National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: a Compilation as of August 1, 1982

United States Office of Air, Noise and Radiation EPA-340/1-82-006
Environmental Protection Washington DC 20460 August 1982
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711

Stationary Source Compliance Series

-------
EPA-340/1 -82-006
National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants

A Compilation as of August 1, 1982
by

PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
PROPERTY OF
EPA LIBRARY, RTP, NC
Contract No. 68-01-6310

EPA Project Officer: Kirk Foster
Prepared For

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise ar.d Radiation
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Washington, D.C. 20460

August 1982
-------
The Stationary Source Compliance series of reports is issued by the Office of
Air, Noise, and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to assist the
Regional Offices in activities related to compliance with implementation
plans, new source emission standards, and hazardous emission standards to be
developed under the Clean Air Act. Copies of Stationary Source Compliance
Reports are available - as supplies permit - from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Administration, General Services Division, MD-35,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or may be obtained, for a nomi-
nal cost, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
11
-------
PREFACE

This document is a compilation of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants promulgated under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
represented in full as amended. The information contained herein supersedes
all previous compilations published by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
The format of this document permits easy and convenient replacement of
material as new standards are proposed and promulgated or existing standards
are revised. Section I, an introduction to the standards, explains their pur-
pose and interprets the working concepts that have developed through their
implementation. Section II contains a "quick-look" summary of each standard,
including the dates of proposal, promulgation, and any subsequent revisions.
Section III is the complete standards with all amendments incorporated into
the material. Section IV contains the full text of all revisions, including
the preamble which explains the rationale behind each revision. Section V is
all proposed amendments to the standards. To facilitate the addition of fu-
ture materials, the punched, loose-leaf format was selected. This approach
permits the document to be placed in a three-ring binder or to be secured by
rings, rivets, or other fasteners; future revisions can then be easily inserted.
Future supplements to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants - A Compilation will be issued on an as-needed basis by the Sta-
tionary Source Compliance Division. Comments and suggestions regarding this
document should be directed to: Standards Handbooks, Stationary Source Com-
pliance Division (EN-341), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1-1
II. SUMMARY OF STANDARDS AND REVISIONS II-l
III. PART 61 - NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS III-l
Subpart A - General Provisions III-2
Subpart B - National Emission Standard for Asbestos III-7
Subpart C - National Emission Standard for Beryllium 111-12
Subpart D - National Emission Standard for Beryllium Rocket
Motor Firing 111-14
Subpart E - National Emission Standard for Mercury 111-15
Subpart F - National Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride 111-17
Appendix A - Compliance Status Information III-A-1
Appendix B - Test Methods III-B-1
Method 101 - Determination of particulate and gaseous
mercury emissions from chlor-alkali plants - air streams. III-B-1
Method 101A Determination of particulate and gaseous
mercury emissions from sewage sludge incinerators. III-B-10
Method 102 - Determination of particulate and gaseous
mercury emissions from chlor-alkali plants - hydrogen
streams. III-B-13
Method 103 - Beryllium screening method. III-B-14
Method 104 - Reference method for determination of
beryllium emissions from stationary sources. III-B-15
Method 105 - Method for determination of mercury in
wastewater treatment plant sewage sludges. III-B-20
Method 106 - Determination of vinyl chloride from
stationary sources. III-B-22
Method 107 - Determination of vinyl chloride content of
inprocess wastewater samples, and vinyl chloride content
of polyvinyl chloride resin, slurry, wet cake, and latex
samples. III-B-24
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

IV. FULL TEXT OF REVISIONS IV-1

Chronological List of Federal Register Activity IV-i

Full Text (References) IV-1

V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS V-l
VI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION

The 1970 Amendments of the Clean Air Act are considered a landmark in
the nation's efforts to control air pollution. They established the authority
to control pollutants on the basis of their effects, sources, and best
means of control. Section 112 of that legislation provided for establishment
of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, commonly
referred to as NESHAPs. This manual is a compilation of those emission
standards.
A hazardous air pollutant is defined as "... an air pollutant to which
no ambient air quality standard is applicable and which in the judgment of
the Administrator causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reason-
ably be anticipated to result in an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness". Thus, the
Administrator must prescribe a NESHAP for each hazardous pollutant at a
level judged to provide an ample margin of safety to protect the public
health. The regulation may take the form of an emission standard or a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard if an emission
standard is not feasible. The determination that a pollutant is hazardous
precedes public hearings and can be reversed only if hearing introduce
contrary evidence. Acquisition of the necessary health effects data to
support the establishment of a hazardous pollutant standard is difficult
and time-consuming. However, this expenditure of time and effort is
1-1
-------
necessary because the NESHAPs are unique in that they apply to both new and
existing sources. All new sources are subject to control immediately upon
promulgation of a standard and all existing sources are to be in compliance
within 90 days of promulgation unless granted an extension. Furthermore,
although costs migh be considered when determining what constitues an
"ample margin of safety", such considerations are not explicitly required
by Section 112.
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act defines three steps to be followed in
the establishment of emission standards for hazardous pollutants. The
first requirement is that the Administrator publish a list of those air
pollutants for which he intends to establish emission standards. There
were eleven toxic substances appraised as candidates for the first list of
hazardous air pollutants: asbestos, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, nickel, polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic organic matter,
and vanadium. Major selection criteria included (1) the severity of the
associated human diseases, (2) the length of time between exposure and
disease, with the longer periods considered especially dangerous, (3) the
portion of the total human intake relatable to air-borne substances, and
(4) the linkage between sources of emissions and reported cases of diseases
attributed to the pollutant. Consultations were held with federal agencies,
advisory committees, and other experts. All consulted groups recommended
that the initial list be limited to asbestos, beryllium, and mercury. In
addition, a National Academy of Sciences study concluded that control of
asbestos be undertaken as quickly as possible, and the HEW report, "Hazards
of Mercury", concluded that it was urgent to use all possible means to
1-2
-------
reduce exposure to mercury immediately. Thus, an initial list containing
asbestos, beryllium, and mercury was published in the Federal Register on
March 31, 1971.
The second step in establishing standards requires that, within 180
days after an air pollutant is included on a published list, the Administrator
publish proposed regulations establishing emission standards for that pol-
lutant together with a notice of a public hearing, to be held within thirty
days. Pursuant to this requirement, proposed regulations for the control
of emissions of asbestos, beryllium, and mercury were published in the
Federal Register on December 7, 1971.
Following the required waiting periods and public hearings, the final
step, promulgation, took place on April 6, 1973. Clarifying regulations
were promulgated May 3, 1974. Since then the NESHAPs have undergone several
revisions, including the addition of regulations for vinyl chloride from
facilities that manufacture both vinyl chloride monomer and polyvinyl
chloride and the addition of benzene to the list of hazardous pollutants.
In addition, investigations are underway for several pollutants to determine
the optimum control option for each.
This document contains all regulations promulgated under Section 112
of the Clean Air Act, represented in full as amended. As more pollutants
are investigated and new technology developed, the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants will continue to be updated to achieve their
primary purpose of protecting the public health.
1-3
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY OF
STANDARDS
AND REVISIONS
-------
II. SUMMARY OF STANDARDS AND REVISIONS

In order to make the information in this document more readily avail-
able, a table has been prepared which summarizes the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants since their inception in April 1973.
Although regulatory language is necessary to make the intent of the
regulation clear, it is difficult for anyone not familiar with these terms
to locate concise information. It is with this thought in mind that the
following table was developed. It includes the pollutant regulated, the
facilities which will be affected by the regulation, the emission stand-
ard for these facilities, and if there are sampling or monitoring require-
ments.
Since the NESHAP's affect both new and existing sources, all regulations
become effective the day of promulgation. To cite such promulgation, refer
to the volume and page of the Federal Register in which the rule appeared,
i.e. 36 FR 23239, meaning volume 36, page 23239 of the Federal Register.
The table gives such references for the proposal, promulgation, and subse-
>
quent revisions of the NESHAP's. The full text of all revisions and pro-
posed revisions can be located in Sections IV and V.
II-l
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
ro
Subpart B - ASBESTOS
Proposed
12/7/71 (36 FR 23239)

Promulgated
4/6/73 (38 FR 8826)
Revised
5/3/74 (39 FR 15398)
10/14/75 (40 FR 48299)
3/2/77 (42 FR 12127)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
6/19/78 (43 FR 26372)
Affected facilities
Asbestos mills
Roadway surfacing
Manufacturing of products containing asbestos
(textiles; cement; fire-proofing and insulat-
ing materials; friction products; paper; mill-
board, felt; floor tiles; paints, coatings,
caulks, adhesives, sealants; plastic and
rubber materials; chlorine; shotgun shells;
asphaltic concrete)

Demolition and renovation
>80 m pipe, covered or coated
>15 m2 duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine,
fumance, or structural member, covered or
coated

Spraying friable asbestos
1) Materials applied to equipment or machinery
with >]% asbestos on dry weight basis

2) Materials sprayed on buildings, structures
pipes, conduits

Fabricating (cement building products;
friction products; cement or silicate board
for ventilation hoods; ovens; electrical
panels; lab furniture; marine construction;
flow controls for molten metal industry

Friable insulating materials

Waste disposal
Waste disposal sites
Emission standard
No visible emissions, or meet equipment
specifications

Contain no asbestos except for temporary
use on area of asbestos ore deposits

No visible emissions, or meet equipment
specifications
No emissions to outside air; Friable
materials removed, wetted, or particles
mechanically collected
No visible emissions, or meet equipment
specifications

Materials must contain <1% asbestos on
dry weight basis

No visible emissions, or meet equipment
specifications
Contain no asbestos

No visible emissions
Deposit at acceptable disposal sites

Design and work practice requirements
No visible emissions
Sampling or
monitoring requirement
No requirement

No requirement

No requirement
No requirement

No requirement

No requirement
No requirement

No requirement

No requirement
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (Continued)
Pollutant
Affected facilities
Emission standard
Sampling or
monitoring requirement
Subpart C - BERYLLIUM
Proposed
12/7/71 (36 FR 23239)

Promulgated
4/6/73 (38 FR 8826)

Revised
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Extraction plants
Ceramic plants
Foundries
Incinerators
Propel 1 ant plants
Machine shops (which process alloy containing
>5% beryllium)
1) 10g/24 hr.
or
2) Ambient concentration in the vicinity.
of the stationary source of 0.01 ug/m ,
averaged over 30 day period
1) Source test

2) 3 years continuous
monitoring data
Subpart 0 - BERRYLLIUH
ROCKET MOTOR FITING
Proposed
12/7/71 (36 FR 23239)
Promulgated
4/6/73 (38 FR 8826)

Revised
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Rocket motor test sites
Closed tank collection of combustion products
75 pg/min son of air within 10 to 60 min,
accumulated during 2 consecutive weeks,
in area which could adversely affect
public health

2 g/hr, 10 g/day
Ambient concentrations
measured during and after
firing or propellant
disposal

Continuous sampling during
release
Subpart E - MERCURY

Proposed
12/7/71 (36 FR 23239)

Promulgated
4/6/73 (38 FR 8826)

Revised
10/14/75 (40 FR 48299)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
6/8/82 (47 FR 24703)
Ore processing

Chlor-alkali manufacture

Sludge dryers or incinerators
2300 g/24 hr
3200 g/24 hr
Source test
Source test or sludge test
(Sources exceeding 1600
g/day must monitor once per
year)
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (Continued)
Pollutant
Affected facilities
Emission standard
Sampling or
monitoring requirement
Subpart F - VINYL CHLORIDE

Proposed
(40 FR 59532)
Promulgated
10/21/76 (41 FR 46560)

Revised
12/3/76 (41 FR 53017)
6/7/77 (42 FR 29005)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Proposed revisions
6/2/77 (42 FR 28154)
Ethylene dichloride manufacture
Vinyl chloride manufacture
Polyvinyl chloride manufacture

Reactor; stripper; mixing, weighing and
holding containers; monomer recovery system

Reactor opening loss

Reactor manual vent

Sources following stripper
Ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride and/or
polyvinyl chloride manufacture

Relief valve discharge
Loading and unloading lines
1) Ethylene dichloride purification:
10 ppm*
2) Oxychlorination reactor:
0.2 g/kg (0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100%
ethylene dichloride product

10 ppm*
10 ppm*

0.02 g vinyl chloride/kg
(0.00002 Ib vinyl chloride/lb)

No emissions

For each calendar day:
1) Using stripping technology -
2000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride disper-
sion resins (excluding latex)
400 ppm each for other polyvinyl
chloride resins (including latex)
2) Other than stripping technology -
2 g/kg (0.002 Ib/lb) product for dis-
persion polyvinyl chloride resins
(excluding latex)
0.4 g/kg (0.0004 Ib/lb) product for
other polyvinyl chloride resins
(including latex)
No discharge

0.0038 m after each loading or unloading,
or 10 ppm when contained by a control
system
Source test
Continuous monitor
Source test
Continuous monitor
Source test
Continuous monitor
Source test
Continuous monitor
Source test
Continuous monitor
Source test
Source test
Equipment

Source test
Continuous monitor
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (Continued)
Pollutant
Affected facilities
Emission standard
Sampling or
monitoring requirement
I
CJ1
Slip gauges

Pump; compresser and agitator seal

Leakage from relief valves

Manual venting of gases

Opening of equipment

Samples (at least 10 percent by weight vinyl
chloride)

Leak detection and elimination

Inprocess wastewater
10 ppm from the required control system

10 ppm from the required control system
with seals

Rupture disk must be installed

10 ppm from a required control system

10 ppm from a required control system*

Returned to system *

Implementation of an approved program

10 ppm before discharge
Before opening any equipment for any
reason, the quantity of vinyl chloride
is to be reduced so that the equipment
contains no more than 2.0 percent by
volume vinyl chloride or 0.0950 nr
(25 gal) of vinyl chloride, whichever
is larger, at standard temperature and
pressure.
Source test
Continuous monitor

Source test
Continuous monitor

Equipment

Source test
Continuous monitor

Source test
Continuous monitor
Approved testing program

Source test
Continuous monitor
-------
SECTION III
NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARD FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
-------
Title 40—Protection of Environment

CHAPTER 1—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND- .
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS '
Subpart A—General Provision*
Sec.
61.01 Applicability.
61.03 Definitions.
61.03 Abbreviations.
61.04 Address.
61.05 Prohibited activities.
61.06 Determination of construction or
modification.
61.07 Application for approval of construc-
tion or modification.
61.08 Approval by Administrator.
61.00 Notification of startup.
61.10 Source reporting and waiver request.
61.11 Waiver of compliance.
61.12 Emission tests and monitoring.
61.13 Waiver of emission tests.
61.14 Source test and analytical methods.
61.15 Availability of Information.
61.16 State authority.
61.17 Circumvention. 7
Subpart B—Nation*! Emission SUmtard for
Asbestos
61.30 Applicability.
61.21 Definitions.
61.22 Emission standard.
61.23 Air-cleaning.
61.24 Reporting.
61.25 Waste disposal sites.7
61.63 Emission standard for vinyl chloride
plants.
61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl chlo-
ride plants.
61.65 Emission standard for ethylene dl-
chlorlde, vinyl chloride and poly-
vinyl chloride plants.
61.66 Equivalent equipment and procedures.
61.67 Emission tests.
61.68 Emission monitoring.
61.69 Initial report.
61.70 Semiannual report.
61.71 Recordkeeplng.

Appendix A—Compliance Status Information.
Appendix B—Test Methods.
Method 101—Determination of Paniculate
and Gaseous Mercury Emiiiiont From. Chlor-
Alkali Plants—Air Stream*66
Method 101 A. Determination of Paniculate
and Gaseous Mercury Emissions From
Sewage Sludge Incinerators66
Method 1«B Determination of Particulate and
Caseous Mercury Emissions From Chlor-
Alkall Plants—Hydrojen Streams66
Method 103—Beryllium screening method.
Method 104—Reference method for determi-
nation of beryllium emissions from sta-
tionary sources.
Method 105—Method for determination of
mercury in wastewater treatment plant
sewage sludges.7
Method 106—Determination of vinyl chloride
from stationary sources."
Method 107—Determination of vinyl chloride
of inprocess wastewater samples, and vinyl
chloride content of polyvinyl chloride^
resin, slurry, wet cake, and latex samples.
Subpart C—National Emission Standard for
Beryllium
81 .30 Applicability.
61.31 Definitions.
61.32 Emission standard.
61.33 Stack sampling.
61.34 Air sampling.
AUTHORITY: Sec. 112, 301(a) of the Clean
. ,
Air Act as amended [42 0
7601], unless otherwise noted.
12,
Subpart D—National Emission Standard for
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
61.40 Applicability.
61.41 Definitions.
61.42 Emission standard.
61.43 Emission testing—rocket firing or pro-
pellant disposal.
61.44 Stack sampling.
Subpart E—National Emission Standard for
Mercury
61.50
61.61
61.52
61.53
61.54
61.66
Applicability.
Definitions.
Emission standard.
Stack sampling.
Sludge sampling.'
Emission monitoring.
Subpart F—National EmlssloivStandard for Vinyl
Chloride *°
Chloride
61.60 Applicability.
61.61 Definitions.
61.62 Emission standard
chloride plants.
for ethylene dl-
III-l
-------
Subpart A—General Provisions

g 61.01 Applicability.
The provisions of this part apply to
the owner or operator of any stationary
source for which a standard Is prescribed
under this part.

§ 61.02 Definitions.52
The terms used in this part are
defined in the Act or in this section as
follows:
"Act" means the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 1857 et seq.).
"Administrator" means the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized
representative.
"Alternative method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which is not a reference
or equivalent method but which has
been demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction to, in
specific cases, produce results adequate
for his determination of compliance.
"Commenced" means, with respect to
the definition of "new source" in section
lll(a)(2) of the Act, that an owner or
operator has undertaken a continuous
program of construction or modification
or that an owner or operator has entered
into a contractual obligation to
undertake and complete, within a
reasonable time, a continuous program
of construction or modification.
"Compliance schedule" means the
date or dates by which a source or
category of sources is required to
comply with the standards of this part
and with any steps toward such
compliance which are set forth in a
waiver of compliance under § 61.11.
"Construction" means fabrication,
erection, or installation of an affected
facility.
"Effective date" is the date of
promulgation in the Federal Register of
an applicable standard or other
regulation under this part.
"Equivalent method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which has been
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction to have a consistent and
quantitatively known relationship to the
reference method, under specified
conditions.
"Existing source1' means any
stationary source which is not a new
source.
"Modification" means any physical
change in, or change in the method of
operation of, a stationary source which
increases the amount of any hazardous
air pollutant emitted by such source or
which results in the emission of any
hazardous air pollutant not previously
emitted, except that:
(a) Routine maintenance, repair, and
replacement shall not be considered
physical changes, and
(b) The following shall not be
considered a change in the method of
operation:
(1) An increase in the production rate,
if such increase does not exceed the
operating design capacity of the
stationary source;
(2) An increase in hours of operation.
"New source" means any stationary
source, the construction or modification
of which is commenced after the
publication in the Federal Register of
proposed national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants which will
be applicable to such source.
"Owner or operator" means any
person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises a stationary
source.
"Reference method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant, as described in
Appendix B to this part.
"Standard" means a national emission
standard for a hazardous air pollutant
proposed or promulgated under this
part.
"Startup" means ti\p setting in
operation of a stationary source for any
purpose.
"Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or
installation which emits or may emit
any air pollutant which has been
designated as hazardous by the
Administrator.
(Sec. 112, 301(a), Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(a)))
§ 61,03 Units and abbreviations.'*
Used in this part are abbreviations and
symbols of units of measure. These are
denned as follows :
(a) System International (SI) unite
of measure:
A = ampere
Hz = hertz
J = Joule
K= degree Kelvin
kg= kilogram
m= meter
m1= cubic meter
mg=:mmigram=10-' gram
mm = millimeter =10-' meter
Mg = megagram = 1 0« gram
mo) = mole
N = newton
ng= nanogram = 10-' gram
nm= nanometer = 10'1 meter
Pa=pascal
s= second
V=volt
W=watt
n=omh
Ag = microgram=]0-° gram

(b) Other units of measure :
•C = degree Celsius (centigrade)
cfm = cubic feet per minute
cc = cubic centimeter
d=day
*P= degree Fahrenheit
ft!=square feet
IV=cubic feet
gal = gall on
In = Inch
In Hg = inches of mercury
In H2O=lnches of water
1=liter
lb=pound
1pm=liter per minute
mln = minute
ml = milliliter= 10'= liter
oz=ounces
pslg=pounds per square Inch gage
•R=degree Ranklne
Al = mlcrollter=10-< liter
v/v—volume per volume
yd" = square yards
yr = year
(c) Chemical nomenclature:
Be = beryllium
Hg = mercury
H2O = water

(AA) Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, Post Office Box 1368,55
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.
(BB) et»te of Montana. Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences. Cogs-
well Bunding, Helena, Mont. 89801.«
(CC) State of Nebraska, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control,
P.O. Box 94877, State House Station,
Uncoln, Nebraska 68509.57
III-3
-------
(DD)Nevmda.4869
Clark County, County District Health De-
partment, Air Pollution Control Division,
625 Shadow Lane, Las Vegas, Nev. 89106.
Washoe County District Health Depart-
ment, Division of Environmental Protection,
10 Klrman Avenue. Reno, Nev. 89502.
(EE) New Hampshire Air Pollution Con-
trol Agency. Department of Health and Wel-
fare, State Laboratory Building, Hazen Drive.
Concord, New Hampshire 03301.''

(PP)—State of New Jersey: New Jersey De-
partment of Environmental Protection,
John Fitch Plaza. P.O. Box 2807, Trenton,
New Jersey 08626.39
(GG) [Reserved]
(HH) New York: New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf
Road, Albany, New York 12233, attention:
Division of Air Resources. 8
(II) North Carolina Environmental Man-
agement Commission, Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Division of Envi-
ronmental Management, P.O. Box 27687, Ra-
leigh, North Carolina 27611. Attention: Air
Quality Section.32
(JJ) State of North Dakota, State De-
partment of Health, State Capitol, Bismarck,
North Dakota 58501.27
(kk)Ohio
Montgomery County: Regional Air
Pollution Control Agency, Montgomery
County Combined GeneraLHealth
District, 451 West Third Street, Daytorr,.
Ohio 45402.
Clarke. Darke, Greene, Miami and
Preble Counties [except for all
information required under §. 61.22 (dj
and (e)]: Montgomery County Combined*
General Health District 451 Weil Third
Street. Day ton. Ohio 45402-53

(IX) State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Department of Health, Air Quality
Service, P.O. Box S3551, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73152.62
(MM) State of Oregon, Department of
Environmental Quality, 1234 SW Morrison
Street, Portland, Oregon 97206.**
(viii) Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority,
1244 Walnut Street, Eugene, Oregon 97403.64
(NN) (a) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(except for City of Philadelphia and Alle-
gheny County) Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Bureau of Air
Quality and Noise Control, Post Office Box
2063, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120.
(b) City of Philadelphia. Philadelphia De-
partment of Public Health Air Management
Services, 801 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania 19107. 35
(OO) State of Rhode Island, Department
of Environmental Management, 83 Park
Street, Providence, R.I. 0290850
(PP) State of South Carolina, Office of En-
vironmental Quality Control, Department
of Health and Environmental Control, 2000
Bull Street, Columbia. South Carolina 29201?
(QQ)-y f Reserved |

(RR) Division of Air Pollution Control,
Tennessee Department of Public Health,
250 Capitol Hill Building, Nashville,
Tennessee 37219 56
(SS) State of Texas, Texas Air Con-
trol Board, 8520 Shoal Creek Boule-
vard, Austin, Texas 7875&51

(TT) [reserved]

(UU) State of Vermont, Agency of Envi-
ronmental Protection, Box 489, Montpeller,
Vermont 05602.33
(W) Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia
State Air Pollution Control Board, Room
1106, Ninth Street Office Building, Richmond,
Virginia 23219.15
(WW) (1) Washington; State of Washing-
ton, Department of Ecology, Olympla, Wash-
ington 98504.
(11) Northwest Air Pollution Authority.
207 Pioneer Building, Second and Pine
Streets, Mount Vernon. Washington 98273.
(Ill) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency, 410 West Harrison Street, Seattle,
Washington 98119.
(Iv) Spokane County Air Pollution Con-
trol Authority, North 811 Jefferson, Spokane.
Washington 99201.
(v) Yaklma County Clean Air Authority.
County Courthouse, Yaklma, Washington
98901. 4>10
(vl) Olympic Air Pollution Control Au-
thority, 120 East State Avenue, Olympla.
Washington 98501.
(vli) Southwest Air Pollution Control Au-
thority, Suite 7601 H, NE Hazel Dell Avenue.
Vancouver, Washington 98665.13
(XX) [Reserved]
(YY) Wisconsin—Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921, Madi-
son, Wisconsin 53707. *'
(ZZ) [Reserved]
(AAA) [Reserved]
(BBB)—Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environ-
mental Quality Board, P.O Box 11785 S»:i-
turce. PR 00910 *3
(CCC) U.S. Virgin Islands: U.S. Virgin
Islands Department of Conservation and
Cultural Affairs, P.O. Box 578. Charlotte
Amalie St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
00801. 22
(Sees. 101, 110, 111, 112 and 301 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857 1857c-
5, 6, 7 and 1857g.)
III-4
-------
§ 61.05 Prohibited activities.
(a) After the effective date of any
standard prescribed under this part, no
owner or operator shall construct or mod-
ify any stationary source subject to such
standard without first obtaining written
approval of the Administrator In accord-
ance with this subpart, except under an
exemption granted by the President
under section 112(c)(2) of the act.
Sources, the construction or modification
of which commenced after the publica-
tion date of the standards proposed to
be applicable to such source, are subject
to this prohibition.
(b) After the effective date of any
standard prescribed under this part, no
owner or operator shall operate any new
source In violation of such standard ex-
cept under an exemption granted by the
President under section 112(c) (2) of the
act.
(c) Ninety days after the effective date
of any standard prescribed under this
part, no owner or operator shall operate
any existing stationary source In viola-
tion of such standard, except under a
waiver granted by the Administrator In
accordance with this subpart or under
an exemption granted by the President
under section 112(c) (2) of the act.
(d) No owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this part shall fall to
report, revise reports, or report source
test results as required under this part.
§ 61.06 Determination of construction
or modification.
Upon written application by an owner
or operator, the Administrator will make
a determination of whether actions taken
or Intended to be taken by such owner
or operator constitute construction or
modification or the commencement
thereof within the meaning of this part.
The Administrator will within 30 days
of receipt of sufficient information to
evaluate an application, notify the owner
or operator of his determination.
§ 61.07 Application for approval of
construction or modification.
(a) The owner or operator of any new
source to which a standard prescribed
under this part Is applicable shall, prior
to the date on which construction or
modification is planned to commence, or
within 30 days after the effective date
In the case of a new source that already
has commenced construction or modifi-
cation and has not begun operation, sub-
mit to the Administrator an application
for approval of such construction or
modification. A separate application shall
be submitted for each stationary source.
(b) Each application shall Include:
(1) The name and address of the ap-
plicant.
(2) The location or proposed location
of the source.
(3) Technical Information describing
the proposed nature, size, design, operat-
ing design capacity, and method of oper-
ation of the source, including a descrlp-, of initial startup of the source within 15
tion of any equipment to be used for days after such date.
control of emissions. Such technical In-
formation shall Include calculations of
emission estimates In sufficient detail to
permit assessment of the validity of such
calculations.
lgec m Of the
(43 U.S.C. 7414 ».
Air Act M
§ 61.08 Approval by Administrator.
(a) The Administrator will, within 00
days of receipt of sufficient information
to evaluate an application under § 61.07.
notify the owner or operator of approval
or Intention to deny approval of con-
struction or modification.
(b) If the Administrator determines
that a stationary source for which an
application pursuant to § 61.07 was sub-
mitted will, if properly operated, not
cause emissions in violation of a stand-
ard, he will approve the construction or
modification of such source.
(c) Prior to denying any application
for approval of construction or modifica-
tion pursuant to this section, the Admin-
istrator will notify the owner or operator
making such application of the Admin-
istrator's intention to issue such denial,
together with:
(1) Notice of the Information and
findings on which such intended denial
Is based, and
(2) Notice of opportunity for such
owner or operator to present, within such
time limit as the Administrator shall
specify, additional Information or argu-
ments to the Administrator prior to final
action on such application.
(d) A final determination to deny any
application for approval will be In writ-
ing and will set forth the specific grounds
on which such denial is based. Such final
determination will be made within 60
days of presentation of additional infor-
mation or arguments, or 60 days after
the final date specified for presentation,
if no presentation is made.
(e) Neither the submission of an ap-
plication for approval nor the Admin-
istrator's granting of approval to con-
struct or modify shall:
(1) Relieve an owner or operator of
legal responsibility for compliance with
any applicable provision of this part or
of any other applicable Federal, State,
or local requirement, or
(2) Prevent the Administrator from
Implementing or enforcing this part or
taking any other action under the act.
§61.09 Notification of startup.
(a) Any owner or operator of a source
which has an Initial startup after the
effective date of a standard prescribed
under this part shall furnish the Admin-
istrator written notification as follows:
(1) A notification of the anticipated
date of Initial startup of the source not
more than 60 days nor less than 30 days
prior to such date.
(2) A notification of the actual date
§ 61.10 Source reporting and waiver re-
quest.
(a) The owner or operator of any
existing source, or any new source to
which a standard prescribed under this
part is applicable which had an initial
startup which preceded the effective date
of a standard prescribed under this part
shall, within 90 days after the effective
date, provide the following information
in writing to the Administrator:
(1) Name and address of the owner
or operator.
(2) The location of the source.
(3) The type of hazardous pollutants
emitted by the stationary source.
(4) A brief description of the nature,
size, design, and method of operation of
the stationary source Including the op-
erating design capacity of such source.
Identify each point of emission for each
hazardous pollutant.
(5) The average weight per month of
the hazardous materials being processed
by the source, over the last 12 months
preceding the date of the report.
(6) A description of the existing con-
trol equipment for each emission point.
(1) Primary control devlce(s) for each
hazardous pollutant.
(11) Secondary control device(s) for
each hazardous pollutant.
(Ill) Estimated control efficiency (per-
cent) for each control device.
(7) A statement by the owner or oper-
ator of the source as to whether he can
comply with the standards prescribed In
this part within 90 days of the effective
date.
(b) The owner or operator of an exist-
ing source unable to operate In compli-
ance with any standard prescribed under
this part may request a waiver of com-
pliance with such standard for a period
not exceeding 2 years from the effective
date. Any request shall be in writing and
shall Include the following Information:
(1) A description of the controls to
be installed to comply with the standard.
(2) A compliance schedule, Including
the date each step toward compliance will
be reached. Such list shall Include as •
minimum the following dates:
(1) Date by which contracts for emis-
sion control systems or process modifica-
tions will be awarded, or date by which
orders will be issued for the purchase
of component parts to accomplish emis-
sion control or process modification;
(11) Date of initiation of onslte con-
struction or installation of emission con-
trol equipment or process change;
(111) Date by which onsite construc-
tion or installation of emission control
equipment or process modification Is to
be completed; and
(iv) Date by which final compliance Is
III-5
-------
to be achieved.
(3) A description of interim emission
control steps which will be taken during
the waiver period.
(c) Changes in the Information pro-
vided under paragraph (a) of this section
shall be provided to the Administrator
within 30 days after such change, except
that if changes will result from modifica-
tion of the source, as defined in § 61.02
(J), the provisions of 5 61.07 and § 61.08
are applicable.
(d) The format for reporting under
this section is included as Appendix A of
this part. Advice on reporting the status
of compliance may be obtained from the
Administrator.

(Sec. 114 of the Clew Air Act M wended
(43 U.8.C. 7414)). 40.47
§61.11 Waiver of compliance.
(a) Based on the information provided
in any request under 5 61.10, or other In-
formation, the Administrator may grant
a waiver of compliance with a standard
for a period not exceeding 2 years from
the effective date of such standard.
(b) Such waiver will be In writing and
will:
(1) Identify the stationary source
covered.
(2) Specify the termination date of
the waiver. The waiver may be termi-
nated at an earlier date if the conditions
specified under paragraph (b) (3) of this
section are not met.
(3) Specify dates by which steps to-
ward compliance are to be taken; and
Impose such additional conditions as the
Administrator determines to be neces-
sary to assure installation of the neces-
sary controls within the waiver period,
and to assure protection of the health
of persons during the waiver period.
(c) Prior to denying any request for
a waiver pursuant to this section, the
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator making such request of the Ad-
ministrator's Intention to issue such
denial, together with:
(1) Notice of the Information and
findings on which such Intended denial
is based, and
(2) Notice of opportunity for such
owner or operator to present, within
such time limit as the Administrator
specifies, additional Information or argu-
ments to the Administrator prior to final
action on such request.
(d) A final determination to deny any
request for a waiver will be in writing
and will set forth the specific grounds on
which such denial is based. Such final
determination will be made within 60
days after presentation of additional In-
formation or arguments, or 60 days after
the final date specified for such presen-
tation, if no presentation is made.
(e) The granting of a waiver under
this section shall not abrogate the Ad-
ministrator's authority under section 114
of the act.
§ 61.12 Emission testa and monitoring.
(a) Emission tests and monitoring
shall be conducted and reported as set
forth in this part and Appendix B to this
part.
(b) The owner or operator of a new
source subject to this part, and at the
or operator of an existing source sub-
ject to this part, shall provide or cause
to be provided, emission testing facili-
ties as follows:
(1) Sampling ports adequate for test
methods applicable to such source.
(2) Safe sampling platform (s).
(3) Safe access to sampling plat-
form(s).
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act u amended
(42 U.8.C. 7414)). 40.47
§ 61.13 Waiver of emission tests.
(a) Emission tests may be waived
upon written application to the Admin-
istrator if, in his judgment, the source
is meeting the standard, or if the source
is operating under a waiver of compliance
or has requested a waiver of compliance.
(b) If application for waiver of the
emission test is made, such application
shall accompany the information re-
quired by § 61.10. The appropriate form
is contained in Appendix A to this part.
(c) Approval of any waiver granted
pursuant to this section shall not abro-
gate the Administrator's authority under
the act or hi any way prohibit the Ad-
ministrator from later canceling such
waiver. Such cancellation will be made
only after notice is given to the owner
or operator of the source.

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act M Amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414)). 40,47
§61.14 Source test and analytical
methods.

(a) Methods 101,101A, 102, and 104 in
Appendix B to this part shall be used for
all source tests required under this part,
unless an equivalent method or an
alternative method has been approved
by the Administrator.66
(b) Method 103 in Appendix B to this
part Is hereby approved by the Admin-
istrator as an alternative method for
sources subject to § 61.32(a) and § 61.42
(b).
(c) The Administrator may, after no-
tice to the owner or operator, withdraw
approval of an alternative method
granted under paragraphs (a), (b) or
(d) of this section. Where the test results
using an alternative method do not ade-
quately Indicate whether a source is In
compliance with a standard, the Ad-
ministrator may require the use of the
reference method or its equivalent.7
(d) Method 105 In Appendix B to this
part Is hereby approved by the Adminis-
trator as an alternative .method for
sources subject to § 61.52(b).'
7
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act ai amended
(42 U-S.C.7414)). 40,47
§ 61.15 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.
(Sec. 114 of the
(42 U.S.C. 7414)).
Air Act a* amended
§61.16 Slate authority.
(a) The provisions of this part shall
not be construed In any manner to pre-
clude any State or political subdivision
thereof from:
(1) Adopting and enforcing any emis-
sion limiting regulation applicable to a
stationary source, provided that such
emission limiting regulation is not less
stringent than the standards prescribed
under this part.
(2) Requiring the owner or operator
of a stationary source, other than a sta-
tionary source owned or operated by the
United States, to obtain permits, licenses,
or approvals prior to initiating construc-
tion, modification, or operation of such
source.

(Sec. 116. Clean Air Act M amended (42
O.S.C. 7416)). 40747
§ 61.17 Circumvention.
No owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this part shall build, erect,
install, or use any article machine,
equipment, process, or method, the use of
which conceals an emission which would
otherwise constitute a violation of an
applicable standard. Such concealment
includes, but Is not limited to, the use of
gaseous dilutants to achieve compliance
with a visible emissions standard, and
the piecemeal carrying out of an opera-
tion to avoid coverage by a standard that
applies only to operations larger than a
specified size.
III-6
-------
Subpart B—National Emission Standard
for Asbestos
§ 61.20 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to those sources specified in
{ 61.22.

Spacing between lines shall be at least
equal to the height of the upper of the
two lines.
(3) The perimeter of the site shall be
fenced in a manner adequate to deter
access by the general public, except as
specified in paragraph (1) (4) of this
section.
(4) Warning signs and fencing are not
required where the requirements of
paragraphs (1) (5) (i) or (11) of this sec-
tion are met, or where a natural barrier
adequately deters access by the general
public. Upon request and supply of ap-
propriate information, the Adminis-
trator will determine whether a fence or
a natural barrier adequately deters ac-
cess to the general public.
(5) Bather than meet the requirement
of paragraph (1) (1) of this section, an
owner may elect to meet the require-
ments of this paragraph or may use an
alternative control method for emissions
from Inactive waste disposal sites which
has received prior approval by the
Administrator.
(i) The asbestos-containing waste
material shall be covered with at least
15 centimeters (ca. 6 inches) of com-
pacted non-asbestos-containing mate-
rial, and a cover of vegetation shall be
grown and maintained on the area ade-
quate to prevent exposure of the asbes-
tos-containing waste material; or
(11) The asbestos-containing waste
material shall be covered with at least 60
centimeters (ca. 2 feet) of compacted
non-asbestos-containing material and
maintained to prevent exposure of the
asbestos-containing waste; or
(ill) For inactive waste disposal sites
for asbestos tailings, a resinous or petro-
leum-based dust suppression agent which
effectively binds dust and controls wind
erosion shall be applied. Such agent shall
be used as recommended for the partic-
ular asbestos tailings by the dust sup-
pression agent manufacturer. Other
equally effective dust suppression agents
may be used upon prior approval by the
Administrator. For purposes of this para-
graph, waste crankcase oil is not con-
sidered a dust suppression agent.7
§ 61.23 Air-cleaning.
If alr-cleanlng Is elected, as permit-
ted by §§61.22(f) and 61.22(d) (4) (lv),
the requirements of this section must be
met.7
(a) Fabric filter collection devices
must be used, except as noted In para-
graphs (b) and (c) of this section. Such
devices must be operated at a pressure
drop of no more than 4 inches water gage,
as measured across the filter fabric. The
airflow permeability, as determined by
ASTM method D737-69, must not exceed
30 ft'/mln/ft' for woven fabrics or 35
ft'/mln/ft1 for felted fabrics, except that
40 ft'/min/ft1 for woven and 45 ft*/
min/ft1 for felted fabrics Is allowed for
filtering air from asbestos ore dryers
Each square yard of felted fabric must
weigh at least 14 ounces and be at least
one-sixteenth Inch thick throughout.
Synthetic fabrics must not contain fill
yarn other than that which is spun.
(b) If the use of fabric filters creates
a fire or explosion hazard, the adminis-
trator may authorize the use of wet col-
lectors designed to operate with a unit
contacting energy of at least 40 inches
water gage pressure.
(c) The administrator may authorize
the use of filtering equipment other than
that described In paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section If the owner or operator
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
administrator that the filtering of par-
ticulate asbestos material is equivalent
to that of the described equipment.
(d) All alr-cleanlng equipment au-
thorized by this section must be properly
Installed, used, operated, and maintained.
Bypass devices may be used only during
upset or emergency conditions and then
only for so long as It takes to shut down
the operation generating the participate
asbestos material.
§ 61.24 Reporting.
The owner or operator of any existing
source to which this subpart Is applicable
shall, within 90 days after the effective
date, provide the following Information
to the administrator:
(a) A description of the emission con-
trol equipment used for each process;
(b) If a fabric filter device is used to
control emissions, the pressure drop
across the fabric filter In inches water
gage.
(1) If the fabric filter device utilizes a
woven fabric, the airflow permeability
in ft'/min/ft"; and, if the fabric Is syn-
thetic, indicate whether the fill yarn Is
spun or not spun.
(2) If the fabric filter device utilizes
a felted fabric, the density In oz/yd1, the
minimum thickness in Inches, and the
airflow permeability In ft'/mln/ft'.
(c) For sources subject to §§ 61.22 (j)
and 61.22 (k):
(1) A brief description of each process
that generates asbestos-containing waste
material.
(2) The average weight of asbestos-
containing waste material disposed of,
measured in kg/day.
(3) The emission control methods
used in all stages of waste disposal.
(4) The type of disposal site or incin-
eration site used for ultimate disposal,
the name of the site operator, and the
name and location of the disposal site.7
(d) For sources subject to § 61.22(1):
(1) A brief description of the site.
(2) The method or methods used to
comply with the standard, or alternative
procedures to be used.7
(e) Such information shall accom-
pany the information required by § 61.10.
The information described in this section
shall be reported using the format of
Appendix A of this part.

(Sec. 114 of the Qean Ail Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))40.47
§ 61.25 Waste disposal sites.
In order to be an acceptable site for
disposal of asbestos-containing waste
material under §61.22 (j) and (k), an
active waste disposal site shall meet the
requirements of this section.
(a) There shall be no visible emissions
to the outside air from any active waste
disposal site where asbestos-containing
waste material has been deposited, except
as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section.
(b) Warning signs shall be displayed
at all entrances, and along the property
line of the site or along the perimeter of
the sections of the site where asbestos-
containing waste material is deposited,
at intervals of 100 m (ca. 330 ft) or less
except as specified in paragraph (d) of
this section. Signs shall be posted in such
a manner and location that a person may
easily read the legend. The warning
signs required by this paragraph shall
conform to the requirements of 20" x 14"
upright format signs specified in 29 CFR
1910.145(d)(4) and this paragraph. The
signs shall display the following legend
in the lower panel, with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to
those specified in this paragraph.

LEGEND
ASBESTOS WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Do Not Create Dust
Breathing Asbestos
Is Hazardous to Tour Health
Notation
1" Sans Serif, Gothic or Block
%" Sans Serif, Gothic or Block
14 Point Gothic
Spacing between lines shall be at least
equal to the height of the upper of the
two lines.
(c) The perimeter of the disposal site
shall be fenced in order to adequately
deter access to the general public except
as specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(d) Warning signs and fencing are
not required where the requirements of
paragraph (e)(l) of this section are
met, or where a natural barrier ade-
quately deters access to the general
public. Upon request and supply of ap-
propriate Information, the Admlnlstra-
111-10
-------
tor will determine whether a fence or a
natural barrier adequately deters access
to the general public.
(e) Rather than meet the require-
ment of paragraph (a) of this section, an
owner or operator may elect to meet
the requirements of paragraph (e) (1) or
(e) (2) of this section, or may use an al-
ternative control method for emissions
from active waste disposal sites which
has received prior approval by the
Administrator.
(1) At the end of each operating day,
or at least once every 24-hour period
while the site Is in continuous operation,
the asbestos-containing waste material
which was deposited at the site during
the operating day or previous 24-hour
period shall be covered with at least 15
centimeters (ca. 6 inches) of compacted
non-asbestos-containing material.
(2) At the end of each operating day,
or at least once every 24-hour period
while the disposal site Is in continuous
operation, the asbestos-containing waste
material which was deposited at the site
during the operating day or previous 24-
hour period shall be covered with a res-
inous or petroleum-based dust suppres-
sion agent which effectively binds dust
and controls wind erosion. Such agent
shall be used as recommended for the
particular dust by the dust suppression
agent manufacturer. Other equally ef-
fective dust suppression agents may be
used upon prior approval by the Admin-
istrator. For purposes of this paragraph,
waste crankcase oil is not considered a
dust suppression agent.
38 FR 8826, 4/6/73 (1)

as amended

39 FR 15398, 5/3/74 (2)
40 FR 48299, 10/14/76 (7)
42 FR 12127. 3/2/77 (36)
42 FR 41424, 8/17/77 (40)
43 FR 8800, 3/3/78 (47)
43 FR 26372, 6/19/78 (49)
III-ll
-------
SubpartC—National Emission Standard
for Beryllium
(61.30 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to the following stationary
sources:
(a) Extraction plans, ceramic plants,
foundries, incinerators, and propellant
plants which process beryllium ore, beryl-
lium, beryllium oxide, beryllium alloys,
or beryllium-containing waste.
(b) Machine shops which process
beryllium, beryllium oxides, or any alloy
when such alloy contains more than 5
percent beryllium by weight.
| 61.31 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are de-
fined in the act, in subpart A of this
part, or In this section as follows:
(a) "Beryllium" means the element
beryllium. Where weights or concentra-
tions re specified, such weights or con-
centrations apply to beryllium only,
excluding the weight or concentration of
any associated elements.
(b) "Extraction plant" means a fa-
cility chemically processing beryllium
ore to beryllium metal, alloy, or oxide,
or performing any of the intermediate
steps in these processes.
(c) "Beryllium ore" means any natu-
rally occurring material mined or
gathered for its beryllium content.
(d) "Machine shop" means a facility
performing cutting, grinding, turning,
honing, milling, deburring, lapping.
electrochemical machining, etching, or
other similar operations.
(e) "Ceramic plant" means a manu-
facturing plant producing ceramic items.
(f) "Foundry" means a facility en-
gaged in the melting or casting of
beryllium metal or alloy.
(g) "Beryllium-containing waste"
means material contaminated with
beryllium and/or beryllium compounds
used or generated during any process or
operation performed by a source subject
to this subpart.
. (h) "Incinerator" means any furnace
used in the process of burning waste for
the primary purpose of reducing the
volume of the waste by removing com-
bustible matter.
(i) "Propellant" means a fuel and oxi-
dizer physically or chemically combined
which undergoes combustion to provide
rocket propulsion.
(j) "Beryllium alloy" means any metal
to which beryllium has been added in
order to increase its beryllium content
and which contains more than 0.1 per-
cent beryllium by weight.
(k) "Propellant plant" means any
facility engaged in the mixing, casting,
or machining of propellant.
§ 61.32 Emission standard.
(a) Emissions to the atmosphere from
stationary sources subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall not exceed 10
grams of beryllium over a 24-hour period,
except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(b) Rather than meet the require-
ment of paragraph (a) of this section,
an owner or operator may request ap-
proval from the Administrator to meet
an ambient concentration limit on beryl-
lium in the vicinity of the stationary
source of 0.01 /jg/m3, averaged over a
30-day period.
(1) Approval of such requests may be
granted by the Administrator provided
that:
(i) At least 3 years of data Is avail-
able which in the judgment of the Ad-
ministrator demonstrates that the fu-
ture ambient concentrations of beryllium
in the vicinity of the stationary source
will not exceed 0.01 /ig/m3, averaged over
a 30-day period. Such 3-year period shall
be the 3 years ending 30 days before the
effective date of this standard.
(11) The owner or operator requests
such approval hi writing within 30 days
after the effective date of this standard.
(ill) The owner or operator submits a
report to the Administrator within 45
days after the effective date of this
standard which report includes the fol-
lowing information:
(a) Description of sampling method
including the method and frequency of
calibration.
(b) Method of sample analysis.
(c) Averaging technique for determin-
ing 30-day average concentrations.
(d) Number, identity, and location
(address, coordinates, or distance and
heading from plant) of sampling sites.
(e) Ground elevations and height
above ground of sampling inlets.
(/) Plant and sampling area plots
showing emission points and sampling
sites. Topographic features significantly
affecting dispersion Including plant
building heights and locations shall be
included.
(g) Information necessary for esti-
mating dispersion including stack height,
inside diameter, exit gas temperature,
exit velocity or flow rate, and beryllium
concentration.
(h) A description of data and proce-
dures (methods or models) used to de-
sign the air sampling network (I.e., num-
ber and location of sampling sites).
(i) Air sampling data indicating beryl-
lium concentrations in the vicinity of the
stationary source for the 3-year period
specified In paragraph (b)(l) of this
section. This data shal be presented
chronologically and include the beryl-
lium concentration and location of each
Individual sample taken by the network
and the corresponding 30-day average
beryllium concentrations.
(2) Within 60 days after receiving
such report, the Administrator will notify
the owner or operator in writing whether
approval is granted or denied. Prior to
denying approval to comply with the pro-
visions of paragraph (b) of this section,
the Administrator will consult with
representatives of the statutory source
for which the demonstration report was
submitted.
(c) The burning of beryllium and/or
beryllium-containing waste, except pro-
pellants, is prohibited except in incinera-
tors, emissions from which must comply
with the standard.
§ 61.33 Stack sampling.
(a) Unless a waiver of emission testing
is obtained under § 61.13, each owner or
operator required to comply with
§ 6 1.32 (a) shall test emissions from his
source,
(1) Within 90 days of the effective
date in the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an Initial startup
date preceding the effective date; or
(2) Within 90 days of startup In the
case of a new source which did not have
an initial startup date preceding the ef-
fective date.
(b) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(c) Samples shall be taken over such a
period or periods as are necessary to ac-
curately determine the maximum emis-
sions which will occur in any 24-hour
period. Where emissions depend upon the
relative frequency of operation of differ-
ent types of processes, operating hours,
operating capacities, or other factors,
the calculation of maximum 24-hour-
perlod emissions will be based on that
combination of factors which is likely to
occur during the subject period and
which result in the maximum emissions.
No changes in the operation shall be
made, which would potentially Increase
emissions above that determined by the
most recent source test, until a new emis-
sion level has been estimated by calcula-
tion and the results reported to the Ad-
ministrator.
(d) All samples shall be analyzed and
beryllium emissions shall be determined
within 30 days after the source test. All
determinations shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter dis-
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following such determination.
(e) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and made available, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years.

§ 61.34 Air sampling.

(a) Stationary sources subject to
i 61.32(b) shall locate air sampling sites
in accordance with a plan approved by
the Administrator. Such sites shall be
located in such a manner as is calculated
to detect maximum concentrations of
beryllium in the ambient air.
(b) All monitoring sites shall be op-
erated continuously except for a reason-
111-12
-------
able time allowance for Instrument main-
tenance and calibration, for changing
filters, or for replacement of equipment
needing major repair.
(c) Filters shall be analyzed and con-
centrations calculated within 30 days
after filters are collected. Records of
concentrations at all sampling sites and
other data needed to determine such con-
centrations shall be retained at the source
and made available, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 yean.
(d) Concentrations measured at all
sampling sites shall be reported to the
Administrator every 30 days by a regis-
tered letter.
(e) The Administrator may at any time
require changes in, or expansion of, the
sampling network.

(Sec. 114 of the Oom Air Act M amended
<4aU.fl.C.7414».W'
38 FR 8826. 4/6/73 (1)

as amended

42 FR 41424, 8/17/77 (40)
43 FR 8800, 3/3/78 (47)
III-13
-------
Subpart IV—National Emission Standard
for Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing

{6L40 Applicability.
The provisions of tills subpart are ap-
plicable to rocket motor test sites.
§ 61.41 Definitions.
Terms used In this subpart are defined
In the Act, In Subpart A of this part, or
In this section as follows:'

-------
Subpart E—National Emiuion Standard
for Mercury
| 61.50 Applicability. '
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to those stationary sources which .
process mercury ore to recover mercury,
use mercury chlor-alkall cells to produce
chlorine gas and alkali metal hydroxide,
and incinerate or dry wastewater treat-
ment plant sludge.
| 61.51 Definition*.
Terms used in this mibpart are defined
In the act, in subpart A of this part, or in
this section as follows:
(a) "Mercury" means the element mer-
cury, excluding any associated elements,
and includes mercury In particulates, va-
pors, aerosols, and compounds.
(b) "Mercury ore" means a mineral
mined specifically for its mercury con-
tent.
(c) "Mercury ore processing facility"
means a facility processing mercury ore
to obtain mercury.
"End box ventilation system"
means a ventilation system which col-
lects mercury emissions from the end-
boxes, the mercury pump sumps, and
their water colection systems.
(k) "Cell room" means a structure(s)
housing one or more mercury electro-
lytic chlor-alkall cells.
(1) "Sludge" means sludge produced by
a treatment plant that processes munici-
pal or Industrial waste waters. '
(m) "Sludge dryer" means a device
used to reduce the moisture content of
sludge by heating to temperatures above
65*C (oa. 150°F) directly with combus-
tion gases.'
§ 61.52 Emission standard.
(a) Emissions to the atmosphere from
mercury ore processing facilities and
mercury cell chlor-alkall plants shall not
exceed 2300 grams of mercury per 24-
hour period.
(b) Emissions to the atmosphere from
sludge incineration plants, sludge drying
plants, or a combination of these that
process wastewater treatment plant
sludges shall not exceed 3200 grams of
mercury per 24-hour period.
§ 61.53 Stack sampling.
(a) Mercury ore processing facility.
(1) Unless a waiver of emission testing
is obtained under § 61.13, each owner
or operator processing mercury ore shall
test emissions from his source,
(i) Within 90 days of the effective
date in the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial start-
up date preceding the effective date; or
(ii) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source which did not have
an initial startup date preceding the ef-
fective date.
(2) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(3) Samples shall be taken over such
a period or periods as are necessary tc
accurately determine the maximum
emissions which will occur in a 24-hour
period. No changes in the operation shall
be made, which would potentially in-
crease emissions above that determined
by the most recent source test, until the
new emission level has been estimated by
calculation and the results reported to
the Administrator.
(4) All samples shall be analyzed, and
mercury emissions shall be determined
within 30 days after the source test. Each
determination will be reported to the Ad-
ministrator by a registered letter dis-
• latched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following such determination.
(5) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and made available, .for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years.
(b) Mercury chlor-alkali plant—hy-
drogen and end-box ventilation gas
streams.
(1) Unless a waiver of emission test-
ing is obtained under § 61.13, each owner
or operator employing mercury chlor-
alkali cell(s) shall test emissions from
his source,
(i) Within 90 days of the effective
date in the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial startup
date preceding the effective date; or
(11) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source which did not have
an Initial startup date preceding the ef-
fective date.
(2) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(3) Samples shall be taken over such
a period or periods as are necessary to
accurately determine the maximum emis-
sions which will occur In a 24-hour
period. No changes in the operation shall
be made, which would potentially In-
crease emissions above that determined
by the most recent'source test, until the
new emission has been estimated by cal-
culation and the results reported to the
Administrator.
(4) All samples shall be analyzed and
mercury emisions shall be determined
within 30 days after the source test. All
the determinations will be reported to
the Administrator by a registered letter
dispatched before the close of the next
business day following*such determina-
tion.
(5) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and made available, for Inspection by
the Administrator, for a minimum of
2 years.
(c) Mercury chlor-alkall plants—
cell room ventilation system.
(1) Stationary sources using mercury
chlor-alkall cells may test cell room
emissions in accordance with paragraph
(c)(2) of this section or demonstrate
compliance with paragraph (c) (4) of this
section and assume ventilation emissions
of 1,300 gins/day of mercury.
(2) Unless a waiver of emission test-
ing is obtained under § 61.13, each owner
or operator shall pass all cell room air
in forced gas streams through stacks
suitable for testing,
(1) Within 90 days of the effective date
in the case of an existing source or a new
source which has an initial startup date
preceding the effective date; or
(ii) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source which did not have
an initial startup date preceding the
effective date.
(3) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 day's prior to an emission
test,-so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(4) An owner or operator may carry
out approved design, maintenance, and
housekeeping practices. A list of ap-
proved design, maintenance, and house-
keeping practices may be obtained from
the Administrator.
(d) Sludge incineration and drying
plants.
(1) Unless a waiver of emission testing
Is obtained under 5 61.13, each owner or
operator of a source subject to the stand-
ard in § 61.52 (b) shall test emissions from
that source. Such tests shall be conduct* d
in accordance with the procedures ->et
forth either in paragraph id) of this
section or in § G1.54.
(2) Method 101A in Appendix B to this
part shall be used to test emissions as
follows:66
(i) The test shall be performed within
90 days of the effective date of these
regulations in the case of an existing
source or a new source which has an
initial startup date preceding the
effective date.66
(ii) The test shall be performed within
90 days of startup in the case of a new
source which did not have an initial
startup date preceding the effective date?
66
111-15
-------
(3) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.7
(4) Samples shall be taken over such
a period or periods as are necessary to
determine accurately the maximum
emissions which will occur in a 24-hour
period: No changes shall be made In the
operation which would potentially in-
crease emissions above the level deter-
mined by the most recent stack test, un-
til the new emission level has been esti-
mated by calculation and the results re-
ported to the Administrator.7
(5) All samples shall be analyzed, and
mercury emissions shall be determined
within 30 days after the stack test. Each
determination shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter dis-
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following such determination:
(6) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and shall be made available, for. Inspec-
tion by the Administrator, for a mini-
mum of 2 years.7
(Sec. 114 of the
(42 D.S.C. 7414)).
Air Act M amended
§ 61.54 Sludge sampling.7
(a) As an alternative means for
demonstrating compliance with ! 61.52
(b), an owner or operator may use
Method 105 of Appendix B and the proce-
dures specified In this section.
(1) A sludge test shall be conducted
within 90 days of the effective date of
these regulations In the case of an exist-
ing source or a new source which has an
Initial startup date preceding the effec-
tive date; or
(2) A sludge test shall be conducted
within 90 days of startup in the case of a
new source which did not have an initial
startup date preceding the effective date.
(b) Hie Administrator shall be notified
at least 30 days prior to a sludge sampling
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test
-(c) Sludge shall be sampled according
to paragraph (c) (1) of this section,
sludge charging rate for the plant shall
be determined according to paragraph
(c) (2) of this section, and the sludge
analysis shall be performed according to
paragraph (c) (3) of this section.
(1) The sludge shall be sampled after
dewaterlng and before Incineration or
drying, at a location that provides a
representative sample of the sludge that
Is charged to the Incinerator or dryer.
Eight consecutive grab samples shall be
obtained at intervals of between 45 and
60 minutes and thoroughly mixed into
one sample. Each of the eight grab sam-
ples shall have a volume of at least 200
ml but not more than 400 ml. A total of
three composite samples shall be ob-
tained within an operating period of 24
hours. When the 24-hour operating pe-
riod is not continuous, the total sam-
pling period shall not exceed 72 hours
after the first grab sample la obtained.
Samples shall not be exposed to any con-
dition that may result in mercury con-
tamination or loss.
(2) The maximum • 24-hour period
sludge Incineration or drying rate shall
be determined by use of a flow rate meas-
urement device that can measure the
mass rate of sludge charged to the in-
cinerator or dryer with an accuracy of
±5 percent over Its operating range.
Other methods of measuring sludge mass
charging rates may be used if they have
received prior approval by the Adminis-
trator.
(3) The handling, preparation, and
analysis of sludge samples shall be ac-
complished according to Method 105 in
Appendix B of this part.
(d) The mercury emissions shall be
determined by use of the following
equation:
Euf=l I 10-* cQ
where
Eirr=Mercury emissions, g/day.
c =Mercury concentration of sludge on a
dry solids basis, jig/g (ppm).
Q =Sludge charging rate, kg/day.

(e) No changes in the operation of a
plant shall be made after a sludge test
has been conducted which would poten-
tially Increase emissions above the level
determined by the most recent sludge
test, until the new emission level has
been estimated by calculation and the
results reported to the Administrator.
(f) All sludge samples shall be ana-
lyzed for mercury content within 30 days
after the sludge sample is collected. Each
determination shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter dis-
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following such determination.
(g) Records of sludge sampling, charg-
ing rate determination and other data
needed to determine mercury content
of wastewater treatment plant sludges
shall be retained at the source and made
available, for inspection by the Admin-
istrator, for a minimum of 2 years.
(Sec. 114 of the Clmp Air Act M
(42 UJ8.C. 7414)). «M»
§ 61.55 Emission monitoring.
(a) Wastewater treatment plant sludge
Incineration and drying plants. All such
sources for which mercury emissions ex-
ceed 1600 g/day, demonstrated either by
stack sampling according to { 61.53 or
sludge sampling according to {61.54,
shall monitor mercury emissions at Inter-
vals of at least once per year by use of
Method 105 of Appendix B, or the proce-
dures specified in 5 61.54(c) and (d). The
results of monitoring shall be reported
and retained according to I 61.53 (d) (5)
and (6). or { 61.54(f) and (g).
(Sec. U4 of the
(42 U.8.C. 7414)).
Air Act M
38 FR 8826, 4/6/73 (1)

as amended

40 FR 48299, 10/14/75 (7)
42 FR 41424, 8/17/77 (40)
43 FR 8800, 3/3/78 (47)
47 FR 24703, 6/8/82 (66)
111-16
-------
Subpart F—National Emission Standard
for Vinyl Chloride "
§ 61.60 Applicability.
(a) This subpart applies to plants
which produce:
(1) Ethylene dichloride by reaction of
oxygen and hydrogen chloride with
ethylene,
(2) Vinyl chloride by any process,
and/or
(3) One or more polymers containing
any fraction of polymerized vinyl chlo-
ride.
(b) This subpart does not apply to
equipment used in research and develop-
ment if the reactor used to polymerize
the vinyl chloride processed in the equip-
ment has a capacity of no more than
0.19m3 (50 gal).
(c > Sections of this subpart other than
§§ 61.61; 61.64 (a) (1), (b), (c), and (d);
61.67; 61.68; 61.69; 61.70; and 61.71 do
not apply to equipment used in research
and development if the reactor used to
polymerize the vinyl chloride processed
in the equipment has a capacity of
greater than 0.19 m" (50 gal) and no
more than 4.07 m 3 (1100 gal) .38
§ 61.61 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined
in the Act, in Subpart A of this part, or
in this section as follows:
(a) "Ethylene dichloride plant" in-
cludes any plant which produces ethyl-
ene dichloride by reaction of oxygen and
hydrogen chloride with ethylene.
(b) "Vinyl chloride plant" includes
any plant which produces vinyl chloride
by any process.
(c) "Polyvinyl chloride plant" includes
any plant where vinyl chloride alone or
in combination with other materials is
polymerized.
(d) "Slip gauge" means a gauge which
has a probe that moves through the gas/
liquid interface in a storage or transfer
vessel and indicates the level of vinyl
chloride in the vessel by the physical
state of the material the gauge dis-
charges.
(e) "Type of resin" means the broad
classification of resin referring to the
basic manufacturing process for produc-
ing that resin, including, but not limited
to, the suspension, dispersion, latex, bulk,
and solution processes.
(f) "Grade of resin" means the sub-
division of resin classification which de-
scribes it as a unique resin, i.e., the most
exact description of a resin with no fur-
ther subdivision.
(g) "Dispersion resin" means a resin
manufactured in such away as to form
fluid dispersions when dispersed in a
plasticizer or plasticizer/diluent mix-
tures.
(h) "Latex resin" means a resin which
is produced by a polymerization process
which initiates from free radical catalyst
sites and is sold undried.
(i) "Bulk resin' 'means a resin which
is produced by a polymerization process
in which no water is used.
(j) "Inprocess wastewater" means any
water which, during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact
with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride
or results from the production or use of
any raw material, intermediate product,
finished product, by-product, or waste
product containing vinyl chloride or
polyvinyl chloride but which has not
been discharged to a wastewater treat-
ment process or discharged untreated as
wastewater.
(k) "Wastewater treatment process"
includes any process which modifies
characteristics such as BOD, COD, TSS,
and pH, usually for the purpose of meet-
ing effluent guidelines and standards; it
does not include any process the purpose
of which is to remove vinyl chloride from
water to meet requirements of this
subpart.
(1) "In vinyl chloride service" means
that a piece of equipment contains or
contacts either a liquid that is at least
10 percent by weight vinyl chloride or a
gas that is at least 10 percent by volume
vinyl chloride.
(m) "Standard operating procedure"
means a formal written procedure offi-
cially adopted by the plant owner or
operator and available on a routine basis
to those persons responsible for carrying
out the procedure.
(n) "Run" means the net period of
time during which an emission sample is
collected.
(o) "Ethylene dichloride purification"
includes any part of the process of ethyl-
ene dichloride production which follows
ethylene dichloride formation and in
which finished ethylene dichloride is
produced.
(p) "Vinyl chloride purification" In-
cludes any part of the process of vinyl
chloride production which follows vinyl
chloride formation and in which finished
vinyl chloride is produced.
(q) "Reactor" includes any vessel in
which vinyl chloride is partially or totally
polymerized into polyvinyl chloride.
(r) "Reactor opening loss" means the
emissions of vinyl chloride occurring
when a reactor is vented to the atmos-
phere for any purpose other than an
emergency relief discharge as defined in
§61.65(a).
(s) "Stripper" includes any vessel in
which residual vinyl chloride is removed
from polyvinyl chloride resin, except
bulk resin, in the slurry form by the use
of heat and/or vacuum. In the case of
bulk resin, stripper includes any vessel
which is used to remove residual vinyl
chloride from polyvinyl chloride resin
Immediately following- the polymeriza-
tion step in the plant process flow.
(t) "Standard temperature" means a
temperature of 20° C (69° F).38
(u) "Standard pressure" means a
pressure of 760 mm of Hg (29.92 in. of
Hg).38
§ 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene
dichloride plants.38
(a) Ethylene dichloride purification:
The concentration of vinyl chloride in
all exhaust gases discharged to the at-
mosphere from any equipment used In
ethylene dichloride purification is not
to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided In
§61.65(a). This requirement does not
apply to equipment that has been opened,
is out of operation, and met the require-
ment in § 61.65(b) (6) (i) before being
opened.
(b) Oxychlorination reactor: Except
as provided in §61.65(a), emissions of
vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from
each oxychlorination reactor are not to
exceed 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100
percent ethylene dichloride product from
the oxychlorination process.
§ 61.63 Emission standard for vinyl
chloride plants.
An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo-
ride plant shall comply with the require-
ments of this section and § 61.65.
(a) Vinyl chloride formation and puri-
fication: The concentration of vinyl
chloride in all exhaust gases discharged
to the atmosphere from any equipment
used in vinyl chloride formation and/or
purification is not to exceed 10 ppm, ex-
cept as provided in § 61.65(a). This re-
quirement does not apply to equipment
that has been opened, is out of operation,
and met the requirement in § 61.65(b)
(6) (i) before being opened.
§ 61.64 Emission standard for polyvinyl
chloride plants.
An owner or operator of a polyvinyl
chloride plant shall comply with the re-
quirements of this section and § 61.65.
(a) Reactor. The following require-
ments apply to reactors:
(1) The concentration of vinyl chlo-
ride in all exhaust gases discharged to
the atmosphere from each reactor is not
to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in
paragraph (a) (2) of this section and
§61.65(a).
(2) The reactor opening loss from each
reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl
chloride/kg (0.00002 Ib vinyl chloride/
Ib) of polyvinyl chloride product, with
the product determined on a dry solids
basis. This requirement applies to any
vessel which is used as a reactor or as
both a reactor and a stripper. In the
bulk process, the product means the
gross product of prepolymerization and
postpolymerization.
(3) Manual vent valve discharge: Ex-
cept for an emergency manual vent valve
discharge, there is to be no discharge to
the atmosphere from any manual vent
valve on a polyvinyl chloride reactor in
vinyl chloride service. An emergency
manual vent valve discharge means a
discharge to the atmosphere which could
not have been avoided by taking meas-
ures to prevent the discharge. Within 10
111-17
-------
days of any discharge to the atmosphere
from any manual vent valve, the owner
or operator of the source from which the
discharge occurs shall submit to the Ad-
ministrator a report in writing contain-
ing information on the source, nature
and cause of the discharge, the date and
time of the discharge, the approximate
total vinyl chloride loss during the dis-
charge, the method used for determining
the vinyl chloride loss, the action that
was taken to prevent the discharge, and
measures adopted to prevent future dis-
charges.
(b) Stripper. The concentration of
vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases dis-
charged to the atmosphere from each
stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm, except
as provided in §61.65(a). This require-.
ment does not apply to equipment that
has been opened, is out of operation, and
met the requirement in § 61.65(b) (6) (i)
before being opened.
(c) Mixing, weighing, and holding
containers. The concentration of vinyl
chloride in all exhaust gases discharged
to the atmosphere from each mixing,
weighing, or holding container in vinyl
chloride service which precedes the
stripper (or the reactor if the plant has
no stripper) in the plant process flow is
not to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided
in ! 61.65(a). This requirement does not
apply to equipment that has been
opened, is out of operation, and met the
requirement in § 61.65(b) (6) (i) before
being opened.
(d) Monomer recovery system. The
concentration of vinyl chloride in all ex-
haust gases discharged to the atmos-
phere from each monomer recovery sys-
tem is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as
provided in § 61.65(a). This requirement
does not apply to equipment that has
been opened, is out of operation, and met
the requirement in § 61.65(b) (6) (i) be-
fore being opened.
(e) Sources following the stripper(s).
The following requirements apply to
emissions of vinyl chloride to the at-
mosphere from the combination of all
sources following the stripper(s) [or the
reactor(s) if the plant has no strip-
per (s)] in the plant process flow in-
cluding but not limited to, centrifuges,
concentrators, blend tanks, filters, dry-
ers, conveyor air discharges, baggers,
storage containers, and inprocess waste-
water :
(1) In poly vinyl chloride plants using
stripping technology to control vinyl
chloride emissions, the weighted average
residual vinyl chloride concentration in
all grades of polyvinyl chloride resin
processed through the stripping opera-
tion on each calendar day, measured
immediately after the stripping opera-
tion is completed, may not exceed:
(i) 2000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride
dispersion resins, excluding latex resins;
"• (ii) 400 ppm for all other polyvinyl
chloride resins, including latex resins,
averaged separately for each type of res-
in; or
(2) In polyvinyl chloride plants con-
trolling vinyl chloride emissions with
technology other than stripping or in
addition to stripping, emissions of vinyl
chloride to the atmosphere may not
exceed:
(i)2 g/kg (0.002 Ib/lb) product from
the stripper(s) [or reactor(s) if the
plant has no stripper (s) ] for dispersion
polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex
resins, with the product determined on a
dry solids basis;
(ii) 0.4 g/kg (0.0004 Ib/lb) product
from the strippers [or reactor(s) if the
plant has no stripper (s) ] for all other
polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex
resins, with the product determined on
a dry solids basis.
§ 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene
dichloride, vinyl chloride and poly-
vinyl chloride plants.
An owner or operator of an ethylene
dichloride, vinyl chloride, and/or poly-
vinyl chloride plant shall comply with
the requirements of this section.
(a) Relief valve discharge. Except for
an emergency relief discharge, there is
to be no discharge to the atmosphere
from any relief valve on any equipment
in vinyl chloride service. An emergency
relief discharge means a discharge which
could not have been avoided by taking
measures to prevent the discharge. With-
in 10 days of any relief valve discharge,
the owner or operator of the source from
which the relief valve discharge occurs
shall submit to the Administrator a re-
port in writing containing information
on the source, nature and cause of the
discharge, the date and time of the dis-
charge, the approximate total vinyl chlo-
ride loss during the discharge, the meth-
od used for determining the vinyl chlo-
ride loss, the action that was taken to
prevent the discharge, and measures
adopted to prevent future discharges.
(b) Fugitive emission sources. (1)
Loading and unloading lines: Vinyl
chloride emissions from loading and un-
loading lines in vinyl chloride service
which are opened to the atmosphere af-
ter each loading or unloading operation
are to be minimized as follows:38
(i) After each loading or unloading
operation and before opening a loading
or unloading line to the atmosphere, the
quantity of vinyi chloride in all parts of
each loading or unloading line that are
to be opened to the atmosphere is to be
reduced so that the parts combined con-
tain no greater than 0.0038 m3 (0.13 ft3)
of vinyl chloride, at standard tempera-
ture and pressure; and
(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from
a loading or unloading line in accord-
ance with paragraph (b)UMi) of this
section is to be ducted through a control
system from which the concentration of
vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does
not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as pro-
vided in § 61.66.
(2) Slip gauges. During loading or un-
loading operations, the vinyl chloride
emissions from each slip gauge in vinyl
chloride service are to be minimized by
ducting any vinyl chloride discharged
from the slip gauge through a control
system from which the concentration of
vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does
not exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as pro-
vided in § 61.66.
(3) Leakage from pump, compressor,
and agitator seals:
(i) Rotating pumps. Vinyl chloride
emissions from seals on all rotating
pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be
minimized by installing sealless pumps,
pumps with double mechanical seals, or
equivalent as provided in § 61.66. If
double mechanical seals are used, vinyl
chloride emissions from the seals are to
be minimized by maintaining the pres-
sure between the two seals so that any
leak that occurs is into the pump; by
ducting any vinyl chloride between the
two seals through a control system from
which the concentration of vinyl chlo-
ride in the exhaust gases does not ex-
ceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided
in § 61.66.
(ii) Reciprocating pumps. Vinyl chlo-
ride emissions from seals on all recipro-
cating pumps in vinyl chloride service
are to be minimized by installing double
outboard seals, or equivalent as provided
in § 61.66. If double outboard seals are
used, vinyl chloride emissions from the
seals are to be minimized by maintaining
the pressure between the two seals so
that any leak that occurs is into the
pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride be-
tween the two seals through a control
system from which the concentration of
vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does
not exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as
provided in § 61.66.
(iii) Rotating compressor. Vinyl
chloride emissions from seals on all ro-
tating compressors in vinyl chloride
service are to be minimized by installing
compressors with double mechanical
seals, or equivalent as provided in § 61.66.
If double mechanical seals are used, vinyl
chloride emissions from the seals are to
be minimized by maintaining the pres-
sure between the two seals so that any
leak that occurs is into the compressor;
by ducting any vinyl chloride between
the two seals through a control system
from which the concentration of vinyl
chloride in the exhaust gases does not
exceed 10 ppm; or equivalent as provided
in§ 61.66.
(iv) Reciprocating compressors. Vinyl
chloride emissions from seals on all re-
ciprocating compressors in vinyl chloride
service are to be minimized by installing
double outboard seals, or equivalent as
provided in § 61.66. If double outboard
seals are used, vinyl chloride emissions
from the seals are to be minimized by
maintaining the pressure between the
two seals so that any leak that occurs is
into the compressor; by ducting any
vinyl chloride between the two seals
through a control system from which the
concentration of vinyl chloride in the
exhaust gases does not exceed 10 ppm;
or equivalent as provided in § 61.66.
(v) Agitator. Vinyl chloride emissions
from seals on all agitators in vinyl chlo-
ride service are to be minimized by in-
111-18
-------
stalling agitators with double mechani-
cal seals, or equivalent as provided in
§ 61.66. If double mechanical seals are
used, vinyl chloride emissions from the
seals are to be minimized by maintaining
the pressure between the two seals so
that any leak that occurs is into the agi-
tated vessel; by ducting any vinyl chlo-
ride between the two seals through a
control system from which the concen-
tration of vinyl chloride in the exhaust
gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equiva-
lent as provided in § 61.66.
(4) Leakage from relief valves. Vinyl
chloride emissions due to leakage from
each relief valve on equipment in vinyl
chloride service are to be minimized by
installing a rupture disk between the
equipment and the relief valve, by con-
necting the relief valve discharge to a
process line or recovery system, or equiv-
alent as provided in § 61.66.
(5) Manual venting of gases. Except
as provided in § 61.64(a) (3), all gases
which are manually vented from equip-
ment in vinyl chloride service are to be
ducted through a control system from
which the concentration of vinyl chloride
in the exhaust gases does not exceed 10
ppm; or equivalent as provided in § 61.66.
(6) Opening of equipment. Vinyl
chloride emissions from opening of
equipment (including loading or unload-
ing lines that are not opened to the at-
mosphere after each loading or unload-
ing operation) are to be minimized as
follows:
(i) Before opening any equipment for
any reason, the quantity of vinyl chlo-
ride is to be reduced so that the equip-
ment contains no more than 2.0 percent
by volume vinyl chloride or 0.0950 m3 (25
gal) of vinyl chloride, whichever is
larger, at standard temperature and
pressure; and
(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from
the equipment in accordance with para-
graph (b) (6) (i) of this section is to be
ducted through a control system from
which the concentration of vinyl chlo-
ride in the exhaust gases does not exceed
10 ppm, or equivalent as provided in
§ 61.66.
(7) Samples. Unused portions of sam-
ples containing at least 10 percent by
weight vinyl chloride are to be returned
to the process, and sampling techniques
are to be such that sample containers in
vinyl chloride service are purged into a
closed process system.
(8) Leak detection and elimination.
Vinyl chloride emissions due to leaks
from equipment in vinyl chloride service
are to be minimized by instituting and
implementing a formal leak detection
and elimination program. The owner or
operator shall submit a description of
the program to the Administrator for
approval. The program is to be sub-
mitted within 45 days of the effective
date of these regulations, unless a waiver
of compliance is granted under § 61.11.
If a waiver of compliance is granted, the
program is to be submitted on a date
scheduled by the Administrator. Ap-
proval of a program will be granted by
the Administrator provided he finds:
(i) It includes a reliable and accurate
vinyl chloride monitoring system for de-
tection of major leaks and identification
of the general area of the plant where a
leak is located. A vinyl chloride monitor-
ing system means a device which obtains
air samples from one or more points on
a continuous sequential basis and ana-
lyzes the samples with gas chromatog-
raphy or, if the owner or operator as-
sumes that all hydrocarbons measured
are vinyl chloride, with infrared spectro-
photometry, flame ion detection, or an
equivalent or alternative method.
(ii) It includes a reliable and accurate
portable hydrocarbon detector to be used
routinely to find small leaks and to pin-
point the major leaks indicated by the
vinyl chloride monitoring system. A
portable hydrocarbon detector means a
device which measures hydrocarbons
with a sensitivity of at least 10 ppm
and is of such design and size that it can
be used to measure emissions from local-
ized points.
(iii) It provides for an acceptable cali-
bration and maintenance schedule for
the vinyl chloride monitoring system and
portable hydrocarbon detector. For the
vinyl chloride monitoring system, a daily
span check is to be conducted with a
concentration of vinyl chloride equal to
the concentration denned as a leak ac-
cording to paragraph (b) (8) (vi) of this
section. The calibration is to be done
with either:
(A) A calibration gas mixture pre-
pared from the gases specified in sections
5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Test Method 106 and
in accordance with section 7.1 of Test
Method 106, or38
(B) A calibration gas cylinder stand-
ard containing the appropriate concen-
tration of vinyl chloride. The gas com-
position of the calibration gas cylinder
standard is to have been certified by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer must
have recommended a maximum shelf life
for each cylinder so that the concentra-
tion does not change greater than ±5
percent from the certified value. The date
of gas cylinder preparation, certified
vinyl chloride concentration and recom-
mended maximum shelf life must have
been affixed to the cylinder before ship-
ment from the manufacturer to the
buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as
the vinyl chloride monitoring system,
these gas mixtures may be directly used
to prepare a chromatograph calibration
curve as described in section 7.3 of Test
Method 106. The requirements in sec-
tion 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method
106 for certification of cylinder stand-
ards and for establishment and verifica-
tion of calibration standards are to be
followed.38
(iv) The location and number of points
to be monitored and the frequency of
monitoring nrovided for in the program
are acceptable when they are compared
with the number of pieces of equipment
in vinyl chloride service and the size and
physical layout of the plant.
(v) It contains an acceptable plan of
action to be taken when a leak is de-
tected.
(vi) It contains a definition of leak
which is acceptable when compared with
the background concentrations of vinyl
chloride in the areas of the plant to be
monitored by the vinyl chloride monitor-
ing system. Measurements of background
concentrations of vinyl chloride in the
areas of the plant to be monitored by the
vinyl chloride monitoring system are to
be included with the description of the
program. The definition of leak for a
given plant may vary among the differ-
ent areas within the plant and is also to
change over time as background con-
centrations in the plant are reduced.
(9) Inprocess wastewater. Vinyl chlo-
ride emissions to the atmosphere from
inprocess wastewater are to be reduced
as follows :
(i) The concentration of vinyl chlo-
ride in each inprocess wastewater stream
containing greater than 10 ppm vinyl
chloride measured immediately as it
leaves a piece of equipment and before
being mixed with any other inprocesa
wastewater stream is to be reduced to no
more than 10 ppm by weight before being
mixed with any other inprocess wastewa-
ter stream which contains less than 10
ppm vinyl chloride ; before being exposed
to the atmoshere; before being dis-
charged to a wastewater treatment proc-
ess ; or before being discharged untreated
as a wastewater. This paragraph does
apply to water which is used to displace
vinyl chloride from equipment before it
is opened to the atmosphere in accord-
ance with § 61.64(a) (2) or paragraph
(b) (6) of this section, but does not apply
to water which is used to wash out equip-
ment after the equipment has already
been opened to the atmosphere in ac-
cordance with §61.64(a)(2) or para-
graph (b) (6) of this section.30
(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from
the inprocess wastewater in accordance
with paragraph (b) (9) (i) of this section
is to be ducted through a control system
from which the concentration of vinyl
chloride in the exhaust gases does not
exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided
in § 61.66.
(c) The requirements in paragraphs
and (b) (8) of this section are to be In-
corporated into a standard operating
procedure, and made available upon re-
quest for inspection by the Administra-
tor. The standard operating procedure is
to include provisions for measuring the
vinyl chloride in equipment ^4.75 m'
(1,250 gal) in volume for which an emis-
sion limit is prescribed in § 61.65(b) (6)
(i) prior to opening the equipment and
using Test Method 106, a portable hydro-
carbon detector, or an equivalent or al-
ternative method. The method of meas-
urement is to meet the requirements in
§ 61.67(g) (5) (i) (A) or (g) ((5) (i) (B).9*

<8ec. 114 of the Ctam Air Act M unendtd
<420J5.C.74U».«V"
111-19
-------
§ 61.66 Equivalent equipment and pro-
cedures.
Upon written application from an own-
er or operator, the Administrator may
approve use of equipment or procedures
which have been demonstrated to his
satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of
reducing vinyl chloride emissions to the
atmosphere to those prescribed for com-
pliance with a specific paragraph of this
subpart. For an existing source, any re-
quest for using an equivalent method as
the initial measure of control is to be
submitted to the Administrator within
30 days of the effective date. For a new
source, any request for using an equiva-
lent method is to be submitted to the
Administrator with the application for
approval of construction or modification
required by § 61.07.
§ 61.67 Emission tests.
(a) Unless a waiver of emission testing
is obtained under § 61.13, the owner or
operator of a source to which this sub-
part applies shall test emissions from
the source,
(1) Within 90 days of the effective date
in the case of an existing source or a
new source which has an initial startup
date preceding the effective date, or
(2) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source, initial startup of
which occurs after the effective date.
(b) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide the Administrator at least 30 days
prior notice of an emission test to afford
the Administrator the opportunity to
have an observer present during the test.
(c) Any emission test is to be con-
ducted while the equipment being tested
is operating at the maximum production
rate at which the equipment will be op-
erated and under other relevant condi-
tions as may be specified by the Adminis-
trator based on representative perform-
ance of the source.
(d) [Reserved]38
(e) When at all possible, each sample
is to be analyzed within 24 hours, but in
no case in excess of 72 hours of sample
collection. Vinyl chloride emissions are
to be determined within 30 days after the
emission test. The owner or operator
shall report the determinations to the
Administrator by a registered letter dis-
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following the determination.3*
(f) The owner or operator shall retain
at the plant and make available, upon
request, for inspection by the Adminis-
trator, for a minimum of 2 years records
of emission test results and other data
needed to determine emissions.
(g) Unless otherwise specified, the
owner or operator shall use test Test
Methods in Appendix B to this part for
each test as required by paragraphs
(g)(l), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and
(g) (5) of this section, unless an equiva-
lent method or an alternative method
has been approved by the Administrator.
If the Administrator finds reasonable
grounds to dispute the results obtained
by an equivalent or alternative method,
he may require the use of a reference
method. If the results of the reference
and equivalent or alternative methods
do not agree, the results obtained by the
reference method prevail, and the Ad-
ministrator may notify the owner or
operator that approval of the method
previously considered to be equivalent or
alternative is withdrawn.
(1) Test Method 106 is to be used to
determine the vinyl chloride emissions
from any source for which an emission
limit is prescribed in §§ 61.62(a) or (b)
§ 61.63(a), or §§ 61.64(a) (1), (b), (c), or
(d), or from any control system to which
reactor emissions are required to be
ducted in § 61.64(a) (2) or to which fugi-
tive emissions are required to be ducted
is §61.65(b)(l)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(5),
(b) (6) (ii),or (b) (9) (ii).
(i) For each run, one sample is to be
collected. The sampling site is to be at
least two stack or duct diameters down-
stream and one half diameter upstream
from any flow disturbance such as a
bend, expansion, contraction, or visible
flame. For a rectangular cross section an
equivalent diameter is to be determined
from the following equation:
equivalent diameter =
(length) (width)
length+ wldth~
The sampling point in the duct is to
be at the centroid of the cross section.
The sample is to be extracted at a rate
proportional to the gas velocity at the
sampling point. The sample is to be
taken over a minimum of one hour, and
is to contain a minimum volume of 50
liters corrected to standard conditions.
(ii) Each emission test is to consist of
three runs. For the purpose of determin-
ing emissions, the average of results of
all runs is to apply. The average is to be
computed on a time weighted basis.3*
(iii) For gas streams containing more
than 10 percent oxygen the concentra-
tion of vinyl chloride as determined by
Test Method 106 is to be corrected to 10
percent oxygen (dry basis) for determi-
nation of emissions by using the follow-
ing equation:
nl)=Cl>
10.9
20.9 — percent O,

where:

d>icorri>cfe
-------
is to be made is to be specified by the
Administrator for each individual plant
at the time of the determination based
on the plant's operation. For a reactor
that is also used as a stripper, the deter-
mination may be made immediately fol-
lowing the stripping operation.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph
(g) (5) (ii) of this section, the reactor
opening loss is to be determined using
the following equation:
(bHIHil), and (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6)
C=
W (2.60)
YZ
where:
C=
W=
2.60=

10-*=
C6
kg vinyl chloride emissions/kg product.
Capacit y of the reactor in m>.
Density of vinyl chloride at one atmosphere and
20° C in kg/m>.
Conversion factor for ppm.
ppm by volume vinyl chloride as determined by
Test Method 106 or a portable hydrocarbon
detector which measures hydrocarbons
with a sensitivity of at least 10 ppm.
K=Number of batches since the reactor was last
opened to the atmosphere.
Z=Average kg of polyvinyl chloride produced per
batch in the number of batches since the reactor
was last opened to the atmosphere.

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act u unended
(42 UAC. 7414)). «>,47
Qr.
M = Concentration of vinyl chloride in one
sample of grade G i resin. In ppm.
P = Production of grade G < resin repre-
sented by the sample, in kg.
G, = Grade of resin; e.g.. G ,, G,, and G,.
ra = Total number of grades of resin pro-
duced during the 24-hour period. 38
§ 61.71 Recordkeeping.
(a) The owner or operator of any
source to which this subpart applies shall
retain the following information at the
source and make it available for inspec-
tion by the Administrator for a mini-
mum of two years;
(1) A record of the leaks detected by
the vinyl chloride monitoring system, as
required by § 61.65(b) (8), including the
concentrations of vinyl chloride
measured, analyzed, and recorded by the
vinyl chloride detector, the location of
each measurement and the date and ap-
proximate time of each measurement.
(2) A record of the leaks detected dur-
ing routine monitoring with the portable
hydrocarbon detector and the action
taken to repair the leaks, as required
by § 61.65(b) (8), including a brief state-
ment explaining the location and cause
of each leak detected with the portable
hydrocarbon detector, the date and time
of the leak, and any action taken to
eliminate that leak.38
(3) A record of emissions measured
in accordance with § 61.68.38
(4) A daily operating record for each
polyvinyl chloride reactor, including
pressures and temperatures.38
(Sec. 114 of the
(42 U.S.C. 7414)).
Air Act M amended
38 FR 8826, 4/6/73 (1)

as amended

41 FR 46560, 10/21/76 (28)
41 FR 53017, 12/3/76 (30)
42 FR 29005, 6/7/77 (38)
42 FR 41424, 8/17/77 (40)
43 FR 8800, 3/3/78 (47)
111-22
-------
APPENDIX A

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Compliance Status Information
I. SOURCE REPORT

INSTRUCTIONS: Owners or operators of sources of
hazardous pollutants subject to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
•re required to submit the Information contained
1n Section I to the appropriate U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Regional Office prior to 90 days
after the effective date of any standards or amend*
•ents which require the submission of such
Information.

A list of regional offices 1s provided 1n 161.04.

A. SOURCE INFORMATION

1. Identification/Location - Indicate the name and address of each source.
J-4
Region
a022
JBjcrr
Dup 1-18
3*4
STaTe
?T»
IT
5 8
county
26 ^_
Code Z>
47~
8T-
4TT
6V
9 13 000 00 1
Source Number 14 R 17 ft T?
Source Name 4'e
street Address (Location of PI ant J 66 66
City Name 34 State 35 39
55 58
State Regis. Number 54 NEDS X Ref.
8 77 79
SIC £2 FT A/P staff 80
64 65
T? IS SIP K S31
30 31 49

2. Contact - Indicate the nane and telephone number of the owner or operator
or otter resppnslblt official whoa EPA may contact concerning this report.

Dap 1-18 41 f
15 ZO 21 EMC 4~3

44 45 .
Area Code 47 Humber54 _ W

3. Source Description - Briefly state the nature of the source (e.g., •Chlor-
•Ikall Pl*nf or 'HKhlM Shop").

Dwp-1-18 4 ?
15 ?0 21 Description 50

SI : Continued 79 BO"

4. Alternative Hilling Address - Indicate »n alternative
lulling address 1f correspondence 1s to be directed
to * location different than that specified above.

Cup 1-18 4 3
1520 21-NumberStreet or Box NumberT5 15"

Dup 1-18 < 4 . 37 38
19 ZO 21 CTty 35 Stale" 41 Zip tt

5. Compliance Status - The emissions from this source can cannot meet
the emission limitations contained In the National EmTss1on~5fandards on or
prior to 90 days after the effective date of any standards or amendments
Which require the submission of such Information.

Signature of Owner, Operator or Other Responsible OfflclaT
JPTT:If the emissions from the source will exceed those limits set by the National
GtTTslon Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the source will be 1n violation and
fubject to Federal enforcement actions unless granted a Mlver »f compliance by the
Mdxitnlstrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Information needed for
Mlvers 1* listed In Section II of this form.
III-APPENDIX A-l
-------
I. PROCESS INFORH»TK»N. P»rt 6 should be completed separately for each point of
emission for each hazardous pollutant. [Sources subject to 61.22(1) my o»1t
number 4. below.]
Dup 1-13
•n ft
77 T8
If
20"
sec
"77 25?9
NEDS X l*f
IS SIP
process.
32 33
PoTTutant
Indicate "AB" for asbestos,

34 Regulation
•BE" for beryllium, ot

48 W
EC
• mercury.
2. Process Description - Provide a brief description of each process (e.g.,
•hydrogen end box" in a mercury chlor-alkall plant, "grinding machine* in
a beryllium machine shop). Use additional sheets 1f necessary.

50" " :
Dup 1-18
51
Dup 1-18
sr

Process Description 74 a
6
19~
6
19~

1
20 21
79
2
20 21
79
J

50
BO*
50
W
3. Amount of Pollutant - Indicate the average weight of the hazardous material
named in Item l which enters the process in pounds per month (based on the
previous twelve months of operation).
Dup 1-18 6 3
11 2*0
29
Ibs./mo.
"3'6
4. Control Devices
T.Indicate the type of pollution control devices. If any, used to reduce
the emissions from the process (e.g., venturi scrubber, baghouse, wet
cyclone) and the estimated percent of the pollutant which the device
removes from the process gas stream.
Dup 1-18 6 4
19 20 21

45 Primary Device Name
ro
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE:

66 70
64 Percent Removal 72

Dup

4;
1-18

6 S
11 2~0

Secondary Device Name
SECONDARY

£4
CONTROL

66
Percent
DEVICES:
4S

70
Removal

X EFFIC.
72 79 80
Efficiency
HI-APPENDIX A-2
-------
k. Asbestos &rt«1on CMtrol Devices Only
1. If a tegtouse Is specified In Itea *«, give the following
Information:
• The air flow permeability 1n cubic feet per minute per square
foot of fabric area.
A1r flow permeability • cfm/ft2
• The pressure drop 1n Inches water gauge acrqss the filter
at which the baghouse Is operated.
Operating pressure drop • Inches w.g.
• If the baghouse material contains synthetic fill yarn, check
whether this material 1s / / spun I I or not spun.
*
• If the baghouse utilizes a felted fabric, give the minimum
thickness 1n Inches and the density In ounces per square yard.
Thickness • Inches Density • oz/yd
•H. if • wet collection device 1s specified In Item 4a, give the
designed unit contacting energy in Inches water gauge.
• On1t contacting energy • Inches w.g.
III-APPENDIX A-3
-------
t. PISPOSAt OF ASBESTOS-COHTAININ6 HASTES. Part C should be conpletad separately
for each asbestos-containinc *t*te generation operation arising fron sources
subject to 561.22(a). (c). (e), and (h).
Oup 1-13
A B
32 33 34
PoUutant
00 5
16 17 18 19 20 SCC
Regulation 46 49
EC

27 26 29 30" TT
NEDS X Ref CS SIP
1. Waste Generation - Provide « brief description of each process that
generates asbestos-containing waste (e.g. disposal of control device wastes).
50 ' Process Description 79 W

2. Asbestos Concentration - Indicate the average percentage asbestos content
of these materials.

Dup 1-18 61 ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION;
15 20 21 T3
3. Amount of Wastes - Indicate the average weight of asbestos-containing wastes
disposed of, measured In kg/day.

Oup 1-18 6 2 _ kg/day
15 — ZO 21 2*7 25 34 W

4. Control Methods - Indicate the emission control methods used 1n all stages
of waste disposal, from collection, processing,1 and packaging to transporting
and deposition.

Dup 1-18 6 3 _ Primary Control Method _
15 ZO 2T ?3

45 79 ED"

Dup 1-18 6 4 _
15 ZO 21 '50

51 : : 79 W

5; Haste Disposal - Indicate the type of disposal site (sanitary landfill,
open, covered) or Incineration site (municipal, private) where the waste
1s disposed of and who operates the site (company, private, municipal).
State the name and location of the site (closest city or town, county,
state).

Dup 1-18 6 5 TYPE OF SITE;
19 ZO 21
51
Dup 1-16 « € OPEWTOR:
79 ~Zb Jfl 29
tl —
tap 1-18 6 7 VOCATION :
19 20 21 29
3l -
71 79 Jo1
53 35 51
79 80
Jl SK)
75 m
"
III-APPENDIX A-4
-------
I. HASTE DISPOSAL SITES. Part D should be conleted separately for etch asbestos
waste disposal site subject to section 41.22(1).

Dup 1-13 _ 0 0 5 _ _
14 16 17 16 TS~ 20 SCC 27 28 29 30" TT
NEDS X Ref CS SIP
34 .Regulation ft W
Pollutant EC
WASTE DISPOSAL SITE .
58 UD"
1. Description - Provide a brief description of the site, Including Its size and
configuration, and the distance to the closest city or town, closest
residence, and closest primary road.

tap 1-18 6 1 SITE DESCRIPTION

$1"
tap 1-T8
19 20 21
•6 2 DISTANCE: TOWN:
19 20 21 29 30 34
37 39
ft
36
bO
w
KM
40 42 43
RESIDENCE; K M ROAD;
« 54 -S5 TO 62 B3 65 B9 71 75

KM
77 76 W

t. Inact1vat1on - After the site Is Inactivated, Indicate the method or methods
used to comply with the standard and send a 11st of the actions that will be
'undertaken to maintain the Inactivated site.
DID V18 68 METHOD/ INACTIVE SITE:
19—ZD 21 '
T9 TOT
III-APPENDIX A-5
-------
II. MHVER HEQUE5TS

A. MAIVER OF COMPLIANCE. Owners or operators of sources unable to operate In
compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Mr Pollutants
prior to 90 days after the effective date of any standards or amendments which
require the submission of such Information may request a waiver of compliance
from the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the
time period necessary to install appropriate control devices or make
•edifications to achieve compliance. The Administrator may grant a waiver
•f compliance with the standard for a period not exceeding two years from
the effective date of the hazardous pollutant standards, if he finds that
such period is necessary for the Installation of controls and that steps
will be taken during the period of the waiver to assure that the health
of persons will be protected from imminent endangerment.

The report information provided in Section I must accompany this application.
should be sent to the appropriate EPA regional office.
1. Processes Involved - Indicate the process or processes emitting hazardous
pollutants to which emission controls are to be applied.

2. .Controls

a. Describe the proposed type of control device to be added or
modification to be made to the process to reduce the emissions
of hazardous pollutants to an acceptable level. (Use additional
sheets if necessary.)

b. Describe the measures that will be taken during the waiver period
to assure that the health of persons will be protected from
imninent endangerment. (Use additional sheets If necessary.)

3. Increments of Progress - Specify the dates by which the following
Increments of progress will be met.

• Date by which contracts for emission control systems or process
Modifications will be awarded; or date by which orders will be
Issued for the purchase of the component parts to accomplish
•mission control or process modification.
Oup 1-16 0 1 7 . _ .. __
17 f9 S3~~54 5? 30 61 tC/DY/YR66 80

• Date of Initiation of on-slte construction or Installation of
emission control equipment or process change.

Oup 1-J6 02 7 „
17 T9 5TT4 5? B~0 61HO/DY/YR 66 80"

• Date by which on-site construction or installation of emission control
equipment or process modification is to be completed.

Dup 1-16 037
17 T9 53T4 55 Eb 61 MO/DY/YR 56 SO"

• Date by which final compliance is to be achieved.

Dup 1-16 0 4 7
17 T9 S3~T4 5? BO 61 MO/DY/YR £6 50"

MAIVER OF EMISSION TESTS. A waiver of emission testing may be granted to
owners or operators of sources of beryllium or mercury pollutants if, in
the judgment of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
the emissions from the source comply with the appropriate standard or if
the owners or operators of the source have requested a waiver of compliance
or have been granted a waiver of compliance."

This application should accompany the-report information provided in
Section I.

1. Reason - State the reasons for requesting a waiver of emission testing.
If the reason stated Is that the emissions from the source are within
the prescn'bed limits, documentation of this condition must be attached.
BateSignature cf the owner or operator

9.5 Mercury Emission Rate. Calculate the
Hg emission rate R in g/day for continuous
operations using Equation 101-2. For cyclic
operations, use only the time per day each
stack is in operation. The total Hg emission
rate from a source will be the summation of
results from all stacks.
R=K mH.v. A. (86.400 X10-1
[VB(*rt+Vw(rta,MT./P.) Eq. 101-2

Where:

A,= Stack cross-sectional area, m*(ft*).
Ill-Appendix B-3
-------
86,400=ConversioD factor, sec/day.
10~6= Conversion factor, g/pg.
T,=Absolute average stack gag temperature.
•K (°R).
P.=Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.
Hg).
K =0.3858 *K/mro Hg for metric units.
=17.85 "R/in. Hg for English units.
9.6 It akinetic Variation and Acceptable
Results. Same as Method 5. Sections 6.11 and
6.12, respectively.
9.7 Determination of Compliance. Each
performance test consists of three repetitions
of the applicable test method For the purpose
of determining compliance with an applicable
national emission standard, use the average
of the results of all repetitions.
10, Bibliography. 1. Addendum to
Specifications for Incinerator Testing at
Federal Facilities. PHS, NCAPC. December 6,
1967.
2. Determining Dust Concentration in a Gas
Stream. ASME Performance Test Code No.
27. New York, NY. 1957.
3. Devorkin, Howard, et all Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual. Air Pollution Control
District. Los Angeles, CA. November 1963.
4. Hatch, W.R., and W.I. Ott. Determination
of Sub-Microgram Quantities of Mercury by
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. Anal.
Chem. 40:2085-87.1968.
S. Mark, L.S. Mechanical Engineers'
Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New
York, NY. 1951.
6. Martin, Robert M. Construction Details
of Isokinetic Source Sampling Equipment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No.
APTD-0581. April 1971.
7. Western Precipitation Division of Joy
Manufacturing Co. Methods for
Determination of Velocity, Volume, Dust and
Mist Content of Gases. Bulletin WP-50. Los
Angeles, CA. 1968.
8. Perry, J.H. Chemical Engineers'
Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New
York, NY. 1960.
9. Rom, Jerome J. Maintenance, Calibration,
and Operation of Isokinetic Source Sampling
Equipment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
Publication No. APTD-0576. April 1972.
10. Shigehara, R.T., W.F. Todd, and W.S.
Smith. Significance of Errors in Stack
Sampling Measurements. Stack Sampling
News. 7:(3):6-18. September 1973.
11. Smith. W.S., et al. Stack Gas Sampling
Improved and Simplified with New
Equipment. APCA Paper No. 67-119.1967.
12. Smith, W.S., R.T. Shigehara, and W.F.
Todd A Method of Interpreting Stack
Sampling Data. Stack Sampling News. J(2):8-
17. August 1973.
13. Specifications for Incinerator Testing at
Federal Facilities. PHS. NCAPA. 1967.
14. Standard Method for Sampling Stacks
for Participate Matter. In: 1971 Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Part 23. ASTM
Designation D-2928-71. Philadelphia, PA.
1971.
15. Vennard, J.K. Elementary Fluid
Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New
York. 1947.
16. Mitchell, W.J., and M.R. Midgett.
Improved Procedure for Determining Mercury
Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali
Plants. J. APCA. 26: 674-677. July 1976.
17. Shigehara, R.T. Adjustments in the EPA
Nomograph for Different Pilot Tube
Coefficients and Dry Molecular Weights.
Stack Sampling News. 2:4-11. October 1974.
18. Vollaro. R.F. Recommended Procedure
for Sample Traverses in Ducts Smaller than
12 Inches in Diameter. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Emission Measurement
Branch. Research Triangle Park, NC.
November 1976.
19. Klein, R., and C. Hach. Standard
Additions: Uses and Limitation in
Spectrophotometric Measurements. Amer.
Lab. £21.1977.
20. Water, Atmospheric Analysis. In:
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31.
ASTM Designation D-1193-74. Philadelphia,
PA. 1974.
Ill-Appendix B-4
-------
THERMOMETER
O
a
n>
oo
i
tn
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
REVERSE-TYPE

PITOTTUBE
PITOT MANOMETER
THERMOMETERS
BY-PASS VALVE

\
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
MAIN VALVE
ORIFICE /

MANOMETER
CHECK VALVE
VACUUM LINE
VACUUM GAUGE
PITOT TUBE
AIR-TIGHT PUMP
DRY TEST METER
Figure 101-1 Mercury sampling train.
-------

18/9 FEMALE BALL SOCKET
LENGTH NECESSARY TO FIT SOLUTION CELL
TO SPECTROPHOTOMETER
(END VIEW)
TO VARIABLE TRANSFORMER
VENT TO HOOD
9-mm OD
2.5cm
3.81 cm DIAMETER
QUARTZ WINDOWS
AT EACH END
(FRONT VIEW)
NOTES.
CELL WOUND WITH 24-GAUGE NICHROME WIRE
TOLERANCES ± 5 PERCENT
Figure 101-2. Optical cell.
Ill-Appendix B-6
-------
FROM TANK
19/22 GROUND GLASS JOINT
19/22 GROUND
GLASS JOINT
WITH STOPPER
18/9 MALE BALL JOINT
4-mm BORE TEFLON STOPCOCK
BUBBLER
PORTION
~~ o——
TO
e^6\ -------
PLANT
LOCATION
OPERATOR
DATE
RUN NO.
SAMPLE BOX NO.
FILTER BOX NO.
METER AH<§>
CFACTOR
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
ASSUMED MOISTURE, %
PROBE LENGTH, m (ft)
NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO.
AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, cm (in.).
PROBE HEATER SETTING*
LEAK RATE. m3/min (elm)
PROBE LINER MATERIAL
PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT. Cp .
SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
STATIC PRESSURE, mm Hg (in. H|).
FILTER N0.»
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER

TOTAL
AVERAGE
SAMPLING
TIME
(0}. min.

VACUUM
mm Hg
(in. Hg)

STACK
TEMPERATURE
0(T5'
°C (*F)

VELOCITY
HEAD
(£PS)

PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE
METER
mm H20
(in. H20)

GAS SAMPLE
VOLUME
n.3
-------
NEEDLE VALVE FOR
FLOW CONTROL
T3
T3
n>
3
Q.
DO
I
N2 CYLINDER
EXIT ARM
STOPCOCK
AERATION
CELL
FLOW

METER
TO HOOD

t
TO VARIABLE TRANSFORMER
OPTICAL CELL
MAGNETIC STIRRING BAR
MAGNETIC STIRRER
Figure 101-5. Schematic of aeration system.
-------
Method 101A. Determination of Particulate
and Gaseous Mercury Emissions From
Sewage Sludge Incinerators66

K ma. v. A. (88,400 X lO'l
[V.(std) + Y.W] (T./P.)
Eq. 101A-1

Where:
ma, = Total Hg content in each sample, fig.
v. = Average stack gas velocity, m/sec (fps).
A, = Stack cross-sectional area, m* (ft*).
88,400 = Conversion factor, sec/day.
10" * = Conversion factor, g/pg.
= Dry gas sample volume at standard
conditions, corrected for leakage (if any),
m'lft1).
: Volume of water vapor at standard
conditions, m3 (ft1).
T. = Absolute average stack gas
temperature, *K (*R).
P, = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.
Hg).
K = 0.3858 'K/mm Hg for metric units.
= 17.84 'R/in. Hg for English units.
10. Bibliography. 1. Same as Method 101,
Section 10.
2. Mitchell, W. ]., M. R. Midgett J. C. Suggs.
and D. Albrinck.
Test Methods to Determine the Mercury
Emissions from Sludge Incineration Plants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publication No. EPA-600/4-79-058.
September 1979.
Ill-Appendix B-12
-------
Method 1|B. Drtralnatfoo of Particubte and
Gaseous Mercury Eminions From CUor-
Alkali Plant*—Hydrogen Streams
1. Introduction—Although similar to
Method 101. Method 102 requires changes to
accommodate the sample being extracted
from a hydrogen stream. Conduct the test
according to Method 101, except as shown
below:
2. Mercury Train Operation—2.1 Probe
Heating System. Do not use, unless otherwise
specified.
13. Glass Fiber filter. Do not use, unless
otherwise specified.
2.3 Safety Procedures. The sampler must
conduct the source test under conditions of
utmost safety, because hydrogen and air
mixtures are explosive. Since the sampling
train essentially is leakless, attention to safe
operation can be concentrated at the inlet
and outlet. If a leak does occur, however,
remove the meter box cover to avoid a
possible explosive mixture. The following
specific precautions are recommended:
13.1 Operate only the vacuum pump
during the test. The other electrical
equipment, e.g.. heaters, fans, and timers,
normally are not essential to the success of a
hydogen stream test.
2J.2 Seal the sample port to minimize
leakage of hydrogen from the stack.
2.3.3 Vent sampled hydrogen at least 3 m
(10 feet) away from the train. This can be
accomplished by attaching a 13-mm-ID (O50-
») Tygon tube to the exhaust from the orifice
meter. (Note: A smaller ID tubing may cause
the orifice meter calibration to be erroneous.)
Take care to ensure that the exhaust line is
not bent or pinched.
2.4 Setting of Isokiaetic Rates.
2.4.1 If a nomograph is used, take special
care in the calculation of the molecular
weight of the stack gas and in the setting of
the nomograph to maintain isokinetic
conditions during sampling (Sections 2.4.1.1
through 2.4.1.3 below).
2.4.1.1 Calibrate the meter box orifice.
Use the techniques described in APTD-0578
(see Citation 9 in Section 10 of Method 101).
Calibration of the orifice meter at flow
conditions that simulate the conditions at the
source is suggested. Calibration should either
be done with hydrogen or with some other
gas having a similar Reynolds Number so
that there is similarity between the Reynolds
Numbers during calibration and during
sampling.
2.4.1.2 The nomograph described in
APTD-0576 cannot be used to calculate the C
factor because the nomograph is designed for
use when the stack gas dry molecular weight
is 20±4. Instead, the following calculation
should be made to determine the proper C
factor
Where:
AH0 = Meter box calibration factor obtained
in Section 2.4.1.1, in. H.O.
C,=Pitot tube calibration coefficient
dimensionless.
Tm=Absolute temperature of gas at the
orifice, "R.
P.=Absolute pressure of stack gas. in Hg.
P.=Absolute pressure of gas at the meter, In
Hg.
Bw.=Fraction by volume of water vapor in
the stack gas.
M*=Dry molecular weight of stack gas, lb/
ib-mole.

Note. This calculation is left in English
units, and is not converted to metric units
because nomographs are based on English
units.
2.4.1.3 Set the calculated C factor on the
operating nomograph and select the proper
nozzle diameter and K factor as specified in
APTD-0576. If the C factor obtained in
Section 2.4.1.2 exceeds the values specified
on the existing operating nomograph, expand
the C scale logarithmically so that the values
can be properly located.
2.4.2 If a calculator is used to set
isokinetic rates, it is suggested that the
isokinetic equation presented in Citation 17
in the Bibliography of Method 101 be used.
2.5 Sampling in Small (<12-in.-Diameter)
Stacks. When the stack diameter (or
equivalent diameter) is less than 12 inches,
conventional pilot tube-probe assemblies
should not be used. For sampling guidelines,
see Citation IB in the Bibliography of Method
101.
Ill-Appendix B-13
-------
METHOD 103. BERYLLIUM SCREENING METHOD

1. Principle and applicability.—1.1 Prln-
ciple.—Beryllium emissions are isoklnetlcally
sampled from three points In a duct or stack.
The collected sample Is analyzed for beryl-
lium using an appropriate technique.
1.2 Applicability.—This procedure detail!
guidelines and requirements for methods
acceptable for use In determining beryllium
emissions In ducts or stacks at stationary
sources, as specified under the provisions of
§ 61.14 of the regulations.
2. Apparatus—2.1 Sampling train.—A
schematic of the required sampling train
configuration Is shown In figure 103-1. The
essential components of the train are the
following:
2.1.1 Nozzle.—Stainless steel, or equiva-
lent, with sharp, tapered leading edge.
2.1.2 Probe.—Sheathed Pyrex J glass.
2.1.3 Filter.—Mllllpore AA, or equivalent,
with appropriate filter holder that provides
a positive seal against leakage from outside
or around the filter. It Is suggested that a
Whatman 41, or equivalent, be placed Imme-
diately against the back side of the Mllllpore
filter as a guard against breakage of the
Mllllpore.-Include the Whatman 41 In the
analysis. Equivalent filters must be at least
99.95 percent efficient (DOP Test) and
amenable to the analytical procedure.
FILTER
NOZZLE
\ PHOBE
MfTEMU»
Figure 103-1. Beryllium screening meihod: sample train schematic.

2.1.4 Mffter-pump system.—Any system
that will maintain Isoklnetlc sampling rate,
determine sample volume, and Is capable of
a sampling rate of greater than 0.5 cfm.
2.2 Measurement of stack conditions
(stack pressure, temperature, moisture and
velocity).—The following equipment shall be
used In the manner specified In section 4.3.1.
2.2.1 Pttot tube.—Type S, or equivalent,
with a coefficient within 5 percent over the
working range.
2.2.2 Differential pressure gauge.—In-
clined manometer, or equivalent, to measure
velocity bead to within 10 percent of the
minimum value.
2.2.3. Temperature gauge.—Any tempera-
ture measuring device to measure stack tem-
perature to within 5° F.
2.2.4 Pressure gauge.—Any device to
measure stack pressure to within 0.1 In. Hg.
2.2.5 Barometer.—To measure atmos-
pheric pressure to within 0.1 In. Hg.
2.2.6 Moisture determination.—Wet and
dry bulb thermometers, drying tubes, con-
densers, or equivalent, to determine stack gas
moisture content to within 1 percent.
, 2.3 Sample recovery.—2.3.1 Probe clean-
ing equipment.—Probe brush or cleaning rod
at least as long as probe, or equivalent. Clean
cotton balls, or equivalent, should be used
with the rod.
2.3.2 Leakless glass sample bottles.
2.4 Analysis.—2.4.1 Equipment neces-
sary to perform an atomic absorption,
spectrographlc, fluorometrlc, chromatc-.
graphic, or equivalent analysis.
3. Reagents.—3.1 Sample recovery.—3.1.1
Acetone.—Reagent grade.
3.1.2 Wash acid.—1:1 V/V hydrochloric
acid-water.
8.2 Analysis.—3.2.1 Reagents as neces-
sary for the selected analytical procedure.
4. Procedure.—4.1 Guidelines for source
testing are detailed In the following sections.
These guidelines are generally applicable;
however, most sample sites differ to some de-
gree and temporary alterations such as stack
extensions or expansions often are required
to Insure the best possible sample site. Fur-
ther, since beryllium Is hazardous, care
should be taken to minimize exposure.
Finally, since the total quantity of beryllium
to be collected Is quite small, the test must
be carefully conducted to prevent contami-
nation or loss of sample.
4.2 Selection of a sampling site and num-
ber of runs.—4.2.1 Select a suitable sam-
pling site that Is as close as practicable to the
point of atmospheric emission. If possible,
stacks smaller than 1 foot In diameter should
not be sampled.
4.2.2 The sampling site should be at least
eight stack or duct diameters downstream
and two diameters upstream from any flow
disturbance such as a bend, expansion or
contraction. For rectangular cross-section,
determine an equivalent diameter using the
following equation:
eq. 103-1
1 Mention of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
2LW
D'~L+W "

where:
D.=equivalent diameter
L—length
W = width
4.2.3 Some sampling situations may ren-
der the above sampling site criteria imprac-
tical. When this Is the case, an alternate
site may be selected but must be no less
than two diameters downstream and one-
half diameter upstream from any point of
disturbance. Additional sample runs are rec-
ommended at any sample site not meeting
the criteria of section 4.2.2.
4.2.4 Three runs shall constitute a test.
The runs shall be conducted at three dif-
ferent points. The three points shall pro-
portionately divide the diameter, i.e. be lo-
cated at 25, 50 and 75 percent of the diameter
from the inside wall. For horizontal ducta,
the diameter shall be In the vertical direc-
tion. For rectangular ducts, sample on a line
through the centrold and parallel to a side.
If additional runs are required per section
4.2.3, proportionately divide the duct to ac-
commodate the total number of runs.
4.8 Measurement of stack conditions.
4.3.1 Measure the stack gas pressure, mois-
ture, and temperature, using the equipment
described In i 2.2. Determine the molecular
weight of the stack gas. Sound engineering
estimates may b« m*).v,.™ Average stack gas velocity, feot per second.
A.~ Stack area, ft'.
7. Test report. 7.1 A test report shall be
prepared which shall Include as a minimum:
7.1.1 A detailed description of the sam-
pling train used and results of the proce-
dural check with all data and calculations
made. (
7.1.2 All pertinent data taken during
test, the basis for any estimates made* cal-
culations, and results.
7.1.3 A description of the test site, in-
cluding u block diagram with a brief de-
scription of the process, location of the sam-
ple points In the cross section, dimensions
and distances from any point of disturbance.
Ill-Appendix B-14
-------
METHOD 104. REFIRXNCI METHOD FOB DETIS-
MINATION OF BXRYIirUM EMIB8IONS FROM
STATIONARY SOTJBCI8

1. Principle and applicability—1.1 Prtn-
ciple.—Beryllium •missions are isoklnetlcal-
1; sampled from the source, and the collected
sample Is digested In an acid solution and
analyzed by atomic absorption spectropho-
tometry.
1.9 .Applicability.- This method is appli-
cable for the determination of beryllium
emissions In ducts or stacks at stationary
sources. Unless otherwise specified, this
method is not Intended to apply to gas
streams other than those emitted directly
to the atmosphere 'without further
processing.
3. Apparatus—2.1 Sampling train.—A.
schematic of the sampling train used by
EPA Is shown in figure 104-1. Commercial
models of this train are available, although
construction details are described in APTD-
OMl.i and operating and maintenance pro-
cedures are described In APTD-0576. The
components essential to this sampling train
are the following:
3.1.1 Nozzle.—Stainless steel or glass with
sharp, tapered leading edge.
3.1.2 Probe.—Sheathed Pyrex » glass. A
heating system capable of maintaining a
minimum gas temperature In the range of
the stack temperature at the probe outlet
during sampling may be used to prevent
condensation from occurring.
PROBE
TYPES
PITOT TUBE
HEATED AREA FILTER HOLDER THERMOMETER CHECK
,VALVE
VACUUM
LINE
IMPINQERS ICE BATH
BY-PASS.VALVE
THERMOMETERS
VACUUM
GAUGE
MAIN VALVE
DRY TEST METER AIR-TIGHT
PUMP

Figure 104-1. Beryllium sampling train
2.13 Pitot tube.—Type S (figure 104-3).
or equivalent, with a coefficient within 5 per-
cent over the working range, attached to
probe to monitor stack gas velocity.
2.1.4 Filter holder.—Pyrex glass. The filter
holder must provide a positive seal against
leakage from outside or around the filter.
A heating system capable of maintaining the
filter at a minimum temperature In the range
of the stack temperature may be used to
prevent condensation from occurring.
2.1.5 Impingers.—Pour Qreenburg-Smlth
implngers connected in series with glass ball
joint fittings. The first, third, and fourth
implngers may be modified by replacing the
tip with a %-lnch l.d. glass tube extending
to one-half inch from the bottom' of the
flask.
2.1.6 Metering system.—Vacuum gauge,
leakless pump, thermometers capable of
measuring temperature to within 5* F, dry
gas meter with 2 percent accuracy, and re-
lated equipment, described In APTD-0581,
to maintain an Uoklnetlc sampling rate and
to determine sample volume.
3.1.7 Barometer.—To measure atmos-
pheric pressure to ± 0.1 In Hg.
2.2 Measurement of stack conditions
(stack pressure, temperature, moisture and
velocity)—2.2.1 Pitot tube.—Type S, or
equivalent, with a coefficient within 5 percent
over the working range.
2.2.2 Differential pressure gauge.—In-
clined manometer, or equivalent, to measure
velocity head to within 10 percent, of the
minimum value.
1 These documents are available for a nom-
inal cost from the National Technical In-
formation Service, U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 6285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Va. 32161.
> Mention of trade names on specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Ill-Appendix B-15
-------
TUBING ADAPTS)
however, most sample sites differ to some
degree and temporary alterations such as
stack extensions or expansions often are re-
quired to Insure the best possible sample
site. Further, since beryllium Is hazardous,
care should be taken to minimize exposure.
Finally, since the total quantity of beryllium
to be collected Is quite small, the test must
be carefully conducted to prevent contami-
nation or loss of sample.
4.2 Selection of a sampling site and mini-
mum number of traverse points.
4.2.1 Select a suitable sampling site that
Is as close as practicable to the point of at-
mospheric emission. If possible, stacks
smaller than 1 foot In diameter should not
be sampled.
4.2.a The sampling site should be at least
8 stack or duct diameters downstream and
2 diameters upstream from any flow disturb-
ance such as a bend, expansion or contrac-
tion. For a rectangular cross-section, deter-
mine an equivalent diameter from the
following equation:
D,=2LW
L+W
where:
JD.=equivalent diameter
L=length
W=width
eq. 104-1
•Figure 104-2. Pilot tube - manometer assembly,
2.2.3 Temperature gage.—Any tempera-
ture measuring device to measure stack tem-
perature to within 5° F.
2.2.4 Pressure gage.—Pilot tube and In-
clined manometer, or equivalent, to measure
stack pressure to within 0.1 In Hg.
2.2.5 Moisture determination.—Wet and
dry bulb thermometers, drying tubes, con-
densers, or equivalent, to determine stack
gas moisture content to within 1 percent.
2.3 Sample recovery—2.3.1 Probe clean-
Ing rod.—At least as long as probe.
2.3.2 Leakless glass sample bottles.—500
ml.
2.3.3 Graduated cylinder.—250 ml.
2.3.4 Plastic jar.—Approximately 300 ml.
2.4 Analysis—2.4.1 Atomic absorption
apectrophotometer.—To measure absorbance
at 234.8 nm. Perkin Elmer Model 303, or
equivalent, with N2O/acetylene burner.
2.4.2 Hot plate.
2.4.3 Perchloric acid fume hood.
3. Reagents—3.1 Stock reagents.—3.1.1
Hydrochloric acid.—Concentrated.
3.1.2 Perchloric acid.—Concentrated, 70
percent.
3.1.3 Nitric acid.—Concentrated.
3.1.4 Sulfuric acid.—Concentrated.
3.1.5 Distilled and deionized water.
3 1.6 Beryllium powder.—98 percent mini-
mum purity.
3.2 Sampling—3.2.1 Filter. — Mllllpore
AA, or equivalent. It is suggested that a
Whatman 41 filter be placed Immediately
against the back side of the Mlllipore filter
as a .guard against breaking the Mllllpore
niter. In the analysis of the filter, the What-i
man 41 filter should be Included with the
Millipore filter.
3.2.2 Silica gel.—Indicating type, 6 to 16
mesh, dried at 350° F for 2 hours.
3.2.3 Distilled and deionized water.
3.3 Sample recovery—3.3 1 Distilled and
deionized water.
3.3.2 Acetone.—Reagent grade.
3.3.3 Wash acid.—l.l V/V hydrochloric
acid-water.
3.4 Analysis.—3.4.1 Sulfuric acid solu-
tion, 12 N.—Dilute 333 ml of concentrated
sulfuric acid to 1 1 with distilled water.
3.4.2 25 percent V/V hydrochloric acid-
water.
3.5 Standard beryllium solution—3.5.1
stock solution.—1 pg/ml beryllium. Dis-
solve 10 mg of beryllium in 80 ml of 12 N
sulfuric acid solution and dilute to a volume
of 1000 ml with distilled water. Dilute a 10 ml
aliquot to 100 ml with 25 percent V/V hydro-
chloric acid, giving a concentration of 1
/ig/ml. This dilute stock solution should be
prepared fresh dally. Equivalent strength (In
beryllium) stock solutions may be prepared •
from beryllium salts as BeCla and Be (NO,),
(98 percent minimum purity).
4. Procedure. 4.1 Guidelines for source
testing are detailed In the following sections.
These guidelines are generally applicable;
MUMflER Of DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM'
(DISTANCE A)
f ROM POINT Of ANY TYPE C*
DISTURBANCE (BEND. EXPANSION CONTRACTION, ETC.-
NUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM
(DISTANCE B)
Figure 101-3. Minimum numbet ol traverse points.
Figure 104-4. Cross section of circular stack snowlng'tpcaUoH of
traverse points on perpendicular dlametere*
-1 •
it:
•i-
:!:Hz
N-
Figure 104-5. Cross section or rectangular stack divided Into 12 equal
waas, with traverse points at centrold ol each area.

4.2.3 When the above sampling site cri-
teria can be met, the minimum number of
traverse points Is four (4) for stacks 1 foot
In diameter or less, eight (8) for stacks larger
than 1 foot but 2 feet In diameter or less, and
twelve (12) for stacks larger than 2 feet.
4.2.4 Some sampling situations may ren-
der the above sampling sile criteria Imprac-
tical. When this Is the case, choose a con-
venient sampling location and use figure
104-3 to determine the minimum number
of traverse points. However, use figure 104-3
only for stacks 1 foot in diameter or larger.
4.2.5 To use figure 104-3, first measure
the distance from the chosen sampling lo-
cation to the nearest upstream and down-
stream disturbances. Divide this distance by
the diameter or equivalent diameter to deter-
mine the distance in terms of pipe diameters.
Determine the corresponding number of
traverse points for each distance from fig-
ure 104-3. Select the higher of the two num-
bers of traverse points, or a greater value,
such that for circular stacks the number Is
a multiple of four, and for rectangular stacks
the number follows the criteria of section
4.3.2.
4.2.6 If a selected sampling point is closer
than 1 Inch from the stack wall, adjust the,
location of that point to ensure that the
sample Is taken at least 1 Inch away from the
wall.
4.3 Cross-sectional layout and location of
traverse points.
III-Anoendix B-1G
-------
i
:E»
-3
3.
_!•
X
33
I
Table 104-1. Location of traverse points 1n circular stacks
(Percent of stack diameter from Inside wall to traverse point)
Traverse
point
nunber
on *
diameter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Number of traverse points on a diameter
2
14.6
85.4

4
6.7
25.0
75.6
93.3

6
4.4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6

8
3.3
10.5
19.4
32.3
67.7
80.6
89.5
96.7

10
2.5
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.8
97.5

12
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.5'
64.5
75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9

14
1.8
5.7
9.9
14.6
20.1
26.9
36.6
63.4
73.1
79.9
85.4
90.1
94.3
98.2

16
1.6
4..9
8.5
12.5
16.9.
22.0
28.3
37.5
62.5
71.7
78.Q
83.1
87.5
91.5
95.1
S8.4

18
1.4
4.4
7.5
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6
29.6
38.2
61.8
70.4
76.4
81.2
85.4
8».1
92.5
95.6
98.6

20
1.3
3.9
6.7
9.7
12.9
16.5
20.4
2F.O
30.6
38.8
61.2
69.4
75.0
79.6
83.5
87.1
90.3
93.3
96.1
98.7

22
1.1
3.5
6.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
21.8
26.1
31.5
39.3
60.7
68.5
73.9
78.2
82.0
85.4
88.4
91.3
94.0
96.5
98.9

24
1.1
3.2
5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1
19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
39.8
60.2
67.7'
72.8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.8
89.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
98.9
4.3.1 For circular stacks locate the tra-
verse points on at least two diameters accord-
Ing to figure 104-4 and table 104-1. The tra-
verse axes snail divide the stack cross section
Into equal parts.
4.3.2 For rectangular stacks divide the
cross section Into as many equal rectangular
areas as traverse points, such that the ratio
of the length to the width of the elemental
areas Is between 1 and 2. Locate the traverse
points at the centrold of each equal • area
according to figure 104-5.
4.4 Measurement of stack conditions.—
4.4.1 Set up the apparatus as shown In fig-
ure 104-2. Make sure all connections are
tight and leak free. Measure the velocity
head and temperature at the traverse points
specified by H 4.2 and 4.3.
4.4.2 Measure the static pressure In the
stack.
4.4.8 Determine the stack gas moisture.
4.4.4 Determine the stack gas molecular
weight from the measured moisture content
and knowledge of the expected gas stream
composition. A standard Orsat analyzer has
been found valuable at combustion sources.
In all cases, sound engineering Judgment
should be used.
4.5 Preparation of tampUng train.—4.5.1
Prior to assembly, clean all glassware (probe,
implngers, and connectors) by soaking in
wash acid for 2 hours. Place 100 mil of dis-
tilled water In each of the first two Imprlng-
erm, leave the third Impinger empty, and place
approximately 200 g of prewelghted silica gel
in the fourth Impinger. Save a portion of the
distilled water as a blank in the sample
analysis. Set up the train and the probe as
in figure 104-1.
4.6.2 Leak check the sampling train at the
sampling site. The leakage rate should not be
in excess of 1 percent of the desired sampling
rate. If condensation In the probe or filter is
a problem, probe and filter heaters will be
required. Adjust the heaters to provide a
temperature at or above the stack tempera-
ture. However, membrane filters such as the
Mffllpore AA are limited to about 225° F. If
the stack gas is in excess of about 200° F.,
consideration should be given to an alternate
procedure such as moving the filter holder
downstream of the first Impinger to insure
that the filter does not exceed its tempera-
ture limit. Place crushed Ice around the 1m-
pingers. Add more Ice during the test to keep
the temperature of the gases leaving the last
Impinger at 70° F. or less.
4.6 Beryllium train operation.—4.6.1 For
each run, record the data required on the
example sheet shown in figure 104-6. Take
readings at each sampling point at least
every 6 minutes and when significant changes
In stack conditions necessitate additional ad-
justments In flow rate.
4.6.2 Sample at a rate of 03 to 1.0 ft.'/mln.
Samples shall be taken over such a period or
periods as are necessary to accurately deter-
mine the itm-Timum emissions which would
occur in a 24-hour period. In the case of
cyclic operations, sufficient tests shall be
made so as to allow accurate determination
or calculation of the emissions which will
occur over the duration of the cycle. A mini-
mum sample time of 2 hours is raf*fltnit
tCHEWTK W SMOl Ottl KCTKM
STATIC
nofnc
ty.to.Hl.
vaocm
HEW.
UM-
to-HjO
fUSSAVU

£3
Flgm 1044.1 Held data

4.6.3 To begin sampling, position the noz-
zle at the first traverse point with the tip
pointing directly into the gas stream. Imme-
diately start the pump and adjust the flow
to Isoklnetlc conditions. Sample for at least
6 minutes at each, traverse point; sampling
time must be the same for each point. Main-
tain Isoklnetlc sampling throughout the sam-
pling period. Nomographs which aid In the
rapid adjustment of the sampling rate with-
out other computations are In APTD-0676
and are available from commercial suppliers.
Note that standard monographs are applica-
ble only for type 8 pilot tubes and air or a
stack gas with an equivalent density. Con-
tact EPA or the sampling train supplier for
instructions when the standard monograph
is not applicable.
4.6.4 Turn off the pump at the conclusion
of each run and record the final readings.
Immediately remove the probe and nozzle
-------
from the stack and handle In accordance with
the sample recovery process described In I 4.7.
4.7 Sample recovery.—4.7.1 (All glass
storage bottles and the graduated cylinder
must be precleaned as In § 4.5.1.) This opera-
tion should be performed In an area free of
possible beryllium contamination. When the
sampling train Is moved, care must be exer-
cised to prevent breakage and contamination.
4.7.2 Disconnect the probe from the 1m-
plnger train. Remove the filter and any loose
paniculate matter from the filter holder and
place in a sample bottle. Place the contents
(measured to ±1 ml) of the first three 1m-
plngers Into another sample bottle. Rinse the
probe and all glassware between It and the
back half of the third Implnger with water
and acetone, and add this to the latter sam-
ple bottle. Clean the probe with a brush or a
long slender rod and cotton balls. Use acetone
while cleaning. Add these to the sample bot-
tle. Retain a sample of the water and acetone
as a blank. The total amount of wash water
and acetone used should be measured for ac-
curate blank correction. Place the silica gel
In the plastic Jar. Seal and secure all sample
containers for shipment. If an additional test
Is desired, the glassware can be carefully dou-
ble rinsed with distilled water and reassem-
bled. However, If the glassware Is to be out of
use more than 2 days, the Initial acid
wash procedure must be followed.
4.8. Analysis.
4.8.1 Apparatus preparation.—Clean all
glassware according to the procedure of sec-
tion 4.5.1. Adjust the Instrument settings
according to the Instrument manual, using
an absorption wavelength of 234.8 run.
4.8.2 Sample preparation.—The digestion
of beryllium samples Is accomplished In part
In concentrated perchloric acid. Caution:
The analyst must Insure that the sample Is
heated to light brown fumes after the Initial
nitric acid addition; otherwise, dangerous
perchlorates may result from the subsequent
perchloric acid digestion. Perchloric acid also
should be used only under a perchloric acid
hood.
4.8.2.1 Transfer, the filter and any loose
paniculate matter from the sample container
to a 150 ml beaker. Add 35 ml concentrated
nitric acid. Heat on a hotplate until light
brown fumes are evident to destroy all or-
ganic matter. Cool to room temperature and
add 5 ml concentrated sulfurlc acid and 5
ml concentrated perchloric acid. Then pro-
ceed with step 4.8.2.4.
4.8.2.2 Place a portion of the water and
acetone sample Into a 150 ml beaker and put
on a hotplate. Add portions of the remainder
as evaporation proceeds and evaporate to dry-
ness. Cool the residue and add 35 ml concen-
trated nitric acid. Heat on a hotplate until
light brown fumes are evident to destroy any
organic matter. Cool to room temperature
and add 5 ml concentrated sulfurlc acid, and
6 ml concentrated perchloric acid. Then pro-
ceed with step 4.8.2.4.
4.8.2.3 Weigh the spent silica gel and re-
port to the nearest gram.
4.8.2.4 Samples from 4.8.2.1 and 4.8.2.2
may be combined here for ease of analysis.
Replace on a hotplate and evaporate to dry-
ness In a perchloric acid hood. Cool and dis-
solve the residue In 10.0 ml of 26 percent
V/V hydrochloric acid. Samples are now
ready for the atomic absorption unit. The
beryllium concentration of the sample must
be within the calibration range of the unit.
If necessary, further dilution of sample with
26 percent V/V hydrochloric acid must be
performed to bring the sample within the
calibration range.
4.8.3 Beryllium determination. — Analyze
the samples prepared In 4.8.2 at 234.8 nm
using a nitrous oxide/acetylene flame. Alumi-
num, silicon and other elements can Inter-
fere with this method if present In large
quantities. Standard methods are available,
however, to effectively eliminate these Inter-
ferences (see Reference B).
6. Calibration — 6.1 ' Sampling train. —
6.1.1 Use standard methods and equipment
as detailed In APTEMJ576 to calibrate the rate
meter, pilot tube, dry gas meter and probe
heater (If used). Recalibrate prior to each
test series.
6.2 Analysis. — 5.2.1 Standardization Is
made with the procedure as suggested by the
manufacturer with standard beryllium solu-
tion. Standard solutions will be prepared
from the stock solution by dilution with 26
percent V/V hydrochloric acid. The linearity
of working range should be established with
a series of standard solutions. If collected
samples are out of the linear range, the
samples should be diluted. Standards should
be Interspersed with the samples since the
calibration can change slightly with time.
6. Calculations — 6.1 Average dry gas meter
temperature, stack temperature, stack pres-
sure and average oriflce pressure drop. — See
data sheet (figure 104-6).
6.2 Dry gas volume. — Correct the sample
volume measured by the dry gas meter to
stack conditions by using equation 104-2.
» rn
•* m
rj
* *
where:
T,=
AH-
1S.8-
P.-
6.3
wherw
K

V,.'

T.-
P.'
Volume of water vapor.

T
TT..-Jt.V,.jr eq. 104-3

.^•Volume of water vapor In the go* sample («t»-k
' conditions), ft".
-0.00287 '-2=14?. when these units are iis«I.
ml n
•Total volume of liquid collected In Implnvpn
and silica gel (see figure 104-7), nil.
•Average stack gas temperature, °R.
•Stack pressure, f>b«±statlc pressure. In Ilg.
6.4 Total gas volume.
eq. 104-4
Vioi.i—Total volume of gas sample (stock conditions),
ft'
Vm -Volume of gas through dry gas meter (stack
' . conditions), ft'. , , t .
V. -Volume of water vapor In gas sample (stack
conditions), ft'.
6.6 Stack gas velocity.
Use equation 104-6 to calculate the stack
gas velocity.

(T^
P.M.

eq. 104-5

where:
(«.)..«.= Average stack gas velocity, feet per
second.
eq. 104-2

Volume of gas sample through the dry gas meter
(stack conditions), ft1.
•Volume of gas sample through the dry gas meter
(meter conditions), ft'.
Average temperature of stack gas, °R.
Average dry gas meter temperature, °R.
Barometric pressure at the orifice meter, In Hg.
Average pressure drop across the orifice meter,
InffiO.
Specific gravity of mercury.
Stack pressure, Pb.t ± static pressure. In Hg.
these units are used.
C,= Pilot tube coefficient, dtmensionless.
(T.).,,.= Average stack gas temperature, °K.
(•V/Ap).,,.-Average square root of the velocity head
of staekgBS (inHiO)'/> (see figure 104-8).
P. = Stack pressure, Pb.,±stattc pressure, In
Hg.
M, -Molecular weight of stack gas (wet basis)*
the summation of the products of toe
moleculnr weight of each component
multiplied by its volumetric proportion
In the mixture, Ib/lb-mole.

FINAL
INITIAL
LIQUID COLTtCTft
TOTAL VOLUtC COLLECTED
VOLUME OF LIQUID
WATCH COLLECTED
WINCE*
VOLUME,
ml

SHICAOfL
KIOHT.
•

r| -
•CONVERT WEIGHT OF WATER TO VOLUMfir dividing tOtdl Might
INCREASE IT DENSITY OF WATER. (1 g/ml)l
-VOLUMEWATBL*
Figure 104-7. Amlytlcal d«t».
III-Aopendix B-18
-------
PLANT.

DATE_
RUN NO.
STACK DIAMETER. ln._
•AROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg..
STATIC PRESSURE IN STACK (Pg). in. Hg._

OPERATORS
SCHEMATIC OF STACK
CROSS SECTION
Traverse point
number
Velocity head,
In. HjO
AVERAGE:
Stack Temperatur*
Figure 104-8. Velocity traverse data.
Figure 104-8 shows a sample recording
•beet tor velocity traverse data. Use the aver-
ages in the last two columns of figure 104-8
to determine the average stack gas velocity
from equation 104-5.
6.6 Beryllium collected.—Calculate the
total weight of beryllium collected by using
equation 104-6.
Wi = ViCi-V«C»-V.C...eq. 104-fl
where:
Wi=Total weight of beryllium collected,
Ag.
Vi=Total volume of hydrochloric acid
from step 4.8.2.4, ml.'
Ci = Concentration of beryllium found in
sample, Ag/ml.
V» = Total volume of water used in sam-
pling (implnger contents plus all
wash amounts), ml.
Cf«=Blank concentration of beryllium in
water,
Vm= Total volume of acetone used in sam-
pling (all wash amounts) , ml.
C«= Blank concentration of beryllium in
acetone, jtg/ml.
6.7 Total beryllium emissions.— Calculate
the total amount of beryllium emitted from
each stack per day by equation 104-7. This
equation Is applicable for continuous opera-
tions. For cyclic operations, use only the time
per day each slack Is in operation. The total
beryllium emissions from a source will be the
summation of results from all stacks.
A.
86,400 seconds/day
10Vg/g

eq. 104-7

= Hate of emission, g/day.
Ifi-Totel weight of beryllium collected, »g.
Vwui-ToUl volnnu of gag sample (stack conditions),
If.
(h).»,-Av«n«c itaok gai Telocity, feet per second.
where:
9M Isokinetic variation (comparison of
.Mloctty of gas in probe tip to stack velocity).
eq. 104-8
t-Percent of leoUneao sampling.
VMM<"Total volume of gu ample (stuck conditions),
ft*.
jl,-Probe tip ana, ft1.
Q-Sampling time, MIC.
fr.)«w.-Avarage stack gas velocity, feot per second.

7. Evaluation of results—7.1 Determina-
tion of compliance.—7.1.1 Each performance
test shall consist of three repetitions of the
applicable test method. For the purpose of
determining compliance with an applicable
national emission standard, the average of
results of all repetitions shall apply.
7.3 Acceptable isokinetlc results—1.2.1
The following range sets the limit on accept-
able Isokinetlc sampling results:
If 90 percent ^1^110 percent, the results
are acceptable; otherwise, reject the test and
repeat.
7. References.—1. Addendum to Specifica-
tions for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facil-
ities. FHS, NCAPC, December 6. 1967.
2. Amos, M. D., and Willis, J. B., "Use of
High-Temperature Pre-Mlxed Flames in
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy," Speetro-
chlm. Acta, 32: 1325, 1966.
3. Determining Dust Concentration in a
Oaa Stream, ASME Performance Test Code
No. 37, New York. N.Y., 1967.
4. Devorkln, Howard et al., Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual, Air Pollution Control
District, Los Angeles, Calif. November 1963.
S. Fleet, B., Liberty, K. V., and West, T. 8.,
"A Study of Some Matrix Effects in the Deter-
mination of Beryllium by Atomic Absorption
Spectroscopy in the Nitrous Oxide-Acetylene
fUme.-Talanta. 17: 203,1970.
6. Mark, L. 8., Mechanical Engineers'
Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, N.Y., 1951.
7. Martin, Robert M., Construction Details
of IsoklnetlO Source Sampling Equipment,
Environmental Protection Agency, APTD-
0581.
8. Methods for Determination of Velocity.
Volume, Dust and Mist Content of Oases,
Western Precipitation Division of Joy Manu-
facturing Co., Los Angeles, Calif. Bulletin
WP-50, 1968.
9. Perkln Elmer Standard Conditions (Rev.
March 1971).
10. Perry, J. H.. Chemical Engineers' Hand-
book, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, N.Y., I960.
11. Bern, Jerome J., Maintenance, Calibra-
tion, and Operation of Isoklnetlo Source
Sampling Equipment, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, AFTD-0576.
12. Shlgehara, R. T., W. F. Todd, and W. S.
Smith, Significance of Errors in Stack Sam-
pling Measurements, Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, St. Louis, Mo., June 14-19, 1970.
13. Smith, W. S. et al., Stack Gas Sam-
pling Improved and Simplified with New
Equipment, APCA Paper No. 67-119, 1967.
14. Smith, W. S., R. T. Shlgehara, and
W. F. Todd, A Method of Interpreting Stack
Sampling Data, Paper presented at the 63d
annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, St. Louis, Mo., June 14-19, 1970.
15. Specifications for Incinerator Testing
at Federal Faculties, PHS, NCAPC, 1967.
16. Standard Method for Sampling Stacks
for Partlculate Matter, In: 1971 Book of
A8TM standards, Part 23, Philadelphia. 1971,
ASTM Designation D-2928-71.
17. Vennard, J. K. Elementary Fluid Me-
chanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 1947.
ITT^Appendtx B-19
-------
METHOD 105. METHOD FOR DETEKltlNATIOK OT
MEHCUHY IW WASTEWATEE TREATMENT PLANT
SEWAGE SLUDGES '

1. Principle and applicability. 1.1 Prin-
ciple—A weighed portion of the sewage
sludge sample Is digested In aqua regla for
2 minutes at 95°C. followed by oxidation .
with potassium permanganate. Mercury In
the digested sample Is then measured by the
conventional spectrophotometer cold vapor
technique. An alternative digestion Involving
the use of an autoclave Is described In para-
graph 4.5.2 of this method.
1.2 Applicability—This method Is appli-
cable for the determination of total organic
and inorganic mercury content In sewage
sludges, soils, sediments, and bottom-type
materials. The normal range of this method
is 0.2 to 5 jig/g. The range may be extended
above or below the normal range by increas-
ing or decreasing sample size and through In-
strument and recorder control.
2 'Apparatus. 2.1 Analysis—The conven-
tional cold vapor technique (5) Is used to
analyze the sample.
2.1.1 Atomic Absorption Spectrophoto-
meter '—Any atomic absorption unit having
an open sample presentation area in which
to mount the absorption cell is suitable. In-
strument settings recommenced by the par-
ticular manufacturer should be followed

2.1.2 Mercury Hollow Cathode Lamp—
Westiaghouse WL-32817, argon filled, or
equivalent.
2.1.3 Recorder—Any multirange, variable-
speed recorder that is compatible with the
UV detection system is suitable.
2.1.4 Absorption Cell—Standard spectro-
photometer cells 10 cm long, having quartz
end windows may be used. Suitable cells may
be constructed from plexiglass tubing, 2.5
cm O.D. x 11.4 cm (ca. 1" O.D. x 4V4 "). The
ends are ground perpendicular to the longi-
tudinal axis, ar.d quartz windows |2.5 cm
diameter x 0 16 cm thickness (ca. 1" diameter
x V,r," thickness) ] are cemented in place.
Gas Inlet and outlet ports I also of plexiglass
but 0.6 cm O.D. (ca. Vi " O.D.) ] are attached
approximately 1.3 cm (V4") from each end.
The cell is strapped to a burlier for support
and aligned in the light beam to give the
maximum transmittance. NOTE: Two 5.1 cm
x 5.1 cm (ca. 2" x 2") cards with 2.5 cm
(ca. 1") diameter holes may be placed over
each end of the cell to assist in positioning
the cell for maximum transmittance.
2.1.5 Air Pump—Any peristaltic pump
capable of-deliverlng 1 liter of air per minute
may be used. A Masterflex pumr> with elec-
tronic speed control has been found to be
satisfactory. (Regulated compressed air can
be used in an open one-pass system.)
2.1.6 Flowmeter—Capable of measuring
an air flow of 1 liter per minute.
2.1.7 Aera'-ion Tubing—Tygon tubi-g is
used for passage of the mercury vapor from
the sample bottle to the absorption cell and
return. Straight glass tubing termina'lng In
a coarse porous frit is used for sparglrg air
ir.to the sample.
2.1 8 Drying Tube—15 cm long x 1.9 cm
diameter (ca. 6" long x %" diameter) tube
containing 20 grams of the deslccant mag-
nesium perchlorate. The apparatus Is assem-
bled as shown In Figure 105-1. In place of the
magnesium perchlorate drying tube, a small
reading lamp with 60 W bulb may be used to
prevent condensation of moisture inside the
1 Instruments designed .specifically for the
measurement of mercury using- the cold
vapor technique are commercially available
and may be substituted for the atomic
absorption spectrophotometer.
•ell. The lamp to positioned so as not to Inter-
fere with the measurement and to shine on
the absorption cell maintaining the air tem-
perature about 5°C above ambient.
3. Reagents. 3.1 Analysis.
8.1.1 Aqua Regla—-Prepare immediately
before use by carefully adding three volumes
of concentrated HC1 to one volume of con-
centrated HNOV
3.1.2 Sulfurlc Acid, 0.5N—Dilute 14.0 ml
•T concentrated, sulf uric acid to 1.0 liter.
3.1.3 Stannous Sulfate—Add 25 g stan-
nous sulfate to 250 ml of 0.5N sulfuric acid.
This mixture Is a suspension and should be
st'rred continuously during u-re. Stannous
chloride may be used in place of the Stannous
•ulfate.
S.I.4 Sodium "Chloride—Hydroxylamlr.e
Sulfate Solution—Dissolve 12 grams of so-
dium chloride and 12 grams of hydroxylamme
sulfate In distilled water and 'dilute to 100
ml. Hydroxvlamlne hydrochloride mav be
used In place of the hydroxylamlne sulfate.
3.1.5 Potassium Permanganate—5% solu-
tion, w/v. Dissolve 5 grams of potassium per-
maneanate In 100 ml of distilled watef.
3.1.6 Stock Mercury Solution—Dissolve
0.1354 grams of reagent grade mercuric chlo-
ride (Assay >95%) In 75 ml of distilled
water. Add 10 ml of concentrated nitric acid
and adjust the volume to 100.0 ml. 1 ml = l
«w He.
3.1.7 Working Mercurv Solution—Make
•ucce^lve dilutions of the Ftock mercury
solution to obtain a working standard con-
taining 0.1 ,,g per ml. This working standard
a"d the dilutions of the stock mercury solu-
tion should be prepared fresh dMly. Acidity
•of the working standard should be main-
tained at 0.15"5!; nitric acid. This acid should
be added to the flask as needed before the
- •ddltlTn of the aliquot. Mercuric solutions
Should not be prepared in plastic containers.
4. Procedures. Simples for mercury analy-
sis are sublect to contamination from a
vsrlety of sources. Extreme care must be
taken to prevent contamination. Certain In-
terferences may occur during the arYalysis
procedures. Extreme caution must be taken
to avoid inhalation of mercury.
4.1 Sample Handling and Preservation.
41.1 Because of the extreme sensitivity
of 1;he analytical procedure and the om-
nlDre^e-ice of mercury, care must be taken
to avoid extraneous contamination. Sam-
pling devices, sample containers, and re-
agents should be ascertained to be fr^e of
(significant amounts of mercury, the sample
should not be exposed to any condition In
the laboratory that may result in contact or
airborne mercury contamination. Samole
containers to be used for collection and shlp-
-ment of mercury samoles should be properly
cleaned before U"=e. These 'hould be ringed
with at least 20% v/v HNO, followed by
distilled water.
4.1.2 While the sample may be analyzed
without drying, it has been found to be more
convenient to analyze a dry sample. Moisture-
may be driven off in a drying oven at a tem-
perature of 60°C. No significant mercury
losses have been observed by using this dry-
l-g steo. The dry sample should be pulver-
ized and thoroughly mixed before the aliquot
Is weighed.
4.2 Interferences.
421 Interferences that may occur In
sludee samples are sulfides, high copper, high
chlTides. etc A discussion of possible In-
terferences and suggested preventatlve meas-
ures to be taken Is given tri Reference (8) (7).
4.2.2 Volatile materials which absorb at
the 253.7 nm will cause a positive Interfer-
ence. In order to remove any Interfering
volatile materials, the dead air space In the
BOD bottle should be purged with nitrogen
before the addition of Stannous sulfate.
4.3 Handling Sample Mercury Vapors
Alter Analysis.
4.S.1 Because of the toxic nature of mer-
cury vapor, precaution must be taken to
»vold Its Inhalation. Therefore, a bypass
•faouJd be Included In the analysis system
to either vent the mercury vapor Into an
exhaust hood or pass the vapor through some
absorbing media, such as:
(a) equal volumes of 0.1N KMNO. and 10%
(b) 0.25 % Iodine In a 3% KI solution.

A specially treated charcoal that will absorb
mercury vapor Is also available from Barne-
bey and Cheney, E. 8th Ave. and North Cas-
Bldy St., Columbus, Ohio 43219, Catalog No.
68O-13 or No, 680-22.'
4.4 Calibration.
4.4.1 Transfer 0, 0.6, 1.0, 2.0, 6.0 and 10 ml
allquots of the working mercury solution
containing 0 to 1.0 ^g of mercury to a series
of 300-ml BOD bottles. Add enough dis-
tilled water to each bottle to make a total
volume of 10 ml. Add 6 ml of aqua regla and
heat 3 minutes In a water bath at 95°C. Allow
the sample to cool and add 60 ml distilled
water and 16 ml of KMnO4 solution to each
bottle and return to the water bath for 30
minutes. Cool and add 6 ml of sodium chlo-
rtde—hydrorylamlne sulfate solution to re-
duce the excess permanganate. Add 60 ml of
distilled water. Treating each bottle individ-
ually, add 6 ml of stannous sulfate solution
and Immediately attach the bottle to the
aeration apparatus. At this point, the sample
ta allowed to stand qultely without manual
agitation. The circulating pump, which has
previously been adjusted to a rate of 1 liter
per minute, Is allowed to run continuously.
The absorbance, as exhibited either on the
spectrophotometer or the recorder, will In-
crease and reach maximum within 30 sec-
onds. As soon as the recorder pen levels off,
approximately 1 minute, open the bypass
valve and continue the aeration until the
abeorbance returns to Its minimum value.
Close the bypass valve, remove the fritted
tubing from the BOD bottle and continue
the aeration. Proceed with the standards and
construct a standard curve by plotting peak
height versus mlcrograms of mercury.
4.6 Analysis.
4.6.1 Weigh triplicate 0.2g± 0.001 g por-
tions of dry sample and place In bottom of
a BOD bottle. Add 5 ml of distilled water
and 6 ml of aqua regla. Heat 2 minutes In a
water bath at 96°C. Cool and add 50 ml dis-
tilled water and 16 ml potassium per-
manganate solution to each sample bottle.
Mix thoroughly and place In the water bath
for 30 minutes at 95 °C. Cool and add 6 ml of
sodium chlorlde-hydroxylamlne sulfate to re-
duce the excess permanganate. Add 65 ml of
distilled water. Treating each bottle Indi-
vidually, add 6 ml of stannous sulfate and
Immediately attach the bottle to the aera-
tion apparatus. With each sample, continue
as described In paragraph 4.4.1 of this
method.
4.6.2 An alternative digestion procedure
using an autoclave may also be used. In this
method 6 ml of concentrated HjSO, and 2 ml
of concentrated HNO, are added to the 0.2
grams of sample. 5 ml of saturated KMnO,
solution are added and the bottle la covered
with a piece of aluminum foil. The samples
are autoclaved at 121'C and 2.1 kg/cm1 (ca.
16 pslg) for 15 minutes. Cool, make up to a
volume of 100 ml with distilled water, and
add 6 ml of sodium chlorlde-hydroxylamlne
•ulfate solution to reduce the excess per-
manganate. Purge the dead air space and
continue as described In paragraph 4.4.1 of
thta method.
•Mention of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute- endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Ill-Appendix B-20
-------
B. Calculation. 6.1 Measure the peak
height of the unknown from the chart and
read the mercury value from the standard
curve.
6.2 Calculate the mercury concentration
In the sample by the formula:

_ Eg Hg In the aliquot
Ag g/gm- wt ^ the aliquot In g

6.3 Report mercury concentrations as fol-
lows: Below 0.1 Ag/g; between 0.1 and 1 Ag/g.
to the nearest 0.01 Ag/g: between 1 and 10
Ag/g. to nearest 0.1 ng; above 10 Mg/g, to
nearest AS-
6. Precision and accuracy. 6.1 According
to the provisional method in reference num-
ber 5, the following standard deviations on
replicate sediment samples have been re-
corded at the Indicated levels: 0.29 Ag/g±0.02
and 0.82 Ag/g±0.03. Recovery of mercury at
these levels, added as methyl mercuric chlo-
ride, was 97 and 94%, respectively.
7. References.
1. Bishop, J. N. "Mercury In Sediments,"
Ontario Water Resources Cornm., Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, 1971.
2. Sftlma, M. Private communication, EPA
Cal/Nev Basin Office, Alameda, California.
3. Hatch, W. R., and Ott, W. L. "Determina-
tion of Sub-Mlcrogram Quantities of Mer-
cury by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotom-
etry," Ana. Chem. 40, 2086 (1968).
4. Bradenberger, H. and Bader, H. "The
Determination of Nanogram Levels of Mer-
cury In Solution by a Flameless Atomic Ab-
sorption Technique," Atomic Absorption
Newsletter 6. 101 (1967).
6. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory
(AQCL). Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, Ohio, "Mercury In Sediment
(Cold Vapor Technique)," Provisional
Method. April 1972.
6. Kopp, J. F, Longbottom, M. O. and
Lobrlng, L. B. -Cold Vapor Method for De-
termining Mercury," Journal AWWA, 04, 1
(1972), pp. 20-26.
7. "Manual of Methods for Chemical Anal-
ysis of Water and Weates," Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-626/2-74-003, pp.
118-138.
Ill-Appendix B-21
-------
METHOD 100—DETERMINATION OF VINYL
CHLORIDE FROM STATIONARY SOTJHCES
INTRODUCTION
Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph, nor by
those who are unfamiliar with source sam-
pling, as there are many details that are
beyond the scope of this presentation. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a car-
cinogen.
1. Principle and Applicability.
1.1 An Integrated bag sample of stack
gas containing vinyl chloride (chloroethene)
Is subjected to chromatographlc analysis, us-
ing a flame lonlzatlon detector. 38
1.2 The method Is applicable to the meas-
urement of vinyl chloride In stack gases from
•thylene dlchlorlde, vinyl chloride and poly-
vinyl chloride manufacturing processes, ex-
cept where the vinyl chloride Is contained In
participate matter.
2. Range and Sensitivity.
The lower limit of detection will vary ac-
cording to the chromatograph used. Values
reported Include 1 x 10-7 mg and 4 X 10-'
rag.
a. Interferences. Acetaldehyde, which can
occur in some vinyl chloride sources, will in-
terfere with the vinyl chloride peak from
the Chromasorb 102» column. See sections
4.3.2 and 6.4. If resolution of the vinyl
chloride peak is still not satisfactory for a
particular sample, then chromatograph pa-
rameters can be further altered with prior
approval of the Administrator. If alteration
of the chromatograph parameters falls to
resolve the vinyl chloride peak, then sup-
plemental confirmation of the vinyl chloride
peak through an absolute analytical tech-
nique, such as mass spectroscopy, must b«
performed. 3tl
4. Apparatus.
4.1 Sampling (Figure 106-1) ,38
4.1.1 Probe—Stainless steel, Pyrex glass,
or Teflon tubing according to stack temper-
ature, each equipped with a glass wool plug
to remove paniculate matter.
4.1.2 Sample line—Teflon. 6.4 mm outside
diameter, of sufficient length to connect
probe to bag. A new unused piece Is employed
for each series of bag samples that constitutes
an emission test.
4.1.3 Male (2) and female (2) stainless
steel quick-connects, with ball checks (one
pair without) located as shown In Figure
106-1.38
4.1.4 Tedlar bags, 100 liter capacity—To
contain sample. Teflon bags are not accept-
able. Alumlnlzed Mylar bags may be used,
provided that the samples are analyzed
within 24 hours of collection.
4.1.5 Rigid leakproof containers for 4.1.4,
with covering to protect contents from sun-
light.
4.1.6 Needle valve—To adjust sample flow
rate.
4.1.7 Pump—Leak-free. Minimum capac-
ity 2 liters per minute.
4.1.8 Charcoal tube—To prevent admis-
sion of vinyl chloride to atmosphere in vicin-
ity of samplers.
4.1.9 Flow meter—For observing sample
flow rate; capable of measuring a flow range
from 0.10 to 1.00 liter per minute.
4.1.1O Connecting tubing. Teflon, 6.4
mm outside diameter, to assemble sample
train (Figure 108-1 ).38
1 Mention of trade names on specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
4.1.11 Pltot tube—Type S (or equivalent),
attached to the probe so that the sampling
flow rate can be regulated proportional to
the stack gas velocity.
4.2 Sample recovery.
4.2.1 Tubing—Teflon, 6.4 mm outside
diameter, to connect bag to gas chromato-
graph sample loop. A new unused piece Is
employed for each series of bag samples that
constitutes an emission test, and Is to be dis-
carded upon conclusion of analysis of those
bags.
4.3 Analysis.
4.3.1 Gas chromatograph—With flame
lonlzatlon detector, potentlometrlc strip
chart recorder and 1.0 to 5.0 ml heated sam-
pling loop in automatic sample valve.
4.3.2 Chromatographlc column. Stainless
steel, 2 mx3.2 mm, containing 80/100 mesh
Chromasorb 102. A secondary column of GE
SF-96, 20 percent on 60/80 mesh AW Chroma-
sorb P, stainless steel, 2 mx3.2 mm or Pora-
pak T, 80/100 mesh, stainless steel, 1 mx3.2
mm is required if acetaldehyde Is present. If
used, a secondary column Is placed after the
Chromasorb 102 column. The combined-
columns should then be operated at 120° Cr
4.3.3 Flow meters (2)—Rotameter type,
0 to 100 ml/mln capacity, with flow control
valves.
4.3.4 Gas regulators—For required gas
cylinders.
4.3.5 Thermometer—Accurate to one de-
gree centigrade, to measure temperature of
heated sample loop at time of sample injec-
tion.
4.3.6 Barometer—Accurate to 5 mm Hg, to
measure atmospheric pressure around gas
chromatograph during sample analysis.
4.3.7 Pump—Leak-free. Minimum capac-
ity 100 ml/mln.
4.4 Calibration.
4.4.1 Tubing—Teflon, 6.4 mm outside
diameter, separate pieces marked for each
calibration concentration.
4.4.2 Tedlar bags—Slxteen-inch square
size, separate bag marked for each calibra-
tion concentration.
4.4.3 Syringe—0.5 ml, gas tight.
4.4.4 Syringe—50/d, gas tight.
4.4.5 Flow meter—Rotameter type, 0 to
1000 ml/mln range accurate to ±1%, to
meter nitrogen in preparation of standard
gas mixtures.
4.4.6 Stop watch—Of known accuracy, to
time gas flow In preparation of standard gas
mixtures.
5. Reagents. It is necessary that all rea-
gents be of chromatographlc grade.
5.1 Analysis.
5.1.1 Helium gas or nitrogen gas—Zero
grade, for chromatographic carrier gas.
5.1.2 Hydrogen gas—Zero grade.
5.1.3 Oxygen gas, or Air, as required by
the detector—Zero grade.
5.2 Calibration. Use one of the following
options: either 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, or 5.2.3.38
5.2.1 Vinyl chloride, 99.9+ percent. Pure
vinyl chloride gas certified by the manufac-
turer to contain a minimum of 99.9 percent
vinyl chloride for use in the preparation of
standard gas mixtures In Section 7.1. If the
gas manufacturer maintains a bulk cylinder
supply of 99.9+ percent vinyl chloride, the
certification analysis may have been per-
formed on this supply rather than on each
gas cylinder prepared from this bulk supply.
The date of gas cylinder preparation and the
certified analysis must have been affixed to
the cylinder before shipment from the gas
manufacturer to the buyer. 38
5.2.2 Nitrogen gas. Zero grade, for prepa-
ration of standard gas mixtures.38
5.2.3 Cylinder standards (3). Gas mix-
ture standards (50, 10, and 5 ppm vinyl
chloride in nitrogen cylinders) for which the
gas composition lias been certified by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer must have
recommended a maximum shelf life for each
cylinder so that the concentration does not
change greater than ±5 percent from the
certified value. The date of gas cylinder prep-
aration, certified vinyl chloride concentra-
tion and recommended maximum shelf life
must have been affixed to the cylinder before
shipment from the gas manufacturer to the
buyer. These gas mixture standards may be
directly used to prepare a chromatograph
calibration curve as described In section 7.3?8
5.2.3.1 Cylinder standards certification.
The concentration of vinyl chloride In nitro-
gen In each cylinder must have been certified
by the manufacturer by a, direct analysis of
each cylinder using an analytical procedure
that the manufacturer had calibrated on the
day of cylinder analysis. The calibration of
the analytical procedure shall, as a minimum,
have utilized a three-point calibration curve.
It Is recommended that the manufacturer
maintain two calibration standards and use
these standards in the following way: (1) A
high concentration standard (between 50 and
100 ppm) for preparation of a calibration
curve by an appropriate dilution technique;
(2) a low concentration standard (between
5 and 10 ppm) for verification of the dilution
technique used.38
5.2.3.2 Establishment and verification of
calibration standards. The concentration of
each calibration standard must have been
established by the manufacturer using
reliable procedures. Additionally, each
calibration standard must have been veri-
fied by the manufacturer by one of the
following procedures, and the agreement
between the initially determined concen-
tration value and the verification concen-
tration value must be within ± 5 percent:
(1) verification value determined by com-
parison with a calibrated vinyl chloride
permeation tube, (2) verification value
determined by comparison with a gas mix-
ture prepared In accordance with the pro-
cedure described in section 7.1 and using
99.9+ percent vlnyle chloride, or (3) verifi-
cation value obtained by having the
calibration standard analyzed by the Na-
tional Bureau of Standards. All calibration
standards must be renewed on a time
Interval consistent with the shelf life of
the cylinder standards sold.38
6. Procedure.
6.1 Sampling. Assemble the sample train
as in Figure 106-1. Perform a bag leak check
according to Section 7.4. Observe that all
connections between the bag and the probe
are tight. Place the end of the probe at the
centroid of the stack and start the pump
with the needle valve adjusted to yield a
flow of 0.5 1pm. After a period of time suffi-
cient to purge the line several times has
elapsed, connect the vacuum line to the
bag and evacuate the bag until the rotam-
eter indicates no flow. Then reposition the
sample and vacuum lines and begin the ac-
tual sampling, keeping the rate proportional
to the stack velocity. Direct the gas exiting
the rotameter away from sampling personnel.
At the end of the sample period, shut off the
pump, disconnect the sample line from the
bag, and disconnect the vacuum line from
the bag container. Protect the bag container
from sunlight.
6.2 Sample storage. Sample bags must be
kept out of direct sunlight. When at all
possible analysis is to be performed within
24 hours, but in no case in excess of 72
hours of samole collection. 38
6.3 Sample recovery, with a piece of Tef-
lon tubing identified for that bag, connect a
Ill-Appendix B-22
-------
bag Inlet valve to the gas chromatograph
sample valve. Switch the valve to withdraw
gas from the bag through the sample loop.
Plumb the equipment so the sample gas
passes from the sample valve to the leak-free
pump, and then to a charcoal tube, followed
by a 0-100 ml/mln rotameter with flow con-
trol valve.
6.4 Analysis. Set the column temperature
to 100° C, the detector temperature to 160°
C, and the sample loop temperature to 70* C.
When optimum hydrogen and oxygen flow
rates have been determined verify and main-
tain these flow rates during all chromato-
graph operations. Using zero helium or
nitrogen as the carrier gas, establish a flow
rate In the range consistent with the manu-
facturer's requirements for satisfactory de-
tector operation. A flow rate of approxi-
mately 40 ml/mln should produce adequate
separations. Observe the base line periodi-
cally and determine that the noise level has
stabilized and that base line drift has ceased.
Purge the sample loop for thirty seconds at
the rate of 100 ml/mln, then activate the
sample valve. Record the injection time (the
position of the pen on the chart at the time
of sample injection), the sample number, the
sample loop temperature, the column tem-
perature, carrier gas flow rate, chart speed
and the attenuator setting. Record the lab-
oratory pressure. From the chart, select the
peak having the retention time correspond-
ing to vinyl chloride, as determined In Sec-
tion 7.2. Measure the peak area, Am, by use
of a disc Integrator of a planlmeter. Measure
the peak height, Hm. Record Am, Hm, -and
the retention time. Repeat the Injection at
least two times or until two consecutive vinyl
chloride peaks do not vary in area more than
6%. The average value for these two areas
will be used to compute the bag concentra-
tion. 30
Compare the ratio of Hm to Am for the vinyl
chloride sample with the same ratio for the
standard peak which Is closest in height. As
a guideline, if these ratios differ by more
than 10%, the vinyl chloride peak may not
be pure (possibly acetaldehyde is present)
and the secondary column should be em-
ployed (see Section 4.3.2).
6.5 Measure the ambient temperature and
barometric pressure near the bag. (Assume
the relative humidity to be 100 percent.)
Prom a water saturation vapor pressure table,
determine and record the water vapor con-
tent of the bag.30
7. Calibration and Standards.
7.1 Preparation of vinyl chloride stand-
ard gas mixtures. Evacuate a slxteen-lnch
square Tedlar bag that has passed a leak
check (described in Section 7.4) and meter
In 5 liters of nitrogen. While the bag Is
filling, use the 0.5 ml syringe to In.lect
250«1 of 99.9+ percent vlnvl chloride
through the wall of the bag. Upon with-
drawing the syringe needle, Immediately
cover the resulting hole with a piece of
adhesive tape. The bae now contains a
vinyl chloride concentration of 60 ppm. In
a like manner use the other syringe to
prepare gas mixtures having 10 and 5 ppm
vinyl chloride concentrations. Place each
bag on a smooth surface and alternately
depress opposite sides of the bag 50 times
to further mix the gases. These gas mixture
standards may be used for 10 days from the
date of preparation, after which time prep-
aration of new gas mixtures Is required.
(CAUTION.—Contamination may be a prob-
lem when a bag Is reused If the new gas
mixture standard contains a lower con-
centration than the previous gas mixture
standard did.) SI
7.2 Determination of vinyl chloride re-
tention time. This section can be performed
simultaneously with Section 7.3. Establish
chromatograph conditions Identical with
filter (Glin W»l>f|
Teflon'"
Simple Line
\ IT
Xevereo("S") Type
Ficot TMbe
71jurt 1M-1. Xntemted b»f lupllas treln.
(1)
Kentlon of trade neaee on specific produce! dot* not constitute
endorscBout by the Environmental Protection Agency.
those In Section 6.3, above. Set attenuator
to X 1 position. Flush the sampling loop
with zero helium or nitrogen and activate
the sample valve. Record the Injection time,
the sample loop temperature, the column
temperature, the carrier gas flow rate, the
chart speed and the attenuator setting.
Record peaks and detector responses that
occur In the absence of vinyl chloride. Main-
tain conditions. With the equipment plumb-
Ing arranged Identically to Section 6.3, flush
the sample loop for 30 seconds at the rate of
100 ml/mln with one of the vinyl chloride
calibration mixtures and activate the sample
valve. Record the Injection time. Select the
peak that corresponds to vinyl chloride.
Measure the distance on the chart from the
Injection time to the time at which the peak
maximum occurs. This quantity, divided by
the chart speed, is defined as the retention
time record.
7.3 Preparation of chromatograph cali-
bration curve. Make a gas chromatographlc
measurement of each gas mixture standard
(described In section 5.2.2 or 7.1) using con-
ditions Identical with those listed In sections
6.3 and 6.4. Flush the sampling loop for 30
seconds at the rate of 100 ml/mln with each
standard gas mixture and activate the sam-
ple valve. Record Cc, the concentration of
vinyl chloride Injected, the attenuator set-
ting, chart speed, peak area, sample loop
temperature, column temperature, carrier
gas flow rate, and retention time. Record the
laboratory pressure. Calculate Ac, the peak
area multiplied by the attenuator setting.
Repeat until two Injection areas are within
5 percent, then plot these points v. Cc. When
the other concentrations have been plotted,
draw a smooth curve through the points.
Perform calibration dally, or before and after
each set of bag samples, whichever is more
frequent.3"
7.4 Bag leak checks. While performance
of this section Is required subsequent to bag
use, it Is also advised that It be performed
prior to bag use. After each use, make sure
a bag did not develop leaks as follows. To leak
check, connect a water manometer and pres-
surize the bag to 6-10 cm HaO (2-4 In HSO).
Allow to stand for 10 minutes. Any displace-
ment In the water manometer indicates a
leak. Also check the rigid container for leaks
In this manner.
(NOTE: An alternative leak check method
Is to pressurize the bag to 6-10 cm H2O or
2-4 in. H2O and allow to stand overnight.
A deflated bag Indicates a leak.) For each
sample bag In Its rigid container, place a
rotameter in-line between the bag and the
pump Inlet. Evacuate the bag. Failure of the
rotameter to register zero flow when the bag
appears to be empty Indicates a leak.
8. Calculations.
8.1 Determine the sample peak area a*
follows :
Equation 106-1
where:
A,=The sample peak area.
Am=The measured peak area.
j4r=Tbe attenuation factor.

8.2 Vinyl chloride concentrations. From
the calibration curve described in Section
7.3, above, select the value of Cc that cor-
responds to Ac, the sample peak area. Cal-
culate Cb as follows:
Where: _ J^uatipn 106-2
B.s=The water vapor content of the bag samble, as
analysed.
C»=The concentration of vinyl chloride In the bag
sample In ppm.
C,=The concentration of vinyl chloride Indicated by
the gas chromatcgraph, In ppm.
P,=The reference pressure, the laboratory pressure
recorded during calibration, mm Hg.
T,=The sample Icop temperature on the absolute
scale at the time of analysis, °K.
P,=The laboratory pressure at time of analysis, mm
Hg.
7V=The reference temperature, the sample loop
temperature recorded during calibration', °K'

9. References.
1. Brown, D. W., Loy, E. W. and Stephen-
son, M. H. "Vinyl Chloride Monitoring Near
the B. P. Qoodrlch Chemical Company In
Louisville, Kentucky." Region IV, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Surveillance
and Analysis Division, Athens, Georgia, June
24, 1974.
2. "Evaluation of A Collection and Analy-
tical Procedure for Vinyl Chloride In Air,"
by O. D. Clayton and Associates, December
13, 1974. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1408, Task
Order No. 2, EPA Report oN. 75-VCL-l.
3. "Standardization of Stationary Source
Emission Method for Vinyl Chloride," by Mid-
west Research Institute, 1976. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-1098. Task Order No. 7.

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414)). 40,47
Ill-Appendix B-23
-------
METHOD 107—DETERMINATION OF VINYL CHLO-
RIDE CONTENT OF INPROCESS WASTEWATER
SAMPLES, AND VINYL CHLORIDE CONTENT OF
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE RESIN, SLURRY, WET
CAKE, AND LATEX SAMPLES

INTRODUCTION

Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persona unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph, nor by
those who are unfamiliar with sampling, as
there are many details that are beyond the
scope of this presentation. Care must be
exercised to prevent exposure of sampling
personnel to vinyl chloride, a carcinogen.
1. Principle and Applicability.
1.1 The basis for this method relates to
the vapor equilibrium which is established
between RVCM, PVC, resin, water, and air
In a closed system. It has been demonstrated
that the RVCM in a PVC resin will equili-
brate in a closed vessel quite rapidly, pro-
vided that the temperature of the PVC resin
is maintained above the glass transition
temperature of that specific resin.
1.2 This procedure is suitable for deter-
mining the vinyl choride monomer (VCM)
content of inprocess wastewater samples, and
the residual vinyl chloride monomer
(RVCM) content of poly vinyl chloride
(PVC) resins, wet cake, slurry, and latex
samples. It cannot be used for polymer in
fused forms, such as sheet or cubes. If a
resolution of the vinyl chloride peak is not
satisfactory for a particular sample, then
chromatograph parameters may be altered
provided that the precision and reproduci-
blllty of the analysis of vinyl chloride cylin-
der standards are not impaired. If there is
reason to believe that some other hydro-
carbon with an Identical retention time is
present in the sample, then supplemental
confirmation of the vinyl chloride peak
through an absolute analytical technique,
such as mass spectroscopy, should be per-
formed.^
2. Range and Sensitivity.
The lower limit of detection of vinyl chlo-
ride will vary according to the chromato-
graph used. Values reported include 1 X 10-7
mg and 4X10-7 mg. With proper calibration,
the upper limit may be extended as needed.
3. Precision and Reproducibllity.
An interlaboratory comparison between
seven laboratories of three resin samples,
each split into three parts, yielded a standard
deviation of 2.63% for a sample with a mean
of 2.09 ppm, 4.16% for a sample with a mean
of 1.66 ppm, and 5.29% for a sample with a
mean of 62.66 ppm.
4. Safety.
Do not release vinyl chloride to the labora-
tory atmosphere during preparation of stand-
ards. Venting or purging with VCM/air mix-
tures must be held to a minimum. When
they are required, the vapor must be routed
to outside air. Vinyl chloride, even at low
ppm levels, must never be vented inside the
laboratory. After vials have been analyzed,
the pressure within the vial must be vented
prior to removal from the instrument turn-
table. Vials must be vented into an activated
charcoal tube using a hypodermic needle to
prevent release of vinyl chloride Into the
laboratory atmosphere. The charcoal must
be replaced prior to vinyl chloride break-
through.
6. Apparatus.
5.1 Sampling.
5.1.1 Bottles—60 ml (2 oz), with waxed
lined screw on tops, for PVC samples.
6.1.2 Vials—50 ml Hypo-vials,1 sealed with
Teflon faced Tuf-Boud discs for water sam-
ples.
5.1.3 Electrical tape—or equivalent, to
prevent loosening of bottle tops.
5.2 Sample recovery.
5.2.1 Vials—With seals and caps, Perkin-
Elmer Corporation No. 105-0118, or equiva-
lent.
5.2.2 Analytical balance—Capable of
weighing to ±0.001 gram.
5.2.3. Syringe, 100 id—Precision Series
"A" No. 010025, or equivalent.
5.2.4 Vial Sealer, Perkin-Elmer No. 105-
0106 or equivalent.
5.3 Analysis.
5.3.1 Gas chromatograph—Perkln-Elmer
Corporation Model P-40 head-space ana-
lyzer, No. 104-0001, or equivalent.
5.3.2 Chromatographic column. Stainless
steel, 2 m x 3.2 mm, containing 0.4 percent
Oarbowax 1500 on Carbopak A, Perkin-Elmer
Corporation No. 105-0133, or equivalent.
Carbopak C can be used in place of Carbopak
A. If methanol and/or acetaldehyde is pres-
ent in the sample, a pair of Poropak Q col-
umns in series (1 m X 3.2 mm followed by
2 m X 3.2 mm) with provision for backflush
of the first column has been shown to pro*
vide adequate separation of vinyl chlorlddr
5.3.3 Thermometer—0 to 100° C, accurate
to ±0.1° C, Perkln-Elmer No. 105-0109 or
equivalent.
5.3.4. Sample tray thermostat system—
Perkin-Elmer No. 105-0103, or equivalent.
5.3.5 Septa—Sandwich type, for auto-
matic dosing, 13 mm, Perkin-Elmer No. 105-
1008, or equivalent.
5.3.6 Integrator - recorder — Hewlett -
Packard Model 3380A, or equivalent.
5.3.7 Filter drier assembly (3)—Perkln-
Elmer No. 2230117, or equivalent.
5.3.8 Soap film flowmeter—Hewlett Pack-
ard No. 0101-0113, or equivalent.
5.4 Calibration.
5.4.1 Regulators—for required gas cylin-
ders.
6. Reagents.
6.1 Analysis.
6.1.1 Hydrogen gas—zero grade.
6.1.2 Nitrogen gas—zero grade.
6.1.3 Air—zero grade.
6.2 Calibration.
6.2.1 Cylinder standards (4). Gas mixture
standards (50, 500, 2,000, and 4,000 ppm vinyl
chloride in nitrogen cylinders) for which the
gas composition has been certified by the
manufacturer. Lower concentration stand-
ards should be obtained if lower concentra-
tions of vinyl chloride samples are expected,
as the intent is to bracket the sample con-
centrations with standards. The manufac-
turer must have recommended a maximum
shelf life for each cylinder so that the con-
centration does not change greater than ±5
percent from the certified value. The date
of gas cylinder preparation, certified vinyl
chloride concentration and recommended
maximum shelf life must have been affixed
to the cylinder before shipment from the
manufacturer to the buyer. 38
6.2.1.1 Cylinder standards certification.
The concentration of vinyl chloride in nitro-
gen in each cylinder must have been certi-
fied by the manufacturer by a direct analysis
of each cylinder using an analytical proce-
dure that the manufacturer had calibrated
on the day of cylinder analysis. The calibra-
tion of the analytical procedure shall, as a
minimum, have utilized a three-point cali-
bration curve. It is recommended that the
manufacturer maintain two calibration
standards and use these standards In the
following way: (1) A high concentration
standard (between 4,000 and 8,000 ppm) for
1 Mention of trade names on specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
preparation of a calibration curve by an ap-
propriate dilution technique; (2) alov'c°n-
centration standard (between 50 and 500
ppm) for verification of the dilution tech-
nique used.38
6.2.1.2 Establishment and verification of
calibration standards. The concentration of
each calibration standard must have been
established by the manufacturer using reli-
able procedures. Additionally, each calibra-
tion standard must have been verified by the
manufacturer by one of the following proce-
dures, and 'the agreement between the Ini-
tially determined concentration value and
the verification concentration value must be
within ±5 percent: (1) Verification value de-
termined by comparison with a gas mixture
standard generated in a similar manner to
the procedure described In section 7.1 of
Method 106 for preparing gas mixture stand-
ards using 99.9+ percent vinyl chloride, or
(2) verification value obtained by having the
calibration standard analyzed by the Nation-
al Bureau of Standards. All calibration stand-
ards must be renewed on a time interval
cpnslstent with the shelf life of the cylinder
standards sold.38
7. Procedure.
7.1 Sampling.
7.1.1 PVC sampling—Allow the resin or
slurry to flow from a tap on the tank or silo
until the tap line has been well purged. Ex-
tend a 60 ml sample bottle under the tap, fill,
and Immediately tightly cap the bottle. Wrap
electrical tape around the cap and bottle to
prevent the top from loosening. Place an
identifying label on each bottle, and record
the date, tune, and sample location both on
the bottles and in a log book.
7.1.2 Water sampling—Prior to use, the
50 ml vials (without the discs) must be
capped with aluminum foil and muffled at
400 °C for at least one hour to destroy or
remove any organic matter that could in-
terfere with analysis. At the sampling loca-
tion fill the vials bubble-free, to overflowing
so that a convex meniscus forms at the top.
The excess water is displaced as the sealing
disc Is carefully placed. Teflon side down, on
the opening of the vial. Place the aluminum
seal over the disc and the neck of the vial
and crimp into place. Affix an identifying
label on the bottle, and record the date, time,
and sample location both on the vials and
in a log book. All samples must be kept re-
frigerated until analyzed.
7.2 Sample recovery. Samples must be run
within 24 hours.
7.2.1 Resin samples—The weight of the
resin used must be between 0.1 and 4.5 grams.
An exact weight must be obtained (^0.001
gram) for each sample. In the case of sus-
pension resins a volumetric cup can be pre-
pared which will hold the required amount
of sample. The sample bottle is opened, and
the cup volume of resin is added to the tared
sample vial (including septum and alumi-
num cap). The vial is immediately sealed
and the exact sample weight is then obtained.
Report this value on the data sheet as it is
required for calculation of RVCM. In the
case of relatively dry resin samples (water
content <0.3 weight <%•), 100 ,tl of distilled
water must be injected into the vial, after
sealing and weighing, using a 100 wl syringe.
In the case of dispersion resins, the cup
cannot be used. The sample is instead
weighed approximately in an aluminum dish,
transferred to the tared vial and weighed
accurately in the vial. The sample is then
placed in the Perkin-Elmer head space ana-
lyzer (or pquivalent) and conditioned for one
hour at 90°C.
NOTE: Some aluminum vial caps have a
center section which must be removed prior
to placing into sample tray. If not removed,
Ill-Appendix B-24
-------
serious damage to the Injection needle will
occur.
7.2.2 Suspension resin slurry and wet cake
samples—Slurry must be filtered using a
small Buchner funnel with vacuum to yield
wet cake. The filtering process must be con-
tinued only as long as a steady stream of
water Is exiting from the funnel. Excessive
filtration time could result In some loss of
VCM. The wet cake sample (0.10 to 4.5 grams)
Is added to a tared vial (Including septum
and aluminum cap) and Immediately sealed.
Sample W3lght Is then determined to 3 deci-
mal places. The sample Is then placed In the
Perkln-Elmer head space analyzer (or equiva-
lent) and conditioned for one hour at 90°C.
A sample of wet cake Is used to determine
TS (total solids). This Is required for calcu-
lating the RVCM.
7.2.3 Dispersion resin slurry samples.—
This material should not'be filtered. Sample
must be thoroughly mixed. Using a tared
vial (Including septum and aluminum cap)
add approximately 8 drops (0.25 to 0.35
grams) of slurry or latex using a medicine
dropper. This should be done Immediately
after mixing. Seal the vial as soon as possible.
Determina sample weight accurate to 0.001
grams. Total sample weight must not exceed
0.50 grams. Condition the vial for one hour
at 90°C In the analyzer. Determine the TS
on the slurry sample (Section 7.3.5).
7.2.4 Inprocess wastewater samples—
Using a tared vial (Including septum and
aluminum cap) quickly add approximately
1 cc of water using a medicine dropper. Seal
the vial as soo i as possible. Determine
sample weight accurate to 0.001 gram. Con-
dition the vial for two hours at 90 °C In the
analyzer.
7.3 Analysis.
7.3.1 Preparation of gas chromatograph—
Install the chromatographic column and con-
dition overnight at 150°C. Do not connect the
exit end of the column to the detector while
conditioning.
7.3.1.1 Flow rate adjustments—Adjust
flow rates as follows:
a. Nitrogen carrier gas—Set regulator on
cylinder to read 50 pslg. Set regulator on
chromatograph to 1.3 kg/cm2. Normal flows
at this pressure should be 25 to 40 cc/mlnute.
Check with bubble flow meter.
b. Burner air supply—Set regulator on cyf-
Inder to read 50 pslg. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply air to burner at a
rate between 250 and 300 cc/minute. Check
with bubble flowmeter.
c. Hydrogen suoply—Set regulator on cyl-
inder to read 30 pslg. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply approximately
35n-5 cc/minute. Optimize hydrogen flow to
yield the most sensitive detector response
without extinguishing the flame. Check flow
with bubble meter and record this flow
7.3.1.2 Temperature adjustments—Set
temperatures as follows:
a. Oven (chromatographic column), 50°
C.
b. Dosing line, 140° C.
c. Injection block, 140° C.
d. Sample chamber, water temperature,
90" C±1.0° C.
7.3.1.3 Ignition of flame lonlzatlon detec-
tor—Ignite the detector according to the
manufactvrer's instructions.
7.3.1.4 Amplifier balance—Balance the
amplifier according to the manufacturer's
Instructions.
7.3.2 Programming the chromatograph—
Program the chromatograph as follows:
a. I—Dosing time—The normal setting Is
2 seconds.
b. A—Analysis time—The normal setting
Is 8 minutes. Certain types of samples con-
tain high boiling materials which can cause
Interference wtlh the vinyl chloride peak on
subsequent analyses. In these cases the
analysis time must be adjusted to eliminate
the Interference. An automated backflush
system can also be used to solve this prob-
lem.
c. B—Flushing—The normal setting Is 0.2
minutes.
d. W—Stabilization time. The normal set-
ting Is 0.2 minutes.38
e. X—Number of analyses per sample—The
normal setting is 1.
7.3.3 Preparation of sample turntable—Be-
fore placing any sample Into turntable, be
certain that the center section of the alu-
minum cap has been removed. The numbered
sample bottles should be placed In the cor-
responding numbered positions in the turn-
table. Insert samples in the following order:
Positions 1 & 2—Old 2000 ppm standards
for conditioning. These are necessary only
after the analyzer has not been used for 24
hours or longer.
Position 3—50 ppm standard, freshly pre-
pared.
Position 4—500 ppm standard, freshly pre-
pared.
Position 5—2000 ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
Position 6—4000 ppm standard, freshly pre-
pared.
Position 7—Sample No. 7 (This Is the first
sample of the day, but Is given as 7 to be con-
sistent with the turntable and the Integrator
printout.)
After all samples have been positioned, in-
sert the second set of 50, 500, 2000, and 4000
ppm standards. Samples, Including stand-
ards must be conditioned in the bath of
90° C for 1 hour (not to exceed 5 hours).
7.3.4 Start chromatograph program—
When all samples, Including standards, have
been conditioned at 90° C for 1 hour, start
the analysis program according to the manu-
facturers' Instructions. These Instructions
must be carefully followed when starting
and stopping program to prevent damage to
the dosing assembly.
7.3.5 Determination of total solids (TS).
For wet cake, slurry, resin solution, and
PVC latex samples, determine TS for each
sample by accurately weighing approxim-
ately 3 to 4 grams of sample in an aluminum
pan before and after placing in a draft
oven (105 to 110° C). Samples must be dried
to constant weight. After first weighing re-
turn the pan to the oven for a short pe-
riod of time and then rewelgh to verify com-
plete dryress. TS is then calculated as the
final sample weight divided by initial sam-
ple weight.
8. Calibration.
Calibration Is to be performed each eight-
hour period when the instrument Is used.
Each day. prlcr to running samples, the col-
umn should be conditioned by running two
of the previous days 2000 ppm standards.
8.1 Preparation of Standards.
Calibration standards are prepared by fill-
Ing the vials with the vinyl chloride/nitro-
gen standards, rapidly seating the septum
and sealing with the aluminum cap. Use a
stainless steel line from the cylinder to the
vial. Do not use rubber or tygon tubing. The
sample line from the cylinder must be
purged (Into hood) for several minutes prior
to filling vials. After purging, reduce the flow
rate to approximately 600-1000 cc/mln. Place
end of tubing Into vial (near bottom) and
after one minute slowly remove tubing. Place
septum In vial as socn as possible to mini-
mize mixing air with sair.ple. After the stand-
ard vials are sealed, Inject 100^1 of distilled
water.
8.2 Preparation of chromatograph calibra-
tion curve.
Prepare two 50 ppm, two 500 ppm, two 2000
ppm, and two 4000 ppm standard samples.
Run the calibration samples In exactly* the
same manner as regular samples. Plot A.,
the Integrator area counts for ea;h standard
sample vs C,,, the concentration of vinyl
chloride In each standard sample. Draw a
line of best fit through the points.
9. Calculations.
9.1 Response factor.
From the calibration curve described in
Section 8.2, above, select the- value of Cc
that corresponds to A. for each sample. Com-
pute the response factor, Rt, for each sample,
as follows:
A
Rf=fT Equation 107-1

9.2 Residual vinyl chloride monomer con-
centration, or vinyl chloride monomer Con-
centration.

Calculate Cr,c as follows:
/~i a_£_?
°'"—a/r,
M.V,
7711 R
Equation 107-2
where:
Cr,c= Concentration of vinyl chloride
in the sample, in ppm.
Pa = Laboratory atmosphere pres-
sure, mm Hg.
71i=Room temperature, °K.
M,= Molecular weight of VCM
(62.5).

V»=Volume of vapor phase (vial volume
less sample volume) .
m i = Weight of sample, grams.
B = Gas constant [62,360 (cc-mm-mole-
degrees Kelvin) ]
K = Henry's Law constant. For VCM in PVC
at90°C, X=6.52 x W-°=KP For VCM in
1 cc (approximate) wastewater sample at
90° C, K = 5.0 X 10-»=K w.
T* = Equilibration temperature, °K.
If the following conditions are met. Equa-
tion 107-2 can be simplified as follows:
1. T, = 22°C (295° K)
2. T i = 90° (363° K)
3. P. = 750 mm Hg.
where
V ,. = Vial volume, cc (23.5) .
5. Sample contains less than 0.5 percent
water.
V'"=T, (4.197X10-»+5-988^10-) Equation 107-3

The following general equation can be used for any sample which contains VCM, PVC and
water.
Equation 107-4
Ill-Appendix B-25
-------
where: Results calculated using Equation 107-4
TS=Total solids represent concentration based on the total
NOTE: K . must be determined for samples samPle; ^o obtain results based on dry PVC
with a vapor volume to liquid volume ratio content, divide by TS.
other than 22.5 to 1. This ratio can be ob- For a 1-cc wastewater sample (that Is,
tftlned by adjusting the sample weight 22.5 to 1 vapor volume to liquid volume
through giving consideration to the total ratio), K « Is 5.0 x 10-e. Thus, Equation 107-
sollds and density of the PVC. ' 4 can be simplified to the following:

Crrc=4-' r5'988X1°~2+(2.066X10-3) 1 Equation 107-5
K,\_ mt J
(Sees. 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7 and 1857g(a).)

10. References.
a. Residual Vinyl Chloride Monomer Con-
tent of Polyvlnyl Chloride Resins and Wet
Cake Samples, B. P. Goodrich Chemical Co.
Standard Test Procedure No. 1005-T. B. F.
Goodrich Technical Center, Avon Lake, Ohio.
January 30, 1975.
b. Berens, A. R., "The Solubility of Vinyl
Chloride In Polyvlnyl Chloride," ACS-Dlvl-
slon of Polymer Chemistry, Polymer Pre-
prints 15 (2) : 197, 1974.
c. Berens, A. R., "The Diffusion of Vinyl
Chloride In Polyvlnyl Chloride," ACS-Dlvl-
slon of Polymer Chemistry, Polymer Pre-
prints 15 (2) : 203, 1974.
d. Berens, A. R., L. B. Crlder, C. J. Toma-
nek and J. M. Whitney, Analysis for Vinyl
Chloride In PVC Powders by Head-Space Gas
Chromatography," to be published.

(See. 114 of the Cleui Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414)). 40,47
Ill-Appendix B-26
-------
SECTION IV
FULL TEXT
OF
REVISIONS
-------
IV. FULL TEXT OF REVISIONS

Reference Page

36 FR 5931, 3/31/71 - List of Hazardous Air Pollutants

36 FR 23239, 12/7/71 - Proposed Standards for Asbestos,
Beryllium and Mercury

1 38 FR 8826, 4/6/73 - National Emission Standards 1
Promulgated for Asbestos, Beryllium, and Mercury

2 39 FR 15398, 5/3/74 - Amendments to Standards for 32
Asbestos, Beryllium, and Mercury

3 39 FR 37987, 10/25/74 - Region V Office: New Address 34

39 FR 38064, 10/25/74 - Proposed Amendments to Standards
for Asbestos and Mercury

4 40 FR 18170, 4/25/75 - Delegation of Authority to State 34
of Washington

5 40 FR 42195, 9/11/75 - Delegation of Authority to State 35
of California

6 40 FR 45171, 10/1/75 - Delegation of Authority to State 36
of California

7 40 FR 48299, 10/14/75 - Amendments to Standards for 37
Asbestos and Mercury

8 40 FR 48348, 10/15/75 - Delegation of Authority to 57
State of New York

9 40 FR 50719, 10/31/75 - Delegation of Authority to 57
State of Colorado

10 40 FR 58646, 12/18/75 - Delegation of Authority to 58
Washington Local Agencies

40 FR 59532, 12/24/75 - Proposed Standards for Vinyl
Chloride

11 40 FR 59729, 12/30/75 - Delegation of Authority to State 58
of Maine

40 FR 60079, 12/31/75 - Notice of Public Hearing on
Proposed Vinyl Chloride Standard

12 41 FR 1914, 1/13/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 59
of Michigan
IV-i
-------
Reference Page

41 FR 2430, 1/16/76 - Notice of Availability of Vinyl
Chloride EIS for Review and Comments

13 41 FR 4264, 1/29/76 - Delegation of Authority to 59
Washington Local Agencies

14 41 FR 7750, 2/29/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 60
Oregon

15 41 FR 8346, 2/26/76 - Delegation of Authority to 60
Commonwealth of Virginia

16 41 FR 11820, 3/22/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 60
of Connecticut

17 41 FR 19633, 5/13/76 - Delegation of Authority to Common- 61
wealth of Massachusetts and State of New Hampshire

18 41 FR 21450, 5/26/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 62
of California

19 41 FR 24885, 6/21/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 62
of Georgia

20 41 FR 27967, 7/8/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 63
of California

21 41 FR 33264, 8/9/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 63
of California

22 41 FR 34629, 8/16/76 - Delegation of Authority to the 64
U.S. Virgin Islands
i,
23 41 FR 36918, 9/1/76 - National Emission Standards, Avail- 64
bility of Information

24 41 FR 40108, 9/17/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 64
of California

25 41 FR 40468, 9/20/76 - Degelation of Authority to State 65
of Alabama

26 41 FR 43149, 9/30/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 65
of Indiana

27 41 FR 44859, 10/13/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 65
of North Dakota

28 41 FR 46560, 10/21/76 - National Emission Standards 66
Promulgated for Vinyl Chloride.

29 41 FR 48343, 11/3/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 80
of California
IV-ii
-------
Reference Page

30 41 FR 53017, 12/3/76 - Delegation of Authority to 80
Pima County Health Department; Arizona

41 FR 53017, 12/3/76 - Correction to Vinyl Chloride 80
Emission Standards Promulgated on October 21, 1976

31 41 FR 54758, 12/15/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 81
of California

32 41 FR 56805, 12/30/76 - Delegation of Authority to State 81
of North Carolina

33 42 FR 1215, 1/6/77 - Delegation of Authority to State 82
of Vermont

34 42 FR 4124, 1/24/77 - Delegation of Authority to State 82
of South Carolina

35 42 FR 6812, 2/4/77 - Delegation of Authority to the City 82
of Philadelphia and "the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

42 FR 12122, 3/2/77- Proposed Amendment to National Emission
Standards for Asbestos

36 42 FR 12127, 3/2/77 - Amendment to National Emission 83
Standards for Asbestos

37 42 FR 16778, 3/30/77 - Correction to Region V Address and 84
Delegation of Authority to State of Wisconsin

42 FR 28154, 6/2/77 - Proposed Amendment to National
Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride

38 42 FR 29005, 6/7/77 - Corrections and Amendments to 84
Standard for Vinyl Chloride

42 FR 29332, 6/8/77 - Addition of Benzene to List of
Hazardous Air Pollutants

39 42 FR 37387, 7/21/77 - Delegation of Authority to the 88
State of New Jersey

42 FR 40452, 8/10/77 - Proposed Amendments to National
Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride; Extension of Comment
Period

40 42 FR 41424, 8/17/77 - Authority Citations; Revision 89

41 42 FR 44544, 9/6/77 - Delegation of Authority to the State 89
of Montana
IV-iii
-------
Reference Pa9e

42 FR 44823, 9/7/77 - Proposed Amendments to National Emis-
sion Standard for Vinyl Chloride; Extension of Comment
Period

42 FR 45705, 9/12/77 - Notice of Delegation of Authority
to the State of Indiana

42 42 FR 51574, 9/29/77 - National Emission Standards, Units 90
and Abbreviations

42 FR 58543, 11/10/77 - Proposed Development of Asbestos
Standard for the Production and Use of Crushed Stone

43 42 FR 62137, 12/9/77 - Delegation of Authority to the 90
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

42 FR 64145, 12/22/77 - Notice of Delegation of Authority
to the State of Georgia

42 FR 64735, 12/28/77 - Notice of Delegation of Authority
to the Commonwealth of Kentucky

44 43 FR 10, 1/3/78 - Delegation of Authority to the State 91
of Minnesota

45 43 FR 3361, 1/25/78 - Delegation of Authority to the 91
Commonwealth of Kentucky

46 43 FR 6770, 2/16/78- Delegation of Authority to the 92
State of Delaware

47 43 FR 8800, 3/3/78 - Revision of Authority Citations 92

48 43 FR 20987, 5/16/78 - Delegation of Authority to 93
State/Local Air Pollution Control Agencies in Arizona,
California, and Nevada

49 43 FR 26372, 6/19/78 - Amendments to Asbestos Standard 94

50 43 FR 47692, 10/16/78 - Delegation of Authority for State 97
of Rhode Island

51 44 FR 7714, 2/7/79 - Delegation of Authority to State of 97
Texas
IV-iv
-------
Reference Page

44 FR 31596, 5/31/79 Proposed Amendment to Defini-
tion of "Commenced"

52 44 FR 55173, 9/25/79 National Emission Standards for 98
Hazardous Air Pollutants; General Provisions; Defini-
tions

44 FR 58642, 10/10/79 - Proposed Policy and Procedures
for Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne
Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer

44 FR 58662, 10/10/79 - Advance Notice of Proposed
Generic Standards

44 FR 61620, 10/26/79 - Proposed Policy and Procedures
for Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne
Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer; Informal Public
Hearings

53 44 FR 65399, 11/13/79 - National Emission Standards 99
for Hazardous Air Pollutants; General Provisions

44 FR 70196, 12/6/79 - Proposed Policy and Procedures
for Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne
Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer; Informal Public
Hearings

44 FR 76737, 12/27/79 - Notice of Addition of Radio-
nuclides to List of Hazardous Air Pollutants

45 FR 6960, 1/31/80 - Proposed Policy and Procedures
for Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne
Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer; Public Comment •
Period

54 45 FR 13074, 2/28/80 - Delegation of Authority to the 99
State of Maryland

45 FR 13476, 2/29/80 - Proposed Policy and Procedures
for Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne
Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer; Informal Public
Hearings

45 FR 21346, 4/1/80 - Conoco Chemicals Company;
Approval of NESHAPS Application

45 FR 25828, 4/16/80 - Proposed Policy and Procedures
for Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne
Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer; Advance Notice
of Proposed Generic Standards; Public Comment Period

IV-v
-------
Reference Page

45 FR 26660, 4/18/80 - Proposed Emission Standards for
Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants

45 FR 34063, 5/21/80 - Brush Wellman, Inc., Elmore, Ohio;
Approval of Application

45 FR 34315, 5/22/80 - Proposed Benzene Emissions from
Maleic Anhydride Plants; Amended Notice of Public Hearing
and Extension of Comment Period

45 FR 37886, 6/5/80 - Notice of Addition of Inorganic
Arsenic to List of Hazardous Air Pollutants

45 FR 43865, 6/30/80 - General Tire & Rubber Co.,
Ashtabula, Ohio; Approval of Application

45 FR 49298, 7/24/80 - Emissions from Maleic Anhydride
Plants; Amended Notice of Public Hearing and Extension of
Comment Period

45 FR 53842, 8/13/80 - Proposed Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer; Advance Notice of Proposed Generic
Standards

45 FR 63348, 9/24/80 - Approval of an Amendment to the
Previously Approved NESHAP Application of Firestone
Plastics Co.
Approval of Application of Bordon Chemical

45 FR 63349, 9/24/80 - Approval of Application of Dow
Chemical U.S.A.

45 FR 64219, 9/29/80 - Benzene Emissions from Maleic An-
hydride Plants; Extension of Comment Period

45 FR 67450, 10/10/80 - Brush Wellman, Inc., Elmore, Ohio;
Approval of Application

45 FR 68514, 10/15/80 - Test Methods; Proposed Revisions
and Addition

45 FR 72283, 10/31/80 - Koppers Co., Inc., Wickliffe, Ohio;
Installation of an Asbestos Handling System

45 FR 72980, 11/3/80 - Regulation of Radionuclide Emissions;
Memorandum of Understanding Between EPA and NRC

45 FR 76346, 11/18/80 - Test Methods; Proposed Revisions
IV-vi
-------
Reference Page

45 FR 83016, 12/17/80 - Approval of Application of B. F.
Goodrich Company

45 FR 83448, 12/18/80 - Proposed Standards for Benzene
Emissions from Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants

45 FR 83952, 12/19/80 - Proposed Standards for Benzene
Emissions from Benzene Storage Vessels

45 FR 84827, 12/23/80 - Proposed Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating Airborne Substances
and Proposed Generic Standards; Closure of Public Comment
Period

46 FR 1165, 1/5/81 - Proposed Standards for Benzene Fugitive
Emissions

46 FR 1318, 1/6/81 - Proposed Revisions to Test Methods 106
and 107; Corrections

46 FR 2186, 1/8/81 - Notice of Collection of S02 Emissions
Data from Certain Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Gener-
ating Units

46 FR 3033, 1/13/81 - Proposed Test Methods; Revisions and
Addition; Extension of Public Comment Period

46 FR 9660, 1/29/81 - Proposed Standards for Benzene Emis-
sions from Benzene Storage Vessels. Ethylbenzene/Styrene
Plants, and Benzene Fugitive Emissions; Amended Notices of
Public Hearings and Extensions of Public Comment Periods

46 FR 12188, 2/12/81 - Proposed Alternative Test Method
107A (Vinyl Chloride)

46 FR 15938, 3/10/81 - Assessments of Human Exposure to
Atmospheric Concentrations of Selected Chemicals;
Availability of Document

46 FR 18561, 3/25/81 - Proposed Standards for Benzene
Fugitive Emissions and Emissions from Benzene Storage
Vessels; Extensions of Comment Periods

46 FR 25113, 5/5/81 - Proposed Standards for Benzene
Emissions from Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants; Extension
of Comment Period

55 46 FR 27342, 5/19/81 - Delegation of Authority to the State 100
of Missouri and Addition of Address
IV-vii
-------
Reference

46 FR 28217, 5/26/81 - Assessments of Human Exposure to
Atmospheric Concentration of Selected Chemicals; Extension
of Public Comment Period

56 46 FR 29262, 6/1/81 - Delegation of Authority to the State 100
of Tennessee

46 FR 32599, 6/24/81 - Proposed Standards for Benzene Fugi-
tive Emissions and Emissions from Benezene Storage Vessels;
Extensions of Public Comment Periods

46 FR 32933, 6/25/81 - Approval of NESHAP Application of IT
Corporation

46 FR 36238, 7/14/81 - B. F. Goodrich Co., B. F. Goodrich
Research Center, Brecksville, Ohio; Applicability of NESHAP
and Approval to Construct Plant

57 46 FR 39422, 7/31/81 - Delegation of Authority to the State 101
of Nebraska and Change of Address

58 46 FR 49853, 10/8/81 - Delegation of Authority to the State 102
of California

46 FR 55779, 11/12/81 - Collection of S02 Emissions Data
from Certain Coal-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units; Withdrawal from Consideration

59 47 FR 7665, 2/22/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 103
of Arkansas

60 47 FR 11662, 3/18/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 104
of Iowa and Addition of Address

61 47 FR 12626, 3/24/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 105
of Mississippi

62 47 FR 17285, 4/22/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 105
of Oklahoma

63 47 FR 17989, 4/27/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 106
of Delaware

64 47 FR 20305, 5/12/82 - Subdelegation of Authority to an 106
Oregon Local Agency

65 47 FR 22095, 5/21/82 - Delegation of Additional Authority to 107
the State of Arkansas

66 47 FR 24703, 6/8/82 - Appendix B - Test Methods; Revisions 108
and Addition Promulgated

IV-viii
-------
Reference Page

67 47 FR 30061, 7/12/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 121
of Arizona

68 47 FR 30062, 7/12/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 122
of California (4 documents)

69 47 FR 30065, 7/12/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 125
of Nevada
IV-ix
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER 1—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Asbestos, Beryllium, and Mercury

On March 31, 1971 (36 FR 5931), pur-
suant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, the Administrator published
an initial list of three hazardous air pol-
lutants which, In his judgment may
cause, or contribute to, an Increase in
mortality or an increase In serious ir-
reversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness. The pollutants were asbestos,
beryllium, and mercury. On December 7,
1971 (36 FR 23239), the Administrator
proposed standards for these pollutants.
Interested persons participated in the
rulemaking by giving testimony at public
hearings and by sending comments to
EPA. Public hearings were held in New
York City on January 18, 1972, and In
Los Angeles on February 15 and 16, 1872.
A third hearing, scheduled to be held
in Kansas City, on February 1, 1972, was
canceled because of a lack of requests to
participate. Sixty-eight persons gave
testimony at the public hearings, and 56
persons sent comments to EPA. Repre-
sented were industries, universities, gov-
ernmental agencies—Federal, State, and
local, and environmental groups. Copies
of the public hearing records are avail-
able at all EPA Regional Offices and at
the Division of Stationary Source En-
forcement, room 3220, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington. D.C. 20460, where copies of
the comments received are also available.
The bases for the Administrator's de-
terminations that asbestos, beryllium,
and mercury are hazardous, the deriva-
tions of the standards now adopted, the
Environmental Protection Agency's re-
sponses to the significant comments
received, and the principal revisions to
the proposed standards are summarized
below. A more detailed statement is
available on request from the Emission
Standards and Englnering Division, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, Atten-
tion: Mr. Don Goodwin. In addition, the
Administrator is issuing information on
control techniques for asbestos, beryl-
lium, and mercury as directed by section
112(b)(2) of the act. Copies of these
documents may be obtained free of
charge from EPA Regional Offices.

ASBESTOS
Asbestos is a hazardous air pollutant
within the meaning of section 112. Many
persons exposed to asbestos dust de-
veloped asbestosis when the dust concen-
tration was high or the duration of ex-
posure was long (.1-7). A large number
of studies have shown that there is an
association between occupational ex-
posure to asbestos and a higher-than-
expected incidence of bronchial cancer
(5-30). Asbestos also has been identified
as a causal factor in the development of
mesotheliomas, cancers of the mem-
References at end of article.
branes lining the chest and abdomen
(30-47). There are reports of mesothell-
oma associated with nonoccupatlonal
exposures In the neighborhood of as-
bestos sources (38. 42, 43, 48). An out-
standing feature has been the long
period, commonly over 30 years, between
the first exposure to asbestos and the ap-
pearance of a tumor (49, 50). There is
evidence which Indicates that mesothli-
omas occur after much less exposure to
asbestos dust than the exposure associ-
ated with asbestos (51, 52).
It is not practicable, at this time, to
establish allowable numerical concentra-
tions or mass emission limits for asbestos.
Satisfactory means of measuring ambient
asbestos concentrations have only re-
cently been developed, and satisfactory
means of measuring asbestos emissions
are still unavailable. Even if satisfactory
means of measuring asbestos emissions
did exist, the previous unavailability of a
satisfactory means of measuring ambient
levels of asbestos makes it impossible to
estimate even roughly the quantitative
relationship between asbestos-caused ill-
ness and the doses which caused those ill-
nesses. This is a major problem, since
some asbestos caused Illnesses have a 30-
year latency period.
EPA considered the possibility of ban-
ning production, processing, and use of
asbestos or banning all emissions of as-
bestos into the atmosphere, but rejected
these approaches. The problem of meas-
uring asbestos emissions would make the
latter approach impossible to enforce.
Either approach would result in the pro-'
hibition of many activities which are
extremely Important; moreover, the
available evidence relating to the health
hazards of asbestos does not suggest that
such prohibition Is necessary to protect
public health. For example, demolition of
any building containing asbestos fire-
proofing or Insulating materials would
have to be prohibited as would the use of
materials containing even trace amounts
of asbestos which could escape into the
atmosphere.
Finally, the available evidence suggests
a gradient of effects from direct occupa-
tional, to indirect occupational exposure,
to families of workers exposed to asbestos
and persons in the neighborhood of as-
bestos sources—In all of which situa-
tions asbestos concentrations are un-
doubtedly high by comparison with most
community air. This suggests that there
are levels of asbestos exposure that will
not be associated with any detectable
risk, although these levels are not
known (53).
It is probable that the effects of as-
bestos Inhalation are cumulative; that is,
low-level and/or intermittent exposure
to asbestos over a long time may be
equally as important in the etiology of
asbestotlc disease as high level and/or
continuous exposure over a shorter pe-
riod. On the other hand, the available
evidence does not indicate that levels
of asbestos in most community air cause
asbestotic disease. Taking both these
considerations into account, the Admin-
istrator has determined that, in order to
provide an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health from asbestos,
It is necessary to control emissions from
major man-made sources of asbestos
emissions into the atmosphere, but that
it I* not necessary to prohibit all
emissions.
In this determination, the Administra-
tor has relied on the National Academy
of Sciences' report on asbestos (53),
which concludes: "Asbestos is too im-
portant in our technology and economy
for its essential use to be stopped. But,
because of the known serious effects of
uncontrolled inhalation of asbestos min-
erals in Industry and uncertainty as to
the shape and character of the dose-
response curve in man, it would be highly
Imprudent to permit additional contami-
nation of the public environment with
asbestos. Continued use at minimal risk
to the public requires that the major
sources of man-made asbestose emission
Into the atmosphere be defined and con-
trolled."
The. means of control used are limita-
tions on visible emissions with an option
In some cases to use designated control
equipment, requirements that certain
procedures be followed, and prohibitions
on the use of certain materials or of cer-
tain operations. These means of control
are required because of the impossibility
at this time of prescribing and enforc-
ing allowable numerical concentrations
or mass emission limitations known to
provide an ample margin of safety. The
alternative of no control of the sources
subject to this standard was rejected
because of the significant health hazard
of unregulated emissions of asbestos Into
the atmosphere from the designated
major sources.
It is the Administrator's Judgment
that the asbestos sources subject to this
standard are the major sources of as-
bestos emissions. In the absence of quan-
titative emission data, the Administra-
tor's judgment was based on an national
inventory of sources and emissions of
asbestos (54) and other reports (53, 55).
The asbestos emissions and emission
factors presented in the national inven-
tory were based on information obtained
from production and reprocessing com-
panies.,This information included pro-
duction* figures, estimates of control
equipment efficiency and material bal-
ances; it did not include emission test
results. The major sources of asbestos
emissions were considered to fall into five
categories: (1) Mining and milling; (2)
manufacturing; (3) fabrication; (4) de-
molition; and (5) spraying. In deter-
mining which of these major sources
should be covered by the standard pro-
mulgated herein, the Administrator con-
sidered the effect other Federal regula-
tions will have on the emissions from
such sources and the proximity of such
sources to the public. In addition, the
Administrator considered comments on
the proposed standard and additional
technical data not available before pro-;
posal. The following paragraphs explain
these considerations and the changes
made to the standard between proposal
and final promulgation.
The promulgated standard applies to
asbestos mills, selected manufacturing
operations, the use of spray-on asbestos
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
IV-1
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
materials, demolition operations, and the
surfacing of roadways with asbestos tall-
ings. The Administrator will continue to
investigate other existing and new
sources of asbestos emission and If any
of them are found to be major sources,
the standard will be revised to cover
them.
As applied to mines, the proposed
standard would have limited the emis-
sions from drilling operations and pro-
hibited visible emissions of participate
matter from mine roads surfaced with
asbestos tailings. The Bureau of Mines
has prescribed health and safety regula-
tions (30 CFR 55.5) for the purpose of
protecting life, the promotion of health
and safety, and the prevention of acci-
dents In open pit metal and nonmetallic
mines. As related to asbestos mines, these
regulations prohibit persons working In
a mine from being exposed to asbestos
concentrations which exceed the thresh-
old limit value adopted by the American
Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists. The regulations specify that
respirators shall not be used to prevent
persons from being exposed to asbestos
where environmental measures are avail-
able. For drilling operations, the regula-
tions require that the holes be collared
and drilled wet. The regulations recom-
mend that haulage roads, rock transfer
points, crushers, and other points where
dust (asbestos) is produced sufficient to
cause a health or safety hazard be wetted
down as often as necessary unless the
dust Is controlled adequately by other
means. In the Judgment of the Admin-
istrator, Implementation of these regu-
lations will prevent asbestos mines from
being a major source which must be cov-
ered by the standard promulgated here-
in. Furthermore, the public is sufficiently
removed from the mine work environ-
ment that their exposure should be sig-
nificantly less than that of the workers
In the work environment. Accordingly,
the promulgated standard does not apply
to drilling operations or roadways at
mine locations.
For asbestos mills, the proposed stand-
ard would have applied to ore dumps,
open storage areas for asbestos materials,
tailings dumps, ore dryers, air for proc-
essing ore, air for exhausting particulate
material from work areas, and any mill-
ing operation which continuously gen-
erates Inplant visible emissions. The
promulgated standard prohibits visible
emissions from any part of the mill, but
it does not apply to dumps of asbestos
tailings or open storage of asbestos ores.
The Bureau of Mines' regulations pre-
viously referenced and regulations issued
by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (20 CFR 1910.93a) pro-
tect workers from the hazards of air con-
taminants in the work environment. The
Occupational Safety and Health Admin-
istration regulations were promulgated
on June 7, 1972. The regulations are In-
tended to protect the health of employees
from asbestos exposure by means of en-
gineering controls (i.e. Isolation, enclo-
sures, and dust collection) rather than by
personal protective equipment. It Is the
Judgment of the Administrator that
measures taken to comply with the Bu-
reau of Mines and Occupational Safety
and Health Administration regulations to
protect the health of persons who work
in proximity to dumps and open storage
areas wfll prevent the dumps and storage
areas from being major sources of asbes-
tos emissions.
The proposed standard would have ap-
plied to buildings, structures, or facilities
within which any fabricating or manu-
facturing operation is carried on which
involves the use of asbestos materials.
Comments received on the proposed
standard Indicated that the requirements
for fabricating and manufacturing oper-
ations were confusing. Much of the con-
fusion was created by the use of terms
such as "any," "continuously," and
"forced gas streams." The promulgated
standard is more definitive as to applica-
bility of the provisions. The promulgated
standard prohibits visible emissions from
the nine manufacturing operations
which, in the Judgment of the Adminis-
trator, are major sources of asbestos. The
promulgated standard does not cover
fabrication operations. Of aH fabrication
operations, only those operations at new
construction sites are considered to be
major sources of asbestos emissions. The
Occupational Safety and Hearth Admin-
istration regulations specify that all
hand- or power-operated tools (I.e. saws,
scorers, abrasive wheels, and drills)
which produce asbestos dust be provided
with duet collection systems. In the judg-
ment of the Administrator, Implementa-
tion of these regulations will prevent
fabrication operations from being a
major source which must be covered by
the standard promulgated herein.
The proposed standard would have
prohibited visible emissions of asbestos
particolate material from the repair or
demolition of any building or structure
other than a single-family dwelling.
Comments Indicated that the no visible
emission requirement would prohibit re-
pair or demolition hi many situations,
since it would be impracticable, if not
Impossible, to do such work without cre-
ating visible emissions. Accordingly, the
promulgated standard specifies certain
work practices which must be followed
when demolishing certain buildings or
structures. The standard covers institu-
tional, Industrial, and commercial build-
ings or structures, including apartment
houses having more than four dwelling
units, which contain friable asbestos ma-
terial. This coverage is based on the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences' report (S3)
which states, "In general, single-family
residential structures contain only small
amounts of asbestos Insulation. Demoli-
tion of industrial and commercial build-
ings that have been flreproofed with
asbestos-containing materials will prove
to be an emission source In the future,
requiring control measures." Apartment
houses with four dwelling units or less are
considered to be equivalent to single-
family residential structures. The stand-
ard requires that the Administrator be
notified at least 20 days prior to the com-
mencement of demolition.
The proposed standard would have
limited emissions from a number of
sources by stipulating that such emis-
sions could not exceed the amounts which
would be emitted from the source if the
source were equipped with a fabric filter,
or, in some cases, a wet-collection air-
cleaning device. This would have required
a standardized emission-measuring tech-
nique, which Is not currently available.
The promulgated standard prohibits visi-
ble emissions which contain asbestos and
provides the option of using specified
air-cleaning methods. The existence of
particulate asbestos material in a gas
stream vented to the atmosphere can be
determined by collecting a sample on a
filter and analyzing it by microscopy
techniques. The proposed standard stated
that the air-cleaning requirement would
not be met if a number of listed faults,
e.g., broken bags, leaking gases, thread-
bare bags, existed and it required that
collection hoppers on some baghouses be
emptied without generating visible emis-
sions. Comments received suggested that
this negative approach tended to make
the quality of air-cleaning operations de-
pendent upon the ability of EPA to an-
ticipate and to include in the standard
all the factors which would constitute
improper methods. Since the intent was,
and Is, to require high quality air-clean-
ing operations, the promulgated standard
requires proper installation, use, opera-
tion, and maintenance without precisely
denning the means to be used.
The proposed standard would have
prohibited the spraying of any, material
containing asbestos on any portion of
a Building or structure, prohibited the
spraying of any material containing as-
bestos In an area directly open to the
atmosphere, and limited emissions from
all other spraying of any material con-
taining asbestos to the amount which
would be emitted If specified air-cleaning
equipment were used. Comments re-
ceived pointed out that this standard
would: (1) Prohibit the use of materials
containing only the trace amounts of
asbestos which occur in numerous nat-
ural substances, (2) prohibit the use of
materials to which very small quantities
of asbestos are added In order to enhance
their effectiveness, and (3) prohibit the
use of materials in which the asbestos is
strongly bound and which would not gen-
erate particulate asbestos emissions. The
promulgated standard applies to those
uses of spray-on asbestos materials
which could generate major emissions of
particulate asbestos material. For those
spray-on materials used to insulate or
fireproof buildings, structures, pipes, and
conduits, the standard limits the asbestos
content to no more than 1 percent. Ma-
terials currently used contain from 10-
to 80-percent asbestos. The intent of the
1-percent limit is to ban the use of ma-
terials which contain significant quanti-
ties of asbestos, but to allow the Use of
materials which would: (1) Contain trace
amounts of asbestos which occur in
numerous natural substances, and (2)
Include very small quantities of asbestos
(less than 1 percent) added to enhance
the material's effectiveness. Although a
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL «, 1973
IV-2
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
standardized reference method has not
been developed to quantitatively deter-
mine the content of asbestos in a ma-
terial, there are acceptable methods
available, based on electron microscopy,
which Independent laboratories have de-
veloped. Determining the asbestos con-
tent of a material with these methods
costs approximately $300, and the results
are accurate within plus or minus 50
percent; these limits on accuracy were
taken into account in establishing the
1-percent limitation.
The proposed standard would have
prohibited the surfacing of any roadway
with asbestos tailings. The promulgated
standard applies to all roadways except
those on ore deposits; these roadways are
temporary, and control measures taken
to comply with the Bureau of Mines reg-
ulations prevent them from being a
major source which must be covered by
the standard promulgated herein. At this
time, the application of asbestos tailings
to public roadways Is not widely prac-
ticed, but because of the close proximity
of roads to the public, a ban on using
asbestos tailings on roadways is Included
in the promulgated standard to avoid a
future problem and stop the practice
where it is followed. The term "surfac-
ing" is defined to include the deposit of
asbestos tailings on roadways covered
with snow or ice; therefore, this practice
is prohibited.
Consideration was given to including
provisions in the standard requiring
proper disposal of the asbestos material
generated during demolition and col-
lected in control devices used to comply
with the requirements of this standard.
It was decided that this was not neces-
sary because the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration regulations
(29 CPR 1910.93a(h» include house-
keeping and waste disposal requirements.
These regulations require that any as-
bestos waste, consigned for disposal, be
collected and disposed of in sealed Im-
permeable bags or other closed, imperme-
able containers.
The potential environmental impact of
the promulgated standard was evalu-
ated, and it was concluded that the
standard will not cause any adverse ef-
fects. The potentially adverse environ-
mental effects of the standard are:
(1) The asbestos-materials which will
be collected in control devices and gen-
erated during demolition will have to be
disposed of or recycled.
(2) Materials, such as mineral wool,
ceramic wool, and fiberglass, will be sub-
stituted for asbestos presently contained
in spray-applied flreprooflng and insulat-
ing materials.
In some manufacturing operations, a
major portion of the asbestos-material
collected, by fabric filters is either re-
cycled to the process or is marketed for
other uses. For example, one asbestos tex-
tile mill recycles large quantities of
longer-fiber asbestos for process use and
sells more than 90 percent of the remain-
ing collected materials to a brake lining
manufacturer. Consequently, a signifi-
cant portion of the increased quantities
of "waste" asbestos materials which will
result from the implementation of the
standard will not require disposal. -Where
disposal is required, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration regu-
lations (29 CPR 1910.93a(h» require
that any asbestos waste, consigned for
disposal, be collected and disposed of in
sealed Impermeable bags or other closed,
Impermeable containers. The contamina-
tion of ground water supplies with asbes-
tos from landfill disposal is not consid-
ered a potential problem.
The substitution of ceramic wool, min-
eral wool, and fiberglass for asbestos is
not now known to be a problem. There
is no evidence that these materials cause
health effects in the concentrations found
in occupational or ambient environments.
Although the standard was not based
on economic considerations, EPA is
aware of the Impact (55) and considers It
to be reasonable. Costs among the various
sources covered by the standard are quite
variable. Although the standard may ad-
versely affect some individual plants or
companies which are marginal opera-
tions, it appears that such effects will be
minimal and the Impact to the asbestos
industries as a whole will not be large.
1. Cooke, W. E.: FlbroslB of the Lungs due
to the Inhalation of Asbestos Dust. Brit. Med,
J., 2. 147, 1924.
2. Cooke, W. E.: Pulmonary Asbeetosls.
Brit. Med. J., 2, 1024-1026, 1927.
3. Dreessen, W. C., J. M. Dallavalle, T. I.
Edwards, J. W. Miller, and R. B. Bayers: A
Study of Asbestos in the Asbestos Textile In-
dustry Public Health Bull. 241. Washington.
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938, 120 pp.
<. McDonald, B.: History of Pulmonary As-
bestosls, Brit. Med. J.. 2. 1026-1026, 1927.
5. Merewether, E. R. A.: The Occurrence of
Pulmonary Flbrosls and Other Pulmonary
Affections In Asbestos Workers, J. Ind.
Hyg.. 12, 198-222, and 12, 239-2S7, 1930.
6. Mills, R. O.: Pulmonary Aabestosls: Re-
port of a case. Minn. Med., 13, 496-499, 1930.
7. Soper, W. B.: Pulmonary Asbehtosls. A
report of a case and a review. Am. Rev.
Tuberc., 22, 671-684, 1930.
8. Bonser, O. M., ,J. 8. Paulds, and M. J.
Stewart: Occupational Cancer of the Urinary
Bladder In Dyestuffs Operatives and of the
Lung In Asbestos Textile Workers and Iron-
ore Miners. Am. J. Clin. Path., 25, 129-134.
1955.
9, Braun, D. C., and T. D. Truan: An
Epldemlologlcal Study of Lung Cancer in As-
bestos Miners. Arch. Ind. Health, 17, 634-
663, 1958.
10. Buchanan, W. D.: Asbestosis and Pri-
mary Intrathoradc Neoplasms. Ann. N.T.
Acad. Sci.. 132, 607-618. 1965.
11. Cordova, J. P., H. Tesluk, and R. P.
Knudtson: Asbestosis and Carcinomas of the
Lung. Cancer, IS, 1181-1187, 1962.
12. Doll, R.: Mortality from Lung Cancer In
Asbestos Workers. Brit. J. Ind. Med., 12, 81-86,
1966.
13. Dunn, J. E., Jr., and J. M. Weir: A
Prospective Study of Mortality of Several Oc-
cupational Groups — Special Emphasis on
Lung Cancer. Arch. Envlr. Health, 17, 71-76,
1968.
14. Dunn, J. E., Jr., and J. M. Weir: Cancer
Experience of Several Occupational Groups
Followed Prospectlvely. Am. J. Pub. Health,
55, 1367-1376, 1968.
15. Elwood, P. C., and A. L. Oochrane: A
Follow-up Study of Workers from an Asbestos
Factory. Brit. J. Ind. Med., 21, 804-307, 1964.
IS. Enterllne, P. E.: Mortality Among As-
bestos Product Workers in the United States,
Ann. N.T. Acad. Bel., 132, 166-165, 1966.
17. Enterllne, P. E., and M. A. Kendrlck:
Asbestos-dust Exposures at Various Levels
and Mortality. Arch. Envlr. Health, 15, 181-
186. 1967.
18. Oloyne, B. R.: Pneumoconlosls: A Hls-
tologlcal Survey of Necropsy Material In 1,205
Oases. Lancet, 1, 810-814. 1961.
19. Isselbacher, N. J., M. Klaus, and H. L.
Hardy: Asbestosis and Bronchogenlc Carci-
noma: Report of one autopsled case and re-
view of the available literature. Am. J. Med.,
15, 721-732, 1963.
20. Jacob, B., and M. Ancpach: Pulmonary
Neoplasla Among Dresden Asbestos Workers.
Ann. N.T. Acad. Sol., 132, 636-648.1966.
21. Klelnfeld, M., J. Messlte, and O. Kooy-
man: Mortality Experience in a Group of As-
bestos Workers. Arch. Envlr. Health, 15, 177-
180, 1967.
22. Knox, J. P., R. 8. Doll, and I. D. Hill:
Cohort Analysis of Changes in Incidence of
Bronchial Carcinoma in a Textile Asbestos
Factory. Ann. N.T. Acad. Scl., 132, 626-535,
1966.
23. Knox, J. P., 8. Holmes, R. Doll, and I. D.
Hill: Mortality from Lung Cancer and Other
Causes Among Workers in an Asbestos Textile
Factory. Brit. J. Ind. Med., 25, 293-303, 1968.
24. Lleben, J.: Malignancies in Asbestos
Workers. Arch. Envlr. Health, 13, 619-021,
1966.
25. Lynch, K. M., and W. A. Smith: Pul-
monary Asbestosis, in, Carcinoma of Lung In
Asbestos-slllcosls. Am. J. Cancer, 14, 66-64,
1935.
26. Mancuso, T. P., and A. A. El-Attar:
Mortality Pattern in a Cohort of Asbestos
Workers. J. Occup. Med.. t, 147-162, 1967.
27. McDonald, J. C., A. D. McDonald, D. W.
Olbbs, J. Blemlatyckl, and C. E. Rossi ter:
Mortality In the ChrysotUe Asbestos Mines
and Mills of Quebec. Arch. Envlr. Health. 22,
677-686, 1971.
28. Merewether, E. R. A.: Asbestosis and
Carcinoma of the Lung. In: Annual report of
the chief Inspector of factories for the year
1947. London: M. T. Stationary Office. 1940,
79 pp.
29. Newhouse, M. I.: A Study of the Mor-
tality of Workers In an Asbestos Factory. Brit.
J. Ind. Med., 28,294-301,1969.
30. Sellkoff, I. J., J. Churg, and E. C. Ham-
mond: Aabestos Exposure and Neoplasla.
JAMA, 188, 22-26,1964.
31. Borow, M., A. Cons ton, L. L. Llvornese,
and N. Schnlet: Mesothelloma and Its Associ-
ation with Asbestos. JAMA, 201, 687-591,
1967.
32. Elmes, P. C., W. T. E. McCaughey, and
O. L. Wade: Diffuse Mesothelloma of the
Pleura and Asbestos. Brit. Med. J., 1, 350-
353, 1965.
33. Elmes, P. C., and O. L. Wade: Relation-
ship Between Exposure to Asbestos and
Pleural Malignancy in Belfast. Ann. N.T.
Acad. Sci., 132, 649-667, 1966.
34. Entlcknap, J. B., and W. N. Smlther:
Peritoneal Tumor in Asbestosis. Brit. J. Ind.
Med., 21, 20-31, 1964.
35. Fowler, P. B. S., J. C. Sloper, and E. C.
Warner: Exposure to Asbestos and Mesothell-
oma of the Pleura. Brit. Med. J., 2, 211-213,
1964.
35. Hammond. E. C., I. J. Sellkoff, and J.
Churg: Neoplasla Among Insulation Workers
in the United States with Special Reference
to Intraabdomlnal Neoplasla. Ann. N.T. Acad.
Bel., 132, 619-626,1965.
37. Rourlhane, D. O'B.: The Pathology of
Mesotbelloma and an Analysis of Their As-
sociation with Aabestos Exposure. Thorax, IS,
268-278, 1964.
38. Lleben, J., and H. Plstawka: Mesothell-
oma and Asbestos Exposure. Arch. Envir.
Health, 14, 669-563, 1967.
39. Mann, R. H., J. L. Grosh, and W. M.
O'Donnell: Mesothelloma Associated with
Asbestosis. Cancer, 19, 621-626, 1966.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
IV-3
-------
40. McCaughey, W. T. E., O. L. Wade, and
P. C. Elmes: Exposure to Asbestos Dust and
Diffuse Pleural Mesothellomas. Brit. Med. J.,
2. 1397, 1962.
41. McDonald, A. D., A. Harper, O. A. El-
Attar, and J. C. McDonald: Epidemiology of
Primary Malignant Mcsothellal Tumors in
Canada. Cancer, 26, 914-919, 1970.
42. Newhousc, M. L., and H. Thompson:
Epidemiology of Mesotbellal Tumors in the
London Area. Anil. N.Y. Acad. Scl., 132, 579-
688. 1965.
43. Owen, W. G.: Mesothellal Tumors and
Exposure to Asbestos Dust. Ann. N.Y. Acad.
Scl., 132, 074-679, 1065.
44. Sellkoff. 1. J., J. Churg. and E. C. Ham-
mond: Relation Between Exposure to As-
bestos and Mesothelloma. New Eng. J. Med.,
272, 660-665, 1965.
45. Wright, O. W.: Asbestos and Health In
1969. Am. Rev. Resp. Dis., 100, 467-479, 1969.
46. SeDkoff, I. J., E. C. Hammond, and J.
Churg: Asbestos Exposure, Smoking, and
Neoplasia, JAMA, 204, 106-112, 1«68.
47. Wagner, J. C., C. A. Sleggs, and P.
Marchand: Diffuse Pleural Mesothelloma and
Asbestos Exposure In the North Western
Cape Province. Brit. J. Ind. Med., 17, 260-271,
1960.
48. Champion, P.: Two cases of Malignant
Mesothelloma After Exposure to Asbestos.
Am. Rev. Resp. Dls., 103, 821-826, 1971.
49. Sellkoff, I. J., and E. C. Hammond: En-
vironmental Epidemiology. III. Community
Effects of Nonoccupational Environmental
Asbestos Exposure. Am. J. Pub. Health, 58,
1658-1666, 1968.
50. Wagner, J.C.: Epidemiology of Diffuse
Mesothellal Tumors: Evidence of an Associa-
tion from Studies in South Africa and the
United Kingdom. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Scl., 132,
575-678, 1965.
51. National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health: Occupational Exposures
to Asbestos (Criteria for a Recommended
Standard). Washington, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (PHS,
HSMHA), 1972 (HSM 72-10267).
52. Sellkoff, I. J., W. J. Nicholson, and A. M.
Langer: Asbestos Air Pollution. Arch. Envir.
Health, 25, 1-13, 1972.
53. National Academy of Sciences: Asbestos
(The Need for and Feasibility of Air Pollu-
tion Controls). Washington, National Acad-
emy of Sciences, 1971, 40 pp.
S4. National Inventory of Sources and
Emissions—Cadmium, Nickel, and Asbestos.
Report by W. E. Davis & Associates under
contract to the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare (Contract No. CPA 22-
69-131). Feb. 1970.
55. Research Triangle Institute: Compre-
hensive Study of Specified Air Pollution
Sources to Assess the Economic Impact of Air
Quality Standards—Asbestos, Beryllium, Mer-
cury. Report prepared under contract to the
Environmental Protection Agency (Contract
No. 68-02-0088). Aug. 1972.

BERYLLIUM

Beryllium is a hazardous air pollutant
within the meaning of section 112. The
proven effects of airborne beryllium ma-
terials on human health Include both
acute and chronic lethal Inhalation ef-
fects (1, 2), as well as skin and conjunc-
tival effects (2). Insufficient data are
available to incriminate beryllium as a
human carcinogen (1, 2), but the lack of
of any mechanism for the total elimina-
tion of beryllium body burdens, and the
resulting possibly long residence time
may enhance the opportunity for cancer
Induction. The Beryllium Registry now
contains over 820 proven cases of beryl-
lium-related disease (3), but since many
References at end of article.
RULES AND REGULATIONS

of these were most likely due to exposure
prior to the institution of controls, proper
assessment of the period of exposure Is
not always possible (1, 2); it is known,
however, that chronic beryllium disease
Is associated not only with activities in-
volving extraction processes, but also that
64 registry cases resulted from exposure
during machining operations on beryl-
lium materials (3). There are at least 45
cases of nonoccupationallyincurred dis-
eases on file with the registry, of which
approximately half have been fatal (3).
and retrospective studies of the concen-
trations of beryllium that resulted In
some cases of chronic beryllium disease
from nonoccupational exposure have
concluded that the lowest concentration
which produced disease was greater than
0.01 fig/m' and probably less than 0.10
jig/m" (4).
In 1949, when It became apparent that
beryllium was a toxic material, the
Atomic Energy Commission adopted a
limit for beryllium concentrations In
community air (i.e., 0.01 ng of beryllium
per cubic meter of air averaged over a 30-
day period) (2). Beryllium refining com-
panies holding contracts with the AEC to
operate AEC-owned refinery facilities
and expand their own refinery capacity
to meet AEC's beryllium requirements,
were required to observe the community
air limit. With the termination of these
contracts in the 1961-63 period due to
a -reduction in AEC requirements for
beryllium, the refineries were no longer
subject to the AEC community air" limit.
The AEC's health and safety require-
ments, however, have continued to apply
to all AEC-owned facilities, some of
which fabricate and assemble beryllium
parts.
In the period since the Implementation
of the AEC guideline, no reported cases
of chronic beryllium disease have oc-
curred as a result of community exposure,
and the Committee on Toxicology of the
National Academy of Sciences concluded
that the AEC guideline limrt represents a
safe level of exposure (1).
Accordingly, the Administrator has de-
termined that in order to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect the
public health from beryllium, sources of
beryllium dust,'fume, or mist emissions
Into the atmosphere should be controlled
to Insure that ambient concentrations
of beryllium do not exceed 0.01 jig/m"—
30-day average.
The beryllium standard covers extrac-
tion plants, foundries, ceramic manufac-
turing plants, machine shops (processing
beryllium or beryllium alloys containing
in excess of 5 percent beryllium) and
disposal of beryllium-containing wastes.
Most affected beryllium sources are lim-
ited to emissions of not more than 10
grams per day. This level was determined
through dispersion estimates as the level
which would protect against the occur-
rence of 30-day average ambient concen-
trations exceeding 0.01 ng/ra'. The
sources covered by the standard are the
only known ones that could result in am-
bient beryllium concentrations in excess
of 0.01 Mg/m'. The assumptions and equa-
tions used to make the dispersion es-
timates are given in the Background In-
formation Report for Asbestos, Beryl-
lium, and Mercury (APTD-0753), pub-
lished at the time the standards were
proposed.
Rocket testing facilities are required
to meet the limit of 75 microgram-niin-
utes per cubic meter, accumulated dur-
ing any period of 2-consecutive weeks.
The limit for rocket testing facilities is
the same as that developed in 19GC by
the Committee on Toxicology of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences for protec-
tion of off-site personnel from intermit-
tent exposures to soluble beryllium coin-
pounds arising from the firing of rocket
motors (I).
The proposed standard did not include
a provision on open burning of beryllium-
containing waste. The promulgated
standard includes a ban on open burning
of beryllium-containing waste. This
change was made because information
received after proposal indicated that
such sources can cause ambient concen-
trations of beryllium in excess of 0.01
f.g/m' and because it is not possible to
control the emissions from open burning.
The promulgated standard does allow
disposal of beryllium-containing waste
in incinerators which are controlled so
as not to exceed the 10-gram-per-day
limit. The disposal of beryllium-contain-
ing explosive waste ie included in the
standard covering rocket testing.
The proposed standard would have
covered all machining operations which
use alloys containing any amount of be-
ryllium. Comments were received which
claimed that numerous machining opera-
tions use alloys containing low concen-
trations of beryllium and do not exceed
the 10-gram-per-day emission limita-
tion. An Investigation of these com-
ments revealed that alloys which include
beryllium either contain a large amount
(greater than 60 percent) or a small
amount (less than 5 percent), and that
approximately 8,000 machining opera-
tions use the low beryllium content al-
loys. Tests were conducted by the Agency
to determine the beryllium emissions
from the operations which use the low
beryllium content alloys (e.g. stamping,
tube drawing, milling, and sawing). The
results indicated that even if the emis'-
sions were vented to the outside air,
which they ordinarily are not, they would
be significantly below the 10-gram-per-
day emission limitation. After consider-
ing these results and the administrative
burden if the standard applied to such
a large number of sources, the proposed
standard was changed to exempt the
machining operations which use alloys
containing less than 5-percent beryllium.
The proposed standard would have al-
lowed all sources of beryllium to choose
between meeting the 10-gram-per-day
emission limit and complying by ,use of
ambient monitoring to insure that the
0.01 Mg/m1 30-day average is never ex-
ceeded. After reconsidering the proposed
standard and the difficulty inherent in
using ambient air quality data, .as op-
posed to emission data, as a regulatory
tool, it was decided to limit the use of
ambient data as a means of compliance
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
IV-4
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
to those sources which have demon-
strated over a reasonable past period
that they can meet and have met the
funbient limitation. Therefore, the stand-
ard being promulgated herein allows the
ambient option only to existing sources
which have 3 years of current ambient'
air quality data which demonstrate to
the Administrator's satisfaction that the
0.01 fig/m1 level can be met in the vicinity
of the source. A minimum of 3 years of
data was Judged to be necessary to dem-
onstrate that the ambient guideline of
0.01 pg/m* (30-day average) can be met
because of the possibility of monthly.
seasonal, and even annual variations in
ambient levels caused by variations In
meteorology and production. The exist-
ing sources which could qualify or this
option are four beryllium extraction
plants and, possibly, a small number of
machine shops. These sources were de-
signed or modified to facilitate compli-
ance with the 0.01 /ig/m ambient limit.
The potential environmental Impact of
this standard was evaluated and It was
concluded that the standard will not
cause any adverse effects. Beryllium Is
a very expensive material, and most gas
streams emitting significant quantities
of beryllium are controlled with high ef-
ficiency dry collectors, and the collected
material is recycled or sold back to the
primary producers. Wet collectors are
rarely used strictly as an air pollution
control device, but more often as an ex-
traction process control device allowing
recycle of waste liquids to the process.
Absolute niters are often used as final
niters and collect small quantities of
beryllium from very low concentration
gas streams. These filters are usually
buried in company owned or segregated
dumps or stored In unused mines or
buildings. Most of the solid wastes are
prepackaged prior to burial to prevent
escape of beryllium to the environment.
Although the standard is not based on
economic considerations, EPA Is aware of
the economic Impact (5) of the stand-
ard. Since most of the sources of beryl-
lium emissions are already controlled and
In compliance with the standard, the
economic impact will be very small.
RZFEUNCES

1. Committee on Toxicology, Nation*! Acad-
emy of Sciences: Air Quality Criteria for
Beryllium and Its Compounds. Report pre-
pared under contract to the VS. Public
Health Service (Contract N7onr-291(81)),
Washington, March 1,1966.
2. National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health: Occupational Exposure to
Beryllium (Criteria for a Recommended
Standard). Washington, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare (PHS,
HSMHA), 1972 (HSM 72-10268).
3. Massachusetts General Hospital, U.S.
Beryllium Case Registry, Boston, Mass.
4. Elsenbud, M., R. C. Wanta, C. Dustan,
L. T. Steadman, W. B. Harris, and B. 8. Wolf:
Nonoccupatlonal Berylllosis. J. Ond. Hyg.
Toxicol., 31,282-294, 1949.
5. Research Triangle Institute: Compre-
hensive Study of Specified Air Pollution
Sources to Assess the Economic Impact of Air
Quality standards—Asbestos, Beryllium, Mer-
cury. Report prepared under contract to the
Environmental Protection Agency (Contract
No. 68-02-0088). August 1972.
MERCURY

Mercury is a hazardous air pollutant
within the meaning of section 112. Ex-
posure to metallic mercury vapors may
cause central nervous system Injury, and
renal damage 11, 3). Experience with
mercury vapor comes almost exclusively
from animal experiments and industrial
exposures. Animal (rat) data Indicate a
risk of accumulation in critical systems
upon prolonged exposure, with a poten-
tial, for example, for selective brain dam-
age (2, 3)°. Prolonged exposure to about
100 micrograms mercury per cubic meter
of air Involves a definite risk of mercury
intoxication (3).
To determine the ambient air level of
mercury that does not Impair health, the
airborne burden must be considered to-
gether with the water- and food-borne
burdens. An expert group concluded,
based on Its analysis of several episodes
of mercury poisoning in Japan, that 4
micrograms of methylmercury per kilo-
gram of bodywelght per day would result
In the intoxication of a sensitive adult;
application of a safety factor of 10 yielded
an acceptable exposure of about 30 mi-
crograms per day for a 70-kilogram man,
and this level Is also believed to provide
satisfactory protection against genetic
lesions, and poisoning of the fetus and
of children «).
It should be noted that methylmercury
Is considered to be by far the most haz-
ardous mercury compound, particularly
via the ingestion of fish In which It has
been concentrated through the food
chain, (3,5). The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, In view of the present lim-
ited knowledge as to the effects of In-
haled mercury in the general population,
and In order to best assure the requisite
"ample margin of safety to protect the
public health," has concluded that it Is
prudent to consider exposures to methyl-
mercury (diet) and mercury vapor (air)
to be equivalent and additive. It has been
estimated that from average diets, over
a considerable period, mercury intakes of
10 micrograms per day may be expected
(6), so that, In order to restrict total
Intake to 30 micrograms per day, the
average mercury Intake from air would
have to be limited to 20 micrograms per
day. Assuming Inhalation of 20 cubic
meters of air per day, the air could con-
tain an average dally concentration of
no more than 1 mlcrogram of mercury
per cubic meter.
The standard promulgated herein reg-
ulates the only two sources, mercury ore
processing facilities and mercury cell
chlor-alkall plants, which have been
found to emit mercury In a manner that
could cause the ambient concentration to
exceed the Inhalation effects limits of 1
microgram per cubic meter. The stand-
ard limits emissions from these facilities
to not more than 2,300 grams per day.
The emission limit of 2,300 grams per
day was derived from dispersion esti-
mates as the level which would protect
against the violation of an average dally
ambient concentration of 1 microgram
per cubic meter. -The assumptions .and
References at end of article.
equations used to make the dispersion
estimates are given in the Background
Information Report for Asbestos, Beryl-
lium, and Mercury (APTD-0753), pub-
lished at the time the standards were
proposed.
Many mercury cell chlor-alkall plant
cell rooms present severe source testing
problems due to their design and con-
struction. Such sources may either recon-
struct the cell room so that accurate
source tests can be made or employ
housekeeping and maintenance practices
that minimize mercury emissions from
the cell room. Source test data and cal-
culations have Indicated that when such
practices are used, 1,300 grams per day
is a reasonable estimate of emissions
from the cell room. Therefore, when this
option is chosen, an emission of 1,300
grams per day will be assigned to the cell
room. This permits emissions of not more
than 1,000 grams per day from the hydro-
gen and end box ventilation streams com-
bined.
Compliance with the standard will be
determined by the EPA reference method
or EPA-approved substitute methods.
Where a chlor-alkall plant chooses the
housekeeping and maintenance practices
option, determination of compliance of
the cell room emission will be based on
the use of EPA-approved practices. A list
of approved practices may be obtained
from EPA on request to regional offices.
The only major change In the mercury
standard Is the Introduction of the above
option of assigning an emission number
to the cell room provided certain house-
keeping and maintenance requirements
are met. When this option is chosen, test-
ing is not required for emissions from the
cell room. This option Is offered because
comments, testimony, and EPA source
testing experience Indicated that most
existing cell rooms cannot be accurately
tested for mercury emissions. Accurate
emission tests are unduly complicated
and costly because of the cell room
configuration.
Some of the changes suggested in writ-
ten comments and public hearing testi-
mony were considered by EPA but not
made. The most significant one involved
the environmental chemistry of mercury,
that is, environmental mercury In the at-
mosphere Is transformed to mercuric
oxide by the action of ultraviolet radia-
tion, and since mercuric oxide Is not as
toxic as elemental mercury, the stand-
ard should be less stringent. This argu-
ment Is based on laboratory experiments
under controlled conditions with gener-
ated radiation. The reaction cited in the
testimony occurs when elemental mer-
cury Is irradiated with ultraviolet light
with a wavelength of 2,537 angstrom (A).
Naturally occurring ozone in the upper
atmosphere absorbs light in the ultra-
violet region below 3,000 A; (7) hence the
•wavelength of ultraviolet necessary for
the reaction is absent in the ambient at-
mosphere, and the reaction does not pro-
ceed at as high a rate as Implied by the
submitted testimony. Field measurements
of both mercury vapors and particulate
mercury In ambient air Indicate that as
much as 96 percent of the mercury de-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973

IV-5
-------
tected was In an elemental vapor form
(data collected by EPA at the Federal
Building In Moundsvllle, W. Va.).
The Environmental Protection Agency
recognizes that mercury and Its com-
pounds constitute a multimedia conta-
pounds constitute a multimedia contam-
ination problem, I.e., strong evidence
alter its natural distribution in the en-
vironment; that such uses may cause or
hasten additional deposits Into water
or soil over and above those occurring
naturally, thereby building up environ-
mental concentrations; and the mercury
levels accumulate In the biota, with the
result that potentially dangerous residue
levels are reached to foods consumed by
man and animals.
Current data on the environmental
transport of mercury do not permit a
clear assessment of the effect of mercury
emissions Into the atmosphere on the
mercury content in the aquatic and ter-
restrial environments. Results of ongoing
research will determine it there Is a need
for more comprehensive control of mer-
cury emissions Into the air. The stand-
ard promulgated herein is Intended to
protect the public health from the effects
of Inhaled mercury.
The environmental Impact of this
standard was evaluated and it was con-
cluded that the standard will not cause
any adverse effects since the control of
mercury emissions to the atmosphere
will have only minimal impact on other
areas of environmental concern. The
simplest control for mercury emissions to
the atmosphere is cooling to condense
the mercury. This cooling can be Indirect
or direct. By indirect cooling, the mer-
cury condenses and is retained for re-
cycle or sale. By direct cooling with a
water scrubber, the water Is usually re-
circulated after using centrifugal or
gravitational separation to remove the
mercury. The water cannot be reused
Indefinitely and eventually requires addi-
tional treatment to remove the mercury.
In most cases, such treatment facilities
are already being utilized to meet water
quality standards.
A widely used control device for par-
tlculate mercury emissions Is the mist
eliminator. Residues In these devices are
removed by gravity and washing with a
recycled liquid. Another control method
Is chemical scrubbing. In this system,
scrubbing liquids are continuously made
up while waste materials are usually re-
cycled to the process feed solutions. Re-
cycling of these liquids avoids significant
contamination of water with mercury
residues.
The use of adsorption beds Is a highly
efficient control method for removing
mercury from gas streams. Two primary
types are available: (1) Chemically
treated activated carbon beds, and (2)
molecular sieves. Most of the mercury
collected by activated carbon can be re-
claimed by retorting the carbon but this
usually destroys the carbon structure
and necessitates disposal. Some small
amount of residual mercury will remain
with the carbon, but It is tightly bound
and is not easily transferred Into the alr
or water. Regenerative molecular sieves
RULES AND REGULATIONS

do not cause a waste disposal problem
because the sieves can be regenerated
In place without retorting and can be
reused many times.
Although the standard was not baaed
on economic considerations, EPA la
aware of the Impact (.8) and considers It
to be reasonable. Because mercury is an
International commodity, world prices
determine the fortunes of the domestic
mercury mining Industry. Historically,
mercury prices fluctuate greatly in re-
sponse to small changes in demand or
supply. Domestic mercury mines are con-
sidered hi*h-cost producers in relation to
foreign producers. Because the average
price has dropped from $404 per flask
In 1969 to approximately $320 currently,
the number of domestic mercury mines
In operation has dropped sharply from
109 in 1969 to six or seven In March 1973.
As long as the price of mercury remains
below marginal costs of production (gen-
erally about $400). the remaining domes-
tic mines will be ill equipped to absorb
any cost Increases.
The total chlor-alkali Industry com-
prises 68 plants. Approximately 28 are
mercury cell plants and account for
about 27 percent of the U.S. production
of chlorine and caustic.
The future of the chlorine-caustic In-
dustry appears healthy. Demand for
chlorine Is expected to grow at an annual
rate of 6 percent projected from 1971.
Demand for caustic soda will grow at
least at the same rate as chlorine, and
perhaps faster. Prices for chlorine and
sodium hydroxide have been rising
steadily through the sixties Into 1871.
Based on these trends, the cost of control
to comply with the mercury standard will
be passed forward to the consumer. Use-
of these two basic commodities Is so di-
verse that any price Increases will be
well dispersed through all manufacturing
activities.
REFERENCES

1. Report of an International Committee:
Maximum Allowable Concentrations of mer-
cury Compounds. Arch. Envir. Health, IS, 891-
905, December 1069.
2. Clarkson, T. W.: The Pharmacology of
Mercury Compounds. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol-
ogy, 12. 375-406, 1972.
3. Prlberg, L.. and J. Voatal (Eds.): Mer-
cury In the Environment—A Toxicologies!
and Epldemlologlcal Appraisal. Prepared by
the Karollnska Institute Department of En-
vironmental Hygiene (Stockholm) for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Office
of Air Programs), November 1971.
4. Methylmercury In Pish; a Toxlcologlc-
Epldemlologlc Evaluation of Risks. Report
from an expert group. Nord, Hyg. Tlsdkr.
(Stockholm), Supplement 4, 1971 (English
translation).
5. Nelson, N., T. C. Byerly, A. C. Kolbye, Jr.,
L. T. Kurland, R. E. Bhaplro, S. I. Shlbko,
W. H. Stickle, J. E. Thompson, L. A. Van Den
Berg, and A. Welssler: Hazards of Mercury
(special report to the Secretary's Pesticide
Advisory Commit/tee, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, November 1670).
Envlr. Res., 4, 1-69, 1971.
0. Weatoo, O.: Mercury In Foodstuffs—Is
There a Great Bisk of Poisoning? VAR FODA,
4, 1-6, 1965.
7. Lelghton, P. A.: Photochemistry of Air
Pollution. Academic Press, 1961.
8. Research Triangle Institute: Compre-
hensive Study of Specliied Air Pollution
Sources to Assess the Economic Impact of
Air Quality Standards—Asbestos, Beryllium,
Mercury. Report prepared under contract to
the Environmental Protection Agency (Con-
tract No. 68-02-O088). August 1972.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The standards promulgated below are
applicable to new, modified, and existing
sources. Any new or modified source must
comply with the standards upon begin-
ning operation. Any existing source must
comply with the standards within 90
days after promulgation, unless a waiver
of compliance is granted.
After considering the proposed general
provisions and the comments received on
them, the Administrator made several
changes which are Included in the stand-
ards promulgated below. A new section
was added to specifically require new sta-
tionary sources to notify the Administra-
tor before beginnning operation. The
requirements for source reporting and
request for waiver of compliance were
combined into one section. The time for
submitting the source report was ex-
tended from 30 to 90 days to provide
sources with more time to complete the
Information required. Appendix A was
added to provide sources a description
and format of the Information required.
The proposed standards required all
sources of mercury and beryllium to test
their emissions within 3 months of the
effective date and at least once every 3
months thereafter; a provision was in-
cluded to allow the Administrator to
•waive the periodic tests for sources in
compliance with a standard. The stand-
ards promulgated below require the ini-
tial test within 90 days of the effective
date and Include a provision to allow the
Administrator to waive this requirement
If the source is meeting the standard or
has requested a waiver of compliance.
Periodic tests are not required unless
specifically requested by the Administra-
tor. The Administrator may cancel a
waiver of emission tests and n\ay require
a test under the authority of section 114
of the Act at any time. Appendix A speci-
fies the inf ormation which a.source must
provide the Administrator when applying
for a waiver of Initial emission testing.
The standards promulgated below do
not require the owner or operator to
request a waiver of compliance before a
specific date. However, the owner or op-
erator should submit the request within
30 days after the effective date of the
regulation to be assured that action will
be taken on the waiver application prior
to the 90th day after the effective date.
Continued operation in excess of a stand-
ard after the 90th day without a waiver
Is a violation of the act.
The Administrator may grant an exist-
ing source a waiver, permitting a period
of up to 2 years for compliance, provided
that steps will be taken during the waiver
period to assure that the health of per-
sons will be protected from Imminent
endangerment and provided that such
period is necessary for the installation of
controls. To be granted a waiver of com-
pliance, a source must submit a written
request to the Administrator and pro-
vide certain Information to assist the
Administrator in making a judgment.
FEDERAL RECISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—fRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
IV-6
-------
RULES AN1) REGULATIONS
Within 60 days after receiving a request,
the Administrator will notify the owner
or operator of approval or Intention to
deny the waiver. Any waiver of com-
pliance granted by the Administrator will
be in writing and specify conditions the
source must meet during the waiver
period. If the Administrator Intends to
deny a request, the owner or operator
will be given a specified time to provide
additional information or arguments
prior to final action on the request. Final
action on a request will be In writing by
the Administrator, and If denied, will In-
clude reasons for denial.
The President may exempt any new,
modified, or existing stationary source
from compliance with the standards for
a period of up to 2 years, provided the
technology is not available to implement
the standards and the operation of such
source is required for reasons of national
security. Also, the President may grant
exemptions for additional periods of 2
years or less.
The construction of a new source or
modification of an existing source cov-
ered by these standards cannot begin
without approval of the Administrator.
To obtain approval, the owner or opera-
tor of such sources must apply In writing
to the Administrator. Within 60 days,
the Administrator will notify the owner
or operator of approval or Intention to
deny approval. If the Administrator in-
tends to deny approval, a specified time
will be given to provide additional infor-
mation or arguments prior to final action
on the application. The final action on
any application will be in writing by the
Administrator, and If denied, will In-
clude the reasons for denial.
Although the demolition of buildings
or structures containing asbestos ma-
terial and the spraying of asbestos ma-
terial will in many cases be modifications
of existing stationary sources, the Ad-
ministrator's approval is not required be-
fore beginning such operations. Section
112(c)(l) of the act specifies that no
person may construct any new source or
modify any existing source"* • • unless
the Administrator finds that such source
if properly operated will not cause emis-
sions In violation of such standard." The
demolition and spraying provisions are
expressed In terms of procedures to be
followed. Therefore, if the source is prop-
erly operated, It will be complying with
the standard, and there Is no need for
the Administrator to make a finding with
respect to each new source subject to
these provisions.
Each source covered by these stand-
ards is required to submit to the Admin-
istrator within 90 days after promulga-
tion certain information pertaining to its
operation. Changes in the Information
must be submitted within 30 days after
the change, except where the change is
considered a modification. Then the re-
quirements for a modified source are
applicable.
Three terms are associated with deter-
mining compliance by means of source
testing: (1) Reference method, (2)
equivalent method, and (3) alternative
method. Reference methods are the pre-
ferred methods of sampling and analyz-
ing used to determine compliance. The
reference methods for beryllium and
mercury are Included In appendix B to
this part. An equivalent method Is any
method of sampling and analyzing which
has been demonstrated to the Admin-
istrator's satisfaction to have a con-
sistent and quantitatively known rela-
tionship to the reference method under
specified conditions. An alternative
method is any method of sampling and
analyzing which does not meet all the
criteria for equivalency but which can be
used In specific cases to determine com-
pliance. Alternative methods may be ap-
proved by the Administrator for source
testing; however, in cases where deter-
minations of compliance using an alter-
native method are disputed, use of the
reference method or its equivalent will
be required by the Administrator. An ap-
proved alternative method for beryllium
is Included in appendix B hereto.
All emission data provided to or ob-
tained by the Administrator in carrying
out these regulations will be available to
the public; Records, reports, or informa-
tion other than trade secrets will be
available to the public.
Pursuant to section 112(d)(l) of the
act, the Environmental Protection
Agency Intends to delegate the author-
ity to Implement and enforce national
emission standards (except with respect
to stationary sources owned or operated
by the United States) for hazardous air
pollutants to any State which submits an
adequate procedure to the Administrator.
The requisite procedure for requesting
such delegation will be Issued In the
future by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
The regulations for the national emis-
sion standards for asbestos, beryllium,
and mercury are hereby promulgated ef-
fective upon promulgation (April 6,
1973).
Dated: March 30, 1973.
ROBERT W. FBI,
Acting Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency.
A new Part 61 is added to Chapter 1,
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
Subpsrt A—Qeneral Provisions
Sec.
61.01 Applicability.
61.02 Definitions.
61.03 Abbreviations.
61.04 Address.
61.05 Prohibited activities.
61.06 Determination of constructor! or
modification.
61.07 Application for approval of construc-
tion or modification.
61.08 Approval by Administrator.
61.08 Notification of startup.
61.10 Source reporting and waiver request.
61.11 Waiver of compliance.
61.13 Emission tests and monitoring.
61.13 Waiver of emission tests.
61.14 Source test and analytical methods.
61.15 Availability of Information.
61.16 State authority.
Subpirt B—National Emission Stsndsrd for
Asbestos
61.20 Applicability.
61.21 Definitions.
Bee.
61.22 Emission standard.
61.23 Air cleaning.
61.34 Reporting.
•ubpart C—Nations! Emission Stsndsrd for
Beryllium
61.30 Applicability.
61.81 Definition*.
01.33 Emission standnrd.
61.33 Stack sampling.
61.34 Air sampling.
Bubpsrt D—National Emission Stsndsrd for
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
61.40 Applicability.
61.41 Definitions.
61.42 Emission standard.
61.43 Emission testing—rocket firing or pro-
pellant disposal.
61.44 Stack sampling.
Subpsrt E—Nstlonsl Emission Stsndsrd for
Mercury
61.60 Applicability.
61.61 Definitions.
61.62 Emission standard.
61.53 Stack sampling.
Appendix A—Compliance Status Information.
Appendix B—Test Methods.
Method 101—Reference method for determi-
nation of particular and gaseous mercury
emissions from stationary sources (air
streams).
Method 102—Reference method for determi-
nation of paniculate and gaseous mercury
emissions from stationary sources (hydro-
gen streams).
Method 108—Beryllium screening method.
Method 104—Reference method for determi-
nation of beryllium emissions from sta-
tionary sources.
AuTHomrrr: 42 TJ.S.C. 18570-7.

Subpart A—General Provisions

8 61.01 Applicability.

The provisions of this part apply to
the owner or operator of any stationary
source for which a standard Is prescribed
under this part.

g 61.02 Definitions.

As used In this part, all terms not de-
nned herein shall have the meaning given
them in the act:
(a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 1857etseq.).
(b) "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or his authorized repre-
sentative.
(c) "Alternative method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for an
air pollutant which does not meet all of
the criteria for equivalency but which has
been demonstrated to the Administra-
tor's satisfaction to, in specific cases, pro-
duce results adequate for his determina-
tion of compliance.
(d) "Commenced" means that an own-
er or operator has undertaken a con-
tinuous program of construction or
modification or that an owner or operator
has entered Into a contractual obligation
to undertake and complete, within a rea-
sonable time, a continuous program of
construction or modification.
(e) "Compliance schedule" means the
date or dates by which a source or cate-
gory of sources Is required to comply with
the. standards of this part and with any
steps toward such compliance which are
set forth in a waiver of compliance under
{61.11.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973

IV-7
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(f) "Construction" means fabrication,
erection, or Installation of a stationary
source.
(g> "Effective date" Is the date of
promulgation In the FEDKRAL Recisnn
of an applicable standard or other regu-
lation under this part.
(h) "Equivalent method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which has been demon-
strated to the Administrator's satisfac-
tion to have a consistent and Quantita-
tively known relationship to the reference
method, under specified conditions.
(1) "Existing source" means any sta-
tionary source which is not a new source.
(j) "Modification" means any physical
change In, or change In the method of
operation of, a stationary source which
Increases the amount of any hazardous
air pollutant emitted by such source or
which results In the emission of any
hazardous air pollutant not previously
emitted, except that:
(1) Routine maintenance, repair, and
replacement shall not be considered
physical changes, and
(2) The following shall not be con-
sidered a change In the method of
operation:
(1) An Increase In the production rate,
If such Increase does not exceed the op-
erating design capacity of the stationary
source:
(11) An Increase In hours of operation.
(k) "New source" means any stationary
source, the construction or modification
of which Is commenced after the publi-
cation In the FEDERAL REGISTER of pro-
posed national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants which will be
applicable to such source.
(1) "Owner or operator" means any
person who owns, leases, operates, con-
trols, or supervises a stationary source.
(m) "Reference method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant, as described In ap-
pendix B to this part.
(n) "Startup" means the setting In
operation of a stationary source for any
purpose.
(o) "Standard" means a national
emission standard for a hazardous air
pollutant proposed or promulgated under
this part.
(p) "Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or Installa-
tion which emits or may emit any air
pollutant which has been designated as
hazardous by the Administrator.
§ 61.03 Abbreviations.
The abbreviations used In tills part
have the following meanings:
•C—Degrees Centigrade.
cfm—Cubic feet per minute.
ft'—Square feet.
ft'—Cubic feet.
°F—Degrees Fahrenheit.
In—Inch.
1—Liter.
ml—Milliliter.
M—Molar.
m'—Cubic meter.
nm—Nanometer.
oz—Ounces.
v/v—Volume per volume.
yd'—Square yards.
w.g.—Water cage.
InHg—Inches of mercury.
InHiO—Inches of water.
g—Grama.
pig—"MilH^Tfllnff
N—Normal.
"R—Degree Ranklne.
min—Minute
sec—Second.
avg.—Average.
I.D.—Inside diameter.
O.D.—Outside diameter.
fg—Micrograms (10-* (ram).
%—Percent.
Hg—Mercury.
Be—Beryllium.

§ 61.O4 AJdreu.
AB requests, reports, applications, sub-
mlttals, and other communications to
the Administrator pursuant to this part
shall be submitted In duplicate and ad-
dressed to the appropriate regional office
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
to the attention of the Director, Enforce-
ment Division. The regional offices are as
follows:
Region I (Connecticut, Maine, Massa-
chusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont), John F. Kennedy Federal
Building, Boston, Mass. 02303.
Region n (New York, New Jersey,
Puerto Rteo, Virgin Islands), Federal
Office Building, 36 Federal Plaza (Foley
Square), New York, N.Y. 10007.
Region m (Delaware, District of Co-
lumbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Vir-
ginia, West Virginia), Curtis Building,
Sixth and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia.
Pa. 19106.
Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, Kentucky, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee). Suite 300,
1421 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, Oa.
30309.
Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Minne-
sota, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin),
1 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, m.
60606.
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), 1000 Pater-
son Street, Dallas, Tex. 76201.
Region VH (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska), 1735 Baltimore Street, Kan-
sas City. Mo. 64108.
Region VHI (Colorado, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wy-
oming), 916 Lincoln Towers, 1840 Lin-
coln Street, Denver, Colo. 80103.
Region IX (ArtEona, California,
Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, American
Samoa), 100 California Street, San
Francisco, Calif. 94111.
Region X (Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
Alaska), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Wash. 98101.

§ 61.05 Prohibited *cli viU<*.
(a) After the effective date of any
•tandard proscribed under this part, no
owner or operator shall construct or mod-
ify any stationary source subject to aoch
standard without first obtaining written
approval of the Administrator In accord-
ance with this subpart, except under an
exemption granted by the President
under section 112(c) (2) of tbje act.
Sources, the construction or """"
or which commenced after the publica-
tion date of the standards proposed to
to applicable to «uch source, are subject
to thin prohibition.
(b) After the effective date of any
standard prescribed under this part, no
owner or operator shall operate any new
source In violation of such standard ex-
cept under an exemption granted by the
President under section 112(c) (2) of the
act.
(c) Ninety days after the effective date
of any standard prescribed under this
part, no owner or operator shall operate
any existing stationary source In viola-
tion of such standard, except under a
waiver granted by the Administrator in
accordance with this subpart or under
an exemption granted by the President
under section 112(c) (2) of the act.
(d) No owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this part shall fall to
report, revise reports, or report source
test results as required under this part.
§ 61.06 Determination of construction
or modification.
Upon written application by an owner
or operator, the Administrator will make
a determination of whether actions taken
or Intended to be taken by such owner
or operator constitute construction or
modification or the commencement
thereof within the meaning of this part.
The Administrator will within 30 days
of receipt of sufficient Information to
evaluate an application, notify the owner
or operator of his determination.
§ 61.07 Application for approval of
construction or modification.
(a) The owner or operator of any new
source to which a standard prescribed
under this part 1* applicable shall, prior
to the date on which construction or
modification is planned to commence, or
within 30 days after the effective date
In the case of a new source that already
has commenced construction or modifi-
cation and has not begun operation, sub-
Bit to the Administrator an application
for approval of such construction or
modification. A separate application shall
be submitted for each stationary source.
(b) Each application shall Include:
(1) The name and address of the ap-
plicant.
(2) The location or proposed location
of the source.
<3) Technical information describing
the proposed nature, size, design, operat-
ing design capacity, and method of oper-
ation of the source, Including a descrip-
tion of any equipment to be used for
control of emissions. Such technical in-
formation shall Include calculations of
emission estimates In sufficient detail to
permit assessment of the validity of such
calculations.

§ 61.08 Approval by AduiiiiiMrnlor.
(a) The Administrator will, within 60
days of receipt of sufficient Information
to evaluate an application under { 61.07,
notify the owner or operator of approval
or IntfnUon to deny approval of con-
struction or modification.
O>) If the Administrator determines
that a stationary source for which an
No. 66—Pt. II 2
REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 6*—WH)AY, AMtt. 6. 1973
IV-8
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
application pursuant to 8 61.07 was sub-
mitted will. If properly operated, not
cause emissions in violation of a stand-
ard, he will approve the construction or
modification of such source.
(c) Prior to denying any application
for approval of construction or modifica-
tion pursuant to this section, the Admin-
istrator will notify the owner or operator
making such application of the Admin-
istrator's intention to issue such denial,
together with:
(1) Notice of the information and
findings on which such Intended denial
is based, and
(2) Notice of opportunity for such
owner or operator to present, within such
time limit as the Administrator shall
specify, additional information or argu-
ments to the Administrator prior to final
action on such application.
(d> A final determination to deny any
application for approval will be in writ-
ing and will set forth the specific grounds
on which such denial is based. Such final
determination will be made within 60
days of presentation of additional infor-
mation or arguments, or 60 days after
the final date specified for presentation,
If no presentation is made.
(e) Neither the submission of an ap-
plication for approval nor the Admin-
istrator's granting of approval to con-
struct or modify shall:
(1) Relieve an owner or operator of
legal responsibility for compliance with
any applicable provision of this part or
of any other applicable Federal, State,
or local requirement, or
(2) Prevent the Administrator from
implementing or enforcing this part or
taking any other action under the act.

§ 61.09 Notification of startup.

(a) Any owner or operator of a source
which has an initial startup after the
effective date of a standard prescribed
under this part shall furnish the Admin-
istrator written notification as follows:
(1) A notification of the anticipated
date of Initial startup of the source not
more than 60 days nor less than 30 days
prior to such date.
(2) A notification of the actual date
of initial startup of the source within 15
days after such date.

§ 61.10 Source reporting and waiver re-
qne»t.
(a) The owner or operator of any
existing source, or any new source to
which a standard prescribed under this
part is applicable which had an initial
startup which preceded the effective date
of a standard prescribed under this part
shall, within 90 days after the effective
date, provide the following Information
in writing to the Administrator:
(1) Name and address of the owner
or operator. »
(2) The location of the source.
.(3) The type of hazardous pollutants
emitted by the stationary source.
(4) A brief description of the nature,
size, design, and method of operation of
the stationary source Including the op-
erating design capacity of such source.
Identify each point of emission for each
hazardous pollutant.
(5) The average weight per month of
the hazardous materials being processed
by the source, over the last 12 months
preceding the date of the report.
(6) A description of the existing con-
trol equipment for each emission point.
(1) primary control device(s) for each
hazardous pollutant.
(11) Secondary control device(s) for
each hazardous pollutant.
(Ill) Estimated control efficiency (per-
cent) for each control device.
(7) A statement by the owner or oper-
ator of the source as to whether he can
comply with the standards prescribed In
this part within 90 days of tile effective
date.
(b) The owner or operator of an exist-
ing source unable to operate in compli-
ance with any standard prescribed under
this part may request a waiver of com-
pliance with such standard for a period
not exceeding 2 years from the effective
date. Any request shall be in writing and
shall Include the following information:
(1) A description of the controls to
be Installed to comply with the standard.
(2) A compliance schedule, including
the date each step toward compliance will
be reached. Such list shall include as a
minimum the following dates:
(1) Date by which contracts for emis-
sion control systems or process modifica-
tions will be awarded, or date by which
orders will be Issued for the purchase
of component parts to accomplish emis-
sion control or process modification;
(11) Date of initiation of onslte con-
struction or installation of emission con-
trol equipment or process change; •
(ill) Date by which onslte construc-
tion or installation of emission control
equipment or process modification is to
be completed; and
(Iv) Date by which final compliance is
to be achieved.
(3) A description of interim emission
control steps which will be taken during
the waiver period.
(c) Changes in the information pro-
vided under paragraph (a) of this section
shall be provided to the Administrator
within 30 days after such change, except
that if changes will result from modifica-
tion of the source, as defined in (61.02
(]), the provisions of S 61.07 and I61.08
are applicable.
(d) The format for reporting under
this section is Included as appendix A of
this part. Advice on reporting the status
of compliance may be obtained from the
Administrator.
§ 61.11 Waiver of compliance.
(a) Based on the Information provided
In any request under { 61.10, or other in-
formation, the Administrator may grant
a waiver of compliance with a standard
for a period not exceeding 2 years from
the effective date of such standard.
(b) Such waiver will be in writing and
will:
(1) Identify the stationary source
covered.
(2) Specify the termination date of
the waiver. The waiver may be termi-
nated at an earlier date if the conditions
specified under paragraph (b) (3) of this
section are not met.
(3) Specify dates by which steps to-
ward compliance are to be taken; and
impose such additional conditions as the
Administrator determines to be neces-
sary to assure installation of the neces-
sary controls within the waiver period.
and to assure protection of the health
of persons during the waiver period.
(c) Prior to denying any request for
a waiver pursuant to this section, the
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator making such request of the Ad-
ministrator's intention to issue such
denial, together with:
(1) Notice of the information and
findings on which such Intended denial
is based, and
(2) Notice of opportunity for such
owner or operator to present, within
such time limit as the Administrator
specifies, additional information or argu-
ments to the Administrator prior to final
action on such request.
(d) A final determination to deny any
request for a waiver will be In writing
and will set forth the specific grounds on
which such denial is based. Such final
determination will be made within 60
days after presentation of additional in-
formation or arguments, or 60 days after
the final date specified for such presen-
tation, if no presentation is made.
(e) The granting of a waiver under
this section shall not abrogate the Ad-
ministrator's authority under section 114
of the act.
§ 61.12 Emission te»U and monitoring.
(a) Emission tests and monitoring
shall be conducted and reported as set
forth in this part and appendix B to this
part.
(b) The owner or operator of a new
source subject to this part, and at the
request of the Administrator, the owner
or operator of an existing source sub-
ject to this part, shall provide or cause
to be provided, emission testing facili-
ties as follows:
(1) Sampling ports adequate for test
methods applicable to such source.
(2) Safe sampling platform(s).
(3) Safe access to sampling plat-
form (s).
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.
§ 61.13 Waiver of emission tests.
(a) Emission tests may be waived
upon written application to the Admin-
istrator if, in his judgment, the source
is meeting the standard, or if the source
is operating under a waiver of compliance
or has requested a waiver of compliance.
(b) If application for waiver of the
emission test is made, such application
shall accompany the information re-
quired by i 61.10. The appropriate form
is contained in appendix A to this part.
(c) Approval of any waiver granted
pursuant to this section shall not abro-
gate the Administrator's authority under
the act or in any way prohibit the Ad-
ministrator from later canceling such
waiver. Such cancellation will be made
only after notice Is given to the owner
or operator of the source.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973

IV-10
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(o) Spriiylag: There slmll be no visible
emissions to Die outside air from the
spray-on application ot materials con-
taining more than 1 percent asbestos, on
a dry weight basis, used to insulate or
fireproof equipment and machinery, ex-
cept as provided in paragraph (f) of this
section. Spray-on materials used to Insu-
late or fireproof buildings, structures,
pipes, and conduits shall contain less
than 1 percent asbestos on a dry weight
basis.
(1) Sources subject to this paragraph
are exempt from the requirements of
§ 61.05(a), § 61.07. and § 61,09.
(2) Any owner or operator who intends
to spray asbestos materials to insulate or
fireproof buildings, structures, pipes, con-
duits, equipment, and machinery shall
report such Intention to the administra-
tor at least 20 days prior to the com-
mencement of the spraying operation.
Such report shall include the following
Information:
(1) Name of owner or operator.
(ii) Address of owner or operator.
(ili) Location of spraying operation.
(iv) Procedures to be followed to meet
the requirements of this paragraph.
(f) Rather than meet the no-vislble-
emission requirements of paragraphs (a),
(c), and (e) of this section, an owner or
operator may elect to use the methods
specified by {61.23 to clean emissions
containing particulate asbestos material
before such emissions escape to, or are
vented to, the outside air.

§ 61,23 Air-cleaning.

If air-cleaning is elected, as permit-
ted by § 61.22 (f), the requirements of this
section must be met.
(a) Fabric filter collection devices
must be used, except as noted In para-
graphs (b) and (c) of this section. Such
devices must be operated at a pressure
drop of no more than 4 Inches water gage,
as measured across the filter fabric. The
airflow permeability, as determined by
ASTM method D737-69, must not exceed
30 ftymin/ft' for woven fabrics or 35
fF/min/ft' for felted fabrics, except that
40 ft'/mln/ft' for woven and 43 ft*/
min/ft' for felted fabrics Is allowed for
filtering air from asbestos ore dryers.
Each square yard of felted fabric must
weigh at least 14 ounces and be at least
one-sixteenth Inch thick throughout.
Synthetic fabrics must not contain fill
yarn other than that which is spun.
(b) If the use of fabric filters creates
a fire or explosion hazard, the adminis-
trator may authorize the use of wet col-
lectors designed to operate with a unit
contacting energy of at least 40 Inches
water gage pressure.
(c) The administrator may authorize
the use of filtering equipment other than
that described in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section If the owner or operator
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
administrator that the filtering of par-
ticulate asbestos material Is equivalent
to that of the described equipment.
(d> All air-cleaning equipment au-
thorized by this section must be properly
installed, used, operated, and maintained.
Bypass devices may be used only during
upset or emergency conditions and then
only for so long as It takes to shut down
the operation generating the particulate
asbestos material.
§ 61.24 Reporting.
The owner or operator of any existing
source to which this subpart is applicable
shall, within 90 days after the effective
date, provide the following Information
to the administrator:
(a) A description of the emission con-
trol equipment used for each process;
(b) If a fabric filter device Is used to
control emissions, the pressure drop
across the fabric filter in Inches water
gage.
(1) If the fabric filter device utilizes a
woven fabric, the airflow permeability
in ft'/mln/ft'; and, If the fabric is syn-
thetic, indicate whether the fill yarn is
spun or not spun.
(2) If the fabric filter device utilizes
a felted fabric, the density In oz/yd', the
minimum thickness In inches, and the
airflow permeability In ft'/mln/ft1.
(c) Such Information shall accompany
the information required by i 61.10. The
appropriate form is contained In appen-
dix A to this part.
Subpart C—-National EmJMlon Standard
for Beryllium
% 61.30 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to the following stationary
sources:
(a) Extraction plans, ceramic plants,
foundries, Incinerators, and propellant
plants which process beryllium ore, beryl-
lium, beryllium oxide, beryllium alloys,
or beryllium-containing waste.
(b) Machine shops which process
beryllium, beryllium oxides, or any alloy
when such alloy contains more than 5
percent beryllium by weight.

§ 61.31 Definition*.
Terms used In this subpart are de-
fined In the act, in subpart A of this
part, or In this section as follows: '
(a) "Beryllium" means the element
beryllium. Where weights or concentra-
tions are specified, such weights or con-
centrations apply to beryllium only,
excluding the weight or concentration of
any associated elements.
(b) "Extraction plant" means a fa-
cility chemically processing beryllium
ore to beryllium metal, alloy, or oxide,
or performing any of the intermediate
steps in these processes.
(c) "Beryllium ore" means any natu-
rally occurring material mined or
gathered for Its beryllium content.
(d) "Machine shop" means a facility
performing cutting, grinding, turning,
honing, milling, deburring, lapping,
electrochemical machining, etching, or
other similar operations.
(e) "Ceramic plant" means a manu-
facturing plant producing ceramic Items.
(f) "Foundry" means a facility en-
gaged In the melting or casting of
beryllium metal or alloy.
(g) "Beryllium-containing waste"
means material contaminated with
beryllium and/or beryllium compounds
used or generated during any process or
operation performed by a source subject
to this subpart.
(h) "Incinerator" means any furnace
used in the process of burning waste for
the primary purpose of reducing the
volume of the waste by removing com-
bustible matter.
(1) "Propellant" means a fuel and oxi-
dizer physically or chemically combined
which undergoes combustion to provide
rocket propulsion.
(j) "Beryllium alloy" means any metal
to which beryllium has been added in
order to increase its beryllium content
and which contains more than 0.1 per-
cent beryllium by weight.
(k) "Propellant plant" means any
facility engaged in the mixing, casting,
or machining of propellant.
§ 61.32 Emission standard.
(a) Emissions to the atmosphere from
stationary sources subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall not exceed 10
grams of beryllium over a 24-hour period,
except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(b) Rather than meet the require-
ment of paragraph (a) of this section,
an owner or operator may request ap-
proval from the Administrator to meet
an ambient concentration limit on beryl-
lium In the vicinity of the stationary
source of 0.01 /ig/m'. averaged over a
30-day period.
(1) Approval of such requests may be
granted by the Administrator provided
that:
(1) At least 3 years of data Is avail-
able which in the Judgment of the Ad-
ministrator demonstrates that the fu-
ture ambient concentrations of beryllium
in the vicinity of the stationary source
will not exceed 0.01 /ig/m', averaged over
a 30-day period. Such 3-year period shall
be the 3 years ending 30 days before the
effective date of this standard.
(11) The owner or operator requests
such approval in writing within 30 days
after the effective date of this standard.
- (Ill) The owner or operator submits a
report to the Administrator within 45
days- after the effective date of this
standard which report includes the fol-
lowing information:
(a) Description of sampling method
including the method and frequency of
calibration.
(b) Method of sample analysis.
(c) Averaging technique for determin-
ing 30-day average concentrations.
(d) Number, Identity, and location
(address, coordinates, or distance and
heading from plant) of sampling sites.
(e) Ground elevations and height
above ground of sampling inlets.
(/) Plant and sampling area plots
showing emission points and sampling
sites. Topographic features significantly
affecting dispersion including plant
building heights and locations shall be
Included.
(g) Information necessary for esti-
mating dispersion Including stack height,
inside diameter, exit gas temperature,
exit velocity or flow rate, and beryllium
concentration.
(fc) A description of data and proce-
dures (methods or models) used to de-
sign the air sampling network (i.e., num-
ber and location of sampling sites).
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973

IV-11
-------
U) Air sampling data Indicating beryl-
lium concentrations in the vicinity of the
stationary source for the 3-year period
specified in paragraph (b) (1) of this
section. This data shall be presented
chronologically „ and Include the beryl-
lium concentration and location of each
Individual sample taken by the network
and the corresponding 30-day average
beryllium concentrations.
(2) Within 60 days after receiving
such report, the Administrator will notify
the owner or operator In writing whether
approval Is granted or denied. Prior to
denying approval to comply with the pro-
visions of paragraph (b) of this section,
the Administrator will consult with
representatives of the stationary source
for which the demonstration report was
submitted.
(c) The burning of beryllium and/or
beryllium-containing waste, except pro-
pellants, Is prohibited except In Incinera-
tors, emissions from which must comply
with the standard.
g 61.33 Suck sampling.
(a) Unless a waiver of emission testing
Is obtained under 5 61.13, each owner or
operator required to comply with
{ 61.32 (a) shall test emissions from his
source,
(1) Within 90 days of .the effective
date In the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an Initial startup
date preceding the effective date; or
(2) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source which did not have
an Initial startup date preceding the ef-
fective date.
(b) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(c) Samples shall be taken over such a
period or periods as are necessary to ac-
curately determine the maximum emis-
sions which will occur In any 24-hour
period. Where emissions depend upon the
relative frequency of operation of differ-
ent types of processes, operating hours,
operating capacities, or other factors,
.the calculation of maximum 24-hour-
period emissions will be based on that
combination of factors which Is likely to
occur during the subject period and
which result in the maximum emissions.
No changes In the operation shall be
made, which would potentially Increase
emissions above that determined by the
most recent source test, until a new emis-
sion level has been estimated by calcula-
tion and the results reported to the Ad-
ministrator.
(d) All samples shall be analyzed and
beryllium emissions shall be determined
within 30 days after the source test. All
determinations shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter dis-
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following such determination.
(e) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and made available, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years.
§ 61.34 Air sampling.
(a) Stationary sources subject to
§ 61.32(b) shall locate air sampling sites
RULES AND REGULATIONS

in accordance with a plan approved by
the Administrator. Such sites shall be
located In such a manner as is calculated
to detect maximum concentrations of
beryllium In the ambient air.
(b) All monitoring sites shall be op-
erated continuously except for a reason-
able time allowance for instrument main-
tenance and calibration, for chancing
filters, or for replacemet of equipment
needing major repair.
(c) Filters shall be analyzed and con-
centrations calculated within 30 days
after filters are collected. Records of
concentrations at aD sampling sites and
other data needed to determine such con-
centrations shall be retained at the source
and made available, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years.
(d) Concentrations measured at all
sampling sites shall be reported to the
Administrator every 30 days by a regis-
tered letter.
(e) The Administrator may at any time
require changes in, or expansion of, the
sampling network.
Stibpart D—National Emission Standard
for BeryHlum Rocket Motor Firing
§ 61.40 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to rocket motor test sites.
§ 61.41 Definition*.
Terms used In this subpart are denned
In the Act, in Subpart A of this part, or
In this section as follows:
(a) "Rocket motor test site" means any
building, structure, facility, or Installa-
tion where the static test firing of a
beryllium rocket motor and/or the dis-
posal of beryllium propellant Is
conducted.
(b) "Beryllium propeHant" means any
propellant incorporating beryllium.
§61.42 Emission sUncta-d.
(a) Emissions to the atmosphere from
rocket-motor test sites shall not cause
time-weighted atmospheric concentra-
tions of beryllium to exceed 75 micro-
gram minutes per cubic meter of air
within the limits of 10 to 60 minutes,
accumulated during any 2 consecutive
weeks, hi any area In which an effect
adverse to public health could occur.
(b) If combustion products from the
firing of beryllium propellant are col-
lected in a closed tank, emissions from
such tank shall not exceed 2 grams per
hour and a maximum of 10 grams per
day.
§ 61.43 Emission testing—rocket firing
or propellant disposal.
(a) Ambient air concentrations shall
be measured during and after firing of a
rocket motor or propellant disposal and
In such a manner that the effect of these
emissions can be compared with the
standard. Such sampling techniques shall
be approved by the Administrator.
(b) All samples shall be analyzed and
results shall be calculated within 30 days
after samples are taken and before any
subsequent rocket motor firing or pro-
pellant disposal at the given site. All re-
sults shall be reported to the Adminis-
trator by a registered letter dispatched
before the close of the next business day
following determination of such results.
(c) Records of air sampling test results
and other data needed to determine in-
tegrated Intermittent concentrations
shall be retained at the source and made
available, for Inspection by the Admin-
istrator, for a minimum of 2 years.
(d) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an air sam-
pling test, so that he may at his option
observe the test.
§61.44 Stack sampling.
(a) Sources subject to 8 61.42(b) shall
be continuously sampled, during release
of combustion products from the tank, in
such a manner that compliance with the
standards can be determined. The pro-
visions of { 61.14 shall apply.
(b) All samples shall be analyzed, and
beryllium emissions shall be determined
within 30 days after samples are taken
and before any subsequent rocket motor
firing or propellant disposal at the given-
site. All determinations shall be reported
to the Administrator by a registered let-
ter dispatched before the close of the
next business day following such deter-
minations.
(c) Records of emission test results and
other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and made available, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years.
(d) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.
Subpart E—National Emission Standard
for Mercury
§ 61.50 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to those stationary sources which
process mercury ore to recover mercury,
and to those which use mercury chlor-
alkali cells to produce chlorine gas and
alkali metal hydroxide.
g 61.51 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined
In the act, in subpart A of this part, or in
this section as follows:
(a) "Mercury" means the element mer-
cury, excluding any associated elements,
and Includes mercury In participates, va-
pors, aerosols, and compounds.
(b) "Mercury ore" means a mineral
mined specifically for its mercury con-
tent.
(c) "Mercury ore processing facility"
means a facility processing mercury ore
to obtain mercury.
(d) "Condenser stack gases" mean the
gaseous effluent evolved from the stack of
processes utilizing heat to extract mer-
cury metal from mercury ore.
(e) "Mercury chlor-alkali cell" means
a device which is basically composed of
an electrolyzer section and a denuder
(decomposer) section and utilizes mer-
cury to produce chlorine gas, hydrogen
gas, and alkali metal hydroxide.
(f) "Mercury chlor-alkali electrolyzer"
means an electrolytic device which is part
of a mercury chlor-alkali cell and utilizes
a flowing mercury cathode to produce
chlorine gas and alkali metal amalgam.
FEDERAL MOISTED, VOl. 38, NO. 6*—FRIDAY, AMR 6, 1*73
IV-12
-------
(g) "Denuder" means a horizontal or
vertical container which is part of a mer-
cury chlor-alkall cell and In which water
and alkali metal amalgam are converted
to alkali metal hydroxide, mercury, and
hydrogen gas hi a short-circuited, elec-
trolytic reaction.
(h) "Hydrogen gas stream" means a
hydrogen stream formed In the chlor-
alkali cell denuder.
(i) "End box" means a container(s)
located on one or both ends of a mercury
chlor-alkall electrolyzer which serves
as a connection between the electrolyzer
and denuder for rich and stripped
amalgam.
(j) "End box ventilation system"
means a ventilation system which col-
lects mercury emissions from the end-
boxes, the mercury pump sumps, and
their water colection systems.
(k) "Cell room" means a structure(s)
housing one or more mercury electro-
lytic chlor-alkali cells.

§ 61.52 Emission standard.
Emissions to the atmosphere from sta-
tionary sources subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall not exceed 2,300
grams of mercury per 24-hour period.
§61.53 Stack sampling.
(a) Mercury ore processing facility.
(1) Unless a waiver of emission testing
Is obtained under 8 61.13, each owner
or operator processing mercury ore shall
test emissions from his source,
(1) Within 90 days of the effective
date in the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial start-
up date preceding the effective date; or
(ii) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source which did not have
an initial startup date preceding the ef-
fective date.
(2) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(3) Samples shall be taken over such
a period or periods as are necessary to
accurately determine the maximum
emissions which will occur In a 24-hour
period. No changes In the operation shall
be made, which would potentially In-
crease emissions above that determined
by the most recent source test, until the
new emission level has been estimated by
calculation and the results reported to
the Administrator.
(4) All samples shall be analyzed, and
mercury emissions shall be determined
within 30 days after the source test. Each
determination will be reported to the Ad-
ministrator by a registered letter dis-
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following such determination.
(5) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and made available, for Inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years.
(b) Mercury chlor-alkall plant—hy-
drogen and end-box ventilation gas
streams.
(1) Unless a waiver of emission test-
Ing is obtained under 5 61.13, each owner
or operator employing mercury chlor-
alkall ceU(s) shall test emissions from
his source,
(1) Within 90 days of the, effective
RULES AND REGULATIONS

date In the case of-an existing source or
a new source which has an Initial startup
date preceding the effective date; or*
(11) Within 90 days of startup In the
case of a new source which did not have
an Initial startup date preceding the ef-
fective date.
(2) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(3> Samples shall be taken over such
a period or periods as are necessary to
accurately determine the maximum emis-
sions which will occur in a 24-hour
period. No changes in the operation shall
be made, which would potentially In-
crease emissions above that determined
by the most recent source test, until the
new emission has been estimated by cal-
culation and the results reported to the
Administrator.
(i) All samples Shall be analyzed and
mercury emlslons shall be determined
within 30 days after the source test. All
the determinations will be reported to
the Administrator by a registered letter
dispatched before the close of the next
business day following such determina-
tion.
(5) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and made available, for inspection by
the Administrator, for a minimum of
2 years.
(c) Mercury chlor-alkall plants—
cell room ventilation system.
(1) Stationary sources using mercury
ohlor-alkall cells may test cell room
emissions In accordance with paragraph
(c)(2) of this section or demonstrate
compliance with paragraph (c) (4) of this
section and assume ventilation emissions
of 1,300 ems/day of mercury.
(2) Unless a waiver of emission test-
Ing Is obtained under i 61.13, each owner
or operator shall pass all cell room air
In forced gas streams through stacks
suitable for testing,
(1) Within 90 days of the effective date
In the case of an existing source or a new
source which has an Initial startup date
preceding the effective date; or
(11) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source which did not have
an initial startup date preceding the
effective date.
(3) The Administrator shall be noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(4) An owner or operator may carry
out approved design, maintenance, and
housekeeping practices. A list of ap-
proved design, maintenance, and house-
keeping practices may be obtained from
the Administrator.
APPENDIX A

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Compliance Status Information

I. SOURCE REPORT

Instructions; Owners or operators
pollu
i lU
R 5
l"^ '
AIJCR
EPA
1 ,

ftp
USE ONLY
. . 1 .
J
CTY
• j "l
sc
!8 .80
J NDC LJ

of sources of hazardous pollutants
subject to the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous A1r
Pollutants are required to submit
the Information contained In-
sertion I to the appropriate
Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Office before (date which
1s 90 days after the standards'are promulgated). A listing of regional offices
1s provided in I 61.04.

A. SOURCE INFORMATION.

1. Identification/Location • Indicate the name and address of each
source.
A2.9
A48.
A68.
NUMBERSTREET ADDRESS
BT9
•J™^^—4«^^^^^^J
,COUNTY
% ujEX
STATl:
-------
I
M
£>.
3. Source Description - Briefly state the nature of the source (e.g.,
"Chlor-alkall Plant", or "Machine Shop").

€19
4. Alternative Mailing Address - Indicate an.alternative mailing address
if correspondence 1s to be directed to a location different than
that specified above.
C44
1 1
STREET ADDRESS
C63
04
C77
CITY
C78 C79

STATE
075
D79
TTu.
/IP CODE
5. Compliance Status - The emissions frohi this source can cannot
net the emission limitations contained 1n the National Emission
Standards on or before (date which is 90 days after the promulgation
Of the standards).
Signature of owner, operator or other
responsible official

NOTE: If the emissions from the source will exceed those limits set
by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
the source will be in violation and subject to Federal enforcement
actions unless granted a waiver of compliance by the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Information needed
for such waivers Is listed in Section II of this form.

I
j EPA USE
I

614 615 £46
EP 5CC

653(

B. PROCESS INFORMATION. Part B should be coveted separately for each
point of emission for each hazardous pollutant.
1. Process Description - Provide a brief description of each process
(e.g., "hydrogen end box" 1n a mercury chlor-alkall plant,
"grinding machine" in a beryllium machine shop). Use additional
sheets 1f necessary.
G21
2. Pollutant Emitted - Indicate the type of hazardous pollutant emitted
by the process. Indicate "AB" for asbestos, "BE" for beryllium, or
"H6" for mercury.

619 620
3. Amount of Pollutant - Indicate the average weight of the hazardous
material named 1n Item 2 which enters the process In pounds per
month (based on the previous twelve months of operation).
G54
I _.,
660
4. Control Devices
Indicate the type of pollution control devices, It any. used
to reduce the emissions from the process (e.g., venturl
scrubber, baghouse, wet cyclone) and the estimated percent
of the pollutant which the device removes from the process
gas stream.
H19
H34. 161 H53
PRIMARY CONTROL
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE TYPE
PERCENT
PERCENT.
EFFICIENCY
H35
I . . ,
5EO
XOND/WT CONTROL DEVICE TYPE
H50
i i . I
H54 me

PERCEnT tEMoVAL
EFFICIENCY
b. Asbestos Emission Control Devices On7y
1. If a baghouse 1s' specified In Item 4s give the following
Information:

The air flow permeability In cubic feet per minute per
square foot of fabric area:
A1r flow parmtablllty •
eflVft?
o
I
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
-------
• The pressure drop In Inches water Gauge across the
filter at which the baghouse 1s operated

Operating pressure drop » Inches w.g.

• If the baghouse material contains synthetic" fill yarn,
check whether this material 1s spun F1 or'not spun | |.

If the baghouse utilizes a felted fabric, give the
minimal thickness In Inches and the density 1n ounces
per square yard.
Thickness
Jlnches Density -,
11. If * wet collection device Is specified In Item 4a. give
the designed unit contacting energy In Inches water gauge,
Unit contacting energy <
Inches W.g.
The reporting Information provided 1n Section I must accompany this
application. Applications should be sent to the appropriate EPA
regional office.

1. Processes Involved - Indicate the process or processes emitting
hazardous pollutants to which emission controls are to be applied.
2. Controls

a. Describe the proposed type of control device to bt added or
modification to be made to the process to reduce tin emissions
of hazardous pollutants to an acceptable level. Use additional
sheets If necessary.
EPAOSECNLY
I1,
R
EPA USE ONLY
1 . 1 . . , 1
s c

' sc
"l

MOVER REQUESTS

A. WIVER OF OmiAhtE. Owners
or operators of sources unable
to operate In compliance with
the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants »y
(date which Is 90 days after
the standards are promulgated) may request a waiver of compliance from the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Aqency for the time period
necessary to Install appropriate control devices or make modifications
to achieve compliance. The Administrator may grant a waiver of compliance
with the standard for a period not exceeding two years from the effective
date of the hazardous pollutant standards If he finds that such period
Is necessary for the Installation of controls and that steps will be
taken during the period of the waiver to assure that the health of
persons will be protected from Imminent endangement.
Describe the measures that will be taken during the wetver
period to assure that the health of persons will be protected
from Imminent endangeraent. Use additional sheets If necessary.
Increments of Progress - specify the dates by which the following
Increments of progress will be net.
Date by which contracts for emission control sys'
modifications will be awarded; or date by which orders
Issued for the purchase of the compomntrparts to accomplish
emission control or process modification.
or process
w111.be
•n™ As Sdor
Date of Initiation of en-site construction or Installation of
emission control equipment or process <
FEDERAL IEGISTER, VOL. 31. NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIl 6. 1973
-------
i
M
CTi
9
I
I
Data by which on-slte construction or Installation of fflrtsslo,
control equipment or process modification 1s to be completed.

ifriv V^R

Date by which final coup!lance 1s to be achieved.
LS4 L59
t , I t ."I 04
DAY Yflft
Signature of owner or operator
8. WAIVER OF EMISSION TESTS. A waiver of emission testing may be granted
to owners or operators of sources of beryllium or mercury pollutants 1f.
In the Judgment of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency the emissions from the source comply with the appropriate
standard or 1f the owners or operators of the source have requested a
waiver of compliance or have been granted a waiver of compliance. •
This application should accompany the reporting Information provided
In Section I.
1. Reason - State the reasons for requesting a waiver of emission
testing. If the reason stated 1s that the emissions from the
source 1s within the prescribed limits, documentation of this
condition oust be attached.
APPENDIX B—TEST METHODS
METHOD 101. EXFEKENCE METHOD FOB DETER-
MINATION Or FABTICULATE AND GASEOV8 MEB-
CHBT EMISSIONS FBOM STATIONARY SOURCES
(AIE STREAMS)
1. Principle and applicability—\.\ Prin-
ciple. Participate and gaseous mercury emis-
sions are Isoklnetlcally sampled from the
source and collected In acidic Iodine mono-
chloride solution. The mercury collected (In
the mercuric form) Is reduced to elemental
mercury In basic solution by hdrozylamlne
sulfate. Mercury Is aerated from the solution
and analyzed using spectrophotometry.
1.2 Applicability. This method Is applica-
ble for the determination of paniculate and
gaseous mercury emissions when the carrier
gas stream Is principally air. The method Is
for use In ducts or stacks at -stationary
Signature of the owner or operator

sources. Unless otherwise specified," thin
method Is not Intended to apply to gas
streams other than those emitted directly to
the atmosphere without further processing.
2. Apparatus—2.1 Sampling train. A sche-
matic of the sampling train used by EPA is
shown In figure 101-1. Commercial models
of this train are available, although con-
struction details are described In APTD-
0581,1 and operating and maintenance proce-
dures are described In APTD-0576. The com-
ponents essential to this sampling train are
the following:
1 These documents are available for a nomi-
nal cost from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service, U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Sprlngfleld, Va.
22151.
ACID
TRAP
HEATED AREA 'FILTER HOLDER THERMOMETER/CHECK
'(OPTIONAL)
: TYPES /
-'PITOT TUBE
VACUUM
LINE
IMPINGERS ICE BATH
BY-PASS.VALVE
PITOT
THERMMETERS1
DRY TEST METER
AIR-TIGHT
PUMP
Floure 101-1. Mercury sampling train
3.1.1 Notale. Stainless steel or glass with
sharp, tapered leading edge.
3.1.3 Probe. Sheathed Fyrez* glass. A
heating system, capable of maintaining a
minimum gas temperature* of 2W* F at the
probe outlet during Mmpung may be used to
prevent condensation from occurring.
3.13 Pitot tube. Type 8 (Figure 101-3),
or equivalent, with a coefficient within 8 per-
cent over the working range, attached to
probe to monitor stack gas velocity.
3.1.4 Impingers. Four Greenburg-Smlth
tmplngers connected In series with glass ball
joint fittings. The first, third, and fourth 1m-
plngers may be modified by replacing the
tip with a one-half Inch ID glass tube ex-
tending to one-half Inch from the bottom of
the flask.
2.1.S Ada Trap. Mine Safety Appliances
Air Line Filter, Catalogue Number 81867,
with acid absorbing cartridge and suitable
connections, or equivalent.
3.1.0 Metering tyttem. Vacuum gauge,
leaJcless pump, thermometers capable of
measuring temperature to within 5* F, dry
gas meter with 3 percent accuracy, and re-
lated equipment, described In APTD-0681,
to maintain an leoklnetlo sampling rate and
to determine sample volume.
1 Mention of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Flam 101-2. PlloltuO-O
2.1.7 Filter Holder (optional) -Pyrex glass.
A niter may be used In cases where the gas
stream to be sampled contains large quan-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
-------
titles of partlculate matter. The filter holder
must provide a positive seal against leakage
from outside or around the filter. A heating
system capable of maintaining the filter at
a minimum temperature of 260' F. ahould
be used to prevent condensation from occur-
ring.
2.1.B Barometer. To measure atmospheric
pressure to ±0.1 In Hg.
2.3 Measurement of stack conditions
(stack pressure, temperature, moisture and
velocity)—2.2.1 Pilot tube. Type 8, or
equivalent, with a coefficient within 6 percent
over the working range.
2.2.2 Differential pressure gauge. Inclined
manometer, or equivalent, to measure veloc-
ity held to within 10 percent of the minimum
value. Mlcromanometers should be used If
warranted.
2.2.3 Temperature gauge. Any tempera-
ture measuring device to measure stack tem-
perature to within 1 • P.
2.2.4 Pressure gauge. Pltot tube and in-
clined manometer, or equivalent, to measure
stack pressure to within 0.1 In Hg.
2.2.6 Moisture determination. Wet and
dry bulb thermometers, drying tubes, con-
densers, or equivalent, to determine stack
gas moisture content to within 1 percent.
2.3 Sample recovery—23.1 Leakiest glatt
sample bottles. 600 ml and 100 ml with Teflon
lined tops.
2.3.2 Graduated cylinder. 260 ml.
2.3.3 Plastic jar. Approximately 300 ml.
2.4 Analysis—2.4.1 Spectrophotometer.
To measure absorbance at 263.7 "m Perkln
Elmer Model 303. with a cylindrical gas ceU
(approximately 1.6 In. O-D. z 7 In.) with
quartz glass windows, and hollow cathode
eource, or equivalent.
2.42 Gas sampling bubbler. Tudor Scien-
tific Qlass Co., Bmog Bubbler, Catalogue No.
TP-1160, or equivalent.
2.43. Recorder. To match output of spec-
trophotometer.
3. Reagents—3.1 Stock reagents—3.1.1
Potassium iodide. Reagent grade.
3.12 Distilled water—8.1.3 Potassium
iodide solution, 25 percent. Dissolve 960 g
of potassium Iodide (reagent 8.1.1) In dis-
tilled water and dilute to 1 to 1.
3.1.4 Hydrochloric acid. Concentrated.
3.1.5. Potassium iodate. Reagent grade.
3.1.6 Iodine monochlorlde (JCl) 1.0H. To
800 ml. of 26% potassium Iodide solution
(reagent 3.13). add 800 ml. of concentrated
hydrochloric acid. Cool to room temperature.
With vigorous stirring, slowly add 186 g. of
potassium Iodate and continue stirring until
all free Iodine has dissolved to give a clear
orange-red solution. Cool to room tempera-
ture and dilute to 1800 ml. with distilled
water. The solution should be kept In amber
bottles to prevent degradation.
3.1.7 Sodium hydroxide pellets. Reagent
grade.
3.1 £ Nitric acid. Concentrated.
3.1.0 Hi/droxylamine sulfate. Reagent
grade.
3.1.10 Sodium chloride. Reagent grade.
3.1.11 Mercuric chloride. Reagent grade.
32 Sampling—82.1 .Absorbing solution,
OJM Id. Dilute 100 ml. of the 1.0M ZO1
stock solution (reagent 3.1.6) to 1 to 1
with distilled water. The solution should be
kept in glass bottles to prevent degradation.
This reagent should be stable for at least 9
months; however, periodic checks should be
performed to Insure quality.
3.2.2 Waxh acid. 1:1 V/V nitric acid-
water.
3.2.3 Distilled, deionized water.
3.2.4 Silica gel. Indicating type, 6 to 10
mesh dried at 360* F. for 2 hours.
3.2.6 Filter (optional). Glass fiber, Mine
Safety Appliances 1106BH, or equivalent. A
filter may be necessary In cases where the
gas stream to be sampled contains Urge
quantities of partlculate matter.
RULES AND ftEGULATIONS

3.3 Analysis—3.3.1 Sodium hydroxide,
10 AT.—Dissolve 400 g of sodium hydroxide
pellets In distilled water and dilute to 1 to 1.
8.8.2 Reducing agent, 12 percent hydrox-
tilamine rulfate, 12 percent sodium chlo-
ride.—To 80 ml of distilled water, add 12 g
of hydroxylamme sulfate and 12 g of sodium
chloride. Dilute to 100 ml. This quantity Is
sufficient tor 90 analyses and must be pre-
pared dally.
32.3. Aeration gat.—Zero grade air.
33.4 Hydrochloric acid, 0.3N.—Dilute 96.6
ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid to 1 to
1 with distilled water.
3.4 Standard mercury solutions—8.4.1
Stock solution.—Add 0.1364 g of mercuric
chloride to 80 ml of 02N hydrochloric acid.
After the mercuric chloride has dissolved,
add 0.3N hydrochloric acid and adjust the
volume to 100 ml. One ml of this solution
Is equivalent to 1 mg of free mercury.
8.42 Standard solutions.—Prepare cali-
bration solutions by serially diluting the
stock solution (3.4.1) with OJN hydrochlo-
ric acid. Prepare solutions at concentrations
In the linear working cange for the Instru-
ment to be used. Soutlons of 02 #g/ml, 0.4
*g/ml and 0.6 jtg/ml have been found ac-
ceptable for most Instruments. Store all
solutions In glass-stoppered, glass bottles.
These solutions should be stable for at least
9 months; however, periodic checks should
be performed to insure quality.

4. Procedure.—4.1 Guidelines for source
testing are detailed In the following sections.
These guidelines are generally applicable;
however, most sample sites differ to some
degree and temporary alterations such as
•tack extensions or expansions often are re-
quired to ensure the best possible sample
site. Further, since mercury is hazardous,
care ahould be taken to minimise exposure.
Finally, since the total quantity of mercury
to be collected generally Is small, the test
must be carefully conducted to prevent con-
tamination or loss of sample.
42 Selection of a sampling site and mini-
mum number of traverse points:
42.1 Select a suitable sampling site that
is as close as is practicable to the point of
atmospheric emission. If possible, stacks
smaller than 1 foot In diameter should not
be sampled.
4.2.2 The sampling site should be at least
eight stack or duct diameters downstream
and two diameters .upstream from any flow
disturbance such as a bend, expansion, or
contraction. For a rectangular cross section,
determine an equivalent diameter from the
following equation:

2I.W
~L+W C<1 J01 *
where:
A«=Equlvalent diameter.
L=Length.
W=Wldth.

42.8 When the above sampling site cri-
teria oan be met, the minimum number of
traverse points Is four (4) for stacks 1 fool
in diameter or less, eight (8) for stacks larger
than 1 foot but 2 feet in diameter or less, and
twelve (12) for stacks larger than 2 feet.
42.4 Some sampling situations may ren-
der the above sampling site criteria Imprac-
tical. When this Is the case, choose a con-
venient sampling location and use figure
101-8 to determine the minimum number of
traverse points. However, use figure 101-3
only for stacks 1 foot In diameter or larger.
42.6 To use figure KU-8. first measure
the distance from the chosen sampling loca-
tion to the nearest upstream and downstream
disturbances. Divide ttHs distance by the
diameter or equivalent diameter to deter-
mine the distance In terms of pipe diameters.
Determine the corresponding number of
traverse points for each distance from fig-
ure 101-3. Select the higher of the two num-
bers of traverse points, or a greater value,
such that for circular stacks the number Is
a multiple of four, and for rectangular stacks
the number follows the criteria of section
422.
42.6 If a selected sampling point Is closer
than 1 Inch from the stack wall, adjust the
location of that point to ensure that the
•ample is taken at least 1 Inch away from
the wall.
4.8 Cross sectional layout and location of
traverse points:
42.1 For circular stacks locate the trav-
erse points on at least two diameters accord-
ing to figure 101-4 and table 101-1. The
traverse axes shall divide the stack cross
Motion Into equal parts.
NUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM
(DISTANCE A)
2.0
2.5
20
10
•FROM POINT Of ANVTVK OF
DISTURBANCE (BEND. CPANIION. CONTRACTION, ETC.)
10
NUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM1
(DISTANCE*
Flcure 102-3. Minimum of traverse points.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 36, NO. «6—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
IV-17
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Table 101-1. Location of traverse points 1n circular stacks
(Percent of stack diameter from Inside wall to traverse point)
Traverse
point
number
on a
diameter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Number of traverse points on a diameter
2
14.6
85.4

4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3

6
4.4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6

8
3.3
10.5
19.4
32.3
67.7
80.6
89.5
96.7

10
2.5
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.8
97.5

12
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.5
64.5
75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9

H
1.8
5.7
9.9
14.6
20.1
26.9
36.6
63.4
73.1
79.9
85.4
90.1
94.3
98.2

16
1.6
4.9
8.5
12.5
16.9
22.0
28.3
37.5
62.5
71.7
78.0
83.1
87.5
91.5
95.1
98.4

18
1.4
4.4
7.5
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6
29.6
38.2
61.8
70.4
76,4
81.2
85.4
89.1
92.5
95.6
98.6

20
1.3
3.9
6.7
9.7
12.9
16.5
20.4
25.0
30.6
38.8
61.2
69.4
75.0
79.6
83.5
87.1
90.3
93.3
96.1
98.7

22
1.1
3.5
6.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
21.8
26.1
31.5
39.3
60.7
68.5
73.9
78.2
82.0
85.4
88.4
91.3
94.0
96.5
98.9

24
1.1
3.2
5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1
19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
39.6
60.2
67.7'
72.8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.8
89.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
98.9
Ftotn 101-4. Cnxi Mellon of clmulir (tack •Sowing loullon of
tnvHM polntt on ptfpmdloulw dlnrnln.
Figure 101-5. Crew Motion of nctmguKr tuck dlvldtd Into (J IQBl
•mi, wllli MVIIM point* 11 controld of nch HTM.
4.3.2 For rectangular stacks divide the
cross section into as many equal rectangular
areas as traverse points, such that the ratio
of the length to the width of the elemental
areas la between one and two. Locate the
traverse points at the centrold of each equal
area according to figure 101-5.
4.4 Measurement of stack conditions:
4.4.1 Set up the apparatus as shown In
figure 101-2. Make sure all connections are
tight and leak-free. Measure the velocity
head and temperature at the traverse points
specified by section 4.2 and 4.3.
4.4.2 Measure the static pressure In the
stack.
4.4.3 Determine the stack gas moisture.
4.4.4 Determine the stack gas molecular
weight from the measured moisture content
and knowledge of the expected gas stream
composition. A standard Orsat analyzer has
been found valuable at combustion sources.
In all cases, sound engineering Judgment
should be used.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 3«, NO, 66—TODAY. APRIL 6, 1973
IV-18
-------
4.5 Preparation of sampling train:
4.5.1 Prior to assembly, clean all glassware
(probe, Implngers, and connectors) by rinsing
with wash add, tap water, 0.1M IC1, tap
water, and finally distilled water. Place 100
ml of 0.1M IC1 In each of the first three
Impingers, and place approximately 200 g of
preweighed silica gel In the fourth Implnger.
Save 80 ml of the 0.1M IC1 as a blank In the
sample analysis. Set tip the train and the
probe as In figure 101-1.
4.6.2 If the gas stream to be sampled Is
excessively dirty or moist, the first Implnger
may clog or become dilute too rapidly for
sufficient testing. A filter can be placed ahead
of the Implngers to collect the partlculates.
An Initial empty Implnger may also be used
to remove excess moisture. If a fifth Implnger
Is required, the final Implnger may have to
be carefully taped to the outside of the
sample box.
4.6.3 Leak check the sampling train at the
sampling site. The leakage rate should not
be In excess of 1 percent of the desired sam-
pling rate. If condensation In the probe or
filter Is a problem, probe and filter heaters
will be required. Adjust the heaters to pro-
vide a temperature of at least 260' F. Place
crushed Ice around the Implngers. Add more
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Ice during the test to keep the temperature
of the gases leaving the lait Unplnger at 70* P
or leas.
4.0 Mercury train operation:
4.6.1 For each run, record the data re-
quired on the example sheet ihown In figure
101-4. Take reading! at each sampling point
at least every B minutes and when signifi-
cant changes In stack conditions necessitate
additional adjustments In flow rate.
4.6.2 Sample at a rate of 0.5 to 1.0 efm.
Samples shall be taken over such a period
or periods as are necessary to accurately
determine the maximum emissions which
would occur In a 24-hour period. In the case
of cyclic operations, sufficient tests shall be
made so as to allow accurate determination
or calculation of the emissions which will
occur over the duration of the cycle. A mini-
mum sample time of 2 hours Is recommended.
In some Instances, high mercury concentra-
tions can prevent sampling In one run for
the desired minimum time. This Is indicated
by reddening In the first Unplnger as free
Iodine is liberated. In .this case, a run may
be divided Into two or more sub-runs to en-
sure that the absorbing solutions are not
depleted.
AMBIT TtmUTUKE
•CMFJUTIC OF mat cms UCTION
IWVnSFONT
•>»•»

TOTAL
•WAGE
UWIMC
nc
(«. •!•.

STATIC
FWSSUK
Ojl. fc. Hi

tax*
nWUATUK
Itgl.V

vnocm
HEAD
Ufj).

nCBUK
DVFEmTIAL
ACKBS
Outlet
Hnu
I* HI.
h. H,0

GAIUmF.
VDUME
IV«I. Ir

OAI IAVU TOVTMTUK
AT OUT QAI UCTEfl
WLIT
Ita (,.).•'

An.
AMI.
OUIUT
"• •»'•*'

AVI.

BAWUIOI
TUKMTML
•f

•vmon
TtvtunM.
•F

Flgin tot-e. Field ditt
4.6.3 To begin sampling, position the
nozzle at the first traverse point with the tip
pointing directly Into the gas stream. Im-
mediately start the pump and adjust the
flow to isoklnetlc conditions. Sample for at
least 6 minutes at each traverse point; samp-
ling time must be the same for each point.
Maintain Isoklnetlc sampling throughout the
sampling period. Nomographs which aid In
the rapid adjustment of the sampling rate
without other computations are In APTD-
0576 and are available from commercial sup-
pliers. Note the standard nomographs are
applicable only for type 8 pltot tubes and
air or a stack gas with an equivalent density.
Contact EPA or the sampling train supplier
for Instructions when the standard nomo-
graph Is not applicable.
4.6.4 Turn off the pump at the conclusion
of each run and record the final readings.
Immediately remove the probe and nozzle
from the stack and handle In accordance
•with the sample recovery process described
In section 4.7.
4.7 Sample recovery:
4.7.1 (All glass storage bottles and the grad-
uated cylinder must be precleaned as In sec-
tion 4.6.1). This operation should be per-
formed In an area free of possible mercury
contamination. Industrial laboratories and
ambient air around mercury-using facilities
are not normally free of mercury contamina-
tion. When the sampling train Is moved, care
must be exercised to prevent breakage and
contamination.
4.7.2 Disconnect the probe from the Im-
plnger train. Place the contents (measured to
±1 ml) of the first three Implngers Into a
600 ml sample bottle. Rinse the probe and all
glassware between It and the back half of
the third Implnger with two 60 ml portions
of 0.1M IC1 solution. Add these rinses to the
first sample bottle. For a blank, place 80 ml
of the 0.1M IC1 In a 100 ml sample bottle. If
used, place the filter along with 100 ml of
0.1M IC1 In another 100 ml sample bottle.
Retain a filter blank. Place the silica gel In
the plastic jar. Seal and secure all containers
for shipment. If an additional test is desired,
the glassware can be carefully double rinsed
with distilled water and reassembled. How-
ever, if the glassware Is to be out of use more
than 2 days, the Initial acid wash procedure
must be followed.
4.8 Analysis:
4.6.1 Apparatus preparation.—Clean all
glassware aooording to the procedure of sec-
tion 4.6.1. Adjust the Instrument scUliiRs ac-
cording to the instrument nrnmiul, using mi
absorption wavelength of 263.7 nm.
4.8.2 Analysis preparation.—Adjust, the
air delivery pressure and the needle vnlvc
to obtain a constant airflow of about 1.3 to/
1/mln. The analysis tube should be bypassed
except during aeration. Purge the equipment
for 2 minutes. Prepare a sampl* of mercury
itandard solution (8.4.2) according to section
4.8.3. Place the analysis tube in the line,
and aerate until a mlzlmum peak height Is
reached on the recorder. Remove the analysis
tube, flush the lines, and rinse the analysis
tube with distilled water. Repeat with an-
other sample of the same standard solution.
This purge and analysis cycle is to be re-
peated until peak heights are reproducible.
4.8.3 Sample preparation.—Just prior to
analysis, transfer a sample aliquot of up
to 60 ml to the cleaned 100 ml analysis tube.
Adjust the volume to 60 ml with 0.1M 1C1
If required. Add 5 ml of 10 N sodium hy-
droxide, cap tube with a clean glass stopper
and shake vigorously. Prolonged, vigorous
•baking at this point Is necessary to obtain
an accurate analysis. Add 6 ml of the re-
ducing agent (reagent 3.3.2), cap tube with
a clean glass stopper and shake vigorously
and Immediately in sample line.
4.8.4 Mercury determination.—After the
system has been stabilized, prepare samples
from the sample bottle according to section
4.8.3. Aerate the sample until a maximum
peak height la reached on the recorder. The
mercury content Is determined by compar-
ing the peak heights of the samples to the
peak heights of the calibration solutions. If
collected samples are out of the linear range.
the samples should be diluted. Prepare a
blank from tbe 100 ml bottle according to
section 4.8.3 and analyze to determine the
reagent blank mercury level.
6. Calibration.—6.1 Sampling train.—
6.1 J Use standard methods and equipment
as detailed In APTD-0576 to calibrate the
rate meter, pltot tube, dry gas meter and
probe heater (If used). Recalibrate prior to
each test series.
6.2 Analysis.—5.2.1 Prepare a calibra-
tion curve for the spectrophotometer using
tbe standard mercury solutions. Plot the
peak heights read on the recorder versus the
concentrations of mercury in the standard
solutions. Standards should be Interspersed
with the samples since the calibration can
«haoge ellghtly -with time. A new calibration
curve should be prepared for each new set
of samples run.
8. Calculations.—6.1 Average dry gas
meter temperature, stack temperature, stack
pressure and average orifice pressure drop.
See data sheet (fig. 101-0).
6.8 Dry gas volume.—Correct the sample
volume measured by the dry gas meter to
stack conditions by using equation 101-2.
n.=v.£
p.
eq. 101-2
where:
V«.-Volume of gas sample through llio dry gas ni"lor
(stark conditions), ft'.
V. -Volume of gas sample through the dry pus motor
(meter conditions), ft1.
T, — Average temperature of stack gas, "R.
T* —Average dry gas meter temperature, °R.
Pn«r= Barometric pressure at the orifice
meter, InHg.
AH=Average pressure drop across the ori-
fice meter, InH^O.
13.6 = Specific gravity of mercury.
P,=Stack pressure, Pb.r±statlc pressure,
InHg.
FEDERAL «etSIW, VOL. 3«, «0. *6—ffilDAY, AMU «, 1»73
IV-19
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
6.3 Volume of water vapor.
where:
eq. 101-3
Vr -Volume of water vapor In the gas sample (stack
' conditions), ft'.
K »=0.-Avonmoslu<'k gin toinnoratiu*, °R.
y'.-Hliirkjinissiiro, J'i., ± itatle pressure, In. HIE.
6.4 Total KIU volume.
VM.I-.V..+W. eq. 101-1
whore:
Vum-Total volume of gas sample (stack conditions),
ft'.
V. - Volume of gas through gas meter (stack condi-
tions), ft«.
Vr, "Volume of water vapor In gas sample (stack
conditions), ft'.

FINAL
INITIAL
LIQUID COLLECTED
TOTAL VOLUME COLLECTED
VOLUME OF LIQUID
WATER COLLECTED
IMPINGE*
VOLUME.
ml

SUCAOO.
KIOHT.
a

r| -
CONVERT WEIGHT or wATEK TO VOLUME H dividing tots! weight
INCREASE IT DENSITT OF KATE*. (1 I/ml):

•"f."^,' - VOLUME WATCT. ml
Figure 101-7. Analytical dau.

6.6 Stack gas velocity. Uee equation 101-0
to calculate the stack gas velocity.

i/iji \

' *"• " * •"•••y pfM,

eq. 101-5
where:
(r.).T«.=Average stack gas velocity, feet per second.
these units are used.
p« Pilot tube coefficient, dlmenslonless.
."A"rage stack gas temperature, °R.
." Average square root of the velocity head
of stack gas (In. HiO)i/< (see flg. 101-8).
P.= Stack pressure, Pb.,±static pressure, In. Hg.
W,= Molecular weight ol stack gas (wet basis),
the Rumination of the products of the
molecular weight of each component
multiplied by Its volumetric proportion
In the mixture, Ib./lb. mole.

Figure 101-8 shows a sample recording sheet
for velocity traverse data. Use the averages

In the lost two columns of figure 101-8 to
determine the average stack gas velocity from
equation 101-5.

6.6 Mercury collected. Calculate the total
•weight of mercury collected by using equa-
tion 101-6.
i — V»C»
..eq. 101-6
where:
i= total weight of mercury collected,
PUNT.

DATE_
RUN NO.

STACK DIAMETER. In.

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, In. H0.

STATIC PRESSURE IN STACK |Pfl), In.

OPERATORS
SCHEMATIC OF STACK
CROSS SECTION
Traverse point
number
Velocity head,
In. H2O
AVERAGE:
Stack Temperature
Figure 101-8. Velocity traverse data.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. «6—FRIDAY. APRIL 6, 1973
IV-20
-------
Vi= Total volume of condensed moisture
and IC1 In sample bottle, ml.
Ci = Concentration of mercury measured In
sample bottle, pg/ml.
V»=Total volume of XC1 need In sampling
(implnger contents and all watih
amounts) , ml.
Cc. = Blank concentration of mercury InlCl
solution, Mg/ml.
Vr=Total volume of IC1 used In niter bottle
(If used), ml.
Ci -Concentration of mercury In filter
bottle (if used),
€.7 Total mercury emission. Calculate the
total amount of mercury emitted from each
stack per day by equation 101-7. This equa-
tion Is applicable for continuous operations.
For cyclic operations, use only the time per
day each stack Is In operation. The total
mercury emissions from a source will be the
summation of results from all stacks.

p rT.(i>.WA.^86,400 seconds/day
~
eq. 101-7
where:
R= Rate of emission, g/day.
Wi— Total weight of mercury collected, *g.
Viot.i-> Total volume or gas sample (stack conditions),
ft'.
(»•)•«.• Average stack gas velocity, feet per second.
A -Stack area, ft'.

6.8 Isoklnetlc variation (comparison of
Telocity of gas In probe tip to stack velocity).
7 =
100V-.
KUUES AKD IBCOLAnONS

pllng Measurements, Paper presented at the
Annual fleeting oT the Mr Foliation Control
Association, St. Louis, Mo., June 14-U. 1070.
11. Bmlth,"W.8..etal.,«tackt>raSampllng
Improved and Simplified with New Equip-
ment, APCA paper Ito.TTr-in, 1W7.
12. Smith, W. 8., R. T, Bhifehara, and W.
Ti Todd. A Method of Interpreting Stack
Sampling Data, Paper presented al the 03d
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association. St. Louis. Mo* June 14-19, 1070.
18. Specifications forlnclneaatet Testing at
Federal Facilities PHB, NOAPO, 1B07.
14. Standard Method for Sampling BUkCks
for Partlculate Matter, In: 1871 Book of
ASTM Standards, part 93, Philadelphia, 1071,
A8TM Designation 0-3928-71.
15. Vennard, J. K., Elementary Fluid Me-
chanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 1947.

METHOD 103. REFERENCE METHOD FOE DETEB-
jcmATIOM or numcm*n am «*BB6us MER-
CT»T EMISSIONS I9OM XIAHOJIAIT BOUBCES
(HTMtOOEN STREAMS)

1. Principle and MpfUoaUUty—ll Prtnct.
(».)..«. eq. 101-8

Where:
7= Percent of isokinctic sampling.
Vui.i=Total volume of gas sample (stuck conditions),
ft*.
A,-Probe tip area, ft:.
Q—Sampling time, sec.
(i.).»i ."Average suck gus vcludty, feet pur second.
7. Evaluation of results—T.I Determina-
tion of compliance.—7.1.1 Each performance
test shall consist of three repetitions of the
applicable test method. For tbe purpose of
determining compliance with an applicable
national emission standard, the average of
results of all repetitions shall apply.
12 Acceptable itokinetic remit*.—75.1
The following range sets the limit on accept-
able Isoklnetlc sampling results:
If 90%^I^110%, the results are accept-
able; otherwise, reject the test and repeat.
8. References.—1. Addendum to Specific*.
tlons for Incinerator Testing at Federal
Facilities. PHS. NCAPC, Dec. 6.1967.
2. Determining Dust Concentration In a
Gas Stream, ASME Performance Test Code
No. 27, New York. N.Y.. 1957. •
3. Devorkln, Howard, et al., Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual, Air Pollution Con-
trol District, Los Angeles, Calif.. Nov. 1963.
4. Hatch, W. R. and W. L. Ott, "Determina-
tion of Sub-Mlcrogram Quantities of Mercury
by Atomic Absorption Spectropnotometry,"
Anal. Chem., 40:2085-87,19«8.
5. Mark, L. B., Mechanical Engineers' Hand-
book, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York,
N.Y., 1951.
6. Martin, Robert M., Construction Details
of Isoklnetlc Source Sampling Equipment,
Environmental Protection Agency, APTD- '
0581.
7. Methods for Determination of Velocity,
Volume, Dust and Mist Content of Oases,
Western Precipitation Division of Joy Mfg.
. Co., Los Angeles, Calif. Bui. WP-60,1868.
8. Perry, J. H., Chemical Engineers' Hand-
book, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York,
N.Y., 1960.
9. Rom, Jerome J., Maintenance, Calibra-
tion, and Operation of Isoklnetlc Source Sam-
pling Equipment, Environmental Protection
Agency, APTD-0576.
10. Shlgehara, R. T., W. F. Todd, and W. 8.
Smith, Significance of Errors 'in Stack 8am-
TYPES
PITOT TUBE
pie.—Partlculate and gaseous mercury emis-
sions are Isoklnetlcally sampled from the
•ounce and collected In acidic Iodine mono-
chloride solution. The mercury collected (In
the mercuric form) Is reduced to elemental
mercury In basic solution by hydroxylamlne
•uUate. Mercury Is aerated from the solution
and analyzed using spectrophotometry.
1.8 Applicability.—This method Is appli-
cable Tor the determination of partlculate
and faaeous meroury •missions when tlie
carrier fas stream is principally .hydrogen.
The method Is for iuo in duets or stack* at
stationary sourow. Vales* otherwise HTMIOIIIKO,
this method U not Intended to apply to gun
streams other than those emitted directly to
tbe a/tmoaphere without further processing.
2. Apparatus—UJ Sampling train.—A sche-
matic of the sampling train used by EPA
Is shown In figure 102-1. Commercial models
of this train are available, although complete
construction details are described In AFTD-
0581,' and operating and maintenance pro-
cedures are described In APTD-0576. The
components essential to this sampling train
are the following:
CHECK
•VALVE
VACUUM
LINE
VACUUM
GAUGE
ALVE
DRY TEST METER
PUMP

. Mercury sampling train
2.1.1 nozzle. Stateless steel or glass with
•harp, tapered leading edge.
2.12 Probe. Sheathed Pyrw1 glass.
2.13 Pitot tube. Type 8(flgure M2-2), or
equivalent, with a uuefBuleul •within 6 per-
cent over the working range, attached to
probe to monitor etejCK gas velocity.
8.1.4 Impingen. Four Oreenburg-Smlth
Implngers connected In series -with glass ball-
Joint fittings. The first, third, and fourth
Implngers mar be modified by replacing the
tip with one-half Inch ID glass tube extend-
ing to one-half Inch from the bottom of the
flask.
2.1.6 Acid trap. Mine safety appliances air
line filter, catalogue No. 81857, with acid ab-
sorbing cartridge and suitable connections, or
equivalent.
2.1.8 Metering lyttem. Vacuum gage, leak-
less pump, thermometers capable of measur-
ing temperature to within E*F, dry gas meter
with 2 percent accuracy, and related equip-
ment, described In APTD-0681, to maintain
an Isoklnetlc sampling rate and to determine
•ample volume.
2.1.7 Barometer. To measure atmospheric
pressure to ± 0.1 In hg.
TWINS AOWTtt
1 These documents are available for a nomi-
nal cost from the National Technical In-
formation Service, UjB. Department of Com-
merce, 6286 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Va.
22151.
• Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Film 10*3. PltotUte-i
FEDGBAl MGCTR, VOL -Si, NO. 46—TODAY, AHtH «, W3
IV-21
-------
Measurement of stuck condition*
pressure. temperature, moisture, ana
..
equivalent, with a coefficient within 6 per-
cent over theworklng range.
333 Differential pressure gage. Inclined
manometer, or equivalent, to measure Teloc-
ity head to within 10 percent of the mini-
mum value. Mlcromanometere should be used
If warranted.
3.2.3 Temperature pope. Any tempera-
ture-measuring device to measure stack tem-
perature to within 1* F.
22.4 Pressure gage. Pltot tube and In-
clined manometer, or equivalent, to measure
stack pressure to within 0.1 in hg.
2.2.6 Moisture determination. Drying
tubes, condensers, or equivalent, to deter-
mine stack gas moisture content In hydrogen
to within 1 percent.
2.3 Sample recovery— 2.3.1 Leakiest plait
sample bottles. 600 ml and 200 ml with Tef-
lon-lined tops.
233 Graduated cylinder. 260 ml.
2.33 Plastic far. Approximately 300 ml.
2.4 Analysis — 2.4.1 Spectrophotometer.
To measure absorbance at 263.7 nm. Perkin
Elmer model 303, with a cylindrical gas cell
(approximately 1.6 in o.d. x 7 in) with quarts
glass windows, and hollow cathode source, or
equivalent.
2.4.2 Gtu sampling bubbler. Tudor Scien-
tific Co. Smog Bubbler, catalogue No. TP-
1150, or equivalent.
2.4.8 Recorder. To match output of
Spectrophotometer.
3. Reagentt.— 3.1 Stock reagents.— 3.1.1
Potassium iocHde. Reagent grade.
3.13 Distilled water.
3.13 Potassium Iodide solution, 25 per-
cent.— Dissolve 250 g of potassium iodide (re-
agent 8.1.1) in distilled water and dilute to
Itol.
3.1.4 Hydrochloric acid. Concentrated.
3.1.5 Potassium iodate. Reagent grade.
3.1.6 Iodine monochloride (IOI) IJIHf.
To 800 ml of 25 percent potassium iodide
solution (reagent 3.1.3), add 800 ml of con-
centrated hydrochloric acid. Cool to room
temperature. With vigorous stirring, slowly
add 135 g of potassium iodate and continue
stirring until all free iodine has dissolved to
give a clear orange-red solution. Cool to room
temperature and dilute to 1,800 ml with dis-
tilled water. The solution should.be kept in
amber bottles to prevent degradation.
3.1.7 Sodium hydroxide pellets. Reagent
grade.
3.1.8 Nitric add. Concentrated.
3.1* Hydrozylamine tulfate. Reagent
grade.
3.1.10 Sodium chloride. Reagent grade.
3.1.11 Mercuric chloride. Reagent grade.
33 Sampling. 33.1 Absorbing solution,
OJM 1CI. Dilute 100 ml of the l.OM IOI stock
solution (reagent 3.1.6) to 1 1 with distsllled
water. The solution should be kept in glass
bottles to prevent degradation. This reagent
should be stable for at least 2 months; how-
ever, periodic checks should be performed to
insure quality.
333 Wath acid. 1 : 1 V/V nitric acid- water.
3.23 Distilled, deionixed water.
33.4 Silica gel. Indicating type, 6 to 16
mesh, dried at 350 'P for 2 hours.
3.3. Analysis — 3.3.1 Sodium hydroxide,
ION. Dissolve 400 g of sodium hydroxide pel-
lets In distilled water and dilute to 1 1.
3.33 Reducing agent, 12 percent hydrox-
ylamine tulfate, 12 percent sodium chloride,
To 60 ml of distilled water, add 13 g of hy-
.droxylamlne sulfate and 12 g of sodium chlo-
ride. Dilute to 100 ml. This quantity is
sufficient for 30 analyses and must be pre-
pared daQy.
3.33 Aeration pas. Zero grade air.
RULES AND REGULATIONS

3.3.4 Bydroehloria add. 0.3N. Dilute 35.6
ml of concentrated hydrochloric Kid to i 1
with distilled water.
84 Standard mercury solutions—3.4.1
Stock tolution. Add 0.1364 g of mercuric
chloride to 80 ml of O.SN hydrochloric Mid,
After the mercuric chloride bM dissolved.
add 03N hydrochloric sold and adjust the
volume to too ml. On* ml of thU lolutlon
it equivalent to 1 mg of tree mercury.
3.4.3 Standard solutions. Prepare cali-
bration volutions by serially diluting the
stock solution (8.4.1) with 03N hydrochloric
add. Prepare solutions at concentrations In
the linear working range for the instrument
to be used. Solutions of 0.3 /»g/inl, 0.4 *g'/ml
and O.e «/ml hare been found acceptable
for most Instruments. Store all solutions in
glass-stoppered, glass bottles. These solutions
should be stable for at least 3 months; how-
ever, periodic checks should be performed
to Insure quality.
4. Procedure. 4.1 Guidelines for source
testing are detailed In the following sections.
These guidelines are generally applicable;
however, most sample sites differ to some de-
gree and temporary alterations such as stack
extensions or expansions often are required
to insure the best possible sample site. Fur-
ther, since mercury Is hazardous, care should
be taken to minimise exposure. Fnally, since
the total quantity of mercury to be collected
generally is small, the test must be care-
fully conducted to prevent contamination or
loss of sample.
42 Selection of a sampling site and mini-
mum number of traverse points.
4.2.1 Select a suitable sampling site that
Is as close as is practicable to the point of
atmospheric emission. If possible, stacks
smaller than 1 foot In diameter should not
be sampled.
4.2.2 The sampling site should be at least
eight stack or duct diameters downstream
and two diameters upstream from any flow
disturbance such as a bend, expansion or
contraction. For rectangular cross section,
determine an equivalent diameter from the
following equation:
9.LW
D.= £r eq. 102-1
L'r W
•where:
D.sequlvalent diameter.
1=length.
W=width.
4 33 When the above sampling site crite-
ria can be met. the minimum number of
traverse points Is four (4) for stacks l foot In
diameter or less, eight (8) for stacks larger
than 1 foot but 2 feet In diameter or less, and
twelve (12) for •tacks larger than 2 feet.
4.3.4 Borne sampling situations may ren-
der the above sampling site criteria Imprac-
tical When this is the case, choose a con-
venient sampling location and use figure
102-3 to determine the minimum number of
traverse points. However, use figure 102-3
only for stacks 1 foot In diameter or larger.
4.2.6 To use figure 102-3, first measure tbe
distance from the chosen sampling location
to the nearest upstream and downstream dis-
turbances. Divide this distance by the di-
ameter or equivalent diameter to determine
the distance in terms of pipe diameters. De-
termine the corresponding number of trav-
erse points for each distance from figure
103-3. Select the higher of Che two numbers
of traverse points, or a greater value, such
that for circular stacks the number Is a mul-
tiple of four, and for rectangular stacks the
number follows the criteria of section 4.3.2.
NUMBER OP DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM
(DISTANCE Al
fKOMKMNTOFANTIWEOF
DISTURBANCE (BEND. EXPANSION, CONTRACTION, ETC.)
NUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM*
(DISTANCE B)
Flflin 104-3. Minimum number of traverse points.
43.6 M a selected sampling point to closer
tttan 1 (nob from stack will, adjust the loca-
tion of that point to Insure that the sample
Is taken at least 1 inoh away from the wall.
ROttAL KOISTEI, VOW It. NO. M—FRIDAY. Aftll 6, 1973

IV-2 2
-------
tUlES AND REGULATIONS
4.3 Cross-sectional layout and location of
traverse points.
4.3.1 JPor circular stacks looaU tbe tra-
verse points on at least two diameter* ac-
cording to figure 100-4 and table 103-4. The
traverse axes shall divide the stack-cross sec-
tion Into eq\iol parts.
4.3.2 For rectangular stacks divide the
cross-section into as many equal rectangular
areas as traverse points, such that the ratio of
the length to the width of the elemental areas
Is between one and two. Locate tbe traverse
points at the centrold of each equal area ac-
cording to figure 102-6.
4.4 Measurement of stack **iMi*1*ti^ii
4.4J Set op tbe apparatus *s shown In
figure 103-2. Stfake sure all onnwircttfiriB are
tight and leak free. Measure the velocity bead
and temperature at the traverse points speci-
fied by section 4 J and 4 J.
4.4.2 Measure the static pressure m the
stack.
4.4.3 Determine the stack gas moisture.
FMm U9-4. Crew nou« »imidio»>s enamri.
• 1
—
•
•
1
• ] •
— 1~1
• 1 •
1
• i*.
1
• '
••"-•^
• i
« '
•nw. *uii mm* ftiou UOTiuu*! mek KM.
Table 102-1. location of traverse points In circular stacks
(Percent of stack diweter from Inside mil to traverse .'point')
Traverse
point
umber
on a
diameter
\
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2Z
23
24
Number of traverse points on a diameter
2
14 f
85.4

4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3

6
4.4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6

8
3.3
10.5
19.4
32.3
67.7
80.6
89.5
96.7

10
2.5
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
CU1
77.4
65.4
91.8
97.5

M
t.l
«.7
11.*
17.7
25.0
35.5
64.5
w.o
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9

14
1.8
5.7
9.9
14. 6
20.1
26.9
36.6
€3.4
73.1
79.9
85.4
90.1
94.3
48.2

K
1.6
4*4
8.5
12.5
16.9
22.0
28J
S7.5
62.5
71.7
78.0
83.1
87.5
91.5
95.1
98.4

ie
1.4
4.4
7-3
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6
M.-6
38.2
61.8
7CU
76.4
81.2
85.4
89.1
92.5
95.6
98.6

•»
1.3
J.9
6J
9.7
12.9
16.5
20.4'
B5.-0
30.6
38.8
61.2
69.4
75.0
79.6
83.5
87.1
90.3
93.3
96.1
98.7

tz
1.1
3.5
£.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
ei.e
26.1
3l.S
39.3
60,7
68.5
74.4
78.2
82.0
85.il
88.4-
91.3
94.0
96.5
98.9

24
1 1
1.2
5,5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1
19.4
23.0
27.2
3E.3
31.8
60.2
67.7'
72.8
77.0
88.6
8S.9
8E.8
89.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
98.9
Determine the stack gas molecular
•wight from the measured moisture content
and taowledge of tbe expected gas stream
oompoanion. Bound engineering judgment
Should be used.
4J Praparstlon of sampling train.
44.1 IMor to asessnbly. «toan all glass-
es** {probe, liujlagnrs, «ad «oanseton) by
*sosUM> -with Mas. acid, tap water, 0.1M IC1.
tap water, and finally distilled water. Place
tas) sal of 0.1M ICl In «aoh of the first three
fcHiliig.su. and rises svgiroxlsaatelr 300 g.
of prewelghed silica gel In tbe fourth 1m-
pbtgsr. Save 80 ml of the CUM JC1 as a blank
in tbe sample analysis. Set up the train and
the probe as In ngure M3-1.
44.2 Leak cheek tbe «^"Tl're train at
the sampling atte. The leakage rate should
mrt %• km eseess of 1 psujuut of the desired
sampling rate. Place crashed ice around tbe
tmpmsjen. Add more toe during the run to
keep Hie temperature of the gases leaving
the last Implnger at 70* F or less.
4.6 Mercury train operation.
4JI.1 Safety procedures. It is imperative
thai the sampler conduct the source test
under conditions of utmost safety, since
.hydrogen and air mixtures are explosive. Tbe
sample train essentially is leanest, so that
attention to safe operation can be concen-
trated at the inlet and outlet. Tbe following
specific Items are recommended:
4.6.1.1 Operate only tbe vacuum pump
during tbe test. Tbe other electrical equip-
ment, e.g. heaters, fans mud timers, normally
are not essential to the success of a hydro-
gen stream test.
42.1.1 aeal tbe sample pert to minimize
ieaflnsje *of bydrosjen fiutu tbe stack.
44.1.3 Tent sampled bydrogen at least
10 feet away from the train. This can be
accomplished easily by attaching a 14-In l.d.
Tygon tube to the exhaust from the orifice
44.2 Tor each nut, record tbe data re-
quired on the sample sheet shown in figure
iaa-fl. Take readings at each sampling point
at least •vary 5 minutes aod wban significant
cbaages in stack ocsMUtsons necessitate ad-
ditional adjustments m flow rate.
t.BJ Bample at a rate of 02 to 1.0 cfm.
Samples shall be taken over such a period
or periods as are necessary to accurately
determine the TPufflimim emissions which
would occur in a 24-hour period. In the case
of cyclic operations, sufficient tests shall be
made so as to «ltow accurate determination
ta calculation of the *mknsons which will
•ocmr over the duration of tbe cycle. A mlnl-
saran sample-tone of a hours k recommended.
In seme Instances; high mercury concentra-
tions can prevent sampling In one run for
•fee dsslfed minimum time. This Is Indicated
by reddening in the first Implnger as free
todtne 1s liberated. In this case, a run may
be divided Into two or more subruns to Insure
that the absorbing solutions are not depleted.
fB>EtM HGIHfl. VOL Jf. Ma <««—MMAV, AMU *V 1973

IV-2 3
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
IOCA1IC*
onuiw

SAW*
KTUK>
•tm.H
CMCTM
fuvtuscroiNT
NUMU

TOTAL
AVERAGE
UNO.
HO.

-
SAwuta
we
<«.*»

RATK
maun
(PBI, to. Hfr

ITAM
TOHMTUC
(T|l.*f

SCHEMATIC v nut ana SCCTUN
vaoem
HUO
Ufi).

naM
omnoiTUi
Aetna
owe*
win
(»M),
fetfeO

OAltAMJ
vaiM
IVnl.fr

iAincncnaauc___
MUD MOOIWt H___
*^-'"M-1-
NODU DIAKTn. ta. ___
auumimmam
uenaavm
MIT
n* „.!.«»

Art.
*».
OUTUT
«•«!••'

UWIM
Torouiut
•»

TtVOUUUI.
•f

Flgm 102-4. Field diti
4.6.4 To begin sampling, position the noz-
zle at the first traverse point with the tip
pointing directly Into the gas stream. Imme-
diately start the pump and adjust the flow
to Isoklnetlc conditions. Sample for at least
6 minutes at each traverse point; sampling
time must be the same for each point. Main-
tain Isoklnetlc sampling throughout the sam-
pling period, using the following procedures.
4.6.4.1 Nomographs which aid In the rapid
adjustment of the sampling rate without
other computations are In AFTD-0676 and
are available from commercial suppliers. The
available nomographs, however, are set up
for use In air streams, and minor changes are
required to provide applicability to hydrogen.
4.6.4.2 Calibrate the meter box prince. Use
the techniques as described In AFTD-0676.
4.6.4.3 The correction factor nomograph
discussed In APTD-0576 and shown on the
reverse side of commercial nomographs will
not be used. In Its place, the correction factor
will be calculated using equation 102-2.
C=0.01-
a/z@ rm na

eq. 102-2
where:
O=Correction factor.
C»=Pltot tube coefficient.
M,=Mole fraction dry gas.
P,=Stack pressure, InHg.
P«,=Meter pressure, InHg.
Tm=Me'ter temperature, °R.
if, = Molecular weight of stack gas (from
4.4.4), Ib/lb mole.
AH Drrldel>y 18- WH to be used on meter bou
4.6.4.6 Operate the sample train at the
calculated AH at each sample point.
4.6.6 Turn off the pump at the conclusion
of each run and record the final readings.
Immediately remove the probe and nozzle
from the stack and handle in accordance with
the sample recovery process described In sec-
tion 4.7.
4.7 Sample recovery.
4.7.1 (All glass storage bottles and the
graduated cylinder must be predefined as In
section 4.6.1). This-operation should be per-
formed In an area free of possible mercury
contamination. Industrial laboratories and
ambient air around mercury-using facilities
are not normally free of mercury contamina-
tion. When the sampling train Is moved, care
must be exercised to prevent breakage and
contamination.
4.7.2 Disconnect the probe from the 1m-
plnger train. Place the contents (measured
to ±1 ml) of the first three Implngers Into
a 600 ml sample bottle. Rinse the probe and
all glassware between It and the back half
of the third Implnger with two 60 ml por-
tions of 0.1M IC1 solution. Add these rinses
to the first bottle. For a blank, place 80 ml
of the 0.1M IC1 In a 100 ml sample bottle.
Place the silica gel In the plastic Jar. Seal and
secure all containers for shipment. If an ad-
ditional test is desired, the glassware can be
carefully double rinsed with distilled water
and reassembled. However, If the glassware Is
to be out of use more than 2 days, the Initial
acid wash procedure must be followed.
4.8 Analysis—4.8.1 Apparatus prepara-
tion.—Clean all glassware according to the
procedure of section 4.6.1. Adjust the Instru-
ment settings according to the Instrument
manual, using an absorption wavelength of
363.7 nm.
4.8.2 Analysis preparation.—Adjust the
»lr delivery pressure and the needle valve to
obtain a constant air flow of about 1.3 1/min.
The analysis. tube should be bypassed ex-
cept during aeration. Purge the equipment
for 2 minutes. Prepare a sample of mercury
standard solution (3.4.2) according to sec-
tion 4.8.3. Place the analysis tube In the line,
and aerate until a maximum peak height is
reached on the recorder. Remove the analy-
sis tube, flush the lines, and -rinse the
analysis tube with distilled water. Repeat
with another sample of the same standard
solution. This purge and analysis cycle Is to
be repeated until peak heights are repro-
ducible.
4.8.3 Sample preparation.—Just prior to
analysis, transfer a sample aliquot of up to
60 ml to the cleaned 100 ml analysis tube.
Adjust the volume to 60 ml with 0.1M IC1
If required. Add 6 ml of 10 N sodium hydrox-
ide, cap tube with a clean glass stopper and
shake vigorously. Prolonged, vigorous shak-
ing at this point Is necessary to obtain an
accurate analysis. Add 6 ml of the reducing
agent (reagent 3.3.2), cap tube with a clean
glass stopper and shake vigorously and Im-
mediately place In sample line.
4.8.4 Mercury determination.—After the
system has been stabilized, prepare samples
from the sample bottle according to section
4.8.3. Aerate the sample until a maximum
peak height Is reached on the recorder. The
mercury content Is determined by comparing
the peak heights of the samples to the peak
heights of the calibration solutions. If col-
lected samples are out of the linear range,
the samples should be diluted. Prepare a
blank from the 100 ml bottle according to
section 4.8.3 and analyze to determine the
reagent blank mercury level.

6. Calibration.—6.1 Sampling Train. 6.1.1
Use standard methods and equipment as de-
tailed in APTD-0676 to calibrate the rate
meter, pltot tube and dry gas meter. Recali-
brate prior to each test series.
6.2 Analysis.—6.2.1 Prepare a calibra-
tion curve for the spectrophotometer using
the standard mercury solutions. Plot the
peak heights read on the recorder versus the
concentration of mercury In the standard
solutions. Standards should be Interspersed
with the samples since the calibration can
change slightly with time. A new calibration
curve should be prepared for etch new set
of samples run.
6. Calculations—6.1 Average dry gas meter
temperature, stack temperature, stack pres-
sure and average oriftce pressure drop.—See
data sheet (fig. 102-6).
6.2 Dry gas volume.—Correct the sample
volume measured by the dry gas meter to
stack conditions by using equation 102-3.
T
V =V —
* ma F m /-p
•* m
P.
eq.102 3
where:
Vmi=Voliime of piiy sample through tlir dry IMS mrlcr
(stuck wmdltigiis), fl.«

7m = Volume of gas sample through the
dry gas meter (meter conditions).
ft'.
T. = Average temperature of stack gas, «B.
2V = Average dry gas meter temperature,
°R.
Fb>i = Barometric pressure at the orifice
meter, InHg.
AH = Average pressure drop across the ori-
fice meter, InHjO.
13.6 = Specific gravity of mercury.
P.=Stack pressure, Pnr±statlc pressure,
InHg.
No. 68—Pt. n-
BDERAL MGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973

IV-2 4
-------
6.3 Volume of water vapor.
whore:
VV- Volume of water vapor In the gat sample (stack
conditloiu), ft'.
X
vf,-1. when ihose units arc used.
Tvf,-
2111. — 11

I't. Ttiliil vnlnniA of lt(|tttd noll.

V. -Volume of (at through dry gu meter (stack
conditions), ft'.
V«— Volume of water vapor In gas ample (stack
conditions), ft'.

FINU.
WJTUL
LIQUID COLLECTtD
TOTU VOLUK COUtCTCD
VOLUV OF LIQUID
«A1» COLLECTED
•»«Ot«
va.au.
Ml

HLICAOEI.
•Eicm.
I

r| -
coNvEtrKKHT OF IATTITO voiuMor dividing total Might
INCKASC IV DfNSm OF HATE*. II B'ml).
i VOLUW ««!!« ml
II g'

Figure 102-7. Arulyllcm dill.

63 Stock p« velocity—Use aquation

102-6 to calculate the stack gas velocity.
win-re:
(".) ..i. - A verve stack gas velocity, feet per second.
„ „ _ ft / Ib-taHg Vft .
g,=H5.B-(|b mole..R.inHio ) when

these units arc used.
C, —Pilot tube coefficient, dimenslonlcss.
(T.)..,. —Average stack ess temperature, °R.
(Vfl>*)«»«.—Average smiftre root of the velocity head of
stack &s (lnHiO)>/> (aw figure 102-8).
P. —Buck pressure, /*b«,±static pressure, la
BfE.
M. ^Molecular weight of st3.-k fa (wot basts),
the summation of the products of the
molecular wnhrlrt of earn component
multiplied by Its volumetric proportion
In the mixture, Ib/lb-mole.

Figure 102-8 shows a sample recording street
for velocity traverse data. Use the averages In

the last two columns of figure 102-8 to de-

termine the average stack gas velocity from

equation 102-6.
6.6 Mercury collected. Calculate the total

weight of mercury collected by using eq.
102-7.
1ULES AM) REGULATIONS

PUNT ,
eq. 102-4 DATE.
RUN N0._
STACK DIAMETER, In..
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, In. H0.
STATIC PRESSURE IN STACK (1>g). In. N0._

OPERATORS
SCHEMATIC OF STACK
CROSS SECTION
Traverse point
number

Velocity JiMd,
fn.HjO

AVERAGE:
\£7

Stack Temperature
^).°F

Figure 1024. Velocity traverse data.
RDEKAL REGISTER, VOL. 91, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 4, TO3

IV-2 5
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
VtC» eq. 100-7
where:
Wi=Total weight of mercury collected, Ag.
V i—Total volume of condensed moisture
and IC1 in sample bottle, ml.
Ci=Concentration of mercury measured In
sample bottle, *g/ml.
V»=Total volume of IC1 used In sampling
(implnger contents and all wash
amounts), ml.
C i, = Blank concentration of mercury In 101
solution, /ig/ml.

6.7 Total mercury emission.—Calculate
the total amount of mercury emitted from
each stack per day by equation 103-8. This
equation la applicable for continuous opera-
tions. For cyclic operations, use only the time
per day each stack Is In operation. The total
mercury emissions from a source will be the
summation of results from all stacks.

„ W,(g.).T,..4. 86,400 seconds/day
K~ Vtou, * 10«/.g/g

eq. 102-8
where:
B=Rate of emission, g/day.
W'i=Total weight of mercury collected, «ig.
Vutai~Total volume of gas sample (alack conditions),
ft'.
(r.)..,.-Average stack gas velocity, feet per second.
A..=Stack area, ft1.
6.8 IsoMnetic variation (comparison of
velocity of gtu in probe tip to stack velocity).
4.® («.)«.. eq. 102-9
where:
/= Percent of IsoUnettc sampling.
Vuui-Totalvolumeofgassample (stack conditions),
ft>.
A.-Probe Up area, ft'.
S = Sampling time, sec.
(f,)..,.-Average stack gas velocity, feet per second.
7. Evaluation of results.—7.1 Determina-
tion of compliance.—7.1.1 Each performance
test shall consist of three repltltlons of the
applicable test method. For the purpose of
determining compliance with an applicable
national emission standard, the average of
results of all repetitions shall apply.
7.2 Acceptable iaokinetic results.—7.2.1
The following range sets the limit on ac-
ceptable Iso kinetic sampling results: If
90% ^1^110%. the results are acceptable;
otherwise, reject the test and repeat.
8. References.—1. Addendum to Specifi-
cations for Incinerator Testing at Federal
Facilities, PHS. NCAPC, Dec. 6, 1967.
2. Determining Dust Concentration In a
Gas Stream, ASME Performance Test Code
No. 27. New York, N.Y., 1967.
3. Devorkln, Howard, et al., Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual, Air Pollution Con-
trol District, Los Angeles, Calif., Nov. 1963.
4. Hatch, W. R. and W. L. Ott, "Determina-
tion of Sub-Mlcrogram Quantities of Mer-
cury by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotom-
etry," Anal. Chem.. 40: 2086-87, 1968.
5. Mark, L. S., Mechanical Engineers'
Handbook, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, N.Y., 1951.
6. Martin, Robert M., Construction Details
of Isoklnetic Source Sampling Equipment,
Environmental Protection Agency, APTD-
0681.
7. Methods for Determination of Velocity,
Volume, Dust and Mist Content of Oases,
Western Precipitation Division of Joy Manu-
facturing Co., Los Angeles, Calif. Bull. WP-60,
1968.
8. Perry, J. H., Chemical Engineers' Band-
book, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York,
N.Y., 1960.
9. Rom, Jerome J., Maintenance, Calibra-
tion, and Operation of Isoklnetic Source
Sampling Equipment, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, APTD-0576.
10. Shlgehara, R. T., W. F. Todd, and W. S.
Smith, Significance of Erron In Stack Sam-
pling Measurement*, Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, St. Louis, Mo., June 14-19, 1970.
11, Smith, W. 8., et al., Stack Oas Sam-
pling Improved and Simplified with New
Equipment, APCA paper No. 67-119, 1967.
12. Smith, W. S., R. T. Shlgehara, and W. F.
Todd, A Method of Interpreting Stack Sam-
pling Data, Paper presented at the 63d An-
nual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, St. Louis, Mo., June 14-19, 1970.
IS. Specifications for Incinerator Testing
at Federal Facilities PHS, NCAPC, 1967.
14. Standard Method for Sampling Stacks
for Partlculate Matter, In: 1971 Book of
A8TM Standards, part 23, Philadelphia, 1971,
ASTM Designation D-2928-71.
16. Vennard, J. K., Elementary Fluid Me-
chanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 1947.
METHOD 103. BEETLLTTJM 8CUKNINO METHOD
1. Principle and applicability.—l.l Prin-
ciple.—Beryllium emissions are iBOklnetlcally
sampled from three points in a duct or stack.
The collected sample Is analyzed for beryl-
lium using an appropriate technique.
1.2 Applicability.—This procedure details
guidelines and requirements for methods
acceptable for use In determining beryllium
emissions In ducts or stacks at stationary
sources, as specified under the provisions of
I 61.14 of the regulations.
3. Apparatus—2.1 Sampling train.—A
schematic of the required sampling train
configuration Is shown In figure 103-1. 'The
essential components of the train are the
following:
2.1.1 Nozzle.—Stainless steel, or equiva-
lent, with sharp, tapered leading edge.
2.1.2 Probe.—Sheathed Pyrez» glass.
2.1.8 filter.—MUUpore AA, or equivalent,
with appropriate filter bolder that provides
a positive seal against leakage from outside
or around the filter. It is suggested that a
Whatman 41, or equivalent, be placed imme-
diately against the back side of the Milllpore
filter as a guard against breakage of the
Milllpore.-Include the Whatman 41 In the
analysis. Equivalent filters must be at least
99.96 percent efficient (DOP Test) and
amenable to the analytical procedure.
MCTBHMW
Fljun IBM. Btryniui wiMnlng »»lhod: uw>> loin MfeMIIO.

2.1.4 Meter-pump system.—Any system
that will maintain Isoklnetic sampling rate,
determine sample volume, and Is capable of
a sampling rate of greater than 0.5 cfm.
22 Measurement of stack conditions
(stack pressure, temperature, moisture and
velocity).—The following equipment shall be
used In the manner specified in section 4.8.1.
2.2.1 Pitot tube.—Type S, or equivalent,
with a coefficient within 8 percent over the
working range.
2.2.2 Differential pressure gauge.—In-
clined manometer, or equivalent, to measure
velocity head to within 10 percent of the
value.
8.3.3. Temperature gauge.—Any tempera-
ture measuring device to measure stack tem-
perature to within 6* F.
2.2.4 Pressure gauge.—Any device to
measure stack pressure to within 0.1 In. Hg.
2.2.6 Barometer.—To measure atmos-
pheric pressure to within 0.1 in. Hg.
2.2.6 Moisture determination.—Wet and
dry bulb thermometers, drying tubes, con-
densers, or equivalent, to determine stack gas
moisture content to within 1 percent.
2.3 Sample recovery.—23.1 Probe clean-
ing equipment.—Probe brush or cleaning rod
at least as long as probe, or equivalent. Clean
cotton balls, or equivalent, should be used
with the rod.
23.2 Leakiest glass sample bottles.
2.4 Analysis.—2.4.1 Equipment neces-
sary to perform an atomic absorption,
•pectrographlc, fluorometrlc, chromato-
graphlc, or equivalent analysis.
3. Reagents.—3.1 Sample recovery.—3.1.1
Acetone.—Reagent grade.
3.1.2 Wash acid.—1:1 V/V hydrochloric
acid-water.
8.2 Analysis.—3.2.1 Reagents as neces-
sary for the selected analytical procedure.
4. Procedure.—4.1 Guidelines for source
testing are detailed In the following sections.
These guidelines are generally applicable;
however, most sample sites differ to some de-
gree and temporary alterations such as stack
extensions or expansions often are required
to Insure the best possible sample site. Fur-
ther, since beryllium is hazardous, care
should be taken to minimize exposure.
Finally, since the total quantity of beryllium
to be collected Is quite small, the test must
be carefully conducted to prevent contami-
nation or loss of sample.
4.2 Selection of a sampling site and num-
ber of runs.—4.2.1 Select a suitable sam-
pling site that Is as close as practicable to the
point of atmospheric emission. If possible,
stacks smaller than 1 foot In diameter should
not be sampled.
4.2.2 The sampling site should be at least
eight stack or duct diameters downstream
and two diameters upstream from any flow
disturbance such as a bend, expansion or
contraction. For rectangular cross-section,
determine an equivalent diameter using the
following equation:
eq.103-1
i Mention of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency,
•where:
D.=equlvalent diameter
£=length
W=wldta

4.2.3 Some sampling situations may ren-
der the above sampling site criteria imprac-
tical. When this is the case, an alternate
site may be selected but must be no less
than two diameters downstream and one-
half diameter upstream from any point of
disturbance. Additional sample runs are rec-
ommended at any sample site not meeting
the criteria of section 4.2.2.
42.4 Three runs shall constitute a test.
The runs shall be conducted at three dif-
ferent points. The three points shall pro-
portionately divide the diameter, I.e. be lo-
cated at 26, 60 and 76 percent of the diameter
from the Inside wall. For horizontal ducts,
the diameter shall be In the vertical direc-
tion. For rectangular ducts, sample on a line
through the centrold and parallel to a side.
If additional runs are required per section
43.3, proportionately divide the duct to ac-
commodate the total number of runs.
4.8 Measurement of ttactt conditions.
4.3.1 Measure the stack gas pressure, mois-
ture, and temperature, using the equipment
described In I 2.2. Determine the molecular
weight of the stack gas. Sound engineering
estimates may be made In lieu of direct
FtDERAL KGISTEH, VOL 38, NO. *fr-MIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
IV-2 6
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
measurements. The basis for such estimates
•ball be given In the test report.
4.4 Preparation of sampling train.—
4.4.1 Assemble the sampling train as shown
In figure 103-1. It Is recommended that all
glassware be precleaned by soaking In wash
acid for 2 hours.
4.4.2 Leak check the sampling train at the
sampling site. The leakage rate should not be
In excess of l percent of the desired sample
rate.
4.6 Beryllium train operation.—4.6.1 For
each run, measure the velocity at the selected
sampling point. Determine the Isoklnetlo
sampling rate. Record the velocity head and
the required sampling rate.
4.5.2 Place the noezle at the sampling
point with the tip pointing directly Into the
gas stream. Immediately start the pump and
adjust the flow to Isoklnetlc conditions. At
the conclusion of the test, record the sam-
pling rate. Again measure the velocity head
at the sampling point. The required Isoklnetlc
rate at the end of the period should not have
deviated more than 20 percent from that
originally calculated.
4.6.8 Sample at a minimum rate of 0.6
ftVmln. Samples shall be taken over such a
period or periods as are necessary to deter-
mine the maximum emissions which would
occur In a 24-hour period. In the case of
cyclic operations, sufficient tests shall be
made so as to allow determination or calcu-
lation of the emissions which would occur
over the duration of the cycle. A minimum
sampling time of 2 hours is recommended.
4.6.4 All pertinent data should be In-
cluded In the test report.
4.6 Sample recovery.—4.6.1 It Is recom-
mended that all glassware be precleaned as
In {4.4.1. Sample recovery should also be
performed In an area free of possible beryl-
lium contamination. When the sampling
train Is moved, exercise care to prevent
breakage and contamination. Bet aside a por-
tion of the acetone used in the sample re-
covery as a blank for analysis. The total
amount of acetone used should be measured
for accurate blank correction. Blanks can be
eliminated If prior analysis shows negligible
amounts.
4.6.2 Remove the filter and any loose par-
tlculate matter from filter holder and place
In a container.
4.6.3 Clean the probe with acetone and a
brush or long rod and cotton balls. Wuh Into
the container. Wash out the filter bolder
with acetone and add to the same container.
4.7 Analysis.—1.7.1 Make the necessary
preparation of samples and analyze for beryl-
lium. Any currently acceptable method such
as atomic absorption, spectrograpblc, fluoro-
metric, chromatographlc, or equivalent may
be used.
5. Calibration and standards—6.1 Sam-
pling train.—6.1.1 As a procedural check,
sampling rate regulation should be compared
with a dry gas meter, splrometer, rotameter
(calibrated for prevailing atmospheric con-
ditions), or equivalent, attached to nozzle
Inlet of the complete sampling train.
6.12 Data from this test and calculations
should be shown In test report.
S3 Analysis.—62.1 Standardization Is
made as suggested by the manufacturer of
the Instrument or the procedures for the
analytical method.
6. Calculations—6.1 Total beryllium emis-
sion. Calculate the total amount of beryl-
lium emitted from each stack per day by
equation 103-2. This equation is applicable
for continuous operations. For cyclic opera-
tlons, use only the time per day each stack
Is In operation. The total beryllium emis-
sions from a.source will be the summation
of results from all stacks.
Wi(»t).T..A. 86,400 seconda/day
10- Mg/g
when:
R~ Rate of emlation, (/day.
W,-Total weight ot beryllium oolleoled,«.
VMti-Total volume of gu sampled, ft1.
(«i)«i.-Average rtwk gM velocity, feot per second.
X.-Stack aim, ft'.
7. rest report. 7.1 A test report shall be
prepared which shall Include as a minimum:
7.1.1 A detailed description of the sam-
pling train used and results of the proce-
dural check with all data and calculations
made. ,
7.12 All pertinent data taken during
test, the basis for any estimates made,* cal-
culations, and results.
7.13 A description of the test site, In-
cluding a block diagram with a brief de-
scription of the process, location ot the sam-
ple points In the cross section, dimensions
and distances from any point of disturbance.

MTTHOD 104. BXFEUNCZ MTTHOD TOIL DZTER-
XXNATIOH or «X»TUJTJM HUSSIONS FBOM
BTATIONABY COCTCCB

1. Principle and applicability—l.l Prin-
ciple.—Beryllium emissions are Isoklnetlcal-
ly sampled from the source, and the collected
sample Is digested In an acid solution and
analyzed by atomic absorption spectropho-
tomatry.
12 Applicability.—This method Is appli-
cable for the determination of beryllium
•missions In ducts or stacks at stationary
sources. Unless otherwise specified, this
method is not Intended to apply to gas
streams other than those emitted directly
to the atmosphere 'without further
processing.
2. Apparatus—2.1 Sampling train.—A
schematic of the sampling train used by
EPA Is shown In figure 104-1. Commercial
models of this train are available, although
construction details are described In APTD-
06B1.1 and operating and maintenance pro-
cedures are described In APTD-0676. The
components essential to this sampling train
are the following:
3.1.1 Nozzle.—Stainless steel or glass with
sharp, tapered leading edge.
3.12 Probe.—Sheathed Pyrez • glass. A
heating system capable of maintaining a
minimum gas temperature In the range of
the stack temperature at the probe outlet
during sampling may be used to prevent
condensation from occurring.
fVTEDAKA tyLTE* HOLDER THERMOMETER CHECK
,VALVE
TYPES
PITOTTUBE
IMPINQERS ICE BATH
BV-PASS.VALVE
•VACUUM
LINE
VACUUM
GAUGE
MAIN VALVE
THERMOMETERS'
DRY TEST METER
AIR-TIGHT
PUMP
Figure 104-1. Beryllium sampling train
3.1.8 Pitot tube.—Type S (figure 104-2),
or equivalent, with a coefficient within 6 per-
cent over the working range, attached to
probe to monitor stack gas velocity.
2.1.4 Filter holder.—Pyrex glass. The filter
holder must provide a positive seal against
leakage from outside or around the filter.
A heating system capable of maintaining the
niter at a minimum temperature In the range
of the stack temperature may be used to
prevent condensation from occurring.
2.1.6 Impingers.—Four Qreenburg-Smlth
Implngers connected In series with glass ball
joint fittings. The first, third, and fourth
Implngers may be modified by replacing the
tip with a %-lnch l.d. glass tube extending
to one-half Inch from the bottom of the
flask.
3.1.6 Metering system.—Vacuum gauge,
leakleds pump, thermometers capable of
measuring temperature to within 6* F, dry
gas meter with 3 percent accuracy, and re-
lated equipment, described la APTD-0881,
to maiti^x an isoklnetlc sampling rate and
to determine sample volume.
•3.1.7 Barometer.—to measure atmos-
pheric pressure to ± 0.1 In Hg.
3.S Measurement of itack condition!
(ftack pressure, temperature, moisture and
velocity)—22.1 Pitot tube.—Type 8, or
equivalent, with a coefficient within 6 percent
over the working range.
3.22 Differential pressure gauge.—In-
clined manometer, or equivalent, to measure
velocity head to within 10 percent of the
^ifn value.
1 These documents are available for a nom-
inal cost from the National Technical In-
formation Service, UJ5. Department of .Com-
merce, 6286 Fort Royal Road, Springfield,
Va. 32161.
1 Mention of trade names on specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
IV-2 7
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
however, moat sample sites differ to some
degree and temporary alterations such as
stack extensions or expansions often are re-
quired to Insure the best possible sample
site. Further, since beryllium Is hazardous,
care should be taken to minimize exposure.
Finally, since the total quantity of beryllium
to be collected Is quite small, the test must
be carefully conducted to prevent contami-
nation or loss of sample.
4.2 Selection of a sampling site and mini-
mum number of traverse points.
4.2.1 Select a suitable sampling site that
Is as close as practicable to the point of at-
mospheric emission. If possible, stacks
•Flgun 104-2. Pilot lulu - manometer numbly.
2.2.3 Temperature gage.—Any tempera-
ture measuring device to measure stack tem-
perature to within 6* F.
2.2.4 Pressure gage.—Pilot tube and In-
clined manometer, or equivalent, to measure
stack pressure to within 0.1 In Hg.
2.2.6 Moisture determination.—Wet and
dry bulb thermometers, drying tubes, con-
densers, or equivalent, to determine stack
gas moisture content to within 1 percent.
2.3 Sample recovery—2.3.1 Probe clean-
ing rod.—At least as long as probe.
2.3.2 Leakless glass sample bottles.—SCO
ml.
2.3.3 Graduated cylinder.—250 ml.
2.3.4 Plastic iar.—Approximately 300 ml.
2.4 Analysis—2.4.1 Atomic 'absorption
spectrophotometer.—To measure absorbance
at 234.8 nm Perkin Elmer Model 303, or
equivalent, with N3O/acetylene burner.
2.4.2 Hot plate.
2.4.3 Perchloric acid fume hood.
3. Reagents—3.1 Stock reagents.—3.1.1
Hydrochloric acid.—Concentrated.
3.1.2 Perchloric add.—Concentrated, 70
percent.
3.1.3 Nitric acid.—Concentrated.
3.1.4 Sulfurtc acid.—Concentrated.
3.1.6 Distilled and deionized water.
3.1.8 Beryllium powder.—98 percent mlnl-
mym purity.
3.2 Sampling—3.2.1 Filter. — Mllllpore
AA, or equivalent. It Is suggested that a
Whatman 41 niter be placed immediately
against the back side of the Milllpore filter
as a .guard against breaking the Mllllpore
filter. In the analysis of the niter, the WhaV
man 41 filter should be Included with the
Mllllpore filter.
3.2.2 Silica gel.—Indicating type, 6 to 18
mesh, dried at 360* F for 2 hours.
3.2.3 Distilled and deionized water.
3.3 Sample recovery—3.3.1 Distilled and
deionized water.
3.3.2 Acetone.—Reagent grade.
3-3.3 Wash acid.—1.1 V/V hydrochloric
acid-water.
3.4 Analysis.—3.4.1 Suljuric acid solu-
tion, 72 N.—Dilute 333 ml of concentrated
sulfurlc acid to i l with distilled water.
3.4.2 25 percent V/V hydrochloric acid-
water.
3.5 Standard beryllium solution—3.6.1
stock solution.—l jig/ml beryllium. Dis-
solve 10 mg of beryllium In 80 ml of 12 N
sulfuric acid solution and dilute to a volume
of 1000 ml with distilled water. Dilute a 10 ml
aliquot to 100 ml with 25 percent V/V hydro-
chloric acid, giving a concentration of 1
Mg/ml. This dilute stock solution should be
prepared fresh dally. Equivalent strength (In
beryllium) stock solutions may be prepared
from beryllium salt* as BeCl, and Be(NO.),
(98 percent minimum purity).
4. Procedure. 4.1 Guidelines for source
testing are detailed In the following sections.
These guidelines are generally applicable;
smaller than 1 foot In diameter should not
be sampled.
4.2.2 The sampling site should be at least
8 stack or duct diameters downstream and
3 diameters upstream from any flow disturb-
ance such as a bend, expansion or contrac-
tion. For a rectangular cross-section, deter-
mine an equivalent diameter from the
following equation:
eq. 104-1
L+W
where:
D = equivalent diameter
t—length
W=wldth
NUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM1
(DISTANCE A)
0.4
1.0
60
FROM POINT OF ANY TVPE Of-
DISTURBANCE (BEND. EXPANSION, CONTRACTION, ETC.»
DUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM
(DISTANCE B)
Figure 101-3. Minimum mimeet ol traverse points.
Flgm 1044. Crew HCtlon ol circuit/ itick »l»wltig'loC«llofl Of
tnw«r» point! «i (MfmllcuM dMmnura,
.•
«
•
•I*
. I .
•
•
* ! * r *
Flgm 1W-5. cran Mellon ol neiangulir rack divided Inlo 12 tout!
«Mf, with nvint polnu u Mnirold ol Mch ITML

4.2.8 When the above sampling site cri-
teria can be met, the minimum number of
traverse points Is four (4) for stacks 1 foot
tn diameter or less, eight (8) for stacks larger
than 1 foot but 2 feet In diameter or less, and
twelve (12) for stacks larger than 2 feet.
4.2.4 Some sampling situations may ren-
der the above sampling site criteria Imprac-
tical. When this Is the case, choose a con-
venient sampling location and use figure
104—3 to determine the minimum number
of traverse points. However, use figure 104-3
only for stacks l foot In diameter or larger.
4.2.6 To use figure 104-3, first measure
the distance from the chosen sampling lo-
cation to the nearest upstream and down-
stream disturbances. Divide this distance by
the diameter or equivalent diameter to deter-
mine the distance in terms of pipe diameters.
Determine the corresponding number of
traverse points for each distance from fig-
ure 104-3. Select the higher of the two num-
bers of traverse points, or a greater value,
such that for circular stacks the number is
a multiple of four, and for rectangular stacks
the number follows the criteria of section
4.3.2.
45.6 If a selected sampling point Is closer
than 1 Inch from the stack wall, adjust the.
location of that point to ensure that the
sample Is taken at least 1 Inch away from the
wall.
4.3 Cross-sectional layout and location of
traverse points.
HDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—fRIDAY, AMU 6, 1973
IV-2 8
-------
Table 104-1. Location of traverse points 1n circular stacks
(Percent of stack diameter from Inside wall to traverse point)
H

f
NJ
vo
Traverse
point
number
on a
diameter
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Number of traverse points on a diameter
2
14 fi
85.4

4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3

6
4.4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6

8
3.3
10.5
19.4
32.3
67.7
80.6
89.5
96.7

10
2.5
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.8
97.5

12
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.5
64.5
75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9

14
1.8
5.7
9.9
14.6
20.1
26.9
36.6
63.4
73.1
79.9
85.4
90.1
94.3
98.2

16
1.6
4. .9
8.S
12.5
16.9
22.0
28.3
37.5
62.5
71.7
78.0
83.1
87.5
91.5
96.1
98.4

18
1.4
4.4
7.5
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6
29.6
38.2
61.8
70.4
76.4
81.2
85.4
89,1
92.5
95.6
98.6

20
1.3
3.9
6.7
9.7
12.9
16.5
20.4
260
30.6
38.8
61.2
69.4
75.0
79.6
83.5
87.1
90.3
93.3
96.1
98.7

22
1.1
3.5
6.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
21.8
26.1
31.5
39.3
60.7
68.5
73.9
78.2
82.0
85.4
88.4
91.3
94.0
96.5
98.9

3.2
5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1
19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
39.8
60.2
67.7*
72.8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.8
89.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
98.9
4.3.1 For circular stack* locate the tra-
verse points on at least two diameter* accord-
ing to figure 104-4 and table 104-1. The tra-
verse axes shall divide the stack cross section
Into equal parts.
4.3.2 For rectangular stacks divide the
cross section Into as many equal rectangular
areas as traverse points, such that the ratio
of the length to the width of the elemental
areas Is between 1 and 2. Locate the traverse
points at the centrold of each equal area
according to figure 104-6.
4.4 Measurement of stack condition*.—
4.4.1 Set up the apparatus as shown In fig-
ure 104-2. Make sure all connections are
tight and leak free. Measure the velocity
head and temperature at the traverse points
specified by If 4.3 and 4.3.
4.4.2 Measure the static pressure In the
stack.
4.4.8 Determine the stack gas moisture.
4.4.4 Determine the stack gas molecular
weight from the measured moisture content
and knowledge of the expected gas stream
composition. A standard Orsat analyzer has
been found valuable at combustion sources.
In all cases, sound engineering Judgment
should be used.
4.6 Preparation of sampling train.—«.8.1
Prior to assembly, clean all glassware (probe,
Implngers, and connectors) by soaking In
wash acid for 2 hours. Place 100 mil of dis-
tilled water In each of the first two Imprlng-
ers, leave the third Implnger empty, and place
approximately 200 g of prewelghted silica gel
In the fourth Implnger. Save a portion of the
distilled water as a blank In the sample
analysis. Set up the train and the probe at
in figure 104-1.
4.6.2 Leak check the sampling train at the
sampling site. The leakage rate should not be
In excess of 1 percent of the desired sampling
rate. If condensation In the probe or filter Is
a problem, probe and filter heaters will be
required. Adjust the heaters to provide a
temperature at or above the stack tempera-
ture. However, membrane filters such as the
Mllllpore AA are limited to about 226* F. If
the stack gas Is In excess of about 200° F.,
consideration should be given to an alternate
procedure such as moving the filter holder
downstream of the first Implnger to Insure
that the filter does not exceed It* tempera-
ture limit. Place crushed Ice around the Im-
plngers. Add more Ice during the test to keep
the temperature of the gases leaving the last
Implnger at TO* F. or less.
4.6 Beryllium train operation.—-4.6.1 For
each run, record the data required on the
example sheet shown In figure 104-6. Take
readings at each sampling point at least
every 5 minutes and when significant changes
In stack conditions necessitate additional ad-
justments In flow rate.
4.62 Sample at a rate of 0.6 to 1.0 ft.'/mln.
Samples shall be taken over such a period or
periods as are necessary to accurately deter-
mine the maximum emissions which would
occur In a 24-hour period. In the case of
cyclic operations, sufficient test* shall be
made so as to allow accurate determination
or calculation of the emissions which will
occur over the duration of the cycle. A mini-
mum sample time of 2 hour* to recommended.
sotnunc or ma ana ftcnot
ma
BraMUI
(Tjl.'f
to-M,0
rijw.iw-e.mtld data

4.8.3 To begin sampling, position the noz-
zle at the first traverse point with the tip
pointing directly Into the gas stream. Imme-
diately start the pump and adjust the flow
to tooklnetlc conditions. Sample for at least
6 mlntste* at each, traverse point; sampling
time must be the same for each point. Main-
tain Isotlnstlc sampling throughout the sam-
pling period. Nomographs which aid In the
rapid adjustment of the sampling rate with-
out other computations are In APTD-0676
and are available from commercial suppliers.
Mote that standard monographs are applica-
ble only for type S pilot tubes and air or a
stack gas with an equivalent density. Con-
tact EPA or the sampling train supplier for
instructions when the standard monograph
Is not applicable.
4.6.4 Turn off the pump at the conclusion
of each run and record the final readings.
Immediately remove the probe and nozzle
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 66—FRIDAY, APRIL 6, 1973
-------
from the stack and handle in accordance with
the sample recovery process described In I 4.7.
4.7 Sample recovery.—4.7.1 (All glass
storage bottles and the graduated cylinder
must be precleaned as In S 4.6.1.) This opera-
tion should be performed In an area free of
possible beryllium contamination. When the
sampling train Is moved, care must be exer-
cised io prevent breakage and contamination.
4.7J Disconnect the probe from the 1m-
plnger train. Remove the filter and any loose
paniculate matter from the filter holder and
place In a sample bottle. Place the contents
(measured to ±1 ml) of the first three 1m-
plngers Into another sample bottle. Rinse the
probe and all glassware between It and the
back half of the third Implnger with water
and acetone, and add this to the latter sam-
ple bottle. Clean the probe with a brush or a
long slender rod and cotton balls. Use acetone
while cleaning. Add these to the sample bot-
tle. Retain a sample of the water and acetone
as a blank. The total amount of wash water
and acetone used should be measured for ac-
curate blank correction. Place the silica gel
In the plastic Jar. Seal and secure all sample
containers for shipment. If an additional test
Is desired, the glassware can be carefully dou-
ble rinsed with distilled water and reassem-
bled. However, If the glassware Is to be out of
use more than 2 days, the Initial acid
wash procedure must be followed.
4.8. Analysis.
4.8.1 Apparatus preparation.—Clean all
glassware according to the procedure of sec-
tion 4.6.1. Adjust the Instrument settings
according to the Instrument manual, using
an absorption wavelength of 234.8 nm.
4.8.2 Sample preparation.—The digestion
of beryllium samples Is accomplished In part
in concentrated perchloric acid. Caution'.
The analyst must insure that the sample Is
heated to light brown fumes after the initial
nitric acid addition; otherwise, dangerous
perchlorates may result from the subsequent
perchloric acid digestion. Perchloric acid also
should be used only under a perchloric add
hood.
4.8.2.1 Transfer, the filter and any loose
paniculate matter from the sample container
to a 150 ml beaker. Add 35 ml concentrated
nitric acid. Reat on a hotplate until light
brown fumes are evident to destroy all or-
ganic matter. Cool to room temperature and
add 6 ml concentrated sulfurlc acid and 6
ml concentrated perchloric acid. Then pro-
ceed with step 4.8.2.4.
4.8.2.2 Place a portion of the water and
acetone sample into a 160 ml beaker and put
on a hotplate. Add portions of the remainder
as evaporation proceeds and evaporate to dry-
ness. Cool the residue and add 35 ml concen-
trated nitric acid. Heat on a hotplate until
light brown fumes are evident to destroy any
organic matter. Cool to room temperature
and add 6 ml concentrated sulfurlc acid, and
RULES AND REGULATIONS

8 ml concentrated perchloric acid, then pro-
ceed with step 4.8.2.4.
4.8.2.3 Weigh the spent silica gel and re-
port to the nearest gram.
4.8.2.4 Samples from 4.8.2.1 and 4.8.2.2
may be combined here for ease of analysis.
Replace on a hotplate and evaporate to dry-
new In a perchloric acid hood. Cool and dis-
solve the residue In 10.0 ml of 36 percent
V/V hydrochloric acid. Samples are now
ready for the atomic absorption unit. The
beryllium concentration of the sample must
be within the calibration range of the unit.
If necessary, further dilution of sample with
26 percent V/V hydrochloric acid must be
performed to bring the sample within the
calibration range.
4 83 Beryllium determination.—Analyze
the samples prepared In 4.8.3 at 2343 nm
using a nitrous oxide/acetylene flame. Alumi-
num, silicon and other elements can Inter-
fere with this method If present In large
quantities. Standard methods are available,
however, to effectively eliminate these Inter-
ferences (see Reference S).
6. Colibro'tton—6.1' Sampling train.—
6.1.1 Use standard methods and equipment
as detailed In APTD-O678 to calibrate the rate
meter, pltot tube, dry gas meter and probe
heater (If used). Recalibrate prior to each
test series.
6.2 Analysis.—6.2.1 Standardization Is
made with the procedure as suggested by the
manufacturer with standard beryllium solu-
tion. Standard solutions will be prepared
from the stock solution by dilution with 26
percent V/V hydrochloric acid. The linearity
of working range should be established with
a series of standard solutions. If collected
samples are out of the linear range, the
samples should be diluted. Standards should
be interspersed with the samples since the
calibration can change slightly with time.
6. Calculations—6.1 Average dry got meter
temperature, stack temperature, stack pres-
sure and average orifice pressure drop.—See
data sheet (figure 104-6).
6.2 Dry gas volume.—Correct the sample
volume measured by the dry gas meter to
stack conditions by using equation 104-2.
where:
8.3 Volume of water vapor.

T.
' "wr *
Where:
TT.. = X.K,.p^ Cq. 104-3

V^T-Volume of water vapor In tlie gas aanipli' (rtMt
' conditions), ft'.
f.—0.00267 -%„ , when these unite are ns«l.
ml R
Vi —Total volume of liquid collected In liupliipi>ra
' and silica gel (see figure 104-7), ml.
T." Average stack gas temperature, °R.
P,-8tack pressure, Pb«±statlc pressure, In ITc.

8.4 Total gas volume.

Vt»t*>=Vmt+Vu. eq. 104-4
^.i-Total volume of gas sample (stack conditions),
ft8.
V. -Volume of gas through dry gas meter (stack
' . conditions), ft>.
V. -Volume of water vapor In (tas sample (slack
conditions), ft1.
6.6 Stack gas velocity.
Use equation 104-6 to calculate the stack
gas velocity.
104-2
Volume of gas sample through tbe dry gas meter
(stack conditions), ft*.
V. -Volume of gas sample through the dry gas meter
(meter conditions) , ft1.
T,- Average temperature of stack gas, °R.
T.- Average dry gas meter temperature, °R.
Pb., -Barometric pressure at the orifice meter, in Hg.
AH- Average pressure drop across tbe ortfloe meter,
InHiO.
U. 0- Specific gravity of mercury.
P,= Stack pressure, Pbu ± italic pressure, in Hg.
eq. 104-5

where:
(r.).M.- Average stack gas velocity, feet per
second.

*'-""£ (ibmot^fnH.o)'''' when
these unite are used.
C,- Pltot tube coefficient, dlmensdonless.
(T.) .»,.— Average stack gas temperature, °R.
(•%/A»).TI -Average square root of the velocity head
olstackgas (InH.O)1/' (see figure 104-8).
.P.—Stack pressure, Pb.ristatic pressure, in
Hg.
A6-Molecular weight of stack gas (wet basis).
the summation of the products of the
molecular weight of each component
multiplied by Its volumetric proportion
in the mixture, Ib/lb-mole.

FINAL
INITIAL
LIQUID COLLECTED
TOTAL VOLUME COLLECTED
VOLUME OF LIQUID
VATEJt COLLECTED
n»INGCR
VOLUME.
ml

SILICA oa
•EIGHT,
•

r| -
•cowvtirr HEIGHT OF «Tt« TO VOLUME IY dividing total weight
OKfuat IY Deem « HATH. i
• VOLUME WATEH. ml
Figure 104-7. Analytical data.
KDERAL ttOISTH, VOL. 18, NO. 66—FRIDAY, .APftll. 6, 1973
IV-30
-------
•UlfS AND tMUUTIONS
PLANT.

DATE
RUN NO.
STACK DIAMETER. In.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, in. Hg._
STATIC PRESSURE IN STACK (Pg), In. Hg._

OPERATORS
SCHEMATIC OF STACK
CROSS SECTION
Traverse point
number
Velocity head.
in. rijO
Suck TOT
AVERAGE:
Figure 104-8. Velocity traverse data.
Figure 104-8 shows a sample recording
•beet for velocity traverse data. Use the aver-
ages In the last two columns of figure 104-8
to determine the average stack gas velocity
from equation 104-6.
6.6 Beryllium collected.—Calculate the
total weight of beryllium collected by using
equation 104-6.
W. = ViCi-V.C.-V.C.--eq. 104-6
where:
Wi=Total weight of beryllium collected,

Vi=Total volume of hydrochloric acid
from step 4.8.2.4, ml.'
Ci=Concentration of beryllium found In
sample, jig/ml.
V* = Total volume of water used In sam-
pling (implnger contents plus all
wash amounts), ml.
O»=Blank concentration of beryllium In
water, eg/ml.
F«=Total volume of acetone used In sam-
pling (all wash amounts), ml.
C«=Blank concentration of beryllium la
acetone, *g/ml.
6.7 Total beryllium emission*.—Calculate
the total amount of beryllium emitted from
each stack per day by equation 104-7. This
equation is applicable for continuous opera-
tions. For cyclic operations, use only the time
per day each stack is In operation. The total
beryllium emissions from a source will be the
summation of results from all stacks.

„ W, (».) w. A. „ 86,400 seconds/day
when:
eq. 104-7

R- Bate of emlsrion, g/day.
ri-Totel weight of berylHnm collected, *.
VIM.I-TOU! volume of fit sample (stack conditions),

dO«.,-Avenf* stack gw velocity, feet per neond.
A.-Black ma, ft>.
KDEIAL UOISTER, VOL at, NO. 6«—PIIOAY, APKIL «, 1*73

IV-31
-------
tUlES AND tCGULATIONS
"A.Q («•«)„,.
44 Itoklnetic variation (comparison of
.Mioctty of 00* in probe tip to itack velocity).
eq. 104-8
Imklneao sunpling.
VMI— Total Tolunuolfumnpu (gluck conditions).

X.-Probe tip ana. ft'.
€—SjunpBng time, ace.
W««»."»Av«raj» stack gu Telocity, feet per second.

7. (valuation of results—7.1 Determina-
tion Of compliance.—7.1.1 Each performance
test shall consist of three repetitions of the
applicable test method. For the purpose of
determining compliance with an applicable
national emission standard, the average of
results of all repetitions shall apply.
7.3 .Acceptable iaokinetic results.—7.2.1
The following range sets the limit on accept-
able laoklnetlc sampling results:
If BO percent ^1^110 percent, the results
an acceptable; otherwise, reject the test and
*«p*»t.
7. References.—1. Addendum to Specifica-
tions for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facil-
ities. FHS, NCAPC. December 6, 1967.
8. Amos. M. D.. and WuUs, J. B., "Use of
High-Temperature Pre-Mlxed Flames In
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy," Bpectro-
Bhtm- Acta, 22: 1325,1B66.
9. Determining Dust Concentration In a
Gas Stream. ASMS Performance Test Code
Ho. 27. New York, N.T.. 1957.
4. Devorkln, Howard et al.. Air Pollution
Bourse Testing Manual, Air Pollution Control
Dl*trtot, Lea Angeles, Calif. November 1963.
(. Fleet. B.. Liberty, K. V., and West, T. 8.,
•A Study of Borne Matrix Effects In the Deter-
mination of Beryllium by Atomic Absorption
•peotroscopy In the Nitrous Oxide-Acetylene
~~ »." Talanta, 17: 203,1970.
13. Smith, W. 8. et al., Stack Gas Sam-
pling Improved and Simplified with New
Equipment, APCA Paper No. 67-119, 1967.
14. Smith, W. S., R. T. Shlgehara. and
W. F. Todd, A Method of Interpreting Stack
Sampling Data, Paper presented at the 63d
Annual meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, St. Louis, Mo., June 14-19, 1970.
10. Specifications for Incinerator Testing
at Federal Facilities, PHS, NCAPC, 1967.
16. Standard Method for Sampling Stacks
tor Partlculate Matter, In: 1971 Book of
ABTM standards. Part 23, Philadelphia. 1971,
A8TM Designation D-3928-71.
17. Vennard, J. K. Elementary Fluid Me-
ohanlcs John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York. 1947.
IFR Doc. 73-6423 Filed 4-5-73;8:45 am]
«. Mark, L. 8.. Mechanical Engineers'
Handbook, McOraw-HUl Book Co., Inc.. New
York, K.T., 1051.
7. Martin. Robert M.. Construction Details
of Iaokinetic Source Sampling Equipment,
Environmental Protection Agency, AFTD-
0881.
a Methods for Determination of Velocity,
Volume, Dust and Mist Content of Oases.
Western Precipitation Division of Joy Manu-
facturing Co., Los Angeles, Calif. Bulletin
WP-60, 1968.
6. Perkln Elmer Standard Conditions (Rev.
March 1971).
10, Perry, J. H., Chemical Engineers' Hand-
book, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New
York, N.Y., 1860.
11. Bern, Jerome J., Maintenance, Calibra-
tion, and Operation of Isoklnetlc Source
Sampling Equipment, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, APTD-0676.
12. Shlgehara, R. T., W. F. Todd, and W. S.
Smith, Significance of Errors in Stack Sam-
pling Measurements, Paper presented at the
»nmia.i meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, St. Louis, Mo., June 14-19, 1970.
FIOHAJ. UOlim, VOL It, NO. 64—HMOAY, AftIL «, W3
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS

Asbestos, Beryllium, and Mercury
Pursuant to section 112 of the Clean
Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7),
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency promulgated national
emission standards for the hazardous air
pollutants asbestos, beryllium, and mer-
cury on April 6. 1973 (38 PR 8820). The
subsequent enforcement of these regula-
tions has demonstrated a need for the
clarifying revisions which follow. These
revisions are necessary to advise the
public of how the regulations are being
interpreted in Agency enforcement ac-
tivities. The revisions promulgated here-
in do not alter the stringency of the
regulations.
A change to Subpart A, General Pro-
visions, which applies to all affected
sources, is promulgated. The definition of
"alternative method" is revised to indi-
cate more clearly that it Is not a "refr
erence method" or "equivalent method"
and to make the definition consistent
with that used in 40 CPR Part 60, Stand-
ards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources.
IV-3 2
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
The applicability of the asbestos reg-
ulation Is discimed In the following
documents which are available on request
from the Emission Standards and Engi-
neering Division, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. Attention: Mr.
DonR. Goodwin:
1. Preamble to the proposed regulation (38
FR 23239)
2. Background Information document for
the proposed regulation (APTD-O753)
3. Preamble to the promulgated regulation
(38 FR 8820)
4. Background Information document for
the promulgated regulation (APTD-1603)

Comments from the owners or operators
of affected sources and from Agency re-
gional enforcement personnel have indi-
cated, however, that the Intent should
be specifically expressed In the text of the
regulation. Considering this, the Agency
determined that the text of the promul-
gated regulation should be revised and
four definitions are added to clarify the
applicability of 40 CFR Part 61. Subpart
B, National Emission Standard for
Asbestos.
The definition of "commercial as-
bestos" is added to distinguish between
asbestos that Is produced as a product
and asbestos that occurs as a contam-
inant ingredient in other materials, and
to make it clear that materials that con-
tain asbestos as a contaminant only are
not covered. Questions were raised con-
cerning the applicability of the standard
to manufacturing operations that use
talc and vermiculite. As Indicated on
page 6 of the background information
report for the proposed standards
(APTD-0753), talc mines were not
covered by the proposed standards; this
was also intended to Indicate that manu-
facturing operations that use talc or
other materials contaminated with as-
bestos were not covered by the asbestos
standard. In addition, the information
available to the Agency at the time of
promulgation (April 6, 1973) did not
demonstrate that the mining and mill-
ing of such materials or manufacturing
operations using such materials were
major sources of asbestos emissions. The
Department of the Interior and the De-
partment of Health, Education and Wel-
fare are studying the health effects of
asbestos In talc. The revisions promul-
gated herein merely clarify the regu-
lations promulgated April 6,1973. and do
not Involve prejudgments concerning the
outcome of investigations now underway.
Asbestos is also a contaminant in taco-
nite ore. EPA at this time believes that
asbestos releases from the milling of such
ores should be covered by the hazardous
air pollutant regulations and intends in
the near future to propose for comment
regulations which would accomplish this.
Because the revisions here being promul-
gated are only clarifications of the
Agency's intentions at the time the initial
hazardous air pollutant regulations for
asbestos were published and because they
are not being proposed for comment, EPA
believes that It Is not appropriate to In-
clude restrictions on releases of asbestos
from taconite mining operations in these
revisions.
The regulation promulgated on April 6,
1973, did not Include a definition for
"asbestos mill" or "manufacturing" oper-
ation, and questions arose concerning
whether certain operations at these facil-
ities are covered by the regulation, and
•whether the regulation applies to all mill-
Ing and manufacturing operations that
process ore or materials that contain as-
bestos. The definition of "asbestos mill"
Is added to clarify that the regulation
covers ore crushing and conveying of
asbestos tailings to disposal piles but does
not cover open storage areas and asbestos
tailings disposal piles. This was explained
In the preamble to the promulgated regu-
lations (38 FR..8821) and on pages 30
and 31 of the background information
report (APTD-1503). The definition ex-
cludes the milling of ores that contain
asbestos minerals only as a contaminant
as previously discussed under the defini-
tion of "commercial asbestos." As noted
earlier, the Agency Intends to propose
regulations covering taconite milling
operations.
The definition of "manufacturing" is
added to clarify that the regulation ap-
plies to only those sources within the spe-
cified categories of affected manufactur-
ing facilities that process commercial
asbestos into a product. Operations
which process (cut, shape, assemble,
mix, or otherwise alter) a manu-
factured product that contains com-
mercial asbestos at a separate location
are not intended to be covered by the
regulation, and are classified as fabricat-
ing rather than manufacturing opera-
tions. The Information available to EPA
prior to promulgation was that new con-
struction sites were the only major
sources of asbestos emissions from fabri-
cation operations and that these sources
were adequately regulated by Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration
standards. This was explained in the pre-
amble to the promulgated regulation (38
FR 8821) and on page 32 of the back-
ground Information report (APTD-
1503).
Some questions have arisen concern-
Ing what operations constitute demoli-
tion. The definition of "demolition" Is
added to clarify that demolition occurs
only In situations where load-supporting
structural members are wrecked or re-
moved. Accordingly, the standard does
not apply to remodeling and renovation
operations In which load-supporting
structural members are not wrecked.
The time allowed owners or operators
to notify the Administrator prior to com-
mencement of a demolition operation Is
changed from 20 days to 10 days, and the
time basis" for the notification is clarified
to be the postmark date of the notice.
Experience has shown that 20 days' no-
tice is not necessary to provide sufficient
time for effective enforcement of the
regulation, and the shorter time will be
more convenient to demolition contrac-
tors.
Some questions have arisen concerning
whether all of the friable asbestos ma-
terials on pipes, boilers, or load-support-
ing structural members had to be wet-
ted and stripped off prior to demolition.
The wording in § 61.22(d) (2) (1) of the
promulgated regulation states that the
friable asbestos material has to be re-
moved, but does not specify the proce-
dure- to be used. A statement is added
to clarify that It Is not necessary for
friable asbestos material to be removed
or stripped from boilers, pipes, or load-
supporting structural members prior to
the removal of these Items as units or
In sections, provided that the asbestos
material exposed during removal la
wetted. As required In 5 61.22(d) (2) (111),
such units or sections must subsequently
be carefully lowered or taken to the
ground level.
A paragraph Is added to clarify that
the regulation is not violated when un-
comblned water is the sole reason a
source falls to meet the no-vlsible-emls-
sions requirement. This makes the no-
visible-emissions regulation consistent
with other similar Agency regulations.
The Agency Is presently studying the
extent of asbestos emission from dumps
of asbestos tailings and open storage of
asbestos ores, disposal of asbestos waste
material, and asbestos fabricating oper-
ations. Beryllium and mercury emissions
resulting from the incineration of sewage
sludge are also being studied. These In-
vestigations are Hearing completion and
the Agency will determine whether it is
necessary to regulate these sources of
hazardous pollutants to provide an
ample margin of safety to protect the
public health. The revisions to the reg-
ulations promulgated herein merely
• clarify the regulations promulgated April
6, 1973, and do not preclude subsequent
revisions to the regulations as indicated
by the studies described above.
The Agency finds that good cause
exists for not proposing these revisions
and for making them effective upon pub-
lication since (1) the revisions make cer-
tain clarifications, but do not change the
substance of the national emission
standards for asbestos, beryllium, and
mercury; and (2) there is a pressing
need to promulgate these revisions so
that the asbestos standard can be uni-
formly interpreted by Industry personnel
and enforced by the Agency. Therefore,
the Administrator has determined that
it is unnecessary to publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking or delay the effec-
tive date of this amendment and for the
reasons cited has not done so.
The amendment of these regulations
is promulgated pursuant to section 112
of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C.. 1857c-7), and Is effective upon
promulgation.
Dated: April 29,1974.
JOHN QUARLES,
Acting Administrator.

Part 61, Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations Is amended by re-
vising Subparts A and B as follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
1. Section 61.02 Is amended by revis-
ing paragraph (c) to read as follows;
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 17—FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1974

iy-33
-------
§ 61.02 Definition*.
• » » • •

(c) "Alternative method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which is not a reference
method or an equivalent method but
•which has been demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction to produce,
in specific cases, results adequate for
his determination of compliance.
Subpart B—National Emission Standard
for Asbestos
2. Section 61.21 is amended by adding
paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j). The
added paragraphs read as follows:
£ 61.21 Definitions.
(g) "Asbestos mill" means any facility
engaged In the conversion or any inter-
mediate step in the conversion of asbestos
ore Into commercial asbestos. Outside
storage of asbestos materials is not con-
sidered a part of such facility.
(h) "Commercial asbestos" means any
variety of asbestos which is produced by
extracting asbestos from asbestos ore.
(i) "Manufacturing" means the com-
bining of commercial asbestos, or in the
case of woven friction products the com-
bining of textiles containing commercial
asbestos, with any other material(s), In-
cluding commercial asbestos, and the
processing of this combination into a
product as specified in I 61.22(c).
(j) "Demolition" means the wrecking
or removal of any load-supporting struc-
tural member.

3. Section 61.22 is amended by revising
paragraphs (a), -------
hazardous air pollutants- (NESHAPS) to
the State of Washington on February 28.
?9?5, EPA is today amending 40 CFR
61.04 Address. A Notice announcing this
delegation was published on April 1, -1975
(40 PR 14632). The amended § 61.04 is
set forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately as the change is an administra-
tive change and not one of substantive
content. It Imposes no additional sub-
stantive burdens on the parties affected.
This rulemaking is effective imme-
diately, and is Issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.3.C. 1857c-7.

Dated April 21, 1975.
ROGER STRKLOW,
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Waste Management.

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

1. Section 61.04 is revised to read as
follows:
§61.04 Address.

(a) All requests, reports, applications,
submittals, and other communications to
the Administrator pursuant to this part
shall be submitted in duplicate and ad-
dressed to the appropriate Regional Of-
fice of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to the attention of the Director,
Enforcement Division. The regional of-
fices are as follows:
Region I (Connecticut, Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ver-
mont), John P. Kennedy Federal Building,
Boston, Massachusetts 02203.
Region H (New Tork, New Jersey, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands), Federal Office Build-
ing, 28 Federal Plaza (Foley Square), New
YorK, N.T. 10007.
Keg Ion in (Delaware, District of Columbia,
Pennfjivaina, Maryland, Virginia, West Vir-
ginia), Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.
Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mls-
slsslppi, Kentucky, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee), Suite 300, 1421 Peach-
fre* Street, Atlanta, 'Georgia 30309.
Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin), 1 North Wacker
Drive. Chicago, Illinois 60906.
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), 1600 Patterson
Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
Region VH (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Ne-
braska), 1736 Baltimore Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 63108.
Region VTO (Colorado, Montana, North Da-
kota. South Dakota, Ut*h, Wyoming), 1JMJ
Lincoln Towers, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver,
Colorado 80203.
Region IX (Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, Guam, American Samoa), 100 Cali-
fornia Street, San Francisco, California 94111.
Region X (Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
Alaska), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wash-
ington 98101.

of this sec-
tion, must also be submitted to the ap-
propriate State Agency of any State to
which this authority has been delegated
(provided, that each specific delegation
may exempt sources from a certain fed-
eral or State reporting requirement). The
appropriate mailing address for those
States whose delegation request has been
approved is as follows:
(A)-(Z) (reserved).
(AA)-(W) [reserved].
WW-Waghington; State of Washington,
Department of Ecology, Olympla, Washington
98S04.
(XX)-(ZZ) [reserved],
(AAA)-(DDD) [reserved],
[FR Doc.75-10798 Filed 4-24-75; 8:45 ami
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. • !-

-fRIOAV, APRIL 25, 1975
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 177-

-THURSOAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1*75
j (FBI, 438-5]

PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of Cali-
fornia on Behalf of Bay Area, Monterey
Bay Unified, .Humboldt County and Del
Norte County Air Pollution Control Dis*
tricts
Pursuant to the delegations of au-
thority for national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants . (NES
HAPS) to the State of California on
behalf of the Bay Area and Monterey
Bay Unified. Air Pollution Control Dis-
tricts (dated May 23, 1975) , and on be-
half of the Humboldt County and Del
Norte County Air Pollution Control Dis-
tricts (dated July 10, 1975), EPA is to-
day amending ,40 CFR 61.04, Address,
to reflect these delegations. Notices an-
nouncing these delegations are pub-
lished today in the Notices Section of
this issue. The amended $ 61.04 is set
forth below. It adds the addresses of the
Bay Area, Monterey Bay Unified, Hum-
boldt County, and Del Norte County
Air Pollution Control Districts, to which
must be addressed all reports, requests
applications, submittals, and communi-
cations pursuant to this part, by sources
subject to the NESHAPS located within
these Air Pollution Control Districts.
The ' Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately in that It is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegations which are reflected by this
administrative amendment were effec-
tive on May 23, 1975 (Bay Area and
Monterey Bay Districts) , and on July 10,
1975 (Humboldt County and Del Norte
County Districts), and it serves .no
purpose to delay the technical change
of this addition of the Air Pollution Dis-
trict addresses to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is Issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Ah- Act, 'as
amended. 42 UJ3.C. l857c-7..
Dated: September 6, 1975.
STANLEY W. LECRO,
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In S 61.04 paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (F) , to read as
follows:
$ 61.04 Address.
(b) • • •

-------
I [FRL 438-4)

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Amendments to Standards for Asbestos '
and Mercury
On October 25. 1974 (39 FR 38064),
pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, the Administrator pro-
posed amendments to national emission
standards for the hazardous air pollu-
tants asbestos and mercury. The Ad-
ministrator also proposed amendments to
Appendix B, Test Methods, of this part.
Interested persons representing indus-
try, trade associations, environmental
groups, and Federal, State and local gov-
ernments participated in the rulemaking
by sending comments to the Agency.
Commentators submitted 40 letters,
many with multiple comments. The com-
ments have been considered, and the
proposed amendments have been reeval-
uated. Each comment, some of which
were submitted by more than one party,
has been separately addressed in writing
by the Agency. The Freedom of Informa-
tion Center, Room 202 West Tower, 401
M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. has
copies of the comment letters received
and a summary of the issues and Agency
responses available for public inspection.
In addition, copies of the issue summary
and Agency responses may be obtained
upon written request from the EPA Pub-
lic Information Center (PM-215), 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
(specify Public Comment Summary—
Proposed Amendments to National Emis-
sion Standards for Hazardous Air Pol-
lutants—Asbestos and Mercury). Where
determined by the Administrator to be
appropriate, changes have been made to
the proposed amendments, and the re-
vised version of the amendments to the
national emission standards for asbestos
and mercury is promulgated herein. The
principal changes to the proposed
amendments and the Agency's responses
to the major comments received are sum-
marized below.
Copies of Background Information on
National Emission Standards for Haz-
ardous Air Pollutants—Proposed Amend-
ments to Standards for Asbestos and
Mercury -------
RULES AND REGULATION
rial that wfll be removed or stripped as a
result of the individual emergency.
One commentator stated that the pro-
posed amendment covering renovation
could be circumvented by the carrying out
of small portions, which are Individually
aot subject to the amendment, of a larger
operation. Section 61.17 has been added
to the General Provisions to explicitly
prevent this potential circumvention and
to apply In general to circumvention of
all standards promulgated under this
part.
One commentator stated that a re-
quirement In |6l.22(d)(2)(vi) of the
proposed amendments was Inconsistent
and should be revised. This section re-
quired that friable asbestos material re-
moved from buildings greater than 50
feet in height be transported to the
ground via dust-tight chutes or contain-
ers. "The cited Inconsistency arises be-
cause this requirement applied at all
heights, including those less than 50 feet,
for a building 50 feet or gretaer in height,
whereas it did not apply to buildings less
than 50 feet In height. The requirement
has been changed so that It applies only
to materials that have been removed or
stripped at more than 50 feet above
ground level.
Several minor changes have been made
In response to comments. Language has
been added to allow delivery of notices
of Intention to renovate or demolish to
the Administrator by means other than
the UJS. mall. There is a minor clarifying
language change between i 61.22
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
cy agrees that certain natural barriers,
such as deep ravines and steep cliffs, can
be as effective as fences In deterring ac-
cess. Hie proposed amendment has been
changed to suspend the requirements for
fences, and also warning signs, when a
natural barrier provides an adequate de-
terrent to public access. Upon request
and supply of appropriate Information,
the Administrator will determine wheth-
er a specific type of fence or a natural
barrier adequately deters access to the
general public. In response to another
comment, the proposed amendment for
fencing of asbestos waste disposal sites
has been revised to allow fences to be
placed either along the property line of
an affected source that contains a waste
disposal site or along the perimeter of the
disposal site Itself. Either type of fence
provides the necessary deterrent to public
access to the disposal site.
Several comments were received on the
proposed prohibition of Incineration of
containers that previously contained
commercial asbestos. One commentator
stated that the prohibition seemed un-
desirable because asbestos is thermally
degraded at a temperature of 600° C. The
Agency considered: (a) the uncertainty
that the feed material to an Incinerator
will be uniformly heated to the combus-
tion chamber temperature, (b) the un-
certainty concerning the decomposition
temperature of asbestos, and (c) the re-
sults of a stack gas test that detected
emissions of asbestos from a sintering
process In which the temperature at-
tained was well above 600° C, in evaluat-
ing the comment. The Agency concluded
that the available data do not Justify
changing the proposed regulation on
grounds that the asbestos is thermally
degraded in the combustion process. An-
other comment suggested that Incinera-
tion should be permitted, provided there
are no visible emissions of asbestos par-
tlculate matter from the Incinerator. In-
formation presented to the Agency after
proposal Indicated that some small in-
cinerators, such as those operated by
asbestos manufacturing plants, can be
operated with no visible emissions. The
proposed prohibition on incineration of
containers that previously held commer-
cial asbestos has been deleted. The pro-
visions of the amendments for the dis-
posal of asbestos-containing waste mate-
rials apply in particular to the disposal
of containers that previously held com-
mercial asbestos. Therefore, these con-
tainers can be Incinerated under the
amendments, provided the Incineration
operation does not discharge visible
emissions.
Two commentators suggested that the
proposed amendments should not require
that EPA warning labels be attached to
containers of asbestos waste In addition
to the warning labels specified in regula-
tions Issued by the U.S. Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). The Agency
agrees that both labels adequately con-
vey the desired Information; therefore,
the proposed 'amendment has been
changed to allow the OSHA warning
label to be used In place of the EPA
warning label.
Several commentators requested that
the proposed alternative method of com-
pliance Included In the asbestos waste
disposal amendments, which specified
that the waste be formed Into non-friable
pellets, be changed to accommodate
shapes other than pellete. The precise
size and shape of the processed, non-
friable waste Is not important, and the
amendment has been reworded to ex-
plicitly permit the forming of asbestos
wastes Into pellets or any other shapes.
A comment was made during review
within the Agency that asbestos-contain-
ing wastes subject to the proposed
amendment are sometimes used to sur-
face roadways and that this practice
should be prohibited. The Agency agrees
that the use of asbestos-containing
wastes on roadways can cause asbestos
emissions similar to those caused by the
use of asbestos tailings on roadways,
which Is prohibited by the asbestos
standard. Vehicular traffic on roadways
can pulverize asbestos waste and liberate
fibers that can become airborne in the
wake of moving vehicles and by the wind.
The use of asbestos-containing wastes
has therefore been prohibited from use
on roadways.
The proposed amendment for waste
disposal at asbestos mills included a pro-
vision requiring no visible emissions to
the outside air from the deposition of
asbestos ore tailings onto a disposal pile.
An alternative method of compliance
required that the waste be adequately
wetted with a dust suppressant agent
prior to deposition. Two commentators
stated that an exemption from the wet-
ting requirement of the alternative
method Is needed when the temperature
at the disposal site is below freezing, to
prevent freezing of the tailings and per-
mit continued operation of the asbestos
mill at such low temperatures. The Inves-
tigation carried out by the Agency prior
to proposal of the amendment Indicated
that wetting of asbestos tailings Is the
only presently available method for effec-
tively controlling particulate emissions
from the deposition operation. In re-
sponse to the comments received, the
Agency further Investigated the cold
weather operational problems of disposal
systems for wetted asbestos tailings. Dis-
cussions were held with operators of three
Canadian asbestos mills that frequently
operate under cold weather conditions
and have Installed tailings wetting sys-
tems, with a firm that is experienced In
designing systems to suppress dust gen-
erated by materials conveying operations,
and with several non-asbestos mineral
mining facilities that operate wetting
systems for crushing and conveying oper-
ations. The investigation revealed that
several Canadian asbestos mills are pres-
ently experimenting with wet tailings
disposal systems to extend operation to
temperatures substantially below freez-
ing. However, the Agency is aware of no
such system that has operated In a con-
tinuous manner at temperatures below
-9.5"C (15°F>. Accordingly, the Agency
has- concluded that wet tailings disposal
systems for asbestos mills are not avail-
able for disposal site temperatures below
—9.5 °C (15°P), and the proposed amend-
ment has been changed to provide an
exemption for wetting of tailings below
thlB temperature. Only one existing do-
mestic asbestos mill Is expected to use
the exemption to a rignifiMmt extent.
An examination of hourly temperatures
representative of the location of that
plan, and extending over a period 'of one
year, showed that hourly temperatures
are below 15 °P for approximately 7 per-
cent of the time.
Asbestos emissions at asbestos mill
tailings disposal piles are contributed by
the tailing conveying operation, the
deposition operation, and wind entraln-
ment of asbestos-containing particulate
from the surface of the disposal pile. The
first emission source is subject to pre-
viously promulgated regulations (38 PR
8820) , and the latter two sources are sub-
ject to the amendments promulgated
herein. The major sources of asbestos
emissions from process gas streams at
asbestos mills, namely effluents from
crushers, dryers and milling equipment,
are also covered by the previously prom-
ulgated regulations (38 FR 8820). The
amendments promulgated herein. In-
cluding an exemption from wetting of
asbestos tailings at temperatures below
-9.5* C (15* F), together with the stand-
ards promulgated on April 6, 1973 (38 FR
8820) , represent use of the best available
technology for control of emissions from
asbestos mills. This is consistent with the
determination of the Administrator that
best available technology should be used
to control major sources of asbestos
emissions to protect the public health
with an ample margin of safety.
The reporting format of Appendix A
has been changed by the addition of
paragraphs "C" and "D", to accommo-
date the addition of disposal of asbestos-
containing wastes and certain Inactive
asbestos waste disposal sites to the
amendments. The additional Informa-
tion required is essential for determining
compliance with the regulations. Ap-
pendix A has also been revised into a new
computer format which will promote
more effective enforcement of the regula-
tions. Section 61.24 has been revised to
reflect the additional reporting Informa-
tion requested in Appendix A.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Manufacturing and Fabrication. One
comment questioned the need for In-
cluding asphalt concrete manufacturing
plants in the proposed amendments. The
rationale for Including asphalt concrete
plants as major sources of asbestos is
discussed In the background Informa-
tion document for the proposed amend-
ments (EPA-450/2-74-009a) . Two com-
mentators suggested that the manufac-
ture of asphalt concrete containing less
than 3 to 5 percent asbestos In the total
mixture should be exempt from the regu-
lations. However, asbestos asphalt con-
crete typically contains 1 to 2 percent
asbestos, and- the Agency determined
that asbestos asphalt concrete operations
using even these low percentages of
asbestos are major sources. No data or
Information were received that would
indicate asphalt concrete plants are not
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975

IV-3 9
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
major sources, and the regulations pro-
mulgated herein apply to such sources.
The Agency received two comments that
the Individual emission sources within
an asbestos asphalt-concrete plant which
are subject to the proposed amendments
should be specified. The Agency feels that
revisions are not necessary. Only com-
ponent operations that may emit asbes-
tos are covered by the provisions; for
example, If no asbestos Is added to the
aggregate dryer, the emissions from the
dryer alone are not covered.
The possibility that the enforcement
of the amendments promulgated herein
for asphalt concrete plants may be in
conflict with the enforcement of new
source performance standards for as-
phalt concrete plants was raised by one
commentator. It is possible that both the
new source performance standard and
the national emission standard for asbes-
tos will apply simultaneously to emissions
from some operations at some new and
modified plants. Where this occurs, the
visible emission standard promulgated
herein applies to asbestos participate
matter, even though It is more restric-
tive than the opacity regulation of the
new source performance* standard. A
more stringent standard Is justified when
asbestos is being processed because of
the hazardous nature of asbestos.
Comments were received that the pro-
posed definition of "fabricating" needed
to be clarified. The Agency reviewed the
definition and determined that changes
In the definition are not necessary. Fabri-
cating Includes any type of processing,
excluding field fabrication, performed on
manufactured products that contain
commercial asbestos. The Agency ac-
knowledges that some component proc-
esses of asbestos fabricating operations
could generate visible emissions in such
a manner that the visible emissions do
not contain asbestos generated by the
process, though the commentators did
not cite any specific examples. The Agen-
cy has observed this type of process in
asbestos manufacturing operations. For
example, visible emissions of organic
materials are sometimes generated dur-
ing the curing of asbestos friction prod-
ucts in operations where asbestos is
bound into a matrix of non-asbestos
material but the asbestos is not trans-
ferred Into the emission stream. Such
operations are in compliance with the
standard of no visible emissions contain-
ing participate asbestos material.
One commentator stated that some
field fabrication operations release
significant amounts of asbestos. The
Agency's Investigation prior to proposal
of the amendments showed that there Is
only limited field fabrication of asbestos
products other than insulating products.
The fabrication of friable asbestos In-
sulation was determined to be the only
major asbestos field fabrication source,
and this Is regulated by prohibiting the
use of such materials after the effective
date of the amendments promulgated
herein. In the Judgment of the Adminis-
trator, the comment did not contain suf-
ficient Information to Justify Including
other categories of asbestos field fabrica-
tion In the amendments. One commenta-
tor recommended that the Agency Im-
pose a standard of 0.03 grain per cubic
foot for asbestos emissions in addition to
the no-vislble-emission standard. It Is
the judgment of the Agency that there
are no sufficiently reliable emlslon meas-
urement techniques to provide a basis for
such a numerical standard and the set-
ting of numerical standards should be
delayed until accurate asbestos measur-
ing techniques are available.
Demolition and Renovation. Comments
were received which suggested that the
proposed renovation provisions should
not apply to operations carried out with-
in buildings, or to operations regulated
by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administartion (OSHA) -for worker ex-
posure to asbestos. The Agency recognizes
that there may be less asbestos emis-
sions from stripping of friable asbestos
materials within a structure than from
stripping In an unenclosed area. However,
asbestos from the stripping operation
carried out within a building or structure
can be discharged into the outside air
from building ventilation systems, win-
dows and doors. Further, the disposal of
friable asbestos waste materials gener-
ated by renovation operations, which In-
cludes the transport of waste materials
to a disposal site, is an emission source
that needs to be controlled regardless of
whether the renovation Is performed In
the outside air or in buildings. In the
Judgment of the Administrator, the con-
trol of such asbestos emissions is neces-
sary and is part of the best available con-
trol technology. The OSHA regulations
(29 CFR 1910.93a) require that, ". . . In-
sofar as practicable . . .," asbestos mate-
rial be removed while wetted effectively
to prevent emission of asbestos in excess
of the specified OSHA exposure limit, but
also specifically require that employees
shall be provided with respiratory equip-
ment for all spraying, demolition and re-
moval of asbestos materials. The purpose
of the OSHA standard, to protect em-
ployees' health, can be achieved by the
use of respiratory equipment, even in
those situations where wetting Is not im-
plemented and emissions may produce
concentrations In excess of the OSHA ex-
posure limit. The extent to which the re-
sulting concentrations in the outside air
are protective of public health is un-
known. Accordingly, the proposed reno-
vating provisions do not exempt opera-
tions that are controlled by OSHA regu-
lations.
Two commentators stated that the al-
ternative to the we'tting requirement In
the demolition provisions at sub-freezing
temperatures should be allowed at all
temperatures. In contrast, another com-
mentator suggested that suspension of
the wetting requirements at sub-freez-
ing temperatures should be subject to a
permit procedure that would discourage
demolition at sub-freezing temperatures.
The alternative was proposed because, In
the judgment of the Agency, worker
safety would be unduly Jeopardized by
the unsafe footing caused by Ice forma-
tion from water use under freezing con-
ditions. The proposed alternative Is less
restrictive on demolition contractors
than a second course of action that was
considered, namely the prohibition of
demolition under freezing conditions. The
proposed alternative suspends only a
portion of the wetting requirements
under freezing conditions. Pipes, ducts,
boilers, tanks, reactors, turbines, fur-
naces and structural members Insulated
or flreproofed with friable asbestos ma-
terials must be removed from-the build-
ing in sections, to the maximum extent
practicable, before wrecking of the build-
ing. The stripping of asbestos materials
from the previously removed sections
must be accompanied by wetting at all
temperatures, and the resulting asbestos
waste materials must be wetted at all
temperatures. These procedures do not
Jeopardize worker safety. Therefore, the
promulgated demolition provisions are
based on the use of the best available
emission control methods at all tempera-
tures, and these methods are different for
non-freezing and freezing conditions.
Another comment Indicated that
sprayed fireproofing was the only type
of asbestos material that could cause as-
bestos emissions to the atmosphere dur-
ing demolition operations, and that
molded Insulation Is not readily released
Into the air. The Agency has inspected
both types of materials and has found
that some types of molded insulation
and plaster that contain asbestos are
friable. Therefore, buildings containing
these materials are covered by the
amendments promulgated herein.
Comments were received that the
Agency has a responsibility to develop
asbestos measurement methods and de-
termine by use of measurement methods
whether demolition Is a major source of
asbestos emissions. The Agency keeps
abreast of newly developed measurement
techniques hi the asbestos industry, and
the development of asbestos measure-
ment techniques ls~currently being fund-
ed by the Agency. No new information on
measurement techniques was received In
the comments. The Agency previously
made the determination that building
demolition is a major source of asbestos
emissions, and no new Information has
been submitted to demonstrate that it is
not a major source. Demolition and ren-
ovation operations generate short-term
exposures of urban populations to asbes-
tos. Since promulgation of the demoli-
tion regulations on April 6, 1973, new
biological evidence supporting the signif-
icance of single short-term exposures of
asbestos has been obtained. One-day In-
halation exposures in animal experiments
have produced an Increase In the In-
cidence of mesothelioma. (Wagner, J. C.,
Berry, G., and Timbrell, V., "The Effects
of the Inhalation of Asbestos in Rats",
Br. J. Cancer 29, pp. 252-269, 1974). A
copy of this article is available for inspec-
tion at the Public Information Reference
Center, Room 2404, Waterside Mall, 401
M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. It
can be concluded that human asbestos
exposure for periods typically required to
perform demolition and renovation oper-
ations is hazardous. Therefore, the
Agency has not changed its prior deter-
mination that building demolition is a
major source of asbestos emissions. An-
other commentator was concerned that
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975

IV-40
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
the demolition sources now covered by
the asbestos standard as major sources
were not denned as major sources by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAB)
study, which was cited by the Agency as
a basis for the demolition regulation.
The NAS study did not define categories
of asbestos materials other than sprayed
flreproonng as major emission sources
because data were available at that time
on flreprooflng only. The Agency had
concluded prior to proposing asbestos
standards on December 7, 1971 that any
friable asbestos material used for insu-
lation or fireprooflng has a comparable
potential to create asbestos emissions
upon demolition or renovation as sprayed
fireprooflng, and therefore these mate-
rials are also covered by the regulations.
Several comments were received stat-
ing that the definitions of "friable as-
bestos material," "asbestos," and "as-
bestos material" are vague and subjective
and remain constitutionally deficient for
a regulation enforceable by criminal pro-
ceedings. The Agency reevaluated the
definitions and concluded that they are
sufficiently clear that the owners or op-
erators subject to the amendments can
reasonably be expected to understand
these terms. Owners or operators should
be able to identify covered material and
comply with the regulations on the basis
of the definitions supplied.
Comments were made suggesting the
Agency describe more specifically a prop-
er wetting operation. The purpose of the
wetting requirements is to reduce the
amount of asbestos dust generated dur-
ing demolition operations. Many differ-
ent procedures would accomplish this;
therefore, the Agency believes that spec-
ifying such procedures is neither nec-
essary nor appropriate. A new definition
of "adequately wetted" was added to the
regulations promulgated herein. The
Agency believes that owners or operators
of demolition operations are familiar
with proper wetting procedures.
Two comments were made stating that
the proposed demolition and renovation
amendments are not emission standards
and that asbestos emissions must be
proved in determining compliance with
the. regulations. Congress has specified
that EPA should set emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants. EPA,
charged with Implementing this require-
ment, has determined that the term
"emission standard" includes work prac-
tice requirements designed to limit emis-
sions. The position taken by the Admin-
istrator on this issue in the promulga-
tion of the original regulations on
asbestos on Api-y 6, 1973 (38 PR 8820)
Is unchanged here. The demolition and
renovation regulations require certain
work procedures to be followed. These
methods of control are required because
of the impossibility at this time of pre-
scribing and enforcing allowable numeri-
cal concentrations or mass emission
limitations. One difficulty in prescribing
a numerical emission standard is the rel-
ative inaccuracy of asbestos analytical
methods. Dr. Arnold Brown, testifying In
a recent court case Involving asbestos
emissions [United Slates et alv. Reserve
Mining Co. et al, 498 F.2d 1073,1079, (8th
Cir, 1974) ] stated, "It la reasonable to
assume an error In the count of fibers
in both water and air of at least ntae
times on the high side to one-ninth on
the low side." Further testifying on the
same subject, Dr. Brown stated. "... I
do not recall having been exposed to a
procedure with an error this large, and
which people have seriously proposed a
number based on this very poor proce-
dure." Moreover, there is no place to
measure the total emissions from a
demolition or renovation operation. The
Agency has determined that violations of
the work practices specified in the
demolition section will result in emissions
of asbestos. Considering thrse facts, the
prescription of work practices is not only
a legally permissible form of an emission
standard, but also the only practical and
reasonable form.
Waste Disposal. A number of com-
mentators questioned the relationship
between the proposed . no-visible-emis-
sions requirements in the proposed
asbestos waste disposal provisions and
the alternative methods for complying
with the requirement. The following
points were included in the comments:
1. Can any of a variety of waste dis-
posal methods be used to meet the no-
visible-emissions limit?
2. Various other methods of disposal
should be specified as alternatives.
3. The inclusion of a no-vlslble-emis-
sions requirement in portions of the
alternative methods of compliance is a
paradox.
4. Various alternatives are either not
feasible or are unnecessary for some
specific waste disposal operations.
As stated in §§ 61.22 (j) and (k) of the
proposed and promulgated amendments,
a requirement for affected sources that
dispose of asbestos waste is no visible
emissions during waste disposal opera-
tions. This provides affected sources flex-
ibility in developing and using those dis-
posal techniques most suitable to individ-
ual needs. The Agency recognizes that
the best available disposal methods for
some of the sources may not be capable
of preventing visible emissions during a
minor portion of some of the disposal
operations. Therefore, alternative meth-
ods of compliance that represent the best
available disposal methods have been in-
cluded in the regulations. Sources are not
required to use these methods; they may
use other methods that achieve no visible
emissions. However, sources may elect to
use one of the specified alternatives.
Some of these alternatives result in no
visible emissions; others may not. For
those alternative methods that may not
be capable of preventing visible emissions
during all portions of the waste disposal
process, a requirement has nevertheless
been Included that there be no visible
emissions from those portions of the
process that can achieve this perform-
ance level. The listing of a particular
method of waste disposal as an alterna-
tive method of compliance does not Im-
ply that the method Is universally ap-
plicable or that the use of the method
Is necessary to achieve no visible emis-
sions.
Some comments questioned whether
the proposed amendments would apply
to asbestos waste disposal sites that were
Inactivated prior to the publication of
the proposed amendments. Regulations
established under section 112 of the Act
are applicable to both existing sources
and new sources. The amendments cover
previously Inactivated sites as well as
sites that become Inactive in the future.
However, the proposed amendments have
been revised as discussed In "Changes to
the Proposed Amendments" so that only
owners of sites which have been oper-
ated by asbestos mills, manufacturing
plants, and fabricating plants subject to
the asbestos standard must comply with
the asbestos amendments proposed here-
in for inactive asbestos waste disposal
sites.
Several commentators suggested that
certain types of asbestos waste disposal
sites should be excluded from the pro-
posed amendments, depending upon the
the rate at which asbestos waste is de-
posited at the site, the percentage of
the total waste that Is asbestos, the fria-
bility of the asbestos waste, and the ex-
tent to which the site is in active opera-
tion. These comments were considered,
but no changes in the proposed amend-
ments were made as a result of the
Agency's revaluation. It would be ex-
tremely difficult to enforce regulations
that depend on the rate or asbestos con-
tent of waste deposition. Further, the
provisions promulgated herein shift the
focus of the waste disposal requirements
away from the site operator to the gen-
erator of the waste. Because of this, the
burden of the requirements on a waste
disposal site operator who accepts only
a very small quantity of asbestos waste,
and who the commentators desire to
exclude from the regulations, is largely
removed.
A comment was made that the pro-
posed amendments could cause consid-
erable hardship to small users of asbestos
because some waste disposal sites may
no longer accept.asbestos wastes. There
are an estimated 5,000 waste disposal
sites in the U.S. which meet the stand-
ards of a sanitary landfill. A properly
operated sanitary landfill complies with
the soil-covering requirements of the
amendments, and therefore will be af-
fected only slightly by handling asbestos
wastes. Accordingly, the Agency believes
that small manufacturers and users of
asbestos will not encounter severe prob-
lems in complying with the amendments
for waste disposal sites.
Two commentators were concerned
that the proposed waste disposal provi-
sions would cause serious problems in
contract hauling arrangements; and in
the use of private landfills, municipal
landfills, and waste disposal sites leased
by generators of the asbestos waste.
Since the generator of the waste has
the direct responsibility for compliance
during the transport of waste and for
disposing of the waste at a properly oper-
ated disposal site, the Agency believes
that problems In contract hauling ar-
rangements can be avoided If the gener-
ator Institutes proper waste handling
practices. The Agency also believes that
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY. OCTOBER 14, 1975

IV-41
-------
RULES AND 8EGULATIONS
tfae deletion In the promulgated amend-
ments of some of tbe proposed require-
ments for posting of warning signs wffl
remove many of the potential problems
that -were of concern. Further changes
to the proposed amendments were judged
unnecessary because they Impose few
additional requirements on disposal
sites, such as municipal sanitary landfill
sites, that are properly operated.
A comment suggested that bags Which
previously .held commercial asbestos
should be exempt If the bags have been
cleaned sufficiently so that shaking the
bags will not generate visible emissions
of asbestos partlculate matter. Even tf
such wastes do not produce visible emis-
sions during the subsequent processing,
transporting and depositing operations
at a waste disposal site, there is a need
for ensuring proper ultimate waste dis-
posal because such bags still are likely to
contain residual asbestos. The Agency
believes that regulations are needed for
this purpose and also for the purpose of
ensuring that emissions from the cited
method of cleaning bags are properly
controlled. Accordingly, the disposal of
bags that have been cleaned in the man-
ner described has not been exempted
from the amendments promulgated
herein.
Comments were received which stated
that the proposed waste disposal provi-
sions would probably preclude the dis-
posal of waste asbestos cement pipe in
commercial landfills. It Is the Agency's
judgment that commercial landfills
which comply with the regulations will
be available. Further, the pipe crushing
operation that Is conventionally carried
out during compaction at the disposal
site can alternatively be performed and
controlled by gas cleaning equipment at
a stationary crusher.
MERCURY
CHANCES TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed definition of "sludge
dryer" has been revised to indicate more
clearly that only sludge drying opera-
tions that are directly heated by com-
bustion gases are covered by the amend-
ment. The amendment does not apply to
devices that are indirectly heated, such
as secondary mercury recovery furnaces.
'A comment suggested that dally sludge
sampling and analysis should be required
to reveal potential variations in mercury
content of the sludge. The daily averages
of sludge mercury content are not ex-
pected to vary significantly, and the
Agency believes that the added cost to
the owners or operators of such sources
for daily sampling and analysis of sludge
is not justified. Variations In mercury
concentration of sludge can occur over
longer periods of time, however, and a
requirement has been added that all fa-
cilities for which emissions are in excess
of 1600 grams per day as determined by
the initial compliance test must monitor
on a yearly basis with the sludge sam-
pling method. In addition, the Agency
has authority to request sludge sampling
and analysis, or stack sampling, and will
exercise this authority whenever there
are mdlcaticns that a change In mer-
cury coacentrfttion of the sludge has
occurred fliat would significantly In-
crease mercury fanl.vrtnns.
One commentator suggested several
revisions to procedures in Oie proposed
sludge testing method, Method 105. The
procedures were reevaluated, and the
method has been changed where appro-
priate. The proposed section 3.1.3 of
Method 105 specified a 10 percent solu-
tion of stannous chloride as an alterna-
tive to stannous sulfate. One comment
stated that it was Inappropriate to re-
quire any solution percentage. The
Agency agrees, and the requirement has
been deleted. Another comment sug-
gested that the required use of mercuric
chloride ol Bureau of Standards purity
to prepare the mercury stock solution is
not necessary because the precision uf
the method does not demand such purity.
The Agency agrees with this comment,
and the method has been changed to
permit the use of reagent grade mercuric
chloride. The comment was made that
mercuric solutions should not be pre-
pared in plastic containers. The Agency
Is In general agreement with this and
a statement to this effect has been added
to Method 105. Section 4.1.1 of the
method specifies that the, "- . . sam-
pling devices, glassware and reagents
should be ascertained free of significant
amounts of mercury." A major source of
mercury contamination occurs when
sample solutions and reagents come Into
contact with mercury-contaminated con-
tainers. A comment indicated that a spe-
cific quantity should be stated to indicate
how much mercury Is considered "sig-
nificant." The Agency believes that the
specification of an amount of mercury
contamination is inappropriate because
such an amount would be very difficult to
measure. The mercury contamination of
containers can be reduced to an insig-
nificant amount by properly cleaning
such containers before use. The proposed
paragraph has therefore been changed
to specify that sample containers shall
be properly cleaned before use by rins-
ing with nitric add, followed by rinsing
with distilled water. Another comment
suggested that the possible Interferences
with the analysis of mercury in sludge
should be delineated and that preventa-
tive measures should be given. In re-
sponse, two references in which such In-
terferences are discussed have been
added to Method 105.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

The Agency has determined that an
ambient air mercury concentration of 1
mlcrogram per cubic meter averaged
over a 30-day period will protect' the
public health with an ample margin of
safety. The maximum allowable mer-
cury emission for sludge incineration and
drying plants was calculated, by use of
meteorological modeling techniques us-
mg restrictive dispersion conditions, that
would not result in this ambient concen-
tration being exceeded. The resulting
maximum allowable emission Is 3200
grams of mercury per day. Numerous
comments were received that questioned
the methodology used to calculate this
emission limitation. Several comments
questioned the derivation of the ambient
concentration of 1 microgram per cubic
meter, 30-day average, and indicated
that this level should be lower. The
Agency evaluated these comments, but
determined that no new information had
been presented that had not been pre-
viously considered In the derivation of
this allowable concentration. Another
commentator stated that the restrictive
meteorological conditions used for sew-
age sludge incineration and drying plants
do not represent the "worst case" mete-
orological conditions, and discussed a
specific existing facility as an example.
The Agency analyzed this comment con-
sidering the meterological conditions and
topography at the specific site mentioned
In the comment and concluded that, even
with a mercury emission of 3200 grams
per day, the public will be protected with
an ample margin of safety at the cited
facility. A copy of the Agency response
to this comment is available for Inspec-
tion at the Public Information Reference
Center, Room 2404 Waterside MaD, 401
M St., Wash., D.C. 20460. The Agency
knows of no sludge Incineration or drying
facility where the ambient guideline level
of one mlcrogram of mercury per cubic
meter, 30-day average, will be exceeded.
The following comments stating that the
proposed emission limit is too stringent
or that additional studies are needed
before promulgation were received:
1. The proposed emission limit pro-
vides an excessive safety factor for some
plant locations.
2. The proposed emission limit should
be based on plant size, allowing larger
emissions for larger plants.
3. The Intent of the proposed amend-
ment seems to be to limit the size of new
plants and require disposal of sludge
by alternative methods.
4. The regulation seems to be exces-
sively stringent In order to simplify the
administration of the standard for mul-
tiple sources.
5. There is not enough Information to
justify promulgating the amendment at
this time; the promulgation should be
delayed until further studies are made.
In contrast, several comments sug-
gested that the proposed emission limit
was too lenient. Since the emission limi-
tation is related to an ambient concen-
tration. It would be inappropriate to
allow higher emissions for larger plants.
Concerning plant location, it would be
Impractical to specify a different emis-
sion limitation for each present or future
plant location which reflected local
meteorological conditions. Moreover, sec-
tion 112 of the Act provides for a na-
tional standard, and the Administrator
has set this standard at a level which
will prevent exceeding the specified safe
ambient level at all locations. The
Agency determined that there Is suffi-
cient Information to justify promulgat-
ing emission regulations for sludge in-
cinerators and no data or Information
were presented that would Justify chang-
ing the mercury emission limit of 3200
grams per day.
A comment was made that the Impact
of multiple sources of mercury emis-
sions was not addressed In the derivation
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975

IV-42
-------
of the national emission nlnndard for
jncmiry. While Die ptundurd docn not
Include special provisions for multiple
sources. It docs provide a largo nafcty
factor at many sites and this provides a
mcor.urc of protection against the mul-
tiple source problem. The Agency knows
of no location where existing multiple
sources of mercury will cause the am-
bient guideline level of one mtcrogram
of mercury per cubic meter, 30-day aver-
age, to be exceeded. The Agency must
approve all new construction 'or modifi-
cation of sources regulated by the
mercury standard. During the review of
such construction or modification, the
Agency will assess the Impact that the
new or modified sources have on the
ambient mercury concentration. If the
Agency discovers a situation where a
source can cause the guideline ambient
concentration to be exceeded, the na-
tional emission standard will be reevalu-
ated. In addition, local planning agencies
have the capability to prevent multiple
source pollution problems through
proper land use planning. The Agency
urges these local agencies to consider
the Impact of multiple sources on such
problems as mercury air pollution when
making planning decisions.
Comments were received that ques-
tioned whether all sludge incineration
and drying plants are major sources of
mercury emissions that must demon-
strate compliance with the standard. All
of these facilities have the potential to
emit mercury; the amount of mercury
that Is emitted depends upon the
mercury content of the sludge and the
sludge incineration or drying rate. Ac-
cordingly, all such facilities must dem-
onstrate compliance with the* emission
limitation promulgated herein.
A comment was received that the
economic impact of the proposed amend-
ments on some large facilities may be
large, since there may be few or no alter-
natives for sludge disposal. The Agency
estimates that the largest mercury emis-
sion from an existing sludge Incinerator
or dryer Is approximately 500 grams per
day, which Is approximately one-sixth of
the maximum allowable emission. The
time period over which sludge genera-
tion would Increase In excess of, six-fold
should provide sufficient lead time for
planning an economically feasible alter-
nate disposal method. If It is required.
The Agency therefore does not foresee a
significant economic Impact for the near
future at any sludge incineration or
drying plant.
Several comments stated that other
sources such as ore processing plants,
mercury compound manufacturing
plants. Industrial waste Incinerators,
coal-fired power plants, and rooms
painted with mercury-containing paints
should be Investigated and regulated If
necessary. The Agency previously Inves-
tigated mercury emissions from nonfer-
rous smelting plants, secondary mercury
production plants, coal-fired power
plants, and solid waste Incineration
plants, and determined that these
sources do not emit mercury In such
quantities that they are likely to cause
the ambient mercury concentration to
RULES AND REGULATIONS

exceed one mlcrocram per cubic meter.
Tho Agency liaa regulated all sources
that may reasonably bo expected to •
cause an ambient mercury concentra-
tion of as much as one mlcroKram per
cubic meter, 30-day average. However,
the Agency will continue a policy of In-
vestigating any source of mercury that
It has reason to believe has the potential
to endanger the public health.
Another comment stated that the
Agency should give specific suggestions,
or references should be provided, for dls'-
poslng of mercury-containing sludges on
land In a manner that would protect
water resources. The Agency's Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials Is pre-
paring technical publications on various
alternatives for the disposal of sludges,
and such materials should be available
In the near future.
Several comments were made on the
mercury collection efficiency of water
scrubbers. One commentator suggested
that the mercury collection efficiency of
Individual water scrubbers should be as-
sumed to be zero for purposes of deter-
mining compliance, until positively
proven otherwise. Another commentator
stated that the proposed sludge sampling
method should take into account the
amount of mercury that would be col-
lected by a scrubber. The Agency has de-
termined that the requirements of the
standard are adequate. No credit for
mercury removed by water scrubbers Is
allowed when compliance is .determined
by sludge sampling and analysis; how-
ever, if the mercury stack .measurement
method Is used to determine compliance,
only the amount of mercury emitted to
the outside air is measured and any mer-
cury collection by the system Is taken
Into account. The-Agency has determined
that sludge sampling and analysis can
be used as an alternative method to de-
termine maximum mercury emissions,
because It is sufficiently accurate. The
method is also inexpensive when com-
pared to a complete stack test.
The following comments were received
which suggested changes, to Method 105
for sludge sampling:
1.' A 5 percent potassium permanganate
solution is difficult to prepare, and a
saturated solution should be required.
2. Potassium permanganate should be
used to stabilize mercury solutions.
3. Hydroxylamlne hydrochlorlde can
be used In place of the uncommon salt
sodium chloride-hydroxylamine sulfate
to reduce excess potassium permanga-
nate.
Solutions of 5 percent potassium per-
manganate can be prepared at room
temperature. The Agency has no experi-
ence In- using potassium permanganate
to stabilize mercury solutions, and has
not used hydroxylamlne hydrocnlortde
to reduce excess potassium permanga-
nate. The method has proved to be sat-
isfactory without the use of the suggested
reagents. The Agency believes that the
suggested changes are not necessary and
the method has not been revised to ac-
commodate these suggestions.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACT
Environmental Impact statements
must accompany national emission
standards for hazardous nil pollutant*
approved for proposal after October 14,'
1974. The amendments recommended for
promulgation were approved for proposal
prior to this date, and an environmental
Impact statement Ivns not been prepared,
Tho environmental Impact of the stand-
ards has been assessed, however, and is
discussed In the background Informa-
tion document
-------
ROUES AND REGULATIONS
2. The authority citation at tbe end
of the table of sections for Part «1 la
revised to read as follows:
AuTHoarrr: 800. 112 and 114 of the Clem
Air Act. ai amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L.
91-604. 84 Stat. 1678 (42 V&.C. HI67O-Z. 1857
c-B).

Subpart A—General Provision*

3. Section 61.14 IE amended by revising
paragraph and adding paragraph
(d). Tbe revised and added paragraphs
read as follows:

§ 61.14 Source test and analytical meth-
od*.
• • • • •
(c) The Administrator may. after no-
tice to the owner or operator, withdraw
approval of an alternative method
granted under paragraphs (a), (b) or
.
(t), (u), (v), and (w). The revised and
added paragraphs read as follows:
§61.21 Definitions.
• • • • •
(j) "Demolition" means the wrecking
or taking' out of any load-supporting
structural member and any related re-
moving or stripping of friable asbestos
materials.
(k) "Friable asbestos material" means
any material that contains more than 1
percent asbestos by weight and that can
be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to
powder, when dry, by hand pressure.
(1) "Control device asbestos waste"
means any asbestos-containing waste
material that Is collected In a pollution
control device.
(m) "Renovation" means the remov-
ing or stripping of friable asbestos mate-
rial used to Insulate or fireproof any
pipe, duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine,
furnace, or structural member. Opera-
tions In which toad-supporting struc-
tural members are wrecked or taken out
are excluded.
of this section is
prohibited, except for temporary road-
ways on an area of asbestos ore deposits.
The deposition of asbestos tailings or as-
bestos-containing waste on roadways
covered with snow or Ice Is considered
"surfacing."
(c) Manufacturing: There shall be no
visible emissions to the outside air, ex-
cept as provided In paragraph (f) of this
section, from any of the following op-
erations if they use commercial asbestos
or from any building or structure In
which such operations are conducted.
• • • • •
(10) The manufacture of shotgun
shells.
(11) The manufacture of asphalt con-
crete.
(d) Demolition and renovation: The
requirements of this paragraph shall
apply to any owner or operator of a
demolition or renovation operation who
intends to demolish any Institutional,
commercial, or industrial building (in-
cluding apartment buildings having more
than four dwelling units), structure,
facility, installation, or portion thereof
which contains any pipe, duct, boiler,
tank, reactor, turbine, furnace,, or struc-
tural member that Is Insulated or fire-
proofed with friable asbestos material,
except as provided In paragraph (d) (1)
of this section; or who Intends to reno-
vate any institutional, commercial, or in-
dustrial building, structure, facility. In-
stallation, or portion thereof where more
than 80 meters (ca. 260 feet) of pipe in-
sulated or fireproofed with friable as-
bestos material are stripped or removed,
or more than 15 square meters (ca. 160
square feet) of friable asbestos material
used to Insulate or fireproof any duct,
boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, furnace, or
structural member are stripped or re-
moved.
(!>(!> The owner or operator of a
demolition operation is exempted from
the requirements of this paragraph pro-
vided. (1) the amount of friable asbestos
material hi the building or portion
thereof to be demolished is less than 80
meters (ca. 260 feet) used to Insulate
pipes, and less than 15 square meters (ca.
160 square feet) used to Insulate or fire-
proof any duct, boiler, tank, reactor, tur-
bine, furnace, or structural member, and
(2) the notification requirements of par-
agraph (dxixil) are met
(11) Written notification shall be post-
marked or delivered to the Administrator
at least 20 days prior to commencement
of demolition and shall Include the in-
formation required by paragraph (d) (2)
of this section, with the exception of the
Information required by paragraphs (d)
(2) (111), (vl). (vll), (viii).and (ix).and
shall state the rrieasured or estimated
amount of friable asbestos material used
for insulation and fireprooflng which Is
present. Techniques of estimation shall
be explained.
(2) Written notice of intention to de-
molish or renovate shall be provided to
the Administrator by the owner or opera-
tor of the demolition or renovation oper-
ation. Such notice "shall be- postmarked
or delivered to the Administrator at least
10 days prior to commencement of demo-
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975

(f) Rather than meet the no-vislble-
emlsslon requirements as specified by
paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), (h), (j).
and (k) of this section, an owner or op-
erator may elect to use the methods spec-
ified by i 61.23 to clean emissions con-
taining particulate asbestos material be-
fore such emissions escape to, or are
vented to. the outside air.
(g) Where the presence of uncomblned
water Is the sole reason for failure to
meet the no-vlsible-emlsslon require-
ment of paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e).
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975

IV-4 5
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(h). (J). or Ot) of this section, such fail-
ure shall not be a violation of such emis-
sion requirements.
(h) Fabricating: There Jh&n be no
visible emissions to the outside air, ex-
cept as provided In paragraph (f) of this
section, from any of the following op-
erations If the; use commercial asbestos
or from any building or structure In
which such operations are conducted.
(1) The fabrication of cement building
products.
(2) The fabrication of friction prod-
ucts, except those operations that pri-
marily install asbestos friction materials
on motor vehicles.
C3) The fabrication of cement or sili-
cate board for ventilation hoods; ovens;
electrical panels; laboratory furniture;
bulkheads, partitions and ceilings for
marine construction; and Sow control
devices for the molten metal industry^
(i) Insulating: Molded insulating ma-
terials which are friable and wet-applied
insulating materials which are friable
after drying, installed after the effective
date of these regulations, shall contain
no commercial asbestos. The provisions
of this paragraph do not apply to insu<-
lating materials which are spray applied;
such materials are regulated under
8 61.22(6.).
Waste disposal for manufacturing,
fabricating, demolition, renovation and
spraying operations: The owner or op-
erator of any source covered under the
provisions of paragraphs (c), (d), (e),
or (h) of this section shall meet the fol-
lowing standards,:
(1) There shall be no visible emissions
to the outside air, except as provided in
paragraph (J)(3) of this section, dur-
ing the collection; processing, Including
incineration; packaging; transporting;
or deposition of any asbestos-containing
waste material which is generated by
such source.
(2) All asbestos-containing waste ma-
terial shall be deposited at waste dis-
posal sites which are operated in accord-
ance with the provisions of 8 61.25.
<3) Bather than meet the requirement
of paragraph (1) of this section, an
owner or operator may elect to use
either of the disposal methods specified
under (j)(3)(l> and (ii) of this section,
or an alternative disposal method which
has received prior approval by the Ad-
ministrator:
(1) Treatment of asbestos-containing
waste material with water:
(A) Control device asbestos waste shall
be thoroughly mixed with water into a
slurry and otiier asbestos-containing
waste material shall be adequately
wetted. There shall be no visible emis-
sions to the outside air from the collec-
tion, mixing and wetting operations, ex-
cept as provided in paragraph (f) of this
section.
(B) After wetting, all asbestos-con-
taining waste material shall be sealed
into leak-tight containers while wet, and
such containers shall be deposited at
waste disposal sites which are operated
in accordance with the provisions of
861.25.
(3>
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
has received prior approval by the
Administrator.
(1) The asbestos-containing waste
material shall be covered with at least
15. centimeters (ca. 6 Inches) of com-
pacted non-asbestos-containing mate-
rial, and a cover of vegetation shall be
grown and maintained on the area ade-
quate to prevent exposure of the asbes-
tos-containing waste material; or
(11) The asbestos-containing waste
material shall be covered with at least 60
centimeters (ca. 2 feet) of compacted
non-asbestos-containing material and
maintained to prevent exposure of the
asbestos-containing waste; or
(111) For Inactive waste disposal sites
for asbestos tailings, a resinous or petro-
leum-based dust suppression agent which
effectively binds dust and controls wind
erosion shall be applied. Such agent shall
be used as recommended for the partic-
ular asbestos tailings by the dust sup-
pression agent manufacturer. Other
equally effective dust suppression agents
may be used upon prior approval by the
Administrator. For purposes of this para-
graph, waste crankcase oil is not con-
sidered a dust suppression agent.
7. The first sentence hi 5 61.23 is re-
vised as follows:
§ 61.23 Air-Cleaning.
If air-cleaning Is elected, as permitted
by 8561.22(f) and 61.22(d) (4) (Iv), the
requirements of this section must be met.
* • •

8. The first sentence in i 61.24 is re-
vised and redeslgnated as paragraph (e)
and new paragraphs (c) and (d) are
added as follows:
§ 61.24 Reporting.
• • • • •
(c) For sources subject to {{ 61.22(j)
and 61.22 (k):
(1) A brief description of each process
that generates asbestos-containing waste
material.
(2) The average weight of asbestos.-
containing waste material disposed of,
measured in kg/day.
(3) The emission control methods
used in all stages of waste disposal.
(4) The type of disposal site or Incin-
eration site used for ultimate disposal,
the name of the site operator, and the
name and location of the disposal site.
(d) For sources subject to ( 61.22(1):
(1) A brief description of the site.
(2) The method or methods used to
comply with the standard, or alternative
procedures to be used.
(e) Such information shall accom-
pany the information required by i 61.10.
The information described in this section
shall be reported using the format of
Appendix A of this part.
9. A new section 61.25 is added to sub-
part B as follows:
§ 61.25 Waste disposal filet.
In order to be an acceptable site for
disposal of asbestos-containing waste
material under § 61.22 (J) and (k), an
active waste disposal site shall meet the
requirements of this section.
(a) There shall be no visible emissions
to the outside air from any active waste
disposal site where asbestos-containing
waste material has been deposited, except
as provided In paragraph (e) of this
section.
(b) Warning signs shall be displayed
at all entrances, and along the property
line of the site or along the perimeter of
the sections of the site where asbestos-
containing waste material Is deposited,
at Intervals of 100 m (ca. 330 ft) or less
except as specified in paragraph (d) of
this section. Signs shall be posted in such
a manner and location that a person may
easily read the legend. The warning
signs required by this paragraph shall
conform to the requirements of 20" x 14"
upright format signs specified In 29 CFR
1910.145 (d) (4) and this paragraph. The
signs shall display the following legend
in the lower panel, with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to
those specified in this paragraph.
LBCEND
ASBESTOS WASTE DISPOSAL SOT
Do Not Create Dust
Breathing Asbestos
IB Hazardous to Tour Health
Notation
1" Sans Serif, Gothic or Block
V Sans Serif, Gothic or Block
14 Point Gothic

Spacing between lines shall be at least
equal to the height of the upper of the
two lines.
(c) The perimeter of the disposal site
shall be fenced In order to adequately
deter access to the general public except
as specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
(d) Warning signs and fencing are
not required where the requirements of
paragraph (e) (1) of this section are
met, or where a natural barrier ade-
quately deters access to the general
public. Upon request and supply of ap-
propriate Information, the Administra-
tor will determine whether a fence or a
natural barrier adequately deters access
to the general public.
(e) Rather than meet the require-
ment of paragraph (a) of this section, an
owner or operator may elect to meet
the requirements of paragraph (e) (1) or
(e) (2) of this section, or may use an al-
ternative control method for emissions
from active waste disposal sites which
has received prior approval by the
Administrator.
(1) At the end of each operating day,
or at least once every 24-hour period
while the site is In continuous operation,
the asbestos-containing waste material
which was deposited at the site during
the operating day or previous 24-hour
period shall be covered with at least IS
centimeters (ca. 6 Inches) of compacted
non-asbestos-containing material.
(2) At the end of each operating day,
or at least once every 24-hour period
while the disposal site is in continuous
operation, the asbestos-containing waste
material which was deposited at the site
during the operating day or previous 24-
hour period shall be covered with a res-
inous or petroleum-based dust suppres-
sion agent which effectively binds dust
and controls wind erosion. Such agent
shall be used as recommended for the
particular dust by the dust suppression
agent manufacturer. Other equally ef-
fective dust suppression agents may be
used upon prior approval by the Admin-
istrator. For purposes of this paragraph,
waste crankcase oil Is not considered a
dust suppression agent.
Subpart E—National Emission Standard
for Mercury
10. Section 61.50 is revised to read as
follows:

§ 61.50 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to those stationary sources which
process mercury ore to recover mercury,
use mercury chlor-alkali cells to produce
chlorine gas and alkali metal hydroxide,
and incinerate or dry wastewater treat-
ment plant sludge.
11. Section 61.51 Is amended by adding
paragraphs (1) and (m) as follows :
§ 61.51 Definitions.
• • • • *
(1) "Sludge" means sludge produced by
a treatment plant that processes munici-
pal or industrial waste waters.
(m) "Sludge dryer" means a device
used to reduce the moisture content of
sludge by heating to temperatures above
65°C (oa. 150°F) directly with combus-
tion gases.
12. Section 61.52 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 61.52 Emission standard.
(a) Emissions to the atmosphere from
mercury ore processing facilities and
mercury cell chlor-alkali plants shall not
exceed 2300 grams of mercury per 24-
hour period.
(b) Emissions to the atmosphere from
sludge- Incineration plants, sludge drying
plants, or a combination of these that
process wastewater treatment plant
sludges shall not exceed 3200 grams of
mercury per 24-hour period.
13. Section 61.53 is amended by adding
paragraph (d) as follows:
§ 61.53 Stack sampling.
• • • • •
(d) Sludge incineration and drying
plants.
(1) Unless a waiver of emission testing
Is obtained under i 61.13, each owner or
operator of a source subject to the stand-
ard in! 61.52(b) shall test emissions from
that soupce. Such tests shall be conducted
• in accordance with the procedures set
forth either in paragraph (d) of this
section or in i 61.54.
(2) Method 101 in Appendix B to this
part shall be used to test emissions as
follows:
(1) The test shall be performed within
90 days of the effective date of these
regulations in the case of an existing
source or a new source which has an
initial startup date preceding the effec-
tive date.
(11) The test shall be performed withip
90 days of startup in the case of a new
source which did not have an Initial
startup date preceding the effective date.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975

IV-4 7
-------
(3) The Administrator shall toe noti-
fied at least 30 days prior to an emission
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.
(4) Samples shall be taken over such
a period or periods as are necessary to
determine accurately the maximum
emissions which will occur in a 24-hour
period: No changes shall be made in the
operation which would potentially In-
crease emissions above the level deter-
mined by the most recent stack test, un-
til the new emission level has been esti-
mated by calculation and the results re-
ported to the Administrator.
(5) All samples shall be analyzed, and
mercury emissions shall be determined
• within 30 days after the stack test. Each
determination shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter dis-
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following such determination.
(6) Records of emission test results
and other data needed to determine total
emissions shall be retained at the source
and shall be made available, for. inspec-
tion by the Administrator, for a mini-
mum of 2 years. x
14. Sections 61.54 and 61.55 are added
as follows:
§ 61.54 Sludge sampling.
(a) As an alternative means for
demonstrating compliance with 5 61.52
(b), an owner or operator may use
Method 105 of Appendix B and the proce-
dures specified in this section.
(1) A sludge test shall be conducted
within 90 days of the effective date of
these regulations in the case of an exist-
ing source or a new source which has an
Initial startup date preceding the effec-
tive date; or
(2) A sludge test shall be conducted
within 90 days of startup in the case of a
new source which did not have an Initial
startup date preceding the effective date.
(b) The Administrator shall be notified
at least 30 days prior to a sludge sampling
test, so that he may at his option observe
the test.
-
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Dup 1-18 4 1 _ _
19 2*0 2T Him ft

44 _ 46 _ - _
Area Code 47 Ruinber 54 W

3. Source Description - Briefly state the nature of the source (e.j., "CMor-
alkali Plant" or 'Machine Shop*).

Dup 1-18 4 g _
19 20- 21 Description !
SiContinued79 W

4. Alternative Hailing Address - Indicate an alternative
(nailing address If correspondence Is to be directed
to t location different than that specified above.

Dup 1-18 4 3
15 Zb 21 Number Street or Box Number 4*5 ST

Dup 1-18 4 4 "37 31
19 20 21 CTty35 SfaTe 41 Zip44 OT

5. Compliance Status - The emissions from this source can cannot meet
the emission limitations contained In the National EmTss1on~STandards on or
prior to 90 days after the effective date of any standards or amendments
Which require the submission-of such Information.

Signature of Owner. Operator or Other Responsible OfflclaT
JIOTE:If the emissions from the source will exceed those limits set by the National
En1ss1on Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the source will be In violation and
subject to Federal enforcement actions unless granted a waiver of compliance by the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Information needed for
such waivers 1s listed 1n Section II of this form.

B. PROCESS INFORMATION. Part B should be completed separately for each point of
emission for each hazardous pollutant. [Sources subject to 61.22(1) may oirit
number 4. below.]

P " i?—T6 17—T8 Tf 25 ScC 27 25 29 OT IT
NEDS X R»f LS Sir
PEOOAL IEGISTEB, VOL 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBEI 14, 1975
IV-4 9
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. Pollutant Emitted - Indicate the type of hazardous pollutant emitted by the
process.Indicate "AB" for asbestos, "BE" for beryllium, or "HG" for mercury.
32 33
PoTTuTant
Regulation
EC
2. Process Description - Provide a brief description of each process (e.g.,
•hydrogen end box" in a mercury chlor-alkali plant, "grinding machine1 in
a beryllium machine shop). Use additional sheets if necessary.

50
Dup 1-18
51
Dup 1-18
51

Process Description 74 B
6
15~
6
15-

1
20 21
T9
2
20 21
79
T

50
BTT
50
ar
3. Amount of Pollutant - Indicate the average weight of the hazardous material
named in Item 1 which enters the process 1n pounds per month (based on the
previous twelve months of operation).
Dup 1-18 63
15 20
25"
Ibs./mo.
4. Control Devices
a. Indicate the type of pollution control devices, 1f any, used to reduce
the emissions from the process (e.g., venturl scrubber, baghouse, wet
cyclone) and the estimated percent of the pollutant which the device
removes from the process gas stream.
Dup 1-18 6 4
15 a
. PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICEr
66
70
Primary Device Name
~64 Percent Removal
Efficiency

72" '

79
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 197S
IV-50
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Dup 1-18 6 5
IS '20 21

47 Secondary Device Name
SECONDARY CONTROL DEVICES:
45

64 66 70
Percent Removal
Efficiency
1 EFFIC.
72 79 BO

b. Asbestos Emission Control Devices Only
1. If a baghouse Is specified In Item 4a, give the following
Information:
* The air flow permeability In cubic feet per minute per square
foot of fabric area.
A1r flow permeability « cfm/ft2
• The pressure drop In Inches water pauge acrqss the filter
at which the baghouse 1s operated.'
Operating pressure drop » Inches w.g.
• If the baghouse material contains synthetic fill yarn, check
whether this material 1s // spun / / or not spun.
• -If the baghouse utilizes a felted fabric, give the minimum
thickness in Inches and the density 1n ounces per square yard.
Thickness • Inches Density » oz/yd
11. If a wet collection device 1s specified 1n Item 4a, give the
designed unit contacting energy in inches water gauge.
• Unit contacting energy = Inches w.g.
C. DISPOSAL OF ASBESTOS-CONTAINING HASTES. Part C should be completed separately
for each asbestos-containing waste generation operation arising from sources
subject to S61.22(a), (c). (e), and (h).
Dup 1-13
A B
32 33 34
Pollutant
00 5
16 17 18 19 20 SCC
Regulation 48 49
EC

27 28 29 3D" IT
NEDS X Ref CS SIP
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40. NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975

IV-51
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. Waste Generation - Provide a brief description of each process that
generates asbestos-containing waste (e.g. disposal of control device wastes).

60Process Description79 Bo"

2. Asbestos Concentration - Indicate the average percentage asbestos content
of these materials.

Dup 1-18 6 T_ ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION;
15 ZO 21 ft 45"ft

1
50" W

3. Amount of Wastes - Indicate the average weight of asbestos-containing wastes
disposed of, measured 1n kg/day.

Dup 1-18 62 kg/day
19 70 2177 21 ;T4 W

4. Control Methods - Indicate the emission control methods used 1n all stages
of waste disposal, from collection, processing, and packaging to transporting
and deposition.

Dup 1-18 6 3 Primary Control Method
15 70 21 ft

45~' 79 W

Dup 1-18 6 4
15 70 21 50

51 79 W

5; Waste Disposal - Indicate the type of disposal site (sanitary landfill,
open, covered) or incineration site (municipal, private) where the waste
1s disposed of and who operates the site (company, private, municipal).
State ttye name and location of the site (closest city or town, county,
state).

Dup 1-18 6 5 TYPE OF SITE;
15 70 21 33 35 50

51 79 OT
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY. OCTOBER 14, 1975
IV-5 2
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Dup 1-18 6 6 OPERATOR!
15 20 21 ! 29 2] U

61 19 W

Dup 1-18 67 LOCATION;
15 20 21 ZS

31 70
7T
D. WASTE DISPOSAL SITES. Part D should be completed separately for each asbestos
waste disposal site subject to section 61.22(1).

Dup 1-13 _ 00 5 _ _ _
1? IiS 17 IB T3" 2D~ 5CC 27 2B 25 3ff 3T
NEDSXRef CS SIP

A B _^_^_ _
32 33 33 Regulation T8 79*
Pollutant EC

WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
_ _
SO 6~8 W

1. Description - Provide a brief description of the site. Including Us size and
configuration, and the distance to the closest city or town, closest
residence, and closest primary road.

Dup 1-18 6 1 _ SITE DESCRIPTION . __ _
15 ?0 21 37 31 50
51 79 «>

Dup 1-18 6 2 DISTANCE; TOWN: K M
15 Zb 21 2~9 35 34 3? ft 42 4"3

RESIDENCE; K M ROAD;
45 54 55 50 62 53 65 59 71 75

K M
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 40. NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14. I97S
IV-5 3
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Inactlv'atlon - After the site 1s Inactivated. Indicate the method or method*
used to comply with the standard and send a 11st of the actions that will bt
undertaken to maintain the Inactivated site.

Dup 1-18 6 8 HETH$/TO?fflfe SITE:
15 ?0 21 K

5?' 79 W
II. WAIVER REQUESTS

A. WAIVER OF COMPLIANCE. Owners or operators of sources unable to operate In
compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous A1r Pollutants
' prior to 90 days after the effective date of any standards or amendments which
require the submission of such Information may request a wa,1ver of compliance
from the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the
time period necessary to Install appropriate control devices or make
modifications to achieve compliance. The Administrator may grant a waiver
of compliance with the standard for a period not exceeding two years, from
the effective date of the hazardous pollutant standards, 1f he finds that
such period 1s necessary for the Installation of controls and that steps
will be taken during the period of the waiver to assure that the health
of persons will 'be protected from imminent endangerment.

The report Information provided In Section I must accompany this application.
Applications should be sent to the appropriate EPA regional office.

1.- Processes Involved - Indicate the process or processes emitting hazardous
pollutants to which emission controls are to be applied.

2. Controls

a. Describe the proposed type of control device to be added or
modification to be made to the process to reduce the emissions
o£,hazardous pollutants to an acceptable level. (Use additional
sheets if necessary.)

b. Describe the measures that will be taken during the waiver period
to assure that the health of persons will be protected from
Imminent endangerment. (Use additional sheets 1f necessary.)

3. Increments of Progress - Spedfy'the dates by which the following
Increments of progress will be met.

• Date by which contracts for emission control systems or process
modifications will be awarded; or date by which orders will be
Issued for the purchase o'f the component parts to accomplish
emission control or process modification.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1975
1-54
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Dup 1-16
5TT4 sr
60 61 MO/OY/rR
Date of Initiation of on-site conitructlon or Installation of
emission control equipment or.process change.
Dup 1-16
0 Z 7
17 T9
51TT4
TO 61 MO/DY/YR56 BO"
Date by which on-s1tc construction or Installation of emission control
equipment or process modification 1s to be completed.
Dup V16
53-T4
55 60 6T

• Date by wMch final compliance Is to be achieved.

Dup 1-16 047
Mo/DY/YR
T6 CO"
5TT4 sr
60 61MO/DY/YR
"Sfc 50"
B. WAIVER OF EMISSION TESTS. A waiver of emission testing may be granted to
owners or operators of sources of beryllium or mercury pollutants If. 1n
the judgment of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
the emissions from the source comply with the appropriate standard or If
the owners or operators of the source have requested a waiver of compliance
or have been granted a waiver of compliance.

This application should accompany the report information provided 1n
Section I.

1. Reason - State the reasons for requesting a waiver of emission testing.
If the reason stated 1s that the'emissions from the source are within
the prescribed limits, documentation of this condition must be attached.
Date

APPENDIX B—TEST METHODS

Ifl. Method 105 Is added to Appendix B as
follow*:
METHOD 105. METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OP
MERCURY IN WASTEWATL-R TREA1MENT PLANT
SEWAGE SLUDGES

1. Principle and applicability. 1.1 Prin-
ciple—A weighed portion of the sewage
sludge sample "Is digested In aqua regla for
3 minutes at 95 °C, followed by oxidation
with potassium permanganate. Mercury In
the digested sample Is then measured by the
conventional spectrophotometer cold vapor
technique. An alternative digestion Involving
the use of an autoclave Is described In para-
graph 4.5.2 of this method.
1.2 Applicability—This method Is appli-
cable for the determination/ of total organic
»nd Inorganic mercury content In sewage
sludges, soils, sediments, and bottom-type
materials. The normal range of this method
Is 0.2 to 5 «g/g. The range may be extended
above or below the normal range by Increas-
ing or decreasing sample size and through In-
strument and recorder control.
2. Apparatus. 2.1 Analysis—The conven-
tional cold vapor technlquc(S) Is used to
analyze the sample.
2.1.1 Atomic Absorption Spectrophoto-
meter '—Any atomic absorption unit having
an open sample presentation area In which
to mount the absorption cell Is suitable. In-
strument settings recommenced by the par-
ticular manufacturer should be followed.
1 Instruments designed specifically for the
measurement of mercury using the cold
vapor technique are commercially available
and may be substituted for the atomic
absorption spectrophotometer.
Si^ioture of the owner or operator

2.1.2 Mercury Hollow Cathode Lamp—
Wcstlnghouse WL-22847. argon "filled, or
equivalent.
2.1.3 Recorder—Any multlrange, variable-
speed recorder that Is compatible with the
UV detection system Is suitable.
2.1.4 Absorption Cell—Standard spectre-
photometer cells 10 cm long, having quartz
end windows may be used. Suitable cells may
be constructed from plexiglass tubing, 2.5
cm O.D. X 11.4 cm (ca. 1" O.D. x 4%"). The
ends are ground perpendicular to the longi-
tudinal axis, and quartz windows |2.5 cm
diameter x 0.16 cm.thickness (ca. 1" diameter
x MB" thickness)) are cemented In place.
Gas Inlet and outlet ports (also,of plexiglass
but 0.6 cm O.D. (ca. Vi " O.D.) ] are attached
approximately 1.3 cm (%") from each end.
The cell Is strapped to a burner for support
and aligned In the light beam to give the
maximum transmittance. NOTE: Two 5.1 cm
x 5.1 cm (ca. 2" x 2") cards with 2.5 cm
(ca. 1") diameter holes may be placed over
each end of the cell to assist In positioning
the cell for maximum transmlttance.
2.1.5 Air Pump—Any peristaltic pump
capable of delivering 1 liter of air per minute
may toe used. A Masterfiex pumn with elec-
tronic speed control has been found to be
satisfactory. (Regulated compressed air can
be used In an open one-pass system.)
2.1.6 Flowmeter—Capable of measuring
an air flow of 1 liter per minute.
2.1.7 Aera'.lon Tubing—Tygon tublrg Is
vsed for passage of the mcrcvry vapor from
the sample bottle to the absorption cell and
return. Straight glass tubing terminating In
a coarse porous frit Is used for sparging air
I •••to the sample..
2.1.8 Drying Tube—15 cm long x 1.9 cm
diameter (ca. 6" long x %" diameter) tube
containing 20 grams of the deslccant. mag-
nesium perchlorate. The apparatus Is assem-
bled a* ah own in Figure 105 1. In place of the
magnesium pcrchlorate drying tube, n small
reading lamp with GOW bulb may be used to
prevent condensation of moisture Inside the
cell. The lamp IK positioned no as not to Inter-
fere with the measurement and to shine on
the abnorptlon cell maintaining tho air tem-
perature about 5'C abovo ambient. •
3. Reagents. 3.1 Analysis,
3.1.1 Aqua Rcgla—Prepare Immediately
before uso by carefully adding three volumes
of concentrated HC1 to one volume of con-
centrated HNO,.
3.1.2 Sulfurlc Acid, O.ON—Dilute 14.0 ml.
of concentrated sulfurlc acid to 1.0 liter.
3.1.3 Stainous Sulfatc—Add 25 g stan-
nous sulfatc to 250 ml of 0.5N sulfurlc acid.
This mixture Is a suspension and should be
stirred contlnuourly during u-e. Stannous
chloride may be used In place of the stannous
stilfate.
3.1.4 Sodium Chloride—Hydroxylamlne
Sulfate Solution—D'ssolve 12 prams of so-
dium chloride and 12 grams of hydroxylamlne
Rulfate In distilled water and dilute to 100
ml. Hvdroxylamlne hydrochlorlde mav be
used In place of the hydroxylamlne sulfate.
3.1.5 Potassium Permanganate—5% solu-
tion, w/v. Dissolve 5 prams of rot?*slum per-
maneanate In 100 ml of distilled water.
3.1.6 Stock Mercury Solution—Dissolve
0.1354 grams of reagent grade mercuric chlo-
ride (Assay >95%) In 75 ml of distilled
water. Add 10 ml of concentrated nitric acid
and adjust the volume to 100.0 ml. 1 ml = I
m^ Her.
3.1.7 Working Mercurv Solution-—Make
successive dilutions of the Etock mercury
solution to obtain a working standard con-
taining 0.1 ,,g per ml. This working standard
a"d the dilutions of the stock mercury solu-
tion should be prepared fresh d-lly. Acidity
of the- working standard should be main-
tained at 0.15% nitric acid. This acid should
be added to the flask as needed before the
addition of the aliquot. Mercuric solutions
should not be prepared In plastic containers.
'4. Procedures. Samples for mercury analy-
sis are subject to contamination from a
variety of sources. Extreme care must be
taVen to prevent contamination. Certain In-
terferences may occur during the analysis
procedures. Extreme caution must be taken
to avoid Inhalation of mercury.
4.1 Sample Handling and Preservation.
4.1.1 Because of" the extreme sensitivity
of the analytical procedure and the om-
nlprecence of mercury, care must be-taken
to avoid extraneous ^contamination. Sam-
pling devices, sample containers, and re-
agents should be ascertilne'l to be free of
significant amounts of mercury; the sample
should not be exposed to any condition In
the laboratory that may result In. contact or
airborne mercury contamination. Sample
containers to be used for collection and ship-
ment of mercury samcles should be properly
cleaned before u=e. These "hould be ringed
with at least 20% v/v HNO, followed by
distilled water.
4.1.2 While the sample may be analyzed
without drying. It has been found to be more
convenient to analyze a dry sample. Moisture
may be driven off In a drying oven at a tem-
perature of 60'C. No significant mercury.
losses have been observed by using this dry-
ing step. The dry sample should be pulver-
l7erl rind thoroughly mixed before the aliquot
Is weighed.
4.2 Interferences.
4.2.1 Irltcrferences that may occur In
sludge samples are sulfldes, high copper, high
chlorides, etc. A discussion of possible In-
terferences and snpgefted nreventatlve meas-
ures to be taken is given In Reference (6) (7).
4.2.2 Volatile materials which absorb at
the 253.7 nm will cause a positive Interter-
FEDERAt JEGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 199—TUESDAY. OCtO-Jri \-., 177.1
IV-5 5
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ence. In order to remove any Interfering
volatile materials, the dead air space In the
BOD bottle should be purged with nitrogen
before the addition of stannous sulfate.
4.3 Handling Sample Mercury Vapors
After Analysis.
4.3.1 Because of the toxic nature of mer-
cury vapor, precaution must be taken to
avoid Its Inhalation. Therefore, a bypass
should be Included In the analysis system
to either vent the mercury vapor Into an
exhaust hood or pass the vapor through some
absorbing media, such as :
(a) equal volumes of 0.1N KMNO. and 10%
(b) 0.25% Iodine In a 3% KI solution.

A specially treated charcoal that will absorb
mercury vapor Is also available from Barne-
bey and Cheney, E. 8th Ave. and North Cas-
sldy St., Columbus, Ohio 43219, Catalog No.
680-13 or No. 580-22.»
4.4 Calibration,
4.4.1 Transfer 0. 0.6, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0 and 10 ml
allquota of the working mercury solution
containing 0 to 1.0 ^g of mercury to a series
of 300-ml BOD bottles. Add enough dis-
tilled water to each bottle to make a total
volume of 10 ml. Add 5 ml of aqua regla and
beat 2 minutes In a water bath at 95°C. Allow
the sample to cool and add 50 ml distilled
water and 15 ml of KMnO, solution to each
bottle and return to the water bath for 30
minutes. Cool and add 6 ml of sodium chlo-
rkle-hydroxylamlne sulfate solution to re-
• due* the excess permanganate. Add 50 ml of
distilled water. Treating each bottle Individ-
ually, add 5 ml of stannous sulfate solution
and Immediately attach the bottle to the
aeration apparatus. At this point, the sample
it allowed to stand qultely without manual
agitation. The circulating pump, which has
previously been adjusted to a rate of 1 liter
per minute. Is allowed to run continuously.
* Mention of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The absorbance, as exhibited either on the
spectrophotometer or the recorder, will In-
crease and reach maximum within 30 sec-
onds. As soon as the recorder pen levels off,
approximately 1 minute, open the bypass
valve and continue the aeratfon until the
absorbaace returns to Its minimum 'value.
Close the bypass valve, remove the fritted
tubing from the BOD bottle and continue
the aeration. Proceed with the standards and
construct a standard curve by plotting peak
height versus ntlcrograms of mercury.
4.5 Analysis.
4.5.1 Weigh triplicate 0.2g± 0.001 g por-
tions of dry sample and place in bottom of
a BOD bottle. Add 5 ml of distilled water
and 5 ml of aqua regla. Heat 2 minutes In a
water bath at 95°C. Cool and add 50 ml dis-
tilled water and 15 ml potassium per-
manganate solution to each sample bottle.
Mix thoroughly and place In the water bath
for 30 minutes at 95°C. Cool and add 6 ml of
sodium chlorlde-hydroxylamlne sulfate to re-
duce the excess permanganate. Add 55 ml of
distilled" water. Treating each bottle indi-
vidually, add 5 ml of stannous sulfate and
immediately attach the bottle to the aera-
tion apparatus. Wltti each sample, continue
as described In paragraph 4.4.1 of this
method.
4.5.2 An alternative digestion procedure
using an autoclave may also be used. In this
method 6 ml of concentrated HjSO, and 2 ml
of concentrated HNOS are added to the 0.2
grams of sample. 6 ml of saturated KMnO,
solution are added and the bottle Is covered
with a piece of aluminum fofl. The samples
are autoclaved at 121 °C and 2.1 kg/cm" (ca.
16 pslg) for 15 minutes. Cool, make up to a
volume of 100 ml with distilled water, and
add 6 ml of sodium chlortde-hydroxylamine
sulfate solution to reduce the excess per-
manganate. Purge the dead air space and
continue as described in paragraph 4.4.1 of
this method.
5. Calculation. B.I Measure the peak
height of the unknown from the chart and
read the mercury value from the standard
curve.
5.2 Calculate the mercury concentration
In the sample by the formula:
AgHg/gm=
Ag Hg In the aliquot
wt. of the aliquot in g
6.3 Report mercury concentrations as fol-
lows: Below 0.1 Ag/g; between 0.1 and 1 Ag/g,
to the nearest 0.01 Ag/g; between 1 and 10
Ag/g. to nearest 0.1 iig; above 10 Ag/g, to
nearest /ig.
6. Precision and accuracy, 6.1 According
to the provisional method In reference num-
ber 5, the following standard deviations on
replicate sediment samples have been re-
corded at the Indicated levels: 0.29 Ag/g ±0.02.
and 0.82 Ag/g±0.03. Recovery of mercury at
these levels, added as methyl mercuric chlo-
ride, was 97 and 94%, respectively.
7. References.
1. Bishop, J. N. "Mercury In Sediments,"
Ontario Water Resources Comm., Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, 1971.
2. Salma, M. Private communication, EPA
Cal/Nev Basin Office, Alameda, California.
3. Hatch, W. R., and Ott, W. L. "Determina-
tion of Sub-Mlcrogram Quantities of Mer-
cury by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotom-
etry," Ana. Chem. 40, 2085 (1968).
4. Bradenberger, H. and Bader, H. "Th«
Determination of Nanogram Levels of Mer-
cury In Solution by a Flameless Atomic Ab-
sorption Technique," Atomic Absorption
Newsletter 6, 101 (1987).
5. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory
(AQCL), Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati. Onto, "Mercury In Sediment
(Cold Vapor Technique)," Provisional
Method, April 1972.
6. Kopp, J. F, Longbottom, M. C. and
Lobrlng, L. B. "Cold Vapor Method for De-
termining Mercury," Journal AWWA, 64, 1
"(1972). pp. 20-26.
7. "Manual of Methods for Chemical Anal-
ysis of Water and Wastes," Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-626/2-74-003, pp.'
118-138.

[FR Doc.76-27231 Filed 10-14-76;8:« un]
FEMRAl REGISTER. VOL 40, NO, 199—TUESDAY. OCTOBEt 14, 1975
IV-5 6
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
8
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of
New York
Pursuant to the delegation of authority
for national emission standards for haz-
ardous air pollutants (NESHAP8) to the
State of New York on August 6, 1975.
EPA la today amending 40 CFB 61.04,
Address, to reflect this delegation. A No-
tice announcing this delegation is pub-
lished elsewhere In today's FEDERAL
REGISTER. The amended § 61.04, which
adds the address of the New York De-
partment of Environmental Conserva-
tion, to which all reports, requests, appli-
cations, submittals, and communications
to the Administrator pursuant to this
part must also be addressed, is set forth
below.
The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately in that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
August 6, 1975, and it serves no purpose
to delay the technical change of this
addition of the State address to the Code
of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
42 D.S.C. 1857C-7

Dated: October 4,1975.
STANLEY W. LECHO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.

Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (HH) to read
as follows:
§61.01 Address.
(b) • • •
(HH)—New York: New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, 60 Wolf
Road. Albany, New York 12233, attention:
Division of Air Resources.
(PR Doc.75-27681 Piled 10-14-75;8:46 am)

FEDERAL REGISTU. VOL 40, NO. 200-

-WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1975
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of Colorado
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of Colorado on August 27, 1975,
EPA Is today amending 40 CFR 61.04,
Address, to reflect this delegation. A No-
tice announcing this delegation Is pub-
lished today In the Federal Register. The
amended 5 61.04, which adds the address
of the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division to which all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and communi-
cations to the Administrator pursuant to
this part must also be addressed, Is set
forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective Imme-
diately In that It is an administrative
change and not one of subr.lantlvc con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are Imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
August 27, 1975, and it serves no 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 Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7.
Dated: October 22, 1975.
STANLEY W. LEGRO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.
Part 61 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
1. In 5 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (G) to read ns
follows:
§f>1.0t Address.
• • # • •
(b) * * •
(G'—State of Colorado, Colorado Air
Pollution Control Division, 4210 East
llth Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80220.
• • * • •
|FB Doc.75-29237 Filed 10-30-75:8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 211-

-FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1975
IV-5 7
-------
[FRt, 470-4]

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STANCE
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority to Washington
Local Agencies
Pursuant to section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act, AS amended, the Regional
Administrator of Region X, Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), dele-
gated to the State of Washington De-
partment of Ecology on February 28,
1975, the authority to implement and
enforce the program for national emis-
sion standards for hazardous air pollu-
tants (NESHAPS). The delegation was
announced In the FEDKBAL REGISTER on
April 1, 1975 (40 FR 14632). On April 25,
1975 (40 FR 18169) the Assistant Admin-
istrator for Air and Waste Management
promulgated a change to 40 CFR 61.04,
Address, to reflect the delegation to the
State of Washington.
On September 22 and 23, 1975, the
State Department of Ecology requested
EPA's concurrence in the State's sub-
delegation of the NESHAPS program to
four local air pollution control agencies.
After reviewing the State's request, the
Regional Administrator determined that
the sub-delegations meet all the require-
ments outlined in EPA's delegation of
February 28, 1975. Therefore, the Re-
gional Administrator on October 15,1975,
concurred In the sub-delegations to the
four local agencies listed below with the
stipulation that all the conditions placed
on the original delegation to the State
shall also apply to the sub-delegations
to the local agencies. EPA is today
amending 40 CFR 61.04 to reflect the
State's sub-delegations.
The amended § 61.04 provides that all
reports, requests, applications, submit-
tals and communications required pur-
suant to Part 61 which were previously to
be sent to the Director of the State of
Washington Department of Ecology
(DOE) will now be sent to the Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA), the Northwest Air Pollution
Authority (NWAPA), the Spokane
County Air Pollution Authority (SCAPA)
or the Yakima County Clean Air Au-
thority (YCCAA), as appropriate. It
should be noted that the delegation to
the YCCAA applies only to demolition
projects containing asbestos. Other
source categories located in Yakima
County subject to the NESHAPS regula-
tion should continue to address all cor-
respondence to the Department of Ecol-
ogy. The amended section is set forth
below.
The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective im-
mediately in that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegations which are reflected by this
administrative amendment were effec-
tive on September 22 to the YCCAA and
September 23 to the other three agencies,
and It serves no useful purpose to delay
the technical change of the addition of
RULES XNO REGULATIONS

the local agency addresses to the Cod*
of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking Is effective immedi-
ately, and is Issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857C-7.
Dated: December 15, 1975.

STANLEY W. LEGRO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In § 61.04, paragraph (b) (WW) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 61.04 Address.
(b) • • *
(WW) (1) Washington; State of Wash-
ington, Department of Ecology, Olym-
pia, Washington 98504.
(ii) Northwest Air Pollution Author-
ity, 207 Pioneer Building, Second and
Pine Streets, Mount Vernon, Washing-
ton 98273.
(ill) Puget Sound Air Pollution Con-
trol Agency, 410 West Harrison Street,
Seattle, Washington 98119.
(iv) Spokane County Air Pollution
Control Authority, North 811 Jefferson,
Spokane, Washington 99201.
(v) Yakima County Clean Air Author-
ity, County Courthouse, Yakima, Wash-
ington 98901.
|FR Doc 75 -34161 Piled 12-17-76;8:45 am|

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 244-

-THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1975
11 [FKL 474-9]
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of Maim
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
to the State of Maine on November 3,
1975, EPA is today amending 40 CFR
61.04, Address, to reflect this delegation.
A Notice announcing this delegation b
published today in the FEDERAL R*o-
iSTER.1 The amended § 61.04, which adds
the address of the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection to which all
reports, requests, aoplications, sub-
mittals, and communications to the Ad-
ministrator pursuant to this part must
also be addressed, is set forth below.
The Administrator 'finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective Im-
mediately1 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 October 7, 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 Immedi-
ately, and is Issued under the authority
of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
(42 TJJS.C. I857C-7)

Dated: December 22, 1975.
STANLEY W. LEGRO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.

Fart 61 .of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
In § 61.04 paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (17) to read
as follows:
§ 61.04 Address.
* * • • *
ib) « * *
(U) State of Maine, Department of En-
vironmental Protection, State House, Au-
gusta, Maine 04330.
[FR Doc.75-35064 Filed 12-29-75;8:45 am]
JSee FR Doc. 75-35063 appearing else-
•where In the Notices section of today1!
FEDERAL REGISTER.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 250-

-TUESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1975
IV-5 8
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
12 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS

Delegation of Authority to the State of
Michigan

Pursuant to the delegation of authority
for national emission standards for haz-
ardous air pollutant (NESHAPS) to the
State of Michigan on November 5, 1975,
EPA is today amending 40 CPR 61.04,
Address, to reflect this delegation.' The
amended Section 61.04, which adds the
address of the Air Pollution Control Divi-
sion, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources to that list of addresses to
which all reports, requests, applications,
submittals, and communications to the
Administrator pursuant to this part must
be sent, is set forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective 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
administrative amendment was effective
on November 5, 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 authortiy
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857C-7.

Dated: December 31,1975.

STANLEY W. LEGRO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.

Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
1. In § 61.04, paragraph (b) Is
amended by revising subparagraph X, to
read as follows:
61.04 Address.
(b) • • •
(A)-(W) • • •
(X) State of Michigan, Air Pollution Con-
trol Division, Michigan Department of Natu-
ral Resources, Stevens T. Mason Building,
8th Floor, Lansing, Michigan 48926.
• * • * •
[FR Doc.78-848 Filed 1-12-78:8:45 am]
13
'A Notice announcing this delegation la
published In the Notices section of this tesue.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. B-

—TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1976
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to Washington
Local Agencies
Pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, the Regional Ad-
ministrator of Region X, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), delegated to
the State of Washington Department of
Ecology on February 28, 1975, the au-
thority to Implement and enforce the
program for national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS).
The delegation was announced in the
FEDERAL REGISTER on April 1, 1975 (40
FR 14632). On April 25, 1975 (40 FR
18169) the Assistant Administrator for
Air and Waste Management promulgated
a change to 40 CFR 61.04, Address, to
reflect the delegation to the State of
Washington.
On October 23, 1975, the State Depart-
ment of Ecology requested EPA's concur-
rence in the State's sub-delegation of the
NESHAPS program to two local air pol-
lution control agencies. Previously, EPA
concurred in the State's sub-delegation
to four local agencies. See 40 FR 58646,
December 18, 1975. After reviewing the
State's October 23 request the Regional
Administrator determined that the sub-
delegations met all the requirements
outlined In EPA's delegation of Febru-
ary 28, 1975. Therefore, the Regional Ad-
ministrator on December 5, 1975, con-
curred in the sub-delegations to the two
local agencies listed below with the stip-
ulation that all the conditions placed on
the original delegation to the State shall
also apply to the sub-delegations to the
local agencies. EPA is today amending 40
CFR 61.04 to reflect the State's sub-
delegations.
The amended § 61.04 provides that all
reports, requests, applications, submit-
tals and communications required pur-
suant to Part 61 which were previously
to be sent to the Director of the State of
Washington Department of Ecology
(DOE) will now be sent to the Olympic
Air Pollution Control Authority or the
Southwest Air Pollution Control Author-
ity, as appropriate. The amended sec-
tion is set forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately In that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional 'substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegations which are reflected by this
administrative amendment were effec-
tive on October 23, 1975 and it serves no
useful purpose to delay the technical
change of the addition of the local agency
addresses to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is Issued under the authority
of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, at
amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857C-7.

Dated: January 24, 1976.

STANLEY W. LEGRO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.

Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In S 61.04, paragraph (b) Is
amended by adding subparagraphs
(WW) (vl) and (vil) to read as follows:

§61.04 Address.
• * • • •
(b) • • •
(WW) * * *
(vl) Olympic Air Pollution Control Au-
thority, 120 East State Avenue, Olympic,
Washington 98601.
(vll) Southwest Air Pollution Control Au-
thority, Suite 7601 H, NE Hazel Dell Avenue.
Vancouver, Washington 98065.
• • • • •
[FR Doc.76-2674 Filed l-28-76;8:45 am)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 20—THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1976
IV-5 9
-------
14
RULES AND REGULATIONS
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of Oregon
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for national emission standards lor
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of Oregon on November 10.
1975, EPA Is today amending 40 CFR
61.04, Address, to reflect this delegation.
A Notice announcing this delegation is
published today at 41 PR 7749 in the
FEDERAL REGISTER. The amended 5 61.04,
which adds the address of Oregon De-
partment of Environmental Quality to
which all reports, requests, applications,
submittals, and communications pursu-
ant to this part must be addressed, is set
forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective 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
November 10, 1975, and it serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of
this addition of the State address to the
Code of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking Is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.S.C. l857c-7.
Dated: February 11,1976.

STANLEY W. LEORO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.

Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In 8 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (MM) to read
as follows:
161.04 Address.
• * * • *
(b) * * •
(A)-(L) • ' '
(MM)—State of Oregon, Department
of Environmental Quality, 1234 SW Mor-
rison Street, Portland, Oregon 97205.
• • • • •
|FEDoc.76-49G3 Filed 2-19-76:8:45 am)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 35-

-FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1976
16
15
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to Commonwealth
of Virginia
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity' for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the Commonwealth of Virginia on De-
cember 30. 1975, EPA is today amending
40 CFR 61.04, Address, to reflect this
delegation. A Notice announcing this
delegation Is published today at 41 FR
8416 In the FEDERAL REGISTER. The
amended § 61.04, which adds the address
of the Virginia State Air Pollution Con-
trol Board to which all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and communi-
cations to the Administrator pursuant to
this part must also be addressed, is set
forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately in that It is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are Imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which Is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
December 30, 1975, and It serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of
this address to the Code of Federal Reg-
ulations.
This rulemaking Is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 UJ3.C. 1857c-7.
Dated: February 21. 1976.

STANLEY W. LEGRO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In § 61.04, paragraph (b) is amend-
ed by revising subparagraph (W) to
read as follows:
§61.01 Address.
* • • • *
(b) » • •
(A)-(UU) • * *
(W) Commonwealth of Virginia, Vir-
ginia State Air Pollution Control Board,
Room 1106, Ninth Street Office Build-
ing, Richmond, Virginia 23210.
|FR Doc.76-6506 Filed 2-26-76;8:46 »m)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 39-

-THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1976
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of
Connecticut
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
to the State of Connecticut on Decem-
ber 9, 1975, EPA is today amending 40
CFR 61.04, Address, to reflect this dele-
gation. A Notice announcing this delega-
tion is published today at (41 FR 11874)
in the FEDERAL REGISTER. The amended
S 61.04. which adds the address to the
Connecticut Department 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 administra-
tive change and not one of substantive
content. No additional substantive
burden* are imposed on the parties af-
fected. The delegation which Is reflected
by this administrative amendment was
effective on December 9, 1975, 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 Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
(42 TJ.S.C. 1857C-7)

Dated: March 15, 1976.
STANLEY W. LEGRO,
Assistant Administrator
of Enforcement.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
In { 61.04 paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (H) to read as
follows:

§61.01 Address.

fb) • • •
(H) State of Connecticut, Department
of Environmental Protection, State Offce
Building, Hartford, Connecticut 06115.

[FR Doo.76-7968 Piled 3-19-76;8:46 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 56-

-MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1976
IV-60
-------
IDLES AND REGULATIONS
] 7 IPRL 639-6]
.PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to Commonwealth
of Massachusetts
Pursuant to the delegation of au-
thority (or National Emission Stand*
ards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts on January 23, 1Q76, EPA
Is today amending 40 CFR 61.04. "Ad-
dress, to reflect this delegation. A Notice
announcing this delegation Is published
In the Notices section of today's FEDERAL
REGISTER. The amended S 61.04, which
adds the address of the Massachusetts
Engineering, Division of Air Quality
Control, to which all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and communi-
cations to the Administrator pursuant to
this part must also be addressed, Is set
forth below.
- The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
p. airing 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
delegation which Is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
January 23, 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 Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
42 TJS.C. 1857C-7.
Dated: May 3. 1976.
STANLEY W. LEORO,
Assistant Administrator
of Enforcement.
61 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
In 8 61.04- paragraph is amended
by revising subparagraph (W) to read
as follows:
f 61.04 Address.
. • • • •
(b) • • •
(W) Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering,
Division of Air Quality Control, 600
Washington Street, Boston, Massachu-
setts 02111..
rFTt Doc.76-18824 Filed 6-13-76:8:46. am]
fFEL 639-3]

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

Delegation of Authority to State of New
Hampshire
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of New Hampshire on Febru-
ary 17, 1976, EPA is today amending 40
CFR 61.04, "Address," to reflect this dele-
gation. A Notice announcing this delega-
tion Is published in the Notices section of
today's FEDERAL REGISTER. The amended
I 61.04, which adds the address of the
New Hampshire Air Pollution Control
Agency to which all reports, requests, ap-
plications, submittals, and communica-
tions to the Administrator pursuant to
this part trust also be addressed Is set
forth below.

The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaklng 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 tills ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
February 17. 1976, and it serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of tills
addition of the State address to the Code
of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective Immedi-
ately, and is issued under tho authority
of Section 112 of~the Clean Air Act. as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7.
Dated: May 3,1976.

STANLEY W. LEGRO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows: '
In 5 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (EE) to read
as follows:
§ 61.04 Address.
* • • » •
(b) • • •
(EE) New Hampshire Air Pollution
Control Agency. Department of Health
and Welfare, State Laboratory Building,
Hazen Drive. Concord, New Hampshire
03301.
I PR Doc.7fl-13823 Filed 6-ia-7fl;8:4S_»m|
KDEIAL KOISTW, VOL. 41. NO. 94—THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1976
IV-61
-------
18
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of Cali-
fornia on Behalf of Ventura County and
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control Districts
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of California on behalf of the
Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District and the Northern Sonoma
County Air Pollution Control District.
dated February 2, 1976, EPA is today
amending 40 CFR 61.04, Address to re-
flect this delegation. A Notice announc-
ing this delegation is published today in
the Notices section of this issue. The
amended § 61.04 is set forth below. It
Pddr, the addresses of the Ventura
County and Northern Sonoma County
Air Pollution Control Districts, to which
must be addressed all reports, requests,
applications, submittaJs, and communi-
cations pursuant to this part by sources
subject to the NESHAPS located within
these Air Pollution Control Districts.
The Administrator flnds good cause for
foregoing- prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately in that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
February 2, 1976, and it serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of this
addition of the Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict addresses to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
1. Section 61.04(b) IB amended by
revising subi^ragranh (F) to read as
follows:
£61.04 Address.
• • • • •
(b) • • •
(F) California—
B«y Area Air Pollution Control District,
939 Elite St., San Francisco. CA 04109.
Del Nort« County Air Pollution Control
District. Courthouse, Crescent City, CA
88831.
Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District, 6600 8. Broadway, Eureka, CA 06501.
Kern County Air Pollution Control District,
1700 nowcr St. (P.O. Box M7), BakenlUld,
OAB3803.
KDftAl UOUTEK, VOL. 41, NO. JOS—WEDNESDAY, MAY 26. 1976
RULES AMI REGULATIONS

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District, 420 Church St. (P.O. Boi 487), S»-
llnas, CA 93901.
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District, 3313 Chanate Rd., Santa
Rosa, CA 95404.
Trinity County Air Pollution Control Ola?
trlct, Box AJ, Weavervllle, CA 96093.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 625 E Santa Clara St., Ventura, CA
63001.
. , . • >

This rule making is effective Immedi-
ately.
(Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amende*
I42U.S.C. 18B7C-7J).

Dated: May?, 1976.

STANLEY W. LEORO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.

|FR Doc 78-15268 Filed 6-26-76;8:46 am)
FEDERAL REOISTEt,

VOL 41, NO. 120-

-MONDAV. JUNE 21, 1976
I 9 Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
[FRI, 564-6]

NEW SOURCE REVIEW
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Georgia

The amendments below institute cer-
tain address changes for reports and ap-
plications required from operators of new
sources. EPA has delegated to the State
of Georgia authority to review new and
modified sources. The delegated author-
ity Includes the reviews under 40 CFR
Part 52 for the prevention of significant
deterioration. It also includes the review
under 40 CFR Part 60 for the standards
of performance for new stationary
sources and review under 40 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 this issue of the FEDERAL
REGISTER. These amendments provide
that all reports, requests, applications,
submittals, and communications previ-
ously required for the delegated reviews
will now be sent Instead to the Envi-
ronmental Protection Division, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, 270
Washington Street SW.. Atlanta, Georgia
30334, Instead of EPA's Region IV.
The Regional Administrator finds good
cause for foregoing prior public notice
and for making this rulemaking effective
Immediately In that It is an administra-
tive change and not one of substantive
content. No additional substantive bur-
dens are Imposed on the parties affected.
The delegation which Is reflected by this
administrative amendment was effective
on May 3, 1976, and it serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of
this addition of the State address to the
Code of Federal regulations.
This 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: June 11, 1S>76.

JACK E. RAVAN,
Regional Administrator.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO HIE
STATE OF GEORGIA
Part 61 of Chapter I. Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as fol-
lows:
3. In 5 61.04, paragraph (b) (L) Is re-
vised to read as follows:
§ 61.04 Address.
*****
(b) • • •
(L) State of Georgia, Environmental Pro-
tection Division, Department of Natural Re-
sources, 270 Washington Street, S.W., At-
lanta, Georgia 30334.

[FR Doc.76-17911 Filed 6-18-76;8:46 am]
IV-62
-------
20
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of CM-
fomla on Behalf of Fresno, Mendoclno,
San Joequin, and Sacramento County
Air Pollution Control Districts
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (KESHAPS) to
the State of California on behalf of the
Fresno Count; Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, the Mendoclno County Air Pollu-
tion Control District the San Joaquln
County Air Pollution Control District,
and the Sacaramento County Air Pol-
lution Control District, dated March 29,
1976, EPA is today amending 40 CPR
61.04, Address, to reflect this delegation.
A Notice announcing this delegation Is
published today In the Notice Section
of this issue. The amended { 61.04 Is set
forth below. It adds the addresses of the
Fresno County. Mendoclno County, San
Joaquin County, and Sacramento County
Air Pollution Control Districts, to which
must be addressed all reports, requests,
applications, submlttals, and commu-
nications pursuant to this part by sources
subject to the NESHAPS located within
these Air Pollution Control Districts.
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
March 29,1976. and it serves no purpose
to delay the technical change of this ad-
dition of the Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict addresses to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
This rulemaking Is effective Immedi-
ately, and Is Issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, aa
amended [42 U.S.C. 1857c-7],

Dated: June 15,1976.
STANLEY W. LECBO,
Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.

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

B 61.04 Addrew.
• • « • •
(b) • • •
(A)-(E) • • •
(F) California:
Bay Are* Air Pollution Control DUtrlct, 9S9
EIlli St., San Francisco. CA 94109
Del Norte County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, Courthouse, Crescent City. CA 95531
Fresno County Air Pollution Control District,
616 B. Cedar Avenue, Fresno, CA 93703
Humboldt County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 5600 8. Broadway, Eureka, CA 95501
Kern County Air Pollution Control District,
1700 Flower St. (P.O. Box 997), Bakenfleld.
CA 93302
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, County Courthouse. tTklab, CA 96481
Monterey Bay Unload Air Pollution Control
District 430 Church St. (P.O. Box 487),
Salinas, CA 93901
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Con-
trol District, 3313 Chanate Rd., Santa BOM.
CA 95404
Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
District, 3331 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento,
CA 95837
San Joaquln County Air Pollution Control
District 1801 X. Hatelton St. (P.O. Box
2009). Stockton, CA 95301
Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dbv
trtot, Box AJ, WearerTUle, CA 9609*
Ventura County Air Pollution Control DU-
irtot 9U X. Santa Clara St, Ventura, OA
M001
FR Doc.74-19670 Filed 7-7-78:8:46 am)

FEDERAL UGISTEK, VOL 41, NO. 132

THURSDAY, JUIY I, 1974
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 154

MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1976
21
[FRL597-2]
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS

Delegation of Authority to State of Cali-
fornia on Behalf of Madera County Air
Pollution Control District

Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of California on behalf of the
Madera County Air Pollution Control
District, dated May 12,1976, EPA is today
amending 40 CFR 61.04. Address, to re-
flect this delegation. A Notice announc-
ing this delegation is published today in
the notices section of this issue of the
FEDERAL REGISTER, Environmental Pro-
tertion Agency, FRL 596-8. The amended
5 61.04 is set forth below. It adds the ad-
dress of the Madera County to which
must be addressed all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and communi-
cations pursuant to this part by sources
subject to the NESHAPS located within
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
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 Regula-
tions.
This rule making is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended [42U.S.C. 1857C-7].

Dated: July 27,1976.

PAUL DEFALCO,
Regional Administrator,
Region IX, EPA.

Part 61 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
a" follows:
1. In 5 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended'
by revising subparagraph F to read as
follows:

§61.04 Address.
• • * • *

(b) * * /
F CALIFORNIA

In ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride
plants, the standard limits vinyl chloride
emissions from the ethylene dichloride
and vinyl chloride formation and puri-
fication processes to 10 ppm. For the ox-
ychlorination process, vinyl chloride
emissions are limited to 0.2 g/kg of ethyl-
ene dichloride product.
In polyvinyl chloride plants, the stand-
ard limits ,vinyl chloride emissions from
equipment preceding and including the
stripper in the plant process flow to 10
ppm. Emissions from equipment follow-
ing the stripper'are to be controlled by
stripping dispersion resins to 2000 ppm
and other resins to 400 ppm, or by using
equivalent controls. Vinyl chloride emis-
sions from reactor opening are to be re-
duced to 0.02 g/kg polyvinyl chloride
product.
In both ethylene dichloride-vinyl
chloride and polyvinyl chloride plants,
relief valve discharges and manual vent-
Jng of gases are prohibited except under
emergency conditions. Fugitive emissions
are required to be captured and con-
trolled.
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

EPA prepared a document entitled the
Quantitative Risk Assessment for Com-
munity Exposure to Vinyl Chloride which
estimates the risk from vinyl chloride
exposure to populations living in the vi-
cinity of vinyl chloride-emitting plants
before and after implementation of con-
trols to meet the standard. There are no
dose-response data for the concentra-
tions of vinyl chloride found in the am-
bient air. Therefore, assessments of risk
--at ambient levels of exposure were ex-
trapolated from dose-response data from
higher levels of exposure using both a
linear model and a log-probit model.
Extrapolations made with each of these
models entailed using different sets of
assumptions. Because different assump-
tions can be made in extrapolating to
low doses, the health risks are reported
in ranges.
It was estimated that 4.6 million peo-
ple- live within 5 miles of ethylene dicho-
ride-vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chlo-
ride plants and that the average ex-
posure around these plants before instal-"
lation of controls to meet the standard
is 17 parts per billion. The exposure
levels for uncontrolled plants were cal-
culated based on estimated 1974 emis-
sion levels. Using the linear dose-re-
sponse model, EPA found that the
rate of initiation of Ever angiosarcoma
among people living around uncontrolled
plants is expected to range from less than
one to ten cases of liver angiosarcoma
per year of exposure to vinyl chloride.
The log-probit model gave predictions
that are 0.1 to 0.01 times this rate. This
wide range is an indication of the un-
certainties in extrapolation to low doses.
Due to the long latency time observed in
cancer cases resulting from vinyl chloride
exposure, increases initiated by exposure
this year will not be diagnosed until the
1990's or later. Vinyl chloride is also es-
timated to produce an equal number of
primary cancers at other sites, for a total
of somewhere between less than one and
twenty cases of cancer per year of ex-
posure among residents around plants.
The number of these effects is expected
to be reduced at least in proportion to the
reduction in the ambient annual average
vinyl chloride concentration, which is
expected to be 5 percent of the uncon-
trolled levels after the standard is im-
plemented.
Changes in the standard since pro-
posal do not affect the level of control
required. Thus, the environmental im-
pact of the promulgated standard Is,
with one exception, the same as that
described in Chapter 6 of Volume I of
the Standard Support and Environmen-
tal Impact Statement. According to data
submitted by the Society of Plastics In-
dustry, Inc. (SPI), the impact on water
consumption in the draft environmental
impact statement was overstated. In es-
timating the impact on water consump-
tion, EPA based its estimates on worst
case conditions. That is, EPA assumed
that those control systems with the
greatest water usage would be employed
and that there would be no recycling
of water. There is no regulation which
would require water recycling. Accord-
ing to SPI, the control system utilizing
the most water will not be used gener-
ally by the industry and economic fac-
tors will cause plants to recycle much
of the water. Therefore, according to
SPI the impact of the standard on water
consumption will be negligible.
The environmenta.1 impacts of the
promulgated standard may be summar-
ized as follows: The primary environ-
mental impacts of the standard are ben-
eficial and will consist of vinyl chloride
emission reductions of approximately 94
percent at ethylene dichloride-vinyl
chloride plants and 95 percent at poly-
vinyl chloride plants. Percentage num-
bers for both source categories are based,
on an estimated 90 percent reduction in
fugitive emissions and 1974 emission
levels.
The potential secondary environmen-
tal impacts of the standard are either
insignificant or will be minimized with-
out additional action, except for one ad-
verse impact. Hydrogen chloride is al-
ready emitted by process equipment at
ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride plants
and by other petrochemical plants in the
complexes where ethylene dichloride-
vinyl chloride plants are typically lo-
cated. An incinerator used to attain the
standard at an ethylene dichloride-vinyl
chloride plant could increase hydrogen
chloride emissions by several fold. Typi-
cally, however, due to the corrosion prob-
lems which would otherwise occur both
on plant property and in the community,
plants use scrubbers to control already
existing hydrogen chloride emissions.
Hydrogen chloride emissions resulting
from control of vinyl chloride emissions
are expected to be controlled for the
same reason. If even a moderately effi-
cient scrubber (98 percent control) were
used to control the hydrogen chloride
emissions resulting from incineration of
vinyl chloride emissions, the increase in
hydrogen chloride emissions from a typ-
ical ethylene dichloride-vinyl chloride
plant due to the standard would be re-
duced to 35 percent. However, EPA plans
to further evaluate the need to control
hydrogen chloride emissions, since dif-
fusion model results indicate that under
"worst-case" meteorological conditions,
the hydrogen chloride emissions from
the process equipment and the incinera-
tor combined would cause maximum am-
bient concentrations of hydrogen chlo-
ride in the vicinity of ethylene dichlo-
ride-vinyl chloride plants to be in the
same range or somewhat higher than
existing foreign standards and National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) guidelines
for public exposure.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
In accordance with Executive Order
11821 and OMB circular A-107, EPA
carefully evaluated the economic and'
Inflationary impact of the proposed
standard and alternative control levels
and certified this in the preamble to the
proposed standard. These impacts are
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 205—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976
IV-6 6
-------
discussed in Chapter 7 of Volume I of
the Standard Support and Environmen-
tal Impact Statement. Comments on the
proposed standard have resulted In only
one major change in the economic Im-
pact analysis. EPA estimated that there
would be four plant closures as a result
of the promulgated standard. Of the four
plants Identified as possible closure can-
didates., one has given notice that it no
longer produces polyvlnyl chloride and
the other three have indicated that they
do not Intend to close as a result of the
standard.
The economic Impacts of the promul-
gated standard may be summarized as
follows: The total capital cost for exist-
ing plants to meet the standard is esti-
mated to be $198 million, of which $15
million is for ethylene dichloride-vinyl
chloride plants and $183 million Is for
polyvinyl chloride plants. EPA estimates
that these plants will have to spend $70
million per year to maintain the required
emission levels. In addition, the total
capital cost for existing plants to meet
the EPA's 1983 water effluent guideline
limitations is expected to be $83 million
and the total annualized operation cost
Is $17 million. The costs to the industry
of meeting the OSHA standard cannot be
quantified at this time, but they are ex-
pected to overlap to some degree with the
costs to meet EPA's fugitive emission
regulations. The costs of meeting the
fugitive emission regulations are included
in the total costs cited above for meeting
the promulgated regulation. Broken out
separately, the capital cost of meeting
the fugitive emission regulations Is $37
million and the annualized cost is $25
million.
The standard is not expected to deter
construction of new ethylene dichloride-
vinyl chloride plants or most types of
new polyvinyl chloride plants. For one
type of polyvinyl chloride plant (disper-
sion process) that represents 13 percent
of the Industry production, the standard
would significantly deter the construc-
tion of smaller plants.
.It is estimated that the price of poly-
vlnyl chloride resins will rise by approxi-
mately 7.3 percent in order to maintain
precontrol profitability and also to re-
cover the total annualized control costs
necessitated by the standard at ethylene
dichloride-vinyl chloride plants and poly-
vinyl chloride plants. This Increase is
estimated to translate into a maximum
consumer price increase in goods fabri-
cated from polyvinyl chloride resins of
approximately 3.5 percent. Recovery of
effluent annualized costs plus mainte-
nance of precontrol profitability Is esti-
mated to add approximately 2 percent to
polyvinyl chloride resin prices and result
in an additional maximum consumer
price increase of 1 percent.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
During the public comment period, 50
comment letters on the proposed stand-
ard were received. There were 24 from
industry; 3 from environmental groups;
15 from Federal, State, and local agen-
cies; and 8 from Individual citizens. As
required by section 112 (b) (1) (B) of the
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Act, a public hearing was held on the
proposed standard on February 3, 1976,
in Washington, D.C. Presentations were
made by the Environmental Defense
Fund, the Society of the Plastics Indus-
try. Inc., Dow Chemical Company, Dia-
mond Shamrock Corporation, and Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc. Copies of
the comment letters received, the public
hearing record,' and a summary of the
comments with EPA's responses are
available for public inspection and copy-
ing at the EPA Public Information Ref-
erence Unit, Room 2922 (EPA Library),
401 M Street, SW.. Washington, D.C. In
addition, copies of the comment .sum-
mary and Agency responses may be ob-
tained upon written request from the
Public Information Center (PM-215),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460
(specify Standard Support and Environ-
mental Impact Statement, Emission
Standard for Vinyl Chloride, Volume II).
SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND CHANGES TO
THE PROPOSED REGULATION
(1) Decision to list vinyl chloride as a
hazardous air pollutant. In general, the
commenters did not contest EPA's deci-
sion to list vinyl chloride as a hazardous
air pollutant. However, three comment-
ers (two companies and one Federal
agency) argued that EPA placed undue
emphasis on factors suggesting that vinyl
chloride presented a health risk and
ignored factors suggesting that no sig-
nificant risk was involved. Under section
112, however, EPA could remove vinyl
chloride from the list of hazardous air
pollutants only if information were pre-
sented to EPA that shows that vinyl
chloride is clearly not a hazardous air
pollutant. As discussed more fully In the
comment summary, the commenters did
not provide conclusive evidence that vinyl
chloride is not a hazardous air pollutant
which causes or contributes to death or
serious illness, nor did they conclusively
prove that the health risk factors em-
phasized by EPA were insignificant.
Several other commenters agreed with
EPA's decision to list vinyl chloride as a
hazardous air pollutant, but argued that
EPA had overstated the health problem,
the emission levels, and the projected
ambient air concentrations around un-
controlled plants. With regard to the al-
leged overstated health problem, the
commenters stated, for example, that the
U.S. worker EPA discussed as having
been exposed to vinyl chloride levels low-
er than those usually encountered in
polyvinyl chloride production has been
dropped from the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health's listing
of workers with angiosarcoma. EPA
agrees that there are questions concern-
ing the level of exposure and in some
cases the pathology of these cases not
involved directly In polyvinyl chloride
and vinyl chloride production. These un-
certainties are stated In the appropriate
footnotes of the Scientific and Technical
Assessment Report on Vinyl Chloride and
Polyvinyl Chloride (STAR) where the
angiosarcoma cases arc listed. However,
In spite of these uncertainties, In view of
the possible exposure patterns, these
cases cannot be Ignored In the evaluation
of the potential public health problems.
With regard to the alleged overstated
emission levels, the uncontrolled emis-
sion levels reported by EPA were based
on 1974 data. This qualification was
stated wherever emission data were pre-
sented. EPA recognizes that emissions
have been reduced since that time, and
stated this in the preamble to the pro-
posed standard. EPA decided not to
gather more recent data on emission-
levels, because these emission levels are
expected to change, and gathering the
data would take considerable time, both
on the part of EPA and on the part of
industry. Since the purpose of the stand-
ard is to minimize emissions, these more
current data would not affect the stand-
ard itself. The 1974 emission levels were
also used in diffusion modeling to project
maximum ambient air concentrations
around uncontrolled plants. These maxi-
mum air concentrations would probably
be lower if 1976 emission levels were used.
This would reduce the relative impact
of the standard below that described in
the Standard Support and Environmen-
tal Impact Statement, but would not
affect the basis of the standard itself.
(2) Approach for Regulating Vinyl
Chloride Under Section 112. Two ap-
proaches other than using best avail-
able control technology were suggested
by the commenters for regulating vinyl
chloride under section 112. The first was
to ban polyvinyl chloride products for
which substitutes are currently available
and to gradually phase out other poly-
vinyl chloride products as substitutes
are developed.
In the preamble to the proposed stand-
ard EPA specified its reasons for not set-
ting a zero emission limit for vinyl
chloride, as follows: (1) There are bene-
ficial uses of vinyl chloride products for
which desirable substitutes are not read-
ily available; (2) there are potentially
adverse health and environmental im-
pacts from substitutes which have not
been thoroughly studied; (3) there are a
number of employees, particularly in the
fabrication industries, who would be-
come at least temporarily unemployed;
and (4) control technology is. available
which is capable of substantially reduc-
ing emissions of vinyl chloride into the
atmosphere.
EPA agrees that substitutes do exist or
could be manufactured for most poly-
vinyl chloride uses. However, in general,
these substitutes do not have some of the
more desirable characteristics of poly-
vinyl chloride, such as nonflammability.
If vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chloride
were banned, other substitutes with
these more desirable characteristics
would likely be developed. There is a risk
that these substitutes would also have
adverse health or environmental effects.
Since , control measures are available
which can reduce vinyl chloride emis-
sions by 90 percent or more, it does not
seem prudent to reduce emissions by the
remaining percentage and take the risk
of Introducing new untested chemicals
Into the environment. ~ —
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 205—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976
IV-6 7
-------
Another approach suggested by the
commenters was to base the standard for
each Individual emission point on cost
versus benefit. Several of the fugitive
emission sources were named specifically
as ones for which the costs of control
were substantially higher than the bene-
fits. Although EPA did determine a cost-
benefit ratio for the controls required
for a number of emission points, EPA
does not believe such a ratio is an appro-
priate basis on which to set a standard.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act provides
for the development of standards based
on best control technology (considering
costs). Even under section 111, however,
standards are not based on a fine bal-
ancing of costs versus benefits. Instead,
costs are considered in terms of the af-
fordability of the control technology re-
quired to achieve a given emission level
and the economic Impact of possible
standards on the industry In ques-
tion. Unlike section 111, section 112 does
not explicitly provide for consideratiort-
of costs, so It would clearly be inappro-
priate to consider costs to a greater ex-
tent under section 112 than would be
done under section 111. As discussed In
the preamble to the proposed standard
for vinyl chloride, EPA believes costs
may be considered under section 112, but
only to a very limited extent; i.e., to
assure that the costs of control technol-
ogy are not grossly disproportionate to
the amount of emission reduction
achieved. In comparison with other
emission points, the costs of controlling
the fugitive emission sources mentioned
by the commenters are relatively small
compared with "the amount of emission
reduction achieved.
Several commenters recommended
adding to the regulation a provision for
excess emissions during startup, shut-
down, and malfunction. EPA considered
this comment, and decided that this
addition is not necessary for the vinyl
chloride standard. Startup and shutdown
of the process has essentially no effect
on emissions to the atmosphere for poly-
vinyl chloride production, and technology
exists to avoid excess emissions during
startup and shutdown at ethylene di-
chloridevinyl chloride plants. We do not
believe plants should be allowed to emit
excess emissions during malfunctions,
and therefore are requiring them to shut
down Immediately.
(3) Selection of source categories. In
the preamble to the proposed standard
EPA recognized that some small research
and development facilities • may exist
where the emissions of vinyl chloride are
Insignificant and covering these facilities
under the standard would be unnecessary
and Inappropriate. However, EPA did not
have sufficient information available to
clearly define which facilities should be
excluded from the standard, and
encouraged interested parties to submit
such Information during the comment
period. Based on the Information sub-
mitted, EPA decided to exempt poly-
Vinyl chloride reactors and associated
equipment from applicability of all parts
of the standard if the reactors are used
In research and development and have a
RULES AND REGULATIONS

capacity of no more than 0.19 m' (50
gal). Reactors hi this size range can gen-
erally be found In a laboratory, whereas
the larger reactors are typically pilot
scale facilities. Emissions from laboratory
scale equipment are relatively small, and
application of the controls required by
the standard would be expensive and im-
practical. EPA also decided to exempt re-
search "and development facilities con-
taining reactors greater than 0.19 m* (50
gal) and no more than 4.07 m" (1100 gal)
in capacity from all parts of the standard
except the 10 ppm limit for reactors,
strippers, monomer recovery systems, and
mixing, weighing and holding containers.
EPA decided not to require these facili-
ties to meet other parts of the standard
because of the technical problems In-
volved in doing so. For example, the
standard for reactor opening Is based In
part on reducing the frequency of open-
Ing the reactor. Research and develop-
ment reactors have to be opened after
every batch for thorough cleaning. Also,
stripping technology is developed indi-
vidually for each resin in research and
development equipment. Therefore, at-
tainment of the stripping limitations in
the research and development equipment
would not always be possible. The 4.07
m" (1100 gal) figure was selected as an
upper cut-off point because there are no
commercial reactors smaller than this.
(4) Emission limits. The only major
change in the emission limits between
proposal and promulgation Is the addi-
tion of a provision for emergency manual
venting of vinyl chloride from reactors
to the atmosphere. The proposed stand-
ard prohibited all manual venting to the
atmosphere. In the preamble to the pro-
posed standard, EPA invited interested
persons to comment on whether permit-
ting manual venting to the atmosphere
could result in overall lower emissions.
There are several methods available for
preventing relief discharges from reac-
tors, one of which is manual venting of
part of the reactor contents for purposes
of cooling and reduction in pressure
within the reactor. The higher the tem-
perature and pressure within the reac-
tor, the greater the amount of vinyl
chloride which has to be removed to
bring the reactor under control. Manual
venting can be done at a lower pressure
than the pressure required to open the
relief valve. For this reason manual vent-
ing can result in lower emissions than
would occur by allowing the reactor to
discharge through the relief valve. Fur-
thermore, a manual vent valve Is under
the control of an operator and can be
closed. A relief valve may become clogged
with resin and not close. The result
would be loss of all the reactor contents.
The contents of a reactor can be man-
ually vented to a gasholder or other hold-
Ing vessel. However, In some cases, such
as during severe weather conditions, sev-
eral reactors may be out of control at
one time. There would be insufficient
holding capacity under these conditions
to manually vent the contents of all the
reactors to a gasholder. Therefore, when
all other measures to prevent relief valve
discharges have been exhausted, manual
venting will be permitted as a last resort
before the relief valve opens. The same
notification procedures are required for
manual venting to the atmosphere as are
required for relief discharges.
There are several changes In the nu-
merical emission limits in the promul-
gated standard. Except for the standard
for reactor opening loss, these changes
simply Involve conversion to the Interna-
tional System of Units (SI). There was
an error involved In the original calcula-
tion used to derive the standard for reac-
tor opening. Correcti.ng this error dou-
bles the allowable emissions. It Is em-
phasized that the change in this stand-
ard is a correction, and not a change In
the intent for the degree of control re-
quired.
The proposed standard required the
Installation of a rupture disc beneath
each relief valve to prevent leakage from
the relief valve. A provision has been
added to the promulgated standard so
that a rupture disc is not required If
the relief valve is tied into a process line
or recovery system. In this case, any
leakage from the relief valve would be
contained.
The regulation for obtaining vinyl
chloride samples has been changed to an
operating procedure. The proposed
standard stated that there were to be
no emissions from taking the samples.
Several commenters pointed out that the
use of the word "no" would make this
regulation impractical to enforce. There-
fore, the promulgated standard specifies
the operating procedure which EPA orig-
inally Intended to be used to control
this source. This revision is only a change
in wording and does not represent a
change In the level of the standard.
The regulation for taking samples has
also been revised to apply only to sam-
ples containing at least 10 percent by
weight vinyl chloride. This is consistent
with the other parts of the standard
which apply to equipment "In vinyl
chloride service." "In vinyl chloride serv-
ice" distinguishes between situations
where vinyl chloride is clearly Involved"
and situations where vinyl chloride is a
minor component or contaminant, and
as defined In promulgated §61.61(1).
means that a piece of equipment' con-
tains or contacts either a liquid that is
at least 10 percent by weight vinyl chlo-
ride or a gas that Is at least 10 percent
by volume vinyl chloride.
The proposed standard required a vinyl
chloride monitoring system for continu-
ously measuring vinyl chloride levels both
within the plant (for leak detection) and
within stacks. The proposed standard did
not outline required specifications for the
monitoring system.-except that it was to
analyze the samples with gas chromatog-
raphy, or if all hydrocarbons were as-
sumed to be vinyl chloride, with Infrared
spectrophotometry, flame Ion detection,
or equivalent. It required that each plant
submit a description of its monitoring
system to EPA, so that EPA could deter-
mine whether It was acceptable or not.
Comments were received Indicating &
need for EPA to specify some criteria for
Judging the, acceptability of monitoring
systems. The accuracy of ttie monltor-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 205—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976
IV-6 8
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Ing system would be related to the fre-
quency of calibration. Therefore, EPA
has Included in the promulgated stand-
ard requirements for the frequency of
calibration and procedures to be carried
out in the calibration of the monitoring
instruments.
The portable hydrocarbon detector re-
quired by the proposed standard was re-
quired to have a sensitivity of 5 ppm>
Comments were received indicating that
instruments in this sensitivity range are
delicate and require continuing mainte-
nance. The portable hydrocarbon detec-
tor is required for leak detection and for
measuring vinyl chloride concentrations
inside the equipment before opening it.
A 5 ppm sensitivity Is not needed in
either case, and the required sensitivity
has been changed to 10 ppm in the pro-
mulgated standard.
The proposed standard contained a
single regulation for compressors. The
promulgated standard-has separate regu-
lations for rotating and reciprocating
compressors. This is consistent with hav-
ing separate regulations for rotating and
reciprocating pumps in both the pro-
posed and promulgated standards.
Section 61.66 of the proposed standard
provided for the use of equivalent meth-
ods of control which have been approved
by EPA. The promiCgated standard re-
quires that the plant owner or operator
submit a request for determination of
equivalency within 30 days of the pro-
mulgation date if the alternative control
method is intended as the Initial means
of control. The purpose of this is to pro-
vide time for EPA to evaluate the method
before the plant has to be In compliance
(for existing sources, 90 days after the
promulgation date). EPA also suggests
that this request for determination of
equivalency be accompanied by a re-
quest for waiver of compliance pursuant
to section 112(c> U) (B> (ii) of the Act.
The request for a waiver for compliance
should provide for the case where EPA
determines that a method Is not equiv-
alent and the plant needs to purchase
other equipment. In no case will the
waiver of compliance be extended beyond
two years from the date of promulga-
tion.
There a/e several wording clarifica-
tions which have been made in the pro-
mulgated standard. The definition for
"in vinyl chloride service" ($60.61(1))
has been clarified by stating that It
means equipment that contacts vinyl
chloride as well as equipment that con-
tains vinyl chloride. This would include
such equipment as agitators.
Words have been added In 55 61.62,
61.63, and 61.64 to clarify that the 10
•BPm emission limits do not have to be
met when equipment has already been
opened in compliance with the regula-
tion for opening of equipment. Equip-
ment that has met the opening of
equipment regulation can contain more
than 10 ppm vinyl chloride and would be
in violation of the standard If this
statement were not Included.
The requirements for stripping poly-
vinyl chloride resins to specified levels
have been revised In }§61.64(e), 61.67
(g)(3)(il), and 61.70(c) (2) (1) so that
measurement of the vinyl chloride levels
In the resins is to be made immediately
after stripping Is completed rather than
as the resin is,-being transferred out of
the stripper. This allows a plant to carry
out operations in a stripper after strip-
ping has been completed but before it Is
transferred out of the stripper. This is
consistent with the original intent of the
standard.
The regulation for loading and unload-
ing lines in §61.65(b)(l) has been re-
vised to clarify that It applies only to
lines that are disconnected after each
loading or unloading operation. Perma-
nently installed pipelines that are opened
Infrequently for inspection or mainte-
nance, for example, are covered by the
opening of equipment regulation rather
than the loading and unloading line
regulation.
The regulation for Inprocess waste-
water In the proposed standard could
have been misinterpreted to require In-
dividual treatment of wastewater
streams. Section 61.65(b)(9)(i) of the
promulgated standard clarifies that
wastewater streams that are required to
be treated (I.e., those containing greater
than 10 ppm vinyl chloride) can be com-
bined to be treated. However, waste-
water streams that contain greater than
10 ppm vinyl chloride cannot be com-
bined with wastewater streams that con-
tain less than 10 ppm vinyl chloride be-
fore treatment; I.e., dilution cannot be
used to meet the standard.
The commenters recommended several
changes in the emission limits which
have not been incorporated Into the
promulgated standard. These are dis-
cussed In the following paragraphs.
It was recommended that the require-
ment for double mechanical seals on
pumps, compressors, and agitators be re-
moved because the single seals currently
used on this'equipment have small emis-
sions and are more reliable than double
mechanical seals. EPA is aware that each
fugitive -emission source, such as one
pump, taken by Itself causes relatively
small emissions. Fugitive emissions con-
sidered as a whole are a significant
source of emissions, however, and the In-
tent of the standard is to reduce these.
Double mechanical seal pumps are com-
monly used in the Industry for emission
reduction. Sealless pumps or equivalent
systems are available as options to double
mechanical seals.
The commenters recommended In-
creasing the averaging time for the 10
ppm limits and the emission limits for
reactor opening and stripping to 30 days.
Some of the commenters apparently
thought that the 10 ppm limits had to be
met on an Instantaneous basis. However,
since the performance test for determin-
ing compliance consists of three runs for
a minimum of an hour each, the aver-
aging time for the 10 ppm limit is at least
three hours. Increasing the averaging
time to 30 days for any of the emission
limits would permit higher peak emis-
sion levels. EPA has determined that this
is neither desirable nor necessary.
Some commenters requested that the
stripping levels for dispersion resins be
made the same as for other resins and
others requested that they be made less
stringent. EPA. decided not to make the
standard for stripping dispersion resins
the same as for other resins because there
Is sufficient evidence to indicate that
these resins are more difficult to' strip
than other resins. With regard to mak-
ing the stripping levels for dispersion
resins less stringent, only one of the. eight
manufacturers of dispersion resins spe-
cifically commented that the dispersion
resin standard should be made less
stringent. Only two of several grades of
dispersion resins made by this company
. cannot meet the 2,000 ppm limit. The
proposed standard takes into considera-
tion that some resins are more difficult
• to strip than others by providing for
averaging among different resins.
(5) Testing, reporting, and record-
keeping. There are several relatively
minor changes in the testing, reporting,
and recordkeeping requirements. A pro-
vision has been added to § 61.67 which
requires that stack gas samples taken
with Test Method 106 are to be analyzed
within 24 hours. This Is consistent with
the requirements in the proposed Test
Method 106. The promulgated standard
also 'specifies that in averaging the re-
sults of the three runs required by Test
Method 106, a time-weighted average Is
to be used.
One commenter requested that the
oxygen content and moisture content be
specified for" the 10 ppm concentration
standards. The proposed standard speci-
fied that the vinyl chloride concentration
is to be corrected to 10 percent oxygen
(wet basis) If combustion is used as the
control measure. In the promulgated
standard, this requirement has been ex-
panded to all control measures.
A provision has been added to the
promulgated standard which states that
if a reactor is also used as a stripper, the
reactor opening emissions may be deter-
mined Immediately following the strip-
ping operation. If a reactor is also used
as a stripper, the resin is in the reactor
when it is opened. This means that vinyl
chloride in the resin which has already
been stripped to acceptable levels can
escape from the resin and become part
of the reactor opening loss. It is EPA's
intent that once a resin has been stripped
to the required levels, that additional
controls are not required. Under the new
provision, vinyl chloride escaping from
the resin after it has been stripped to
acceptable levels is not counted as part
of the reactor opening loss.
A section requiring continuous moni-
toring of stack emissions has been added
to the promulgated standard. The con-
tinuous monitoring of stack emissions
was required in the proposed standard.
The addition of a specific paragraph for
emission monitoring serves only to
clarify the requirement.
The standard has been revised so that
the initial report requires a "description"
rather than a "detailed description"-'of
the equipment used to control fugitive
emissions. Several commenters pointed
out that a detailed description .would
contain proprietary information. EPA
agrees that a detailed description In the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 205—THURSDAY,-OCTOBER 21, 1976

IV-6 9
-------
1UIES AND REGULATIONS
Initial report to unnecessary. 11 addi-
tional Information to needed, EPA can
obtain it under section 114 at the Act and
the plant can request confidential treat-
ment In accordance with 40 CFR Part 3
for Information It believes to b»
proprietary.
The proposed standard required that
a semiannual report be submitted every
180 days. The promulgated standard
specifies dates for the submlttal of the
reports. It also specifies that the first
BAmiMiniiai report does not have to be
submitted until at least six months after
the Initial report Is submitted.
The standard has been revised to elim-
inate the requirement to record the cause
of any leak detected by the vinyl chlo-
ride detector, the action taken to repair
the leak, and the amount of time re-
quired to repair the leak. EPA to con-
cerned only that leaks are detected and
repaired. That this has been done can be
established by looking at the strip chart
record of measurements made by the
vinyl chloride detector. These records are
stffl required for the portable hydrocar-
bon detector however.
Several commentators recommended
that the companies be allowed an extra
two weeks to submit to EPA data from
the Initial performance test They also
recommended that they submit the data
by regular mafl rather than registered
man. EPA has not adopted either of these
recommendations. A source is supposed
to be In compliance with the standard
within 90 days of the promulgation of
the standard. The standard requires that
the emission tests be done within the
90 day period, and permits an extra 30
days for determination of results. The
purpose of using registered mafl to to
document the fact that emission data
have been sent and received. This way
if the results are lost in the mafl, there
win be no question that they were sent.
(0) Test method. Test Method 100 has
been changed to recognize that on a gas
chromatograph equipped with a Chrom-
osorb 102 column, acetaldehyde may
Interfere with the vinyl chloride peak.
When a sample is expected to contain
acetaldehyde, a secondary column as de-
scribed in section 4.3.2 must be employed.
Mass spectroscopy or another absolute
analytical technique to required to con-
firm the vinyl chloride peak obtained
with the gas chromatograph, only If peak
resolution with the secondary column to
not successful.
In section 4.1.4, alumlnlzed Mylar bags
can be substituted for Tedlar bags. EPA
now has data to allow this substitution,
provided that the samples are analyzed
within 24 hours of collection.
In section 5.1.3 of Test Method 108
the requirement to use "oxygen gas" has
been replaced with "oxygen gas or air, as
required by the detector." Several corn-
mentors stated that most gas chromato-
graphs are designed to use hydrogen and
air for their flame detectors. When used
in thto way, they are capable of detect-
ing 0.5 ppm vinyl chloride in air. Thto to
sensitive enough for monitoring the 10
ppm emission limits stipulated in the
standard,
In section 0.4 of Test Method 100 the
requirement for aa automatic Integrator
baa been replaced with a requirement for
a dtoc Integrator or planlmeter for meas-
uring peak area. Thto change to in re-
sponse to a comment which states that
automatic Integrators are unnecessarily
elaborate and expensive.
A new section 0.5 has been added to
Test Method 106 which requires deter-
mination of the water vapor content of
the sampling bag by measuring the am-
bient temperature and pressure near the
bag. The vinyl chloride concentration of
the bag can then be reported on a dry
basis. A provision for checking the rigid
container for leaks has been added to
section 7.4 of Test Method 100.
The only change in Test Method 107 is
the provision in Section 5.3.2 for use of
Carbopak C as well as Carbopak A.
AUTHOMTT: Section 113 of the Clean Air
Act aa added by tec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-004,
M Stat. ieSS (43 U.8.C. 18670-7; Section 114
of the Clean Air Act, u added by sec. 4(a)
of Pub. L. 91-004. 84 Stat. 1687. and amended
by Pub. L. 93-319, sec. 6(a) (4), 88 Stat. 369
(43 U.S.O. 1867C-9); Section 301 (a) of the
Clean Air Act, u amended by sec. I6(e) (3)
of Pub. L. 91-804, 84 Stat. 1713 (43 UB.C.
1867g <•,)>.

Dated: October 12, 1976.

JOHM QUARLES,
Acting Administrator.

Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows: The table of sections for Part
61 is amended by adding a list of sections
for new • Subpart F and Part 61 Is
amended by adding a new Subpart F
reading as follows:
Subpart F—National Emission Standard for Vinyl
Chlorlda
Sec.
81.80 Applicability.
81.81 Definitions.
61.63 Emission standard for ethylene di-
chlorlde plants.
61.63 Emission standard for vinyl chloride
plants.
61.64 Emission standard for polyvlnyl chlo-
ride plants.
61.66 Emission standard for ethylene dl-
ohloride, vinyl chloride and poly-
vinyl chloride plants.
81.66 Equivalent equipment and procedures.
61.67 Emission tests.
61.68 Emission monitoring.
61.69 Initial report.
61.70 Semiannual report.
81.71 Recordkeeplng.

AUTHOBITT: Section 113 of the Clean Air
Act as added by aec. 4 (a) of Pub. L. 91-804,
84 Stat. 1685 (43 TJJ3.O. 1867c-7); section 114
of the Clean Air Act, as added by sec. 4(a)
of Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1687, and amended
by Pub. L. 93-319, aec. 6(a) (4), 88 Stat. 969
(43 U.8.0. 1867c-«); section 301 (a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended by sec. 16(c) (3)
of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (43 U.8.C.
1867g(ft».

Subpart F—National Emission Standard
for Vinyl Chloride

§ 61.60 Applicability.

(a) Thto subpart applies to plants
which produce:
(1) Ethylene dlchlorlde by reaction of
oxygen and hydrogen chloride with
ethylene.
(3) Vinyl chloride by any process,
and/or
(3) One or more polymers containing
any fraction of polymerized vinyl chlo-
ride.
(b) Thto subpart does not apply to
equipment used In research and develop-
ment If the reactor used to polymerize
the vinyl chloride processed in the equip-
ment has a capacity of no more than
0.19m* (60gal).
(c) Sections of this subpart other than
i 61.64(a) (1), (b), (c). and (d) do not
apply to equipment used in research and
development if the reactor used to po-
lymerize the vinyl chloride processed in
the equipment has a capacity of greater
than 0.19 m* (50 gal) and no more than
4.07 m' (1100 gal).
§ 61.61 Definition*.
Terms used In this subpart are denned
in the Act, in subpart A of this part, or
in this section as follows: .
(a) "Ethylene dichloride plant" In-
cludes any plant which produces ethyl-
ene dichloride by reaction of oxygen and
hydrogen chloride with ethylene.
(b) "Vinyl chloride plant" Includes
any plant which produces vinyl chloride
by any process.
(c) "Polyvinyl chloride plant" Includes
any plant where vinyl chloride alone or
in combination with other materials is
polymerized.
(d) "Slip gauge" means a gauge which
has a probe that moves through the gas/
liquid Interface in a storage or transfer
vessel and indicates the level of vinyl
chloride in the vessel by the physical
state of the material the gauge dis-
charges.
(e) "Type of resin" means the broad
classification of resin referring to the
basic manufacturing process for produc-
ing that resin, including, but not limited
to, the suspension, dispersion, latex, bulk,
and solution processes.
(f) "Grade of resin" means the sub-
division of resin classification which de-
scribes it as a unique resin, I.e., the most
exact description of a resin with no fur-
ther subdivision.
(g) "Dispersion resin" means a resin
manufactured in such away as to form
Quid dispersions when dispersed in a
plasticizer or plastlclzer/dlluent mix-
tures.
(h) "Latex resin" means a resin which
to produced by a polymerization process
which initiates from free radical catalyst
sites and is sold undried.
(1) "Bulk resin' "means a resin which
to produced by a polymerization process
in which no water is used.
(J) "Inprocess wastewater" means any
water which, during manufacturing or
processing, comes Into direct contact
with vinyl chloride or polyvinyl chloride
or results from the production or use of
any raw material, Intermediate product,
finished product, by-product, or waste
product containing vinyl chloride or
polyvinyl chloride but which has not
been discharged to a wastewater treat-
ment process or discharged untreated at
wastewater.
(k) "Wastewater treatment process"
Includes any process which modlflei
FEDEUU REGISTEI, VOL 41, NO. 105—THURSDAY, OCTOBEt 21, 1976

IV-70
-------
characteristics such as BOD, COD, TSS.
and pH, usually for the purpose of meet-
ing effluent guidelines and standards; it
does not include any process the purpose
of which is to remove vinyl chloride from
water to meet requirements of this
subpart.
(1) "In vinyl chloride service" means
that a piece of equipment contains or
contacts either a liquid that is at least
10 percent by weight vinyl chloride or a
gas that is at least 10 percent by volume
vinyl chloride.
(rrO "Standard operating procedure"
means a formal written procedure offi-
cially adopted by the plant owner or
operator and available on a routine basis
to those persons resnonsible for carrying
out the procedure.
(n) "Run" means the net period of
time during which an emission sample Is
collected.
(o) "Ethylene dichioride purification"
includes any part of the process of ethyl-
ene dichioride production which follows
ethylene dichioride formation and in
which finished ethylene dichioride is
produced.
(p) "Vinyl chloride purification" In-
cludes any part of the process of vinyl
chloride production which follows vinyl
chloride formation and in which finished
vinyl chloride is produced.
(q) "Reactor" includes any vessel in
which vinyl chloride is partially or totally
polymerized into polyvinyl chloride.
(r> "Reactor opening loss" means the
emissions of vinyl chloride occurring
when a reactor is vented to the atmos-
phere for any purpose other than an
emergency relief discharge as defined in
561.65(a).
(s) "Stripper" includes any vessel in
which residual vinyl chloride is removed
from polyvinyl chloride resin, except
bulk resin, in the slurry form by the use
of heat and/or vacuum. In the case of
bulk resin, stripper includes any vessel
which is used to remove residual vinyl
chloride from polyvinyl chloride resin
immediately following the polymeriza-
tion step in the plant process flow.
§ 61.62 Emission standard for elliyleiio
dichioride plants.
An owner or operator of an ethylene
dichioride plant shall comply with the
requirements of this section and % 61.65.
(a) Ethylene dichioride purification:
The concentration of vinyl chloride in
all exhaust gases discharged to the at-
mosphere from any equipment used In
ethylene dichioride purification is 'not
to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in
i 61.65(a i. This requirement does not
apply to equipment that has been
opened, is out of operation, and met the
requirement in § 61.65(b) before being
opened.
(b) Oxychlorinatlon reactor: Except
as provided in §61.65(a), emissions of
vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from
each oxychlorination reactor are not to
exceed 0.2 g/kg the 100 percent ethylene
dichioride product from the oxychlori-
nation process.
RULES AND REGULATIONS

§ 61.63 Flint-ion standard Tor vinyl
chloride plants.
An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo-
ride plant shall comply with the require-
ments of this section and § 61.65.
Vinyl chloride formation and puri-
fication: The concentration of vinyl
chloride in all exhaust gases discharged
to the atmosphere from any equipment
used in vinyl chloride formation and/or
purification is not to exceed 10 ppm, ex-
cept as provided in § 61.65(a). This re-
quirement does not apply to equipment
that hns been opened, is out of operation,
and met the requirement in 8 61.65(b)
<6> before being opened.
§ 61.64 Emission Mtmdurd for polyvinyl
chloride plants.
An owner or operator of a polyvinyl
chloride plant shall comply with the re-
quirements of this section and § 61.65.
(ai Reactor: The following require-
ments apply to reactors:
il> The concentration of vinyl chlo-
ride in all exhaust gases discharged to
the atmosphere from each reactor is not
to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in
paragraph (a) (2> of this section and
§ 61.65(a>.
(21 The reactor opening loss front each
reactor is not to exceed 0.02 g vinyl
chloride/Kg (0.00002 Ib vinyl chloride/
Ibi of, polyvinyl chloride product, with
the product determined on a dry solids
basis. This requirement applies to any
vessel which is used as a reactor or as
both a reactor and a stripper. In the
bulk process, the product means the
gross product of prepolymerization and
postpolymerization.
(3) Manual vent valve discharge: Ex-
cept for an emergency manual vent valve
discharge, there is to be no discharge to
the atmosphere from any manual vent
valve on a polyvinyl chloride reactor in
vinyl chloride service. An emergency
manual vent valve discharge means a
discharge to the atmosphere which could
not have been avoided by taking meas-
ures to prevent the discharge. Within 10
days of any discharge to the atmosphere
from any manual vent valve, the owner
or operator of the source from which the
discharge occurs shall submit to the Ad-
ministrator a report in writing contain-
ing information on the source, nature
and cause of the discharge, the date and
time of the discharge, the approximate
total vinyl chloride loss during the dis-
charge, the method used for determining
the vinyl chloride loss, the action that
was taken to prevent the discharge, and
measures adopted to prevent future dis-
charges.
(b) Stripper: The concentration of
vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases dis-
charged to the atmosphere from each
stripper is not to exceed 10 ppm, except
as provided in § 61.65(a). This require-
ment does not apply to equipment that
has been opened, is out of operation, and
met the requirement In § 61.65(b) (6) (1)
before being opened.
(c) Mixing, weighing, and holding
containers: The concentration of vinyl
chloride In all exhaust gases discharged
to the atmosphere from each mixing,
weighing, or holding container in vinyl
chloride service which precedes the
stripper (or the reactor if the plant has
no stripper) In the plant process flow is
not to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided
in § 61.65(a). This requirement does not
apply to equipment that has been
opened, is out of operation, and met the
requirement In § 61.65(b) (6) (i) before
being opened.
(d) Monomer recovery system. The
concentration of vinyl chloride in all ex-
haust gases discharged to the atmos-
phere from each monomer recovery sys-
tem is not to exceed 10 ppm, except as
provided in S 61.65(a). This requirement
does not apply to equipment that has
been opened, is out of operation, and met
the requirement in § 61.65(b) (6) (i) be-
fore being opened.
(e) Sources following the stripper(s>:
The following requirements apply to
emissions of vinyl chloride to the at-
mosphere from the combination of all
sources following the stripper(s) [or the
reactor(s) if the plant has no strip-
per(s)3 in the plant process flow in-
cluding but not limited to, centrifuges,
concentrators, blend tanks, filters, dry-
ers, conveyor air discharges," baggers,
storage containers, and inprocess waste-
water:
(1) In polyvinyl chloride plants using
stripping technology to control vinyl
chloride emissions, the weighted average
residual vinyl chloride concentration in
all grades of polyvinyl chloride resin
processed through the stripping opera-
tion on each calendar day, measured
immediately after the stripping opera-
tion is completed, may not exceed:
(i) 2000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride
dispersion resins, excluding latex resins;
(ii) 400 ppm for all other polyvinyl
chloride resins, including latex resins,
. averaged separately for each type of res-
in; or
(2) In polyvinyl chloride plants con-
trolling vinyl chloride emissions with
technology other than stripping or in
addition to stripping, emissions of vinyl
chloride to the atmosphere may not
exceed:
(i)2 g/kg (0.002 Ib/lb) product from
the stripper(s) [or reactor(s) if the
plant has no stripper(s) ] for dispersion
polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex
resins, with the product determined on a
dry solids basis;
(ii) 0.4 g/kg (0.0004 Ib/lb) product
from the strippers [or reactor(s) if the
plant has no stripper (s)] for all other
polyvinyl chloride resins, including latex
resins, with the product determined on
a dry solids basis.

IV-72
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
46567
IB) A calibration gas cylinder contain-
ing the appropriate concentration of
vinyl chloride. If a calibration gas cylin-
der is used, the analysis must be trace-
able to the National Bureau of Stand-
ards or to a gravimetrically calibrated
vinyl chloride permeation tube.
(iv) The location and number of points
to be monitored and the frequency of
monitoring provided for in the program
are acceptable when they are compared
with the number of pieces of equipment
in vinyl chloride service and the size and
physical layout of the plant.
(v) It contains an acceptable plan of
action to be taken when a leak is de-
tected.
(vl) It contains a definition of leak
which is acceptable when compared with
the background concentrations of vinyl
chloride in the areas of the plant to be
monitored by the vinyl chloride monitor-
ing system. Measurements of background
concentrations of vinyl chloride m the
areas of the plant to be monitored by the
vinyl chloride monitoring system are to
be Included with the description of the
program. The definition of leak for a
given plant may vary among the differ-
ent areas within the plant and is also to
change over time as background con-
centrations in the plant are reduced.
(9) Inprocess wastewater: Vinyl chlo-
ride emissions to the atmosphere from
inprocess wastewater are to be reduced
as follows:
(i) The concentration of vinyl chlo-
ride in each Inprocess wastewater stream
containing greater than 10 ppm vinyl
chloride measured immediately as It
leaves a piece of equipment and before
being mixed with any other inprocess
wastewater stream is to be reduced to no
more than 10 ppm by weight before being
mixed with any other inprocess wastewa-
ter stream which contains less than 10
ppm vinyl chloride; before being exposed
to the atmosphere, before being dis-
charged to a wastewater treatment proc-
ess; or before being discharged untreated
as a wastewater. The paragraph does
apply to water which is used to displace
vinyl chloride from equipment before it
Is opened to the atmosphere In accord-
ance with i 61.64(a) (2) or paragraph
(b) (6) of this section, but does not apply
to water which Is used to wash out equip-
ment after the equipment has already
been opened to the atmosphere in ac-
cordance with ! 61.64(a) (2) or para-
graph (b) (6) of this section.
(11) Any vinyl chloride removed from
the inprocess wastewater in accordance
with paragraph (b) (9) (i) of this section
Is to be ducted through a control system
from which the concentration of vinyl
chloride in the exhaust gases does not
exceed 10 ppm, or equivalent as provided
In i 01.66.
(c) The requirements in paragraphs
tt»U), 0»(2>, O»(5>, U»(6), 0»(7)
and (b) (8) of this section are to be In-
corporated into a standard operating
procedure, anr made available upon re-
quest for Inspection by the Administra-
tor. The standard operating procedure Is
to Include provisions for measuring the
vinyl chloride In equipment ^4.75 m1
01250 gal in volume for which an mis-
sion limit la prescribed m I 61.65(b) (6)
(1) prior to opening the equipment and
using Test Method 106. a portable hydro-
carbon detector, or an equivalent or al-
ternative method. The method of meas-
urement is to meet the requirements In
5 61.67(g) (5) (1) (A) or (g) ((5) (1) (B).
§ 61.66 Equivalent equipment und pro-
cedures.
Upon written application from an own-
er or operator, the Administrator may
approve use of equipment or procedures
which have been demonstrated to his
satisfaction to be equivalent In terms of
reducing vinyl chloride emissions to the
atmosphere to those prescribed for com-
pliance with a specific paragraph of this
subpart. For an existing source, any re-
quest for using an equivalent method as
the initial measure of control is to be
submitted to the Administrator within
30 days of the effective date. For a new
source, any request for using an equiva-
lent method Is to be submitted to the
Administrator with the application for
approval of construction or modification
required by g 61.07.
§ 61.67 Emission tests.
(a) Unless a waiver of emission testing
is obtained under i61.13, the owner or
operator of a source to which this sub-
part applies shall test emissions from
the source,
(1) Within 90 days of the effective date
In the case of an existing source or a
new source which has an initial startup
date preceding the effective date, or
(2) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source, initial startup of
which occurs after the effective date.
(b) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide the Administrator at least 30 days
prior notice of an emission test to afford
the Administrator the opportunity to
have an observer present during the test.
(c) Any emission test is to be con-
ducted while the equipment being tested
is operating at the maximum production
rate at which the equipment will be op-
erated and under other relevant condi-
tions as may be specified by the Adminis-
trator based on representative perform-
ance of the source.
(d) Each emission test is to consist
of three runs. For the purpose of deter-
mining emissions, the average of results
of all runs is to apply. The average is to
be computed on a time weighted basis.
(e) All samples are to be analyzed
within 24 hours, and vinyl chloride emis-
sions are to be determined within 30 days
after the emission test. The owner or
operator shall report the determinations
to the Administrator by a registered
letter dispatched before the close of the
next business day following the deter-
mination.
(f) The owner or operator shall retain
at the plant and make available, upon
request, for inspection by the Adminis-
trator, for a minimum of 2 years records
of emission test results and other data
needed to determine emissions.
(g) Unless otherwise specified, the
owner or operator shall use test Test
Methods In Appendix B to this part for
each test as required by paragraphs
(g)(l), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and
(g) (5) of this section, unless an equiva-
lent method or an alternative method
has been approved by the Administrator.
If the Administrator finds reasonable
grounds to dispute the results obtained
by an equivalent or alternative method.
he may require the use of a reference
method. If the results of the reference
and equivalent or alternative methods
do not agree, the results obtained by the
reference method prevail, and the Ad-
ministrator may notify the owner or
operator that approval of the method
previously considered to be equivalent or
alternative is withdrawn.
(1) Test Method 106 is to be used to
determine the vinyl chloride emissions
from any source for which an emission
limit is prescribed in §8 61.62(a) or (b>
$ 61.63, or §§ 61.64(a) (1), (b), (c), or
(d) , or from any control system to which
reactor emissions are required to be-
ducted in § 61.64(a) (2) or to which fugi-
tive emissions are required to be ducted
in $g 61.65(b)(l) (ii), (b>(2>, .
(bM6)(il»,or (b)(9)(ii>.
(i) For each run, one sample is to be
collected. The sampling site is to be at
least two stack or duct diameters down-
stream and one half diameter upstream
from any flow disturbance such as a
bend, expansion, contraction, or visible
flame. For a rectangular cross section an
equivalent diameter is to be determined
from the following equation :
diumi-UT = 3
.
length-; width

The sampling point in the duct is to
be at the centroid of the cross section.
The sample Is to be extracted at a rate
proportional to the gas velocity at the
sampling point. The sample Is to be
taken over a minimum of one hour, and
is to contain a minimum volume of 50
liters corrected to standard conditions.
(11) For gas streams containing more
than 10 percent oxygen, the concentra-
tion of vinyle chloride as determined by
Test Method 106 is to be corrected to 10
percent oxygen for determination of
emissions by using the following equa-
tion;

r -r 10-°
-l"co ....... '"~( ' -."
where:
^'(corroclod) =Tlie concentration of vinyl rliloriilr in
the exhaust gases, corrected to 10 I..T-
percent oxygen.
C»-Tne concentration of vinyl chloride ,a
measured by Test Method 106.
20.9=Peroent oiygen In the ambient air ut
standard conditions.
10.9=Percent oxygen In the ambient air ut
standard conditions, minus the 1"
percent oiygen to which the correc-
tion It being made.
Percent Oi- Percent oiygen In the exhaust gas i»
measured by Reference Method 3 m
Appendix A of Part 00 of this chapter.

(Hi) For those emission sources where
the emission limit Is prescribed in terms
of mass rather than concentration, mass
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 205—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976

IV-7 3
-------
emission* In kg/100 kg product an to
be determined by using the foOowlnc
equation:
C,i=
tCt (2.00) Q 10-*] [1001
Z
•bare;
C»-kx vinyl chlorioVKB kf product.
Cj-The concentration of vinyl chloride M measured
by Test Method KB.
J.W-D«Mlty of vinyl chloride at one atmotplwre and
90°C lnk(/m'.
Q« Volumetric flow rate in m'/hr as determined by
Reference Method 2 of Apptndli A to Pan 00
at thlt chapter.
10-1—Conversion factor for ppm.
Z—Production rate Qrf/hr).
(2) Test Method 107 Is to be used to
determine the concentration of vinyl
chloride in each inprocess wastewater
stream for which an emission limit is
prescribed In | 61.65(U> of thii MCtton, the reactor
opening low la to be determined using
the following equation:
C=
W (2.00) (10-«) (Co)
YZ
vbere:
(7=
»'
2.60

10-*
C»
kg vinyl chloride emissions/kg product
Capacity of the reactor In m1.
Density of vinyl chloride at one atmosphere and
30f C In kg/m'.
Conversion factor for ppm.
ppm by volume vinyl chloride at determined by
Te«t Method 100 or a portable hydrocarbon
detector which measure* hydrocarbon!
with a miltlvlty of at least 10 ppm.
Number of batches since the reactor wai last
opened to the atmosphere.
Average k( of poly-vinyl chloride produced per
batch In the number of batches since the reactor
was last opened to the atmosphere.
(A) If Method 106 Is used to deter-
mine the concentration of vinyl chloride
(Cb) , the sample is to be withdrawn at
a constant rate with a probe of sufficient
length to reach the vessel bottom from
the manhole. Samples are to be taken
for 5 minutes within 6 inches of the ves-
sel bottom, 5 minutes near the vessel
center, and 5 minutes near the vessel top.
(B) If a portable hydrocarbon detec-
tor is used to determine the concentra-
tion of vinyl chloride (Cb), a probe of
sufficient length to reach the vessel bot-
tom from the manhole is to be used to
make the measurements. One measure-
ment will be made within 6 inches of the
vessel bottom, one near the vessel center
and one near the vessel top. Measure-
ments are to be made at each location
until the reading is stabilized. All hydro-
carbons measured are to be assumed to
be vinyl chloride.
(C) The production rate of polyvinyl
chloride (Z) Is to be determined by a
method submitted to and approved by the
Administrator.
(11) A calculation based on the number
of evacuations, the vacuum involved, and
the volume of gas in the reactor is hereby
approved by the Administrator as an al-
ternative method for determining reac-
tor opening loss for postpolymerizatlon
reactors In the manufacture of bulk
resins.
§61.68 Emisison monitoring.
(a) A vinyle chloride monitoring sys-
tem. is to be used to monitor on a con-
tinuous basis the emissions from the
sources for which emission limits are pre-
scribed in I 61.62(a) and (b), 9 61.63(a),
and 9 61.64(a) (1) , (b) , (c) , and (d) . and
for any control system to which reactor
emission are required to be ducted in
9 61.65(b)(l)(ll), and (b)(2), (b)(5),
(b) (6) (11) , and (b)(9)(U).
(b) The vinyl chloride monitoring sys-
tem (s) used to meet the requirement in
paragraph (a) of this section Is to be a
device which obtains air sampels from
one or more points on a continuous
sequential basis and analyzes the samples
with gas chromotography or, if the owner
or operator assumes that all hydrocar-
bons measured are vinyl chloride, with
Infrared spectrophotometry, flame ion
detection, or an equivalent or alterna-
ttre method. The vinyl chloride monitor-
Ing system used to meet the requirements
In I 61.6S(b> (8) (1) may be used to meet
the requirements of this section.
(c) A dally span check is to be con-
ducted for each vinyle chloride monitor-
ing system used. For all of the emission
sources listed in paragraph (a) of this
section, except the one for which an emis-
sion limit is prescribed in 9 61.62(b) , the
dally span check Is to be conducted with
a concentration of vinyl chloride equal
to 10 ppm. For the emission source for
which an emission limit is prescribed in
9 61.62(b>, the dally span check Is to be
conducted with a concentration of vinyl
chloride which is determined to be
determined to be equivalent to the emis-
sion limit for that source based on the
emission test required by 9 67.67. The
calibration is to be done with either :
(1), A calibration gas mixture pre-
pared from the gases specified in sections
5.2.1 and 5.2.3 of Test Method 106, or
(2) A calibration gas cylinder con-
taining the appropriate concentration of
vinyl chloride. If a calibration gas
cylinder is used, the analysis must be
traceable to the National Bureau of
Standards or to a gravimetrically cali-
brated vinyl chloride permeation tube.
§ 61.69 Initial report.
(a) An owner or operator of any
source to which this subpart applies shall
submit a statement In writing notifying
the Administrator that the equipment
and procedural specifications in 9§ 61.65
(b)(6), (b)(7), and (b) (8) are being
implemented.
(b) (1) In the case of an existing
source or a new source which has an
initial startup date preceding the effec-
tive date, the statement is to be submit-
ted within 90 days of the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance Is granted
under 9 61.11, along with the informa-
tion required under 9 61.10. If a waiver
of compliance Is granted, the statement
is to be submitted on a date scheduled
by the Administrator.
(2) In the case of a new source which
did not have an initial startup date pre-
ceding thfc effective date, the statement
is to be submitted within 90 days of the
initial startup date.
(c) The statement is to contain the
following information:
(1) A list of the equipment installed
for compliance,
(2) A description of the physical and
functional characteristics of each piece
of equipment.
(3) A description of the methods
which have been incorporated into the
standard operating procedures for meas-
uring or calculating the emissions for
which emission limits are prescribed in
9961.65 (b) U)(l) and (b)(6)(l),
(4) A statement that each piece of
equipment is Installed and that each
piece of equipment and each procedure
is being used.
§61.70 Semiannual report.
(a) (2) is to be determined. The number
source to which this subpart applies shall
submit to the Administrator on Septem-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VCL. 41, NO. 205—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976
IV-74
-------
MILES AND REGULATIONS
ber IS and March 15 of each year a report
in writing containing the Information
required by this section. The first semi-
annual report Is to be submitted follow-
ing the first full 6 month reporting period
after the Initial report Is submitted.
(b) (1) In the case of an existing source
or a new source which hag an Initial
startup date preceding the effective date,
the first report Js to be submitted within
180 days of the effective date, unless a
waiver of compliance Is granted under
; 61.11. If a waiver of compliance Is
granted, the first report Is to be sub-
mitted on a date scheduled by the Ad-
ministrator.
(2) In the case of a new source which
did not have an initial startup date pre-
ceding the effective date, the first report
is to be submitted within 180 days of the
initial startup date.
(c) Unless otherwise specified, the
owner or operator shall use the Test
Methods In Appendix B to this part to
conduct emission tests as required by
paragraphs (c)(2) and (c) (3) of this
section, unless an equivalent or an alter-
native method has been approved by the
Administrator. If the Administrator
finds reasonable grounds to dispute the
results obtained by an equivalent or al-
ternative method, he may require the use
of a reference method. If the results of
the reference and equivalent or alterna-
tive methods do not agree, the results
obtained by the reference method pre-
vail, and the Administrator may notify
the owner or operator that approval of
the method previously considered to be
equivalent or alternative Is withdrawn.
(1) The owner or operator shall in-
clude In the report a record of any emis-
sions which averaged over any hour
period (commencing on the hour) are
in excess of the emission limits pre-
scribed In ii 61.62(a) or (b), 5 61.63(a).
or 55 61.64(a) (1). (b), (c), or (d), or for
any control system to which reactor
emissions are required to be ducted In
5 61.64(a) (2) or to which fugitive emis-
sions are required to be ducted in 5 01.65
(b) (1) (11). (b) (2), (b) (5), (b) (6) (11), or
(b) (9) (11). The emissions are to be meas-
ured in accordance with i 61.68.
(2) In polyvinyl chloride plants for
which a stripping operation is used to
attain the emlsison level prescribed In
! 61.64(e), the owner or operator shall
include in the report a record of the
vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl
chloride resin. Test Method 107 is to be
used to determine vinyl chloride content
as follows:
(1) If batch stripping Is used, one rep-
resentative sample of polyvinyl chloride
resin Is to be taken from each batch of
each grade of resin immediately follow-
ing the completion of the stripping,
and grade and the date and time the
batch is completed. The corresponding
quantity of material processed In each
stripper batch Is to be recorded and Iden-
tified by resin type and grade tod the
date and time the batch is completed.
(11) If continuous stripping Is used,
one representative sample of polyvinyl
chloride resin Is to be taken for each
grade of resin processed or at Intervals
of 8 hours for each grade of resin which
IB being processed, whichever is more fre-
quent. The sample is to be taken as the
resin flows out of the stripper and iden-
tified by resin type and grade and the
date and tune the sample was taken.
The corresponding quantity of material
processed by each stripper over the time
period represented by the sample during
the eight hour period. Is to be recorded
and Identified by resin type and grade
and the date and time it represents.
(Ill) The quantity of material proc-
essed by the stripper Is to be determined
on a dry solids basis and by a method
submitted to and approved by the Ad-
ministrator.
(Iv) At the prior request of the Ad-
ministrator, the owner or operator shall
provide duplicates of the samples re-
quired In paragraphs (2) (1) and (c)
(2) (11) of this section.
(v) The report to the Administrator -by
the owner or operator is to Include the
vinyl chloride content found in all the
samples required In paragraphs (c) (2)
(1) and (c) (2) (11) of this section, aver-
aged separately for each type of resin,
over each calendar day and weighted ac-
cording to the quantity of each grade of
resin processed by the strlpper(s) that
calendar day, according to the following
equation:
A,,.
A =• 24-hour average oonoentntloo of trp» T, rain tm
ppm.
Q—Total]production of type T, rain OTW the 24-boor
period. In kg.
7>Typ» oil rain; j-1.2. . . . m where • to total
number of resin type* produced daring tbe it-
hour period.
M= Concentration ot vinyl chloride in one simple of
grade O, rain. In ppm.
P=» Production of grade Q\ redn represented bj tbe
•ample. In kg.
<7i= Grade of rain, e.g., Oi, Ot, tad ft.
•"Total number ofgnde) ol resin produced during
tbe 24-hour period.

(vl) The owner or operator shall re-
tain at the source and make available
for Inspection by the Administrator for
a minimum of 2 years records of all data
needed to furnish the Information re-
quired by. paragraph (c) (2) (v) of this
section: The records are to contain the
following information:
(A) The vinyl chloride content found
In all the samples required In paragraphs
(c) (2) (1) and (c) (2) (11) of this section,
identified by the resin type and grade
and the time and date of the sample, and
(B) The corresponding quantity of
polyvinyl chloride resin processed by the
stripper (s), identified by the resin type
and grade and the time :>nd date it
represents.
(3) The owner or operator shall In-
clude In the report a record of the emis-
sions from each reactor opening for
which an emission limit is prescribed In
{ 61.64(a) (2). Emissions are to be deter-
mined in accordance with i 61.67(g> (5),
except that emissions for each reactor
are to be determined. For a reactor that is
also used as a stripper, the determination
may be made Immediately following the
stripping operation.

B 61.71 Recordkeeping.

(a) The owner or operator of any
source to which this subpart applies shall
retain the following information at the
source and make It available for inspec-
tion by the Administrator for a mini-
mum of two years;
(1) A record of the leaks detected by
the vinyl chloride monitoring system, as
required by i 61.65(b)(8), including the
concentration* of vinyl chloride as
measured, analyzed, and recorded by the
vinyl chloride detector, the location of
each measurement and the date and ap-
proximate time of each measurement.
(2) A record of the leaks detected
during routine monitoring with the
portable hydrocarbon detector and the
action taken to repair the leaks, as re-
quired by 161.65(b)(8), including a,
brief statement explaining the location
and cause of each leak detected with
the portable hydrocarbon detector, the
date and time of the leak and any action
taken to eliminate that leak measured in
accordance with! 61.68.
(3) For the relief discharges from
reactors subject to the provisions of
161.65(a), a daily operating record for
each reactor, including pressures and
temperatures.
2. Appendix B is amended by adding
Test Methods 106 and 107 as follows:
METHOD 104—DETERMINATION or VINYL
CHLORIDE FROM STATIONARY SOURCES
INTRODUCTION

Performance of this method should not oe
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph, nor by
those who are unfamiliar with source sam-
pling, as there are many details that are'
beyond the scope of this presentation. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a car-
cinogen.
1. Principle and Applicability.
1.1 An Integrated bag sample of stack gas
containing vinyl chloride (chloroeth ylene t
1* subjected to ehromatographlc analysts.
using a flame lonlzatlon detector.
1.2 • The method Is applicable to the meas-
urement of vinyl chloride in stack gases from
ethylene dlchlorlde, vinyl chloride and poly-
vinyl chloride manufacturing processes, ex-
cept where the vinyl chloride is contained In
partlculate matter.
3. Range and Sensitivity.
The lower limit of detection will vary ac-
cording to the ohromatograph used. Values
reported Include 1 X 10-' mg and 4 x 10-'
mg.
3. Interferences.
Acetaldehyde, which can occur in some
vinyl chloride sources, will Interfere with the
-vinyl chloride peak from the Chromosorb 102
column. See sections 4.3.3 and 6.4. If resolu-
tion of the vinyl chloride peak Is still not
satisfactory for a particular sample, then
ohromatograph' parameters can be further
altered with prior approval of the Admin-
istrator. If alteration of the chromatograph
parameters falls to resolve the vinyl chloride
peak, then supplemental confirmation of the
vinyl chloride peak through an absolute
analytical technique, such as mass spectro-
scopy, must be performed.
4. Apparatus.
4.1 Sampling {Figure 1).
4.1.1 Probe—Stainless steel, Pyrex glass.
or Teflon tubing according to stack temper-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO JOS—THURSDAY. OCTOtER 21, 1976

IV-75
-------
IDLES AND IEGULATIONS
ature. each equipped with a (law wool plug
to remove paniculate matter.
4.1.2 Sample line—Teflon, 8.4 mm outside
diameter, of rufflclent length to connect
probe to bag. A new unused piece IB employed
for each series of bag samples that constitutes
an emission test.
4.1.8 Male (3) and female (2) stainless
steel quick-connects, with ban checks (one
pair without) located as shown In Figure L
4.1.4 Tedlar bags, 100 liter capacity—To
contain sample. Teflon bags are not accept-
able. Alumlnlzed Mylar bags may be used,
provided that the samples are analyzed
wjthln 34 hours of collection.
4.1.8 Rigid leakproof containers for 4.1.4.
with covering to protect contents from sun-
light.
4.1.8 Needle valve—To adjust sample flow
rate.
4.1.7 Pump—Leak-free. Minimum capac-
ity 2 liters per minute.
4.13 Charcoal tube—To prevent admis-
sion of vinyl chloride to atmosphere In vicin-
ity of samplers.
4.1* Flow meter—For observing sample
flow rate; capable of measuring a flow range
from 0.10 to 1.00 liter per minute.
4.1.10 Connecting tubing—Teflon, 8.4 mm
outside diameter, to assemble sample train
(Figure 1).
4.1.11 Pltot tube—Type S (or equivalent),
attached to the probe so that the sampling
flow rate can be regulated proportional to
the stack gas velocity.
4.2 Sample recovery.
4.2.1 Tubing—Teflon, 8.4 mm outside
diameter, to connect bag to gas chromato-
graph sample loop. A new unused piece te
employed for each series of bag samples that
constitutes an emission test, and Is to be dis-
carded upon conclusion of analysis of those
bags.
4.3 Analysis.
4.3.1 Oas chromatograph—With flame
lonlzatlon detector, potentlometrlc strip
chart recorder and 1.0 to 5.0 ml heated sam-
pling loop In automatic sample valve.
4.3.2 Chromatographlc column—Stainless
steel, 2.0 X 3.2 mm, containing 80/100 mesh
Chromosorb 102. A secondary col urn of OE
SF-96. 30% on 60/80 mesh AW Chromoeorb
P, stainless steel, 3.0 m X 3.2 nun, will be
required If acetaldehyde Is present. If used,
the SP-96 column Is placed after the Chromo-
eorb 102 column. The combined columns
should then be operated at 110'C.
43.3 Flow meters (2)—Rotameter type,
0 to 100 ml/mln capacity, with flow control
valves.
4.8.4 Oas regulators—For required gas
cylinders.
4.36 Thermometer—Accurate to'one de-
gree centigrade, to measure temperature of
heated sample loop at time of sample Injec-
tion.
4.3.8 Barometer—Accurate to 6 mm Hg, to
measure atmospheric pressure around gas
chromatograph during sample analysis.
4.3.7 Pump—Leak-free. Minimum capac-
ity 100 ml/mln.
4.4 Calibration.
4.4.1 Tubing—Teflon, 8.4 mm outeide
diameter, separate pieces marked for each
calibration concentration.
4.4.2 Tedlar bags—Slxteen-lnch square
size, separate bag marked for each calibra-
tion concentration.
4.4.8 Syringe—0.6 ml, gas tight.
4.4.4 Syringe—50/il, gas tight.
1 Mention of trade names on specific prod-
nets does not constitute endorsement by thp
Environmental Protection Agency.
4.4.6 Flow meter—Rotameter type, 0 to
1000 ml/mln rang* accurate to ;tlV to
meter nitrogen in preparation at standard
gas mixtures.
4.4.8 Stop watch—Of known accuracy, to
time gas flow In preparation of standard gas
mixtures.
6. Reagents. It Is necessary that all rea-
gents be of Chromatographlc grade.
6.1 Analysis.
6.1.1 Helium gas or nitrogen gas—Zero
grade, for Chromatographlc carrier gas.
6.1.2 Hydrogen gas—Zero grade.
6.1.3 Oxygen gas, or Air, as required by
the detector—Zero grade.
6.2 Calibration.
6.2.1 Vinyl chloride, 99.9+%—For prep-
aration of standard gas mixtures.
6.2.2 Calibration cylinders (3), optional-
One each of 60, 10 and 6 ppm vinyl chloride
In nitrogen with certified analysis. Analysis
must be traceable to MBS (National Bureau
of Standards) or to a gravlmetrlcally cali-
brated vinyl chloride permeation tube.
6.2.3 Nitrogen gas—Zero grade, for prep-
aration of standard gas mixtures.
6. Procedure.
6.1 Sampling. Assemble the sample train
as In Figure 106-1. Perform a bag leak check
according to Section 7.4. Observe that all
connections between the bag and the probe
are tight. Place the end of the probe at the
oentrold of the stack and start the pump
with the needle valve adjusted to yield a
flow of O.S 1pm. After a period of time suffi-
cient to purge the line several times has
elapsed, connect the vacuum line to the
bag and evacuate the bag until the rotam-
eter Indicates no flow. Then reposition the
sample and vacuum lines and begin the ac-
tual sampling, keeping the rate proportional
to the stack velocity. Direct the gas exiting
the rotameter away from sampling personnel.
At the end of the sample period, shut off the
pump, disconnect the sample line from the
bag, and disconnect the vacuum line from
the bag container. Protect the bag container
from sunlight.
6.2 Sample storage. Sample bags must be
kept out of direct sunlight. When at all pos-
sible, analysis Is to be performed within 24
hours of sample collection.
6.3 Sample recovery. With a piece of Tef-
lon tubing Identified for that bag, connect a
bag Inlet valve to the gas chromatograph
sample valve. Switch the valve to withdraw
gas from the bag through the sample loop.
Plumb the equipment so the sample gas
passes from the sample valve to the leak-free
pump, and then to a charcoal tube, followed
by a 0-100 ml/mln rotameter with flow con-
trol valve.
6.4 Analysis. Set the column temperature
to 100* C the detector temperature to 160*
C, and the sample loop temperature to 70* C.
When optimum hydrogen and oxygen flow
rates have been determined verify and main-
tain these flow rates during all chromato-
graph operations. Using zero helium or
nitrogen as the carrier gas, establish a flow
rate In the range consistent with the manu-
facturer's requirements for satisfactory de-
tector operation. A flow rate of approxi-
mately 40 ml/mln should produce adequate
separations. Observe the base line periodi-
cally and determine that the noise level has
stabilized and that base line drift has ceased.
Purge the sample loop for thirty seconds at
the rate of 100 ml/mln, then activate the
sample valve. Record the Injection time (the
position of the pen on the chart at the time
of sample Injection), the sample number, the
sample loop temperature, the column tem-
perature, carrier gas flow rate, chart speed
and the attenuator setting. Record the lab.
oratory pressure. From the chart, select the
peak having the retention time correspond-
ing to vinyl chloride, as determined In Sec-
tion 7.2. Measure the peak area, A., by use
of H». and a disc Integrator or a planlmeter.
Measure the peak height, H«. Record Am and
the retention time. Repeat the Injection at
least two time* or until two consecutive vinyl
chloride peaks do not vary In area more than
6%. The average value for these two areas
will be used to compute the bag concentra-
tion.
Compare the ratio of Hm to Am for the vinyl
chloride sample with the same ratio for the
standard peak which Is closest In height. As
a guideline, If these ratios differ by more
than 10%, the vinyl chloride peak may not
be pure (possibly acetaldehyde Is present)
and the secondary column should be em-
ployed (see Section 43.2).
6.6 Measure the ambient temperature and
barometric pressure near the bag. (Assume
the relative humidity to be 100 percent.)
From a water saturation vapor pressure table,
determine the record and water vapor con-
tent of the bag.
7. Calibration and Standards.
7.1 Preparation of vinyl chloride standard
gas mixtures. Evacuate a slxteen-lnch square
Tedlar bag that has passed a leak check
(described In Section 7.4) and meter In 6.0
liters of nitrogen. While the bag Is filling, use
the 0.6 ml syringe to Inject 26001 of 99.9+ %
vinyl chloride through the wall of the bag.
Upon withdrawing the syringe needle. Im-
mediately cover the resulting hole with a
piece of adhesive tape. This gives a concen-
tration of 60 ppm of vinyl chloride. In a like
manner use the other syringe to prepare dilu-
tions having 10 and 6 ppm vinyl chloride
concentrations. Place each bag on a smooth
surface and alternately depress opposite
sides of the bag 60 times to further mil the
gases.
12 Determination of vinyl chloride re-
tention time. This section can be performed
simultaneously with Section 7.3. Establish
chromatograph conditions Identical with
those In Section 63, above. Set attenuator
to X 1 position. Flush the sampling loop
with zero helium or nitrogen and activate
the sample valve. Record the Injection time,
the sample loop temperature, the column
temperature, the carrier gas flow, rate, the
chart speed and the attenuator setting.
Record peaks and detector responses that
occur In the absence of vinyl chloride. Main-
tain conditions. With the equipment plumb-
Ing arranged identically to Section 8.3, flush
the sample loop for 30 seconds at the rate of
100 ml/mln with one of the vinyl chloride
calibration mixtures and activate the sample
valve. Record the Injection time. Select the
peak that corresponds to vinyl chloride.
Measure the distance on the chart from the
Injection time to the time at which the peak
maximum occurs. This quantity, divided by
the chart speed, is denned as the retention
time. Record.
7.3 Preparation of chromatograph cali-
bration curve. Make a gas Chromatographlc
measurement of each standard gas mixture
(described In Section 7.1) using conditions
Identical with those listed In Section 6J
above. Flush the sampling loop for 30 seconds
at the rate of 100 ml/mln with each standard
gas mixture and activate the sample valve.
Record C.. the concentrations of vinyl chlo-
ride Injected, the attenuator setting, chart
speed, peak ares, sample loop temperature,
column temperature, carrier gas flow rat*.
and retention time. Record the laboratory
pressure. Calculate A., the peak area muJtl-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 205—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 71, 1*76
IV-76
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
plied by the attenuator letting. Repeat unto
two injection areas are within 6%, then plot
those points vs O,. When the other concen-
tration* have been plotted, draw a smooth
curve through the points. Perform calibra-
tion dally, or before and after each set of
bag samples, whichever Is more frequent.
7.4 Bag leak checks. While performance
of this section is required subsequent to bag
use, It Is also advised that It be performed
prior to bag use. After each use, make sure
a bag did not develop leaks as follows. To leak
check, connect a water manometer and pres-
surize the bag to 6-10 cm H,O (2-4 In H.O) .
Allow to stand for 10 minutes. Any displace-
ment in the water manometer Indicates a
leak. Also check the rigid container for leaks
In this manner.
(NOTE: An alternative leak check method
Is to pressurize the bag to 6-10 cm H,O or
2-4 In. H,O and allow to stand overnight.
A deflated bag Indicates a leak.) For each
sample bag In Its rigid container, place a
rotameter In-line between the bag and the
pump Inlet. Evacuate the bag. Failure of the
rotameter to register zero flow when the bag
appears to be empty Indicates a leak.
8. Calculations.
8.1 Determine the sample peak area as
follows:
3 luck Ml
ntve iot-1. t>t«(r»w
*••• e*t CMitttefee
•liii *ni VT ta< Urtr»iai«m rmeetlo AIM?,
Equation 106-1
where:
X.=Tht sample peak area.
X.-The measured peak area.
X/— The attenuation (actor.

8.2 Vinyl chloride concentrations. From
the calibration curve 'described In Section
IS, above, select the value of O. that cor-
responds to A,, the sample peak area. Cal--
eulate Ck as follows:
'PiTr(l-
Equation 106-2
Where:
B.i=Tb» water vapor content of tbe bag (amble, at
analyzed.
C»~The eoneentraUoa of rtnyl chloride la the bat
sample In ppm.
C.-The concentration of rtnyl chloride Indicated by
/",-The reference pressure, the laboratory pressure
recorded during calibration, mm HI.
fi—The sample loop temperature on the absolute
scale at the time of analysts, *E.
Pi=The laboratory pressure at time of analysts, mm
Hy
TV-The reference temperature, the sample loop
temperature recorded during calibration, *£•

S. References.
1. Brown, D. W., Loy, K. W. and Stephen-
son, M. H. "Vinyl Chloride Monitoring Near
the B. r. Ooodrlch Chemical Company In
Louisville, Kentucky." Region IV, TJB. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Surveillance
and Analysis Division, Athens, Georgia, June
24. 1074.
3. "Evaluation of A Collection and Analy-
tical Procedure for Vinyl chloride in Air,"
by Q. D. Clayton and Associates, December
IS, 1974. EPA Contract No. 68-00-1408. Task
Order No. 2, EPA Report oN. 76-VCL-l.
9. "Standardization of Stationary Source
Emission Method for Vinyl Chloride," by Mid-
west Research Institute, 1976. EPA Contract
No. 88-02-1098, Task Order No. 7.
METHOD 107—DimiemiTioN or Vnm CHLO-
>n» CONTKMT or IMPIOCXSS WASTZWATXB
SAMPLES, AKD VIMTL CHLORIDE CONTENT or
POLTVDITI. CHLOUDZ RESIN, SLUR»T, WIT
CAKE. AND LATXZ SAMPLES

IHTKODUCTION

Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph, nor by
those who are unfamiliar with sampling, as
there are many details that are beyond the
scope of this presentation. Care must be
exercised to prevent exposure of sampling
personnel to vinyl chloride, a carcinogen.
1. Principle and Applicability.
1.1 The basis for this method relates to
the vapor equilibrium which Is established
between RVCM, PVC, resin, water, and air
In a closed system. It has been demonstrated
that the RVCM In a PVC resin will equili-
brate In a closed vessel quite rapidly, pro-
vided that the temperature of the PVC resin
is maintained above the glass transition
temperature of that specific resin.
13 This procedure is suitable for deter-
mining the vinyl chloride monomer (VCM)
content of Inprocess wastewater samples,
and the residual vinyl chloride monomer
(RVCM) content of polyvlnyl chloride (PVC)
resins, wet cake, slurry, and latex samples.
It cannot be used for polymer in fused form,
such as sheet or cubes. If a resolution of the
vinyl chloride peak Is not satisfactory for a
particular sample, then chromatograph
parameters may be altered with prior ap-
proval of the Administrator. If there Is rea-
son to believe that some other hydrocarbon
with an identical retention time Is present
In the sample, then supplemental confirma-
tion of the vinyl chloride peak through an
absolute analytical technique, such as mass
spectroscopy, should be performed.
2. Range and Sensitivity.
The lower limit of detection of vinyl chlo-
ride win vary according to tbe chromato-
graph used. Values reported Include IX10-*
mg and 4 X10-' mg. With proper calibration,
the upper limit may be extended as needed.
3. Precision and Reproduclbmty.
An Interlaboratorr comparison between
seven laboratories of three resin samples.
each split into three parts, yielded a standard
deviation of 2.63% for a sample with a mean
of 2.09 ppm, 4.16% for a sample with a mean
of 1.86 ppm, and 6.29% for a sample with a
mean of 62.86 ppm.
4. Safety.
Do not release vinyl chloride to the labora-
tory atmosphere during preparation of stand-
ards. Venting or purging with VCM/alr mix-
tures must be held to a minimum when
they are required, the vapor must be routed
to outside air. Vinyl chloride, even at low
ppm levels, must never be vented Inside the
laboratory. After vials have been analysed,
the pressure within the vial must be vented
prior to removal from the Instrument turn-
table. Vials must be vented Into an activated
charcoal tube using a hypodermic needle to
prevent release of vinyl chloride Into the
laboratory atmosphere'. The charcoal must
be replaced prior to vinyl chloride break-
through.
6. Apparatus.
6.1 Sampling.
6.1.1 Bottles—60 ml (2 oc). with waxed
lined screw on tops, for PVC samples.
6.13 Vials—60 ml Hypo-vials,' sealed with
Teflon faced Tuf-Bond discs for water sam-
ples.
6.1.3 Electrical tape—or equivalent, to
prevent loosening of bottle tops.
6 J Sample recovery.
6.2.1 Vials—With seals and caps, Perkln-
Elmer Corporation No. 106-0118, or equiva-
lent.
6.2.2 Analytical balance—Capable at
weighing to ±0.001 gram.
•J.S. Syringe, 100 «J—Precision Series
"A" No. 010026, or equivalent.
1 Mention of trade names on specific prod-
note does not constitute endorsement by tbs
Environmental Protection Agency.
4DEKAL HeeiSTH, VOL 41, NO »05—THURSDAY, OCTOBEI II, We
IV-7 7
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
5.3.4 VIM Beater, Perkln-Elmer No. 108-
0106 or equivalent.
8.3 Analysis.
8.3.1 Qas chromatograph—Perkln-Elmer
Corporation Model F-40 head-space ana-
lyzer, No. 104-0001, or equivalent.
5.3.2 Chromatograpbic column—Stain-
less steel, 2 mX3.2 nun, containing 0.4%
Carbowax 1500 on Carbopak A, Perkln-Elmer
Corporation No. 105-0133, or equivalent.
Carbopak c can be used In place of Carbopak
A.
6.3.3 Thermometer—0 to 100' C, accurate
to ±0.1* C, Perkln-Elmer No. 105-0109 or
equivalent.
6.3.4. Sample tray thermostat system—
Perkln-Elmer No. 105-0103, or equivalent.
8.3.5 Septa—Sandwich type, for auto-
matic dosing, 13 mm, Perkln-Elmer No. 106-
1008, or equivalent.
6.3.6 Integrator - recorder — Hewlett -
Packard Model 3380A, or equivalent.
5.3.7 Filter drier assembly (3)—Perkm-
Hmer No. 2230117, or equivalent.
6.3 £ Soap film nowmeter—Hewlett Pack-
ard No. 0101-0113, or equivalent.
6.4 Calibration.
8.4.1 Regulators—for required gas cyln-
dert.
0. Reagents.
0.1 Analysis.
6.1.1 Hydrogen gas—zero grade.
6.1.2 Nitrogen gas—zero grade.
6.13 Air—zero grade.
6.2 Calibration.
6.2.1 Standard cylinders (4)—one each
of 60, 600, 2000, and 4000 ppm vinyl chloride
In nitrogen, with certified analysis.
7. Procedure.
7.1 Sampling.
7.1.1 PVC sampling—Allow the resin or
•lurry to flow from a tap on the tank or silo
until the tap line has been well purged. Ex-
tend a 60 ml sample bottle under the tap, nil,
•Bd Immediately tightly cap the bottle. Wrap
electrical tape around the cap and bottle to
prevent the top from loosening. Place an
Identifying label on each bottle, and record
the date, time, and sample location both on
the bottles and In a log book.
7.1.2 Water sampling—Prior to use, the
60 ml vials (without the discs) must be
capped with aluminum foil and muffled at
400'C for at least one hour to destroy or
remove any organic matter that could In-
terfere with analysis. At the sampling loca-
tion fill the vials bubble-free, to overflowing
•o that a convex meniscus forms at the top.
The excess water Is displaced as the sealing
disc is carefully placed, Teflon side down, on
the opening of the vial. Place the aluminum
seal over the disc and the neck of the vial
and crimp into place. Affix an identifying
label on the bottle, and record the date, time,
and sample location both on the vials and
In a log book. All samples must be kept re-
frigerated until analyzed.
7.2 Sample recovery. Samples must be run
within 24 hours.
7.2.1 Resin samples—The weight of the
resin used must be between 0.1 and 4.5 grams.
An exact weight must be obtained (+0.001
gram) for each sample. In the case of sus-
pension resins a volumetric" cup can be pre-
pared which will hold the required amount
of sample. The sample bottle is opened, and
the cup volume of resin Is added to the tared
•ample vial (including septum and alumi-
num cap). The vial is immediately sealed
and the exact sample weight is then obtained.
Report this value on the data sheet as it Is
required for calculation of RVCM. In the
ease of relatively dry resin samples (water
content <0.3 weight %), 100 „! of distilled
water must be Injected Into the vial, after
sealing and weighing, using a 100 #1 syringe.
In the case of dispersion resins, the cup
cannot be used. The sample Is Instead
weighed approximately In an aluminum dish,
transferred to the tared vial and weighed
accurately In the vial. The sample is then
placed in the Perkln-Elmer head space ana-
lyzer (or equivalent) and conditioned for one
hour at 90°C.
NOTE: Some aluminum vial caps have a
center section which must be removed prior
to placing into sample tray. If not removed,
serious damage to the Injection needle will
occur.
7.2.2 Suspension resin slurry and wet cake
samples—Slurry must be filtered using a
small Buchner funnel with vacuum to yield
wet cake. The filtering process must be con-
tinued only as long as a steady stream of
water is exiting from the funnel. Excessive
filtration time could result In some loss of
VCM. The wet cake sample (0.10 to 4.5 grams)
Is added to a tared vial (Including septum
and aluminum cap) and Immediately sealed.
Sample weight is then determined to 3 deci-
mal places. The sample Is then placed In the
Perkln-Elmer head space analyzer (or equiva-
lent) and conditioned for one hour at 90°C.
A sample of wet cake is used to determine
TS (total solids). This is required for calcu-
lating the RVCM.
7.2.3 Dispersion resin slurry samples.—
This material should not be'nltered. Sample
must be thoroughly mixed. Using a tared
vial (including septum and aluminum cap)
add approximately 8 drops (0.25 to 0.35
grams) of slurry or latex using a medicine
dropper. This should be done immediately
after mixing. Seal the vial as soon as possible.
Determine sample weight accurate to 0.001
grams. Total sample weight must not exceed
0.50 grama. Condition the vial for one hour
at 90°C in the analyzer. Determine the TS
on tHB slurry sample (Section 7.3.5).
7.2.4 Inprocess wastewater samples—
Using a tared vial (including septum and
aluminum cap) quickly add approximately
1 cc of water using a medicine dropper. Seal
the vial as soon as possible. Determine
sample weight accurate to 0.001 gram. Con-
dition the vial for two hours at 90 °C In the
analyzer.
73 Analysis.
7.3.1 Preparation of gas chromatograph—
Install the chromatographlc column and con-
dition overnight at 150°C. Do not connect the"
exit end of the column to the detector while
conditioning.
73.1.1 Plow rate adjustments—Adjust
flow rates as follows:
a. Nitrogen carrier gas—Set regulator on
cylinder to read 60 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to 1.3 kg/cm2. Normal flows
at this pressure should be 25 to 40 cc/mlnute.
Check with bubble flow meter.
b. Burner air supply—Set regulator on cyl-
inder to read 50 pslg. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply ah- to burner at a
rate between 260 and 300 cc/miuute. Check
with bubble flowmeter.
3. Hydrogelwsupply—Set regulator on cyl-
inder to read 30 pslg. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply approximately
35+6 cc/mlnute. Optimize hydrogen flow to
yield the most sensitive detector response
without extinguishing the flame. Check flow
with bubble meter and record this flow
7.3.1.2 Temperature adjustments—Set
temperatures as follows:
a. Oven (chromatographlc' column), 60"
C.
b. Dosing line, 140° C.
c. Injection block, 140° C.
d. Sample chamber, water temperature,
80° C±1.0« O.
73.1.3 Ignition of flame lonlzatlon detec-
tor—Ignite the detector according to the
manufacturer's Instructions.
7.3.1.4 Amplifier balance—Balance the
amplifier according to the manufacturer's
Instructions.
7.3.2 Programming the chromatograph—
Program the chromatograph as follows:
a. I—Dosing time—The normal setting Is
2 seconds.
b. A—Analysis time—The normal setting
Is 8 minutes. Certain types of samples con-
tain high boiling materials which can cause
Interference wtlh the vinyl chloride peak on
subsequent analyses. In these cases the
analysis time must be adjusted to eliminate
the Interference. An automated backflush
system can also be used to solve this prob-
lem. ',
c. B—Flushing—The normal setting Is 0.2
minutes.
d. W—Stabilization time—The nomal set-
ting is 0.2 minutes.
e. X—Number of analyses per sample—The
normal setting Is 1.
7.3.3 Preparation of sample turntable—Be-
fore placing any sample Into turntable, be
certain that the center section of the alu-
minum cap has been removed. The numbered
sample bottles should be placed in the cor-
responding numbered positions In the turn-
table. Insert samnles in the following order:
Positions 1 & 2—Old 2000 ppm standards
for conditioning. These are necessary only
after the analyzer has not been used for 24
hours or longer.
Position 3—50 ppm standard, freshly pre-
pared.
Position 4—500 ppm standard, freshly pre-
pared.
Position 5—2000 ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
Position 6—4000 ppm standard, freshly pre-
pared.
Position 7—Sample No. 7 (This is the first
sample of the day, but Is given as 7 to be con-
sistent with the turntable and the Integrator
printout.)
After all samples have been positioned, In-
sert the second set of 50, 500, 2000, and 4000
ppm standards. Samples, including stand-
ards must be conditioned In the bath of
90° C for 1 hour (not to exceed 6 hours).
7.3.4 Start chromatograph program—
When all samples, including standards, have
been conditioned at 90° C for 1 hour, start
the analysis program according to the manu-
facturers' instructions. These instructions
must be carefully followed when starting
and stopping program to prevent damage to
the dosing assembly.
7.3.6 Determination of total solids (TS).
For wet cake, slurry, resin solution, and
PVC latex samples, determine TS for each
sample by accurately weighing approxim-
ately 3 to 4 grams of sample In an aluminum
pan before and after placing in a draft
oven (105 to 110° C). Samples must be dried
to constant weight. After first weighing re-
turn the pan to the oven for a short pe-
riod of time and then rewelgh to verify com-
plete dryness. TS Is then calculated as the
final sample weight divided by initial sam-
ple weight.'"
8. Calibration.
Calibration IB to be performed each eight-
hour period when the Instrument is used.
Each day, prior to running samples, the coif
umn should be conditioned by running two
of the previous days 2000 ppm standards.
8.1 Preparation of Standards.
Calibration standards are prepared by fill-
ing the vials with the vinyl chloride/nitro-
gen standards, rapidly seating the septum
and sealing with the aluminum cap. Use a
stainless steel line from the cylinder to the
vial. Do not use rubber or tygon tubing. The
sample line from the cylinder must be
nOERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 205—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976
IV-78
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
purged (Into hood) for several minutes prior
to filling vials. After purging, reduce the flow
rate to approximately 600-1000 cc/mln. Place
end of tubing Into vial (near bottom) and
after one minute slowly remove tubing. Place
septum In vial as soon as possible to mini-
mize mixing air with sample. After the stand-
ard vials are sealed. Inject 100^1 of distilled
water.
8.2 Preparation of chromatograph callbra
tlon curve.
Prepare two BO ppm, two 600 ppm, two 2000
ppm, and two 4000 ppm standard samples.
Run the calibration samples In exactly the
same manner as regular samples. Plot Ai,
the Integrator area counts for each standard
sample vs C., the concentration of vinyl
chloride In each standard sample. Draw a
line of best fit through the points.
9. Calculations.
9.1 Response factor.
From the calibration curve described In
Section 8.2. above, select the value of Ce
that corresponds to A. for each sample. Com-
pute the response factor, Rt, for each sample,
as follows:

fi/=4-' Equation 107-1
t/<

9 .2 Residual vinyl chloride monomer con-
centration, or vinyl chloride monomer con-
centration.
Calculate Cr»e as follows:

_A.P./M.V,
Cr"- Wfl \^R + " '
Equation 107-2
where:
C»,.

P.
Ti
M.
V,

m<
.R
£T
Concentration of vinyl chloride In the sample,
In ppm.
Laboratory atmosphere pressure, mm Hg.
Room temperature, °K.
Molecular weight of VCM (82.6).
Volume of vapor phase (vial volume less sample
volume).
Weight of sample, grams.
Gas constant (62,360).
nenry'3 Law constant for VCM In PVC at
90°C, K'=6.52X10-«=K, for VCM in 1 «
(approximate) wastewater sample at 90°C,
-
...
Tj= Equilibration temperature, "K.
If the following conditions are met, Equation 107-2
*n be simplified as follow
L T, =22° O (295° K).
3. T.-WO (363° K).
1. P.-7SO mm. Hg.
.._.-j = .-
irhere
K,-Vlal volume, cc (23.5).
6. Sample contains less than 0.5% water
Equation 107-3

The following general equation can be used for any
•ample which contains VCM, PVC and/or water.

rtc —
A.P.
Equation 107-4
where:
T.=Total solids.
Note: K, must be determined.
Results calculated using Equation 107-4
represent concentration based on the total
sample. To obtain results based on dry PVO
content, divide by TS.
For a 1 cc (approximate) wastewater sample, Equation
107-1 can be simplified to the following:

C,,t^ P-988*10-'+(2.066X10-')1
Kf |_ wii ' J
Equation 107-5

10. References.
1. Residual Vinyl Chloride Monomer Con-
tent of Polyvlnyl Chloride Resins and Wet
Cake Samples, B. F. Goodrich Chemical Co.
Standard Test Procedure No. 1005-T. B. F.
Goodrich Technical Center, Avon Lake, Ohio,
January 30, 1975.
2. Berens, A. R., "The Solubility of Vinyl
Chloride In Polyvlnyl Chloride," ACS-Dlvl-
slou of Polymer Chemistry, Polymer Pre-
prints 15 (2) : 197. 1974.
3. Berens, A. R., "The Diffusion of Vinyl
Chloride In Polyvlnyl Chloride," ACS-Dlvl-
slon of Polymer Chemistry,' Polymer Pre-
prints 15 (2) : 203, 1974.-
4. Berens, A. R., L. B. Crlder, C. J. Toma-
nek and J. M. Whitney. Analysis for Vinyl
Chloride In PVC Powders by Head-Space Gaa
Chromatography," to be published.

[FR Doc.76-30849 Filed 10-3Cp76;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. JOS—THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976
IV-7 9
-------
29
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
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 national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP8) to
the Statp of California on behalf of the
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Con-
trol District, dated September 17, 1976,
EPA is today amending 40 CFR 61.04.
Address, to reflect this delegation. A No-
tice announcing this delegation is pub-
lished in the Notices section of this issue
of the FEDERAL REGISTER. The amended
§ 61.04 is set forth below. It adds the ad-
dress of the Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District to which must
be addressed all reports, requests, ap-
plications, submittals, and communica-
tions pursuant to this part by sources
subject to the NESHAPS located within
Air Pollution Control District.
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 17, 1976 and It serves no
purpose to delay the technical change
of this addition of the Air Pollution Con-
trol District's address to the Code of
Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority of
section 112 of the Clean Air Act, u
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857C-7).

Dated: October 20,1976.
PATH, DE FALCO, Jr.,
Regional Administrator,
EPA, Region IX.

Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In 861.04 paragraph <3> is
amended by revising subparagraph P to
read as follows:
§61.04 Address.
• • * » •
(b) * * *
(3) • * *
(A)-(E) • • •
F—CALIFORNIA
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District,
039 Ellis St , San Francisco. CA 94109.
Del Norte County Air Pollution Control
District, Courthouse, Crescent City, CA
96531.
Fresno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 515 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno. CA 93702.
Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District, 5600 S. Broadway, Eureka, CA 9B601.
Kern County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 1700 Flower St.. (PO. Box 997). Bakers-
field, CA 93302.
Madera County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 136 W. Tosemlte Avenue, Madera. CA
93637.
Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control
District, County Courthouse, Uklah, CA
96482.
RULES AND REGULATIONS

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Con-
trol District, 420 Church St. (P.O. Box 487),
Salinas, CA 93901.
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control 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. Hazel ton St. (P.O. Box 2009),
Stockton, CA 96201.
Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 4440 Calle Real, Santa Barbara, OA
93110.
Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control
District, 820 Scenic Drive, Modesto, CA 96380.
Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dl»- •
trlct, Box AJ, Weavervllle, CA 96093.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 626 E. Santa Clara St., Ventura, OA
93001.

[FR Doc.78-32105 Filed 11-2-76:8:46 am)
KDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 213

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1976
30

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority to Pima County
Health Department on Behalf of Pima
County Air Pollution Control Disttict
Pursuant to the 'delegation of au-
thority for national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
to the Pima County Health Department
on behalf of the Pima County Air Pollu-
tion Control District, dated October 7.
1976, EPA is today amending 40 CFR
61.04. Address, to reflect this delegation.
A document announcing this delegation
is published today at 41 FR in the Notices
section of this issue. The amended 5 61 04
is set forth below. It odds the address of

IV-30
the Pima County AlrPoUution Control
District to which must be addressed an
reports, requests, applications, submit-
tals. and communications pursuant
to this part by sources subject to
the NESHAPS located within the 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 of this ad-
dition of the Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict's address to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7>.

Dated: November 19,1976.

R. L. O'CONNELL.
Acting Regional Administra-
tor Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
1. In § 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by adding: subparagraph D to read as
follows:
§61.01 Address.
(3) • • •
(A)-(C) • • •
D—Arizona
Pima County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 161 West Congress Street, Tucson AZ
86701.
(FR Doc.76-35563 Piled 12-2-76:8,:«6 ami
IPRL 618-JJ

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Standard for Vinyl Chloride
Correction
In FR Doc. 76-30849 appearing at page
46560 in the FEDERAL REGISTER of Thurs-
day, October 21, 1976 the following cor-
rections should be made:
1. On page 46564, middle column, the
amendatory language In the sixth para-
graph, sixth and seventh line is cor-
rected to read "amended by revising the
authority and adding a new Subpart F
reading as follows".
2. On page 46567, in the first column.
in § 61.65(b) (9) (1), fifteenth line, the
fourth word "The" should read "This"
" On page 46567, middle column, sec-
ond line from the top in 5 61.65(c>
should read "(1.250 gal) in volume for
which an emis-".
4. i a) On page 46568. middle column.
in §61.68ta>, eighth line, first word
should read "emissions".
(b> On page 46568, middle column. In
5 61.681 a > between the eighth-and ninth
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
lines Insert the following "§61.64ia) (2)
or to which fugitive emissions are re-
quired to be ducted In".
(c) On page 46568, third column, in
|61.68(c), the thirteenth to sixteenth
lines should read: "chloride which Is de-
termined to be equivalent to the emis-
sion limit for that source based on the
emission test required by { 61.67. The".
5. On page 46568. third column, In
161.70 the first line should read "(a)
The owner or operator of any".
6. (a) On page 46570, first column, in
Appendix B, Method 106, paragraph
4.3.2, second line should read "steel,
2.0 mX
(b) On page 46570, third column in
Appendix B, Method 106, paragraph 8.4,
sixth and seventh lines should read "of
a disc integrator or a planlmeter. Meas-
ure the peak height, Hm. Record Am, Hm,
and"
(c) On page 46570, third column, in
Appendix B, Method 106, paragraph 6.5,
the fifth line should read "determine and
record the water vapor con-".
7. On page 46573, top of second
column, In Appendix B, Method 107,
paragraph 9.2, figure 4, the last figure In
the- equation should read
"m<"
lT4

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 234

HIDAV, DECEMBER 3, 197*
31
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of Califor-
nia on Behalf cf San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of California on behalf of the
San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District, dated November 8, 1976, EPA Is
today amending 40 CFR 61.04, Address,
to reflect this delegation. A Notice an-
nouncing this delegation is published in
the Notices section of this issue, under
EPA (PR Doc. 76-36929). The amended
| 61.04 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 NESHAPS located within Air Pol-
lution Control District.
The Administrator finds good cause
lor foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaklng effective imme-
diately In that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
November 8, 1976 and it serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of 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 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857C-7).

Dated: November 26,1976.

SHEILA M. PRINDIHVIILE,
Acting Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection
Agency. Region IX.

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

6 61.04 Addroee.
» • * • •

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1974
NDMAL UOIfTER, VOL, 41. NO. 252

THURSDAY. DECEMBER 30, 1976
32 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 delegate,, , Jhe
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 CFR 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 on 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: December21,1976.

JOHN A. LITTLE.
Deputy Regional Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
3. Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows: In § 61.04, paragraph (b) is
amended by revising subparagraph UI)
to read as follows:
§61.01 Address.
*****
* • •
(A)-(HH) • • •
(II) North Carolina Environmental Man-
agement Commission, Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Division of Envi-
ronmental Management. P.O. Box 27687, Ra-
leigh. North Carolina 27611. Attention: Air
Quality Section.
* • * • •
|PR Doc.76-38387 Filed 12-29 76:8:45 am|
IV-81
-------
33
RULES AND REGULATIONS
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority to State of Vermont
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of Vermont on September 3,
1976, EPA is today amending 40 CPR
61.04, Address, to reflect this delegation.
A Notice announcing this delegation is
published today in the FEDERAL REGISTER
(see FR Doc. 77-546 appearing in the
notices section of this issue). The
amended § 61.04, which adds the address
of the Vermont Agency of Environmental
Protection to which all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and communi-
cations to the Administrator pursuant to
this part must also be addressed, is set
forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately in that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
September 3, 1976, and it serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of this
addition of the State address to the Code
of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.S.a 1847c-7.
Dated: December 17, 1976.
JOHN A. S. MCGLENNON, -
Regional Administrator.

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

§ 61.04 Address.
• • • • •
(b) • * •
(TTU)—State of Vermont, Agency of Environ-
mental Protection. Box 489, Montpeller, Ver-
mont 05602.
[FB Doo.77-548 Piled l-5-77;8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 4

THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1977
34
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
[PBL 673-6]

NEW SOURCE REVIEW

Delegation of Authority to the State of
Sooth Carolina

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 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 rulemaking
effective immediately In that It Is an ad-
ministrative change and not one of sub-
stantive content. 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.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
3. Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code
of Federal Regulations, Is amended by
revising subparagraph (PP) of 5 61 04 (b)
to read as follows:

§ 61.04 Address.
• « » • •
(b) • • •
(A)-(OO) • • •
(PP) State of South Carolina, Office of En-
vironmental Quality Control, Department of
Health and Environmental Control, 2600 BuU
Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
* • • • *
[FR Doc.77-1969 Piled l-21-77;8:46 am]
35
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 42, NO. 15

MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1977
PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to City of
Philadelphia
Pursuant to the delegation of author.
tt*t for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants fNESHAPS) t»
the City of Philadelphia on- September
30, 1976^ EPA is today amending 40 CPR
61.04. Address, to reflect this delegation.
For a Notice announcing this delegation,
see FR-Doc. 77-3712 published in the
Notices section of today's FEDERAL RICO-
TEH. The amended 5 61.04,' which adds the
address, of the Philadelphia Department
of Public Health, Air Management Serv-
ices, to which all reports, requests, ap-
plications. submittals, and communica-
tions to the Administrator pursuant to
this part must also be addressed, is set
forth below.
The Administrator finds- good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective im-
mediately in that it is an administrative
change and not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive burden*
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this Ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
September 30, 197$ and it serves no
purpose to delay the technical change
of this address to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, u
amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7.
Dated : January 25, 1977.
A. R. MORRIS.
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In J.61.04, paragraph (b) is amended
by revising Subparagraph (NN> to read
as follows:
§61.04 Addrtss.
(A)-(MM) • • »
(NN)(b> city of Philadelphia.
Philadelphia Department of Public Health.
Air Management Services,
801 Arch Street.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1910T.

[FR DOC.77-37H Piled 2-3-77;»:4B am]
[FHL 662-5]

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STANIV
AROS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS

Delegation of Authority to
Commonwealth of Pennsytvanie
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for National Emission Standards fo*
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPBi
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
on September 30, 1978, EPA is today
amending 40 CFR 61.04. Address, to re-
fleet this delegation. For a Notice an-
nouncing this delegation, see FR Doc
77-3713 published in the Notices section
of today's FEDERAL RECISTM. Tiai
IV-8 2
-------
•mended } 61.04k which adds the ad-
dress of the Pennsylvania Department
at Environmental Resources, Bureau of
Air Quality and Noise Control, to whldt
all reports, requests, applications, sub-
mittals. and communication* to the Ad-
ministrator pursuant to this part must
also be addressed^!* set forth bekrv.
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
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 immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7.
Dated: January 25. 1977.
A. R. MORRIS,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 61 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows :
1. In § 61.04. paragraph is amended
by revising Subparagraph .t EPA intended to
cover non-load-supporting structural
members. No contrary Intent was ex-
pressed at the time of final promulga-
tion. The amendment promulgated below
clarifies EPA's intent and should answer
future questions on the applicability of
the standard.
The Administrator finds that a pre-
promulgatlon public comment period on
this amendment would be "impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
553 (b) (B) because the rulemaking clari-
fies and Interprets an existing regula-
tion, does not alter the intended content
of that regulation, and enables EPA to
enforce the existing standard in a con-
sistent and proper manner. Also, the Ad-
ministrator finds that this rulemaking
should be effective upon promulgation
•without a 30-day deferral with'n the
meaning of 5 TJ.S.C. 553(d), because of
the immediate effectiveness required by
section 112(b) (1) (C) Of the Act and the
interpretive nature of this rulemaking.
Other questions have been raised re-
cently about the applicability of the
asbestos standard to decorative coatings.
The words of the current standard do not
apply to such coatings. EPA is propos-
ing amendments to the asbestos standard
elsewhere in this issue of the FEDERAL
REGISTER to regulate such coatings.
(Sec. U2, Clean Air Act as aded by Bee,
4(a) Of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1685 (42 U.8.C.
1867C-7); aec. 114, Clean Air Act. as added
by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1687,
and amended by Pub. L. 93-319, sec. 6(a)
(4). 88 Stat. 259'(42 U.S.C.. 1857C-9); sec. 301
(a), Clean Air Act, as amended by sec. 16
(c) (2) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (42
U.8.C. 1857g(a)).)

Dated: February 23,1977.
JOHN QUARLES,
Actiny Administrator.
In Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, § 61.21
is amended by adding paragraph (x) as
follows:

Subpart B—National Emission Standard
for Asbestos
§ 61.21 Definitions.
• • • • •

(x) "Structural member" means any
load-supporting member, such as beams
and load-supporting walls; or any non-
load-supporting member, such as ceilings
and non-load-supporting walls.

(FR Doc.77-6981 Filed 3-l-77;8:4« am]

•IWitAl MOISTfC VOL. .42, NO. 41
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1977
IV-83
-------
•ULES AND tEGULATIONS
37

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Region V Address; Correction
Section 61.04 paragraph (a) IE cor-
rected by changing Region V (Illinois,
Indiana. Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin), 1 North Wacker Drive, Chi-
cago, THinnis 60606 to Region V OUinois,
Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin). 230 South Dearborn Street.
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Dated. March 21. 1977.

GEORGE R. ALEXANDER,
Regional Administrator.
ire DOC.77-M07 Filed 3-2S-77;t :4S km]
*AftT -61— NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Delegation of Authority to the State of
— Wisconsin
Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS) to
the State of Wisconsin on September 28.
U76, EPA is today amending 40 CPR
CUM, Address, to reflect this delegation.
A Notice announcing this delegation is
published today March SO. 1977, *t 42 FR
18845 in this FEDERAL RECISTM. The
•mended Section 61.04, which adds tbe
address of the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources to which &11 reports.
requests, applications, submittals, and
communications to toe Administrator
pursuant to this part must also be ad-
dressed, Is set forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause
lor foregoing prior public notice and tor
inavtnp this nuemakjng 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. Tbe
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
September 28, 1976, and It serves no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of this
addition of the State address to the Code
of Federal "Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 U.6.C. 1857c-7.

Dated: March 21, 1977.
GEOBGS R. ALEXANDER, Jr.,
Regional Administrator.

J>art 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows :
1. In ! 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (YY> to read
as follows:
8 61.04 Address.
* « • •• •
(b) • • •
(TT) Wisconsin —
tocopKlD Department of Natural
P.O. Box 7921, Itadloon, Wisconsin 68707.

fre DOC.TC-M06 Plied 3-28-77:8 :4t am]
FEDERAL IEGISTER, VOL 42, NO 61—WEDNESDAY, MARCH JO, 1*77
38
HOCRAl REGISTER. VOL. 41, NO. 10»-

-TUESOAY. JUNE 1, \*n
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Standard for Vinyl Chloride; Corrections
and Amendments
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: These amendments are be-
ing made to the vinyl chloride standard
which was promulgated under the au-
thority of the Clean Air Act on October
21, 1976. The standard contains some
typographical errors and needs clarifica-
tion in some parts. These amendments
are intended to correct the typographical
errors and clarify the standard.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7,1977.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
telephone 919-688-3146, ext. 271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On October 21,1976, under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) promulgated a national
emission standard for vinyl chloride (41
FR 46560). The standard covers plants
which manufacture ethylene dlchloride,
vinyl chloride, and/or polyvinyl chloride.
Since that time, it has become apparent
that a few sections of the standard and
Test Methods 106 and 107 are unclear.
The purpose of the amendments being
made at this time is to clarify these sec-
tions and to correct typographical errors.
These corrections are in addition to those
published on December 3. 1976 (41 FR
53017). The Administrator finds that
IV-84
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
good cause exists for omitting prior
notice and public comment on these
amendments as unnecessary and for
making them immediately effective be-
cause they simply clarify and correct the
existing regulations and impose no ad-
ditional substantive requirements.
The most significant amendment in-
volves clarification of the requirements
for certification of the analysis of gas
cylinders which may be used to calibrate '
testing and monitoring equipment. The
itandard, as promulgated on October 21,
1976. requires that an analysis of the gas
used for calibration purposes. "• • • be
traceable to the National Bureau of
Standards or to a gravimetrically cali-
brated permeation tube." Comments
were received indicating that the term
"traceable" was unclear.
These amendments require that the
composition of gas cylinders which may
be used for calibration of testing and
monitoring equipment be certified by the
gas manufacturer. The certified compo-
sition must have been determined by di-
rect analysis of the gas contained in each
calibration cylinder using an analytical
procedure the manufacturer' had cali-
brated on the day the analysis was per-
formed. Calibration of the analytical
procedure was to have been done using
gases for which the concentrations have
been verified: (1) By comparison with a
calibrated vinyl chloride permeation
tube. (2) by comparison with a gas mix-
ture prepared in acordance with the pro-
cedure described in § 7.1 of Test Method
106 and using 99.9 percent vinyl chloride,
or (3) by direct analysis by the National
Bureau of Standards. These amendments
are being made to 85 61.65(b)(8) (ill)
and 61.68(c), which contain the moni-
toring requirements, and to 55 5.2 and 6.2
of Test Methods 106 and 107, respec-
tively.
There are several other changes in
wording for clarification purposes. For
example. 5 61.60 is being amended
to clarify that the testing, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements apply to re-
search and development equipment sub-
ject to 55 61.64 (a)U>, (b), (c).and(d),
and definitions for standard temperature
and pressure are being added to 5 61.61.
The phrase "in vinyl chloride service" is
being added to 561.65(b)(l) to clarify
that loading and unloading lines which
clearly do not contain vinyl chloride do
not have to be continuously tested to
demonstrate that fact. Section 61.67(d)
to being redesignated as 861.67(g)(l)
01) to clarify that conducting a series
of three runs is not necessary when Test
Method 107 is being used to determine
emissions. A change is being made in
I61.67(g)(l)(iii) rwhlch was originally
promulgated as 8 61.67 <^g) O) (11) J to es-
tablish that the concentration emission
limits for gas streams are to be de-
termined on a dry basis. Similarly, word-
ing is being added to 5 61.70(c) (2) (v) to
establish that vinyl chloride concentra-
tions in polyvinyl chloride resin are to
be determined on a dry weight basis. An
additional change to this same section is
being made to clarify that a sample from
each batch of resin is to be measured for
its vinyl chloride content. Section 61.71
(a) is being changed to correct typo-
graphical errors and to clarify that dally
operating records for polyvinyl chloride
reactors are required to be kept whether
a relief valve discharges or not.
Section 4.3.2 of Test Method 106 is
being revised to allow the option of using
Poropak T as the column packing In-
stead of QE 8F-96 in a secondary gas
chromatographlc column if acetaldehyde
is present. This packing has also been
shown to produce adequate separation
of vinyl chloride and acetaldehyde. Sec-
tion 61.67(e) of the regulation and 5 6.2
of Test Method 106 are being amended
to Include a limit on the amount of time
a test sample can be kept before it Is
analyzed for vinyl chloride. Section 1.2
of Test Methbd 107 is being amended to
clarify that chromatograph parameters
can be altered if the precision and re-
producibility of analysis of vinyl chloride
cylinder standards is not Impaired. Sec-
tion 5.3.2 of Test Method 107 is being
amended to allow the use of a pair of
Poropak Q columns if methanol or ac-
etaldehyde is present in the sample. Also
in Test Method 107 a clarification for the
term Kw has been added to 5 9.2.
The remaining changes are corrections
of typographical errors or are self-
explanatory.
These amendments are Issued under
the authority of section 112 of the Clean
Air Act, sec. 4 (a) of Pub. L. 91-604. 84
Stat. 1685 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7) and sec-
tion 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act, sec. 2 of
Pub. L. No. 90-148, 81 Stat. 504, as
amended by sec. (15) (c) (2) of Pub. L.
91-604, 84 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857g
(a)). The amendments to 5561.67 and
61.68 are also issued under the author-
ity of section 114 of the Clean Air Act,
as added by sec. 4 (a) of Pub. L. 91-604,
84 Stat. 1687 and amended by Pub. L.
93-319, sec. 6(a)(4), 88 Stat. 259 (42
U.S.C. 1857C-9).
NOTE: The Environmental Protection
Agency Has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analy-
sis under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949
and OMB Circular A-107.

Dated :May 26,1977.
EDWARD P. TUERK,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows :
1. In f 61.60, paragraph (c) is
amended as follows :
§61.60 Applicability.
(c) Sections of this subpart other than
JS 61.61; 61.64 (a)(l), (b). (c), and (d) ;
61.67; 61.68; 61.69; 61.70; and 61.71 • • ».

2. In 5 61.61 paragraphs (t) and (u)
are added as follows:

§61.61 Definitions.
(t) "Standard temperature" means a
temperature of 20" C '69° F).
(u) "Standard pressure" means a
pressure of 760 mm of Hg (29.92 In. of
Hg).
3. Section 61.62 Is corrected as follows:
§ 61.62 Emission standard for elhylene
dichloride plants.
(a) Ethylene dichloride purification:
The concentration of vinyl chloride in
all exhaust gases discharged to the at-
mosphere from any equipment used in
ethylene dichloride purification is not
to exceed 10 ppm, except as provided in
581.65(8). This requirement does not
apply to equipment that has been opened,
is out of operation, and met the require-
ment in |61.65(b)(6)(l) before being
opened.
(b) Oxychlorinatlon reactor: Except
as provided in 561.65(a), emissions of
vinyl chloride to the atmosphere from
each oxychlorination reactor are not to
exceed 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100
percent ethylene dichloride product from
the oxychlorination process.
4. In 581.65, paragraphs (b)Q), (b)
(8) (111) (A), and (b) (8) (111) (B) are
amended as follows:
§ 61.65 Emission standard for ethylene
dichloride, vinyl chloride and poly-
vinyl chloride plants.
• * • • •
(b) • • •
(1) Loading and unloading lines:
Vinyl chloride emissions from loading
and unloading lines in vinyl chloride
service which are opened to the atmos-
phere after each loading or unloading op-
eration are to be minimized as follows:
• • • * •
(8) * * •
(ill) • * •
(A) A calibration gas mixture pre-
pared from the gases specified in sections
5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of Test Method 106 and
in accordance with section 7.1 of Test
Method 106. or
(B) A calibration gas cylinder stand-
ard containing the appropriate concen-
tration of vinyl chloride. The gas com-
pusition of the calibration gas cylinder
standard is to have been certified by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer must
have recommended a maximum shelf life
for each cylinder so that the concentra-
tion does not change greater than ±5
percent from the certified value. The date
of gas cylinder preparation, certified
vinyl chloride concentration and recom-
mended maximum shelf life must have
been affixed to the cylinder before ship-
ment from the manufacturer to the
buyer. If a gas chromatoeraph Is used as
the vinyl chloride monitoring system.
these gas mixtures may be directly used
to prepare a chromatograph calibration
curve as described in section 7.3 of Test
Method 106. The requirements in sec-
tion 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method
106 for certification of cylinder stand-
ards and for establishment and verifica-
tion of calibration standards are to be
followed.
KDIfUL HOISTift, VOl. 42, NO. 109—TUISMY, JUNE 7, 1977
IV-85
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(Sees. 112 and 301 (a), Clean Air Act (42
TJ.S.C. 18570-7 and 1867g(a)).)
5. Section 61.67 Is amended by deleting
and reserving paragraph (d), revising
paragraphs (e), (g)(l)(ll) and (g) (1)
(ill), and by adding paragraph (g) (1)
(iv) as follows:
§61.67 Emission teats.
• • • • •

(d) [Reserved]
A calibration gas cylinder stand-
ard containing the appropriate concen-
tration of vinyl chloride. The gas com-
position of the calibration gas cylinder
standard is to have been certified by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer must
have recommended a maximum shelf
life for each cylinder so that the concen-
tration does not change greater than
±5 percent from the certified value. The
date of gas cylinder preparation, certified
vinyl chloride concentration and recom-
mended maximum shelf life must have
been affixed to the cylinder before ship-
ment from the manufacturer to the
buyer. If a gas chromatograph Is used as
the vinyl chloride monitoring system,
these gas mixtures may be directly used
to prepare a chromatograph calibration
curve as described in section 7.3 of Test
Method 106. The requirements In sec-
tions 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method
106 for certification of cylinder stand-
ards and for establishment and veriflca-
^K«orr..,.d)-^. 20.9-percent 02

where:
CKcorreeted) = The concentration of vinyl
chloride in the exhaust gases, corrected
to 10-percent oxygen.
C»=The concentration of vinyl chloride
as measured by Test Method 106.
20.9= Percent oxygen in the ambient
air at standard conditions.
10.9 = Percent oxygen in the ambient
air at standard conditions, minus the
10.0-percent oxygen to which the
correction is being made.
Percent O2= Percent oxygen in the
exhaust gas as measured by Refer-
ence Method 3 in Appendix A of
Part 60 of this chapter.

(iv) For those emission sources where
the emission limit is prescribed in terms
of mass rather than concentration, mass
emissions in kg/100 kg product are to be
determined by using the following equa-
tion:
CBX--
[Ct (2.60) Q10-'] [100]
Z
where:
CsT = kg vinyl chloride/100 kg prod-
uct.
C6=The concentration of vinyl chlo-
ride as measured by Test
Method 106.
2.60= Density of vinyl chloride at one
atmosphere and 20° C in
kg/m3.
Q = Volumetric flow rate in m3/hr as
determined by Reference
Method 2 of Appendix A to
Part 60 of this chapter.
10-"= Con version factor for ppm.
Z= Production rate (kg/hr).
tlon of calibration standards are to be
followed.
(Sees. 112, 114, and 301(«), Clean Air Act (4J
T7.S.C. 1837C-7, 1857c-£and 1854g(a)) )

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

§ 61.70 Semiannual report.
(C) * * '
(2) * ' '
(1) If batch stripping is used, one rep-
resentative sample of polyvlnyl chloride
resin is to be taken from each batch of
each grade of resin Immediately follow-
ing the completion of the stripping op-
eration, and identified by resin type and
grade and the date and time the batch
is completed. The corresponding quan-
tity of material processed in each strip-
per batch is to be recorded and identi-
fied by resin type and grade and the
date and time the batch is completed.
• • • » •
(v) The report to the Administrator
by the owner or operator is to Include
the vinyl chloride content found in each
sample required by paragraphs (c) (2)
(i) and (c) (2) (ii) of this section, aver-
aged separately for each type of resin,
over each calendar day and weighted
according to the quantity of each grade
of resin processed by the stripper(s)
that calendar day, according to the fol-
lowing equation:
^ = lP0iMat
AT,. L
Or,
where:
A = 24-hour average concentration of
type Ti resin in ppm (dry
weight basis).
Q= Total production of type T,
resin over the 24-hour period,
in kg.
T.= Type of resin; i=l,2 . . . m
where m is total number of
resin types ' produced during
the 24-hour period.
M = Concentration of vinyl chloride
in one sample of grade G,-
resin, in ppm.
P= Production of grade (7, resin
represented by the sample, in
kg-
G,= Grade of resin; e.g.. Oi, Gt, and
G,.
n = Total number of grades of resin
produced during the 24-hour
period.
• * • • •

8. Section 61.71 Is amended by correct-
ing paragraphs (a) (2) and (a) (3), and
by adding'paragraph (a) (4) as follows:

§ 61.71 Recordkeeping.

(a) • • •
(2) A record of the leaks detected dur-
ing routine monitoring with the portable
hydrocarbon detector and the action
taken to repair the leaks, as required
by 8 61.65 (b) (8), including a brief state-
ment explaining the location and cause
of each leak detected with the portable
hydrocarbon detector, the date and time
of the leak, and any action taken to
eliminate that leak.
(3) A record of emissions measured
in accordance with 5 61.68.
(4) A daily operating record for each
polyvlnyl chloride reactor, Including
pressures and temperatures.

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

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

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

12. Section 4.1.3 of Test Method 106 is
corrected as follows:
4.1.3 Male (2) and female (2) stainless
steel quick-connects, with ball checks (one
pair without) located as shown In Figure
106-1
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 109—TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1977
IV-86
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
13. Section 4.1.10 of Test Method 106 is
corrected as follows:
4.1.10 Connecting tubing. Teflon, 0.4
mm outside diameter, to assemble sample
train (Figure 106-1).

14. Section 4.3.2 of Test Method 106 is
amended as follows:
4.3.2 Chromatographie column. Stainless
steel, 2 mx3.3 mm, containing 80/100 mesh
Cbromasorb 103. A secondary column of OE
SP-96, 20 percent on 60/80 meeb AW Chroma-
sorb P, stainless steel, 2 mx3.2 mm or Pora-
pak T, 80/100 mesh, stainless steel, 1 mx3.2
mm is required If acetaldebyde Is present. If
used, a secondary column Is placed after tbe
Cbromasorb 103 column. Tbe combined
columns should then be operated at 130* O.

15. Section 5.2 of Test Method 106 is
revised as follows:
6.2 Calibration. Use one of tbe following
options: either 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, or 6.2.3.
6.2.1 Vinyl chloride, 99.9+ percent. Pure
vinyl chloride gas certified by tbe manufac-
turer to contain a minimum of 89.9 percent
vinyl chloride for use In the preparation of
standard gas mixtures In Section 7.1. If tbe
gas manufacturer maintains a bulk cylinder
supply of 99.9+ percent vinyl chloride, the
certification analysis may have been per-
formed on this supply rather than on each
gas cylinder prepared from this bulk supply.
The date of gas cylinder preparation and the
certified analysis must have been affixed to
the cylinder before shipment from the gas
manufacturer to the buyer.
6.2.2 Nitrogen gas. Zero grade, for prepa-
ration of standard gas mixtures.
5.2.3 Cylinder standard) (3). Gas mix-
ture standards (60, 10, and 6 ppm vinyl
chloride In nitrogen cylinders) for which the
gas composition lias been certified by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer must, have
recommended a maximum shelf life for each
cylinder so that the concentration does not
change greater than ±£ percent from the
certified value. The date of gas cylinder prep-
aration, certified vinyl chloride concentra-
tion and recommended maximum shelf life
must have been affixed to the cylinder before
shipment from the gas manufacturer to the
buyer. These gas mixture standards may be
directly used to prepare a chroznatograph
calibration curve as described In section 7.3.
6.2.3.1 Cylinder standards certification.
The concentration of vinyl chloride In nitro-
gen In each cylinder must have been certified
by tbe manufacturer by a direct analysis of
each cylinder using an analytical procedure
that the manufacturer had calibrated on the
day of cylinder analysis. The calibration of
the analytical procedure shall, as a minimum,
have utilized a three-point calibration curve.
It Is recommended that the manufacturer
maintain two calibration standards and use
• these standards In the following way: (1) a
high concentration standard (between 60 and
100 ppm) for preparation of a calibration
curve by an appropriate dilution technique;
(2) a low concentration standard (between
6 and 10 ppm) for verification of tbe dilution
technique used.
6.2.3.2 Establishment and verification of
calibration standard!. The concentration of
each calibration standard must have been
established by the manufacturer using
reliable procedures. Additionally, each
calibration standard must have been veri-
fied by the manufacturer by one of tbe
following procedures, and the agreement
between tbe Initially determined concen-
tration value and the verification concen-
tration value must be within ± 6 percent:
(1) verification value determined by com-
parison with a calibrated vinyl chloride
permeation tube, (3) verification value
determined by comparison with a gas mix-
ture prepared In accordance with tbe pro-
cedure described In section 7.1 and using
99.9+ percent vlnyle chloride, or (3) verifi-
cation value obtained by having the
calibration standard analyzed by the Na-
tional Bureau of Standards. All calibration
standards must be renewed on a time
Interval consistent with the shelf life of
the cylinder standards sold.

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

17. Section 7.1 of Test Method 106 Is
•amended as follows:
7.1 Preparation of vinyl chloride stand-
ard gas mixture!. Evacuate a slxteen-lnch
square Tedlar bag that has passed a leak
check (described In Section 7.4) and meter
In 5 liters of nitrogen. While the bag Is
filling, use the 0.6 ml syringe to Inject
250
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
22. Section 7.3.2.d. of Test Method 107
is corrected as follows:
d. w—Stabilization time. The normal set-
ting Is 0.2 minutes.

23. Section 9.2 of Test Method 107 is
corrected as follows:
0.2 Residual vinyl chloride monomer con-
centration, or vinyl chloride monomer con-
centration.

Calculate C,,e as follows:
V, — Volume of vapor phase (vial
volume less sample volume).
TO ,= Weight of sample, grams.
R=Gas constant [62,360 (cc-mm-
mole-degrees Kelvin)]
K= Henry's Law constant. For
VCM in PVC at 90° C,
K = 6.52X10-«=K,. For
VCM in 1 cc (approximate)
wastewater sample at 90° C,
Equation 107-2
where:
Crt«= Concentration of vinyl chloride
in the sample, in ppm.
P0= Laboratory atmosphere pres-
sure, mm Hg.
7*1= Room temperature, °K.
M,= Molecular weight of VCM
(62.5).
T2= Equilibration temperature, *K.
If the following conditions are met,
Equation 107-2 can be simplified as
follows :
1. T, = 22° C (295° K)
2. T2 = 90° C (363° K)
3. P,= 750 mm. Hg.

4. F,= F.-^ = 23.5-^

where
^,=Vial volume, cc (23.5).
5. Sample contains less than 0.5 percent
water.
^ (4.197X10-'+
5.988X10-'
rn,
Equation 107-3
The following general equation can be used for any sample which contains VCM,
PVC and water.
Equation 107-4
where:

TS = Total solids.
NOTE: Ka must be determined for sam-
ples with a vapor volume to liquid volume
ratio other than 22.5 to 1. This ratio can
be obtained by adjusting the sample weight
through giving consideration to the total
solids and density of the PVC.
Results calculated using Equation 107-4
represent concentration based on the total
sample. To obtain results based on dry
PVC content, divide by TS.
For a 1-cc wastewater sample (that is,
22.5 to 1 vapor volume to liquid volume
ratio), K» is 5.0X10-'. Thus, Equation
107-4 can be simplified to the following:
5.988 X10-
m,
+X2.066X10-3
.Equation 107-5
(Sec?. 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-7 and 1857g(a).)

(PR Doc.77-16828 Piled 6-8-77;8:45 am]
FEDERAL RiGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 10*—TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1*77
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21, 1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
J. Kevin Healy, Attorney, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Region
n, General Enforcement Branch, En-
forcement Division, 26 Federal Plaza,
New York, New York 10007 (212-264-
1196).

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

Dated: July 18,1977.

BARBARA BLUM,
Acting Administrator.

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

(1) In 8 61.04 paragraph (b) is
amended by revising subparagraph (FF)
to read as follows:

161.04 Address.
(b) • • •
(FF)—State of New Jersey: New Jersey De-
partment of Environmental Protection,
John Fitch Plaza, P.O. Box 2807. Trenton,
New Jersey 08625.
[FR Doc.77-21021 Filed 7-20-77:8:45 unj
39

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority to the State of New
Jersey
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: A notice announcing EPA's
delegation of authority for certain cate-
gories of the National Emission Stand-
ards for Hazardous Air Pollutants reg-
ulations to the State of New Jersey is
published at page 37386 of today's FBD-
«RAL REGISTER. In order to reflect this
delegation, this document amends EPA
regulations to require the submission of
all notices, reports, and other communi-
cations called for by the delegated regu-
lations to the State of New Jersey rather
than to EPA.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 140-

-THURSDAY, JUIY 21, 1977
IV-88
-------
40
TKte 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 775-4]
PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT*
Authority Citations; Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action revises the au-
thority citations for Standards of Per-
-formance for New Stationary Sources
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. The revision
adopts a method recommended by' the
FEDERAL REGISTER for identifying which
sections are enacted under which statu-
tory authority, making the citations
more useful to the reader.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17. 1077.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park. N.C. 27711, telephone
919-541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This action is being taken in accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 21.43
and la authorized under section 301 (a)
of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 49
UB.C. I857g(a>. Because the amend-
ments are clerical in nature and affect
no substantive rights or requirements,
the Administrator finds it unnecessary
to propose and invite public comment.
Dated: August 12.1977.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.

Parts M and 61 of Chapter I. Title «t
of the Code of Federal Regulations are
revised as follows:

********

4. The authority citation following the
table of sections in Part 61 is, revised t*
read as follows:
AUTHOEITT: Sec. 113, 801 (a) of the Clea»
Air Act as amended (42 U.8.C. 1867C-7, IBiTf
(ft)), unless otherwise noted.
S. Following { 61.16. the following au-
thority citation is added:
(Sec. 118 of the Clean Air Act a* amende*
(4SDB.C. 1857d-l).)
6. Following 19 61.09, 61.10. 61.12.
61.13, 61.14, 61.15, 61.24, 61.33. 61.34,
61.43, 61.44, 61.53, 61.54, 61.55, 61.67,
61.68, 61.69, 61.70, 61.71, and Appendices
A'and B. the following authority citatiom
1*. added:
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amende*
(43 UB.C. 18670-0).)
|FB DOC.77-33CB7 Filed 8-l«-77;8:4l am]
RULES AND REGULATIONS
KDIRAL REOISTn, VOl. 41, NO. 159-

-WEONESOAV, AUGUST 17, 1*77
41
TWe 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
I FRL 784-7]

PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Delegation of Authority;
fleview; State of M
New Source
lontana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule will change the
address -to which -reports and applica-
tions must be sent by operators of new
sources In the State of Montana. The
Address change is the result of delegation
of authority to the State of Montana for
New Source Performance Standards (40
CFR Part 60) and National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR Fart 61).
ADDRESS: Any questions or comments
should be sent to Director, Enforcement
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver,
Colo. 80295.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION COV-
TACT:
Mr. Irwln L, Dicksteln, 303-837-3888.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The amendments below institute certain
address changes for reports and appli-
cations required from operators of new
sources. EPA has delegated to the State
of Montana authority to review new and
modified sources. The delegated author-
ity Includes the review under 40 CFR
Part 60 for the standards of performance
for new stationary sources and review
under 40 CFR Part 61 for national emis-
sion standards for hazardous air
pollutants.
A Notice announcing the delegation of
authority is published today In the FED-
ERAL REGISTER (42 FR. 44573) . The amend-
ments provide that all reports, requests,
applications, submlttals, and communi-
cations previously required for the dele-
gated reviews will now be sent to the
Montana Department of Health and En-
vironmental Sciences instead of EPA's
Region vm.
The Regional Administrator finds good
cause for foregoing prior public notice
and for making this rulemaking effective
Immediately In that It is an adminis-
trative change and not one of substan-
tive content. No additional substantive
burdens are imposed on the parties af-
fected. The delegation which is reflected
by this administrative amendment was
effective on May 18, 1977, and It serves
no purpose to delay the technical change
of this addition of the State address to
the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of sections 111 and 112 of the Clean Air
Act. as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857, 1857C-5,
6. 7 and 1857g.
Dated: August 17, 1977.
JOHN A. GREEN,
Regional Administrator.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
l.'In § 60.4 paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (BB) to read
as follows:
S 60.4 Address.
• • • • •
(b) • • •
fBB) State of Montana. Department of
Health and Environmental Services, Cogswell
Building. Helena, Mont. 59601.
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
2. In 8 61.04 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (BB) to read
as follows:

g 61.04 Address.
• • • • •
(b) • • •

(BB) State of Montana, Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences, Cogs-
well Building, Helena, Mont. 69601.
(TO Doc.77-35837 Piled 9-9-77:8:46 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 172-
-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1977
IV-8 9
-------
42
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 784-3]

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUT-
ANTS
Units and Abbreviations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

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

Dated: September 26,1977. *
DOUGLAS M. COSILE,
Administrator,

40 CFR Part 61 is amended by revising
5 61.03 to read as follows:
§61.03 Units and abbreviations.
Used in this part are abbreviations and
symbols of units of measure. These are
defined as follows:
(a) System International (SI) unite
of measure:
A=ampere
Hz = hertz
J = Joule
K= degree Kelvin
kg = kilogram
m= meter
m"= cubic meter
mg = mllligram= 10 5 gram
mm = millimeter = 10-' meter
Mg = megagrun = lO* gram
mol = mole
N = newton
ng=nanogram = 10-» gram
pm=n«nomerter=lO-1 meter
Pa = pascal
s= second
V=volt
W=watt
n=omh
/ig=:mlcrogram = 10-' gram

is
amended by revising subparagraplt
(BBBi to read as follows
§ 61.01 Addrc-s.
(AAA> • • •
(BBB)—Commonwealth of Puer'.o Rico
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environ-
mental Quality Board. PO Bo< 117K6. S*:i-
turce PR 00910

|FR Doe 77-35163 Piled 12-8-77.B 4.5 aiti[
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl 47, NO 237—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1977
IV-90
-------
44
THte 4O—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 838-31

AIR POLLUTION
Megation of Authority to the State of
Minnesota for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration; Inspections, Monitoring
and Entry; Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources; and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The amendment below In-
stitutes an address change for the imple-
mentation of technical and administra-
tive review and enforcement of Preven-
tion of Significant Deterioration provi-
sions; Inspections. Monitoring and Entry
provisions; Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources; and Nation-
al Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants. The notice announcing
the delegation of authority is published
elsewhere In this issue of the FEDERAL
RCGISTEI.

KmBCTlVK DATE: October 0. 1977.

ADDRESSES: This amendment provides
that all reports, requests, applications,
and communications required for the
delegated authority will no longer be
sent to the US. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Region V Office, but will be
sent instead to: Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Division of Air Quality.
1935 West County Road B-2, Roseville,
Minn. 55113.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. CON-
TACT:
Joel Morbito, Air Programs Branch,
UJ3. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V. 230 South Dearborn St.,
Chicago, HI. 60604, 312-353-2205.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Regional Administrator finds good
cause for forgoing prior public notice
and for making this ruletnaklng effective
immediately in that It is an adminis-
trative change and not one of substantive
content. No additional substantive bur-
dens are Imposed on the parties affected.
The delegations which are granted by
this administrative amendment were
effective October 6, 1977, and It serves
no purpose to delay the technical
change of this addition of the State ad-
dress to the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaklng is effective Immediately
and is issued under authority of sections
101, 110, 111, 112, 114, 160-169 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7401, 7410, 7411, 7412, 7414—7470-79,
7491). Accordingly, 40 CFR Parts 52, 60
and 61 are amended as follows:
RULES AND REGULATIONS

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSIONS STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

Subpart A—General Provisions

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

§ 61.04 Addreis.
• « • « »
(b) • • •

(T) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Division of Air Quality', 1»35 West County
Road B-a, Roseville, Minn. 66113.

Dated: December 21, 1977.

GEORGE ALEXANDER,
Regional Administrator.
IP-H Doc.77-37404 Filed ~13-30-77;8:46 am)

HDIIAl ttOtSm, VOL 43, NO. 1-
-TUtSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1971
45
THU40
i of En
CHAPTEI I—CNVIIONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

SURCMAPTH C—AM PROGRAMS

[FRL 846-7]

NEW-SOUKCE REVIEW

Dologation of Authority to tho CommonwoaHh
of Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The amendments below
Institute certain address changes for
reports and applications required from
operators of new sources. EPA has del-
egated to the Commonwealth of Ken-
tucky authority to review new and
modified sources. The delegated au-
thority Includes the reviews under 40
CFR Part 52 for the prevention of sig-
nificant deterioration. It also includes
the review under 40 CFR Part 60 for
the standards of performance for new
stationary sources and reviewed under
40 CFR Part 61 for national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants.
A notice announcing the delegation of
authority was published in the Notices
section of a previous Issue of the FED-
ERAL REGISTER. These amendments
provide that all reports, requests, ap-
plications, submittals, and communica-
tions previously required for the dele-
gated reviews will now be sent to the
Division of Air Pollution Control, De-
partment for Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection, West
Frankfort Office Complex, U.S. 127,
Frankfort, Ky. 40601, Instead of EPA's
Region IV.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 25, 1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,
CONTACT:

John Eagles, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV, 345 Courtland Street
NE., Atlanta, Oa. 30308, phone 404-
881-2864.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Regional Administrator finds
good cause for foregoing prior public
notice and for making this rulemaking
effective immediately in that it Is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
substantive burdens are imposed on
the parties affected. The delegation
which is reflected by this administra-
tive amendment was effective on April
12, 1977, and it serves no purpose to
delay the technical change of this ad-
dition of the state address to the Code
of Federal Regulations.

(Sees. 101. 110. Ill, 112. 301. Clean Air Act.
as amended, (42 D.S.C. 7401. 7410, 7411.
7412, 7601).)
Dated: January 10, 1978.

JOHN C. WHITE.
Regional Administrator.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

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

S 61.04 Address.
(b) • • •

(S) Division of Air Pollution Control. De-
partment for Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Protection, UJS. 127. Frankfort,
Ky. 40601.
[FR Doc. 78-2032 Filed 1-24-78; 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 17—WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1978
IV-91
-------
46
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

Delegation of Authority to State of Delaware

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

I. BACKGROUND

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

II. REGULATIONS AFFECTED BY THIS
DOCUMENT

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

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

was effective on September 30, 1977,
and it serves no purpose to delay the
technical change of this address to the
Code of Federal Regulations.
This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the author-
ity of section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-7.
Dated: January 31, 1978.
' JACK J. SCHRAMM,
Regional Administrator.

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

{61.04 Address.
(b) • • *

(A)-(H) • • •
(I) State of Delaware (for asbestos, beryl-
lium and mercury only): Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control, Edward Tatnall Building,
Dover, Delaware 19901.
[FR Doc. 78-4267 Filed 2-15-78: 8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. »-

-THURSDAY, FEMUARY, U, 1971
47

Till* 40—Protection of Environment
CTRL 848-2]
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY

PART oo— STANDARDS or PERFOR-
MANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
RevUlon »f Authority Otvtloni

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action amends the
authority dilations for Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources and National Emission Stan-
tards for Hazardous Pollutants. The
amendment adopts the ^designation
of classification numbers as changed
in the 1977 amendments to the Clean
Air Act. As amended, the Act formerly
classified to 42 U.8.C. 1857 et seq. has
been transferred and is now classified
to 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 3,1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Don R. Goodwin, Emission Stan-
dards and Engineering Division. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
telephone 919-641-6271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This action is being taken in accor-
dance with the requirements of 1 CFR
21.43 and is authorized under section
10H&) of the Clean Air Act, as amend-
ed. 42 U.S.C. 7601(a). Because the
amendments are clerical In nature and
affect no substantive rights or require-
ments, the Administrator finds it un-
necessary to propose and invite public
comment.
Dated: February 24,1978.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
Parts 60 and 61 of Chapter I. Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are revised as follows:
4. The authority citation following
the table of sections in part 61 is re-
vised to read as follows:
: Sec. 112, 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act as amended [42 D.S.C. 7418.
7601(a>], unless otherwise noted.

S 61.16 [Amended]

5. Following §61.16, the following
authority citation is added:

(Sec. 116, Clean Air Act a* amended (43
U.8.C. 7416)).

1561.09. 61.10. 61.12,61.13. 61.14, 61.16.
61.24. 61.33. 61.34, 61.43, 61.44,
61.53. 61.54. 61.55. 61.67. 61.88.
61.69, 61.70. 61.71. and Appendices
A and B [Amended]
6. The following authority citation if
added to the above sections and ap-
pendices:

(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
<42 U.S.C. 7414».

[FR Doc. 78-6347 Filed 3-1-78: 8:46 am)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. «3-
-FRIOAY, MARCH 3,
IV-9 2
-------
48
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rulemaklng.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) is amending 40
CFR 61.04 Address by adding address-
es of agencies to reflect new delega-
tions of authority from EPA to certain
state/local air pollution control agen-
cies in Arizona,. California, and
Nevada. EPA has delegated authority
to these agencies, as described in a
notice appearing elsewhere in today's
FEDERAL REGISTER, in order to imple-
ment and enforce the national emis-
sion standards for hazardous air pol-
lutants.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16.1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Gerald Kate (E-4-3). Environmental
Protection Agency, 215 Fremont
Street, San Francisco, Calif. 94105,
415-556-8005.
Pursuant to delegation of authority
for national standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAPS) to State/
Local air pollution control agencies in
Arizona, California, and Nevada /rom
March 30. 1977, to January 30, 1978.
EPA is today amending 40 CFR 61.04
Address, to reflect these actions. A
notice announcing this delegation is
published elsewhere in today's FEDER-
AL REGISTER. The amended §61.04 is
eet forth below. It adds the address of
the air pollution control agencies, to
which must be addressed all reports,
requests, applications, submittals, and
communications pursuant to this part
by sources subject to the NESHAPS
located within these agencies' jurisdic-
tions.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and
for making this rulemaking effective
immediately in that it is an adminis-
trative change and not one of substan-
tive content. No additional substantive
burdens are imposed on the parties af-
fected. The delegation actions which
are reflected in this administrative
amendment were effective on the
dates of delegation and it serves no
purpose to delay the technical change
on these additions of the air pollution
control agencies' addresses to the
Code of Federal Regulations.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
<8ec. 112, Clem Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7411).)

Dated: April 5,1978.

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

Part 61 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
ed as follows:
1. In 961.04 paragraph (b) is amend-
ed by revising subparagraphs D. F,
and DD to read as follows:

181.04 Address.
(b)• • •

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This rule amends the na-
tional emission standard for asbestos
by extending the requirements of the
provisions which apply to the spraying
of asbestos-containing materials and
to demolition and renovation oper-
ations. These amendments are a result
of a determination that the standard
did not require control of asbestos
emissions during spray application of
asbestos-containing materials other
than fireproofing and Insulation or
during the demolition and renovation
of structures where friable asbestos
materials other than fireproofing and
insulation are present.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 1978.
ADDRESS: A summary of the public
comments on the proposed amend-
ments and EPA's responses Is con-
tained in the Standards Support Docu-
ment which may be obtained upon
written request from the EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park.
N.C. 27711 (specify Standards Support
Document: Promulgated Amendments
to National Emission Standard for As-
bestos, EPA 450/2-77-030, January,
1978). The Standards Support Docu-
ment is also available for public In-
spection and copying at the EPA
Public Information Reference Unit,
Room 2922 (EPA Library), 401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:

Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. 27711, telephone number 919-
541-5271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On March 2, 1977 (42 FR 12121),
amendments to the national emission
standard for asbestos were proposed
under sectfori"112 of the Clean Air Act.
Interested persons participated in the
rulemaking by submitting comments
to EPA. The comments have been con-
sidered and, where determined by the
Administrator to be appropriate,
changes reflecting these comments
have been Incorporated into the pro-
mulgated amendments.
Under section 112(e) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended in 1977, the Ad-
ministrator may promulgate a "design,
equipment, work practice, or oper-
ational standard, or combination
thereof" for control of a hazardous air
pollutant if it is infeasible to prescribe
an emission standard under section
112(b) for the pollutant. Such tnfeasi-
bility occurs, for example, when "a
hazardous pollutant or pollutants
cannot be emitted through a convey-
ance designed and constructed to emit
or capture such a pollutant" or when
"the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of
sources is not practicable due to tech-
nological or economic limitations."
The spraying of friable asbestos mate-
rials and demolition or renovation of
buildings containing such materials
are sources of asbestos emissions for
which EPA believes it is not feasible to
prescribe a numerical emission stand-
ard. This is because asbestos cannot be
emitted through a conveyance which
readily captures emissions for mea-
surement and because such measure-
ment, in any event, would be techno-
logically and economically impractical.
Therefore, work practice standards
rather than emission standards are
being promulgated.
This promulgation is not affected by
the Supreme Court decision in Adamo
Wrecking Co. v. U.S. (No. 76-911, de-
cided January 10, 1978). That case
arose in the narrow context of a crimi-
nal enforcement proceeding and was
decided on an interpretation of section
112 prior to its amendment in 1977.
The court held that the pre-1977 ver-
sion of section 112 did not authorize a
portion of the national emission stand-
ard for asbestos (prescribing certain
work practices for demolition and ren-
ovation activities) because it consisted
of requirements other than numerical
limitations on emissions. The 1977
amendments to section 112 now clear-
ly authorize the Administrator to pro-
mulgate work practice or other nonnu-
merical standards in order to control
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Another important 1977 amendment
to the Clean Air Act explicitly au-
thorizes citizens and States, under sec-
tion 304, to enforce work practice and
other nonnumerical standards promul-
gated under section 112.

SUMMARY or AMENDMENTS

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

SUMMARY or ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ECONOMIC IMPACTS

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

.SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS

During the public comment period,
EPA received 24 letters commenting
on the proposed amendments. These
Included 16 from industry, 3 from
other governmental agencies, and 5
from other interested parties. As a
result of these comments, there has
been only one significant change made
to the amendments since proposal.
This change involves the spraying re-
striction in {61.22(e). The proposed
amendments would have prohibited
the spraying of all materials contain-
ing more than 1 percent asbestos by
weight.
Several commenters, however, re-
Quested that EPA exempt from the
•praying restrictions certain bitumi-
nous- and resinous-based asbestos-con-
taining coatings. These coatings are
typically used as roofing compounds,
waterproofing of insulation exposed to
the weather, automobile undercoat-
Ings, and industrial maintenance coat-
Ings.
Based on information supplied by
the commenters, there are no accept-
able substitutes available for these
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 118—MONDAY, JUNE 1*, 1971
IV-9 4
-------
tULES AND REGULATIONS
uses of asbestos. Among the most
likely substitutes which have been in-
vestigated are glass, cotton, wood, cel-
lulose, mineral wool, hemp, and other
types of, inorganic and organic fibers;
gelling and thickening Agents; clay
thickeners. Including attapulgite;
ground cork; styrpfoam; ground
rubber; vermiculite; feldspar; polyeth-
ylene fibrous powders; and ceramic
fibers. Generally, these substitutes
have been found to be unacceptable
because of unsatisfactory durability;
insufficient bulk; unsatisfactory quali-
ties related to fibrous reinforcing, ho-
mogeneity, and adhesiveness; agglom-
eration during spraying; and settle-
ment In the container over time. Fur-
thermore. If asbestos fibers are re-
leased during application of the coat-
ings, during their service life, or
during demolition or renovation, the
fibers will not remain airborne because
they are encapsulated by droplets of
the binder and are too heavy to
remain suspended.
Because there do not appear to be
acceptable substitutes available and
any beneficial environmental impact
resulting from the prohibition of this
use of asbestos would be negligible,
the spraying of materials in which the
asbestos fibers are encapsulated by a
bituminous or resinous binder and
which are not friable after drying is
exempt from the provisions of
161.22(e) of the promulgated amend-
ments.
There were several other significant
comments which did not result In
changes to the amendments. To aid
enforcement of the proposed spraying
restrictions in |61.22(e), oommenters
suggested that products should be la-
beled as to their asbestos content If
they contain in excess of 1 percent as-
bestos by dry weight and have the po-
tential for spray-on application. Re-
quiring labeling would constitute a sig-
nificant change ID the amendments
and would require reproposal. Rather
than reproposing, the need for this
provision will be assessed during en-
forcement of the amendments and. If
appropriate, labeling requirements will
be proposed.
One commenter suggested that the
regulation be extended to require re-
moval of existing asbestos-containing
sprayed materials which present sig-
nificant risks to human health due to
deterioration, particularly in buildings
accessible to the public. The proposed
amendments would have only prohib-
ited the future application of asbestos-
containing spray material.
This problem Is being addressed
through the preparation of a guidance
document which will assist govern-
mental agencies and private individ-
uals who must decide on proper action
to take when sprayed asbestos materi-
als are found In existing buildings.
The first volume of this document dis-
cusses criteria for determining wheth-
er asbestos material in a building is a
problem; the current knowledge of
hazards from spray-on asbestos in
buildings; and alternative corrective
actions that may be taken, Including
acceptable removal procedures and the
use of sealants for the coating of ma-
terial. The second volume of the docu-
ment, which is expected to be availa-
ble in late 1978. will present the re-
sults of studies which will be done on
sealants to determine their effective-
ness and acceptability for coating As-
bestos materials. Copies of the first
volume Of this document may be ob-
tained upon written request from the
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711 (specify Sprayed At-
bestot-Containinp ttaterialt in Build-
ings: A Outdance Document).
The lack of EPA reference methods
(or making various asbestos measure-
ments was of concern to some com-
menters. Specifically, they suggested
that EPA publish a method for deter-
mining the percentage of asbestos in
spray materials and reference OSHA-
NIOSH procedures for measuring air-
borne asbestos particulate matter
from spraying operations.
A number of methods for the analy-
sis of asbestos-containing samples are
now in use and the variability of re-
sults obtained by these methods is ex-
tremely wide. In an attempt to stand-
ardize procedures and reduce this vari-
ability, an EPA provisional electron
microscope procedure for measuring
the concentration of asbestos in air
samples has been developed. This
method can also be used for analysis
of material samples. It will be further
evaluated and refined for use in actual
field studies and it found acceptable,
may eventually serve AS the basis for
An EPA reference method. The proce-
dure is available in a publication enti-
tled Electron Microscope Measure-
ment of Airborne Asbestos Concentra-
tions: A Provisional Methodology
Manual, EPA 600/2-77-178. August
1977. Copies of this document may be
obtained upon written request from
the Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory (MD-49), EPA, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
The OSHA-NIOSH method meas-
ures airborne asbestos fiber concentra-
tions by phase contrast microscopy. It
measures only those fibers which are
longer than 5 microns and does not
differentiate between asbestos and
other fibers. While such a method
may be sufficient for enforcing the
OSHA workplace asbestos standard, it
is not sufficient as an indicator of
total asbestos concentration in the am-
bient air. Marly asbestos fibers are
smaller than the smallest measured by
the OSHA-NIOSH method and these
fibers can contribute significantly to
the amount of asbestos which may be
present in the ambient air. The provi-
sional electron microscope method de-
scribed above is useful for estimating
airborne asbestos fiber concentrations
with greater precision.
Some commenters suggested that
since asbestos is a carcinogen and no
threshold level for health effects has
been established, the 1 percent allowa-
ble asbestos content for spray-on ma-
terials permits too much environmen-
tal contamination and should be low-
ered considerably. If not completely
eliminated. The 1 percent allowable
Asbestos content was selected primar-
fly to allow the spray application of
materials which contain trace amounts
of asbestos which occur in numerous
natural substances and which could
not be reduced or eliminated without
effectively banning the use of these
materials.

MlSCELLAHEOUS

NOTE.—Tbe Environmental Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major action requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analy-
Bl£ under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949
and OMB Circular A-107.

Dated: June 13.1978.
BARBARA BLUM,
Acting Administrator.

In Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40, of
the Code of Federal Regulations,
H 61.21 and 61.22 are amended as fol-
lows:

Swbport B—Notional Emittion
Standard for Asbmto*

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

Definitions.
Cm) "Renovation" means the remov-
ing or stripping of friable asbestos ma-
terials used on any pipe, duct, boiler,
tank, reactor, turbine, furnace, or
structural member. Operations in
which load-supporting structural
members are wrecked or taken out are
excluded.
(q) "Removing" means taking out
triable asbestos materials used on any
pipe, duct, boiler, tank, reactor, tur-
bine, furnace, or structural member
from any bunding, structure, facility.
or Installation.
(r) "Stripping" means taking off fri-
able asbestos materials from any pipe,
duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, fur-
nace, or structural member.
2. Section 61.22 is amended by revis-
ing paragraphs (d), (dXIXi), .
fOEftAL tKMSTEt, VOL 4», NO. lit—MONDAY, JUNE I*, 197S
IV-95
-------
tULES AND REGULATIONS
), (dX4Xii),
(d)(4)(iv), (e), and (e)(2); and adding
paragraph (eX3) to read as follows:

(61.22 Emission standard.
(d) Demolition and renovation. The
requirements of this paragraph shall
apply to any owner or operator of a
demolition or renovation operation
who intends to demolish any Institu-
tional, commercial, or industrial build-
ing (including apartment buildings
having more than four dwelling units),
structure, facility, installation, or por-
tion thereof which contains any pipe,
duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, fur-
nace, or structural member that is cov-
ered or coated with friable asbestos
materials, except as provided in para-
graph (dXl) of this section; or who in-
tends to renovate any Institutional,
commercial, or industrial building,
structure, facility, installation, or por-
tion thereof where more than 80
meters (ca: 260 feet) of pipe covered or
coated with friable asbestos materials
are stripped or removed, or more than
15 square meters, (ca. 160 square feet)
of friable asbestos materials used to
cover or coat any duct, boiler, tank, re-
actor, turbine, furnace, or structural
member are stripped or removed.
(1) (i) The owner or operator of a
demolition operation is exempted from
the requirements of this paragraph:
Provided, (A) The amount of friable
asbestos materials in the buOdlng or
portion thereof to be demolished is
less than 80 meters (ca. 260 feet) used
on pipes, and less than 15 square
meters (ca. 160 square feet) used on
any duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine,
furnace, or structural member, and (B)
the notification requirements of para-
graph (dXIXii) are met.
(ii) Written notification shall be
postmarked or delivered to the Admin-
istrator at least 20 days prior to com-
mencement of demolition and shall in-
clude the information required by
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, with
the exception of the information re-
quired by paragraphs (d)(2) (iii), (vi),
-------
50
PART *1—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

Delegation of Authority for Slot* of
Rhode Uland

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 16. 1978.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
John Courcier, Air Branch. EPA
Region I. Room 2113. JFK Federal
Building. Boston. Mass. 02203. 617-
223-4448.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Under the delegation of authority for
the national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
to the State of Rhode Island on March
31. 1978. EPA is today amending 40
CFR 61.04, Address, to reflect this del-
egation. A notice announcing this dele-
gation is published today elesewhere.
in this part of the FEDERAL REGISTER.
The amended § 61.04, which adds the
address of the Rhode Island Depart-
ment of Environmental Management
to which all reports, requests, applica-
tions, submittals, and communications
to the Administrator pursuant to this
part must also be addressed, is set
forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and
for making this rulemaking effective
Immediately in that it Is an adminis-
trative change and not one of substan-
tive content. No additional burdens
are imposed on the parties affected.
The delegation which is reflected by
this administrative amendment was ef-
fective on March 31, 1978, and it
serves no purpose to delay the techni-
cal change of this addition of the
State address to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
This rulemaking Is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authori-
ty of section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
ai amended. 42 U.S.C. 7411.
Date: September 18,1978.
WILLIAM R. ADAMS. Jr.
Regional Administrator,
Region I.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Part 61 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations la amend-
ed as follows:
In § 61.04 paragraph (b) Is amended
by adding subparagraph (OO) to read
as follows:
| (1.04 Address.
(b)• • •

(OO) State of Rh6de Island. Department
of Environmental Management, 83 Park
Street. Providence. R.I. 02908
IFR Doc. 7B-M1M Filed 10*13-78; »:4» ami
51

PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

Delegation of Authority to State of
Texas

AOENCY: Enrironmenta! Protection
Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action amends Sec-
tion 61.4, Addrett, to reflect the dele-
gation of authority for the National
ftnlsston Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) to the State of
Texas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7. 1974).
FOR FURTHEK INFORMATION
CONTACT:
James Teach, Enforcement Division.
Region 8. Environmental Protection
Agency, First International Build-
ing, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
75270. telephone <214) 767-2760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A notice announcing the delegation of
authority is published elsewhere in
the Notice Section In this issue of the
FEDERAL REGISTER. These amendments
provide that aU reports and communi-
cations previously submitted to the
Administrator, will now be sent to the
Texas Air Control Board, 8520 Shoal
Creek Boulevard, Austin. Texas, in-
Head of EPA's Region 6.
As this action is not one of substan-
tive content, but is only an administra-
tive change, public participation was
Judged unnecessary.

(BeeUom 112 and S01<»> of the Clean Air
Act; Section 4 of Public Law *l-*«4. S4
8UC 1685; Section 3 of Public Law 9O 148,
81 Stat. 504 [42 U.S.C. 7412 Rnrt 7'JO i.
Dated: November 15, lv/
ADIANE KA.-
Regional Admin. ::a:oi,
Part 61 of Chapter i, Ti.ie 4-:,, Code
of Federal Regulations, is rauer.ded as
follows:
In §61.04. paragraph (b) ;SS) Is
amended as follows:

f«1.04 Address.
(b) • • •
(SS) State of Texas. Texas Air Con-
trol Board, 8520 Shoal Creek Boule-
vard, Austin, Texas 78753.
(PR Doc. 79-4228 Filed 2-6-79; 8:45 am)

KDBUU MHMSTBt. VOL ««, no. 27
WBNBBAY, mtUAJTY T, W9
KDMAl UWSTBt. VOL 4J, NO. JOO-MONDAY, OCTOMI I*,
IV-97
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 25, 1979 / Rules and Regulations^
52
40 CFR Part 61

[FRL 1328-1]

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

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

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

§ 61.02 Definitions.
The terms used in this part are
defined in the Act or in this section as
follows:
"Act" means the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 1857 et seq.).
"Administrator" means the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized
representative.
"Alternative method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which is not a reference
or equivalent method but which has
been demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction to, in
specific cases, produce results adequate
for his determination of compliance.
"Commenced" means, with respect to
the definition of "new source" in section
lll(a)(2) of the Act, that an owner or
operator has undertaken a continuous
program of construction or modification
or that an owner or operator has entered
into a contractual obligation to
undertake and complete, within a
reasonable time, a continuous program
of construction or modification.
"Compliance schedule" means the
date or dates by which a source or
category of sources is required to
comply with the standards of this part
and with any steps toward such
compliance which are set forth in a
waiver of compliance under § 61.11.
"Construction" means fabrication,
erection, or installation of an affected
facility.
"Effective date" is the date of
promulgation in the Federal Register of
an applicable standard or other
regulation under this part.
"Equivalent method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which has been
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction to have a consistent and
quantitatively known relationship to the
reference method, under specified
conditions.
"Existing source" means any
stationary source which is not a new
source.
"Modification" means any physical
change in, or change in the method of
operation of, a stationary source which
increases the amount of any hazardous
air pollutant emitted by such source or
which results in the emission of any
hazardous air pollutant not previously
emitted, except that:
(a) Routine maintenance, repair, and
replacement shall not be considered
physical changes, and
(b) The following shall not be
considered a change in the method of
operation:
(1) An increase in the production rate,
if such increase does not exceed the
operating design capacity of the
stationary source;
(2) An increase in hours of operation.
"New source'' means any stationary
source, the construction or modification
of which is commenced after the
publication in the Federal Register of
proposed national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants which will
be applicable to such source.
"Owner or operator" means any
person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises a stationary
source.
"Reference method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant, as described in
Appendix B to this part.
"Standard" means a national emission
standard for a hazardous air pollutant
proposed or promulgated under this
part.
"Startup" means th^ setting in
operation of a stationary source for any
purpose.
"Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or
installation which emits or may emit
any air pollutant which has been
designated as hazardous by the
Administrator.
(Seq. 112, 301(a). Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(a))J
|FR Doc. 79-29766 Filed 9-24-79; MS am|
IV-98
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 13, 1979 / Rules and Regulations
53
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61

[FRL 1356-2]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; General
Provisions
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

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

§ 61.04 is-amended as follows:
$61.04 Address.
*****
(b) * * *
(kk) Ohio
Montgomery County: Regional Air
Pollution Control Agency, Montgomery
County Combined General Health
District 451 West Third Street, Daytonv
Ohio 45402.
Clarke, Darke, Greene. Miami and
Preble Counties [except for alf
information required under §. 61.22 fdj
and (e)]: Montgomery County Combined'
General Health District, 451 West Third
Street. Dayton, Ohio 45402.
• * * » •
Dated: November 2,1979.
John McGuire,
Regional Administrator-
JFR Doc 7»-*4M2 PH«d ll-t-7* £41«m|.
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 41 / Thursday. February 28, 1980 /
Rules and Regulations
54
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[FRL 1411-5]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final Rulemaking.

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

$61.04 Address
*****
(b) * * *
(V) State of Maryland, Bureau of Air
Quality and Noise Control, Maryland State
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
201 West Preston Street, Baltimore, Maryland
21201.
[FR Doc. 80-8197 Filed 2-27-80; 1:45 Ml]
IV-99
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 96 / Tuesday. May 19. 1981 / Rules and Regulations
55
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-7-FRL-1830-2]
New Source Performance Standards;
Delegation of Authority to trie State of
Missouri and Addition of Address

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

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

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

(61.04 Address.
*****

(b) * * *

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

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

IA-4-FRL-1830-8]

Air Pollution; New Source Review;
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

Part 61 of Chapter I. Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
In S 61.04, paragraph (b) (RR) is added
ai follows:
{61.04 AddreM.
*****

(b) • * •

(RR) Division of Air Pollution Control,
Tennessee Department of Public Health,
256 Capitol Hill Building, Nashville,
Tennessee 37219

|ffl Doc. M-18290 Filed 5-W-«1: «:W am)
57
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 147 / Friday, July 31,1981 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60 and 61
[A-7-FRL 1888-1)

New Source Performance Standards
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Pollutants; Delegation of
Authority to the State ol Nebraska and
Change of Address
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The EPA is today amending
its regulations on standards of
performance for new stationary sources
of air pollution and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) to reflect a change of
address of the Nebraska Department of
Environmental Control (DEC] and the
Region Vll office of the EPA, and to
reflect a delegation to the DEC of
NESHAPS.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31,1081.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve A. Kovac, Air, Noise and
Radiation Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VII, 324 East
llth Street, Kansas City. Missouri 64106;
816/374-6525; FTS 758-6525.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DEC
has been delegated authority to
implement and enforce the federal New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
regulations for 25 stationary source
categories and national emission
standards for four hazardous air
pollutants. An original delegation of 12
source categories was published in the
Federal Register on December 30,1976.
A second delegation, affecting 13
additional source categories and four
hazardous air pollutants, is published
today elsewhere in the Federal Register.
The amended § 60.4(a) and § 61.04(a)
correct the address of the Region VII
office of the EPA. The amended § 60.4(b)
corrects the address of the DEC to
which all reports, requests, applications,
submittals, and communications to the
Administrator, as required by 40 CFR
Part 60, must also be submitted. The
amended § 61.04(b) adds the address of
the DEC to which information to the
Administrator, as required by 40 CFR
Part 61, must also be submitted.
The Regional Administrator finds
good cause for foregoing prior public
notice and for making this rulemaking
effective immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
burdens are imposed upon the parties
affected.
The delegation which influenced this
Administrative amendment was
effective on July 22,1981, and it serves
no purpose to delay the technical
change of this address in the Code of
Federal Regulations. This rulemaking is
effective immediately, and is issued
under the authority of Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
7412.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a rule is "major"
and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This rule is not a "major" rule,
because it only corrects and
supplements addresses to which sources
are required to submit reports under
existing requirements. Thus, it is
unlikely to have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or to
have other significant adverse impacts
on the national economy.
This rule was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
Dated: June 7,1981.
William W. Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES

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

{60.4 Address.
* * • * *

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

Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In 8 61.04, paragraph (a) the address
for Region VII is revised:

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

{61.04 Address.
*****

(b) * * *
(CC) State of Nebraska, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control,
P.O. Box 94B77, State House Station,
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.
*****
|FR Doc. 81-22360 Filed 7-30-81: 8:45 am)
IV-101
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 195 / Thursday. October 8. 1961 / Rules and Regulations
58
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

IA-9-FRL-1875-2]

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

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

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

PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

§60.4 Address.

$61.04 Address.
*****

2. Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F)
are further amended by adding the
IV-102
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 196 / Thursday, October 8, 19B1 / Rules and Regulations
addresses of the following Air Pollution
Control Districts.

H 60.4 and 61.04 (Amended]
* * * • •

(b)"*

40 CFR Part* 60 and 61

[A-6-FRL-2057-1]

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

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

SUMMARY: EPA has delegated the
authority for implementation and
enforcement of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (except
demolition and renovation of buildings
containing asbestos) to the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology (ADPCE). The State specified in
its request that delegation of authority
for demolition and renovation of
buildings containing asbestos, would not
be accepted. Except as specifically
limited, all of the authority and
responsibilities of the Administrator or
the Regional Administrator which are
found in 40 CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part
61 are delegated to the ADPCE. Any of
such authority and responsibilities may
be redelegated by the Department to its
Director or staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14,1981.
ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
and State-EPA agreement for delegation
of authority are available for public
inspection at the Air Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, First International Building,
26th Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas,
Texas 75270; (214) 767-1594 or (FTS)
729-1594.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
William H. Taylor, Air Branch, address
above, Telephone: (214) 767-1594 or
(FTS) 729-1594.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
1.1981, the State of Arkansas submitted
to EPA, Region 6, a request for
delegation of authority to the ADPCE for
the implementation and enforcement of
the NSPS and NESHAP programs
(except demolition and renovation of
buildings containing asbestos). After a
thorough review of the request and
information submitted, the Regional
Administrator determined that the
State's pertinent laws and the rules and
regulations of the ADPCE were found to
provide an adequate and effective
procedure for implementation and
enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
programs.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a publication is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirements of a regulatory impact
analysis. The delegation of authority is
not "major", because it is an
administrative change, and no
additional burdens are imposed on the
parties affected.
The delegation letter to Arkansas was
submitted to OMB and determined not
to be a major rule under E.0.12291.
Effective immediately, all information
pursuant to 40 CFR 60 and 61 by sources
locating in the State of Arkansas should
be submitted to the State agency at the
following address: Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little
Rock, Arkansas 72209.
IV-103
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 53 / Thursday, March 18, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
(Seca. 101 and 301 of the dean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 and 7801))
Dated: February 2,1982.
Frances E. Phillips,
Acting Regional A dministrator.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

§61.4 Address.
• * * • *
(b)* * *
(E) State of Arkansas, Program
Administrator, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology, 8001 National Drive,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 (with the
exception of (l)(d) Demolition and
Renovation of Buildings Containing
Asbestos).'
*****
|FR Doc. 82-4701 Filed 2-19-82. 8*5 .m|
60
40 CFR Part 61

[A-7-FRL-2076-7)

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

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is today amending
40 CFR 61.04(b)(Q). Address, to reflect a
delegation of authority to the Iowa
Department of Environmental Quality
(IDEQ). The FDEQ has been delegated
authority to implement and enforce the
federal National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
for source categories involving four
pollutants (asbestos, beryllium, mercury
and vinyl chloride). Notification of this
delegation is published today elsewhere
in the Federal Register. The amended 40
CFDR 61.04(b)(Q) adds this address of
the IDEQ to which all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and
communications to the Administrator, as
required by 40 CFR Part 61, must also be
addressed.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18,1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Charles W. Whitmore, Air Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VTI, 324 East llth Street. Kansas
City, Missouri 64106, 816/374-6525; FTS
758-€525.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective
immediately in that it is an
Administrative change and not one of
substantive content No additional
burdens are imposed upon the parties
affected.
The delegation which influenced this
administrative amendment was effective
on January 19,1982, and it serves no
purpose to delay the .technical change of
this address in the Code of Federal
Regulations. This rulemaking is effective
immediately, and is issued under the
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended. The Office of
Management and Budget has exempted
the underlying action in this rulemaking
from the requirement of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
Dated: March 5,1082.
John ). Franke, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region VII.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

{61.04 Address.
* « * * *

(b) • • '
*****

(Q) Iowa Department of
Environmental Quality, Henry A.
Wallace Building, 900 East Grand, Des
Moines, Iowa 50316.
*****
(FR Doc. U-7M3 FlM 3-17-62; 10:46 «mj
IV-104
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 57 / Wednesday. March 24.1982 / Rules and Regulations
61
40 CFR Part* 60 and 61

[A-4-FRL-2080-3]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The amendments institute
certain address changes for reports and
applications required from operators of
certain sources subject to Federal
regulations. EPA has delegated to the
State of Mississippi authority to review
new and modified sources. The
delegated authority includes the review
under 40 CFR Part 60 for the standards
of performance for new stationary
sources and review under 40 CFR Part
61 for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants. A notice
announcing the delegation of authority
was published in the Notices section of
the March 22,1982 issue of the Federal
Register. These amendments provide
that all reports, requests, applications.
submittals, and communications
previously required for the delegated
reviews will now be sent to the Bureau
of Pollution Control, Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 10385,
Jackson, Mississippi 39209.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 30,1981.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Denise W. Pack, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street,
ME., Atlanta. Georgia 30365, phone404/
8R1-3286.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Regional Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective
immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
substantive hardens are imposed on the
parties affected. The delegation which is
reflected by this administrative
amendment was effective on November
30,1981. and it serves no purpose to
delay the technical change of this
addition of the state address to the Code
cf Federal Regulations.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this regulation from the
OMB review requirements of Executive
Order 12291 pursuant to Section 3(b) of
that order.

(Sees. 101.110. Ill, 112, 301, Clean Air Act, as
amended. (42 U.S.C. 7401. 7411, 7412, 7601))
Dated: March 3,1982.
Charles R. Jeter.
Regional Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

{61.04 Address.
*****

(b) * * *
(Z) Bureau of Pollution Control,
Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box
10385. Jackson, Mississippi 39209.
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 76 / Thursday. April 22. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
62
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-6-FRL-2103-6J

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

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

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

Dated: April 7,1982.
Dick Whittington.
Regional Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

861.04 Address.
*****

(b) * * *
(LL) State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Department of Health, Air Quality
Service. P.O. Box 53551, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73152.
*****
[FK Ooc. B2-105O9 Filed 4-21-62; 1:45 am]
IV-105
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 27, 1982 / Rules and Regulation*
63
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-3-FRL-2112-1]

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

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

SUMMARY: This document amends EPA
regulations which state the address of
the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control to
reflect delegation to the State of
Delaware of authority to implement and
enforce additional Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
CFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laurence Budney (3AW12),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region ID, Curtis Bldg., 6th & Walnut
Sts., Philadelphia. PA 19106. Telephone:
(215) 597-2842.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background
On September 22,1981 and February
3,1982, John E. Wilson HI, Secretary of
the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control,
submitted requests for delegation of
authority to implement and enforce
regulations for:
• New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for stationary gas turbines
• New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for petroleum refineries
• National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for vinyl chloride
The request was reviewed and on
April 15,1982 a letter was sent to John E.
Wilson III, Secretary, Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, approving the delegation and
outlining its conditions. The approval
letter specified that if Secretary Wilson
or any other representatives had any
objections to the conditions of the
delegation they were to respond within
ten (10) days after receipt of the letter.
As of this date, no objections have been
received.
D. Regulations Affected by This
Document
With respect to the authority
delegations referred to above, EPA is
today amending 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04,
Address, to reflect these delegations.
The amended § 60.4 and § 61.04 which
state the address of the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (to which all
reports, requests, applications,
submittals and communications to the
Administrator regarding this subpart
must be addressed), is set forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause to
make this rulemaking effective
immediately without prior public notice
since it is an administrative change and
not one of substantive content. No
additional substantive burdens are
imposed on the parties affectedrThe
delegation which is reflected by this
administrative amendment was effective
on April 15,1982.
This rulemaking is effective
immediately, and is issued under the
authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from Executive
Order 12291.
ID. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants. Cement
industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants, Glass and glass products, Grains,
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid plants,
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
IV. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)
Dated: April 15.1982.
Stephen R. Wassersug,
Director, Air & Waste Management Division.

PART 61-NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

{61.04 Addrw.
*****
(b}*"
(AHH) ' * *
(I) State of Delaware (for asbestos,
beryllium, mercury and vinyl chloride):
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control, Tatnall
Building, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19901
PK Doc. 12-1147* Filed 4-36-IZ Hi unj
64
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-10-FRL-2119-7]

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

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

SUMMARY: EPA is today approving a
request dated March 11,1982 from the
State of Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality for subdelegation
to enforce certain New Source
Performance Standards and National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants to the Lane Regional Air
Pollution Authority.
DATE: April 23,1982.
ADDRESSES: The related material in
support of this subdelegation may be
examined during normal business hours
at the following locations:
Central Docket Section (10A-82-4).
West Tower Lobby, Gallery I,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460
Air Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue.
Seattle, Washington 98101
State of Oregon, Department of
Environmental Quality, 522 S.W. Fifth
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97207.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT!
Mark H. Hooper, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101, Telephone:
(206J 442-1949, FTS: 399-1949
IV-106
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 92 / Wednesday. May 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
SUPPLEMENT AMY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to section lll(c)(l) and 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act. as amended, the Regional
Administrator of Region 10,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
delegated to the State of Oregon on
November 10.1975, and December 3,
1981. the authority to implement and
enforce the program for New Source
Performance (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). The delegation
was announced in the Federal Register
on February 20,1976 and December 22,
1981 (41 FR 7749 and 46 FR 62066).
respectively.
On March 11,1982. the State of
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality requested EPA's concurrence in
the State's subdelegation of the NSPS
and NESHAPS program to the Lane
Regional Air Pollution Authority. After
reviewing the State's request, the
Regional Administrator determined that
the subdelegation met all the
requirements outlined in EPA's
delegations. Therefore, the Regional
Administrator on April 23,1982,
concurred in the subdelegation to the
local agency listed below with the
stipulation that all the conditions placed
on the original delegation to the State
shall also apply to the subdelegation to
the local agency. EPA is today amending
40 CFR 60.4 and 61.4 to reflect the
State's subdelegation.
This rulemaking is effective April 23.
1982 and is issued under the authority of
section lll(c)(l) and 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857c-7).
Dated: April 23.1962.
John R. Spencer,
Regional Administrator.

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

} 61.04 Addrm*.
(b)* * *
(MM)' • •
(viii) Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority.
1244 Walnut Street. Eugene. Oregon 97403.
[PI Doc. U-12M1 Fifed l-ll-Mi M6 ira]
65
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-6-FRL-2126-6]

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

SUMMARY: On September 14.1981, EPA
delegated the authority for
implementation and enforcement of
existing New Source Performance
Standards and National Emission
Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants
(except demolitii n and renovation of
buildings containing asbestos) to the
State of Arkansas.
On March 11,1982, the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology (ADPCE) requested delegation
of authority to implement and enforce
future NSPS and NESHAP requirements.
On March 25,1982, EPA granted this
additional authority to ADPCE by
modifying Condition 4 of the NSPS/
NESHAP delegation agreement.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25,1982.
ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
and State/EPA agreement for delegation
of authority are available for public
inspection at the Air Branch, Air and
Waste Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, First International Building.
28th Floor, 1201 Elm Street. Dallas,
Texas 75270.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
March 11,1982, the State of Arkansas
submitted to EPA, Region 6, a request
for delegation of additional authority to
the ADPCE for the implementation and
enforcement of future NSPS and
NESHAP programs. After a through
review of the request and information
submitted, the Regional Administrator
determined that the State's pertinent
laws and the rules and regulations of the
ADPCE were adequate and effective to
implement and enforce future NSPS and
NESHAP requirements. Therefore,
Condition 4 of the NSPS/NESHAP
agreement letter was amended on
March 25,1982. as follows:
4. The Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology is authorize to
implement and enforce all future NSPS and
NESHAP requirements without making a
written request to EPA, subject to the
delegation conditions and terms as set forth in
thft delegation agreement letter dated
September 14,1981.

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

Dated: April 29.1982
Frances E. Phillips,
Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. B2-1393B Filed 5-20-82: 8:4S am]
IV-107
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 110 / Tuesday, June 8. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
66
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61

[AD-FRL 2087-8]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Appendix
B—Test Methods; Revisions and
Addition

March 10,1982.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Revisions to Methods 101 and
102, "Determination of Participate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Chlor-
Alkali Plants—Air Streams," and
"Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Chlor-
Alkali Plants—Hydrogen Streams,"
respectively, and a new Method 111,
"Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from
sewage Sludge Incinerators," were
proposed in the Federal Register on
October 15,1980 (45 FR 68514). This
action promulgates the revisions and the
new method, redesignated as Method
101A. The intended effect is to require
all chlor-alkali plants and sewage sludge
treatment plants specified to conduct
emissions tests under Subparts A and E
of 40 CFR Part 61 to hereafter (see
effective date listed below) use these
new and revised methods for
determining compliance. In addition,
amendments to Subparts A and E are
made to include new Method 101A.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1982.
Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of the revisions
and addition is available only by the
filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,
the requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
ADDRESSES: Summary of Comments and
Responses. This document for the
promulgated test methods may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. Please refer to "Revisions to
Methods 101,101A, and 102 for the
Determination of Mercury Emissions
(Proposed October 15,1980, 45 FR
68514)—Summary of Comments and
Responses, EPA 450/3-82-008." The
document contains (1) a summary of all
the public comments made on the
proposed test methods with the
Administrator's response to the
comments, and (2) a summary of the
changes made to the test methods since
proposal.
Docket. A docket, number A-79-45,
containing information considered by
EPA in development of the promulgated
test methods, is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (A-130), West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger T. Shigehara, Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-19), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
2237.
Public Participation
The test methods were proposed and
published in the Federal Register on
October 15,1980 (45 FR 68514). To
provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed test methods, a public
hearing was scheduled for November 6,
1980, at the Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, but no person desired to
make an oral presentation. The public
comment period was from November 6,
1980, to December 15,1980, and was
extended to February 13,1981. Five
comment letters were received
concerning issues relative.to the
proposed test methods. The comments
have been carefully considered and,
where determined to be appropriate by
the Administrator, changes have been
made in the proposed test methods.

Significant Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Test Methods
Five comment letters were received
on the proposed test methods. A
detailed discussion of these comments
and responses can be found in the
background information document
which is referred to in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. The summary
of comments and responses serves as
the basis for the revisions which have
been made to the test methods between
proposal and promulgation. The major
comments and responses are
summarized in this preamble. Most of
the comment letters contained multiple
comments. The significant comments
and subsequent method changes are
listed according to the affected method.
Method 101
One commenter cited success from
the extensive use of KMnO4 as the
mercury absorbing medium and
suggested it serve as an acceptable
alternative to iodine monochloride. This
substitution will be allowed, as long as
the entire system can meet the
performance specifications that have
been added to the methods.
It was pointed out that section 7.3.2 is
confusing as written and seems to
indicate that separate flasks should be
pipetted during the dilution. This has
been corrected by rewording the first
two sentences to read "Pipet a 2-ml
aliquot from the diluted sample from
7.3.1 into a 250-ml volumetric flask. Add
10 ml of 5 percent H»SO4 and adjust the
volume to exactly 250 ml with deionized
distilled water."
In section 9.4, the total mercury
weight (CHl(AC>) was originally listed as
mercury concentration. This correction
has been made.
IV-108
-------
r«d«ral Register / Vol. 47, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Methods 101,101 A, and 102
Because of their similarities, several
of the received comments pertained to
all three methods. Most concerned the
use of various alternative sampling and
analysis equipment which are reported
to give results that are as accurate and
precise as the apparatus specified in the
methods. An equipment performance
specification has been incorporated into
the methods allowing such alternative
systems to be used as long as they meet
these performance criteria.
The use ef dried, mercury-free air will
be allowed as an optional aeration gas
in place of dried nitrogen. The asbestos
gasket specified for the probe nozzle
and the asbestos insulation tape
specified for the optical cell have been
replaced by fiberglass components.
Borosilicate glass containers are
specified for use in preparing and
storing all mercury standard solutions.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so that they can
intelligently and effectively participate
in the rulemaking process. Along with
the statement of basis and purpose of
the proposed and promulgated test
methods and EPA responses to
significant comments, the contents of
the docket will serve as the record in
case of judicial review [section
307(d)(7)(A)].
Miscellaneous
This rulemaking does not impose any
additional emission measurement
requirements on facilities affected by
this rulemaking, nor does it change the
emission standard or make it more
stringent. Rather, this rulemaking
revises the test methods to which the
affected facilities are already subject. If
future standards impose emission
measurement requirements, the impacts
of the revised test methods promulgated
today will be evaluated during
development of these standards.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices; and there will be no
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of US.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic or export markets.
This rule was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review
under Executive Order 12291.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
This rulemaking is issued under the
authority of sections 112.114. and 301 (a]
of the Dean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7412. 7414. and 7601(a)J.

List of Subjects in 4B CFR Part 61

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

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

Subpart A—General Provisions
§61.14 Source test and analytical
methods.
(a) Methods 101,101A, 102, and 104 in
Appendix B to this part shall be used for
all source tests required under this part,
unless an equivalent method or an
alternative method has been approved
by the Administrator.
*****
2. By revising § 61.53(d)(2) as follows:

§ 61.53 Stack sampling
*****

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

Appendix B—Test Methods

CO
REVERSE-TYPE

PITOTTUBE
TEMPERATURE SENSOR

3 §55
1*8.
g
^ a
•5
• §•*"&! i§"aE"3e
j§wo § SE.SS£!=
3 ;?3 • Q.^B ~.s^n

I
;§-o«
zntitiH
'i in si ?
i
<
o
(B

5.
OD
§
si
to
O)
to
3
O.

5*
31

B
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 110 / Tuesday, June 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
18/9 FEMALE BALL SOCKET
LENGTH NECESSARY TO FIT SOLUTION CELL
TO SPECTROPHOTOMETER
(END VIEW)
TO VARIABLE TRANSFORMER
VENT TO HOOD
9-mm OD
2.5cm
(FRONT VIEW)
NOTES:
CELL WOUND WITH 24-GAUGE NICHROME WIRE
TOLERANCES ± 5 PERCENT
Figure 101-2. Optical cell.
3.81 cm DIAMETER
QUARTZ WINDOWS
AT EACH END
IV-114
-------
19/22 GROUND
19/22 GROUND
GLASS JOINT
WITH STOPPER
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 8,1982 / Rules and Regulations

FROM TANK
18/9 MALE BALL JOINT
4-mm BORE TEFLON STOPCOCK
[BUBBLER -f^-
PORTION
OzfiLJ—»—I
TO
OPTICAL CELL
GLASS JOINT//I ;
nw
18/9 MALE BALL JOINT
1
2
1
1

11
• •1*1
./ n
ALL DIMENSIONS IN cm
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
is
BLOWN GLASS BUBBLER BOTTLE PORTION
APPROX.06by1.Ocm 4.0-cm OD by 3.5-cm ID

Figure 101-3. Aeration cell.
IV-115
-------
PLANT
LOCATION
OPERATOR
DATE
RUN NO.
SAMPLE BOX NO.
FILTER BOX NO.
METER AH(§>
CFACTOR
PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT, Cp .
SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
ASSUMED MOISTURE, %
PROBE LENGTH. m(h)
NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO.
AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, cm (in.).
PROBE HEATER SETTING*
LEAK RATE, m^/min (efm)
PROBE LINER MATERIAL
STATIC PRESSURE, mm Hg (in. Hg).
FILTER NO.*
I
a»
f
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER

TOTAL
AVERAGE
SAMPLING
TIME
(0). mm.

VACUUM
mm Hg
(in. Hg)

STACK
TEMPERATURE
.(TS'
°C (8F)

VELOCITY
HEAD
(£PS)

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

GAS SAMPLE
VOLUME
nt3 (ft3)

GAS SAMPLE
TEMPERATURE
AT DRY GAS METER
INLET
°C (°F)

Av,.
Av,.
OUTLET
°C (°F)

Av,.

FILTER
HOLDER*
TEMPERATURE
°C <°F)

TEMPERATURE
OF GAS
LEAVING
CONDENSER OR
LAST IMPINGER.
°C (°F|

**
O
VI

p
l->
1^
O
a.
a
(6
to
70
Q.
I
P>
cr.
I
•IF APPLICABLE
Fig. 101-4. Mercury field data.
-------
NEEDLE VALVE FOR
N2 CYLINDER
Fl
(v)Q
LOW CONTRO
— &— I

•

EXIT ARM TO HOOD
STOPCOCK »
_____ -•- I
„ ,,«_n,Mil.| TO VARIAP'P TRANSFORMER
U 11 po=
AERATION 1 " ' *1
CELL (OPTICAL CELL
FLOW - --- MAGNETIC STI RR ING BAR

MAGNETIC STIRRER
Figure 101-5. Schematic of aeration system.
MUINQCOM
-------
F«deral Register / Vol. 47, No. 110 / Tuesday. June 8, 1962 / Rules and
Method 101A. Determination of Particulate
and Guaou* Mercury Emissions From
Sewage Sludge Incinerators

_ K MB. v. A. (86,400 X 10"*)
[VB(std)
Eq. 101A-1

Where:
ma, = Total Hg content in each sample, jig.
v, = Average stack gas velocity, m/sec (fps).
A. = Stack cross-sectional area, m1 (ft*).
66,400 = Conversion factor, sec/day.
10"' = Conversion factor, g/u.g.
= Dry gas sample volume at standard
conditions, corrected for leakage (if any),
= Volume of water vapor at standard
conditions, m'fft3).
T. = Absolute average stack gas
temperature, "K ("R).
P. = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.
Hg).
K = 0.3658 "If/mm Hg for metric units.
= 17.64 'R/in. Hg for English units.
10. Bibliography. 1. Same as Method 101,
Section 10.
2. Mitchell, W. J., M. R. Midgett, J. C. Suggs,
and D. Albnnck.
Test Methods to Determine the Mercury
Emissions from Sludge Incineration Plants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publication No. EPA-600/4-79-058.
September 1979.

Method 102. Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions From Chlor-
Alkali Plants — Hydrogen Streams
1. Introduction — Although similar to
Method 101, Method 102 requires changes to
accommodate the sample being extracted
from a hydrogen stream. Conduct the test
according to Method 101, except as shown
below:
2. Mercury Train Operation — 2.1 Probe
Heating System. Do not use, unless otherwise
specified.
2.2 Class Fiber Filter. Do not use, unless
otherwise specified.
2.3 Safety Procedures. The sampler must
conduct the source test under conditions of
utmost safety, because hydrogen and air
mixtures are explosive. Since the sampling
train essentially is leakless, attention to safe
operation can be concentrated at the inlet
and outlet. If a leak does occur, however,
remove the meter box cover to avoid a
possible explosive mixture. The following
specific precautions are recommended:
2.3.1 Operate only the vacuum pump
during the test. The other electrical
equipment, e.g., heaters, fans, and timers,
normally are not essential to the success of a
hydogen stream test.
2.3.2 Seal the sample port to minimize
leakage of hydrogen from the stack.
2.3.3 Vent sampled hydrogen at least 3 m
(10 feet) away from the train. This can be
accomplished by attaching a 13-mm-ID (0.50-
in) Tygon tube to the exhaust from the orifice
meter. (Note: A smaller ID tubing may cause
the orifice meter calibration to be erroneous.)
Take care to ensure that the exhaust line it
not bent or pinched.
2.4 Setting of hokinetic Rates.
2.4.1 If a nomograph is used, take special
care in the calculation of the molecular
weight of the stack gas and in the setting of
the nomograph to maintain isokinetic
conditions during sampling (Sections 2.4.1.1
through 2.4.1.3 below).
2.4.1.1 Calibrate the meter box orifice.
Use the techniques described in APTD-0576
(see Citation 9 in Section 10 of Method 101).
Calibration of the orifice meter at flow
conditions that simulate the conditions at the
source is suggested. Calibration should either
be done with hydrogen or with some other
gas having a similar Reynolds Number so
that there is similarity between the Reynolds
Numbers during calibration and during
sampling.
2.4.1.2 The nomograph described in
APTD-0576 cannot be used to calculate the C
factor because the nomograph is designed for
use when the stack gas dry molecular weight
is 20±4. Instead, the following calculation
should be made to determine the proper C
factor:
C=
0.00154
J(l-B,J-(-18 B^/M«
Where:
Meter box calibration factor obtained
in Section 2.4.1.1, in. HtO.
Cp=Pilot rube calibration coefficient,
dimensionless.
Tm=Absolute temperature of gas at the
orifice. 'R.
P.=Absolute pressure of stack gas, in Hg.
Pn=Absolute pressure of gas at the meter, in
Hg.
BWI=Fraction by volume of water vapor in
the stack gas.
Ma=Dry molecular weight of stack gas, lb/
Ib-mole.

Note. This calculation is left in English
units, and is not converted to metric units
because nomographs are based on English
units.
2.4.1.3 Set the calculated C factor on the
operating nomograph and select the proper
nozzle diameter and K factor as specified in
APTD-0576. If the C factor obtained in
Section 2.4.1.2 exceeds the values specified
on the existing operating nomograph, expand
the C scale logarithmically so that the values
can be properly located.
2.4.2 If a calculator is used to set
isokinetic rates, it is suggested that the
isokinetic equation presented in Citation 17
in the Bibliography of Method 101 be used.
2.5 Sampling in Small (<12-in.-Diameter)
Stacks. When the stack diameter (or
equivalent diameter) is less than 12 inches,
conventional pilot' tube-probe assemblies
should not be used. For sampling guidelines, '
see Citation 18 in the Bibliography of Method
101.
(FR Doc. 82-15373 Filed B-7-at8:45 am)
IV-120
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 133 / Monday. July 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
67
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

(A-9-FRL 2165-6]

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

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

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

40 CFR
Pert so
aubpart
DO
GG
HH

NESHAPS
Vinyl Chloride

40 CFR Pan
61 subpan
f

In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
since your revised programs, rules, and
procedures are acceptable:
NSPS
. Foam-Fuel Fired Slaam Generators
Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants...
Nitnc Acid Plants...:
Sulfur*: Add Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants ,
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Produc-
tion Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants _
Primary Copper Smelters
Primary Zinc Srrielters
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet Process
Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphos-
phonc Add Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Ownmomum
Phosphate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Triple Super-
phosphate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple
Superphosphate.
Coal Preparation Plants. —
FerroL'oy Production Facilities
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Ar
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 133 / Monday. July 12, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
PCHD at the address shown in the letter
of delegation.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seg.}]
Dated: June 29,1982.
Sonla F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 82-1(681 Filed 7-0-62; 8:45 am)
M.LINO CODE 6MO-60-M
68
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-9-FRL 2165-7]

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

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

Dear Mr. Boyd: 1 am pleased to inform you
that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) on behalf of the Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
We have reviewed your request for
delegation and have found that the Ventura
County APCD's present programs, rules, and
procedures are acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
NSPS

40CFRPwt
eOsubpirt
A

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

Beryllium Rocket Motof Fifing

40 CFR Part
61 subpart
B
c
0.
E

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

PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES

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

Subpart A—General Provisions

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

(b)' * *
(F) * * •
Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District,
800 South Victoria Avenue,
Ventura, CA 93009
*****
[FR Doc. 82-18682 Filed 7-8-62; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6S60-SO-M
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
(A-9-FRL 2165-8]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS),
State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) on behalf of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District
(AQMD). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of NSPS
and NESHAPS categories. This action
does not create any new regulatory
requirements affecting the public. The
effect of the delegation is to shift
primary program responsibility for the
affected NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories from EPA to local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3,1982.
IV-122
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 133 / Monday. July 12. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
David Jesson, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8220, FTS 454-8220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
GARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPA and
NESHAPS source categories on behalf
of the South Coast AQMD. A delegation
of authority was granted by letter dated
May 24,1982 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd.
Executive Officer,
Air Resources Board.
1709—llth Street,
P.O. Box 2815.
Sacramento. CA 95812.
Dear Mr. Boyd: 1 am pleased to inform you
that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (AQMD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found that the South Coast
AQMD's present programs, rules, and
procedures are acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
NSPS
NSPS
General Provisions
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids

40 CFR Part
60 subpart
A.
Ka
GG
HH
PP.

NESHAPS
General Provisions..
40 CFR Part
61 subpart
In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
since the South Coast AQMD's revised
programs, rules, and procedures are
acceptable:
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants
Nitnc Add Plants
SuHunc Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass A Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Wet Process
Phosphoric Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Superphos-
pnoric Acid Plants.
40 CFR Part
60 subpart
Phosphate FerHtnr Musty: Diammonkim
Phosphate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Super-
phosphate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple
Superphosphate.
Coal Preparaton Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)...
Grain Elevators
•OCFBPart
60 subpart
V.

V.
AA.
DO.
•
NESHAPS
Asbestos ... . .
Beryllium

Motor Firing
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride- _

40CFR
Part 61
subpart
B
c

D
£'
F.

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

PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES

PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS

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

§§ 60.4 and 61.04 [Amended]
1. Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F)
are each amended by revising the
address of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District to read as follows:
*****
fb)' ' •

South Coast Air Quality Management
District, 0150 Flair Drive, El Monte, CA
91731
*****
[FR Doc 82-18683 Filed 7-0-82. 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6S60-SO-M
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

JA-9-FRL 2166-1]

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

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

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

40 CFR Part
eoaubpart
Da
BB
OD.
GO
HH
PP

In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) categories since the Bay Area
AQMD's revised programs, rules, and
procedures are acceptable.
NSPS
General Provisions
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
Incinerators
Portland Cement Rants ,
Nrtnc Acid Plants
SuWuric Ao^Plants
Asphan Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Uqutds
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass & Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Stee! Plants (BOPF) ;.
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smefters
Pnmary Zinc SmeHers
Primary Lead Smellers
Pnmary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. Wet Process
Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphos-
phonc Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Dammonium
Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Super-
phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple
Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
kon and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)...
40 CFR Part
60 subpart
NESHAPS

Mwcufy

40 CFfl Part
61 subpart
A
B
C.
D
E

Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you or the District of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow, Regional Administrator.
cc: Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the Bay Area AQMD, all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the Bay Area AQMD at the address
shown in 40 CFR Parts 60.4 and 61.4.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, el seq.}}
Dated: June 29,1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 82-16684 Filed 7-9-82, MS am]
BILLING CODE «S6O-50-M
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

[A-9-FRL 2166-2]

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

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

SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of new
source performance standards (NSPS)
end national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the California Air Resources
Board (GARB) on behalf of the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control
District (APCD). This action is
necessary to bring the NSPS and
NESHAPS program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of NSPS and NESHAPS
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift primary program
responsibility for the affected NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories from EPA
to local governments.
EFFECT VE DATE: June 3, 1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Jesson, New Source Seciion (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel: (415) 974-8220, FTS 454-«220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
GARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories on behalf
of the San Diego County APCD. A
delegation of authority was granted by
letter dated May 24,1982 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, Air Resources Board, 1709
llth Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento,
CA 95812.
Dear Mr. Boyd: I am pleased to inform you
that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of the San Diego
County Air Pollution Control District (APCD).
We have reviewed your request for
delegation and have found that the San Diego
County APCD's present programs, rules, and
procedures are acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
NSPS

40 CFR Part
60 subpart
A
Da
Ka
CC
DD
GG

NESHAPS
General Provisions..
40 CFH Part
61 subpart
In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS categories since the San
Diego County APCD's revised prognms,
rules, and procedures are acceptable:
NSPS

40 CFR Part
60 subpart
j
K

Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you or the District of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
IV-124
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 133 / Monday, July 12, 1962 / Rules and Regulations
cc: San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District
With respect to San Diego County, all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the San Diego County APCD at the
address shpwn in 40 CFR Parts 60.4 and
61.4.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
•mended (42 U.S.C. 1857. et seq.))
Dated: June 29,1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. B2-196&5 Filed 7-9-82: 6:45 am]
WLUNG CODE M60-50-U

6$
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61

(A-9-FRL 2165-4]

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

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

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

Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface
Coating Operations.
40 CFR Part
eoaubpart
A
Ka
DO
GG
HH
MM
NESHAPS
General Provisions
Beryllium Rocket Motor Fung .
40 CFR Part
61 •ubpart
In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
since your revised programs and procedures
are acceptable:
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fred Steam Generators..
Incinerators —
Portland Cement Plants..
Asphalt Concrete Plants -.
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids..
Secondary Lead Smelters
Sewage Treatment Plants _
Primary Copper Smelters
Primary Zinc Smelters ~ ,
Primary Lead Smelters
Coal Preparation Plants
40 CFR Part
eosubparl
NESHAPS

Beryllium
Mercury

40 CFR Part
61 subpart
B.
C
E.
F

With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the CCHD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS snwce
categories should be directed to the
CCHD at the address shown in the letter
of delegation.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1B57, et seq.}
Dated: June 29,1982.
Sonia F. Crow, •
Regional A dministrator.
|FR Doc. 82-19680 Filed 7-B-82; 8:45 urn]
IV-125
-------
SECTION V
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS

V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Subpart B - Asbestos Standard for the Production and Use of
Crushed Stone

Subpart F - Vinyl Chloride Revisions

Subpart H - Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants

Subpart I - Benzene Emissions from Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants

Subpart J - Benzene Fugitive Emissions

Subpart K - Benzene Emissions from Benzene Storage Vessels

Appendix B - Test Methods

Method 106 - Determination of Vinyl Chloride from Sta-
tionary Sources

Method 107 - Determination of Vinyl Chloride, Content of
Inprocess Wastewater Samples, and Vinyl Chloride Content
of Polyvinyl Chloride Resin, Slurry. Wet Cake, and
Latex Samples.

Method 107A - Determination of Vinyl Chloride Content of
Solvents, Resin-Solvent Solution, Polyvinyl Chloride
Resin, Resin Slurry, Wet Resin, and Latex Samples.

Method 110 - Determination of Benzene from Stationary
Sources; see Subpart H.

Appendix C - Policy and Procedures for Identifying, Assessing,
and Regulating Airborne Substances Posing a Risk
of Cancer.

Supplement A - Determination of Adequate Chromatographic
Peak Resolution; see Subpart H.

Supplement B - Procedure for Field Auditing GC Analysis;
see Subpart H.
V-i
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
ASBESTOS
SUBPART B
-------
PROPOSED RULES
[ 40 CFR Part 61 ]
(FRL 760-2)

NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
Development of Asbestos Standard for the
Production and Use of Crushed Stone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaklng.
SUMARY: The Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) is undertaking a
study of the crushed stone Industry to
determine the extent to which quarrying
operations are being conducted in areas
containing serpentinite rock deposits, to
determine the asbestos content of the
rock being mined, and to determine
whether the public is being exposed to
asbestos from various uses of the rock.
Serpentinite rock from a quarry location
in Rockville, Maryland, has been found
to contain significant quantities of
asbestos, and the use of unbound (with-
out a coating or binding agent) crushed
stone produced from this rock on crushed
stone roads has been shown to result in
high concentrations of asbestos in the
air near these roads. If EPA determines
that the production and use of asbestos-
containing serpentinite rock is causing
asbestos emissions proximate to the
public in a number of locations, stand-
ards will be proposed in the FEDERAL
REGISTER under Section 12 of the Clean
Air Act.
DATE: The information requested in this
notice must be submitted on or before
January 10, 1977.
ADDRESSEE: Information in response
to this Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-
making should be submitted to the Emis-
sion Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, Attention: Mr. Ron R. Goodwin.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
Mr. Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division (MD-
13), Environmental Protection Agency, R«-
learch Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, 919-641-
8271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It
is well documented that airborne asbes-
tos fibers are related to human disease,
specifically pulmonary fibrosis, carcino-
ma, and pleural mesothelioma. The
quantification of the health risk asso-
ciated with specific airborne concentra-
tions, fiber dimensions, and chemical
composition of the fibers, however, is In-
exact. The problem of estimating the
magnitude of this risk to human health
Is further complicated by the 20- to 40-
year latency period between the onset of
exposure and the appearance of disease.
In addition, cancer-causing agents ap-
pear to be "non-threshold" pollutants
so that no level can be set which is en-
tirely safe from cancer risk. Consequent-
ly, EPA believes that exposure to air-
borne asbestos should be reduced to the
greatest extent feasible. A hazardous
emission standard currently exists for
several sources of asbestos. See 40 CFR,
Part 61, Subpart B.
In early 1977, EPA tests indicated that
dust from the crushed stone produced
by a Rockville, Maryland, rock quarry
contained from 0.25 to 0.70 weight per-
cent chrysotile asbestos. Analyses of air
samples taken by EPA and Mt. Sinai
School of Medicine near several sites in
Montgomery County, Maryland, where
unbound crushed stone from this quarry
was In use, revealed ambient air concen-
trations of chrysotile asbestos as high as
17 million fibers per cubic meter and as
high as 6400 nanograms per cubic meter,
depending on distance from the road and
prevailing traffic conditions. These con-
centrations are as much as 1000 times
higher than those usually found in ur-
ban and metropolitan areas.
It is clear from the air monitoring
data that several uses of unbound
cruched stone from the Rockville, Mary-
land, quarry can cause elevated concen-
trations of asbestos in the air. The Mary-
land State Bureau of Air Quality and
Noise Control, the Montgomery County
Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, and the Montgomery County De-
partment of Transportation are taking
measures to control asbestos emissions
from roads and other public areas which
were surfaced with crushed stone from
the Rockville quarry. Warning signs
have been posted in parks and school-
yards where asbestos-containing crushed
stone Is in use and in many cases the
rock has been removed. Dust suppres-
sants and liquid asphalt has been ap-
plied to the roads where the most severe
dust problems existed. The Montgomery
County Department of Transportation
has Issued a moratorium on the use'of
crushed stone from the Rockville quarry
and has notified all public users of the
rock and the largest private users that
the crushed stone they have used is from
the Rockville quarry and may contain
asbestos. Maryland has also found that
the rock in several other quarries in the
State contains asbestos and, as a result,
is developing regulations to restrict the
future use of crushed stone containing
asbestos in certain applications and to
control emissions from certain areas
which have been surfaced with asbestos-
containing crushed stone in an unbound
form.
An analysis of geological survey maps
prepared by the United States Geological
Survey Indicates that the Rockville,
Maryland, rock quarry and a number of
other rock quarries in the United States,
produce crushed stone from serpentinite
rock deposits. Geologists agree that most
serpentinite rock deposits contain at least
a small percentage of chrysotile asbestos.
This leads EPA to believe that a number
of crushed stone plants in the United
States may be producing asbestos-con-
taining crushed stone similar to that pro-
duced by the Rockville, Maryland, rock
quarry. Other types of rock deposits may
also contain asbestos; however, the cor-
relation between other rock types and the
presence of asbestos is not as clear.
EPA is therefore beginning a study to
determine the extent of the problem of
asbestos emissions that may exist from
the use of crushed stone produced from
serpentinite rock. This study is being
conducted in response to requests from
officials of Montgomery County, Mary-
land ; two Congressmen from the State of
Maryland; and the Environmental De-
fense Fund. The purpose of this study Is
to determine whether EPA should de-
velop a Federal standard to limit asbestos
emissions from this source. In this study,
EPA will Identify serpentinite rock quar-
ries within the United States, collect and
analyze rock samples from these quar-
ries, determine whether elevated levels
of asbestos In the air are occurring due
to the use of crushed stone containing
various asbestos contents, and determine
how widespread the problem appears to
be.
Currently both the State and local
agencies have indicated their intention
to take appropriate measures to control
this problem in Maryland. If EPA's Study
determines that this problem does not
warrant work on proposal of a Federal
standard, EPA assistance will be avail-
able to local agencies on a case-by-case
basis to deal with this problem.
EPA Is requesting that all interested
persons submit factual information con-
cerning crushed stone produced' from
serpentinite rock, particularly informa-
tion on Its production, sale, and use in
various applications; its asbestos con-
tent; and public exposure to ambient air
asbestos emissions resulting from its use
In various applications. It is expected
that such Information will assist EPA in
determining whether to formulate any
regulations.

Dated: November 3, 1977.

DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
[PR Doc.77-32666 Piled ll-9-77;8:45 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 41, NO. 117—THUtSDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1977
V-B-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
VINYL CHLORIDE
SUBPART F
-------
PROPOSED RULES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40CFRPart61]
[PBL 728-C]
VINYL CHLORIDE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The proposed amendments
we being made to the vinyl chloride
standard which has promulgated Octo-
ber 21, 1976, and would apply to new
and existing ethylene dlchloride, vinyl
chloride, and polyvinyl chloride plants.
The standard and the proposed amend-
ments implement the Clean Air Act and
are based on the Administrator's deter-
mination that vinyl chloride is a hazard-
ous air pollutant. The intended effect of
the proposed amendments is to require
Improved effectiveness of control tech-
nology at existing plants, impose more
stringent emission limits on new sources,
and prohibit an emission Increase within
the vicinity of an existing source due to
the construction of a new source.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 1,1977.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sub-
mitted (preferably m triplicate) to the
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Environmental Protection
'Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, Attention: Mr. Don R. Good-
win.
All public comments received may be
Inspected and copied at the Public In-
formation Reference Unit (EPA Li-
brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street, 8W.,
Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
Telephone No. 919-688-8146, ext. 271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND

On October 21, 1976, EPA promulgated
a standard for vinyl chloride under the
authority of section 112(b) (1) (B) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (41 PR
46561). The standard applies to ethyl-
ene dlchloride, vinyl chloride, and poly-
vinyl chloride plants.
On November 19, 1976, the Environ-
mental Defense Fund (EDF) petitioned
the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit to review
the standard. Motions to intervene were
subsequently filed on behalf of the So-
ciety of the Plastics Industry, Inc., the
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and
were granted by order of the Court on
January 18, 1977. On March 24. 1977,
EDF and EPA moved to dismiss the
proceedings In view of a settlement
agreement requiring EPA to take certain
additional actions. These Include a re-
statement of EPA's policy for regulating
carcinogens under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act; the proposal of amend-
' ments which would require Increased
efficiency of existing control equipment,
require more stringent control at new
sources, and prohibit increases In emis-
sions within the vicinity of an existing
source due to new construction; and the
Initiation of a review of the vinyl chlo-
ride standard three years after the pro-
mulgation of the amendments.
ZERO EMISSION GOAL

The vinyl chloride standard has been
criticized for allegedly placing unwar-
ranted emphasis on technological rather
than health considerations. Although
EPA disagrees with this criticism, it
seems appropriate to restate EPA's ap-
proach to the regulation of carcinogens
in general and under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, and to explain how the
vinyl chloride standard and the pro-
posed amendments are consistent with
this approach and with the protection
of public health.
On May 25, 1976, EPA published In-
terim procedures and guidelines for
health risk and economic impact assess-
ments of suspected carcinogens (41 FR
21402), which define EPA's approach to
regulatory action for suspect carcino-
gens. As indicated in that publication,
there are two steps involved in the deci-
sion-making process with regard to the
regulation of a potential carcinogen. Al-
though different EPA statutory author-
ities impose different requirements. In
general two decisions must be made with
regard to each potential carcinogen. The
first decision is whether a particular sub-
stance constitutes a cancer risk. The
second decision is what regulatory ac-
tion, if any, should be taken to reduce
that risk.
In deciding whether a cancer risk
exists, EPA will consider a substance a
presumptive cancer risk when it causes
a statistically significant excess Incidence
of benign or malignant tumors in hu-
mans or animals. In the case of vinyl
chloride, EPA evaluated all available
data and concluded that a cancer risk
exists. In deciding how and whether to
regulate, EPA examined section 112 of
the Clean Air Act. Section 112 of the Act
requires that emission standards be set
"at the level which in the judgment of
the Administrator provides an ample
margin of safety to protect the public
health from such hazardous air pollut-
ants." This requirement appears to as-
sume that each pollutant regulated .will
have a threshold level of effects below
which no health effects will occur. As
explained in the documentation for the
current standard (40 FR 59532, Decem-
ber 24, 1975; 41 FR 46560, October 21,
1976), it has not been possible to deter-
mine If there is a threshold level of
effects for vinyl chloride and it is not
certain that such a threshold may be
determined in the near future. In the
absence of strong evidence to the con-
trary, then, the only level of vinyl chlo-
ride which would appear to be absolutely
protective of health is zero, which may
be achievable only by banning vinyl chlo-
ride emissions completely. That, In turn.
would require closing the entire industry.
As explained in the eailler rulemaking It
Is not clear that Congress would have
Intended this result, so Instead EPA re-
quired the lowest level achievable using
technological means. (See 40 FR 59534
and 41 FR 46562).
In order to Insure that the standard
continues to approach the only level of
emissions which is known to be abso-
lutely protective of health, namely zero
emissions, EPA is proposing amendment!
which require more efficient use of exist-
ing control technology at existing plants
and more effective controls at new
plants, and which encourage technology
to reach this goal without banning vinyl
chloride.
MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING
SOURCES
EPA is proposing amendments which
would require sources presently subject
to a 10 ppm emission limit to reduce
emissions to 5 ppm within three years of
promulgation of the amendments. The
affected sources Include ethylene dlchlo-
ride purification; vinyl chloride forma-
tion and purification; reactors, strippers;
mixing, weighing, and holding contain-
ers; monomer recovery systems; and
fugitive emissions which have been cap-
tured in accordance with the existing
regulation.* If the owner or operator of
a source believed that a control system
would not be capable of meeting the B
ppm limit, he would be able to request
that the Administrator approve an in-
terim emission limit for that source.
Such requests would have to be made one
year before the compliance date. In re-
questing an interim emission limit, the
owner or operator would have to submit
supportive data and meet with EPA to
discuss his particular problems In attain-
ing compliance. The meeting would be
announced in the FEDERAL REGISTER and
any interested party would be allowed to
attend and submit written or oral com-
ments. If an interim emission limit were
granted to the source, the required emis-
sion level would be specified in a written
notification from EPA and in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER. Each source granted an
interim emission limit would be reviewed
every three years to determine whether
emissions could be reduced to 5 ppm, or
at least to a lower interim emission limit
In proposing the reduction from 10 to
5 ppm, it is not EPA's intent that a con-
trol system which has been installed to
•As an explanatory note, paragraph (b) of
{ 61.65 contains nine fugitive emission regu-
lations. For several of these, the fugitive
emissions are required to be captured and
ducted to a control device meeting 19 ppm.
According to the proposed amendments, the
emissions from this control device would
have to be reduced to 5 ppm In the same way
any other source currently required to m«tt
10 ppm would have to do. Bather than In-
corporating both tbe 6 and 10 ppm emission
limits In each paragraph In 561.65(b), a
separate paragraph (c) containing .the««
emission limits Is being added to i 61.66. All
the other paragraphs In (b) are orow-
referenced In paragraph (o).
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 106—THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977
V-F-2
-------
PROPOSED RULES
meet the 10 ppm emission limit be re-
moved and replaced with another more
«fflctent control system or that a second
control system be added behind the first
control system. The purpose of the pro-
posed amendment Is to force owners and
operators to maximize the effectiveness
of existing control systems.
Afou fljraiHOBfT STAKMKM FOR N«w
SOURCES

The proposed amendments would also
require more stringent controls for new
sources; I.e., sources for which construc-
tion is commenced after the date of pro-
posal of these amendments. According
to S 61.02 of the General Provisions,
"commenced" means that an owner or
operator has undertaken a continuous
program of construction or modification
or that an owner or operator has entered
into a contractual obligation to under-
take and complete, within a reasonable
time, a continuous program of construc-
tion or modification.
New sources of types which would be
subject to the 10 ppm emission limit
under the current standard would be
required under the amendments to meet
a S ppm emission limit at the time of
startup. With new sources there would be
no provision allowing requests for EPA
approval of an Interim emission limit.
New sources would be required to meet
the more stringent emission limit at the
time of startup, because they have an
opportunity to design their equipment to
meet the 5 ppm emission limit at the time
construction Is commenced. Existing
sources, on the other hand, require *-imp
to muTimigA the effectiveness of their
control systems.
The proposed amendment would also
require ethylene dlchloride-vlnyl chlor-
ide plants to control emissions from new
oxychlorinatlon reactors to 5 ppm. This
requirement Is based on installation of
a recycling and oxygen feed system with
an Incinerator or equivalent control de-
vice. The current standard limits emis-
sions from the oxychlorinatlon reactor
to 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 Ib/lb) of the 100 per-
cent ethylene dlcMoride product from
the oxychlorinatlon reactor. This emis-
sion limit can be met by changing proc-
ess parameters, rather than installing a
control device. During the development
of the current standard EPA considered
requiring existing sources to control
emissions with an Incinerator or equiva-
lent technology, but rejected this ap-
proach because a large quantity of fuel
would be required to reduce emissions
from a relatively small source. An exist-
ing oxychlorinatlon reactor typically has
a large volume, low hydrocarbon effluent
(as stream, and large quantities of sup-
plemental fuels would be required for
combustion of its emissions.
A new plant can reduce the volume of
.its effluent gas stream and make It more
concentrated by recycling the gas stream
and using oxygen Instead of air to feed
into the process. (J, 4) the current
standard was not based on this technol-
ogy because It was not considered feasi-
ble to retrofit existing plants so that they
could use oxygen Instead of air. The re-
cycling and oxygen feed methodolgy is
considered feasible for new oxychlorlna-
tton reactors because It can be Incorpo-
rated at the time of construction. Since
the use of this technology would elimin-
ate the supplemental fuel problem re-
ferred to above, It Is EPA's Judgment that
new oxychlorlnation reactors should be
controlled to the same extent that Is
proposed for other emission sources.
The proposed amendment also Includes
a more stringent emission limit for new
polyvlnyl chloride resins being processed
In equipment following the stripping
operation. That Is, the amendment
•would apply to resins for which produc-
tion for the purpose of marketing was
commenced after the proposal of the
amendment. The amendment would re-
quire all new resins except new disper-
sion resins to be stripped to 100 ppm and
new dispersion resins to be stripped to
500 ppm. These limits for new products
•would be one-fourth of the limits con-
tained In the standard for existing prod-
ucts. Consistent with the current stand-
ard, the amendment would permit the
use of control devices rather than strip-
ping technology to meet the emission
limit, in this case equipment being used
to process all new resins except new dis-
persion resins would have to be con-
trolled to' 0.01 kg/kg product and the
equipment used for new dispersion resins
would have to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg
product.
A "new source" Is denned in 40 CFR
61.02 as a stationary source, the con-
struction or modification of which is
commenced after proposal of a standard.
There was some question based on this
definition as to whether the amendment
to the stripping standard for new sources
should apply to new polyvlnyl chloride
resins or the Installation of new equip-
ment following the stripper. If the ap-
plicability of the amendment for new
sources were based on the installation of
new equipment following the stripper, it
would be difficult to determine what con-
stitutes a new source at an existing plant.
This is based on the reasoning that the
stripping standard requires that an
equipment following the stripper in the
process be controlled as a unit The series
of equipment following the stripper in-
cludes pumps and conveying equipment
which might be expected to be replaced
on a frequent and routine basis. Replac-
ing one of these pieces of equipment
would In effect cause the whole series of
equipment following the stripper to have
to meet the standard for new sources. In
other words, an resins processed in the
series of the equipment would have to
meet the lower standard even though
only a minor part of the-equlpment had
been replaced.
EPA decided that a more reasonable
and direct approach was to make the
proposed amendment apply to the pro-
duction of new polyvlnyl chloride resins.
This is based on the reasoning that emis-
sions from the equipment following the
stripper are a function of the amount of
vinyl chloride left in the resin after the
stripping operation is completed; I.e.,
the resin is the source of the emissions
rather than the equipment The same
• equipment can be used to process differ-
ent resin grades. Variations In the emis-
sions from the equipment are a function
of the resin being processed rather than
the characteristics of the equipment. The
control technology which is used for the
equipment following the stripper is like-
wise more directly linked to the resin
than the equipment. Stripping is used to
control the emissions due to the vinyl
chloride In the resin before the resin is
processed in the equipment.
Before the hazards of vinyl chloride
became known, stripping technology was
employed by polyvlnyl chloride manu-
facturers to recover raw materials for
economic purposes. As a result of a
standard promulgated by the Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Administration
(39 PR 35890), some companies investi-
gated Improvements in stripping meth-
odology for emission control purposes.
U)
Optimum stripping consists of a set of
operating conditions which must be de-
veloped experimentally on an Individual
basis for the many resins. In developing
the current standard, EPA recognized
that stripping technology for dispersion
resins had not been refined to the same
extent as It had been for other resins and
that there was more difficulty In strip-
ping dispersion resins than other resins.
For this reason a less stringent emission
limit was established for dispersion res-
ins. Dispersion resins are permitted a
higher emission limit under the proposed
amendment for the same reason.
EPA believes that for some resins,
companies have already developed strip-
ping technology which would meet the
proposed amendment (2) For other
resins, the proposed standard would re-
quire additional Improvement In strip-
ping technology. If stripping technology
has not been developed to the extent
necessary to meet the proposed amend-
ment for a particular resin, the manu-
facturer would have the option of de-
veloping the technology or not producing
the resin.
The current standard, unlike' the
proposed amendment, was not based on
the premise that an owner or operator
would have the option of not producing
a particular resin. It is EPA's judgment
that the owner or operator making a new
product has more freedom of choice than
the owner or operator already making a
particular product In selecting those
resins which are to be produced. EPA's
standard would be Included In the
variables under consideration when
decisions are being made as to which
resins are to be produced.
The proposed amendment would apply
to any new source, whether it constituted
replacement of an existing source in an
existing plant, the expansion of an exist-
ing plant, or part of an entirely new
plant. That is, If a new oxychlorinatlon
reactor or a clew polyvlnyl chloride re-
actor were Installed at an existing plant,
ft would be subject to the emission limits
for new sources. This means that as
existing sources are gradually replaced
with new sources In an existing plant,
fCDERAL RfOISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 106—THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977

V-F-3
-------
PROPOSED RULES
the overall emission level from that
existing plant would be reduced.

EMISSION OFFSET

Because the present vinyl chloride
standard focuses on reducing emissions
rather than attaining a particular am-
bient air quality concentration, there Is
no provision for limiting the size of
plants or the clustering of plants In a
geographical area. The doubling of the
size of an existing plant or the construc-
tion of a new plant beside an existing
plant would considerably increase the
ambient air concentrations of vinyl
chloride in the vicinity of the plant (s)
even If the vinyl chloride standard was
met. EPA determined at the time of
promulgation of the current standard
that the costs of prohibiting the produc-
tion of vinyl chloride and polyvinyl
chloride were too high and the continued
operation of existing plants should be
allowed. EPA believes, however, that the
standard should Include a mechanism
for prohibiting an increase in ambient
concentrations of vinyl chloride due to
new construction in areas where existing
sources are already located.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing an
amendment which would prohibit an in-
crease in emissions within 8 kilometers
(km) (approximately five miles) of an
existing source due to the construction
of a new emission source. This means
that if a new source were added to an
existing plant, the Increase in emissions
due to that new source would have to be
offset by a reduction In emissions from
other existing sources within that plant
or at other plants within 8 km of the
construction site of the new source. Simi-
larly, a new plant could not be con-
structed within 8 km of an existing
plant (s) unless the emission increase
due to the new plant were offset by an
emission reduction at the existing plant
or plants. This provision may result in
few existing plants being expanded and
few new plants being constructed in the
vicinity of existing plants. However, the
proposed amendment does not preclude
this possibility.
The offset provision would apply only
to new construction which results in an
Increase in production rate. Replacing or
adding equipment such as pumps, com-
pressors, agitators', sampling equipment
and unloading hoses is a routine practice
at existing plants. Additions of equip-
ment of this nature would, in and of it-
self, be expected to result in little, if any,
Increase in emissions. In EPA's judg-
ment, a plant should not be required to
prove this fact each time one of these
pieces of equipment is added. The addi-
tion of this type of equipment in con-
Junction with major process equipment,
however, is likely to result in both an in-
crease in emissions as well as an In-
crease in production rate, and is there-
fore covered by the offset provision.
If the offset provision were adopted,
the reduction in emissions could be
achieved In the production rate of an
existing source or sources. The baseline
emission rate would be determined based
on the maximum production rate which
had been attained by each existing
source. The allowable emission rate for
each source would be based on the maxi-
mum production rate at which that
source would be operated In the future.
Also, If the emissions from an existing
source were already below the emission
limit applicable to It, the proposed
amendment would give the source credit
for the difference between the emission
limit and the actual emission level. That
Is the baseline emission rate would be
based on the standard rather than on an
emission test. It Is EPA's judgment that
this is a more equitable approach than
penalizing a source which has already
taken measures to reduce emissions below
the standard. Such a source would have
less room for further reducing emissions.
The emission limits applicable to both
the existing and new sources Involved
In the offset arrangement would be con-
tained In the approval of new construc-
tion granted by the Administrator under
40 CPB 61.08.
EPA believes that a policy of no net
increase In emissions due to new con-
struction is justified because of the haz-
ardous nature of vinyl chloride. How-
ever, EPA recognizes the potential diffi-
culties In Implementing such a policy
and Interested persons are urged to sub-
mit comments and factual Information
relating to this policy.
REVIEW OF STANDARD
EPA plans to undertake a full-scale
review of Subpart P of 40 CPR Part 61
beginning three years~from the promul-
gation of any amendments. In the study
EPA will review Information concerning
technological advances In the control of
vinyl chloride emissions to determine
what further changes might then be ap-
propriate to move toward the goal of
zero vinyl chloride emissions. EPA will
also consider recent health data to de-
termine whether the approach for regu-
lating vinyl chloride should be altered.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The proposed amendment, In contrast
to the current standard, would encourage
the development of new technology and
improvements in existing technology and
would have the following three positive
environmental Impacts: (1) further re-
duction of emissions at existing plants,
(2) no increase in emissions within 8 km
of an existing source, and (3) lower
emissions from new sources than would
be accomplished through the current
standard regardless of the "construction
site. These environmental Impacts would
provide progress toward the ultimate
goal of zero emissions without banning
vinyl chloride, and in the process would
provide additional protection of public
health by further minimizing the health
risks to the people Hying in the vicinity
of existing plants and to any additional
people who are exposed as a result of new
construction.
Specifically, for those existing sources
which are currently subject to a 10 ppm
emission limit, emissions would be re-
duced by half within three years after
the promulgation date of these amend-
ments. At both an existing average-sized
ethylene dlchloride-vlnyl chloride plant
and an existing average-sized polyvinyl
chloride plant, which contain other
sources than the ones required to meet
a 5 ppm emission limit, It Is estimated
this will have the effect of reducing total
emissions by less than one percent. Emis-
sions at existing plants would be further
reduced as existing oxychlorlnatlon re-
actors are replaced with new oxychlori-
nation reactors and as new polyvinyl
chloride resins are preduced to replace
existing ones.
Under the proposed amendment, emis-
sions from new plants would be consider-
ably lower than they would be under the
current standard. For a typical new
average-sized ethylene dlchlorlde-vlnyl
chloride plant (318x10' kg/yr or 700
XlO" Ib/yr produced), the hourly emis-
sions would be 5.1 kg (11.5 Ib) Instead
of 10.3 kg (23.1 Ib). For a typical new
average-sized dispersion polyvinyl chlo-
ride plant (46x10* kg/yr or 100x10*
Ib/yr production),.the emissions would
be about 9 kg/hr (20 Ib/hr) Instead of
17.5 kg/hr (39 Ib/hr) and for a typical
new average-sized suspension polyvinyl
chloride (68x10* kg/yr or 150x10* Ib/yr
production) the emissions would be 13.5
kg/hr) (30 Ib/hr) Instead of 16 kg/hr
(36 Ib/hr). These emissions are calcu-
lated based on the emission factors pub-
lished In the documentation for the ex-
isting standard. (1) Ambient air concen-
trations are expected to be reduced
proportionately.
The only negative environmental Im-
pact would be an Increase In hydrogen
chloride emissions at ethylene dlchlo-
rlde-vlnyl chloride plants If incineration
were used to control emissions from new
oxychlorlnation reactors. However, due
to the corrosion problems which would
otherwise occur on plant property and
In the community, plants are expected
to use scrubbers to control the hydrogen
chloride emissions. The proposed amend-
ment is not expected to have a signifi-
cant impact on energy consumption.
ECONOMIC IMPACT

The potential economic Impacts of the
proposed standard are:
(1) Costs for research and develop-
ment of Improved methodology for oper-
ation of existing control technology so
that it can be used to meet the 5 ppm
emission limit.
(2) Costs for research and develop-
ment of Improved stripping techniques
to meet the standard for new polyvinyl
chloride resins.
(3) Cost of research and development
or licensing for converting over to the
oxygen system for a new oxychlorlnation
reactor.
(4) Possibly increased transportation
costs of raw materials In the case that
the offset policy results In the construc-
tion of a new plant farther from an
existing plant than It otherwise would
have been.
(5) Costs of building a new plant more
than 8 km from an existing plant In the
event that the offset requirement pre-
cluded the expansion of an existing
plant.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 47, NO. 106—THURSDAY, JUNE J, 1977
V-F-4
-------
PROPOSED RU1ES
(6) Delay In the production of a par-
ticular resin due to time spent develop-
ing stripping technology for that resin.
(7) No growth In the production of a
particular resin due to the Inability to
strip that resin to required levels.
The types of costs which have been
named would be difficult to quantify. The
costs would be expected to vary consider-
ably from one plant to another depend-
ing on the amount of research and de-
velopment than had already been done,
the extent to which technology could be
transferred from other plants and proc-
esses, and the plans for new construction.
One area In which cost estimates can
be generated is the use of an oxygen-
recycle Oxychlorination process as op-
posed to an air-based system. The pro-
posed amendment does not require the
use of the oxygen-recycle system, but
many plants would be expected to em-
ploy this system to avoid the high costs
of Incinerating the high volume gas
stream from a typical air-based system.
The primary cost of using the oxygen-
recycle system Is the cost of the oxygen
Itself. The cost of the oxygen for a par-
ticular plant would depend on whether
the plant was located where there is a
considerable demand for both the oxygen
and nitrogen products of air separation.
According to one recent article, if it is
assumed that such a demand exists, the
cost of the oxygen ($14.34/ton) would
be approximately equivalent to the cost
of compressing air for use in the air-
based system. (1) Another report In
which this assumption was not made and
the economics of the air and oxygen sys-
tems were being compared, it was con-
cluded that overall production economics
"favor the oxygen process even If vent
(as incineration would not be required
for an air-based plant since the sum of
all remaining advantages offered by
oxygen-based plant operation more than
outweighs the Incremental cost for the
oxygen feed." (2)
Miscellaneous: The Administrator in-
vites comments on all aspects of the pro-
posed amendments.
(Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, sec. 4(a) of
Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1886 (42 U.8.C. 1857C-
7) and section 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act,
sec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-148, 84 BJat. 604 as
•mended by sec. (16) (c) (2) of PUD. L. 91-604.
•4 Stat. 1713 (42 U.S.C. 1867 g(a)). Sees.
61.67 and 61.68 also proposed under the au-
thority of section 114 of the Clean Air Act,
as added by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84
Stat. 1687 and amended by Pub. L. 93-310.
sec. 6(a)(4), 88 Stat. 369 (42 UB.C.
1867C-8).)
Nora.—The Environmental Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis
under Executive Orders 11821 and 11940 and
OMB Circular A-107.

Dated: May 27,1977.

DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
BlFEBENCBB
(1) Standard Support and Environmental
Impact Statement: Emission Standard for
Vinyl Chloride. EPA-460 12-76-009, October,
1976.
(9) "Ooodrioh Reports Impressive Progress
In Solving Vinyl Chloride Problem," Ameri-
can Point and Coatings Journal, Vol. 60, No.
81, January 12, 1076, p. 24.
(3) E. W. Wlmer and R. E. Feathers, "Ox-
ygen Gives Low Cost VCM," Hydrocarbon
Processing, March 1076, pp. 81-84.
(4) Peter Reich, "Air or Oxygen For
VCM?," Hydrocarbon Processing, March,
1876, pp. 86-80.

It is proposed that Subpart F of 40
CPR Part 61 be amended as follows:
1. In $ 61.08, paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:

§ 61.08 Approval by the Administrator.
• • • • •

-------
PROPOSED RULES
of proposal of these amendments), 10
ppm until (date three years after pro-
mulgation of these amendments) and 5
ppm after (date three years after pro-
mulgation of these amendments).
(2) Kach source for which construc-
tion commenc'-d after June 2, 1977, 5
ppm.
(d) Monomer recovery system. Except
as provided in § 61.65(a), the concentra-
tion of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases
discharged to the atmosphere from each
monomer recovery system is not to ex-
ceed the appropriate concentration as
follows:
(1) Each source for which construc-
tion had commenced on or before (date
of proposal of these amendments), 10
ppm until (date three years after pro-
mulgation of these amendments) and 5
ppm after (date three years after pro-
mulgation of these amendments).
(2) Each source for which construc-
tion commenced after June 2, 1977, 5
ppm.
(e) Sources following the stripper(s):
The following requirements apply to
emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmos-
phere from the combination of all
sources following the stripper(s) [or the
reactor(s) If the plant has no stripper]
In the plant process flow Including, but
not limited, to centrifuges, concentra-
tors, blend tanks, filters, dryers, conveyor
air discharges, • baggers, storage con-
tainers, and inprocess wastewater.
(1) In polyvinyl chloride plants using
stripping technology to control vinyl
chloride emissions:
(1) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl
chloride resin which have been produced
by the plant on or before June 2, 1977,
the weighted average residual vinyl
chloride concentration In all the grades
processed through the stripping opera-
tion on each calendar day, measured Im-
mediately after the stripping operation
Is completed, may not exceed the appro-
priate emission limit as follows:
(A) 2,000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride
dispersion resins, excluding latex resins;
(B) 400 ppm for all other polyvinyl
chloride resins, including latex resins,
averaged separately for each type of
resin;
(ii) For a grade or grades of polyvinyl
chloride resin which have not been pro-
duced by the plant on or before June 2,
1977, the .weighted average residual
vinyl chloride concentration In all the
grades processed through the stripping
operation on each calendar day, meas-
ured Immediately after the stripping op-
eration is completed, may not exceed the
appropriate emission limit as follows:
(A) 500 ppm for polyvinyl chloride
dispersion resins, excluding latex resins;
(B) 100 ppm for all other polyvinyl
chloride resins, Including latex resins,
averaged separately for each type of
resin; or
(2) In polyvinyl chloride plants con-
trolling vinyl chloride emissions with
technology other than stripping or In
addition to stripping:
(i) For sources being used to process
a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride
resin all of which had been produced by
the plant on or before June 2, 1977:
(A) 2 g/kg (0.003 Ib/lb) product from
the strlpper(s) [or reactor(s) If the
plant has no strlpper(s) ] for dispersion
polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex
resins, with the product determined on
a dry solids basis;
(B) 0.4 g/kg (0.004 Ib/lb) product
from the stripper(s) (or reactor(s) If
the plant has no stripper (s)) for all
other polyvinyl chloride resins, Including
latex resins, with the product deter-
mined on a dry solids basis.
(11) For sources being used to process
any grade of polyvinyl chloride resin not
produced by the plant on or before June
2, 1977:
(A) 0.5 g/kg (0.0005 Ib/lb) product
from the stripper(s) (or reactor(s) If the
plant has no stripper (s)) for dispersion
polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding la-
tex resins, with the product determined
on a dry solids basis;
(B) 0.1 g/kg. (0.0001 Ib/lb) product
from the strippers (or reactor(s) If the
plant has no stripper(s)) for all other
polyvinyl chloride resins, Including
latex resins, with the product deter-
mined on a dry solids basis.
(f) The requirements of paragraphs
(b), (c), and (d) of this section do not
apply to equipment that has been
opened, is out of operation, and met the
requirement In S 61.65(b) (6) (1) before
being opened.
5. Section 61.65 is amended as follows:
A. By replacing the phrase "10 ppm"
with the phrase "Uie appropriate emis-
sion limit specified In 5 61.65(c)" In
paragraphs (b) (1) (11). (b) (2), (b) (3)
(1), (b)(3)(li), (b)(3)(Ul), (b)(3)(lv),
-------
(2V A suggested interim emission limit
and description of the methodology for
attaining that limit.
(b) Any owner or operator of a source
who has submitted to the Administrator
a written request for an Interim emis-
sion limit In accordance with { 61.72(a).
shall within 60 days of the date of the
written request meet with the Admin-
istrator concerning the Information con-
tained In the request. The meeting is to
be open to Interested persons, who are
to be allowed to submit oral or written
testimony relevant to compliance of the
source.
(c) The Administrator will within 120
days of receipt of the written request
required by paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, notify the owner or operator In
writing of approval or denial of approval
of an interim emission limit.
(d) If an interun emission limit is ap-
proved the notification is to include the
level of the Interim emission limit, which
may be the level requested or a more
stringent one.
(e) A determination to deny approval
of an interim emission limit Is to set
forth the specific grounds on which such
denial is based.
(f) Approval for any Interim emission
Omit granted for any source under
( 61.72(c) shall expire three years from
the date of issuance. The owner or op-
erator may request an extension of ap-
proval for an Interim emission limit or a
lower interim emission limit. The re-
quest is to be In writing, is to be sub-
mitted within six months prior to a year
before the expiration date and Is to In-
clude the Information listed In 8 61.72
(b), (c), (d), and (e) are to apply.
9. A new {61.73 is added to read as
follows:
| 61.73 Offset of emissions due to new
construction.
(a) No owner or operator is to con-
struct a new source which alone or In
combination with other sources •being
constructed at the same time results in
an Increased production rate unless he
demonstrates to the Administrator's sat-
isfaction that such construction will not
cause an Increase in vinyl chloride emis-
sions within 8 Ion of any other source
which is subject to this subpart.
(b) Reduction in production rate is
an allowable mechanism for attaining an
offset In emissions.
(c) The baseline emission rate Is to be
determined based on the level of emis-
sions allowable by the standard.
(d) Reducing emissions from an In-
terim emission limit to the standard for a
source Is not an acceptable means of
achieving an emission offset.
(e) In the application for approval of
construction required by 5 61.07, owners
or operators of sources subject to this
subpart shall include, In addition to the
Information required by 5 61.07, the fol-
lowing information:
(1) The name, address, and location
of any plant subject to this subpart
which is located within 8 km of the pro-
posed location of the source to be con-
structed.
PROPOSED RUIES

(f) The emission limits applicable to
both the new source (s) and the source (a)
at which emissions are being reduced to
balance the Increase in emissions due to
the new construction are to be estab-
lished by the Administrator in the ap-
proval for construction required by
S 61.08.
(Sees. 112 and SOI (a) of the Clean Air Act.
see. 4(a) of Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84 Btat. 1688;
aeo. 3 of Pub. L. No. 60-148, 81 Stat. 604 (42
UJS.C. 18S5C-7, 1857g(a)). Bees. 61.67 and
61.68 also Issued under sec. 114 of the Clean
Air Act, sec 4(a) of Pub. L. No. 91-604, 84
Stat. 1687 (43 UJ3.C..1867C-9).)

[PR Doc.77-16672 Piled 6-1-77:8:46 am]

FEDERAL IEOISTER, VOL.-42, NO. 106-

-THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1*77
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

140 CFR Part 61 ]
[PBL 775-2]
VINYL CHLORIDE

National Emission Standards for Hazard-
ous Air Pollutants; Extension of Com-
ment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The deadline for submittal
of comments on the amendments to the
vinyl chloride standard which were pro-
posed on June 2, 1977 (42 FR 28154). to
being delayed from August 1,1977, to Au-
gust 19, 1977. The Society of Plastics
Industry, Inc., because of the time re-
quired to make the proceedings from the
public hearing available, has asked that
the deadline for comments be delayed so
that they will have ample opportunity to
review the proceedings.

DATE: Comments must be received on
or before August 19,1977.

ADDRESS: Comments should be sub-
mitted (preferably in triplicate) to the
Emission Standards and Engineering Di-
vision (MD-13), Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park.
N.C. 27711, attention: Mr. Don R. Good-
win.
All public comments received may be
Inspected and copies at the Public In-
formation Reference Unit (EPA Li-
brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On June 2, 1977 (42 FR 28154), the En-
vironmental Protection Agency proposed
amendments to the vinyl chloride stand-
ard which was promulgated under the
authority of section 112 of the Clean Air
Act on October 21, 1976 (42 FR 46561).
The notice of proposal requested public
comments on the amendments by Au-
gust 1,1977.
On July 19, 1977, a public hearing on
the proposal was held In Washington,
D.C. The proceedings were made avail-
able to the Agency on July 28, 1977. Ad-
ditional time was required to make copies
of the proceedings and distribute them
to Interested parties. The Agency be-
lieves that an extension of the comment
period through August 19, 1977, is justi-
fiable.

Dated: August 2,1977.

EDWARD F. TURK,
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management.
[FR Doc.77-22981 Piled 8-9-77:8:48 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 154—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1977
V-F-7
-------
[ 40 CFR Part 61 ]
[PRL 786-8]
VINYL CHLORIDE

National Emission Standards for Hazard-
ous Air Pollutants; Extension of Com-
ment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule, extension of
comment period.
SUMMARY: The deadline for submittal
of comments on the amendments to the
vinyl chloride standard which were pro-
posed on June 2, 1977 (42 FR 28154',
is being delayed from August 19, 1977,
to September 23, 1977. Due to the com-
plexity of the issues w'hich have been
raised with regard to the proposed
amendments, EPA believes that addi-
tional time is needed for submission of
factual information to the Agency which
can be used in evaluating the proposal.
DATE: Comments must be postmarked
on or before September 23, 1977.
ADDRESS: Comments should be submit-
ted (preferably in triplicate) to the
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. 27711. attention: Mr. Don R. Good-
win.
All public comments received may be
inspected and copied at the Public In-
formation Reference Unit (EPA Li-
brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, telephone
919-541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On June 2, 1977 (42 FR 28154), the En-
vironmental Protection Agency proposed
amendments to the vinyl chloride stand-
ard which was promulgated under the
authority of section 112 of the Clean Air
Act on October 21, 1976 (42 FR 46561).
The notice of proposal requested public
comments on the amendments by Au-
gust 1, 1977. On August 10, 1977 (42 FR
40452), in response to a request by the
Society of Plastics Industry, Inc., EPA
delayed the deadline for submittal of
comments on the proposed amendments
until August 19, 1977. The purpose of the
delay was to allow ample opportunity for
interested parties to review and comment
on the transcript of the proceedings from
the public hearing held on July 19, 1977.
A number of technological and legal
Issues have been raised on the proposed
amendments both in statements made at
the public hearing and in written com-
ments received by the Agency. Because
of the complexity of these issues, EPA
has decided to extend the comment pe-
PROPOSED RULES

riod to allow additional time for submit-
ting factual data to the Agency which
can be used in evaluating the proposal.
EPA believes that an extension of the
comment period through September 23,
1977, is needed for this purpose.
Dated: August 26,1977.
EDWARD F. TUERK,
Assistant Administrator for
Air and Waste Management.
|PB Doc.77-25876 Piled 8-6-77;8:45 am)
KDUAL tMISTM, VOL. 42, NO. 173—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBEI 7, 1»77
V-F-8
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM
M ALEIC ANHYDRIDE PLANTS
SUBPART H
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday. April 18,1980 / Proposed Rules
40CFRPart$1
[FBL 1376]

National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Malelc Anhydride
Plants

AOCNCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.

SUMMARY: The proposed standard
would limit benzene emissions from
maleic anhydride plants. Emissions from
existing sources would have to be
reduced to 0.30 kilogram of benzene per
100 lilograms of benzene fed to the
reactor. No detectable benzene
emissions would be allowed from new
sources. this can be done by substituting
another feedstock, such as n-butane, for
benzene. Benzene emissions during a
control system malfunction could not
exceed those that would occur if the
benzene feed were shut off to all
reactors as soon as practicable after the
malfunction began. A new test Method
110 is proposed for the determination of
benzene emissions from stationary
sources.
The proposed standard implements
the Clean Air Act and is based on the
Administrator's determination of June 8,
1977, that benzene presents a significant
carcinogenic risk to human health as a
result of air emissions from one or more
stationary source categories and is
therefore a hazardous air pollutant. The
intent of the standard is to protect the
public health with an ample margin of
•afety.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
both the listing of benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant, which affects
all benzene-emitting stationary sources,
and the proposed standard for maleic
anhydride plants.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before June 17,1980.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on May 20,1980 beginning at
9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by May 13,1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on
the health effects of benzene and the
listing of benzene as a hazardous air
pollutant should be submitted (in
duplicate, if possible) to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket No.
OAQPS 79-3, Part I, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments on
the proposed maleic anhydride standard
•hould be submitted to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket No.
OAQPS 79-3, Part II, same address.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at Olde Colony Motor Lodge
North Washington and 1st St.,
Alexandria, Va. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify Ms.
Shirley Tabler, Standards Development
Branch (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5421.
Background Information Document.
The background information documents
for the proposed standard are contained
in the docket and may be obtained from
the U.S. EPA library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to Benzene Emissions from Maleic
Anhydride Plants—Background
Information Document for Proposed
Standard fEPA-450/3-BO-OOla),
Assessment of Health Effects of
Benzene Germane to Low Level
Exposures, Assessment of Human
Exposures to Atmospheric Benzene, and
Carcinogen Assessment Group's Report
on Population Risk to Ambient Benzene
Exposures.
Docket. Docket No. OAQPS 79-3,
Parts I and II, containing supporting
information used in developing the
proposed standard, is available for
public inspection and copying between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section,
Room 2903B, Waterside Mall, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5271.

Supplementary Information
Notice is hereby given that under the
authority of Section 112(b)(l)(B) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, the
Administrator is proposing a national
emission standard for benzene
emissions from maleic anhydride plants.
The proposed standard is consistent
with EPA's proposed Policy and
Procedures for Identifying, Assessing,
and Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer (see 44 FR
58642). As prescribed by section
112(b)(l)(A) of the Act, the proposal of
this standard was preceded by the
Administrator's determination that
benzene is a hazardous air pollutant as
defined in section 112(a)(l) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Administrator revised
the list of hazardous air pollutants on
June 8,1977 by adding benzene (42 FR
29332).
A Background Information Document
has been prepared that contains
information on the manufacture and
processing of maleic anhydride, the
available control technologies for
benzene emissions, and an analysis of
the environmental, energy, economic,
and inflationary impacts of regulatory
options. Information on the health
effects of benzene is contained in
documents prepared by or for EPA,
entitled the Assessment of Health
Effects of Benzene Germane to Low
Level Exposure, the Assessment of
Human Exposures to Atmospheric
Benzene, and the Carcinogen
Assessment Group's Report on
Population Risk to Ambient Benzene
Exposures. The information contained in
these documents is summarized in this
preamble. All references used for the
information contained in the preamble
can be found in one of the four
documents.

Proposed Standard
The proposed standard would apply
to all maleic anhydride production units
that process more than 500 megagrams
(550 tons) of maleic acid, maleic
anhydride, or both per year.
The proposed standard would limit
the quantity of benzene that could be
discharged into the atmosphere from
each maleic anhydride production unit
for which construction commenced on or
before April 18,1980 to 0.30 kilogram of
benzene per 100 kilograms (0.30 lb/100
Ib) of benzene fed to the reactor(s). Any
maleic anhydride production unit for
which construction or modification
commenced after April 18,1980 would
be limited to no detectable benzene
emissions as measured with the
proposed Test Method 110; this standard
could be met by using a feedstock such
as n-butane rather than benzene for
making maleic anhydride.
For existing sources, emissions in
excess of the numerical emission limit
would not be allowed during routine
startup and shutdown of a plant.
Emissions in excess of the numerical
emission limit that are caused by control
system failures would be allowed only if
the plant owner or operator
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the emissions were
unavoidable. Equipment failures that
V-H-2
-------
Federal Register f Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday. April 18. I960 / Proposed Rules
could have been prevented by proper
design, operation, and maintenance
. would be considered avoidable.
Emissions in excess of the numerical
emission limit that art due to
unavoidable control system failures
could be no greater than the total
uncontrolled mass emissions that would
occur during a plant shutdown. Malelc
anhydride plants using benzene as a
feedstock would have to install
continuous emission monitors for
benzene and report the occurrence of
emissions in excess of the numerical
emission limit within 10 days of each
occurrence.
Existing sources would have to
comply with the standard within 90 days
of its effective date, unless a waiver of
compliance were obtained. A waiver of
compliance could be granted by the
Administrator for no more than 2 years
from the promulgation date.

Summary of Health, Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Impacts
The proposed standard would affect
as many as eight existing plants that
produce maleic acid, maleic anhydride,
or both as an end product. The standard
would also apply to one plant that
produces maleic acid as an intermediate
in the production of fumaric acid.
Because EPA has only recently become
aware of this plant, it is not included in
the health, environmental, energy, and
economic impacts discussed in this
section, in the remainder of the
preamble, or in the Background
Information Document. This plant would
be covered by the proposed standard,
however, because available information
indicates that there is no technical
reason to exclude it The process,
emission sources, and appropriate
control technology appear to be the
same as for the other plants that
produce maleic acid, maleic anhydride,
or both as an end product. Information
on this plant is being collected and will
be included in the evaluations of health,
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts at the time of promulgation.
Because newly constructed or
modified maleic anhydride production
units could emit no detectable quantities
of benzene, potential future benzene
emissions from these sources would be
prevented. No additional benzene health
effects would result from the expansion
of existing plants or the construction of
new plants.
The proposed standard would require
uncontrolled benzene emissions from.
existing maleic anhydride production
units to be reduced by approximately 97
percent The proposed standard would
reduce nationwide benzene emissions
from the plants that produce maleic
anhydride as an end product when they
are operating at full capacity from about
5,800 megagrams (6,400 tons) per year to
900 megagrams (990 tons) per year. As a
result of this emission reduction, there
would be an order df magnitude
reduction fan the estimated incidence of
leukemia deaths for the 10 million
people estimated to live within 20
kilometers (12.5 miles) of existing maleic
anhydride plants.
A more significant health impact than
reduction in incidence would be the
reduction in risk to the most exposed
individuals living near maleic anhydride
plants. This risk reduction would occur
because the magnitude of the incidence
is a function of the number of people
exposed and the level of control at
various plants as well as the risk factor.
In the case of maleic anhydride plants,
there are only a few plants, many of
which already have some controls.
' Thus, the greatest health benefit of the
standard is for the population at highest
risk; i.e., those people living close to one
of the several uncontrolled plants. The
risk to the most exposed group due to
emissions from process vents occurs 500
meters (550 yards) from the average-
sized plant, and the proposed standard
would reduce it by two orders of
magnitude. It is estimated that 4,000
people live within 500 meters and 2,000
people live within 100 meters (IK) yards)
of maleic anhydride plants. In addition,
a reduction in other health effects
associated with benzene exposure (such
as cytopenia, aplastic anemia, and
chromosomal aberrations) may be
expected.
The control systems likely to be used
to meet the standard (incineration or
carbon adsorption) would also reduce
emissions of other hydrocarbons that
may be toxic and that contribute to
oxidant formation and associated
environmental problems. Furthermore, if
incineration were used, carbon
monoxide emissions would be reduced.
The reduction in national benzene
emissions achieved with the proposed
standard would be obtained with
minimal adverse impacts on other
aspects of the environment. These
adverse impacts could include small
increases in nitrogen oxide and sulfur
oxide emissions into the air. There could
be small increases in solid wastes and
benzene in wa«tewater. Compliance
with the proposed standard would
increase national energy consumption
by an estimated 310,000 gigajoules (GJ/
yr) (50,000 barrels of fuel oil equivalent
per year) by 1980.
The capital investment required by
the domestic maleic anhydride industry
to comply with the proposed standard
would be about $6.6 million over the 2-
year period from 1978 to 1980, The total
annualized costs of the industry due to
control system installation would
increase by about $2.5 million per year
by 1983, and maleic anhydride prices
would increase overall by about 1.2
percent. In addition, daring control
system malfunctions, production levels
may be decreased to achieve
compliance with the standard. This
could cause between 15 and 42 hours of
lost production per year. For a typical
plant with an annual capacity of 22,700
megagrams (50,000,000 pounds), there
would be an estimated cost of $1,000 to
$1,500 per hour of lost production. The
costs of foregone production ere difficult
tc quantify for the entire industry due to
variations hi plant design and operation
and in market parameters. Furthermore,
the proposed standard may result in one
plant closure.
Rationale for Regulating Benzene
Emissions Under the Authority of
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
Several activities by Federal agencies
and a number of recent studies have
increased public concern about
exposure to benzene via inhalation. In
September of 1976 and again in
December of 1976, the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health
(N1OSH) recommended to the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) that the Federal
occupational exposure limit for benzene
be reduced from a 10 parts per million
(ppm) level for an 8-hour workday to 1
ppm. In January of 1977, OSHA issued
nonenforceable guidelines to industry
urging compliance with the NIOSH
recommendations. In May, following
receipt of a NIOSH study demonstrating
that workers exposed to benzene are at
considerable risk to leukemia, OSHA
issued a temporary emergency standard
that reduced the occupational limit from
10 to 1 ppm for an 8-hour daily exposure,
OSHA promulgated that standard on
February 10,1978.
Following these actions by OSHA and
NIOSH and in response to a petition
from the Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF), the Administrator announced in
the June 8,1977 Federal Register (42 FR
29332) his decision to list benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act. A "hazardous
air pollutant" is defined as an "... air
pollutant to which no ambient air
.quality standard is applicable and
which . . . may reasonably be
anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible
illness."
Numerous occupational studies
conducted over the past 50 years
V-H-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday. April 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
provide evidence of health hazards
resulting from prolonged inhalation
• exposure to benzene. Benzene has been
recognized since 1900 as a toxic
substance capable of causing acute a:...
chronic effects. Benzene attacks the
hematopoietic system, especially the
bone marrow, and its toxicity is
manifested primarily by alterations in
the level of the formed elements in the
circulating blood (red cells, white cells,
and platelets). The degree of severity
ranges from mild and transient episodes
to severe and fatal disorders. The
mechanism by which benzene produces
its toxic effects, although under
investigation, is still unknown.
The adverse effects on the blood-
forming tissues, including leukemia,
have been documented in studies of
workers in a "variety of industries and
occupations, including the manufacture
or processing of rubber, shoes,
rotogravure, paints, chemicals and, more
recently, natural rubber cast film. These
studies include single-case reports,
cross-sectional studies, and
retrospective studies of morbidity and
mortality among a defined cohort of
workers industrially exposed to
benzene.
Based on a review of the entire set of
studies taken as a whole, the
Administrator concluded that benzene
exposure is causally related to the
induction of a number of blood
disorders including leukemia (a cancer
of the blood-forming system).* Although
the studies whiph form the basis for this
conclusion involve occupational
exposure to benzene at levels higher
than those found in the ambient air, the
Administrator has "made a generic
determination that, in view of the
existing state of scientific knowledge,
prudent public health policy requires
that carcinogens be considered for
regulatory purposes to pose some finite
risk of cancer at any exposure level
above zero" (44 FR 58646). Based on its
widespread use, emissions of benzene
into the ambient air have been
determined to result in significant
human exposure. For these reasons
benzene emissions may reasonbly be
anticipated to result in one or more
serious effects that can be expected to
lead to an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious, irreversible or
incapacitating, reversible illness.
Therefore, the Administrator concluded
that benzene satisfies the definition of
"hazardous air pollutant" under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act.
' Benzene has also been shown to be causally
related to various cytopenias (decreased levels of a
formed element in the circulating blood), aplastic
anemia (a nonfunctioning bone marrow), and
potentially inheritable chromosomal aberrations.
The Administrator considered the
alternative of taking no further action
and relying instead on the OSHA
st'Tflard for benzene and volatile
o i^c ;'.•:•,"pound i OC) control under
the State Implementation Plans (SIP's).
Reliance on the OSHA standard was
rejected because the current OSHA
standard stipulates a level of benzene
that cannot be exceeded in 1he work
place. This work place standard is not
expected to result in the control of
emissions from stacks within maleic
anhydride plants, such as those for the
product recovery absorber and refining
system.
VOC emissions, as potential
precursors of photochemical oxidants,
are now being regulated under State
Implementation Plans (SIP's). The goal
of SIP regulations for VOC's is to effect
statewide compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for photochemical oxidants. Because
benzene is a VOC, SIP regulations for
reducing VOC's from maleic anhydride
plants would also reduce benzene
emissions. However, a particular State
may not need to control maleic
anhydride plants to meet that standard
or it may not need to control VOC's to
the same extend as may be appropriate
for benzene in light of its hazardous
nature. Consequently, the Administrator
rejected reliance on SIP's for control of
benzene emissions from maleic
anhydride plants.
Furthermore, use of the Toxic
Substances Control Act was rejected as
a mechanism for controlling benzene
emissions from maleic anhydride plants
because the Clean Air Act provides a
more direct, expeditious route for
regulating these sources. The Toxic
Substances Control Act could be used,
however, as a possible mechanism for
placing a maximum limit on the amount
of benzene in gasoline and for regulating
benzene levels in solvents.

Selection of Maleic Anhydride Plants for
Regulation
Benzene is emitted from mobile
sources, the gasoline marketing system,
chemcial manufacturing plants,
petroleum refineries, coke byproduct
plants, benzene storage and handling,
and chemical plant fugitive emission
sources. Of all benzene emissions,
currently 80 percent of the nationwide
benzene emissions are estimated to be
from mobile sources and 20 percent from
stationary sources. However, only
stationary sources are subject to
regulation under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, while benzene
emissions from mobil sources are of
concern from an agencywide regulatory
standpoint, the proposed standards for
maleic anhydride plants were developed
as a result of establishing priorities for
the stationary sources above.
Maleic anhydride process vents were
selected as a stationary source category
of benzene emissions for regulation for a
combination of two reasons. First,
maleic anhydride plants account for 35
percent of all stationary source
emissions of benzene and are by far the
largest source of benzene emissions in
the chemical manufacturing industry.
Second, estimates of cancer incidence
and risk to the most exposed population
have been calculated for stationary
source categories of benzene emissions.
All these source categories were then
ranked from high to low, first for
incidence and then for risk to the most
exposed population. When both
incidence and risk were weighed
together, maleic anhydride process
vents ranked as one of the higher
priority source categories for regulation.

Selection of Sources Within Maleic
Anhydride Plants to be Regulated
Maleic anhydride is produced
primarily by benzene oxidation and to a
lesser extent b$ n-butane oxidation. A
small amount is also recovered as a
byproduct from phthalic anhydride
manufacture. Benzene is not used in the
n-butane oxidation process or in
phthalic anhydride manufacture and is
not believed to be emitted to the
atmosphere from these processes. The
standard technically applies to all
maleic anhydride plants. However,
because no benzene is believed to be
emitted from sources that do not use
benzene as a feedstock, these source are
not subject to the testing, continuous
monitoring, or excess emissions
reporting requirements included in the
standard.
The proposed standard would apply
to plants that produce maleic acid,
maleic anhydride, or both as an
intermediate, as well as to plants that
produce maleic acid, maleic anhydride,
or both as an end product. The economic
and environmental impact analyses for
the proposed standard include only
those plants that produce maleic acid.
maleic anhydride, or both as an end
product because EPA only recently
learned about the existence of one plant
that produces maleic acid as an
intermediate in the manufacture of
fumaric acid. Although the plant was not
included in the assessment of the
environmental and economic impacts of
the proposed standard, it is covered by
the proposal because available
information indicates that there is no
technical reason to exclude it. The
process, emission sources, and
appropriate control technology appear
V-H-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday, April 18. 1960 / Proposed Rules
to be the same as for the other plants
that produce maleic acid, maleic
anhydride, or both as an end product.
This plant will be included in the
assessment of the impacts of the
standard at the time of promulgation.
The sources of potential i, jnzene
emission to the atmosphere from plants
using the benzene oxidation process and
the quantity of benzene each emits at an
average or model plant (producing
22,700 Mg/yr [50,000,000 Ib/yr] of maleic
anhydride) are:
Scuta
En*»ton tit*
Product rece
Mining 00 ••ogreris (550 to-,») each
y^i.

Selection of Regulatory Options
Three alternative emission control
techniques were examined for maleic
anhydride plants. The first of these
techniques, conversion to n-butane as
the feedstock, represents the use of a
substitute. The other two alternatives,
control of benzene by recovery or
oxidation through the use of carbon
adsorption or incineration, represent
add-on controls.
The n-butane oxidation process uses
n-butane in place of benzene as the
feedstock in producing maleic
anhydride. Because the process is
believed to have no benzene emissions,
conversion of benzene-based plants to
use n-butane as the feedstock can be
considered a control technique that
potentially eliminates benzene
emissions. The benzene and n-butane
processes appear similar. In both
processes, the feedstock enters a reactor
where it is oxidized with the aid of a
catalyst to curde maleic anhydride,
which is then passed through a series of
refining columns and collected as a
finished product. Conversion to n-
butane as a feedstock would require at a
minimum the installation of a different
catalyst and the installation of new
feedstock storage tanks where n-butar ;
can be kept as a liquid under pressure or
as a refrigerated liquid at atmospheric
pressure. Little information is available,
however, to indicate what, if any, other
process changes might also be required
or what their impacts would be.
Carbon adsorption and incineration
can achieve various levels of control,
depending on the design and operation
of the devices. Factors influencing the
efficiency of carbon adsorption systems
for benzene control at maleic anhydride
plants include: (1) the relative humidity
of the incoming waste gas stream, (2) the
presence of other organic compounds
that may interfere with benzene
adsorption or that may form polymeric
materials on the carbon beds, (3) the
temperature of the beds during
adsorption, (4) the efficiency of the
steam regeneration, (5) the dryness of
the bed, (6) the carbon bed size, (7) the
number of beds, and (8) the cycle time.
A well-designed carbon adsorption unit
at a maleic anhydride plant should have
a preheater to lower the relative
humidity of the incoming gases since
they are normally saturated with water
and should use a caustic scrubber for
removing most of the other organics in
the gases. After regeneration, the carbon
bed, which is hot and saturated with
water, should be cooled and dried by
blowing organic-free air through it. The
cooling air should be recycled to the
carbon adsorption system. The bed size,
number of beds, and cycle times can be
varied to achieve the desired removal
efficiency.
Two maleic anhydride plants
currently use carbon adsorption. The
system at one maleic anhydride plant
for which data are available is reported
to achieve a benzene removal efficiency
ranging from 85 to 95 percent. This
system does not use an organic-free air
stream to cool and dry the beds after
regeneration -with steam. Immediately
after regeneration, the waste gas stream
containing benzene is directed to the hot
bed. Consequently, until the bed cools
and dries, benzene removal efficiency is
low. This partially accounts for the
relatively low overall benzene removal
efficiency.
Factors influencing the efficiency of
an incinerator are temperature, degree
of mixing, and residence time in the
combustion chamber. For maleic
anhydride plants, a knockout demister
tank is required ahead of the incinerator
to prevent entrained liquid droplets from
reaching the burner area. Supplemental
fuel is required to maintain the
necessary combustion temperature.
Supplemental combustion air may also
be required, if the incoming gas stream
is not preheated. A temperature of 870°
C (1,600°F) is required to ensure
complete combustion of the waste gas,
although it is possible that greater than
99 percent benzene removal can be
obtained at lower temperatures in some
cases.
Two maleic anhydride plants in the
United States that use benzene as a
feedstock control the product recovery
absorber emissions with combusiton.
The first plant routes the waste gas
stream from the product recovery
absorber through a waste heat boiler.
This system is reported by the plant's
owner to achieve a benezene removal
efficiency as high as 99 percent. The
combustion temperature is about 1,090°
C (2,000° F), and the residence time is 0.8
second. A waste heat boiler, however, is
only a viable control technique when
there is a need for the additional steam.
Maleic anhydride plants generally
produce a surplus of steam.
The second plant controls the product
recovery abosorber waste gas stream
with a thermal incinerator that operates
at 760° C (1,400°F) and has a residence
time of 0.7 second. Emission test data
indicate that a sustained benzene
V-H-5
-------
Federal Register / VoL 45. No. 77 / Friday. April 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
removal efficiency of about 87 percent is
achievable.
Engineering experience with similar
applications for die control of volatile
organic chemicals indicates that a
thermal incinerator can be designed and
operated with a benzene removal
efficiency of greater than 99 percent
Limited information is available
concerning direct-flame afterburners
used on maleic anhydride production
facilities, but there are several cases in
which streams similar to the product
recovery absorber and refining system
vent gas have been controlled at very
high efficiencies. In one case, data
reported for toluene indicate a removal
efficiency of 99.9 percent at 766° C
(1,410° F) and a residence time of 0-21
second. A second facility incinerates a
toluene-xylene fume at 760° C (1.400° FJ
and is reported to achieve a destruction
efficiency of 99.1 percent A third
installation also reports a removal
efficiency greater than 99.8 percent at
760° C (1,400° F) for an organic stream
considered as toluene. In addition, a
review of several studies of incinerators
indicates that combustion efficiencies
less than 95 percent were achieved,
except in one case, at temperatures of
730° C (1,350° F) or lower. Conversely,
efficiencies greater than 99 percent were
achieved at temperatures of 760° C
(1,400° F) or higher.
Finally, recent laboratory studies on
the thermal incineration of benzene
show high benzene destruction
efficiencies, which depend on
temperature. Instrumentation with a
benzene detection limit of two parts per
millon by volume (ppmv) showed no
residual benzene in gas streams
following incineration at temperatures
above 790° C (1,450° F) with residence
times as low as 0.08 second.
The available information from the
•preceding paragraphs indicates that a
conservatively designed and well-
operated incinerator would be expected
to consistently achieve at least 99
percent control of benzene at an
operating temperature of about 870° C
(1,600° F) and a residence time of 0.5
second
These three emission control
techniques for reducing benzene
emissions from maleic anhydride plants
lead to the following regulatory options:
(1) 97 percent benezene control, based
on (he best demonstrated level of
control that is now being achieved at an
existing maleic anhydride plant and that
is universally applicable to any existing
plant;
(2) 99 percent benzene control, based
on technology transfer; and
(3) No detectable benzene emissions,
based on conversion to n-butane as a
feedstock.
Little information is available on what
would be required to convert each
existing benzene-based plant to an n-
butane-based plant, or what the
consequences of such a conversion
would be. Based on the limited
informal ton available, it appear* that
considerable effort continues to be
directed towards developing n-butane
technology, particularly the catalyst
Only the existing Amoco plant was
originally designed to use n-butane as a
feedstock. Problems associated with
converting existing plants to n-butane
include: (1) potentially signficant
reductions in maleic anhydride
production when current n-butane
catalyst technology is combined with
equipment designed for benzene as the
feed stock, and (2) unsatisfactory
operation resulting from equipment
changes needed in the refining system.
Because of uncertainties concerning the
feasibility of converting each existing
source to n-butane and the impacts of
such conversion, this approach is not
considered a viable regulatory option for
existing sources based on best available
technology (considering environmental,
energy, and economic impacts) PAT).
The use of n-butane as a feedstock.
however, is considered a viable
regulatory option for new sources.
Because the industry was operating at
only 56 percent of capacity in 1978, few
new sources are expected to be built
until the mid-1980's. This allows time for
continued development of the n-butane
process. Furthermore, a new plant could
be designed to use n-butane and would
therefore not encounter the potential
problems associated with conversion. In
fact, one company has recently
announced the construction of a new
45,400-Mg/yr (50.000 tons/yr) maleic
anhydride plant based on their
proprietary n-butane technology, which is
scheduled for completion in early 1983.
In summary, only two of the three
options outlined above were considered
viable regulatory options that could
serve as the basis for a standard for
existing sources based on BAT. These
two regulatory options are designated
Option 1. 97 percent benzene control.
and Option 2. 99 percent benzene
control. For new sources, a regulatory
option of no detectable benzene
emissions (100 percent control) is
considered a viable option as the basis
for a standard based on BAT.
Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standard—Existing Sources
One should note that neither Option 1
nor Option 2 specifically requires the
use of carbon adsorption or incineration
for control of benzene emissions from
existing sources, nor would conversion
to n-butane specifically be required for
new sources. However, these control
techniques were found to be feasible
and were used as the probable contol
methods in estimating the
environmental energy, and economic
impacts of the regulatory options.
Environmental, energy, and economic
impacts were determined from a
baseline assuming some benzene
control. The numbers calculated for
nationwide impacts are based on the
assumption that all existing plants that
have been using benzene as a feedstock
will continue to be in operation and will
continue to use benzene as a feedstock.
Recently, one of these plants had
indicated that is closing at least
temporarily, and two of the plants have
indicated they are investigating the
possibility of converting to n-butane. If
these changes occur, the numbers
presented here for nationwide impacts
on emissions, energy, and economics
would be reduced. The impacts are
summarized as follows.
Environmental Impact
The maleic anhydride industry was
operating at only 56 percent of capacity
in 1978 but is expected to be operating
at 100 percent of capacity by the end of
1982. As the maleic anhydride industry
increases production from 56 to 100
percent nationwide unregulated
benzene emissions would increase from
about 3^00 Mg/yr to 5,800 Mg/yr (3,630
tons/yr to 6,380 tons/yr) based on 8,000
hours of operation per year. The term
"unregulated" refers to the current level
of control of benzene emissions from
maleic anhydride plants. Some of these
plants now practice some benzene
control both voluntarily and in
compliance with other standards but are
not yet regulated by a national emission
standard.
Option 1 would reduce nationwide
benzene emissions from the maleic
anhydride industry operating at 56
percent of capacity to about 650 Mg/yr
(720 tons/yr) and operating at full
capacity to 940 Mg/yr (1.030 tons/yr).
Option 2, the more stringent option,
would reduce nationwide benzene
emissions to 440 Mg/yr (480 tons/yr) at
56 percent of capacity and 490 Mg/yr
(540 tons/yr) at full capacity.
For the purpose of comparing the
environmental impacts associated with
no standard Option 1, and Option 2 for
an individual maleic anhydride plant, a
model plant (i.e., and average-sized
plant with a capacity of 22,700 Mg/yr
[25,000 tons/yr]) was used. The total
uncontrolled benzene emissions from
V-H-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No: 77 / Friday, April 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
the model plant—including the product
recovery absorber; refining system; and
fugitive, storage, and handling emission
sources—are estimated to be 1,500 Mg/
yr (1,650 tons/yr) at 56 percent of
capacity and 2,800 Mg/yr (3,080 tons/yr)
at full capacity. The total benzene
emissions for the model plant under
Option 1 are estimated to be 77 Mg/yr
(85 tons/yr] when the plant is operating
at 56 percent of capacity and 110 Mg/yr
(120 tons/yr) when the plant is operating
at 100 percent of capacity. The benzene
emissions under Option 2 are estimated
to be 46 Mg/yr (50 tons/yr) at 56 percent
of capacity and 60 Mg/yr (66 tons/yr) at
full capacity. The estimates for Options
1 and 2 assume that fugitive and storage
emissions are uncontrolled.
A dispersion model was used to
project ambient benzene concentrations
attributable to uncontrolled emissions,
emissions regulated to meet Option 1,
and emissions regulated to meet Option
2. The projected maximum annual
average benzene concentration for an
uncontrolled model maleic anhydride
plant occurred at a distance of 0.3
kilometer (330 yards) from the plant and
was 0.01 ppmv. For either Option 1 or
Option 2, the maximum benzene
concentration occurred at 0.1 kilometer
(110 yards) from the plant and was 0.006
ppmv under either option.
If an incinerator were used to comply
with a standard based on either Option
1 or 2, it would emit nitrogen oxides
(NOJ, less carbon monoxide (CO) than
an uncontrolled plant, possibly some
particulates, and sulfur oxides (SOJ.
Under either option, emissions of NO,
are roughly estimated to be increased by
about 10 Mg/yr (11 tons/yr) at a model
maleic anhydride plant If all plants
were to install incinerators, nationwide
emissions of NO, would be increased by
an estimated 65 Mg/yr (72 tons/yr). If an
incinerator were used to control
benzene, it would also control CO
emissions from the process and their
would be a net reduction rather than an
increase in CO emissions.
It natural gas were used as the
auxiliary fuel for incineration, the
increase in particulate and SOi
emissions would also be negligible. It is
possible, however, that gas would be
unavailable for incineration in some
locations. In these locations, fuel oil
could be used, and depending upon the
type of fuel oil, there could be an
increase in SOt and particulate
emissions. Assuming, for example, a fuel
oil of 0.3 percent by weight of sulfur
were used, SOt emissions at a typical
maleic anhydride plant would increase
by about 5 Mg/yr (5.5 tons/yr) under
Option 1 and about 15 Mg/yr (17 tons/
yr) under Option 2. If all plants were to
Install incinerators burning fuel oil of
this sulfur content, nationwide
emissions of SOt would be increased by
about 50 Mg/yr (55 tons/yr) under
Option 1 and about 110 Mg/yr (120 tons/
yr) under Option 2, These adverse air
Impacts are considered small in light of
the alternative of unregulated benzene
emissions.
Incineration does not lead to any
wastewater effluents requiring disposal.
Consequently, there would be no
adverse water pollution impacts
associated with a standard based on
either Option 1 or 2, if incineration were
used to comply with the standard.
A wastewater stream containing
benzene is associated with using a
carbon adsorption system. However, the
organic load of die wastewater from
carbon adsorption is less than 10
percent of the total organic liquid waste
load from a model maleic anhydride
plant. The wastewater stream from a
carbon adsorption system could be
recycled to the product recovery
absorber or treated along with the other
plant effluent since the organic liquid
effluent from a carbon adsorber system
Is similar in character to the other waste
liquid streams from the process. The
organic liquid effluent resulting from the
use of a carbon adsorption system is
therefore estimated to have an
insignificant incremental impact on
water pollution.
Maleic anhydride plants typically
have a wastewater treatment facility to
handle process effluents containing
organics. Benzene is biodegradable and
could be handled in such a treatment
plant However, this wastewater could
become a secondary source of benzene
emissions, if the benzene were to
evaporate to the atmosphere during
treatment. If all the benzene were to
evaporate, the benzene emissions from
wastewater at a model plant would be
about 40 Mg/yr (44 tons/yr). The
possibility of regulating air emissions
from wastewater treatment is scheduled
for future study.
The only potential impact on solid
waste disposal associated with either
Option 1 or 2 is the handling of spent
carbon from carbon adsorption systems.
Typically, rather than being disposed of
in a landfill, spent carbon is reclaimed
and regenerated at special facilities. If,
however, spent carbon were disposed of
in a landfill; the amount of solid waste
from this source would be about 7,400
kg/yr (3.4 tons/yr) and 7,600 kg/vr (3.5
tons/yr) from a model maleic anhydride
plant using this control technique to
achieve compliance with a standard
based on Options 1 and 2, respectively.
As mentioned previously, however, it is
likely that the spent carbon would be
reclaimed, and there would be no
Impact on solid waste disposal under
their Option 1 or 2.
Energy Impact
Although process heaters are required
at startup and during some operations,
the heat released from the oxidation of
'benzene and other compounds in the
reactor during normal operations
produces a small energy surplus of
about 15 kilojoules (kj) per kilogram (6.5
Btu/lb) of maleic anhydride produced.
For the model plant with a production
capacity of 22,700 Mg/yr (25,000 tons/
yr), the energy surplus would be about
340 gigajoules (GJ) (322,000 Btu) per
year.
Carbon adsorption requires energy in
the form of steam to desorb the benzene
from the carbon and electrial energy for
pumps and other equipment. The energy
requirement for a model maleic
anhydride plant using carbon adsorption
to meet a standard based on Option 1
would be about 85,000 GJ/yr (80.6 X 10*
Btu/yr) and to meet a standard based on
Option 2, it would be about 90,000 GJ/yr
(85.3 X 10« Btu/yr).
Thermal incineration requires energy
directly as fuel. If a typical maleic
anhydride plant used thermal
incineration to meet a standard based
on Option 1, the energy required would
be about 45,000 GJ/yr (42.7 x 10s Btu/yr)
and to meet Option 2, it would be about
95.000 GJ/yr (90.0 X 10s Btu/yr).
assuming 50 percent heat recovery.
Assuming that half the existing maleic
anhydride plants that required
additional controls used carbon
adsorption and that half used thermal
incineration to comply with a standard
based on Option 1, the impact of the
standard would be an increase in
national energy consumption of about
310,000 GJ/yr (293.8 X10« Btu/yr). This is
equivalent to about 50,000 barrels of fuel
oil per year. The impact of a standard
based on Option 2 under the same
assumption would be an increase in
national energy consumption of about
625,000 GJ/yr (497.6X10" Btu/yr). This
equivalent to about 85,000 barrels of fuel
oil per year. These impacts are
considered small; compared to U.S. oil
imports in 1978 of 3.0 billion barrels of
oil, they are negligible.

Economic Impact
Control equipment costs were
developed from a baseline of current
controls. When costs were developed, it
was assumed that existing control
systems that are currently not meeting
the level of the standard under Option 1
or Option 2 could not be upgraded and
would have to be replaced with new
V-H-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday, April 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
control systems. Capital cost estimates
were also based on control equipment
designed to handle the waste gases from
the product recovery absorber and
refining system when operating at fall
production capacity. Cost estimates are
considered accurate to ±30 percent.
For a model uncontrolled maleic
anhydride plant with a capacity of
22,700 Mg/yr {25,000 tons/yr),
compliance with a standard based on
Option 1 would require a capital cost
between $1.16 and $1.40 million, and
compliance with a standard bas&l on
Option 2 would require a capital cost of
about $1.22 to $1.44 million. The range in
these estimates reflects the difference
between using carbon adsorption and
incineration as the control technique.
These costs would increase the total
capital expenditures of the average
company that manufactures maleic
anhydride by less than 1 percent
However, it should be noted that maleic
anhydride sales generally represent less
than 1 percent of the total sales for the
average company that manufactures
maleic anhydride.
Total annualized costs would be
increased by about $354,000 to $442,000
per year for the model plant meeting a
standard based on Option 1, depending
on whether incineration or carbon
adsorption were used as the control
technique. If these costs-were passed
forward completely, the price of maleic
anhydride would increase by about 1.2
percent, assuming current price levels
and operation at 100 percent capacity.
Total annualized costs would be
increased by about $369,000 to $600,000
per year for the model plant meeting a
standard based on Option 2, depending
on whether incineration or carbon
adsorption were used as the control
technique. If these costs were passed
forward completely, the price of maleic
anhydride would increase by about 1.7
percent assuming current price levels
and operation at 100 percent capacity.
In terms of national impact, Option 1
would require five plants to install
controls. Total nationwide capital costs
would be about $8.6 million. Option 2
would require at least seven plants to
install control systems. Total
nationwide capital costs under Option 2
would be about $9.1 million.
The increase in the industry's total
annualized cost, assuming continued
operation at 56 percent of capacity,
would be about $2.2 million per year
under Option 1 and about $3.9 million
per year under Option 2. Assuming
operation at 100 percent of capacity,
total annualized industry cost would be
increased by about $2.5 million per year
under Option 1 and about $4.5 million
per year under Option 2.
The impact of a benzene standard on
the price of maleic anhydride would
depend on at least two factors: (1) the
percentage of capacity at which the
industry is operating, and (2) the
variation among companies with regard
to price increases needed to fully pass
through control costs,
In 1978, the industry was operating at
56 percent of capacity, and supply was
substantially greater than demand. It is
expected that demand will equal present
listed capacity by the end of 1982 or
sooner. The increased demand could
reduce the competitiveness within the
industry and allow maleic anhydride
prices to increase to pay for control
costs. Because controls to meet the
standard would not have to be in
operation before at least January of
1981, the potential price increases
presented here are based on 100 percent
utilization of listed capacity.
The price increase needed to fully
pass through control costs varies from
plant to plant. The estimated price
increases presented here for Options 1
and are averages of the price increases
that would be necessary for all the
companies to fully recover their costs.
This means that these estimated price
increases would allow some companies
to fully recover their control costs but
would require other companies to
absorb some of the costs. Companies
that do not use benzene to make maleic
anhydride or that already have control
systems that would meet an option
would incur no control costs and would
not need a price increase. When the
price increases for maleic anhydride
were estimated, consideration was
given to these plants with little or no
control cost by averaging the price
increases they would need to recover
costs in with the price increases needed
by the other companies.
Based on the assumptions discussed
above, maleic anhydride prices would
be expected to increase from a list price
of 88«/kg (40^/lb) by about 1.2 percent if
the standard were based on Option 1
and by about 1.7 percent if the standard
were based on Option 2. There are two
reasons for the differences in these
estimated price increases. First the cost
of a control device to meet Option 2 is
greater than for a control device
designed to meet Option 1. Second,
fewer plants would have to install
controls to meet a standard based on
Option 1 as opposed to Option 2.
Maleic anhydride is used in the
manufacture of polyester resins, fumaric
acid, and malathion. Any price increase
in maleic anhydride is expected to be
reflected in the price of these goods.
Based on an evaluation by EPA, one
plant may dose due to control costs
regardless of the level of control
selected as the basis for the standard,
Based on conversations with
representatives from another company
and an independent evaluation by EPA,
a second plant could close because of
control costs if the standard is based on
99 percent control. Because this plant
already has an incinerator that can
attain 97 percent control, it would not
cease to manufacture maleic anhydride
if the standard is based on that control
level.
This company expressed concern that,
for a combination of reasons, it could
not finance the control system that it
would need at the 99-percent control
level. One reason is that it could not
pass through all the costs of control. The
fact that the industry is expected to be
operating at less than listed capacity
when the company would need to begin
making expenditures for control
equipment would make'it difficult to
increase the price of maleic anhydride
to compensate for those control costs.
Furthermore, because this company has
not been identified as a price leader, it
may have to absorb some of the control
costs even after the industry begins to
operate closer to listed capacity. Also,
the company is located in Texas and has
to compete with imports of maleic
anhydride from Mexico. A second
reason the company probably cannot
afford the controls is that within the last
4 years it has made a major capital
outlay for the control device that meets
the 97-percent control level, and it is still
recovering from this investment.
Furthermore, this company only makes
two products, and maleic anhydride
represents one-third of its sales. For
other companies, maleic anhydride sales
generally represent less than 1 percent
of total sales. The product mix factor
limits the ability of this company to use
the profits from other operations to
finance controls for the maleic
anhydride plant.
This plant was originally designed to
use 2-butene rather than benzene as the
feedstock and has recently obtained a
State permit to use n-butane. At least
initially this company is planning to
convert part of its capacity to n-butane
on an experimental basis; it is uncertain
whether it will convert to n-butane on a
permanent basis. The company
converted one reactor to n-butane on an
experimental basis in 1975 and 1976 but
converted back to benzene due to
technical problems with the process and
catalyst instability. If the plant did
convert to n-butane on a permanent
basis, it would not be affected by a
benzene standard and would probably
not close. If the plant could not
V-H-8
-------
Federal Ragtstac / Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday. April 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
successfully convert to n-butane and the
standard were based on 99 percent
control, the plant might have to close.
If both of these maleic anhydride
plants closed, approximately 50
en , loyees could lose their Jobs. If the
plant projected to close at either control
level were the only plant to close, about
20 employees could lose their jobs.
Because these employees would be
. petrochemical workers and both plants
an located in areas with numerous
other petrochemical plants (Texas and
New Jersey), it is possible they could
find employment in the same areas.
Also, one of the companies is very large
and may be able to relocate the
employees from the maleic anhydride
plant within the company.
In summary, it is estimated that a
standard based on 99 percent control
would result in total capital costs of
about $9.1 million, an increase in total
annuauzed costs of about $4.5 million, a
potential price increase in maleic
anhydride of 1.7 percent, an increase in
energy usage of 85,000 barrels (bbll
(525,000 GJ/yr or 497.6 X 10 * Btu/yr of
oil per year, and as many as two
projected plant closures. A standard
based on 97 percent control would result
in total capital costs of about $6.6
million, an increase in total annualized
costs of about $2.5 million, a potential
price increase in maleic anhydride of 1.2
percent, an increase in energy usage of
about 50,000 bbl (310,000 GI/yr or 293.8
X 10 ' Btu/yr) of oil per year, and as
many as one projected plant closure.
In selecting best available technology
(considering environmental, energy, and
economic impacts) (BAT), the
Administrator examined the impacts
discussed and arrived at the following
conclusions. First, control in the range of
97 percent is the best demonstrated
control that has been achieved at an
existing maleic anhydride plant with a
control system that is applicable to all
other existing plants. Higher levels, such
as 99 percent, are believed to be
technically feasible, but only with
technology transfer and at a higher cost
and energy use. Second, one plant that
is not projected to close if the standard
were based on 97 percent control is
projected to close at the 99-percent
control level if it cannot successfully
convert to n-butane. Based on these two
considerations, the Administrator
selected the 97-percent control option as
BAT.
After the 97-percent option was
identified as BAT for existing sources,
the estimated risks remaining after
application of BAT were examined to
determine whether they are
unreasonable m view of the health
benefits and costs that would result if a
more stringent option were applied. The
number of estimated leukemia deaths
remaining after application of BAT to
existing sources is estimated to range
from 0.03 to 0.19 per year.' Fifty percent
of these residual deaths would result
from fugitive, secondary, and storage
and handling emissions, which will be
considered for regulation at a later date.
After application of BAT to existing
source*, the remaining estimated
maximum lifetime risk of acquiring
leukemia is estimated to range from 5.8
X 10'' to 41 x 10-»for the most exposed
group living around a model
uncontrolled maleic anhydride plant.
Fugitive emissions, which are not
covered by the recommended standard,
are the predominant contributors to
these risks. Maximum lifetime risk is the
probability of someone contracting
leukemia who is exposed to the highest
maximum annual average benzene
concentration for a period of 70 years.
Farther from the plant where process
vents are the predominant contributors
to risks, a standard based on BAT for
existing sources would result in an
estimated residual maximum risk
caused by emissions from process vents
only from 0.5 X 10' • to 3.5 X 10'*.
The Administrator considered two
control levels beyond BAT for existing
sources: 99 percent control, and the use
of a feedstock'other than benzene in the
manufacture of maleic anhydride (100
percent control). Requiring 99 percent
control instead of 97 percent control
would reduce the estimated incidence of
leukemia deaths within 20 km of maleic
anhydride plants from a range of 0.03 to
0.19 per year to a range of 0.02 to 0.14
per year. It would reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk at the point of
maximum exposure caused by emissions
'.The ranges contained in thi> preamble represent
the uncertainty due to estimate! that had to be
made concerning the levels of benzene to which
workers were exposed in the Infante, Aksoy, and
Ott studies that served as the basis for developing
the benune risk factor. The ranges are based on a
85-percent confidence interval that assumes the
estimated concentrations to which the workers are
exposed vary within a factor of two. In addition,
there arc other sources of uncertainty. The deaths
were calculated based on extrapolation of leukemia
risk associated with a healthy white male cohort of
workers to the risk associated with the general
population, which Includes men. women, children,
infanta, the aged, nonwhiles, and the unhealthy.
Also, the number of deaths Includes consideration
of only one effect of benzene, leukemia. Benzene
may cause aplastic anemia, cytopenias, and the
development of chromosomal aberrations. In
addition, the benefits to the general population of
controlling other types of emissions from maleic
anhydride manufacture have not been quantified.
Furthermore, ambient benzene concentrations used
to calculate the excess risks and deaths were
derived from an atmospheric dispersion model with
an error of a factor of two. Finally, there are
inherent errors in estimating the population within
20 kilometers of existing plants.
from the process vents from a range of
0.5 X 10'* to 3.5 X 10"' to a range of 0.1
X 10'5 to 1.0 X 10"', while the maximum
lifetime risk caused by emissions from
all sources within a plant would remain
unchanged.
On the other hand, requiring 99
percent control rather than 97 percent
control would increase the capital cost
from $6.6 to $9.1 million, the total
annuauzed cost from $2.5 to $4.5 million,
and the percentage increase in maleic
anhydride prices from 1.2 to 1.7. It would
also result in as much as one additional
projected plant closure.
Requiring the use of a feedstock other
than benzene in the manufacture of
maleic anhydride would decrease both
the estimated incidence of leukemia
cases and the estimated maximum
lifetime risk to zero. As discussed
previously, a great deal of uncertainty
exists concerning the technological
changes required to convert each
existing source to an alternate feedstock
and the resulting economic impacts.
In view of the relatively small health
benefits that would be gained with the
additional costs (including as many as
one additional projected plant closure)
of requiring 99 percent rather than 97
percent control for the process vents
and the uncertain economic impacts if a
substitute feedstock were required for
existing maleic anhydride sources, the
Administrator concluded that the risks
remaining after application of BAT to
existing sources are not unreasonable.
Therefore, the Administrator decided
not to require more stringent control
than BAT for process vents. This
decision does not preclude future
regulation of fugitive, storage, and
secondary emission sources, which are
major contributors to the residual risk.

Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standard—New Sources
Requiring 100 percent control based
on the use of an alternative feedstock,
such as n-butane, is considered to be a
viable BAT option for new sources
because some of the previously
discussed problems associated with
converting existing sources to n-butane
would not be present. In considering this
option, the Administrator examined the
potential safety, environmental, and
economic impacts of that action to the
extent possible given limited
information.
The use of n-butane would result in no
significant changes in the safety of the
process and would slightly increase the
overall safety of maleic anhydride
production. For example, a higher
concentration of n-butane (as compared
to benzene) is required for an explosion
to occur, hi addition, inhalation of and
V-H-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 77 / Friday. April IB. 1980 / Proposed Rules
exposure to n-butane by workers is less
hazardous than exposure to benzene, n-
Butane is already used as a feedstock
for similar situations within the
petrochemical industry.
There are two potentially adverse
environmental impacts of requiring the
use of n-butane in place of benzene as
the feedstock for new sources. These
include possible increased benzene
emissions from gasoline marketing and
increased volatile organic compound
emissions. If eliminating benzene as a
feedstock for new sources resulted in
the addition of more benzene to
gasoline, the incremental increase in
total benzene emissions from gasoline
marketing would be greater than if the
benzene were used at a controlled
maleic anhydride plant.
Because existing sources can continue
to use benzene as a feedstock, only the
benzene that would have been used at
new sources would be of concern.
Currently, benzene demand often
exceeds the available supply; this
•ituation is expected to continue through
the 1980's. Consequently, the benzene
that would be used at new sources, if
there were no standard, is not currently
being produced, and if new maleic
anhydride plants wanted to use benzene
as their feedstock, an increase in
benzene demand would result.
Typically, when demand for benzene
fluctuates, supply is adjusted by
changing the level of production from
the most expensive source. If benzene
were not prohibited as a feedstock for
new sources and there was little, if any,
slack in the benzene supply, the
additional benzene required would
probably be supplied by toluene
hydrodealkylation (HDA). HDA is the
most expensive benzene production
method and changes in benzene demand
can be accommodated by changing the
volume of benzene production from
HDA. HDA production currently
represents 25 to 30 percent of benzene
production. Since existing maleic
anhydride plants currently use 3 percent
of the benzene produced, the HDA
process should be able to accommodate
fluctuations in demand for benzene
caused by maleic anhydride producers.
If chemical process industries know
that benzene will not be used as a
feedstock for maleic anhydride
production, they will presumably adjust
their projections of future benzene
demand. Additional benzene production
capacity wpuld be adjusted to reflect
this decrease in demand for benzene as
a feedstock for new maleic anhydride
sources.
Thus, based on these considerations,
it was concluded that the proposed
standard would be unlikely to result in
more benzene being added to the
gasoline pool.
Although few data are available on
;-s qi- itity and composition of the
emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from an n-butane-based plant,
preliminary information indicates that
total uncontrolled VOC emissions are
higher than for a benzene-based plant.
At present, there is no nationwide
requirement to control the emissions
from the n-butane oxidation process for
maleic anhydride production. However,
VOC emissions are currently controlled
by State regulations where new n-
butane-based plants are likely to be
constructed. In addition, EPA is
beginning work on a new source.
performance standard under Section 111
of the Clean Air Act for all air oxidation
reactions in the organic chemical
industry. This standard is anticipated to
cover maleic anhydride production from
n-butane.
The potential economic impacts of
requiring n-butane include impacts on:
(1) domestic licensors of n-butane and
benzene technology, (2) availability and
price of n-butane and benzene
feedstocks, and (3) the economic life of
existing maleic anhydride plants.
Only one domestic licensor of maleic
anhydride technology exists. This
licensor licenses both the benzene and
n-butane processes. Abroad, there are
five licensing companies. Of those five,
only one licenses both benzene- and n-
butane-based technology, while the
other four solely license the benzene-
based process. The U.S. licensor would
probably maintain its foreign business
because an EPA requirement would not
affect usage of benzene-based
technology abroad. However, the
company's domestic business would
depend on the competitive status of its
n-butane catalysts at the time that
benzene replacement is mandated.
Because catalyst technology is usually a
closely held company secret, the
companies developing such catalysts
and their rates of success with new
catalysts have not been determined.
Use of n-butane as a feedstock can
lead to as much as a 7.3{ cost reduction
per kilogram over benzene feedstock
costs. This difference in feedstock costs
is not expected to lessen in the next 10
years and may even increase. Supplies
of n-butane are expected to exceed
demand through 1990, while benzene
demand will probably continue to
exceed supply.
Requiring the use of n-butane for new
sources would not affect the economic
life of existing plants. Because of the
cost advantage associated with using
the n-butane feedstock, maleic
anhydride manufacturers are likely to
decide to use the n-butane process for
new sources regardless of an EPA
mandate to do so. For example, the only
new maleic anhydride plant announced
in recent years will be a 45,400-Mg/yr
(50,000 tons/yr) plant based on
proprietary n-butane technology.
Construction is expected to be
completed in 1983. Consequently, any
impacts that occur on the economic life
of existing plants from new plants using
n-butane cannot be directly attributed to
the EPA mandate.
In summary, the potential safety,
environmental, and economic impacts
associated with requiring new sources
to use an alternative feedstock such as
n-butane are minimal. Consequently, 100
percent control has been selected as
BAT for new sources. Because this level
of control is expected to result in no
benzene emissions, it is not necessary to
consider a level of control beyond BAT
for new sources.

The designated source is the facility
or grouping of facilities to which a
standard applies. The proposed
standard for maleic anhydride plants
contains different emission limits for
existing and new sources. An existing
source is one for which construction is
commenced on or before the date of
proposal of the standard. A new source
is one for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction is
commenced after the date of proposal of
the standard. The manner in which the
source is designated (i.e., the number of
facilities included in the grouping) can
affect whether or not a particular source
is considered existing or new.
Consequently, the manner in which the
source is designated can influence the
impacts of a standard. The
Administrator considered these
potential impacts in designating the
source at maleic anhydride plants.
First he considered designating each
different piece of equipment, such as a
reactor, a product recovery adsorber,
and a refining system, as a source.
However, maleic anhydride and maleic
acid are produced using an integrated
combination of reactor(s), a product
recovery absorber, and a refining
system. Typically, these pieces of
equipment are designed on an integrated
basis for the use of a specific feedstock,
such as benzene. Consequently, if a
feedstock change is made, extensive
changes may have to be made not only
in a reactor but also in the product
recovery absorber and refining system
integrated with the reactor.
If each piece of equipment were
designated as a source and a reactor
had to be replaced, the reactor would
have to use a feedstock other than
benzene. In addition, if the associated
product recovery absorber and refining
system had been designed for the
operational conditions associated with
the use of benzene as a feedstock,
changes might also have to be made to
them to allow the use of a feedstock
such as n-butane. Furthermore, reactors
are not replaced only because of old
age. They are subject to explosion, in
which case the owner or operator would
be given no opportunity to plan
conversion of all production equipment
so the replacement reactor could use
another feedstock.
V-H-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 77 / Friday. April 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules^
Also, reactors may be operated in
parallel with all emissions routed to a
single product recovery absorber. If a
reactor required replacement because of
explj ion or other damage, n-butane or
another nonbenzene feedstock would be
required for the new reactor, while the
other reactors could continue to use
benzene. But the associated product
recovery absorber and refining system
may still be designed for benzene use
only. Such a situation ctruW present
operational problems. The
Administrator has already decided not
to require existing sources to convert to
a nonbenzene feedstock. Designating
individual pieces of equipment as the
source could have essentially the same
consequences. Therefore, be decided
against this option.
Next, the Administrator considered
designating as the source a maleic
anhydride production unit i.e., a
functionally integrated combination of
reactor(s), recovery absorber(s), and
refining systems. In this case, if an
existing reactor exploded and had to be
replaced, the new reactor could use
benzene. However, as this group of
equipment aged and had to be
substantially or partially replaced, the
new grouping of equipment would have
to use a nonbenzene feedstock.
Similarly, if the capacity of a maleic
anhydride plant was increased by
adding a new grouping of this
functionally integrated equipment, that
equipment would have to use a
nonbenzene feedstock. Designating the
source in this way appeared to be most
consistent with the Administrator's
decision not to require conversion of
existing sources to a nonbenzene
feedstock because of technological and
economic uncertainties. However, when
a firm is preparing for major
construction; i.e., substantially replacing
existing equipment or increasing
capacity, it has the opportunity to
incorporate into its planning the use of a
nonbenzene feedstock. In these cases,
the Administrator considers requiring
the use of a nonbenzene feedstock
reasonable.
Therefore, the grouping of facilities
designated as the source to which the
proposed standard applies is a maleic
anhydride production unit. If
construction of a maleic anhydride
production unit were commenced after
proposal of the standard, it would be
considered new. If a new maleic
anhydride production unit were added
to an existing plant, it would be
considered new. If an existing maleic
'anhydride production unit were
completely replaced or if it were
partially replaced and met the criterion
for being "reconstructed," it would be
considered new. Due to the way in
which "modification" is defined in
Section 61.82(j), if capacity or other
physical changes were made to an
existing mafeic anhydride production
unit, such a» the addition of a reactor,
and if tfaere were no concomitant
increase in benzene emissions (in mass
per unit time) from the unit, the unit
would not be considered "modified" and
would still be considered an existing
source. If emissions did increase,
however, the unit would be considered
modified and new.

Selection of the Format of the Standard
A number of different formats could
be selected to limit benzene emissions
from existing sources. These include
concentration standards, mass
standard* limiting emissions in terms of
benzene per unit of maleic anhydride
produced, and mass standards limiting
emissions in terms of benzene per unit
of benzene supplied to the reactor.
Typically, a concentration standard is
preferred over a mass standard because
a mass standard requires more
measurements and conversion
calculations. Exhaust gas flow rates and
raw material or product flow rates have
to be measured, and concentration
measurements have to be converted to
mass measurements.
The standard for maleic anhydride
plants is based on two types of control
devices—incineration and carbon
adsorption. In both cases, there is a
potential for air dilution. Excess air is
used in incinerators to ensure complete
combustion, and the quantity of excess
air used can vary. Carbon adsorption
systems use air to cool the bed during
the regeneration cycle. The cooling air
strips residual benzene remaining on the
regenerating bed and consequently must
be controlled in the bed that is in the
adsorption phase of the cycle. Again, the
quantity of cooling air used can vary
among adsorption units. Due to the
potential for air dilution, correction
factors are necessary to ensure that
measurements of emissions from all
control devices are referenced to the
same basis, and that the quantity of
benzene emitted is the same no matter
how much excess air is used in an
incinerator or how much cooling air is
used in a carbon adsorption unit.
If incinerators are used, correction
factors referencing all calculations to a
specific oxygen concentration level in
the exhaust gases are a solution to the
problem of using varying quantities of
excess air. These factors, however, do
not compensate for indirect air dilution
resulting from combustion of more fuel
and air than is necessary. Tt is situation
occasionally arises where steam boilers
are pressed into service as incinerators.
Even though the exit gas concentrations
are low in these cases, the volume is so
large that emissions are occasionally
higher than if an incinerator were used.
In any event, a concentration standard
would require a measurement of exhaust
gas oxygen concentration.
If carbon adsorption were used, the
cooling air flow low rate and the total
flow rate would have to be measured,
and the cooling air flow rate subtracted
from the total flow rate. Measurement of
the cooling air flow rate to a
regenerating bed could be difficult.
Alternatively, an oxygen correction
factor could be used that references
calculations to the oxygen concentration
level of the absorber waste gas stream
as it is released from the absorber. In
this case, two measurements of oxygen
concentration level would be required:
the absorber waste gas stream and the
exhaust gases discharged to the
atmosphere.
In comparison, concentration, total
flow rate, and benzene feed rate or the
maleic anhydride production rate would
have to be measured to calculate mass
emissions. Maleic anhydride plants
already measure the benzene feed rate
because most plants must operate below
the benzene explosive limit. Therefore,
enforcement of a mass standard would
require no more measurements and
calculations than a concentration
standard.
Also, it is possible that some
expansion of existing plants might take
place by the addition of n-butane
oxidation reactors to an expanded
existing maleic anhydride refining
system, which also continued to refine
maleic anhydride from benzene
oxidation reactors. In this situation, the
waste gas stream from the product
recovery absorber would be a mixture of
n-butane and benzene oxidation waste
gases. As a result, enforcement of a
concentration standard, or a mass
standard limiting benzene emissions in
terms of maleic anhydride production.
would effectively give a source
combining n-butane and benzene
oxidation a higher emission limit than a
benzene oxidation source of the same
capacity. A mass standard limiting
emissions in terms of benzene per unit
of benzene supplied to the reactor,
however, would avoid this potential
problem. Therefore, this format has been
selected to limit emissions from existing
sources, both to avoid this problem and
because this format would minimize
required measurements for enforcement.
A mass standard limiting emissions in
terms of benzene per unit of benzene
supplied to the reactor, however, is not
V-H-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday. April IB. I960 / Proposed Rules
appropriate for new maleic anhydride
production facilities. Since the basis for
the standard for new sources assumes n-
butane oxidation, new sources are
expected to have no benzene emissions.
However, the quantity ox emissions
considered to be "zero" depends on the
measurement method. Consequently, the
format to limit emissions from new
sources is no detectable benzene
emissions as measured with Test
Method 110 specified in the proposed
standard for benzene emissions from
maleic anhydride plants.
Selection of Numerical Emission limits
As discussed above, the format
selected for the proposed standard as
applied to existing sources was benzene
emissions per unit of benzene fed to the
reactor. Benzene emissions from a
source are a function of the efficiency of
the conversion of benzene to maleic
anhydride and other organic byproducts
in the reactor and the efficiency of the
emission control device.
With regard to the reactor conversion
efficiency, data available in published
literature indicate that uncontrolled
benzene emissions from the product
recovery absorber and refining system
represent 3 to 10 percent of the benzene
fed to the reactor. This range in
conversion efficiency is caused by
variations in operating parameters,
including the age of the catalyst. To
include consideration of normal process
fluctuation, a conversion efficiency of 90
percent was selected. Based on this
conversion efficiency, the uncontrolled
emission rate is 110 kilograms (22
pounds) of benzene emitted per 100
kilograms (220 pounds) of benzene fed
to the reactors.
As discussed earlier, a control level of
97 percent has been selected as the
basis for the proposed standard for
existing sources. The numerical
emission limit, therefore, is selected as
0.30 kilogram of benzene per 100 kg (0.30
lb/100 Ib) of benzene fed to the
reactors).

Selection of Emission Test Methods
The proposed emission test method
for determining benzene emissions at
sources using benzene as a feedstock is
Method 110, which requires the use of a
gas chromatograph with a flame
ionization detector.
The averaging time selected for
measuring benzene emissions by Test
Method 110 at sources in maleic
anhydride plants is based on the type of
control device used. If a control device
•uch as a carbon adsorber that operates
In cycles is used, the averaging time for
one run is equivalent to one cycle of the
unit Potential fluctuations in emissions
may occur over the operating cycle of a
carbon adsorber. Requiring that each
run include an entire control device
operating cycle ensures that these
•'otentir'1 luctuations in emissions are
nsu. ,. A eye;;, in the monitoring of a
carbon adsorption unit begins when air
containing benzene is fed to the reactor
and continues through the adsorption,
desorption, and cooling and drying
stages. For control devices such as
incinerators, large fluctuations in
emissions are not expected during
normal operation, and the averaging
time selected for each run was 1 hour.
An emission test for benzene emissions
is to consist of three contiguous runs as
described above. The arithmetic mean
of the results of three runs is to be used
to determine compliance. Equivalent or
alternative emission test methods may
be used if they are approved by the
Administrator.
Selection of Emission Monitoring
Requirements
The objective of monitoring
requirements is to provide a quick and
easy means for enforcement personnel
to ensure that an emission control
system installed to comply with the
standard is properly operated and
maintained. For sources in maleic
anhydride plants, the most
straightforward means of ensuring
proper operation and maintenance
would be to monitor emissions released
to the atmosphere. Preliminary
indications are that a continuous
emission monitoring system employing
gas chromatography to measure benzene
emissions would cost about $35,000.
Since this cost is considered reasonable,
the proposed standard includes
monitoring requirements for plants using
benzene as the feedstock.
Gas chromatography with a flame
ionization detector, or an equivalent
benzene monitoring system, is. required.
This system has to be operational prior
to conducting the emission tests
required under Section 61.93 so the
continuous monitoring system can be
evaluated.
The standard requires that the
composition of reference gases used for
the daily span check calibration of
monitoring equipment be certified by the
gas manufacturer. To certify
composition, the concentrations of gases
contained in each cylinder must have
been determined by direct analysis with
the analytical instrument being
calibrated on the day of analysis.
Calibration (Section 5.2.3.2 of Test
Method 110) of the analytical procedure
is performed using gases that have had
their concentrations verified: (1) by
comparison to gas mixture prepared in
accordance with the procedure
described in Section 7.1 of Test Method
110 and using 99 mole percent benzene,
or (2) by direct analysis by the National
Bureau of Standards.
The averaging time selected for
determining the level of emissions with
the continuous monitor is equivalent to
the averaging time of an emission test;
that is, three operating cycles for carbon
adsorption systems, or 3 hours for other
control systems.
Upon written application, the
Administrator may approve alternative
monitoring procedures or systems for
specified conditions. For example, it is
possible that a plant would be allowed
to report benzene emissions in parts per
million, instead of kilograms of benzene
emitted per kilograms of benzene fed to
the reactor, if it could demonstrate that
it is meeting the standard using this
method.

Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held to
discuss the listing of benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 and the proposed standard for
maleic anhydride in accordance with
Sections 112(b)(l)(B) and 307(d)(5) of the
Clean Air Act. Person wishing to make
oral presentations on the listing of
benzene or the proposed standard for
maleic anhydride plants should contact
EPA at the address given in the
Addresses section of this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes .each. Anymember of the public
may file a written statement before,
during, or within 30 days after the
hearing. Written statements should be
addressed to the Central Docket Section
address given in the Addresses section
of this preamble and should refer to
docket number OAQPS 79-3.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Central
Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see
Addresses section of this preamble).

Docket

The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of this proposed
rulemaking. The principal purposes of
the docket are (1) to allow members of
the public and industries involved to
identify and locate documents so they
can intelligently and effectively
participate in the rulemaking process,
and (2) to serve as the record in case of
judicial review.
V-H-15
-------
federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 77 / Friday. April 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Miscellaneous
As prescribed by Section 112, the
proposal of this standard was preceded
by the Administrator's determination
that benzene is a hazardous air
pollutant as defined in Section 112fa)(l)
of the Act. Benzene was added to the
list of hazardous air pollutants on June
8,1877. The Administrator, however.
will consider information alleged to
•how that benzene does not cause or
contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality or an, increase in
serious, irreversible, or incapacitating,
reversible illness.
In accordance with Section 117 of the
Act. publication of this proposal was
preceded by consultation with
appropriate advisory committees,
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
regulations, including health, economic,
and technological issues, and on the
proposed test method. Even though 97
percent control is the basis for the
proposed standard, the Administrator
has reserved the option of considering
promulgation of a standard based on 99
percent control. For this reason,
comments on the technological and
economic aspects of requiring 99 percent
control are specifically invited.
Recent information indicates that two
benzene-based plants are considering
conversion to an n-butane feedstock. In
addition, one State has recently
promulgated generic standards for toxic
pollutants that may require more control
of benzene than is currently assumed in
the emission reduction estimates
projected for this regulation. EPA will
monitor these potential changes during
the proposal period and evaluate their
impact on emissions.
The Administrator welcomes
comments on the appropriateness of the
proposed regulation in light of these
factors and invites suggestions and
comments on alternatives to the
NESHAP regulation to control benzene
emissions from maleic anhydride plants.
The Agency invites discussion of any
alternative approaches that may achieve
comparable health protection with less
burden to EPA and to industry than
Section 112 regulation. Specifically, the
Agency requests comment on the
feasibility and desirability of voluntarily
developed compliance agreements,
negotiated between a source and EPA or
the State, as a means of assuring
adequate control of these facilities.
Under EPA's sunset policy for
reporting requirements in regulation*,
the reporting requirements in this
regulation will automatically expire 5
years from the date of promulgation
unless affirmative action is taken to
extend them. To accomplish this, a
provision automatically terminating the
reporting requirements at that time will
be included in the text of the final
regulations.
This regulation will be reviewed 5
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as new information on
health effects, the need for integration
with other programs, the existence of
alternative methods, enforceability, and
improvements hi emission control
technology.
Dated: April 4,1B60,
DoHtlai M. Coitte,
Administrator.

It is proposed that Part 61 of Chapter
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart H, a new Test Method 110
to Appendix B, and a new Appendix C
containing Supplements A and B to
Method 110, as follows:
Subpart H—National Emission Standard for
Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride
Plants
Sec.
61.90 Applicability and designation of
source.
61.91 Definitions.
61.92 Emission standard and compliance
provisions.
61.93 Excess emissions.
61.94 Emission test and procedures.
61.95 Emission monitoring.
61.96 Recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 112,114, and 301(a), Clean
Air Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 7412, 7414. and
7601(a)j, and additional authority as noted
below.

Subpart H—National Emission
Standard for Benzene Emissions from
Maleic Anhydride Plants

§61.90 Applicability and designation of
source.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following source: any
maleic anhydride production unit that
produces a total of 500 Mg or more per
year of maleic anhydride, maleic acid,
or both, either as an end product or as
an intermediate product.

{61.91 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined
in the Act, in Subpart A of this part, or
in this section as follows:
(a) "Continuous monitoring system*'
means the total equipment used to
sample, to analyze, and to provide a
permanent record of emissions or
process parameters.
(b) "Control system malfunction"
means any sudden and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control
equipment. A failure caused entirely or
in part by deficiencies in design, poor
maintenance, careless operation, or
other preventable upset condition or
preventable equipment breakdown is
not considered a malfunction.
(c) "Controlled shutdown" means the
termination of benzene feed to the
reactor(s) in a manner that results in the
least amount of benzene emissions
without damage to air pollution control
or process equipment.
(d) "Maleic anhydride production
unit" means any functionally integrated
combination of reactors, product
recovery absorbers, and refining
systems used to produce maleic
anhydride or maleic acid.
(e) "Product recovery absorber''
means any equipment in which a gas
stream containing maleic anhydride or
maleic acid is contacted with an
absorbent liquid to recover the maleic
anhydride, maleic acid, or both as a
mixture.
(f) "Reactor" means any vessel in
which benzene or an other feedstock is
partially or totally oxidized to maleic
anhydride or maleic acid.
(g) "Refining system" means
equipment used to separate maleic
anhydride or maleic acid from other
material or liquid and to dehydrate
maleic acid to maleic anhydride. It also
includes pieces of equipment used to
keep refining columns, evaporators,
crystallizers, and other unit separation
process equipment under negative
pressure.
(h) "Run" means the net period of time
during which an emission sample is
collected.
(i) "Reconstruction" means the
replacement of components of an
existing source to such an extent that:
(1) The fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed capital cost that would be required
to construct a comparable, entirely new
source; and
(2) It is feasible, considering economic
impacts and the technological problems
associated with retrofit, to meet the
applicable standard for new sources set
forth in this subpart.
(j) "Fixed capital cost" means the
capital needed to provide all the
depreciable components.

9 61.92 Emission standard and
compliance provisions.
(a) No owner or operator of a source
to which this subpart applies shall cause
benzene to be emitted into the
atmosphere from the source in excess of
V-H-16
-------
Paderal
/ Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday. April 16. 1880 / Proposed Rulei
the appropriate emission hmtt n it*ted
below:
(1) Existing source—0 JO kg/MD kg of
benzene fed to the reactors), avenged
over three cycles for carbon adsorbers
or over 3 hours for other control
systems. This emission limit d*e> not
apply daring a control system
malfunction if the Administrator IMS
approved a controlled shutdown mass
emission limit under f 61.93.
(2) New source—no detectable
benzene emissions as measured with
Test Method 110.
(b) For the duration of a control
system malfunction, no owner or
operator of a source to which this
subpart applies shall cauae the total
mass of benzene to be emitted from the
source in excess of the controlled
shutdown mass emission limit,
established under § 61.93(a), applicable
to the source.
(c) The owner or operator of each
source shall maintain and operate the
source including associated air pollution
control equipment in a manner
consistent with good air pollution
control practice for minimizing benzene
emissions. Determination of whether
acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based
on information available to the
Administrator, which may include but is
not limited to monitoring results, review
of operating and maintenance
procedures, and inspection of the
source.
(d) Upon reconstruction, an existing
source shall become a new source for
purposes of this subpart.

{61.93 Excess •mission*.
(a] Controlled shutdown mass
emission limit. (1) The owner or
operator of each source subject to the
emission limitations in § 61.92(a)(l) and
who uses benzene as a feedstock shall
include in the initial source report
required under { 61.10, a calculation of
the total uncontrolled mass benzene
emissions that would occur from each
source for which an emission limitation
is prescribed under { 61.92(a)(l) during a
controlled shutdown. The following
information is also to be included:
(i) A complete step-by-step
description of the controlled shutdown
procedure for each process for which an
emission limitation is prescribed under
i 61.92(a)(l), including an account that
details each step m the procedure.
pi) The length of time it takes for each
step of the controlled shutdown, from
initiation to completion.
(iii) The amount of benzene emissions
computed to occur in the absence of air
pollution control equipment during each
step of the controlled shutdown based
on production rates for the process
running at fall capacity.
(3) the Administrator shall, within 60
days of receipt of the information
specified in paragrph (a)(l) of this
section, notify the plant owner or
operator whether he approves or
disapproves, as the numerical emission
limit applicable during a control system
malfunction, the benzene emissions
computed to occur during a controlled
shutdown in accordance with paragraph
(a)(l) of this section. In making this
determination, the Administrator shall
consider the information submitted
under paragraph (a)(l) of this section.
The Administrator may also consider
any other information available to him
jor that he may reasonably require, in
addition to sound engineering practices.
(b) Excess emissions reporting. (1) For
each occurrence of benzene emissions in
excess of the numerical emission limit,
specified in S 61.92(a)(l), the owner or
operator of that plant shall report the
occurrence to the Administrator within
10 days after the occurrence. Emissions
in excess of the numerical emission limit
are those indicated by measurements by
an emission test or by a continuous
monitoring system over the following
period of time.
(i) When a control device is used that
operates in cycles, such as a carbon
adsorber, all periods equivalent to three
contiguous cycles of the control device
during which the average emissions
exceed the appropriate numerical
emissions limit in J 81.92(a)(l). The
emissions measured for any one cycle
are to be msed hi calculating an average
only once; running averages are not
required.
(ii) When any other control device is
used, all 3-hour periods during which the
average emissions exceed the
appropriate numerical emission limit in
{ 61.92(a)(l). The emissions measured
for any one cycle are to be used in
calculating an average only once;
running averages are not required.
(2) The owner or operator shall submit
the following information as a minimum
in the report required by paragraph
(b)(l) of this section:
(i) The identity of the stack and other
emission points where the excess
emissions occurred.
(ii) The identity of the equipment
causing the excess emissions.
(iii) The owner or operator shall also
state whether or not he believes a
control system malfunction has
occurred.
(3) If the owner or operator states that
a control system malfunction has
occurred, the following information as a
minimum Is also to be included in the
report required under paragraph (b)(l) of
this section:
(i) The total mass of benzene
emissions that occurred during the
control system malfunction.
(ii) The nature and cause of the excess
emissions.
(iii) The steps taken to remedy the
malfunction and the steps taken or
planned to prevent the recurrence of
such malfunctions.
(iv) Documentation that the air
pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or processes were at all
times maintained and operated, to the
maximum extent practicable, in a
manner consistent with good practice
for minimizing emissions, and were
designed in accordance with good
engineering practices.
(v) Continuous monitoring data,
operating data, and calculations used in
determining the magnitude of excess
emissions, including but not limited to—
(A) The time and duration of the
control system malfunction;
(B) The benzene feed rate to the
reactors at the beginning of and during
the control system malfunction;
(C) The benzene conversion rate in
the reactor at the beginning of and
during the control system malfunction:
(D) The production rate at the
beginning of and during the control
system malfunction; and
(E) The uncontrolled benzene
emission rate during the control system
malfunction in kilograms per 100
kilograms of benzene to the reactor.
(4) The Administrator shall determine
whether a contol system malfunction
has occurred based on the data
submitted under paragraphs (b) (2) and
(3) of this section. In making this
determination, the Administrator may
also consider any other information
available to him or that he may
reasonably require, in addition to sound
engineering practices. If the
Administrator determines that a control
system malfunction has occurred, he
shall determine whether the emissions
in excess of the emission limits
established in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section have been
exceeded. The Administrator shall
notify the owner or operator of this
determination In case of violation within
60 days after receipt of the report
required under paragraph (b) of this
section.

§ 61.M Emission test and procedure*.
(a) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under \ 61.13, the
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall test
emissions from all existing sources in
V-H-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday. April 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
which benzene is used as a feedstock
within 90 days of the effective date.
(b) The owner or operator of each
source shall provide the Administrator
30 days prior notice <:•;' he emhrons test
to afford the Adminitiirator thu
opportunity to have an observer present.
(c) Any emission test is to be
conducted while the equipment being
tested is operating at the maximum
production rate at which the equipment
will be operated.
(d) Where possible, each sample is to
be analyzed within 24 hours, but in no
case later than 72 hours of sample
collection. Emissions are to be
determined within 30 days after the
emisson test. The owner or operator
shall report the determinations to the
Administrator by a registered letter
dispatched before the close of the next
business day following the
determination.
(e) The owner or operator shall retain
at the plant and make available, upon
request, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years,
records of emission test results and
other data needed to determine
emissions.
(f) The owner or operator shall use the
following test methods to determine
benzene emissions from any source for
which an emissions limit is prescribed in
S 61.92, unlesss an alternative or
equivalent method has been approved
by the Administrator. If the
Administrator finds reasonable grounds
to dispute the results obtained by an
equivalent or alternative method, he
may require the use of a reference
method. If the results of the reference
and equivalent or alternative methods
do not agree, the results obtained by the
reference method prevail, and
Administrator may notify the owner or
operator that approval of the method
previously considered to be equivalent
or alternative is withdrawn.
(1) Test Method 1 of Appendix A to
Part 60 is to be used to determine
sample and velocity traverses.
(2) Test Method 2 of Appendix A to
Part 60 is to be used to determine
velocity and volumetric flow rate.
(3) Test Method 110 of Appendix B to
this part is to be used to determine
benzene emissions from any source for
which an emission limit is prescribed in
§ 61.92.
(g) Each emission test is to consist of
three runs. One sample containing a
minimum volume of 50 liters corrected
to standard conditions, is to be collected
for each run. For the purpose of
determining emissions, the average of
the results from all three runs is to
apply. The average is to be computed on
a time-weighted basis.
(h) Where a control device is used
that operates in cycles, the sampling
time for each run is the time period of
one complete cycle. Where any other
control device is used, sampling time is
to be taken over a minimum of 1 hour.
(i) The sampling site is to be at least
two stack or duct diameters
downstream and one-half diameter
upstream from any flow disturbance
such as a bend, expansion, contraction,
or visible flame. The sampling point in
the duct is to be at the centroid of the
cross section. The sample is to be
extracted at a rate proportional to the
gas velocity at the sampling point. For a
rectangular cross section an equivalent
diameter is to be determined from the
following equation:
equivalent diameter =
= 2
length + width
(j) The reactor feed rate is to be
determined during each testing period
by a method approved by the
Administrator.
(k) The mass emissions in kilograms
of benzene per 100 kilograms of benzene
fed to the reactor are to be computed by
using the following equation:
C -
B
[C. (3.24) Q
io"6][100]
BM
where
EB is kg of benzene/100 kg of benzene fed to
the reactor.
CB is the concentration of benzene as
measured by Test Method 110 (ppmv).
3.24 is the vapor density of benzene at 1 atm
and 20° C in kg/ms.
Q is the volumetric flow rate in m'/hr as
determined by Reference Method 2 of
Appendix A to Part 60 of this chapter.
10"'is the conversion factor for ppm.
PBU is the benzene feed rate to the reactor in
kg/hr.
(Sec. 114, Clean Air Act as amended [42
U.S.C. 7414])

111.96 Recordkeeptng requirement*.
(a) The owner or operator of each
source to which this subpart applies
shall maintain daily records of the
monitoring information specified in
|01.95(a).
(b) Records are to be retained at the
source and made available for
inspection by the Administrator for a
minimum of 2 years.
(Sec. 114, Clean Air Act aa amended [42
U.S.C. 7414])

Appendix B-Test Methods

Method 110. Determination of Benzene From
Stationary Sources
Performance of thii method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gat chromatograph, nor by
those who are unfamilar with source
sampling, because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to benzene, a
carcinogen.

1. Applicability and Prinicple
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of benzene in stack gases
from processes •* specified in the
regulations. The method does not remove
benzene contained m particulate matter.
12 Principle. An integrated bag sample of
stack gas containing benzene and other
organic* is subjected to gas diromatographic
(GC) analysis, using a flame ionization
detector (FID).

2. Range and Sensitivity
The range of this method is 0.1 to 70 ppm.
The upper limit may be extended by
extending the calibration range or by diluting
the sample.

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

4. Apparatus
4.1 Sampling (see Figure 110-1). The
sampling train consists of the following
components:
4.1.1 Probe. Stainless steel, Py/ex * glass,
or Teflon tubing (as stack temperature
permits), equipped with a glass wool plug to
remove particulate matter.
4.1.2 Sample Lines. Teflon, 6.4 mm outside
diameter, of sufficient length to connect
probe to bag. Use a new unused piece for
each series of bag samples that constitutes an
emission test and discard upon completion of
the test.
4.1.3 Quick Connects. Stainless steel,
male (2) and female (2), with ball checks (one
pair without) located as shown in figure 110-
1.
4.1.4 Tedlar or aluminized Mylar bags. 100
L capacity, to contain sample.
4.1.S Bag Containers. Rigid leakproof
containers for sample bags with covering to
protect contents from sunlight.
4.1.6 Needle Valve. To adjust sample flow
rate.
4.1.7 Pump. Leak-free with minimum of 2
L/min capacity.
4.1.8 Charcoal Tube. To prevent
admission of benzene and other organics to
the atmosphere in the vicinity of samplers.
4.1.9 Flow Meter. For observing sample
flow rate; capable of measuring a flow range
from 0.10 to L/min.
4.1.10 Connecting Tubing. Teflon. 6.4 mm
outside diameter, te assemble sampling train
(Figure 110-1.)
4.2 Sample Recovery. Teflon tubing. 6.4
mm outside diameter, is required to connect
chromatograph sample loop for sample
recovery. Use a new unused piece for each
series of bag samples that constitutes an
emission test and discard upon conclusion of
analysis of those bags.
4.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
needed:
4.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. With FID,
potentiometric strip chart recorder and 1.0 to
2.0 mL sampling loop in automatic sample
valve. The chromatographic system shall be
capable of producing a response to O.lppm
benzene that is at least as great as the
average noise level. (Response is measured
from the average value of the base line to the
maximum of the waveform, while standard
operating conditions are in use.)
* Mention of trade names or specific products
does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
V-H-19
-------
FILTER
(GLASS WOOL)
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 77 / Friday. April 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
STACK WALL
PROBE
TEFLON
SAMPLE LINE
VACUUM LINE
QUICK
CONNECTS
FEMALE
TEDLAR OR
ALUMINIZED
MYLAR BAG
NEEDLE
VALVE
1
FLOW METER

CHARCOAL TUBE
PUMP
RIGID LEAK-PROOF
CONTAINER
Figure 110-1. Integrated-bag sampling train. (Mention of trade names or specific products
does not constitute endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.)
V-H-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 77 / Friday, April 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
4.3.2 Chromatographic Columns. Columns
as listed below. The analyst may use other
columns provided that the precision and
accuracy of the analysis of benzene
standards are not impaired and he has
available for review information confirming
that there is adequate resolution of the
benzene peak. (Adequate resolution is
defined as an area overlap of not more than
10 percent of the benzene peak by an
interferent peak. Calculation of area overlap
is explained in Appendix E, Supplement A:
"Determination of Adequate
Chroma tographic Peak Resolution.")
4.3.2.1 Column A: Benzene In the Presence
of Aliphatics. Stainless steel. 2.44 m by 3.2
mm, containing 10 percent 1,2,3-tris (2-
cyanoethoxy) propane (TCEP) on 60/100
Chromosorb P AW.
4.3.2.2 Column B: Benzene With
Separation of the Isomers of Xylene.
Stainless steel, 1.83 m by 3.2 mm. containing 5
percent SP 1.200/1.75 percent Bentone 34 on
100/120 Suplecoport
4.3.3 Flow Meters (2). Rotameter type. 100
mL/min capacity.
4.3.4 Gas Regulators. For required gas
cylinders.
4.3.5 Thermometer. Accurate to 1' C. to
measure temperature of heated sample loop
at time of sample injection.
4.3.6 Barometer. Accurate to 5 mmHg, to
measure atmospheric pressure around gas
chromatograph during sample analysis.
4.3.7 Pump. Leak-free, with minimum of
100 mL/min capacity.
4.3.8 Recorder. Strip chart type, optionally
equipped with either disc or electronic
integrator.
4.3.9 Planimeter. Optional, in place of disc
or electronic integrator, on recorder, to
measure chromatograph peak areas.
4.4 Calibration. Sections 4.4.2 through
4.4.5 are for the optional procedure in Section
7.1.
4.4.1 Tubing. Teflon, 6.4 mm outside
diameter, separate pieces marked for each
calibration consentration.
4.4.2 Tedlar or Aluminized Mylar Bags. 50
L capacity, with valve; separate bag marked
for each calibration concentration.
4.4.3 Syringes. 1.0 pL and 10 pL, gas tight,
individually calibrated to dispense liquid
benzene.
4.4.4 Dry Gas Meter, With Temperature
and Pressure Gauges. Accurate to ±2
percent, to meter nitrogen in preparation of
standard gas mixtures, calibrated at the flow
rate used to prepare standards.
4.4.5 Midget Impinger/Hot Plate
Assembly. To vaporize benzene.

S. Reagents
Use only reagents that are of
chromatographic grade.
5.1 Analysis. The following are needed
for analysis:
5.1.1 Helium or Nitrogen. Zero grade, for
chromatograph carrier gas.
5.1.2 Hydrogen. Zero grade.
5.1.3 Oxygen or Air. Zero grade, as
required by the detector.
5.2 Calibration. Use one of the following
options: either 1.2.1 and 5.2.2, or 5.2.3.
5.2.1 Benzene, 99 Mol Percent Pure.
Certified by the manufacturer to contain a
minimum of 99 Mol percent benzene; for use
in the preparation of standard gas mixtures
as described in Section 7.1.
5.2.2 Nitrogen. Zero grade, for preparation
of standard gas mixtures as described in
Section 7.1.
5.2.3 Cylinder Standards (3). Gas mixture
standards (50,10, and 5 ppm benzene in
nitrogen cylinders). The tester may use
cylinder standards to directly prepare a
chromatograph calibration curve as
described in Section 7.2.2, if the following
conditions are met: (a) The manufacturer
certifies the gas composition with an
accuracy of ±3 percent or better (see Section
5.2.3.1). (b) The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by greater
than ±5 percent from the certified value, (c)
The manufacturer affixes the date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified benzene
concentration, and recommended maximum
shelf life to the cylinder before shipment to
the buyer.
5.2.3.1 Cylinder Standards Certification.
The manufacturer shall certify the
concentration of benzene in nitrogen in each
cylinder by (a) directly analyzing each
cylinder and (b) calibrating his analytical
procedure on the day of cylinder analysis. To
calibrate his analytical procedure, the
manufacturer shall use, as a minimum, a
three-point calibration curve. It is
recommended that the manufacturer maintain
(1) a high-concentration calibration standard
(between 50 and 100 ppm) to prepare his
calibration curve by an appropriate dilution
technique; and (2) a low-concentration
calibration standard (between 5 and 10 ppm)
to verify the dilution technique used. If the
difference between the apparent
concentration read from the calibration curve
and the true concentration assigned to the
low-concentration standard exceeds 5
percent of the true concentration, the
manufacturer shall determine the source of
error and correct it, then repeat the three-
point calibration.
5.2.3.2 Verification of Manufacturer's
Calibration Standards. Before using, the
manufacturer shall verify each calibration
standard by (a) comparing it to gas mixtures
prepared (with 99 Mol percent benzene) in
accordance with the procedure described in
Section 7.1 or by (b) having it analyzed by the
National Bureau of Standards. The agreement
between the initially determined
concentration value and the verification
concentration value must be within ±5
percent. The manufacturer must reverify all
calibration standards on a time interval
consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder
standards sold.
5.2.4 Audit Cylinder Standards (2). Gas
mixture standards with concentrations
known only to the person supervising the
analysis of samples. The audit cylinder
standards shall be identically prepared as
those in Section 5.2.3 (benzene in nitrogen
cylinders). The concentrations of the audit
cylinder should be: one low-concentration
cylinder in the range of 5 to 20 ppm benzene
and one high-concentration cylinder in the
range of 100 to 300 ppm benzene. When
available, the tester may obtain audit
cylinders by contacting: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory, Quality Assurance
Branch (MD -77), research Triangle Park.
North Carolina 27711. If audit cylinders are
not available at the Environmental Protection
Agency, the tester must secure an alternative
source.

ft. Procedure
6.1 Sampling. Assemble the sample train
as shown in Figure 110-1. Perform a bag leak
check according to Section 7.3.2. Join the
quick connects as illustrated, and determine
that all connections between the bag and the
probe are tight. Place the end of the probe at
the centroid of the stack, and start the pump
with the needle valve adjusted to yield a flow
that will more than half fill the bag in the
specified sample period. After allowing
sufficient time to purge the line several times,
connect the vacuum line to the bag and
evacuate the bag until the rotameter indicates
no flow. At all times, direct the gas exiting
the rotameter away from sampling personnel.
At the end of the sample period, shut off the
pump, disconnect the sample line from the
bag, and disconnect the vacuum line from the
bag container. Protect the bag container from
sunlight.
6.2 Sample Storage. Keep the sample bags
out of direct sunlight. Perform the analysis
within 4 days of sample collection.
6.3 Sample Recovery. With a new piece of
Teflon tubing identified for that bag. connect
a bag inlet valve to the gas chromatograph
sample valve. Swifch the valve to receive gas
from the bag thrpugh the sample loop.
Arrange the equipment so the sample gas
passes from the sample valve to a 100-mL/
min rotameter with flow control valve
followed by a charcoal tube and a 1-in.
pressure gauge. The tester may maintain the
sample flow either by a vacuum pump or
container pressurization if the collection bag
remains in the rigid container. After sample
loop purging'is ceased, always allow the
pressure gauge to return to zero before
activating the gas sampling valve.
6.4 Analysis. Set the column temperature
to 80° C (176° F) for column A or 75° C (167°
F] for column B, and the detector temperature
to 225* C (437* F). When optimum hydrogen
and oxygen flow rates have been determined,
verify and maintain these flow rates during
all chromatograph operations. Using zero
helium or nitrogen as the carrier gas,
establish a flow rate in the range consistent
with the manufacturer's requirements for
satisfactory detector operation. A flow rate of
approximately 20 mL/min should produce
adequate separations. Observe the base line
periodically and determine that the noise
level has 'stabilized and that base-line drift
has ceased. Purge the sample loop for 30 sec
at the rate of 100 mL/min, then activate the
sample valve. Record the injection time (the
position of the pen on the chart at the time of
sample injection), the sample number, the
sample loop temperature, the column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, chart
speed, and the attenuator setting. From the
chart, note the peak having the retention time
corresponding to benzene, as determined in
Section 7.2.1. Measure the benzene peak area,
Am, by use of a disc Integrator, electronic
integrator, or a planimeter. Record AB and
V-H-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 77 / Friday, April 16. 1980 / Proposed Rules
die retention time. Repeat the injection at
least two times or until two consecutive
values for the total area of the benzene peak
do not vary more than 5 percent. Use the
average value of these two total areas to
compute the bag concentration.
6.5 Determination of Bag Water Vapor
Content. Measure the ambient temperature
and barometric pressure near the bag. From a
water saturation vapor pressure table,
determine and record the water vapor
content of the bag as a decimal figure.
(Assume the relative humidity to be 100
percent unless a lesser value is known.]

7. Preparation of Standard Cos Mixtures,
Calibration, and Quality Assurance
7.1 Preparation of Benzene Standard Gas
Mixtures. (Optional procedure—delete if
cylinder standards are used.) Assemble the
apparatus shown in Figure 110-2. Evacuate a
50-L Tedlar or aluminized Mylar bag that has
passed a leak check (described in Section
7.3.2) and meter in about 50 L of nitrogen.
Measure the barometric pressure, the relative
pressure at the dry gas meter, and the
temperature at the dry gas meter. While the
bag is filling, use the 10/tL syringe to inject
lOjiL of 99+ percent benzene through the
septum on top of the impinger. This gives a
concentration of approximately 50 ppm of
benzene. In a like manner, use the other
syringe to prepare dilutions having
approximately 10 ppm and 5 ppm benzene
concentrations. To calculate the specific
concentrations, refer to Section 8.1. These gas
mixture standards may be used for 7 days
from the date of preparation, after which time
preparation of new gas mixtures is required.
(Caution: If the new gas mixture standard is a
lower concentration than the previous gas
mixture standard, contamination may be a
problem when a bag is reused.)
72 Calibration.
7.2.1 Determination of Benzene Retention
Time. (This section can be performed
simultaneously with Section 7.2.2.) Establish
chromatograph conditions identical with
those in Section 6.4, above. Determine proper
attenuator position. Flush the sampling loop
with zero helium or nitrogen and activate the
•ample valve. Record the injection time, the
•ample loop temperature, the column
temperature, the carrier gas flow rate, the
chart speed, and the attenuator setting.
Record peaks and detector responses that
occur in the absence of benzene. Maintain
conditions, with the equipment plumbing
arranged identically to Section 6.3, and flush
the sample loop for 30 sec at the rate of 100
mL/min with one of the benzene calibration
mixtures. Then activate the sample valve.
Record the injection time. Select the peak
that corresponds to benzene. Measure the
distance on the chart from the injection time
to the time at which the peak maximum
occurs. This distance divided by the chart
•peed is defined as the benzene peak
retention time. Since it is quite likely that
there will be other organics present hi the
•ample, it is very important that positive
identification of the benzene peak be made.
V"H-22
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 77 / Friday, April 18,1980 / Proposed Rules
DRY GAS METER
TEDLAR BAG
CAPACITY
50 LITERS
Figure 110-2. Preparation of benzene standards (optional).
V-H-23
-------
Federal Register / Vol 45, No. 77 / Friday. April !». 1860 / Proposed Rul«s
Question.
7.2.2 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve. Make a gas
chromatographic measurement of each
standard gas mixture (described in Section
5.2.3 or 7.1.1) using conditions identical with
those listed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. Flush the
sampling loop for 30 sec at the rate of mL/
min with one of the standard gas mixtures
and activate the sampe valve. Record Ge, the
concentration of benzene Injected, the
attenuator setting, chart speed, peak area,
•ample loop temperature, column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, and
retention time. Record the laboratory
pressure. Calculate A,, the peak area
multiplied by the attenuator setting. Repeat
until two consecutive injection areas are
within 5 percent, then plot the average of
those two values versus Q_ When the other
standard gas mixtures have been similarly
analyzed and plotted, draw a straight line
through the points derived by the least
squares method. Perform calibration daily, or
before and after each set of bag samples,
whichever is more frequent.
7.3 Quality Assurance.
7.3.1 Analysis Audit. Immediately after
the preparation of the calibration curve and
before the sample analyses, perform the
B(0.2706)(1(T)
analysis audit described in Appendix E,
Supplement & "Procedure for Field Auditing
GC Analysis."
7.3.2 Bag Leak Checks. While
performance of this section is required after
bag use, it is also advised that it be
performed before bag use. After each use,
make sure • bag did not develop leaks by
connecting a water manometer and
pressurizing the bag to S to 10 cm H.O [2 to 4
in. H.O). Allow to stand for 10 min. Any
displacement in the water manometer
indicates a leak. Also, check the rigid
container for leaks in this manner. (Note: an
alternative leak check method is to pressurize
the bag to 5 to 10 cm H,O or 2 to 4 in. H,O
and allow to stand overnight. A deflated bag
indicates • leak.) For each sample bag in its
rigid container, place a rotameter in line
between'the bag and the pump inlet.
Evacuate the bag. Failure of the rotameter to
register zero flow when the bag appears to be
empty indicates a leak.
8. Calculations
8.1 Optional Benzene Standards
Concentrations. Calculate each benzene
standard concentration (Cc in ppmj prepared
in accordance with Section 7.1 as follows:
3,
293
Pra
76"o
= 701.9
BT.
(110-1)
where:
= Volume of benzene injected, raicroliters.
Gas volume measured by dry gas meter, liters.
= Dry gas meter calibration factor, dimensionless.
= Absolute pressure of the dry gas meter. mmHg.
= Absolute temperature of the dry gas meter, °K.
= Ideal gas volume of benzene at 293° K and 760 mmHg I/ml.
= Conversion factor [(ppm)(mL)/uL].

Benzene Sample Concentrations. From the calibration curve de-
0.2706
103

8.2

scribed in Section 7.2.2 above, select the value of C that corresponds to
A£. Calculate the concentration of benzene in the sample (C in ppm) as
follows:
Cc"rTi
Vr
(110-2)
Where:
C.
ri
Tr
Concentration of benzene in the sample, ppm.
Concentration of benzene indicated by the gas Chromatograph,
ppra.
Reference pressure, the barometric pressure recorded during
calibration, mmHg.
Sample loop temperature at the time of analysis, °K.
Barometric pressure at time of analysis, mniHg.
Reference temperature, the sample loop temperature recorded
during calibration, °K.
Water vapor content of the bag sample, volume fraction.
ft References
1. Feairheller, W. R., A. M Kemmer. B. ].
Warner, and D. Q. Douglas.
Measurement of Gaseous Organic
Compound Emissions by Gas
Chromatography. U.S. Environemental
Protection Agency. EPA Contract
Number 68-02-1404. January 1978.
Revised by EPA August 1978.
2. Knoll, Joseph E., Wade H. Penny, and
Rodney M. Midgett. The Use of Tedlar
Bags to Contain Gaseous Benzene
Samples at Source Level. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Monitoring
Series, EPA-600/4-78-057. October 1978.
3. Supelco, Inc. Separation of Hydrocarbons.
Bellefonte, Pa. Bulletins 743A, 740C, and
740D. 1974.
4. Current Peaks. 7(7.1. Carle Instruments, Inc.
Fullerton, Calif. 1977.
5. Knoll, Joseph E. Communications
Concerning Chromatographic Columns
for Benzene Analysis. October 18,1977.
6. Knoll, Joseph E. Communications
Concerning Gas Chromatographic
Columns for Separating Benzene From
Other Organics in Cumene and Maleic
Anhydride Process Effluents. November
10,1977.

Appendix C

Supplement A—Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution
In this method of dealing with resoultion,
the extent to which one chromatographic
peak overlaps another is determined.
For convenience, consider the range of the
elution curve of each compound as running
from — 2o- to +2cr. This range is used in other
resolution criteria, and it contains 95.45
percent of the area of a normal curve. If two
peaks are separated by a known distance, b,
one can determine the fraction of the area of
one curve that h'es within the range of the
other. The extent to which the elution curve
of a contaminant compound overlaps the
curve of a compound that is under analysis is
found by integrating the contaminant curve
over limits b-2o-. to b + 2o-., where
-------
Fedand Regiitar / Vol. 45.No.77 / Friday, An:'? 18.1080 J Proposed Rule*
b+20
dt
The following calculation steps arc required:"
1.

-------
a
i
to
FIELD AUDIT REPORT
PART A - To be filled out by organization supplying audit cylinders
1. Organization supplying audit sample(s) and shipping address

2. Audit supervisor, organization, and phone number
3. Shipping instructions: Name, Address, Attention
4.
5.
6.
Guaranteed arrival date for cylinders
Planned shipping date for cylinders _
Details on audit cylinders from last analysis
Low Cone. High Cone.
a. Date of last analysis
Cylinder number
Cylinder pressure, psi
Audit gas(es)/balance gas
Audit gas(es) ppm
Cylinder construction
PART B - To be filled out by audit supervisor
Process sampled
1.

3.
4.
5.
Location of audit
Name of individual audited
Audit date
Audit results
Low Cone.
Cylinder
High Cone.
Cylinder
a. Cylinder number
b. Cylinder pressure before
audit, psi
c. Cylinder pressure after
audit, psi
d. Measured concentration, ppm
Injection (HI*
Injection #2*
Average*
e. Actual audit concentration, ppm
(Part A, 6e)
f. Audit accuracy"
Low Cone. Cylinder
High Cone. Cylinder
I

I
3
5"
Z
o
a.
09
•o
g. Problems detected (if any)
o
CB
(B
a.
CD
•Results of two consecutive injections that meet the sample analysis
criteria of the test method.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 101 / Thursday. May 22. 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

(FRL 1498-2; Docket No. OAQPS 79-3)

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Maleic Anhydride
Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Amended Notice of Public
Hearing and Extension of Public
Comment Period.

SUMMARY: On April 18,1980, EPA
proposed in the Federal Register (45 FR
26660) a national emission standard for
benzene emissions from maleic
anhydride plants. •
In that notice, EPA announced the
date ending the public comment period
and the date and location of the public
hearing to receive public comment on
the proposed standards, the health
effects of benzene, and the listing of
benzene as a hazardous air pollutant.
This notice amends the date and
location of the public hearing and
extends the public comment period.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record should be
postmarked no later than August 21,
1980. Notice of intent to present oral
testimony at the public hearing should
be postmarked no later than July 15,
1980. The hearing will be held in
Washington, D.C.. on July 22.1980.
Written comments responding to,
supplementing, or rebutting written or
oral comments received at the public
hearing must be submitted no later than
August 21.1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the health
effects of benzene and the listing of
benzene as a hazardous air pollutant
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number OAQPS
79-3, Part I, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street S.W..
Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments on
the proposed maleic anhydride standard
should be submitted to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket No.
OAQPS 79-3, Part II, same address.
The public hearing will be held at the
General Services Administration
Auditorium: 7th and D Streets, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Deanna Tilley,
Standards Development Branch (MD-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan R. Wyatt, Standards Development
Branch (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
public hearing has been postponed and
the public comment period has been .
extended in response to requests-from
the American Petroleum Institute and
Dow Chemical USA. These requests
expressed the need to review more
completely the large amount of
information that has been and is being
developed on benzene health effects, to
inspect the docket before the public
hearing, and to prepare testimony and
written comments on the associated
technological and policy related issues.
Dated: May 16.1980.
David C. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise, and
Radiation.
|FR Doc. (0-1S717 Filed S-21-tfr. MS mm]
V-H-27
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 144 / Thursday, July 24, 1980 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61
IFRL 1545-6, Docket No. OAQPS 79-3}

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Emissions
From Maleic Anhydride Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Amended notice of public
hearing and extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: The public hearing has been
postponed and the public comment
period for listing of benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant, the proposed
standard, and Test Method 110, has
been extended in response to a request
from the American Petroleum Institute.
This request expressed the need to
review more completely the large
amount of information that has been
and is being developed on benzene
health effects, to inspect the docket
before the public hearing, and to prepare
testimony and written comments on the
associated, technological and policy
related issues. The comment period for
Appendix C remains the same and there
will be no public hearing on Appendix
C.
DATES: Written comments on the listing
of benzene as a hazardous air pollutant,
the proposed standard and Test Method
110 to be included in the record should
be postmarked no later than September
22,1980. Notice of intent to present oral
testimony at the public hearing should
be postmarked no later than August 14,
1980. The hearing will be held in
Washington, D.C. on August 21,1980.
Written comments responding to,
supplementing, or rebuttal written or
oral comments received at the public
hearing must be submitted no later than
September 22,1980. Written comments
on Appendix C to be included in the
record should be postmarked no later
than August 22,1980.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the health
effects of benezene and the listing of
benzene as a hazardous air pollutant
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention; Docket Number OAQPS
79-3, Part I, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Comments on
the proposed maleic anhydride
standard, Test Method 110, and
Appendix C should be submitted to:
Central Docket Section (A-130),
Attention: Docket No. OAQPS 79-3, Part
II, same address.
The public hearing will be held at the
General Services Administration
Auditorium: 7th and D Streets, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Deanna Tilley.
Standards Development Branch (MD-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan R. Wyatt, Standards Development
Branch (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711, telephone number (919)
641-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
18,1980, EPA proposed in the Federal
Register (45 FR 26660) a national
emission standard for benzene
emissions from maleic anhydride plants,
Test Method 110 for measuring benzene
emissions, and Appendix C containing
Supplement A for Determination of
Adequate Chromatographic Peak
Resolution and Supplement B, a
Procedure for Field Auditing GC
Analysis.
On May 22,1980, EPA published in the
Federal Register (45 FR 34315) an
amended notice of public hearing and
extension of public comment period for
the listing of benzene as a hazardous air
pollutant, the proposed standard, Test
Method 110, and Appendix C.
In the amended notice, EPA
announced the date ending the public
comment period and the date and
location of the public hearing to receive
public comment on the listing of
benzene as a hazardous air pollutant,
the proposed standard, Test Method 110
and Appendix C, This notice amends the
date of the public hearing and extends
the public comment period for the listing
of benzene as a hazardous air pollutant,
the proposed standard, and Test Method
110, but not Appendix C. Appendix C
contains two supplements which are
referenced in Test Method 110.
Supplement A is for "Determination of
Adequate Chromatographic Peak
Resolution" and Supplement B is a
"Procedure for Field Auditing Gas
Chromatographic Analysis." These
supplements are scheduled to be
referenced in other testing methods and
standards. Because these supplements
are separable from the proposed maleic
anhydride standard, they are to be used
for other purposes, and the substance of
the final maleic anhydride standard will
be unaffected by these supplements, it is
not necessary or desirable to delay the
public comment period on them. Also
because of the nature of the technical
detail in these supplements, a public
hearing on them is not necessary.
Dated: June 16.1980.
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise, and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 80-22383 Filed 7-23-80: 8:45 am]
V-H-28
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 190 / Monday, September 29, 1980 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61

[FRL 1617-« Docket No. OAOPS 7»-3]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Maleic Anhydride
Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extension of public comment
period.

40 CFR Part 61

IAD-FRL 1551-6]

National Emissions Standards For
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Ethylbenzene/
Styrene Plants; Public Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
Public Hearing.

SUMMARY: The proposed standard
would limit benzene emissions from
process vents at existing and new
ethylbenzene and styrene (EB/S) plants
to five parts per million by volume
(ppmv) on a dry basis corrected to three
percent oxygen. Emissions in excess of
this numerical emissions limit would be
allowed only during malfunction,
startup, and shutdown. During these
times, however, these emissions would
have to be flared.
The proposed standard implements
the Clean Air Act and is based on the
Administrator's determination on June 8,
1977, that benzene presents a significant
carcinogenic risk to human health as a
result of emissions from one or more
stationary source categories and is
therefore a hazardous air pollutant (42
FR 29332). The intent of the standard is
to protect the public health with an
ample margin of safety.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons the
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standard for EB/S plants.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before March 7,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on February 5,1981 beginning at
9a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by January 29,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number A-7»-
49, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at the EPA Administration
Bldg. Auditorium, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. Persons wishing to present
oral testimony should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee. Emissions Standards &
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5331.
Background Information Document.
The Health Risk Assessment Documents
for benzene and the Background
Information Document (BID) for the
proposed standard are contained in the
docket and may be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to "Benzene Emissions from the
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Industry—
Background Information for Proposed
standards." EPA-450/3-79-035a;
"Assessment of Health Effects of
Benzene Germane to Low Level
Exposures," EPA-6007l-78-061;
"Assessment of Human Exposures to
Atmospheric Benzene," EPA-450/3-78-
031; and "Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Report on Population Risk to
Ambient Benzene Exposures," EPA-450/
5-80-004.
Docket. Docket No. A-79-49,
containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standard, is
available for public inspection between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section,
Room 2902, Waterside Mall, 401 M
Street, SW.. Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan R. Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice IS
given that, under the authority of section
112(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Air Act (as
amended), the Administrator is
proposing a national emission standard
for benzene emissions from
ethylbenzene/styrene plants. Although
the proposed EPA "Policy and
Procedures for Identifying, Assessing,
and Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer" (44 FR 58642)
proposed on October 10,1979, are not
final, the proposed standards for EB/S
plants have been developed consistent
with the proposed EPA policy and
procedures. As prescribed in section
112(b)(l)(A) of the Act, the proposal of
this standard was preceded by the
Administrator's determination that
benzene is a hazardous air pollutant as
defined in section 112(a)(l) of the Act
Accordingly, the Administrator revised
the list of hazardous air pollutants on
June 8.1977, by adding benzene (42 FR
29332).
A Background Information Document
has been prepared that contains
information on manufacturing and
processing ethylbenzene and styrene;
the available control technologies for
benzene emissions; and analysis of the
environmental, energy, economic, and
inflationary impacts of regulatory
options. Information on the health
effects of benzene is contained in
documents prepared by or for EPA,
entitled the "Assessment of Health
Effects of Benzene Germane to Low
Level Exposure;" the "Assessment of
Human Exposures to Atmospheric
Benzene;" and the "Carcinogen
Assessment Group's Report on
Population Risk to Ambient Benzene
Exposures." Supplementary information
on the regulation of benzene emissions
can be obtained from the Maleic
Anhydride Docket No. OAQPS-79-3
which is available for public review at
EPA's Central Docket Section. The
information contained in these
documents is summarized in this
preamble. All references used for the
information contained in the preamble
can be found in these five documents.

Proposed Standard
The proposed standard would limit
the amount of benzene discharged to the
atmosphere from each process-vent
stream or combination of process vent
streams to five ppmv on a dry basis
corrected to three percent oxygen. A
process vent stream is defined as any
continuous benzene-containing gas
stream being released or having the
potential of being released to the
atmosphere from the alkylation reactor
section, atmospheric and pressure
columns, hydrogen separation system,
or vacuum-producing devices.
The owner or operator of a source
which uses a boiler ' to control benzene
emissions would have to monitory
oxygen flow, firebox temperature, and
compressor flow, and visually inspect
process vents to determine if they are
being routed to the control device. The
owner or operator would have to report
to the Administrator within ten days of
each occurrence of emissions in excess
of the numerical emissions limit (five
ppmv) as determined by: (1) A three-
hour average oxygen flow level below
1.5 percent by volume, (2) a three-hour
average temperature more than 100°F
below that measured during the
emission test, (3) a three-hour period of
no flow from the compressor, or (4)
observation of process vent streams not
being routed to the control device. The
owner or operator of a source which
uses a device other than a boiler to
control benzene emissions would have
to continuously monitor benzene
concentrations and compressor flow,
and report to the Administrator within
'The term "boiler" in this document included
process healers and super-heaters.
V-I-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 245 / Thursday, December 16. 1980 / Proposed Rule»
ten days of each occurrence of
emissions with concentrations greater
than five ppmv or occurrences of no
compressor flow.
Emissions in excess of the numerical
emission limit (five ppmv) would be
allowed during startup and shutdown of
the entire source, alkylation reactor
section, or dehydrogenation section.
Emissions in excess of the numerical
emission limit due to process or control
equipment failure would be permitted
only if the owner or operator of the
source demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction that these
emissions were unavoidable. Emissions
in excess of five ppmv that could have
been prevented by proper operation and
maintenance would be considered
avoidable, and therefore would be in
violation of the proposed standard
which requires that good air pollution
control practice be followed. The
proposed standard would require that
emissions during periods of malfunction,
startup, and shutdown be combusted
with one or more smokeless flares, or be
controlled by an equivalent means
approved by the Administrator.
The format of the standard is
comprised of two parts. Although
continuous process emissions and
emissions due to malfunction, startup,
and shutdown originate from the same
process unit, the control technologies for
these emissions as outlined in the
regulatory options differ. This is due
primarily to flow characteristics and
safety considerations inherent in each
case.
Unless a waiver of compliance is
obtained, each owner or operator would
have to be in compliance within 90 days
of the promulgation of the standard. A
waiver of compliance can be granted by
the Administrator for no more than two
years from the promulgation date.

Summary of Health, Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Impacts
The standard would apply to as many
as 13 existing plants that produce
ethylbenzene, styrene, or both, A recent
analysis of the EB/S industry reveals
that no new plants are expected to be
constructed within the next five years
primarily because the industry is not
operating at full capacity.
The proposed standard would reduce
total nationwide benzene emissions
from all process vents within EB/S
plants, based on current control and
production at 100 percent capacity, from
2,100 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) to 91
Mg/yr. As a result of this reduction in
continous process and excess process.
emissions, it is estimated that the
nationwide incidence of leukemia
deaths resulting from exposure to
benzene emissions from EB/S process
vents within 20 kilometers (km) of EB/S
plants would be reduced from a range of
0.03 to 0.2 to a range of 1.3 x 10*4 to 9.2 x
10"4 deaths per year. In addition, a
reduction in other health effects
associated with benzene exposure (such
as cytopenia, aplastic anemia, and
chromosomal aberrations) may be
expected.
The proposed standard would reduce
the estimated maximum lifetime risk due
to benzene emissions from EB/S process
vents from a range of 0.2 x 10"4 to 4.4 x
10"' to a range of 1.7 x 10~4 to 1.2 x 10"'.
The maximum lifetime risk represents
the probability of someone dying of
leukemia who has been exposed for a
70-year period to the highest maximum
annual average benzene concentration
due to benzene emissions from EB/S
process vents.
The proposed standard would achieve
the reduction in nationwide benzene
emissions with minimal adverse impacts
on other aspects of the environment.
The other impacts that may occur
primarily involve noise and thermal
radiation associated with the use of
flares for controlling excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. Due to recovered energy,
compliance with the proposed standard
would result in a small energy savings,
equivalent to approximately 0.1 percent
of the current nationwide EB/S fuel
requirements.
The capital investment required per
plant to comply with the proposed
standard would range from zero to
$686,000, based on full capacity. The
annualized costs per plant, assuming full
capacity, would range from $68,750 to a
savings of $140,000. The total
nationwide capital cost of the proposed
standard would be approximately $3.9
million based on production at 100
percent capacity. The total nationwide
annualized cost, assuming full utilization
of capacity, would be a net credit of
$289,000 per year. The total annualized
cost per Mg capacity of styrene would
be a net credit of $0.07/Mg. These
savings are due to a reduction in process
energy requirements as a result of heat
recovery from the combusted waste
stream in the form of steam. The capital
investment required per plant to comply
with the proposed monitoring
requirements, assuming no existing
monitoring equipment, would be a
maximum of $16,000 for installing two
oxygen and temperature monitors and
three flow meters, or $58,000 for
installing a gas chromatograph and three
flow meters. Finally, no plants are
projected to close as a result of
implementing the proposed standard.
Background Information on Health
Effects of Benzene
The Administrator announced in the
June 8,1977, Federal Register (42 FR
29332) his decision to list benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant under section
112 of the Clean Air Act. A hazardous
pollutant is defined as an "* * * air
pollutant to which no ambient air
quality standard is applicable and
which * * * may reasonably be
anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious,
irreversible, or incapacitating, reversible
illness."
Numerous occupational studies
conducted over the past 50 years have
shown that health hazards result from
prolonged inhalation exposure to
benzene. Since 1900 the scientific and
medical communities have recognized
benzene as a toxic substance capable of
causing acute and chronic effects.
Benzene attacks the hematopoietic
system, especially the bone marrow, and
its toxicity is manifested primarily by
alterations in the levels of the formed
elements in the circulating blood (red
cells, white cells, and platelets). The
degree of severity ranges from mild and
transient episodes to severe and fatal
disorders. The mechanism by which
benzene causes toxic effects is still
unknown.
These adverse effects on the blood-
forming tissues, including leukemia,
have been documented in studies of
workers in a variety of industries and
occupations, including the
manufacturing or processing of rubber,
shoes, rotogravure, paints, chemicals,
and, more recently, natural rubber cast
film. These studies include single case
reports, cross-sectional studies, and
retrospective studies of morbidity and
mortality among a defined group of
workers industrially exposed to
benzene.
Based on the entire set of these
studies, the Administrator concluded
that benzene exposure is causally
related to a number of blood disorders,
including leukemia (a cancer of the
blood-forming system).* Although the
studies which form the basis of this
conclusion involve occupational
exposure to benzene at higher levels
than those found in the ambient air, the
Administrator has "* * * made a
generic determination that, in view of
the existing state of scientific
'Benzene also has been shown to be causally
related to various cytopenlas (decreaded levels of
formed elements In the circulating blood), aplastic
anemia (a non-functioning bone marrow), and
potentially inheritable chromosomal aberrations.
V-I-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 245 / Thursday. December 18. I960 / Proposed Rules
knowledge, prudent public health policy
requires that carcinogens be considered
for regulatoy purposes to pose some
finite risk of cancer at any exposure
level above zero" (44 FR 58646). Because
of the widespread use of benzene,
benzene emissions in the ambient air
have been determined to result in
significant human exposure. For these
reasons, exposure to benzene emissions
may reasonably be anticipated to result
in one or more serious effects that can
be expected to lead to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious,
irreversible, or incapacitating, reversible
illness. Therefore, the Administrator
concluded that benzene satisfies the
definition of a hazardous air pollutant
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act

Rationale for Regulating Ethylbenzene/
Styrene Plants

Stationary source categories of
benzene emissions include fugitive
emissions form petroleum refineries and
chemical manufacturing plants, the
gasoline marketing system, process
vents at several types of chemical
manufacturing plants, coke by-product
plants, and benzene storage and
handling facilities. Ethylbenzene and
Styrene production are among the
several types of chemical manufacturing
plants which emit benzene.
Ethylbenzene and styrene are
considered jointly for regulation
because the plants are located together
and frequently physically integrated.
The first step in establishing a
standard for benzene was to determine
which of the source categories emitting
benzene would be regulated. Although a
pollutant such as benzene may be
considered for regulation under section
112 of the Clean Air Act because
emissions from a particular source
category post a significant risk, other
source categories may also emit the
pollutant in lesser amounts. This may
occur, for example, because the source
categories process very little of the
substance, because the substance is
present in only trace amounts in the
sources' raw materials, or because
sources have installed adequate controls
on their own initiative or in response to
other regulatory requirements.
Approximately 17 percent of the
benzene emissions from chemical
manufacturing is from EB/S plants; they
are the second largest source of benzene
emissions in the chemical manufacturing
industry. The largest source of benzene
emissions in the chemical manufacturing
industry is the production of maleic
anhydride, which will be regulated
under a separate standard'Seventeen
plants produce ethylbenzene, styrene, or
both. Fifty percent of the benzene
produced in the United States for
chemical use goes to the production of
ethylbenzene, styrene, or both. The
current U.S. styrene capacity is 4.0
million Mg/yr (4.4 million tons/yr). The
current U.S. ethylbenzene capacity is 4.7
million Mg/yr (5.2 million tons/yr).
Benzene emissions from EB/S process
vents currently are only controlled an
average of 70 percent nationwide. Total
benzene emissions from these sources
currently are estimated to be about 2,100
Mg/yr.
Approximately 2.5 million people live
within 20 km of the 13 EB/S plants that
produce ethylbenzene by benzene
alkylation and/or styrene by
ethylbenzene dehydrogenation or
ethylbenzene hydroperoxidation. This is
considered the population at risk which
is exposed to ambient concentrations of
benzene due to benzene emissions from
the process vents within these plants.
As a result of exposure to these benzene
concentrations, it was estimated that the
maximum lifetime risk would be within
a range of 6.2 X 10'4 to 4.4 X 10"'. The
maximum life time risk is defined here
as the probability of an individual
(within the assumed exposed
population) dying of leukemia who is
exposed continuously for 70 years to the
highest maximum annual average
ambient benzene concentration due to
benzene emissions from EB/S process
vents. In addition, it was estimated that
there would be a range of 0.027 to 0.20
deaths per year within this population
due to benzene exposure from EB/S
process vents.
While the operating life of the plants
(and, in fact, the long-range number of
plants) which may be subject to this
standard cannot be predicted with
certainty, it has been estimated that the
typical operating life of an
ethylbenzene/styrene plant is 20 years.
Individual plants may actually operate
much longer than that. Existing plants
which have been in operation for some
time may have less than 20 years of
remaining operating life. However,
production of ethylbenzene and styrene
began during World War II and there is
no indication that production will cease
in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it
can be expected that if any existing
capacity is shut down, it will be
replaced by new capacity either at the
same or a new plant site. For these
reasons, a 20-year operating life
9 Proposed rule and notice of public hearing for
regulating benzene emissions from maleic
anhydride plants wat published in the Federal
Register on April 18, I960 (45 FR 26660).
expectancy for ethylbenzene/styrene
plants would be a reasonable
assumption- On this basis, the number
of deaths estimated to occur over the
life of the 13 existing plants would range
from 0.55 to 3.9.
The ranges presented here represent
the uncertainty of estimates made
concerning the benzene concentrations
to which workers were exposed in the
occupational studies of Infante, Aksoy,
and Ott, which were the basis for
developing the benzene unit risk factor
(discussed in Appendix E of "Benzene
Emissions from the Ethylbenzene/
Styrene Industry." EPA-450/3-79-035a).
These ranges are based on a 95 percent
confidence interval that assumes the
estimated concentrations are within a
factor of two.
There are several other uncertainties
associated with the estimated number of
Leukemia deaths that are not quantified
here. The number of deaths were
calculated based on an extrapolation of
leukemia risk associated with a
presumably healthy white male cohort
of workers to the general population,
which includes men, women, children,
non-whites, the aged, and the unhealthy.
Uncertainty also occurs in estimating
the benzene levels to which people in
the vicinity of EB/S plants are exposed.
Furthermore, leukemia is the only health
effect of benzene considered.
Additionally, the benefits to the general
population of controlling other
hydrocarbon emissions from EB/S
production are not quantified. Finally,
these estimates do not include the
cumulative or synergistic effects of
concurrent exposure to benzene and
other substances. As a result of these
uncertainties, the number of deaths and
the maximum lifetime risk calculated
around EB/S plants could be
overestimated. However, and more
importantly, they could just as well be
underestimated for the same reasons.
Based on the magnitude of benzene
exposures from emissions from this
source category, on the'resulting
estimated maximum individual risks and
estimated incidence of fatal cancers in
the exposed population for the life of
existing sources in the category, and on
consideration of the uncertainties
associated with these quantitative risk
estimates (including the effects of
concurrent exposures to other
substances and to other benzene
emissions), the Administrator finds that
benzene emissions from process vents at
EB/S plants create a significant risk of
cancer and require the establishment of
a national emission standard under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
The Administrator considered a
number of alternatives to section 112 of
V-I-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 245 / Thursday, December 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
the Clean Air Act for regulating benzene
emissions from EB/S plants, including
relying Instead on the OHSA standard
for benzene emissions and hydrocarbon
control under State Implementation
Plans (SIP'S). The current OSHA
benzene standard is ten ppm for an
eight-hour workday. In 1978, the
Secretary of Labor promulgated a'more
stringent standard that reduced the
permissible exposure limit for benzene
to one ppm. However, the one ppm
standard was held to be invalid by the
U.S. Court of Appeals because it was
not supported by the administrative
record and on July 2,1980, the U.S.
Supreme Court affirmed with the lower
Court's ruling. The current OHSA
standard stipulates a level of benzene
which cannot be exceeded in the
workplace. The Administrator does not
expect this workplace standard to result
in as great a control of benzene
emissions from process vents.
Volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from EB/S plants can be
regulated under SIP's designed to meet
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ozone. However, because
SIP's are designed to provide statewide
compliance with NAAQS for criteria
pollutants, a particular State's strategy
for reducing VOC emissions may not
require as stringent benzene emission
control for EB/S plants as that of
another State or as may be appropriate
in light of benzene's hazardous nature.
Finally, the Administrator considered
using the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) as an alternative, but concluded
thai me Clean Air Act provides a more
direct expeditious route for regulating
benzene emissions from EB/S plants.
Selection of Sources Within
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants To Be
Regulated
The two processes used domestically
to produce ethylbenzene are benzene
alkylation with ethylene and mixed
xylene extraction. The alkylation
process represents 95 percent of
ethylbenzene production. The two
processes for producing styrene are
ethylbenzene dehydrogenation and
ethylbenzene hydroperoxidation. -The
hydroperoxidation process is currently
used by only one plant and represents
tenpercent of styrene production.
The proposed standard would apply
to the production of ethylbenzene from
benzene alkylation end the production
of styrene from ethylbenzene
dehydrogenation and from ethylbenzene
hydroperoxidation. The extraction of
ethylbenzene from mixed xylenes is a
refinery operation and is not covered
because the actual ethylbenzene
extraction step has no benzene
emissions. Benzene emissions from
associated refinery operations are to be
regulated under a separate standard
controlling benzene, emissions from
petroleum refinery processes.
The major benzene emission points
from EB/S plants and the quantity of
benzene each of them emits are
summarized below. These emissions are
based on a 300,000 Mg/yr model plant
and include representative emission
points throughout the EB/S industry,
although not all plants contain each of
these emission points.
Emission points
Ben-
zene
•mo-
tions
kg/ht
Afcyfctton Raactor Section Vento _ 11.2
Aknoepheifc and Pranuw Column Varna 45.0
Alkylation and DehydrGgenatton Vacuum Column
Vantt..- „ _ 13.0
Hydrogen C«uaia»j«i Venn _. 1.0
Hydropwondatnn Vacuum Column Vents 187
Ethylbenzena Ondation Reactor Venu 7.2
Storage 5.3
Fugitive 1.6
Secondary —.«.«.- _.....« 2.5
The proposed standard would cover
process emissions from all the emission
points listed above except for the
oxidation reactor vent, and fugitive,
storage, and secondary emission
sources. The sources covered by the
standard include essentially all
benzene-emitting process vents, except
those emitting-only traces of benzene
(e.g., catalyst preparation area vent).
The hydrogen separation vents emission
rate reflects the emissions at a
controlled rate rather than uncontrolled
because, under most conditions, these
emissions are controlled. Under
uncontrolled conditions the emission
rate would be substantially higher. The
hydrogen separation vents are covered
by the standard because there is one
plant which does not control the source
and there is a potential for plants to not
control the source during routine
production.
The oxidation reactor vent contains a
relatively small concentration (35 ppmv)
of benzene. However, its flow is much
larger and much more dilute than the
other process vents and consequently
would require separate incinerator and
a large amount of energy (approximately
3.2 x 10* Megajoules per year (M]/yr)) to
handle the large flow and control the
benzene emissions. Because the large
amount of energy that would be required
to control this vent is grossly
disproportionate to the benzene
emission reduction (approximately 1.0 x
10' MJ/Mg), the Administrator has
concluded that this impact outweighs
the benefit from controlling this vent.
Therefore, the oxidation reactor vent is
not covered by die proposed standard.
Emissions from fugitive, storage, and
secondary sources represent
approximately ten percent of overall
benzene emissions in the EB/S
production processes. Separate
standards are being developed which
will cover fugitive and storage sources
of benzene emissions, including EB/S
sources. These standards will apply to a
large number of similar benzene sources
in chemical and other industries and
will reduce the number of standards
which would cover essentially the same
sources.
Selection of Regulatory Options
The Administrator considered four
regulatory options to reduce benzene
emissions from the continuous process
vent streams listed. These regulatory
options are based on the control devices
currently used in the EB/S industry,
namely condensers, absorbers, flares,
and boilers; the use of substitutes for
styrene also was considered.
Condensation can achieve a varying
degree of control for benzene emissions,
ranging from 80 to 90 percent control of
individual process streams, depending
upon the prevailing temperature and
pressure of the vent streams and the
amount of benzene they contain relative
to the other stream components. Two
mechanisms exist for condensation: (1)
Cooling alone using a condenser, or (2)
increasing the system pressure in
conjunction with cooling the stream ia a
condenser. Although a vent stream does
not need to be saturated with benzene
when using condensation, it should be
near saturation before entering the
condenser if a high degree of control is
desired. Therefore, condensers are
applied to gas streams which are
continuous and highly concentrated. The
gas streams fitting this description vary
from plant to plant. Depending on the
characteristics of the individual EB/S
plant, condensers can be used to control
as much as 75 percent of the continuous
process emission vents. Five existing
EB/S plants use condensers to control
benzene emissions. Atmospheric and
pressure distillation column vents and
the benzene /toluene vacuum column are
examples of those vents which are
amenable to the use of condensers in
some EB/S plants. Condensers.
however, cannot handle short-duration,
high-volume streams resulting from the
intermittent release of the hydrogen
separation vent
Absorption can be used to handle
streams dilute with benzene. The degree
of control for benzene emissions.
ranging from 80 to 99 percent depends
V-I-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 245 / Thursday. December 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
in part upon the equilibrium between
benzene and the absorbing medium at the
•crabbing temperature. Packed towers,
using chilled polyethylbenzene oils as a
benzene absorbent, can be used to
control streams of low concentration.
The gas streams fitting this description
vary from plant to plant. Depending on
the characteristics of the individual
plant, absorbers can be used to control
as much as 75 percent of the continuous
process emission vents, such as the
reactor vents and the vacuum column
vents. One existing EB/S plant uses an
absorption system to control benzene
emissions.
Boilers can be used to control
benzene-containing streams in all EB/S
processes. A high control efficiency is
achieved by boilers since injecting a
vent stream at the burner head results in
good fuel/air mixing, and combustion
occurs at high temperatures. Based on
expected boiler operating conditions
and available test data, a 99 percent
destruction efficiency is considered
achievable for relatively constant gas
flows.
Flares also can be used to control
benzene emissions by combustion.
Approximately 50 percent of all EB/S
plants use flares for controlling
continuous process emissions. To date,
very little documented information
exists on the representative destruction
efficiency of flares for benzene or any
other volatile organic compounds
(VOC's). Based on engineering
calculations and limited testing on
natural gas by a Dare vendor, a flare
system can be expected to achieve a
range of 60 to 99 percent destruction
efficiency for VOC's. However, in the
past, the Administrator has been
reluctant to allow the use of flares as a
continuous process emission control
device because no practical measuring
method exists to detemine if the flares
are in compliance. Due to their
potentially low or variable efficiency,
the Administrator does not consider
flares as a single effective control
technique for continuous emissions.
Use of a styrene substitute that does
not emit benzene during its production
is another means of controlling benzene
emissions. Although substitutes exist for
certain end-uses, no substitute
compound has been developed to date
with the characteristics appropriate for
all styrene.
Although EB/S plants could produce
ethylbenzene from mixed xylenes
instead of benzene, the Administrator
does not consider this substitution as a
viable regulatory option. The actual
separation of ethylbenzene from mixed
xylenes has no benzene emissions.
However, as a result of switching
ethylbenzene production to extraction
from mixed xylenes, benzene emissions
from other sources such as associated
refinery operations and gasoline
distribution may increase with
ultimately no reduction in nationwide
benzene emissions from all sources.
Combinations of the control devices
studied were used in developing the
regulatory options for continuous
process emissions which the
Administrator considered in selecting
the basis of the standard. Because there
are no technological reasons to consider
different or alternative controls for new
and existing sources, these regulatory
options were considered applicable to
both.
Regulatory Option A would involve
routing the benzene/toluene column
vent and the atmospheric and pressure
column vents to condensers to achieve
approximately 80 to 90 percent emission
reduction and routing the alkylation
reactor section vents and other vacuum
vents to an absorber to achieve 60 to 99
percent emissions reduction. Based on
these controls, this option would give an
overall benzene reduction of 85 percent.
Regulatory Option B would reduce
benzene emissions by 94 percent based
on the use of condensers and an
absorption tower, which would achieve
85 percent control, combined with a
flare with an assumed efficiency of 60
percent. Because of the variability in the
destruction efficiency of flares, a 60
percent emissions destruction efficiency
is assumed for this analysis as a
conservative estimate. Regulatory
Option C would reduce benzene
emissions by 99 percent based on the
use of boilers. This option would involve
routing the vacuum column vents, the
atmospheric and pressure column vents,
the alkylation reactor vents, and the
hydrogen separation vent to an existing
boiler. Regulatory Option D would
involve 100 percent control of benzene
emissions based on closure of all
ethylbenzene and styrene plants and on
the use of substitutes for styrene
products.
Existing data indicate that at certain
times and under certain conditions
process emissions can occur from the
process vents previously discussed that
could not be controlled practically by
any of the regulatory options thus far
identified. This is because the flow rate,
composition, and pressure
characteristics of these process vent
streams, which occur under other than
normal operation (startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of process or control
equipment), differ from the continuous
process vent streams previously
discussed. These emissions, under
Regulatory Options A, B, or C, could
also exceed the amount of emissions
that would be permitted under these
options. These "excess" emissions,
therefore, would occur whenever the
emissions reduction associated with
Regulatory Options A, B, or C was not
being achieved.
Some of these excess process
emissions would be due to sudden and
unavoidable process and control
equipment failures and are, by
definition, malfunctions. Though
benzene emissions due to malfunctions
can arise anywhere on the production
train, certain pieces of equipment have
been cited as likely sources of
emissions. A hydrogen separation
compressor outage is a common type of
process or control equipment failure and
can, on the average, emit for about ten
hours per year approximatly 4,000 kg of
benzene (based on a 300,000 Mg/yr
model plant).
During normal operation, the
compressor directs the stream from the
dehydrogenation section to the
aromatics recovery unit where the
condensables are removed; then the
remaining hydrogen-rich stream is
routed to the boiler, mixed with natural
gas, and is used as supplemental fuel. A
primary compressor outage, however.
would prevent aromatics recovery and
utilization of the stream as fuel and
could necessitate venting of the
benzene-laden stream to the
atmosphere. The primary compressor
outage would produce a high-volume.
short-duration stream flow.
The condensers and/or absorption
towers assumed under Regulatory
Options A and B could not be
practically applied to controlling this
stream since condensation and/or
absorption efficiency rates cannot be
maintained under these high stream
flow conditions.
The boiler, assumed under Regulatory
Option C, can attain a high benzene
destruction efficiency (99 percent) when
process vent stream flow rate and
composition are fairly constant. When a
primary compressor outage occurs.
however, flow rate, pressure, and
thermal value of the process vent stream
varies significantly. These stream
characteristics could risk operational
upsets and possible damage to the boiler
if the boiler does not have sufficient
controls to regulate the fluctuations in
stream flow, pressure, and composition.
Operational upsets such as firebox
temperature excursions would affect the
rate of steam generation and thus, the
rate of reaction. Temperature
fluctuations also damage boiler tubes.
thereby causing downtime and safety
risks to personnel.
V-I-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 245 / Thursday, December 16. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Excess process emissions can also
occur during startup and shutdown. A
startup involves bringing into full
operation equipment in an entire plant,
the dehydrogenation section, or
alkylation reactor section, which are
originally at ambient temperature and
empty of process liquids. The procedure
requires an average of approximately 12
to 24 hours to fully establish reactions
and ensure that the quality of the
product meets specifications. In this
interim period, however, benzene
emissions in excess of the emissions
reductions specified under Regulatory
Options A, B, or C can be released from
certain points in the production train.
Based on a 300,000 mg/yr model plant,
approximately 4,200 kg or benzene can
be emitted for an average of ten hours
per year from the entire plant, most of
which is from the hydrogen separation
vent. Due to a lack of sufficient flow
during startup, this stream is not
compressed nor is it then sent to the
aromatic recovery stream as is the case
during normal production. Rather,
typical practice involves either venting
the stream directly to the atmosphere or
flaring it until the dehydrogenation
reaction is established fully.
The process vent stream composition
during startup varies widely due to
entrained nitrogen, reactants, and other
process liquids. The condensers and/or
absorption towers assumed under
Regulatory Options A and B could not
be practically applied to controlling this
stream because these stream
characterisicB inhibit efficient
absorption and condensation.
During the startup procedure, it is
necessary to maintain stable boiler
operation while adjusting relative feed
rates of reactants and catalyst.
Combusting this variable
dehydrogenation stream in a boiler,
which is the control device assumed
under Regulatory Option C, would cause
fluctuations in firebox flame
temperature and stream saturation rate
and would inhibit control of the
reactions.
Shutdown involves terminating
operation of all equipment in the entire
plant, the dehydrogenation section, or
alkylation reactor section, and allowing
the equipment to cool to ambient
temperature. The procedure involves
cutting off feedstock to the reactors
while concurrently decreasing the
introduction of steam, so that the
temperature of all equipment reaches
ambient levels-. During this procedure,
benzene emissions in excess of the
emissions reductions specified under
Regulatory Options A, B, or C can occur.
Residual benzene in equipment must be
purged before maintenance can begin.
During plant shutdown, as in plant
startup, the bulk of benzene emissions
occur at the hydrogen separation vent
Based on a 300,000 Mg/yr model plant,
benzene emissions due to plant
shutdown are approximately 4,200 kg/yr
from the entire plant.
Variations in stream temperature,
composition, flow, and pressure rate
occur during the shutdown procedure.
This stream cannot be controlled by
condensation or absorption equipment
due to the wide fluctuations in
temperature, composition, flow, and
pressure rate. Entrained liquids and
nitrogen in the stream would inhibit this
control equipment efficiency. During
plant shutdown, the boiler firebox
temperature and, consequently, steam
output is being carefully reduced. This
procedure therefore precludes
manifolding the waste stream to the
boiler.
After this consideration of the
application of Regulatory Options A, B,
and C to the control of excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, the Administrator
determined that a separate set of
regulatory options should be considered
for the excess emissions.
Excess benzene emission from EB/S
plants can basically be controlled by
combustion and/or backup compressors.
Combustion can be accomplished in a
boiler or by a flare. An existing boiler
can theoretically attain a high benzene
destruction efficiency of 99 percent.
However, the variable flow, pressure,
and composition of excess emissions
encountered during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction would require
major retrofit. Extremely complex
controls and monitoring equipment
would also be necessary to ensure
operational stability and safety.
Smokeless flares are used by
approximately 75 percent of existing
EB/S plants for controlling excess
emissions. Various vent streams can be
manifolded to a properly-sized flare for
thermal destruction. The main
advantage of the flare is its ability to
control high-volume, short-duration
releases as normally are encountered
during equipment'malfunction. For
example, flares can control emissions
due to a hydrogen separation
compressor outage, vent gas compressor
outage, and streams of highly variable
Btu value such as those encountered
during startup and shutdown. Smokeless
flares can reduce visible emissions to no
more than five minutes or less within a
two-hour period. A smokeless flare,
however, achieves variable levels of
control.
Backup compressors can be used to
limit emissions mulling from primary
compressor failure. A backup
compressor can typically come on-line
within an hour. This can effectively
control 90 to 100 percent of benzene
emissions resulting from a primary
compressor outage. At present,
approximately 50 percent of EB/S plants
employ backup compressors. At these
plants, however, the backup compressor
was installed for conditions specific to
those plants.
Based on the above control methods,
the Administrator considered four
regulatory options for controlling excess
emissions 'during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. Because there are no
technological reasons to consider
different controls for new and existing
sources, these regulatory options apply
to both. Regardless of the option
selected, avoidable excess emissions
due to failures of process or air pollution
control equipment caused entirely or in
part by deficiencies in design, poor
maintenance, careless operation, or
other preventable equipment breakdown
would be in violation of the proposed
standard which requires that good air
pollution control practice be followed.
Furthermore, failure of process or
control equipment regardless of the
cause, would be required to be repaired
quickly, failure to do so would constitute
avoidable excess emissions and a
violation of the proposed standard.
Under each of the regulatory options,
each occurrence of excess emissions,
regardless of the cause, would have to
be reported to the Administrator. The
Administrator then would judge if the
excess emissions were avoidable.
Under Regulatory Option 1, excess
emissions would be allowed only during
malfunctions, startup, and shutdown.
During these times these emissions
would have to be combusted by one or
more smokeless flares. Under
Regulatory Option 2, EB/S owners or
operators would have to meet the same
requirements as Regulatory Option 1. In
addition, they would be required to
install backup compressors to control
excess emissions during compressor
malfunctions and to burn the emissions
by one or more smokeless flares until
the backup compressor was fully
operational. Under Regulatory Option 3,
EB/S owners or operators would be
required to retrofit existing boilers to
accept all excess emissions at all times,
allowing these excess emissions to be
flared only for short periods required to
adjust boiler operation for acceptance of
the waste stream at the beginning of an
outage. Regulatory Option 4 is the only
means of completely eliminating excess
V-I-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 245 / Thursday, December 18, 1980 J Proposed Rules
emissions from EB/S plants and would
require 100 percent excess benzene
emissions reduction based on EB/S
plant closure.
Selection of Basis of Standard
The selection of the basis of the
proposed standard for benzene
emissions from EB/S process vents was
a two-step process. The first step
consisted of examining the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of various regulatory options
and selecting one of them as the best
available technology (considering
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts) (BAT). The second step in the
process was to examine the residual
health risks remaining after application
of BAT to determine whether they were
unreasonable in view of the health
benefits and costs that would result if a
more -stringent option were applied. In
determining whether the residual risks
are unreasonable, and thus whether a
level of control more stringent than BAT
is to be required, the following factors
are compared for the option selected as
BAT and the option more stringent than
BAT: (1) The range of estimated
maximum risk to the most exposed
individuals; (2) the range of total
estimated cancer incidence and other
health effects in the existing and future
exposed populations through the
anticipated operating life of existing
sources; (3) readily identifiable benefits
of the substance or activity; (4) the
economic impacts of requiring
additional control measures; (5) the
distribution of the benefits of the
activity versus the risks it causes; and
(6) other possible health and
environmental effects resulting from the
increased use of substitutes. The
selection of the basis of this standard as
described in this section is consistent
with these procedures.
In this case, BAT would be selected
for EB/S process vents and the health
impacts and costs that would result from
application of a more stringent option
would be examined. As previously
discussed, EB/S process vent emissions
are comprised of continuous process
and excess emissions whose control
would require different control
techniques. Consequently, this
necessitated development of two sets of
regulatory options. In order to determine
BAT for process vent emissions, the
Administrator selected the combination
of options for continuous process and
excess emissions which he determined
represented BAT for process vents. In
making his selection, the Administrator
examined the impacts of these two sets
of options separately and selected BAT
for continuous process emissions and
BAT for excess emissions. He concluded
this combination to be BAT for process
vent emissions and then examined the
residual risks after application of BAT
for process vents.
Although Regulatory Options A, B,
and C do not require the use of the
specific control device upon which they
are based, the control devices were used
as a basis for estimating the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of the regulatory options for
continuous process emissions on the
EB/S industry, using a 300,000 Mg/yr
model plant as a representative plant.
Regulatory Options 1. 2 and 3 would
require specific control devices; these
were used in estimating the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of the regulatory options for
excess emissions, using the same model
plant. Although differences exist
between EB/S plants, only one emission
point at one plant, the ethylbenzene
hydroperoxidation reactor vent, was
significant enough to affect the
regulatory analysis. Therefore, this
analysis was performed using one model
plant, with a separate study of the
hydroperoxidation reactor vent. To
determine nationwide impacts for each
'regulatory option, the model plant
impacts were scaled to each existing
plant according to capacity and present
level of control. Because new EB/S
plants should not differ greatly from
existing plants, the 300,000 Mg/yr model
plant is considered representative of
both. Because Regulatory Option D for
continuous process emissions and
Regulatory Option 4 for excess
emissions assume 100 percent emissions
control based on plant closure, only the
economic impacts of plant closure were
estimated.

Impacts for Excess Emissions
Environmental Impacts. The
estimated total nationwide excess
benzene emissions for the EB/S industry
are 133 Mg/yr under current controls; 21
Mg/yr under Regulatory Option 1; 10
Mg/yr under Regulatory Option 2; and 1
Mg/yr under Regulatory Option 3. The
highest projected maximum annual
average benzene concentrations due to
uncontrolled excess emissions from
within the industry occur at 160 m and
are 7.9 ppb. (Uncontrolled conditions
means that the current level of controls
for excess emissions at existing EB/S
facilities, which vary from plant to plant,
are not reflected in the calculations.)
The highest projected maximum annual
average benzene concentrations occur
at 2.000 m for each regulatory option and
are 4.3 X 10~'ppb under Regulatory
Option 1,1.4 X 10"'ppb under
Regulatory Option 2, and 2.0 X 10~4ppb
under Regulatory Option 3.
None of the regulatory options
considered result in any significant
increase in wastewater or effluent
discharge by EB/S plants nor do they
generate any solid waste. Noise and
thermal radiation associated with the
use of flares are negligible.
Energy Impacte. Energy requirements
for each regulatory option are minimal.
Under Regulatory Option 1, a ten-inch
smokeless flare is assumed for
combusting vent streams generated
during startup or shutdown operations
and malfunction. Based on average of 12
hours of operation per year for a 300,000
Mg/yr model plant, total steam and
natural gas requirements are
approximately 5.23 X 10* MJ/yr.
Under Regulatory Option 2, a ten-inch
smokeless flare is assumed to be used
for combusting vent streams generated
during startup or shutdown operations
and malfunction. Total energy
requirements for steam and natural gas
for the model plant is approximately
5.14 X 106MJ/yr. The backup
compressor has no incremental energy
impact since only one compressor will
be in use at a given time.
Under Regulatory Option 3, all safety
valves used in relieving surges in
process streams would be manifolded to
a smokeless flare, assumed for this case
to be ten inches. Total energy
requirements for steam and natural gas
are approximately 5.1 X 10'MJ/yr for
the model plant. Regulatory Option 3
also requires that an existing EB/S
boiler be retrofitted to accept vent
streams generated as a result of plant
startup, shutdown and malfunction.
Energy requirements for the boiler are
negligible as are credits in terras of
steam generated as a result of
combusting the waste stream.
In terms of nationwide energy impacts
assuming no current excess emissions
control, Regulatory Option 1 would
require 71 X 10* MJ/yr, Regulatory
Option 2 would require 70 X 106 MJ/yr.
and Regulatory Option 3 would require
69 x 10s MJ/yr of energy, or
approximately 11,200 bbl/yr (fuel oil
equivalent) under each option for all
existing EB/S plants.
Economic Impacts. Industry-wide
capital costs for Regulatory Option 1
would be approximately $524,000 and
would require four plants to install
excess emission controls. Regulatory
Option 2 would require capital outlays
of approximately $5.5 million and would
require six plants to install controls.6
Regulatory Option 3 would require the
greatest capital outlays, approximately
$20 million, and would require 13 plants
to install controls. Industry-wide
annualized costs for Regulatory Options
1, 2. and 3 would be $171,000, $1.6
million, and $5.2 million, respectively.
Regulatory Option 4 would have the
most severe economic impact on the
EB/S industry. Because 100 percent
excess emission control is technically
infeasible, selection of this option would
necessitate plant closure. Banning
production of ethylbenzene and styrene
would have a negative impact on the
producing companies and consumers.
This impact has been discussed in detail
in assessing the economic Impact of
Regulatory Option D (100 percent
process emission control).

Selection of Option for Standard
In selecting the combination of
options for the proposed standard, the
Administrator first selected BAT for
process vents, represented by the
combination of BAT for continuous
process emissions and BAT for excess
emissions. This combination was based
on the evaluation of impacts of the two
sets of regulatory options developed for
C!D calculating the capital costs for Regulatory
Option 2, it is assumed that of the «ix plants which
require backup compressors, four also require
flares. For Regulatory Option 1, It is assumed thlt of
the 13 plants which require boiler retrofits, four also
require flares-
controlling these emissions. The
Administrator then examined the
residual risk after application of BAT for
process vents and the health impacts
and costs that would result from the
application of a more stringent option.
In selecting BAT for continuous
process emissions, the Administrator
first examined the most stringent option.
Regulatory Option D, which would
result in closure of EB/S plants. After
considering that styrene is a major
feedstock used in the production of a
number of desirable products such as
polystyrene, plastics and rubbers; that
styrene substitutes are not readily
available in sufficient quantities; that
banning ethylbenzene and styrene
production would result in a severe
economic hardship to the producers of
ethylbenzene and styrene and to
producers of styrene derivatives, and
probably result in price increases to
consumers; and that a large number of
people would be unemployed, at least
temporarily, if these plants were closed;
the Administrator concluded that the
economic consequences of a standard
requiring 100 percent control were too.
severe to select as BAT. He next
examined Regulatory Option C, 99
percent control. After considering that
Regulatory Option C would have a net
energy savings, no significant adverse
environmental impacts, reasonable
costs, and no adverse economic impacts,
the Administrator selected this
regulatory option as BAT for continuous
emissions for process vents. It should
also be noted that the next less stringent
option. Regulatory Option B. would
'result in higher costs and higher energy
consumption than the regulatory option
selected as BAT.
In selecting BAT for excess emissions
from process vents, the most stringent
option. Regulatory Option 4, was
examined first. Its economic impacts on
EB/S and related industries and its
social impact on users of styrene
products were determined to be too
severe to justify its selection as BAT.
The next less stringent option.
Regulatory Option 3. then was
examined The industry-wide capital
costs for this option ($20 million) are
greater than the costs ($3.4 million) for
the regulatory option selected as BAT
for continuous process emissions and no
recovery credits are involved. Therefore,
the industry-wide annualized costs of
this regulatory option would be many
times higher than the annualized costs
for the regulatory option selected as
BAT for continuous process emissions.
In addition, the emission reduction
which would be achieved by this
regulatory option (132 Mg/yr) would be
V-I-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 245 / Thursday. December IB. 1980 / Proposed Rules
very small in comparison to the
continuous process emissions reduction
achieved by application of 99 percent
control (2,030 Mg/yr). For these reasons.
the Administrator concluded that the
cost impacts of Regulatory Option 3
were too severe for it to be considered
as BAT for excess emissions.
The next less stringent option,
Regulatory Option 2, then was
considered. The industry-wide capital
costs for this option ($5.5 million) are
also greater than the costs ($3.4 million)
for the regulatory option selected as
BAT for continuous process emissions.
However, no recovery credits are
involved. Therefore, the industry-wide
annualized cost of this option would be
many times higher than the option
selected as BAT for continuous process
emissions. Furthermore, the emissions
reduction which would be achieved by
this option (123 Mg/yr) would be very
small in comparison to the continuous
process emissions reduction achieved
by application of 99 percent control
(2,030 Mg/yr). Therefore, the
Administrator concluded that the cost
impacts of Regulatory Option 2 were too
severe to be considered as BAT for
excess emissions.
Regulatory Option 1 was then
examined. This option would require the
use of smokeless flares, which most
plants already have, to control
unavoidable excess emissions.
Assuming that plants which currently
have flares would use them to meet the
proposed standard, only four plants
would be required to install smokeless
flares if this option were selected as the
standard. The total capital costs for
these four plants would be only
$524,000. The Administrator concluded
that these costs were reasonable, and
selected Regulatory Option 1 as BAT for
excess emissions.
Based on the selection of Regulatory
Option C as BAT for continuous process
emissions and Regulatory Option 1 as
BAT for excess emissions, the
Administrator designated this
combination as BAT for process vents.
He then examined the residual risks
remaining after application of BAT for
all emissions from process vents at
existing EB/S plants to determine
whether they are unreasonable in view
of the risk reduction which would be
gained by requiring a level of control
beyond BAT and the cost increase if
that level of control were required.
It was estimated that after application
of BAT to EB/S process vents there
would be a range of 1.3X10"4 to
9.2x10"' residual deaths per year within
20 km of existing EB/S plants due to
benzene emissions from process vents,
and from 0.0026 to 0.018 deaths over the
assumed 20-year operating lifetime of
the existing plants. In calculating these
deaths, it was estimated that 2.5 million
people live within 10 km of existing EB/
S plants (1970 census data) and it was
estimated that EB/S plants are operating
at 100 percent of capacity. The
maximum lifetime risk to the most
exposed population after application of
BAT was estimated to range from
1.7X 10"f to 1.2X10"• due to continuous
process and excess emissions. The
maximum lifetime risk represents the
probability of a person dying of
leukemia who has been exposed for a
70-year period to the highest maximum
annual average benzene concentration
due to benzene emissions from EB/S
process vents.
The next more stringent regulatory
option for EB/S process vents would be
a combination of Regulatory Option C
and Regulatory Option 2. (It is noted
that any combination containing
Regulatory Option D, industry closure,
would not represent the next more
stringent option beyond BAT since there
are combinations that exist which would
attain process vent emission reductions
greater than BAT and would not result
in closure.) The Administrator then
examined the impacts of applying this
option. This combination would reduce
the number of deaths per year to a range
of 9.5XlO"5to 8.6X10"4, or 0.0019 to
0.013 deaths over the assumed 20-year
operating lifetime of the existing plants.
The maximum lifetime risk would be
reduced to a range of 1.7X10"'to
1.2 x 10"*. However, the industry-wide
incremental capital costs associated
with going from BAT to beyond BAT
would increase from $3.9 million to $9.9
million and the industry-wide
annualized costs would increase from a
net savings of $289,000 to a cost of $1.1
million. In view of the relatively small
health benefits that would be gained
and the costs of requiring a more
stringent option than BAT for process
vents, the Administrator concluded the
remaining cancer risk from process
vents after application of BAT to such
vents at existing sources is not
unreasonable.
It should be noted that the standard
applies only to EB/S process vents and
does not cover emissions from fugitive
and storage sources. Assuming that the
emissions from fugitive and storage
sources remain uncontrolled, the
reduction in continuous process
emissions after the application of BAT
would reduce the nationwide incidence
due to process, fugitive, and storage
emissions from all EB/S plants to a
range of 0.017 to 0.11 residual deaths per
year. The maximum lifetime risk to the
most exposed population after the
application of BAT to process emissions
would be reduced to a range of 4.1x10"4
to 2.9X10"' due to combined emissions
from continuous process, fugitive, and
storage sources. The selection of BAT
for process vents does not preclude
future regulation of fugitive and storage
emission sources, which are the
predominant contributors to the residual
risk.
In order to select an option as BAT for
new sources and then determine
whether a level of control beyond BAT
should be required for new sources, it
would be necessary to examine the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of requiring the various levels of
control represented as Regulatory
Options A through D for continuous
process emissions and Regulatory
Options 1 through 4 for excess emissions
for new sources. This would typically be
done using the expected growth rate for
the industry over the five-year period
after the anticipated proposal date of
the standard. However, a recent
analysis of the EB/S industry revealed
that no new facilities are projected to be
built within the next five years.
Beyond the five-year period following
promulgation of the standard, growth in
EB/S production is likely to occur. (It is
not projected over the next five years
primarily because the industry is not
operating at full capacity.) Five years
after promulgation, the standard will be
reviewed by EPA to examine, among
other data, any new information on
development in control technology
which could be applied to new EB/S
sources. In addition, EPA will implement
the other new source features of its
proposed airborne carcinogen rules after
the five-year review if new source
construction appears likely at that time.

Selection of Format of Standard
A number of formats for limiting
benzene emissions from EB/S process
vents were considered. Since the
regulatory option selected for the
proposed standard for process vents is
actually the combination of two
separate regulatory options, each
controlling different process stream
emission characteristics, it is necessary
to specify two formats, one for
continuous process emissions and one
for excess emissions.
The regulatory option selected for
controlling continuous process
emissions represents a 99 percent
emission reduction and is based on the
use of a boiler. Because emissions from
a boiler can be measured, the
Administrator determined that an
emission limitation standard for
continuous process emissions would be
V-I-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 245 / Thursday, December 16. I960 / Proposed Rules
appropriate, and considered a mass
emission standard, a percent reduction
standard, and a concentration standard.
Two considerations were important in
selecting the appropriate format (1)
Minimizing the number of measurements
and calculations required to determine
compliance with the standards, and (2)
avoiding a standard which would
discourage product or fuel recovery from
effluent streams containing benzene.
A mass standard based on a mass
unit of benzene emitted per mass unit of
feed, intermediate product, or final
product produced was considered.
Although it would allow EB/S plants
flexibility in choosing to recover
benzene from offgases, it would require
consideration of the separate processing
stages, which can be run independently
of each other at different rates and at
different facilities, and would Involve
determining mass emissions from each
source along the production train while
tying these measurements with
production rate. Consequently, a
standard of this format would
complicate determining compliance, and
also monitoring, because of the large
number of measurements required.
Therefore, the Administrator considered
it inappropriate for EB/S plants.
A percentage reduction standard
based on the amount of benzene exiting
the control device versus the amount
entering the device was considered. This
option provides no incentive to reduce
the amount of benzene entering the
control equipment, and may discourage
process changes which recover benzene
from effluent streams. Moreover, it may
offer a reverse incentive to increase the
amount of benzene entering the control
device to achieve the desired efficiency
level while allowing larger final
emission rates, and would involve
measuring both incoming and outgoing
streams at each point of control.
Consequently, this option also was
considered inappropriate.
A benzene concentration standard,
expressed as ppmv, entails a minimal
number of measurements and
calculations for both the emissions test
and for continuous monitoring. Because
it only measures the benzene
concentration in the exit stream, it does
not discourage benzene recovery.
Furthermore, at the inlet concentrations
which are found at EB/S plants, the
Administrator believes that the control
device most likely to be used to meet the
standard (boilers) will reduce benzene
emissions to a constant benzene
concentral 'on. In other words, the exit
concentration is not a direct function of
the inlet concentration. As the inlet
concentration is increased, the reduction
efficiency Increases with little or no
change in the outlet concentration or the
mass emissions. Therefore, the
Administrator considers a benzene
concentration standard to be the most
appropriate format based on the
considerations discussed above, and
selected this format to limit benzene
emissions from EB/S plant*.
Since the standard for continuous
process emissions is based on the use of
boilers as the best available control
technology, it is necessary to ensure that
dilution is not used to meet a benzene
concentration level standard.
Enforcement of a concentration
. standard must account for the potential
for dilution and, therefore, correction
factors are included in the proposed
standard to ensure that the benzene
concentration measurements from all
control devices are similarly referenced
and that the quantity of benzene emitted
is the same regardless of the amount of
excess air used in the boilers. This is
done most effectively by referencing all
calculations to a dry basis and specific
oxygen concentration level in the
exhaust gases.
The Administrator has determined
that the application of measurement
methodology to excess benzene process
emissions is not practicable due to
technological limitations in the
measurement of benzene flare
destruction efficiency. Therefore, the
Administrator has prescribed the use of
a smokeless flare for excess benzene
emissions in conjunction with certain
work practices and operational
standards. Included as part of the
proposed standard are requirements
that would assure the proper operation
and maintenance of any such element of
design or equipment.

Selection of Emission Limits
The selection of the numerical
emissions limit is based upon the results
of two emission tests performed at two
EB/S plants. The test at the first plant
showed that process heaters receiving
benzene-containing vent streams could
reduce benzene emissions to between
nine and ten ppm referenced to three
percent oxygen. However, these results
may nol reflect the actual benzene
levels in the process heater flue gas
because various sampling and analytical
problems occurred during the test.
Therefore, the test results from the first
plant are suspect.
The test results from the second plant
showed that benzene emissions could be
reduced to between zero and 0.5 ppm,
with a mean average of 0.39 ppm
corrected to three percent oxygen on a
dry basis, in a superheater and between
zero and 1.4 ppm, with a mean average
of 0.5 ppm corrected to three percent
oxygen on a dry basis, in a hot oil
furnace. These results can be considered
representative for the superheater
design at the second plant tested
because the problems which occurred at
the first plant were corrected at the time
of the second test and Method 110, the
recommended test method, was properly
followed. However, because of the
design of the superheater at the second
plant, the emissions may be lower than
those from a more typically designed
superheater. The superheater at that
plant was receiving approximately 1,500
ppm benzene while other superheaters,
on the average, receive up to twice that
amount of benzene. Furthermore, due to
the burner configuration, benzene
passed sequentially through two
combustion zones and might have under
gone greater destruction than if it has
passed through a single combustion
zone. The hot oil furnace was receiving
approximately 50 to 100 ppm benzene
and was reducing these emissions to
between zero and 1.4 ppm benzene in
the flue gas at three percent oxygen.
Because of the problems experienced
during the test at the first plant, the
results were not used in calculating the
numerical emissions limit. Although the
test results from the second plant show
that less than two ppm can be achieved,
the Administrator is proposing the
numerical emission limit at five ppm to
provide allowances for varying burner
designs and boiler capacities.

Selection of Emission Test Methods
The proposed emission test method
for determining benzene emissions is
Method 110. Method 110 requires a gas
chromatograph with a flame ionization
detector for benzene analysis. This test
method was used in the emission test at
the second plant discussed in the
"Selection of the Emission Limits" and
was found to be satisfactory in
confirming benzene emission levels.
The owner or operator of a source
would be required to test emissions
within 90 days of the promulgation date
for an existing source and within 90
days of startup for a new source, unless
a waiver of emission testing is obtained
under § 61.13, and to notify the
Administrator 30 days in advance of the
emission test to afford the Administrator
the opportunity to have an observer
present during the test.
Each emissions test would consist of
three runs, with a time-weighted
average of the runs used to determine
the emissions. The sampling time for
each run would be a minimum of one
hour. All calculations of benzene
concentration are referenced to a three
percent oxygen concentration level in
the exhaust gases. Method 3 of 40 CFR
V-I-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 245 / Thursday. December IB. I960 / Proposed Rules
Part 60 shall be uaed to determine this
oxygen concentration. The same sample
collected for benzene determination is
analyzed for oxygen concentration using
an Orsat analyzer. The owner or
operator of a source would be required
to analyze each sample within 24 hours,
to determine the emissions from the test
within 30 days of the test and to notify
the Administrator of the results by close
of business the following day.
After receipt and consideration of
written application, the Administrator
may approve alternative emission test
methods.

Selection of Monitoring Requirements
In general monitoring provides an
effective and rapid means for
enforcement personnel to determine if
(1) the control device is operating, (2)
the process vent streams covered by the
standard are being directed to the
control device, and (3) the control
device is achieving the emissions limit.
If the emissions limit were exceeded, it
could be due to control device failure or
to intentional altering of the control
device.
A gas chromatograph is used to
monitor emissions for two other
chemical industries regulated under
section 112 because it can measure
directly the concentration exiting the
control device, and therefore can detect
if the emissions limit of the standard is
exceeded. The gas chromatograph also
can detect, by a significant change in the
concentration exiting the control device,
if large streams are not being routed to
the control device, and can determine if
the control device is operating.
However, for the purpose of this
standard, a gas chromatograph is not the
best means of monitoring emissions
because the standard is based on the
use of a boiler as the control device.
This equipment is an integral part of the
EB/S process because it produces steam
and process heat required for styrene
production. Therefore, in this case, the
nature of the control device makes
monitoring unnecessary to determine if
the control dervice is operating. In
addition, the EB/S process involves a
number of small, individual process
vents which are required to be routed to
the boiler. Because these vents are so
small, a gas chromatograph would not
be able to detect if one of these small
streams were not being routed through
the boiler.
A gas chromatograph could, however,
meet the third monitoring objective, i.e.,
to determine if the control device was
achieving the emissions limit, but it
would not be necessary. Because the
boiler is central to the EB/S process, an
incentive exists to operate the device
correctly and, In the event of a control
device failure, to repair it quickly.
Furthermore, even though a gas
chromatograph could detect if the
numerical emission limit is exceeded
during a control device failure, it would
provide no data on the cause of the
failure. Other monitoring method
currently used at EB/S plants could not
only detect the failure, but also provide
operational data on the boiler to
determine the caue of the failure. In
addition, these methods would be less
expensive and easier to operate man a
gas chromatograph.
Examples of these other monitoring
methods are the use of indicators and
recorders for firebox temperature and
flue gas oxygen. During normal
operation, these parameters undergo
only minor variation. However, during
control device failures in which the
numerical emission limit would be
exceeded, large fluctuations in firebox
temperature, flue gas oxygen, or both
occur, by detecting these fluctuations, a
system monitoring these parameters
would determine if the five ppm benzene
limit is not being achieved.
Flow meters could be used to
determine if the vent streams are being
properly routed to the boiler. Such a
monitoring sytem typically would
require a large number of flow meters,
as many as a dozen or more, to monitor
all vent stream piping. However, flow
meters only at hvo or three central
points in the piping system, such as at
compressor outlets, and visual checks of
other items, such as valve positions,
could be equally effective for monitoring
stream flow. This system would be more
practical and involve less recordkeeping
than a monitoring system based on flow
meters on every stream.
A combination of these monitoring
methods would provide even greater
information concerning the cause of a
malfunction than each would
individually. For example, if the flow
meter detected a disturbance, the
oxygen monitor and firebox temperature
monitors would also corroborate that a
problem existed and could provide data
concerning the cause of the malfunction.
Because a combination of these
alternate monitoring techniques (1)
would effectively meet the monitoring
objectives for EB/S plants using boilers
as the control device, (2) currently are
used within the EB/S industry, and (3)
would provide better data on the causes
of malfunctions than a gas
chromatograph, the Administrator has
selected a combination of the
alternatives as the proposed monitoring
method. The proposed standard would
require that owners or operators of
sources using boilers as the control
device install and continuously operate:
(1) A flue gas oxygen monitor with a
strip chart recorder, (2) a continuous
firebox temperature monitor with a strip
chart recorder, and (3) a flow meter
which prints a record at least every 30
minutes on each compressor or natural
gas ejector. In addition, owners or
operators would be required to visually
check each process vent stream to
determine if each stream covered by the
proposed standard is being sent to the
boiler. This information would be kept
in a weekly log signed by the plant
operator.
A 100'F firebox temperature margin
below the temperature recorded during
the emission test and a 1.5 percent flue
gas oxygen level represent clear
breakpoints between normal
fluctuations in boiler operation and
serious failures. Even with normal
fluctuations, a correctly operating boiler
would be well above these temperature
and oxygen limits, while one
experiencing a failure would drop
significantly below these levels.
Therefore, these limits for firebox
temperature and oxygen level were
selected as parameters which would
indicate compliance with the numerical
emission limits. However, such a clear
breakpoint does not exist for flow
meters. Wide fluctuations of flow could
be expected under normal operation.
Consequently, a flow limit of zero was
set to ensure that the flow meter
indicates only when a process stream is
not being routed to the control device,
and not when normal flow fluctuations
occur. A three-hour averaging period for
these parameters was chosen to be
consistent with the averaging period for
the numerical emission limit Finally, the
frequency of visual checks was limited
to a weekly basis because this would
provide sufficient indication that all
process vent streams are being routed to
the control device without being
burdensome to plant personnel.
Furthermore, more frequent monitoring,
such as daily visual checks, would not
necessarily provide any better
information about stream flows.
For sources which use air pollution
control equipment other than boilers, the
Administrator has determined that a gas
chromatograph would best meet the
monitoring objectives. The proposed
standard therefore-would require that
the owners or operators install and
continuously operate a gas
chromatograph with a flame ionization
detector to monitor the concentration of
benzene exiting the control device
controlling the process vents. To
determine if all the process vent streams
are being routed to the control device.
V-I-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 245 / Thursday, December 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
the proposed standard would require
owners or operators to install and
continuously operate a flow meter that
prints a record every 30 minutes on each
process vent stream or combination of
process vent streams before entry into
the control device. They also would be
required to make a weekly visual check
of each process vent and to keep a
weekly log of each. However, because
the majority of EB/S plants are expected
to use a boiler to combust benzene
emissions, this monitoring method is not
expected to be used frequently.
The owner or operator of each source
would be required to calibrate the
required monitoring equipment and
certify that the equipment is installed,
operated, and maintained according to
certain specifications as indicated in the
regulation.
The capital investment required per
plant to comply with the proposed
monitoring requirements would be a
maximum of $16,000 for installing two
oxygen and temperature monitors and
three flow meters, or $58,000 for
installing a gas chromatograph and three
flow meters. This maximum per plant
cost assumes that plants do not have
any of the required monitoring
equipment. Many EB/S plants, however,
currently have some of the required
r-quipment for use in standard process
Lperation. Therefore, the actual per
l-iant cost would vary from plant to
plant.
After receipt and consideration of
written application, the Administrator
may approve alternatives to any
monitoring procedures or requirements
specified in the proposed standards.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Owners or operators of sources using
boilers as the air pollution control
device would be required to submit
monitoring and operational data within
ten days of any of the following, except
during plant startup and shutdown: (1)
Oxygen levels below 1.5 percent for a
three-hour average, as determined by
any flue gas oxygen monitor.
(2) Temperatures 100'F below that
registered in the emission test for a
three-hour average, as indicated by any
firebox temperature monitor.
(3) A flow of zero registered by any
flow meter on a compressor or natural
gas ejector for a three-hour period.
(4) Two or more weekly visual checks
within a 90-day period that determine if
any stream is not being routed to the
boiler.
Owners or operators of sources using
air pollution control equipment other
than boilers would be required to report
monitoring and operational data within
ten davs of any of the following, except
during plant startup and shutdown: (1)
Any release of benzene from process
vent streams to the atmosphere in
excess of five ppmv benzene for a three-
hour average as indicated by a
continuous monitoring system.
(2] A flow of zero registered by any
flow meter on a process vent stream or
combination of process vent streams for
a three-hour period.
(3) Two or more weekly visual checks
within a 90-day period that determine if
any stream is not being routed to the air
pollution control device.
The standard would require that each
monitoring system be operational before
conducting the emissions test required
under the proposed standard. All
monitoring data, emission test results,
and other data needed to determine
emissions would be kept and made
available to the Administrator for two
years following their recording. In
addition, owners or operators would be
required to notify the Administrator 30
days in advance of plant startup and
shutdown. Because the above reporting
does not apply during plant startup and
shutdown, this notice would identify for
the Administrator that period during
which the owners or operators would
not be subject to the emission
monitoring reporting requirements.
The cost to the EB/S industry to keep
records and to collect, prepare, and
report the data specified by the
proposed standard through the first five
years would be approximately $122,000.
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held to
discuss the proposed standard for
benzene emissions from EB/S plants in
accordance with sections 112(b)(l)(B)
and 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act.
Persons wishing to make oral
presentations on the proposed standard
should contact EPA at the address given
in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. Oral presentations will be
limited to 15 minutes each. Any member
of the public may file a written
statement before, during, or within 30
days after the hearing. Written
statements should be addressed to the
Central Docket Section address given in
the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble, and should refer to Docket
No. A-79-49.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Central
Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Docket
This docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted or otherwise considered in
the development of this proposed
rulemaking. This principal purposes of
the docket are (1) to allow interested
parties to readily identify and locate
documents so they can intelligently and
effectively participate in the rulemaking
process, and (2) to serve as the record in
case of judicial review.

Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of the
Act, appropriate advisory committees,
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies were
consulted before this proposal was
published. In addition, members of the
benzene task group of the Interagency
Regulatory Liaison Group, representing
EPA, OSHA, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, have met
and reviewed the proposed regulation to
ensure that the statement of the rule is
jointly understood and is consistent
with their programs. The Administrator
welcomes comments on all aspects of
the proposed regulation, including
economic and technological issues.
This regulation will be reviewed five
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods,
enforceability, and improvements in
emission control technology, and
reporting requirements. The reporting
requirements in this regulation will be
reviewed as required under the EPA
sunset policy for reporting requirements
in regulations.
Dated: December 12,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.

It is proposed that Part 61 of Chapter
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart as follows:

Subpart I—National Emission Standard for
Benzene Emissions From Ethylbenzene/
Styrene Plants

Sec.
61.100 Applicability and designation of
source.
61.101 Definitions,
61.102 Emission standard and compliance
provisions.
61.103 Excess emissions reports.
61.104 Emission test and procedures.
61.105 Emission monitoring.
61.106 Recordkeeping.
Authority: Sec. 112,114, 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7413, 7414,
7601(a)), and additional authority as noted
below.
V-I-14
-------
Federal Register / VoL 45. No. 245 / Thursday. December 18. 19flO / Proposed Rules
Subpart I—National Emission Standard
for Benezene Emissions From
Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants

§61.100 Applicability and designation of
source.
This subpart applies to each
integrated chemical process producing
either ethylbenzene from benzene or
styrene from ethylbenzene, and
containing one or more of the following
equipment: (a) Alkylation reactor
section, (b) ethylbenzene
hydroperoxidation reactor, or (c)
hydrogen separation system.

§ 61.101 Definitions.
The terms used in this subpart are
defined in the Clean Air Act. in § 61.02,
or in this section as follows:
"Alkylation reactor section'' means
any equipment or combination of
equipment in which benzene is reacted
with ethylene to produce ethylbenzene.
in which the reactor catalyst is
neutralized or separated from reaction
products and impurities, or in which
diethylbenzene and polyethylbenzene
are catalytically transformed to
ethylbenzene and by-products.
"Atmospheric column" means each
distillation column which operates at
atmospheric pressure.
"Continuous monitoring system''
means the total equipment used to
sample, to analyze, and to provide a
permanent record of emissions or
process parameters.
"Dehydrogenation reactor" means a
reactor in which ethylbenzene is
catalytically dehydrogenated in the
presence of steam to produce styrene
and by-products.
"Distillation column" means a vessel
in which a vapor is produced by heating
a liquid, with subsequent collection and
condensation of the vapors into liquids
for the purpose of concentration or
purification.
"Ethylbenzene hydroperoxidation
reactor" means any equipment or
combination of equipment in which
ethylbenzene is oxidized with air or
oxygen to produce ethylbenzene
hydroperoxide.
"Hydrogen separation system" means
the combination of equipment in which
the crude styrene, unreacted
ethylbenzene, and condensed steam is
separated from the hydrogen-rich gas
stream exiting the ethylbenzene
dehydrogenation reactor.
"Malfunction" means any sudden and
unavoidable failure of process or air
pollution control equipment. A failure of
process or air pollution control
equipment caused entirely or in part by
design deficiencies, poor maintenance,
careless operation, or other preventable
equipment breakdown shall not be
considered a malfunction.
"Natural gas ejector" means a device
using a nozzel and a natural gas or
nitrogen-driving fluid to increase
process vent stream pressure.
"Pressure column" means each
distillation column which operates at
greater than atmospheric pressure.
"Process vent stream" means any
benzene containing continuous gas
stream being released or having the
potential of being released to the
atmophere from each of the following
equipment (1) Alkylation reactor
section; (2) atmospheric or pressure
column; (3) hydrogen separation system:
(4) vacuum-producing device.
"Shutdown" means the cessation of
operation to ambient temperature of the
(1) entire source as designated in
§61.100; (2) alkylation reactor section; or
(3) dehydrogenation reactor.
"Smokeless flare" means a flare
which produces visible emissions for no
more than five minutes within any two-
hours period.
"Startup" means the commencing in
operation from ambient temperature of
the (1) entire source as designated in
§ 61.100; (2) alkylation reactor section;
or (3) dehydrogenation reactor.
"Vacuum-producing device" means
each devise which produces an absolute
pressure less than atmospheric on any
distillation column.

§61.102 Emissions standard and
compliance provisions.
(a) No owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
discharge into the atmosphere from a
source a process vent stream or
combination of process vent streams
containing in excess of five parts per
million by volume (ppmv) of benzene on
a dry basis corrected to three percent
oxygen over a time-weight average of
three hours.
(b) The emission limit specified in
paragraph (a) of this section shall not
apply during—(1) malfunctions; (2)
startup; or (3) shutdown. During startup,
shutdown, and malfunctions, the owner
or operator of each source shall combust
all emissions by one or more smokeless
flares.
(c) The owner or operator of each
source shall maintain and operate the
source, including associated air
pollution control equipment, in a manner
consistent with good air pollution
control practice for minimizing benzene
emissions. A determination whether
acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are being use will be based
on information supplied to the
Administrator, which may Include but is
not limited to monitoring results, review
of operating and maintenance
procedures, inspection of the source,
and review of records.
(d) Upon written application from an
owner or operator, the Administrator
may approve use of equipment or
procedures which have been
demonstrated to his satisfaction to be
equivalent in terms of reducing benzene
emissions during startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. Owners or operators
requesting approval by the
Administrator for use of equivalent
means for reducing excess emissions
shall submit, along with their request
data or calculations supporting their
contention that the alternate means
would reduce the emissions by an
equivalent amount.

§61.103 Excess emissions reports.
(a) The owners or operators of each
source must comply with the reporting
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)
and (c) of this section after the emission
test required under § 61.104(a).
[b) The owner or operator shall notify
the Administrator hi writing 30 days in
advance of each anticipated startup and
shutdown and shall provide an estimate
of the anticipated duration of each
startup and shutdown.
(c) The owner or operator shall report
to the Administrator each occurrence of
excess emissions as defined in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section
except for those during startup or
shutdown, within ten days of each
occurrence.
(1) For sources using a boiler or
process heater as the air pollution
control device, excess emissions means
any occurrence of emissions exceeding
the emissions limit specified in
J 61.102(a), as indicated by any of the
following: (i) Oxygen flow levels, as
determined by any flue gas oxygen
monitor, below 1.5 percent for a three-
hour average.
(ii) Temperatures, as indicated by any
firebox temperature monitor, more than
100°F below that registered in the
emission test for a three-hour average.
(iii) A flow of zero registered by any
flow meter on a compressor or natural
gas ejector for a three-hour period.
(iv) Two or more weekly visual
checks within a 90-day period that
determine if any process vent stream is
not being routed to the boiler.
(2) For sources using air pollution
control devices other than a boiler or
process heater, excess emissions means
any occurrence of emissions exceeding
the emissions limit specified in
§ 61.102(a), as indicated by the
following: (i) A continuous monitoring
system using a gas chromatograph with
V-I-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 245 / Thursday. December 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
a flame ionrratlon detector for a three-
hour average.
(il) A flow of zero registered by any
flow meter on a process vent stream or
combination of process vent streams for
a three-hour period.
(iii) Two or more weekly visual
checks within a 90-day period thqt
determine if any process vent stream is
not being routed to the control device.
(d) The owner or operator shall
submit the following information as a
minimum in the report required under
paragraph (c) of this section: (1) The
identity of the process vent streams
where the excess emissions occurred.
(2) Continuous monitoring and
operational data which indicated the
excess emissions.
(3) The cause, description, and
duration of the excess emissions.
(4) A statement whether or not the
owner or operator of the source believes
that a malfunction has occurred.
(e) If the owner or operator of a
source states that a malfunction has
occurred, he or she also shall submit the
following information as a minimum in
the report required under paragraph (c)
of ths section: (1) The steps taken to
remedy the malfunction and the steps
taken or planned to prevent a recurrence
of the malfunction.
(2) Documentation that the air
pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or processes were at all
times maintained and operated, to the
maximum extent practicable, in a
manner consistent with good practice
for minimizing emissions and were
designed in accordance with good
engineering practices.
(f) The owner or operator of each
source shall submit reports by certified
mail to the Administrator and shall
indicate that the reports are being
submitted in accordance with § 61.103.

§51.104 Emission test and procedures.
(a) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under § 61.13, the
owner or operator shall test emissions
from each process vent stream
discharged to the atmosphere from the
source— .
(1) Within 90 days of the effective
date in the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial
startup date preceding the effective
date; or
(2) Within 90 days of startup in the
case of a new source, initial startup of
which occurs after the effective date.
(b) The owner or operator shall
provide the Administrator 30 days prior
notice of the emission test to afford the
Administrator the opportunity to have
an observer present.
(c) Each emission test must be
conducted while the equipment being
tested is operating at the maximum rate
at which the equipment will be
operated.
(d) Each sample must be analyzed
within 24 hours of sample collection.
Emissions must be determined within 30
days after the emission test. The owner
or operator shall report the
determinations to the Administrator by
a registered letter dispatched before the
close of the next business day following
the determination.
(e) The owner or operator of each
source shall use the following test
methods to determine compliance with
the numerical emission limit prescribed
in § 61.102 unless the Administrator has
approved an application requesting the
use of an alternative or equivalent
method. If the Administrator finds
reasonable grounds to dispute the
results obtained by an equivalent or
alternative method, he may require the
use of a reference method. If the results
of the reference and equivalent or
alternative methods do not agree, the
results obtained by the reference
method prevail, and the Administrator
may notify the owner or operator that
approval of the method'previously
considered to be equivalent or
alternative is withdrawn.
(1) Method 3 of Appendix A, Title 40
CFR Part 60 for air dilution correction,
based on three percent oxygen in the
emission sample.
(2) Method 110 of Appendix B, Title 40
CFR Part 61 for benzene analysis.
(f) Each emission test must consist of
three runs. One sample containing a
minimum volume of 50 liters corrected
to standard condition must be collected
for each run. For the purpose of
determining emissions, the average of
the results from all three runs is to
apply. The average must be computed
on a time-weight basis.
(g) The sampling time for each run
. must be a minimum of one hour.
(h) The sampling site must be at least
two stack or duct diameters
downstream and one-half diameter
upstream from any flow disturbance
such as a bend, expansion, contraction,
or visible flame. The sampling point in
the duct must be at the centroid of the
cross section. The sample must be
extracted at a rate proportional to the
gas velocity at the sampling point. For a
rectangular cross section an equivalent
diameter must be determined from the
following equation:
equivalent diameter=2(length)(width)/
length + width
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414})
{61.103 Emissions monitoring.
(a) The owner or operator of each
source using a boiler or process heater
as the air pollution control device shall
install and continuously operate the
following equipment: (1) In the exhaust
flue of each boiler or process heater
receiving a process vent stream, a flue
gas oxygen monitor with a strip chart
recorder.
(2) Prior to any convective heat
transfer surfaces in the firebox, a
continuous firebox temperature monitor
with a strip chart recorder.
(3) At each compressor and at each
suction point of each natural gas ejector
handling a process vent stream, a flow
meter with a strip chart recorder.
(b) The owner or operator of each
source, except those specified in
paragraph (a) of this section shall install
and continuously operate—
(1) A continuous monitor system with
a flame ionization detector which
monitors the concentration of benzene
emissions discharged to the atmosphere
from each process vent stream or
combination of process vent streams;
and
(2) At each compressor and at each
suction point of each natural gas ejector
handling a process vent stream, a flow
meter with a strip chart recorder.
(c) For the monitoring equipment
specified in paragraphs (a] and (b) of
this section, the following specifications
shall apply: (1) Each flue gas oxygen
monitor shall—
(i) Be accurate to ±5 percent of the
normal operating range;
(ii) Be calibrated weekly using either
air, or a prepared cylinder oxygen
standard that is analyzed and certified
by the manufacturer to be accurate
within ±2 percent, and that has a
maximum shelf life recommended by the
manufacturer for each cylinder so that
the concentration does not change more
than ±5 percent from the certified
value; and
(iii) Have a sampling location at least
two stack or duct diameters
downstream and one-half stack or duct
diameters upstream from any flow
disturbance. For a rectangular cross
section, the equivalent diameter shall be
determined by:
equivalent diameter=2 (length) (width)/
(length) + (width)
The sampling point in the stack or duct
shall be at the centroid of the cross
section.
(2) Each firebox temperature monitor
shall be installed, operated, calibrated,
and maintained according to the
manufacturer's specifications and shall
have an accuracy of ±2 percent over
the normal operating range.
''-I-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 245 / Thursday, December IB. 1980 / Proposed Rules
(3) Each flow meter shall be Installed,
operated, calibrated, and maintained
according to the manufacturer's
specifications and shall have an
accuracy of ±5 percent over the normal
operating range.
(4) Each continuous monitoring
system shall—
(i) Be a device that obtains process
vent stream samples from one or more
emission points on a continuous,
sequential basis and analyzes the
samples for benzene with gas
chromatography or, if the organics
measured are benzene only, with
infrared spectrophotometry, and a flame
ionization detector;
(ii) Complete a minimum of one cycle
of operation (sampling, analyzing, and
data recording) at each source in each
successive one-hour period;
(iii) Be verified for operational status
by completing the manufacturer's
written requirements or
recommendations for checking the
operation or calibration of the device:
and
(iv) Be calibrated by using a standard
benzene mixture equal to five ppmv,
prepared using the procedures given in
section 7 of Method 110, or by using
cylinder standards conforming tp the
requirements of paragraph 5.2.3 of
Method 110. A daily zero check shall be
performed for each continuous
monitoring system using a zero gas with
benzene concentration less than 0.1 ppm
by volume.
(d) The owner or operator of each
source shall visually check each process
vent stream weekly to determine if each
stream is being sent to the air pollution
control device and keep a log. signed by
the owner or operator, of each
observation.
(e) The owner or operator of each
source shall install and operate all
monitoring equipment before conducting
the emission test under S 61.104.
(f) During any emission tests required
under § 61.104 or at such other times
required by the Administrator under
section 114 of the Act, the owner or
operator of each source shall furnish the
Administrator a written report of the
measurements made by the continuous
monitoring system during the emission
test within 60 days of the test.
(g) After receipt and consideration of
written application, the Administrator
may approve alternatives to any
monitoring procedures or requirements
of this part.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))

§61.106 Recordke«plng.
(a) The owner or operator of each
source which uses a boiler or process
heater as the air pollution control device
shall keep records of the following
information: (1) All oxygen level
measurements from each flue gas
oxygen monitor.
(2) All temperature measurements
from each firebox temperature monitor.
(3) All flow rate measurements from
each compressor or natural gas ejector
flow meter.
(4} All visual checks for each process
vent stream.
(5) All emission test results and other
data needed to determine emissions as
specified in i 61.104.
(b) The owner or operator of each
source, except those specified in
paragraph (a), shall keep records of the
following information: (1) All benzene
concentration measurements of the
exhaust gas by the monitor specified in
§ 61.105(b)(l).
(2) The procedures used for converting
the measured benzene concentrations to
a dry basis, and data that demonstrates
that such procedures produce accurate
results.
(3) All flow rate measurements from
each compressor or natural gas ejector
flow meter.
(4) All visual checks for each process
vent stream.
(5) All emission test results and other
data needed to determine emissions as
specified in § 61.104.
(c) Each owner or operator shall keep
the records specified in paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section at the source and
make them available for inspection by
the Administrator for a minimum of two
years.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
|FR Due 80-39330 Filed 12-17-811. 8 45 arr.|
BILLING CODE 65M-26-M
V-I-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40CFRPart61
[AD-FRL-1740-4]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Ethytbenzene/
Styrene Plants
AOENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Amended notice of public
hearing and extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: The public hearing has been
postponed 47 days and the end of the '
public comment .period extended 54
days for the proposed national emission
standard for benzene emissions from
ethylbenzene/styrene plants in response
to a request from Chemical
Manufacturers Association. This request
expressed the need to complete their
own exposure modeling and technical
and economic analyses in order to
evaluate EPA's data base and to provide
additional information.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standard must be postmarked no later
than April 30,1981. Notice of intent to
present oral testimony at the public
hearing must be postmarked no later
than March 17,1981. The public hearing
will be held on March 24,1981. Written
comments responding to, supplementing,
or rebutting written or oral comments
received at the public hearing must be
postmarked no later than April 30,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standard should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-79-49, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The public hearing will be held at the
EPA Administration Building
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 18,1980, EPA proposed in the
Federal Register (45 FR 83448) a national
emission standard for benzene
emissions from ethylbenzene/styrene
plants. In that notice, EPA announced
the date ending the public comment
period and the date and location of the
public hearing to receive public
comment on the proposed standards.
This notice amends the date of the
public hearing and extends the end of
the public comment period.
Dated: January 23,1981.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise
and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 81-3306 Filed 1-28-81: 8:45 am)
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 86 / Tuesday. May 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61

fAD-FRL-1818-6]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene
Emissions From Ethylbenzene/
Styrene Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of
public comment period.

SUMMARY: The end of the public
comment period has been extended 32
days, from April 30 to June 1,1981, for
the proposed national emission standard
for benzene emissions from
ethylbenzene/styrene plants in response
to a request from Chemical
Manufacturers Association. This request
expressed the need for additional time
to gather data and provide information
requested by EPA at the March 24, 1981.
public hearing.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standard must be postmarked no later
than June 1,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standard should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket
Station (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-79-49, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susun R. Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 18, 1980, EPA proposed in the
Federal Register (45 FR 83440) a nationnl
emission standard for benzene
emissions from ethylbenzene/styrene
plants. In that notice, EPA announced
the date ending the public comment
period and the date and location of the
public hearing to receive public
comment on the proposed standards.
On January 29, 1981, EPA published in
the Federal Register (46 FR 9660) an
amended notice of public hearing and
extension of public comment period. In
the amended notice, EPA announced the
date ending the public comment period
and the date and location of the public
hearing to receive public comment on
the proposed standards. This notice
extends the end of the public comment
period.

Dii ted: April 28,1971.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation.
|l R Doc. B1-13S.1C Filed 5-4-81; 8:45 am]
V-I-18
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
BENZENE FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
SUBPART J
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61
[AD-FRL 1610-3]

National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Fugitive Emissions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
Public Hearing.

SUMMARY: The proposed standard
would limit benzene emissions from
new and existing fugitive emission
sources containing 10 or more percent
by weight benzene in the petroleum
refining and chemical manufacturing
industries. The proposed standard
would allow no detectable emissions
due to leaks from safety/relief valves
and product accumulator vessels; would
require a leak detection and repair
program for pipeline valves and existing
pumps and compressors; and would
require certain equipment for new
pumps, new compressors, sampling
connections, and open-ended valves.
The proposed standard implements
the Clean Air Act and results from the
Administrator's determination of June 8,
1977, that benzene presents a significant
carcinogenic risk to human health and
is, therefore, a hazardous air pollutant.
The intent of the proposed standard is to
protect the public health with an ample
margin of safety.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standard for benzene
fugitive emissions.
DATES: Comments: Comments must be
received on or before April 6, 1981.
Public Hearing, A public hearing will
be held on March 4, 1981 beginning at
9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony should
contact EPA at least one week before
the hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket No. A-79-27,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at the EPA administration
Bldg auditorium, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify Ms.
Naomi Durkee, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5271.
Background Information Document.
The background information document
for the proposed standard is contained
in the docket and may be obtained from
the U.S. EPA library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711.
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to Benzene Fugitive Emissions—
Background Information for Proposed
Standard (EPA-450/3-80-O32a). Other
related documents which can be
obtained from the same location include
Assessment of Health Effects of
Benzene Germane to Low Level
Exposures (EPA-600/1-78-061);
Assessment of Human Exposures to
Atmospheric Benzene (EPA-450/3-78-
031); and Population Risk to Ambient
Benzene Exposures: Final Report of the
Carcinogen Assessment Group (EPA-
450/5-80-004).
Docket. Docket No. A-79-27,
containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standard, is
available for public inspection and
copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section, Room 2903B,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Supplementary
information on the regulation of benzene
emissions can be obtained from the
Maleic Anhydride Docket No. OAQPS-
79-3, which is available for public
review at EPA's Central Docket Section.
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan R. Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that under the authority of
Section 112(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Air Act
the Administrator is proposing a
national emission standard for benzene
fugitive emissions. Although the
proposed EPA Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating
V-J-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. lanuarv 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of
Cancer (see 44 FR 58642) is not final,
this proposed standard for benzene
fugitive emissions has been developed
consistent with the proposed EPA policy
and procedures. As prescribed in
Section 112(b)(l)(A) of the Act, the
proposal of this standard was preceded
by the Administrator's determination
that benzene is a hazardous air
pollutant as defined in Section 112(a)(l)
of the Act. Accordingly, the
Administrator revised the list of
hazardous air pollutants on June 8,1977,
by adding benzene (42 FR 29332).
A background information document
has been prepared that contains
information on the potroleum refining
and chemical manufacturing industries,
the available control technologies for
benzene fugitive emissions, and an
analysis of the environmental, energy,
economic, and inflationary impacts of
regulatory alternatives. Information of
the health effects of benzene is
contained in other documents prepared
by or for EPA. These documents can be
obtained as indicated in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
Proposed Standard
The proposed standard would apply
to new and existing pumps, pipeline
valves, compressors, safety/relief
valves, open-ended valves, sampling
connections, pipeline flanges, and
product accumulator vessels in benzene
service at petroleum refineries and
organic chemical manufacturing plants
(excluding coke-oven by-product
plants). Equipment components in
benzene service are those containing
materials having a benzene
concentration of 10 or more percent by
weight.
The proposed standard would limit
leaks from safety/relief valves and
product accumulator vessels to "no
detectable emissions," that is, emissions
having a concentration less than 200
parts per million (ppm) by volume above
a background concentration as
measured by proposed Reference
Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix
A). Proposed Reference Method 21
measures organic chemicals, including
benzene, but the method is not benzene-
specific. Leaks from safety/relief valves
during emergency conditions would be
allowed but would be returned to no
detectable emissions within five days of
the emergency conditions.
The proposed standard would require
that pipeline valves, existing pumps, and
existing compressors in benzene service
be monitored monthly for the detection
of leaks by proposed Reference Method
21. However, valves that are found not
to be leaking for two successive months
could be monitored quarterly until a
leak is detected. The proposed standard
would require that any valve, existing
pump, or existing compressor with a
concentration at or above 10,000 ppm
above background as measured by
proposed Reference Method 21 be
repaired within 15 days, except when
repair would require a process unit
shutdown. Repair means that the
measured concentration is below 10,000
ppm. An initial attempt to repair such a
leak would have to be made within 5
calendar days after the leak is detected.
Valves, existing pumps, and existing
compressors that can achieve a no
detectable emission level, such as
sealed bellows valves, would be
exempted from monthly monitoring, but
would have to be monitored on an
annual basis to verify the no detectable
emission level.
The proposed standard provides two
alternative standards for pipeline valves
in benzene service (i.e., containing 10 or
more percent by weight benzene). After
implementing the required leak
detection and repair program (monthly
monitoring) for one year, a plant owner
or operator may request to use one of
two alternative standards. The first
alternative standard would be an
allowable percentage of valves leaking.
The second alternative standard would
be a different leak detection and repair
program. For this alternative standard, a
plant owner or operator must
demonstrate that the alternative leak
detection and repair program achieves a
percentage of valves leaking
comparable to the required program. In
either case, the alternative standard
would be based on data collected during
a 1-year implementation of the required
leak detection and repair program. After
a plant owner or operator requests the
use of an alternative standard for
valves, the Administrator would
approve or disapprove the request
within 90 days.
Additionally, the proposed standard
would require that new pumps in
benzene service use dual mechanical
seal systems with a barrier fluid. In
addition to mechanical seals, new
compressors in benzene service would
also be required to utilize a barrier fluid
system. Degassing vents from barrier
fluid systems would be required to be
connected to a control device (e.g., an
enclosed combustion device) by a
closed vent system, and benzene
concentration in the barrier fluid would
be limited to less than 10 percent by
weight. In addition, sensing devices
would be required in order to detect
failure of the seal systems. Pumps or
compressors that can achieve no
detectable emissions as measured by
proposed Reference Method 21, such as
canned motor pumps, diaphragm pumps,
and magnetically coupled pumps, would
be allowed but would be monitored on
an annual basis to verify the no
detectable emissions level.
Closed-loop sampling would be
required by the proposed standard. The
standard would require that material
purged from sampling connections be
returned to the process or collected in a
closed disposal system without
emissions to atmosphere. In-situ
sampling would be excluded altogether
from the proposed standard.
The proposed standard would require
open-ended valves to be sealed with a
cap, blind, plug, or second valve. The
cap or other device could be removed or
opened only when the open-ended valve
is placed into service.
Sources excluded from routine
monitoring and equipment requirements
of the proposed standard include safety/
relief valves in liquid service and
flanges. If, however, leaks are visually
or audibly detected from any source in
benzene service, leak detection and
repair requirements similar to those for
pipeline valves would apply.
Compliance with the proposed
standard would be assessed through
review of records and reports which
would document implementation of the
requirements. On a quarterly basis, the
owner or operator would report the
number of leaks detected and repaired
during the quarter. The owner or
operator would also submit quarterly a
signed statement stating whether
provisions of the standard had been
met.
Any owner or operator of a source
designated by the proposed standard
could request that the Administrator
determine the equwalence of any
alternative means of emission limitation
to the equipment, design, operational
arid work practice requirements of the
proposed standard. Upon, receiving a
request for determination of
equivalence, the Administrator would
provide an opportunity for public
hearing. After such a hearing, the
Administrator would make a decision
and publish the decision in the Federal
Register.

Summary of Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Impacts
The proposed standard would reduce
benzene fugitive emissions for existing
petroleum refineries and chemical
manufacturing units from about 8,300
megagrams per year to about 2,200
megagrams per year. As a result of this
emission reduction, the proposed
standard would reduce the estimated
V-J-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
maximum lifetime risk for the most
exposed population from a range of
1.7 x 10"" tox 10~3at current controls.
to a range of 4.6X10'5 to 32 x 10~5, and
would reduce the estimated incidence of
leukemia deaths per year from new and
existing plant exposure in the fifth year
from a range of 0.21 to 1.4 at current
controls, to a range of 0.6 to 0.4.
No significant adverse impacts to air
quality, water quality, solid waste,
energy, or noise are expected as a result
of implementing the proposed standard
for the existing industry. In fact, benefits
to air and water quality would result
because the controls utilized in
implementing the standard would also
reduce emissions of other potentially
toxic hydrocarbons and because leak
control techniques would reduce the
amount of benzene and other organic
compounds entering wastewater
systems. Also, a positive energy benefit
would result because leak control
techniques increase conservation of
process materials and thereby reduce
the energy required to produce these
materials.
The proposed standard is expected to
affect about 250 existing petroleum
refining and chemical manufacturing
units. These units contain equipment
that are assembled to produce benzene,
benzene derivatives, or benzene-
containing chemicals as intermediates
or final products. The proposed
standard would increase annualized
costs to the existing petroleum refining
and chemical manufacturing industries
by about $2.1 million per year. In
addition, the proposed standard would
require a capital cost of $9.7 million. The
increase in operating costs could be
expected to increase the average cost of
benzene derivatives by about 0.13
percent. There would be no plant
closures or loss of employment as a
result of implementing the standard.
The proposed standard would affect
an estimated 70 new petroleum refining
and organic chemical manufacturing
units by 1985. The proposed standard
would reduce benzene fugitive
emissions from these new units from a
possible level of 2,500 megagrams per
year to 500 megagrams per year. The
proposed standard for new facilities
through 1985 would require a cumulative
capital cost of $6.5 million f*r new
facilities constructed through 1985. The
proposed standard would increase
annualized cost for nefo units in these
industries by $1.3 million in 1985 and
could increase the average cost of
products from new facilities by about
0.30 percent.
Background Information on Health
Effects of Benzene
The Administrator announced in the
June 8,1977, Federal Register (42 FR
29332) his decision to list benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act. A public
hearing was held on August 21,1980, to
discuss the listing of benzene as a
hazaroous air pollutant. A hazardous
pollutant is defined as an "* * * air
pollutant to which no ambient ait
quality standard is applicable and
which * * * may reasonably be
anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious,
irreversible, or incapacitating, reversible
illness."
Numerous occupational studies
conducted over the past 50 years have
shown that health hazards result from
prolonged inhalation exposure to
benzene. Since 1900 the scientific and
medical communities have recognized
benzene as a toxic substance capable of
causing acute and chronic effects.
Benzene attacks the hematopoietic
system, especially the bone marrow, and
its toxicity is manifested primarily by
alterations in the levels of the formed
elements in the circulating blood (red
cells, white cells, and platelets). The
degree of severity ranges from mild and
transient episodes to severe and fatal
disorders. The mechanism by which
benzene causes toxic effects is still
unknown.
These adverse effects on the blood-
forming tissues, including leukemia,
have been documented in studies of
workers in a variety of industries and
occupations, including the
manufacturing or processing of rubber,
shoes, rotogravure, paints, chemicals,
and more recently, natural rubber cast
film. These studies include single case
reports, cross-sectional studies, and
retrospective studies of morbidity and
mortality among a defined group of
workers industrially exposed to
benzene.
Based on the entire set of these
studies, the Administrator concluded
that benzene exposure is causally
related to a number of blood disorders,
including leukemia.* Although the
studies which form the basis of this
conclusion involve occupational
exposure to benzene at higher levels
than those found in the ambient air, the
Administrator has "made a generic
determination that, in view of the
existing state of scientific knowledge.
' Benene also has been shown lo be causally
related lo various cytopenias (decreased levels of
formed element in the circulating blood), aplastic
anemia (a non-functioning bone marrow), and
potentially inheritable chromosomal aberrations.
prudent public health policy requires
that carcinogens be considered for
regulatory purposes to pose some finite
risk of cancer at any exposure level
above zero" (44 FR 58646). Because of
the widespread use of benzene, benzene
emissions in the ambient air have been
determined to result in significant
human exposure. For these reasons,
exposure to benzene emissions may
reasonably be anticipated to result in
one or more serious effects that can be
expected to lead to an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious,
irreversible or incapacitating, reversible
illness. Therefore, the Administrator
concluded that benzene satisfies the
definition of hazardous air pollutant
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Rationale for Regulating Benzene
Fugitive Emission Sources
Stationary source categories of
benzene emissions include fugitive
emissions from petroleum refineries and
chemical manufacturing plants, the
gasoline marketing system, process
vents at several types of chemical
manufacturing plants, coke-oven by-
product plants, and benzene storage and
handling facilities. Together, these five
categories of stationary benzene
emission sources account for national
emissions of about 49,000 megagrams of
benzene per year.
The first step in establishing
standards for benzene was to determine
which of the source categories emitting
benzene would be.regulated. Currently,
there are about 130 petroleum refineries
and organic chemical plants, which
include about 250 units, involved in the
production of benzene, benzene
derivatives, and benzene-containing
materials. These units emit about 8,300
megagrams per year of benzene from
fugitive emission sources, or
approximately 17 percent of the total
benzene emissions from stationary
sources. By 1985, 70 additional units are
expected to be operating, which would
increase the current benzene emission
level from about 8,300 megagrams per
year to a projected level of 10,800
megagrams of benzene per year if no
additional controls are implemented.
Although benzene emissions from some
new and existing units will be regulated
under separate emission standards,
those standards would not regulate
fugitive emissions of benzene, except
fugitive emissions of benzene at coke-
oven by-product plants, which will be
covered under a separate standard for
coke-oven by-product plants.
An estimated 65 million people live
within 20 kilometers of the existing 250
units that produce or use benzene in the
petroleum refining and chemical
V-J-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 2 / Mondav. lanuarv 5. 1981 / Prooosed Rules
manufacturing industries. This estimate
is considered an estimate of the
population at risk, i.e., the population
exposed to ambient concentrations of
benzene emissions from fugitive
emission sources in those industries. As
a result of exposure to these ambient
benzene concentrations of benzene, the
maximum lifetime risk was estimated to
be within a range of 1.7 X 10"4 to 1.2 X
10"'at current controls. This maximum
lifetime risk is defined as the probability
of dying of leukemia for an individual
within the population at risk who is
exposed continuously for 70 years to the
highest maximum annual average
ambient benzene concentration due to
benzene emissions from fugitive
emission sources. In addition, the x
number of people within the population
at risk that would die from leukemia due
to benzene exposure from fugitive
emission sources in the existing
industries was estimated to be within
the range of 0.15 to 1.14 deaths per year.
Although the operational life of units
which may be affected by this proposed
standard is difficult to estimate, a 20-
year operational life would be common
to these industries. Operational lives of
SO years or more may occur particularly
in the petroleum refining industry.
However, operational lives may be less
than 20 years for some chemical
manufacturing industries. Consequently,
a 20-year operational life is a reasonable
estimate. On this basis, the number of
deaths estimated to occur over the life
of the 250 existing units would range
from 3.5 to 23.5.
The ranges presented here include
only the uncertainty of estimates made
concerning the benzene concentrations
to which workers were exposed in the
occupational studies of Infante, Aksoy,
and Ott, that were the basis for
developing the benzene unit risk factor
(discussed in Appendix E of "Benzene
Fugitive Emissions—Background
Information for Proposed Standard,"
EPA 450/3-800-32a) and are based on a
95 percent confidence interval that
assumes the estimated concentrations
are within a factor of two.
However, there are several other
uncertainties associated with the
estimated number of leukemia deaths
that are not quantified in these ranges.
The number of deaths were calculated
based on an extrapolation of leukemia
risk associated with a presumably
healthy white male cohort of workers to
the general population, which includes
men, women, children, nonwhites, the
aged, and the unhealthy. Uncertainty
also occurs in estimating the benzene
levels to which people are exposed in
the vicinity of petroleum refining and
chemical manufacturing plants.
Furthermore, leukemia is the only health
effect of benzene considered.
Additionally, the benefits to the general
population of controlling other
hydrocarbon emissions from fugitive
emission sources in these industries are
not quantified. Finally, these estimates
do not include the cumulative or
synergistic effects of concurrent
exposure to benzene and other
substances. As a result of these
uncertainties, the number of deaths and
the maximum lifetime risk calculated
around petroleum refining and chemical
manufacturing plants could be
overestimated. However, and more
important, they could just as likely be
underestimated for the same reasons.
Based on the magnitude of benzene
exposures from emissions from this
source category, on the resulting
estimated maximum individual risks and
estimated incidence of fatal cancers in
the exposed population for the life of
existing sources in the category, on the
projected increase in benzene emissions
as a result of new sources, and on
consideration of the uncertainties
associated with these quantitative risk
estimates (including the effects of
concurrent exposures to other
substances and to other benzene
emissions), the Administrator finds that
benzene emissions from fugitive
emission sources at petroleum refining
and chemical plants create a significant
risk of cancer and require the
establishment of a national emission
standard under Section 112.
The Administrator considered the
alternative of taking no action to
regulate benzene fugitive emissions and
relying instead on the OSHA standard
for benzene emissions and volatile
organic compound (VOC) control under
the State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
The current OSHA standard stipulates a
level of benzene that cannot be
exceeded in the work place.
Implementation of an emission standard
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
would require direct control of
emissions sources by specific limits or
other measures. Implementation of an
OSHA benzene standard, on the other
hand, requires indirect control of the
emission sources. That is, OSHA
standards require controls only to the
extent necessary to reduce worker
exposures to levels less than the
maximum permissible exposure. Some
fugitive emission sources can be located
away from the workplace and, hence,
may not require control. Therefore,
OSHA standards may not require all
emission sources to be controlled to a
similar extent that an emission standard
under Section 112 would require. Also,
benzene fugitive emissions controlled to
comply with an OSHA standard may be
removed from the workplace but still be
emitted to atmosphere. Relying on
indirect control would be an
unreasonable approach to reducing the
public risks associated with fugitive
emissions of benzene. In contrast,
OSHA standards include requirements
that regulate worker exposures that
emission standards under Section 112
would not cover. Thus, establishment of
both standards is appropriate and any
redundancy would be superficial.
Consequently, the Administrator
rejected reliance on OSHA benzene
regulations for control of benzene
fugitive emissions.
Volatile organic compound emissions,
as potential precursors to photochemical
oxidant (ozone) formation, are now
being regulated under SIPs. The goal of
SIP regulations for VOC is to effect
statewide compliance with the national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for ozone. Regulations under SIPs for
reducing VOC emissions could also
reduce benzene emissions. However, a
particular State may not need to require
reduction of VOC fugitive emissions to
meet the NAAQS. Consequently, the
Administrator rejected reliance on SIPs
for control of benzene fugitive
emissions.
Standards of performance for fugitive
VOC emissions from new petroleum
refineries and synthetic organic
chemical manufacturing plants are
currently being developed under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act. As discussed
for SIP regulations, these new source
performance standards (NSPS) for VOC
emissions will effect some concurrent
reductions in benzene emissions.
However, since the standards would not
apply to existing units and might not
require a reduction of VOC emissions to
the same extent as may be appropriate
for benzene, the Administrator rejected
reliance on NSPS for control of benzene
emissions.
Thus, after considering the available
alternatives, the Administrator
determined that Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act was the most reliable and
expeditious mechanism for the control
of benzene fugitive emissions. The
Administrator, therefore concluded that
a standard for the regulation of benzene
fugitive emissions would be developed
under the authority of Section 112.

Selection of Designated Sources
Benzene fugitive emissions occur in
the petroleum refining and chemical
manufacturing industries as a result of
the production and use of materials that
contain benzene. Benzene-containing
V-J-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules
materials originate in several ways. In
petroleum refineries, benzene is present
in numerous process streams. It is
present in crude oil in small
concentrations and is formed in various
refining operations such as pyrolysis
and dealkylation. It is also present in
many finished refinery products such as
gasoline and aromatic products.
In the chemical industry, benzene is
present in many processes because it is
used in the manufacture of organic
chemicals and because it is produced as
a by-product in the manufacture of some
organic chemicals. Benzene is used as a
feedstock in the production of many
chemicals, including, but not necessarily
limited to, ethylbenzene, cumene,
cyclohexane, benzene sulfonic acid,
resorcinol, maleic anhydride,
chlorobenzene, detergent alkylate,
nitrobenzene, and hydroquinone.
Additionally, benzene may be produced
as a by-product in the manufacture of
ethylene and styrene, or it may be
produced as a pure product by
extraction of mixed aromatics or
hydrogenation of toluene.
Organic materials must be moved to
and from various process vessels
(reactors, distillation columns, etc.) in
order to perform the chemical and
physical changes required to
manufacture a given organic product.
These materials are normally moved
from vessel to vessel through pipes. The
materials are usually driven through the
pipes by pumps, and the volume of flow
is normally regulated by valves. Pipeline
flanges (a method of joining sections of
pipe), valves and pumps all require
sealing mechanisms such as gaskets and
packing glands to prevent leakage of
process materials. These sealing
mechanisms may develop leaks due to
the wear of normal use and, in some
cases, may be designed to leak. A small
amount of leakage must be allowed for
many sealing mechanisms used on
rotating shafts in order to provide
lubrication for the shaft. Because these
sealing mechanisms allow leakage of
benzene or benzene-containing
materials to atmosphere, they are
sources of benzene emissions.
In addition to the potential fugitive
emissions resulting from leaks in sealing
mechanisms, benzene may also be
released during several other operations
associated with the processing of
organic compounds. Benzene can be
released due to leaks in safety/relief
valves; from purging, venting, and
draining operations; and during product
sampling operations. Benzene may also
be released from cooling towers,
wastewater separators, and process
drains due to the leakage of organic
materials into these systems.
A decision was made which defines
the scope of the proposed standard.
Present estimates indicate that 90
percent or more of the total benzene
fugitive emissions arise from
components which process materials
containing 10 or more percent by weight
benzene. Thus, the proposed standard
would regulate the majority of benzene
fugitive emissions if a 10 percent cutoff
were applied. In addition, a 10 percent
cutoff would eliminate covering trace
quantities of benzene, such as those
found in crude oil. Therefore, it was
decided that the proposed standard
would be applied only to fugitive
emission sources in benzene service, i.e.,
those components containing materials
of 10 or more percent by weight
benzene. However, if information
becomes available that indicates that
benzene emissions from fugitive
emission sources which handle benzene
streams below the 10 percent cutoff are
greater than presently estimated, the
standard could be revised in the future.
An emission standard promulgated
under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
covers new and existing stationary
sources of a hazardous air pollutant,
such as benzene. The coverage of an
emission standard depends on the
specific definition of stationary source
designated for any particular emission
standard. A new source includes an
existing source which has been
modified. In general, an existing source
is modified if a change in the source
results in increased emissions. New and
existing sources covered by Section 112
have different compliance schedules,
and, in some cases, new sources may be
covered by a more restrictive standard
than the standard for existing sources.
The designation of fugitive emission
sources to be covered by the proposed
emission standard was chosen such that
the proposed standard would have
maximum effectiveness in reducing
benzene fugitive emissions from new
and existing sources, yet would not
cause excessive adverse impacts.
Three possible definitions for the
designated sources were considered
before making a selection. These were
(1) designating all fugitive emission
sources within an entire plant site (e.g.,
an entire refinery or chemical plant) as
the source, (2) designating all fugitive
emission sources within a process unit
(e.g., an alkylation unit or a nitration
unit) as a source, and (3) designating
each fugitive emission source such as a
pump, a valve, or a pipeline flange, as a
source.
A plant site consists of all chemical
manufacturing and petroleum refining
benzene process units under common
ownership at the same geographical
location. All fugitive emission sources in
benzene service at one geographical
location could be designated as the
source to be covered by the proposed
standard. However, entire plant sites
are not typically constructed. More
typically, a new production unit would
be added to an existing site to produce a
new product, or larger capacity^
equipment might be installed to increase
production of an existing product. Thus,
the effectiveness of the proposed
standard would be limited to a standard
for existing plant sites or plant sites that
would become new plant sites through
reconstruction or modification.
If the standards for new and existing
fugitive emission sources are identical,
then an existing plant site that would
become a new source through
reconstruction or modification would
not be required to comply with any
different requirements (except
compliance date requirements). If the
standard for new sources is more
restrictive than the standard for existing
sources, then an existing plant site that
might become a new source through
reconstruction or modification would be
required to retrofit additional controls to
all fugitive emission sources at that
plant site. This could have adverse
impacts, especially if the new source
•standard would require extensive
retrofitting. These adverse impacts
would be related generally to cost and
economic impacts associated with
retrofitting an entire plant site. In
contrast to these adverse impacts,
positive impacts in reducing benzene
emissions could be associated with
retrofitting an entire plant site.
The designated sources could also be
defined as process units. Process units
would be considered to be all the
fugitive emission sources in benzene
service assembled to manufacture
benzene, benzene derivatives, or
benzene-containing compounds as
intermediates or final products.
Designating the source as a process unit
would have the same impacts as
designating the source as a plant site but
to a lesser extent. If the standard for
new sources is more restrictive than for
existing sources, then an existing
process unit that might become a new
source through reconstruction or
modification would be required to
retrofit the additional controls. Even
though this could have adverse impacts,
the impacts would not be as substantial
as those if the source were designated
as a plant site. In addition, positive
emission reduction impacts could result.
V-J-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 2 / Monday, lanuarv 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
Benzene fugitive emission sources
could be designated as individual pieces
of equipment, such as pumps and
\ hives, that leak benzene or benzene-
containing materials, thereby generating
l<< nzene emissions to atmosphere. The
K-y factor common to benzene fugitive
emissions are directly related to the
number of leaking components, but they
<.re not necessarily related to the type of
process unit in which the components
ure found.
If the standard is not different for new
and existing fugitive emission sources,
then an existing individual component
that might become a new source through
reconstruction or modification would
not be required to comply with any
different requirements. However,
approval of construction or modification
as required in 40 CFR 61.05(a) for each
modification or replacement would
generally be required. This would
require the identification of each
component. However, individual
components containing at least 10
percent benzene would be identified in
such a manner that they would not be
confused with components containing
less than 10 percent benzene. Thus, the
identification of each component for
purposes of modification and
reconstruction would not be an
additional requirement. This procedure
would be the same for process units and
plant sites.
If the standard for new sources is
more restrictive than the standard for
existing sources, then existing individual
components that might become new
sources through reconstruction or
modification would be required to
retrofit the additional controls to the
existing source. In general, this would
not happen through modification
because most changes in individual
pieces of equipment would not increase
their emission rates. However, an
existing component could become a new
source if it were reconstructed or
replaced. Cost and economic impacts
associated with retrofitting existing
sources when they become new sources
through modification or reconstruction
would be minimized if the sources are
designated as individual components.
This would occur since replacement of
an existing component that becomes a
new source would not affect other
components. Individual components
containing at least 10 percent benzene
would be identified in such a manner
that they would not be confused with
components containing less than 10
percent benzene. In addition, they could
be clearly identified as either an existing
source or a new source. Identifying
existing and new individual components
could be difficult but would not be
burdensome because both new and
existing components would be covered.
The only difference would be the
requirements of the applicable standard.
However, approval of construction or
modification for each modification or
replacement would generally be
required.
The adverse impacts associated with
potentially extensive retrofitting of
existing plant sites would prohibit the
designation of the sources covered by
the standard as plant sites. Even though
designating the sources covered by the
standard as process units would result
in less adverse impacts than designating
the sources as plant sites, this approach
could have adverse impacts. These
impacts are minimized by designating
the sources as individual components.
Thus, because adverse impacts are
minimized by designating the sources
covered by the standard as individual
components, the Administrator has
designated individual components as
the sources covered by the proposed
standard. As a result of this decision,
however, the modification and
construction approval provisions of 40
CFR Part 61 were reviewed.
Modification is not likely to result in
existing sources becoming new sources
because, in general, such changes do not
increase the emission rate from the
source. On the other hand, replacement
of a source would essentially be
construction of a new source. A
definition of reconstruction is being
proposed with this standard. The
purpose of the application of
modification or construction provisions
in the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part
61 is to provide EPA with information on
new sources and to ensure that new
sources comply with the standard.
Replacement of existing fugitive
emissions sources that comply with the
standard for new sources does not
warrant a review and subsequent
approval of construction. Thus, the
Administrator has excluded from
approval of construction or modification
existing sources that become new
sources through reconstruction and that
comply with the standard for new
sources. However, a notification of the
replacement or reconstruction would be
reported in the quarterly report that
occurs immediately after the
reconstruction or modification.
According to the definition of
reconstruction which is contained in the
proposed standard, there are two
criteria which the Administrator will
consider in deciding whether a source is
reconstructed. The first is that "the fixed
capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital
cost that would be required to construct
a comparable, entirely new source." The
second is that "it is feasible, considering
economic impacts and the technological
problems associated with retrofit, to
meet the applicable standard for new
sources set forth in this subpart." The
second criterion is only meaningful to
portions of the proposed standard which
have different requirements for new and
existing sources. That is, for any
existing source that has the same
requirements as a new source, the
economic impacts and technological
problems associated with retrofit have
already been considered. For those
existing sources, it has already been
decided that they can meet the proposed
standard for new sources.
In developing the proposed standard.
13 types of individual process
components have been identified as
potential sources of benzene fugitive
emissions. These components are
pumps, pipeline valves, safety/relief
valves, open-ended valves, sampling
connections, flanges, process drains,
compressors, product accumulator
vessels, agitators, wastewater
separators, cooling towers, and process
unit turnarounds.
Four of these types of process
components are not included in the
proposed standard. At present no data
are available that indicate the extent of
benzene emissions or emission
reduction techniques for wastewater
separators, cooling towers, and process
unit turnarounds. If information
becomes available that indicates the
extent of emissions from these sources,
standards could be proposed for them in
the future. Agitators are not considered
to be a significant source of benzene
fugitive emissions. Agitated vessels in
benzene operations operate at
atmospheric pressure; consequently, no
leakage is expected at the seal. For
pumps, pipeline valves, safety/relief
valves, open-ended valves, sampling
connections, flanges compressors, and
product accumulator vessels,
information indicating the extent of
benzene emisssions and available
control technology are available.
Therefore, all except four of these types
of equipment have been included in the
scope of the proposed standard.
In summary, the sources designated to
be covered by the proposed standard
are pieces of equipment of the following
types that contain fluids (liquid or gas)
with a concentration of 10 or more
percent by weight benzene: pumps,
pipeline valves, safety/relief valves,
open-ended valves, sampling
connections, pipeline flanges,
V-J-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5,1981 / Proposed Rule*
compressors, and product accumulator
vessels.

Selection of Regulatory Alternatives
Benzene fugitive emissions can be
reduced by two types of control
techniques: (1) leak detection and repair
programs, and (2) equipment, design,
and operational requirements. Six
regulatory alternatives which would
achieve different levels of emission
reduction where developed by
employing various combinations of the
available control techniques.

Selection of the Basis for the Standard—
Existing Sources

Selection of a regulatory alternative to
serve as the basis for the proposed
standard for existing sources involved
evaluating the environmental and
economic impacts of each alternative
discussed in Selection of Regulatory
Alternatives. Included for the evaluation
of environmental impacts were
estimates of air quality, water, noise,
and solid waste impacts. Included for
the evaluation of economic impacts
were estimates of the total capital and
annualized costs for implementing each
alternative, estimates of the effect on
final product prices, and estimates of
energy impacts.
After consideration of the
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts of each alternative, one
alternative was selected as best
available technology (BAT) for existing
sources. After BAT was identified, the
estimated risks remaining after
application of BAT were examined to
determine whether they are
unreasonable in view of the health
benefits and other impacts that would
result if a more stringent option were
applied.
To assess the environmental impacts
of the regulatory alternatives, existing
conditions were first characterized
(Regulatory Alternative I). Then
incremental impacts were determined
from this level of control.
Three model units were chosen to
represent average inventories of
equipment handling process streams
containing greater than 10 weight
percent benzene. These model units
were developed by analyzing various
production operations that are presently
known to involve benzene fugitive
emissions. The model units are based on
the number of pieces of equipment
involved in the various production
operations because fugitive emissions
are proportional to the number of pieces
of equipment. Thus, the model units
generally reflect process complexity
rather than production rate.
Model Unit A represents an average
inventory for units involved in the
production of ethylbenzene, styrene,
cumene, cylohexane, benzene sulfonic
acid, resorcinol, benzene from toluene,
or maleic anhydride; Model Unit B
represents an average inventory for
units involved in the extraction of
benzene from reformate, or in the
production of chlorobenzene or linear
alkylbenzene; Model Unit C represents
an average inventory for units involved
in the production of nitrobenzene,
hydroquinone, or benzene by extraction
from pyrolysis gasoline. Ethylene
production may be represented by either
Model Unit A, B, or C, depending on the
number of ethylene production units at
the plant site; one ethylene unit would
be represented by Model Unit A, two or
three ethylene units would be
represented by Model Unit B, and four
or five ethylene units would be
represented by Model Unit C. The 1980
industry totals for these model units
were estimated to be: Model Unit A, 145
units: Model Unit B, 72 units; Model Unit
C, 24 units.
Air Quality Impact
Using baseline emission factors and
the equipment inventories developed for
the model units, baseline benzene
fugitive emissions were determined to
be about 19 Mg/year for Model Unit A,
45 Mg/year for Model Unit B, and 97
Mg/year for Model Unit C. These rates
multiplied by the number of each model
unit present in the existing industry
yield a nationwide unregulated total of
8,300 Mg/year.
Regulatory Alternative II would
reduce benzene fugitive emissions from
the existing industry from 8,300 Mg/year
to 3,600 Mg/year, yielding a 57 percent
reduction in emissions. Regulatory
Alternative III would reduce these
emissions to 2,200 Mg/year, yielding a
73 percent reduction. Regulatory
Alternative IV would reduce emissions
to 1,900 Mg/year, yielding a 77 percent
reduction. Regulatory Alternative V
would reduce emissions to 900 Mg/year,
yielding a 90 percent reduction in
emissions from the baseline.
Ambient benzene concentrations
attributable to uncontrolled benzene
fugitive emissions (Regulatory
Alternative I) and those attributable to
fugitive emissions reduced to the levels
required by Regulatory Alternatives II
through V were estimated. The
estimated maximum annual average
benzene concentration for the facility
with the highest expected benzene
fugitive emission rate was 13.4 parts per
billion by volume (ppbv) at a distance of
0.1 kolometer from the plant. The
maximum annual concentrations for this
plant under Regulatory Alternatives II
through V were 5.9, 3.6, 3.1, and 2.8
ppbv. All of these maximum annual
concentrations occurred at 0.1 kilometer
from the plant.

Water, Solid Waste, and Noise Impacts
Since none of these regulatory
alternatives would require any
additional water discharges, there
would be no negative impact on water
quality. There is potential for a positive
benefit to water quality, however, due to
decreased amounts of organic materials
entering drains, sewers, and wastewater
discharges because of better leak
control. This benefit would increase
with the stringency of the regulatory
alternative because each successive
regulatory alternative requires
additional leak control measures.
There would be minimal impact on
solid waste and no impact on noise as a
result of implementing any of the
regulatory alternatives. The solid wastes
associated with the regulatory
alternatives are replaced mechanical
seals, packing, rupture disks, and
V-J-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
valves. The quantities of waste to be
disposed are not expected to be
significant for any of the regulatory
alternatives.

New Source Siting
New source siting requirements were
included in the proposed policy and
procedures for identifying, assessing,
and regulating airborne substances
posing a risk of cancer (44 FR 58642).
The proposed standard does not include
provisions to implement these new
source siting requirements. However,
they may be proposed at a later date.
Such a proposal for new source siting
provisions would apply to designated
sources that become new sources after
that proposal date.

Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standard
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
requires that an emission standard, or
mass emission limitation, be established
for control of a hazardous air pollutant
unless, in the judgment of the
Administrator, it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce such a standard. An
emission standard allows for some
flexibility in complying with the
standard, since any control technique
that achieves the standard may be
applied.
Section 112(e)(2) defines the following
conditions under which it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce an emission
standard: (1) if the pollutants can not be
emitted through a conveyance designed
and constructed to emit or capture the
pollutant; or (2) if the application of
measurement methodology is not
practicable due to technological or
economic limitations. Section 112(e)(l)
allows that if an emission standard is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce, then
the Administrator may instead
promulgate a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof.
An emission standard may not be
feasible to prescribe or enforce for
benzene fugitive emission sources.
Another approach for prescribing a
standard would be to specify an
allowable leak percentage in terms of a
maximum number or percentage of
fugitive emission sources that would be
allowed to leak. This approach would
not establish an emission level on a
mass emission rate basis but would
have some of the same advantages of an
emission standard in that it would allow
for flexibility in complying with the
standard.
An allowable leak percentage might
be defined by utilizing proposed
Reference Method 21. However,
available test data indicate variability in
leak percentages among process units.
This variability has precluded the
setting of an industry-wide allowable
leak percentage that would represent an
achievable limit. The allowable leak
percentage approach is discussed in
Alternative Standard for Pipeline Valves
in the next section of this preamble.
Using that approach, a plant owner or
operator would collect data for at least
one year and then commit to an
allowable leak percentage on a site-
specific basis. The variability in leak
percentages would be a factor that an
owner of operator would consider
before committing to an allowable leak
percentage.
The equipment standard format, in
general, provides well-documented
emissions reductions. Published
information is available on applications
'of various types of equipment; and in
some cases, emission test data may be
available from existing installations.
Compliance would require an initial
check to ensure that the equipment had
been installed properly and periodic
checks to assure that the equipment was
continuing to operate properly.
However, an inherent disadvantage
associated with this type of format is
that less site-specific flexibility is
provided and innovation may be
stymied.
Another format would be work
practices. An example of this format
would be a program for detecting and
repairing leaks. Inspection methods,
inspection time intervals, and time
allowed for repair would be defined in
detailing the work practices.
Compliance with a work practice
standard would be determined by
judging success in implementing the
work practices. Some recordkeeping and
reporting would be needed to serve at
the basis for judging this success.
The proposed standard incorporates
these potential regulatory formats.
Different formats could be required for
different fugitive emission sources,
because characteristics of available
emission control techniques differ
among the fugitive emission sources. In
the next section the rationale for
selecting a particular format is
explained for each type of fugitive
emission source. For each fugitive
emission source, the feasibility of
precribing or enforcing an emission
standard is carefully considered. If an
emission standard is not feasible, then
one of the other formats is selected.

Selection of Emission, Equipment, Work
Practice, Design and Operational
Standards
As discussed in Selection of Format
for the Proposed Standard, Section
112(e) of the Clean Air Act requires that
an emission standard be promulgated
unless it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce such a standard. Thus, control
techniques in Regulatory Alternatives III
and IV were evaluated for existing and
new sources, respectively to determine
if an emission standard could be
promulgated.
Safety/Relief Valves
The control technique of applying
rupture disks was evaluated as a
potential equipment specification for
existing and new gas service safety/
relief valves under Regulatory
Alternatives III and IV, respectively.
When the integrity of a rupture disk is
maintained, fugitive emissions through
the relief valve are eliminated. Properly
installed rupture disks will generally
maintain their integrity under normal
operating conditions unless an
overpressure relief situation occurs.
After an overpressure relief,
replacement of the rupture disk, once
again, eliminates fugitive emissions
through the safety/relief valve.
Since there is a control technique
available that eliminates fugitive
emissions from safety /relief valves, it is
feasible to prescribe an emission limit of
"no detectable emissions," that is, an
organic chemical concentration less
than 200 ppm above a backgraound
concentration as measured by proposed
Reference Method 21. The application of
a quantitative measurement
methodology, such as bagging, to
prescribe a no detectable emissions
limit would not be feasible due to
technological limitations discussed in
Selection of Test Method. However,
proposed Reference Method 21 can be
used to detect leaks of fugitive
V-J-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 2 / Monday, January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
emissions from safety/relief valves. A
safety/relief valve equipped with a
properly functioning rupture disk would
not leak. The detection of an organic
chemical concentration at or above 200
ppm by proposed Reference Method 21
would indicate that the relief valve was
leaking. Therefore, it is feasible to
prescribe a no detectable emissions
limit as the proposed standard for
existing and new safety/relief valves in
gas service.
The no detectable emissions limit
would not apply to discharges through
the safety/relief valve during
overpressure conditions because the
function of the safety/relief valve is to
discharge process fluid, thereby
reducing dangerous high pressures
within the process. The standard would
specify, however, that the safety/relief
valve be returned to a state'of no
detectable emissions within five days
after such a discharge. It would further
require an annual test to verify the no
detectable emissions status of the
safety/relief valve.

Product Accumulator Vessels
The control technique of connecting
existing and new product accumulator
vessels to a control device with a closed
vent system was evaluated under'
Regulatory Alternatives III and IV,
respectively. A properly designed -and
installed closed vent system would
completely eliminate fugitive emissions
from the product accumulator vessel.
Since the flow rates of the gaseous
emissions from product accumulator
vessels are of a much smaller magnitude
than those from safety/relief valves, the
emissions can be safely disposed of in
an enclosed combustion device or can
be collected by a vapor recovery
system. Specifications for the control
device used to dispose of or capture
emissions from the closed vent system
are included in the proposed standard
and are discussed later in this section.
As with safety/relief valves, a control
technique is available that eliminates
fugitive emissions from the product
accumulator vessels. Also, proposed
Reference Method 21 can be used to
verify that a closed vent system has
been designed and installed properly
and has eliminated fugitive emissions
from a product accumulator vessel.
Therefore, since it is feasible to
prescribe an emission limit, the
proposed standard for product
accumulator vessels is no detectable
emissions. As with safety/relief valves,
the proposed standard requires an initial
performance test, using proposed
Reference Method 21, to verify that a
product accumulator vessel meets the no
detectable emissions limit, and annual
rechecks to ensure continued operation
at no detectable emissions.

Other Fugitive Emission Sources With
No Detectable Emissions
As discussed in the following
sections, fugitive emission sources other
than safety/relief valves and product
accumulator vessels can operate with no
detectable emissions when leakless
equipment is used. For example, canned
pumps and diaphragm valves can
operate with no detectable emissions.
Even though leakless equipment can not
be used in all cases, it can comply with
a no detectable emissions requirement
when it is used. Leakless equipment is at
least as effective as work practices and
other equipment in reducing benzene
emissions, because emissions of
benzene from leakless equipment are
eliminated. Therefore, the proposed
standard considers the application of
leakless equipment to be equivalent to
the application of work practices and
other equipment for fugitive emission
sources other than safety/relief valves
and product accumulator vessels. As
with safety/relief valves, the proposed
standard requires an initial performace
test, using proposed Reference Method
21, to verify that a piece of leakless
equipment meets the no detectable
emissions limit, annual rechecks to
ensure continued operation at no
detectable emissions, and rechecks at
the request of the Administrator.

New Pumps
In the analysis of the impacts of
Regulatory Alternative IV, dual
machanical seal systems were
considered as the control technique for
new pumps. The evaluation of this
control technique first considered the
practicability of setting an emission
limit. An emission limit standard for
pumps is not practicable, however. First,
even through new pumps can, in some
instances, be equipped to release
fugitive emissions into a conveyance
mechanism, measurement of these
emissions is not practicable due to
technological limitations with measuring
very low flow, intermittent emission
sources. Second, determining emission
levels at the pump would require that
each pump be bagged as described in
the Selection of Test Method section of
this preamble. Measurement of an
emission level using the bagging method
is time consuming, expensive, and
impractical. A no detectable emissions
limit is not possible to prescribe because
data currently available show that
pumps equipped with dual mechanical
seal systems may not meet such a
standard. Thus, because the application
of available measurement methods
would not be practicable due to
technological or economic limitations,
an emission standard has not been
proposed for new pumps.
Equipment specifications evaluated
for new pumps were dual mechanical
seal systems (double and tandem),
closed vents for the pump seal areas,
and sealless pumps. Double mechanical
seal systems have two seals in a back-
to-back arrangement, with a barrier
fluid between the two seals. The barrier
fluid is typically maintained at a
pressure greater than the pump stuffing
box pressure so that any leakage
between the seals would be from the
barrier fluid to the working fluid;
therefore, no benzene would be emitted.
Tandem mechanical seal systems also
utilize a barrier fluid; however, the
barrier fluid pressure is maintained at a
pressure lower than the pump stuffing
box pressure. In this arrangement, there
is leakage of the working fluid into the
barrier fluid. Leakage into the barrier
fluid is controlled by either (1)
connecting the barrier fluid degassing
system to a control device (enclosed
combustion or vapor recovery) with a
closed vent system or (2) by
continuously replacing the fluid with
fresh barrier fluid and properly
disposing of the contaminated barrier
fluid. In either case, the benzene
concentration in the barrier fluid must
be maintained below 10 percent by
weight in order to minimize potential
benzene leakage from the outer seal.
Dual mechanical seals utilizing a
barrier fluid are the most universally
applicable of the options evaluated, and
these systems provide a high control
efficiency (dependent on the degassing
vent control device efficiency). Thus, the
. Administrator selected the dual
mechanical seal and barrier fluid system
as the required equipment for new
pumps.
Section 112(e) of the Clean Air Act
requires that when equipment standards
are established, requirements must also
be established to ensure the proper
operation and maintenance of the
equipment. A pressure or level indicator
on the barrier fluid system would reveal
any catastrophic failure of the inner or
outer seal, or of the barrier fluid system.
This indicator would be monitored in
the control room or equipped with an
alarm to signal a failure of the system.
These requirements are proposed,
therefore, to ensure the proper operation
and maintenance of the dual mechanical
seal system.
Sealless pumps, such as diaphragm.or
canned pumps, do not have a potential
leak area and, therefore, should achieve
approximately 100 percent control.
However, sealless pumps may not be
V-J-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5,1981 / Proposed Rules
suitable for use in some process
applications due to throughput, pressure
or fluid composition constraints. For
these reasons, sealless pumps were not
selected under Regulatory Alternative
IV. Leakless equipment, such as sealless
pumps, are at least equivalent to dual
mechanical seal systems, because
benzene emissions from leakless
equipment are eliminated. Thus, any
equipment that complies with a no
detectable emissions limit is equivalent
to the dual mechanical seal system. As
with other leakless equipment, the
proposed standard requires an initial
performance test, using proposed
Reference Method 21, to verify that the
piece of leakless equipment meets the
no detectable emissions limit, and
annual rechecks to ensure continued
operation at no detectable emissions.
The seal area of a pump could be
completely enclosed, and this enclosed
area could be connected to a control
device (enclosed combustion or vapor
recovery) with a closed vent system.
The control efficiency of this
arrangement is dependent on the control
efficiency of the vapor recovery system
or enclosed combustion device. The
closed vent system could require a flow-
inducing device to transport emissions
from the seal area to the control device.
Because of safety or operating
constraints, enclosure of the pump seal
area may not be feasible in all cases.
However, there may be pump
applications that require pumps that can
not be equipped with dual mechanical
seals and can not be replaced with a
sealless pump, and the enclosed seal
area would be the best option for such
pumps. Therefore, the Administrator is
proposing to allow new pumps to be
equipped with enclosed seal areas that
are connected to a control device with a
closed vent system.

New Compressors
As in the case for new pumps,
emission limits for new compressors
have not been proposed because the
application of available measurement
methods would not be practicable due
to technological or economic limitations.
Like pumps, compressors are not
generally designed to release fugitive
emissions into a conveyance, and
bagging of compressors for emission
measurement would be expensive and
impractical.
Equipment specifications evaluated
for new compressors were (1) sealless
compressors; (2) mechanical contact
seal systems with barrier fluid systems
and, if degassing is necessary, barrier
fluid degassing vents connected to a
control device; and (3) enclosed
compressor seal areas vented to a
control device. Mechanical contact seal
systems were selected as the basis for
Regulatory Alternative IV. The barrier
fluid system used in this equipment
would be similar to the system
described for pumps with dual
mechanical seals, although the
compressor seal may be mechanical
contact, oil film, or another type of seal.
Leakage through the seal results in the
presence of benzene in the barrier fluid,
and this benzene could be emitted from
the barrier fluid system. However, this
benzene would be collected and
directed to a-control device (enclosed
combustion or vapor recovery system]
by a closed vent system that is
connected to the barrier fluid system.
This approach provides a high control
efficiency and is the most applicable
effective control technique for new
compressors. Thus, the Administrator
selected a seal system which includes a
barrier fluid system as the required
equipment for new compressors.
Section 112(e) of the Clean Air Act
requires that when equipment standards
are established, requirements must also
be established to ensure the proper
operation and maintenance of the
equipment. A pressure or level indicator
on the barrier fluid system would reveal
any catastrophic failure of the inner or
outer seal, or of the barrier fluid system.
This indicator would be monitored in
the control room or equipped with an
alarm to signal a failure of the system.
These requirements are proposed,
therefore, to ensure the proper operation
and maintenance of the mechanical
contact seal system.
Although sealless compressors would
achieve approximately 100 percent
control, sealless compressors are not
readily available in capacities large
enough for most process applications
and, therefore, have limited use.
Consequently, sealless compressors
were not considered under Regulatory
Alternative IV and were not selected as
equipment for the proposed standard.
Leakless equipment, such as sealless
compressors, are at least equivalent to
mechanical contact seal systems,
because benzene emissions from
leakless equipment are eliminated.
Thus, any equipment that complies with
a no detectable emissions limit is
equivalent to the mechanical contact
seal system. As with other leakless
equipment, the proposed standard
requires an initial performance test,
using proposed Reference Method 21, to
verify that the piece of leakless
equipment meets the no detectable
emissions limit, and annual rechecks to
ensure continued operation at no
detectable emissions.
There are some cases in which seals
with barrier fluid systems can not be
utilized. For example, for some high
pressure applications, reciprocating
compressors may be required.
Mechanical seals with a barrier fluid
system can not be used under all
process conditions due to pressure
limitations. For those cases in which
mechanical contact seals are not
technically feasible, enclosure of the
seal area would be the best option for
new compressors. The enclosed area
would be connected to a control device
(enclosed combustion or vapor
recovery) with a closed vent system.
Therefore, the Administrator proposes
to allow seal areas to be enclosed and
connected to a control device with a
closed vent system for new
compressors.
Open-Ended Valves
Benzene from open-ended valves
occurs due to leakage through the valve
seat of a valve which seals the open end
from the process fluid. Generally, open-
ended valves are not designed to release
fugitive emissions to a conveyance, and
bagging of these sources for emission
measurement would not be practical. A
no detectable emissions limit is not
feasible to prescribe because benzene
could leak through the valve seat and
become trapped in the line between the
valve and closure. Consequently,
benzene could be emitted. Thus, the
approach of requiring equipment was
examined.
Equipment considered for open-ended
valves included improved valve seat
technology and closure of the open-end.
Improved valve seat technology was not
selected because the effectiveness of
such technology could be nullified by
operating variables such as incomplete
closure of the valve by operating
personnel. Closure of the open end could
be achieved by installing a cap, plug,
blind, or a second valve on the open
end. The control efficiency associated
with these techniques is approximately
100 percent, except when the line is used
for a draining or venting operation.
Thus, the Administrator is proposing
standards that require open-ended
valves to be equipped with a cap, plug,
blind, or a second valve.
To ensure the proper operation of the
equipment, open-ended lines would also
be covered by an operational standard.
If a second valve is used, the proposed
standard would require the upstream
valve to be closed first. After the
upstream valve is completely closed, the
downstream valve must be closed. This
operational requirement is necessary in
order to prevent trapping process fluid
between the two valves, which could
V-J-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
result in a situation equivalent to the
uncontrolled open-ended valve.

Sampling Connections
When process samples are taken for
analysis, it is necessary to purge some
process fluid through the sample
connection to obtain a representative
stream sample. This sample purge would
be vented to atmosphere if the fluid was
gaseous, and liquid sample purges could
be drained onto the ground or into open
collection systems where evaporative
emissions would result. Generally,
sampling connections are not designed
to release fugitive emissions to a
conveyance, and bagging of these
sources for emission measurement
would not be practical. A no detectable
emissions limit is not feasible to
prescribe because no available data
indicate that application of any control
technique would be able to comply with
such a standard at all times.
Closed-loop sampling was considered
as the equipment specification for
sampling connections. Closed-loop
sampling systems eliminate emissions
due to purging by either returning the
purge materiaal directly to the process
or by collecting the purge in a collection
system which is not open to atmosphere
for recycle or disposal. Thus, the
Administrator selected closed-loop
sampling systems as the required
equipment for sampling connections.

Process Drains
Control by minimizing the potential
for benzene leakage into the process
drain system was considered for process
drains. However, controls are specified
for all potential major sources of
benzene leakage into process drain
systems. Thus, the Administrator did not
consider it necessary to specify
additional controls for process drains in
the proposed standard.

Control Devices
Control devices would be used to
dispose of benzene captured in closed
vent systems from barrier fluid
degassing systems, enclosed pump and
compressor seal areas, and product
accumulator vessels. In all cases, these
control devices would receive streams
with low and intermittent flow rates.
These control devices may be designed
to dispose of organic streams from other
sources in the plant; therefore, the
benzene streams may contribute a very
small portion of the total loading on the
control device. For these reasons, and
because of technological limitations
with maasuring very low-flow streams,
an emission standard was not proposed
for these control devices.
Design requirements were evaluated
in order to ensure that appropriate
emission reductions would be achieved
from control devices used in conjunction
with closed vent systems. Enclosed
combustion devices and vapor recovery
systems were considered in evaluating
control device design requirements.
Enclosed combustion was specified
because open flares may only be 60
percent efficient for benzene destruction
in these low flow, intermittent streams.
The design requirements specified for
enclosed combustion are the attainment
of a minimum 760° C for 0.5 seconds.
Under these conditions, greater than 95
percent benzene destruction is achieved.
Vapor recovery systems may also be
used to control benzene from closed
vent systems. A controlled efficiency of
95 percent was chosen as the design
requirement because it is a reasonable
control efficiency achievable for vapor
recovery systems such as carbon
adsorption or condensation units. These
control devices would receive
intermittent flows from the fugitive
emission sources and, therefore, would
require operation only during emissions
from these sources. The Administrator
is, therefore, proposing that the standard
require enclosed combustion devices
and vapor recovery systems used as
control devices for closed vent systems
to be designed for 95 percent benzene
emission reduction and operated when
emissions from sources covered by the
proposed standard are vented to the
control device.
Exclusions
Safety/relief valves in liquid service
and flanges were excluded from routine
monitoring and equipment requirements.
However, if leaks from these sources are
observed, repair would be required.
These sources were excluded from
routine monitoring and equipment
requirements based on data from
petroleum refineries, which is also
applicable to the chemical industry.
Flanges in refineries have very low
emission rates. They contribute 2.2
percent of all emissions, but include 61
percent of the total number of sources.
Safety/relief valves in liquid service
also have very low emission rates in
refineries. They contribute only 0.2
percent in all emissions. Since these
types of sources contribute a very small
portion of overall emissions, including
them in the routine monitoring and
equipment requirements was not
considered reasonable.

Control Technique and Equipment
Failures
Control technique and equipment
failures can cause increased emissions
from fugitive emission sources. Most
control techniques and equipment for
fugitive emission sources do not
eliminate the possibility of emissions
that result from control technique and
equipment failures. For example, failure
of dual mechanical seal systems does
occur and can result in emissions of
benzene that would not have otherwise
occurred. The requirements included in
the proposed standard, however, include
provisions for controlling fugitive
emissions during these failures. Thus, as
discussed below, additional
requirements for reducing emissions
during control technique and equipment
failures were not necessary.
For pipeline valves, existing pumps,
and existing compressors, the proposed
standard requires periodic leak
detection and repair. This practice
focuses on locting leaking valves,
existing pumps, and existing
compressors and requiring their repair.
Certain leaking valves, existing pumps,
and existing compressors can not be
repaired within 15 days without a
process unit shutdown. The proposed
standard allows delays for repair of
these pieces of equipment beyond 15
days and provides for repair of the
leaking equipment during a process unit
shutdown.
For new pumps, new compressors,
open-ended valves, and sampling
connections, the proposed standard
would require certain equipment. The
proposed standard includes provisions
to assure the proper operation and
maintenance of the equipment and, thus,
focuses on detecting equipment failures
and requiring their repair.
The proposed standard for safety/
relief valves in gas/vapor service would
require no detectable emissions except
during overpressure releases. Emissions
during over-pressure releases do not
result from equipment failures, because
the function of safety/relief valves is to
discharge process fluid to reduce
dangerous high pressures within the
process. The proposed standard would
require a return to no detectable
V-J-19
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 2 / Monday. January 5. 1981 / Proposed Rule«
emissions within five days of an
emergency episode.
The proposed standard for product
accumulator vessels would require no
detectable emissions. This requirement
could be achieved by properly installing
and maintaining a closed vent system to
convey the emissions to a convenient
but acceptance portion of the process/
operation, to a plant fuel-gas sytem
connected to a boiler furnace, or to a
control device. A closed vent system
that is properly installed and maintained
will not allow emissions to occur.
Therefore, emissions from equipment
failures should not occur.
The proposed standard would require
control devices to meet certain design
requirements and to operate when
emissions from fugitive sources are
vented to them. Properly designed and
operated control devices would not
result in control equipment failures that
would result in emissions. For example,
emissions from new pump or
compressor barrier fluid systems can be
vented manually to a control device.
The emissions, therefore, can be vented
when the control device is operating,
thus eliminating these emissions during
control equipment failures. Increased
emissions during control equipment
failures should not occur with this
requirement because emissions vented
to control devices can be regulated so
that the device is operating when
emissions are vented. Therefore, dual
control systems would not be needed to
comply with this requirement.
In summary, it was not necessary to
consider additional control techniques
for reducing emissions during equipment
failures because the proposed standard
already contains provisions for handling
these emissions. During control
equipment failures, fugitive emissions
collected by closed vent systems can be
vented to a control device when it is
operating.

Equivalence of Alternative Means of
Emission Limitation
Under the provisions of Section 112(e)
of the Clean Air Act, if the
Administrator establishes work
practices, equipment, design or
operational standards, then the
Administrator must allow the use of
alternative means of emission
limitations if they achieve a reduction in
air pollutants equivalent to that
achieved under requirements of a
standard of performance. Sufficient data
would be required to show equivalency,
and a public hearing would be required.
Individual owners or operators could
request alternatives for specific
requirements, such as the proposed
equipment and the proposed leak
detection and repair program. Sufficient
information would have to be collected
by a plant to demonstrate that the
alternative control techniques would be
equivalent to the control techniques
required by the proposed standard. This
information would then be submitted to
EPA in a request for a determination of
equivalence. A public hearing notice
would be published in the Federal
Register.
The data submitted in a request for
equivalency of alternative control
measures would take the form of test
data to substantiate equivalency. To
obtain permission to use alternate types
of equipment, emission test data would
be supplied for comparison to emission
data from the specified equipment.
Application for equivalence of
alternative work practices would require
submission of twelve months' data for
the leak detection and repair program
specified in the proposed standard and
data for the alternate system. Based on
the data collected for at least one year,
an alternative work practice would then
be set to take the place of the required
work practice.
After public notice and opportunity
for public hearing, the Administrator
would determine the equivalence of an
alternative means of emission limitation
and would publish his determination in
the Federal Register.
Impacts of Reporting Requirements
In addition to requirements of the
General Provision of Subpart A of 40
CFR Part 61, the proposed standard
would require quarterly reports
including information pertaining to the
required work practices. Estimates of
the efforts associated with the reporting
requirements indicate that the industry
would incur manpower expenditures of
approximately 20 man-years in 1985 to
fulfill the requirements. No overlapping
data requirements with other
government agencies are anticipated.

Selection of Test Method
Several fugitive emission
measurement and monitoring methods
were identified and analyzed in the
development of the proposed standard.
Evaluation of these alternative methods
was based upon results of emission
testing conducted at petroleum
refineries and organic chemical
manufacturing plant.
One method of emission measurement
is the direct measurement of leak rates
from each source. Direct measurement
of leak rate refers to the determination
of mass emissions. For the wide variety
of sources subject to the proposed
standard, direct measurement would
require "bagging" techniques for the
determination of mass emissions from
each source on a kg/hr basis. "Bagging"
means to enclose a fugitive emission
source with a shroud in order to capture
all of the emissions from the source. The
shroud must be attached securely to the
source in order to ensure complete
capture of emissions, and a flow
measurement device is needed to
measure the volumetric emission rate.
After an appropriate equilibration time
(5 to 30 minutes), depending on the
shroud and the leak rate, a sample of the
effluent from the shroud is taken to
determine the organic compound
concentration. The mass emission rate is
then calculated based on the volume
flow rate and concentration. Because of
the large numbers of sources in a plant,
direct measurements of leak rates would
be costly, time-consuming, and
impractical for routine testing.
Therefore, direct measurement of leak
rates was not selected as the emission
measurement method for the proposed
standard.
Indirect emission measurement
methods or monitoring methods that
would yield qualitative indications of
leaks were reviewed. These monitoring
methods are (1) a periodic individual
component survey that would monitor
all fugitive emission sources using
portable detectors; (2) a periodic area, or
walkthrough, survey that would monitor
background concentrations of organic
compounds using portable detectors;
and (3) a continuous fixed-point
monitoring system that would consist of
stationary sensing devices with a
remotely located central readout or a
central analyzer system (gas
ciiromatograph) with remotely collected
samples.
V-J-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday. January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
Individual component surveys using
portable detectors would be the most
efficient method for detecting all leaks.
The periodic individual component
survey could be performed in a
reasonable amount of time by
monitoring personnel and could be
accomplished with relative ease. The
cost of a leak detector for the individual
component survey would be reasonable.
Two individual component survey
methods were identified: (1) leak
detection by spraying each component
with a soap solution and observing
bubble formation; and (2) leak detection
by measuring organic compound
concentration with a portable detector.
The magnitude of leak rates based on
bubble formation is difficult to assess. In
addition, bubble formation is subject to
component temperature and component
configuration restraints. Monitoring with
a portable detector reduces the amount
of variability in the measurement
method. There if still some variability
induced by this method, however.
because of such uncontrollable factors
as operator diligence and training. The
portable detector is a good method for
determining the number of leaks from a
source. However, the correlation
between emission rate and number of
leaks is marginal. Therefore, for
regulatory purposes, the portable
detector is not suitable for quantifying
the emission rate for each source. For
these reasons, measurement of organic
compound concentration with a portable
detector was selected as the method for
monitoring individual components.
A periodic area, or walkthrough,
survey of background organic compound
concentrations with a portable detector
and recorder would be a less effective
method for detecting leaks than the
individual component survey.
Interference due to local meteorological
conditions and leaks from adjacent units
would probably prevent the detection of
all leaks within a process unit. In fact,
experience has indicated that the area
survey is suitable only for locating large
leaks. In order to design a walkthrough
method that is as sensitive to leaks as
an individual component survey, the
"action level" indicating the need to
survey equipment within a specific area
would need to be very low. In addition,
the action level would need to be unit-
and meteorology-specific (different
action levels for different wind speeds).
With an action level this low, the
background level of organic compound
concentration measured could cause
considerable interference. Furthermore,
leaks would be indicated almost
everywhere within the unit. In many
cases, an individual component survey
would be necessary to locate the actual
leaks. Therefore, since it is not possible
to provide an industry-wide action level
indicative of leaks for a given process
unit, and since any action level that was
determined could give so many false
indications of leaks that a complete
individual component survey would be
necessary to detect the actual leaks, a
walkthrough survey was not judged to
be a reasonable approach for leak
detection.
Implementation of a continuous fixed-
point minitoring system would require a
portable detector to locate specific
leaking components in addition to
multiple stationary monitors or sample
collectors. This system would also be a
less efficient method for detecting
emissions. Possible meteorological
interference and problems with
measuring concentrations of remotely
collected samples would prevent
efficient leak detection by a fixed-point
system. Except for possible monitoring
equipment calibration problems, the
fixed-point system would be operated
with relative ease by monitoring
personnel, who would still be required
to use portable detectors to find the
individual leaking components indicated
by the fixed-point monitoring system.
Implementation of a continuous fixed-
point monitoring system would be
capital-intensive, although labor costs
would probably be the least of the three
monitoring methods.
Some characteristics of the three
indirect emission measurement methods
are similar, including safety
considerations and ease of operation for
monitoring personnel. Some aspects of
the three methods are different. Capital
and operating costs vary, as do the
efficiencies of the methods in detecting
leaks. The component method is
characterized by a superior leak
detection efficiency and reasonable
costs; other aspects of the method,
including safety and ease of operation,
are similar to those of the walkthrough
and fixed-point methods. Therefore, the
individual component survey was
selected as the monitoring method for
the standard. Reference Method 21 is
being proposed under 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A and uses the individual
component survey monitoring method
and, thus, is the method being
recommended for the proposed
standard.
Selected Test Procedure—The
recommended test method would
incorporate the use of a portable
detector to measure the concentration of
volatile organic vapors at a source to
yield a qualitative or semiquantitative
indication of the emission rate from the
source. The test procedure does not
detect benzene specifically; instead, the
volatile organic compound
concentration is measured. There is
commercially available one type of
portable detector that has the capability
of measuring benzene by
chromatographic techniques. However,
the addition of the requirement that
benzene be measured specifically would
require more time and more extensive
testing support. Measurement of
benzene would not yield additional
information, since the designated
sources are those in which benzene is
transported; and a measure of organic
vapor leakage is indicative of a benzene
leak.
Tests in petroleum refineries have
established concentrations versus mass
emission relationships for various
fugitive emission sources. Also, tests
have indicated that local conditions
cause variations in concentration
readings at points removed from the
surface of the interface on the
component where leaking occurs.
Therefore, the proposed standard would
require the concentration to be
measured at the interface surface.
The proposed standard would require
periodic monitoring for certain fugitive
emission sources, including in-line
process valves. These valves would
include control, globe, gate, plug, and
ball valves in benzene service. For
monitoring of these valves, the
instrument detector probe would be
placed at the interface where the stem
exits the packing gland (or O-ring seal).
The valve stem circumference would be
monitored, and special emphasis would
be placed on positioning the probe inlet
at the local upwind and downwind side
of the stem. If the maximum observed
concentration is greater than 10,000 ppm
above background, leak would be
detected. Monitoring is similar for
pumps and compressors.
Additionally, the proposed standard
would require that safety/relief valves ^
and product accumulator vessels comply
with a no detectable emissions limit. A
concentration for no detectable
emissions needs to be defined such that
when emissions occur they can be
detected and when emissions do not
occur they are not mistakenly detected.
Based on considerations with the
calibration procedures and monitor
variability, 2 percent of the definition of
a leak was selected as the definition of
no detectable emissions. Thus, in this
case, no detectable emissions means
less than 200 ppm above background
concentration at the leak interface. To
determine compliance with this
emission limit for safety/relief valves
V-J-22
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Mondav. lanuarv 5. 1981 / Pronosed Rules
and product accumulator vessels, the
background concentration around each
source would first be determined by
moving the probe inlet randomly upwind
and downwind of the source at a
distance of 1 to 2 meters from the
source. If an interference exists due to a
nearby emission or leak, then the
background concentration could be
determined at a distance closer to the
source; however, this distance could not
be less than 25 centimeters from the
source. The background concentration
would then be noted and the probe inlet
would be moved to the surface of the
source to conduct the survey.
For safety/relief valves equipped with
a rupture disk, the probe inlet would be
placed at approximately the center of
the exhaust area, or horn. If the
observed concentration is greater than
200 ppm above background
concentration, a leak would be detected.
The sampling would be repeated after
each discharge of the valve to verify
that the valve has been returned to a
state of no detectable emissions.
For safety/relief valves vented to a
flare and for accumulator vessels vented
to a closed vent system, compliance
would be determined by visual •
inspection and an initial survey of all
piping connections prior to the flare or
control device. The visual inspection
would verify the existence of the
required dflcting and control device and
that there are no sources where
emissions could be vented to the
atmosphere prior to the control device.
The initial sampling survey would verify
that there are no detectable emissions
from any of the piping connections
between the source and the control
device. The sampling survey would be
repeated after any maintenance work
requiring the opening of any piping
connections in the closed vent system.
The VOC detector used in the
proposed monitoring program would be
required to conform to several
specifications to ensure consistent
industry-wide monitoring, effective VOC
emission reduction efforts, and safe leak
detection programs. These equipment
specifications are as follows: (1) the
instrument should respond to total
hydrocarbons or combustible gases.
Detector types which may meet this
requirement include catalytic oxidation,
flame ionization, infrared absorption,
and photoionization; (2) the instrument
should be safe for operation in explosive
atmospheres; (3] the instrument should
incorporate an appropriate range or
dilution option so that concentration
levels of 10,000 ppm above background
can be measured; (4) the instrument
should be equipped with a pump so that
a continuous sample can be provided to
the detector. The nominal sample flow
rate should be 1 to 3 liters per minute;
(5) the scale of the instrument readout
meter should be readable to ±5 percent
at 10,000 ppm above background.
The monitoring instrument would be
calibrated before each monitoring
survey with methane. Thus, the required
calibration gases would be a zero gas
(air, <3 ppm VOC) and a methane-air
mixture (approximately 10,000 ppm
methane). If cylinder calibration gas
mixtures would be used, they would
have to be analyzed and certified by the
manufacturer to within ±2 percent
accuracy. Calibration gases prepared by
the user according to an accepted
gaseous standards preparation
procedure would also have to be
accurate within ±2 percent.
The monitoring instrument would be
subjected to other performance
requirements prior to being placed in
service for the first time. The instrument
would be subjected to the performance
criteria every six months and after any
modification or replacement of the
instrument detector.
The proposed standard also requires
that ASTM Method D2267-68
("Aromatics in Light Naphthas in
Aviation Gasoline by Gas
Chromatography") be used to determine
the percent benzene in the process fluid
within a fugitive emission source. This
determination would be made only
when the exact concentration of
benzene is uncertain.

Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held to
discuss the proposed standard for
benzene fugitive emissions in
accordance with Section 307(d)(5) of the
Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to make
oral presentations on the proposed
standard for benzene fugitive emissions
should contact EPA at the address given
in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. Oral presentations will be
limited to 15 minutes each. Any member
of the public may file a written
statement before, during, or within 30
days after the hearing. Written
statements should be addressed to the
Central Docket Section address given in
the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble and should refer to docket
number A-79-27.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Central
Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of this proposed
rulemaking. The principal purposes of
the docket are (1) to allow members of
the public and industries involved to
identify and locate documents so they
can intelligently and effectively
participate in the rulemaking process,
and (2) to serve as the record in case of
judicial review.
Miscellaneous

In accordance with Section 117 of the
Act, publication of this proposal was
preceded by consultation with
appropriate advisory committees,
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies. In addition,
members of the benzene task group of
the Interagency Regulatory Liaison
Group, representing EPA, OSHA, the
Food and Drug Administration, and the
Consumer 'Product Safety Commission,
have met and reviewed the proposed
standard to ensure that the statement of
the rule is jointly understood and is
consistent with their programs. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
regulations, including economic and
technological issues, and on the
proposed test method.
This regulation will be reviewed five
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods,
enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology, and the
reporting requirements. The reporting
requirements in this regulation will be
reviewed as required under the EPA
sunset policy for reporting requirements
in regulations.
Dated: December 18,1980.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
61 by adding Subpart} as follows:
Subpart J—National Emission Standard (or
Benzene Fugitive Emissions
Sec.
61.110 Applicability and designation of
sources.
61.111 Definitions.
61.112 Standard for new and existing
sources.
61.113 Alternative standard.
61.114 Equivalence of alternative means of
emission limitation.
61.115 Test methods and procedures.
61.116 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.117 Reporting requirements.
V-J-23
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2./ Monday, January 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
Authority: Section 112, 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 7411,
7601 (a)), and additional authority as noted
below.

Subpart J—National Emission
Standard for Benzene

§ 61.110 Applicability and designation of
sources.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each of the following
designated sources that are intended to
operate in benzene service: pumps,
compressors, pipeline valves, safety/
relief valves, sampling systems, open-
ended valves, pipeline flanges, and
product accumulator vessels. The
provisions of this subpart do not apply
to coke oven by-product plants.
(b) While the provisions of this
subpart are effective, a designated
source that is also subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 shall only
be required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.

§61.111 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of Part 61, and the following terms shall
have the specific meanings given them:
"In Benzene Service" means that the
fugitive emission source either contains
or contacts a fluid (liquid or gas) that is
at least 10 percent by weight benzene.
"Closed Vent System" means a
system that is not open to atmosphere
and is a combination of piping,
connections and, if necessary, flow-
inducing devices that transports gas or
vapor from a fugitive emission source to
an enclosed combustion device or vapor
recovery system.
"Enclosed Combustion Device1' means
any combustion device that is not open
to atmosphere, such as a process heater
or furance, but not. a flare.
"First Attempt at Repair" means to
take action for the purpose of stopping
or reducing leakage of organic material
to atmosphere using best modern
practices.
"Fixed Capital Cost" means the
capital needed to provide all the
depreciable components.
"Fugitive Emission Source" means
each pump, pipeline valve, safety/relief
valve, open-ended valve, flange or other
connector, compressor, product
accumulator vessel, or sampling system.
"In Gas/Vapor Service" means that
the fugitive emission source contains
process fluid that is in the gaseous state
at operating conditions.
"Open-Ended Valve" means any
valve, except safety/relief valves, with
one side of the valve seat in contact
with process fluid and one side open to
atmosphere, either directly or through
open piping.
"Pipeline Valve1' means the stem
packing and collar seat of any
externally actuated device that has a
stem that extends into the process fluid
and is used to regulate the flow of
liquids or gases through a pipe.
"Process Unit" means equipment
assembled to produce benzene or
benzene derivatives as intermediates or
final products, or equipment that uses
benzene in the production of a final
product.
"Product Accumulator Vessel" means
any distillate receiver, bottoms receiver,
surge control vessel, or product
separator in benzene service that is
vented to atmosphere either directly or
through a vacuum-producing system. A
product accumulator vessel is in
benzene service if the liquid or the
vapor in the vessel is at least 10 percent
by weight benzene.
"Reconstruction" means the
replacement of components of an
existing source to such an extent that:
(1J The fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed capital cost that would be required
to construct a comparable, entirely new
source; and
(2) It is feasible, considering economic
impacts and the technological problems
associated with retrofit, to meet the
applicable standard for new sources set
forth in this subpart.
"Repaired" means that a fugitive
emission source is adjusted or otherwise
altered in order to reduce fugitive
emissions below the level which
indicates the necessity for repair as
required in § 61.112.
"In Vacuum Service" means that the
fugitive emission source is operating at
internal pressures that are continously
less than 100 kPa.
"Vapor Recovery System" means any
type of control device capable of
capturing benzene vapor from a gas
stream, such as carbon adsorption,
vapor compression and vapor
refrigeration systems.

§61.115 Test methods and procedures.
Each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the following test method and
procedure requirements:
(a) Monitoring as required by
§ 61.112(d)(l) shall comply with the
following requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with 40
CFR Par* 60, Appendix A, Reference
'Method 21.
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of 40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix A, Reference Method
21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
on the day of its use by the methods
specified in 40 CFR Part 60. Appendix A,
Reference Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) zero air (less than 3 ppm of VOC in
air), and
(ii) approximately 10,000 ppm
methane in air.
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible, as described in 40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A, Reference Method 21.
(b) When fugitive emission sources
are tested for emissions having a
concentration less than 200 ppm above
background as required by §§ 61.112 (a),
(b), and (d), the testing shall comply
with the following requirements:
(1) The requirements of §| 61.115(a)
(1). (2), (3), and (4) shall apply.
(2) If a test for emissions less than 200
ppm above background is requested by
the Administrator, then the background
level shall be determined and the
instrument probe shall be traversed
around all potential leak interfaces at
the minimum distance possible, as set
forth in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A,
Reference Method 21.
(3) If the difference in the background
level and the concentration level
measured at all potential leak interfaces
is less than 200 ppm, then the emissions
are less than 200 ppm above
background,
(c) For purposes of determining the
percent benzene in the process fluid
within a fugitive emission source,
procedures that conform to the general
methods in ASTM Method D2267-68
shall be used.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))

§ 61.116 Recordkeeplng requirements.
Each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the following recordkeeping
requirements:
(a) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§ 61.112 (a), (d), and (f), the
following requirements shall apply:
(1) Weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the source
identification number, shall be attached
to the leaking source.
(2) The identification may be removed
after the fugitive emission source
(except pipeline valves] has been
repaired. For pipeline valves, the
identification may be removed after it
has been monitored for two successive
months as specified in § 61.112(d)(4) and
no leak has been detected during those
two months.
(b) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§ 61.112 (a), (d), and (f). the
following information shall be recorded
in a log and shall be kept for two years
in a readily accessible location:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the source
identification number.
(2) The date the leak is detected and
the dates of each attempt to repair the
leak.
(3} Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak.
(4) Whether the maximum VOC
concentration measured by the methods
specified in § 61.115(a) after each repair
attempt was greater than or less than
10,000 ppm above background.
(5) "Repair delayed" if a leak is not
repaired within 15 calendar days after
discovery of the leak.
(6) The signature of the owner or
operator whose decision it was that
repair could not be effected without a
process unit shutdown.
(7) the expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within 15 days.
(8) the date of successful repair of the
leak.
(c) The following information
pertaining to the design requirements for
closed vent systems, enclosed
V-J-27
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 2 / Monday, January 5.1981 / Proposed Rules
combustion devices, and vapor recovery
systems specified in § 61.112 (a) and (e)
shall be recorded and kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) Detailed schematics, design
specifications, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
[2] The dates and descriptions of any
changes in the design specifications.
(3) Dates of startups and shutdowns of
enclosed combustion devices and vapor
recovery systems specified in § 61.112
(a) and (e) and dates when these
systems are not functioning as designed.
(d) the following information
pertaining to all fugitive emission
sources subject to the requirements in
§§ 61.112 (a), {b), [d), and (e) shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
fugitive emission sources that are
designated for emissions having a
concentration less than 200 ppm above
background under the provisions of
§§ 61.112 (a)(B). (b)(l), (d)(5). and (e)(l)
and are designated for compliance with
new source requirements under the
provisions of § 61.112(d){8). The
designation of these sources as subject
to these sections shall be signed by the
owner or operator.
(2) the dates of each verification test
for emissions having a concentration
less than 200 ppm above background.
(3) the background level measured
during each verification test as
described in § 61.115(b).
(4) the maximum VOC concentration
measured at the source during each
verification test as described in
§ 61.115(b).
(e) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) the design criterion required in
§ 61.112(a)(3).
(2) Any changes to this criterion and
the reasons for the change. (Sec. 114 of
the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7414).)

§ 61.117 Reporting requirements.
Each owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall comply
with the following reporting
requirements:
(a)(l) An owner or operator of any
source to which this subpart applies
shall submit a statement in writing
notifying the Administrator that the
requirements of §§ 61.112, 61.116, and
61.117 are being implemented.
(2) In the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial
startup date preceding the effective
date, the statement is to be submitted
within 90 days of the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance is granted
under § 61.11, along with the
information required under § 61.10. If a
waiver of compliance is granted, the
statement is to be submitted on a date
scheduled by the Administrator.
(3) In the case of new sources which
did not have an initial startup date
preceding the effective date, the
statement shall be submitted with the
application for approval of construction
or modification, § 61.07.
(4) the statement is to contain the
following information for each
designated source:
(i) Fugitive emission source
identification number.
(ii) Type of fugitive emission source
(i.e., pump, pipeline valve, etc.).
(iii) Percent by weight benzene in the
fluid at the fugitive emission source.
(iv) Process fluid state at the fugitive
emission source (gas/vapor or liquid).
(v) Method of compliance with the"
standard (i.e., "equipped with dual
mechanical seal system," or "monthly
leak detection and repair," etc.).
(b) A report shall be submitted to the
Administrator each quarter, starting
three months after the initial report
required in § 61.117(a), that includes the
following information; the format of the
report may be similar to that shown in
Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4:
(1) Process unit identification.
(2) Nunber of pipeline valves in the
process unit excluding those designated
for emissions having a concentration
less than 200 ppm above background
under the provisions of § 61.112(d)(5).
(3) Number of pipeline valves, existing
pumps, and existing compressors for
which leaks were detected as required
in § 61.112(d) during each month of the
reporting quarter.
(4) Number of pipeline valves, existing
pumps, and existing compressors
repaired.
(5) Number of pipeline valves, existing
pumps, and existing compressors not
repaired within 15 days as required in •
§ 61.112(d)(2).
(6) Reasons for non-repair of valves,
existing pumps, and existing
compressors within 15 days as required
in § 61.112(d)(2).
(7) Number of pumps and compressors
for which leaks were detected during the
reporting quarter as specified in
§§61.112(a)(3)and(4).
(8) Statement signed by the owner or
operator stating whether all provisions
of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart J had been
fulfilled during the reporting quarter.
(c) In the first report submitted as
required in § 61.117(b), the report shall
include a reporting schedule stating the
months that quarterly reports shall be
submitted. Subsequent reports shall be
submitted according to that schedule,
unless a revised schedule has been
submitted in a previous quarterly report.
(d) An application for approval of
construction or modification, § 61.07,
will not be required if—
(1) The existing source has become a
new source through reconstruction;
(2) The new source complies with the
standard for new sources, § 61.112; and
(3) In the next quarterly report
required by § 61.117(b), the information
in § 61.117(a)(4) is reported.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414).)
BILLING CODE 65M-01-M,
V-J-28
-------

C-,
1
PO
to

Figure 1

QUARTERLY REPORT FOR PROCESS UNIT
FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES OPERATING UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF 40 CFR Part 61. Sub/^t J. S61.ll7;b)
\^///y
Date ^v /

Company Name vj^v //
s^~^°^ /
Plant Location (City, State) /^\^^/
Hailing Address ^v^c
OxN^
\. ^^v "V^
Telephone Number /""'^XV*'
Reporting Period ^^S^N"*1^
This report filed \ \>»~~7
V\//~-' (Process Unit Nare)
Producing \\ \y
\ V (Chemical Product(s))
— v r~^
/J \/

^^^. ^^r /
^^v^ /

Figure 2

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR LEAK DETECTION
AND REPAIR REQUIREMENTS
OF 40 CFR Part 61. Subpirt J. l61.H7(b)
/W.
yf
1. Process Unit Name C^
(one report required for each process unit) ~N
and repair program. ^O^^
Nunh* /h«eintlW
period. /^S/T
4. Number of leaking valves repa1red/fluH<|gs»ljeSeport
period. X^^O^

I /*?
ov
/*}
7
f
Ino

S Number of leaklno valves dete^LeiLai}rHnoVi!fie Quarter
which were not repaired wHhlnSj^Stp^y
6. Number of pumps found lga^Tq?'an4ii^the reporting
period. \V/*7
7. Number of compressorsAound TwNng during the
reporting period. \ \ V
y ' * /
^-\^
/y \\

^****^ ^**/ /
^^^^* /
^^

**l
s.
•
3D
1
~^.
<
^
N>
s
3
3
D
B*
3
0
n
D
8
T3

J
O
ce
9
0
r
CB
-------
i
CO
o
Figure 3
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart J, 161.112(d)(2)
FOR LEAKING VALVES NOT REPAIRED WITHIN 15 DAYS
1. Process Unit Name_
2. Hunter of vilves. pimps. «nd compressors not repalred^Vr the following reasons:
/^V /*s
(l) Hew parts required.
(b) Off-line repair required. Cr1t1c/l/~\
In-service valve. Bypass 1mpossftlK//
(c) Other (Explain reasons for noX-re>«J
3. Date of next scheduled tum-ai
Signature of Plant Manager or
Manager Designate
|FR Doc. Bl-W Filed 1-2-81: 8:45 »m|
MLLMO CODE U60-01-C
Figure 4
CERTIFICATION
AS REQUIRED IN J61.117,4)4(3)
I hereby certify that process unit
by_
(Company Name)

(has been/has not been)
J, 40 CFR Part 61 which contains Nat
owned (operated)
(CTty, State)
ance with the requirements of Subpart
Standard for Benzene Fugitive
Emissions.
All required equipment ai^cBtn-BaO^^es have been operated unit maintained in
\\>/-V
compliance with the standard. \r»5equirH work practices have been followed.
Monitoring has been done\s\specifV«fi in Method 21. All required records have been
made and are kept 1n_
for review by EPAy
n__,__ _
(location Tn plant)
(Signature of owner or operator)
(title)
(dateT
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 19 / Thursday. January 29. 1981 / Proposed Rules
40CFRPart61

[AD-FRL-1740-8]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Fugitive Emissions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Amended notice of public
hearing and extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: The public hearing has been
postponed 62 days and the end of the
public comment period extended 63
days for the proposed national emission
standard for benzene fugitive emissions
in response to a request from the
American Petroleum Institute. This
request expressed the need to complete
their own exposure modeling and
technical and economic analyses in
order to evaluate EPA's data base and
to provide additional information.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standard must be postmarked no later
than June B, 1981. Notice of Intent to
present oral testimony at the public
hearing must be postmarked no later
than April 28,1981. The public hearing
will be held on May 5,1981. Written
comments responding to, supplementing,
or rebutting written or oral comments
received at the public hearing must be
postmarked no later than June 8,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standard should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-79-27, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The public hearing will be held at the
EPA Administration Building
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 5,1981, the Administrator
proposed in the Federal Register (46 FR
1165] a national emission standard for
benzene fugitive emissions. In that
notice, EPA announced the date ending
the public comment period and the date
and location of the public hearing to
receive public comment on the proposed
standards. This notice revises the date
of the public hearing and extends the
end of the public comment period as
discussed in the summary section of this
preamble.
Dated: January 22,1981.
Edward F. Tueric,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise
and Radiation.
|FR Doe. H-9310 Filed l-ft-ai; MI un|
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 57 / Wednesday. March 25.1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL-1787-4]

SUMMARY: The public hearing has been
postponed 70 days and the end of the
public comment period extended 70
days for the proposed national emission
standard for benzene fugitive emissions
in response to a request from the
American Petroleum Institute.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standard must be postmarked no later
than August 14,1981. Notice of intent to
present oral testimony at the public
hearing must be postmarked no later
than July 7,1981. The public hearing will
be held on July 14,1981. Written
comments responding to, supplementing,
or rebutting written or oral comments
received at the public hearing must be
postmarked no later than August 14,
1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standard should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-79-27, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington. D.C. 20460.
The public hearing will be held at the
EPA Administration Building
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5571.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Wyatt, (919) 541-5580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 5,1981, EPA proposed in the
Federal Register (46 FR 1165) a national
emission standard for benzene fugitive
emissions. In that notice, EPA
announced the date ending the public
comment period and the date and
location of the public hearing to receive
public comment on the proposed
standards. This notice amends the date
of the public hearing and extends the
end of the public comment period.
Dated: March 19,1981.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise.
and Radiation.
|FR Doc. 81-8106 Filed 3-24-81 8:45 am]
V-J-31
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 121 / Wednesday, June 24, 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
(AD-FRL-1861-4)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Fugitive Emissions; Benzene
Emissions from Benzene Storage
Vessels
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extensions of public comment
periods.

SUMMARY: The end of the public
comment period has been extended 30
days for the proposed national emission
standard for benzene fugitive emissions
and the proposed national emission
standard for benzene emissions from
benzene storage vessels. 45 FR 83952,
December 19. 1980. 46 FR 18561, March
25. 1981.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standards must be postmarked no later
than September 14,1981, for the
proposed national emission standard for
benzene fugitive emissions and August
10,1981, for the proposed national
emission standard for benzene
emissions from benzene storage vessels.
Written comments responding to,
supplementing, or rebutting written or
oral comments received at the public
hearing must be postmarked no later
than September 14,1981, and August 10,
1981, for the proposed benzene fugitive
and benzene storage emission
standards, respectively.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standard for bezene fugitive emissions
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number A-79-
27, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Comments on the proposed standard
for benzene emissions from benzene
storage vessels should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-80-14, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
received a request to extend the public
comment periods for the two proposed
standards because the public hearing for
the proposed benzene fugitive emissions
standard was close to the end of the
comment period for the proposed
benzene storage vessels standard. The
comment periods for the proposed
standards were extended, therefore, in
order to provide an opportunity for more
meaningful public participation in the
proposed rulemaking.
Dated: June 18,1981.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
|FR Doc. (1-UK3 Piled 4-23-S1: M5 >m|
V-J-32
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM
BENZENE STORAGE VESSELS
SUBPART K
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 246 / Friday, December 19, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL-1609-8]

Benzene Emissions From Benzene
Storage Vessels; National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
Public Hearing.

SUMMARY: The proposed standard
would limit benzene emissions from
each new and existing storage vessel
with a capacity greater than 4 cubic
meters used to store pure benzene. Each
new and existing benzene storage vessel
would be required to have a fixed roof
in combination with an internal floating
roof that rests on the liquid surface
inside the storage vessel. Each storage
vessel would also have to be equipped
with a liquid-mounted primary seal and
a continuous secondary seal. Periodic
inspections of the internal floating roof
and seals would be required to help
ensure that the equipment is being
properly operated and maintained.
The proposed standard implements
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and is
based on the Administrator's
determination of June 8,1977, that
benzene presents a significant
carcinogenic risk to human health as a
result of benzene emissions to the
atmosphere from one or more stationary
source categories and is, therefore, a
hazardous air pollutant. The intent of
the standard is to protect the public
health with an ample margin of safety.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standard for benzene
storage vessels.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before March 12,1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on February 10,1981 beginning
at 9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by February 3,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
ihould be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket No. A-80-14,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, S.W.. Washington, D.C.
20400.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at EPA Administration Bldg.
Auditorium. Research Triangle Park,
N.C. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5331.
Background Information Document.
The background information document
for the proposed standard is contained
in the docket and may be obtained from
the U.S. EPA library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to "Benzene Emissions from
Benzene Storage Vessels—Background
Information for Proposed Standards,"
(EPA-450/3-80-034a). Other pertinent
documents that may be obtained from
this address include: "Assessment of
Health Effects of Benzene Germane to
Low Level Exposures," "Assessment of
Human Exposures to Atmospheric
Benzene," and "Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Report on Population Risk to
Ambient Benzene Exposures."
Docket. Docket No. A-80-14, which
contains supporting information used in
developing the proposed standard, is
available for public inspection and
copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section, West Tower
Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Supplementary information on the
regulation of benzene emissions can be
obtained from the Maleic Anhydride
Docket No. OAQPS-79-3, which is
available for public review at EPA's
Central Docket Section. A fee may,be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Ms. Susan Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice 18
hereby given that, under the authority of
Section 112(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Air Act
(as amended), the Administrator is
proposing a national emission standard
for benzene emissions from benzene
storage vessels. The proposed standard
has been developed consistent with the
EPA "Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating
Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of
Cancer" (44 FR 58642) proposed on
October 10,1979, although these policy
end procedures are not final. As
prescribed in Section 112(b)(l)(A) of the
Act, the proposal of this standard was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination that benzene ia a
hazardous air pollutant as defined in
Section 112(a)(l) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Administrator revised
the list of hazardous air pollutants on
June 8,1977, by adding benzene (42 FR
29332).
A background information document
has been prepared that contains
information on benzene storage vessels,
the available technologies for
controlling benzene emissions from
these storage vessels, and an analysis of
the environmental, energy, economic,
and inflationary impacts of the
regulatory alternatives. Information on
the health effects of benzene is
contained in documents prepared by or
for EPA entitled the "Assessment of
Health Effects of Benzene Germane to
Low Level Exposure," the "Assessment
of Human Exposures to Atmospheric
Benzene," and the "Carcinogen
Assessment Group's Report on
Population Risk to Ambient Benzene
Exposures." The information contained
in these documents is summarized in
this preamble. All references used for
the information contained in the
preamble can be found in one of the four
documents, except as noted.

Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standard — Existing Sources
The basis of the proposed standard
for benzene emissions from benzene
storage vessels was selected using a
two-step process. First the
Administrator examined the regulatory
alternatives and selected the one which
represents best available technology
(BAT) considering the environmental,
energy, and economic impacts. After a
regulatory alternative was selected as
BAT. the Administrator examined the
estimated risks remaining after the
application of BAT to determine
whether they are unreasonable in view
of the health benefits and costs,
economic impacts, and other impacts
that would result if a more stringent
alternative was selected.

Select ion of Best Available Technology
The environmental, energy, and
economic impacts considered in the
selection of BAT for existing benzene
storage vessels are summarize below.

Environmental Impacts
The national baseline emissions from
existing benzene storage vessels are
estimated to be approximately 2,200
Mg/year. Regulatory Alternative I
would reduce the national benzene
emissions from benzene storage vessels
by less than 1 percent. Regulatory
Alternative II would reduce the national
storage vessel emissions by 9 percent to
2,000 Mg/year. Regulatory Alternative
III would reduce the national storage
vessel emissions by 61 percent to 850
Mg/year. Regulatory Alternative IV
would reduce the national emissions to
510 Mg/year. This is a 77 percent
reduction of the national baseline
emissions from benzene storage vessels.
Regulatory Alternative V(A) (carbon
adsorption) would reduce the national ,
baseline emissions by 81 percent to 420
Mg/year. Alternative V(B) (thermal
oxidation) would reduce the national
baseline emissions by 85 percent to 320
Mg/year.
Alternatives I through V would all
have potential adverse environmental
impacts associated with them. Two
adverse environmental impacts
associated with all of these regulatory
alternatives would be benzene
emissions and benzene-contaminated
water resulting from the emptying and
degassing of storage vessels being
inspected or being retrofitted with the
required control equipment. These
releases would have short-term impacts,
however, and the emissions resulting
from these operations would be more
than offset over time by the emissions
reduction associated with the use of the
control equipment.
Other adverse environmental impacts
would result from use of a thermal
oxidation system (Alternative V(B)).
These impacts are associated with the
use of natural gas or fuel oil to fire a
thermal oxidation unit. A thermal
oxidation unit which uses either of these
V-K-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 24fl / Friday, December 19. 1980 / Proposed Rules
as supplemental fuel will produce
oxides of nitrogen (NO.). Oxides of
sulfur (SO,) would also be produced
with the use of fuel oil. The emissions
from a typical thermal oxidation unit
could be as large as 15,000 kilograms per
year (kg/year) of (SO,) and 6,000 kg/
year of NO,.
There could also be some impacts on
water quality associated with the use of
carbon adsorption or thermal oxidation
vapor control systems. One source of
benzene-contaminated wastewater
common to both types of vapor control
systems is a water seal, which is used to
assure that flashbacks do not propagate
from the vapor control unit to the rest of
the piping system. The quantity of water
used in two water seals, which would be
necessary to ensure safe operation of
either system, would average
approximately 5,700 liters per day. This
would normally be sent to the plant
wastewater system for treatment and
disposal.
Carbon adsorption vapor control
systems can have an additional source
of water pollution. In a steam-
regenerated carbon adsorption system,
steam circulating through the carbon
bed heats the carbon and raises the
vapor pressure of the recovered
benzene. The benzene evolved in this
process is removed along with the
steam, and the steam-benzene mixture is
condensed and decanted. The benzene
is returned to storage while benzene-
contaminated water (as much as 2,000
liters per day) is sent to the plant
wastewater system for treatment and
disposal.
Only Alternative V{A), which
involves the use of a carbon adsorption
vapor control system, will likely result
in any solid waste disposal impacts. The
only potential impact is associated with
the handling of spent carbon from the
adsorption unit. Typically, the .spent
carbon, which is normally replaced
approximately once every 10 to 15 years,
is transported to a facility for
reclamation and reactivation. There
would be no solid waste impact
associated with this operation.
However, this material could be
disposed of in a landfill which would
result in a solid waste disposal impact.
Because the owner or operator of a
carbon adsorption unit will most likely
choose to have the carbon reclaimed
and reactivated, no impact on solid
waste disposal in expected with the use
of a carbon adsorption system.

Energy Impacts
There would be a slight energy benefit
associated with Alternatives I through
IV because the control of benzene
emissions from benzene storage vessels
would offset the need for companies to
Increase their production levels of
benzene.
There would also be a slight energy
benefit associated with these
alternatives in terms of the benzene
emissions saved. Alternatives I and II
would save benzene emissions
equivalent in energy to about 120 barrels
and 1,400 barrels of crude oil,
respectively. Alternatives III and IV
would save benzene emissions
equivalent in energy to about 9,200
barrels and 12,000 barrels of crude oil,
respectively.
The only regulatory alternative which
would involve the use of energy is the
alternative which requires that each
storage vessel be fitted to a vapor
control system, such as a cabron
adsorption system (Alternative V(A)) or
a thermal oxidation system (Alternative
V(B)). The use of a carbon adsorption
system would require electricity to
power blowers for collecting and
transferring the air-benzene vapor
mixture from each storage vessel to the
carbon adsorption unit. Low pressure
steam would be required to regenerate
the carbon bed. Assuming that each
facility with benzene storage vessels
uses a steam-regenerated carbon
adsorption system, the total national
energy consumption associated with this
alternative would be approximately 0.5
petajoules per year (PJ/yr). This is
equivalent in energy to about 83,000
barrels of crude oil.
If the benzene emissions saved (12,000
equivalent barrels of crude oil) are taken
into account, the national energy
consumption would be equivalent to
approximately 71,000 barrels of crude
oil.
Use of a thermal oxidation system to
reduce benzene vapors would also
require electricity to power blowers for
collecting and transferring the air-
benzene vapor mixture. Supplemental
fuel (e.g., natural gas) would also be
required to ignite and sustain the
combustion process. The total national
energy consumption associated with this
alternative would be approximately 0.6
PJ/yr (100,000 equivalent barrels of
crude oil), assuming each facility uses a
thermal oxidation system. Because no
benzene is recovered or saved in the
thermal oxidation process, there is no
crude oil savings to offset the energy
required to operate this type of vapor
control system.

Consideration of Unreasonable Risk
and Selection of the Level of the
Standard

After the application of BAT
(Alternative IV) to existing benzene
storage vessels, it is estimated that there
would be 0.03 to 0.20 deaths per year
due to benzene emissions from these
storage vessels. Assuming that a typical
facility has an operating life of 20 years
as discussed in "Rationale for
Regulating Benzene Storage Vessels".
the estimated number of deaths which
would occur over a 20-year operating
life of the 143 existing facilities would
range from 0.00 to 4.0. The maximum
lifetime risk to the most exposed
population after the application of BAT
would range from 2,7 x 10"* to 1.9 X
10—4. These numbers include benzene
emissions from benzene storage vessels
only and not other possible sources of
emissions where these storage vessels
are located. Alternative V, the next
more stringent alternative than BAT,
would require the use of vapor control
systems. If thermal oxidation systems
were used, the estimated residual
incidence would range from 0.02 to 0.11
deaths per year. Assuming that a typical
facility has a 20-year operating life, the
estimated number of deaths which
would occur over a 20-year operating
life of the 143 existing facilities would
range from 0.40 to 2.2. The maximum
lifetime risk after the application of BAT
wouldf range from 4.1 X 10"' to 2.9 X
10—4. However, requiring the use of
vapor control systems would increase
the total capital cost from $11 million to
$29 million and the total annualized cost
from $1.6 million to $9.3 million. It could
also result in adverse impacts on air
quality, water quality, and energy
consumption. In view of the relatively
small health benefits that would be
gained with the additional costs and the
potential adverse environmental
impacts associated with the use of vapor
control systems, the Administrator
determined that the risks remaining
after applying BAT to existing storage
vessels are not unreasonable. The
Administrator determined, therefore,
that the standard for existing benzene
storage vessels should be based on BAT
(Alternative IV).
•The maximum lifetime ri»k associated with
Alternative V is greater than that associated with
Alternative IV because In Alternative V the
benzene emissions from all storage vessels at a
plant are discharged from a single stack, whereat in
Alternative IV, the emissions are discharged tram
individual storage rnseh and are. therefore, more
dispersed.
Selection of Basil of Proposed
Standard—New Sources
Selection of Best Available Technology
The environmental, energy, and
economic impacts considered in the
selection of BAT for new benzene
storage vessels are summarized below.
An estimated 168 new benzene storage
vessels will be constructed through 1983.
The number of new storage vessels was
estimated by multiplying the number of
new plants expected to be built through
1965 by the number of storage vessels in
each model plant. Because new plants
are expected to be the same size as •
existing plants, the number of storage
vessels in each new model plant is the
same as the number in each existing
model plant However, because there
are fewer new plants than existing
plants, the national impacts differ.
Environmental Impacts
The national baseline emissions from
new benzene storage vessels are
estimated to be approximately 930 Mg/
year in 1985. Regulatory Alternative I
would reduce the 1985 national baseline
emissions from new storage vessels by
about 1 percent to 920 Mg/year. Total
national emissions in 19B5 would be
reduced by Regulatory Alternative II to
approximately 290 Mg/year. This is a 69
percent reduction of the national
baseline emissions from new sources in
1985. National emissions from new
storage vessels in 1985 would be
reduced to 170 Mg/year by Alternative
III. This is an 82 percent reduction of the
1985 national baseline emissions.
Regulatory Alternative IV(A) (carbon
adsorption) would reduce the national
baseline emissions by 65 percent to 140
Mg/year. Alternative V(B) (thermal
oxidation) would reduce the national
baseline emissions by 68 percent to 110
Mg/year.
The potential adverse environmental
impacts associated with the various
alternatives for new sources are similar
to those discussed in "Selection of Basis
of Proposed Standard-Existing Sources,"
and are not repeated here.
Energy Impacts
There would be a slight energy benefit
associated with Alternatives I through
III because the control of benzene
emissions from benzene storage vessels
would offset the need for increasing tthe
production levels of benzene.
There would also be a slight energy
benefit associated with these
alternatives in terms of the benzene
emissions saved. Alternative I would
save benzene emissions equivalent in
energy to about 68 barrels of crude oil
Alternatives II and III would save
V-K-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 246 / Friday, December 19. 1980 / Proposed Rules
benzene emissions equivalent in energy
to about 4,400 barrel* of crude oil.
The only regulatory alternatives
haying any energy impacts are those
which require that each storage vessel
be fitted to a carbon adsorption or
thermal oxidation vapor control system
(Regulatory Alternatives IV(AJ and
IV(B). respectively). The bases of these
impacts are discussed in "Selection of
Basis of Proposed Standard-Existing
Sources" and are not repeated here.
However, because the number of new
plants affected by the proposed
standard is different than the number of
existing plants, the national energy
impacts differ. The total national energy
consumption in 1965 for either of these
alternatives would be approximately 0.2
petajoules per year (PJ/yr). This is
equivalent in energy to about 33,000
barrels of crude oil. The national energy
consumption associated with
Alternative IV(A) would be equivalent
to approximately 28.000 barrels of crude
oil after taking into account the benzene
emissions saved (5,400 equivalent
barrels of crude oil). The national
energy consumption associated with
Alternative IV(B) would be equivalent to
approximately 33,000 barrels of crude
oil, because there are no savings
resulting from the use of a thermal
oxidation system.

Selection of Format for the Proposed
Standard
In Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
the Administrator is required to
prescribe an emission standard
whenever it is feasible. Section 112(e)
states that "if in the judgment of the
Administrator, it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emission
standard for control of a hazardous air
pollutant or pollutants, he may instead
promulgate a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof." The term "not
feasible" is applicable if the emissions
cannot be captured and vented through
a vent or stack designed for that purpose
or if the application of a measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations.
Establishing an emission standard for
storage vessels would require the
measurement of emissions from each
storage vessel; therefore, the emissions
would have to be vented in a manner
that would allow the measurement of
pollutant concentrations and flow rates.
Storage vessels equipped with the
control equipment upon which the
proposed standard is based do not
typically have a conveyance designed to
•The maximum lifetime risk associated with
Alternative IV is greater than that associated with
Alternative 111 because In Alternative IV the
benzene emissions from all storage vessels at a
plant are discharged from a single stack, whereas In
Alternative III the emissions are discharged from
individual storage vessels and are, therefore, more
dispersed.
capture the emissions or a stack or vent
through which the emissions pass to the
atmosphere. Equipping each storage
vessel with a capture and stack system
would be possible, but would be
economically impracticable, especially
considering that the sole purpose of the
system would be for emissions testing.
Another consideration is that the
emissions from storage vessels are
intermittent and are often at flow rates
too low to measure, thereby making
emissions measurement technically
impracticable. For these reasons, the
Administrator has concluded that
establishing an emission standard is not
feasible for benzene storage vessels.
The possibility of establishing a
"design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof was then examined. The
regulatory alternative upon which the
proposed standard is based consists of
certain equipment and design
specifications. Operational
requirements, which consist of
inspection and repair requirements, are
necessary to insure the continued
integrity of the control equipment.
Therefore, the Administrator concluded
that the format of the standard should
include a combination of design,
equipment, work practice, and
operational standards.

Modification and Reconstruction
Considerations
An existing source is one which is
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
before the proposal date of a standard
and a new source is one which is
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after the proposal date of a standard, A
modification occurs when there is a
physical or operational change to a
source accompanied by an increase in
benzene emissions to the atmosphere.
Several exclusions from the
modification definition are listed in
§ 61.01(j) of the General Provisions for
hazardous air pollutant standards.
Reconstruction occurs when the
components of an existing source are
replaced to the extent that the fixed
capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital
cost that would be required to construct
a comparable new facility.
Even though the proposed standards
for existing and new storage vessels are
identical, the Clean Air Act designates
different compliance periods for new
and existing sources. Existing sources
must comply within 90 days of the
effective date, but may obtain a waiver
of compliance for up to 2 years from the
effective date. New sources (including
modified and reconstructed sources)
must comply with the standard at
V-K-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 246 / Friday. December 19. 1980 / Proposed Rules
startup, unless startup occurs before the
effective date, in which case they must
comply by the effective date.
Storage vessels can be used to store
different materials at different times. If
an existing storage vessel was being
used to store a liquid other than benzene
before the proposal date of the standard
and is filled with benzene after the
proposal date, the storage vessel would
be considered modified and would,
therefore, have to comply with the
standard just as if it was a new source.
An operational change and an increase
in benzene emissions would have
occurred. If this change in material
stored occurred between proposal and
promulgation of the standard the
storage vessel would have to be in
compliance on the promulgation date of
the standard. If this change in material
stored occurred after promulgation of
the standard, the storage vessel would
have to be in compliance with the
standard upon filling the vessel with
benzene. This is considered reasonable
because after proposal of this standard,
the owner or operator has been put on
notice that he would be subject to the
standard prior to filling the vessel with
benzene.
Because the proposed standard for
existing storage vessels is identical to
that for new storage vessels, and
existing storage vessel which is
reconstructed would have to comply
with the same requirements with which
it would have to comply had it not been
reconstructed. However, the compliance
times would be different. Therefore, the
proposed standard states that the owner
or operator of a source does not have to
apply for approval of reconstruction
under Section 61.07 of the General
Provisions if the source is in compliance
with the standard. Because a
modification, by definition, involves an
emissions increase, a storage vessel is
not exempt from Section 61.07 of the
General Provisions even if it does
comply with the requirements of the
standard.
According to the definition of
reconstruction which is contained in the
proposed standard, there are two .
criteria which the Administrator will
consider in deciding whether a source is
reconstructed. The first is whether "the
fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed capital cost that would be required
to construct a comparable, entirely new
source." The second is whether "it is
feasible, considering economic impacts
and the technological problems
associated with retrofit to meet the
applicable standard for new sources set
forth in this subpart." The second
criterion is meaningless after the waiver
period with regard to the proposed
Standard because the standards for new
and existing sources are identical. That
is, the economic impacts and the
technological problems associated with
retrofitting existing storage vessels have
already been considered, and it has
already been decided that existing
sources can meet the proposed standard
for new sources.
Despite these considerations, both
parts of the definition of reconstruction
have been retained in the proposed
standard because amendments to the
General Provisions for Part 61 are
currently being developed and will
contain this definition. This definition
will apply to the subpart for benzene
storage vessels as well as other
subparts. Except during the waiver
period, the second criterion in the
definition will be applicable only if in
the future the standard for new and
existing storage vessels is different The
full definition of reconstruction is
included in the proposed standard for
comment because it is possible that
sometime in the future the standard
could be different for new and existing
benzene storage vessels.

Selection of Equipment Specifications
The equipment specified as best
available technology [BAT] for
controlling benzene emissions from new
and existing benzene storage vessels
was selected largely on the basis of
emissions tests conducted for EPA on a
6-meter (20-foot) diameter storage vessel
containing benzene. This equipment
includes a contact internal floating roof,
a liquid-mounted primary seal, and a
continuous secondary seal.
The standard would allow the owner
or operator of a storage vessel to use '
other equipment or procedures to reduce
benzene emissions from the storage
vessel if the equipment or procedure is
demonstrated to be equivalent in
reducing emissions to that equipment
required by the standard. Equivalence
could be demonstrated by one of several
methods including [1] an actual
emissions test which uses a full-size or
scale-model sealed storage vessel which
accurately collects and measures all
benzene emissions from the storage
vessel, or (2) an engineering evaluation
approved by the Administrator.
Based on information presented in
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Publication 2517 and on engineering
judgment, a metallic shoe seal would be
considered an equivalent control device
to the liquid-mounted primary seal
required by the proposed standard;
consequently, a metallic shoe seal
would be allowed by the proposed
standard. In addition, a vapor control
system which is designed to reduce the
benzene emissions discharged from a
storage vessel at an efficiency of at least
95 percent (by weight) and which is
operated at the design specifications to
achieve this emissions reduction would
be considered on equivalent control
system if it is approved by the
Administrator, and would be allowed by
the proposed standard. This control
level has been selected because it
provides an approximately equal
emissions reduction to the equipment
specified by the proposed standard,
relative to the emissions from a fixed-
roof storage vessel. The efficiency of the
vapor control system would be
calculated by comparing the controlled
emissions to those emissions which
would occur from a fixed-roof storage
vessel without a vapor control system.

Selection of Initial Inspection and
Reporting Requirements
Because direct measurement of the
emissions from storage vessels is
impracticable, the proposed standard
would not require an initial test to
determine the emissions from each
affected storage vessel. Instead, the
standard would require that the owner
or operator of each storage vessel
submit a report to the Administrator
describing the control equipment being
used to reduce benzene emissions.
The owner or operator would also be
required to inspect and report the
condition of the control equipment
before filling the storage vessel with
benzene. During this inspection the
owner or operator would inspect for
defects in the internal floating roof and
for holes, tears, or other openings in the
primary seal, secondary seal, and seal
fabric. All defects in the floating roof
and seals would have to be repaired
before the storage vessel could be filled
with benzene. Finally, the standard
would require the owner or operator to
notify the Administrator at least 30 days
in advance of tilling the storage vessel
with benzene so that the Administrator
could have the opportunity to have an
observer inspect the control equipment
before the storage vessel is filled. This
requirement is necessary because it will
be infeasible to inspect all the control
equipment once the storage vessel is
filled.

Control Equipment Failures and
Selection of Periodic Inspection and
Repair Requirements
As is the case with any control
equipment, internal floating roofs and
seals can fail, resulting in an increase in
emissions from the respective storage
vessels. One failure which can occur is
V-K-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 246 / Friday, December 19, 1980 / Proposed Rules
the sinking of the internal floating roof.
Steel pan internal floating roofs, which
rely on liquid displacement for flotation,
•re especially susceptible to sinking
whenever liquid accumulates on the roof
surface. Liquid can accumulate on steel
pans for several reasons including (1)
leaks or holes in the roof; (2) splashing
of liquid onto the roof from the improper
use of mixers at low liquid levels; (3)
tipping of the roof on roof support
columns as the roof rises and falls; and
(4) tipping of the roof by large vapor
bubbles expanding under one section of
the roof. Liquid generally accumulates in
one location on a steel pan causing an
edge to become submerged, which
eventually result in the sinking of the
roof.
Other types of internal floating roofs
may be less susceptible to sinking when
liquid accumulates on them. These roofs
include: (1) aluminum sandwich panel
roofs with a honeycombed aluminum
core floating in contact with the liquid,
and (2) pan-type steel roofs supported
on the liquid by pontoons. Aluminum
sandwich panel roofs, because of their
rigidity, are susceptible to failure at
joints in the roof. This problem is
compounded by their light weight, which
promotes hangup or jamming as the roof
rises and falls inside the storage vessel.
Pan-type steel roofs supported by
pontoons can sink if several pontoons
are punctured. No failure incidence has
been recorded for either of these types
of roofs. However, their inherent
stability dictates that their failure rates
should be very low.
Seals, while not subject to abrupt
failures like roofs, do deteriorate over
time. For example, holes, tears, and
other openings can develop in the
primary and secondary seals as the
seals abrade against the wall of the
storage vessel. These openings, which
indicate that the seal is in need of repair
or replacement, may expose benzene to
evaporation, reducing the effectiveness
of the seal. If openings develop in a
foam-filled primary seal, the foam will
absorb the benzene, causing the seal to
sag. This reduces the ability of this type
of seal to prevent emissions from the rim
space. If the primary seal is liquid-filled,
openings will allow the liquid to escape,
reducing the seal's effectiveness.
Gaps which develop between either
the primary seal or the secondary seal
and the shell of the storage vessel will
also reduce the seal's ability to reduce
emissions. Gaps can develop as a result
of shell deformations or the inability of
a seal to conform to varying gaps
because of a loss of seal flexibility.
Emissions tests recently conducted for
EPA have indicated that "* * * the
condition (tight or gapped) of the
primary seal is not as significant if a
tight secondary seal is present." Based
on data acquired by an air regulatory
agency during seal gap inspections on 17
external floating-roof storage vessels
and engineering judgment, at least 76
percent of internal floating-roof storage
vessels can be expected to have no
measurable gap between the secondary
seal and the shell of the storage vessel.
Of the remaining storage vessels, 18
percent would have tight secondary
seals with total gap areas of less than
21.2 cm'/m (1 in*/ft) of vessel diameter
and 6 percent would have severely
gapped secondary seals with gap areas
in excess of 212 cm'/m (10 in 2/ft) of
vessel diameter. Severely gapped
secondary seals would not be very
effective at reducing emissions.
Section 112(e) of the Clean Air Act
states that if the Administrator
prescribes an equipment standard for
control of a hazardous air pollutant such
as benzene, he shall "include as part of
such standard such requirements as will
assure the proper operation and
maintenance of any element of * * *
equipment." Ideally, it would be
preferable to include operation and
maintenance procedures in the standard
which would prevent control equipment
failures. However, no such procedures
are available to prevent the type of
failures which occur while using the
control equipment specified by the
proposed standard.
Because control equipment failures
cannot be prevented, the next best
operation and maintenance procedure is
to require that the owner or operator of
each storage vessel inspect the integrity
of the control equipment and repair any
failures. The procedure generally
specified in regulations for external
floating-roof storage vessels for
determining the integrity of primary and
secondary seals is to periodically
inspect the gaps between the seals and
the wall of each storage vessel while the
storage vessel is in operation. However,
it is not reasonable to require that
inspections be conducted in internal
floating-roof storage vessels containing
benzene because of the benzene health
hazard to which inspoectors could be
exposed while inside these vessels. In
addition, because seal gap data are
unavailable to correlate the gaps when a
roof is floating with the gas when the
roof is on its leg supports, gap criteria
cannot be specified for an empty storage
vessel. As a result, no quantitative gap
measurement criteria can be specified
for internal floating-roof storage vessels
used for storing benzene.
In lieu of such gap criteria, the owner
or operator of each storage vessel could
be required to periodically inspect the
condition of the floating roof and the
secondary seal from the manhole and
roof hatches on the fixed roof of each
storage vessel. The primary seal would
not be visible during such an inspection,
however, and could only be inspected
from inside the storage vessel, after it
had been emptied and degassed. The
degassing of a storage vessel, however,
produces emissions. For a medium-size
storage vessel, these emissions amount
to approximately 0,3 Mg each time the
vessel is degassed. These emissions
could conceivably be controlled through
the use of a vapor control system;
however, it is both technically and
economically impractical to require that
a facility maintain such a system to
control these intermittent and infrequent
emissions. As a result, the
Administrator decided not to require the
control of degassing emissions.
The next question regarding the
inspection of primary seals concerns the
frequency of such inspections. These
seals have a very low failure rate and,
when installed properly, are expected to
last many years. In addition, emissions
tests conducted for EPA have indicated
that the condition of the primary seal
has a minimal effect on the emissions
when there is a secondary seal above
the primary seal. As a result, the
emissions associated with frequent
degassing may actually exceed those
that would be produced by not
inspecting the primary seal on a
frequent basis.
After considering the expected low
incidence of control equipment failures.
the degassing emissions that would
occur in order to inspect for these
failures, and the fact that the secondary
seal could be expected to reduce
emissions from a primary seal failure.
the Administrator decided to require
that complete internal inspections of the
control equipment be conducted only
once every 5 years.
The owner or operator of a benzene
storage vessel may find it necessary on
an infrequent occasion to empty and
degas a storage vessel for reasons other
than equipment inspections. In order to
further reduce the emissions due to
degassing for inspections, the
Administrator decided to require an
entire inspection from inside the storage
vessel any time a storage vessel is
degassed for any purpose. The storage
vessel would not have to be degassed
and inspected again for another 5 years.
This would reduce emissions because it
would result in only one degassing when
two may have occured otherwise, one
for a facility need and one for an
inspection.
V-K-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 246 / Friday. December 19. 1980 / Proposed Rules
Once a storage vessel has been
degassed and inspected, the proposed
standard would require that all control
•quipment failures be repaired before
the storage vessel is refilled with
benzene. This would not only prevent
any further emissions due to control
equipment failures, but would also
prevent the emissions resulting from a
subsequent degassing to repair the
failures. Such a requirement is
considered reasonable because the
inspection and repair program is only
required every 5 years and the owner or
operator can plan ahead to have the
storage vessel out of service long
enough to make all necessary repairs.
As discussed previously, at least some
failures of the internal floating roof and
secondary seal can be detected from
roof hatches or manholes in the fixed
roof above the internal floating roof.
Failures detectable from the fixed roof
include defects in or benzene
accumulated on the internal floating
roof, holes or tears in the secondary
seal, and relatively large gaps between
the secondary seal and wall of the
storage vessel.
The costs of inspecting the internal
floating roof and the secondary seal
through the roof hatches and manholes
would be small (less than 1 person-hour
per inspection for the average size
storage vessel). However, due to the
expected low incidence of equipment
failures, requiring very frequent
inspections would not be reasonable,
even considering the low costs.
Therefore, the Administrator decided to
require that such inspections be
conducted only once every 3 months.
If during a 3-month inspection, the
owner or operator finds that there are
defects in or benzene accumulated on
the floating roof, there are holes or tears
in the secondary seal, or there is a
visible gap between the secondary seal
and the wall of the storage vessel, these
failures would have to be repaired. In
order to repair these failures, all
benzene in the storage vessel would
have to be removed and the storage
vessel degassed. Once this is done, there
would be no additional emissions due to
the control equipment failure. For this
reason, there is no reason to put a limit
on the length of time allowed for
repairing control equipment failures.
However, it is necessary to place a time
constraint on the length of time benzene
would be allowed to remain in the
storage vessel. The Administrator
considered requiring that the benzene be
removed immediately after a failure is
detected. However, not all facilities
could be expected to have extra storage
capacity for the displaced benezene. A
•urvey of benzene storage facilities
(Docket Number A-80-14. items 11-67
through 11-70) indicates, however, that
most facilities could within 30 days
empty a storage vessel having
equipment in need of repair. As a result,
the Administrator has determined that it
is reasonable to require in the proposed
standard that the owner or operator of a
storage vessel empty the storage vessel
within 30 days if a failure is detected
during a 3-month inspection.
Additionally, the storage vessel could
not be refilled with benzene until the
failure is corrected.
The emissions and the residual risks
used in selecting BAT and the proposed
standard for existing and new sources
were calculated assuming there would
be no emissions due to degassing or
control equipment failures. Actually, as
discussed in this section, complete
prevention of these failures is not
possible. Operation and maintenance
procedures for minimizing these
emissions to the extent possible have
been discussed in this section and are
required by the proposed standard. In
fact, however, the total emissions
allowed by the standard include (1)
those due to initially degassing existing
storage vessels to retrofit them with
control equipment, (2) those due to
degassing each storage vessel each 5
years for the 5-year inspection, (3) those
due to degassing a storage vessel to
repair failures detected during the 3-
month inspection, (4) those due to
unrepaired failures in a primary seal
which can be undetected for as long as 5
years, and (5} those due to unrepaired
failures in the internal floating roof and
secondary seal which can be undetected
or unrepaired for as long as 4 months.
These emissions allowed by the
proposed standard are in addition to
those which are released even when the
required equipment is in place without
defects.
The annual allowable emissions in
1985 resulting from control equipment
failures and the degassing of benzene
storage vessels meeting the proposed
standard is estimated to be about 50 Mg.
Little information is available on the
expected frequency of such failures.
Also, it is difficult to estimate the
emissions due to failures such as holes
or tears in seals. Furthermore, the
emissions rate is dependent on the
extent of such a hole or tear. A number
of assumptions had to be made in
deriving this emission estimate. These
assumptions are detailed in Docket Item
No. II-B-19.
The residual risks due to all emissions
allowed by the proposed standard,
including the emissions from equipment
failures, were calculated using these
emissions estimates. The residual
Incidence in 1985 with the proposed
standard in effect would be increased
by 0.003 to 0.020 deaths and the
maximum lifetime risk would be
increased by 7.8 x lO'* to 5.3 x lO'*.
These increases are small due to the
expected low control equipment failure
rate. The only alternatives available for
reducing these residual risks are those
which would require the use of vapor
control systems (Regulatory Alternative
V for existing sources and Alternative
IV for new sources) and those which
prohibit the storage of benzene in
storage vessels. The reasons for
dismissing the latter alternatives on an
across-the-industry basis are discussed
in "Selection of Regulatory
Alternatives." The costs and risks which
would result if vapor control systems
were required are discussed in the
section entitled "Consideration of
Unreasonable Risk and Selection of the
Level of the Standard." As was stated
there for continuous emissions, in view
of the relatively small health benefits
that would be gained with the additional
costs and the potential adverse
environmental impacts associated with
the use of vapor control systems, the
Administrator determined that the risks
remaining after applying BAT for
continuous emissions and emissions due
to control equipment failures to existing
and new storage vessels are not
unreasonable.
Impacts of Reporting Requirements
The owner or operator of each storage
vessel would be required to submit a
report to the Administrator after each
inspection conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the standard.
An initial report would have to be
submitted following the first inspection
of the storage vessel after the required
control equipment has been installed.
Periodic reports would also have to be
submitted after each 3-month inspection
and each 5-year inspection required by
the standard. Each of these reports
would have to identify each storage
vessel which did not meet the
requirements of the standard and the
reason it did not meet the requirements.
In the subsequent quarterly report a
description of the steps taken to bring
the storage vessel into compliance
would have to be included. If the storage
vessel has not been emptied or repaired
within 30 days after being identified as
out of compliance, then an interim
report stating this would have to be
submitted. If the storage vessel did not
contain benzene prior to implementation
of the standard, or if the storage vessel
had to be emptied and degassed to bring
V-K-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 246 / Friday. December 19, 1980 / T>roposed Rules
it into compliance with the standard, the
owner or operator would have to notify
the Administrator at least 30 days prior
to filling the storage vessel so the
Administrator could have the
opportunity to send a representative to
inspect the storage vessel prior to its
filling. An estimated 10 person-years
would be required for the industry to
comply with these reporting
requirements for all benzene storage
facilities through the first 5 years of the
regulation.

Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held to
discuss the proposed standard for
benzene storage vessels in accordance
with Sections 112(b}(l)(B) and 307(b)(5)
of the Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to
make oral presentations regarding the
proposed standard for benzene storage
vessels should contact EPA at the
address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement before,
during, or within 30 days after the
hearing. Written statements should be
addressed to the Central Docket Section
address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble and should
refer to docket number A-60-14.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
•nd written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA'a Central
Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of the proposed
standard. The principal purposes of the
docket are (1) to allow members of the
public and industries involved to
identify and locate documents so they
can intelligently and effectively
participate in the standard setting
process, and (2) to serve as the record in
case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
As prescribed in Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, the proposal of this
standard has been preceded by the
Administrator's determination that
benzene is a hazardos air pollutant as
defined in Section 112(a)(l) of the Act
Benzene was added to the list of
hazardous air pollutants on June 8,1977.
In accordance with Section 117 of the
Act, publication of this proposed
standard was preceded by consultation
with the appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies. In
addition, members of the benzene task
group of the Interagency Regulatory
Liaison Group, representing EPA,
OSHA, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, have met
and reviewed the proposed regulation to
ensure that the statement of the rule is
jointly understood and is consistent
with their programs. The Administrator
welcomes comments on all aspects of
the proposed standard, including
economic and technological issues.
Comments are also specifically
invited on the relative effectiveness of
contact and noncontact internal floating
roofs. Based on engineering judgment, a
contact internal floating roof, which
eliminates evaporation by restricting
vapor formation, is more effective at
reducing emissions than a noncontact
roof, which reduces emission by
confining the vapors to a small space
above the liquid surface. Recent
emissions tests conducted for EPA have
demonstrated that a contact internal
floating roof with a liquid-mounted
primary seal and a continuous
secondary seal is more effective at
reducing emissions than a noncontact
internal floating roof with shingled,
vapor-mounted primary and secondary
seals. However, because the roofs tested
were equipped with different types of
seals, the relative effectiveness of
contact and noncontact internal floating
roofs cannot be quantified. Any
comments submitted to the
Administrator on this issue should
contain specific information and data
pertinent to an evaluation of the issue.

This standard will be reviewed 5
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods of
emission control, enforceability of the
standard, improvements in emissions
control technology, and reporting
requirements. The reporting
requirements in this regulation will be
reviewed as required in the EPA sunset
policy for reporting requirements and
regulations.
Dated: December 12.1980.
Douglas M. CosHe,
Administrator.

It is proposed that 40 CFR Part 61 be
amended by adding a new Subpart K as
follows:
Subpart K—National Emission Standard for
Benzene Emissions from Benzene Storage
Vessels
Sec.
61.120 . Applicability and designation of
source.
61.121 Definitions.
61.122 Emission standard and compliance
provisions.
61.123 Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
61.124 Initial report.
61.125 Periodic reports.
Authority. Sees. 112.114. and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412.
7414. and 7601(a)J, and additional authority
as noted below.
Subpart K—National Emission
Standard for Benzene Emissions from
Benzene Storage Vessels
§ 61.120 Applicability and designation of
source.
(a) The source to which this subpart
applies is each storage vessel that is
storing benzene and that has a storage
capacity greater than 4 cubic meters.
This subpart does not apply to storage
vessels used for storing benzene at coke
oven byproduct facilities.
(b) While the provisions of this
subpart are effective, a designated
source that is also subject to the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 shall only
be required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.

§ 61.121 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart are defined
in the Act, in Subpart A of this part, or
in this section as follows:
"Benzene" means benzene having a
specific gravity within the range of
specific gravities specified for Industrial
Grade benzene in ASTM-D-836-77. This
specification includes Industrial Grade
benzene, Nitration Grade benzene, and
Refined benzene-535. (Permission will
be sought from the Director of the
Federal Register to incorporate this
ASTM specification by reference.)
"Existing storage vessel" means each
storage vessel that stores benzene and
that was used to store benzene at any
time prior to the proposal date of this
standard.
"Fixed capital cost" means the capital
needed to provide all the depreciable
components.
"Internal floating roof means a cover
that rests upon the liquid surface inside
a storage vessel having a permanently-
affixed roof.
"Liquid-mounted seal" means a foam-
or liquid-filled primary seal mounted in
contact with the liquid between the wall
of the storage vessel and the floating
roof continuously around the
circumference of the storage vessel.
V-K-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 246 / Friday. December M. I960 / Prooosed Rales
"Metallic shoe seal" includes, bat is
not limited to, a metal sheet held
vertically against the wall of the storage
vessel by springs or weighted levers and
is connected by braces to the floating
roof. A flexible coated fabric (envelope)-
spans the annual space between the
metal sheet and the floating roof.
"New storage vessel" means each
storage vessel that is initially filled with
benzene after the proposal date of this
standard. Included are each vessel
newly constructed and each vessel
constructed prior to the proposal date of
this standard.
"Primary seal" means the lower seal
forming a continuous closure between
the wall of the storage vessel and the
internal floating roof.
"Reconstruction" means the
replacement of components of an
existing source to such an extent that:
(a) The fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed capital cost that would be required
to construct a comparable, entirely new
source; and
(b) It is feasible, considering economic
impacts and the technological problems
associated with retrofit to meet the
applicable standard for new sources set
forth in this sabpart.
"Secondary seal" means the upper
seal forming a continuous closure
between the wall of the storage vessel
and the internal floating roof.
"Storage vessel" means each tank
used for the storage of benzene.

5 61.123 Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
(a) Upon written application from any
person, the Administrator may approve
the use of equipment or procedures
which have been demonstrated to his
satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of
reducing benzene emissions to the
atmosphere to those prescribed for
compliance with § 61.122(a) of this
subpart For an existing source, all
requests for using an equivalent method
as the inital means of control is to be
submitted to the Administrator within 30
days of the effective date of the
standard. For a new source, all requests
for using an equivalent method is to be
submitted to the Administrator with the
application for approval of construction
or modification required by § 61.07.
(b) Determination of equivalence to
the specified equipment required in
§ 61.122(a) will be evaluated using the
following information to be included in
the written application to the
Administrator:
(1) By an actual emissions test which
•uses a full-size or scale-model sealed
storage vessel that accurately collects
and measures all benzene emissions
from a given control device, and which
accurately simulates wind and accounts
for other emission variables such as
temperature and barometric pressure.
The test facility shall be subject to prior
approval by the Administrator. Or,
V-K-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 246 / Friday. December 19. 1980 / Proposed Rules
(2) By an engineering evaluation
where the Administrator determines
that the evaluation is an accurate
method of determining equivalence.
(c) Toe Administrator may condition
approval of equivalency on
requirements that may be necessary to
ensure operation and maintenace to
achieve the same emission reduction as
the requirements of § 61.122(a).
(d) If in the Administrator's judgment
an application for equivalence may be
approvable, the Administrator will
publish a notice of preliminary
determination in the Federal Register
and provide the opportunity for public
hearing. After notice and opportunity for
public hearing, the Administrator will
determine the equivalence of the
alternative means of emission control
and will publish the final determination
in the Federal Register.
•' (e) A metallic shoe seal is considered
an equivalent control device to the
liquid-mounted seal required in
( 61.122(a)(2). Rim vents will be set to
open when the roof is being floated off
the leg supports or at the manufacturer's
recommended setting.
(f) The following system will be
considered an equivalent system to that
described in § 61.122(a), if it is approved
by the Administrator:
(1) A vapor recovery system which
collects all benzene vapors and gases
discharged from the storage vessel, and
a vapor return or disposal system which
is designed to process such benzene
vapors and gases so as to reduce their
emission to the atmosphere by at least
95 percent by weight and which is
operated at the design specifications to
achieve this emission reduction. The
efficiency of the vapor control system
shall be calculated by comparing the
controlled emissions to those emissions
which would occur from a like-sized
fixed-roof storage vessel without a
vapor control system.
(2) In requesting approval for use of
the vapor recovery system described in
paragraph (f) of this section, the owner
or operator shall provide the
Administrator with the following
information:
(i) Emission data, if available, for a
similar vapor recovery and return or
disposal system used on the same type
of storage vessel, which can be used to
determine the efficiency of the system.
A complete description of the emission
measurement method used must be
included.
(ii) The manufacturer's design
specifications and estimated emission
reduction capability of the system.
(lii) The operation and maintenance
plan for the system.
(iv) Any other information which will
be useful to the Administrator in
evaluating the effectiveness of the
system in reducing benzene emissions.
(9) For the purpose of determining
equivalence, flares arc assumed to
reduce benzene emissions to the
atmosphere by 60 percent by weight
unless demonstrated by emission testing
to be more efficient.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414}

{61.124 Initial report
(a) The owner or operator of each
existing storage vessel to which this
subpart applies and who does not
request a waiver of compliance under
{ 61.10, shall submit along with the
report required by § 61.10 a report
describing the existing controls.
(1) Where the existing controls do not
meet the requirements of § 61.122(a), the
owner or operator shall submit, along
with the report required by § 61.10, a
report describing the control equipment
to be installed to comply with
§ 61.122(a); and
(2) Notify the Administrator in writing
at least 30 days prior to the refilling of
each storage vessel that was required to
be emptied for installation of controls
required by § 61.122(a), so that the
Administrator has an opportunity to
have an observer present to inspect the
storage vessel before it is refilled. If it
has not been necessary to completely
empty the storage vessel to install
controls, the onwer or operator shall
submit a written report to the
Administrator within 30 days after
controls are installed. The report shall
state the date controls were installed
and shall described all deviations in
controls from those described in the
report submitted in accordance with
paragraph (a)(l) of this section.
(b) The owner or operator who
obtains a waiver of compliance under
§ 61.10, shall:
(1) Notify the Administrator in writing
at least 30 days prior to the filling of
each storage vessel that was required to
be emptied for installation of controls
required by § 61.122(a), so that the
Administrator has an opportunity to
have an observer present to inspect the
storage vessel before it is filled. If it has
not been necessary to completely empty
the storage vessel to install controls, the
owner or operator shall submit a report
to the Administrator within 30 days
after controls are installed. The report
shall include the date controls were
installed and shall describe all
deviations in controls from those
described in the report submitted in
accordance with §61.10.
(c) The owner or operator of each new
storage vessel to which this subpart
applies shall submit, along with the
report required by { 61.07, a report
which describe* the control equipment
on the storage vessel, and which states
the expected date for filling the storage
vessel. The report shall be submitted to
the Administrator at least 30 days prior
to filling the storage vessel so that the
Administrator has an opportunity to
have an observer present to inspect the
storage vessel before it is filled.
(d) The owner or operator of each new
storage vessel that existed prior to the
effective date of these standards shall
submit, along with the report required
by S 61.10, a report describing the
control equipment installed on the
storage vessel. The report shall be
submitted within 30 days after the
effective date.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)

S 61.125 Periodic reports.
(a) The owner or operator of each
storage vessel to which this subpart
applies shall submit a report describing
the results of each inspection conducted
in accordance with § 61.122(c)(2).
(1) The first report is to be submitted 3
months after the initial report submitted
in accordance with § 61.124. The first
report shall include a reporting schedule
stating the monjhs that the quarterly
reports will be submitted. Subsequent
quarterly reports shall be submitted
according to this schedule, unless a
revised schedule has been submitted in
the previous quarterly report.
(2) Each report shall include the date
of the inspection of each storage vessel
and identify each storage vessel in
which benzene has accumulated on or
there are defects in the internal floating
roof, the internal floating roof is not
resting on and in direct contact with the
surface of the benzene liquid inside the
storage vessel, there are visible gaps
between the secondary seal and the
wall of the storage vessel, or there are
holes, tears, or other openings in the
secondary seal or the seal fabric.
(3) Where a quarterly report identifies
any condition in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section the subsequent quarterly report
shall describe the measures used to
correct the condition, the date of storage
vessel was emptied, and the date the
condition was repaired.
(b) The owner or operator of each
storage vessel to which this subparl
applies shall submit an interim report if
any condition listed in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section was identified and the
condition was not repaired or the
storage vessel was not emptied within
30 days of the date the condition was
V-K-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 246 / Friday. December 19, 1980 / Proposed Rules
First identified. This report shall be
postmarked no later than 40 days after
the date the condition was identified.
(c) The owner or operator of each
storage vessel to which this subpart
applies shall submit a report describing
the results of the inspection conducted
in accordance with § 61.122(c)(3).
(1) The first report is to be submitted
within the 5-year period after the initial
report submitted in accordance with
§ 61.124, with subsequent reports during
each 5-year period therafter.
(2) Each report shall identify each
storage vessel in which the owner or
operator finds that the internal floating
roof has defects, the primary seal has
holes, tears, or other openings in the
seal or the seal fabric, or the secondary
seal has holes, tears, or other openings
in the seal or the seal fabric.
(3) A report shall be submitted 30
days prior to the refilling of each storage
vessel describing repairs made, and
giving the date of refilling of the vessel
so the Administrator has an opportunity
to have an observer present to inspect
the storage vessel before it is refilled.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)
|FR Doc SO-39484 Filed 12-10-80; 6:45 am]
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29. 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL-1740-7J

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Benzene Storage
Vessels
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Amended notice of public
hearing and extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: The public hearing has been
postponed 57 days and the end of the
public comment period extended 57
days for the proposed national emission
standard for benzene emissions from
benzene storage vessels in response to a
request from the American Petroleum
Institute. This request expressed the
need to complete their own exposure
modeling, technical and economic
analyses, and emission testing in order
to evaluate EPA's data base and to
provide additional information.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standard must be postmarked no later
than May 8,1981, Notice of intent to
present oral testimony at the public
hearing must be postmarked no later
than April 1.1981. The public hearing
will be held on April 8,1981. Written
comments responding to, supplementing,
or rebutting written or oral comments
received at the public hearing must be
postmarked no later than May 8,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standard should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-80-14, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The public hearing will be held at the
EPA Administration Building
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park.
North Carolina, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 12,1980. EPA proposed in the
Federal Register (45 FR 83952) a national
emission standard for benzene
emissions from benzene storage vessels.
In that notice. EPA announced the date
ending the public comment period and
the date and location of the public
hearing to receive public comment on
the proposed standards. This notice
amends the date of the public hearing
and extends the end of the public
comment period.
Dated: January 23,1981.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation.
V-K-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25,1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61
[AD-FRL-17«7-5]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Emissions From Benzene Storage
Vessels
AGENCY: Environment Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Amended notice of public
hearing and extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: The public hearing has been
postponed 62 days and the end of the
public comment period extended 62
days for the proposed national emission
standard for benzene emissions from
benzene storage vessels in response to a
request from the American Petroleum
Institute.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standard must be postmarked no later
than July 8,1981. Notice of intent to
present oral testimony at the public
hearing must be postmarked no later
than June 2,1981. The public hearing
will be held on June 9,1981. Written
comments responding to, supplementing,
or rebutting written or oral comments
received at the public hearing must be
postmarked no later than July 8,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standard should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-80-14, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The public hearing will be held at the
EPA Administration Building
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Naomi
Durkee, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5571.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Wyatt, (919) 541-5580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 12,1980. EPA proposed in the
Federal Register (45 FR 83952) a national
emission standard for benzene
emissions from benzene storage vessels.
In that notice, EPA announced the date
ending the public comment period and
the date and location of the public
hearing to receive public comment on
the proposed standards. This notice
amends the date of the public hearing
and extends the end of the public
comment period.
Dated: March 19,1981.
Edward F. Tuerk,
A ding Assistant A dministralor for A ir, Noise,
and Radiation.
|hR Dot 61-9105 Filed 3-24-81. 845 am]
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 121 / Wednesday. June 24, 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
IAD-FRL-1861-4]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Fugitive Emissions; Benzene
Emissions from Benzene Storage
Vessels
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extensions of public comment
periods.

SUMMARY: The end of the public
comment period has been extended 30
days for the proposed national emission
standard for benzene fugitive emissions
and the proposed national emission
standard for benzene emissions from
benzene storage vessels. 45 FR 83952,
December 19, 1980, 46 FR 18561. March
25. 1981.
DATES: Written comments to be
included in the record on the proposed
standards must be postmarked no later
than September 14,1981, for the
proposed national emission standard for
benzene fugitive emissions and August
10,1981, for the proposed national
emission standard for benzene
emissions from benzene storage vessels.
Written comments responding to,
supplementing, or rebutting written or
oral comments received at the public
hearing must be postmarked no later
than September 14,1981, and August 10,
1981, for the proposed benzene fugitive
and benzene storage emission
standards, respectively.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed
standard for bezene fugitive emissions
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket Number A-79-
27, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Comments on the proposed standard
for benzene emissions from benzene
storage vessels should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Central Docket
Section (A-130), Attention: Docket
Number A-80-14, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Susan Wyatt, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA
received a request to extend the public
comment periods for the two proposed
standards because the public hearing for
the proposed benzene fugitive emissions
standard was close to the end of the
comment period for the proposed
benzene storage vessels standard. The
comment periods for the proposed
standards were extended, therefore, in
order to provide an opportunity for more
meaningful public participation in the
proposed rulemaking.
Dated: June 18,1981.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
|FR Doc. 81-18623 Filed 6-23-81: 8:45 am|
V-K-18
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
TEST METHODS
APPENDIX B
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18.1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[AP-FRL 1563-1]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On June 7.1977 (42 FR 29005)
the Administrator promulgated
amendments to the national emission
standards for the hazardous air
pollutant vinyl chloride. The
Administrator also promulgated
amendments to Appendix B—Test
Methods, of this part. Since the
promulgation of Method 106—
Determination of Vinyl Chloride from
Stationary Sources and Method 107.
Determination of Vinyl Chloride Content
of Inprocess Wastewater Samples and
Vinyl Chloride Content of Polyvinyl
Chloride Resin, Slurry, Wet Cake, and
Latex Samples, several improvements in
the methods have been developed.
These revisions incorporate those
improvements.
DATES: Comments must be received by
January 19,1981.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (A-130),
Attention: Docket No. A-80-50, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street. S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger Shigehara, Emission Measurement
Branch (MD-19), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. N.C. 27711: telephone number (919)
541-2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These
revised procedures differ from the
previous methods as follows: Method
106—(1) sample bag size can range from
50 to 100 liters rather than the single size
bag previously required, and (2) analysis
audit and chromatograph with
resolution quality assurance
requirements are added. These
requirements are contained in Appendix
C. 40 CFR Part 61, as proposed with the
National Emission Standard for Benzene
Emissions from Maleic Anhydride
Plants (45 FR 26660). Method 107—(1) a
head space vial pre-pressurizer is added
to obtain correct head space gas
equilibrium, (2) different chromatograph
columns are s ggested for analysis, and
(3) chromatorgraph resolution quality
assurance requirements are added.
The Administrator finds that notice
and public procedure is unnecessary
because the revisions are minor and
technical. These revisions are issued
under the authority of Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.
7414)
Dated. November 10.1980
Douglas Costle,
Administrator

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

Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 106—Determination of Vinyl
Chloride From Stationary Sources
Introduction '
Performance of this method should
not be attempted by persons unfamiliar
with the operation of a gas
chromatograph. nor by those who are
unfamiliar with source sampling,
because knowledge beyond the scope of
this presentation is required. Care must
be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
1. Appicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. The method is
applicable to the measurement of vinyl -
chloride in stack gases from ethylene
dichloride, vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl
chloride manufacturing processes. The
method does not measure vinyl chloride
contained in particulate matter.
1.2 Principle. An integrated bag
sample of stack gas containing vinyl
chloride (chloroethene) is subjected to
gas chromatographic (GC) analysis
using a flame ionization detector (FID).
2. Range and Sensitivity.
This method is designed for the 0.1 to
50 ppm range. However, common GC
instruments are capable of detecting 0.02
-ppm vinyl chloride. With proper
calibration, the upper limit may be
extended as needed.
3. Interferences.
The chromatographic columns and the
corresponding operating parameters
herein described normally provide an
adequate resolution of vinjl chloride;
however, resolution interferences may
be encountered on some sources.
Therefore, the chromatograph operator
shall select the column and operating
parameters best suited to his particular
analysis requirements, subject to the
approval of the Administrator. Approval
is automatic, provided that the tester
produces confirming data through an
adequate supplemental analytical
technique, such as analysis with a
different column or GC/mass
spectroscopy, and has the data
available for review by the
Administrator.
4. Apparatus.
4.1 Sampling (see Figure 106-1). The
sampling train consists of the following
components:
4.1.1 Probe. Stainless steel. Pyrex
glass, or Teflon tubing (as stack
temperature permits) equipped with a
glass wool plug to remove particulate
matter.
4.1.2 Sample Lines. Teflon, 6.4-mm
outside diameter, of sufficient length to
connect probe to bag. Use a new unused
piece for each series of bag samples that
constitutes an emission test, and discard
upon completion of the test.
4.1.3 Quick Connects. Stainless steel,
male (2) and female (2). with ball checks
(one pair without), located as shown in
Figure 106-1.
4.1.4 Tedlar Bags. 50- to 100-liter
capacity, to contain sample. Aluminized
Mylar bags may be used if the samples
are analyzed within 24 hours of
collection.
1 Mention of any trade or specific product does
not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Environment! Proleclcoo Agency.
V-Appendix B-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
FILTER (GLASS WOOL)
/ I I
.PROBE
TEFLON
xSAMPLE LINE
VACUUM LINE
STACK WALL
QUICK
CONNECTS
(MALE).
V
TEDLAROR
ALUMINIZED
MYLAR BAG
r\
NO BALL
CHECKS
FLOW METER
RIGID LEAK PROOF
CONTAINER
CHARCOAL TUBE
PUMP
Figure 106-1. Integrated-bag sampling train. (Mention of trade names
or specific products does not constitute endorsement by the Environ
mental Protection Agency.)
V-Appendix B-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday. November IB. 1980 / Proposed Rules
00
TEDLARBAG
CAPACITY
SO liters
Figure 106-2. Preparation of standards (optional).
V-Appendix B-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
4.1.5 Bag Containers. Rigid leakproof
containers for sample bags, with
covering to protect contents from
sunlight.
4.1.6 Needle Valve. To adjust sample
flow rates.
4.1.7 Pump. Leak-free, with minimum
of 2-liter/min capacity.
4.1.8 Charcoal Tube. To prevent
admission of vinyl chloride, and other
organics to the atmosphere in the
vicinity of samplers.
4.1.9 Flow Meter. For observing
sampling flow rate; capable of
measuring a flow range from 0.10 to 1.00
liter/min.
4.1.10 Connecting Tubing. Teflon,
6.4-mm outside diameter, to assemble
sampling train (Figure 106-1).
4.2 Sample Recovery. Teflon tubing,
6.4-mm outside diameter, to connect bag
to gas chromatograph sample loop for
sample recovery. Use a new unused
piece for each series of bag samples that
constitutes an emission test, and discard
upon conclusion of analysis of those
bags.
4.3 Analysis. The following
equipment is required:
4.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. With FID,
polentiometric strip chart recorder and
1.0- to 5.0-ml heated sampling loop in
automatic sample valve. The
chromatographic system shall be
capable or producing a response to 0.1-
ppm vinyl chloride that is at least as
great as the average noise level.
(Response is measured from the average
value of the base line to the maximum of
the waveform, while standard operating
conditions are in use.)
4.3.2 Chromatographic Columns.
Columns as listed below. The analyst
may use other columns provided that the
precision and accuracy of the analysis
of vinyl chloride standards are not
impaired and he has available for
review information confirming that there
is adequate resolution of the vinyl
chloride peak. (Adequate resolution is
defined as an area overlap of not more
than 10 percent of the vinyl chloride
peak by an interferent peak. Calculation
of area overlap is explained in
Appendix C, Supplement A:
"Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution.")
4.3.2.1 Column A. Stainless steel, 2.0
m by 3.2 mm, containing 80/100-mesh
Chroma sorb 102.
4.3.2.2 Column B. Stainless steel, 2.0
m by 3.2 mm, containing 20 percent GE
SF-96 on 60/80-mesh Chromasorb P
AW; or stainless steel, 1.0 m by 3.2 mm
containing 80/100-mesh Porapak T.
Column B is required as a secondary
column if acetaldehyde is present. If
used, column B is placed after column A.
The combined columns should be
operated at 120°C.
4.3.3 Flow Meters (2). Rotameter
type. 100-ml/min capacity, with flow
control valves.
4.3.4 Gas. Regulators. For required
gas cylinders.
4.3.5 Thermometer. Accurate to 1°C,
to measure temperature of heated
sample loop at time of sample injection.
4.3.6 Barometer. Accurate to 5 mm
Hg, to measure atmospheric pressure
around gas chromatograph during
sample analysis.
4.3.7 Pump. Leak-free, with minimum
of 100-ml/min capacity.
4.3.8 Recorder. Strip chart type,
optionally equipped with either disc or
electronic integrator.
4.3.9 Planimeter. Optional, in place
of disc or electronic integrator on *
recorder, to measure chromatograph
peak areas.
4.4 Calibration. Sections 4.4.2
through 4.4.4 are for the optional
procedure in Section 7.1.
4.4.1 Tubing. Teflon, 6.4-mm outside
diameter, separate pieces marked for
each calibration concentration.
4.4.2 Tedlar Bags. Sixteen-inch-
square eize, with valve; separate bag
marked for each calibration
concentration.
4.4.3 Syringes. 0.5-ml and 50-fil, gas
tight, individually calibrated to dispense
gaseous vinyl chloride.
4.4.4 Dry Gas Meter, With
Temperature and Pressure Gauges.
Singer model DTM-115 with 802 index,
or equivalent, to meter nitrogen in
preparation of standard gas mixtures,
calibrated at the flowrate used to
prepare standards.
5. Reagents.
Use only reagents that are of
chromatograph grade.
5.1 Analysis. The.following are
required for analysis.
5.1.1 Helium or Nitrogen. Zero grade,
for chromatographic carrier gas.
5.1.2 Hydrogen. Zero grade.
5.1.3 Oxygen or Air. Zero grade, as
required by the detector.
5.2 Calibration. Use one of the
following options: either 5.2.1 and 5.2.2,
or 5.2.3.
5.2.1 Vinyl Chloride. Pure vinyl
chloride gas certified by the
manufacturer to contain a mimimum of
99.9 percent vinyl chloride, for use in the
preparation of standard gas mixtures in
Section 7.1. If the gas manufacturer
maintains a bulk cylinder supply of
99.9+ percent vinyl chloride, the
certification analysis may have been
performed pn this supply rather than on
each gas cylinder prepared from this
bulk supply. The date of gas cylinder
preparation and the certified analysis
must have been affixed to the cylinder
before shipment from the gas
manufacturer to the buyer.
5.2.2 Nitrogen. Zero grade, for
preparation of standard gas mixtures as
described in Section 7.1.
5.2.3 Cylinder Standards (3). Gas
mixture standards (50-, 10-, and 5-ppm
vinyl chloride in nitrogen cylinders). The
tester may use cylinder standards to
directly prepare a chromatograph
calibration curve as described in Section
7.2.2, if the following conditions are met:
(a) The manufacturer certifies the gas
composition with an accuracy of ± 3
percent or better (see Section 5.2.3.1); (b)
The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by
greater than ± 5 percent from the
certified value; (c) The manufacturei
affixes the date of gas cylinder
preparation, certified vinyl chloride
concentration, and recommended
maximum shelf life to the cylinder
before shipment to the buyer.'
5.2.3.1 Cylinder Standards
Certification. The manufacturer shall
certify the concentration of vinyl
chloride in nitrogen in each cylinder by
(a) directly analyzing each cylinder and
(b) calibrating his analytical procedure
on the day of cylinder analysis. To
calibrate his analytical procedure, the
manufacturer shall use, as a minimum, a
three-point calibration curve. It is
recommended that the manufacturer
maintain (1) a high-concentration
calibration standard (between 50 and
100 ppm) to prepare his calibration
curve by an appropriate dilution
technique and (2) a low-concentration
calibration standard (between 5 and 10
ppm) to verify the dilution technique
use. If the difference between the
apparent concentration read from the
calibration curve and the true
concentration assigned to the low-
concentration calibration standard
exceeds 5 percent of the true
concentration, the manufacturer shall
determine the source of error and
correct it, then repeat the three-point
calibration.
5.2.3.2 Verification of Manufacturer's
Calibration Standards. Before using a
standard, the manufacturer shall verify
each calibration standard (a) by
comparing it to gas mixtures prepared
(with 99 Mol precent vinyl chloride) in
accordance with the procedure
described in Section 7.1 or (b) by having
it analyzed by the National Bureau of
Standards. The agreement between the
initially determined concentration value
and the verification concentration value
must be within ±5 percent. The
manufacturer must reverify all
calibration standards on a time interval
V-Appendix B-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18, 1980 / Proposed Rules
consistent with the shelf life of the
cylinder standards sold.
5.2.4 Audit Cylinder Standards (2).
Gas mixture standards with
concentrations known only to the
person supervising the analysis of
samples. The audit cylinder standards
shall be identically prepared as those in
Section 5.2.3 (Vinyl chloride in nitrogen
cylinders). The concentrations of the
audit cylinders should be: one low-
concentration cylinder in the range of 5
of 20 ppm vinyl chloride, and one high-
concentration cylinder in the range of 20
to 50 ppm. When available, the tester
may obtain audit cylinders by
contacting: Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Quality Assurance
Division (MD-77), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711. If audit
cylinders are not available at the
Enviromental Protection Agency, the
tester must secure an alternative source.
6. Procedure,
6.1 Sampling. Assemble the sample
train as shown in Figure 106-1. Perform
a bag leak check according to Section
7.3.2. join the quick connects as
illustrated, end determine that all
connections between the bag and the
probe are tight. Place the end of the
probe at the centroid of the stack and
start the pump with the needle value
adjusted to yield of flow that will fill
over 50 percent of bag volume in the
specified sample period. After allowing
sufficient time to purge the line several
times, connect the vacuum line to the
bag and evacuate the bag until the
rotameter indicates no flow. Then
reposition the sample and vacuum lines
and begin the actual sampling, keeping
the rate proprotional to the stack
velocity. At all times, direct the gas
exiting the rotameter away from
sampling personnel. At the end of the
sample period, shut off the pump,
disconnect the sample line from the bag,
and disconnect the vaccuum line from
the bag container. Protect the bag
container from sunlight.
6.2 Sample Storage. Keep the sample
bags out of direct sunlight. When at all
possible, analysis is to be performed
within 24 hours, but in no case in excess
of 72 hours of sample collection.
Aluminized Mylar bag samples must be
analyzed within 24 hours.
6.3 Sample Recovery. With a new
piece of Teflon tubing identified for that
bag, connect a bag inlet valve to the gas
chromatograph sample valve. Switch the
valve to receive gas from the bag
through the sample loop. Arrange the
equipment so the sample gas passes
from the sample value to 100-ml/min
rotameter with flow control valve
followed by a charcoal tube and a 1-in.
H»O pressure gauge. The tester may
maintain the sample flow either by a
vacuum pump or container
pressurization if the collection bag
remains in the rigid container. After
sample loop purging is ceased, allow the
pressure gauge to return to zero before
activating the gas sampling valve.
6.4 Analysis. Set the column
temperature to 100°C and the detector
temperature to 150°C. When optimum
hydrogen and oxygen flow rates have
been determined, verify and maintain
these flow rates during all
chromatograph operations. Using zero
helium or nitrogen as the carrier gas,
establish a flow rate in the range
consistent with the manufacturer's
requirements for satisfactory detector
operation. A flow rate of approximately
40 ml/min should produce adequate
separations. Observe the base line
periodically and determine that the
noise level has stabilized and that base-
line drift has ceased. Purge the sample
loop for 30 seconds at the rate of 100 ml/
min, then activate the sample valve.
Record the injection time (the position of
the pen on the chart at the time of
sample injection), sample number,
sample loop temperature, column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, chart
speed, and attenuator setting. Record
the barometric pressure. From the chart,
note the peak having the retention time
corresponding to vinyl chloride, as
determined in Section 7.2.1. Measure the
vinyl chloride peak area, Am, by use of a
disc integrator, electronic integrator, or
a planimeter. Measure and record the
peak height, H, Hm. Record Am and the
retention time. Repeat the injection at
least two times or until two consecutive
values for the total area of the vinyl
chloride peak do not vary more than 5
percent. Use the average value for these
two total areas to compute the bag
concentration.
Compare the ratio of Hm to Am for the
vinyl chloride sample with the same
ratio for the standard peak that is
closest in height. If these ratios differ by
more than 10 percent, the vinyl chloride
peak may not be pure (possibly
acetaldehyde is present) and the
secondary column should be employed
(see Section 4.3.2.2).
6.5 Determination of Bag Water
Vapor Content. Measure the ambient
temperature and barometric pressure
near the bag. From a water saturation
vapor pressure table, determine and
record the water vapor content of the
bag as decimal figure. (Assume the
relative humidity to be 100 percent
unless a less value is known.)'
7. Preparation of Standard Gas
Mixtures. Calibration, and Quality
Assurance.
7.1 Preparation of Vinyl Chloride
Standard Gas Mixtures. (Optional
Procedure—delete if cylinder standards
are used.) Assemble the apparatus
shown in Figure 106-2. Evacuate a 16-
inch-square Tedlar bag that has passed
a leak check (described in Section 7.3.2)
and meter in 5.0 liters of nitrogen. While
the bag is filling, use the 0.5-ml syringe
to inject 250 pi of 99.9 4- percent vinyl
chloride gas through the wall of the bag.
Upon withdrawing the syringe,
immediately cover the resulting hold
with a piece of adhesive tape. The bag
now contains a vinyl chloride
concentration of 50 ppm. In a like
manner use the 50 /xl syringe to prepare
gas mixtures having 10- and 5-ppm vinyl
chloride concentrations. Place each bag
on a smooth surface and alternately
depress opposite sides of the bag 50
times to further mix the gases. These gas
mixture standards may be used for 10
days from the date of preparation, after
which time new gas mixtures must be
prepared. (Caution: Contamination may
be a problem when a bag is reused if the
new gas mixture standard is a lower
concentration than the previous gas
mixture standard.)
7.2 Calibration.
7.2.1 Determination of Vinyl
Chloride Retention Time. (This section
can be performed simultaneously with
Section 7.2.2.) Establish chromatograph
conditions identical with those in
Section 6.4 above. Determine proper
attenuator position. Flush the sampling
' loop with zero helium or nitrogen and
activate the sample valve. Record the
injection time, sample loop temperature.
column temperature, carrier gas flow
rate, chart speed, and attenuator setting.
Record peaks and detector responses
that occur in the absence of vinyl
chloride. Maintain conditions with the
equipment plumbing arranged
identically to Section 6.3. and flush the
sample loop for 30 seconds at the rate of
100 ml/min with one of the vinyl
chloride calibration mixtures. Then
activate the sample valve. Record the
injection time. Select the peak 'hat
corresponds to vinyl chloride. Measure
the distance on the chart from the
injection time to the time at which the
peak maximum occurs. This quantity
divided by the chart speed is defined as
the retention time. Since other organics
may be present in the sample, positive
identification of the vinyl chloride peak
must be made.
7.2.2 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve. Make a gas
chromatographic measurement of each
gas mixture standard (described in
Section 5.2.3 or 7.1) using conditions
identical with those listed in Sections 6.3
V-Appendix B-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
and 6.4. Flush the sampling loop for 30
seconds at the rate of 100 ml/min with
one of the standard mixtures, and
activate the sample valve. Record the
concentration of vinyl chloride injected
(Cc), attenuator setting, chart speed,
peak area, sample loop temperature,
column temperature, carrier gas flow
rate, and retention time. Record the
barometric pressure. Calculate AC, the
peak area multiplied by the attenuator
setting. Repeat until two consecutive
Injection areas are within 5 percent,
then plot the average of those two
values versus Cc-.When the other
standard gas mixtures have been
similarly analyzed and plotted, draw a
straight line through the points derived
by the least squares method. Perform
calibration daily, or before and after
each set of bag samples, whichever is
more frequent.
7.3 Quality Assurance.
7.3. Analysis Audit. Immediately
after the preparation of the calibration
curve and prior to the sample analyses,
perform the analysis audit described in
Appendix C. Supplement B: "Procedure
for Field Auditing GC Analysis."
7.3.2 Bag Leak Checks. Checking of
bags for leaks is required after bag use
and strongly recommended before bag
use. After each use, connect a water
manometer and pressurize the bag to 5-
10 cm H,O (2-4 in H2O). Allow to stand
for 10 min. Any displacement in the
water manometer indicates a leak. Also,
check the rigid container for leaks in this
manner.
Note.—An alternative leak check method is
to pressurize the bag to 5-10 cm H,O or 2-4
In. HiO and allow it to stand overnight. A
deflated bag indicates a leak.

For each sample bag in its rigid
container, place a rotameter in-line
between the bag and the pump inlet.
Evacmte the bag. Failure of the
rotameter to register zero flow when the
bag appears to be empty indicates a
leak.
8. Calculations.
8.1 Determine the sample peak area,
AC, as follows:

Ac=AB1Af

Where:
An=Measured peak area.
A, =Attenuation factor.
8.2 Vinyl Chloride Concentrations.
From the calibration curve described in
Section 7.2,2, select the value of, Ce, that
corresponds to Ac, the sample peak
area. Calculate the concentration of
vinyl chloride in the bag, C*. as follows:
CcPrTl
Eq. 106-2
Where:
P,=Reference pressure, the laboratory
pressure recorded during calibration,
mmHg.
T,= Sample loop temperature on the
absolute escale at the time of
analysis, °K.
PI=Laboratory pressure at time of
analysis, mm Hg.
T,=Reference temperature, the sample
loop temperature recorded during
calibration, "K.
Bwb=Volume fraction of water vapor
content of the bag sample, as
analyzed.
9. References.
1. Brown, D.W., E.W. Loy, and M.H.
Stephenson. Vinyl Chloride Monitoring
Near the B. F. Goodrich Chemical
Company in Louisville, Kentucky.
Region IV, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Surveillance and
Analysis Division, Athens, GA. June 24,
1974.
2. G.D. Clayton and Associates.
Evaluation of a Collection and
Analytical Procedure for Vinyl Chloride
in Air. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1408.
Task Order No. 2, EPA Report No. 75-
VCL-1. December 13,1974.
3. Midwest Research Institute.
Standardization of Stationary Source
Emission Method for Vinyl Chloride.
EPA-600/4-77-026. May 1977.
4. Scheil, W. and M.C. Sharp,
Collaborative Testing of EPA Method
106 (Vinyl Chloride) that will provide for
a Standardized Stationary Source
Emission Measurement Method. EPA
600/4-78-058. Emission Monitoring and
Support Laboratory. Research Triangle
Park, NC. October 1978.

Method 107—Determination of Vinyl
Chloride Content of Inproccss
Wastewaler Samples, and Vinyl
Chloride Content of Polyvinyl Chloride
Resin, Slurry, Wet Cake, and Latex
Samples

Introduction'
Performance of this method should
not be attempted by persons unfamiliar
with the operation of a gas
chroma tograph, nor by those who are
unfamiliar with source sampling,
because knowledge beyond the scope of
this presentation is required. Care must
be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
1 Mention of trade names or specific products
does not constitute endorsement by thr U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method
applies to the measurement of the vinyl
chloride monomer (VCM) content of
inprocess wastewater samples, and the
residual vinyl chloride monomer
(RVCM) content of polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) resins, wet cake, slurry, and latex
samples. It cannot be used for polymer
in fused forms, such as sheet or cubes.
This method is not acceptable where
methods from Section 304(h) of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
(the Federal Water Pollution Control
Amendments of 1972 as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977) are required.
1.2 Principle. The basis for this
method relates to the vapor equilibrium
that is established between RVCM, PVC
resin, water, and air in a closed system.
The RVCM in a PVC resin will
equilibrate rapidly in a closed vessel
'provided that the temperature of the
PVC resin is maintained above the glass
transition temperature of that specific
resin.
2. Range and Sensitivity.
The lower limit of detection of vinyl
chloride will vary according to the
chromatography used. Values reported
include 1 X 10~'mg and 4 X 10" 'mg.
With proper calibration, the upper limit
may be extended as needed.
3. Interferences.
The chromatograph columns and the
corresponding operating parameters
herein described normally provide an
adequate resolution of vinyl chloride;
however, resolution interferences may
be encountered on some sources.
Therefore, the chromatograph operator
shall select the column and operating
parameters best suited to his particular
analysis requirements, subject to the
approval of the Administrator. Approval
is automatic provided that the tester
produces confirming data through an
adequate supplemental analytical
technique, such as analysis with a
different column or GC/mass
spectroscopy, and has the data
available for review by the
Administrator.
4. Precision and Reproducibility.
An interlaboratory comparison
between seven laboratories of three
resin samples, each split into three
parts, yielded a standard deviation of
2.63 percent for a sample with a mean of
2.09 ppm, 4.16 percent for a sample with
a mean of 1.66 ppm, and 5.29 percent for
a sample with a mean of 62.66 ppm.
6. Safety.
Do not release vinyl chloride to the
laboratory atmosphere during
preparation of standards. Venting or
purging with VCM/air mixtures must be
V-Appendix B-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
held to a minimum. When they are
required, the vapor must be routed to
outside air. Vinyl Chloride, even at low
ppm levels, must never be vented inside
the laboratory. After vials have been
analyzed, the gas must be vented prior
to removal of the vial from the
instrument turntable. Vials must be
vented through a hypodermic needle
connected to an activated charcoal tube
to prevent release of vinyl-chloride into
the laboratory atmosphere. The charcoal
must be replaced prior to vinyl chloride
breakthrough.
6. Apparatus.
6.1 Sampling. The following
equipment is required:
6.1.1 Glass Bottles. 60-ml (2-oz)
capacity, with wax-lined screw on tops,
for PVC samples.
6.1.2 Class Vials. 50-ml capacity
Hypo-vials, sealed with Teflon faced
Tuf-Bond discs, for water samples.
6.1.3 Adhesive Tape. To prevent
loosening of bottle tops.
6.2 Sample Recovery. The following
equipment is required:
6.2.1 Glass Vials. With seals and
caps, Perkin-Elmer Corporation No. 105-
0118, or equivalent. The seals must be
made from butyl rubber. Silicone rubber
seals are not acceptable.
6.2.2 Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to ± 0.0001 gram.
6.2.3 Vial Sealer. Perkin-Elmer No.
105.0106 or equivalent.
6.3 Analysis. The following
equipment is required:
6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. Perkin-
Elmer Corporation Model F-40, F-42, or
F-45 Head-Space Analyzer, or
equivalent. Equipped with backflush
accessory.
6.3.2 Chroma tograhic Columns.
Stainless steel 1 m by 3.2 mm and 2 m by
3.2 mm, both containing 50/80-mesh
Porapak Q. The analyst may use other
columns provided that the precision and
accuracy of the analysis of vinyl
chloride standards are not impaired and
he has available for review information
confirming that there is adequate
resolution of the vinyl chloride peak.
(Adequate resolution is defined as an
area overlap of not more than 10 percent
of the vinyl chloride peak by an
interferent peak. Calculation of area
overlap is explained in Appendix C,
Supplement A: "Determination of
Adequate Chromatographic Peak
Resolution.") Two 1.83 m columns, each
containing 1 percent Carbowax 1500 on
Carbopak B, have been suggested for
samples containing acetaldehyde.
6.3.3 Thermometer. 0 to 100°C,
accurate to ± 0.1°C, Perkin-Elmer No.
105-0109, or equivalent.
6.3.4 Sample Tray Thermostat
System. Perkin-Elmer No. 105Un03, or
equivalent.
6.3.5 Septa. Sandwich type, for
automatic dosing, 13 mm, Perkin-Elmer
No. 105-1008, or equivalent.
6.3.6 Intergrator-Recorder. Hewlett-
Packard Model 33080A, or equivalent.
6.3.7 Filter Drier Assembly (3).
Perking-Elmer No. 2230117, or
equivalent.
6.3.8 Soap Film Flowmeter. Hewlett
Packard No. 0101-0113, or equivalent.
6.3.9 Reguators. For required gas
cylinders.
6.3.10 Headspace Vial Pre-
Pressurizer. Nitrogen pressurized
hypodermic needle inside protective
shield. (Blueprint available from Test
Support Section, Emission Measurement
Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Drop 19,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.)
7. Reagents.
Use only reagents that are of
chromatograph grade.
7.1 Analysis. The following items are
required for analysis:
7.1.1 Hydrogen. Zero grade.
7.1.2 Nitrogen. Zero grade.
7.1.3 Air. Zero grade.
12 Calibration. The following items
are required for calibration:
7.2.1 Cylinder Standards (4). Gas
mixture standards (50-, 500-, 2000- and
4000-ppm vinyl chloride in nitrogen
cylinders). The tester may use cylinder
standards to directly prepare a
chromatograph calibration curve as
described in Section 9.2, if the following
conditions are met: (a) The
manufacturer certifies the gas
composition with an accuracy of ±3
percent or better (see Section 7.2.1.1). (b)
The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by
greater than ±5 percent from the
certified value, (c) The manufacturer
affixes the date of gas cylinder
preparation, certified vinyl chloride
concentration, and recommended
maximum shelf life to the cylinder
before shipment to the buyer.
7.2.1.1 Cylinder Standards
Certification. The manufacturer shall
certify the concentration of vinyl
chloride in nitrogen in each cylinder by
(a) directly analyzing each cylinder and
(b) calibrating his analytical procedure
on the day of cylinder analysis. To
calibrate his analytical procedure, the
manufacturer shall use, as a minimum, a
three-point calibration curve. It is
recommended that the manufacturer
maintain (1) a high-concentration
calibration standard (between 4000 and
8000 ppm) to prepare his calibration
curve by on appropriate dilation
technique and f 2) a low-concentration
calibration standard (between 50 and
500 ppm) to verify the dilution technique
used. If tile difference between the
apparent concentration read from the
calibration curve and the true
concentration assigned to the low-
concentration calibration standard
exceeds 5 percent of the true
concentration, the manufacturer shall
determine the source of error and
correct it, then repeat the three-point
calibration.
7.2.1.2 Verification of Manufacturer'!
Calibration Standards. Before using, the
manufacturer shall verify each
calibration standard by (a) comparing it
to gas mixtures prepared (with 99 Mol
percent vinyl chloride) in accordance
with the procedure described in Section
7.1 of Method 106 or by (b) having it
analyzed by the National Bureau of
Standards. The agreement between the
initially determined concentration value
and the verification concentration value
must be within ±5 percent. The
manufacturer must reverify all
calibration standards on a time interval
consistent with the shelf life of the
cylinder standards sold.
8. Procedure.
8.1 Sampling.
ai.l PVC Sampling. Allow the resin
or slurry to flow from a tap on the tank
or silo until the tap line has been well
purged. Extend and fill a 60-ml-sample
bottle under the tap, and immediately
tighten a cap on the bottle. Wrap
adhesive tape around the cap and bottle
to prevent the cap from loosening. Place
an identifying label on each bottle, and
record the date, time, and sample
location both on the bottles and in a log
book.
8.1.2 Water Sampling. Prior to use,
the 50-ml vials (without the discs) must
be capped with aluminum foil and
muffled at 400' C for at last 1 hour to
destroy or remove any organic matter
that could interfere with analysis. At the
sampling location fill the vials bubble-
free to overflowing so that a convex
meniscus forms at the top. The excess
water is displaced as the sealing disc is
carefully placed, with the Teflon side
down, on the opening of the vial.
Place the aluminum seal over the disc
and the neck of the vial, and crimp into
place. Affix an identifying label on the
bottle, and record the date, time, and
sample location both on the vials and in
a log book. All samples must be kept
refrigerated until analyzed.
8.2 Sample Recovery. Samples must
be run within 24 hours.
8.2.1 Resin Samples. The weight of
the resin used must be between 3.5 and
4.5 grams. An exact weight must be
V-Appendix B-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday. November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
obtained (±0.0001 g) for each sample. In
the case of suspension resins, a
volumetric cup can be prepared for
holding the required amount of sample.
When the cup is used, open the sample
bottle, and add the cup volume ef resin
to the tared sample vial (tared, including
septum and aluminum cap). Obtain the
exact sample weight, add two drops of
distilled water, and immediately seal the
vial. Report this value on the data sheet;
it is required for calculation of RVCM. In
the case of dispersion resins, the cup
cannot be used. Weigh the sample in an
aluminum dish, transfer the sample to
the tared vial, and accurately weigh it in
the vial. After pre-pressurization of the
samples, condition them for a minimum
of 1 hour in the 90* C bath. Do not
exceed 5 hours.
Note.—Some aluminum vial caps have •
center section that must be removed prior to
placing into (ample tray. If the cap ii not
removed, the injection needle will be
damaged.
8.2.2 Suspension Resin Slurry and
Wet Cake Samples. Decant the water
from a wet cake sample, and turn the
sample bottle upside down onto a paper
towel. Wait for the water to drain, place
approximately 0.2 to 4.0 grams of the
wet cake sample in a tared vial (tared,
including setum and aluminum cap) and
seal immediately. Then determine the
sample weight (±0.0001 g). All samples
must be pre-pressurized and then
conditioned for 1 hour at 90* C. A
sample of wet cake is used to determine
TS (total solids). This is required for
calculating the RVCM.
8.2.3 Dispersion Resin Slurry and
Geon Latex Samples. The materials
should not be filtered. Sample must be
thoroughly mixed. Using a tared vial
(tared, including septum and aluminium
cap) add approximately 8 drops (0.25 to
0.35 g) of slurry or latex using a
medicine dropper. This should be done
immediately after mixing. Seal the vial
as soon as possible. Determine sample
weight (±0.0001 g). After pre-
pressurization, condition the vial for 1
hour at 90*C in the analyzer bath.
Determine the TS on the slurry sample
(Section 8.3.5.).
8.2.4 Inprocess Wastewater
Samples. Using a tared vial (tared.
Including septum and aluminum cap)
quickly add approximately 1 cc of water
using a medicine dropper. Seal the vial
as soon as possible. Determine sample
weight (±0.0001 g). Pre-pressurize the
vial, and then condition for 2 hours at
90*C in the analyzer bath.
8.3 Analysis
8.3.1 Preparation of Equipment.
Install the chromatographic column and
condition overnight at 160'C. In the first
operation, Porapak columns must be
purged for 1 hour at 230*0. Do not
connect the exit end of the column to the
detector while conditioning. Hydrogen
and air to the detector must be turned
off while the column is disconnected.
8.3.1.1 Flow Rate Adjustments.
Adjust flow rates as follows:
a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator
on cylinder to read 50 psig. Set regulator
on chromatograph to produce a flow
rate of 30.0 cc/min. Accurately measures
the flow rate at the exit end of the
column using the soap film flowmeter
and a stopwatch, with the oven and
column at the analysis temperature.
After the instrument program advances
to the "B" (backflush) mode, adjust the
nitrogen pressure regulator to exactly
balance the nitrogen flow rate at the
detector as was obtained in the "A"
mode.
b. Vial Pre-Pressurizer Nitrogen. After
the nitrogen carrier is set, solve the
following equation and adjust the
pressure on the vial pre-pressurizer
accordingly.
__
7.50
• 10 k Pa
Where:
Ti=Ambient temperature, °K.
Ta=Conditioning bath temperature, °K.
Pi=Gas chromatograph absolute dosing
pressure (analysis mode), k Pa.
Pwl=Water vapor pressure @ 90°C
(525.8 mm Hg).
P,,i=Water vapor pressure @ 22°C (19.8
mm Hg).
7.50= mm Hg per k Pa.
10 k Pa=Factor to adjust the pre-
pressurized pressure to slightly less
than the dosing pressure.
Because of gauge errors, the apparatus
may over-pressurize the vial. If the vial
pressure is at or higher than the dosing
pressure, an audible double injection
will occur. If the vial pressure is too low,
errors will occur on resin samples
because of inadequate time for
headspace gas equilibrium. This
condition can be avoided by running
several standard gas samples at various
pressures around the calculated
pressure, and then selecting the highest
pressure that does not produce a double
injection. All samples and standards
must be pressurized for 60 seconds using
the vial pre-pressurizer. The vial is then
placed into the 90'C conditioning bath
and tested for leakage by placing a drop
of water on the septum at the needle
hole.
c. Burner Air Supply. Set regulatory on
cylinder to read 50 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply air to burner at
a rate between 250 and 300 cc/min.
Check with bubble flowmeter.
d. Hydrogen Supply. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 30 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to -supply approximately
35 ± 5 cc/min. Optimize hydrogen flow
to yield the most sensitive detector
response without extinguishing the
flame. Check flow with bubble meter
and record this flow.
8.3.1.2 Temperature Adjustments.
Set temperatures as follows:
a. Oven (chromatograph column),
140°C.
b. Dosing Line, 170'C.
c. Injection Block, 170°C.
d. Sample Chamber, Water
Temperature, 90°C ± l.'OC.
. 8.1.3 Ignition of Flame lonization
Detector. Ignite the detector according
to the manufacturer's instructions.
8.3.1.4 Amplifier Balance. Balance
the amplifier according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
8.3.2 Programming the
Chromatograph. Program the
chromatograph as follows:
a. I-Dosing or Injection Time. The
normal setting is 2 seconds.
b. A-Analysis Time. The normal
setting is approximately 70 percent of
the VCM retention time. When the
analysis timer terminates, the
programmer initiates backflushing of the
first column.
c. B-Backflushing Time. The normal
setting is double the analysis time.
d. W-Stabilization Time. The normal
setting is 0.5 minute to 1.0 minute.
e. X-Number of Analyses Per Sample.
The nomal setting is 1.
8.3.3 Preparation of Sample
Turntable. Before placing any sample
into turntable, be certain that the center
section of the aluminum cap has been
removed. All samples and standards
must be pressurized for 60 seconds by
using the vial pre-pressurizer. The
numbered sample vials should be placed
in the corresponding numbered positions
in the turntable. Insert samples in the
following order:
Positions 1 and 2—Old 2000-ppm
standards for conditioning. These are
V-Appendix B-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 18. 1980 / Proposed Rules
necessary only after the analyzer has
not been used for 24 hours or longer.
Positions 3—50-ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
Positions 4—500-ppm standard,
freshly prepared.
Position 5—2000-ppm standard,
freshly prepared.
Position 6—4000-ppm standard,
freshly prepared.
Position 7—Sample No. 7 (This is the
first sample of the day, but is given as 7
to be consistent with the turntable and
the integrator printout.)
After all samples have been
postitioned, insert the second set of 50-,
500-, 2000-, and 4000-ppm standards.
Samples, including standards, must be
conditioned in the bath of 90°C for 1
hour (not to exceed 5 hours).
8.3.4 Start Chromatograph Program.
When all samples, including standards,
have been conditioned at 90°C for 1
hour, start the analysis program
according to the manufacturer's
instructions. These instructions must be
carefully followed when starting and
stopping a program to prevent damage
to the dosing assembly.
8.3.5 Determination of Total Solids
(TS). For wet cake, slurry, resin solution,
and PVC latex samples, determine TS
for each sample by accurately weighing
approximately 3 to 4 grams of sample in
an aluminum pan before and after
placing in a draft oven (105 to 110°C).
Samples must be dried to constant
weight. After first weighing, return the
pan to the oven for a short period of
time, and then reweigh to verify
complete dryness. TS is then calculated
as the final sample weight divided by
initial sample weight.
9. Calibration.
Calibration is to be performed each 8-
hour period when the instrument is
used. Each day, prior to running
samples, the column should be
conditioned by running two 2000-ppm
standards from the previous day.
9.1 Preparation of Standards.
Calibration standards are prepared as
follows: Place two drops of distilled
water (with the use of an eyedropper) in
the sample vial, then fill the vial with
the VCM/nitrogen standard, rapidly
seat the septum, and seal with the
aluminum cap. Use a Vfe-in. stainless
steel line from the cylinder to the vial,
Do not use rubber or tygon tubing. The
sample line from the cylinder must be
purged (into a properly vented hood) for
several minutes prior to fill the vials.
After purging, reduce the flow rate to
500 to 1000 cc/min. Place end of tubing
into vial (near bottom). Position a
septum on top of the vial, pressing it
against the Vi-in. filling tube to minimize
the size of the vent opening. This is
necessary to minimize mixing air with
the standard in the vial. Each vial is to
be purged with standard for 90 seconds,
during which time the filling tube is
gradually slid to the top of the vial. After
the 90 seconds, the tube is removed with
the septum, simultaneously sealing the
vial. Practice will be necessary to
develop good technique. Rubber gloves
should be worn during the above
operations. The sealed vial must then be
pressurized for 60 seconds using the vial
pre-pressurizer. Test the vial for leakage
by placing a drop of water on the
septum at the needle hole.
9.2 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve.
Prepare two 50-, 500-, 2000-, and 4000-
ppm standard samples. Run the
calibration samples in exactly the same
manner as regular samples. Plot A., the
integrator area counts for each standard
sample, versus Cc, the concentration of
vinyl chloride in each standard sample.
AsPa
rvc
f '1
rsr1
Where:
A,=Chromatograph area counts of vinyl
chloride for the sample.
P.=Ambient atmospheric pressure, mm
Hg.
R,=Response factor in area counts per
ppm VCM.
Ti=Ambient laboratory temperature,
°K.
Mv=Molecular weight of VCM (62.5 g/
mole).
V,=Volume of the vapor phase, cm3.
R = Gas constant (62360 cm9 • mm Hg/
mole • °K).
m = Sample weight, g.
Kp=Henry's Law Constant for VCM in
PVC @ 90°C (6.52 X10" 6 g/g/mm Hg).
Draw a straight line through the points
.derived by the least squares method.
10. Calculations.
10.1 Response Factor. If the
calibration curve described in section
9.2 passes through zero, a response
factor, Rf, may be used to compute vinyl
chloride concentrations. To compute a
response factor, divide any particular A.
by the corresponding Cc.

R,=A,/C« Eq. 107-1

If the calibration curve does not pass
through zero, the calibration curve must
be employed to calculate each sample
concentration unless the error
introduced by using a particular R, is
known.
10.2 Residual Vinyl Chloride
Monomer Concentration, (C™) or Vinyl
Chloride Monomer Concentration.
Calculate Cnc in ppm or mg/kg as
follows:
Eq. 107-2
TS=Total solids expressed as a decimal
fraction.
Tj=Equilibrium temperature, "K.
Kw=Henry's Law Constant for VCM in
water @ 90°C (7xi0-'g/g/mm Hg).

Assuming the following conditions are
met, these values can be substituted into
equation 107-2:

P.=750 mm Hg.
V,=Vial volume—sample volume
(Fisher vials are 22.0 cm3 and Perkin-
Elmer vials are 21.8 cm3).

T, = 23°Cor296°K.
Ta=90°C or 363°K.
A 750
,,, ^ „ „ m(TS) m(l-TS)
J6Z.5) 21.8 • \ ii' - /I'atet' f i
— £2366 m + e.25x10'6(TS)(363)+7.0xlO"'(l-TS}(363)
Results calculated using these
equations represent concentration based
on the total sample. To obtain results
based on dry PVC content, divide by TS.
11. References.
1. Residual Vinyl Chloride Monomer
Content of Polyvinyl Chloride Resins,
Latex, Wet Cake, Slurry and Water
Samples, B. F. Goodrich Chemical Group
Standard Test Procedure No. 1005-E.
B. F. Goodrich Technical Center, Avon
Lake, Ohio, October 8,1979.
2. Berens, A. R., "The Diffusion of
Vinyl Chloride in Polyvinyl Chloride,"
ACS—Division of Polymer Chemistry,
Polymer Preprints 15 (2): 197,1974.
3. Berens, A. R., "The Diffusion of
Vinyl Chloride in Polyvinyl Chloride,"
ACS—Division of Polymer Chemistry,
Polymer Preprints 15 (2): 203,1974.
4. Berens, A. R., L. B. Crider, C. J.
Tomanek and J. M. Whitney, "Analysis
for Vinyl Chloride in PVC Powders by
Head—Space Gas Chromatography," to
be published.

|FR Doc. 80-35*50 Filed 11-17-W, 8:46 «n]
V-Appendix B-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 3 / Tuesday, January 6, 1981 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL 1718-7]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Test
Methods; Revised Methods 106 and
107; Corrections

AQENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Corrections.

SUMMARY: The following corrections
should be made to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pol'ntants in the Federal Register of 45
FR 76346, Tuesday, November 18,1980.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5,1981.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Roger Shigehara, Emission
Measurement Branch (MD-19), Emission
Standards and Engineering Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-2237.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following are the corrections: Pagn
76346.

1. First column: Change the date
comments must be received by, to
February 19, 1981.

2. First column: Delete the last
parngraph, because this notice is a
proposed rule.

3. Second column: Change the
preamble to Appendix B to sl;:te: "It is
proposed to amend 40 CFR 61 by
revising Methods 106 and 107 of
Appendix B as follows:"

Uiiled: December 29. 1980.
Edward F. Tuerk,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise.
ond Ruilialion.
|KK Dm.
1-JI,« Kilcil 1-2-61: 84.1 «ln|
V-Appendix B-ll
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 1981 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61

[AD-FRL 1643-6]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Alternative
Test Method 107A (Vinyl Chloride)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of
public hearing.

SUMMARY: The proposed method would
apply to the measurement of the vinyl
chloride content of solvents, resin-
solvent solution, polyvinyl chloride
resin, resin-slurry, wet resin, and latex
samples. The proposed method was
derived from a test method submitted to
EPA by Union Carbide: The intent of
this proposed method is to provide this
alternative analytical procedure
because it may be preferred over
Method 107 in some circumstances.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of data
views, or arguments concerning the
proposed method.
DATES: Comments, Comments must be
received on or before April 13, 1981.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will
be held on March 26,1981 (about 30
days after proposal) beginning at 9 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by March 19 (1 week before
hearing).
AODRH5SES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section (A-
130), Attention: Docket A-80-37, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. The public hearing
will be held at Emissions Measurement
Laboratory Building, Page Road and
Interstate 40, R.T.P. North Carolina
27711. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Deanna
Tilley, Standards Development Branch
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5421.
Docket. Docket No. A-80-37,
containing material relevant to this
rulemaking, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section,
West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1,
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW,,
Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Roger T. Shigehara (MD-19), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 21, 1976 (41 FR 46560) and on
June 7, 1977 (42 FR 29005) the
Environmental Protection Agency
promulgated Method 107—
Determination of Vinyl Chloride Content
of Inprocess Wastewater Samples and
Vinyl Chloride Content of Polyvinyl
Chloride Resin, Slurry, Wet Cake, and
Latex Samples. Since that time, Union
Carbide has submitted comparative
supporting data to EPA on a test method
that embodies a less sophisticated, but
also technically satisfactory, analytical
approach. Because practical
considerations would favor its use in
some instances, this alternative method
is being considered for adoption as an
EPA method. If adopted, this alternative
test method would be available to
determine compliance with the national
emission standard for vinyl chloride, 40
CFR, Part 61 Subpart F.
(Sees. 112, 114. and 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7414, and
760.(a)))
Dated: February 4, 1981.
Walter C. Barber,
Acting Administrator.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
61 by adding Method 107A to Appendix
B as follows:
Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 107A—Determination of Vinyl
Chloride Content of Solvents, Resin-
Solvent Solution, Polyvinyl Chloride
Resin, Resin Slurry, Wet Resin, and
Latex Samples1
Introduction
Performance of this method should
not be attempted by persons unfamiliar
with the operation of a gas
chromatograph or by those who are
unfamiliar with source sampling
because knowledge beyond the scope of
this presentation is required. Care must
be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This is an
alternative method and applies to the
measurement of the vinyl chloride
content of solvents, resin solvent
solutions, PVC resin, wet cake slurries.
latex, and fabricated resin samples, This
1 Mention of trade names 0) specific products
does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
method is not acceptable where
methods from Section 304(h) of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
(the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977) are required.
1.2 Principle. The basis for this
method lies in the direct injection of a
liquid sample into a chromatograph and
the subsequent evaporation of all
volatile material into the carrier gas
stream of the chromatograph, thus
permitting analysis of all volatile
material including vinyl chloride.
2. Range and Sensitivity.
The lower limit of detection of vinyl
chloride in dry PVC resin is 0.2 ppm. For
resin solutions, latexes, and wet resin,
this limit rises inversely as the
nonvolatile (resin) content decreases.
With proper calibration the upper
limit may be extended as needed.
3. Interferences.
The chromatograph columns and the
corresponding operating parameters
herein described normally provide an
adequate resolution of vinyl chloride. In
cases where resolution interferences are
encountered, the chromatograph
operator shall select the column and
operating parameters best suited to his
particular analysis problem, subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
Approval is automatic, provided that the
tester produces confirming data through
an adequate supplemental analytical
technique, such as analysis with a
different column or GC/mass
spectroscopy, and has the data
available for review by the
Administrator.
4. Precision and Reproducibility.
A standard sample of latex containing
181.8 ppm vinyl chloride analyzed 10
times by the alternative method showed
a standard deviation of 7.5 percent and
a mean error of 0.21 percent.
A sample of vinyl chloride copolymer
resin solution was analyzed 10 times by
the alternative method and showed a
standard deviation of 6.6 percent at a
level of 35 ppm.
5. Safety.
Do not release vinyl chloride to the
laboratory atmosphere during
preparation of standards. Venting or
purging with vinyl chloride monomer
(VCM) air mixtures must be held to
minimum. When purging is required, the
vapor must be routed to outside air.
Vinyl chloride, even at low-ppm levels,
must never be vented inside the
laboratory.
6. Apparatus.
6.1 Sampling. The following
equipment is required:
6.1.1 Glass Bottles. 16-oz wide mouth
with polyethylene-lined, screw-on tops.
V-Appendix B-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 29 / Thursday. February 12. 1981 / Proposed Rules
6.1.2 Adhesive Tape. To prevent
loosening of bottle tops.
6.2 Sample Recovery. The following
equipment is required:
6.2.1 Class Vials. 20-ml capacity
with polycone screw caps.
6.2.2 Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to ±0.01 gram.
6.2.3 Syringe. 50-microliter size, with
removable needle.
6.2.4 Fritted Glass Sparger. Fine
porosity.
6.2.5 Aluminum Weighing Dishes.
6.2.6 Sample Roller or Shaker. To
help dissolve sample.
6.3 Analysis. The following
equipment is required:
6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. Hewlett
Packard Model 5720A or equivalent.
6.3.2 Chromatograph Column.
Stainless steel, 6.1 m by 3.2 mm, packed
with 20 percent Tergitol E-35 on
Chromosorb W AW 60/80 mesh. The
analyst may use other columns provided
that the precision and accuracy of the
analysis of vinyl chloride standards are
not impaired and that he has available
for review information confirming that
there is adequate resolution of the vinyl
chloride peak. (Adequate resolution is
defined as an area overlap of not more
than 10 percent of the vinyl chloride
peak by an interferent peak. Calculation
of area overlap is explained in
Appendix C, Supplement A:
"Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution.")
6.3.3 Valco Instrument Six-Port
Rotary Valve. For column back flush.
6.3.4 Septa. For Chromatograph
injection port.
6.3.5 Injection Port Liners. For
chromatograph used.
6.3.6 Regulators. For required gas
cylinders.
6.3.7 Soap Film Flow Meter. Hewlett
Packard No. 0101-0113 or equivalent.
6.4 Calibration. The following
equipment is required:
6.4.1 Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to ±0.0001 g.
6.4.2 Erlenmeyer Flask With Glass
Stopper. 125 ml.
6.4.3 Pipets. 0.1, 0.5,1, 5,10, and 50
ml.
6.4.4 Volumetric Flasks. 10 and 100
ml.
7. Reagents.
Use only reagents that are of
chromatograph grade.
7.1 Analysis. The following items are
required:
7.1.1 Hydrogen Gas. Zero grade.
7.1.2 Nitrogen Gas. Zero grade.
7.1.3 Air. Zero grade.
7.1.4 Tetrahydrofuran (THF).
Reagent grade.
Analyze the THF by injecting 10
microliters into the prepared gas
chromatograph. Compare the THF
chromatogram with that shown in Figure
107A-l. If the chromatogram is
comparable to A, the THF should be
sparged with pure nitrogen for
approximately 2 hours using the fritted
glass sparger to attempt to remove the
interfering peak. Reanalyze the sparged
THF to determine whether the THF is
acceptable for use. If the scan is
comparable to B, the THF should be
acceptable for use in the analysis.
* interfering peak
Time, minutes

Figure 107A-1
7.1.5 N, N-Dimethylacetamide
{DMACJ. Spectrographic grade. For use
in place in THF.
7.2 Calibration. The following item is
required:
7.2.1 Vinyl Chloride 99.9 Percent.
Ideal Gas Products lecture bottle, or
equivalent. For preparation of standard -
solutions.
8. Procedure.
8.1 Sampling. Allow the liquid or
dried resin to flow from a tap on the
tank, silo, or pipeline until the tap has i
been purged. Fill a wide-mouth pint
bottle, and immediately tightly cap the
bottle. Place an identifying label on each
bottle and record the date, time, sample
location, and material.
8.2 Sample Treatment. Samples must
be run within 24 hours.
8.2.1 Resin Samples. Weight 9.00 ±
0.01 g of THF or DMAC in a tared 20-ml
vial. Add 1.00 ± 0.01 g or resin to the
tared vial containing the THF or DMAC.
Close the vial tightly with the screw cap,
and shake or otherwise agitate the vial
until complete solution of the resin is
obtained. Shaking may require several
minutes to several hours, depending on
the nature of the resin.
8.2.2 Suspension Resin Slurry and
Wet Resin Samples. Slurry must be
filtered using a small Buchner funnel
with vacuum to yield a wet resin
sample. The filtering process must be
continued only as long as a steady
stream of water is exiting from the
funnel. Excessive filtration time could
result in some loss of VCM. The wet
resin sample is weighed into a tared 20-
ml vial with THF or DMAC as described
earlier for resin samples (8.2.1) and
treated the same as the resin sample: A
sample of the wet resin is used to
determine total solids as required for
calculating the RVCM (Section 8.3.4).
8.2.3 Latex and Resin Solvent
Solutions. Samples must be thoroughly
mixed. Weigh 1.00 ± 0.01 g of the latex
or resin-solvent solution into a 20-ml
vial containing 9.00 ± 0.01 g of THF or
DMAC as for the resin samples (8.2.1).
Cap and shake until complete solution is
obtained. Determine the total solids of
the latex or resin solution sample
(Section 8.3.4).
8.2.4 Solvents and Non-viscous
Liquid Samples. No preparation of these
samples is required. The neat samples
are injected directly into the gas
chromatograph.
8.3 Analysis.
8.3.1 Preparation of Gas
Chromatograph. Install the
chromatographic column, and condition
overnight at 70°C. Do not connect the
exit end of the column to the detector
while conditioning.
8.3.1.1 Flow Rate Adjustments.
Adjust the flow rates as follows:
a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator
on cylinder to read 60 psig. Set column
flow controller on the chromatograph
using the soap film flow meter to yield a
flow rate of 40 cc/min.
b. Burner Air Supply. Set regulator on
the cylinder at 40 psig. Set regulator on
the chromatograph to supply air to the
burner to yield a flow rate of 250 to 300
cc/min using the flow meter.
c. Hydrogen. Set regulator on cylinder
to read 60 psig. Set regulator on the
chromatograph to supply 30 to 40 cc/min
using the flow meter. Optimize hydrogen
flow to yield the most sensitive detector
response without extingushing the
V-Appendix B-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 29 / Thursday. February 12. 1981 / Proposed Rules
flame. Check flow with flow meter and
record this flow.
d. Nitrogen Back Flush Gas. Set
regulator on the chromatograph using
the soap film flow meter to yield a flow
rate of 40 cc/min.
8.3.1.2 Temperature Adjustments.
Set temperature as follows:
a. Oven (chromatographic column) at
70°C.
b. Injection Port at 100°C.
c. Detector at 300°C.
8 3.1.3 Ignition of Flame lonization
Detector. Ignite the detector according
to the manufacturer's instructions.
Allow system to stabilize approximately
1 hour.
8.3.1.4 Recorder. Set pen at zero and
start chart drive.
8.3.1.5 AHonuation. Set attenuation
to yiald desired peak height depending
on sample VCM content.
8.3.2. Chromatographic Analyses.
a. Sample Injection. Remove needle
from 50-microliter syringe. Open sample
vial and draw 50-microliters of THF or
DMAC sample recovery solution into
the syringe. Recap sample vial. Attach
needle to the syringe and while holding
the syringe vertically (needle
uppermost), eject 40 nu'croliters into an
absorbent tissue. Wipe needle with
tissue. Now inject 10 microliters into
chromatograph system. Repeat the
injection until two consecutive values
for the height of the vinyl chloride peak
do not vary more than 5 percent. Use the
average value for these two peak
heights to compute the sample
concentration.
b. Back Flush. After 4 minutes has
elapsed after sample injection, actuate
the back flush valve to purge the first 4
feet of the .chromatographic column of
solvent and other high boilers.
c. Sample Data. Record on the
chromatograph strip chart the data from
the sample label.
d. Elution Time. Vinyl chloride elutes
at 2.8 minutes. Acetaldehyde elutes at
3.7 minutes. Analysis is considered
complete when chart pen becomes
stable. After 5 minutes, reset back flush
valve and inject next sample.
8.3.3 Chromatograph Servicing.
a. Septum. Replace after five sample
injections.
b. Sample Port Liner. Replace the
sample port liner with a clean spare
after five sample injections.
c. Chromatograph Shut Down. If the
chromatograph has been shut down
overnight, rerun one or more samples
from the preceding'day to test stability
and precision prior to starting on the
current day's work.
8.3.4 Determination of Total Solids
(T.S.). For wet resin, resin solution, and
PVC latex samples, determine the T.S.
for each sample by accurately weighing
approximately 3 to 5 grams of sample
into a tared aluminum pan. The initial
procedure is as follows:
a. Where water is the major volatile
component: Tare the weighing dish, and
add 3 to 5 grams of sample to the dish.
Weigh to the nearest milligram.
b. Where volatile solvent is the major
volatile component: Transfer a portion
of the sample to a 20-ml screw cap vial
and cap immediately. Weigh the vial to
the nearest milligram. Uncap the vial
and transfer a 3- to 5-gram portion of the
sample to a tared aluminum weighing
dish. Recap the vial and reweigh to the
nearest milligram. The vial weight loss
is the sample weight.
To continue, now place the weighing
pan in a 130°C oven for 1 hour. Remove
the dish and allow to cool to room
temperature in a desiccator. Weigh the
pan to the nearest 0.1 mg. Total solids is
the weight of material in the aluminum
pan after heating divided by the net
weight of sample added to the pan
originally times 100.
9. Calibration of the Chromatograph.
9.1 Preparation of Standards.
Prepare a 1 percent by weight
(approximate) solution of vinyl chloride
in THF or DMAC by bubbling vinyl
chloride gas from a cylinder into a tared
125-ml glass-stoppered flask containing
THF or DMAC. The weight of vinyl
chloride to be added should be
calculated prior to this operation, i.e., 1
percent of the weight of THF or DMAC
contained in the tared flask. This must
be carried out in a laboratory hood.
Adjust the vinyl chloride flow from the
cylinder so that the vinyl chloride
dissolves essentially completely in the
THF or DMAC and is not blown to the
atmosphere. Take particular care not to
volatize any of the solution. Stopper the
flask and swirl the solution to effect
complete mixing. Weigh the stoppered
flask to nearest 0.1 mg to determine the
exact amount of vinyl chloride added.
Pipet 10 ml of the approximately 1
percent solution into a 100-ml glass-
stoppered volumetric flask, and add
THF or DMAC to fill to the mark. Cap
the flask and invert 10 to 20 times. This
solution contains approximately 1,000
ppm by weight of vinyl chloride (note
the exact concentration).
Pipet 50-, 10-, 5-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.1-ml
aliquots of the approximately 1,000 ppm
solution into 100 ml glass stoppered
volumetric flasks. Dilute to the mark
with THF or DMAC, cap the flasks and
invert each 10 to 20 times. These
solutions contain approximately 500,
100, 50,10, 5, and 1 ppm vinyl chloride.
Note the exact concentration of each
one. These standards are to be kept
under refrigeration in stoppered bottles,
and must be renewed every 3 months.
9.2 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve.
Obtain the gas chromatograph for
each of the six final solutions prepared
in Section 9.1 by using the procedure in
Section 8.3.2. Prepare a chart plotting
peak height obtained from the
chromatogram of each solution versus
the known concentration. Draw a
straight line through the points derived
by the least squares method.
10. Calculations.
10.1 Response Factor. From the
calibration curve described in Section
9.2. select the value of Cc that
corresponds to He for each sample.
Compute the response factor, Rf, for
each sample as follows:

R. = T£ Eq. 107A-1
10.2 Residual vinyl chloride
monomer concentration (CrvJ or vinyl
chloride monomer concentration in
resin:
rvc
10HS Rf
' Eq. 107A-2

Where:
H, = Peak height of sample, mm.
R,=Chromatograph response factor.
10.3 Samples containing volatile
material, i.e., resin solutions, wet resin,
and latexes:
rvc
Rf(1,000)
"T3T
Eq. 107A-3
10.4 Samples of solvents and
inprocess waste water:
Where:
0.888 = Specific gravity of THF.
11. Bibliography.
1. Communication from R.N. Wheeler,
Jr.; Union Carbide Corporation. Part 61
National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Appendix B,
Method 107—Alternate Method,
September 19,1977.

[FR Doc. 81-4080 Filed 2-11-81; 148 >m|
V-Appendix B-14
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR
IDENTIFYING, ASSESSING AND
REGULATING AIRBORNE SUBSTANCES
POSING A RISK OF CANCER
APPENDIX C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61

[FRL 1259-1]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Policy and
Procedures for Identifying, Assessing,
and Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes for
comment a rule governing the policies
and procedures to be used by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the
identification, assessment, and
regulation under the Clean Air Act of
substances which, when emitted into the
ambient air for stationary sources,
increase the risk of cancer to the general
population. The proposed policy
implements for the air program of EPA
the principles adopted by the President's
Regulatory Council in a statement
issued September 28, 1979 on the
regulation of chemical carcinogens. In
concert with this proposal, EPA is
publishing elsewhere in today's Federal
Register an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking soliciting comments on draft
generic work practice and operational
standards which could be applied
quickly to reduce emissions of airborne
carcinogens from certain source
categories.
Under the proposed policy, EPA
would evaluate available information to
identify those substances, including
radioactive materials, which should be
considered for regulation under the
Clean Air Act as airborne carcinogens.
Any air pollutant determined to present
a significant carcinogenic risk to human
health as a result of air emissions from
one or more categories of stationary
sources would be listed under section
112 as a hazardous air pollutant. Listing
under section 112 would be
accompanied, where applicable, by the
proposal of generic standards for source
categories producing or handling
significant quantities of the substance.
The generic standards would rapidly
effect reasonable control of emissions
while more detailed analyses are
performed to establish priorities for
further regulation, determine available
control technology, and assess
regulatory impacts.
Final standards for source categories
presenting significant risks to public
health would, as a minimum, require
such sources to use best available
technology to reduce emissions. If,
however, the risk remaining after the
application of best available technology
is determined to be unreasonable,
further control would be required.
Unreasonable residual risk
determinations would consider the risk
remaining, the benefits conferred by the
substance or activity, the distribution of
those benefits versus the distribution of
risks, the availability of substitutes, the
costs of further control of the substance
or source categories, and proposed sites
in the case of new sources. Standards
would be reviewed at no more than five-
year intervals.
DATES: Written comments should be '
postmarked no later than February 7,
1980.
Notice of intent to appear at a public
hearing should be postmarked no later
than November 26, 1979. Hearing dates
and locations, which will be held during
the comment period, will be announced
in the Federal Register.
Written comments responding to,
supplementing, or rebutting written or
oral comments received at public
hearing must be made within 60 days of
the hearing date.
ADDRESSES: All written comments
should be addressed to: Central Docket
Section, Room 2903B, Waterside Mall,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, ATTN: OAQPS 79-14.
EPA has established a rulemaking
docket consistent with procedures
established by section 307(d)(l)(N) of
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7B07(d)).
The docket number is OAQPS 79-14 and
it already contains the documents on
which this proposal is based. All
comments received during the comment
period, as well as any other documents
used in the promulgation of the final rule
will be added to the docket promptly.
The docket number should be on all
written comments. The docket will be
open for inspection at the Central
Docket section at the above address
between 8:00 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Notice of intent to appear at a public
hearing should be directed to: Joseph
Padgett, Director, Strategies and Air
Standards Division (MD-12),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
Additional copies of this notice are
available from: Industry Assistance
Office, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460, 800-424-9065 (toll free) (202)
554-1404.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph Padgett, Strategies and Air
Standards Division, (919) 541-5204, FTS
629-5204.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of related information: As
described above, documents upon which
this proposal is based are available for
public inspection in the rulemaking
docket (OAQPS 79-14). In addition to
these materials, this notice includes a
supplemental statement of basis and
purpose containing further discussion of
the legal basis for the proposed policy,
various alternative control strategies
considered, and comparisons with other
carcinogen policy proposals. This
statement follows the text of the
proposed rule.
1. Background: The Need for a Policy
and a Regulatory Mechanism

A. Introduction
The principal focus of the nation's air
pollution control program to date has
been the establishment and
implementation of standards related to
six major pollutant (particulate matter,
sulfur oxides, ozone, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and lead). Recently,
increasing attention has been directed
towards those toxic components of air
pollution which may not be adequately
controlled by current programs.
Pollutants that may contribute to the
occurrence of human cancer have
received particular attention because of
the nature and seriousness of this group
of diseases, and because of recent
findings suggesting that a large number
of airborne chemicals and radionuclides
to which people are exposed may be
implicated in cancer and other diseases
related to genetic damage. (1, 2, 3)
B. The General Cancer Problem
The nature and magnitude of the
cancer problem in the United States and
the fact that radioactive agents and
some chemicals can produce cancer in
animals and humans have been well-
documented and publicized.1 Some of
the more important aspects of the
occurrence and causes of cancer and the
role played by air pollution are briefly
summarized below.

(1) Nature and Magnitude of the
Problem (4, 5, 6, 7. 8)
Cancer is a group of diseases
characterized by the unrestrained
growth of cells that have somehow lost
an essential self-regulatory mechanism.
The uncontrolled growth of these cells
eventually threatens the life of the host
organism. Cancer is currently the second
1 Detailed discussion of the general features of the
problem have been presented by the Occupational
Safety «nd Health Administration (4), the Consumer
Product Safety Commission |5.). and others (tf).
V-Appendix C-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
leading cause of death in the United
States. One American in four is
expected to contact some form of cancer
in his or her lifetime, and one in five is
expected to die from the disease. The
most recent statistics show a continued
increase in total cancer incidence, due
principally to increases in lung cancer.
The social, economic, and human
costs of cancer are immense. Most forms
of cancer are difficult if not impossbile
to cure; less than one-half of all cancer
patients live longer than five years from
the discovery of their illness. The
•lusiveness of cures is due largely to the
fact that cancer's basic biological
mechanisms at the cellular level are not
well understood. Approximately 1.8
billion dollars are spent each year for
hospital care of cancer patients;
significant additional costs not readily
estimated include doctor's fees, out-
patient therapy, and drug costs. In
addition, it is estimated that 1.8 million
work-years are lost annually because of
cancer.

(2) Causes of Cancer Importance of
Environmental Factors
Studies of human cancer rates, their
worldwide geographical variations, and
observations of incidence rates in
migrant populations have revealed that
factors in the human environment are
probably responsible for a large
proportion of cancers. "Environmental
factors" must be understood in the
broad sense to include chemical
exposures from smoking, diet,
occupation, drinking water, and air
pollution; various forms of radiation,
including sunlight; and some forms of
severe physical irritation. Although the
uncertainties are great, estimates by the
World Health Organization, other
prominent institutions, and individual
experts have suggested that 80 to 90
percent of all human cancers may be
due to these factors. (37. 9.)
Studies of cancer incidence in
particular groups have shown strong
statistical relationships between
exposure to certain chemical or
radioactive substances and specific
cancers. The connection between
tobacco smoke and lung and other
cancers is the most widely known/J5/
Significant increases in leukemia and
other forms of cancer have been noted
among Japanese survivors of atomic
bomb explosions during World War II.
Markedly elevated cancer rates are
found among certain occupational
groups in the United States and other
highly industrialized countries. In
general, cancer rates are higher than
average in urban areas.(10) .
Unequivocal identification and
quantification of the specific factors that
lead singly or in combination with
factors to specific forms of cancer in
humans is, however, an extraordinarily
difficult task. Observation from human
experience is complicated by a number
of factors. Purposeful experimentation of
humans, for example, is ethically
unacceptable, since the result would
often be fatal. Definitive epidemiologlcal
studies of occupationally exposed
groups are often difficult because the
relatively small population exposed and
inadequate information about duration,
magnitude, and circumstances of
exposures may not permit statistically
reliable conclusions to be drawn.
Studies of the cuases of cancer in the
general population may be equivocal
because of the complex modes of
exposure, low exposure levels, and
other complicating factors. In addition,
synergistic and antagonistic interactions
between chemicals substantially
complicate any conclusions about the
effects of a particular chemical.
Another major difficulty in the
interpretation of such studies is the
long latency period exposure to •
carcinogens and onset of the disease.
Most cancers observed in today's
population probably had their origins in
exposures that began 15 to 40 years
ago.(36,11) Thus, epidemiological
studies in current populations must
involve estimation of historical
exposures. The latency period also
means that epidemiology cannot detect
effects of relatively new substances
until years of exposure have occurred.
To date, epidemiological studies have
identified only 26 environmental agents
believed to increase cancer risks in
humans. (12). The casual relationships
implied by the statistical connections in
these studies have generally been
supported by controlled experiments on
animals. With the possible exceptions of
benzene and arsenic, those factors
known to produce cancer in humans
also produce cancer in test &nima\s.(34)
Animal experiments have also
implicated many additional chemical
substances as potential human
carcinogens.
In addition to the potential that a
substance acting alone may induce
cancer, there is evidence that exposure
to certain combinations of carcinogenic
and non-carcinogenic agents may
promote or potentiate the carcinogenic
response. The disproportionate risk of
lung caner to cigarette smokers
occupationally exposed to asbestos
fibers/36, 37) is an example of the
synergism of two known human
carcinogens. Non-carcinogenic and co-
carcinogenic substances may also act to
promote or enhance the human response
to carcinogen exposure.
Although airborne carcinogens may
induce cancer at a number of body sites,
lung cancer is thought to be the principal
form of cancer related to air
pollution/75/ While cigarette smoking is
probably the most important cause of
lung cancer in the United States/Jft 35)
many scientists believe that various air
pollutants increase the risk of cancer
from smoking and other carcinogenic
insults. Available estimates also
indicate that occupational exposures are
responsible for a significant portion of
lung cancer incidence in the United
Statesfm 17).
Because of the difficulties inherent in
studying the causes of cancer and the
multifactorial nature of human
exposures, the role of each major
exposure pathway remains a matter of
some debate. While factors such as
smoking, occupational exposures, diet,
and solar radiation are probably
responsible for a greater proportion of
cancers than ambient air pollution
alone, (10,13,14) the dimensions of the
problem posed by airborne carcinogens
remain significant. Besides their
contribution to cancers primarily related
to other pathways, airborne carcinogens
themselves pose risks to large numbers
of people. In certain industrialized
areas, especially, composite national
figures may mask significantly higher air
pollution-related cancer risks. And. in
the vicinity of specific sources of
carcinogenic emissions, risks to
individuals can reach very high levels.
A preliminary EPA examination of
chemical production, industries
producing radioactive materials, and air
sampling results has identified over fifty
known or potential chemical
carcinogens and numerous radioactive
materials which n.ay be emitted to the
atmosphere. Many of these substances
are synthetic organic chemicals that
have been in commercial use only since
the 1930's. (18) Since cancer induced by
exposures to small amounts of airbone
carcinogens may not appear for 15 to 40
years after exposure, it is still too early
to detect the full impacts of these
chemicals on human health. Thus, it is
both prudent and, in view of the large
number of people potentially affected,
important to reduce or contain
emissions of known or suspected
atmospheric carcinogens in order to
prevent future problems before they
actually are observed.
V-Appendix C-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
C. Problems in Regulating Airborne
Carcinogens

(1) Introduction

Although significant reductions in
emissions of airborne carcinogens have
resulted indirectly from control of
pollutants such as particulate matter
(19) and volatile organic chemicals [20]
under sections 109 and 111 of the Clean
Air Act,2 EPA has taken direct
regulatory action to control air
carcinogens primarily under section
112.'Section 112, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs), provides for the listing of
pollutants which in the judgement of the
Administrator cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness. After a substance is listed as a
hazardous air pollutant, EPA must
establish control requirements for
various source categories which emit the
substance. The standards must, in the
judgment of the Administrator, provide
an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health from such hazardous air
pollutants. Carcinogens that have been
listed under section 112 to date include
asbestos, beryllium,'vinyl chloride, and
benzene. A number of specific emission
source categories of these substances
have been regulated. (21. 22)
A number of scientific, technical, and
policy problems have arisen which
complicate the regulation of airborne
carcinogens under section 112.
Significant delays in establishing
standards have been associated with
determining the appropriate degree of
control for certain sources of listed
carcinogens. Although the determination
of whether and to what degree a
particular chemical presents a risk of
cancer to humans has not yet been a
significant source of delay under section
112, future disagreements are
anticipated. This may be particularly
true when dealing with substances for
which epidemiological data are not
available. These problems and their
consequences are discussed in the
following sections.
'42 U.S.C. Section! 7409 and 7411.
J42 U.S.C. Section 7412. Since the Clean Air Act
provides for separate treatment of mobile source
emissions under Title II. this policy addresses only
air emissions From stationary sources. At this time.
carcinogenic emissions from stationary sources
appear to present a larger and more diverse public
health problem than mobile source emissions.
•Beryllium was listed because of its non-
carcinogenic toxic properties.
(2) Difficulty in Determining
Carcinogenicity
The carcinogenic substances listed
under section 112 to date were
recognized as human carcinogens on the
basis of epidemiological evidence. For
most other chemical substances,
however, such evidence will not be
available, and other means of assessing
carcinogenicity will have to be
employed.
Protection of public health from
current and future cancer risks therefore
requires reliance on the results of
laboratory tests, primarily involving
animals, in the identification of probable
human carcinogens. Practical limitations
require that most animal tests be
conducted with much smaller numbers
of subjects than the human populations
they represent, and at doses much
higher than ambient exposure levels to
improve the detectability of
carcinogenic effects.
Evaluation of the carcinogenic risk to
humans, based on such animal tests of
candidate substances, raises a number
of issues. Among these are the
differences between species,
extrapolation from the high doses
administered to animals to the low
concentrations present in the ambient
air, differences in routes of exposure
(e.g., ingestion versus inhalation], the
significance of benign tumors, and the
question of no-effect "thresholds" at
lower exposures. Since animal testing is
of key importance in carcinogen
identification, policy decisions must be
made and articulated on each of these
issues.

(3) Problems Associated With the Large
Number of Potential Air Carcinogens
and Sources
Further difficulties in dealing with air
pollution-related cancer result from.the
large number of potential atmospheric
carcinogens and the correspondingly
large number of sources emitting them.
Preliminary analyses have identified a
number of source types which may emit
carcinogenic substances to the
atmosphere. Most of these types fall into
one of the following six broad groups:
(1) mining, smelting, refining,
manufacture and end-use of minerals
and other inorganic chemicals; [2]
combustion; (3) petroleum refining,
distribution, and storage; (4) synthetic
organic chemical industries and end-use
applications, and waste disposal; (5)
mining, processing, use, and disposal of
radioactive substances and radioactive
by-products; and (6) non-carcinogenic
emissions which are chemically
transformed into carcinogens in the
atmosphere.
A survey of several thousand
potential toxicants emitted from one
broad category, the synthetic organic
chemical industry, has identified over
six hundred organic chemicals of
possible concern. (Iff) Of these, over 140
showed some indication of possible
carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or
teratogenicity. The results of a
preliminary analysis of these substances
suggest that as many as 40 of these
substances are of concern as potential
air carcinogens. (29} Although the
synthetic organic chemical industry
comprises the largest source grouping, a
number of additional organic and
inorganic air pollutants of concern, and
a number of radioactive materials, are
emitted from the other source categories.
Currently, EPA has only limited
information on the emission rates,
sources, and atmospheric
concentrations of most potential
airborne carcinogens. As a result of the
generally low ambient concentrations
expected from emissions of many of
these substances, as well as their large
number, source emissions testing and
atmospheric monitoring programs will
be more sophisticated and expensive,
but less accurate or pj-ecise, then
traditional air pollution monitoring. The
resources necessary for developing such
programs and for evaluating the health
effects and control alternatives for this
large number of substances and sources
far exceed those currently available to
EPA for the task. Clearly, priorities must
therefore be established to maximize the
public health benefits obtainable with
existing resources.
(4) Difficulty in Determining the
Appropriate Degree of Control
As noted above, a central problem in
establishing standards and reqirements
for air carcinogens under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act has been determining
the appropriate degree of control which
should be required for significant source
categories. The difficulty is related both
to the characteristics of carcinogens and
to the requirement of section 112 that
the public health be protected with "an
ample margin of safety."
As discussed above, most
identifications of substances as
probable human carcinogens have been
based on studies of humans or animals
exposed to relatively high doses of the
substances. Whether the smaller doses
generally encountered in the ambient
environment cause cancer or, whether
instead, some threshold or "safe" level
of exposure may exist is a matter of
considerable scientific debate. (23) EPA
and other public health agencies and
groups have, as a matter of prudent .
health policy, taken the position that in
V-Appendix C-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
the absence of identifiable effect
thresholds, carcinogens pose some risk
of cancer at any exposure level above
zero. The existence of risk at any
exposure level has created difficulty in
setting required control levels. Some
commenters have maintained that no
risks should be permitted from
emissions of carcinogens, while others
argue that, in view of the uncertainty
that any effect will occur at low
exposure levels, only feasible and
clearly cost-effective controls should be
required.
This difficulty has been compounded
by the language of section 112 itself.
which calls for the establishment of
standards which, in the judgment of the
Administrator, provide "an ample
margin of safety to protect the public
health" from hazardous air pollutants.
This language dearly mandates that the
primary factor in standard-setting under
section 112, in contrast to some other
sections of the Act, such as section 111,
be the protection of public health. How
this mandate should be translated into
standards for airborne carcinogens,
however, is not clear. This uncertainty
has led to delay and litigation, with
•ome arguing that the only factor that
may be considered is health effects,
while others contend that EPA should
simply balance risk against the cost of
control and the benefits of the activity,
giving all factors equal weight. While
EPA has made limited statements (21.
22) of its view of section 112, the
Administrator has not expressed a
comprehensive interpretation of the
provision as it applies to the regulation
of carcinogens until now.
(5) EOF Petition
Citing concerns over the limited
number of carcinogens listed as
hazardous air pollutants to date and the
regulatory delays encountered in
controlling vinyl chloride, the
Environmental Defense Fund (EOF), in
November 1977, petitioned EPA to adopt
a generic approach for classifying and
regulating carcinogenic air pollutants
under the Clean Air Act (30).
The EOF proposal is patterned on the
classification system proposed by
OSHA and is based on scientific criteria
similar to those articulated by CPSC,
OSHA, and EPA for carcinogenicity
determinations.'Suspect substances
would be grouped into three categories
(confirmed, probable, possible) based on
the availability evidence of
carcinogenicity. Under the main feature
of the policy suggested by EOF. a
determination that an air pollutant is a
confirmed carcinogen would trigger the
following responses: (a) immediate
listing as a hazardous air pollutant
under section 112; and (b) proposal and
promulgation of regulations to (I) either
ban the use of the material if a suitable
substitute exists, or to require the
application of emissions or equipment
standards representing best available
control technology; (2) establish a
timetable leading to the reduction of
emissions to zero at both existing and
new sources; and (3) prevent any
increase in emissions from additions to
or replacements of existing facilities.
In March 1978, EPA conducted a
public meeting to receive comments on
the EOF proposal and any other
suggestions regarding the Agency's
regulatory process for the control of
airborne carcinogens (31,32) 8. One
major presentation made at that meeting
was by the American Industrial Health
Council (AIHC), advocating the use of a
central board of non-governmental
scientists for evaluating carcinogenicity
and carcinogenic potency of substances
of interest for all federal regulatory
agencies (33). The principles AIHC
recommended for determination of
carcinogenicity differ somewhat from
those proposed by EPA, CPSC, and
OSHA. AIHC also recommended that
standards be set independently for each
substance through a-process of
"balancing" predicted cancer incidence,
costs of control and benefit of the
substance regulated. While AIHC gave
examples of alternative balancing
procudures which might be used, it did
not recommed any specific course of
action to EPA for use under section 112.

(6) Need for an Air Carcinogen Policy
The problems associated with the
determination of carcinogenicity, the
large number of potential carcinogens,
and the appropriate level of control of
emitting sources contribute to delays in
decisions to list carcinogenic substances
as hazardous air pollutants as well as to
delays in establishing control
requirements under section 112. Indeed.
EPA has listed only three air pollutants
as carcinogens under section 112 since
1970. Therefore, given the potentially
large number of airborne carcinogens
which may require control, the general
unavailability of epidemiological data
for determining carcinogenicity and
potential risks, the requirements of
section 112. and EPA's experience under
section 112 to date, the Administrator
has concluded that the establishment of
'A companion of these approaches is presented
in the supplemental statement which follows the
'•Hi of the proposed rule
•The comments received at that meeting have
been considered in the TormuUtion of today's
proposal.
a comprehensive and coherent policy
and set of procedures for regulatory
action in dealing with airborne
carcinogens is imperative.
Specifically, publicly-stated, legally
binding policies and regulatory
mechanisms are needed for. (1)
determining the carcinogenicity and
carcinogenic risks of air pollutants for
regulatory purposes; (2) establishing
priorities for evaluating the need for and
accomplishing additional regulatory
action; (3) specifying the degree of
control required in general under section
112 and how that level of control will be
determined in setting individual
standards; and (4) providing more
extensive public involvement in the
Agency's decisionmaking on the
regulation of airborne carcinogens.
Among the benefits of adopting such a
policy, in addition to more expeditious
control of probable carcinogens, are
increased public understanding of and
participation in EPA's actions and the
providing of earlier notice of EPA's
findings and intent to state and local
regulatory authorities and to industries.
II. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
A. Introduction
The provisions of the proposed rule
are stated formally at the end of this
notice. The following sections present
the Agency's rationale for, and describe
the operation of, the proposed policy.
Certain related issues, including the
detailed legal basis of the proposal, the
consideration of various alternatives,
and a comparison with other policies,
are discussed in a supplemental
statement of basis and purpose
following the text of the proposed rule.
The Administrator intends to publish a
finding at the time of the promulgation
of this rule stating that the rule is based
on determinations of nationwide scope
and effect. The provisions of section
307(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. section
7607fb), will therefore limit judicial
review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, and
litigation of the issues posed by this rule
will not be available in connection with
subsequent rulemakings in which it is
applied.
Pending final promulgation of the rule,
as it may be modified after public
comment, EPA will generally follow the
proposed policy and procedures in
actions taken in the interim. Such
actions are expected to be listing
decisions or regulatory proposals for
specific substances, so that EPA will be
able to reflect, in final regulatory action
on such substances, any changes made
in the proposed rule after public
comment.
V-Appendix C-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
B. Identification and Preliminary
Evaluation of Health Risks
This section describes the principles
and procedures that EPA will use in
identifying potential airborne
carcinogens and in determining whether
emissions of such substances pose
significant risks to public health. These
principles and procedures address
determinations in three fundamental
areas: (1) the generic determination that
the presence of airborne carcinogens in
relatively low ambient concentrations
warrants regulatory action, (2) the
identification of specific candidate
substances for EPA assessment, and (3)
the assessment of whether such
substances pose significant risks to
public health.

(1) The Need for Concern About
Relatively Low Doses
The Administrator's belief that
ambient concentrations of carcinogens
represent a significant public health risk
warranting regulatory action is based on
the current understanding of the
biological effects of these substances at
low concentrations. Essentially, two
hypotheses exist. The non-threshold
hypothesis assumes that cancer can
result from the interaction of as little as
one molecule of a carcinogen with a
critical receptor in one cell.
The threshold hypothesis, in contrast,
assumes that there is a no-effect dose of
a carcinogen below which induction of
cancer cannot occur. This hypothesis
argues that, at small doses, chemical
carcinogens can be detoxified through
metabolic processes, resulting in some
level of exposure which produces no
carcinogenic response, or that repair
mechanisms or cell death may prevent
the development of cancer from a single
damaged ce\\.f23)
The public health community has
generally concluded that evidence for
identifiable dose thresholds does not
exist for carcinogens. Under this view,
any exposure to a carcinogenic
substance carries a risk of cancer. A
recent report by the National Academy
of Sciences(24) offers the following
observations in support of this
conclusion:
Consideration of the Dose-Response
Relationship. In considering the possibility of
thresholds for carcinogenesis, it is important
to understand that there is no agent,
chemical, or physical, which induces in man
a form of cancer that does not occur in the
absence of that agent. In other words, when
there is exposure to a material, we are not
ttarting at an origin of zero cancers. Nor are
we starting at an origin of zero carcinogenic
agents in our environment. Thus, it is likely
that any carcinogenic agent added to the
environment will act by a particular
mechanism on a particular cell population
that is already being acted on by the same
mechanism to induce cancers. This reasoning
implies that the only way for a new
carcinogen added to the environment to have
a threshold in its dose-response curve would
be if it were acting by a mechanism entirely
different from that already being experienced
by that tissue.
Examination of Experimental Dose-
Response Curves. The most extensive
information on carcinogenesis both in
experimental animals and in humans is with
ionizing radiation. Although there is evidence
implicating thresholds in some animal
tissues, thresholds have in general not been
established for most tissues. If such
thresholds exist, they occur at sufficiently
low doses that it would require massive,
expensive, and impracticable experiments to
establish them. In view of the common
finding—for example, a linear dose-response
relationship (unaffected by dose-rate)—of
cancer induction in animals by high LET
(Linear Energy Transfer] radiation, it is
unlikely that such thresholds exist. Linearity
is not essential to the no-threshold argument
since nonlinear, dose-response relationships
do not necessarily imply the existence of
thresholds . . .
Heterogeneity of the Population. The
human population in the United States—the
population we are trying to protect—is a
large, diverse, and genetically heterogeneous
group exposed to a variety of toxic agents.
Genetic variability to carcinogenesis is well-
documented (Strong, 1976), and it is also
known that individuals who are deficient in
immunological competence (for genetic or
environmental reasons] are particularly
susceptiple to some forms of cancer (Cottier,
et a!., 1974).
It seems, therefore, that even if we were to
postulate an average threshold for a
particular cancer induced by a particular
agent, we would in practice need a series of
thresholds for different individuals. It would
be extremely difficult, in practice, to establish
a single threshold.
We conclude from these arguments that,
despite all the complexities of chemical
carcinogenesis, thresholds in the dose-
response relationships do not appear to exist
for direct-acting carcinogens. If they do exist,
they are unlikely to be detected and, hence,
impossible to use. This means that there can
be no totally "safe" exposure to a particular
carcinogen. (Emphasis added.)

EPA has therefore made a generic
determination that, in view of the
existing state of scientific knowledge,
prudent public health policy requires
that carcinogens be considered for
regulatory purposes to pose some finite
risk of cancer at any exposure level
above zero. The Administrator believes
that this is consistent with the mandate
of section 112 requiring the protection of
public health against air pollutants
which "may reasonably be anticipated"
to cause or contribute to the health
effects of concern, and the application of
an "ample margin of safety" in making
such public health judgments.
(2] Identification and Screening of
Potential Airborne Carcinogens

Potential airborne carcinogens are
now and will continue to be identified
through various EPA programs,
including searches of the scientific
literature, monitoring studies, and
biological assays of substances found in
ambient air and source emissions, as
well as by examining information
obtained from federal, state, or other
regulatory authorities, private research
groups, and other scientific sources.
Suspect substances (compounds or
mixtures] identified in this manner will
be screened to provide a rough estimate
of the potential extent of public
exposure resulting from ambient air
emissions. Screening is essential for two
reasons: first, to optimize the use of
Agency resources in view of the growing
number of substances of concern, and
second, to distinguish between those
substances which may, through their
presence in the air, present carcinogenic
risks and those which, although
probably carcinogenic, are not emitted
in quantities sufficient to pose such
risks.
Readily available information will be
collected on the intentional and
inadvertent production of such
substances and their uses, volatility, and
other chemical and physical properties.
Ambient air measurements and previous
scientific assessments will be
considered where available.
Appropriate offices within EPA and
other relevant agencies will be
contacted to determine whether any
regulatory actions, assessments, or
screening activities are underway.
Suspect substances to which the
screening process indicates the public is
probably exposed through ambient air
will receive further attention to evaluate
the likelihood that they pose significant
carcinogenic risks. Priorities for these
evaluations will be assigned based on
the expected potential for public
exposure to the substances. In some
cases, EPA may determine after
screening that regulatory actions under
other laws administered by EPA or by
other regulatory agencies eliminate the
need for further EPA action under the
Clean Air Act. Otherwise, potential
airborne carcinogens will be evaluated
for the likelihood that they pose
significant risks to public health.
These procedures are already in
operation. As noted above, screening of
over 140 potential airborne carcinogens
has yielded of 40 for which
carcinogenicity determinations and
preliminary exposure assessments are
underway. These determinations are
V-Appendix C-6
-------
jederal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
excepted to be largely completed by
December 1979.

(3) Evaluation of Significance of Risk to
Public Health7

The determination of significant
carcinogenic risk will be based on
assessments in two areas: the
probability that the substance is a
human carcinogen, and the extent of
human exposure via the ambient air.
(a) Evaluation of the Probability of
Human Carcinogenicity. The criteria for
evaluating the probability that an
airborne substance presents a
carcinogenic risk to humans are not
unique to the air, but are conceptually
the same as those for substances
present in any exposure medium. It
would thus be inappropriate for EPA to
use a novel set of criteria for airborne
substances alone. Accordingly, in
determining the carcinogenic risk posed
by air pollutants, EPA will use the
criteria specified in genera] guidelines
adopted by the Agency. The EPA
"Interim Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment" ("Interim Guideline")
issued on May 25,1976 (25) outlines the
basic scientific criteria and policy
judgments currently used by EPA in
evaluating evidence regarding suspect
carcinogens. This guidance is
supplemented by the recent release for
comment by the Risk Assessment Work
Group of the Interagf ncy Regulatory
Liaison Group (IRLG)8 of a scientific
review of the principles and methods
applicable to the identification and
assessment of human risk from
carcinogens. (26)
In evaluating the likelihood that a
substance is carcinogenic in humans
under EPA's Interim Guideline and the
IRLG Work Group report, available
information is considered and judgments
concerning the probability of human
Carcinogenicity are made based on the
quality and weight of evidence. The
information principally relevant to such
an evaluation includes epidemiological
and animal or other laboratory studies.
'Today's notice deals only with the carcinogenic
hazards of an air pollutant A substance may also
be regulated under section 112 due lo its non-
carcinogenic health effects, or due to a combination
of carcinogenic and other serious effects. Non-
carcinogenic effects of substances being reviewed
as possible airborne carcinogens will also be
evaluated and considered where information on
those effects is available.
•IRLG Agencies include Environmental
Protection Agency. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Consumer Product Safety
Commission. Food and Drug Administration, and
Foods Safety and Quality Service (U.S. Department
of Agriculture). The Occupational Safely and Health
Administration, however, did not participate in the
joint issuance of the Risk Assessment Work Croup
report.
The available information is
evaluated in light of the following
criteria:
Judgments about the weight of evidence
involve considerations of the quality and
adequacy of the data and the kinds of
responses Induced by the suspect carcinogen.
The best evidence that an agent is a human
carcinogen comes from epidemiological
studies in conjunction with confirmatory
animal tests. Substantial evidence is
provided by animal tests that demonstrate
the induction of malignant tumors in one or
more specie* including benign tumors that
are generally recognized as early stages of
malinancies. Suggestive evidence includes
the induction of only those non-life-shorting
benign tumors which are generally accepted
as not progressing to malignancy and indirect
tests of Uimorigenic activity, such as
mutagenicity. in vitro cell transformation,
and initiation-promotion skin tests in mice.
' Ancillary reasons that bear on judgments
about carcinogenic potential, e.g., evidence
from systematic studies that relate chemical
structure to Carcinogenicity, should be
included in the assessment. (25)
This "weight of evidence" evaluation
outlined in the Interim Guideline does
not involve automatic categorization of
carcinogenic probability, but rather
evaluates the nature of the evidence in
each case. Once the evidence has been
weighted, of course, the conclusions
must be useful for regulatory decisions.
For this reason, substances which have
been evaluated will be grouped into
three broad categories (high, moderate,
low) according to the probability of
Carcinogenicity. Assignment to a
particular regulatory category will be
made on a case-by-case basis, and will
reflect the strength of the evidence that
the substance in question is a human
carcinogen in comparison with the range
of other substances which have been
evaluated for regulatory action. In
general, substances for which "best" or
"substantial evidence" as described
above exists will be considered for
designation as high-probability human
carcinogens for purposes of section 112.
Substances for which only "suggestive"
evidence exists will be considered for
designation as moderate-probability
human carcinogens. Substances for"
which only "ancillary" evidence exists
will be considered for designation as
low-probability human carcinogens.
EPA recognizes that a range of
scientific uncertainty exists within these
broad evidentiary classes. For example,
a substance which has been found to be
carcinogenic in all animal species and
sexes tested may be more likely to be
carcinogenic in humans than a
substance tested in several species and
found to produce tumors in only one sex
of one species. Although upon
consideration of the relative strength of
evidence it may be concluded that both
substances should be considered high-
probability human carcinogens, the
extent of uncertainty will be considered
on a case-by-case basis.
(b) Preliminary Evaluation of
Ambient Exposure. EPA will also
determine whether a suspect airborne
carcinogen is emitted into or present in
the ambient air in such a way that
significant human exposure results.
While the threshold of significance for
the ambient exposure determination will
be relatively low, some consideration of
exposure levels is appropriate to avoid
initiating regulatory action under the
Clean Air Act for substances such as
"laboratory curiosities" which are very
unlikely to be present in the ambient air
in measureable quantities. This
preliminary exposure evaluation is
designed to make that distinction.
In the preliminary assessment of
ambient exposure, EPA will consider
available data on ambient
concentrations of the substance, the
number and nature of emitting sources,
and the number of people living near the
sources or in areas in which ambient
concentrations have been reported.
Where possible, preliminary estimates
of lifetime individual risks to the
potentially.most exposed individuals,
based on estimates of carcinogenic
strength, will also be calculated.
The preliminary exposure assessment
will not be designed to produce the more
detailed information appropriate in
deciding what control measures may be
necessary; that information, including
detailed quantitative assessments of
risk, will also be developed where
possible by EPA, but is not required for
the determination of significant ambient
exposure.
C. Initial Responses to Preliminary
Assessments of Health Risks
The evaluation of the significance of
risk to public health will be used to
identify those substances for which, in
the judgment of the Administrator, there
is sufficient evidence to warrant listing
under section 112 as airborne
carcinogens. For substances which fall
short of meeting the criteria for this
determination, or for which available
information is not sufficient to make a
determination, the proposed policy
provides for alternative responses. The
following paragraphs describe EPA's
specific responses to various possible
evaluations under the proposed rule.
(1) Listing Under Section 112: Significant
Risk
Any subtance judged by the
Administrator to present significant
carcinogenic risks to the public will be
V-Appendix C-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
listed under section 112 as a hazardous
air pollutant. The finding of significant
carcinogenic risk is based on the
judgment that a substance has a high
probability of human carcinogenicity,
and evidence of significant public
exposure via the ambient air from
emissions from one or more categories
of stationary sources.
A high-probability carcinogen may.
also be listed under section 112 if a
preliminary quantitative risk assessment
suggests that there is a significant risk to
the potentially most exposed groups as a
result of emissions of the substance.
These preliminary assessments of risk
will be considered as supplemental
evidence that listing is warranted where
the available evidence before the
Administrator is otherwise insufficient
to indicate the existence of a significant
risk. In the judgment of the
Administrator, it would not be prudent
health policy to base a decision not to
list upon a preliminary risk estimate in
the presence of qualitative evidence of
significant human exposure.
The limitation of the role of these
preliminary risk assessments to
supplementary evidence in support of a
finding of significant risk is based on the
Administrator's judgment that these
quantitative estimates are too imprecise
and uncertain to use as a factor in
deciding not to list a substance. The
Administrator does believe, however,
that despite their considerable
uncertainty it would be imprudent to
ignore assessments suggesting the
existence of significant risk, especially
in light of the limited direct
consequences of listing. The
Administrator's views concerning the
use of quantitative risk assessment
under this proposal are discussed in
greater detail elsewhere in this notice.
The timing of the listing decision for a
given airborne carcinogen will depend
on the nature of the information
available to the Administrator. Initially
available information will often be
adequate to conclude that emissions of
the sustance present a significant risk to
the public. If so, listing would occur
immediately upon that finding.
Sometimes, however, the preliminary
assessments will not provide enough
information to allow the Administrator
to decide if emissions of a substance
present a significant risk. Where that is
the case, further information will be
obtained to allow a determination to be
made. Substances for which exposures
are potentially substantial will be
assigned high priority for this further
effort.
The purposes of this "early" listing
approach are: to increase the priority of
a substance for further action, to
facilitate the expeditious application of
clearly necessary control measures to
certain sources, to accelerate the
process by which final regulatory
decisions are made, and to provide for
earlier public notice of the Agency's
views and increased public participation
in the regulatory decision-making
process. Paragraphs (a) and (b) below
describe the immediate consequences of
listing under the proposed policy.
(a) Listing Where Generic Standards
Are Applicable. As explained more fully
in a companion advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) elsewhere
in today's Federal Register, EPA has
developed a draft set of low-cost and
readily implemented control procedures
and work practices that can be applied
to control emissions from various
categories of sources producing,
consuming, and handling significant
quantities of a broad class of substances
(volatile organic chemicals) sharing
certain properties. Where substances
listed as carcinogens under section 112
are emitted from source categories to
which these "generic standards" could
apply, the application of the standards
would be proposed immediately upon
listing.
The draft generic standards published
elsewhere in the notice as an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
were developed from information and
efforts of EPA's Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) standards development
program. This program was initiated in
1976 to gather technical and cost data on
the control of air pollution from organic
chemical manufacturing and to prepare
(1) new source performance standards
(NSPS) for total volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions, (2) control
techniques guidelines (CTG) for VOC
emissions, and (3) section 112 standards
for specific volatile organic chemical
emissions.
The SOCMI program has focused its
efforts on four kinds of emissions: (1)
emissions from storage tanks and
transportation vessels, (2) fugitive leaks
and spills of VOC, (3) losses of VOC
from liquid and solid wastes, and (4)
emissions from process vents.
Information-gathering, analysis, and
standards development are at various
stages in these four areas, and the
program's goal is to develop generic
standards in each area. The draft
generic standards in today's ANPR,
dealing with leaks and spills of VOC,
represents the first generic application
of information developed by the SOCMI
program to standards under section 112.
As further information becomes
available from the program relating to
the other kinds of emissions under
study, EPA intends to develop further
generic standards for use in conjunction
with section 112. EPA would expect to
follow a public pariticpation and
regulatory .development process similar
to that of today's ANPR in connection
with the development of additional
generic standards.
The draft generic standards which are
contained in today's ANPR would apply
to a large proportion of the organic
chemical industry, and are based on the
similarity of many operations and
equipment throughout the industry.
Examples of required procedures are the
periodic inspection for and reporting of
fugitive leaks and subsequent repair,
and the painting of storage tanks white
to reduce volatilization of organics.
Since most of the potientially
carcinogenic chemical air pollutants
identified by preliminary surveys to date
have been organic chemicals, these
generic standards would be expected to
apply to the significant sources of most
of the chemical carcinogens which might
be listed.
In general, the applicability of the
draft generic standards would be
dependent on the characteristics of
source operations and the quantity of
the substance which is produced or
handled. The application of the draft
generic standards would be proposed
only for sources dealing with significant
quantities of the listed substance, and
some "tailoring" of the standards may
be necessary for source categories of
each listed pollutant. Sources currently
meeting the requirements of such
standards would effectively be required
to continue doing so. The purpose of the
immediate proposal of the generic
standards is to ensure that risk
reduction which can quickly and easily
be achieved tHrough the implementation
of clearly appropriate "good
housekeeping" measures is not delayed
by the further assessments and detailed
analyses which will be conducted
before final regulatory decisions are
made.
These initial regulatory requirements
would not be applicable to all airborne
carcinogens, and would not necessarily
represent the degree of control which
may ultimately be required. Because the
draft generic standards currently
address only fugitive emission sources.
further standards will have to be
developed individually to control
process emissions from significant
source categories. As further generic
standards are developed for the
remaining types of emission points and
processes, the extent to which further
control requirements will have to be
V-Appendix C-8
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
developed and applied on a case-by-
case basis will decrease significantly.
(b) Listing Where Generic Standards
Are Not Applicable While a substantial
majority of the substances which will be
listed under section 112 as airborne
carcinogens are expected to be
chemicals to which generic standards
could apply, there will be other
substances such as inorganics or
radioactive materials emitted from
source categories for which generic
standards have not been developed. In
these cases, listing of a substance will
trigger the assignment of a priority for
the development of final emission
regulations for significant categories of
sources emitting the substance.
(2) Regulation Under Section 111:
Moderate Probability of Carcinogenicity
and High Exposures
Substances for which the probability
of human carcinogenicity is moderate to
low generally will not be considered for
immediate regulation as carcinogens
under section 112. If analysis suggests
high exposures to a substance of
"moderate probability," however, the
resulting risk of cancer to the general
population remains of concern. Such a
substance will therefore undergo further
assessment and, unless that assessmet
indicates the substance is a high-
probability carcinogen, will be
considered for interim regulation under
section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Under section 111, new and existing
sources may be regulated if they cause
or contribute to "air pollution which
may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare."
While a substance of only moderate
probability of carcinogenicity would not
generally "be reasonably anticipated to
result in an increase in mortality or an
increase in serious irreversible or
incapacitating reversible illness," high
exposures to that substance certainly
may endanger public health. Such a
substance may therefore be regulated
under section 111.
(3) Further Assessment or Testing
EPA will conduct, recommend, or
request that others conduct further
biological testing on low or moderate
probability substances. Testing may
include both cancer and other toxicity
assays with priorities based on the
extend of public exposures.
(4) Quantitative Risk Assessments for
Listed Carcinogens
EPA will conduct a quantitative risk
assessment, if possible, for any
substance which has been listed under
section 112 as a carcinogen. While such
quantitative assessments are subject to
considerable uncertainty, the
Administrator believes that they can
provide useful information for two
phases of the proposed policy:
establishing priorities for regulation of
specific source categories of listed
pollutants, and determining the degree
of control required in final emission
standards for those source categories. In
assigning priorities for risk assessments,
consideration will be given to the
likelihood of significant exposures, the
effect of any generic standards
proposed, carcinogenic strength
(potency), and the feasibility of
expeditious control.
(a) Nature of Quantitative Risk
Assessments. Quantitative risk estimates
at ambient concentrations involve an
analysis of the effects of the substance
in high-dose epidemiological or animal
studies, and extrapolation of these high-
dose results to relevant human exposure
routes at low doses. The mathematical
models used for such extrapolations are
based on observed dose-response
relationships for carcinogens and
assumptions about such relationships as
the dose approaches very low levels or
zero. (23), (25), (26) Examples of such
models are the linear non-threshold
model and the log probit model. (25)
Often, assumptions must be made
regarding the relevance of studies
involving doses given through feeding or
other pathways in extrapolating to
inhalation exposures. Where only
animal studies exist, additional
assumptions must be made concerning
"mouse to man" extrapolations.
The risks to public health from
emissions of a high-probability
carcinogen may be estimated by
combining the dose-response
relationship obtained from this
carcinogenicity strength calculation with
an analysis of the extent of population
exposure to the substance through the
ambient air. Exposure in this context is
a function of both the concentraton of a
substance and the length of time the
concentration is encountered. A detailed
exposure analysis will estimate likely
exposures for long-term temporal trends,
short-term maximum levels, and
weighted averages for both the total
population exposed and subgroups
whose exposures may be significantly
greater or otherwise different from the
average.
Although ambient monitoring data
will be used whenever possible,
exposure analyses will often be based
on the use of air quality models,
available estimates of emissions from
significant source categories, and
approximations of population
distributions near the source categories.
Similar models may be used to estimate
exposure through other pathways
ultimately resulting from air emissions.
Detailed air quality models will be used
to estimate the range of pollutant
exposures associated with each major
source category. The air quality models
used will generally permit estimation of
exposures of up to 20 kilometers and
and in some cases 80 kilometers from
individual sources. Population and
growth statistics will be examined to
allow projections to be made of future
exposures. The information collected,
tegether with the existing carcinogenic
strength determinations, will be used to
provide estimates of the degree of risk to
individuals and the range of increased
cancer incidence expected from ambient
air exposures associated with source
categories of the carcinogenic air
pollutant at various possible emissions
levels.
(b) Uncertainties in the assessment of
Risk. The assumptions and procedures
discussed above for extrapolation and
for exposure estimates are subject to (
considerable uncertainty. Where only
animal data are available to assess the
magnitude of cancer risk to human
populations, the differences in
susceptibility between animal species
and humans, and the need to
extrapolate dose-response data to very
low ambient concentrations, result in
risk estimates that must be regarded
only as rough indications of effect. (25)
Uncertainty In exposure estimates
arises from the use of limited
monitoring, pollutant transport models,
mobility of the exposed population and
other factors. In combining these
exposure estimates with dose-response
extrapolations to provide estimates of
cancer incidence, the total uncertainties
are increased.
The primary model that EPA will use
to estimate carcinogenic risk from
exposure to a particular substance will
be the linear non-threshold dose/
response model. This model has been
chosen in order to avoid understating
the risk calculated from the
extrapolation of the effects osbserved at
high doses to the lower doses
characteristic of ambient exposure. To
the extent possible, the range of
uncertainty in the risks extrapolated
from animal studies to humans and from
high to low doses will be described.
The decision to employ estimates of
carcinogic risks despite their lack of
precision rests on the belief that
although they are subject to
considerable uncertainties, current
analytical models and techniques can,
with due consideration of the
uncertainties, provide useful estimates
of relative carcinogenic strength and of
V-Appendix C-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
the probable general ranges of excess
cancer incidence and individual risks.
This view has been supported by the
National Academy of Sciences, (24) the
National Cancer Advisory Board, (27)
and others. (28)
D. Establishment and Review of
Emission Standards and Related
Requirements
(1) Introduction
A central issue in developing a policy
for the protection of public health from
carcinogens is the determination of the
extent to which exposures must be
reduced. Given the impossibility of
identifying levels of carcinogens with no
associated risk, some have argued that
no exposure should be tolerated and
that emissions should be reduced as
expeditiously as practicable to zero.
Others contend that permissible
exposures should be determined by an
unstructured balancing of risks, costs,
and benefits.
A number of approaches for
addressing the appropriate level for
control of carcinogens have been
considered or proposed by the federal
regulatory agencies, industrial groups,
environmental organizations, and
others. Prominent examples include the
OSHA proposal, the CPSC policy,8 and
the EOF petition on airborne
carcinogens. A discussion of the
suggested alternatives is presented in
the supplemental statement which
follows the text of the proposed rule.
The following sections describe the
approach proposed by EPA.

(2) The Proposed EPA Approach
The standard-setting policy proposed
today requires, as a minimum, the use of
"best available technology" (BAT) to
control emissions from source categories
presenting significant risks to public
health. The policy would also require
additional controls, as necessary, to
eliminate "unreasonable residual risks'"
remaining after the use of best available
technology. This approach is a
judgmental one, designed to protect the
public health with an ample margin of
safety from risks associated with
exposure to airborne carcinogens. The
implementing procedure described
below puts prime emphasis on public
health, consistent with section 112, but
permits consideration of economic
impacts and benefits of the activity in
setting standards for each source
category. Uncertainties in the
assessments of risks, costs, and
potential benefits, as well as the
distributional (equity) problems of
•The CPSC interim policy has been rescinded. 44
PR 23821 (April 23.1979).
various situations, would also be
considered in setting standards.
(a) Source Categories Regulated
The first step in establishing
standards and requirements for
pollutants listed under section 112 under
this proposed policy is the
determination of which categories of
sources emitting the pollutants will be
regulated, and in what order regulations
will be developed. Although a pollutant
may have been listed because emissions
from a particular source category pose a
significant risk, other source categories
may also^emit the pollutant in lesser
amounts. This may occur, for example,
because the sources process very little
of the substance, because the substance
is present in only trace amounts in the
sources' raw materials, or because
sources have installed adequate controls
on their own initiative or in response to
other regulatory requirements.
The Administrator will therefore
propose regulations only for those
source categories which may pose
significant risks to public health. The
determination of whether a source
category emitting a listed pollutant
poses a significant risk will be made on
essentially the same basis as the listing
decision, exoept that the more detailed
exposure analysis and risk assessement
then available will be used in lieu of the
preliminary information used in the
listing decision. As in the listing
decision, the risk assessment will be
used to indicate the existence of a
significant risk where the exposure
analysis alone is insufficient, but will
not be used as evidence that a
significant risk does not exist where the
exposure analysis indicates to the
contrary.
(b) Priorities for Development of
Standards, EPA anticipates that a
substantial number of substances will
be listed as carcinogenic air pollutants
nnder section 112 in the near future. It is
also Ifkely that many of these
substances will be emitted in significant
quantities from more than one source
category. As a result, EPA will need to
•develop emission standards and other
requirements for a large number of
source categories emitting these
substances. At least until generic
standards can be developed for large
groups of these sources, the resources
that would be necessary to complete
this task immediately far exceed those
available to EPA for this purpose.
Today's proposal therefore provides for
the assignment of priorities to significant
source categories for the development of
these regulations, through publicly
stated criteria and announced decisions.
Under today's proposal, source
categories posing significant risks will
be .assigned priority status (high,
medium, or low) for further regulatory
action (beyond generic standards) on
the basis of: (1) the magnitude of
projected total excess cancer incidence
associated with current and future
source emissions; (2) magnitude of
cancer risks for the most exposed
individuals; (3) ease of expeditious
standards development and
implementation; and (4) feasibility of
significant improvements in controls. In
addition, significant sources of more
than one carcinogen may be given
priority over single-pollutant sources,
based on the sum of risks from the
emitted substances.
A high priority will be assigned, for
example, to a source category
constituting an important problem
requiring immediate attention, or where
risks are somewhat lower but an
appropriate regulatory solution is both
feasible and readily available. Source
categories assigned medium priority will
generally be those that present lower
risks and will be scheduled for standard
development as resources become
available. Lower risk source categories
for which the extent of feasible control
may be substantially limited will be
assigned low priority for regulation
development. Assignment to the low
priority category will generally mean
that active development of regulations
will not begin until there is some change
in the factors which led to the
assignment, or until higher priority
actions have been completed.
(c) Regulatory Options Analysis. EPA
will perform detailed analyses to
identify alternative, technologically
feasible control options and the
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts that would result from their
application. Where substitution is
determined to be a feasible option, the
benefits of continued use of the
substance or process will be considered.
These analyses will rely primarily on
the procedures and techniques
employed by EPA for developing New
Source Performance Standards under
section 111 of the Act.
The identification of feasible control
options will initially survey the existing
control devices at the sources within a
particular category to determine the best
controls currently in use. The potential
emission points of the listed pollutant at
a particular kind of facility will also be
identified, as will possible emissions of
carcinogens other than the specific one
under study. EPA will, in addition,
examine the applicability of available
technologies which are not currently
V-Appendix C-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
used by the industry to control the
pollutant of concern (technology
transfer) but which have been
demonstrated in pilot tests or other
Industrial applications. Finally, the
availability and adequacy of substitutes
which would eliminate some or all
emissions of the pollutant will be
assessed.
Once the technologically feasible
control alternatives, which may range
from no further control to a complete
ban on emissions, have been identified,
the environmental, economic and energy
impacts of these options will be
determined. Considerations in these
impact assessments will include for
each option: the number of plant
closures predicted and the direct impact
on employment and end product prices;
the impact on growth and expansion of
the industry; the resulting changes in
profitability, capital availability for
control equipment; the impacts from the
availability of substitute products and
foreign imports; the potential increases
in national energy consumption; and the
impacts on other environmental medial
Including increased water pollution and
solid waste disposal. On the basis of
these assessments, one of the control
options identified will be designated as
the "best available technology" for the
control of emissions from the sources in
the category. This level of control will
be that technology, which in the
Judgment of the Administrator, is the
most advanced level of control
adequately demonstrated considering
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts.
The control level designated "best
available technology" may be different
for new and existing facilities in a
category. For practical purposes, this
level of control for new sources will, as
a minimum, be equivalent to that which
would be selected as the basis for a
New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) under section III. The
requirement of "best available
technology" for new sources would
consider "economic feasibility" and
would not preclude new construction.
The selection of BAT for existing
sources may require consideration of the
technological problems associated with
retrofit and related differences in the
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts. In practice, BAT for existing
sources would consider economic
feasibility and would not exceed the
most advanced level of technology that
at least most members of an industry
could afford without plant closures.
(d) Minimum Requirements for
Existing Sources. Final section 112
standards will require existing sources
in any regulated source category, as a
minimum, to limit their emissions to the
levels corresponding to the use of "best
available technology." This requirement
is based on the Administrator's*
Judgment that any risks that could be
avoided through the use of these
feasible control measures are
unreasonable. Whether BAT controls
are sufficient to protect public health
will be determined by a subsequent
evaluation of the remaining risks.
(e) Determination of Unreasonable
Residual Risk for Existing Sources.
Following the identification of BAT for
existing sources, the quantitative risk
assessment described earlier will be
used to determine the risks remianing
after the application of BAT to the
source category. If the residual risks are
not judged by the Administrator to be
unreasonable, further controls would
not be required. If, however, there is a
finding of unreasonable residual risk, a
more stringent alternative would be
required. Among the possible
alternatives would be the immediate
application of more restrictive emission
standards, including those based on
more extensive use of substitutes, and
scheduled or phased reductions
permissible emissions. The alternative
selected would be that necessary, in the
Administrator's judgment, to eliminate
the unreasonable residual risks.
Given the differences in the degree of
certainty in risk estimates, in the
numbers of people exposed, in benefits,
in the distribution of risks and benefits,
in the costs of controls, in the
availability of substitutes, and in other
relevant factors, it is not possible to
state any precise formula for
determining unreasonable residual risk.
The determination will necessarily be a
matter of judgment for each category
involved. Nevertheless, the process
followed and the various factors
involved can be outlined.
The determination of unreasonable
residual risk will be based primarily on
public health, and will require
protection with an ample margin of
safety. To the extent possible,
quantitative or qualitative estimates of
various factors will be made for
purposes of comparison. Among these
are: (1) the range of total expected
cancer incidence and other health
effects in the existing and future
exposed populations through the
anticipated operating life of existing
sources; (2) the range of health risks to
the most exposed individuals; (3) readily
identifiable benefits of the substance or
activity; (4) the economic impacts of
requiring additional control measures;
(5) the distribution of the benefits of the
acitivity versus the risks it causes; and
(6) other posseible health and
environmental effects resulting from the
increased use of substitutes.
(f) The Degree of Control Required for
New Sources. The need to focus
independently on new sources of
carcinogenic emissions stems
principally from the nature of the threat
posed by airborne carcinogens. Because
of the lag time betweeen exposure to a
carcinogen and onset of the disease, any •
assessment of the magnitude of the
problem posed by current exposure
levels is subject to considerable
uncertainty, since the consequences
have not yet become manifest. Decisions
on the appropriate level of control must
take into account the possibility that the
dimensions of the current problem have
been underestimated.
It also appears likely that the
activities causing current carcinogenic
emissions will continue to expand, and
that new ones will appear. Since new
emissions would threaten an increased
cancer incidence, it is incumbent upon
the Agency to meet that threat in
advance, especially if that can be done
free of some of the constraints
associated with the reduction of risks
from existing sources.
The policy of developing separate
requirements for new sources is based
on two additional considerations. First,
many of the factors affecting risks can
be controlled to a significant extent
before new construction takes place.
Foremost among these factors is siting:
new sources in heavily populated areas
create much greater cancer risks than
those locating in less populated areas. In
addition, new sources can sometimes
apply control technology more cheaply
and effectively than existing sources,
since new sources: (1) are often larger
and can thus benefit from the economies
of scale; (2) can engineer the integration
of emission controls from the ground up;
and (3) do not have existing control
equipment which must be dismantled or
scrapped.
Second, given these differences, a
determination of the appropriate control
level for new sources on the basis of
unreasonable residual risk may also
weigh the relevant factors differently.
While the focus for existing sources is
primarily the balancing of health risks
against the costs of retrofit controls
beyond BAT, for new sources the
balance can focus more heavily on
siting, the benefits of the activity, and
the possibility of fundamental changes
in the process which would lower
emissions.
For these reasons, the Administrator
proposes to include in this policy a
mechanism dealing specifically with
new sources. Under this mechanism,
V-Appendix C-ll
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. J97 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
described in more detail below, the
standards applicable to new and
modified sources -would be determined
on a case-byoase basis, and would .
consist of either (a) a presumptive
emission standard, (b) the best available
technology standard, or (c) an
alternative standard Regulations
concerning procedures for the approval
of construction or modification under
section 112 standards (40 OFR 61.07)
would be amended to reflect the
requirements of the proposed policy, if it
is adopted.
The Administrator recognizes that the
mechanism proposed here is somewhat
complex. After extensive consideration,
however, this procedure appears to be
the approach most likely to satisfy the
policy and practical needs described
above, within the constraints imposed
by section 112. The Administrator
actively solicits comment on the
procedure, and particularly on possible
alternative means to achieve the same
objectives.
(1) Presumptive Emission Standards
EPA will prescribe a presumptive
national emission standard for each
regulated source category. This standard
will prescribe a maximum emission rate
and will be based solely on potential
health effects. The presumptive
standard will be designed to preclude
the existence of significant risks under
projected worst case assumptions of
plant size and emissions, surrounding
population density and distribution, and
meteorology. Any proposed new source
which would meet this limit would be
certified for construction under section
112(c) (1)(A) without further
demonstration or analysis.
(2) Waiver to Best Available Technology
Any new source meeting Risk
Avoidance Criteria (described below)
specified for each regulated source
category will be granted an automatic
waiver of the applicable presumptive
emission standard, and will instead be
required to meet the best available
technology standard. Risk Avoidance
Criteria will be designed to recognize
actual conditions more favorable than
the worst case assumptions used as the
basis for the presumptive emission
standard. Waivers will be granted, upon
application of the source during the
certification process, where, as a result
of those different conditions, emissions
greater than the level of the presumptive
emission standard would not result in
risks greater than those associated with
the presumptive emission standard. The
criteria to be met, in general form, are:
(a)(l) Population density and
distribution around the proposed site at
the eources's proposed emission rate are
within limits specified by EPA. These
limits will be set to allow carefully-sited
sources, whose emissions using best
available technology under specified
siting conditions would not result in
significant .risks, to receive automatic
waivers; and
(25 The proposed source is not within
a specified distance of a source of
carcinogens regulated under section 112;
or
(b) An offset against new emissions
can be obtained either internally
(existing sources seeking to expand) or
from exist ing sources of carcinogens
regulated under section 112 within a
specified distance. This criterion is
intended to allow automatic waivers to
best available technology where
exposure to people already at risk from
recognized carcinogenic emissions
would not increase as a result.

(3) Establishment of Alternative
Standard
Any proposed source unable to
qualify for an automatic waiver to best
available technology would be eligible
to apply to EPA for the establishment of
an alternative standard applicable to
that source. The alternative standard
would be based on the avoidance, of
unreasonable residual risk after the use
of best available technology, end may
range from the presumptive emission
standard to best available technology.
In establishing an alternative standard,
the Administrator would generally
consider the same factors as in an
unreasonable residual risk
determination for existing sources. The
relevant factors include:
{a) the range of total expected cancer
incidence and other serious health
effects associated with emissions of the
source throughout its anticipated
operating life;
(b) the range of health risks to the
most exposed individuals from the
source's emissions;
(c) existing risks to the affected
population from emissions of the listed
pollutant and other carcinogenic air
pollutants;
(d) readily identifiable benefits of the
substances-or the activity producing the
risk;
(e) the economic and technological
feasibility of further control measures;
(f) the distribution of the benefits of
the activity versus the distribution of
risks;
(g) other possible health effects
resulting from the use of substitutes for
the substance or activity; and
(h) the extent lo which possible
emissions offsets may be obtained.
(3a) Summary of the Legal Basis for
Proposed EPA Standard-Setting
Approach
As noted earlier, EPA has experienced
considerable difficulty in interpreting
and applying the requirement of "an
ample margin of safety to protect the
public health" in setting standards for
carcinogenic air pollutants under section
112 of the Clean Air Act. The factual
aspects of the problem are first, as
explained above, that airborne
carcinogens appear to have no
identifiable thresholds (minimum
exposure levels) for adverse health
effects; second, that in many cases the
individual risks they present at ambient
concentrations may be extremely small;
and third, that total elimination of those
rislcs could require the closure of some
of the nation's basic industries. The
corresponding problem of legal
interpretation is that Congress does not
appear to have addressed this situation
when enacting section 112. •
For the reasons discussed m more
detail in the supplemental statement of
basis and purpose following this notice.
the Administrator has concluded that
although it is possible to read section
112 as requiring regulation designed to
protect health absolutely, Congress has
not expressed any clear intention to
require the total elimination of risks
posed by carcinogenic air pollutants.
The Administrator therefore believes
that, in light of the legislative history of
section 112 and of the Act as a whole,
the most reasonable interpretation of
that section requires him to focus
principally on health protection in
regulating airborne carcinogens but does
not require the total elimination of risks
from such substances. Consequently, it
is the Administrator's judgment that
standards ~et under the policy proposed
today will protect the public health with
an ample margin of safety, these
conclusions are reinforced by the
likelihood that Congress would have
provided much clearer guidance had it
intended the drastic results that would
flow from a requirement to eliminate
totally all risks from airborne
carcinogens.

{4) Public Notification and Involvement
(a) Screening. Identification, and
Assessment. The results of the
preliminary screening process,
determinations of carcinogenicity,
preliminary exposure analyses, and
decisions on listing, proposal of generic
regulations, and further analysis and
testing will be published in the Federal
Register. This notification will serve to
advise the public, state and local
agencies, and industry of the potential
V-Appendix C-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules

hazards associated with the substances
examined, will indicate which
substances are receiving further
attention, and will request the
involvement of interested parties.
(b) Listing, Quantitative Risk
Assessments, and Determination of
Regulatory Priorities. The development
of regulations is a time-consuming
process. While the use of generic
standards and the initial focus on
regulating the most significant sources
first will accelerate the process of
reducing risks to public health, it is
likely that regulation of medium and
lower priority sources will not be
completed for a number of years. To
insure that the public, industry, and the
states are aware of the status of federal
regulatory efforts, the results of risk
assessments and priority determinations
will be published in the Federal
Register. These notices will include
decisions and recommended actions on
all substances under review.
(c) Proposal and Promulgation of
Standards. Upon the proposal of generic
or final regulations for source categories
of listed airborne carcinogens, EPA will
hold public hearings and solicit written
comments on the proposed rulemaking.
Records of such hearings and comments
received will be made available for
public inspection through the
maintenance of public dockets.

(5] Preparation of Regulatory Analyses
This proposal is classified as a major
regulation under EPA's final report
implementing Executive Order 12044
"Improving Government Regulations"
(44 FR 30988) in that it addresses a
"major health or ecological problem."
The Executive Order requires that a
regulatory analysis of potential
economic impacts be prepared for major
regulations meeting certain criteria. The
criteria are, in brief: 1) additional costs
of compliance totalling $100 million; 2)
additional costs of production exceeding
5 percent of the selling price of the
product; or 3) the Administrator requests
such an analysis.
The procedures outlined in the
proposed rule are intended to guide the
Agency in the identification and control
of airborne carcinogens under the
principal authority of section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. The policy does not
impose regulatory requirements on any
emission source and, therefore, does not
meet either of the economic criteria for
preparing a regulatory analysis. The
purpose of the policy is to establish a
framework for EPA decisions including
the conduct of economic and risk
analyses of subsequent regulatory
actions. To attempt to quantify the
impact of future regulations requiring
unidentified controls on unknown
source categories of, as yet, unnamed
pollutants would not, in the judgment of
the Administrator, be a meaningful
exercise.
While an economic analysis is not
considered appropriate for this proposed
procedural rule, EPA has considered
possible regulatory alternatives. A
discussion of relevant issues is
presented in the supplemental statement
of basis and purpose which follows the
text of the proposed rule.

(6) Periodic Review
At intervals of no more than five
years, regulations promulgated for each
source category of airborne carcinogens
will be reviewed for possible
modification, based on recent
technological developments and any
new health effects information
available. This will provide an
opportunity to consider the tightening of
standards for existing sources to reflect
new technology, and the application of
innovative technologies for new sources.
At the conclusion of each review,
standards will be revised to reflect more
stringent control requirements, or the
existing standards may be reaffirmed, as
appropriate.
(Sections 111, 112, and 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 7411,
7412, and 7601(a).)
Dated: August 22,1979.
Douglas H. Costle,
Administrator.
The Administrator proposes to add
the following rule as Appendix C to Part
61 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations:
Appendix C—Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating
Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer
I. Introduction
A. Scope of Rule
This rule specifies the policies used by EPA
in the regulation of stationary sources of
potentially carcinogenic air pollutants under
relevant Clean Air Act authorities,
principally section 112. The rule does not
affect regulation of non-carcinogenic
hazardous substances under section 112'"or
supplemental regulation of airborne
carcinogens under other Agency authorities
where applicable.
B. Statement of General Policy
(1) The EPA policy for regulation of sources
emitting airborne carcinogens under section
112 of the Clean Air Act is to protect the
10 A substance may also be regulated under
section 112 due to its non-carcinogenic health
effects, or due to a combination of carcinogenic and
other serious effects. Non-carcinogenic effects of
substances being reviewed as possible airborne
carcinogens will also be evaluated and considered
where information on these effects is available.
public health with an ample margin of safety.
This protection will be achieved by requiring
the elimination of unreasonable residual risks
from existing source* as quickly as possible,
and by preventing the development of such
risks from new sources.
(2) The presence of "unreasonable residual
risks" to an affected population will be
determined independently for each category
of sources regulated. Primary emphasis in
this determination will be on the level of risk
remaining after the installation of the "best
available technology" for the control of
emissions from sources in the category. In
evaluating this risk, consideration will be
given to the benefits conferred by the
substance or activity, the distribution of
those benefits versus the distribution of the
risks presented by the substance or activity,
the availability of substitutes, the cost of
further control of the substance or source
category, and the proposed siting of new
sources.

II. Preliminary Assessment of Health Risks

A. Identification of Candidate Substances
Potential airborne carcinogens (candidate
substances) will be identified through EPA
programs, including searches of the scientific
literature, monitoring studies, and biological
assays of substances found in the ambient air
and source emissions, as well as by
examining information obtained from federal,
state, or other public testing or regulatory
authorites, private research groups, and other
scientific sources.

B. Screening
Candidate substances will be screened to
determine the potential extent of exposure of
the public through air emissions.
(1) Screening of candidate substances will
consist of an analysis of readily available
intormation on their production, uses.
properties, air concentrations, and of other
indices useful in assessing the potential for
public exposure. EPA will also ascertain
whether any other regulatory efforts are in
progress with respect to these substances.
(2) Substances which the identification and
screening process indicates (a) may be
carcinogenic and (b) the public probably is
exposed to via the ambient air will be
evaluated to determine Whether they pose a
significant carcinogenic risk to the public.
Substances with the greatest apparent
potential for public exposure will be given
highest priority for this further examination.

C. Preliminary Evaluation of Risk
The preliminary evaluation of the risks
posed by a candidate substance will consist
primarily of an evaluation of the probability
that it is a human carcinogen and a
preliminary evaluation of the extent of
ambient exposure.
(1) Evaluation of the Probability of Human
Carcinogenicity. Evaluation of the probability
that a substance is a human carcinogen will
be performed using criteria adopted by EPA
for such determinations. These currently
applicable criteria are summarized in the
Interim Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment (41 FR 21404; May 25.1976).
Using these criteria, the weight and quality of
evidence of human Carcinogenicity for
V-Appendix C-13
-------
Federal Register / Vot. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
candidate substances will be assessed. Based
on such assessments, including comparison
with other substances which have been
evaluated for regulatory action, a judgment of
the probability that a substance is a human,
carcinogen for regulatory purposes will be
made roughly as follows:
(a) High Probability of Human
Carcinogenicity—Substances for which
"best" or "substantial" evidence exists from
epidemiological and/or at least one
mammalian study.
(b) Moderate Probability of Human
Carcinogenicity—Substances for which
"suggestive" evidence exists from
epidemiological, animal, or "short-term"
studies.
(c) Low Probability of Human
Carcinogenicity—Substances for which only
"ancillary" evidence exists, such as from
structural correlations, or for which
epidemiological or animal results are judged
to indicate low probability.
(2) Preliminary Evaluation of Ambient
Exposure. EPA will also conduct preliminary
evaluations to determine whether source
emissions of high-probability carcinogens
exist which cause or contribute to air
pollution posing significant carcinogenic risks
to the public. Among the factors that this
evaluation may take into account are the
number and types of Bourses emitting the
substances in areas where people may be
exposed, the volume of their emissions, any
ambient concentrations which may have
been reported, and the number of people
living near emitting sources or in the vicinity
of ambient measurement sites. Where
available, estimates of carcinogenic strength
may be used to compute preliminary
quantitative estimates of lifetime individual
risks to the potentially most exposed
individuals.

III. Initial Responses to Preliminary
Assessment of Health Risks
A. Listing
Substances judged by the Administrator to
present significant carcinogenic risks to the
public will be listed under section 112 as
hazardous air pollutants. A substance will be
judged to present a significant carcinogenic
risk if (1) it is judged by the Administrator to
have a high probability of being a human
carcinogen, and (2) there is evidence of
significant public exposure via the ambient
air from emissions from one or more
categories of stationary sources. Where the
available evidence is otherwise insufficient
to indicate the existence of a significant risk,
a high-probability carcinogen also will be
listed under section 112 if a preliminary
quantitative risk estimate suggests that a
significant risk to the potentially most
exposed groups exists. Where emissions or
exposure data indicate the existence of a
significant risk, quantitative risk estimates
will not be considered evidence to the
contrary.

B. Generic Standards
Upon the listing of a substance, previously-
developed generic standards will be
proposed for source categories o[ that
substance to which they could apply. Generic
standards, developed based on the
similarities.among industrial processes, will
be "tailored" as necessary to fit the source
categories for which they are proposed.

C. Moderate-Probability and Low-Probability
Carcinogens
EPA will recommend or require further
biological testing of substances initially
judged to have a moderate or low-probability
of being human carcinogens. Priorities for
testing will be based on the extent of public
exposure. Moderate-probability substances
for which public exposures appear to be high
will be considered for regulation under
section 111 of the Clean Air Act.

D. Quantitative Risk Assessments
Quantitative risk assessments on all high-
probability carcinogens will be performed, if
possible. These assessments will be
undertaken based on priorities designed to
produce action most quickly on the most
serious problems pending at_any given time.
The results of these assessments will be used
in the assignment of priorities for further
regulation and in the evaluation of residual
risks.
(1) The risk assessments will examine:
(a) detailed information on emission
sources of the pollutants, the sources' control
status and total emissions, measured and
predicted ambient concentrations of the
pollutants, and the production levels and
uses of the substances;
(b) distribution of the population around
sources in specific sources categories;
(cj estimated duration and magnitude of
exposures of the affected population and the
most exposed individuals:
(d) estimated carcinogenic strength
(potency) of the substances;
(e) estimated range of expected cancer
Incidence for the total population and
individual risks for the most exposed
individuals at various possible emission
levels;
(f) other serious health effects of the
substances; and
(g) projected population growth around
existing sources.
(2) The criteria to be considered in
assigning priorities for quantitative risk
assessments include, in usual order of
importance:
(a) probable extent of exposure of the
public through air emissions;
(b) estimated carcinogenic strength;
(c) the effect of any generic standards
proposed; and
(d) the feasibility of expeditious control.
(3) The results of detailed risk assessments
and determinations resulting from the
assessments will be published in the Federal
Register and public comments will be
solicited.

IV. Establishment and Review of Standards
and Requirements

A. Source Categories Regulated
Emission standards in addition to generic
standards will be proposed for any source
category whose emissions present a
significant risk to public health. Such
standards and other requirements will be
determined independently for each regulated
source category. A source category emitting a
listed pollutant will be found to pose a
significant risk if there is evidence, from the
detailed exposure analysis, that its emissions
result in significant public exposure to the
pollutant via the ambient air. Significant risk
also will be found in the absence of such
evidence, if a detailed risk assessment
suggests that such a risk to the most exposed
individuals or to the population exists. If
emissions or exposure data indicate the
existence of a significant risk, the
quantitative risk assessment will not be
considered as evidence to the contrary.

B. Priorities for Further Regulation
Further standards and requirements for
regulated source categories will be developed
according to the priority assigned to those
source categories. Source.categories will be
assigned high, medium, or low priority based
on the following criteria:
(1) magnitude of the total expected and
upper bound cancer incidence associated
with exposure to all carcinogens emitted by
the source category;
(2) degree of risk to the most exposed
individuals;
(3) ease of expeditious development and
implementation of standards; and
(4) feasibility of significant improvements
in controls.

C. Regulatory Options Analysis
EPA will conduct a regulatory options
analysis to support decisions on further
required control measures.
(1) The analysis will identify
technologically feasible control alternatives,
their economic, energy, and environmental
impacts, and, in the case of substitutes, the
benefits of continued use of the substance or
process.
(2) The analysis will also designate levels
of control considered "best available
technology" for new and for existing sources
in a category. The control level designated
"best available technology" may be different
for new and existing facilities in a category.
fa) For new sources, "best available
technology" is that technology which, in the
judgment of the Administrator, is the most
advanced level of controls adequately
demonstrated, considering economic, energy.
and environmental impacts.
(b) For existing sources, "best available
technology" is that technology which, in the
judgment of the Administrator, is the most
advanced level of controls adequately
demonstrated, considering economic, energy.
environmental impacts, and the technological
problems associated with retrofit.

D. Requirements for Existing Sources
(1) Existing sources in a regulated source
category will be required, as a minimum, to
limit their emissions to the levels
corresponding to the use of "best available
technology".
(2) Existing sources in a regulated source
category also will be required to limit their
emissions in whatever additional amount is
necessary, in the Administrator's judgment,
to eliminate unreasonable residual risks to
public health associated with those
emissions.
(3) The principal emphasis in determining
the level of additional control required to
V-Appendix C-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
eliminate unreasonable residual risk from an
existing source category will be on public
health. Factors which may be considered in
this judgment include:
(a) the range of total expected cancer
incidence and other serious health effects m
the existing and future populations exposed,
for the anticipated operating life of existing
sources in the category;
(b) the range of health risks to the most
exposed individuals;
(c) readily identifiable benefits of the
substance or activity producing the risk;
(d) the economic effects (expecially plant
closures) of requiring additional control
measures;
(e) the distribution of the benefits of the
activity versus the distribution of its risks;
and
(f) other possible health effects resulting
from the increased use of substitutes.
E. Requirements for New (Including
Modified/ Sources
(1) Except as provided below, new sources
in a regulated source category will be
required to meet a presumptive national
emission standard designed to preclude the
existence of significant risks under projected
worst case assumptions of plant size and
emissions, surrounding population density
and distribution, and meteorology.
(2) Any proposed new source which shows,
in the certification process required by
section 112(c)(l)(A). that it meets the
requirements of the Risk Avoidance Criteria
(described below) applicable to that source
category will automatically be permitted to
meet the applicable best available technology
standard instead of the applicable
presumptive national emission standard. The
specific terms of Risk Avoidance Criteria will
be prescribed separately for each source
category.
The criteria will generally require that
either
(a)(l) Population density and distribution
around the proposed site at the source's
proposed emission rate are within limits
specified by EPA, and
(2) The proposed source is not within a
specified distance of a source of carcinogens
regulated under section 112; or
(b] An offset against new emissions can be
obtained either internally (existing sources
seeking to expand) or from existing sources
of carcinogens regulated under section 112
within a specified distance.
(3) Any proposed new source which is
unable to qualify for the automatic waiver to
best available technology described in
paragraph (2) may apply for the
establishment of an alternative standard
applicable to the proposed source as part of
the certification process required under
section 112(c)(l)(A). The Administrator will
establish an alternative standard for that
source at the best available technology
standard or at whatever more stringent level
of control is necessary, in his/her judgment,
to prevent the existence of an unreasonable
residual risk associated with emissions from
the proposed source. Factors which may be
considered in this judgment include:
(a) the range of total expected cancer
incidence and other serious health effects
associated with emissions of the source
throughout its anticipated operating life;
(b) the range of health risks to the most
exposed individuals from the source's
emissions;
(c) existing risks to the affected population
from emissions of the listed pollutant and
other carcinogenic air pollutants;
(d) readily identifiable benefits of the
substance or the activity producing the risk;
(e) the economic and technological
feasibility of control measures more stringent
than BAT;
(f) the distribution of the benefits of the
activity versus the distribution of its risks;
(g) other possible health effects resulting
from the use of substitutes for the substance
or activity; and
(h) the extent to which possible emission
offsets have been obtained.

F. Review of Standards and Requirements
Regulations promulgated for each source
category of airborne carcinogens will be
reviewed and, if appropriate, revised at
intervals of no more than five years.

References
1. Pellizzari, E. D., "Development of
Methods for Carcinogenic Vapor Analysis in
Ambient Atmospheres". Publication No.
EPA-605/2-74-121, RTP, N.C. July 1974.
2. Pitts, J., D. Grosjean and T. M. Mischke,
Mutagenic Activity of Airborne Partioilate
Organic Pollutants, Toxicology Letters, 1:65-
70 (1977).
3. Sawicki. E., "Chemical Composition and
Potential Genotoxic Aspects of Polluted
Atmospheres". Mohr, U., Tomatis, L., and
Schmahl, D., eds, in Air Pollution and Cancer
in Man, International Agency for Research on
Cancer (1ARC Scientific Publication No. 16).
Lyon, Franke (1977).
4. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, "Identification, Classification
and Regulation of Toxic Substances Posing a
Potential Occupational Carcinogenic Risk",
29 CFR Part 1990, 43 FR 54148, October 4,
1977.
5. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
"Interim Policy and Procedure for Classifying,
Evaluating, and Regulating Carcinogens in
Consumer Products", 43 FR 25658. June 13,
1978 (withdrawn April 23,1979 44 FR 23821).
6. "Carcinogens in the Environment", in:
Council on Environmental Quality, Sixth
Annual Report, Washington, D.C. (1975).
7. Cairns, J., "The Cancer Problem",
Scientific American, 233(5):64-78, (November
1975).
8. Young, J. L., A. I. Asire, and E. S. Pollack,
"SEER Program: Cancer Incidence and
Mortality in the United States 1973-1976",
DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 78-1837,
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda,
Maryland (1978).
9. "Prevention of Cancer", Report of a
World Health Organization Expert
Committee, WHO Technical Report Series
No. 276, Geneva, 1964.
10. Fraumeni, J. E., Ed., Persons at High
Risk of Cancer An Approach to Cancer
Etiology and Control. Academic Press, Inc.,
New York (1975).
11. Selikoff, Irving J. in Persons at High
Risk of Cancer An Approach to Cancer
Etiology and Control. Academic Press. Inc.,
New York (1975).
12. Maugh, J. H., "Chemical Carcinogens:
The Scientific Basis for Regulation". Science
201:1200-1205, September 29,1975.
13. Mohr, V., L. Tomatis, P. Schmahl, Air
Pollution and Cancer in Man, pp. 169-253.
International for Research on Cancer,
Publication No. 16, Lyon, France (1977).
14. Cederloff, R., R. Doll, B. Foyer, L
Friberg, N. Nelson, and V. Vouk (ed), "Air.
Pollution and Cancer: Risk Assessment
Methodology and Epidemiological Evidence".
Environmental Health Perspectives. 22:1-12,
February 1978.
15. Pike, M. C. et al. "Air Pollution" in
Persons at High Risk of Cancer An
Approach to Cancer Etiology and Control.
Academic Press, Inc., New York (1975).
16. "Cancer Facts and Figures", American
Cancer Society, New York (1974).
17. "Estimates of the Fraction of Cancer
Incidence in the United States Attributable to
Occupational Factors". National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, Draft
Summary, September 11,1978.
18. "Preliminary Scoring of Organic Air
Pollutants", EPA-450/3-77-008 (1976).
19. Faoro, Robert B. and J. A. Manning,
"Trends in Benzo(a)pyrene (1966-1975)", pre-
publication 1978 copy, accepted for
publication in JAPCA.
20. Atmospheric Benzene Emissions. U.S.
EPA, RTP, N.C. October, 1977 (EPA-450/3-
88-029).
21. National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. Asbestos,
Beryllium, and Mecury, EPA, 38 FR 8820
(1973).
22. National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, Proposed Standard
for Vinyl Cloride, EPA. 40 FR 59532,
December 24,1975 (final standard 41 FR
46560).
23. Maugh, T. H., "Chemical Carcinogens:
How Dangerous are Low Doses?" Science
202. 37-41, October 6,1978.
24. Drinking Water and Health. Part 1,
Chapters 1-5. Draft, National Research
Council, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C. (1977).
25. EPA, "Health Risk and Economic
Impact Assessments for Suspected
Carcinogens", Interim Procedures and
Guidelines, 41 FR 24102, May 25,1976.
26. "Scientific Bases for Identification of
Potential Carcinogens and Estimation of
Risks" Report by the Work Group on Risk
Assessment of the Interagency Regulatory
Liaison Group (IRGL) 44 FR 39858, July 6,
1979.
27. "General Criteria for Assessing the
Evidence for Carcinogenicity of Chemical
Substances," Report of the Subcommittee on
Environmental Carcinogenesis, National
Cancer Advisory Board, Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, 58:2, February,
1977.
28. Hoel, David G., et al. "Estimation of
Risks of Irreversible, Delayed Toxicity,"
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health 1:133-151, 1975.
29. Bachmann. John D. and John R.
O'Connor, "Identification, Assessment, and
Regulation of Toxic Air Pollutants" presented
at the Air Pollution Control Association
V-Appendix C-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
Speciality Conference, February 14,1979,
Gainesville, Florida.
30. "Petition for the Initiation of
Rulemaking Proceedings to Establish a Policy
Governing the Classification and Regulation
of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants under the
Clean Air Act," Environmental Defense Fund,
November 7,1977.
31. "Public Meeting—Regulation of
Carcinogenic Air Pollutants," EPA Internal
Memorandum from Joseph Padgett to Walter
C. Barber, May 17,1978.
32. "Summary of Responses and
Proposals—Testimony and Written
Submissions," U.S. EPA Public Hearings on
Regulation of Carcinogenic Air Pollutants,
Washington, D.C., March 23,1978.
33. "Testimony on OSHA's Generic
Carcinogen Proposal," American Industrial
Health Council, New York, May 16,1978.
34. "Quantitative Risk Assessment for
Ambient Exposure to Arsenic," U.S. EPA
Carcinogen Assessment Group, November 27,
1978.
35. "Smoking and Health: A Report of the
Surgeon General" Public Health Service, U.S.
DHEW, January, 1979.
36.1. J. Selikoff, E. C. Hammond, and J.
Churg "Asbestos exposure, smoking, and
neoplasia" JAMA 204(2): 106, April 8,1968.
37. "Asbestos Exposure, Cigarette Smoking,
and Death Rates" E. C. Hammond, I. J.
Selikoff, and H. Seidman. Presented at the *
International Conference on Health Hazards
of Asbestos Exposure, New York Academy of
Sciences, June 24,1978.
(Note.—This Supplemental Statement will
not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.}

Policy and Procedures for Identifying,
Assessing, and Regulating Airborne
Substances Posing a Risk of Cancer

Supplemental Statement of Basis and
Purpose
This document is intended as an
elaboration of three aspects of the basis and
purpose of EPA's proposed rule for the
regulation of airborne carcinogens. It should
be read in conjunction with the preamble to
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for this
action, which it supplements. The three
aspects of the background of the proposal
which are discussed in this supplement are:
(1) a comparison of the EPA proposal with
recent proposals of other Federal agencies for
regulating carcinogens; (2) various regulatory
approaches considered by the Administrator
in formulating the proposed rule; and (3) a
fuller explanation of the underlying view of
the meaning and intent of section 112 of the
Clean Air Act which led the Administrator to
choose the standard-setting approach
actually proposed.

I. Comparison With Other Proposals
The policies and regulatory approaches
reflected in EPA's proposed rule are similar
in many important respects to those
contained in recent proposals by the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) (;) and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) (2). There
are also a number of similarities to proposals
made to EPA and other agencies by the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (3) and to
some extent by the American Industrial
Health Council (AIHC) (4). The most
important similarities and differences among
the various proposals are described below.
The critical areas for comparison of the
various proposals are: (1) the scientific
criteria underlying determinations of
carcinogenicity for regulatory purposes; (2)
the use of those criteria in automatic
classification systems; (3) the regulatory
response to determinations of
carcinogenicity; and (4) the role of
quantitative risk assessments.

A. Carcinogenicity Criteria
The scientific criteria for determination of
carcinogenicity under the OSHA, CPSC, and
EDF proposals are similar to the EPA Interim
Guideline for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
(5). All accept epidemiology as best evidence
but presume human cancer risk as a result of
animal data alone. All accept the principle
that there is no safe level of exposure to
carcinogenic substances. Differences
between the EPA and OSHA criteria are
discussed in some detail in the EPA
testimony at the OSHA hearing. The major
difference is that EPA may consider the
results of a single well-conducted animal
study as sufficient to classify a substance a
high probability carcinogen, while the OSHA
proposal requires replication of such a study
or a second "postive" study in a different
species. EPA feels that such a requirement is
scientifically unnecessary where the original
study is of sufficient quality and could result
in unnecessarily long delays while retesting
takes place.
Although the general scientific principles
are similar, the OSHA and CPSC statements
are considerably more specific on a number
of points than are the EPA guidelines. EPA
believes that greater specificity and
agreement among the agencies are desirable,
where possible, and has joined with the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC), Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and Food Safety and
Quality Service (FSQS) in the Interagency
Regulatory Liaison Group (IRLG) for the
purpose of developing a uniform scientific
basis for determining the probability that a
substance is carcinogenic. The IRLG has
recently published a document dealing with
these issues (6). Once the document becomes
final, the rule proposed today will be
amended if necessary and those principles
will be used by EPA in regulating airborne
carcinogens under section 112.
There are a number of differences between
the methods recommended by AIHC for
carcinogenicity determinations and EPA's
Interim Guideline. In particular, AIHC
suggests that greater weight be given to
negative epidemiological studies; that single-
species animal studies are insufficient to
make a presumption of human
carcinogenicity; and that short-term test
results are unsuitable for use in regulatory
decisions.
EPA feels that while "negative"
epidemiological evidence can sometimes
provide upper bounds on possible risks,
epidemiology is normally not a sensitive
enough tool to provide proof that a substance
which is carcinogenic in animals is not
carcinogenic in humans. EPA considers well-
conducted single species tests and single
tests results substantial evidence of
carcinogenicity. Such tests are widely used in
industry and government laboratories. In
light of the available evidence, delaying the
implementation of controls for three or more
years while confirmatory tests are conducted
would not be a prudent policy. The Agency
feels that existing experience with short-term
tests is sufficient to suggest including results
along with other evidence in deciding the
likelihood of carcinogenicity. In summary,
EPA feels that, given the available scientific
evidence, protection of public health requires
the use of the criteria outlined in the Interim
Guideline.
The AIHC also recommends establishment
of a nine-member panel to evaluate and
classify carcinogens for all Federal agencies,
suggesting that identification and
classification of carcinogens is too important
and too complicated to be left to government
regulators alone. EPA believes, however, that
there would be little advantage to this
approach. Agreement among the IRLG
agencies should make it unlikely that these
Federal agencies would reach inconsistent
conclusions about a substance's
carcinogenicity. Having a single group—
whether it be one agency or an outside group
of scientists—perform these evaluations
would only add another layer of review,
which could create serious problems. Among
other things, establishing priorities that
would accomodate the needs of all affected
agencies with their many different regulatory
responsibilities and deadlines would be
complex and resource-intensive. In addition,
if an outside group of scientists were used to
evaluate cancer risks, the scientists might be
reluctant to take positions on substances for
which data are not definitive. This would
conflict with the agencies' obligation to act
upon the best available information rather
than to await definitive evidence. Finally, it
should also be noted that current EPA
procedures include an evaluation of
carcinogenicity determinations and risk
assessments by the EPA Science Advisory
Board, a review panel consisting of scientists
from outside of the Federal government.
The AIHC makes no clear recommendation
on techniques to be used in evaluating excess
cancer incidence other than to recommend
that carcinogen strength and cancer risks be
evaluated as part of the regulatory process.
As EPA's proposal indicates, the Agency
agrees that carcinogenic strength and risk
should play a role in that process.

B. Classification Systems
In testimony at the OSHA hearings, EPA
articulated its reservations about the use of
rigid, fixed criteria and automatic
classification schemes. EPA is concerned
that, since each determination is to some
extent unique, rigid classification schemes
may not provide enough room for the use of
informed scientific judgment in making
carcinogenicity determinations. Examples of
the Agency's concerns are discussed in the
EPA testimony (7). EPA, therefore, prefers to
continue to use a "weight of evidence"
approach which allows the use of informed
V-Appendix C-16
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
icienlific and policy judgments in evaluating'
test results.

C. Response to Determinations of
Carcinogenicity
Under the policy proposed by OSHA (upon
which the EOF petition is modeled),
substances classified as "confirmed
carcinogens" would be automatically
regulated through an immediate emergency
temporary standard including exposure
limits, monitoring, and work practices.
Within six months, a permanent standard
would be proposed to: (1) effectively ban the
substance if a suitable substitute were
available and (2) require exposures to be
reduced to lowest feasible level through
technological means.
The approach published by the CPSC
establishes procedures for identification and
classification of carcinogens based on
scientific criteria and categories similar to
those proposed by OSHA. A major difference
between the CPSC and OSHA approaches is
that if a substance is identified as a
confirmed carcinogen ("Category A"), CPSC
would not automatically propose a particular
regulatory action. Instead action would be
taken on a case-by-case basis, after a study
of relevant factors.
EPA believes that the appropriate
regulatory response following the listing of an
airborne carcinogen under section 112 must
take into consideration more than a
determination of carcinogenicity. Given the
large number of potential airborne
carcinogens, some means of establishing
priorities for regulating those substances
posing the greatest public health risks is
necessary to ensure that available Agency
resources are used to .the greatest effect. The
set of initial regulatory responses in the
proposed EPA rule is designed to accomplish
that by accelerating the process of listing and
initial regulation, and by enabling the Agency
to address the most significant sources and
substances first.
The CPSC policy also recognizes the need
for such procedures. The system for setting
priorities for assessment proposed by EPA is
conceptually similar to that adopted by CPSC
for establishing priorities for staff evaluation
and Commission appraisal of consumer
products containing carcinogens.
The OSHA and EOF proposals do not
contain explicit procedures for the
establishment of priorities after
carcinogenicity determinations. Those
proposals would entail a fairly rigid schedule
of regulatory responses to notification or
discovery of potential carcinogenicity. After
carcinogenicity determinations, both the
OSHA and EOF schemes would require
automatic responses without explicit
consideration of risks or other indices of
relative priority.
One element of the OSHA proposal is the
immediate imposition of an emergency
temporary standard. The response is
somewhat analogous to the "generic
standards" element of today's proposal. Like
OSHA, EPA believes that there is no reason
to permit the continued exposure to risks
which could be prevented by the use of
clearly feasible control measures. EPA views
the implementation of such measures as a
high priority matter, especially since the
application of pre-existing generic standards
to specific sources will not divert significant
Agency resources from other control efforts.
EPA also believes, however, that a system
for establishing priorities for further
regulatory actions is necessary in effectively
implementing section 112. The Agency does
not believe that a full system of automatic
responses, such as that proposed by OSHA,
would be feasible for use under section 112,
both because of the large number of airborne
carcinogens likely to be encountered and
because of the differences in the statutory
and practical tasks EPA must perform.

D. Role of Quantitative Risk Assessment
It is not celar what role, if any, quantitative
risk estimates would play in the approach
OSHA intends to employ. As noted earlier,
EPA believes that, while cancer risk
estimation is an imprecise endeavor
involving many uncertainties, such estimation
can provide a rough measure of the
magnitude of carcinogenic risk posed by a
substance. EPA believes that consideration of
such estimates in establishing regulatory
priorities and in determining the degree of
additional control required beyond BAT is
both useful and appropriate under section
112. This is particularly true in the
Administrator's view with respect to
exposures to carcinogens in the ambient
environment, which, in contrast to
occupational exposures, can often be very
low and involve large populations. Like
OSHA, however, EPA does not view these
estimates as required for the decision that a
particular substance being emitted into the
air should be regulated as a hazardous
pollutant, once a determination of probable
carcinogenicity and significant exposure has
been made.

n. Various Regulatory Approaches
Considered
A central issue in developing a policy for
the protection of public health from
carcinogens is the determination of the extent
to which exposures must be reduced. Given
the impossibility of identifying levels of
carcinogens with no associated risk, some
have argued that no exposure should be
tolerated and that emissions should be
reduced as expeditiously as practical to zero.
Others contend, on the contrary, that
permissible exposures should be determined
by an unstructured balancing of risks, costs,
and benefits.
A number of approaches for addressing
this problem have been considered or
proposed by the Federal regulatory agencies,
industrial groups, environmental
organizations, and others. Prominen
examples include the OSHA proposal 1, the
CPSC policy (2), and the EOF petition (3) on
airborne carcinogens. This section discusses
various suggested possibilities that have been
considered by EPA, as well as the approach
proposed today.
The possibile approaches and schemes
suggested fall into essentially four groups:
zero-oriented approaches; predetermined
decision rules; special approaches for new
sources; and judgmental approaches. The
charcteristics of these approaches are
discussed below in terms of their possible
usefulness in regulating carcinogens under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

A. Zero-Oriented Approaches
As discussed above, the lack of identifiable
health effects exposure thresholds for
carcinogens suggests that exposure to even
minute amounts of such substances poses
some finite risk, and that repeated exposures
increase the risk. This has led to the
proposition that for public health purposes,
no level of exposure to carcinogens can be
considered absolutely "safe." In particular,
because section 112 emission standards must
protect the public health with an ample
margin of safety, it has been argued that
those standards must therefore eliminate risk
completely.
The Administrator believes that his goal in
administering section 112 must be to reduce
exposures to carcinogens to the maximum
extent possible. While this implies at least a
theoretical goal of zero emissions of these
substances, the immediate imposition of zero-
emission requirements would lead to the
closing of most facilities now emitting
carcinogenic air pollutants. It is not now
physically possible, for example, to
manufacture, handle, and store volatile
organic compounds without some emissions,
however small.
As noted earlier, the Administrator does
not believe that the immediate imposition of
zero-emission standards on a general basis,
with their attendant consequences, is
appropriate under section 112. Nevertheless,
in setting section 112 emission standards,
public health considerations must be
paramount. Various mechanisms designed to
minimize risk as part of certain zero-oriented
approaches may therefore be useful for
purposes of section 112. These mechanisms
include:
(1) Immediate Emission Control
Requirements Beyond the use of Best
Available Technology. Standards more
restrictive than those achievable through the
use of "best available technology" for
existing sources, effective within between
ninety days and two years of promulgation,
could result in the closure of some sources."
Depending on the degree of additional control
judged necessary, and on particular economic
and technological factors, this could range
from a few older, marginal facilities to
industry closure. Such requirement may be
appropriate where large residual risks remain
after the use of best available controls.
(2) Phased Control Requirements. Although
standards requiring controls beyond "best
available" might not be immediately feasible
for certain affected emission sources, such
controls might be feasible if sufficient lead
time were available before their required
achievement. A form of phased control
requirements, designed to force technology
improvements, is suggested by EOF in its
petition. This approach would involve
establishing a predetermined schedule for
periodic tightening of emission standards.
leading ultimately to zero emissions. EPA
"The meaning of the term "best available
technology" as ueed here, is explained in the
principal text accompanying the proposed rule.
V-Appendix C-17
-------
Tederal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 •/ Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed tRules
does not regard this particular form of phased
control as well-suited for use under section
112, primarily because it fails to provide for
consideration of the consequences of a zero-
emissions requirement in differing
circumstances, and because it could prove
legally and practically infeasible for the
Agency to implement.
The concept of technology forcing phased
control has, however, been used in achieving
ambient air standards and reducing
automotive emissions, and may be employed
on a more selective basis under the proposed
rule. Such requirements might entail
•somewhat accelerated closure of older.
poorly controlled plants, allowing time for
funding and construction of better controlled
facilities and the development of improved
control technology. This approach could
result in reduction of risks without extensive
economic dislocation or loss of the benefits
associated with the activity or substance
involved.
(3) Required Use of Substitutes. The
availability of safe and adequate substitutes
for particular substances or uses can be an
important factor in determining the degree of
control required for a given source category.
It has been suggested, in fact, that in order to
eliminate emissions of the carcinogenic
substance the use of substitutes should be
required whenever they exist.
The main difficulty with this approach is
that while partial or full substitutes are often
available, their consequences vary greatly. In
many cases, for example, requiring the use of
substitutes can result in prohibitive economic
penalties. Substitutes available for some
applications are also often inadequate for
other applications. Moreover, the potential
nealth effects associated with substitutes will
often be unknown. Since adequate
substitutes are often similar to the origrmal
substances, they may therefore pose risks
which could approach or exceed those of the
banned substances.
In addition, because carcinogens can be
emitted in varying amounts from such diverse
sources as fireplaces, chemical plants.
automobiles, dry cleaning establishments,
steel manufacturing, and natural chemical
and radioactive emission sources elimination
of carcinogenic risks through substitution for
all these activities is clearly impractical.
Substitutes cannot therefore be realistically
considered a solution for all or even most
airborne carcinogen problems.
In establishing control requirements under
section 112. consequently, EPA would
consider measures requiring the use of
substitutes. In reaching a decision, however,
the Agency will also weigh the factors noted
above to ensure that the net effect of such
requirements is consistent with the other
aspects of the proposed rule.

B. Predetermined Decision Rules
A number of approaches, rejecting the zero
risk concept, suggest that the appropriate
degree of control can be determined through
uniform decision rules, applied irrespective of
individual circumstances. While such
decision rules vary widely in their relative
emphasis on factors such as risk, cost,
benefits, and technology, they share the
central premise that regulatory consistency
can be achieved by prescribing in advance
the weight to be assigned to-each of these
factors under all circumstances.
Although regulatory consistency is
desirable, decisions made according to
predetermined rules are often unable to
account adequately for unforeseen or varying
circumstances. Because of the difficulty in
anticipating all possible combinations of the
relevant factors, decisions bound by such
rules will frequently fail to produce desirable
regulatory results.
EPA feels that while it js important to
articulate the way in .which relevant factors
will be considered and weighed in
determining control requirements for airborne
carcinogens, the complexity and
unpredictability of the situations that may
arise dictate that some flexibility be
maintained. Predetermined decision rules will
therefore not form the principal basis for
determining control requirements for airborne
carcinogens under section 112. Nevertheless,
some elements of decision rule approaches
may be useful as benchmarks or guidelines.
These approaches^ire discussed below.
(1) Specification of a Fixed Target
Carcinogenic RJaJi or incidence Level. This
approach involves the selection of a target
level of cancer risk or incidence for purposes
of regulatory action, end is based on the use
of quantitative riak assessment techniques.
Under this approach, a fixed numerical risk
or expected cancer incidence rate target
would be used in determining the degree of
control required for carcinogens.
The use of target risk levels does have
some precedent as a basis for regulatory
decisions. The FDA, for example, lias
regarded an upper bound lifetime cancer
incidence rate of Jess than one per million'
people exposed to carcinogenic residues in
certain foods as "virtually safe". EPAtuuld
theoretically establish a similar goal for
airborne carcinogens for use under section
112. If the predicted risk or incidence were
higher than the targeVthe degree of control
required would be that needed to reach the
goal.
While this approach might be consistent
with the requirement that section 112
standards place primary emphasis on
protection of public health, it suffers from
two drawbacks. First, although current
quantitative risk assessment techniques for
chemical carcinogens are useful
decisionmaking tools, considerable
uncertainties are associated with the
techniques at their current stage of
development. Consequently, the
Administrator believes that in using
quantitative risk assessments, he should
generally be free to consider the varying
degrees of uncertainty that actual cancer
risks may be significantly above or below
those predicted by the estimation procedures,
and not be bound by a fixed target.
Second, a fixed target risk level, used as
the determinant of emissions standards,
would also inadequately account for the
varying conditions characteristic of air
pollution. The suggested use of target risk
levels instead of a zero-risk requirement is
based on the importance of considering the
various consequences of incremental risk
reductions to levels approaching zero, and it
would be inconsistent with this basis to use a
fixed target risk level, Irrespective of these
varying consequences, in setting standards.
These consequences differ greatly among
source categories of air pollutants, and a
fixed target fails to provide the flexibility
necessary for an appropriate response.
Where risks could be reduced beyond the
target without significant costs, for example,
that should be permitted. Likewise, where
attainment of the goal would eliminate a
highly beneficial activity, the decision-maker
should be able to consider less stringent
standards.
(2) "Cost-Per-Life" Goals Some have
suggested that "acceptable" standards for
carcinogens may be developed by striking a
predetermined balance of health risks, human
lives, economics, and social benefits.
Fundamental to this approach .is the
expression of all these factors in economic
terms and the adoption of a cost-per-life-
saved goal. Under this decision rule scheme.
regulations would require control to, but not
beyond, the point where the incremental
costs associated with saving an additional
life were equivalent to the goal. Proponents
of this approach argue that it would result in
a more optimal allocation of national
resources.
The Administrator believes that several
aspects of .this approach render it unsuitable
for standard-setting under section 112. One
such aspect is the basic assumption that it is
appropriate to assign a single monetary value
to human life. The Administrator regards that
task as neither practical nor ethically
acceptable. It is impractical because no
consensus criteria exist which oan.be used to
establish that cost value. Indeed, the
internalized and external expenditures for
protection of human lives in American
society ranges across a vast spectrum, and
•the very existence of this spectrum is
persuasive evidence that the society places
heavy emphasis on the surrounding
circumstances in "assigning" health
protection values. The approach is also
unacceptable in that it fails to consider the
balance of equities between those benefiting
fronvthe activity creating'the risk and those
who may die as a consequence of the
activity. Finally, the fixed-cost approach also
necessarily ascribes more certainty to the
risk assessment and cost estimates
underlying its use than is justifiable, in view
of the uncertainties present in both sets of
estimates. Therefore, although cost-per-life
estimates may tie used for perspective in
considering control options, they will not be
used as decision rules in setting standards
under section 112.
(3) "Best Technology". Requirements for
"best" control technology for emission
sources have been advocated as an interim or
ultimate approach which can be used without
difficult considerations at economics in
determining the degree of control required.
Although such a technology-based approach
at first appears relatively simple to
implement, it is soon apparent that "best
available technology" cannot be defined by
technical considerations alone. For example,
if an "add-on" control device achieves 90%
control, then the installation of an additional
unit of similar capabilities could reduce
V-Appendix C-18
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
remaining emissions by an additional 90%.
Still further units could always be applied to
marginally reduce emissions. Clearly, at some
point in this process the costs associated
with marginal increases in control would be
grossly disproportionate to the incremental
reductions in emissions. Thus, "best
available technology" must be defined with
at least some reference to economic
considerations, as in the case of new source
performance standards under section 111 of
the Clean Air Act.
"Best available technology" as defined in
section 111 of the Clean Air Act may not be
•n adequate level of control for purposes of
•ection 112. however, since "best available
technology" does not consider the health
risks remaining after its use. While "best
available technology" may prove a useful
starting point, therefore, it is not itself
sufficient for section 112 purposes without
consideration of the residual health effects.

C. Special Approaches for New Sources
A number of approaches and mechanisms
have been suggested to contain or minimize
increases in risks which may be associated
with operation of new sources of
carcinogenic air pollutants. It has been
•rgued that special requirements for new
sources are both necessary and justified
because (1) given existing uncertainties about
the health effects associated with exposures
to various levels of carcinogens, those
exposures should be limited as much as
possible, and (2) new sources can reasonably
consider control and risk avoidance options
not readily available for existing sources.
Several mechanisms for treatment of new
sources are discussed below.
(1) Stricter Standards for New Sources.
This approach would specify control
requirements for new sources that are more
stringent than those for existing sources. In
effect, this is simply a modification of the
best technology approach discussed above.
The approach does have the advantage of
limiting emissions from new facilities to a
greater degree than from existing facilities
under a best technology standard, and in that
sense can be said to contain the risk
somewhat.
The approach could also involve
consideration of residual risks associated
with projected typical new source siting
conditions. However, because it cannot
consider the residual health risks associated
with all of the varying sets of population
distributions in which a new source might
actually be located, the approach may not
provide sufficient protection under actual
conditions. Thus, like the best technology
approach for existing sources, this approach
can serve as a useful starting point, but is not
sufficient alone.
(2) Regional Emissions Offsets. An "offset"
policy would require a reduction in emissions
of a given carcinogenic air pollutant from
existing sources in an area as a precondition
for construction of new sources within a
specified distance of the existing sources. To
the extent that new sources desire to locate
near existing facilities, development of
improved emissions control technology
would be encouraged by this approach and
increases in risk to health beyond existing
levels would be prevented.
The disadvantages of this approach as a
general policy are that it would have no
effect at all on the establishment of sources
at new locations, and could prevent the
expansion of sources which have already
installed advanced technology or do not
present significant new risks. In short, it
employs the somewhat arbitrary assumption
that any increased risk in an area with
existing sources is not tolerable, but that
increased risks in areas with no existing
sources are permissible.
(3) National Emissions Freeze. Under this
option, additional emissions from new or
modified sources would be prohibited except
to the extent that offsets are obtained from
existing sources on a nationwide basis. This
approach would account for some of the
disadvantages of the regional emissions
offset approach. It also provides incentives
for technology-forcing and containment of
risk.
The main drawbacks of the approach are
that it presumes that any additional
emissions create an intolerable risk, and that
it would fall the most heavily on the newest
Industries (those with the fewest existing
sources) and on those which have already
forced technology the most. It also fails to
provide incentives for careful siting of new
sources.
(4) Case-by-Case Review of New Sources.
Under this approach, additional emissions in
populated or high risk areas would be
permitted only after consideration of residual
risks and other relevant factors associated
with each new source proposed. In this
review, special emphasis would be placed on
appropriate siting and the use of improved
control measures.
By evaluating risks, benefits, controls, and
siting on a case-by-case basis, this approach
could significantly limit risk without
arbitrariness and over-regulation problems of
either regional or nationwide offset
requirements. Yet by requiring individual
reviews, the pressure is maintained for both
careful siting of new sources and improving
technology where that appears necessary.
D. Judgmental Approaches
In contrast to the zero-oriented and fixed?
decision rule approaches outlined above,
"judgmental" approaches posit that the
degree of control which is appropriate for
airborne carcinogens cannot be
predetermined in the abstract for all cases
and. to some extent, depends on the
particular circumstances. Circumstantial
factors which might be considered, in
addition to the risk to public health, include
the costs of further control, the benefits of the
activity, the distribution of risk versus
benefits, and the availability of substitutes.
The use of a judgmental approach appears
desirable to the Administrator because it
permits him to take advantage of the strong
points of various available approaches
without suffering their drawbacks. The
specific approach chosen, however, must be
compatible with the mandate of section 112
to put principal emphasis on public health
protection, and each of the factors involved
must be assigned a weight consistent with
this principle.
Although protection of public health must
be paramount, the relative importance of
other factors can vary. Society may be willing
to pay more for control or accept higher
health risks associated with activities viewed
as important or essential. The distributional
aspects of control situations can differ even
when the magnitude of risk, costs, and
benefits are similar. Moreover, differing
degrees of certainty in the cancer incidence,
economic, and benefits estimates can call for
different regulatory responses. Given this
variety of circumstances and the frequent
uncertainty of analyses, the Administrator
believes that it is important to consider
different situations on their own merits.
Judgmental approaches obviously place
great responsibility on decisionmakers to
weigh the relevant factors carefully and to
reach judgments in the best interest of the
public. The Administrator believes that such
responsibility, while heavy, is unavoidable if
protection of public health is to be maximized
within the constraints of a world of finite
resources. The policy contained in the
proposed rule is based on these views.

III. Legal Basis for the Proposed EPA
Appraoch

A. Congrossonal Intent and the
Characteristics of Airborne Carcinogen
The main question the Administrator has
found it necessary to answer in arriving at
the interpretation of section 112 reflected in
today's proposal is whether Congress, in
enacting that section, had any specific intent
about how an ample margin of safety would
be derived in setting standards for air
pollutants with the characteristics of
carcinogens. If Congress had a specific intent,
that would of course be conclusive. If, on the
other hand, the situation presented by
regulation of airborne carcinogens under
section 112 falls in the interstices of
congressional intent, the Administrator is
required by established legal principles to
deduce and impute an intent in a reasonable
way that is consistent with the overall
purposes and scheme of the statues."
(1) The focus of congressional attention:
"threshold" pollutants. In answering this
question, the Adminstrator has found it
helpful to recall the pollution problem that
Congress perceived and addressed in 1970.
when section 112 was enacted as part of a
major revision of the entire Act. The
legislative history of the Clean Air
Amendments of 1970 reveals that the
attention of Congress was at that time fixed
primarily on the two problems perceived to
be at the heart of the air pollution crisis:
stationary source emissions of various widely
prevalent pollutants such as sulfur dioxide.
particulate matter, and photochemical
oxidants; and automotive emissions of some
of the same pollutants. The statutory scheme
constructed for dealing with these pollutants
reflected congressional recognition of the
view that the pollutants have exposure
thresholds for adverse health effects: that is,
levels below which exposure to the pollutants
"See. e.g.. Mourning v. Fom/'/v Publicatiuns
Serv.. Inc.. 411 U.S. 356. 371-373"(1973): Murl.iu v.
Ruiz. 415 U.S. 199. 231 (1974): United Statt-.i v
Southwestern Cable Co.. 392 U.S. 157.171-173
[1968): International Harvester Co. v. Rurki'lshnus.
478 F.2d 615, 648 (D.C. Cir.. 1973).
V-Appendix C-19
-------
federal Register / "Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules

be considered in connection with control of the
pollutants described in section 108. Control of
pollutants listed under section 108 can take account
of feasibility through opportunities for allocation of
the burdens of control by the slates under section
110 through delays in compliance under sections
I13(d) and llfl. and through attainment date
extensions under section 110(e). Under section
lll(d) of the Act. feasibility is taken into account
directly in connection with control of certain
similar, but less ubiquitous, pollutants emitted by
di»crele source categories
"This view was recently endorsed in Hercules.
Inc. v. EPA. F.Zd , 12 ERC 1376 (D.C. Cir.. W78)
"This construction of the difference between
"adequate" and "ample" was recently expressed by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia circuit in EDF/PCBa/ v. EPA.-
12 ERC 1353 (1978).
clearly among the pollutants that the
Administrator is required to regulate under
section 112 of the Act, carcinogens must also
(for the reasons discussed earlier) be
regarded for public health purposes as having
no identifiable adverse health effects
thresholds. The method used to establish a
margin of safety for a threshold pollutant—
setting the standard somewhere below the
demonstrated effects level at a point at which
the absence of adverse health effects is
predicted—therefore cannot be used to set
standards (other than at zero) for carcinogens
under section 112, •since risk of cancer is
believed to exist at any exposure lev-el
greater than zero.
In establishing margins of safety for
carcinogens, therefore, the task is to
determine how low the risk of the occurrence
of cancer in an-exposed persons or the
projected incidence in an exposed population
must be driven before a margin of safety can
be considered ample to protect the public
health. Only two approaches are available
for performing this task: either the emission
standards must be set at zero to eliminate the
risk of cancer incidence altogether, or some
residual risk must be permitted. Because
Congress did not give specific consideration
to this problem, the Administrator does not
believe that section 112 expresses an intent
to eliminate totally all risks from emissions of
airborne carcinogens." Section 112 standards
which permit small residual risks can, in the
Administrator's judgment, therefore provide
an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health.
(3) The consequences of a zero-risk
requirement. This view is based on several
additional factors. Foremost-among these is
the belief that if Congress had intended the
drastic results thai would flow from a
requirement to eliminate all risk from
emissions of carcinogens, it would have
spoken with much greater clarity."
A requirement that the risk from
atmospheric carcinogen emissions be reduced
to zero would produce massive social
dislocations, given the pervasiveness of at
least minimal levels of carcinogenic
emissions in key American industries. Since
few such industries could soon operate in
compliance with zero-emission standards,
closure would'be the only legal alternative.
Among the important activities affected
would be the generation of electricity from
either coal-burning or nuclear energy: the
manufacturing of steel: the mining, smelting,
or refining of virtually any mineral (e.g.,
copper, iron, lead, zinc, and limestone); the
maufacture of synthetic organic chenicals;
and the refining, storage, or dispensing of any
"While Congress apparently believed that some
substances might be so toxic that any level of
emissons should be prohibited {see. e.g., A
Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of
1970. U:S. Government Printing Office. 1974. at 227)
(Statement of Senator Muskiel. it seems to have had
in mind sustanoes so poisonous that essentially any
ambient concentration would be expected to
produce widespread serious health effects, rather
than substances with the characteristics of
carcinogens, which would produce only scattered,
random health effects at very low concentrations.
"Cf. Brown v. EPA, 521 F. 2d 827, 834 (9th Cir.,
1975). vacated on other grounds. 431 U.S. 99 (1977),
opinion on remand. 666 F. 2d 665 (1977),
petroleum product."That Congress had no
clear intention of mandating such results
aeems self-evident.
The conclusion that Congress did not
contemplate closure of the nation's basic
industries, or even widespread industry
closures, is also supported by the history and
language of section 112. First, Congress in
1970 gave the subject of plant closures only
brief consideration in connection with section
112." While the legislative, history makes
clear that the Administrator is empowered to
set standards under section 112 that result in
plant or industry closures where
appropriate,"it is by no means clear that
Congress intended that result for all non-
threshold hazardous pollutants, or even that
Congress really focused on the problem."
Indeed, the very limited nature of the
legislative history itself compels the
conclusion that closure of the nation's basic
industries, irrespective of the actual levels of
risk involved, could not have been
contemplated. That conclusion becomes even
more inescapable in light of the 1977
Amendments, which added radioactive
substances—long regarded as confirmed
carcinogens and emitted from a wide variety
of sources—to the coverage of the Act, with
no mention anywhere of industry closures as
the inevitable consequence.
The language of section 112 is also
consistent with today's proposal. In using the
phrase "margin of safety," Congress was
borrowing a concept from the field of
enginering,*4 where it had previously
employed the term. "'By prescribing the use
of a margin of-safety for the load factors of
underground mine hoist cables in the 1969
Mine Safety Act, for example, Congress
surely did not intend to suggest that the
safety factor must guarantee a failure risk of
zero. Indeed, no reputable engineer would
say that even with a margin of safety an
"adequately strong" hoist cable " presents a
failure risk of absolutely zero.
Nor does the use of the term "safety"
necessarily imply a zero-risk concept. Where
Congress has intended to require safety from
the risk of cancer to be absolute. It has
known how to express that intention clearly,
as it did in the Delaney Clause of the Food
and Drug Act,*7prohibiting the use of any
food additive found to induce cancer in man
or animal at any level of exposure. This
provision was enacted years before section
"One widespread, though non-industrial, activity
that would also be affected is the buring of wood in
home fireplaces.
"See, e.g.. Legis. Hist., supra,at 133 (statement of
Senator Muskie).
"See. Legis. Hist., tapra. at 133 («tatement of
Senator Muskie): Adamo Wrecking Co. v. U.S.. 434
U.S. 275, 54 L Ed. 2d 538, 555 (Stevens, ].,
dissenting).
"In fact, the congressional expectation in 1970
was apparently that only a few pollutants would
Ultimately be found "hazardous" within the
meaning of what became section 112. See. S. Rep.
No. 91-1196. supra, at 20.
"See EDF(PCBs] vs. EPA, EPA, supra, slip opln.
at 40.
"Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of
1969. 314(a). 30 U.S.C. { 674(a);*ee also 30 CFR
75J401-1 (1977).
"JO U.S.C. B74(a).
"21 U.S.C. 34a(cH3HA|.
V-Appendix C-20
-------
112. and the absence of comparable
specificity in section 112 suggests that "an
ample margin of safety to protect the public
health" need not be interpreted as requiring
the complete elimination of all risks."
In interpreting the margin of safety concept
in section 112 of the Clean Air Act, moreover,
there is no reason to believe that Congress
intended to make air pollution practically the
sole facet of American life from which the
government would attempt to eliminate risk
entirely.
Not only is there no indication, as noted
above, that Congress considered the
inevitable consequences of such a decision,
but such an interpretation would also be
quite incongruous in view of the provisions of
numerous other public health statutes
enacted during or since 1970. These statutes
deal with, among other things, environmental
carcinogens to which people are equally or
more exposed, and they all permit
consideration of factors other than risk in
setting standards or taking comparable
actions.29
In particular, the recent enactment of the
Toxic Substances Control Act. which was
intended to address the problem of toxic
substances comprehensively, supports the
view that where Congress has specifically
considered the problem of reducing risks
posed by environmental exposure to
carcinogens, it has not required complete
elimination of those risks. Taken together, the
Administrator believes that these statutes
provide strong evidence that the complete
elimination of risk from environmental
exposure to carcinogens is not the task with
which he has been charged by Congress.
B Ample margins of safety under section
112. For reasons stated previously, the
Administrator has concluded that section 112
does not require him to base all emission
standards for carcinogens on a criterion of
zero risk from exposure to such substances.
Once that proposition is accepted, at least
limited consideration of factors other than
the level of risk itself is unavoidable, since
some criteria are needed in order to judge
whether or not the degree of public health
protection associated with a particular
standard is "ample." M
The Administrator believes that section 112
clearly requires this determination to be
based primarily on risk. The Administrator
also believes, however, that he may consider
other social and economic factors in
determining whether an ample margin of
safety is provided by a given control level.
"That Congress might have chosen an absolute
safely rule for food additives, bul not for air
pollution, is quite plausible on policy grounds. Cf.
Doniger. "Federal Regulations of Vinly Chloride," 4
Ecology Low Quarterly 497. at 655-6SB (1978).
"See, Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act. as amended, 7 U.S.C. 136a el seq.:
Toxic Substances Control Act. 15 U.S C. 2601 el
seq.: Safe Drinking Water Act. 42 U.S.C. 300f el seq.:
Clean Water Act. as amended. 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.: and Occupational Safely and Health Act of
1970. 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.
90 As discussed above, this conclusion is of course
limiled to situations where standards cannot be set
on the basis of an adverse health effects threshold.
Where standards can be set on that basis under
section 112. factors other than health effect* naed
not and may nol be considered.
These factors include the benefits of the
activity or substance producing risk; the
distribution of the benefits versus the
distribution of the risks; the availability and
possible environmental risks of substitutes
for that substance or activity; and the cost of
reducing the risks further.
The rule proposed today will provide an
ample margin of safety in several ways,
consistent with this view. First, it protects
against the unknown dangers of low-level
exposures to airborne carcinogens by treating
them as pollutants presenting risks even at
low exposure levels. Next, it places primary
emphasis on risk in establishing standards
for sources regulated under section 112, and
therefore requires at a minimum that such
sources use best available technology to
reduce cancer risks from their emissions.
Beyond that, additional control measures will
be required to eliminate residual risks judged
unreasonable in light of the factors noted
above. If necessary, this could entail closure
of a source or even an industry, although the
Administrator is not now aware of any
source category whose carcinogenic
emissions would be likely to require industry
closure.
The proposal would also carry out the
public health mandate of section 112 in two
additional ways: first, by quickly imposing
generic standards where possible to
eliminate swiftly certain existing sources of
carcinogenic emissions; and second, by
applying the unreasonable risk criterion to
contain the risks posed by emissions from
new sources. The Administrator believes that
provisions dealing specifically with the
otherwise unpredictable increases in risks
posed by emissions from new sources are a
necessary element of a policy under section
112 that requires the elimination of
unreasonable residual risks. The
Administrator also regards these provisions
as consistent with, if not required by, the
policy of the Act to afford maximum public
health protection b preventing significant
increases in exposure 1o pollutants regulated
by the Act."
Finally, since the issues posed by today's
proposal have not yet been judicially
resolved,32 the Administrator regards the
foregoing analysis of the requirements of
section 112 as a valid exercise of his
discretion to interpret the meaning of these
complex provisions of the Act."The
interpretation of section 112 stated here is the
first detailed analysis the Administrator has
" See. } 5 101(b)(2) and 160-149 of the Act 42
U.S.C. 7401(b)(2) and 7470-7479, H.R. Rep. No. 96-
294. 95lh Cong.. 1st Sess. at 103-178 (1977). The
Administrator has previously expressed his view
that new sources of carcinogen emissions should
not be allowed to create significant new risks to
exposed populations. 42 FR 28154. 28156 (June 2.
1977). and that new sources should be required to
use improved emission control techniques, id. at
28155.
"The Administrator does not regard the
EDF/PCBs) and Hercules cases noted above a*
controlling precedent for the interpretation
expressed here. Neither of those cases involved
regulations promulgated under section 112. and
neither dealt with the primary question involved
here, the regulation of carcinogens—nonthmhold
pollutants—under the Clean Air Act.
"See, e.g.. Train v. NRDC, 420 U.S. 60 (1975).
published of the application of the section to
regulation of airborne carcinogens. It is,
however, consistent with his initial (and
subsequent) actions in regulating asbestos,
the first substance regulated under section
112 in part for carcinogenic effects. In that
initial rulemaking, despite the absence of a
known threshold level for carcinogenic
effects, the Administrator explicitly
considered the technological and economic
importance of certain uses of asbestos and
decided that, although a certain "minimal risk
to the public" would probably remain,
emissions from certain of those activities
should be allowed to continue.34
EPA also considered such factors in
establishing emission standards for vinyl
chloride, the only other substance for which
emission standards have been set under
section 112 to control carcinogenic effects.
The interpretations of section 112 published
in connection with that action are consistent
with, though not as detailed as, the analysis
appearing here.u Those interpretations were
reiterated, and the health-based nature of
section 112 emphasized, in a proposal to
amend the vinyl chloride standards."These
publications make clear the Administrator's
consistent view that section 112 requires him
to focus principally on health risks in
regulating airborne carcinogens, but that it
does not require the elimination of all risks
from carcinogens in establishing an ample
margin of safety to protect the public health.

References
1. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Identification, Classification
and Regulation to Toxic Substances Posing a
Potential Occupational Carcinogenic Risk, 29
CFR Part 1990, 43 FR 54148, October 4.1977.
2. Consumer Products Safety Commission,
"Interim Policy and Procedure for Classifying,
Evaluating, and Regulating Carcinogens in
Consumer Products", 43 FR 25658, June 13,
1978. Withdrawn, 44 FR 23821, April 23,1979.
3. "Petition for the Initiation of Rulemaking
Proceedings to Establish a Policy Governing
the Classification and Regulation of
Carcinogenic Air Pollutants under the Clean
Air Act," Environmental Defense Fund,
November 7,1977.
4. "Testimony on OSHA's Generic
Carcinogen Proposal," American Industrial
Health Council, New York.
5. EPA, "Health Risk and Economic Impact
Assessments for Suspected Carcinogens',
Interim Procedures and Guidelines, 41 FR
21402, May 25,1976.
6. "Scientific Bases for Identification of
Potential Carcinogens and Estimation of
Risks" Report by the Work Group on Risk
Assessment of the Interagency Regulatory
Liaison Group (IRLG) 44 FR 39858, July 6.
1979.
7. EPA's Testimony on OSHA's Proposed
Cancer Policy, presented at OSHA public
hearings beginning May 16,1978.
|FR Doc. 79-31302 Filed 10-9-79: 6:45 am]
MLUNO CODE 65CO-01-M
"See 38 FR 8820 (April 6.1973).
"See40 FR 59532. 59534. 59535-59536 (December
24,1975); 41 FR 46560. 46581-46562 (October 21.
1976).
"See 42 FR 28154 (June 2,1977).
V-Appendix C-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 13, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61
(FRL 1562-2, Docket No. OAOPS 79-14]

Proposed Policy and Procedures for
Indentifylng, Assessing, and
Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer; Advance
Notice of Proposed Generic
Standards; Public Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: This notice extends the
period for comment on proposed and
procedures for identifying, assessing,
and regulating carcinogens emitted into
the ambient air from stationary sources.
The comment period is extended from
August 12,1980 through the public
meeting of EPA's Science Advisory
Board Subcommittee on Airborne
Carcinogens, tentatively scheduled for
early November, 1980. Notice of the date
by which comments are due will
accompany the announcement of the
meeting date and location.
DATES: The public comment period on
the proposed policy and ANPR will
close following the public meeting of
EPA's Science Advisory Board
Subcommittee on Airborne Carcinogens
tentatively scheduled for early
November, 1980.
ADDRESSES: All written comments on
the proposed policy and ANPR should
be addressed to: Central Docket Section.
Gallery 3, West Tower, Waterside Mall,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20460. Attn.: OAQPS 79-14 (proposed
policy) or A 79-13 (ANPR).
Information on which the proposed
policy and ANPR are based as well as
the written comments received and
transcripts of the public hearings are
available for public inspection and
copying at the Central Docket Section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Joseph Padgett, Telephone 919-541-
5204 [FTS 629-5204).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10,1979, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed in the
Federal Register (44 FR 58642) a policy
and procedures for identifying,
assessing, and regulating carcinogens
emitted into the ambient air from
stationary sources. In the same Federal
Register (44 FR 58662), EPA published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR), soliciting comments
on draft generic work practice and
operational standards for volatile
organic compounds which could be
applied quickly to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens from certain
source categories.
Interested individuals were invited to
submit written comments on the
proposed policy and ANPR by February
21.1980. This was extended to April 14,
1980 and again to August 12,1980 in
order to afford additional opportunity
for public comment.
Based on the written and oral
comments received on the proposed
policy. EPA has determined that further
public discussion of certain major
scientific issues is warranted. The
format for this discussion will be a
public meeting of EPA's Science
Advisory Board Subcommittee on
Airborne Carcinogens tentatively
scheduled for early November, 1980.
Once the date for this meeting is
determined, an announcement will be
published in the Federal Register. The
meeting announcement will include
notice of the comment period deadline
and the date of by which material
rebutting, responding to, or
supplementing written or oral comments
submitted at the Science Advisory
Board meeting must be submitted to
EPA.
Dated: August 8,1980
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation.
|FR Doc. 80-24610 Filed B-12-40: 8:46 am|
V-Appendix C-22
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 248 / Tuesday. December 23. I960 / Proposed Rule«
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

(FRL 1710-3; Docket No*. OAQPS 79-14
and A 79-13]

Proposed Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating
Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of
Cancer; Public Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Closure of Public Comment
Period.
SUMMARY: This notice announces
closure of the period for public
comments on the proposed airborne
carcinogen policy and on the advance
Notice of Proposed Generic Standards
(ANPR) published concurrently by EPA
October 10,1979.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
policy and ANPR should be postmarked
no later than January 22,1981.
ADDRESS: All written comments on the
proposed policy and ANPR should be
addressed to: Central Docket Section,
Gallery 3, West Tower, Waterside Mall,
401 M Street, SW., Washington. D.C.
20460. ATTN: OAQPS 79-14 (proposed
policy) or A 79-13 (ANPR).
Information on which the proposed
policy and ANPR are based as well as
the written comments received and
transcripts of the public hearings are
available for public inspection and
copying at the Central Docket Section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bob Schell, Telephone 919-541-5345
(FTS: 629-5345).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10,1979, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed in the
Federal Register (44 FR 58642) a policy
and procedures for identifying,
assessing and regulating carcinogens
emitted into the ambient air from
stationary sources. In the same Federal
Register (44 FR 58662), EPA published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting comments
on generic work practice and
operational standards for volatile
organic compounds which could be
applied quickly to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens from certain
source categories.
EPA has extended the public comment
period on the subject rulemaking*
•everal time* (44 FR 70196,45 FR 6960,
45 FR 25828. 45 FR 53842) to
accommodate the requests of concerned
individuals and organizations. The
dockets for these rulemakings currently
include more than 200 written
submissions and the oral transcripts of
three public hearings.
In the most recent Federal Register
notice (45 FR 53842. August 13,1980), the
Agency announced an extension of the
comment period to permit further
consideration of certain scientific issue*
raised during the public hearings and in
the written comments. The notice
explained that the consideration of
these issues would include a public
meeting of EPA's Science Advisory
Board Subcommittee on Airborne
Carcinogens tentatively scheduled for
November 1980. The Subcommittee had
been previously scheduled to meet
September 4-5,1980 to review EPA
carcinogenicity and exposure
assessments on several substances
identified as possible candidates for
regulation as airborne carcinogens. In
the course of this review the
Subcommittee was able to devote a
considerable part of the meeting to a
discussion of several basic scientific
issues relevant to the proposed policy,
including carcinogenicity evaluation and
risk estimation. Based on the SAB's
discussion of basic scientific issues in
its September meeting, EPA has
concluded that a further meeting of the
SAB prior to realization of the airborne
carcinogen policy is unnecessary. For
these reasons, the comment period will
be closed thirty days after publication of
this notice.
Dated: December 16,1980
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and
Radiation.
|FR Doc. 80-S97M Filed 12-22-80: 8 45 »m]
V-Appendix C-23
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
GENERIC STANDARD
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
40CFRPart61

[FRL 1254-2]

National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Advance
Notice of Proposed Generic Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth draft
generic standards that EPA may propose
for sources of carcinogenic organic
chemicals that are listed as hazardous
air pollutants under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. Elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register EPA is proposing a
policy for the identification, assessment
and regulation of airborne carcinogens
under section 112. Under this policy,
EPA would employ generic standards
where applicable to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens. These generic
standards would be proposed
simultaneously with the listing of a
carcinogen as a hazardous air pollutant.
The intent of this notice is to solicit
comment on the generic standards EPA
is currently developing.
DATES: Written comments and
information should be postmarked on or
before December 10,1979.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: Written comments and
information should be submitted to the
Central Docket Section (A-130), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Attn:
Docket No. A-79-13. 401 M Street. SW..
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Docket: Docket No. A-7&-13, containing
material relevant to this rulemaking, is
located in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Central Docket Section,
Room 2903B. 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington. D.C. 20460. The docket may
be inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. on workdays, and a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-13), Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin,
telephone number (919) 541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
112 of the Clean Air Act as amended, 42
U.S.C. 7412, requires EPA to regulate
hazardous air pollutants by establishing
emission standards and, where
necessary, certain other measures to
protect public health. The rapidly
developing body of knowledge
concerning toxicology indicates that
many air pollutants, primarily in the
form of airborne carcinogens, may
present significant risks to public health.
Many of these air pollutants will likely
be volatile organic chemicals. The
technical complexity and diversity of
the organic chemical manufacturing
industry and the stringency of Clean Air
Act time limits on regulation of
hazardous air pollutants indicate a need
to improve EPA's regulatory procedures
in this area. Accordingly, as a
significant part of the program for
regulation of airborne carcinogens
contained in the rule proposed
elsewhere in today's Federal Register,
EPA is developing generic standards for
use in reducing emissions of organic
chemical carcinogens listed under
section 112 in the future. The use of
generic standards would provide a
quick, first step in the regulation of
organic chemical air carcinogens.
Generic Standards
Generic standards used to regulate
emission sources of carcinogenic air
pollutants are standards which are
independent of process or chemical and
are based on the similarity of operations
and equipment throughout an industry,
such as the organic chemical
manufacturing industry. They can be
applied to similar emission sources and
represent reasonable and prudent
measures a responsible plant owner or
operator would take in dealing with a
carcinogenic air pollutant.
Consistent with the mandate of
section 112 that emissions of hazardous
air pollutants be reduced quickly,
generic standards would be proposed
for applicable emission sources
simultaneously with listing of a volatile
organic chemical determined to be an
airborne carcinogen. Depending on the
nature of the listed organic chemical and
the emission sources of this chemical,
generic standards may require
"tailoring" in certain cases to reflect
unique or unusual situations. Generic
standards and the rationale supporting
those standards would be published in
the Federal Register. Additional
documents outlining and summarizing
the information supporting the
standards would not necessarily be
published. However, supporting
information would be available at the
time of proposal for public inspection.
This supporting information would
include general assessments of the
economic, energy, and environmental
impacts of the proposed standards.
Proposal of generic standards for
applicable organic chemical emission
sources would be followed by a public
comment period and an opportunity for
a public hearing. EPA would evaluate
the comments submitted during the
public hearing and comment period.
make appropriate changes to the
proposed generic standards, and then
promulgate the generic standards.
Generic standards would be followed, in
most cases, by proposal of additional
standards. These additional standards
would be developed under the rule
proposed today for regulation of
airborne carcinogens.
As EPA identifies and develops
additional standards, an evaluation of
the reasonableness of including these
requirements in future generic standards
will be made. As a result, the generic
standards will evolve and become more
extensive as EPA's experience and
expertise increase.
Implementation of Generic Standards
As discussed below, the draft generic
standards focus primarily on reducing
fugitive emissions through the use of an
effective leak detection and repair
program. There are a number of possible
approaches to implementing these
generic standards. The first approach
would be to require the attainment of
specific performance levels by the
sources regulated. For example to
control fugitive emissions from pump
seals, a performance level could specify
that no more than a certain percentage
of pump seals leak. Achievement of the
performance level would be enforced
through tests of pump seals in a plant to
determine what percentage of seals
were leaking. If more leaks were found
than the percentage allowed by a
performance level, the source would be
out of compliance and enforcement
action would be taken. This approach,
therefore, would be similar to the
approach followed in most existing new
source performance standards and
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants. Because this
approach would depend on testing,
rigorous enforcement of the standards
would be possible. This approach also
would provide each plant with complete
flexibility to institute its own method of
achieving and maintaining compliance
with the standards. Data to establish
specific performance levels, however, is
not currently available, although
programs underway may provide some
data which could be used for this
purpose. If the data developed by these
programs show that this approach is
feasible, future generic standards may
incorporate performance levels in some
areas.
A second approach to implementing
generic standards would be to specify
that certain work practices be followed.
For example, to control fugitive
emissions from pump seals, the
standards would specify (1) how often
pump seals must be inspected for leaks.
V-Generic-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
(2) the detection technique and
procedure for determining if a leak
exists, and (3) the time period within
which any leak found must be repaired.
Compliance with work practice
requirements would be enforced through
examination of records kept by the plant
showing that inspections were carried
out, leaks detected, and repairs made.
Compliance would be monitored through
use of routine reporting. This approach
would, of course, provide less flexibility
to the plant owner or operator. The
reliance of this approach on self-
reporting and recordkeeping could make
enforcing generic standards difficult.
However, data and information are
currently available which allow the
development of work practice
requirements.
A third approach to implementing
generic standards would use the
standards as guidelines. Guidelines
would provide maximum flexibility in
the actions by industry; each plant could
tailor its method of locating and
repairing leaks to its particular situation.
Guidelines would also allow innovation
in control techniques. Guidelines,
however, would have no legal status.
Therefore, EPA could not enforce
compliance with guidelines. Given the
nature of the problem presented by
public exposure to hazardous air
pollutants and the requirements of
section 112, this approach is inadequate.
The Manufacturing Chemists
Association (MCA) has suggested an
approach similar to that of guidelines.
MCA's approach would require owners
and operators to prepare and implement
plant-specific plans for reducing fugitive
emissions of the hazardous air pollutant.
The draft generic standards would serve
as guidelines for developing these plans.
Plans could depart from the guidelines if
an owner or operator felt the departure
was justified.
MCA's suggested approach is similar
to an approach used by EPA in oil
pollution prevention regulation (40 CFR
Part 112) promulgated in 1973 and in
hazardous substance pollution
prevention regulation (40 CFR Part 151)
proposed in 1978 under the Clean Water
Act. This approach provides each plant
with flexibility and allows innovation in
control techniques. In the proposal,
enforcement of this approach is
triggered by an identifiable event, such
as discharge of hazardous substances in
harmful quantities as determined in 40
CFR Part 118, and focuses on a review of
the effectiveness of the plan.
Enforcement of this approach is
enhanced by surprise inspections which
focus on review of the plan. After
review of a plan, an owner or operator
may be required to amend the plan.
Also, the owner or operator is liable for
a civil penalty for violations of
requirements of the regulation.
The plan preparation approach, if
used to implement generic standards,
would be enforced through review of a
plan to determine the effectiveness of
the plan. Review of each plan would be
required at some point in time. The
mechanism for triggering review could
be based on an identifiable event or
could be based on an automatic or
periodic review.
In the example of the proposed
regulation under the Clean Water Act,
review is triggered by an identifiable
event, such as a discharge. For emission
sources covered by the draft generic
standards, an identifiable event to
trigger review of a plan is not readily
apparent. These emission sources are
spread out in an organic chemical plant
and often require a measurement device
for detection. A mechanism for
triggering review other than the
identifiable event mechanism would be
necessary.
Another mechanism for triggering of
review plans would follow procedures
similar to those used under 40 CFR Part
51 for development of State
Implementation Plans. These procedures
would require automatic preparation of
plans and their submittal to EPA for
review. After a review to determine the
effectiveness of a plan, the plan would
be approved or disapproved. Approved
plans would be incorporated into 40
CFR Part 61, thus assuring their
implementation and allowing their
enforcement. Incorporating plans into 40
CFR Part 61 would be very time
consuming. The time and resources
required to review and determine the
effectivieness of a plan and then to
incorporate the plan into 40 CFR Part 61
prohibit the use of this mechanism.
Review of a plan to determine its
effectiveness is central to enforcement
of the plan preparation approach. The
use of an identifiable event to trigger
review of a plan does not appear
reasonable. The use of automatic review
procedures similar to those used under
40 CFR Part 51 is prohibited by the time
and resources required by the
procedures. Thus, the plan preparation
approach is limited in its usefulness.
EPA recognizes the general
desirability of the performance level
approach to generic standards.
However, data and information are not
available to develop these types of
generic standards at the present time.
Although EPA recognizes the possible
use of the plan preparation approach,
the time and resources required to
establish effective plans prohibit the
usefulness of this approach. Therefore,
in developing draft generic standards,
EPA has chosen the approach of
specifying detailed work procedures as
the most viable approach now available.
This is consistent with EPA control
techniques guidelines documents which
recommend this approach. EPA invites
public comment on advantages and
disadvantages of each of the approaches
discusesed above.
Draft Generic Standards
The draft generic standards are
outlined in Attachment A to this notice.
These draft standards would be
proposed for sources of carcinogenic
organic chemicals listed under section
112 of the Clean Air Act. When
proposing generic standards for
regulation of carcinogenic organic
hazardous air pollutants, EPA would
evaluate the appropriateness of each
standard outlined in Attachment A.
Tailoring may be required and therefore
in some instances, additions to these
draft standards may be made, and in
other instances, deletions may be made.
To achieve the goal of expeditious
control of carcinogenic emission
sources, the draft generic standards
were based on the following selection
criteria. First, draft generic standards
were selected which are broadly
applicable to organic chemical emission
sources. Second, standards were
selected which lend themselves to quick
implementation and third, standards
were selected which do not require
substantial capital expenditure. Finally,
standards were selected which would
be consistent with any additional
standards promulgated later; thus, the
generic standards could be instituted
with confidence.
The draft generic standards categorize
emission sources of organic chemicals
into six groups. These groups are:
fugitive emissions, chemical storage,
chemical transfer and handling, waste
disposal, process vents, and air
pollution control devices. All of these
emission sources lend themselves to
control through the use of generic
standards. In accordance with the
selection criteria, the draft generic
standards would require control of these
emission sources, for the most part,
through the use of improved operation,
maintenance, and housekeeping
practices.
The major focus of the draft generic
standards is leak detection and repair.
The draft standards would require
inspection of potential fugitive emission
sources at specific intervals to locate
leaks which require repair. These
fugitive emission sources consist of
equipment which comes into contact
V-Generic-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
with any liquid or gaseous mixture
containing more than a specified
minimum concentration of the listed
pollutant. Inspection includes routinely
monitoring potential fugitive emission
sources to detect gaseous leaks, and
routinely observing sources to detect
liquid leaks. If an organic chemical
concentration greater than a defined
action level is measured at the interface
between the source and the atmosphere
using a portable detection device, it is
considered that a gaseous leak has been
detected. Upon monitoring, if a gaseous
leak is detected, the leak must be
repaired within a specified repair
interval. Upon observation, if a liquid
leak is detected, the emission source is
monitored. If a gaseous leak is detected,
then repair is required within the
specified repair interval. Repair of the
leak would be confirmed by monitoring
the source to determine that the
concentration is less than the defined
action level. Inspection intervals ranging
from weekly to annually are currently
being considered. Values of 1 to 10
percent for the minimum concentration
in the mixture, 5 to 15 days for the repair
interval, and 1,000 to 10,000 parts per
million by volume measured as hexane
(ppmv) as the action level or definition
of a leak are also currently being
considered.
If repair of a leak would result in more
emissions than cumulative emissions
from the leak prior to a scheduled
process or operation shutdown, or if
repair of a leak is not possible because
of location, service, or unavoidable
circumstances, the required repair could
be delayed pending approval of EPA.
EPA Regional Enforcement Divisions
must be notifed by telegram or
telephone within a specified number of
days of requests for delay in the repair
of a leak, and would retain the authority
to disapprove any requests. If, however,
EPA failed to respond within a specified
number of days to a request for delay in
repair of a leak, approval of the request
would be granted automatically. Values
of 2 to 5 days from the finding of a leak
for requesting of a delay, and 2 to 5 days
from receiving of a delay request for
EPA response to the request, are being
considered. Rather than follow this
procedure for all leaks, EPA is
considering this reporting procedure
only for requests for delays in repair of
excessive leaks. An excessive leak
would be defined as some emission
concentration greater than the current
1,000 to 10,000 ppmv range being
considered as the definition of a leak.
For example, an excessive leak could be
defined as a concentration of equal to or
greater than 100,000 ppm. Because either
of these approaches is likely to require
excessive resources and may be difficult
to enforce, EPA is requesting comment
on their feasibility and alternative
approaches which could be employed.
The numerical values of the specific
requirements in the draft generic
standards were based on preliminary
evaluation of various engineering
studies. In most cases, the requirements
are illustrated by a range of values that
are being considered. The inspection
intervals, which could vary from weekly
to annually for equipment in liquid
service and from monthly to quarterly
for equipment in gaseous service, were
based on data developed from test
programs conducted within refinery and
petrochemical plants. In general, the
inspection intervals are based on the
observed frequency of leaks and their
expected emission rates. Preliminary
evaluation of fugitive emission sources
within benzene production units of
petroleum refineries indicates that the
inspection interval influences potential
emission reduction more than other
factors, such as definition of a leak, or
repair interval. Currently, a monthly
inspection interval for equipment in
gaseous and liquid service appears the
most reasonable inspection interval.
The repair interval which ranges from
5 to 15 days was based on observations
in the petroleum refinery and
petrochemical industry and on expected
reporting requirements. In many cases,
repairs could be made sooner than 5
days. However, there are unavoidable
circumstances which can delay repair
beyond 5 days. Circumstances, such as a
plant's parts stock being depleted, are
generally avoidable. While a plant
normally stocks sufficient spare parts,
there may be unique circumstances
leading to the depletion of a plant's
parts stock. Requests for delays in
repair of leaks will be approved only
where repair is likely to result in
emissions in excess of the emissions
resulting from the leak, or where repair
is not possible because of circumstances
which EPA considers unavoidable.
Thus, the objective in selecting the
repair interval was to select a time
interval consistent with the ability of a
plant to repair a leak expeditiously, but
not to select a time interval so short that
it requires plants to continually request
repair delays for repair of routine leaks.
Preliminary evaluation of fugitive
emission sources within benzene
production units of petroleum refineries
indicates that the emission reduction
gained by going from 15 to five days is
small. Thus, the 15-day repair interval is
currently considered reasonable.
The purpose of specifying a minimum
concentration level of the pollutant in
gaseous or liquid mixtures is to exclude
process streams with trace quantities of
the hazardous pollutant. The 10 percent
upper boundary for this concentration
level is based on analogy with the
current vinyl chloride national emission
standard. The lower boundary of 1
percent is based on estimates that this
level, under certain conditions, would
allow emissions of less than 10 ppmv of
the hazardous air pollutant. Preliminary
evaluation of fugitive emission sources
within benzene production units of
petroleum refineries indicates that the
10 percent minimum concentration level
is most reasonable. Going from 10
percent to 1 percent would greatly
increase the number of sources covered
by the standards without a
corresponding reduction in emissions.
Therefore, 10 percent is currently
considered the most reasonable
minimum concentration level.
A hexane-based definition of a
gaseous leak at 10,000 ppmv as defined
in an EPA control techniques guideline
document, "Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Leaks from Petroleum
Refinery Equipment" (EPA-450/2-78-
036), was considered the maximum for
use in regulating organic hazardous air
pollutants. The 1000 ppmv definition of a
leak is a simple reduction of the value in
the control techniques guideline. The
1000 ppmv value appears a reasonable
lower value because some leakage is
unavoidable for emission sources
covered by the draft generic standards.
The 10,000 ppmv and 1000 ppmv
concentrations would be measured at
the interface between the leak and the
atmosphere. These values are based on
a technical evaluation of leaks and are
not based on an evaluation of potential
health risk of leaks. Preliminary
evaluation of fugitive emission sources
within benzene production units of
petroleum refineries indicates that the
10,000 ppmv action level is more
reasonable than the 1000 ppmv action
level. Experience indicates that repair of
leaks will result in emission reduction
with an action level of 10,000 ppmv.
However, experience does not indicate
that repair of leaks with concentrations
between 10,000 and 1000 ppmv will
result in emission reduction. Therefore,
10,000 ppm is currently considered the
most reasonable action level.

Miscellaneous Issues
Continuous area-wide monitoring to
measure ambient concentrations of
• specific hazardous organic compounds
was considered. EPA experience with
the effectiveness of area-wide
monitoring indicates that this technique
V-Generic-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
is not as effective in locating leaks as a
seal-by-seal inspection, which is the
technique outlined in the draft generic
standards. The use of area-wide
monitoring may add to the effectiveness
of seal-by-seal inspection, but
experience indicates that this added
effectiveness in minimal. Also, area-
wide monitoring is a capital intensive
technique. Thus, continuous area-wide
monitoring seems impractical for the
draft generic standards.
On the other hand, some organic
chemical facilities currently have leak
detection and repair programs based on
continuous area-wide monitoring of
ambient air hydrocarbon
concentrations. In some cases, these
programs or other types of leak
detection and repair programs might be
as effective in reducing fugitive
emissions as the program described in
the draft generic standards. During
meetings with industry associations, it
has been suggested that an alternative
to requiring duplication of equally
effective leak detection and repair
programs should be developed. This
suggestion is reasonable. However, it
depends upon determining equivalency
of various programs with the draft
generic standards. Three basic criteria
seem necessary for any technique for
determining equivalency. These criteria
are: (1) the technique for determining
equivalency should minimize both
industry and Agency resource
requirements; (2) the type of data
necessary to demonstrate equivalency
should normally be available or easily
developed; and (3) the technique should
be quantitative, with little room for
discretion or argument concerning
equivalency. EPA specifically invites
comments on possible approaches to
determining equivalency that meet these
criteria.
The draft generic standards also
include requirements for recordkeeping
and reporting. Recordkeeping and
reporting are considered necessary to
insure that the improved operation,
maintenance, and good housekeeping
practices generally required by the draft
generic standards are put into practice
quickly, effectively, and consistently.
Detected leaks would be recorded in a
log and the corrective actions noted
when a leak is repaired. EPA would be
notified on a quarterly basis of leaks not
repaired within the specified repair
interval; these quarterly reports would
include a listing of those units and
components which leaked past the
specified repair interval, date and
duration of these leaks, and
concentrations of the hazardous organic
chemicals. In some cases, recordkeeping
and reporting would be a duplication of
other EPA requirements. Where
duplication is unnecessary, duplication
would not be required in the generic
standards.
In early versions of the draft generic
standards, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements were the only measures
used to ascertain compliance with the
standards. In meetings with
environmental groups, it was suggested
that either EPA or a certified
independent contractor perform
scheduled inspections, observations and
monitoring to confirm compliance with
the standards. This suggestion would be
extremely burdensome on EPA
resources. Therefore, it has not been
included in the draft generic standards.
This suggestion, however, did lead to
incorporation of an approach requiring
the plant's owner or operator to notify
EPA one week prior to the date of
certain inspections, observations and
monitoring. This would give EPA the
opportunity to observe these activities
and determine compliance with the
generic standards, without requiring
extensive resource commitments. EPA is
actively seeking specific comments on
this approach to enforcement of the
draft generic standards, and specific
comments on alternative approaches.
Minimal capital expenditure was a
criterion for selection of the draft
generic standards. The most readily
identifiable capital expenditure required
by the draft standards is the purchase of
the portable organic vapor monitor. The
cost of two such monitors used by EPA
totals about $10,000. A preliminary
estimate of annual leak detection and
repair costs for benzene production
units within a petroleum refinery is
about $25,000 per year. This estimate
includes the amortized cost of two
monitors, annual operating cost of the
monitors, annual cost of labor for leak
detection, annual parts and labor cost
for leak repair, and annual cost of
administrative support. It does not,
however, include cost savings, which
could be significant, for the value of the
retained organic chemicals. EPA is
interested in specific information on the
cost of the draft generic standards.
The draft standards would also
require the owner or operator to submit
to EPA within four months following the
promulgation of a specific generic
standard an estimate of emissions of the
hazardous air pollutant. This estimate
would be based on nameplate operating
capacity and would be categorized by
emission source.

Specific Requests
EPA is requesting comments on the
approaches discussed under the
implementation of Generic Standards
section of this preamble. EPA is
interested in comment on other
^approaches for implementing generic
standards and is specifically interested
in any data and information which could
lead to the development of performance
level generic standards and means for
enforcing the plan preparation approach
advocated by MCA.
EPA is also interested in specific
comments on the following aspects of
the draft generic standards: (1)
identification of various operations.
procedures and equipment that are
sources of emissions of organic
chemicals; (2) identification of
demonstrated control techniques which
can be broadly applied to these sources
of emissions; (3) costs associated with
the requirements listed in the draft
generic standards; (4) standard
equipment, designs, or operating and
maintenance procedures (including
periods of start-up and shutdown) for
controlling emissions from operations
that may emit organic chemicals; (5)
comments on the various numerical
ranges included in the draft generic
standards; (6) comments on the
approach of requiring requests for
delays in repair of leaks or requests for
delays in repair of excessive leaks only,
and the specified levels of an excessive
leak; (7) identification of techniques or
procedures which could be used to
determine the equivalency of alternative
leak detection and repair programs; (8)
identification of ways to reduce the
burden of recordkeeping and reporting
on the source and EPA while
maintaining the effectiveness of the
draft generic standards; (9) the
enforcement approach of the draft
generic standards and alternative
approaches to the enforcement of these
standards; and (10) specific information
on leak detection and repair programs
similar to the program in the draft
generic standard; for each program, the
information should include (a) chemical
name and the process used to produce
the chemical, (b) a detailed description
of the leak detection and repair
program, (c) the number of pieces of
each type of equipment affected by the
program, (d) separate costs for
monitoring, equipment, installation of
equipment, labor for monitoring, repair
parts, labor for repair, and overhead,
and (e) an estimate of the emission
reduction potential and the product
recovery credits, including an
explanation of the estimation method.
This advance notice of proposed
rulemaking is issued under the authority
of sections 112,114, and 301(a) of the
V-Generic-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
Clean Air Act as amended [42 U.S.C.
7412, 7414 and 7601(a)].
Dated: August 22. 1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.

Attachment A—Draft Generic Standards

/. Applicability
Except as noted below, these standards
would apply, for applicable emission sources.
to the owner or operator of equipment
affected by these standards. These standards
would affect equipment which comes into
contact with a liquid mixture containing 1
(10) percent or more by weight, or a gaseous
mixture containing 1 [10] percent or more by
volume, of organic chemicals listed by EPA
as carcinogenic hazardous air pollutants
under | 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Note.—Some requirements are illustrated
with one end of the range of values currently
being considered placed in brackets.

//. Fugitive Emissions
(A) All compressor seals and pipleline
valves in gaseous service shall be monitored
as provided in section IX (A) quarterly
(monthly]. Whenever a concentration of 1.000
ppmv (parts per million by volume as hexane)
(10,000 ppmv] is detected, a leak exists.
Whenever a leak exists, it shall be repaired
within 5 [15] days, except as provided in
sections II (F) and (G).
(B) All pump seals, pipeline valves in liquid
service, and process drains shall be
monitored as provided in section IX (A)
'annually [monthly]. Whenever a
concentration of 1,000 ppmv [10,000 ppmv] is
detected, a leak exists. Whenever a leak
exists, it shall be repaired within 5 [15] days.
except as provided in sections !I (F) and (G).
(C) Pressure relief valves, except those
vented to a control device, shall be monitored
as provided in section IX (A) quarterly
(monthly). Whenever a concentration of 1.000
ppmv [10.000 ppmv] is detected, a leak exists.
Whenever a leak exists, it shall be repaired
within 5 [15] days, except as provided in
sections II (F) and (G).
(D) Whenever a rupture disk installed
ahead of a pressure relief valve ruptures, it
shall be replaced within 5 [15] days
(E) Pump seals shall be observed for liquid
leaks weekly as provided in section IX (B).
Whenever liquids are observed running or
dripping from a pump seal, the seal shall be
monitored as' provided in section IX (A).
Whenever a concentration of 1.000 ppmv
(10,000 ppmv] is detected, a leak exists.
Whenever a leak exists, it shall be repaired
within 5 [15] days, except as provided in
sections II (F) and (G).
(F) When repair would clearly result in
emissions in excess of the emissions resulting
from the leak, repair may be delayed, as
provided in section VIII (G). until a regularly
scheduled shutdown. In determining whether
emissions from repair of a leak would exceed
those resulting from the leak, cumulative
emissions over the time until the regularly
scheduled shutdown shall be considered.
(G) Where repair is not possible because of
location, service, or unavoidable
circumstances, repair may be delayed, as
provided in section VIII (G), until a time
when repair is possible.
(H) Housekeeping practices.
(1) All liquid spills shall be cleaned up
within 8 (24) hours. Acceptable cleanup
methods include siphoning into a storage
container (e.g., a portable spill tank),
chemical absorption and other appropriate
methods. Cleanup methods shall be in
compliance with requirements under 40 CFR
Part 151 (proposed).
(2) Wherever a valve is located at the end
of a pipe or line, the pipe or line shall be .
sealed with a second valve, blind flange, plug
or cap. This requirement does not apply to
pressure relief valves.
(3) Whenever liquid or gaseous samples are
taken from lines or equipment, a closeable
container shall be used and sample valves
shall be closed between samples. Liquid and
gas that is bled from sample lines shall also
be collected. All sample and bled material
shall be returned to th§ process or disposed
as provided in section V.

///. Chemical Storage
For storage equipment of greater than 40
|150] cubic meters capacity:
(A) All fixed-roof storage vessels exposed
to direct sunlight shall be painted white. No
more than 20 percent of the surface of the
storage vessel, or 20 square meters.
whichever is less, shall be covered with
writing and figures. This requirement shall
not apply to insulated, pressurized, or \
controlled temperature storage vessels and
storage vessels equipped with a refrigerated
condenser, carbon adsorber, incinerator, or
any combination of these.
(B) Tank connection flanges and manway
seals shall be monitored as provided in
section IX (A) quarterly (monthly). Whenever
a concentration of 1.000 ppmv [10,000 ppmv]
is detected, a leak exists. Whenever a leak
exists, it shall be repaired within 5 [15] days.
except as provided in sections II (F) and (G).
(C) Conservation vents on fixed roof
storage vessels shall be inspected and, if
necessary, maintained quarterly [monthly].
(D) Seals on floating roof storage vessels
shall be inspected and. if necessary,
maintained quarterly [monthly],

IV. Chemical Transfer and Handling
For equipment used in transferring and
handling to or from rail cars, tank trucks,
barges, and other transfer or transportation
vehicles, all seals and fittings, excluding
flanges, shall be monitored as provided in
section IX (A) quarterly (monthly). Whenever
a concentration of 1000 ppmv (10,000 ppmv] is
detected, a leak exists. Whenever a leak
exists, it shall be repaired within 5 [15] days,
except as provided in sections II (F) and (G).

V. Waste
(A) For waste covered by regulation under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and containing greater than 1 [10]
percent by weight of a pollutant affected by
section 1, the following requirements would
apply.
(1) Waste from sampling shall be disposed
by returning it to the process stream, by
reducing it in an appropriate air pollution
control device, or by absorbing or adsorbing
it with a liquid or solid. These absorbents
and adsorbents, except those returned to the
process stream, shall then be wastes.
(2) Waste shall be stored in vapor-tight
containers.
(3) A Regional Administrator may require
an owner/operator, who is demonstrating
that treatment or disposal of a volatile waste
(i.e., greater than 78 mm Hg) will not
contribute airborne contaminant to the
atmosphere, as provided in the NOTE in 40
CFR 250.45 (proposed), to demonstrate that
treatment or disposal of the pollutant affected
by section I will not contribute the airborne
contaminant to the atmosphere such that
concentrations above the source have the
potential to increase risk to the public.
(B) For waste containing greater then 1 (10)
percent by weight of a pollutant affected by
section I and not covered by regulation under
RCRA the following requirements would
apply:
(1) Disposal and treatment of waste shall
be in compliance with standards for
treatment/disposal, as provided in 40 CFR
250.45 (proposed).
(2) Disposal and treatment of waste shall
be in compliance with sections V(A) (1), (2),
and (3).

VI. Process Vents
Where a process vent may emit a
hazardous organic chemical or any mixture
containing 1 [10] percent or more by volume
of hazardous chemicals, procedures
describing process operation, including start-
up, shutdown, normal and emergency
procedures, shall be written and available to
appropriate process operators. Operators
shall receive an annual minimum of two
hours of training in these procedures.

VII. Air Pollution Control Devices
Where a control device is used to reduce
air pollutant emissions of a hazardous
organic chemical, procedures outlining
normal and emergency procedures for the
control device shall be written and available
to all operators. These procedures shall
include at least all operating and
maintenance procedures recommended by
the control device manufacturer. Operators
shall receive an annual minimum of two
hours of training in these procedures.

VIII. Recordkeeping and Reports
(A) When a leak is detected, the presence
of the leak shall be noted on a survey log as
illustrated in Figure 1. Other information as
shown shall be included on this survey log.
Figure 1 is used to illustrate the minimum
acceptable information to be recorded and is
not a required form. A weatherproof and
readily visible tag bearing an identification
number and the date that the leak was
detected shall be affixed to the leaking
component. After the leak has been repaired.
the remaining portion of the survey log shall
be completed and the tag discarded. The
survey log shall be retained for at least two
years after the repair is completed.
(B) Quarterly reports shall be submitted to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office,
Enforcement Division Director. Each report
shall include a list as shown in Figure 2 of all
leaks that were located since the last report
and not repaired within 5 [15] days. Each
report shall include a separate list as shown
V-Generic-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 10, 1979 / Proposed Rules
in Figure 2 of all leaks which were reported in
a previous quarterly report and which have
not been repaired. In addition, each report
shall include a statement signed by the plant
manager confirming that all weekly,
(monthly), quarterly and annually inspecting,
observing and monitoring has been
performed.
(C) When a spill occurs, records of the date
and the time of the spill and the cleanup shall
be maintained for a minimum of two years.
The records shall include an estimate of the
quantity of the lost material, concentration of
hazardous organic chemical, actions taken
for the cleanup, and method of final disposal.
(D) When an owner or operator must
comply with requirements in section VI,
records of the times and approximate
duration of all safety valve discharges shall
be maintained for a minimum of two years. A
summary of these safety valve discharges
shall be reported annually to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office, Enforcement Division
Director.
(E) Written operating procedures as
described in sections VI and VII shall be
maintained and updated as necessary.
(F) Within four months of the date of
promulgation of this section, the owner or
operator of any facility subject to this section
shall submit to the Administrator an
evaluation of the emissions from the sources
of the hazardous pollutant specified in this
paragraph. This evaluation shall be an
engineering estimate and shall be subject to
the approval of the Administrator. The
evaluation shall include as a basis the
nameplate production rate, include the
appropriate operating production rate,
provide estimation of mass emissions from
the sources in sections, II, III, IV, V, VI, and
VII. and explain the technique for the
estimation.
(G) A request for delay in repairing a leak
must begin within two [five] days after
locating the leak. The owner or operator
making a delay request shall provide by
telephone or telegram all necessary
information for making an evaluation at the
time of the initial request to the appropriate
EPA Regional Office, Enforcement Division
Director, and as required by the EPA
Regional Office. In evaluating the request, the
EPA Regional Office will consider the
expected length of the delay, the reasons for
the delay, the consequences of no delay, and
other relevant factors. If the EPA Regional
Office does not deny a requested delay
within two [five] days after receipt of the
request, the delay request will be granted
automatically.
(H) Whenever an owner or operator is
unable to comply with the two (five)-day
requirement as provided in section VIII (G),
he shall notify by telephone or telegram the
appropriate EPA Regional Office,
Enforcement Division Director, within one
working day after determining the inability to
comply. When notifying the appropriate EPA
Regional Office, the owner or operator shall
provide an explanation of the inability to
comply with section VIII (G). In evaluating
the inability to comply with section VIII (G),
the EPA Regional Office shall consider the
reasons for the inability to comply. After
•valuation, the EPA Regional Office may
allow application of section VIII (G) for delay
requests after two |five] days after the plant
locates a leak.
(I) At least one working week prior to each
[monthly), quarterly, or annual inspections,
observations, and monitoring, an owner or
operator shall notify the appropriate EPA
Regional Office, Enforcement Division
Director, by telephone or telegram that such
inspections, observations, or monitoring are
scheduled.

IX. Test Methods
(A) Monitoring hazardous organic
chemicals emissions.
This test method describes the procedures
used to detect volatile organic chemical
(VOC) leaks from sources of hazardous air
pollutants. A portable test device is used to
survey individual equipment leak sources.
The specifications and performance criteria
for the test instrument are included.
(1) Apparatus.
(a) Monitoring Instrument.
The VOC detection instrument used in this
procedure may be of any type that is
designed to respond to total hydrocarbons.
The instrument must incorporate appropriate
range options so that source levels can be
measured. The instrument will be equipped
with a pump so that a continuous sample is
provided to the detector. The instrument
meter readout will be such that the scale can
.be read to ±5 percent at 1.000 ppmv [10,000
ppmv). The instrument must be capable of
achieving the performance criteria given in
Table 1. The definitions and evaluation
procedures for each parameter are given in
subcategory (3).

Table 1.—Monitoring Instrument Performance
Criteria
Parameter
Specification
1. Zero ontl (2-hour)............
2. Calibration drift (2-hour)..
3. Calibration error..

4. Response time....
. s 5 ppmv.
s 5% ol the calibration
gas value.
i 5% of the calibration
gas value.
. s S seconds.
The instrument must be subjected to
the performance evaluation test prior to
being placed in service and every three
months thereafter.
The performance evaluation test is
also required after any modification or
replacement of the instrument detector.
(b) Calibration Gases.
The VOC detection instrument is
calibrated so that the meter readout is in
terms of ppmv hexane. The calibration
gases require for monitoring and
instrument performance evaluation are a
zero gas (air, <3 ppmv hexane) and a
hexane in air mixture of about 1,000
ppmv [10,000 ppmv]. If cylinder
calibration gas mixtures are used, they
must be analyzed and certified by the
manufacturer to be within ±2 percent
accuracy. Calibration gases may be
prepared by the user according to any
accepted gaseous standards preparation
procedure that will yield a mixture
accurate to within ±2 percent.
Alternative calibration gas species may
be used in place of hexane if a relative
response factor for each instrument is
determined so that calibrations with the
alternative species may be expressed as
hexane equivalents on the meter
readout.
(2) Procedures.
(a) Calibration.
Assemble and start up the VOC
analyzer according to the
manufacturer's instructions. After the
appropriate warm-up period and zero or
internal calibration procedure, introduce
the 1,000 ppmv (10,000 ppmv] hexane or
hexane equivalent calibration gas into
the instrument sample probe. Adjust the
instrument meter readout to correspond
to the calibration gas value.
(b) Individual Source Surveys.
Place the instrument sample probe
inlet at the surface of the component
interface where leakage could occur.
During sample collection, the probe
should be moved along the interface
surface with special emphasis placed on
positioning the probe inlet at the local
upwind and downwind side of the
component interface. This general
technique is applied to specific types of
equipment leak sources as follows:
(i) Valves—The most common source
of leaks from block (glove, plug, gate,
ball, etc.) and control valves is at the
seal between the stem and housing. The
probe should placed at the interface
where the stem exits the seal and
sampling should be conducted on all
sides of the stem. For valves where the
housing is a multipart assembly, or
'where leaks can occur from points other
than the stem seal, these sources should
also be surveyed with the probe inlet
moved aLng the surface of the interface.
(ii) Flanges and other connections—
For welded flanges, the probe should be
placed at the outer edge of the flange-
gasket interface and samples collected
around the circumference of the flange.
For other types of non-permanent joints
such as threaded connections, a similar
traverse is conducted at the component
interface.
(iii) Pumps and compressors—A
circumferential traverse is conducted at
the outer surface of the pump or
compressor shaft and housing seal
interface. In cases where the instrument
probe cannot be placed in contact with
a rotating shaft, the probe inlet must be
placed within one centimeter of the
shaft-seal interface. In those cases
where the housing configuration of the
pump or compressor prevents the
complete traversing of the seal
periphery, all accessible portions of the
shaft seal should be probed. All other
joints where leakage could occur will
V-Generic-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10. 1979 / Proposed Rules
also be sampled with the probe inlet
placed at the surface interface. For
pumps or compressors using sealing oil,
the vent from the seal oil reservoir will
be sampled by placing the probe inlet at
approximately the centroid of the vent
area to atmosphere.
(iv) Pressure relief devices—The
physical configuration of most pressure
relief devices prevents sampling at the
sealing surface interface. However, most
devices are equipped with an enclosed
extension, or horn. For this type device,
the probe inlet is placed at
approximately the centroid of the
exhaust area to atmosphere.
(v) Process drains—For open process
drains, the sample probe inlet will be
placed at approximately the centroid of
the area open to the atmosphere. For
covered drains, the probe should be
placed at the surface of the cover
interface and a circumferential traverse
shall be conducted.
(3) Instrument performance evaluation
procedures.
(a) Definitions.
Zero Drift—The change in the
instrument meter readout over a stated
period of time of normal continuous
operation when the VOC concentration
at the time of measurement is zero.
Calibration Drift—The change in the
instrument meter readout over a stated
period of time of normal continuous
operation when the VOC concentration
at the time of measurement is the same
known upscale value.
Calibration Error—The difference
between the VOC concentration
indicated by the meter readout and the
known concentration of a test gas
mixture.
Response Time—The time interval
from a step change in VOC
concentration at the input of the
sampling system to the time at which 95
percent of the corresponding final value
is reached as displayed on the
instrument readou; meter.
(b) Evaluation Procedures.
At the beginning of the instrument
performance evaluation test, assemble
and start up the instrument according to
the manufacturer's instructions for
recommended warmup period and
preliminary adjustments.
(i) Zero and celibration drift test—
Calibrate the instrument per the
manufacturer's instructions using zero
gas and a calibration gas representing
about 1,000 ppmv |10,000 ppmv]. Record
the time,, zero, and calibration gas
readings (example data sheet shown in
Figure 3). After 2 hours of continuous
operation, introduce zero and
calibration gases to the instrument.
Record the zero and calibration gas
meter readings. Repeat for three
additional 2-hour periods.
(ii) Calibration error test—Make a
total of nine measurements by
alternately using zero gas and a
calibration gas mixture corresponding to
about 1,000 ppmv (10,000 ppmv]. Record
the meter readings (example data sheet
shown in Figure 4).
[iii) Response time test procedure—
Introduce zero gas into the instrument
sample probe. When the meter reading
has stabilized, switch quickly to the
1.000 ppmv (10.000 ppmvj calibration
gas. Measure the time from
concentration switching to 95 percent of
final stable reading. Perform this test
sequence three (3) times and record the
results (example data sheet given in
Figure 5).
(iv) The calibration error test and the
response time test may be performed
during the zero and calibration drift test.
(c) Performance Calculations.
All results are expressed as mean
values, calculated by:
1
n
I
Xi
where:
Xi = value of the measurements
i — (Him of the individual values
x = mean value (the absolute value of the
mean value)
n = number of data points
The specific calculations for'each
performance parameter are indicated on
the respective example data sheet given
in Figures 3, 4, and 5. The example data
sheets are constructed so that
performance criteria tests can be
conducted on 1,000 ppmv (10,000 ppmv]
levels of gas.
(B) Observing for liquid leaks of
hazardous organic chemicals.
This test method describes the
procedures used to detect organic
chemical liquid leaks from sources of
hazardous air pollutants. The method
uses visual observations to determine
the existence of a liquid leak.
(1) Apparatus.
No apparatus is needed to perform
this method.
(2) Procedure.
Observing from vantage points to
sufficiently inspect the source,
determine if any chemicals are leaking
A liquid leak exists if any chemical
liquid is observed running or dripping
from the surface of the source. When a
chemical liquid is dripping to a surface
which is in the vicinity of a possible
hazardous pollutant emission source,
locate the source of the liquid.
V-Generic-8
-------
Federal Regular / Vol. 44, No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10.1079 / Proooaed Rules

TAG
NUMBER

Instrument
Leak Detection and Repair Survey Log
Recorder:
UNIT

COMPONENT
•
HAZARDOUS
ORGANIC
CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATION
IN STREAM
DRAFT
DATE
LEAK
LOCATED

DATE
MAINTEN-
ANCE
PERFORMED

Operator:

COMPONENT RECHECK
AFTER MAINTENANCE
DATE

INSTRUMENT .
READING
(PPM)

FIGURE 1. Example Monitoring Survey Log Sheet.
TAG
NUMBER

UNIT

•
COMPONENT

HAZARDOUS
ORGANIC
CHEMICAL
CONCENTRATION
IN STREAM
DRAf

DATE
LEAK
LOCATED
T

DATE
MAINTEN-
ANCE
PERFORMED

DATES
MAINTEN-
ANCE
ATTEMPTED
f

REASONS* REPAIRS POST-
PONED OR FAILED

t
FIGURE 2. Example Leak Report.
V-Generic-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 197 / Wednesday. October 10.1979 / Proposed Rules
Instrument ID:
Calibration Gas Data:
ppmv
Date and Time
Zero
Reading
ppmv
Zero
Drift
ppmv
Calibration
Gas Reading'
ppmv •
Calibration
Drift
ppmv
Start
1.

4.
DRAFT
Mean (1]
Value:
Zero
Drift =
ppmv
Calibration Drift
x 100
(1
Absolute Value
Figure 3. Zero and Calibration Drift Determination
Instrument ID
Calibration Gas Mixture Data

ppnv
Run Calibration Gas Instrument Meter Difference,
No. Concentration, ppmv Reading, ppmv ppmv
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I ? \
Mean Difference* '

Calibration Error
DRAFT
Mean Difference^
Calibration Gas Concentration
Instrument ID
Calibration Gas Concentration
i
ppmv
95X Response Time:
1.
2.
3.
Seconds
"Seconds
"Seconds
DRAFT
Mean Response Time
Seconds
Figure 5. Response Time Determination
(T)
(Calibration Gas Concentration - Instrument Reading)
" ' Value
Figure 4. Calibration Error Determination
V-Generic-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 158 / Wednesday, August 13. 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart61

(FML 1562-2, Docket No. OAQPS 79-14]

Proposed Policy and Procedures for
Indentlfylng, Assessing, and
Regulating Airborne Substances
Posing a Risk of Cancer; Advance
Notice of Proposed Generic
Standards; Public Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of extension of public
comment period.

SUMMARY: This notice extends the
period for comment on proposed and
procedures for identifying, assessing,
and regulating carcinogens emitted into
the ambient air from stationary sources.
The comment period is extended from
August 12,1980 through the public
meeting of EPA's Science Advisory
Board Subcommittee on Airborne
Carcinogens, tentatively scheduled for
early November, 1980. Notice of the date
by which comments are due will
accompany the announcement of the
meeting date and location.
DATES: The public comment period on
the proposed policy and ANPR will
close following the public meeting of
EPA's Science Advisory Board
Subcommittee on Airborne Carcinogens
tentatively scheduled for early
November, 1980.
ADDRESSES: All written comments on
the proposed policy and ANPR should
be addressed to: Central Docket Section.
Gallery 3. West Tower, Waterside Mall.
401M Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20460. Attn.: OAQPS 79-14 (proposed
policy) or A 79-13 (ANPR).
Information on which the proposed
policy and ANPR are based as well as
the written comments received and
transcripts of the public hearings are
available for public inspection and
copying at the Central Docket Section.
POM FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Joseph Padgett, Telephone 919-541-
5204 (FTS 629-5204).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10,1979, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed in the
Federal Register (44 FR 58642) a policy
and procedures for identifying,
assessing, and regulating carcinogens
emitted into the ambient air from
stationary sources. In the same Federal
Register (44 FR 58662), EPA published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR), soliciting comments
on draft generic work practice and
operational standards for volatile
organic compounds which could be
applied quickly to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens from certain
source categories.
Interested Individuals were invited to
submit written comments on the
proposed policy and ANPR by February
21,1980. This was extended to April 14,
1980 and again to August 12,1980 in
order to afford additional opportunity
for public comment.
Based on the written and oral
comments received on the proposed
policy. EPA has determined that further
public discussion of certain major
scientific issues is warranted. The
format for this discussion will be a
public meeting of EPA's Science
Advisory Board Subcommittee on
Airborne Carcinogens tentatively
scheduled for early November, 1980.
Once the date for this meeting is
determined, an announcement will be
published in the Federal Register. The
meeting announcement will include
notice of the comment period deadline
and the date of by which material
rebutting, responding to, or
supplementing written or oral comments
submitted at the Science Advisory
Board meeting must be submitted to
EPA.
Dated: August 8. I960.
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation.
|FR Doc. 80-24810 Piled 8-12-». 8:45 ami
V-Generic-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 248 / Tuesday. December 23, 1980 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

IFRL 1710-3; Docket Nos. OAQPS 79-14
and A 79-13]

Proposed Policy and Procedures for
Identifying, Assessing, and Regulating
Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of
Cancer; Public Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA).
ACTION: Closure of Public Comment
Period.
SUMMARY: This notice announces
closure of the period for public
comment* on the proposed airborne
carcinogen policy and on the advance
Notice of Proposed Generic Standards
(ANPR) published concurrently by EPA
October 10,1979.
DATES: Comments on the proposed
policy and ANPR should be postmarked
no later than January 22.1981.
ADDRESS: All written comments on the
proposed policy and ANPR should be
addressed to: Central Docket Section,
Gallery 3, West Tower, Waterside Mall.
401 M Street, SW., Washington. D.C.
20460. ATTN: OAQPS 79-14 (proposed
policy) or A 79-13 (ANPR).
Information on which the proposed
policy and ANPR are based as well as
the written comments received and
transcripts of the public hearings are
available for public inspection and
copying at the Central Docket Section
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bob Schell, Telephone 919-541-5345
(FTS: 629-5345).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 10, 1979, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposed in th»;
Federal Register (44 FR 58642) a pohc>
and procedures for identifying.
assessing and regulating carcinogens
emitted into the ambient air from
stationary sources. In the same Federal
Register (44 FR 58662), EPA published
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) soliciting comments
on generic work practice and
operational standards for volatile
organic compounds which could be
applied quickly to reduce emissions of
airborne carcinogens from certain
source categories.
EPA has extended the public comment
period on the subject rulemakingg
several times (44 FR 70196, 45 FR 6960.
45 FR 25828, 45 FR 53842) to
accommodate the requests of concerned
individuals and organizations. The
dockets for these rulemakings currently
include more than 200 written
submissions and the oral transcripts of
three public hearings.
In the most recent Federal Register
notice (45 FR 53842, August 13,1980), the
Agency announced an extension of the
comment period to permit further
consideration of certain scientific issues
raised during the public hearings and in
the written comments. The notice
explained that the consideration of
these issues would include a public
meeting of EPA's Science Advisory
Board Subcommittee on Airborne
Carcinogens tentatively scheduled for
November 1980. The Subcommittee had
been previously scheduled to meet
September 4-5,1960 to review EPA
carcinogeniciry and exposure
assessments on several substances
identified as possible candidates for
regulation as airborne carcinogens. In
the course of this review the
Subcommittee was able to devote a
considerable part of the meeting to a
discussion of several basic scientific
issues relevant to the proposed policy,
including carcinogenicity evaluation and
risk estimation. Based on the SAB's
discussion of basic scientific issues in
its September meeting, EPA has
concluded that a further meeting of the
SAB prior to finalization of the airborne
carcinogen policy is unnecessary. For
these reasons, the comment period will
be closed thirty days after publication of
this notice.
Dated: December 16. 1980.
David G. H»wMni,
Assis!. :••: A.ijniriislKUir for An: Noise and
Radiotior
|FRDof UO-3c'~f ri'i d 12-2;-M! 84,S,fpl|
V-Generic-12
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
RADIONUCLIDES
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 249 / Thursday, December 27, 1979 / Notices
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Addition of
Radlonudides to List of Hazardous Air
Pollutants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Addition to List of Hazardous
Air Pollutants.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the
Administrator's decision to list
radionuclides as hazardous air
pollutants under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-79-11.
containing material relevant to this
action, is located in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Central Docket Section, Room WSM-
2903B, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC. The Docket may be inspected
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. on weekdays,
and a reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
TOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James M. Hardin, Office of Radiation
Programs (ANR-460), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (703)
557-8610.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
122 of the Clean Air Act as amended in
1977 directs the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, after
notice and opportunity for public
hearing, to review all relevant
information and determine whether
emissions of radioactive pollutants will
cause or contribute to air pollution
which may endanger public health.
Therefore, the Agency published a
notice which called for relevant
information and data on radioactive air
pollutants and offered to hold a public
hearing (44 FR 11707; April 11,1979). All
written comments received were
considered in today's decision. Copies
of these comments are to be found in the
Agency's Central Docket No. A-79-11.
None of the commentors suggested
that radioactive air pollutants do not
endanger public health. Several
commentors provided information on
the release of specific radionuclides into
the atmosphere. One commentor
requested that the comment period
remain open until completion of the
third report of the National Academy of
Sciences' Advisory Committee on the
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
(BEIR). We do not believe such a delay
Is appropriate because the BEIR III
Report is unlikely to change
substantially the conclusions of the first
(1972) BEIR Report regarding the
carcinogenic effects of radionuclides.
We have received a summary of the
BEIR III Report which supports this
opinion. If the report is completed as
scheduled, we will consider its findings
in formulating any proposed standards.
Public hearings will be held when
standards are proposed and comments
on the BEIR III Report, if it is used in
formulating the standards, will be
welcomed at that time.
One commentor requested that the
Agency hold a hearing after we make a
preliminary determination and decide
on our legal, scientific, and economic
positions so that informed public
comment is possible on these issues
before the final determination is made.
We do not believe that such a public
hearing is either required or useful. The
intent of Section 122 is to insure that the
Agency has an opportunity to consider
any information not previously
considered, or to call specific attention
to particular information on the
emissions of, and health effects from, air
pollutants that may be hazardous. In
EPA's view, Section 122 does not require
what would essentially be a proposed
listing notice and hearing. This view is
based on the language and history of
Section 122 and on the fact that a full
hearing on those topics will be available
after proposal of standards under
Section 112.
Section 112 of the Act directs the
Administrator to publish and from time-
to-time to revise a list of air pollutants
which, in his judgment, probably causes,
or contributes to, an increase in
mortality or serious illness and to which
no national ambient air quality standard
applies. Within 180 days after the
inclusion of any air pollutant in the list,
the Administrator must publish
proposed regulations establishing
emission standards for such a pollutant,
together with a notice of a public
hearing to be held within 30 days.
In accordance with the requirements
of Sections 122 and 112, the Agency
finds that studies of the biological
effects of ionizing radiation indicate that
exposure to radionuclides increases the
risk of human cancer and genetic
damage. Also, the Agency finds that
emission data indicate that
radionuclides are released into air from
many different natural and man-made
sources with the result that everyone is
exposed to them. Further information on
these findings is given in Appendix I
(biological effects) and Appendix II
(emission data) of this notice.
Based on this information, the
Administrator has concluded that
emission of radionuclides may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health, and that radionuclides
constitute hazardous air pollutants
within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.
In making this determination, the
Administrator has consulted with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
as required by Section 122. Among the
radionuclides included are those defined
by the Atomic Energy Act as source
material, special nuclear material, and
byproduct material.
In accordance with Section
112(b)(l)(A) the Administrator hereby
amends the list of hazardous air
pollutants:
List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
*****

6. Radionuclides
Dated: November 8,1979.
Douglas M. Costle,
Administrator.

Appendix I—Summary of Evidence
That Radionuclides are Carcinogenic
and Mutagenic to Humans

A. EPA's Current View. An extensive
body of research has demonstrated that
carcinogenicity and mutagenicity are
associated with ionizing radiation and,
therefore, with exposure to
radionuclides. Exposure to enough
ionizing radiation increases the risk of
most forms of cancer, including
leukemia, lymphoma, and cancers of the
lung, bone, thyroid, breast, skin,
stomach, pancreas, esophagus, pharynx,
large intestines, and others. When germ
cells of the ovary or testis are exposed
to enough radiation, the risk of
mutagenesis is increased which, in turn,
may cause increased mortality and
illness in future generations. For very
low doses there is no conclusive
evidence of the risk involved.
The relationships between specific
radiation doses and risks to health are
extremely complex. They depend on
physical parameters, such as the energy
and type of radiation (e.g., alpha, beta,
or gamma radiation), total dose, dose
distribution within the body, and dose
rate. In addition, many biological
factors, such as the specific organ
exposed, the radiosensitivity of the
individual exposed, errors that occur in
biological repair mechanisms, sex, race,
age at time of exposure, genetic
composition, and state of health, may
influence the effects of radiation. These
factors involve complex mechanisms of
interaction among biological, chemical,
and physical systems, which are further
complicated because people are also
exposed to other factors such as tobacco
smoke and industrial chemicals, which
V-Radionuclides-2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 249 / Thursday. December 27. 1979 / Notices
may change the magnitude of radiation
effects.
Although there is no conclusive
evidence of the effects of very low doses
of radiation on human populations, the
Agency assumes that the effects of low
doses of radiation are proportional to
the dose received in estimating the
health impact of possible low-level
radiation protection standards. We
believe this assumption is reasonable
and prudent in the light of presently
available evidence (1).
The information used by the Agency
in formulating these estimates of the
biological effects of radiation exposure
and the relationships between radiation
dose and the effects on public health has
been summarized in publications by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
(2), the United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR) (3), and the
International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP) (4). These
bodies agree that high levels of radiation
cause cancer and mutations and that a
sensible regulatory approach is to
consider risk to be proportional to
radiation dose at all low doses.
B. The Basis of EPA's View. The first
human cancer attributed to external
ionizing radiation was reported in 1902
from X-ray exposures (5). By 1911,94
cases of radiation-related skin cancer
and five cases of leukemia in man had
been reported in the literature (6).
Studies from 1910 to 1912 produced the
first reports of radiation induced
cancers in experimental animals (7, B).
In 1921, the first association between
inhaled radionuclides and
carcinogenesis in humans was made by
Uhlig for radon exposure and lung
cancer in underground miners in the Erz
Mountains of Austria, and
Czechoslovakia (9). This association
was reaffirmed by Ludewig and
Lorenser in 1924 (10). Swallowing
radium was shown to cause bone
necrosis (11), and in 1929, Martland and
Humphries reported the association of
swallowed radium and osteosarcoma in
occupationally exposed workers (12).
In more recent times, several studies
of human populations have conclusively
shown that sufficient exposure to
radiation increases the risk of many
different kinds of cancer. Among the
most significant of these are the
following:
a. Survivors of the atomic bomb
explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Japan (13).
b. Two large groups of medical
patients given X-ray therapy or
injections of radium-224 for ankylosing
spondylitis of the spine (3).
c. Groups of women whose breasts
were exposed to X-rays during
diagnostic radiation of the thorax or
during radiotherapy for benign
conditions (3).
d. Patients medically treated with X-
rays, mostly to the head and neck, for
the alleviation of otherwise benign
conditions (3).
e. Underground miners exposed to
elevated levels of radon (3).
f. Persons who ingested radium-226
either for medical purposes or in the
course of their occupations (2,3).
g. Patients injected with thorotrast
(colloidal thorium dioxide) as an x-ray
contrast medium (14,15).
h. Children exposed in utero to
diagnostic x-rays (2,3).
Extensive studies in experimental
animals, especially rodents, and studies
of cell cultures support the idea that
ionizing radiation can cause mutations.
Animal studies have shown that ionizing
radiation can cause many types of
mutations: lethal mutations,
translocations, inversions,
nondisjunction, and point mutations
(2,3). Extrapolations of mutation rates
calculated in these studies form the
basis for estimating the genetic
(hereditary) impact of ionizing radiation
in humans (2,3).
Although genetic damage to the
children of irradiated persons has not
been identified, chromosome
aberrations in somatic cells have been
observed in persons exposed to ingested
strontium-90 and radium-226 (16),
inhaled/ingested radon-222 (17),
inhaled/ingested plutonium-239 (17),
inhaled radon-222 (18), and also in
lymphocytes from atomic bomb
survivors (19) and shipyard workers at
nuclear facilities in England (20).

REFERENCES
1. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Policy Statement on Relationship
Between Radiation Dose and Effect; March 3.
1975 (41 FR 208409, July B. 1976).
2. Advisory Committee on the Biological
Effects of Ionizing Radiations. The Effects on
Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C. (1972).
3. United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
United Nations, New York (1977).
4. International Commission on
Radiological Protection. Publication 26,
Radiation Protection, Pergamon Press, New
York (1977).
5. Frieben, A. Demonstration lines
cancroids des rechten Handruckens, das sich
nach langdauemder Einwirkung von
Rontgenstratilen entwickelt hatte. Fortschr.
Geb. Rontgenstr. 0:1096 (1902) cited by Upton
(6).
6. Upton, A.C. Physical Carcinogenesis:
Radiation—History and Sources, pp. 387-403
in Cancer 1, F. F. Becker, editor, Plenum
Press, New York (1975).
7. Marie, P., Clunet, )., and Raulot-Lapointe,
G. Contribution a letude du developpement
des tumeurs malignes sur les ulceres de
roentgen. Bull. Assoc. Franc. Etude Cancer
3:404 (1910) cited by UNSCEAR (3).
8. Marie, P., Clunet,). and Raulot-Lapointe,
G. Nouveau cas de tumeur maligne
provoquee par une radiodermite
experimental chez le rat blanc. Bull. Assoc.
Franc. Etude Cancer 5:125 (1912) cited by
UNSCEAR (3).
9. Uhlig, M. Uber den Schneeberger
Lungenkrebs. Virchows Arch. Pathol. Anat.
230:78 (1921).
10. Ludewig, P. and Lorenser, E.
Untersuchung der Grubenluft in den
Schneeberger Gruben oaf den Gehaltan an
Radiumemanation. Zschr. f. Phys. 22:178
(1924).
11. Hoffman, F. L. Radium (Mesothorium)
Necrosis. J.A.M.A. fl5:961 (1925).
12. Martland, H. S. and Humphries, R. E.
Osteogenic Sarcoma in Dial Painters Using
Luminous Paint. Arch. Pathol., 7:406 (1929).
13. Beebe, G. W., Kato, H. and Land. C. E.
Mortality Experience of Atomic Bomb
Survivors. 1950-1974. Life Span Study Report
8, RERF TR1-77. Radiation Effects Research
Foundation, Japan (1977).
14. International Meeting on the Toxicity of
Thorotrast and Other Alpha-Emitting Heavy
Elements, Lisbon, June 1977 (to be published
in Environmental Research).
15. Kaul, A. and Muth, H. Thorotrast
Kientics and Radiation Dose. Rad. and
Environm. Biophys 75:24, 259 (1978).
16. Tuscany, R. and Wener, V. Pokles
Euploidie v Bunkach Kostni Drene osob s
Vnitmi Kontaminaci Kekterymi
Radioisotopy Cisk. Fysiol. 72391 (1963).
17. Brandom, W. F., et al. Somatic Cell
Chromosome Changes in Humans Exposed to
*" Plutonium and *** Radon. Contract No.
£(29-21-3639, Progress Report July 1.1976
through September 30,1977. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C. (1977).
18. Pohl-Ruling, J., Fischer, P., and Pohl, E.
The Low-Level Shape of Dose Response for
Chromosome Aberrations. 1AEA-SM-224/
403. Presented at International Symposium on
the Late Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation, IAEA, Vienna (1978).
19. Awa, A. A., et al. Relationship Between
Dose and Chromosome Aberrations in
Atomic Bomb Survivors, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, RERF TR 12-77. Radiation Effects
Research Foundation, Japan (1978).
20. Evans, H.)., Buckton K. E., Hamilton, G.
E., and Carothers A. Radiation-Induced
Chromosome Aberrations in Nuclear-
Dockyard Workers, Nature 227:531 (February
15.1979).

Appendix II—Summary of Evidence of
Significant Public Exposure to
Radinonuclides Because of Emissions
Into the Atmosphere

Most of the radionuclides in the
atmosphere come from natural sources
(1). However, radionuclides are used or
produced in thousands of locations
V-Radionuclides-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 249 / Thursday, December 27, 1979 / Notices
throughout the United States including
national defense weaponry facilities,
nuclear power plants, industrial plants,
research and development laboratories,
and medical facilities. Fossil fuel
combustion processes, such as large
coal-fire boilers, make some
contribution to the exposure of the
general public. Certain kinds of mining
and milling also substantially increase
the local concentration of radionuclides
in the air.
Although air cleaning equipment is
usually used in these facilities, some
radionuclides are still released into the
atmoshphere and can disperse into
populated areas. In most cases the
greatest danger comes from breathing
these radionuclides, but material which
settles on soil or plants may eventually
be swallowed. Settled material may also
be blown back into the air. People living
near some facilities may also be
exposed to small levels of direct gamma
radiation from airborne or settled
radionuclides.
EPA has recently published a
preliminary evaluation of the harm
caused by emissions of radionuclides
into air in the United States (2). The
document contains a compilation of the
amount of radionuclides released into
the atmosphere from each major
category of facility known to use such
materials. It estimates both the radiation
dose to the nearest individual and to the
regional population. Using these doses,
we have estimated the additional
lifetime fatal cancer risk to individuals
and the total number of fatal cancers
induced in the surrounding population
for each year of facility operation. Risk
estimates are limited to fatal cancers
because we have less confidence in
quantitative risk estimates of genetic
effects in humans. Our current practice
is to assume that for whold body
exposure, the number of genetic health
effects, and the number of nonfatal
cancers are each about the same as the
number of deaths (3).
Sources can be conveniently divided
into three major groups: facilities
licensed by NRG and certain States
which have signed an agreement with
NRC; facilities operated and regulated
by the Department of Energy (DOE); and
facilities emitting elevated
concentrations of naturally-occurring
radionuclides. The kinds of radionuclide
emissions, estimates of dose rates, and
estimates of fatal cancer risks derived
from model facilities which are
representative of source categories are
shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 shows
data derived from actual DOE facilities.
These summary tables show that
significant amounts of radionuclides are
being released by man into the
atmosphere. Such estimates shoulld be
used carefuly and with recognition that
they are highly uncertain. This
uncertainty is caused by limited data on
emissions and by the use of assumptions
in environmental transport models and
in dose models. Based on these
calculations, the highest estimated doses
received are to people near elemental
phosphorus plants. Our preliminary
dose estimates for such people give 1800
mrem/yr to the kidney, 740 mrem/yr to
the lung, and 570 mrem/yr to the bone.
People living near underground uranium
mines may be exposed to elevated
airborne concentrations of radon
daughters as high as 0.006 working
levels, (WL).
We estimate that even the individuals
who live closest to the facilities listed in
Tables 1, 2, and 3 receive doses which
are less than the present applicable
Federal Guidance as established by the
former Federal Radiation Council (4,5).
However, EPA considers the potential
risk from doses as large as those
received from many of these facilities to
be unnecessarily high. We believe that
emissions from such facilities should be
reduced to as low as reasonably
achievable levels. In specific cases, EPA
has already promulgated standards and
proposed Federal Guidance which holds
the exposure of people to levels below
that found around many of the listed
source categories. These actions include:
Drinking Water Regulations
(Radionuclides) (6), Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for
Nuclear Power Operations (7), and
proposed Federal Guidance for Persons
Exposed to Transuranium Elements in
the Environment (8).
EPA considers its current estimates of
risk to be sufficiently accurate to
support the decision to list radionuclides
as hazardous air pollutants. However,
we will continue to improve our
preliminary estimates of how much
cancer is caused by facilities which
release radionuclides into the air.
As provided in EPA's recently
published proposed rules for regulating
airborne carcinogens (44 F.R. 58642-
58670; October 10,1979), EPA will base
all decisions on setting standards for
radionuclide emissions on detailed risk
assessments and complete regulatory
options analyses considering the
following factors: a detailed
examination of sources of emissions of
radionuclides into air, the risks caused
by these emissions, the costs and
effectiveness of emission control
technologies, the benefits of the
activities causing the emissions, the
relationships between who is receiving
the benefits versus who is required to
accept the risks, and the possibility of
using substitutes to reduce emissions.
EPA will request public comment before
making standard-setting decisions.

REFERENCES
1. United Nations Scientific Committee on
the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation,
United Nations, New York (1977).
2. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Radiological Impact Caused by
Emissions of Radionuclides into Air in the
United States—Preliminary Report (EPA 520/
7-79-006) Office of Radiation Programs,
Washington, D.C. (1978).
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Radiological Quality of the Environment in
the United States, 1977 [EPA 520/1-77-009),
Office of Radiation Programs, Washington,
D.C. (1977).
4. Federal Radiation Council. Background
Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards (Report No. 1).
Reprinted by the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Washington, D.C. (May 13,1960).
S. Federal Radiation Council. Background
Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards (Report No. 2).
Reprinted by the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Washington, D.C. (September 1961).
6. Federal Register, Vol. 41. No. 133, pp.
28402-09 (Friday, July 9,1976).
7. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 9, pp. 2858-
61 (Thursday, January 13,1977).
8. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 230, pp.
60956-59 (Wednesday. November 30,1977).
V-Radionuclides-4
-------
H-
O
O
I-1
H-
Q*
(D
[0

0.0001
U-238 0.001
Th-231 0.0003
Th-231 0.001
Noble
gasea 7,000
Tritium 13
Halogens 1.1
Noble
gases 13,000
Tritium 1,100
Halogens 0.05
Nobl-T
gases 1 , 100
1-125 0.9
1-131 0.9
table.
Table 1
Impact caused by atmospheric emissions frcn licensed* sources
Model facility
Principal
dose equivalent rates Expected fatal cancers
haxlmum Regional Lifetime risk to tne per year of operation
Individual Population maximum individual Regional population
(mrein/y)b (Person-rem/y)° (x 10'*) (Fatal cancers)
Lung 88 120 300 0.007
Bone 9 5
Lung 57 20 0.0004
Bone 0.5 0.3
Thyroid 11 19 20 <*0.001
Whole body 2 8
Thyroid 1 7 9 °0.001
Whole body 0.8 5
Whole body 0.5 6 6 0.001
Thyroid 86 200 8 0.0003
Whole body 0.2 0.7

Federal Regbter / VoL 44, No. 249 / Thursday. December 27, 1979 / Notices
-------
H-
o
(D
cn
I

.'able T--conlimied

Summary of radiological impact caused by atmospheric emissions from licensee!3 sources
Model facility

Source
category

Number Principal
of radionuclide emissions
sources (Ci/y)

Test reactors

Research reactors

University reactors

Shallow land burial
Low level waste

*
Industrial users

2Sources licensed
regulatory authority
bThe naxiiiium dose

2 Ar-11 150
Tritium 150
13 Ar-Ml 200
Tritium 100

51 Ar-11 1,000
Tritium 100

6 Tritium 19,000

1,000 Mostly No data
sealed

Principal
dose equivalent rates
Maximum Regional
individual Population
(mrem/y)13 (Person-rem/y )c

Whole body 0.2 1

Whole body 0.09 0.5

Whole body 0.1 2

Bone 30 6
Whole body 20 5

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or States which have
is relinquished by the NRC and
equivalent rate an individual
cThe maximum collective dose equivalent rate to
following the start
of facility operation.

Expected fatal cancers
Lifetime risk to the per year of operation
maximum individual Regional population
(x TO"6) (Fatal cancers)

entered into an agreement with the NRC whereby certain
assumed by the States pursuant to Section 271 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1951, as amended.
is likely to receive living near
the regional population. This is

dThe number of fatal cancers to the worldwide population has been estimated to be

the facility.
the maximum value expected to occur within 100 years

0.01 from BWRs and 0.02 from PWRs per year (2).

Nrt
s
a.
CD
si

CD
•B.
GO
M
^
£.
*>
Z
o
£
CO
.
I_J
B?
"I
QQ
CL
03
""
a
o
(B

53
^i
CO
Z
o_
1"
CO
-------
Table 2
Summary of radiological Impact caused by atmospheric emissions of natural radioactive materials
Model facility

1
Q.
H-
13
C
O
I-1
H-
(D
cn
-!j

Source Number of
category sources
Uranium Mines
Underground 251
Open pit 36
Uranium Mills 21

Phosphate Industry
Mining and
bfiieficiation 35

Drying and grinding
facilities 20

Phosphoric
acid 35
plant
Elemental
phosphorus 9
plant

Coal-fired
power stations'1 395
Urban site
.*-,

Suburban site

Rural site

Remote site

Exposure levels
Principal Maximum Regional
radionuclide emissions Individual Population
(Ci/y)a (WL) (Person-WL)

Hn-Z22
Rn-222
Rn-222
U-21 l»d

Rn-222

Rn-222
U-228+d

Rn-222
U-233+d

fin-?22
U-2j8+d
Po-210

Dn-222
U-238+d
Th-232+d
Rn-222
U-238+d
Th-232+d
Rn-1'22
U-233+d
Th-232td
Rn-222
U-?'t8i
-------
I
»
0)
&
H-
O
3
C
O
(-•
H-
DJ
(D
CO
I
00
Table 2 — continued
Summary of radiological

Principal
Source Nui&bt-r of radionuclide emissions
"^ category sources (Ci/y)a
Metal mining and 177 Rn-222 30 to
milling6 3000
Nc imetal mining
and millingf 1,200 Rn-222 0.2 to
18
Underground drinking
yaler treatment
plants 10,000 Rn-222 3-1
impact caused by atmospheric emissions of natural radioactive
Model

Exposure levels
Maximum Regional
individual Population
(WL) (Person-WL)
< 0.00001 to 0.005 to
0.0006 0.8

< 0.00001 to 0.0007 to
0.00001 0.06

< 0.00001 0.06
aU-233+d includes daughter products of uranium-231, thoriura-230, radium-226
plants when polonlum-2*"1 is not included among the
thoriura-223, and radiurc-224 .
^The maximum dose equivalent rate an individual
cThe maximum collective doae equivalent rate to
following the start of facility operation.
facility

Principal
dose equivalent rates
Maximum Regional
Individual Population
(n>renj/y)') (Person-rera/y)°

_ _

- -
materials

Expected fatal
Lifetime cancers per year
risk to the of operation
tcaximurn Population
Individual Regional U.S.
(x 10-6) (Fatal cancers)
20 to 0.0001 to
900 0.02

0.7 to 0.00002 to
50 0.001

10 0.001
, polonium-210, and j.ead-210 except for elemental phosphorus '
uranlum-238 daughter products. Thorium-232+1 Includes the daughter products of radium-228,

is likely to receive living

near the facility.
the regional population. This Is the maximum value expected

•dThe emission rates presented for the source category are based on a model
elncludes iron, copper, zinc, and bauxite.
^Includes clay, limestone, fluorspar.

to occur within 100 years

representative of new plants releasing one percent of the fly ash.

M
^J
o.
A
sl
M
r*
4
t»
ft"
"^
O^
£
•z
p
to
(O
$
%
CL
a>

a
o
(D
3
-------
H-
O
o
r-1
H-
PJ
CD
CO
Summary of radiological Impact
Number Principal
Facility of raJionuclide emissions
facilities (Cl/y)
Savjnnnh River
Plant*>
1 Ar-'il
C-11
Tritium
Kr-85
Los Alr.mcs 1 Ar-11
Scientific Laboratory C-11
Iritis
N-13
0-15
Lawrence Llvernore
Laboratory
Rocky Flats Plant
Argonne National
Laboratory
Brockh-iven National
Laboratory
See footnotes at
1 Ar-'ll
Tritium
N-13
0-15
1 Pu-239 4
Pu-2'iO
U-235
U-i38
1 Ar-11
Tritlura
1 Ar-11
Tritium
0-15
end of table.
65,000
(.3
3bO,000
1*10,000
800
VI, 000
39,000
1,100
32,000
3bo
5, TOO
590
390
0.000001
0.00002
0.00002
30,000
850
360
1,200
67,000

T. ble
caused by atmospheric
Principal
dose equivalent
3
emissions from Department of Energy facilities
rates3
Maximum Regional Lifetime risk
Expected ratal cancers
to the per year of operation
Individual Population maximum Individual Regional population
(mrcm/y) (Person-rem/y) (x 10~") (Fatal cancers)
Total body 1 . 1
Total body 70
Total body 1.3
Lung 0.03
Bone 0.035
Kidney 0.001
Liver 0.005
Total body 5.6
Total body 0.16

110 Site boundary
11 Site boundary
Nearest resident
2.9 Site boundary
Nearest resident
130 Site boundary
58
7
9
180 Site boundary
Nearest resident
19 Site boundary

20 0.02
1,000 0.002
300
60 0.0006
10
0.3 0.007
80 0.01
10
2 0.001

I
90
I
i
$
z
i
2
L
9
5
1
>
r
•i
to
Nl
H*
Z
\
to
-------
H-
o
3
c
o
CD
tn
I

Summary of

Number
Facility of
facilities

Oak Ridge
Facilities0 1

Portsmouth Caseous 1
Diffusion Plant0

Fadiicah Caseous
Diffusion Plant0 1

Ames Laboratory 1

Other sites 17

8Data taken directly from

radiological Impact

Principal
Table 3 — continued
caused by atmospheric emissions from Department of Energy facilities — continued
Principal
dose equivalent rates3 Expected fatal cancers
Maximum Regional Lifetime risk to the per year of operation
radlonuclide emissions individual Population maximum individual Regional population
(Ci/y) (rarem/y) (Person-rem/y) (x 10"°) (Fatal cancers)

U-251 0.
1-131 1.
Kr-65 8,600

Th-231 0.
U-254 0.
Tc-yJ 4.

U-234 0.
U-238 0.
Ar-41 13,000
Tritium 1,000

Various Small

DOE reports.

06 Lung 1.6 Total body 1). 7 Nearest resident 10 0.001
1 Bone 5.5
Thyroid 1.5

05 Lung 1.1 Total body 0.19 Site boundary 10 0.00004
1 Bone 1.2
5 Kidney 1.1
G. I. Tract 2.2

2 Lung 6.3 NR Site boundary 20 NR
2 Bone 0.9
Total body 5.5 250 Site boundary 80 0.05

Total body<1 Total body <10 Site boundary <10 < 0.002

bAll doses are 70-year dose commitments.
CA11 doses are 50-year dose commitments.
NR Not reported.

I
te
5

w
8
^
0.
'
Jr
z
p
N>

O
o
o-
(D
JO
•
1
O
ff.
o
(0
09
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants-A Compilation as of August 1, 1982
5. REPORT DATE
EPA-340/1-82-006
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PN 3660-1-42
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, OH 45246
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-6310
Task No. 42
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Stationary Source Compliance
Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Compilation of August 1982
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Project Officer:
Kirk Foster, MD-7, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
(919) 541-4571
16. ABSTRACT
Since their inception in 1971, the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pol-
lutants (NESHAP's) have been expanded or revised 69 times with an additional 13
changes proposed. This document is a compilation of all Federal Register activity
related to the NESHAP's since 1971 and supercedes all previous compilations.

Section I is an introduction to the standards, explaining their purpose and inter-
preting the working concepts which have developed through their implementation.
Section II contains a "quick-look" summary of each standard, including the dates of
proposal, promulgation, and any subsequent revisions. Section III is the complete
standards with all amendments incorporated into the material. Section IV contains the
full text of all revisions, including the preamble which explains the rationale behind
each revision. Section V is all proposed amendments to the standards.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Air pollution control
Hazardous pollutants
Regulations; Compliance
National Emission Stan-
dards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
13B

14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (»-73)
-^ *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINITING OFFICE: 1982—539—001/3006
-------