EPA-340/l-76-009a
March 1977
Interim Report
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
FOR
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
A COMPILATION AS OF MARCH 15, 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Enforcement
Office of General Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
EPA-340/l-76-009a
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
FOR
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES -
A COMPILATION AS OF MARCH 15, 1977
Prepared by
PEDCo. Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-1375
EPA Project Officer: Kirk Foster
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Enforcement
Office of General Enforcement
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
March 1977
-------
PREFACE
This document reports revisions to the Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources which have appeared in the Federal Register
since the publication of the first Interim Report (EPA 340/1-76-009)
on August 1, 1976. The set of revisions included in this supplement will
update it through March 15, 1977.
Upon promulgation of the revised reference methods, proposed June 8,
1976, a new handbook will be printed in entirety. The format will be
similar to the current handbook, but will be designed so that later re-
visions can be added to the compilation without it being redone.
-------
SECTION III
SUMMARY OF STANDARDS
AND REVISIONS
-------
TABLE OF REVISIONS BY 'SECTION
Section
Subpart A
60.2 - Definitions
60.3 - Abbreviations
60.4 - Addresses
B - Alabama
D - Arizona, Pima County
F - California
P - Indiana
Q - Iowa
CC - Nebraska
II - North Carolina
JJ - North Dakota
KK - Ohio
NN(a) - City of Philadelphia
PP - South Carolina
UU - Vermont
CCC - Virgin Islands
60.9 - Availability of Information
60.13 - Monitoring Requirements
Subpart C - Emission Guidelines &
Compliance Times
Subpart D - Fossel Fuel-Fired Steam
Generators
Subpart J - Petroleum Refineries
Subpart N - Iron & Steel Plants
Subpart 0 - Sewage Treatment Plants
Subpart BB - Kraft Pulp Mills
Subpart DD - Grain Elevators
Revision
41 FR 55792, 12/22/76 (P)
42 FR 2841, 1/13/77 (P)
42 FR 12130, 3/2/77 (P)
41 FR 40467, 9/20/76 (45)
41 FR 53017, 12/3/76 (51)
41 FR 33264, 8/9/76 (40)
41 FR 40107, 9/17/76 (44)
41 FR 48342, 11/3/76 (48)
41 FR 54757, 12/15/76 (52)
41 FR 43148, 9/30/76 (46)
41 FR 56805, 12/30/76 (54)
41 FR 56805, 12/30/76 (54)
41 FR 56805, 12/30/76 (54)
41 FR 44859, 10/13/76 (47)
41 FR 55531, 12/21/76 (53)
42 FR 6812, 2/4/77 (58)
42 FR 4124, 1/24/77 (56)
42 FR 1214, 1/6/77 (55)
41 FR 34628, 8/16/76 (41)
41 FR 36918, 9/1/76 (43)
41 FR 35185, 8/20/76 (42)
42 FR 5936, 1/31/77 (57)
41 FR 48706, 11/4/76 (P)
41 FR 52079,11/26/76 (P)
41 FR 51397, 11/22/76 (49)
41 FR 55792, 12/22/76 (P)
42 FR 5121, 1/27/77
42 FR 5936, 1/31/77 (57)
41 FR 36600, 8/30/76 (P)
41 FR 43866, 10/4/76 (P)
42 FR 12130, 3/2/77 (P)
42 FR 4863, 1/26/77 (P)
42 FR 10019, 2/18/77 (P)
41 FR 42012, 9/24/76 (P)
41 FR 47495, 10/29/76 (P)
41 FR 51621, 11/23/76 (P)
42 FR 2841, 1/13/77 (P)
42 FR 13566, 3/11/77 (P)
-------
Section
Revision
Appendix A - Reference Methods
Test Method ISA
Test Method 13B
Test Method 15
Test Method 16
Test Method 17
Appendix B - Performance Specifications
41 FR 52299, 11/29/76
42 FR 4883, 1/26/77
41 FR 52299, 11/29/76
42 FR 4883, 1/26/77
41 FR 43866, 10/4/76
41 FR 42012, 9/24/76
41 FR 42012, 9/24/76
(50)
(50)
(P)
(P)
(P)
42 FR 5936, 1/31/77
(57)
-------
SECTION IV
FULL TEXT
OF
REVISIONS
-------
REVISIONS TO NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
- as of March 15, 1977 -
Ref. Page
40. 41 FR 33264, 8/9/76 - Delegation of Authority to
State of California. 148
41. 41 FR 34628, 8/16/76 - Delegation of Authority to
Virgin Islands. 148
42. 41 FR 35185, 8/20/76 - Revision to Emission Monitoring
Requirements. 149
41 FR 36600, 8/30/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance
for Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Unit Catalyst Regenerators.
43. 41 FR 36918, 9/1/76 -. Standards of Performance - Avail-
ability of Information. 149
44. 41 FR 40107, 9/17/76 - Delegation of Authority to
State of California. 149
45. 41 FR 40467, 9/20/76 - Delegation of Authority to
State of Alabama. 150
41 FR 42012, 9/24/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance
for Kraft Pulp Mills.
46. 41 FR 43148, 9/30/76 - Delegation of Authority to the
State of Indiana. 150
41 FR 43866, 10/4/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance
for Petroleum Refinery Sulfur Recovery Plants.
41 FR 43874, 10/4/76 - Addition to the List of Categories
of Stationary Sources; Petroleum Refinery Sulfur
Recovery Plants.
47. 41 FR 44859, 10/13/76 - Delegation of Authority to
State of North Dakota. 150
i
41 FR 46618, 10/22/76 - Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking of Air Emission Regulations -
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry.
41 FR 47495, 10/29/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance
for Kraft Pulp Mills; Correction.
vi
-------
48. 41 FR 48342, 11/3/76 - Delegation of Authority to
State of California. 151
41 'FR 48706, 11/4/76 - Proposed Emission Guidelines for
the Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist from Existing
Sulfuric Acid Production Units.
49. 41 FR 51397, 11/22/76 - Amendments to Subpart D
Promulgated. 151
41 FR 51621, 11/23/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance
for Kraft Pulp Mills - Extension of Comment Period.
41 FR 52079, 11/26/76 - Proposed Emission Guidelines for
the Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist from Existing
Sulfuric Acid Production Units; Correction.
50. 41 FR 52299, 11/29/76 - Amendments to Reference Methods
13A and 13B Promulgated. 154
51. 41 FR 53017, 12/3/76 - Delegation of Authority to Pima
County Health Department; Arizona. 155
52. .41 FR 54757, 12/15/76 - Delegation of Authority to
State of California. 155
53. 41 FR 55531, 12/21/76 - Delegation of Authority to the
State of Ohio. 156
41 FR 55792, 12/22/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance
for Lignite-Fired Steam Generators.
54. 41 FR 56805, 12/30/76 - Delegation of Authority to the
States of North Carolina, Nebraska, and Iowa. 156
55. 42 FR 1214, 1/6/77 - Delegation of Authority to
State of Vermont. 157
42 FR 2841, 1/13/77 - Proposed Standards of Performance
for Grain Elevators.
42 FR 2848, 1/13/77 - Addition to the List of Categories
of Stationary Sources; Grain Elevators.
56. 42 FR 4124, 1/24/77 - Delegation of Authority to the
State of South Carolina. 158
42 FR 4863, 1/26/77 - Proposed Standards for Sewage Sludge
Incinerators.
42 FR 4883, 1/26/77 - Receipt of Application and Approval'
of Alternative Test Method. 158
42 FR 5121, 1/27/77 - Notice of Study to Review Standards
for Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators; S02
Emissions.
-------
57. 42 FR 5936, 1/31/77 - Revisions to Emission Monitoring
Requirements and to Reference Methods Promulgated. 159
58. 42 FR 6812, 2/4/77 - Delegation of Authority to
City of Philadelphia. 161
42 FR 10019, 2/18/77 - Proposed Standards for Sewage
Treatment Plants; Correction.
42 FR 12130, 3/2/77 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
Iron & Steel Plants; Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces.
42 FR 13566, 3/11/77 - Proposed Standards of Performance
for Grain Elevators; Extension of Comment Period.
vm
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
40 Tttta40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 597-1)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to State of Cali-
fornia on Behalf of Madera County Air
' Pollution Control District
Pursuant to the delegation of authority
for the standards of performance for new
stationary sources (NSPS) to the State
of California on behalf of the Madera
County Air Pollution Control District,
dated May 12,1976, EPA is today amend-
ing 40 CFR 60.4 Address, to reflect this
delegation. A Notice announcing this del-
egation is published in the Notices Sec-
tion of this issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER,
Environmental Protection Agency, FRL
596-8. The amended 5 60.4 is set forth be-
low. It adds the address of the Madera
County Air Pollution Control District, to
which must be addressed all reports, re-
quests, applications, submittals, and
communications pursuant to this part by
sources subject to the NSPS located
within this Air Pollution Control District.
The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective immed-
iately in that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
May 12. 1976. and it serves no purpose to
delay the technical change of this addi-
tion of the Air Pollution Control District
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 142 U.S.C. 1857c-6L
Dated: July 27. 1976.
PAUL DEFALCO.
Regional Administrator.
Region IX. EPA.
P.-vrt 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In 5 60.4 paragraph
-------
AND REGULATIONS
42
43
PART 60— STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Revision to Emission Monitoring
Requirements
On October 6, 1975 (40 PR 46250),
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) promulgated emis-
sion monitoring requirements and revi-
sions to the performance testing methods
In 40 CFB Part 60. The provisions of
f60.13(i) allow the Administrator to
approve alternatives to monitoring pro-
cedures or requirements only upon writ-
ten application by an owner or operator
of an affected facility; monitoring equip-
ment manufacturers would not be al-
lowed to apply for approval of alternative
monitoring equipment. Since EPA did
not Intend to prevent monitoring equip-
ment manufacturers from applying for
approval of alternative monitoring
equipment, 5 60.13(1) is being revised. As
revised, any person will be allowed to
make application to the Administrator
for approval of alternative monitoring
procedures or requirements.
This revision does not add new require-
ments, rather it provides greater flexi-
bility for approval of alternative equip-
ment and procedures. This revision is
effective (date of publication).
(Sections 111. 114, and 301 (a) of the Clean
Air Act. as amended by sec. 4 (a) of Pub'. L.
01-604. 84 Stau 1878 and by sec. 16(c) (3) of
Pub. L. 91-004. 84 Stat. 1713 (43 UJ9.O. 1857c-
6. 18570-8. and 1857g(a) ).)
Dated: August 13, 1976.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
In 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A is
amended as follows:
1. Section 60.13 is amended by revising
paragraph (1) as follows:
6 60.13 Monitoring requirements. .
. • • • • •
(1) After receipt and consideration of
written application, the Administrator
may approve alternatives to any moni-
toring procedures or requirements of this
part including, but not limited to the
following:
• • • • ' •
(PR Doc.78-24868 Piled 8-10-76;8:48 am)
FEDERAL MOISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 163
niDAY, AUGUST 20, 1976
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
5. By revising § 60.9 to read as follows:
§ 60.9 Availability of information.
The availability to the public of in-
formation provided to, or otherwise ob-
tained by, the Administrator under this
Part shall be governed by Part 2 of this
chapter. (Information submitted volun-
tarily to the Administrator for the pur-
poses of §§60.5 and 60.6 is governed by,
§ 2.201 through § 2.213 of this chapter
and not by § 2.301 of this chapter.)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 171
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1976
44
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
[FRL 617-2]
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to State of Cali-
fornia on Behalf of Stanislaus County.
Air Pollution Control District; Delegation
of Authority to State of California on Be-
half of Sacramento County Air Pollution
Control District; Correction
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
Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control
District, dated July 2,1976, EPA is today
amending 40 CFR 60.4 Address, to reject
this delegation. A notice announcing
this delegation is published today at 41
FR 40108. The amended § 60.4 is set forth
below. It adds the address of the Stanis-
laus County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, to which must be addressed all re-
ports, requests, applications, submittals,
and communications pursuant to this
part by sources subject to the NSPS lo-
cated within this Air Pollution Control
District.
On July 8, 1976, EPA amended 40 CFR
60.4, Address to reflect delegation of au-
thority for NSPS to the State of Cali-
fornia on behalf of the Sacramento
County Air Pollution Control District.
By letter of July 30,1976, Colin T. Green-
law, M.D., Sacramento County Air Pol-
lution Control Officer, notified EPA that
the address published at 41 FR. 27967
was Incorrect. Therefore, EPA is today
also amending 40 CFR 60.4, Address to
reflect the correct address for the'Sac-
ramento County Air Pollution Control
District. ' '' •
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaklng 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 this
administrative amendment were effec-
tive on July 2, 1976 and March 29, 1076,
and it serves no purpose to delay the
technical change of these additions of the
Air Pollution Control Districts addresses
to the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaklng 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: September 8,1976.
Jj. RUSSELL FREEMAN,
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region IX, EPA.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In i 60.4 paragraph (b) (f) is re-
vised to read as follows:
§ 60.4 Address.
* • " * * •
(b) • • •
(F) California;
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District, 039
Ellis St.. San Francisco, CA 94109
Del Norte County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. Courthouse, Crescent City. CA 95531
Fresno County Air Pollution Control District,
615 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702
Hum bold t County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 6600 S. Broadway, Eureka, CA 95501
Kern County Air Pollution Control District,
1700 Flower St. (P.O. Box 997), Bakers-
field, CA 93302
Madera County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. 135 W. Tosemlte Avenue, Madera, CA
93637
Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. County Courthouse, Uklah, CA 95482
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District, 420 Church St. (P.O. Box 487),
Salinas, CA 93901
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Con-
trol District, 3313 Chanate Rd., Santa
Rosa, CA 95404
Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
District, -3701 Branch Center Road, Sacra-
mento. CA 95827
San Joaquln County Air Pollution Control
District, 1601 E. Hazelton St. (P.O. Box
2009).Stockton,CA 95201
Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 820 Scenic Drive, Modesto, CA 95360
Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. Box AJ, Weavervllle, CA 90093
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. 626 E. Santa Clara St., Ventura, CA
93001
• • • • •
(PR Doc.76-27175 Filed 9-16-76:8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 1*2
fRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 197*
IV-149
-------
Tilts 40—Prateetoi o(f'Envtrotwnan8
CHAPTER
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C — AIR PROGRAMS
PART 60 — STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Reports and Applications From Operators
of New Sources; Address Changes
DELEGATION or AUTHORITY TO THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
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 Alabama authority to review new and
modified sources. The delegated author-
ity includes the review under 40 CFR Part
60 for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources and review under
40 CFR Part 61 for national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
A notice announcing the delegation of
authority is published elsewhere in this
issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER. These
amendments provide that all reports, re-
quests, applications, submittals, and
communications previously reuired for
the delegated reviews will now be sent
instead to the Air Pollution Control Divi-
sion, Alabama Air Pollution Control
Commission, 645 South McDonough
Street. Montgomery, Alabama 36104, In-
stead 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 August 5, 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 rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is Issued under the authority
of sections 111. 112, and 301 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended 42 UJ3.C. 1857,
1857C-5, 6. 7 and 1857g.
Dated: September 9, 1976.
JACK E. LAVAS,
Regional Administrator.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, Is amended as fol-
lows:
1. In 9 60.4. paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (B) to read ao
follows :
§ 60.4 Address.
46
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
[FBL 623-7)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Indiana
Pursuant to the delegation of authority
to implement the standards of perform-
ance for new stationary sources (NSPS)
to the State of Indiana on April 21, 1976,
EPA Is today amending 40 CFR 60.4,
Address, to reflect this delegation. A
notice announcing this delegation is pub-
lished Thursday, September 30, 1976 (41
PR 43237). The amended § 60.4, which
adds the address of the Indiana Air Pol-
lution Control Board to that list of ad-
dresses to which all reports, requests, ap-
plications, submittals, and communica-
tions to the Administrator pursuant to
this part must be sent, is set forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior notice and for making
this rulemaking effective immediately in
that it is an administrative change and
not one of substantive content. No addi-
tional substantive burdens are imposed
on the parties affected. The delegation
which is reflected by this administrative
amendment was effective on April 21,
1976, and it serves no purpose to delay
the technical change of this addition of
the State address to the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations. .
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately.
(Sec. Ill of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.)
Dated: September 22, 1976.
, GEORGE R. ALEXANDER, Jr.,
Regional Administrator.
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 P, to read as
follows:
§ 60.4 Address.
e « « * o
(b) * « «
(A)-(O) « « •
(P) State of Indiana, Indiana Air Pollu-
tion Control Board, 1330 West Michigan
Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 4620C.
» a » « •
[PR Doc.76-28507 Filed 9-29-76;8:45 am]
FEDERAL 'REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 191
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
4 ' Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
(FBL 629-8)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLU-
TANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of '
North Dakota
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance for
new sources (NSPS) and national emis-
sion standards for hazardous air pol-
lutants (NESHAPS) to the State of
North Dakota on August 30, 1976, EPA
is today amending respectively 40 CFR
60.4 and 61.04 Address, to reflect this
delegation. A notice announcing this del-
egation Is published today in the notices
section. The amended 8$60.4 and 61.04
which add the address of the North Da-
kota State Department of Health to
which all reports, requests, applications.
submittals, and communications to the
Administrator pursuant to these parts
must also be addressed, are 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
August 30, 1976, and It serves no purpose
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 sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6 and
-7).
Dated: October 1.1976.
JOHN A. GREEN,
Regional Administrator.
Parts 60 and 61 of Chapter I, Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations are
respectively amended as follows:
1. In i 60.4, paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (JJ) to read
as follows:
§ 60.1 Address.
00000
(b) • • •
(A)-(Z) • « °
(AA)-(II) « « '.
(JJ)—State of North Dakota, State De-
partment of Health, State Capitol, Blnmarck.
North Dakota 58801.
(b) ° ° °
(B) State of Alabama, Air Pollution Coa-
teol Division. Air Pollution Control Ccmmio-
oton. 648 8. McDonough Street, Montsomei^
Alabama 36104.
RESISTEO, VOL 41, MO. IOJ
FEDERAL BE6ISTEB, VOL. 41. NO. 199
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1976
MONDAY, SEPTSK1DE1 20, 1976
IV-150
-------
TMa —PWtecBoniB? Environment
CHAPTER 1!—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
[PBL 638-4]
PART SO—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
(delegation of Authority to State of Cali-
fornia On Behalf of Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District
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
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District, dated September 17,
1976. EPA is today amending 40 CFR
60.4 Address, to reflect this delegation.
A Notice announcing this delegation is
published in the Notices section of this
issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER. The
amended § 60.4 is set forth below. It adds
the address of the Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District, to
which must be addressed all reports, re-
quests; applications, submrttals, and
communications pursuant to this part
by sources subject to the NSPS located
within this Air Pollution Control
District.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
malting 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
deSegation which is reflected this adrain-
amendment was effective on
17. 1976 and it serves no pur-
pose 4o delay the technical change on
this addition of the Air Pollution Control
District's 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: October 20,1976.
PAUL DE FALCO, Jr.,
Regional Administrator.
EPA, Region IX.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code' of Federal Regulations is amended
ES follows:
1. In $ 60.4 paragraph (b) (3) is
amended by revising subparagraph F to
read as follows:
§ 60.4 Address.
(b)
(3)
(A)-(E)
Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District. 6600 8. Broadway, Eureka, CA 9S601.
Kern County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 1700 Flower St. (P.O. Box 997), Bakere-
fleld. CA 93302.
Madera County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 135 W. Yosemlte Avenue. Madera, CA
93637.
Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control
District. County Courthouse, Uklah. CA
95482.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Con-
trol District, 420 Church St (P.O. Box 087).
Salinas, CA 93901.
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District, 3313 Chanate Rd., Sante
Rosa. CA 95404.
Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
District. 3701 Branch Center Road, Sacra-
mento. CA 95827.
San Joaquln County Air Pollution Control
District, 1601 E. Hazel ton St. (P.O. Box 2008).,
Stockton. CA 96201.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Con-
trol District. 4440 Calle Real, Santa Barbara,
CA93110.
Stanislaus County Ah- Pollution Control
District. 820 Scenic Drive. Modesto, CA 95350.
Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, Box AJ. Weavervllle, CA 96093.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. 625 E. Santa Clara St.. Ventura, OA
93001. '
[PR Doc.76-32104 Filed 11-2-76:8:45 am)
FEDERAl Q2G4STEH, Vd. 41, MO. 213
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1976
49
F—CALIFORNIA
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District,
839 Ellis St.. San Francisco. CA 94109.
Dal Norte County Air Pollution Control
District. Courthous£..Crescent City, CA 95531.
Fresno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. 515 8. Cedar .Avenue, Fresno. CA 93703.
Title 4O—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
|FRL 639-3]
PART 60-^-STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Amendments to Subpart D
Standards of performance for fossil
fuel-fired steam generators of more than
73 megawatts (250 million Btu per hour)
heat input rate are provided under Sub-
part D of 40 CFR Part 60. Subpart D is
amended herein to revise.the application
of the standards of performance for fa-
cilities burning wood residues in combi-
nation with fossil fuel.
Subpart D contains standards for par-
ticulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and visible emissions from steam
generators. These standards, except for
the one applicable to visible emissions,
are based on heat input. For sulfur di-
oxide, there are separate standards for
liquid fossil fuel-fired and solid fossil
fuel-fired facilities with provisions for a
prorated standard when combinations of
different fossil fuels are fired. There Is
no sulfur dioxide standard for gaseous
fossil fuel-fired facilities since they emit
negligible amounts of sulfur dioxide.
To date, there have been two ways for
a source owner or operator to comply
with the sulfur dioxide standard: (1) By
firing low sulfur fossil fuels or (2) by
using flue gas desulfurization systems.
Complying with the standard by firing
low sulfur fossil fuel requires an ade-
quate supply of fuel with a sulfur con-
tent low enough to meet the standard.
However, it would be possible for the
owner or operator to fire, for example, &
relatively high sulfur fossil fuel with &
very low sulfur fossil fuel (e.g. natural
gas) to obtain a fuel mixture which
would meet the standard. The low sulfur
fuel adds to the heat input but not to
the sulfur dioxide emissions and, thereby,
has an overall fuel sulfur reduction ef-
fect. In the past, the application of Sub-
part D permitted the heat content of
fossil fuels but not wood residue to be
used in determining compliance with the
standards for participate matter, sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides: the amend-
ment made herein will allow the heat
content of wood residue to be used for
determining compliance with the stand-
ards. The amendment does not change
the scope of applicability of Subpart D:
all steam generating units constructed
after August 17. 1971, and capable of fir-
ing fossil fuel at a heat input rate of
more than 73 megawatts (250 million Btu
per hour) are subject to Subpart D.
RATIONALE FOR THE AMENDMENTS
Wood residue, which includes bark.
sawdust, chips, etc.. is not a fossil fuel
and thus has not been allowed for use as
& dilution agent in complying with the
sulfur dioxide standard for steam gener-
ators. Several companies have requested
that EPA revise Subpart D to permit
blending of wood residue with high sulfur
fossil fuels. This would enable them to
obtain a fuel mixture low enough in sul-
fur to comply with the sulfur dioxide
standard. Since Subpart D allows the
blending of high and low sulfur fossil
fuels, EPA has concluded that It is rea-
sonable to extend application of this
principle to wood residue which, although
not a fossil fuel, does have low sulfur
content.
Several companies have expressed in-
terest in constructing steam generators
which continuously fire wood residue In
combination with fossil fuel. New facili-
ties will comply with the standards for
less cost than at present because they0
will be able to use wood residue, a valu-
able source of energy, as an alternative to
expense low sulfur fossil fuels. Also,
using wood residue as a fuel supplement
Instead of low sulfur fossil fuels will re-
IV-151
-------
BUIES AND. REGULATIONS
suit in substantial savings In the con-
sumption of scarce'natural gas and oil
resources, and will-"relieve what would
otherwise be a substantial solid waste
disposal problem. Consumption of energy
and raw material resources will be re-
duced further by minimizing the need
for flue gas desulfurization systems at
new facilities. There will be no adverse
environmental impact; neither sulfur di-
oxide nor nitrogen oxides emissions will
Increase as a result of this action. Con-
sidering the beneficial, environmental,
energy, and economic impacts, it Is rea-
sonable to permit wood residue to be fired
as a low sulfur fuel to aid In compliance
with the standards for fossil fuel-fired
steam generators.
In making this amendment, EPA rec-
ognizes that affected facilities which
burn substantially more wood residue
than fossil fuel may have difficulty com-
plying with the 43 nanogram per Joule
standard for paniculate matter (0.1
pound per million Btu). There is not
sufficient information available at this
time to determine what level of particu-
late matter emissions is achievable; how-
ever, EPA Is continuing to gather infor-
mation on this question. If EPA deter-
mines that the particulate matter stand-
ard is not , achievable, appropriate
changes will be made to the standard.
Any change would be proposed for pub-
lic comment; however, in the interim,
owners and operators will be subject to
the 43 nanogram per joule standard.
'F' FACTOR DETERMINATION
New facilities firing wood residue in
combination with fossil fuel will be sub-
ject to the emission and fuel monitoring
requirements of § 60.45 (as revised on
October 6, 1975, 40 FR 46250). The 'F'
factors listed in ? 60.45(f) (4), which are
used for converting continuous monitor-
Ing data and performance test data into
units of the standard, presently apply
only to fossil fuels. Therefore. 'F' fac-
tors for bark and wood residue have been
added to 5 60.45(f) (4). Any owner or op-
erator who elects to calculate his own
'F* factor must obtain approval of the
Administrator.
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS
In accordance with the objective to
implement national use of the metric sys-
tem, EPA presents numerical' values in
both metric units and English units in
its regulations and technical publica-
tions. In an effort to simplify use of the
metric unJts of measurements. EPA now
uses the International System of Units
(SI) as set forth in a publication by the
American Society for Testing and Ma-
terials entitled "Standard for Metric
Practice" (Designation: E 380-76). The
following amendments to Subpart D re-
flect the use of SI units.
MISCELLANEOUS
Since these amendments are expected
to have limited applicability, no environ-
mental impact statement is required for
this rulemaking pursuant to section Kb)
of the "Procedures for the Voluntary
Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements" (39 FR 37419).
This action is effective on November 22,
1976. The Agency finds that good cause
exists for not publishing this action as a
notice of proposed rulemaking and for
making it effective immediately upon
publication because:
1. The action is expected to have lim-
ited applicability.
2. The action will remove an existing
restriction on operations without in-
creasing emissions and will have benefi-
cial environmental, energy, and eco-
nomic effects.
3. The action is not technically con-
troversial and does not alter the overall
substantive content of Subpart D.
4. Immediate effectiveness of the action
will enable affected parties to proceed
promptly and with certainty in conduct-
ing their affairs.
(Sees. Ill, 114 and 301 (a) of the Clean Air
Act. as amended by section 4 (a) of Pub.L.
91-604, 84 Stat. 1678, and by section 16(c) (2)
Of Pub.L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (42 UJ8.C.
1857C-6, 1857C-9, 1857g(a)).)
Date: November 15,1976.
JOHN QUARLES,
Acting Administrator.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
1. Section 60.40 is amended by revising
the designation of affected facility and
by substituting the International System
(SI) of Units as follows: -
§ 60.40 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The affected facilities to which the
provisions of this subpart apply are:
(1) Each fossil fuel-fired steam gener-
ating unit of more than 73 megawatts
heat input rate (250 million Btu per
hour).
(2) Each fossil fuel and wood residue-
fired steam generating unit capable of
firing fossil fuel at a heat input rate of
more than 73 megawatts (250 million Btu
per hour).
(b) Any change to an existing fossil
fuel-fired steam generating unit to ac-
commodate the use of combustible mate-
rials, other than fossil fuels as defined in
this subpart, shall not bring that unit
under the applicability of this subpart.
2. Section 60.41 is amended by adding
paragraphs (d) and (e) as follows:
§ 60.41 Definitions.
o e o o o
(d) "Fossil fuel and wood residue-fired
steam generating unit" means a furnace
or boiler used in the process of burning
fossil fuel and wood residue for the pur-
pose of producing steam by heat transfer.
(e) "Wood residue" means bark, saw-
dust, slabs, chips, shavings, mill trim,
and other wood products derived from
wood processing and forest management
operations.
3. Section 60.42 is amended by revising
paragraph (a) (1) and by substituting SI
units In paragraph (a) (1) as follows:
§ 60.42 Standard for particulate matter.
(a). ° • «
(1) Contain particulate matter In ex-
cess of 43 nanograms per joule heat in-
put (0.10 lb per million Btu) derived
from fossil fuel or fossil fuel and wood
residue.
0 e « 0 «
4. Section 60.43 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a) (1) and (a) (2), by sub-
stituting SI units in paragraphs (a)(l)
and (a) (2), and by revising the formula
In paragraph (b) as follows:
§ 60.43 Standard for sulfur dioxide.
(a) * ° *
(l) 340 nanograms per joule heat In-
put (0.80 lb per million Btu) derived
from liquid fossil fuel or liquid fossil fuel
and wood residue.
(2) 520 nanograms per Joule heat In-
put (1.2 lb per million Btu) derived from
solid fossil fuel or solid fossil fuel and
wood residue.
(b) When different fossil fuels are
burned simultaneously in any combina-
tion, the applicable standard (in ng/J)
shall be determined by proration using
the following formula:
PS soi=
V+i
where:
PSpoz is the prorated standard for sulfur
dioxide when burning different fuels
simultaneously, in nanograms per
joule heat input derived from all
fossil fuels fired or from all fossil fuels
and wood residue fired,
y is the percentage of total heat input
derived from liquid fossil fuel, and
z is the percentage of total heat input
derived from solid fossil fuel.
0 o 0 O 0
5. Section 60.44 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a)(l), (a) (2), and (a) (3);
by substituting SI units in paragraphs
(a)(l), (a) (2), and (a) (3); and by re-
vising paragraph (b) as follows:
§ 60.44 Standard for nitrogen oxides.
(a) " " °
(1) 86 nanograms per joule heat input
(0.20 lb per million Btu) derived from
gaseous fossil fuel or gaseous fossil fuel
and wood residue.
(2) 130 nanograms per joule heat in-
put (0.30 lb per million Btu) derived
from liquid fossil fuel or liquid fossil fuel
and wood residue.
(3) 300 nanograms per joule heat In-
put (0.70 lb per million Btu) derived
from solid fossil fuel or solid fossil fuel
and wood residue (except lignite or a
solid fossil fuel containing 25 percent,
by weight, or more of coal refuse).
(b) When different fossil fuels are
burned simultaneously in any combina-
tion, the applicable standards (in ng/J)
shall be determined by proration. Com-
pliance shall be determined by using the
following formula:
FEDERAL RESISTED, VOL. 41, NO. 226—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1976
IV-152
-------
P8NO.=
8(88) -t-p(l30) +8(300)
z+V+s
where:
PSNO, is the prorated standard for nitro-.
gen oxides when burning different
fuels simultaneously, in nnnogrnms
. . per joule heat input derived from all
fossil fuels fired or from all fossil fuels
and wood residue fired,
x is the percentage of total neat input
derived from, gaseous fossil fuel,
y is the percentage of total heat input
derived from liquid fossil fuel, and
a is the percentage of total heat input
derived from solid fossil fuel (except
lignite or a solid fossil fuel containing
25 percent, by weight, or more of coal
refuse).
When lignite or a solid fossil fuel con-
taining 25 percent, by weight, or more
of coal refuse is burned in combination
with gaseous, liquid, other solid fossil
fuel, or wood residue, the standard for
raStrogen oxides does not apply.
6. Section 60.45 is amended by sub-
stituting SI units in paragraphs (e),
(f)(l), (f)(2), (f)(4)(i), (f)(4)(U), (f)
(4)(ill), (f)(4)(iv>, (f)(5), and (f)(5)
(ii), by adding paragraphs (f)(4)(v)
and (f)(5)(iii). and by revising para-
graph (f) (6) as follows:
§ 60.45 Emission and fuel monitoring.
O t> O 0 O
(e) An owner or operator required to
install continuous monitoring systems
under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section shall for each pollutant moKi-
tored use the applicable conversion pro-
cedure for the purpose of converting
continuous monitoring data into units of
the applicable standards (nanograms
per joule, pounds per million Btu) as
follows:
(f) • « °
(1) E= pollutant emissions, ng/J (lb/
million Btu).
(2) C=pollutant concentration, ng/
dscm (Ib/dscf), determined by multiply-
ing the average concentration (ppm) for
each one-hour period by 4.15x10* M ng/
dscm per ppm (2.59x10-' M Ib/dscf
per ppm) where Af=pollutant molecu-
lar weight, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole). M=
64.07 for sulfur dioxide and 46.01 for ni-
trogen oxides.
o o o • o o
(4) o " o
(1) For anthracite coal *as classified
according to A.S.T.M. D 388-66, F=
2.723x10-' dscm/J (10,140 dscf/million
Btu) and F«=0.532xlO-T scm CO,/J
(1,980 scf CO./milllon Btu).
(ii) For subbituminous and bituminous
coal as classified according to A.S T.M. D
388-66, F=2.637X10'T dscm/J (9,820
dscf/million Btu) and Fc=0.486X10-'
scm COa// (1,810 scf COj/million Btu)
(Hi) For liquid fossil fuels including
crude, residual, and distillate oils,
F=2.476xlO-1 dscm/J (9,220 dscf/mil-
lion Btu) and Fc=0.384 scm COa/J
(1,430 scf COa/miUion Btu).
(iv) For gaseous fossil fuels, F=2.347.
X ID-' dscaa/J 8.7 scm COa/J (1,200 scf COa/
million Btu) for propane, and 0.338 X10-*
scm COa// (1.260 scf COj/miUion Btu)
for butane.
(v) For bark F= 1.076 dscm/J (9.575
dscf/million Btu) and Fc=0.217 dscm/J
(1,927 dscf/million Btu). For wood resi-
due other than bark F=1.038 dscm/J
(9.233 dscf/million Btu) and Fc=0.307
dscm/J (1.842 dscf/million Btu).
(5) The owner or operator may use the
following equation to determine an F
factor (dscm/J or dscf/mllllon Btu) on
a dry basis (if it Is desired to calculate F
on a wet basis, consult the Administra-
tor) or Fc factor (scm COi/J, or scf COa/
million Btu) on either basis in lieu of the
F or Fc factors specified in paragraph
(f) (4) of this section:
r 227.0(%g)+95.7(%C)+35.4(%,S)+8.6(%JV)-28.5(%Q)
*" GCV
'(SI units)
10»[3.64(%g)+1.53(%C)+0.57(%S)+0.14(%^)--0.46(%0)l
GCV
(English units)
_20.0(%C)
'~ GCV
(SI units)
., _321X10'(%C)
*'~CCK
(English units)
(i)
(ii) GCV is the gross calorific value
(kJ/kg, Btu/lb) of the fuel combusted.
determined by the A.S.T.M. test methods
D 2015-66(72) for solid fuels and D1826-
64(70) for gaseous fuels as applicable.
(iii) For affected facilities which fire
both fossil fuels and nonfossil fuels, the
F or Fc value shall be subject to the
Administrator's approval.
(6) For affected facilities firing com-
binations of fossil fuels or fossil fuels and
wood residue, the F or F. factors deter-
mined by paragraphs (f) (4) or (f) (5) of
this section shall be prorated in accord-
ance with the applicable formula as fol-
lows:
variables or other factors, may be ap-
proved by the Administrator. The probe
and filter holder heating systems in the
sampling train shall be set to provide a
gas temperature no greater than 433 'K
(320°F).
0 « 0 e o
(f) For each run using the methods
specified by paragraphs (a) (3), (a) (4),
and
-------
rate by a material balance over the steam
generation system.
(Sections 111, 114. and 301 (a) of the Clean
At Act as amended by section 4(a) of Pub. L.
91-604, 84 Stat. 1678 and by section 15(c) (2)
Of Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stftt. 1713 (43 U.S.C.
1B57C-8. 1857C-9. 1857g(a)).
(PR Doc.76-33966 Filed 11-19-76;8:4S am)
5 0 Title 4O—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
(FRL 639-2]
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Amendments to Reference Methods 13A
and.138
On August 6, 1975 (40 FR 33151), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Promulgated Reference Methods 13A and
• 1SB In Appendix A to 40 CPB Part 60.
Methods 13A and 13B prescribe testing
and analysis procedures for fluoride
emissions from stationary sources. After
promulgation of the methods, EPA con-
tinued to evaluate them and as a result
has determined the need for certain
amendments to Improve the accuracy
and precision of the methods.
Methods 13A and 13B require assembly
of the fluoride sampling train so that
the filter is located either between the
.third and fourth impingers or In an
optional location between the probe and
first impinger. They also specify that a
fritted glass disc be used to support the
filter. Since promulgation of the meth-
ods. EPA has found that when a glass
frit filter support is used In the optional
filter location, some of the fluoride
sample is retained on the glass. Although
no tests have been performed, it is be-
lieved that fluoride retention may also
occur if a sintered metal frit filter sup-
port Is used. However, in tests performed
using a 20 mesh stainless steel screen
as a filter support no fluoride retention
was noted. Therefore, to eliminate the
possibility of fluoride retention, sections
5.1.5 and 7.1.3 of Methods 13A and 13B
are being revised to require the use of
a 20 mesh stainless steel screen filter
support if the filter is located between
the probe and first impinger. If the filter
is located in the normal position between
the third and fourth Impingers, the glass
frit filter support may still be used.
In addition to the changes to sections
5.1.5 and 7.1.3. a few corrections are also
being made. The amendments promul-
gated herein are effective on November
29, 1976. EPA finds that good cause exists
for not publishing this action as a notice
of proposed rulemaking and for making
it effective immediately upon publication
because:
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The action is intended to improve
the accuracy and precision of Methods
13A and 13B and does not alter the
overall substantive content of the meth-
ods or the stringency of standards of
performance for fluoride emissions.
2. The amended methods may be used
immediately in source testing for fluoride
emissions.
Dated: November 17,1976.
JOHN QUARLES.
Acting Administrator.
In Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Appendix
A is amended as follows:
1. Reference Method 13A is amended
as follows:
(a) In section 3., the phrase "300
/ig/liter" is corrected to read "300 mg/
liter" and the parenthetical phrase "(see
section 7.3.6)" is corrected to read "(see
section 7.3.4)".
(b) Section 5.1.5 is revised to read as
follows:
6.1 .B Filter holder—If located between the
probe and first Impinger, boroslllcate glass
with a 20 mesh stainless steel screen filter
support and a slllcone rubber gasket: neither
a glass frit filter support nor a sintered metal
filter support may be used If the filter Is In
front of the Impingers. If located between
the third and fourth Impingers, boroslllcate
glass with a glass frit filter support and a
slllcone rubber gasket. Other materials of
construction may be used with approval from
the Administrator, e.g., If probe liner Is stain-
less steel, then filter holder may be stainless
steel. The holder design shall provide a posi-
tive seal against leakage from the outside or
around the filter.
(c) Section 7.1.3 is amended by re-
vising the first two sentences of the sixth
paragraph to read as follows:
7.1.3 Preparation of collection train. • • •
Assemble the train as shown In Figure
13A-1 with the filter between the third and
fourth Impingers. Alternatively, the filter
may be placed between the probe and first
Impinger If a 20 mesh stainless steel screen
Is used for the filter support. • • •
• * » • •
(d) In section 7.3.4, the reference in
the first paragraph to "section 7.3.6" is
corrected to read "section 7.3.5".
2. Reference Method 13B is amended
as follows:
(a) In the third line of section 3, the
phrase "SOO^g/liter" is corrected to read
"300 mg/liter".
(b) Section 5.1.5 is revised to read as
follows:
5.1.5 Filter holder—ill located between the
probe and first Impinger. boroslllcate glass
with a 20 mesh stainless steel screen filter
support and a slllcone rubber gasket; neither
a glass frit filter support nor a sintered metal
filter support may bejused If the filter Is In
front of the Impingers. If located between
the third and fourth Impingers, boroslllcate
glass with a glass frit filter support and a
slllcone rubber gasket. Other materials of
construction may be used with approval from
the Administrator, e.g.. If probe liner Is stain-
less steel, then filter holder may be stainless
steel. The holder design shall provide a posi-
tive seal against leakage from the outside or
around the filter.
(c) Section 7.1.3 Is amended by revis-
ing the first two sentences of the sixth
paragraph to read as follows:
7.1.3 Preparation of collection train. •• • •
Assemble the train as shown In Figure
13A-1 (Method 13A) with the filter between
the third and fourth Impingers. Alterna-
tively, the filter may be placed between the
probe the first Impinger If a 20 mesh stain-
less steel screen Is used for the filter sup-
port. • • •
(d) In section^ 7.3.4, the reference in
the first paragraph to "section 7.3.6" is
corrected to read "section 7.3.5".
(Sees. 111. 114, and 301 (a) Clean Air Act,-as
amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84
Stat. 1678 and by sec. 15(c)(2) of Pub. L.
91-604. 84 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857C-6,
19570-9, and 1857g(2)).)
| FR Doc.76-34888 Filed 11-26-76; 8:45 am)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 230—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1976
IV-154
-------
RULES AMD REGULATIONS
51
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
[FRL 651-6)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to Pima County
Health Department On Behalf of Pima
County Air Pollution Control District
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources (NSPS> to (Sie
Pima County Health Department on be-
half of the Pima County Air Pollution
Control District, dated October 7, 1976,
EPA is today amending 40 CFR 60.4
Address, to reflect this delegation. A
document announcing this delegation
is published today at 41 FB in the Notices
section of this issue. The amended
{ 60.4 is set forth below. It adds the ad-
dress of the Pima County Air Pollution
Control District, to which must be ad-
dressed all reports, requests, applications,
submittals, and communications pursu-
ant to this part by sources subject to the
NSPS located within this Air Pollution
Control District.
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
October 7, 1976 and it serves no purpose
to delay the technical change on this
addition of the Air Pollution Control
District's 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. 1867C-6).
Dated: November 19,1976.
R. L. O'CoNNEU..
Acting Regional Administrator.
Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX.
52
Part 60 of Chapter I,- Title 40 ot the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
by adding subparagraph D to read as
follows:
§ 60.1 Address.
• * • • »
(3) * • •
(A)-(C) • • •
D—Arizona
Plma County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 151 West Congress SIVPI-. Tucson, AZ
85701.
|FR Doc.76-35562 Filed 12-2-76:8:45 am|
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 41, NO. 234
•FRIDAY, OECERIBE!! 3, 1976
[PEL 657-31
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to State of Califor-
nia on Behalf of San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District
Pursuant to the delegation of authority
for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources (NSPS) to the
State of California on behalf of the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, dated November 8, 1976. EPA Is
today amending 40 CFR 60.4 Address, to
reflect this delegation. A Notice announc-
ing this delegation is published in the
Notices section of this issue, under EPA
(FR Doc. 76-36929 at page 54798). .The
amended 8 60.4 is set forth below. It adds
the address of the San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District, to which must
be addressed all reports, requests, appli-
cations, submittals, and communications
pursuant to this part by sources subject
to the NSPS located within this Air Pol-.
lution Control District.
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 in this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
November 8, 1976 and it serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change on
this addition of the Air Pollution Control
District's 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: November 26. 1976.
SHELIA M. PRTNDIRVTLLE.
Acting Regional Administrator.
Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX.
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 P to read ms
follows:
§ 60.4 Address.
(A)-(E) • • • '
F-Camornla:
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District.
939 EUls Street, San Francisco. CA 94109.
Del Norte County. Air Pollution Control
District, Courthouse, Crescent Olty, OA 95531.
Fresno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 515 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno, OA 93701.
Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District, 5600 8. Broadway, Eureka, CA 95501.
Kern County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 1700 Flower Street (P.O. Box 997).
BakersHeld, CA 93302.
Madera County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 1j)5 W. Tosemite Avenue, Modern, OA
93637.
MendocJno County Air Pollution Control
District, County Courthouse. UUab, OA
95482.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District, 420 Church Street (P.O. Box 487)
Salinas. CA 93901.
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District, 3313 Chanato Road. Santo
Rosa, CA 95404.
Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
District, 3701 Branch Center Road, Sacra-
mento, CA 95S27.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District, 8160 Chesapeake Drive, San Otaem.
CA 98198.
San Joaquiu County Air Pollution Control
District, 1601 E. Hazelton Street (P.O. Box
• 2000) Stockton, CA 95201.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Con-
trol District, 4440 Calle Real, Santa Barbara
CA 93110 .
Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control
District, 820 Scenic Drive, Modesto, CA 96350.
Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, Box AJ, Weaverville, CA 96093.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 625 E. Santa Clara Street, Ventura, CA
93001.
• » < • .
|FR Doc.,76-36925 Piled 12-14-76:8:45 am]
FEDCAAL ACOISTC*. VOL. 41, NO. 142
WEONESOAf, DECEMBER 1.5. 1976
IV-155
-------
53 (FRL«61-«)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to the State of Ohio
Pursuant to the delegation of authority
to Implement the standards of per-
f;•::::.">r.ce for new stationary sources
•NSPS' to the State of Ohio on August 4,
l«7rv EPA is today amending 40 CFR
fO.4. Address to reflect this delegation.
A Notice announcinR this delegation is
i-iibH'iH-d in the Notices section of this
issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER"(FR Doc.
76-37487J. The amended §60.4 is set
forth below which adds the addresses
of the Agencies in Ohio which assist the
State in the delegated e.uthority to that
Jist of addresses to which all reports, re-
quests, applications, submittals, and
communications to the Administrator
pursuant to this part must be sent.
The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior notice and for making
this nilemaking effective immediately in
that it is an administrative change and
not one of substantive content. No addi-
tional substantive burdens are imposed
on the parties affected. The delegation
which is reflected by this administrative
amendment was effective on August 4,
1976. and it serves no purpose to delay
the technical change of this addition of
the addresses to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
This nilemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
(42 C.S.C. 1S57C-6.)
Dated: December 10,1976.
GEORGE R. ALEXANDER, Jr..
Regional Administrator.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In S 60.4, paragraph is amended
by revising subparagraph KK, to read
as follows:
g 60.4 AH«lro«.
(Al-tJJ) • ' •
(KKI Ohio—
Sledina, Summit and Portage Counties;
Director. Air Pollution Control, 177 South
Broadway. Airon. Ohio. 44308.
Stark County: Director, Air Pollution Con-
trol Division. Canton City Health Depart-
ment. City IJall. 218 Cleveland Avenue SW.
Canton. Ohio. 44702.
ButJer. Clermont. Hamilton and Warren
Counties: Superintendent, Division of Air
Pollution Control, 2400 Beekman Street, Cin-
cinnati. Ohio, 45214.
Cv.vahoga County; Commissioner, Division
of Air Pollution Control, Department of
Public Health and Welfare, 2735 Broadway
Avenue. Cleveland. Ohio. 44115.
Lorain County: Control Officer. Division of
Air Pollution Control. 200 West Erie Avenue.
7th Flcor. Lorain. Ohio. 44052.
Belmont. Carroll, Columbiana, Harrison.
Jefferson, and Monroe Counties; Director,
North Ohio Valley Air Authority (NOVAA),
814 Adams Street. Steubenville, Ohio, 43052.
Clark, Darke. Oreene, Miami, Montgomery,
and Preble Counties; Supervisor, Regional
Air Pollution Control Agency (BAPCA),
Montgomery County Heal th Department. 451
\Ve*t Third Street, Dayton, Ohio, 45402.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Lucas County and the City of Bossford (In
Wood County); Director, Toledo Pollution
Control Agency, 26 Main Street, Toledo, Ohio,
43605.
Adams, Brown. Lawrence, and Scioto
Counties; Engineer-Director, Air Division.
Portsmouth City Health Department. 740
Second Street, Portsmouth. Ohio, 45662.
Allen. Aahland. Auglalzc. Crawford. De-
fiance, Erie. Fulton, Hancock. Hardln. Henry.
Huron. Knox, Marion, Mercer, Morrow.
Ottawa. Paulding, Putnam, Rlchland, San-
dusky. Seneca. Van Wert, Williams,
Wood (except City of Bossford). and Wyan-
dot Counties; Ohio Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Northwest District Office. Ill
West Washington Street, Bowling Green,
Ohio. 43402.
Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake, Mahoning,
Trumbull, and Wayne Counties; Ohio Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Northeast Dis-
trict Office, 2110 East Aurora Road, Twins-
burg. Ohio, 44O87.
Athens. Coshocton. Gallia, Guernsey, High-
land. Hocking, Holmes, Jackson. Melgs,
Morgan. MusTcingum, Noble, Perry, Pike,
Ross: Tuscarawas, Vlnton, and Washington
Counties; Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Southeast District Office, Route 3,
Box 603. Logan, Ohio, 43138.
Champaign, Clinton, Logan, and Shelby
Counties: OhJo Environmental Protection
Agency, Southwest District Office. 7 East
Fourth Street, Dayton, Ohio, 45402.
Delaware, Fair-field, Fayette, Franklin,
Licking, Madison, Plckaway, and Union
Counties; Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. Central District Office. 369 East
Broad Street. Columbus, Ohio, 43216.
• • • • •
[FR Doc.76-37488 Filed 12-20-76;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. -246
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1976
54 (FRL 665-1)
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY—NEW
SOURCE REVIEW
Delegation of Authority to the State of
North Carolina
The amendments below institute cer-
tain address changes for reports and
applications required from operators of
new sources. EPA has delegated to the
State of North Carolina authority to
review new and modified sources. The
delegated authority includes the reviews
under 40 CFR Part 52 for the prevention
of significant deterioration. It also in-
cludes the reviews under 40 CPR Part 60
for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources and reviews un-
der 40 CFR Part 61 for national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
A notice announcing .the delegation of
authority is published elsewhere in this
. issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER. These
amendments provide that all reports, re-
quests, applications, submittals. and
communications previously required for
the delegated reviews will now be sent
instead to the North Carolina Environ-
mental Management Commission, De-
partment of Natural and Economic Re-
sources, Division of Environmental Man-
agement, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North
Carolina 27611. Attention: Air Quality
Section, 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
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional sub-
stantive burdens are imposed oh the par-
ties affected. The delegation which is
reflected by this administrative amend-
ment was effective on November 24, 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 Sections 101. 110, 111. 112. and 301 of
the Clean Air Act. as amended, 42 U.S.C.
1857. 1857C-5. 6, 7 and 1857g.
Dated: December 21,1976.
JOHN A. LITTLE.
Deputy Regional Administrator.
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
2. Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows: In § 60.4. paragraph (b) is
amended by revising subparagraph (II)
to read as follows:
§ 60.1 Addrrs*.
(Al-(HH) • • •
(II) North Carolina Environmental Man-
agement Commission. Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Division of Envi-
ronmental Management. P.O. Box 278B7, Ra-
leigh. North Carolina 27611. Attention: Air
Quality Section.
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
I FRL 664-3)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to Slate of
Nebraska
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources (NSPS>, to
the State of Nebraska on November 24.
1975. the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today amending 40 CFR
60.4, [Address. 1, to reflect this delega-
tion. A notice announcing this delegation
Is published (December 30, 1976), in the
FEDERAL REGISTER. Effective immediately
all requests, reports, applications, sub-
mittals, and other communications con-
cerning the 12 source categories of the
iy-156
-------
NSPS which were promulgated Decem-
ber 23, 1971. and March 8. 1974, shall
be sent to Nebraska Department of En-
vironmental Control (DEO, P.O. Box
94653, State House Station, Lincoln,
Nebraska 68509. However, reports re-
quired pursuant to 40 CFR 60.7(a) shall
be sent to EPA, Region VII. 1735 Balti-
more, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, as
well as to the State.
The Regional Administrator finds good
cause for forgoing prior public notice
and 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.
This delegation, which is reflected by this
administrative amendment, was effective
on November 24. 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 rulemaking is effective imme-
diately, and is issued under the author-
ity of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended.
(43 TJ.S.C. 1857C-6.)
Dated: December 20,1976.
JEROME H. SVORE,
Regional Administrator.
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 reyising subparagraph (CO to read
as follows:
§ 60.4 Address.
(b) • * •
(A)-(BB) * • •
(CO Nebraska Department of Envi-
ronmental Control, P.O. Box 94653, State
House Station, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.
|FB Doc.76-38234 Filed 12-29-78:8:45 am)
|FBL 664-6)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Iowa
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for New Source Performance Stand-
ards" (NSPS) to the State of Iowa on
June 6, 1975, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is today amending 40 CFR
60.4, [Address.] to reflect this delegation.
A notice announcing this delegation is
published (December 30, 1976), in the
FEDERAL REGISTER.
The amended § 60.4 nrovides that all
reports, requests, applications, submit-
tals, and other communications required
for the 11 source categories of the NSPS.
which were delegated to the State, shalJ
be sent to the Iowa Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (DEQ>. 3920 Delaware
Avenue. P.O. Box 3326. Des Moines. Iowa
50316. However, reports required pur-
suant to 40 CFR 60.7'a) shall be sent to
EPA. Region VIL 1735 Baltimore, Kan-
sas City, Missouri 64108. as well as to the
State.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
The Regional Administrator finds good
.cause to forgo prior public notice and
make this rulemaking effective immedi-
ately in that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. The delegation was effective June 6,
1975, and it serves no purpose to delay
the technical change of the 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.
(42U.S.C. 1857C-6.)
Dated: December 20,1976.
JEROME H. SVORE.
Regional Administrator.
Part 60 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In § 60.4, paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph Q, to read as
follows:
§ 60.4 Address.
*****
(b) • * •
(A)-(P) • » •
(Q) State of Iowa, Department of
Environmental Quality, 3920 Delaware,
P.O. Box 3326, Des Moines, Iowa 50316.
*****
|FB Doc.76-38?41 Filed 12-79-76:8:45 am)
KDEftAl KMSTEI. VOL 41, NO. 252
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1976
55
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROQRAM8
[FRL 668-1]
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCE
Delegation of Authority to State of Vermont
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources (NSPS) to the
State of Vermont on September 3, 1976,
EPA is today amending 40 CFR 60.4,
Address, to reflect this delegation. A no-
tice announcing this delegation is pub-
lished today in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
(See FR Doc. 77-546 appearing in the
Notices section of this issue). The
amended § 60.4, which adds the address
of the Vermont .Agency of Environ-
mental Protection to which all reports,
requests, applications, submittals, and
communications to the Administrator
pursuant to this part must also be ad-
dressed, 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
September 3. 1976, 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 imme-
diately, and is issued under the authority
of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6.
Dated: December 17, 1976.
JOHN A. S. McGLENNON,
Regional Administrator.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In S 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (UU) to read
as follows:
§ 60.4 Address.
*****
-------
56
RULES AND REGULATIONS
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA
2. Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations, Is amended by
revising subparagraph (PP) of 5 60.4 (b)
to read as follows:
§ 60.4 . Address.
(b) * * *
(A)-(OO) • • '
(PP) State of South Carolina, Oflicc of
Environmental Quality Control, Department
of Health and Environmental Control, 2600
Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
Title 4O—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
[PRL G73-6J
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Delegation of Authority to the State of
South Carolina
The amendments below institute cer-
tain address changes for reports and ap-
pllca.tions required from operators of new
sources. EPA has delegated to the State
of South Carolina authority to review
new and modified sources. The delegated
authority includes the reviews under 40
CFR Part 52 for the prevention of sig-
nificant deterioration. It also includes
the review under 40 CFR Part 60 for the
standards of performance for new sta-
tionary sources and review under 40 CFR
Part 61 for national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants.
A notice announcing the delegation of
authority is published elsewhere in the
notices section of this issue of the FED-
ERAL REGISTER. These amendments pro-
vide that all reports, requests, applica-
tions, submittals, and communications
previously required for the delegated
reviews will now be sent to the Office of
Environmental Quality Control, Depart-
partment of Health and Environmental
Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia,
South Carolina 29201. instead of EPA's
Region IV.
The Regional Administrator finds
good cause for foregoing prior public
notice and for making this rulemaklng
effective Immediately In that It Is an ad-
ministrative change and not one of sub-
stantive comVi't. No additional substan-
tive burdens are Imposed on the parties
affected. The delegation which Is reflect-
ed by this administrative amendment
was effective on October 19, and It
serves no purpose to delay the technical
change of this addition of the State ad-
dress to the Code of Federal Regula-
tions.
This rulemaking 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.S.C. 1857C-5. 6, 7 and 1857g.
Dated: January 11, 1977.
JOHN A. LITTLE,
Acting Regional Administrator.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 15 -MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1977
NOTICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL 675-4]
AIR PROGRAMS—STANDARDS OF PER-
FORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
Receipt of Application and Approval of
Alternative Performance Test Method
On January 26, 1976 (41 PR 3826), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated standards of performance
for new primary aluminum reduction
plants under 40 CFR Part 60. The stand-
ards limit air emissions of gaseous and
partlculate fluorides from new and modi-
fled primary aluminum reduction plants.
The owners or operators of affected fa-
cilities are required to determine com-
pliance with these standards by conduct-
ing a performance test as specified in Ap-
pendix A—Reference Methods, Method
13A or 13B, "Determination of Total
Fluoride Emissions from Stationary
Sources" published in the FEDERAL REG-
ISTER August 6, 1975 (40 FR 33157). As
provided in 40 CFR 60.8(b), (2) and (3).
the Administrator may approve the use
of an equivalent test method or may ap-
prove the use of an alternative method
if the method has been shown to be ade-
quate for the determination of compli-
ance with the standard. Method 13A
specified that total fluorides be deter-
mined by the SPADNS Zirconium Lake
colormetric method, and Method 13B
specified that this determination be made
by the specific ion electrode method.
On September 3, 1976, EPA received
•written application for approval of equiv-
alency for a third analytical technique
from Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation, Oakland, California. Specif-
ically, the application requested approv-
al of ASTM Method D 3270-73T, "Ten-
tative Method of Analysis for Fluoride
Content of the Atmosphere and Plant
Tissues," 1974 Annual Book of ASTM
Standards—Part 26.
Specific guidelines for the determina-
tion of method equivalency have not been
established by EPA. However, EPA has
completed a technical review of the ap-
plication and has determined that the
ASTM method will, produce results ad-
equate for the determination of compli-
ance with the standards of performance
for new primary aluminum plants.
Therefore, EPA approves the ASTM
method as an alternative to the analyt-
ical procedures specified in paragraph
7.3 "Analysis" of Method 13A or 13B for
aluminum plants, pursuant to 40 CFR
60.8(b)(3).
Dated: January 18,1977.
ROGER STRELOV:.
Assistant Administrator
lor Air and Waste Management.
|FRDoc.77-2385 Filed 1-25-77:8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 42, NO. 17
WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 76. 1977
IV-158
-------
Title 10—Protection of environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECT4ON AGENCY
[FRL 660-4)
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Revisions to Emission Monitoring
Requirements and to Reference Methods
On October 6, 1975 (40 FR 46250),
under sections 111, 114, and 301 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated emission monitoring re-
quirements and revisions to the perform-
ance testing Reference Methods in 40
CFR Part 60. Since that time, EPA has
determined that there is a need for a
number of .revisions to clarify the re-
quirements. Each of the revisions being
made in 40 CFR Part 60 are discussed
as follows:
1. Section 60.13. Paragraph (c) (3) has
been rewritten to clarify that not only
new monitoring systems but also up-
graded monitoring systems must comply
with applicable performance specifica-
tions.
Paragraph (e) (1) is revised to provide
that data recording is not required more
frequently than once every six minutes
(rather than the previously required ten
seconds) for continuous monitoring sys-
tems measuring the opacity of emissions.
Since reports) of excess emissions are
based upon review of six-minute aver-
ages, more frequent data recording is
not required in order to satisfy these
monitoring requirements.
2. Section 60.45. Paragraphs (al
through re> have been reorganized for
clarification. In addition, restrictions on
use of continuous monitoring systems for
measuring oxygen on a wet basis have
been removed. Prior to this revision, only
dry basis oxygen monitoring equipment
was acceptable. Procedures for use of wet
basis oxygen monitoring equipment have
been approved by EPA and were pub-
lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER as an al-
ternative procedure (41 FR 44838).
Also deleted from § 60.45 are restric-
tions on the location of a carbon dioxide
(CO.) continuous monitoring system
downstream of wet scrubber flue gas de-
sulfurization equipment. At the time the
regulations were i promulgated (Octo-
ber 6. 1975). EPA thought that limestone
scrubbers were operated under condi-
tions that could cause significant gen-
eration or absorption of CO; by the
scrubbinc solution which would cause
errors in the monitoring results. EPA in-
vestSeated this potential problem and
concluded that lime or limestone scrub-
bers under typical conditions of opera-
tion do not significantly alter the con-
centration of CO- in the Hue gas and
would not introduce significant errors
into the monitorine results. Lime scrub-
bers ooerate at a pH level between 7 and
8 which will 'maximize SO; absorption
and minimize CO.. absorption. Thus, the
effect of CO: loss on the emission results
is expected to be minimal. The exact
amount of CO- loss, if any, during the
scrubber operation has not been deter -
RULES AND REGULATIONS
mined r,lnce II; Is dependent upon l.lin
upcrallnK conditions lor a purtlculur fa-
cility. Although each percent of CO. ab-
sorption will result in a positive bias of
7.1 percent (at a stack concentration of
14 percent CO?) in the final emission
results, i.e. the indicated results may be
higher than actual stack concentrations,
the actual bias is expected to be very
small since the amount of CO: absorp-
tion will be much less than one percent.
In flue eases from limestone scrubbers,
there exists a possibility of the addition
of CO* from the scrubbing reaction to
the CO= from the fuel combustion. Every
two molecules of SO2 reacting with the
limestone will produce a molecule of CO:.
Limestone scrubbers are typically oper-
ated at an approximate temperature of
50° C under acidic conditions. At these
operating conditions the amount of CO,
generated in a 90 percent efficiency
scrubber is 1350 ppm or 0.135 percent
CO5. This will introduce a negative bias
of 1 to 1.5 percent for a CO- level of 8 to
15 percent. This amount of potential
error compares favorably with systems
previously approved. Therefore, EPA is
removing the restrictions which limited
the installation of carbon dioxide con-
tinuous monitoring systems to a location
upstream of the scrubber.
Several other revisions are being made
to paragraphs (a), 'b), (c), and (e) of
Subnart D which imnrove the clarity or
further define the intent of the regula-
tions. Paragraph (rl) has been reserved
for later addition of fuel monitoring pro-
visions, .n
3. Performance Specification I. Para-
graoh 6.2 has been rewritten to clarify
requirements that must be met by con-
tinuous opacity monitor manufacturers.
Manufacturers must certify that at least
one analyzer from each month's produc-
tion was tested and meets all applicable
requirements. If any requirements are
not met, the production for the month
must he resarnpled according to militarv
standard 105D (MTL-STD-105D) and re-
tested. Previously the regulation re-
quired that each unit of production had
to be tested. Copies of MIT^STD-in5D
may be purchased from the Superintend-
ent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office. Washinrrton. D.C. ?0402.
4. Performance Specification 2. Figure
2-3 of Performance Specification 2 has
been corrected to properly define the
term "mean differences." The corrections
in the operations now conform with the
statistical definitions of the specifica-
tions.
5. General. These amendments pro-
vide optional monitoring procedures that
may be selected by an owner or operator
of a facility affected by the monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR Part 60. Certain
editorial clarifications are also included.
Proposal of these amendments is not
necessary because the changes are either
interpretative in nature, or represent
minor changes in instrumentation test-
ing and data recording, or allow a wider
selection of equipment to be used. These
changes will have no effect upon the
number of emission sources that must be
monitored or the quality of the resultant
emission data. Tho channel arc consist-
ent with recent determinations of the
Administrator with respect to use of al-
ternative continuous monitoring systems.
6. Effective date. These revisions be-
come effective March 2. 1977.
(Sees. Ill, 114, 301(a). Clean Air Act, as
amended, Pub. L. 91-004, 84 Stat. 1678 (42
U.S.C. 1857C-6. 1857C-9. 1857g(a)).)
NOTE.—The Environmental Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Inflation Impact State-
ment under Executive Order 11821 and OMB
Circular A-107.
Dated: January 19,1977.
JOHN QDARLES,
Acting Administrator.
In 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart A, Subpart
D, and Appendix B are amended as fol-
lows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
1. Section 60.13 is amended by revis-
ing paragraphs (c) (3) and (e) (1) as
follows:
§60.13 Monitoring requirements.
* » • * •
(C) * * *
(3) All continuous monitoring systems
referenced by paragraph (c) (2) of this
section shall be upgraded or replaced (if
necessary) with new continuous moni-
toring systems, and the new or improved
systems shall be demonstrated to com-
ply with applicable performance speci-
fications under paragraph (c) (1) of this
section on or before September 11, 1979.
(e) • ' *
(1) All continuous monitoring sys-
tems referenced by paragraphs (c)(l)
and (c) (2) of this section for measuring
opacity of emissions shall complete a
minimum of one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive ten-second
period and one cycle of data recording
for each successive six-minute period.
*****
Subpart D—Standards of .Performance for
Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
2. Section 60.45 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a), (b), (c),and (e) and by
reserving paragraph (d) as follows:
§ 60.45 Emission and fuel monitoring.
(a) Each owner or operator shall in-
stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate
continuous monitoring systems for meas-
uring the opacity of emissions, sulfur
dioxide emissions, nitrogen oxides emis-
sions, and either oxygen or carbon di-
oxide except as provided in paragraph
-------
(2) For B fossil Juel-flred steam gen-
erator that does not use a flue gas de-
sulfurization device, a continuous moni-
toring system for measuring sulfur di-
oxide emissions is not required if the
owner or operator monitors sulfur di-
oxide emissions by fuel sampling and
analysis under paragraph (d) of this
section.
(3) Notwithstanding §60.13(to), in-
stallation of a continuous monitoring
system for nitrogen oxides may be de~
layedttntil after the initial performance
tests under § 60.8 have been conducted.
If the owner or operator demonstrates
during the performance test that emis-
sions of nitrogen oxides are less than 70
percent of the applicable standards in
8 60.44, a continuous monitoring system
for measuring nitrogen oxides emissions'
is not required. If the initial performance
test results show that nitrogen oxide
emissions are greater than 70 percent of
the applicable standard, the owner or
operator shall install a continuous moni-
toring system for nitrogen oxides within
one year after the date of the initial per-
formance tests under § 60.8 and comply
with all other applicable monitoring re-
quirements under this part.
(4) If an owner or operator does not
install any continuous monitoring sys-
tems for sulfur oxides and nitrogen ox-
Ides, as provided under paragraphs (b)
(1) and (b)(3) or paragraphs (b) (2)
and (b) (3) of this section a continuous
monitoring system for measuring either
oxygen or carbon dioxide is not required.
(c) For performance evaluations un-
der S60.13(c) and calibration checks
under 860.13(d). the following proce-
dures shall be used:
(1) Reference Methods 6 or 7, as ap-
plicable, - shall be used for conducting
performance evaluations of sulfur diox-
ide and nitrogen oxides continuous mon-
itoring systems.
(2) Sulfur dioxide or nitric oxide, as
applicable, shall be used for preparing
calibration gas mixtures under Perform-
ance Specification 2 of Appendix B to
this part.
(3) For affected facilities burning fos-
sil fuel(s). the span value for a continu-
ous monitoring system measuring the
opacity of emissions shall be 80, 90, or
100 percent and for a continuous moni-
toring system measuring sulfur oxides or
nitrogen oxides the span value shall be
determined as follows:
(In parts per million)
Fossil tucl Span value for
sulfur dioiide
Gas . (i)
Liquid 1 000
Solid 1 500
Combh.nl ions.. l,000i/+l,50te
' Not applicable.
where:
Span valuo for
nitrogen oxides
500
600
500
500(1+ v) +1,000*
(4) All spah values computed under
paragraph (c)(3) of this section for
burning combinations of fossil fuels shall.
be rounded to the nearest 500 ppm.
(5) For a fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
erator that simultaneously burns fossil
fuel and nonfossil fuel, the span value
of all continuous monitoring systems
shall be subject to the Administrator's
approval.
(d) [Reserved]
(e) For any continuous monitoring
system installed under paragraph (a) of
this section, the following conversion
procedures shall be used to convert the
continuous monitoring data into units of
the applicable standards (ng/J, lb/mil-
lion Btu):
(1) When a continuous monitoring
system for measuring oxygen is selected,
the measurement of the pollutant con-
centration and oxygen concentration
shall each be on a consistent basis (wet
or dry). -Alternative procedures ap-
proved by the Administrator shall be'
used when measurements are on a wet
basis. When measurements are on a dry
basis, the following conversion procedure
shall be used:
p-CF f 20-9 1
1.20.9-percent O,J
where:
E, C, F, and %0, are determined under para-
graph (f) of this section.
(2) When a continuous monitoring
system for measuring carbon dioxide is
selected, the measurement of the pol-
lutant concentration and carbon dioxide
concentration shall each be on a con-
sistent basis (wet or dry) and the fol-
lowing conversion procedure shall -too
used: '"-'-- •"
10°
P-
' Lpercent CO
where:
E, C, Fc and JoCO, are determined under
paragraph (f) of this section.
APPENDIX B — PERFORMANCE
SPECIFICATIONS
3. Performance Specification 1 is
amended by revising paragraph 6.2 as
follows:
6. " ° •
6.2 Coruformance with the requirements
of se'ction 6.1 may be demonstrated by the
owner or operator of the affected facility by
testing each analyzer or by obtaining a cer-
tificate of conformance from the Instrument
manufacturer. The certificate must certify
that at least one analyzer from each month's
production was tested and satisfactorily met
all applicable requirements. The certificate
must state that the first analyzer randomly
Eampled met all requirements of paragraph
6 of this specification. If uny of the require-
ments were not met, the certificate must
show that the entire month's analyzer pro-
duction was resampled according to the mili-
tary standard 105D sampling procedure
(MIL-STD-105D) Inspection level II; was re-
tested for -each of the applicable require-
ments under paragraph 6 of this specifica-
tion; and was determined to be acceptable
under MIL-STD-105D procedures. The certifi-
cate of conformance must show the results
of each test performed for the analyzers
sampled during the month the analyzer be-
ing Installed was produced.
4. Performance Specification 2 is
amended by revising Figure 2-3 as
follows:
Test
Ho.
1
,
3
4
Oate
and .
TITO
Reference Method Samples
SO,
Sampfe 1
NO
Sample 1
(ppn)
'
j
1 i
5 ;
6 I
7
B
9
lean
,est
ISI (
iccur
•lit
reference i
value (SO*
onfldence 1
lethod
ntervals •
+, v
NO NO . ! NO Sample
Sample 2 Sample 3 Average
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
j
'
Analyzer 1-Hour
Average (ppm)*
so2 »,
:
Mean referetice nethod
test valua (NOJ
ppm (SO,) - +
Difference
(ppn)
S02 NO,
Mean of
' the differences
ppm
Mean of the Differences , 951 confldence'lnterval ,„ .
lcf" Mean reference nethod value " '" -
lain and report method used to determine Integrated averages
) • I (NO,)
a—the traction of total heat Input derived
from gaseous fossil fuel, and
y — the fraction of total beat input derived
from liquid fossil fuel, and
2=the fraction of.total heat Input derived
from solid fossil fuel.
•Figure 2-3. Accuracy Determination (SOj and HO,)
(Sees. 111. 114, 301 (a), Clean Air Act, as amended. Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1878 (42 UJ3.C.
1857C-6, 1857-9, 18S7g(a))>.
{PR Doc.77-2744 Hied 1-28-77; 8:45 am)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 20—MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 1977
IV- 160
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
CO
•*° (FBL682-«1
PART 6O—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to City of
Philadelphia
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance
for new stationary sources (NSPS) to
the City of Philadelphia on Septem-
ber 30. 1976, EPA is today amending
40 CFR 60.4, Address, to reflect this
delegation. For a notice announcing
this delegation, see FR Doc. 77-3712
published in the Notices section of td~-
day's FEDERAL REGISTER. The amended
5 60.4. which adds the address of the
Philadelphia Department of Public
Health, Air Management Services, to
which all reports, requests, applications,
submittals. and communications to the
Administrator pursuant to 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 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
September 30. 1976. and it serves no
purpose to delay the technical change
. of this address to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immer
diately, and is issued, under the author-
ity of section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
Dated: January 25,1977.
A. R. MORRIS,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
. Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In 6 60.4, paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (NN) to read
as follows:
§ 60.4 Address
* • * • •
(b) * * •
(A)-(MMl • • •
(NN)(a) City of Philadelphia: Philadelphia
Department of Public Health, Air Man-
agement Services, 801 Arch Street, Phila-
delphia. Pennsylvania 19107.
* * ft . * *
(PR Doc.77-3709 Filed 2-3-77:8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 24
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1977
IV-161
-------
SECTION V
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
Proposed Amendments
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW,
STATIONARY SOURCES
Proposed Emission Guidelines for the
Control of Sulfuric Acid Mist From
Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units
SUBPART C
-------
K^yyggw?^^;T^?:."r^^^^'gi'^y'ay.a4 .<^t ^'j^T?^
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40CFRPart60]
[PEL 631-41
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Emission Guidelines for the Control of Sul-
furic Acid Mist From Existing Sutfuric
Acid Production Units
The purpose of this notice is to propose
emission guidelines and times for com-
pliance for the control of sulfurtc acid
mist emissions from existing sulfurlc acid
production units, and to announce the
publication of a draft guideline docu-
ment concerning the control of sulfuric
acid mist emissions from such units.
The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et
seq.) as amended, applies to three gen-
eral categories of pollutants emitted from
stationary sources. The first category
consists of pollutants (often referred to
as "criteria pollutants") for which air
quality criteria and national ambient air
quality standards are established -under
sections 108 and 109 of the Act and which
are controlled by «tate implementation
plans under section 110. The second cate-
gory consists of pollutants listed and
controlled as hazardous pollutants under
section 112 of the Act. Toe third cate-
gory consists of pollutants that may
cause or contribute to the endangerment
of public health or welfare but are not
or cannot be controlled under sections
108-110. or 112. Section llKd) acquires
control of existing sources of such pol-
lutants whenever standards of perform-
ance (for those pollutants) are estab-
lished under section 11Kb) for new
sources of the same type. For conven-
ience of reference, such pollutants are
referred to as "designated pollutants,"
and existing facilities whose emissions of
such pollutants must be controlled under
section lll(d) are referred to as "desig-
nated faculties."
On November 17. 1075 (40 FR 53340).
EPA promulgated a new subpart B to
40 CFR Part 60 establishing procedures
and requirements for submittal of state
plans for control of designated pollutants
from designated facilities under section
lll(d). A summary of subpart B and a
discussion of the basic concepts under-
lying It appear in the preamble pub-.
Bshed In connection with its promulga-
tion. In brief, subpart B provides that
after a standard of performance appli-
cable to emissions of a designated pol-
lutant from new sources is promulgated,
the Administrator will publish a draft
guideline document containing informa-
tion pertinent to the control of the same
pollutant from designated (i.e., existing)
facilities. He will also publish a notice of
availability of the draft guideline docu-
ment and invite comments on its con-
tents. After publication of a final guide-
line document for the pollutant in ques-
tion, the States will have nine months
to develop and submit plans for control
of that pollutant from designated facili-
ties. Within four-months after the date
for submission of plans, the Admmlstra-
PROPOSED RULES
tor will approve or disapprove each plan
(or portions thereof). If a state plan (or
portion thereof) Is disapproved, the Ad-
ministrator will promulgate a plan (or
portion thereof) within six months after
the date for plan submission. These and
related provisions of subpart B are basi-
cally patterned after section 110 of the
Act and 40 CFR Part 51 (concerning
adoption and submittal of state imple-
mentation plans under section 110).
As discussed in the preamble to sub-
part B, a distinction is drawn between
designated pollutants which may cause
.or contribute to endangerment of public
health (referred to as "health-related
pollutants") and those for which adverse
effects on public health have not been
demonstrated (referred to as "welfare-
related pollutants"). For health-related
pollutants, emission standards and com-
pliance schedules in state plans must
ordinarily be at least as stringent as the
corresponding emission guidelines and
compliance times specified in EPA's
guideline documents and codified in sub-
part C of 40 CFR Part 60. States may
apply less stringent requirements when
economic factors or physical limitations
make such application significantly more
reasonable. For welfare-related pollut-
ants. States may balance the emission
guidelines, compliance times, and other
Information in EPA's guideline docu-
ments against other factors of public
concern in developing their plans, as ex-
plained more fully in the preamble to
subpart B and in the introductory por-
tion of each guidelinefdpcument. Thus,
tfce States have'more flexibility in estab-
lishing plans for welfare-related pollut-
ants than for plans involving pollutants
that may affect public health. ''
Standards of performance for sulfuric
acid mist emissions from new sulfuric
acid production units were promulgated
on December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24876). A
draft guideline document for the con-
trol of sulfuric acid mist emissions from
existing sulfuric acid production units
has been prepared and Is available as
specified below. In accordance with sec-
tion 117(f) of the Act, publication of the
draft guideline document was preceded
by consultation with appropriate advi-
sory committees, independent experts,
and Federal departments and agencies.
A copy of the draft guideline document is
available for Inspection at the Public In-
formation Reference Unit (EPA Li-
brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. In addition, copies may
be obtained free of charge by writing to
the Public Information Center (PM-
215), Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460 (specify: Draft
Guideline Document: Control of Acid
Mist Emissions from Existing Sulfuric
Acid Production Units. September 1976).
The Administrator has determined
that sulfuric acid mist is a health-related
pollutant. The rationale for this deter-
mination is included in Chapter 5 of the
draft guideline document. In summary,
sulfuric acid mist has been shown to
cause acute and chronic irritation to the
lungs and bronchial tubes in humans.
Toxicological studies have shown that
of all sulfates, sulfuric acid mist is the
greatest respiratory irritant. There are
human clinical studies specific to sul-
terlc add mist which indicate health ef-
fects occur In healthy, young adults with
abort-term exposure to levels reasonably
expected to occur around uncontrolled
aulfuric acid plants. It is a reasonable
conclusion that potentially more sensi-
tive individuals such as Infants, the el-
derly, and persons whose health is al-
ready compromised by pre-existing
health problems would exhibit adverse
effects at even lower levels than the clin- '
teal studies indicated, or more serious
adverse effects at the levels studied.
In addition to health effects, sulfuric
acid mist has the following effects on
public welfare as that term is defined in
.the Act: reduced visibility; acceleration
of metal corrosion; disintegration of
building materials, especially those con-
taining calcium carbonate; textile and
paper damage; and vegetation damage.
The emission guideline and time for
compliance, in this proposed rulemaking
reflect the Administrator's judgment on
the degree of emission control achievable
with the best system of emission reduc-
tion (considering the cost of such reduc-
tion) that has been adequately demon-
strated for existing sulfuric acid produc-
tion units and the time within which
those systems can be purchased and in-
stalled. The proposed sulfurlc acid mist
emission guideline of 0.25 gram acid mist
per kilogram of acid produced (0.5 lb/
ton) te based upon the degree of-control
achievable through the application of
fiber mist eliminators to existing sulfuric
acid production units. There are three
types of fiber mist eliminators: vertical
tube, vertical panel, and horizontal dual
pad. The vertical panel and horizontal
dual pad mist eliminators are less effec-
tive and less expensive than the vertical
.tube mist eliminators. The acid mist
standard of performance for new sul-
furic acid plants (0.075 g/kg) was based
•on application of vertical tube mist elim-
inators. The reason for the difference be-
tween the emission guideline and the
standard of performance for new sources
Is the.consideration of cost. Sulfuric acid
production units burning sulfur and pro-
ducing, only acid or low strength oleum
are easily controlled to 0.25 g/kg using
vertical panel or horizontal dual pad
mist eliminators. Plants 'burning bound
sulfur feedstocks and/or producing
strong oleum normally must use vertical
tube mist, eliminators to attain .0,25. g.'
kg or less. Compliance with the new
source standard requires installation of
a vertical tube fiber mist eliminator on
all types of plants. Many sulfur burning
plants presently have horizontal dual
pad or vertical panel type mist elimina-
tors installed and thus, the double retro-
fitting involved with a guideline less than
0.25 g/kg would cause an adverse eco-
nomic impact on the industry.
It is Important to note that the eco-
nomic .analysis regarding double retro-
fitting leading to the emission guideline
was performed on a national scale. State
standards as low as the standard of per-
formance for new sources can be SUP-
FEDERAL KGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 214—THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1976
V-C-2
-------
•PROPOSED RULES
ported as a best retrofit standard where
double retrofitting is not an issue.
A complete discussion of the altera-
tives considered and other technical and
economic factors which led to the guide-
line of 0.25 g/kg are included in the
draft guideline document. The review of
the economic impact has shown that the
proposal is not a major action under the
Inflationary Impact Statement (US)
program and no IIS is needed.
Interested persons may participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written
comments (in triplicate) to the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.
The Administrator will welcome com-
ments on all aspects of this proposal,
including economic and technological
Issues and the determination that sul-
furic acid mist is a health-related pol-
lutant for purposes of section lll(d) and
subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60. All rele-
vant comments postmarked no later than
December 6, 1976 will be considered.
Copies of comments received will be
available for inspection and copying dur-
ing normal business hours at the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Public In-
formation Reference Unit, Room 2922
(EPA Library), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C.
This notice of proposed rulemaking Is
issued under the authority of sections
lll(d), 114, and 301 (a) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.8.C. 1857c-6(d),
1857&-9, 1857g(a).)
Dated: October 28, 1976.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations by adding subpart
C as follows:
Subpart C—Emission Guidelines and Compliance
Times
Sec.
6030 Scope.
60.31 Definitions.
6032 Designated facilities.
60.33 Emission guidelines.
60.34 Compliance times.
ATJTHOEITY: Sees. Ill, 114, and 301 (a) of
the Clean Air Act, as amended by sec. 4(a)
of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1678 and by sec.
15(c)(2) Of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713
(42 U.S.C. 1857C-6, 1857C-9 and 1867g(a)).
Subpart C—Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times
§ 60.30 Scope.
This subpart contains emission guide-
lines and compliance times for the con-
trol of certain designated pollutants from
certain designated facilities In accord-
ance with section lll(d) of the Act and
Subpart B.
§60.31 Definitions.
Terms used but not defined in this sub-
part have the meaning given them In the
Act and in Subparts A and B of this part.
§ 60.32 Designated facilities.
(a) Sulfuric acid production units.
The designated facility to which §1 60.33
(a) and 60.34 (a) apply is each existing
"sulfiiric acid production unit" as defined
in § 60.81 (a) of Subpart H.
§ 60.33 Emission guidelines.
(a) Sulfdric acid production units.
The emission guideline for designated fa-
cilities is 0.25 gram sulfuric acid mist (as-
measured by Reference Method 8, of Ap-
pendix A) per kilogram of sulfuric acid
produced (0.5 Ib/ton), the production
being expressed as 100 percent H:SO<.
§ 60.34 Compliance times.
(a) Sulfuric acid production units.
Planning, awarding of contracts, and in-
stallation of equipment capable of attain-
ing the level of the emission guideline
established under §60.33 (a) can be ac-
complished within 17 months after the
effective date of a State emission stand-
ard for sulfuric acid mist.
[PR Doc.76-32302 Piled ll-3-76;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 214—THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 60]
[PRL 631-4)
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Emission Guidelines for the Control of Suh
furic Acid Mist From Existing Sulfuric
Acid Production Units
Correction
In FR Doc. 76-32302, appearing at
page 48706 In the issue for Thursday,
November 4, 1976, the comment period
in the second paragraph of the first col-
umn on page 48707 should be "January 3,
1977."
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 229—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER J*. 1974
V-C-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Lignite-Fired Steam Generators
SUBPARTD
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL TODTECTBOW
[ 40 CFR'Pfcrt SO J
650-8]
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Lignite-Fired Steam Generators
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is considering amendments to
Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 60 (Fossil
Fuel-Fired Steam Generators) to estab-
lish standards of performance for emis-
sions of nitrogen oxides from new lignite-
ftred steam generators of greater than 73
megawatts heat input (250 million Btu
per hour) and to incorporate the Inter-
national System of Units (modernized
metric system) , as applicable.
On December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24877),
EPA promulgated standards of perform-
once for fossil fuel -fired steam genera-
tors. Included were standards for partic-
olate matter, sulfur divide, and nitro-
gen oxides applicable to gaseous, liquid,
and solid fossil fuel-fired facilities. How-
ever, because of a lack of information on
nitrogen oxides emissions, lignite-fired
facilities were exempted from the nitro-
gen oxides standard for solid fossil fuels,
although they are subject J*> the stand-
ards for particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. __
EPA has gathered additional informa-
tion on lignite-fired facilities and the
background1 materials on the proposed
amendment to Subpart D have been pub-
lished in a report entitled "Standards
Support and Environmental Impact
Statement, Volume 1: Proposed Stand-
ards of Performance for Lignite.-Fired
Steam Generators", hereafter referred to
as SSEIS. Copies are available on request
from the EPA Public Information Cen-
ter (PM-215), Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460 (specify:
Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement, Volume 1: Proposed
Standards of Performance for Lignite-
Fired Steam Generators) . The informa-
tion contained in the SSEIS is briefly dis-
cussed in this preamble to Uie proposed
standard of performance.
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS
In accordance with the objective to
implement national use of tSie metric
system, EPA presents numerical values in
both metric units and English units in
Its regulations and technical publica-
tions. In an effort to simplify use of the
metric units of measurement, EPA now
uses the International System of Units
(SI) as set forth in a publication by the
American Society for Testing and Mate-
rials entitled "Standard for Metric Prac-
tice" (Designation: E 380-76). There-
fore, EPA is proposing to revise the
appropriate sections of Subpart D to
reflect use of SI units.
PROPOSED STANDARD
The proposed standard of performance
limits emissions of nitrogen oxides to
260 nanograms per joule of heat input
(0.6 pound per million Btu) from lignite -
fired steam generators having a capacity
greater than 78 megawatts heat input
rate (250 million Btu per hour). The pro-
posed standard reflects the degree of
emission limitation achievable through
the application of the best system of
emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such
-reduction) has been adequately demon-
stratedy -The best-system is considered to
be a combination of staged combustion
and low excess air.
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Based on historical growth rates, it is
estimated that 25 new lignite-fired steam
generators would be subject to the pro-
posed standard by 1985. The proposed
standard would reduce NO, emissions by
128,000 Mg/yr (141,000 T/yr). Control-
ling NO. emissions to the level of the
proposed standard would result in in-
significant increases in capital and an-
nualized costs for the utility.
Sinee approximately 90 percent of lig-
jilte-fired steam generators of rated ca-
pacity greater than 73 MW heat input
are owned by electric utilities, the cost of
complying with the proposed standard
was analyzed for the lignite utility indus-
try. The cost to the utilities appears to
be negligible relative to the capital in-
vestment costs. Available information
indicates that, at most, nitrogen oxides
control would increase capital invest-
ment costs by only 0.5 percent for a new
lignite-fired utility boiler and ancillary
equipment. This cost increase for NO,
control represents an estimated increase
of two dollars per installed kilowatt rela-
tive to an estimated typical cost of about
400 dollars per installed kilowatt ca-
pacity based on costs for a bituminous
coal-fired boiler island. The costs for NO,
control would have negligible effect on
power costs to consumers. The review of
the economic impact has shown' that the
proposal is not a major action under the
Inflationary Impact Statement (US)
program, and no IIS is needed.
The environmental impact of the pro-
posed standard is beneficial since the
increase in emissions due to growth of
lignite-fired steam generators would be
minimized. The proposed standard
should result in a 20 percent reduction
in the mass of nitrogen oxide emissions
from new lignite-fired boilers. It would
reduce the atmospheric burden of nitro-
gen oxides and would help prevent in-
creased ambient oxidant concentrations
in areas where lignite-fired steam gen-
erators will be located (primarily North
Dakota and Texas). There are no ad-
verse environmental impacts associated
with the proposed standard. Control
techniques required to comply with the
.proposed standard do not cause.boiler
efficiency losses, and thus there are no
incremental energy demands associated
with the proposed standard. A complete
analysis of the economic and environ-
mental impacts may be found in Chap-
ters VI and vm of the SSEIS. '
CONTROC SYSTEMS
Nitrogen oxides from fossil-fuel com-
bustion are formed via two mechanisms:
(1) Thermal fixation (oxidation) of at-
mospheric nitrogen (Ns) in the combus-
tion air, and (2) oxidation of organic
nitrogen in the fuel. Oxidation of N, can
be prevented by reducing the level of
thermal excitation in the flame by means
of (a) flue gas recirculation, (b) staged
combustion, (c) water injection, (d) re-
duced air preheat, or (e) combinations
of these techniques. Nitrogen oxides
emissions due to the oxidation of or-
ganic nitrogen in the fuel can be con-
trolled by using fuels with small amounts
of organic nitrogen and by removing oxy-
gen from the volatilization zone by
means of (a) low excess air, (b) staged
combustion, and/or (c) fuel/air mixing
pattern adjustment (burner design).
Fuels such as coal, residual oil, and lig-
nite contain 0.2 to 1.5 percent organic
'nitrogen, and oxidation of this fuel-
nitrogen may be responsible for as much
as 80-90 percent of the total nitrogen
oxides emissions from pulverized coal '
combustion. Therefore, the organic nitro-
gen content of fuel may be a limiting
factor in controlling nitrogen oxides
emissions. The fact that the organic ni-
trogen content of the U.S. lignites does
not vary appreciably precludes nitrogen
_ oxides control by switching to lignite
with a lower organic nitrogen content.
Water injection and reduced air pre-
heat significantly reduce the efficiency
of a steam generator, and consequently
are not practical -nitrogen oxides con-
trol methods. Flue gas recirculation does
not reduce nitrogen oxides emissions
caused by the oxidation of the organic
nitrogen in the lignite and it adversely
affects the efficiency of a steam gen-
erator. Therefore, low excess air (LEA>,
staged combustion (SC), low emission
burners, and combined LEA and SC are
considered the most feasible control sys-
tems.
In addition to the control systems just
discussed, the fuel burning equipment
design parameters can affect the amount
of nitrogen oxides emitted and the de-
gree to which the control systems are
effective. Lignite-firing has been demon-
strated in pulverized-fired, cyclone-fired,
and stoker-fired steam generating units.
Stoker-fired units have the lowest heat
release rate and thus have lower nitro-
gen oxides emissions than the other type
units but are limited in physical size and
are not expected to be of importance in
future lignite-fired steam generating
units. Cyclone-fired units have the high-
est heat release rate and the highest ni-
trogen oxides emissions. Pulverized-fired
units have a lower heat release rate than
cyclone-fired units, but a higher release
rate than stoker-fired units.
EPA TEST PROCRAM
Of the 15 lignite-fired units in domestic
operation In 1974, four utility sized units
were chosen for EPA's test program. In-
cluded were three pulverlzed--fired units
(two tangentiaUy-flred and one horizon-
tally opposed-fired), and one cyclone-
fired unit.
Operating with low excess air and/or
staged combustion, all types of fuel burn-
Ing equipment exhibited reduced nitro-
gen oxides emissions over baseline con-
F2DESAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, MO. 247—WEDNESDAY, DECEMDER 22, 1976
V-D-2
-------
The Ikorlasifeany opposed- aad
cyclone-fired unite are more responsive
to nitrogen oxides scontrol tedinlques on
a percentage basis, tort the tangentiany-
fired units rcsing staged combustion
yielded the lowest nitrogen oxides emis-
sions. Cyclone-fired units cannot be de-
pendably operated with low excess air
firing or staged combustion because of
flame Instability problems; however,
staged combustion of cyclone-fired units
,«an be achieved by firing auxiliary fuel.
On the baste of the test data, It sp-
jpears Siat fiie cyclone-fired units can-
not consistently meet a nitrogen oxides
standard more stringent than 340 nano-
grams per joule (0.8 pound per million
Btu). The test data also indicate that
horizontally opposed-fired units would
have difficulty consistently achieving a
nitrogen oxides standard of 260 nano-
grams per Joule (0.6 pound million Btts)
over Q long time period. However, de-
velopment of tow emission burners ap-
pears promising for application to hori-
zontally opposed-fired smite, and such
units should be able to attain & standard
of 260 nanograms per joule. Tangen-
tially-flred units should have no difficulty
meeting -a standard of §60 nanograms
per jcrate,
RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS
In deciding the nitrogen oxides limit
for the proposed standard, EPA consid-
ered proposing the same standard fo?
lignite-fired steam generators as the
present standard for coal-fired steam
generators,4 300 nanograms per joule 10.1
pound per million Btu). In the study on
control of nitrogen oxides emissions from
lignite-fired steam generators, staged
combustion and low excess air were found
to reduce emissions significantly below
300 nanograms per joule input (0.7 pound
per minion Btu). The measured emis-
sion levels of 172 to 320 nanograms per
joule heat Input (0.4 to 0.5 pound per.
million Btu) indicated that the present
standard for coal-fired units would not
require use of best demonstrated control
technology, considering costs, for lignlte-
flred units. Studies on control of nitro-
gen oxides emissions by combustion mod-
ification techniques have shown emis-
sion levels for modern bituminous and
subbitumlnous coal-fired utility sized
wilts to be similar to those observed for
Jignite-flred units. The lower emission
levels observed for the lignite and bitu-
minous fired units reflect an improve-
ment in combustion modification tech-
niques and in the design of the burners
and of boilers between 1970 and 1974.
Tangentially-fired units could most
likely meet a standard of 220 nanograms
per joule (0.5 pound per million Btu).
This standard, however may not be xx>n-
eistently achievable by the horizontally-
opposed fired boilers. Since the manufac-
turers of those units do not make tan-
sentially-fired boilers, a standard of 220
nanograms per joule could leave only one
manufacturer of complying boilers,
which would remove the option of power
companies to obtain competitive bids.
SPA requests comments on the follow-
ing Issues: (1) ^SSneiiher horizontally-op-
posed fired betters could meet a standard
of 220 nanograms per joule; (2) if not,
what would be the effect on the competi-
tive balance of the equipment manufac-
turing Industry; (3) what would be the
effects on the power Industry; and (4)
whether EPA can consider these factors
in setting standards based on the best
system of emission reduction which has
been adequately demonstrated.
The proposed standard of 260 nano-
grams per joule for lignite-fired steam
generators is based on emission and cost
data currently available to the Admin-
istrator. The proposed standard, whfle
numerically more stringent than the
present standard for coal-fired units,
will require lignite-fired units- to apply
4fae same type of combustion modifica-
tions as coal-fired units. EPA recognizes
that lignite-fired cyclone units cannot
achieve €be proposed standard of 260
nanograms per joule (0.6 pound per mil-
lion Btu) r therefore, EPA has considered
the impact such a standard would have
on bofler manufacturers and on fee
lignite-fired steam generating industry.
EPA determined that the impact on boil-
er manufacturers of indirectly prohibit-
ing cyclone-fired unite would be negli-
gible. Only one boiler manufacturer mar-
bets cyclone-fired units and that manu-
facturer aJso markets pulverized-fired
units. Effective prohibition of cyclone-
ared units te expected to have little effect
aa this manufacturer because these units
represent a minor percentage of the to-
tal annual sales for the.manufacturer.
The impact of the proposed standard
on the lignite-fired steam generating in-
dustry is not wen defined. EPA has at-
tempted 60 determine whether units
other than cyclone-fired units are availo
able that will meet the proposed stand-
ard and if any cost OF operating relia-
bility advantages exist between these
units and the cyclone-fired units. For
large lignite-fired steam generators an
alternative to cyclone-fired units is pul-
verized-fired unite. From consultations
with the major bofler manufacturers
EPA concluded that cyclone-fired units
do not have any significant investment
cost advantages over an equivalent pul-
verized-flred unit. Thus, the impact of
the prohibition of cyclone-fired units is
, dependent on the relative operational ad-.
vantages of cyclone-fired units over pul-
verized-fired units.
Almost all of the large lignite-fired
units in North Dakota have experienced
severe operational difficulties as a result
of ash fouling of the boiler tube surfaces.
Utility boilers firing Texas lignites have
not experienced ash fouling problems to
the same degree. Research conducted by
the Energy Research and Development
Administration (ERDA) in Grand Forks,
North Dakota, has shown that the
sodium content of the lignite is highly
correlated with the degree of ash fouling.
Lignite ash with three to five percent
sodium is considered to have a moderate
to high fouling potential, and a sodium
content greater than five percent has a
severe fouling potential. In EPA's judg-
ment, the ash fouling problem can be
minimized by designing the bofler with
more .soot blowers in the convective
than normal, with larger spacing
between bofler tubes, and with design of
•Hie furnace temperature profile to con-
trol tube metal.temperatures.
Some of the lignite utilities have
claimed- that cyclone-fired units can
burn lignites with the higher sodium
content more reliably than pulverized-
flred units because a smaller proportion
of the ash enters the boiler. The utilities
cited the Minnkota Power Cooperative's
cyclone-fired unit at Young-Center sta-
tion as a successful example. This cy-
clone-fired, 235 MW boiler was selected
and designed based on a cooperative
study to develop a better method for
firing high sodium lignite. The unit has
an excellent record of operating availa-
bility since its startup to 1970. However,
the unit has not fired the high sodium
lignites for which it was designed. In ad-
dition, the operating reliability of this
unit may be attributed to furnace de-
sign features other than the cyclone
burner. Since startup of the Minnkota
cyclone-fired unit, two additional cy-
clone-fired units have been placed in
commercial operation by power com-
panies and cooperatives in the area. Each
of these units has been in operation for
less thaa a year. Both units have been
firing lignites of approximately 4 to 6
percent sodium and have been experienc-
ing problems with ash fouling of the
boiler tubes and with furnace slagging to
different degrees. Since numerous oper-
ating problems typically occur in the first
year of operation of a steam generator.
more operating experience is needed be-
fore the performance and reliability of
these units on high sodium lignite is
evaluated.
Experience with pulverized-fired units
is presently limited to two units designed
to the early 1960's. At that lime prob-
lems with plugging in the convective pas-
sages because of ash fouling associated
with firing high sodium lignite were noi
fully appreciated. Consequently, these
two units were retrofitted with an in-
creased number of sootblowers and the
tube spacings were increased in order to
obtain reliable operation of the units.
Redesign of this nature was imple-
mented to different degrees on the units.
The more extensively retrofitted unit hr>5
operated reliably for six years on lignite
with four to six percent sodium in the
ash and on eight to nine percent sodium
lignite for the past year. The less exten-
sively retrofitted unit can be reliably op-
erated by maintaining the sodium con-
tent of the fuel below five percent. Base^
on this experience, new cyclone or pul-
verized lignite-fired units are designed
with greater furnace surface area, in-
creased superheater tube spacing, and
increased number of sootblowers. This
early experience with pulverized firing
apparently has not convinced the util-
ities that pulverized firing of high sodium
lignite is impractical. In the early 1970's.
the United Power Association (UPA>
purchased two pulverized-fired units.
after evaluating bids on both cyclone and
pulverized-fired units. These tangen-
tlally-flred 500 MW boflers were guar-
anteed to reliably Ore & lignite with a de-
sign range of 0.1 to 4.8 ps?eent sodium.
QE©ISTEn, VOL. 41y WO. 247—WEDNESDAY.-.OECSMOES JJ, 1974
V-D-3
-------
This selection of a pulverized-fired unit
for a North Dakota lignite with high
fouling potential indicates that pulver-
ized-fired units are price competitive
with cyclone-fired units and that at least
one utility believes that cyclone-fired
units are not required for use of a lignite
with high fouling potential
In addition to this limited experience
with firing'high sodium lignite, prellmi-
• nary results from a study conducted by
ERDA showed that cyclone-fired units
have a statistically significant lower ash
deposition rate than pulverized-fired
units. The test was conducted while the
units were firing 3.5 to 4.5 percent sodium
lignite and insufficient information Is
available to allow comparison at higher
sodium levels. One possible Interpreta-
tion of these data is that cyclone-fired
units can operate on high sodium lignite
(greater than six percent) more reliably
than pulverized-fired units. However, the
study's results are not consistent with
the experience of operating commercial
units and the data may not warrant
drawing this conclusion.
EPA has concluded from evaluation
of the available Information that (1)
while there are differences in operational
characteristics of pulverized and cy-
clone-fired units, both types can reliably
operate on high sodium lignite and (2)
cyclone-fired units do not have signifi-
cant operation maintenance, or cost ad-
vantages over pulverized-fired units. The
manufacturers of pulverized-fired units
believe that these units can be as effec-
tive as cyclone-fired units for burning
lignites, including those with high so-
dium. Combustion Engineering, which is
Installing the units'f or UP A, is confident
that pulverized-fired units can be prop-
erly designed to handle the ash fouling
and slagging problems of high sodium
lignite. Babcock and Wilcox, the other
major supplier of lignite-fired units, al-
so believes that a pulverized-fired unit
can be designed to reliably burn high
sodium lignite. Due to the limited Infor-
mation available at this time and differ-
ent possible Interpretations of the In-
formation, EPA realizes that the assess-
ment of relative reliability of pulverized
and cyclone-fired units for firing high
sodium lignite Is debatable. Therefore,
EPA is requesting that all interested per-
sons submit factual Information on this
issue during the comment period. Fac-
tual information Is specifically requested
on the following areas of Interest:
1. Investment costs and operation and
maintenance costs for either pulverized-
fired or cyclone-fired large steam genera-
tors designed for moderate or high
eodiiun lignite.
2. The differences, if any, in the design
of the convection section or the.gas tem-
perature profile between cyclone and
pulverized-fuel fired steam generators.
The comparison should discuss any dif-
ferences in the number, type or location
of soo'tblowers installed, frequency of
operation of soot blowers, comparison of
tube spacings or depth of tube banks and
other relevant factors.
3. Relative importance of factors con-
sidered In selecting a cyclone- or pul-
verized-fired unit.
MtOPOSED MILES
, It is expected that the above Informa-
tion win allow EPA an opportunity to
assess the relative costs of cyclone and
pulverized fuel fired lignite steam gen-
erators as well as to assess the need for
cyclone-fired units for use of high
sodium lignite. The final standard will
reflect the conclusions drawn from eval-
uation of all available factual informa-
tion. EPA will limit the scope of coverage
of the final standard if the data sub-
mitted during the comment period jus-
tify such a change. The scope of coverage
could be limited by applying the stand-
ard to lignites having a specified sodium
content, by establishing a separate
standard for cyclone-fired units, or ex-
empting cyclone-fired units.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources established
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act
reflect emission limits achievable with
the best adequately demonstrated sys-
tems of emission reduction considering
the cost of such systems. State imple-
mentation plans (SIP's) approved or
promulgated under section 110 of the
Act, on the other hand, must provide for
the attainment and maintenance of na-
tional ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) designed to protect public
health and welfare. For that purpose
SIP's must in some cases require greater
emission reductions than those required
by standards of performance for new
sources. In addition, States are free un-
der section 116 of the Act to establish
more stringent emission limits than
those established under section 111 or
those necessary to attain or maintain the
NAAQS under section 110. Thus, new
and existing sources may in some cases
*e subject to limitations more stringent
than EPA's standards of performance
under section 111.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In accordance with section ir*7(f) of
the Act, publication of these proposed
amendments to 40 CFR Part 60 was pre-
ceded by consultation with appropriate
advisory committees, independent ex-
perts, and Federal departments and
agencies. Interested persons may par-
ticipate, in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments (In triplicate) to the
Emission Standards and Engineering D1-.
vision. Environmental Protection Agency
(MD-13), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention: Mr. Don R.
Goodwin. All comments received not
later than 60 days from (date of pro-
posal) will be considered. Copies of com-
ments received wil be available for In-
spection and copying during normal
business hours at the Public Information
Reference Unit, Room 2922 (EPA Lib-
rary), 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C.
(Sees. Ill, 114 and 301 (a) of the Clean Air
Act, ae amended by sec. 4 (a) of Pub. L. 91-
604, 84 Stat. 1678 and by sec. 15 (e) (2) of Pub.
L. 91-6••* * * •
Subpart 0—Standards of Performance for
Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
2. Section 60.41 Is amended by adding1
paragraph (f) as follows:
§ 60.41 Definitions.
* * • . •
(f) "Coal" means all solid fossil fuels
classified as anthracite, bituminous, sub-
bituminous, or lignite by A.S.T.M. Des-
ignation D 388-66.
3. Section 60.44 is amended by adding
paragraph (a) (4) and by revising para-
graph (b) as follows:
§ 60.44 Standard for nitrogen oxides.
(a) • • •
(4) 260 nanograms per joule heat in-
put (0.60 pound per million Btu) derived
from lignite.
(b) When different fossil fuels are
burned simultaneously In any combina-
tion, the applicable standards (in ng/J>
shall be determined by proration. Com-
pliance shall be determined by using the
following formula:
pc W 260)+1(86)+y(130)-f-?(3QO>
•PSuOx is I*1* Pr°™ted standard for nitrogen orides when
burning different fuels simultaneously, in nanograms
per joule heat input derived from all fossil fuels fijvd or
from all fossil fuel and wood residue fired:
» Is the percentage of total heat Input derived from
lignite;
i is the percentage of tola! heat input derived from
gaseous fossil fuel:
t is the percentage of total heat input derived from liquid
fossil fuel;
i is the percentage of total heat input derived from solid
fossil fuel (except lignite or a solid fossil fuel containing
25 pet, by weight, or more of coal refuse).
When a solid fossil fuel- containing 25
percent, by weight, or more of coal refuse
is burned in combination with gaseous.
liquid or other solid fossfl fuel, or wood
residue, the standard for nitrogen oxides
does not apply.
4. Section 60.45 is amended by adding
•paragraph (f) (4) (vi) as follows:
§ 60.45 Emission and fuel monitoring.
* * • • •
(f) • • *
(4) ...
(vi) For lignite coal as classified
according to A.S.T.M. D 3fi8-66, F=
2.659 xlO'7 dscm/J (8900 dscf/million
Btu) and Fc=0.516xlO-7 scm CO2/J
(1920 scf COa/mffllon Btu).
[FR Doc.76-37484 Piled 12-21-76;8:45 am]
FECEtAL KGISTEIt, VOL 41, NO. 247—WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1976
V-D-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
PETROLEUM REFINERY
SUBPART J
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL 'IP ROTECTIW3
..AGEHCtf
[40CFR?'art«OJ
[FRL 594-4]
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking
Unit Catalyst Regenerators
Under the authority of section 111 of
the Clean Air Act, as amended, the Ad-
ministrator is proposing a revision to 40
CFR 60.102(a)(2), and 60.105(e) (1),
opacity standard of performance for new,
modified, and reconstructed petroleum
refinery fluid catalytic cracking, unit
catalyst regenerators.
PROPOSED REVISION
The proposed revision would change
the opacity standard from 30 percent,
except for three minutes in any one hour,
to 25 percent, except for two six-minute
average opacity readings in any one hour.
The revised standard would be neither
more nor less stringent than the present
standard, but would be consistent with
the new provisions for determining the
opacity of emissions.
RATIONALE
On June 29, 1973, the VJ5. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia cir-
cuit remanded to EPA the new source
performance standard for Portland ce-
ment plants (40 CFR 60.62) promulgated
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act
(.Portland Cement Association v. RucJeels-
haus, 486 F. 2d 375). One of the Issues
remanded was the use of opacity stand-
ards. On November 12, 1974, EPA re-
sponded to the remand (39 PR 39872) ;
and on May 22, 1975, the Court affirmed
the use of opacity standards (513 F. 2d
506).
In the response, EPA reconsidered the
use of opacity standards and concluded
that they are a reliable, inexpensive, and
useful means of ensuring that control
equipment is properly maintained and
operated at all times. EPA also made
changes to the general provisions of 40
CFR Part 60 and to the test method for
determining the opacity of emissions to
eliminate the possibility of a properly
maintained and operated source being
In violation of the applicable opacity
standard while concurrently meeting a
mass or concentration emission standard
applicable to the source.
The principal revisions to the regula-
tions (40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Per-
formance for New Stationary Sources)
which apply to all opacity standards are
as follows:
1. Reference Method 9 (the opacity test
method) was revised to base compliance on
the average of 34 consecutive opacity, ob-
servations, each taken at 15-second Intervals
(six-minute average), and to define the marl-
mum error associated with each set of opac-
ity observtalons. The revision changing the
averaging time to six minutes was Included
to require sufficient observation to ensure
acceptable accuracy within the maximum
average error referenced In Method 9. The usa
of sets of opacity data srlll preclude a single
high reading £ram being cited cs a violation.
2. Section 60.11(e) was added to provide
s generally applicable mechanism for any
owneo or operator to petition the Adminis-
trator to obtain a higher opacity standard
for any facility that demonstrates compli-
ance with the mass or concentration emission
standard concurrent with failure to comply
with the opacity standard. This provision
provides relief to those source owners and
operators who install unusually large diam-
eter stacks or whose emissions have unusual
characteristics which could cause the opacity
of the emissions to be greater than is typical
for other plants In the same source category.
The provision allows the promulgated opacity
standards to be based on the maximum ef-
fects of particle characteristics and stack
diameters at well-controlled new installa-
tions, and ensures that no owner or operator
of an affected facility will be prejudiced l£~
the facility is not able to meet the opacity
standard while meeting the mass or concen-
tration emission standard.
As a result of the revisions to Method
9, EPA has reevaluated the opacity
standard for fluid catalytic cracking unit.
catalyst regenerators and concluded that
it should be revised. This proposed revi-
sion of the opacity standard is consistent
with the particulate emission standard
for fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators of 1.0 kilogram per 1000
kilograms of coke burn-off in the catalyst
regenerator.
The proposed revision of the opacity
standard is based primarily upon a re-
evaluation of the data gathered on facil-
ity A of the background document sup-
portjng promulgation of the opacity
standard (Background Information for
New Source Performance Standards: As-
phalt Concrete Plants, Petrjtleum Refin-
eries, et al., Volume 3, Promulgated
standards, EPA-450/2-74-003, Febru-
ary 1973). Six-minute average opacity
readings calculated from these data in-
dicated that opacity seldom exceeded 20
percent, except during periods of soot
blowing. Emission testing clearly indl-r
cated that this facility was meeting the
particulate emission standard at the time
these, opacity data were gathered.
Three different emission control sys-
tems can be installed to comply with the
particulate and carbon monoxide stand-
ards of performance. These systems are
shown In Figure 1. The volume of gases
discharged from control system 3 is
about 30 percent greater than the volume
of gases discharged from either-control
system 1 or 2. Consequently, the opacity
of the gases discharged from system 3
is lower than that of the gases discharged
from the other two systems. Faculty A
employed emission control system 3.
The opacity observed at facility A,
therefore, is somewhat lower than that
which would be observed at facilities
which employed either emission control
system 1 or 2. Extrapolating the opacity
data from facility A using Bouger's Law
indicates that the opacity at facilities us-
ing either of these other two emission
control systems would not exceed 25 per-
cent. Thus, the revised opacity standard
is proposed at 25 percent.
COHTTOL" SYSTEM 1 T
CATALYST.
REffNERATOR
K
HEAT
BECOVERY
P
aECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR •
srrwtt SYSTEM z
CARBIH
BOILER
KEAT
RECOVERY
H
»
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR .
JCT50L 'SYSTEM 3
aECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
CARS
V IOHOX
BOIL
I
.
Xt
:R
FIGURE 1. Alternative EWsston Control Syste
Another factor which Influences opac-
ity, but not particulate emissions (In
terms of the emission standard), is s tacts
diameter. Generally, the larger the size
of a fluid catalytic cracking unit, the
larger the stack diameter. Facility A la
about 50,000 barrels per day. Although
the size of fluid catalytic cracking units
may vary from 5,000 to 95,000 barrels
per day, the typical facility within the
petroleum refining Industry is in the
range of 25,000 to 50,000 barrels per day.
The Influence of this wide range In tha
size of fluid catalytic cracking units on
opacity of the gases discharged from the
catalyst regenerator can be calculated
using Bouguer's Law. With particulate
emissions of 1.0 kilogram per 1000 kilo-
grams of coke bum-off, the opacity varies
from as little as 10 percent for the small-
est units (5,000 barrels per day) to as
much as 40 percent for the largest units
(95,000 barrels per day).
New fluid catalytic cracking units,
however, are expected to be in the range
of 25,000 to 50,000 barrels per day. Cur-
rently, there is only one 95,000 barrels-
per-day unit, and only a few larger than
50,000 barrels per day. The proposed re-
vision of the opacity standard, therefore,
Is based on the largest new fluid, catalytic
cracking unit that is likely to be built
(ie. 50,000 barrels per day). If fluid
catalytic cracking units larger than
FEOBQAl QE6ISTEQ, VOL 4>, MO. 16*—MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 1970
V-J-2
-------
PROPOSED RULES
50,000 barrels per .day are built, or exist-
ing units are modified or reconstructed,
and these facilities have trouble meeting
the proposed revised opacity standard,
relief can be obtained through the
mechanism of §60.11(e).
At most fluid catalytic cracking units,
carbon monoxide emissions are con-
trolled by carbon monoxide boilers. Pe-
riodically, the boiler tubes require soot
blowing to remove dust or soot deposited
on these tubes. Soot blowing increases
the opacity of the plume from the cata-
lyst regenerator dramatically, although
only momentarily. Rather than increase
the level of the opacity standard to in-
clude soot blowing, therefore, it is more
appropriate to provide an exemption
from the standard. The opacity data in-
dicate that an exemption of two six-
minute average opacity readings per
hour is necessary to permit soot blowing.
Thus, an exemption for soot blowing is
included in the proposed revision to the
opacity standard.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources established
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act
reflect emission limits achievable with
the best adequately demonstrated sys-
tems of emission reduction considering
the cost of such system. State implemen-
tation plans (SIP's) approved or pro-
mulgated under section 110 of the Act,
on the other hand, must provide for the
attainment and maintenance of national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
designed to protect public health and
welfare. For that purpose SIP's mustJri
some cases require greater emission're-:
ductions than those required by stand-
ards of performance for new sources. In
addition, States are free under section
116 of the Act to establish more strin-
gent emission limits than those estab-
lished under section 111 or thos neces-
sary to attain or maintain the NAAQS
under section 110. Thus, new and exist-
ing sources may in some cases be subject
to limitations more stringent than EPA's
standards of performance under'section
111.
PTTBLIC PARTICIPATION
Interested persons may participate in
this proposed rulemaking by submitting
written comments (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. The Administrator will wel-
come comments on all aspects of the
proposed revision.
All relevant comments received on or
before October 29, 1976 .will be consid-
ered. Comments received will be avail-
able for public inspection and copying at
the EPA Public Information Reference
Unit, Room 2922 (EPA Library), 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
Background information on this pro-
posed revision of the opacity standard
for petroleum refinery fluid catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerators has
been published in a document "Reevalua-
tion of Opacity Standards of Perform-
ance: Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic
Cracking Unit Catalyst Regenerators."
Copies of this document may be obtained
by writing to the Public Information
Center (PM-215), U.S., Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460 (specify Revaluation of Opacity
Standards of Perfbnnanfte: Petroleum
Refinery Fluid Catalytic .Cracking Unit
Catalyst Regenerators).
AUTHORITY
This notice of proposed rulemaking Is Issued
under authority of sections 111, 114, and
Standard for paniculate mat-
301 (a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by
section 4(a) of Public Law 91-604, 84 Stat.
1678 and by section 15(c)(3) of Public Law
91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
1857C-9, and 18S7g(a)).
Dated: .August 19,1976.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend Part 60, Chap-
ter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
1. Section 60.102(a)(2) is revised to
read as follows:
§ 60.102
ter.
(a) * * *
(2) Gases exhibiting greater than 25
percent opacity,^ except for two six-
minute average opacity readings in any
one hour. Where the presence of uncom-
bined water is the only reason for failure
to meet the -requirements of this sub-
paragraph, such failure shall not be a
violation of this section.
• • • • •
2. Section 60.105(e-) (1) is revised-to
read as follows:
§ 60.105: Emission monitoring.
• * » • * _
(e) * • *
(1) Opacity. All .hourly periods in
which there are three or more six-minute
average opacity readings, during ; which
the average opacity of the gases dis-
charged into the atmosphere from any-
fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst re-
generator subject to 5 60.102 exceeds 25
percent.
• • * • *
[PR Doc.76-25080:Filed 8-27-76;8:45 amj
KDEtAl lEGISTO, YOU 41, NO. 169^-MONDAY, .AUGUST 30, 1976
V-J-3
-------
(FRL 810-7]
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
WEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Irtetroteum Refinery Sulfur Recovery Plants
Notice Is hereby given that under the
authority of section 111 of the dean Air
Act, as amended, the Administrator is
•proposing standards of performance for
new, modified or reconstructed petroleum
ffeflnery sulfur recovery plants.
The Administrator is also proposing a
asw reference method to be used for de-
termining emissions of hydrogen sulfide
rund reduced sulfur compounds from pe-
troleum refinery sulfur recovery plants.
PBOPOSED STANDARDS
As proposed, the standards would ap-
piy to petroluem refinery sulfur recovery
plants. Generally, these plants are phys-
ically located within petroleum refineries.
Occasionally, however, refineries will
pipe the sulfur-rich gas stream to a near-
by facility, such as a chemical plant,
where the sulfur is recovered. The stand-
ards would apply to all refinery sulfur
recovery plants, whether they are pnysi-
cally located within a petroleum refinery,
or within the confines of another facility.
The standards would limit the concen-
tration of sufur dioxide (SO,) in the
gases discharged to the atmosphere to
0.025 percent by volume at zero percent
oxygen and on a dry basis. Where the
emission control system Installed to com-
ply with these standards discharges re-
sidual emissions of hydrogen sulfide
(as), carbonyl sulfide (COS), and car-
bon disulflde (CS.), the standards would
limit the concentration of H>S and the
total concentration of H.-S, COS and CS,
(calculated as SO,) In the gases dis-
charged to the atmosphere, to 0.0010
psrcent and 0.030 percent by volume at
aero percent oxygen and on a dry basis,
respectively. >
ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed standards would require
new, modified or reconstructed refinery
sulfur recovery plants to reduce emis-
sions by about 99 percent compared to'
Emissions from existing refinery sulfur
recovery plants. This would Increase the
overall sulfur recovery of & typical re-
finery sulfur recovery plant from about
94 percent to about 90.9 percent
It is expected that the proposed stand-
ards would apply to about 80 new re-
finery sulfur plants by 1980. Fety, ff aay,
modifications or reconstructions of exist-
ing refinery sulfur plants are anticipated.
The proposed standards would reduce
national sulfur dioxide emissions from
gfcese new refinery sulfur plants by about
55,000 tons per year.
This reduction in national SO, emis-
sions would be obtained without adverse
impacts on other aspects of the environ-
ment, seen aa increased solid waste dis-
posal, tmte? pcQutteo, cr noise. The pro-
posed standards x/oald also result ia a
reduction in the growth of national en-
ergy consumption by some 54 million kw-
hr/yr, cr about 90,000 barrels of fuel oil
per year, by 1980.
The economic Impact of the proposed
standards would be reasonable both on
large and on small refiners, although It
is somewhat more severe on small re-
finers than large refiners. For the small
refiner [processing less than 30,000 bar-
rels per calendar day (BCD) ], the pro-
posed standards could reduce profitabil-
ity, as measured by return on assets, by
1.5 to 7.5 percent. A price increase of only
0.25 to 1.0 percent on all petroleum prod-
ucts, however, would restore the small
refiner's profitability. The Impact on a
large refiner (processing more than 30,-
000 BCD) is considerably less due to
economies of scale. The proposed stand-
ards could reduce the profitability of a
large refiner by 0.5 to 1.5 percent. A price
increase of only 0.10 to 0.30 percent on
all petroleum products, however, would
restore the large refiner's profitability.
Consequently, the proposed standards
would not adversely affect the growth of
either the large refinery or the small re-
finer sector of the domestic refining in-
dustry, f
To comply with these proposed stand-
ards, the Investment required by the
domestic refining industry would total
some $110 million (MM) over the five-
year period from 1976 to 1980; the an-
nual operating costs of title Industry
would increase by some $16 MM per year
by 1980 and petroleum product prices
could increase by 0.1 to 1.0 percent.
The review of the economic impact has
shown that the proposal is not a major
action under the Inflationary Impact
Statement (IIS) program and no ns is
needed.
SELECTION op SOURCE CATEGORY AND
•AFFECTED FACILITIES
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act di-
rects tile Administrator to (establish
standards of performance for new sta-
tionary sources of air pollution which
may contribute significantly to air pol-
lution which causes or contributes to the
endangerment of public health or wel-
fare. Sulfur recovery plants are a major
source of SO, emissions in petroleum re-
fineries. Although a few State or local
regulations already require emission
control equivalent to the proposed stand-
ards, most State regulations require less
stringent control of refinery sulfur re-
covery plants.
Reducing SO, emissions from new,
modified or reconstructed refinery sulfur
recovery plants takes on importance In
view of the expected growth in the num-
bers and sizes of these plants, and the
urban location of many petroleum re-
fineries where high ambient air concen-
trations of SO, already exist Current
growth projections for the domestic
petroleum refining Industry, for example.
Indicate that refinery suite recovery
plant capacity will double between 1970
and 1980.
Considering these factors, the pro-
posed standards have bsEa developed to
KmK emissions of SO, from petroleum
refinery sulfur recovery plants. Some of
the emission control systems that might
be installed to reduce emissions of SO*
however, discharge residual emissions of
iiydrogen sulfide (HtS), carbonyl sulfide
(COS) and carbon disulfide (CS,) to the
atmosphere. The proposed standards,
therefore, include limits on emissions of '
these pollutants.
RATIONALE
~ Two alternative systems of SOa emis-
sion control were considered as candiates
to serve as the basis for standards of
performance: (1) the low-temperature
extended Claus reaction system (alter-
native I) and (2) various tail gas scrub-
bing systems (alternative n>. The alter-
native I systems reduce emisssion from
uncontrolled refinery sulfur recovery
plants by 80-85 percent, while the alter-
native n systems reduce emissions by 98-
99 percent. Overall sulfur recovery of the
refinery sulfur plant is increased from
95 to 99.9 percent with the use of an al-
• ternative n system.
Standards of performance based on al-
ternative I would have an essentially
negligible impact on SOa emissions since
most state implementation plans (SIP's)
. already require equivalent control. As
outlined above, however, standards based
on alternative n would reduce SOa emis-
sions by about 90 percent below levels
required by most SIP's and would lead to
a reduction In national SOj emissions of
some 55,000 tons per year in 1980. Stand-
ards based on alternative n would also
have no adverse environmental Impacts
in other areas such as increased water
pollution, solid waste disposal, energy
consumption, or noise. In addition, the
economic impact of standards based on
alternative n would be reasonable both
on large and on small refiners. Conse-
quently, alternative n represents the
best system of emission reduction and
the proposed standards are based on this
alternative.
The tafl gas scrubbing systems of al-
ternative n, however, Include two differ-
ent types of emission control systems for
reducing SO» emissions from refinery sul-
tur recovery plants: oxidation control
systems and reduction control systems.
In the oxidation control system, the SO«
emissions from a refinery sulfur plant are
controlled directly by tafl gas scrubbing.
In the reduction control system, the SO°
emissions are first converted to H«S emis-
sions which are then controlled by tafl
gtta scrubbing. Residual emissions dis-
charged into the atmosphere from oxida-
tion control systems or from reduction
control systems which are followed by
Incineration consist of SO». Residual
emissions discharged from reduction
control systems which are not followed
by incineration, however, consist.of H*S,
COS (carbonyl sulflde) and CS> (carbon
disulflde). Standards limiting emissions
of SO», therefore, while appropriate for
oxidation control systems or reduction
control systems followed by incineration,
are not appropriate for reduction control
systems not followed by incineration.
Where reduction control systems
are not followed by Incineration
FEDEQAl QE6ISTEB, VOL OJ, NO. 193—MONDAY, OCTOBEQ 4. 1976
V-J-4
-------
ore prc5t3rJy opsrsfeES find zn&intoined,
emissions of reducsfl sulfur compounds
> that
can be present to the feafl gases dis-
charged to the atmosphere. Where this
approach has been follower-emissions of
as are Ulmted to 10 ppm and emissions
of reduced sulfur compounds" are limited
to ettber 300 or 500 ppm.
Where emissions of reduced suSfur
compounds are limited indirectly by local
regulations, 'Qiese regulations require
that the best available emission-control
technology be Installed. In the process
of specifying the best emission control
technology, local air pollution control
agencies have contacted EPA, vendors of
various emission control system, and
other local air pollution control agencies
where these emission control systems
have been installed. In terms of limiting
emissions of reduced sulfur compounds,
this approach has achieved the same end
result «s the direct regulatory approach.
AH 25 reduction control system which are
now operating have been designed and
guaranteed by Qie vendors of these sys-
tems to limit emissions to less than 10
ppm HsS end less than 300 or 500 ppm
reduced sulfur compounds.
Consequently, the current 25 petroleum
refinery sulfur plants which have in-
stalled reduction control systems which
are not followed by incineration are not
considered by EPA to be significant
sources of reduced sulfur compound emis-
sions. Developing State plans under sec-
tion lll(d) to control emissions of these
pollutants from these faculties,, there-
fore, would not reduce existing emission
levels.
On the other hand, Sf EPA were to pro-
pose standards of performance for refin-
ery sulfur plants only for SO, without
limiting emissions of reduced sulfur com-
pounds, this action could be interpreted
to mean that EPA does not consider the
potential air pollution problem posed by
emissions of reduced sulfur compounds
to be Important Such an interpretation
could encourage new plants to be buOt
without Hmltlng emissions of these pol-
lutants.
Having determined that the proposed
regulation should cover emissions of re-
duced sulfur compounds from new refin-
ery sulfur recovery plants, but not ex-
isting ones. KPA Is left with th« problem
of selecting the appropriate pollutants to
control with the proposed standards.
Limiting for
new sources will cause some expenditure
of effort on the part of EPA and the af-
fected States which is not in fact neces-
sary to achieve control of existing plants.
Considering all the facets of this sit-
uation, EPA proposes to limit emissions
of both SOi and reduced sulfur com-
pounds by Qiese standards of perform-
ance, fulfilling the intent of section 111
of the Act to prevent new air pollution
problems by requiring new, modified, or
reconstructed plants to tastall the bssfe
.systems of onisston reduction consider-
Sag costs. However, EPA Jo sonsldering
two alternative routes for Seating the
problem of existing sources. One alter-
native is for EPA to Issue a guideline
document under 40 CFR 60.22 (based
primarily on the information available
in the support documents for these
standards of performance) and to re-
quire the seven affected States to submit
plans under 40 CFR 60.23. Those States
£hat already regulate reduced sulfur
compounds by State law will be able to
submit relatively simple control plans.
Those States in which regulation of re-
duced sulfur compounds has been ac-
complished ~by local ordinances may
have to provide for State enforcement
before their control plans can be ap-
proved.
If the first alternative appears to be
excessively burdensome, EPA Is also con-
sidering a second alternative, because
the 25 mrteMng sources are well con-
trolled. The purpose of limiting pollut-
ant emissions from existing sources un-
der the provisions of section lll(d) ts
to control a pollutant which may cause
or contribute to the endangerment of
public nealth or welfare, but'is not
known to be '"hazardous" jyithin the
meaning of section 112, and is not con-
trolled under sections IDS through 110.
Since action Hinder section lll(d) in
Mils instance would not further control
Q*e pollutant in question, and existing
refinery sulfur plants uhtch have in-
stalled reduction control systems not fol-
lowed by incineration are not endanger-
ing the public health or welfare, the con-
clusion can be drawn that there is no
purpose to limiting emissions of these
pollutants under section ill(d). Under
this alternative, EPA would not issue a
guideline document, the chain of events
requiring States to develop plans for
controlling emissions of these pollutants
would not be initiated and these plans
would not be developed. (A detailed dis-
cussion of this alternative may be found
in the Standards Support and Environ-
mental Impact Statement for Petroleum
Sulfur Recovery Plants.)
• The data and information available for
selecting specific emission limits include
the results of emission tests both by the
Agency and by (local ah- pollution control
agencies, discussions with owners and
werators which have installed and are
&Hm operating either the oxidation con-
trol systems or the reduction control sys-
tems, and discussions with the vendors of
•fl»ese emission control systems. The SO.
emission limit is based on emission tests
at a refinery sulfur plant controlled by
on -oxidation control system and at a
refinery sulfur plant controlled by a re-
duction control system followed by in-
cineration. The HJ3 and reduced sulfur
compound emission limits are based on
emission source tests at three refinery
sulfur plants controlled by reduction con-
trol systems not foDowed by incineration.
The numerical values were selected in-
cluding & reasonable margin for error
taking into consideration the limited date
base, 8Si£ relative "aewnsss"
WS3H2AL OBSISTE1, VC3_ 01, WO. 1 «3—C1OM9AY. ®C1T©2H3 4. 11976
V-J-5
-------
tested, pilot-plant fiata available from
vendors on long-tesua operation, and the
experience of owners and operators with
'these emission control systems.
The 0.025 percent by volume limit for
SOi emissions and the 0.030 percent by
volume limit for reduced sulfur com-
pound emissions are also equivalent, in
the sense that both require achieving the
same degree of overall sulfur recovery-
(Le., 99.9 percent). The numerical limit
on BO: emissions is lower due to the some-
what greater volume of gases-discharged
from oxidation control systems and re-
duction control systems followed by in-
cineration, which is inherent in their
•design and operation.
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources established
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act
reflect emission limits achievable with
the best adequately demonstrated system
of emission reduction considering the
cost of such systems. State implementa-
tion plans (SIP's) approved or promul-
gated under section 110 of the Act, on the
other hand, must provide for the attain-
ment and maintenance of national am-
bient air quality standards CNAAQS* de-
signed to protect public health and wel-
fare. For that purpose SIP's must in some
cases require greater emission reductions
than those required by standards of per-
formance for new sources. Indeed, build -
Ing of new sources may be precluded al-
together in some geographical areas, in
addition, States are free under section
116 of the Act to establish more stringent
emission limits than those established
under section 111 or those necessary to
attain or maintain the NAAQ under sec-
tion 110. Thus, new sources may in some
cases be subject to limitations more
stringent than EPA's standards of per-
formance under section 111, and pro-
spective owners and operators of new
sources should be aware of this possibil-
ity in planning for such facilities.
ENERGY
The impact of the proposed standards
on the energy consumption of a refinery
sulfur recovery plant varies depending
on the type of emission control system
Installed to comply with the standards.
If an oxidation control system or a re-
duction control system followed with
incineration were used, the overall
energy consumption of a typical sulfur
recovery plant would be increased by
some 30 percent. If a reduction control
system not followed by incineration were
used, however, the overall energy con-
sumption would be reduced by some 50
percent. These percentages are high
primarily because refinery sulfur recov-
ery plants consume little energy. Typi-
cally, for example, a refinery sulfur re-
covery plant accounts for less than 1 per-
eent of the total energy consumed within
a petroleum refinery.
Assuming half of the refinery sulfur
recovery plants affected by the proposed
standards by 1980 Install oxidation con-
trol systems or reduction control systems
followed by incineration and half install
reduction control ^systems not followed
by incineration, ;flie,'proposed standards
would reduce national aiergy consump-
tion in 1080 by some 54 million fcw-hr/yr,
or about; 90,000 barrels of fuel oil per.
year. .
MOOTTORIKG, TESTING, AND
_ RECOUDKEEPING
As proposed, the regulations would re-
quire monitoring of emissions released to
the atmosphere to insure that the emis-
sion control systems installed to comply
with the proposed standards are properly
maintained and operated. If an oxida-
tion control system or a reduction con-
trol system followed by incineration were
installed, monitoring of SO, emissions
would be required and if a reduction
control system not followed by incinera-
tion were installed, monitoring of H.S
and reduced sulfur compound emissions
would be required.
Emission monitoring systems for SO:
are readily available and performance
specifications for these monitors have
already been promulgated by EPA in 40
CFR Part 60 Appendix B. Although a few
emission monitoring systems for HLS and
reduced sulfur compounds are available,
EPA has not yet developed performance
specifications for these monitors. Conse-
quently, until EPA proposes and pro-
mulgates these performance specifica-
tions, owners and operators subject to the
requirement to install H=S and reduced
sulfur compound emission monitors will
not be required to do so. The require-
ment to install these monitors is included
in the proposed regulations; however, to
ensure that when EPA promulgates these
performance specifications, those owners
and operators who have installed reduc-
tion control systems not followed by in-
cineration which are subject to the pro-
posed standards will be required to retro-
fit these monitors. This will enable en-
forcement personnel to ensure that these
emission control systems are being prop-
erly operated and maintained.
The reference method for determining
compliance also depends on the emis-
sion control system employed to comply
with the proposed standards. If an oxi-
dation control system or a reduction
control system followed by incineration
were installed, Method 6—Determination
of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from' Sta-
tionary Sources would be-used to deter-
mine emissions of SOi. If a reduction
control system not followed by incinera-
tion were installed, the proposed Refer-
ence Method 15—Determination of Hy-
drogen Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur Com-
pound Emissions from Sulfur Recovery
Plants would be used to determine emis-
sions of HsS and total emissions of H:S,
COiS, and CS, (calculated as SO:).
The proposed Reference Method 15 is
based on gas chromatographic separa-
tion followed by flame photometric de-
tection. This method permits separation
and identification of each individual pol-
lutant (i.e., H2S, COS and CSj). To de-
termine compliance with the proposed
standards, a sample of the gases dis-
charged to the atmosphere is analyzed
to determine emissions of H«S, COS and
CS>. The concentration of H,S in these
gases is determined directly. The con-
centration of reduced sulfur compounds
in these gases Js determined indirectly,
by adding together the concentrations of
HsS, COS and CSo. Since emissions are
calculated as SO., however, the concen-
trations of CSi (having twice the sulfur
per molecule of gas) is multiplied by
two before adding it to the concentra-
tions of H,S and COS.
AMENDMENT OF SUBPART J OF PART 60
The proposed standards would be in-
corporated into 40 CFR Part 60 by
amending Subpart J—Standards of
Performance for Petroleum Refineries.
Maintaining clarity within Subpart J
while incorporating the proposed stand-
ards requires amendment of a number
of existing paragraphs. In all but the
case discussed below, these paragraphs
have merely been rewritten with no
change in content or intent.
Recently, it has been brought to the
attention of the Administrator that as
Subpart J is now written, a fluid cataly-
tic cracking unit incinerator waste-heat
boiler is an affected facility subject to
the standard limiting emissions of par-
ticulate matter. Thus, if an owner or op-
erator installs an Incinerator waste-heat
boiler, that boiler must comply with the
standard on participate emissions.
An incinerator waste-heat boiler,
however, is an emission control device
which reduces emissions of carbon
monoxide from a fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerator. It was not
EPA's intent that Installation of an
emission control device to reduce carbon
monoxide emissions would then require
installation of another emission control
device to reduce participate emissions.
Rather, the intent was to consider the
fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst re-
generator together with any associated
incinerator waste-heat boiler in terms of
controlling participate emissions. If an
incinerator waste-heat boiler which
burns additional liquid or solid fossile
fuel is in use, an increase in total par-
ticulate emissions would be permitted.
consistent with good control of particu-
late emissions from the combustion of
that increment of fuel. Accordingly, fluid
catalytic cradking unit incinerator
waste-heat boilers have been deleted
from the list of affected facilities. This
amendment of Subpart J, however, is not
a change in the intent of the existing
standard of performance limiting emis-
sions of participate matter.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As prescribed by section 111 of the
Clean Air Act as amended, this proposal
of standards of performance has been
preceded by the Administrator's deter-
mination that refinery sulfur recovery
plants contribute significantly to air pol-
lution which causes or contributes to the
endangerment of public health or wel-
fare. By publication of this determina-
tion in this issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER
he adds petroleum refinery sulfur re-
covery plants to the list of affected facili-
ties under the source category of petro-
leum refineries. In accordance with sec-
tion 117 of the Act, publication of these
proposed standards was preceded by
FEDERAL QEGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 193—MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1976
V-J-6
-------
PROPOSED RULES
consultation with "Appropriate advisory
committees, Independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies.
fixterested persons'inay pui'Lfcipate in
thte rolemaking by submitting written
comments On triplicate) to the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, U.S.
Protection Agency, Re-
March Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.
The Administrator win welcome corn-
meets on ail aspects of the proposed
regulations, Including the designation of
sulfur recovery plants as a significant
contributor to air pollution which causes
or contributes to the endangerment of
public health or welfare, economic and
technological Issues, and the proposed
test method.
Comments are invited- specifically on
the severity of the economic impact of
the proposed standards on file small re-
finer, since a number of interested par-
ties have expressed objection to the
yfrapnr* of a lower level cut-off exempt-
Ing the small refiner from compliance
with the standards. Any comments sub-
mitted to the Administrator on this issue,
however, should CUB lain specific hi/Of -
mstton and data pertinent to an evalua-
tion of the magnitude of this Impact
and its severity.
Also, the Administrator would be espe-
cially Interested in receiving comments
regarding the issue of controlling re-
duced sulfur compound emissions with-
out implementing section lllld), par-
ttealarty as this would affect the seven
States Involved. ,, "-
AD relevant comments received on or
before December 3, 1976 will be con-
sidered. Comments received wffl be avail-
able for public Inspection and copying
at the EPA Public Information Refer-
ence Unit, Boom 2922 (EPA IJbrary),
401 af Street, BW., Washington, D.C,
20460.
Background information on these pro-
posed standards of performance has been
published in a document "Standard Sup-
pert and Environmental Impact State-
ment — Standards of Performance for
Petroleum Refinery Sulfur Plants." This
deeument presents the factors considered
In the development of the proposed
standards, including alternative emission
control systems, emission test data* en-
vironmental impact, costs and economic
considerations. Copies of the document
are available free of charge by writing
to the Public Information Center (PM-
215), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460 (specify
"Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement — Standards of Per-
formance for Petroleum Refinery Sulfur
Plants").
Authority. This Botice of proposed
ndemaking is Issued under the authority
of sections 111. 114 and 301 (a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 TTS.C.
M57o-«and9>.
Dated: September 1«. 1976.
SbUIl QUAJtLKS,
.'Acting Administrator.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFE Part
60 as follows: . :
Sttbpart J—Standards cf Performance fw
Petroleum Refineries
1. Section 60.190 is revised as follows:
S 60.100 Applicability and Ae*i«natian
of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
pHcable to the following affected facili-
ties in petroleum refineries: fluid cata-
lytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators,
fuel gas combustion devices, and sulfur
recovery plants.
2. Section 60.101 is amended by adding
paragraphs (1) through (1) as follows:
§ 60.101 Definitions.
* • -' • • •
d> •"Sulfur recovery plant" means
a process unit which converts hydrogen
sulfide produced within a petroleum re-
finery to elemental sulfur. The sulfur re-
covery plant need not be physically lo-
cated within a petroleum refinery.
(J) "Oxidation control system" means
an'emission control system which re-
duces emissions from sulfur recovery
plants by converting these emissions to
sulfur dioxide.
(k) "Reduction control system" means
an emission control system which re-
duces emissions from sulfur recovery
plants by converting these emissions to
sulfur dioxide.
mn not
exceed 43.0 g/MJ (OJO Ib/mflUon Btu) of
beat input attributable to such Bquid or
solid fossa fneL
4. Section 60.104 is amended by revis-
ing paragraph («) as follows:
g 60.104 Standard for nilfur dioxide.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by 9 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to .the provisions of
this subpart shall:
(1) Burn in any fuel gas combustion
device any fuel gas which contains hy-
drogen sulfide in excess of 230 mg/dscm
V (0.10 gr/dscf ) . except that the gases re-
sulting from the combustion of fuel gas
may be treated to control sulfur dioxide
emissions provided the owner or opera-
tor demonstrates to the cn.turfnj-t.ton of
the Administrator that this Is as effec-
tive in preventing sulfur dfr"J4y emis-
sions to ttie abnosphere.
(2) Discharge or cause the discharge
of any gases into the atmosphere from
any sulfur recovery plant containing in
excess of:
(i) 0.025 percent by volume of sulfur
dioxide at zero percent oxygen on a dry
basis if fmiKRirtBK are controlled by an
oxidation control system, or a reduction
control system followed by Incineration,
or
. (11) 0.030 percent by volume of reduced
sulfur compounds and 0.0010 percent by
volume of hydrogen sulfide calculated as
sulfur dioxide at zero percent oxygen on
a dry basis if Ktmnsjana gre controlled by
a reduction control system not followed
by Incineration.
• • • • •
5. Section 66.105 is amended by adding
paragraphs T>t for continue udy
and xeeordinc concentrations of HJ3 and
reduced sulfur compounds in the gases
discharged into the atmosphere from the
sulfur recum'j plant if cowtnltance with
1 60.104
-------
of Q reduction ooas&rol system not fol-
Eowed by toctaerattoi. '
(1) tBeserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(3) Sulfur dioxide. (1) Any hourly
parted during TThich the average con-
eentratlon of RS in fuel gas combusted
to any fuel gas combustion device subject
to 8 60.104 (a) exceeds 230 mg/dscm
(0.10 gr/dscf). Sf compliance with
I! 80.104 (a) is achieved by removing HS
from the fuel gas before It is burned; or
say hourly period during which the aver-
age concentration of SO, in the gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from any
fuel gas combustion device subject to
Q @0.104(a) exceeds the level specified
to 8 80.104(a) , if compliance with i 60.-
104(a) is achieved by removing SO>
from the combusted fuel gases.
(11) Any four-hour period during
which the average concentration of 8O»
2a the gases discharged into the atmos-
phere from any sulfur recovery plant
subject to i 60.104(b) exceeds the level
specified hi § 90.104(b)(l) If compli-
ance with g 60.104 (b) is achieved through
the use of an oxidation control system
or o reduction control system followed
by incineration ; or any four-hour period
during which the average concentration
of SS, or reduced sulfur compounds in
the gases discharged Into the atmosphere
from any sulfur plant subject to 8 60.104
(b) exceeds the levels specified In 0 60.-
104 (b) (2) if compliance with § 60.104 (b)
to achieved through the use of reduction
control systems not followed by inciner-
ation.
8. Section 60.106 is amended by re-
vising paragraphs (c) and (d) as
follows :
g (£9.106 Test methods and procedures.
O Q O o O
(c) For the purpose of determining
compliance with 8 60.104(a), Method 11
shall be used to determine the concen-
tration of BUS and Method 6 shall be
used to determine the concentration of
SO*
(1) If Method 11 is. used, the gases
sampled shall be introduced into the
sampling train at approximately atmos-
pheric pressure. Where refinery fuel
gas lines are operating at pressures sub-
stantially above atmosphere, this may be
accomplished with a now control valve.
If the line pressure is high enough to
operate the sampling train without a
vacuum pump, the pump may be elim-
inated from the sampling train. The
sample shall be drawn from a point near
the centroid of the fuel gas line. The
minimum sampling time shall be 10
minutes and the minimum sampling vol-
ume 0.01 dscm (0.35 dscf ) for each sam-
ple. The arithmetic average of two sam-
ples of equal sampling time shall con-
stitute one run. Samples shall be taken
at approximately 1-hour Intervals. For
most fuel gases, sample times exceeding
20 minutes may result in depletion of the
collecting solution, although fuel gases
containing low concentrations of hydro-
gea sulfide may necessitate sampling for
longer periods of time.
<2> If Method g is used, Method I
shall be used tot velocity traverses and
Method 2 for determining velocity and
volumetric flow rate. The sampling site
for determining SO* concentration by
Method 3 shall be the same as for deter-
mining volumetric flow rate by Method
'2. The sampling point in the duct for
determining SOi concentration by
Method 6 shall be at the centroid of the
cross section if the cross sectional area
is less than 5 m* (54 ft*) or at a point no
closer to the walls than 1 m (30 'niches)
if the cross sectional area is 5 m* or more
and the centroid is -more than one meter
from the wall. The sample shall be ex-
tracted at a rate proportional to the gas
velocity at. the sampling point. The mlni-
'mum sampling time shall be 10 minutes
and the minimum sampling volume 0.01
dscm (0.36 dscf) for each sample. The
arithmetic average of two samples of
equal sampling time 'shall constitute one
run. Samples shall be taken at approx-
imately one-hour intervals.
(d) For the purpose of determining
compliance with §60.104(b), Method 6
shall be used to determine the concentra-
tion of SO, and Method 15 shall be used
to determine the concentration of HaS
and reduced sulfur compounds.
(1) If Method 6 is used, the procedure
outlined in paragraph (c) (2) of this sec-
tion shall be followed except that each
run shall span a minimum of four con-
secutive hours of continuous sampling.
A number of separate samples may be
taken for each run, provided the total
sampling time of these samples adds up
to a minimum of four consecutive hours.
Where more than one sample is used, the
average SO, concentration for the run
shaU be calculated as the time weighted
average of the SO, concentration for each
sample according to the formula:
to the gas velocity at the sampling point.
Each run shall span E, minimum of four
consecutive hours of continuous sam-
pling. A number of separate samples may
be taken for each run provided the total
sampling time of these samples adds up
to a minimum of four consecutive hours.
Where more* than one sample Is used, the
average moisture content for the run
shall be calculated as the time weighted
average of the moisture content of each
sample according to the formula:
Where:
Cn=8Oi concentration for the run.
W= Number of samples.
Ca,"BOi concentration for sample i.
ta,.= Continuous sampling time of sample i.
5"= Total continuous sampling time of all -V samples.
(2) If Method 15 is used, each run
shall consist of 16 samples taken over a
minimum of four hours. The sampling
point shaU be at the centroid of the cross
section of the duct if the cross sectional
area Is less than 5m' (54 ft ') or at .a
point no closer to the walls than 1 m (30
Inches) if the cross sectional area Is 5
m° or more and the centroid is more than
1 meter from the wall. To insure mini-
mum residence time for the sample inside
the sample lines, the sampling rate shall
be at least 3 liters/minute (0.1 ff/min) .
The SO, equivalent for each run shall be
calculated as the arithmetic average of
the SO, equivalent of each sample dur?
ing the run. Reference Method 4 shall be
used to determine the moisture content
of the gases. The sampling point for
Method 4 shall be adjacent to the sam-
pling point for Method 15. The sample
shall be extracted at a rate proportional
B».=Proportion by volume of water vapor in the ffta
stream (or the ran.
jy= Number of samples.
B«=Proportion by volume of water vapor in the BCD
stream for the sample i.
U=Continuous sampling time for sample i.
T= Total continuous sampling time of all N samples.
APPENDIX A—REFERENCE METHODS
7. Appendix A is amended by adding &
new reference method as follows:
METHOD 15 DETERMINATION OP SYDBOGBE7
SmjTIDE, CABBONYI. STTLITIDE, AMP COBEOH
DIETTLTID2 EMISSIONS TOOU STATIONAET
BOUBC2&5
1. Principle and applicability. 1.1 Princi-
ple. A gas sample is extracted from the emis-
sion source and diluted with clean dry air.
An aliquot of the diluted sample ia then
analyzed for hydrogen sulflde (HdS). ear-
bbnyl sulflde (COS), and carbon dlsulfide
(CSi) by gas chromatographlc (OC) sep-
aration and flame photometric (FPS) de-
tection.
1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable
for determination of hydrogen sulfide, car-
bonyl sulflde, and carbon dlsulflde when
specified by an applicable subpart.
2. Range and sensitivity. 2.1 Range. The
maximum limit of the PPD for each sulfur
compound is dependent on the sample size.
For a 1 ml sample the upper limit is about
10 ppm. It may be necessary to dilute gas
samples from sulfur recovery plants hundred-
fold (100:1), resulting in an upper limit of
about 1000 ppm for each compound.
2.2 .The minimum detectable concentra-
tion of the PPD is also dependent on sample
size and would be about 0.5 ppm for a l ml
sample.
3. Interferences. 3.1 Moisture Condensation.
Moisture condensation In the sample de-
livery system, the analytical column, or the
PPD burner block can cause losses or inter-
ferences. This potential is eliminated by heat-
Ing the sample line, and by conditioning the
sample with dry dilution air to lower its
dew point below the operating temperature
of the GC/FPD analytical system prior to
analysis.
S3 Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide.
CO and CO» have a substantial densensltiz-
Ing effect on the detector even after 10:1 dilu-
tion. This potential interterenc is eliminated
by elutlng CO and COi with the "air peak"
prior to elutlon of any sulfur compound.
3.3 Elemental Sulfur. The condensation of
sulfur vapor in the sampling lines can lead to
eventual coating and even blockage of tfce
sample line. This problem can be eliminated
along with the moisture problem by heating
the sample line.
4. Precision. 4.1 Calibration Precision. A
series of three consecutive Injections of the
same calibration gas, at any dilution, should
product results which do not vary by more
than ±3% from the mean of the three in-
jection.
FEDERAL DEGISTEK, VOL 41, NO. 193—MONDAY, OCTOBEQ 4, 1976
V-J-8
-------
PBOPOSED MAES
4.2 Calibration Drift. The calibration drift
determined from the mean, of three injec-
tions made at .the beginning and end of any
8-hour period should not exceed ±3%.
5. Sample apparatus. 6.1.1 Sample probe—
The sample probe should be fabricated from
a suitable length and diameter of stainless
steel tubing.
6.1.2 Sample line—0.48 cm (3/16 Inch) in-
side diameter Dekoron FEP Teflon1 tubing,
heated to 120' C. This temperature is con-
trolled by a thermoststlc neater.
6.1.3 Sample pump—Leakless Teflon coated
diaphragm type or equivalent. The pump
bead is heated to 130* C by enclosing it In the
sample dilution box (52.4 bel*w).
1 Mention of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does net constitute an endorsement by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
63 Dilution System. A schematic diagram
of the dynamic dilution system Is given In
Figure 16-1.' The dilution system Is con-
structed such tbat all sample contacts are
made of inert materials-. The dilution system
which Is heated to 120* C must be capable of
a minimum of 19:1 dilution of sample. Equip-
ment used in the dilution system is listed
below.
62.1 Dilution pump—Model A-160 Komhyr
Teflon positive • displacement type, non-ad-
justable 150 cc/mln+2.0%, or equivalent, per
dilution stage. A 10:1 dilution of sample is ac-
complished by combining 160 cc of sample
with 1360 cc of clean dry air as shown In
Flgun 15-1.
6JL2 Valves—Three way Teflon solenoid or
manual type.
5^3 Tubing—Teflon tubing and fittings
are used throughout from the sample probe
to the QC/FPD to present an inert surface
for sample gas.
"O GC/FPD ANALYZERS
Mti
•4.4 Sox — Insulated tax, heated «od
•Btactaia** at 199* C, «f svAeteBt drmen-
slons to house dilution apparatus.
&3J> nowraeters—Botameters or equiv-
•taxt to measure flow from 0 to 1«W ml/mio
±t% par dilution stag*.
•L8 Oaa Chromatoeraph.
tJt.l Column—1^3 K <« ft) leagth of Tef-
kB taMng, 2.M BUB (0.08fl 1».) tartde *1-
•Betor, packed with deacOTated sUlea gd,
•r Mpnvalent.
KU tanpto Tali*—T*flon cte-yort gas
•••ili11ii|i ralv* equipped vttb a n ml anmple
ttopt actuated tty eutupi euuevl dr (ngtxre
»-SJ.
^rtafiHg s»mpl« vate*.
TO1000C
!, Smpfing >rf BHutfon Apptrans.
etevated temperature ranging from «nbi«at
to 10P-_C. «ongta»t wJtt ±1' C.
ptevyroaeter • to nea*ure oolunn
tector, and 'exhaust temperature ±t* C.
&J3& now fftOxm—Oas metering systom
to n*eaw»» sao^le flow, fcydrogen Sow, «ry-
gen flow and nitrogen carrier .gas flow.
H.O 6A« Detector—name photronetrtc
•%«e«Mr.
U.7 Beetnmeter—CapaMe
•BpUfleattaB vf Hneav rang** •* M)-» to
amperes full scale.
fcS.8 Pmrer.aomtly—CapaM*
u»toH« valto.
id ke
»f
tBg
pa*
V4
MJ-3).
PentMtten tate
UGisra,
4i, MO. ws— MONDAY, OCTOBR 4, m«
V-rJ-9
-------
PROPOSED tULES
SAMPLING VALVE KM
ec/rTo
CARRIER
FUME PHOTOMETRIC DETECTOR
OVEN
EXHAUST
SEPARATION
COLUMN
•FILTER
-D
iTSCV
POWER SUPPLY
RECORDER
ELECTROMETER
«—02
Figure 15.2. Gat Chromatographic Flame Photometric Analyzer.
6.4.1 Tube chamber — Glass chamber of
sufficient dimension* to house permeation
tubes.
6.4.2 Mass flowmeters — Two mass flow-
meters in the range of 0-3 1/mln and 0-10
1/mln to measure air flow over permeation
tubes at ±2%. These flowmeters shall be
cross-calibrated at the beginning of each
test with a known calibration gas (HjSor
other), comparing responses by GC/PPD.
Each mass flowmeter shall be calibrated prior
to the first test with a wet test meter and
thereafter, at least once each year.
6.4.3 Constant temperature bath—Capable
of maintaining permeation tubes at certifi-
cation temperature at 30* C within ±0.1* C.
6.4.4 Temperature monitor—Thermometer
or equivalent to monitor bath temperature
within ±0.1' C.
6. Reagents. 6.1 Fuel. Hydrogen (H,) pre-
purlfled grade or better.
65 Combustion Oas. Oxygen (O,) prepuri-
fled grade or better.
6.3 Carrier Gas. Nitrogen (N,) prepurified
grade or better.
6.4 Diluent. Air containing less than 0.6
ppb total sulfur compounds and less than
10 ppm each of moisture and total hydro-
carbons, and filtered using USA filters 46727
and 79030 or equivalent. Removal of sulfur
compounds can be verified by injecting dl?
lutlon air only, described in Section 8.4.
6.6 Compressed Air. 60 pslg for GC valve
actuation.
6.6 Calibration Gases. • Permeation tubes
gravimetrtcally calibrated and certified at
80.0' a
7. Pre-test procedures. 7.1 After the com-
plete measurement system has been set up
at the site and verified to be operational, the
following procedures shall be completed be-
fore sampling is initiated.
7.1.1 Plowmeter calibration and leak
test—Appropriate calibration and leak test
proceduree shall be employed to verify the
accuracy and/or integrity of an fiowmeters,
sample lines, and connections. For compo-
nents under negative presure (lines and
connections upstream of the sample pump),
a leak test is performed using the sample
pump to pull a vacuum. Attach the probe
»nd of the sample line to a manometer or
vacuum gauge, start the pump and pull
greater than 60 "•"" (2 In.) Hg vacuum. Close
off the pump outlet, then stop the pump and
•ascertain that there IB no leak for 6 minutes.
'For components subject to positive pressure,
teak tests shall be performed at each Joint by
applying a liquid (detergent in water, for
example) which will foam In the presence of
aleak.
Since the complete dilution system and
OC/FPD Is calibrated prior to and following
each test, the precise calibration of each
component is not critical. However, these
components should be verified to be operat-
ing properly. This verification can be per-
formed by observing the response of flow-
meters or of the OC output to changes In
flow rates or calibration gas concentrations
and ascertaining the response to be within
predicted limits. If any component, or If the
complete system falls to respond in a normal
and predictable manner, the source of the
discrepancy shall be .identified and corrected
before proceeding.
7.1.2 Mass flowmeter calibration—Since.
all sample calculations are based on the ac-
curacy of air flow measured by the mass
flowmeters, It is essential that the cross-
calibration check of Section 6.4.2 be followed.
7.13 Prior to any sampling run, calibrate
the system using the procedures set forth in
Section 8. If more than one run is performed
during any 24-hour period, a calibration need
not be performed prior to the second and
any subsequent runs. The calibration must,
however, be verified as prescribed In Section
8, after the last run made within the 24-hour
period.
8. Calibration. 8.1 General Considera-
tions. This section outlines steps to be fol-
lowed for use of the OC/FPD and the dilu-
tion system. The procedure does not Include
detailed Instructions because operation of
these systems la complex, and It requires
an understanding of the individual system
being used. Each system should Include a
written operating manual describing la (to-
tail the operating procedures associated with
each component In the measurement system.
In addition, the operator should be familiar
with the operating principles of the com-
ponent*, particularly the GC/FPD. The ref-
erences cited at the end of this method are
recommended for review for this purpose.
8.2 Permeation" Tubes. Under the following
procedure, accurately known concentration*
(±1%) of a variety of sulfur compounds ar»
generated by passing clean dry air or other
diluent gas over permeation tubes, each con-
taining a specific sulfur compound as a per-
meant. These tubes consist of hermetically
sealed FEP Teflon tubing in which a Bque-
fled gaseous substance Is enclosed. The en-
closed gas permeates through the tubing wall
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 193—MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1976
V-.T,. i n
-------
PIOPOSED MILES
at a constant rate. When the temperature to
constant, calibration -gases covering a wide
range of known concentrations can be gen-
erated by varying and accurately measuring
the flow rate of diluent gas passing over the
tubes. These calibration gases are used to
calibrate the OC/PPD system and the dilu-
tion system.
8.3 Calibration Procedure. Assemble the
permeation tube calibration apparatus as de-
picted In Figure 15-3. Insert the permeation
tubes Into the glass tube chamber. Check the
bath temperature to assure agreement with
the calibration temperature of the tubes
within ±1* C. A temperature of SO* C Is
recommended-for the sulfur gas tubes. Allow
several hours tor the tubes to equilibrate.
When equilibrated, vary the flow rate of di-
luent air flowing over the tubes to produce
the desired concentrations for calibrating the
JO INSTRUMENTS
AND
DILUTION SYSTEM
analytical and dilution systems. Hi* air flow
across the. tubes most at an times exceed ttoe
flow requirement of the analytical systems.
The concentration In parts per million gen-
erated by a tube containing a specific per-
meant can be calculated as follows: , • •
Equation 15-1
C=K
_
ML
Where:
C= Concentration of permeant produced in ppm.
P,= Permeation rate of the tube in ^g/mio.
A/= Molecular weight of the permeant
i=Flow rate, 1/min," of air over permeant @20° C,
760 mm Bg.
f=Oas constant at 20° C and 780 mm Hg=24.M 1/g
mole.
CONSTANT
TEMPERATURE
BATH
DILUENT
AIR
OR
NITROGEN
PERMEATION
TUBE
Figure 15.3. Apparatus for field calibration.
8.4 Operating Condition for OC/fPD Sys-
tem; The operation parameters for the OC/
FPD system are as follows: nitrogen carrier
gas flow rate of 100 cc/mlnute, exhaust tem-
perature of 110" C. detector temperature of
106* C, oven temperature of 40* C, hydro-
gen flow rate of 80 cc/mlnute, oxygen flow
rate of 20 cc/mlnute, and sample flow rate of
80 cc/mlnute.
8.S Calibration of OC/PPD Analysis Sys-
tems. Generate a series of three or more
known concentrations spanning the linear
range of the RPD (approximately 0.05 to 1.0
ppm) for each sulfur compound anticipated
to be present In the gas stream analyzed. By-
passing the dilution system. Inject these
standards Into the OC/FPD analyzers and
monitor the responses. Three Injects for each
concentration must yield the precision de-
scribed In Section 4.1; Failure to attain this
precision Is an Indication of a problem In
the calibration or analytical system. Any such
problem must be identified and corrected-be-
fore proceeding. Peak heights, rather than
Integrated areas, have proven satisfactory;
however, Integrated areas may be required
for alternate columns or Instrumentation.
8.5.1 Calibration curves—Plot the GC/FPD
responses In current (amperes) versus their
causative concentrations In ppm on log-
log coordinate graph paper for each sulfur
compound calibrated.
8.6 Calibration of. Dilution System. Gen-
erate a known concentration of hydrogen
sulfide using the permeation tube system.
Adjust the flow rate of diluent air for the
first dilution stage so that the desired level
of dilution Is approximated. Inject the di-
luted calibration gas Into the OC/FPD and
monitor Its response. Three Injects for each
dilution must yield the precision described
in Section 4.1. Failure to attain this preci-
sion in this step is an indication of a problem
In the dilution system. Any such problem
must be Identified and corrected before pro-
ceeding. Using the calibration curve for H^S
(developed under 8.5.1), determine the di-
luted calibration gas concentration in ppm.
Then, calculate the dilution factor as the
ratio of the calibration gas concentration
before dilution to the diluted calibration
gas concentration determined under this
paragraph. Repeat this procedure for each
stage of dilution required.
S.Sampling and analysis procedure.
9.1 Sampling. Insert the sampling probe
Into the test port making certain that no
dilution air enters the. stack through the
port. Begin sampling and dilute the sample
approximately 10:1 using the dilution sys-
tem shown In Figure 15-1. Note that the
precise dilution factor Is that which Is de-
termined in paragraph 8.6. Condition the en-
tire system with sample for a minimi^ of 16
minutes prior to commencing analysis.
02 Analysis. The sample value la actuated
for one minute in which time an aliquot of
diluted sample Is Injected onto separation
column. The valve to then deactivated for
the remainder of the analysis cycle in which
time the sample loop IB refilled and the sep-
aration column continues to be flushed. The
elutlon time for each compound will be de-
termined during calibration.
9.3 Sample Run A sample consists of one
analysis (injection). v-
10. Post-test procedures.
10.1 Recallbratlon. After each run, or after
a series of runs made within a 24-hour pe-
riod, perform a partial recalibratlon using
the procedures in Section 8. Only H.J5 (or
other permeant) need be used to recalibrate
the GC/FPD analysis system (8.4) and the
dilution system (8.5).
10.2 Determination of Calibration Drift.
Compare the calibration curves obtained
prior to the runs to the calibration curves
obtained under paragraph 10.1. The calibra-
tion drift must not exceed the limits set forth
in paragraph 4.2. If the drift exceeds this
limit, the intervening run or runs shall be
considered not valid.
11. Calculations.
11.1 Determine the concentrations of hy-
drogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon
dlsulfide detected in each sample directly
from the calibration curves.
11.2 Sulfur Dioxide Equivalent. For each
sample the concentrations of hydrogen sul-
fide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulflde
are totaled and the sum expressed as sulfur
dioxide using the following equation:
SO, equlvalent= [HJS] -I- ICOS] + 2|CS.,]
SOj~equlvaleiit=The sum of the concen-
tration of each of the
measured compounds
(HJS. COS, OS.,) expressed
as sulfur dioxide, in ppm.
[ H,S ] = Measured concentration
of hydrogen sulfide, in
ppm.
[ COS ]= Measured concentration
of carbonyl sulfide, in
ppm.
[CSV] = Measured concentration
of CSj, In ppm.
12. Bibliography.
12.1 O'Keeffe. >. E. and Ortman, G. C..
"Primary Standards for Trace Gas Analysis,"
Anal. Chem. 38,760 (1966).
12.2 Stevens, R. K., O'Keeffe, A. E., and
Ortman, G. C., "Absolute Calibration of a
Flame Photometric Detector to Volatile Sul-
fur Compounds at Sub-Part-Per-Milllon
Levels," Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy. 3:7 (July 1969).
12.3 Mulick, J. D., Stevens. R. K., and
Baumgardner, R., "An Analytical System De-
signed to Measure Multiple Malodorous Com-
pounds Related to Kraft Mill Activities,"
presented at the 12th Conference on Methods
in Air Pollution and Industrial Hygiene
Studies, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, Ca., April 6-8, 1971.
12.4 Devonald, R. H., Serenlus, R. S., and
Mclntyre, A. D., "Evaluation of the Flame
Photometric Detector for Analysis of Sulfur
Compounds," Pulp and Paper Magazine of
Canada, 73, 3 (March 1972).
12.5 Grimley, K. W, Smith, W. S., and
Martin, R. M., "The Use of a Dynamic Dilu-
tion System in the Conditioning of Stack
Oases for Automated Analysis by a Mobile
Sampling Van," presented at the 63rd An-
nual APCA Meeting in St. Louis, Mo., June
14-19, 1970.
^12.6 Hartman, C. H., "Improved Chroma-
tographlc Techniques for Sulfur Pollutants,"
presented at the Joint Conference on Sens-
Ing of Environmental Pollutants, Palo Alto,
California, November 8-10, 1971.
12.7 General Reference. Standard Methods
of Chemical Analysis Volume m A and B
Instrumental Methods. Sixth Edition. Van
Nostrand Relnhold Co.
[FR Doc.76-28711 Filed 10-l-76;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 193—MONDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1976
V-rJ-11
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS
FURNACES
Standards of Performance For New
Stationary Sources
SUBPART N
-------
AGENCY
[ 4O CFR Part 60 ]
(FRL 684-5]
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Iron and Steel Plants: Basic Oxygen Process
Furnaces
Notice Is hereby given that under sec-
tions 111, 114, and 301 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, the Administrator is
proposing amendments to the standards
of performance for basic oxygen process
furnaces (BOPF).
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments to the
standards of performance for BOPP.
facilities would limit the opacity of emis-'
sions from the control device, require
monitoring of operations of the control
device, and clarify the term "startup" as
it applies to BOPF facilities. Compliance
\rith the proposed opacity limits would
be determined by conducting observa-
tions in accordance with Reference
Method 9. The continuous monitoring of
operations is specific to venturi scrubber
emission control equipment because all
presently planned facilities will be con-
trolled by venturi scrubbers. The pro-
posed monitoring provisions require con-
tinuous monitoring of the pressure loss
across the throat of the scrubber and the
water supply pressure to the scrubber. As
the provisions of 40 CFR 60.11 (c) apply
to BOPF facilities, "startup" means the
setting into operation of a BOPF which
has been out of production for a con-
tinuous time period of eight hours or the
setting into operation of a relined BOPF.
BACKGROUND
On June 11, 1973 (38 FR 15406), the
Administrator proposed as Subpart N to
40 CFR Part 60, standards of perform-
ance for new basic oxygen process fur-
naces (BOPFs). The proposed standards
limited participate matter emissions to no
more than 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf)
and to less than 10 percent opacity ex-
cept for two minutes in any one hour.
Commenters on the'proposed standards
pointed out the inappropriateness of the
two minutes per hour exemption for the
cyclic steel production process and the
unachievability of the level of the pro-
posed opacity standard. Evaluation of
the comments on the proposed standard
led EPA to conclude that further study
was required for development of ade-
quate provisions. On March 8, 1974 (39
PR 9308), the Administrator promul-
gated the standard of performance limit-
ing emissions from new BOPFs to less
than 50 mg/dscm; however, the opacity
standard and the attendant continuous
monitoring requirement were not pro-
mulgated at that time. The opacity
standard was reserved pending study of
(1) the reasons for the observed varia-
tions in the opacity of emissions from
well-controlled facilities and- (2) the
effect that exempting periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction from ap-
plicability of opacity standards would
have on the level of the opacity standard
and the need for a time exemption.
On November 12, 1974 (39 FR 39872),
EPA revised Reference Method 9 and the
general provisions applicable to opacity
standards of performance. Reference
Method 9, the method for determining
compliance with opacity standards, was
revised to require that opacity observa-
tions be recorded at 15-second intervals
with a minimum of 24 observations (six
minutes), to obtain sufficient observa-
tions to ensure acceptable accuracy. The
use of sets of opacity observations (or
six-minute average opacity values) pre-
cludes a single high reading from being
considered a violation. In addition,
§ 60.11 (e) was added to the general pro-
visions to provide a means for an owner
or operator to petition EPA to obtain a
higher opacity standard for any facility
that demonstrates compliance with the
mass standard concurrent with failure
to achieve the opacity standard. Section
60.11(e) allows opacity standards to be
established at levels which reflect the
maximum expected effects of the normal
range of operating variables and stack
diameters at well-controlled new facllii
ties.
In light of the' Method 9 revisions and
the questions on the appropriate emis-
sion limitation and format for the opacity
standard, additional opacity data were
obtained and the bases and rationale for
an opacity standard for BOPFs were
thoroughly reevaluated. The reevalua-
Uon included consideration of the effects
on opacity of process variations, of varia-
tions in performance characteristics of
control devices, and of definition of
startup periods for BOPFs. The proposed
opacity standards are established at
levels which are achievable by well-
maintained and properly operated con-
trol equipment capable of reducing emis-
sions to the level of the concentration
standard, 50 mg/dscm (0.22 gr/dscf).
Copies of the report on the data' bases
and rationale for the proposed opacity
standard may be obtained upon written
request from the EPA Public Informa-
tion Center (PM-215), Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
20460 (specify: Background Information
for an Opacity Standard of Performance
for Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces in
Iron and Steel Plants).
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFLATIONARY IMPACT
Opacity standards are set at levels
which ensure proper operation and main-
tenance of the control system, but which
do not require use of a more efficient
system. The opacity standards and the
continuous monitoring requirements pro-
posed herein do not impose any addi-
tional significant requirements or costs
over those required to comply with the
concentration standard. Therefore, this
proposal is not considered a major action
under the Inflationary Impact State-
ment (ITS) program and no ns is re-
quired. The environmental impacts of
the standards of performance for BOPFs
also are incurred in complying with the
concentration standard. During the de-
velopment of the concentration stand-
ard, the intermedia effects of the stand-
ard were assessed and determined to be
negligible. No additional intermedia ef-
fects would be incurred in complying with
opacity standards for BOPFs. Therefore,
a formal environmental impact state-
ment has not been prepared. The envi-
ronmental impact of the proposed opac-
ity standards is beneficial as the stand-
ards would ensure compliance of new
BOPFs with the concentration standard
throughout their operational life.
DATA BASE FOR A STANDARD
The standard of performance limits
emissions from all new basic oxygen
process furnaces to less than 50 mg/dscm
(0,22 gr/dscm). Emissions'from basic
oxygen process furnaces can be con-
trolled to this level .by use of a well-
designed and operated high energy ven-
turi scrubber or an electrostatic precipi-
tator. In the development of an opacity
standard for BOPFs, opacity observa-
tions were conducted at six facilities ac-
cording to the procedures of Method 9
(39 FR 39872). Because of a known dif-
ference between the particle size distribu-
tions, and hence light scattering proper-
ties, of emissions from bottom blown
BOPFs and top blown BOPFs, the opacity
of emissions from both type furnaces
were investigated in the background
study on a standard.
The facilities observed in the study
were representative of several control
levels based on available paniculate
matter emission data and an engineering
judgment of the current condition of the
control system. The condition of the con-
trol system was assessed on the basis of
review of operating parameters, design
parameters, and maintenance condition
of the control system. From the observa-
tion of six faculties, it was noted that
higher emissions occurred at the begin-
ning of the steel production cycle for
both types of control systems. The higher
opacity emissions are attributable to the
greater evolution rate of participate
matter and the lower gas temperature at
the start of the oxygen blow as well as a
lag in the response of the control device.
For scrubber-controlled top or botton
blown BOPFs the six minute average
opacity levels observed at the start of
oxygen blow were less than 20 percent,
and the six minute average opacity levels
during the remainder of the cycle were
less than 10 percent opacity. Electro-
static precipitator controlled facilities
exhibited opacity levels less than 30 per-
cent during the start of oxygen blow and
levels less than 16 percent during the
remainder of the cycle. The difference
between the opacity levels observed for
the two types of control systems pri-.
marily reflects differences in diameter of
discharge stacks rather than significant
differences in the performance.
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD
Section 111 of the Act requires EPA to
set emission standards which reflect "the
degree of emission limitation achievable
through application of the best system
of emission reduction which (taking into
account the cost of achieving such re-
FgDEttAl OECISTEQ, VOL. 42, NO. 41—WEDNESDAY1, MARCH 3, 1977
V-N-2
-------
MOPOSED MILES
ductton) the Administrator determines
has been adequately demonstrated." The
standards of performance require an
owner or operator to conduct a perform-
ance test after the initial startup of an
affected facility to ensure that the con-
trol system was properly designed and
installed. Section lll(e) of the Act re-
quires that new sources continue to be in
compliance with the standards through-
out their operational life. Opacity stand-
ards are established in conjunction with
mass or concentration standards as a
means of ensuring that control equip-
ment is adequately maintained and
properly operated at all times between
performance tests.
In EPA's judgment, the opacity levels
associated with well-designed and oper-
ated facilities differed by type of control
system due to design features. Therefore,
selection of the emission limitation for
the standard required consideration of
whether the level would ensure proper
operation and maintenance of all facili-
ties. In the development of the proposed
standard EPA considered several alter-
native regulatory approaches. The alter-
natives considered included opacity
levels based on data from electrostatic
precipitator-controlled facilities, sep-
arate opacity limitations for electro-
static precipitator-controlled and scrub-
ber-controlled facilities, and an opacity
level based on data from scrubber-con-
trolled facilities. An opacity standard
based on performance of electrostatic
precipitator-controlled systems was not
selected because the standard would not
require proper operation and mainte-
nance of venturi scrubber-controlled
facilities. In addition, the steel industry
currently has no plans for the construc-
tion of any new electrostatic precipita-
tor-controlled BOPF facilities, thus this
standard would not accomplish its in-
tended purpose. Setting separate opacity
standards for the two control systems
was also rejected because only one of
the control systems is expected to be
used. Thus the proposed opacity stand-
ard is based on the performance of
scrubber-controlled facilities. Should
any affected BOPF be controlled with an
electrostatic precipitator and comply
with the participate limit of 50 mg/dscm
but not the opacity limits, a separate
opacity limit would be established for
that facility under 40 CFR 60.11 (e). The
provisions of 40 CFR 60.11(e) allow
owners or operators of sources which ex-
ceed the opacity standard while concur-
rently achieving the concentration
standard to request establishment of a
specific opacity standard for that fa-
cility.
The proposed standard would limit
peak opacity which occurs at the begin-
ning of the cycle and the opacity over
the remainder of the cycle. The opacity
limit for the beginning of the cycle is
necessary because of the increased par-
tlculate loading and gas density at the
startup of the operation. Emissions dur-
ing the period of startup of the produc-
tion cycle are not excluded from the
opacity standard as a "startup" under
the provisions of 40 CFR 60.11 (c) be-
cause emissions during this period are
subject to the concentration standard
and are controllable.
The proposed standard would limit
emissions during the beginning of the
production cycle to less than 20 percent
opacity and emissions over the remain-
der of the cycle to less than 10 percent
opacity. To'simplify enforcement, the
opacity standard would allow the period
of higher opacity emissions to occur
once per steel production cycle. Restric-
. tion of the higher opacity emission
period to the beginning of toe produc-
tion cycle would require the observer to
synchronize observations with shop
operations. In addition, the proposed
standard could be enforced more readily
at facilities with several furnaces ducted
to a single, common control system.
Standards of performance for new
isources established under section 111 of
the Clean Air Act reflect emission limits
achievable with the best adequately
demonstrated systems of emission re-
duction considering 'the cost, of such
systems. State implementation plans
(SIP's) approved or promulgated under
section 110 of the Act, on the other hand,
must provide for the attainment and
maintenance of national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) designed to
protect public health and welfare. For
that purpose SIP's must in some cases
require greater emission reductions than
those required by standards of perform-
ance for new sources. In addition, States
are free under sectional 16 of the Act to
establish more'stringent emission limits
than those established under section 111
or those necessary to attain or maintain
the NAAQS under section 110. Thus, new
and existing sources may in some cases
be subject to limitations more stringent
than EPA's standards of performance
under section 111.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In accordance with section 117(f) of
the Act. publication of these proposed
amendments to 40 CFR Part 60 was
preceded by consultation with appro-
priate advisory committees, independent
experts, and Federal departments and
agencies. Interested persons may par-
ticipate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments (in triplicate) to the
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711, Attention: Mr. Don R.
Goodwin. Comments on all aspects of the
proposed amendments to the regulation
are welcome, including economic and
technological issues. All comments re-
ceived not later than May 2,1977, will be
considered. Comments received will be
available for public Inspection at the
EPA Public Information Reference Unit
(EPA Library), Room 2922, 401 M.
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
(Sec. Ill, 114. 301 (a). Clean Air Act. as
amended. Pub. L. 91-6O4. 84 Stat. 1678 (42
U.S.C. 1857C-6, 1857C-9, 1857g(a)).)
NOTE.—The Environmental Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact State-
ment under Executive Order 11949.
Dated: February 23,1977.
JOHN QUARLES,
Acting Administrator.
Jt is proposed to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows.:
1. The table of sections is amended by
revising Subpart N as follows:
Subpart N—Standards of Performance for Iron
•nd Steel Plants
* . • * • *
Sec.
60.143 Monitoring of operations.
* ' • • * . •
2. Section 60.3 is amended by adding
a new abbreviation as follows:
§ 60.3 Abbreviations.
*****
Pa—pascal.
Subpart N—Standards of Performance for
Iron and Steel Plants
3. Section 60.142 is amended by adding
paragraph (a) (2) and (b) as follows:
§ 60.142 Standard for paniculate mat-
ter.
(a) * * *
(2) Exit from a control device and ex-
hibit 10 percent opacity or greater, ex-
cept that an opacity of greater than 10
•percent but less than 20 percent may
occur once per steel production cycle.
(b) For purposes of this subpart,
"startup" means the setting into opera-
tion of a BOPF which has been out of
production for a minimum continuous
time period of eight hours or the setting
into operation of a relined BOPF
4. A new 5 60.143 is added as follows:
§ 60.143 Monitoring of operations.
(a) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall maintain daily rec-
ords of the time and duration of each
steel production cycle.
(b) The owner or operator of any af-
fected facility that uses venturi scrubber
emission control equipment shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and continuously
operate the following monitoring devices;
(1) A monitoring device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the pressure loss
through the venturi construction of the
control equipment. The monitoring de-
vice is to be certified by the manufactur-
er to be accurate within ±250 Pa (±1
inch water).
(2) 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 the 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 for the pressure sensor or tap .
(c) All monitoring devices required un-
der paragraph (b) of this section, are
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 41—WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1977
V-N-3
-------
PROPOSED RULES
to be recalibrated annually, and at other
times as the Administrator may require,
in accordance with the procedures under
560.13(b)(3).
(d) Any owner or operator subject to
requirements under paragraph (b) of
this section shall report for each calendar
quarter all measurement results that are
more than 10 percent below the average
levels maintained during the most recent
performance test conducted under § 60.8
which the affected facility demonstrated
compliance with the standard under
§ 60.142(a)(l). The accuracy of the re-
spective measurements, not to exceed the
values specified in paragraphs (b) (1) and
(b) (2) of this section, may be taken into
consideration when determining the
measurement results that must be re-
ported.
(Sees.. Ill, 114, 301(a), Clean Air Act, as
amended, Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1678 (42
VS.C. 18570-6, 1867C-9, 1857g(a)).)
[PR Doc.77-6982 Piled 3-1-77:8:45 ami
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 41—WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1977
V-N-4
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
SUBPART 0
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL TOOTECTBON
A6BWCY
. [PBL B39-1]
[ 40 CFR Part SO ]
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
WEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Sewage Sludge Incinerators
Subpart 0 sets forth standards of per-
formance for new, modified, and recon-
structed sewage sludge Incinerators in
sewage treatment plants. The standards
limit emissions of participate matter to
0.65 g/kg dry sludge Input (1.30 Ib/ton
dry sludge input) and visible emissions
to 20 percent opacity. The State of
Alaska recently requested EPA to revise
8 60.150 of the regulation. The basis of
the request is that Incinerators which
are small enough to meet the needs of
small communities in Alaska and also
comply with the particulate matter
standard are not available, and the dis-
posal of sewage sludge in landfills is not
a viable option because of permafrost
and other factors resulting in landfill
problems (shallow and soft landfills).
The proposed amendment would exempt
Incinerators with a capacity of less than
140 kg/hr (300 Ib/nr) dry sludge pro-
vided that disposal by land application
or sanitary landfill are shown to be in -
feasible because of freezing conditions.
BACKGROUND
The standards of performance for sew-
age sludge incinerators were promulgated
March 8, 1974 (39 PR 9308), under sec-
tion 111 of the dean Air Act. Section
111 directs the Administrator to estab-
lish standards of performance for new
stationary sources which reflect the de-
gree of emission limitation achievable
.through the application of the best sys-
tem of emission reduction which (taking
into account t"he cost of achieving such
reduction) the Administrator determines
has been adequately demonstrated. The
best system of emission reduction for
sewage sludge incinerators (multiple
hearth and fluid bed reactor type Incin-
erators) was determined to be low energy
venturi scrubbers.
At the time the standards were pro-
mulgated EPA was developing a stand-
ard for murcury emissions from sewage
sludge incinerators and guidelines for
municipal sludge management. The
standard limiting mercury emissions
wus promulgated under section 112 (Haz-
ardous Air Pollutants) of the dean Air
Act on October 14, 1975 (40 PR 48302),
and the proposed guideline was Issued for
public comment on June 3, 1976, under
the title "Technical Bulletin on Munici-
pal Sludge Management: Environmental
Factors."
Incineration Is just one of several
methods available for sludge disposal.
The standards, which limit emissions of
mercury and particulate matter, insure
that adequate emission control systems
are employed when Incineration Is used
ss the method of sludge disposal. Incin-
eration is only a volume reduction
method. After incineration, the ash, ei-
ther dry or In scrubber water, remains
to be-disposed of to the land. Ash dis-
posal must be designed to protect ground
water, to prevent dust, and to insure no
erosion to surface waters.
INVESTIGATION
In investigating Alaska's request, EPA
contacted the vendors of sewage sludge
incinerators and found that multiple
hearth or fluid bed reactor type Incin-
erators which can achieve the particu-
late matter standard are not commer-
cially available below a size capacity of
140 kg/hr (300 Ib/nr). This means that
Incineration would not be a disposal
option where units smaller than 140
kg/hr are needed. Since the unique prob-
lems in parts of Alaska also prevent dis-
posal by land, application or sanitary
landfill, sludge disposal cannot be ac-
complished in an environmentally ac-
ceptable mnaner under existing regula-
tions. EPA concluded that a revision to
the standards of performance for sludge
incinerators is appropriate.
In developing a revision to the stand-
ard to accommodate the unique problems
in parts of Alaska, EPA intends that the
proposed exemption not create an Incen-
tive to utilize small incinerators which
would not be covered under the stand-
ard1. To avoid this situation the proposed
exemption applies only where an owner
or operator can demonstrate to the sat-
isfaction of the Administrator that land
application and sanitary landfills are not
feasible disposal methods for the sewage
sludge. The size exemption is based on
the capacity of the waste water treat-
ment plant rather than the incinerator
In order to prevent constructing multiple
small incinerators rather than larger
units which would be subject to the
standard.
The proposed amendment of § 60.150
would not affect applicable national mer-
cury emission standards under § 61.50
which currently regulates mercury emis-
sions from all sludge incinerators. These
standards are not subject to the exemp-
tion because control of mercury emis-
sions can be achieved by ordinances or
statutes which prevent mercury-bearing
material from being introduced into the
municipal waste treatment system.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Interested persons may participate in
this proposed rulemaking by submitting
written comments (in triplicate) to the
Emission Standards and Engineering Di-
vision, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention: Mr. Bon B.
Goodwin. Comments on all aspects of
the proposed revision are welcome. All
relevant comments received not later
than March 15, 1977 will be considered.
Comments received will be available for
public inspection and copying at the EPA
Public Information Reference Unit,
Room 2922 (EPA Library), 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
AUTHORITY: Sections 111, 114, and 301(a)
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. 1113 (42
U.S.C. 18670-4,1857C-9 and 1857g(e) ].
Dated: January 14,1977.
ROSSEIX E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
In 40 CPR Part 60, It is proposed to
amend Subpart 0, by revising f 60.150 as
follows:
§ 60.150 Applicability and designation
-------
PROPOSED RULES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 60]
|PRL 689-5]
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plants: Correction
On January 26, 1977 (42 FR 4863),
EPA published a proposed amendment
to Subpart 0 of 40 CFR Part 60. By this
notice 'EPA makes certain administrative
changes to the proposed amendment and
requests that interested persons com-
ment on the amendment as published
here rather than as published on Janu-
ary 26, 1977. The amendment proposed
here retains the exemption for any sew-
age sludge incinerator which is located
at a municipal waste treatment plant
having a dry sludge capacity below 140
kg/hr (300 Ib/hr) and where it is not
feasible to dispose of the sludge by land
application or in a sanitary landfill be-
gcause of freezing conditions. However,
the amendment proposed here does not
require the owner or operator ta'demon-
strate to the satisfaction of the Admin-
istrator that such conditions exist, as was
required by the amendment proposed on
January 26. Rather, -the procedures al-
ready established under 40 CFR 60.4 and
60.5 are available for an owner or oper-
ator of a sewage sludge incinerator to re-
quest an EPA determination of whether
such an incinerator is an affected-facility
under these regulations.
Comments on the proposed amend-
ment published here will be due on
March 15, 1977, which-is the same due
date as for the'amendment published on
January 26,1977.
(Sees ill, 114, 301 (a). Clean Air Act, as
unrnded. Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1678 (42
U.S.C. 1857c=6. 1957C-9. 1857g(a)).)
In 40 CFR Part 60, it is proposed to
amend Subpart 0, by revising § 60.150 as
follows:
§60.150 Applicability and designation
of affected facility.
(a) The affected facility to which the
provisions of this subpart apply is each
incinerator which combusts the sludge
produced by municipal sewage treatment
plants except any such incinerator which
fe located at a municipal waste treatment
plant having a dry sludge capacity below
140 kg/hr (300 Ib/hr) and where it is
not feasible to dispose of the sludge by
land application or in a sanitary land-
fill because of freezing conditions.
(b) For the purpose of determining the
capacity of a municipal waste treatment
plant under this paragraph, the dry
sludge capacity of the municipal waste
treatment plant or the dry sludge ca-
pacity of the sewage sludge incinerator,
whichever is greater, is used.
(Sees. ill. 114, 301 (a). Clean Air Act. as
•mended. Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1678 (42
U.S.C. 1567C-6 1SS7C-9, 1857g(a)).)
Date: February 11,1977.
EDWARD F. TUERK,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste -Manage-
ment.
. NOTE. — The Environmental Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact State-
ment under Executive Order 11949.
JFR Dec.77-9078 Filed 2-17-77:8:46 am]
fEOEIAl REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 17—WEDNESDAY. JANUARY ,26, 1977
V-0-3
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Kraft Pulp Mills
SUBPART BB
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40CEB3»art60]
[FBL 605-2]
KRAFT PULP MILLS
Standards of Performance for Nea
Stationary Sources
Notice is hereby given that under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, the Administrator Is
proposing standards of performance for
new and modified kraft pulp mills. The
Administrator also is proposing to amend
Appendix A, Reference Methods, in Part
60 by adding a reference^ method for
the measurement of total reduced sulfur
(TRS) emissions and an alternate
method for the measurement of partic-
ulate matter.
PROPOSED STANDARDS
The proposed standards would limit
emissions of particulate matter from
three affected facilities at kraft pulp
mills. The limits are: (1) 0.10 gram per
dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) for
recovery furnaces, (2) 0.15 gram per
kilogram of air-dried pulp (g/kg ADP)
for smelt dissolving tanks, (3) 0.15
g/dscm for limp kilns when burning
natural gas, and (4) 0.30 g/dscm for lime
kilns when burning oil. Visible emissions
from recovery furnaces would be limited
to 35 percent opacity.
Under the proposed standards, TRS
emissions would be limited to 5 parts
per million (ppm) by volume from seven
affected facilities: Digester systems,
brown stock washer systems, multiple-
effect evaporator systems, black liquor
oxidation systems, recovery furnaces,
lime kilns, and condensate stripper sys-
tems. In addition, a TRS standard of
0.025 g/kg ADP is proposed for smelt
dissolving tanks
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The proposed standards would reduce
particulate emissions from new kraft
pulp mills more than 99 percent below the
levels that would result from no control'
and more than 50 percent below the av-
erage levels that are being achieved by
typical existing facilities in the United
States. Emissions of TRS would be re-
duced by more than 95 percent below the
uncontrolled levels and more than 80
percent below the average levels for ex-
isting sources.
TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills
are extremely odorous, and there are
numerous instances of poorly controlled
kraft mills creating public odor prob-
lems. The proposed standards include
limitations on TRS emissions, rather
than on the intensity of odors produced
by kraft pulp mills, because this course
of action would ensure more objective
and efficient enforcement. The proposed
standards would prevent odor problems
from most newly constructed kraft pulp
mills, except in the immediate vicinity
of the mills on occasions when meteoro-
logical conditions produce downwash of
stack plumes. 33&a proposed standards
would substantially reduce ground level
ambient ate concentrations of particu-
late matter around new kraft pulp mills
below current levels found around ex-
isting mills.
The secondary environmental impact
of the proposed standards would be
minor. No additional solid waste han-
dling or disposal problems would be
caused by the standards because the
additional particulate matter collected
from recovery furnace systems, smelt
dissolving tanks, and lime kilns can be
recycled to the kraft pulping process.
Increased water demand and treatment
would be slight because mill process
water can be used in scrubbing systems
for lime kilns, and smelt dissolving tanks,
and the scrubbing system effluent could
be recirculated to the kraft pulping
process with no increased effluent. The
increased mud washing necessitated by
the standard could increase water de-
mand. A relatively small amount of par-
ticulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and ni-
trogen oxides would be discharged into
the air if the power plant that supplies
the additional electrical power required
by the standards is fired with fossil fuel.
ENERGY IMPACT
The energy requirements of the pro-
posed standards have been evaluated.
Compared to the requirements of the
average State standards, the incremental
energy that would be required to control
all new. modified, and replaced affected
facilities at kraft pulp mills by 1981 has
been estimated at an equivalent of about
1,440,000 barrels of Number 6 fuel oil per
year. The magnitude of this requirement
indicates that the proposed standards
would not have a major impact on the
imbalance between national energy de-
mand and domestic supply.
The incremental energy requirements
of the proposed standards would be gen-
erated by the use of fans or pumps to
circulate exhaust gases or scrubbing liq-
uids through control devices, and the
direct consumption of natural gas or fuel
oil to incinerate exhaust gases or main-
tain process conditions that reduce the
generation of pollutants. The incremen-
tal energy represents an increase of ap-
proximately 4.3 percent above the process
energy requirements for new kraft pulp
mills,
ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed regulations could affect
an estimated 17 million tons of kraft
pulping capacity by 1981. About a third
of that capacity would be affected as a
result of mill capacity expansions. The
remainder would be affected via replace-
ment of depreciated designated facilities.
It Is projected that the equivalent of 33
new mills or expansions at existing mills,
with a capacity of 500 T ADP/day, will
occur through 1980. Replacement of ex-
isting depreciated designated facilities
will result at an estimated 35 mills.
Total incremental investment costs-
through 1981 are projected to be $104
million. The fifth-year annualized costs,
including depreciation and interest, are
estimated at $33 million. About a third of
these costs would be incurred by mills ex-
panding capacity, while the remainder
would be incurred by mills replacing de-
preciated designated facilities.
The costs that new, modified, and re-
constructed kraft pulp mills would incur
to comply with the proposed standards
are considered reasonable. No difference
in impact among mill sizes could be dis-
tinguished, and the proposed standards
would not have an adverse impact on
either small or large mills. The capital re-
quired for typical new mills would be in-
creased by less than 2 percent, and the
price of semi-bleached kraft pulp would
be increased by less than 2 percent. The
effect the proposed standards would
have on demand and supply of kraft pulp
and on the future growth of the kraft
pulp industry is considered negligible. It
is emphasized that the costs are consid-
ered reasonable for new and modified
sources and that it is not implied that the
same costs apply to the retrofitting of
existing sources. The review of the eco-
nomic impact has shown that the pro-
posal is not a major action under the
Inflationary Impact Statement (IIS)
program and no IIS is needed.
SELECTION OP SOTTRCE CATEGORY AND
AFFECTED FACHITIES
Section 111 of the Act directs the Ad-
ministrator to establish standards of per-
formance for stationary sources that may
contribute significantly to air pollution
which causes or contributes to the en-
dangerment of public health or welfare.
Kraft pulp mills are a major source of
TRS compounds and particulate matter
emissions. TRS compounds can have an
adverse effect on public welfare, and par-
ticulate matter can have an adverse ef-
fect on public health and welfare. Kraft
pulp mills were selected for the develop-
ment of standards based on expected
growth of the industry and the beneficial
impact that would result from the ap-
plication of best technology for air pollu-
tion control. Kraft pulping has histori-
cally been a rapidly growing industry,
with a growth rate of 5.5 percent per year
between 1958 and 1975. The annual
growth rate for 1976 to 1978 is projected
to be 2.5 percent, but estimates show that
the growth rate may return to a higher
rate in 1979.
TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills
are composed primarily of hydrogen sul-
flde, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide,
and dimethyl disulfide. These sulfide
compounds are extremely odorous and
exhibit odor threshold concentrations of
no more than a few parts per billion. A
study of the national social and economic
impacts of odors performed in 1971-1973
by Copley International Corporation for
EPA found that the pulp and paper in-
dustry ranks in the upper quarter of all
odor sources in terms of strength and
public objection to the odors. The emis-
sions from each pulp mill surveyed in the
study affect an average of 44,000 persons
over an area of approximately 100 square
miles. The survey of 184 local air pollu-
tion control agencies in the United States
ranked the pulp and paper source cate-
gory as the fastest growing odor prob-
lem.
FEDEBAL BECISTEB, VOL 41, MO. 187—FRIDAY, SEPTEMSEU 24, \97&
V-BB-2 .,
-------
&mnance for TBS emissions £rom kraft
palp mflls under esgaen Hi of the Act
would Involve section lll(d) which pro-
Tides for control of any air pollutants
which are not on lists published pur-
suant to section 108
-------
PB©i?©SEIB SUSIES
process control' atone. The
cost for caustic addition to the scrubber
Ss small where the casistic is not part of
•fche make-up in the kraft causticlzing
system. Accordingly, the proposed stand-
ard of 5 ppm TRS, four-hour average,
would require both the best process con-
&rols for lime kiln operation and caustic
addition to the scrubber, or an equivalent
system.
In developing the proposed standards,
KPA carried out six tests for participate
emissions from lime kilns. In each case
the control device for participate matter
was a medium pressure drop scrubber,
She most widely used control technique in
4he domestic industry. However, one do-
mestic kraft pulp mill controls particu-
late emissions with an electrostatic pre-
cipltator. Based on design parameters
and emission data supplied by the opera-
tor of this ESP, this system achieves an
emission level significantly below that
determined by EPA for medium pressure
drop scrubbers. However, the waste gases
from the digester system and multiple-
effect evaporator system, which could
more economically be incinerated in the
lime kiln, are processed in a separate
incinerator at this facility to control TRS
(emissions. The cost and energy penalties
tor the separate incinerator are relative-
ly large. The Industry has commented
that it may not be feasible to incinerate
the waste gases from other sources in a
kiln controlled by an ESP, because gases
may explode in the ESP when flameouts
occur in the kiln. Solutions to this poten-
tial problem, such as automatic diverting
of inlet gases away from the kiln when
& flameout occurs, have been considered,
but there is at this time no demonstrated
technology that will ensure that explo-
. sions would not occur.
In arriving at the proposed standard
for particulate matter emissions from
lime kilns, EPA considered the alterna-
tives of a medium pressure drop scrubber
alone, an ESP alone, and both particulate
control systems operated In series. A
separate incinerator to control TRS
emissions from digester systems, mul-
tiple-effect evaporator systems, and con-
tSensate stripper systems was included in
4he two alternative ESP systems. EPA
concluded that the relatively large in-
crements In cost and energy usage asso-
ciated with the ESP alternatives were
aot justified by the additional particulate
control gained beyond that achievable
.With a medium pressure drop scrubber
cJone. Consequently, the proposed par-
Uculate matter standard would require
a medium pressure drop scrubber (ap-
proximately 30 Inches water gauge), or
equivalent.
EPA has determined that an oxygen
concentration in the gas stream meas-
ured after the lime Win control device
to excess of 10 percent represents exces-
sive air inleakage; therefore, the pro-
BHwed standards require (Siat all meas-
urements of particulate matter and TRS
Siat, have an oxygen concentration in
(szoizss of 20 percent be corrected to 10
percent osiygen.
SMELT DISSOLVING TAPTK
Smelt dissolving tanks discharge par-
ticulate matter comprised of -finely
divided smelt particles that are entrained
in the steam emitted from the tank. On
an uncontrolled basis, the quantity of
particulate emissions is small in com-
parison with that from recovery furnaces
and lime kilns. TRS emissions can be
generated in the dissolving tank or in a
scrubbing device that collects particulate
matter, depending primarily on the sul-
flde content of water used to dissolve the
smelt and to perform the scrubbing.
Standards in terms of concentration of
pollutants are not considered appropri-
ate for smelt dissolving tanks because the
effluent stream is primarily ah- and no
correction for oxygen content and dilu-
tion air is possible to ensure effective en--
forcement.
Particulate emissions from smelt dis-
solving tanks are controlled by using wire
mesh demister pads or low energy
scrubbers. The scrubbers remove particu-
late matter much more- effectively,
though the energy requirements and op-
erating costs are higher than for
demisters. The proposed particulate
standard for smelt dissolving tanks
would require the use of low energy
scrubbers, or equivalent systems, and is
supported by four EPA tests on two types
of low energy scrubbers. The proposed
TRS standard for smelt dissolving tanks
would prevent the use of water highly
contaminated with sulndes for dissolving
the smelt and for particulate scrubbing
systems.
OTHER SOURCES
Approximately one-quarter of the total
uncontrolled TRS emissions from a typi-
cal kraft pulp mill are generated by the
digester system, brown stock washer
system, black liquor oxidation system,
multiple-effect evaporator system, and
condensate stripper system. Ineffective
control of these facilities could have a
large impact on localized odor problems.
The effluent streams can be incinerated
in the recovery furnace, the lime kiln, or
a separate incinerator to oxidize most
of the TRS. The quantity of auxiliary
fuel required for incineration is greatly
reduced if incineration is performed in
the recovery furnace and the lime fclin.
If the noncondensable gases from the
brown stock washer system and the black
liquor oxidation system are Incinerated,
for example, in the recovery furnace,
some auxiliary fuel may be required.
However, the noncondensable gases from
the digester system, multiple-effect evap-
orator system, and condensate stripper
system would not require additional fuel
if Incinerated in the lime kiln as part of
the primary ah* feed to the kiln. The pro-
posed standard of 5 ppm TRS, four-hour
average, for each of these five affected
faculties would require incineration in
the recovery furnace and the lime kiln,
or equivalent.
OPACITY STANDARD
An opacity standard is proposed for
recovery furnace systems to ensure
proper operation and maintenance of the
partclulate control device. No opacity
standards are proposed for lime kilns
and smelt dissolving tanks, which fre-
quently generate persistent plumes of
condensed water vapor. The effluent
plume is so greatly dispersed by the time
the vapor plume disappears that the ob-
served-opacity would not be as effective
an indicator of the performance of the
patriculate control system as other
parameters. .Monitoring the operating
parameters of the control system would
be more effective.
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
It should be noted that standards of
performance for new sources established
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act
reflect emission limits achievable with
the best adequately demonstrated sys-
tems of emission reduction considering
the cost of such systems. State imple-
mentation plans (SIP's) approved or
promulgated under section 110 of the'Act.
on the other hand, must provide for the
attainment and maintenance of national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
designed to protect public health and
welfare. For that purpose SIP's must in
some cases require greater emission re-
ductions than those required by stand-
ards of performance for new sources.
In addition, States are free under sec-
tion 116 of the Act to establish more
stringent emission limits than those es-
tablished under section 111 or those
necessary to attain or maintain the
NAAQS under section 110. Thus, new
and existing sources may in some cases
be subject to limitations more stringent
than EPA's standards of performance
under section 111.
TESTING, MONITORING, AND
RECORDKEEPDJG
Under the proposed standards, per-
.formance tests for TRS emissions ac-
cording to Reference Method 16 pro-
posed herein would be required for all
affected facilities. Performances-tests for
particulate matter emissions from re-
covery furnace systems, lime kilns, and
smelt dissolving tanks would also be
required. Particulate matter emissions
would be measured by Reference Meth-
ods 1 through 5. Method 17 (in-stack
filter) is being proposed as an alterna-
tive method to measure particulate emis-
sions from the recovery furnace. It is
being proposed in Appendix A, Refer-
ence Methods, because the Agency in-
tends to also propose Method 17 as a
reference method to measure particu-
late matter from grain elevators.
The proposed standards include pro-
visions for continuously monitoring the
opacity of visible emissions discharged
from recovery furnaces. To ensure
proper operation and maintenance of
scrubbers Installed on lime kilns and on
smelt dissolving tanks, provisions are in-
cluded for monitoring the pressure drop
across the 'scrubber and the scrubbing
fluid supply pressure to the scrubber.
Where emissions from the
-------
multiple-effect evaporator oycSssn, black
ffiouor oxidation sysJwa. or condensate
stripper are incinerated m a device other
$han a Bme kfln or recovery furnace, it
is proposed that the firebox temperature
of the device be monitored.
A requirement for the continuous
monitoring of TRS emissions from the
recovery furnace and lime kiln is also
proposed. The specifications for continu-
ous TRS monitors are not being proposed
at this time because they have not been
completely developed. However, the de-
velopment of these specifications are
imminent and they are expected to be
promulgated at the time that the kraft
pulp m^i standards of performance are.
promulgated,
A requirement to monitor the oxygen
concentration of the gas stream on a
dry.basis after the control device is be-
ing proposed for the lime kiln and re-
covery -furnace. The montorlng of oxy-
gen concentrations is necessary to cor-
rect the TRC and particulate concen-
trations for the lime kiln and recovery
furnace when the oxygen concentrations
in the respective gas streams are in ex-
cess of 10 percent and 8 percent oxygen.
Records of performance testing meas-
urements, continuous monitoring system
measurements, and monitoring device
measurement would have to be retained
for at least two years following the date
of the measurement* by owners or
operators subject to the provisions of
this subpart. This requirement is in-
cluded under. 8,60.7 (d) of. the regulation.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As prescribed by section 111, this pro-
posal of standards of performance has
been preceded by the Administrator's
determination that kraft pulp mills con-
tribute significantly to air pollution
which causes or contributes to the en-
dangerment of public health or welfare
and by his publication of this determi-
nation in this issue of the FEDERAL
REGISTER. In accordance with section 117
ot the Act, publication of these proposed
standards was preceded by consultation
with appropriate advisory committees,
Independent experts, and Federal de-
partments and agencies.
Interested persons may participate in
this rulemaklng by submitting written
comments (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.
The Administrator will welcome com-
ments on all aspects of the proposed.
regulations, including the designation
of kraft pulp mills as a significant con-
tributor to air pollution which causes or
contributes to the endangerment of
public health or welfare, economic and
technological Issues, and the proposed
test methods. All relevant comments re-
ceived on or before November 22, 1976
will be considered. Comments received
will be available for public inspection
and copying-mi the EPA Public Informa-
tion Reference "Unit, Room 2922 <£PA
X&raxy), 401 M Street B.W,
ton. D.C. 20460.
Background information on these pro-
posed standards of performance has
been published In a document entitled
"Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement: Standards of Per-
formance for Kraft Pulp Mills, Volume
1." This report presents the factors
considered in the development of the
proposed standards, including alterna-
tive emission control systems, emission
test data, environmental Impact, costs,
and economic considerations. Copies of
the document may be obtained free of
charge by writing to the Public Informa-
tion Center (PM-215), U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. 20460 (specify "Standards Support
and Environmental Impact Statement:
Standards of Performance for Kraft
Pulp Mills, Volume 1").
AUTHORITY: This notice of proposed
rulemaking is issued under the authority
of sees. Ill, 114, and 301 (a) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended (42 U.6.C. 1857C-6,
1857c~9,1857g(a)).
Dated: September 16, 1976.
JOHN QCABLKS,
Acting Administrator,
It is proposed to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations as follows:
1. By adding subpart BB as follows:
Subpart BB—Standards of Performance for
Kraft Pulp MHI*
Sec.
60.280 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60.281 Definitions.
60.282 Standard for particulate natter.
60.283 Standard for total reduced. sulfur
(TBS).
60.284 Monitoring of emissions and.opera-
tions.
60.285 Test methods and procedures.
AUTHORITY: Sees. Ill, 114, and 801 (a) of
. the Clean Air Act, as amended by aec. 4(a) of
Pub. L. 81-604. 84 8tat. 1678 and by aec. 15
(c) (2) of Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1713 (43
UJS.C. 1857C-6,1857C-6. and 1857g(a)).
Subpart BB—Standards of Performance for
Kraft Pulp Mills
§ 60.280 Applicability and designation
of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to the following affected facili-
ties in kraft pulp mills: digester system,
brown stock washer system, multiple-
effect evaporator system, black liquor
oxidation system, recovery furnace, smelt
dissolving tank, lime kiln, and conden-
sate stripper system. In pulp mills in
which kraft pulping is combined with
neutral sulfide semlchemlcal pulping, the
provisions of this subpart are applicable
when any portion of the material charged
to an affected facility is produced by the
kraft pulping operation.
§ 60.281 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, an terms not
defined herein shall have the same mean-
Ing given them in the Act and m Sub-
part A.
(a) "Kraft pulp mill" mparu: any sta-
tionary source which produces pulp from
wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips
to a water solution of sodium hydroxide
and sodium sulflde (white liquor) at high
temperature and pressure. Regeneration
of the cooking chemic'als through a re-
covery process is also considered part of
the kraft pulp mm.
tt>) "Neutral sulfite semlchemlcal
pulping operation" means any operation
in which pulp is produced from wood by
cooking (digesting) wood chips in a solu-
tion of sodium sulfite and sodium bicar-
bonate, followed by mechanical defl-
brating (grinding).
(c) "Total reduced sulfur (TRS)"
means the sum of the sulfur compounds,
primarily hydrogen sulfide, methyl mer-
captan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl
dlsulfide, that are released during the
kraft pulping operation and measured by
Method 16.
(d) "Digester system" means each con-
tinuous digester or each batch digester
used for the cooking of wood in white
liquor, and associated flash tank(s), blow
tank(s), chip steamer(s), and con-
denser (s).
(e) "Brown stock washer system"
means knotters, vacuum pumps, and fil-
trate tanks used to wash the pulp fol-
lowing the digester system.
(f) -"Multiple-effect evaporator sys-
tem" means the multiple-effect evapora-
tors tend associated condenser(s) and
hotweU(s) used to concentrate the spent
cooking liquid that'is separated from the
pulp (black liquor).
(g) "Black liquor oxidation system"
means the vessels used to oxidize, with
air or oxygen, the black liquor, and as-
sociated storage tank(s).
(h) "Recovery furnace" means the
unit used for burning black liquor to. re-
cover chemicals consisting primarily of
sodium carbonate and sodium sulfide.
The recovery fumance Includes the di-
rect-contact evaporator for a conven-
tional furnace.
(i) "Smelt dissolving tank" means a
vessel used for dissolving the smelt col-
lected from the recovery furnace.
(j) "Lime kiln" means a unit used to
calcine lime mud, which consists pri-
marily of calcium carbonate, Into quick-
Ume, which is calcium oxide.
(k) "Condensate stripper system"
means a column, and associated conden-
sers, used to strip, with ah- or steam.
TRS compounds from condensate
streams from -various processes within a
kraft pulp mm.
§'60.282 Standard for particular mat-
" **!.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by S 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions .of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
to to the atmosphere:
(1) From any recovery furnace any
cases which:
(1) Contain particulate matter ta ex-
cess of 0.10 g/dscxn (0.044 gr/dscf).
(11) Exhibit K percent opacity or
.greater.
KDEKM iHWSTH. VOL -41. MO. ItT—HHOAY, SEHKMMt 14. Wo
V-BBrsS,
-------
(2) 3from any smelt dissolving tank
any gases which contain particulate
matter in excess of 0.15 g/Kg ADP (0.3
lib/ton ADP).
(3) From -any lime kiln any gases
which:
(1) Contain particulate matter in ex-
cess of 0.15 g/dscm (0.067 gr/dscf) when
gaseous fossil fuel Is burned.
(11) Contain particulate matter in ex-
eess of 0.30 g/dscm (0.13 gr/dscf) when
Kquid fossil fuel Is burned.
8 60.283 Standard for total reduced sul-
fur (TRS).
(a) On and after the date on which
t&e performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
Oils subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere:
(1) Prom any digester system, brown
stock washer system, multiple-effect
evaporator system, black liquor oxida-
tion system, or condensate stripper sys-
tem any gases which contain TRS in ex-
cess of 5 parts per minion (ppm) by
volume, except as provided under para-
graph (b) of this section.
(2) From any recovery furnace any
gases which contain TRS in excess of 5
ppm by volume.
(3) From any smelt dissolving tank
any gases which contain TRS In excess
Of 0.025 g/Kg ADP (0.0125 Ib/ton ADP).
(4) From any lime kiln any gases
which contain TRS in excess of S ppm
by volume.
(b) The Administrator may exempt any
new, modified, or reconstructed black liq-
'isor oxidation system or brown stock
washer system at an existing kraf t pulp
mill provided the owner or operator dem-
onstrates that incinerating the exhaust
Bases from such system in an existing
recovery furnace is technologically and
economically not feasible. Any exempt
system will become subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart if the recovery
furnace is changed so that the gases can
b* incinerated.
§ 60.284 Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
(a) Any owner or operator subject to
the. provisions of this subpart shall In-
stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate
the following continuous monitoring
systems:
(1) A continuous monitoring system
to monitor and record the opacity of the
gases discharged into the atmosphere
from any recovery furnace. The span of
Eh is system shall be set at 50 percent
opacity.
(2) A continuous monitoring system,
except as provided In paragraph (b.) <1)
of Oils section, to monitor and record
the-concentration of TRS emissions dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from any
ifligester system, brown stock washer sys-
tem, multiple-effect evaporator system,
black liquor oxidation system, recovery
furnace, lime Mln. or condensate strip-
par system. The span shall be set at &
TRS concentration of 30 ppm.
(3) A eontmuoBs monitoring system
feo monitor sad accord 4he percent es£
oxygen by volume in &he gasss «3is-
charged from any recovery furnace or
lime kiln. The continuous monitoring
system shall be located downstream of
the control device (s) for the recovery
furnace or lime fc"". and all measure-
ments shall be made on a dry basis. The
span of this system shall be set at 20 per-
cent oxygen.
(b) Any owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall in-
stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate
the following continuous monitoring
devices:
(1) A monitoring device which meas-
ures the combustion temperature at the
point of incineration of effluent gases
which are emitted from any digester sys-
tem, brown stock washer system, multi-
ple-effect evaporator system, black liq-
uor oxidation system, or condensate
stripper system and which are com-
busted in a power boiler or separate in-
cineration unit. The monitoring device
is to be certified by the manufacturer to
be accurate within ±2° C (±3.6° F).
(2) For any lime kiln or smelt dis-
solving .tank using a scrubber emission
control device:
(1) A monitoring device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the pressure
loss of the gas stream through the con-
trol equipment. The monitoring device
is to be certified by the manufacturer
to be accurate to within a gage pressure
of ±250 pascals (ca. ±1 inch water gage
pressure).
(11) A monitoring device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the scrubbing
liquid supply pressure to the control
equipment. The monitoring device is to
be certified by the manufacturer to be
accurate within ±5 percent of design
scrubbing liquid supply pressure. The
pressure sensor or tap is to be located
close to the scrubber liquid discharge
point. The Administrator may be con-
sulted for approval of alternative
locations."
(c) Any owner of'operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall cal-
culate and record on a daily basis:
(1) Four-hour average TRS concen-
trations for the six consecutive four-
hour periods of each operating day. Each
four-hour average shall be determined
as the arithmetic mean of the appro-
priate four contiguous one-hour average
total reduced sulfur concentrations pro-
vided by each continuous monitoring
system Installed under paragraph (a) (2)
of this section.
(2) Four-hour average oxygen con-
centrations for the six consecutive four-
hour periods of each operating day for
the recovery furnace and lime Min
These four-hour averages shall corre-
spond to the four-hour average TRS con-
centrations under paragraph (c)(l) of
this section and shall be determined as
an arithmetic mean of the appropriate
four contiguous one-hour average oxy-
gen concentrations provided by each
continuous monitoring system installed
under paragraph (a) (3) of this section.
(d) Any owner or operator of a re-
covery furnace or lime telm subject to
•Qie provisions of this subpart shall:
• <1) Correct oay tour-hour average
TRS concentration corresponding to a
four-hour average oxygen concentration
that is In excess of 8 volume percent
for the recovery furnace. The concentra-
tion shall be corrected to 8 volume per-
cent oxygen.
<2) Correct any four -hour average
TRS concentration corresponding to a
four-hour average oxygen concentration
that is in excess of 10 volume percent for
the lime kiln. The concentration shall be
corrected to 10 volume percent oxygen.
(3) Calculate the corrections required
in paragraphs (d) (1) and (2) of this
section according to the following equa-
tion:
r -r
»--«orr — I'tneao
01 _ V
where:
C«o«i
th« four-hour TRS concentration correclvd for
oxygen.
Coi,.,=tn« four-hour average measured TBS concentra-
tion nncorrected lor oiygen.
X=tbe volumetric oxygen concentration in percent-
age to be corrected to (8 percent for the recovery
furnace and 10 percent for the lime kiln) .
y=tbe measured bur-hour average volumetric
oxygen concentration above 8 volume pwccnt
to the recovery furnance and above 10 volume
percent for tbe lime kiun.
(e) For the purpose of reports re-
quired under § 60.7(c) , any owner or op-
erator subject to the provisions of this
subpart shall report periods of excess
emissions as follows:
(1) For emissions from the recovery
furnace:
(i) All four-hour averages of TRS
concentrations above 5 ppm.
(ii) All six-minute average opacities
that exceed 35 percent, except that 5 per-
cent of the averages may exceed 35 per-
cent opacity. The exception does not ap-
ply to excess emissions due to malfunc-
tions, startups, or shutdowns of the facil-
ity or control device.
(2) For emissions from the lime kiln:
All four-hour average TRS concentra-
tions above 5 ppm, except that 6 percent
of all four -hour averages of TRS con-
centrations are not considered to be ex-
cess emissions if they are less than 10
ppm. The exception does not apply to
excess emissions due to malfunctions,
startups, or shutdowns of the facility or
control device.
(3) For emissions from the digester
system, brown stock washer system, mul-
tiple-effect evaporator system, black liq-
uor oxidation system, or condensate
stripper system where the gases are in-
cinerated in a device other than a re-
covery furnace or lime kiln: All four-
hour average TRS concentrations above
5 ppm, unless the requirements of para-
graph (b) (1) of this section are met.
§ 60.285 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Reference methods in Appendix A
of this part, except as provided under
§ 80.8 (b) , shall be used to determine com-
pliance with | 60.282 (a) as follows:
(1) Method 5 for the concentration
of particulate matter and the associated
moisture content,
(2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
(3) When determining compliance
tTlth 1 60.282 (a) (2) , Method 2 for velocity
end volumetric Sow rate,
W34. 41, WO.
24,
V-BB-6
-------
auiis
- (4) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
(S) Method 9 for visible emissions.
(b) For Method 5, the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 60 minutes
and the sampling rate shall be at least
0.85 dscm/hr (0.53 dscf/min) except
that shorter sampling times, when neces-
sitated by process variables or other fac-
tors, may be approved by the Adminis-
trator. Water shall be used as the cleanup
solvent instead of acetone in the sample
recovery procedure outlined in Method 5.
(c) Method 17 (in-stack filtration)
may be used as an alternate method for
Method 5 for determining compliance
with $ 60.2o2(a) (1) (i): Provided, That
a constant value of 0.009 g/dscm (0.004
gr/dscf) is added to the results of Method
17 and the stack temperature is no
greater than 205° C (ca. 400° F). Water
shall be used as the cleanup solvent in-
stead of acetone in the sample recovery
procedure outlined in Method 17.
(d) For the purpose of determining
compliance with § 60.283(a) (1), (2), (3),
and (4), the following reference methods
shall be used:
(1) Method 16 for the concentration
of TRS,
(2) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
(3) When determining compliance
with ! 60.283(a) (3), Method 2 for veloc-
ity and volumetric flow rate.
(e) All concentrations of particulate
matter and TRS from the lime kiln and
recovery furnace that are measured as
required by this section shall be corrected
to 10 volume percent oxygen and 8 vol-
ume percent oxygen, respectively, when
the oxygen concentrations exceed these
values.
APPENDIX A—REFERENCE METHODS
2. Method 16 and Method 17 are added
to Appendix A as follows:
• * * • •
METHOD 16—SEMICONTINTJOTJS DETERMINA-
TION or STJUTJB EMISSIONS FEOM STATION-
ART SOURCES
1. Principle and applicability
1.1 Principle. A gas sample Is extracted
from the emission source and diluted with
clean dry air. An aliquot of the diluted sample
Is then analyzed for gaseous sulfur com-
pounds b; gas chromatographlc (QC) sepa-
ration and flame photometric (FPD) detec-
tion. . Two GC/FPD analytical systems
equipped with suitable columns are used for
resolution of both low and high molecular
weight TBS compounds.
.1.2 Applicability. This method IB applica-
ble for determination of TBS compounds
when specified by an applicable subpart.
2. Range and sensitivity
3.1 Range. The maximum limit of the
FPD for each sulfur compound Is about 1
ppm. This limit Is expanded by dilution of
the sample gas before analysis. Kraft mill
gas samples are normally diluted tenfold
(10:1), resulting In an upper limit of about
10 ppm for each compound.
2.2 Sensitivity. The minimum detectable
concentration of the FPD is less than 50 ppb.
3. Interferences
3.1 Moisture condensation. Moisture con-
densation in the sample delivery system, the
analytical column, or the FPD burner block
can cause losses or Interferences. This poten-
tial is eliminated by heating the sample line,
and by conditioning the sample with dry
dilution air to lower its dew point below the
operating temperature of the OC/FFD ana-
lytical system prior to analysis.
3.2 Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.
CO and CO, have a substantial desensitizing
effect on the detector even after 10:1 dilu-
tion. This potential Interference is eliminated
by elutlng CO and CO, with the "air peak"
prior to elution of any sulfur compound.
8.3 Particulate matter. Particulate matter
In gas samples can cause Interference by
eventual clogging of the analytical system.
This interference is eliminated by use of a
filtered probe described in Section 5.1.1.
4. Precision
4.1 Calibration precision. A series of three
consecutive injections of the same calibra-
tion gas, at any dilution, should produce
results which do not vary by more than
±3% from the mean of the three Injections.
4.2 Calibration drift. The calibration
drift determined from the mean of three
Injections made at the beginning and end
of any 8-hour period should not exceed :t3 Tc.
6. Apparatus
5.1.1 Probe. Figure 16-1 illustrates the
probe used in lime kilns and other sources
where significant amounts of particulate
matter are present. The probe is designed
with the deflector shield placed between the
sample and the gas inlet holes and the glass
wool plugs to reduce clogging of the niter
and possible adsorption of sample gas. The
exposed portion of the probe between the
sampling port and the sample line Is heated
with heating tape.
FILTER
luusmoi)
n U/FTD uuvzm
tt:l
MM.E
IKE
1
namvt
•OflACEKOH
nw
„.*£
KMKATIM I
TUK *•
UlllMTUM
1
*
WRACM 1
r<
* ««T
'^~ ° — "
—
J-
lm
-*.
t
-^3
"^^*-
~^WE«T
' OaUEWTAIR
1
1
1
1
1
.
'
1
y
1
1
1
1
I
^.3 -WAV
VAlVt ^
X j
I
1
I
""tStJ-ii
1 t
Cl ~\
i i
U ul
V
25 Kl
CUM
our AIM
MATED
110* HEATED
TOIWE
Figure 16- 2. Sampling and dilution apparatus.
8.1.2 Sample line—He Inch inside diameter
Dekoron FEP Teflon1 tubing, heated to 120*
C. Thla temperature is controlled by a ther-
mostatic heater.
5.1.3 Sample pump—Leakless Teflon
coated diaphragm type or equivalent. The
pump head is heated to 120* C by enclosing
It in the sample dilution box (52.4 below).
6.2 Dilution system—A schematic diagram
of the dynamic dilution system Is given in
Figure 16-2. The dilution system is con-
of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute an endorsement by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
structed such that all sample contacts are
made of inert materials. The dilution eas-
tern which Is heated to 120* C, must be capa-
ble of a minimum of 10:1 dilution of sample.
Equipment used in the dilution system is
listed below:
5.2.1 Dilution pump—Model A-150
Komhyr Teflon positive displacement type,
non-adjustable 150 cc/mln. ±2.0^, or equiv-
alent, per dilution stage. A 10:1 dilution of
sample Is accomplished by combining 150
cc of sample with 1350 cc of clean dry air as
shown in Figure 16-2.
5.2.2 Valves—Three-way Teflon solenoid
or manual type.
KDEtAL IEOISTEI, YOU 41, NO. 167—RIMY, ISPTEMBEt '14, 1976
V-BB-7
-------
HtOPOSED ItULES
Finvre V-1. Hvbc used for gas containing high oarticulate loadings.
DESCRIPTION or FIGCBE 16-1
1. %" male connector ys" pipe size.
2. A Gelman1 filter—this filter has glass
wool inside.
3. 1" pipe cap which Is drilled out and
welded on the end of the Gelman filter.
4. %" stainless steel tubing with four
%e" boles drilled all the way through both
sides. These holes are Vi" apart. The tubing
Is also packed with glass wool Inside.
6. 14" cap for capping end of tubing.
6/1" stainless steel pipe thread at both
ends, four H" holes or drilled all the way
through both sides. These boles are 1" apart.
7. 1V4" clamps.
8. A V-type deflector.
9. 1" pipe cap.
6.2.3 Tubing—Teflon tubing and fittings
are used throughout from the sample probe
to the OC/FPD to present an Inert surface
for sample gas.
5.2.4 Box—Insulated box, heated and
Ttvfiint.ffjrtA^ at 120* C, of sufficient dimensions
to bouse dilution apparatus.
6.2.6 Flowmeters—Rotameters or d]ulva-
lent to measure flow from 0 to 1SOO ml/mln
±1 % per dilution stage.
6.3 Gas Chromatograph Columns—Two
types of columns are used for separation of
low and high molcular weight sulfur com-
pounds :
5.3.1 Low Molecular Weight Sulfur Com-
pounds Column (GC/FPD-1).
6.3.1.1 Separation Column—11 m by 2.16
mm (36 ft by 0.085 in) inside diameter Teflon
tubing packed with 30/60 mesh Teflon coated
with 5% polyphenyl ether and 0.06% ortho-
phosphoric acid, or equivalent (see Figure
16-3).
6.3.1.2 Stripper or Precolumn—0.6 m by
2.16 mm (2 ft by 0.085 rn) mslde diameter
Teflon tubing packed as in 5.3.1.
6.3.13 Sample Valve—Teflon ten-port gas
sampling valve, equipped with a 10 ml sample
loop, actuated by compressed air (Figure
16-3).
5.3.1.4 Oven—For containing sample
valve, stripper column and separation ool-
umm. The oven should be capable of main-
taining an elevated temperature ranging
from ambient to 100' C, constant within
f LAM PHOTOMETRIC BCUCTM
CINAUXT
FSBEBAI
t. Gai ctvontatoprophfe-ftafnc photomstrfe ans)yzcf%
TOU n, KG. 1S7=-miDflT, SOTMa 24,
V-BB-8
-------
nOPOSEO filiES
6.8.1.5 Temperature Monitor—Thermo-
oouple pyrometer to measure column •ven.
detector, and exhaust temperature ±1" C.
6.3.1.6 Flow System—Gas metering system
to measure sample flow, hydrogen flow, oxy-
gen flow and nitrogen curler gas flow.
63.1.7 Detector—Flame photometric. de-
tector.
5.3.1 £ . Electrometer—Capable of full scale
amplification of linear ranges of 10-* to 10-«
amperes full scale.
6.3.1.9 Power Supply—Capable of deliver-
ing up to 760 volts.
6.8.1.10 Recorder—Compatible with the
output voltage range of the electrometer.
6.8.2 High Molecular Weight Compounds
Column (GC/FPD-n).
TO INSTRUMENTS
AND
DILUTION SYSTEM
£.3.2.1 Separation Column— 3.05 m by 2.16
mm (10 ft by 0.085 In.) Inside diameter Teflon
tubing packed with 30/60 mesh Teflon coated
with 10 percent Triton X-305, or equivalent.
£3.2.3 •Sample Valve— Teflon six-port gas
•Bampl^e valve equipped 'with a 10 ml •am-
ple loop, actuated by compressed air
-------
systems. The concentration In parts per mfl-
lion generated by a -tube containing o spe-
cific permeant can be calculated as follows:
C=K
Pr
ML
Equation 16-1
where:
C= Concentration of permeant produced in ppm.
Pr= Permeation rate of the tube in uglmin.
M= Molecular weight of the permeant
L= Flow rate, 1/min, of air over permeant ©20°C, 760 nun
Hg.
ir=Gas constant at 20°C and 760mm Hg=24.04 Us mole
8.4 Operating Conditions for QC/FPD
Systems.
8.4.1 Low-Molecular. Weight Sulfur Com-
pounds — The operating parameters for the
QC/FPD system used for low molecular
weight compounds are as follows: nitrogen
carrier gas flow rate of 50 cc/mlnute, exhaust
temperature of 110° C, detector temperature
of 105° C, ,oven temperature of 40* C, hy-
drogen flow rate of 80 cc/mlnute. oxygen
flow rate of 20 cc/mlnute, and sample flow
rate between 20 and 80 cc/mlnute. '
8.4.2 High -Molecular Weight Sulfur Com-
pounds — The operating parameters for the
QC/FPD system for high molecular weight
compounds are the same as In 8.4.1. except:
oven temperature of 70' C, and nitrogen
carrier gas flow of 100 cc/mlnute.
8.5 Calibration of QC/FPD Analysis Sys-
tems. Generate a series of three or more
known concentrations spanning the linear
range of the FPD (approximately 0.05 to 1.0
ppm) for each sulfur compound anticipated
to be present In the gas stream analyzed.
Bypassing the dilution system, Inject these
standards Into the GC/TPD analyzers and
monitor the responses. Three injects for each
concentration must yield the precision de-
scribed In Section 4.1. Failure to attain this
precision is an Indication of a problem in
the calibration or analytical system. Any
such problem must be Identified and cor-
rected before proceeding. Peak heights.
rather than Integrated areas, have proven
satisfactory; however, Integrated areas may
be required for alternate columns or instru-
mentation.
8.5. Calibration Curves — Plot the GC/
FPD responses in current (amperes) versus
their causative concentrations in ppm on
log-log coordinate graph paper for each sul-
fur compound calibrated.
8.6 Calibration of Dilution System. Gen-
erate a known concentration of hydrogen
sulfide using the permeation tube system.
Adjust the flow rate of diluent air for the
first dilution stage so that the desired level
of dilution is approximated. Inject the
diluted is approximated. Inject the diluted
calibration gas Into GC/FPD-I and monitor
Its response. Three Injects for each dilution
must yield the precision described in Section
4.1. Failure to attain this precision in this
step Is an Indication of a problem in the
dilution system. Any such problem must be
Identified and corrected before proceeding.
Using the calibration curve for ILS (de-
veloped under 8.4.1) determine the diluted
calibration gas concentration In ppm. Then,
calculate the dilution factor as the ratio of
the calibration gas concentration before
dilution to the diluted calibration gas con-
centration determined under this paragraph.
Repeat this procedure for each stage of dilu-
tion required.
9. Sampling and analysts procedure
9. Sampling. Insert the sampling probe
Into the test port making certain that no
dilution air enters the stack through the
port. Begin sampling .and dilute the sample
approximately 10:1 -using the dilution sys-
tem shown In Figura 16-9. Note that the
prectea dilution factor to that which Is deter-
mined In paragraph 8.5. Condition the en-
tire system with sample for a minimum of 15
minutes prior to commencing analysis.
9.2 Analysis. Allquots of diluted sample
care Injected simultaneously Into both GC/
PPD analyzers for analysis. GC/FPD-I Is used
to measure the low-molecular weight reduced
sulfur compounds. The low molecular weight
compounds Include hydrogen sulfide, sulfur
dioxide, methyl mercaptan, ethyl mercap-
tan, and dimethyl sulfide. GC/FPD-n is used
to resolve the high-molecular weight com-
pounds. The high molecular weight com-
pounds Include propyl mercaptan, butyl mer-
captan, dimethyl disulfide, dlpropyl sulfide,
and dibutyl sulfide.
9.2.1 Analysis of Low-Molecular Weight
Sulfur Compounds—The sample valve is ac-
tuated for one to three minutes In which
time an aliquot of diluted sample Is injected
Into the stripper column and analytical
column. The valve is then de-actuated for
approximately fifteen minutes in which time,
the analytical column continues to be fore-
flushed, the stripper column Is backflushed,
and the sample loop Is refilled. Monitor the
responses. The elutlon time for each com-
pound will be determined during calibra-
tion.
8.2.2 Analysis of High-Molecular Weight
Sulfur Compounds—The procedure Is essen-
tially the same as above except that no
stripper column Is needed.
9.2.3 Sample Run—A sample run is com-
posed of 16 individual analyses (injects) per-
formed over a period of not less than 3 hours
or more than C hours.
9.2.4 Observation for Clogging of Probe—
If reductions In sample concentrations are
observed during.a sample run that cannot be
explained by process conditions, the sam-
pling must be Interrupted to determine if
the sample probe Is clogged with partlculate
matter. After each run, the sample probe
must be Inspected and, if necessary, dis-
mantled and cleaned.
10. Post-Test procedures
10. Recallbration. After each run, or after
a series of runs made within a 24-hour pe-
riod, perform a partial recalibration using the
procedures In Section 8. Only HjS (or other
permeant) need be used to recalibrate the
GC/FPD analysis system (8.4) and the dilu-
tion system (8.6).
10. Determination of Calibration Drift.
Compare the calibration curves obtained
prior to the runs, to the calibration curves
obtained under paragraph 10.1. The calibra-
tion drift must not exceed the limits set
forth in paragraph 4.2. If the drift exceeds
this limit, the Intervening run or runs shall
be considered not valid.
11. Calculations
11.1 Determine the concentrations of each
reduced sulfur compound detected directly
from the calibration curves.
11.2 Calculation of TRS. Total reduced
sulfur will be determined for each analysis
made by summing the concentrations of each
reduced sulfur compound resolved during a
given analysis.
2S) MeSH, 2DMS, x)d
Equation 16-2
where
T.KS
H;S
MeSH
DMS
DMDS
11.3
Total reduced sulfur in ppm, we! basis.
= Hydrogen sulfide, ppm.
Methyl mercaptan, ppm.
Dimethyl sulfide. ppm.
Dimethyl disulfide. ppm.
Other reduced sulfur compounds.
-Dilution factor, dimensionl'-ss.
Average TRS. The average TRS will be determined as follows:
Avg. TRS =
N (1-Bwo)
Equation 16-3
Avg. TRS = Average total reduced sulfur in ppm. dry basts.
I7JS,=Total reduced sulfur in ppm as determined by Equation 16-2.
A"= Number of analyses performed.
ltoo=t Fraction of volume of water vapor in the gas stream as determined by Method 4—Determination of
Moisture in Stack Gases (36 FR 24S87).
12. Bibliography.
12.1 O'Keeffe, A. E. and Ortman, G. C.,
"Primary Standards for Trace Gas Analysis."
Anal. Chem. 38,760 (1966).
12.2 Stevens, R. K., O'Keeffe, A. E., and
Ortman, G. C., "Absolute Calibration of a
Flame Photometric Detector to Volatile Sul-
fur Compounds at Sub-Part-Per-Milllon Lev-
els," Environmental Science and Technology,
3:7 (July, 1969).
12.3 Mulick, J. D., Stevens, R. K., and
Baumgardner, R., "An Analytical System De-
signed to Measure Multiple Malodorous Com-
pounds Related to Kraft Mill Activities,"
presented at the 12th Conference on Methods
In Air Pollution and Industrial Hygiene Stu-
dies, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA, April 6-8, 1971.
12.4 Devonald, R. H., Serenius, R. S., and
Mclntyre, A. D., "Evaluation of the Flame
Photometric Detector for Analysis of Sulfur
Compounds," Pulp and Paper Magazine of
Canada, 73, 3 (March, 1972).
12.5 Grlmley, K. W., Smith, W. S., and
Martin, R. M., "The Use of a Dynamic Dilu-
tion System in the Conditioning of Stack
Gases for Automated Analysis by a Mobile
Sampling Van," presented at the 63rd An-
nual APCA Meeting In St. Louis, Mo., June
14-19, 1970.
12.6 General Reference. Standard Methods
of'Chemical Analysis Volume m A and B
Instrumental Methods. Sixth Edition. Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co.
METHOD 17 — DETERMINATION or
EMISSIONS PBOM STATIONARY SOURCES (IK-
STACK FILTRATION METHOD)
introduction. Participate matter is not an
absolute quantity; rather It Is a variable
which is a function of temperature and pres-
sure. For this reason, paniculate matter
emission regulations and/or associated test
methods must define or take cognizance of
the temperature and pressure at which par-
ticulate matter Is to be measured. If tempera-
ture is not defined, and If the effect of tem-
perature upon the quantity of partlculate In
an effluent gas Is unknown, then the par-
ticulate emission regulation may be variable.
The range of pressure which exist from source
to source is of negligible importance.
In Method 5, 250* F is established as a
nominal reference temperature. Thus, where
Method 5 is specified under an applicable
subpart, paniculate matter Is defined with
respect to temperature. In order to maintain
this Indicated temperature, Method 6 In-
cludes a heated glass sample probe and a
heated filter holder. This equipment is cum-
bersome and requires care In Its operation.
Therefore, where particulate matter concen-
trations (over the normal range of tempera-
ture associated with a specified source cate-
gory) are known to be Independent of tem-
perature, it is desirable to eliminate the glass
FEDEBAl QECISTER, VOL 41, NO. 107—FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1976
-------
ond heating -oystem, end sample o&
stack temperature.
This method describes an in-eteck sampling
system and sampling iwoosdures for use
where particulate matter concentrations era
independent of temperature. It may be used
to conduct performance tests under 40 CFB
00.8 within specified conditions, or when ap-
proved by the Administrator.
1. Principle tm& applicability
1.1 Principle. Particulate matter Is with-
drawn lEOklnetically from a gas stream and
collected on o gloss fiber filter maintained at
stack temperature. The particulate matter
mass is determined gravimetrically after re-
moval of uncomblned water.
12 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of particulate matter emis-
sions from stationary sources and is used to
IN STACK
FILTER
HOLDER
determine compliance with new source per-
formance standards, when specifically pro-
vided for in .an applicable subpart of the
standards. This method is not applicable
•when stack gases are saturated with water
vapor or ^rhen the projected cross-sectional
ore of the probe extension-filter holder
assembly (when inserted halfway Into the
stack) covers more than 3% of the stack
cross-sectional area (see Section 4.12).
2. Apparatus .
2.1 Sampling train. A schematic of the
sampling train used in this method is shown
to Figure 17-1. Construction details for
many, but' not all, of the train components
are given In AFTD-0581; for changes from the
AFTD-0581 document and for allowable mod-
ifications to Figure 17-1,'consult with the
Administrator.
C9PINGER TRAIN OPTIONAL. BAY BE REPLACED
BY AN EQUIVALENT CONDENSER
THERMOMETER
.CHECK
'AWE
'ACUUM
GAUGE
MAIM.VALVE
DRY GAS METER
Figure 17-1. Paniculate-sampling train, equipped wiih in slack filter.
The operating and maintenance procedures
for many of Che sampling train components
ore described m APTD-0576. Since correct
usage is Important in obtaining valid re-
sults, oil users should read the APTD-0576
document and adopt the operating and maln-
tenace procedures outlined in it, unless oth-
erwise specified herein.
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 in-
ternal diameter. The probe nozzle shall be of
the button-hook or elbow design, unless oth-
erwise approved by the Administrator. ISie
nozzle shall ba constructed from seamless
stainless steel, tubing. Other configurstions
and construction material may be used sub-
ject to approval from the Administrator.
A range of sizes suitable for Isoklnetle
campling should be available, e.g., 032 cm
(% in.) up to 1.27 cm (Vi in.) (or larger if
higher volume sampling trains are used) in-
side diameter (ID) nozzles in Increments of
0.16 em (Ms in.). Each mozzle shall be cali-
brated according to the procedures outlined
in the calibration section.
• 3.13 Filter Bolder. The in-stack filter
holder shall he constructed of boroslllcate or
quartz glass or stainless steel; if a gasket
is used, it shall be made of slllcone rubber,
teflon, or stainless steel. Other holder and
gasket materials may be used with approval
from the Administrator. The filter holder
shall be designed IS) provide a positive csal
against leakage from the outside or around
«S»o filter.
2.13 Probe Extension—Any suitable rigid
probe extension may be used after the filter
holder. Flexible tubing may. also be used be-
tween the probe extension and the con-
denser.
2.1.4 Pltot tube—Type S, or other-device
approved by the Administrator, attached to-
probe extension to allow constant monitoring-.
of the stack gas velocity. The face openings
of the pilot tube and the probe nozzle shall
be adjacent and parallel to each other, not.
•necessarily in the same plane, during sam-
pling. The free space between the nozzle and
5>ltot tube (sea Figure 17-1) shall be at least
1.8 cm {0.76 In.). The free space, shall be
oet based on o 1.8 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. In addi-
tion, to iriiTUTniM> aerodynamic interactions
between the pitot tube and filter holder,
there shall be a distance of at least 3 Inches
between the center line of the pitot tube Im-
pact openings and the leading edge of the
alter holder (see Figure 17-1).
The pitot tube must meet the criteria
specified in Method 2, and be calibrated sepa-
rately (I.e., apart from Its assembly configu-
ration) according to the procedures outlined
in that method for the calibration of Isolat-
ed Type S pitot tubes.
2.1.6 Differential pressure gauge—Inclined
manometer capable of measuring velocity
head xrtthln 10% of the minimum measured
volus or ±0.013 pum (0.0008 in.), whichever
is greater. Selow a differential pressure of
1.3 mm (O.OS in.) water guage, mlcromanom-
eters with sensitivities of 0.013 mm (0.0005
In.) should be used. However, mlcromanom-
etere are not easily adaptable to field condi-
tions and are not easy to use with pulsating
flow. Thus, methods or other devices accep-
table to the Administrator may be used when
conditions warrant.
2.1.6 Condenser—Any system that cools
the sample gas stream (e.g., implngers con-
nected in series, as In Method 5) and allows
measurement of both the water condensed
and the moisture leaving the condenser, each
to within 1 ml or 1 g. The moisture leaving
the condenser can be measured either by:
(1) monitoring the temperature and pres-
sure at the exit of the condenser and using
Dalton's law; or (2) passing the sample gas
stream through a silica gel trap with exit
gases kept below 20' C («8° F) and determin-
ing the weight gain.
If means other than silica gel are used'
to determine the amount of moisture leav-
ing the condenser, it is recommended that
silica gel still be used between the condenser
system and pump to prevent moisture con-
densation in the pump and metering devices.
2.1.7 Metering system—Vacuum gauge,
teak-free pump, thermometers capable of
measuring temperature to within 3° C (5.4°
F), dry gas meter with 2% accuracy, and re-
lated equipment, or equivalent, as required
to maintain an Isoklnetic sampling rate and
to determine sample volume. Sampling trains
VACuuvutuizing metering systems designed for
UNE higher flow rates than that: described in
AFTD-0581 or APTD-O576 may be used pro-
Tided that the specifications in section 2 of
this method are met. When the metering
system- Is used in conjunction with a pitot
tube, the system shall enable checks of iso-
kinetic rates.
2.1.8 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 read-
ing may be obtained from a nearby weather
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 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in. Hg)
per 30 m (100 ft) elevation Increase or vice
versa'for elevation decrease.
2.1.9; Gas density determination equip-
ment—Temperature and pressure gauges and
gas analyzer as described In Methods 2 and
3.
2.1.10 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
capable of measuring, pressure to within 2.5
mm. Hg- (0.1 in. Hg). If silica gel is used in
the condenser system the temperature and
pressure must be measured before the silica.
gel component.
22. Sample recovery:
32.1 Probe nozzle brush—Nylon bristles
with stainless steel wire handle. The brush
shall be properly sized and shaped to brush
out the probe nozzle.
222 Glass wash bottles—Two.
22.3 Glass sample storage containers—
Chemically resistant, boroslllcate glass bot-
tles, for acetone washes, 500-ml or 1,000 ml.
Screw cap closures shall be teflon rubber-
backed liners or of such construction so as
to be leak free and prevent chemical attack
from the acetone. (Narrow mouth glass' bot-
tles have been found to be less prone to
leakage.) Other types of containers must be
approved by the Administrator.
22.4 Petrt dishes—For filter samples;
glass or polyethylene, unless otherwise speci-
fied by the Administrator.
KSESUAIL QE6tS7SJ,
. D3O. TO7— FBJDAY,
24, .1976
-------
PROPOSED RULES
2.2.5 Graduated cylinder - and/or bal-
ance—To measure condensed water 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. Any of these balances
are suitable for use here and In section 2.3.4.
2.2.6 Plastic storage containers—Air tight
containers to store silica gel.
2.2.7 Funnel and rubber policeman—To
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 0.5
g.
2.3.5 Beakers—250 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 Filters—The In-stack filters shall be
glass mats or thimble fiber filters, without
organic binders, and shall exhibit at least
99.95% efficiency (£0.05% penetration) on
0.3 micron dioctyl phthalate smoke particles.
The filter efficiency tests shall be conducted
In accordance with ASTM standard method
D 2986-71. Test data from the supplier's qual-
ity control program is sufficient for this pur-
pose.
3.1.2 Silica gel—Indicating type, 6-16
mesh. If previously used, dry at 175* C
(350° F) for 2 hours. New silica gel may be
used as received.
3.1.3 Crushed ice.
3.1.4 Stopcock grease—Acetone insoluble,
heat stable sllicone 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, =£0.001 Tc
residue, in glass bottles. Acetone from metal
containers generally has a high residue biank
and should not be used. Sometimes, suppliers
transfer acetone to glass bottles from metal
containers. Thus, acetone blanks shall be run
prior to field use and only acetone with low
blank values (^0.001%) shall be used.
3.3 Analysis.
3.3.1 Acetone—Same as 3.2.1.
3.3.2 Deslccant—Anhydrous calcium sul-
fate, 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 compo-
nents shall t>e 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 0.5 g.
Record the total weight, both silica gel and
container, on each container. Larger portions
of silica gel may be used, but care should
be taken during sampling that the gel Is not
entrained and carried out of Its holder. As
an alternative, the silica gel may be weighed
directly In its Implnger or sampling holder
Just prior to train assembly.
Check niters visually against light for
Irregularities and flaws or pinhole leaks. La-
bel filters of proper size on the back side near
the edge using numbering machine Ink. As
an alternative, label the shipping containers
(glass or plastic petrl dishes) and keep the
filters In these containers at all times except
during sampling and weighing.
Desiccate the filters at 20±6.6° 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 50S~C.
4.1.2 Preliminary determinations. Select
the sampling site and the minimum number
of sampling points according to Method 1 or
as specified by the Administrator. Make a
projected area model of the probe extension-
filter holder assembly, with the pltot tube
impact openings positioned along the center-
line of the stack, as shown in Figure 17-2. If
PROBE EXTENSION
FILTER HOLDER
ASSEMBLY
.the estimated cross-section blockage, cal-
culated as shown in Figure 17-2, exceeds 3
percent of the duct cross sectional area, then
either one of the following shall be done: (1)
a suitable out-stack filtration method can be
used instead of In-stack filtration; or (2) a
special in-stack assembly, designed to mini-
mize blockage effects, can be used. For de-
tails concerning the latter approach, consult
with the Administrator.
Determine the stack pressure, temperature.
and the range of velocity heads using Meth-
od 2; determine the moisture content using
Approximation Method 4 or its alternatives
for the purpose of making isoklnetic sam-
pling rate calculations. Estimates may be
used. However, final results will be based on
actual measurements made during the test.
STACK OR DUCT
J
TEMPERATURE
,SENSOR
ESTIMATED
CROSS-SECTION =
BLOCKAGE
X100
Figure 17-2. Projected-area model of cross-section
blockage (approximate average for a sample traverse)
caused by in-stack filter holder-probe extension
assembly.
FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 41, NO. U7—FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1976
V-BB-12
-------
PROPOSED HOES
Select a nozzle slzeiased on tlte range of
velocity beads such Oat it to not necessary
to change the nozzle iBlae in order to main-
tain isokinettc sampling rates. During the
ran, do not change the nozzle size. Ensure
that the differential pressure gauge Is capa-
ble of measuring the minimum velocity iread
value to within 10%, or as specified by the
Administrator.
•Select a probe extension length such that
•11 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
tune specified in the test procedures for the
specific Industry such that the sampling time
per point Is not less than 2 mln. (or some
greater time Interval if specified by the Ad-
ministrator) and the sample volume taken.
•will exceed the required minimum total gas
«amp]« volume specified in the test pro-
cedures for the specific industry. The latter
to based on an approximate average sampling
imte. Note also that the minimum total sam-
ple volume Is corrected to standard condl-
It Is recommended that half-integral or
Integral numbers of minutes be sampled at
each point In order to avoid timekeeping er-
In some circumstances, e.g., batch cycles,
tt may be necessary to sample for shorter
tJmea at the traverse points and to obtain
•nailer gas sample volumes. In these cases,
tte Administrator's approval must first be
ebtalned.
4.1.8 Preparation of collection train. Dur-
ing preparation and assembly of the sam-
pling train, keep all openings where con-
tamination can occur covered until Just prior
to assembly or until sampling is about to
begin. ^ -• . . •
If implngers are used to condense stack
gas moisture prepare them as follows: place
TOO ml of water In each of the first two 1m-
plngerr. leave the third tmplnger empty;-
and transfer approximately 200-300 g or more,
tf necessary, of preweighed silica gel from
Its container to the fourth Implnger; alter-
natively, if a balance is available in the field,
the silica gel can be weighed out in a tared
Implnger. and Its weight gain determined In
tbe field. Place the sOlca gel container in a
dean place for later use in the sample re-
covery. If some means other than tmplngere
to used to condense moisture, prepare the
•oodenser (and. if appropriate, silica gel for
condenser outlet) for use.
Using * tweezer or clean disposable surgi-
cal gloves, place a labeled (identified) and
weighed filter In the filter holder. Be sure
that the filter is properly centered and the
gasket properly placed co as not to allow
the sample gas stream to circumvent the
filter? Check filter for tears after assembly Is
completed. Mark the probe extension with
beat 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 sensor to the
probe extension so that the sensor extends
beyond the leading edge of the probe exten-
sion and does not touch any metal. The sen-
ear should be positioned at least 1.9 cm
(0.75 tn.) from both the pltot tube and probe
nozzle to avoid interference with the gas
" «DW (see Figure 17-1).
Assemble the train as In Figure 17-1, using
.(tt applicable) a very light coat of sllicone
grease on all ground glass Joints and greasing
only the outer portion (see APTD-0576) to
avoid possibility of contamination by the
•nicone grease. Place crushed Ice around the
tmptngen (if applicable).
4.1.4 Leak check procedure—After the
has been assembled, a teak
•check of the filter holder shall be conducted
as follows: Plug the Inlet to the probe noa-
Ete with a material that will be able to with-
stand the stack temperature;' Alternatively,
the proble nozzle can be removed and the In-
let to the filter holder plugged. Insert the
holder into the stack and wait approximately
6 minutes (or longer, if necessary) to allow
the system to come to equilibrium with the
temperature of the stack gas stream. Turn
on the pump and draw a vacuum of at least
380 mm Hg (16 In. Hg). Determine the leak-
age rate, If any. A leakage .rate In excess of
4% of the average sampling rate or 0.00067
m'/mln. (0.02 cfm), whichever is less, is un-
acceptable.
The' following leak check instructions for
the sampling train described in APTD-0576
and AFTD-0681 may be helpful. Start the
pump with by-pass valve fully open and
coarse adjust valve completely closed. Par-
tially open the coarse adjust valve and
slowly close the by-pass valve unto 880 mm
Hg (16 in. Hg) .vacuum is reached. Do not
•reverse direction of by-pass valve. If 880 mm
Hg (15 in. Hg) is exceeded, either leak check
at this higher vacuum or end the leak check
as shown below and start over.
When the leak check IB completed, first
slowly remove the plug from the Inlet to the
probe nozzle and immediately turn off the
vacuum pump. This prevents the water In
the condenser from being forced backward
and keeps silica gel from being entrained
backward.
Leak checks shall be conducted as de-
scribed whenever the train is disengaged, e.g.,
for silica gel or filter changes during the test.
prior to each test run, and at the comple-
tion of each test run. If leaks are found to be
in excess of the acceptable rate, the test will
be considered invalid. To reduce lost time due
to leakage occurrences, it is recommended
that leak checks be conducted between port
changes at the highest vacuum reading
drawn during that sampling traverse.
D»U
• •o..
Muni KUHO._
•CUHMIIO
MTUAHf
CtUTM
MMItm TdK RATURC _
Mraw rmt nrosmt _
(OI«>ISTVM.*_
HUM tnttOXm LEMTM. • Ml _
M221E UiniUCATIM M
MIUCI CAIIMUTEO nine DUUKT[R.O»&O_
If M K«l!.»)ta« Icta) '
mof ran ntrFKsm. c, .
KHUATK o IT ACT cms HCTKM
tuvnsmn
IM»I
ratal
Mm an
». —.
AVtlAfil
suite
IKHUK
•»"«
•»••*•
.
,.-
ttAO
KVUAIU*
«H>
«ei*n
i
vciocm
MAO
!*•»>•
Wfc.M,0
Muna
wunniAL
AOOS
omici
mn»
— Hrf
Ita MjOl
W5MWII
VOUM
->l«>l
US UVU TIVUATUH
Al OH QA9 «m
•Ml
•e I'd
*«•.
OUTUT
•e i««
A-9. .
»».
tunwiuM
t» GAS
HAVING
COMXNSfR CM
UU1 •TWGIM.
•CI«H
Figure 17-3. Parflcutatt fuld dau.
4.1 US Partlculate train operation—During
the sampling run, maintain the tsoklnetic
sampling rate to within 10% (unless other-
wise specified by the Administrator) of true
isoklnetlc.
For each run, record the data required on
the example data sheet shown in Figure 17-8.
Be sure to record the initial dry gas meter
reading. Record the dry gas meter readings
-at the beginning and end of each sampling
time Increment, when changes in flow rates
are made, and when samplylng is halted.
•Take other data point readings at least once
at each sample point during each time incre-
ment and additional readings when signifi-
cant changes (20% variation in velocity bead
readings) necessitate additional adjustments
In flow rate. Level and zero the manometer.
Clean {he portholes prior to the test run
to minimize the chance of sampling the de-
posited material. To begin sampling, remove
the nozzle cap and verify that the pltot tube
and probe extension are properly positioned.
Position the nozzle at the first traverse point
with the tip pointing directly into the gas
stream. Immediately start the pump and ad-
just the flow to isoklnetlc conditions. Nomo-
graphs, which aid In the rapid adjustment
of the laoElnetic sampling rate without ex-
cessive computations, are available lor use
whenever the Type S pltot tube coefficient is
0.85±ti.02. and the stack gas equivalent den-
sity (molecular weight) to 29±4. AFTD-0578
details the procedure for using these nomo-
graphs. If C, and M4 are outside the above
stated ranges, do not use the nomograph un-
less appropriate steps (see Reference 7.7) are
taken to compensate for the deviations.
" When th» stack is under significant nega-
tive pressure (height of Implnger stem), take
care to close the coarse adjust valve before
inserting the probe into the stack. If 'neces-
sary, the pump may be turned on with the
coarse adjust valve closed.
When the probe is in position, block off the
openings around the probe and porthole to
prevent unrepresentative dilution of the gas
stream.
Traverse the stack cross section, as re-
quired by Method 1 or as specified by the
Administrator, being careful not to bump
the probe nozzle into the stack walls when
sampling near the walls or when removing
or Inserting the probe extension through the
portholes, to minimise chance of extracting
deposited material.
FB>EtAi KOUIER, VOL. 41, NO. 117—RIDAY, MPTEMUI M, 1976
-------
fflartog H& *ert raa. tetia tspprcjnioto otepa
' »>if of the filter
holder by rubbing the surfaces with a nylon
bristle brush and rinsing with acetone. Rlnsa
each surface three times or more If needed to
remove visible paniculate. Make a final rinse
of the brush and filter holder. After all ace-
tone washings and paniculate matter ore
collected in the sample container, tighten
the lid on the sample container so that ace-
tone will -not leak out when it is shipped
to the laboratory. Mark the height of the
fiuld level to determine whether or not leak-
age occurred during transport. Label con-
tainer to clearly Identify its contents.
Container No. 3. Note color of indicating
silica gel to determine if tt has bean com-
pletely spent and make a notation of its con-
dition. Transfer the silica eel back to its
original container and eaal. A funnel may
make it easier to pour the silica gel without
spilling, and a rubber policeman may be used
as an aid in removing the silica gel. It is not
necessary to remove the small amount of dust
particles that may adhere to the walls and
are difficult to remove. Since the gain hi
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 Is avail-
able in the field, follow the procedure under
-Analysis."
Condenser water. Treat the condenser or
implnger water as follows: make a notation
of any color or film In the liquid catch. Meas-
ure the condensate to within ± 1 ml by using
a graduated cylinder or, if available, to with-
in ±0.6 g by using a balance. Record the
condensate volume or weight. This informa-
tion is required to calculate the moisture
content of the effluent gas. Discard the liquid
after measuring and recording the volume
or weight.
4.3 Analysis. Becord the data required
on the example sheet shown in Figure 17-4.
Handle each sample container as follows:
Container Wo. 1. Leave m chipping con-
tainer or transfer the filter and any tosss
partlculate from the sample container to a
QBSBfEB, VOL 41, CdO. S 87—(FBSfcAV, SEPTSSaQSQ 24, JW6
V-BB-14
-------
Rtoposeo nnis
• tared glass weighing dish and desiccate for
'St hours In 'a desiccator «»v»ifa>tT»ing anhy-
.drous caldufa sulfate. Weight to a constant
Weight and report the results to the nearest
O.I ing. For purposes of this section 43. the
term "constant weight" means * difference
of no more than 0.8 rag or 1 % of total weight
flant.
Date.
lees tare weight, whichever Is greater, be-
tween two consecutive weighings, with no
teas than 6 hours of desiccation time between
weighings and no more than 2 minutes ex-
posure to the laboratory atmosphere, (must
be less than 60% relative humidity)'during
weighing.
Run-No..
Relative Humidity.
Amount liquid lost during transport
Acetone blank volume, ml •
Acetone wash volume, ml
Acetone blank concentration, mg/g (equation 17-4).
Acetone wash blank, mg (equation 17-5)
CONTAINER
NUMBER
1
2 .
TOTAL
WEIGHT OF PARTICULATE COLLECTED.
mg
FINAL WEIGHT
TARE WEIGHT
' Less acetone blank
Weight of particulaie matter
WEIGHT GAIN
.-
-
FINAL
INITIAL
LIQUID COLLECTED
TOTAL VOLUME COLLECTED
VOLUME OF LIQUID
WATER COLLECTED
CONDENSATE
VOLUME,
ml
- •/-
SILICA GEL
WEIGHT,
9
9*1 ml
CONVERT WEIGHT OF WATER TO VOLUME BY DIVIDING TOTAL WEIGHT
INCREASE BY DENSITY OF WATER (1g/ml)
INCREASE, g
1 g/ml
VOLUME WATER, ml
Figure 17-4. .Analytical data.
KDEftAL KGISTH. VOL 41. NO. 1«7—HIOAY, SEFTtMKI 14, If76
V-BB-15
-------
PROPOSED RULES
Container Ho. 2. Note level of liquid In con— the high and low numbers shall not exceed
tainer and confirm on analysis sheet whether 0.1 mm (0.004 In.) .
or not leakage occurred during transport. When nozzles become nicked, dented, or
Measure the liquid to this container either corroded, they shall be reshaped, sharpened,
votumetrlcally to ±1 ml or gravlmetrlcally to Bnd recalibrated before use.
±0.5 g. Transfer the contents to a tared 250 j^^ nozzle ^n ^ permanently and
ml beater, and evaporate to dryness at unlquely ldentlfled.
ambient temperature and pressure. Desiccate ;; ~t t t. K. ™_.- ,«.*,. x^ », n w.
for 24 hours and weigh to a constant weight 6* pltot tube- Tne Pltot tube 8n*u **>
t
-may be conducted In the field. of **>*>•**• Type S pltot tubes.
"Acetone Blank' Container. Measure ace- -B-3 ^7 B*5 naeter and orifice meter. Both
tone In this container either volumetrtcaUy meters shall be calibrated according to the
or gravlmetrlcally. Transfer the acetone to procedure outlined In AFTD-0576. When a
a tared 250 ml beaker and evaporate to dry- diaphragm pump Is used, assure that there
ness at ambient temperature and pressure. ^ no leak.
Desiccate for 24 hours and weigh to a con- 6.4 Temperature gauges. Calibrate dial
Btant weight. Report the results to the near- and liquid filled bulb thermometers and
eet 0.1 mg. thermocouple-potentiometer systems against
K svi»tavitln« mercury-ln-glass thermometers. Ice bath and
o. ooHoriwKm boiling water (corrected for barometric pres-
Malntaln a laboratory log of all calibra- sure) are acceptable reference points. For
toons. other devices, check with the Administrator.
6.1 Probe nozzle. Using a micrometer,
measure the Inside diameter of the nozzle to 6- Calculations
the nearest 0.025 mm (0.001 in.). Make 3 Carry out calculations, retaining at least
separate measurements using different dlam- one extra' decimal figure beyond that of the
eters each -time and obtain, the average of . acquired data. Round off figures after final
the measurements. The difference between calculation. .
4.1 Nomenclature.
A»<=- Cross sectional area of nozzle, m* (ft1).
Bwt= Water vapor in the gas stream, proportion by volume.
C«= Acetone blank residue concentration, xng/g.
c.= Concentration of participate matter in stack gas. dry liasis. cofWl^d lo standard conditions, g/dscm (g
dscf).
7= Percent of isokinetic Sampling.
m»=Total amount of particulate matter collected, mg.
; A/,=Mol«ular weight of water, 18 g/g-mole (18 Ib/lb-mole).
«n.=Mas3 of residue of acetone after evaporation, me.
P*.-— Barometric pressure at the sampling site, mm Hg (in. Dgi.
P.-Absolute stack gas pressure, mm lip (in. Hg).
P,t<=8tandard absolute pressure. 760 mm Be (29.92 in. Hg).
.R= Ideal gas constant, 0.06236 mm Hg-mV°K-g-mole (21.83 In. Hg-ft'^R-lb-mole).
T.= Absolute average dry gas meter temperature (see Figure 17-*). * K (* R).
T.— Absolute average stack gas temperature (see Figure 17-3), • K (° K).
T.u<=> Standard absolute temperature, 293° K (528° R).
V*** Volume of acetone blank, ml.
V«w=" Volume of acetone used in wash, ml.
V.,=Total volume of liquid collected in condenser and silica gel (ae* Figure 17-4), ml.
V««Vo!ume of gas sample as measured by dry gas meter, dcm (dcf).
V.{lM)=Volume of gas sample measured by the dry gas met«r corrected to standard condition*, dacm (dacf).
Vv(aid)a Volume of water vapor in tbe gas sample corrected to standard conditions, scni (acf).
(.-Start gas velocity, calculated by Method 2, Equation 2-7 using data obtained from Method 17, m/ne (ft/see);
IF.= Weight of residue in acetone wash, mg.
AH= Average pressure differential across the orifice meter (we Figure 17-3i. mm HiO On. HiO).
».=> Density of acetone, mg/ml (see label on bottle).
».=Density of water, 1 gym) (0.00220 Hi/ml).
»=Tota) sampling time, min.
13.6 -Sped Be gravity of mercury.
60=sec/min. . . . .
100= Conversion to percent.
8.2 Average dry gas meter temperature and average orifice pressure drop. See data sheet (Figure 17-1).
6J Dry gas volume. Correct the sample volume measured by the dry gas meter to standard condition! (20* C, TOO
mm Hg or 68° F, 29.92 In. Hg) by using Equation 17-1.
r^b.r + Ag/13.6-1
- L - T~. - J
Equation 17-1
Equation 17-t
where:
K =0.8855 °K/mm Hg for metric units
-17.65 "R/in. Hg for English units
(.4 Vohime of water vapor.
F.,.t<1)=V'
vhere "'
K— 0.00134 m'/ml tor metric units
-0.0472 ft'/m) (or Enghsh nnlu
8.5 Moisture content.
B..= V'™ - Equation 17-«
Vm (.td) + V, (.vB
8.6 Acetone blank concentration.
C.=j^=- ' Equation 17-1
r m P»
(.7 AoetotKi wash blank.
W.= C.F«,p. Equation 17-^6
U Total particolat* weight. Determine the total parUcnlate catch from the sum of the weights obtained from
containers 1 and 2 less tbe acetone blank (see Figure 17-4).
6.9 Paniculate concentration.
c.= (0.001 g/mg) (m^Fa(lkn) Equation 17-9
FEOOAL lEOISTIt, VOL 41, NO. U7— fltDAY, SETTEMBH 24, 1976
V-BB-16
-------
MOPOSH) MILES
To
IfnlUply l)y
•Jl Isokioetic variation.
«JL1 Catalations bom raw data.
60 $t>,P,A,
vbere:
K-I.OOJ46 mm Hg-m>/ml-°K for metric units
-0.00267 in. Hg-ft'/mJ-°R lor English unite
s from intermediate values.
8.11.2 Calculations
,
100
T.Vm<
Equation 17-8
where:
K=4.323 for metric units
=0.0044 (or English units
6.12 (Acceptable results. If 90%
110%. the results are acceptable. If the
results are low In comparison to the stand-
ards and I is beyond the acceptable range,
the Administrator may option to accept the
resnlts. Use reference 7.4 to make judgments.
Otherwise, reject the results and repeat the
test-
7. References
7.1 Addendum to Specifications for In-
cinera tor Testing at Federal Facilities. PHS,
NCAPC, Dec. 6, 1967.
- 12 Martin, Robert M., Construction De-
tails of Isokinetlc Source Sampling Equip-
Protection Agency,
7.3 Rom, Jerome J.. Maintenance, Call-
bration, and Operation of Isoklnetic Source
Sampling Equipment. Environmental Protec-
tlon Agency, APTD-0676.
7.4 Smith, W. 8.. R. T. Snlgehara, and W.
p. Todd, A Method of Interpreting Stack
Sampling Data. Paper presented at the 63rd
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association. St. Louis, Mo., June 14-19, 1870.
7.5 Smith. W. 8., et al.. Stack Oas 8am-
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 Pitot Tube Co-
efflclents and Dry Molecular Weights, Stack
Sampling News 2:4-11. Oct. 1974.
[FRDoc.76-27786 Filed 9-23-76; 8: 45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 187—FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER Z4, 1976
V-BB-17
-------
PROPOSED RULES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[4OCFRPart60]
[FRL 635-4]
KRAFT PULP MILLS
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; Correction
,In PR Doc. 76-27786 appearing at page
42012 In the FEDERAL REGISTER of Sep-
tember 24, 1976, the following changes
should be made:
1. On page 42012, paragraph 3, line 10
is corrected to read as follows: "0.0125
g/Kg ADP is proposed for smelt."
2. On page 42016, { 60.283(a) (3) Is cor-
rected to read as follows:
§ 60.283 Standard for total reduced sul-
fur (TRS).
3. On page 42020> Equation 16-2 is cor-
rected to read as follows :
TBS=Z(B,S, MeSH, J3MS, SDMDS. z)d
4. On page 42027, Equation 17-7 is corrected to read as follows :
100 r.
(/>»., +Ag/13.'6)l
wet. P. A.
Dated: October 21, 1976.
EDWARD F. TOERK,
Acting Assistant Administrator
tor Air ana Waste Management.
[PR Doc.76-81553 Filed 10-28-78:8:46 am]
(a) • • •
(3) From any smelt dissolving tank
any gases which contain TRS in excess of
0.0125 g/Kg ADP (0.025 Ib/ton ADP).
FEOEftAL .REGISTER. VOL. -41. MO. 210—FRIDAY. OCTOBEt 29. 1976
[40CFRPart60]
|PRL 048-8)
KRAFT PULP MILLS
Standards of Performance for New Station-
ary Sources; Extension of Comment
Period
On September 24, 1976 (41 FR 42012),
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) proposed standards of perform-
ance for the control of emissions from
kraft pulp mills. The notice of proposal
requested public comments on the stand-
ards by November 22,1976. Due to a delay
in the printing and shipping of the
Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement, sufficient copies of the
document have not been available to all
interested parties in time to allow their
meaningful review and comment by No-
vember 22. The public comment period is
therefore being extended to allow addi-
tional time for all interested parties to
participate in this rulemaking. EPA has
received a request from the industry to
extend the comment period by 45 days
through January 7,1977. An extension of
this length does not. however, seem
justified because the printing and ship-
ping delay has resulted in only a two-
week delay in processing requests for the
document. EPA has therefore determined
that the comment period will be ex-
tended by three weeks and all comments
postmarked by December 13,1976, will be
considered. Comments should be sub-
mitted (in triplicate) to the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, Attention: Mr.
Don R. Goodwin.
Dated: November 19,1976.
ROGER STRELAW,
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Waste Management.
[FR Doc.76-34661 Piled 11-22-76:8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER,/VOL 41, NO. 227—TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1976
V-BB-18
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
GRAIN ELEVATORS
Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources
SUBPART DD
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTON
AGENCY
[FRL 661-1]
STANDARDS Of PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Grain Elevators
Notice is hereby given that under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, the • Administrator is
proposing standards of perfprmance for
new, modified, and reconstructed grain
elevators.
PROPOSED STANDARDS
- The proposed standards would limit
emissions of particulate matter from
eight affected facilities and the air pollu-
tion control devices on these facilities at
grain elevators. The standards apply to
farm elevators, country elevators, termi-
nal elevators, and commerical rice dryers
which have grain leg capacities greater
than 352 cubic meters per hour (mVh)
(ca. 10,000 bushels hr> and to storage
elevators at wheat flour mills, wet corn
mills, dry corn mills (human consump-
tion) , rice mills, or soybean extraction
plants. The standards are: (1) 0.023
gram per standard cubic meter dry basis
(g/std. m! dry basis.) and zero percent
opacity from control devices on any af-
fected facility except grain dryers; (2)
zero percent opacity from any truck un-
loading station, grain handling operation,
railroad hopper car loading station, or
railroad boxcar loading station; (3) no
visible emissions from any railroad hop-
per car unloading station or railroad box-
car loading station ; '.4.' ten percent opac-
ity from any truck loading station; (5)
ten percent opacity, except that the opac-
ity may not exceed fifteen percent dur-
ing topping -off operations, from any
barge or ship loading station; (6) zero
percent opacity from any grain dryer
(column dryers would be considered in
compliance with the standard provided
the diameters of all column plate per-
forations do not exceed 2.1 millimeters
[mm] [ca. 0.084 inch], and rack dryers
would be considered in compliance pro-
vided all exhaust gases pass through a
50 or finer mesii screen filter) ; (7) op-
eration of a leg which is enclosed from
the top (including the receiving hopper)
to the center line of the bottom pulley,
and ventilation of at least 32.1 actual
cubic meters per cubic meter of grain
handling capacity (ca. 40 ftVbu) to a
particulate control devict on both sides
of the leg and the grain receiving hopper,
at any barge or ship unloading station.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
The proposed standards would reduce
the uncontrolled particulate matter
emissions from new grain elevators by
more than 9S percent. Estimates for vari-
ous model grain elevators show that the
standards woold reduce particulate mat-
ter emissions to a level that is 67 to 94
percent less than the level required by
typical Stave standards. This reduction
In emissions resii&s in a significant re-
duction of embJEnt concentrations of
particulate matter in the vicinity of grain
elevators. The maximum 24-hour average
concentration at a distance of 0.3 kilom-
eter (km) from the model facilities would
be reduced to a level that is 52 to 76 per-
cent lower than the maximum concen-
tration that results from control to the
level of typical State standards. By 1981,
the proposed standards would reduce the
total amount of particulate matter emis-
sions into the atmosphere by 21,000
megagrams per year (ca. 23,000 tons/yr).
The secondary environmental impacts
of the proposed standards would be
minor. There would be no Impact on
water pollution because only dry type col-
lectors would be used to control particu- <
late emissions. Minimal additional solid
waste handling or disposal problems
would be caused by the standard. Cur-
rently, approximately 68 percent of the
grain dust collected by emission control
devices at elevators is returned to the
grain, 30 percent is sold for use In feed
manufacturing, and 2 percent is disposed
of as solid waste. The additional grain
dust collected by a more efficient control
device would either be sold for feed or
landfilled. The proposed standards would
have minimal adverse impacts on noise
and land-use considerations. A relatively
minor amount of particulate matter, sul-
fur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides would
be discharged into the atmosphere from
power plants supplying the additional
electrical power tfcat would be required to
operate the control device needed to
achieve the proposed standards.
The incremental energy required,
above the typical State standard require-
ments, by the proposed standards to
control all new, modified, or recon-
structed grain elevators constructed by
1981 is equivalent to about 2700 m' per
year (ca. 17,000 barrels per year) of
Number 6 fuel oil. This indicates that the
proposed standards would have a minor
impact on the imbalance between na-
tional energy demand and domestic sup-
ply. The energy requirements of the pro-
posed standards result from the use of
fabric filter control instead of the exist-
ing cyclone control requirements. The
total air pollution control energy that
would be required to meet the proposed
standards represents approximately 23
percent of the total process energy re-
quirements of new grain elevators. This
is an increase of about 5 percent above
the energy presently needed to meet
typical State standard requirements for
new grain elevators.
The proposed. standards would affect
approximately 500 grain elevators in the
next five years. The incremental control
costs of the proposed standards over
typical State control requirements is
estimated to be $26 million in capital cost
in this five-year period and $5.5 million
in annual costs in the fifth year. The
proposed standards would result in a
total added production cost of 0.5 percent
based on a selling price of $68.20 per mj
(ca. $2.40 per bushel) for corn. This cost
includes the cost imposed by the pro-
posed standards on grain production
from the farm to the port terminal ele-
vator. The maximum cost added to the
grain as a result of the proposed stand-
ards at an individual grain elevator
would be less than one cent per bushel.
The effect that the proposed standards
would have on supply arid demand of
grain and grain products and on the
future growth of the grain industry is
considered negligible. In the judgment
of EPA, these costs are considered rea-
sonable for new, modified, and recon-
structed sources.
EPA has determined that this docu-
ment does not contain a major proposal
requiring preparation of an Inflation Im-
pact Statement under Executive Order
11821 and OMB Circular A-107.
SELECTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY AND
AFFECTED FACILITIES
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act di-
rects the Administrator to establish
standards of performance for stationary
sources that may contribute significantly
to air pollution which causes or contrib-
utes to the endangerment of public
health or welfare. Also, under section
109 of the Act, particulate matter has
been designated as a criteria pollutant,
and National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) have been set for
particulate matter.
It is estimated that the grain elevator
industry, which consists of about. 7,900
grain elevators located nationwide, emits
550,000 megagrams per year (ca. 606,000
tons/yr) of particulate matter. In a
study performed for EPA by The Re-
search Corporation of New England,1
significant sources of particulate matter
were identified and ranked in order of
total emissions. Four grain handling
operations were shown to be significant
sources of particulate: processing was
ranked fifth, transfer was ranked
seventh, cleaning and screening was
ranked tenth, and drying was ranked
number thirty-three among all known
sources of particulate emissions. In ad-
dition, the report of the Committee on
Public Works of the United States
Senate * listed grain elevators as a source
for which standards of performance
should be developed.
Growth in the grain elevator and grain
processing industries is expected to be
slow since the per capita consumption
of grain products is remaining constant
or decreasing. The total number of grain
elevators is expected to decrease; how-
ever, the total throughput of grain is
expected to increase slightly. Of the
processing plants, only soybean process-
ors have significant incentive to invest in
new storage capacity. Soybean produc-
tion has increased over twenty-fold in
the United States in less than 34 years.
Approximately 500 new, modified, or
reconstructed grain elevators are ex-
1 Hopper, T. G., and W. A. Man-one. Im-
pact of New Source Performance Standards
on 1985 National Emissions from Stationary
Sources, Volume I. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Contract Number 68-02-1382, October 24.
1975. pp. 52-59.
'Report of the Committee on Public
Works, U.S. Senate Report No. 91-1196. Sep-
tember 17. 1970. pp. 15-17.
RSDEBAL BEGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 9—THURSDAY, JANUABY 13, 1977
V-DD-2 .
-------
$ected to be constructed by 1981. This
growth rate of about 100 grain elerators
per year is considered to be significant.
EPA has determined that participate
emissions from grain elevators contrib-
ute significantly to air pollution which
causes or contributes to the endanger-
ment of the public health. For this rea-
son, the source category of grain eleva-
tors has been selected for establishing
new source performance standards.
' The proposed standards would apply
to affected facilities that handle wheat,
corn, soybeans, milo, rice, rye, oats, or
barley. These grains were selected to be
subject to the standards because they
ore the primary grains produced in the
United States. There are several other
grains (e.g., millet), but these crops'are
Crown and handled in small quantities.
'therefore, the handling^ of these grains
is not considered a significant source of
particulate matter at this time.
Animal pet food, and cereal manufac-
turers; breweries; and feedlots also han-
dle and process whole grain. These in-
dustries were beyond the scope of the
backgornud industry studies. Conse-
quently, no data are available on these
sources and they are not subject to the
proposed standards. In addition, there
are relatively few plants in these periph-
eral industries.
Consideration was given to classifying
an entire grain elevator, including all its
various functions, as the affected facility.
If this were done, however, modification
-------
This gives a significant capital and oper-
ating cost advan&age to the column
• dryer. EPA believe the majority of new,
modified, or reconstructed dryers will be
column dryers; however, new rack dryers
may be installed In high throughput ele-
vators because maintenance costs appear
to be less for rack dryers in these
applications.
Emissions from grain dryers are dis-
charged from an exhaust area that is
usually very large. Therefore, it is not
technologically or economically feasible
to apply the usual particulate source test
methods designed for measuring stack
emissions to this source. Several attempts
to carry out source tests were made by
EPA and by operators of grain elevators.
The data collected, however, can only be
used as a guide in developing a standard
due to the numerous difficulties encoun-
tered in the measurement technique. The
accuracy and precision of the technique
are not sufficient for determining com-
pliance. EPA has concluded that methods
for measuring mass particlate matter
emissions from grain dryers are not
available at t&is time. The only practical
and feasible method of measuring par-
ticulate matter emissions from grain
dryers is visible emission determinations.
EPA considered several alternate con-
trol systems for grain dryers in develop-
ing the proposed standards. The alterna-
tives considered for column dryers were
no screen filter with a perforation size
range of 1.25 to 2.1 mm (ca. 0.050 to
0.084 inch) and a vacuum-cleaned screen
filter (50 mesh and 100 mesh screen
size). The alternatives considered for
rack dryers were a screen filter (24-30
mesh screen size) and a vacuum-cleaned
screen filter (50 mesh and 100 mesh
screen size). The factors evaluated in
considering these alternatives included
the amount of emissions (visible and
mass), capital costs, annual costs, energy
requirements, operating and mainte-
nance problems, and trends in the indus-
try to use certain types of equipment.
After considering all of these factors,
EPA concluded that the best system of
emission reduction (considering costs) is
a column dryer equipped with column
plate perforation diameters of 2.1 mm
(ca. 0.084 inch) or less and a rack dryer
equipped with a 50 mesh screen filter.
Both of these systems are considered
economically reasonable and compa-
rable in control of particulate matter
emissions.
A zero percent .opacity standard (based
on six-minute averages) is proposed for
all grain dryers. The owner or operator
of any column dryer would be consid-
ered in compliance with the standard
provided the diameters of all column
plate perforations do not exceed 2.1 mm
(ca. 0.084 inch) and the owner or opera-
tor of any rack dryer would be considered
in compliance provided all exhaust gases
pass through a 50 or finer mesh screen
filter. EPA observed five column dryers,
of two different designs, with perfora-
tion plate diameters ranging from 1.25 to
2.1 mm (ca. 0.050 to 0.084 inch). A total
of 126 six-minute opacity averages were
obtained. EPA observed two rack dryers,
one equipped with a 50 mesh vacuum-
cleaned screen filter and the other with
no screen filter. A total of 5 six-minute
opacity averages were obtained at the
dryer equipped with the 50 mesh screen.
Based on the available data, EPA con-
cluded that a standard of zero percent
opacity can be achieved by the best sys-
tem of emission reduction (considering
costs) for grain dryers.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES
EPA separately considered the capture
systems at various grain operations and
the air pollution control devices used to
remove the captured particulate matter
from the gas stream before discharge to
the atmosphere. The proposed standards
would require air pollution control de-
vices on all affected facilities at a grain
elevator, except grain dryers and some
types of dust-tight grain handling op-
erations. EPA measured particulate mat-
ter emissions according to Reference
Method 5, except that the probe was not
heated, from eleven grain processes con-
trolled with fabric filters. EPA did not
measure emissions from cyclones, but
estimates that emissions from grain op-
erations controlled by cyclones average a
factor of 10 times those from fabric filter
control devices. Based on these data,
EPA has determined that the best dem-
onstrated air pollution control device
(considering costs) for grain operations
is a fabric filter.
EPA considered both mass and con-
centration units for the proposed stand-
ards. The basic difference is that a
standard which restricts the mass rate of
emissions would limit the total mass
emitted, whereas a standard with con-
centration units would allow the mass
rate to increase in direct proportion to
the volume of gas exhausted through the
control device. This is an advantage for
concentration units for grain elevators
since a standard with concentration
units does not discourage use of large
volumes of ventilation air. As one might
surmize, adequate capture velocity at the
• collection hood is necessary for complete
capture of the particulate matter gen-
erated by the process. Another advantage
of concentration units is that the emis-
sion test provides all information neces-
sary for enforcement (determination of
mass emissions per volume of gas dis-
charged through the control device).
Mass standards, however, are usually
based on a unit of product or raw ma-
terial to the process. They require an
accurate determination of both mass
emissions and product or raw material
weight. Product and raw material weight
are obtainable only from an operator and
are often difficult parameters to measure.
This is particularly true for grain eleva-
tor operations for the following reasons.
1. The weight of grain handled on
conveyor belts, legs, or cleaners is gen-
erally not measured.
2. If more than one process is con-
trolled by a single collector (i.e., head-
house filter), it may be impossible to
determine the process weight during per-
formance testing. When a standard with
concentration units is applicable to each
process, compliance for any number of
processes can be determined only by
measuring the concentration from the
control device.
The average concentration of particu-
late matter emissions from all the grain
processes tested, excluding one which
had high emissions due to process irreg-
ularities, was 0.007 g/std. m' dry basis.
Most of the individual test results were
below 0.023 g/std. m' dry basis. There-
fore, EPA selected 0.023 g/std. m' dry
basis as the emission limit for the pro-
posed standards. To meet this emission
limit, it would be necessary for grain
operations to install and properly oper-
ate fabric filter control systems rather
than less effective control systems such
as high efficiency cyclones.
A zero percent opacity standard (based
on six-minute averages) is also proposed
for air pollution control devices. EPA ob-
served two fabric filter systems on grain
processes, and all of the individual read-
ings, a total of 56 six-minute averages,
were no visible emissions. EPA believes
that the proposed standard of zero per-
cent opacity would ensure the proper
operation and maintenance of the air
pollution control device.
TRUCK AND RAILCAR UNLOADING STATIONS
The demonstrated methods for con-
trolling particulate matter emissions
from truck and railcar unloading opera-
tions include a collection hood in the re-
ceiving hopper ventilated to an air pol-
lution control device and a protective
enclosure around the facility to reduce
the interfering effect of winds. Generally,
enclosures or sheds are used to protect
the grain and workers from inclement
weather. In some locations, however,
where the weather is consistently dry,
unloading stations do not have sheds. In
developing the proposed standards, EPA
determined that a protective enclosure
is required to prevent wind from inter-
fering with the effectiveness of particu-
late capture by the hopper ventilation
system. Three alternatives were evalu-
ated by EPA concerning protective en-
closures of the unloading station: (1) a
shed with two open ends, (2) a shed with
one open end, and (3) a totally enclosed
shed. A shed with two open ends was
determined to be least effective because
it allows the wind -to blow directly
through and over the receiving hopper.
A sned with one open end and a totally
enclosed shed were found to diminish the
effects of wind upon the ventilation
system.
The totally enclosed shed has been
demonstrated in railcar (hopper and box-
car) unloading operations, where the
two ends of the shed are equipped with
quick-operating doors. However, all of
the truck unloading facilities inspected
by EPA were designed so that the front
end of the truck extends out from the
open end of the shed. Some reduction in
particulate-emissions could be achieved
by totally enclosing the truck unloading
operation; however, EPA knows of no
elevators that use this method. In order
to totally enclose the operation, the shed
would have to be increased in both
FSDEtlAi. QE6ISTSQ, VOL 42, WO.
-------
length and height because the front ends
of the trucks are raised considerably to
aJlow the grain to flow out the rear of the
truck. This would increase the cost of the
abed substantially. In addition, truck un-
loading operations are located at all
small country elevators. Greatly in-
creased costs would be incurred, espe-
cially At'small elevators, from the use
of a completely enclosed shed on truck
unloading operations. Therefore, EPA
has concluded that the best demon-
strated system of emission reduction
(considering costs) for truck unloading
stations is a shed with one open end
and for rallcar unloading stations it is
a totally enclosed shed.
The system for railcar unloading would
Include a receiving hopper equipped with
baffles and ventilated at a rate of approxi-
mately 420 to 710 actual cubic meters per
minute (act mVmin) (ca. 15,000 to 25,000
cfm) depending on the size of the fa-
cility. The system for truck unloading
would Include a receiving hopper
equipped with baffles and ventilated at a
rate of approximately 340 act mVmin
(ca. 12,000 cfm).
An emission standard of zero percent
opacity (six-minute average) is proposed
for truck unloading operations at grain
elevators. A total of 138 six-minute opac-
ity averages were gathered by EPA. The
range for these six-minute averages is
no visible emissions to one percent. A
total of 120 six-minute averages were no
visible emissions and 17 six-minute aver-
ages were zero percent opacity. Based on
the available data, EPA concluded that
a standard of zero percent opacity can
be achieved by the best demonstrated:
system of emission reduction (consider-
ing costs) for truck unloading.
The proposed standard for railcar un-
loading (boxcars and hopper cars) is no
visible emissions. A total of two hours of
visible emission/opacity data were
gathered by EPA on a boxcar unloading
operation. Every data point, taken at 15-
eecond Intervals, indicated no visible
emissions. Data to substantiate the pro-
posed standard were not collected for
hopper car unloading operations. How-
ever, EPA has observed that unloading
of boxcars is a dustier operation than
unloading of hopper cars. Therefore, the
proposed standard applies to both hop-
per cars and boxcars. Based on the avail-
stole data, EPA concluded that a stand-
ard of no visible emissions can be
achieved by the best system of emission
reduction (considering costs) for railcar
unloading.
BARGE AND SHIP UNLOADING STATIONS
An equipment standard is proposed for
barge and ship unloading operations.
EPA observed the levels of visible emis-
sions at a barge unloading station. The
resulting data showed an extremely wide
range of visible emissions, with some six-
minute averages above 65 percent opac-
ity. EPA concluded that an opacity
standard could not be established that
would ensure the installation of the best
system of emission reduction (consider-
ing costs) because of this wide range of
visible emissions.
All of the bucket elevators (legs) ob-
served by EPA at barge and ship unload-
ing stations during the development pf
the proposed standards had various types
of enclosures and were ventilated. A fa-
cility with the leg enclosed from the top
(including the receiving hopper) to the
center line of the bottom pulley appeared
to .perform with the least emissions. This
facility was observed in operation with
and without the ventilation system in
operation. Visible emissions were ob-
served to be significantly lower when the
ventilation system was operating than
when it was not. EPA concluded that this
system represents tiie best demonstrated
system of emission reduction (consider-
ing costs) and proposes an equipment
standard based on the design of this
system.
GRAIN HANDLING OPERATIONS
Particulate matter emissions from
grain handling operations can be mini-
mized through the use of totally enclosed
equipment, by handling the grain at a
slower rate, or by using ventilated hood-
ing systems designed to capture emis-
sions.
Separate data were not obtained on
each item of grain handling equipment
included under grain handling opera-
tions. However, during observation of the
headhouse, the items included under this
affected facility were in operation. An ex-
terior conveyor and a headhouse were
observed and all data recorded were no
visible emissions. A zero percent opacity
standard has been proposed instead of no
visible emissions because zero percent
opacity (six-minute average) allows the
possibility of slight emissions from the
headhouse. EPA has concluded that the
best demonstrated- systems of emission
reduction (considering costs) for grain
handling operations are totally enclosed
equipment or hooding systems ventilated
to air pollution control devices.
TRUCK AND RAILCAR LOADING STATIONS
During the development of the pro-
posed standards, EPA could not locate a
truck loading operation in the grain in-
dustry that used what was considered to
be the best system of emission reduction
that could be applied. Therefore, other
industries such as lime, and flour and
grain processing were studied in an at-
tempt to find well-controlled truck load-
ing operations in these industries. EPA
located and observed a soybean meal
truck loading operation. This operation is
well controlled; however, it does not have
what is considered to be the best system
of emission reduction. Loading soybean
meal into trucks was determined by EPA
to be as dusty an operation as loading
grain into trucks; therefore, a direct
transfer of technology to grain loading
operations is possible. The ten percent
opacity limit is based on data gathered
at .this facility. EPA believes that a bet-
ter control system can be designed than
the one observed; however, this is the
best system that has been demonstrated
for truck loading operations which are
very similar to grain loading operations.
EPA has concluded that the best system
of emission reduction (considering costs)
for truck loading stations is a shed with
one open end, equipped with a loading
spout with a canvas sleeve and a hood-
ing system ventilated at a rate of about
260 to 350 .act mVmin (ca. 10,000 to
12J250 cfm).
Particulate matter emissions which
result from the loading of grain into
hopper cars is controlled in the grain
industry by a hooding system, ventilated
to an air pollution control device, located
at the end of the loading spout. The
loading operation is usually enclosed in
a shed with two open ends. This control
method is the only effective demon-
strated particulate control system used
for loading grain into hopper cars. The
type of hooding and the ventilation rates
are the only variables. Several hopper
car grain loading systems were studied
by EPA by reviewing the manufacturer's
.designs of the systems and through com-
munications with grain elevator opera-
tors and plant engineers. EPA gathered
data from the operation which was de-
termined to be the most effective system.
The individual 15-second opacity data
collected were all zero percent opacity
or no visible emissions. There was no
appreciable wind during this observation
period. Therefore, EPA was proposed a
zero percent opacity limit to allow for
possible slight particulate emissions dur-
ing other than ideal conditions. EPA has
concluded that the best system of emis-
sion reduction (considering costs) for
railroad hopper car loading stations is
a shed with two open ends, and a hood-
ing system located next to the loading
spout which is ventilated at a rate of
about 280 act m'/min (ca. 10,000 cfm).
The grain industry has essentially only
one demonstrated particulate control
system for loading boxcars. The entire
operation is usually enclosed in a shed
with two open ends. EPA took opacity
observations on the best controlled fa-
cility which was found. The data ranged
from three to five percent opacity. The
operation observed, however, was not
considered to employ the best control
technology that could be applied. The
.facility could have been maintained in
better condition and higher ventilation
rates could have been used.
Hopper car loading and boxcar load-
ing operations are similar and best tech-
nology requires a shed with two open
ends and a hooded loading spout venti-
lated to an air pollution control device
on both facilities. The grain Sows
through a loading spout and is deposited
in a receiving vessel (the railcar) at each
facility. Fugitive particulate matter
emissions are also generated in a simi-
lar manner. The stream of grain and
induced air flowing into the railcar dis-
turbs and displaces the air in the railcar.
Also, when the gram impacts against the
receiving vessel, turbulence is created in
the surrounding air. Particulate matter
can be entrained in the turbulent air
currents and flow out of the railcar with
the displaced air. EPA IE proposing a
zero percent opacity standard on boxcar
loading stations based on a transfer of
KBEOAl 02GISTGQ, VOL 42, WO. 9—7WUBSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1977
V-DD-5
-------
technology , from hopper car loading
stations.
EPA has concluded that the best sys-
tem of emission reduction (considering
costs) for railroad boxcar' loading sta-
tions is a shed with two open ends. A
loading spout enclosed by a small build-
ing-like structure which extends to
within 150 mm (ca. 6 inches) of the side
of the boxcar and hinged doors about 200
mm (ca. 8 inches) wide, equipped with
rubber flaps, which seal the sides of the
enclosure to the boxcar are part of this
best control system. This building-like
structure is ventilated at a rate of about
280 act m'/min (ca. 10,000 cfm).
BARGE AND SHIP LOADING STATIONS
EPA considered two systems for con-
trolling particulate matter emissions
from barge and ship loading. The first
consists of a telescoping loading spout
that is adjusted to the elevation of the.
grain surface as loading proceeds.
Ventilation is applied at the end of the
spout and then vented to a fabric filter.
Two variations of this system were ob-
served by EPA. The second system con-
sidered was to cover the hold with canvas
or plastic sheeting except where the load-
ing spout enters. However, no system of
this type was observed in operation. EPA
believes both control systems can achieve
the proposed opacity standards.
Data were gathered from a ship load-
tag operation employing the first control
approach mentioned. These data revealed
that during topping-off operations, re-
corded opacities were greater than dur-
ing general loading operations. EPA,
therefore, has proposed a two-level opac-
ity standard for barge and ship loading
operations. General loading operations
have a ten percent opacity limit and
topping-off operations have a fifteen per-
cent opacity limit.
EPA has no data on loading grain into
barges. However, J2PA has visited barge
loading operations and believes the op-
erations to be similar to ship loading
operations; therefore, the proposed
standards apply to barge loading as well
as to ship loading.
TESTING AND RECORDKEEPING
Under the proposed standards, per-
formance tests for particulate matter
emissions would be required for air pollu-
tion control devices on all affected facili-
ties. Particulate matter would be meas-
ured by Reference Methods 1 through 5
and 17. EPA Reference Method 17 was
proposed in the Standards of Perform-
ance for Kraft Pulp Mills on Septem-
ber 24,1976 (41 FR 42012).
The definition of particulate matter
has been revised to allow measurement
by the reference method specified under
each applicable subpart. This definition
has been revised because Method 17 has
•been proposed as a reference method for
particulate matter.
Records of performance testing meas-
urements would have to be maintained
and retained for at least two years fol-
lowing the date of the measurements by
owners or operators subject to the pro-
posed regulations. This requirement is
included under section 60.7 (d) of the
regulations.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As prescribed by section 111, this pro-
posal of standards of performance has
been preceded by the Administrator's
determination that grain elevators con-
tribute significantly to air pollution
which causes or contributes to the en-
dangerment of public health or welfare
and by his publication of this determina-
tion in this issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER.
In accordance with section 117 of the Act,
publication of these proposed standards
was preceded by consultation with appro-
priate advisory committees, independent
experts, and Federal departments and
agencies.
Interested persons may participate in
this rulemaking by submitting comments
(in triplicate) to the Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Tri-
angle Park, North Carolina 27711, At-
tention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin. The Ad-
ministrator will welcome comments on
all aspects of the proposed regulations,
including the designation of graip eleva-
tors as a significant contributor to air
pollution which causes or contributes to
the endangerment of public health or
welfare, economic and technological is-
sues, and on the proposed test methods.
Comments are invited specifically on
the proposed standard for railcar un-
loading stations and its effect on the un-
loading of unit trains. A number of in-
terested parties have expressed concern
that the uncoupling of railcars, which
would be required when operating a
totally enclosed unloading shed would
have an adverse economic impact. Com-
ments on this issue should contain speci-
fic information and data pertinent to an
evaluation of the magnitude of this im-
pact and its severity.
In addition, EPA is interested in re-
ceiving comments on the selection of the.
best system of emission reduction, con-
sidering costs, for grain dryers. The com-
ments should address the factors EPA
used in evaluating the alternative emis-
sion control systems.
All relevant comments-received on or
before March 14, 1977 will be considered.
Comments received will be available for
public inspection and copying at the Pub-
lic Information Reference Unit, Room
2922 (EPA Library), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Background information on these pro-
posed standards of performance has been
published in a document "Standards
Support and Environmental Impact
Statement, Volume 1: Proposed Standr
ards of Performance for the Grain Eleva-
tor Industry." This report presents the
factors considered in the development of
the proposed standards, including al-
ternative emission control systems, emis-
sion test data, environmental impact,
costs, and economic considerations.
Copies of this document may be obtained
by writing to the Public Information
Center (PM-215), Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460.
AUTHORITY
(Sec. 111. 114. and 301(a) or the Clean Air
Act, as amended by sec. 4 (a) of Pub. L. 91-
6O4, 84 Stat. 1678 and by sec. 15 (c) (2) of
Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (42 TJ.S.C. 1857c-
6, 1857C-9, and 1857g(a)).
Dated: January 4,1977.
JOHN QUARLES,
Acting Administrator.
REFERENCES
1. Hopper, T. O., and W. A. Marrone. Im-
pact of New Source Performance Standards
on 1985 National Emissions from Stationary
Sources. Volume I. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. Con-
tract Number 68-02-1382, October 24, 1975.
pp. 52-59. ,
2. Report of the Committee on Public
Works, U.S. Senate Report No. 91-1196. Sep-
tember 17, 1970. pp. 15-17.
PART SO—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
It is proposed. to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations as follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
1. Section 60.2 is amended by revising
paragraph (v). The revised paragraph
reads as follows:
§ 60.2 Definitions.
00000
(v) "Particulate matter" means any
finely divided solid or liquid material,
other than uncombined water, as meas-
ured by the reference methods specified
under each applicable subpart, or an
equivalent or alternative method.
o o o o o
2. Part 60 is amended by adding sub-
part DD as follows:
Subpart DD—Standards of Performance for
Groin Elevators '
Sec.
60.300 Apllcabillty and • designation of
affected faculty.
60.301 Dennltlons.
60.302 Standard for particulate matter.
60.303 Test methods and procedures.
AUTHORITY: Sees. Ill, 114, and 301 (a) of
the Clean Air Act, as amended by sec. 4(a) of
Pub. L. 91-6O4, 84 Stat. 1678 and sec. 15(c)
(2) of Pub. L. 91-604.
Subpart DD—Standards of Performance
, for Grain Elevators
§ 60.300 Applicability and designation
of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart apply to
the following affected facilities at any
grain elevator except at farm elevators,
country elevators, terminal elevators,
and commercial rice dryers having a
total leg capacity of less than 352 m'/h
(ca. 10,000 bushels/hr) and at animal,
pet food, and cereal manufacturers,
breweries, and feedlots each truck un-
loading station, each railroad hopper car
and boxcar unloading station, equipment
at each barge and ship unloading station,
all grain handling operations, each grain
dryer, each truck loading station, each
railroad hopper car and boxcar loading
station, and each barge and ship loading
station.
QEOISTEQ, VOL. 42, NO. 9—THURSDAY, JANUAOY 13, 1977
V-DD-6
-------
• g 60.301 Befiniokras.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
denned herein shall nave the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of this part.
(a) "Grain" includes corn, wheat, milo,
rice, rye, oats, barley and soybeans.
(b) "Grain elevator" means any
operation at which grain is unloaded,
handled, loaded, dried or stored at any
farm elevator, country elevator, terminal
elevator, commercial rice dryer or stor-
age elevator at wheat Sour mills, wet
corn mills, dry corn mills (human con-
sumption) , rice mills, or soybean oil ex-
traction plants.
(c) "Control device" means the air
pollution control equipment used to re-
move particulate matter generated by an
affected facility at a grain elevator.
(d) "Capture system" means the
equipment including sheds, hoods, ducts,
fans, dampers, etc. used to capture or
transport particulate matter generated
by an affected facility at a grain eleva-
tor to the control device.
(e) "Fugitive emission" means the
particulate matter generated by an
affected facility at a grain elevator which
Is not collected by a capture system and
Is discharged to the atmosphere.
(f) "Grain unloading station" means
that portion of a grain elevator where
the grain is transferred from a truck,
rallcar, barge or ship to a receiving
hopper.
(g) "Grain loading station" means
that portion of a grain elevator where
the grain is transferred from the ele-
vator to a truck, railcar, barge or ship.
(h) "Grain handling operations" in-
clude bucket elevators or legs (excluding
legs used to unload barges or ships), scale
hoppers and surge bins (garners), turn
heads, scalpers, cleaners, tripers, and the
headhouse and other such structures.
(i) "Grain'dryer" includes any equip-
ment used to reduce the moisture con-
tent of grain.
(j). "Column dryer" means a grain
dryer in which the grain flows from the
. top to the bottom in one or more con-
tinuous packed columns between two
perforated metal sheets.
(fc) "Rack dryer" means a grain dryer
in which the grain flows from the top
to the bottom in a cascading flow:around
rows of baffles (racks).
•(1) "Topping off" means that portion
of a barge or ship loading operation
which occurs within 1.2 meters (ca. 4
feet) of the top of the hold.
§60.302 Standard for particulate mat-
ter.
(a) On and after the sixtieth day of
operating at the maximum production
rate at which the affected facility will be
operated, but no later than 180 days after
initial start-up, no owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall cause to be discharged into the at-
mosphere from any grain dryer any gases
which exhibit greater than zero percent
opacity (column dryers would be con-
sidered in compliance with the standard
provided the diameters of all column
plate perforations do not exceed 2.1 mm
(ca. 0.084 inch), and rack dryers would
be considered in compliance provided all
exhaust gases pass through a 50 or finer
mesh screen filter).
(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 except a grain dryer any gases
which:
(1) Exit from a control device and
contain particulate matter in excess of
0.023 g/std. m" dry basis (ca. 0.01 gr/
dscf).
(2) Exist from a control device and
exhibit greater than zero percent opacity.
(c) On and after the sixtieth day of
operating at the maximum production
rate at which the affected facility will be
operated, but no later than 180 days after
initial start-up, no owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere any fugitive emission from:
(1) Any truck unloading station, rail-
road hopper car loading station, railroad
boxcar loading station, or grain handling
operation which exhibits greater than
zero percent opacity.
02) Any railroad hopper car unload-
ing station or railroad boxcar unloading
station which is visible without the aid
of instruments.
(3) Any truck loading station which
exhibits greater than ten percent opacity.
(4) Any barge or ship loading sta-
tion which exhibits greater than ten per-
ment ' opacity, except that the opacity
may not exceed fifteen percent during
topping-off operations.
(d) The owner or operator of any barge
or ship unloading station shall operate as
follows :
(1) The leg shall be enclosed from the
top (including the receiving hopper) to
the center line of the bottom pulley and
ventilation to a control device shall be
maintained on both sides of the leg and
the grain receiving hopper.
(2) The total rate of air ventilated
shall be at least 32.1 actual cubic meters
per cubic meter of grain handling capac-
ity (ca. 40 ftVbu) .
(3) Rather than meet the require-
ments of subparagraphs (1) and (2) , the
owner or operator may use other meth-
ods of control if demonstrated to the Ad-
ministrator's satisfaction that there
would be less than or equivalent amounts
of particulate matter emissions by using
the alternative methods.
§ 60.303 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Reference methods in Appendix A
of this part, except as provided under
|60.8(b), shall be used to determine
compliance with the standards prescribed
under § 60.302 as follows:
(1) Method 5 or Method 17 for concen-
tration of particulate matter and asso-
ciated moisture content;
(2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses ;
(3) Method 2 for velocity and volumet-
ric flow rate;
(4) Method 3 for gas analysis; and
(5) Method 9 for visible emissions.
(b) For Method 5, the sampling probe
and filter holder shall be operated with-
out heaters. The sampling time for each
run, using Method 5 or Method 17, shall
be at least 60 minutes. The minimum
sample volume shall be 1.7 std. m* dry
basis (ca. 60 dscf).
[PR Doc.77-1097 Filed l-12-77;8:45 am]
FSB5QAI QE6ISTEO, VOL 42, WO. 9—THUBSDAY, JAWUAQY JS.
[40CFRPart60]
[FRL 697-4]
GRAIN ELEVATORS
Standards of Performance for New Station-
ary Sources; Extension of Comment Period
On January 13, 1977, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) pub-
lished a notice of proposed rulemaking
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended (42 PR 2842). The proposed
regulation would establish standards of
performance for new, modified or recon-
structed grain elevators. The comment
period for this proposed regulation ends
March 14. 1977.
EPA has been requested by the Gov-
ernor of Kansas to extend the comment
period 60 days in order to allow the Kan-
sas Secretary of Health and Environ-
ment, representatives of the State's grain
industry, and other interested parties
additional time to compile, assemble and
submft, comments. Since it appears that
a number of persons would like addi-
tional time to submit comments, the
comment period is being extended 60
days for all parties who may wish to
participate in this rulemaking. All com-
ments postmarked by May 14, 1977, will
be considered and should be submitted
(in triplicate) to the Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environ mental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.
Dated: March 7, 1977.
EDWARD F. TUEHK,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management.
[FB Doc.77-7359 Filed 3-10-77;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 46—FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1977
V-DD-7
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REJW-76-009a
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Protection Agency
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Source
(Supplement No. 1)
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Suite 13, Atkinson Square
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
5. REPORT DATE
March 15, 1977
s 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1375 Task No. 31
13. TY?E OF,REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
16. ABSTRACT
In this supplement for Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,
revisions which have appeared in the Federal Register since the publication
of the handbook on August 1, 1976 are presented. The full text of all revisions
and other notices pertaining to the standards are included as well as the full
text of all proposed amendments as of March 15, 1977.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFI
Federal Emission Standards New So
EPA Test Methods Standa
Enforcement ' Enforc
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURI
Undo
Release Unlimited 20. SECURI
ERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
urce Performance 13 B
rds
ement 14 D
TY CLASS (This Report)' 21. NO. OF PAGES
ssified 293
TY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approve/, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COS ATI Subject Category List, Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price. /
19. &20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Reverse)
------- |