plane
containing the greatest expected concentra-
tion variation, e.g., after bends one diameter
shall be In the plane of the bend. This latter
requirement becomes less critical as the dis-
tance from the disturbance increases. There-
                                           fore, other diameter locations may be used,
                                           subject to approval from the Administrator.
                                             In addition, for stacks greater than 0.6 m
                                           (24 In.)  no sampling points shall be selected
                                           within 2.54 cm (1 in.) of the stack walls, and
                                           for stacks equal to or less than 0.6 m (24 In.),
                                           no sampling points within  1.27 cm (Y2 in.)
                                           of the stack walls. To meet  this criterion, do
                                           the following:
                                             2.3.1.1  Stacks greater than 0.6 m (24 in.).
                                           When any of the traverse points,  as located
                                           in section 2.3.1. fall within 2.54 cm (1 In.) of
                                           the stack walls, relocate them away from  the
                                           stack  walls to a distance of (1) 2.64 cm (1
                                           In.) or (2) a  distance equal to the nozzle
                                           Inside diameter, whichever Is larger. These re-
                                           located traverse points  (on each end of  a
                                           diameter) shall  be the "adjusted" traverse
                                           points.
                                    FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL  41, NO.  Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976
                                                         V-3
-------
23062
PROPOSED RULES
1
1
	 r
i
i
o 1
i
i
i
O 1 0
1
0 { 0
1
1
o 1 o
1
1
I
1 0
1
"!"•"
1
_J 	
1
1
                   Figure 1-3.  Example showing rectangular slack cross section divided into
                         12 equal areas, with traverse points at centroid of each area..
                               Table 1-1.  Location of traverse points in circular stacks

                             (Percent of stack diameter from inside wall  to traverse point)
Traverse
point
number
on a
diameter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2
14.6
35.4























4 '
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3





















Number of traverse p
6 8 I 10 T~12
4. 4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6



















3.3
10.5
19.4
32.3
£7.7
60.6
89.5

96.7
















•M
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4

85.4
91.8
97.5
t













2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.5
64.5

75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9












sints (
"T"
1.8
5.7
9.9
14.6
20.1
26.9
36.6

63.4
73.1
79.9
85.4
90.1
94.3
93.2










>n a d
~6~
1.6
4.9
8.5
12.5
16.9
22.0
28.3

37.5
62.5
71.7
78.0
83.1
87.5
.91.5
95.1
98.4








ianete
"Ts~
1.4
4.4
7.5
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6

29.6
33.2
61.8
70.4
76.4
81.2
85.4
89.1
92.5
95.6
98.6






r
"icT
1 1
3.9
6.7
9.7
12.9
16.5
20.4
" n \ 24
1.1
3.5
6.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
I
25.0 21.8
30. 5 126.1
38.8
31.5
61.2 39.3
69.4
75.0
60.7
63.5
79.6 , 73.9
83.5
78.2
87.1 |82.0
90.3 ;85.4
93.3 !C8.4
96.1 ; 91. 3
98.7



-
94.0
96.5
98.9


1 j
3.2
5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1

19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
39.8
60.2
67.7
72.8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.3
89.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
98.9
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41. NO. Ill—TUESDAY, AWE •, 1976
                                                  V-4
-------
                                PROPOSED RULES
                                                                                                     23063
TRAVERSE
  POINT

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
                DISTANCE.
               %  of diameter

                    4.4
                   14.7
                   ?9.5
                   70.5
                   85.3
                   S5.6
         igi.irt I-?,  r/.'inrile :.!'.'>:. in'i •liicul'ir st-v.k cro'S S(.':ti<.-;i cl.'.'iii.j ii !-.i
        2 equal rn-as'. v. ith loi-.v.ton c! lrjvj:::'j p-jitits :il c'.Miirci'J ci cjon  orj.i.

         r*  fncf.c  i \vn cuff f»Q
-------
23064
PROPOSED  RULES
                      1.90-Z.Mtm
                      (0.75-1.0 UJ
                                             Figure 2-1.  Pitot tube-manometer assembly.
                      Th» calibration of  magnehallcs, if used.
                     must be checked oa-slte before  and after
                     each test run.
                      3.3  Temperature  gauge.  Thermocouple.
                     liquid filled bulb  thermometer,  bimetallic
                     thermometer, mercury-in-glaas thermometer,
                     or other gauges that are capable of measur-
                     ing temperature to within 1.6% of the mini-
                     mum absolute  stack temperature! The tem-
                     perature gauge shall be attached to the pilot
                     tube such that the sensor does not touch any
                     metal and Its position  la adjacent and about
                     1.90 to 2.54 cm (0.75 to 1 In.) from the pltot
                     tube openings  (see Figure 9-1).  Alternate
                     positions may be used  If the pltot tube-tem-
                     perature gauge system Is calibrated accord-
                     Ing to the procedure of section 4. If it can be
                     shown to the satisfaction of the Administra-
                     tor that a difference of  not more than  1%
                     In  the velocity measurement will  be  In-
                     troduced, the temperature gauge need not be
                     attached to the pltot tube.
                      9.4  Pressure probe and gauge. Piezometer
                     tube and mercury-  or water-ailed  TJ-tube
                     manometer capable of measuring stack pres-
                     sure to within  2.5  mm Hg (0.1 In. Hg). The
                     static tap of a standard type pltot tube or
                     one leg of a Type S pltot tube with the face
                     openings positioned  parallel to the gas flow-
                     may also be used as the pressure probe.
                      3.5 - Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other
                     barometers  capable  of  measuring  atmos-
          pheric pressure to within 9.5 mm Hg (0.1 in.
          Hg). In many cases, the  barometric reading
          may  be obtained from a nearby weather bu-
          reau station. In which case the station value
          (which Is the absolute barometric pressure)
          shall be requested  and an  adjustment for
          elevation differences between the  weather
          station  and the  sampling  point  shall be>
          applied at a rate of minus 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 In.
          Hg)  per 80 m  (100  ft)  elevation Increase or
          vice versa for elevation decrease.
            2.6  Oas  analyzer. To  analyze  gas com-
          position for determining molecular  weight.
          Use Method 3 or other methods specified by
          the Administrator for dry molecular weight
         ' and use Method 5 or Reference Method 4 for
          moisture content.  Other  methods  may be
          used when approved by the Administrator.
            2.7  Calibration pltot tube. Standard type,
          to calibrate the Type 8 pltot tube. The stand-
          ard type pltot tube shall have a known co-
          efficient obtained from the National  Bureau
          of Standards. Route 70 8, Quince Orchard
          Road, • Oaithersburg. Maryland.  An alterna-
          tive Is to use a Prandtl type pltot tube de-
          signed according to the criteria (given below
          and Illustrated In Figure 2-2; see also Refer-
          ence 6.7 or  8.8 for greater detail) which en-
          sure  that MB coefficient will be O.M±0.01.
            3.7.1  Hemispherical or eUlpsodlal tip (ia-
          let eud of the Impact tube)        '••••'
                                  HMIA1 UOISTEfc VOL  41, NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE I,  1976
-------
1— I 1— 1
i
«?k o -;

                                                             r>3D
                                                               STATIC
                                                               HOLES
                                                       HEMISPHERICAL
                                                            TIP
                            Figure 2-2. Standard Pltrt tube.
  3.7.3  Eight  diameters  of  straight  run
(baaed on the diameter of the external tube)
between the tip and the static pressure holes.
  3.7.3  Sixteen diameters between the static
pressure boles  and the centerllne of the ex-
ternal tube, following the BO* bend.
  3.7.4  Eight static pressure holes  of equal
•lee (approximately  0.71  mm  or  1/33  In.
diameter), equally spaced  In  a piezometer
ring configuration.
  8.7.8  Ninety-degree  bend  of relatively
large radius (approximately three diameters).
  3.8 Calibration    differential    pressure
gauge—For calibration  purposes,  inclined
manometer, or equivalent device, capable of
measuring  velocity head to within 0.13 mm
H,O (0.005  in. H.O).
  8. Procedure.
  8.1 Bet  up  the apparatus  as shown In
Figure 8-1. Make sure all connections are
tight and leak free. Level and zero the ma-
nometer. Because the manometer  level and
zero may drift  due to vibrations and tem-
perature changes, make periodic checks dur-
ing the sample run. Record all necessary data
as shown In the example data sheet (Figure
2-3).
  3.3  Measure  the  velocity head and tem-
perature at the  traverse  points specified by
Method 1.
  3.3  Measure  the static pressure in the
stack.  One  reading  Is usually adequate for
all  measuring points during the test; how-
ever, this must  be  confirmed by  randomly
moving the  pressure probe over the cross sec-
tion to see If there are any significant varia-
tions.  I.e.. greater than  about 100 mm H,O
(4 In. H,O). If  there are significant varia-
tions, check the  location  for disturbances. If
none are found, measure and record the
static pressure at each traverse point.
t
i
t
i
i
i



IflMT
IflTF RIllV'Nn
STACK 0!A'.i£-
JASO'.'ETKICF
:-OSSSECTIO
JPERATORS _
'iTOT TUBE I.C
AVG. COEFf
LAST DATE
Tnvene
Pt No.



















•EF. OR oi:.:Er;s!or;
'RE?SUR£,mmH5(ii
HAL AR?A m2{f;Z)
', mt!n )
i Hrj)


). f.'O.
•iri="T r» = -
CALIBRATED

Vel. Hd..4>
mm linj HjD


















Suck Temperature
tj.0Cf0F)


















Anrogo
Tt°KlnR)




















SCHEMATIC OF STACK
CAOSS SECTION
V
mm Hj (ia.Hg)



















^7



















                                                                                                                                      •o
                                                                                                                                      JO
                                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                                      TI
                                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                                      en
                                                                                                                                                                                  c
                                                                                                                                                                                  m
                                                                                           •If preliminary lnveit!;itioii shows that Pj virin no more than 109 rara HjO
                                                                                           (4 in. H20), Heard flnt rtiding.
                                                                                                                   Figure 2-3. Velocity traverse data.


                                                           FEDERAL  KEOISTH, VOL 41, NO.  Ill—TUESDAY,  JUNE t, 1976
-------
 23066
           (PB©IP©SEB> SUIES
  3.4  Determine the atmospheric pressure.
  3.5  Determine the dry stack gas molecular
weight. For combustion processes, use Method
3. For processes emitting essentially air, an
analysis need not be conducted: use a moteo-
ulnr weight of 29. For other processes, con-
suit the Administrator.
  3.6  Obtain the moisture  content  from
Method 5 or by using Preference  Method 4.
  3.7  Determine the cross sectional area of
the stack or duct at the sampling location.
Whenever possible, It to better to  physically
measure the stack dimensions rather than
using blueprints.
  4. Calibration.
  4.1  PI tot tube.
  4.1.1   Calibration set-up—Calibration shall
be dona In a flow system having the follow-
ing essential design features:
  4.1.1.1  The flowing  gas stream must be
confined to a definite cross-sectional area.
either  circular  or  rectangular. For circular
cross-sections, the minimum  duct diameter
shall be 30.5 cm (12 Inches); for rectangular
cross-sections, the width (shorter side) shall
be at least 25.4 cm (10 Inches).
  4.1.12 The cross sectional area must be
constant over a distance of 10 or  more duct
diameters.  For  a rectangular cross section.
use an equivalent  diameter calculated from
he following equation to determine the num-
ber of duct diameters:
considerations presented In sections  4.1.4-
4.1.5. Noto elEo that this procedure applies
only to single-velocity calibration; see Pref-
erence 6.8 for more  details. It Is recom-
mended tJiat  an Identification number be
assigned  to  the pltot  tube, and  that this
number be permanently marked or engraved
on the body of the tube; also, one leg of the
tube should be marked "A", and the other,
"B". To obtain calibration data for both the
"A" and "B" sides, proceed as follows:
  471-.8.1  Make sure that the manometer Is
properly filled and that the oil is free from
contamination. Inspect and leak-check all
pltot lines; repair or replace If necessary.
  4.1.22  Level  and zero  the  manometer.
Turn  on Ahe fan.  and allow the flow  to
stabilize. Seal the Type 8 entry port.
  4.1.2.3  Ensure that the manometer is level
and zeroed. Position the standard pltot tube
at the calibration point (determined oa out-
lined in sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.6), and align It
so that Its tip la pointed directly into the
flow.  Particular care should be  taken  In
aligning the tube, to avoid yaw and pttch
                     2LW
                  = (L+W) Equation 2-1
where:
                                      angles. Make sure that the entry port sur-
                                      rounding the tuba Is properly sealed.
                                        4.1.2.4  Peed AP-ii and record Its valuo to
                                      a data table, similar to the one shown in
                                      Figure 2-4. Remove  the standard pltot tube
                                      from the duct and  disconnect It from the
                                      manometer. Seal  the  standard  entry  port.
                                        4.12.5  Connect the Type 8 pltot tube So
                                      the manometer. Open the Type 8 entry port.
                                      Check the manometer level and zero. Inssrt
                                      and align the Type S pltot tube so that Bo
                                      "A" side Impact opening is  at the same point
                                      as was the standard pltot tubs, and is pointed
                                      directly Into the  flow.  Make sure that the.
                                      entry port surrounding the tube Is  properly'
                                      sealed.
                                        4.12.6  Pead AP> and enter Its valua la &a
                                      data table. Remove the Type 8 pltot  tubs
                                      from the duct and  disconnect  It from the
                                      manometer.
                                        4.12.7  Repeat steps 4.12.3 through 4.1.2.6
                                      above, until three sets of velocity head read-
                                      Ings have been obtained.
                                        4.12.8  Repeat steps 4.12.3 through 4.12.7
                                      above for tbe B-slde of the  Type S pltot Safes.
         D.= Equivalent diameter

          L = Length

         W=Width
  To ensure the presence of stable, fully
developed flow patterns at the calibration
olte, or "test section," the olte must be lo-
cated at least 8 dlametero downstream and
toro diameters  upstream from the aearesg
disturbances.
  NOTE.—Wind tunnels ulth wall-developed
flow patterns (I.e., flow parallel to the duct
aids) may also be used.
  4.1.1.3  The flow system shall hove the ca-
pacity to generate a teat-section velocity
Ground 915 m/m'.n. (3000 ft/mln.), which la
the  approximate midpoint of the "normal
working range"  305  to 1525 m/mln.  or
~1000  to 5000 ft/mln. This velocity most bo
constant  with time,  to guorantea steady
flow during calibration.
  Note that  Type-S pltot tube coefficients
obtained by single-velocity calibration at the
midpoint of the normal worUng range will
generally be valid to within ±8 percent over
the  entire range. If a more precise correla-
tion between Cp and velocity is desired, tbe
flow system shall have the capacity to gem-'
erate a number of distinct, time-Invariant
test-section velocities, covering the normal
working range, and calibration data shall be
taken  at  regular velocity Intervals between
305  and  1525  m/mln.  (1000 and 6000 ft/
mln.). (See Reference 6.9 for details.)
  4.1.1.4  Two  entry ports, one each for the
standard and Type 8 pltot tubes, shall be
cut in the test section: the standard pltot
entry  port shall be located  slightly down-
stream of the Type  8 port, so  that  the
standard and Type 8 Impact openings  will
lie In  the same cross-section.! jdone during
calibration. To facilitate alignment of the
pltot tubes during calibration, it la advisable
that the test section be constructed of plesl-
glas or some other transparent material.
  4.12  Calibration  procedure.  Wote  the*
thlo procedure  is a general one, aati must sso5
be used without first reforming &> the spectas
 PITOTTUBE IDENTIFICATION NUMBEJfc.
                                                      OATS:
  CALIBRATED BY:.

RUWMO.
. H
§
3-
"A" SI0E CALIBRATION
APstd
em H20
(in. H20)




AP(s)
emH20
(in. Ha®



AVERAGE
Cp(S»





ffiEV.





RUWWO.
U
2
3 .
"B"S!DECALIBflATIOir
APstd
cmHzO
(in. (-220)




APM"
cm M?t9
(in. HgO)



AVERAGE
MS)





©iVo •




DEV.°   £p(S) • CpfSKavg.)  {MUST BE £8.8
          .°   £p(S) • CpfSKavq.)  {
         DIFFERENCE:  Aavg -Bawi
                                                  .(MUSTSi £  O.OJJ
                Figure 2-4. Pitottube calibration data.
  4.1.8  Calculations.
  •3.1.3.1  Eta each of the 6 pairs of velocity heed .readlago (1/3, 8 from Side A and 3 from
     B)  obtained la section 4.13 above, calculate the value of  tho TTyps 8  pltot Sufeo
 ooaffleteaS
                                            OEGISTEQ, VOL. 41, NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8,  1976


                                                          V-8
-------
                                 PROPOSED  RULES
                                                        23067
                                c
                                 'p(8) =
                                                Ap8
                            Equation 2-2
where:
Cairn =• Type S pitot tube coefficient
Cn.t from C»  (side A).
and the deviation of each B-side value of Cpcs> from Op  (side B). Use the following equation:

                            Deviation=CB<6)-'Cp( A or B)              Equation 2-3
  4.1.3.4 Calculate a, the average deviation from the mean, for both the A and B aides
of the pitot tube. Use the following equation:
                        a(side AorB) =
                                                                        Equation 2-4
  4.1.4  Specific considerations pertaining to
calibration of  Isolated  type S pitot tubes.
When an isolated Type  S pitot tube Is to be
calibrated, select a calibration point  at or
near the center of the duct, and follow  the
procedures outlined  in sections  4.1-2 and
4.1.8, above. The coefficients so obtained,  i.e.,
SP  (side A)  and ??„  (side B), will be valid
for the measurement of stack gas velocities
between 305 and 1625 m/mln. (1000 and 6000
ft/mln.), so  long as the Isolated pitot tube
is used. If, however,  the pitot tube is used
as  a component of  a pitobe assembly,  the
isolated coefficient values  may or may  not
apply; this is discussed  more fully In section
4.1.5.
  4.1.6  Pitobe Assemblies. Generally,  when
a Type S pitot tube Is used as a component
of  a pitobe assembly, its A and B-side  co-
efficients  will differ  appreciably from their
respective isolated values  if there Is aero-
dynamic  Interactions among the assembly
components. The isolated  and assembly  co-
efficient values will only be the same if  the
aesembly is  constructed  according to  the
following specifications:
   (a) To minimize aerodynamic Interactions
between the pitot tube and sampling nozzle
there must be a separation distance  (free-
space) of at least 1.90 cm (% in.) between
the nozzle and pitot tube, with the largest
size nozzle (usually 1.3 cm or V4 In., l.d.) in
place. (See Figure 2-5.)
  (b) To minimize aerodynamic Interactions
between  the  thermocouple and pitot tube,
the thermocouple wire must be mounted on
the pitot tube in such a way that the tip of
the wire is  in line with, but  at least 1.90
cm (% in.) from the center of the pitot tube
impact openings. (See Figure 2-6.)
  (c) To eliminate pitot tube-probe sheath
Interference, there must be at least 7.62 cm
(3" in.) between the leading edge of the probe
and the center of the pitot tube Impact open-
Ings. (Bee Figure 2-7.)
  For  those  assemblies which either (1)
meet requirements (a) through  (c)  above
but  have unknown Isolated coefficients, or
(2) fall to meet these requirements, use the
procedures to calibrate the  pitot tube-noB-
zle-thennoeouple assembles outlined in sec-
tions 4.1.2 and  4.1.8,  tn  conjunction with
the  following  apecial considerations,  to
determine the A and B-elde coefficients of
the Type 8 pitot tube:
                                           TYPES PITOT TUBE
                                                      X> 1.50 cm (3/4 W tor Dn " 1.3 em (1/2 W   „
  [SAMPLING NOZZLE
                                                             Oca
            •Figure 2-6. Minimum pitot-nozzle separation needed to prevent Interference.

                                                             ,W>7.82etnOia
                                              THERMOCOUPLE
                                                 X
                                                                     Z> 189 «m|3A to)
                                              TYPE-S PITOT TUSE
                             SAMPLE PROBE
                Figure 2-6.  Proper thermocouple placement to prevent interference.


               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO.  Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976



                                      V-9
-------
23068
PROPOSED RULES
                                                                       TYPE-S PITOT TUBE
                                                   SAMPLE PROBE  -«	Y>7.62cn> (3fa.)
                           Figure 2-7. Minimum pilot-sample probe separation needed to prevent Interference.
                                     Figure 2-& Projected-area models for typical pitobe assemblies.
                        (1) Although it la preferable that the cali-
                     bration point be located at or near the cen-
                     ter of the duct. Insertion of a probe sheath
                     into a small duct may cause significant cross-
                     sectlonal  area blockade, and  yield Incorrect
                     coefficient values.  Therefore,  to minimi^
                     the blockage effect, the calibration point may
                     be a few Inches off-center If necessary.  To
                     keep the actual  reduction in  Cp due  to
                     blockage below 1 percent. It is necessary that
                     the  theoretical  blockage, as determined  by
                     a projected-area model of the probe sheath,
                     be 2 percent  or less  of  the  duct  cross-
                     sectional  area for assemblies without  ex-
                     ternal sheaths (see Figure 2-8a)  and 3 per-
                     cent or less  for assemblies  with external
                     sheaths (Figure 2-8b).
                        (11)  For pitobe assemblies In which pi tot
                     tube-nozzle Interference is a  factor  (I.e.,
                     those In  which the pltot-nozzle separation
                     distance is less than 1.90 cm (%  in.)  with a
                     1.3 cm (V4 in.) nozzle in place) the value of
                     CP will depend somewhat on the amount of
                     free  space between the tube and nozzle;  in
                     these instances,  separate calibrations shall
                     be performed with  each of the  commonly
                     used nozzle sizes In place. Note that single-
                     velocity  calibration technique will be  ac-
                     ceptable for this purpose, even though the
                     larger nozzle jdzes (>0.635 cm or  % In.) are
                     not  ordinarily used for  isoklnetlc. sampling
                     at velocities around 916 m/mln. (3000 ft/
                     mln.), which la  the calibration velocity.
                       4.1.8  Recallbratlon and Field Use.
                       4.1.6.1  The Type 8  pltot  tube shall  be
                     calibrated before its Initial use.  Thereafter,
           if the tube haa been significantly damaged
           by field  use (for example, if the  impact
           openings are bent out of shape, cut,  nicked.
           or noticeably misaligned), it shall be repaired
           if possible and recalibrated, or replaced, if
           necessary.
            4.1.62  When the Type 8 pltot tube la used
           in the field, the appropriate A or B-*tde co-
           efficient shall be  used  to perform velocity
           calculations, depending  upon which  side of
           the pltot tube is pointed toward the  flow.
            4.1.6.3  When  sampling  a small  duct
           (~l2-36 Inches  in diameter) with a pltob*
           assembly, the probe sheath can block a sig-
           nificant part of the duct cross-section, caus-
           (ing a reduction in the value of  C». There-
           fore, In certain Instances it may be necessary,
           prior to sampling, to make  adjustments in
           the  coefficient values obtained by calibra-
           tion.  Consult Reference 6.9 for details.
            4.2  Temperature gauges.  Calibrate  dial
           and liquid filled  bulb  thermometers  and
           thermocouple-potentiometer  systems  against
           mercury-ln-glass thermometers. Ice bath and
           boiling water (corrected for barometric pres-
           sure)  are acceptable  reference points.  For
           other devices, check with the Admlniatator.
            4.3  Barometers. Calibrate against  a mer-
           cury barometer.
            6. Calculations.
            Carry out  calculations, retaining at least
           one extra decimal figure beyond that of tb*
           acquired  data. Bound off figures  after final
           calculation.
            5.1   Nomenclature.
                                   FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL.  41,  NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE i, 1976
                                                         v-io
-------
                               PROPOSED RULES
                                                                                               23069
 A = Cross sectional area of stack, m1 (ft1)
B».= Water vapor in the gas stream (from Method 5 or Reference Method 4), pro-
       portion by volume
 C,=Pitot tube coefficient, dfmensionless
 /C,= Pitot tube constant,
                         •U 07
       for the metric system arid
                                     (°K)(mmHfO)
                                                     T/l
                                                     J
                               ft P (Ib/lb-mole) (in. Kg)"!'/.
                         bj-48 s^ L   (°R)(in. H,0)    J
  Md

  M.
  P,
  P.

 P«d=
   t.
  T.
 T-(|
   v.
   Ap
3600
   18
                                            . H,0)

       for the English system
     Molecular  weight of stack gas, dry basis (from  Method 3 or other approved
       methods), g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole)
     Molecular  weight of stack gas, wet basis, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole)
     Md(l — BW.) + 18B,,  .                                          Equation 2-5
     Atmospheric pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg)
     Stack static pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg)
     Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg)
     Pb.r-f-P«                                                       Equation 2-8
     Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg)
     Dry volumetric stack gas flow rate corrected to standard conditions, dscm/hr
       (dscf/hr)
     Stack temperature, °C (°F)
     Absolute stack temperature, °K (°R)
     273+t. for metric                                              Equation 2-7
     460+t. for English                                             Equation 2-8
     Standard absolute temperature, 293°K (528° R)
     Average stack gas velocity, m/sec.(ft/sec)
     Velocity head of stack gas, mm H»O (in. HjO)
     Con version factor, sec/hr
     Molecular  weight of water, g/gjmole (Ib/lb-mole)
 8.3  Average stack gas velocity.
                                                                      Equation 2-9

   NOTE. — Equation 2-7 assumes that T,. P., and M. do not change appreciably (i.e.
>1%) .with crow section an4 with time. If they do, consult with the Administrator to
determine an acceptable procedure.
      Average stack gas (try volumetric flow rate.
 6.8
  6. References.
  6.1 Mark,  L.  8.,  Mechanical Engineer's

SSf TY Z*?™-™ B°°k °°- IUC" N6W
  ea Perry.  J.  H..  Chemical  Engineers'
Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, N.T., 1960.

                     '  3'
Sampling Measurements. Paper presented at
the  Annual Meeting  of the Air Pollution
Control Association. St. Louis, Mo., June  14-
19  1970
  6.4 Standard Method  for Sampling Stacks
for  Partlculate Matter. In:  1971 Book of
ASTM Standards,  Part 23. Philadelphia, Pa.,
                                     Me-
chanlcs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
N.Y., 1947.  •
  6.6  ASME. Fluid  Meters— Their  Theory
and Application. ASME. N.Y., 1959.
  6.7  ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals,
1972, p. 208.
  6.S  ASTM Annual Book of ASTM Stand-
ards. Part 26, 1974, p. 648.
  6.9  Vollaro, R. F., Guidelines for Type-8
Pltot Tube Calibration. Paper presented at
1st Annual Meeting, Source Evaluation So-
clety. Dayton, Ohio. September 18, 1978.
METHOD 3— OAS ANALYSIS TOE CABBON Di-
  OXXDX, OXTGKIT, EXCESS Am, AND DBT MOLEC-
  VLAB WIIOHT
  1. Principle tend Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. An Integrated or grab gas
sample Is extracted from a stack and analyzed
                                             =
                                             T.(.,,)
                                                                   Equation 2-10
                                         for percent carbon dioxide and percent oxy-
                                         gen using an Orsat analyzer or. for molecular
                                         weight determinations. TWrlte ' type corn^
                                         bu»"on gas analyzer.
                                           1.2  Applicability. Tills method Is appll-
                                         cable  for  determining  carbon dioxide «"*
                                         °*™« concentrations, and molec^ar weight
                                         of B sample from a gas stream.
                                           2. Apparatus.
                                           An_  ___-_.,..._  _.,,„,, fc    .    . j
                                                apparatus  which has  been demon-
                                         stratod ,t? yield results acceptable to the Afl-
                                         mlnlstrator wul be considered acceptable for
                                         the purposes of this method.
                                           2.1.1  Probe — Stainless steel or boroslUcate ,
                                         glass equipped with a filter (either in-stack
                                         „, mt ,t^ t^           J. T^ "»•«•»*
                                         or out-8taok> *<> ««»ove pwtlculate matter.
                                           2. 1.2  Pump— One-way  squeeze  bulb,  or
                                         equivalent,  ,to  transport  eas  samole  to
                                         .nalvzer                       ^^
                                            *
                                           2 3,  Integrated sample (Figure 3-2) .
                                           a 2.i  probe— Stainless steel or borosilic&te
                                          ,      "000— oiauuess steel or boroslllcate
                                         B1*88 equipped with a filter (either In-stock
                                         or out-stack) to remove partlculate matter.
                                           > Mention of trade names or specific prod-
                                         ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
                                         Environmental Protection Agency.
            KDflAL REGISTEfl, VOL 41,  NO. Ill— TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976
                                     V-ll
-------
 23070
                                                   PROPOSED RULES
                          PROBE
                                                  FLEXIBLE TUBISO
                 'FILTER (GLASS WOOL)
                                                                         TO ANALYZER
          PtTOTTUBE
JL
T
                \
                                      SQUEEZE BULB
                                   Figure 3-1. Grab-sampling train.
                                                  RATE METER,
 1.9 cm (0.75 inj
                   1 PROBE
            AIR-COOLED
            CONDENSER
 PROBE-PITOTTMBE

     _ \
     \
         FILTER
      (GLASS WOOL)
                            Figure 3-2. Integrated gas-sampling train.
'   2.2.2  Condenser—Air-cooled condenser, or
 equivalent, to remove excess moisture.
   2.23  Valve—Needle valve, to adjust  sam-
 ple gas flow rate.
   2.2.4  Pump—Leak-free, diaphragm  type,
 or equivalent, to transport sample gas to the
 flexible bag. Install a small surge tank be-
 tween the pump and rate meter to eliminate
 pulsation effect of diaphragm pump on the
 rotameter.
   2.2.6  Bate meter—Potameter, capable of
 measuring a Sow range from 0 to 1.0 litre per
 minute.
   2.2.6  Flexible bag—Tedlar,1 or equivalent,
 with a capacity In the range of 66 to 60
 liters. Before each field test run make sure
 the  bag Is leak-free by checking It for leaks.
 To leak check,  connect a water manometer
 and pressurize the bag to 6-10 cm H,O (2-4
 In. H,O). Allow stand for 10 minutes. Any
 displacement In the water manometer Indi-
 cates a leak.
   NOTE.—An alternative leak check method
 Is to pressurize the bag to 6-10 cm H,O or
8-4  in. H,O and allow to stand  overnight.
A deflated bag Indicates a leak.

   2.2.7  Pltot tube—Type  8,  or equivalent,
attached to the probe to allow constant moni-
                                        toring of the stack gas velocity so that the
                                        sampling flow rate can be regulated propor-
                                        tional to the stack gas velocity. The tips of
                                        the probe and pltot tube shall be adjacent to
                                        each other and  the free space between them
                                        shall be about 1.9 cm (0.76 In.). When used
                                        with this method, the pltot tube need  not
                                        be calibrated.
                                          2.2.8   Differential pressure gauge—Inclined
                                        manometer  capable of measuring  velocity
                                        head to within  10% of the minimum meas-
                                        ured value or ±0.018 mm (0.0006 in.), which-
                                        ever Is greater.  Below a differential pressure
                                        of 1.3 mm (0.06 in.) water gauge, microma-
                                        nometers with  sensitivities  of  0.013  mm
                                        (0.0005 In.) should be used. However, micro-
                                        manometers  may not easily be adaptable to
                                        the existing field conditions and are not easy
                                        to use with pulsating flow. Thus, alternative
                                        methods or other devices  acceptable to  the
                                        Administrator may be used when conditions
                                        warrant.
                                          22.9   Manometer—About 28 cm (12 In.)
                                        water-filled U-tube' manometer, or  equiva-
                                        lent, to be used  for  the  flexible bag leak
                                        check.
                                          2.2.10  Vacuum gauge—At least 760 mm
                                        Bg (30 in. Hg) gauge, to be used for the sam-
                                        pling train leak check.
   2.3  Analysis.
   23.1  Orsat analyzer or Fyrite type com-
 bustion gas analyzer. The lattesr Is ucsd only
 for molecular weight determination. Peer low
 CO,  (leas  than  4 percent)  or  Enlgto On
 (greater than 16 percent) concentrations, tSso
 measuring burette of the Orsat must have et
 least 0.01% subdivisions.
   3. Sampling Procedure.
   3.1  Orab sampling. This procedure Is pri-
 marily used for, but not limited to, deter-
 mining molecular weight. Other uses must
 first be approved by the Administrator.
   3.1.1  The sampling point  In the  duct
 shall be at the centrold of the cross section
 or at a point no closer to  the walle than 1 m
 (3.28 ft),  unless otherwise  specified by ttea
 Administrate?.
   8.12  Set up the equipment as shown la
 Plgure 3-1, making cure all connections ore
 tight and  leak-free by following the proce-
 dure In Section 4.
   8.1.3  Place ttie probe In the stack cA Vat
 sampling point and then purge the sampling
 line. Draw a sample into the amUyzor sn«i
 analyze according to Section «.
   32  Integrated sampling  (required  when
 the analytical results will be used to calculate
 » pollutant emission rate  correction facto?).
   82.1  Select the sampling location accord-
 ing  to Method 1. In addition to the criteria
 of Method 1, the sampling location shall 00
 at least  2  diameters downstream from any
 point of air In-leakage. The downstream dta-
 tance shall be calculated using the linear
 distance from the point  of air Ic-leak&so,
 and the diameter of the  stack at the sam-
 pling location.
   823  A  minimum of  8  traverse points,
 selected according to Uathod 1, shall bo used
 for circular stacks with diameters .'ass  than
 0.6 m (2  ft.). A minimum of 13  traveira
 points, selected according to Method 1,  aboil
 be used for all other cases, unlzea otherwiea
 specified In an applicable sul-part, or unless
 specifically approved  by the Administrator.
   3AS  Leak  check taa  flexible bag  ao in
 Section 22.6. Set up the equipment as sho-ran
 In Plgure  3-2. Just prior to sampling, leak
 check the  train by placing a vcsmum gaugp
 at the condenser Inlet p-olllnj a vacuum (it
 at least 260 mm Hg (10 to. He), plugging too
 outlet at  the quick dteconrsaqft,  end  than
 turning  off the  pump. Tlio  vacuum  shall
 remain stable for at least one minute. Evacu-
 ate the flexible bag. Connect the probe and
 place it In the steck and  then purge «K>
 sampling line. Now.  connect the  bag tutd
 make sure  that ell connections are tight and
 leak free.
   82.4  Sample at a rate proportional (vrith-
 in 20%  of constant  proportionality,  or ea
 specified by the Adminletrr.tor) -to the stack
 velocity, traversing all  sampling points. Xto-
 cord proportional sampling date as shown to
 Plgure 8-9. When analytical results Trill bo
 used to calculate a pollutant emission rate
 correction  factor, the  sampling Muet  spam
 the  length of time the pollutant emission
 rate Is being determined, sampling at  coca
 traverse point for. on equal length of tlm».
 Collect at  least  30 liters  (1 ft>) of sample
 gas.
   3.2.5  Obtain and analyze at least one in-
 tegrated flue gas sample during each pollu-
 tant emission rats determination.
   4.  Analytical Procedure.
   4.1 Leak check for  Ors&t analyzer.  Mov-
 ing an Orsat analyzer frequently causes it to
 leak. Therefore, on Ors&t analyzer should be
 thoroughly leak-cuecftoC on-aKe  before the
 flue  gas sample Is  introduced  into  it.  Tfco
 suggested  procedure for  leat-cheoSlng an
 Orsat analyzer la:
  4.1.1  Bring the liquid level in each pipetfca
19 to the  reference morfc on the capillary
tubing and then close  the pipette stopcock.
                                    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  41, NO.  Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8.  1976
                                                          V-12
-------
                                 PROPOSED  RULES
                                                                              23071
TIME




tftAVERSfi
Kr.




*»
rom(inj HjO




a
1pm




AVERAGE
R-.0-
vkp





XDEV.*





•XDEV
                                   avg
                                               «MUSTBE<2Wtt
                          Figure 3-3. Proportional sampling data.
   4.1.2  Raise  the  leveling  bulb sufficiently
 to bring the confining liquid meniscus onto
 the graduated portion of the  burette and
 then close the manifold stopcock. .
   4.1.3  Record the meniscus position.
   4.1.4  Observe the meniscus In the burette
 and the liquid level In the pipette for move-
 ment over the next four minutes.
   4.1.5  For the  Orsat  analyzer to pass the
 leak-check, two conditions must be met:
   4.1.5.1  The  liquid level  In each pipette
 must not fall below the bottom of the capil-
 lary tubing during  this four-minute Interval.
   4.1.5.2  The meniscus In the burette must
 not change by more than 0.2 ml during this
 four-minute Interval. For  the results  to  be
 valid the Orsat analyzer must pass this leak
 test before and after the analysis.
   4.1.8  If the analyzer falls the leak-check
 procedure, all rubber connections and stop-
 cocks should be checked until the cause of
'the  leak Is  Identified. Leaking stopcocks
 must be disassembled, cleaned and regreased.
 Leaking rubber  connections must be  re-
 placed. After the analyzer Is reassembled, the
 leak-check procedure must be repeated.
   4.2  Determination of stack gas molecular
 weight.  (Orsat leak check described above is
 optional).  Within  eight  hours  after  the
 sample Is taken, analyze It for percent carbon
 dioxide and percent oxygen using either an
 Orsat analyzer or a Fyrite type combustion
 gas analyzer. Determine the percent of the
 gas that Is nitrogen and carbon monoxide by
 subtracting the sum of the percent carbon
 dtoxlde and percent oxygen from. 100 percent.
   42.1  Grab samples—Repeat the sampling
 and analysis until the molecular weight from
 each of three consecutive grab samples dif-
 fers from their mean* by no  more than 0.3
 grams/gram mole (0.3 pounds/pound mole).
   422  Integrated  samples—Repeat   the
 analysis until the molecular weight for three
                      consecutive analyses differs from their mean
                      by no more than 0.3 gram/gram mote  (
-------
23072
PROPOSED RULES
                        6.3  Dry  molecular  weight. Use equation 3-2 to calculate  the dry molecular weights
                      using data  obtained from sections 4.2.1, 4.2:2, or 4.3.2 and 4.8.8,  average the results and
                      report to the nearest 0.1 g/g-moie (0,1 Ib/lb-mole).

                                      M,,=0.44(%CO,) + 0.32(%OJ)-h0.28(%N2-(:%CO)    Equation 3-2
                        6.4  Carbon dioxide concentration calcu-
                      lation.  Using the three consecutive  carbon
                      dioxide analyses that meet the requirements
                      of section 4.3.3, calculate the average carbon
                      dioxide concentration.
                        6. References.
                        6.1  Altshuller, A. P. Storage of Oases and
                      Vapors In Plastic Bags, International Journal
                      of Air and Water Pollution, S, 76-81  (1968).
                        6.2  Connor, William  D. and J. 8. Nader,
                      Air  Sampling with Plastic Bags, Journal of
                      the American Industrial Hygiene Association,
                      25,291-297 (1964).
                        6.3  "Burrell Manual for  Gas  Analysts,"
                      Seventh edition (1961),  Available from Bur-
                      rell  Corporation, 2228 Fifth' Avenue, Pitts-
                      burgh, Penna. 16219.
                      METHOD 4—DETERMINATION or MOISTURE  IN
                                    STACK OASES

                        1. Principle and ApptcaMUty.
                        1.1 .Principle.  A gas  sample Is extracted
                      proportionally from the  source and moisture
                      Is removed from the  gas stream, condensed,
                      and  determined  either volumetrically  or
                      gravlmetrlcally.
                        1.2  Applicability.  This  method  is  ap-
                      plicable for  the  determination of moisture
                      In stack  gas.
                        Two methods are given. One is a reference
                      method for  the  accurate  determination of
                      moisture content  as needed to' calculate
                      emission data. The other is an approximation
                      method for  moisture content to be subse-
                      quently used for setting isoklnetlc sampling
                      rates. For this latter purpose, the tester may
                      use any  alternate means for approximating
                      the moisture content, e.g.  drying tubes, wet
                      bulb-dry bulb technique, condensation tech-
                      niques, stoichlometrlo calculations, previous
                      experience,  etc.  However,  the  actual Iso-
                      klnetlo rate  maintained during  a pollutant
                      sampling run and Ijhe moisture content used
                      to calculate  emission data will not be based
                      on the results of the approximation method
                      (see exception In note  below), but  will be
                      determined  from the data of the reference
                      method,  which  Is- normally   conducted
                      simultaneously with  a  pollutant  measure-
                      ment run.
                        NOTE.—Any of the approximation methods
                      which are shown to  the satisfaction of the
                      Administration  of   yielding   results  to
                      within 1% HiO of the reference method re-
                      sults may be used in lieu of the reference
                      method.
                        These  methods are not  applicable to gaa
                      streams  that contain liquid  droplets. For
                      these cases,  assume that the gas stream la
                      saturated. Determine the  average stack gas
                      temperature using  gauges   described  In
                      Method  2 and by traversing according to
                      Method  1. Then obtain the moisture per-
                      centage by  (1) using a psychometric chart
                      and making appropriate corrections. If stack
                      'pressure  Is different from that of the chart,
           for absolute pressure or (2)  by using satura-
           tion vapor pressure tables.
             2. Reference Method.
             The procedure  for  determining  moisture
           content described In Method 6 is acceptable
           as a reference method.
             2.1  Apparatus. A schematic of the sam-
           pling train used In this reference method is
           shown In Figure 4-1.  All components shall
           be maintained  and calibrated according to
           the procedure outlined in Method 6.
             2.1.1  Probe—Stainless steel or glass tub-
           Ing, sufficiently heated to prevent water con-
           densation and equipped 'with  a filter  (either
           in-stack or  heated. out-stack)  to remove
           partlculate matter.
             2.1.2  Condenser—Any system that cools
           the sample gas  stream and allows measure-
           ment of the water condensed and  moisture
           leaving the condenser, each to within 1  ml
           or 1 g. Acceptable means are to measure the
           condensed water either gravlmetrlcally  or
           volumetrically and to  measure the moisture
           leaving the condenser  by (l) monitoring the
           temperature and pressure at the exit of the
           condenser and using Dal ton'a law or (2)  by
           passing the  sample gas stream through a
           tared  silica  gel trap  .with exit  gases kept
           below 20*  C  (68*  F)  and  determining the
           weight gain.
             2.1.3  Cooling system—Ice bath container
           and crushed ice, or equivalent, to aid In con-
           densing moisture.
             2.1.4  Drying tube—Tube packed with 6-16
           mesh Indicating-type silica gel, or equivalent,
           to dry the sample gas  and protect the pump
           and dry gas meter. This may be an integral
           part of the condenser system, In which case
           the tube shall bo Immersed.in the ice. bath
           and a thermometer placed  at the outlet  for
           monitoring purposes.  If approach  (1)  of
           section 2.1 J) Is used to measure the moisture
           leaving the condenser, the  temperature and
           pressure must be monitored before .the sUlca
           gel tube.
             2.1.6 Metering  system—Vacuum  gauge,
           leak-free pump,  thermometers  capable  of
           measuring temperature to within 8*  O (6.4*
           F), dry gas meter with ±2 percent accuracy,
           and related equipment, or other  metering
           systems approved by  the Administrator, as
           required to TnMifttftin a proportional sampling
           rate and to determine sample gas volume.
             2.1.6 Barometer—Mercury,  aneroid,  or
           other   barometers  capable  of  measuring
           atmospheric pressure  to within 2.6 mm  Hg
           (0.1 in. Hg).  In many coses, the barometric
           reading may be obtained from' a  nearby
           weather bureau elation. In which case tbe
           station value (which  Is the  absolute baro-
           metric pressure) shall be requested and an
           adjustment for  elevation differences between
           the weather station and the sampling point
           shall be applied at a  rate of  minus 2.6- mm
           Hg  (0.1 In. Hg) per 80 m (100 ft)  elevation
           Increase or vice verso  for elevation decrease.
                                    KM*AL RMOTH, VOL  41* NO. Ml—1UBBAY,.JUKi «, MI»
                                                           V-14
-------
                                   PROPOSED  RULES
                                                                                                            23073
MeoflUShO
    FILTER
(EITHER IN STACK
OR OUT OF STACK)
   REVERSE-TYPE
    PITOT TUBE
                                            CONDENSER-ICE BATH SYSTEM INCLUDING
                                                           MJCAOELTUSE—7
y X/PBOBE
YPE
BE
—
.f=H
LJM'niiliL











                ^
                PITOT MANOMETER
                                 THERMOMETERS
                      ORIFICE
                                                                         MAIN VALVE
                                                          "^ **—AIR-TIGHT
                                                                     PUMP
                         Figure 4-1.  Moisture sampling Ualn-relerence method.
rU«r,—
LOCATION.
OPERATOR.
DAIE:	
•MHO.	
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE -
BADOUfTHIC PHS
     UNOTHm|ll).
                                 SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
TRAVERSE POWT
NUMBER












TOTAL
5AUHINO
TIKE
in.ni>.













AVtMOE
s.Ad(t
TEMPEMtUkE
•ci»fl














VaOCiTY
HEAD
(»M.
»«(l..|HjO














PRESSURE
DlfFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE METBI
I»H|.
mm(m,|H20







.






OASSAMPU
VOLUME
m>|ll>)








V





GAS SAMPIE tEUfEWlTUnt
ATOM OASMETEH
INLET
IT»tairC|»FI











-
**.
An»
ourict
H-^.'clf












A»g.

TEKmtATURC
(If CM
LCtVUiG
CCKtttKROR
LWT BPttCCR.
•CI»F|














                        Plguri4-t. Field («of«tiirtd«l«mlMttont»fei»ne«(««tHed,
               KDEKAL
                                  VOU 41,  NO. Ill— TUtSOAY, WHS «,
                                     V-15
-------
23074
PROPOSED RULES

FINAL
INITIAL
DIFFERENCE
IMPINGER
VOLUME,
ml



SILICA GEL
WEIGHT.
9



                                   Figure 4-3.  Analytical  data-reference method.
                        2.1.7  Pltot tube—Type S,  or  equivalent,
                      attached to probe to allow constant monitor-
                      ing  of  the stack gas velocity BO  that the
                      sampling  flow rate can  be regulated  pro-
                      portional  to the  stack gas velocity. The tips
                      of the probe and  pitot tube shall be adjacent,
                      to each other and  the  free  space between
                      them shall be about 1.9 cm (0.75 In.). When
                      used with this method, the pitot tube  need
                      not be calibrated.
                        2.1.8  Differential   pressure   guage—In-
                      clined  manometer  capable  of  measuring
                      velocity head to within  10 percent  of the
                      minimum measured  value or  ±0.013   mm
                      (0.0005  in.),  in whichever is greater. Below a
                      differential pressure  of  1.3  mm  (0.05   In.)
                      water gauge, micromanometers with sensi-
                      tivities  of 0.013 mm  (0.0006 In.)  should be
                      xised. However,  micromanometers are  not
                      easily adaptable  to field conditions and are
                      not easy to use with the pulsating flow. Thus,
                      methods or other devices acceptable to the
                      Administrator may be used when conditions
                      warrant.
                        2.1.9  Temperature gauge—Thermocouple,
                      liquid  filled bulb  thermometer,  bimetallic
                      thermometer, mercury-ln-glass thermometer,
                      or other gauges that are capable of measur-
                      ing temperature to within 1.5 percent of the
                      minimum  absolute stack temperature.
                        2.1.10 Graduated  cylinder  and/or  bal-
                      ance—TO   measure  condensed  water   and
                      moisture caught  in the silica gel to within 1
                      ml or 1 g. Graduated cylinders shall  have
                      subdivisions no greater than 2 ml. Most lab-
                      oratory balances  are  capable of weighing to
                      the  nearest 0.5 g or less.  These balances are
                      suitable for use here.
                        2.1.11  Temperature and pressure gauges—
                      If Dalton's law Is used to monitor tempera-
                      ture and  pressure at condenser outlet. The
                      temperature gauge-shall have an accuracy of
                      1" C (2° F). The pressure gauge shall be capa-
                      ble of measuring pressure to within 2.5 mm
                      Hg (0.1  In. Hg).
                        2.1.12  Silica  gel1—If   used to  measure
                      moisture leaving  condenser, indicating  type,
                      6-16 mesh. If previously used, dry at 175' C
                      (350' F)  for 2 hours. New silica gel m*y be
                      used as received.
                        2.2 Procedure. The procedure  below is
                      written for a condenser system Incorporating
                      silica gel and gravimetric analysis to measure
                      the moisture leaving the condenser and volu-
                      metric  analysis to measure the  condensed
                      moisture.
                        2.2.1  Select the-  sampling site and mlnl-
                      mum number of sampling points according
                      to Method 1 or 88  specified  by  the Admin-
                      istrator. Determine  the  range  of velocity
                      Head ratng Method 8 tor the purpose of mak-
                      ing proportional  sampling rat* calculations.
          Select a suitable velocity head to correspond
          to about  0.014 m'/mln  (0.5 cfm). Select a
          suitable probe and probe length such that all
          traverse  points can  be sampled.  Consider
          sampling  from opposite  sides  (four total
          sampling  ports) for large stacks  to  enable
          use of shorter probe lengths. Mark probe with
          heat resistant tape or by some other method
          to denote the proper distance into the stack
          or duct for each sampling point. Weigh and
          record weight of silica gel to the nearest 0.5 g.
            2.2.2  Select a suitable total sampling time
          of no less than 1 hotlr such  that a minimum
          total  gas sample volume of 0.6 m" (20 ft3) at
          standard conditions will be collected and the
          sampling  time  per traverse  point Is not less
          than  2 min., or some, greater time interval
          as specified by the Administrator.
            2.2.3  Set up the sampling train as shown
          In Figure 4-1. Turn on the probe heating sys-
          tem to about 120' C (248° F) so as to prevent
          water condensation and allow time for tem-
          perature to stabilize.  Place crushed ice  in
          the ice bath container. Leak check  the train
          by plugging the probe Inlet and pulling a 880
          mm Hg (15 in. Hg) vacuum. A  leakage rate
          in excess of 4 percent of the average sampling
          rate or 0.00057 m'/mln.  (0.02  cfin), which
          ever Is less, is unacceptable.
            2.2.4  During th« sampling run, maintain
          a sampling rate within 20 percent, or as spec-
          ified  by  the  Administrator,  of  constant
          proportionality. For  each  run,  record the
          data  required  oh the  example data sheet
          shown In Figure 4-2. Be sure to record the
          Initial dry gas meter reading. Record the dry
          gas meter reading  at the beginning and end
          of  each  sampling time Increment,  when
          changes in  flow rates are made, and when
          sampling  Is  halted. Take other data point
          readings at each sample point  at least once
          during each time increment.
            2.i.5  To begin sampling position the probe
          tip at the first traverse point. Immediately
          dtart  the  pump and adjust the flow to pro-
          portional  conditions. Traverse the cross sec-
          tion.  Add more ice and, if necessary, salt to
          maintain  a  temperature of less tlwm 30*  C
          (68* F) at the silica gel outlet to avoid exces-
          sive moisture losses.
            2.2.6  After collecting foe sample, measure
          the volume Increase of the liquid to the near-
          est 1  ml.  Determine the Increase in  weight
          of the silica gel tube to the nearest 0.5 g.
          Record the information (see example data
          sheet, Figure 4-3) and calculate the moisture
          percentage.                   .      .
            2.3  Calculations. Carry out calculations,
          retaining  at least one extra decimal.figure
          beyond that of tbo acquired data. »owi*-«ff
          figures after flnal calculation,   	
            2.3.1  Nomenclature.
                                    FEDERAL tE6UTE«. VOL 41. NO.  Ill—TUESDAY. JUNf ».  1976


                                                          V-16
-------
     Bw.= Proportion by volume
     Mw=Molecular weight of water, 18 g/g-mile (18 Ib/lb-mole)
      Pm= Absolute pressure (for this method, same as barometric pressure) at the dry
            gas meter, mm Hg (in. Hg)
     Prt
5
JO
c
CLOCK TIME





GAS VOLUME THROUGH
DETER. 
-------
 23076
           PROPOSED  RULES
  3.1.3  Ice bath—Container and Ice, to aid
In condensing moisture In Implngers.
  3.1.4  Drying tube—Tube packed with 6-16
mesh Indicating-type silica gel, or equivalent,
to dry  the sample gas and to protect  the
meter and pump.
  3.1.6  Valve—Needle  valve,   to  regulate
sample gas flow rate.
  3.1.6  Pump—Leak-free, diaphragm type,
or equivalent, to pull gas through the train.
  3.1.7  Volume meter—Dry  gas meter, suf-
ficiently accurate to measure the sample vol-
ume within 2 percent, and calibrated over the
range of flow rates and conditions actually
used during sampling.
  3.1.8  Bate meter—Rotameter, to measure
the flow range from 0 to 3  1pm (0 to 0.11
dm).
  3.1.9  Graduated cylinder—26 ml.
  3.1.10  Barometer—Mercury,   aneroid,  or
other  barometers  capable  of  measuring
atmospheric pressure to within 2.6  mm Hg
(0.1 In. Hg). In many caees, the barometric
reading may  be  obtained from  a nearby
weather bureau station, In which  case  the
station  value  (which Is the absolute  baro-
metric pressure)  shall be  requested and an
adjustment for elevation differences between
the weather station and sampling point shall
be applied at a rate of minus 2.5 mm Bg
(0.1 In.  Hg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation In-
crease or vice versa for elevation decreases.
  3.1.11  Vacuum  gauge—At least  760 mm
Hg  (30  In.  Hg) gauge, to be  used  for the
sampling leak check.
  3.2  Procedure.
  3.2.1  Place exactly 6 ml distilled water in
each  implnger.  Assemble  the apparatus
without the probe as shown In Figure 4-4.
Leak check by placing a vacuum gauge at the
Inlet  to the first Implnger and drawing  a
vacuum of at least 260 mm Hg (10 In. Hg).
plugging the outlet  of the  rotameter, and
then turning off the pump. The vacuum shall
remain  constant  for a  least  one minute.
Carefully  release the vacuum  gauge before
releasing the rotameter end.
  3.2.2  Connect the  probe and sample at a
constant rate of 2 1pm (0.071 cfm). Continue
sampling until the dry gas  meter registers
about 30 liters (1.1 ft") or until visible liquid
droplets are carried over  from the  first Im-
plnger to the second. Record temperature,
pressure, and dry  gas meter  readings as re-
quired by Figure 4-5.
  3.2.3  After collecting the sample, combine
the contents of the two Implngers and meas-
ure volume to the nearest 0.5 ml.
  3.3  Calculations. The calculation method
presented  is designed to estimate the  mois-
ture In the stack gas  and therefore  other
data,  which are only necessary for accurate
moisture determinations, are not collected.
The following equations adequately estimate
the moisture content for  the purpose of de-
termining Isoklnetic  sampling  rate settings.
  3.3.1  Nomenclature.

   B»m=Approximate water vapor in the
            gas  stream   leaving  the  im-
            pingcr,  0.025  proportion  by
            volume
    Bwt = AVater vapor in the gar-: ,strca;n,
            proportion by volume
    M.=Molecular  weight  of  water,  18
            g/g-mole  (18 Ib/lb-inolc)
    Po,= Absolute   pressure    (for   this
            method,  same as  barometric
            pressure) at the dry gas meter
   P«ta = Standard absolute  pressure, 700
            mm Ilg (29.92 in.  Hg)
      P = Ideal gas constant, 0.0623G (mm
            Hg)(m»)/(g-mole)(eK) for met-
            ric units and 21.83 (in. Hg) (ft')/
            (lb-mole)(°R) for English units
    Tm=Absolute temperature at meter,
      ^     °K  °
   T.ui —Standard absolute  temperature,
           293° K (528° R)
     Vi=Fin»l volume  of impingcr  con-
           tents, ml
     V|«-Initial volume of impingcr  con-
           tents, ml
    VD=Dry gas volume measured by dry
           gas meter, dcm (dcf)
VB(iid> = Dry gas volume measured by dry
           gjts meter, corrected to stand-
           ard conditions, dscm (dscf)   .
V.e(,(j)= Volume  of  water  vapor  con-
           densed, corrected to standard
           conditions, m* (ft1)
     />, = Density of water. 1 g/ml (0.00220
           Ib/ml)

  3.3.2 Volume of water vapor collected.

          ,,    (V,-V,)a.RT.w
                                                         = K (V, - Vi)   Equation 4-5

                                           Where:

                                           K= 0.00134 m'/ml for metric units

                                              = 0.0472 ft'/ml for English units '

                                              3.3.3   Gas volume.
                                                              V •*•
                                                            If Tm*. tn
                                                          = *.-nS
                                                                 m

                                           where:

                                              K= 0.3855 "K/mrn Hg for metric units

                                                = 17.65 °R/in. Hg for Eriglish units

                                              3.3.4  Approximate moisture content.
B..
                                -
                         Vwe+Vm<.id>
                                    +B
                                                         + (0.025)
                                                                        Equation 4-7
  4.  CoWbrtrtfcm.
  4.1  Use methods and equipment as spec-
ifiied in Methods 2 and 5 and APTD-0676 to
calibrate dry gas meter, barometer, and ther-
mometers.
  6. References.
  5.1  Air  Pollution  Engineering  Manual,
Danielson, J. A.  (ed.), U.S. DHEW, PBS, Na-
tional Center for Air Pollution Control, Cin-
cinnati. Onto,  PHS Publication No. 999-AP-
40. 1967.
  5.2  Devorkln, Howard, et al., Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual, Air Pollution Control
District, Los Angeles, Calif., November 1963.
  5.3   Methods for Determination of Velocity,
Volume,  Dust and Mist Content  of  Gases,
Western Precipitation Division of Joy Manu-
facturing Co., Los Angeles, Calif., Bulletin
WP-50, 1968.

 METHOD 5—DETERMINATION OP PABTICULAIE
    EMISSION FEOM STATIONARY SOUBCXS

  1.  Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. Partlculate matter is  with-
drawn Isokmetlcally from the source and col-
      U TO 2.5 cm
      (tJt TO 1 inj   TEMPERATURE SENSOR*
 1.1 cm (0.75 in.)
                                           lected on glass fiber filter maintained at tem-
                                           peratures in the range of 120±14° C (248=t25°
                                           F) or such other temperature as specified by
                                           an applicable subpart of the standards. The
                                           partlculate mass te determined  gravlmetrl-
                                           cally after removal of uncomblnsd water.
                                             1.2  Applicability. This method is applica-
                                           ble for the determination of partleulate ensts-
                                           Isons from stationary sources.
                                             2.  Apparatus.
                                             2.1  Sampling train.  A  •chema.tlc  of  the
                                           sampling train used in this method is shown
                                           In Figure 5-1. Commercial modalo  ot this
                                           train are available. However, tt one  desires
                                           to build his  own, complete construction de-
                                           tails are described In APTD-0681; for changes
                                           from the APTD-0681 document and  for al-
                                           lowable modifications to Figure 6-1, see  the
                                           following subsections.
                                             The operating and maintenance procedures
                                           for the sampling train are described In APTD-
                                           0576. Since correct usage Is Important In ob-
                                           taining valid results, all users abould read the
                                           APTD-0576 document and  adopt the.operat-
                                           ing and maintenance procedures outilnod In
                                           it, unless otherwise specified herein.
                                                IMPING ER TRAIN OPTIONAL. MAY BE REPLACED
                                                     BY AN EQUIVALENT COIfSEOSER
                                                                              CHECK
                                                                              VACUUM
                                                                               UNE
                      PITOT MANOMETER       MWNGERS            ICESATN
                                                   BY PASS VALVE
                              ORIFICE    r»V'>Y^-,    (=^/
                                                                 VACUgK:
                                                                  BADGE ;
                     THERMOMETERS
                                                           MAHIVAIVE
                                DRY GAS METER
                                FiyureS-l. PoriictilaJc sampling traiif.

     ' II rlilliculty is expected in inwting tht temtKraturcantor-pUol tube-probe assembly into the Hack due to Spiting requtn*
     menu, ihe tempwature «mor may be located between the prote and pilot tube so that the tip of Iht lemon jtw««emof ia
     no cloier than 5cm (2 in.) Irom the tip ol the pilot lube.                         v         •     •
                                    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO.  Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8.  1976
                                                          V-18
-------
   2.1.1  Probe nozzle—Stainless steel (818)
 with sharp, tapered leading edge. The angle
 of taper  shall be=£30° and the taper  shall
 be on  the outside to preserve a constant
 internal  diameter. The probe  nozzle  BLall
 be of the button-hook or elbow design, un-
 less otherwise approved by the Administra-
 tor. The  nozzle  shall be constructed  from
 seamless  stainless  steel  tubing. Other con-
 figurations and  construction material may
 be used subject to approval from the Admin-
 istrator.
   A  range of sizes suitable for isokiuetlc
 sampling  should be available,  e.g., 0.32  cm
 (V8 In.)  up to 1.27 cm  (Vi In.) (or larger
 If higher  volume sampling trains are used)
 Inside diameter  (ID)  nozzles In Increments
 of 0.16 cm  (Ma  In.).  Each nozzle shall be
 calibrated according to the procedures out-
 lined In the calibration section.
   2.1.2  Probe liner—Boroslllcate or quartz
 glass tubing with  a heating system capable
 of maintaining  a gas temperature  at the
 exit end during sampling of no greater than
 120±14° C (24B±25* F) or no  greater than
 such other temperature  as specified by an
 applicable subpart of the standards. Since
 the actual temperature at the  outlet of the
 probe is  not monitored  during sampling.
 probes  constructed according to APTD-0881
 and  utilizing  the  calibration  curves  of
 APTD-0576  or calibrated according to the
 procedure outlined In APTD-0576 will be
 considered as acceptable.
   Boroslllcate or quartz  glass  probe liners
 shall be used for temperatures up to about
 480° C (900° F) and  quartz liners for tem-
 peratures up to about 900* C (1650° F). Both
 may be  used at  higher temperatures  for
 short periods of  time, but must be approved
 by  the Administrator. The softening  tem-
 perature for boroslllcate is 820° C (1508° F)
 and for quartz it is 1500' 0 (2732° F).
   When length limitations, I.e. greater than
•about 2.5 m  (8.2 ft),  are  encountered at
 temperatures less than  320°  C (608°  F),
 stainless  steel (316) or Incoloy 836» (both
 of seamless  tubing),  or  other  materials as
 approved by the  Administrator,  may be used.
 Metal probes for  sampling  gas streams at
 temperatures In excess of 320° C (608* F)
 must be  approved by the Administrator.
   2.1.3  Pltot tube—Type S, or other device
 approved  by  the Administrator, attached to
 probe to  allow constant  monitoring of  the
 stack gas velocity. The face openings of the
 pitot tube and  the probe nozzle  shall be
 adjacent  and parallel to each  other, not
 necessarily on the same  plane, during sam-
 pling. The  free space between  the  nozzle
 and pi tot tube shall be at  least  1.9  cm
 (0.75 In.). The free space shall be set based
 on a 1.3  cm (0.5 in.)  ID  nozzle. If the sam-
 pling train is designed for sampling at higher
 flow rates than  that described In APTD-
 0581, thus necessitating  the  use of larger
 sized nozzles, the largest sized nozzle shall
 be used to set the free space.
   The pitot  tube must also meet the criteria
 specified  In  Method  2 and  calibrated  ac-
 cording to the procedure in  the calibration
 section of that method.
   2.1.4  Differential pressure gauge—Inclined
 manometer  capable of  measuring velocity
 head to within 10 percent of the minimum
 measured value  or ±0.013 mm (0.006  in.),
 whichever is  greater. Below  a differential
 pressure  of  1.3 mm (O.OS In.)  water gauge,
 mlcromanometers  with sensitivities of 0.013
 mm (0.0006  in.) should  be used. However,
 mlcromanometers  are not easily adpatable
 to field conditions and are not easy to  use
 with pulsating flow. Thus, methods or other
   1 Mention of trade names c? specific prod-
 ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
 Environmental Protection Agency.
devices acceptable to the Administrator may
be used when conditions warrant.
  3.1.6  Filter   holder—Boroslllcate   glass
frit alter support and a silicons rubber gas-
ket. Other materials of construction may bo
used with approval from the Adanlnioterator,
e.g., if probe liner is stainless steal, them the
filter holder may be stainless steel. The holder
design shall provide a positive seal against
leakage from the  outside  or around the
filter.
  2.1.6  Filter heating system—Any heating
system capable  of  maintaining a tempera-
ture around the filter  holder  during  sam-
pling of no greater than 120 ±14° C  (248
±25° F), or such other temperature as spec-
ified by an apppllcable subpart of the stand-
ards.  A  temperature  gauge capable  of
measuring temperature to within 30° C (6.4°
F) shall be Installed such that temperature
around  the filter holder can  be  regulated
and monitored  during sampling. Heating
systems other than  shown  In APTD-0581
may be used.
  2.1.7  Condenser—Any system  that  cools
the  sample gas stream and allows  meas-
urement of the water condenser and mois-
ture leaving the condenser, each to within
1 ml or 1 g. Acceptable means are  to'meas-
ure the condensed  water either gravlmetri-
cally or volumetrlcally  and to measure the
moisture leaving the condenser by (1)  mon-
itoring the temperature and pressure at the
exit  of the condenser and  using  Dalton's
law or (2)  by  passing the sample gas stream
through a tared silica  gel trap with Quit
gases kept below 20* C  (68° F) and deter-
mining the weight gain.
  NOTE.—If "condenslble partlculate  mat-
ter" Is desired. In addition to moisture con-
tent,  the  following system  shall be ussd—
four  Implugers  connected in series  with
ground glass,  leak free  fittings or any  simi-
larly  leak  free noncontamlnatlng fittings.
The first, third, and fourth impingers shell
be of the Greenburg-Smith design, modified
by replacing the tip with a 1.3 cm (% in.)
ID glass tube  extending to about 1.3 cm (V6
in.)  from the bottom of the flask.  The sec-
ond  implnger  shall be  of the Greenburg-
Smith design with the  standard tip.  Indi-
vidual >States or control  agencies requiring
this Information shall be contacted  as to
the sample recovery and analysis of the im-
plnger contents.
  For purposes  of writing the procedure of
this method,  the system described In the
note above will be used for determining tho>
moisture content of the stack goo. Modifi-
cations (e.g. using flexible connections be-
tween the Impingers or using materials otfasr
than glass) may be used with approval from
the Administrator.
  If means other than silica gel are used to
determine  the amount of moisture leaving
the condenser, it is recommended that silica
gel  still  be  used  between  the condense;
system  and pump to prevent moisture con-
densation in the pump and metering devices.
  Unless otherwise specified  by the Admin-
istrator, flexible vacuum lines may be ussd
to connect the filter holder to the condenser.
  2.1.a  Metering  system—Vacuum gauge.
leak-free  pump, thermometers capable of
measuring temperature within 3* C (5.4° F),
dry gas meter with 2 percent accuracy, and
related equipment, or equivalent, as required
to maintain an isoklnetlc sampling rote end
to determine sample volume. Sampling trams
utilizing  metering systems  designed  SOT
higher  flow rates  than  that  tieccHbed In
APTD-0581 or APTD-0576 may be osad pro-
vided  that the specifications  in  section  2
of this method  are met. When the metering
system  Is used  in  conjunction with a pfflo*
tube,  the system  shall  enoblo  ctescto c2
Isoklnetlc rates.
  2.1.9  Barometer—Mercury,   aneroid,-  ax
other baromsteis capable of measuring  at-
mospheric  pressure to  within 3.5 mm  Hg
(0.1  in. Hg). In many cases, the barometric
reading may  be obtained  from  a neairby
TToather bureau station, in which case  «ho
station value (which is the absolute baro-
metric pressure) shall be requested and an
adjustment, for elevation differences betwean
the weather station and sampling gplnt shall
be applied at a rate of minus 2.5 mm Hg (0.1
in. Hg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation increase
or vice versa for  elevation decrease.
  2.1.10  Oas density determination equip-
ment—Temperature and pressure gauges and
gas analyzer as described, in Methods 2 and'
3.
  2.1.11  Temperature and pressure gauges—
It Dalton's law is used'to monitor tempera-
ture and pressure at condenser outlet. The
temperature  gauge shall have an accuracy
of 1° C (2° P). The pressure gauge shall be
capable of measuring pressure to  within 2.5
mm Hg (0.1  in. Hg).  If silica  gel  is .used la
the  condenser system the temperature and
pressure must be measured before the silica
gel component.
  2.2  Sample recovery.
  2.2.1  Probe  liner   and   probe   nozzle
brushes—Nylon bristles  with  stainless steal
wire  handles. The probe brush  shall havo
extensions, at least as long as the probe, of
stainless steel,  nylon,  teflon, or similarly
Inert material. Both brushes shall be prcparty
sized and  shaped to brush out  the probe
liner and nozzle.
  2.2.2  Glass wash bottles—Two.
  2.2.3  Glass sample storage containers—
Chemically resistant, boroslllcate  glass bot-
tles, for acetone washes, 600 ml or 1,000 ml.
Screw cap closures shall be  teflon  rubber-
backed liners or  of  such  construction GO
as to be leak free and prevent chemical at-
tack from the acetone. (Narrow mouth glass
bottles have been found to be less prone to
leakage.) Other types of containers must be
approved  by the Administrator.
  2.2.4  Petrl  dishes—For  filter  samples,
glass  or   polyethylene,  unless  otherwise
specified by the Administrator.
  2.2.5  Graduated  cylinder   and/or  bal-
ance—To measure condensed water to -within
1 ml or 1 g.  Graduated cylinders  shall havo
subdivisions  no  greater  than 2  ml. Most
laboratory balances are capable of weighing
to the  nearest 0£ g or leas.  Any of the?:
balances are  suitable for use here and iri
section 2.3.4.
  2.2.6  Plastic   storage   containers—Air
tight containers to store silica gel,
  2.2.7  Funnel and  rubber policeman—"fo
aid In transfer of silica gel to  container; not
necessary if silica gel Is weighed in the field.
  2.3  Analysis.
  2.3.1  Glass weighing dishes.
  2.3.2  Desiccator.
  2.3.3  Analytical balance—To measure to
within 0.1 mg.
  2.3.4  Balance—To  measure to  within O.S
8-
  2.3.5  Beakers—260 ml.
  2.3.6  Hygrometer—To measure the rela-
tive humidity of the laboratory environment.
  2.3.7  Temperature  gauge—To  measure
the    temperature   of   the    laboratory
environment.
  3. Reagents.
  3.1  Sampling.
  3.1.1  Futeis—Olass fiber filters, without;
organic binder exhibiting at least 99.96 per-
cent  efflclency (35.03 percent penetration)
on 0.3 micron dtoetyl phthalate smoke par-
ticles. The filter efficiency test shall be con-
ducted In  accordance with ASTM
        D 28C3-71. Test d&to  from tho
       
-------
23078
PROPOSED RULES
                       3.1.2  Silica  gel—Indicating  type,  8-16
                     mean. If previously used, dry at 176* O (360*
                     F) for 2 hours. New silica gel may be used
                     as received.
                       3.1.3  Water—When analysis of the mate-
                     rial caught in the implngers Is required, dis-
                     tilled water shall be used. Run blank* prior
                     to field use to eliminate a high blank on test
                     samples.
                       a. 1.4  Crushed Ice.
                       3.1.6   Stopcock grease—Acetone Insoluble,
                     heat stable ellioone grease. This Is not neces-
                     sary  if screw-on  connectors  with  teflon
                     sleeves, or similar, are used.
                       3.2  Sample recovery.
                       3.2.1   Acetone—Reagent grade, =S0.001 per-
                     cent residue,  in glass bottles. Acetone from
                     metal containers generally has a high residue
                     blank  and  should not be used.  Sometimes,
                     suppliers transfer acetone to glass  bottles
                     from metal containers. Thus, acetone blanks
                     shall toe run prior to field  use and only ace-
                     tone with low blank values (£0.001 percent)
                     shall be used.
                       3.3  Analysis.
                       3.3.1   Acetone—Same as 3.2.1.
                       3.3.2   Desiccant—Anhyrdous calcium sul-
                     f ate, indicating type.
                       4. Procedure.
                       4.1  Sampling. The sampling shall be con-
                     ducted by competent personnel  experienced
                     with this test procedure.
                       4.1.1   Pretest preparation.  All the com-
                     ponents shall be maintained and calibrated
                     according  to  the  procedure  described  in
                     APTD-0576, unless otherwise specified herein.
                       Weigh approximately  200-300 g of silica
                     gel In air  tight containers to the nearest
                     0.8 g. Record the total weight, both silica gel
                     and container, on the container. More silica
                     gel may be used but care should be taken
                     during sampling that it is  not entrained and
                     carried out from the implnger. As an alter-
                     native, the sttlca gel may be weighed directly
                     In the Implnger or its sampling holder Just
                     prior to the train assembly.
                       Check  niters visually   against light  for
                     irregularities and flaws or plnhole leaks. Labal
                     a  niter of proper diameter on the back side
                     near  the  edge  using numbering machine
                     ink. As  an alternative,  label  the shipping
                     container (glass or plastic petrl dishes) and
                     keep the filter in this container at all times
                     except during sampling  and weighing.
                       Desiccate the filters at 20+5.6* C (68±10°
                     F) and ambient pressure for at least 24 hours
                     and weigh at  6 or more hour intervals to a
                     constant weight, i.e., ===0.5  mg change from
                     previous weighing, and record results to the
                     nearest 0.1 mg. During each  weighing  the
                     filter must  not be exposed to the laboratory
                     atmosphere for a period greater than 2 min-
                     utes and a relative  humidity above 50 per-
                     cent.
                       4.1.2  Preliminary  determinations. Select
                     the sampling site and the minimum number
                     of sampling points according to Method 1 or
                     aa specified by the Administrator. Determine
                     the  stack pressure,  temperature,  and  the
                     range of velocity heads using Method 2 and
                     moisture  content   using  Approximation
                     Method 4 or Its alternatives for the purpose
                     of making isoklnetlc sampling rate calcula-
                     tions. Estimates may be used. However, final
                     results will be based on actual measurements
                     made during the test.
                       Select a nozzle size based on the range of
                     velocity  heads such  that it is not necessary
                     to obange the nozzle size in order to main-
                     tain Isoklnetlc sampling  rates. During the
                     mn, do  not change  the nozzle size. Ensure
                     that the differential pressure gauge is capable
                     of measuring the minimum  velocity head
                     value to within 10 percent, or as specified by
                     the Administrator.
                       Select ft  suitable probe  liner and probe
                     length such that all traverse points can be
            sampled. Consider sampling from  opposite
            sides for large stacks to reduce the length of
            probes.
              Select a total sampling time  greater than
            or equal to the minimum  total sampling time
            specified in the test procedures for the spe-
            cific  industry euoh that  the sampling time
            per point  is nqt  less than  2 mln.  or some
            greater time interval as specified by the Ad-
            ministrator and the sample volume that will
            be taken will exceed  the  required minimum
            total gas sample volume specified In the test
            procedures for the specific Industry. The lat-
            ter  is  based  on  an  approximate average
            sampling rate. Note also  that the minimum
            total sample volume is corrected to standard
            conditions.
              It is recommended that V2 or an Integral
            number of minutes be sampled at each point
            in order to avoid  timekeeping  errors.
              In some circumstances, e.g. batch  cycles,
            it may  be necessary to  sample for shorter
            times at the  traverse points and to  obtain
            smaller  gas sample volumes. In these cases,
            the Administrator's approval must first be
            obtained.
              4.1.3   Preparation of collection train. Dur-
            ing preparation and assembly of the sampling
            train, keep all openings where contamination
            can occur covered until .Just  prior  to  as-
            sembly or until sampling is about to  begin.
              Place  100 ml of  water in each of the first
            two  Implngers,  leave  the  third  Imptnger
            empty, and place  approximately 200-300 g
            or more, if necessary, of prewelghed silica gel
            in the fourth Implnger.  Record the weight
            of the silica gel and container to the nearest
            0.5 g. Place the container in a clean place
            for later use In the sample  recovery.
              Using a tweezer  or clean disposable surgi-
            cal gloves, place the labeled  (identified)  and
            weighed filter  in  the filter  holder. Be sure
            that the filter Is properly centered and  the
            gasket properly placed so as  not to allow  the
            sample gas stream to circumvent the filter.
            Check  niter  for   tears  after  assembly  la
            completed.
              When glass liners are used, install selected
            nozzle using a VI ton A>  O-rlng when stack
            temperatures  are less than 260" C (600*  F)
            or an asbestos string gasket when tempera-
            tures are  higher.  The  Vlton A  O-rlng  and
            asbestos string gasket are Installed as a seal
            where the nozzle Is  connected to a glass
            liner. See APTD-OBTO  for details. When metal
            liners are  used, install the  nozzle as  abovo
            or by a  leak free direct mechanical connec-
            tion. Mark probe with heat resistant tape or
            by some other method to denote the proper
            distance into  the stack or  duct  for each
            sampling point.
              Unless otherwise specified by the Adminis-
            trator,  attach  a temperature probe to  the
            metal sheath of the sampling probe so that
            the sensor extends beyond the probe tip and
           •does not touch any metal. Its position should
            be about 1.9 to 2.54 cm (0.75 to 1 In.) from
            both the "pltot tube  and  probe nozzle to
            avoid Interference  with the  gas flow.
              Set up the train as in Figure 5-1, using, If
            necessary,  a very light coat of sllicone  grease
            on all ground glass Joints, greasing only the
            outer portion  (see APTD-0576) to avoid pos-
            sibility  of contamination  by  the  sllicone
            grease. With approval from the Administra-
            tor, a glass cyclone may be used between the
            probe and filter holder.
              Place  crushed ice around  the implngers.
              4.1.4  Leak  check  procedure—After  the
            sampling train has Been assembled, turn  on
            and set  the filter  and probe heating system
            to the power required to reach a temperature
           of 120±14° C (248±a5-  F)  or  such  other
             i Mention of trade names is not Intended
           to constitute endorsement by EPA.
                                    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO.  Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8,  1976
                                                          V-20
-------
                                                     PROPOSED RULES
                                                                             230TO
temperature  as  specified  by an  applicable
subpart of the standards for the leak cheek.
(If water condensation U not a problem the
probe and/or filter heating system need not
be used.)  Allow time for the temperature to
stabilize. If  a Vlton A O-rlng or  other teak
free connection to used la asiminMlng «b»
probe nozzle to the probe User, leak cheek

 PLANT 	

 LOCATION	.

 OPtRATOR_	.

 DATE	,	.

 BUN NO	
 SAMPLE BOX NO..

 METER BOX NO. _

 METERAH0	

 C FACTOR	
                                           the train at the sampling site by plugging
                                           the aood* and pulling a 380 mm Hg (15 in.
                                           Hg) vacuum.
                                             Nonj—-A lower vacuum may be used pro-
                                           vided that It to not exceeded during the test.
                                             U an asbestos string to  used, do not con-
                                           nect the probe to  the train during me leak
                                           check. Instead, leak cheek the train at above
                                           by  first  plugging the  inlet to  the niter
                                           holder. Then connect the probe to the train
                                           and leak check at about 26 nun Hg (1 la.
                                           Hg) vacuum. A leakage rate in excess of 4
                                           percent of the  average sampling  rate  or
                                           0.00057 mVmln. (0.03 cfm). whichever U low,
                                           to unacceptable in either <
 flTOT TUBE COEFFICIENT. Ct.
                                         SCHEMATIC CT STACK CROSS SECTION
                                                                              AMtfNl TIKPEIIAIUHE	

                                                                              BAROMETRIC r:ur^u;iE	

                                                                              ASSUMED MOIST 1IRE.X	

                                                                              MOBElENCTH, n (It)	
                                    NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO	

                                    AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE OlAMETER.emfrO.

                                    PBOBE HEftTER SETTING	

                                    LEAK RATE.«i3toia feta)_	

                                    PROBE LINER MATERIAL	'.	
TRAVERSE POINT
N1WKR










•

TOT A!.
SAMPIWO
TIME
KM. ««.













AVERAGE
STATIC
PRESSURE
•miHt
(inH«)














STACK
TEMPERATURE
CT8I
•C <°F)














VELOCITY'
HEAD
(APj).
nw(in.IHjO














PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE
METER
mmHjO
tin. MjOl














GASSAHPU
• VOLUME
H,3,,,J,














GAS SAMPLE KUPtRAtlMC
AT DOT GAS METER
INLET
•C t'FI












AvQ.
OUTLET
•C <»FI







- •




A»o.
*««.
F«.TU HTADW
nUPERATURE.
•CI'FI














TEMPERATURE
Of CAS
iCAvmo
CONOEMSCft 
-------
 23080
 holder. If necessary, the pump may be turned
 on with the coarse  adjust wive closed.
   When the probe  Is In position, block oS
 the openings  around the  probe  and port-
 hole to prevent unrepresentative dilution of
 the gfca stream.
   Traversa  the stack cross section, as  re-
 quired by Method  1 or as specified by  the
• Administrator, being oarefur not to bump
 the probe nozzle  Into the stack walls when
 sampling near the  wells or when removing
 or Inserting the probe through the portholes,
 to minimum chance of extracting deposited
 material.
   During the  test  run, make  periodic  ad-
 justments to  beep  the temperature around
 the filter holder at the proper temperature
 and  add  more Ice and, If necessary, salt to
 maintain & temperature of less  than SO'O
 (68'P) at the condenser/silica,  gel outlet to
 avoid excessive moisture losses. Also, periodi-
 cally check the level and zero of  the mano-
 meter.                    '
   If the  pressure drop across the filter  be-
 comes too high making isoklnetlc sampling
 difficult to maintain, the filter may be  re-
 placed in the  midst of a, sample run. It is
 recommended  that another complete filter
 assembly be used  rather  than attempting
 to change  the filter itself. After  the new
 filter or filter  assembly is Installed conduct
 & leak check.  The  parttoulate  weight shall
 include the   summation  of all  filter  as-
 sembly catches;
   A single train shall be used for the entire
 sample run, escept for filter and silica  gel
 changes. However, if approved by the Admin-
 istrator, too or more trains may be used for
 o  oinglo test  run  when  there are two or
 more ducts or sampling ports. The results
 shell be the  total of all sampling  train
 catches.
   At the end of the sample run, turn off
 the pump, remove the probe and nozzle from
 the stock, and record the final dry gas meter
 reading. Perform a leak check  at a vacuum
 equal  to or  greater  than  the  maximum
 reached during sampling. Calculate percent
 Isotdnetic (see calculation section) to'de-
 termine whether another test run should be
 made. If there Is difficulty in maintaining
 isoklnetlc rates due to source conditions,
 consult with the Administrator for possible
 variance on the Isoklnetlc rates.
   4.2 Sample recovery. Proper  cleanup pro-
 cedure begins as soon as the  probe Is re-
 moved from the stack at  the end of  the
 sampling  period. Allow the probe to cool.
   When  the probe can be safely  handled,
 wipe off all external paniculate matter near
 the tip of the probe nozzle and place a  cap
 over  It to prevent losing or  gaining par-
 tlculate matter. Do not,cap off the probe
 tip tightly while  the sampling  train Is cool-
 ing down as this would create  a vacuum in
 the  filter holder, thus drawing water from
 the Implngers  Into the filter.
   Before moving the  sample  train to  the
 cleanup  site,  remove  the probe  from  the
 sample  train,  wipe off the slllcone grease,
 and cap the  open  outlet of the probe. Be
 careful not to  lose any condensate. If present.
 Wipe off the  slllcone grease from the filter
 inlet where the probe was fastened and  cap
 it. Remove the umbilical cord from the  last
 Implnger and  cap the implnger. If a flexible
 line Is used between the  first Implnger or
 condenser  and the filter holder,  disconnect
 the  lino ot the  filter holder  and let  any
 condensed water or liquid drain  Into  the
 imnlngers or condenser. After wiping oB tSio
slllcone grease, cap oS the filter holder out-
let and implnger Inlet. Either ground  glees
stoppers or plastic caps or serum capo may
be used to close these openings.
  Transfer the 'probe and fllter-lmplnger as-
sembly to the cleanup area. This area should
be clean and protected from the wind GO that
the chances of contaminating or losing the
sample will be minimized.
  Save  &  portion of  the  acetone  used tor
cleanup as a blank. Piece  about 200 ml of
this  acetone taken  directly from the  wash
bottle being used In a glass sample container
labeled "acetone blank."
  Inspect  the  train  prior to and during dis-
assembly and note any abnormal conditions.
Treat the samples as follows:
 . Container No. i. Carefully remove the filter
from the filter holder and place In Its iden-
tified petrl dish container. TJse  a pair of
tweezers and/or  clean  disposable  surgical
gloves to handle the filter. If it Is necessary
to.fold  the filter, do  so such that the par-
tlculate cake  Is Inside the fold.  Quantita-
tively remove any partlculate matter and/or
filter which adheres to the filter holder gea-
ket by  carefully using a  dry nylon bristle
brush and/or a sharp-edged blade and  place
into this container. Seal the container.
  Container Mo. i. Taking care to sea that
dust  on the outside  of the probe or  other
exterior surfaces does not get Into the sample,
quantitatively recover partlculate matter or
any condensate from the probe noszle. probe
fitting,  probe  liner,  and front half of the
filter holder by washing these components
with acetone  and placing the wash into  a
glass container In the following manner:
  Distilled water may be used instead of
acetone when approved by the Administrator
or shall be used when specified by the Ad-
ministrator. In  these cases, save a water
blank and follow Administrator's directions
on analysis.
  Carefully  remove  the probe nozzle and
clean the  Inside surface by rinsing with ace-
tone from a wash bottle and brushing with
a nylon bristle brush. Brush  until  acetone
rinse shows no visible particles, after which
make a final rinse of the Inside surface with
acetone.
  Brush and rinse  with  acetone  the inside
parts of the Swagelok fitting In a similar way
until no visible particles  remain.
  Rinse the probe liner with acetone by tilt-
ing the probe  and squirting acetone  into its
upper end, while rotating the probe  so that
all Inside surfaces will be rinsed with ace-
tone. Let  the  acetone drain from the  lower
end  Into the sample container. A funnel may
be used to aid In transferring liquid washes
to the  container. Follow  the acetone' rinse
with a  probe  brash.  Bold the probe In an
Inclined position, squirt  acetone Into the
upper end &a the probe brush is being pushed
with a twisting action through the probe,
hold a sample  container underneath the low-
er end of the  probe, and catch any  acetone
and   partlculate matter  which to  brushed
from the probe. Run  the brush through the
probe three times or more until no visible
partlculate matter  Is carried  out with the
acetone or remains in the probe liner on
visual  inspection.  With  stainless  steal or
other metal probes, run the brush through
in the above prescribed manner at least sis
times since metal probes have small  crevices
in  which partlculate matter can  to oa-
trapped: Rinse &e  brush with acetone and
quantltc&vely collect tSKses washings to
sample container. Afto? fito BtrusSbing
o final  acetone  rinse of  the probe an de-
scribed above.
  It Is recommended that two people be used
to clean the probe to "^"font*** losing the
oample. Between sampling runs, keep brushes
clean and protected from contamination.
  After ensuring that oil  Joints ore wiped
clean of slllcone grease, clean the inside of
tho front half of the filter holder by rab&tmg
the surfaces with a nylon  bristle brush
rinsing  with acetone. Rinse eeah
three times or  more if  needed to remove
visible partlculate. Mako  a anal  rinse of
the brush and filter holder. After all oeotono
washings and partlculate matter are collected
in the sample container, tighten the lid on
the sample container eo  that acetone will
not leak out when it is shipped to the labora-
tory.  Mark the  height of. the Quid level to
determine  whether or not leakage occurred
during transport. Label container to dearly
Identify Its contents.
  Container No. 3. Note  color of Indicating •
silica gel to determine If it has been com-
pletely spent and mode  a notation of  Ste
condition.  Transfer the silica gel from the
fourth Implnger to the original container
and seal. A  funnel  may  make  it easier to
pour the silica gel without spilling. A rubbar
policeman may be used eo an. aid in ranmtag
the silica gel from the implnger. It is not
necessary to remove the  email  amoumi oJ
dust particles that may  adhere to the w&Ua
and are difficult to remove. Since the gain
in weight Is to be used for moisture calcula-
tions, do not use any water or other liquids
to transfer the silica gel. If a balance 'Us
available In the field, follow the procedure '
under analysis.
  Impinger water.  Treat the impingers m
condenser  as follows:  Hake a  notation of
any color or film in the liquid catch. Measure
the liquid which Is In the first three Implng-
ers to within ±1  ml by using  a graduated
cylinder or. If available, to within ±0.6 g by
using a balance. Record the volume or weigfot
of liquid present.  This  Informatton is  co-
quired to calculate the moisture content of
the effluent gas.
  If .analysis of the Implnger catch  to not
required, discard the'liquid after measuring
and recording the volume or weight. If anal-
ysis of the Implnger catch to required, leavo;
the Impingers intact to transfer the liquid.
cap off the Inlet, and pour the liquid through
the outlet Into the graduated cylinder or into
a sample container after its weight has been
determined.
  If a  different type of condenser is used,
measure the amount of  moisture condensed
either volumetrlcally or gravimetrically.
  4.3  Analysis. Record the data required on
the example sheet shown In Figure 5-3. Han-
dle each sample container as follows:
  Container Wo. 1.  Leave in shipping con-
tainer or  transfer the filter and any looss
partlculate from the sample container to o
tared glass weighing dish and  desiccate £or
24  hours in a  desiccator  containing  anhy-
drous calcium sulfate. Weigh to a constant
weight and report the results to the nearest
0.1 rag.  For purposes of  this section 4.3, «Jxo
term "constant weight'' means a difference
of no more than 0.8 mg or 1 percent of tots!
weight less tare weight, whichever is greater,
between two consecutive weighings, with a»
less than 6 hours of desiccation time batwsam
weighings and no lozore  than 21 sminutes os-
poaure to  the laboratory atetcsptics'e
to  less  than SO pOToant relative
Surlng weighing.
                                                                                   £££3 Cb
                                                            V-22
-------
                          PROPOSED RULES
23081
Plant.
Date.
Run-No..
Relative Humidity.
Amount liquid lost during transport
Acetone blank volume, ml	
Acetone wash volume, ml	
Acetune blank concentration, mg/mg (equation 5-4).
Acetone wash blank, mg (equation 5-5)	
CONTAINER
NUMBER
1
2
TOTAL
WEIGHT OF PARTICULATE COLLECTED.
mg
FINAL WEIGHT


^xd
TARE WEIGHT


^xnr
Less acetone blank
Weight of particulate matter
WEIGHT GAIN





s
FINAL
INITIAL
LIQUID COLLECTED
TOTAL VOLUME COLLECTED
VOLUME OF LIQUID
WATER COLLECTED
IMPINGER
VOLUME,
ml.




SILICA GEL
WEIGHT.
9
•


9* I ml
      CONVERT WEIGHT OF WATER TO VOLUME BY DIVIDING TOTAL WEIGHT
      INCREASE BY DENSITY OF WATER (Ig/ml).
                                  !NCREASE> g  « VOLUME WATER, ml
                                      1 g/ml

                         Figure 5-3.  Analytical data.
           FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE ft, 1976
                            V-23
-------
23082                                                PROPOSED  RULES

                       Container  No.  2. Not;  level  of liquid In    When  nozzles become nicked, dented, or
                     container  and . confirm  on  analysis sheet  corroded, they shall be reshaped, sharpened,
                     whether or  not  leakage  occurred  during  and recalibrated before use.
                     transport.  Measure the liquid  In this con-    Each  nozzle shall  be  permanently  and
                     talner either volumetrlcally to  ±1 ml or  uniquely Identified.
                     gravlmetrlcally to ±0.8 g. Transfer the con-    6.2   Pltot tube. The  pttot tube shall be
                     tents to a tared 250 ml beaker, and evaporate  calibrated according to. the procedure cut-
                     to dryiiess  at ambient temperature and pres-  lined In Method 2.
                     sure.  Desiccate for  24 hours and  weigh to a    5,3   Dry gas meter and orifice meter. Both
                     constant weight.  Report the results to the  meters shall be calibrated according to the
                     nearest 0.1 md pressure. Dcslc-  curves in APTD-0576 are used.
                     cate for 24 hours and weigh to  a constant    5,5   Temperature  gauges.  Calibrate  dial
                     weight. Report the results to the  nearest  and  liquid  filled  bulb  thermometers  and
                     0.1 mg.                                    thermocouple-potentiometer systems  against
                       5. Calibration.            ,                mercury-ln-0'.ass thermometers. Ice bath and
                       Maintain a laboratory log ol  all callbra-  boiling water (corrected for barometric pres-
                     tions.                                     sure)  .are acceptable reference points. POT
                       5.1   Probe  nozzle.  Using  a  micrometer,  other devices, check with the Administrator.
                     measure the  Inside diameter of  the nozzle    6. Calculations.
                     to the nearest 0.025 mm  (0.001 In.). Make 3    carry out calculations,  retaining at least
                     of the measurements. The difference between  ^quired data. Round off figures after final
                     the high and low numbers shall not exceed  calculation.
                     0.1 mm (0.004 In.).                            6.1   Nomenclature

                         An= Cross sectional area of nozzle, m2 (ft2)
                        Bw. = Water vapor in the gas stream, proportion by volume
                         C.= Acetone blank residue concentration,  mg/g
                          c. = Concentration of participate matter in stack gas, dry basis, corrected to standard
                                conditions, g/dscm (g/dscf)
                          I = Percent of i.sokinetic .sampling
                         niB= Total amount of paniculate matter collected, mg
                        Mw— Molecular weight of watnr, 18 g/g-mole (18 Ib/lb-molc)
                         m»=Mass of residue of acetone after evaporation, mg
                        Ph.t = Barometric pressure at the sampling site,  mm lig (in. Hg)
                         !'•= Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg)
                         T.= Absolute average stack gas temperature (sen Figure 6-2), ttK (°R)
                        T.n = Standard absolute temperature, 293° K (528° R)
                         V»=Volurne of acetone blank, ml
                        V«w = Volume of acetone used in wash, ml
                        V|« = Total volume of liquid collected in impingurs and silica gel (see Figure 5-3),  ml
                        Vm=Volume of gas sample as measured  by dry gas meter, dcm (dcf)
                     Vm (ltd) = Volume of gas  sample measured by the dry gas meter corrected to standard
                                conditions, dscm (dscf)
                     V. (mn= Volume of water vapor in  the gas xample corrected to standard  conditions,
                                scm  (scf)
                         v.=Stack gas velocity, calculated by Method 2, Equation 2-7 using data obtained
                                from Method 5, m/sec (ft/sec)
                        W, = Weight of residue in acetone wash,  mg
                        AlI = Average pressure  differential across the  orifice meter (see Figure 5-2), mm HjO
                                (in. H,O)
                         p»= Density of acetone, mg/ml  (see label on bottle)
                         />w=Density of water, 1 g/ml  (0.00220 Ib/ml)
                          6=Total sampling time, min
                        13.6=Specific gravity of mercury   <                                  .           ,
                         60=Sec/min
                        100= Conversion to percent

                       6.2  Average dry gas meter temperature and average orifice pressure drop. See data sheet
                     (Figure 5-3).
                       4.3  Dry  gas volume. Correct the cample volume measured by  the dry gas meter  to
                     standard conditions (20* C, 760 mm Hg or 68* P, 29.92 In, Hg) by using Equation 6-1.
                                                                                        Equation 6-1
                     There:

                     K=0.3855 °K/mm Hg for metric units

                       • 17.65 °R/in. Hg for English units
                                   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41. NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976


                                                           V-24
-------
                                PROPOSED RULES
  6.4  Volume of water vapor.
                            Equation 5-2
where:
K=0.00134 m'/ml for metric unite
  =0.0472 ft'/ml for English units
  6.6 Moisture content.

           •a        V.(.ui)
                                                                     Equation 5-5
                                           6.8  Total  partlsulate weight.  Determine
                                         the total partlculate oaten from the sum
                                         of the weights obtained from  containers 1
                                         and' 2 lest the acetone blank (see Figure
                                         8-3).
                                           6.9
                                                  Partlculate concentration.
                                                  e.= (0.001
                            Equation 5-3
  6.6  Acetone blank concentration.
                                             6.10  Conversion factors:
                                               From—
                                                                        Equation 5-6
                                                                         Multiply by—
                                           set.	 m'	    a 0283
                                           g/ft»	gr/;t'	   15.4
                            „        , ,  g/ft'	lb/ft'	    2.205X10-*
                            Equation 5-4  g/rt'	 g/ms	   35.31
6.7  Acetone wash blank.

            «r 	f* V  n
where:
                                             6.11  Isoklnetlc variation.
                                             6.11.1  Calculations from raw data.
                                       600V.P.A,,
                    K-0.00346 mm Hg-m'/ml-'K for metric units
                                                                      Equation 6-7
  6.11.2
values.
         Calculations
where:
                            Equation 5-8
        K=4.323 for metric units

          = 0.0944 for English uuits

  6.12  Acceptable  results. If  90 percent
=£1 ^110 percent, the results are acceptable.
If the results are low  in comparison  to the
standards and I la  beyond  the acceptable
range, the Administrator may option to ac-
cept the results. Use reference  7.4 to make
Judgments. Otherwise,  reject the results and
repeat the test.
  7. Reference.
  7.1   Addendum to Specifications for Incin-
erator Testing  at  Federal Facilities, PHB,
NCAPC, Dec. 6, 1967.
  7.3   Martin, Robert  M.,  Construction De-
tails of Isoklnetlc Source  Sampling Equip-
ment,  Environmental  Protection Agency,
APTD-0581. April 1971.
  7.3   Rom, Jerome J., Maintenance, Calibra-
tion, and Operation of Isoklnetlc Source Sam-
pling Equipment, Environmental Protection
Agency, APTD-0576, March 1973.
  7.4   Smith, W. 8.,  R. T. Shlgehara, and W.
F. Todd.  A  Method  of  Interpreting  Stack
Sampling Data, Paper presented at the 63d
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, St. Louis,  Mo., June 14-19, 1970.
  7.8   Smith, W. 8., »t «l.. Stack  Oas Sam-
                    = 0.00267 in. Hg-ftVml-°R for English units
                    from   intermediate  pllng  Improved and  Simplified with  New
                                         Equipment, APCA paper No. 67-119, 1967.
                                           7.6  Specifications for Incinerator Testing
                                         at Federal Facilities, PHS, NCAPC,  1967.
                                           7.7  Shlgehara, R. T., Adjustments In the
                                         EPA Nomograph for Different Pltot Tube Co-
                                         efficients and Dry Molecular Weights, Stack
                                         Sampling News 2:4-11, Oct. 1974.
                                         METHOD 6—DETERMINATION or  SOT/TUB  Dl-
                                          oxroH EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCKS

                                           1. Principle and Applicability.
                                           1.1  Principle. A gas sample  is extracted
                                         from the sampling point in the stack. The
                                         acid  mist  (Including  sulfur  trioxlde)   and
                                         the sulfur dioxide are separated. The sulfur
                                         dioxide fraction Is measured by  the barlum-
                                         thorln tltratlon method.
                                           13  Applicability. This method is applica-
                                         ble for the determination of  sulfur dioxide
                                         emissions from stationary sources. The mini-
                                         mum detectable limit of the method has been
                                         determined to be 8.4 mg of SOi/m» (2.1 X10-'
                                         lb/ft'). No upper limit has been established.
                                           2. Apparatus.
                                           2.1. Sampling. See Figure 6-1.
                                           3.1.1  Probe—Boroslllcate glass,  approxi-
                                         mately 8 to 6 mm ID,  with a heating system
                                         to prevent water condensation and equipped
                                         with a filter (either in-stack or heated out-
                                         stack)  to remove partlculate matter includ-
                                         ing sulfurlc add mist.
                                           2.1.2  Bubbler and Implngers—One midget
                                         bubbler, with medium coarse glass frit  and
                                         boroslllcate or quartz glass wool packed In
                                         top  (see Figure 6-1) to prevent  sulfurlc acid
                                         mist carryover;  and three midget implngers,
                                         each with 30 ml capacity, or equivalent.  The
                                         bubbler and midget Implngers shall be con-
                                         nected In series with leak free glass connec-
                                         tors. SUicone grease may be used,  if neces-
                                         sary, to prevent leakage.
                                           2.1.3  Otaes wool-Borosillcate or quarto.   .
              FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOi. 41,  NO. Ill—TUESDAY,  JUNE 8, 1976
                                    V-25
-------
23084
           PROPOSED  RULES
                                                                     THERMOMETER
        IW5-S PITOT TUSS
                                                                        ,        •-..
                                                                -*m .••//£•  " S>.;. ".,.'"• •*"
                                                               .."?.'.   ft.    :.'    '.(•'•
                                                                "of ' ., collection"  train..'
                                                                              PUW
                               Figure 6-1. SO; oamplinc train.
                                                            SURGE T/>W
  9.1.4  Stopcock grease—Aceteono Insoluble,
beat  stable slllcone grewe may tin used, K
necessary.
  2.1.5  Drying tubs—Tube packed with fl to
16 mesh Indicating-type silica gel, or equiv-
alent, to  dry the gas sample anA to protect
the meter and pump.
  2.1.8  Valve—Needle valve, to regulate sam-
ple gas flow rate.
  2.1.7  Pump—Leak free diaphragm pump,
or equivalent, to pull gas through the train.
  2.1.8  Volume meter—Dry gas meter, suffi-
ciently  accurate .to  measure the  sample
volume within 2 percent, ca-Ubrnt'sd over the
range of  flow rates and conditions actually
used  during sampling  and equipped with n
temperature gauge (dial tfcerznometer,  or
equivalent).
  2.1.8  Flow Meter—Rotaraeter. or equiv-
alent, to  measure flow range  from  0-2  1pm
(0 to 6 cfh).
  2.1.10   Pltot tube—Type S, or equivalent,
attached  to probe to allow constant monitor-
Ing of  the stack gas  velocity so that tha
sampling flow rate can be regulated propor-
tional to the stack gao velocity. The tips ot
the probe and pltot tube shall be adjacent
to  each other and tha free space between
them shall be about 1.9 cm  (0.75 In.). 'When
used  with this method, the pltot tube  need
not be calibrated.
  The pltot tube shall be equipped  with an
Inclined  manometer,  or equivalent device,
capable of measuring velocity head to within
10  percent of the minimum measure?!, value
or  ±0.013 mm  (0.0005  In.),  whichever Is
greater.
  2.1.11   Temperature  gauge—Dial  ther-
mometer, or equivalent, to measure tempera-
ture  of gas leaving Implnger train to within
l'O(2°F).
  2.1.12  Barometer—Mercury,  aneroid,  or
other  barometers  capable  of  measuring
atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg
 (0.1  In. Hg).  In many cases, the barometric
reading may be obtained from a nearby wea-
ther  bureau station, In which case the station
value (which Is the absolute barometric pres-
sure) shall be requested and an adjustment
for elevation differences between the weather
station and sampling point shall be applied at
 a rate of minus 2.6 mm Hg (0.1 In. Hg) per
30 m (100 ft) elevation Increase or vice versa
 for elevation decrease.
   2.1.13  Vacuum gauge—At least 780 mm Hg
 (30 In. Hg)  gauge, to be used for the sam-
 pling train leak check.
  2.2  Sample recovery.
  2.2.1  Wash bottles—Polyethylene or glass.
60O ml. tiro.
  2.3.2  Storage  bottler—Polyethylene,  100
ml, to  store teaplnger samples  (one  per
samole).
  2.3  Analysis.
  2.3.1  Pipettes—Volumetric type, 5 ml size.
20 ml size (one per sample), and 25 ml size.
  2.8.2  Volumetric 3asks—100 ml size (one
per sample) and 1000 ml sizes.
  2.3.3  Burettes—5 ml and 50 ml sizes.
  2.3.*  Erlsnmoyer flasks—260 ml size (one
for each sample, blank, and standard).
  2.3.5  Dropping bottle—125 ml size, to add
Indicator.
  2.3.6—Graduated cylinder—100 ml size.
  3. Reagents.'
  •Unless otherwise Indicated. It la Intended
that nM reagents conform  to the Bpeclflca-
tlons established by the Committee on Ana-
lytical Reagents of the American Chemical
Society, where such specifications  are avail-
able;  otherwise use best available grade.
  S.I   Sampling.
  3.1.1  Water—Delonlzed,  distilled to con-
form to ASTM speclBcatlon Dl 193-72, Type 8.
  3.1.2  Isopropanol, 80 percent—Mix 80 ml
of Isopropanol with 20 ml of deionlzed, dis-
tilled water.
  3.1.8  Hydrogen  peroxide,  3   percent—
Dilute  80 percent  hydrogen peroslde  1:9
 (v/v) with deionlzed, distilled water (30 ml
Is needed psr sample). Prepare fresh dally.
  3.2  Sample recovery.
  3.2.1  Water—Delonlzed,   distilled,  as  In
3.1.1.
  8.2.2  Isopropanol, 80 percent—Mix 80 ml
of Isopropanol with 20 ml  of deionlzed, dis-
tilled water.
  3.3 .Analysis.
  3.3.1  Water—Delonlzed,   distilled,,  as  In
8.1.1.
  9.32  Isopropanol, 100 percent.  .
  3.3.3  Thorln Indicator—l-(o-arsonophen-
 ylazo) r2-naphtol-3,  6-dlsulfonlc  acid,  dl-
 Eodlum salt, or equivalent. Dissolve 0.20 g In
 100 ml of deionlzed, distilled water.
  3.3.4 Barium perchlorate solution, 0.01 N—
 Dissolve 1.95 g of barium perchlorate trlhy-
 drate*!Ba(ClO4),-3HaO! In 200 ml distilled
 water and dilute to 1 liter with Isopropanol.
 BaCl,-2H..O  (1.22  g)  may also be  used.
 Standardize as In section 5.2.
   3.3.5  Sulfurlc  acid  standard,  0.01  N—
 Purchase or standardize to ±0.0002 N against
 0.01  N. NaOH  which has  previously  been
                  .              ..
 standardized against. Ipotassium^acld phtha-
late (primary standard^ grade',) f    '        '
  Ik. Procedure.
  4.1  Sampling.    .
  4.1.1  Preparation
Measure 15 ml of 80 percent.lsopropanol. Into
the midget bubbler, and 15 nil^of 3-percent-'
 hydrogen peroxide lnto\each; of 'the first" two
midget Implngers. Leave thej final midget Im-
plnger  dry. Assemble the 'train' as  shown In  :,
Figure 6-1. Adjust .probe\heater^to, operating  •..
 temperature.  Place.^rush'ejij. l<^ and^igater-"
around the Implngers.  LeaK check  thel"iarti-:'
 pllng train Just prior to use at.the sampling
 site by placing a  vacuum gauge at the Inlet
.to  the  first Implnger and  pulling  a vacuum
 of  at least 250 mm Hgir(10  In': Hg),. plugging ;
 or  pinching off the outlet^df the flowrmeter,  ••
 and then turning off the,pump.'The Vacuum
 shall remain stable format least one minute. -b
 Carefully  release the ^a^uum^'gauge before
 releasing  the  flowmeter end.v Connect  the
 probe.                 .;.;•,  .15    1;    ,•, •
 to  the stack  gas  veli&ity .^throughout jtheVy
 run. Take readings (dry gas' meter; tempera- . ',;
 tures at dry gas  meter and at  implnger but-,.
 let. rate  meter, and, velocity  head) at least
 every  five minutes  and  .when 'significant
 changes  (20  percent variation  Inv velsSclty
 head readings)  in 'stack  .conditlo'ns. neees'-".-.
 Bltate additional ad JuBtments 4n 'sample flow  •
 rate.  Add more' ice during'.- the run 'to k'eop • .,
 the temperature of the gases leaving the lost-
 Impinger at 20' ;(3|(68V:F)J'rtr iicps. Afc-jthe ...:
 conclusion of eatih' run. turn  off . the  pump;
 remove probe from the stack, and record the
 final  readings. Conduct ;a^leak» check as |be- *•
 fore.  If excessive leakage -rate Is Wund void '
  the test  run. Bemovej'the  probe      ^
  stack and dlscbnriect;l(it tfroni, tHe  train.
  Drain the Ice bath -jimd' "'purge' the remain-
  ing  part  of .the.;-: train Ijy  drawing  clean
  ambient air through 'the system for ,15. min-.
  •utes at the sampling raje-.; : /, .  --;'  (   •'>'..  "
    Kon!.— Clean -ambient '..air. can be,,provlded
  by passing air thrtaugh-va charcoal .fllter. orV
  through an extra midget ImplngerT with 15 ..
  ml  3 percent ;H/5;.. T3ie jteste^, iBay: option '
  to simply use the ambient alri Jjf  ;   J*  ,"•  .•
    4.2 Sample recovery. Disconnect th'e-lm-'
  ptngers  after purging. >plscardithe contents
  of the midget bubbler.-rPour t!hfl-c6htents.'of
  the midget Im{angersiin3(& a leak-free poly-
  ethylene bottle for st^Bpfe'nt.j Sihse-the three
  midget lmplngers'eand the connecting tubes
  with delonized,  dlsjllled 'water and add the ;
  washings  to  the same storage'  container.
  Mark the fluid  fevel.  Seal arid Identify the '
  sample container./         ^
    4.3 Sample anal3jsls:,Note level oi. llij'.ild
  In container and confirm whether or not any
  sample was lost during shipment by 'noting
  this on analytical data sheet.      • ' ••
    NOTE. — Protect the-O.pltN barium perchlo-
  r?te solution from evaporation at all times.
    Transfer the contents of  the storage con-
  tainer to  a 100  stfl -volumetric flask  and
  dilute to ex?x:tly 100. ml with delonized, dis-
  tilled water. Pipette a 20 'ml allquo  of this
  solution Into a 250 ml  Erlenmeyer; flask, add
  80  ml of Isopropanol,  two  to  four drops of
  thorln indicator and titrate 'to a pink end-
  point using 0.01 N barium perchlorate. Re-
  peat and average the tlt'ratlon  volumes. Bun
  a blank  with each serle% of' samples. .Repli-
  cate tltratlons shall vagree. within i .percent.
    5. Calibration. '-   '•  \ "I  •
    5.1  Use methods and equipment as spec-
  ified In Methods 2 and 5 and  APTD-0576 to
                                      FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL 41, NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8,  1976
                                                           V-26
-------
calibrate the rotaraeter, pltot tube, dry gas
meter, barometer,  and thermometers.
  82   Standardize  the barium  perchlorate
solution against 25 ml of standard sulfurlc
acid to which 100 ml of Isopropanol has been
added.
  6. Calculations.
  Carry  out calculations, retaining at least
one extra decimal figure beyond that of the
acquired data.  Round off figures after nnal
calculation.
  6.1   Nomenclature.

  Csoa= Concentration  of sulfur dioxide,
           dry basis corrected to standard
           conditions, mg/dscm  (Ib/dscf)
    N=Normality of barium  perchlorate
           titrant, milliequivalents/ml
   Pb»r= Barometric pressure at the  exit
           orifice of  the dry  gas  meter,
           mm Hg  (in. Hg)
   P..d= Standard  absolute  pressure, 760
           mm Hg  (29.92 in. Hg)
    Tm=Average dry  gas meter absolute
           temperature, °K (°R)
   T.id=Standard  absolute temperature,
           293° K (528° R)
    V.=Volume of sample aliquot titrated,
           ml
    Vm=Dry gas volume as measured by
           the dry gas meter, dcm (dcf)
Vm(.td) = Dry gas  volume measured by  the
           dry  gas meter,  corrected  to
           standard conditions, dscm (dscf)
  V.0i,,=Total volume of solution in which
           the  sulfur dioxide  sample  is
           contained, 100 ml
    V,=Volume  of  barium  perchlorate
           titrant used for the  sample, ml
           (average of replicate titrations)
    Vtb=Votume  of  barium  perchlorate
           titrant used for. the blank, ml
  32.03=Equivalent   weight   of   sulfur
           dioxide
   6.2  Dry sample gas volume, corrected to
standard conditions.
                                                      PROPOSED  RULES

                                             7 B  Rom, J. J.. Maintenance, Calibration,
                                           and Operation of Isoklnetlc Source-Sampling
                                           Equipment. Office of Air Programs, Environ-
                                           mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
                                           Park, N.C., March 1972. APTD-0576.
                                             7.6  Hamll, H. P.  and Camann,  D. B., Col-
                                           laborative Study of Method for the Deter-
                                           mination of Sulfur  Dioxide Emissions Prom
                                           Stationary  Sources. Prepared for Methods
                                           Standardization Branch, Quality Assurance
                                           and  Environmental Monitoring Laboratory,
                                           National Environmental  Research  Center,
                                           Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
                                           Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
                                             7.7 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part
                                           23; Water, Atmospheric Analysis, pp. 203-208.
                                           American Society for Testing and Materials,
                                           Philadelphia, Penna. (1972).
                                           METHOD  7—DETERMINATION   or   NITEOOEN
                                           OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES

                                             1. Principle and Applicability.
                                             1.1 Principle. A grab sample Is collected In
                                           an evacuated flask  containing a  dilute sul-
                                           furlc acid-hydrogen peroxide absorbing solu-
                                           tion, and the nitrogen oxides,  except nitrous
                                           oxide, are measured colormetMcally using the
                                           pheaoldlsulfonlc acid (PDS) procedure.
                                                  PROBE


                                                  tfij^L


                                                FILTER
                             Equation 6-1
where:
  =0.3
  = 17.65 °R/in. Hg for English units

  6.3  Sulfur dioxide concentration.
 K=0.3855 °K/mm Hg for metric units
              in. Hg for
                              Equation 6-2
 where :
   K= 32.03 mg/meq.-for metric units
     = 7.05 X 10-'         for English units
   7. References.
   7.1  Atmospheric  Emissions from Sulfurlc
 Acid Manufacturing Processes,  O.S. DHEW,
 PHS, Division of Air Pollution, Public Health
 Service Publication No. 999-AP-13, Cincin-
 nati. Ohio, 1965.
   7.2  Corbett, P. P., The Determination of
 SO, and  SO, In Flue Oases, Journal of the
 Institute of Fuel, 24, 237-243, 1961.
   7.3  Matty, R. E. and E. K. Dlehl, Measur-
 ing Flue-Gas SO, and SO,, Power 101 :94-97,
 November 1957.
   7.4  Patton, W. F. and  J. A. Brink, Jr.,
 New Equipment  and Techniques  for  Sam-
 pling Chemical Process Oases,  J. Air Pollu-
 tion Control Association, 13, 162 (1963).
                                                   23085

                  1.2  Applicability.  This method Is appli-
                cable to the measurement of nitrogen oxldoe
                emitted from stationary  sources. The range
                of the method has been determined  to be 9
                to 400 milligrams NO. as No, per dry stand-
                ard cubic meter  without having to dilute
                the sample.
                  2. Apparatus.
                  2.1  Sampling (See Figure 7-1).
                  2.1.1  Probe—Boroslllcate  glass   tubing
                sufficiently heated to prevent water conden-
                sation and equipped with a filter (either IB-
               ' stack or  heated  out of stack)  to  remove •
                partlculate  matter.  Heating  is  unnecessary
                If the probe remains dry during the purging
                period.
                  2.1.2  Collection flask—Two-liter borosui-
                cate,  round bottom with short  neck  and
                24/40  standard  taper  opening,  protected
                against implosion or breakage.
                  2.1.3  Flask valve—T-bore stopcock con-
                nected to a 24/40 standard taper Joint;
                   2.1.4  Temperature gauge—Dial-type ther-
                mometer, or-equivalent,  capable of measur-
                ing  l°  C  (2°  P)   intervals from  —B  to
                50'C (25 to 125" F).
                                             GROUND-GLASS SOCKET
                                                § NO. 12/5


                                                         f
                                                      110 mm
                                             3-WAY SWCOCKr
                                             T-BORE. 5 PYREX.
                                             2fnm BORE. 8-mrn OD
                                                                             FLASK
  FUSK SHIEtO. .',
                                                    GROUND-CUSS CONE.
                                                     STANDARD TAPER.
                                                    J SLEEVE NO. 24/40
GROUND-GLASS
SOCKET. J NO. 12/5
P»REX
                                                                                                           — -FOAM ENCASEMENT  .
                                                                                              m  V  I   - • '^BOILING FIASK •
                                                                                               N,. 'J*'     * LITER. ROUND-BOTTOM. SHORT NECK.
                                                                                                 >"      WITH J SUEVE NO. 24/40
                                                                   Figure 7-1. Sampling train, flask valve, and flask.
                                              2.1.5  Vacuum  line—Tubing  capable  of
                                            .vlthstandlng a vacuum of 76 mm Hg (3 in.
                                            Hg) absolute pressure, with "T" connection
                                            and T-bore stopcock.
                                              2.1.6  Pressure gauge—U-tube monometer,
                                            1-meter, with  1-mm  (36-ln.,  with 0.1-ln.)
                                            divisions, or equivalent.
                                              2.1.7  Pump—Capable of  evacuating the
                                            collection flask to a pressure equal to or less
                                            than 75 mm Hg (3 In. Hg) absolute.
                                              2.1.8  Squeeze bulb—Oneyway
                                              2.1.9  Volumetric pipette—25-ml.
                                              2.1.10  Stopcock and ground joint grease—
                                            A  high vacuum,  high temperature chloro-
                                            fluorocarbon  grease Is required. Halocar-
                                            bon»  25-58 has been  found to be effective.
                                              2.1.11  Barometer—Mercury,  aneroid,  or
                                            other 'barometers capable of measuring at-
                                            mospheric pressure to  within 2.5 mm  Hg
                                            (0.1 in. Hg).  In many cases, the barometric
                                              1 Mention of trade names or specific prod-
                                            ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
                                            Environmental Protection Agency.
                 reading may  be obtained  from  a nearby
                 weather 'bureau station, In which  case the
                 station value  (which Is the absolute baro-
                 metric pressure) shall be requested and an
                 adjustment for elevation differences between
                 the weather station and sampling point shall
                 be applied at a rate of minus 2.5 mm Hg (0.1
                 in. Hg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation Increase
                 or vice versa for elevation decrease.
                   2.2  Sample recovery.
                   2.2.1  Graduated cylinder—50-ml with  1-
                 ml divisions.
                   2.2.2 Storage container—Leak-free poly-
                 ethylene bottles.
                   2.2.3 Wash  toottle-T-polyathylene or glan.
                   2.2.4  Glass stirring rod.
                   2.2.5 pH indicating test paper—To cover
                 the pH range of 7-14.
                   2.3  Analysis.
                   2.3.1 Volumetric pipettes—Two 1-ml, two
                 2-ml,  one 3-ml, one 4-ml and two 10-ml, and
                 one 25-ml for each  sample and standard.
                   2.3.2 Porcelain evaporating dishes. 178 to
                 250-ml capacity with Up for pouring, one for
                                      FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 41,  NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976

                                                           V-2-7
-------
  23086
            PROPOSED  RULES
 each sample and each standard. The Coors1
 #46006  (shallow-form,  195 ml) has  been
 found to toe satisfactory.
   2.3.8  Steam bath. (A hot plate Is not ac-
 ceptable.)
   2.3.4  Dropping pipette or dropper—Three
 required.
   2.3.5  Polyethylene  policeman—One   for
 each sample and each standard.
   2.3.6  Graduated cylinder—100-ml with 1-
 ml divisions.
   2.3.7  Volumetric flasks—50-ml  (one  for
 each sample), 100-ml (one for each sample,
 each standard and one for the working stand-
 ard KNO, solution), and one 1000-ml.
   2.3.8  Spectrophotometer—To measure ab-
 sorbance at 410 nm.
   2.3.9  Graduated pipette— 10-ml, with 0.1-
 ml divisions.
   2.3.10  pH Indicating test paper—To cover
 the pH range of 7-14.
   3.3.11  Analytical balance—To measure to
 0.1 mg.
   3. Reagents.
   Unless otherwise indicated, It  Is Intended
 that all  reagents conform  to  the specifica-
 tions established by the Committee on Ana-
 lytical Reagents  of the American Chemical
 Society,  where such specifications are avail-
 able; otherwise, use best available grade.
   3.1  Sampling.
   3.1.1   Absorbing solution—Cautiously  add
 2.8 ml concentrated H,SO,  to  1  liter of  de-
 lonlzed,  distilled water. Mix  well  and  add
 6 ml of  3 percent hydrogen peroxide, freshly
 prepared from 30 percent hydrogen peroxide
 solution. The solution should be used within
 one week of Its preparation. Do not expose to
 extreme  heat or direct sunlight.
   3.2  Sample recovery.
   3.2.1   Sodium   hydroxide (IN)—Dissolve
 40 g NaOH In delonlzed, distilled water  and
 dilute to 1 liter.
   322   Water—Delonlzed,  distilled  to con-
 form to  ASTM specifications Dl 193-72, Type
 3.
   3.3  Analysis.
   3.3.1   Fuming  sulfurlc acid—15 to 18 per-
 cent  by  weight free sulfur trtoxide. Handle
 with caution.
   3.3.2   Phenol—White solid.
   3.3.3   Sulfurlc acid—Concentrated, 96 per-
 cent  minimum assay. Handle  with caution.
   3.3.4   Potassium  nitrate—Dried  at  105-
 110° C for a minimum of two hours just prior
 to preparation of standard solution.
   3.3.5   Standard solution—Dissolve exactly
 2.1980 a  of dried potassium nitrate  (KNO,)
 In delonlzed, distilled water and dilute to 1
 liter  with delonlzed,  distilled water In a
 1000-ml  volumetric flask.  For the working
 standard solution, dilute 10 ml of the stand-
 ard  solution to 100 ml with delonlzed dis-
 tilled water. One ml of the working standard
 solution  Is equivalent to  100  Ag  nitrogen
 dioxide (NO,).
   3.3.6   Water—Delonlzed,  distilled  as  In
 section '3.2.2.
   3.3.7  Phenoldlsulfonlc acid solution—Dis-
 solve 26  g of pure white phenol in 150  ml
 concentrated sulfurlc acid on  a steam bath.
 Cool, add 75  ml  fuming  sulfurlc acid, and
 heat  at  100" C  (212° F)  for 2 hours. Store
 In a dark, stoppered bottle.
  4. Procedure.
  4.1  Sampling.
  4.1.1  Pipette 25 ml of absorbing solution
 Into  a sample flask, retaining a sufficient
  1 Mention of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection  Agency.
 quantity for use In preparing the calibration
 standards. Insert the flask valve stopper into
 the flask with the valve In the "purge" posi-
 tion. Assemble the sampling train as shown
 in  figure  7-1  and place the  probe at the
 sampling point. Make  sure that all fittings
 are tight and leak free, and that  all ground
 glass joints have been properly greased with
 a high  vacuum,  high temperature chloro-
 fluorocarbon-based stopcock grease. Turn the
 flask valve and the  pump valve  to  their
 "evacuate" positions.  Evacuate the flask to
 75  mm Hg (3  in. Hg)  absolute pressure, or
 less.  Evacuation to  a lower pressure (ap-
 proaching the vapor pressure of water at tha
 existing temperature)  Is even more desirable.
 Turn the pump valve to  Its "vent" position
 and turn off the pump. Check for  leakage by
 observing  the  manometer for any  pressure
 fluctuation. (Any variation greater than 10
 mm  Hg  (0.4 .In.  Hg)  over a. period  of 1
 minute la not acceptable,  and the flask is not
 to be used until the leakage problem is cor-
 rected. Pressure in the flask Is not to exceed
 75  mm Hg (3 In.  Hg)  absolute at the,time
 sampling is commenced.)  Record the volume
 of the flask end valve (Vt), the flask  tem-
 perature (Ti),  and the barometric pressure.
 Turn the flask valve counterclockwise to Its
 "purge"  position and do  the same with the
 pump valve. Purge the probe and the vacuum
 tube using the  squeeze bulb. If condensation
 occurs in the probe and the flask valve area,
 heat the probe and purge until the conden-
 sation disappears. Then turn the pump valve
 to Its "vent" position.  Turn the flask valve
 clockwise to its "evacuate" position and re-
 cord the difference In the mercury levels In
 the manometer. The absolute Internal pres-
 sure  in the  flash  (Pi)   is  equal to  the
 barometric pressure less the manometer read-
 Ing. Immediately turn the flaeh valve to the
 "sample" position and permit the gas  to
 enter the flask until pressures In the  flask
 and sample line  (i.e., duct, stack)  are vir-
 tually equal. This  will usually require about
 15 seconds. A longer period Indicates a "plug"
 In the probe which must be corrected before
 sampling is continued. After collecting the
 sample, turn the  flask valve to Its "purge"
 position and disconnect the flask from the
 sampling train. Shake the flask for at  least
 5 minutes.
  4.1.2  If the gas being sampled contains
 Insufficient oxygen  for the  conversion  to
 NO to  NOt, e.g. an  applicable subpart of
 the standard may require taking a sample
 of a  calibration gas  mixture of NO In Nr
 then  oxygen shall be  Introduced Into the
 flask to permit this conversion. Oxygen may
 be introduced into the flask by one of three
 methods:  (l)  Before  evacuating  the sam-
 pling flask flush with pure cylinder oxygen
 (then evacuate  flash to 75 mm Hg ( 3 In.
 Hg) absolute pressure or less); or  (2) Inject
 oxygen into the flask after sampling; or (3)
 sampling may  be  terminated with  a  mini-
 mum of 50 mm Hg  (2 in: Hg)  vacuum re-
 maining in the flask,  recording  tMs  final
 pressure and then venting  the flask to the
 atmosphere until  the flask pressure is al-
 most  equal to atmospheric pressure.
  4.2  Sample recovery.
  4.2.1  Let the flask set for a  minimum
 of 16 hours and  then shake  the contents
 for  2  minutes.  Connect the flask  to a mer-
 cury  filled U-tube  manometer,  open tha
 valve  from the  flask  to the manometer, and
record the  flash temperature (Tf), the baro-
metric pressure and the difference between
the mercury levels in the manometer. The
absolute Internal pressure In the flask  (Pt)
is the barometric pressure less the manom-
 eter  reading. Transfer the contents of tSr.o
 flask to a leak-free po'yethylene bottZs. Bines
 the flanli  twice  with 8-mI portion* of fie-
 ionized, distilled water onA  afid  'Che  rlxu. •>
 water to the bottle. Adjust the piX to S-l!l
 by adding sodium hydrozlde (1 KT) firojnricj
 (about 26  to 36 drops). Check tho pH !JV
 dipping a stirring roc" Into th& sototicn cssd
 then  touching  it  tn  the pH  teat pajwr.
 Remove an little material oa pose/.ble !a  ca
 analytical data sheet-. Transfer KJJ ctrataata
 of the shipping container to a 50-/nJ VO-'WITMJ-
 trie  flask,  ilnsc  the  container t.wlcu  wia
 6-ml  portions of delonlssd. diBtlllei wjsfrX
 add the rinse water to the flack imJ rtlinte
 to the mark  with deiontosd .^stilled water.
 Mix thoroughly and pipsiic a 23-ml
 Into  the porcelain evaporating  dicl.'.
 rate the solution to •!* ynpss on a. k^i
 and cjlow to cool. (Use only a uteiu/i
 a hot plate  lr, not excitable.)  Add  2  ic!
 phenoldtaulfonlc odd notation  to  tlw  tfriefl
 residue  and  tritumte   tJicroyrsrsly  tri»h
 o polyethylene  polScamaK. MpJcc  r.ure t8»
 solution contacts nil tha residue. Add  1  .^J
 delonlzod, distilled water and four drops of
 concentrated tmlfuric acl'l.  Heat  tte  solu-
 tion  on i  steam V»ath tor 3 minutes wl'Ji
 occasional stirring. Coot, adfi SO tc! delon'sscl,
 distilled water, ml*  well by stln-lnR ar.tJ i
 with   constant stirring until p^  IB 10 (so
 determlnsd by pH paper). K th» sascijlo con-
 tains  solids, filter through Whatman No. '.'.3
 filter  paper into a 100-ml volumetric £tei.:;
 rinse  the evaporating dish with three  S-/ni
 portions of delonizod, distilled water and odd
 theoe  to tho  filter. Wash the filter with oft
.least  three 15-ml portions of deionlzed, «?ia-
 tllled  water. Add tho filter ivKShlngo to Uio
 contents of tho  volume*rao flatk anfl Alluto
 to the mark with deiouizjd, -
 sorbance at 410 nm using tfcf> bl&ni: e&utton
 as a  zero  reference. Dilute the t&aiple aafl
 the blank  with  n sultnbla aoioirat of de-
 lonlzed, distilled  water If e.bsor jsncw er.coefia
 Ai, the absorbacce of tha -iOO /ig NO* etau-i-
 ard (See section 5.3).
   5. Calibration,
   5.1   Flask volume. AsoanjblB 9i» fis«;k and
 flask  valve and fill with water  to  the stoj>-
 ccck.   Measure tho volume or miter terti.0
 ml. Number atd record tho volarao on fflss.
 flask.
   5.2   Speotronhotometei-  crvlL-ratlou.  AA&
 0.0 ml, l.O ml, 2.0  ml.  3.0 m.-. and 4.0 uil
 of the KNOs  Working stwida^i! solution (1
 ml=100 lie NOs)  to a series of five  porcelain
 evaporating dishes.  To each,  add.  25 ml  of
 absorbing solution, 10 ml delonteed, distliac fl
 water and  sodium hydroxide  (1 5S)  drop-
 wise until the pH is 9-),2  (about 516  to  S5
 drops each). Beginning with the evarx>rs.tlon
 step,  follow the  analysis procedure of Sec-
 tion 4.3 to collect the date necessary to os-
 culate the  calibration factor (Sactior.  6J3).
 This calibration procedure must be retwciBfl
 on each day  that samples ore j'ir.lyzsd.
  5.3   Determination at apse-SOjphctomeSa?
 calibration factor Kc.
                                    FEDERAL  REGISTER,  VOL. 41, NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE  S,  1976


                                                           V-28
-------
                                  PROPOSED  RULES
                                                                             23097
       K.= 100
               A,4-2A1+3A,+4A«
                        6.4  Sample concentration, dry basis, cor-
                      rected to standard conditions.
where:
                            Equation 7-1
K«=Calibration factor
Aj=Absorbance of the 100 jig NOj stand-
       ard
A»= Absorbance of the 200 Mg NOi stand-
       ard
As=Absorbance of the 300 pg NOi stand-
       ard
A«= Absorbance of the 400 Mg NO, stand-
       ard
•   6.4  Barometer.  Calibrate against a mer-
cury barometer.
   6.6  Temperature  gauge. Calibrate  dial
thermometers against mercury-ln-glass ther-
mometers.
   6. Calculations.
   Carry  out the calculations, retaining at
lease one extra  decimal figure beyond that
of the acquired data. Round off figures after
final calculations.
   6.1  Nomenclature.

   A=Absorbance of sample
   C = Concentration of NO, as NOj,  dry-
         basis, corrected to standard condi-
         tions, mg/dscm (Ib/dscf)
   F=Dilution factor (i.e., 25/5, 25/10, etc,
         required  only if sample  dilution
         was needed to reduce the absorb-
         ance into the range of calibration)
  Ko=Spectrophotometer calibration factor
   m=Mass of NO, as NOj in gas sample,
         Mg
   P(=Final absolute pressure of flask,  mm
         Hg (in. Hg)
   PI = Initial absolute pressure of flask, mm
         Hg (in. Hg)
 P.ui = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm
         Hg (29.92 in. Hg)
   TI=Final absolute temperature of flask,
         °K (°R)
   Ti=Initial absolute temperature of flask,
         °K (°R)
 T,td=Standard absolute temperature, 293°
         K (528° R)
  V10=Sample  volume at standard condi-
         tions (dry basis), ml
   Vt=Volume of flask and valve, ml
   V»=Volume of absorbing solution, 25 ml
    2=50/25, the  aliquot  factor.  (If other
         than a 25-ml aliquot was used for
         analysis,  the corresponding factor
         must be substituted.)
   82  Sample volume, dry basis,  corrected
 to standard conditions.
               =K(V,-25 ml)   £-£-'
 Where:
    K=0.3855
                 °K
               mm Hg

                °R
                            Equation 7-2
for metric units
      = 17.65 7—g- for English units

   6.3  Total f,g NO, per sample.

                m=2K,AF   Equation 7-3

   NOTE.—If other than a 25-ml aliquot is
 used-for analyses, the factor 2 must be sub-
 stituted by a corresponding factor.
                                                                   m
                                      C~K ~   Equation 7-4
                                          for metric unite
                                             where:
     =6.243* 10-»      for English units
                  Mg/ml       °

  7. References.
  7.1  Standard Methods of Chemical Analy-
 sis. 6th ed. New York, D. Van Nostrand Co.,
 Inc., 1962, vol. 1, p. 329-330.
  72  Standard Mohte dofteTst:uaE«Nl
  72  Standard Method of Test for Oxides
 of Nitrogen In Gaseous Combustion Products-
 (Phenoldlsulfonlc Acid Procedure), In:  1968
 Book of ASTM Standards, Part 23, Philadel-
 phia, Pa., 1968, ATSM Designation  D-1608-
 60. p. 726-729:
  7.3  Jacob, M.  B.,  The Chemical Analysis
 of Air  Pollutants, New York,  N.Y., Inter-
 science Publishers, Inc., 1960, vol. 10, p. 861-
 356.
  7.4  Beatty,  R. L.,  Berger,   L.  B.  and
 Schrenk, H. H.,  Determination  of Oxides, of
 Nitrogen  by the  Phenoldlsulfonic   Acid
 Method, R.  I. 3687,  Bureau  of Mines, 0.8.
 Dept. Interior, February (1943) .
  7.6  Hamll, H. P., and Camann. D. E., col-
 laborative Study of  Method  for the Deter-
 mination of  Nitrogen Oxide Emissions  from
 Stationary Sources (Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam
 Generators), Southwest Research  Institute
 report for Environmental Protection Agency,
 October 6. 1973.
  7.6  Hamll, H. P., and Thomas, R. E., Col-
 laborative Study of  Method  for the Deter-
 mination of  Nitrogen Oxide Emissions  from
 Stationary  Sources  (Nitric  Acid  Plants),
 Southwest Research Institute report for En-
 vironmental Protection  Agency, May 8,  1974.

 METHOD 8 — DETERMINATION OF Strutmic Acn>
  MIST AND SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FBOM
  STATIONARY SOURCES

  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle.  A gas  sample is extracted
 isokinetlcally from the stack. The acid mist
 (including sulfur trloxlde)  and the sulfur
 dioxide are separated and both  fractions are
. measured separately  by the barlum-thorln
 tltratlon method.
  1.2  Applicability.  This method Is appli-
 cable for the determination of  sulfurlc acid
 mist (Including sulfur  trloxlde) In the ab-
 sence of  other  partlculate  matter and  for
 sulfur dioxide from stationary  sources. Col-
 laborative tests have shown  that the mini-
 mum  detectable limits of the method are
 0.05 mg/m«  (0.08X10-' lb/ft') for sulfur trl-
 oxide  and 1.2 mg/m8 (0.74x10-' Ib/ff)  for
 sulfur dioxide. No upper limits have  been
 established.
  2. Apparatus
  2.1  Sampling. A schematic  of the  sam-
 pling train used  in this method is shown in
 Figure 8-1; it is similar to the Method 5 train
 except that the filter position is different and
 heating of the filter holder Is not required.
 Commercial models of this train are available.
 However, If one desires to build his own,  com-
 plete construction details  are  described in
 APTD-0581;  for  changes from  the  APTD-
 0681  document and  for allowable modifica-
 tions to Figure 8-1, see the following sub-
 sections.
                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 111—TUESDAY, JUNE  8, 1976

                                     V-29
-------
 23088
                                          PROPOSED RULES
   1.9 TO 2.5 era
   (0.75 TO 1 in.)
  1.9 cm (0.75 in.)
TEMPERATURE SENSOR

            .PROBE

           • PITOT TUBE
                                                                     THERMOMETER
                                                                            .CHECK
                                                                            VALVE
                                                                                •VACUUM
                                                                                 LINE
                                                                             •VACUUM
                                                                              GAUGE

                                                                      MAIN VALVE
                          DM TEST METER
                               Figure 8 1. Sulfuric acid mist sampling train.
   The operating and maintenance procedures
 for the sampling train are described In APTD-
 0576. Since correct usage Is Important In ob-
 taining  valid results, all users should  read
 the  APTD-0678 document  and  adopt the
 operating   and  maintenance   procedures
 outlined In It, unless otherwise  specified
 herein. Further details and guidelines on op-
 eration and maintenance are given in Method
 5 and should be read and followed whenever
 they are applicable.
   2.1.1   Probe  nozzle—Stainless steel (316)
 with sharp, tapered leading edge. The angle
 of taper shall be  — 30* and the  taper shall
 be on the outside to  preserve a  constant
 internal  diameter. The  probe nozzle shall be
 of the button-hook or elbow design, unless
 otherwise specified by the Administrator. The
 nozzle shall be constructed from  seamless
 stainless steel  tubing.  Other configurations
 and construction material may be used with
 approval from the Administrator.
   A range  of  sizes  suitable for isoklnetlc
 sampling should be  available, e.g., 0.32 cm
 (V6 in.)  up to  1.27 cm  (%  In.)  (or larger if
 higher volume sampling trains are used) in-
 side diameter (ID) nozzles  in Increments of
 0.16 cm  (1/16 In.). Each nozzle shall be cali-
 brated according to the procedures  outlined
 In the calibration section.
  2.1.2.   Probe  liner—Boroslllcate or quartz
 glass, with a heating system to prevent visi-
 ble condensation during sampling.
  2.1.3  Pltot tube—Type S, or other device
approved by the Administrator, attached to
probe  to allow  constant monitoring of the
stack gas velocity. The  face  openings of the
 pltot tube  and the probe nozzle shall be ad-
jacent and parallel to each other, not neces-
sarily on the same  plane, during sampling.
The  free space between the nozzle and pltot
tube shall  be at least 1.9 cm (0.75 In.).  The
free  space  shall be  set based on a 1.3 cm
 (0.5  In.)  ID nozzle. If the sampling  train  Is
designed for sampling  at higher flow rates
than  that  described  In APTD-0581,  thus
necessitating the use of larger sized nozzles,
the largest sized nozzle shall be used to set
the free  space.
                                The pltot tube must also meet the criteria
                              specified In Method 2  and be calibrated ac-
                              cording to the procedure In the calibration
                              section of that method.
                                2.1.4  Differential    pressure   gauge—In-
                              clined   manometer capable  of measuring
                              velocity head to within  10  percent  of the
                              minimum  measured  value  or  ±0.013 mm
                              (0.0005  In.),  whichever Is greater. Below a
                              differential pressure of  1.3  mm  (0.05 in.)
                              water gauge, mlcromanometers with  sensi-
                              tivities  of 0.013 mm (0.0005 In.) should be
                              used.  However,  mlcromanometers  are  not
                              easily adaptable to field conditions and are
                              not easy to use with  pulsating flow.  Thus,
                              methods or other  devices acceptable  to the
                              Administrator may be  used when conditions
                              warrant.
                                2.1.5  Filter   holder—Boroslllcate    glass
                              with a glass frit niter support and a slllcone
                              rubber gasket. Other materials of construc-
                              tion may be used with approval from the Ad-
                              ministrator. The holder design shall provide
                              a positive seal against leakage from the out-
                              side or around the filter.
                                2.1.6  Implngera—Four as shown in Figure
                              8-1. The  first  and third shall  be of  the
                              Oreenburg-Smlth design with standard tips.
                              The second and fourth  shall be of the Oreen-
                              burg-Smlth design, modified by replacing the
                              Insert with an  approximately 13 mm (0.6
                              In.) ID  glass  tube, having an unconstrlcted
                              tip located 13 mm  (0.5 In.) from the bottom
                              of the flask. Similar collection systems, which
                              have been approved by the  Administrator
                              may be used.
                                2.1.7   Metering  system—Vacuum   gauge,
                              leak-free  pump,  thermometers capable  of
                              measuring  temperature   to   within   3°  C
                              (5.4° F), dry gas meter with 2 percent ac-
                              curacy, and related equipment, or equivalent,
                              as required to maintain  an Isoklnetlc sam-
                              pling rate and to determine sample volume.
                              When the metering system  Is used in con-
                              junction with a  pltot tube, the system shall
                              enable checks of Isoklnetlc rates.
                                2.1.8   Barometer—Mercury,   aneroid,   or
                              other  barometers  capable  of  measuring
atmospheric pressure to within  3.6 mm Eg
(0.1 in. Hg). In many cases, tho barometric-
reading  may be  obtained from c, nsartsy
weather bureau station, in which the station
value (which is the absolute barometric plea-
sure) shall be requested and r.n adjustment
for elevation differences between the weattoK1
station and sampling point shall be applied
at a rate of minus 2.0 mm Hg  (0.1 In. Hg)
per 30 m (100 ft) eievatlou increase cr vied
versa for elevation decrease.
  2.1.9  Temperature  gauge—Thermometer,
or equivalent, to measure temperature at goo
leaving Implnger train to within  3' C (6* F).
  2.2  Sample recovery.
  2.2.1  Wash bottles—Polyethylene or glass,
600 ml. (two).
  2.2.2  Graduated cylinders—250 ml, l liter.
(Volumetric flasks may alco be used.)
  2.2.3  Storage bottlos—Leak-free  polyertji-
ylene bottles, 1000 ml  slaa.  (Two  for each
sampling run.)
  2.3  Analysis.
  2.3.1- Pipette—Volumetric 25  ml. 100  ml.
  2.3.2  Burette—50ml.
  2.33  Erlenmeyer flask—250 ml.  (One :°os
each sample blank and standard.)
  2.3.4  Graduated cylinder—100 ml.
  2.3.5 Trip  balance—300  g capacity, to
measure to ±0.5 g.v
  2.3.6  Dropping bottle—to  add .indicator
solution,  125 ml size.
  3. Reagents.
  Unless otherwise indicated, it is Intended
that all reagents  conform to the specifica-
tions established by the Committee on Ana-
lytical Reagents of the  American Chemical
Society, where such specifications arc avail-
able; otherwise use best available grade. •
  3.1  Sampling.
  3.1.1  Filters—Glass fiber  filters,  without
organic binder exhibiting at leant 09.95 per-
cent efficiency (£0.05 percent penetration) •.
on  0.3 micron dloctyl phthalato  omcke par-
ticles.. The filter efficiency test shal': be con-
ducted in accordane with ABTM  st.andosrd
method D 2986-7 ll^Test data fromcShe sup-
plier's quality  control program  is sufficient.
for this purpose.
  3.1.2.  Silica gel—Indicating  typs,  6-16
mesh. If previously used, dry at 175° C  (380°
F)  for 2 hours. New silica gel may be usad
as received.
  3.1.3  Water—Delonleed, distilled, to con-
form  to  A8TM  specifications  D1193-73,
Type 3.                                 .  •
  3.1.4  Isopropanol, 80 percent—Mix fiOO ml
of Isopropanol with 200 ml of delonized dis-
tilled water.
  NOTE.—Experience has shown that only
A.C.8.  grade Isopropanol ic satisfactory.
  3.1.5  Hydrogen peroxide,  3 percent—Di-
lute 100 ml of 30 percent hydrogen  peroxide
to 1 liter with delonized. distilled wlter. Pre-
pare fresh dally.
  3.1.6  Crushed lead, r
  3.2  Sample recovery.
  3.2.1  Water—Delonized, distilled, to con-
iform to ASTM specifications D1193-72, Type
3.
  3.2.2  Isopropanol, 80 percent—Mix 600 ml
of Isopropanol with 200 ml of detonlzsd dis-
tilled water.
  NOTE.—Experience has shown that  only
A.C.S.  grade Isopropanol  Is satisfactory.
  3.3   Analysis.
  3.3.1  Water—Delonized, distilled, to con-
form to ASTM specifications D1193-72, Type

3
  3.3.2  Isopropanol, 100 percent.
  3.3.3  Thorln indicator—l-(o-arsonophen-
ylazo) -2-naphthol-3.  6-dlsulfonlc acid,  dl-
sodlum salt, or equivalent. Dissolve 0.20 p
in 100 ml of delonized  distilled  water.
                                     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. Ill—TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1976


                                                          V-30
-------
  3.3.4  Barium perohlorate (0.01  N)—Dis-
solve 1.95 g of barium perchlorate trlhydrate
(Ba(ClOi)2-3H,O) In 300 ml delonlzod dis-
tilled water and dilute to 1 liter with Isopro-
panol.  Standardize  with sulfuric acid ea in
Section 82. Th|s solution must be  protected
against evaporation at all times. (Bad, may
also be used.)
  3.3.S  Sulfurlc  acid standard (0.01 N)—
Purchase or standardize to ±0.0003 N against
0.01 N NaOH  which has  previously  been
standardized  against primary  standard po-
tassium  acid  phthalate.
  4. Procedure.
  4.1  Sampling.
  4.1.1   Pretest   preparation—Follow   the
procedure outlined in Method S, Section 4.1.1,
except  that the filter need not.be weighed or
Identified: If  the effluent  gas Is considered
to be dry, I.e.,  moisture free,  the  silica  gel
need not be weighed.
  4.1.3   Preliminary determinations—Follow
the procedure outlined In Method 5, Section
4.1.2.
  4.1.3   Preparation of collection train—Fol-
low  the procedure  outlined in Method  6,
Section 4.1.3.
  4.1.3   Preparation of collection train—Pol-
low the procedure outlined in Method S, Sec-

 PUHT_	•
tlon 4.1.3. except for the second paragraph
and use Figure 8-1 Instead of Figure 6-1. So-
placo the second paragraph  with: Place 100
ml of GO percent isopropanol in the first Im-
plnger,  100 ml of 3 percent hydrogen per-
oxide in both tho second and third  unplng-
ero, and about £50 s of silica gdl in the fourth
implnger. Retain a portion  of the reagents
for uee QS blent solutions.
  4.1.4  Lcsti-check  procedure—Follow  the
procedure outlined  in  Method S.  Section
4.1.4,  except that the probe heater  shall be
adjusted to the minimum temperature re-
quired to prevent condensation.
  4.1.5  Train operation—Follow the proce-
dure  outlined In  Method  5, Section 4.1.5,
except record the data required on the es
ample sheet shown in Figure 8-2. During the
sampling period, observe  the line  between
the probe and the first implnger for, signs, of
condensation. If it  occurs, adjust the probe
heater setting uptr&rd to the minimum tem-
perature required  to prevent condensation.
After turning off the pump and recording the
nnal readings at the conclusion of 6&ch inn,
remove  the probe from the stacli and dis-
connect. It from the train, Drain, the ice bath
and purge the rosBQining pert of the teota by
drawing clean ambient air through tho ojo-
tern for 15 minutes at the average fkro
used for sampling.      .        ,
  NOTE.—Clean ambient eta can be
by passing air through a charcoal alter.
  42  Sample recovery.      „
  42.1  Container Ho. 1—Transfer the con-
tents of the first implnger to & 250 ml gradu-
ated" cylinder. Ri&ea the probe, first Impte^q?,
and all connecting glassware before the flits?
with 80 percent Isopropanol. Add  tho  stea>
solution  to the cylinder. Dilute to 360  QtS
with 80 percent isopropanol. Add the filter ta>
the solution, mix, and tecoosfer -to the stocsa
container. Protect the colutlon ej-lnst OTC>-
oratlon. Marti the  level a2  liquid  on  cosi-
talner and identify the sample contains?.
  422  Container Ho. 2—Transfer the  coJu-
tlons  from the second and third Implagejo
to a 1000 ml  graduated eylinQer.  Rlno  Dffl
glassware  between the filter and  silica  goS
Implnger with delontesd. distilled water rmm
add this rinse water to tSia cylinder. EHistes
to a volume of 1000 ml with deionlzed. iSSo-
tilled water. Tr&mofe? the eolutlon  to & stor-
age container. Mcjtt tto level of  UquM  oa
contoine?. Seal EXU& St3cs&m£y the somplo CSST>
tsiiner.
 LOCATIOW	

 OPERATOR.	

 QflTE

 RUN WO	

 SAPJIPLE BOX NO..

 METER BOX N0._

 METERoH©	

 C FACTOR	
 PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT, Cp.
                               AMBIEPJTTElWERATURg.

                               BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.

                               ASSUMED MOISTURE, %_
                                R022LEIOEMTIFICATIOM C30.	;	

                                AVERAGE CALIBRATED W022LS 9IWETER. esiGnJ.

                                PROBE MEATER SETTIMCi      	 _

                                LEAK RATE.EB3/raiffl {**}	
                                        SCHEtWTIC OF STAOt CROSS SECTION
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER






—





T01AL
SAMPLING
TIME
(91. min.
-












AVERAGE
STATIC
PRESSURE
(Pj). mm Hg
(m Hg)














STACK
TEMPERATURE

9C ,0F)














VEtCCITV
HEAD
(a PS».














PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE
METER
mmHjO
(in. HjO)













,,_..
GASSAKH.E
VOLUME
m3 (««3)














GAS SAKSIE TEK?ERATURE
AT DRY GAS METER
INLET
°C (°F)






I


"


cA«o-
OUTLET
8C (°F)




-







Avg.
Avfl.
TEMPERATOSs
O? GAS
LEAVING
CONDENSER 09
LAST IMPINGED
•Ct°P)










•



                                                     Figure &>2.
                                    PQBQDAB. Kl@llSi?QD, VWL OH, NO. SJ11—WQS0AV, JMMQ 0,

                                                         V-31
-------
 23090
           PROPOSED RULES
  4.3  Analysis.
  Note level of liquid In containers 1 and
2 and confirm whether or not any sample
was lost  during shipment  by noting this
on  analytical data sheet.
  4.3.1  Container No.  1—Shake the  con-
tainer holding  the Isopropanol solution and
the*niter. If  the  filter  breaks  up,  allow
the fragments  to settle for a few minutes
before removing a sample. Pipette a 100 ml
aliquot of this  solution Into a 250 ml Erlen-
meyer flask, add 2 to 4 drops of thorln Indi-
cator,  and titrate to a pink endpolnt  using
0.01 N barium perchlorate. Repeat the titra-
tlon with a second aliquot of sample and av-
erage the tltratlon values.  Replicate  titra-
tlons should agree within 1 percent.
  4.3.2  Container No. 2—Throughly mix the
solution In  the container holding the  con-
tents  of the second  and third impingers.
Pipette a 10 ml aliquot of sample Into a 250
ml  Erlenmeyer flask.  Add 40 ml  of Isopro-
panol, 2 to 4 drops of thorln indicator, and
titrate to a pink endpolnt using 0.01 N barium
perchlorate. Repeat  the  tltration  with  a
second  aliquot of sample and average  the
tltratlon values. Replicate tltratlons should
agree within 1 percent.
  4.3.3  Blanks—Prepare blanks by adding
2 to 4 drops of throln indicator to 100 ml of
80 percent Isopropanol. Titrate  the blanks
In the same manner as the samples.
  6. Calibration.
  5.1   Use methods and equipment as speci-
fied In  Methods 2 and 6 and APTD-0576 to
calibrate the orifice meter,  pltot tube, dry gas
meter, thermometers, and barometer.
  5.2   Standardize the  barium perchlorate
solution with 25 nil of standard sulfuric acid,
to which  100  ml of Isopropanol have been
added.
  6. Calculations.
  NQTE.—Carry out calculations retaining at
least one extra decimal figure beyond that of
the acquired data.  Round oft figures after
final calculation.
  6.1   Nomenclature.

    A0= Cross  sectional area of nozzle, ml
           (ft2)
   Bwi= Water vapor in the gas  stream,
           proportion by  volume
CH,so4 = Sulfuric acid (including SOj)  con-
           centration, g/dscm (Ib/dscf)
  Cso, = Sulfur dioxide  concentration,  g/
           dscm (Ib/dscf)
     I=Percent of isokinetic sampling
    N=Normality of barium perchlorate
           titrant, g. equiv/liter
  Pb»r = Barometric pressure at the sam-
           pling site, mm Hg (in. Hg)
    P0= Absolute stack gas pressure, mm
           Hg  (in. Hg)
  Pnd=Standard absolute  pressure, 760
           mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg)
   Tm=Absolute average  dry gas meter
           temperature (see  Figure  8-2),
          °K f°R)
    T.=Absolute average stack gas tem-r
          perature  (see  Figure 8-2),  °K
           (°R)
  T.(<1=Standard  absolute temperature,
          293° K (528° R)
    V,=Volume of sample aliquot titrated,
           100 ml  for  H2SO4  and 10 ml
          for SOj
   V|0 = Total  volume of liquid collected in
          impingers  and  silica gel  (see
           Figure 8-2), ml
   V«> = Volume of gas sample as measured
          by dry gas meter, dcm (dcf)
Vm(.id)— Volume  of gas sample  measured
           by the dry gas meter corrected
           to standard conditions,  dscm
           (dsof)
    v.= Stack gas velocity, calculated by
           Method 2, Equation  2-7 using
           data obtained from Method 8,
           m/sec (ft/sec)
  V.0|n= Total volume of solution in which
           the  sulfuric  acid  or  sulfur
           dioxide  sample  is  contained,
           250 ml or 1000 ml, respectively
    Ve= Volume   of  barium  perchlorate
           titrant used for the sample, ml
   Vtb= Volume  of  barium  perchlorate
           titrant used for the blank, ml
      0= Total sampling time, min
   13. 6= Specific gravity of mercury
    60=Sec/min
   100= Con version to percent
  6.2  Average dry  ga*  meter  temoeriture
and average orifice pressure drop. See data
sheet  (Figure 8-2).
  6.3  Dry gas volume.  Correct the sample
volume  measured by  the dry gas meter to
standard conditions (20° C and 760 mm Hg
or 68° F and 29.92 In. Hg) by using Equation
8-1.
  m(«td)
          p   ,  AH
   V   '"1
   »mT
where:
                              r+ AH/13.6
                            Equation 8-1
  K=0.3855 °K/mm Hg for metric units  -

    = 17.65 °R/in. Hg for English units
  6.4 Volume of water vapor and moisture
content. Use Equation 5-2  and  5-3  of
Method 6. If the effluent gas Is considered to
be dry, these calculations need not be carried
out.
  6.5 Sulfuric acid (including SO,) concen-
tration.

                  N(V,-V,b)  ^
where:
                       'm(itd)
                            Equation 8-2
K=0.04904  g/milliequivalent for  metric
      units

  = 1.08X 10-4 /TI  ,. for English units
               (g) (ml)  .     °^

  6.0  Sulfur dioxide concentration:

                           * y«oip
        C80j=K.
                 N(V,-Vlb)
                      Vm(.t
                            Equation 8-3
where:
K=0.03203  g/milliequivalent  for metric
      units
                                           6.7  Isokinetic variation.
                                           6.7.1  Calcul&tiona from raw d&ta.
   100T,[KVi,
                                                                  (Ptar + AH/134)]
                                                                               ~
                                         where:
                                                                     Equation S-4
                                         K= 0.00346 mm Hg-m8/ml~°K  for
                                               units
                                           = 0.00267 in. Hg-ft3/ml-°R  for English
                                               units

                                           6.7.2  Calculations   from   intermediate
                                         values.
                                                 I=r
                                                            p V
                                                              mtctd)
                                                      P0v0AEC(l-
                                                                     Equation 8-S
                                         where:
=7.05X10-"
                      for English units
       K=4.323 for metric units
         = 0.0944 for English unite
  6.8  Acceptable results. 7.Z CO percent—  I
£110 percent, the results are acceptable. Ef
the results  are  low in comparison  to  tie
standards and  I  io bayonet the acceptable
range,  the Administrator may option to sa-
cept the results. Use reference 7.4 of Method
5 to make Judgments. Otherwise, reject 4S»e
results and repeat the test.
  7. References.
  7.1   Atmospheric  Emissions from Sulfurtc
Acid Manufacturing Processes,  TJJS. DHJ3W,
PHS, Division of Air Pollution, Public HeoJth
Service Publication No, 099-AI.'-13,  Cindat-
natl, Ohio, 1E65.
  12   Cortett, D. F.,  The Determination of
SO, and SO, in Flue  Oases, Journal of SIB
Institute of  Fuel, 24:237-243, 1861.
  7.3   Martin, Robert M., Construction Oa^
tails of Isokinetic  Sourcs Sampling Equip-
ment, Environmental Protection Agency. Air
Pollution Control  Office  Publication  Wo.
APTD-0581.
  7.4   Patton, W. P.,  and Brink, Jr.,  J. A.,
New Equipment and  Teclmiquea for Sam-
pling  Chemical Process Gooss, A. Air Pollu-
tion Control Assoo.  13, 102 (1983).
  7.6   Rom, J. J., Maintenance. Calibration.
and Operation of Isokinetic Source-Sampling
Equipment.  Office of Air Programs, Environ-
mental Protection  Agency, Research Trtsn-
gle Park, N.C., March  1972. APTD-0576.
  7.6   Hamll, H. F., and Camanu, D. E., Col-
laborative Study of Method for the Determi-
nation of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Sta-
tionary Sources. Prepared for Methods Stand-
ardization Branch,  Quality  Assurance and
Environmental  Monitoring  Laboratory, No-
tional  Environmental  Research  Center, En-
vironmental  Protection Agency, Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C. 27711.
  7.7  Annual  Book  of  ASTM  Standards.
Part 23; Water, Atmospheric Analysis,  pp.
203-205.  American  Society for Testing and
Materials. Phila., Pa. (1972).
    9        Q        4       Q        0
  JFR Doc.76-16086 Piled 6-7-73:8:45 am]
                                   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. Ill—TUESDAY,  JUNE 8,  1976


                                                         V-32
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
   ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION
               AGENCY

           [40CFRPart60]
              IFRLB86-1J
  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
      NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
    Proposed Amendments to Reference
  Methods; Extension of Comment Period
  On June 8, 1976  (41  FR 23059), the
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
 proposed revisions to Reference Methods
 1-8 lr' Appendix A to 40 CPR Part 60.
 The notice of proposal requested public.
 comments on the revisions by July 23,
 1976. Due to a shipment delay, EPA did
 not receive extra copies of the June 8
 proposal until the week of July 5. There-
 fore, copies were not available for dis-
 tribution to Interested  parties in suffi-
 cient time for their  meaningful review
 and comment before July 23.  For  this
 reason,  the  public comment  period is
 being extended to allow  additional time
 for all interested parties to participate in
this rulemaklng.  All comments post-
marked no later than August 23, 1976,
 will be considered. Comments should be
 submitted, in triplicate, to the Emission
Standards  and  Engineering  Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.

  Dated: July 16,1976.
               ROGER STRELOW,
        Assistant Administrator for
         Air and Watte Management.
  IFRDoc.76-21127 Piled 7-30-76:8:46 am)
   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 141-


    -WEONESDAV, JULY 21, 1976
                                                   V-33
-------
                                   TbCHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
   340/1-76-009
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
                                                            5. REPORT DATE
                                                              August 1, 1976
             6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

    PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.
    Suite 13, Atkinson Square
    Cincinnati, Ohio  45246
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

               68-02-1375 Task No.  31
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Division of Stationary Source  Enforcement
   Washington, D.C. 20460
              13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                Final
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
         This manual presents  a compilation of the Environmental Protection Agency
   Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.   Since their inception  in
   1971,  the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, commonly referred
   to  as New Source Performance Standards or NSPS, have  undergone considerable
   expansion and revision.  This manual is intended to serve as a convenient
   reference and source of current information to those  persons who will be
   working with the NSPS regulations.  The manual includes:  the full text of  the
   standards as they appear now (August 1, 1976) with all revisions, corrections,
   and additions added where  applicable, a summary of the emission standards
   for each source category covered under NSPS, and the  full text of all revisions
   and other Federal Register notices pertaining to the  standards.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COS AT I Field/Group
      Federal  Emission Standards
      EPA Test Methods

      Enforcement
   New Source Performance
   Standards
   Enforcement
    13 B
                                                                             14 D
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
            Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
   Unclassified	
21. NO. OF PAGES

   293	
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 22ZO-1 (9-73)
-------