United States Office of Air and Radiation EPA-340/1 -85-006
Environmental Protection Washington DC 20460 January 1985
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Stationary Source Compliance Series
&EPA National
Standards for
Hazardous Air
Pollutants
A Compilation as of
December 31, 1984
-------
EPA-340/1-85-006
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
A Compilation as of December 31, 1984
by
J. Zieleniewski
PEI Associates, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-3963
EPA Project Officer: John Busik
EPA Work Assignment Manager: Kirk Foster
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 1985
-------
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.
-------
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 !, 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.
i i i
-------
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 C - National Emission Standard for Beryllium III-9
Subpart D - National Emission Standard for Beryllium Rocket
Motor Firing III-ll
Subpart E - National Emission Standard for Mercury 111-12
Subpart F - National Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride 111-14
Subpart J - National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks
(Fugitive Emission Sources) of Benzene 111-20
Subpart M - National Emission Standard for Asbestos 111-21
Subpart V - National Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks
(Fugitive Emission Sources) 111-26
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 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-16
Method 105 - Determination of mercury in wastewater
treatment plant sewage sludge. III-B-18
-------
Page
Method 106 - Determination of vinyl chloride from
stationary sources. III-B-PO
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
Method 107A - Determination of vinyl chloride content of
solvents, resin-solvent solution, poly vinyl chloride
resin, resin slurry, wet resin, and latex samples. III-B-27
Appendix C - Quality Assurance Procedures III-C-1
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
Affected facilities
Emission standard
Samp]ing 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
Propellant plants
Machine shops (which process alloy containing
>5J 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 D - BERRYLLIUM
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 |jg/min scm 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)
J/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
D/b/D<: («; rK 24/03)
9/12/84 (49 FR 35768)
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
i
CO
Subpart F - VINYL CHLORIDE
Proposed
12/24/75 (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)
9/8/82 (47 FR 39485)
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
pclyvinyl 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
SI ip gauges
i Pump; compresser and agitator seal
Leakage from relief valves
j Manual venting of gases
Opening of equipment
Samples, (at least 10 percent by weight vinyl
chloride)
Leak detection and elimination
Inproc«ss 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 m3
(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
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS, (Continued)
Pollutant
Affected facilities
Emission standard
Sampling or
monitoring requirement
Subpart J - EQUIPMENT
LEAKS (FUGITIVE
EMISSION SOURCES) OF
BENZENE
Proposed
1/5/81 (46
FR 1165)
Promulgated
6/6/84 (49 FR 23498)
Revised
10/2/84 (49 FR 38946)
10/31/84 (49 FR 43647)
Pumps, compressors, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems,
open-ended valves or lines, valves,
flanges and other connectors, product
accumulator vessels, and control devices
or systems designed to produce or use
=•1,000 Mg/yr benzene
See Subpart V
See Subpart V
i
en
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (Continued)
Pollutant
Subpart M - ASBESTOS
Proposed
7/13/83 (48 FR 32126)
Promulgated
4/5/84 (49 FR 13658)
Revised
6/21/84 (49 FR 25453)
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,
furnance, or structural member, covered or
coated
Spraying friable asbestos
1) Materials applied to equipment or machinery
with >U 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
No requirement
-------
NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS, (Continued)
Pollutant
Affected facilities
Emission standard
Sampling or
monitoring requirement
Subpart V - EQUIPMENT
LEAKS (FUGITIVE
EMISSION SOURCES)
Proposed
1/5/81 (46 FR 1165)
Promulgated
6/6/84 (49 FR 23498)
Revised
10/2/84 (49 FR 36546)
10/31/84 (49 FR 43647)
Pumps
Compressors
Pressure relief devices
Sampling connection systems
Open-ended valves or lines
Valves
Pressure relief devices in liquid service and
flanges and other connectors
Product accumulator vessels
Closed vent systems
Control systems:
Vapor recovery systems
Enclosed combustion devices
Flares
No leakage (instrument reading <10,000
ppm)*
Meet equipment specifications*
No detectable emissions
No VHAP emissions
Meet equipment specifications
Meet equipment specifications
No leakage (instrument reading <10,000
ppm)*
No leakage (instrument reading <10,000
ppm)
Meet equipment specifications
No detectable emissions
Operate at 95" efficiency
Operate at 95% efficiency
No visible emissions
Monthly leak detection
and repair program
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
Monthly leak detec-
tion and repair
program
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
* May be designated for no detectable
emissions
-------
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—Ganaral Provisions
Sec.
61.01 Applicability.
81.02 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.
61.09 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
61.18 Incorporation by reference 79
Subpart C—National Emission Standard for
Beryllium
61.30 Applicability.
61.31 Definitions.
61.32 Emission standard.
61.33 Stack sampling.
61.34 Air sampling.
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 Applicability.
61.51 Definitions.
61.52 Emission standard.
61.53 Stack sampling.
61.54 Sludge sampling.7
61.66 Emission monitoring.
Subpart F—National Emission,Standard for Vinyl
Chloride 28
61.60 Applicability.
61.61 Definitions.
i).tin Emission standard for ethyiene di-
chlorlde plants.
fil.63 Emission standard for vinyl chloride
plants.
61.64 Emission standard for polyvlnyl chlo-
ride plants.
61.65 Emission standard for ethyiene 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.
Subpart J—National Emission Standard for
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources) of Benzene 97
61.110 Applicability and designation of
sources.
61.111 Definitions.
61.112 Standards.
61.113-61.119 (Reserved).
Subpart H-^ttonal Emission Standard for
Asbestos"'
91
61.140 Applicability.
61.141 Definitions.
61.142 Standard far asbestos mills.
61.143 Standard for roadways.
61.144 Standard for manufacturing.
61.145 Standard for demolition and
renovation: Applicability.
61.146 Standard for demolition and
renovation: Notification requirements.
61.147 "Standard for demolition and
renovation: Procedures for asbestos
emission control.
61.148 Standard for spraying.
61.140 Standard for fabricating.
61.150 Standard for insulating materials.
61.151 Standard for waste disposal for
asbestos mills.
61.152 Standard for waste disposal for
manufacturing, demolition, renovation.
spraying, and fabricating operations.
61.153 Standard for inactive waste disposal
site* for asbestos mills and
manufacturing and fabricating
operations.
61.154 Air-cleaning.
61.155 Reporting.
61.156 Active waste disposal sites.
I tor
Subpart V—national Emission Stands
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources) 97
61.240 Applicability and designation of
sources.
61.241 Definitions.
61.242-1 Standards: General.
61.242-2 Standards: Pumps.
61.242-3 Standards: Compressors.
61.242-4 Standards: Pressure relief devices
in gas/vapor service.
61.242-5 Standards: Sampling connection
systems.
61.242-6 Standards: Open-ended valves or
lines.
61.242-7 Standards: Valves.
61.242-8 Standards: Pressure relief devices
in liquid service and flanges and other
connectors.
61.242-9 Standards: Product accumulator
vessels.
61.242-10 Standards: Delay of repair.
61.242-11 Standards: Closed-vent systems
and control devices.
61.243-1 Alternative standrds for valves in
UHAP Service—allowable percentage of
valves leaking.
61.243-2 Alternative standards for valves in
VHAP service—skip period leak
detection and repair.
61.244 Alternative means of emission
limitation.
61.245 Test methods and procedures.
61.246 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.247 Reporting requirements.
Appendix A—Compliance Status Information
Appendix B—Test Methods.
Method 101—Determination of Paniculate
and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Chlor-
Alkali Plants—Air Streams °°
Method 101A. Determination of Paniculate
.. id Gaseous Mercury Emissions From
Si-wage SluHge Incinerators66
Method 1(B. Determination of Paniculate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions From Chlor-
Alkali Plant*—Hydrogen Streams 6 6
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. 28
Metiiod 107—Determination of vinyl chloride
<>r inprocess wastewater samples, and vinyl
chloride content of polyvlnyl chloride^
resin, slurry, wet cake, and latex samples.
Method 107A—Determination of Vinyl
Chloride Content of Solvents. Resin-Solvent
Solution, Polyvinyl Chloride Resin, Kesin
Slurry, Wet Resin, and Latex Samples71
Appendix C.—Quality Assurance Procedures70
Authority: Sections 112 and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7412,
7601 (a)], and additional authority as noted
below.
III-l
-------
Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 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
tl.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,e 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))J
§ 61 .03 Units and abbreviations. *7
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
ing = milligram = 1C ' gram
mm = millimeter = 10~* meter
Mg=megagram = 10« grain
mol— mole
N=newton
ng= nanogram = 10-' gram
rim = nanometer = ]0' ' meter
Ba= pascal
s= second
V=volt
W=watt
0=omh
fig =microgram =]<)-• gram
(b) Other unite of measure:
•C= degree Celsius (centigrade)
cfm= cubic feet per minute
cc = cubic centimeter
d=day
•F=degree Fahrenheit
ft'.—square feet
ft==cubic feet
gal=gallon
In = Inch
in Hg=inches of mercury
in HaO = Inches of water
1=liter
lb=pound
1pm = liter per minute
min=minute
ml=milllllter=:10-1> liter
oz=ounces
psig=pounds per square Inch gage
*R= degree Tfotihino
Al=microllter=10-« liter
v/v= volume per volume
yd==square yards
yr = year
(c) Chemical nomenclature:
Be = beryllium
Kg=mercury
HaO=water
(d) Miscellaneous:
act=actual
avg=average
I.D. = inside diameter
M = molar
N = normal
O.D. = outside diameter
%= percent
std = standard
(Sections 112 and 301 (a) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended 143 TJ.S.C. 1857C-7
1857gia)).)
§61.04 Address.4'95
(a) All requests, reports, applications,
submittals, and other communications t
the Administrator pursuant to this part
shall be submitted in duplicate to the
appropriate Regional Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to the
attention of the Director of the Division
indicated in the following list of EPA
Regional Offices.
Region I (Connecticut, Mair.ij.
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island. Vermont), Director, Air
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building,
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Region II (New Jersey. New York, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Air and
Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Office Building. 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York 10278
Region HI (Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia), Director. Air
and Waste Management Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Curtis Building. Sixth and Walnut
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19106
Region IV (Alabama, Florida. Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina.
South Carolina. Tennessee), Director.
Air and Waste Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
III-2
-------
Agency. 345 Courtland Street, NE..
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Region V (Illinois. Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin).
Director, Air Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 230 South Dearborn Street.
Chicago Illinois 60604
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Director.
Air and Waste Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1210 Elm Street, Dallas.
Texas 75270
Region VII (Iowa, Kansas. Missouri,
Nebraska), Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 324
East llth Street. Kansas City.
Missouri 64106
Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming), Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
1860 Lincoln Street, Denver. Colorado
60295
Region IX (American Samoa. Arizona,
California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada],
Director, Air Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San
Francisco, California 94105
Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oiegon,
Washington), Director, Air and Wa*'.
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle.
Washington 98101
DELEGATION STATUS OF NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDSOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS) IN REGION Vili
108
Sutopart
B Asbestos .. . .
Colorado
•)
•)
•)
•)
•)
•)
Montana
su
North Dakota
C)
D
O
(")
O
C)
te
South Dakota
Utah Wyoming
i
•
•Indicates delegation.
(b) Section 112(d) directs the Admlr.
Istrator to delegate to each State, wher
appropriate, the authority to Implemer'
and enforce the national emission stand-
ards for hazardous air pollutants for sta-
tionary sources located in such State
All information required to be submitted
to EPA under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, must also be submitted to the ap-
propriate State Agency of any State to
wnich 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
? ates whose delegation request has been
proved is as follows:
A) | Reserved |
8) State of Alabama. Air Pollution ( •
•:• >t Division, Air Pollution Control Com. „.-,-
i. 645 S. McDonough Street. Montgon -v
ifcama 36104. 25
i(') {Reserved)
(D) Arizona: Arizona Department of
Mriilth Services, 1740 West Ada
Street. Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
Maricopa County Department of Health
o':rvices. Bureau of Air Pollution Control,
182S Bast Rooaevelt Street. Phoenix, Ariz.
85006.
Quality Control District, 151 West Congress
?• ..son, Ariz. 86701.
(E) Program Administrator, Air and
Hazardous Materials Division, Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas
72209. 59, 65,102
(Fl California r •."'•20 2L24 •''. 31, -18,58.68,73,81, 85,
86,93 101
Amador Cowrty Air Potation Contra!
District P.O. Box 438, no Court Street
Jackson. CA 96642
ruy Area Air Pollution Control Dlst-r-
92 • Ellis Street, San Francisco, Calif. 94 . jv
NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS ,FOR HAZARDOUS
AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS)
POLLUTION
CONTROL
DISTRICT
POLLUTANT
CATEGORY
DEL NORTE
FRESNO
GREAT BASIN
HUMBOLDT
KERN
KINGS
LOS ANGELES
MEN DOC I NO
MERCED
MODOC
MONTEREY BAY
NORTHERN SONOMA
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN DIEGO
SAM JOAQUIN
TRINITY
TULA RE
VENTURA
YOLO-SOLANO
Asbestos
B
*
*
*
it
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
Beryllium
C
*
*
*
•i
*
*
*
*
*
*
Beryllium Rocket Motor
Firing
D
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mercury
E
*
*
A
i;
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
Vinyl Chloride
F
*
£
*
*
*
*
*
*
* 8/3G/79
+ 11/19/76
III-3
-------
Butte County Air Foliation Control District.
P.O. Box 1229. 316 Nelson Avenue.
Orovule, CA 9S066
Calaveras County Air Pollution Control
District Government Center, El Dorado
Road. San Andreas. CA 95249
Cnlusa County Air Pollution Contra) DtttfM.
751 Fremont Street. Coluia. CA 95952
F.I Dorado Air Pollution Control District 3M
Fair Lane. Placerville. CA 99687
Fresno County Air Pollution Control -
District 1221 Fulton Mull. Fresno. CA
93721.
Glenn County Air Pollution Control District
P.O. Box 351. 720 Nortft Colusa Street
Willows, CA 96986
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution
Control District. 157 Short Street.
Suite 6. Bishop. CA 93514.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District County Services Building. 990
West Main Street. El Centra CA 92241
Kern County Air Pollution Control
District. 1601 H Street, Suite 250.
Bakersfield, CA 93301.
King! County Air Pollution Control District
330 Campus Drive. Hanfard, CA 93230
Lake Cmnty Air Mfoitoa Control Dtotrtrt.
256 MM* Forbes Strwt Ukapwt CA
95453
Laisen County Air Pollvtioa Control DUIriet
ITS IfeMell Aveaua. SuMnvilta. CA 9613*
Madera County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 135 West Yosemlte Avenue, Madera,
Calif. 93637.
Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control
District, County Courthouse. Ukiah, Calif.
94582.
MaripOM CMUty Air Pollution Control
District Box 5. Maripoaa. CA 95339
Merced County Ah- Pollution Control District
P.O. Box 471. 248 East 15th Street Merced,
CA 95340
Modoc Covnty Air PoHntf on Control District
202 We«t 4tft Street Ahnraa, CA 9*101
Monterey Bey Unified Air Pollution
Control. 1164 Monroe Street. Suite 10.
Salinas. CA 93906
Nevada Couoty Air Pollution Control District
H.E.W. Compim. Nevada Qly, CA 06K0
North Coast Unified Air Quality Management
District 5630 South Broadway. Eureka, CA
95501
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District 134 "A" Avenue, Auburn.
CA 95448
Placar County Air Paihtfon Control District.
114*1 "V AVMUMU Auburn CA 9GMS
Ptuaa* Covnty AJr Mbtfam Control District
P.O. Box 480. Qulncy. CA 95071
San Bernardino Coualjr Air Pollution Control
District ISSTVath. VictorvillA. CA 92992
Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
District, 3701 Branch Center Road. Sacra-
mento. Calif. 95827.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District. 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego.
Calif. 93123.
San Joaquln County Air Pollution Contra!
District. 1601 East Hazelton Street (' O
Box 2009). Stockton. Calif. 95201.
Sao Luis Qbi&po County Air Pollution Control
District P.O. Bex 637. San Luis Obispo. CA
•3408
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District, 315 Camino del
Rimedio, Santa Barbara, CA 93110.
Shasta County Air Pollution Control District.
2850 Hospital Lane. Redding, CA 96001
Sierra County Air PoDution Control District
P.O. Box 286. Downierine. CA 95939
Slsldyo* County Air Pollution Control
District, 525 South Foothill Drive, Yreka,
CA9HQF
South Coast Air Quality Management
District, 9150 Flair Drive, El Monte. CA
91731
Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control
District, 1030 Scenic Drive. Modesto. CA
95350
Sutler COMTV Air Pollution Control District.
Suttar Gamut* Office Building. M2 Gafdasi
Higbwvy. YvbaCMy. CA9S901
Tehams County Air PoUvlion Control
DUlriot PXX Box 38.1780 Walnut Street.
Rad Bluff. CA 9M89
Nan Con*/ AST PoJhrtton ComJrol District
County Chrte Centav. Viaalia, CA 9S277
Tuoiumne County Air Pollution Control
District 9 North Washington Street
Sonora. CA 95370
Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District 800 South Victoria Avenue.
Ventura, CA 93009
Yo4«-6obuM Air PoBrtMLOaiJol District
P.O. Bos, 1909. JZ3 ttnt fin* 4Mb
WoodUa&CAf
'"'' State of Colorado. Colorado Air il-
l'i"'>n Control Division. 4210 East llth .we-
nue. Denver. Colorado 80220. '
(HI State of Connecticut, Departnifil
-if Fnvlronmental Protection. State QfT
ninlt:ine. Hartford, Connecticut 06115. l6
(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
(I) [reserved)
(K) Bureau of Air Quality Management.
Department of Environmental Regulation,
Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair
Stone Road. Tallahassee, Florida 32301.77'"6
.' State of Georgia. Environmental Tr
, .nn Division. Department of Natural r,
"i;irces. 270 Washington Street, S.W., '
!nnta. Oeorgla 80i34.r»
(M)
H;iwaii Department of H(!»!lh. 1250
Punchbowl Street. Honolulu. HI 96KK)
H.iWHii Department of Health (m.'nliny
address). Post Officp Box 3378. Honolulu.
I II 9MWJ1 84
(O) | Reserved |
State of Indiana. Indiana Air Po";
Control Board. 1330 West Mlchli
1. Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. U 104
(Q) Iowa Department of
Environmental Quality, Henry A.
Wallace Building, 900 East Grand. Des
Moines. Iowa 50316.60 94
('• i [Reserved |
'Si Division of Air Pollution Control. De
part men t for Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Protection. UJS. 127. Frankfort
K.,. 40601.*'
(T) Secretary, Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources. P.O. Box 44066. Baton
Rouge. Louisiana 70804.77/90
i!7) State of Maine. Department of E -
Tlr umental Protection, State House, Au-
!TiiM:a, Maine 04330." 83
(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
21201.54
(W) Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering. Division of Air Quality
Control, One Winter Street. Boston. MA
02108.17 83
(X) State of Michigan. Air Pollution Con-
•rr>] Division, Michigan Department of Natu-
Resources. Stevens T. Mason Building.
Floor, Lansing, Michigan 48926.12
(V; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Division of Air Quality', 1935 West County
R.jad B-2, Rosevllle, Minn. S5113.*4
(Z) Bureau of Pollution Control,
Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box
10385. Jackson, Mississippi 39209.61 1M
(AA) Missouri Department of Natural
Resources. Post Office Box 1368.55
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101. 88
•BB) State of Montana, Department nl
HeKlth end Environmental Sciences. Cor:-
wel! Building, Helena, Mont. 69601.41
(CC) State of Nebraska, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control,
P.O. Box 94877. State House Station.
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.57
Lincoln-Lancaster County Health
Department, Division of Environment!!!
Health, 2200 St. Marys Avenue, Lmcoi::.
Nebraska 68502.72
(DD) Nevada. 48,69,73,-'4,'OG,i i1
Clark County, County District Health DC
partment. Air Pollution Control Division.
625 Shadow Lane. Las Vegas, Nev. 89106.
Washoe County District Health Depu t
ment. Division of Environmental Protectlor
10 Klrman Avenue, Reno, Nev. 89502.
Nevada Department of Conservation and
N.ihiral Resources. Division of Environmental
Protection. 201 South Kail Street, Carson City.
NV 8H710
(HE) State of New Hampshire: New
Hampshire Air Resources Agency. Health
and Welfare Building, Hazen Drive, Concord.
NH 03301. 83
IFF)—State of New Jersey: New Jersey De-
portment of Environmental Protection
John Fitch Plaza, P.O. Box 2807, Trenton.
New Jersey 08625.39'75
(GG) Director, New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division. Health and
Environment Department. P.O. Box 966. 74
Crown Building, Santa Fe. New Mexico 87504.
III-4
-------
(HH) New York: New York.State D?pa::
ment of Environmental Conservation, SO wolf
Road. Albany. New York 12333. attention
DivisUm of Air Re«ources.v7,ioy • :.
(II) North Carolina Environmental Man-
agement Commiwto*, Department,of Natural
and Eoonomlc Resources, Division of. Envi-
ronmental, pdauagement, f JO..Box 2768?, Ra-
leigh, NortK'Carollna'37^11. Attention: Atr
Quality Section.32 ' '" .'.
IJJ) State of North' Dakota, State no-
partment of Health, State Capitol, Bismarck
North Dakota 58501.27
(KK) State of Ohio—53,104,105
Medina, Summit and Portage Counties:
Director. Air Pollution Control, 177 South
Broadway, Akron, Ohio 44308.
Stark County; Director, Air Pollution Control
Division. Canton City Health Department.
City Hall Annex Second Floor, 218
Cleveland Avenue S.W., Canton, Ohio
44702.
Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren
Counties: Director, Southwestern Ohio Air
Pollution Control Agency, 2400 Beekman
Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45214.
Cuyahoga County; Commissioner, Division of
Air Pollution Control, Department of Public
Health and Welfare. 2735 Broadway
Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115.
Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Harrison,
Jefferson, and Monroe Counties; Director,
North Ohio Valley Air Authority
(NOVAA), 814 Adams Street, Steubenville,
Ohio 43952.
Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery,
and Preble Counties; Supervisor, Regional
Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA),
Montgomery County Health Department,
451 West Third Street, Dayton. Ohio 45402
Lucas County and the City of Rossford (in
Wood County); Director, Toledo Pollution
Control Agency, 26 Main Street, Toledo,
Ohio 43605.
Adams, Brown, Lawrence, and Scioto
Counties; Engineer-Director, Air Division,
Portsmouth City Health Department, 728
Second Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.
Allen, Ashland. Auglaize, Crawford,
Defiance, Erie, Fulton. Hancock, Hardin,
Henry, Huron. Marion, Mercer, Ottawa,
Paulding, Putnam. Richland, Sandusky,
Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, Wood (except
City of Rossford). and Wyandot Counties;
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Northwest District Office, Air Pollution
Group 1035 Devlac Grove Drive. Bowling
Green. Ohio 43402.
Ashtabula, Holmes, Lorain, and Wayne
Counties; Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Northeast District Office, 2110
East Aurora Road, Twinsburg. Ohio 44087.
Athens, Coshocton, Gallia, Guernsey,
Hocking, Jackson, Mcigs, Morgan,
Muskingum. Noble. Perry. Pike. Ross.
Tuscarawas, Vinton, and Washington
Counties; Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. Southeast District Office, Air
Pollution Group, 2195 Front Street, Logan,
Ohio 43138.
Champaign, Clinton, Highland, Logan, and
Shelby Counties: Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Southwest District
Office. 7 East Fourth Street. Dayton. Ohio
45402.
Delaware. Fall-field. Fayette. Franklin. Knox.
Licking, Madison, Morrow. Pickaway. and
Union Counties: Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Central District Office.
Air Pollution Group. 361 East/Broad Street,
Columbus. Ohio 43215.
Geauga and Lake Counties: Lake County
General Health District Air Pollution
Control. 105 Main Street. P.O. Box 490
Painesville. Ohio 44077
Mahoning and Trumbull Counties: Mahoning-
Trumbull Air Pollution Control,
Metropolitan Tower, Room 404.1 Federal
Plaza West. Youngstown. Obi" 44503
(LL) State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Department of Health, Air Quality
Service. P.O. Box 53551, Oklahoma City.
Oklahoma 73152.62
(i) Oklahoma City and County:
Oklahoma City-County Health
Department 1000 Northeast 10th Street.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152.98
(il) Tuloa County: Tulsa City-County Health
Department. 4616 East Fifteenth Street. Tulsa.
Oklahoma 74112.82
MI State of Oregon. Uepartmeir
:.... . oomerital Quality, 1334 SW MOITL-K'-
:5..r••;. Portland, Oregon 97205."
(viii) Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
1244 Walnut Street Eugene, Oregon 97403.64
(NN) (i) City of Philadelphia: 35,78,103
Philadelphia Department of Public
Health. Air Management Services, 500 S.
Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19146.
(ii) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Department of Environmental
Resources, Post Office Box 2063,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17120
(iii) Allegheny County: Allegheny
County Health Department, Bureau of
Air Pollution Control, 301 Thirty-ninth
Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15201.
|OO) State of Rhode Island: Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management.
204 Cannon Building. Davis Street.
Providence. Rl 02908. 5°/ 83
l PP) State of South Carolina, Office of En-
vironmental Quality 'Control, jDepwrfment
of H-nlth and Environmental' Control, 2600
Bull street. Columbia. South Carolina 292,01?
[Reserved |
107
ll_*i I
UUUUII '
rnnt Tu f_l _* A
|BMIJ UBVBBIUU WB mi rvuuu
TennaMee Department of Public Health,
256 Capitol Hill Building, Nashville,
Tennessee 37219 56'1M
(SS) State of Texas, Texas Air Con-
trol Board. 6330 Highway.290 .
East. Austin, Texas 7S723.5' so
fTT) [reserved]
(UU) State of Vermont: Vermont Agency of
F.nvironmental Conservation. Air Pollution
Control. State Office Building. Montpelier. VT
05602. 83
iVV) 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
•til) Puget Sound Air Pollution Contra
'toncy. 410 West Harrison Street, Seattie
Washington 98119.
-------
§ 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-,
tlon 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 Administrator.
(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 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
of Initial startup of the source within 15
days after such date.
(See. 114 of the Ctaui Air Act u amended
(43OJB.C. 7«4)).*V«'
§61.10 Source reporting and waiver re-
qneet.
(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 00 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 a
minimum the following dates:
(!) 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 onsite 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
-------
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 8 61.07 and 5 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 Clean Air Act M amended
(42 UJ5.C. 7414)). «S*«
§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:
d) 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.
trator as an alternative method for
sources subject to § 61.52(b).
(Sec. 114 of the
(42 U.8.C. 7414)).
Air Act M amended
(Sec. 114 of the
(42 DAC. 7414)).
Air Act M amended
§ 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 t 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.
(Sec. 114 of the
(42 VJB.C. 7414)).
Air Act M amended
§61.14 Source test and analytic*!
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 § 6i.3Z(a) and 5 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-
§ 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 Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414)). 40.«
§61.16 State 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
U.8.C. 7416)). 4M<
§ 61.17 Circumvention. 7
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.
R9
{61.18 Incorporations by reference.
The materials listed below are
incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noled. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on the date listed. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval, and a notice
of any change in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. The
materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding address noted below.
and all are available for inspection at
III-7
-------
the Office of the Federal Register. Room
8401,1100 L Street, N.W., Washington.
D.C. and the Library (MD-35). U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina.
(a) The following material is available
for purchase from at least one of the
following addresses: American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1S1B
Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103; or University Microfilms
International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48106.
(1) ASTM D737-75, Standard Test
Method for Air Permeability of Textile
Fabrics, incorporation by reference
(1BR) approved January 27.1983 for
§ 61.23(a).
(2) ASTM D 1193-77, Standard
Specification for Reagent Water, 1BR
approved for Method 101, par. 6.1.1;
Method 101A, par. 6.1.1; Method 104,
par. 3.1.2.89 .
(3) ASTM D 2986-71 (Reapproved
1978), Standard Method for Evaluation
of Air, Assay Media by the
Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate)
Smoke Test, IBR approved for Method
103, par. 2.1.3; Method 104, par. 3.1.189
(4) ASTM D 2267-68 (Reapproved
1978), Aromatics in Light Naphthas and
Aviation Gasolines' by Gas
Chromatography. IBR approved |une f».
1984, for 5 61.245{d)(l).97
(5) ASTM D 2382-76. Heat of
Combustion of Hydrocarbon Fuels !>y
Bomb Calorimeter (High-Precision
Method), IBR approved June 6. 19S4. h<-
§ 61.245(e)(3J.97
(6) ASTM D 2504-C7 (Reapproved
1977J, Noncondensable Cases in Ca and
Lighter Hydrocarbon Products by Gas
Chromatography. IBR approved June 6.
1984. for § 61.245|e)(3).97
III-8
-------
Subpart C—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 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, detaining, 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-
dlaer 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/m5, 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 /tg/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 hi writing within 30 days
after the effective date of this standard.
-------
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 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.
(Sec. 114 of the Ctam Air Act u
<« UJB.C. 7414)).
38 FR 8826, 4/6/73 (1)
as amended
42 FR 41424, 8/17/77 (40)
43 FR 8800, 3/3/78 (47)
111-10
-------
Subpart D—National Emission Standard
for Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
§ 6L40 Applicability.
The provisions of this 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 Emission Standard
. tor 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 IBefinitiomo.
Terms used in ibis 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 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.
(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-alkuli 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 Sowing mercury cathode to produce
chlorine gas and alkali metal amalgam.
(g) "Denuder" means a horizontal or
vertical container which is part of a mer-
cury chlor-alkali cell and in which water
and alkali metal amalgam are converted
to alkali metal hydroxide, mercury, and
hydrogen gas in 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-alkali electrolyzer which serves
as a connection between the electrolyzer
and denuder for rich and stripped
amalgam.
"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. .
(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
658C (ca. 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-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.
§ 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 in-
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.
Mercury chlor-alkall 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
(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 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-alkali plants—
cell room ventilation system.
(1) Stationary sources using mercury
chlor-alkali 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
hi forced gas streams through stacks
suitable for testing,
(i) Within 90 days of the effective date
hi 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 § 61.13, eacli owner or
operator of a source subject to the stain!-
ard in § 61.52 (b) shall test emissions from
that source. Such tests shall be conduct d
in nccprdance with the procedures ot
forth either in paragraph id) of this
section or in § 61.54.
(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
SO 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
80 days of startup in the case of a new
source which did not have an initial K
startup date preceding the effective date.
111-12
-------
(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
(43 O.8.C. 7414)).
Air Act u unaided
§ 61.54 Sludge sampling.7
(a) As on alternative means for
demonstrating compliance with I 61.52
Ob), 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.
Cb) 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
Xc) Sludge shall be sampled according
to paragraph
-------
Subpart F—National Emission Standard
for Vinyl Chloride 28
§ 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
0.19 m3 (50 gal).
(c) Sections of this subpart other than
II 61.61; 61.64 (a)(l), (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 m3 (50 gal) and no
more than 4.07 m" (1100 gal) .M
§ 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).3*
§ 61.62 Emission standard for ethylene
dichloride plants. 3°
(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 I 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 prepolymerizatlon 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
111-14
-------
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 § 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) (1) 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 vinyl 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 presume, and
(ii) Any vinyl chloride removed from
a loading or unloading line in accord-
ance with paragraph (b)(l)(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 pro-
vided in jj 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 § 61.68. 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 I 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-
111-15
-------
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 m' (25
gal) of vinyl chloride, whichever is
larger, at standard temperature and
pressure; and
(11) 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:
(1) 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.
(ill) 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 defined 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 musfc
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 bs
followed.38
(iv) The location and number of points
to be monitored and the frequency of
monitoriner orovided for in the program
are acceotable 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 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 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 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 5=4.75 m3
(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).
HO Of?
«J3 UJ3.C.
££i GO
111-16
-------
§ 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
•ubpart. 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 8 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-a
patched before the close of the next busi-
ness day following the determination."
(f) The owner or operator shall retain
at the plant and mafce 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
d>=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-per-
cent oxygen to which the correction Is
being made.
Percent 0.,=Percent oxygen In the exhaust
gas as measured by Reference Method i
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-
where:
Co.r = kg vinyl chloride/100 kg product.
C»=The concentration of vinyl chloride as
measured by Test Method 106.
2.60=Denslty of vinyl chloride at one
atmosphere and 20° C In kg/m >.
9 = Volumetric flow rate in m-Vhr as de-
termined by Reference Method 2 of Ap-
pendix A to Part 60 of this chapter.
10-o=Conversion factor for ppm.
Z=Production rate (kg/hr). 38
(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(b) (9) U).
(3) Where a stripping operation is
used to attain the emission limit in § 61.-
64(e), emissions are to be determined
using Test Method 107 as follows:
(1) The number of strippers and sam-
ples and the types and grades of resin to
be sampled are to be determined by the
Administrator for each individual plant
at the time of the test based on the
plant's operation.
(ii) Each sample is to be taken imme-
diately following the stripping operation.
(ill) The corresponding quantity of
material processed by each stripper is to
be determined on a dry solids basis and
by a method submitted to and approved
by the Administrator.
(iv) At the prior request of the Ad-
ministrator, the owner or operator shall
provide duplicates of the samples re-
quired in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of this
section.
(4) Where control technology other
than or in addition to a stripping opera-
tion is used to attain the emission limit
in | 61.64(e), emissions are to be deter- •
mined as follows:
(1) Test Method 106 is to be used to
determine atmospheric emissions from
all of the process equipment simultane-
ously. The requirements of paragraph
(g) (1) of this section are to be met.
(11) Test Method 107 is to be used to
determine the concentration of vinyl
chloride in each inprocess wastewater
stream subject to the emission limit pre-
scribed in § 61.64(e). The mass of vinyl
chloride in kg/100 kg product in each
in process wastewater stream is to be de-
termined by using the following equa-
tion:
C>*=
z
when:
C«i=kg vinyl chloride/100 kit product.
C<=the concentration of vinyl chloride as measured
by Test Method 107.
R=water flow rate In 1/hr, determined In accordance
with a method which has been submitted to
and approved by the Administrator.
Kr*-Conversion factor for ppm.
Z-Productlon rate (kg/hr). determined In accord-
ance with a method which has been submitted
and approved by the Administrator.
(5) The reactor opening loss for which
an emission limit Is prescribed in ( 61.84
(a) (2) Is to be determined. The number
of reactors for which the determination
111-17
-------
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:
W (2.60) (10-«) (Cb)
where:
C=
w=
2.60=
io-«=
YZ
; kg vinyl chloride emissions/kg product.
; Capacity of the reactor in m3.
1 Density of vinyl chloride at one atmosphere and
20° C in kg/Hi'.
Conversion factor for ppm.
'Ppm by volume vinyl chloride as determined by
Test Method 108 or a portable hydrocarbon
detector which measures hydrocarbons
with a sensitivity of at least 10 ppm.
Number of batches since the reactor was last
opened to the atmosphere.
Average kg of polyvlnyl 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.
(ii) 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 postpolymerization
reactors in the manufacture of bulk
resins.
«\2 UAC.
o! tho
AS? Aei 03
§ 61.68 Emission monitoring.
(a) A vinyl 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), § 61.63(a),
and § 61.64(a) (1), (b), (c), and (d), and
for any control system to which reactor
emissions are required to be ducted in
§ 61.64(a) (2) or to which fugitive emis-
sions are required to be ducted in § 61.65
(b)(l)(ii), and (b)(2), (b)(5>, (b)(6)
(ii),and (b) (9) (ii).30
(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-
tive method. The vinyl chloride monitor-
ing system used to meet the requirements
in § 61.65(b) (8) (i) may be used to meet
the requirements of this section.
(c) A daily span check is to be con-
ducted for each vinyl 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 § 61.62(b), the
daily span check is to be concducted with
a concentration of vinyl chloride equal
to 10 ppm. For the emission source for
which an emission limit is prescribed in
§ 61.62(b), the daily span check is to be
conducted with a concentration of vinyl
chloride which is determined to be
equivalent to the emission limit for that
source based on the emission test re-
quired by § 61.67. 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 5.2.2 of Test Method 106 and
in accordance with section 7.1 of Test
Method 106, or *
(2) A calibration gas cylinder stand-
ard containing the appropriate concen-
tration of vinyl chloride. The gas com-
position of the calibration gas cylinder
standard is to have been certified by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer must
have recommended a maximum shelf
life for each cylinder so that the concen-
tration does not change greater than
±5 percent from the certified value. The
date of gas cylinder preparation, certified
vinyl chloride concentration and recom-
mended maximum shelf life must have
been affixed to the cylinder before ship-
ment from the manufacturer to the
buyer. If a gas chromatograph is used as
the vinyl chloride monitoring system,
these gas mixtures may be directly used
to prepare a chromatograph calibration
curve as described in section 7.3 of Test
Method 106. The requirements in sec-
tions 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2 of Test Method
106 for certification of cylinder stand-
ards and for establishment and verifica-
tion of calibration standards are to be
followed.38
(Ssc. m of tho i
«S2 0.S.C.'
§ 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 § 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 § 61.11, along with the informa-
tion required under § 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 the 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
§61.65 (b) (l)(i) and (b)(6)(i),
(4) A statement that each piece of
equipment is installed and that each
piece of equipment and each procedure
is being used.
^@sc. lid of tho
«13 U.S.C. 7410)).
Ate- Act oo
§61.70 Semiannual report.
(a) The owner or operator of any
source to which this subpart applies shall
submit to the Administrator on Septem-
ber 15 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.30
(b) (1) In the case of an existing source
or a new source which has an initial
startup date preceding the effective date,
the first report is 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
111-18
-------
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 !§ 61.62(a) or (b), § 61.63(a),
or § 61.64(a) (1), (b), (c), or (d), or for
any control system to which reactor
emissions are required to be ducted in
§ 61.64(a) (2) or to which fugitive emis-
sions are required to be ducted in § 61.65
(b'HIHii), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b) (6) (ii), or
(b) (9) (ii). The emissions are to be meas-
ured in accordance with § 61.68.
(2) In poly vinyl chloride plants for
which a stripping operation is used to
attain the emission level prescribed in
§61.64(e), the owner or operator shall
include in the report a record of the
vinyl chloride content in the polyvinyl
chloride resin. Test Method 107 is to be
used to determine vinyl chloride content
as follows:
(i) If batch stripping is used, one rep-
resentative sample of polyvinyl chloride
resin is to be taken from each batch of
each grade of resin immediately follow-
ing the completion of the stripping op-
eration, and identified by resin type and
grade and the date and time the batch
is completed. The corresponding quan-
tity of material processed in each strip-
per batch is to be recorded and identi-
fied by resin type and grade and the
date and time the batch is completed.
(ii) 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
is 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 time 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.
(iii) 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 (c) (2) (i) and (c)
(2) (ii) of this section.
(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:
ATi=
Or,-
where:
A = 24-hour average concentration of type,
T < resin In ppm (dry weight basis).
Q=Total production of type T i resin over
the 24-hour period, In kg.
T i=Type of resin; 1 = 1,2 ... m where m
Is total number of resin types produced
during the 24-hour period.
(vi) 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) (i) and (c) (2) (ii) 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 and 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 § 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.
(Sec. 114 of the
(42 DAC. 7414)).
Air Act M amended
M = Concentration of vinyl chloride In one
sample of grade G < resin, In ppm.
P — Production of grade G i resin repre-
sented by the sample, in kg.
G t=:Grade of resin; e.g., G,, G,, and G ,.
n=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 Cle»p Air Act u
<42 OJ8.C. 7414)). W*
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)
47 FR 39485, 9/8/82 (71)
111-19
-------
Subpart J—National Emission
Standard for Equipment Leaks
(Fugitive Emission Sources) of
Benzene97
S 61.110 Applicability and designation of
sources.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each of the following sources
that are intended to operate in benzene
service: pumps, compressors, pressure
relief devices, sampling connections,
systems, open-ended valves or lines.
valves, flanges and other connectors.
product accumulator vessels, and
control devices or systems required by
this subpart.
(b) The provisions of this subpart do
not apply to sources located in coke by-
product plants.
(c)(l) If an owner or operator applies
for one of the exemptions in this
paragraph, then the owner or operator
shall maintain records as required in
S 61.246(i).
(2) Any equipment in benzene sen ice
that is located at a plant site designed to
produce or use less than 1.000
megagrams of benzene per year is
exempt from the requirements of
561.112.
(3) Any process unit (defined in
§ 61.241) thai has no equipment in
benzene service is exempt from the
requirements of { 61.112.
(d) While the provisions of this
subpart are effective, a source to which
this subpart applies that is also subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 only
will be required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.
{61.111
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act, in Subpart A of
Part 61, or in Subpart V of Part 61, and
the following terms shall have the
specific meanings given them:
"In benzene service" means that a
piece of equipment either contains or
contacts a fluid (Liquid or gas) that is at
least 10 percent benzene by weight as
determined according to the provisions
of S 61.245(d). The provisions of
{ 61.245(d) also specify how to
determine that a piece of equipment is
not in benzene service.
"Semiannual" means a 6-month
period; the first semiannual period
concludes on the last day of the last
month during the 180 days following
initial startup for new sources; and the
first semiannual period concludes on the
last day of the last full month during the
180 days after June 6,1984 for existing
sources.
{61.112 Standards.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the requirements of
Subpart V of this part.
. (b) An owner or operator may elect to
comply with the requirements of
8 61.243-1 and S 61.243-2.
(c) An owner or operator may apply to
the Administrator for a determination of
an alternative means of emission
limitation that achieves a reduction in
emissions of benzene at leas; equivalent
to the reduction in emissions of benzene
achieved by the controls required in this
subpart. In doing so, the owner or
operator shall comply with requirements
of { 61.244.
{61.113-«1.119 (Rtsvnwdl
38 FR 8826, 4/6/73 (1)
as amended
49 FR 23498, 6/6/84 (97)
111-20
-------
Subpart M—National Emission
Standard for Asbestos 9'
{•1.140 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to those sources specified in
{( 61.142 through 61.153.
All terms that are used in this subpart
end are not defined below are given the
same meaning as in the Act and in
Subpart A of this part.
Active waste disposal site means any
disposal site other than an inactive site.
Adequately wetted means sufficiently
mixed -or coated with water or an
aqueous solution to prevent dust
emissions.
Asbestos means the asbestiform
varieties of serpentinite (chrysotile),
riebeckrte (crocidolite), cummingtonite-
gnmerfte, anthophyllite, and actinolite-
tretnobte.
Asbestos-containing waste materials
means any waste that contains
commercial asbestos and is generated
by a source subject to the provisions of
this subpart. This term includes asbestos
mill tailings, asbestos waste from
control devices, friable asbestos waste
material, and bags or containers that
previously contained commercial
asbestos. However, as applied to
demolition and renovation operations,
this term includes only friable asbestos
waste end asbestos waste from control
devices.
Asbestos material means asbestos or
any material containing asbestos.
Asbestos mill means any facility
engaged in converting, or in any
intermediate step in converting,
asbestos ore into commercial asbestos.
Outside storage of asbestos material is
not considered a part of the asbestos
mill.
Asbestos tailings means any solid
waste that contains asbestos and is a
product of asbestos mining or milling
operations.
Asbestos waste from control devices
means any waste material that contains
asbestos and is collected by a pollution
Commercial asbestos means any
asbestos that is extracted from asbestos
ore.
DeaioKtioa means the wrecking or
taking out of any load-supporting
structural member of a facility together
with any related handling operations.
Emergency renovation operation
meaas a renovation operation that was
not planned but results from a sadden.
anexpectad event. This term includes
operations necessitated by nonroutine
failures of equipment."
Fabricating means any processing of a
manufactured product that contains
commercial asbestos, with the exception
of processing at temporary sites for the
construction or restoration of facilities.
Facility mean* any institutional,
commercial or industrial structure.
installation, or building (excluding
apartment buildings having no more
than four dwelling units).
Facility component means any pipe.
duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, or
furnace at or in a facility, or any
structural member of a facility.
Friable asbestos material means any
material containing more than 1 percent
asbestos by weight that hand pressure
can crumble, pulverize, or reduce to
powder when dry.
Inactive waste disposal site means
any disposal site or portion of it where
additional asbestos-containing waste
material will not be deposited and
where the surface is not disturbed by
vehicular traffic.
Manufacturing means the combining
of commercial asbestos—or, in the case
of woven friction products, the
combining oT textiles containing
commercial asbestos—with any other
material(s), including commercial
asbestos, and the processing of this
combination into a product.
Outside air means the air outside
buildings and structures.
Particulate asbestos material means
finely divided particles of asbestos
material.
Planned renovation operations means
a renovation operation, or a number of
such operations, in which the amount of
friable asbestos material that will be
removed or stripped within a given
period of time can be predicted.
Individual nonscheduled operations are
included if a number of such operations
can be predicted to occur during a given
period of time based on operating
experience.
Remove means to take out friable
asbestos materials from any facility.
Renovation means altering in any way
one or more facility components.
Operations is which !csd-suppertir.g
structural members are wrecked or
taken out are excluded.
Roadways means surfaces on which
motor vehicles travel. This term includes
highways, roads, streets, parking areas,
and driveways.
Strip means to take off friable
asbestos materials from any part of a
facility."
Structural member means any load-
supporting member of a facility, such as
beams and load supporting walls; or any
nonload-supporting member, such as
ceilings and nonload-supporting walls.
Visible emissions means any
emissions containing participate
asbestos material that are visually
detectable without the aid cf
instruments. This does not include
condensed uncombined water vapor.
§61.142 Standard for asbestos mills.
Each owner or operator of an asbestos
mill shall either discharge no visible
emissions to the outside air from that
asbestos mill or use the methods
specified by § 61.154 to clean emissions
containing participate asbestos material
before they escape to, or are vented to,
the outside air.
$61.143 Standard for roadways.
No person may surface a
roadway with asbestos tailings or
may deposit asbestos tailings or
asbestos-containing waste material on
that roadway, unless it is a temporary
roadway on an area of asbestos ore
deposits."
§ 61.144 Standard for manufacturing.
(a) Applicability: This section applies
to the following manufacturing
operations using commercial asbestos.
(1) The manufacture of cloth, cord,
wicks, tubing, tape, twine, rope, thread,
yarn, roving, lap, or other textile
materials.
(2) The manufacture of cement
products.
(3) The manufacture of fireproof!ng
and insulating materials.
(4) The manufacture of friction
products.
(5) The manufacture of paper,
millboard, and felt.
(6) The manufacture of floor tile.
(7) The manufacture of paints,
coatings, caulks, adhesives, and
sealants.
(8) The manufacture of plastics and
rubber materials.
(9) The manufacture of chlorine.
(10) The manufacture of shotgun shell
wads.
(11) The manufacture of asphalt
concrete.
(b) Standard: Each owner or operator
of any of the manufacturing operations
to which this section applies shall either
(1) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from these operations or
from any building or structure in which
they are conducted; or
(2) Use the methods specified by
161.154 to clean emissions from these
operations containing paniculate
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air.
111-21
-------
$61.145 Standard tor demolition and
renovation: Applicability.
The requirements of J J 61.146 and
61.147 apply to each owner or operator
of a demolition or renovation operation
as follows:
(a) If the amount of friable asbestos
materials in a facility being demolished
is at least 80 linear meters (260 linear
feet) on pipes or at least 15 square
meter* (160 square feet) on other facility
components, all the requirements of
S9 61.146 and 61.147 apply, except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) If the amount of friable asbestos
materials in a facility being demolished
is less than 60 linear meters (260 linear
feet) on pipes and less than 15 square
meters (160 square feet) on other facility
components, only the notification.
requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) (1), (2), (3). (4), and (5) of { 61.146
apply.
(c) If the facility is being demolished
under an order of a State or local
governmental agency, issued because
the facility is structurally unsound and
in danger of imminent collapse, only the
requirements in { 61.146 and in
paragraphs (d). (e), (f), and (g) of
S 61.147 apply.
(d) If at least BO linear meters (260
linear feet) of friable asbestos materials
on pipes or at least 15 square meters
(160 square feet) of friable asbestos
materials on other facility components
are stripped or removed at a facility
being renovated, all the requirements of
§5 61.146 and 61.147 apply.
(1) To determine whether paragraph
(d) of this section applies to planned
renovation operations involving
individual nonscheduled operations,
predict the additive amount of friable
, asbestos materials to be removed or
stripped over the maximum period of
time a prediction can be made, not to
exceed 1 year.
(2) To determine whether paragraph
(d) of this section applies to emergency
renovation operations, estimate the .
amount of friable asbestos materials to
be removed or stripped as a result of the
sudden, unexpected event that
necessitated the renovation.
(e) Owners or operators of demolition
and renovation operations are exempt
from the requirements of 88 61.05(a),
61.07. and 61.09.
{61.146 Standard for demolition and
renovation: Notification requirement*.
Each owner or operator to which this
section applies shall:
fa) Provide the Administrator with
written notice of intention to demolish
or renovate.
(b) Postmark or deliver the notice as
follows:
(1) At least 10 days before demolition
begins if the operation is described in
8 61.145(a):
(2) At least 20 days before demolition
begins if the operation is described in
{ 61.145(b);
(3) As early as possible before
demolition begins if the operation is
described in 8 61.145(c);
(4) As early as possible before
renovation begins.
(c) Include the following information
in the notice:
(1) Name and address of owner or
operator.
(2) Description of the facility being
demolished or renovated, including the
size, age, and prior use of the facility.
(3) Estimate of the approximate
amount of friable asbestos material
present in the facility In terms
of linear feet of pipe, and surface area
on other facility components. For facilities
described in { 61.145(b), explain
techniques of estimation."
(4) Location of the facility being
demolished or renovated.
(5) Scheduled starting and completion
dates of demolition or renovation.
(6) Nature of planned demolition or
renovation and method(s) to be used.
(7) Procedures to be used to comply
with the requirements of this Subpart.
(8) Name and location of the waste
disposal site where the friable asbestos
waste material will be deposited.
(9) For facilities described in
S 61.145(c), the name, title, and authority
of the State or local governmental
representative who has ordered the
demolition.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2000-0264)
$61.147 Standard for demolition and
renovation: Procedures for asbestos
emission control
Each owner or operator to whom this
section applies shall comply with the
following procedures to prevent
emissions of particulate asbestos
material to the outside air:
(a) Remove friable asbestos materials
from a facility being demolished or
renovated before any wrecking or
dismantling that would break up the
materials or preclude access to the
materials for subsequent removal.
However, friable asbestos materials
need not be removed before demolition
if:
(1) They are on a facility component
that is encased in concrete or other
similar material; and
(2) These materials are adequately
wetted whenever exposed during
demolition.
(b) When a facility component
covered or coated with friable asbestos
materials is being taken out of the
facility as units or in sections:
(1) Adequately wet any friable
asbestos materials exposed during
cutting or disjointing operations; and
(2) Carefully lower the units or
sections to ground level, not dropping
them or throwing them.
(c) Adequately wet friable asbestos
materials when they are being stripped
from facility components before the
members are removed from the facility.
In renovation operations, wetting that
would unavoidably damage equipment
is not required if the owner or operator:
(1) Asks the Administrator to
determine whether wetting to comply
with this paragraph would unavoidably
damage equipment, and, before
beginning to strip, supplies the
Administrator with adequate
information to make this determination;
and
(2) When the Administrator does
determine that equipment damage
would be unavoidable, uses a local
exhaust ventilation and collection
system designed and operated to
capture the particulate asbestos
material produced by the stripping and
removal of the friable asbestos
materials. The system must exhibit no
visible emissions to the outside air or be
designed and operated in accordance
with the requirements in S 61.154.
(d) After a facility component has
been taken out of the facility as units or
in sections, either.
(1) Adequately wet friable asbestos
materials during stripping; or
(2) Use a local exhaust ventilation and
collection system designed and operated
to capture the particulate asbestos
material produced by the stripping. The
system must exhibit no visible emissions
to the outside air or be designed and
operated in accordance with the
requirements in i 61.154.
(e) For friable asbestos materials that
have been removed or stripped:
(1) Adequately wet the materials to
ensure that they remain wet until they
are collected for disposal in accordance
with 8 61.152; and
(2) Carefully lower the materials to
the ground or a lower floor, not dropping
or throwing them; and
(3) Transport the materials to the
ground via dust-tight chutes or
containers if they have been removed or
stripped more than 50 feet above ground
111-22
-------
level and were not removed as units or
in sections.
(f) When the temperature at the point
of wetting is below O'C (32'F):
(1) Comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
The owner or operator need not comply
with the other wetting requirements in
this section; and
(2) Remove facility components
coated or covered with friable asbestos
materials as units or in sections to the
maximum extent possible.
(g) For facilities described in
S 81.145(c), adequately wet the portion
of the facility that contains friable
asbestos materials during the wrecking
operation.
861.14* Standard for spraying.
The owner or operator of an operation
in which asbestos-containing materials
are spray applied shall comply with the
following requirements:
(a) Use materials that contain 1
percent asbestos or less on a dry weight
basis for spray-on application on
buildings, structures, pipes, and
conduits, except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) For spray-on application of
materials that contain more than 1
percent asbestos on a dry weight basis
on equipment and machinery, except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Notify the Administrator at least
20 days before beginning the spraying
operation. Include the following
information in the notice:
(i) Name and address of owner or
operator.
(ii) Location of spraying operation.
(Hi) Procedures to be followed to meet
the requirements of this paragraph.
(2) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the spray-on
application of the asbestos-containing
material or use the methods specified by
$ 61.154 to clean emissions containing
particulate asbestos material before
they escape to, or are vented to, the
outside air.
(c) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and fb) of this section do not apply to
the spray-on application of materials
where the asbestos fibers in the
materials are encapsulated with a
bituminous or resinous binder during
spraying and the materials are not
friable after drying.
(d) Owners and operators of sources
subject to this section are exempt .from
the requirements of 88 81.05(a), 61.07,
and 61.09.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2000-0264)
161.149 Standard for fabricating.
[a] Applicability. This section applies
to the following fabricating operations
using commercial asbestos:
(1) The fabrication of cement building
products.
(2) The fabrication of friction
products, except those operations that
primarily install asbestos friction
materials on motor vehicles.
(3) The fabrication of cement or
silicate board for ventilation hoods;
ovens; electrical panels; laboratory
furniture, bulkheads, partitions, and
ceilings for marine construction; and
flow control devices for the molten
metal industry.
(b) Standard. Each owner or operator
of any of the fabricating operations to
which this section applies shall either
(1) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from any of the
operations or from any building or
structure in which they are conducted;
or
(2) Use the methods specified by
8 61.154 to clean emissions containing
particulate asbestos material before
they escape to, or are vented to. the
outside air.
• 61.190 Standard for (mutating materials.
After the effective date of this
regulation, no owner or operator of a
facility may install or reinstall on a
facility component any insulating
materials that contain commercial
asbestos if the materials are either
molded and friable or wet-applied and
friable after drying. The provisions of
this paragraph do not apply to spray-
applied insulating materials regulated
under § 61.148.
{61.151 Standard for wast* disposal for
asbestos milt*.
Each owner or operator of any source
covered under the provisions of 8 61.142
shall:
(a) Deposit all asbestos-containing
waste material at waste disposal sites
operated in accordance with the
provisions of i 61.156; and
(b) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the transfer of
asbestos waste from control devices to
the tailings conveyor, or use the
methods specified by 8 61.154 to clean
emissions containing particulate
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air. Dispose
of the asbestos waste from control
devices in accordance with 8 61.152(b)
or paragraph (c) of this section; and
(c) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air during the collection.
processing, packaging, transporting, or
deposition of any asbestos-containing
waste material, or use one of the
disposal methods specified in
paragraphs (c) (1) or (2) of this section,
as follows:
(1) Use a wetting agent as follows:
(i) Adequately mix all asbestos-
containing waste material with a
wetting agent recommended by the
manufacturer of the agent to effectively
wet dust and tailings, before depositing
the material at a waste disposal site.
Use the agent as recommended for the
particular dust by the manufacturer of
the agent.
(ii) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the wetting
operation or use the methods specified
by 8 61.154 to clean emissions
containing particulate asbestos material
before they escape to, or are vented to,
the outside air.
(iii) Wetting may be suspended when
the ambient temperature at the waste
disposal site is less than -9.5*C (15*F).
Determine the ambient air temperature
by an appropriate measurement method
with an accuracy of ±1'C(±2*F). and
record it at least hourly while the
wetting operation is suspended. Keep
the records for at least 2 years in a form
suitable for inspection.
(2) Use an alternative disposal method
that has received prior approval by the
Administrator.
861.152 Standard for waste dtaposal for
manufacturing demoitton. renovation,
spraying, and fabricating operations.
Each owner or operator of any source
covered under the provisions of
18 61.147 and 61.149 shall: "
(a) Deposit all asbestos-containing
waste material at waste disposal sites
operated in accordance with the
provisions of 8 61.156; and
(b) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air during the collection,
processing (including incineration),
packaging, transporting, or deposition of
any asbestos-containing waste material
generated by the source, or use one of
the disposal methods specified in
paragraphs (b)(l), (2), or (3) of mis
section, as follows:
(1) Treat asbestos-containing waste
material with water
(i) Mix asbestos waste from control
devices with water to form a slurry,
adequately wet other asbestos-
containing waste material; and
(ii) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from collection, mixing,
and wetting operations, or use the
methods specified by 8 61.154 to clean
emissions containing particulate
111-23
-------
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air, and
(iii) After wetting, seal all osbestos-
containing waste material in leak-tight
containers while wet: and
(iv) Label the containers specified in
paragraph (b)(l)(iii) as follows:
CAUTION
Contains Asbestos-
Avoid Opening or
Breaking Container
Breathing Asbestos isHazardous
to Your Health "
Alternatively, use warning labels
specified by Occupational Safety and
Health Standards of the Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) under 29 CFR
(2) Process asbestos-containing waste
material into nonfriable forms:
(i) Form all asbestos-containing waste
material into nonfriable pellets or other
shapes; and
(ii) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from collection and
processing operations, or use the
methods specified by 1 61.154 to clean
emissions containing particulate
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air.
(3) Use an alternative disposal method
that has received prior approval by the
Administrator.
'{61.153 Standard for Inactive waste
disposal altes for asbestoa mlDs and
manufacturing and fabricating operations.
Each owner or operator of any
inactive waste disposal site that was
operated by sources covered under
{ { 61.142. 61.144, or 61.149 and received
deposits of asbestos-containing waste
material generated by the sources, shall
(a) Comply with one of the following:
(1) Either discharge no visible
emissions to the outside air from an
inactive waste disposal site subject to
this paragraph; or
(2) Cover the asbestos-containing
waste material with at least 15
centimeters (6 inches) of compacted
nonasbestoa-containing material, and
grow and maintain a cover of vegetation
on the area adequate to prevent
exposure of the asbestos-containing
waste material; or
(3) Cover the asbestos-containing
waste material with at least 60
centimeters (2 feet) of compacted
nonasbestoa-containing material and
maintain it to prevent exposure of the
asbestos-containing waste; or
(4) For inactive waste disposal sites
for asbestos tailings, apply a resinous or
petroleum-based dust suppression agent
that affectively binds dust and controls
wind erosion. Use the agent as
recommended for the particular
asbestos tailings by the manufacturer of
the dust suppression agent Obtain prior
approval of the Administrator to use
other equally effective duct suppression
agents. For purposes of this paragraph.
waste crankcase oil is not considered a
dust suppression agent.
(b) Unless a natural barrier
adequately deters access by the general
public, install and maintain warning
signs and fencing as follows, or comply
with paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this
section.
(1) Display warning signs at all
entrances and at intervals of 100 m (330
feet) or less along the property line of
the site or along the perimeter of the
sections of the site where asbestos-
containing waste material was
deposited. The warning signs must:
(I) Be posted in such a manner and
location that a person can easily read
the legend; and
(ii) Conform to the requirements for 51
cm x 36 cm (20" X14") upright format
signs specified in 29 CFR 1910.M5(d}(4)
and this paragraph: and
(iii) Display die following legend in
the lower panel with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to
those specified in this paragraph.
. and
Uojnd
Alberto* Wist* Ofcpaul Sta .
Do Not Cratl* Dial
BrtttMnQ Astwvtos It HQ*
•raous to Your Halth.
Notation
2.5 an (1 incn) San* Set).
QoMc or Stock
1.8 cm (% kit*) Sara Sort.
GoMccf Block
14 PoM Gothic
Spacing between any two lines must be
at least equal to the height of the upper
of the two lines.
(2) Fence the perimeter of the site in a
manner adequate to deter access by the
general public.
(3) Upon request and supply of
appropriate information, the
Administrator will determine whether a
fence or a natural barrier adequately
deters access by the general public.
(c) The owner or operator may use an
alternative control method that has
received prior approval of the
Administrator rafter than comply with
the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section.
{61.154 Alr-deanlng.
(a) The. owner or operator who elect*
to use air-cleaning, as permitted by
ft 61.142. 61.144. 61.147(c)(2).
61.147(d)(2), 61.148(b)(2). 61.149(b),
61.1*2(bH2Mii)»hsll:
(1) Use fabric filter collection devices,
except as noted in paragraph (b) of this
section, doing all of the following:
(i) Operating the fabric filter
collection devices at a pressure drop of
no more than MS
kilopascal (4 inches water gage), as "
measured across the filter fabric; and
(ii) Ensuring that the airflow
permeability, as determined by ASTM
Method D737-75, does not exceed 9 m3/
min/m1 (30 ft'/min/ft*) for woven
fabrics or ll'/rain/mMSS ft'/min/ft2)
for felted fabrics, except that 12 m3/
min/m* (40 ft'min/ft2) for woven and 14
m»/min/m» (45 ft »min/ft») for felted
fabrics is allowed for filtering air from
asbestos ore dryers; and
(iii) Ensuring that felted fabric weighs
at least 475 grams per square meter (14
ounces per square yard) and is at least
1.6 millimeters (one-sixteenth inch) thick
throughout; and
(iv) Avoiding the use of synthetic
fabrics that contain fill yarn other than
that which is spun.
(2) Properly install, use. operate, and
maintain all air-cleaning equipment
authorized by this section. Bypass
devices may be used only during upset
or emergency conditions and then only
for so long as it takes to shut down the
operation generating the particulate
asbestos material.
(b) There are the following exceptions
to paragraph (a)(l):
(1) If the use of fabric creates a fire or
explosion hazard, the Administrator
may* authorize as a substitute the use of
wet collectors designed to operate with
a unit contacting energy of at least 9.95
kilopascals (40 inches water gage
pressure).
(2) The Administrator may authorize
the use of filtering equipment other than
that described in paragraphs (a)(l) and
(b)(l) of this section if the owner or
operator demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that it is
equivalent to the described equipment in
filtering particulate asbestos material.
§61.155 Reporting.
(a) Within 90 days after the effective
date of this subpart each owner or
operator of any existing source to which
this subpart applies shall provide the
following information to the
Administrator, except that any owner or
operator who provided this information
prior to April 5, 1984 in order to comply
with § 61.24 (which this section
replaces) is not required to resubmit it
(1) A description of the emission
control equipment used for each
111-24
-------
process; and
(2] If a fabric filter device is used to
control emissions, the pressure drop
across the fabric filter in inches water
gage; and
(i) If the fabric device uses a woven
fabric, the airflow permeability in m9/
min/m* and; if the fabric is synthetic,
whether the fill yarn is spun or not spun;
and
(ii) If the fabric filter device uses a
felted fabric, the density in g/m*. the
minimum thickness in inches, and the
airflow permeability in m'/min/m1.
(3) For sources subject to 5$ 61.151
and 61.152:
(i) A brief description of each process
that generates asbestos-containing
waste material; and
(ii) The average weight of asbestos-
containing waste material disposed of,
measured in kg/day; and
(iii) The emission control methods
used in all stages of water disposal; and
(iv) The type of disposal site or
incineration site used for ultimate
disposal, the name of the site operator,
and the name and location of the
disposal site.
(4) For sources subject to i 61.153:
(i) A brief description of the site; and
(ii) The method or methods used to
comply with the standard, or alternative
procedures to be used.
(b) The information required by
paragraph (a) of this section must
accompany the information required by
S 61.10. The information described in
this section must be reported using the
format of Appendix A of this part.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)}.
(Approved by this Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2000-0264)
{61.156 Acttv* waste disposal site*.
To be an acceptable site for disposal
of asbestos-containing waste material
under SS 61.151 and 61.152, an active
waste disposal site must meet the
requirements of this section.
(a) Either there must be no visible
emissions to the outside air from any
active waste disposal site where
asbestos-containing waste material has
been deposited, or the requirements of
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section must
be met.
(b) Unless a natural barrier
adequately deters access by the general
public, either warning signs and fencing
must be installed and maintained as
follows, or the requirements of
paragraph (c)(l) of this section must be
met.
(1) Warning signs must be displayed
at all entrances and at intervals of 100 m
(330 ft) or less along the property line of
the site or along the perimeter of the
sections of the site where asbestos-
containing waste material is deposited.
The warning signs must:
(i) Be posted in such ajnanner and
location that a person can easily read
the legend; and
(ii) Conform to the requirements of 51
cm X 36 cm (20" X 14") upright format
signs specified in 29 CFR 1910.145(d)(4)
and this paragraph; and
(iii) Display the following legend in
the lower panel with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to
those specified in this paragraph.
Uomd
Wn»
•to.
Do Not Cram Duct
Ha-
MM 10 Your HMMl.
Notation
2.5 cm (1 Inch) Sm Sent.
Gothic or Block.
1.» em (* Inch) Sins Swil.
Gothic or Block.
14 Point Gothic
Spacing between any two lines must be
at least equal to the height of the upper
of the two lines.
(2) The perimeter of the disposal site
must be fenced in a manner adequate to
deter access by the general public.
(3) Upon request and supply of
appropriate information, the
Administrator will determine whether a
fence or a natural barrier adequately
deters access by the general public.
(c) Rather than meet the no visible
emission requirement of paragraph (a) of
this section, an active waste disposal
site would be an acceptable site if at the
end of each operating day, or at least
once every 24-hour period while the site
is in continuous operation, the asbestos-
containing waste material which was
deposited at the site during the
operating day or previous 24-hour period
is covered with either.
(1) At least 15 centimeters (6 inches)
of compacted nonasbestos-containing
material, or
(2) A resinous or petroleum-based
dust suppression agent that effectively
binds dust and controls wind erosion.
This agent must be used as
recommended for the particular dust by
the manufacturer of the dust
suppression agent. Other equally
effective dust suppression agents may
be used upon prior approval by the
Administrator. For purposes of this
paragraph, waste crankcase oil is not
considered a dust suppression agent.
(d) Rather than meet the no visible
emission requirement of paragraph (a) of
this section, an active waste disposal
site would be an acceptable site if an
alternative control method for emissions
that has received prior approval by the
Administrator is used.
(Sees. 112 and 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412. 7601(a))
38 FR 8826, 4/6/73 (1)
as amended
49 FR 13658, 4/5/84 (91)
111-25
-------
Subpart V—National Emission
Standard for Equipment Leaks
(Fugitive Emission Sources)97
861.240 Applicability and designation of
sources.
(a) The provisions of this subpar:
apply to each of the following sources
that are intended to operate in volatile
hazardous air pollutant (VHAP) service:
pumps, .compressors, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems.
open-ended valves or lines, valves.
flanges and other connectors, product
accumulator vessels, and control
devices or systems required by this
subparl.
(b) The provisions of this subparl
apply to the sources listed in paragraph
(a) after the date of promulgation of a
specific subpart in Part 61.
(c) While the provisions of this
subpart are effective, a source to which
this subpart applies that is also subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 onl\
will be required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.
{61.241 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act, in Subpart A of
Part 61, or in specific subparts of Part 61;
and the following terms shall have
specific meaning given them:
"Closed-vent system" means a system
that is not open to atmosphere and that
is composed of piping, connections, and,
if necessary, flow-inducing devices that
transport gas or vapor from a piece or
pieces of equipment to a control device.
"Connector" means, flanged, screwed,
welded, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and
a piece of equipment.
"Control device" means an enclosed
combustion device, vapor recovery
system, qt flare.
"Double block and bleed system"
means two block valves connected in
series with a bleed valve or line that can
vent the line between the two block
valves.
"Equipment" means each pump,
compressor, pressure relief device,
sampling connection system, open-
ended valve or line, valve, flange or
other connector, product accumulator
vessel in VHAP service, and any control
devices or systems required by this
subpart.
"First attempt at repair" means to
take rapid action for the purpose of
stopping or reducing leakage of organi<
material to atmosphere using best
practices.
"In gas/vapor service" means that a
piece of equipment contains process
fluid that is in the gaseous state at
operating conditions.
"In liquid service" means that a piei >-
of equipment is not in gas/vapor servirr
"In-situ sampling systems" means
nonextractive samplers or in-line
samplers.
"In vacuum service" means th.il
equipment is operating at an intern^!
pressure which is at least 5 kilopascalh
(kPa) below ambient pressure.
"In VHAP service" means thai a piiv.t-
of equipment either contains or con!.i<:i:-
a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 10
percent by weight a volatile hazardous
air pollutant (VHAP) as determined
according to the provisions of
§ 61.245(d). The provisions of 8 61.245(d)
also specify how to determine that a
piece of equipment is not in VHAP
service.
"In VOC service" means, for the
purposes of this subpart, that (a) the
piece of equipment contains or contacts
a process fluid that is at least 10 percent
VOC by weight (see 40 CFR 60.2 for the
definition of volatile organic compound
or VCX: and 40 CFR 60.485(d) to
determine whether a piece of equipment
is nut in VOC service) and (b) the piece
of equipment is not in liquid service as
defined in 40 CFR 60.481 .m
"Open-ended valve or line" means
any valve, except pressure relief valves.
having one side of the valve seat in
contact with process fluid and one side
open to atmosphere, either directly or
through open piping.
"Pressure release" means the
emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the
set pressure of the pressure relief
device.
"Process unit" means equipment
assembled to produce a VHAP or its
derivatives as intermediates or final
products, or equipment assembled to use
a VHAP in the production of a product.
A process unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient
feed or raw materials and sufficient
product storage facilities.
"Process unit shutdown" means a
work practice or operational procedure
that stops production from a process
unit or part of a process unit. An
unscheduled work practice or
operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of
a process unit for less than 24 hours is
not a process unit shutdown. The use of
spare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without
stopping production are not process unit
shutdowns.
"Product accumulator vessel" means
any distillate receiver, bottoms receiver,
surge control vessel, or product
separator in VHAP service that is
vented to atmosphere either directly or
through a vacuum-producing system. A
product accumulator vessel is in VHAP
sen-ice if the liquid or the vapor in the
vessel is at least 10 percent by weight
VHAP.
"Repaired" means that equipment is
adjusted, or otherwise altered, to
eliminate a leak as indicated by one of
the following: an instrument reading of
10.000 ppm or greater, indication of
liquids dripping, or indication by «
sensor that a seal or barrier fluid system
has failed.
"Semiannual" means a 6-month
period; the first semiannual period
concludes on the last day of the last
month during the 160 days following
initial startup for new sources: and the
first semiannual period concludes on the
last day of the last full month during the
180 days after the effective date of a
specific subpart that references this
subpart for existing sources ,m
"Sensor" means a device that
measures a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity, such as
temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH. or
liquid level.
"Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutant" or
"VHAP" means a substance regulated
under this subpart for which a standard
for equipment leaks of the substance has
been proposed and promulgated.
Benzene is a VHAP.
S 61.242-1 Standards: General
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of 8 61.242-1 to 8 61.242-11
for each new and existing source as
required in 40 CFR 61.05, except as
provided in S 61.243 and § 61.244.
(b) Compliance with this subpart will
be detemined by review of records.
review of performance test results, and
inspection using the methods and
procedures specified in S 61.245.
(c)(l) An owner or operator may
request a determination of alternative
means of emission limitation to the
requirements of 89 61.242-2.61.242-3,
61.242-5, 61.242-6.
61.242-7, 61.242-8, 61.242-9 and
61.242-11 as provided in 6 61.244. "2
(2) If the Administrator makes a
determination that a means of emission
limitation is at least a permissible
alternative to the requirements of
89 81.242-2, 61.242-3.61.242-6. 61.242-6,
61.242-7, 61.244-8, 61.242-6 or 61.242-11.
111-26
-------
an owner or jperator shall comply with
the requirer.ients of that determination.
(d) Each piece of equipment to which
this subpail applies shall be marked in
such a manner that it can be
distinquished readily from other pieces
of equipment.
(e) Equipment that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of S 61.242-2, to S 61.242-
11 if it is identified as required in
5 61.246{e)(5).
§61.242-2 Standards: Pumps.
(a)(l) Each pump shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in { 61.245(b), except as
provided in S 61.242-l(c) and
paragraphs (d), (e). and (f) of this
section.
(2) Each pump shall be checked by
visual inspection each calendar week
for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seal.
(b)[l) if an instrument reading of
10.000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
(2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in S 61.242-
10.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than S calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of pargraph (a), provided
the following requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
is:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure: or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservior that is connected by
a closed-vent system to a control device
that complies with the requirements of
S 61.242-11; or
fiii) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with zero VHAP emissions to
atmosphere.
(2) The barrier fluid is not in VHAP
service and, if the pump is covered by
standards under 40 CFR Part 60. is not in
VOC sen-ice.
(3) Each barrier fluid system is
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(4) Each pump is checked by visual
inspection each calendar week for
indications of liquids dripping from the
pump seal.
(5)(i) Each sensor as described in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section is
checked daily or is equipped with a
audible alarm, and
(ii) The owner or operator determines.
based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion that
indicates failure of the seal system, the
barrier fluid system, or both.
(6)(i) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both
based on the criterion determined in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii). a leak is detected.
(ii) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in f 61.242-
10.
(iii) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(e) Any pump that is designated, as
described in § 61.246(e)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d) if the pump:
(1) Has no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing,
(2) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c), and
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (e)(2) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
(f) If any pump is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
S 61.242-11, it is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a)-(e).
(g) Any pump that is located within
the boundary of an unmanned plant site
is exempt from the weekly visual
inspection requirement of paragraphs
(a)(2) and (d)(4) of this section, and the
daily requirements of paragraph (d)(5)(i)
of this section, provided that each pump
is visually inspected as often as ]]2
practicable and at least monthly.
§ 61.242-3 Standards: Compressors.
(a) Each compressor shall be equipped
with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of process fluid to atmosphere,
except as provided in § 61.242-l(c) and
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
(b) Each compressor seal system as
required in paragraph (a) shall be:
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is greater than the
compressor stuffing box pressure; or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed-
vent system to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
5 61.242-11; or
(3) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with zero VHAP emissions to
atmosphere.
(c) The barrier fluid shall not be in
VHAP service and. if the compressor is
covered by standards under 40 CFR Part
60, shall not be in VOC service.
(d) Each barrier fluid system as
described in paragraphs (a)-(c) of this
section shall be equipped with a sensor
that will detect failure of the seal
system, barrier fluid system, or both.
(e)(l) Each sensor as required in
paragraph (d) of this section shall be
checked daily or shall be equipped with
an audible alarm unless the compressor
is located within the boundary of an
unmanned plant site.112
(2) The owner or operator shall
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a
leak is detected.
(g)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.242-
10.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
eack leak is detected.
(h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) if
it is equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
any leakage from the seal to a control
device that complies with the
requirements of $ 61.242-11, except as
provided in paragraph (i).
(i) Any Compressor that is designated,
as described in S 61.246{e)(2], for no
detectable emission as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background is exempt from the
111-27
-------
requirements of paragraphs (a}-{h) if the
compressor
(1) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c); and
(2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (i)(l) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
§ 61.242-4 Standards: Pressure relief
devices In gas/vapor service.
(a) Except during pressure releases,
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, as measured by the
method specified in S 61.245{c).
(b)(l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as soon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
pressure release, except as
provided in § 61.242-10.112
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief
device shall be monitored to confirm the
condition of no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c).
(c) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
leakage from the pressure relief device
to a control device as described in
§ 61.242-11 is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b).
{61.242-5 Standards: Sampling
connecting systems.
(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed-purge
system or closed vent system, except as
provided in § 61.242-l(c).
(b] Each closed-purge system or
closed-vent system as required in
paragraph (a) shall:
(1) Return the purged process fluid
directly to the process line with zero
VHAP emissions to atmosphere; or
(2) Collect and recycle the purged
process fluid with zero VHAP emissions
to atmosphere; or
(3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
process fluid to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
§ 61.242-11.
(c) In-situ sampling systems are
exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b).
S 61.242-6 Standards: Open-ended valves
or lines.
(a}(l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug, or a second valve, except
as provided in § 61.242-l(c).
(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve shall seal the open end at
all times except during operations
requiring process fluid flow through the
open-ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the process fluid end is closed
before the second valve is closed.
(c) When a double block and bleed
system is being used, the bleed valve or
line may remain open during operations
that require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (a) at all other times.
(61.242-7 Standards: Valves.
(a) Each valve shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the method
specified in § 61.245(b) and shall comply
with paragraphs (bHe), except as
provided in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of
this section, §§ 61.243-1 or 61.243-2. and
§ 61.242-l(c).
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) Any valve for which a leak is
not detected for 2 successive months
may be monitored the first month of
every quarter, beginning with the next
quarter, until a leak is detected.
(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for 2 successive months.
(d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is detected, except as provided in
§ 61.242-10.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(e) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to. the following best
practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts:
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts;
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts;
and
(4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in S 61.246(e)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if the
valve:
(1) Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the process
fluid:
(2) Is operated with emissions less
than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c): and
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (f)(2) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
(g) Any valve that is designated, as
described in I 61.246(f)(l). as an unsafe-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve is unsafe to
nicnitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a); and
(2) The owner or operator of the valve
has a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequent as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
(h) Any valve that is designated, as
described in S 61.246(0(2). as a difficult-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the
monitoring personnel more than 2
meters above a support surface:
(2) The process unit within which the
valve is located is an existing process
unit; and
(3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar vear.
S61.24!-* Sta
ttePr
ir* relief
devices In Kquld service and flanges aos3
other connectors.
(a) Pressure relief devices in liquid
service and flanges and other
connectors shall be monitored within 5
days by the method specified in
§ 61.245(b) if evidence of a potential
leak is found by visual, audible.
olfactory, or any other detection
method, except as provided in
§ 61.242-l(c). n 2
.(b) If an instrument reading of lO.CJH)
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.242-
10.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
111-28
-------
each leak is detected.
(d) First attempts at repair include.
but are not limited to, the best practices
described under 5 61.242-7(e).
(61.242-9 Standards: Product
accumulator vessels.
Each product accumulator vessel shall
be equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
any leakage from the vessel to a control
device as described in § 61.242-11.
except as provided in $ 61.242-1 (c). '12
{ 61.242-10 Standards: Delay of repair.
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is technically
infeasible without a process unit
shutdown. Repair of this equipment
shall occur before the end of the next
process unit shutdown.
(b) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed for equipment that is isolated
from the process and that does not
remain in VHAP service.
(c) Delay of repair for valves will be
allowed if:
. (1) The owner or operator
demonstrates that emissions of purged
material resulting from immediate repair
are greater than the fugitive emissions
likely to result from delay of repair, and
(2) When repair procedures are
effected, the purged material is collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with { 61.242-11.
(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system, and
(2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a process
unit shutdown will be allowed for a
valve if valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the process unit
shutdown, valve assembly supplies have
been depleted, and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before the supplies were depleted. Delay
of repair beyond the nsx! process uriit
shutdown will not be allowed unless the
next process unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 6 months after the first
process unit shutdown.
$61.242-11 Standards: Closed-vent
systems and control devices.
(a) Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices used
to comply with provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the provisions
of this section, except as
provided in { 61.242-1 (c). "2
(b) Vapor recovery systems (for
example, condensers and adsorbers)
shall be designed and operated to
recover the organic vapors vented to
them with an efficiency of 95 percent or
greater.
(c) Enclosed combustion devices shall
be designed and operated to reduce the
VHAP emissions vented to therewith an
efficiency of 95 percent or greater or to
provide a minimum residence time of
0.50 seconds at a minimum temperature
of 760'C.
(d)(l) Flares shall be designed for an
operated with no visible emissions as
determined by the methods specified in
§ 61.245(e). except for periods not to
exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2
consecutive hours.''2
(2) Flares shall be operated with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified in § 61.245.(e).
(3) Flares shall be used only with the
net heating value of the gas being
combusted being 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/
scf) or greater if the flare is steam-
assisted or air-assisted; or with the net
heating value of the gas being
combusted being 7.45 MJ/scm or greater
if the flare is nonassisted. The net
heating value of the gas being
combusted shall be determined by the
method specified in § 61.245(e).
(4) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares shall be designed for and
operated with an exit velocity, as
determined by the method specified in
{ 61.245(e)(4), less than 16 m/sec (60 ft/
sec).
(5) Air-assisted flares shall be
designed and operated with an exit
velocity less than the velocity, vmax, as
determined by the method specified in
S 61.245(e)(5).
(6) Flares used comply with this
subpart shall be steam-assisted, air-
assisted, or nonassisted.
(e) Owners or operators of control
devices that are used to comply with the
provisions of this supbart shall monitor
these control devices to ensure that they
are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design.
(f)(l) Closed-vent systems shall be
designed for and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and by visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified as ( 61.245(c).
(2) Closed-event systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance with
this section initially in accordance with
§ 61.05, annually, and at other times
requested by the administrator.
(3) Leaks, as indicated by an
instrument reading greater than 500 ppm
and visual inspections, shall be repaired
as soon as practicable, but not later than
15 calendar days after the leak is
detected.
(4) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(g) Closed-vent systems and control
devices use to comply with provisions of
this subpart shall be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them.
§ 61.243-1 Alternative standards for
valves In VHAP service—allowable
percentage of valves leaking.
(a) An owner or operator may elect to
have all valves within a process unit to
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking of equal to or less than
2.0 percent.
(b) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator decides
to comply with an allowable percentage
of valves leaking:
(I) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator that the owner or
operator has elected to have all valves
within a process unit to comply with the
allowable percentage of valves leaking
before implementing this alternative
standard, as specified in $ 61.247(d).
(2) A performance test as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted initially upon designation,
annually, and at other times requested
by the Administrator.
(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall
be repaired in accordance with § 61.242-
7(d) and (e).
(c) Performance tests shall be
conducted in the following manner:
(1) All valves in VHAP service within
the process unit shall be monitored
within 1 week by the methods specified
in § 61.245(b).
(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(3) The leak percentage shall be
determined by dividing the number of
valves in VHAP service for which leaks
are detected by the number of valves in
VHAP service within the process unit.
(d) Owner or operators who elect to
have all valves comply with this
alternative standard shall not have a
process unit with a leak percentage
greater than 2.0 percent.
(e) If an owner or operator decides no
longer to comply with $ 61.243-1. the
owner or operator must notify the
Administrator in writing that the work
practice standard described in 8 61.242-
7(a)-(e) will be followed.
111-29
-------
§61.243-2 Alternative standards for
valves In VHAP service—skip period leak
detection and repair.
(a)(l) An owner or operator may elect
for all valves within a process unit to
comply with one of the alternative work
practices specified in paragraphs (b)(2)
and [3] of this section.
(2) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator before implementing
one of the alternative work practices, as
specified in § 61.247(d).
(b)(l) An owner or operator shall
comply initially with the requirements
for valves, as described in § 61.242-7.
(2) After 2 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
1 of the quarterly leak detection periods
for the valves in VHAP service.
(3) After 5 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
3 of the quartely leak detection periods
for the valves in VHAP service.
(4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than 2.0, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements as
described in § 61.242-7 but may again
elect to use this section.
§ 61.244 Alternative means of emission
limitation.
(a) Permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation under
Section 112(e)(3) of the Clean Air Act
shall be governed by the folio" 'ing
procedures:
(b) Where the standard is an
equipment, .design, or operational
requirement:
(1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data for an
alternative means of emission limitation.
(2) The Administrator will compare
test data for the means of emission
limitation to test data for the equipment,
design, and operational requirements.
(3) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
emission reduction as the equipment,
design, and operational requirements.
(c) Where the standard is a work
practice:
(1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data for an
alternative means of emission limitation.
(2) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the required work
practices shall be demonstrated for a
minimum period of 12 months>
(3) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the alternative
means of emission limitation shall be
demonstrated.
(4) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall commit in writing
each source to work practices that
provide for emission reductions equal to
or greater than the emission reductions
achieved by the required work practices.
(5) The Administrator will compare
the demonstrated emission reduction for
the alternative means of emission
limitation to the demonstrated emission
reduction for the required work
practices and will consider the
commitment in paragraph (c)(4).
(6) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
emission reduction as the required work
practices of this subpart.
(d) An owner or operator may offer a
unique approach to demonstrate the
alternative means of emission limitation.
(e)(l) Manufacturers of equipment
used to control equipment leaks of a
VHAP may apply to the Administrator
for permission for an alternative means
of emission limitation that achieves a
reduction in emissions of the VHAP
achieved by the equipment, design, and
operational requirements of this subpart.
(2) The Administrator will gran!
permission according to the provisions
of paragraphs (b), (c). and (d).
§ 61.245 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided in
this section.
(b) Monitoring, as required in § 61.242.
§ 61.243, and § 61.244. shall comply with
the following requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21.
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
(4) Calibration gpses shall be:
(i) Zero air (less thanlQppm of
hydrocarbon in air): and p2
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than. 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in §§ 61.242-2(e).
61.242-3(i). 61.242-4. 61.242-7(0. and
61.242-11(0. the test shall comply with
the following requirements:
(1) The requirements of paragraphs
|b)(l)-(4) shall apply.
(2) The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
(3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(4) The arithmetie difference between
ihe maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance!12
(d)(l) Each piece of equipment within
a process unit that can conceivably
contain equipment in VHAP service is
presumed to be in VHAP service unless
an owner or operator demonstrates that
the piece of equipment is not in VHAP
service. For a piece of equipment to be
considered not in VHAP service, it must
be determined that the percent VHAP
content can be reasonably expected
never to exceed 10 percent by weight.
For purposes of determining the percent
VHAP content of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts equipment,
procedures that conform to the methods
described in ASTM Method D-2267
(incorporated by the reference as
specified in J 61.18) shall be used.
(2)(i) An owner or operator may use
engineering judgment rather than the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section to demonstrate that the percent
VHAP content does not exceed 10
percent by weight, provided that the
engineering judgment demonstrates that
the VHAP content clearly does not
exceed 10 percent by weight. When an
owner or operator and the
Administrator do not agree on whether
^ a piece of equipment is not in VHAP
service, however, the procedures in
•paragraph (d)(l) of this section shall be
iised to resolve the disagreement.
(ii) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment is in VHAP
service, the determination can be
revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section.
(3) Samples used in determining the
percent VHAP content shall be
representative of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts the
equipment or the gas being combusted
in the flare.
(e)(l) Reference Method 22 shall be
111-30
-------
used to determine compliance of flares
with the visible emission provisions of
this subpart.
(2) The presence of a flare pilot flame
shall be monitored using a thermocouple
or any other equivalent device to detect
the presence of a flame.
(3) The net heating value of the gas
being combusted in a flare shall be
calculated using the following equation:
HT=K
_
Where.
HT=Net heating value of the sample. M]/
scm: where the net enthalpy per mole of
offgas is based on combustion at 25'C
and 760 mm Hg. but the standard
temperature for determining the volume
corresponding to one mole is 20°C
K = Constant. 1.74XlO-~1U/ppm) (g mole/
scm) (M)/kcal) where standard "3
temperature for (g mole/scm) is 20°C
C,=Concentration of sample component i in
ppm. as measured by Reference Method 16
of Appendix A of 40 FR Part 60 and ASTM
D2504-67 (reapproved 1977) (incorporated
by reference as specified in § 61.18).
H, = Net heat of combustion of sample
component i, kcal/g mole. The heats of
combustion may be determined using
ASTM D2382-76 (incorporated by reference
as specified in § 61.18) if published values
are not available or cannot be calculated.
(4) The actual exit velocity of a flare
shall be determined by dividing the
volumetric flowrate (in units of standard
temperature and pressure), as
determined by Reference Method 2. 2A.
2C, or'2D. as appropriate, by the
unobstructed (free) cross section area of
the flare tip.
(5) The maximum permitted velocity,
Vmu. for air-assisted flares shall be
determined by the following equation:
VMax = B.76+0.70B4(Br)
Where:
VMax = Maximum permitted velocity, in/sec:
8.706=Constant.
0.7084 = Constant.
HT=The net heating value as determined in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
L'.S.C. 7414).)
9 61.246 Recordkeeptag requirement*.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner or operator of more than
one process unit subject to the
provisions of this subpart may comply
with the recordkeeping requirements for
these process units in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each process unit.
(b) When each leak is detected as
specified in §§ 61.242-2. 61.242-3,
61.242-7. and 61.242-8. the following
requirements apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the
equipment identification number, shall
be attached to the leaking equipment.
(2) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months as specified in
I 61.242-7(c) and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months.
(3) The identification on equipment.
except on a valve, may be removed after
it has been repaired.
(c) When each leak, is detected as
specified in §§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3,
61.242-7, and 61.242-8, the following
information shall be recorded in a log
and shall be kept for 2 years in a readily
accessible location:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number.
(2) The date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the leak.
(3) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak.
(4) "Above 10,000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by the
methods specified in § 61.245(a) after
each repair attempt is equal to or greater
than 10,000 ppm.
(5) "Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak.
(6) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a process shutdown.
(7) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within 15 calendar days.
(8) Dates of process unit shutdowns
that occur while the equipment is
unrepaired.
(9) The date of successful repair of the
leak.
(d) The following information
pertaining to the design requirements for
closed-vent systems and control devices
described in § 61.242-11 shall be
recorded and kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) Detailed schematics, design
specifications, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
(2) The dates and descriptions of any
changes in the design specifications.
(3) A description of the parameter or
parameters monitored, as required in
§ 61.242-ll(e), to ensure that control
devices are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design and an
explanation of why that parameter (or
parameters) was selected for the
monitoring.
(4) Periods when the closed-vent
systems and control devices required in
§§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3, 61.242-4, 61.242-5
and 61.242-9 are not operated as
designed, including periods when a flare
pilot light does not have a flame.
(5) Dates of startups and shutdowns of
the closed-vent systems and control
devices required in §§61.242-2, 61.242-
3, 61.242-4, 61.242-5 and 61.242-9.
(e) The following information
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in § 61.242-1 to
§ 61.242-11 shall be recorded in a log
that is kept in a readily accessible
location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment (except welded
Httings) subject to the requirements
of this subpart.112
(2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the owner or
operator elects to designate for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, under the provisions
of §§ 61.242-2(e). 61.242-3(i), and 61.242-
7(f);
(ii) The designation of this equipment
as subject to the requirements of
§ 61.242-2(e). 61.242-3(i), or 61.242-7(f)
shall be signed by the owner or
operator.
(3) A list of equipment identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply with § 61.242-4(a).
(4')(i) The dates of each compliance
test required in §§ 61.242-2(e), 61.242-
3(i). 61.242-4. and 61.242-7(f).
(ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance test.
(5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.
(f) The following information
pertaining to all valves subject to the
requirements of § 61.242-7(g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
va readily accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is unsafe to
monitor, and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
(2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated ai difficult to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
111-31
-------
stating why the valve is difficult to
monitor, and the planned schedule for
monitoring each valve.
(g) The following information shall be
recorded for valves complying with
§ 61.243-2:
(1) A schedule of monitoring.
(2) The percent of valves found
leaking during each monitoring period.
(h) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) Design criterion required in
§ 61.242-2(d)(5) and § 61.242-3(e)|2) and
an explanation of the design criterion;
and
(2) Any changes to this criterion and
the reasons for the changes.
(i) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location for use in
determining exemptions as provided in
the applicability section of this subpart
and other specific subparts:
(1) An analysis demonstrating the
design capacity of the process unit, and
(2) An analysis demonstrating that
equipment is not in VHAP service.
(j) Information and data used to
demonstrate that a piece of equipment is
not in VHAP service shall be recorded
in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.G. 7414).)
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0068)
§ 61.247 Reporting requirements.
(a)(l) An owner or operator of any
piece of equipment to which this subpart
applies shall submit a statement in
writing notifying the Administrator that
the requirements of |§ 61.242. 61.245.
61.246. and 61.247 are being
•implemented.
(2) In the case of an exis'.ir.g 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 da'e
scheduled by the Administrator.
(3) In the case of new sources which
did not have an initial startup date
preceding the effective date, the
statement shall be submitted with the
application for approval of construction,
as described in § 61.07.
(4) The statement is to contain the
following information for each source.
(i) Equipment identification number
and process unit identification.
(ii) Type of equipment (for example. H
pump or pipeline valve).
(iii) Percent by weight VHAP in the
fluid at the equipment.
(iv) Process fluid state at the
equipment (gas/vapor or liquid).
(v) Method of compliance with the
standard (for example, "monthly leak
detection and repair" or "equipped with
dual mechanical seals").
(b) A report shall be submitted to the
Administrator semiannually starting 6
months after the initial report required
in § 61.247(a). that includes the
following information:
(1) Process unit identification.
(2) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period,
(i) Number of valves for which leaks
were detected as described in § 61.242-
7(b) of §61.243-2.
(ii) Number of valves for which leaks
were not repaired as required in
§ 61.242-7(d).
(iii) Number of pumps for which le.ik*
were detected as described in § 61.242-
2(b) and (d)(6).
(iv) Number of pumps for which tanks
were not repaired as required in
561.242-2(c)and(d)(G).
(v) Number of compressors for which
leaks were detected as described in
§ 61.242-3(0-
(vi) Number of compressors for which
leaks were not repaired as required in
§ 61.242-3(g).
(vii) The facts that explain any delay
of repairs and. where appropriate, why
a process unit shutdown was techrsirallv
infeasible.
(3) Dates of process unit shutdown
which occurred within the semiann!:;;!
reporting period.
(4) Revisions to items reported
according to paragraph (a) if changes
have occurred since the initial repor! 01
subsequent revisions to the initial
report.
"(Note.—Compliance with the
requirements of 8 61.10(c) is not required for
revision* documented under this
paragraph.)."'
(5) The results of all performance tests
to determine compliance with § 61.242-
2(e). § 61.242-3(i), § 61.242-Jta).
§ 61.242-7(f). § 61.242-11(0. § 61.243-1
and S 61.243-2 conducted within thp
semiannual reporting period.
(c) In the first report submitted as
required in § 61.247(a). the report shall
include a reporting schedule stating the
months that semiannual reports shall be
submitted. Subsequent reports shall be
submitted according to that schedule.
unless a revised schedule has been
submitted in a previous semiannual
report.
(d; An ownev or operator electing lo
comply with the provisions of §§ 61.243-
1 and 61.243-2 shall notify the
Administrator of Ihe alternative
standard selected 90 days before
implementing either of the provisions.
(e) An application for approval of
construction or modification. § 61.05[a|
and § 61.07, will not he required if—
(1) The new source complie.s with the
standard. § 61.242:
(2) The new source is not part of tht;
construction of a process-unit: ar.d
(3) In the next semiannual repoit
required by f 61.247(b). the inforrriHtion
in § 61.247(a)(-1) is reported.
(.Set. 114 of the Clean Air Act us amended |4J
U.S.C. 7414)-) (Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control
number 1CR-1153.)
38 FR 8826, 4/6/73 (1)
as amended
49 FR 23498, 6/6/84 (97)
111-32
-------
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
are required to submit the Information contained
In 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*
Bents which require the submission of such
Information.
A 11st of regional offices 5s provided In 161.04. ..
A. SOURCE INFORMATION
1. Identification/Location - Indicate the name and address of each source.
12 34 58 9 13 000 00 1
RegTon SEiTe County ' Source Number 1? T6 17 W TS"
20 22 23 26
AQCR t City Code Z7 Source Name -46
47 Street Address (Location of Plant) 66 8(5
)UP 1-18
19 20 City
4b State Regis'
69 SI'C" 6'z FF
64
Name
. Number
&
65
34 State 35 39
55 S3
£4 NEDS X Ref.
77 79 CT
1 Staff M
T5" tJ HP fc" SB"
30 31 49
2, Contact » Indicate the name and telephone number of the owner or operator
, or otter responsible Official whou EPA nay contact concerning this report.
Dap 1-18 4 1
15 fO 21
44 _ 46 _ - _
Area Code 47 Humber 54 _ HT
3. Source Description - Briefly state the nature of the source (e.g., "Chlor-
tlkali PUnt" or 'NachlM Shop").
Dup 1-18 4 2 _ r—~ _
15 20 21 Description '
51Continued79 80
4. Alternative Hailing Address - Indicate an alternative
mailing address If correspondence 1s to be directed
to a location different than that specified above.
Dup 1-18 4 3 '
1? 20 21 -Number Street or Box Number ft 15"
Dup 1-18 4 4
19?0 21CTty
5. Compliance Status - The emissions from this source can cannot neet
the emission limitations contained In the National EinTss1on~5tandards 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 Official'
gOTE:If the emissions from the source will exceed those limits set by the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the source Mill be 1n violation and
subject to Federal enforcement actions unless granted a Ml«cr »( compliance by the
Mirinlstrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Tbe Information needed for
3«cft Mlvers 1s listed in Section II of this form.
III-APPENDIX A-l
-------
B. PROCESS INFORHATIOII. Part B should be completed separately for eld) point Of
emission for each hazardous pollutant. [Sources subject to 61.22(1} nay on1t
number 4. below.]
Dup 1-13
0 0 5
IT r« if
~ScT
25 ?9
NEDS X lef
36" IT
LS SIP
«1. Pollutant Emitted - Indicate the type of hazardous pollutant emitted by the
process.Indicate "AB" for asbestos, "BE" for beryllium, or "HG" for mercury.
2,
32 33
PoTTuTant
Process 0
34
escrlj
"hydrogen end I
itlon -
»x" in
Regulation 48 49
EC
Provide a brief description of each process (e.j
a mercury chlor-alkall plant, "grinding machine1
'in
a beryllium machine shop). Use additional sheets If necessary
50 " :
Dup 1-18
51
Dup 1-18
51
Process
6 1
15 — zo
6 2
15 ?0
Description 74 a
21
7'9
Zl
>9
r
50
BIT
50
ST
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 6 3_
15 Zb
Ibs./mo.
25"
36 60
4.
Control Devices
"HIIndicate the type of pollution control devices, If 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 64
19 2'0 21
45 Primary Device Name
ro
PRIMARY CONTROL DEVICE:
66 70
64 Percent Removal 72
T3
79
Dup 1-18 6 S
15 Zo zi
SECONDARY CONTROL DEVICES:
45
47 Secondary Device Name
64 66 70
% EFFIC.
72 79 86
Efficiency
TII-APPENDIX A-2
-------
k. Asbestos Dilsslon Control Devices Only
1. If i baghouse Is specified In Itee 4*. give the following
Information:
• The air flow permeability in cubic feet per ainute per square
foot of fabric area.
Air flow permeability « cfm/ft
• The pressure drop in Inches water gauge 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 is / / spun / / or not spun.
• If the baghouse utilizes a felted fabric, give the minimum
thickness in Inches and the density in ounces per square yard.
Thickness » Inches Density « oi/yd
•H. If a wet collection device 1s specified in Hem 4a, give the
designed unit contacting energy in Inches water gauge.
• On1t contacting energy « Inches w.g.
III-APPENDIX A-3
-------
C. DISPOSAL OF AS8ESTOS-COIIITAIHIN6 HASTES. Part C should be completed separately
for each asbestos-containing wast* generation operation arising from sources
subject to S61.22(a). (c), (e), and (h).
Dup 1-13 00 5
1? T6 17 T8 75
A B
32 33 34 Regulation
Pollutant
20 SCC
46 49
EC
27 28 29 30 31
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).
60 Process Description 79 Bo"
2. Asbestos Concentration - Indicate the average percentage asbestos content
of these materials.
Dup 1-18 61 ASBESTOS CONCENTRATION; _
15—Zo 21
-------
D. HASTE DISPOSAL SITES. Part D should be conpleted separately for etc* asbestos
waste disposal site subject to section *1.22(1).
Pup 1-13 _ 0 0 5 _ _
11 T6 17 16 17 20 SCC Z7 28 29 3D1 3T
HEDS X Ref CS SIP
A B
32 33 3? .Regulation W W
Pollutant EC
HASTE DISPOSAL SITE
_ _
80 53 W
1. Description - Provide a brief description of the site, Including Us size and
configuration, and the distance to the closest city °r town, closest
residence, am) closest primary road.
Pup 1-18 6 1 _ SITE DESCRIPTION _ _
15 70 21 37 33 50
si 7$ ro
Pup 1-18 6 2^ DISTANCE: TOWN: _ K M
15 Zb 21 ?9 3S 34 3? ; TO 42 *3
RESIDENCE: _ K X ROAD: _
4? 54 55 ?0 62 B"3 65 55 71 75
K M
77 T8 FT
2. Inactivation - After the site is inactivated, indicate the method or methods
used to con^ly with the standard and send a list of the actions that will be
'undertaken tc maintain the inactivated site.
Pup K18 6 8 HETHO/lcE SITE: _
15 - ?0 21 - ' 52
79 B7T
III-APPENDIX A-5
-------
II. UAIVER REQUESTS
A. WAIVER OF COMPLIANCE. Owners or operators of sources unable to operate In
compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 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
of compliance with the standard for a period not exceeding two years from
the effective date of the hazardous pollutant standardsf if he finds that
such period is necessary for the installation of controls and that steps
•ill 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
of hazardous pollutants to an acceptable level. (Use additional
sheets 1f 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 endarigerment. (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
emission control or process modification.
Dup 1-16 0 1 7
17 T9 53~T>4 55 To 61 MO/DY/YR66 5T
• Date of initiation of on-site construction or installation of
emission control equipment or process change.
Dup 1-16 0 2 7
17 T9 5T~~5~4 5560 £1MO/DY/YR 66 BO"
• Date by which on-site construction or installation of emission control
equipment or process modification is to be completed.
Dup 1-16 Q 3 7
17 T9 5T~54 55 50 61 MO/OY/YR 6~6 CJ
• Date by which final compliance is to be achieved.
Dup 1-16 0 4 7
17 T9 5T~~5~4 55 6"0 61 H5/DY/YR56 BO"
MA1VER 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 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-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 prescribed limits, documentation of this condition must be attached.
Date Signature ofTfie" owner or operator"
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act u amended
<4J UJ8.C. 1414)). 40,47
III-APPENDIX A-6
-------
Method 101—Oa&iTQination of Particulate
and Caseous Msf&sry Stniaeiona From Chlor-
Alkali Plants—Air Streams 66
1. Applicability andPpincJple—1.1
Applicability. This method applies to the
determination of particulate and gaseous
mercury (Hg) emissions from chlor-alkali
plants and other sources (as specified in the
regulations), where tha canier-gas stream in
the duct or stack io principally air.
1.2 Principle. Particulate end gaseous Hg
emissiono are withdrawn isotoneiically from
the source an
-------
Completely dissolve 20 g of tin (H) chloride
[or 25 g of tin (II) snlfate] crystals (Baker
Analyzed reagent grade or any other brand
that will give a clear volution) in 25 ml of
concentrated HC1. Dilate to 250 ml with
deionized distilled water. Do not substitute
HNOi. HiSOb or other strong acids for the
HO.
6.2.2 Mercury Stock Solution, 1 mg Hg/
ml. Prepare and store all mercury standard
solutions in borosflicate glass containers.
Completely dissolve 0.1354 g of mercury (II)
chloride in 75 ml of deionized distilled water
in a 100 ml glass volumetric flask. Add 10 ml
of concentrated HNO» and adjust the volume
to exactly 100 ml with deionized distilled
water. Mix thoroughly. This solution is stable
for at least 1 month.
6.23 Sulfuric Acid, 5 Percent fV/Vj.
Dilute 25 ml of concentrated HtSO. to 500 ml
with deionized distilled water.
&Z.4 Intermediate Mercury Standard
Solution, 10 ftg Hg/ml Prepare fresh weekly.
Pipe! 5.0 ml of the mercury stock solution
(6.2.2) into a 500-ml glass volumetric flask
and add 20 ml of the 5 percent H£O,
solution. Dilute to exactly 500 ml with
deionized distilled water. Thoroughly mix the
solution.
6X5 Working Mercury Standard
Solution, ZOO ng Hg/ml, Prepare fresh daily.
Pipet 5.0 ml from the "Intermediate Mercury
Standard Solution" (6.2.4) into a 250-ral
volumetric glass flask. Add 10 ml of the 5
percent H,SO. and 2 ml of the 0.1 MIC1
absorbing solution taken as a blank (7.2.3)
and dilute to 250 ml with deionized distilled
water. Mix thoroughly.
7. Procedure—7.1 Sampling. Because of
the complexity of this method, testers should
be trained and experienced with the test
procedures to assure reliable results. Since
the amount of Hg that is collected generally is
small, the method must be carefully applied
to prevent contamination or loss of sample.
7.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Follow the
general procedure given in Method 5, Section
4.1.1, except omit the directions on the filter.
7.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Follow
the general procedure given in Method 5,
Section 4.1.2, except as follows: Select a
nozzle size based on the range of velocity
heads to assure that it is not necessary to
change the nozzle size in order to maintain
isokinetic sampling rates below 26 liters/min
(1.0 cfm).
Obtain samples over a period or periods
that accurately determine the maximum
emissions that occur in a 24-hour period. In
the case of cyclic operations, run sufficient
tests for the accurate determination of the
emissions that occur over the duration of the
cycle. A minimum sample time of 2 hours is
recommended. In some instances, high Hg or
high SO, concentrations make it impossible
to sample for the desired minimum time. This
is indicated by reddening (liberation of free
iodine) in the first impinger. In these cases.
the tester may divide the sample run into two
or more subruns to insure that the absorbing
solution is not depleted.
7.1.3 Preparation of Sampling Train.
Clean all glassware [probe, impingers, and
connectors] by rinsing with 50 percent HNOi.
tap water, 0.1 M IC1, tap water, and finally
deionized distilled water. Place 100 ml of 0.1
MIC1 in each of the first three Impingers.
Take care to prevent the absorbing solution
from contacting any greased surfaces. Place
approximately 200 g of preweighed silica gel
in the fourth impinger. The tester may use
more silica gel, but should be careful to
ensure that it is not entrained and carried out
from the impinger during sampling. Place the
silica gel container in a clean place for later
use in the sample recovery. Alternatively,
determine and record the weight of the silica
gel plus impinger to the nearest 0.5 g.
Install the selected nozzle using a Viton A
O-ring when stack temperatures are less than
260* C (500* F). Use a fiberglass string gasket
if temperatures an higher. See APTD-0578
(Citation g in Section 10) for details. Other
connecting systems using either 316 stainless
steel or Teflon ferrules may be used. Mark
the probe with heat-resistant tape or by some
other method to denote the proper distance
into the stack or duct for each sampling point
Assemble the train as shown in Figure 101-1,
using (if necessary) a very light coat of
silicone grease on all ground glass joints.
Grease only the outer portion (see APTD-
0576} to avoid possibility of contamination by
the silicone grease.
Note.—An empty impinger may be inserted
between the third impinger and the silica gel
to remove excess moisture from the sample
stream.
' After the sampling train has been
assembled, turn on and set the probe, if
applicable, at the desired operating
temperature. Allow time for the temperatures
to stabilize. Place crushed ice around the
impingers.
7.1.4 Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the
leak-check procedures outlined in Method 5,
Sections 4.1.4.1 (Pretest Leak Check), 4.1.4.2
(Leak Checks During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3
(Post-Test Leak Check).
7.1.5 Mercury Train Operation. Follow
the general procedure given in Method 5,
Section 4.1.5. For each run, record the data
required on a data sheet such as the one
shown in Figure 101-4.
7.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic.
Same as Method 5, Section 4.1.6.
7.2 Sample Recovery. Begin proper
cleanup procedure as soon as the probe is
removed from the stack at the end of the
sampling period.
Allow the probe to cool. When it can be
safely handled, wipe off any external
particulate matter near the tip of the probe
nozzle and place a cap over it. Do not cap off
the probe tip tightly while the sampling train
is cooling. Capping would create a vacuum
and draw liquid out from the impingers.
Before moving the sampling train to the
cleanup site, remove the probe from the train,
wipe off the silicone grease, and cap the open
outlet of the probe. Be careful not to lose any
condensate that might be present. Wipe off
the silicone grease from the impinger. Use
either ground-glass stoppers, plastic caps, or
serum caps to close these openings.
Transfer the probe and impinger assembly
to a cleanup area that is clean, protected
from the wind, and free of Hg contamination.
The ambient air in laboratories located in the
immediate vicinity of Hg-using facilities is
not normally free of Hg contamination.
Inspect the train before and during
assembly, and note any abnormal conditions.
Treat the sample as follows:
7.2.1 Container No. 1 (Impinger and
Probe). Using a graduated cylinder, measure
the liquid in the first three impingers to
within ±1 ml. Record the volume of liquid
present (e.g., see Figure 5-3 of Method 5).
This information is needed to calculate the
moisture content of the effluent gas. (Use
only glass storage bottles and graduated
cylinders that have been precleaned as in
Section 7.1.3.) Place the contents of the first
three impingers into a 1000-ml glass sample
bottle.
Taking care that dust on the outside of the
probe or other exterior surfaces does not get
into the sample, quantitatively recover the Hg
(and any condensate) from the probe nozzle,
probe fitting, and probe liner as follows:
Rinse these components with two 50-ml
portions of 0.1 M ICl. Next, rinse the probe
nozzle, fitting and liner, and each piece of
connecting glassware between the probe
liner and the back half of the third Impinger
with a maximum of 400 ml of deionized
distilled water. Add aU washings to the 1000-
ml glass sample bottle containing the liquid
from the first three Impingers.
After all washings have been collected in
the sample container, tighten the lid on the
container to prevent leakage during shipment
to the laboratory. Mark the height of the
liquid to determine later whether leakage
occurred during transport. Label the
container to clearly identify its contents.
7.2.2 Container No. 2 (Silica Gel). Note
the color of the indicating silica gel to
determine whether it has been completely
spent and make a notation of its condition.
Transfer the silica gel from its impinger to its
original container and seal. The tester may
use as aids a funnel to pour the silica gel and
a rubber policeman to remove the silica gel
from the impinger. The small amount of
particles that may adhere to the impinger
wall need not be removed. Since the gain in
weight is to be used for moisture calculations,
do not use any water or other liquids to
transfer the silica gel. If a balance is
available in the field, weigh the spent silica
gel (or silica gel plus impinger) to the nearest
0.5 g; record this weight.
7.2.3 Container No. 3 (Absorbing Solution
Blank). For a blank, place 50 ml of the 0.1 M
ICl absorbing solution in a 100-ml sample
bottle. Seal the container. Use this blank to
prepare the working mercury standard
solution (6.2.5).
7.3 Sample Preparation. Check the liquid
level in each container to see whether liquid
was lost during transport If a noticeable
amount of leakage occurred, either void the
sample or use methods subject to the
approval of the Administrator to account for
the losses. Then follow the procedures below:
7.3.1 Container No. 1 (Impinger and
Probe). Carefully transfer the contents of
Container No. 1 into a 1000-ml volumetric
flask and adjust the volume to exactly 1000
ml with deionized distilled water.
7.3.2 Dilutions. Pipet a 2-ml aliquot from
the diluted sample from 7.3.1 into a 230-ml
volumetric flask. Add 10 ml of 5 percent
H,SO4 and adjust the volume ' • exactly 250
ml with deionized distilled w .ter. These
solutions are stable for at least 72 hours.
Ill-Appendix B-2
-------
Noto.—The dilution factor will be 250/2 for
this solution.
7A Analysis. Calibrate the
opectrophotometer and recorder and prepare
the calibration curve ao described in Sections
3.1 to 8.4.
7.4.1 Mercury Samples. Repeat the
procedure used to establish the calibration
curve with appropriately sized aliquots (1 to 5
al) of each of the diluted samples (from
Section 7.3.2) until two consecutive peak
freights agree within ±3 percent of their
overage value. The peak maximum of an
aliquot (except the 5-ml aliquot) must be
greater than 10 percent of the recorder full
ocale. If the peak maximum of a 1.0-ml
aliquot is off scale on the recorder, further
dilute the original source sample to bring the
Hg concentration into the calibration range of
the spectrophotometer.
Run a blank and standard at least after
every five samples to check the
opectrophotometer calibration; recalibrate as
necessary.
It is also recommended that at least one
oample from each stack test be checked by
the method of standard additions to confirm
that matrix effects have not interfered in the
analysis.
7.4.2 Container No. 2 (Silica Gel). Weigh
the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus
impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g using a balance.
(This step may be conducted in the field.)
8. Calibration and Standards—Before use,
clean all glassware, both new and used, as
follows: brush with soap and water, liberally
rinse with tap water, soak for 1 hour in 50
percent HNO0, and then rinse with deionized
distilled water.
8.1 Flow Calibration. Assemble the
aeration system as shown in Figure 101-5. Set
the outlet pressure on the aeration gas
cylinder regulator to a minimum pressure of
SCO mm Hg (10 psi), and use the flowmetering
valve and a bubble flowmeter or wet test
meter to obtain a flow rate of 1.5±0.1 liters/
min through the aeration cell. After the flow
calibration is complete, remove the bubble
flowmeter from the system.
8.2 Optical Cell Heating System
Calibration. Using a 50-tnl graduated
cylinder, add 50 ml of deionized distilled
water to the bottle section of the aeration cell
and attach the bottle section to the bubbler
flection of the cell. Attach the aeration cell to
the optical cell; end while aerating at 1.5
liters/min, determine the minimum variable
tTcinsionricr 56'ting necessary to prevent
condensation of moisture in the optical cell
and in the connecting tubing. (This setting
ohould not exceed 20 volts.)
8.3 Spectrophotometer and Recorder
Calibration. The mercury response may be
measured by either peak height or peak area.
Note.—The temperature of the solution
affects the rate at which elemental Hg is
released from a solution and, consequently, it
effects the shape of the absorption curve
(area) and the point of maximum absorbance
(peak height). Therefore, to obtain
reproducible results, bring all solutions to
room temperature before use.
Set the opectrophotometer wavelength at
253.7 ma, and make certain the optical cell is
at the minimum temperature thet will prevent
water condensation. Then set the recorder
scale as follows: Using a 50-mI graduated
cylinder, add 50 ml of deionized distilled
water to the aeration cell bottle and pipet 5.0
ml of the working mercury standard solution
into the aeration cell.
Note.—Always add the Hg-containing
solution to the aeration cell after the 50 ml of
deionized distilled water.
Place a Teflon-coated stirring bar in the
bottle. Before attaching the bottle section to
the bubbler section of the aeration cell, make
certain that (1) the aeration cell exit arm
stopcock (Figure 101-3) is closed (so that Hg
will not prematurely enter the optical cell
when the reducing agent is being added) and
(2) there is no flow through the bubbler. If
conditions (1) and (2) are met, attach the
bottle section to the bubbler section of the
aeration cell. Pipet 5 ml ©f stannous chloride
solutiom into the aeration cdl through the
side arm, and immediately stopper the side arm.
Stir the solution for 15 sec, turn on the recorder.
open the aeration cell exJt arm stopcock, and
then immediately initiate aeration with
continued stirring. Determine the maximum
absorbance of the standard and set this value
to read 90 percent of the recorder full scale.'06
8.4 Calibration Curve. After setting the
recorder scale, repeat the procedure in
Section 8.3 using 0.0-, 1.0-. 2.0-, 3.0-, 4.0-, and
5.0-ml aliquots of the working standard
solution (final amount of Hg in the aeration
cell is 0. 200, 400, 600, BOO, and 1000 ng.
respectively). Repeat this procedure on each
aliquot size until two consecutive peaks
agree within 3 percent of their average value.
(Note: To prevent Hg carryover from one
sample to another, do not close the aeration
gas tank valve and do not disconnect the
aeration cell from the optical cell until the
recorder pen has returned to the baseline.) It
should not be necessary to disconnect the
aeration gas inlet line from the aeration cell
when changing samples. After separating the
bottle and bubbler sections of the aeration
cell, place the bubbler section into a 600-ml
beaker containing approximately 400 ml of
deionized distilled water. Rinse the bottle
section of the aeration cell with a stream of
deionized distilled water to remove all traces
of the tin (II) reducing agent Also, to prevent
the loss of Hg before aeration, remove all
traces of the reducing agent between samples
by washing with deionized distilled water. It
will be necessary, however, to wash the
aeration cell parts with concentrated HC1 if
any of the following conditions occur: (1) A
white film appears on any inside surface of
the aeration cell, (2) the calibration curve
changes suddenly, or (3) the replicate
samples do not yield reproducible results.
Subtract the average peak height (or peak
area) of the blank (0.0-ml aliquot)—which
ohould be less than 2 percent of recorder full
ocale—from the averaged peak heights of the'
1.0-. 2.0-, 3.0-, 4.0-, and 5.0-ml aliquot
otandards. If the blank eb&orbance io greater
than 2 percent of full-ocale, the probable
cause io Hg contamination of o reagent or
carry-over of Hg from a previouo oample. Hot
the corrected peak height of each otendard
oolution versus the corresponding final total
Hg weight in the aeration cell (in ng) and
draw the loot-fit straight lisa. Thio lino
through o point no further from the cri^n
than ±2 percent of the recorder full scale. If
the line does not pass through or very near to
the origin, check for nonlinearity of the curve
and for incorrectly prepared standards.
8.5 Sampling Train Calibration. Calibrate
the sampling train components according to
the procedures outlined in the following
sections of Method 5: Section 5.1 (Probe
Nozzle), Section 5.2 (Pitot Tube), Section 5.3
(Metering System), Section 5.4 (Probe
Heater), Section 5.5 (Temperature Gauges).
Section 5.7 (Barometer). Note that the leak-
check described in Section 5.6 of Method 5
applies to this method.
9. Calculations—9.1 Dry Gas Volume.
Using the data from this test, calculate Vm([lW).
the dry gas sample volume at standard
conditions (corrected for leakage, if
necessary) as outlined in Section 6.3 of
Method 5.
9.2 Volume of Water Vapor and Moisture
Content. Using the data obtained from this
test, calculate the volume of water vapor
VtXou) and the moisture content Bvo of the
stack gas. Use Equations 5-2 and 5-3 of
Method 5.
9.3 Stock Gas Velocity. Using the data
from this test and Equation 2-9 of Method 2,
calculate the average stack gas velocity v,.
9.4 Total Mercury. For each source
sample, correct the average maximum
absorbance of the two consecutive samples
whose peak heights agree within ±3 percent
of their average for the contribution of the
solution blank (see Section 8.4). Use the
calibration curve and these corrected
averages, to determine thp final total weight
of mercury in nanograms in the aeration cell
for each source sample. Correct for any
dilutions made to bring the sample in the
working range of the spectrophotometer.
Then calculate the Hg in pig (m^) in the
original solution as follows:
Eq. 101-1
Where:
CHO
-------
86,400=Conversion factor, sec/day.
10'"= Conversion factor, g/pg.
T,=Absolute average stack gat temperature.
•K (°R).
P.=Absolnte itack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.
Hg).
K =0.3858 *K/mm Hg for metric units.
= 17.85 "R/in. Hg for English units.
9.6 Isokinetic Variation and Acceptable
Results. Same as Method 5. Sections 6.11 and
6.12, respectively.
9.7 Determination of Compliance. Each
performance test consists of three repetitions
of the applicable test method. For the purpose
of determining compliance with an applicable
national emission standard, use the average
of the results of all repetitions.
10. Bibliography, I. Addendum to
Specifications for Incinerator Testing at
Federal Facilities. PHS. NCAPC. December 6.
1967.
2. Determining Dust Concentration in a Gas
Stream. ASME Performance Test Code No.
27. New York, NY. 1957.
3. Devorkin, Howard, et al! Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual. Air Pollution Control
District. Los Angeles, CA. November 1963.
4. Hatch, W.R., and W.I. Ott. Determination
of Sub-Microgram Quantities of Mercury by
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. Anal.
Chem. 40:2085-87.1968.
5. 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. ![2}:&-
17. August 1973.
13. Specifications for Incinerator Testing at
Federal Facilities. PHS. NCAPA. 1967.
14. Standard Method for Sampling Stacks
for Paniculate Matter. In: 1971 Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Part 23. ASTM
Designation D-2928-71. Philadelphia. PA.
1971.
IS. Vennard. J.K. Elementary Fluid
Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Now
York. 1947.
m Mitchell. W.J., ind M.R. Mldgett.
Improved Procedure for Determining Mercury
Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali
Plants.). APCA. 2». 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. 9:21.1977.
20. Water, Atmospheric Analysis. In:
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31.
ASTM Designation D-1193-74. Philadelphia,
PA. 1974.
Ill-Appendix 3-4
-------
•a
•a
ns
3
CL
X
03
cn
STACK WALL
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
REVERSE-TYPE
PITOTTUBE
THERMOMETERS
ORIFICE
THERMOMETER
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
-J, u
2.5cm
9-mm OD
-------
FROM TANK
19/22 GROUND
19/22 GROUND
GLASS JOINT
WITH STOPPER
^-=?\v
18/9 MALE BALL JOINT
4-mm BORE TEFLON STOPCOCK
BUBBLER
PORTION
•j >-riT U-,-^1
TO
OPTICAL CELL
18/9 MALE BALL JOINT
12
,
}
if'
h m
*t i
1
4
V
/ 2
./ 1
ALL DIMENSIONS IN cm
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
is
BLOWN GLASS BUBBLER BOTTLE PORTION
APPROX. 06 by 1.0 cm 4.0-cm OD by 3.5-cm ID
Figure 101-3. Aeration cell.
Ill-Appendix B-7
-------
PLANT
LOCATION
OPERATOR
DATE
RUN NO.
SAMPLE BOX NO.
FILTER BOX NO.
METER AH<9>
C FACTOR
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
ASSUMED MOISTURE. X
PROBE LENGTH, in (ft)
NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO.
AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, cm (in.).
PROBE HEATER SETTING'
LEAK RATE. m3/min (tfm)
PROBE LINER MATERIAL
PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT. Cp.
SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
STATIC PRESSURE, mm Hg (in. Hj).
FILTER NO."
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER
TOTAL
AVERAGE
SAMPLING
TIME
(0). mm.
VACUUM
mm Hg
(in. Hg)
t
STACK
TEMPERATURE
JT5>
°C <*F)
VELOCITY
HEAD
-------
NEEDLE VALVE FOR
FLOW CONTROL
TD
-a
n>
Q.
—i.
x
03
I
UD
N2 CYLINDER
EXIT ARM
STOPCOCK
«
AERATION
CELL
FLOW
METER
__ .>•
r^ —
MAGNETIC STIRRER
TO VARIABLE TRANSFORMER
MAGNETIC STIRRING BAR
Figure 101-5. Schematic of aeration system.
-------
. Dotanmteaticaj cJ Posfailoto
and Goosouo Mercury Esatedoais From
,66
This method is similar to Method 101,
except acidic potassium permanganic
oolution is used instead of acidic iodine
monochloride for collection.
1. Applicability and Principle—1.1
Applicability. This method applies to the
determination of participate and gaseous
mercury (Hg) emissions from oewoge sludge
incinerators and other sources as specified in
the regulations.
1.2 Principle. Participate and gaseous Hg
emissions are withdrawn iootcinetically from
the source and collected in acidic potassium
permanganate (KMnO«) solution. The Hg
collected (in the mercuric form) is reduced to
elemental Hg, which is then aerated from the
oolution into an optical cell and measured by
atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
2. Range and Sensitivity—2.1 Range.
After initial dilution, the range of this method
is 20 to GOO ng Hg/ml. The upper limit con be
extended by further dilution of the cample.
2.2 Sensitivity. The oenaitivity of the
method depends on the recorder/
spectrophotometer combination selected.
3. Interfering Agents—3.1 Sampling.
Excessive oxidizable organic matter in the
stack gas prematurely depletes the KMnO«
solution and thereby prevents further
collection of Hg.
3.2 Analysis. Condensation of water
vapor on the optical cell windows causes a
positive interference.
4. Precision—Based on eight paired-train
tests, the within-laboratory standard
deviation was estimated to be 4.8 u.% Hg/ml
in the concentration range of 50 to 130 fig Hg/
m1.
5. Apparatus—5.1 Sampling Train and
Sample Recovery. Same as Method 101,
Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively, except for
the following variations:
5.1.1 Probe Liner. Same as Method 101,
Section 5.1.2, except that if a filter is used
ahead of the impingers, the tester must use
the probe heating system to minimize the
condensation of gaseous Hg.
5.1.2 Filter Holder (Optional). Borosilicate
glass with a rigid stainless-steel wire-screen
filter support (do not use glass frit supports)
and a silicone rubber of Teflon gasket,
designed to provide a positive seal against
leakage from outside or around the filter. The
filter holder must be equipped with a filter
heating system capable of maintaining a
temperature around the filter holder of 120 ±
15° C (248 ± 25° F) during campling to
minimize both water and gaseous Hg
condensation. The tester may use a filter in
cases where the stream contains large
quantities of participate matter.
5.2 Analysis. The apparatus needed for
analysis is the same as Method 101, Sections
5.3 and 5.4, except as follows:
5.2.1 Volumetric Pipets. Class A; 1-, 2-, 3-
, 4-, 5-. 10-, and 20-ml.
5.2.2 Graduated Cylinder. 25-ml.
5.2.3 Steam Bath.
6. Reagents—Use ACS reagent-grade
chemicals or equivalent, unless otherwise
specified.
8.1 Sampling and Recovery. Tte roogants
uoed in sampling and recovery are oo follows:
8.1.1 Water. Deionised distilled Esating
ASTM Specifications for Type I Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D1193-77
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.18). If
high concentrationo of organic matter are not
expected to be present the analyst may
eliminate the KMnOi test for oxidizable
organic matter. Use this water in all dilutions
and solution preparations.79
8.1.2 Nitric Acid (HNO,}, SO Percent (V/
V). Mix equal volumes of concentrated HNOo
and deionized distilled water, being careful to
olowly add the odd to the water.
6.1.3 Silica Gel. Indicating type, 8- to 16-
mesh. If previously used, dry at 175* C (350*
F) for 2 hr. The teoter may use new oilica gel
as received.
6.1.4 Filter (Optional). Class fiber filter,
without organic binder, exhibiting at least
£3.85 percent efficiency on 0.3 pm dicctyl
ptathalate smoke particles. The tester may use
the filter in caoes where the gas stream
contains large quantities of particulate
matter, but he should analyze blank filters for
Hg content.
8.1.5 Sulfuric Acid (HtSO,), 10 Percent
(V/V). Add and mix 100 ml of concentrated
HoSO. with EOT ml of deionized distilled
water.
6.1.6 Absorbing Solution. 4 Percent
KMnO, (W/V). Prepare freoh daily. Dissolve
CO g of KMnOo in sufficient 10 percent HcSO<
to make 1 liter. Prepare and store in glass
bottles to prevent degradation.
6.2 Analysis. The reagents needed for
analysis are listed below:
6.2.1 Tin (II) Solution. Prepare freoh daily
and keep sealed when not being used.
Competely dissolve 20 g of tin (II) chloride [or
25 g of tin (II) sulfate] crystals (Baker
Analyzed reagent grade or any other brand
that will give a clear solution) in 25 ml of
concentrated HC1. Dilute to 250 ml with
deionized distilled water. Do not substitute
HNOo, HnSOa, or other strong adds for the
HO.
6.2.2 Sodium Chloride—Hydroxylamine
Solution. Dissolve 12 g of sodium chloride
and 12 g of hydroxylamine sulfate (or 12 g of
hydroxylamine hydrochloride) in deionized
distilled wajer and dilute to 100 ml.
8.2.3 Hydrochloric Acid (HC1). 8 N. Dilute
67 ml of concentrated HNOo to 100 ml with
deionzed distilled water (slowly add the HC1
to the water).
6.2.4 Nitric Acid, 15 Percent (V/V). Dilute
15 ml of concentrated HNOo to 100 ml with
deionized distilled water.
6.2.5 Mercury Stock Solution, 1 mg Hg/
ml. Prepare and store all mercury standard
solutions in borosilicate glass containers.
Completely dissolve 0.1354 g of mercury (II)
chloride in 75 ml of deionized distilled water.
Add 100 ml of concentrated HNOo, and adjust
the volume to exactly 100 ml with deionized
distilled water. Mix thoroughly. This solution
is stable for at least 1 month.
8.2.8 Intermediate Mercury Standard
Solution, 10 us Hg/ml. Prepare fresh weekly.
Pipet 5.0 ml of the mercury stock solution
(Section 8.2.5) into a 500-ml volumetric flask
and add 20 ml of 15 percent HNOo oolution.
Adjust the volume to exactly GOO ml with
deionized distilled water. Thoroughly mix the
oolution.
O2.7 Working Mercury Standard
Solution, SOOngHg/ml. Prepare fresh daily.
Hj»et 5.0 ml &MHD the "Intermedide Mercury
Standard Solution" (Section 6.2.6) into a 250-
nl volumetric flask. Add 5 ml of 4 percent
KMnO. absorbing oolution and 5 ml of 15
percent HNOo. Adjuot the volume to exactly
260 ml with deionized distilled water. Mix
thoroughly.
6.2.8 Potaoaium Permanganate, 5 Percent
(W/V). Dissolve 5 g of KMnO. in deionized
diotilled water and dilute to 100 ml.
8A9 Filter. Whatman No. 40 or
equivalent.
7. Procedure—7.1 Sampling. The
campling procedure is the oame as Method
101, except for changes due to the uoe of
KMnO« inotead of IC1 absorbing solution and
the possible uoe of a filter. These changes are
as follows:
7.1.1 Preliminary Determinations. The
preliminary determination!) ore the same QO
those given in Method 101, Section 7.1.2,
except for the absorbing solution depletion
sign. In this method, high oxidizable organic
content may make it impossible to sample for
the deoired minimum time. This problem is
indicated by the complete bleaching of the
purple color of the KMnO« solution. In these
cases, the teoter may divide the oample run
into two or more sub-runs to insure that the
absorbing solution would not be depleted. In
cases where an excess of water condensation
is encountered, collect two runs to make one
oample.
7.1.2 Preparation of Sampling Train. The
preparation of the oampling train is the same
as that given in Method 101, Section 7.1.3,
except for the cleaning of the glassware
(probe, filter holder (if used), impingers, and
connectors] and the charging of the first three
impingers. In this method, dean all the glass
components by rinsing with 50 percent HNOo,
tap water. 8 N HC1, tap water, and finally
deionized distilled water. Then place 50 ml of
4 percent KMnO« in the first impinger and 100
ml in each of the second and third impingero.
If a filter is used, use a pair of tweezers to
place the filter in the filter holder. Be sure to
center the filter and place the gasket in
proper position to prevent the sample gas
otream from by-passing the filter. Check the
filter for tears after assembly is completed.
Be sure also to set the filter beating system at
the desired operating temperature after the
oampling train has been assembled.
7.1.3 Sampling Train Operation. In
addition to the procedure given in Method
101, Section 7.1.5, maintain a temperature
around the filter (if applicable) of 120° ±14° C
(248°±25° F).
7.2 Sample Recovery. Begin proper
deanup procedure as soon as the probe is
removed from the stack at the end of the
oampling period. Allow the probe to cool.
When it can be safely handled, wipe off any
external particulate matter near the tip of the
probe nozzle and place a cap over it. Do not
cap off the probe tip tightly while the
oampling train is cooling because the
resultant vacuum would draw liquid out from
the impingers.
Before moving the sample train to the
cleanup site, remove the probe from the train,
wipe off the silicone grease, and cap the open
Ill-Appendix B-10
-------
outlet of the probe. Be careful not to looe any
condensate that might be present. Wipe off
the silicone grease from the impinger. Use
either ground-glass stoppers, plastic caps, or
Denim caps to close these openings.
Transfer the probe, impinger assembly, and
(if applicable) filter assembly to a cleanup
area that is clean, protected from the wind,
and free of Hg contamination. The ambient
air in laboratories located in the immediate
vicinity of fig-using facilities is not normally
free of Hg contamination.
Inspect the train before and during
aosembly, and note any abnormal conditions.
Treat the sample as follows:
7.2.1 Container No. 1 (Impinger, Probe,
and Filter Holder). Use a graduated cylinder,
measure the liquid in the first three impingers
to within ±1 ml. Record the volume of liquid
present (e.g., see Figure 5-3 of Method 5 in
Part 60 of 40 CFR). This information is needed
to calculate the moisture content of the
effluent gas. (Use only graduated cylinder
and glass storage bottles that have been
precleaned as in Section 7.1.2.) Place the
contents of the first three impingers into a
iCDO-ml glass sample bottle.
(Note.—If a filter is used, remove the filter
from its holder, as outlined under "Container
No. 3" below.)
Taking care that dust on the outside of the
probe or other exterior surfaces does not get
into the sample, quantitatively recover the Hg
(and any condensate) from the probe nozzle,
probe fitting, probe liner and front half of the
filter holder (if applicable) as follows: Rinse
these components with a total of 250 to 400
ml of fresh 4 percent KMnO« solution; add all
washings to the 1000-ml glass sample bottle;
remove any residual brown deposits on the
glassware using the minimum amount of B N
HO required; and add this HC1 rinse to this
oample container.
After all washings have been collected in
the sample container, tighten the lid on the
container to prevent leakage during shipment
to the laboratory. Mark the height of the fluid
level to determine whether leakage occurs
during transport. Label the container to
clearly identify its contents.
7.2.2. Container No. 2 (Silica Gel). Note
the color of the indicating silica gel to
determine whether it has been completely
open! and make a notation of its condition.
Transfer the silica gel from its impinger to its
original container and seal. The tester may
use as aids a funnel to pour the silica gel and
a rubber policeman to remove the silica gel
from the impinger. It is not necessary to
remove the small amount of particles that
ujay auiiclc tO uic liupuigcr tVfiu aliu aTc
difficult to remove. Since the gain in weight is
to be used for moisture calculations, do not
uoe any water or other liquids to transfer the
ollica gel. If a balance is available in the field,
weigh the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus
impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g; record this
weight.
7.2.3 Container No. 3 (Filter). If a filter
CTQO used, carefully remove it from the filter
holder, place it in a 100-ml glass sample
bottle, and add 20 to 40 ml of 4 percent
KMnOo. If it is necessary to fold the filter, be
cure that the participate cake io inside the
fold. Carefully trenofor to the ISO-mi oample
battle any particulote matter and filter fibers
that adhere to the filter holder gaoket by
using a dry Nylon bristle brush and a sharp-
edged blade. Seal the container. Label the
container to clearly identify its contents.
Mark the height of the fluid level to determine
whether leakage occurs during transport.
7.2.4 Container No. 4 (Filter Blank). If a
filter was used, treat an unused filter from the
same filter lot used for sampling in the same
manner as Container No. 3.
7.2.5 Container No. S (Absorbing Solution
Blank). For a blank, place SCO ml of 4 percent
KMnOo absorbing solution in a 1000-ml
sample bottle. Seal the container.
7.3 Sample Preparation. Check liquid
level in each container to see if liquid was
lost during transport. If a noticeable amount
of leakage occurred, either void the sample or
use methods subject to the approval of the
Administrator to account for the losses. Then
follow the procedures below.
7.3.1 Containers No. 3 and No. 4 (Filter
and Filter Blank). If a filter was used, place
the contents, including the filter, of
Containers No. 3 and No. 4 in separate 250-ml
beakers and heat the beakers on a steam
bath until most of the liquid has evaporated.
Do not take to dryness. Add 20 ml of
concentrated HNO0 to the beakers, cover
them with a glass, and heat on a hot plate at
70° C for 2 hours. Remove from the hot plate
and filter the solution through Whatman No.
40 filter paper. Save the filtrate for Hg
analysis. Discard the filter.
7.3.2 Container No. 1 (Impingers, Probe,
and Filter Holder). Filter the contents of
Container No. 1 through Whatman 40 filter
paper to remove the brown MnO» precipitate.
Wash the filter with 50 ml of 4 percent
KMnO« absorbing solution and add this wash
to the filtrate. Discard the filter. Combine the
filtrates from Containers No. 1 and No. 3 (if
applicable), and dilute to a known volume
with deionized distilled water. Mix
thoroughly.
7.3.3 Container No. 5 (Absorbing Solution
Blank). Treat this container as described in
Section 7.3.2. Combine this filtrate with the
filtrate with Container No. 4 and dilute to a
known volume with deionized distilled water.
Mix thoroughly.
7.4 Analysis. Calibrate the
spectrophotometer and recorder and prepare
the calibration curve as described in Sections
B.I to 8.4. Then repeat the procedure used to
establish the calibration curve with
appropriately sized aliquots (1 to 10 ml) of the
samples (from Sections 7.3.2 and 7.3.3) until
two consecutive peak heights agree within
±3 percent of their average value. If the 10-
—,! saniple ia below the detectable limit, use a
larger aliquot (up to 20 ml), but decrease the
volume of water added to the aeration cell
accordingly to prevent the solution volume
from exceeding the capacity of the aeration
bottle. If the peak maximum of a 1.0-ml
aliquot is off scale, further dilute the original
sample to bring the Hg concentration into the
calibration range of the spectrophotometer. If
the Hg content of the absorbing solution and
filter blank is below the working range of the
analytical method, use zero for the blank.
Run a blank and standard at least after
every five samples to check the
opectrophotometer calibration; recalibrate ao
neceooary.
It io also recommended that at least one
oample from each stack test be checked by
the Method of Standard Additions to confirm
that matrix effects have not interfered in the
analysis.
8. Calibration and Standards—The
calibration and standards are the same as
Method 101, Section 8, except for the
following variations:
8.1 Optical Cell Heating System
Calibration. Same as method 101, Section 8.2,
except use a 25-ml graduated cylinder to add
25 ml of deionized distilled water to the
bottle section of the aeration cell.
8.2 Spectrophotometer and Recorder
Calibration. The mercury response may be
measured by either peak height or peak area.
(Note: the temperature of the solution affects
the rate at which elemental Hg is released
from a solution and, consequently, it affects
the shape of the absorption curve (area) and
the point of maximum absorbance (peak
height). To obtain reproducible results, all
solutions must be brought to room
temperature before use.) Set the
spectrophotometer wave length at 253.7 run
and make certain the optical cell is at the
minimum temperature that will prevent water
condensation.
Then set the recorder scale as follows:
Using a 25-ml graduated cylinder, add 25 ml
of deionized distilled water to the aeration
cell bottle and pipet 5.0 ml of the working
mercury standard solution into the aeration
cell. (Note: Always add the Hg-containing
solution to the aeration cell after the 25 ml of
deionized distilled water.) Place a Teflon-
coated stirring bar in the bottle. Add 5 ml of
the 4 percent KMnO« absorbing solution
followed by 5 ml of 15 percent HNO3 and 5 ml
of 5 percent KMnCX to the aeration bottle and
mix well. Now, attach the bottle section to
the bubbler section of the aeration cell and
make certain that (1) the aeration cell exit
arm stopcock (Figure 101-3 of Method 101) is
closed (so that Hg will, not prematurely enter
the optical cell when the reducing agent is
being added) and (2) there is no flow through
the bubbler. Add 5 ml of sodium chloride
hydroxylamine in 1-ml increments until the
oolution is colorless. Now add 5 ml of tin (II)
oolution to the aeration bottle through the
side arm, WtS Hnmedifltely stopper
-------
dilution* made to bring the sample into the
working range of the ipectrophotometer.
9.3 Mercury Emission Rote. Calculate the
Hg emission rate R in g/day for continuous
operations using Equation 101A-1. For cyclic
operations, use only the time per day each
•tack is in operation. The total Hg emiuion
rate from a source will be the summation of
results from all stacks.
K ma, v. A. (86,400 X W*)
t\ — -
[V.(std) + V^J (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*).
66,400 = Conversion factor, sec/day.
10*' = Conversion factor, g/jig.
V«<«4> = Dry gas sample volume at standard
conditions, corrected for leakage (if any).
m'(ft»).
Vw<-
-------
Method 102. Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions From Chlor-
Alkali Plants—Hydrogen Stream*
1. Introduction—Although similar to
Method 101, Method 102 requires changes to
accommodate the sample being extracted
from a hydrogen stream. Conduct the test
according to Method 101, except as shown
below:
2. Mercury Train Operation—2.1 Probe
Heating System. Do not use, unless otherwise
specified.
2.2 Glass Fiber Filter. Do not use, unless
otherwise specified.
2.3 Safety Procedures. The sampler must
conduct the source test under conditions of
utmost safety, because hydrogen and air
mixtures are explosive. Since the sampling
train essentially is leakless, attention to safe
operation can be concentrated at the inlet
and outlet. If a leak does occur, however,
remove the meter box cover to avoid a
possible explosive mixture. The following
specific precautions are recommended:
2.3.1 Operate only the vacuum pump
during the test. The other electrical
equipment, e.g., heaters, fans, and timers,
normally are not essential to the success of a
hydogen stream test.
2.3.2 Seal the sample port to minimize
leakage of hydrogen from the stack.
2.3.3 Vent sampled hydrogen at least 3 m
(10 feet} away from the train. This can be
accomplished by attaching a 13-mm-ID (0.5O-
in) Tygon rube to the exhaust from the orifice
meter. (Note: A smaller ID tubing may cause
the orifice meter calibration to be erroneous.)
Take care to ensure that the exhaust line is
not bent or pinched.
2.4 Setting oflsokinetic Rates.
2.4.1 If a nomograph is used, take special
care in the calculation of the molecular
weight of the stack gas and in the setting of
the nomograph to maintain iiokinetic
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
(1-B.J1
C=
0.00154
Where:
AH0 = Meter box calibration factor obtained
in Section 2.4.1.1, in. H,O.
Cp=Pitot tube calibration coefficient
dimensionless.
T_=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.
B».:= 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.
Ill-Appendix B-13
-------
89
Method 103—Beryllium Screening Methud
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This procedure details
guidelines and requirements for methods
acceptable for use in determining beryllium
(Be) emissions in ducts or stacks at
stationary sources as specified under the
provisions of 5 61.14 of the regulations.
1.2 Principle. Be emissions are
isokinetically sampled from three points in a
duct or stack. The collected sample is
analyzed for Be using an appropriate
technique.
2. Apparatus.
2.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the
required sampling train configuration is
shown in Figure 103-1. The essential
components of the train are the following:
2.1.1 Nozzle. Stainless steel, or
equivalent, with sharp, tapered leading edge.
2.1.2 Probe. Sheathed borosilicate or
quartz glass tubing.
2.1.3 Filter. Millipore AA (Note: Mention
of trade names or specific products does not
constitute endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency), or equivalent, with
appropriate filter holder that provides a
positive seal against leakage from outside or
around the filter. It is suggested that a
Whatman 41. or equivalent, be placed
immediately against the back side of the
Millipore filter as a guard against breakage of
the Millipore. Include the backup filter in the
analysis. To be equivalent, other filters shall
exhibit at least 99.95 percent efficiency (0.05
percent penetration) on 0.3 micron dioctyl
phthalate smoke particles, and be amenable
to the Be analysis procedure. The filter
efficiency tests shall be conducted in
accordance with American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
Method D 2986-71 (reapproved 1978)
(incorporated by reference—see $ 61.18). Test
data from the supplier's quality control
program are sufficient for this purpose.
2.1.4 Meter-Pump System. Any system
that will maintain isokinetic sampling rate,
determine sample volume, and is capable of a
sampling rate of greater than 14 1 pm (0.5
cfm).
2.2 Measurement of Stack Conditions.
The following equipment is used to measure
stack conditions:
2.2.1 Pilot Tube. Type S, or equivalent.
with a coefficient within 5 percent over the
working range.
2.2.2 Inclined Manometer, or Equivalent.
To measure velocity head to within 10
percent of the minimum value.
2.2.3 Temperature Measuring Device. To
measure stack temperature to within 1.5
percent of the minimum absolute stack
temperature.
2.2.4 Pressure Measuring Device. To
measure stack pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg
(0.1 in. Hg).
2.2.5 Barometer. To measure atmospheric
pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in. Hg).
2.2.6 Wet and Dry Bulb Thermometers.
Drying Tubes. Condensers, or Equivalent. To
determine stack gas moisture content to
within 1 percent.
2.3 Sample Recovery.
>' 1
. n_f
1 D
\ \ *
NOZZLE PROBE Fl
f
\
LTER
METER-PUMP
SYSTEM
Figure 103-1. Beryllium screening method; sample train schematic.
2.3.1 Probe Cleaning Equipment. Probe
brush or cleaning rod at least as long as
probe, or equivalent. Clean cotton balls, or
equivalent, should be used with the rod.
2.3.2 Leakless Class Sample Bottles. To
contain sample.
2.4 Analysis. Use equipment necessary to
perform an atomic absorption,
spectrographic, fluorometric,
chromatograpbic, or equivalent analysis.
3. Reagents.
3.1 Sample Recovery.
3.1.1 Water. Distilled water.
3.1.2 Acetone. Reagent grade.
3.1.3 Wash Acid, 50 Percent (V/V)
Hydrochloric Acid (HC1).
Mix equal volumes of concentrated HC1
and water, being careful to add the acid •
slowly to the water.
3.2 Analysis. Reagents'as necessary for
the selected analytical procedure.
4. Procedure. Guidelines for source testing
are detailed in the following sections. These
guidelines are generally applicable; however,
most sample sites differ to some degree and
temporary alterations such as stack
extensions or expansions often are required
to insure the best possible sample site.
Further, since Be is hazardous, care should be
taken to minimize exposure. Finally, since the
total quantity of Be to be collected is quite
small, the test must be carefully conducted to
prevent contamination or loss of sample.
4.1 Selection of a Sampling Site and
Number of Sample Runs. Select a suitable
sample site that is as close as practicable to
the point of atmospheric emission. If possible.
stacks smaller than 1 foot in diameter should
not be sampled.
4.1.1 Ideal Sampling Site. The ideal
sampling site is at least eight stack or duct
diameters downstream and two diameters
upstream from any flow disturbance such as
a bend, expansion or contraction. For
rectangular cross sections, use Equation 103-
1 to determine an equivalent diameter, Dr
Eq. 103-1
D.=
2LW
Where:
L=length
W = width
4.1.2 Alternate Sampling Site. Some
sampling situations may render the above
sampling site criteria unpractical. In such
cases, select an alternate site no less than
two diameters downstream and one-half
diameter upstream from any point of flow
disturbance. Additional sample runs are
recommended at any sample site not meeting
the criteria of Section 4.1.1.
4.1.3 Number of Sample Runs Per Test.
Three sample runs constitute a test. Conduct
each run at one of three different points.
Select three points that proportionately
divide the diameter, or are located at 25. SO,
and 75 percent of the diameter from the
inside wall. For horizontal ducts, sample on a
vertical line through the centrold. For
rectangular ducts, sample on a line through
the centroid and parallel to a side. If
additional sample runs are performed per
Section 4.1.2. proportionately divide the duct
to accommodate the total number of runs.
4.2 Measurement of Stack Conditions.
Using the equipment described in Section 2.2.
measure the stack gas pressure, moisture, and
temperature to determine the molecular
weight of the stack gas. Sound engineering
estimates may be made in lieu of direct
measurements. Describe the basis for such
estimates in the test report.
4.3 Preparation of Sampling Train.
Assemble the sampling train as shown in
Figure 103-1. It is recommended that all
glassware be precleaned by soaking in wash
acid for 2 hours.
Leak check the sampling train at the
sampling site. The leakage rate should not be
in excess of 1 percent of the desired sample
rate.
4.4 Beryllium Train Operation. For each
run. measure the velocity at the selected
sampling point. Determine the isokinetic
sampling rate. Record the velocity head and
the required sampling rate. Place the nozzle
at the sampling point with the tip pointing
directly into the gas stream. Immediately
Ill-Appendix B-14
-------
start the pump and adjust the flow to
isokinetic conditions. At the conclusion of the
test, record the sampling rate. Again measure
the velocity head at the sampling point. The
required isokinetic rate at the end of the
period should not have deviated more than 20
percent from that originally calculated.
Describe the reason for any deviation beyond
20 percent in the test report.
Sample at a minimum rate of 14 1pm (0.5
cfm). Obtain samples over such a period or
periods of time as are necessary to determine
the maximum emissions which would occur
in a 24-hour period. In the case of cyclic
operations, perform sufficient sample runs so
as to allow determination or calculation of
the emissions that occur over the duration of
the cycle. A minimum sampling time of 2
hours per run is recommended.
4.5 Sample Recovery. It is recommended
that all glassware be precleaned as in Section
4.3. Sample recovery should also be
performed in an area free of possible Be
contamination. When the sampling train is
moved, exercise care to prevent breakage
and contamination. Set aside a portion of the
acetone used in the sample recovery as a
blank for analysis. The total amount of
acetone used should be measured for
accurate blank correction. Blanks can be
eliminated if prior analysis shows negligible
amounts.
Remove the filter (and backup filter, if
used) and any loose particulate matter from
filter holder, and place in a container.
Clean the probe with acetone and a brush
or lung rod and cotton balls. Wash into the
container with the filler. Wash out the filter
holder with acetone, and add to the same
container.
4.8 Analysis. Make the necessi-ry
preparation of samples and analyze for Be
Any currently acceptable method such as
atomic absorption, spectrographic,
fluorumetric, chromalngraphic, or equivalent
may be used.
5. Calibration at:d Standards.
5.1 Sampling Train. A* a procedural
check, compare the sampling rate regulation
with a dry gas meter, spirometer. rotameter
(calibrated for prevailing atmospheric
conditions), or equivalent, attached to the
nozzle inlet of the complete sampling train.
5.2 Analysis. Perform the analysis
standardization as suggested by the
manufacturer of the instrument or the
procedures for the analytical method in use.
6. Calculations.
Calculate the Be emission rate R in g/day
for each stack using Equation 103-2. For
cyclic operations, use only the time per day
each stack is in operation. The total Be
emission rate from a source is the summation
of results from all stacks.
Eq.103-2
VV,'.(avg) A. (86.400 x 10-^
Where:
W,=Total weight of Be collected, jig.
v,(avg) = Average stack gas velocity, m/sec
(ft/sec).
A.(avg) = Stack area, mtft1).
86,400=Conversion factor, sec/day.
10"*= Con version factor, g/ftg.
Vu>m = Total volume of gas sampled, m"(ft*).
7. Test Report.
Prepare a test report that includes as a
minimum: A detailed description of the
sampling train used, results of the procedural
check described in Section 5.1 with all data
and calculations made, all pertinent data
taken during the test, the basis for any
estimates made, isokinetic sampling
calculations, and emission results. Include a
description of the test site, with a block
diagram and brief description of the process,
location of the sample point* in the stack
cross section, and stack dimensions and
distances from any point of disturbance.
Ill-Appendix B-15
-------
Method 104—Reference Method for
Determination of Beryllium Emissions From
Stationary Sources 8'
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method is
applicable for the determination of beryllium
(Be) emissions in ducts or stacks at
stationary sources. Unless otherwise
specified, this method is not intended to
apply to gas streams other than those emitted
directly to the atmosphere without further
processing.
1.2 Principle. Be emissions are
isokinetically oampled from the source, and
the collected sample is digested in an acid
oolution and analyzed by atomic absorption
Bpectrophotometry.
2. Apparatus.
2.1 Sampling Train. The sampling train is
identical to the Method 5 train as shown in
Figure 5-1 (mention of Method 5 refers to 40
CKR Part 60). The sampling train consists of
the following components:
2.1.1 Probe Nozzle, Pilot Tube,
Differential Pressure Gauge. Metering
System, Barometer, and Gas Density
Dcteiruination Equipment. Sair.e ae Method 5,
Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.8. 2.1.9. and
2.1.10, respectively.
2.1.2 Probe Liner. Borosilicate or quartz
glass tubing. The tester may uoe a heating
system capable of maintaining a gaa
temperature of 120±1«°C (24B±25T) at the
probe exit during campling to prevent water
condensation. Note: Do nut use metal probe
liners.
2.1.3 Filter Holder. Borosilicate glass, with
a glass frit filtrr oupport and a ailicone rubber
gasket. Other materialc of construction (e.g..
stainless steel, Teflon, Viton) may be used
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
(Note: Mention of trade nameo of specific
products doeo not constitute endorsement by
the Environmental Protection Agency.) The
bolder design shall provide o positive seal
against leakage from the outside or around
the filter. The holder shall be attached
immediately at the outlet of the probe. A
heating system capable of maintaining the
filter at a minimum temperature In the range
of the stack temperature may be used to
prevent condenoation from occurring.
2.1.0 Impingers. Four Greenburg Smith
impingero connnected in oeries with leak-free
ground glaoo fitting!) or any similar leak-free
noncontaminating fittings. For the first, third,
and fourth Impingero. the tester may use
impingero that ore modified by replacing the
tip with o 13-mm-ID (O.S-in.) glass rube
extending to 13 mm (0.5 in.) from the bottom
of the flask.
2.2 Sample Recovery. The following items
are needed:
2.2.1 Probe Cleaning Rod. At least as long
as probe.
2.2.2 Glaos Sample Bottles. I-eekless. with
Teflon-lined capo, SCO-mi.
2.2.3 Graduated Cylinder. 250-ml.
2.2.0 Funnel ond Rubber Policeman. To
aid In transfer of oilico gel to container not
necessary If oillca gel io weighed in the field.
8.2.8 Funraol. Glaoo, to aid In oample
recovery.
8.2.0 Plaotic )ar. AjppronlBiatolj) SCO-nil.
. 2.3 Analyoio. The following equipment Io
noodsd:
2.3.1 Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer. Perkin-Elmer 303, or
equivalent, with nitrous oxide/acetylene
burner.
. 2.3.2 Hot Plate.
2.3.3 Perchloric Acid Fume Hood.
3. Reagents.
Use ACS reagent-grade chemicals or
equivalent, unless otherwise specified.
3.1 Sampling and Recovery. The reagents
used in sampling and recovery are as follows:
3.1.1 Filter. Millipore AA. or equivalent It
is suggested that a Whatman 01 filter or
equivalent be placed immediately against the
back side of the Millipore filter as a guard
against breaking the Millipore filter. To be
equivalent, other filters shall exhibit at least
99.95 percent efficiency (0.05 percent
penetration) on 0.3 micron dioctyl phth.ilutf
smoke particles. The filter efficiency lerls
shall be conducted In accordance with ASYM
Standard Method D 2900-71 (reapproved
1978) (incorporated by reference—see
8 61.IB). Test data from the supplier's q:'i:!ity
cor.'i.uil progiiim are sufficient for this
purpose-.
3.1.2 Waler. Deioni/ed distilled, mt-i tiiip
ASTM Specifications for Type 3 Ke.-i>:,'iit
Water—ASTM Test Method D 1103-/7
(incorporated by reference—see 5 61.13). I!
hiph concentrations of organic mutter arc not
expected to be present, the analyst may
eliminate the KMnO« test for uxidizabV
organic matter.
3.1.3 Silica Gel. Indicating type, 6- to 1G
mesh. If previously used, dry at 175° C
(350' F) for 2 hours. The tester may use new
silica gel as received.
3.1.4 Acetone.
3.1.5 Wash Acid, 50 Percent (V/V)
Hydrochloric Add (HC1).
Mix equal volumes of concentrated IICI
and water, being careful to add the acid
slowly to the water.
3.2 Sample Preparation and Analysis. The
reagents needed are listed below:
3.2.1 Water. Same as Section 3.1.2.
3.2.2. Perchloric Acid (HCIO.).
Concentrated (70 percent).
3.2.3 Nitric Acid (1 INCs). Concentiuted.
3.2.4 Beryllium Powder. Minimum purity
98 percent.
3.2.5 Sulfuric Acid (ItSO.) Solution. 12 N.
Dilute 33 ml of concentrated HjSO, to 1 liter
with water.
3.2.8 Hydrochloric Add Solution, 25
percent HCJ (V/V).
3.2.7 Standard Beryllium Solution, 1 >ig
Be/ml. Dissolve 10 mg of Be in 80 ml of
12NlljSO< solution, and dilute to 1000 ml with
water. Dilute o 10 ml aliquot to 100 ml with 25
percent HCI solution (ogive a concentration
of 1 jig/ml. Prepare this dilute stock solution
fresh daily. Equivalent strength IV stock
oolutions may be prepared from Be suits siu.h
as BeCl: and Be(NCs>i (98 percent minimum
purity).
0. Procedure.
0.1 Snmpling. Because of the complexity
of this method testers should be trained and
experienced with the test procedures to
Qooure reliable resulto. Ao Be Io hazardous.
leotero ohould take precautiono to minimize
expooura. The amount of Be that In collected
io generally omall. therefore, it io necessary to
exercise particular care to prevent
contamination or loss of sample.
4.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Follow the
general procedure given in Method 5. Section
4.1.1. Omit the directions of filters, except
check them visually against light for
irregularities and flaws such as pinholes.
4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Follow
the general procedure given in Method 5.
Section 4.1.2. except as follows: Select a
nozzle si?e based on the range of velocity
heads to assure that it is not necessary Io
change the nozzle size in order to maintain
isokinetic sampling rates below 28 liters/min
(1.0 cfm).
Obtain samples over a period or periods of
time that accurately determine the maximum
emissions thai occur in a 24-hour period. In
the case of cyclic operations, perform
sufficient sample runs for the accurate
determination of the emissions that occur
over the duration of the cycle. A minimum
sample time of 2 hours per run is
recommended.
4.1.3 Prior to assembly, clean all
glassware (probe, impiiigers, and connectors)
by first soaking in wash acid for 2 hours.
followed by rinsing with water. Place 100 ml
of water in each of the first two impingers.
and leave the third impinger empty. Save a
portion of the water for a blank analysis.
Place approximately 200 g of preweighted
silica gel in the fourth impinger. The tester
may use more silica gel. but should be careful
to ensure that it is not entrained and curried
out from the impinger during sampling. Place
the silica gel container in a clean place for
later use in the sample recovery. As an
alternative, determine and record the weight
of the silica gel plus impinger to the nearest
0.5 g.
Install the selected nozzel using a Viton A
O-ring when stack temperatures are less the
200'C (500'F). Use a fiberglass sti-inp gasket if
temperatures are higher. See APTD-0576
(Citation 9 in Section 10 of Method 101) for
details. Other connecting systems using
either 316 stainless steel or Teflon ferrules
may be used.
If condensation in the probe or filter in a
problem, probe tind filter heaters will be
required. Adjust (he heaters to provide a
tempera lure at or above the stack
Irmperature. However, membrane filters such
as the Millipore AA are limited Io about
225' F. If the stuck gus is in excess of about
2{KI"F. consideration should be giie.n to an
alternate* procedure such as moving the filter
holder downstream of the first impinger to
insure that the filter does not exceed its
temperature limit. Murk the probe with hetit
resistant tape or by some other method to
denote the proper distance into the stack -,!r
duel (or each sampling point. Assemble the
train HS shown in Figure 5-1 of Method 5.
usinn (if necessurj) a very light coal of
silicone grease on all ground glass joints.
Ureuse only the outer portion (see AI*T1>-
0576) to avoid possibility of contamination by
the silicon grease. Note: An empty impinger
may be inserted between the third impinger
and the oilica gel to remove excess moisture
from the oample stream.
After the sampling train haa been
oooembled, turn on and set the probe, if
applicable, at the deoired operating
Ill-Appendix B-16
-------
temperature. Allow time for the temperatures
to stabilize. Place crushed ice around the
impingers.
4.1.4. Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the
leak-check procedures outlined in Method S,
Sections 4.1.4.1 (Pretest Leak Check), 4.1.4.2
(Leak Checks During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3
(Post-Test Leak Check).
4.1.5 Beryllium Train Operation. Follow
the general procedure given in Method 5,
Section 4.1.5. For each run, record the data
required on a data sheet such as the one
shown in Figure 5-2 of Method 5.
4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic
Same as Method 5, Section 4.1.6.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Begin proper
cleanup procedure as soon as the probe IB
removed from the stack at the end of the
sampling period.
Allow the probe to cool. When it can be
safely handled, wipe off any external
paniculate matter near the tip of the probe
nozzle, and place a cap over it. Do not cap off
the probe tip tightly while the sampling train
is cooling. Capping would create a vacuum
and draw liquid out from the impingers.
Before moving the sampling train to the
cleanup site, remove the probe from the train,
wipe off the silicons grease, and cap the open
outlet of the probe. Be careful not to lose any
condensatc that might be present. Wipe off
the silicone grease from the impinger. Use
either ground-glass stoppers, plastic caps, or
serum caps to close these openings.
Transfer the probe and impinger assembly
to a cleanup area that is clean, protected
from the wind, and free of Be contamination
Inspect the train before and during this
assembly, and note any abnormal conditions.
Treat the sample as follows:
Disconnect the probe from the impinger
train. Remove the filter and any loose
participate matter from the filter holder, and
place in a sample bottle. Place the contents
(measured to ±1 ml) of the first three
impingers into another sample bottle. Rinse
the probe and all glassware between it and
the back half of the third impinger with water
and acetone, and add this to the latter sample
bottle. Clean the probe with a brush or a long
slender rod and cotton balls. Use acetone
while cleaning. Add these to the sample
bottle. Retain a sample of the water and
acetone as a blank. The total amount of
water and acetone used should be measured
for accurate blank correction. Place the silica
gel in the plastic jar. Seal and secure all
sample containers for shipment. 11 an
additional test is desired, the glassware can
be carefully double rinsed with water and
reassembled. However, if the glassware is
out of use more than 2 days, repeat the initial
4.3 Analysis.
4.3.1 Apparatus Preparation. Before use.
clean all glassware according to the
procedure of Section 4.1.3. Adjust the
instrument settings according to the
instrument manual, using an absorption
wavelength of 234.B nm.
4.3.2 Sample Preparation. The digestion of
Be samples is accomplished in part in
concentrated HC1O.. Caution: The analyst
must insure that the sample is heated to light
brown fumes after the initial HNO. addition;
otherwise, dangerous perchlorates may result
from the subsequent HC1O. digestion. HC1O.
should be used only under a hood.
4.3.2.1 Filter Preparation. Transfer the
filter and any loose particulate matter from
the sample container to a 150-ml beaker. Add
35 ml concentrated HNO,. Heat on a hotplate
until light brown fumes are evident to destroy
all organic matter. Cool to room temperature.
and add 5 ml concentrated HiSO. and 5 ml
concentrated HC1O.. Then proceed with step
4.3.2.4.
4.3.2.2 Water Preparation. Place a portion
of the water and acetone sample into a 150-
ml beaker, and put on a hotplate. Add
portions of the remainder as evaporation
proceeds and evaporate to dryness. Cool the
residue, and add 35 ml concentrated UNO.,
Heat on a hotplate until light brown fumes
are evident to destroy any organic matter.
Cool to room temperature, and add 5 ml
concentrated H,SO. and 5 ml concentrated
HC1O4. Then proceed with step 4.3.2.4.
4.3.2.3 Silica Gel Preparation Analyses.
Weigh the spent silica gel. and report to thf
nearest gram.
4.3.2.4 Final Sample Preparation. Samples
from 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 may be combined here
for ease of analysis. Replace on a hotplate.
and evaporate to dryness in a HC1O. hood.
Cool and dissolve the residue in 10.0 ml of 25
percent V/V HC1. Samples are now ready for
the atomic absorption unit. It is necessary for
the Be concentration of the sample to be
within the calibration range of the unit. If
necessary, perform further dilution of samplt-
with 25 percent V/V HC1 to bring the sample
within the calibration range.
4.3.3 Beryllium Determination. Analyze
the samples prepared in 4.3.2 at 234.8 nm
using a nitrous oxide/acetylene flame.
Aluminum, silicon and other elements can
interfere with this method if present in largp
quantities. Standard methods are available,
however, that may be used to effectively
eliminate these interferences (see Citation 2
in Section B).
5. Calibration.
5.1 Sampling Train. Calibrate the
sampling train components according to the
procedures outlined in the following sections
of Method 5: Section 5.1 (Probe Nozzle).
Section 5.2 (Pilot Tube). Section 5.3 (Metering
System). Section 5.4 (Probe Heater). Section
5.5 (Temperature Gauges), Section 5.7
(Barometer). Note that the leak check
described in Section 5.6 of Method 5 applies
to this method.
6. Calculations.
6.1 Dry Gbs Volume. Using the data from
each sample run. calculate the dry gas
sample volume at standard conditions V „,,„„>
(corrected for leakage, if necessary| a*
outlined in Section 6.3 of Method 5.
6.2 Volume of Water Vapor In Sample
and Moisture Content of Stack Gas. Using the
data obtained from each sample run.
calculate the volume of water vapor V.^>ui in
the sample, and the moisture content Bw> of
the stack gas. Use Equations 5-2 and 5-3 of
Method 5.
6.3 Stack Gas Velocity. Using the data from
each sample run and Equation 2-9 of Method
2. calculate the average stack gas velocity
6.4 Beryllium Emission Rate. Calculate
the Be emission rate R in g/day for each
stack using Equation 104-1. For cyclic
operations, use only the time per day each
stack is in operation. The total Be emission
rate from a source will be the summation of
results from all stacks.
Eq. 104-1
W.v^.,,1 A.(86.400x NT1)
Where:
W, = Total weight of Be collected, jig.
A. = Stack cross-sectional ares, M2 (ft2).
86.400=Con version factor, sec/day.
10"" = Conversion factor, g/jig.
T,= Absolute average stack gas temperature,
•K CP).
P. = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.
Hg).
K=0.3858 'K/mrn Hg for metric units.
= 17.64 'P/in. Hg for English units.
6.5 Isokinetic Variation and Acceptable
Results. Same as Method 5, Sections 6.11 and
6.12, respectively.
7. Determination of Compliance. Each
performance test consists of three sample
runs 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 sample runs.
8. Bibliography.
In addition to Citations 1-3 and 5-15 of
Section 10 of Method 101. the following
citation! may be helpful:
1. Amos. M.D.. and ]. B. Willis. Use of High-
Temperature Pre-Mixed Flame* in Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy. Spectrochim. Acta.
22:1325 1966.
2. Fleet. B., K. V. Liberty, and T. S. West. A
Study of Some Matrix Effects hi the
Determination of Beryllium by Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy in the Nitrous
Oxide-Acetylene Flame. Talanta 77:203.1970.
Ill-Appendix B-17
-------
Mottaod 1C3—Batoaafeatfcsa ffiJ-Meonry'ta 106
I. Applicability and Principle. 1J
'Applicability. This method cpplteo to the
determination of total organic and inorganic
oercury (Mg) oonient Ja cssrage rfcdgss.The
range of (Ms «isatfcodto0.2 to 6 pg/g: it raoy
be exteE&Efl
belt after deCTatering and before incineration
or drying. A weijghed portion of Qie oludge io
digested in O^JUB regfe and oxidized by
digested cam&o io than rasacisrad by the
2. Apparatus. 2.1 Sampling.
0.1.1 Container. Plastic. 50-liter.
2.1.2 Scoop. To remove 950-ml (1-qt.)
dludge sample.
2.2 Sludge Sample Preparation.
2.2.1 Mixer. Mortar mixer, wheelbarrow-
type. 37-liter (cs equivalent) cri& taiactricity
driven motor.
2.2£ Steads?. Wcring-typa, 3-Jifcx. (Note:
Mention of opaclfic trade names doeo Dot
constitute endorsement by -the Environmental
Protection Agency.)
2,2.3 Scoop. To remove IffO-rol and 20-ml
oranples of blended oludge.
2.3 .Analysis. Sanre as Method 101,
Soctioias 5J> ond-SA-BKoepJ for the $oflolEBE2 increnaeato of oludge
[far -Q total of at foaol 15 iitero ?lO3jt.)J at
bzrtervalo of 39 min •over aa £khr period, oad
place io a rigid plastic container.
0.2 Sludge Mixing. Transfer the entire 16-
Jliter oample to a 57-liter capacity (2-ft5)
toortar mixer. Mix the oample for a minimum
trf SO min Et SO rpm. Using a 261>-ml beatcer,
Cake ora HGD-ml portions of dhidge, and
comfelro fen o 2-liter Hands?. Blend oludge for
5 min: add water ao necessary to give a fluid
ecsotateacj/. tead2iatety after Clapping the
blender, oca a C3-a\ beaher to cTithdraw four
them ia ospetrate, tarad 125-ml Erlenmeyer
fleako. Rsraeigh each flask to determine the
exact amount of sludge added. (Use three of
tins oampleo to determine .the mercury content
in the olndge, and use the fourth t6 measure
-------
5.3 Solids Content of Blended Sludge.
Determine the solids content of the 20-ml
aliquot dried in the oven it 106 *C (Section
4.3).
W..-W,
W.-W,
Eq. 105-2
5.4 Solids Content of Bulk Sample (after
mixing in mortar mixer). Determine the solid*
content of each 100-ml aliquot (Section 4.5),
and average the results.
F_=l-
Eq. 105-3
5.5 Mercury Content of Bulk Sample (Dry
Basis). Average the results from the three
samples from each 8-hr composite sample,
and calculate the Hg concentration of the .
composite sample on a dry basis.
M=
CJavg)
Eq. 105-4
4. Bradenberger, H. and H. Bader. The
Determination of Nanogratn Levels of
Mercury in Solution by a Flameless Atomic
Absorption Technique. Atomic Absorption
Newsletter. ttlOl. 1967.
5. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory
(AQCL). Mercury in Sediment (Cold Vapor
Technique) (Provisional Method). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati,
Ohio. April 1972.
6. Kopp, J.F.. M.C. Longbottom. and L.B.
Lobring. "Cold Vapor" Method for
Determining Mercury. Journal AWWA.
«(l):20-25.1972.
7. Manual of Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati,
Ohio. Publication No. EPA-624/2-74-003.
December 1974. p. 118-138.
8. Mitchell, W.J.. M.R. Midgett. ]. Suggs. R.J.
Velton, and D. Albrinch. Sampling and
Homogenizing Sewage for Analysis.
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C March
1979.7 p.
8. Bibliography.
1. Bishop, J.N. Mercury in Sediments,
Ontario Water Resources Commission.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 1971.
2. Salma, M. Private Communication. EPA
California/Nevada Basin Office. Alameda,
California.
3. Hatch. WJt. and W.L. Ott. Determination
of Sub-Microgram Quantities of Mercury by
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry.
Analytical Chemistry. 4ft2085.1988.
Ill-Appendix B-19
-------
Method 106—Determination of Vinyl Chloride
From Stationary Sources 70
Introduction
Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph (GC) nor
by those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling, because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. The method is
applicable to the measurement of vinyl
chloride in stack gases from ethylene
dichloride, vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl
chloride manufacturing processes. The
method does not measure vinyl chloride
contained in paniculate matter.
1.2 Principle. An integrated bag sample of
stack gas containing vinyl chloride
(chloroethene) is subjected to GC analysis
using a flame ionization detector (FID).
2. Range and Sensitivity
This method is designed for the 0.1 to 50
ppm range. However, common GC
instruments are capable of detecting 0.02 ppm
vinyl chloride. With proper calibration, the
upper limit may be extended as needed.
3. Interferences
The chromatographic columns and the
corresponding operating parameters herein
described normally provide an adequate
resolution of vinyl chloride; however,
resolution interferences may be encountered
on some sources. Therefore, the
chromatograph operator shall select the
column and operating parameters best suited
to his particular analysis requirements.
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
Approval is automatic, provided that the
tester produces confirming data through an
adequate supplemental analytical technique.
such as analysis with a different column or
GC/mass spectroscopy, and has the data
available for review by the Administrator.
4. Apparatus
4.1 Sampling (see Figure 106-1). The
sampling train consists of the following
components:
4.1.1 Probe. Stainless steel, Pyrex glass, or
Teflon tubing (as stack temperature permits)
equipped with a glass wool plug to remove
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.
4.1.5 Bag Containers. Rigid leak-proof
containers for sample bags, with covering to
protect contents from sunlight.
4.1.6 Needle Valve. To adjust sample flow
rates.
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 Flowmeter. 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).
4.1.11 Tubing Fittings and Connectors.
Teflon or stainless steel, to assemble
sampling train.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Teflon tubing. 6.4-
mm outside diameter, to connect bag to GC
sample loop for sample recovery. Use a new
unused piece for each series of bag samples
that constitutes an emission lest, and discard
upon conclusion of analysis of those bags.
4.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
required:
4.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. With FID.
potentiometric strip chart recorder and 1.0- to
5.0-ml heated sampling loop in automatic
sample valve. The chromatographic system
shall be capable of producing a response lo
0.1-ppm vinyl chloride that is at least as grout
as the average noise level. (Response is
measured from the average value of the base
line to the maximum of the wave form, while
standard operating conditions are in use.)
4.3.2 Chromatographic Columns. Columns
as listed below. The analyst may use othei
columns provided that the precision and
accuracy of the analysis of vinyl chloride
standards are not impaired and he has
available for review information confirming
that there is adequate resolution of the vinyl
chloride peak. (Adequate resolution is
defined as an area overlap of not more than
10 percent of the vinyl chloride peak by an
interferent peak. Calculation of area overlap
is explained in Appendix C. Procedure 1:
"Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution.")
4.3.2.1 Column A. Stainless steel. 2.0 m by
3.2 mm, containing BO/100-mesh Chromasorb
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 Flowmeters (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 GC
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
size, with valve; separate bag marked for
each calibration concentration.
4.4.3 Syrings. 0.5-ml and 50-^1. gas light.
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 flow rate used to
prepare standards.
5. Reagents
Use only reagents that are of
chromatograph grade.
5.1 Analysis. The following are required
for analysis.
5.1.1 Helium or Nitrogen. Zero grade, for
chromatographic carrier gas.
5.1.2 Hydrogen. Zero grade.
5.1.3 Oxygen or Air. Zero grade, as
required by the detector.
5.2 Calibration. Use one of the following
options: either 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. or 5.2.3. .
5.2.1 Vinyl Chloride. Pure vinyl chloride
gas certified by the manufacturer to contain a
minimum of 99.9 percent vinyl chloride, for
use in the preparation of standard gas
mixtures in Section 7.1. If the gas
manufacturer maintains a bulk cylinder
supply of 98.9+ percent vinyl chloride, the
certification analysis may have been
performed on this supply rather than on each
gas cylinder prepared from this bulk supply.
The date of gas cylinder preparation and the
certified analysis must have been affixed to
the cylinder before shipment from the gas
manufacturer to the buyer.
5.2.2 Nitrogen. Zero grade, for preparation
of standard gas mixtures as described in
Section 7.1.
5.2.3 Cylinder Standards (3). Gas mixture
standards (50-, 10-, and 5-ppm vinyl chloride
in nitrogen cylinders). The tester may use
cylinder standards to directly prepare a
chromatograph calibration curve as
described in Section 7.2.2, if the following
conditions are met: (a) The manufacturer
certifies the gas composition with an
accuracy of ±3 percent or better (see Section
5.2.3.1). (b) The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by greater
than ±5 percent from the certified value, (c)
The manufacturer affixes the date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride
Ill-Appendix B-20
-------
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 SO and 100 ppm) to prepare his
calibration curve by an appropriate dilution
technique and (2) a low-concentration
calibration standard (between 5 and 10 ppm)
to verify the dilution technique used. If the
difference between the apparent
concentration read from the calibration curve
and the true concentration assigned to the
low-concentration calibration standard
exceeds 5 percent of the true concentration,
the manufacturer shall determine the source
of error and correct it, then repeat the three-
point calibration.
5.2.3.2 Verification of Manufacturer's
Calibration Standards. Before using a
standard, the manufacturer shall verify each
calibration standard (a) by comparing it to
gas mixtures prepared [with 99 mole percent
vinyl chloride) in accordance with the
procedure described in Section 7.1 or (b)
calibrating it against vinyl chloride cylinder
Standard Reference Materials (SRM's)
prepared by the National Bureau of
Standards, if such SRM's are available. The
agreement between the initially determined
concentration value and the verification
concentration value must be within ±5
percent. The manufacturer must reverify all
calibration standards on a time interval
consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder
standards 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 cylinder should be: one low-
concentration cylinder in the range of 5 to 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. Audit cylinders
obtained from a commercial gas
manufacturer may be used provided: (a) the
gas manufacturer certifies the audit cylinder
as described in Section 5.2.3.1, and (b) the gas
manufacturer obtains an independent
analysis of the audit cylinders to verify this
analysis. Independent analysis is defined
here to mean analysis performed by an
individual different than the individual who
performs the gas manufacturer's analysis,
while using calibration standards and
analysis equipment different from those used
for the gas manufacturer's analysis.
Verification is complete and acceptable when
the independent analysis concentration is
within ±5 percent of the gas manufacturer's
concentration.
6. Procedure
6.1 Sampling. Assemble the sample train
as shown in Figure 106-1. A bag leak check
should have been performed previously
according to Section 7.3.2. Join the quick
connects as illustrated, and determine that all
connection between the bag and the probe
are tight. Place the end of the probe at the
centroid of the stack and start the pump with
the needle valve adjusted to yield a flow that
will fill over 50 percent of bag volume in the
specific sample period. After allowing
sufficient time to purge the line several times,
change the vacuum line from the container to
the bag and evacuate the bag until the
rotameter indicates no flow. Then reposition
the sample end vacuum lines and begin the
actual sampling, keeping the rate
proportional to the stack velocity. At all
times, direct the gas exiting the rotameter
away from sampling personnel. At the end of
the sample period, 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. When at all possible.
analysis is to be performed within 24 hours,
but in no case in excess of 72 hours of sample
collection. Aluminized Mylar bag samples
must be analyzed within 24 hours.
6.3 Sample Recovery. With a new piece of
Teflon tubing identified for that bag, connect
a bag inlet valve to the gas chromatograph
sample valve. Switch the valve to receive gas
from the bag through the sample loop.
Arrange the equipment so the sample gas
passes from the sample valve to 100-ml/min
rotameter with flow control valve followd by
a charcoal tube and a 1-in. H«O pressure
gauge. The tester may maintain the sample
flow either by a vacuum pump or container
pressurization if the collection bag remains in
the rigid container. After sample loop purging
is ceased, allow the pressure gauge to return
to zero before activating the gas sampling
valve.
6.4 Analysis. Set the column temperature
to 100° C and the detector temperature to 150°
C. When optimum hydrogen and oxygen flow
rates have been determined, verify and
•maintain these flow rates during all
chromatography operations. Using zero
helium or nitrogen as the carrier gas,
establish a flow rate in the range consistent
with the manufacturer's requirements for
satisfactory detector operation. A flow rate of
approximately 40 ml/min should produce
adequate separations. Observe the base line
periodically and determine that the noise
level has stabilized and that base line drift
has ceased. Purge the sample loo,; for 30
seconds at the rate of 100 ml/min, shut off
flow, allow the sample loop pressure to reach
atmospheric pressure as indicated by the H,O
manometer, then activate the sample valve.
Record the injection time (the position of the
pen on the chart at the time of sample
injection), sample number, sample loop
temperature, column temperature, carrier gas
flow rate, chart speed, and attenuator setting.
Record the barometeric pressure. From the
chart, note the peak having the retention time
corresponding to vinyl chloride as .
determined in Section 7.2.1. Measure the
vinyl chloride peak area, Am, by use of a disc
integrator, electronic integrator, or a
planimeter. Measure and record the peak
heights, Hn. Record Am and retention time.
Repeat the injection at least two times or
until two consecutive values for the total area
of the vinyl chloride peak do not vary more
than 5 percent. Use the average value for
these two total areas to compute the bag
concentration.
Compare the ratio of Hm to AD 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 a decimal figure.
(Assume the relative humidity to be 100
percent unless a lesser value is known.)
7. Preparation of Standard Gas Mixtures,.
Calibration, and Quality Assurance
7.1 Preparation of Vinyl Chloride
Standard Gas Mixtures. (Optional
Procedure — delete if cylinder standards are
used.) Evacuate a 16-inch square Tedlar bag
that has passed a leak check (described in
Section 7.3.2) and meter in 5.0 liters of
nitrogen. While the bag is filling, use the 0.5-
ml syringe to inject 250 |il of 99.9+ percent
vinyl chloride gas through the wall of the bag.
Upon withdrawing the syringe, immediately
cover the resulting hole with a piece of
adhesive tape. The bag now contains a vinyl
chloride concentration of 50 ppm. In a like
manner use the 50 jtl 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.)
7.2.1 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
Ill-Appendix B-21
-------
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 that corresponds to vinyl
chloride. Measure the distance on the chart
from the injection time to the time at which
the peak maximum occurs. This quantity
divided by the chart speed is defined as the
retention time. Since other organics may be
present in the sample, positive identification
of the vinyl chloride peak must be made.
7.2.2 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve. Make a GC measurement
of each gas mixture standard (described in
Section 5.2.3 or 7.1) using conditions identical
with those listed in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. Flush
the sampling loop for 30 seconds at the rate
of 100 ml/min with one of the standard
mixtures, and activate the sample valve.
Record the concentration of vinyl chloride
injected (Ce), 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 the analysis of each
emission test set of bag samples, whichever
is more frequent. For each group of sample
analyses, use the average of the two
calibration curves which bracket that group
to determine the respective sample
concentrations. If the two calibration curves
differ by more than 5 percent from their mean
value, then report the final results by both
calibration curves.
7.3 Quality Assurance.
7.3.1 Analysis Audit. Immediately after
the preparation of the calibration curve and
prior to the sample analyses, perform the
analysis audit described in Appendix C.
Procedure 2: "Procedure for Field Auditing
GC Analysis."
7.3.2 Bag Leak Checks. Checking of bags
for leaks is required after bag use and
strongly recommended before bag use. After
each use, connect a water manometer and
pressurize the bag to 5 to 10 cm HiO (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 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 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. At,
as follows:
AC " *!!) Af E9- 106-1
Where:
A."Measured peak area.
Af- Attenuation factor.
8.2 Vinyl Chloride Concentrations. From
the calibration curves described in Section
722, determine the average concentration
value of vinyl chloride, Cc. that corresponds
to AC, the sample peak area. Calculate the
concentration of vinyl chloride in the bag. Cb.
as follows:
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1408, Task
Order No. 2, EPA Report No. 75-VCL-l.
December 13,1974.
3. Midwest Research Institute.
Standardization of Stationary Source
Emission Method for Vinyl Chloride. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-600/
4-77-026. May 1977.
4. Scheil, G. and M.C. Sharp. Collaborative
Testing of EPA Method 106 (Vinyl Chloride)
that Will Provide for a Standardized
Stationary Source Emission Measurement
Method. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. N.C.
Publication No. EPA 600/4-78-058. October
1978.
Eq. 106-2
Where:
P,=Reference pressure, the laboratory
pressure recorded during calibration, mm
T,=Sample loop temperature on the
absolute scale at the time of analysis. 'K.
Pi=Laboratory pressure at time of analysis,
mm rig*
T,=Reference temperature, the sample
loop temperature recorded during
calibration, TC.
BM=Water vapor content of the bag
sample, as analyzed.
9. Bibliography.
1. Brown D.W., E.W. Loy. and M.H.
Stephenson, Vinyl Chloride Monitoring Near
the B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company in
Louisville. KY. Region IV, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Surveillance and Analysis
Division. Athens. GA. June 24.1974.
2. G.D. Clayton and Associates. Evaluation
of a Collection and Analytical Procedure for
Vinyl Chloride in Air. U.S. Environmental
Ill-Appendix B-22
-------
FILTER (GLASSWOOL) TEFLON VACUUM LINE
,SAMPLE LINE
.PROQE
p
STACK WALL
(I
QUICK
CONNECTS
(MALE), -
BALL
CHECKS
=3 NO BALL
CHECKS
FLOW METER
TEOLAROR
ALUMINIZEO
MYLAR BAG
RIGID LEAK-PROOF
CONTAINER
CHARCOAL TUBE
CUV.P
Figure 106-1. Integrated-bag sampling train. (Mention of trade names
or specific products does not constitute endorsement by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.)
Ill-Appendix B-23
-------
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 70
Introduction
Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph (GCJ, nor
by those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling, because knowledge beyond the
.scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of the vinyl chloride
monomer (VCM) content of inprocess
wastewater samples, and the residual vinyl
chloride monomer (RVCM) content of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resins, wet cake,
slurry, and latex samples. It cannot be used
for polymer in fused forms, such as sheet or
cubes. This method is not acceptable where
methods from Section 304(h) of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972
as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)
are required.
1.2 Principle. The basis for this method
relates to the vapor equilibrium that is
established between RVCM, PVC resin,
water, and air in a closed system. The RVCM
in a PVC resin will equilibrate rapidly in a
closed vessel, provided that the temperature
of the PVC resin is maintained above the
glass transition temperature of that specific
resin.
2. Range and Sensitivity. The lower limit of
detection of vinyl chloride will vary
according to the chromatograph used. Values
reported include 1x10"' mg and 4 x 10"7 mg.
With proper calibration, the upper limit may
be extended as needed.
3. Interferences. The chromatograph
columns and the corresponding operating
parameters herein described normally
provide an adequate resolution of vinyl
chloride; however, resolution interferences
may be encountered on some sources.
Therefore, the chromatograph operator shall
select the column and operating parameters
best suited to his particular analysis
requirements, subject to the approval of the
Administrator. Approval is automatic
provided that the tester produces confirming
data through an adequate supplemental
analytical technique, such as analysis with a
different column or GC/mass spectroscopy,
and has the data available for review by the
Administrator.
4. Precision and Reproducibility. An
interlaboratory comparison between seven
laboratories of three resin samples, each split
into three parts, yielded a standard deviation
of 2.63 percent for a sample with a mean of
2.09 ppm, 4.16 percent for a sample with a
mean of 1.66 ppm, and 5.29 percent for a
sample with a mean of 62.66 ppm.
5. Safety. Do not release vinyl chloride to
the laboratory atmosphere during preparation
of standards. Venting or purging with VCM/
air mixtures must be held to a minimum.
When they are required, the vapor must be
routed to outside air. Vinyl chloride, even at
low ppm levels, must never be vented inside
the laboratory. After vials have been
analyzed, the gas must be vented prior to
removal of the vial from the instrument
turntable. Vials must be vented through a
hypodermic needle connected to an activated
charcoal tube to prevent release of vinyl
chloride into the laboratory atmosphere. The
charcoal must be replaced prior to vinyl
chloride breakthrough.
6. Apparatus.
6.1 Sampling. The following equipment is
required:
6.1.1 Glass bottles. 60-ml (2-oz) capacity,
with wax-lined screw-on tops, for PVC
samples.
6.1.2 Glass Vials. 50-ml capacity Hypo-
vial, sealed with Teflon faced Tuf-Bond discs,
for water samples.
6.1.3 Adhesive Tape. To prevent
loosening of bottle tops.
6.2 Sample Recovery. The following
equipment is required:
6.2.1 Glass Vials. With butyl rubber septa,
Perkin-Elmer Corporation Nos. 0105-0129
(glass vials), B001-0728 (gray butyl rubber
septum, plug style), 0105-0131 (butyl rubber
septa), or equivalents. The seals must be
made from butyl rubber. Silicone rubber seals
are not acceptable.
6.2.2 Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to ±0.0001 gram.
6.2.3 Vial Sealer. Perkin-Elmer No. 105-
0106, or equivalent.
6.2.4 Syringe. 100-/il capacity, precision
series "A" No. 010025, or equivalent.
6.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
required:
6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. Perkin-Elmer
Corporation Model F-40, F-42, or F-45 Head-
Space Analyzer, or equivalent. Equipped with
backflush accessory.
6.3.2 Chromatographic Columns. Stainless
steel 1 m by 3.2 mm and 2 m by 3.2 mm, both
containing 50/80-mesh Porapak Q. The
analyst may use other columns provided that
the precision and accuracy of the analysis of
vinyl chloride standards are not impaired and
he has available for review information
confirming that there is adequate resolution
of the vinyl chloride peak. (Adequate
resolution is defined as an area overlap of
not more than 10 percent of the vinyl chloride
peak by an interferent peak. Calculation of
area overlap is explained in Appendix C,
Procedure 1: "Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution.") Two
1.83 m columns, each containing 1 percent
Carbowax 1500 on Carbopak B, have been
suggested for samples containing
acetaldehyde.
6.3.3 Thermometer. 0 to 100° C, accurate
to ±0.1° C, Perkin-Elmer No. 105-0109, or
equivalent.
6.3.4 Sample Tray Thermostat System.
Perkin-Elmer No. 105-0103, or equivalent.
6.3.5 Septa. Sandwich type, for automatic
dosing, 13 mm, Perkin-Elmer No. 105-1008, or
equivalent.
6.3.6 Integrator-Recorder. Hewlett-
Packard Model 3380A, or equivalent.
6.3.7 Filter Drier Assembly (3). Perkin-
Elmer No. 2230117, or equivalent.
6.3.8 Soap Film Flowmeter. Hewlett
Packard No. 0101-0113, or equivalent.
6.3.9 Regulators. For required gas
cylinders.
6.3.10 Headspace Vial Pre-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
Chromatographic grade.
7.1 Analysis. The following items are
required for analysis:
7.1.1 Hydrogen. Zero grade.
7.1.2 Nitrogen. Zero grade.
7.1.3 Air. Zero grade.
7.2 Calibration. The following items are
required for calibration:
7.2.1 Cylinder Standards (4). Gas mixture
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 3-
point calibration curve. It is recommended
that the manufacturer maintain (1) a high-
concentration calibration standard (between
4000 and 8000 ppm) to prepare his calibration
curve by an appropriate dilution technique
and (2) a low-concentration calibration
standard (between 50 and 500 ppm) to verify
the dilution technique used. If the difference
between the apparent concentration read
from the calibration curve and the true
concentration assigned to the low-
concentration calibration standard exceeds 5
percent of the true concentration, the
manufacturer shall determine the source of
error and correct it, then repeat the 3-point
calibration.
7.2.1.2 Verification of Manufacturer's
Calibration Standards. Before using, the
manufacturer shall verify each calibration
standard by (a) comparing it to gas mixtures
prepared (with 99 mole percent vinyl
chloride) in accordance with the procedure
described in Section 7.1 of Method 106 or by
(b) calibrating it against vinyl chloride
cylinder Standard Reference Materials
(SRM's) prepared by the National Bureau of
Standards, if such SRM's are available. The
agreement between the initially determined
concentration value and the verification
concentration value must be within +5
Ill-Appendix B-24
-------
percent. The manufacturer must reverify all
calibration standards on a time interval
consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder
standards sold.
8. Procedure.
8.1 Sampling.
8.1.1 PVC Sampling. Allow the resin or
slurry to flow from a tap on the tank or silo
until the tap line has been well purged.
Extend and fill a 60-ml sample battle under
the tap, and immediately tighten a cap on the
bottle. Wrap adhesive tape around the cap
and bottle to prevent the cap from loosening.
Place an identifying label on each bottle, and
record the date, time, and sample location
both on the bottles and in a log book.
8.1.2 Water Sampling. Prior to use, the 50-
ml vials (without the discs) must be capped
with aluminum foil and heated in a muffle
furnace at 400° C for at least 1 hour to destroy
or remove any organic matter that could
interfere with analysis. At the sampling
location fill the vials bubble-free to
overflowing so that a convex meniscus forms
at the top. The excess water is displaced as
the sealing disc is carefully placed, with the
Teflon side down, on the opening of the vial.
Place the aluminum seal over the disc and
the neck of the vial, and crimp into place.
Affix an identifying label on the bottle, and
record the date, time, and sample location
both on the vials and in a log book. All
samples must be kept refrigerated until
analyzed.
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 obtained
(±0.0001 g) for each sample. In the case of
suspension resins, a volumetric cup can be
prepared for holding the required amount of
sample. When the cup is used, open the
sample bottle, and add the cup volume of
resin to the tared sample vial (tared,
including septum and aluminum cap). Obtain
the exact sample weight, add lOOjil or about
two equal drops of distilled water, and
immediately seal the vial. Report this value
on the data sheet; it is required for
calculation of RVCM. In the case of
dispersion resins, the cup cannot be used.
Weigh the sample in an aluminum dish,
transfer the sample to the tared vial, and
accurately weigh it in the vial. After
prepressurization of the samples, condition
them for a minimum of 1 hour in the 90* C
bath. Do not exceed 5 hours.
Note,—Some aluminum vial caps have a
center section that must be removed prior to
placing into sample tray. If the cap is not
removed, the injection needle will be
damaged.
8.2.2 Suspension Resin Slurry 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 septum and aluminum cap)
•nd seal immediately. Then determine the
•ample weight (±0.0001 g). All samples must
be prepresiurized and then conditioned for 1
hour at 90* C. A sample of wet cake is used to
determine total solids (TS). This is required
for calculating the RVCM.
8.2.3 Dispersion Resin Slurry and Geon
Latex Samples. The materials should not be
filtered. Sample must be thoroughly mixed.
Using a tared vial (tared, including septum
and aluminum cap) add approximately eight
drops (0.25 to 0.35 g) of slurry or latex using a
medicine dropper. This should be done
immediately after mixing. Seal the vial as
soon as possible. Determine sample weight
(±0.0001 g). After prepressurization,
condition the vial for 1 hour at 90° C in the
analyzer bath. Determine the TS on the slurry
sample (Section 8.3.5).
8.2.4 Inprocess Wastewater Samples.
Using a tared vial (tared, including septum
and aluminum cap) quickly add
approximately 1 cc of water using a medicine
dropper. Seal the vial as soon as possible.
Determine sample weight (±0.0001 g).
Prepressurize the vial, and then condition for
1 to 2 hours as required at 90° C in the
analyzer bath.
8.3 Analysis.
8.3.1 Preparation of Equipment. Install the
chromatographic column and condition
overnight at 160° C. In the first operation,
Porapak columns must be purged for 1 hour
at 230° C.
Do not connect the exit end of the column
to the detector while conditioning. Hydrogen.
and air to the detector must be turned off
while the column is disconnected.
8.3.1.1 Flow Rate Adjustments. Adjust
flow rates as follows:
a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 50 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to produce a flow rate of 30.0
cc/min. Accurately measure the flow rate at
the exit end of the column using the soap film
flowmeter and a stopwatch, with the oven
and column at the analysis temperature.
After the instrument program advances to the
"B" (backflush) mode, adjust the nitrogen
pressure regulator to exactly balance the
nitrogen flow rate at the detector as was
obtained in the "A" mode.
b. Vial Prepressurizer Nitrogen. After the
nitrogen carrier is set, solve the following
equation and adjust the pressure on the vial
prepressurizer accordingly.
TI i; pwi-
1J [1--71
- 10 k Pa
Where:
T,=Ambient temperature, °K.
Ti=Conditioning bath temperature. °K.
Pi=Gas chromatograph absolute dosing
pressure {analysis uiuuej, k Pa.
Pw, = Water vapor pressure @ 90° C (525.8
mmHg).
P,,=Water vapor pressure @ 22° C (19.8
mm Hg).
7.50=mm Hg per k Pa.
10 k Pa=Factor to adjust the
prepressurized pressure to slightly less
than the dosing pressure.
Because of gauge errors, the apparatus may
over-pressurize the vial. If the vial pressure is
at or higher than the dosing pressure, an
audible double injection will occur. If the vial
pressure is too low, errors will occur on resin
samples because of inadequate time for head-
space gas equilibrium. This condition can be
avoided by running several standard gas
samples at various pressures around the
calculated pressure, and then selecting the
highest pressure that does not produce a
double injection. All samples and standards
must be pressurized for 60 seconds using the
vial prepressurizer. The vial is then placed
into the 90* C conditioning bath and tested
for leakage by placing a drop of water on the
septum at the needle hole. A clean, burr-free
needle is mandatory.
c. Burner Air Supply. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 50 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply air to burner at a
rate between 250 and 300 cc/min. Check with
bubble flowmeter.
d. Hydrogen Supply. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 30 psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to supply approximately 35 ±
5 cc/min. Optimize hydrogen flow to yield the
most sensitive detector response without
extinguishing the flame. Check flow with
bubble meter and record this flow.
8.3.1.2 Temperature Adjustments. Set
temperatures' as follows:
a. Oven (chromatograph column), 140° C.
b. Dosing Line, 150° C.
c. Injection Block, 170° C.
d. Sample Chamber, Water Temperature,
90° C ± 1.0° C.
8.3.1.3 Ignition of Flame lonization
Detector. Ignite the detector according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
8.3.1.4 Amplifier Balance. Balance the
amplifier according to the manufacturer's
instructions.
8.3.2 Programming the Chromatograph.
Program the chromatograph as follows:
a. I—Dosing or Injection Time. The normal
setting is 2 seconds.
b. A—"Analysis Time." The normal setting
is approximately 70 percent of the VCM
retention time. When this timer terminates.
the programmer initiates backflushing of the
first column.
c. B—Backflushing Time. The normal
setting is double the "analysis time."
d. W—Stabilization Time. The normal
setting is 0.5 min to 1.0 min.
e. X—Number of Analyses Per Sample. The
normal setting is one.
8.3.3 Preparation of Sample Turntable.
Before placing any sample into turntable, be
certain that the center section of the
aluminum cap has been removed. All samples
and standards must be pressurized for 60
seconds by using the vial prepressurizer. The
numbered sample vials should be placed in
the corresponding numbered positions in the
turntable. Insert samples in the following
order
Position 1 and 2—Old 2000-ppm standards
for conditioning. These are necessary only
after the analyzer has not been used for 24
hours or longer.
Petition 3—50-ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
Position 4—500-ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
Ill-Appendix B-25
-------
Position 5—2000-ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
Position 6—4000-ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
Position 7—Sample No. 7 (This is the first
sample of the day, but is given as 7 to be
consistent with the turntable and the
integrator printout.)
After all samples have been positioned.
insert the second set of 50-, 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 TS. For wet cake,
slurry, resin solution, and PVC latex samples,
determine TS for each sample by accurately
weighing approximately 3 to 4 grams of
sample in an aluminum pan before and after
placing in a draft oven (105 to 110° C).
Samples must be dried to constant weight.
After first weighing, return the pan to the
oven for a short period of time, and then
reweigh to verify complete dryness. The TS
are then calculated as the final sample
weight divided by initial sample weight.
9. Calibration. Calibration is to be
performed each 8-hour period when the
instrument is used. Each day, prior to running
samples, the column should be conditioned
by running two 2000-ppm standards from the
previous day.
9.1 Preparation of Standards. Calibration
standards are prepared as follows: Place
lOOjil or about two equal drops of distilled
water in the sample vial, then fill the vial
with the VCM/nitrogen standard, rapidly
seat the septum, and seal with the aluminum
cap. Use a K-in. stainless steel line from the
cylinder to the vial. Do not use rubber or
tygon tubing. The sample line from the
cylinder must be purged (into a properly
vented hood) for several minutes prior to
filling the vials. After purging, reduce the
flow rate to 500 to 1000 cc/min. Place end of
tubing into vial (near bottom). Position a
septum on top of the vial, pressing it against
the H-in. filling tube to minimize the size of'
the vent opening. This is necessary to
mimimize mixing air with the standard in the
vial. Each vial is to be purged with standard
for 90 seconds, during which time the filling
tube is gradually slid to the top of the vial.
After the 90 seconds, the tube is removed
with the septum, simultaneously sealing the
vial. Practice will be necessary to develop
good technique. Rubber gloves should be
worn during the above operations. The sealed
vial must then be pressurized for 60 seconds
using the vial prepressurizer. Test the vial for
leakage by placing a drop of water on the
septum at the needle hole.
9.2 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve.
Prepare two 50-, 500- . 2000- . and 4000-ppm
standard samples. Run the calibration
samples in exactly the same manner as
regular samples. Plot A., (he integrator area
counts for each standard sample, versus Cc,
the concentration of vinyl chloride in each
standard sample. Draw a straight line through
the points derived by the least squares
method.
10. Calculations.
10.1 Response Factor. If the calibration
curve described in Section 9.2 passes through
zero, a response factor, R,, may be used to
compute vinyl chloride concentrations. To
compute a response factor, divide any
particular A, by the corresponding C^
s
. 107-1
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.
T| = Ambient laboratory temperature, °K.
M,=Molecular weight of VCM, 62.5 g/
mole.
V,=Volume of the vapor phase, cm3.
R = Gas constant. (62360 cm,) (mm Hg/
mole) (°K).
m = Sample weight, g.
Kp=Henry's Law Constant for VCM in
PVC @ 90° C, 6.52xlO-'g/g/mm Hg.
If the calibration curve does not pass
through zero, the calibration curve must be
employed to calculate each sample
concentration unless the error introduced by
using a particular R, is known.
10.2 Residual Vinyl Chloride Monomer
Concentration, (Cnc) or Vinyl Chloride
Monomer Concentration. Calculate C™ in
ppm or mg/kg as follows:
AsPa
rvc
'"f '1
M.. V
(TS) T2 + ^ (1 - TS) T2
Eq. 107-2
TS=Total solids expressed as a decimal
fraction.
Ti=Equilibrium temperature, °K.
K,=Henry's Law Constant for VCM in
water @ 90° C, 7 x 10'' 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.
T,=90° Cor 363° K.
A750
fc-'
I
Results calculated using these equations
represent concentration based on the total
sample. To obtain results based on dry PVC
content, divide by TS.
11. References.
1. B.F. Goodrich, Residual Vinyl Chloride
Monomer Content of Polyvinyl Chloride
Resins, Latex, Wet Cake, Slurry and Water
Samples. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Group
Standard Test Procedure No. 1005-E. B.F.
Goodrich Technical Center, Avon Lake, Ohio.
October 8.1979.
2. Beiens. A.R. The Diffusion of Vinyl
Chloride in Polyvinyl Chloride. ACS—
Division of Polymer Chemistry, Polymer
Preprints 15 (2):197.1974.
+ 6.25 x 10'6(TS)(363) + 7.0 x 10"7 (1-TS)(363)
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.). Tomanek.
and J.M. Whitney. Analysis for Vinyl
Chloride in PVC Powders by Head—Space
Gas Chromatography. Journal of Applied
Polymer Science. Jft3169-3172.1975.
5. Mansfield. R.A. The Evaluation of
Henry's Law Constant (Kp) and Water
Enhancement in the Perkin-Elmer Multifract
F-40 Gas Chromatograph. B.F. Goodrich.
Avon Lake, Ohio. February 10.1978.
Ill-Appendix B-26
-------
Method 107A—Determination of Vinyl
Chloride Content of Solvents. Recta-Solvent
Solution, Polyvinyl Chloride Resin, Resin
Slurry, Wet Resin, and Latex Samples 71
Introduction
Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph (GC) or by
those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This is an alternative
method and applies to the measurement of
the vinyl chloride content of solvents, resin
solvent solutions, polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
resin, wet cake slurries, latex, and fabricated
resin samples. This method is not acceptable
where methods from Section 304(h) of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.. (the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 as amended by the
Clean Water Act of 1977) are required.
1.2 Principle. The basis for this method
lies in the direct injection of a liquid sample
into a chromatograph and the subsequent
evaporation of all volatile material into the
carrier gas stream of the chromatograph. thus
permitting analysis of all volatile material
including vinyl chloride.
2. Range and Sensitivity
The lower limit of detection of vinyl
chloride in dry PVC resin is 0.2 ppm. For resin
solutions, latexes, and wet resin, this limit
rises inversely as the nonvolatile (resin)
content decreases.
With proper calibration, the upper limit
may be extended as needed.
3. Interferences
The chromatograph columns and the
corresponding operating parameters herein
described normally provide an adequate
resolution of vinyl chloride. In cases where
resolution interferences ere encountered, the
chromatograph operator shall select the
column and operating parameters best suited
to his particular analysis problem, subject lo
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 8.6 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 wide
polyethylene-lined, screw-on tops.
6.1.2 Adhesive Tape. To prevent
loosening of bottle tops.
6.2 Sample Recovery. The following
equipment is required:
6.2.1 Glass Vials. 20-ml capacity with
polycone screw caps.
6.2.2 Analytical Balance. Capable of .
weighing to ±0.01 gram.
6.2.3 Syringe. SO-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 60/60 mesh. The analyst may use
other columns provided that the
precision and accuracy of the analysis of
vinyl chloride standards are not impaired
and that he has available for review
information confirming that there is
adequate resolution of the vinyl chloride
peak. (Adequate resolution is defined as
an area overlap of not more than 10
percent of the vinyl chloride peak by an
interfering peak. Calculation of area
overlap is explained in Apendix C,
Procedure 1: "Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution.")
6.3.3 Valco Instrument Six-Port Rotary
Valve. For column back flush.
6.3.4 Septa. For chromatograph injection
port.
6.3.5 Injection Port Liners. For
chromatograph used.
6.3.6 Regulators. For required gas cylinders.
6.3.7 Soap Film Flowmeter. Hewlett Packard
No. 0101-0113 or equivalent.
6.4 Calibration. The following equipment is
required:
6.4.1 Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to ±0.0001 g.
6.47 Erienmeyer Flask With Glass Stopper.
125ml.
6.4.3 Pipets. 0.1.0.5,1. 5,10. end 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.
7.12 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 chromatopram with that
shown in Figure 107A-l. If the chromatogram
is comparable to A. the THF should be
spjrged with pure nitrogen for approximately
2 hours using the fritted glass sparger to
attempt to remove the interfering peak.
Reanalyze the sparged THF to determine
whether the THF is acceptable for use. If the
scan is comparable to B. the THF should be
acceptable for use in the analysis.
7.1.5 N. N-Dimethylacetamide (DMAC).
Spectrographic grade. For use in place of
THF.
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.
ft Procedure
6.1 Sampling. Allow the liquid or dried resin
to flow from a tap on the tank, silo, or
pipeline until the tap has been purged.
Fill a wide-mouth pint bottle, and
immediately tightly cap the bottle. Place
an identifying label on each bottle and
record the date, time, sample location.
and material.
6.2 Sample Treatment Sample must be
run within 24 hours.
interfering peak
U 01
O I/I
•M C
U O
(U O.
4-> i/i
OJ
-------
8.2.1 Resin Samples. Weigh 9.00 ± 0.01 g
of THF or DMAC in a tared 20-ml vial. Add
1.00 ± 0.01 g of resin to the tared vial
containing the THF or DMAC. Close the vial
tightly with the screw cap, and shake or
otherwise agitate the vial until complete
solution of the resin is obtained. Shaking may
require several minutes to several hours,
depending on the nature of the resin.
8.2.2 Suspension Resin Slurry and Wet
Resin Sample. Slurry must be filtered using a
small Buchner funnel with vacuum to yield a
wet resin oample..The filtering process must
be continued only as long as a steady stream
of water is exiting from the funnel. Excessive
filtration time could result in some loss of
VCM. The wet resin sample is weighed into a
tared 20-ml vial with THF or DMAC as
described earlier for resin samples (8.2.1) and
treated the same as the resin sample. A
sample of the wet resin is used to determine
total solids as required for calculating the
residual VCM (Section 0.3.4).
8.2.3 Latex and Resin Solvent Solutions.
Samples must be thoroughly mixed. Weigh
1.00 ± 0.01 g of the latex or resin-solvent
solution into a 20-ml vial containing
9.00 ± 0.01 g of THF or DMAC as for the
resin samples (8.2.1). Cap and shake until
complete solution is obtained. Determine the
total solids of the latex or resin solution
sample (Section 8.3.4).
8.2.4 Solvents and Non-viscous Liquid
Samples. No preparation of these samples is
required. The neat samples are injected
directly into the GC.
8.3 Analysis.
8.3.1 Preparation of CC. Install the
chromatographic column, and condition
overnight el 70* C. Do not connect the exit
end of the column to the detector while
conditioning.
3.3.1.1 Flow Rate Adjustments. Adjust the
flow rate as follows:
a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 60 psig. Set column flow
controller on the chromatograph using the
ooap flim flowmeter 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 flowmeter.
c. Hydrogen. Set regulator on cylinder to
read 60 psig. Set regulator on the
chromatograph to supply 30 to 40 cc/min
using the flowmeter. Optimize hydrogen flow
to yield the most sensitive detector response
without extinguishing the flame. Check flow
with flowmeter and record this flow.
d. Nitrogen Back Flush Gas. Set regulator
on the chromatograph using ths soap film
flowmeter to yield a flow rate of 40 cc/min.
8.3.1.2 Temperature Adjustments. Set
temperature as follows:
a. Oven (chromatographic column) at 70° C.
b. Injection Port at 100° C.
c. Detector at 300° C.
8.3.1.3 Ignition of Flame lonization
Detector. Ignite the detector according to the
manufacturer's instructions. Allow system to
stabilize approximately 1 hour.
8.3.1.4 Recorder. Sat pen at zero and start
chart drive.
8.3.1.5 Attenuation. Set attenuation to
yield desired peak height depending on
sample VCM content.
8.3.2 Chromatographic Analyses.
a. Sample 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 microlilers 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 Shutdown. If the
chromatogragph 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 (TS).
For wet resin, resin solution, and PVC latex
samples, determine the TS for each sample
by accurately weighing approximately 3 to 5
grams of sample into a tared aluminum pan.
The initial procedure is as follows:
a. Where water is the major volatile
component: Tare the weighing dish, and add
3 to 5 grams of sample to the dish. Weigh to
the nearest milligram.
b. Where volatile solvent is the major
volatile component: Transfer a portion of the
sample to a 20-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 waighing dish. Recap the vial and
reweigh to the nearest milligram. The vial
weight loss ia 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
ing. 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
Gorcsnt by weight JoppswuaaatQ) oolutica of
vinly chloride in THF 07 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 flash and swirl the
solution to effect complete mixing. Weigh the
stoppered flask to nearest 0.1 mg to
determine the exact amount of vinyl chloride
added.
Pipe! 10 ml of the approximately 1 percent
solution into a ICO-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).
Pipe) SO-. 10-. S-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.1-ml aliquots
of the approximately 1,000 ppm solution into
10 ml glass stoppered volumetric flasks.
Dilute to the 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 Preparalion of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve.
Obtain the GC 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 methods.
10. Calculations
10.1 Response Factor. From the
calibration curve described in Section 9.2.
select the value of Cc that corresponds to Hc
for each sample. Compute the response
factor, Rf, for each sample as follows:
RI= --
H.-
Eq. 107A-1
10.2 Residual vinyl chloride monomer
concentration (Cm) or vinyl chloride
monomer concentration in resin:
Eq. 107A-2
Where:
H,=Peak height of sample, mm.
R,=Chromaiograph response factor.
10.3 Samples containing volatile material,
i.e., resin solutions, wet resin, and latexes:
c^= H. R^l.COO) Eq. 107A-3
TS
10.4 Samples of solvents and in process
wastewater:
H.R, EQ.J07A-3
0.888
Where:
0.888=Specific gravity of THF.
11. Bibliography
1. Communication from R. N. Wheeler. Jr.;
Union Carbide Corporation. Part 81 National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutanto Appendix S, Method 107—
Alternate Method. September 19, 1E77.
Ill-Appendix B-28
-------
Appendix C.—Quality Assurance Procedures
70
Procedure 1—Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution
In this method of dealing with resolution.
the extent to which one chroma lographic
peak overlaps another is determined.
For convenience, consider the range of the
elution curve of each compound as running
from — 2
-------
C /"tz \ /* / a \ /* / \
^\ .(^ )dt - i I tV*" )dx - -2- I.(T)
C b-2o- b-2oe b+2o
5 5 S
ac ac
The following calculation steps are required:*
2. oc = tc/2V2 In 2
3. x, = (b-2as)/ac
4. x2 = (b+2a)/a
5. Q(xt) = -±-
5- Q(x2) = -±-
7- I0 = Q(x,) - Q(x2)
8- Ao=IoAc/As
9. Percentage overlap = AQ x 100 ,
where:
A = Area of the sample peak of interest determined by electronic inte-
gration or by the formula A = h t .
A = Area of the contaminant peak, determined in the same manner as A .
b = Distance on the chromatographic chart that separates the maxima of
the two peaks.
H - Peak height of the sample compound of interest, measured from the
average value of the baseline to the maximum of the curve.
ts = Width of sample peak of interest at 1/2 peak height.
t£ = Width of the contaminant peak at 1/2 of peak height.
o = Standard deviation of the sample compound of interest elution
curve.
o = Standard deviation of the contaminant elution curve.
Q(XI) = Integral of the normal distribution function from xt to infinity.
Q(x2) = Integral of the normal distribution function from x2 to infinity.
I = Overlap integral.
A = Area overlap fraction.
*In most instances, Q(x2) is very small and may be neglected.
Ill-Appendix C-2
-------
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
70 47 FR 39168, 9/7/82 - Appendix B, Test Methods, Revised 106 125
and 107; and Appendix C, Quality Assurance Procedures 1 and
2, Promulgated
71 47 FR 39485, 9/8/82 - Appendix B, Test Methods, Method 107A 136
Promulgated
72 47 FR 42736, 9/29/82 - Delegation of Authority to Lincoln/ 140
Lancaster County Health Department (Nebraska)
73 47 FR 43055, 9/30/82 - Delegation of Authority to States of 141
Arizona, California, Nevada and Territory of Guam
74 47 FR 46085, 10/15/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 146
of Arizona and Delegation of Authority to the State of
Nevada
75 47 FR 46276, 10/18/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 148
of New Jersey
76 47 FR 49969, 11/4/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 149
of New Mexico and Delegation of Authority to the State of
Louisiana
77 47 FR 50863, 11/10/82 - Delegation of Authority to the State 151
of Florida
47 FR 53059, 11/24/82 - Additional Emissions Test Data from
Benzene Storage Vessels
78 47 FR 56626, 12/20/82 - Delegation of Authority to Allegheny 152
County, Pennsylvania
79 48 FR 3734, 1/27/83 - Incorporation by Reference 153
48 FR 15076, 4/6/83 - Proposed Standards for Radionuclides
80 48 FR 20693, 5/9/83 - Delegation of Additional Authority to 155
the State of Texas
IV-ix
-------
Reference Page
48 FR 23665, 5/26/83 - Extension of Comment Period for
for Radionuclides
81 48 FR 28275, 6/21/83 - Delegation of Authority to the State 156
of California and Delegation of Authority to the Maricopa
County Health Department, Arizona
48 FR 32126, 7/13/83 - Proposed Amendments to Asbestos
Standard
48 FR 33112, 7/20/83 - Proposed Standards for Inorganic
Arsenic
82 48 FR 33868, 7/26/83 - Delegation of Additional Authority to 157
the Oklahoma State Department of Health
83 48 FR 36579, 8/12/83 - Delegation of Authority to Connecticut, 158
Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts
48 FR 38009, 8/22/83 - Extension of Public Comment Period for
Proposed Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
48 FR 40911, 9/12/83 - Corrections to Proposed Standards for
Inorganic Arsenic
84 48 FR 41407, 9/15/83 - Delegation of Authority to Hawaii 161
Department of Health
85 48 FR 42815, 9/20/83 - Delegation of Authority to the State 163
of California
86 48 FR 43326, 9/23/83 - Delegation of Authority to the State 164
of California (2 documents)
87 48 FR 46535, 10/13/83 - Delegation of Authority to the State 166
of New York
48 FR 51064, 11/4/83 - Proposed Revision to Method 105,
Determination of Mercury in Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage
Sludges
88 48 FR 54978, 12/8/83 - Delegation of Authority to the State 167
of Missouri
89 48 FR 55266, 12/9/83 - Revisions to Methods 103 and 104 of 168
Appendix B
48 FR 55880, 12/16/83 - Reopening of Public Comment Period
for Proposed Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
IV-x
-------
Reference Page
90 49 FR 4471, 2/7/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State of 173
Louisiana
49 FR 8386, 3/6/84 - Proposed Withdrawal of Proposed
Standards for Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride
Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, and Benzene Storage
Vessels
49 FR 9437, 3/13/84 - Correction to Proposed Withdrawal of
Proposed Benzene Standards
49 FR 10278, 3/20/84 - Reopening of Public Comment Period for
Proposed Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
91 49 FR 13658, 4/5/84 - Promulgation of Amendments to Asbestos 175
Standard
92 49 FR 13875, 4/9/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 183
of Arizona
93 49 FR 13876, 4/9/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 184
of California (3 documents)
94 49 FR 19819, 5/10/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 187
of Iowa
95 49 FR 22283, 5/29/84 - Republication of Addresses of EPA 188
Regional Offices
96 49 FR 23478, 6/6/84 - Regulation of Benzene; Response to 190
Public Comments
97 49 FR 23498, 6/6/84 - National Emission Standards Promulgated 208
for Benzene Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission Sources)
49 FR 23522, 6/6/84 - Proposed Emission Standards for Benzene
Emission from Coke By-Product Recovery Plants
49 FR 23558, 6/6/84 - Withdrawal of Proposed Standards for
Benzene Emissions from Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/
Styrene Plants, and Benzene Storage Vessels
49 FR 23568, 6/6/84 - Proposed Amendments to General Provisions
98 49 FR 23837, 6/8/84 - Subdelegation of Authority to Oklahoma 230
City-County Health Department
99 49 FR 25453, 6/21/84 - Amendments to Asbestos Standard: 231
Corrections
IV-xi
-------
Reference Page
100 49 FR 26229, 6/27/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 231
of Nevada
101 49 FR 26230, 6/27/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 232
of California
102 49 FR 27751, 7/6/84 - Delegation of Additional Authority to 233
the State of Arkansas
103 49 FR 28556, 7/13/84 - Delegation of Authority to the City of 233
Philadelphia
104 49 FR 28708, 7/16/84 - Delegation of Authority to the States 236
of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota and Wisconsin
105 49 FR 28715, 7/16/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 243
of Ohio
49 FR 33695, 8/24/84 - Notice of Availability of New Technical
Information for Proposed Standards for Radionuclides
49 FR 33904, 8/27/84 - Reopening of Public Comment Period for
Proposed Standards for Benzene Emissions from Coke By-Products
Recovery Plants
106 49 FR 35768, 9/12/84 - Revisions to Reference Method 105 and 244
Corrections to Methods 101 and 101A
107 49 FR 35936, 9/13/84 - Supplemental Delegation of Authority to 247
South Carolina
108 49 FR 36368, 9/17/84 - Delegation of Authority to States in 248
Region VIII
49 FR 36877, 9/20/84 - Reopening of Public Comment Period for
Proposed Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
109 49 FR 37064, 9/21/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 250
of New York
110 49 FR 38105, 9/27/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 251
of Arizona (2 documents)
111 49 FR 38106, 9/27/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 252
of Nevada
112 49 FR 38946, 10/2/84 - Corrections to Standard for Benzene 254
Equipment Leaks
IV-xii
-------
Reference Page
113 49 FR 43647, 10/31/84 - Corrections to Standard for Benzene 254
Equipment Leaks
49 FR 43906, 10/31/84 - Withdrawal of Proposed Standards for
Radionuclides
49 FR 43915, 10/31/84 - Standards for Radon-222 Emissions
from Underground Uranium Mines; Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
49 FR 43916, 10/31/84 - Standards for Radon-222 Emissions from
Licensed Uranium Mills; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
114 49 FR 44633, 11/8/84 - Relinquishment of Authority to 255
Tennessee and Delegation of Authority to the State of
Mississippi
115 49 FR 48692, 12/14/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 256
of West Virginia
49 FR 50146, 12/26/84 - Review and Proposed Revision of the
Standards for Mercury From Mercury-Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants,
Sludge Incineration and Drying Plants, and Mercury Ore
Processing Facilities
116 49 FR 50724, 12/31/84 - Delegation of Authority to the State 258
of Florida
IV-xiii
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 133 / Monday, July 12, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
cc: San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District
With respect to San Diego County, all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the San Diego County APCD at the
address shown in 40 CFR Parts 60.4 and
61.4.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, el set?.))
Dated: June 29. 1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
[IK Doc. 82-18685 Filed 7-9-82: 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-U
69
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2165-4]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPA) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of Nevada
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the Clark County Health
District (CCHD). This action is
necessary to bring the NSPS and
NESHAPS program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of NSPS and NESHAPS
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift primary program
responsibility for the affected NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories from EPA
|0 otdtc ailu iCCai
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Jesson; New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-6220. FTS 454-6220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CCHD has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories. A
delegation of authority was granted by
letter dated May 24,1982 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Mr. Michael H. Naylor, P.E..
Director, Air Pollution Control Division,
Clark County Health District, P.O. Box
4426, 625 Shadow Lane. Las Vegas. NV
89106.
Dear Mr. Naylor: I am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS). We have reviewed your request
for delegation and have found your present
programs and procedures to be acceptable.
This delegation includes authority for the
following source categories:
NSPS
General Provisions
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Grain Elevators
Stationary Gas Turbines -
Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface
Coating Operations.
40 CFR Part
SOsubpart
A.
Ka.
DO
GG
HH
MM.
NESHAPS
General Provisions _..
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing .
40 CFH Part
61 subpart
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 tor Petroleum Liquids
NESHAPS
Beryllium
Mercury „
Wry! CWcriis
40 CFR Part
60 subpart
D.
E.
F
1.
K.
L
o
p
Q
R
V
40 CFR Part
61 subpart
B
C.
E
F.
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any 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: Division of Environmental Protection,
Nevada Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the CCHD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
CCHD at the address shown in the letter
of delegation.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1657. et seq.)
Dated: June 29,1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 82-18680 Filed 7-0-82; 8:45 am)
70
40 CFR Part 61
[AD-FRL-2070-8]
Appendix B; Test Methods; Revised
Methods 106 and 107; and Appendix C,
Quality Assurance Procedures 1 and 2;
Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final'rule.
SUMMARY: Revised Test Methods 106
and 107 for vinyl chloride were
proposed :r. the Fcdcrs! Register c"
November 18,1980 (45 FR 76346). This
action promulgates the revised test
methods. The intended effect of this
action is to require all sources of vinyl
chloride specified to conduct emission
tests under Subparts A and F of 40 CFR
Part 61 to hereafter (see effective date
below) use these methods for
determining compliance.
Appendix C, Quality Assurance
Procedures 1 and 2, was proposed in the
Federal Register on April 18,1980 (45 FR
26682). This action promulgates
IV-125
-------
/ Vol. 47, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 7, 1082 / Rules and Regulations
Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix C. The
intended effect of Procedure 1 is to
provide a method for determination of
gas chromatograph (GC) column
resolution, and the intended effect of
Procedure 2 is to provide a method for
auditing GC sample analysis.
©nvs: September 7, 1982.
Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of this
rulemaking is available only by the
filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 80 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under
Action 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.
fl©©BB08E8: Summary of Comments and
Responses. The summary of comments
and responses for the proposed test
methods may be obtained from the U. S.
EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"Revised Test Methods 103 and 107 —
Summary of Comments and Responses,
EPA 450/3-82-002." The document
contains (1) a summary of the changes
made to the test methods since proposal
and (2) a summary of all the public
comments made on the proposed
revised methods and the
Administrator's responses to the
comments.
Docket. A docket, number A-80-50,
containing information considered by
EPA in the development of the test
methods and docket number OAQPS 79-
3 Part 2 that contains background
information pertaining to Appendix C
ore 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.
Roger T. Shigehara, Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-19). U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
2237.
[Public Participation
The revised test methods were
proposed and published in the Federal
Kegistor on November 18, 1980 (45 FR
76346). Public comments were solicited
at the time of proposal. The public
comment period was from November 18,
1980, to January 19,1981, with an
extension to February 19,1981.
Five comment letters were received
concerning issues relative to the
proposed test methods. The comments
have been carefully considered; and
where determined to be appropriate by
the Administrator, changes have been
made in the proposed revisions to the
test methods.
Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix C
were proposed and published in the
Fodteal Kogtoar April 18,1980 (45 FR
29830). Public comments were solicited
at the time of proposal. The public
comment period was from April IB, 1980,
to August 21,1880.
No comment letters were received.
Comments on the proposed revisions
to the test methods were received from
industry, industry counsel, engineering
firms, and equipment manufacturers. A
detailed discussion of these comments
end responses can be found in the
summary of comments and responses
which is referred to in the AE®U208EQ
section of this preamble. The summary
of comments and responses serves as
the basis for the revisions which have
been made to the test methods between
proposal and promulgation. The major
comments and responses are
summarized in this preamble. Most of
the comment letters contained multiple
comments. The comments have been
divided into the following areas:
Proposal of Revised Test Methods 108
and 107
One commenter felt that EPA should
publish a notice in the Fonteal Register
to clarify the November 18,1880, notice
on Test Methods 103 and 107 (45 FR
76346) as to whether the changes in the
methods were proposed or final
amendments. The EPA considered the
suggestion to be reasonable; and a
notice was publiohed in the Fcdbra!
Kogkte on January 8,1881 (<18 FR 1318)
to clarify that the changes in Methods
108 and 107 published on November 18,
1880, were proposed changes.
Sample Analysis Procedure—Method
10S
One commenter suggested that
Section 7.2.2, Preparation of
Chromatograph Calibration Curve, be
changed to require calibration at least
once every 8 hours of continuous
operation of the chromatograph,
whereas the method requires daily
calibration. The EPA has decided it
would be an unnecessary burden to
arbitrarily set 8 hours as a cutoff point
for valid calibration. However, the
comment has identified the need for
instruction in the method as to the use of
multiple calibration curves in data
interpretation, and Section 7.2.2 has
been revised to provide that instruction.
One commenter questioned the use of
Figure 108-2 because it appeared to
illustrate a standards preparation
.procedure different from the one
described in the method. Figure 106-2
did illustrate a different sample
preparation procedure and has been
deleted from the method.
Sample Collection and Analysis
Procedure—Method 107
One commenter questioned the need
for the sample prepressurization
procedure that is included in the revised
test method. The Agency believes the
•prepressurization procedure is valid as
prepressurization of sample vials prior
to analysis has been shown to produce
kp values which agree with theoretical
values. A paper describing a study of
this technique has been added to the
bibliography section of the method as an
aid in the use of this procedure.
Quality Assurance—Method IDS
One commenter requested that
Section 5.2.4, Audit Cylinder Standards,
further describe commercial gas
manufacturers as an alternative source
of these standards. The Agency
considered the request to be reasonable,
and Section 5.2.4 has been revised to
define the acceptability of audit
cylinders obtained from commercial gas
manufacturers.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic 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)J.
This rulemaking does not impose any
additional emission measurement
requirements on facilities affected by
this rulemaking. Rather, this rulemaking
revises the teot methodo to which the
IV-126
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 7, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
affected facilities are already subject.
The revisions do not affect the present
emission standards. If future standards
impose emission measurement
requirements, the impacts of the revised
test methods promulgated today will be
evaluated during development of those
standards.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and. therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices: and there will be no
significant effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of U.S.-
based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets.
The regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
1229).
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b). I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
(Sees. 112.114, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412. 7414. 7601 (a))
Dated: August 24.1982.
John W. Hernandez,
Acting Administrator.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
40 CFR Part 61 is amended by revising
Test Methods 106 and 107 of Appendix B
to read as follows:
Appendix B—Test Methods
Method MB—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 (GC) nor
by those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling, because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. The method is
applicable to the measurement of vinyl
chloride in (tack gases from ethylene
dichloride. vinyl chloride, and polyvinyl
chloride manufacturing processes. The
method does not measure vinyl chloride
contained in participate matter.
1.2 Principle. An integrated bag sample of
stack gas containing vinyl chloride
(chloroethene) is subjected to GC analysis
using a flame ionization detector (FID).
2. Range and Sensitivity
This method is designed for the 0.1 to SO
ppm range. However, common GC
instruments are capable of detecting 0.02 ppm
vinyl chloride. With proper calibration, the
upper limit may be extended as needed.
3. Interferences
The chromatographic columns and the
corresponding operating parameters herein
described normally provide an adequate
resolution of vinyl chloride: however,
resolution interferences may be encountered
on some sources. Therefore, the
chromatograph operator shall select the
column and operating parameters best suited
to his particular analysis requirements. '
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
Approval is automatic, provided that the
tester produces confirming data through an
adequate supplemental analytical technique.
such as analysis with a different column or
GC/mass spectroscopy, and has the data
available for review by the Administrator.
4. Apparatus
4.1 Sampling (see Figure 106-1). The
sampling train consists of the following
components:
4.1.1 Probe. Stainless steel, Pyrex glass, or
Teflon tubing (as stack temperature permits)
equipped with a glass wool plug to remove
particulale matter.
4.1.2 Sample Lines. Teflon. 6.4-mm outside
diameter, of sufficient length to connect
probe to bag. Use a new unused piece for
each series of bag samples that constitutes an
emission test, and discard upon completion of
the test.
4.1.3 Quick Connects. Stainless steel.
male (2) and female (2). with ball checks (one
pair without), located as shown in Figure 106-
1.
4.1.4 Tedlar Bags. 50- to 100-liter capacity.
to contain sample. Aluminized Mylar bags
may be used if the samples are analyzed
within 24 hours of collection.
4.1.5 Bag Containers. Rigid leak-proof
containers for sample bags, with covering to
protect contents from sunlight.
4.1.6 Needle Valve. To adjust sample flow
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 Flowmeter. 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).
4.1.11 Tubing Fittings and Connectors.
Teflon or stainless steel, to assemble
sampling train.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Teflon tubing. 6.4-
mm outside diameter, to connect bag to GC
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.
potentiometric strip chart recorder and 1.0- to
5.0-ml heated sampling loop in automatic
sample valve. The chromatographic system
shall be capable of producing a response i"
0.1-ppm vinyl chloride that is at least as gre;i:
as the average noise level. (Response is
measured from the average value of the basr
line to the maximum of the wave form 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. Procedure 1:
"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 Chromasorb
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 a!
120' C.
4.3.3 Flowmeters (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 toT 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 GC
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-squan
size, with valve: separate bag marked fur
each calibration concentration.
4.4.3 Syrings. 0.5-ml and 50-^1 £<^ lick:
individually calibrated to dispense gaseous
vinvl chloride.
IV-127
-------
/ Vol. 47. No. 173 / Tuesday. September 7. 1882 / Rules and Regulations
4.4.4 Dry Gas Meter, with Temperature
and Pressure Gauges. Singer model DTM-115
with 802 index, or equivalent, to meter
nitrogen in preparation of standard gas
mixtures, calibrated at the flow rate used to
prepare otandards.
S. 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.
9.2.1 Vinyl Chloride. Pure vinyl chloride
gas certified by the manufacturer to contain a
minimum of 69.9 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 69.9+ percent vinyl chloride, the
certification analysis may have been
performed on this supply rather than on each
gas cylinder prepared from this bulk supply.
The date of gas cylinder preparation and the
certified analysis must have been affixed to
the cylinder before shipment from the gas
manufacturer to the buyer.
5.2.2 Nitrogen. Zero grade, for preparation
of standard gas mixtures as described in
Section 7.1.
5.2.3 Cylinder Standards (3). Gas mixture
otandards (50-, 10-, and 5-ppm vinyl chloride
in nitrogen cylinders). The tester may use
cylinder standards to directly prepare a
chromatograph calibration curve as
described in Section 7.2.2, if the following
conditions are met: (a) The manufacturer
certifies the gas composition with an
accuracy of ±3 percent or better (see Section
5.2.3.1). (b) The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by greater
than ±5 percent from the certified value, (c)
The manufacturer affixes the date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride
concentration, end recommended maximum
ohelf life to the cylinder before shipment to
the buyer.
5.2.3.1 Cylinder Standards Certification.
The manufacturer ohall 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 uoe, as a minimum, a
three-point calibration curve. It is
recommended that the manufacturer maintain
(1) a high-concentration calibration standard
(between 50 and 100 ppm) to prepare his
calibration curve by an appropriate dilution
technique and (2) a low-concentration
calibration standard (between 5 and 10 ppm)
to verify the dilution technique used. If the
difference between the apparent
concentration read from the calibration curve
and the true concentration assigned to the
low-concentration calibration standard
exceeds 5 percent of the true concentration,
the manufacturer ohall determine the oource
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 89 mole percent
vinyl chloride) in accordance with the
procedure described in Section 7.1 or (b)
calibrating it against vinyl chloride cylinder
Standard Reference Materials (SRM's)
prepared by the National Bureau of
Standards, if such SRM's are available. The
agreement between the initially determined
concentration value and the verification
concentration value must be within ±5
percent. The manufacturer muot reverify all
calibration otondardo on a time interval
consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder
otandards oold.
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 ohall be identically prepared as
those in Section 5.2.3 (vinyl chloride in
nitrogen cylinders). The concentrations of the
audit cylinder should be: one low-
concentration cylinder in the range of 5 to 20
ppm vinyl chloride 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. Audit cylinders
obtained from a commercial gas
manufacturer may be used provided: (a) the
gas manufacturer certifies the audit cylinder
as described in Section 5.2.3.1, and (b) the gas
manufacturer obtains an independent
analysis of the audit cylinders to verify this
analysis. Independent analysis is defined
here to mean analysis performed by an
individual different than the individual who
performs the gas manufacturer's analysis,
while using calibration standards and
analysis equipment different from those used
for the gas manufacturer's analysis.
Verification is complete and acceptable when
the independent onolyoio concentration is
within ±5 percent of the goo manufacturer's
concentration.
6. Procedure
8.1 Sampling. Aooemble the oample train
QO ahown in Figure 103-1. A bag leak check
ohould have been performed previously
according to Section 7.3.2. Join the quick
connects as illustrated, and determine that all
connection between the bag and Shs probe
are tight. Place the end of the probe Qt the
centroid of the otack and start the pump with
the needle valve adjusted to yield a flow that
will Mil over SO percent of bag volume in the
specific oample period. After allowing
oufficient time to purge the line oeveral times.
change the vacuum line from the container to
the bag and evacuate the bag until the
rotameter indicates no flow. Then repooition
the sample end vacuum lines and begin the
actual oompling. keeping the rate
proportional to the stack velocity. At all
times, direct the gas exiting the rotsmeter
away from campling 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. 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.
8.3 Sample Recovery. With a new piece of
Teflon tubing identified for that bag, connect
a bag inlet valve to the gas chromatograph
oample valve. Switch the valve to receive gas
from the bag through the sample loop.
Arrange the equipment so the sample gas
paoses from the oample valve to 100-ml/min
rotameter with flow control valve followd by
a charcoal tube and a 1-in. H3O pressure
gouge. 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.
8.4 Analysis. Set the column temperature
to 100* C and the detector temperature to 150°
C. When optimum hydrogen and oxygen flow
rates have been determined, verify and
•maintain these flow rates during all
chromatography operations. Using zero
helium or nitrogen as the carrier gas,
establish a flow rate in the range consistent
with the manufacturer's requirements for
oatisfactory 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 cample loop for 30
seconds at the rate of 100 ml/min, shut off
flow, allow the sample loop pressure to reach
atmospheric pressure as indicated by the HiO
manometer, then activate the sample valve.
Record the injection time (the position of the
pen on the chart at the time of sample
injection), sample number, sample loop
temperature, column temperature, carrier gas
flow rate, chart speed, and attenuator setting.
Record the barometeric pressure. From the
chart, note the peak having the retention time
correoponding to vinyl chloride QO
determined in Section 7.2.1. Measure the
vinyl chloride peak area, AO, by uoe of a disc
integrator, electronic integrator, or a
pjoaiaoter. Meaoure and record the peak
heighto, H0. Record AQ and retention time.
Repeat the injection at least two times or
until two consecutive values for the total area
of the vinyl chloride peak do not vary more
than S percent. Use the average value for
these two total areas to compute the bag
concentration.
Compare the ratio of Ha to Aa for the vinyl
chloride oample with the oame ratio for the
standard peak that is clooest in height. If
these ratios differ by more than 10 percent.
the vinyl chloride peak may not be pure
(poooibly acetaldehyde is present) and the
oscondary column ohould be employed (see
Section 4.3.2.2).
9.5 Determination of Bag Water Vapor
Content. Measure the ambient temperature
IV-128
-------
)tof / Vol. <17. No. 173 / Tuesday. September 7. 1882 / Rules and Regulations
and barometric pressure near the bag. From a
water saturation vapor pressure table,
determine and record the water vapor
content of the bag as a decimal figure.
(Assume the relative humidity to be 100
percent unless a lesser value is known.)
7. Preparation of Standard Gas Mixtures..
Calibration, and Quality Assurance
7.1 Preparation of Vinyl Chloride
Standard Gao Mixtures. (Optional
Procedure—delete if cylinder standards are
uoed.) Evacuate a 18-inch square Tedlar bag
that has paooed a leak check (described in
Section 7.3.2) and meter in 5.0 liters of
nitrogen. While the bag is Tilling, uoe the 0.5-
ml syringe to inject 250 pi of 68.0+ percent
vinyl chloride gas through the wall of the bag.
Upon withdrawing the syringe, immediately
cover the resulting hole with a piece of
adhesive tape. The bag now contains a vinyl
cMoride concentration of SO ppm. In a like
manner uoe the SO pi syringe to prepare gas
mixtures having 10- and 5-ppm vinyl chloride
concentrations. Place each bag on a smooth
outface and alternately depress opposite
oides of the bag 50 times to further mix the
Cooes. These gas mixture standards may be
uoed 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 8.4 above. Determine
proper attenuator position. Flush the
oompling 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 opeed, and attenuator setting. Record
packs and detector responses that occur in
the absence of vinyl chloride. Maintain
conditions with the equipment plumbing
arranged identically to Section 8.3, and flush
the sample loop for 30 seconds at the rate of
SCO ml/min with one of the vinyl chloride
calibration mixtures. Then activate the
cample valve. Record the injection time.
Select the peak that corresponds to vinyl
cWorfde. Measure the distance on the chart
from the injection time to the time at which
the peak maximum occurs. This quantity
divWad by the chart opeed is defined as the
rstsntic" £is!9. Since othsr orgenics ni?y b?
preoent in the sample, positive identification
of tlio vinyl chloride peak must be made.
7.2.2 Preparation of Chromatograph
Calibration Curve. Make a CC measurement
of each gas mixture standard (described in
Section 5.2.3 or 7.1) using conditions identical
with those listed in Sections 8.3 and 6.0. 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 (C.), attenuator setting, chart speed,
peak area, sample loop temperature, column
temperature, carrier gas flow rate, end
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 C,. When the other
standard gas mixtures have been similarly
analyzed and plotted, draw a straight line
through the points derived by the least
squares method. Perform calibration daily, or
before and after the analysis of each
emission test set of bag oomples, whichever
is more frequent. For each group of sample
analyses, uoe the average of the two
calibration curves which bracket that group
to determine the respective sample
concentrations. If the two calibration curves
differ by more than 5 percent from their mean
value, then report the final results by both
calibration curves.
7.3 Quality Assurance.
7.3.1 Analysis Audit. Immediately after
the preparation of the calibration curve and
prior to the sample analyses, perform the
analysis audit described in Appendix C.
Procedure 2: "Procedure for Field Auditing
CC Analysis."
7.3.2 Bag Leak Checks. Checking of bags
for leaks is required after bag use and
strongly recommended before bag use. After
each use, connect a water manometer and
pressurize the bag to 5 to 10 cm H0O (2 to 4
in. H0O). Allow to stand for 10 rain. 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 praoourize
the bag to 5 to 10 cm H3O and allow it to
stand overnight. A deflated bag indicates a
leak.) For each sample bag in ito rigid
container, place a rotameter in line between
the bog 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.
3.1 Determine the oample paok orsa. A*.
as follows:
8.2 Vinyl Chloride Concentrations. From
the calibration curves described in Section
7.2.2, determine the average concentration
value of vinyl chloride. Cc. that corresponds
to A,, the sample peak area. Calculate the
concentration of vinyl chloride in the bag. Cb.
as follows:
Eq. 106-2
a. ios-1
Where:
An=Measured peak area.
A,=Attenuation factor.
Where:
P,=Reference pressure, the laboratory
pressure recorded during calibration, mm
HB-
T,=Sample loop temperature on the
absolute scale at the time of analysis, °K.
IP,ccLaboratory pressure at time of analysis,
mmHg.
Tr=Reference temperature, the sample
loop temperature recorded during
calibration, °K.
B^=Water vapor content of the bag
sample, as analyzed.
9. Bibliography.
1. Brown D.W.. E.W. Loy, and M.H.
Stephenson, Vinyl Chloride Monitoring Near
the B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company in
Louisville, KY. Region IV, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Surveillance and Analysis
Division, Athens, GA. June 24.1974.
2. G.D. Clayton and Associttes. Evaluation
of a Collection and Analytical Procedure for
Vinyl Chloride in Air. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park.
N.C. EPA Contract No. 69-O2-1408. Task
Order No. 2, EPA Report No. 75-VCL-l.
December 13,1974.
3. Midwest Research Institute.
Standardisation of Stationary Source
Emission Method for Vinyl Chloride. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. EPA-600/
4-77-028. May 1977.
0. Scheil, G. and M.C. Sharp. Collaborative
Tooting of EPA Method 108 (Vinyl Chloride)
that Will Provide for a Standardized
Stationary Source Emission Measurement
Method. U.S. Environmental Protection
AgaiHiy. SeDzuFch Triangle Park. N.C.
Publication No. EPA flOO/0-78-058. October
1978.
CUUX3 OE32 CC09-CS-C3
IV-129
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 173 / Tuesday, September 7.1982 / Rules and Regulations
FILTER (GLASSWOOL) TEFLON VACUUM LINE
/SAMPLE LINE
»'*-' CONNECTS
JFEMALE)
TEOLAROR
ALUMINIZEO
MYLAR BAG
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.)
IV-130
-------
/ Vol. 47, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 7, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Method 107—Determination of Vinyl Chloride
Content of Inprocass Wastewater Samples,
and Vinyl Chloride Content of Polyvinyl
Chloride Resin. Slurry, Wet Cake, and Latex
Samples
Introduction
Performance of this method should not be
attempted by persons unfamiliar with the
operation of a gas chromatograph (GC). nor
by those who are unfamiliar with source
sampling, because knowledge beyond the
scope of this presentation is required. Care
must be exercised to prevent exposure of
oampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a
carcinogen.
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the measurement of the vinyl chloride
monomer (VCM) content of inprocess
wastewater samples, and the residual vinyl
chloride monomer (RVCMJ content of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resins, wet cake.
slurry, and latex samples. It cannot be used
for polymer in fused forms, such as sheet or
cubes. This method is not acceptable where
methods from Section 304(h) of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972
as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977)
are required.
1.2 Principle. The basis for this method
relates to the vapor equilibrium that is
established between RVCM, PVC resin,
water, and air in a closed system. The RVCM
in a PVC resin will equilibrate rapidly in a
closed vessel, provided that the temperature
of the PVC resin is maintained above the
glass transition temperature of that specific
resin.
2. Range and Sensitivity. The lower limit of
detection of vinyl chloride will vary
according to the chromatograph used. Values
reported include 1x10"' mg and 4 x 10"7 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
oelect 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 2.93 percent for a sample with a mean of
2.09 ppm. 4.16 percent for a sample with a
mean of 1.68 ppm, and 5.29 percent for a
sample with a mean of 62.69 ppm.
5. Safety. Do not release vinyl chloride to
the laboratory atmosphere during preparation
of standards. Venting or purging with VCM/
air mixtures muot be held to n 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-ozj capacity,
with wax-lined screw-on tops, for PVC
samples.
6.1.2 Glass Vials. 50-ml capacity Hypo-
vial, sealed with Teflon faced Tuf-Bond discs,
for water samples.
6.1.3 Adhesive Tape. To prevent
loosening of bottle tops.
6.2 Sample Recovery. The following
equipment is required:
6.2.1 Glass Vials. With butyl rubber septa,
Perkin-Elmer Corporation Nos. 0105-0129
(glass vials). B001-0728 (gray butyl rubber
septum, plug style). 0105-0131 (butyl rubber
septa), or equivalents. The seals must be
made from butyl rubber. Silicone rubber seals
are not acceptable.
6.2.2 Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to ±0.0001 gram.
6.2.3 Vial Sealer. Perkin-Elmer No. 105-
0108, or equivalent.
6.2.4 Syringe. 100-^1 capacity, precision
series "A" No. 010025, or equivalent.
6.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
required:
6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. Perkin-Elmer
Corporation Model F-40, F-42, or F-45 Head-
Space Analyzer, or equivalent. Equipped with
backflush accessory.
6.3.2 Chromatographic Columns. Stainless
steel 1 m by 3.2 mm and 2 m by 3.2 mm, both
containing 50/80-mesh Porapak Q. The
analyst may use other columns provided that
the precision and accuracy of the analysis of
vinyl chloride standards are not impaired and
he has available for review information
confirming that there is adequate resolution
of the vinyl chloride peak. (Adequate
resolution is defined as an area overlap of
not more than 10 percent of the vinyl chloride
peak by an interferent peak. Calculation of
area overlap is explained in Appendix C.
Procedure 1: "Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution.") Two
1.83 m columns, each containing 1 percent
Carbowax 1500 on Carbopak B. have been
suggested for samples containing
acetaldehyde.
6.3.3 Thermometer. 0 to 100* C. accurate
to ±0.1' C, Perkin-Elmer No. 105-0109, or
equivalent.
6.3.4 Sample Tray Thermostat System.
Perkin-Elmer No. 105-0103, or equivalent.
6.3.5 Septa. Sandwich type, for automatic
dosing, 13 mm, Perkin-Elmer No. 105-1003, or
equivalent.
6.3.6 Integrator-Recorder. Hewlett-
Packard Model 3380A, or equivalent.
6.3.7 Filter Drier Assembly (3). Perkin-
Elmer No. 2230117, or equivalent.
6.3.8 Soap Film Flotmeter. Hewlett
Packard No. 0101-0113. or equivalent.
6.3.9 Regulators. 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
Chromatographic grade.
7.1 Analysis. The following items are
required for analysis:
7.1.1 Hydrogen. Zero grade.
7.1.2 Nitrogen. Zero grade.
7.1.3 Air. Zero grade.
7.2 Calibration. The following items are
required for calibration:
7.2.1 Cylinder Standards (4). Gas mixture
otandards (50-. SCO-. 2000- and 4000-ppm vinyl
chloride in nitrogen cylinders). The tester
may use cylinder standards to directly
prepare a chromatograph calibration curve as
described in Section 9.2, if the following
conditions are met: (a) The manufacturer
certifies the gas composition with an
accuracy of ±3 percent or better (see Section
7.2.1.1). (b) The manufacturer recommends a
maximum shelf life over which the gas
concentration does not change by greater
than ±5 percent from the certified value, (c)
The manufacturer affixes the date of gas
cylinder preparation, certified vinyl chloride
concentration, and recommended maximum
shelf life to the cylinder before shipment to
the buyer.
7.2.1.1 Cylinder Standards Certification.
The manufacturer shall certify the
concentration of vinyl chloride in nitrogen in
each cylinder by (a) directly analyzing each
cylinder and (b) calibrating his analytical
procedure on the day of cylinder analysis. To
calibrate his analytical procedure, the
manufacturer shall use, as a minimum, a 3-
point calibration curve. It is recommended
that the manufacturer maintain (1) a high-
concentration calibration standard (between
4000 and 6000 ppm) to prepare his calibration
curve by an appropriate dilution technique
and (2) a low-concentration calibration
standard (between 50 and 500 ppm) to verify
the dilution technique used. If the difference
between the apparent concentration read
from the calibration curve and the true
concentration assigned to the low-
concentration calibration standard exceeds 5
percent of the true concentration, the
manufacturer shall determine the source of
error end correct it, then repeat the 3-poini
calibration.
7.2.1.2 Verification of Manufacturer's
Calibration Standards. Before using, the
manufacturer ohall verify each calibration
standard by (a) comparing it to gas mixtures
prepared (with 69 mole percent vinyl
chloride) in accordance with the procedure
described in Section 7.1 of Method 108 or by
(b) calibrating it against vinyl chloride
cylinder Standard Reference Materials
(SRM's) prepared by the National Bureau of
Standards, if such SRM's are available. The
agreement between the initially determined
concentration veiue and the verification
concentration value must be within -r 5
IV-131
-------
/ Vol. 47. No. 173 / Tuesday. September 7. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
percent. The manufacturer must reverify all
calibration otandards on a time interval
consistent with the shelf life of the cylinder
otandards cold.
8. Procedure.
8.1 Sampling.
8.1.1 PVC Sampling. Allow the resin or
olurry to flow from a tap on the tank or silo
until the tap line has been well purged.
Extend end 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.
Mace an identifying label on each bottle, and
record the date, time, and sample location
both on the bottles and in a log booh.
0.1.2 Water Sampling. Prior to use, the 50-
sal vialo (without the discs) must be capped
with aluminum foil and heated in a muffle
furnace at 400° C for at least 1 hour to destroy
or remove any organic matter that could
teterfsre with onalyoio. At the campling
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 ia carefully placed, with the
Toflon 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
oamples must be kept refrigerated until
analyzed.
GL2 Sample Recovery. Samples must be
run within 24 hours.
3.2.1 Resin Samples. The weight of the
reoin uoed must be between 3.5 and 4.5
grams. An exact weight must be obtained
(±0.0001 g) for each sample. In the case of
suspension resina, a volumetric cup can be
prepared for holding the required amount of
oample. When the cup is used, open the
cample bottle, end add the cup volume of
reoin to the tared sample vial (tared,
including oeptum and aluminum cap). Obtain
the exact sample weight, add ICQjil or about
too equal drops of distilled water, and
immediately seal the vial. Report this value
on the data sheet; it is required for
calculation of RVCM. In the case of
dioperoion resins, the cup cannot be used.
Heigh the sample in on aluminum dish,
transfer the oample to the tared vial, and
accurately weigh it in the vial. After
prepreosurization of the samples, condition
them for a minimum of 1 hour in the 60* C
bath. Do not exceed 5 hours.
N®to*=-§ozae aluminum vial capo have a
center section that must be removed prior to
placing into oample tray. If the cap is not
removed, the injection needle will be
8.2.2 Suspension Resin Slurry and Wet
Coke Sompleo. Bscont the crater from a wet
cake oample. and turn the oample bottle
tspoide down onto a paper towel. Wait for the
crater to drain, place approximately 0.2 to 4.0
G?OSHO of the wet cotte oample in a tarod vial
(tared, including septum and aluminum cap)
and seal immediately. Then determine the
oample weight (±0.0001 g). All samples must
te prapraoourfeod and tfesn conditioned for 1
tear at ED° C A oample of wet cake io uood to
determine total solids (TS). This is required
for calculating the RVCM.
8.2.3 Dispersion Resin Slurry and Geon
Latex Samples. The materials should not be
filtered. Sample must be thoroughly mixed.
Using a tared vial (tared, including septum
and aluminum cap) add approximately eight
drops (0.25 to 0.35 fl) 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 prapreosurization.
condition the vial for 1 hour at 60" C in the
analyzer bath. Determine the TS on the slurry
oample (Section 8.3.5).
8.2.4 Inprocess Waotewater Samples.
Using a tared vial (tared, including oeptum
and aluminum cap) quickly add
approximately 1 cc of water uoing a medicine
dropper. Seal the vial as ooon as possible.
Determine oample weight (±0.0001 g).
Prepreaourize the vial, and then condition for
1 to 2 hours as required at CO* C in the
analyzer bath.
8.3 Analysis.
8.3.1 Preparation of Equipment. Install the
chromatographic column and condition
overnight at 180° C. In the first operation,
Porapak columns must be purged for 1 hour
at 230* C.
Do not connect the exit end of the column
to the detector while conditioning. Hydrogen
and air to the detector must be turned off
while the column is disconnected.
8.3.1.1 Flow Rate Adjuotments. Adjust
flow rates as follows:
a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator on
cylinder to reed SO poig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to produce a flow rote of 30.0
cc/min. Accurately measure the flow rate at
the exit end of the column using the soap film
flowmeter and a stopwatch, with the oven
end column at the analysis temperature.
After the instrument program advances to the
"B" (backflush) mode, adjust the nitrogen
pressure regulator to exactly balance the
nitrogen flow rate at the detector as was
obtained in the "A" mode.
b. Vial Prepressurizer Nitrogen. After the
nitrogen carrier is set, solve the following
equation and adjust the pressure on the vial
prepreosurizer accordingly.
Ti IT
Yj ri
- 10 k Pa
Where:
Ti=Ambient temperature, °K.
Tn=Conditioning bath temperature, °K.
P,=GEB chromatograph aboolute dooing
pressure (analysis mode), k Pa.
P01=Water vapor preooure @ 60° C (S23.3
mmHg).
POO=Water vapor preooure @ 22° C (S0.Q
mmHg).
7.50=mm Hg per k Pa.
10 k Pa=Factor to adjust the
prepreoourised preooure to olightly leoo
than the dooing preooure.
pressure is too low, errors will occur on resin
oamples because of inadequate time for head-
space gas equilibrium. This condition can be
avoided by running several standard gas
oamples 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 SO oeconds using the
vial prepreoourizer. The vial is then placed
into the E0° C conditioning bath and tested
for leakage by placing a drop of water on the
oeptum at the needle hole. A clean, burr-free
needle is mandatory.
c. Burner Air Supply. Set regulator on
cylinder to read SO psig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to oupply air to burner at a
rate between 250 and SOO cc/min. Check with
bubble flowmeter.
d. Hydrogen Supply. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 30 poig. Set regulator on
chromatograph to oupply approximately 35 ±
5 cc/min. Optimize hydrogen flow to yield the
moot sensitive detector reoponae 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 (chrometograph column). 140° C.
b. Dooing Line, 150° C.
c. Injection Block, 170* C.
d. Sample Chamber, Water Temperature,
60° C ± 1.0° C.
8.3.1.3 Ignition of Flame lonization
Detector, lignite the detector according to the
manufacturer's inotructions.
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
oetting io 2 oeconds.
b. A—"Analysis Time." The normal setting
ia approximately 70 percent of the VCM
retention time. When this timer terminates,
the programmer initiates backflushing of the
first column.
c. B—Backfluohing Time. The normal
oetting io double the "analysis time."
d. W—Stabilisation Time. The normal
oetting is 0.5 min to 1.0 min.
B. X—Number of Analyoeo Per Sample. The
normal oetting io one.
0.3.3 Preparation of Sample Turntable.
Before placing any sample into turntable, be
certain that the center oection of the
aluminum cap has been removed. All samples
and otandardo muot be presourised for SO
oeeeads by uoing the via! prepreasuriser. Ths
numbered oample vials should be placed in
the corresponding numbered positions in the
turntable. Inoert oamples in the following
order:
Pooition 1 and 2—Old 20SO-ppm otandards
for conditioning. These are necessary only
after the analyser has not been used for 24
bouro or longer.
Pooition 3—SO-ppm otandard, freohly
over-preaaurise the vial. If the vial preooure io
at or higher than the dosing preooure, an
audible double injection will occur. If the vial
Ptooition «—SDO-ppm otandard. froohly
IV-132
-------
Ksgisd®? / Vol. 47, No. 173 / Tuesday, September 7, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Position 5—2000-ppm standard, freshly
prepared.
Position 6—4COO-ppm standard, freshly-
prepared.
Position 7—Sample No. 7 (This is the first
sample of the day, but is given as 7 to be
consistent with the turntable and the
integrator printout.)
After all samples have been positioned.
insert the second set of 50-. 5CO-, 2000-, and
CDOT-ppm standards. Samples, including
standards, must be conditioned in the bath of
£0° G for 1 hour (not to exceed 5 hours).
8.3.4 Start Chromatograph Program. When
all samples, including standards, have been
conditioned at 60° C for 1 hour, start the
analysis program according to the
manufacturer's instructions. These
instructions must be carefully followed when
otarting and stopping a program to prevent
damage to the dosing assembly.
3.3.5 Determination of TS. For wet cake,
olurry, resin solution, and PVC latex samples,
determine TS for each sample by accurately
weighing approximately 3 to 4 grams of
cample in an aluminum pan before and after
placing in a draft oven (105 to 110° C).
Samples must be dried to constant weight.
After first weighing, return the pan to the
oven for a short period of time, and then
reweigh to verify complete dryness. The TS
are then calculated as the final sample
weight divided by initial sample weight.
9. Calibration. Calibration is to be
performed each 8-hour period when the
instrument is used. Each day. prior to running
samples, the column should be conditioned
by running two 2000-ppm standards from the
previous day.
9.1 Preparation of Standards. Calibration
standards are prepared as follows: Place
lOOfil or about two equal drops of distilled
water in the sample vial, then fill the vial
with the VCM/nitrogen standard, rapidly
seat the septum, and seal with the aluminum
cap. Use a &-in. stainless steel line from the
cylinder to the vial. Do not use rubber or
tygon tubing. The sample line from the
cylinder must be purged (into a properly
vented hood) for several minutes prior to
filling the vials. After purging, reduce the
flow rate to 500 to 1000 cc/min. Place end of
tubing into vial (near bottom). Position a
septum on top of the vial, pressing it against
the %-in. filling tube to minimize the size of'
the vent opening. This is necessary to
mimimize mixing air with the standard in the
viol. Each vial is to be purged with standard
for 60 seconds, during which time the filling
tube is gradually slid to the top of the vial.
After the £0 seconds, the tube is rcrr.o'.'cd
with the septum, simultaneously sealing the
vial. Practice will be necessary to develop
good technique. Rubber gloves should be
worn during the above operations. The sealed
vial must then be pressurized for 60 seconds
using the vial prepressurizer. Test the vial for
leakage by placing a drop of water on the
oeptum 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 Ao.jhe integrator area
counts for each standard sample, versus Cc.
the concentration of vinyl chloride in each
standard oample. Draw a straight line through
the points derived by the least squares
method.
10. Calculations.
10.1 Reojtonce Factor. If the calibration
curve described in Section 9.2 passes through
sero, a response factor, R,, may be used to
compute vinyl chloride concentrations. To
compute a response factor, divide any
particular As by the corresponding C,.
Eq. 107-1
Where:
A0=Chromatograph area counts of vinyl
-
rvc
+ K (TS)
Results calculated using these equations
represent concentration based on the total
sample. To obtain results based on dry PVC
content, divide by TS.
11. References.
1. B.F. Goodrich. Residual Vinyl Chloride
Monomer Content of Polyvinyl Chloride
Resins, Latex, Wet Cake, Slurry and Water
Samples. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Group
Standard Test Procedure No. 1C05-E. B.F.
Goodrich Technical Center, Avon Lake, Ohio.
October 6,1979.
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
Gas Chromatography. journal of Applied
Polymer Science. Jft3168-3172.1975.
5. Mansfield. R.A. The Evaluation of
Henry's Law Constant (Kp) and Water
Enhancement in the Perkin-Elmer Multifract
F-90 Gas Chromatograph. B.F. Goodrich.
Avon Lake, Ohio. February 10,1878.
40 CFR Part 61 is amended by adding
Appendix C as follows:
Appandix C.—Quality Aoouremca Procedures
chloride for the sample.
P0=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.
Vc=Volume of the vapor phase, cm'.
R = Gas constant. (62360 cm,) (mm Hg/
mole) (°K).
m = Sample weight, g.
Kp=Henry's Law Constant for VCM in
PVC @80° C, 6.52xlO~'g/g/mm Hg.
If the calibration curve does not pass
through zero, the calibration curve must be
employed to calculate each sample
concentration unless the error introduced by
using a particular K, is known.
10.2 Residual Vinyl Chloride Monomer
Concentration, (C,,,) or Vinyl Chloride
Monomer Concentration. Calculate €„, in
ppm or mg/kg as follows:
T2 +
(1 = TS) T2
Eq. 107-2
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
TS = Total solids expressed as a decimal
fraction.
T,=Equilibrium temperature, °K.
KCT=Henry's Law Constant for VCM in
water @ 90° C, 7 x 10"' g/g/mm Hg.
Assuming the following conditions are met.
these values can be substituted into Equation
107-2:
P0=750mmHg.
Va=Vial volume—sample volume (Fisher
vials are 22.0 cm9and Perkin-Elmer vials
are 21.8 cm3).
T,=23' Cor 288° K.
T,=80° C or 363° K.
-7
„ ,0
Procadure 1—Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution
In this method of dealing with resolution.
the extent to which one chromalographic
peak overlaps another is determined.
For convenience, consider the range of the
elution curve of each compound as running
from —2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 173 / Tuesday, September 7,1982 / Rules and Regulations
b+2a
^f :(a=4(^L4(^L
Vffio- J JlfiJ -JS\J
g b-2os b-2ag b+2os
~°T ~
The following calculation steps are required:*
1. 2os = ts/^2 In 2
2. oc = tc/2V2 In 2
3. xt = (b-2o$)/oc
4. x2 = (b+2os)/oc
5.
6. Q(x2) = -±:
peaks are separated by a known distance, b.
one can determine the fraction of the area of
one curve that lies within the range of the
other. The extent to which the elution curve
of a contaminant compound overlaps the
curve of a compound that is under analysis is
found by integrating the contaminant curve
over the limits b-2tr, to b+2
-------
4. Guaranteed arrival date for
cylinders
. 5. Planned shipping date for
6. Details on audit cylinders from last
analysis
4L OH* Of ItSl gutyM
b. CyfMw f-yntwr
d Audit ottfttj'bttaf* pn
•. AudM ots(M) ppm
Low cone
Hptconc.
Part B.—lo be filled out by audit
supervisor.
1. Process sampled
2. Audit location-
3. Name of individual audit-
4. Audit date
5. Audit results:
Low cone.
HiQh cone.
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 173 / Tuesday. September 7. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
In judging the suitability of alternate GC
columns or the effects of altering
chromatographic conditions, one can employ
the area overlap as the resolution parameter
with a specific maximum permissible value.
The use of Gaussian functions to describe
chromatographic elution curves is
widespread. However, some elution curves
are highly asymmetric. In cases where the
•ample peak is followed by a contaminant
that has a leading edge that rises sharply but
the curve then tails off, it may be possible to
define an effective width for t, as "twice the
distance from the leading edge to a
perpendicular line through the maxim of the
contaminant curve, measured along a
perpendicular bisection of that line."
Procedure 2—Procedure for Field Auditing
GC Analysis
Responsibilities of audit supervisor and
analyst at the source sampling site include
the following:
A. The audit supervisor verifies that audit
cylinders are stored in a safe location both
before and after the audit to prevent
vandalism.
B. At the beginning and conclusion of the
audit, the analyst records each cylinder
number and pressure. An audit cylinder is
never analyzed when the pressure drops
below 200 psi.
C. During the audit, the analyst performs a
minimum of two consecutive analyses of
each audit cylinder gas. The audit must be
conducted to coincide with the analysis of
source test samples, normally immediately
after GC calibration and prior to sample
analyses.
D. At the end of audit analyses, the audit
supervisor requests the calculated
concentrations from the analyst end
compares the results with the actual audit
concentrations. If each measured
concentration agrees with the respective
actual concentration within ±10 percent, he
directs the analyst to begin analyzing source
samples. Audit supervisor judgment and/or
supervisory policy determine action when
agreement is not within ±10 percent. When a
consistent bias in excess of 10 percent is
found, it may be possible to proceed with the
sample analysis, with a corrective factor to
be applied to the results at a later time.
However, every attempt should be made to
locate the cause of the discrepancy, as it may
be misleading. The audit supervisor records
each cylinder number, cylinder pressure (at
the end of the audit), and all calculated
concentrations. The individual being audited
must not under any circumstance be told
•cilia! audit conc£ntTaUcn» unti! Calculated
concentrations have been submitted to the
audit supervisor.
Field Audit Report
Part A.—To be filled out by organization
supplying audit cylinders.
1. Organization supplying audit sample(s)
and shipping address
•. Cytndar number
b. Cylinder praam Mam wait.
p*L,
c. Cylinder prawn alter aud&
d. Meaeured concentration, ppm
Infection »r Injection «•
Average
•. Actual audit concentration, pom
(P»rt A. 6e)
f. Audit .oeumcy:'
Low Cone. Cylinder
High Cone. Cylinder
Percent' accuracy-
Manured Cone. —Actual Cone.
0. Probterm detected (H any..
Actual Cone.
-4 I'"
-«100
'Rasult* ol two conucuttm Injector* out meet t»
•ample analysis criteria ol the Hal method.
IP* Doc. S2-Z4SS1 Filed
WS«m]
2. Audit supervisor, organization, and
phone number
3. Shipping instructions: Name, Address,
Attention
IV-135
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 174 / Wednesday, September 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
71 40CFRPart61
[AD-FRL-211S-7J
Appendix B; Test Methods; Method
107A
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Test Method 107A for vinyl
chloride was proposed in the Federal
Register on February 12,1981 (46 FR
12188). This action promulgates the test
method. The intended effect of this
action is to allow all sources of vinyl
chloride specified to conduct emission
tests under Subparts A and F of 40 CFR
Part 61 to hereafter (see effective date
below) use this method for determining
compliance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8,1.982.
Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of this test
method is available only by the filing of
a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of today's
publication of this rule. Under Section
. 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, the .
requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
bought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
ADDRESSES: Summary of Comments and
Responses. The summary of comments
and responses for the proposed test
method may be obtained from the U.S.
EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
'Test Method 107A—Summary of
Comments and Responses, EPA-450/3-
82-004." The document contains a
summary of all the public comments
made on the proposed method and the
Administrator's response to the
comments.
Docket. A docket, number A-80-37,
containing information considered by
EPA in the development of this test
method, is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (A-130), West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401M Street,
S\V., Washington. D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger T. Shigehara, Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-19), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
2237.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:.
Public Participation
The test method was proposed and
published in the Federal Register on
February 12,1981 (46 FR 12188). A public
hearing was scheduled for March 26,
1981, but was not held since no one
requested to speak. Public comments
were solicited at the time of proposal.
The public comment period was from
February 12.1981, to April 13,1981.
Seven comment letters were received
concerning issues relative to the
proposed test method. The comments
have been carefully considered, and it
was determined that no changes were
necessary in the proposed test method.
Significant Comment to the Proposed
Test Method
Comments on the proposed test
method were received from industry,
industry counsel, engineering firms, and
equipment manufacturers. A detailed
discussion of these comments and
responses can be found in the summary
of comments and responses, which is
referred to in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble. The major comments
and responses are summarized in this
preamble. The comments have been
divided into the following areas:
Prior Approval of Method 107A
One commenter felt that Method 107A
is very similar to methods in use before
the regulation containing Method 107
was promulgated in 1977, and a great
deal of time and money could have been
saved had Method 107A been permitted
originally.
The commenter apparently failed to
recognize that Part 61 of Title 40, CFR,
provides for approval by the
Administrator of methods which have
been demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction to produce
results adequate for determination of
compliance. Method 107 is an automated
analytical technique that is best suited
for the high-volume quality control
analyses that are an integral part of
most polyvinyl chloride facilities, but for
those who may prefer to use another
method, that option has always been a
possibility.
Safety of Method 107A
One commenter stated that due to the
hazards involved, the Agency should not
recommend the use of pure vinyl
chloride to prepare liquid calibration
standards. Furthermore, due to the
availability of standard reference
materials from the National Bureau of
Standards, the commenter believes that
the accuracy of commercially prepared
IV-136
-------
Esgisteir / Vol. 47. No. 174 / Wednesday, September 8, 1982 / Rules and-Regulations
gaseous vinyl chloride mixtures is
probably far superior to any liquid
standards prepared by the procedure
described in the proposed method.
The Agency recognizes the need to
exercise great caution in the use of pure
vinyl chloride in Section 5, Safety, and
Section 9.1, Preparation of Standards.
Liquid standards are an integral part of
the method, and gas standards would
add considerable cost to the method
without increasing the accuracy to a
significant or necessary degree.
Citation of Brand Name "Products
A manufacturer of gas
chromatographs and accessories
objected to the citations of brand name
products (Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.7), and
suggested they be replaced with generic
equivalents. In their opinion, many
potential method users will never
question a particular brand selection if
one is cited.
While this may be true, most method
users find it helpful to know which
particular brand has been shown to
produce satisfactory results. However,
'as the EPA does not have the capability
to screen all products to determine
acceptability, it believes the best course
of action is to leave the method users
the option to choose some other brand
by adding the phrase "or equivalent" to
each brand product cited.
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to identify and
locate documents readily so that they
can intelligently and effectively
participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the statement of basis and
purpose of the proposed and
promulgated test methods and EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket will serve as the
record in case of judicial review
(Section 307(d}(7j{Ajj.
Miscellaneous
This rulemaking does not impose any
additional emission measurement
requirements on facilities affected by
this rulemaking. Rather, this rulemaking
allows the use of an alternative test
method. If future standards impose
different emission measurement
requirements, the impacts of the
alternative test method promulgated
today will be evaluated during
development of these standards.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices; and there will be no
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic or export markets. This
regulation was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review
as required by Executive Ordet 12291.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because the rule does not
impose any additional requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
Sec. 113. 114, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7414, 7601(a))
Dated: August 24,1882.
John W. Hernandez, Jr.,
Acting Administrator.
Secton 81.87{g) and Appendix B of 40
CFR Part 61 are amended as follows;
1. By adding a sentence to § 61.67(g)
as follows:
§ 61.87 Emission (Goto.
* * a * *
(g) * * * alternative is withdrawn.
Whenever Test Method 107 is specified,
and the conditions in Section 1.1,
"Applicability" of Method 107A are met,
Method 107A may be used.
* a ft ft
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 174 / Wednesday. September 8. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
6.1.2 Adhesive Tape. To prevent
loosening of bottle tops.
6.2 Sample Recovery. The following
equipment is required:
6.2.1 Glass Vials. 20-ml capacity with
polycone screw caps.
6.2.2 Analytical Balance. Capable of .
weighing to ±0.01 gram.
6.2.3 Syringe. 50-microliter size, with
removable needle.
6.2.4 Fritted Glass Sparger. Fine porosity.
6.2.S Aluminum Weighing Dishes.
6.2.6 Sample Roller or Shaker. To help
dissolve sample.
6.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
required:
6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. Hewlett
Packard Model 5720A or equivalent.
6.3.2 Chromatograph Column. Stainless
steel. 6.1 m by 3.2 mm, packed with 20
percent Tergitol E-35 on Chromosorb W
AW 60/80 mesh. The analyst may use
other columns provided that the
precision and accuracy of the analysis of
vinyl chloride standards are not impaired
and that he has available for review
information confirming that there is
adequate resolution of the vinyl chloride
peak. (Adequate resolution is defined as
an area overlap of not more than 10
percent of the vinyl chloride peak by an
interfering peak. Calculation of area
overlap is explained in Apendix C,
Procedure 1: "Determination of Adequate
Chromatographic Peak Resolution.")
6.3.3 Valco Instrument Six-Port Rotary
Valve. For column back flush.
6.3.4 Septa. For Chromatograph injection
port.
6.3.5 Injection Port Liners. For
Chromatograph used.
6.3.6 Regulators. For required gas cylinders.
6.3.7 Soap Film Flowmeter. Hewlett Packard
No. 0101-0113 or equivalent.
6.4 Calibration. The following equipment is
required:
6.4.1 Analytical Balance. Capable of
weighing to ±0.0001 g.
6.4.2 Erlenmeyer Flask With Glass Stopper.
125ml.
6.4.3 Pipets. 0.1. 0.5,1, 5.10, and 50 ml.
6.4.4 Volumetric Flasks. 10 and 100 ml.
7. Reagents
Use only reagents that are of Chromatograph
grade.
7.1 Analysis. The following items are
required:
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
spgrged with pure nitrogen for approximately
2 hours using the fritted glass sparger to
attempt to remove the interfering peak.
Reanalyze the sparged THF to determine
whether the THF is acceptable for use. If the
scan is comparable to B, the THF should be
acceptable for use in the analysis.
7.1.5 N. N-Dimethylacetamide (DMAC).
Spectrographic grade. For use in place of
THF.
* interfering peak
Time, minutes
Figure 107A-1
7.2 Calibration. The following item is
• required:
7.2.1 Vinyl Chloride 99.9 Percent. Ideal Gas
Products lecture bottle, or equivalent. For
preparation of standard solutions.
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 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. Sample must be
run within 24 hours.
8.2.1 Resin Samples. Weigh 9.00 ± 0.01 g
of THF or DMAC in a tared 20-ml vial. Add
1.00 ± 0.01 g of resin to the tared vial
containing the THF or DMAC. Close the vial
tightly with the screw cap, and shake or
otherwise agitate the vial until complete
solution of the resin is obtained. Shaking may
require several minutes to several hours,
depending on the nature of the resin.
6.2.2 Suspension Resin Slurry and Wet
Resin Sample. Slurry must be filtered using a
small Buchner funnel with vacuum to yield a
wet resin sample. .The filtering process must
be continued only as long as a steady stream
of water is exiting from the funnel. Excessive
filtration time could result in some loss of
VCM. The wet resin sample is weighed into a
tared 20-ml vial with THF or DMAC as
described earlier for resin samples (8.2.1) and
treated the same as the resin sample. A
sample of the wet resin is used to determine
total solids as required for calculating the
residual VCM (Section 8.3.4).
8.2.3 Latex and Resin Solvent Solutions.
Samples must be thoroughly mixed. Weigh
1.00 ± 0.01 g of the latex or resin-solvent
solution into a 2Q-ra! via! containing
9.00 ± 0.01 g of THF or DMAC as for the
resin samples (8.2.1). Cap and shake until
complete solution is obtained. Determine the
total solids of the latex or resin solution
sample (Section 8.3.4).
8.2.4 Solvents and Non-viscous Liquid
Samples. No preparation of these samples is
required. The neat samples are injected
directly into the GC.
8.3 Analysis.
8.3.1 Preparation of CC. Install the
chromatographic column, and condition
overnight at 70° C. Do not connect the exit
end of the column to the detector while
conditioning.
8.3.1.1 Flow Rate Adjustments. Adjust the
flow rate as follows:
a. Nitrogen Carrier Gas. Set regulator on
cylinder to read 60 psig. Set column flow
controller on the Chromatograph using the
soap flim flowmeter to yield a flow 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 flowmeter.
c. Hydrogen. Set regulator on cylinder to
read 60 psig. Set regulator on the
Chromatograph to supply 30 to 40 cc/min
using the flowmeter. Optimize hydrogen flow
to yield the most sensitive detector response
without extinguishing the flame. Check flow
with flowmeter and record this flow.
d. Nitrogen Back Flush Gas. Set regulator
on the Chromatograph using the soap film
flowmeter to yield a flow rate of 40 cc/min.
8.3.1.2 Temperature Adjustments. Set
temperature as follows:
a. Oven (chromatographic column) at 70° C.
b. Injection Port at 100° C.
c. Detector at 300° C.
8.3.1.3 Ignition of Flame 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 Attenuation. Set attenuation to
yield desired peak height depending on
sample VCM content.
8.3.2 Chromaiographic 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 (needie
uppermost), eject 40 microliters into an
absorbent tissue. Wipe needle with tissue.
Now inject 10 microliters into Chromatograph
system. Repeat the injection until two
consecutive values for the height of the vinyl
chloride peak do not vary more than 5
percent. Use the average value for these two
peak heights to compute the sample
concentration.
b. Back Flush. After 4 minutes has elapsed
after sample injection, actuate the back flush
valve to purge the first 4 feet of the
chromatographic column of solvent and other
high boilers.
IV-138
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 174 / Wednesday, September 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
c. Sample Data. Record on the
chromatograph strip chart the data from the
sample label.
d. Elution Time. Vinyl chloride elutes at 2.8
minutes. Acetaldehyde elutes at 3.7 minutes.
Analysis is considered complete when chart
pen becomes stable. After 5 minutes, rsset
back Hush valve and inject next sample.
8.3.3 Chromatograph Servicing.
a. Septum. Replace after five sample
injections.
b. Sample Port Liner. Replace the sample
port liner with a clean spare after five sample
injections.
c. Chromatograph Shutdown. If the
chromatogragph has been shut down
overnight, rerun one or more samples from
the preceding day to test stability and
precision prior to starting on the current day's
work.
8.3.4 Determination of Total Solids (TS).
For wet resin, resin solution, and PVC latex
samples, determine t)ie TS for each sample
by accurately weighing approximately 3 to 5
grams of sample into a tared aluminum pan.
The initial procedure is as follows:
a. Where water is the major volatile
component: Tare the weighing dish, and add
3 to 5 grams of sample to the dish. Weigh to
the nearest milligram.
b. Where volatile solvent is the major
volatile component: Transfer a portion of the
sample to a 20-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
vinly chloride in THF or DMAC by bubbling
vinyl chloride gas from a cylinder into a tared
125-ml glass-stoppered flask containing THF
or DMAC. The weight of vinyl chloride to be
added should be calculated prior to this
operation, i.e.. 1 percent of the weight of THF
or DMAC contained in the tared flask. This
must be carried out in a laboratory hood.
Adjust the vinyl chloride flow from the
cylinder so that the vinyl chloride dissolves
essentially completely in the THF or DMAC
and is not blown to the atmosphere. 1'ake
particular care not to volatize any of the
solution. Stopper the flask and swirl the
solution to effect complete mixing. Weigh the
stoppered flask to nearest 0.1 mg to
determine the exact amount of vinyl chloride
added.
Pipe! 10 ml of the approximately 1 percent
solution into a 100-ml glass-stoppered
volumetric flask, and add THF or DMAC to
fill to the mark. Cap the flask and invert 10 to
20 times. This solution contains
approximately 1,000 ppm by weight of vinyl
chloride (note the exact concentration).
Pipe! 50-. 10-. 5-, 1-, 0.5-, and 0.1-ml aliquots
of the approximately 1,000 ppm solution into
10 ml glass stoppered volumetric flasks.
Dilute to the 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 bott'f s, and mus'. be renewed
every 3 months.
9.2 Preparation of Chromutognjph
Calibration Curve.
Obtain the GC 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
chromalogram of each solution versus the
known concentration. Draw a straight line
through the points derived by the least
squares methods.
10. Calculations
10.1 Response Factor. From the
calibration curve described ir. Section 9.2.
select the value of Ce that corresponds to Hc
for each sample. Compute the response
factor, R,, for each sample as follows:
R(= — - Eq. 107 A-l
10.2 Residual vinyl chloride monomer
concentration (C,.,.) or vinyl chloride
monomer concentration in resin:
Crw=10H,R, Eq. 107A-2
Where:
H.=Peak height of sample, mm.
Ri=Chroma!ograph response factor.
10.3 Samples containing volatile material,
i.e., resin solutions, wet resin, and latexes:
C^- _H» RfCl.OOO) Eq. 107A-3
TS
10.4 Samples of solvents and in process
wastewater:
Eq. 107 A-l
0.8B8
Where:
0.888=Specific gravity of THF.
11. Bibliography
1. Communication from R. N. Wheeler, Jr.;
Union Carbide Corporation. Part 61 National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Appendix B, Method 107—
Alternate Method, September 19, 1977.
(FR Doc. 82-24530 Filed 9-7-82: &45 am)
IV-139
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 189 / Wednesday. September 29. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
72
40 CFR Part* 60 and 61
IA-T-FRL 2217-1J
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPSfc Delegation of
Authority to Lincoln/Lancaster County
Health Department (Nebraska)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The EPA is today amending
40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04, Address, to
reflect a delegation of authority to
Nebraska's Lincoln/Lancaster County
Health Department for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAPS).
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29.1082.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve A. Kovac, Air Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region VII, 324 East llth Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; 816/374-6525; FTS
758-6525.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control has subdelegated authority to
implement and enforce the federal NSPS
regulations for 32 stationary source
categories and national emission
standards for four hazardous air
pollutants to the Lincoln/Lancaster
County Health Department. The
amended 40 CFR 60.4(b)(CC) and
B1.04(b)(CC) adds the address of the
county health department to which all
reports, requests, applications,
Bubmittals, and communications to the
Administrator, as required by 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61, must also be addressed.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry. Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants. 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.
40CFRPart81
Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury. Vinyl chloride.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making (his rulemaking effective
immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
burdens are imposed upon the parties
affected.
The delegation which influenced this
amendment was effective on August 5.
1982, and it serves no purpose to delay
technical change of this address in the
Code of Federal Regulations. This
rulemaking is effective immediately, end
is issued under the authority of Section
111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 7412.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Dated: September 14. 1982.
William W. Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator. Region Vll.
PART 60— STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
In § 60.4. paragraph (b)(CC) is
amended by adding the following
address after the existing address:
§60.4 Address.
(CC) * * *
Lincoln-Lancaster County Health
Department, Division of Environmental
Health, 2200 St. Marys Avenue, Lincoln.
Nebraska 68502.
PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Part 61 of Chapter i, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
In i 61.04, paragraph (b)(CC) is
amended by adding the following
address after the existing address:
{ 61.04 Addrecs.
(CC) * * *
Lincoln-Lancaster County Health
Department, Division of Environmental
Health, 2200 St. Marys Avenue, Lincoln.
Nebraska 68502. |
• • • . • *
(FR Dot 82-JMM Fifed 9~a-a& MS W>)
IV-140
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 190 / Thursday. September 30. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
73
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2217-2]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
States of Arizona, California, and
Nevada and Territory of Guam
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; notice of delegation.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) to
various State and local air pollution
control agencies in Region 9. This action
is necessary to bring the NSPS and
NESHAPS program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of NSPS and NESHAPS
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift primary program
responsibility for the affected NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories from EPA
to State and local governments.
DATES: The regulations are amended to
reflect these delegations effective
September 27.1982.
The delegations are effective on the
dates listed in the Supplementary
Information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following state and local air pollution
control agencies have requested
authority for delegation or redelegation
of certain NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories. Delegation or redelegations
of authority were granted to the
following agencies and are effective as
listed below:
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Effective Date: July 19, 1982.
New Delegation
NESHAPS
Vinyl Chloride
40 CFR
panel
subpart
Redelegation
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing...
40 CFR
part 61
subparl
Del Norte County Air Pollution Control
District (APCDj
Effective Date: September 6,1982.
New Delegation
NSPS
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations.
40 CFR
part 60
subparl
A.
Da
Ka
CC
GG
MM.
PP
NESMAPS
Redelegation
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
40 CFR
subpart
A. .
40 CFR
part 60
subpart
O.
NSPS
Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants
Nttnc Acid Plants
SuDuric Add Plants
Asphalt Concrete plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass * Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smelters
Primary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
West process Phosphonc Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Add Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Triple Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
Iron and steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
Kraft Pulp Mills
Grain Elevators ,
Lime Manufacturing Plants
40 CFR
pan 60
subpal
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O
P.
io.
.JR.
i S.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB
00.
NESHAPS
40 CFR
part 61
subpart
Asbestos
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride...
Fresno County APCD
Effective Date: June 21,1982.
New Delegation
NSPS
Kraft Pulp Mills
Ume Manufacturing plants
40 CFR
part 60
suopart
A
BB
DD
HH
NESHAPS
General Provisions...
Vinyl Chloride
40 CFR
part 61
subpan
Great Basin Unified APCD
Effective Date: August 16,1982.
IV-141
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No'. 190 / Thursday. September 30. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
New
Delegation
NSPS
Iron and Stool Plants (Electric Aic Furnaces)
40CFR
PfflfO
subpart
AA.
NESHAPS
Asbestos
'Ben/Hum _ _
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firtng
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride
40CFR
part 61
eutapan
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
NESHAPS
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firtng
Vinyl Chloride
40CFH
part 61
subpart
B
C
D
E
f.
Humboldt County APCD
Effective Date: September 6,1902.
Redelegation
Kern County APCD
Effective Date: July 19.1982.
New Delegation
General Provisions A
General Provisions A.
Electric Utility Steam Generators Da.
Petroleum Storage Vessels Ka
Glass Manufacturing Plants „ CC.
Stationary Gas Turbines — j GG.
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating | MM
Operations.
Ammonium Surf ate.
j
PP.
NESHAPS
General Provisions..
Redelegation
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Acid Plants
Sulfuric Add Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids —
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass A Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smelters
Pnmary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Triple Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities... —
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces).—
Kraft Pulp Mills ..._
Grain Elevators*.
Lime Manufacturing Plants
40CFR
part 60
subpsrt
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB.
DO.
HH.
NESHAPS
General Provisions..
40CFR
part61
subpart
Redelegation
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators _
Electric Utility Steam Generators
Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Acid Plants
Surhmc Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Petroleum Storage Vessels
Secondary Lead Smelters „
Secondary Brass A Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smelters
Primary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Diammonium phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Triple Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Giangutai Triple Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants »
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
Kraft Pulp Mills '
Glass Manufacturing Plants
Grain Eelvators
Stationary Gas Turbines
Lime Manufacturing Plants
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coat-
Ing.
Ammonium Sullate Manufacturing
40CFR
part 60
subpart
D.
Da.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Ka.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
O.
R.
S.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB.
CC.
DO.
GG.
HH.
MM.
PP.
Kings County APCD
Effective Date: August 16.1982.
New Delegation
NSPS
Kraft Pulp Mills BB
Grain Elevators DO.
Lime Manufacturing Plants | HH.
Luke County APCD
Effective Date: August 16,1982.
New Delegation
40CFR
part 60
NSPS
40CFR
part 60
subpart
General Provisions
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
Incinerators i E
Portland Cement Plants I F.
Nitric Acid Plants i G.
Sutfuric Acid Plants I H
Asphalt Concrete Plants ; I.
Petroleum Refineries i J.
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids ! K.
Secondary Lead Smelters | L.
Secondary Brass A Bronze Ingot Production j M.
Plants. I
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) I N.
Sewage Treatment Plants j O.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants ; T.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: i
Superphosphoric Acid Plants j U
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: i
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Triple Superphosphate Plants ,
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate
lion and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
V.
W
NESHAPS
40CFR
part 61
subpan
A
B
C
D
E
IV-142
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 190 / Thursday. September 30. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Madera County APCD
Effective Date: September 6,1982.
New Delegation
NSPS
Primary Copper Smellers
Primary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Alumium Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Oiammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Triple Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
Iron and Steel Plants (Elecric Are Furnaces)..
Kraft Pulp Mills
Grain Elevators
Lime Manufacturing Plants
NESHAPS
Vinyl Chloride
40CFR
part 60
subpan
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB.
00.
HH.
40CFH
part 61
subpart
NESHAPS
40CFR
part 61
subpart
Redelegation
NSPS
Redelegation
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
rncenerators
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Add Plants
Sulturic Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass & Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smelters
Primary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants ;....
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Wat Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Oiammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Triple Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Fumances)....
40CFR
part 60
subpart
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
NESHAPS
V»iyl Chloride .
40CFR
part 6-,
subpan
A
F.
Redelegation
NSPS
40CFR
i pan 63
| subpan
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Acid Plants
Sulfuric Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Secondary. Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smelters
Primary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters :
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Triple Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
i
.; D.
if.
.' G.
., H.
•I'-
W.
X.
Y.
jl.
NESHAPS
Beryllium
40CFR
part 61
subpan
B
c
0
E
Mendocino County APCD
Effective Date: September 6,1982.
Delegation
NESHAPS
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
Vinyl Chloride
40CFR
pan 61
subpan
B
C
0.
E
p
Northern Sonoma Country APCD
Effective Date: September 6,1982.
New Delegation
NESHAPS
Mercury
40CFR
pan 61
subpan
B
c
D
E
Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Effective Date: June 21.1982.
New Delegation
NSPS
Electric Utility Steam Generators
Kraft Pulp Mills
Automobile A Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations.
40CFR
part 60
subpan
A
Da.
Ka
BB.
CC
DO.
GG
HH.
MM.
PP.
NSPS
Electric Utility Steam Generators
Kraft Pulp Mills
Stationary Gas Turbines
Automobile i Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations.
Ammonium Surfata
40CFR
part 60
•i+tnart
A.
Da
Ka.
BB
CC
GG
HH
MM.
PP.
NSPS
40CFR
part 60
subDart
A.
NESHAPS
40CFR
pan 61
subpan
A.
IV-143
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 190 / Thursday, September 30, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Redelegation
NSPS
Sewage Treatment Plants
40 cm
pan eo
•ubpart
— - — -
E
F.
I
K
O
NESHAPS
Asbftstos
Berydtum
Beryteum Rocket Motor firing
Vinyl Chloride
Son Jooquin County APCD
40 CFR 40 CFR
pan 61 NESHAPS part 61
aubpart subpari
B. Asbestos B
C. Berytlium C
0. Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing D
E. Mercury E
Son Luis Obispo APCD
m-j F.ffprtive Datp: SRntemhnr fi. Ifift2.
New Delegation
New Delegation
NESHAPS
Asbestos
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing..
Mercury
40CFH
part 61
Sacramento County APCD
Effective Date: September 27,19B2.
New Delegation
NESHAPS
Mercury
40CFR
part 61
subpan
San Bernardino County APCD
Effective Date: September 6. 1982.
New Delegation
NSPS
I 40CFR
panso
I subpan
Fossil-Fuel Fired Sleam Generators ! D
Inctnerators j E
Portland Cement Plants ! F.
Nitric Acid Plants ! G.
Syiiu-c Acid Plants ! H
spfiai! Concrete Plants ! I.
J
K.
L
M
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels lor Petroleum Liquids
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) N
Sewage Treatment Plants O
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants I T.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: |
Superphosphate Acid Pianis i u
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Triple Superphosphate Plants W.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate X.
Coa' Preparation Plants _ Y.
iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces) AA
NSPS
.
General Provisions
Electric Utihty Steam Generators
Petroleum Storage Vessels
Glass Manutactunng Plants
Grain Elevators
40CFR
pan 60
subpan
A.
Da
Ka
CC.
DD.
Stationary Gas Turbines GG
Automobile and Ughl-Outy Truck Surface Coal- ! MM.
ing Operations
Ammonium Sullate j PP.
NESHAPS
General Provisions..
40CFR
panel
subpan
Redelegation
NSPS
40CFR
pan 61
subpan
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators D.
Incinerators E.
Portland Cement Plants F.
Nitric Acid Plants G
Sulturic Acid Plants H.
Asphalt Concrete Plants I.
Petroleum Refineries _ J.
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids K
Secondary Lead Smelters L.
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production M
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) ! N
Sewage Treatment Plants - I O.
Primary Copper Smelters | P.
Primary Zinc Smelters j O.
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: j
Triple Superphosphate Plants W
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry;
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
U.
V.
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
Kraft Pulp Mills - -
Lime Manufacturing Plants -
X
V.
z.
AA.
BB
HH.
NSPS
40CFR
part 60
subpari
General Provisions A.
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators ; D.
Electric Utility Sleam Generators ' Da
Incinerators i E.
Portland Cement Plants j F
Nitric Acid Plants G
Sulfuric Acid Plants „ H
Asphalt Concrete Plants I.
Petroleum Refineries i J
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum Liquids | K.
Secondary Lead Smelters i Ka
Secondary Lead Smelters L.
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production ! M.
Plants. |
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) ; N
Sewage Treatment Plants. j 0
Primary Copper Smelters... i P.
Primary Zinc Smelters , O.
Primary Lead Smelters R
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants S
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry j
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants T
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: {
Superphosphoric Acid Plants j U.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. i
Diammonium Phosphate Plants V
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: j
Triple Superphosphate Plants i w.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: i
Granular Triple Superphosphate I X.
Coal Preparation Plants I V.
Ferroalloy Production Facilities I Z
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces) ( AA
Kraft Pulp Mills ' BB
Glass Manufacturing Plants j CC.
Grain Elevators i DD.
Stationary Gas Turbines j GG.
Lime Manulacturing Plants ! HH
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coat- i MM.
ing Operations. I
Ammonium Sulfate | PP.
NESHAPS
A.
General Provisions -_
Asbestos j B.
Beryllium i C
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing • D.
Mercury ! E.
Vinyl Chloride j F
Santa Barbara APCD
Effective Date: June 21.1982.
IV-144
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 190 / Thursday. September 30, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
>lew Delegation
NESHAPS
40CFR
panel
tubpart
B.
Shasta County APCD
Effective Date: August 16. 1982.
New Delegation
NSPS
Kraft Pulp Mills
Lime Manufacturing Plants
40CFR
part 60
subparl
BB.
DD.
HH.
NSPS
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) „
Pl'vmuy Copper Smelters ......
Prima/y Zinc Smelters „.
Primary Load Smelters ,
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants „
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Diammomum Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
40CFB
part 60
sutapan
M.
N.
o.
p.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
X
V.
z.
AA.
NESHAPS
NESHAPS
Vinyl Chloride « ..
40 CFR
part 61
aubpart
F.
Asbestos .. .
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
Mercury _ _
Vinyl Chloride
40CFR
panel
subpart
B.
C.
0.
E.
F
NSPS
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plant*
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
SiKierphosphcnc Acid Plants..... -
Phosphate Feiuluer Industry:
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizor Industry:
Phosphate Fortiszer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Iron and Steel plants (Electric Arc Fumances)
Kraft Pulp Mills
Grain Elevators _
40CFR
pert 60
subpart
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
Y.
Z.
AA.
BB.
00.
NESHAPS
General Provisions „ -
Asbestos . —
Beryllium
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing _ __
40CFR
part 61
subpart
A.
B.
C.
0.
E.
F.
Territory of Guam
Trinity County APCD
Effective Date: September 6,1982.
New Delegation
Tulare County APCD
Effective Date:
New Delegation
Effective Date:June 21,1982.
New Delegation
NSPS
Electric Utility Steam Generators,
Petroleum Storage Vessels ..«..,.„ „_ ........
Kraft Pulp Milts
Glass Manufacturing Plants „
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coal-
ing Operations.
NESHAPS
40CFR
pan 60
subpart
A.
Da.
Ka.
BB
CC.
DD
GG
HH
MM.
PP
40CFR
panel
subparl
A.
NSPS
Electric UtJhty Steam Generators
Stationary Gas Turbines _
Lime Manufacturing Plants ,.....'_.........«...........
Lead-Add Battery Manufacturing Plants
Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations.
Ammonium Sulfate
40CFR
part 60
subpart
A.
Oa
Ka
CC.
GG.
HH.
KK.
MM.
NN.
PP.
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators _
Portland Cement Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
40CFH
part 60
subpart
A
0.
F.
|
J.
K
State of Nevada
Effective Date: July 19,1982.
New Delegation
Redelegation
Redelegation
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
Portland Cement Plants «»_».....—.•.. ..».««».
Sutfuric Acid Plants s „,,--.„ ,
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries -.. _...-™.«».
&wyt Ytitfts for Ptlrottum 1 hjuMt
fttfn^rtgfv Lead Smdttn
40CFR
part 60
subpart
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
K.
L
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fred Steam Generators
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Acid Plants „. ..
Sutfuric Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plants m..™..«_™.........
Secondary Lead Smetters - «
Secondary Brass & Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Steal Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants.
Primary Zinc Smelters - —
Primary Lead Smelters -...„
Primacy Aluminum Reduction Plants ...«„. ..............
4CCFE
pan 60
subpart
D.
E.
F
G.
H.
1.
J.
K.
L
M.
N.
O.
P
0.
R.
S.
NSPS
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants.....
40CFR
part 60
subpat
KK.
NN
Pursuant to NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations, sources are required to
submit all required reports to the state
or local agency that has jurisdiction over
the source, and to EPA.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seg.))
IV-145
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 190 / Thursday, September 30, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
last of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry. Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants. Glass and glass products. Grains,
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead.
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants. Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum. Phosphate, Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid plants,
Waste treatment and disposal. Zinc.
40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control, Asbestos.
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
Dated: September 17.1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Subparts A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
1. Sections 60.4(b)(D) and 61.04(b)(D)
are each amended by adding the
address of the State of Arizona to read
as follows:
§§ 60.4 Address and 61.04 Address.
* * * * *
(b) ' * *
(D) Arizona: Arizona Department of
Health Services, 1740 West Adams
Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007.
• * * * *
2. Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F)
are each amended by revising the
addresses of the following Air Pollution
Control Districts to read as follows:
§§ 60.4 Address and 61.04 Address.
« * * * *
(fa)'**
(V) ' * *
Fresno County Air Pollution Control
District, 1221 Fulton Mall, Fresno, CA
93721.
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution
Control District, 157 Short Street.
Suite 6, Bishop, CA 93514.
Kern County Air Pollution Control
District, 1601 H Street, Suite 250.
Bakersfield, CA 93301.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution
Control, 1164 Monroe Street, Suite 10.
Salinas, CA 93906.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District, 315 Camino del
Rimedio, Santa Barbara, CA 93110.
*****
3. Section 60.4(b) is amended by
adding subparagraph (AAA) to read as
follows:
§60.4 Address.
• * * * *
(b)' ' *
(AAA) Territory of Guam: Guam
Environmental Protection Agency, Post
Office Box 2999, Agana, Guam 96910.
« * ' * * *
|KR Due. B2-26R37 Filed 9-20-82: &4S am|
74
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
IA-9-FRL 2227-7]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
• National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of Nevada
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the Nevada Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources
(NDCNR). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of NSPS
and NESHAPS categories. This action
does not create any new regulatory
requirements affecting the public. The
effect of the delegation is to shift
primary program responsibility for the
affected NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1.1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA. Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-6236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
NDCNR has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories. A
delegation of authority was granted by
letter dated March 22.1982 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Mr. Richard Serdoz.
Division of Environmental Protection,
Nevada Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources. 201 South Fall Street.
Carson City, NV
Dear Mr. Serdoz: 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
Electric utility steam generators
Storage vessels tor petroleum liq-
uids
Kraft pulp mills
Glass manutacturing plants
Lime manutactunng plants
Automobile and light duty truck
surface coating operations.
Ammonium suftate _..
«0 CFR Part 60 Subpal
Da.
Ka.
BB
cc.
00.
GG.
HH.
MM.
PP.
NESHAPS
Asbestos
Be*yllium... . . .
Berytlum rochet motor fifing
Mercury ...
Vinyl chloride
40 CFR Pan 61 Subpan
B
c
D.
E
f
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
IV-146
-------
/ Vol. 47. No. 200 / Friday. October 15. 1982 / Rules end Regulations
notice from you of any objections within 10
dayo of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Fsdbsal Rsgiolar in the near future.
Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the NDCNR, all reports.
applications, submittals. and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
NDCNR at the address shown in the
letter of delegation.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq.))
Dated: October 1,1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
Subpart A of Part 61 of Chapter I, Title
<80 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
1. Section 61.04(b)(DD) is amended by
adding the address of the Nevada
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, to read as follows:
§ §1.04 Addrooo.
t> a « a a
(b) • • •
(DD) ' * *
O 6 ft * ft
Nevada Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources. Division of Environmental
Protection, 201 South Fall Struct, Carson City,
NV 89710.
(TO Doc. BZ-28420 Filed lu-14-62: 8:43 om|
KUJMO COOS OSSO-50-a
0® CFR! Parts SO and 61
[A-6-FRL 2227-51
Klera Souire®
Matttonal Emission
Air Pollutaimte JMESMAPS);
: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACT00M: Notice of delegation.
v: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
authority to the Arizona Department of
Health Services (ADHS). This action is
necessary to bring .the NSPS and
NESHAPS program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of NSPS and NESHAPS
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift primary program
responsibility for the affected NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories from EPA
to State and local governments.
EFFEGT1WE BOTH: April 1, 1982.
NSPS
!MF@RK!AY«©M CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose. New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel: (415) 974-8236. FTS 454-S236.
ADHS has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS source categories. A
delegation of authority was granted by
letter dated March 22, 1982 and is
reproduced in its entirety as follows:
Dr. fames E. Sarn.
Arizona Department of Health Services, 1740
West Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ
Dear Dr. Sarn: 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 Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS}. We have reviewed your request
for delegation and have found your present
programs and procedures to be acceptable.
This delegation includes authority for the
following source categories:
NSPS
Fossil-fuel filed deem generators...
Portland cement plants
Storeys vessels lor patrc&um Cq-
uido.
Secondary teed smetlera
Secondary braso fl bronze ingot
production plants.
Iron and sled plants (BOPF)
Sawaga treatment plants.
Primary aluminum reduction
plants.
Phosphate fertilizer industry: act
process phosphoric acid plants.
Phosphate fertilizer Industry: cu-
psrphospnonc cod plenlo.
Phosphate fertilizer industry:
dicmmorcum phosphate ptonlo.
Phocphota tcrUiza Industry: trtjjia
superphosphate plants.
Phosphate fertilizer Industry:
granular trtjjio oupsrphaaphate.
Fcrnx£oj (BOSwtan fcaxISco
40 CFR Pert 60 Subpart
D.
E
F.
G
H
|
J
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
p
Q
R
S.
T.
U.
V. .
W.
X.
v
z.
Iron end otss) ptantn (etectiic etc
fumecea).
Kraft pu!p m£o ......................... ~ .......
Grcm eisvatcro. — ......... . .................
Lino itcnutecturmg ptonto.....
40 CFR Part 60 Subpcn
DO.
GG.
HH.
NESHAPS
Asbastoo ...................................
Befyltum .................................. .
Bejytum roctei matoi foinn...
Vinyl chlorate..
40 CFR Part 61 Subpsrt
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. The
delegation is effective upon the date of this
letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Fadarol Ragiotas- in the near future.
Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
/lugional Administrator.
With respect to areas under the
jurisdiction of the ADHS, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the ubove
listed NSPS and NESHAPS sourer-
categories should be directed to the
ADHS at the address shown in the letter
of delegation.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
(Sees. Ill and 112, Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq))
Dated: October 1,1982.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
Subpart A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
§ 80.4 and 81.04 [Amondod]
1. Sections 60.4(b)(D) and 61.04(b)(O)
are each amended by adding the
address of the Arizona Department of
Health Services to read as follows:
6 ft a o a
(b) « • '
(D) * * *
IV-147
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October IB. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Arizona Department of Health Services.
1740 West Adama Street, Phoenix. AZ 85007.
• • • * •
|FR Doc. 82-28430 Piled 10-14-82:1:45 «m|
WLUNOCOOC MM-60-*
75
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
IA-2-FRL2229-2)
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
the State of New Jersey
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Delegation of
Authority.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
delegation of authority by the
Environmental Protection Agency to the
State of New Jersey to implement and
enforce additional source categories of
the Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) and portions
of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
This delegation was requested by the
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection.
NSPS and NESHAPS are air pollution
control requirements set under the Clean
Air Act. NSPS are applicable to certain
categories of new air pollution sources.
NESHAPS require the control of certain
hazardous pollutants from both new and
existing sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective
October 18.1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francis W. Giaccone. Chief, Air
Facilities Branch, Air & Waste
Management Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II Office, 26
Federal Plaza, New York, New York
10278(212)264-9627
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
lll(c) of the Clean Air Act directs the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate
EPA's authority to implement and
enforce Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources (NSPS) to any
state which has submitted adequate
procedures. Section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act provides similar direction with
respect to National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS). In both instances, the
Administrator retains concurrent
authority to enforce the standards
following delegation of authority to a
state.
On September 30.1981 the
Commissioner of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) requested that the EPA delegate
to that Department the authority to
implement and enforce certain
additional source categories of NSPS
and NESHAPS. The following is a
complete listing of NSPS and NESHAPS
delegated to the DEP. The source
categories now being delegated by
today's action are identified with an
asteriskf*).
NSPS {40 CFR Part 60)
D—Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
for Which Construction
Commenced After August 17,1971 •.
*Da—Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units for Which Construction
Commenced After September IB.
1978
E—Incinerators
F—Portland Cement Plants
G—Nitric Acid Plants
H—Sulfuric Acid Plants
1—Asphalt Concrete Plants
J—Petroleum Refineries—(All
Categories)
K—Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids Constructed After June 11,
1973 and Prior to May 19,1978
*Ka—Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids Constructed After May 18,
1978
L—Secondary Lead Smellers
M—Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot
Production Plants
N—Iron and Steel Plants
O—Sewage Treatment Plants
P—Primary Copper Smelters
Q—Primary Zinc Smelters
R—Primary Lead Smelters
S—Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
T—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet
Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
U—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants
V—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
W—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple
Superphosphate Plants
X—Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Storage Facilities
Y—Coal Preparation Plants
Z—Ferroalloy Production Facilities
AA—Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
*BB—Kraft Pulp Mills
*CC—Glass Manufacturing Plants
*DD—Grain Elevators
*GG—Stationary Gas Turbines
*HH—Lime Plants
*MM—Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations
*PP—Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture
*KK—Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing
Plants
*NN—Phosphate Rock Plants
NESHAPS (40 CFR Part 61)
B—Asbestos (manufacturing, spraying.
fabricating, insulating, waste
disposal from above operations)
C—Beryllium (all categories)
D—Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing (all
categories)
E—Mercury (all categories)
F—Vinyl Chloride (all categories)
NESHAPS (40 CFR 81 Subpartj
B—Asbestos
*—manufacturing
'—spraying
*—fabricating
*—insulating
*—waste disposal from above
operations
C—Beryllium (all categories)
D—Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing (all
categories)
E—Mercury (all categories)
*F—Vinyl Chloride (all categories)
IV-148
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 201 / Monday. October 18. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
EPA's Findings
The authority and procedures which
the Department would use for program
implementation and enforcement were
outlined in correspondence with the
Commissioner and the General Counsel
of the DEP. Copies of this
correspondence and EPA's delegation
letter are available for public inspection
in the Office of the Air Facilities Branch
at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II Office, 26 Federal Plaza, New
York. New York 10278.
EPA's determination that the
delegation request should be approved
is based on the Agency's review of the
New Jersey Air Pollution Control Act
N.J.S.A. 26:2C; the State Public Records
Act. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1; and Title 7
Chapters 27 and 27B of the New Jersey
Administrative Code. Specifically,
N.J.S.A. 26:9C-9.2 provides that no one
shall construct or operate a source
capable of causing the emission of an air
contaminant without obtaining a valid
installation or alteration permit from the
DEP. These permits must incorporate
"advances in the art of air pollution
control developed for the kind and
amount of air contaminant emitted
* * *." EPA determined that such
delegation is, therefore, appropriate and
so notified the Commissioner of the
DEP, in a letter dated June 22,1982. This
letter identified the conditions under
which delegation would be made. DEP,
in a letter dated August 5,1982.
requested that the EPA approve minor
revisions to some of the conditions for
delegation. EPA approved these
modifications in a September 8,1982
letter to the Commissioner of the DEP.
Consequences of EPA's Action
Effective immediately, all
correspondence, reports and
notifications required by the delegated
NSPS and NESHAPS should be
submitted to the Offices of the New
Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection located at John Fitch Plaza.
CN027, Trenton, New Jersey, 08625.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12991.
(Sees. Ill and 112 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411 and 7412))
Dated: October 1,1982.
Jacqueline E. Schafer,
Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 82-28572 Filed 10-15-62: 8:45 ami
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
76
[A-6-FRL 2238-5]
40CFRPart61
Delegation of Authority to the State of
New Mexico for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6, has delegated
the authority for implementation of the
administrative and technical review
portions of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) program to the New Mexico
IV-149
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 214 / Thursday, November 4. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Improvement Division
(NMEID). Except as specifically limited,
all of the authority and responsibilities
of the Administrator or the Regional
Administrator which are found in 40
CFR Part 61 are delegated to the NMEID.
Any of such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the Department to its staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 30, 1982.
ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
and State-EPA«greement for delegation
of authority are available for public
inspection at the Air Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 6,'First International Building,
28th Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas,
Texas 75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William H.Taylor, Air Branch, EPA,
address above, Telephone: (214) 767-
9873.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
December 20,1980, the State of New
Mexico requested EPA, Region 6, to
delegate authority to the NMEID for the
implementation of the NESHAP
program. After a thorough review of the
request and information submitted, the
Regional Administrator determined that
the State's pertinent laws, rules, and
regulations of the NMEID were found to
provide an adequate and effective
procedure for the implementation of the
administrative and technical review
portions of the NESHAP program. EPA,
Region 6, retains enforcement authority,
as requested by the State, over NESHAP
subject sources constructed or modified
in the State of New Mexico.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
Effective immediately, sources
locating in the State of New Mexico
should submit all information pursuant
to 40 CFR Part 61 directly to the State
agency at the following address: New
Mexico Environmental Improvement
Division, Health and Environment
Department, P.O. Box 968, Crown
Building, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504
and EPA Region 6.
This delegation is issued under the
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412).
Dated: October 19.1982.
Frances E. Phillips,
A cting Regional A dministrator.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
§ 61.4 paragraph (b) is amended by
adding subparagraph (CC) to read us
follows:
§61.4 Address.
*****
(b) * * *
(GG) Director, New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Division, Health and
Environment Department, P.O. Box 968.
Crown Building, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504.
|FR Doc. 82-30223 Filed 11-3-82:8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6SCO-SO-M
40 CFR Part 61
[A-6-FRL 2238-3]
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Louisiana for National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6, has delegated
the authority for implementation of the
administrative and technical review
portions of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) program to the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources
(LDNR). Except as specifically limited,
all of the authority and responsibilities
of the Administrator or the Regional
Administrator which are found in 40
CFR Part 61 are delegated to the LDNR.
Any of such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the Department to its Program
Administrator or staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 30,1982.
ADDRESS: A copy of the State-EPA
agreement for delegation of authority is
available for public inspection at the Air
Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 6, First
International Building. 28th Floor, 1201
Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William H. Taylor. Air Branch, EPA,
address above, Telephone: (214) 767-
9873.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On July 20,1982, the State of
Louisiana requested EPA, Region 6, to
delegate authority to the LDNR for the
implementation of the NESHAP
program. After a thorough review of the
request and information submitted, the
Regional Administrator determined that
the State's pertinent laws and the rules
and regulations of the LDNR were found
to provide an adequate and effective
procedure for the implementation of the
administrative and technical review
portions of the NESHAP program. EPA.
Region 6, retains enforcement authority,
as requested by the State, over NESHAP
subject sources constructed or modified
in the State of Louisiana.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
Effective immediately, sources
locating in the State of Louisiana should
submit all information pursuant to 40
CFR Part 61 directly to the State agency
at the following address; Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources. Air
Quality Division, P.O. Box 44066, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana 70804 and EPA Region
6.
This delegation is issued under the
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412).
Dated: October 19,1982.
Frances E. Phillips,
Acting Regional Administrator.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
§ 61.4 paragraph (b) is amended by
adding subparagraph (T) to read as
follows:
§61.4 Address.
*****
(b) * * *
(T) Secretary, Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 44066, Baton
Rouge. Louisiana 70804.
|FR Doc. 82-30224 Filed 11-3-82: 6:45 am|
BILLING CODE 6MO-50-M
IV-150
-------
Federal RogteteV / Vol. 47, No. 218 / Wednesday, November SO. 1882 / Rules and Regulations
77
Parts SO and SI
(A-O-FRL 223S-5)
iiantiards ©5 Performance Jo? Klera
Sources, Maiiona! Emission
A©EW(SV: Environmental Protection
Agency.
i: Final rule.
V: These amendments institute
address changes for reports and
applications required from operators of
certain sources subject to Federal
regulations. EPA has delegated to the
State of Florida authority to administer
and enforce 40 CFR Part 60 (Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources) and 40 CFR Part 61 (National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants). These amendments provide
that all reports, requests, applications,
submittals, and communications
required by these Federal standards will
now be sent to the State.
E: June 10, 1982.
ABOHSSSSS: Copies of the Florida
request and EPA's delegation letter may
be examined during normal business
hours at the following locations:
Air Planning Section, EPA, Region IV,
345 Courtland Street NE., Atlanta,
Georgia 30365
Bureau of Air Quality Management,
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Twin Towers Office
Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
All requests, reports, applications,
submittals, and other communications
required by the Federal standards listed
below should be sent to the Florida
address rather than to EPA Region IV.
Mr. Barr*7 Gilbert Air
Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street
NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, phone 404 /
881-3286.
SWmjSaEWTflHV IWFORKIATIOKt EPA
reviewed the pertinent laws of the State
of Florida and the rules and regulations
thereof, and determined that they
provide an adequate and effective
procedure for implementation of the
NSPS and NESHAPS by the State of
Florida. Therefore, pursuant to Section
111 of Pub. L. 91-604 (1970) as amended
by Pub. L. 95-95 (1977), the Clean Air
Act (CAA) as amended, we delegated
our primary authority for
implementation and enforcement of
NSPS and NESHAPS to the State of
Florida as'follows:
A. Responsibility for all sources
located or to be located in the State of
Florida subject to the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources promulgated in 40 CFR Part 80
and amendments thereto as published in
the Federal Register as of the date of the
State's request (May 19,1982). The
categories of new sources covered by
this responsibility are: Fossil-Fuel Fired
Steam Generators (D); Incinerators (E);
Portland Cement Plants (F); Nitric Acid
Plants (G); Sulfuric Acid Plants (H);
Asphalt Concrete Plants (I): Petroleum
Refineries (J); Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids (K); Secondary Lead
Smelters (L); Secondary Brass & Bronze
Plants (M); Iron & Steel Plants (N);
Sewage Treatment Plants (O);
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry—Wet
Process Phosphoric Acid Plants (T),
Superphosphoric Acid Plants (U),
Diammonium Phosphate Plants (V),
Triple Superphosphate Plants (W), and
Granular Triple Superphosphate Storage
Facilities (X); Ferroalloy Production
Facilities (Z); Steel Plants: Electric Arc
Furnaces (AA); Grain Elevators (DD);
Gas Turbines (GG); Automobile & Light-
Duty Truck Coating Operations (MM):
and Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture
(PP).
B. Responsibility for all sources
located or to be located in the State of
Florida subject to the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants promulgated in 40 CFR Part
61 and amendments thereto as
published in the Federal Register as of
the date of the State's request (May 19,
1982). The categories of new sources
covered by this responsibility are:
Asbestos (B); Beryllium (C); Beryllium
Rocket Motor Firing (D); Mercury (E);
and Vinyl Chloride (F).
C. This delegation is based upon
several conditions which are listed in
our June 10,1982, letter of delegation.
The Regional Administrator finds
good cause for foregoing prior public^
notice and for making this rulemaking
effective immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
substantive burdens are imposed on the
parties affected. The delegation which is
reflected by this administrative
amendment was effective on June 10,
1982, end it serves no purpose to delay
the technical change of this addition of
the state address to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this regulation from the
OMB review requirements of Section 3
of Executive Order 12291.
List of Subjects in <3U CFR Parts 60 and
SI
Air pollution control. Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Asbestos.
Beryllium, Cement industry, Coal,
Copper, Electric power plants. Glass Hnd
glass products, Grains, Hazardous
materials, Intergovernmental relations.
Iron, Lead, Mercury, Metals, Motor
vehicles. Nitric acid plants, Paper and
paper products industry, Petroleum.
Phosphate, Sewage disposal, Steel,
Sulfuric acid plants, Vinyl chloride,
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
(Sees. 101,110, 111, 112, 301, Clean Air Act. «s
amended. («2, U.S.C. 7401. 7411, 7412, 7601))
Dated October 26,1982.
Gbaries K. Jster,
Regional Administrator.
Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
In § 60.4, paragraph (b)(K) is added as
follows:
1.0 Atitirooo.
(b) ° * *
(K) Bureau of Air Quality Management,
Department of Environmental Regulation,
Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair
Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
P>AKIY ®1=>MAT1OK1AL EMISSION'
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
In § 61.04, paragraph (b)(K) is added
as follows:
g 61.00 AeJdrooo.
O U O C O
(b) • • •
(1C) Bureau of Air Quality Management,
Department of Environmental Regulation,
Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair
Stone Road, Tallahassee. Florida 32301.
|FR Doc. 82-&C83 Filed 11-0-02; 0:45 om|
IV-151
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 244 / Monday. December 20. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
78
40 CFR Part 61
[A-3-FRL 2267-3]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation
of Authority to Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Allegheny County Health
Department has requested the
delegation of authority to implement and
enforce the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) program for asbestos and
mercury only. Section 112(d)(l) of the
Clean Air Act requires the
Administrator to delegate this authority
to any agency which submits an
adequate procedure. Therefore, on
September 27.1982, authority for the
NESHAP program for asbestos and
mercury in Allegheny County was
delegated. This rulemaking provides
notice of this action and amends 40 CFR
61.04, Address, to reflect this delegation.
This Section is also being amended to
reflect a new address for Philadelphia's
Air Management Services, which has
already been delegated NESHAP
authority.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20,1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Ham, (215) 597-2745, EPA
Region m, Curtis Building, 6th and
Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19108.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) have been
promulgated by the Administrator under
40 CFR Part 61 for four pollutants:
Beryllium, Asbestos, Mercury, and Vinyl
Chloride. Section 112(d)(l) directs the
Administrator to delegate authority to
implement and enforce the standards to
any agency which submits an adequate
procedure. Nevertheless, the
Administrator retains concurrent
authority to implement and enforce the
standards following delegation of
authority to a State or local agency.
On September 24,1982, the Director of
the Allegheny County Health
Department (ACHD), and the Allegheny
County Commissions jointly requested
the delegation of authority for the
NESHAP program for asbestos and
mercury only. ACHD has determined
that standards for Beryllium and Vinyl
Chloride would not currently apply to
any sources in the County, and therefore
did not request delegation at this time.
The Director of the Air and Waste
Management Division has determined
that the ACHD procedure for
implementing and enforcing the
standards is adequate. Pursuant to
authority delegated to him by the
Administrator, the Air and Waste
Management Division Director notified
the Director of the Health Department
on September 27,1982 that authority to
implement and enforce the standards for
asbestos and mercury was delegated to -
the Allegheny County Health
Department. The letter approved the
delegation and outlined the conditions
of it. A ten day response period was
provided during which the Director of
the Health Department or any other
representative could present objections
to the conditions of the delegation. No
responses were received during this
period. Therefore, this delegation is
final.
Copies of the request for delegation of
authority are available for public
inspection at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, Curtis
Building, 6th & Walnut Streets,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106.
Effective immediately, all reports
required pursuant to the emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(asbestos and mercury only) should be
submitted to the Allegheny County
Health Department, Bureau of Air
Pollution Control, 301 Thirty-ninth
Street. Pittsburgh. Pa.. 15201. with copies
to the Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, at the EPA
address above. The amended § 61.04,
Address, which adds the address of the
Bureau (to which all reports, requests,
applications, submittals, and
communications to the Administrator
pursuant to this part must be
addressed), is set forth below.
In addition, 8 61.04 is being amended
to reflect a new address for
Philadelphia's Air Management Services
(AMS). AMS has moved to a new
address since delegation of authority for
NESHAP occurred.
The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective
immediately because it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
burdens are imposed on the parties
affected. The delegation which is
reflected by the Administrative
amendment was effective on September
27,1982, and it serves no purpose to
delay this change of address in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
(Sec. 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 7412.)
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rulemaking from
requirements of Executive Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
Dated: November 23.1982.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
PART 61-1 AMENDED]
Part 61 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. In 8 61.04 paragraph (b) (NN) is
revised to read as follows:
86144 Address
• * * * •
(b)* * *
IV-152
-------
IFcfcrf
(NN) (II) City of pyia
Philadelphia Department of Public
Health, Air Management Services, SOT S.
Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1B148.
(ii) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Department of Environmental
Resources, Post Office Box 2083,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17120
(iii) Allegheny County: Allegheny
County Health Department, Bureau of
Air Pollution Control, 301 Thirty-ninth
Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 13201.
a O O O O
(PR Dae. G3-JXSEO Et!sd 13-17-® CsC3 onj
publicaWcao liotsd fa !&Q ragulatioa to
approved by the Diracto? of iha Federal
Register as of January 27,1883.
79
SratajfexrD Stonxakanolo ter Cte3ird©MO At?
A@sc«gv; Environmental Protection
O(gYB©KS Final rule.
CWSKJflkrei This is a technical
amendment incorporating certain
materials by reference into existing new
oourcs pcifonnsiiCc standards (NSPS)
and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
promulgated under Sections 111 and 112,
respectively, of the Clean Air Act. These
materials are already cited in those
otandards, but they have not until now
been incorporated by reference under
the applicable regulations of the Office
of the Federal Register. The intent of this
action is to comply with those
regulations.
[°>OTS January 27,1S®3. The
Ms. Shirley Tsbler, Standards
Development Branch (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (816) 541-5324.
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552, Congress authorized incorporation
of materials into regulations by
reference in an effort to reduce the
volume of material published in the
Regulations. Incorporation by reference
allows federal agencies to comply with
the requirement to publish regulations in
the Federal Register simply by referring
to material already published elsewhere,
rather than reprinting such material in
the published regulations. The legal
effect of incorporation by reference is
that the material is treated as if it were
published in the Fsds?al Register. This
material, like any other properly issued
regulation, has the force and effect of
law.
In this action, EPA is incorporating by
reference into several of its existing new
source performance standards (NSPS)
and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)
promulgated under Clean Air Act
Sections 111 and 112 (at 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61), respectively, materials that are
already cited in those standards. This is
because these materials have not
previously been incorporated by
reference pursuant to the formal
procedures established in 1 CFR Part 51.
The amendment sets forth the sections
affected by this action and the material
being incorporated into each section. All
of the materials are available for
inspection at the Office of the Federal
Register, Room 8401,11CO L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. as well as at the
Ubrary (MD-35), U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on January 27,1833.
This amendment incorporates by
reference two sets of materials: (a)
Materials identical in form (i.e., same
edition and publication date) to the
materials currently cited in NSPS and
NESHAP; and (b)later editions of
materials currently cited in these
regulations. Regardless of the category
particular materials fall within,
however, all the materials that this
amendment incorporates by reference
are oubotaatively the Game oo those
currently cited in the regulations.
hag approved incorporation of these
materials by reference. It imposes uo
requirements beyond those already
cited in the affected NSPS and NESHAP.
Therefore, additional notice and
comment ore "unnecessary," and the
Agency has "good cause," under 42
U.S.C. 7607(d)(l) and 5 U.S.C. § 553(b),
subparagraph (B), to promulgate these
incorporations without further notice
and comment.
For the same reason, the Agency finds
that good cause exists for making these
incorporations effective immediately,
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Act.
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by March 28,1983. This action
may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce the NSPS and
NESHAP into which the materials
discussed above are incorporated by
reference [see 8 307(b)(2)].
This rulemaking is issued under the
authority of Sections 111, 112, and 301(a)
of the Clean Air Act as amended [42
U.S.C. 7411, 7412, and 7601(a)J.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
805(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it
imposes no new requirements.
List of Subjects
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 19 / Thursday. January 27. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
(2) ASTM D1193-77. Standard
Specification for Reagent Water, IBR
approved January 27,1983 for Appendix
B of Part 61, Method 101, par. 6.1.1:
Method 101A. par. 6.1.1.
2. In § 61.23, paragraph (a] is revised
to read as follows:
organic matter. Use thi* water in all dilution!
and solution preparations.
(ra Doe. ts-ans KM
•UJNQ CODE
t*i u>)
§61.23 Atr-ctoanlng.
PART 61—[AMENDED]
40 CFR Part 61 is amended as follows:
1. A new S 61.18 is added to read as
follows:
§ 61.18 Incorporations by reference.
The materials listed below are
incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on the date listed. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval, and a notice
of any change in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. The
materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding address noted below,
and all are available for inspection at
the Office of the Federal Register, Room
8401,1100 L Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. and the Library (MD-35), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
(a) The following material is available
for purchase from at least one of the
following addresses: American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1916
Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103; or University Microfilms
International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48106.
(1) ASTM D737-75, Standard Test
Method for Air Permeability of Textile
Fabrics, incorporation by reference
(IBR) approved January 27,1983 for
§ 61.23(a).
(a) Fabric filter collection devices
must be used, except as noted in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
Such devices must be operated at a
pressure drop of no more than 4 inches
water gage, as measured across the
filter fabric. The airflow permeability, es
determined by ASTM Method D737-75
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.18).
must not exceed 30 fts/min/ft2for
woven fabrics or 35s/min/ft2 for felted
fabrics, except that 40 ft3/min/ft} for
woven and 45 ft'/min/ft'for felled
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 K« inch thick
throughout. Synthetic fabrics must not
contain fill yarn other than that which is
spun.
3. In Appendix B of Part 61, Method
101, paragraph 6.1.1 is revised to read as
follows:
Method 101—Determination of Particulate
and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from Chlor-
Alkali Plants—Air Streams
* * * * •
6.1.1 Water. Deionized distilled, meeting
ASTM Specifications for Type I Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D1193-77
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.18). If
high concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present the analyst may
eliminate the KMnO. test for oxidizable
organic matter. Use this water in all dilutions
and solution preparations.
4. In Appendix B to Part 61, Method
101A, paragraph 6.1.1 is revised to read
as follows:
Method 101 A—Determination of Paiticulate
and Gaseous Mercury Emissions From
Sewage Sludge Incinerators
6.1.1 Water. Deionized distilled, meeting
ASTM Specifications for Type I Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D1193-77
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.18). If
high concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present, the analyst may
eliminate the KMnO., test for oxidizahln
IV-154
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 90 / Monday. May 9. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
80
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-6-FRL 229»-S]
Delegation of Additional Authority to
State of Texas for New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6. has delegated
to the State of Texas, the additional
authority to implement and enforce the
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) requirements adopted after
the delegation dates of November 15,
1978, and February 5,1981. Except as
specifically limited, all of the authority
and responsibilities of the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator which are
found in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 are
delegated to the Texas Air Control
Board (TACB). Any such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the Board to its staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28,1982.
ADDRESS: Copies of the State request
and State-EPA agreement for this
delegation of authority are available for
public inspection at the Air Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Region 6, Interfirst Two Building, 28th
Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William H. Taylor, Air Branch, EPA,
address above. Telephone 214-767-1594;
FTS 8-729-1594. -
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May
9,1975, the State of Texas requested
EPA, Region 6, to delegate the authority
to the TACB to implement and enforce
the NSPS and NESHAP programs
specified under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
On November 15,1978 and February
5,1981, EPA delegated the authority to
the State of Texas to implement and
enforce the existing NSPS and NESHAP
programs in the State of Texas.
Condition 4 of the delegation agreement
did not allow the State to assume the
responsibilities to implement and
enforce the NSPS and NESHAP
requirements adopted after the above
delegation dates. Therefore, on
December 15,1982, the State of Texas
requested a revision of the delegation of
responsibility for the NSPS and
NESHAP programs. After a thorough
review of the request and information
submitted, the Regional Administrator
determined that the State's pertinent
laws and the rules and regulations of the
TACB were found to provide an
adequate and effective procedure to
implement and enforce all future NSPS
and NESHAP requirements. Therefore,
on December 28,1982, EPA delegated
the additional authority to the State of
Texas to implement and enforce all
previously adopted and all future NSPS
and NESHAP requirements pursuant to
Sections lll(c) and 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act subject to the conditions and
limitations as specified in the
agreements. However, the State may
decline delegation of any standard
within thirty (30) days after final
promulgation. This amendment
supersedes the November 15,1978, and
February 5,1981, delegation agreements.
This notice will have no effect on the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Sources locating in the State of Texas
should submit all information pursuant
to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 directly to the
State agency at the following address:
Texas Air Control Board, 6330 Highway
290 East, Austin, Texas 78723.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry, Coal, Copper. Electric power
plants, Glass and glass products, Grains,
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry, petroleum. Phosphate. Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid plants.
Waste treatment and disposal. Zinc.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control. Asbestos.
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
This delegation is issued under the
authority of Section* 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412).
Dated: January 25.1983.
Frances E. Phillips,
Acting Regional Administrator.
PART 60—NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The address for the State agency has
been changed. Therefore, Part 60 of
Chapter 1, Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
In { 60.4, paragraph (b)(SS) is
' amended by revising the phrases "8520
Shoal Creek Boulevard" to read "6330
Highway 290 East" and "78758" to read
"78723" as follows:
§60.4 Address.
* * « * *
(b) * * '
(SS) * * * 6330 Highway 290
East. * * * 78723.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
The address for the State agency has
been changed. Therefore, Part 61 of
Chapter 1, Title 40 of the Code of the
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
In { 61.4. paragraph (b)(SS) is
amended by revising the phrases "8520
Shoal Creek Boulevard" to read "6330
Highway 290 East" and "78758" to read
"78723" as follows:
§61.4 Address.
* * « * •
(b) ' • •
(SS) " * * 6330 Highway 290
East. * * * 78723.
|FR Due. U-120K Filed 5-8-83. IMS am|
BtLUNO CODE 6MO-M-M
IV-155
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 120 / Tuesday. June 21. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
81
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
(A-9-FHL 2386-3]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board on
behalf of the Fresno County Air
Pollution Control District (FCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18,1983.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARS has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
FCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated April 6,1983
and is reproduced in its entirety as
follows:
Mr. fames D. Boyd,
Executive Officer. California Air Resources
Board. 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815,
Sacramento, CA
Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of February 3,1983,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS} on behalf of the Fresno
County Air Pollution Control District
(T'CAPCD). We have reviewed your request
for delegation and have found the FCAPCD's
programs and procedures to be acceptable.
This delegation includes authority for the
following source categories:
NSPS
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Slearr> Generators...-
Petroleum Storage Vessels -
Glass Manufacturing Plants
Surface Coating ot MotaJ Furniture
Stationery Gas Turbines
Lead-Ac*: Battery Manufacturing Plants
Automobile • Light-Duty Truck Surface
Coating Operations.
Phosphate Rock Plants
Ammonium SuHate _
Graphic Arts: Publication Rotogravure Print-
ing-
Industrial Surface Coating-large Appt-
ances.
Metal Coil Surface Coating Operations
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Root Manu-
facture!.
40 CFR Part
60. Subpart
Da
Ka
CC
EE
GG
KK
MM
NN
PP
CO
ss
TT
UU
In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) categories since the FCAPCD's
revised programs and procedures are
acceptable:
NSPS
«e CFR Part
60. Subpart
General Provision ~ A
Fossil-Fuel Fred Steam Generators..- D
Incinerators « E
Portland Cement Plants - F
Nitric Acid Plants G
Sutturic Acid Plants — H
Asphalt Concrete Plants —. I
Petroleum Refineries « — J
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids. K
Secondary Lead Smelters L
Secondary Brgss 4 Bronze Ingot Production M
Plant*.
tan and Start Plants (BOPF) N
Sew>Q0 Treatment Pttnts • ,.... ........ O
Primary Copper Smaller*. .„ | P
Primary Zinc Smelter*
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertifeer Industry: Wet Process
Phoaphortc Acid Plant*.
Phosphate Fetftzar Industry Superphos-
uliufii. Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. Dtammoruum
Phoephsts Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Triple Super-
phosphate Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Granular
Triple Superphosphate.
Coal Preparation Plants
Ferroalloy Production Faculties,
40 CFR Pan
60. Subpari
Y
Z
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Fur. i AA
Kraft Pulp MHIs
Grain Elevators
Lime Manufacturing Plants...
B3
DO
HH
NESHAPS
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing —
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride
40 CFR Part
61, Subpai
A
B
C
0
E
F
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Paris 60 and 61.
including use of EPA test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
Cordially yours.
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Fresno County Air Pollution Control
District.
With respect to Fresno County all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the FCAPCD at the address shown in
the letter of delegation.
The Office of Management arfd Budge!
has exempted this role from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857. et
seq.).
Dated: June 13,1983.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc S3-18553 Filed B-2O-M; MS am)
MU.MO COM MM-CO-M
IV-156
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 120 / Tuesday. June 21, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2386-2]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
Maricopa County Health Department,
Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
Maricopa County Health Department
(MCHD). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE April 18,1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8238, FTS 454-8238.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
MCHD has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
authority was granted by a letter dated
April 6,1983 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
Ref: NSS 3-4-1
Mr. Robert W. Evans.
Chief, Bureau of Air Pollution Control,
Maricopa County Health Department.
1325 East Roosevelt, Phoenix, AZ 85001.
Dear Mr. Evans: In response to your
request of February 18,1983,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
certain categories of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS} and .National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). We have reviewed
your request for delegation and have found
your present programs and procedures to be
acceptable. This delegation includes
authority for the following source categories:
NESHAPS
40 CFR
Pijiei
A.
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
Including use of EPA't test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
cc. Arizona Department of Health Services.
With respect to Maricopa County all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the MCHD at the address shown in the
letter of delegation.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
Dated: June 13.1983.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FROOC.S3-16SM Filed «-»-S3:fc45 am]
MLLMQ CODE p*rt
KK.
NN
[A-*-FRL 2400-3]
Delegation of Additional Authority to
Oklahoma State Department of Health
and Subdelegation of Authority to the
Tulsa City-County Health Department
for the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 6.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On June 10,1983 EPA
delegated to the Oklahoma State
Department of Health (OSDH) the
additional authority to subdelegate the
NSPS and NESHAP programs to
qualified local air pollution control
authorities in the State of Oklahoma.
The OSDH has subdelegated the
authority to implement and enforce the
programs in Tulsa County to the Tulsa
City-County Health Department
(TCCH). Except as specifically limited,
all of the authority and responsibilities
delegated to the OSDH by EPA which
are found in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 are
subdelegated to the. TCCHD. Any such
authority and responsibilities may be
redelegated by the TCCHD to its staff.
The subdelegation will allow for the
implementation and the enforcement of
these programs at the local level.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10,1983.
ADDRESS: Copies of the delegation of
addition authority to the OSDH allowing
for subdelegation, as well as copies of
the TCCHD request and the TCCHD/
OSDH agreement for this subdelegation
of authority are available for public
inspection at the Air Branch, Air and
Waste Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, Inter-First Two Building, 28th
Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William H: Taylor, Jr., Air Branch, EPA,
address above (214) 767-2746.
January 21,1983, the TCCHD requested
the OSDH to delegate to them the
authority to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAP programs as
specified under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
for sources located in Tulsa County. On
February 7.1983, the OSDH approved
subdelegating to the TCCHD this
authority.
On June 10,1983, EPA delegated the
additional authority to the OSDH to
subdelegate the authority for the NSPS
and NESHAP programs to local air
pollution control agencies in Oklahoma.
IV-.157
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 144 / Tuesday, July 26, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Effective on this date, the authority is
granted to the TCCHD to administer the
requirements for the NSPS and NESHAP
programs specified in 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61, as delegated to the OSDH by
EPA.
This notice will have no effect on the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
Sources locating in Tulsa County
should submit all information pursuant
to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 directly to the
Tulsa City-County Health Department,
4616 East Fifteenth Street, Tulsa
Oklahoma 74112.
I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Dated: June 24,1883.
Myson O. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator.
PART 60—NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Part 60 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. Section 60.4 paragraph (a) is
amended by removing "to the attention
of the Director, Enforcement Division."
and by changing the address for Region
VI to read as follows:
§60.4 Address.
(a) * * *
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), 1201 Elm Street,
Dallas, 75270.
2. Section 60.4 paragraph (b)(LL) is
amended by adding paragraphs (i) and
(ii) to read as follows:
§60.4 Address.
*****
(b) * ' *
(LL) * ' *
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Tulsa County: Tulsa City-County Health
Department, 4016 East Fifteenth Street. Tulsa.
Oklahoma 74112.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. Section 61.04 paragraph (a) is
amended by removing the following
words "to the attention of the Director,
Enforcement Division." and by revising
the address for Region VI to read as
follows:
$61.04 Address.
(a) ' • *
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas). 1201 Elm Street,
Dallas, Texas 75270.
2. Section 61.04 paragraph (b](I,L) is
amended by adding paragraphs (i) and
(ii) to read as follows:
§61.04 Address.
*****
d>r • *
(LL)' • '
(i) (Reserved]
(ii) Tulsa County: Tulsa City-County Health
Department, 4616 East Fifteenth Street, Tulsa.
Oklahoma 74112.
(ft Doc. S3-201M Filed 7-2S-S3: S45 >m|
MLUNO CODE *MO-M-M
83
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
(A-1-FRL 2413-7]
Air Programs; Delegation of New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs*
Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Massachusetts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby notifies the
public that it has delegated authority
over certain New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS] and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs) to .the State Air
Pollution Agencies in Region I. The
NSPS and NESHAPs program
delegations have now been brought up
to date with recent EPA promulgations
of standards and revisions to NSPS and
NESHAPs categories. Several of the
States' delegations provide that
authority over future promulgated
standards and revisions will
automatically be delegated to the State
agency.'These delegations do not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegations is to shift primary program
responsibility for the affected NSPS and
NESHAPs source categories from EPA
to State governments. Some States do
not have full authority over the
programs; limitations are noted where
appropriate.
DATES: The regulations are amended to
reflect these address changes effective
Maine, September 30,1962. Connecticut.
September 30,1983, Massachusetts, June
24,1982, New Hampshire, September 30,
1982. Rhode Island, September 29,1982.
and Vermont. September 28,1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Linda Murphy, State Air Programs
Branch, Air Management Division, EPA,
Region I, Room 2111, John F. Kennedy
Building, Boston, MA 02203, Telephone:
(617) 223-5130, FTS 223-5130.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air
pollution control agencies of the
following States have requested and
received, by delegation, authority over
certain NSPS and NESHAPs source
categories. Delegations are effective as
listed below:
State of Connecticut
Effective Date: September 30,1982
(except as otherwise noted).
Limitations: None—Full authority was
delegated.
Future standards and revisions: Full
authority over all new or amended
regulations under 40 CFR Part 60 or 61
will be delegated to the State of
Connecticut upon EPA notice to the
State of final promulgation of the new or
amended regulation.
DELEGATIONS
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel-Rred Stum Gener-
SiBfl
Elactric Utility Steam Generation
Units'
Nitnc Acid Plants
Asphalt Concrete Plans
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum
Liquids constructed prior to
May 18, 1976.
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum
Liquids constructed after May
1«. 1978'.
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Brass and Bronze
InQol Production Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants
Sewaoe Treatment Plants
40 CFR Pin 60 Subpart
0.
Da
E
F.
G.
H
1.
J.
K.
Ka
L
M.
N
O.
IV-158
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 157 / Friday. August 12. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
DELEGATIONS— Continued
NSPS
Phosphate Fertilzer Industry: Wet
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Su-
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Dtanwnomum Phosphate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Granular Triple Superphosphate
Storage Facilities.
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Fur-
naces.
Glass Manufacturing Plants '
Metal Furniture Surface Coating '...
Stationary Internal Combustion
Engines'.
Stationary Gas Turbines
Lime Manufacturing Plants '
Organic Solvent Cleaners •
Autombile 4 Lighl-Duty Truck Sur-
face Coating ».
Perchloroelhylene Dry Cleaners '...
Graphic Arts ' .
Pressure Sensitive Tape » Label
Surface Coating Operations '.
Large Appliance Surtacr Coating '..
Metal Co* Coating • '.
Beverage Can Surface Coating
Industry*.
Gasoline Tank Truck Loading
Tracks*.
Rubber Tire Manufacturing '
Flexible Vinyl Coating'
VOC Fugitive Emissions from Pe-
troleum Refineries *.
Synthetic Ffeer Production FacW-
ties'.
Petroleum Dry Cleaners '
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
T.
U.
V.
W.
X.
AA
CC
EE.
FF.
GG.
HH
jj.
MM.
00.
OO
RR.
SS.
TT.
UU.
WW.
XX
BBS.
FFF.
GGG.
HHH.
JJJ.
' Effective date March 16, 1983.
' Effective date February 10, 1983.
• Effective date April 29, 1983.
NESHAP's
General Provisions
Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
40 CFR Part 61 Subpart
A
BV
C.
D.
•§61-22W). Demolition and Renovation, and any other
portion of Subpart B pertaining to it, la not delegated.
NESHAP's
Mercury . ..
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene Maleic Anhydride1
Benzene Emissiona from Etrryl-
ene/Styrene Plants'.
VOC Fugitive Emission Sources
in the Synthetic Organic Chemi-
cal Manufacturing Industry'.
Benzene Emissions from Ben-
zene Storage Vessels'.
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
E.
F.
H.
1.
J.
K.
! Effective uaid Apia £9. 19S3.
State of Maine
Effective Date: September 30, 1982
(except as otherwise noted).
Limitations: None — full authority was
delegated.
Future standards and revisions: Full
authority over all new or amended
regulations under 40 CFR Part 60 or 61
will be delegated to the State of Maine
upon EPA notice to the State of final
promulgation of the new or amended
regulation.
DELEGATIONS
NSPS
Foaail-FuetFired Steam Gener-
ators.
Electric UtJity Steam Generating
Units,
Portland Cement Plants...- «._
Aspnall Concrete Plants
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum
Liquids constructed prior to
May 19. 1978.
storage Vessels tor Petroleum
LjQutds constructed after May
18, 1976.
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Biuus and Or ass
Ingot Produci
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 157 / Friday. August 12. 19B3 / Rules and Regulations
Future standards and revisions: Full
authority over all new or amended
regulations under 40 CFR Part 60 or 61
will be delegated to the State of New
Hampshire upon EPA notice to the State
of final promulgation of the new or
amended regulation.
DELEGATION
NSPS 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
Fossil fuel-Fired Steam Gener- 0
euxs
Electnc Utility Steam Generating Da
IJtuiS
Incinerators E
Asphalt Concrete Plants 1
Petroleum Refineries J.
Storage Vessels lot Petroleum K.
Liquids constructed prior to
May 19. 1978
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum Ka.
Liquids constructed attar May
18. 1978
Secondary Lead Smelters L.
Secondary Brats and Bronze M.
Ingot Production Plants
Iron and Steel Plants N
Sewage Treatment Plants O
Steel Plants Electric Arc Fur- AA
naces
Grain Elevators _ OD.
Metal Furniture Surface Coiling ' ... EE
Stationary Gas TurtMnes GG.
Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing >.. KK
Graphic Arts' OQ.
• Etective date February 14. 1983
NESHAP a 40 CFR Pan 61 Subpart
General Provisions A
A,fftmstoil p
Beryllium C.
State of Rhode Island
Effective Date: September 29, 1982
(except as otherwise noted).
Limitations: Only administrative
portions of the standards have been
delegated.
Future standards and revisions:
Authority over administrative portions
of all new or amended regulations under
40 CFR Part 60 or 61 will be delegated to
the State of Rhode Island upon EPA
notice to the State of final promulgation
of the new or amended regulation.
DELEGATIONS
NSPS 40 CFR Part 80 Subpart
Fossd-Fuel-Fied Swain Gener- D.
•ton
Electnc Uttrty Steam Generating Da
Unna.
Nitric Acid Plan* G.
Sutturic Acid Plant* H.
Asphalt Concrete Plants 1.
Pfltrotauffl Rvftntnvs J.
Storage Vassals lor Petroleum K.
IJquida constructed prior to
May It. 197»
DELEGATIONS— Continued
NSPS 40 CFR Pan 60 Subpan
Storage Vessels for Petroleum Ka
Liquids constructed altar May
18. 197S.
Secondary Lead Smelters L
Secondary Bronze and Brass M
Ingot Production Plants
Iron and Steel Plants N
Sewage Treatment Plants O
Primary Copper Smelters P.
Primary Ltod Smelters fl.
Pnmary Aluminum Reduction S.
Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry Wet T.
Process Phosphoric Acid Plants.
PhosphaM Fertilnw lnrju«1ry: Su- U.
perphosphonc Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: V.
Dia/nmoniurn Phosphate Ptanta.
Phosphate FertHizw Industry W
Tripto Superphosphate Plants
Phosphate Fwtifczw Industry X
Granular Tnpto Superphosphate
Siorae* Facilities.
CoaJ Preparation Facilities Y
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Fur- AA.
neces
Glass Manufacturing Plants CC
Metal Furniture Surface Coating1.... EE.
Lime Manufacturing Plants HH.
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing.... KK.
Automobile and light Duty True* MM.
Surface Coating Operations,
Ammonium Sultata Manufacture PP.
Graphic Arts ' OQ
Large Appliance Surface Coat- SS.
ing '.
Metal Coil Coating ' TT
> EHective date February 3. 1883.
NESHAP's 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart
Asbestos ' _ B *
•H61 20. 61 21. 61.22 (c). (0. Srx) (g). 61.23 and 61.24
only.
NESHAP's 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
Ben/Hum RoduM Motor Firmg D.
Mercury E
Vinyl Chloride .... . . F
State of Vermont
Effective Date: September 28, 1982.
Limitations: Only Meld surveillance
has been delegated for NESHAPs: full
authority was delegated for NSPS.
Future standards and revisions: The
State of Vermont will specifically
request any delegation of authority it
desires with respect to any new or
amended regulations under 40 CFR Part
60 or 61.
DELEGATIONS
NSPS 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
Foaai-FueMMrad Ssaam Oener- 0.
•tors.
DELEGATIONS— Continued
NSPS 40 CFR Pan 60 Subpart
Electnc Utility Steam Generating Da.
Units
Asphalt Concrete Plants - 1.
NESHAP's 40 CFR Pan 61 Subpart
•{{61.22 (d). (a)|ii). (f) and (g). and 61.23 only
Pursuant to NSPS and NESHAP's
regulations, sources are required to
submit all required reports to the state
or local agency that has jurisdiction over
the source, and the EPA.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291. [Sees. Ill and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857, et seq.)]
I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants. Cement
industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants, Glass and glass products. Grains,
Intergovernmental relations. Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum, Phosphate. Sewage
disposal, Steel Sulfuric acid plants,
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
40 CFR Part 61
Air Pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
(Sees, lll(c), 112(d) and 301(a), Clean Air
Act •> amended (42 U.S.C. 7411(c). 7412(d)
•nd 7601(a)))
Dated: July 7. 1983.
Michael R. Doland,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
PART 60— STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
- Subpartt A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter L Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
Subpart A— General Provisions
1. Section 60.4. Address and { 61.04.
Address, are each amended by reviling
IV-160
-------
Kegistes1 / Vol. 48. No. 180 / Thursday. September 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
the address of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in paragraph (b)(VV) to
read as follows:
§§30.4 one! 61. (K)
(b) ' * '
(W) Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering. Division of Air Quality
Control. One Winter Street. Boston, MA
02108.
*****
2. Sections 60.4(b)(EE) and
61.04(b)(EE) are each amended by
revising the address of the Slate of New
Hampshire to read as follows:
« * * * *
(b) • • '
(EE) State of New Hampshire: New
Hampshire Air Resources Agency. Health
and Welfare Building, Hazen Drive, Concord,
NH 03301.
t ft ft e ft
3. Sections 60.4(b)(OO) and
61.04(b)(OO) are each amended by
revising the address of the State of
Rhode Island to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) * * '
(OO) State of Rhode Island: Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management.
204 Cannon Building. Davis Street.
Providence. Rl 02908.
• O A ft *
4. Sections 60.4(b)(UU) and
G1.04(b)(UU) are each amended by
revising the address of the State of
Vermont to read as follows:
(b) • • •
(UU) State of Vermont: Vermont Agency of
Environmental Conservation, Air Pollution (
Control. State Office Building. Montpelier, VT
05602.
• « * * *
|KR Dot 83-22040 Filei!&-11-83:H:« am]
OILUSO COKE osso-ao-a
: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
aenow: Final delegation.
OWaeiABv: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
authority for certain NSPS and
•NESHAPS categories to the Hawaii
Department of Health (HDOH). This
action gives the HDOH the authority to
implement and enforce the federal NSPS
and NESHAPS programs. The effect of
the delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to the State government.
EFFECTIVE ©OTE: August 15, 1983.
nosiQSQO: Hawaii Department of Health,
Environmental Protection and Health
Services Division, 1250 Punchbowl
Street. Honolulu, HI S6813.
Mailing Address: Hawaii Department of
Health, Environmental Protection and
Health Services Division, Post Office
Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 86801.
FUHTHEK DWF0RMAVJ0K!
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco. CA
84105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
8UWL5MENTABV IWFORKJflTlOW: On July
28, 1983, the Deputy Director for
Environmental Health, Hawaii
Department of Health requested
delegation of authority for certain NSPS
and NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
authority was granted by a letter and
agreement dated August 15, 1983. The
following agreement represents the
terms and conditions of the delegation:
OJ.S. EPA-WttOH Agreement for Delegation of
Auihori'y of the SeguUJiens for Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources (40
OKH Part 80) and National Emission
The undersigned, on behalf of the Hawaii
Department of Health (HDOH) and the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA), hereby agrees to the
delegation of authority for the
implementation of 40 CFR Part 60, Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources
(NSPS) and 40 CFR Part 61. National
Emiosion Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) from the U.S. EPA to
the HDOH, oubject to the terms and
conditiono below.
Permits.
1. After the effective date of this
Agreement, Authority to Construct permits
issued by HDOH shall include appropriate
provisions to ensure compliance with
applicable NSPS. The categories of new or
modified sources covered by this Agreement
«re:
a. Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators.
Subpart D.
b. Electric Utility Steam Generator. Subpart
Da.
c. Incinerators, Subpart E.
d. Portland Cement Plants, Subpart F.
a. Asphalt Concrete Plants, Subpart I.
f. Petroleum Refineries, Subpart ].
g. Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Constructed after May 18,1978, Subpart Ka.
h. Sewage Treatment Plants, Subpart O.
i. Stationary Gas Turbines, Subpart GG.
2. After the effective date of this
Agreement, Authority to Construct permits
issued by HDOH shall include appropriate
provisions to ensure compliance with
applicable NESHAPS. The category of new or
modified sources covered by this Agreement
is limited to mercury. Subpart E.
4. If at any time there is a conflict between
a HDOH regulation and a U.S. EPA
regulation (40 CFR Parts 60 and 61), the U.S.
EPA regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the HDOH. Exemptions
authorized under HDOH's permit regulations
will not exempt sources from controls
required by 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
5. Performance tests shall be scheduled and
conducted in accordance with the procedures
set forth in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 unless
ajternate methods or procedures are
approved by the U.S. EPA. Although the U.S.
EPA retains the exclusive right to approve
equivalent and alternative test methods as
specified in 40 CFR 60.8(b) (2) and (3). and
61.14, the HDOH may approve minor changes
in methodology provided these changes are
reported to U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA also
retains the right to change an opacity
standard as specified in 40 CFR eo.ll(e).
a. The HDOH shall observe whenever
possible required performance tests and
determine compliance with NSPS/NESHAPS
and maintain the following documentations
for each test: (i) Source test plan and review;
(ii) Source test observation report: and (iii)
Source test report evaluation.
b. The HDOH shall notify U.S. EPA of ell
source test violations of applicable NSPS/
NESHAPS within five dsvs of co?nn!etion of
the HDOH's evaluation.
c. By December 31,1883. the HDOH shall
require sources to report particulate
emissions in two categories: (i) Front half
(filter and probe) and (ii) Front and bach half
(probe, filter and impingers).
d. Each quarter, the HDOH shall notify U.S.
EPA of upcoming performance tests for the
upcoming quarter.
e. The U.S. EPA shall provide HDOH with
source test observation training by December
31,1683.
3. Additionally, the HDOH must require
reporting of all excess emissions from any
NSPS oource in accordance with 00 CFR
G0.7(c).
IV-161
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 180 / Thursday. September 15, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
7. Alternatives to continuous monitoring
procedures or reporting requirements, as
outlined in 40 CFR 60.13(i), may be approved
by the HDOH with the prior concurrence of
the U.S. EPA.
8. If a source proposes to modify its
operation or facility which may cause the
source to be subject to NSPS/NESHAPS
requirements, or if there are questions on
interpretations of the same, the HDOH shall
notify U.S. EPA and obtain a determination
on the applicability of the NSPS/NESHAP
regulations.
Enforcement
HDOH will have primary responsibility for
enforcement of the delegated NSPS/
NESHAPS categories in accordance with the
State's procedures and regulations.
Technical Support and Monitoring
1. HDOH air laboratory cannot provide any
technical and monitoring support for NSPS at
this time.
2. NESHAPS sampling and analysis will be
the responsibility of the generator: any
additional or follow-up sampling and
analysis for HDOH will be done by a private '
laboratory under contract to HDOH.
General Delegation Conditions
1. Acceptance of this delegation of
presently promulgated NSPS and NESHAPS
does not commit the State to request or
accept responsibility of future standards and
requirements. A new request for
responsibility will be required for any
standards not included in 1 and 2 under
Permits.
2. This delegation covers regulation as in
effect on the date of this Agreement and
revisions promulgated after the date for NSPS
and NESHAPS categories identified in 1 and
2 under Permits. U.S. EPA will be responsible
to provide HDOH with six copies of the
regulations and revision thereof delegated
under this Agreement. HDOH shall not be
responsible for aspects of any permit for
which EPA failed to provide HDOH with
appropriate regulations or revisions prior to
HDOH's issuance of a permit.
3. If the U.S. EPA determines that the
HDOH is not implementing the NSPS or
NESHAPS programs in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this delegation, this
delegation, after consultation with HDOH.
may be revoked in whole or part. Any such
revocation shall be effective as of the date
specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
HDOH
4. The delegation may be amended or
cancelled at any time by the formal written
agreement of both the HDOH and the U.S.
EPA including amendments to add, change or
remove conditions or terms of this
Agreement.
5. Information shall be made available to
the public in accordance with 40 CFR 60.9
and 61.l5(b). Any records, reports, or
information provided to. or otherwise
obtained by, the HDOH in accordance with
the provisions of these regulations shall be
made available to the designated
representative of U.S. EPA upon request.
6. This delegation of authority is effective
upon the date of this Agreement.
Dated: July 26.1983.
Miilvin K. Koizumi.
Hawaii Department of Health.
Dated: August 15.19B3.
John Wise,
Environmental Protection Agency.
A copy of the letter requesting
delegation of authority is available for
public inspection at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 9 Office, Air Management
Division. Air Operaiions Brunch, 215
Fremont Street, San Francisco,
California 94105.
With respect to the State of Hawaii,
all reports, applications, submittals. and
other communications pertaining to the
NSPS and NESHAPS source categories
listed in the agreement should be
directed to the HDOH at the address in
the ADDRESS section of this notice.
The Regional Administrator finds
good cause for forgoing prior public
notice and for making this rulemaking
effective immediately in that it is an
administrative change and not one of
substantive content. No additional
substantive burdens are imposed on the
parties affected. This delegation became
effective according to the date cited in
DATES, therefore, it serves no purpose to
delay the technical change of this
addition of the State address to the
Code of Federal Regulations.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
This Notice is issued under the
Authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.j.
Dated: September 6,1983.
John C Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
PARTS 60 AND 61—[AMENDED]
Subpart A of Parts 60 and 61 of_
Chapter I. Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
Sections 60.4(b)(M) and 61.04(b)(M)
are each amended by adding the
address of the Hawaii Department of
Health to read as follows:
§§ 60.4 and 61.04 Addrew.
(Mr • •
f lawaii Department of Heulth. 1250
Punchbowl Street. Honolulu. HI S6H13
Hawaii Department ol Health (mailing
address). Post Office Box 3378. Honolulu.
HI »>«n
|FR Doi 83- :'04B Fiied ft-14-B'l. 8 4.', »
BILLING CODE M60-SO-M
IV-162
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 183 / Tuesday, September 20, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
85
40 CFR Part* 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2436-7]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Rule-related notice.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on behalf of the Madera County Air
Pollution Control District (MCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 28,1983.
ADDRESS: Madera County Air Pollution
Control District, 135 W. Yosemite
Avenue, Madera, CA 93637.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
MCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated June 13,1983
and is reproduced in its entirety as
follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2815,
Sacramento. CA 95812.
Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of May 4,1983,1 am pleased to inform you
that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of the Madera County
Air Pollution Control District MCAPCD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found the MCAPCD's programs and
procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
NSPS
General Provisions
Electric Utility Steam Generators
Petroleum Storage Vessels -
Glass Manufacturing Plants
Surface Coating ol Metal Furniture
Stationary Gas Turbines , ,
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
Automobile S light-Duty Truck Surface Coating;
Operations
Phosphate Rock Plants
Ammonium Sutfate
Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing
Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances
Metal Coil Surface Coating
Asphalt Roofing and Aspnalt Roofing Manufacture.
40 CFR
Part 60
Subpart
A
Da
Ka
CC
EE
GG
KK
PP
00
SS
TT
LIU
NESHAPS
General Provisions..
40 CFR
Panel
Subpart
In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
since the MCAPCD's revised programs and
procedures are acceptable;
NSPS
Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam GeneratorB
Portland Cement Plants
Nitric Aod Plants
Sulfuric Acid ("ants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessel* for Petroleum Liquids. ...
Secondary Brass A Bronza Ingot Production.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Primary Copper Smetteift-... „
Primary Aluminum Reduction Ptenta . .
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry; Wet Proems Phos-
phoric Acid Plants
Acid Plant*
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Oiammonium Phos-
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Superphoa-
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple Su-
Coal Preparation Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
Kraft Pulp Mills
Lime Manufacturing Plants
40 CFR
Part 60
Subpart
D
E
F
S
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
O
p
o
R
s
T
u
V
W
x
Y
z
AA
BB
OD
MH
NESHAPS
Aafrfitpt . «...
Beryllium _ _
lAgreMry
Vinyl Cnloride ..-
40 CFR
Pert 84
Subpart
B
C
B
E
F
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA'a test methods and .
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives-written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
Sincerely,
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
cc: Madera County Air Pollution Control
District.
With respect to Madera County all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the MCAPCD at the address shown in
the ADDRESS section of this notice.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
Dated: September 7.1983.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 63-25561 Filed 9-19-83: &4S am)
HLUMQ CODE SMO-SO-M
IV-163
-------
Ksgnote / Vol. 48, No. 1E3 / Friday, September 23, 1S83 / Rules and Regulations
86
[A-B-FRL 243»-4]
A@EK)@V: Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA).
ACTTOKK Rule-related notice.
OUMKIAKIV: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (GARB)
on behalf of the Merced County Air
Pollution Control District (MCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE BATE: June 10, 1983.
Aoorasss: Merced County Air Pollution
Control District, 210 East 15th Street,
P.O. Box 471, Merced, CA 95340.
POS FURTHER ICaFOKdATlOM
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel.: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
0U[?S>>IJ£t3ENYABV I
GARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
MCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated May 26, 1983
apH is reproduced in its e^'^ety a«
follows:
Mr. Jameo D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2815.
Sacramento. CA S5812.
Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of May 4.1E83,1 am pleased to inform you
that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories) of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of Merced County Air
Pollution Control District (MCAPCD). We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found the MCAPCD's programs and
procedures to be acceptable. This delegation
includes authority for the following source
categories:
NSPS
Gsnsrd Proveons
Kraft Pulp lyain
1 H»M CA ....J. , 1 Pf-VrtO
Lccd-Accd Battery (^anutectuTtng Ptants
AutomabJa & Light-Duty Trued Surtcce Coating
Industrial Surtcso Coating: Lcrg3 App&mcas
Acptolt RooSng end Acphalt Roofing Manufac-
ture.
40 CFR
pert 60
suopert
A
Da.
Ka
BB
CC.
DD
EE
GG
HH
KK.
MM.
NN
PP
SS.
uu.
NESHAPS
Vinyl Chtorids...
40CFH
panel
subpart
In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and NESHAPS categories
since the MCAPCD's revised programs and
procedures are acceptable:
NSPS
Fossil-Fust Fired Steam Generators D.
Incinarators E-
Portlam) Cemsrt Plants F.
Nitric Acid Plants G.
Sutluric Accd Plants H.
Asphalt Concrete Plants I.
Potroisurn Refineries J-
Storaga Vesssis for Petroleum Liquids K.
Sscondary Lead Smsfters L
Sscondary Brass & Bronze Ingot Production M.
Plants.
Iron ond Steel Plants (BOPF) N.
Ssoegs Treatment Plants. ! O.
P.
Q.
R.
40 CFR
part 60
subpart
Primary Copper Smelters.
Pnmcry Zinc Smelters..
Primary Leod Smelters.
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants { S.
Phosphate Fertilizer industry- j
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants ; T.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Superphosphonc Acia Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry.
Donmonium Phosphate Plants i V
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: I
Triple Superphosphate Plants i W.
Phosphate FeitSzer Industry |
Granular Tripte Suparphocphote j X
^.jtu Prcpcroton Pbnts JY
Fcnodtoy Production Fccffltie. ! 2
Con end Sled PJcnSo (tfccffte Arc Fu7?cn=3).
co cm
KESHAPS
AdKXJtOO
fr'TyTHnn Rcc6ot P£o?or Rrfno
40CFR
pert 81
CU&$C7l
A
8
c
D
E
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
Diotrict of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Rogistar in the near future.
Cordially yours,
Sonia F. Crow,
Regional Administrator.
cc: Merced County Air Pollution Control
District.
With respect to Merced County all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the MCAPCD at the address shown in
the ADDRESS section of this notice.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.}.
Dated: September 7,1883.
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FH Doc. 8S-25SBO Filed 9-22-83: 0:45 am]
C3UK32 cess osso-ea-a
WMutente (MESHAPi) iBa«Q
OOSKiev: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 186 / Friday. September 23. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPS) 40 cm
authority to the California Air Resources
Board (GARB) on behalf of the Kern
County Air Pollution Control District a*m* PmMam....- .„. A.
(KCAPCD). This action is necessary to a!e^i^Is«es»r^ar«»aw»°™ZZI!ZI" Da.
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program hmneiaiors.___— E.
delegations up to date with recent EPA r*n?AddPiantsPI"nl* " G
promulgations and amendments of these suNurtc Add PtaiZZZZZZZZZZ!!! H.
categories. This action does not create ptwIeumRennerto"18— '
any new regulatory requirements s^g, vessels tor Pmiieum"u|ukis K
affecting the public. The effect of the Petroleum Storage Vessels Ka.
delegation is to shift the primary |^S!Sj ^Tllc^e' ir^'Troi^n M.
program responsibility for the affected Plants.
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from S^^SrSlI^n^ o
EPA to State and local governments. Primary copper smeitare.ZZZZZZZZ! P.
Primary Zinc Smelters O.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12,1983. Primary Lead Smelters R.
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants S.
ADDRESS: Kern County Air Pollution Prosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet Process T
« Quito Phoiphwic Acid Plants.
i, ouue Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphosphork: U.
Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diammor«jm Phosphate Plants V.
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3- """T^aJ^oSSuTpiants w.
1), Air Operations Branch, Air Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Management Division, EPA, Region 9, ca^afm^fiuS^*0^^* v
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA Ferroalloy Production FadiiitiesZZZZZZ"! z.
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236. FTS 454-8236. ^,%SnSJSJ[,Plant8 (Elect"c *" Furnloe" ££
•tiiBcu caaBhiTABV isicnBSJATfmi* T*Ko Glass Manufacturing Plants ~ CC.
•wrLCMCPiiANT inruHMMiiun. ine Grain Elevators ... ... DD.
CARB has requested authority for Stationary Sas Turbines GG.
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
KCAPCD. Delegation of authority was Ammonium Suiiate : PP.
granted by a letter dated June 27,1983
and is reproduced in its entirety as .
fnllnwfi' 4O CFR
IOUOW8' NESHAPS part 81
Mr. James D. Boyd, ^^^^
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Genwai Provisions A.
Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box Z815, SfS?108 c
Sacramento, CA 95812 i«yiS'R"o^"iio»'r^"Z;ZZrZ;ZZ o.
Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request Mercury E.
of June 6,1983,1 am pleased to inform you v
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 199 / Thursday. October. 13. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
87
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[AD-FRL-2449-7]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards For Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Delegation of Authority to
the State of New York
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Rule related notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces Ihe re-
delegation of authority by the
Environmental Protection Agency to the
State of New York to implement and
enforce certain portions of the Federal
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources ("NSPS") and the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAPs").
pursuant to Section lll{c)(l) and
112(dHl) of the Clean Air Act. It also
announces the delegation of additional
NSPS source categories.
NSPS and NESHAPs are air pollution
control regulations promulgated under
the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et.
seq.). NSPS are applicable to certain
categories of new air pollution sources.
NESHAPs are applicable to certain
categories of sources which emit certain
pollutants considered hazardous.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective
October 13. 1983.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francis W. Giaccone. Chief. Air
Compliance Branch. Air and Waste
Management Division. Region 11 Office.
26 Federal Plaza. New York. New York
10278, (212) 264-9627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
August 10.1983, Commissioner Henry G.
Williams of Ihe New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) accepted authority
from the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to implement and enforce
certain portions of the federally
established Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) as
follows:
NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts:
E Incinerators
F Portland Cement Plants
G Nitric Acid Plants
H Sulfuric Acid Plants
I Asphalt Concrete Plants
J Petroleum Refineries
K Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
K;i Storage Vessels for Pntroleum Liquids
Constructed after 5/18/78
L Secondary Lead Smellers
M Secondary Bniss Pi Bronze Ingot
Production
N Iron A Steel Plants
O Sewage Treatment Plants
P Primary Copper Smelters
Q Primary Zinc Smelters
R Primary Lead Smelters
S Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
T Wnl Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
U Superphosphoric Acid Plants
V Di-Ammonium Phosphate Plants
W Triple Superphosphate Plants
X Granular Triple Superphosphate Plants
Y Coal Preparation Plants
Z Ferroalloy Production Facilities
AA Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel
Industry
BB Krafi Pulp Mills
CC Glnss Manufacturing Plants
DU Grain Elevators
EE' Metal Furniture Surface Coating
HH Lime Manufacturing Plants
KK" Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing
Plants
MM Automobile & Light-Duty Truck Surface
Coating Operations
NN' Phosphate Rock Plants
PP Ammonium Sultate Manufacture
QQ' Graphic Arts Industry: Production
Rotogravure Printing
SS* Industrial Surface Coating: Large
Appliances
TP Melal Coil Surface Coating
UU' Asphalt Processing and Asphalt
Roofing Manufacture
'Newly Delegated
NESHAPS, 40 CFR Part 61. Subparts:
B Asbestos (excepting only §§ 61.22(b)
(Surfacing of Roadways with Asbestos-
Containing Materials): 61.22(d)
(Demolitions and Renovations! fil.^Jii)
(Insulating): and 61.2:'||)|2|. 61.22|k)i2|.
and HI.25 (all three of which relate t»
waste disposal)).
C Beryllium
D Beryllium Rocket Motor Firing
E Mercury
F Vinyl Chloride
EPA's determination that the
delegation request should be approved
is based upon the Agency's review of
the New York State Environmental
Conservation Law Article 19 (Air
Pollution Control) and Article 71. Title
21 (Enforcement of Title 19); and
relevant portions of Title 6 Official
Compilation of Codes. Rules and
Regulations of the State of New York
("NYCRR"). in particular, Parts 200. 201.
202 and 212.
EPA determined that such delegation
is. therefore, appropriate and so notified
Ihe Commissioner of DEC in a letter
dated July 14,1983. This letter identified
the conditions under which delegation
would be approved. DEC subsequently
accepted delegation in a letter dated
August 10,1983. Copies of all
correspondence and EPA's delegation
letter are available for public inspection
in the Office of the Air Compliance
Branch, at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 11 Office, 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York 10278.
Effective immediately, all
correspondence, reports and
notifications required by the delegated
NSPS and NESHAPs should be
submitted to the appropriate regional
office of the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation or the
central office located at 50 Wolf Road.
Albany, N.Y. 12233, Attention: Division
of Air, Bureau of Source Control.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
Sections 7411 and 7412).
Dated: September 21,1983.
Jacqueline E. Schafer,
Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. SJ-27651 Filed lO-lLMa H:45 jm|
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M
IV-166
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 237 / Thursday, December 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
88
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
(A-7-FRL 2483-5]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Rule related notice.
SUMMARY: This notice announces an
extension of a delegation of authority
that was initially issued to the State of
Missouri by the Environmental
Protection Agency on December 16.
1980, regarding the requirements of the
Federal Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources (NSPS), 40 CFR
Part 60, and the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS). 40 CFR Part 61. The
extension was requested by the State of
Missouri. The extension action added
two (2) NSPS source categories to the
delegation. The delegation of authority
now includes all delegable requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations as promulgated by the
agency through July 1,1982.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8,1983.
ADDRESSES: All requests, reports.
applications, submittals and such other
communications that are required to be
submitted under 40 CFR Part 60 or 40
CFR Part 61 (including the notifications
required under Subpart A of the
regulations) for facilities in Missouri
affected by the revised delegation
should be sent to the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, P.O.
Box 176, Jefferson City. Missouri 65102.
A copy of all Subpart A related
notifications must also be sent to the
attention of the Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S. EPA, Region
VII. 324 East llth Street. Kansas City.
Missouri 64106.
FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles W. Whitmore, Chief, Technical
Analysis Section, Air Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region VII, at the above address (816-
374-6525 or FTS-758-6525).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections
lll(c) and 112(d) of the Clean Air Act,
respectively, allow the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
(i.e., EPA or the agency) to delegate to
any state government the authority to
implement and enforce the requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations. When a delegation is
issued, the agency retains concurrent
authority to implement and enforce the
requirements of said regulations. The
effect of a delegation is to shift the
primary responsibility for implementing
and enforcing the standards for the
affected categories (and the affected
activities) from the agency to the state
government.
On December 16, 1980, the agency
delegated to the State of Missouri the
authority to implement and enforce the
standards as promulgated by the agency
through December 1, 1979 (see 46 FR
27392, May 19, 1981). On November 6.
1981, and June 17, 1982. the agency
extended the initial delegation to
include all requirements of said
regulations as amended by the agency
through July 1, 1980, and July 1, 1981.
respectively (see 47 FR 36422, August 20,
1982).
On September 20. 1983, the State of
Missouri requested an extension of the
delegation to reflect an updating of its
NSPS and NESHAPS rules. The State of
Missouri has revised 10 CSR 10-6.070
(NSPS-related) and 10 CSR 10-6.080
(NESHAPS-related) to incorporate by
reference the standards of 40 CFR Parts
60 and 61 as amended by the agency
through July 1, 1982.
In consideration of the information
contained in the above-mentioned letter,
1116 agency granted 'Cats extension
request on October 7, 1983.
The latest action by the agency
extended the delegation to include the
following additional provisions:
Revisions made to Subpart GO
(Stationary Gas Turbines).
NESHAPS
Reference Method 101A—
Determination of Participate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from
Sewage Sludge Incinerators; and.
Revisions made to Subpart A (General
Provisions), Subpart E (National
Emission Standard for Mercury), and
Reference Methods 101 and 102 of
Appendix B.
Effective immediately, all reports.
correspondence, and such other
submittals required under the NSPS or
NESHAPS regulations for sources
affected by the revised delegation
should be sent to the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources at the
above address rather than the EPA
Region VII office, except as noted
below.
A copy of each notification required
under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A, or
under 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A, must
also be sent to the attention of the
Director, Air and Waste Management
Division. EPA, Region VII, 324 East llth
Street, Kansas City. Missouri 64106.
Each document and letter mentioned
in this notice is available for public
inspection at the EPA regional office.
This notice is issued under the
authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412).
Dated: November 8,1983.
Morris Kay,
Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc 83-32572 Filed 12-7-«3; M5 urn]
BILLING CODE e960-SO-M
Subpart KK— Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants;
Subpart NN — Phosphate Rock Plants;
Reference Method 12 — Determination
of Inorganic Lead Emissions from
Stationary Sources; and.
IV-167
-------
Federal Kegistsr / Vol. 48, No. 238 / Friday, December 9, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
I AD-FRL 2453-7]
National Emission Standards (or
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Revisions
and) Additions
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
: Revisions to Methods 103 and
104 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 61 are
being made to incorporate metric units
in data collection and calculations, and
to provide consistency with other
methods in Part 61. Additions to § 61.18
are being made to incorporate by
reference the quality specifications for
the reagent water required by Method
104, and for the filter media required by
Methods 503 and 104. This action
promulgates the revisions and additions.
GJflTES: Effective December 9, 1983.
Under Section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air
Act, judicial review of the revisions and
amendment is available only by the
filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this rule. Under
Section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,
the requirements that are the subject of •
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Incorporation by Reference, The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications in these standards is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of December 9, 1983.
FOK FURTHER IMFOHMflTIOM CONTACT:
Roger Shigehara, Emission Measurement
Branch, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-19), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2237.
Revisions end Additions
This rulemaking does not impose any
additional emission measurement
requirements on any facilities. Rather.
the rulemaking simply provides for the
use of the metric system and simplified
instructions in test methods associated
with emission measurement
requirements that would apply
irrespective of this rulemaking.
Therefore, additional notice and
comment are "unnecessary," and the
Agency has "good cause," under 42
U.S.C. 7607(d)(l) and 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
subparagraph (B), to promulgate these
revisions and additions without further
notice and comment.
Public {Participation
Public comments were not sought
because of the noncontroversial nature
of the revisions and additions.
Miscellaneous
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. The regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices; and there will be no
. significant adverse effects on
completion, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic or export markets.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291.
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to OMB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b). I hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have any economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, because the revisions do not
impose any additional test cost.
This rulemaking is issued under the
authority of sections 112,114, and 301(a)
of the Clean Air Act, amended (42 U.S.C.
7412, 7414, and 7601(a)).
lisa of Subjects in M CFR Part ffif:
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfaie plants. Asphalt,
Cement industry, Coal, Copper, Electric
power plants, Glass and glaso products.
Grains, intergovernmental relations.
Iron, Lead, Metals, Metallic minerals,
Motor vehicles, Nitric acid plants, Paper
and paper products industry. Petroleum,
Phosphate, Sewage disposal. Steel,
Sulfuric acid plants, Waste treatment
and disposal. Zinc, Tires, Incorporation
by Reference, Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent cleaners,
Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam generators.
Dated: December 5, 1983.
William O. Ruckalshauo,
Administrator.
40 CFR Part 61 is amended as follows:
1. In § 61.18, paragraph (a) is amended
by revising paragraph (a)(2) and by
adding a new paragraph (a)(3) as
follows:
§ 8H.HQ OneorporaJlono by reference.
O O O O O
(a) " ' *
(2) ASTM D 1193-77, Standard
Specification for Reagent Water, IBR
approved for Method 101, par. 6.1.1;
Method 101A, par. 6.1.1; Method 104,
par. 3.1.2.
(3) ASTM D 2986-71 (Reapproved
1978), Standard Method for Evaluation
of Air, Assay Media by the
Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate)
Smoke Test, IBR approved for Method
103, par. 2.1.3; Method 104, par. 3.1.1.
O
-------
/ Vol. 48. No. 238 / Friday. December 0, 1083 f Rules and Regulations
PROBE
FILTER
METER-PUMP
SYSTEM
Figure 103-1. Beryllium screening method; sample train schematic.
2.1.1 Nozzle. Stainless steel, or
equivalent, with sharp, tapered leading edge.
2.1.2 Probe. Sheathed borosilicate or
quartz glass tubing.
2.1.3 Filter. Millipore AA (Note: Mention
of trade names or specific products does not
constitute endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency), or equivalent, with
appropriate filter holder that provides a
positive seal against leakage from outside or
around the filter. It is suggested that a
Whatman 41, or equivalent, be placed
immediately against the back side of the
Millipore filter as a guard against breakage of
the Millipore. Include the backup filter in the
analysis. To be equivalent, other filters shall
exhibit at least 89.95 percent efficiency (0.05
percent penetration) on 0.3 micron dioctyl
phlhalate smoke particles, and be amenable
to the Be analysis procedure. The filter
efficiency tests shall be conducted in
accordance with American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard
Method D 2986-71 (reapproved 197B)
(incorporated by reference—see 8 61.18). Test
data from the supplier's quality control
program are sufficient for this purpose.
2.1.4 Meter-Pump System. Any system
that will maintain isokinetic sampling rate,
determine sample volume, and is capable of a
campling rate of greater than 14 1 pm (0.5
cfm).
2.2 Measurement of Stack Conditions.
The following equipment is used to measure
stack conditions:
2.2.1 Pitot Tube. Type S, or equivalent.
with a coefficient within 5 percent over the
working range.
2.2.2 Inclined Manometer, or Equivalent.
To measure velocity head to within 10
percent of the minimum value.
2.2.3 Temperature Measuring Device. To
measure stack temperature to within 1.5 <<
percent of the minimum absolute stack
temperature.
2.2.4 Pressure Measuring Device. To
measure stack pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg
(0.1 in. Hg).
2.2.5 Barometer. To measure atmospheric
pressure to within 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in. Hg).
2.2.6 Wet and Dry Bulb Thermometers,
Drying Tubes, Condensers, or Equivalent. To
determine stack gas moisture content to
within 1 percent.
2.3 Sample Recovery.
2.3.1 Probe Cleaning Equipment. Probe
brush or cleaning rod at least as long as
probe, or equivalent. Clean cotton balls, or
equivalent, should be used with the rod.
2.3.2 Leakless Glass Sample Bottles. To
contain sample.
2.4 Analysis. Use equipment necessary to
perform an atomic absorption,
spectrographic, fluorometric,
chromatographic, or equivalent analysis.
3. Reagents.
3.1 Sample Recovery.
3.1.1 Water. Distilled water.
3.1.2 Acetone. Reagent grade.
3.1.3 Wash Acid, 50 Percent (V/V)
Hydrochloric Acid (HC1).
Mix equal volumes of concentrated HC1
and water, being careful to add the acid •
slowly to the water.
3.2 Analysis. Reagents'as necessary for
the selected analytical procedure.
4. Procedure. Guidelines for source testing
are detailed in the following sections. These
guidelines are generally applicable; however,
most sample sites differ to some degree and
temporary alterations such as stack
extensions or expansions often are required
to insure the best possible sample site.
Further, since Be is hazardous, care should be
taken to minimize exposure. Finally, since the
total quantity of Be to be collected is quite
small, the test must be carefully conducted to
prevent contamination or loss of sample.
4.1 Selection of a Sampling Site and
Number of Sample Runs. Select a suitable
sample site that is as close as practicable to
the point of atmospheric emission. If possible.
stacks smaller than 1 foot in diameter should
not be sampled.
4.1.1 Ideal Sampling Site. The ideal
sampling site is at least eight stack or duct
diameters downstream and two diameters
upstream from any flow disturbance such as
a bend, expansion or contraction. For
rectangular cross sections, use Equation 103-
1 to determine an equivalent diameter, DO.
Eq. 103-1
2LW
L + W
Where:
L=length
W = width
0.1.2 Alternate Sampling Site. Some
sampling situations may render the above
sampling site criteria impractical. In such
cases, select an alternate site no less than
two diameters downstream and one-half
diameter upstream from any point of flow
disturbance. Additional sample runs are
recommended at any sample site not meeting
the criteria of Section 4.1.1.
4.1.3 Number of Sample Runs Per Test.
Three sample runs constitute a test. Conduct
each run at one of three different points.
Select three points that proportionately
divide the diameter, or are located at 25, 50,
and 75 percent of the diameter from the
inside wall. For horizontal ducts, sample on a
vertical line through the centrotd. For
rectangular ducts, sample on a line through
the centroid and parallel to a side. If
additional sample runs are performed per
Section 4.1.2, proportionately divide the duct
to accommodate the total number of runs.
4.2 Measurement of Stack Conditions.
Using the equipment described in Section 2.2,
measure the stack gas pressure, moisture, and
temperature to determine the molecular
weight of the stack gas. Sound engineering
estimates may be made in lieu of direct
measurements. Describe the basis for such
estimates in the test report.
4.3 Preparation of Sampling Train.
Assemble the sampling train as shown in
Figure 103-1. It is recommended that all
glassware be precleaned by soaking in wash
acid for 2 hours.
Leak check the sampling train at the
sampling site. The leakage rate should not be
in excess of 1 percent of the desired sample
rate.
4.4 Beryllium Train Operation. For each
run, measure the velocity at the selected
sampling point. Determine the isokinetic
sampling rate. Record the velocity head and
the required sampling rate. Place the nozzle
at the sampling point with the tip pointing
directly into the gas stream. Immediately
start the pump and adjust the flow to
isokinetic conditions. At the conclusion of the
test, record the sampling rate. Again measure
the velocity head at the sampling point. The
required isokinetic rate at the end of the
period should not have deviated more than 20
percent from that originally calculated.
Describe the reason for any deviation beyond
20 percent in the test report.
Sample at a minimum rate of 14 1pm (0.5
cfm). Obtain samples over such a period or
periods of time as are necessary to determine
the maximum emissions which would occur
in a 24-hour period. In the case of cyclic
operations, perform sufficient sample runs su
as to allow determination or calculation of
the emissions that occur over the duration of
the cycle. A minimum sampling time of 2
hours per run is recommended.
4.5 Sample Recovery. It is recommended
that all glassware be precleaned as in Section
4.3. Sample recovery should also be
performed in an area free of possible Be
contamination. When the sampling train is
moved, exercise care to prevent breakage
and contamination. Set aside a portion of the
acetone used in the sample recovery as a
blank for analysis. The total amount of
IV-169
-------
Federal! K®gis4®ff / Vol. 48, No. 238 / Friday, December 9, 3983 / Rules and Regulations
acetone used should be measured for
accurate blank correction. Blanko can be
eliminated if prior analysis shows negligible
amounts.
Remove the filter (and backup filter, if
used) and any loose participate matter from
filter holder, and place in a container.
Clean the probe with acetone and a brush
or long rod and cotton balls. Wash into the
container with the filter. Wash out the filter
holder with acetone, and add to the same
container.
4.6 Analysis. Make the necessary
preparation of samples and analyze for Be.
Any currently acceptable method ouch as
atomic absorption, spectrographic,
fluorunjetric, chrcrr.atGgrsphic. or equivalent
may be used.
5. Calibration and Standards.
5.1 Sampling Train. As a procedural
check, compare the sampling rate regulation
with a dry gas meter, spirometer, rotameter
(calibrated for prevailing atmospheric
conditions), or equivalent, attached to the
nozzle inlet of the complete sampling train.
5.2 Analysis. Perform the analysis
standardization as suggested by the
manufacturer of the instrument, or the
procedures for the analytical method in use.
6. Calculations.
Calculate the Be emission rate R in g/day
for each stack using Equation 103-2. For
cyclic operations, use only the time per day
each stack is in operation. The total Be
emission rate from a source is the summation
of results from all stacks.
Eq.103-2
R=
W,v.(avg) A. (86.400 X10'
VtfurJ
Where:
Wt=Total weight of Be collected, jig.
v.(avg)=Average stack gas velocity, m/sec
(ft/sec).
Ac(avg) = Stack area, m^ft*).
88,400=Conversion factor, sec/day.
10""= Conversion factor, g/u.g.
Vioioi=Total volume of gas sampled, m^ft8).
7. Test Report.
Prepare a test report that includes as a
minimum: A detailed description of the
sampling train used, results of the procedural
check described in Section 5.1 with all data
and calculations made, all pertinent data
taken during the test, the basis for any
estimates made, isokinetic sampling
calculations, and emission results. Include a
description of the test site, with a block
diagram and brief description of the process,
location of the sample points in the stack
cross section, and stack dimensions and
distances from any point of disturbance.
Method 104—Reference Method for
Determination of Beryllium Emissions From
Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method is
applicable for the determination of beryllium
(Be) emissions in ducts or stacks at
stationary sources. Unless otherwise
specified, this method is not intended to
apply to gas streams other than those emitted
directly to .the atmosphere without further
processing.
1.2 Principle. Be emissions are
isokinetically sampled from the source, and
the collected sample is digested in an acid
oolution and analyzed by atomic absorption
opectrophotometry.
2. Apparatus.
2.1 Sampling Train. The sampling train is
identical to the Method 5 train as shown in
Figure 5-1 (mention of Method 5 refers to 40
CFR Part 60). The sampling train consists of
the following components:
2.1.1 Probe Nozzle, Pitot Tube.
Differential Pressure Gauge, Metering
System, Barometer, and Gas Density
Determination Equipment. Eair.e as Method 5,
Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.8, 2.1.9, and
2.1.10, respectively.
2.1.2 Probe Liner. Borosilicate or quartz
glass tubing. The tester may use a heating
system capable of maintaining a gao
temperature of 120±14*C (248±25T) at the
probe exit during sampling to prevent water
condensation. Note: Do not use metal probe
liners.
2.1.3 Filter Holder. Borosilicate glass, with
a glass frit filter support and a silicone rubber
gasket. Other materials of construction (e.g.,
stainless steel, Teflon, Viton) may be used.
subject to the approval of the Administrator.
(Note: Mention of trade names of specific
products does not constitute endorsement by
the Environmental Protection Agency.} The
holder design shall provide a positive seal
against leakage from the outside or around
the filter. The holder shall be attached
immediately at the outlet of the probe. A
heating system capable of maintaining the
filter at a minimum temperature in the range
of the stack temperature may be used to
prevent condensation from occurring.
2.1.0 Impingers. Four Greenburg-Smith
impingers connnected in oeriea with leak-free
ground glass fittings or any similar leak-free
noncontaminating fittings. For the first, third,
and fourth impingers, the tester may use
impingers that are modified by replacing the
tip with Q 13-mm-ID (0.5-in.) glass tube
extending to 13 mm (0.5 in.) from the bottom
of the flask.
2.2 Sample Recovery. The following items
are needed:
2.2.1 Probe Cleaning Rod. At least as long
as probe.
2.2.2 Glass Sample Bottles. Leakless, with
Teflon-lined caps, SCO-mi.
2.2.3 Graduated Cylinder. 250-ml.
2.2.0 Funnel and Rubber Policeman. To
aid in transfer of silica gel to container: not
necessary if silica gel is weighed in the field.
2.2.5 Funnel. Glass, to aid in sample
recovery.
2.2.6 Plastic Jar. Approximately 300-ml.
2.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
needed:
2.3.1 Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer. Perkin-Elmer 303, or
equivalent, with nitrous oxide/acetylene
burner.
.2.3.2 Hot Plate.
2.3.3 Perchloric Acid Fume Hood.
3. Reagents.
Use ACS reagent-grade chemicals or
equivalent, unless otherwise specified.
3.1 Sampling and Recovery. The reagents
used in sampling and recovery are as follows:
3.1.1 Filter. Millipore AA, or equivalent. It
is suggested that a Whatman 41 filter or
equivalent be placed immediately against the
back side of the Millipore filter as a guard
against breaking the Millipore filter. To be
equivalent, other filters shall exhibit at least
69.95 percent efficiency (0.05 percent
penetration) on 0.3 micron dioctyl phthalate
smoke particles. The filter efficiency teets
shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM
Standard Method D 2986-71 (reapproved
1978) (incorporated by reference—see
6 61.18). Test data from the supplier's quality
cor.'uol program are sufficient for this
purpose.
3.1.2 Water. Deionized distilled, meeting
ASTM Specifications for Type 3 Reagent
Water—ASTM Test Method D 1193-77
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.18). If
high concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present, the analyst may
eliminate the KMnOt test for oxidizable
organic matter.
3.13 Silica Gel. Indicating type. 6- to 16-
mesh. If previously used, dry at 175* C
(350* F) for 2 hours. The tester may use new
silica gel as received.
3.1.4 Acetone.
3.1.5 Wash Acid, 50 Percent (V/V)
Hydrochloric Acid (HC1).
Mix equal volumes of concentrated HC1
and water, being careful to add the acid
slowly to the water.
3.2 Sample Preparation and Analysis. The
reagents needed are listed below:
3.2.1 Water. Same as Section 3.1.2.
3.Z2. Perchloric Acid (HCKX).
Concentrated (70 percent).
3.2.3 Nitric Acid (HMOs). Concentrated.
3.2.4 Beryllium Powder. Minimum purity
98 percent.
3.2.5 Sulfuric Acid (HsSO>) Solution, 12 N.
Dilute 33 ml of concentrated HtSOo to 1 liter
with water.
3.2.6 Hydrochloric Acid Solution, 25
percent HC1 (V/V).
3.2.7 Standard Beryllium Solution. 1 fig
Be/ml. Dissolve 10 mg of He in 80 ml of
12NHiSO< solution, end dilute to 1000 ml with
water. Dilute a 10-ml aliquot to 100 ml with 25
percent HCI solution to give a concentration
of 1 fig/ml. Prepare this dilute stock oolution
fresh daily. Equivalent strength Be stock
solutions may be prepared from Be salts such
as BeCk and Be(NCs)i (98 percent minimum
purity).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 238 / Friday. December 9. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
heads to assure that it is not necessary to
change the nozzle size in order to maintain
isokinetic sampling rates below 28 liters/min
(1.0 cfm).
Obtain samples over a period or periods of
time that accurately determine the maximum
emissions that occur in a 24-hour period. In
the case of cyclic operations, perform
sufficient sample runs for the accurate
determination of the emissions that occur
over the duration of the cycle. A minimum
sample time of 2 hours per run is
recommended.
4.1.3 Prior to assembly, clean all
glassware (probe, impingers, and connectors)
by first soaking in wash acid for 2 hours.
followed by rinsing with water. Place 100 ml
of water in each of the first two impingers.
and leave the third impinger empty. Save a
portion of the.water for a blank analysis.
Place approximately 200 g of preweighted
silica gel in the fourth impinger. The tester
may use more silica gel. but should be careful
to ensure that it is not entrained and carried
out from the impinger during sampling. Place
the silica gel container in a clean place for
later use in the sample recovery. As an
alternative, determine and record the weight
of the silica gej plus impinger to the nearest
0.5 g.
Install the selected nozzel using a Viton A
O-ring when stack temperatures are less the
260°C (500'F). Use a fiberglass string gasket if
temperatures are higher. See APTD-0576
(Citation 9 in Section 10 of Method 101) for
details. Other connecting systems using
either 316 stainless steel or Teflon ferrules
may be used.
If condensation in the probe or filter is a
problem, probe and filter heaters will be
required. Adjust the heaters to provide a
temperature at or above the stack
temperature. However, membrane filters such
as the Millipore AA are limited to about
225'F. If the stack gas is in excess of about
200°F. consideration should be given to an
alternate procedure such as moving the filter
holder downstream of the first impinger to
insure that the filter does not exceed its
temperature limit. Mark the probe with heat-
resistant tape or by some other method to
denote the proper distance into the stack or
duct for each sampling point. Assemble the
train as shown in Figure 5-1 of Method 5.
using (if necessary) a very light coat of
silicone grease on all ground glass joints.
Grease only the outer portion (see APTD-
0576) to avoid possibility of contamination by
the silicon grease. Note: An empty impinger
may be inserted between the third impinger
and the silica gel to remove excess moisture
from the sample stream.
After the sampling train has been
assembled, turn on and set the probe, if
applicable, at the desired operating
temperature. Allow time for the temperatures
to stabilize. Place crushed ice around the
impingers.
4.1.4. Leak-Check Procedures. Follow the
leak-check procedures outlined in Method 5,
Sections 4.1.4.1 (Pretest Leak Check), 4.1.4.2
(Leak Checks During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3
(Post-Test Leak Check).
4.1.5 Beryllium Train Operation. Follow
the general procedure given hi Method 5,
Section 4.1.5. For each run. record the data
required on a data sheet such as the one
shown in Figure 5-2 of Method 5.
4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic.
Same as Method 5, Section 4.1.6.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Begin proper
cleanup procedure as soon as the probe is
removed from the stack at the end of the
sampling period.
Allow the probe to cool. When it can be
safely handled, wipe off any external
particulate matter near the tip of the probe
nozzle, and place a cap over it. Do not cap off
the probe tip tightly while the sampling train
is cooling. Capping would create a vacuum
and draw liquid out from the impingers.
Before moving the sampling train to the
cleanup site, remove the probe from the train.
wipe off the silicone grease, and cap the open
outlet of the probe. Be careful not to lose any
condensate '.hat might be present. Wipe off
the silicone grease from the impinger. Use
either ground-glass stoppers, plastic caps, or
serum caps to close these openings.
Transfer the probe and impinger assembly
to a cleanup area that is clean, protected
from the wind, and free of Be contamination.
Inspect the train before and during this
assembly, and note any abnormal conditions.
Treat the sample as follows:
Disconnect the probe from the impinger
train. Remove the filter and any loose
particulate matter from the filter holder, and
place in a sample bottle. Place the contents
(measured to ±1 ml) of the first three
impingers into another sample bottle. Rinse
the probe and all glassware between it and
the back half of the third impinger with water
and acetone, and add this to the latter sample
bottle. Clean the probe with a brush or a long
slender rod and cotton balls. Use acetone
while cleaning. Add these to the sample
bottle. Retain a sample of the water and
acetone as a blank. The total amount of
water and acetone used should be measured
for accurate blank correction. Place the silica
gel in the plastic jar. Seal and secure all
sample containers for shipment. If an
additional test is desired, the glassware can
be carefully double rinsed with water and
reassembled. However, if the glassware is
out of use more than 2 days, repeat the initial
acid wash procedure.
4.3 Analysis.
4.3.1 Apparatus Preparation. Before use.
clean all glassware according to the
procedure of Section 4.1.3. Adjust the
instrument settings according to the
instrument manual, using an absorption
wavelength of 234.8 nm.
4.3.2 Sample Preparation. The digestion of
Be samples is accomplished in part in
concentrated HC1O.. Caution: The analyst
must insure that the sample is heated to light
brown fumes after the initial HNOj addition;
otherwise, dangerous perchlorates may result
from the subsequent HClOi digestion. HC1O.
should be used only under a hood.
4.3.2.1 Filter Preparation. Transfer the
filter and any loose particulate matter from
the sample container to a 150-ml beaker. Add
35 ml concentrated HNO* Heat on a hotplate
until light brown fumes are evident to destroy
all organic matter. Cool to room temperature,
and add 5 ml concentrated HtSO« and 5 ml
concentrated HC1O,. Then proceed with step
4.3.2.4.
4.3.2.2 Water Preparation. Place a portion
of the water and acetone sample into a 150-
ml beaker, and put on a hotplate. Add
portions of the remainder as evaporation
proceeds and evaporate to dryness. Cool the
residue, and add 35 ml concentrated HNO,.
Heat on a hotplate until light brown fumes
are evident to destroy any organic matter.
Cool to room temperature, and add 5 ml
concentrated H>SO< and 5 ml concentrated
HC1O.. Then proceed with step 4.3.2.4.
4.3.2.3 Silica Gel Preparation Analyses.
Weigh the spent silica gel. and report to the
nearest gram.
4.3.2.4 Final Sample Preparation. Samples
from 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 may be combined here
for ease of analysis. Replace on a hotplate.
and evaporate to dryness in a HC1O. hood.
Cool and dissolve the residue in 10.0 ml of 25
percent V/V HC1. Samples are now ready for
the atomic absorption unit. It is necessary for
the Be concentration of the sample to be
within the calibration range of the unit. If
necessary, perform further dilution of sample
with 25 percent V/V HO to bring the sample
within the calibration range.
4.3.3 Beryllium Determination. Analyze
the samples prepared in 4.3.2 at 234.8 nm
using a nitrous oxide/acetylene flame.
Aluminum, silicon and other elements can
interfere with this method if present In large
quantities. Standard methods are available.
however, that may be used to effectively
eliminate these interferences (see Citation 2
in Section 8).
5. Calibration.
5.1 Sampling Train. Calibrate the
sampling train components according to the
procedures outlined in the following sections
of Method 5: Section 5.1 (Probe Nozzle),
Section 5.2 (Pilot Tube). Section 5.3 (Metering
System), Section 5.4 (Probe Heater). Section
5.5 (Temperature Gauges). Section 5.7
(Barometer). Note that the leak check
described in Section 5.6 of Method 5 applies
to this method.
6. Calculations.
6.1 Dry Gas Volume. Using the data from
each sample run. calculate the dry gas
sample volume at standard conditions V^,^,
(corrected for leakage, if necessary) as
outlined in Section 6.3 of Method 5.
6.2 Volume of Water Vapor in Sample
and Moisture Content of Stack Gas. Using the
data obtained from each sample run,
calculate the volume of water vapor V^lld> in
the sample, and the moisture content Bw, of
the stack gas. Use Equations 5-2 and 5-3 of
Method 5.
6.3 Stack Gas Velocity. Using the data from
each sample run and Equation 2-9 of Method
2, calculate the average stack gas velocity
V.Uv.l-
6.4 Beryllium Emission Rate. Calculate
the Be emission rate R in g/day for each
stack using Equation 104-1. For cyclic
operations, use only the time per day each
stack is in operation. The total Be emission
rate from a source will be the summation of
results from all stacks.
IV-171
-------
Feaeral Register / Vol. 48. No. 236 / Friday. December 9. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
Eq. 104-1 P. = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in. In addition to Citations 1-3 and 5-15 of
Hg). Section 10 of Method 101. the following
K=0.3858 'It/mm Hg for metric units. citations may be helpful:
R=K W'v"-' A.'86-400*™ 1 =17.M -p/jn. Hg for English units. 1. Amos. M.D., and J. B. Willis. Use of High-
IV.u.o+V.^.KT./P.) 65 Akinetic Variation and Acceptable Temperature Pre-Mixed Flames in Atomic
Results. Same as Method 5. Sections 8.11 and Absorption Spectroscopy. Spectrochim. Acta.
61° resnectivelv £2:1325.1966.
wheT:,i K, ,». ii A '?. Determination of Compliance.**** 2. Fleet R. K. V. UbWJf. and T & West. A
W, -Total we,gh. of Be collected „* performance test consists of three sample Study of Some Matrix Effects m the
A. = Stack cross-sectional area, M2 (ft2). „,„„ o/ the applicabie ,e8t method. For the Determination of Beryllium by Atomic
86.400=Conversion factor, sec/day. of detennining compliance with an ^°^on Spectroscopy in the Nitrous
10-« = Conversion factor, g/M. appUcable national emission standard, use Oxide-Acetylene Flame. Talanta 77:203.1970.
T, = Absolute average stack gas temperature, the average of the results of all sample runs.
"K CP) a Bibliography.
IV-172
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 26 / Tuesday. February 7, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
90
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
IA-6-FRL 2521-1]
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Louisiana for National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Authority delegations.
SUMMARY: EPA, Region 6. has delegated
the authority for implementation and
enforcement of the NESHAP program to
the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources (LDNR). Except as
specifically limited, al! of the authority
and responsibilities of the Administrator
or the Regional Administrator which are
found in 40 CFR Part 61 are delegated to
the LDNR. Any of such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the Department to its Program
Administrator or staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14,1983
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dcmna M. Ascenzi, Air Branch.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 6, InterFirs? Two Building. 28th
I'ioor, 1201 Elm Street. Dallas. Texas
75270; (214) 767-1594 or (FTS) 729-1594.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
LDNR has requested delegation of
authority to implement and enforce
NESHAP. After review of the Louisiana
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air or Dractice which
Pollutants (LESHAP). delegation of
authority was granted October 14,19U3.
The following represents the terms and
conditions of the delegation:
1. Implementation and enforcement of
the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants in the State of
Louisiana will be the primary
responsibility of the LDNR. If the State
of Louisiana or the LDNR determines
that such implementation or
••nforcement is not possible or feasible.
either with respect to an individual
source, a class of sources, or generally.
the LDNR shall within 30 days notify
EPA Region 6. of such impossibility or
infeasibility so that EPA may timely
exercise its concurrent authority with
respect to sources within the State of
Louisiana.
2. The LDNR is authorized to assume
NESHAP partial delegation
responsibility for future standards and
requirements without making a written
request to EPA, subject to the delegation
conditions and terms as set forth in this
agreement. Partial delegation
responsibilities include the technical
and administrative review. Technical
and administrative duties shall include.
but not be limited to, determination of
applicability, review and evaluation of
NESHAP applications, review and
evaluation of request for waivers of
compliance under 40 CFR 61.11 and/or
waivers of emission tests under 40 CFR
61.13, performance and evaluation of
inspections, and observance and
evaluation of stack tests and continuous
emission monitoring tests.
3. Acceptance of this delegation
constitutes agreement by the LDNR to
follow all interpretations, past and
future, made by EPA of 40 CFR Part 61
including determinations of
applicability. The LDNR agrees to
consult with the EPA Region 6 on
questions of interpretations of the
NESHAP. A copy of each interpretation
(including compliance determinations)
made by the LDNR shall be sent to EPA
Region 6.
4. The State of Louisiana and the
LDNR are not authorized to grant any
exemption, variance, or waiver from
compliance with any provision of 40
CFR Part 61 except for the waiver of
emission tests authorized in 40 CFR
61.13 and the waiver of compliance
authorized in 40 CFR 61.11. A copy of
any waiver of emission tests under 40
CFR 61.13, or of any waiver of
compliance under 40 CFR 61.11 shall be
sent to EPA Region 6. Should the State
of Louisiana or the LDNR grant any
other exemption, variance or waiver to
any source or category of sources
pursuant to any state law, regulations.
provisions of 40 CFR 61, then LDNR
shall immediately notify EPA Region 6,
of the granting of such an exemption,
variance or waiver from the compliance
with Federal requirements. EPA may
consider any source receiving such relief
to be violating or threatening to violate
the applicable federal regulation and
may initiate enforcement action against
the source pursuant to Section 113 of the
Clean Air Act. The granting of any
exemption, variance, or waiver by the
State of Louisiana or the LDNR shall
also constitute grounds for revocation of
delegation by EPA. in whole or in part
at the discretion of the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region 6.
5. The LDNR shall utilize methods am)
means of determining compliance- at
least as stringent as those specified in 40
CFR Part 61. All performance tests arc
to be conducted-at normal maximum
production. All requests from sources
for equivalent or alternate methods sh;>i:
be forwarded to EPA Region 6. with 01
without a recommendation. Authority is
delegated to approve minor
modifications to the reference test
melhods during either a pre-tesl meeting
or the actual sampling period. These
minor modifications would have to
produce results essentially identical to
the reference method results. Approval
of these minor modifications should be
based on sound engineering judgement.
Under no circumstances are
modifications to be used which might
result in the non-uniform application of
the standards.
6. If at any time there is a conflict
between any State regulation and any
provision of 40 CFR Part 61, the federal
regulation must be applied to the extent
that it is more stringent than that of the
State. If the State of Louisiana or the
LDNR does not have the authority to
enforce the more stringent federal
regulation, the LDNR shall immediately
notify EPA. Region 6 pursuant to
Provision 1 above. The delegation may
be revoked by EPA, Region 6, in whole
or in part, in the event any such conflict
makes implementation or enforcement
of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
administratively impractical.
7. If a claim of confidentiality or any
other reason should ever legally prevent
the State of Louisiana and the LDNR
from providing to EPA any and all
information required by or pertaining to
the implementation of NESHAP, th*
LDNR shall, upon request, assist EPA
Region 6 in obtaining that information
directiy from the source. As a minimum.
such assistance shall consist of
providing to EPA an identification of the
r.stnre nf the information withheld.
adequate to allow EPA to identify to the
source the information.
8. All matters in process at the time of
delegation of authority may be
processed through to completion by EPA
Region 6, or may, at the request of the
LDNR and at the discretion of EPA
Region 6. be transferred to the LDNR for
completion. Appropriate reproduction of
pertinent file material in the EPA Region
6 files in relation to source regulation
under NESHAP shall be provided
through mutual cooperation of the stub's
of the respective offices.
IV-173
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 7, 19»4 / Rules and Regulations
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 Part 61 by the
sources locating in the State of
Louisiana should be submitted directly
to the State agency at the following
address: Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, Air Quality Division.
P.O. Box 44060. Baton Rouge. Louisiana
70804.
Partial delegation was granted to the
LD.NR on August 30. 1982. Federal
Register Notice of the partial delegation
was published November 4,1982, which
changed Part 61 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to include the Louisiana
State address. The address in the Code
of Federal Regulations remains the same
for full delegation.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution, Asbestos, Beryllium,
Hazardous waste, Mercury, Reporting
and rccordkeeping requirements. Vinyl
chloride.
This delegation is issued under the
authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412).
Dated: January 27,1984.
Frances E. Phillips,
A i iinf Regional A dministmtnr
|KR Due. M-3236 Filed 2-*-84: 8:45 am'
BILLING CODE 6WO-SO-M
IV-174
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 67 / Thursday. April 5. 19M / Rules and Regulations
91
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
IAD-FHL 2515-8]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Amendments to Asbestos Standard
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Amendments to the national
emission standard for asbestos were
proposed in the Federal Register on July
13. 1983 (48 FR 32126). This action
promulgates the amendments under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1977. The intended effect of
the amendments is to reinstate work
practice and equipment provisions of the
standard that were held not to be
emission standards by the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1978. They also reword and
rearrange the standard for clarity.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5,1984. Under
Section 307{b)(l) of the Clean Air Act,
judicial review of these amendments is
available only by the filing of a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
within 60 days of today's publication of
this rule. Under Section 307(b)(2) of the
Clean Air Act, the requirements that are
the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
ADDRESSES: Docket. A docket, number
A-83-02, containing information
considered by EPA in development of
the promulgated amendments, is
available for public inspection between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's Central Docket Section
(LE-131). West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1.
401 M Street, SW.. Washington. D.C.
20460. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert L. Ajax. Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5578.
SUPPLEMENTARV INFORMATION:
The Amendments
The amendments reinstate portions of
the asbestos NESHAP that were
equipment or work practice
requirements. The Supreme Court held
in Adamo Wrecking Company v. United
States. 434 U.S. 275 (1978) that work
practice requirements of the NESHAI'
were not authorized by the 1970
Amendments to the Clean Air Act under
which they were originally promulgated.
The 1977 Amendments to the Act
specifically authorize such
requirements. On June 19. 1978 (43 FR
26372). EPA repromulgated many of the
requirements under authority of the 1977
Amendments, and today's action
repromulgates the following remaining
requirements in a new Subpart M of 40
CFR Part 61.
1. Section 61.143 reinstates a
prohibition of surfacing roadways with
asbestos tailings or asbestos containing
waste.
2. Sections 61.145(c) and 61.147(g)
reinstate a partial exemption for
demolition operations for structurally
unsound buildings.
3. Section 61.147(e) reinstates the
requirement that asbestos removed
during demolition or renovation be kept
wet until it is collected for disposal. It
also requires that the asbestos not be
dropped or thrown to the ground or a
lower floor and that asbestos removed
more than 50 feet above ground level be
transported to the ground in dust-tight
chutes or containers (unless it is
removed in units or sections).
4. Section 61.147{f) reinstates
alternative work practices that may be
used for removal of asbestos prior to
demolition when there are freezing
temperature conditions at the point
where the asbestos is being wetted.
5. Section 61.150 reinstates the
prohibition of installation of certain
molded or wet-applied insulating
materials that contain commercial
asbestos.
6. Sections 61.151(a) and 61.152(a)
simply refer to the requirements of
Section 61.156.
7. Sections 61.151 (b) and (c); 61.152(b)
(1), (2). and (3); 61.153(a) (2). (3), and (4):
61.154: and 61.156 (c) and (d) reinstate
alternative work practices or equipment
that may be used in lieu of complying
with a no visible emission limit.
o c,.^»;««^ c-i 1 corKi n**A ei 1 cuiUi
u. h>t<\»tl vilO l/4>Ab/UlUJ U1IU \JH\J\mJJ
reinstate the requirement for warning
signs and fencing around asbestos
waste disposal sites if (1) the owner or
operator chooses to comply with a no
visible emission limit rather than follow
specified work practices, and (2) there is
no natural barrier to deter access by the
general public.
In addition to these requirements.
today's action clarifies the asbestos
NESHAP by rewording and rearranging
it into a new Subpart M of 40 CFR Part
61
Public Participation
The amendments were proposed in
the Federal Register on July 13.1983 (48
FR 32126). To provide interested person-.
the opportunity for oral presentation o1
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed amendments, a public
hearing was held on August 9. 1983. at
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
The hearing was open to ;he public and
each attendee was given an opportunity
to comment on the proposed
amendments. The public comment
period was from July 13. 1983. to
September 9, 1983.
Fifteen comment letters were received
and two interested parties testified at
the public hearing concerning issues
relative to the proposed amendments
The comments have been carefully
considered and. where determined to In-
appropriate by the Administrator.
changes have been made to the
proposed amendments.
Summary of Comments and Changes to
the Proposed Amendments
Comments on the proposed
amendments were received from
industry, Federal agencies. State and
local air pollution control agencies, and
private citizens. The following summary
of comments and responses serves as
the basis for the revisions that have
been made to the proposed
amendments. Most of the letters
contained multiple comments, some of
which were outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Those comments have been
summarized in Item No. IV-B-1 of
Docket No. A-83-02. They are being
evaluated in conjunction with the
comprehensive review of the asbestos
NESHAP that is currently underway.
Most of the remaining comments
pertain to the effect that rewording and
rearranging the proposed amendments
had on the original meaning and intent
of the asbestos NESHAP. Some of them
also pertain to the reasonableness of
those requirements being repromulgated
(see list in the section entitled "The
Amendments"). The comments are
discussed below and are organized
according to the sections of the
proposed amendments to which they
pertain.
Section 61. HI
One commenter noted that the
proposed definition of "demolition"
deletes the previous reference to "any
related removing or stripping of friable
asbestos materials" and recommended
restoring the definition to the old
wording. The commenter believes that
the new wording may bp interpreted to
not include removing and stripping.
IV-175
-------
Faderal Register / Vol.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 67 / Thursday, April 5. 1984 / Rules and Regulntions
pointed out that the use of Vi e inch is
not in keeping with EPA's metric
program. The errors noted by the
commenter have been corrected in the
final rule.
Sect/an 61.155
One commenler requested
clarification of the Agency's intent in
S 61.155. which requires that existing
sources covered by the asbestos
NESHAP provide to the Agency within
90 days information regarding their
asbestos emission control methods. The
commenter asked if renotificntion and
resubmission would be required if they
had already complied with these same
requirements in the old designation
§61.24.
EPA does not intend that existing
sources of asbestos emissions resubmit
notifications that were originally
required by the standard promulgated in
1973. The wording of i 61.155 has been
revised to accurately reflect EPA's
intent.
Miscellaneous
One commenter expressed the opinion
that the proposed amendments do not
sufficiently correct the weakness of the
NESHAP regulations and that they
represent a "crude slnp in the face to
asbestos victims and will create health
hazards of such proportions that new
generations of asbestos victims will be
guaranteed." He supported his opinion
with the following arguments:
1. The no visible emission limit is not
adequate for regulating airborne
asbestos because it does not take into
account the substantial asbestos disease
risk when emissions that are not visible
are present.
2. The proposed reinstatement of the
exemption from certain wetting
requirements during demolition
operations in freezing temperatures
should not be allowed. Weather
conditions that do not allow wetting
should also not allow asbestos to be
removed. Wetting requirements are
important because they can reduce dust
levels by a power of 10.
3. Allowing exceptions when local
entities pronounce buildings structurally
unsound is tantamount to opening a way
for widespread violation of health
practices.
4. Under no circumstances should
visible emissions be allowed.
5. All references to the economic
impact should be dropped. EPA should
concern itself with the economic impact
on society, which ends up paying for
disease victims produced by inadequate
work regulations.
The first four of the commenter's
statements concern issues that are
currently being investigated in the
review of th« asbestos NESHAP: the no
visible emission limit, the exemption
from wetting requirements during
freezing weather, and the exemption for
structurally unsound buildings. EPA will
evaluate the effect of these provisions
and dntermine whether they need to be
revised. That evaluation is beyond the
scope of today's rulemaking. however.
The amendments are intended to
reinstate the provisions of the original
NESHAP and not to include new
provisions or delete any of the original
ones. Therefore, no changes are bain?
made to these portions of the proposed
amendments.
In responr.o to the uomnsenter's
suggestion to diop all references to the
economic impact of the proposed
amendments, the Agency believes that
economic impact on the regulated
entities is one of many factors that
should be considered when setting
standards under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. Any adverse economic
impact on society resulting from
inadequate regulations for a hazardous
air pollutant would be of concern to EPA
as it would be a consequence of adverse
public health effects. The current review
of the NESHAP will include an
evaluation of this arjie~* of rngu'ating
asbestos to determine if more stringent
requirements are needed.
One commenter said that the
requirement in § 01.146(c)(3) to explain
the techniques of estimation of thn
amount of asbestos for certain
demolition jobs seems to be a rr'.v
requirement because he could not locate
it in the old regulation. The requirement
was in § 61.22(d}(l)(ii) of the old
regulation.
One commenter said that States that
are enforcing the asbestos NESHAP
sometimes have a different
interpretation of regulations than EPA '
and suggested that EPA provide
clarification of intent for the States.
Under the Clean Air Act, States are
free to require more stringent asbestos
emission control measures than those in
the asbestos NESHAP. EPA does.
however, provide EPA enforcement
determinations to States that have been
delegated authority to enforce the
NESHAP. These determinations include
EPA's interpretations of portions of the
regulation as questions arise concerning
them, and they are very useful in
ensuring consistency of enforcement
among the States and EPA Regional
Offices.
One commenter said that there is a
statement in the proposal preamble that
is not true. It says, "Demolition and
renovation contractors typically
transport the asbestos they remove from
a facility to a waste disposal site on a
daily basis." T/ie commenter stated that
the economics of doing this would be
astronomical. For example, the cost of
hauling a small number of bags to a
disposal site 40 miles away would be
very h'gh, and the contractor would wail
until a full load had accumulated.
The Agency has carefully considered
this comment and concluded that no
changes to the regulation are needed
since it refers to a discussion in the
preamble to the proposed amendments.
There ere no requirements in the
NESHAP that asbestos waste be
transported to a disposal site daily.
Three commenters said that the
amendments improve the clarity and
readability of the asbrslns NESHAP ant"
two indicaied that the required work
practices are currently being used by
their companies. Two commenters nolt;d
typographical errors, which have been
corrected in the final rule. Other minor
changes were made in the final rule to
ensure that the new wording accurately
reflects the intent of the original
regulation and to further clarity tne
requirements.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the infurnidtioi.
submitted to or otherwise considered bv
EPA in the development of this
rulemaking. Thn principal purposes of
the docket aie: fl) To allow intsrested
parties to identify readily and locale
documents so that they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process:
and (2) to serve as the record in case of
judicial review, except for interagnncy
review materials (§ 307(d)(7)(A)).
Miscellaneous
A review of this regulation has begun.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods.
enforceability. improvements ir.
emission control technology and health
data, and reporting requirements.
Under E.G. 12291, EPA must judge
\\ neinei" a n'-rguiatiOii is "fi~mjGr ' aHu
therftfore subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. This
regulation is not major because it docs
not meet any of the criteria specified in
the Executive Order regarding the
annual effect on the economy; increase
in cost or prices; or adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment.
productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S. enterprises to compete with foreir.n
enterprises.
Information collection requirement?
associated with this rule (40 CFR 61.0".
IV-177
-------
r / Wol. r industrial structure,
installation, or building (excluding
apartment buildings having no more
than four dwelling units).
Facility component means any pipe.
duct, boiler, tank, reactor, turbine, or
furnace at or in e facility, or any
structural member of a facility.
Friable asbestos material means any
material containing more than 1 percent
asbestos by weight that hand pressure
can crumble, pulverize, or reduce to
powder when dry.
Inactive waste disposal site means
aaiy disposal site or portion of it where
additional asbestos-containing weste
material v-'i!! net be deposited and
where the surface is not disturbed by
vehicular traffic.
Manufacturing means the combining
of commercial asbestos—or, in the case
of woven friction products, the
combining of textiles containing
commercial asbestos—with any other
raaterial(s), including commercial
asbestos, and the processing of this
combination into a product.
Outside air means the air outside
buildings and structures.
Particulate asbestos material means
finely divided particles of asbestos
material.
Planned renovation operations means
a renovation operation, or a number of
such qperaticHitx m which the amount of
friable eobestoo material that will be
removed or stripped within a given
period of time can be predicted.
Individual nonscheduled operations are
included if a number of such operations
can be predicted to occur during a given
period of time based on operating
experience.
Remove means to take out friable
asbestos materials from any facility.
Renovation means altering in any way
one or more facility components.
Operations in which load-supporting
structural members are wrecked or
taken out are excluded.
Roadways means surfaces on which
motor vehicles travel. This term includes
highways, roads, streets, parking areas.
and driveways.
Strip means to take off friable
asbestos materials from any part of
facility.
Structural member means any load-
supporting member of a facility, such as
beams and loan supporting walls; or any
nonload-supporting member, such as
ceilings and nonload-supporting walls.
Visible emissions means any
emissions containing particulate
asbestos material that are visually
detectable without the aid of
instruments. This does not include
condensed uncombined water vapor.
IV-178
-------
Register / Vol. 49. Mo. 87 / Thursday. April 5. JB84 / Rules and Regulations
§ 81.102 Standard for oobeotoo mlllo.
Each owner or operator of an asbestos
mill shall either discharge no visible
emissions to the outside air from that
asbestos mill or use the methods
specified by § 61.154 to clean emissions
containing participate asbestos material
before they escape to, or are vented to,
the outside air.
§ @ 1 . H 43 Standard (tor roadway a
No owner or operator of a roadway
may deposit asbestos tailings or
asbestos-containing waste material on
that roadway, unless it is a temporary
roadway on an area of asbestos ore
deposits.
§ 81.144 Standard for manufacturing.
(a) Applicability: This section applies
to the following manufacturing
operations using commercial asbestos.
(1) The manufacture of cloth, cord,
wicks, tubing, tape, twine, rope, thread,
yam, roving, lap, or other textile
materials.
(2) The manufacture of cement
products.
(3) The manufacture of fireproofing
and insulating materials.
(4) The manufacture of friction
products.
(5) The manufacture of paper,
millboard, and felt.
(6} The manufacture of floor tile.
(7) The manufacture of paints.
coatings, caulks, adhesives, and
sealants.
(8) The manufacture of plastics and
rubber materials.
(9) The manufacture of chlorine.
(10) The manufacture of shotgun shell
wads.
(11) The manufacture of asphalt
concrete.
(b) Standard: Each owner or operator
of any of the manufacturing operations
to which this section applies shall either
(1) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from these operations or
from any building or structure in which
they are conducted; or
(2) Use the methods specified by
g 61.154 to clean emissions from these
operations containing participate
asbestos material before they escape io,
or are vented to, the outside air.
§31.145 Standard ?«w demolition an$
The requirements of gg 61.146 and
61.147 apply to each owner or operator
of a demolition or renovation operation
as follows:
(a) If the amount of friable asbestos
materials in a facility being demolished
is at least 80 linear meters (260 linear
feet) on pipes or at least IS square
metero (160 square feet) on other facility
components, all the requirements of
§g 61.146 and 61.147 apply, except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) If the amount of friable asbestos
materials in a facility being demolished
is leso than SO linear meters (260 linear
feet) on pipes end less then 15 square
meters (160 square feet) on other facility
components, only the notification
requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) (1), (2), (3). (4), and (5) of § 61.146
apply.
(c) If the facility is being demolished
under an order of a State or local
governmental agency, issued because
the facility is structurally unsound and
in danger of imminent collapse, only the
requirements in g 61.146 and in
paragraphs (d), (e), (f), and (g) of
g 61.147 apply.
(d) If at least 80 linear meters (260
linear feet) of friable asbestos materials
on pipes or at least 15 square meters
(160 square feet) of friable asbestos
materials on other facility components
are stripped or removed at a facility
being renovated, all the requirements of
gg 81.146 and 61.147 apply.
(1) To determine whether paragraph
(d) of this section applies to planned
renovation operations involving
individual nonscheduled operations,
predict the additive amount of friable
asbestos materials to be removed or
stripped over the maximum period of
time a prediction can be made, not to
exceed 1 year.
(2) To determine whether paragraph
(d) of this section applies to emergency
renovation operations, estimate the .
amount of friable asbestos materials to
be removed or stripped as a result of the
sudden, unexpected event that
necessitated the renovation.
(e) Owners or operators of demolition
and renovation operations are exempt
from the requirements of gg 61.05(a),
61.07, and 61.09.
g 81.143 Standard for domotttton and
renovation: Notification roqulromonto.
Each owner or operator to which this
section applies shall:
(a) Provide the Administrator with
written notice of intention to demolish
or renovate.
(b) Postmark or deliver the notice as
follows:
(1) At least 10 days before demolition
begins if the operation is described in
g 61.145{a);
(2) At least 20 days before demolition
begins if the operation is described in
0 81.145(b);
(3) As early as possible before
demolition begins if the operation is
described in g 81.145(c);
(4) Ao early es possible before
renovation begins.
(c) Include the following information
in the notice:
(1) Name and address of owner or
operator.
(2) Description of the facility being
demolished or renovated, including the
size, age, and prior use of the facility.
(3) Estimate of the approximate
amount of friable asbestos material
present in the facility. For facilities
described in 8 81.145(b), explain
techniques of estimation.
(4) Location of the facility being
demolished or renovated.
(5) Scheduled starting and completion
dates of demolition or renovation.
(6) Nature of planned demolition or
renovation and method(s) to be used.
(7) Procedures to be used to comply
with the requirements of this Subpart.
(6) Name and location of the waste
disposal site where the friable asbestos
waste material will be deposited.
(9) For facilities described in
§ 81.145(c), the name, title, and authority
of the State or local governmental
representative who has ordered the
demolition.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2COO-02S4]
g 31147 Standard tor demolition and
renovation: Pfccoduroo tor acbootos
omloaion control.
Each owner or operator to whom this
section applies shall comply with the
following procedures to prevent
emissions of particulate asbestos
material to the outside air:
(a) Remove friable asbestos materials
from a facility being demolished or
renovated before any wrecking or
dismantling that would break up the
materials or preclude access to the
materials for subsequent removal.
However, friable asbestos materials
need not be removed before demolition
if:
(1) They are on a facility component
that is encased in concrete or other
similar material; and
(2) These materials are adequately
wetted whenever exposed during
demolition.
fK) \A/hpn 2 f9cilitv cornnon6nt
covered or coated with friable asbestos
materials is being taken out of the
facility as units or in sections:
(1) Adequately wet any friable
asbestos materials exposed during
cutting or disjointing operations; and
(2) Carefully lower the units or
sections to ground level, not dropping
them or throwing them.
(c) Adequately wet friable asbestos
materials when they are being stripped
from facility components before the
members are removed from the facility.
IV-179
-------
Register / Vol. €9. No. 67 / Thursday, April 5. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
In renovation operations, wetting that
would unavoidably damage equipment
is not required if the owner or operator:
(1) Asks the Administrator to
determine whether wetting to comply
with this paragraph would unavoidably
damage equipment, and, before
beginning to strip, supplies the
Administrator with adequate
information to make this determination;
and
(2) When the Administrator does
determine that equipment damage
would be unavoidable, uses a local
exhaust ventilation and collection
system designed and operated to
capture the particulate asbestos
material produced by the stripping and
removal of the friable asbestos
materials. The system must exhibit no
visible emissions to the outside air or be
designed and operated in accordance
with the requirements in § 61.154.
(d) After a facility component has
been taken out of the facility as units or
in sections, either
(1) Adequately wet friable asbestos
materials during stripping; or
(2) Use a local exhaust ventilation and
collection system designed and operated
to capture the particulate asbestos
material produced by the stripping. The
system must exhibit no visible emissions
to the outside air or be designed and
operated in accordance with the
requirements in g 61.154.
(e) For friable asbestos materials that
have been removed or stripped:
(1) Adequately wet the materials to
ensure that they remain wet until they
are collected for disposal in accordance
with % 61.152; and
(2) Carefully lower the materials to
the ground or a lower floor, not dropping
or throwing them; and
(3) Transport the materials to the
ground via dust-tight chutes or
containers if they have been removed or
stripped more than 50 feet above ground
level and were not removed as units or
in sections.
(f) When the temperature at the point
of wetting is below 0°C (32°F):
(1) Comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
The owner or operator need not comply
with the other wetting requirements in
this section; and
(2) Remove facility components
coated or covered with friable asbestos
materials as units or in sections to the
maximum extent possible.
(g) For facilities described in
g 61.145(c), adequately wet the portion
of the facility that contains friable
asbestos materials during the wrecking
operation.
The owner or operator of an operation
in which asbestos-containing materials
are spray applied shall comply with the
following requirements:
(a) Use materials that contain 1
percent asbestos or less on a dry weight
basis for opray-on application on
buildings, structures, pipes, and
conduits, except as provided in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) For spray-on application of
materials that contain more than 1
percent asbestos on a dry weight basis
on equipment and machinery, except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section:
(1) Notify the Administrator at least
20 days before beginning the spraying
operation. Include the following
information in the notice:
(i) Name and address of owner or
operator.
(ii) Location of spraying operation.
(iii) Procedures to be followed to meet
the requirements of this paragraph.
(2) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the spray-on
application of the asbestos-containing
material or use the methods specified by
g 61.154 to clean emissions containing
particulate asbestos material before
they escape to, or are vented to, the
outside air.
(c) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply to
the spray-on application of materials
where the asbestos fibers in the
materials are encapsulated with a
bituminous or resinous binder during
spraying and the materials are not
friable after drying.
(d) Owners and operators of sources
subject to this section are exempt from
the requirements of gg 61.05(a), 61.07,
and 61.09.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2000-0204)
S 31.109 Sterato^ !«w fabricating.
(a) Applicability. This section applies
to the following fabricating operations
using commercial asbestos:
(1) The fabrication of cement building
products.
(2) The fabrication of friction
products, except those operations that
primarily install asbestos friction
materials on motor vehicles.
(3) The fabrication of cement or
silicate board for ventilation hoods;
ovens; electrical panels; laboratory
furniture, bulkheads, partitions, and
ceilings for marine construction; and
How control devices for the molten
metal industry.
(b) Standard. Each owner or operator
of any of the fabricating operations to
which this section applies shall either
(1) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from any of the
operations or from any building or
structure in which they are conducted;
or
(2) Use the methods specified by
g 61.154 to clean emissions containing
particulate asbestos material before
they escape to, or are vented to, the
outside air.
g Q?.?£9 StaTcbpd lea titoulotlng motortolo.
After the effective date of this
regulation, no owner or operator of a
facility may install or reinstall or. z
facility component any insulating
materials that contain commercial
asbestos if the materials are either
molded and friable or wet-applied and
friable after drying. The provisions of
this paragraph do not apply to spray-
applied insulating materials regulated
under § 61.148.
§81.15t Stanford Jerwooto tfiopooc) tee
oofeootoo mltOa
Each owner or operator of any source
covered under the provisions of g 61.142
shall:
(a) Deposit all asbestos-containing
waste material at waste disposal sites
operated in accordance with the
provisions of g 61.153; and
(b) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the transfer of
asbestos waste from control devices to
the tailings conveyor, or use the
methods specified by g 61.154 to clean
emissions containing particulate
asbestos material before they escape to,
or are vented to, the outside air. Dispose
of the asbestos waste from control -
devices in accordance with g 61.152(b]
or paragraph (c] of this section; and
(c) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air during the collection,
processing, packaging, transporting, or
deposition of any asbestos-containing
waste material, or use one of the
disposal methods specified in
paragraphs (c) (1) or (2) of this section,
as follows:
(1) Use a wetting agent as follows:
(i) Adequately mix all asbestos-
containing waste material with a
wetting agent recommended by the
manufacturer of the agent to effectively
wet dust and tailings, before depositing
the material at a waste disposal site.
Use the agent as recommended for the
particular dust by the manufacturer of
the agent.
(ii) Discharge no visible emissions to
the outside air from the wetting
operation or use the methods specified
by g 61.154 to clean emissions
containing particulate asbestos material
IV-180
-------
/ Vol. 49. Mo. 87 / Thursday. April 5. 1®M / Rules and Regulations
before they escape to, or are vented to,
the outside air.
(iii) Wetting may be suspended when
the ambient temperature at the waste
disposal site is less than -9.5°C (1ST).
Determine the ambient air temperature
by an appropriate measurement method
with an accuracy of ±1°C(±2°F), and
record it et least hourly while the
wetting operation is suspended. Keep
the records for at least 2 years in a form
suitable for inspection.
(2) Use an alternative disposal method
that has received prior approval by the
Administrator.
§31.152 Standard for craoto dfcpoool for
Each owner or operator of any source
covered under the provisions of
§§81.144-81.1 men) Seno Sen),
Gothic 01 Block
14 Poitt Qotttc.
Spacing between any two lines must be
et least equal to the height of the upper
of the two lines.
(2) Fence the perimeter of the site in a
manner adequate to deter access by the
general public.
(3) Upon request and supply of
appropriate information, the
Administrator will determine whether a
fence or a natural barrier adequately
deters access by the general public.
(c) The owner or operator may use an
alternative control method that has
received prior approval of the
Administrator rather than comply with
the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b)
of this section.
(a) The, owner or operator who elects
to use air-cleaning, as permitted by
§8 61.142, 81.144, 61.147(c)(Z).
81.1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 67 / Thursday. April 5. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
(iv) Avoiding the use of synthetic
fabrics that contain fill yarn other-than
that which is spun.
(2) Properly install, use, operate, and
maintain all air-cleaning equipment
authorized by this section. Bypass
devices may be used only during upset
or emergency conditions and then only
for so long as it takes to shut down the
operation generating the particulate
asbestos material.
(b) There are the following exceptions
to paragraph (a)(l):
(1) If the use of fabric creates a fire or
explosion hazard, the Administrator
may* authorize as a substitute the use of
wet collectors designed to operate with
a unit contacting energy of at least 9.95
kilopascals (40 inches water gage
pressure).
(2) The Administrator may authorize
the use of filtering equipment other than
that described in paragraphs (a)(l) and
(b)(l) of this section if the owner or
operator demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that it is
equivalent to the described equipment in
filtering particulate asbestos material.
961.155 Reporting.
(a) Within 90 days after the effective
date of this subpart, each owner or
operator of any existing source to which
this subpart applies shall provide the
following information to the
Administrator, except that any owner or
operator who provided this information
prior to April 5,1984 in order to comply
with § 61.24 (which this section
replaces) is not required to resubmit it.
(1) A description of the emission
control equipment used for each
process; and
(2) If a fabric filter device is used to
control emissions, the pressure drop
across the fabric filter in inches water
gage; and
(i) If the fabric device uses a woven
fabric, the airflow permeability in m3/
min/ma and; if the fabric is synthetic,
whether the fill yarn is spun or not spun;
and
(ii) If the fabric filter device uses a
felted fabric, the density in g/m8. the
minimum thickness in inches, and the
airflow permeability in m'/min/m1.
(3) For sources subject to §5 61.151
and 61.152:
(i) A brief description of each process
that generates asbestos-containing
waste material; and
(ii) The average weight of asbestos-
containing waste material disposed of,
measured in kg/day; and
(iii) The emission control methods
used in all stages of water disposal; and
(iv) The type of disposal site or
incineration site used for ultimate
disposal, the name of the site operator,
and the name and location of the
disposal site.
(4) For sources subject to } 61.153:
(i) A brief description of the site; and
(ii) The method or methods used to
comply with the standard, or alternative
procedures to be used.
(b) The information required by
paragraph (a) of this section must
accompany the information required by
S 61.10. The information described in
this section must be reported using the
format of Appendix A of this part.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)).
(Approved by this Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2000-0264)
$61.156 Active waste disposal sites.
To be an acceptable site for disposal
of asbestos-containing waste material
under §S 61.151 and 61.152, an active
waste disposal site must meet the
requirements of this section.
(a) Either there must be no visible
emissions to the outside air from any
active waste disposal site where
asbestos-containing waste material has
been deposited, or the requirements of
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section must
be met.
(b) Unless a natural barrier
adequately deters access by the general
public, either warning signs and fencing
must be installed and maintained as
follows, or the requirements of
paragraph (c)(l) of this section must be
met.
(1) Warning signs must be displayed
at all entrances and at intervals of 100 m
(330 ft) or less along the property line of
the site or along the perimeter of the
sections of the site where asbestos-
containing waste material is deposited.
The warning signs must:
(i) Be posted in such a manner and
location that a person can easily read
the legend; and
(ii) Conform to the requirements of 51
cm x 36 cm (20" X 14") upright format
signs specified in 29 CFR 19l0.145(d)(4)
and this paragraph; and
(iii) Display the following legend in
the lower panel with letter sizes and
styles of a visibility at least equal to
those specified in this paragraph.
l«oand
Aabastoa Wute Dttpo»»i
Sfta.
Do Not Craata Dust
BraaWne Aataaatoa • Mat-
anfcua lo Your Health.
Notation
2.5 cm (t Inch) San* Sent.
Gothic or Block.
1.9 em (». inch) Sara Sam.
Gothic or Block.
14 Point Gothic.
Spacing between any two lines must be
at least equal to the height of the upper
of the two lines.
(2) The perimeter of the disposal site
must be fenced in a manner adequate to
deter access by the general public.
(3) Upon request and supply of
appropriate information, the
Administrator will determine whether a
fence or a natural barrier adequately
deters access by the general public.
(c) Rather than meet the no visible
emission requirement of paragraph (a) of
this section, an active waste disposal
site would be an acceptable site if at the
end of each operating day, or at least
once every 24-hour period while the site
is in continuous operation, the asbestos-
containing waste material which was
deposited at the site during the
operating day or previous 24-hour period
is covered with either.
(1) At least 15 centimeters (6 inches)
of compacted nonasbestos-containing
material, or
(2) A resinous or petroleum-based
dust suppression agent that effectively
binds dust and controls wind erosion.
This agent must be used as
recommended for the particular dust by
the manufacturer of the dust
suppression agent. Other equally
effective dust suppression agents may
be used upon prior approval by the
Administrator. For purposes of this
paragraph, waste crankcase oil is not
considered a dust suppression agent.
(d) Rather than meet the no visible
emission requirement of paragraph (a) of
this section, an active waste disposal
site would be an acceptable site if an
alternative control method for emissions
that has received prior approval by the
Administrator is used.
(Sees. 112 and 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601(a))
[FR Doc. 64-9080 Filed 4-4-84: 8:45 am)
MLL4NO CODE M6O-W-M
IV-182
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 69 / Monday, April 9, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
92
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2562-3}
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
Pima County Health Department
(PCHD). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29,1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
PCHD has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories. Delegation of
authority was granted by a letter dated
March 16,1984 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
Patricia A. Nolan, M.O.,
Director, Pima County Health Department,
151 West Congress Street, Tucson, AZ
Dear Dr. Nolan: In response to your request
of February 24,1984,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce the
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) promulgated as of June 8.1983
listed below. We have reviewed your request
for delegation and have found your present
programs and procedures to be acceptable.
This delegation includes authority for the
following new source categories:
NSPS
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
Automobile A Light-Duty Truck
Phofchate Roch Plants
Grap'iic Aria Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing
hiC^nia! Surface Coat.no.: Large Appliances
Aspr>&n Fiocess^og and Asphalt Roofing Manufac-
u-e
'
NESHAPS
40 CFR
pan 60.
subpan
A.
CC
EE
KK
MM.
NN
PP
OO.
SS
TT
uu.
40CFH
part 61.
aubpart
A
Q
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
including use of EPA '« test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
Utter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the PCHD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS source categories should be
directed to the PCHD at the address
shown in the letter of delegation.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section lit of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
set}.}.
Dated: March 29,1984.
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional A dministrator.
|FR Doc. 84-8359 Filed 4-8-M: 8:49 am)
MLLMOCOOE KtO-SO-M
IV-183
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 69 / Monday. April 9. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
93
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2561-5]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (GARB)
on behalf of the San Joaquin County Air
Pollution Control District (SJCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23,1934.
ADDRESS: San Joaquin County Air
Pollution Control District. 1601 E.
Hazelton Avenue, Stockton, CA 95210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1). Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA. Region 9.
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
SJCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated December 22.
1983 and is reproduced in its entirety as
follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer. California Air Resources,
Board. 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2S15,
Sacramento, CA
Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of December 5,1983.1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPSJ on behalf of the San
Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District
(SJCAPCD). We have reviewed your request
for delegation and have found the SJCAPCD's
programs and procedures to be acceptable.
This delegation includes authority for the
following sources categories:
NSPS
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
Phosphate Rock Plants.
Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing.
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label Surface Coat-
ing.
Industrial Surface Coating; Large Appliances
Metal Coil Surface Coating -
Asphalt Roofing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacture
40 CFR.
part 60.
subpan
EE.
KK
NN.
CO.
SS.
TT.
UU.
In addition, we are redelegaHng the
following NSPS and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) categories since the SJCAPCD'e
revised programs and procedures are
acceptable:
NSPS
General Provisions A.
FossrI-Fjel Fired Steam Generators 0.
Electric Ut*ty Steam Generators Da.
Incinerators _ E.
Portland Cement Plants _ | F.
Nitric Acid Plants _ - I G
40CFR.
p«r: 60.
Sulfunc Acid Plants I H.
Asphalt Concrete Plants 11.
Petroleum Refineries .' i J.
Storage Vestals for Petroleum Liquids j K.
Petroleum Storage Vessels | Ka.
Secondary Lead Smelters L.
Secondary Brass A Bronze Ingot Production
Plants.
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF)
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smelter* _ _..
Primary Zinc Smelters
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry-. Wet Process Phos-
phoric Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphosphonc
Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Diammonium Phos-
phate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Superphos-
phate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple Su-
perphosphate.
M.
N.
O.
I".
O.
P.
s.
T.
IV-184
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 69 / Monday. April 9. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
NSPS
Coat Preparation Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (Etoctric Arc Furnaces!
Kraft Pulp Mill*
Glass Manufacturing Planta. . _ - .
Grain Elevator* _
Stationary Gaa Turbines . .. .
Lvne Manufacturing Plant*
Automobile a Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations.
40 CFR.
part 60.
subpan
Y
2
AA.
BB
CC
DO
6G
HH
MM
PP
NESHAPS
A«bfiMr»
Beryllium Roc*»t Mow Firing
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride _ __
40CFR.
panel.
subpart
A
a
c
D.
E
F
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow ell applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Bpgional Administrator,
cc: San Joaquin County Air Polution Control
District
With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the SJCAPCD, all reports.
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
SJCAPCD at the address shown in the
ADDRESS section of the notice.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
¥ *:r_. »u_4 *!--• 1_ ...Ml * t
§ oci my uiai uiia rule win nut nave a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
Dated: March 29.1984.
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional A dministrator.
:>'S lJot. 84-8382 Filed 4-6-64: 8:46 urn]
BILLING COOC •SM-gO-M
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2561-4]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on behalf or the North Coast Unified Air
Quality Management District. This
action is necessary to bring the NSPS
and NESHAPS program delegations up
to date with recent EPA promulgations
and amendments of these categories.
This action does not create any new
regulatory requirements affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NSPS and NESHAPS
categories from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23,1984.
ADDRESS: North Coast Unified Air
Quality Management District, 5630
South Broadway, Eureka. CA 95501.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9.
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARV INFORMATION: On
November 1,1982, the Del Norte County
and the Trinity County Air Pollution
Control Districts merged with the
Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District to be known as the North Coast
Unified Air Quality Management
District (NCUAQMD). These address
changes are corrected in 40 CFR 60.4
and 61.4.
The CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
M/-*t T A r\*.m rt~l~nn»:~_ ~t n..*u~~:«..
m^wfc\^i*iL>. l^Gicgatiuii ui autnuiiLjr
was granted by a letter dated December
22,1983 and is reproduced in its entirety
as follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources
Board. 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815.
Sacramento, CA
Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of December 5.1983,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) on behalf of the North Coast
Unified Air Quality Management District
(NCUAQMD). We have reviewed your
request for delegation and have found ihe
NCUAQMD's programs and procedures to br
acceptable. This delegation includes
authority for the following source categories:
NSPS
j 40 CFR.
Pan 60.
| Subpart
General Provtsiona j A
Fossil-Fuel Fired Sieam Generators j 0
Electrrc utility Steam Generators ! Oa
Incinerators E
Portland Cement Plants F.
Nitric Acid Plants G
Sullunc Acid Plants H
Asphalt Concrete Plants. I
Petroleum Refineries J
Storage Vessels tor Petroleum Liquids I K.
Petroleum Storage Vessels Ka
Secondary Lead Smelters L.
Secondary Brass 4 Bronze Ingot Production ! M
Plants. I
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) I N
Sewage Treatmant Plants _ O
Primary Coppar Smeltera _ - I P
Piimary Zinc Smelters _ j Q
Primary Lead Smelters fl
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants S
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet Process Pnos- T
phoric Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphosphoric
Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry. Diammonium Phos-
phate Piants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Superphos-
phate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular Triple Su-
perphosphate.
Coal Preparation Plants • —
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces)
Kraft Pulp Mills
Glass Manufacturing Plants
Grain Elevator*
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture
Stationary Gas Turbines - — -
Uroo Manufacturing Plants
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
Automobile & Ughl-Duty' Truck Surface Coating
Operations
Phosphate Roe* Plants _
Ammonium Sullate _ -..-
Graphic Arts Industry: Publication Rotogravure
Printing.
industrial Surface Coating- Large Appliances
Metal Con Surface Coating Operations
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Rooting Manufac-
ture.
Beverage Can Surface Coating
Built Gasoline Terminals
y
2.
.1 AA
.!BB
'cc
. DD
EE.
. GG
,| HH.
.| KK.
! MM
. NN
. PP.
00
I??
! uu
WA
XX.
NESHAPS
neral Provisto
Vinyl Chloride
40 CFR.
Part 61.
Subpart
A
a.
c. .
D
E.
F.
Acceptance of this delegation constitute!!
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CKR Parts 60 and 61.
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
IV-185
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 69 / Monday. April 9. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayers,
Regional Administrator.
cc: North Coast Unified Air Quality
Management District
With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the NCUAQMD, all
reports, applications, submittals, and
other communications pertaining to the
above listed NSPS and NESHAPS
source categories should be directed to
the NCUAQMD at the address shown in
the ADDRESS section of this notice.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.}.
Dated: March 29.1984.
Judith E. Ayrns,
Regional Administrator.
PARTS 60 AND 61—[AMENDED]
Subpart A of Parts 60 and 61 of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
§§ 60.4 and 61.04 [Amended]
Sections 60.4(b)(F) and 61.04(b)(F) are
both amended by removing the
addresses of the Del Norte County Air
Pollution Control District. Humboldt
County Air Pollution Control District,
and the Trinity County Air Pollution
Control District and adding the address
for the North Coast Unified Air Quality
Management District to read as follows:
• • * * *
(b) * * *
(F)' ' *
North Coast Unified Air Quality Management
District, 5630 South Broadway, Eureka, CA
95501
« • * * *
[PR Doc. 84-0313 Filed 4-6-64: 8:45 am)
CODE eseo-so-e
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL 2561-3]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAPS authority to the
California Air Resources Board (GARB)
on behalf of the Kern County Air
Pollution Control District (KCAPCD).
This action is necessary to bring the
NSPS and NESHAPS program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAPS categories from
EPA to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22,1984.
ADDRESS: Kern County Air Pollution
Control District, 1801 H Street, Suite 250.
Bakersfield, CA 93301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-6236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CARB has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAPS categories on behalf of the
KCAPCD. Delegation of authority was
granted by a letter dated February 9,
1984 and is reproduced in its entirety as
follows:
Mr. James D. Boyd.
Executive Officer. California Air Resources
Board. 1102 Q Street. P.O. Box 2815.
Sacramento. CA
Dear Mr. Boyd: In response to your request
of January 24,1984,1 am pleased to inform
you that we are delegating to your agency
authority to implement and enforce certain
categories of New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) on behalf of the Kern
County Air Pollution Control District
(KCAPCD). We have reviewed your request
for delegation and have found the KCAPCD's
programs and procedures to be acceptable.
This delegation includes authority for the
following source categories.
NSPS
NSPS
40 CFR.
pa* 60.
subpan
ww
XX.
In addition, we are redelegating the
following NSPS and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) categories since the KCAPCD's
revised programs and procedures are
acceptable:
40CFH.
pan 60
subpa'i
General Provisions A.
Fossil-FjM Fred Steam Generator* D.
Electro Utility Steam Generators Da.
Incinerators E.
Portland Cement Plants F.
Nftnc Acid Plants Q.
Sulfuric Acid Plants - I H.
Asphalt Concreu Plants I.
Petroleum Refineries.... J.
Storage Vessels for Petroleum liquids K.
Petroleum Storage Vassals Ka.
Secondary Lead Smelters L.
Secondary Brass « Bronze Ingot Produccon M.
Plants
Iron and Steel Plants (BOPF) N.
Sewage Treatment Plants _ 0.
Prsnsry Ccpps.' Smsi:srs P.
Primary Zinc SmeHers _ _ O
Pnrrury Lead Smellers R.
Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants S.
Phosphate Fertteer Industry. Wet Process Phos- T.
phone Acid Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphasphoric U.
Acid Plants I
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Diammonium Phos- V.
phite Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple Supemhos- W.
phate Plants.
Phosphate Fertilizer industry: Granular Triple So X.
perpnosphate.
Coal Preparation Plants _ V.
Ferroalloy Production FaaHios Z.
Iron and Steel Plants (Electric Arc Furnaces) I AA.
Kraft Pulp Mills _ - I BB.
Glass Manutactunng Plants - j CC.
Grain Elevators - ] DO.
Surface Coating of Metal Furniture | EE.
Stationary Gas Turbines - _ i G3.
Lime Manufacturing Wants HH.
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants KK.
Automobile t Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating I MM.
Operations. !
Phosphate Rock Plants | NN.
Ammonium Sutfate PP.
Graphic Arts Industry: PuMicstion Rotogravue CO.
Printing
Industrie! Surface Coating: Large Appliances SS.
Metal Co-! Surface Coating TT.
Asphalt Processing and Asphalt RoeSng Marufac- UU
lure.
NESHAPS
Geneva! Provisions
Asbestos
Beryllium
Bnrylliro Rocket Motor Firing
Mercury
Vinyl Chloride
40 CFR
pan 61.
Subpart
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA's test methods and
procedures. The delegation is effective upon
the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you or the
District of any objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres.
Regional Administrator.
cc: Kern County Air Pollution Control District
With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the KCAPCD, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
IV-186
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 92 / Thurbday, May 10, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
listed NSPS and NESHAPS source
categories should be directed to the
KCAPCO at the address shown in the
address section of this notice.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
1 certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857. el
seq.).
Dated: March 29.1984.
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
I IK Doc. M-9364 Filed 4-0-84: 8*5 am|
BILLING CODE 6560-MMI
94
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-7-FRL-2585-6]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
Delegation of Authority to the State of
Iowa
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation of
authority.
SUMMARY: This notice announces an
extension of delegations of authority
that were initially issued to the State of
Iowa by the Environmental Protection
Agency on June 6,1975 and January 19,
1982, regarding the requirements of the
federal Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources (NSPS), 40 CFR
Purl 60, and the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS), 40 CFR Part 61.
respectively. The extension was
requested by the State of Iowa. The
extension action added seven (7) NSPS
source categories to the NSPS
delegation. The delegations of authority
now include all dulegable requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations as adopted by the Stale of
Imva and as amended by the agency
through June 30,1983.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10,1984.
ADDRESSES: All requests, reports,
applications, submittals and such other
communications that are required to be
submitted under 40 CFR Part 60 or 40
CFR Part 61 (including the notifications
required under Subpart A of the
regulations) for facilities or activities in
Iowa affected by the revised delegations
of authority should be sent to the Iowa
Uepnrtmenl of Water, Air and Wuslo
Management, Henry A. Wallace
Building, 900 East Grand, Des Moines,
Iowa 50319. A copy of all Subpart A
related notifications must also be sent to
the attention of the Director, Air and
Wiiste Management Division, U.S. EPA,
Region VII, 324 East llth Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles W. Whitmore, Chief, Technical
Analysis Section, Air Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region VII, at the above address (816-
374-6525 or FTS-758-6525.
SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections
lll(c) and 112(d) of the Clean Air Act.
respectively, allow the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
(i.e., EPA or the agency) to delegate to
any state government authority to
implement and enforce the requirements
of the federal NSPS and NESHAPS
regulations. When a delegation is
issued, the agency retains concurrent
authority to implement and enforce the
requirements of the delegated
reguliition(s). The effect of u delegation
is to shift the primary responsibility for
implementing and enforcing the
standards for the affected categories
(and/or for the affected activities) from
the agency to the state government.
On June 6,1975, the agency delegated
to the Stute of Iowa authority to
implement and enforce the standards for
eleven (11) NSPS source categories as
promulgated by the agency through
April 1,1974 (see 41 FR 56889, December
30,1976). The delegation was
subsequently extended to include the
standards of performance for 21
additional source categories on August
25,1900 (see 45 FR 75758, November 17,
1980). March 31.1983 and May 10,1983
(see 48 FR 29691, June 28.1983).
Authority to implement and enforce the
NESHAPS for asbestos (except for 40
CFR 61.22(d)), beryllium, beryllium
rocket molor firing, mercury, und vinyl
IV-187
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 92 / Thursday. May 10, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
chloride, us promulgated and/or
amended by the agency through
December 31,1980, was delegated to the
State of Iowa on January 19.1982 (see 47
FR 11662, March 18,1982). The NSPS
and NESHAPS delegations gave the
State of Iowa authority to implement
and enforce the standards against
affected facilities and activities'which
exist (or occur) in Iowa.
On February 9,1984, the State of Iowa
requested an extension of the
delegations to reflect a recent updating
of its rules. The state government has
revised Rule 23.1(2) [NSPS-reluted| and
Rule 23.1(3) iNESMAPS-reiaiedj of ihe
Iowa Department of Water, Air and
Waste Management's rules and
regulations to incorporate, by reference.
the standards of 40 CKR Parts 60 and 61
(as promulgated and as amended by the
agency through June 30,1983) which
have been specifically adopted by the
Suite.
In consideration of the information
contained in the above-mentioned letter,
the agency granted the extension
request on March 16,1984. The action
extended the delegations to include the
following additional provisions:
NS/'S
—Subpart EE (Surface Coating of Mulal
Furniture);
—Subpart KK (Lead Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants):
—Subpart NN (Phosphate Rock Plants);
—Subpart QQ (Graphic Arts Industry:
Publication Rotogravure Printing);
—Subpart SS (Industrial Surface Coaling:
Large Appliances);
—Subpart TT (Metal Coil Surface CoalingJ:
—Subpart UU (Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing);
—Reference Methods 5A, 6A. 6R 12, 22, and
24A; and,
—The revisions, clarifications, etc.. made to
Subparts A, D, Da. T, U. V, W, QQ, TT. to
Reference Method 20 of Appendix A, and
to the Performance Specifications of
Appendix B of the regulation.
KESHAPS
—Test Methods 101A and 107A;
—Appendix C, Procedures 1 and 2; and,
—The revisions clarifications, etc., made to
Subparts A, E, and F, and to Test Methods
101.102,106. and 10? of Appendix B of the
regulation.
Effective immediately, all reports.
correspondence, and such other
communications required to be
submitted under the NSPS or NESHAPS
regulations for facilities or activities in
Iowa affected by the revised delegations
of authority should be sent to the Iowa
Department of Water, Air and Waste
Management at the above address
rather than to Ihe EPA Region VII office,
except as noted below.
A copy of each notification required
to be submitted under 40 CFR Part 00,
Suhpart A, or under 40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart A, must also be sent to the
attention of the Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S. EPA. Region
VII. 324 East llth Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106.
Each document and letter mentioned
in this notice is available for public
inspection at the EPA regional office.
This notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412).
Dated: April 27, lytM.
Morris Kay,
Rational Administrator.
|>'R Out. M-lzaid Filed 5-8-64 B:45 am)
•ILUNO COM fMO-*O-M
95
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
(AD-FRL 2594-8]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule amendments.
SUMMARY: Relocation of offices and
internal reorganization within the
Agency over the past several years have
caused the published addresses to
become outdated for EPA offices
responsible for air pollution control and
enforcement activities at EPA Regional
Offices. These amendments make the
addresses current for correspondence
related to the provisions of new source
performance standards (NSPS) and
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).
These addresses are contained in 40
CFR Subpart A § 60.4(a) and Subpart A
§61.04(a).
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29,1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert L. Ajax, (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since the
promulgation of 40 CFR 60.4(a) and
61.04(a), mailing addresses have
changed for five of the EPA Regional
Offices. Organizational changes have
eliminated "Enforcement Divisions."
and matters pertaining to air pollution
control are now the responsibility of
either an "Air Management Division" or
an "Air and Waste Management
Division" at EPA Regional Offices.
Correcting these addresses in the CFR's
will facilitate efficient handling of
correspondence directed to air pollution
program offices in the 10 EPA Regional
Offices.
Because these amendments are purely
administrative and impose no new
regulatory requirements or any policy
implications, they are not subject to
review under Executive Order 12291 by
the Office of Management and Budget.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
6905(b), I hereby certify that these
amendments will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities
because small business entities are not
affected by the amendments.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plants, Asphalt.
IV-188
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 104 / Tuesday. May 29, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Cement industry, Coal, Copper, Electric
power plants, Glass and glass products,
Grains, Intergovernmental relations,
Iron, Lead, Metals, Metallic minerals,
Motor vehicles, Nitric acid plants. Paper
and paper products industry, Petroleum,
Phosphate, Sewage disposal, Steel,
Sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment
and disposal, Zinc, Tires, Incorporation
by reference, Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants, Industrial organic
chemicals, Organic solvent cleaners,
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators.
Fiberglass insulation, Synthetic, fibers.
40 CFR Part 61
Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances. Mercury. Reporting and
record keeping requirement, Vinyl
chloride.
(Sec. Ill Clean Air Act, as amended j42
U.S.C. 7411))
Dated: May 21,1984.
Joseph A. Cannon,
Assistant AdminstratorforAir and Radiation.
PART 60—[AMENDED]
1. 40 CFR § 60.4[a) is revised to read
as follows:
§ 60.4 Address.
(a) All requests, reports, applications,
submiltals. and other communications to
the Administrator pursuant to this part
shall be submitted in duplicate to the
appropriate Regional Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to the
attention of the Director of the Division
indicated in the following list of EPA
Regional Offices.
Region I (Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont), Director, Air
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building,
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Air and
Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Office Building, 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York 10278
Region III (Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia), Director, Air
and Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19106
Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee), Director,
Air and Waste Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin),
Director. Air Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 230 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago Illinois 60604
Region VI (Arkansas. Louisiana. New
Mexico, Oklahoma. Texas), Director.
Air and Waste Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1210 Elm Street, Dallas,
Texas 75270
Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska), Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 324
East llth Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106
Region VIII (Colorado, Montana. North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah.
Wyoming), Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado
80295
Region IX (American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada),
Director. Air Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San
Francisco, California 94105
Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington), Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101
PART 61—[AMENDED]
2. Section 61.04(a) is revised to read as
follows:
§61.04 Address.
(a) All requests, reports, applications,
submittals, and other communications to
the Administrator pursuant to this part
shall be submitted in duplicate to the
appropriate Regional Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to the
attention of the Director of the Division
indicated in the following list of EPA
Regional Offices.
Region I (Connecticut, Maino,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont). Director, Air
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
John F. Kennedy Federal Building,
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands), Director, Air and
Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Federal Office Building. 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York 10278
Region III (Delaware. District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia. West Virginia), Director. A;r
and Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Curtis Building. Sixth and Wilnut
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvanid
19106
Region IV (Alabama-, Florida. Georgia.
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolin.i.
South Carolina, Tennessee), Director.
Air and Waste Management Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 345 Courtland Street. NE..
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Region V (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan.
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin).
Director, Air Management Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 230 South Dearborn Street.
Chicago Illinois 60604
Region VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas), Director.
Air and Waste Management Division.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agpncy, 1210 Elm Street, Dallas,
Texas 75270
Region VII (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska), Director, Air and Waste
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 32-1
East llth Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64100
Region VIII (Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah.
Wyoming), Director, Air and Was!e
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
1860 Lincoln Street, Denver. Colorado
80295
Region IX (American Samoa. Arizona,
California, Guam. Hawaii, Nevada],
Director, Air Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 215 Fremont Street, San
Francisco, California 94105
Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oiegon,
Washington). Director, Air and W'asv
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101
*****
|FR Doc. 84-14091 Filed 5-25-84. 8,45 em|
IV-189
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
(AD-faL-2523-7]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Regulation
of Benzene
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Response to public comments.
aorriMAnV: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) listed benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
U2 of the Clean Air Act on June 8. 1977
(42 FR 29332). Standards were
subsequently proposed for maleic
anhydride process vents (45 FR 26660,
April 13, 1980); ethylbenzene/styrene
(EB/S) process vents (45 FR 83448,
December 18, 1980); benzene fugitive
emission sources (46 FR 1165, January 5,
!981); and benzene storage vessels (45
FR 83952, December 19, 1980). This
Federal Register notice responds to
public comments on the listing, health
effects, and regulation of benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Document. The background information
document (BID) may be obtained from
the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35). Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please
refer to "Response to Public Comments
on EPA's Listing of Benzene Under
Section 112," EPA-450/5-fl2-003, which
contains a summary of all public
comments on the health effects, listing,
and regulatory approach for benzene.
Ducket. Docket No. OAQPS 79-3 (Part
I) contains information considered on
the health effects, listing, and regulation
of benzene. Other dockets containing
public comments on the listing, health
effects, and regulation of benzene are
contained in Docket No. OAQPS 79-3
(Part II), for maleic anhydride plants;
Docket No. A-79-27, for benzene
fugitive emissions; Docket No. A-79-49,
for EB/S plants; and Docket No. A-80-
14, for benzene storage vessels. These
dockets are available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m.. Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section (LE-131), West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington. D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
For further information on the listing
and health effects of benzene, contact
Mr. Robert Kellam. Pollutant
Assessment Branch, Strategies and Air
Standards Division (MD-12), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5645,
For further information on the regulation
of benzene, contact Mr. Gilbert H.
Wood, Standards Development Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview of Benzene Regulation
This section provides background
information and Summarizes EPA's
responses to the major public comments
on the listing, health effects, and
regulation of benzene. This section is
intended to be an overview only.
Subsequent sections and the BID
contain more detailed responses to
public comments.
Background
Based on studies linking occupational
exposure to benzene with leukemia,
EPA's general presumption that
carcinogenic thresholds do not exist, the
absence of a demonstrated threshold for
benzene, and widespread exposure to
large quantities of benzene emitted by
stationary sources, EPA concluded that
benzene could reasonably be
anticipated to cause an increase in
contracting leukemia for individuals
exposed to benzene emissions from
stationary sources. EPA therefore listed
benzene as a hazardous air pollutant on
June 8,1977 (42 FR 29332).
Stationary sources of benzene are
now estimated to emit at least 55,000
Megagrams (Mg) (about 120 million
pounds) of benzene per year. The
benzene sources have been divided into
12 source categories, based on
'technological considerations (such as
control technology applicability)
important in standards development.
EPA decided to address the stationary
source benzene problem by selecting for
initial regulation five of these source
categories: maleic anhydride process
vents, ethylbenzene/styrene (EB/S)
process vents, benzene fugitive
emissions sources, benzene storage
vessels, and coke oven by-product
recovery plants.
EPA is collecting additional data on
the remaining seven source categories to
use in deciding whether or not
standards development is warranted for
them.
Benzene standards for four of the five
source categories selected for initial
regulation were proposed: maleic
anhydride process vents (45 FR 26660,
April 18,1980); EB/S process vents (45
FR 83448, December IB, 1980); benzene
storage vessels (45 FR 83952, December
19,1980); and benzene fugitive emissions
sources (46 FR 1165, January 5,1981).
The Agency intends to promulgate
standards for benzene fugitive emission
sources and propose standards for the
fifth source category, coke by-product
plants, in separate notices. In a third
notice the Agency is withdrawing the
proposed standards for maleic
anhydride process vents, EB/S process
vents, and benzene storage vessels,
based on the conclusion that both the
benzene health risks to the public from
these source categories and potential
reductions in health risks achievable
with available control techniques are
too small to warrant Federal regulatory
action under section 112.
Summary of Responses to Major
Comments
The primary comment received on the
proposed standards was that benzene
should not have been listed as a
hazardous air pollutant. Commenters
argued that benzene did not meet the
criteria for listing under section 112
because they believe the health hazard
posed by ambient levels of benzene is
negligible, if not zero. Specifically,
commenters, while generally agreeing
with EPA that epidemiological studies
have shown that a causal relationship
exists between occupational benzene
exposure and leukemia, maintained that
the relationship had not been
demonstrated at the much lower levels
of benzene characteristic of the ambient
air. In contending that EPA's
nonthreshold presumption has been
applied inappropriately in the case of
benzene, commenters cited the lack of
direct evidence that ambient levels pose
leukemogenic risks as well as benzene
research data and theoretical
considerations compatible with the
presence of a carcinogenic threshold for
benzene.
Commenters asserted that the
absence of data demonstrating that
benzene reacts chemically with DNA
supports the theory that benzene is
likely to cause cancer by other than a
direct genetic mechanism (the
production of a transformed cell by
direct interaction of a benzene molecule
and the cellular genetic material). The
nongenetic, or epigenetic, theory holds
that such carcinogens must be present in
sufficient quantities to induce toxic
injury to the target tissue before cancer
can occur. At levels below that required
to cause "-injury," body defense
mechanisms are capable of protecting
the tissues from a carcinogenic insult.
IV-190
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
In support of a threshold for benzene.
commenters maintained that benzene-
induced leukemia was in most, if not all,
cases preceded by evidence of injury to
the blood-forming system (anemia,
cytopenia, etc.). Commenters argued
that because thresholds (10 to 35 ppm]
exist for such effects, benzene exposure
below these thresholds should not pose
carcinogenic risks. Similarly,
commenters cited epidemiologies!
studies that did not show a positive
correlation between benzene exposure
and leukemia, as support for a risk
threshold.
The EPA recognized at the time of
listing that benzene at ambient levels, as
with most other carcinogens, had not
been demonstrated by epidemiologic
studies to cause leukemia. The
epidemiological methods that have
successfully revealed associations
betwoen occupational exposure and
cancer for substances such as benzene,
asbestos, vinyl chloride, and ionizing
radiation are not readily applied to the
ambient environment with its increased
number of confounding variables, a
more diverse and mobile exposed
population, a lack of consolidated
medical records, and an almost total
absence of historical exposure data.
Given such uncertainties, EPA considers
it improbable that any ambient
association, short of a relationship of
epidemic proportions or large increases
. in an extremely rate form of cancer, can
be detected epidemic/logically with any
reasonable certainty.
Further, EPA agrees with the
observations of the National Ai.aJemy
of Sciences (NAS) (1):
In considering the possibility of thresholds
for carcinogenesis, it is important to
understand that there is no agent, chemical or
physical, that induces a form of cancer in
man that does not occur in the absence of
that agent. In other words, when there is
exposure to a material, we are nol starting at
an origin of zero cancers. Nor are we starting
at an origin of zero carcinogenic agents in our
environment. Thus, it is likely that any
carcinogenic agent added to the environment
will act by a particular mechanism on a
particular cell population that is already
being acted on by the same mechanism to
induce cancers. This reasoning implies that
only if it acted by a mechanism entirely
different from that already operating on the
tissue could a newly added carcinogen show
a threshold in its dose response curve.
This view is consistent with evidence
that any exposure may produce a
.change in the genetic material that can
lead to cell transformation and that
cancers may arise from a single
transformed cell.
In addition to the support for a
nonthreshold hypothesis, EPA notes the
problems inherent in attempting to
identify and to quantify real or practical
carcinogenic thresholds. In this regard,
EPA concurs with the NAS that
theoretical evidence for the existence of
carcinogenic thresholds must be
tempered by the knowledge that the
exposed human population is a "large,
diverse, and genetically heterogeneous
group exposed to a large variety of toxic
agents. Genetic variability to
carcinogenesis is well documented, and
it is also known that individuals who
are deficient in immunological
competence (for genetic or
environmental reasons) are particularly
susceptible to some forms of cancer." (1)
For these reasons, EPA has taken the
position, shared by other Federal
regulatory agencies, that in the absence
of sound scientific evidence to the
contrary, carcinogens should be
considered to pose finite health risks at
any nonzero exposure levels. This
nonthreshold presumption is based on
the view that as little as one molecule of
a carcinogenic substance may be
sufficient to transform a normal cell into
a cancer cell. Evidence is available from
both the human and animal health
literature that cancers may arise from a
single transformed cell. Mutation
research wilh ionizing radiation in cell
cultures indicates that such a
transformation can occur as the result of
interaction with as little as a single
cluster of ion pairs.
In the decision to list benzene under
section 112 EPA found no reason to
believe that the nonthreshold
presumption did not apply to benzene.
After reviewing the public comments.
EPA believes that although they provide
a comprehensive discussion of the
scientific and theoretical support for a
carcinogenic threshold for benzene, the
evidence is inadequate to support a
conclusion that ambient levels of
benzene are without carcinogenic risk.
The EPA did not at listing and does
not now believe that information such
as the benzene exposure levels
estimated from "negative" epidemio-
logies! studies can be regarded as the
equivalent of no-effect levels. Because
ui iiie problems and uncertainties
inherent in the design and conduct of
such studies, they do not support the
conclusion that the absence of a
statistical correlation demonstrates the
absence of a hazard.
While the epigenetic mechanism
offers a possible explanation for the
way in which cancers could arise in the
absence of direct interaction with
genetic material, this theory has not
been substantiated by experimental
evidence nor has applicability to the
specific case of benzene been
established beyond largely theoretical
grounds.
The EPA does not agree with
industry's conclusion that the absence
or nondetection of covalent bonding
with DNA indicates that benzene cannot
directly interact with the genetic
material. Evidence exists that benzene
at levels as low as 1 to 2.5 ppm
significantly increases chromosomal
aberrations. (2} (3) Similarly, EPA dots
not regard as conclusive the evidence
provided by commenters that leukemid
or other adverse health effects do not
occur in the absence of overt signs of
blood toxicity. Again, studies are
available demonstrating benzene-
induced chromosomal aberrations
following exposure to benzene at levels
below those advanced as thresholds for
blood toxicity.
Finally, commenters have argued tha!
below the benzene levels required to
"injure" the blood-forming tissues, the
body's defense mechanisms protect the
tissues from low-level carcinogenic
insults. EPA is not persuaded that such
mechanisms are 100 percent effective. In
addition, although the commenters do
not regard chromosomal aberrations as
evidence of blood toxicity. the presence
of these effects indicates that benzene
or an acf.ve metabolite has baen able to
overwhelm the protective mechanisms
and enter the cellular nucleus.
In summary, EPA continues to bi•!;'"•>•<•
that the norithreshold pres'.imy'.'on
should apply in the case of ben/enr and
thai exposure to benzene via the
ambient air should be regarded as
posing carcinogenic risks. Although EiJA
recognizes that this finding is not
without uncertainty, the Agency
believes thai it is consistent with the
mandate of Section 112 requiring the
protection o' public health against ai:
pollutants thai "may reasonably br:
anticipated" to cause or contribute to
the health effects of concern.
After reviewing the public comments.
EPA also continues to believe that
benzene emissions from .some stationary
sources represent a significant risk of
leukemia to exposed populations. This
judgment is based on the documented
evidence that benzene is a leukemogen.
on the magnitude of benzene emissions
from stationary sources to the ambient
air, on the observed and estimated
ambient concentrations, on the
proximity of large populations to
emitting sources, on the estimates of the
health risks to the exposed populations,
and consideration of the uncertainties
associated with quantitative risk
estimates (including the effects of
concurrent exposures to other
IV-191
-------
BB / Vol. 48. Na 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 1S®€ / Rules and Regulations
substances and tc other benzene
emissions).
Section 112 provides for the delisting
of benzene only if it is found that
benzene is clearly not a hazardous air
pollutant. EPA judges the evidence,
including that submitted by commenters.
to be insufficient to support a conclusion
that ambient levels of benzene do not
pose carcinogenic risks or that the risks
posed by ambient benzene emitted by
stationary sources are insignificant. In
conclusion, EPA continues to regard the
listing of benzene on June 8,1977, as
appropriate and considers delisting at
this lime inappropriate.
A second major comment on the
proposed standards contends that the
individual source categories covered do
not pose a significant health risk and,
further, are already controlled
adequately. In fact, several plants have
installed controls or shut down since the
basic information for standard's
development was obtained and, indeed,
since standards were proposed. EPA has
revised its emissions and health risk
estimates based on the latest emissions
information provided by the industry
and has included in these estimates
consideration of current controls. EPA
has also adjusted its unit risk factor in
response to public comments and is
using a more detailed human exposure
model. EPA has reassessed this new
information for maleic anhydride
process vents, EB/S process vents,
benzene storage vessels, and benzene
fugitive emission sources and concludes
that in light of the health risks and
potential reductions of these four source
categories, only benzene fugitive
emissions warrant Federal regulations
under Section 112. Details regarding the
new information and conclusions are
included in the separate notices for
these source categories.
Public Participation
The Science Advisory Board reviewed
draft documents in December of 1977 on
EPA's assessment of the health effects
at low-level exposure, the extent of
human exposure, and the estimation of
population risks. Public comments were
solicited at proposal of the maleic
anhydride standard (April 1G> 1983; 45
FR 26660) on the health effects, listing,
and regulation of benzene. A public
hearing was held on August 21.1980, in
Washington, D.C., to provide interested
parties an opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views, or
arguments on the health effects, listing,
and regulation of benzene. The hearing
was open to the public, and each
attendee-was given an opportunity to
comment. The public comment period
was from April 18,1980, to November 6,
1980.
Comments have been considered and
changes made to the analysis and
conclusions, where appropriate. Major
comments received on the health effects,
listing and regulation of benzene, and
EPA's responses we summarized in this
preamble. More detailed responses to
the major comments and responses to
the other comments not addressed in
this preamble are contained in
"Response to Public Comments on
EPA's Listing of Benzene Under Section
112," EPA-450/5-82-CC3. Comments are
identified by the docket item number in
parenthfisea.
Listing of Benzena Under Section 112
The EPA listed benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant based on
" [scientific reports [which] strongly
suggest an increased incidence of
leukemia in workers exposed to
benzene" (42 FR 29332, June 8,1977).
These reports included a review of
benzene by NAS, [4] updated criteria
published by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), (5) and a proposal by the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) for a revision
downward of the existing workplace
standard for benzene (42 FR 22516, May
3,1977, and 42 FR 27452, May 27,1977).
While acknowledging that ambient
exposure to benzene normally occurs at
levels "substantially lower than those to
which affected workers were exposed,"
EPA maintained that "there is reason to
believe that ambient exposures may
constitute & cancer risk and should be
reduced" (42 FR 29332, June 8,1977).
At the time of listing. EPA announced
that it would review the scientific data
to determine the health risks from
exposure to ambienS levels of benzene
and invited public participation. The
resulting EPA reports—"Assessment of
Health Effects of Benzene Germane to
Low Level Exposures," (6) "Assessment
of Human Exposures to Atmospheric
Benzene," (7) and "Cardnogeia
Assessment Group's Report on
Population Risk to Ambient Benssas"
(8}—form the basis for the majority of
the public comments directed at the
listing decision.
Commenters, largely from potentially
affected industries and trade
associations, argued that the listing of
benzene was ill-timed, unnecessary, and
unjustified The main thrusts of these
arguments are that EPA failed to
develop an adequate record in advance
of listing and that the record
subsequently prepared does not
demonstrate that benzene at the levelo
encountered in the ambient air warrants
designation as a hazardous air pollutant.
Timing of Benzene Listing Decision
Many commenters though benzene
was listed improperly, or at least
prematurely, citing what they believed
to be an inadequate record (OAQPS-79-
3 [Part I] IV-D-13 [Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-
9; A-79-^19 IV-D-9, IV-D-11; A-79-27
IV-D-19) and EPA's reliance on a
proposed policy regarding airborne
carcinogens (44 FR 58642; October 10,
1979) (A-79-27 IV-D-8, IV-D-25, IV-D-
26; OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-1, IV-D-
11; A-79-49 IV-D-7).
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to Ijst
under section 112 substances judged to
cause or contribute to air pollution
"which may reasonably be anticipated
to result in an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious, irreversible or
incapacitating, reversible illness"
[section 112(a)(l)]. EPA based the
decision to list benzene on a growing
consensus in the scientific and
regulatory community, evidenced by
reports by NAS (4) and NIOSH (5) and
proposed regulations issued by OSHA
(42 FR 27452; May 27,1977) that benzene
was causally linked to the occurrence of
leukemia in occupationally exposed
populations. In EPA's view, leukemia
clearly meets the criterion described in
section 112 as resulting in an increase in
mortality or "serious, irreversible or
incapacitating, reversible illness."
The EPA's judgment that benzene
present in the ambient air may
"reasonably be anticipated" to pose a
significant health hazard to the general
population relied on two arguments
advanced in the listing notice: first, that
benzene was released to the air in 100
million pound quantities annually to
which "large numbers of people are
routinely exposed" and, second, that
EPA had "adopted a regulatory policy
which recognizes that some risk exists
at any level of exposure to carcinogenic
chemicals" (42 FR 29332; June 8,1977).
The latter referred to the "Interim
Procedures and Guidelines for Health
Risk and Economic Impact Assessments
of Suspected Carcinogens" published by
EPA May 25,1976 (41 FR 21402).
Based on the above, EPA believes that
the decision to list benzene was fully
informed, timely, and therefore
appropriate. The subsequent
assessments of low-level exposure and
carcinogenic risk were intended, as
indicated in the listing notice, for use in
"determining which sources of benzene
emissions must be controlled, and the
extent of control needed" (42 FR 29333,
June 8,1977). To the extent that these
assessment documents addressed the
IV-192
-------
Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
criteria for listing benzene under section
112, they have affirmed EPA's decision.
The EPA rejects the contention that
the delay between listing and the
proposal of emission standards for
benzene sources suggests that EPA
lacked the scientific evidence to justify
the June 1977 listing. EPA's assessments
of the health effects of low-level
exposure,(6) the extent of human
exposure,(7) and the estimation of
population risks [8] were submitted for
external review by EPA's Science
Advisory Board in December 1977 and
publicly released in September 1978,
June 1978, and January 1979,
respectively. The first emissions
standard for benzene sources'was not
proposed until April 18,1980 (45 FR
26660). Proposal was not delayd by "the
evidence" for listing but rather the
complex task of developing specific
national emission standards for each
source category.
Several commenters (A-79-27-IV-D-
8, IV-D-25, IV-D-26; A-80-14-IV-D-4,
IV-D-11; OAQPS-79-3 [Part IJ1V-D-1,
IV-D-11; A-79-49-IV-D-7; OAQPS-79-3
(Part II-IV-D-5) maintained that the
listing and rulemaking proceedings for
benzene were premature, arguing that
they were based on a proposed policy
regarding airborne carcinogens (44 FR
58642; October 10,1979).
Neither the listing of benzene nor the
proposed or promulgated standards are
based on the proposed airborne
carcinogen policy. They are based on
section 112. As described above, EPA is
persuaded that the decision to list
benzene under section 112 was neither
premature nor in excess of the Agency's
legal authority.
Health Effects of Benzene
Public comments on the EPA report
"Assessment of Health Effects of
Benzene Germane to Low-Level
Exposure" focused on areas of the
benzene health literature relevant to
evaluation of human health risks from
ambient exposure. These include effects
on reproduction and development
(embryotoxicity and leratogenicity),
pffpr.tR nn the cellular °enetic material
(mutagenicity and chromosome
breakage), and carcinogenicity. The "
basis for listing benzene as a hazardous
air pollutant is carcinogenicity.
However, since comments were
received on the report's discussions on
the other effects, they are included for
completeness.
Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects.
EPA concluded in the benzene health
assessment report that the health
literature was inconclusive regarding
potential effects of benzene on human
reproduction and the fetus. Some
commenters took a stronger position,
asserting that no evidence was available
linking benzene with reproductive or
teratogenic effects (OAQPS-79-3 (Part
IMV-D-9, IV-D-13; [Part IIJ-IV-D-22,
IV-F-1, IV-F-8).
The EPA agrees with the commenters
that the available data do not implicate
benzene as a potential teratogen or
embryotoxin in test species. The risks of
adverse fetal developmental or
reproductive effects, however, have not
been studied adequately. No state-of-
the-art multiple generation reproduction
studies involving benzene have been
done, without which it will not be
possible to determine the levels at
which benzene would have no observed
effect.
From the available data concerning
adverse reproductive effects of benzene
in humans, it is not possible to conclude
that no adverse human reproductive
consequence results from ambient levels
of benzene, since no well-designed and
executed epidemiological studies have
been conducted. It is not known if
ambient levels of benzene have effects
on the many areas of human
reproduction, such as the processes of
spermatogenesis and changes in
menstrual cycle. Until such possibilities
are explored, EPA believes that the
evidence for benzene-induced
reproductive effects in humans must be
regarded as inconclusive.
Chromosomal Effects. Although
commenters did not disagree with EPA's
conclusion that benzene can cause
chromosome breakage in humans, (6)
they were divided on the exposure
levels at which such damage occurs and
on the implications of the observed
changes (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-8,
IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-8; A-79-
27, IV-D-27; A-79-49, IV-D-9). Several
commenters asserted that these effects
result only from high exposures, in
excess of 10 ppm (A-79-27, IV-D-27, A-
79-49, IV-D-9, OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-
D-13), and that "no reliable evidence"
exists to link subclinical benzene
exposure to chromosome aberrations or
to relate the observation of chromosome
breakage with human leukemia
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I) IV-D-13, [Part IIJ
IV-F-1, F-8; A-79-49 IV-D-9).
Conversely, one commenter
challenged EPA's conclusion that a
dose-dependent relationship between
benzene exposure and chromosome
damage had not been demonstrated,
citing a study by Picciano (2) m
benzene-exposed workers, and
maintained that this study documented
chromosomal effects at benzene
exposure levels at and below 2.5 ppm
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-8).
The EPA does not agree that the data
on human cytogenetic effects support a
conclusion that benzene-induced
chromosome damage occurs only after
"excessive exposure." As described in
the health assessment document, studies
are available that relate increased
chromosome breakage to benzene
exposure well below the OSHA
standard of 10 ppm time-weighted
average (TWA). (3) (9)
With respect to a dose-response
relationship, EPA agrees that the
Picciano study indicates a dose-
dependent relationship between
exposure to benzene and the amount of
chromosome damage. As noted in the
EPA health assessment document,
however, "[tjhere is no correlation,
* * *, between the degree or length of
exposure, the clinical symptons, and
persistence or extent of chromosomal
aberrations" [emphasis added]. [6] EPA
believes that this study and the study by
Kilian and Daniel (3) are appropriately
considered evidence of an assocation
between benzene exposure and
chromosome breakage and that the
lowest benzene levels (1.0 to 2.5 ppm)
where significant increases in breakage
were found are considered properly to
reflect exposures below those
associated with clinical symptons of
toxicity.
EPA also agrees that no direct
evidence of a casual linkage between
chromosomal aberrations and leukemia
exists. EPA remains concerned,
however, by the frequency of reports
correlating chromosome abnormalities
with cancer incidence. In addition to
benzene workers and leukemia, this
association has been pointed out in
atomic bomb survivors with leukemia,
(10) in uranium miners with lung cancer,
in vinyl chloride workers with liver
cancer, in liminous dial painters with
bone cancer, and in individuals
developing visceral cancers after
methotrexate treatment for psoriasis.
(«)
Carcinogenicity. Commenters did not
challege EPA's conclusion that "thorp IF
fl|jbst3ntia! en!demio!o°ica! evidence
that benzene is a human leukerrogen."
(8) A number of commenters, however.
disagreed with EPA's conclusion that
benzene posed increased leukemia risk
at the levels present in the ambient air.
EPA addresses these comments below
in "Health Issues Relevant to Benzene
Listing Decision."
One commenter took issue wish EPA's
conclusion that "there is no convincing
evidence that benzene causes
neoplasias, including leukemia, in
animals." (6) The commenter ciieJ tv,o
studies, one by Maltoni and Scarna'.o
IV-193
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
(12) and one by Snyder et al. (13}
demonstrating benzene-induced tumors
in rodents { OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-
8).
The carcinogenicity studies on
benzene in animals reported by Maltoni
and Scarnato (1979) (12) and Snyder et
al. (1980) (13) support the comment that
a positive tumorigenic effect of benzene
is evident from these studies. The
results of these studies are addressed in
the following section.
Health Basis for Listing
As previously discussed, the Agency
based me decision io list benzene on a
growing consensus in the scientific and
regulatory community, supported by
reports by NAS, (4) NIOSH, (5) and
emergency temporary standards issued
by OSHA (42 FR 22516. May 3,1977) that
benzene was causally related to the
occurrence of leukemia in
occupationally exposed populations.
Although the association between
human leukemia and benzene exposure
is only one of several adverse health
effects attributed to benzene, the serious
consequences of this disease and the
uncertainties regarding the existence of
any no-effect levels of exposure
combined to make it the basis for the
decision to list. EPA's health basis for
listing rested primarily on retrospective
studies in occupationally exposed
human populations. Of these, three
reports documenting an association
received greatest emphasis: Infante et
al..(74) Aksoy et al.. (15) and Ott et al.
(16) In the interval since listing, animal
data have become available that further
support a causal relationship. (12) (13)
Commenters critical of EPA's decision
to list benzene argued that these studies
suffered from design and methodological
flaws, the correction of which would
tend to greatly reduce if not eliminate
the observed association. Several
commenters also thought EPA had
misinterpreted the study results and
ignored other well-conducted studies
that reached significantly different
conclusions.
Epidemiological Studies. The work by
Infante et al., a retrospective cohort
mortality study undertaken by NIOSH.
was reported initially in 1977 with a
completed follow up published in 1981.
(77) The study found a greater than
fivefold excess risk of leukemia among
workers exposed to benzene during the
period of 1940 to 1949 in the "Pliofilm"
(rubber hydrochloride) production
industry.
One commenter stated that the
Infante work was "seriously flawed and
largely discredited," citing testimony
from the public hearings on the OSHA
benzene standard (18) and the Supreme
Court's plurality decision on the OSHA
standard (19) (OAQPS-79-3 [Part II] IV-
D-5; A-79-27IV-D-8). More
specifically, commenters asserted that
the study was flawed in two respects:
the exposed cohort was improperly
defined: and the exposure levels
assumed were erroneous (OAQPS-79-3
[Part I] IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-D-5, IV-F-
1, IV-F-9; A-79-27 IV-D-8; A-79-49 IV-
D-9; A-flO-14 IV-D-6, IV-D-16).
Though EPA recognizes that the
Infante et al., study has weaknesses,
EPA believes that the characterization
of the study as "seriously flawed and
largely discredited" is inaccurate.
Although the commenter does not
provide explanation of his criticism
beyond references to the OSHA benzene
rulemaking, his remarks imply that the
study is invalid due to erroneous
reporting of the exposure
concentrations. EPA acknowledges, as
did the authors of the study, that the
historical exposure levels cannot be
determined with certainty. This fact,
however, is irrelevant to the study's
conclusion that exposed workers
experienced a fivefold excess risk of
leukemia over the general population.
Commenters thought the cohort
selected for the study inappropriately
excluded certain mechanical and "dry
side" workers as well as an unknown
number of workers who left the plant's
employment before 1944.
The issue of cohort definition in
Infante et aL was discussed in
subsequent publications by the authors
(20) (21) as well as the OSHA benzene
rulemaking (43 FR 5918, February 10.
1978). The authors argue that "dry side"
workers "were never intended for
inclusion in the cohort following
discussion with company personnel
indicating there was no benzene
exposure on the dry side" (43 FR 5927).
Subsequent reports of benzene levels
(three sample points) on the "dry side"
by the University of North Carolina (22)
were regarded as inadequately detailed
"to permit a valid interpretation." (20)
The authors also contend that
maintenance personnel (pipefitters.
mechanics, etc.) were appropriately
excluded from the cohort "because
company records did not show which
men had responsibilities in pliofilm
production." (20) Workers who left
employment prior to 1944 "could not be
included because their personnel
records were not in a retrievable form."
(20)
The EPA considers the rationale for.
the selection of the Infante et al. cohort
appropriate. EPA notes further that, as
described in the completed follow up by
Rinsky et al. as well ao expert testimony
offered by Dr. Marvin Sako! at the
OSHA benzene hearings, (18) the strict
cohort definition excludes several
additional cases of leukemia that
"support further the notion that there
existed a causal link between benzene
exposure in those facilities and the
occurrence of leukemia." (17)
Commenters also contended that the
benzene concentrations to which the
workers were exposed were much
higher than assumed by EPA, supplying
information from studies indicating that
the workers could have been exposed to
levels of 100 to 1,000 ppm in the 1940's
and as high as 355 ppm in the 1970's
with a mean of 30 ppm.
Rinsky et al. (17) provide a thorough
discussion of the available information
on the benzene levels to which workers
may have been exposed in the subject
facilities during the periods studied. The
authors concluded that "for the most
part, employees' 8-hour time-weighted
averaged exposures were within the
recommended [occupational] standard
in effect at the time. However, as is
characteristic of industrial processes,
there were occasional excursions above
these limits." EPA concludes that, while
intermittent levels may have
approached the values suggested by the
commenters. the range of occupational
standards for the periods studied (100 to
10 ppm) appears reasonable as an
estimate of the chronic exposure
pattern. In this regard, EPA agrees with
the recent conclusion of the Benzene
Work Group of the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) that "the
excessive mortality from myelogenous
and monocytic leukemia had occurred
among workers with occupational
exposure to benzene that was generally
within accepted limits," recognizing that
"the possible contribution of the
occasional excursions in exposure and
of the employment of some workers in
other areas of the plant must be noted;
and * * * May have made some
contribution to the observed excess in
mortality from leukemia." (23)
Aksoy et al. studied the incidence of
leukemia and other diseases among
workers occupationally exposed to
benzene in the Turkish shoeworking
industry. (24) (25) (28) Based on case
ascertainment by contact with medical
care and comparison of leukemia
incidence in the exposed population to
estimates for the general population of
Western nations, Aksoy et al. found a
two fold exces leukemia risk among
shoeworkers with chronic benzene
exposure.
Although commenters generally
agreed that the study was of value "in
reaffirming. * ' " that prolonged
exposures to high concentrations of
IV-194
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
benzene result in serious blood
disorders including a small number of
leukemias" (OAQPS-79-3 [Part II] IV-F-
1, IV-F-9), several specific criticisms
suggested that the excess risk observed
was exaggerated. Two commenters
argued that Aksoy et al. relied on
inappropariate figures (6 per 100,000} for
the background leukemia incidence and
that when a more reasonable estimate
derived from the experience of the
Eurpean Standard Population (8 to 14
per 100.000) was used, the study no
longer shows an excess incidence
among the exposed workers (OAQPS-
79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13 [Part II] IV-F-1,
IV-F-9; A-79-49 IV-D-9). One
commenter expressed concern that the
age distribution of exposed workers was
not available and speculated that the
margin for error in the "official count"
used as the denominator of the
shoeworking population (28,500) was
"probably substantial" (OAQPS-79-3
[Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-9).
EPA agrees that Aksoy's choice of the
6-per-100,000 background leukemia
incidence is subject to criticism since it
is not easily attributed to the Turkish
rural population. It is also reasonable
that the "official count" of 28,500
shoeworkers may be an underestimate
and therefore overestimates the excess
leukemogenic risk in the exposed
population. It is equally likely, however,
that Aksoy's methodology leads to an
underestimate of the excess risk. First,
only leukemia cases of which the author
was directly aware as a medical
practitioner were counted in the study.
As Aksoy testified before OSHA,
"undoubtedly there were other
additional patients among shoeworkers
who were not included in our study."
(18) Second, as EPA's health assessment
points out, "the distribution of cases
reported by Aksoy et al. strongly differs
from that of leukemia in the general
population. If the relative incidence
were computed solely for acute
myeloblastic leukemia and its variants
[the forms of leukemia associated with
benzene exposure], a magnification of
the risk in benzene-exposed
shoeworkers would be observed." (6)
Finally, Aksoy has also testified that
rural leukemia incidence in Turkey may
be on the order of 3 per 100,000, or half
of what he had estimated originally.(18)
This fact would also increase the
calulated excess risk.
Concerning the age distribution of the
shoemaker population, the limited age
information available led EPA to
incorporate an age adjustment factor in
the Agency's risk assessment. On the
basis of better information on the age
stucture of Turkey's male population,
(27] EPA now believes this adjustment
was unnecessary and has revised the
unit risk derivation accordingly.
Ott et al. (16) reported long-term
mortality patterns and associated
benzene exposure for a cohort of 594
chemical manufacturing workers. Three
cases of leukemia were observed where
0.8 was expected, an excess risk of 3.75.
The finding was statistically significant
(p=0.047) in a one-tailed test of
significance.
One commenter criticized the
statement in EPA's health assessment (6)
that excess leukemia incidence
observed in the Ott et al. study was only
of "borderline" statistical significance.
The commenter noted that "[sjince the p
value observed (0.047) is less than the p
value (0.050) commonly used to
determine statistical significance, there
is no basis for considering the value
borderline" (OAPQS 79-3 [Part I] IV-D-
8). Other commenters argued that the
study should be appropriately regarded
as "inconclusive" (OAQPS 79-3 [Part I]
IV-D-9, IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-D-22, IV-
F-i, IV-F-9; A-79-49 IV-D-9, IV-F-2).
One commenter remarked that while the
cases were too few to draw "solid
statistical conclusions," the Ott et al.
study was the "best documented study
of chronic exposures to benzene in the
literature to date" (OAQPS 79-3 [Part II]
IV-F-1, F-9).
Commenters also contended that the
exclusion of one decedent whose
leukemia was identified as a "significant
other condition" rather than the cause of
death eliminated the significance
(QAQPS 79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13). One
commenter asserted that Ott et al.
applied an "inappropriate one-tailed
[statistical] test" to determine
significance and that the use of an
appropriate test (two-tailed) did not
reveal a significant association between
the leukemia cases and exposure to
benzene (OAQPS 79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13).
The presence of confounding
exposures to other potential carcinogens
was also noted by commenters as
evidence that the study should not be
viewed as Cunclubive of a benzene-
leukemia association. The same
commenters noted that the cases of
leukemia occurred in workers exposed
to lower benzene levels (2 to 9 ppm)
than those encountered by many other
individuals in the study population
(OAQPS 79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13, [Part II]
IV-F-1, VI-F-9).
While EPA does not view the Ott'et
al. study, taken alone, as conclusive
evidence of an association between low-
level (2 to 9 ppm) occupational exposure
to benzene and leukemia, the Agency
believes that this work, combined with
other findings in the benzene health
literature, serves to reinforce the public
health concerns regarding benzene
exposure.
EPA does not agree that the use of
"borderline" in describing the
significance of the Ott et al. study is
inappropriate since the value calculated
(0.047) was very close to the
predetermined limit (0.050) chosen for
the test. EPA does agree that the test, as
constructed, supports a finding of
significance.
EPA disagrees that the use of a "two-
tailed" test for significance would be
more appropriate than the one-tailed
test employed by Ott et al. The
hypothesis to be tested in that benzene
exposure increases the leukemia risk,
not that risk may increase or decrease.
The benzene health literature does not
support a finding that benzene exerts a
protective influence on exposed
individuals.
Omitting from the study the individual
for whom leukemia was not the
immediate cause of death would not, in
EPA's opinion, be an appropriate
change. In view of the recognized causal
relationship between benzene and
nonlymphatic leukemias, EPA believes
that a case of myelogenous leukemia,
such as this, should net be ignored.
EPA does not view the extent of
confounding exposures in Ott et al. as
severe. The authors did exclude from
their analysis persons known to have
been exposed to levels of arsenicals,
vinyl chloride, and asbestos, ail of
which have been associated with human
health effects. This exclusion eliminated
53 persons from consideration including
one leukemia victim. The remaining
substances, which include the suspect
carcinogen vinylidene chloride, have not
been shown to be associated with a
leukemia risk in either man or animals.
Therefore, inclusion of such exposed
persons would not be likely to affect the
target organ site for benzene in terms of
increased risk.
According to the authors' testimony
before OSHA, the "low levels of
potential benzene exposure relative to
other employees in the
cohort . . . made a retrospective
assessment of the possible relationship
to benzene exposure very
judgmental." (75) EPA, while recognizing
this uncertainty, agrees with the
reservation expressed by OSHA in its
benzene rulemaking that "because of the
small population size as well as the
possibility of sensitivity of those
individuals developing leukemia, it
cannot be concluded that these deaths
are not caused by benzene exposure"
(43 FR 5928).
IV-195
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. liO / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Coiimenters cited other
t^pidemiological studies, notably the
work of Thorpe. (28) for which no
f;orr.»'.«:ion between leukemia and
benzene exposure was demonstrated
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-9, IV-D-13,
jPart il| IV-F-1. IV-F-9; A-79-27 IV-D-
24, iV-F-t; A-79-49 IV-D-9, IV-F-2).
The Thorpe study found "no excess
incidence of leukemia among petroleum
workers exposed to benzene levels
estimated to range up to 20 ppm"
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13).
F.PA believes that deficiencies in the
fh.orpe study preclude a judgment thai
exposure to benzene below 20 ppm
00*11* ao risk of leukemia. The author of
this study dwells on the shortcomings of
the A-ork, the most important of which
*re that (1) quantitative determinations
-------
Federal Hegister / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
swallow a single tablet. Because we know
the mechanisms underlying these events, we
expect thresholds to the dose-response
curves, and indeed they are evident.
However, other effects may well not have
threshold dose-effect relationships. If an
effect can be caused by a single hit, a single
molecule, or a single unit of exposure, then
the effect in question cannot have a threshold
in the dose-response relationship, no matter
how unlikely it is that the single hit or event
will produce the effect. Mutations in
prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells can be
caused by a single cluster of ion pairs which
were produced by a beam of ionizing
radiation. We would expect that mutations
can be caused by a single molecule or
perhaps group of molecules in proximity to
the DNA. The necessary conclusion from this
result is that the dose-response relationship
for radiation and chemical mutagenesis
cannot have a threshold and must be linear,
at least at low doses.
It is one step further to correlate
mutagenesis with carcinogenesis.
Nevertheless, the evidence is strong that
there is a close relationship between the two
[references].
We therefore conclude that, if there is
evidence that a particular carcinogen acts by
directly causing a mutation in the ONA, it is
likely that the dose-response curve for
carcinogenesis will not show a threshold and
will be linear with dose at low doses.(7)
Evidence for a linear-carcinogenic
response at low dose comes from
studies suggesting cancers may arise
from the "transformation" of a single
cell. (30](31] One study observed that in
women with a genetic condition that
leads to their body cells being of two
recognizable types, tumors are
characteristically of one cell type, while
normal tissues are composed of a
mixture of both types. Another
described experimental efforts in which
transformed cells were transplanted into
whole animals. Both of these
observations further support the theory
that cancers may arise from single cells.
A single cell origin of cancers implies
that the statistical form of the
carcinogenic dose response relationship
may be highly influenced by the extreme
tail of the distribution of cell
transformations with dose. As Crump
points out "the effect of this is to make
virtually any process of discrete events
approximately linear at low dose." (18]
EPA's presumption that any exposure
to a carcinogen poses a health risk is not
intended to foreclose discussion or
ignore evidence or real or practical
effect thresholds for such substances. In
this regard, a number of theories
postulate the existence of thresholds.
These include consideration of the
body's defense and repair capabilities
(immunosurveillance, detoxification,
and ONA repair) and reports of the
regression of preneoplastic lesions with
the cessation of exposure. Observations
of an inverse relationship between dose
and the latency period for tumor
expression have been proposed as
evidence of practical thresholds where
the dose corresponds to a latency that
exceeds the individual's lifespan.
Proponents also have suggested, as
indirect evidence of thresholds, the
carcinogenicity at high doses of certain
substances for which a biological
requirement exists. Threshold levels
have, in addition, been inferred from
"negative" epidemiological and animal
studies.
While EPA agrees that the evidence
for real or practical carcinogenic
thresholds should play a role in hazard
evaluation, the Agency is persuaded
that the utility of such information in
establishing "no effect" levels is
seriously limited. Although protective
mechanisms such as DNA repair are
reasonably effective, it is generally
recognized that few, if any, biological
processes are 100 percent efficient (45
FR 5126, 5129). Similarly, while
decreased dose could increase the
median time-to-tumor to greater than a
lifespan, the typical distribution of
tumors across age groups still would
result in "early" cancers arising.
Evidence for practical thresholds is
also questionable. There is no reason to
believe that biologically required
substances, which have been found to
be carcinogenic at high levels, may not
pose some cancer risk at levels where
they are normally found in the body. In
the same way, the failure to detect a
positive association in the animal
bioassay or epidemiological study does
not constitute evidence of a no-effect
level. NAS has noted that
* * * the observation of no positive •
responses does not guarantee that the
probability of response is actually zero. From
a statistical viewpoint, zero responders out of
a population of size N is consistent at the 5%
significance level with an actual response
probability between zero and approximately
3/N (e.g., when N=1CO and zero responders
are observed, the true probability of response
may be as high eo 3%).(7)
Finally, EPA concurs with NAS that
theoretical arguments for the existence
of carcinogenic thresholds must be
tempered by the knowledge that the
exposed human population is a "* * *
large, diverse, and genetically
heterogeneous group exposed to a
variety of toxic agents. Genetic
variability to carcinogenesis is well
documented (Strong), 1976, (32) and it is
also known that individuals who are
deficient in immunological competence
(for genetic or environmental reasons)
are particularly susceptible to some
forms of cancer (Cottier et al.,
OSHA noted in its summary of public
hearings on an occupational carcinogen
policy:
A number of witnesses testified that, even
if thresholds could be established for the
circumstances in which animals are exposed
only to single carcinogens, this would have
little or no relevance to risk assessment for
humans, who are exposed to many
carcinogens, either simultaneously or
sequentially. Specifically, several witnesses
pointed out that there is already a relatively
high incidence of cancer in the human
population. Hence many individuals are
already at or close to the threshold for certain
processes involved in cancer development, so
that incremental exposure to even small
quantities of an agent that accelerates these
processes would be expected to lead to an
increase in the frequency of cancer. (45 FR
5135)
NAS has further elaborated:
In considering the possiblity of thresholds
for carcinogenesis, it is important to
understand that there is no agent, chemical or
physical, that induces a form of cancer in
man that does not occur in the absence of
that agent. In other words, when there is
exposure to a material, we are not starting at
an origin of zero cancers. Nor are we starting
at an origin of zero carcinogenic agents in our
environment. Thus, it is likely tha-t any
carcinogenic agent added to the environment
will act by a particular mechanism on a
particular cell population that is already
being acted on by the same mechanism to
induce cancers. This reasoning implies that
only if it acted by a mechanism entirely
different from that already operating on the
tissue could a newly added carcinogen show
a threshold in its dose-response curve. (1)
In summary, EPA's position has been
that the nonthreshold hypothesis is, for
carcinogens, a reasonable and
appropriate presumption that must be
overcome by sound scientific evidence
before any exposure to such substances
can be concluded to be without health
risk. At the same time, however, EPA
regards relevant evidence of the ability
of biological systems to mitigate adverse
health effects as important
considerations in the evaluation of the
health hazard.
Support for a Threshold for Benzene.
Commenters challenged EPA's
nonthreshold presumption for benzene,
arguing that the Agency had failed to
consider convincing evidence that a
leukemogenic threshold for benzene
does exist and that this threshold is well
above any ambient levels that might be
encountered by the general population.
In support of this position, commenters
cited studies of benzene metabolism,
alternative mechanisms for cancer
induction, and evidence derived from
epidemiological studies.
One commenter cited the work of
Richert and Irons (34) as evidence that
IV-197
-------
Federal Kegister / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 8. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
exposure to levels of benzene below 10
ppm does not produce any adverse
health consequences in human cells
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13, [Part II]
IV-F-1, IV-F-2, IV-F-3).
Rickert studied benzene metabolism
in rodents and human cells in vitro to
determine the concentrations of toxic
Sar^ene metabolites that might occur in
the bone marrow of humans exposed to
benzen« (OAQPS 79-3 [Part II] IV-F-2).
He concluded that the metabolite
concentrations in rats and human tissue
are of the same order of magnitude at
similar benzene doses. Irons used this
information to compare the metabolite
concentrations expected at various
benzene exposures with those at which
the first signs of hematotoxicity
(!>.Tiphocytopenia) occurred. He found
"that a significant difference exists
between the projected concentration of
benzene metabolities in bone marrow.
as calculated for a 6 hour exposure to 10
ppm benzene in vitro, and the
concentration of the same metabolites
which produce a demonstrable effect on
a sensitive population of human cells in
vitro" (OAQPS 79-3 (Part II) IV-F-3).
Although EPA regards this work,
published after the release of the health
assessment document, as generally
•supportive of the concept of a threshold
for lymphocytopenia and other
hematotoxic effects that may result from
benzene exposure, EPA does not agree^
with the inference drawn from this study
that exposures below 10 ppm pose no
health risk. The in vitro system used
may not represent the most sensitive
human population at risk of hematotoxic
effects. Further, it is not clear that
effects such as lymphocytopenia must
precede the induction of leukemia, nor
has it been established that the benzene
metabclities studied are related to the
onset of leukemia.
Several commenters submitted that
EPA's presumption of low-level benzene
risk ignored alternative mechanisms for
carcinogenesis, applicable to benzene,
for which effect thresholds appear
likely. One commenter asserted that,
while a substance's ability to directly
alter genetic material could be viewed
as support for a nonthreshold
mechanism, there is "no evidence that
[benzene] react[s] with DNA" (OAQPS-
79-3 [Part I] IV-D-9, [Part II] IV-D-22).
According to the commenter, "Benzene
induces neoplasia through cell injury" to
the bone marrow. The injury is
"followed by regeneration of the bone
marrow and myelogenous leukemia in a
small number of cases." During
exposures of humans to benzene levels
in the air of 10 ppm or less, the
metabolic detoxification reactions
maintain the levels [of benzene] and its
metabolites to be sufficiently low in the
blood to be below the threshold for any
effect on the bone marrow or metabolic
effects on lymphocytes" (OAQPS 79-3
[Part I] IV-D-9, IV-D-13. [Part II] IV-D-
22. IV-F-1, IV-F-9; A-79-27 IV-D-24,
IV-D-27. IV-D-29: A-79^19 IV-D-9, IV-
D-ll. IV-D-12, IV-F-1. IV-F-2; A-80-14
IV-D-1, IV-D-3, IV-F-1).
Similarly, commenters argued that the
documented association between
hematotoxic effects (usually decreases
in the levels of various formed elements
in blood: cytopenia, pancytopenia, and
lymphocytopenia) and leukemia
supports the finding that such effects
may be a necessary precondition for
leukemia. In this regard, one commenter
quotes Goldstein's observation that
"there [do] not appear to be any proven
cases in which leukemia began in the
absence of previous cytopenia." [35]
Commenters contend that because "pre-
leukemic" changes such as cytopenia
"do not occur below about 35 ppm," this
exposure level or, more conservatively,
a level of 20 or 10 ppm constitutes an
effective threshold below which
benzene "presents no health risk
whatsoever."
While EPA agrees that the nongenetic.
or "epigenetic," mechanism constitutes a
possible explanation for the way in
which cancers could arise in the
absence of direct interaction with
genetic material, the Agency is not
persuaded, based on the largely
theoretical nature of this position, that
such a mechanism has been
demonstrated in the case of benzene.
For similar reasons, the Agency
continues to regard as inconclusive the
contention that hematotoxic effects
must necessarily precede the
development of leukemia in benzene-
exposed individuals.
Covalent bonding (reaction) with
DNA is generally regarded as evidence
that-an agent may have the ability to
"transform"a normal cell into an
abnormal, and possibly cancerous, cell
via a somatic mutation. The absence of
such bonding or its nondetection,
however, does not demonstrate that
substances such as benzene may not
interact directly with genetic material to
produce aberrant cells. In fact, there is
good evidence that benzene, at levels as
low as 1 to 2.5 ppm, significantly
increases chromosome abnormalities in
bone marrow cells including
chromosome breaks and marker
chromosomes (rings, dicentrics,
translations, and exchange
figures).(3)(P) Whether such changes are
appropriately considered mutations or
simply toxic events depends on the fate
of the affected cell. As OSHA has
pointed out in its benzene rulemaking:
If the alteration in the chromosomal
material results in an inhibition of further
cellular division, then in terms of its
reproductive potential, the cell is dead and
the damage inflicted may be classified as a
toxic event. However, if the damage does not
interfere with the reproductive ability of the
cell, and the alteration is replicated, this may
constitute a persistent gross mutation. The
finding of gross chromosomal damage in bone
marrow cells clearly demonstrates that
despite competing detoxification reactions
* * * benzene, or a reactive metabolite Is
able to overwhelm proiective defense
mechanisms and enter the nucleus of
hematopoietic cells. (43 FR 5918)
The quote attributed to Goldstein
noting that "there [do] not appear to be
any proven cases in which leukemia
began in the absence of previous
cytopenia" is correct but incomplete.
Later in the page Goldstein cautions that
this interpretation is "open to
speculation, especially in view of the
paucity of routine laboratory data
preceding the onset of leukemia."(36)
The lack of information, as well as the
retrospective nature of most of the
analysis, makes it difficult to
substantiate a precedent relationship
between hematotoxic effects and
leukemia. In this regard. OSHA has
observed:
* * * since the mechanism by which benzene
induces leukemia has not been elucidated it
is possible that leukemia develops, not in
response to the pancytopenic effects of
benzene, but rather to the direct carcinogenic
effect on the marrow hematopoietic stem
cells not necessarily accompanied by any
other evidence of marrow effect * * ".In
such events, protection against non-
neoplastic blood disorders would not rule out
subsequent development of leukemia (43 FR
5929).
Similarly, Browning, in 196S, noted:
"benzene leukemia is frequently
superimposed upon a condition of
aplastic anemia, but it can develop
without a preceding peripheral blood
picture characteristic of bone marrow
aplasia."(W)
Finally, EPA is not persuaded that the
"thresholds" identified by commenters
for benzene-induced "injury" are sound.
First, it is not clear that techniques such
as peripheral blood counts and
aspiration of bone marrow are capable
of consistently detecting injury to the
hematopoietic system, particularly when
the normal ranges of such counts are
broad.(6)
Second, injury may be occurring at
levels below those at which cytopenia is
observed. In its review of benzene, NAS
commented on a report of benzene-
induced chromosome abnormalities:
IV-198
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
"Vigliar.i and Forni (37) reported
chromosomal aberrations of both the
stable and unstable type. In general, the
chromosome aberrations were higher in
peripheral blood lymphocytes of
workers exposed to benzene than in
those of controls. This was true even in
the absence of overt signs of bone
marrow damage" (4) [emphasis added].
As noted above, Picciano and Kilian and
Daniel have also reported significant
increases in chromosomal aberrations,
an effect whose toxic potential cannot
be ignored, in workers exposed to
benzene at levels substantially below
the 10 ppm submitted as the lowest level
for a "threshold" for benzene-induced
effects.
Commenters found support for a
benzene carcinogenic threshold in
epidemiologies! studies that did not find
a significant association between
benzpri" p\T>osi!rp Hnd leukemia (citing
work by TVi-pe. (.?,9) Tabershaw, (38)
and Stallones (&/JJ. in control or
nonfixpcneu populations for which a
case for benzene exposure could be
made (citing Infante et al. (14)], and
among exposed populations following
exposure reduction efforts (citing
Infante et al. (14) and Askoy et al. (15)].
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-9, IV-D-11,
IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-D-22, IV-F-t. IV-
F-9, A-79-27 1V-D-24, IV-D-28; A-79-
49 IV-D-10, IV-D-11. 1V-D-12.1V-F-1.
IV-F-2; A-60-14 IV-F-1).
As indicated in "Health Brfsi.s for
Listing" above, EPA believes that the
shortcomings of the Thome study do not
permit a firm conclusion regarding a
carcinogenic threshold for benzene. In
the larger context of the utility of
negative epidemiological studies, EPA,
as a member of the IRLG, concluded that
studies not finding a positive statistical
correlation do not demonstrate the
absence of a hazard, due to the
limitations of epidemiologic
investigations and long cancer latency
periods during which exposure to other
potentially carcinogenic substances can
occur (44 FR 39858; July 6,1979). In
addition, OSHA (45 FR 5001; January 2,
1980) and the National Cancer Advisory
Hoard (40) contend thai negative
epidemiological data do not necessarily
establish the safety of suspect materials.
Similarly, while EPA agrees that
follow up studies such as those
undertaken on the Infante et al. and
Aksoy et al. populations may be useful
in demonstrating risk reductions, they
are not appropriate support for a
position that risks have been eliminated.
As with "negative"epidemiological
studies, EPA does not agree that such
findings demonstrate the absence of a
hazard.
Having reviewed the public
comments, EPA concludes that the
evidence submitted in support of a real
or practical threshold for benzene-
induced leukemia is not sufficient to
overcome EPA's presumption that
benzene may pose a finite risk of
leukemia at any exposure level greater
than zero.
Although commenters have sought to
demonstrate that benzene may cause
leukemia via a nongenetic mechanism
that requires threshold-governed tissue
injury prior to leukemia induction and
that levels of benzene below this
threshold are noninjurious or otherwise
detoxified, EPA regards this evidence as
largely theoretical in nature and,
inconclusive.
EPA believes that the support for a
"hematotoxic" threshold as protective
against leukemia induction is
speculative for two reasons: first.
because neither the mechanism for
benzene-induced leukemia r.or that for
blood disorders has been elucidated,
and, second, because information is
available that other effects of potential.
adverse health consequence have been
shown to occur at levels lower than
those postulated as hematotoxic
thresholds. Finally, EPA does not accept
the premise that the nonposi»ive
epidemiological studies offer a means of
establishing credible no-effect levels.
For these reasons, recognizing the
uncertainties in the scientific data base.
EPA believes that the nonihreshold
presumption should continue to apply in
the case of benzene and that benzene
should be considered to pose a risk of
cancer at any exposure level above zero.
EPA believes that this finding is
consistent with the mandate of Section
112 requiring the protection of public
health against air pollutants that "may
reasonably be anticipated" to cause or
contribute to the health effects of
concern.
Quantitative Risk Estimates of
Carcinogens. EPA initially published
interim guidelines for the conduct of
quantitative risk assessments (QRA) for
carcinogens on May 25,1976 (41 FR
21402). In 1979, these were succeeded by
the report of the Work Group on Risk
Assessment of IRLG (41 FR 39858; July 6,
1979) of which EPA was a member.
EPA prepared, in conjunction with the
listing of benzene under Section 112 and
the development of emissions
regulations, an assessment of the
population risk to ambient benzene
exposures.(fi) The assessment was
based on an extrapolation of the human
leukemogenic risk drawn from available
epidemiological evidence in
combination with an assessment of
human exposure to benzene emitted inin
the air by stationary sources. (7)
Although a few commenters objected
to the performance of a risk assessment,
arguing that the underlying uncertainties
were too great to permit a meaningful
result, most respondents favored
attempting to estimate population risks.
In an extensive critique of EPA's
assessment, however, commenters
disagreed with EPA on a number of
scientific and technical grounds, ranging
from the appropriateness of the
dispersion model used in estimating
ambient benzene levels to errors in the
assumptions made in deriving an
estimate of benzene's leukemogenic
potency. Commenters argued that the
correction of such errors would result in
an overall leukemogenic risk from
benzene sources substantially below
that predicted by EPA, and, in fact.
small enough to be regarded as a
"statistical artifact" for which regulator.
attention was unwarranted.
The original assessment of human
exposure to benzene was performed bv
the Stanford Research Institute (SRi!
under contract to EPA. (?) A number ol
commenters on the benzene listing and
proposed standards criticized the SRI
assessment as relying on outdated
emissions estimates, employing on
upwardly biased exposure mode!.
omitting plant-speciiiC information, nno
erroneously including plants no longer
using benzene (OAQPS-79-3 jParl ill
IV-F-1, 1V-F; A-79-49 IV-D-9). One
commenter questioned the use of a 2')-
kilometer radius in developing the
exposure estimates (OAQPS-79-3 [Par:
I] IV-D-8). Several commenters \\pn-
supportive of an alternative
methodology submitted by Systems
Applications, Inc. (SAI) (OAQPS-79-3
[Part I) IV-D-9. IV-D-13, [Part llj 5V-D-
22, IV-F-1, IV-F-8. IV-F-9: A-79^!P IV-
D-9).
EPA agrees that the SAI exposure
methodology offers some improvements
over the exposure methodology used by
SRI for the bnnzene assessment. SAI
developed its methodology under
coniraci io EPA in response io a need
for a rapid, computer-efficient metho-1
for conducting national-level exposu-i-
assessments. This methodology, with
the additional dala submitted in the
course of the comment periods on the
benzene proposals, has been used to
revise the exposure estimates and risV
assessments for the promulgated
standards.
Although the SAI methodology has
supplanted the methodology initially
used by EPA to estimate benzene
exposures, EPA does not agree that the
IV-199
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
SRI report, for the purposes intended, is
grossly inaccurate or upwardly biased.
The SRI report was intended to be an
initial rough estimate of national-level
exposures to ambient air concentrations
of benzene caused by air emissions from
various types of sources. The purpose of
the report was to help EPA decide which
benzene sources to study in more depth
and thereby determine the extent of
regulation needed under the Clean Air
Act. The report also helped EPA
determine the order in which the studies
would be conducted. Those studies,
'.\hich accompany the development of
regulations under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, address far more
explicitly the sources of benzene
selected for regulation and the public
exposures to benzene associated with
those sources. The nature of many of the
comments suggests that the commenters
did not understand EPA's intended use
of the report and of the intentionally
rough-cut approach considered
appropriate for that use.
EPA agrees that much of the SRI
report is difficult to evaluate. This report
was one of EPA's first attempts at
estimating nationwide exposure, and the
methodologies were not yet fully
described. As explained, the report was
not meant to be a definite statement on
exposure to benzene, but to be a guide
to follow-on studies. All deficiencies
considered, EPA considers the report
adequate for its intended use.
The selection of a 20-kilometer limit
on exposure estimation in the vicinity of
stationary sources is based on modeling
considerations. Twenty kilometers was
chosen as a practical modeling stop-
point. The results of dispersion models
are considered reasonably accurate
within that distance. The dispersion
coefficients used in modeling are based
on empirical measurements made within
10 kilometers of sources. These
coefficients become less applicable at
long distances from the source, and the
modeling results become more
uncertain.
Comments were generally critical of
the use by CAG of a linear,
nonthreshold model to derive a benzene
unit risk factor. One commenter
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part II] IV-D-9) rejected
ihe assumptions used by CAG of no
threshold and the validity of the linear
model extrapolated toward zero. Other
commenters viewed the model as
"inherently conservative" and likely to
yield an upper limit of the health risks
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13; A-79-
27-IV-D-27; A-80-14-IV-D-10a, IV-D-
13).
While EPA agrees that the linear,
nonthreshold model is conservative and
would tend to provide an upper bound
to the statistical range for the unit risk
factor, the Agency does not believe that
the assumptions upon which it is based
are unreasonable or that the results of
its use are exaggerated. IRLG agreed
that although the mathematical model
identifies an upper limit estimate of risk
from a statistical standpoint, "(tjhe risk
estimates as applied to humans should
not be regarded as upper limit estimates
becausejaf large biological
uncertainties."^}
The dose-response model with
linearity at low dose has been adopted
for iow-dose extrapolation by EFA
because it has the best, albeit limited,
scientific basis of any current
mathematical extrapolation mode\.(41]
This basis is supported by EPA's
conclusions in a Federal Register notice
(45 FR 79359; November 28,1980)
announcing the availability of Water
Quality Criteria documents. The Agency
concluded that, "(t]he linear non-
threshold dose-response relationship is
. . . consistent with the relatively few
epidemiological studies of cancer
responses to specific agents that contain
enough information to make the
evaluation possible . . . There is also
some evidence from animal experiments
that is consistent with the linear non-
threshold hypothesis. . . ."
Commenters argues that, in addition
to the conservative nature of the moder
used, the assumptions made by EPA
(CAG) in the derivation of a unit
leukemia risk factor for benezene
represented "serious misinterpretation"
of the underlying epidemiological •
evidence (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13.
[Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-9; A-79-27-IV-D-
27; IV-D-24; A-80-14-IV-D-10a, IV-D-
21). Among the specific criticisms were:
CAG (1) inappropriately included in its
evaluation of the Infante et al. study two
cases of leukemia from outside the
cohort, inappropriately excluded a
population of workers that had been
exposed to benzene, and improperly
assumed that exposure levels were
comparable with prevailing
occupational standards; (2) accepted, in
the Aksoy et al. studies, an
unreasonable undercount of the
background leukemia incidence in rural
Turkey, made a false adjustment for age,
and underestimated the exposure
duration; and (3) included the Ott et al.
study in the analysis despite a lack of
statistical significance.
As previously discussed in "Health
Basis for Listing," EPA has reexamined
and reevaluated each of the three
studies. In summary, EPA concluded
that one case of leukemia was
inappropriately included from the
Infante et al. study in computing the
original unit risk factor. Additionally,
EPA reaffirmed its decision to exclude
dry-side workers from that study in
developing the risk factor. The Agency
with the commenters that the Aksoy et
al. study was adjusted improperly for
age; however, the exposures and
durations of exposures are still
considered reasonable estimates. The
Ott et al. study was not eliminated from
the risk assessment because the findings
meet the test of statistical significance
and because it provides the best
documented exposure data available
from the three epidemiological studies.
Based on these findings, the unit risk
factor [the probability of an individual
contracting leukemia after a lifetime of
exposure to a benzene concentration of
one part benzene per million parts air)
was recalculated. The revised estimate
resulted in a reduction of about 7
percent from the original estimate of the
geometric mean, from a probability of
leukemia of 0.024/ppm to a probability
of leukemia of 0.022/ppm.
Significance of Estimated
Carcinogenic Risks from Benzene
Exposure. Based on EPA's estimates of
carcinogenic risk or on the alternative
calculations submitted to the Agency for
consideration, a number of commenters
asserted that the risk of developing
leukemia from exposure to benzene in
the ambient air was too small to
warrant regulatory consideration under
section 112. Specifically, commenters
argued that the regulation of benzene
under section 112 would have "no
meaningful impact on the occurrence of
leukemia in the general population"
(OAQPS-78-3 [Part I] IV-D-9, [Part II]
IV-F-1, IV-F-9). In support of this
position, commenters cited EPA's
estimate that roughly 80 percent of
ambient benzene emissions were
attributable to mobile sources that
would not be regulated under section
112 and noted that the number of
leukemia cases predicted by the EPA
assessment to occur as the result of
benzene emissions from stationary
source categories represented "less than
one-tenth of one percent [of] the normal
leukemia mortality risk in ihe U.S.
population,... a result so small as to
be indistinguishable from a risk of zero"
(OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-D-13. [Part II]
IV-F-1, IV-F-9; A-79-49-IV-D-9; A-79-
27-IV-D-18, IV-D-10, IV-F-1; A-80-14-
IV-D-lOa, IV-F-1).
Several commenters referenced, as
evidence of the insignificance of the
ambient benzene risk, the comparable or
higher risks associated with activities
such as skiing, hunting, and sky diving
(OAQP5-7S-3 [Part I] IV-D-19) and with
involuntary hazards such as drowning
IV-200
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
and electrocution (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I]
IV-D-13, [Part II] IV-F-1, IV-F-9).
Commenters also maintained that the
estimated risks posed by benzene
emissions were at or below levels
recognized by EPA and other Federal
agencies as acceptable goals or targets
for regulation (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I] IV-
D-13).
EPA does not agree with the
commenter's assertions that the health
risks posed by benzene emissions from
all stationary sources are insignificant
or that the regulation of benzene under
Section 112 is, therefore, unwarranted.
EPA continues to believe that the well-
documented evidence of benzene's
leukemogenicity, the quantity of
stationary source emissions, the
observed and estimated ambient
concentrations, the proximity of large
populations to emitting sources, and the
numerical estimates of health risks
(including consideration of the
uncertainties of such estimates) support
the judgement that benzene is an air
pollutant that "causes or contributes to
air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible,
illness" (section 112(a)(l) of the Clean
Air Act).
With an estimated 9.9 billion pounds
(4.5 million megagrams) produced in
1981, benzene ranks 16th among all
chemicals in terms of production volume
in the United States. (42) Benzene is the
largest production chemical that has
been causally linked to cancer in
humans.
EPA estimates that more than 120
million pounds (55,000 megagrams) of
benzene are emitted annually to the
ambient air from stationary industrial
sources. The sources are primarily
plants involved in benzene production,
other chemical manufacturing, and the
storage and distribution of benzene and
gasoline. At these sources, benzene is
emitted from the process vents, storage
tanks, and liquid transfer operations as
well as from leaks in process
components such as pumps and valves.
According to EPA estimates nt least 30
to 50 million people live within 20
kilometers of stationary sources
(excluding gasoline marketing sources)
that emit benzene. Levels of benzene
have been monitored in the vicinity of
benzene-emitting facilities at levels as
high as 350 ppb (1,117 jig/m3) with
median values of 3.0 ppb (9.6 fig/m3).
(43)
EPA regards benzene emissions from
some stationary source categories and
potential human exposure to these
emissions as significant. The fact that
mobile sources emit more benzene than
do stationary sources has no bearing on
the significance of the benzene
emissions from stationary sources, since
these sources also emit large quantities
of benzene. The fact that specific
standards have not been proposed for
mobile sources does not imply that the
Agency has reached a conclusion on the
significance of the health risks
associated with these sources. As
commenters pointed out, mobile sources
are not regulated under section 112, but
under Title II of the Clean Air Act. A
control technology applicable for
benzene emissions from mobile sources,
as for other hydrocarbon compounds, is
installation of a catalytic converter. In
fact, benzene emissions from mobile
sources are reduced substantially (along
with other hydrocarbon compounds) by
catalytic converters, installed in
response to standards established under
Title II of the Clean Air Act. EPA
projects that by 1985, mobile source
benzene emissions will have been
reduced by 69 percent compared with
those in the baseline year when the
Clean Air Act was enacted (1970), and
by 1990 they will have been reduced by
83 percent.
EPA disagrees that benzene does not
warrant regulation because such
regulation will not have a meaningful
impact on the occurrence of leukemia in
the general population. Except for -
established causal relationships with
benzene and certain hereditary factors,
the causes of leukemia are not known.
Because it is estimated that only a small
proportion of leukemias may, at present,
be preventable does not argue that
reasonable control measures should not
be taken.
Furthermore, EPA does not agree that
the presence of other unregulated or
tolerated health risks, equal or greater in
magnitude than those estimated for
benzene exposure, obviates the need for
regulation. Activities such as hunting
and skiing are essentially voluntary in
nature with well-advertised risks. The
risk of someone being struck by
lightning, while largely involuntary,
would be difficult to reduce effectively.
ipv^r Kon^ono hov/svsr s !arrts
component of the health risk is
involuntary. At the same time,
reasonable actions are available that
can reduce the risks from benzene
exposure. EPA questions the •
appropriateness of weighing risks that
are accepted voluntarily or that have
little opportunity for mitiga'.ion against
risks largely beyond the individual's
control but for which societal remedies
are readily available.
Finally, commenters have chosen to
make comparisons based on the
"average" lifetime risks or the expected
number of leukemia cases attributable
to benzene emissions, arguing that an
"average" lifetime risk of leukemia from
ambient levels of benzene of 1 per
100,000 (10~s) does not constitute a
Significant hazard and has, in fact. beer.
accepted by EPA and other Feder.;?
agencies as an appropriate goal for
regulation. Aside from the technical ar.d
philosophical difficulties inherent in the
selection end verification of such goals
described above, EPA has not selected a
specific "goal" for carcinogenic risks
from hazardous air pollutants and.
further, disagrees with the choice of the
"average" lifetime risk as an appropriate
measure of individual risk. EPA believes
that the determination that a substance
poses a significant health risk via the
ambient air must include consideration
of the magnitude of the hazard to those
individuals and subpopulations most
expose to emissions of the substance. In
the case of benzene, the estimated
maximum lifetime risks for these
populations are generally higher than
are "average" risks cited by
commenters. Current EPA estimates for
the most exposed individuals living in
the vicinity of source categories for
which standards are being developed
range from a leukemia risk of 150 per
100,000 for benzene fugitive sources tu
640 per 100,000 for coke by-product
plants (OAQPS A-79-16). The reader
should recognize that any time leukemia
risk numbers are cited, they are subject
to considerable uncertainty. These
uncertainties are explained in the npxt
section of this preamble, titled
"Selection of Benzene Source Csiegom-j
for Regulations."
In conclusion, EPA continues to
believe that benzene emissions fron;
some stationary source categories
represent a significant risk of leuk>jr,-;ib
to exposed populations, particularly to
those individuals and subpopuSaticus
residing near major point sources. This
belief rests on the documented evidence
that benzene is a human leukemogen, on
the magnitude of benzene emissions to
the ambient air, on the observed and
estimated ambient concentrations, on
the proximity of large populations to
emitting sources, and on estimates of ih«
health risks to exposed populations,
including consideration of the
uncertainties associated with
quantitative risk estimates (incJudir.g
the effects of concurrent exposures to
other substances and to other benzi-:.'
emissions).
Thus, EPA still believes that the
listing of benzene on June 8. 1977. XVBS
appropriate and that delisting is
inappropriate. The evidence submitted
by commenters is judged insufficient to
IV-201
-------
I Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
support a conclusion that ambient levels
of benzene do not pose carcinogenic
risks or that the risks posed by benzene
emitted by all stationary source
categories are insignificant.
Other Issues Relevant to Listing of
Benzene
Several commenters asserted that the
listing of benzene was unnecessary in
view of the "network of regulatory
programs already put into effect to
control ambient benzene exposures,"
thus taking benzene out of the statutory
definition of "hazardous air pollutant"
under section 112 (OAQPS-79-3 [Part I]
IV-D-10, IV-D-13, [Part IIJIV-F-1, IV-
F-9; A-79-49 IV-D-10, IV-F-1, IV-F-2;
A-80-14-IV-D-13, IV-D-lOa, IV-F-1).
The regulatory programs to which the
commenters refer were put into effect to
attain and maintain the national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for ozone, not to control ambient
benzene exposures. The health effects
from exposure to ozone are very
different from the health effects from
exposure to benzene; ozone-caused
health effects are serious, but there is no
evidence that exposure to ozone causes
cancer. Therefore, no scientific or
technical basis exists for believing that
attaining and maintaining NAAQS for
ozone will ensure that the public is
amply protected from benzene exposure.
It is true that controlling VOC
emissions to attain and maintain the
ozone standard often results in a degree
of control over benzene emissions,
because benzene is often emitted with
the VOC's being controlled. EPA did
not, as one commenter suggests.
"ignore" this fact. The effectiveness of
existing State standards and control
devices in place for any other reason-
has been considered when emissions
from existing plants have been
estimated. In fact, the amount of control!
currently in place for three benzene
source categories for which standards
were previously proposed, maleic
anhydride and EB/S process vents and
benzene storage vessels, is relevant to
the Agency's proposed conclusion that
benzene emissions from these source
categories no longer warrant federal
regulatory action. One cannot
reasonably assume, however, that the
extent and stringency of the control of
VOC emissions equates to adequate
control of all benzene emissions
nationwide. For example, the Stats
regulations that control VOC emissions
are federally required only for areas of
the State where they are needed to
attain and maintain the ozone standard;
in areas of the State where such
regulations are required, the regulationo
need be applied only to enough VOC
sources with enough regulatory
stringency to attain and maintain the
ozone standard. Such regulations do not
necessarily control all stationary
benzene sources adequately.
Consequently, the Agency disagrees
with the commenters' assertions that
existing regulatory programs for ozone/
VOC's make it unnecessary to regulate
any benzene sources.
Commenters suggested that EPA
should adopt an acceptable carcinogenic
risk target for benzene and other
airborne carcinogens, citing precedents
in other EPA and Federal rulemakinss
(OAQPS-79-3) [Part I] IV-D-13. [Part II]
IV-F-1, IV-F-9; A-79~«9 IV-F-1, IV-F-
2).
EPA agrees that it can identify a lower
range of risk estimates (incidence and
maximum risk) where it is judged that
the health risks do not pose such e
public health problem as to warrant
federal regulation. This, in conjunction
with other factors such as achievable
emissions and health risk reductions,
can convince the Administrator that e
source category is not appropriate to
regulate under section 112. This is the
case for the proposed withdrawal of the
proposed benzene standards for maleic
anhydride and EB/S process vents and
benzene storage vessels.
Selection of Benzene Source Categories
EPA proposed standards for four
source categories of benzene emissions:
maleic anhydride process vents,
ethylbenzene/styrene process vents,
fugitive emission sources, and benzene
storage vessels. A standard will be
proposed for a fifth source category,
coke by-product plants. Comments
submitted on each of the four proposed
standards contended that each of the
source categories regulated does not
pose a significant risk to public health
and therefore does not warrant
regulation (OAQPS-79-3 [Part 11] IV-D-
9, IV-D-22. IV-F-1. IV-F-S; A-79-27 IV-
D-24, IV-D-27. IV-D-28. IV-F-1, IV-K-
1; A-78-49IV-D-7. IV-D-10, IV-D-12:
A-80-14 IV-p-lOa. IV-D-13, IV-D-18.
IV-F-1). Similar preproposal comments
have been received en the coke by-
product source category.'Arguments
advanced in support of this position
include the relative insignificance of
stationary source emissions of benzene
versus mobile source emissions; the low
level of estimated benzene risko
compared to other public health risks;
and the negligible impact of benzene
control on the total U.S. leukemia
incidence. EPA's response to these
comments appears in the section
entitled "Significance of the Estimated
Carcinogenic Risks from Benzene
Exposures." Additionally, commenters
maintained that, even if the source
categories regulated could be
considered significant at proposal,
emissions from these source categories
are now actually much lower than
projected at proposal and, thus, no
longer pose significant risk.
Selection of Five Source Categories for
Initial Regulation
Following the listing of benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant, EPA divided the
stationary sources of benzene emissions
into 12 source categories. After
evaluating these 12 source categories,
EPA selected five source categories of
benzene for initial regulation: process
vents at maleic anhydride and EB/S
plants, benzene fugitive emission
sources, benzene storage vessels, and
coke by-product plants.
EPA is collecting additional data on
the remaining seven source categories to
use in deciding whether or not
standards development is warranted for
them.
Proposal of Standards: Significant Risk
Judgment
The information used in selecting the
five source categories for initial
regulation was preliminary information,
based on screening studies of the
identified source categories. During
standards development prior to
proposal, EPA gathered more detailed
and refined information. The new
information necessitated revisions in
emissions estimates for the five source
categories with some estimates
increasing and others decreasing.
Examples of the information used to
upgrade emissions estimates include
emissions test data, updated status on
the number of operating plants, and
more precise information on the control
devices already installed on these
plants.
In addition to upgrading the emissions
estimates, EPA used the more precise
emissions data to revise the quantitative
risk estimates. At the time that
standards for maleic anhydride process
vents. EB/S process vents, benzene
fugitive emissions sources, and benzene
storage vessels were proposed, EPA
made a judgment that the emissions
from each of these source categories
pose a significant leukemia risk. EPA
based this judgment on the upgraded
emissions and risk estimates available
at that time.
Table J presents information for each
source category, based on the emissions
statuo of that source category at the time
the standards wens proposed. The
IV-202
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
uncertainties in the risk estimates are
described in the following paragraphs.
The ranges of maximum lifetime risk
and annual leukemia incidence at
proposal presented, in Table 1 represent
the uncertainty of estimates concerning
benzene concentrations to which
workers were exposed in the
occupational studies of Infante, Aksoy,
and Ott that served as the basis for
developing the benzene unit risk factor.
The ranges presented in this table
represent 95 percent confidence limits
on two sources of uncertainty in the
benzene risk estimates. One source
derives from the variations in dose/
response among the three occupational
studies upon which the benzene unit
risk factor is based. A second source
involves the uncertainties in the
estimates of ambient exposure. In the
former case, the confidence limits are
based on the assumption that the slopes
of the dose/response relationships are
unbiased estimates of the true slope and
that the estimates are log normally
distributed. In the latter case, the limits
are based on the assumption that actual
exposure levels may vary by a factor of
two from the estimates obtained by
dispersion modeling (assuming that the
source-specific input data are accurate).
IV-203
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6.1984 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I. BASELINE IMPACTS OF BENZENE SOURCE CATEGORIES AT PROPOSAL AND NOW
Standard
Benzene
and other
Benzene VOC Number of
emissions emissions affected
( Mo/year) (Mg/year) plants
Maxi.ua lifetime risk2 3
Leukemia
incidence/year ' 3
(Cases per year)
Jtenzena Fugitive
At proposal
Current
Haleic Anhydride
At proposal
Current
Ethylbenzene/Styrene
At proposal
Current
Benzene Storage
At proposal
Current
8,300
7,900
5,800
960
2.400
210
2,200
620
13,200
12.600
7,400
1,250
6,240
330
2,200
620
130
128
7
7 *i« same area for a lifetime, these assumptions will tend to overpredict exposure.
Upon reconsideration, EPA has concluded that the presentation of the risk estimates as ranges does not offer
significant advantages over the presentation as the associated point estimates of the risk. Further, the proposal
ranges for benzene make risk comparisons among source categories more difficult and tend to create a false impres-
sion tnat the bounos of the r!;ks are known with certainly. For these reasons, tlie benzene risks in this rule-
making are presented as point estimates of the leukemia risk. EPA believes that these risk numbers represent
plausible, if conservative, estimates of the magnitude of the actual human cancer risk posed by benzene emitted
from the source categories evaluated. For comparison, the proposal ranges may be converted into rough point
estimates by multiplying the lower end of the range by a factor of 2.6.
•Includes all plants; number in parenthesis denotes number of plants with uncontrolled emissions which would be
i.uil.'dlled by the standard
IV-204
-------
/ Vol. €9, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Several other uncertainties are
associated with the estimated health
numbers and not quantified in the
proposal ranges in Table I. EPA has
extrapolated the leukemia risks
identified for occupationally exposed
populations (generally healthy, white
males) to the general population for
whom susceptibility to a carcinogenic
insult could differ. The presence of more
or less susceptible subgroups within the
general population would result in an
occupationally-derived risk factor that
may underestimate or overestimate
actual risks. To the extent that there are
more susceptible subgroups within the
general population, the maximum
individual lifetime risks are
underestimated.
On the other hand, general population
exposures to benzene are much lower
than those experienced by the exposed
workers in the occupational studies,
often by several orders of magnitude. In
relating the occupational experience to
the general population, EPA has applied
a linear, nonthreshold model that
assumes that the leukemia response is
linearly related to benzene dose, even at
very low levels of exposure. There are
biological data supporting this approach,
particularly for carcinogens. However,
there are also data which suggest that,
for some toxic chemicals, dose/response
curves are not linear, with response
decreasing faster than dose at low levels
of exposure. At such levels, the
nonlinear models tend to produce
smaller risk factors than the linear
model. The data for benzene do not
conclusively support either hypothesis.
EPA has elected to use the linear model
for benzene because this model is
generally considered to be conservative
compared to the nonlinear alternatives.
This choice may result in an
overestimate of the actual leukemia
risks.
EPA estimates ambient benzene
concentrations in the vicinity of emitting
sources through the use of atmospheric
dispersion models. EPA believes that its
ambient dispersion modeling provides a
reasonable pstimate nf the maximum
ambient levels of benzene to which the
public could be exposed. The models
accept emission estimates, plant
parameters, and meteorology as inputs
and predicts ambient concentrations at
specified locations, conditional upon
certain assumptions. For example,
emissions and plant parameters often
must be estimated rather than
measured, particularly in determining
the magnitude of fugitive emissions and
where there are large numbers of
sources. This can lead to overestimates
or underestimates of exposure.
Similarly, meteorological data often are
not available at the plant site but only
from distant weather stations that may
not be representative of the meteorology
of the plant vicinity.
EPA's dispersion models normally
assume that the terrain in the vicinity of
the sources is flat. For sources located in
complex terrain, this assumption would
tend to underestimate the maximum
annual concentration although estimates
of aggregate population exposure would
be less affected. On the other hand,
EPA's benzene exposure models assume
that the exposed population is immobile
and outdoors at their residence,
continuously exposed for a lifetime to
the predicted concentrations. To the
extent that benzene levels indoors are
lower and that people do not reside in
the same area for a lifetime, these
assumptions will tend to overpredict
exposure.
Upon reconsideration, EPA has
concluded that the presentation of the
risk estimates as ranges does not offer
significant advantages over the
presentation as the associated point
estimates of the risk. Further, the
proposal ranges for benzene make risk
comparisons among source categories
more difficult and tend to create a false
impression that the bounds of the risks
are known with certainty. For these
reasons, the benzene risks in this
rulemaking are presented as point
estimates of the leukemia risk. EPA
believes that these risk numbers
represent plausible, if conservative,
estimates of the magnitude of the actual
human cancer risk posed by benzene
emitted from the source categories
evaluated. For comparison, the proposal
ranges may be converted into rough
point estimates by multiplying the lower
end of the range by a factor of 2.6.
Post-Proposal Review of Significant
Risk Judgment
Some commenters on the proposed
standards indicated that benzene
emissions were actually much lower
than estimated et proposal, citing
factors such as increased controls, plant
closures, reduced production capacity.
and lower emission factors. In support
of their contentions, they submitted
detailed plant-specific information and
results of emission test programs.
Based on this updated information,
EPA has revised benzene emissions for
the various source>categories (see Table
I). The maleic anhydride emissions
estimates now include consideration of
all new controls, plant closures, and
changes in feedstock. The EB/S
emissions estimates are those provided
by the industry, based on plant-specific
information. (In addition, EPA-assumed
flare efficiency has been revised to 98
percent from 60 percent.) New benzene
emission factors have been developed
for benzene storage tanks and refined
for benzene fugitive sources.
Based on these revised emissions
estimates, EPA reconsidered whether
benzene emissions from maleic
anhydride process vents, EB/S process
vents, benzene fugitive emission
sources, and benzene storage vessels
still warrant Federal regulation under
Section 112. The factors considered by
EPA are described in the following
paragraphs. (The selection of coke by-
product recovery plants for regulation is
discussed in the preamble to the
proposed standard for that source
category and is not discussed further
here).
Benzene fugitive emissions, which are
not substantially different than they
were when judged to be significant at
proposal, contribute 7,900 Mg/yr: this
figure reflects currrent controls. (EPA
adjusted the control level for petroleum
refineries in nonattainment areas to
reflect controls required by States in
accordance with EPA's Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG) document.
This adjustment reduced emissions, but
the reduction was offset to some extent
by refinements in emissions factors.)
Approximately 20 to 30 million people
live within 20 kilometers of the 128
plants with these fugitive emissions.
These people are exposed to higher
levels of benzene than is the general
population. Due to the lack of a
demonstrated threshold for benzene's
carcinogenic effects, these people not
only incur a higher benzene exposure
but also run greater risk of contracting
leukemia due to that exposure.
EPA revised the quantitative risk
assessments for this source category
based on the updated emissions
estimates, the revised risk factor, and
the more detailed SAI human exposure
model. The lifetime risk of contracting
leukemia for the most exposed
individuals is estimated to be about 1.5
x 10 :l for benzene fugitive emission
sources, and the increased leukemia
incidence as a result of exposure to the
current fugitive emissions is estimated
to be about 0.45 cases per year. As
explained earlier in this section, there is
considerable uncertainty associated
with the calculation of leukemia
incidence and maximum lifetime risk
numbers.
The number of process units emitting
benzene fugitive emissions is
anticipated to grow from about 240 to
310 units. These new sources probably
would increase the number of people
exposed to benzene emitted from this
IV-205
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
source category and increase the
estimated leukemia incidence
accordingly.
Based on the human carcinogenicity
of benzene, the magnitude of benzene
fugitive emissions, the estimated
ambient benzene concentrations in the
vicinity of the plants with fugitive
emissions, the proximity of people to
these plants, the resulting estimated
maximum individual risks and estimated
incidence of leukemia cases in the
exposed population, the projected
increase in benzene emissions as a
rosult of new sources, the estimated
reductions in emissions and health risks
that can be achieved, and consideration
of the uncertainties associated with the
quantitative risk estimates (including
effects of concurrent exposures to other
substances and to other benzene
emissions). EPA finds that benzene
Hn>i.ss?«j,'s fiom benzene fugitive
emission sources pose a significant
nancer risk and that the establishment
of a national emission standard under
Section 112 is warranted. These factors
will be discussed in more detail in the
forthcoming document, "Benzene
Fugitive Emissions—Background
Information for Promulgated
Standards," EPA-450/3-80-032b.
Several other factors were also
considered which support this finding.
First, if no standards were promulgated,
several existing plants would remain
uncontrolled or poorly controlled. Some
benzene fugitive emissions sources are
located in nonattainment areas and are
controlled to some extent in accordance
with the CTG: others are in attainment
areas where no control is required.
Control techniques are readily available
to reduce uncontrolled emissions from
banzene fugitive emission sources at
reasonable costs. Second, nationwide
standards would ensure that existing
sources are controlled on a continuing
basis. Third, if no standard were
promulgated, new sources could remain
uncontrolled or poorly controlled.
thereby increasing cancer risks.
The revised estimated baseline
emission and health impacts for maleic
anhydride and EB/S process vents and
benzene storage vessels have decreased
significantly since proposal of the
standards for these source categories.
These impacts are presented in Table I.
Because of this decrease and the small
additional reduction in health risks that
could be achieved, the Agency has
concluded that these source categories
no longer warrant federal regulation
under section 112. The basis for this
decision is discussed in an
accompanying Federal Register notice
that proposes withdrawal of the
proposed benzene standards for these
three source categories.
Docket
The dockets are organized and
complete files of all the information
submitted to, or otherwise considered
by, EPA in the development of this
proposal. The principal purposes of the
docket are to allow interested parties to
effectively participate in the rulemaking
process; and (2) to serve as the record in
case of judicial review except for
~interagency review materials
[307(d)(7)(A)].
Miscellaneous
This proposal was submitted to the
Office of Managment and Budget (OMB)
for review as required by Executive
Order 12291. Any comments from OMB
to EPA responses to those comments are
available for inspection in Docket
Number OAQPS-79-3 (maleic
anhydride), A-79-49 (EB/S), or A-80-14
(benzene storage), Central Docket
Section, at the address given in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
References
(1) Safe Drinking Water Committee,
National Research Council. "Drinking Water
and Health," National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C., 1977.
(2) Picciano, D. "Monitoring Industrial
Populations by Cytogenetic Procedures" in
Proceedings of a Workshop on Methodology
for Assessing Reproductive Hazards in the
Workplace, P. F. Infante and M. S. I.egator,
eds. April 19-22,1978.
(3} Kilian, D. f., and Daniel. R. C. "A
Cytogenetic Study of Workers Exposed to
Benzene in the Texas Division of Dow
Chemical. U.S.A." February 27,1978.
(4} National Academy of Sciences-National
Research Council "Health Effects of Benzene:
A Review" for U.S. EPA (EPA-560/5-76-O03).
(5) National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health "Update Criteria and
Recommendations for a Revised Benzene
Standard," September 1978.
(8) U.S. EPA "Assessment of Health Effects
of Benzene Germane to Low-Level
Exposures." Office of Health and Ecological
Effects. Office of Research and Development.
September 1978 (EPA-600/1-78-061).
(7) U.S. EPA, "Assessment of Human
Exposures to Atmospheric Benzene," Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, |une
1978. EPA-450/3-78-031.
(8) U.S. EPA. "Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Final Report on Population Risk to
Ambient Benzene Exposures," Roy Albert,
Chairman, Carcinogen Assessment Group,
January 10, 1979 (EPA-450/5-80-004).
(9) Picciano. D. "Cytogenetic Study of
Workers Exposed to Benzene," Env. Res.
19:33-36,1979.
(10) Bloom, A. D., Y. Nakagone, A. Awa.
and S. Neriishi, "Chromosome aberrations
and malignant disease among A-bomb
survivors," Am. /. Public Health, 60:641-644,
1970.
(11) Mulvihill. J. J. In Persons at High Hisk
of Cancer, ed. Fraumeni, J. F.. Jr.. Academic
Press, N.Y.. 1975. pp 3-37.
! •'.?) Maltoni, C., and C. Scarnato. "First
Experimental Demonstration of the
Carcinogenic Effects of Benzene." Estratto da
"La Medicina del Lavoro" ."7'5, 1979.
(13) Snyder, Carroll A. et al. "The
Inhalation Toxocology of Benzene: Incidence
of Hematopoietic Neoplasms and
Hematotoxicity in AKR/J and C57BL/6J
Mice" Tox. and Appl. Pharm. 54:323-331,
1980.
(14) Infante. P. F., R. Rinsky, J. Wagoner,
and R. Young, "Leukemia in Benzene
Workers," Lancet, 2:76-78.1977a.
(75) Aksoy, M., S. Erdem, and C. Dincol,
"Types of Leukemia in Chronic Benzene
Poisoning, A Study in Thirty-Four Patients.
Acta Hematol. 55:65-72,1976.
(16) Ott, M. G., J. C. Townsend. W. A.
Fishback. and R. A. Langner, "Mortality
Among Individuals Occupationally Exposed
to Benzene," Exhibit 154, OSHA Benzene
Hearings, July Id-August 10, 1977.
(77) Rinsky. R. A., R. Young, and A. Smith,
"Leukemia in Benzene Workers," American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2:217-245.
1981.
(78) Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Docket #H-059,
Occupational Exposure to Benzene, Proposed
Standard, Transcript of Public Hearing. J'jly
19-August 10, 1977b.
(10) Supreme Court of the United States.
Industrie/' Union Oeoaiiment v. American
Petroleum Institute et al., 448 U.S. 607 (1980).
\20) Infante, P. F., R. Rinsky. J. Wagoner,
and R. Young, "Benzene and Leukemia,"
Lancet. October 22.1977b.
(21) White, M. C. P. Infante, and B. Walker,
Jr. "Occupational Exposure to Benzene: A
Review of Carcinogenic and Related Health
Effects Following the U.S. Supreme Court
Decision," Am j. Indust. Mod., 7:233-243.
1980.
(22) Environmental Survey. Occupational
Health St'jd^ Group, University of North
Carolina, Suhfjol of Public Hed'ith, 1974.
(23) International Agency for Research on
Cancer, Monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans,
29:93-!48. May 1332.
(24) Aksoy, M. K. Dincol. T. Akgun. E.
Erdem, and G. Dincol, "Haematological
effects of chronic benzene poisoning in 217
workers," Br. J. Ind. Med. 2*296-302. 1971.
(25) Aksoy, M. K. Dincol, S. Erdem. and G.
Dincol, "Acute leukemia due to chronic
exposure to benzene," Am. J. Med.. 52:160-
168, 1972.
(26) Aksoy. M.. S. Erdem. and G. Dincol,
"Leukemia in shoeworkers exposed
chronically to benzene," Blood,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
(30) Fiaklow, P. J. "The origin and
development of human tumors: studies with
cell markers," New Eng. J. Med. 291:26-35,
1974.
(31) Gartler, S. M. "Utilization of mosaic
systems in the study of the origin and
progression of tumors" in Chromosomes and
Cancer, \. German, ed. Wiley Intel-science,
New York. p. 313-334.1974.
(32) Strong, L. C. "Susceptible subgroups,"
presented at NIEHS Conference on the
Problems of Extrapolating the Results of
Laboratory Animal Data to Man and of
Extrapolating the Results from High-Dose
Level Experiments to Low Dose Level
Exposures. Pinehurst, N.C., March 10-12,
1976.
(33) Cottier, H., M. W. Hess, H. U. Keller, P.
Luscieti. and B. Sordat "Immunological
deficiency states and malignacy," In:
Interaction of Radiation and Host Immune
Defense Mechanisms in Malignancy.
Proceedings of a conference at Greenbrier,
W. Va., March 1974. p. 30-44.
(34) Rickert, D., and R. Irons (oral
statements) from U.S. EPA, "Public Hearing:
National Emission Standards for Hazaradous
Air Pollutants: Benzene Emissions from
Maleic Anhydride Plants," August 21.1980
(Transcript pp. 5-24).
(35) Goldstein, B. "Hematotoxicity in Man."
A Critical Evaluation of Benzene Toxicity, S.
Laskin. and B. Goldstein, ed., 1977, p. 105.
(36) Goldstein, p. 165.
(37) Vigliani, E. C., and A. Forai. "Benzene,
chromosome changes, and leukemia," J.
Occup. Med. JM48-149.1969.
(38) Tabershaw Cooper Associates, A
Mortality Study of Petroleum Refinery
Workers Project OH-1 (1974) (OSHA
Benzene Record, Ex. 2-59).
(39) Stallones. R. A., and D. Syblik, Report
on Mortality from Leukemia (1977) (OSHA
Benzene Record, Ex. 115, C.2).
(40) National Cancer Advisory Board,
"General Criteria for Assessing the Evidence
for Carcinogenicity of Chemical Substances:
Report of the Subcommittee on
Environmental Carcinogens," ).N.C.I. 50:461-
465,1977.
(41) Crump. K., D. Hoel. C. Langley. and R.
Peto, "Fundamental carcinogenic processes
and their implications for low-dose risk
assessment." Cancer Res. 36:9, pp. 2973-2979.
1976.
(42) Chemical and Engineering News, May
3,1978, p. 11.
(43) U.S. EPA. "Volatile Organic Chemicals
in the Atmosphere: An Assessment of
Available Data" Office of Research and
Development. 1983 (EPA-600/3-63-027(A|).
Dated: May 23.1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous substances.
Mercury, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vinyl chloride.
(PR Doc. 64-14476 Filed 6-5-M: 6:45 am)
IV-207
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
[AD-FRL-2538-4]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Benzene
Equipment Leaks (Fugitive Emission
Sources)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (F.PA) listed benzene as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act on June 8,1977
(42 FR 29332). A standard was
subsequently proposed for benzene
fugitive emission sources (46 FR 1165,
January 5,1981). This Federal Register
notice responds to comments on and
promulgates the standards for benzene
fugitive emission sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6,1984. Under
section 307(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act,
judicial review of national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of these rules. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act,
the requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements. The director of the
Federal Register approves the
incorporation by reference of certain
publications in 40 FR effective on June 6/
1984.
ADDRESSES: Background Information
Documents. The background
information documents (BID's) may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. For background information
on today's promulgated standard, please
refer to "Benzene Fugitive Emissions—
Background Information for
Promulgated Standards," EPA-450/3-
80-032b. The BID for the promulgated
standard contains: (1) A summary of all
public comments on the proposed
standard and the Administrator's
response to the comments; (2) a
summary of changes to the standard
since proposal; and (3) the final
environmental impact statement (EIS),
which summarizes the impacts of the
standard.
Dockets. Docket No. A-79-27 contains
technical information considered in
developing the promulgated standard for
benzene fugitive emissions. Docket No.
OAQPS 79-3 (Part I) contains
information considered on the health
effects, listing, and regulation of
benzene. These dockets are available
for public inspection between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
at EPA's Central Docket Section (LE-
131), West Tower Lobby, Gallery 1,401
M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information concerning the
background technical information
supporting the promulgated standard,
contact Mr. James F. Durham, Chemicals
and Petroleum Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5671. For further information on the
regulation of benzene and the
promulgated standard, contact Mr.
Gilbert H. Wood, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background Information on Health
Effects of Benzene
On June 8,1977, the Administrator
announced his decision to list benzene
as a hazardous air pollutant under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 FR
29332). Supplementary background
information regarding the health effects
and listing of benzene as a hazardous
air pollutant may be obtained from
Docket No. OAQPS-79-3 (Part I). A
public hearing was held on August 21,
1980, to discuss the health effects and
listing of benzene as a hazardous air
pollutant. Comments were received and
EPA's responses are detailed in the EPA
document, "Response to Public
Comments on EPA's listing of Benzene
Under section 112" (EPA-450/5-82-003).
Summary of the Standard
The standard applies to certain new
and existing equipment in benzene
service (i.e., equipment containing
materials with a benzene concentration
of 10 percent or more by weight) except
those located in process units that
produce benzene or benzene mixtures at
coke by-product plants or at plant sites
that are designed to produce or use
benzene in quantities of 1,000
megagrams per year (Mg/yr) or less.
Equipment covered by the standard
includes new and existing valves,
pumps, compressors, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems,
open-ended valves or lines, pipeline
flanges, product accumulator vessels.
and closed vent systems and control
devices used to comply with the
standard. The standard includes work
practices and other requirements as
provided by section 112(e) of the Clean
Air Act and discussed in the preamble
to the proposed rule (46 FR 1177).
Permission to use any alternative means
of emission limitation will be granted
after a notice is published in the Federal
Register and an opportunity for a public
hearing.
Valves. A monthly leak detection and
repair program is required by the
standard for valves in gas or liquid
service. However, EPA will allow
quarterly monitoring for valves that
have been found not to leak for 2
successive months. This is monthly/
quarterly leak detection and repair. Leak
detection is to be performed with a
portable organic vapor analyzer
according to Reference Method 21 (see
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60). If a
reading of 10,000 ppm or greater of
organic materials is obtained, a leak is
detected. Initial repair of the leak must
be attempted within 5 days, and the
repair must be completed within 15
days.
Since proposal, provisions for
difficult-to-monitor and unsafe-to-
monitor valves have been added to the
standard for valves. For existing valves,
the standard has been changed to allow
an annual leak detection and repair
program for valves that are difficult to
monitor. Valves that are difficult to
monitor are defined as valves that
would require elevating the monitoring
personnel more than 2 meters above any
permanent available support surface.
This means valves that cannot be safely
monitored by the use of step ladders
could be classified as difficult to
monitor.
In addition, some valves are unsafe to
monitor. Valves that are unsafe to
monitor cannot be eliminated in new or
existing units. The final standard has
been changed to allow an owner or
operator to submit a plan that defines a
leak detection and repair program
conforming with the routine monitoring
requirements of the standard as much as
possible, with the understanding that
monitoring should not occur during
unsafe conditions. Valves that are
unsafe to monitor are defined as those
valves that could, as demonstrated by
the owner or operator, expose
monitoring-personnnel to imminent
hazards from temperature, pressure, or
IV-208
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
explosive process conditions. EPA
expects very few unsafe-to-monitor .
valves in benzene service.
At proposal, two alternative
standards were presented for valves in
gas/vapor and liquid service. Both of
these alternatives called for 1 year of
monthly monitoring to obtain data on
which to base the alternative standard.
However, since proposal, the two
alternative standards have been,
changed in response to comments
concerning the need to collect data.
The first alternative standard
specifies a 2 percent limitation as the
maximum percent of valves leaking
within a process unit, determined by a
minimum of one performance test
annually. This alternative provides the
flexibility of a performance level that
could be met by implementing any type
of leak detection and repair program
and engineering controls chosen at the
discretion of the owner or operator. If
the results of a performance test show a
percentage of valves leaking higher than
2 percent, however, the process unit
would not be in compliance with the
standard. Finally, if owners or operators
determine that they no longer wish to
comply with this alternative standard,
they must submit a notification in
writing to EPA stating that they will
comply with the monthly/quarterly leak
detection and repair program.
The second alternative standard
specifies two statistically-based skip-
period leak detection and repair
programs. Under skip-period leak
detection, an owner or operator can skip
from routine monitoring (monthly/
quarterly monitoring] to less frequent
monitoring after completing a number of
consecutive monitoring intervals with
performance levels less than 2 percent.
This approach provides that the
performance level is achieved for each
skipped period with better than 90
percent certainty. Based on this skip-
period approach, two sets of
consecutive periods and fraction of
periods skipped were determined for
benzene process units. First, after two
consecutive quarterly periods with
fewer than 2 percent of valves leaking,
an owner or operator may skip to
semiannual monitoring. Second, after
five consecutive quarterly periods with
fewer than 2 percent of valves leaking,
an owner or operator may skip to
annual monitoring. This alternative
standard also requires that, if a process
unit exceeds the 2 percent of valves
leaking, the owner or operator must
revert to the monthly/quarterly leak
detection and repair program.
Compliance with this alternative
standard would be determined by
inspection and review of records.
The delay of repair provisions for
valves have been expanded in the final
standard. In the proposed standard,
delay of repair was allowed where
repair is technically or physically
infeasible without a process unit
shutdown. In addition to the provision
already in the proposed standard,
several provisions have been added to
the final standard. One added provision
allows for delay of repair beyond a
process unit shutdown for valves when
unforeseeable circumstances deplete
valves used for repair. Another
provision has been added to allow delay
of repair for valves if the owner or
operator shows that leakage of purged
material during repair is greater than the
equipment leaks that are likely to result
from delay of repair. EPA expects this
provision to be used seldom.
A definition of "process unit
shutdown" has been added to the
standard to avoid extended delays in
returning a process unit to production if
the unit shuts down briefly due to
unforeseen circumstances. Delay of
repair beyond an unforeseen process
unit shutdown will be allowed if the
shutdown is less than 24 hours in
duration. Repair of leaking equipment
for which repair has been delayed
would be required at the next process
unit shutdown.
As part of the delay of repair
requirements, EPA is clarifying its intent
for spare-equipment that does not
remain in benzene service. Delay of
repair of equipment for which leaks
have been detected will be allowed if
the equipment is isolated from the
process •and no longer- contains benzene
in concentrations greater than 10
percent. The equipment purge must be
destroyed or recovered in a system that
complies with the requirements
discussed in the Closed-vent systems
and control devices portion of this
section of the preamble.
Pumps. A monthly leak detection and
repair program is required by the
standard for benzenR-hnnHHrig pumps i"
liquid service. Leak detection is to be
performed with a portable organic vapor
analyzer according to Reference Method
21. If a reading of 10,000 ppm or greater
of organic materials is obtained, a leak
is detected. Initial repair of the leak
must be attempted within 5 days, and
the repair must be completed within 15
days. Delay of repair will be allowed for
pumps that cannot be repaired without a
process unit shutdown. Delay of repair,
up to 6 months after detecting a leak, is
also allowed when the plant owner or
operator determines that repair of the
pump requires using a dual mechanical
seal system. Delay of repair is not
expected to be needed for most
situations, however, because pumps are
commonly spared.
At proposal, EPA required a monthly
leak detection and repair program for
existing pumps but required the
installation of dual mechanical seal
systems for new pumps. Since proposal,
as discussed in the Selection of the
Final Standard section of this preamble.
EPA analyzed the annualized cost of
controlling benzene emissions and the
resultant emission reduction for each
alternative control technique. Based on
comparison of costs and emission
reductions, including estimates of
exposures to benzene, EPA selected the
work practice standard (leak detection
and repair] for new as well as existing
pumps. However, EPA is allowing the
use of dual mechanical seal systems in
the final standard. If an owner or
operator prefers, he or she may comply
with the equipment standard. The
details or provisions of the equipment
standard have not been changed since
proposal.
Compressors. The standard for new
and existing compressors requires the
use of mechanical seals with barrier
fluid systems and controlling degassing
vents. The controlling degassing vents
must use a closed-vent system and a
control device that complies with the
requirements as discussed in the Closed-
vent systems and control devices
portion of this section of the preamble.
For existing compressors, EPA proposed
a monthly leak detection and repair
program. Since proposal, EPA
reconsidered the selection of the final
standard and concluded that the
installation of control equipment is the
only viable control technique for
compressors.
Pressure relief devices. The use of
control equipment (rupture disk systems
or closed-vent systems to flares] is the
basis for the standard for pressure relief
devices in gas service. For control
techniques that eliminate equipment
lenkR; such as the use of rupture disk
systems, an emission limit measurement
for "no detectable emissions" can be
established. An instrument reading of
less than 500 parts per million by
• volume (ppmv) above a background
concentration based on Reference
Method 21 will be used to indicate
whether equipment leaks have been
eliminated.
The "no detectable emission" limit
will not apply to discharges through the
pressure relief device during
overpressure relief because the function
of relief devices is to discharge process
IV-209
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
fluid, thereby reducing dangerous high
pressures within the equipment. The
standard specifies, however, that the
relief device be returned to a "no
detectable emissions" status within 5
days after such a discharge. The
standard further requires an initial and
annual test to verify the "no detectable
emissions" status of the pressure relief
devices.
Plant owners or operators may also
comply with this standard by connecting
pressure relief devices in gas service to
a system that complies with the
requirements as discussed in the Closed-
vent syi!ems and control devices
portion of this section of the preamble.
Since proposal, the use of flares has •
been allowed as an alternative control
device in the final standard. EPA judges
that the added emission reduction
achieved by reducing the emissions that
occur during overpressure relief offsets
the decrease in emission reduction that
would occur by allowing 95" percent
reduction (level of control required of all
control devices) rather than the 100
percent reduction associated with
rupture disk systems.
Sampling connection systems. Closed-
purge sampling is the required standard
for sampling connection systems.
Closed-purge sampling connection
systems eliminate emissions due to
purging by either returning the purge
material directly to the process or by
collecting the purge in a collection
system that is not open to the
atmosphere. Collected purge material
must be destroyed or recovered in a
system that complies with requirements
discussed in the Closed-vent systems
and control devices portion of this
section of the preamble.
Since proposal, EPA decided to allow
closed-vent vacuum systems connected
to a control device and in-situ sampling
systems in addition to closed-purge
sampling. Closed-vent vacuum systems
that are connected to a control device
extract the sample purge and then
reduce emissions from the sample purge
by transporting benzene to the control
device. If closed-vent vacuum systems
are not open to the atmosphere and the
system complies with the requirements
discussed in the Closed-vent systems
o.'7-y contml devices portion of this
section of the preamble, then their
reduction of benzene emissions would
he equivalent to the reduction achieved
by closed-purge sampling connection
svstoms. In-situ sampling systems
involve measurement or sampling of
process stream conditions without
extraction of the sample from the
process stream. In-situ sampling
systems, therefore, result in no
emissions of benzene.
Open-ended valves or lines. The
standard for open-ended valves or lines
requires the use of caps, plugs, or any
other equipment that will effect
enclosure of the open end. The standard
has not changed since proposal. If a
second valve is used, the standard
requires the upstream valve to be closed
first. After the upstream valve is
completely closed, the downstream
valve must be closed. This operational
requirement is necessary in order to
prevent trapping process fluid between
the two valves, which could result in a
situation equivalent to the uncontrolled
open-ended valve or line.
Product accumulator vessels, pipeline
flanges, and pressure relief devices in
liquid service. The standard for product
accumulator vessels effectively requires
venting accumulator vessel emissions to
a system that complies with the
requirements as discussed in the Closed-
vent systems and control devices
portion of this section of (he preamble.
Flanges and pressure relief devices in
liquid service will be excluded from the
routine leak detection and repair
requirements. However, if leaks are
detected from these sources, the same
allowable repair interval that applies to
valves and pumps will apply.
Closed-vent systems and control
devices. Control devices will be used to
reduce benzene equipment leaks
captured and transported through
closed-vent systems. Reference Method
21 will be used to verify that a closed-
vent system has been designed and
installed properly. At proposal, control
devices were, required to be either
enclosed combustion devices designed
to provide a minimum residence time of
0.50 seconds at a minimum temperature
of 760°C or vapor recovery systems with
an efficiency of 95 percent or greater.
Based on review of comments on the
proposed standard, EPA concluded that
all reasonably designed, existing control
devices for organic emissions can
achieve a reduction efficiency for
benzene of at least 95 percent. EPA,
therefore, has not changed the
requirements for control devices. EPA
has made it clear, however, that an
enclosed combustion device with a
reduction efficiency of at least 95
percent can be used even if the
residence time and minimum
temperature requirements are not
achieved.
Additionally, EPA decided to allow
use of smokeless flares operated under
certain conditions in complying with the
control device requirements because
EPA believes that destruction
efficiencies better than 95 percent can
be obtained with properly operated
flares. Flares operated within these
conditions are considered as
alternatives to enclosed combustion
devices (incinerators, catalytic
incinerators, boilers, process heaters,
etc.) and vapor recovery systems (such
as carbon adsorbers and condensation
units). They may be applied to control
emissions from pump seals (or degassing
reservoirs), compressor seals (or
degassing reservoirs), pressure relief
devices, and product accumulator
vessels. The conditions include a
requirement for the presence of a flame:
this can be ensured by monitoring the
flare's pilot light with an appropriate
heat sensor, such as a thermocouple.
The conditions also include
requirements for smokeless operation
(visible emissions are limited to less
than 5 minutes in any 2-hour period) and
for the heat content of gases combusted
by the flare. The standards for closed
vent systems and control devices permit
the use of devices that have an
efficiency better than 95 percent,
including steam-assisted and
nonassisted flares designed for and
operated with an exit velocity of less
than 18 m/sec. EPA has been studying
the question of whether additional types
of flares will also achieve better than 95
percent efficiency; if so, the Agency will
revise the standards accordingly.
Reporting and recordkeeping. The
promulgated standard includes reporting
provisions requiring semiannual reports
of leak detection and repair efforts
within a process unit. The amount of
reporting and the burden associated
with the reporting have been reduced
from those in the proposed standard. In
particular, the quarterly reporting
requirement in the proposed standard
has been reduced to semiannual
reporting. The burden associated with
the recordkeeping requirements has also
been reduced since proposal. However,
the final standard additionally requires
that records be kept of periods when a
flare pilot light does not have a flame
and that unsafe-to-monitor and difficult-
to-monitor valves be identified.
Summary of Impacts of the Standard
The standard applies to certain
equipment in benzene service. This
equipment is used in the production of
benzene and other chemicals and
products, such as maleic anhydride,
ethanol, and pharmaceuticals. The
standard will affect equipment located
in more than 200 existing process units
and an expected 60 new process units
by 1985.
IV-210
-------
/ Vol. 49. Mo. 110 / Wednesday. June 8. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
The environmental, health, economic,
and energy impacts are summarized
here and are discussed in greater detail
in the BID for the promulgated standard,
"Benzene Fugitive Emissions—
Background Information for
Promulgated Standard," EPA-450/3-80-
032b.
Environmental and health impacts.
Since the standard was proposed, EPA
has revised the baseline emission
estimate and the estimate of benzene
leaks to the atmosphere that will be
reduced by the standard. The final
standard will reduce emissions from
existing benzene equipment leaks by
about 69 percent from the baseline
control level, which includes petroleum
refinery CTG controls. This percentage
reduction represents a decrease in
emissions from about 7,920 megagrams
of benzene per year (Mg/yr) to about
2,470 Mg/yr for existing equipment leaks
of benzene. Implementation of the
standard will result in negligible impacts
on water quality and solid waste. No
noise impact will result.
EPA has also revised the assessment
of leukemia risk from exposure to
existing equipment leaks of benzene as
a result of revised emission estimates,
exposure modeling techniques, and the
benzene unit risk factor. In its revised
estimate, EPA has calculated that the
standard will reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk for the most
exposed population from about 1.5X10""*
at current (baseline) controls to about
4.5X10"4 for existing benzene
equipment leaks. The standard will
reduce the estimated annual incidence
of leukemia (cases per year) for the
public living within 20 kilometers of
existing benzene equipment leaks from
about 0.45 cases per year at current
controls to about 0.14 cases per year.
Due to the assumptions that were made
in calculating these maximum lifetime
risk and leukemia incidence numbers,
there is uncertainty associated with the
numbers presented here and elsewhere
in this preamble. The use of the risk
numbers is discussed in the Federal
Register notice regarding the regulation
of benzene as a hazardous air pollutant.
Cost and economic impacts. Since the
standard was proposed, EPA has
reanalyzed the cost of controlling
benzene equipment leaks and the
resultant benzene emission reduction for
each type of equipment covered by the
standard and for each control technique.
In response to comments, EPA
considered the costs and emission
reductions associated with each type of
equipment in selecting the final
standard.
For existing equipment the nationwide
capital cost for the standard will be
about $5.5 million, and the 1985
nationwide annualized cost as a result
of the standard will be about $400,000.
Because the cost of the standard is
mostly offset by the value of the
benzene recovered by the standard and,
to the extent that the cost is not
completely offset, the cost is very small
in comparison to the value of the
product made by this equipment,
product prices will not increase as a
result of the standard. Thus, profits and
market positions of individual
manufacturers would be unchanged.
Energy impacts. The final standard
will result in a positive energy impact by
conserving benzene and other organic
compounds that have an energy value.
Implementation of the standard will
result in an energy savings of about
10,000 barrels of crude oil in the fifth
year of the standard.
New sources. The standard will result
in positive environmental and health
impacts for new equipment leaks of
benzene. The magnitude of these
impacts is difficult to determine because
it will depend on several factors,
including the location of the new
equipment, the number and distribution
of people living in the vicinity of the
new equipment, and the level of control
that would have been used in the
absence of the standard. The
nationwide capital and 1985.annualized
costs for new equipment will depend on
the level of control that would have
been used in the absence of this
standard. These factors cannot be
determined definitely before sources are
actually constructed. Because EPA
recognizes this additional uncertainty in
environmental and health impacts, cost
and economic impacts, end energy
impacts for leaks of benzene from new
equipment, these impacts are not
presented here. The impacts, however,
will be proportionately similar to the
impacts for existing sources; that is, if
the standard result in less emission
reduction for new sources than for
existing sources (because fewer new
sources would be covered), then the cost
of this emission reduction will be
proportionately less also.
Public Participation
Prior to proposal of the standard,
interested parties were advised by
public notice in the Federal Register (45
FR 18474, March 21,1980) of a meeting
of the National Air Pollution Control
Techniques Advisory Committee to
discuss the national emission standard
for benzene fugitive emissions
recommended for proposal. This meeting
was held on April 16,1980. The meeting
was open to the public, and each
attendee was given an opportunity to
comment on the standard recommended
for proposal. The standard was
proposed in the Federal Register on
January 5,1981 (46 FR 1165). The
preamble to the proposed standard
discussed the availability of the BID for
the proposed standard (EPA-450/3-80-
032a), which described in detail the
regulatory alternatives considered and
the impacts of those alternatives. Public
comments were solicited at the time of
proposal, and when requested, copies of
the BID were distributed to interested
parties. To provide interested persons
the opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standard, a public hearing
was held on July 14,1981, at Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. The
hearing was open to the public, and
each attendee was given an opportunity
to comment on the proposed standard.
The public comment period was
extended to September 14,1981.
EPA received 30 comment letters on
the proposed standard and BID. Industry
representatives submitted most of the
comments. Also commenting were
representatives of State and local air
pollution agencies and a representative
of an environmental group. The
comments have been considered
carefully and, where determined to be
appropriate by EPA, changes have been
made to the proposed standard.
EPA published an Additional
Information Document (AID) in April of
1982. The AID contains a technical
discussion of methodologies and
estimates of emissions, emission
reductions, and cost associated with
control of equipment leaks of organic
compounds, including benzene. A notice
of the availability of the AID and a
request for comments on the AID was
published in the Federal Register on
May 7,1982 (47 FR 19724). Fourteen
letters were received containing
comments on the AID. Comments on the
AID have been considered carefully,
and changes have been made to the
technical aspects of EPA's analysis
where appropriate.
the Proposed Standard
Most of the comment letters contained
multiple comments, and many of the
comment letters repeated comments
contained in other letters. A detailed
discussion of these comments and
responses can be found in the BID for
the promulgated standard, which is
referred to in the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble. The comments and
responses in the BID for the promulgated
standard serve as the basis for the
revisions that have been made to the
IV-211
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
standard between proposal and
promulgation. The major revisions to the
standard are indicated in the
SUMMARY OF THE STANDARD
section of this preamble.
The most important comments, in
addition to the comments on the listing
of benzene, considered by EPA
concerned whether benzene fugitive
emissions warrant regulation; Benzene
fugitive emissions, which are not
substantially different from the
emissions judged to be significant at
proposal, contribute 7,900 Mg/yr; this
figure reflects current controls. (EPA
adjusted the control level for petroleum
refineries in nonattuinment areas to
reflect controls required by States in
accordance with EPA's Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG) document.
This adjustment reduced emissions, but
the reduction was offset to some extent
by n;f:n:?-nents in emission factors.)
Approximately 20 to 30 million people
live within 20 kilometers of the 128
plants with these fugitive emissions.
Thesn people are exposed to higher
lei els of benzene than is the general
population. Due to the lack of a
demonstrated threshold for benzene's
carcinogenic effects, these people not
onU incur a higher benzene exposure
but ,>!so run greater risk of contracting
leukemia due to that exposure.
EPA rpvised the quantitative risk
assessments for this source category
based on the updated emissions
estimates, the revised risk factor, and
the more detailed SAI human exposure
model. The lifetime risk of contracting
leukemia for the most exposed
individuals is estimated to be about
1.5X10"3 for benzene fugitive emission
sources, and the increased leukemia
incidence as a result of exposure to the
current fugitive emissions is estimated
to be about 0.45 cases per year.
The number of process units emitting
benzene fugitive emissions is
anticipated to grow from about 240 to
310 units. These new sources would
probably increase the number of people
exposed to benzene emitted from this
source category and increase the
estimated leukemia incidence
accordingly.
Based on the human carcinogenicity
of benzene, the magnitude of benzene
fugitive emissions, the estimated
ambient benzene concentrations in the
vicinity of the plants with fugitive
emissions, the proximity of people to
these plants, the resulting estimated
maximum individual risks and estimated
incidence of leukemia cases in the
exposed population, the projected
increase in benzene emissions as a
result of new sources, the estimated
reductions in emissions and health risks
that can be achieved, and consideration
of the uncertainties associated with the
quantitative risk estimates (including
effects of concurrent exposures to other
substances and to other benzene
emissions), EPA finds that benzene
emissions from benzene fugitive
emission sources pose a significant
cancer risk and that the establishment
of a national emission standard under
Section 112 is warranted.
In this preamble, only the major
comments concerning the standard for
equipment leaks of benzene are
addressed. Comments on the need for
standards to cover emission sources of
benzene (including equipment leaks of
benzene) and health effects and risk
assessment of exposure to benzene are
addressed in detail in the Federal
Register notice regarding the regulation
of benzene as a hazardous air
pollutant. Comments on minor issues,
such as test methods and procedures,
are addressed in detail in the BID for the
promulgated standard. This preamble
addresses issues concerning selection of
the final standard, economic impact of
the final standard, and recordkeeping
and reporting requirements.
Selection of the Final Standard
EPA selected the appropriate levels of
control for the benzene fugitive
emissions standard in light of
carcinogenic risks and technological and
economic factors. EPA is requiring that
the source categories selected for
regulation, as a minimum, achieve
emission levels reflecting best available
technology considering costs, energy,
and economic impacts (BAT), to control
benzene emissions. After selecting BAT,
EPA identified a level of control more
stringent than BAT and evaluated the
incremental reductions in health risks
obtainable against the incremental costs
and economic impacts estimated to
result from the application of a more
stringent alternative. As described in
more detail later in this notice, EPA
concluded from this evaluation that the
estimated risks remaining after the
application of BAT to benzene fugitive
emission sources are not unreasonable
in view of the costs and economic
impacts of reducing risks further, and
that for this reason, BAT provides an
ample margin of safety to protect human
health.
Many people commented on the basis
for section of the proposed standard.
Several commenters questioned the cost
effectiveness (cost per unit of emission
reduction) and impacts of Regulatory
Alternatives III and IV for existing and
new equipment in benzene service.
Some of the commenters recommended
the selection of less stringent regulatory
alternatives, and some recommended
the selection of a more stringent
regulatory alternative. Other
commenters stated that selection should
be based on the cost and emission
reduction impacts for each type of
equipment covered by the standard
instead of regulatory alternatives.
After considering these comments,
EPA selected the final standards for
new and existing equipment in benzene
service. Selection of the basis of the
final standard was a two-step process
and was similar to the approach used
when the standard was proposed- The
first step was the selection of the best
available technology (BAT). Best
available technology for equipment in
benzene service is technology which, in
the judgment of the Administrator, is the
most effective level of control
considering economic, energy, and
environmental impacts and any
technological problems associated with
the retrofitting, of existing equipment.
After consideration of these impacts for
each alternative control technique, one
set of control techniques was selected
as BAT for equipment in benzene
service.
After selecting certain control
techniques as BAT, EPA evaluated the
estimated health risks remaining after
application of BAT to determine if they
are unreasonable in view of health risk
reductions and cost (economic) impacts
that would result if a more stringent
level of control were applied. This
provides a comparison of the costs and
economic impacts of control with thu
benefits of further risk reduction. The
benefits of risk reduction are expressed
in terms of the estimated leukemia
incidence (cases per year) within 20
kilometers of the equipment covered by
the standard and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk at the point of
maximum exposure. The results of this
comparison determine whether, in the
judgment of the Administrator, the
residual risks remaining after
application of BAT are unreasonable. If
the risks remaining after application of
BAT are judged to be unreasonable,
further controls would be required.
The cost of the proposed control
techniques for benzene equipment leaks
are very small relative to the capital and
operating costs of affected process units.
As a consequence, none of these control
techniques impact the ability of an
owner or operator to raise capital or
measurably impact product prices or
energy requirements. Therefore, EPA
selected BAT primarily based on a
comparison of costs and emission
reductions associated with each
alternative control technique. In making
IV-212
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
n, EPA is accepting the
suggestions of commenters to consider
further cost per unit emission reduction
estimates and to consider these
estimates for each type of equipment
covered by the standard in the selection
of BAT. In selecting BAT, EPA initially
selected control techniques that achieve
the greatest emission reduction.with
reasonable control costs per megagram
of emission reduction. The emission
reductions and the average and
incremental costs per megagram of
benzene and total emissions (including
benzene and other volatile organic
compounds (VOC)) are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively, for each
type of equipment covered by the
standard. After initially selecting one set
of control techniques as BAT for each
type of equipment covered by the
standard, EPA analyzed economic and
other impacts of this set of control
techniques. To the extent that these
impacts were reasonable, the control
techniques were selected as BAT and
then were used in estimating the risks
remaining after application of BAT.
Table 1. CONTROL COSTS PER MEGAGRAM OF BENZENE REDUCED9
Type of
Equipment
Halves
Compressors
Pressure
Relief
Devices
Open-ended
Lines
Sampling
Connection
Systems
Product
Accumulator
vessels
Benzene Enlsslon
Reduction0
IMg/yr)
Control Tacnnique
Annual leak detection and
repair
Quarterly leak detection
and repair
Monthly leak detection
jnd repair'
sTeYIed befloxs valves
Annual leak detection and
repair
Quarterly leak detection
and repair
MeaXriy leak detection
and repai r
Dual wcnanlcal seal
systems
Degassing reservoir
vents f
Quarterly leak detection
and repair'
Monthly leak detection
and repair'
Equipment control'-'
Caps on open ends'
Closed-purge sampling'
Closed-vent system'
Hex
162
639
736
999
77
266
307
372
3.
S3
S3
32
54
37
27
Existing
799
2.750
3.160
4.280
290
9S9
1.140
1.360
59 «l»
190
207
29S
187
318
106
Average
t/N] 8enzenec
New
..e
..e
..e
a, 500
370
.. e
..a
2.100
..e
..e
..e
96
430
880
94
Existing
..*
11,000
370
..e
..e
2.400
-Ji
..e
..e
180
470
900
97
Incremental
I/Ho, Benzene3
New Existing
..e ..e
..e ..a
210 120
33.000 44.000
370 870
..e ..e
..e ..e
13.000 IS, 000
..e „)>
..e ..e
300 290
1.400 1.700
430 470
380 900
94 97
IV-213
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6,1984 / Rules and Regulations
aCosts and emission reductions are presented on a nationwide basis and
are derived from the BID for the promulgated standard, EPA-450/3-80-032b.
^Benzene emission reductions are presented on a nationwide basis as
explained in Docket No. A-79-27-IV-B-14.
cAverage dollars per megagram (cost effectiveness) = net annualIzed cost
* annual benzene emission reduction. These cost-effectiveness numbers
can be calculated on a component basis, on a model unit basis, or on a
nationwide basis. In any case, the resulting cost effectiveness will be
essentially the same. The numbers 1n this table have been calculated
on a nationwide basis by multiplying the net annual cost per component
(BID Tables A-l through A-ll) by the total number of components nationwide
(BID Tables 2-6 and 2-7) and then dividing the resulting nationwide net
cost by the nationwide emission reduction.
dIncremental dollars per megagram = (net annual 1 zed cost of the control
technique - net annual1zed cost of the next less restrictive control
technique) * (annual benzene emission reduction of control technique -
annual benzene emission reduction of the next less restrictive control
technique).
eDashes denote savings.
^Control technique selected as the basis for the final standard.
9Em1ss1on reduction associated with one new compressor.
"Existing compressors 1n benzene service are not known to exist; however,
1f one does, the emission reduction and control costs per megagram of
benzene would be the same as for a new compressor.
''Costs of equipment controls for pressure relief devices are based on the
following: 75 percent of relief devices are already controlled. For
the remaining uncontrolled sources, 75 percent of relief devices will
be vented to a flare, 12.5 percent will be controlled by rupture disk/
block valve systems, and 12.5 percent will be controlled by rupture
disk/3-way valve systems.
IV-214
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6,1984 / Rules and Regulations
Table 2. CONTROL COSTS PER MEGAGRAM OF TOTAL
EMISSIONS REDUCED3
Total Emission
Reduction0
Type of
Equipment
Valves
Pumps
Compressors
Pressure
Relief
Devices
Open-«nded
Lines
Sampling
Connection
System
Product
Accumulator
Vessels
•Mq/yr)
Control Technique
Annual leak detection and
repair
Quarterly leak detection
and repair
Monthly leak detection
and repair
Sealed oeTlovt valves
Annual leak detection and
repair
Quarterly leak detection
and repair
Monthly leak detection
and repair*
Dual mechanical seal
system
Degassing reservoir
vents'
Quarterly leak detection
and repair*
Monthly leak detection
and repair' .
Equipment control *»1
Caps on open ends'
Closed-purge sampling/
Closed-vent system'
New
313
1.005
1.150
1.540
124
413
484
584
5.
83
90
128
83
136
42
Existing
1.306
4,440
5,090
6.960
468
1.560
1.830
2.210
59 -J-
308
336
475
313
510
171
Average
l/Hg*
New
..e
..e
..e
4,900
540
..e
..e
1.400
..e
..e
..e
61
280
560
60
Existing
..e
..e
..e
6.900
540
..e
..e
/
1.500
-,
..e
..e
110
280
560
60
Incre
mental
S/MqO
New
..e
..e
140
20,000
540
..e
..e
8,200
..e
..e
190
940
280
560
60
Existing
.-e
..e
74
26.000
540
—e
..e
8.700
.,
..e
180
1,100
280
560
60
IV-215
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6.1984 / Rules and Regulations
aCosts and emission reductions are presented on a nationwide basis and
are derived from the BID for the promulgated standard, EPA-450/3-80-032b.
bTotal emission reductions are estimated for benzene and other VOC and
are presented on a nationwide basis as explained 1n Docket No.
A-79-27-IV-B-14.
^Average dollars per megagram (cost effectiveness) = net annual1zed cost
4 annual emission reduction. See Table II-l, footnote c.
^Incremental dollars per megagram = (net annualIzed cost of the control
technique - net annualIzed cost of the next less restrictive control
technique) * (annual emission reduction of the control technique -
annual emission reduction of the next less restrictive control technique).
eDashes denote savings.
fControl technique selected as the basis for the final standard.
9Em1ss1on reduction associated with one new compressor.
"Existing compressors 1n benzene service are not known to exist; however,
if one does, the emission reduction and control costs per megagram of
total emissions would be the same as for a new compressor.
^Cost of equipment controls for pressure relief devices are based on the
following: 75 percent of relief devices are already controlled. For
the remaining uncontrolled sources, 75 percent of relief devices will
be vented to a flare, 12.5 percent will be controlled by rupture disk/block
valve systems, and 12.5 percent will be controlled by rupture disk/3-way
valve systems.
BILLING COOC 6560-SO-C
IV-216
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Tor each type of equipment, the
fivt-rage cost effectiveness of each
control technique was calculated based
in the net annualized cost and the
iinnual emission reduction from the
i.ncontrolled level. Starting with the
:mist stringent control technique, which
achieves the greatest emission reduction
,it the -.{reatest annualized cost. EPA
examined the incremental cost
effectiveness between the most stringent
control technique and the next less
rvstrictive control technique. The
•i-.'.Tcmental cost effectiveness between
riny two alternative control techniques
•.vi,s based on the difference in net
,inmmiized costs divided by the
'Jifff.-ence in the annual emission
reductions of the alternate control
techniques. If the incremental cost in
< iimparison to the incremental emission
u'tUiction is judged unreasonable, then
•he n«;xt increment is examined until a
•.nni.ro! technique with a reasonable
incremental cost in comparison to the
incremental emission reduction is
•ivrii'itble.
Costs per megagram of emission
•ei!u;:tiun (average and incremental)
•.vere calculated in terms of total
• •missions (benzene and other VOC) as
well us benzene alone. Control of
iie;;zcne equipment leaks results in the
destruction of other organic compounds
(mainly VOC) as well as benzene:
therefore, control of VOC is an added
Benefit of controlling benzene. In
making decisions about the
acceptability of the cost of emisison
reductions achieved by a control
technique, it is appropriate to consider
the VOC as well as the benzene
(mission reductions. However, VOC
emission reductions were considered
only in the sense that VOC emission
reductions ran add weight to selecting a
control technique as BAT.
The basis for selecting BAT for each
'vjie of equipment in benzene service is
discussed below. It should be noted that
the control costs for each type of
equipment do not represent the actual
amounts of money spent at any
MiirtirijlHr plant site. Ths cost of
emission reduction systems will vary
according to the chemical product being
produced, production equipment, plant
layout, geographic location, and
company preferences and policies.
However, these costs and emission
reductions are considered typical of
control techniques for benzene
equipment leaks and can be used in
selecting the level of control to be
required by the standard.
Valves. EPA first considered (he use
-------
:m I Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
above. EPA has thus concluded that
control equipment is reasonable for
existing compressors and, therefore,
selected it as BAT for existing
compressors as well as new
compressors.
Pressure relief devices. The
annualized costs and emission
reductions associated with monthly and
quarterly leak detection and repair
programs and with the use of control
equipment (rupture disks and flares)
were determined for pressure relief
devices in gas service. As Tables 1 and 2
show, both the quarterly and monthly
leak detection and repair programs are
less expensive than installation of
equipment controls, but they result in
lower emission reductions. These
programs result in an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $3GO/Mg of
benzene for the monthly program
(compared to the quarterly program) and
a credit for the quarterly program.
Equipment controls would result
(compared to a monthly program) in
incremental emission reductions of
about SO Mg/yr of benzene and an
incremental cost of about $150,000/yr.
This reflects an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $l,7CO/Mg.
Because EPA considers the incremental
cost effectiveness of equipment controls
reasonable, equipment controls were
selected as BAT for pressure relief
devices.
Open-ended lines, sampling
connection systems, and product
accumulator vessels. EPA considered
caps or closures as the control technique
for the standard for open-ended lines.
Costs of $430/Mg and $470/Mg of
benzene are reasonable for controlling
equipment leaks of benzene from new
and existing open-ended lines,
respectively. EPA selected caps or
closures as BAT for open-ended lines.
EPA considered closed-purge
sampling as the control technique for the
standard for sampling systems. Costs of
$880/Mg and $SOO/Mg of benzene are
reasonable for controlling equipment
leaks of benzene from new and existing
sampling systems, respectively. EPA
selected closed-purge sampling as BAT
for sampling systems.
EPA considered closed-vent systems
connected to a control device as the
control technique for the final standard
for product accumulator vessels. For
existing units in benzene service, the
installation of closed-vent systems
connected to a control device will result
in a nationwide net annual cost of
$10,300 and an annual emission
reduction of about 100 Mg of benzene:
this represents a cost effectiveness of
about SlGO/Mg. Since the cost
associated with this control technique is
reasonable,.EPA selected closed-vent
systems as BAT for product accumulator
vessels.
New sources. Emission reductions and
costs for new sources are similar to
those for existing sources. If the
standard results in less emission
reduction for new sources than for
existing sources (because fewer new
sources would be covered), then the cost
of the emission reduction for new
sources will be less. However, as seen
in Tables 1 and 2, the costs that are
unreasonable for existing sources are
also unreasonable for new sources;
therefore, BAT for new sources is the
same as-BAT for existing sources.
Economic impact considerations of
BAT. As mentioned above, once BAT
was identified for each type of
equipment covered by the standard,
EPA analyzed the economic impact of
the initial set of BAT control techniques.
As a result and as explained in the next
section of this preamble, EPA concluded
that the control techniques initially
selected as BAT have reasonable
economic impacts. In addition, EPA has
also concluded that other impacts,
environmental and energy, associated
with these control techniques are
reasonable. Thus, they were selected as
BAT for equipment in benzene service.
Selection of the final standards. After
selecting certain control techniques 33
BAT (those identified above), EPA
evaluated the estimated health risks
remaining after application of BAT to
determine if they are unreasonable in
view of health risk reductions and cost
(economic) impacts that would result if
a more stringent level of control were
applied. Because the most stringent,
viable control technique for each type of
equipment covered by the standard is
already selected for all types of
equipment except for valves and pumps,
EPA identified a more stringent ievel of
control by reviewing the control
techniques for valves and pumps. The
more stringent level of control used for
this anaylsis includes the use of dual
mechanical seal systems on pumps in
addition t.o the requirements selected as
BAT. This control technique was
selected for analysis because it adds the
next most cost-beneficial control
technique. Thus, if EPA decided not to
require this control technique in
addition to those control techniques
selected as BAT, then EPA would not
require less cost-beneficial control
techniques, such as sealed bellows
valves.
Health and cost impacts were first
examined for existing equipment
covered by the standard to determine
whether a more stringent level of control
should be required. Requiring a more
stringent level of control instead'oi HAT
would reduce estimated leukemia
incidence within 20 kilometers of the
equipment covered by the standard from
about 0.14 cases per year to about 0.13
cases per year for existing equipment. It
would reduce the estimated maximum
lifetime risk at the point of maximum
exposure from about 4.5X10 '' to about
4.2X10 "4. Requiring the more stringent
level of control rather than BAT would
increase capital cost from $5.5 million to
$19.5 million and would increase 1985
net annualized costs from $400,000 to a
cost of $3.7 million for existing
equipment. Because of the reiativeiy
small health benefits to be gained with
the additional costs of requiring the
more stringent level of control instead of
BAT for existing equipment, EPA
considers the risks remaining after
application of BAT to existing
equipment not to be unreasonable. For
this reason, EPA judged the level of
control selected as BAT to provide an
ample margin of safety and decided not
to require a more stringent level of
control than BAT for existing equipment.
Health and cost impacts were next
examined for new equipment covered
by the standard to determine whether a
more stringent control level should be
required. As with existing equipment.
EPA considered the use of dual
mechanical seal systems on pumps as
the more stringent control level that is
next most cost-beneficial. Thus, if EPA
decides not to require the use of these
seals, then EPA would not require less
cost beneficial control technologies.
such as sealed bellows valves. Requiring
the more stringent level of control—the
use of dual mechanical seals on pumps
in addition to BAT—could reduce
estimated leukemia incidence within 20
kilometers of the equipment covered by
the standard from about 0.034 cases per
year to about 0.032 cases per year for
new equipment. It would reduce the
estimated maximum lifetime risk at the
point of maximum exposure from about
4.5x10 4 to about 4.2x10 4. Requiring
the more stringent level of control rather
than BAT would increase capital cost
from $1.4 million to $5.1 million and net
annualized costs of $100,000 to $900.000
for new equipment. Because of the
relatively small health benefits to be
gained with the additional costs of
requiring the more stringent level of
control instead of BAT for new
equipment, EPA considers the risks
remaining after application of BAT to
new equipment not to be unreasonable.
For this reason, EPA judged the level of
control selected as BAT to provide an
ample margin of safety and decided not
IV-218
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
to require a more stringent level of
control than BAT for new equipment.
Economic Impacts of the Final Standard
The cost of the proposed standard is
discussed in Chapter 8 of the BID for the
proposed standard, and economic
impacts are discussed in Chapter 9.
Changes made to the standard since
proposal make the annualized cost of
the final standard smaller than the
annualized cost for the proposed
standard. The 1985 net annualized cost
of the final standard is $400,000 for
existing units and $100.000 for new
units. The BID for the proposed standard
concludes that any potential price
increases resulting from imposition of
the proposed standard would be well
under 1 percent and that the profits and
market positions of individual
manufacturers would not be changed. In
view of the lower cost of the final
•standard, these conclusions nan be
underscored.
Comments and responses in this
section are addressed in three
categories: impacts on small facilities,
cost effectiveness, and benefit-cost
considerations. This categorization is
not rigid because some comments are
quite broad.
Impacts on small plants. This
subsection addresses two principal
concerns: the effect of the standard on
small businesses, and the application of
the standard to small process units and
to process units that use minor amounts
of benzene or that use benzene
intermittently.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L.
96-354, September 19,1980) directs
Federal agencies to pay close attention
to minimizing any potentially adverse
impacts of a standard on small
businesses, small governments, and
small organizations. Accordingly, EPA
has reviewed the final standard in
accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This standard will have
no known effects on small governments
and small organizations. A small
business in the benzene-using industries
generally is one that employs fewer than
750 persons. This level was set by the
Smaii Business Administration (SBA) as
a criterion for extending SBA loans and
related assistance (13 CFR Part 121.
Schedule A). The definition applies to
firms that manufacture cyclic crudes
and cyclic intermediates.
Pharmaceuticals, and many other
chemicals. The BID for the proposed
standard lists 77 existing companies that
may be affected by the standard. Most
of these companies manufacture cyclic
crudes and many other chemicals. With
the possible exception of two
fiompanies. all of these firms either
employ more than 750 persons, or are
subsidiaries of large firms. To the extent
these two companies are small
businesses, the impacts of the standard
will be few and minor. Because the
standard is expected to result in small
annualized costs, EPA concluded that
there will be no adverse impacts on
firms regardless of whether they are a
small business or not.
One commenter felt that the leak
detection and repair requirements would
impose substantial costs on small-
volume users of benzene with no
appreciable benefit to public health.
According to the commenter, small-
volume pipeline systems at
pharmaceutical plants may contain
several hundred valves that would need
to be monitored monthly when in
benzene service. The commenter added
that the economic and administrative
burden of complying with the standard
would be heavy for small-volume users.
as compared to large benzene
production units, in proportion to the
level of equipment leaks from such
facilities.
As discussed in section 2.8.1 of the
BID for the promulgated standard. EPA
is exempting from the standard
equipment at plant sites that are
designed to produce or use 1,000 Mg/yr
or less of benzene. This cutoff is based
on the amount of equipment in a process
unit and relates this amount to a design
production rate. The 1,000 Mg/yr
exemption would exclude most research
facilities, pilot plants, and intermittent
users of benzene from the standard.
The possibility that pharmaceutical
operations could be adversely affected
by the standard is very small. This is
true for several reasons. First, most
pharmaceutical plants use very little
benzene. According to estimates
contained in Market Input/Output
Studies—Benzene Consumption as a
Solvent (EPA-560/6-77-034, October
1978, p. 41), 1978 benzene consumption
by pharmaceutical manufacturers was
about 0.72 Gg. No companies consumed
more than 1,000 Mg/yr in 1978. The
commenter states that they consumed
about 325 Klg/yr during 1981. Thus, it is
unlikely that pharmaceutical operations
would be affected by the standard
because the final standard exempts
equipment at plant sites that are
designed to produce or use 1,000 Mg/yr
or less of benzene. Second, benzene
consumption by the pharmaceutical
industry is declining rapidly. The market
input/output study just noted estimates
that consumption declined from 2.14 Gg
in 1976 to 0.72 Gg in 1978, a decline of
about 66 percent over the 2-year period.
Third, the number of companies using
benzene hm also declined and is
expected to continue to fall. For the 2-
year period 1976 to 1978, the study
estimates that the number of
pharmaceutical companies using
benzene declined from 10 to 5, And
finally, even though pharmaceutical
operations that are designed to produce
or use benzene in excess of 1,000 Mg/yr
are subject to the standard, they have
substantial equipment inventories in
benzene service, and, therefore, emit
benzene in enough quantity to warrant
coverage by the final standard. EPA has
reviewed the cost for these operations
and has concluded that the cost is
reasonable.
Use of cost effectiveness, Commenters
felt that EPA had not selected the most
cost-effective alternative as the basis for
the proposed standard. One commenter
said that industry's experience in air
pollution abatement control programs
has led it to conclude that capital costs
in excess of $3,000/Mg are not cost
effective and should be rejected unless
the other alternatives do not
substantially achieve the necessary
degree of control. The commenter
concluded that SOCM1 data indicate
that the cost effectiveness is definitely
higher than the industry guideline of
$3.000/Mg.
Selection of BAT was based, in
response to these commenters, on an
examination of the incremental cost
effectiveness among various control
techniques for each type of equipment
covered by the standard. Whether to
require more restrictive control than
BAT is based on judging the risks
remaining after BAT is applied and the
cost and other impacts of reducing these
risks. Since proposal, EPA has selected
a less restrictive standard than the
standard proposed in January 1981;
consequently, the cost associated with
the standard has decreased.
EPA based emission estimates on
refinery emission factors rather than on
SOCMI emission factors because recent
benzene-specific emission data from
refineries and chemical plants are more
similar to refining units than to SOCMI
units. Therefore, the commenler's
conclusion that SOCMI data (discussed
in "Fugitive Emission Sources of
Organic Compounds—Additional
Information on Emissions, Emission
Reductions, and Costs," EPA-450/3-82-
010) indicate that the cost effectiveness
is higher than the industry guideline of
S3.000/Mg is not based on the same
emission estimates used by EPA. Also in
contrast to the commenter. EPA bases
cost effectiveness of a standard on net
annualized costs rather than on capital
costs. It is unclear how the commenter
eMimated what they called "oporntinp
IV-219
-------
Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
costs." Using 1985 net annualized costs,
however, the overall cost effectiveness
for the standard is reasonable ($77/Mg
of benzene).
Another commenter felt that cost
effectiveness dictates that Alternative
IV at a minimum, or preferably
Alternative V, should have been
selected instead of Alternative III in
order to fulfill the mandate of Section
112. This judgment is based on the
commenter's observation that the net
price increase would be less than one-
fourth of 1 percent in benzene prices for
Alternative IV and less than 4 percent
for Alternative V. The commenter
considered this a "trivial price to pay for
saving additional lives," noting that, in
rulemaking on the vinyl chloride
standard in 1975, EPA decided that a
price impact as high as 10 percent would
have been acceptable. The commenter
added that cost estimates are usually
exaggerated, and firms often develop
innovative, less costly compliance
techniques.
EPA has selected the final standard
after considering whether the risk that
remains after application of BAT
warrants the incremental cost of
additional control. In analyzing the cost
of the standard, EPA has made
reasonable attempts to ensure that the
cost is not underestimated. Even though
industry sometimes may develop less
costly compliance techniques, EPA
considers its cost estimates reasonable.
Based on these cost estimates, EPA
judges that the reduction in risk that
remains after application of BAT does
not warrant the incremental cost of
additional control.
Reporting Requirements
One commenter felt that the reporting
requirements are purely for the ease of
enforcement purposes, for data
collection purposes, and require tht;
submittal of duplicate information. The
commenter suggested that EPA either
delete the requirements or justify the
need for Ihe routine reporting
requirements in determining compliance
with the standard. Other commeniprs
recognized the need for reports but
suggested changes to the requirements.
One commenter suggested that after
submitting the initial report, plants
should report only changes in the
number of valves or leaks detected and
repaired. Other commenters
recommended that only leaks not
repaired should be reported quarterly
and that reporting the number of valves
in each process unit is unnecessary
since the number rarely changes. One ol
the commenters added that records of
details of unsuccessful repair attempts.
while possibly of interest to the owner
or operator, should not be made a
reporting requirement.
Effective enforcement of standards,
such as this one, is important. In doing
this, public officials must implement
enforcement programs that are efficient
in order to reduce the cost of
enforcement. Reporting requirements
are very helpful for effective and
efficient enforcement of the standard.
Contrary to what one commenter
suggests, EPA is not establishing
reporting requirements for the purpose
of data collection and has reviewed the
requirements to reduce possibly
duplicative requirements. Reports will
be used in a meaningful manner in
conjunction with records and
inspections to enforce the standard.
Reporting is an effective mechanism
for reducing the cost of enforcement
because reports reduce the amount of
time required to conduct inspections and
make it possible to reduce the number of
inspections conducted by enforcement
personnel. In response to comments,
however, the standard was changed to
require semiannual rather than quarterly
reports since proposal. Semiannual
reports cost less to industry than
quarterly reports, and they better
indicate to enforcement personnel the
efforts of plants to control equipment
leaks than quarterly reports. Thus, EPA
changed the reporting frequency from
quarterly to semiannual.
Also, in response to the'comments on
reporting requirements, EPA reduced the
amount of information that must be
reported by the plant owner or operator.
The information required in reports is
the same information that a plant
manager would likely want to evaluate
his or her program. The report will
include the number of leaks that
occurred within the process unit during
the reporting period, the number of leaks
that could not be repaired within 15
days, and the general reasons for
unsuccessful or delay of repair past the
15-day period. Since no reporting format
is required by the standard, reports
required by other regulations may
simply be photocopied and submitted in
compliance with the standard for
equipment leaks of benzene as long as
the report satisfies the informational
requirements of § 61.247.
The requirement to report reasons for
unsuccessful or delay of repair is
necessary to allow EPA to assess
whether the owner or operator is making
reasonable attempts at repair and
understands the workings of the
standard. EPA expects that delays will
occur only because repair would result
in process unit shutdown. Such delays
can be readily explained by the owner
or operator. Since EPA does not expect
many of these delays to occur, EPA
considers reporting the reasons for them
to be reasonable. The requirement to
report the number of leaks found will
assist EPA in determining whether the
number of leaks not repaired within 15
days indicates reasonable attempts at
repair. EPA will gauge the significance
of the number of leaks not repaired
within 15 days in relation to the number
leaks found.
The requirements in the final stands Mi
involve recordkeeping along with
reporting. This provides enforcement of
the standard in an effective and efficient
manner. It should fit well with
management of the standard by plant
personnel. The recordkeeping
requirements are the minimum thai
could be implemented without
precluding the possibility of enforcing
the standard. The recordkeeping
requirements are essentially the same s*,
those proposed and reflect a level of
documentation that plant personnel
would require to evaluate
implementation of the standard. Without
retrospective data, inspections won';' '.;•
useless and reporting would be
impossible. In the proposed standards,
EPA included a requirement to repor!
leak location and I.D. number. This
would have allowed EPA to detern:ir;<
whether certain equipment leaks of
benzene in a plant were causing
repeated problems. However, in onvr <•••
reduce reporting requirements for
industry and to reduce EPA review
requirements, EPA has decided to
eliminate leak location and I.D. nurr>b'si
from the reporting requirements.
During the first 2 years of the progj^'ii.
the average annual burden of reporting
and recordkeeping to industry would b--
about 20 person-years. The burden is
distributed among about 240 process
units and, on an annual basis,
represents about 1 person-month per
process unit. Over the same period, thfj
average annual burden of reporting,
recordkeeping, and inspections to EPA
would be about 10 person-years. This
program provides a reasonable level oi
compliance monitoring.
Incorporation of Volatile Hazardous Air
Pollutant Standards
Other standards for volatile
hazardous air pollutants (VHAP), if
established, will likely be similar to the
standard selected by EPA for equipment
leaks of benzene. [This will occur
unless, for a specific VHAP, BAT is
different, or EPA selects a control level
associated with a technology more
stringent than BAT.| Subpart V (40CKR
Part 61) is being promulgated as
IV-220
-------
Federal jRegister / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
requirements for equipment leaks of
VHAP. Subpart J. which promulgates the
specific standard for equipment leaks of
benzene, refers to Subpart V as the
substantive requirements for all the
sources covered by Subpart J. Standards
for other VHAP, if proposed, would use
Subpart V as a general guideline for the
standard for equipment leaks of the
VHAP. The technology selected as the
basis for Subpart J would be used as the
basis for the analyses of other VHAP.
This provides an extra degree of
certainty for public commenters and an
effective mechanism to incorporate
appropriate technological changes to all
standards for equipment leaks of VHAP.
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this mlemaking. The docket is a
dynamic file, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to identify and
locate documents readily so that they
can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the
statement of basis and purpose of the
proposed and final standard EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket will serve as the
record in case of judicial review, except
for interagency review materials
(section 307(d)(7)(A)].
Miscellaneous
The effective date of this regulation is
June 6,1984. Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act provides that national emission
standards for hazardous air polutants
become effective upon promulgation and
apply to all existing and new sources.
As prescribed by section 112,
promulgation of this standard was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination that benzene presents a
significant carcinogenic risk to human
health and is, therefore, a hazardous air
pollutant as defined in section 112(a)(l)
of the Act. Benzene was added to the
list of hazardous air pollutants on June
8, 1S77. in accordance with section 117
of the Act, publication of this
promulgated standard was preceded by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and
Federal departments and agencies. In
addition, members of the benzene task
group of the Interagency Regulatory
. Liaison Group (IRLG), representing the
EPA, the OSHA, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the Consumer
•Product Safety Commission, have met
(when the IRLG existed) and reviewed
the standard to ensure that each rule is
jointly understood and is consistent
with their programs.
An economic impact assessment was
prepared for the regulation and for other
regulatory alternatives. The economic
impact assessment for the standard is
included in the BID for the proposed and
promulgated standard.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. L 96-511) requires
clearance from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) of
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that qualify as an
"information collection request" under
the PRA, which affect 10 or more plants
for the standard. OMB is currently
clearing information collection requests
for a period of 2 years. For the purposes
of OMB's review, an analysis of the
burden associated with the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements of this
regulation has been made. During the
first 2 years of this regulation, the
average annual burden of the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for the
benzene fugitive standard would be
about 20 person-years, based on an
average of about 240 process units per
year.
Information collection requirements
associated with this regulation (Subpart
A and Subpart J of Part 61) have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and have been
assigned OMB control number 2080-
0068.
Under Executive Order 12291, the EPA
is required to judge whether this
regulation is a "major rule" and
therefore subject to certain requirements
of the Order. The EPA has determined
that this regulation will result in none of
the adverse economic effects set forth in
Section 1 of the Order as grounds for
finding a regulation to be a "major rule."
This regulation is not major because: (1)
Nationwide annual compliance costs are
not as great as the threshold of Si00
million; (2) the standard does not
significantly increase prices or
production costs: and (3) the standard
does not cause significant, adverse
effects on domestic competition,
employment, investment, productivity.
innovation, or competition in foreign
markets.
This regulation was submitted to the
OMB for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from the OMB to the EPA and any EPA
response to those comments are
included in Docket No. A-78-27
(benzene fugitive). The docket is
available for public inspection at the
EPA's Central Docket Section. West
Tower Lobby, Gallery 1, Waterside
Mall. 401 M Street. S.W.. Washington.
D.C. 20460.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
requires that adverse effects of all
Federal regulations upon small
businesses be identified. According to
current Small Business Administration
guidelines, a small business that
manufactures cyclic crudes and cyclic
intermediates, Pharmaceuticals, and
many other chemicals is one that has
750 employees or fewer. Currently, very
few of the businesses in the existing
industry employ fewer than 750 people.
Even if facilities owned by small
businesses do become subject to the
standard, none will be affected
adversely. This conclusion is based on
the fact that in doing the economic
analysis for the benzene fugitives
standard, the price increase and
profitability impacts have been
estimated from the perspective of the
smaller process units in operation.
Therefore, the finding that the
annualized cost of the standard will be
very small (about $2,000/yr) for units
affected by the standard accurately
reflects the impacts for benzene fugitive
facilities owned by small businesses.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
6Q5(b), I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects an M GFM Part SI
Asbestos. Beryllium, Hazardous
substances. Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vinyl
chloride.
Dated: May 23.1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
PAOT (31—[AMENDED]
40 CKR Part 61 is amended by adding
Subparts J and V and by adding three
subparagraphs to paragraph (a) of
§61.18 as follows:
1. By adding Subparts) and V to 41)
CFK Part 61 as follows:
Equipment Loato (FygHlwo Emlocton
Sources) o
-------
KBg5si®ir / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
61.240 Applicability and designation of
sources.
81.241 Definitions.
81.242-1 Standards: General.
61.242-2 Standards: Pumps.
61.242-3 Standards: Compressors.
61.242-6 Standards: Pressure relief devices
in gas/vapor service.
61.242-5 Standards: Sampling connection
systems.
31.242-6 Standards: Open-ended valves or
lines.
61.242-7 Standards: Valves.
61.242-3 Standards: Pressure relief devices
in liquid service and flanges and other
connectors.
61.242-9 Standards: Product accumulator
vessels.
61.242-10 Standards: Delay of repair.
61.242-11 Standards: Closed-vent'ay stems
and control devices.
61.243-1 Alternative standrds for valves in
UHAP Service—allowable percentage of
valves leaking.
61.243-2 Alternative standards for valves in
VHAP service—skip period leak
detection and repair.
61.244 Alternative means of emission
limitation.
61.245 Test methods and procedures.
61.246 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.247 Reporting requirements.
Authority: Sections 112 and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act. as amended [42 U.S.C. 7412,
7601(a)j, and additional authority as noted
below.
oowcco.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each of the following sources
that are intended to operate in benzene
service: pumps, compressors, pressure
relief devices, sampling connections,
systems, open-ended valves or lines,
valves, flanges and other connectors,
product accumulator vessels, and
control devices or systems required by
this subpart.
(b) The provisions of this subpart do
not apply to sources located in coke by-
product plants.
(c)(l) If an owner or operator applies
for one of the exemptions in this
paragraph, then the owner or operator
shall maintain records as required in
i 61.246(i).
(2) Any equipment in benzene service
that is located at a plant site designed to
produce or use less than 1,000
megagrams of benzene per year is
exempt from the requirements of
§ 61.112.
(3) Any process unit (defined in
§ 61.241) that has no equipment in
benzene service is exempt from the
requirements of § 61.112.
(d) While the provisions of this
subpart are effective, a source to which
this subpart applies that is also subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 only
will be required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.
§81.1111 J3offWM@raa
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act, in Subpart A of
Part 61, or in Subpart V of Part 81. and
the following terms shall have the
specific meanings given them:
"In benzene service" means that a
piece of equipment either contains or
contacts a fluid (Liquid or gas) that is at
least 10 percent benzene by weight as
determined according to the provisions
of § 61.245(d). The provisions of
§ 61.245(d) also specify how to
determine that a piece of equipment is
not in benzene service.
"Semiannual" means a 6-month
period; the first semiannual period
concludes on the last day of the last
month during the 180 days following
initial startup for new sources; and the
first semiannual period concludes on the
last day of the last full month during the
180 days after June 6,1984 for existing
sources.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the requirements of
Subpart V of this part.
. (b) An owner or operator may elect to
comply with the requirements of
i 61.243-1 and § 61.243-2.
(c) An owner or operator may apply to
the Administrator for a determination of
an alternative means of emission
limitation that achieves a reduction in
emissions of benzene at least equivalent
to the reduction in emissions of benzene
achieved by the controls required in this
subpart. In doing so, the owner or
operator shall comply with requirements
of § 61.244.
§311.113-31.119
Subpart V=-KlataiaI Emtesten
§ S1.240 Applicability area $3o!gna8lon of
sources.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each of the following sources
that are intended to operate in volatile
hazardous air pollutant {VHAP) service:
pumps, .compressors, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems,
open-ended valves or lines, valves.
flanges and other connectors, product
accumulator vessels, and control
devices or systems required by this
subpart.
(b) The provisions of this subpart
apply to the sources listed in paragraph
(a) after the date of promulgation of a
specific subpart in Part 61.
(c) While the provisions of this
subpart are effective, a source to which
this subpart applies that is also subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 on I v
will be required to comply with the
provisions of this subpart.
§81.241 Doflnlttono.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act, in Subpart A of
Part 61, or in specific subparts of Part 61;
and the following termo ohall have
specific meaning given them:
"Closed-vent oystem" means a system
that io not open to atmosphere and that
io composed of piping, connections, and,
if necessary, flow-inducing devices that
transport gas or vapor from e piece or
pieces of equipment to a control device.
"Connector" means, flanged, screwed,
welded, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and
a piece of equipment.
"Control device" means an enclosed
combustion device, vapor recovery
system,
IV-222
-------
Ksgisto / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
a fluid (liquid or gas) that is at least 10
percent by weight a volatile hazardous
air pollutant (VHAP) as determined
according to the provisions of
§ 61.245(d). The provisions of § 61.245(d)
also specify how to determine that a
piece of equipment is not in VHAP
service.
"In VOC service" means, for the
purposes of this subpart, that (a) the
piece of equipment contains or contacts
a process fluid that is at least 10 percent
VOC by weight (see 40 CFR 60.2 for the
definition of volatile organic compound
or VOC and 40 CKR 60.458(d) to
determine whether a piece of equipment
is not in VOC service) and (b) the piece
of equipment is not in liquid service as
defined in 40 CFR 60.481.
"Open-ended valve or line" means
any valve, except pressure relief valves.
having one side of the valve seat in
contact with process fluid and one side
open to atmosphere, either directly or
through open piping.
"Pressure release" means the
emission of materials resulting from the
system pressure being greater than the
set pressure of the pressure relief
device.
"Process unit" means equipment
assembled to produce a VHAP or its
derivatives as intermediates or final
products, or equipment assembled to use
a VHAP in the production of a product.
A process unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient
feed or raw materials and sufficient
product storage facilities.
"Process unit shutdown" means a
work practice or operational procedure
that stops production from a process
unit or part of a process unit. An
unscheduled work practice or
operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of
a process unit for less than 24 hours is
not a process unit shutdown. The use of
spare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without
stopping production are not process unit
shutdowns.
"Product accumulator vessel" means
any distillate receiver, bottoms receiver.
surge controi vessel, or product
separator in VHAP service that is
vented to atmosphere either directly or
through a vacuum-producing system. A
product accumulator vessel is in VHAP
service if the liquid or the vapor in the
vessel is at least 10 percent by weight
VHAP.
"Repaired" means that equipment is
adjusted, or otherwise altered, to
eliminate a leak as indicated by one of
the following: an instrument reading of
10.000 ppm or greater, indication of
liquids dripping, or indication by H
sensor that a seal or barrier fluid system
has failed.
"Semiannual" means a 6-month
period; the first semiannual period
concludes on the last day of the last
month during the 180 days following
initial startup for new sources; and the
first semiannual period concludes on the
last day of the last full month during the
180 days after the effective date of a
specific subpart that references this
subpart.
"Sensor" means a device that
measures e physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity, such as
temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or
liquid level.
"Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutant" or
"VHAP" means a substance regulated
under this subpart for which a standard
for equipment leaks of the substance has
been proposed and promulgated.
Benzene is a VHAP.
§ 81.242-1 Standards: (Sonera!.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of § 61.242-1 to § 61.242-11
for each new and existing source as
required in 40 CFR 61.05, except as
provided in § 61.243 and § 61.244.
(b) Compliance with this subpart will
be detemined by review of records.
review of performance test results, and
inspection using the methods and
procedures specified in § 61.245.
(c)(l) An owner or operator may
request B determination of alternative
means of emission limitation to the
requirements of i§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3,
61.242-5, 61.242-7, 61.242-8, 61.242-9 and
61.242-11 as provided in i 61.244.
(2) If the Administrator makes a
determination that 6 means of emission
limitation is at least a permissible
alternative to the requirements of
ii 61 .242-2, 81.242-3, 81.242-5. 61.242-8.
61.242-7, 61.242-8, 61.242-9 or 61.242-11,
an owner or operator shall comply with
the requirements of that determination.
(d) Each piece of equipment to which
this subpart applies shall be marked in
such a manner that it can be
distinquished readily from other nieces
of equipment.
(e) Equipment that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of i 61.242-2, to i 61.242-
11 if it is identified as required in
§61.246(e)(5).
(a)(l) Each pump shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in § 61.245(b), except as
provided in § 61.242-l(c) and
paragraphs (d). (e), and (f) of this
section.
(2) Each pump shall be checked by
visual inspection each calendar week
for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seal.
(b)(l) if an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
(2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a leak is
detected. \
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.242-
10.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of pargraph (a), provided
the following requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
is:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at
-------
Kegistar / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
detected, except as provided in § 61.242-
10.
(iii) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leek is detected.
(e) Any pump that is designated, as
described in § 61.246(e)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than SCO ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c), and
(d) if the pump:
(1) Has no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing,
(2) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c), and
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (e)(2) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
(f) If any pump is equipped with a
closed-vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
§ 61.242-11, it is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a)-(e).
§ 61.202-3 Standards: Compressors.
(a) Each compressor shall be equipped
with a seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system and that prevents
leakage of process fluid to atmosphere,
except as provided in § 61.242-l(c) and
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section.
(b) Each compressor seal system as
required in paragraph (a) shall be:
(1) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is greater than the
compressor stuffing box pressure; or
(2) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed-
vent system to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
i 61.242-11; or
(3) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with zero VHAP emissions to
atmosphere.
(c) The barrier fluid shall not be in
VHAP service and, if the compressor is
covered by standards under 40 CFR Part
60, shall not be in VOC service.
(d) Each barrier fluid system as
described in paragraphs (a)-(c) of this
section shall be equipped with a sensor
that will detect failure of the seal
system, barrier fluid system, or both.
(e)(l) Each sensor as required in
paragraph (d) shall be checked daily or
shall be equipped with an audible alarm.
(2) The owner or operator shall
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the seal system, the barrier
fluid system, or both.
(f) If the sensor indicates failure of the
seal system, the barrier fluid system, or
both based on the criterion determined
under paragraph (ej(2) of this section, a
leak is detected.
(g](l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in i 61.242-
10.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
eack leak is detected.
(h) A compressor is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) if
it is equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
any leakage from the seal to a control
device that complies with the
requirements of § 61.242-11, except as
provided in paragraph (i).
(i) Any Compressor that is designated,
as described in § 61.246(e)(2), for no
detectable emission as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a)-(h) if the
compressor:
(1) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c); and
(2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (i)(l) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
§ 61.242-4 Standarfc PVoocura (rolloV
elsvieoo In gao/vapw oorviCQ.
(a) Except during pressure releases,
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, as measured by the
method specified in B 61.245(c).
(b)(l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as scon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
pressure release.
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief
device shall be monitored to confirm the
condition of no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c).
(c) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
leakage from the pressure relief device
to a control device as described in
| 81.242-11 is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b).
§31.242-3 Standards: Sampling
connecting oystemo.
(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed-purge
system or closed vent system, except as
provided in § 61.242-l(c).
(b) Each closed-purge system or
closed-vent system as required in
paragraph (a) shall:
(11 Return the purged process fluid
directly to the process line with zero
VHAP emissions to atmosphere; or
(2) Collect and recycle the purged
process fluid with zero VHAP emissions
to atmosphere; or
(3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
process fluid to a control device thai
complies with the requirements of
i 61.242-11.
(c) In-situ sampling systems ere
exempt from the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b).
§ 61.242-3 Standards: Open-ended wclveo
or linss.
(a)[l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap, blind
flange, plug, or a second valve, except
as provided in § 61.242-l(c).
(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve shall seal the open end at
all times except during operations
requiring process fluid flow through the
open-ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the process fluid end is closed
before the second valve is closed.
(c) When a double block and bleed
system is being used, the bleed valve or
line may remain open during operations
that require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (a) at all other times.
g 81.202-7 Standards: Valves.
(a) Each valve shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the method
specified in § 81.245(b] and shall comply
with paragraphs (b)-(e), except as
provided in paragraphs (f), (gj, and (h) of
this section, §§ 81.243-1 or 61.243-2. and
§ 61.242-l(c).
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) Any valve for which a leak is
not detected for 2 successive months
may be monitored the first month of
every quarter, beginning with the next
quarter, until a leak is detected.
IV-224
-------
Fsdaral Kogistsr / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for 2 successive months.
(d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
no later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is detected, except as provided in
8 61.242-10.
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
{e) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to. the following best
practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts;
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts;
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts;
and
(4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.246(e)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if the
valve:
(1) Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the process
fluid;
(2) Is operated with emissions less
than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the method specified in
§ 61.245(c): and
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (f)(2) initially upon
designation, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
(g) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.246(0(1). as an unsafe-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a]; and
(2) The owner or operator of the valve
has a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequent as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
(h) Any valve that is designated, as
described in 8 61.246(f)(2), as a difficult-
to-monitor valve is exernpt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the
monitoring personnel more than 2
meters above a support surface;
(2) The process unit within which the
valve is located is an existing process
unit; and
(3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar year.
§ ©D.242-Q gtoraterda Prooouro relteff
othor eormoctoro.
(a) Pressure relief devices in liquid
service and flanges and other
connectors shall be monitored within 5
days by the method specified in
§ 61.245(b) if evidence of a potential
leak is found by visual, audible,
olfactory, or any other detection
method.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.242-
10.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) First attempts at repair include.
but are not limited to, the best practices
described under 8 61.242-7(e).
§ 31.202-0 Standards: Product
accumulator wessslo.
Each product accumulator vessel shall
be equipped with a closed-vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
any leakage from the vessel to a control
device as described in § 61.242-11.
§ 81.242- W Standards: Delay of repair.
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is technically
infeasible without a process unit
shutdown. Repair of this equipment
shall occur before the end of the next
process unit shutdown.
(b) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed for equipment that is isolated
from the process and that does not
remain in VHAP service.
(c) Delay of repair for valves will be
allowed if:
, (1) The owner or operator
demonstrates that emissions of purged
material resulting from immediate repair
are greater than the fugitive emissions
likely to result from delay of repair, and
(2) When repair procedures are
effected, the purged material is collected
and destroyed or recovered in a control
device complying with 8 61.242-11.
(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system, and
(2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair beyond a process
unit shutdown will be allowed for a
valve if valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the process unit
shutdown, valve assembly supplies have
been depleted, and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before the supplies were depleted. Delay
of repair beyond the next process unit
shutdown will not be allowed unless the
next process unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 8 months after the first
process unit shutdown.
§61.242-11 Stondardo: Ctooed-wenJ
oyotemo and eontrol dovieoo.
(a) Owners or operators of closed-
vent systems and control devices used
to comply with provisions of this
subpart shall comply with the provisions
of this section.
(b) Vapor recovery systems (for
example, condensers and adsorbers)
shall be designed and operated to
recover the organic vapors vented to
them with an efficiency of 95 percent or
greater.
(c) Enclosed combustion devices shall
be designed and operated to reduce the
VHAP emissions vented to them with an
efficiency of 95 percent or greater or to
provide a minimum residence time of
0.50 seconds at a minimum temperature
of 760°C.
(d)(l) Flares shall be designed for an
operated with no visible emissions as
determined by the methods specified in
§ 61.245(e), except for periods not to
exceed a total of 5 minutes during any J
consecutive hours.
(2) Flares shall be operated with a
flame present at all times, as determined
by the methods specified in | 61.245.(e).
(3) Flares shall be used only with the
net heating value of the gas being
combusted being 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Btu/
scf) or greater if the flare is steam-
assisted or air-assisted; or with the net
heating value of the gas being
combusted being 7.45 MJ/scm or greater
if the flare is nonassisted. The net
heating value of the gas being
combusted shall be determined by the
method specified in 8 61.245(e).
(4) Steam-assisted and nonassisted
flares shall be designed for and
operated with an exit velocity, as
determined by the method specified in
i 61.245(e)(4), less than 18 m/sec (60 ft/
sec).
(5) Air-assisted flares shall be
designed and operated with an exit
velocity less than the velocity, vmax. as
determined by the method specified in
§ 61.245(e)(5).
(6) Flares used comply with this
subpart shall be steam-assisted, air-
assisted, or nonassisted.
(e) Owners or operators of control
devices that are used to comply with the
provisions of this supbart shall monitor
IV-225
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
these control devices to ensure that they
are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design.
(f)(l) Closed-vent systems shall be
designed for and operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and by visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified as § 01.245(c).
(2) Closed-event systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance with
this section initially in accordance with
§ 61.05, annually, and at other times
requested by the administrator.
(3) Leaks, as indicated by an
instrument reading greater than 500 ppm
and visual inspections, shall be repaired
as soon as practicable, but not later than
15 calendar days after the leak is
detected.
(4) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(g) Closed-vent systems and control
devices use to comply with provisions of
this subpart shall be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them.
§ 61.243-1 Alternative otendards for
valves In VHAP oorelco—allowable
jjercenJagQ ot valveo leaking.
(a) An owner or operator may elect to
have all valves within a process unit to
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking of equal to or less than
2.0 percent.
(b) The following requirements shall
be met if an owner or operator decides
to comply with an allowable percentage
of valves leaking:
(1) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator that the owner or
operator has elected to have all valves
within a process unit to comply with the
allowable percentage of valves leaking
before implementing this alternative
standard, as specified in § 61.247(d).
(2) A performance test as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted initially upon designation,
annually, and at other times requested
by the Administrator.
(3) If a valve leak is detected, it shall
be repaired in accordance with § 61.242-
7(d) and (e).
(c) Performance tests shall be
conducted in the following manner:
(1) All valves in VHAP service within
the process unit shall be monitored
within 1 week by the methods specified
in § 61.245(b).
(2) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(3) The leak percentage shall be
determined by dividing the number of
valves in VHAP service for which leaks
are detected by the number of valves in
VHAP service within the process unit.
(dj Owner or operators who elect to
have all valves comply with this
alternative standard shall not have a
process unit with a leak percentage
greater than 2.0 percent.
(e) If an owner or operator decides no
longer to comply with § 61.243-1, the
owner or operator must notify the
Administrator in writing that the work
practice standard described in § 61.242-
7(a)-(e) will be followed.
§ 81.243-2 Alternative? otandards (or
ve!v08 !n VHAP cervlco—oklEJ E*Qrio«3 leatt
detection and repair.
(a)(l) An owner or operator may elect
for all valves within a process unit to
comply with one of the alternative work
practices specified in paragraphs (b)(2)
and (3) of this section.
(2) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator before implementing
one of the alternative work practices, as
specified in § 61.247(d).
(b)(l) An owner or operator shall
comply initially with the requirements
for valves, as described in § 61.242-7.
(2) After 2 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
1 of the quarterly leak detection periods
for the valves in VHAP service.
(3) After 5 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
3 of the quartely leak detection periods
for the valves in VHAP service.
(4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than 2.0, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements as
described in § 61.242-7 but may again
elect to use this section.
§81.244 Alternative means o? emission
limitation.
(a) Permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation under
Section 112(e)(3) of the Clean Air Act
shall be governed by the following
procedures:
(b) Where the standard is an
equipment, .design, or operational
requirement:
(1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data for an
alternative means of emission limitation.
(2) The Administrator will compare
test data for the means of emission
limitation to test data for the equipment.
design, and operational requirements.
(3) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
emission reduction as the equipment,
design, and operational requirements.
(c) Where the standard is a work
practice:
(1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data for an
alternative means of emission limitation.
(2) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the required work
practices shall be demonstrated for a
minimum period of 12 months>
(3) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the alternative
means of emission limitation shall be
demonstrated.
(4) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall commit in writing
each source to work practices that
provide for emission reductions equal to
or greater than the emission reductions
achieved by the required work practices.
(5) The Administrator will compare
the demonstrated emission reduction for
the alternative means of emission
limitation to the demonstrated emission
reduction for the required work
practices and will consider the
commitment in paragraph (c)(4).
(6) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
emission reduction as the required work
practices of this subpart.
(d) An owner or operator may offer a
unique approach to demonstrate the
alternative means of emission limitation.
(e)(l) Manufacturers of equipment
used to control equipment leaks of a
VHAP may apply to the Administrator
for permission for an alternative means
of emission limitation that achieves a
reduction in emissions of the VHAP
achieved by the equipment, design, and
operational requirements of this subpart.
(2) The Administrator will grant
permission according to the provisions
of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d).
§ 61.245 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test methods and
procedures requirements provided in
this section.
(b) Monitoring, as required in § 61.24::.
§ 61.243, and § 61.244, shall comply with
the following requirements:
(1) Monitoring shall comply with
Reference Method 21.
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
[3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use hy trip
IV-226
-------
R®gist®r / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 3 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air); and
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than. 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in §§ 61.242-2(e).
61.242-3(i), 61.242-4, 61.242-7(f). and
61.242-11(0, the test shall comply with
the following requirements:
(1) The requirements of paragraphs
(b)(l)-(4) shall apply.
(2) The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Reference
Method 21.
(3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible as described in Reference
Method 21.
(4) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 655 upm for
determining compliance.
(d)(l) Each piece of equipment within
a process unit that can conceivably
contain equipment in VHAP service is
presumed to be in VHAP service unless
an owner or operator demonstrates that
the piece of equipment is not in VHAP
service. For a piece of equipment to be
considered not in VHAP service, it must
be determined that the percent VHAP
content can be reasonably expected
never to exceed 10 percent by weight.
For purposes of determining the percent
VHAP content of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts equipment,
procedures that conform to the methods
described in ASTM Method D-2267
{incorporated by the reference as
specified in § 61.18) shall be used.
engineering judgment rather than the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section to demonstrate that the percent
VHAP content does not exceed 10
percent by weight, provided that the
engineering judgment demonstrates that
the VHAP content clearly does not
exceed 10 percent by weight. When an
owner or operator and the
Administrator do not agree on whether
n piece of equipment is net in VHAP
service, however, the procedures in
paragraph (d)(l) of this section shall be
•ssed to resolve the disagreement.
(ii) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment is in VHAP
service, the determination can be
revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section.
(3) Samples used in determining the
percent VHAP content shall be
representative of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts the
equipment or the gas being combusted
in the flare.
(e)(l) Reference Method 22 shall be
used to determine compliance of flares
with the visible emission provisions of
this subpart.
(2) The presence of a flare pilot flame
shall be monitored using a thermocouple
or any other equivalent device to detect
the presence of a flame.
(3) The net heating value of the gas
beinp combusted in a flare shall be
calculated using the following equation:
HT =
Where:
HT — Net heating value of the sample, M]/
scm: where the net enthalpy per mole of
offgas is based on combustion at 25"C
and 760 mm Hg. but the standard
temperature for determining the volume
corresponding to one mole is 20°C.
K = Cor.stant. 1.740X107 (1/ppmJ (g mole/
scm I (MJ/kcaiJ where standard
temperature fof (g mole/scm) is 20'C
C, = Concentration of sample component i in
ppm. as measured by Reference Method 18
of Appendix A pf 40 FR Part 60 and ASTM
D2504-67 (reapproved 1977} (incorporated
by reference as specified in § 61.18).
H;=Net heat of combustion of sample
component i. kcal/g mole. The heats of
combustion may be determined using
ASTM D2382-76 (incorporated by reference
as specified in § 61.18) if published values
are not &Vdi!cbie or cannot be calculated
(4) The actual exit velocity of a flare
shall be determined by dividing the
volumetric flow-rate (in units of standard
temperature and pressure), as
determined by Reference Method 2, 2A.
2C. or'2u. as appropriate, by ihe
unobstructed (free) cross section siea of
the flare tip.
(5) The maximum permitted velocity,
Vmnl, for air-assisted flares shall be
determined by the following equation:
8.76 + 0.70B4(HT)
Where:
VMax = Maximum permitted velocity, m/sei
8.706 ^Constant.
0.7084 = Constant.
HT --The net heating value as determined in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(S( i 114 of the Cl'ran Air Act as amended (4^
tl.S.C. 7414) |
§ 81.248 Recordttoeplng requirements.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner or operator of more than
one process unit subject to the
provisions of this subpart may comply
with the recordkeeping requirements for
these proc'ess units in one recordkeeping
system if the system identifies each
record by each process unit.
(b) When each leak is detected as
specified in |§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3,
61.242-7. and 61.242-8, the following
requirements apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the
equipment identification number, shall
be attached to the leaking equipment.
(2) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months us specified in
§ 61.242-7(c) and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months.
(3) The identification on equipment,
except on a valve, may be removed after
i! has been repaired.
(c) When each leak, is detected as
specified in §§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3,
61.242-7, and 61.242-8, the following
information shall be recorded in a log
and shall be kept for 2 years in a readily
accessible location:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number.
(2) The date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the leak.
(3) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak.
(4) "Above 10,000" if the maximum
instrument reading measured by the
methods specified in § 61.245(a) after
each repair attempt is equal to or greater
than 10.000 ppm.
(5) "Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak.
(6) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a process shutdown.
(7) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within 15 calendar days.
(8) Dates of process unit shutdowns
that occur while the equipment is
unrepaired.
(9) The date of successful repair of the
leak.
(d) The following information
pertaining to the design requirements for
closed-vent systems and control device*
described in § 61.242-11 shall be
IV-227
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
recorded and kept in a readily
accessible location.
(1) Detailed schematics, design
specifications, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
(2) The dates and descriptions of any
changes in the design specifications.
(3) A description of the parameter or
parameters monitored, as required in
§ 61.242-ll{e), to ensure that control
devices are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design and an
explanation of why that parameter (or
parameters) was selected for the
monitoring.
{4j Periods when the closed-vent
systems and control devices required in
§§ 61.242-2, 61.242-3, 61.242-4, 61.242-5
and 61.242-9 are not operated as
designed, including periods when a flare
pilot light does not have a flame.
(5) Dates of startups and shutdowns of
the closed-vent systems and control
devices required in §§ 61.242-2, 61.242-
3, 61.242-4, 61.242-5 and 61.242-9.
(e) The following information
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in § 61.242-1 to
§ 61.242-11 shall be recorded in a log
that is kept in a readily accessible
location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment subject to the requirements
of this subpsrt.
(2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the owner or
operator elects to designate for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, under the provisions
of §§ 61.242-2(e). 61.242-3(i). and 61.242-
7(0-
(ii) The designation of this equipment
as subject to the requirements of
§ 61.242-2(e). 61.242-3(i), or 61.242^7(0
shall be signed by the owner or
operator.
(3) A list of equipment identification
numbers for pressure relief devices
required to comply with § 61.242-4(a).
(4)(i) The dates of each compliance
test required in §§ 61.242-2(e), 61.242-
3(i). 61.242-4, and 61.242-7(0-
(ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance test.
(5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.
(f) The following information
pertaining to a\\ valves subject to the
requirements of § 61.242-7(g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
va readily accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is unsafe to
monitor, and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
(2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult to
monitor, an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve is difficult to
monitor, and the planned schedule for
monitoring each valve.
(g) The following information shall be
recorded for valves complying with
§ 61.243-2:
(1) A schedule of monitoring.
(2) The percent of valves found
leaking during each monitoring period.
(h) The following information shall -be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) Design criterion required in
§ 61.242-2(d)(5) and § 61.242-3(e)(2) and
an explanation of the design criterion;
and
(2) Any changes to this criterion and
the reasons for the changes.
(i) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location for use in
determining exemptions as provided in
the applicability section of this subpart
and other specific subparts:
(1) An analysis demonstrating the
design capacity of the process unit, and
(2) An analysis demonstrating that
equipment is not in VHAP service.
(j) Information and data used to
demonstrate that a piece of equipment is
not in VHAP service shall be recorded
in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.G. 7414).)
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2060-0088)
§61.247 Reporting requirements..
(a)(l) An owner or operator of any
piece of equipment to which this subpart
applies shall submit a statement in
writing notifying the Administrator that
the requirements of §§ 61.242. 61.245,
61.246, and 61.247 are being
•implemented.
(2) In the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial
startup date preceding the effective
date, the statement is to be submitted
within 90 days of the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance is granted
under § 61.11, along with the
information required under i 61.10. If a
waiver of compliance is granted, the
statement is to be submitted on a date
scheduled by the Administrator.
(3) In the case of new sources which
did not have an initial startup date
preceding the effective date, the
statement shall be submitted with the
application for approval of construction,
as described in § 61.07.
(4) The statement is to contain the
following information for each source:
(i) Equipment identification numbes
and process unit identification.
(ii) Type of equipment (for example, «
pump or pipeline valve).
(iii) Percent by weight VHAP in the
fluid at the equipment.
(iv) Process fluid state at the
equipment (gas/vapor or liquid).
(v) Method of compliance with thi;
standard (for example, "monthly leak
detection and repair" or "equipped wi'h
dual mechanical seals").
(b) A report shall be submitted to the
Administrator semiannually starting 6
months'after the initial report required
in § 61.247(a),.that includes the
following information:
(1) Process unit identification.
(2) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period,
(i) Number of valves for which leaks
were detected as described in § 61.242-
7(b) of § 61.243-2.
(ii) Number of valves for which leoU;
were not repaired as required in
§ 61.242-7(cl).
(iii) Number of pumps for which leat.x
were detected as described in § 61.242,-
2(b) and (d)(6).
(iv) Number of pumps for which \C.»\:K
were not repaired as required in
§ 61.242-2(c) and (d)(0).
(v) Number of compressors for whiV.h
leaks were detected as described ir
§ 61.242-3i f).
(vi) Number of compressors for \vb:; •'.••
leaks were not repaired as required in
§ 61.242-3(8).
(vii) The facts that explain any dehsy
of repairs and. where appropriate, wh;,
a process unit shutdown was technira'iy
infeasible.
(3) Dates of process unit shutdowns
which occurred within the semiannual
reporting period.
(4) Revisions to items reported
• according to paragraph (a) if changes
have occurred since the initial report o<
subsequent revisions to the initial
report.
(5) The results of all performance \v.:\
to determine compliance with § 61.242-
2(e), § 61.242-3(1), § 61.242-4(a),
§ 61.242-7(f), § 61.242-ll(f), I 61.243-1
and § 61.243-2 conducted within the
semiannual reporting period.
(c) In the first report submitted es
required in § 61.247(a), the report shali
include a reporting schedule stating the
months that semiannual reports shall bn
submitted. Subsequent reports shall bf
submitted according to that schedule,
unless a revised schedule has been
submitted in a previous semiannual
report.
IV-228
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 /Rules and Regulations
(d) An owner or operator electing to
comply with the provisions of §§ 61.243-
1 and 61.243-2 shall notify the
Administrator of the alternath e
standard selected 90 days before
implementing either of the provisions.
[e) An application for approval of
construction or modification. § 61.05(aJ
and § 61.07, will not be required if—
(1) The new source complies with the
standard, § 61.242;
(2) The new source is not part of the •
construction of a process-unit; and
(3) In the next semiannual report
required by § 61.247(b), the information
in § 61.247(a)(1) is reported.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (4^
U.S.C. 7414).) (Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control
number ICR-1153.)
2. By adding paragraphs (a) (4), (5).
and (6) to § 61.18 of Subpart A—General
Provisions as follows. The introductory
text of the section and of paragraph (a)
are shown for reader convenience.
§61.18 Incorporation by reference.
The materials listed below are
incorporated by reference in the
corresponding sections noted. These
incorporations by reference were
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on the date listed. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of the approval, and a notice
of any changes in these materials will be
published in the Federal Register. The
materials are available for purchase at
the corresponding address noted below,
and all are available for inspection at
the Office of the Federal Register
Information Center, Room 8401,1100 L
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20408
and the Library (MD-35), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
(a) The following materials are
available for purchase from at least one
of the following addresses: American
Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). 1916 Race Street. Philadelphia.
Pennsylvania 19103: or the University
Microfilms International. 300 North Zeeb
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106.
*****
(4) ASTM D 2267-68 (Reapproved
1978), Aromatics in Light Naphthas and
Aviation Gasolines' by Gas
Chromatography, IBR approved June 6.
1984, for § 61.245(d)(l).
(5) ASTM D 2382-76. Heat of
Combustion of Hydrocarbon Fuels by
Bomb Calorimeter (High-Precision
Method), IBR approved June 6,1984. for
| 61.245(e)(3J.
(6) ASTM D 2504-67 (Reapproved
1977). Noncondensable Gases in C3 and
Lighter Hydrocarbon Products by Gas
Chromatography, IBR approved June 6.
1984. for § 61.245(e)(3).
(Sections 112 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Ac'
as amended, [42 U.S.C. 7412.7601 (a)||
|KR Hoc. 84-144-9 Kiln! f- 5-«4: 8:45 am)
IV-229
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 112 / Friday. June 8. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
98
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[FRL-2592-8]
Subdelegation of Authority to the
Oklahoma City-County Health
Department for the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 6.
ACTION: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Oklahoma State
Department of Health (OSDH) has
subdelegated the authority to implement
and enforce the NSPS and NESHAP
programs in Oklahoma City and County
to the Oklahoma City-County Health
Department (OCCHD). Except as
specifically limited all of the authority
and responsibilities delegated to the
OSDH by EPA, which are found in 40
CFR Parts 60 and 61, are subdelegated to
the OCCHD. Any such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the OCCHD to its staff.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1.1983.
ADDRESS: A copy of the OCCHD/OSDH
agreement for this subdelegation of
authority is available for public
inspection at the Air Branch, Air and
Waste Management Division,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, InterFirst Two Building, 28th
Floor, 1201 Elm Street. Dallas, Texas
75270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna M. Ascenzi, Air Branch, EPA,
address above; Telephone (214) 767-
9873.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
10,1983, EPA delegated the additional
authority to the OSDH to subdelegate
the authority for the NSPS and NESHAP
programs to local air pollution control
agencies in Oklahoma. Effective on
August 1,1983, this-euthority was
granted to the OCCHD to administer the
requirements for the NSPS and NESHAP
programs specified in 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61, as delegated to the OSDH by
EPA.
In April 1983, the OCCHD requested
the OSDH to delegate to them the
authority to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAP programs as
specified under 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
for sources located in Oklahoma County
and all sources located in Canadian
County that are in the Oklahoma City
limits. On August 1,1983, the OSDH
approved subdelegating this authority to
the OCCHD.
This notice will have no effect on the
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
Sources locating in Oklahoma City
and County should submit all
information pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61 directly to the Oklahoma City-
County Health Department, 1000
Northeast 10th Street Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73152.
List of Subjects
4O CFR Part 6O
Air pollution control. Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt.
Cement industry. Coal, Copper, Electric
power plants. Glass and glass products.
Grains, Intergovernmental relations,
Iron, Lead, Metals, Metallic minerals,
Motor vehicles. Nitric acid plants, Paper
and paper products industry, Petroleum,
Phosphate, Sewage disposal, Steel,
Sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment
and disposal-Zinc, Tires, Incorporation
by reference, Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants, Industrial organic
chemicals. Organic solvent cleaners.
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators,
Fiberglass insulation. Synthetic fibers.
40 CFR Part 61
Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances, Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vinyl
chloride.
Dated: May 10,1984.
Dick Whittington,
Regional Administrator.
PART 60—NEW SOURCE
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Part 60 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
Section 60.4 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(LL)(i) to read as follows:
(60.4 Addre**.
• * • • *
(b)***
(LLT"
(i) Oklahoma City and County:
Oklahoma City-County Health
Department, 1000 Northeast 10th Street,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152.
PART 61-NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
Section 61.04 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(LL)(i) to read as follows:
161.04 Address.
*****
(b)***
ILL)***
(i) Oklahoma City and County:
Oklahoma City-County Health
Department 1000 Northeast 10th Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152.
(Clean Air Act sees. 111 and 112,42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412)
|FH Doc. M-137V PIM A-7-M MS am]
IV-230
-------
FcdbraB
/ Vd. 40, Wo. J2fl / Houaroday, Jims 21. 1ES4 /-Suleo and
[A0-FRL 3311-41
a@swev: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
fl@YO@S3: Final rule; correction.
document corrects a
final rule for amendments to the
Asbestos Standard that was published
April 5, 1884 (49 FR 13657). This action is
necessary to correct typographical
errors.
P©H PUHTOSB OMP9BC3AVI]@KI <5@K1V&&K
Mr. Doug Bell, Standards Development
Branch. ESED (MD-13). U.S. EPA.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-5624.
Dated: June 11. 1884.
Joseph A. Caonom,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
The following corrections are mode in
40 CFR Part 61 appearing on page 13657
in the issue of April 5, 1984:
1. On page 13631, column two, the
definition of "asbestos waste from
control devices" is corrected by
replacing the word "in" with "by."
2. On page 13681, column two, the
term "Emergency renovation
operations" is corrected to "Emergency
renovation operation."
3. On page 13681, column three, in the
definition of "strip," insert "a" between
"part of and "facility."
4. On page 13681, column three, in the
third line of the definition of "structural
member," replace the word "loan" with
"load."
5. On page 13682, column one,
§ 61.143, the first two lines are corrected
to read "No person may ourface a
roadway with asbestos tailings
or " ' '"
6. On page 13662, column two,
8 81.145(b), the sixth line io corrected to
read, "components, only the " ° °"
7. On page iaesz, .column three,
g 61.146(c)(3), the first sentence is
corrected to read, "Estimate of the
approximate amount of friable asbestos
material present in the facility in termo
of linear feet of pipe, and surface area
on other facility components."
8. On page 13684, column one,
8 61.152, the first sentence, third line io
corrected to read, "88 61.147 and 81.149
shall:"
d On page 13884, column one,
g 81.152(b)(l)(iv), the word "hazardous"
should be capitalized.
10. On page 3SS34, column tores,
0 61.15<8(a), the third and fourth lines are
con-acted to read "61.147(d)(2).
01.148(b)(2). 01.iCB(b). 81.151(b),
M.lSl{c)(a)(ii). 8a.l52(b)(3)(ii), and
01.1S2(b)(2){ii) ohall:"
511. On page 13334, column three,
S 81.1£4(a)(l)(i). the third line is
corrected to read, "no more than JESS
fdlopaocal (4 inches water gage), as".
ira DOC. M-ieasa Hied o-swo: oxa omj •
CX1AK3 ®S33 CCOE3-0
100
C&rffefSCfl BGuEtootei) itonXatSTalO te?
tto205^!®MO AE? ^©ffiMtolnlto JMliKIAI
ifiato ©fl Kovoofci
ASdcsgv: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
G®TC®KS Notice of delegation.
NSPS and NESHAPS authority Io the
Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources (NDCNR). This
action io necessary to bring the NSPS
and NESHAPS program delegations up
to date with recent EPA promulgations
and amendments of these categories.
regulatory requirements affecting She
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
categories from EPA to State and local
governments.
©fl'STOS June ral Rogiota? in the near future.
Sincerely,
Judith S. Ayrao.
fltegional Administrator.
Ui.
•oMr. Richard Ssrdos,
Air Quality Officer. Division of
Environmental Protection, Nevada
Department of Conearvation and Natural
Reeourceo, Capitol Complex, Carson
City. NVEB7SO
ttsor Mr. Serdbs Ha radponca (to your
IV-231
-------
oa &5o. 125 / Wsdnecday. June 37,
/ Sules asad Regulations
inform you that tre QIC delegatij^j to TOUT
agency authority to iEapJesmeat rmri enforce
the New Source Pferforsaance Standard
(NSPS) category fca
-------
iteg / Vol. 30. Mo. 131 / Friday. July 8. 1S@4 / Rules and Regulations
1102
gratlQGion Stamtodo ffrar Klasair^mso Atir
AQEKXgv: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ASVtOKi: Final rule; information notice.
OMtSKiABV: EPA has delegated the
authority to implement and enforce that
portion of the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the demolition and
renovation of buildings containing
asbestos to the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE).
Except as specifically limited, all of the
authority and responsibilities of the
Administrator or the Regional
Administrator which are found in 40
CFR Part 81.22(d) are delegated to the
ADPCE. Any of such authority and
responsibilities may be redelegated by
the Department to its Director or staff.
BFPBg'vwa ©AYS September SO, 1882.
AJoXSQSGO: 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 8, SnterFirst Two Building, 26th
Floor, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas
75270; (214) 787-1594 or (FTS) 729-1594.
Donna M. Ascenzi, Air Branch, address
above.
On July
1. 1981, the State of Arkansas submitted
to the EPA, Region 8 office, a request for
delegation to the ADPCE the authority
to implement and enforce the NESHAP
(«0 CFR Part 81) program with the
exception of (l)(d), Demolition and
Renovation of Buildings Containing
Asbestos. This delegation became
effectivB on September 16, 1981.
On August 23, 1932, the State of
Arkansas submitted to EPA, Region 8, a
request for delegation of additional
authority to the ADPCE to implement
and enforce that portion of the NESHAP
program for the demolition and
renovation of buildings containing
aobeotoo. After a thorough review of the
request end information submitted, the
Regional Administrator determined that
the State's pertinent laws and the rules
and regulations of the APDCE were
found to provide an adequate and
effective procedure to implement and
enforce this NESHAP program.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of section 8 of
Executive Order 12291.
Effective immediately, all information
pursuant to 40 CFR 91.22(d) required of
sources locating in the State of
Arkansas should be submitted to the
State agency at the following address:
Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology, 8001 National
Drive, yttle Rock, Arkansas 72209.
This additional delegation is issued
under the authority of Sections 101 and
301 of the Clean Air Act, ao amended (42
U.S.C. 7401 and 7801).
Dated: June 25,1886.
Francos E. Phillips,
Acting Regional Administrator.
AgY!@K): Rule-related notice.
Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. Section 81.04(b) is amended by
revising paragraph (E] to read as
follows:
§ 31.4 Addreoo.
* O to AYE§: December 30, 1982.
June 30. 1983, and June 11, 1984.
AEWKHI88S8: Applications and reports
required under all NSPS and NESHAPS
IV-233
-------
lister /Vol. 49, No. 136 / Friday, July 13, 19M /Rules and Regulations
source categories for which EPA has
delegated authority to the Department to
implement and enforce should be
addressed to the Philadelphia
Department of Public Health, Air
Management Services, 500 S. Broad
Street, Philadelphia. PA 19146, rather
than to EPA Region III.
Copies of the revision and •
accompanying documents are available
for inspection during normal business
hours at the Philadelphia AMS address
given above or at the following offices:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region !!!; Curtis Building, Second
Floor, Sixth and Walnut Streets.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19108,
ATTN: Michael Giuranna (3AM11),
Telephone: (215) 597-2842.
Public Information Reference Unit,
Room 2922-EPA Library, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M Street. SW. (Waterside Mall).
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The Office of the Federal Register, 1100
L Street, NW., Room 8401,
Washington, D.C. 20408.
Michael Giuranna of EPA Region Ill's
Air Programs Branch, telephone (215)
597-9189.
BKIF©BK]AYII©M: On
November 3, 1982, April 25. 1983. May
18, 1983. November 7, 1983, and
November 23, 1983, the Department
requested EPA delegate to it the
authority to implement and enforce
additional NSPS and Neshaps source
categories. The Department requested
these delegations to supplement the
delegations for other source categories
which Philadelphia had already
received and for which EPA published
in the Federal Register at 42 FR 6886 on
February 4, 1977.
In response to the Department's
request of November 3, 1982, delegation
of authority was granted by the
following letter of December 30, 1982:
Stuart H. Shapiro, M.D. M.P.H..
Health Commissioner, City of Philadelphia.
Municipal Services Building. Room 540.
Philadelphia. PA 19107
RE: Delegation of Authority for New Source
Performance Standards pursuant to
section lll(c) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
pursuant to section 112(d) of the Clean
Air Act. as amended
Dear Or. Shapiro: This is in response to
your letter of November 3, 1982, requesting
delegation of enforcement authority for
additional New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP).
We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
regulations governing the control of air
pollution in the City of Philadelphia and have
determined that they provide an adequate
and effective procedure for implementation
and enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
regulations by the Philadelphia Department
of Public Health (the Department).
Therefore, I am pleased to delegate
authority to the Department, as follows:
The Department is delegated and shall
have enforcement authority for the following
source categories subject to the requirements
in 40 CFR 60.30:
(1) Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
.Constructed after 9/18/78
(2) Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Constructed after 5/18/78
(3) Ferroalloy Production Facilities
(4) Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
(5) Kraft Pulp Mills
(6) Glass Manufacturing Plants
(7) Grain Elevators
(8) Stationary Gas Turbines
(9) Lime Manufacturing Plants
(10) Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
(11) Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations
(12) Phosphate Rock Plants
(13) Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture
(14) Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing
Manufacture.
Enforcement authority is also delegated for
Vinyl Chloride Plants subject to the
requirement in 40 CFR 61 and 60.
This delegation is based upon the following
conditions:
1. Quarterly reports will be submitted to
EPA by Philadelphia and should include the
following:
A. For New Source Performance Standards:
(i) Sources determined to be applicable
during that quarter;
(ii) Applicable sources which started
operation during that quarter or which
started operation prior to that quarter which
have not been previously reported;
(iii) The compliance status of the above,
including the summary sheet from the
compliance test(s); and
(iv) Any legal actions which pertain to
these sources.
B. For National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:
(i) NESHAP sources granted a permit to
construct:
(ii) NESHAP sources inspected during that
quarter and their compliance status (except
under § 61.22 (d) and (e));
(iii) The requirements of (A) above.
2. Enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
regulations in the City of Philadelphia will be
the primary responsibility of the Department.
Where the Department determines that such
enforcement is not feasible and so notifies
EPA, or where the Department acts in a
manner inconsistent with the terms of this
delegation, EPA will exercise its concurrent
enforcement authority pursuant to section 113
of the Clean Air Act, as amended, with
respect to sources within the City of
Philadelphia subject to NSPS and NESHAP
regulations.
3. Acceptance of this delegation for the
regulations for the source categories listed
above does not commit the City of
Philadelphia to request or accept delegation
of other present or future standards and
requirements. A new request for delegation
will be required for any additional standards
or amendments to previously delegated
standards.
4. The Philadelphia Department of Public
Health will at no time grant a waiver of
compliance under the NESHAP regulations.
5. The Department will not grant a variance
from compliance with the applicable NSPS
regulations if such variance delays
compliance with the Federal Standards (Part
00). Should the Department grant such a
variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may
initiate enforcement action against the source
pursuant to section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
ThB granting of such variances by the
Department shall also constitute grounds for
revocation of delegation by EPA.
8. The Department and EPA will develop a
system of communication sufficient to
guarantee that each office is always fully
informed regarding the interpretation of
applicable regulations. In instances where
there is a conflict between a Department
interpretation and a Federal interpretation of
applicable regulations, the Federal
interpretation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Department.
7. If at any time there is a conflict between
a Department regulation and Federal
regulation 40 CFR Parts 60 or 61. the Federal
regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Department. If the
Department does not have the authority to
enforce the more stringent Federal regulation.
this portion of the delegation may be
revoked.
8. The Department will utilize the methods
specified in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61. in
performing source tests pursuant to these
regulations.
9. If the Director of the Air and Waste
Management Division determines that a
Department program for enforcing or
implementing the NSPS or NESHAP
regulations is inadequate, or is not being
effectively carried out, this delegation may be
revoked in whole or in part. Any such
revocation shall be effective as of the date
specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
Department. A Notice announcing this
delegation will be published in the Federal
Register in the near future. The Notice will
state, among other things, that effective
„ immediately, all reports required pursuant to
the above-enumerated Federal NSPS and
NESHAP regulations by sources located in
the City of Philadelphia should be submitted
to the Philadelphia Department of Public
Health. Municipal Services Building. Room
540, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 in
addition to EPA Region III. Any original
reports which have been or may be received
by EPA Region III. will be promptly
transmitted to the Department.
Since this delegation is effective
immediately, there is no requirement that the
Department notify EPA of its acceptance.
Unless EPA receives from the Department
written notice of objections within ten (10)
days of receipt of this letter, the City of
Philadelphia's Department of Public Health
will be deemed to have accepted all of the
terms of the delegation.
IV-234
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 138 / Friday. July 13. 1984 / Rules and IRegulations
Sincerely yours.
Stephen R. Wassersug,
Director, Air and Water Management
Division.
In response to the City of
Philadelphia's requests of April 25.1983
and May 18,1983. delegation of
authority was granted by the following
letter on June 30.1883:
Stuart W. Shapiro. M.D., M.P.H..
Health Commissioner, City of Philadelphia,
Municipal Services Building. Room 540.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Dear Dr. Shapiro: On September 30,1976.
and December 30,1982, we delegated to the
City of Philadelphia the authority for
implementation and enforcement of the
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) that had been promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency. On
October 27.1982, October 29.1982. and
November 1,1982 EPA promulgated NSPS for
Industrial Surface Coating: Large Appliances;
Metal Furniture Surface Coating; and Metal
Coil Surface Coating: respectively. In your
letters of April 25,1983 and May 18.1983. you
requested that EPA delegate to the City of
Philadelphia the authority for implementation
and enforcement of these Federal regulations.
We have reviewed the pertinent laws, rules
and regulations of the City of Philadelphia
and have determined that they continue to
provide an adequate and effective procedure
for implementing and enforcing the NSPS.
Therefore, we hereby delegate our authority
for the implementation and enforcement of
the NSPS regulations to the City of
Philadelphia follows:
Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the City of Philadelphia subject to
the Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources for Industrial Surface
Coating: Large Appliances (SS). Metal
Furniture Surface Coating (EE); and Metal
Coil Surface Coating (TT), promulgated in 40
CFR Part 60 as of the date of this letter.
This delegation is based upon the following
conditions:
1. Quarterly reports which may be
combined with other reporting information
are to be submitted to EPA Region III, Air
Enforcement section (AW12) by the City of
Philadelphia and should include the
following:
(i) Sources determined to be applicable
during that quarter:
(iij Applicable sources which started
operation during that quarter or which
started operation prior to that quarter which
have not been previously reported;
(iii) The compliance status of the above.
including the summary sheel from the
compliance test(s); and
(iv) Any legal actions which pertain to
these sources.
2. Enforcement of the NSPS regulations in
the City of Philadelphia will be the primary
responsibility of the Department of Public
Health (the Department). Where the
Department determines that such
enforcement is not feasible and so notifies
EPA. or where the Department acts in a
manner inconsistent with the terms of this
delegation, EPA will exercise its concurrent
enforcement authority pursuant to Section
113 of the Clean Air Act. as amended, with
respect to sources within the City of
Philadelphia subject to NSPS regulations.
3. Acceptance of this delegation for the
regulations for the source categories listed
above does not commit the City of
Philidelphia to request or accept delegation of
other present or future standards and
requirements. A new request for delegation
will be required for any additional standards
or amendments to previously delegated
standards.
4. The Department of Public Health will not
grant a variance from compliance with the
applicable NSPS regulations if such variance
delays compliance with the Federal
Standards. Should the Department grant such
a variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may
initiate enforcement action against the source
pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
The granting of such variance by the Agency
shall also constitute grounds for revocation of
delegation by EPA.
S. The Department and EPA will develop a
system of communication sufficient to
guarantee that each office is always fully
informed regarding the interpretation of
applicable regulations. In instances where
there is a conflict between a Department
interpretation and a Federal interpretation of
applicable regulations, the Federal
interpretation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Department.
6. If at any time there is a conflict between
a Department regulation and Federal
regulation 40 CFR Part 60, the Federal
regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Department. If the
Department does not have the authority to
enforce the more stringent Federal regulation.
this portion of the delegation may be
revoked.
7. The Department will utilize the methods
specified in 40 CFR Part 80 in performing
source tests pursuant to these regulations.
However, alternatives to continuous
monitoring procedures and requirements may
be acceptable upon concurrence by EPA as
stipulated in 40 CFR 60.13.
8. If the Director of the Air and Waste
Management Division determines that a
Department program for enforcing or
implementing the NSPS regulations is
inadequate, or is not being effectively curried
out, this delegation may be revoked in whole
or in part. Any such revocation shall be
effective as of the date specified in a Notice
of Revocation lo the Department.
9. Information shall be made available to
the public in accordance with 40 CFR 60.9.
EPA procedures permit delegation of all the
Administrator's authorities under 40 CFR Part
60 except for any which require rulemaking in
the Fedsrol Register to implement or where
Federal overview is the only way to ensure
national consistency in the application of
standards. Accordingly, the following
authorities are not delegable under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
1. Performance Tests, Paragraph 6O.8(b)l2l
and 60.8/bjl3/. Order to ensure uniformity
and technical quality in the teat methods
used for enforcement of national standards,
EPA will retain the authority to approve
alternative and equivalent methods which
effectively replace a reference method. This
restriction on delegation does not apply to
60.8(b)(l), which allows for approval of minor
modifications to reference methods on a
case-by-case basis.
Some subparts include general references
to the authority in 60.8(b) to approve
alternative or equivalent standards.
Examples include, but are not necessarily
limited to. paragraphs eo.ll(b). 80.274(d),
eO,3S8(a)(l). 80.388(8)12), and 60.393(c)(1)(i).
These references are reminders of the
provisions of paragraph 60.8 and are not
separate authorities which can be delegated.
2. Compliance with Standards and
Maintenance Requirements, BO.ll(e). The
granting of an alternative opacity standard
requires a site-specific opacity limit to be
adopted under 40 CFR Part 60.
3. Subpart S. BO.195(b). Development of
alternative compliance testing schedules for
primary aluminum plants is done by adopting
site-specific amendments to Subpart S.
4. Subpart Da. 60.45a. Commercial
demonstration permits allow an alternative
emission standard for a limited number of
utility steam generators.
5. Support GG. eo.332(a)(31 and
80.335(a)(ii). These sections pertain to
approval of customized factors (fuel nitrogen
content and ambient air conditions,
respectively) for use by gas turbine
manufacturers in assembly-line compliance
testing. Since each approval potentially could
affect the emissions from equipment installed
in a number of States, the decision-making
must be maintained at the Federal level to
ensure national consistency. Notice of
approval must be published in the Fedsral
6. Equivalency Determinations, section
Ill(h)t3) of the Clean Air Act. Approval of
alternatives to any design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard [e.g..
60.114(a) and 60.302(d)(3j] is accomplished
through the rulemaking process and is
adopted as a change to the individual
subpart.
7. Innovative Technology Waiver, section
lll(j) of the Clean Air Act. Innovative
technology waivers must be adopted as site-
specific amendments to the individual
subpart. Any applications or questions
pertaining to such waivers should be sent to
the Director, Air and Waste Management
Division, Region III. [States may be delegated
that authority to enforce waiver provisions if
the State has been delegated the authority to
enforce NSPS.)
8. Determination of Construction or
Modification (Applicability), Paragraph. 60,5.
In order to ensure uniformity in making
applicability determinations pertaining to
sources, EPA will retain this authority. The
delegated agency may exercise judgement
based on the Compendium of Applicability
determinations issued by EPA annually, and
updated quarterly. Any applicability
determinations not explicitly treated in the
EPA Compendium must be referred to EPA
for a determination. Also, any determinations
made by the State agency based on the
Compendium must be sent to EPA for
IV-235
-------
fair / Vol. 49. No. 138 / Friday, July 13, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
informational purposes in order for EPA to
maintain national consistency.
A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. The Notice will state, among other
things, that effective immediately, all reports
required pursuant to the above-enumerated
Federal NSPS regulations by sources located
in the City of Philadelphia should be
oubmitted to the Department of Public Health,
Municipal Services Building (Room 540),
Philadelphia. PA. 19107, in addition to EPA
Region III. Any original reports which have
been or may be received by EPA Region III.
will be promptly transmitted to the
Department.
Since this delegation is effective
immediately, there is no requirement that the
Department notify EPA of its acceptance.
Unless EPA receives from the Department
written notice of objections within ten (10)
days of receipt of this letter, the Department
of Public Health will be deemed to have
accepted all of the terms of the delegation.
Sincerely yours,
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
In response to the City of
Philadelphia's request of November 7,
and November 23,1983, delegation of
authority was granted by the following
letter of June 11.1984.
Stuart H. Shapiro,
Health Commissioner, City of Philadelphia.
Municipal Services Building. Room 540.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Dear Dr. Shapiro: This is in response to
your letters of November 7 and 23,1983,
requesting delegation of authority for the
Philadelphia Air Management Services to
enforce New Source Performance Standards
for Bulk Gasoline Terminals, Beverage Can
Surface Coating Industry, Pressure Sensitive
Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations
and Volatile Organic Compounds in
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industry.
We have reviewed 'the pertinent laws, rules
and regulations of the City of Philadelphia
and have determined that they continue to
provide an adequate and effective procedure
for implementing and enforcing the NSPS.
Therefore, we hereby delegate the authority
for the implementation and enforcement of
the NSPS regulation to the City of
Philadelphia as follows:
Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the City of Philadelphia subject to
the Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources for Bulk Gasoline
Terminals (XX), Beverage Can Surface
Coating Industry (WW), Pressure Sensitive
Tape and Label Surface Coating Operations
(RR) and Volatile Organic Compounds in
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Industry (W).
This delegation is based upon the
conditions given in our June 30,1983 letter to
you which delegated 7 additional NSPS
source categories to the City of Philadelphia.
If you need any further information feel
free to contact Mike Giuranna at (215) 597-
Sincerely,
W. Ray Cunningham,
Air Management Division.
For all sources located or to be
located in the City of Philadelphia, -
effective immediately, all applications,
reports, and other correspondence
required under the NSPS requirements
in 40 CFR Part 60 for Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units Constructed
after September 18,1978 (Da), Storage
Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
Constructed after May 18,1978 (Ka),
Ferroalloy Production Facilities (Z),
Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces (AA),
Kraft Pulp Mills (BB), Glass
Manufacturing Plants (CC), Grain
Elevators (DD), Metal Furniture Surface
Coating (EE), Stationary Gas Turbines
(GG), Lime Manufacturing Plants (HH).
Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing Plants
(KK), Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Surface Coating Operations (MM),
Phosphate Rock Plants (NN),
Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture (PP),
Industrial Surface Coating: Large
Appliances (SS), Metal Coil Surface
Coating (TT), Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacture (UU), Bulk
Gasoline Terminals (Part XX), Beverage
Can Surface Coating Industry (Part
WW), Volatile Organic Compounds in
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry (Part VV), and
Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
Surface Coating Operations (Part RR),
and under the NESHAPS requirements
in 40 CFR Part 61 for Vinyl Chloride
Plants (F) should be sent to the City of
Philadelphia, Department of Public
Health (address above) rather than to
the EPA Region III Office in
Philadelphia.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Authority: Sees, lll(c) and 112(d), Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411(c)).
Dated: June 26,1984.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Deputy Regional Administrator.
List o? Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
Industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants, Glass and glass products, Grains,
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry, Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid plants,
Volatile organic compounds, Waste
treatment and disposal. Zinc.
40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
|FR Doc. B3-1E318 Filed 7-13-M: 8:
-------
Ke^oder / Vol. 3S. No. 137 / Monday, JuJy 18. 1984 / Rules ara3 Kegulations
29, 1882 and June 9, 1983; Minnesota—
September 1, 1982 and March 29, 1834:
Ohio — August 9, 1882: and Wisconsin —
September 27, 1983.
OSSS5JSSSES: The related material in
support of these delegations may be
examined during normal business hours
at the following respective locations:
All Delegations —
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Air and Radiation Branch, 230 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60C04
Specific State Delegations —
Indiana — Indiana Air Pollution Control
Board, 1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46208
Michigan — Air Quality Division,
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. State Secondary
Government Complex, General Office
Building, 7150 Harris Drive, Lansing.
Michigan 48917
Ohio — Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. 361 East Broad Street.
Columbus. Ohio 43216
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
S935 West County Road, B-2,
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, 101 South Webster Street
G.E.F.2, Madison, Wisconsin 53707
3 FUOTMEB D
Ronald J. Van Mersbergen of the USEPA
Region V, Air and Radiation Branch
(5ARB-26), 230 South Dearborn Street.
Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone (312)
886-8056.
On February 19,1982, the Technical
Secretary of the Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board requested delegation of
authority to implement and enforce the
NSPS source category of Automobiles
and Light-Duty Truck Surface Coating
Operations (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart
MM). On March 18,1982 this source
category was added to the delegated
program by the letter which follows.
Furthermore, on February 9,1983 (the
following delegation document
incorrectly states February 10,1983) the
State requested an automatic delegation
for any new NSPS and NESHAPS and
any revisions to previously promulgated
standards. For Indiana, an automatic
delegation metmc that the State will
assume any engineering and
administrative' responsibilities with
respect to a new standard or an
amendment upon USEPA promulgation.
The State will assume full enforcement
authority upon notification that the
State hao adopted like mewly
The automatic delegation given in a June
8, SS63 letter to Mr. Harry D. Williams
supercedes all previous delegations for
NSPS and NESHAPS. The June 8,1983
letter is published below following the
March 18.1082 letter.
Notices of earlier delegations and
amendments were published in the
Federal Register on September 30,1976
(41 FR 43237), September 12,1977 (42 FR
45705), and December 22,1981 (46 FR
820S5).
March IB. 1&82.
Mr. Harry D. Williams,
Technical Secretary. Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board. 1330 W. Michigan Street.
Indianapolis, Indiana 48208
Dear Mr. Williams: Thank you for your
February 19,1632 letter requesting expansion
of your exioting Delegation of Authority to
include an additional New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS).
We have reviewed your request and have
found the State procedures to be acceptable.
Therefore, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) is hereby delegating to the
State of Indiana authority to implement and
enforce the NSPS for aulomative painting
found in 40 CFR Part 60 subpart MM.
The terms and conditions applicable to this
delegation are in the previous letter of
delegation of April 21,1976 as amended by
the letters of June 6,1977 and February 8,
1881.
A notice of this delegated authority will be
published in the Fedbral Register.
This delegation is effective upon the date
of this letter unless the U.S. EPA receives
written notice from the Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board of objections within 10 days of
receipt of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus.
Regional Administrator.
5 AMD
June 8, leBS.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Harry D. Williams,
Technical Secretary. Indiana Air Pollution
Contcol Board, 1330 West Michigan
Street. Indianapolis, Indiana 48208
Dear Mr. Williams: In response to your
February 10.1983, letter, we are amending the
delegation of authority agreement for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants (NKbHAFSJ. Since the original
delegation on April 21,1976, a number of
amendments have been made, and it is the
purpose of this letter to replace the original
emd the Amendments.
We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
regulationo of the State of Indiana and the
State's 7-year hiotory of implementing the
programs, and w« have determined that the
State of Indiana has the resources and the
ability to implement and enforce the NSPS
end NESHAPS Programs for the regulations
appropriately promulgated by the State, and
to implement the additional responsibilities
csqBsoted on Sise February 10.3633, latter.
Therefore, oubject to 4fes opociBc eonditioao
and exceptions eet forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
hereby grants delegation of authority to the
State of Indiana to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAPS as follows:
A. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Indiana subject to the
NSPS promulgated in 00 CFR Part 60. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
B. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Indiana subject to the
WZSHAPS promulgated in «0 CFR Part 61.
This delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards.
This delegation is based upon the following
conditions and exceptions:
1. This delegation letter replaces the
previous delegation letter of April 21.1976.
and the amendments dated June 6,1977,
February 0.1981, and March 18.1982.
2. For new NSPS and NESHAPS pollutants
and ooarce categories end for amendments to
existing NSPS and NESHAPS which the State
of Indiana has not promulgated regulations or
amendments, the State will perform the
administrative and engineering
responsibilities with respect to plan review.
applicability determinations, notifications
and record keeping, oad performance testing
in accordance with iterao 5, 9 and 13 of the
conditions and exceptions. The
administrative and engineering
responsibilities shall continue until such time
as the State promulgates appropriate
regulations or amendments at which time the
State is given full implementation and
enforcement responsibility as is cited in item
3 of the conditions and exceptions.
3. Implementation and enforcement of the
NSPS and NESHAPS in the State of Indiana
will be the primary responsibility of the State
of Indiana for those standards for which the
State has promulgated appropriate
regulations and subsequently notified the
Regional Administrator.
4. If, after appropriate discussions with the
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (1APCB).
the Regional Administrator determines that a
State procedure io inadequate for
implementing or enforcing any NSPS and
NESHAPS in accordance with item 2 or 3 of
the conditiono and exceptions, or is not being
effectively carried out, this delegation may bs
revoked in whole or in part. Any such
revocation chall be effective as of the dates
specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
Governor of the State of Indiana or his
deoignee for NSPS or NESHAPS matters.
5. If the State of Indiana determines that B
violation of o NSPS or NESHAPS exists, the
IAPCB shall immediately notify U.S. EPA,
Region V. of the nature of the violation
together Krith o brief description of State's
efforts or strategy to oecure compliance. With
respect to thoee NSPS and NESHAPS for
which the State has only administrative and
engineering responsibilities and during the
time ttfhich the State hao only administrative
and engineering responsibility, any violations
IV-237
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 137 / Monday, July 16, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
will be immediately referred to U.S. EPA,
Region V. The U.S. EPA may exercise its
concurrent enforcement authority pursuant to
Section 113 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
with regard to any violations of an NSPS or
NESHAPS regulation.
6. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60. as amended, do not have provisions
for granting variances. Hence, this delegation
dues not convey to the State of Indiana
authority to grant variances from NSPS
regulations.
7. This delegation includes the authority on
a case-by-case basis to waive a NSPS
performance test in accordance to 40 CFR
60.8(b)(4), approve use of reference methods
with minor modifications as specified in 40
CFR eo.8(bj(ij. and waive NESHAPS
emission tests in accordance with 40 CFR
61.13. The IAPCB must report any of these
actions to the Regional Administrator in
accordance with the reporting procedures sol
forth in condition 10.
8. This delegation does not include the
Administrator's authority to waive certain
existing requirements or establish alternative
requirements under Section 111 or 112 of the
Act. or any regulations promulgated
thereunder. This would include the following:
Alternative design, equipment, work practice
or operations! standards under Section
lll(h)(3), innovative technology waivers
under Section lll(j): alternative opacity
• standards under 40 CFR 60.11(e); approval of
equivalent and alternate test methods under
40 CFR 60.8{b) (2) and (3) authority to issue
commercial demonstration permits under 40
CKR 60.45a (subpart Da); approval of
alternative testing times for primary
reduction plants under 40 CFR 60.195(d): and
certain portions of the Stationary Gas
Turbine Standards dealing with nitrogen fuel
allowance in 40 CFR 60.332(a) and ambient
condition correction factors in 40 CFR
60.335(a)(ii).
9. Prior U.S. EPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Section 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air Act and of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
to the extent that application,
implementation, administration, or
enforcement of these sections have not been
covered by determinations or guidance sent
to the IAPCB.
10. The IAPCB and U.S. EPA Region V will
develop a system of communication for the
purpose of insuring that each office is
informed on (a) the current compliance status
of subject sources in the State of Indiana; (b)
the interpretation of applicable regulations;
(c) the description of sources and source
inventory data; and (d) compliance test
waivers and other approvals under condition
7. The reporting provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and
61.04 requiring sources to make submissions
to the U.S. EPA are met by sending such
submissions to the IAPCB. The State will
make available this information to the U.S.
EPA on a case-by-case basis.
11. At no time shall the State of Indiana
enforce a State regulation less stringent than
the Federal requirements for NSPS or
NESHAPS (40 CFR Part 60 or 61 as amended).
12. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Technical
Secretary of the IAPCB may subdelegate this
authority to implement and enforce these
NSPS and NESHAPS to other air pollution
control agencies in the State when the
agencies have demonstrated that they have
equivalent or more stringent programs in
force.
13. The Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
will utilize the methods specified in 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61 in performing source test
pursuant to the regulations.
14. At least once a year and more
frequently when appropriate, the State will
amend its NSPS and NESHAPS to correspond
with Federal Amendments and newly
promulgated regulations for NSPS and
NESHAPS pollutant and source categories.
A notice announcing this delegation will be
published ir. the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter. Unless the U.S. EPA
receives written notice from the IAPCB of
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter, it will be deemed that the State has
accepted all the conditions and exceptions of
this delegation.
Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
B. Michigan
On January 4,1982, the Director of the
Michigan Air Quality Division requested
delegation of authority for the NSPS and
NESHAPS which were promulgated
since the previous request of February 3,
1975, as well as any revisions or
amendments to the previously delegated
standards. On March 29,1982, a revised
delegation was made by the following
letter. Furthermore on February 2.1983,
the State requested an automatic
delegation for NSPS and NESHAPS.
This request was granted on June 9,1963
and is published below following the
March 29,1982 letter.
Notice of the initial delegation was
published in the Federal Register on
January 13,1976 (41 FR 1942).
March 29,1982.
Robert P. Miller,
Chief, Air Quality Division, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, P.O.
Box 30028, Lansing, Michigan 48909
Dear Mr. Miller: This is in response to your
letter of January 4,1982, requesting
delegation of authority for implementation
and enforcement of the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) to the State of
Michigan.
We have reviewed the pertinent
procedures and supporting regulations of the
State of Michigan and have determined that
the State has an adequate program for the
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS. Therefore, in accordance
with Clean Air Act Sections lll(c) and 112(d)
and subject to the specific terms and
conditions set forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
hereby delegates authority to the State of
Michigan to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAPS as follows:
A. Authority for all sources located in the
State of Michigan subject to the NSPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 «s of January
4, 1982. This delegation includes the source
categories in Subpart D. Da, E. F, C, H, I, J, K.
Ka, U M, N, O, P. Q, R, S. T, U. V, W. X, Y, Z,
AA. BB, CC. DD, CG, HH, MM. and PP.
B. Authority for all sources located in the
State of Michigan subject to the NESHAPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61 as of January
4, 1982. This delegation includes the pollutant
categories of asbestos, beryllium, mercury,
and vinyl chloride in Subparts B, C, D. E,
and F.
This delegation of authority for NSPS and
NESHAPS supersedes the previous statewide
delegations of November 5. 1975. and is
subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Granting this delegation does not
obligate the USEPA to delegate authority for
implementation and enforcement of
additional NSPS or NESHAPS if other
standards are promulgated. .In addition,
acceptance of this delegation of presently
promulgated NSPS and NESHAPS does not
commit the State of Michigan to request or
accept delegation of future standards and
requirements. A new request for delegation
and another USEPA review will be required
before any standards or requirements not
included in the State's request of January 4.
1982, will be delegated.
2. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Executive
Secretary of the Michigan Air Pollution
Control Commission may subdelegate this
authority to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAPS to other air pollution
authorities in the State when such authorities
have demonstrated that they have equivalent
or more stringent programs in force.
3. This delegation does not include the
Administrator's responsibility to establish
opacity standards as set forth in 40 CFR
4. The State of Michigan will at no time
grant a waiver of compliance with NESHAPS.
5. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60, as amended, do not have provisions
for granting waivers by class of testing
requirements or variances, hence this
delegation does not convey to the State of
Michigan authority to grant waivers by class
of testing requirements or variances from
NSPS regulations.
6. The State of Michigan will utilize the
methods specified in appendices and
Subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source tests pursuant to the
regulations.
7. Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in
the State of Michigan will be the primary
responsibility of the State of Michigan. If,
after appropriate discussion with the Air
Quality Division, the Regional Administrator
determines that a State procedure for
implementing and enforcing the NSPS or
NESHAPS is not in compliance with Federal
regulations (40 CFR Parts 60 and 61). or is not
being effectively carried out, this delegation
will be revoked in whole or in part. Any such
revocation shall be effective as of the date
specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
Chief of the Air Quality Division.
IV-238
-------
Segiote / VoO. 40, No. 137 / Monday, July 16, 1685 / Suleo and Regulations
8. The Air Quality Division and the USEPA
Region V will develop o system of
communication for the purpose of insuring
that each office is informed on (a) the current
compliance status of subject (sources in the
State of Michigan: (b) the interpretation of
applicable regulations: and (c) the description
of sources end oource inventory data. The
reporting provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and 81 .CO
requiring industry to make submission to the
USEPA are met by cending such submissions
to the State. The State will make available
this information to the USEPA on a case-by-
case basis.
6. Prior USEPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Sections 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air Act or «0 CFR to the extent that
application, implementation, administration.
or enforcement of these sections have not
been covered by determinations or guidance
sent to the Air Quality Division. This
concurrence request includes the innovative
technology waivers authorized in Section
lll(j) of ther Clean Air Act.
10. If the State of Michigan determines that
a violation of a delegated NSPS or NESHAPS
exists, the Air Quality Division shall
immediately notify EPA, Region V. of the
nature of the violation together with a brief
description of the State's efforts or strategy to
secure compliance.
A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Fetbrnl Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective ao
of the date of this letter and, unless the
USEPA receives written notice from the Air
Quality Division of objections within 10 days
of the receipt of this letter, it will be decided
that the State has accepted all the terms and
conditions of this delegation.
Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
June 9.1983.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Robert P. Miller.
Chief. Air Quality Division. Department of
Natural Resources, P.O. Box 30028.
Lansing, Michigan 43809
Dear Mr. Miller: This letter is in response
to your February 2,1983, request to amend
the March 29.1982, delegation of authority by
including additional authorities to implement
the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).
Additionally, this letter amends the March 29,
1982. NSPS and NESHAPS delegation to the
State by providing for Wayne County's
implementation and enforcement of the N'SPS
and NESHAPS.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
hereby amends the March 29,1982,
delegation to Michigan as follows.
1. Paragraph "A" is amended to read as
follows:
A. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Michigan subject to the
NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
2. {Paragraph "B" io amended to read as
follows:
B. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Michigan subject to the
NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Pert 81.
Thb delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
caurce categorise and ell revioions and
amendments to existing and future standards.
3. Paragraph "S" of the terms and
conditions is amended to read 09 follows:
1. Of the State of Michigan determines that
for some reason, including budget reductions.
that it is unable to accept any new NSPS or
NESHAPS. the Chief of the Air Quality
Division trill notify the Regional
Administrator. Upon such notification by the
State, the primary enforcement responsibility
for such nee? standards will return to the U.S.
EPA.
0. The following language is added to the
first sentence of item "7" of the terms and
conditions: "except in Wayne County.
Michigan during such time that a NSPS or
NESHAPS is delegated to the County."
We trust that tfaeae amendments will
provide for a more efficient program in
Michigan.
Sincerely yours,
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
On August 13.1982 the Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency requested delegation of
authority for the NSPS which had been
promulgated since the State's previous
request of June 27,1977 and requested
delegation of authority for revisions and
amendments which occurred since June
27.1977 to its previously delegated
source categories of the NSPS and
NESHAPS. On September 1,1982 a
revised delegation was made by the
following letter. Furthermore, on January
17,1S84 the State requested automatic
delegation of the NSPS and NESHAPS.
This request was granted on March 28,
1984 and is published below following
the September 1,1982 letter.
Notice of the initial delegation was
published in the Federal Rsgiste on
January 3.1978 (43 FR 33).
September 1,1982.
Mr. Louis ]. Breimhurst.
Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. 1935 W. County Road
32, Ruseviiie. Minnesota 55110-2785
Dear Mr. Breimhurst: On August 13.1982
you requested delegation of authority to
implement and enforce the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) which have been
promulgated since your previous request of
June 27,1977. The request included all
revisions and amendments to the previously
delegated NSPS and NESHAPS.
We have reviewed the pertinent
procedures and supporting regulations of the
State of Minnesota and have determined that
the State has an adequate program for the
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS. Therefore, in accordance
CTith Clean Air Act Sections lll(c) and 112(d)
and subject to the specific terms and
conditions set forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
hereby delegates authority to the State of
Minnesota to implement and enforce the
NSPS and NESHAPS as follows:
A. Authority for all sources located in the
State of Minnesota subject to the NSPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60, as amended.
as of August 13, 1682. This delegation
includes the source categories in Subpart D.
Da. E F. G. H. 1. }, K. Ka. L. M. N. O, P. Q. R,
S, T. U, V. W. X V. Z. AA. BB, CC. DD. GG.
HH. KK, MM, NN. PP. and UU.
B. Authority for all sources located in the
State of Minnesota subject to the NESHAPS
promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61, as amended.
ao of August 13. 1882. This delegation
includes the pollutant categories of asbestos.
beryllium, mercury, and vinyl chloride in
Subparts B. C, D, E. and F.
C Thio delegation of authority for NSPS
and NESHAPS supersedes the previous
statewide delegations of September 20, 1977,
and is subject to Ste following terms and
conditions:
a. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MFCA) sisy subdelegate this
authority to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAP3 to other air pollution
authorities in the State when such authorities
have demonstrated that they have equivalent
or more stringent programs in force.
2. This delegation doeo not include the
Administrator's responsibility to establish
opacity standards as set forth in 40 CFR
3. The State of Minnesota will at no time
grant a waiver of compliance with NESHAPS.
4. The Federal NSPS regulations in CO CFR
Part 60. as amended, do not have provisions
for granting waivers by class of testing
requirements or variances, hence this
delegation does not convey to the State of
Minnesota authority to grant waivers by
class of testing requirements or variances
from NSPS regulations.
5. The State of Minnesota will utilize the
methods specified in appendices and
Subparts of 00 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source tests pursuant to the
regulations.
9. Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in
the State of Minnesota will be the primary
responsibility of the State of Minnesota. If.
after spprupriaie discussion with the MFCA.
the Regional Administrator determines that a
State procedure for implementing and
enforcing the NSPS or NESHAPS is not in
compliance with Federal regulations (40 CFR
Parts 90 and 61). or is not being effectively
carried out, this delegation will be revoked in
whole or in part. Any such revocation shall
be effective as of the date specified in a
Notice of Revocation to the Executive
Director of the MPCA.
7. The Division of Air Quality and the
USEPA Region V will develop a system of
communication for the purpose of insuring
that each office is informed on (a) the current
IV-239
-------
!«w / Vol. 49, No. 137 / Monday, July 16, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
compliance status of subject sources in the
Stale of Minnesota: (b) the interpretation of
applicable regulations; and (c) the description
of sources and source inventory datd. The
reporting provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04
requiring industry to make submissions to the
USEPA are met by sending such submissions
to the MPCA. The MPCA will make available
this information to the USEPA on a case-by-
case basis.
B. Prior USEPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Section 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air Act or 40 CFR to the extent that
application, implementation, administration.
or enforcement of these sections have not
been covered by determinations or guidance
seni to the Division of Air Quality. This
concurrence request includes the innovative
technology waivers authorized in Section
lll(j) of the Clean Air Act.
9. If the State of Minnesota determines that
a violation of a delegated NSPS or NESHAPS
exists, the Division of Air Quality shall
immediately notify USEPA, Region V, of the
nature of the violation together with a brief
description of the State's efforts or strategy to
secure compliance.
A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter and, unless the
USEPA receives written notice from the
MPCA of objections within 10 days of the
receipt of this letter, it will be deemed that
the State has accepted all the terms and
conditions of this delegation.
Sincerely yours.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
March 29,1984.
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN
RECEIPT REQUESTED
Sandra S. Gardebring,
Executive Director, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, 1935 W. County Rood
B-2, Roseville. Minnesota 55113-2785
Dear Ms. Gardebring: On February 21,
1984, you requested an expansion of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA)
delegation of authority to Minnesota to
implement and enforce the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAPS). The request
included all future promulgated NSPS and
NESHAPS standards and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future NSPS and
NESHAPS.
We have reviewed the pertinent
procedures and supporting regulations of the
State of Minnesota and have determined that
the State has an adequate program for the
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS. Therefore, in accordance
with Clean Air Act Sections lll(c) and 112(d)
and subject to the specific terms and
conditions set forth below, the USEPA hereby
delegates authority to the State of Minnesota
to implement and enforce the NSPS and
NESHAPS as follows:
A. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Minnesota subject to
the NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. This
delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards.
The delegation of authority to enforce future
standards, revisions, and amendments will be
effective GO of the date that such standards
become applicable pursuant to Stale law.
B. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Minnesota subject to
the NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61.
This delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards.
The delegation of authority to enforce future
standards, revisions, and amendments will be
effective as of the date that such standards
become applicable pursuant to Siaie iaw.
C. This delegation of authority for NSPS
and NESHAPS supersedes the previous
statewide delegations of September 20. 1977;
September 1. 1982; and June 17. 1983: and is
subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Executive
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) may subdelegate this
authority to implement and enforce the NSPS
and NESHAPS to other air pollution
authorities in the State when such authorities
have demonstrated that they have equivalent
or more stringent programs in force.
2. This delegation does not include the
Administrator's responsibility to establish
opacity standards as set forth in 40 CFR
3. The State of Minnesota will at no time
grant a waiver of compliance with NESHAPS.
The State of Minnesota may grant variances
from State standards which are more
stringent than the NSPS so long as the
variances do not prevent compliance with the
NSPS.
4. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60, as amended, do not have provisions
for granting waivers by class of testing
requirements or variances, hence this
delegation does not convey to the State of
Minnesota authority to grant waivers by
class of testing requirements or variances
from NSPS regulations. Minnesota may waive
a performance test or specify the use of a
reference method with minor changes in
methodology under 40 CFR 60.8(b) on a case
by case basis, however the State must inform
USEPA of such actions.
5. The State of Minnesota will utilize the
methods specified in appendices and
Subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source tests pursuant to the
regulations. The Administrator retuins the
exclusive authority to approve (a) the use of
equivalent and alternative test methods
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.8(b) (2) and (3), and (b)
approve the use of alternative testing times
for primary aluminum reduction plants
pursuant to 40 CFR 60.195(d).
8. Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in
the State of Minnesota will be the primary
responsibility of the State of Minnesota. If,
after appropriate discussion with the MPCA,
the Regional Administrator determines that a
State procedure for implementing and
enforcing the NSPS or NESHAPS is not in
compliance with Federal regulations (40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61), or is not being effectively
carried out. this delegation will be revoked in
whole or in part. Any such revocation shnll
be effective as of the date specified in a
Notice of Revocation to the Executive
Director of the MPCA.
7. The Division of Air Quality and the
USEPA Region V will develop a system of
communication for the purpose of insuring
that each office is informed on (a) the current
compliance status of subject sources in the
State of Minnesota; (b) the interpretation of
applicable regulations; and (c) the description
of sources and source inventory data. The
reporting provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04
requiring industry- to make submissions to the
USEPA are met by sending such submissions
to the MPCA. The MPCA will make available
this information to the USEPA on a case-hy-
case basis.
MPCA's annual report, submitted to
USEPA pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51, will
include information relating to the status of
sources subject to 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
Such information will include the name and
address of the most recent stack test,
compliance status of facility, enforcement
actions initiated, surveillance action
undertaken for each facility and results of
reports relating to emissions data.
8. Prior USEPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Section 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air Act or 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 to
the extent that implementation,
administration, or enforcement of these
sections have not been covered by
determinations or guidance sent to the
Division of Air Quality. All applicability
determinations which have not been
specifically treated in the Compendium of
Applicability Determinations issued by
USEPA annually are reserved for USEPA.
Any applicability determination made by
MPCA based on a prior USEPA
determination must be submitted to USEPA.
9. If the State of Minnesota determines that
a violation of a delegated NSPS or NESHAPS
exists, the Division of Air Quality shall
within 30-days notify USEPA, Region V, of
the nature of the violation together with a
brief description of the State's efforts or
strategy to secure compliance. Furthermore, if
the State determines that it is unable to
enforce an NSPS or NESHAPS standard, the
State shall immediately notify USEPA.
Region V. This delegation in no way limits
the Administrator's concurrent enforcement
authority as provided in Sections lll(c)(2)
and 112(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
10. In addition to any future provision
which may be cited in forthcoming NSPS or
NESHAPS which cannot be delegated, the
Administrator retains authority for approval
of equivalency for design, equipment, or work
practice or operational standard pursuant to
Section lll(h) or Section 112(e) of the Clean
Air Act and for the granting of an innovative
technology waiver pursuant to Section 111(j)
of the Clean Air Act.
11. If the State of Minnesota determines
that for any reason, including budget
reductions, it is unable to administer any new
NSPS or NESHAPS, the Executive Director of
the MPCA will notify the Regional
Administrator. Upon ouch notification by the
IV-240
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 137 / Monday, July 16. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
State, the primary enforcement responsibility
for such new standards will return to the
USEPA.
A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter and, unless the
USEPA receives written notice from the
MPCA of objections within 10 days of the
receipt of this letter it will be deemed that the
State has'accepted all the terms and
conditions of this delegation.
We trust that this amended delegation will
provide for a more efficient NSPS and
NESHAPS enforcement program in
Minnesota.
Sincerely yours.
Valdas V. Adamkus.
Regional Administrator.
D. Ohio
On June 8,1982, the Director of the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
requested authority for the NSPS
promulgated since his previous request
of May 12,1980, as well as authority for
revisions and amendments to the
previously delegated NSPS standards.
The request letter, asked for automatic
delegation of all future standards and
revisions. The delegation was made on
August 9.1982 by means of the letter
published below. Notices of previous
delegations and amendments were
published in the Federal Register on
December 21,1976 (41 FR 55575) and
December 22,1981 (46 FR 62085).
Furthermore, on June 2,1982, the
Director of Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency made an initial
request for the authority to implement
and enforce the NESHAPS. The State
also requested automatic delegation for
ell future standards and revisions. The
subsequent NESHAPS delegation was
combined with the NSPS delegation in
the previously cited August 9,1982
letter.
On September 11,1979, certain
NESHAPS has been delegated to the
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency •
(RAPCA) located in Dayton, Ohio. The
delegation agreement with RAPCA was
published in the (44 FR 65477) on
November 13.1979. The RAPCA
delegation agreement contained a
condition which provides for the
termination of the delegation when the
NESHAPS program was transferred to
the State of Ohio. Such a termination
letter was sent to RAPCA on September
30,1982 and follows in this section.
Because the August 9,1982 delegation
was the initial delegation to Ohio for
NESHAPS. a rule change is published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register
which adds to 40 CFR Part 81.04(b) the
addresses to which reports and notices
required by the NESHAPS must be cent
for Ohio sources.
August 9,1982.
Wayne S. Nichols,
Director, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, 361E. Brood Street, Columbus,
Ohio 43216
Dear Mr. Nichols: The purpose of this letter
is to delegate to the State of Ohio the
enforcement authority for additional source
categories of the new source performance
standards (NSPS) and to delegate for the first
time to Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) the authority for the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). The authority for the
NSPS program had been previously delegated
to Ohio based upon requests dated June 3.
1976. October 3.1979. and May 12.1880. and
is hereby being amended based on the most
recent request of June 8.1882. The authority
for the NESHAPS program was requested on
June 2,1982 and is hereby being delegated for
the first time.
We have reviewed the pertinent
procedures and supporting regulations of the
State of Ohio and have determined that the
State has an adequate program for the
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS
and NESHAPS. Therefore, in accordance
with the Clean Air Act Sections lll(c) and
112(d) and subject to the specific terms and
conditions set forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
hereby delegates authority to the State of
Ohio to implement and enforce the NSPS and
NESHAPS as follows:
A. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Ohio subject to the
NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
B. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Ohio subject to the
NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61.
This delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
source categories and all revisions and
'amendments to existing and future standards.
C. This delegation of authority supersedes
all other NSPS and NESHAPS delegations
made to agencies in Ohio, and is subject to
the following terms and conditions:
1. Upon approval of the Regional
Administrator of Region V, the Director of
OEPA may subdelegate this authority to
implement and enforce the NSPS and
NESHAPS to other air pollution authorities in
the State when such authorities have
demonstrated that they have an equivalent or
more stringent program in force.
2. This delegaton does not include the
Administrator's responsibility to establish
opacity standards as set forth in 40 CFR
eo.ll(e) (4).
3. The State of Ohio will at no time grant a
waiver of compliance with NESHAPS.
«. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60, as amended, do not have provisions
for granting waivers by class of testing
requirements or variances, hence this
delegation does not convey to the State of
Ohio authority to grant waivers by class of
teoting requirements or variances from NSPS
regulations.
5. The State of Ohio will utilize the
methods specified in appendices and
Subparts of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source tests required by the
regulations.
6. Enforcement of NSPS and NESHAPS in
the State of Ohio will be the primary'
responsibility of the State of Ohio. If. after
appropriate discussion with the OEPA. the
Regional Administrator determines that a
State procedure for implementing and
enforcing the NSPS or NESHAPS is not in
compliance with Federal regulations (40 CFR
Part 60 and 61). or is not being effectively
carried out, this delegation will be revoked in
whole or in part after a 30 day notification.
Any such revocation shall be effective as of
the date specified in a Notice of Revocation
to the Director of OEPA.
7. The OEPA and USEPA Region V will
develop a system of communication for the
purpose of insuring that each office is
informed on (a) the current compliance status
of subject sources in the State of Ohio: (b) the
interpretation of applicable regulations: and
(c) the description of sources and source
inventory data. The reporting provisions in 40
CFR 60.4 and 61.04 requiring industry to make
submission to the USEPA are met by sending
such submissions to the State. The State will
make available this information to the
USEPA on a case-by-case basis.
8. Prior USEPA concurrence is to be
obtained on any matter involving the
interpretation of Section 111 or 112 of the
Clean Air Act or 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 to
the extent that application, implementation.
administration, or enforcement of these
sections have not been covered by
determinations or guidance sent to the OEPA.
This concurrence request includes the
innovative technology waivers authorized in
Section lll(j) of the Clean Air Act.
6. If the State of Ohio determines that a
violation of a delegated NSPS or NESHAPS
exists, OEPA shall immediately notify EPA.
Region V, of the nature of the violation
together with a brief description of the State's
efforts or strategy to secure compliance.
A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter and, unless the
USEPA receives written notice from the
OEPA of objections within 10 days of the
receipt of this letter, it will be deemed that
the State has accepted all the terms and
conditions of this delegation.
Sincerely yours,
Vaidas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
September 30,1982.
William Burkhart,
Supervisor, Regional Air Pollution Control
Agency. Montgomery County Combined
General Health District. 451 West Third
Street. Dayton. Ohio 45402
Dear Mr. Burkhart: On September 11,1979,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
delegated to the Regional Air Pollution
Control Agency (RAPCA) authority to
implement and enforce certain national
emicoion standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAPS) within the din-county
IV-241
-------
/ Vol. 49, No. 137 / Monday, July 16. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
area of RAPCA. According lo the agreement.
the delegation was scheduled for termination
when the State of Ohio received delegated
authority for NESHAPS.
Since the State of Ohio now has received a
full delegation of the NESHAPS program on
August 9.188?, this letter is to be considered
a termination notice of the September 11,
1979 delegation.
Although the agreement must be
terminated, we will continue to depend upon
your Agency in its new cooperative role with
the State of Ohio as the NESHAPS program is
administered Statewide. When needed, we
will also depend upon your cooperation in
supplying source information which was
accumulated during the period the authority
was transferred to RAPCA.
I appreciate your 3 years of effort in
implementing the NESHAPS program in your
Region as well as your initiative in taking the
lead in the State by assuming responsibility
for the NESHAPS program. If you have need
for further inquiry, please contact Ron Yan
Mersbergen, at (312) 886-6056. or me.
Sincerely yours.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
E. Wisconsin
On August 10.1983, the Secretary of
the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources requested a partial delegation
of authority to implement any existing
and future NSPS and NESHAPS and,
futhermore, full authority for such
standards upon notice to USEPA that
the State has adopted similar standards.
An automatic delegation with a
temporary partial feature was granted
on September 27,1983 and is published
below. The State was previously
granted full delegation on September 29,
1976 for twelve NSPS and three
NESHAPS which was published as a
notice in the Federal Register on March
30.1977 (42 FR 16845).
In accordance with the September 27,
1983 delegation, the State on October 20,
1983 informed USEPA that they adopted
all Federal NSPS and NESHAPS which
were promulgated as of July 1,1983.
September 27,1983.
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Carroll D. Besadny.
Secretary. Bureau of Air Management,
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. P.O. Box 7921, Madison,
Wisconsin 53707
Dear Mr. Besadny: In response to your
August 10,1983 letter, we are amending the
delegation of authority agreement for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Pollutants (NESHAPS). Since the original
delegation on September 28.1976. a number
of additional NSPS and NESHAPS have been
promulgated and changes in delegation policy
have been made. Therefore this letter
replaces the original delegation.
We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
regulations of the State of Wisconsin and the
State's history of implementing the programs.
and we have determined that the State of
Wisconsin has the resources and the ability
to implement and enforce the NSPS and
NESHAPS programs for the regulations
appropriately promulgated by the State, and
to implement the additional responsibilities
requested in your August 10,1983 letter.
Therefore, subject to the specific conditions
and exceptions set forth below, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
hereby grants delegation of authority to the
State of Wisconsin to implement and enforce
the NSPS and NESHAPS as follows:
A. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Wisconsin subject to
the NSPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60. This
delegated authority includes all future
standards promulgated for additional
pollutants and source categories and all
revisions and amendments to existing and
future standards.
B. Authority for all sources located or to be
located in the State of Wisconsin subject to
the NESHAPS promulgated in 40 CFR Part 61.
This delegation includes all future standards
promulgated for additional pollutants and
sources categories and all revisions and
amendments to existing and future standards.
This delegation is based upon the following
conditions and exceptions.
1. This delegation letter replaces the
previous NSPS and NESHAPS delegation
letter of September 28,1976.
2. Certain provisions of the NSPS and
NESHAPS regulations allow the
Administrator to take further standard setting
actions. Such standard setting provisions
cannot be delegated and these are as follows:
a. Alternative means of emission
limitations in Clean Air Act (CAA) lll(b)(3)
which is exemplified in 40 CFR 60.114a.
b. Innovative technology waivers in CAA
Section lll(j).
c. Alternative testing times for Primary
Aluminum Reduction Plants in 40 CFR
60.195(d).
d. Approval of equivalent and alternate
test methods in 40 CFR 60.8(b) (2) and (3).
e. Establishment of alternative opacity
standards in 40 CFR 60.11(e).
f. Issuance of commercial demonstration
permits under 40 CFR 60.45a.
g. The portions of the Stationary Gas
Turbine Standards dealing with nitrogen fuel
allowance in 40 CFR 60.332(a) and the
ambient condition correction factors in 40
CFR 60.335(a)(ii).
3. The following provisions are included in
this delegation and can only be exercised on
a case-by-case basis. When any of these
authorities are exercised, the State must
notify USEPA Region V in accordance with
the reporting procedures referred to in item
10 of the conditions and exceptions.
a. Waiver of a performance test in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.8(b)(4), or make
minor modifications in accordance with 40
CFR 80.8(b)(l).
b. Determination of representative
conditions for the purpose of conducting a
performance test as allowed by 40 CFR
60.8(c).
c. Approval of smaller sampling times or
sampling volumes under 40 CFR 60.46 (b) or
(d).
d. Authorization of both the use of wet
collectors in accordance with 40 CFR 61.23(b)
and also the use of filtering equipment as
explained in 40 CFR 61.23(c).
e. Approval of sampling techniques as
specified in 40 CFR 61.43(a).
4. The Federal NSPS regulations in 40 CFR
Part 60, as amended, do not provide for
granting waivers by source class of testing
requirements or granting variances, hence
this delegation does not convey to the State
of Wisconsin authority to grant waivers by
source class of testing requirements or grant
variances from NSPS regulations.
5. For Federal NSPS and NESHAPS
pollutants and source categories and for
amendments to existing Federal NSPS and
NESHAPS for which the State of Wisconsin
has not promulgated regulations or
amendments, the State will exercise a partial
delegation by performing the administrative
and engineering responsibilities with respect
to plan review, notifications and
recordkeeping. and performance testing all in
accordance with items 9 and 12 of the
conditions and exceptions. The partial
delegation does not include applicability'
determinations or enforcement actions. The
administrative and engineering
responsibilities shall continue until such time
as the State promulgates appropriate
regulations or amendments at which lime the
State is given fully delegated responsibility
as is cited in item 6 of the conditions and
exceptions.
6. Implementation and enforcement of the
NSPS and NESHAPS in the State of
Wisconsin will be the primary responsibility
of the State of Wisconsin for those standards
for which the State has promulgated
appropriate regulations and for which the
State has notified the Regional
Administrator. The authority includes but is
not limited to those responsibilities in item 5.
routine applicability determinations in
accordance with item 7, and enforcement
actions.
7. The State will make routine applicability
determinations pertaining to sources subject
to NSPS and NESHAPS regulations. Where
previous determinations exist in the form of
written guidance from USEPA, the State's
source specific determinations will be in
accordance With such written guidanre. The
U.S. EPA will periodically forward such U.S.
EPA compiled determinations to the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR). If a non-routine situation arises
which is not covered by a U.S. EPA
determination, the State will forward the
details to U.S. EPA Region V for final
resolution. A U.S. EPA resolution is to be
obtained on any matter involving the non-
routine interpretation of Sections 111 or 112
of the Clean Air Act and of 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61 to the extent that application.
implementation, administration, or
enforcement of these sections have not been
covered by determinations of guidance sent
to the WDNR.
8. If, after appropriate discussions with the
WDNR, the Regional Administrator
determines that a State procedure is
inadequate for implementing or enforcing any
NSPS or NESHAPS in accordance with item 5
IV-242
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 137 / Monday. July 16. 1S84 / Rules and Regulations
or 6 of the conditions and exceptions, or is
not being effectively carried out, this
delegation may be revoked in whole or in
part. Any such revocation shall be effective
as of the dates specified in a Notice of
Revocation to the Secretary of WDNR.
9. If the State of Wisconsin determines that
a violation of a NSPS or NESHAPS exists, the
WDNR shall immediately notify U.S. EPA,
Region V. of the nature of the violation
together with a brief description of the State's
efforts or strategy to secure compliance. With
respect to those NSPS and NESHAPS for
which the Slate has only administrative and
engineering responsibilities and during the
time which the State has only administrative
and engineering responsibility, any violations
will be immediately referred to U.S. EPA,
Region V. The U.S. EPA may at any time
exercise its concurrent enforcement authority
pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act,
us amended. With regard to any violation of
an NSHS or NESHAPS regulation.
10. The WDNR and the U.S. EPA Region V
will develop a system of Communication for
the purpose of insuring that both agencies are
informed on (a) the current compliance status
of subject sources in the State of Wisconsin:
(b) the interpretation of applicable
regulations: (c) the description of sources and
source inventory data: and (d) compliance
test waivers and approvals listed in item 3 of
the conditions and exceptions. The reporting
provisions in 40 CFR 60.4 and 61.04 requiring
sources to make submissions to the U.S. EPA
are met by sending such submissions to the
WDNR. The State will make available this
information to the U.S. EPA on a case-by-
case basis.
11. At no time shall the State of Wisconsin
enforce a State NSPS or NESHAPS regulation
less stringent than the Federal requirements
for NSPS or NESHAPS (40 CFR Parts 60 or 61
as amended) in accordance with 116 of the
CAA.
12. The WDNR will utilize the methods
specified in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 in
performing source tests pursuant to the
regulations.
13. From time to time when appropriate, the
State will revise its NSPS and NESHAPS to
include the provisions of Federal
amendments and newly promulgated
regulations for NSPS and NESHAPS pollutant
and source categories.
A notice announcing this delegation will be
published in the Federal Register in the near
future. This delegation becomes effective as
of the date of this letter. Unless the U.S. EPA
receives written notice from the WDNR of
objections within 10 Hays of receipt of this
letter, it will be deemed that the State has
accepted all the conditions and exceptions of
this delegation.
Sincerely yours.
Alan Levin.
Acting Regional Administrator.
If further revisions are made to any of
the current delegation agreements in
Region V. USEPA will publish these in
the Federal Register.
(Sec. lll(c). sec. 112(dJ and sec 301 (a). Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 741l(c). 7412(d) and
7601(a))
Dated: July 6,1984.
Veldas V. Adamkus,
. Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. M-1B701 Filed 7-13-W; a«5 am|
DIUJKO COBS OSSO-SO-O
tationary Sources; Msfltonal
Ohio
AQSW6V: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
V: On August 9, 1982, authority
was delegated to Ohio to implement and
enforce the national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPS).
Reports and notification from New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and NESHAPS sources in Ohio must
now be submitted to the State, through
the appropriate district or local agency
office instead of to the EPA. Therefore,
EPA today is adding the appropriate
addresses for the State of Ohio to 40
CFR Part 61. It is also making
corrections to the Ohio addresses in Part
60.
EFFECTIVE ©ATE: August 9, 1982.
ADBBE88GS: The related material in
support of the delegation may be
examined during normal business hours
at the following locations. Support
materials for the delegations are
available in the Region V office.
Region V Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Radiation Branch,
230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60S04
Ohio — Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, 361 East Broad Street,
Columbus, Ohio 43216
FOB FUKTHEK ItslFORKIATIOM ©©WTOCY:
Ronald ). Van Mersbergen, Air and
Radiation Branch (5ARB-26), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 230
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
50604, (312) 886-6056.
8UPPLEKJENTAKV IMFORMATIQKK Pursuant
to section Il2(d) of the Clean Air Act,
the Director of the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency requested on June 2.
1982 authority to implement and enforce
all the NESHAPS. After a review of the
request, the appropriate State laws and
regulations, and the State's new source
review program, the Regional
Administrator of Region V determined
that the State procedures in Ohio were
adequate to implement and enforce the
NESHAPS program. The NESHAPS
program was transferred to the State of
Ohio on August 9,1982 in a letter of
delegation agreement. The delegation
agreement is published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register.
Effective immediately all information
required pursuant to 40 CFR Part 61 from
sources in Ohio must be sent directly to
the appropriate district office or local
agency rather than the EPA Region V
office. The appropriate addresses for
sources in the various counties are
provided in 40 CFR 61.04(b)(KK). Finally,
EPA is taking this opportunity today to
update the Ohio addresses in 40 CFR
80.4 to reflect administrative changes
within Ohio's NSPS program.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether or not a publication
is "major" and, if it is "major", whether
it is subject to the requirements of a
regulatory impact analysis. The
delegation of authority is not "major"
because it is an administrative change,
and no additional burdens are imposed
on the parties affected.
40 CFR Part 80
Air pollution control. Aluminum.
Ammonium sulfate plants, Cement
industry, Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants. Fossil-fuel fired steam
generators, Glass and glass products,
Grain, Intergovernmental relations, Iron,
Lead, Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry. Petroleum, Phosphate fertilizer.
Sewage disposal, Steel, Sulfuric acid
plants, Waste treatment and disposal,
Zinc.
40 CFR Part 61
Intergovernmental relations. Air
pollution control, Asbestos, Beryllium,
Hazardous materials, Mercury, Vinyl
chloride.
(Sec. lll(c). 112(d) and 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411 (c).
7412(d) and 7601(a}).
Dated: July 6,1984.
Vsldao V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
PAftY 80—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
Part 60 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. Section 60.4(b) is amended by
revising subparagraph (KK) to read as
follows:
IV-243
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 137 / Monday. July 16. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Part 61 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. Section 61.04(b) is amended by
revising subparagraph (KK) to read as
follows:
§61.04 Address.
* * * * *
(b) * * '
(KK) State of Ohio-
Medina, Summit and Portage Counties;
Director, Air Pollution Control, 177 South
Broadway, Akron, Ohio 44308.
Stark County; Director, Air Pollution Control
Division, Canton City Health Department,
City Hall Annex Second Floor, 218
Cleveland Avenue S.W., Canton, Ohio
44702.
Butler, Clennont, Hamilton and Warren
Counties; Director, Southwestern Ohio Air
Pollution Control Agency, 2400 Beekman
Street. Cincinnati, Ohio 45214.
Cuyahoga County; Commissioner, Division of
Air Pollution Control, Department of Public
Health and Welfare, 2735 Broadway
Avenue, Cleveland. Ohio 44115.
Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Harrison,
Jefferson, and Monroe Counties; Director,
North Ohio Valley Air Authority
(NOVAA), 814 Adams Street, Steubenville,
Ohio 43952.
Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami, Montgomery,
and Preble Counties; Supervisor, Regional
Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA),
Montgomery County Health Department,
451 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Lucas County and the City of Rossford (in
Wood County); Director, Toledo Pollution
Control Agency, 26 Main Street, Toledo,
Ohio 43605.
Adams, Brown, Lawrence, and Scioto
Counties; Engineer-Director, Air Division,
Portsmouth City Health Department, 728
Second Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.
Allen, Ashland, Auglaize, Crawford,
Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin,
Henry, Huron. Marion, Mercer. Ottawa,
Paulding, Putnam, Richland, Sandusky,
Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, Wood (except
City of Rossford}, and Wyandot Counties;
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Northwest District Office, Air Pollution
Group 1035 Devlac Grove Drive, Bowling
Green, Ohio 43402.
Ashtabula. Holmes, Lorain, and Wayne
Counties; Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Northeast District Office, 2110
East Aurora Road, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087.
Athens, Coshocton, Gallia, Guernsey.
Hocking, Jackson, Meigs, Morgan,
Muskingum. Noble. Perry. Pike. Ross.
Tuscarawas, Vinton, and Washington
Counties; Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Southeast District Office, Air
Pollution Group, 2195 Front Street, Logan,
Ohio 43138.
Champaign, Clinton, Highland, Logan, and
Shelby Counties; Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Southwest District
Office, 7 East Fourth Street. Dayton, Ohio
45402.
Delaware, Fairfield, Fayette. Franklin. Knox,
Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway. and
Union Counties; Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Central District Office,
Air Pollution Group. 361 EastyBroad Street.
Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Geauga and Lake Counties: Lake County
General Health District. Air Pollution
Control. 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490
Painesville, Ohio 44077
Mahoning and Trumbull Counties: Mahoning-
Trumbull Air Pollution Control,
Metropolitan Tower. Room 404,1 Federal
Plaza West, Youngstown, Ohio 44503
*****
[PR Doc. M-18700 Filled 7-13-84: 8:45 am]
Btuma CODE •S60-60-M
106
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
, 40 CFR Part 61
[AD-fRL-2634-1]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Reference
Methods; Method 105 Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action revises "Method
105, Determination of Mercury in
Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage
Sludges." Changes in the sampling and
analytical procedure, which will
improve the precision and accuracy of
the method, are being made as a result
of field and laboratory evaluations of
the method.
In addition, it corrects an error in
Methods 101 and 101A which resulted
when several sentences are
inadvertently deleted before
publication.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12,1984.
Under section 307(b)(l) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of this new
source performance standard is
available only by- the filing of a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia within 60
days of today's publication of this rule.
Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air
Act, the requirements that are the
subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
Docket. Docket Number A-83-31,
containing materials relevant to this
rulemaking, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at EPA's at Central Docket
Section (LE-131), West Tower Lobby,
Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington, D,C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. ,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Gary McAlister or Mr. Roger
Shigehara, Emission Measurement
Branch, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division (MD-19). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
IV-244
-------
Federal Kogns&eir / Vol. 49, No. 178 / Wednesday. Ssptember 12, 1984 / Rules and Segulations
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2237.
revised Method 105 differs from the
present method as follows: (!) A sludge-
blending procedure has been added; (2)
the sludge sample size has been
increased from 3.0 liters; and (3) twenty-
mi portions of wet sludge are taken for
mercury analysis rather than the 0.2-g
portions of dried sludge now required.
The revisions were proposed and
published in the Federal Register in
November 1983 (48 FR 51034). The
opportunity to request a public hearing
was presented to provide interested
persons the opportunity for oral
presentation of data, views, or .
arguments concerning the proposed
revisions, but no person desired to make
an oral presentation. The public
comment period was from November 4,
1983, to January 8, 1984. Two comment
letters were received concerning issues
relative to the proposed revisions. The
comments have been carefully
considered and, where determined to be
appropriate by the Administrator,
changes have been made.
Two comments letters were received
on the proposed revisions. The
comments and responses are
summarized in this preamble. Some of
the comment letters contained multiple
comments.
1. One commenter reported that the
aqua regia digestion procedure
described in Method 105 did not give
valid results. He recommended that the
oulfuric acid digestion specified in
Environmental Protection Agency
Methods 245.1 and 245.5 be used
instead.
EPA has successfully used the aqua
regia digestion and has received no
other negative comments about it.
However, under § 60.8(b), the
Administrator can approve alternative
procedures which can be demonstrated
to give acceptable results.
2. Orm commenter reported tha! hs
had obtained adequate homogenizetion
of 3-liter sludge samples by hand
blending and kneading the samples in a
heavy plastic bag. The relative standard
deviation for the samples ranged from
2.S to 29.98 percent. He noted that the '
cost of the equipment for mechnical
mixing could be as much as $2,100 and
questioned whether the expense was
justified if manual mixing could produce
adequate sample precision.
Method 105 now requires 515-liter
3-liter samples measured by this
commenter. During collaborative testing
of the method, EPA determined that
manual mixing of these large samples
could not provide adequate
homogenization, but the mechanical
blending procedure described in Method
105 did produce adequate mixing.
Because a homogeneous sample is
necessary to obtain consistent results,
EPA believes that mechanical mixing of
samples is required and that the need
for representative samples justifies the
added expense.
3. Another commenter noted that
unless the sludge charging rate, Q, in the
equation in g 01.54 for calculating
mercury emissions, was on a dry basis,
the equation would overestimate the
emission rate. This commenter
suggested that this be corrected by
dividing the charging rate by the weight
fraction of solids, Fa.
EPA agrees. The equation in § 61.54
(3)(d) has been changed so that the
sludge charging rate will be on & dry
basis.
EPA agrees Equation 105-3 was
incorrect and has corrected the equation
as shown above.
The docket is an organized and
complete file of the information
considered by EPA in the development
of this rulemaking. The docket is a
dynamic Tils, since material is added
throughout the rulemaking development.
The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and
industries involved to identify readily
and locate documents so that they can
intelligently and effectively participate
in the rulemaking process. Along with
the statement of basis and purposes of
the proposed and promulgated rule and
EPA responses to significant comments,
the contents of the docket will serve as
(Use record in case of judicial review
(Section 307(d)(7)(A)).
This rulemaking would not impose
any additional emission measurement
requirements on any facilities. Rather,
the rulemaking would simply revise an
existing test method associated with
emission measurement requirements
that would apply irrespective to this
rulemaking.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase in
costs or prices; and there will be no
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises
in domestic or export markets. It has
been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
805(b), EPA must consider the economic
effect of this standard on small entities.
Most if not all, of the facilities covered
by this regulation are owned by State or
local governments would not be small
entities.
This proposed rulemaking is issued
under the authority of sections 112,114,
and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412, 7414, and
7801(a)).
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants, Asphalt,
Cement industry, Coal copper. Electric
power plants, Class and glass products.
Grains, Intergovernmental relations,
Iron, Lead, Metals, Metallic Minerals,
Motor vehicles, Nitric acid plants, Paper
and paper products industry, Petroleum,
Phosphate, Sewage disposal, Steel,
sulfuric acid plants, Waste treatment
and disposal, Zinc, Tires, Incorporation
by Reference, Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants. Industrial organic
Fossil fuel steam generators, Fiberglass
insulation, Synthetic fibers.
Dated: September S. 1884.
William B. Ructsslehauo,
Administrator.
40 CFR Part 61 is amended by revising
§ 61.54 and Methods 101,101 A, and 105
of Appendix B to read as follows:
1. In g 81.54, paragraphs (c)(l), (c)(3),
and (d) are revised as follows:
IV-245
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 178 / Wednesday. September 12, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
§ 61.54 Sludge sampling.
• • • * »
(c) ' * *
(1) The sludge shall be sampled
according to Method 105—
Determination of Mercury in
Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage
Sludges. A total of three composite
samples shall be obtained within an
operating period of 24 hours. When the
24-hour operating period is not
continuous, the total sampling period
shall not exceed 72 hours after the first
grab sample is obtained. Samples shall
not be exposed io any condition thai
may result in mercury contamination or
loss.
« * * * *
(3) The sampling, handling.
preparation, and analysis of sludge
samples shall be accomplished
according to Method 105 in Appendix B
of this part.
(d) The mercury emissions shall be
determined by use of the following
equation.
EH,=
MQ F
.1000
where:
EH, = Mercury emissions, g/day.
M = Mercury concentration of sludge on a dry
solids basis, pig/g.
Q = Sludge changing rate, kg/day.
Fkm = Weight fraction of solids in the
collected sludge after mixing.
• * * * *
2. In Appendix B, Method 101, Section
B.3. last paragraph, by replacing the
third sentence with the following two
sentences. "If conditions (1) and (2) are
met, attach the bottle section to the
bubbler section of the aeration cell.
Pipet 5 ml of stannous chloride solution
into the aeration cell through the side
arm. and immediately stopper the side
arm."
3. In Appendix B, Method 101A,
Section 8.2, last paragraph, replace the
seventh sentence with the following
sentence. "Now add 5 ml of tin (II)
solution to the aeration bottle through
the side arm. an.-? immediately stopper
the side arm."
4. Test Method 105 of Appendix B is
revised as follows:
Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 105—Determination of Mecury in
Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage Sludge
1. Applicability and Principle. 1.1
Applicability. This method applies to the
determination of total organic and inorganic
mercury (Hg) content in sewage sludges. The
range of this method is 0.2 to 5 fig/g: it may
be extended by increasing or decreasing
sample size.
1.2 Principle. Time-composite sludge
samples are withdrawn from the conveyor
belt after dewatering and before incineration
or drying. A weighed portion of the sludge is
disgested in aqua regia and oxidized by
potassium permanganate (KMnO.). Hg in the
digested sample is then measured by the
conventional spectrophotometric cold-vapor
technique.
2. Apparatus. 2.1 Sampling.
2.1.1 Container. Plastic, 50-liter.
2.1.2 Scoop. To remove 950-ml (1-qt.)
sludge sample.
2.2 Sludge Sample Preparation.
2.2.1 Mixer. Mortar mixer, wheelbarrow-
type. 57-liter (or equivalent) with electricity
driven motor.
2.2.2 Blender. Waring-type, 2-liter. (Note:
Mention of specific trade names does not
constitute endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency.)
2.2.3 Scoop. To remove 100-ml and 20-ml
samples of blended sludge.
2.3 .Analysis. Same as Method 101,
Sections 5.3 and 5.4, except for the following:
2.3.1 Balance. The balance of Method 101,
Section 5.3.17, is not needed.
2.3.2 Filter Paper. S and S No. 588 (or
equivalent).
3. Reagents. 3.1 Water. Same as Method
101A, Section 6.1.1.
3.2 Aqua Regia. Prepare immediately
before use. Carefully add one volume of
concentrated nitric acid (HNOj) to three
volumes of concentrated hydrochloric acid
(HC1).
3.3 Antifoam B Silicon Emulsion. ).T.
Baker Company (or equivalent).
3.4 Mercury (II) Stock Solution. 1 mg Hg/
ml. Completely dissolve 135.4 mg of ACS
reagent-grade HgCl: in 75 ml of water, add 10
ml of concentrated HNOs, and adjust the
volume to 100.0 ml with water. Mix
thoroughly. (This solution is stable for at
least 1 month.)
3.5 Intermediate Mercury Standard
Solution. 10 fig Hg/ml. Prepare fresh weekly.
Pipet 5.0 ml of the Hg stock solution into a
500-ml volumetric flask, and add 20 ml of the
15-percent HNOj solution. Adjust the volume
to 500 ml with water. Thoroughly mix the
solution.
3.6 Working Mercury Standard Solution.
200 ng Hg/ml. Prepare fresh daily. Pipet 5.0
ml of the "Intermediate Mercury Standard
Solution" into a 250-ml volumetric flask. Add
20 ml of 15-percent HNOs. and adjust the
volume to 250 ml with water. Mix thoroughly.
3.7 Tin (II) Solution. Sodium Chloride-
Hydroxylamine Solution, 15-Percent Nitric
Acid, and Potassium Permanganate Solution.
Same as Method 101A. Section 6.2.
4. Procedure. 4.1 Sludge Sampling.
Withdraw equal-volume increments of sludge
jfor a total of at least 15 liters (16-qt.)l at
intervals of 30 min over an 8-hr period, and
place in a rigid plastic container.
4.2 Sludge Mixing. Transfer the entire 15-
liter sample to a 57-liter capacity (2-ft3)
mortar mixer. Mix the sample for a minimum
of 30 min at 30 rpm. Using a 200-ml beaker.
take six 100-ml portions of sludge, and
combine in a 2-liter blender. Blend sludge for
5 min: add water as necessary to give a fluid
consistency. Immediately after stopping the
blender, use a 50-ml beaker to withdraw foui
20-ml portions of blended sludge, and place
them in separate, tared 125-ml Erlenmeyer
flasks. Reweigh each flask to determine the
exact amount of sludge added. (Use three of
the samples to determine the mercury content
in the sludge, and use the fourth to measure
the solids content of the blended sludge.)
4.3 Solids Content of Blended Sludge. Dry
one of the 20-ml blended samples from
Section 4.2 in an oven at 105 ' C In constanl
weight. Cool in a desiccator, and weigh and
record the dry weight of the sample.
4.4 Aqua Regia Digestion of Blended
Samples. To each of the three remaining 20-
ml samples from Section 4.2. add 25 ml of
aqua regia. and digest the samples on a hot
plate at low heat (do not boil) for 30 min, or
until samples are a pale yellow-brown colot
and are void of the dark brown color
characteristic of organic matter. Remove frofii
the hot plate, and allow to cool.
Filter each digested sample separately
through an S and S No. 588 filter, or
equivalent, and rinse the filter contents with
50 ml of water. Transfer the filtrate and filter
washing to a 100-ml volumetric flask, and
carefully dilute to volume with water.
4.5 Solids Content of Sludge Before
Blending. Using a 200-ml beaker, remove two
100-ml portions of mixed sludge from the
mortar mixer, and place in separate, tared
400-ml beakers. Reweigh each beaker to
determine the exact amount of sludge added.
Dry in an oven at 105 'C, and cool in a
desiccator to constant weight.
4.6 Analysis for Mercury. The same as
Method 101A, Sections 7.4 and 8. except for
the following variation.
4.6.1 Spectrophotometer and Recorder
Calibration. The mercury response may be
measured by either peak height or peak area
Note: The temperature of the solution affects
the rate at which elemental Hg is released
from solution and. consequently, it affects thr
shape of the absorption curve (area) and the
point of maximum absorbance (peak height)
Therefore, to obtain reproducible results.
bring all solutions to room temperature
before use.
Set the Spectrophotometer wavelength In
253.7 nm. Make certain the optical cell is at
the minimum temperature that will prevent
water condensation from occurring. Then set
the recorder scale as follows: Using a 25-ml
graduated cylinder, add 25 ml of water to the
aeration-cell bottle. Add three drops of
Antifoam B to the bottle, and then pipe! 5.0
ml of the working Hg standard solution into
the aeration cell.
Note.—Always add the Hg containing
solution to the aeration cell after the 25 ml of
water.
Place a Teflon-coated stirring bar in the
bottle. Add 5 ml of 15-percent UNO? and 5 ml
of 5-percent KMnO< to the aeration bottle,
and mix well. Next, attach the bottle section
to the bubbler section of the aeration cell.
and make certain that: (1) the exit arm
stopcock of the aeration cell (Figure 105-3) is
closed (so that Hg will not prematurely enter
the optical cell when the reducing agent is
being added), and (2) there is no flow through
the bubbler. Add 5 ml of sodium chloride-
IV-246
-------
/ Vol. <50, No. 178 / Wsdsjeoday, September 12, W8& f Rules ond Regulations
hydroxylamine solution to the aeration bottle
through the side arm, and mix. If the solution
does not become colorless, add additional
sodium chloride-hydroxylamine solution in 1-
ml increments until the solution is colorless.
Now add 5 ml of tin (II) solution to the
aeration bottle through the side arm, and
immediately stopper the side arm. Stir the
solution for 15 sec, turn on the recorder, open
the aeration cell exit arm stopcock, and then
immediately initiate aeration with continued
stirring. Determine the maximum absorbance
of the standard, and set this value to read 60
percent of the recorder full scale.
S. Calculations.
3.1 Nomenclature.
Co=Concentration of Hg in the digested
sample, fig/g.
Fe,=Weight fraction of solids in the blended
sludge.
Fcol=Weight fraction of solids in the
collected sludge after mixing.
M=Hg content of the sewage sludge (on a
dry basis), fig/g.
m=Mass of Hg in the aliquot of digested
sample analyzed, fig.
mV0
V0=Volume of digested cample analysed, ml.
V0=Volume of digested oample. ml.
Wf=Weight of empty oample flask, g.
Wo=Weight of oample fleets and oample, g.
WM=Weight of oample flask end sample
after drying, g.
Wb=Weight of empty sample beaker, g.
Wto=Weight of sample beaker and sample,
8-
Wca=Weight of oample beaker and sample
after drying, g.
5.2 Mercury Content of Digested Sample
(Wet Basis). For each sample, correct the
average maximum ebsorbance of the two
consecutive oamplea whose peak heights
agree with ±3 percent of their average for
the contribution of the blank. Uoe the
calibration curve end these corrected
overages to determine the final Hg '
concentration in the solution cell for each
sludge sample.
Calculate the total Hg content in each gram
of digested oample correcting for any
dilutions made to bring the sample into the
working range of the opectrophotometer and
for the weight of the sludge portion digested.
V0
5.3 Solids Content of Blended Sludge.
Determine the solids content of the 20-ml
aliquot dried in the oven at 105 °C (Section
4.3).
- W.)
Eq.
l— ,
Eq. 105-2
5.4 Solids Content of Bulk Sample (after
mixing in mortar mixer). Determine the solids
content of each 100-ml aliquot (Section 0.5),
and average the results.
Eq. 105-3
3.5 Mercury Content of Bulk Sample (Dry
Basis). Average the results from the three
samples from each 8-hr composite sample,
and calculate the Hg concentration of the
composite sample on a dry basis.
M=
Cp(avg)
Eq. 105-4
4. Bradenberger, H. and H. Bader. The
Determination of Nanogram Lsvelo of
Mercury In Solution by a Flameleoo Atomic
Absorption Technique. Atomic Absorption
Newsletter. 8:101.1637.
5. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory
(AQCL). Mercury in Sediment (Cold Vapor
Technique) (Provisional Method). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati,
Ohio. April 1972.
a. Kopp, f.F., M.C. Longbottom. and L.S.
Lobring. "Cold Vapor" Method for
Determining Mercury. Journal AWWA.
ft?(l):20-25.1972.
7. Manual of Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati,
Ohio. Publication No. EPA-824/2-7«-C03.
December 1974. p. 118-138.
8. Mitchell, W.J., M.R. Midgett, J. Suggs, R.J.
Velton, and D. Albrinch. Sampling and
Homogenizing Sewage for Analysis.
Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. March
1979. 7 p.
IFB Dot. 64-23131 Filed 6-11-63; 0:05 om)
DMJJKO CC32 CE2S-63K3
8. Bibliography.
1. Bishop, J.N. Mercury in Sediments,
Ontario Water Resources Commission.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 1971.
2. Salma, M. Private Communication. EPA
California/Nevada Basin Office. Alameda,
California.
3. Hatch, W.R. and W.L. Ott. Determination
of Sub-Microgram Quantities of Mercury by
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry.
Analytical Chemistry. 40:2035.1633.
[OAB-4-FBL-2389-S]
Air
Auth©B% to Soutft Carolina
fl@GK)ev: Environmental Protection
Agency.
fl
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 179 / Thursday. September 13, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), to
any State which has submitted adequate
implementation and enforcement
procedures.
On October 26.1076. EPA delegated to
the State of South Carolina the authority
to implement the NSPS and NESHAP.
Subsequent NSPS delegations were
made on March 17.1981. and March 22,
1982. On March 24,1983. South Carolina
requested that EPA delegate authority
for the NSPS categories that had been
promulgated since the March 22.1982,
delegation. On February 1, April 17 and
25.1984. the State of South Carolina
requested delegation of authority for
several NSPS and NESHAP categories.
The NSPS categories requested are as
follows:
1. Surface Coating of Metal Furniture.
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart EE, as
promulgated on October 29,1982.
2. Industrial Surface Coating: Large
Appliances. 40 CFR Part 60. Subpart SS,
as promulgated on October 27,1982.
3. Metal Coil Surface Coating. 40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart 77", as promulgated on
November 1,1982.
4. Synthetic Fiber Production
Facilities, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart HHH
as promulgated on April 5,1984.
5. Metallic Mineral Processing, 40
CFR Part 60. Subpart LL. as promulgated
on February 21.1984.
6. Pressure Sensitive Tape and Label
Coating Operations, 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart RR, as promulgated on October
18.1983.
7. Equipment Leaks of VOC in the
Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry, 40 CFR Part 60.
Subpart W, as promulgated on October
18.1983.
8. Beverage Can Surface Coating
Industry. 40 CFR Part 60. Subpart WW.
as promulgated on August 25,1983.
9. Bulk Gasoline Terminals, 40 CFR
Part 60. Subpart XX. as promulgated on
August IB. 1983.
The NESHAP category being
requested is:'
1. Asbestos. 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart
M. as promulgated on April 5.1984.
Action. Since review of the pertinent
South Carolina laws, rules, and
regulations showed them to be adequate
for the implementation and enforcement
of the aforementioned categories of
NSPS and NESHAP. I delegated to the
State of South Carolina my authority for
the source categories listed above on
April 8 and May 10,1984.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this delegation from the
requirements of section 3 of the
Executive Order 12291.
This notice ii issued under the authority of
•ections 191.110, 111 and 301 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7410.7411.
and 7601).
Dated: August 31.1984
John A. Little.
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. M-MOBO Filwl 9-12-84:8:45 >m|
MLUNO COOt MW-MMi
108
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-6-FRL-2671-1]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Delegation of Authority In
Region VIII
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice is io clear up any
confusion which may have arisen
concerning the specific subparts of the
Federal New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) which are
delegated to each of the States in EPA
Region VIII to enforce. These States are
Colorado. Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota. Utah and Wyoming.
EFFECTIVI OATt September 17.1984.
IV-248
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 181 / Monday, September 17. 1084 / Rules rod Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dale M. Wells, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1860
Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 60295,
(303) B44-«131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAPS)
are Federal regulations for industries
and pollutants of national concern.
These regulations were first
promulgated in 1971 and have been
delegated to the States for enforcement
since 1974. The list of affected industries
has grown each year, however, and not
all industries have a potential for
locating in each of the States. As each
new subpart has been added, every
State has not always adopted an
equivalent regulation to enable State
enforcement.
The State of Utah has incorporated by
reference all present and future NSPS
and NESHAPS regulations and does
have the authority and resources to
enforce them. Utah will automatically
receive delegation of each new NSPS
and NESHAPS subpart, as it is
promulgated. The other States muet
adopt an equivalent State regulation
prior to delegation.
The lists below indicate the
delegation status of each State in Region
VIII for each NSPS and NESHAPS
subpart. This Notice is issued under the
authority of Sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act
(Sees. Ill and 112,42 U.S.C. 7412 of the Clean
Air Act)
ust of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants. Asphalt
Cement industry, Coal copper, Electric
power plants, Glass and glass products.
Grains, Intergovernmental relations,
Iron, Lead. Metals, Metallic minerals,
Motor vehicles. Nitric add plants, Paper
and paper products industry, Petroleum,
Phosphate. Sewage disposal. Steel
sulfuric acid plants. Waste treatment
and disposal. Zinc, Tires, Incorporation
by reference. Can surface coating,
Sulfuric acid plants, Industrial organic
chemicals. Organic solvent .cleaners,
Fossil fuel-fired steam generators,
Fiberglass insulation, Synthetic fibers.
40 CFR Panel
Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials,
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
Dated: August 8.1984.
John G. Welles.
Regional Administrator.
PART 60—{AMENDED]
Title 40, Part 60 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 61—(AMENDED]
Title 40, Part 61 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
Subpart A—General Provisions
{61.04 [Amended]
In § 61.04 the table below is added as
follows:
DELEGATION STATUS OF NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDSOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAPS) IN REGION Vill
B Asbestos
C Beryllium
E Mercury
F Vinyl chloride ....
Colorado
(*)
(•)
(")
O
(")
(")
Montana
SU
North Dakota
(
(
(
(
(
te
South Dakota
Utah
O
C)
(•)
(•)
(•)
C)
Wyoming
•Indicates delegation.
|FR Doc. 84-24484 Filed 9-14-64; 8:45 em]
MLUNQ COOt tSeO-CO-M
IV-249
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 165 / Friday. September 21. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
109
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[Docket No. ACB-NY 8401; A-2-FRL-2675-
7]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);
Delegation of Authority to the State of
New York
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Delegation of Authority.
SUMMARY: Section lll(c) of the Clean
Air Act permits EPA to delegate to the
States the authority to implement and
enforce the standards set out in 40 CFR
Part 60, Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and 40
CFR Part 61, National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS). On March 8,1984, in
accordance with the agreement set out
in EPA's previous delegation letter of
July 14,1983 (48 FR 40535, October 13,
1983), EPA informed the State of New
York of those additions, changes and
revisions which had occurred since the
last delegation (from June 10,1984
through January 31,1984) and offered
delegation of those additions, changes
and revisions which EPA determined the
State of New York had the authority to
implement and enforce. On May 29,
1984, the State of New York accepted
delegation of the new NSPS subparts
and the revisions to the previously
delegated NSPS and NESHAPS
standards which EPA offered in its
March 8,1984 letter. The State of New
York now has authority to implement
and enforce these standards.
Applications, reports and other
submittals required under these
regulations should now be sent to the
State's Department of Environmental
Conservation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6,1984.
ADDRESSES: Applications, reports and
other submittals required under those
NSPS and NESHAPS categories for
which the State of New York has
delegation should be addressed to the
appropriate regional office of the New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation or the
central office at 50 Wolf Road, Albany,
New York 12233, Attention: Division of
Air, Bureau of Source Control.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
F. W. Giaccone, Chief, Air Compliance
Branch, EPA Region II, telephone (212)
264-9627 or FTS 264-9627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July
10,1983 EPA and the New York State'
Department of Environmental
Conservation PEC) entered into a
delegation agreement whereby, among
other things, EPA would offer, every six
months, delegation of those new
categories of NSPS and NESHAPS
standards that were promulgated by
EPA during that six month period and
that EPA found DEC had the authority to
implement and enforce. Additionally, by
this July 10,1983 delegation agreement,
EPA was to inform DEC of any changes
or revisions to previously delegated
NSPS or NESHAPS categories.
Subsequently, DEC would accept
delegation of these changes and
revisions if DEC did not decline such
delegation.
On March 8.1984, EPA informed DEC
of the new NSPS categories and those
changes to previously delegated NSPS
and NESHAPS categories.
On April 18,1984 and again on May
29.1984, the DEC responded to EPA's
offer of delegation of the new NSPS
Subparts RR. WW, and XX and the
previously undelegated NSPS Subparts
D and GG by accepting delegation of
these NSPS Subparts. DEC also
accepted delegation of all changes and
revisions to the previously delegated
NSPS and NESHAPS categories. DEC
now has the authority to implement and
enforce all NSPS and NESHAPS
standards promulgated prior to February
1,1984 except the following:
NSPS
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart VV
NESHAPS
40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M 145,14«, 147,
150 & 152
Effective immediately, all
applications, reports, correspondence
and other submittals required under the
categories of NSPS and NESHAPS
delegated to the State of New York
should be sent to the address listed
above.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of sections 111 and 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7411 and 7412).
Dated: August 28,1984.
Richard T. Dewling,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 84-24831 Filed 9-20-84: 8:45 am)
•ILUNO CODE M60-50-M
IV-250
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 189 / Thursday, September 27. 1984 / Rules and Regulation^
110
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
[A-9-FRL-2681-8]
Delegation of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
State of Arizona
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of delegation of
authority.
SUMMARY: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation of
NSPS and NESHAP authority to the
Arizona Department of Health Services
(ADHS). This action is necessary to
bring the NSPS and NESHAP program
delegations up to date with recent EPA
promulgations and amendments of these
categories. This action does not create
any new regulatory requirements
affecting the public. The effect of the
delegation is to shift the primary
program responsibility for the affected
NSPS and NESHAP categories from EPA
to State and local governments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 12. 1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1). Air Operations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8236.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The ADHS has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAP categories. Delegation of
authority was granted by a letter dated
July 31,1984 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
Mr. Charles Anders,
Assistant Director for Environmental Health
Services. Division of Environmental
Health. Arizona Department of Health
Sen-ices. State Health Bui/ding. 1740
West Adams Street, Phoenix. AZ 85007.
Dear Mr. Anders: In response to your
request of June 26,1984.1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
certain categories of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP). We have reviewed
your request for delegation and have found
your present programs and procedures to be
acceptable with the exception of Subpart A.
General Provisions. This delegation includes
authority for the following source categories:
NSPS:
Storage vessels for petroleum iquids —
Gloss manufacturing plants -
NESHAP:
40 CFR
Part 60
subpan
Ka
CC.
A.
With regard to your Rule R9-3-801,
paragraphs (1) and (3), for Subpart A,
General Provisions, EPA cannot approve the
substitution of "Director, Arizona Department
of Health Services, for (EPA)
"Administrator." This is because EPA cannot
delegate certain sections of 40 CFR Part 60:
namely. 55 60.8(b)(2). 60.8(b)(3). and 60.11 (e)
of Subpart A. Section 60.8 applies to the
approval of alternate and equivalent test
methods. EPA must retain the authority to
approve alternate and equivalent methods
which effectively replace a reference test
method. This restriction on delegation does
not apply to 5 60.8(b)(l) which allows for
approval of minor modifications to reference
methods on a case-by-case basis. This
authority allows a field engineer to approve
deviations to methods that are necessary due
to site-specific problems or circumstances.
The Administrator also cannot delegate the
authority to grant an alternative opacity
standard under 5 60.11(e). Therefore, Rule
No. R9-3-801 of the Arizona rules and
regulations cannot be approved to be
delegated.
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your'agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61.
including use of EPA approved test methods
and procedures. The delegation is effective
upon the date of this letter unless the USEPA
receives written notice from you of any
ob'6c*'Grlc w'*hin 1Q dsvs of rscsi^t cf this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres.
Regional A dministrator.
With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the ADHS, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAP source
categories should be directed to the
address shown in the letter of
delegation.
IV-251
-------
Fsdera! Register / Vol. 49, No. 189 / Thursday, September 27, 1984 / Rules and Regulations
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
1 certify that this rule will nol have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et
seq.).
Dated: September 17, 1984.
(oho Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 83-25581 Filed 9-28-64: 8:45 am]
B5UJKO COO€
40 CFR Parts SO and 61
I A-9-FRL- 2682-1]
Delegation of Msra Source
P®rf orniaroce Standards (NSPS) and
National {Emission StemsSardo tor
: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Delegation of
Authority.
§utSKlAKV: The EPA hereby places the
public on notice of its delegation on
?\'SPS and NESHAP authority to the
Maricopa County Health Department
(MCHD) in the State of Arizona. This
action is necessary to bring the NSPS
and NESHAP program delegations up to
date with recent EPA promulgations and
amendments of these categories. This
action does not create any new
regulatory requirements affecting the
public. The effect of the delegation is to
shift the primary program responsibility
for the affected NSPS and NESHAP
categories from EPA to State and local
governments.
EFFECTIVE OATE: August 13,1984.
FOB FURTHER IKFOKK1ATI6M CONTACT:
Julie A. Rose, New Source Section (A-3-
1), Air Opsrations Branch, Air
Management Division, EPA, Region 9,
215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA
94105, Tel: (415) 974-8236, FTS 454-8238.
gUPPLEMENTABV IKFOHKIATO©^ The
MCHD has requested authority for
delegation of certain NSPS and
NESHAP categories. Delegation of
authority was granted by a letter dated
July 31,1984 and is reproduced in its
entirety as follows:
Mr. Robert W. Evans.
Chief Bureau of Air Pollution Control,
Maricopa County Health Department,
1825 E. Roosevelt Street, Phoenix, AZ
85008
Dear Mr. Evans: In response to your
request of July 12,1984.1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
certain categories of New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS). We have reviewed
your request for delegation and have found
your present programo and procedures to be
acceptable. This delegation includes
authority for the following source categories:
NSPS:
Metallic mtnaral proooosng planto. _
Grephtc arts industry; publication rotogravure
printing.
Pressure sensitive tops Q tabd curfcoo ood
ing oparationo.
Industrial curfaco coating: large appliances
teJetc! coil surface coating „
Aophalt processing and ospteS rccSng menu*
Synthetic organic chwnscal manufacturing in*
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 189 / Thursday. September 27. 1984 / Rules and Regulations w.
June 14.1984.
Mr. Richard Serdoz
Air Quality Officer. Division of
Environmental Protection, Nevada
Department of Conservation & Natural
Resources. Capitol Complex. Carson
City, NV 89710
Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
request of May 21,1984,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
HH—Standards of Performance for Lime
Manufacturing Plants. We have reviewed
your request for delegation and have found
your present programs and procedures to be
acceptable.
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, including use of
EPA approved test methods and procedures.
The delegation is effective upon the date of
this letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
July 19,1984.
Mr. Richard Serdoz
Air Quality Officer, Division of
Environmental Protection, Nevada
Department of Conservation & Natural
Resources, Capitol Complex, Carson
City. NV 89710
Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
request of June 29,1984,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
GGG—-Standards of Performance for
Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum
Refineries and National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants Categories in 40
CFR Part 61: Subparte J and V—National
Emission Standard for Equipment Leaks/
Fugitive Emission Sources of Benzene. We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found your present programs and
procedures to be acceptable.
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61,
including use of EPA approved test methods
and procedures. The delegation is effective
upon the date of this letter unless the USEPA
rsccivss written notice ii\tai you 01 any
objections within 10 days of receipt of this
letter. A notice of this delegated authority
will be published in the Federal Register in
the near future.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
September 7,1984.
Mr. Richard Serdoz.
Air Quality Officer. Division of
Environmental Protection. Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Capitol Complex, Carson
City. Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. Serdoz: In response to your
request of August 22,1984,1 am pleased to
inform you that we are delegating to your
agency authority to implement and enforce
the New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) category in 40 CFR Part 60: Subpart
FFF—Standards of Performance for Flexible
Vinyl and Urethane Coating and Printing. We
have reviewed your request for delegation
and have found your present programs and
procedures to be acceptable.
Acceptance of this delegation constitutes
your agreement to follow all applicable
provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, including use of
EPA approved test methods and procedures.
The delegation is effective upon the date of
this letter unless the USEPA receives written
notice from you of any objections within 10
days of receipt of this letter. A notice of this
delegated authority will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future.
Sincerely,
Judith E. Ayres,
Regional Administrator.
With respect to the areas under the
jurisdiction of the NDCNR, all reports,
applications, submittals, and other
communications pertaining to the above
listed NSPS and NESHAP source
categories should be directed to the
address shown in the letter of
delegation.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This Notice is issued under the
authority of section 111 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1957, et
seq.}.
Dated: September 17,1984.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[VS. Doc M-255M Filed 9-20-64: 8 45 am]
BILLING COOE •S60-CO-M
IV-253
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 192 / Tuesday. October 2. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
112
40CFRPart61
[AO-FRL 2676-5)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Amendments to Standard for Benzene
Equipment Leaks; Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects
portions of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart V.
that were published June 6.1984 (49 FR
23498).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Fred Dimmick or Mr. Gilbert Wood,
Standards Development Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-5578. This action is
necessary to correct errors that
appeared in the June 6,1984, publication
of 40 CFR Part 61. Subpart V.
Dated: September 17,1984.
)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 218 / Thursday. November 6. 19B4 / Rules and Regulations
114
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
IA-4-FRL-2711-5]
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources; National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants; Relinquishment of
Authority to Tennessee; Delegation of
Authority to Mississippi
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Delegation of Authority.
SUMMARY: On March 21,1983. the Stale
of Tennessee requested that EPA
relinquish to the State the authority to
impiement and enforce EPA's New
Source Performance Standards (NSPSj
for three additional categories of air
pollution sources (listed under
"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION"). The
State of Mississippi requested H
delegation of authority for the
implementation and enforcement of 12
additional categories of air pollution
sources under the NSPS program and
one additional category under the
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (N'ESHAPSl
program on May 14.1984.
Since EPA's review of pertinent state
laws and rules and regulations showed
them to be adequate for the
implementation and enforcement of
these Federal standards, the agency has
made the delegations as requested.
DATE-The effective date of the
relinquishment of authority to
Tennessee is June 30.1983, and of the
delegation of authority to Mississippi is
June 13.1984.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the requests for
delegation of authority and EPA's letters
of delegation are available for public
inspection at EPA's Region IV office. 345
Courtland Street, NE. Atlanta. Ga 30365.
All reports required pursuant to the
newly delegated standards [listed
below) should be submitted to the
following addresses:
In Tennessee: Mr. Harold E. Hodges.
P.E.. Director, Division of Air Pollution
Control. Tennessee Department of
Health and Environment. 150 9th
Avenue North, Nashville, Tennessee
37203
In Mississippi: Mr. Dwight K. Wylie.
Chief, Bureau of Pollution Control,
Mississippi Department of Natural
Resources, P.O. Box 10385. Jackson.
Mississippi 39209
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Walter Bishop at (404) 681-3286.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
301, in conjunction with Sections 101.
110. and 111 of the Clepn Air Act.
authorizes EPA to relinquish authority to
implement and enforce the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS).
On April 11.1980, EPA relinquished to
Tennessee the authority to implement
and enforce the NSPS. The Tennessee
Division of Air Pollution Control
requested a relinquishment of authority
on March 21,1983, for the following
recently promulgated NSPS contained in
40 CFR Part 60:
Subpart Ka: Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids constructed after
May iS, IS/6
Subpart DD: Grain Elevators
Subpart GG: Stationary Gas Turbines
After a thorough review of the request
and information submitted, the Regional
Administrator determined that such a
relinquishment was appropriate for
these source categories with the
conditions set forth in the original
relinquishment letter of April 11,19WO.
and granted the State's request in a
letter dated June 30,1983. Tennessee
sources subject to the requirements of
Siibparts Ka. DD and GG of 40 CFR Part
60 will now be under the jurisdiction of
the State of Tennessee.
On November 30.1981, EPA delnguted
to the Mississippi Department of Natural
Resources the authority for
implementation and enforcement of the
NSPS and NESHAPS. Mississippi
requested a delegation of authority on
May 11,1984 for the following recently
promulgated NSPS contained in 40 CKR
Part 60:
Subpart T: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Wet Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
Subpart U: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Superphosphoric Acid Plants
Subpart V: Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:
Diammonium Phosphate Plants
Subpart W: Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry: Triple Superphosphate
Plants
Subpart HH: Lime Manufacturing Plants
Subpart LL: Metallic Mineral Processing
Plants
Subpart QQ: Graphic Arts Industry:
Publication Rotogravure Printing
Subpart RR: Pressure Sensitive Tape
and Label Surface Coating
Operations.
Subpart W: Equipment Leaks of VOC
in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry.
Subpart WW: Beverage Can Surface
Coating Industry
Subpart XX: Bulk Gasoline Terminiiis
Subpart HHH: Synthetic Fiber
Production Facilities
Mississippi also requested a
delegation of authority for Subpart M:
Asbestos of the NESHAPS contained in
40 CFR Part 61. After a thorough review
of the request and information
submitted, the Regional Administrator
determined that such a delegation WHS
appropriate for these source categories.
with the conditions set forth in the
original delegation letter of November
30,1981, and granted the State's request
in a letter dated June 13.1984.
Mississippi sources subject to the
requirements of Suhparls T, L', V. VY.
HH, LL QQ. RR, VV, WW, XX. and
HHH of 40 CFR Part 60, and Subpart M
of 40 CFR Part 61 will now be under the
jurisdiction of the State of Mississippi.
(Sec. 101.110. 111. and 301 of the Glenn Au
Ac! (42 tl.S.C. 7401. 7410. 7411. and 7WH)I
Dated: Octobur 25.19«4.
John A. Little,
Acting Regional Administrulur.
|KH Doc. M-28115 Kited ll-'-ftl: 8:45 dir.',
NLUNO COM (MO-M-M
IV-255
-------
Rsgnsteg / Vol. 49. No. 242 / Friday. December 14. JS34 / Rules aiad Regulation^
AGENCV
00 CFK Parts SO and 61
(EPA Docket Moo. AM701WV and 702WV;
A-3-FP5L-2712-41]
PerfoOTisiDce §4ar*to«3s for Klew
l?©Ilutan{s; OelegaUon ©1? Authority to
: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
V: This notice Amends 40 CFR
60.4 and 40 CFR 61.04 to reflect
delegation to the State of West Virginia
for authority to implement and enforce
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) respectively, under the
Clean Air Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE December 14, 1984.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Giuranna, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Region HI, Curtis
Building, 8th fi Walnut Streets,
Philadelphia, PA 1910S (215) 597-9189.
On June 13,1984, Don R. Richardson.
Chairman, West Virginia Air Pollution
Control Commission, requested
delegation on authority to implement
and enforce existing regulations for New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
under section lll(c) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), and National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) under section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act.
The request was reviewed and. on
July 24.18S6 a letter was sent to Don R.
Richardson stating that delegation of
authority for the NSPS and NESHAPS in
West Virginia is approved subject to the
conditions set forth in that letter as
follows:
Certified mail
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Don R. Richardson. Chairman,
West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission, 1358 Washington Street.
East Charleston, West Virginia 25311
Re: Delegation of authority for New Source
Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants pursuant to Sections lllfc]
and 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
Dear Mr. Richardson: This is in response to
a letter of June 13,1984. to Thomas P. Eichler.
Regional Administrator, requesting
delegation of authority for implementation
and enforcement of existing New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) in West Virginia.
We have reviewed the pertinent laws and
regulations governing the control of air
pollution in West Virginia and have
determined that they provide an adequate
and effective procedure for implementation
and enforcement of the NSPS and .\ESHAPS
regulations by the Air Pollution Control
Commission (the Commission).
Therefore, we hereby delegate authority to
the Commission, as follows:
The Commission is delegated and shall
have authority for all sources located in the
State of West Virginia subject to the
Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources, with the exception of Glass
Manufacturing Plants (subpart CC). and all
categories of National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, presently
promulgated, or subject to any standards
promulgated in the future in 40 CFR Parts 80
and 61.
This delegation is baeed upon the following
conditions:
1. Quarterly reports will be submitted to
EPA by the Commission and should include
the following:
A. For New Source Performance Standards:
(i) Sources determined to be applicable
during that quarter;
(ii) applicable sources which started
operation during that quarter or which
started operation piior to that quarter which
have not been previously reported;
(iii) the compliance status of the above:
including the summary sheet from
compliance test(s); and
(iv) any legal actions which pertain to
these sources.
B. For National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants:
(i) NESHAPS sources granted a permit to
construct;
(ii) NESHAPS sources inspected during
that quarter and their compliance status
(except under 9 61.22 (d) and (e)];
(iii) the requirements of A.i), A.ii). and A.iv)
above.
2. Enforcement of the NSPS and WESHAPS
regulations ia the State aS Wool Virginia will
ha the primary raopcjiotbtlity cf &3
Commission. Where the Conuatsoion
determined that ouch enforcement is not
feasible and so notifies EPA. or where the
Commission acts in a manner inconsistent
with the terms of this delegation, EPA will
exercise its concurrent enforcement
authority, pursuant to Section 113 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, with respect to
sources within the State of West Virginia
subject to NSPS and NESHAPS regulations.
3. Acceptance of these delegations does not
commit the State of West Virginia to request
or accept delegation of future standards ond
requirements. A new request for delegation
will be required for any additional standards
not included in the State's request of June 13,
1984.
4. The West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission will at no time grant & waiver of
compliance under the NESHAPS regulations.
5. The Commission will not grant a
variance for compliance with the applicable
NSPS regulations if ouch variance delays
compliance with the Federal Standards (Part
60). Should the Commission grant such a
variance, EPA will consider the source
receiving the variance to be in violation of
the applicable Federal regulations and may
initiate enforcement action against the source
pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
The granting of such variances by the
Commission shall also constitute grounds for
revocation of delegation by EPA
6. The Commission and EPA rail! develop &
system of communication sufficient to
guarantee that each office is always fully
informed regarding the interpretation of
applicable regulations. In instances where
there is a conflict between a Commission
interpretation and a Federal interpretation of
applicable regulations, the Federal
interpretation must bs applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Commission.
7.'If at any time there is a conflict between
a Commission regulation and a Federal
regulation, 40 CFR Part 60 or 61, the Federal
regulation must be applied if it is more
stringent than that of the Commission. If the
Commission does not have the authority to
enforce the more stringent Federal regulation.
this portion of the delegation may be
revoked.
8. The Commission mil utilize the methods
in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 31 in performing
source tests pursuant to these regulations.
9. If the Director of the Air Management
Division determines that a Commission
program for enforcing or implementing the
NSPS or NESHAPS regulations is inadequate,
or is not being effectively carried out, this
delegation may be revoked in whole or in
part. Any such revocation shall be effective
as of the date specified in a Notice of
Revocation to the Commission.
A notice announcing thio delegation will be
published in the Federal KogJcte in the near
future. The notice will otate. among other
things, that effective immediately, all reports
required pursuant to the above-referenced
NSPS or NESHAPS regulations by sources
located in the State of West Virginia should
be submitted to the Commission in addition
to EPA Region HI Any original reports which
have been or may be received by EPA Region
III trill bs promptly troaosnitted) to the
Commiooion.
IV-256
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 242 / Friday, December 14. 1984 / Rules and Regulations
Since this delegation is effective
immediately, there ie no requirement thjt lh»:
Commission notify EPA of its acceptance.
Unless EPA receives from the Commission
written notice of objections within ten (10)
days of receipt of this letter, the Air Pollu'ion
Control Commission will be deemed tn have
accepted all of the terms of the delegation.
Sincerely,
W. Ray Cunningham,
Director, Air Management Division.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority
delegated by the Administrator, the Air
Management Division Director notified
Don R. Richardson that authority to
implement and enforce New Source
Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants was delegated to the West
Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission. Part 60, Performance
Standards for New Stationary Sources,
is delegated with the condition that the
WVAPCC submit to EPA any excess
emission reports, as defined in 40 CFR
60.7(c).
II. Regulations Affected by This Action
EPA is today amending 40 CFR 60.4
and 61.04 to reflect the delegation
discussed above. The amended § 60.4
and § 61.04 which state the address of
the West Virginia Air Pollution Control
Commission [to which all reports.
requests, applications, and
communications to the Administrator
regarding this subpart must be
addressed] is set forth below.
The Administrator finds good cause to
make this rulemaking effective
immediately without prior public notice
since it is an administrative change and
not one of substantive content. No
additional substantive burdens are
imposed on the parties affected.
This rulemaking is effective
immediately, and is issued under the
authority of sections 110 and 301 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this action from Executive
Order 12291,
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control, Aluminum,
Ammonium sulfate plants. Cement
industry. Coal, Copper, Electric power
plants. Glass and glass products, Grains,
Intergovernmental relations, Iron, Lead,
Metals, Motor vehicles, Nitric acid
plants, Paper and paper products
industry. Petroleum, Phosphate, Sewage
disposal Steel Sulfuric acid plants,
Waste treatment and disposal, Zinc.
40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control, Asbestos.
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seg.)
Dated: October 17.1984.
Thomas P. Eichler,
Regional A dministrator.
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
Part 61 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
In § 61.04, Paragraph (b) is amended
by adding subparagraph (XX) to read as
follows:
§61.04 Address.
*****
(b)' • •
(XX) State of West Virginia: Air Pollution
Cortrol Commission, 1558 Washington Street.
East. Charleston, West Virginia 25311.
|FR Doc. 84-29399 Filed 12-13-M. 8:45 am]
SILLING COOC (S60-50-M
IV-257
-------
iff i Vol. 49. No. 252 / Monday. December 31, 1084 / Rules and Regulations
Agency.
ACTION: Delegation cJ«uthocaly.
isvi SeciioBs lllicj and ii2(d) of
the Clean Air Act parnsy EPA to
delegate to a atate the authority to
implement and enforce .the standaKb set
out in 40 CFR Part 60. Standards of
Performance for Wew Stationary
Sources (NSPS). and in 40 CFR Part 61.
National Emission Standards fur
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). On
June 11, 1984, the State of Florida asked
EPA to delegate to it authority for the
implementation and enforcement of the
NESHAP for asbestos, Subpart M.
except for g 61.156. On September 28.
1984, the State requested the authority
for the implementation and enforcement
of g 61.156, and on Angus! 23, 18S4 Jjor
four additional categories oT NSPS:
Subpartfl QQ, RR. VV. & XX Sine*
EPA's review of ^o^asnt State laws
and rulee^and regulations showed them
to be adequate Tor ftie Implementation
and enforcement of these Federal
standards, the Agency has made the
delegations as requested.
EFFECTIVE ®OTE: The effective date of
the delegation of authority is November
7.
AGJOTESSES: Copies of ins requests for
deJe§alse3.a5aMiheaty and EPA's letter
of delegation are available for public
inspection at EPA's Region JV office, 345
Courtland Street, WE, Atlanta. CA 30365.
All reports required pursuant to the
newly delegated standards (listed
below] should be submitted to the
following address: Mr. -Steve
Smailwobd. Chief, Bureau of Air Quality
Environraeurtal Regulation'. Twin TODBSTO
Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road.
Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
FOB FUBTMSR1IMFORCaaiNOM CONTACT:
James Wilburn (404) 881-3785.
suppustaEMvacatf HWFOROAYIIOM: Section.
301, in conjunction with sections 101,
110, and 111 of the Clean Air Act.
authorizes EPA to delegate authority to
implement and enforce the Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources (NSPS) and the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP).
On June 10,1982, EPA initially
deiegaied the authority sor
implementation and enforcement of the
NESHAP to the State of Florida. On
April 5,1984. EPA rawieed the NESHM"
for asbestos. Oa June til, 1984, the State
of Florida requested a delegation of
authority 4o unpiasieni and enforce the
applicable .NESHAP for asbestos,
codified as40 CFR Partial, Subpart M,
except for 8 (SIASS, Actit/Q Waste
Disposal Sites. On September .28,1884.
Florida ffisqiseeted £ delegation of
authority toimpleroeat and enforce
g 61.156.
Upon review, EPA acknowledged (he
fact that the Agency had delegated
complete authority for implementation
and enforcemaat of the asbestos
NESHAP to the State of Florida in the
past: however, some question had arisen
us to the legal authority of the State of
Florida to carry out that dulgution.
Consequently, let it be noted that EPA
has delegated full authority to
implement and enforce Subpart M of 40
CFR Part 61.
On August 23, ISM, Florida requested
a delegation of authority for the
following recently promulgated NSPS
contained in 40 CFR Part 60:
Subpart QQ: Graphic Arts Industry:
Publication Rotogravure Printing
Subpart RR: Pressure Sensitive Tape
and Label Surface Coating
Operations
Subpart VV: Equipment Leaks of VOC
in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals
Manufacturing Industry
Subpart XX-. Bulk Gasoline Terminals
After a thorough review of the
request, the Regional Administrator
determined that such a delegation was
appropriate for these source categories
with the conditions set forth jn the
original delegation letter of June 10,
1982. and granted the State's request in
a letter da ted November?. 1984. Florida
sources subject to the requirements of
Subpart M of 40 CFR Part 61, and
Subparts QQ, RR, VV.-and XX of 40 CFR
Part 60 wiD nova be under the
jurisdiction of the State of Florida.
(Ssco. 101, SCfl, flU.£ad£01 e! Ska Clsaa Air
Act J42 U.SJC. 7CSH.KOH, 7flJi. oed 7£31J}
Dated: December 14.1084.
John A Little.
Deputy for Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 84-33746 Filed 12-23-84; 8:45 amj
E214K3 CC32 CES-OCI
IV-258
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Subpart A -
Subpart B -
Subpart E -
Subpart L -
Subpart N,0,P-
Appendix B -
Appendix C -
Page
General Provisions A-l
Standards for Radon-222 Emissions from Underground
Uranium Mines A-12
Standards for Radon-222 Emissions from Licensed
Uranium Mills A-13
Asbestos Standard for the Production and Use of
Crushed Stone B-l
Review and Proposed Revision of the Standards for
Mercury E-l
Proposed Standards for Benzene Emissions from Coke
By-Product Recovery Plants L-l
Proposed Standards for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions N,0,P-1
Reference Methods
Method 108 - Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Arsenic Emissions, see Subpart N, 0, P
Method 108A - Determinations of Arsenic Content in
Ore Samples from Nonferrous Smelters, see Subpart
N, 0, P
Policy and Procedures for Identifying, Assessing and
Regulating Airborne Substances Posing a Risk of Appendix
Cancer C-l
Generic Standards Generic-1
V-i
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SUBPART A
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. liq / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
.40 CFR Part 61
(AD-FRL-2539-3)
National Emission Standards (or
Hazardous Air Pollutants;
Amendments to General Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Amendments.
SUMMARY: This proposal would amend
the General Provisions for national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants to: (1) Eliminate repetition in
Part 61; (2) add procedures and criteria
for determining if proposed changes to a
source constitute modification; and (3)
add procedures and criteria for
permitting the use of alternative means
of emission limitation that the
Administrator finds to be equivalent to
any design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard for purposes of
compliance with thai standard. In
addition, the proposal would simplify
the language of the General Provisions.
A public hearing will be held to
provide interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentations of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed standards.
BATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before August 20,1984.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by June 27,1984, a public
hearing will be held on July 24,1984
beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons
interested in attending the hearing
should call Ms. Shelby Journigan at (919)
541-5578 to verify that a hearing will
occur.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact EPA by June 27,1984.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section
(LE-131), Attention: Docket Number, A-
81-12, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D,C. 20460.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting a public hearing, it will
be held at EPA's Office of
Administration Auditorium, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Persons
interested in attending the hearing
should call Ms. Shelby Journigan at (919)
541-5578 to verify that a hearing will
occur. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Journigan,
Standards Development Branch (MD-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5578.
Docket. Docket No. A-81-12
containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed amendments
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. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gilbert H. Wood, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
the authority of section 112 of the Clear
Air Act, EPA has been promulgating
national standards for the emissions of
hazardous air pollutants from existing
and new stationary sources. All of the
standards are contained in Part 61 of 40
CFR. each constituting a subpart.
Subpart A, the first subpart of Part 61,
comprises general provisions which
apply to all of the standards in the
subsequent subparts.
Presently, many provisions that apply
to all the standards and would be
applicable to future standards in Part 61
are in each standard's subpart.
Incorporating these provisions into the
subpart of the General Provisions would
eliminate the need to repeat them in the
subparts of future standards. An owner
or operator of a source who wants
information on the general requirements
for sources emitting hazardous
pollutants would find it in Subpart A.
An owner or operator could then focus
on the requirements that are specific to
a source category and particular
hazardous pollutant in each subpart
thereafter. The majority of the .
provisions which are proposed to be
incorporated into Subpart A from other
subparts relate to emission testing,
emission monitoring, and recordkeeping.
This proposal would not remove these
provisions from the subparts of the
standards that are presently in Part 61 in
order to avoid unnecessary amendments
to these standards. Instead, these
provisions could be removed from each
standard during its next review.
The proposed amendments to the
General Provisions of Part 61 would also
provide criteria and procedures for
determining whether proposed changes
to a source would constitute
modification. These amendments would
help clarify EPA's implementation of
modification ao it is defined in the Clean
Air Act and in the present Genera!
Provisions of Part 61 for owners or
operators who propose to make changes
to a source which may result in
increased emissions.
In addition, the proposed amendments
would add procedures that would IK.-
followed when any person requests th
have as to the status of a particular
pollutant between listing of the polluu.n;
and promulgation of emission standards
for that pollutant.
The proposed amendments would
simplify Part 61 by eliminating the
concept of a method of emission tesliny
that is equivalent to a reference meihuJ
specified in a standard, meaning thai il
has a consistent and quantitative
relationship to the appropriate refi-icn: i
method. Each test method approved In
the Administrator which is not a
reference method would be classified as
an alternative method, meaning it is
adequate for determining compliance
but does not necessarily have a
consistent and quantitative relationship
to the appropriate reference method.
The proposed amendments would also
simplify the wording and punctuation in
Subpart A.
Discussion of Amendments
The following discussion is organized
by the headings of the sections of P;irt
61 which would be amended by this
proposal. The sections are discussed in
the order in which they appear in the
proposed regulation.
List of Hazardous Air Pollutants
This notice proposes to add to 40 CFR
61.01 a list of those air pollutants which
have been designated as hazardous air
pollutants pursuant to section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. Section 112 provides for
the listing of pollutants which, in the
judgment of the Administrators, cause 01
contribute to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
V-A--2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible illness. After a substance is
listed as a hazardous air pollutant, EPA
promulgates emission standards for the
substance. EPA has. to date, listed seven
substances (inorganic arsenic, asbestos,
benzene, beryllium, mercury.
radionuclides, and vinyl chloride) as
hazardous air pollutants.
Emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants promulgated under section
112 of the Clean Air Act are currently
codified in 40 CFR Part 61. However, the
pollutants designated as hazardous,
although initially published in the
Federal Register, are not codified in the
Code of Federal Regulations. The
potential exists for considerable
uncertainty in the public sector as to the
status of a specific pollutant with
respect to section 112 during the period
between listing and promulgation of
emission standards for that pollutant.
In an effort to remove this uncertainty
and to provide for expanded public
accessibility to the list of air pollutants
designated as hazardous, EPA is
proposing to add to 40 CFR Part 61 the
list of pollutants designated as
hazardous pursuant to section 112. The
list, in addition to identifying the
hazardous air pollutants, will include a
reference to the Federal Register in
which the listing decision was originally
published. This is expected to further
facilitate public accessibility to the
information relevant to the list of
hazardous air pollutants. EPA is
soliciting comments on this approach as
well as any alternative wpproaches to
codification of the list of hazardous air
pollutants. The decisions to list these
substances as hazardous air pollutants
is not at question. The comments
submitted in response to the amendment
proposed today should be limited to the
content and format of the codified list
and should not address the basis for
listing of the sevens substances as
hazardous air pollutants.
Definitions
Thi? proposal would amend three
definitions presently in 40 CFR 61.02.
would delete two definitions, and would
add three new definitions.
The definition of "Act" would be
amended by updating the citation to the
United States Code (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.).
The definition of "standard" would be
clarified to include design, equipment,
work practice, and operational
standards or combination thereof. This
amendment stems from section 112|e) of
the Clean Air Act which states that the
Administrator may promulgate "a
design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or combination
thereof" when "it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce an emission
standard." As a result of this
amendment, general provisions that
apply to emission standards would also
be applicable to design, equipment,
work practice or operational standards.
The definition of "modification"
would be removed from Section 61.02
because the proposed § 61.15 of 40 CFR
would define modification and describe
the criteria and procedures for
determining if a change to a source is a
modification.
The term "equivalent method" would
be removed from Part 61. In addition,
the definition of "alternative method"
would be amended by removing the
reference to "equivalent method." In the
present regulations, an equivalent
method is a test method which has a
consistent and quantitative relationship
to the appropriate reference method
contained in Appendix B of Part 61. An
alternative method differs from an
equivalent method in that, although it is
adequate to determine compliance with
an applicable standard in specific cases,
it does not necessarily have a consistent
and quantitative relationship to the
reference method. No determinations on
the equivalency of a test method have
ever been made under NESHAP. It is
unlikely that many determinations
would be requested because
development of sufficient data to
demonstrate equivalency could be
extremely difficult and yet the final
analysis of the data could result in a
determination that the method is not
equivalent to the applicable reference
method. A more reasonable approach
would be to eliminate the concept of an
equivalent method and to define all
methods which are not reference
methods but which may be used to
determine compliance as alternative
methods. Under the proposed definition.
as under the definition in the present
regulations, an alternative method could
be approved either for a specific site or
for all facilities, in which case it would
be added to Appendix B of Part 61 and
referenced in the appropriate standard.
The Administrator would have the same
authority that is presently in Part 61 to
withdraw his approval of the alternative
method, and require the use of a
reference method.
Three new definitions would be added
to § 61.02. A definition of "capital
expenditure" would be added as a result
of a proposed revision to an exemption
to modification which is described in the
discussion of modification which
follows in this preamble. A definition of
"run" would be added to clarify its
usage as applied to emission testing.
"Monitoring system" would be defined
to specify the functions that the system
for monitoring the emissions or related
process parameters would be expected
to perform.
Address
Section 112(d) of the Act directs the
Administrator to delegate to each State,
when appropriate, the authority to
implement and enforce the standards in
Part 61. The present § 61.04 of 40 CFR
states that all information required to be
submitted to EPA under the standards in
Part 61 must also be submitted to the
appropriate State agency. The proposal
would revise the section to stale thai
EPA may permit the information to be
submitted to the State agency only
instead of to the State agency and to the
EPA.
Application for Approval of
Construction or Modification
Section 61.07 of 40 CFR would be
revised to specify some information
which is needed in the application for
approval of modification. For
construction and modification, the
criterion for approval is that the new
source will be able to meet the
applicable standard. The proposed
revisions would clarify the type of
information the Administrator needs lo
evaluate an application. The application
for approval of construction requires
technical information describing the
proposed nature, size, design, operating
design capacity, method of operation of
the source, and calculations of
emissions estimates. The application for
approval of modification would include
some additional information, such as the
precise nature of the proposed changes
to the source, the productive capacities
of the source before and after the
changes, and calculations of estimates
of emissions before and after the
changes.
Notification of Startup
This proposal would add a paragicipli
to § 61.09 of 40 CFR which would state
that the owner or operator may satisfy
the requirements of this section by
submitting to the Administrator a copy
of a notification of startup sent to a
State or local agency if the notification
contains all the information as the one
required by this section. The proposed
provision is intended to clarify that
owners or operators do not have to
prepare two separate, but similar,
notifications.
V-A-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
Source Reporting and Request for
Waiver of Compliance
This proposal would amend I 61.10 of
40 CFR by substituting the word
"change" for the word "modification"
when preceded by the word "process"
throughout paragraph (b) of the section.
In this paragraph, the word
"modification" is not used as defined in
the proposed § 61.15; the word "change"
would be substituted to avoid possible
misinterpretation.
Compliance with Standards and
Maintenance Requirements
The proposal would add a new
section to Subnart A nf 40 CFR Part 61
which would be § 61.12. It would be
added to clarify the basis for
determining compliance with a standard
and the responsibilities of an owner or
operator to maintain and operate the
source using good practice for air
pollution control. The basis for the
operation and maintenance
requirements in § 61.12(c] is sections
302(k) and 112(e)(l) of the Clean Air Act.
Compliance with numerical emission
limits would be determined by emission
tests or as otherwise specified in the
applicable standard; compliance with
design, equipment, work practice or
operational standards would be
determined as specified in the
applicable standard.
The proposed section would also
provide the owner or operator of a
source with the opportunity to obtain
permission to use alternative equipment
or procedures to comply with a design,
equipment, work practice, or operational
standard. The authority for these
provisions is section 112(e)(3) of the
Clean Air Act, which states that the
Administrator shall permit the use of an
alternative means of controlling
emissions for compliance with a design,
equipment, work practice or operational
standard if, after notice and opportunity
for public hearing, any person
establishes to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the alternative means
will achieve a reduction in emissions at
least equivalent to that achieved under
the applicable standard. The section
would outline the steps that would be
followed in granting such permission.
Any person may submit a written
application requesting such permission.
Unless the subpart for the applicable
standard specified otherwise, the
application would include proposed test
plans, or the results of testing or
monitoring. In addition, it would include
descriptions of procedures followed and
pertinent conditions during testing or
monitoring. Any permission granted
would be published in the Federal
Register after notice and opportunity for
public hearing.
Emission Tests and Waiver of Emission
Tests
This proposal would combine the
sections in the present Subpart A of 40
CFR Part 61 which relate to emission
tests (| 61.12) and waiver of emission
tests (§ 61.13) into one section, which
would be § 61.13. In addition, parts of
the present section on source tests and
analytical methods (§ 61.14) would be
included in the proposed § 61.13. The
reason for proposing their combination
is that the contents of the sections are
closely related and combining them
would leave more numerical
designations available for appropriately
locating new sections.
The proposed amendments would
incorporate several requirements for
emission tests which are presently
located only in the subparts of the
standards into this section in the
General Provisions to eliminate the need
to repeat them in the subparts of future
standards. The first of these
requirements would be that the owner
or operator of each existing source or
each new source which started up
before the effective date of the standard
test emissions within 90 days after the
effective date, and the owner or
operator of each new source which
started up after the effective date test
emissions within 90 days after the
startup date. The second would be that
the owner or operator notify the
Administrator of the date of the
emission test at least 30 days before the
test to allow the Administrator an
opportunity to have an observer present
during the test. The third would require
that the emissions be determined within
30 days after each emission test and
reported to the Administrator. This
requirement would be to ensure that the
test data is analyzed and results are
reported in a timely manner. The fourth
would require that records of emission
test results and other data needed to
determine emissions be kept at the
source for at least 2 years and made
available, upon request, for inspection
by the Administrator.
This proposal would also add to this
section two provisions for emission
testing that are not in each of the
standards. One would state the
Administrator's authority to require an
owner or operator to conduct an
emission test at any time, as authorized
by section 114 of the Clean Air Act. The
other provision would require that the
emission test be conducted under
conditions specified by the
Administrator. The Administrator will
base his specifications on the design
and operating characteristics of the
source.
Thin previsions under the proposed
paragraph (h) of this section, which
relate :.-; the use of alternative meihuds
for tcstifi.'! emissions, are in § 61.14(c) of
the prrjsLT.t General Provisions and
§ 61.67(«; of the vinyl chloride standard
in 40 CFR Part 61. They would be
amended to include requirements for the
date by which requests to use
alternative methods during the initial
emission tests are due to the
Administrator. The purpose of these
requirements is to ensure that the
Administrator has ample time to
nlrnlltnto «Un .* 1 * nfn n t ,*. . Q mntlvtr) n n ,-1
ctuiuutc nit uitt;i null v c iiictiiuu auu
notify the owner or operator of his
evaluation before the deadline for
conducting the initial emission test.
Source Test and Analytical Methods
The subpart of the General Provisions
of 40 CFR Part 61 originally applied only
to national emission standards for
asbestos, beryllium and mercury. Thesw
were the only emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants which had bei?n
promulgated. Reference test methods
and alternative test methods required in
§ 61.14 of the General Provisions, titled
"Source Test and Analytical Methods."
are specific to beryllium and mercury.
With the addition of standards for vinyl
chloride and future regulations under
this part, the provisions of this section
are no longer appropriate to the General
Provisions. Consequently, this proposal
would delete this section from Subpart
A and redesignate the provisions to thr>
subparts of the applicable standards.
Monitoring Requirements
This proposal would add a section on
monitoring of emissions, to be
designated § 61.14, to the subparl of thr
General Provisions in 40 CFR Part 61.
This section would apply only to
standards in which monitoring is
required. Monitoring is required in the
vinyl chloride standard and monitoring
requirements are anticipated to be in
future regulations. Because hazardous
air pollutants and processes causing
their emissions vary widely, monitoring
systems may vary widely. The system
may measure emissions or other process
parameters, or may observe conditions
which indicate the control of air
pollution; measurements or observations
may be gathered and recorded by
equipment or manually. Consequently, a
monitoring system would be broadly
defined as the system required by an
applicable regulation used to sample, to
analyze, and to provide a record of
emissions or process parameters.
V-A-4
-------
Federal RegisSeg / Vol. 49. Mo. 110 / Wednesday. June 8, 1984 / Proposed JRules
The section would state that the
owner or operator shall operate the
monitoring system as specified in the
applicable standard and would outline
the type of information that the
Administrator would use to determine
whether acceptable operation and
maintenance procedures are in use. An
owner or operator may be required to
evaluate the performance of the
monitoring system and report the results
to the Administrator. The evaluation
would help to determine the
effectiveness and limits of the system at
a particular source. The proposed
section would require that records of
monitoring data, monitoring system
calibration checks, and the occurrence
of malfunctions of the monitoring
system be maintained at the source for
at least 2 years and made available,
upon request, for inspection by the
Administrator. The owner or operator of
a source would be allowed the
flexibility to use alternative monitoring
procedurs that are approved by the
Administrator on a case-by-case basis.
Modification
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
defines a new source as a stationary
source, the construction or modification
of which commenced after the date of
the proposal of a standard that would be
applicable to the source. Sections 112
and 111 then define modification as a
physical or operational change to a
stationary source which results in an
increase in emissions. The present
Subpart A of Part 61 of 40 CFR repeats
the definition of modification as it is
found in section 112 of the Act and
describes some changes which, by
themselves, are not considered
modification by the Administrator.
However, it does not describe the
criteria by which the Administrator will
determine whether a proposed change
constitutes a modification or describe
the data needed by the Administrator to
make a determination. Detailed criteria
and procedures for determining
modification have not been needed
because few requests for determination
and approval of modification are
expected under the standards that are
presently in Part SI. In these standards,
new and existing sources are subject to
the same emission limits. The only
difference in the standards for new and
existing sources is the time by which a
source must comply with the standard.
An existing source may request a
waiver of compliance for up to 2 years
after the effective date of the standard if
it is unable to comply within SO days
after the effective date. New sources are
not eligible for waivers. Consequently,
at present, modification mainly affects
existing sources operating under a
waiver of compliance. If one is modified,
it becomes a new source and must
comply with the standard upon startup
after the physical or operational change.
However, consideration is given to
setting separate standards for new and
existing sources during the standard-
setting process. This proposal would
add a new Section 81.15 to Subpart A
that would clarify the criteria and
procedures to be used by an owner or
operator of a oource and the
Administrator in determining whether a
physical or operational change
constitutes modification.
The proposed procedures are largely
drawn from those for modification as it
applies to new source performance
standards, which comprise Part 80 of 40
CFR. The Congressional authorities for
new source performance standards
(section 111 of the Clean Air Act] and
for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (section 112 of
the Clean Air Act) have strong
similarities. In both sections,
modification has the same definition
and the same basic intent—to require a
stationary source which has increased
the amount of its emissions as a result of
a physical or operational change to meet
the emission standards for new sources.
Therefore, the Administrator would
generally use the same criteria for
determining modification for sources
subject to Part 61 as were proposed and
promulgated for Part 60.
The amount of emissions from &
source would be determined by the rate
of emissions to the atmosphere,
expressed in kg/hour, as it is in Part 60.
The emission rate would be determined
by emission factors. If the use of
emission factors does not demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the Administrator
that the emission rate mil clearly
increase or not increase as a result of
the change to the source, the emission
rate would be determined by material
balances, continuous monitoring data, or
manual emission tests. M manual
emission tests ara used to determine the
emission rate, the Student's t test in
Appendix C of Part 30 would be used to
statistically snslyss "A'hsther the
emission rate was greater after the
change than before.
The proposed section on modification
would list several physical OF
operational changes which, by
themselves, would not be considered
modifications by the Administrator.
Several of these clarify the
Administrator's intent to not include as
modifications changes that are within
normal fluctuations in the operation of
the source. Tarts® are presently in Part
61 under the definition of modifications
in § 81.02; they are (1) routine
maintenance, repair, and replacement uf
components of the source, (2) increase in
the hours of operation of the source, and
(3) an increase in the production rate if
it does not exceed the operating design
capacity of the source. The term
"operating design capacity" is difficult
to define, and for some industries the
design capacity bears little relationship
to the actual operating capacity of the
source. Therefore, the Agency proposes
to make the exemption for production
rate increases less vague by using
capital expenditure as a criterion
instead of operating design capacity. An
increase in the production rate without a
capital expenditure would not be
considered a modification. The
proposed exemption does not change
the intend of the present exemption. If
the increase in production rate is within
the normal fluctuation or operating
design capacity of the source, it is
unlikely that a significant expenditure of
capital would be needed to achieve the
increase. Conversely, if the source is
being changed to increase its production
rate beyond what it is presently
designed to operate at, a significant
expenditure of capital would likely be
necessary. The proposed revision is
consistent with the revision to the same
exemption to modification in Part 60
that was made in 40 FR 58416 for similar
reasons.
This proposal would add two new
exemptions to modification. The
Administrator would not consider either
a relocation or change in ownership of a
stationary source, by itself, a physical or
operational change and consequently
would not determine either to be a
modification. This exemption would not
be a change in the Administrator's
present policy of determining
modification. Neither relocation not
change in ownership, by itself, would
increase emissions. Consequently, even
without the exemption, neither would be
considered a modification. The
exemption was added to Part 60 to
clarify the policy after owners of
oourceo questioned whether such
changes would be modifications; it
would be included here for the same
reason. The second new exemption
would be the conversion of a source to
coal if the conversion is required for the
energy considerations specified in
section Ul(a)(8) of the Clean Air Act.
This exemption is required by law for
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants as well as for
new source performance standards
because osctioa nZ(a] of the Act states
V-A-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
that modification shall have the same
meaning as in section lll(a) of the Act.
One exemption to modification in Part
60 would not be included in the
modification provisions for Part 61. In
Part 60. an increase in emission caused
only by the use of an alternative fuel or
raw material is exempted from
modification if, before the effective date
of the standard, the existing facility was
designed to accommodate that
alternative fuel or raw material. If, as a
result of using a different fuel or raw
material, a source begins to emit a
hazardous pollutant which it had not
previously emitted, it may be reasonable
to require the source to control the
emissions to the extent required for new
sources.
State Authority
This proposal would amend the
section on state authority, which is
presently g 61.16 of 40 CFR and would
be redesignated as § 61.17. The
amendments would delete the phrase
"other than a stationary source owned
or operated by the United States" from
paragraph (a)(2). The amendment stems
from the amendment to section 118(a) of
the Clean Air Act enacted in 1977 by
Pub. L. 95-95.
Miscellaneous Amendments
Several sections in Subpart A of 40
CFR Part 61 would be redesignated as
the result of the proposed addition of
several new sections and an interest in
grouping the sections logically.
This proposal would amend several
sections for wording and punctuation.
The wording changes would simplify
and clarify the text. For example,
"under" would be used instead of
"pursuant to," "before" instead of "prior
to," "to determine" instead of "to make
a determination," and "applies" instead
of "is applicable to." Redundant phrases
such as "pursuant to the provisions of
this part" would be deleted. The
appearance of this phrase throughout
the General Provisions is redundant
because the applicability of the entire
subpart is defined in g 61.01.
Punctuation corrections would primarily
involve the use of colons and dashes in
introductory sentences and would
follow the "U.S. Government Printing
Office Style Manual."
Public Hearing
In accordance with section 307(d)(5)
of the Clean Air Act, a public hearing
will be held, if requested, to discuss the
proposed amendments. Persons wishing
to make oral presentations should
contact EPA at the address given in the
Addresses section of this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each.
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 involves 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
Major Rule Determination
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is
required to judge whether a regulation is
a "Major rule" and therefore subject to
certain requirements of the Order. The
Agency has determined that this
regulation would result in none of the
adverse econimic effects set forth in
Section 1 of the Order as grounds for
finding the regulation to be a "major
rule." In fact, this action would impose
no new regulatory requirements for
owners or operators of sources to which
a standard under Part 61 is applicable.
The Agency has therefore concluded
that this regulation is not a "major rule"
under Executive Order 12291.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
for OMB to EPA and any EPA response
to these comments are included in
Docket Number A-81-12.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements contained in this
proposed rule under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,44
U.S.C. et. seq. and has assigned the
following OMB control numbers: 2COO-
0248 [Application for approval of
construction or modification), 2000-0249
(Notification of startup). 2000-0250
(Waiver of Compliance).
Comments on these requirements
should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB, marked "Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA." The final rule will respond to
any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Certification
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b). I hereby certify that the proposed
amendments to Part 61 will not, if
promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The
amendments will not add any new
regulatory requirements to Part 61.
Consequently, they will not add
significant costs to compliance with
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 61
Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances. Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vinyl
chloride.
Dated: May 23.1984.
William D. Ruckslshauo,
Administrator.
It is proposed to amend 40 CFR Part
61 as follows:
1. The table of contents is amended by
revising the table of contents for
Subpart A and the authority citation to
read as follows:
Sutopart A.—©orcsroS Prowlotono
Sec.
61.01 List of hazardous air pollutants and
applicability of Part 61.
61.02 Definitions.
61.03 Units and abbreviations.
61.04 Address.
61.05 Prohibited activities.
61.08 Determination of construction or
modification.
61.07 Application for approval of construction
or modification.
61.08 Approval of construction or
modification.
61.09 Notification of startup.
61.10 Source reporting and request for waiver
of compliance.
61.11 Waiver of compliance.
61.12 Compliance with standards and
maintenance requirements.
61.13 Emission tests and waiver of emission
tests. -
61.14 Monitoring requirements.
61.15 Modification.
61.16 Availability of information.
61.17 State authority.
61.18 Incorporations by reference.
61.19 Circumvention.
« 6 ft « ft
Authority: Sec. 112. 301(a). Clean Air Ac!
as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412. 7eoi(a)), and
additional authority as noted.
2. Section 61.01 is revised to read as
follows:
g 0101 Uo8 @}CwsartJouo dm pallutento and
(a) The following list presents the
substances that, pursuant to section 112
of the Act, have been designated as
hazardous air pollutants.
V-A-6
-------
Rsgiste / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
The Federal Rsgistar citations and
dates refer to the publication in which
the listing decision was originally
published:
Asbestos (36 FR 6931; March 31 .1971)
Benzene (42 FR 29332: June 8.1977)
Beryllium (36 FR 5931: March 31.1971)
Inorganic Arsenic (45 FR 37686: June 5. I960]
Mercury (36 FR 5931: March 31.1971)
Radionuclidea (44 FR 76738: December 27,
1979)
Vinyl Chloride («0 FR 59532; December 24,
1975)
(b) This part applies to the owner or
operator of any stationary source for
which a standard is prescribed under
this part.
3. Section 61.02 is amended by
removing the definition of "equivalent
method" and "modification"; by
correcting the definition of "Act"; by
revising the definitions for "alternative
method" and "standard"; and by adding
definitions of "capital expenditure",
"monitoring system", and "run". The
revised and new definitions will read as
follows:
"Act" means the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
"Alternative method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which is not a reference
method but which has been
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction to produce, in specific
cases, results adequate for this
determination of compliance.
« ft 6 O 0
"Capital expenditure" means an
expenditure for a physical or
operational change to a stationary '
source which exceeds the product of the
applicable "annual asset guideline
repair allowance percentage" specified
in the latest edition of Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) Publication 534 and the
stationary source's basis, as defined by
section 1012 of the Internal Revenue
Code. However, the total expenditure
for a physical or operational change to a
stationary source must not be reduced
by any "excluded additions" as defined
in IRS Publication 534.
« ft * o «
"Monitoring system" means any
system, required under the monitoring
sections in applicable subparts, used to
sample and condition (if applicable), to
analyze, and to provide a record of
emissions or process parameters.
"Run" means the net period of time
during which an emission sample is
collected. Unless otherwise specified, a
run may be either intermittent or
continuous within the limits of good
engineering practice.
"Standard" means a national emission
standard including a design, equipment,
work practice or operational standard
for a hazardous air pollutant proposed
or promulgated under this part.
* 0 e ft ft
4. Section 81.04 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) introductory text
to read as follow:
(b) Section 112(d) directs the
Administrator to delegate to each State,
when appropriate, the authority to
implement and enforce national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants for stationary sources located
in such State. If the authority to
implement and enforce a standard under
this part has been delegated to a State.
all information required to be submitted
to EPA under paragraph (a) of this
section shall also be submitted to the
appropriate State agency (provided, that
each specific delegation may exempt
sources from a certain Federal or State
reporting requirement). EPA may permit
all or some of the information to be
submitted to be appropriate State
agency only, instead of to EPA and the
State agency. The appropriate mailing
address for those States whose
delegation request has been approved is
as follows:
« * 0 t> *
5. Section 61.05 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to
read as follows:
§@1.0S (?W»MG$ octfattteo.
(a) After the effective date of any
standard, no owner or operator shall
construct or modify any stationary
source subject to the standard without
first obtaining written approval from the
Administrator in accordance with this
subpart, except under an exemption
granted by the President under section
112 (c)(2) of the Act. Sources, the
construction or modification of which
commenced after the publication date of
the standards proposed to be applicable
to the sources, are subject to this
prohibition.
(b) After the effective date of any
standard-. ?so owner or operator shall
operate B new stationary source subject
to that standard in violation of the
standard, except under an exemption
granted by the President under section
112(c)(2) of the Act.
(c) Ninety days after the effective date
of any standard, no owner or operator
shall operate any existing source subject
to that standards in violation of the
standard, except under a waiver granted
by the Administrator under this part or
under an exemption granted by the
President under section 112(c)(2) of the
Act.
ft ft ft 0 *
6. Section 61.0S is amended by
revising the text to read as follows:
§ 31.03 Determination of construction or
modification.
An owner or operator may submit to
the Administrator a written application
for a determination of whether actions
intended to be taken by the owner or
operator constitute construction or
modification of a source subject to a
standard or the commencement thereof.
The Administrator will notify the owner
or operator of his determination within
30 days after receiving sufficient
information to evaluate the application.
7. In § 61.07 paragraphs (a) and (b) are
revised and paragraph (c) is added to
read as follows:
§ 31.07
(a) The owner or operator shall submit
to the Administrator an application for
approval of the construction of any new
source or modification of any existing
source. The application shall be
submitted before the construction or
modification is planned to commence, or
within 30 days after the effective date if
the construction or modification had
commenced before the effective date
and initial startup has not occurred. A
separate application shall be submitted
for each stationary source.
(b) Each application for approval of
construction shall include—
(1) The name and address of the
applicant;
(2) The location or proposed location
of the source; and
(3) Technical information describing
the proposed nature, size, design,
operating design capacity, and method
of operation of the source, including a
description of any equipment to be used
for control of emissions. Such technical
information shall include calculations of
emission estimates in sufficient detail to
permit assessment of the validity of the
calculations.
(c) Each application for approval of
modification shall include, in addition to
the information required in paragraph
(b) of this section,—
(1) The precise nature of the proposed
changes;
(2) The productive capacity of the
source before and after the changes are
completed; and
(3) Calculations of estimates of
emissions before and after the changes
are completed, in sufficient detail to
permit assessment of the validity of the
calculations.
V-A-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
8. Section 61.08 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 61.08 Approval of construction or
modification.
(a) The Administrator will notify the
owner or operator of approval or
intention to deny approval of
construction or modification within 60
days after receipt of sufficient
information to evaluate an application
under If 61.07.
(b) If the Administrator determines
that a stationary source for which an
application under § 61.07 was submitted
will not cause emissions in violation of a
standard if properly operated, he will
approved the construction or
modification.
(c) Before denying any application for
approval of construction or
modification, the Administrator will
notify the applicant of the
Administrator's intention to issue the
denial with—
(1) Notice of the information and
findings on which the intended denial is
based; and
(2) Notice of opportunity for the
applicant to present, within such time
limit as the Administrator shall specify.
additional information or arguments to
the Administrator before final action on
the application.
(d) A final determination to deny any
application for approval will be in
writing and will specify the grounds on
which the denial is based. The final
determination will be made within 60
days of presentation of additional
information or arguments, or 60 days
after the final date specified for
presentation if no presentation is made.
(e) Neither the submission of an
application for approval nor the
Administrator's approval of construction
or modification shall—
(1) Relieve an owner or operator of
legal responsibility for compliance with
any applicable provisions of this part or
of any other applicable Federal, State, or
local requirement; nor
(2) Prevent the Administrator from
implementing or enforcing this part or
taking any other action under the Act.
8. Section 61.09 is revised to read as
follows;
§61.09 Notification of startup.
(a) The owner or operator of each
stationary source which has an initial
startup after the effective date of a
standard shall furnish the Administrator
with written notification as follows:
(1) A notification of the anticipated
date of initial startup of the source hot
more than 60 days nor less than 30 days
before that date.
(2) A notification of the actual date of
initial startup of the source within 15
days after that date.
(b) If any State or local agency
requires a notice which contains all the
information required in the notification
in paragraph (a) of this section, sending
the Administrator a copy of that
notification will satisfy paragraph (a) of
this section.
(Section 114, Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)]
10. Section 61.10(a)(4), (6) and (7),
introductory paragraph (b), (b)(2)(i) and
(iii), (c) and (d) are revised to read as
follows:
§61.10 Source reporting and request for
waiver of compliance.
(a) The owner or operator of each
existing source or each new source
which had an initial startup before the
effective date shall provide the
following information in writing to the
Administrator within 90 days after the
effective date:
*****
(4) A brief description of the nature,
size, design, and method of operation of
the stationary source including the
operating design capacity of the source.
Identify each point of emission for each
hazardous pollutant.
*****
(6) A description of the existing
control equipment for each emission
point including—
(i) Each control device for each
hazardous pollutant; and
(ii) Estimated control efficiency
(percent) for each control device.
(7) A statement by the owner or
operator of the source as to whether the
source can comply with the standards
within 90 days after the effective date.
(b) The owner or operator of an
existing source unable to comply with
an applicable standard may request a
waiver of compliance with that standard
for a period not exceeding 2 years after
the effective date. Any request shall be
in writing and shall include the
following information:
*****
(2) A compliance schedule, including
the date each step toward compliance
will be reached. The list shall include as
a minimum the following dates:
(i) Date by which contracts for
emission control systems or process
changes for emission control will be
awarded, or date by which orders will
be issued for the purchase of component
parts to accomplish control or process
changes;
*****
(iii) Date by which onsite construction
or installation of emission control
equipment or process change is to be
completed; and .
*****
(c) Any change in the information
provided under paragraph (a) of this
section shall be provided to the
Administrator within 30 days after the
change. However, if any change will
result from modification of the source,
§ 61.07 and § 61.08 apply.
(d) A possible format for reporting
under this section is included as
Appendix A of this part. Advice on
reporting the status of compliance may
be obtained from the Administrator.
(Section 114. Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
11. Section 61.11 is revised to read as
follows:
§61.11 Waiver of compliance.
(a) Based on the information provided
in any request under § 61.10, or other
information, the Administrator may
grant a waiver of compliance with a
standard for a period not exceeding 2
years after the effective date of the
standard.
(b) The waiver will be in writing and
will—
(1) Identify the stationary source
covered;
(2) Specify the termination date of the
waiver;
(3) Specify dates by which steps
toward compliance are to be taken; and
(4) Specify any additional conditions
which the Administrator determines
necessary to assure installation of the
necessary controls within the waiver
period and to assure protection of the
health of persons during the waiver
period.
(c) The Administrator may terminate
the waiver at an earlier date than
specified if any specification under
paragraphs (b}(3) and (b)(4) of this
section are not met.
(d) Before denying any request for a
waiver, the Administrator will notify the
owner or operator making the request of
the Administrator's intention to issue
the denial, together with—
(1) Notice of the information and
findings on which the intended denial is
based; and
(2) Notice of opportunity for the owner
or operator to present, within the time
limit the Administrator specifies,
additional information or arguments to
the Administrator before final action on
the request.
(e) A final determination to deny any
request for a waiver will be in writing
and will set forth the specific grounds on
which the denial is based. The final
determination will be made within 60
V-A-8
-------
Fedora! Register / Vol. 49,.No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
days after presentation of additional
information or argument; or within 60
days after the final date specified for the
presentation if no presentation is made.
(f) The granting of a waiver under this
section shall not abrogate the
Administrator's authority under Section
114 of the Act.
12. Section 61.12 is revised to read as
follows:
§31.12 Compliance with otsndsrdo and
(a) Compliance with numerical
emission limits shall be determined by
emission tests established in § 61.13 or
as otherwise specified in an individual
subpart.
(b) Compliance with design,
equipment, work practice or operational
standards shall be determined as
specified in an individual subpart.
(c) The owner or operator of each
stationary source shall maintain and
operate the source, including associated
equipment for air pollution control, in a
manner consistent with good air
pollution control practice for minimizing
emissions. Determination of whether
acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based
on information available to the
Administrator which may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review
of operating and maintenance
procedures, and inspection of the
source.
(d)(l) If, in the Administrator's
judgment, an alternative means of
emission limitation will achieve a
reduction in emissions of a pollutant
from a source at least equivalent to the
reduction in emissions of that pollutant
from that source achieved under any
design, equipment, work practice or
operational standard, the Administrator
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice permitting the use of the
alternative means for purposes of
compliance with the standard. The
notice will restirict the permission to the
spurce(s) or category(ies) of sources on
which the alternative means will
achieve equivalent emission reductions.
The notice may condition permission on
requirements related io the operation
and maintenance of the alternative
means.
(2) Any notice under paragraph 1 shall
be published only after notice and an
opportunity for a hearing.
(3) Any person seeking permission
under this subsection shall, unless
otherwise specified in the applicable
subpart, submit a proposed test plan or
the results of testing and monitoring,
and description of the procedures
followed in testing or monitoring, and a
description of pertinent conditions
during testing or monitoring.
13. In § 61.13, "emission tests" is
added to the heading and the section is
revised to read as follows:
§31.13 Emlsston tecJ and rcatoQir o?
omission 80080.
(a] If required to do emission testing
by an applicable subpart and unless a
waiver of emission testing is obtained
under this section, the owner or operator
shall test emissions from the source—
(1) Within SO days after the effective
date, for an existing source or a new
source which has an initial startup date
before the effective date; or
(2) Within 90 days after initial startup,
for a new source which has an initial
startup date after the effective date.
(b) The Administrator may require an
owner or operator to test emissions from
the source at any other time under
Section 114 of the Act.
(c) The owner or operator shall notify
the Administrator of the emission test at
least 30 days before the emission test to
allow the Administrator the opportunity
to have an observer present during the
test.
(d) The owner or operator of each new
source and, at the request of the
Administrator, the owner or operator of
each existing source shall provide
emission testing facilities as follows:
(1) Sampling ports adequate for test
methods applicable to each source.
(2) Safe sampling platform(s).
(3) Safe access to sampling
platform(s).
(4) Utilities for sampling and testing
equipment.
(5) Any other facilities that the
Administrator needs to safely and
properly test a source.
(e) Each emission test shall be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator shall specify based on
design and operational characteristics of
the source.
(f) Unless otherwise specified in an
applicable subpart, samples shall be
analyzed and emissions determined
within 30 days after each emission test
has been completed. The owner or
operator shall report the determinations
of the emission test to the Administrator
by a registered letter sent before the
close of business on the 31st day
following the completion of the emission
test.
(g) The owner or operator shall retain
at the source and make available, upon
request, for inspection by the
Administrator, for a minimum of 2 years.
records of emission test results and
other data needed to determine
emissions.
(h)(l) Emission tests shall be
conducted as set forth in this section,
the applicable subpart and Appendix B
unless the Administrator—
(i) Approves the use of an alternative
method, the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance; or
(ii) Waives the requirement for
emission testing because the owner or
operator of a source has demonstrated
by other means to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the source is in
compliance with the standard.
(2) If the Administrator finds
reasonable grounds to dispute the
results obtained by an alternative
method, he may require the use of a
reference method. If the results of the
reference and alternative methods do
not agree, the results obtained by the
reference method prevail, and the
Administrator will notify the owner or
operator that approval of the method
previously considered to be alternative
is withdrawn.
(3) For an existing source, any request
for use of an alternative method during
the initial emission test shall be
submitted to the Administrator within 30
days after the effective date, unless a
waiver of compliance has been granted
under § 61.11.
(4) For a new source, any request for
use of an alternative method during the
initial emission test shall be submitted
to the Administrator no later than with
the notification of anticipated startup
required under § 61.09.
(i)(l) Emission tests may be waived
upon written application to the
Administrator if, in his judgment, the
source is meeting the standard, or the
source is being operated under a waiver
of compliance, or the owner or operator
has requested a waiver of compliance
and the Administrator is still
considering that request.
(2) If application for waiver of the
emission test rs made, the application
shall accompany the information
required by § 61.10 or the notification of
startup required by § 61.09, whichever is
applicable. A possible format is
contained in Appendix A to this part.
(3) Approval of any waiver granted
under this section shall not abrogate the
Administrator's authority under the Act
or in any way prohibit the Administrator
from later cancelling the waiver. The
cancellation will be made only after
notice is given to the owner or operator
of the source.
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
V-A-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
14. Section 61.14 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 61.14 Monitoring requirement*.
(a) Unless otherwise specified, this
section applies to each monitoring
system required under each subpart
which requires monitoring.
(b) Each owner or operator shall
maintain and operate each monitoring
system as specified in the applicable
subpart and in a manner consistent with
good air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions. Any unavoidable
breakdown or malfunction of the
monitoring system should be repaired or
adjusted as soon as practicable after its
occurrence. The Administrator's
determination of whether acceptable
operating and maintenance procedures
are being used will be based on
information which may include, but not
be limited to, review of operating and
maintenance procedures, manufacturer
recommendations and specifications,
and inspection of the monitoring system.
(c) When required by the applicable
subpart, and at any other time the
Administrator may require, the owner or
operator of a source being monitored
shall conduct a performance evaluation
of the monitoring system and furnish the
Administrator with a copy of a written
report of the results within 60 days of
the evaluation. The performance
evaluation shall be conducted according
to the applicable specifications and
procedures described in the applicable
subpart. The owner or operator of the
source shall furnish the Administrator
with written notification of the date of
the performance evaluation at least 30
days before the evaluation is to begin.
(d) When the effluents from a single
source, or from two or more sources
subject to the same emission standards,
are combined before being released to
the atmosphere, the owner or operator
shall install a monitoring system on
each effluent or on the combined
effluent. If two or more sources are not
subject to the same emission standards.
the owner or operator shall install a
separate monitoring system on each
effluent, unless otherwise specified. If
the applicable standard is a mass
emission standard and the effluent from
one source is released to the atmosphere
through more than one point, the owner
or operator shall install a monitoring
system at each emission point unless the
installation of fewer systems is
approved by the Administrator.
(e) The owner or operator of each
monitoring system shall reduce the
monitoring data as specified in each
applicable subpart. Monitoring data
recorded during periods of unavoidable
monitoring system breakdowns, repairs.
calibration checks, and zero and span
adjustments shall not be included in any
data average.
(f) The owner or operator shall
maintain records of monitoring data,
monitoring system calibration checks,
and the occurrence and duration of any
period during which the monitoring
system is malfunctioning or inoperative.
These records shall be maintained at the
source for a minimum of 2 years and
made Available, upon request, for
inspection by the Administrator.
(g) After receipt and consideration of
a 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)}
{61.15 [Redeslgnated u § 61.16]
15. Section 61.15 is redesignated as <
i 61.16.
16. A new { 61.15 is added as follows:
§61.15 Modification
(a) Except as provided under
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section,
any physical or operational change to a
stationary source which results in an
increase in the rate of emission to the
atmosphere of a hazardous pollutant to
which a standard applies shall be
considered a modification.
(b) Upon modification, an existing
source shall become a new source for
each hazardous pollutant for which the
rate of emission to the atmosphere
increases and to which a standard
applies.
(c) Emission rate shall be expressed
as kg/hr of any hazardous pollutant
discharged into the atmosphere for
which a standard is applicable. The
Administrator shall use the following to
determine the emission rate:
(1) Emission factors as specified in the
latest issue of "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors," EPA
Publication No. AP-42. or other emission
factors determined by the Administrator
to be superior to AP-42 emission factors,
in cases where use of emission factors
demonstrates that the emission rate will
clearly increase or clearly not increase
as a result of the physical or operational
change.
(2) Material balances, monitoring
data, or manual emission tests in cases
where use of emission factors, as
referenced in paragraph (c)(l) of this
section, does not demonstrate to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the
emission rate will clearly increase or
clearly not increase as a result of the
physical or operational change, or where
an interested person demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction that
there are reasonable grounds to dispute
the result obtained by the Administrator
using emission factors. When the
emission rate is based on results from
manual emission tests or monitoring
data, the procedures specified in
Appendix C of 40 CFR Part 60 shall be
used to determine whether an increase
in emission rate has occurred. Tests
shall be conducted under such
conditions as the Administrator shall
specify to the owner or operator. At
least three test runs must be conducted
before and at least three after the
physical or operational change. If the
Administrator approves, the results of
the emission tests required in § 61.13{a)
may be used for the test runs to be
conducted before the physical or
operational change. All operating
parameters which may affect emissions
must be held constant to the maximum
degree feasible for all test runs.
(d) The following shall not, by
themselves, be considered modifications
under this part:
(1) Maintenance, repair, and
replacement which the Administrator
determines to be routine for a source
category.
(2) An increase in production rate of a
stationary source, if that increase can be
accomplished without a capital
expenditure on the stationary source.
(3) An increase in the hours of
operation.
(4) Any conversion to coal that meets
the requirements specified in section
lll(a)(8) of the Act.
(5) The relocation or change in
ownership of a stationary source.f
17. Section 61.16 is redesignated as
§ 61.17 and is revised to read as follows:
§61.17 State authority.
(a) This part shall not be construed to
preclude any State or political
subdivision thereof from—
(1) Adopting and enforcing any
emission limiting regulation applicable
to a stationary source, provided that
such emission limiting regulation is not
less stringent than the standards
prescribed under this part; or
(2) Requiring the owner or operator of
a stationary source to obtain permits,
licenses, or approvals prior to initiating
construction, modification, or operation
of the source.
(Sec. 116. Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7416))
18. Section 61.17 is redesignated as
§ 61.19 and the words "subject to the
provisions of this part" are removed
from the first sentence.
19. In § 61.33, introductory paragraph
(a) is revised to read as follows:
V-A-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1904 / Proposed Rules
§ 61.33 Stack sampling.
(a) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under § 61.13, each
owner or operator required to comply
with § 61.32(a) shall test emissions from
the source according to Method 104 of
Appendix B to this part. Method 103 of
Appendix B to this part is approved by
the Administrator as an alternative
method for sources subject to § 61.32(a).
The emission test shall be performed—
* * • * .*
20. In § 61.44, paragraph (a) is revised
to read as follows:
§61.44 Stack sampling.
(a) Sources subject to § 61.42(b) shall
be continuously sampled, during release
of combustion products from the tank,
according to Method 104 of Appendix B
to this part. Method 103 of Appendix B
to this part is approved by the
Administrator as an alternative method
for sources subject to § 61.42(b).
*****
. 21, In § 61.53 an introductory
paragraph is added to read as follows:
§61.53 Stack sampling.
Testing under this section shall be
done according to Method 101 or
Method 102, whichever is applicable.
*****
§61.65 [Amended]
22. Section 61.65 is amended by
removing the words "equivalent or"
throughout paragraphs (b)(8) (i) and (c).
. 23. In § 61.67, paragraph (g) is revised
by removing references to equivalent
methods to read as follows:
§61.67 Emission tests.
*****
(g) Unless otherwise specified, the
owner 07 operator shall use Test
Methods in Appendix B to this part for
each test as required by paragraphs
(g)(D. (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), and (g)(5) of
this section, unless an alternative
method has been approved by the
Administrator. If the Administrator finds
reasonable grounds to dispute the
results obtained by an alternative
method, he may require the use of a
reference method. If the results of the
reference and alternative methods do
not agree, the results obtained by the
reference method prevail, and the
Administrator may notify the owner or
operator that approval of the method
previously considered to be alternative
is withdrawn.
§61.68 [Amended]
24. Section 61.68 is amended by
removing the words "equivalent or"
throughout paragraph (b).
§61.70 [Amended]
25. Section 61.70 is amended by
removing the words "equivalent or"
throughout paragraph (c).
Appendix A [Amended]
26. In Appendix A, paragraph (II)(B) is
amended by replacing the words "of
beryllium or mercury pollutants" with
the words "subject to emission testing."
Appendix B [Amended]
27. In Method 103 of Appendix B,
paragraph 1.2 is amended by removing
the words "as specified under the
provisions of § 61.14 of the regulations."
|FR Doc. 84-14482 Filed e-5-84; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE CMO-SO-W
V-A-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 212 / Wednesday. October 31. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40CFRPari«1
[AD-F*LM»4-2a]
National Emission Standards tor
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standards
for Radon-222 Emissions From
Underground Uranium Mines
AOEMCYt Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This notice armotmces the
Agency's intent, asder Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, to start a
program to consider a standard baaed
on bulkheading or related techniques to
control radon emissions from
underground oranium mines. This
standard could be an emission standard,
or a design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard, or a combination
thereof. The Agency requests interested
parties to submit information and
comments relative to controlling these
emissions.
DATES: Information received by April 30,
1985 -will be of maximum value.
ADDRESS: Comments must be submitted
(in duplicate, if possible] to: Central
Docket Section fLE-130) Attention:
Docket No. A-79-1L Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James M. Hardin, (783) 557-6977.
Environmental Standards Branch,
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-
460), Office of Radiation Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) serves to inform
interested parties that the Agency is
considering a rulemaking related to the
design and type of equipment work
practices, operational procedures, or to
emission standards based on these
techniques, to control the radon-222
emissions from underground uranium
mines. As of January 1983, there were
139 of these mines located in Arizona,
Colorado, New Mexico. Utah, and
Wyoming. These mine* have a
production rate of 6,200 tons of U3O8
and account for about 46% of the total
production of U/3. in the United States.
The Agency proposed a standard
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act in
April of 1963 for underground uranium
mines that would limit the annual
radon-222 concentration in air due to
emissions from an underground mine to
0.2 pQ/1 above background in any
unrestricted area. The principal method
to meet this standard was considered to
be control of land around the mine,
since at the time, the Agency believed
that no emission reduction measures
were practical.
In EPA's most recent evaluation of the
risks due to radon-222 emissions from
underground uranium mines, the
estimated lifetime risk of fatal cancer to
nearby individuals ranges from one in
one thousand to one in one hundred.
The potential exists for an even higher
risk in some situations (up to one in ten)
for individuals living very close to
several horizontal vents or in areas
influenced by multiple mine emissions.
The fatal cancer risk to the total
population from radon-222 emissions
from all underground uranium mines is
five fatal cancers per year. The Agency
considers these risks to be significant
and believes action is needed to protect
individuals living near underground
mines and other populations.
However, analysis of the likely
reduction in health risks afforded by the
proposed standard showed that while
risks to nearby individuals were.
reduced by a factor of about ten, the
risks to the total population were only
negligibly reduced. The lack of
population risk reduction was due to the
fact that radon releases would not be
reduced, they would only be more
widely dispersed.
The Agency decided to withdraw its
proposed standard for underground
uranium mines based on its conclusion
that the proposed standard was not
authorized by the Clean Air Act and
that the limited reduction in population
risk would not meet the full Intent of
section 112 to provide adequate public
health protection.
Because radon-222 is a noble gas and
the volume of air discharged through
mine vents is very large, there is no
practical method to remove radon-222
from the mine exhaust air. Adsorption
onto activated charcoal is the most
widely used method for removing noble
gases from a low volume air stream.
However, application of this method to
the removal of radon-222 from mine
ventilation air at the volumes of air that
must be treated would require large,
complex, unproven systems which
would be extremely costly.
Since proposal, EPA has received
additional information indicating that
work practices, such as bulkheading, are
more feasible and cost-effective than
originally thought. The Agency has
decided to begin development of
standards based on bulkheading or
similar techniques to control radon
releases from underground uranium
mines. Interested parties are requested
to submit information and comments on
the following issues:
(1) Measured or estimated radon-222
releases from underground mines;
(2) Applicable standards for reducing
radon emissions, including such
practices as bulkheading, sealants, mine
pressurization, and backfilling;
(3) Methods of procedures to predict
releases of radon-222 without controls
and with controls, such as bulkheading.
sealants, mine pressurization, end
backfilling;
(4) Effectiveness, feasibility and costs
of controls;
(5) Methods of determining
compliance with design, equipment,
work practice, or operational type
standards;
(6) Estimates of impacts on nearby
individuals and populations due to
radon-222 emissions before and after
control;
(7) Extent of radon-222 controls now
practiced by the industry, including such
methods as bulkheading, sealants, mine
pressurization, and backfilling; and
(B) Effect on the industry if controls
are required.
Dated: October 23,1984.
William D. Ruckelshaug,
Administrator.
[PR Doc 84-28438 Filed 10-28-M; 2:13 pm]
aiLUNO CODE H60-60-N
V-A-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 212 / Wednesday. October 31. 1984 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61
IAD FRL 26«4-2b]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standards
for Radon-222 Emissions from
Licensed Uranium Mills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rule making.
SUMMARY: This notice announces the
Agency's intent, under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, to consider
development of standards to control
radon-222 emissions from licensed
uranium mills. The Agency requests
interested parties to submit information
and comments relative to controlling
these emissions.
DATES: Information received by April 30,
1985 will be of maximum value.
ADDRESS: Comments must be submitted
(in duplicate, if possible) to: Central
Docket Section (LE-130) Attention:
Docket No'. A-79-11, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James M. Hardin, (703) 557-8977,
Environmental Standards Branch,
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-
460), Office of Radiation Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington. D.C. 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) serves to inform
interested parties that the Agency is
considering emission standards under
the Clean Air Act for licensed uranium
ore processing facilities. As of January
1983, there were 27 licensed uranium
mills located in Colorado, New Mexico,
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington.
and Wyoming. These mills have
produced a total of over 150 million
metric tons of tailings which contain
radioactive elements from the uranium
decay chain, including radium-226 which
decays to radon-222. The latter is a
radioactive gas which is emitted from
the piles to the ambient air.
EPA issued standards under the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act (UMTRCA) (40 CFR Part 192
Subparts D and E) for the management
of tailings at locations that are licensed
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) or the States under Title U of the
UMTRCA. These standards do not
specifically limit radon-222 emissions
until after closure of the facility. When
the UMTRCA standards were
promulgated, the Agency stated that it
would issue an ANPR for consideration
of control of radon emissions from
uranium tailings piles during the
operational period of a uranium mill.
This notice fulfills that commitment.
The Agency issued Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for
Nuclear Power Operations (42 FR 2858,
January 13,1977). These standards (40
CFR Part 190) limit the total individual
radiation dose caused by emissions
from facilities that comprise the uranium
fuel cycle, including licensed uranium
mills. At the time 40 CFR Part 190 was
promulgated, there existed considerable
uncertainty about the public health
impact of existing levels of radon-222 in
the atmosphere, as well as uncertainty
about the best method for management
of new man-made sources of the gas.
The Agency exempted radon-222 from
control under 40 CFR Part 190 since at
that time the problems associated with
radon emissions were considered
sufficiently different from those of other
radioactive materials associated with
the fuel cycle to warrant separate
consideration.
Subsequently, standards were
proposed under the Clean Air Act (48 FR
15076, April 6,1983) for NRC licensees.
but uranium fuel cycle facilities, which
included operating uranium mills, were
excluded because these sources are
subject to EPA's 40 CFR Part 190
standard that provided protection
cquivplent to that of the Clean Air Act.
It was noted during the comment period
for the Clean Air Act standards that
radon-222 emitted from operating
uranium mills and their actively used
tailings piles are not subject to any
current or proposed EPA standards, and
that there may be significant risks
associated with resulting radon-222
f'nission.
The Agency is particularly interested
in receiving information on the following
issues:
(1) Radon-222 emissions from these
facilities;
(2) Applicable control options and
strategies, including work practices:
(3) Feasibility and cost of control
options and strategies;
(4) Local and regional impacts due to
emissions of radon-222 from active
uranium mills;
(5) Methods of determining
compliance with a work practice type of
standard; and
(6) Effect on the industry if controls
are required.
Dated: October 23. 1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
I F» Doc. 84-28440 Filed 10-28-04: 2:14 ami
V-A-13
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
MERCURY
SUBPART E
-------
teir / Vol. 49. No. 2419 / Wednesday, December 26, 1984 / Proposed Rules
AGEKO
jo A!r Petlutoroto Kowtow
17=
AJCuall Ftato, Sludge IrccircsratoR cm&
OrQ
v: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
: Review and proposed rule.
SSOC3C3ABV: The current mercury national
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) implement section
112 of the Clean Air Act and are based
on the Administrator's earlier
determination that mercury is a
hazardous air pollutant. This
determination was based on the finding
that previously unregulated mercury
emissions might cause or contribute to
an increase in serious irreversible, or
incapacitating reversible, illness. The
intent of the standards is to protect the
public health with an ample margin of
safety.
A review of the mercury NESHAP (40
CFR 81.5, Subpart E) has been
completed to determine if changes to the
existing standards are needed or if any
additional source categories should be
included. The NESHAP limit mercury
emissions from mercury-cell chlor-alkali
plants, sludge drying and incineration
plants, and mercury ore processing
facilities. This notice summarizes
information gathered during the review,
proposes the addition of monitoring and
reporting requirements to the standard
for mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants, and
proposes to allow the owner or operator
of any affected facility 15 days to verify
the validity of source test data prior to
reporting the results to the
Administrator.
A public hearing will be held, if
requested, to provide interested persons
an opportunity for oral presentation of
data, views, or arguments concerning
the proposed revisions to the standard.
©AYES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before March 13, 1985.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by January 16, 1985, a public
hearing will be held on February 13,
1985 beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons
interested in attending the hearing
should call Mrs. Shelby Journigan at
(919) 541-5578 to verify that a hearing
will occur.
Request To Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony must
contact the EPA by January 16,1635.
AB>6X328028: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section
(LE-131), Attention: Docket No. A-82-
41, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C.20460
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing, it will be held at the
Environmental Research Center
Auditorium, comer of Highway 54 and
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. Persons wishing to
present oral testimony should notify
Mrs. Shelby Journigan, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-5578.
Review Documents. The document
summarizing emissions information
gathered during the review of the
standards may be obtained from the
EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone
number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
"Review of National Emission
Standards for Mercury." EPA-950/3-84-
014.
The document summarizing current .
information on the potential health
effects associated with mercury
exposures may also be obtained from
the EPA Library. Refer to "Mercury
Health Effects Update," EPA-eOO/8-84-
019F.
Docket. Docket No. A-82-41,
containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards, ID
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, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable free may be charged for
copying.
P©H pyBTOEB OWFOHCOATIOKI (g©W7A@¥:
On policy issues contact: Ms. Dianne
Byrne or Mr. Gil Wood, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
641-5578.
On technical issues contact: Dr. James
Crowder, Industrial Studies Branch,
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711. telephone
number (919) 541-5601.
On March 31,1971 (36 FR 5931), the
EPA listed mercury as a hazardous air
pollutant under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act. The NESHAP for mercury were
proposed on December 7,1971 (36 FR
23239). Comments received during two
public hearings and a public comment
period were considered, and the
NESHAP were promulgated on April 8,
1973 (38 FR 8826). Initially, the standards
included emission limits for only two
sources, mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants
and mercury ore processing facilities.
These were the only sources that the
EPA reasonably expected to have the air
emission potential to adversely affect
human health. Mercury emissions were
limited to 2,300 grams per 24-hour period
for each source. As a result of a May 7.
1973. petition to the EPA by the
Environmental Defense Fund, the EPA
agreed to investigate the need to
regulate mercury emissions from sludge
drying and incineration facilities. The
investigation showed that mercury could
be emitted in such a way as to endanger
human health from several facilities if
they were to carry out plans to
significantly expand their capacity.
Thus, the inclusion of these sources in
the NESHAP was proposed on October
25,1974 (39 FR 38034), and promulgated
on October 14,1975 (40 FR 48302).
Emission limits for sludge drying and
incineration plants were set at 3.200
grams per 24-hour period.
A revised authority citation to the
amended Clean Air Act was published
on March 3,1978 (43 FR 8799). Minor
revisions to Reference Test Methods 101
and 102, "Determination of Particulate
and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from
Chlor-Alkali Plants-Air Streams" and
"Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emission from Chlor-
Alkali Plants-Hydrogen Streams,"
respectively, to allow the use of
alternative sampling and analysis
equipment were proposed on October
15,1980 (45 FR 68514), and promulgated
on June 8,1982 (47 FR 24704). The
addition of Reference Test Method
iOlA, "Determination of Particulate and
Gaseous Mercury Emissions from
Sewage Sludge Incinerators" was
proposed and promulgated on the same
dates as the revised Reference Test
Methods 101 and 102.
The emission standards for mercury
were developed with the intention of
regulating those sources that have the
potential to emit mercury in a manner
that could cause the mercury ambient
concentration, averaged over 30 days, to
exceed 1.0 microgram per cubic meter
V-E-2
-------
/ Vol. <38, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26, 1884 / Proposed Rules
(g/m'). This concentration is a guideline
developed by the EPA at the time of the
initial proposed rulemaking to protect
human health with an ample margin of
safety from the adverse health effects of
inhaled mercury, taking into
consideration the expected levels of
ingested mercury. A detailed discussion
of the development of the 1.0 g/m9
guideline is presented in the health
effects document referred to earlier
under Review Documents. Inhalation
and ingestion and mercury compounds
cause central nervous system and renal
damage. The effects depend on the dose
and include tremors end gingivitis as
well as a form of poisoning involving a
number of nonspecific neurological end
physiological symptoms, e.g., memory
loss, delusions, end hallucinations. An
EPA review of the mercury health
effects studies indicates that there ia no
evidence that current standards are not
amply protective of human health from
the inhalation of mercury vapor o? from
other airborne mercury exposures, end
revision of the current 1.0 g/m0
guideline, based on available data, is
not warranted, in making this
determination, the EPA would like to
note that the IJQ ug/m° guideline was
based on the public health effects of
inhaled mercury, taking into
consideration dietary contributions to
total body burden of mercury. It did not
account for any indirect exposures to
mercury. The final health effects review
document, however, states that the
deposition of airborne mercury
emissions can lead to increased
concentrations of mercury in the edible
fish of local lakes and rivers. It also
states that recent studies suggest that
mercury levels in more remote lakes can
be affected as well through the long-
distance transport and deposition of
mercury on water and land, as the
runoff from land transfers mercury to
water.
EPA believes that the'1.0 ug/m3
guideline, which takes into account
average ingestion levels of mercury, is
amply protective because of
conservative assumptions made in the
development of the guideline. However,
because the effects of indirect exposures
have not been definitively quantified,
EPA requests comments on this issue.
Should new information become
available to allow for quantification of
these effects, the Agency will reevaluate
the adequacy of the mercury standards.
The final health effects review is
included in the docket as item 1I-A-13.
The findings of the review of the
national emission standards for mercury
are presented in the following sections
of this notice. The first section discusses
the compliance and enforcement
experiences of the regulated source
categories and assesses the need to
revise the NESHAP fo? theee sources.
The second section discusses the
emission potential of unregulated
sources of mercury emissions and the
need to regulate these oources.
Unregulated (via NESHAP) Source
Categories
The mercury emissions potential of
coal-fired power plants and nonferrous
smelters was investigated by the SPA
under the original rulemaking. These
sources were not included in the original
standard because it was found that
mercury emissions from these sources,
even assuming restrictive dispersion
conditions and uncontrolled emissions,
were not expected to cause the ambient
concentration guideline to be exceeded.
A recent study of mercury emissions
from power plants supports this
conclusion.
Battery manufacturing, secondary
mercury recovery using retort furnances
or vacuum distillation, geothermal
power plants, pest-to-methanol plants,
mercury vapor lamp manufacturing,
industrial instrument manufacturing,
paint manufacturing, manufacture of
mercurials, laboratory use of mercury,
use of amalgams in dentistry, and solid
waste incenerators also emit mercury to
the air. Based on published information
about the use of mercury by these
sources and the probable magnitude of
their air emissions, only battery
manufacturing and secondary mercury
recovery were considered as candidates
for inclusion in the standard. Details
regarding these sources are provided in
the review document.
Battery Manufacturing. Mercury in
the form of zinc (Zn) amalgam, mercuric
oxide (HBO), mercuric chloride (H/^),
or mercurous chloride (He2Cl2) is a
component of most primary batteries
and some storage batteries. Because of
the amount of mercury involved,
mercuric oxide battery (commonly
called mercury battery) and alkaline-
manganese battery manufacturing
would have the greatest potential for
mercury emissions. Thus, these two
sources were analyzed first to determine
if the ambient mercury concentration
guideline would be exceeded.
Five mercuric oxide battery
manufacturing plants are currently in
operation. Estimated daily mercury
emissions provided by industry range
from about 5 to 454 grams (g) (0.01 to 1
pound [lb/d]) for these plants. Short-
term ambient mercury vapor levels
(averaged over 6 to 9 hours) greater than
1 f&g/m' have been measured in the
vicinity of emisoion sources and at
points on the perimeter of the plant
having the highest mercury emission
level. Atmospheric dispersion modeling
assuming maximum production
capacity, was performed for this facility
to provide an indication of the expected
ambient mercury concentrations over a
30-day averaging period. The results of
the dispersion modeling indicated a
maximum 30-day average mercury
concentration of 0.16 (ig/m3, a level
significantly lower than the 1 p.g/m* (30-
day average) used as a health effects
guideline. As would be expected, the
modeling results are different from th(
short-term measurements primarily
because the 30-day averaging time
includes meteorological conditions
representative of the entire averaging
period and is, therefore, less likely to
reflect only the effects of specific short-
term meteorological conditions. As such,
the modeling results are judged to be
more representative of the 30-day
average ambient levels than are the
short-term monitoring results.
A large alkaline-maganese battery
manufacturing plant may use about 910
kilograms per day (kg/d) (2,000 lb/d) of
mercury for zinc amalgamation. Mercury
emission estimates ranging from <1CO
g/d (<0.2 lb/d) to about 8CO g/d (1.8 lb/
d) were reported by industry for the
seven plant in the U.S. Atmospheric
dispersion modeling, assuming
maximum production capacity, was
performed for the facility with the
highest mercury emission level. The
modeling results indicated o maximum
30-day average mercury concentration
of 0.17 fig/m3, a level significantly lower
than the 1 fig/m0 (30-day average) set as
a health effects guideline.
Thus, extending the standard to
include battery manufacturing is not
warranted at this time because
dispersion modeling data indicate that
the level of mercury emitted would not
cause the ambient concentration
guideline to be exceeded.
Secondary Recovery. Mercury is
recovered from such sources as
batteries, thermometers, and sludges by
vacuum distillation or by condensing
vaporized mercury in retorts. Of these,
retorts have the potential for higher
mercury emissions. Mercury is emitted
from the vapor stream remaining after
condensation and from the retort
chamber during loading and unloading
operations.
Two companies and one battery
manufacturer operate mercury recover)
retorts processing between 64,000 and
159,000 kg/yr (KSO.CCO and 350,CCO Ib/yr)
of scrap. Several chlor-elkali companies
V-E-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26. 1984 / Proposed Rules
operate small mercury recovery retorts
on-site. Mercury emission estimates
from two facilities and test data from a
third indicate that daily emissions range
from <1 to 840 g (0.002 to 1.85 Ib). (The
highest emission level was from the
facility with test data.) The highest
emission level (840 g/d) is similar to the
highest level measured for alkaline-
manganese battery manufacturing
plants (800 g/d). As with battery
manufacturing, the 30-day average
ambient concentration would not be
expected to exceed the health effects
guideline.
Thus, extending the standard to
include secondary recovery facilities is
not warranted at this time because the
data indicate that the level of mercury
emitted would not cause the ambient
concentration guideline to be exceeded.
Regulated Source Categories
Mercury Ore Processing. The 24
mercury ore processing facilities in
operation when the standard was
promulgated have closed, primarily
because of the decline in mercury prices
from 1969 to 1978. While prices have
increased since 1978, they are still
below those reached in 1989.
One facility that uses high grade ore
and improved ore processing technology
was constructed in 1975 and is capable
of producing over 690 megagrams per
year (Mg/yr)} 1.5 million pounds per
year jlb/yr]) of mercury. The new
facility has demonstrated compliance
with the standard by using control
technology (a venturi and impinger
tower, and a wet scrubber) designed to
remove sulfur dioxide and particulates.
An emission level of 816 grams per day
(g/d) (1.8 pounds per day [lb/d]), less
than one-half the limit of the standard,
was measured by Reference Method 101
in 1981 when the facility was operating
at the maximum capacity allowed under
its permit.
No new or reopened facilties are
expected unless mercury prices increase
significantly. No enforcement problems
with the standard were noted by either
EPA region or State personnel.
Sludge Drying and Incineration.
Approximately 9 sludge dryers at 5
plants and 280 sludge incinerators at 170
plants process wastewater treatment
plant sludges and are subject to the
standard. There have been 38
incineration plants constructed since the
standard was proposed. Half of these
have a dry solids burning capacity
greater than 45 Mg/d (50 tons/d). Only
16 percent of those plants constructed
prior to 1974 were this large. All
facilities have demonstrated compliance
with the standard; the highest mercury
emission level for the existing plants is
less than one-half the NBSHAP emission
limit. No enforcement problems with the
standard have been encountered or are
expected because the mercury content
of sludge is generally to low to cause the
emission limit to be exceeded in the
sizes of incinerators in use today.
The EPA projected in 1974, however,
that mercury could be emitted in such a
way as to endanger human health from
several facilities if they significantly
expanded their capacity. These
expansions have not occurred, but the
possiblity for future expansions or
construction of new large facilities
exists in heavily populated areas such
as the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. Theoretically, if all of
the municipal sludges from this area
were to be incinerated in a small
number of incinerators, there could be
facilities sufficiently large to have
uncontrolled mercury emissions in
excess of the standard. An EPA sludge
task force is studying the environmental
consequences of several hypothetical
situations in which all electrical
generating plants in the area would be
coal-fired and all municipal sludges
would be either incinerated in several
large facilities, buried in sanitary
landfills, or disposed in the ocean. The
findings of the task force will provide
preliminary indications of the most
environmentally acceptable disposal
method considering the combined
impacts on air, land, and water. If
warranted, the mercury NESHAP
emission limit for sewage sludge
incinerators would be studied to
determine the reasonableness of
alternative controls.
Mercury-Cell Chlor-Alkali Process.
The total U.S. installed chlorine capacity
using mercury-cell technology dropped
from 25 percent in 1973 to 19 percent in
1982. Twenty-four chlor-alkali plants
using the mercury-cell process are
currently subject to the national
emission standard. No new mercury-cell
chlor-alkali plants have been built since
promulgation of the standard, and it is
probable that no new chlor-alkali plants
of this type will be constructed in the
U.S. in die future. This trend is due to
the availability of alternative
technologies, such as the membrane cell
and diaphragm cell technology, that do
not use mercury and that consume less
energy. Growth is expected in the
number of facilities using these
alternative technologies.
According to enforcement agencies
and the industry, all mercury-cell chlor-
alkali plants are presently in compliance
with the standard. To demonstrate
compliance with the cell room
provisions of the standard, all facilities
have elected to follow prescribed
housekeeping practices instead of
testing cell room emissions.
Combined mercury emissions from the
hydrogen and end-box ventilation
streams and the cell room are limited to
2.300 g/d (5.0 lb/d) by the national
emission standard. Emissions from the
ceD room are assumed to be 1,300 g/d
(2.8 lb/d) when housekeeping practices
are followed. Thus, combined emissions
from the hydrogen and end-box
ventilation streams must be maintained
at no more than 1,000 g/d (2.2 lb/d)
when compliance is demonstrated by
following approved housekeeping
practices (e.g., maintaining floors in
good condition and promptly cleaning
mercury spills).
Control systems used for the hydrogen
gas and end-box ventilation systems
include: Coolers, wet scrubbers, carbon
adsorbers and molecular sieves.
Compliance tests conducted since 1973
show mercury emission measurements
on the hydrogen stream ranging from 1
to 891 g/d (0.002 to 2.0 lb/d). Emission
data near the low end of this range were
generally measured on hydrogen
streams controlled by molecular sieve of
carbon absorption control systems.
Other control systems include coolers
and chemical absorption systems.
Mercury emission data for the end-box
ventilation stream ranged from 1 to 428
g/d (0.002 to 0.94 lb/d).
State and EPA regional personnel
contacted in this study stated that
monitoring and reporting requirements,
which are not now included in the
NESHAP, would aid enforcement
significantly. The most recent
compliance tests indicate that all
facilities were in compliance with the
standard at the time of the test;
however, several facilities control
emissions to just below the emission
limits to minimize compliance costs.
Because continued attainment of the
standards is dependent on proper
operation and maintenance of the
control and process equipment, the
monitoring of control system
performance and conditions contributing
to mercury emissions is important to
ensure that the emission limits are not
being exceeded. The Chlorine institute,
a trade associaton representing the
mercury-cell chlor-alkali industry, has
concurred with the adoption of suitable.
simple, and effective mechanisms to
assure compliance with the hydrogen
and end-box emission limits and cell
room housekeeping rules. These include
combinations of monitoring of specific
parameters, recording, and reporting.
Ideally, monitoring requirements
would require the continuous and
precise measurements of the amount of
V-E-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26. 1984 / Proposed Rules
mercury being emitted. However, in the
case of mercury emissions from the
mercury-cell chlor-alkai industry, a
single test by Reference Method 101 or
102 costs approximately $12,000, and
continuous mercury emission monitors
are not adequately demonstrated.
Parameters that could be monitored to
indicate the performance of various
control devices include the temperature
of gas streams for cooling systems: the
liquid flow rate. pH, concentration of
available chlorine and inlet gas
temperature for chemical absorption
systems; the liquid flow rate and exit
gas temperature for water scrubbers; the
regeneration temperature of molecular
sieves; and the inlet temperature of
carbon absorbers. The exit gas
temperature for uncontrolled systems
would indicate the maximum amount of
mercury in the stream.
Alternative Monitoring Requirements
That Were Considered
Five alternatives for monitoring
requirements for the hydrogen and end-
box ventilation streams of mercury-cell
chlor-alkali plants were considered.
These were: (1) Continuous instrument
monitoring of mercury emissions; (2) no
routine monitoring, but periodic
emission tests by the EPA reference test
methods; (3) continous, or hourly,
monitoring of control device and/or
process parameters followed by
reporting of periods when the
parameters fall outside ranges specified
in the NESHAP; (4) hourly monitoring of
control device and/or process
parameters, followed by a simplified
sampling procedure (i.e., non-reference
method) when the monitored parameters
fall outside limits established on a plant-
by-plant basis; and (5) periodic
monitoring of emissions by a simplified
sampling procedure.
The first alternative was judged to be
insufficiently demonstrated and too
costly, and the second alternative was
judged to be too monitoring of control
device and/or process parameters
followed by reporting of periods when
parameters fall outside a specified range
(the third alternative.) They stated that
parameters such as temperature could
exceed the ranges suggested by the
Agency at some facilities, while those
facilities' emissions could be well below
the limit of the standard, negating the
need for reports. At a meeting with
members of the Chlorine Institute on
February 28,1984 (Docket A-82-41, Item
II-E-153), some representatives
proposed that the periodic monitoring of
control device and/or process
parameters, which is already done to
varying degrees by all plants, be
coupled with a simplied sampling
procedure to determine mercury
emissions when the level of the
monitored parameter falls outside an
established limit. They recommended
that these limits be established
separately for each plant and used to
develop • plant-specific compliance
assurance plan. Industry representatives
further proposed, as another alternative,
that simplified sampling be done on a
quarterly basis (the fifth alternative)
instead of routine monitoring of
parameters.
The EPA investigated the Chlorine
Institute members' suggestion of
conducting a simplified sampling
procedure (i.e.. non-reference method)
as an alternative to monitoring control
device or process parameters or as a
means of indicating whether excess
emissions may have occurred during
periods when monitored parameters
have fallen outside established limits.
The Agency is not aware of any
simplified sampling method that has
been sufficiently demonstrated to
accurately represent the mercury
concentration in the stack. The
reference test methods include, and any
acceptable alternative method would
also have to include, rigorous
procedures for ensuring that the
sampling train is properly prepared prior
to sampling and that the collected
mercury vapors accurately represent the
mercury concentration in the stack. In
addition, sampling periods shorter than
the minimum periods required for each
of the three reference method runs (2
hours each) may not collect an amount
of mercury sufficient for accurate
analysis. Thus, the Agency knows of no
demonstrated emission monitoring
method applicable to all affected
facilities that can be proposed as an
optional method. Consequently, the
fourth and fifth monitoring alternatives
were rejected. However, as an
alternative to hourly parameter
monitoring, the EPA will consider for
approval, on a case-by-case basis,
alternative demonstrated emission
monitoring methods that would provide
for complete collection and accurate
analysis of mercury. Use of such an
6iiuSdiGIi uiOuitOring iilcuiOu infGUiu uc
required on a routine basis. The
frequency of use would be partially
determined by the accuracy of the
method and the complexity of the
collection procedures.
In considering the third monitoring
alternative, the Agency agreed with the
Chlorine Institute members' statement
that certain process or control device
parameters, such as temperature, could
be exceeded on some occasions without
affecting the compliance status of the
facility. This is most likely to happen in
cases where the established limit of the
parameter to be monitored (temperature,
for example) is equivalent to the level
measured during a performance test
which demonstrated compliance and
which was conducted under optimal
operating conditions. For example, if the
performance test were conducted in the
winter at a facility where water at
ambient temperature is used to cool exit
gas streams, the temperature recorded
during the test could be relatively low. If
an equivalent temperature served as the
limit not to be exceeded and the
temperature of the facility's cooling
water were 30* to 50*F higher during the
summer, the facility could be required to
report the temperature exceedance, but
the emissions could be below the
emission limit. The Agency also agreed
that the upper limit of the parameter
could be different for each plant.
Proposed Revisions
To incorporate the industry's
suggestion of tailoring the monitoring
requirements to reflect plant-by-plant
differences, and to provide parameter
limits that would be a better indicator of
operation and maintenance and of
potential excess emissions, the Agency
is proposing that the owner/operator of
each affected facility be allowed to
establish the maximum parameter limits
(or, in the case of chemical absorption
systems, the minimum liquid flow rate
and available chlorine) based on the
levels that would be expected to occur
when the facility was operating under
the upper, or worst-case, range of
conditions that are reasonably expected
to occur, given proper operation and
maintenance of the facility.
Consequently, these limits would be
established during a performance test
that demonstrated compliance and that
was conducted when the facility was
operating at the upper range of
operating conditions that could
reasonably be expected to occur.
Because the limits would reflect the
upper range of operating conditions,
failure to maintain the parameters
within the limits would be a better
indication cf improper operation and
maintenance, and the potential for
excess emissions, than would failure to
maintain the parameters within limits
established under optimal operating
conditions.
For the reasons just described, this
proposal would require the owner or
operator of each mercury-cell chlor-
alkali plant to conduct an initial
performance test of the hydrogen and
end-box ventilation streams by
Reference Method 101 or 102. The tests
V-E-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 28. 1984 / Proposed Rules
may be performed under the upper range
of operating conditions (other than
conditions of malfunctions) that can
reasonably be expected to occur on a
routine basis.
While the reference method test is
being conducted, the owner or operator
of each mercury-cell chlor-alkali plant
would be required to monitor and
record, at least once every 15 minutes,
the following process and/or control
device parameters for each stream.
depending on the control system used:
The temperature of gas discharged to
the atmosphere from uncontrolled
streams: the outlet temperature of the
gas stream from the final (i.e., the
farthest downstream) cooling system
where no control devices other than
coolers and demisters are used; the
outlet temperature of the gas stream
from the final cooling system where the
cooling system is followed by a mercury
removal device such as a molecular
sieve or carbon adsorber concentration
of available chlorine, pH, liquid flow
rate and inlet gas temperature for
chlorinated brine scrubbers and
hypochlorite scrubbers; the liquid flow
rate and exit gas temperature for water .
scrubbers; the regeneration temperature
for molecular sieves; and the inlet
temperature for carbon adsorption
systems. The recorded values of these
monitored parameters would be
averaged over the performance test
period (a minimum of 6 hours) to
establish the plant-specific limits.
Subsequent to this performance test,
the owner or operator each mercury-cell
chlor-alkali plant would be required to
monitor and record, hourly, the same
process and/or control device
parameters that were monitored during
the test. The hourly monitoring
frequency is based on the Agency's
belief that control system failures could
result in excedances of the emission
limits if they are not noted and repaired
within several hours. Information
received from industry (Docket item II-
E-154) indicates that, in some cases, the
time required to repair or replace
portions of the hydrogen stream control
system, such as a chiller or upstream
compressor, could typically be 2-3
hours. The limits of the standards could
be exceeded within this time period,
depending on such factors as plant
capacity (tons per day of chlorine
production), cooler temperature, and
end-box emissions levels. Monitoring
parameter less frequently than hourly
would be expected to increase the risk
of excess emissions occurring before
control systems are repaired. Many
plant owners or operators continuously
monitor process or control device
parameters; others monitor on either an
hourly or bihonrly basis. The Agency
invites comments on the
appropriateness of hourly monitoring
and requests that such comments be
accompanied by data supporting any
alternate interval that is suggested.
If the hourly value of a monitored
parameter of either the hydrogen or end-
box ventilation stream exceeds (or. in
the case of chemical absorption systems
•where liquid flow rate and available
chlorine are monitored, falls below) for
a period of 24 consecutive hours, the
value of that same parameter
established during the performance test
the owner/operator would be required
to report within 10 days the failure to
maintain parameters within the
established limits. The 24-hour period is
believed to be sufficient time for an
owner/operator to repair most
conditions expected to cause the
parameters to fall outside the limits.
Semi-annual reports documenting all
hourly instances in which monitored
parameters fall outside the established
limits shall also be submitted to the
Administrator. These reports would be
for the purpose of notifying enforcement
agencies that monitored parameters
have fallen outside the limits and,
therefore, that there has been a potential
for excess emissions to occur.
Enforcement agencies, after reviewing
the reports and evaluating the nature of
the failure to remain within the limits,
may require a performance test to
determine if the facility is exceeding the
standards.
Each owner or operator of a chlor-
alkali plant that uses housekeeping
practices to comply with the standard
for cell room ventilation systems would
be required to maintain daily records of
all leaks or spills of mercury in the cell
room. The records shall indicate the
location of the leak or spill, the time and
date it was detected, immediate steps
taken to minimize mercury emissions
(i.e., containing a leak under water), the
ultimate corrective action, and the time
and date of the ultimate corrective
action. These leaks and spills are not
expected to occur frequently at well-
operated and -maintained plants.
Because the documentation of
mercury leaks and spills will be
available to enforcement personnel, the
owner or operator of each mercury-cell
chlor-alkali plant will be encouraged to
conduct proper operation and
maintenance. Requiring reports of
mercury leaks and spills is not being
- proposed because it would not
encourage proper operation and
maintenance beyond the program
described above. Excess emission
reports are not being required for
housekeeping practices because the
practices are not structured in a way
that excesses can be defined. Although
leaks of hydrogen gas can contain
relatively high concentrations of
mercury, it is standard operating
practice to promptly repair these leaks
because of the explosive nature of
hydrogen. The EPA believes that
because these leaks would be promptly
repaired, the reporting of hydrogen leaks
is not necessary and is, therefore, not
being proposed. Reporting leaks and
spills of brine, wash-water, or caustic is
not being proposed because these media
would not be expected to contain
significant quantities of mercury.
The results of all monitoring and
recordkeeping for mercury-cell chlor-
alkali plants would be retained at the
source and made available for
inspection by the Administrator for a
minimum of 2 years.
The addition of monitoring.
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for mercury-cell chlor-
alkali industry will benefit the
environment through encouraging plants
to adopt best operating practices for
operating and maintaining process
equipment and control devices. There
would be no energy impacts as a result
of this addition. There will be an
average yearly cost to each chlor-alkali
plant during the first three years the
proposed revisions are in effect of
approximately $9,000 associated with
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements and the initial
performance test This cost is judged to
be reasonable in light of the resulting
more efficient use of enforcement
resources.
This proposal would also allow the
owner or operator of an affected chlor-
alkali plant, mercury ore processing
facility, or sludge incinerator and drying
plant 15 days to verify the validity of
source test data prior to reporting these
results to the Administrator. Currently.
owners or operators of affected facilities
are required to submit these data before
the close of business of the next day
after the data are available. The
proposed change would provide the
owner or operator a reasonable amount
of time to determine the validity of the
data. Extending the time limit for the
submission of test data should have no
environment, economic, or energy
impacts.
Owners and operators of facilities
covered by these standards should note
that nonfederally permitted releases of
hazardous substances might be covered
by requirements developed under the
Comprehensive Environmental
V-E-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday. December 26. 1984 / Proposed Rules
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (See 48 FR 23552, May 25.
1983).
Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
The EPA believes that the proposed
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the chlor-alkali
industry are necessary to assist the
Agency in enforcing the standard after
the initial compliance determination.
The information collection
requirements associated with the rule
which this notice proposes to amend (40
CFR 61.55) have been cleared previously
by OMB under control number 2000-
0243. The changes to the information
requirements proposed in this notice
have been submitted previously by OMB
under control number 2000-0243. The
changes to the information requirements
proposed in this notice have been
submitted to OMB for review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Comments on these
information collection requirements
should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB—marked Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA. The final rule package will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements.
The average annual burden on
mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants to
comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards over the first 3
years after the effective date is
estimated to be about 9,200 person-
hours, based on 24 respondents.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations upon small
entities be identified and analyzed. The
RFA states that an analysis is required
if a substantial number of small entities
will experience significant impacts. Both
measures, substantial numbers of small
entities and significant impacts, must be
met to require an analysis. If either
measure is not met then no analysis is
required. Twenty percent or more of the
small businesses in an affected industry
is considered a substantial number. The
EPA definition of significant impacts
involves three tests, as follows: One,
costs of production rise 5 percent or
more, assuming costs are not passed on
to consumers; or two. annualized
investment costs are not passed on to
consumers: or two. annualized
investment costs for pollution control
are greater than 20 percent of total
capital spending; or three, costs as a
percent of sales for small entities are 10
percent greater than costs as a percent
of sales for large entities.
The additional monitoring.
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements being proposed would
affect only mercury-cell chlor-alkali
plants. The small Business
Administration (SBA) definition of a
small business for Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Code 2812, Chlor-
Alkali Production, is 1,000 employees.
The 24 chlor-alkali plants using the
mercury-cell process are owned by 10
companies. All 10 have more than 1,000
employees. Therefore, none of the 10
companies meets the SBA definition of a
small business, and thus no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if
requested, to discuss the proposed
revisions to the standard for mercury-
cell chlor-alkali plants, sludge
incineration and drying plants, and
mercury ore processing in accordance
with sections 112(b)(B) and 307(d)(5) of
the Clean Air Act. If a hearing is
requested, persons wishing to make oral
presentations on the proposed revisions
to the standards should contact the EPA
at the address given in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. Oral
presentations will be limited to 15
minutes each. Any member of the public
may file a written statement before,
during, or within 30 days after the
hearing. Written statements should be
addressed to the Central Docket Section
address given in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble and should refer to
docket number A-82-41.
A verbatim transcript of any hearing
and written statements will be available
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Central
Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see
ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to, or otherwise considered
by, the EPA in the development of this
proposed rulemaking. The principal
purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow
interested parties to readily identify and
locate documents so that they can
effectively participate in the rulemaking
process, and (2) to serve as the record in
case of judicial review.
Miscellaneous
In accordance with section 117 of the
Act, publication of this proposal was
preceded by consultation with
appropriate advisory committees,
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
amendments.
This regulation will be reviewed 5
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs,
enforceability. improvements in
emission control technology and health
data, and reporting requirements.
Under Executive Order 12291, the EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. This regulation is not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100~million or more,
result in a major increase in costs or
prices, or have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, or innovations.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because no
small entities are affected.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control, Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury, Vinyl chloride.
Dated: December 19.1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
PART 61—[AMENDED]
It is proposed to revise 40 CFR 61.53-
81.55 to read as follows:
{61.53 [Amended]
1. In S 61.53, paragraphs (a)(4). (b)(4),
and (d)(5) are all revised to read exactly
as follows:
All samples shall be analyzed and
mercury emissions shall be determined
within 30 days after the stack test. Each
determination shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter
dispatched within 15 calendar days
following the date such determination is
completed.
2. In $ 61.53. paragraph (c)(4) is
revised to read as follows:
An owner or operator may carry out
approved design, maintenance, and
housekeeping practices. A list of
approved practices is provided in
Appendix A of "Review of National
Emission Standards for Mercury," EPA-
450/3-84-014.
3. In § 61.54, paragraph (f) is revised to
read as follows:
All sludge samples shall be analyzed
for mercury content within 30 days after
V-E-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 249 / Wednesday, December 26. 1984 / Proposed Rules
the sludge sample is collected. Each
determination shall be reported to the
Administrator by a registered letter
dispatched within 15 calendar days
following the date such determination is
completed.
4. In 5 61.55, the title and paragraph
(a) are revised to read as follows:
S 61.55 Monitoring of emissions and
operation*.
(a) Wastewater treatment plant
sludge incineration and drying plants.
All the sources for which mercury
emissions exceed 1,600 g per 24-hour
period, demonstrated either by stack
sampling according io § 61.53 or sludge
sampling according to S 61.54, shall
monitor mercury emissions at intervals
of at least one per year by use of
Method 105 of Appendix 8 or the
procedures specified in i 61.53(d) (2)
and (4). The results of monitoring shall
be reported and retained according to
§ 61.53(d) (5) and (6) or § 61.54 (f) and
(8).
5. In 5 61.55. paragraphs (b) and fc)
are added to read as follows:
(b) Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants—
hydrogen and end-box ventilation gas
streams.
(1) The owner or operator of an
affected facility shall, within 1 year of
the date of promulgation of these
amendments, perform a mercury
emission test on the hydrogen stream by
Reference Method 102 and on the end-
box stream by Reference Method 101.
(2) During tests specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, the following
control device parameters shall be
monitored, by devices certified by the
manufacturer to be accurate within 10
percent, and manually or automatically
recorded at least once every 15 minutes:
(i) The exit gas temperature from
uncontrolled streams;
(ii) The outlet temperature of the gas
stream for the final (i.e., the farthest
downstream] cooling system where no
control devices other than coolers and
demisters are used;
(iii) The outlet temperature of the gas
stream from the final cooling system
where the cooling system is followed by
a molecular sieve or carbon adsorber
(iv) Concentration of available
chlorine, pH, liquid flow rate, and inlet
gas temperature of chlorinated brine
scubbers and hypochlorite scrubbers;
(v) The liquid flow rate and exit gas
temperature for water scrubbers;
(vi) The regeneration temperature of
molecular sieves; and
(vii) The inlet gas temperature of
.carbon adsorption systems.
(viii) The recorded parameters shall
be averaged over the test period (a
minimum of 6 hours) to provide an
average number.
(3) Subsequent to the monitoring and
recording specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section, the owner or operator of
an affected facility shall monitor, by
devices certified by the manufacturer to
be accurate within 10 percent, and
manually or automatically record at
least once per hour the same parameters
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(4) When the hourly value of a
monitored parameter exceeds, or. in the
case of liquid flow rate and available
chlorine, fails below, the value of that
same parameter determined in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section for 24
consecutive hours, the Administrator is
to be notified within the next 10 days.
(5) Semiannual reports shall be
submitted to the Administrator
indicating (i) the time and date on which
the hourly value of each monitored
control device or process parameter fell
outside the value of that same
parameter determined under
S 81.55(b)(2); and (ii) the corrective
action taken, and the time and date of
the corrective action.
(c) Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants—
cell room ventilation system.
(1) Stationary sources using mercury
chlor-alkali cells determining cell room
emissions in accordance with
fi 6.53(c)(4) shall maintain daily records
of any leaks or spills of mercury. The
records shall indicate the location, time.
and date the leaks or spills occurred,
immediate step taken to minimize
mercury emissions, steps taken to
correct the problems, and the time and
date corrective steps were taken.
(2) The results of monitoring shall be
recorded, retained at the source, and
made available for inspection by the
Administrator for a minimum of 2 years.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under Control Number 2000-0243)
|FR Doc 84-33408 Filed 12-24-64; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE MM-W4I
V-E-8
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
BENZENE EMISSIONS
FROM COKE BY-PRODUCT
RECOVERY PLANTS
SUBPART L
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
TNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
[AD-FRL-2538-3]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Benzene Emissions
From Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants
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 sources in coke by-
product recovery plants. The proposed
standard implements section 112 of the
Clean Air Act and is based on the
Administrator's determination of June 8.
1977 (42 FR 29332) that benzene is 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 coko by-
product recovery plants.
DATES: Comments. Comments must In-
received on or before August 21,1984.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by June 27,1984, a public
hearing will be held on July 25.1984,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. Persons
interested in attending the hearing
should call Ms. Shelby Journigan at (919)
541-5578 to verify that a hearing will
occur.
Requests to Speak at Hearing.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact EPA by June 27.
1984.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket Section
(LE-131), Attention: Docket Number A-
79-16. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street. SW., Washington.
D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts
EPA requesting a public hearing, the
public hearing will be held at the Office
of Administration Auditorium. Research
Triangle Park. N.C. Persons interested in
attending the hearing should call Ms.
Shelby Journigan at (919) 541-5578 to
verify that a hearing will occur.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony should notify Ms. Shelb)
Icurnigan, Standards Development
Branch (MD-13). U.S. Eni-ironmentiil
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711. telephone
number (919) 541-5578.
Background Information Document.
The background information document
(BID) for the proposed standards may be
obtained from the U.S. EPA Library
(MD-35). Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-2777. Pleas.e refer to "Benzene
Emissions from Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants—Background
Information for Proposed Standards"
(EPA-450/3-83-016a).
Docket. Docket A-79-16, containing
supporting information used in
developing the proposed standards, is
available for public inspection and
copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section. West Tower
Lobby. Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 M
Street. SW., Washington. D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. James U. Crowder, (919) 541-5601,
concerning technical aspects of the
industry and control technologies, and
Mr. Gilbert H. Wood, (919) 541-5578,
concerning regulatory decisions and the
standard. The address for both parties is
Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
Benzene was listed as a hazardous air
pollutant under section 112 of the Clean
Air Act on June 8,1977 (42 FR 29332).
Section 112 defines a "hazardous air
pollutant" as one which, in the judgment
of the Administrator, "causes or
contributes to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness." In EPA's judgment,
benzene emissions from coke by-product
recover)' plants pose significant health
risks to exposed populations and
warrant Federal regulatory action under
section 112.
Coke by-product recovery plants are
currently largely uncontrolled, and use
of the technology selected as the basis
for the proposed standards would
substantially reduce benzene emissions
and associated health risks. The level of
control selected as the basis for the
proposed standards would result in fuel
sayings and increased produce recovery.
As a result, the net nationwide
annualized cost of the proposed
standards would actually be a savings.
[In general, even though the purchase of
air pollution control equipment may
result in a net savings, affected sources
do not necessarily purchase that
equipment voluntarily because they m;t\
be able to attain a higher rate of return
on their investment if given the
opportunity to invest elsewhere.)
This preamble first summarizes the
proposed standard for coke by-product
recovery plants and the impacts of the
standard. It then explains the rationale
for each of the decisions made in
selecting the proposed standard. These
decisions include the selection of the
source category, the selection of
emission points, the selection of the
level of the standard, the selection of the
format of the standard, and the selection
of,the specific requirements themselves.
Administrative considerations, including
Executive Order 12291 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, are discussed
at the end of the preamble,
Summary of Proposed Standards
The proposed standard would reduce
benzene emissions from several
emission sources at each coke by-
product recovery plant through a
combination of emission standards.
equipment, work practice, and
operational requirements, depending i-.^
the source to be controlled. Both new
and e\isting sources would be subject ii.
the provisions of the proposed standard.
Alternative standards are also proposed
for several emission sources, as are
procedures for permitting the use of
alternative means of emission limitHtkm
under section 112(e)(3) of the Act.
An equipment standard is proposed
for the control of emissions from enrfi
tar decanter, tar intercepting sump.
flushing-liquor circulation tank, tar
storage tank, tar dewatering tank, li
-------
Fedsral Kegisteir / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
composed of piping, connections, and
flow-inducing devices (if necessary) that
transport emissions from the enclosed
source back to the coke-oven battery
gas holder, (he collecting main, or
another point in the by-product recovery
process. Depending on the source to be
controlled, dirty or clean coke-oven gas.
nitrogen, or natural gas can be used as
the gas blanket.
To ensure that the control equipment
for each source is being properly
operated and maintained, the proposed
standard would require a semiannual
inspection of the connections and seals
on each gas blanketing system for leaks,
using EPA Reference Method 21 (40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix A). An organic
chemical concentration of more than 500
ppm by volume above a background
concentration would indicate the
presence of a leak. The proposed
standard would also require a
semiannual visual inspection of each
source and the piping of the control
system for visible defects such as gaps
or tears. The proposed standard would
require that a first attempt at repair of
each leak or visible defect be made
within 5 days of detection, with repair
within 15 days. The owner or operator
would be required to record the results
of the inspections for each source, and
include the results in a semiannual
report.
Proper maintenance of the system will
help ensure the proper operation of the
system. To this end. the proposed
regulation would require an annual
maintenance inspection for
abnormalities such as pluggayes.
sticking valvjes. and clogge'd or
improperly operating condensate traps.
A first attempt at repair must be made
within 5 days, with any necessary
repairs made within 15 days of the
inspection. If a system blockage occurs.
the proposed regulation would require
the owner or operator to conduct an
inspection and make any necessary
repairs immediately upon detection. The
proposed standard would require that
information regarding the annual
inspection or repairs made to r.orrunt lune mixtures),
refined benzene, or excess ammoniy-
liquor. This proposed design standard
can be achieved with the use of a wash-
oil scrubber, a gas blanketing system, or
any other control system that is
designed and operated to achieve at
least a 80-percent emission reduction.
The proposed regulation also would
require that each affected storage tank
be totally enclosed and sealed with
emissions vented to the wash-oil
scrubber (or other control device or
system providing an equivalent emission
reduction). Pressure relief devices.
vacuum relief devices, access hatches.
and sampling ports would be the only
openings allowed on each tank. Each
access hatch and sampling port must be
equipped with a gasket and a cover or
lid that is kept in a closed position when
not in actual use. The semiannual
inspection and repair of leaks in the
seals and ductwork, and the annual
maintenance inspection and repair
program (including recordkeeping and
reporting requirements) proposed for gas
blanketed sources also would apply to
these tanks and the vents to the control
device. Monitoring of parameters related
to the operation of the control device
(such as wash-oil pressure and flowrate.
and exit gas temperature for the wash-
oil scrubber) also are included to ensure
the proper operation and maintenance
of any control device used to achieve
compliance.
An equipment standard is proposed
for the control of benzene emissions
from each light-oil sump. The proposed
standard requires that the surface area
of each light-oil sump be completely
enclosed so as to provide a closed
system for the containment of emissions
This standard can be achieved with the
installation of a tightly fitting permanent
or removable cover, coupled with the
use of a gasket material applied to the
rim of the sump cover. The proposed
standard would allow the use of an
access hatch and a vent in the sump
cover. However, any access hatch must
be equipped .with a gasket and cover or
lid. and any vent must be equipped with
a water leg seal, pressure relief device.
or vacuum relief device. The proposed
standard would also require the
semiannual inspection of the seals for
leaks. An organic chemical
concentration of over 500 ppm, as
measured by Reference Method 21.
would indicate the presence of a leak. A
first attempt at repair of any leak or
visible defect would be .required within
5 days of detection, with repair within
15 dnys. The results of the inspection
would be reported semiannually. The.
proposed standard would not allow
venting of steam or gases from other
points in the coke by-product process to
the light-oil sump.
The proposed standard would allow
no emissions from the processing of
naphthalene separated from the water of
a direct-water final cooler. This
emission limit could be achieved by a
process modification involving the
absorption of naphthalene in tar, wash
oil. or an alternative medium (other than
water). For example, a mixer-settler
could be added to the direct-water final
cooler, or the direct-water final coole.r
could be replaced by a tar-bottom or
wash-oil final cooler system. If a mixer/
settler were used to remove napthfilcnc
from the final cooler aqueous effluent,
the proposed standard would require
that the mixer-settler be totally enclosed
with emissions ducted to the gas
collection system, gas distribution
system or other enclosed point in the by-
product recovery process. This
requirement could be achieved by
controlling emissions from the mixer
settler with a gas blanketing system.
Unless otherwise specified, pressure
relief devices, vacuum reliefdevir.es.
access hatches, and sampling ports
would be the only openings allowed 01;
the mixer settler. Again, the proposed
standard would require that each access
hatch and sampling port be equipped
with a gasket and a cover or lid that is
kept in a closed position when no! in
actual use.
The proposed standard would also
apply to leaks (i.e.. fugitive emissions)
from new and existing pieces of
equipment in benzene service, including:
pumps, valves, exhausters, pressure
relief devices, sampling connections.
and open-ended lines. Pumps, valvns.
pressure relief devices, sampling
connections, and open-ended lines in
benzene service are those components
that contact or contain materials having
a benzene concentration of at least 1(1
percent by weight. Exhausters that
contact or contain materials having a
benzene concentration of at least 1
percent benzene by weight are also in
benzene sen-ice.
The proposed standard would require.
that all pumps in benzene service be
monitored monthly for the detection of
vapor leaks. A weekly visual inspection
for liquid leaks would also be required.
The proposed standard would require
that any pump with an organic chemical
concentration at or above 10.000 ppm, as
measured by Reference Method 21, be
repaired with 15 days after detection of
a leak, except when repair would
require a process unit shutdown. An
initial attempt to repair such a leak
would have to be made within 5 days
after the leak was detected. "Repair"
means that the measured concentration
is below 10.000 ppm.
Quarterly monitoring for leaks from
each exhauster in benzene service also
would lie required. If an organic
V-L-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
chemical concentration at or above
10,000 ppm were detected, as measured
by Reference Method 21, the proposed
standard would require a first attempt at
repair within 5 days, with repair of the
leak within 15 days from the date the
leak was detected.
The proposed standard provides three
types of alternatives to the leak
detection and repair requirements for
pumps and exhausters. An owner or
operator may use 'leakless" equipment
such as magnetically coupled or
diaphragm pumps to achieve a "no
detectable emissions" limit (i.e., 500 ppm
above a background concentration, as
measured by Reference Method 21).
However, an annual performance test
using instrument monitoring would be
required to verify the "no detectable
emissions" status of each pump and
exhauster. Or, pumps and exhausters
can be equipped with enclosed seal
areas vented to a control device
designed and operated to achieve a 95-
percent benzene control efficiency.
A third alternative would exempt
pumps equipped with dual mechanical
seals with a barrier fluid between the
two seals and exhausters equipped with
seals with a barrier fluid system from
the leak detection and repair
requirements, except for the weekly
visual inspection for liquid leaks from
pumps. However, emissions from the
barrier fluid reservior must be vented to
a control device designed and operated
to achieve a 95-percent benzene control
efficiency, the barrier fluid must be
purged and added to the process stream.
or the pressure of the barrier fluid must
be maintained at a level above the
pressure in the pump or exhauster
stuffing box. A pressure or level
indicator to detect any failure of the seal
system or the barrier fluid system would
be required, with the indicator checked
daily or equipped with an alarm to
signal failure of the system.
Under the proposed standard, valves
in benzene service would be subject to
requirements similar to those for pumps
in benzene service. All valves in
benzene service would be monitored
monthly for the detection of leaks If an
organic chemical concentration at or
above 10,000 ppm is detected, as
measured by Reference Method 21, the
proposed standard would require that
the valve be repaired within 15 days.
Again, a first attempt to repair the valve
so that the measured concentration is
below 10,000 ppm would be required
within 5 days after the leak was
detected. However, those valves that
are found not to be leaking for 2
successive months could be monitored
at quarterly intervals until a leak is
detected, at which time monthly
monitoring would again be required.
The proposed standard would also
provide alternatives to the required leak
detection and repair programs for valves
in benzene service. First, the owner or
operator could elect to meet a
performance level where less than 2
percent of all valves could be found
leaking. Second, the owner or operator
could follow a skip-period leak
detection and repair program also based
on a performance level of 2 percent. And
finally, an owner or operator may use
"leakless" valves such as sealed- -
bellows valves, for which monitoring
would not be required. The proposed
standard require that these "leakless"
valves achieve a "no detectable
emission" limit (i.e., 500 ppm above a
background concentration, as measured
by Reference Method 21). A
performance test would also be required
on an annual basis to verify the "no
detectable emissions" status of each
valve.
The proposed standard would also
specify a "no detectable emissions"
limit (i.e., less than 500 ppm above a
background concentration, as measured
by Reference Method 21), for pressure
relief devices in benzene service. This
emission limit could be achieved by
equipping pressure relief devices with a
rupture disc. The proposed emission
limit would not apply to discharges
during overpressure releases; however,
the proposed standard would require
that emissions from each pressure relief
device be returned to a state of "no
detectable emissions" (500 ppm or less)
within 5 days after a discharge.
Alternatively, an owner or operator
could elect to vent emissions through a
closed system to a control device
designed and operated to achieve a 95-
percent benzene control efficiency or
greater, such as a flare.
Closed-purge 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. In-situ sampling
would be exempted from the closed
purge sampling requirements. The
proposed standard would also require
open-ended lines to be sealed with a
cap. blind flange, plug, or second valve.
An operational standard for open-ended
lines would also require that the cap 01
other device be removed or opened only
when the open-ended line is pieced into
service.
The proposed standard would also
apply to pressure relief devices in liquiii
service, flanges, and other connectors.
The proposed standard would not
require a formal leak detection and
repair program. However, instrument
monitoring must be performed within 5
days if evidence of a potential leak is
found by visual, audible, olfactory, or
any other detection method. If an
instrument reading of 10,000 ppm is
measured by Reference Method 21, the
proposed standard would require a firsi
attempt at repair within 5 days, with
repair of the leak within 15 days from
the date the leak was detected.
Compliance with the proposed
standards would be assessed through
plant inspection and the review of
records and reports that would
document implementation of the
requirements. On a semiannual basis,
the owner or operator would report thp
number of leaks detected and the
number of leaks not repaired during the
8-month period. Also, if any add-on
control devices were used, the owner or
operator would report semiannually any
occurrences when parameters monitored
exceed or drop below the design
specifications. The owner or operator
would also submit a signed statement in
each semiannual report, indicating
whether provisions of the standard had
been met for the 6-month period.
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for alternative standard*.
are also included in the proposed
regulation.
Under the proposed standard,
compliance would be required within 91 >
days of the effective date for existing
sources and at startup for a new source
A waiver of compliance for an existing
source could be approved by the
Administrator for no more than 2 years,
from the date of promulgation under 40
CFR Part 61. Emission testing would be
required only for equipment subject to
the no detectable emissions standards
or the alternative performance standard
for valves. However, the proposed
standard would require the following
information for each plant to be
included in the source report required l>v
§ 61.10 of the General Provisions: (1) A
description of the control equipment
used to achieve compliance for each
source: and (2) the date of installation o!
the control equipment for each source.
as certified by the owner or operator
Summary of Environmental, Health.
Energy, end Economic Impacts
The estimated environmental, healir,-,
energy, and economic impacts of thp
proposed standard were based initially
on a data base composed of 55 coke h;
product recovery plants. Information
received recently from the industry »r,.''.
the U.S. Department of Energy indi; h1.*
th,it 13 of these plants have closed
V-L-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
permanently during the past 2 years.
Consequently, the impacts have been
revised to reflect these closures. This
preamble presents the revised impacts
based on 42 plants. The impacts and
associated calculations in the BID will
be revised following proposal of the
recommended standards.
Implementation of the proposed
standard would reduce nationwide
benzene emissions from the 42 operating
coke by-product recovery plants from
their current level of about 24.100 Mg/yr
to about 2,700 Mg/yr, an 89-percent
reduction. Total uncontrolled
nationwide emissions of benzene and
other volatile organic compounds also
would be reduced from their currant
estimated level of 160.000 Mg/yr to
about 35,000 Mg/yr, a 78-percent
reduction.
As a result of this benzene emission
reduction, the proposed standard would
reduce the estimated maximum lifetime-
risk for the most exposed population
from about 6.4X10"3at current controls
to about 3.0X10"°. The reduction also
would decrease the estimated annual
leukemia incidence from about 2.2 cases
per year at current controls to about 0.19
case per year. Due to the assumptions
that were made in calculating the
maximum lifetime risk and leukemia
incidence numbers, there is uncertainty
associated with the risk and incidence
numbers presented here and elsewhere
in this preamble. Although EPA
acknowledges this uncertainty, the
Agency believes that these estimates
represent plausible, if not conservative.
approximations of the potential cancer
risks. The major uncertainties and
assumptions in the estimation of health
risks as well as alternative methods of
presenting risk information are further
described in a following section entitled.
"Quantitative Health Risk Assessment."
Implementation of the proposed
standards is not expected to result in
any unreasonably adverse water
pollution, solid waste, noise, or energy
impacts. Actually, a slight net reduction
of the benzene contained in process
wastewater could be expected with the
use of the gas blanketing system. A
nominal increase in electricol enprov or
steam requirements could occur if gas
blanketing piping were heated to
prevent vapors from condensing or
freezing in vent lines. However, the cost
of this energy requirement would be
largely offset by the recovery of benzene-
contained in the coke oven gases, which
otherwise would have been discharged
to the atmosphere.
The control required by the proposed
standard would result in fuel savings
and increased product recovery. As a
result, the net nationwide anmmlized
cost of the standard would actually be a
savings. The national capital cost
associated with the proposed standards
is estimated at about S23.8 million over
baseline costs (1982 dollars). A savings
in nationwide annualized costs would
be achieved by the proposed standard
as a result of light-oil recovery credits.
(In general, even though the purchase of
air pollution control equipment may
result in a net savings, affected sources
do not necessarily purchase that
equipment voluntarily because they may
be able to attain a higher rate of return if
given the opportunity to invest
elsewhere.] The price of foundry coke
could increase by as much as $0.24/Mg.
an increase of less than \ percent from
the baseline price, while the price of
furnace coke would increase by less
than S0.02/Mg (1982 dollars) as a result
of the proposed standard. An economic
analysis indicates that the industry
trend is to pass through some increases
in costs to consumers.
Background information on Health
Effects of Benzene
On June 8,1977, the Administrator
announced his decision to list benzene
as a hazardous air pollutant under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (42 FR
29332). A public hearing was held on
August 21,1980. to discuss the listing.
Supplementary background information
regarding the listing may be obtained
from the maleic anhydride Docket
Number OAQPS 79-3, Part I. and from
the EPA document, "Response to Public
Comments on EPA's Listing of Benzene
Under Section 112" (EPA-450/5-82-003).
Quantitative Health Risk Assessment
The listing of benzene as a hazardous
air pollutant under section 112 requires
that EPA publish emission standards
which provide an "ample margin of
safety" to protect the public health.
However, neither the language nor the
legislative history of section 112 reveals
any specific Congressional intent as to
how to apply the phrase "ample margin
of safety" to protect the public health
from pollutants like benzene.
In some cases, scientific*evidence
indicates that a given chemical is
hazardous at high levels of exposure but
has not effect below a certain level.
However, for most carcinogenic
chemicals, including benzene,
thresholds below which there is no
cancer risk have not been established.
There is some reason to believe that
such thresholds may not exist for many
carcinogens. For such substances. EPA
and other Federal agencies have taken
the position that any level of exposure
may pose some risk of adverse effects.
with the risk increasing as the exposure
increases.
Since a specific environmental
carcinogen is likely to be responsible for
at most a small fraction of a
community's overall cancer incidence
and since the general populalion is
exposed to a complex mix of potentially
toxic agents, it is virtually impossible:
with current scientific techniques to
directly linb actual human cancers with
ambient air exposure to chemicals such
as benzene. Consequently. EPA relies or:
mathematical modeling techniques to
estimate human health risks. These
techniques—"quantitative risk
assessment"— are used to assess the
risk of adverse health effects from
exposure to benzene in the ambient
environment by mathematically
extrapolating effects found at the hiphei
occupational exposure levels to the
lower concentration levels characteristic
of human exposure in the vicinity of
industrial sources of benzene.
EPA's approach to risk assessment for
suspected carcinogens m;:y be divided
into several steps. The first is a
qualitative evaluation of the evidenre tr«
determine whether a substance should
be considered a human carcinogen for
regulatory' purposes. As described
earlier, this was done in the case of
benzene before the chemical was listed
as a hazardous air pollutant in 1977. The
next stage is quantitative: how large is
the risk of cancer at various levels of
exposure? The result of this examination
is a dose-response relationship from
which a "unit risk factor" is derived.
The unit risk factor represents the
cancer risk for an individual exposed to
a unit concentration (e.g.. 1 pp/m*) for a
lifetime.
The third stage of the risk iissessmenl
is to estimate how many people are
exposed to the substance, ard at \vha!
levels. Exposure estimates arc combined
with the unit risk factor to obtain
estimates of the risk posed by air
emissions of the pollutant, in this case:
benzene.
The estimated carcinogenic risks
posed by benzene emissions arc
characterized by two ways: As the
predicted annual incidence of leukemia
(expressed as cases per year), and us
the lifetime risk of leukemia for
individuals exposed to the highest
predicted annual average ambient
benzene concentrations (expressed HI *
probability). "Annual incidence"
represents the aggregate risk for the
population residing within a specified
distance of emitting sources. "Maximum
lifetime risk" represents thr probfibility
of contracting leukemia for those
individuals assumed to lie exposed for a
V-L-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
lifetime to the highest average benzene
concentrations predicted to occur in the
ambient air in the vicinity of emitting
sources.
.The health risk estimated for benzene
source categories are comprised of three
components noted above: the unit risk
factor,* based on a dose-response
function derived from epidemiologioal
data; the exposed population, estimated
from census data; and the benzene
ambient concentrations, derived from
dispersion modeling of-emissions.
EPA has extrapolated the leukemia
risks identified for occupationaily
exposed populations (generally healthy.
white males) to the general population
for whom susceptibility to a
carcinogenic insult could differ. The
presence of more or less susceptible
subgroups within the general popu'jfion
would result in an occupationi)!ly-
derived risk factor that may
underestimate or overestimate ac.tu^l
risks. To the extent that there are more
susceptible subgroups within the general
population, the maximum individual
lifetime risks may be underestimated.
On the other hand, general population
exposures to benzene are much lower
than those experienced by the exposed
workers in the occupational studies.
often by several orders of magnitude. In
relating the occupational expurii»nce to
the general population, EPA has applied
a linear, non-threshold model that
assumes that the leukemia response is
linearly related to benzene deso c\ on HI
very low levels of exposure. Th«e are
biological data supporting this approach.
particularly for carcinogens. Howevnr.
there are also data which suggest that.
for some toxic chemicals, dose/response
curves are not linear, with response
decreasing faster than dose at low levels
of exposure. At such levels, the
nonlinear models tend to produce
smaller risk factors than the linear
model. The data for benzene do not
conclusively support either hypothesis.
EPA has elected to use the linear model
for benzene because this model is
generally considered to be conservative
compared to the non-linear allern./f;\ IF
This choice may result in an
overestimate of the actual leuKrmirt
risks.
EPA estimates ambient benzene
concentrations in the vicinity of emitting
sources through the use of atmospheric
'For benzene, the unit risk factor constitutes t>
point estimate of the human leukemia risk.
expressed as the geometric mean of the risk factor*
derived from three epidemiologies! studies. Where
• animal data form the basis for the derivation of a
risk factor. EPA may apply statistical tests (e.g.. 95
percent confidence limits] to the resulting fartoi to
obtain a "plausible upper bound" estimate of thp
unit risk
dispersion models. EPA believes that its
ambient dispersion modeling provides a
reasonable estimate of the maximum
ambient levels of benzene to which the
public could be exposed. The models
accept emission estimates, plant
parameters, and meteorology as inputs
and predict ambient concentrations at
specified locations, conditional upon
certain assumptions. For exemple,
emissions and plant parameters often
must be estimated rather than measure,
particularly in determining the
magnitude of fugitive emissions and
where there are large numbers of
sources. This can lead to overestimates
or underestimates of exposure.
Similarly, meteorological data often are
not available at the plant site but only
from distant weather stations that may
not be representative of the meteorology
of the plant vicinity.
EPA's dispersion models normally
assume that the terrain in the vicinity of
the sources is flat. For sources located in
complex terrain, this assumption would
tend to underestimate the maximum
annual concentration although estimates
of aggregate population exposure would
be less affected.
On the other hand, maximum
individual lifetime risk estimates are
based on two important exposure
assumptions that may overestimate the
risk for people living around a source
emitting benzene. The first assumption
is that the dose to the most exposed
individual is equal to the predicted
outdoor ambient concentration; the
second assumption is that the exposed
individual stays in the same place for 70
years and is continuously exposed.
Implicit in the second assumption is the
notion that the source emits at the same
level for these 70 years.
We recognize that these assumptions
are simplifications. People rarely live in
the same place for 70 years: some movp
out and some move in. Nor do plants
operate continuously for 70 years using
the same equipment.
The estimation of risk forpsr-ia!
lifetime exposure can, as a f'r>t
approximation, be assumed to ho
proportional to the fraction of a lifetime
that a person has been exposed to
pollution from the particular source. For
example, the risk for 1 year can be
approximated as V-.o of the lifetime risk;
the risk for 7 years of exposure might be
7/7o of the lifetime risk. Similarly, if the
lifetime risk from a benzene source is 1
in 1,000, someone with a 7-year
exposure would be able to roughly
estimate his risk from a source as about
1 in 10.000.
It must be recognized, however, that
this is an approximation, because the
risk for some pollutants may be higher
or lower when people are exposed si
different times in their lives, since the
risk of developing certain cancers may
be partly related to the age at which H
person is exposed to a carcinogen. In
addition, it is worth noting that this agn
sensitivity may be different for different
chemicals. At this time, we have no
information as to whether this is true fo;
benzene.
The assumptions necessary to
estimate benzene health risks and the
underlying uncertainties have led some
commenters on EPA's proposed rules i"
suggest that the risk estimates are
inappropriate for use in regulatory
decision making. Although EPA
acknowledges the potential for error ••.-;
such estimates, the Agency has
concluded that both the unit risk fat.i:n
for benzene and the evaluation of pub):;
exposure represent plausible, if
conservative, estimates of acutal
conditions. Combining these quantii;i>
to produce estimates of the leukemi«
risks to exposed populations implies
that the risk estimates obtained are alsu
conservative in nature: that is, the eri;;-!
leukemia risks from benzene exposi.rv
are not likely to be higher than those
estimated. In this context, EPA believes
that such estimates of the health ha?,;ui>
can and should play an important ro-'' if.
the regulation of hazardous pollutants
EPA has received numerous public
comments on most of the steps in thr
analytic process described above as *•;
result of the announcement of the lisl:">:,
of benzene as a hazardous air pollutar;i
and the intent to regulate a number o<
source categories. The full response (o
those comments is in the EPA docurri '.v
"Response to Public Comments on
EPA's Listing of Benzene Under Section
112" (EPA-450/5-82-003). EPA is
presently inclined to continue to usi- '.N
major features of the risk-assessmeni
procRss described above, and in
particular to adhere to the no-threshold
assumption and the linear model.
Arguments have been advanced lh.;i
in addition to the conservative naturr- c!
the model used, the assumptions macit-
by EPA (Carcinogen Assessment Gimp
[CAG]) in the derivation of a unit
leukemia risk factor for benzene
represented "serious misinterpretation
of the underlying epidemiological
evidence. Among the specific criticism?
are: CAG (1) inappropriately included in
its evaluation of the Infante et al. study
two cases of leukemia from outside thi:
cohort, inappropriately excluded a
population of workers that had been
exposed to benzene, and improperly
assumed that exposure levels were
comparable with prevailing
V-L-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
occupational standards: (2) accepted, in
the Aksoy et al. studies, an .
unreasonable undercount of the
background leukemia incidence in rural
Turkey, made a false adjustment of age.
and under-estimated the exposure
duration; and (3) included the Ott et al.
study in the analysis despite a lack of
statistical significance.
EPA has reexamined and reevaluated
each of the three studies. In summary,
EPA concluded that one case of
leukemia was inappropriately included
from the Infante et al. study in
computing the original unit risk factor.
Additionally. EPA reaffirmed its
decision to exclude dry-side workers
from that study in developing the risk
factor. The Agency agrees that the
Aksoy et al. study was adjusted
improperly for age: however, the
exposures and durations of exposures
are still considered reasonable
estimates. The Ott et al. study was not
eliminated from the risk assessment
because the findings meet the test of
statistical significance and because it
provides the best documented exposure
data available from the three
cpidemiological studies.
Based on these findings, the unit risk
factor (the probability of an individual
contracting leukemia after a lifetime of
exposure to a benzene concentration of
one part benzene per million parts air)
was recalculated. The revised estimate
resulted in a reduction of about 7
percent from the original estimate of the
geometric mean, from a probability of
leukemia of 0.024/ppm to a probability
of leukemia of 0.022/ppm.
Selection of Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants for Regulation
Nationwide benzene emissions from
sources considered for regulation at
coke by-product recovery plants are
estimated at 24.100 Mg/yr. Dispersion
modeling was used to estimate the
benzene concentrations to which people;
within 20 kilometers of coke by-product
plants are exposed as a result of the
benzene emissions from these plants.
Several million people (at least 15 to 20
million) live within 20 kilometers of the
42 existing by-product recovery plants.
As a result of exposure to these benzene
concentrations, the maximum lifetime
risk of the most exposed population is
estimated at 6.4xlO~3. The maximum
lifetime risk is the estimated probability
that the people who are exposed
continuously for 70 years to the highest
maximum annual average ambient
benzene concentration estimated to
result from benzene emissions from coke
by-product recovery plants will contract
leukemia as a result of exposure to these
emissions. In addition, the leukemia
incidence is estimated at 2.2 cases per
year within this population as a result of
exposure to benzene emission?-from
these plants.
Although the maximum lifetime risk
estimates apply to only a few people
under particular conditions. EPA has
calculated the lifetime risk for all
individuals living within 20 kilometers of
coke by-product recovery' plants. The
following table (Table 1) presents EPA's
estimate of the distribution of people *t
different predicted risk levels living
around these sources. For each risk
range in the first column, the se(om)
column indicates the number of people
living within the 20 kilometer (12.5
miles) radius estimated to be exposed IP
benzene at levels that would produce
those risks.
TABLE 1. POPULATIONS AT RISK
Risk (Probability) of Leukemia from
Lifetime (70 years) Exposure
Number of People
Exposed Within 20 km
(12.5 miles) of Sources
Greater than 1 x 10
(Greater than 1 in 100)
1 x io"2 - 1 x io"3
(1 in 100 to 1 in 1,000)
1 x IO"3 - 1 x io"4
(1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000)
1 x io"4 - 1 x io'5
(1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000)
1 x IO"5 - 1 x io'6
(1 in 100,000 to 1 in 1,000,000)
1 x IO'6 - 1 x io"7
(1 in 1.000,000 to 1 in 10,000.000)
1 x 10~7 - 1 x io"8
(1 in 10,000,000 to 1 in 100.000,000)
0
3,200
101,000
2,212,000
17,991,000
10.214.00"'
44,- . Ouu
The values for the number of people were calculated on a piant-by-
plant basis and summed. Because some people are located within 20 k>r
of more than one plant, the actual number of people exposed will he
somewhat less than presented in this table.
Controls are available for reducing the
benzene emissions at these plants (see
section entitled. "Selection of Control
Technologies"). The application of these
controls also would reduce uncontrolled
emissions of volatile organic compounds
and potentially toxic pollutants other
than benzene.
Based on the documented evidence
that benzene is a leukemogen. the
magnitude of benzene emissions from
coke by-product recovery plants, the
estimated ambient concentrations due to
these emissions, the resulting estimated
maximum individual risks and estimated
incidence of leukemia in the exposed
population, the potential reductions in
these health risks achievable through
available control techniques, and
consideration of the uncertainties
asscc.ated with these quantitative risk
estimates, the Administrator finds that
benzene emissions from coke by-product
recovery plants pose a si^;..iu..iiil risk uf
cancer and warrent FRC'CM! rcgiilHtion
under section 112.
Detection of Emission P< •:,•;:>•
Numerous benzene emission suurucs
are present at each coke by-product
plant. During 1979 and 1980. a survey of
seven representative coke by-product
plants was conducted to identify the
sources that emit benzene and (V.r vvhi;:h.
controls were protentiHlly available!.
Visual observations were made and
grab samples were obtained during the
source sampling survey, which was
followed by an emission testing
program. Because of the numerous
benzene emission sources throughout
the plants, engineering judgment
(coupled with site-specific production
rates and process information provided
by the plants), the results of sample
ansilvsis. and the results of emission
V-L-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. lib / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
testing were used to estimate the
emissions.
More than 20 emission sources were
identified in the source sampling survey.
The emission sources considered for
regulation are listed in Table 2, as are
the estimated uncontrolled industry-
wide benzene emissions and the
estimated uncontrolled benzene
emissions from a medium-sized plant
producing 4,000 Mg of coke per day.
Further information regarding the
development of the emission factors
used to estimate uncontrolled emissions
is provided in Chapter 3 of the BID.
Following is a brief description of
typical coke by-producty recovery
processes and the associated emission
points considered for regulation under
the proposed standard.
TABLE 2. UNCONTROLLED BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM COKE
BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY PUNT EMISSION SOURCES
Uncontrolled Emissions from a
industry-wide medium-si zed
emissions planta
Emission source . (Mg/yr) (Mg/yr)
Tar decanter
Tar- intercepting sump
Flushing-liquor circulation tank
Tar dewatering tanks
Tar storage tanks
Excess-ammonia liquor storage tanks
Direct-water final cooler cooling tower
Naphthalene separation and processing
Tar-bottom final cooler cooling tower
Wash-oil decanter
Wash-oil circulation tank
Light-oil condenser and light-oil
decanter vent
Light-oil sump
Benzene storage tanks
Benzene-mixture (BTX) storage tanks
Light-oil storage tanks
Pumps
Valves
Pressure relief devices
Exhausters
Sampling connections
Open-ended lines
3,560
4,380
417
874
556
417
5,500
2,180
696
143
143
3,200
632
71
23
276
463
312
209
25
41
14
108
133
13
29
17
13b
390°
156°
100D
5.5
5.5
125
22
8.5C
8.5
9d
16d
ud
7d
4 d
X'4d
0.3°
Uncontrolled benzene emissions, a medium-sized plant producing 4,000 Mg
.of coke per day.
An actual plant would have either a direct-water final cooler or a tar-
bottom final cooler. Naphthalene processing would be found only at a
plant with a direct-water final cooler.
cThis emission source would only occur at a plant which practices benzene
.refining.
Uncontrolled emissions estimate for a plant that does not practice
benzene refining.
In the coke by-product recovery
process, the various components of the
gases emilted from the coke oven
battery are separated and recovered to
obtain products such as crude tar,
naphthalene, light oils, benzene-
mixtures, and refined benzene. In the
crude tar separation operation, the
initial condensation of the tar contained
in the coke oven gases occurs by direct
contact with flushing liquor in the
collecting and suction mains.
Approximately 80 percent of the tar is
separated from the gas in the mains and
is flushed to a rar decanter (also known
as a flushing liquor decanter). The
remaining light tar and condensate
(approximately 20 percent) is forwarded
to the tar-intercepting sump for the
separation or light oils and wastewater.
The flushing liquor that separates from
the tar in the tar decanter is then
transferred to the flushing-liquor
circulation tank, which cools the
flushing liquor and recirculates it to the
gas mains. In many plants, the coal tar is
not refined on site but is sold to tar
refiners. A common requirement is that
the tar contain no more than 2 percent
water. For this reasons the water
content of the tar may be futher reduced
by a tar-dewatering (dehydration)
process. The crude tar recovered during
the tar separation process is then stored
in heated storage tanks pending further
use or sale.
Depending on the plant design, idr
recovered during the separation process
may also undergo refining to produce
coal tar pitch. Like other tar products.
pitch is stored in vented storage vessels.
Benzene emissions from pitch storage
tanks were not evident during emission
testing because this pollutant is driven
off with the lighter fractions. In addition.
this process is practiced at few by-
product plants. For these reasons, pitch
storage tanks and pitch prilling
operations (the refining of pitch to
produce extruded pencils or beads)
were not considered for regulation
under the proposed standards.
The ammonia produced in a coke
oven is approximately 0.2 percent of trip
weight of the coal fed to the ovens.
Flushing liquor sprayed into the
collecting mains absorbs some of the
ammonia, and water condensed in the
primary cooler absorbs an additional
amount. Although aqueous ammonia
solutions are decanted from the tar in a
variety of processing vessels, the excess
ammonia-liquor storage tank was the
only benzene emmission source
identified in ammonia recovery or
ammonia wastewater processing
facilities.
Before light oils are recovered from
the coke oven gas, the temperature of
the gas is cooled from approximately 60'
C to about 25° C by a final cooler. As the
gas is cooled, some of the water and
most of the naphthalene in the gas are.
condensed into the cooling medium.
Both water and naphthalene are
removed from the gas to prevent
problems downstream. The three types
of final coolers currently used by the
industry are: (1) Direct-water, (2) tar-
bottom, and (3) wash-oil final coolers.
Available data indicate that 19 plants
use a direct-water final cooler. When a
direct-water final cooler is used. The
condensed naphthalene in the final
cooler must be periodically removed
from the hot well of the final cooler to
prevent clogging cf tubes, vents, or
meters. Benzene emissions result when
crude naphthalene is removed from the
hot well of the direct-water final cooler
and transported in open troughs, refined
by melting or steam drying, or stored
while it is hot for convenience in
handling. After separation of the
naphthalene, the water is cooled in an
inducted-draft cooling tower and
recirculated to the final cooler. Th«
water contains benzene, which is
released to the atmosphere when the
water is cooled against air in an open
V-L-8
-------
Federal Kegistsr / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
cooling tower. At plants using a direct-
water final cooler, the final-cooler
cooling tower is usually the largest
source of benzene emissions.
An estimated 12 plants use a tar-
bottom final cooler. In this system, the
cooling medium (water) is passed
through a pool of tar in the bottom of the
final cooler. Naphthalene in the water
dissolves in the tar and the tar is
recirculated to tar storage tanks, sold as
a final product, or refined. As in a
direct-water final cooler, the final cooler
water is cooled in a cooling tower and
recirculated to the final cooler. Although
use of a tar-bottom final cooler
eliminates naphthalene processing and
the resultant benzene emissions, the tar
may become saturated with benzene.
Thus, benzene may still be contained in
the final cooler water and released
when the water is cooled against air in
the final-cooler cooling tower,
A wash-oil final cooler uses petroleum
wash oil as the cooling medium rather
than water or tar. Naphthalene dissolves
in the wash oil, which is indirectly
cooled with heat exchangers and
recirculated to the final cooler. This
system is used by four plants. Benzene
emissions from naphthalene processing
and from the final-cooler cooling tower
are virtually eliminated with the use of a
wash-oil final cooler system. However,
benzene from the wash oil may still be
emitted form the wash-oil decanter and
the wash-oil circulation tank associated
with the wash-oil final-cooler system.
Wash-oil decanters and wash-oil
circulation tanks may also occur in the
light-oil recovery operation.
Light oil is a clear, yellow-brown oil
composed primarily of benzene, toluene.
xylene, solvent naphtha, and numerous
minor constituents that boil between O'C
and 200°C. Light oil is recovered from
the coke oven gas in a scrubber in which
wash oil absorbs the light oil from the
gas. The benzolized wash oil (wash-oil
and light-o.il mixture) leaving the
scrubber is separated by steam
stripping, and the wash oil is cooled and
recycled to the scrubber. The stripped
vapors may be partially condensed in a
light-oil condenser, while those that
remain noncondensibie may be
forwarded to a light-oil decanter
(rectifier) that separates the recovered
light oil into intermediate and secondary
fractions. The overhead, consisting of
benzene, toluene, and xylene (BTX) is
then forwarded to a water-cooled
condenser.
Benzene emission sources in the light-
oil recovery operation include wash-oil
decanters, wash-oil circulation tanks,
light-oil condensers, light-oil decanters
(or common vents for light-oil
condensers and light-oil decanters).
storage tanks containing light oil
(including BTX) or refined benzene, and
light-oil sumps. The wastewater
forwarded to the light-oil sump (from
which light oil may be recovered by
distillation) jnay also emit benzene,
which is entrained or dissolved in the
water.
Sources of benzene fugitive emissions
at coke by-product recovery plants also
include leaking pumps, valves,
exhausters pressure relief devices,
sampling connections, flanges, and
open-ended lines. In the by-product
recovery process, benzene is present in
numerous process streams and final
products. The streams are usually
moved throughout the process unit by
pumps through pipes, with the volume of
flow regulated by values. Exhausters.
generally located in the tar separation
sector of the plant, serve to move the
coke oven gas in the collecting main.
Benzene emissions from these sources n\
coke by-product recovery plants are
specifically exempted from proposed
EPA benzene fugitive emission
standards (46 FR 1165, January 5,19611
Selection of Control Technologies
Many options are available for the
control of benzene emissions from coke
by-product recovery plants.
Implementation of any of the control
options would also reduce volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions.
Control techniques that are effective in
reducing or eliminating emissions
include source enclosure used in
conjunction with a gas blanketing
system, .source enclosure alone, wash-oi!
scrubbers, process modifications, leak
detection and repair programs, and
equipment for certain fugitive emission
sources. Further information regarding
these and other control techniques is
provided in Chapter 4 of the BID.
Cos blanketing. Gas blanketing has
been demonstrated at by-product
recovery plants as an effective control
technique for reducing VOC emissions.
such as benzene, from process vessels
and product storage tanks. This control
technique can be applied to tar
decanters, flushing-liquor circulation
isnKS, tar-iriicrccpiiiig sumps. »3r
dewatering tanks, light-oil condensers.
light-oil decanters (or the common vent
for a light-oil condenser and a light-oil
decanter), wash-oil decanters, wash-oil
circulation tanks, and storage tanks
holding tar. excess-ammonia liquor, light
oil. benzene mixtures, and refined
benzene.
The basic principles of gas blanketing
require sealing all the openings on a
vessel or tank, supplying a constant
pressure gas blanket with coke-oven
gas, nitrogen or natural gas, and
providing for the recovery or destruction
of displaced vapor emissions.
Depending on the source to be
controlled, displaced vapors from the
enclosed source can be transported
through a piping system to the collecting
main, to the gas holder, or to another
point in the by-product recovery process
where the benzene will be recovered or
destroyed. With source enclosure, the
control efficiency of the blanketing
system approaches 100 percent.
However, deterioration of piping 01
sealing materials can occasionally result
in leaks, thus reducing the overall
control efficiency to as low as 98
percent.
With gas blanketing from the
collecting main, a vapor recovery-
system is in place in the form of the by-
product recovery process, which
removes organics from the raw cokf
oven gas. One advantage of gas
blanketing from the collecting main is
the recovery of benzene and other
organic material. At a medium-sized by-
product plant producing 4.000 Mg of
coke per day, benzene losses are
estimated as high as 4 percent of the
total benzene generated in the process
Depending upon the design of the
system and the source to be controlled.
much of this estimated process loss nan
be recovered by venting emissions to
the collecting main.
For gas blanketing from the collecting
main to work safely and effectively.
each emission source must he enclosed
to accept a slight, positive pressure
without leaks to the atmosphere. FMII
most vessels associated with crude tar
produciton, enclosure would require
closing atmospheric vent lines and
connecting the tank's vent line to the gas
blanketing line. However, tar decanters
may require further modifications before
a gas blanket can be applied. Tar
decanter tops usually have a rectangular
surface where the liquid is either
exposed to the atmosphere or partially
covered with concrete slabs set on steel
support beams. At many plants, the
decanter top must be removed, a water
seal and metal cover installed, and
gasket material arldeci to provide a tight
seal for the metal cover. A water seal
suspended from the decanter roof near
the sludge discharge chute would allow
the major portion of the liquid surface to
be blanketed at a small positive
pressure, while allowing the remaining
portion of the liquid surface (estimated
at about 13 percent) to be opened to the
atmosphere so as to provide clearance
for a sludge converyor. Because a
portion of the liquid surface must remain
open to the atmosphere, the benzene
control efficiency of gas blanketing for
V-L-9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
this source is lower than for other
sources, but is estimated to be at least
95 percent.
Potential condensation of naphthalene
or other tar components in the piping
system and freezing of water vapor in
the coke oven gas can be reduced or
eliminated by steam tracing the affected
line, controlling the temperature with
electrical heating tape, or by a
combination of both methods. Drip
points can also be installed so that any
condensate can be drained from the
blanketing line. Three-way lubricated
plug valves can also be provided to
avoid sticking due to tar deposits and to
isolate individual vessels during gauging
or sampling operations. Although this
equipment may not be necessary for
each plant and would not be specifically
required for any gas blanketing system,
equipment costs for these items are
included in the estimated system costs
described in Chapter 8 of the BID
because this equipment is considered a
useful and reasonable part of gas
blanketing systems.
Gas blanketing from the collecting
main has been successfully
demonstrated at one by-product plant
for the control of emissions from two tar
decanters and a flushing liquor
circulation tank. At this plant, the gas
blanketing line was connected to the
offtake main upstream of the Askania
regulatory (butterfly control valve). The
blanketing pressure was typically
controlled at 6 mm of water with a range
of 4 to 8 mm of water. The decanter
roofs were enclosed up to the sludge
conveyor with stsel plate and sealed
with gasket material. Access hatches on
both sources were covered and sealed; a
vertical manifold of small valves was
also installed to allow the operator to
determine the level of tar and flushing
liquor in the decanters. Three-way
valves, atmospheric vents, and steam-
out connectors for line cleaning were
also installed. All lines were stream
traced and insulated. No safety
problems were reported by plant
personnel operating the positive
pressure portion of the system at this
plant.
Engineering analyses indicate that no
technical, safety, or operating problem
would preclude the use of gas
blanketing from the collecting main for
the control of tar-intercepting sumps, tar
storage tanks (including dewatering
tanks), and excess ammonia-liquor
storage tanks. These sources are
generally in proximity and. like the tar
decanter and flushing-liquor circulation
tank, are all associated with the crude
tar and ammonia liquor recovery
operations practiced in the initial steps
of the by-product recovery process. The
proximity of the sources allows the use
of a common large header to supply
coke oven gas from the collecting main;
smaller diameter piping can then
connect the individual vent lines to the
header. Because the liquid contents of
these tanks result from water contact
with the raw coke oven gas, coupled
with the subsequent separation of tar
and flushing liquor, no contamination
problems are expected from a raw coke
oven gas blanket. In addition, these
sources can accept the low positive
pressure (6 to 10 mm water) of the coke
oven gas from the collecting main
without danger of rupture.
With gas blanketing from the gas
holder, a vapor destruction system is in
place because the clean oven gas is
burned to underfire the coke ovens and
to recover the fuel value. One advantage
of blanketing with clean coke oven gas
from the gas holder is the elimination of
oxidation reactions between oxygen in
the air and organic materials in the
vessels. These reactions often result in a
sludge that may pose fouling and
plugging problems in lines and process
equipment. In addition, oxygen
infiltration can cause tank vapors to
reach the explosive limits of vapor when
tanks are periodically emptied or when
significant cooling takes place. Applying
a positive pressure blanket would
eliminate oxygen infiltration and
maintain the vapor space in the tank
above its upper explosive limit.
Gas blanketing with clean coke oven
gas has been demonstrated for the
control of emissions from sources
associated with light-oil recovery,
including the light-oil condenser, light-
oil decanter, light-oil storage tank,
wash-oil decanter, and wash-oil
circulation tank. Again, the proximity of
these sources allows the use of a
common large header to supply coke
oven gas from the gas holder; smaller
branches of piping can then connect the
individual vent lines to the header. For
most vessels in the light-oil plant, source
enclosure would require closing all
vents to the atmosphere and connecting
the tank's vent line to the gas blanketing
line. Horizontal tanks in the light-oil
plant may require some minor
modifications to withstand a pressure of
36 to 46 cm (14 to 18 in) of water. As
previously discussed, heat tracing and
insulation can be used to avoid
condensation, accumulation, and
plugging in the lines. Steam-out
connections can also be used for line
cleaning, and three-way lubricated plug
valves can be provided so that an
individual line or vessel can be isolated
for maintenance or sampling.
Gas blanketing with clean coke oven
gas from the gas holder has been
demonstrated for these sources at three
by-product plants. At one plant,
undesulfurized coke oven gas from tho
gas holder is used to control wash-oil
decanters and wash-oil circulation
tanks. At this plant, a header line is
connected to the coke oven gas line
exiting the wash-oil scrubbers. The
tanks are connected with a line that
runs from the header pipe. Isolating
valves and steam-out connections are
provided. However, none of the lines are
heated or insulated. Although no
pressure relief valves or controllers are
used, water u-seals are placed in the
lines to remove condensate and to
protect the system from excessive
pressure.
At a second plant, desulfurized gas
from the battery underfire system is
used to blanket the wash-oil decanters.
wash-oil circulation tanks, light-oil
decanters, and light-oil condensers. In a
separate plant at the same location an
undesulfurized gas blanket is applied to
light-oil decanters and wash-oil
circulation tanks. All lines are st?
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
be enclosed to accept a postive pressure
gas blanket without leakage. In addition,
heat-traced and insulated lines would be
needed for winter operations due to the
freezing temperature of benzene (42' F).
Wash-oil scrubbers. A wash-oil
scrubber can be used to absorb benzene
and other organics from vented
emissions. Engineering analysis shows
that application of a properly designed
and operated wash-oil scrubber can
attain a control efficiency for benzene of
SO percent. Although wash-oil scrubbers
are less effective than gas blanketing,
they were considered by the EPA
because, in some cases, they could be
less costly.
Wash-oil scrubber technology is
already used in the coke by-product
recovery industry to recover the light oil
from the coke oven process gas stream.
Light oil is a mixture composed
primarily of benzene (60 to 85 percent)
that also has toluene (6 to 17 percent).
xylene (1 to 7 percent), solvent naphtha
(0.5 to 3 percent), and other minor
constituents. The coke oven enters the
scrubber from the bottom where it is
contacted by wash oil flowing from the
top of the scrubber, countercurrent to
the gas flow. The wash oil is a
petroleum straw oil with a boiling point
over 200° C (392° F). has a high
absorptive capacity for light oil. and
does not react with the gas. After
passing through the scrubber, the
benzolized wash oil (wash-oil and light-
oil mixture) is steam stripped in a wash
oil still to separate the light oil from the
wash oil. The devenzolized wash oil is
then cooled and recirculated back to the
wash-oil scrubber. The absorption of thf:
light oil by the wash oil is highly
dependent on temperature: the
absorption decreases as temperature
increases. For this reason, the coke oven
gas is cooled from about 60° C (140° F) to
about 15-30° C (59-86° F) before it enters
the scrubber. The temperature of the
wash oil as it enters the scrubber is
about 17.32° C (63-90° F): it is generally
a few degrees hotter than the gas to
prevent water condensation and
emulsification prnhlpms. The wash-oil
scrubber recovers about 80 percen! of
the light oil from the coke oven gas.
A wash-oil scrubber used to remove
benzene from vented emissions would
be of similar design, but scaled-down
from the wash-oil scrubber used in the
light-oil recovery process. Emission
sources vented to the'wash-oil scrubber
must be enclosed so that vapors
displaced from the sources due to
working and breathing losses could not
go anywhere except to the scrubber. The
scrubber design analyzed by the EPA
has no fan continuously venting the
vapors to the scrubber. In the scrubber
analyzed by the EPA, emissions would
enter the bottom of an unpacked
scrubbing chamber and contact a spray
of wash oil from the top of the scrubbing
chamber. The wash oil would be a
slipstream taken from the wash-oil used
in light oil recovery. The scrubber
operating temperatures (e.g.. the
temperature of the gas leaving the
scrubber) would be about 30° C (86° F),
which is similar to the temperatures in
the scrubber used in the light oil
recovery process. The benzolized wash
oil would be routed to the light-oil
recovery plant, where the benzene
would be recovered in the wash-oil still
and the debenzolized wash oil would be
cooled before being recirculated to the
wash-oil scrubber. The engineering
analysis shows that the scrubber can
achieve 90 percent control efficiency for
benzene. More details on specific design
parameters are described later in this
section.
A wash-oil scrubber was used as a
control device at one plant (that is no
longer operating) in the coke industry.
As discussed below the design and
operation of this scrubber differed
significantly from a wash-oil scrubber
that would achieve 90 percent control of
benzene emissions. The scrubber was a
portion of a large organic emission
control project which principally
consisted of installation of by-product
recovery and control devices instead of
flaring the coke oven gas. The wash-oil
scrubber was applied to emissions
vented from a tar storage tank, a tar
dewatering tank, an excess ammonia-
liquor storage tank, and an ammonia-
liquor sump. Access manwa.ys on the
storage tanks were covered and sealed.
The sump was enclosed with a metal
cover and gasket. Vent lines from each
enclosed vessel carried emissions to a
single scrubber. A slipstream of the
wash oil used in the light-oil recover)'
process was diverted to the wash-oil
scrubber. The benzolized wash oil from
the scrubber was then routed to the
wash-oil still in the light-oil recovery
unit, where it was debenzolized and
recirculated back to the wash-oil
scrubber. As noted above, the wash-oil
scrubber was part of a larger project to
control total organic emissions rather
than benzene emissions alone. The plant
operator stated that the scrubber had
never been tested and no records were
available of estimates of the control
efficiency. In addition, the plant is no
longer operating. Therefore, no test data
or company estimates of the design
con!rol efficiency are available.
However, the EPA has concluded that
this particular wash-oil scrubber system
would not control benzene emissions.
The main reason is that the
temperatures of both the wash oil and
the gas were significantly hotter than
the temperatures (about 30° 86° F)
characteristic of the gas and wash oil in
EPA's scrubber design that achieves 90
percent control and in the scrubbers in
the light oil recovery units. The wash-oil
spray in the scrubber at this plant was a
slipstream from the wash oil leaving the
stripper, before it was cooled. Therefore.
its temperature was 110° C (230° F),
whjich is higher than the boiling point of
beazene (80° C or 176' F). In addition.
during the tar dewatering process, in
which the tar is steam-heated to drive
off water, the gas entering the scrublie;
without precooling would probably be
around 100° C (212° F). At these
temperatures for the wash oil and pas,
the absorption of benzene by the wash
oil would be negligible. Therefore, the
EPA did not consider the design of the
wash-oil scrubber at this particular
plant for application as a benzene
control device. This application
demonstrates the enclosure and venting
of sources.to a wash-oil scrubber, anri
the compatibility of the wash-oil
scrubber with the light-oil recovery-
system. However, to control benzene
emissions, the wash oil and the gas
would have to be cooled.
Wash-oil scrubbers were consider! il
for controlling emissions from storage
tanks containing light-oil. BTX. benzene
or excess ammonia-liquor. Thp pressu;;
drop through the scrubber is negligible-
therefore, the tanks would not be
subjected to pressures significantl\
higher than normal operating conditicns.
Consequently, little modification of tlie
tanks, other than covering and sealing
any openings, would be necessary. Also.
the wash-oil circulation, distillation, anrl
cooling capacity needed to .-rirra'.e H
scrubber applied to these sources is
expected to be within the capwcity of
most existing light-oil recovery plants.
Estimated costs for applying a wash-oil
scrubber to storage tanks containing
light-oil. BTX. benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor are less thnn the
estimated costs of gas blanketing fnese
sources. More details of the ccist
estimates can be found in the section oi
this preamble entitled "Selection of the
Basis of the Proposed Standard" unr! it-
Chapter 8 of the BID.
Wash-oil scrubbers were also
considered for controlling emissions
from tar storage and dewateri!i<> t
-------
Fsderai Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
to be cooled, either by a condenser or by
a sufficiently high flow rate of cool
wash-oil spray. In addition, several
other factors would have to be
addressed to design a wash-oil scrubber
to control benzene emissions from tar
storage and dewatering tanks. These
include the effects of a hot gas saturated
with water, lack of equilibrium data for
the mixture of organics expected to be in
the emission stream, fouling of
equipment from heavy organics from the
tar, emulsification problems, and
wastewater treatment problems. Even if
it is assumed that these factors are not
problems with the design, the estimated
cost of using the wash-oil scrubber,
including cooling the emissions, is
higher than the estimated cost of gas-
blanketing these sources. (Details of the
cost estimates can be found in Chapter 8
of the BID.) Also, as discussed above,
the emission reduction achieved by the
wash-oil scrubber is less than by gas
blanketing. For these reasons, the use of
wash-oil scrubber for tar storage and
dewatering tanks was not considered
further.
The application of the wash-oil
scrubber to process vessels other than
storage tanks in the tar and light-oil
recovery plants was also considered.
These sources generally have higher
benzene emission rates than the storage
tanks. To control these sources, a higher
volume of wash-oil spray would be
needed. The wash-oil circulation.
distillation, and cooling systems
required to handle the wash oil would
likely be beyond the capacity of most
existing light-oil plants. In addition,
other sources in the tar recovery plant
would need to have the same design
considerations described above for tar
storage and dewatering tanks.
Increasing the capacity of the wash-oil
circulation, distillation, and cooling
systems, and cooling the emissions before
scrubbing tlwm would make the wash-
oil scrubber more expensive than gas
blanketing, which is the more efficient
control system. Therefore, use of the
wash-oil scrubber was not considered
further for sources other than storage
tanks containing light oil, BTX, benzene,
or excess ammonia-liquor. The Agency
invites comments on its assessment of
the application and costs of the wash-oil
scrubber to control emissions at coke
by-products plants.
Engineering design calculations
indicate that a wash-oil scrubber with
an inner diameter of 20.3 cm (8 in), an
active height of 4 m (13 ft), and a wash-
oil (solvent) feed rate of 0.03 I/s (0.5 gal/
min) will achieve a continuous benzene
control eficiency of at least 90 percent
from light oil, BTX, benzene, and excess
ammonia-liquor storage tanks. This
design is based upon the following
worst-case assumptions: (1) Maximum
gas feed rate to the scrubber of 19 e/s
(40.1 ft'/min) resulting from a maximum
anticipated liquid displacement rate of
19 e/s (300 gal/min) as tank is filled, (2)
a maximum gas phase benzene
concentration of 17 percent by volume
(corresponding to storage of pure
benzene liquid at 32° C), and (3)
maximum scrubber operating
temperature (i.e., temperature of the gas
leaving the scrubber) of 32° C (90° F).
Two other design parameters, which do
not fall in the category of "worst case,"
are the following: (1) The spray nozzle
that distributes wash oil within the
column produces a mean droplet
diameter of 1 mm, and (2) the smallest
droplet produced by the same nozzle
has a diameter of 0.2 mm.
For sources with gas phase benzene
concentrations of less than 17 percent
and for smaller gas phase (vent system)
flow rates, smaller scrubbers with
correspondingly lower wash-oil feed
rates can be designed. However, a
scrubber of the design summarized
above will ensure that 80 percent
efficiency is achieved at design (worst-
case) conditions and that the benzene
concentration in the absorber offgas
st, earn can be maintained at or below
the design level.
Light-oil sump cover. A tightly fitting
cover can be used to reduce evaporative
losses caused by wind blowing across
the surface of a light-oil sump and
mixing with benzene or other
hydrocarbon vapors. A gasket material
applied to the rim of the sump cover
would provide a seal to prevent leakage
and would also allow removal of the
cover to permit access for sludge
removal. A vertical vent could also be
installed in the sump cover so excess
pressure would not build up in the sump.
Potential emissions from small pressure
increases could be contained with the
use of a water leg seal, a pressure relief
device, or a vacuum relief device.
Enclosing the sump would reduce
evaporative emissions, but would still
allow working losses (from increasing
the liquid level in the sump) and
breathing losses (from increasing the
temperature of the liquid in the sump).
For sumps operated at or near a
constant liquid level, a 98-percent
control efficiency is estimated for a
tightly fitting sealed cover equipped
with a vertical vent as compared to ihe
uncontrolled situation with wind
blowing across the exposed liquid
surface.
Naphthalene Processing and Final
Coolers. A process modification is an
effective control technique for benzene
emissions from naphthalene processing
and direct-water final-cooler cooling
towers. At a plant operating a direct-
water final cooler, a process
modification would consist of replacing
the direct-water final cooler with a tar-
bottom final cooler, converting the
direct-water final cooler to a tar-bottom
final cooler by adding a mixer-settler, or
replacing the direct-water final cooler
with a wash-oil final cooler. A control
efficiency of 74 percent is estimated for
direct-water final-cooler cooling tower
emissions through the installation of the
tar-bottom process or a tar mixer-settler;
collection of the naphthalene by means
of a tar or wash-oil system would also
eliminate emissions from napthalene
processing for an emission reduction of
100 percent. At a plant operating a tar-
bottom final cooler, the process
modification would be the replacement
of the tar-bottom final cooler with a
wash-oil final cooler. This control option
would provide an industry-wide
emission reduction of 100 percent from
tar-bottom final-cooler cooling towers
and naphthalene processing emissions.
Pumps. Fugitive emissions from
pumps primarily result from leakage of
process fluids around the pump drive
shaft and through deteriorated seal
packing or worn mechanical seal faces
These emissions can be reduced with
the elimination of the seal by replacing
the pump with a sealless pump or by
using an improved seal (e.g., double
mechanical seals). Because of process
condition limitations, sealless pumps #;>
not suitable for all pump applications.
However, dual mechanical seal systems;
with a barrier fluid between the seals
(and meeting certain other criteria) can
achieve a benzene control efficiency nf
about 100 percent.
Another control option is the
application of a leak detection and
repair program based on monitoring
each pump at monthly or quarterly
intervals. Once detected, leaks from
pumps usually can be repaired
immediately because critically located
pumps are spared at most by-product
plants. Based on the leak detection and
repair (LDAR) model (described in the
EPA document, "Fugitive Emission
Sources of Organic Compounds—
Additional Information on Emissions.
Emission Reductions, and Costs" [EPA-
450/3-82-010]), monthly monitoring of
pumps would achieve an industry-widn
benzene control efficiency of ebout 83
percent, while quarterly monitoring
would achieve an industry-wide con;;.;;
efficiency of abut 71 percent.
Valves. Fugitive emissions from
valves result when valve packings or O
V-L-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
rings thai are used to limit leakage of
process fluids around valve stems
deteriorate. Most valve leaks can be
repaired while the equipment is in
service by tightening the packing gland.
Plug valves may be repaired by the
addition of grease. Some valves cannol
be repaired while in service. These
valves include block valves, whose
removal for repair or replacement might
require a process shutdown. Othsr
valves, such as control valves with a
manual bypass loop, can be isolated for
repair or removal.
. The control options considered for
valves in benzene service include the
implementation of a leak detection and
repair program based on monthly or
quarterly monitoring intervals. Monthly
moitoring would achieve an industry-
wide benzene control efficiency of about
72 percent, as compared to the 63-
percent industry-wide control efficiency-
achievable with quarterly inspections. A
third control option considered is
equipping valves with leakless
equipment such as sealed bellows
valves. The control efficiency of this
option is approximately 100 pen ent.
Exhausters. Emissions from
exhausters also occur at the seal.
Control options for exhausters include
the installation of seal systems with the
barrier fluid degassing reservior vented
to a control device, or purging the
barrier fluid and adding the fluid to a
process stream, or maintaining the
pressure in the barrier fluid above that
of the stuffing box. The control
efficiency for each of these mr.-thods is
estimated at 100 percent. A second
control option for exhausters is the
implementation of a leak detection and
repair program, based on quarterly or
monthly monitoring intervals. Monthly
monitoring would achieve a control
efficiency of about 64 percent, as
compared to the 55-percent control
defficiency associated with quarterly
inspections.
Pressure relief devices. Pressure relief
devices may emit benzene fugitive
emissions because of the failure of valve
seating surfaces, improper reseating
after relieving, or process operations
near the relief valve set point. Fugitive
emissions from pressure relief valves
can be controlled by installing a rupture
disc system upstream of these valves to
prevent fugitive emissions from the
valve seat. The control efficiency of the
rupture disc system is approximately
100 percent. Emissions from pressure
relief devices can also be controlled by
venting emissions in a closed system to
a control device, such as a flare. The
control efficiency of this equipment
option is at least 95 percent. However.
use of a control device would H!SO
reduce emissions resulting from a
pressure release in addition to the
fugitive emissions. The reduction of
these emissions would increase the
overall control efficieny of this option to
a level approaching that of the rupture
disc system.
Implementation of a leak detection
and repair program, based on
monitoring at monthly or quarterly
intervals, was also considered as a
control option for pressure relief
devices. Monthly and quarterly
monitoring would achieve an industry-
wide benzene control efficiency of 53
percent and 44 percent, respectively.
Open-ended lines. Fugitive emissions
from open-ended lines can be controlled
by installing a cap. plug, blind, or
second valve on the open end of the
line. Capping of open-ended lines and
closed-loop sampling represent readily
available technologies that have been
applied in the industry and exhibit
control efficiencies of approximately 100
percent. However, the acutal control
efficiencies may depend on site-specific
factors.
Sampling connections. When process
samples are taken for analysis.
obtaining a representative sample
requires purging some process fluid
through the sample connection. This
sample purge could be vented to the
atmosphere if the fluid is gaseous, and
liquid sample purges could be drained
onto the ground or into open collection
systems where evaporative emissions
would result. Fugitive emissions from
sampling connections can be reduced by
using a closed-purge sampling system
that eliminates purging of process
material and provides a benzene control
efficiency of about ICO percent.
EPA selected a level for the benzene
standard for coke by-product recovery
plants through a two-step process. The
first step in determining the basis of the
proposed standard was the selection of
the best available technology (BAT) as
the minimum level of control. Best
available technology for new and
existing sources is technology which, in
the judgment of the Administrator, is the
most advanced level of control
considering the economic, energy, and
environmental impacts and any
technological problems associated with
the retrofitting of existing sources.
After selecting BAT, EPA identified a
level of control more stringent than BAT
and evaluated the incremental
reductions in health risks obtainable
against the incremental costs and
economic impacts estimated to result
from the application of the more
stringent control level. This provides a |
comparison of the costs and economic
impacts of control with the benefits of
further risk reduction. The benefits of
risk reduction are expressed in terms of
the estimated annual leukemia
incidcni.e and the cf-iimHlpd risk to tin-
most exposed population. The results ol
this comparison determine whether, in
the judgement of the Administrator, the
residual risks remaining after
application of BAT are unreasonable. If
the risk remaining after application of
BAT is determined to be unreasonable.
further controls would be required.
This approach while recognizing thai
risk-free levels of exposure to
carcinogens such as benzene may not
exist, also considers the technological
and economic factors that affect the
pursuit of a "risk-free" or zero emissions
goal and the uncertainties inherent in
the estimation of carcinogenic risks. |l'oi
more detail, see the EPA document.
"Response to Public Comments on
EPA's listing of Benzene Under Section
1J2" (EPA-J50/5-82-003).]
In selecting BAT. EPA first considered
the cost of control for each emission
source by examining the annual cost of
each benzone emission control option
for each source and the resultant
emission reduction. The emission
sources considered for regulation are
indicated on Table 2. EPA. then
examined the nonair environmental.
energy, and economic impacts for the
collection of the control options
tentatively selected, based on a
consideration of cost per megagram of
emission reduction for each source to
determine if the collection represents
BAT for the industry as a whole. If those
impacts were reasonable, the control
techniques were selected as BAT and
then were used in estimating the risks
remaining after application of BAT.
The emission reductions and the
average and incremental costs per
megagram of benzene emission
reduction are presented on Table 3.
Costs per megagram of emission
reduction (average and incremental]
were calculated in terms of tola!
emissions (benzene and other volatile
organic compounds (VOC'sj), as well as
benzene alune. Control of bc.izene
emissions also result in VOC control nt
no additional cost. Therefore, VOC
control is an added benefit of benzene
control. In regulatory decision-making
regarding the acceptability of the cost
for emission reductions achieved by a
control technique, it is appropriate to
consider the VOC as well as the
benzene emission reductions. However.
VOC emission reductions were
considered only in the sense thai VOC
emission reductions can add weight to
selecting a control technique as BAT.
V-L-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
lABIt 1. NAIIQNWIOt EMISSION KOUCIIONS «KO CO',IS Of CO* IWH
1
?
1
4
J.
6
7
8
•4
10
II
12
1 1
It
(Mission source
n-:t\ o,-j!er cooling t««erd
l.ir d".*nler tar- intercepting
suet*, and (lushing llojuor
circulation tank.
Tar s'orai^e tenks and tar—
OVwatertng tants
light-oil condenser, llght-oi
deraa*p
».««/S
valves
(•luutlers
Pi e».»ure-rel iel devices
Stapling connection system
Pp^n-eivled lines
.^nd 6 or It*. bdLkcjround titforewl
Averagt (»i,t-range) 1982 dollars
1
2
Cat
Gat
Gas
nd
1.
2.
1.
>.
1.
2
Control option*
lar-bottoB final cooler*
Hash-oil rinal cooler
blanketing
blanketing
blanket lnj|
Wash-oil scrubber
Gas blanketing
Hash-oil scrukber
Coke oven gas blanketing
Wash-oil scrubber
Nitrogen or natural gat
blanketing
Sealed cover
1.
I.
).
1.
2
3.
1.
2
*
1.
2.
3.
?12.
Cap
oti dotuse
Qiwjrterly Inspections
Monthly Inspections
Dual swchanlcal seal*
Quarterly Inspection*
Monthly Inspections
Sealed bellows waives
Quarterly Inspections
Honthly Inspections
Quarterly inspections
Mr.nti.ly lns|»«clions
Rupture discs
»e*-pw«je saapling
o>- p*uj|
H IB1U).
Ber
2
6.240
8.370
8.060
1,410
3.470
3 .'6
409
76*
291
61
69
619
328
386
4«3
196
312
14
25
93
no
209
41
14
Incremental <
eeiisslin nnfc
(l/Ng)
(310)
4,200
(310)
640
170
COO
,200
,800
.100
.100
.700
(230)
100
110
1.800
(230)
(110)
I/, 000
1.100
2.600
74 000
(400)
(300)
8/0
1,201)
700
T',\r "*?
let ion ol tontr
lotal Missions (bentene and ottter VOf 1
Incre-
•ental
cost
effec-
tiveness
(iVMgi
(310)
18,000
(310)
640
120
i.OOfl
2.900
1.800
6.100
1.100
8.100
(230)
100
120
16.000
(2.10)
670
61,000
1.100
9,900
At? 000
(400)
2/0
2,200
1.200
ion
i^r,coii- cost
trolled Emission effec-
••istions reduction tivenes^ t
(Hq/»r)
1UU.600
100.600
i/. son
•I.4'K)
4.140
V)»
597
424
424
71
71
•J09
t.69
66
67.300
100.600
17.200
|
I 12.900
1
4.890
S3t
Mi
MS
418
63
69
883
473
5S7
669
281
127
450
69
69
IOJ
Itt
158
107
59
20
(»/MB>
<29)
350
(14,))
77
H'j
710
810
1,200
1.500
1.100
l./OO
(160)
72
71
1,900
(160)
(76)
12.000
290
590
«j jot)
(260)
(210)
MO
07.0
481)
«nta 1
cost
«(l»r-
(l/"V))'
(?S)
1,100
ll'O)
1,
«'.
;io
1,900
i,:oo
4.500
1.100
D, »IX)
< ).in )
I!
(14
11,000
(160)
42,000
29U
7..4UO
I5(?"";
;oo
1 ,'.011
620
•mi
(nr>l aiwtual cobt of the conlr.il ler!tniiju«
fi)ue - annul
1 veiisslon
reduction ut tl
arnual ..'iitrnl fist per sour, e -: atui'-il h«aiene evl^ion reduction per
>,,uft e> tli* values in uarenlneses denote • saving In costs
next less restrictive control terhotquel values in parentheses o>no(e v^i/i.v-j-
Hine(.«e*t plants have dite'.'t-water fi«,4l <,i»lr>is, and 12 plants have **r
but UNI final coo)?r»
The iivur;.ige cost effectiveness (the
.osi of control per megagram of
!iv.:ss!i;n reduction) was calculated by
ixamining the cost effectiveness of each
:ontrol option (i.e., the cost of going
Vom .in uncontrolled status to the level
>f control represented by a control
jption). Where more than one control
jption was available, EPA examined the
ncremental cost effectiveness. That is,
'•'PA compared the more stringent level
>f control to the next less stringent level
)f c.on'rul to evaluate the
•uuson;:b!.?nes8 of the additional cost
nr/j! i ad bv the more stringent level of
•.on!ro! in view of the additional
jenzrae emission reduction that would
JR achieved. The incremental cost
•ffRutiveness between any two alternate
xrtrol techniques was calculated as the
liffcrence in net annualized costs
iivided by the difference in the annual
;mission reductions of the alternate
;ontrol techniques. If the incremental
:ost in comparison to the incremental
'mission reduction was judged as
unreasonable, then the next increment
was examined until a control technique
with a reasonable cost in comparison to
the emission reduction was available. In
all cases, EPA selected as BAT
(considering costs) the control optfon
that provided the most emission
reduction and yet had a reasonable
average and incremental cost per
megagram of emission reduction.
It should be noted that the control
costs do not represent the actual
amounts of money spent at any
particular plant site. Rather, the cost of
emission reduction systems will vary
according to the particular products
produced, production equipment, plant
layout and system design, geographic
location, and company preferences or
policies. However, these costs and
emission reductions are considered
typical of control techniques for benzene
emission sources within coke byproduct
recovery plants. Although no
construction of new by-product plants is
expected during the next 5 years, new
sources could be constructed. Because
new 8oiirc.es do not incur retrofit costs,
ihe costs of control are generally less
than for existing sources. However, trm
cost of control for new sources in by-
product plants is not sufficiently less to
warrant a separation examination of
new source costs.
In Table 3. the emission sources foi
which gas blanketing was considered
are grouped according to the most cost-
effective approach for implementing this
control technique. For example, the tar
decanter, tar-intercepting sump, and
flushing-liquor circulation tank are
usually in close proximity. The most
cost-effective system design for these
(and other emission source groupings)
would consist of the large header pipe
from the collecting main to the general
area of the sources. Smaller diameter
piping Would then connect the header
pipe to each source to provide the
blanketing gas.
EPA first examined the cost per unit
of benzene emission reduction for all
V-L-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
sources for which only one control
option was considered. These groups of
sources include: (1) Tar decanters, tar-
intercepting sumps, and flushing-liquor
circulation tanks; (2) tar storage tanks
and tar-dewatering tanks: (3) light/oil
condensers, light-oil decanters, wash-oil
decanters, and wash-oil circulation
tanks: (4) light-oil sumps: (5) sampling
connections; and (6) open-ended lines
The cost of control for these sources
ranges from a net credit or cost savings
to a high of $l,200/Mg of benzene
emission reduction. These costs are
considered reasonable for the emission
reduction achieved by the applicable
control option. For this reason, these
control options were tentatively selected
as BAT, considering costs of control for
each source. These control options
include: (1) Use of the gas blanketing
system for tar decanters, tar-intercepting
sumps, flushing-liquor circulation tanks.
tar storage tanks, tar-dewatering tanks.
light-oil condensers, light-oil decanters.
wash-oil decanters, and wash-oil
circulation tanks; (2) a sealed cover for
the light-oil sump; (3) closed-purge
sampling for sampling connection
systems; and (4) a cap or plug for open-
ended lines.
EPA next examined two control
options for naphthalene processing and
final coolers: Wash-oil final coolers and
tar-bottom final coolers. Wash-oil final
coolers, the more effective of the two
technologies, would virtually eliminate
bensene emissions, applying this
technology rather than tar bottom final
coolers would result in an additional
(incremental) benzene emission
reduction of about 2.130 Mg/yr and an
additional total emission reduction
(including benzene and other VOC) of
about 33,300 Mg/yr. The incremental
annualized cost for wash-oil final
coolers compared with tar bottom final
coolers would be about S37.2 million/yr.
The incremental cost of wash-oil final
coolers over tar bottom final coolers is
Sl8.000/Mg of benzene emission
reduction, which is a relatively high
incremental cos! effectiveness. This
relatively high incremental cost
effectiveness is substantially reohici-rl
when the total emission reduction
(including benzene and other VOC) is
considered. However, the capital costs
of the wash-oil final cooler system are
also relatively high, ranging from S2.1
million for a small model plant to $7.9
million for a large model plant. An
analysis of these capital costs compared
to annual net income and investment
indicated a potential for an
unreasonably adverse economic impact
on some firms. Based on a combination
of all these cost-related factors. EPA
rejected the selection of wash-oil final
coolers as BAT and selected tar bottom
final coolers.
For storage tanks containing excess
ammonia-liquor, light-oil, BTX. or
benzene, EPA considered two control
options—gas blanketing and wash-oil
scrubbers. Gas blanketing of these
sources would provide a benzene
control efficiency of at least 98 percent,
as compared to the 80-percent emission
reduction provided by a wash-oil
scrubber. The average cost per
megagram of benzene emission
reduction for gas blanketing of these
sources ranges from about $1.2CO/Mg to
a high of about S2,100/Mg; these costs
are considered reasonable for the
emission reduction achieved, especially
considering that when the VOC
emission reduction is added in, the
average cost effectiveness is reduced to
a range of about $810/Mg to about
$1.700/Mg.
However, the wash-oil scrubber may
be a viable option for these sources at
some plants. A scrubber could be less
expensive than gas blanketing. For this
reason. EPA examined the nationwide
incremental costs and emission
reduction of 90 percent control with
wash-oil scrubbers as compared to 98
percent control by gas blanketing.
For storage tanks containing light oil
or benzene mixtures, the incremental
cost associated with the gas blanketing
option compared to the wash-oil
su-ubbcT option would be S147,COO/yr
and the incremental benzene emission
reduction would be 24 Mg/yr; this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $6.100/Mg of
benzene emission reduction.
Furthermore, the use of gas blanketing
would reduce total emissions (including
benzene and VOC) by about 33 Mg/yr
more than the wash-oil scrubber option:
this represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $4,5CO/Mg of total
emission reduction, including benzene
and other VOC. Because the incremental
cost effectiveness of gas blanketing for
benzene ($6.100/Mg) is relatively high
and because the additional VOC
emission reduction does not add enough
weight to convince EPA that the costs
are reasonable, EPA decided to
tentatively select wash-oil scrubbers
rather than gas blanketing as BAT,
considering costs, for storage tanks
containing light oil or benzene mixtures.
For storage tanks containing benzene.
trie incremental cost associated with gas
blanketing (with nitrogen or oatural gas)
compared to the wash-oil scrubber
option would be about $45,600/yr and
the incremental benzene emission
reduction would be 6/Mg/yn this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about Sfl.lOO/Mg of
benzene emission reduction. No
emission reduction other than benzene
would be achieved because benzene- is
the only organic emitted from this
source. Because the incremental cos!
effectiveness of gas blanketing for
benzene (S8,100/Mg) is relatively high
and because there is no additional VOC
emission reduction that would be
achieved by gas blanketing to convince
EPA that the costs are reasonable. EPA
tentatively selected wash-oil scrubbers
as BAT, considering costs, for benzene
storage tanks.
For storage tanks containing excess
ammonia-liquor, the incremental cost
associated with the gas blanketing
option compared to the wash-oil
scrubber option would be about SJM.CMM/
yr and the incremental benzene
emission rt-durtion would be about 33
Mg/yr: this represents an incremental
cost effectiveness of about S2.900/Mg of
benzene emission reduction. The use of
gas blanketing would redurt total
emissions (including benzene and VOC)
by 49 Mg/yr more than the wash-oil
final scrubber option; this represents an
incremental cost effectiveness of about
Sl.900/Mg of total emission reduction
(including benzene and other VOC)
Because the incremental cost
effectiveness of gas blanketing fui
benzene (S2,8DO/Mg) is relatively high
and because the additional VOC
emission reduction does not add e:Hiuj!!;
weight to convince EPA that the costs
are reasonable, EPA decided to
tentatively select wash-oil scrubbers
rather than gas blanketing as BAT.
considering costs, for storage tanks
containing excess ammonia-liquor.
Although the wash-oil scrubber was
selected as the tentative BAT for these
sources, some plants may prefer to
apply gas blanketing due to site-specific
factors or due to the potentially lower
maintenance requirements. Because gns
blanketing achieves a better control
efficiency, the selection of the wash-oil
scrubber as BAT would not preclude the
use of gas blanketing (or any other
control device that is designed and
operated to achieve a so-percent
'benzene control efficiency).
EPA considered three control option*
for pumps: Dual mechanical seal
systems, monthly leak detection and
repair, and quarterly leak detection and
repair. (These are listed in order nf
decreasing control efficiency and cost.)
EPA considered the most stringent
optkm. dual mechanical seals, first. The
incremental cost associated with the use
of dual mechanical seal systems
compared to the monthly leak deletion
V-L-15
-------
Federal Kegisteir / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
and repair option would be $1.2 million/
yr and the incremental benzene
emission reduction would be 77 Mg/yn
this represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $16,COO/Mg of
benzene emission reduction.
Furthermore, the use of dual mechanical
seals would reduce total emissions
(including benzene and other VOC) by
112 Mg/yr more than the monthly leak
detection and repair option; this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $ll,000/Mg total
emission reduction. Because the
incremental cost effectiveness of dual
mechanical seals for benzene (S18.COQ/
Mg) is relatively high and because the
additional VOC emission reduction does
not add enough weight to convince EPA
that the costs are reasonable, EPA
decided not to select dual mechanical
seals as BAT, considering costs, for
pumps.
Next, EPA considered monthly leak
detection and repair. The incremental
cost associated with monthly leak
detection end repair compared with the
quarterly leak detection and repair
program would be about §S,8CO/yr and
the incremental benzene emission
reduction would be 58 Mg/yr, this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of $120/Mg benzene
emission reduction. Because EPA
considers the incremental cost
effectiveness of monthly detection and
repair reasonable and it gets more
emission reduction than quarterly leak
detection and repair, EPA decided to
tentatively select monthly leak detection
and repair as BAT, considering costs, for
pumps.
EPA considered three control options
for valves: Sealed bellows valves,
monthly leak detection and repair, and
quarterly leak detection and repair. EPA
considered the most stringent option,
sealed bellows valves, first. The
incremental cost associated with the use
of sealed bellows valves compared with
monthly leak detection and repair is $5.2
million/yr and the incremental benzene
emission reduction would be 86 Mg/yn
this represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $61,COO/Mg
benzene emission reduction.
Furthermore, the use of sealed bellows
valves would reduce total emissions
(including benzene and other VOC) by
123 Mg/yr more than monthly leak
detection and repair, this represents an
incremental cost effectiveness of about
$42,COO/Mg. Because the incremental
cost effectiveness of sealed bellows
valves for benzene ($61,GOO/Mg) is
relatively high and because the
additional VOC emission reduction does
not add enough weight to convince EPA
the costs are reasonable, EPA decided
not to select sealed bellows valves at
BAT, considering costs, for valves.
Next, EPA considered monthly leak
detection and repair. The incremental
cost associated with monthly leak
detection and repair compared with the
quarterly leak detection and repair
program would be $20,200/yr and the
incremental benzene emission reduction
would be 30 Mg/yn this represents an
incremental cost effectiveness of S670/
Mg benzene emission reduction.
Because a higher emission reduction
would be achieved by monthly
monitoring as compared to quarterly
monitoring, at B reasonable cost, EPA
tentatively selected monthly monitoring
as BAT, considering costs, for valves.
For exhausters, the most stringent
control option would require the use of
degassing reservior vents. This
equipment would reduce benzene
emissions by approximately 100 percent.
The incremental cost of degassing
reservior vents over monthly inspections
is §5S8,GQO/y? and the incremental
benzene emission reduction would be &
Mg/yn this represents an incremental
cost effectiveness of about $62,000/Mg.
The use of this equipment would reduce
total emissions (including benzene and
other VOC) by about 38 Mg/yr more
than the monthly inspection option,
thereby reducing the overall incremental
cost effectiveness to $15,000/Mg total
emission reduction (including benzene
and other VOC). Because the
incremental cost effectiveness of
degassing vents for benzene control is
relatively high and because the
additional VOC emission reduction does
not add enough weight to convince EPA
that the costs are reasonable, degassing
reservior vents were not selected as
BAT. considering costs, for exhausters.
Monthly inspections of exhausters
would reduce benzene emissions by
about 84 percent, or by about 2 Mg/yr
more benzene than quarterly leak
detection and repair. The incremental
cost of monthly monitoring over
quarterly monitoring is about $24.00Q/yr;
this represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of about $9,SCO/Mg of
benzene emission reduction. Monthly
inspections would reduce total
emissions (including benzene and other
VOC) by about 10 Mg/yr more than the
total emission reduction achieved by
quarterly monitoring; this reduces the
overall cost effectiveness of this option
to $2,400/Mg total emission reduction
(including benzene and other VOC).
Because the incremental cost
effectiveness of monthly inspections for
benzene control is relatively high, and
because the additional VOC emission
reduction does not add enough weight to
convince EPA that the costs are
reasonable, monthly monitoring was not
selected as BAT, considering costs, for
exhausters.
Quarterly inspections of exhausters
would reduce benzene emissions by 14
Mg/yr at a cost of about $17,300/yr. This
represents a cost effectiveness of about
$l,300/Mg of benzene emission
reduction. Furthermore, quarterly
inspections would reduce total
emissions (including benzene and other
VOC) by about 59 Mg/yr, this reducRs
the overall cost effectiveness of this
option to $290/Mg total emission
reduction (including benzene and other
VOC). Because EPA considers the cost
effectiveness of quarterly monitoring to
be reasonable, particularly in view of
the added VOC emission reduction, EPA
tentatively selected quarterly monitoring
as BAT, considering costs, for
exhausters.
Of the control options considered for
pressure relief devices, use of a rupture
disc system would provide the greatest
benzene emission reduction
(approximately 100 percent). The
incremental cost associated with the use
of a rupture disc system compared to the
monthly leak detection and repair
option would be $215,000/yr and thy
incremental benzene emission reduction
would be 99 Mg/yn this represents an
incremental cost effectiveness of about
$2,000/Mg benzene emission reduction.
Furthermore, the use of the rupture disi:
system would reduce total emissions
(including benzene and other VOC) by
144 Mg/yr more than the monthly leak
detection and repair option; this
represents an incremental cost
effectiveness of 8l,500/Mg total
emission reduction. Because EPA
considers the incremental cost
effectiveness of the rupture disc system
to be reasonable, particularly in view of
the added VOC emission reduction, and
because rupture disc systems get the
most emission reduction, EPA
tentatively selected that option as BAT.
considering costs, for pressure relief
devices.
Before making a final selection of
control options as BAT, EPA considered
the nonair quality environmental
impacts and the economic and energy
impacts to determine if the tentative
selection of control options as BAT
should be altered. Implementation of the
control options tentatively selected as
the basis of the proposed standard
would reduce nationwide benzene
emissions from coke by-product
recovery plants from their current levy)
of about 24.100 Mg/yr to about 2,700
Mg/yr. an overall emission reduction of
V-L-16
-------
Fsderal Segtste / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 1984 / Proposed Rules
approximately 89 percent. Total
uncontrolled nationwide emissions of
benzene and other VOC's would be
reduced from their current estimated
level of 160.000 Mg/yr to about 35,000
Mg/yr, a 78-percent reduction.
k No adverse environmental Impacts
are associated with these control
options. Use of the gas blanketing
system would actually tend to reduce
the amount of benzene in process
wastewater, in addition to solid waste
disposal problems associated with
sludge formation. Use of the gas
blanketing system also provides the
potential for fuel savings and increased
product recovery. If the benzene in the
recovered coke oven gas were used to
underfire the coke oven battery, the
national energy savings from the
recovered gases would total about
30.000 terajoules (TJ) per year (0.028
quad/yr), assuming a recovery rate of
21.3 / of gas/min/Mg of coke per day.
Further information detailing the
development and consideration of these
control techniques and the associated
environmental and energy impacts, and
the costs associated with each control
option is presented in Chapters 6. 7, and
8 of the BID.
The total national capital and
annualized costs of these control
options also are considered to be
reasonable. The total national capital
costs associated with these control
options are estimated at about $23.8
million over the baseline (1982 dollars).
including the cost of a monitor for leak
detection. Light-oil recovery credits
result in a savings in total annualized
costs for furnace coke producers, as
compared to the baseline. (Even though
the controls selected as BAT may result
in an annualized credit, in general,
industries do not necessarily elect to
install such controls in the absence of a
regulation, because they might be able
to attain a higher rate of return on their
capital investment if given the
opportunity to invest elsewhere.) The
price of foundry coke could increase by
as'inuch as $0.24/Mg, an increase of less
than 1 percent from the baseline price.
while the price of furnace coke would
increase by less than $0.02/Mg (1982
dollars). An economic analysis indicates
that the industry trend is to pass through
some increase in costs to consumers.
Further information regarding the
economic impacts of these control
options is presented in Chapter 9 of the
BID.
In summary, these control options
were considered by EPA to have
reasonable incremental costs per
megagram of benzene emissions
reduced. The environmental, energy.
and economic impacts are also positive
or negligible. Less restrictive control
options were not considered further
because they would achieve less
benzene emission reduction and
because no cost, economic, energy, or
nonair quality environmental impacts
necessitated further examination of
these less restrictive control options.
The control options selected as BAT
include: (1) A gas blanketing system for
process vessels, and tar storage and
dewatering tanks; (2) a wash-oil
scrubber for storage tanks containing
light oil, BTX, refined benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor; (3) the replacement of
the direct-water final cooler with a tar-
bottom final cooler or the conversion of
the direct-water final cooler by the
addition of a mixer-settler; (4) a sealed
cover for the light-oil sump; (5) monthly
monitoring for pumps and valves; (6)
quarterly monitoring for exhausters; (7)
a rupture disc system for pressure relief
devices; (8) closed-purge sampling for
sampling connections; and (9) caps or
plugs for open-ended valves or lines.
After selecting these control options
as BAT, EPA evaluated the estimated
health risks remaining after application
of BAT to determine if they were
unreasonable in view of the estimated
health risk reductions, costs, and
economic impacts that would result if a
more stringent regulatory alternative
were applied. After the application of
BAT, the annual leukemia incidence is
estimated at about 0.19 case per year
and the remaining maximum lifetime
risk of acquiring leukemia is estimated
at 3.0 X 10~° for the most exposed
group.
EPA considered the next most cost-
effective control option beyond BAT—
requiring storage tanks containing light
oil, BTX, refined benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor to use a gas blanketing
system, and requiring monthly
monitoring for exhausters.
Implementation of this control option
would further reduce benzene emissions
by about 85 Mg/yr. Requiring this higher
level of control in lieu of BAT would not
significantly change the estimated
remaining leukemia incidence and the
maximum lifetime risk. For this reason.
the next more cost-effective control
option beyond BAT was also examined.
The next more effective control option
beyond BAT would be to require wash-
oil final coolers, in addition to monthly
monitoring for exhausters and gas
blanketing for storage tanks containing
light oil, BTX, refined benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor. This option would
reduce benzene emissions by an
additional 2,200 Mg/yr. This benzene
emission reduction would result in a
reduction in the estimated leukemia
incidence due to benzene exposure from
coke by-product recover}' plants from
about 0.19 case per year at the BAT
level to about 0.08 case per year. The
estimated maximum lifetime risk would
be reduced from 3.0 X 10"" at the BAT
level to about 2.0 x 10'* at the beyond
BAT level. This action would result in a
total capital cost of $131 million, and an
incremental annualized cost of $37.5
million/yr compared with BAT. The
capital costs of this option, particularly
those associated with the wash-oil final
cooler system, would be relatively high
on a per plant basis, ranging from $2.1
million for a small model plant to $7.9
million for a large model plant. These
relatively high capital costs would also
result in relatively high annualized costs
on a per plant basis, ranging from $0.7
million/yr for a small model plant to
about $3.2 million/yr for a large model
plant. An analysis of these capital costs
compared to annual net income and
investment indicated a potential for an
unreasonably adverse economic impact
on some firms. Because of the relatively
small health benefits to be gained with
the additional costs and the potential
adverse economic impacts on some
firms of requiring the wash-oil final
cooler option, EPA considers the risks
remaining after application of BAT not
to be unreasonable. For this reason, EPA
judged the level of control selected as
BAT to provide an ample margin of
safety and decided not to require a more
stringent level of control than BAT for
coke by-product recovery plants.
Selection of Emission, Equipment, Work
Practice, Design, and Operational
Standards
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
requires that an emission standard be
established for control of a hazardous
air pollutant unless, in the judgment of
the administrator, it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce such a standard.
Section S12(e)(2) of the Act defines the
following conditions under which it is
not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard: (1) If the pollutants
cannot be emitted through u conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant, or (2) if the
application of measurement
methodology is not practicable because
of technological or economic limitations.
Section 112(e)(l) allows that if an
emission standard is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce, then the
Administrator may promulgate a design.
equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof.
The basis of the proposed standard
selected for tar decanters, tar-
V-L-17
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
intercepting sumps, tar storage and
dewatering tanks, flushing-liquor
circulation tanks, light-oil condensers,
light-oil decanters, wash-oil decanters,
and wash-oil circulation tanks is a gas
blanketing system. A gas blanketing
system is not considered "leakless"
equipment. Although this control
technique could possibly achieve a 100-
percent benzene control efficiency to
meet a zero emissions limit when first
installed, the gradual deterioration of
sealing materials, even with proper
operation and maintenance, could
eventually result in vapor leaks. In
addition, fugitive emissions may also be
released from opening such as access
hatches and sampling ports, which are
necessary for proper operation and
maintenance of the source. Emissions
may also occur during emergency
pressure-release episodes. Thus, a 100-
percent emission reduction could not be
achieved on a continuous basis.
Vapor leaks from the system cannot
be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant. For this reason,
EPA has concluded that it is not feasible
to prescribe or enforce an emission limit
applicable to the gas blanketing system
and has decided to propose for these
sources a combination of equipment and
work practices standard. The proposed
equipment standard requires each
affected source to be totally enclosed
with emissions ducted to the gas
collection system, gas distribution
system, or other enclosed point in the
by-product recovery process where the
emissions will be recovered or
destroyed. A positive-pressure system
using dirty or clean coke oven gns.
nitrogen, or natural gas as the gas
blanket can be used. Pressure relief
devices, vacuum relief devices, access
hatches, and sampling ports would be
the only openings allowed on each
source, except for tar decanters. An
additional opening to allow clearance
for sludge conveyors would be permitted
on tar decanters. However, the proposed
standard would require that the access
hatch and sampling port be equipped
with a gasket and a cover or lid, which
remains closed at ail times lo prevent
the release of emissions, unless the
hatch or port is actually in use.
Sections 1l2(e)(l) and 302fk) of the
Clean Air Act require that design.
equipment, work practice, and
operational standards include
provisions to ensure the proper
operation and maintenance of the
equipment. Use of gas blanketing on
enclosed sources can be designed to be
leakless; however, emissions could
result if holes or other openings occur in
sealing material used on a source or the
piping comprising the gas blanketing
system. Gaps may also develop between
a seal and the shell of a tank or other
type of process vessel. Gaps can
develop as a result of the deterioration
of sealing materials, shell deformations,
or the inability of a seal to conform to
varying gaps because of a loss of seal
flexibility.
To ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the gas blanketing
system, the proposed equipment
standards would require the semiannual
monitoring of all connections used on
the control system and all sealing
materials used to enclose the source for
evidence of leaks. This would be
performed using the test for "no
detectable emissions" in Reference
Method 21. An instrument reading
indicating an organic chemical
concentration greater than 500 ppm
above a background concentration, as
measured by Reference Method 21,
would indicate the presence of a leak.
As discussed in the section of this
preamble entitled, "Selection of
Performance Test Method," an organic
chemical concentration of 500 ppm
above a background concentration was
selected as the leak definition for these
sources, based on considerations
relating to the calibration procedures
and instrument capabilities. The owner
or operator would also be required to
conduct a semiannual visual check of
each source and the ductwork of the
control system for defects such as gaps
or tears.
The proposed standard would also
require that an initial attempt at repair
of any leak or other defect detected by
visual check or instrument monitoring
be made within 5 days of detection.
Repair of the leak or defect would be
required within 15 days of the date of
detection. The maintenance of records
indicating the date of each inspection
(instrument and visual), the equipment
found to be leaking, and the date of
repair would also be required. The cost
of inspection of each source and control
system would be about 1 person-hour.
Because a low incidence of equipment
failures is expected, requiring frequent
inspections of the numerous sources at a
typical plant would be unreasonable.
For this reason. EPA decided to require
that such inspections be conducted on a
semiannual basis.
However, proper maintenance of the
system is essential to ensure proper
operation and, consequently, the
effectiveness of the system. To help
ensure proper maintenance, the
proposed regulation requires an annual
maintenance inspection for system
problems that could result in abnormal
operation, such as plugging problems.
sticking valves, or plugged condensulc
traps. The owner or operator would be
required to make a first attempt at any
necessary repairs within 5 days of
detection, with repair within 15 days. II
a system blockage should occur, the
proposed regulation requires the ownor
or operator to conduct an inspection and
make any necessary repairs
immediately upon detection of the
blockage. If a blockage or plugging
problem were found, compressed air 01
a live steam purge could be used to rlpar
the line. However, neither inspection
should require a process shutdown.
A wash-oil scrubber with a 90-percent
efficiency was selected as the basis of
the proposed standard for storage tanks
containing light oil, BTX, refined
benzene, or excess ammonia-liquor.
Fixed roof tank mass emissions vary-
considerably as a function of tank
capacity and the utilization rate of the
storage tank. Because of the wide
variation in the amount of benzene
vapors being emitted from the different
types of storage tanks, a mass emission
limit cannot be selected that would be
achievable on a worst-case basis (i.e.,
large tank capacity, high vapor pressurrv
and high utilization rate), and at the
same time would not allow the
construction of control devices thai nri'.
less effective than BAT. On this basis,
EPA rejected any type of mass emission
format for this section of the proposed
standards.
The possibility of establishing an
emission standard in a reduction
efficiency format for storage tanks
controlled by an add-on control device,
such as a wash-oil scrubber, was then
examined. Emissions from storage tanks
are variable and are often at flow rates
that are too low to measure. When
liquid is entering a tank, the liquid
surface rises, forcing vapors above the
liquid surface out of the tank. While this
is occurring, the vapor flow rate and thr
emissions are large. When liquid is
exiting the tank, the liquid surface falls.
and the resulting pressure differential
sucks air or a blanketing material into
the tank. During these operations, vapor
flows into the storage tank resulting in
no atmospheric emissions. When the
liquid level is held constant, pressure
differentials resulting from diurnal
temperature variations expel vapors at
very low flow rates at intermittent times
during the cycle.
Certain components of uncontrolled
emissions have been measured in very
specialized tests conducted by the EPA
and the petroleum industry. Total
emissions have not been measured.
V-L-18
-------
/ Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 1984 / Proposed Rules
however, and to do so would require
that the operation of the tank be strictly
controlled during the testing period.
Because of methodology problems, it
may not be possible to measure both the
flow rate and the concentration
simultaneously. This would cast doubt
on the accuracy of the measurement. For
these reasons, it was concluded that it is
impracticable to measure the emissions
exiting the storage tank. For the same
reasons, it would be impracticable to
measure the emissions captured by the
closed vent system connecting the
control device to the source or entering
the control device. Therefore, it was
concluded that an emission standard in
a reduction efficiency format is not
feasible for control devices.
Because reduction efficiency cannot
be measured practicably, it is infeasible
to establish an emission standard
requiring a percent reduction efficiency.
A design standard requiring a reduction
efficiency design specification, however,
is feasible. The possibility of
establishing a "design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or
combination thereof was, therefore,
examined. A reduction efficiency design
standard is advantageous in that it
accounts for the wide variation in
emission and flow rates being vented
from the tank, and it would require the
use of BAT control devices on all tanks.
Therefore, the Administrator concluded
that the standard for new and existing
tanks storing light oil. benzene mixtures,
benzene, or excess ammonia-liquor be a
control system designed and operated to
reduce emissions by SO percent. The 80-
percent design standard could be met
using a wash-oil scrubber (or any other
control system capable of achieving the
90-percent emission reduction, such as a
gas blanketing system).
The proposed regulation would
require that each tank be totally
enclosed and sealed with emissions
vented to the control device that is used
to achieve compliance. Pressure relief
devices, vacuum relief devices, access
hatches, and sampling ports would be
the only openings allowed on each tank.
Each access hatch and sampling port
must be equipped with a gasket and a
cover or lid that is kept in a closed
position when not in actual use. To
ensure that the source and vent system
are properly maintained so that
emissions continue to be vented to the
control device instead of being leaked to
the atmosphere, the proposed standard
would require the same work practices
proposed for gas blanketed sources.
That is. the proposed standard would
require the semiannual monitoring of all
S-'H!: or connections on the source and
vent for leaks using Reference Method
21, and visual check of the source and
vent ductwork for defects such as gaps
or tears. Also included would be the
annual maintenance inspection for
problems that could result in abnormal
operation, such as plugging problems.
The same provisions that are associated
with these work practices for gas
blanketed sources (for example,
monitoring technique, repair provisions,
recordkeeping, and reporting) would
apply for these storage tanks.
To help ensure the proper operation
and maintenance of the control device,
the proposed standard also would
include monitoring of parameters that
indicate operation of the control device.
For a wash-oil scrubber, the parameters
that would need to be monitored to
ensure proper operation and
maintenance are the temperature of the
gases exiting the scrubber, the wash-oil
flow rate, and the pressure of the wash
oil at the scrubber spray nozzle. Any
drop in the wash-oil flow rate or
pressure or any increase in the exit gas
temperature as compared to the
parameters specified in the design of the
scrubber could indicate that a 80-
percent emission reduction was not
being achieved. A description of these
occurrences would be included in the
semiannual report.
The proposed standard for pressure
relief devices is based on the
installation of rupture discs upstream of
the relief valve to prevent leaks.
Measurement methods for determining
the quantitative emission rate from
pressure relief devices are not
practicable because measurement would
require the bagging of each device.
which is an expensive procedure.
Reference Method 21 does not provide
for quantitative emission measurements,
but does provide for the detection of
leaks. Because fugitive emissions from
pressure relief devices equipped with
rupture discs would not be expected
unless an overpressure release occurs, it
is feasible to prescribe a "no detectable
emissions" limit for pressure relief
devices. An instrument reading of less
ifieiFi SCO ppiTi Oi ufgariiC CGTTipOUnua uy
volume above a background
concentration, as measured by
Reference Method 21, would indicate
that fugitive emissions were below the
"no detectable emissions" level.
The proposed emission limit would
not apply to discharges during
overpressure conditions because the
function of the device is to discharge
process gas, thereby reducing dangerous
high pressures within the process.
However, the proposed standard would
specify that the device be returned to a
state of "no detectable emissions"
within 5 days after such a discharge
The proposed standard would further
require an annual test to verify the "no
detectable emissions" status of each
device, with records indicating the date
of inspection, the equipment found to bn
leaking, and the date of repair.
As an alternative to the use of rupture
discs and other techniques that achieve
the "no detectable emissions" limit. EPA
proposes to allow the venting of
pressure relief devices to a control
device designed and operated to achieve
95 percent efficiency. When venting a
pressure relief device, the control device
also reduces emission of benzene that
occur during overpressure relief. EPA
judges that the emission reduction lost
by allowing 95 percent control of leaks
(rather than the 100 percent control
achieved by the "no detectable
emissions" limit) is offset by the
emission reduction gained by controlling
the emissions due to overpressure relief.
Steam-assisted and nonassisted flares
designed for and operated with an exit
velocity of less than 18 m/sec achieve
better than 95 percent control efficiency
and are potential control devices for this
alternative standard. Therefore,
provisions related to the use of flares
are included in the proposed regulation.
EPA has been studying the question of
whether additional types of flares also
will achieve better than 95 percent
control efficiency: if so. the Agency will
revise the standards accordingly.
The control technique selected as the
basis of the proposed standard for light-
oil sumps is a sealed cover that extends
over the entire surface of the sump.
coupled with the use of a gasket
material applied to the rim of the sump
cover. Such a sump cover would not be
required to be permanently sealed
because the cover may have to be
removed for periodic maintenance.
Eventual deterioration of the seal could
result in leaks, even with proper
operation and maintenance. These leaks
could not reasonably be vented into a
conveyance designed or constructed to
capture the pollutant. Therefore, mass
emissions from this source could no! hr
measured.
The control techniques selected at
BAT would allow the use of a vent on
the light-oil sump cover so that excess
pressure is not built up in the sump.
Potential emissions from small prossuio
increases would be contained with the
use of a water leg seal or a vent pipe
equipped with a pressure relief device or
a vacuum relief value. Although the v«nt
or vent pipe would provide a
conveyance for the measurement of
uncontrolled emissions, emission
V-L-19
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
measurement would still be impractical
due to the low. intermittent emission
rate. In addition, measurement methods
for determining the quantitative
emission rate from the pressure relief
device on a vent are not practicable
because the measurement would require
the bagging of each device. whir:h is an
expensive procedure.
In addition, establishing a "no
detectable emissions" limit would not
necessarily ensure the control of
emissions from the.sump. Because the
emissions are dispersed over a wide
area, a "no detectable emissions" limit
! <500 ppm) could conceivably be me!
with no control device, even though the
mass emissions from the sump would be
greater without a cover than with a
cover. For these reasons. EPA has
concluded that an emission limit
applicable to a light-oil sump is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce, and has
determined that establishment of an
equipment standard is appropriate for
this source.
To ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the sump cover, the
proposed equipment standard would
require the semiannual inspection of the
rover for "detectable" emissions (>500
ppm VOC) using Reference Method 21.
An initial attempt at repair of any defect
or leak must be made within 5 days of
the date of detection. Repair of the leak
or defect would be required within 15
days of the date of detection.
1'he possibility of establishing an
emission limit applicable to naphthalene
processing was also considered. A
process modification requiring the
collection of naphthalene in tar (or an
alternative medium such as wash oil)
was selected as BAT for this emission
source. Implementation of the process
modification would eliminate
naphthalene processing and the
emissions that result from the practice
of separating naphthalene from the hot
well of a direct-water final cooler.
Consequently, a "zero" emissions limit
was selected for this process. A tar-
dottom final cooler system or a wash-oil
final cooler system could be used to
eliminate naphthalene processing. If a
direct-water final cooler is modified by
the addition of a mixer-settler, the
proposed standard would require that
emissions be contained so that they are
not released to the atmosphere. This
requirement could be achieved by
controlling emissions with a gas
Blanketing system. If a gas blanketing
system were used, the mixer-settler
would be subject to the proposeed
monitoring, reporting . and
recordkeeping requirements applicable
to other gas-blanketed sources.
Benzene emissions from open-ended
lines occur as the result of leakage
-through the valve seat of a valve, which
seals the open end of the line from the
process fluid. The basis of the proposed
standard is equipment that would
enclose the open end of the line.
Generally, open-ended lines are not
designed to release fugitive emissions to
a conveyance, and bagging of these
sources for emission measurements
would not be economically or
technologically practicable. A "no
detectable emissions" limit is not
feasible to prescribe because benzene
could leak through the valve seat and
become trapped in the line between the
open-ended valve and the cap. The
trapped benzene could be emitted to the
atmosphere, even though the benzene
emitted to the atmosphere would be
much less than the benzene emitted
without the cap or enclosure. Because
an emission limit was found to be
infeasible to prescribe or enforce. EPA is
proposing an equipment standard
requiring that a cap, plug, blind, or a
second valve be installed on open-ended
lines.
To ensure the proper operation of the
equipment, open-ended lines would also
be covered by an operational standard.
If a second valve is used the proposed
standard would require the upstream
valve to be closed first. After the
upstream valve is completely closed, the
downstream valve must be closed. This
operational requirement is necessary to
prevent trapping process fluid between
the two valves, which could result in a
situation equivalent to the uncontrolled
open-ended valve.
As in the case of other equipment in
benzene service, sampling connections
are generally not designed to release
fugitive emissions to a conveyance, and
bagging of these emission sources would
not be economically or technologically
practicable. A "no detectable
emissions" limit is not feasible because
no available data indicate that
application of any control technique
would be able to comply with such a
standard at all times.
Because an emission limit is
considered infeasible to prescribe or
enforce, an equipment standard
requiring closed-purge sampling is
proposed for sampling connections.
Closed-purge sampling systems
eliminate emissions caused by purging
by either returning the purge material
directly to the process or by collecting
the purge in a collection system closed
to the atmosphere. In-situ sampling
would be exempted from these
requirements.
Pumps, valves, and exhausters
generally are not designed to release
fugitive emissions into a conveyance.
Because of the large number and diverse
locations of pumps, valves, and
exhausters, bagging of these sources for
emission measurement would not be
practicable or economical. Because
these sources are expected to leak and
because the control technology selected
as the basis of the standard is a leak
detection and repair program, a "no
detectable emissions" limit is not
appropriate to prescribe for these
sources. EPA considers that the
application of a "no detectable
emissions" limit for these sources would
reflect a control technology more
stringent than BAT. For these reasons, a
work practice standards was selected as
the format for the proposed standards
for these sources rather than an
emission limit.
Three main factors influence the level
of emission reduction that can be
achieved by a leak detection and repair
program—the monitoring interval, leak
definition, and repair interval. Training
and diligence of personnel conducting
the program, repair methods attempted.
and other site-specific factors may also
influence the level of emission reduction
achievable: however, these factors are
less quantifiable than the three main
factors. For each of these factors, the
proposed standard includes control
requirments which provide the most
emission reduction without
unreasonable costs or other burdens.
The monitoring interval is the
frequency at which individual
component monitoring is conducted.
Monthly monitoring was selected as tin;
required interval for pumps and valves.
and quarterly monitoring was selected
for exhausters; these intervals would
provide the greatest emission reduction
potential without imposing
unreasonable costs or difficulties in
implementing the leak detection and
repair program.
The leak definition is the instrument
reading observed during monitoring that
would be used to determine which
components have failed and need to hi;
repaired. The best leak definition would
be the one that achieved the most
emission reduction at reasonable costs.
The emission reduction achieved would
increase as the leak definition
decreased, due to the increasing number
of sources that would be found leaking
and. therefore, repaired. At a leak
definition of 10.000 ppm organics,
approximately 90 percent of benzene
fugitive emissions from valves would be
detected. Valves found leaking organic
compounds at levels of 10.000 ppm or
V-L-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
greater can be brought to levels below
10,000 ppm with proper maintenance.
Also, as a practical matter, most
commonly available hydrocarbon
detectors that are considered
intrinsically safe have a maximum
reading of 10,000 ppm. Leak definitions
higher than 10,000 ppm could,
nevertheless, be selected (and dilution
probes could be used with portable
detectors): however, there would be less
emission reduction than with the 10,000-
ppm definition and no substantial
associated cost savings. Consequently,
there is no basis for selecting a leak
definition greater than 10,COO-ppm
organics. A leak definition lower than
10,000 ppm may be practicable in the
sense that leaks can be repaired to
levels less than 10,000 ppm. However,
EPA is unable to conclude that a leak
definition lower than 10,000 ppm, would
provide additional emission reductions
and, therefore, would be reasonable.
Because the 10,000-ppm leak definition
would address approximately 80 percent
of the benzene fugitive emissions from
valves at reasonable costs and at
reasonable cost effectiveness, and
because safe, available hydrocarbon
detectors can read 10,000 ppm, the
10,000-ppm level was selected as the
leak definition for valves. This definition
is also considered appropriate for
pumps and exhausters. The same
portable monitor used for values would
be used for these sources, and
consideration of other relevant factors
did not indicate that the 10,000-ppm
definition should be different for pumps
or exhausters.
The repair interval is the length of
time allowed between the detection of a
leaking source and repair of the source.
As noted above, to make the overall
program effective, the most practicable
selection for this factor should be
chosen. Thus, to provide the maximum
effectiveness of the leak detection and
repair program, the repair imerval .
should require expeditious reduction of
emissions but should allow the owner or
operator sufficient time to maintain
Eoms dsgres of flexibility in overall
maintenance scheduling.
The length of the repair interval would
affect emission reductions that are
achievable by the leak detection and
repair program because leaking sources
would be allowed to continue to leak for
a given length of time. Repair intervals
of 1, 5,15, 30, and 45 days were
evaluated. The effect on the maximum
emission reductions potential is
proportional to the number of days the
sources is allowed to leak between
detection and repair.
Some pumps, valves, and exhausters
may not be repairable by simple field
maintenance. They may require spare
parts or removal from the process for
repair. Repair intervals of 1 to 5 days
could cause problems in obtaining
acceptable repair, especially when
removal from the process would be
required. However, a 15-day interval
provides the owner or operator with
sufficient time for flexibility in repair
scheduling and provides time for better
determination of methods for isolating
pieces of leaking equipment for repair.
In general, a 15-day repair interval
allows more efficient handling of repair
tasks while maintaining an effective
reduction in fugitive emissions. Thus,
the repair interval selected for proposal
in the leak repair program is 15 days. A
repair interval of 30 or 45 days was not
selected .because 15 days is a more
restrictive, yet feasible, selection.
However, the first attempt at repair of
a leaking source should be
accomplished as soon as practicable
after detection of the leak, but no later
than 5 days after discovery. Most
repairs can be done quickly, and 5 days
should provide sufficient time to
schedule maintence and repair a leaking
source. Attempting to repair the leak
within 5 days will help to identify leaks
that would require additional efforts so
they could be repaired within the 15-day
repair interval.
Delay of repair would be allowed for
sources that could not be repaired
without a process unit shutdown. These
leaks would have to be repaired at the
next unit shutdown unless the shutdown
is unscheduled and lasts less than 24
hours. Delay of repair is not expected
for most situations, however, because
sources such as exhausters and
critically situated pumps are commonly
spared at by-product recovery plants.
Therefore, they could be repaired
without a process unit shutdown.
Monthly monitoring of valves to
detect leaks is reasonable. However,
some valves may leak leso frequently
than others. One indicator that might
predict which valves leak is valve leak
history. That is, cnce a valve leaks, then
it may be more likely to leak again than
a valve that has not leaked. The
Administrator decided to implement the
monthly monitoring requirement by
focusing on the valves that tend to leak
more often. One approach io to allow an
alternative monitoring period for valves
found to leak less frequently than
others. The Administrator is proposing
that leak detection and repair work
practices include monthly monitoring for
valves unless they are found not to leak
for 2 successive months. If a valve io
found not to leak for 2 successive
months, the owner or operator may elect
to monitor during the first month of ihp
next quarter and quarterly thereafter
until a leak is detected. Whenever ;>
leak is detected, the valve would be
monitored once a month until the vaK r
did not leak for 2 successive months
Some valves are difficult to rnonUur
because access to them is restricted.
Therefore, EPA is proposing an annual
leak detection and repair program for
valves in existing process units that asv
.difficult to monitor. Valves that are
difficult to monitor are defined as valves
that would require elevating the
monitoring personnel more than 2
meters above any readily available
support surface. This means that ladders
must be used, if needed, to elevate
monitoring personnel.
In addition to valves that are difficult
to monitor, some valves are unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be subject to imminent hazards.
The proposed standards would clloiv HII
owner or operator with valves that an:
unsafe to monitor to develop a social
leak detection and repair progrdm.
These special programs wouid uv.fonn
with the routine monitoring
requirements of the proposed standards
as much as possible but would allow
deviation from a routine monitoring s j
that monitoring would not occur umlr:
unsafe conditions. Valves that are
unsafe to monitor are defined as those
valves that could, as demonstrated by
the owner or operator, expose
monitoring personnel to imminent
danger, e.g., hazards from temperature.
pressure, or explosive process
conditions. There shoulJ be few, if any,
unsafe-to-monitor valves in benzene
service in coke by-product recover}'
plants.
Pressure relief devices in liquid
service and flanges and other
connectors in all services would be
excluded from the proposed routine leak
detection and repair requirements on the
basis of data from EPA testing.
Screening studies done by EPA in coke
by-product recovery plants indicated
very low emission rates for individual
flanges, which would result in only a
small contribution to overall emissions.
Testing of pressure relief devices in
liquid service in petroleum refineries
exhibited very low emission rates:
similar results would be expected at
•coke by-product recovery plants.
Applying routine monitoring
requirements to these pieces of
equipment would result in an exorbitant
cost per megagram of emission
reduction. However, if leaks are
detected from these equipment, the
V-L-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
same allowable repair interval that
applies to pumps, valves, and
exhausters would apply.
The proposed regulation would also
exclude equipment operating under a
vacuum, because leaks to the
atmosphere would not occur while the
equipment is operating at
subatmospheric internal pressures.
Alternative Standards for Valves. The
emission reduction and annualized cost
of the proposed leak detection and
repair program depends in part on the
number of valves that are found leaking
during inspections. If very few leaks are *
detected in a plant, then the amount of
benzene that could be reduced by the
proposed program is much smaller than
the amount that could be reduced in a
plant that had more leaks. In contrast,
the annualized cost of the program
would be larger in a plant that had
fewer leaks than in a plant that had
more leaks because the annualized cost
includes a recovery' credit based oh the
amount of benzene recovered by the
program. Therefore, the cost
efectiveness of the proposed leak
detection and repair program varies
with the number of valves that leak
within a plant.
There is no precise breakpoint in the
emission reduction and annualized cost
relationship as the percentage of leaking
.valves decreases. However, based on an
analysis of coke by-product recovery
plants, the Administrator has judged
that the emission reduction and
annualized cost relationship is
unreasonable for plants having an
average of less than 1 percent of valves
leaking.
Based on this conclusion, the
Administrator decided to propose
alternative standards based on
allowable percentage of valves leaking.
The allowable percentage of valves
leaking was chosen to include the
variability inherent in any system: e.g.,
leak detection of valves. The variability
in leak detection of valves can be
characterized as as a binomial
distribution around the average number
or percentage of valves leaking.
Inclusion of the variability in leak
detection of valves is accomplished bj
straightforward statistical techniques
based on the binomial distribution. The
analysis of by-product plants showed
that an alternative standard of 2 percent
of valves leaking, to be achieved at any
time, would provide an owner 01
operator a reasonably low risk that a
percentage of valves leaking greater
than 2 percent would be determined
when the average of 1 percent was
actually being achieved.
Based on these considerations, the
Administrator is proposing two
alternative standards that would exempt
sources from the required (monthly/
quarterly) leak detection and repair
program if the sources achieve less than
2 percent leaking valves in benzene
service. Owners or operators of affected
facilities may identify and elect to
achieve either of the alternative
standards to allow tailoring of fugitive
emissions control programs to their own
operations. An owner or operator would
report which alternative standard he or
she had identified and elected to
achieve.
The first alternative standard would
limit the maximum percentage of valves
in benzene service leaking to 2 percent.
This type of standard would provide the
flexibility of a performance standard.
The first alternative standard could be
achieved by the most efficient and
practical methods for a particular plant.
Choosing this alternative standard
would allow for the possibility of
different leak detection and repair
programs and for the substitution of
engineering controls at the discretion of
the owner or operator. This standard
would also eliminate a large part of the
recordkeeping and reporting associated
with the routine leak detection and
repair program for valves.
An industry-wide allowable leak
percent that could necessarily be
achieved at all facilities is not possible
for valves because of the variability in
valve leak frequency and variability in
the ability of a leak detection and repair
program to reduce these leaks among all
plants within the industry. However.
this alternative standard would allow
any plant the option of complying with
an allowable percentage of valves
leaking. This alternative standard would
require a minimum of one performance
test per year. Additional performance
tests could be requested by EPA. If the
results of a performance test showed a
percentage of valves leaking higher than
2 percent, the process unit would not be
in compliance with the standards.
The second alternative standard
would allow the use of skip-period leak
defection. Under skip-period leak
detection, an owner or operator could
skip from routine leak detection to less
frequent leak detection after completing
a number of successful leak detections.
This skip-period leak detection program
would require that the average
performance level of 2 percent be
achieved on a continuous basis with a
reasonable degree of certainty. A plant
woulu choose one of two skip-period
leak detection programs and then
implement that program. The first skip-
period leak detection program could be
used when fewer than 2 percent of the
vaivts had been leaking for two
consecutive quarterly leak detection
periods. The first skip-period leak
detection prog'ram would allow an
owner or operator to skip every other
quarterly leak detection period: that. is.
leak detection can be performed
semiannually. Under tire second skip-
period leak detection program, if fewer
than 2 percent of the valves had been
leaking for five consecutive quarterly
leak detection periods, the owner or
operator may skip three quarterly leak
detection periods; that is. leak detection
can be performed annually. When more
than 2 percent of valves are found to
leak, the routine leak detection and
repair program would be required to be
resumed.
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
nir pollutants equivalent to that
achieved under requirements of a
standard. Sufficient data would be
required to show equivalency, and a
public hearing would be required.
Any peron could request alternatives
for specific requirements, such as the
proposed equipment and the proposed
leak detection and repair program.
Under the proposed regulations, that
person would be responsible for
collecting and verifying the test dntu
used to demonstrate that the alternative
control techniques would be equivalent
to the control techniques required by the
standard. This Information would ther.
be submitted to EPA. If. in the
Administrator's judgment, the
alternative means of emission limitation
would achieve a reduction in emissions
at least equivalent to the reduction
achieved under the design, equipment.
work practice or operational standard.
the Administrator woiild publish in the
Federal Register, after notice and an
opportunity for a henring. a notice
permitting the use of the alternative
means for purposes of compliance with
the standard.
To judge if an alternative control
technique achieves an emissions
reduction equivalent to gas blanketing.
the Administrator would consider the
control efficiency of gas blanketing as w
percent for all sources except the tar
decanter. For the tar decanter, the
efficiency of gas blanketing would be
considered as 95 percent. The lower
efficiency <<< due to the opening thai
V-L-22
-------
Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
must be on the tar decanter to allow
clearance for the sludge conveyor.
Any control option more stringent
than the option selected as the basis of
the proposed standard would be at least
equivalent to the requirements included
in the proposed standard and would be
allowed by EPA. EPA has already
determined the equivalency of these
control options and incorporated them
into the standard, along with specified
conditions for their use. Therefore, the
owner or operator would not need to
apply to EPA for their use as an
alternative control option.
For example, the proposed standards
would not require "leakless" equipment,
such as sealed bellows and diaphragm
valves and canned and diaphragm
pumps. However, use of "leakless"
equipment is clearly equivalent to the
proposed standards for pumps, valves,
and exhausters, and the proposed
standards would allow the use of such
equipment as an alternative to the
required practices.
"Leakless"' equipment would be
required to operate with "no detectable
emissions" at all times when it is in
service. "No detectable emissions"
means an instrument reading of 500 ppm
or less of organic compounds above
background, as measured by Reference
Method 21. The proposed standards
require that its "leakless" status be
verified annually and at the request of
the Administrator, using Reference
Method 21.
In addition, other types of equipment
can achieve emission reduction at least
equivalent to that achieved by a
monthly leak detection and repair
program for pumps and a quarterly one
for exhausters. For pumps, this
equipment includes dual mechanical
seal systems that use a barrier fluid
between the two seals. For exhausters,
this equipment includes a seal with a
barrier fluid system. If the barrier fluid
is maintained at a pressure greater than
the pump or exhauster stuffing box
pressure, any leakage would be from the
barrier fluid to the working fluid;
therefore, ho working fluid would be
emitted to the atmosphere. If the stuffing
box pressure is greater than the hairier
fluid pressure, the barrier fluid collects
the leakage from the inner seal; the
working fluid collected by the barrier
fluid is controlled by either: (1)
Connecting the barrier fluid degassing
system to a control device, or (2)
returning the barrier fluid to the process
stream. Because these seal systems
which meet these specifications are at
least equivalent to a monthly leak
detection and repair program for pumps
and quarterly leak detection and repair
program for exhausters, they have been
exempted from the monitoring
provisions of the proposed standards.
Sections 112(e)(l) and 302(k) of the
Clean Air Act require that when
equipment standards are established,
requirements must also be established
to ensure the proper operation and
maintenance of the equipment. A
pressure or level indicator on the barrier
fluid system would reveal any
catastrophic failQre of the inner or outer
seal or of the barrier fluid system. This
indicator would be monitored on a daily
basis or equipped with an audible alarm
to signal a failure of the system. The
point at which the alarm signals a
failure of the seal system would be
determined for each seal system based
on design considerations and operating
experience. Thus, these requirements
are proposed to ensure the proper
operation and maintenance of the seal
system.
In many cases, the sea) area of a
pump or exhauster could be completely
enclosed, and this enclosed area could
be connected to a control device
designed and operated to achieve 95-
percent control. Some owners or
operators may decide that this approach
is preferable to leak detection and
repair. Enclosing the seal area and
venting the captured emissions to a 95-
percent control device is a reasonable
alternative because this system would
be at least as effective as the leak
detection and repair programs for pumps
and exhausters. Therefore, the
Administrator is proposing to allow
pumps and exhausters equipped with
enclosed seal areas to be connected to a
95-percent control device.
Steam-assisted and nonassisted flares
designed for and operated with an exit
velocity of less than 18 m/sec achieve
better than 95 percent control efficiency
and are potential control devices for this
alternative standard. Therefore,
provisions related to the use of flares
are included in the proposed regulation.
EPA has been studying the question of
whether additional types of flares also
will achieve better than 95 percent
control efficiency; if so, the Agency will
revise the standards accordingly.
Selection of Tesi Meihuu
Reference Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60,
Appendix A) was selected as a method
for measuring leaks from sources subject
to the leak detection and repair
requirements (including gas-blanketed
sources) and for sources subject to "no
detectable emissions" limits. The
selection of this test method is fully
discussed in the proposed new source
performance standards for the control of
VOC fugitive emissions in the synthetic
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry (46 FR 1136. January 5,1981)
and proposed technical support
document (EPA-450/3-80-033a). The
method was promulgated on August 18,
1983 (48 FR 37598).
Reference Method 21 specifies the use
of a portable detector to measure the
concentration of organic vapors at a
source to yield a qualitative or
semiquantitative indication of the
emission rate from the source. The test
procedure does not detect benzene
specifically; instead, the organic
compound concentration is measured.
Tests have indicated that local
conditions cause variations in
concentration readings at points
removed from the surface of the
interface on the component where
leaking occurs. Therefore, Reference
Method 21 would require the
concentration to be measured at the
interface surface.
The monitoring instrument would be
calibrated before each monitoring
survey with methane or n-hexane. Thus,
the required calibration gases would be
a zero gas (air <10 ppmv volatile
organic compounds) and an air mixture
(approximately 10,000 ppm methane or
n-hexane). If cylinder calibration gas
mixtures were used, they would have to
be analyzed and certified by the
manufacturer to within ±2 percent
accuracy. Calibration gases prepared by
the user according to an accepted
gaseous standards preparation
procedure would also have to be
accurate to within ±2 percent. The
monitoring instrument would be
subjected to other performance
requirements prior to being placed in
service for the first time. The instrument
would be subjected to the performance
criteria every 6 months and after any
modification or replacement of the
instrument detector.
The proposed standard also requires
the ASTM Method D2267-68
("Aromatics in Light Naphthas in
Aviation Gasoline by Gas
Chromatography") be used to determine
the percentage of benzene in the process
fluid within a fugitive emission source.
This determination would be made only
when the exact concentration of
benzene is uncertain.
If a flare is used as a control device,
Reference Method 22 of 40 CFR Part 60
shall be used to determine compliance
with the "no visible emissions"
requirement. The proposed standard
specifies the use of Reference Method 2,
2A, or 2C of 40 CFR Part 60 to determine
the volumetric flow rate of the flare. It
also specifies the use of Reference
Method 18 of 40 CFR Part 60 and ASTM
Method D2504-87 to determine the
V-L-23
-------
Fsderal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
concentrations of the gas components in
calculating the net heating value of the
gas being flared. In addition, the heats of
combustion of the gas may be
determined using ASTS Method D2382-
76, if published values are not available
or cannot be calculated.
The ASTM Methods referenced above
will be approved for incorporation by
reference in 40 CFR 61.18 on the date of
promulgation of the standard for
benzene equipment leaks (fugitive
emission sources) that was proposed on
January 5,1981 (46 FR 1165). Section
61.18 of 40 CFR Part 61 will be amended
to include citations to the paragraphs
specifying these ASTM Methods in this
coke by-product plant standard when
this standard is promulgated. The ASTM
Methods are available for inspection at
the Office of the Federal Register
Information Center, Room 8401,1100 I.
Street, N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20408
and the Library (MD-35), U.S. EPA. -
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. They are available for purchase
from at least one of the following
addresses: American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM). 1916 Race Street.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; or the
University Microfilms International, 300
North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Michigan
48108.
Selection of Reporting and
Rvcordkeeping Requirements,
Recordkeeping would be required to
document compliance with the proposed
regulation; review of these records
would provide information for plant and
enforcement personnel to assess
implementation of the requirements.
Compliance would be determined by
inspection and review of this recorded
information.
For sources subject to equipment and
design standards, such as gas-blanketed
process units, the owner or operatoi
must record and keep in a readily
accessible location a description of the
control systems to be used to achieve
compliance (i.e., schematics), the
installation date, and a description of
any changes made after installation.
This would also apply to equipment
used to achieve compliance with the
"zero" emissions limit for naphthalene
processing. A record of design and
operating specifications is also required
for control devices used to achieve
compliance.
The following records must be
maintained for a least 2 years. For gas-
blanketed sources, light-oil sumps, and
storage tanks containing light-oil,
benzene mixtures, benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor, records of the
semiannual inspections must be
maintained, including the inspection
date, the name of the inspector, a brief
description of the leaks detected and
repairs made, and the dates of repair
attempts for each leak. The owner or
operator must also maintain records of
each annual maintenance inspection.
These records must include a
description of the abnormality, the
repair made, and the repair dates. The
proposed regulation also requires a
record of any system blockage (or
malfunction), with a brief description of
the incident, the cause, the repairs
made, and the repair dates.
For control devices, records must be
maintained that indicate the dates the
device was not operating as designed,
the dates and description of any
maintenance or repair of the device, and
monitored parameters. If a wash-oil
scrubber is used, the proposed
regulation requires that records be kept
of the wash-oil flow rate, the
temperature of the gases exiting the
scrubber, and the pressure at the
scrubber spray nozzle. These records
also must be maintained for at least 2
years.
Records of specific information
pertaining to the leak detection and
repair also would be required. Each
source'found to be leaking during the
first month of a quarter would be
identified with readily visible
weatherproof identification bearing an
identification (ID) number. The
identification could be removed after the
source had been repaired and monitored
for leaks and repaired as necessary for
the next 2 successive months. A log
would be maintained for information
pertaining to the leaking sources. The
log would contain the instrument and
operator identification numbers, the
leaking source identification number.
the date of detection of the leaking
source, the date of the first attempt to
repair the leaking source, repair
methods applied in the first attempt to
repair the source, and the date of final
repair. The log would be kept for at least
2 years following the survey.
Reporting requirements are also
included for enforcement personnel to
review and assess the compliance status
of affected sources. In the intital
compliance report required by 40 CFR
61.10. the owner or operator must submit
a statement notifying the Administrator
that the requirements of the standard
are being implemented, along with the
other information required under § 61.10.
If a waiver of compliance is granted
under § 61.11, the statement would be
submitted on a date scheduled by the
Administrator. The statement also
would describe the type of source and
the method of compliance being used.
For pieces of equipment in benzene
service, the statement would include the
percent by weight benzene in the fluid
and the process fluid state in the
equipment (i.e., gas/vapor or liquid).
Semiannual reports starting 6 months
after submission of the initial
compliance report would be required.
For gas-blanketed sources, light oil
sumps, and storage tanks containing
light oil, benzene mixtures, benzene, or
excesss ammonia-liquor, the report muM
contain a brief description of any visible
defect in the source or ductwork, the
number of leaks detected and repaired.
and the repair dates. A brief description
of any system abnormalities found
during the annual maintenance
inspection, the repairs made, and the
repair dates also would be required, as
would a brief description of any system
blockage or malfunction incidents, the
repairs made, and the repair dates.
The semiannual report also would
include information regarding the use of
control devices. Required information
would include the date and time of any
occurrence when the monitored
parameters exceed or drop below the
parameter levels determined in the;
design specifications. If a wash-oil
scrubber is used, the report must include
the date and time of any occurrence
when the wash-oil flow rate or the
pressure at the scrubber spray nozzle.
falls below the parameter levels
determined in the design specifications
or the temperature of the gases exiting
the scrubber exceeds the design
specification temperature.
For pieces of equipment in benzene
service, the semiannual report would
include the process unit identification
for the equipment, in addition to
information regarding the number of
pumps, valves, and exhausters for which
leaks were detected during each month
of the reporting period; the number of
pumps, valves, and exhausters for which
leaks were not repaired; an explanation
of any delay of repairs: and dates of any
process unit shutdowns that occurred
during the reporting period.
Annual performance tests are
required to verify the status of sources
subject io "no detectable emissions"
limits and for valves subject to the
alternative standard. The proposed
regulation requires the owner or
operator to record the results of each
performance test and to include this
information in the semiannual report for
that reporting period.
Each semiannual report also would
include a statement signed by the owner
or operator stating whether all
provisions of the regulation has been
fulfilled during the reporting period.
V-L-24
-------
Fedora! Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
Alternative Approach for Selecting
Emission Control Levels
Historically, EPA's approach lo
selecting control levels for emission
sources has been a two-step process
that included: (1) the selection of the
best available technology (BAT) as thp
minimum control level, and (2) an
evaluation of the incremental risk
reductions and costs of more stringent
controls. This approach was first
outlined by EPA in the proposed
Airborne Carcinogen Policy in 19"9 140
FR S8&42) and has been generally
followed by EPA since that time.
In selecting BAT for specific emission
sources of coke by-product plants. EPA
considered the cost per megagram of
emission reduction for available control
techniques. When more than one control
option was available, EPA examined the
incremental cost per megagram of
moving to the more stringent control
option. If the incremental cost in
comparison to the incremental emission
reduction was judged as unreasonable,
the next lower increment was examined
until a control technique with a
leasonable cost in comparison to the
emission reduction was available. In a!)
cases, EPA selected as BAT the control
option that provided the most emission
reduction and yet has a reasonable
average and incremental cost per
megagram of emission reduction.
In proposing this approach, EPA
recognizes that it usually gives
somewhat limited and indirect weigh; to
information on exposure and health
risks in determining BAT and more
direct weight to the amount of emissions
reduced. For example, in determining
BAT for emission sources, the Agency
relies on estimates of the total emissions
reduced and on estimates of the average
and incremental cost of reducing those
emissions. However, the Agenr.y
recognizes that emission estimates alone
can sometimes be poor measures of
public health risks because they do not
account for the carcinogenic potency or
exposure potential of hazardous air
pollutant emissions.
In order to more directly consider
health risks, the Agency intends to
change the approach for selecting the
appropriate control levels in the final
standard for coke by-product plants.
The new approach the Agency would
use in the final standard would combine
the current two-step process into one
step. In selecting the appropriate control
technique, EPA would consider in one
step the before- and after-control risks.
the health risk reduction, and the
economic and societal costs of achieving
those risk reductions. The major change
in this approach would be the greater
consideration of public health risks over
emission estimates in selecting controls.
EPA solicits comments on this
intended approach.
Paperwork Reduction Acl
An analysis of the burden associated
with the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements has been made. During the
first 3 years of this regulation, the
average annual burden of the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for the
42 existing coke by-product recovery
plants would be about 3.3 person-years.
The information collection requirements
in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Aci of 1980, 44
U.S.C 3501 et seq. Comments on these
requirements should be submitted to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs of OMB. marked "Attention:
Desk Office for EPA." The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Art (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the EPA to
consider the potential impacts of
proposed regulations on small "entities."
The guidelines for conducting a
regulatory flexibility analysis define a
small business as "any business concern
which is independently owned and
operated and not dominant in its field as
defined by the Small Business
Administration Regulations under
Section 3 of the Small Business Act." For
the purposes of this proposed regulation,
small "entities" are considered to be
small furnace and foundary coke firms
that employ less than 1,000 workers.
A regulatory flexibility analysis
indentifies up to six small foundary coke
plants that could be affected by the
proposed regulation. Present guidelines
for the analysis require an estimate of
the degree of economic impact on the
firms in terms of: (1) the percent
increase in the average total cost of
producing coke as a result of the
proposed sianuafu, and (2) the total
annual cost of control as a percentage of
the firm's revenue. If the percent
increase in the average total cost of
producing coke is estimated as 5 percent
or more, the impact of the proposed
regulation is to be considered
significant. If the total annual cost of
control as a percentage of the firm's
annual revenue is 10 percent greater for
small firms than for large firms, the
small firms are to be considered
adversely impacted by the proposed •
standard.
None of the firms identified as sriv.H
firms were found to have an average
coke production cost increase -greater
than 5 pi-rcent. !n addition, none of
these plants exceeded the second
criterion. In s::rr.mary, no small plants
would be adversely affected by the
proposed standard. A further discussion
of the regulatory flexibility analysis is
provided in Chapter 9 of the barkgrosimJ
information document.
[Public Hearing
A.public hearing will be held to
discuss the proposed standard for co'-t.-
by-product recovery plants in
accordance wi»h sections 112(b)(l)(B)
and 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act.
Persons wishing to make oral
presentations on the proposed stand.mis
for benzene emissions from coke by-
product recovery plants should cont.-tci
EPA at the address given in the
ABBESSES section of this preamble.
Oral presentations will be limited lo 15
minutes each. Any member of the piih;->'
may file a written statement before,
during, or within 75 days after the
hearing. Written statements should h>>
addressed to the Central Docket Section
address given in the AOOBESSES section
of this preamble and should refer to
Docket Number A-79-16.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be available-
for public inspection and copying during
normal working hours at EPA's Centra)
Docket Section in Washington, D.C. (see.-
i 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
interested parties to effectively
.participate in the rulemaking process;
and (2) to serve as the record in case of
judicial review except for interagen^y
review materials |307(d)(7)(A)]
Miscellaneous
In accorrinnre with section 117 of the
Act, publication of this proposal was
preceded by consultation with
appropriate advisory committees,
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
regulation, including economic and
technological issues.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is
required to judge if a regulation is a
"major rule" ancl, therefore, subject to
certain requirements of the Executive
V-L-25
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
Order. The Agency has determined that
this regulation would result in none of
the adverse economic effects set forth in
section 1 of the Executive Order as.
grounds for finding a regulation to be a
"major rule." A savings in industry-wide
annualizcd costs, resulting from benzene
recovery credits, would be achieved by
the prpposed standard. For furnace coke
producers, the impacts of the proposed
standard would result in only a
negligible price increase; the price of
foundry coke is expected to increase by
less than 1 percent. The Agency has also
concluded that this rule is not "major"
under any of the criteria established in
the Executive Order. Therefore, the
Agency has concluded that the proposed
regulation is not a "major rule" under
Executive Order 12291.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291. Any comments
from OMB to EPA and any EPA
responses to those comments are
available for inspection in Docket
Number A-79-16. Centra! Docket
Section, at the address given in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small ,,
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Asbestos, Beryllium, Hazardous
substances, Mercury, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Vinyl
chloride
Da led: May 23.1984.'
William D. Ruckelshaus.
Administrator.
PART 61—[AMENDED]
It is proposed that Part 61 of Chapter
1, Title 40. of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart L, as follows:
Subpart L—National Emission Standard for
Benzene Emissions From Coke By-Product
Recovery Plants
Sec
61.130 Applicability and designation of
sources.
61.131 Definitions.
61.132-1 Standards; General.
61.132-2 Standards: Process vessels, tar
storage tanks, and tar-intercep!ing
sumps.
61.132-3 Standards: Light-oil sumps.
61.132-4 Standards: Light-oil, benzene, and
excess ammonia-liquor storage tanks.
61.132-5 Standards: Naphthale.ip
processing.
Jl.132-6 Standards: Pumps.
61.132-7 Standards: Exhausters
Sec
61.132-8 Standards: Pressure relief devices
in gas/vapor service.
61.132-9 Standards: Sampling connection
systems.
61.132-10 Standards: Open-ended valves 01
lines.
61.132-11 Standards: Valves.
61.132-12 Standards: Pressure relief devices
in liquid service and flanges and other
connectors.
61.132-13 Standards: Delay of repair for
equipment leaks.
61.132-14 Standards: Closed vent systems
and control devices for equipment leaks
of benzene.
61.133-1 Alternative standards for valves in
benzene service—allowable percentage
of valves leaking.
61.133-2 Alternative standards for valves in
benzene service—skip period leak
detection and repair.
61.134 Alternative means of emission
limitation.
61.135 Test methods and procedures.
61.136 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.137 Reporting requirements.
Authority: Sees. 112 and 301 (a) of the Clean
Air Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and
7601(u|). and additional authority as noted
below.
Subpart L—National Emission
Standard for Benzene Emissions From
Coke By-Product Recovery Plants
§ 61.130 Applicability and designation of
sources.
(a)(l) The provisions of this subpart
apply to each of the following sources in
a coke by-product recovery plant:
naphthalene processing and direct-
water final-cooler cooling systems; tar
decanters; tar-dwatering tanks; tar-
intercepting sumps; flushing-liquor
circulation tanks; light-oil sumps; light-
oil condensers: light-oil decanters;
wash-oil decanters; wash-oil circulation
tanks; and each storage tank containing
tar, light-oil, benzene, or excess
ammonia-liquor.
(2) The provisions of this subpart also
apply to each of the following sources in
a coke by-product recovery plant that
are intended to operate in benzene
service: pumps, valves, exhausters.
pressure relief devices, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves
or lines, flanges and other connectors.
and control devices or systems required
by this subpart.
§61.131 Definitions.
As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act or in Subpart A of
Part 61, and the following terms shall
have the specific meanings given them:
"Benzene storage tank" means any
tank, reservoir, or other type container
used to collect or store refined benzene.
"Closed-vent system" means a system
that is not open to atmosphere and that
is composed of piping, connections, and.
if necessary, flow-inducing devices that
transport gas or vapor from a piece or
pieces of equipment to a control device.
"Coke by-product recovery plant"
means any facility designed and
operated for the separation and
recovery of coal tar derivatives (by-
products) evolved from coal during the
coking process of a coke oven battery.
"Connector" means flanged, screwed.
welded, or other joined fittings used to
connect two pipe lines or a pipe line and
a piece of process equipment.
"Control device" means an enclosed
combustion device, vapor recovery
system, or flare.
"Double block and bleed system"
means two block valves connected in
series with a bleed valve or line that can
vent the line between the two block
valves.
"Equipment" means each pump, vulve,
exhauster, pressure relief device.
sampling connection system, open-
ended valve or line, and flange or other
connector in benzene service, and any
devices or systems required by § 61.132-
14.
"Excess ammonia-liquor storage tank"
means any tank, reservoir, or other type
container used to collect or store a
flushing-liquor solution prior to
ammonia or phenol recovery.
"First attempt at repair" means to
take rapid action for the purpose of
stopping or reducing leakage of organic
material to atmosphere, using best
practices.
"Flushing-liquor circulation tank"
means any vessel that functions to store
or contain flushing liquor that is
separated from the tat in the tar
decanter and is recirculated as the
cooled liquor to the gas collection
system.
"In benzene service" means a piece of
equipment, other than an exhauster, that
either contains or contacts a fluid (liquid
or gas] that is at least 10 percent
benzene by weight or any exhauster that
either contains or contacts a fluid (liquid
or gas) at least 1 percent benzene by
weight as determined by the provisions
of § 61.135(d). The provisions of
§61.135(d) also specify how to
determine that a piece of equipment is
not in benzene service.
"In gas/vapor service" means that a
• piece of equipment contains process
fluid that is in the gaseous state at
operating conditions.
"In vacuum service" means that a
process unit (including associated
equipment) is operating at an internal
pressure that is at least 5 kilopascals
(kPa) below ambient pressure.
V-L-26
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 8, 1984 / Proposed Rules
"In VOC service" moans, for the
purposes of this subpart, that: (1) The
piece of equipment contains or contacts
a process fluid that is at least 10 percent
VOC by weight: and (2) the piece of
equipment is not in light liquid service
as defined in 40 CFR 60.481. See 40 CFR
60.2 for the definition of volatile organic
compound or "VOC" and 40 CFR
60.485(d) to determine whether a piece
of equipment is not in VOC service.
"In-situ sampling systems" means
nonextractive samplers or in-line
samplers.
"Light-oil condenser" means any
vessel, tank, or other type device in the
light-oil recovery operation that
functions to condense benzene-
containing vapors.
"Light-oil decanter" means any vessel,
tank, or other type device in the light-oil
recovery operation that functions to
separate light oil from the coke oven gas
process stream. A light-oil decanter may
also be known as a light-oil separator.
"Light-oil storage tank" means any
vessel, tank, reservoir, or other type of
container used to collect or store crude
light oil or light-oil fractions such as
benzene-toluene-xylene (BTX) mixtures.
"Light-oil sump" means any tank, pit,
enclosure, or slop tank in light-oil
recovery operations that functions as a
wastewater separation device to recover
.hydrocarbon liquids from the surface of
the water.
"Mixer-settler" means a tank
containing tar that is inserted into the
final cooling process of a direct-water
final cooler system that serves to
remove naphthalene from the direct-
contact water.
"Naphthalene processing" means any
operations required to recover
naphthalene from a direct-water final
cooler, including the separation,
refining, drying, handling, and
transporting of crude or refined
naphthalene.
"Open-ended valve or line" means
any valve, except pressure relief
devices, having one side of the valve
seat in contact with process fluid and
one side open to atmosphere, either
directly or through open piping.
"Pressure release" means the
emission of materials resulting from
system pressure being greater than set
pressure of the pressure relief device.
"Process unit" means each group of
process vessels and equipment
assembled to produce, as intermediate
or final products, any by-product
evolved from coal in a coke by-product
recovery plant (e.g., the light-oil plant).
A process unit can operate
independently if supplied with sufficient
feed or raw materials and sufficient
product storage facilities.
"Process unit shutdown" means a
work practice or operational procedure
that stops production from a process
unit or part of a process unit. An
unscheduled work practice or
operational procedure that stops
production from a process unit or part of
a process unit for less than 24 hours is
not a process unit shutdown. The use of
spare equipment and technically
feasible bypassing of equipment without
stopping production are not process unit
shutdowns.
"Process vessel" means each tar
decanter, flushing-liquor circulation
tank, light-oil condenser, light-oil
decanter, wash-oil decanter, or wash-oil
circulation tank.
"Quarter" means a 3-month period,
the first quarter concludes on the last
day of the last full month during the 180
days following startup for new sources;
the first quarter concludes on the last
day of the last full month during the 180
days after (date of publication of final
rule in Federal Register) for existing
sources.
"Repaired" means that a source is
adjusted or otherwise altered in order to
eliminate a leak as indicated by one of
the following:..an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater, instrument
reading of 500 ppm or greater above a
background concentration, indication of
liquids dripping, or indication by a
sensor that a seal system or barrier fluid
system has failed.
"Semiannual" means a 6-month
period; the first semiannual period
concludes on the last day of the last full
month during the 180 days following
initial startup for new sources; and the
first semiannual period concludes on the
last day of the last full month during the
180 days after (date of publication of
final rule in Federal Register) for
existing sources.
"Sensor" means a device that
measures a physical quantity or the
change in a physical quantity, such as
temperature, pressure, flow rate, pH, or
liquid level.
"Tar decanter" means any vessel.
tank, or other type container that
functions to separate heavy tar and
sludge from flushing liquor by means of
gravity, heat, or chemical emulsion
breakers. A tar decanter may also be
known as a flusing-liquor decanter.
"Tar storage tank" means any vessel,
tank, reservoir, or other type container
used to collect or store crude tar or tar-
entrained maphthalene except for tar
products obtained by distillation, such
as coal tar pitch, creosotes, or carbolic
oil. This definition also includes any
vessel, tank, reservoir, or other type
container used to reduce the water
content of the tar by means of heal.
residence time, chemical emulsion
breakers, or centrifugal separation. A (HI
storage lank may also be known as a
tar-dewatering tank.
"Tar-intercepting sump" means an\
tank, pit, or enclosure that serves to
separate light tars and aqueous
condensate received from the primary
cooler. A tar-intercepting sump may also
be known as a primary-cooler decantnr
"Wash-oil circulation tank" means
any vessel that functions to hold the
wash oil used in light oil recovery
operations or the wash oil used in the
wash-oil final cooler.
"Wash-oil decanter" means any
vessel that functions to separate, by
gravity, the condensed water from the
wash oil received from a wash-oil final
cooler or from a light-oil scrubber.
§31.132-1 Standards: General.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of § 61.132 for each new
and existing source, except as provided
in §61.133 and §61.134.
(b) Compliance with this subpart will
be determined by review of records,
review of performance test results, and
inspection using the methods and
procedures specified in §61.135.
(c)(l) An owner or operator may
request permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation to meet the
requirements of §§ 61.132-2, 61.132-3.
61.132-6. 61.132-7, 61.132-9, 61.132-10.
61.132-11, 61.132-12, 61.132-13, and
61.132-14. Permission to use an
alternative means of emission limitation
may be requested as specified in
§61.134.
(2) If the Administrator permits the
use of an alternative means of emission
limitation to meet the requirements of
§§61.132-2. 61.132-3, 61.132-6. 61.132-7.
61.132-9, 61.132-10, 61.132-11. 61.132-12.
61.132-13, or 61.132-14, an owner or
.operator shall comply with the
conditions of that permission.
(d) Each piece of equipment in
benzene service to which this subpnrl
applies shall be marked in such a
manner tuat it can be distinguished
readily from other pieces of equipment
in benzene service.
(e) Equipment that is in vacuum
service is excluded from the
requirements of this subpart if it is
identified as required in § 61.136(h)(5).
(f) At al! times, owners and operators
shall, to the extent practicable, maintain
and operate any source including
associated air pollution control
equipment, according to good air
pollution control practice for minimizing
emissions. Determining whether
V-L-27
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are used will be based on
information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review
of operating and maintenance
procedures, and inspection of the
source.
§61.132-2 Standards: Process vessels, tar
storage tanks, and tar intercepting sumps.
(a)(l) Each owner or operator shall
enclose and seal all openings on each
process vessel, tar storage tank, and tar
intercepting sump.
(2) The owner or operator shall duct
gases from each source to the gas
collection system, gas distribution
system, or other enclosed point in the
by-product recovery process where the
benzene in the gas will be recovered or
destroyed. This control system shall be
designed and operated for no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background and by visual inspections.
as determined by the methods specified
in § 61.135(c). This system can be
designed as a closed, positive-pressure,
gas blanketing system.
(i) Except, the owner or operator may
elect to install, operate, and maintain a
pressure relief device, vacuum relief
device, an access hatch, and a sampling
port on each source. Each access hatch
and sampling port must be equipped
with a gasket and a cover, seal, or lid
that must be kept in a closed position at
all times, unless in actual use. and
(ii) The owner or operator may elect
to leave open to the atmosphere the
portion of the liquid surface in each tar
decanter necessary to permit operation
of a sludge conveyor. If the owner or
operator elects to maintain an opening
on part of the liquid surface of the
decanter.the owner or operator shall
install, operate, and maintain a water
seal on the tar decanter roof near the
sludge discharge chute to ensure
enclosure of the major portion of the
liquid surface not necessary for the
operation of the sludge conveyor.
(b) Following the installation of any
control equipment used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
monitor semiannual!}1 the connections
and seals on each control system to
determine if it is operating with no
detectable emissions, using Reference
Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A)
and procedures specified under
§ 61.135(c) of this subpart. .The owner or
operator shall also conduct
semiannually a visual inspection of each
source (including sealing materials) and
the ductwork of the control svstem for'
evidence of visible defects such as gaps
or tears.
(1) If an instrument reading indicates
an organic chemical concentration more
than 500 ppm above a background
concentration, as measured by
Reference Method 21, a leak is detected.
(2) If visible defects such as gaps in
sealing materials are observed during a
visual inspection, a leak is detected.
(3) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but no
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected.
(4) A first attempt at repair of any
leak or visible defect shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak is detected.
(c) Following the installation of any
control system used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
conduct a maintenance jnspection of the
control system on an annual basis for
evidence of system abnormalities, such
as blocked or plugged lines, sticking
valves, plugged condensate traps, and
other maintenance defects that could
result in abnormal system operation.
The owner or operator shall make a first
attempt at repair within 5 days, with
repair within 15 days of detection. If a
system blockage occurs at any time, the
owner or operator shall conduct an
insppction and perform any necessary
repHirs immediately upon detection.
§ 61.132-3 Standards: Light-oil sumps.
(a) Each owner or operator of a light-
oil sump shall enclose and seal the
liquid surface in the sump to form a
closed system to contain the emissions.
(1) Except, the owner or operator may
elect to install, operate, and maintain a
vent on the light-oil sump cover. Each
vent pipe must be equipped with a water
leg sea. a pressure relief device, or
vaccum relief device: and
(2| The owner or operator may elect to
install, operate, and maintain an access
hatch on each sump cover. Each access
hatch must be equipped with a gasket
and a cover, seal, or lid that must be
kept in a closed position at all times.
unless in actual use.
(31 The sump cover may be removed
for periodic maintenance but must be
replaced (with seal) at completion of the
maintenance operation.
(b) The venting of steam or other
gases from the by-product process to the
light-oil sump is not permitted.
(c) Following the installation of any
control equipment used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
monitor semiannually the connections
and seals on each control system to
determine if it is operating with no
detectable emissions, using Reference
Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A)
and the procedures specified under
§ 61.135(c) of this subpart. The owner or
operator shall also conduct on a
semiannual basis a visual inspection of
each source (including sealing materials)
and the ductwork of the control system
for evidence of visible defects such as
gaps or tears.
(1) If an instrument reading indicates
an organic chemical concentration more
than 500 ppm above a background
concentration, as measured by
Reference Method 21. a leak is detected.
(2) If visible defects such as gaps in
sealing materials are observed during H
visual inspection, a leak is detected.
(3) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable , but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected.
(4) A first attempt at repair of any
leak or visible defect shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak is detected.
§ 61.132-4 Standards: Light-oil, benzene,
and excess ammonia-liquor storage tanks.
(a)(l) Each storage tank containing
light-oil benzene, or excess ammonia-
liquor shalll be equipped with a control
device designed and operated to achieve
a 90-percent benzene control efficiency.
(2) Each owner or operator shall
enclose and seal all openings on each
tank; the gases from each tank shall be
ducted to the control device used to
achieve compliance with paragraph
(a)(l) of this section.
(3) The owner or operator may elect to
install, operate, and maintain a pressure
relief device, vacuum relief device, an
access hatch, and a sampling port on
each tank. Each access hatch and
sampling port must be equipped with a
gasket and a cover, seal, or lid that must
be kept in a closed position at all times.
unless in actual use.
(b) Following the installation of any
control equipment used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
monitor semiannually the connections
and seals on each tank to determine if
the control system is operating with no
detectable emissions, using Reference
Method 21 (40 CFR Part 60, Appendix Al
and procedures specified under
§ 61.135(c) of this subpart. The owner or
operator shall also conduct
semiannually a visual inspection of each
tank (including sealing meterials) and
the ductwork to the control device for
evidence of visible defects such as gaps
or tears.
(1) If an instrument reading indicates
HP organic chemical concentration more
V-L-28
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
than 500 ppm above a background
concentration, as measured by
Reference Method 21, a leak is detected.
(2) If visible defects such as gaps in
sealing materials are observed during a
visual inspection, a leak is delected.
(3) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaiied as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected.
(4) A first attempt at repair of any
leak or visible defect shall be made no
later than 5 calendar days after each
leak-is detected.
(c) Following the installation of any
control device (or control system) used
to meet the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section, the owner or operator
shall conduct a maintenance inspection
of the connections and seals on each
tank and ductwork to the control device
on an annual basis for evidence of
system abnormalities, such as blocked
or plugged lines, sticking valves, plugged
condensate traps, and other
maintenance defects that could result in
abnormal system operation. The owner
or operator shall make a first attempt at
repair within 5 days, with repair within
15 days of detection. If a system
blockage occurs at any time, the owner
or operator shall conduct an inspection
and perform any necessary repairs
immediately upon detection.
(d)(l) The owner or operator shall
monitor parameters that indicate proper
operation of the control device to ensure
that the device is operated and
maintained in conformance with the
design. The selection of monitoring
parameters is subject to approval by the
Administrator.
(2) If a wash-oil scrubber is used as
the control device, the owner or
operator shall install, operate calibrate,
and maintain a device to monitor and
record the wash-oil flow rate, the
temperature of the gases exiting the
scrubber, and the pressure of the wash
oil at the scrubber spray nozzle.
[e] The ducting of gases (e.g., coke
oven gas, natural gas or nitrogen used as
a blanketing agent) from a storage tank
to the gas collection system, gas
distribution system, or another enclosed
point in the by-product recovery process
where the benzene in the gas will be
recovered or destroyed is permitted for
compliance with the standard specified
in paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) An owner or operator ducting gases
from a tank in the manner described in
paragraph (e) of this section shall
comply with all requirements specified
in § 61.132-2, including leak detection
and repair provisions.
(g) At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
owners and operators shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and opurdln
any source, including associated air
pollution control equipment, according
to good air pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions. Determining
whether acceptable operating and
mainlainace procedures are used will be
based on information available to the
Administrator that may include, but is
not limited to, monitoring results, review
of operating and maintenance
procedures, and inspection of the
source.
§61.132-5 Naphthalene processing.
(a) No ("zero") emissions are allowed
from naphthalene processing.
(b) The emission limit specified in
paragraph (a) of this section is not
applicable if a mixer-settler is used to
separate naphthalene from the water of
a direct-water final cooler by tar or
another organic liquid.
(c) If a mixer-settler is used to
separate naphthalene from the water of
a direct-water final cooler, the mixer-
settler is subject to all requirements
specified in § 61.132-2 for process
vessels, including leak detection and
repair provisions.
§ 61.132-6 Standards: Pumps.
(a)(l) Each pump shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in § 61.135(b), except as
provided in § 61.132-1 (c) and
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this
section.
(2) Each pump shall be checked by
visual inspection, each calendar week.
for indications of liquids dripping from
the pump seal.
(b)(l) if an instrument reading of
10,000 ppm or greater is measured, a
leak is detected.
(2) If there are indications of liquids
dripping from the pump seal, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
13.
(2) A first attempt to repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Each pump equipped with a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section provided the following
requirements are met:
(1) Each dual mechanical seal system
is:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is at all times greater than
the pump stuffing box pressure; or
(ii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
degassing reservoir that is connected by
a closed-vent system to a control device
that complies with the requirements of
§61.132-14; or
(iii) Equipped with a system Ih'i!
purges the barrier fluid into » nr.-revs
stream with zero benzene emissions to
the atmosphere.
(2) The barrier fluid system is not in
benzene service and if the pump is
covered by the standards in 40 CFR Par!
60, subpart VV, it is not in VOC service.
(3) Each barrier fluid system is
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the seal system, the barrinr
fluid system, or both.
(4) Each pump is checked by visual
inspection, each calendar week, for
indications of liquids dripping from thr
pump seals.
(5)(i) Each sensor as described in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section is
checked daily or is equipped with an
audible alarm, and
(ii) The ovvr.er or operator determines.
based on design considerations and
operating experience, a criterion that
indicates failure of the seal system, the
barrier fluid system, or both.
(6!(i) ff there are indications of liquid*
dripping from the pump seal or the
sensor indicates failure of the seal
system, the barrier fluid system, or both.
based on the criteria determined in
paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section, » le»r
is detected.
(ii) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
13.
(iii.) A first attempt at repa;r shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days aftui
each leak is detected.
(e) Any pump that is designated, as
described in § 61.136(h)(2) for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a), (c). and
(d) of this section if the pump:
(1) Has no externally actuated shaft
penetrating the pump housing,
(2) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background as
measured by the methods specified in
§ 61.135(c), and
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (e)(2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at othm
times requested by the Administrator.
(f) If any pump is equipped with a
closed vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device that
complies with the requirements of
§ 61.132-14. it is exempt from the
V-L-29
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
requirements of paragraphs (a)-(c) of
this section.
$ 61.132-7 Standards: Exhausters.
(a) Each exhauster shall be monitored
quarterly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in § 61.135 except as provided
in § 61.132-l(c) and paragraphs (d)-(f) of
this section.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10,000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c) When a leak is detected, it shall be
repaired as soon as practicable, but not
later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
13. A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) Each exhauster equipped with a
seal system that includes a barrier fluid
system and that prevents leakage of
process fluids to atmosphere is exempt
from the requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section provided the
following requirements are met:
(1) Each exhauster seal system is:
(i) Operated with the barrier fluid at a
pressure that is greater than the
exhauster stuffing box pressure; or
fii) Equipped with a barrier fluid
system that is connected by a closed
vent system to a control devire that
complies with the requirements of
§61.132-14: or
(iii) Equipped with a system that
purges the barrier fluid into a process
stream with zero benzene emissions to
the atmosphere.
(2) The barrier fluid system is not in
benzene service and if the exhauster is
covered by standards in 40 CFR Part 60.
Subpart VV, it is not in VOC service.
(3) Each barrier fluid system shall be
equipped with a sensor that will detect
failure of the sea' system, barrier fluid
system, or both.
(4)(i) Each sensor as described in
paragraph (d) of this section shall be
checked daily or shall be equipped with
an audible alarm.
(ii) The owner or operator shall
determine, based on design
considerations and operating
experience, a criterion that indicates
failure of the sea! system, the barrier
fluid system, or both
(5).lf the sensor indicates failure of the
sen! system, the barrier system, both
based on the criterion determined under
paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, a leak
is detected.
(6)(i) When a leak is detected, it shall
he repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
(ii) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(e) An exhauster is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section if it is equipped with a
closed vent system capable of capturing
and transporting any leakage from the
seal or seals to a control device and that
complies with the requirements of
§ 61.132-14, except as provided in
paragraph (f) of this section
(f) Any exhauster that is designated.
as described in § 61.136(i)(2], for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a)-(e) of
this section if the exhauster:
(1) Is demonstrated to be operating
with no detectable emissions, as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the methods specified in
§ 61.135(c); and
(2) Is tested for compliance with
paragraoh (f)(l) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times requested by the Administrator.
§ 61.132-8 (Standards: Pressure relief
devices in gas/vapor service.
(a) Except during pressure releases.
each pressure relief device in gas/vapor
service shall be operated with no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above backgroud, as measured by the
methods specified in § 61.135[c).
(b)[l) After each pressure release, the
pressure relief device shall be returned
to a condition of no detectable
emissions, as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 ppm above
background, as soon as practicable, but
no later than 5 calendar days after each
pressure release.
(2) No later than 5 calendar days after
the pressure release, the pressure relief
device shall be monitored to confirm the
conditions of no detectable emissions,
as indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 ppm above background, as
measured by the methods specified in
§61.135(c).
(r.) Any pressure relief device that is
equipped with a closed vent system
capable of capturing and transporting
leakage through the pressure relief
device to a control device as described
in § 61.132-14 is exempt from the
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b).
of this section
§ 61.132-9 Standards; Sampling
connection systems
(a) Each sampling connection system
shall be equipped with a closed purge
system or closed vent system, except as
provided in § 61.132-l(c).
(b) Each closed purge or closed vent
system as required in paragraph (a)
shall:
(1) Return the purged process fluid
directly to the process line with zero
benzene emissions to the atmosphere: or
(2) Collect and recycle the purged
process fluid with zero benzene
emissions to the atmosphere: or
(3) Be designed and operated to
capture and transport all the purged
process fluid to a control device thai
complies with the requirements of
8 61.132-14.
(c) In-situ sampling systems are
exempt from paragraphs (a) and (b) ol
this section.
§ 61.132-10 Standards: Open-ended
valves or lines.
(a)(l) Each open-ended valve or line
shall be equipped with a cap. blind
flange, plug, or a second valve, except
as provided in § 61.132-l(c).
(2) The cap, blind flange, plug, or
second valve seal the open end at all
times except during operations requiring
process fluid flow through the open-
ended valve or line.
(b) Each open-ended valve or line
equipped with a second valve shall be
operated in a manner such that the
valve on the process fluid end is closed
liefore the second valve is closed.
(c) When a double block and bleed
system is used, the bleed valve or line
may remain open during operations thai
require venting the line between the
block valves but shall comply with
paragraph (a) of this section at all othei
times.
§ 61.132-11 Standards: Valves.
(a) Each valve shall be monitored
monthly to detect leaks by the methods
specified in § 61.135(b) and shall comply
with paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section .
except as provided in paragraphs (f). (g).
and (h) of this section. § 61.132-l(c). and
§ 61.133-1 or §61.133-2.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10.000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(cj(l) Any valve foi which a leak is .
not detected for 2 successive months
may be monitored the first month of
every quarter, beginning with the next
quarter, until a leak is detected.
(2) If a leak is detected, the valve shall
be monitored monthly until a leak is not
detected for 2 successive months.
(d)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after the
leak is detected, except as pro\ided in
§01.132-13.
V-L-30
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 110 / Wednesday, June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
(2) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calandar days after
each leak is detected.
(e) First attempts at repair include, but
are not limited to, the followng best
practices where practicable:
(1) Tightening of bonnet bolts;
(2) Replacement of bonnet bolts;
(3) Tightening of packing gland nuts;
(4) Injection of lubricant into
lubricated packing.
(f) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.136 (1)(2), for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if the valve:
(1) Has no external actuating
mechanism in contact with the process
fluid,
(2) Is operated with emissions less
than 500 ppm above background, as
determined by the method specified in
§ 61.135(c), and
(3) Is tested for compliance with
paragraph (f](2) of this section initially
upon designation, annually, and at other
times requested by the Administrator.
(g) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.136(i)(l), as an unsafe-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the valve
demonstrates that the valve is unsafe to
monitor because monitoring personnel
would be exposed to an immediate
danger as a consequence of complying
with paragraph (a) of this section, and
(2) The owner or operator of the valve
adheres to a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve as frequently as
practicable during safe-to-monitor times.
(h) Any valve that is designated, as
described in § 61.136(i)(2), as a difficult-
to-monitor valve is exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section if:
(1) The owner or operator of the v*alue
demonstrates that the valve cannot be
monitored without elevating the
monitoring personnel more then 2
meters above a support surface.
(2) The equipment within which the
valve is located is an existing process
unit, and
(3) The owner or operator of the valve
follows a written plan that requires
monitoring of the valve at least once per
calendar year.
§ 61.132-12 Standards: Pressure relief
devices In liquid service and flanges and
other connectors.
(a) Pressure relief devices in liquid
service and flanges and other
'connectors shall be monitored within 5
days by the method specified in
§ 61.135(b) if evidence of a potential
leak is found by visual, audible,
olfactory, or any other detection
method.
(b) If an instrument reading of 10.000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(c)(l) When a leak is detected, it shall
be repaired as soon as practicable, but
not later than 15 calendar days after it is
detected, except as provided in § 61.132-
13.
(2) The first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
each leak is detected.
(d) First attempts at repair include,
but are not limited to, the best practices
described under § 61.132-ll(e).
§ 61.132-13 Standards: Delay of repair for
equipment leaks.
(a) Delay of repair of equipment for
which leaks have been detected will be
allowed if the repair is technically
infeasible without a process unit
shutdown. Repair of this equipment
shall occur before the end of the next
process unit shutdown.
(b) Delay of repair of equipment will
be allowed for equipment which is
isolated from the process and which
does not remain in benzene service.
(c) Delay of repair for valves will be
allowed if:
(1) The owner or operator
demonstrates that emissions of purged
material resulting from immediate repair
are greater than the fugitive emissions
likely to result from delay of repair, and
(2) When repair procedures are
effected, the purged material is collectpd
and destroyed in a control device
complying with § 61.132-14.
(d) Delay of repair for pumps will be
allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a dual
mechanical seal system that includes a
barrier fluid system, and
(2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(e) Delay of repair for exhausters will
be allowed if:
(1) Repair requires the use of a seal
system that includes a barrier fluid
cvotom^ orjd
(2) Repair is completed as soon as
practicable, but not later than 6 months
after the leak was detected.
(f) Delay of repair beyond a process
unit shutdown will be allowed for a
valve, if valve assembly replacement is
necessary during the process unit
shutdown, valve assembly supplies have
been depleted, and valve assembly
supplies had been sufficiently stocked
before the supplies were depleted. Delay
of repair beyond the next process unit
shutdown will not be allowed unless the
next process unit shutdown occurs
sooner than 6 months after the first
process unit shutdown.
§ 61.132-14 Standards: Closed vent
systems and control devices for equipment
leaks of benzene.
(a) Owners or operators of closed veni
systems and control devices used to
comply with the provisions of § 61.132-h
(d) or (f). § 61.132-7 (d) or (e), § 61.132-
8(c). or § 61.132-9(b) shall comply wilh
the provisions of this section.
(b) Vapor recovery systems (for
example, condensers and adsorbers!
shall be designed and operated to
recover the benzene vapors vented to
them wilh an efficiency of 95 perc<":t o'
greater.
(c) Enclosed combustion devices bh.iii
be designed and operated to reduce the
benzene emissions vented to them \\ ith
an efficiency of 95 percent or greater or
to provide,a minimum residence time o!
0.50 seconds at a minimum temppraiiiri?
of 760° C.
(d)(l) Flares shall be designed for and
operated with no visible emissions as
determined by the methods specified ir
§ 61.135(e) except for poriods not to
exceed a total of 5 minutes during any 2
consecutive hours.
(2) Flares shall operate with a flami
present at all times, as determined hy
the methods specified in § 61.135(e).
(3) Flares shall be used only with ihr
net heating value of the gas being
combusted being 11.2 MJ/scm (300 Bi::/
scf) or greater if the flare is steam-
assisted or air-assisted; or with the nt'f
heating value of the gas being
combusted being 7.45 MJ/scm or grcaicj
if the flare in nonassisted. The net
heating value of the gas being
combusted shall be determined by lht;
methods specified in § 61.135(e).
(4) Steam-assisted and nonassislcd
flares shall be designed for and
operated with an exit velocity, as
determined by the method specified ;r,
§ 61.135(e)(4),' less than 18 m/sec (60 ft/
sec).
(5) Air-assisted flares shall be
designed and operated with an exit
velocity IPSS than thp vplnr.ity. V_.s ;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background and by visual
inspections, as determined by the
methods specified in § 61.135(c).
(2) Closed-vent systems shall be
monitored to determine compliance wiih
this section initially in accordance with
§ 61.05, annually, and at other times
requested by the Administrator.
(3) Leaks, as indicatd by an
instrument reading greater than 500 ppru
above background or by visual
inspections, shall be repaired as soon HS
practicable, but not later than 15
calendar days after the leak is de'er.ird
(4) A first attempt at repair shall be
made no later than 5 calendar days after
the leak is detected.
(g) Closed-vent systems and control
devices used to comply with provisions
of this subpart shall be operated at all
times when emissions may be vented to
them.
§ 61.133 Alternative standards for valves
In benaqne oervice—allowable percentage
ol valves leaking.
(a) An owner or operator may elect to
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking of equal to or less than
2.0 percent.
(b) The following requirements shall
he met if an owner or operator wishes tei
comply with an allowable percentage of
valves leaking:
(1) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator that the owner or
operator has elected to comply with the
allowable percentage of valves leaking
before implementing this alternative
standard, as specified in § 61.137(d).
(2) A performance test as specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
conducted initially upon designation.
annually, and at other times requested
by the Administrator.
(3) If a valve leak is detected, it must
be repaired in accordance with § 61.132-
11 (d) and (e).
(c) Performance tests shall be
conducted in the following manner:
(1) All valves in benzene service
within the coke by-product recovery
plant shall be monitored within 1 week
by the methods specified in | 6l.l35(b).
' (2) If an instrument reading of 10.000
ppm or greater is measured, a leak is
detected.
(3) The leak percentage shall be
determined by dividing the number of
valves in benzene service for which
leaks are detected by the number of
valves in benzene service within the
coke by-product recovery plant.
. (d) Owners or operators who elect to
comply with this alternative standard
shall not operate valves in benzene
service with a leak percentage greater
than 2.0 percent..
(e) If an owner or opeator decides to
no. longer comply with § 61.133-1. the
owner or operator must notify the
Administrator in writing that the work
practice standard described in § 61.132-
11 (a)-(e) will be followed.
§61.133-2 Atternatlvo atandardo tor
vslveo In bensene oervice—ofcip period lead
detection and repair.
(a)(l) An owner or operator may elect
to comply with one of the alternative
work practices specified in paragraphs
[b] (21 and (31 of this section.
(2) An owner or operator must notify
the Administrator before implementing
one of the alternative work practices, as
specified in i 61.137(d).
(b)(l) An owner or operator shall
comply initially with the requirements
for valves, as described in § 61.132-11.
(2J After 2 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
1 of the quarterly leak detection periods
for the valves in benzene service.
(3) After 5 consecutive quarterly leak
detection periods with the percentage of
valves leaking equal to or less than 2.0,
an owner or operator may begin to skip
3 of the quarterly le&k detection periods
for the valves in benzene service.
(4) If the percentage of valves leaking
is greater than 2.0, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements as
described in § 61.137 but can again elect
to use this section.
§ 31.134 Alternative; means of emission
limitation.
(a) Permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation under
Section 112(e)(3) of the Clean Air Act
shall be governed by the following
procedures.
(b) For equipment, design, and
operational requirements of this subpart:
(1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data to
demonstrate equivalence of a means of
emission limitation.
(2) The Administrator will compare
test data for the means of emission
limitation to test data for the equipment,
design, and operational requirements.
(3) For sources subject to i 61.132-2
(except tar decanters). §i 61.132-3.
61.132-4(e), and 61.132-5(c), the
Administrator shall compare test data
for the means of emission limitation to a
benzene control efficiency of 98 percent.
For tar decanters, the Administrator
shall compare test data for the means of
emission limitation to 8 benzene control
efficiency of 95 percent.
(4) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
emission reduction as the equipment.
dttsign, and operational requirements.
(c) For work practices in this subpart:
(1) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall be responsible for
collecting and verifying test data to
demonstrate equivalence of means of
emission limitation.
(2) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the required work
practices shall be demonstrated for a
minimum period of 12 months.
(3) For each source for which
permission is requested, the emission
reduction achieved by the equivalent
means of emission limitation shall be
demonstrated.
(4) Each owner or operator applying
for permission shall commit in writing
each source to work practices that
provide for emission reductions equal to
or greater than the emission reductions
achieved by the required work practice:.
(5J The Administrator will compare
the demonstrated emission reduction fur
the equivalent means of emission
limitation to the demonstrated emission
reduction for the required work
practices and will consider the
commitment in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section.
(6) The Administrator may condition
the permission on requirements that
may be necessary to assure operation
and maintenance to achieve the same
emission reduction as the required work
practices of this subpart.
(d) An owner or operator may offer a
unique approach to demonstrate the
equivalence of any means of emission
limitation.
(ej(l) Manufacturers of equipment
used to control equipment leaks of
benzene may apply to the Administrator
for permission to use an alternative
means of emission limitation that
achieves a reduction in emissions of
benzene achieved by the equipment.
design, and operational requirement:; o!
this subpart.
(2) The Administrator will grant
permission according to the provisions
of paragraphs (b). (c). and (d) of this
section.
§ 81.1135 TocJ methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator subject \a
the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the test method and
procedure requirements provided in this
section.
V-L-32
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6, 1984 / Proposed Rules
(b) Monitoring, as required by
§§61.132, 61.133, and 61.134, shall
comply with the following requirements.
(1) Monitoring shall comply with 40
CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Reference
Method 21.
(2) The detection instrument shall
meet the performance criteria of
Reference Method 21.
(3) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Reference
Method 21.
(4) Calibration gases shall be:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 ppm of
hydrocarbon in air); and
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 ppm
methane or n-hexane.
(5) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible, as described in Reference
Method 21.
(c) When equipment is tested for
compliance with no detectable
emissions, as required in §§ 61.132-2,
61.132-3, 61.132~4(b), 61.132-4(f), 61.132-
5(c), 61.132-6(e), 61.132-7(f), 61.132-8,
61.132-ll(f), and 61.132-14(f), the test
shall comply with the following
requriements:
(1) The requirements of paragraphs (b)
(l)-(4) of this section shall apply.
(2) The background level shall be
determined, as set forth in Referent
Method 21.
(3) The instrument probe shall be
traversed around all potential leak
interfaces as close to the interface as
possible, as described in Reference
Method 21.
(4) The arithmetic difference between
the maximum concentration indicated
by the instrument and the background
level is compared with 500 ppm for
determining compliance.
(d)(l) Each piece of equipment within
a coke-by-product recovery plant is
presumed to be in benzene service
unless an owner or operator
demonstrates that the piece of
equipment is not in benzene service. For
s piece cf equipment to bs considered
not in benzene serivce, it must be
determined that the percent benzene
content can be reasonably expected
never to exceed 10 percent by weight
(for equipment other than exhausters),
or 1 percent by weight for exhausters.
For purposes of determining the percent
benzene content of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts equipment,
procedures that conform to the methods
described in ASTM Method D-2267
(incorporated by reference as specified
in S 61.18) shall be used.
(2)(i) An owner or operator may use
engineering judgment rather than the
procedures in paragraph (d)(l) of this
section to demonstrate that the percent
benzene content does not exceed 10
percent by weight for equipment other
than exhausters, or 1 percent by weight
for exhausters, provided that the
engineering judgment demonstrates that
the benzene content clearly does not
exceed 10 percent by weight for
equipment other than exhausters, or 1
percent by weight for exhausters. When
an owner or operator and the
Administrator do not agree on whether
a piece of equipment is not in benzene
service, however, the procedures in
paragraph (d)(l) of this section shall be
used to resolve the disagreement.
(ii) If an owner or operator determines
that a piece of equipment is in benzene
service, the determination can be
revised only after following the
procedures in paragraph (d){l) of this
section.
(3) Samples used in determining the
percent benzene content shall be
representative of the process fluid that
is contained in or contacts the
equipment or the gas being combusted
in the flare.
(e)(l) Reference Method 22 of 40 CFR
Part 60 shall be used to determine the
compliance of flares with the visible
emission provisons of this subpart.
(2) The presence of a flare pilot flame
shall be monitored using a thermocouple
or any other equivalent device to detect
the presence of a flame.
(3) The net heating value of the gas
being combusted in a flare shall be
calculated using the following equation:
HT=KI S C,H,)
iv i = l /
where:
HI = Net heating value of the sample, M)/
scm; where the net enthalpy per mole of
offgas is based on combustion at 25° C
and 760mm Hg, but the standard
temperature for determining the volume
corresponding to one mole is 20' C.
K=Constant, 1.740 X 10' (1/ppm) (g mole/
scm} (MJ/kcal), where standard
temperature for (g mole/scm) is 20' C.
C,- Concentration of sample component i in
ppm, as measured by Referrence Method
18 of Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60 and
ASTM D2S04-67 (reapproved 1977)
(incorporated by reference as specified
in { 61.18).
H, = Net heat of combustion of sample
component i, kcal/g mole. The heats of
combustion may be determined using
ASTM D2382-76 (incorporated by
reference as specified in S 61.18) if
published values are not available or
cannot be calculated.
(4) the actual exit velocity of a fl-Jii-
shall be determined by dividing the
volumetric flowrate (in uni's of s'aniJsrrt
temperature and pressure), as
determined by Reference Method 2, 2A,
or 2C of 40 CFR Part 60, as appropriate;
by the unobstructed (free) cross
sectional area of the flare tip.
(5) The maximum permitted velocity.
VHIM. for air-assisted flares shall b«
determined by the following equation:
V™, = 8.76 + 0.7084(HT)
Vm.» - Maximum permitted velocity. n./«n;
8.706 = Constant.
0.7084 = Constant.
HT = Thefnct heating value as determined *M
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amend-:.-) |4i
U.S.C. 7414))
§61.136 Recordkeeping requirements,
(a)(l) Each owner or operator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall
comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
(2) An owner or operator may comply
with the recordkeeping requirements in
one recordkeeping system if the systwi
identifies each record by each sown o
(b) The following information
pertaining to the design requirement oJ
control equipment installed to comply
with §§ 61.132-2, 61.132-3, 61.132-4, and
61.132-5 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 ol n>;y
changes in the design specifications.
(3)(i) For any control device used to
comply with § 61.132-4, the recorded
design specifications shall include any
parameters that are necessary to
determine proper operation and
maintenance of the control device.
(ii) For a wash-oil scrubber, the design
parameters include the wash-oil flow-
rate, the temperature of the gases
existing the scrubber, and the pressure
at the scrubber spray nozzle.
(c) The following information
pertaining to process vessels subjpct to
§ 61.132-2, light-oil sumps subject to
§ 61.132—3. storage tanks subject 'o
§61.132-40) or §°61.132-4|f). or mixet-
settlers used to comply with § 61.132-
5(c) shall be recorded and maintained
for 2 years following each semiannual
inspection; each annual maintenance
inspection, and any other inspections ?V;i
system blockage:
(1) The date of the inspection and \'.-.-
name of the inspector.
(2) A brief description of each visib'f
defect in the source or control
equipment and the method and da'e n<'
repair of the defect.
V-L-33
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
(3) The presence of a leak, as
measured using the method described in
61.135(b). The record shall include the
method and date of repair of the leak.
(4) A brief description of any system
abnormalities found during the annual
maintenance inspection, the repairs
made, and the date of repairs.
(5) A brief description of any system
blockage, the repairs made, and the date
of repair.
(d) The following information
pertaining to any control device used to
comply with § 61.132-4 shall be
recorded and kept for a least 2 years:
(1) The dates when the control device
was not operating as designed.
(2) The dates and description of any
maintenance or repair of the control
device.
(3) Any parameters monitored to
ensure that control devices are operated
and maintained in cohformancp with
their design.
(4) If a wash-oil scrubber is used to
comply with § 61.132-4, the records of
the wash-oil flow rate, the temperature
of the gases exiting the scrubber, and
the pressure at the spray nozzle.
(e) When each leak is detected as
specified in | 61.132-6, 61.132-7. 61.132-
11 and 61.132-12, the following
requirements apply:
(1) A weatherproof and readily visible
identification, marked with the
equipment identification number, shall
be attached to the leaking equipment.
(2) The identification on a valve may
be removed after it has been monitored
for 2 successive months as specified in
§ 61.132-ll(c) and no leak has been
detected during those 2 months.
(3) The identification on equipment
except on a valve, may be removed after
it has been repaired.
(f) When each leak is detected as
specified in § 61.132-6, 61.132-7. 61.132
11, and 61.132-12, the following
information shall be recorded in a log.
and shall be kept for 2 years in a readily
accessible location:
(1) The instrument and operator
identification numbers and the
equipment identification number.
(21 The date the leak was detected
and the dates of each attempt to repair
the leak.
(3) Repair methods applied in each
attempt to repair the leak.
(4) "Above 10,000" if the maximum
instiument reading measured by the
methods specified in 61.135(b) after each
repair attempt is equal to or greater than
10.000 ppm.
(5) ''Repair delayed" and the reason
for the delay if a leak is not repaired
within 15 calendar days after discovery
of the leak.
(6) The signature of the owner or
operator (or designate) whose decision
it was that repair could not be effected
without a process shutdown.
(7) The expected date of successful
repair of the leak if a leak is not
repaired within 15 days.
(8) Dates of process unit shutdown
that occur while the equipment is
unrepaired.
(9) The date of successful repair of the
leak.
(g) The following information
pertaining to the design requirements for
closed vent systems and control devices
described in § 61.132-14 ohall be
recorded and kept in a readily
accessible location:
(1) Detailed schematics, design
specifications, and piping and
instrumentation diagrams.
(2) The dates and descriptions of any
changes in the design specifications.
(3) A description of the parameter or
parameters monitored, as required in
§ 61.132-14(e), to ensure that control
devices are operated and maintained in
conformance with their design and an
explanation of why that parameter (or
parameters) was.selected for the
monitoring.
(€) Periods when the closed-vent
systems and control devices required in
8 61.132-«. 61.132-8, and 61.132-9. are
not operated as designed, including
periods when a flare pilot light does not
have a flame.
(5) Dates of startups and shutdowns of
the closed vent systems and control
devices required in § 61.132-6, 81.132-7.
61.132-8. and 61.132-9.
(h) The following informatio
pertaining to all equipment subject to
the requirements in §§ 61.132-6 to 61-
132-14 shall be recorded in a log that is
kept in a readily accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
equipment subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
(2)(i) A list of identification numbers
for equipment that the cwner or
operator elects to designate for no
detectable emissions, as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500 ppm
above background, under the provisions
of §§ 61.132-6)e), 61.132-7(f), 61.132-8. or
(ii) The designation of equipment as
subject to the requirements of §§ 61.132-
6(e). 61.132-7(0, 61.132-8. and 61.132-
ll(f) shall be signed by the owner or
operator.
(3) A list of equipment identification
number for pressure relief devices
required to comply with § 61.132-8(a).
(4)(i) The dates of each compliance
test as required in §§ 61.132-6(e),
6l.132-7(f). 61.132-8. and 61.132-ll(f).
(ii) The background level measured
during each compliance test.
(iii) The maximum instrument reading
measured at the equipment during each
compliance te$t.
(5) A list of identification numbers for
equipment in vacuum service.
(i) The following information
pertaining-to all valves subject to the
requirements of 61.132-11 (g) and (h)
shall be recorded in a log that is kept in
a readily accessible location:
(1) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as unsafe-to-
monitor. an explanation for each valve
stating why the valve ia_unsaffi-to-
monitor, and the plan for monitoring
each valve.
(2) A list of identification numbers for
valves that are designated as difficult-
to-monitor, an explanation of each valve
stating why the valve is difficult-to-
monitor, and the schedule for monitoring
each valve.
(jj The following information shall be
recorded for valves complying with
§ 61.133-2:
(1) A schedule of monitoring.
(2) The percent of valves found
leaking during each monitoring period.
(k) The following information shall be
recorded in a log that is kept in a readily-
accessible location:
(1) Design criterion required in
§ 61.132(d)(5) and 61.132-7)e){2) and an
explanation of the design criterion: and
(2) Any changes to this criterion and
the reasons for the changes.
(1) Information and data used to
demonstrate that price of equipment is
not in benzene service shall be recorded
in a log that is kept in a readily
accessible location.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7114)
§81.137 Reporting requiremonto.
(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 61.132, 61.133, 61.135.
61.136. and 61-137 are being
implemented.
(2) In the case of an existing source or
a new source which has an initial
startup date preceding the effective
date, the statement is to be submitted
within 90 days of the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance is granted
under § 61.11, along with the
information required under § 61.10. If a
waiver of compliance is granted, the
statement is to be submitted on a date
scheduled by the Administrator.
(3) In the case of new sources that did
not have an initial startup date
preceding the effective date, the
V-L-34
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 110 / Wednesday. June 6. 1984 / Proposed Rules
statement shall be submitted with the
application for approval of construction.
as described under § 61.07.
(4) The statement is to contain the
following information for each source.
(i) Type of source (for example, a
light-oil sump, benzene storage lnnk. or
pump).
(ii) For equipment in benzene service,
equipment identification number and
process unit identification.
(iii) For equipment in benzene service.
percent by weight benzene in the fluid at
the equipment.
(iv) For equipment in benzene service.
process fluid state in the equipment
(gas/vapor or liquid).
(v) Method of compliance with the
standard (for example, "gas blanketing."
"use of a tar-bottom final cooler."
"monthly leak detection and repair," or
"equipped with dual mechanical seals").
(b) A report shall be submitted to the
Administrator senjiannually starting 6
months after the initial report required
in § 61.13r(a). which includes the
following information:
,(1| For process vessels subject to
§ 61.132-2. light-oil sumps subject to
§ dl.132-3, storage tanks subject to
§ 61.132-4. or mixer-settlers used to
comply with § 61.132-5(c);
(i) A brief description of any visible
defect in the source or ductwork.
(ii) The number of leaks detected and
repaired.
(iii) A brief description of any system
abnormalities found during the annual
maintenance inspection, the repairs
made, and the date of repair: and
(iv) A brief description of any system
blockages or malfunctions, the repairs
made, and the date of repair.
(2) If a control device is used to
comply with § 61.132-4(a). the date and
time of any occurrence when the
monitored parameters exceed or drop
below the parameter levels determined
in the design specifications.
(3) If a wash-oil scrubber is used to
comply with § 61.132-4(a). the date and
time of any occurrence when the.wash-
oil flow rate or the pressure at the
scrubber spray nozzle drop below the
parameter levels determined in the
design specifications, or the temperature
of the gases exiting the scrubber
exceeds the design specification
temperature.
(4) For equipme»t in benzene service:
(i) Process unit identification.
(ii) For each month during the
semiannual reporting period:
(A) Number of valves for which leaks
were detected as required in § 61.132-
ll(b) of §61.133-2.
(B) Number of valves for which leaks
were not repaired as required in
§ 61.132-ll(d).
(C) Number of pumps for which leaks
were detected as described in § 61.132-6
(b) and (d)(6).
(D) Number of pumps for which leaks
were not repaired as required in
§61.132-6 (c) and (d)(6).
(E) Number of exhausters for which
leaks were detected as described in
§61.132-7(f).
(F) Number of exhausters for which
leaks were not repaired as required in
$ 61.132-7(g).
(5) The facts that explain any delay o!
repairs and. where appropriate, why a
process unit shutdown was technically
infeasible.
(6) Dates of process unit shutdowns
that occurred within the semiannual
reporting period.
(7) Revisions to items reported
according to paragraph (a) of this
section if changes have occurred since
the initial report or subsequent revisions
to the initial report.
(8) The results of all performance tests
to determine compliance with § 61.132-
6(e). 61.132-7(f), 61.132-8(a). 61.132-11(0.
61.132-14(0. 61.133-1, and 61.133-2
conducted within the semiannual
reporting period.
(9) A statement signed by the owner
or operator stating whether all
provisions of 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart L
had been fulfilled during the semiannual
reporting period.
(c) In the first report submitted as
required in § 61.137(a). the report shall
include a reporting schedule stating the
months that semiannual reports shall be
submitted. Subsequent reports shall be
submitted according to that schedule1
unless a revised schedule has been
submitted in a previous semiannual
report.
(d) An owner or operator electing to
comply with the provisions of § 61.133-1
or § 61.133-2 shall notify the
Administrator of the alternative
standard selected 90 days before
implementing either of the provisions.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act «s amended |-»^
U.SC. 7414))
m Doc. B4-1M80 tiled t-S-W: 8-J5 »i\:\
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
V-L-35
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 167 / Monday, August 27, 1984 / Proposed Rules
40CFRPart61
IAD-FRL-2660-6]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Benzene Emissions
From Coke By-Product Recovery
Plants
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Reopening of the Public
Comment Period.
SUMMARY: On June 6.1984. EPA
proposed national emission standards
for benzene emissions from coke by-
product recovery plants (49 FR 23522). In
response to requests from two trade
associations, the period for receiving
written comments on the proposed
standards is being reopened.
DATE: Comments must be postmarked
on or before October 19,1984.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131),
Attention: Docket Number A-79-16. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street. SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Mr. Gilbert Wood, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division (MD-13),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
telephone (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Agency received letters from two trade
associations requesting extensions of
the comment period. Those two trade
associations together represent over 90
percent of the potentially affected
companies. One trade association
requested an extension to complete its
review of the proposed information,
particularly in relation to emission rates
at small plants and the economic
impacts of the proposed standards. The
other trade association requested an
extension of the time to prepare their
comments because of the complexity of
the technical, economic, and health-
related issues raised by the proposed
standards. The association's
representative stated that analyzing the
technical and cost aspects of the
controls for the numerous sources
considered by EPA, fend examining
EPA's baseline assumptions and
estimates of public health impacts have
turned out to be more time consuming
than EPA may have anticipated. The
difficulty of this work is compounded by
the association's need to coordinate
among numerous companies.
The Agency believes it would benefit
from the results of these associations'
analyses and is therefore reopening the
comment period until October 19,1984.
Dated: August 21.1984.
John C. Topping, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
IFR Doc. M-22W1 Filed *-M-M; MS «m]
•tUJNQ COK M*fr4MI
V-L-36
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR
HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
INORGANIC ARSENIC
SUBPART N, O, P
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part @H
IAH-FRL 2378-2]
National Emission Standards tor
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposes
Standards for Inorganic Arson!®
AGENCV: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and
announcement of public hearing.
SUMMARY: Or. June 5,1980, EPA listed
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous air
pollutant under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act. Pursuant to Section 112, EPA is
proposing standards for the following
categories of sources of emissions of
inorganic arsenic: high-arsenic primary
copper smelters, low-arsenic primary
copper smelters, and glass
manufacturing plants. EPA identified
other categories of sources emitting
inorganic arsenic; and, after careful
study, determined that the proposal of
standards for these categories of sources
is not warranted at this time. These
categories of sources are primary lead
smelters, secondary lead smelters,
primary zinc smelters, zinc oxide plants,
cotton gins, and arsenic chemical
manufacturing plants.
DATES: See "suppiLEMEOTaRV
INFORMATION" below.
ADDRESSES: See "SUPPLEtMENTAIBV
INFORMATION" below.
FOR FURTHER IMFORR3flT«ON ©OWYagTT:
See "SUPPUEMENTAIW INFORMATION"
below.
SUPPLEMENTARY IWFOKC3ATIOC3:
Public Hearings and Related Information
Dates
Comments. Comments must be
received on or before September 30,
1983.
Public Hearing. Two public hearings
will be held. The first hearing will be
h°ld in Washington, D.C., on August 23,
24. and 25.1983, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
each day. This hearing will consist of
two separates sessions. The first session
vviii be for the purpose of receiving
comments on the listing of arsenic as a
harzadous pollutant. The second session
will be for the purpose of receiving
comments on the content of the
proposed regulations. The order of items
on the agenda of the second session will
be: (1) high-arsenic coppers smelters, (2)
low-arsinic copper smelters, (3) glass
manufacturing plants, and [4) others.
Persons planning to attend the first
hearing may call mrs. Naomi Durkee
(919) 541-5578 after August 16,1983. to
obtain an estimated time and date at
which each subject will be addressed.
The second hearing will be held in
Tacoma, Washington, on August 30,
1983. This hearing will be for the
purpose of receiving comments on the
proposed standards for high-arsenic
copper smelters. This hearing will be
held fro mm 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m. and
may be continued on August 31,1983, if
necessary to allow all persons wishing
to speak an opportunity to do so.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons
wishing to present oral testimony at the
first hearing must notify Mrs. Naomi
Durkee by August 15,1963, at telephone
number (919) 541-5578 or mailing
address: Standards Development
Branch, MD-13, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony at the second hearing must
notify Ms. Laurie Krai by August 23,
1983, at telephone number (206) 442-1089
or mailing address: Air Programs
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X, 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle. Washington. 98101.
Comments. Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Specify the following Docket Numbers:
OAQPS-79-8 Listing of arsenic as a
hazaulous pollutant
A-80-40 High-arsenic and low-arsenic
copper smelters
A-83-8 Glass manufacturing plants
A-83-9 Secondary lead
A-63-10 Cotton gins
A-83-11 Zinc oxide plants
A-83-23 Primary zinc, primary lead, arsenic
chemical manufacturing
Public Hearing. The public hearing to
be held on August 23, 24 and 25,1983,
will be held at the Department of
Agriculture, Thomas Jefferson
Auditorium, South Building, 14th and
Independence Ave., SW., Washington,
D.C.
The public hearing to be held on
August 30,1983, will be held at the
Tacoma Bicentennial Pavilion, Rotunda
Room, 1313 Market Street, Tacoma,
Washington.
Background Information Document.
Background information documents
(BID's) for the proposed standards may
be obtained from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency library (MD-35).
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone 919-541-2777. Please
specify:
EPA 450/3-83-009a Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From High-Arsenic Primary
Copper Smelters—Background
Information for Proposed Standards.
EPA 450/3-83-010a Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Low-Arsenic Primary
Copper Smelters—Background
Information for Proposed Standards.
EPA 450/3-83-Olla Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Glass Manufacturing
Plants—Background Information for
Proposed Standards.
EPA 450/5-82-005 Preliminary Study
of Sources of Inorganic Arsenic.
Dockets. Dockets containing
supporting information used in
developing the proposed standards are
available for public inspection and
copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, at EPA's
Central Docket Section, West Tower
Lobby. Gallery 1, Waterside Mall, 401 M
Street, SW.. Washington, D.C. 20460. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying. The following dockets are
available:
OAQPS-79-8 Listing of arsenic as a
hazardous pollutant
A-80-40 High-arsenic and low-arsenic
copper smelters
A-83-8 Class manufacturing plants
A-83-9 Secondary lead
A-83-10 Cotton gins
A-83-11 Zinc oxide plants
A-83-23 Primary zinc, primary lead, arsenic
chemical manufacturing
The docket A-80-40, which contains
the supporting information for the
proposed standards for high-arsenic and
low-arsenic copper smelters, will also be
available for inspection and copying at
the EPA Region X office in Seattle,
Washington. Persons wishing to view
this docket should contact Ms. Laurie
Krai at telephone number (206) 442-1089
or at mailing address: Air Programs
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X. 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle, Washington, 98101.
For Further Information
For information concerning the listing
of arsenic as a hazardous pollutant,
contact Mr. John Fink, Pollutant
Assessment Branch, MD-12, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone 919-541-5645. For information
concerning the background information
supporting the proposed standards,
contact Mr. Jim Crowder, Industrial
Studies Branch, MD-13, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone 919-541-5601. For information
concerning the proposed standards,
contact Mr. Robert L. Ajax, Standards
Development Branch, MD-13, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
27711, telephone 919-541-5578. For
information concerning the "Alternative
Regulatory Strategies" section of Part HI
of this preamble, contact Mr. Alex
Cristofaro, Air Economics Branch,
Office of Policy and Resource
Management (PM-220). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M.
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
telephone 202-382-5490.
1. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
STANDARDS
Background
In 1977, Congress amended the Clean
Air Act (the Act) to address airborne
emissions of arsenic. Section 122 of the
Act required the Administrator of EPA
to determine whether or not emissions
or arsenic into the ambient air will
cause, or contribute to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health. On June 5,1980,
EPA published a Federal Register notice
listing inorganic arsenic as a hazardous
air pollutant under Section 112 of the
Act (44 FR 37886, June 5,1980). The
listing was based upon EPA findings
that there is a high probability that
inorganic arsenic is carcinogenic to
humans and that there is sufficient
public exposure to inorganic arsenic.
Epidemiological studies provide the
primary evidence of inorganic arsenic's
carcinogenicity. The results of these
studies have led widely respected
scientific groups, such as the National
Cancer Institute^/ the National
Academy of Sciences(2/ and the
International Agency for Research on
Cancer(3), to conclude that there is
strong evidence that inorganic arsenic is
carcinogenic to humans. In 1979, EPA
submitted to the Science Advisory
Board (SAB), an advisory group of
nationally prominent scientists from
outside EPA, a report on the available
health effects information or arsenic.(4)
The SAB concluded that, "All the
available data lead to a consensus that
there is a real association between
exposure to arsenic and the
development of cancer, both lung and
skin cancer."(5y The evidence of
significant public exposure included the
identification of multiple stationary
sources of arsenic emissisons. and data
showing that large numbers of people
living near emitting sources are exposed
to ambient air concentrations of arsenic
many times the national average.(6) The
data and documents supporting the
listing are available for public
inspection and copying in the Central
Docket Section at EPA headquarters in
Washington, D.C.; the material is filed
under Docket Number OAQPS-79-8.
Pursuant to Section 112. the listing
signified that, in the judgment of the
Administratoir, inorganic arsenic is an
air pollutant which causes, or
contributes to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible, illness. The listing also
signified the Administrator's intention to
establish emissions standard for
inorganic arsenic under Section 112.
Concurrent with the decision to list
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous air
pollutant, EPA began a series of studies
of the sources of inorganic arsenic
emissions. The purpose of the earliest
studies in the series was to identify
which types of sources merited more
detailed study toward possible
regulation, and the purpose of the final
studies in the series was to develop the
detailed information needed to support
the proposal of standards. EPA is now
under court order to publish proposed
emission standards for inorganic arsenic
by July 11,1983. New York v. Gorsuch,
554, F. Supp. 1060,1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
Section 112 requires the Administrator
to prescribe an emission standard for
inorganic arsenic after proposal of a
standard unless he finds, on the basis of
information presented at the public
hearings associated with the proposal of
a standard, that inorganic arsenic
clearly is not a hazardous air pollutant.
As noted above, the information
relevant to EPA's listing inorganic
arsenic as a hazardous air pollutant is
contained in Docket Number OAQPS
79-8. The health effects assessment
information that supported the 1980
listing decision is included in the docket.
The docket also contains a draft copy of
an updated health assessment document
that EPA's Office of Health and
Environmental Assessment has just
released for public and Science
Advisory Board review (see 48 FR 27290,
June 14,1983). The reader may obtain a
single copy of the draft document from
EPA by writing to the following address:
ORD Publications—CERI-FR, U.S. EPA.
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268; or by calling the
following telephone number: (513) 684-
7562.
in today's nuiiue, EPA is proposing
standards for certain source categories
of inorganic arsenic emissions to the
ambient air and is proposing not to
regulate others. To EPA's knowledge.
these source categories comprise all the
source categories of inorganic arsenic
that could or may cause significant
risks. The public is reminded that
comments are solicited on the proposed
standards, the proposals not to regulate,
and the listing of inorganic arsenic as a
hazardous air pollutant.
Public Health Risks
The health risk basis for listing
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous air
pollutant is summarized briefly in the
Background section above. The results
of studies linking worker exposure to
inorganic arsenic with cancer, the
number of sources emitting inorganic
arsenic and the large numbers of people
living near the sources, the measured
concentrations of arsenic in the ambient
air. and the reports of excess cancer not
only among workers but among
populations living near sources (7) led to
the Administrator's judgment that
inorganic arsenic causes or contributes
to air pollution which may reasonably
be anticipated to result in an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious
irreversible, or incapacitating reversible.
illness. EPA recognized at the time of
listing that epidemiological studies hnd
not clearly proven that exposure to
inorganic arsenic at ambient levels
causes cancers. Epidemiological studies
that have successfully revealed
associations between occupational
exposure and cancer for substances
such as asbestos, benzene, vinyl
chloride, and ionizing radiation, as well
as for inorganic arsenic, are not as
easily applied to the public sector, with
its increased number of confounding
variables, much more diverse and
mobile exposed population, lack of
consolidated medical records, and
almost total absence of historical
exposure data. Given the above
characteristics, EPA considers it
improbable that any epidemiological
association, short of very large increases
in cancer can be detected among the
public with any reasonable certainty.
Furthermore, as noted by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), ".. . when
there is exposure to a material, we are
not starting at an origin of zero cancers.
Nor are we starting at an origin of zero
carcinogenic agents in our environment.
Thus, it is likely that any carcinogenic
agent added to the environment will act
by a particular mechanism on a
particular cell population that is already
being acted on by the same mechanism
tc induce Cwjr?c£/'£."''S^ !n discuss'n°
experimental dose-response curves, the
NAS observed that most information on
carcinogenesis is derived from studies
on ionizing radiation with experimental
animals and with humans, which
indicate a linear no-threshold dose-
response relationship at low doses.
They added that although some
evidence exists for thresholds in some
animal tissues, by and large, thresholds
have not been established for most
tissues. NAS concluded that establishing
V-N,0,P-3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
such lew-dose thresholds "... would
require massive, expensive, and
impractical experiments ..." and
raccgnized that the U.S. population "...
is a large, diverse, and genetically
heterogeneous group exposed to a large
variety of toxic agents." This fact,
coupled with the known genetic
variability to carcinogenesis and the
predisposition of some individuals to
some form of cancer, makes it extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to identify a
threshold.
For these reasons. EPA has taken the
position, shared by other Federal
regulatory agencies, that in the absence
of sound scientific evidence to the
contrary, carcinogens should be
considered to pose some cancer risk at
any exposure level. This no-threshold
presumption is based on the view that
as little as one molecule of a
carcinogenic substance may be
sufficient to transform a normal cell into
a cancer cell. Evidence is available from
both the human and animal health
literature that cancers may arise from a
single transformed cell. Mutation
research with ionizing radiation in cell
cultures indicates that such a
transformation can occur as the result of
interaction with as little as a single
cluster of ion pairs. In reviewing the
available data regarding
carcinogenicity, EPA found no
compelling scientific reason to abandon
the no-threshold presumption for
inorganic arsenic.
Section 112 requires that standards be
set at levels which, in the
Administrator's judgment, provide an
ample margin of safety to protect the
public health. Thus one factor EPA
considers is the nature and relative
magnitude of health hazards.
Unfortunately, agencies can never
obtain perfect data but have to make
regulatory decisions on the basis of the
best information available. So, EPA
evaluates the potential detrimental
effects to human health caused by
pollutant exposure based on the best
scientific infor-ntion currently
available. EPA has produced
quantitative expressions of public health
risks associated with exposure to
inorganic arsenic emitted from
stationary sources. The Agency
recognizes that significant uncertainties
are associated with the data and the
estimHting procedure: however, the
Agency believf-.s that these quantitative
expressions of public health risks serve
a useful purpose by providing a
measurement to;;! that facilitates
relative comparisons of important
factors, e.g.. comparison of the relative
effectiveness of two types of emission
control in reducing public health risk.
and that when used appropriately, these
quantitative expressions of risk are
useful in decision-making. In developing
the exposure-risk relationship for
inorganic.arsenic, EPA has assumed that
a linear no-threshold relationship exists
at or below the levels of exposure
reported in the epidemiological studies
of occupational exposure. This means
that any exposure to inorganic arsenic is
assumed to pose some risk of damage to
health and that the linear relationship
between cancer risks and levels of
public exposure is the same as that
between cancer risks and levels of
occupational exposure. EPA believes
that this assumption is reasonable for
public health protection in light of
presently available information.
However, it should be recognized that
the basis for using the linear no-
threshold relationship model for
inorganic arsenic is not quite as strong
as that for carcinogens, which interact
directly or in metabolic form with DNA.
Nevertheless, there'is no adequate basis
for dismissing the linear no-threshold
model for inorganic arsenic. The
quantitative risk estimate based on the
application of the linear no-threshold
model represents a plausible upper-limit
estimate in the sense that the risk is
probably not higher than the calculated
level and could be much lower.
The numerical constant that defines
that exposure-risk relationship used by
EPA in its analysis of carcinogens is
called the unit risk estimate. The unit
risk estimate for an air pollutant is
defined as the lifetime cancer risk
occurring in a hypothetical population in
which all individuals are exposed
continuously from birth throughout their
lifetimes (about 70 years) to a
concentration of 1 /ig/m3 of the agent in
the air which they breathe. Unit risk
estimates are used for two purposes: (1)
to compare the carcinogenic potency of
several agents with each other, and (2)
to give a crude indication of the public
health risk which might be associated
with estimated air exposure to these
agents. A range of unit risk estimates for
inorganic arsenic was derived from the
dose-response relationships relevant to
epidemiological studies involving
workplace exposures. The derivation
•was based on a linear no-threshold
model. The range in EPA's unit risk
estimates reflects the uncertainty of
combining the three different dose-
response relationships relevant to the
three occupational studies which EPA
used as the basis for the development of
unit risk estimates.(9) As noted in the
Background section of this notice, EPA
is updating its health effects assessment
document for inorganic arsenic and has
just released a draft document for public
and Science Advisory Board [SAB)
review (see 48 FR 27290, June 14,1983).
The draft document reflects a change in
the unit risk estimate. The SAB review
will include an examination of the
applicability of the health effects models
to the epidemiology data and the results
of this review will be received and
carefully considered by the
Administrator before final standards are
promulgated.
The unit risk estimate is only one of
the factors needed to produce
quantitative expressions of public health
risks. Another factor needed is a
numerical expression of public
exposure, i.e., of the numbers of people
exposed to the various concentrations of
inorganic arsenic. The difficulty of
defining public exposure was noted by
the national Task Force on
Environmental Cancer and Heart and
Lung Disease in their 5th Annual Report
to Congress, in 1982.(J0) They reported
that "... a large proportion of the
American population works some
distance away from their homes and
experiences different types of pollution
in their homes, on the way to and from
work, and in the workplace. Also, the
American population is quite mobile.
and many people move every few
years." They also noted the necessity
and difficulty of dealing with very-long-
term exposures because of ". . . the long
latent period required for the
development and expression of
neoplasia [cancer]. . ." To develop
quantitative expressions of public
exposure to inorganic arsenic, it was
necessary to use assumptions and a
computerized model.
The models for estimating the unit risk
for and the public exposure to inorganic
arsenic are described briefly below.
More information is available in
references (9) and (11).
Model for Estimation of Unit Risk Based
on Human Data(12]
Very little information exists that can
be utilized to extrapolate from high-
exposure occupational studies to low
environmental levels. However, if a
number of simplifying assumptions are
made, it is possible to construct a crude
dose-response model whose parameters
can be estimated using vital statistics,
epidemiologic studies, and estimates of
worker exposures. In human studies, the
response is measured in terms of the
relative risk of the exposed cohort of
individuals compared to the control
group. The mathematical model
employed assumes that for low
exposures the lifetime probability of
V-N,0,P-4
-------
/ Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
death from hung cancer (or any cancer),
P, may be represented by the linear
equation
where A is the lifetime probability of
cancer in the absence of the agent, and
x is the average lifetime exposure to
environmental levels in some units, say
micrograms per cubic meter of air
breathed. The factor, BH, is the
increased probability of cancer
associated with each unit increase of the
agent in air.
If we make the assumption that R, the
relative risk of lung cancer for exposed
workers, compared to the general
population, is independent of the length
or age of exposure but depends only
upon the average lifetime exposure, it
follows that
p
Po
A + BHlXo+Xi)
01
where Xo=lifetime average daily
exposure to the agent for the general
population, Xi = lifetime average daily
exposure to the agent in the
occupational setting, and Po=lifetime
probability of respiratory cancer
applicable to the general population.
Substituting PO=A+BHXO and
rearranging gives
BH=P.(R-I)/»,
To use this model, estimates of R and Xi
must be obtained from the epidemiologic
studies. The value P0 is derived from the
age-cause-specific death rates for
combined males found in 1976 U.S. Vital
Statistics tables using the life table
methodology. For lung cancer the
estimate of P0 is 0.036.(73)
The Exposure Model(ll)
The basic assumption used in the
exposure model is that exposed
individuals reside at a single location for
a 70-year period and are exposed at that
location to a constant source of
inorganic arsenic emissions. Updated
1970 census data were used to locate
people with respect to the emitting
sources, and the exposed population
consisted of all the people estimated to
be living within a radial distance of 20
kilometers from the sources. Twenty
kilometers was selected because up to
this distance the dispersion model used
to estimate ambient air concentrations
is reasonably accurate. Through several
otudies and other data-gathering efforts,
EPA, insofar as it was reasonably
possible to do so, located sources by
latitude and longitude, estimated both
stack and fugitive emissions, and
developed the plant factors needed to
estimate long-term ambient air
concentrations up to a radial distance of
20 kilometers by use of a dispersion
model. By combining people and
concentrations, the exposure model
produced estimates of exposure at
selected radial distances from each
identified source and summed the
exposure estimates for each category of
sources. As used in this notice, the term
"exposure" means the product of the
estimated ambient air concentration of
inorganic arsenic and the estimated
number of people exposed to that
concentration. The units of exposure are
people—jAg/ms.
Quantitative Estimates of Public Health
Risks
By combining the estimates of public
exposure with the unit risk, two types of
quantitative estimates are produced.
The first, called maximum lifetime risk,
relates to' the individual or individuals
estimated to live in the area of highest
concentration as estimated by the
dispersion model. As used here, the
word "maximum" does not mean the
greatest possible risk of cancer to the
public. It is only the maximum estimated
by the procedure used, and the
procedure represents long-term average
rather than worst-case situations. The
second type of risk estimate, called
aggregate risk, is a summation of all the
risks to people living within 20
kilometers of a source and is
customarily summed for all the sources
in a particular category. The aggregate
risk is expressed as incidences of cancer
among all of the exposed population
after 70 years of exposure; for statistical
convenience, it is often divided by 70
and expressed as cancer incidences per
year. Cancer incidences per year does
not connote an event that will occur
each year from now until something is
done to alter the "exposure" on which
the statistic is based. In reality, there is
a long latent period between initiation
of exposure and the onset of cancer.
There also are risks of nonfatai cancer
and serious genetic effects, depending
on which organs receive the exposure.
The risks of nonfatai cancer and of
•genetic effects are not estimated;
however, EPA considers all of these
risks when it makes regulatory decisions
on limiting emissions of inorganic
arsenic.
EPA must make numerous
assumptions when producing
quantitative estimates of public health
risks. Factors such as elevated terrain
around oourceo, nsentrainmant of duct
containing inorganic arsenic, and the
additive impact of emissions from
sources near to one another are site
specific. Individual characteristics such
as age, physiology, physical activity
level, amount of time spent indoors, and
the effects of exposures to other
substances influence the rate and
amount of inorganic arsenic affecting
the individual. Such factors could
strongly influence the actual risks to any
given individual, but are not usually
treated in the analysis.
Today's proposed standards are set
"at the level which in [the
Administrator's] judgment provides an
ample margin of safety to protect the
public health" from inorganic arsenic
emissions, as required by Section
As discussed in a previous section,
inorganic arsenic, like most carcinogens.
seems to present finite risks at any level
of exposure, risks that increase as the
level of exposure increases. Were this
not the case — were there exposure
levels below which there is no risk of
cancer — the standards could be set so
as to prevent those exposure levels. This
cannot be done for inorganic arsenic
unless the standards prevented any
exposure, which would in turn require
preventing any emissions. It does not
appear that Congress intended Section
112 standards to cause widespread
shutdown of arsenic emitting industries.
and the other industries emitting
nonthreshold pollutants (such as the
carcinogens asbestos, vinly chloride,
benzene and radionuclides). Therefore.
as an alternative to widespread
shutdown of industries, EPA must
establish emission standards for
inorganic arsenic at levels that may
present some human health risk. Some
argue that an increase in cancer risk not
exceeding one in one thousand due to a
specific cause is acceptable, whereas
others argue that an increase in risk of
one in one million is unacceptable.
Regardless, the use of these numbers is
accompanied by great scientific
uncei'iuiniy. For example, scientific
uncertainties not resolved to date.
include the establishment of toxicity to
humans based on extrapolation, using
uncertain mathematical models from
high-dose animal tests or occupational
exposure to low-dose public exposure at
ambient air concentrations, and
identification of the appropriate level of
emission controls for pollutants for
which health effects thersholds have not
been demonstrated.
There also is uncertainty with
exposure estimates because of difficulty
V-N.O.P-5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
in obtaining precise date on emission
rates, atmospheric dispersion patterns
and population concentrations around
individual sources, and because of the
lack of information on short-term and
long-term movement (migration) of
people and indoor versus outdoor toxic
air pollutant concentration patterns.
Further, ambient monitoring data are
limited and both very costly and time
consuming to obtain for use in exposure
assessment. There also are uncertainties
concerning possible additive effects of
multiple sources or pollutants,
synargistic or antagonistic health
effects, and heightened susceptibilities
to some cancers by some population
groups. These factors make-it difficult, if
not impossible, to determine the
absolute magnitude of the risk to human
health based on the available data or to
establish any epidemiological
association between cancer and public
exposure to ambient concentrations of a
specific substance.
Another issue that has been
encountered in using risk estimates is
whether protection should focus on the
risk to the most exposed individuals or
to the exposed population as a whole
(aggregate risk). Even when the many
uncertainties in risk estimates are
considered, resulted to date indicate
that the total cancer incidence
(expressed as cases per year) associated
with exposure to inorganic arsenic, even
on a nationwide basis, is likely to be
small compared to the incidence
associated with factors such as smoking
and diet. However, individual risks for a
limited number of people living close to
uncontrolled or partially controlled
emission sources may be relatively high.
Neither the language nor the
legislative history of Section 112 reveals
any specific Congressional intent on
how to deal with these issues and how
to apply the phrase "provides an ample
margin of safety to protect the public
health," to nonthreshold pollutants like
inorganic arsenic that present cancer
risks at any level of exposure.
In view of this, it is EPA's judgment
that the best interpretation of Section
It2 as applied to a nonthreshold
pollutant is as follows. All source
categories of the pollutant that are
esiimatpd to result in significant risks
should be evaluated. Each such source
category should be controlled at least to
the level that reflects best available
technology (BAT), and to a more
stringent level if, in the judgment of the
Administrator, it is necessary to prevent
unreasonable risks. If a source category
is not already controlled at this level,
EPA will set the Section 112 standard at
this level. If a category is already
controlled (for example, by other EPA
standards, other Federal, State, or local
requirements, or standard industry
practice) to this level, and EPA expects
that the level of control will continue to
be required for these and new sources
(EPA will continue to monitor this), a
Section 112 standard will be redundant
and need not be established. By BAT,
EPA means the best controls available,
considering economic, energy, and
environmental impacts. The level of
control that represents BAT may be
different for new and existing sources
within a source category because of
higher costs associated with retrofitting
controls on existing sources, or
differences in control technology for
new vs. existing sources. Whether a
source category is estimated to cause a
significant risk will be decided in light of
the estimated risks to individuals, and
the estimated cumulative risks to
populations affected by that source
category. Whether the estimated risks
remaining after application of BAT are
unreasonable will be decided in light of
a judgmental evaluation of the estimated
maximum lifetime risk and cancer
incidences per year remaining after
application of BAT, the impacts,
including economic impacts, of further
reducing those risks, the readily
available benefits of the substance or
activity producing the risk, and the
availability .of substitutes and possible
health effects resulting from their use. In
all cases where estimated risks are
used, the significant uncertainties
associated with those numbers will be
weighed carefully in reaching the final
decision.
In EPA's judgment, standards based
on the interpretation of Section 112 just
described provide an ample margin of
safety to protect the public health. EPA
solicits comments on this interpretation
of Section 112.
This approach is believed to provide a
rational, consistent and nationally
appropriate mechanism for dealing with
nonthreshold pollutants in the face of
the many scientific uncertainties. The
main issues have been dealt with in this
proposal in the following ways:
1. Source categories are identified on
the basis of estimates of their potential
to result in significant risk because risk
to public health is the dominant theme
of Section 112. A significant risk is
considered to be associated with a
source category when the weight of the
health evidence indicates a strong
likelihood that the substance emitted by
the source category is a human
carcinogen and either individuals or
larger population groups are
significantly exposed to the substance
as emitted from the source category. A
numerical target level of significance is
not used I>PCMUSB of the uncertainties
discussed above.
2. All source categories that are
estimated to result in significant risks
are evaluated and the current level of
control ascertained. That control may
result voluntarily or from State, local or
other Federal regulations. Whether the
level of control meets the definition of
BAT (considering cost and other
impacts) then is determined. The BAT
determination in this case can take into
account such factors as the potential for
improved control, the economic impacts
of improved control on the source
category, and the age and remaining
useful life of the facilities.
3. The use of risk estimates generally
has been confined to areas of broad
comparisons, e.g., in selecting source
categories to evaluate, and in assessing
the incremental change in risk that
results from application of various
control options. The use of risk
estimates in an absolute sense is
avoided because of the many
uncertainties of the estimates. These
uncertainties are compounded as the
focus is narrowed. In other words, in
evaluating specific sources, as opposed
to source categories, the uncertainties
associated with the risk estimates
increase dramaticaly.
4. Cost effectiveness is one of the
major criteria used in selecting BAT.
However, the use of cost effectiveness
in the BAT selection may result in some
apparent disparities in risk improvement
at some sources. However, risk
estimates are highly uncertain while
technology and cost are generally well
understood and provide an objective
means of determining reasonableness of
control.
Other alternative treatments of these
issues were considered. A discussion of
these alternative treatments as applied
to the low-arsenic-throughput copper
smelter source category is presented in
the section entitled "Alternative
Regulatory Strategies" in Part III of this
preamble.
Source Categories for Which Standards
are Not Proposed
EPA has identified several inorganic
arsenic source categories for which
standards are not being proposed. The
emissions from some of these source
categories (primary lead smelters,
primary zinc smelters, zinc oxide plants)
are comprised of inorganic arsenic that
occurs naturally in the environment but
is released to the air through industrial
processes. In addition to these source
categories. EPA is not proposing
V-N,0,P-6
-------
Fsdaral Esgiatag / Vol. •68. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
standards for arsenic chemical plants,
secondary lead smelters, and cotton gins
that process cotton desiccated with
orthoarsenic acid. The reasons for these
decisions are discussed in the following
paragraphs. Additional supporting
information may be found in the dockets
for the source categories and in the
document entitled "Preliminary Study of
Sources of Inorganic Arsenic."
Estimates of risk used in this analysis
were developed using the methods and
assumptions discussed in this notice and
in the Appendix E of each background
information document (BID). It is
important to recognize that the actual
risk to specific individuals may differ
greatly from the estimates because (1)
there is no solid scientific basis for any
mathematical extrapolation model that
numerically relates inorganic arsenic
exposure to cancer risks at the low
concentrations in the environment, and
the actual dose-response relationship
may differ greatly from that used in this
analysis; and (2) the actual exposures of
individual to inorganic arsenic over their
lifetimes are not known and may differ
greatly from the assumptions used to
make the estimates in this analysis.
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary lead smelters produce
metallic lead from lead ore
concentrates. There are five primary
lead smelters in the United States. In
1979, these smelters produced 578,000
Mg of lead, which accounted for 41
percent of the total domestic demand for
lead that year.
Inorganic arsenic is a contaminant in
lead-bearing ores. The arsenic content
can range from 0.02 to 0.4 percent by
weight. Fugitive emissions occur from
lead ore handling and storage, and are
controlled by ventilated enclosure
systems and wet suppression methods.
Ore transfer points are generally hooded
and vented to fabric filter or venturi
scrubber systems. Process emissions
containing arsenic trioxide occur from
sinter plants, blast furnaces, dross
reverberatory funaces, zinc fuming
furnaces, and reverberatory softening
furnaces. These sources are currently
controlled by State implementation
plans (SIPs) for SO? and particulate
matter through the use of low-
temperature fabric filters or contact
sulfuric acid plants. Total nationwide
inorganic arsenic emissions from
primary lead smelters.are about 43 Mg/
year. Aggregate risks are estimated as
ranging from 0.008 to 0.088 lung cancer
incidences annually, and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk calculated ranges
from 0.07 in 10,000 to 1.1 in 10,000.
All primary lead smelters are covered
by SIPs for SO* and particulate matter,
and by Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OHSA) lead and
inorganic arsenic standards. As a result,
low-temperature fabric filter systems or
contact sulfuric acid plants are reducing
emissions from process vents, and
fugitive emissions are controlled by
enclosing ore storage areas, ventilating
and/or enclosing material transfer
points, ventilating and/or enclosing
furnace operations, and treating all of
the ventilation gas streams with fabric
filter systems. In addition, lead SIPs that
have been submitted by the States but
not yet approved by EPA would also
cover all primary lead smelters.
EPA considers these controls to
represent the best available technology
(BAT). EPA knows of no demonstrated
control techniques, short of closure, that
would result in further inorganic arsenic
emissions reduction.
EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for these sources because, in
response to existing regulatory
requirements, these sources already are
required to control emissions by using
technology that represnts BAT; and the
Agency does not believe that requiring
plant closure is a reasonable control
alternative in this case, finding that risks
remaining after BAT are not
unreasonable in light of the impacts of
further reducing them.
Primary Zinc Smelters
Primary zinc smelters produce
metallic zinc from zinc ore concentrates.
There are five primary zinc smelters in
the United States. These smelters
produced 407,000 Mg of zinc in 1978,
which accounted for about 49 percent of
total domestic demand for zinc in that
year.
Inorganic arsenic is a contaminant in
zinc-bearing ores. The arsenic content
can range from about 0.001 to 0.1 percent
by weight. Zinc is smelted by two kinds
of processes: electrothermal and
electrolytic. Electrothermal process
emissions arise from roasting, sintering,
and reducing operations. Arsenic
emissions from roasting are controlled
as a result of routing process gases to a
contract sulfric acid plant for SOi
removal. Arsenic emissions from
sintering and reducing are controlled by
low-temperature baghouses. Fugitive
emissions from handling are contained
and collected by low-temperature fabric
filters.
The only potential source of
significant arsenic emissions from
electrolytic zinc smelting is the roasting
operation. As in electrothermal smelting,
these emissions are also routed to a
contact sulfuric acid plant.
Primary zinc smelters are affected by
new source performance standards
(NSPS) for SOz and particulate matter,
SIP's for SO] and particulate matter, and
OSHA inorganic arsenic workplace
standards. Current nationwide inorganic
emissions from this source category are
about 0.3 Mg/year. The aggregate risks
are estimated to range from 0.0005 to
0.008 lung cancer incidences annually,
and the estimated maximum lifetime
risk calculated ranges from 0.01 in 10,000
to 0.22 in 10,000.
The controls currently in place at
primary zinc smelters to comply with
existing regulations provide good
control of arsenic emissions and are
considered BAT. No technology has
been demonstrated that can reduce
emissions further. Additional reductions
can be gained only by smelter closure.
EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for these sources because, in
response to existing regulatory
requirements, these sources are
controlling emissions by using BAT; and
the Agency does not believe that
requiring plant closure is a reasonable
control alternative in this case, finding
that risks remaining after BAT are not
unreasonable in light of the impacts of
further reducing them.
Zinc Oxide Plants
There are 17 zinc oxide production
facilities in the United States. Some of
these facilities merely grind zinc oxide
to specific product standards. The
remainder produce zinc oxide directly
from either zinc ore concentrates
(termed the American process) or
purified zinc metal (termed the French
process). Arsenic emissions from zinc
oxide production originate from the
arsenic contained in the zinc feed.
Because of the purity of the zinc feed
used in the French process, arsenic
emissions from this process are assumed
to be small. The American process has
the potential for producing arsenic
emissions because of the arsenic
contained in the zinc ore concentrates.
There are only two domestic zinc oxide
plants that use zinc ore concentrates as
feed material: an ASARCO plant in
Culurnbus, Ohio and a NEW Jersey Zinc
plant in Palmerton, Pennsylvania.
The ASARCO-Coiumbus plant
processes a zinc sulfide ore concentrate,
and the operation consists of roasting in
a fluid bed roaster followed by
processing in a densifying kiln and a
Wetherill zinc oxide furnace. A contacl
sulfuric acid plant is used to treat the
roaster offgas. and low-temperature
baghouse units are used to treat the
other offgas streams. The acid plant and
low-temperature baghouse units provide
good control of arsenic emissions by
V-N,0,P-7
-------
/ Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1883 / Proposed Rules
condensing of the vapor-phase arsenic
and capturing it as participate arsenic.
The New Jersey Zinc-Palmerton plant
processes a low-sulfur zinc ore
concentrate, and the major steps include
Waelz kiln operations, sintering, and
horizontal grate furnace operations.
Because there is little SO2 in the offgas
from the kiln opertaion due to the low-
sulfur feed, New Jersey Zinc does not
employ an acid plan! for SO« removal.
Paniculate removal is achieved using
baghouse units on each of the process
offgas streams and process fugitive
streams. Because of the relatively small
amount of arsenic present in these
streams, further cooling of the gas
streams would not result in additional
arsenic collection.
The process emission points at these
two zinc plants are subject to SIPs for
SOj or particulate matter. In addition,
zinc oxide plants are subject to the
OSHA workplace standard for inorganic
arsenic. Current inorganic arsenic
emissions from these two plants are
about 5.2 Mg/year. Aggregate risks are
estimated as ranging form 0.0015 to 0.024
lung cancer incidences annually, and the
estimated maximum lifetime risk
i:alculHted ranges from 1.7 in 10.000 to 28
in 10,000.
The federally enforceable controls
currently in place at the two American
process zinc oxide plants to comply with
existing regulations provide good
control of arsenic emissions. No
technology has been demonstrated that
can reduce emissions further. Additional
reductions can only be gained by plant
closure. Consequently, the existing
controls are considered to be BAT. ,
EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for these sources because, in
response to existing regulatory
requirements, these sources are
controlling emissions by using BAT; and
the Agency does not believe that
requiring plant closure is a reasonable
control alternative in this case, finding
that risks remaining after BAT are not
unreasonable in light of the impacts of
further reducing them.
Arsenic Chemical Manufacturing Plants
The manufacture of chemicals
containing arsenic consumes about SO
percent of the total arsenic used in the
United States. Eight plants handle dry
powdered arsenic trioxide and have the
potential to be significant inorganic
arsenic emission sources.
The inorgnic arsenic emissions are in
the form of particulates. All eight plants
are covered by SIP's for particulate
matter and OSHA regulations for
inorganic arsenic. Each plant has a
particulate capture and collection
system in place that meets all applicable
regulations. As a result, total current
nationwide inorganic arsenic emissions
are estimated to be about 0.04 Mg/year.
The aggregate risks are estimated to
range from 0.0008 to 0.012 incidences of
lung cancer annually, and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk calculated ranges
from 0.4 in 10,000 to 6.4 in 10.000.
Of the eight plants with the potential
to emit arsenic trioxide dust, three use
fabric filters, four use wet scrubbers and
one uses a fabric filter followed by a
wet scrubber. The collected particulate
matter is returned to the process. Fabric
filters reduce arsenic trioxide
paniculate emission by about 99.5
percent, and while no test data are
available on the arsenic removal
efficiency of the wet scrubbers, it is
believed, based on the emission rates,
that it is comparable to the fabric filters.
These plants are currently well-
controlled under federally enforceable
OSHA regulations for inorganic arsenic
and SIPs for particulate matter, with
arsenic removal efficiencies of greater
than 99 percent. There are no
demonstrated control techniques, short
of closure, that would result in further
emissons reduction.
EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for these sources because, in
response to existing regulatory
requirements and due to the economic
benefits of collecting and reusing
arsenic trioxide, these sources are
controlling emissions by using BAT; and
the Agency does not believe that
requiring plant closure is a reasonable
control alternative in this case, finding
that risks remaining after BAT are not
unreasonable in light of the impacts of
further reducing them.
Cotton Gins
There are about 320 cotton gins that
handle and gin cotton that has been
desiccated with orthoarsenic (arsenic)
acid. Most of these gins are small
businesses. Ginning is a seasonal
operation, lasting only 3 to 4 months in
late summer or fall.
Arsenic acid is applied to the cotton
plants as a desiccant. The amount of
desiccant applied varies from season to
season and is affected by such factors
as the condition of the cotton plants and
the weather. A desiccant is applied to
the cotton prior to mechanical-stripper
harvesting to dry out green plant leaves
in order to prevent fiber staining and
unacceptable levels of fiber moisture
content. Cotton desiccation is necessary
to allow timely harvesting and preserve
the quality of the cotton. Under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, EPA limits the
application rate of arsenic acid to 3
pints per acre.
Most of the arsenic emissions from
cotton gins is associated with gin trash.
i.e.. leaves, burrs, sticks, and hulls. The
data base for estimating arsenic
emissions is very limited, and the
emissions estimates are very uncertain.
Furthermore, it is not known what
percent of the total arsenic emissions is
inorganic arsenic. Total arsenic is
believed to be emitted in about equal
quantities as process and fugitive
emissions. Process arsenic emissions
occur primarily from the gin high-
pressure section, which emits gin trash
and large soil particles, and also from
the low pressure section, which emits
lint fly and cotton dust. Nationwide
arsenic emissions are estimated to be
about 0.8 Mg/year from the high-
pressure section, and it is estimated that
negligible quantities (0.005 Mg/yr) are
emitted from the low-pressure section.
Fugitive particulate emissions,
potentially containing inorganic arser ic,
are also emitted from cotton gins. These
fugitive emissions come from building
and piping leaks, equipment leaks, burr
hopper dumping, and wind blowing of
open burr piles, and may be in the form i
of fine-leaf trash, burr material, lint fly,
or cotton dust. It has been estimated
that about 50 percent of the total
particulate emissions resulting from a
gin are from fugitive sources and that
fugitive arsenic emissions would
account for about 0.8 Mg/year
nationwide.
Nationwide total arsenic emissions
(organic and inorganic) from cotton gins
are estimated to be about 1.6 Mg/year.
The estimated maximum lifetime risk
calculated, under the current level of
control, ranges from 0.17 in 10,000 to 2.8
in 10,000. "Model" plants located in
"model" cites were used to produce
these estimates. Estimates of the
aggregate risk to all those living within
20 kilometers of all the gins are not
available because the locations of the
gins are not available.
Cyclones are predominantly used to
control gin high-pressure-section
emissions. A high-efficiency cyclone can
achieve greater than 99 percent removal
of particles larger than 20 to 30
micrometers. Low-pressure-section
emissions are typically controlled by
coverings over condenser drums or by
in-line filters. The use of a "long-cone"
cyclone can reduce emissions further
from both the high-pressure and low-
pressure sections. Although very limited
data are available, it is estimated that
the iong-cone cyclone can be used as a
secondary control device for the high-
pressure section to remove about 50
percent of the particulate matter that is
less than 20 micrometers, and as a
V-N,0,P-8
-------
Fsdsral Register / Voi. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
primary control device for the low-
pressure section to remove about 94
percent of the paniculate matter that is
less than 20 micrometers. Though
inorganic arsenic reduction efficiency
data are not available, it is reasonable
to assume that arsenic in participate
form would be controlled with the same
reduction efficiencies. As a result.
nationwide arsenic emissions from the
high-pressure section would be reduced
by about 0.4 Mg/year and those from the
low-pressure section by about 0.0047
Mg/year.
Based on control of only the high-
pressure section, the total capital cost of
installing a long-cone cyclone ranges
from $23.000 for a small gin to $81.000
for a large gin. and total annualized
costs would range from about $5,000 to
$20.000. The cost per Mg of total arsenic
reduced would range from about $3.8
million to $9.4 million per Mg.
Nationwide capital and annualized
costs are estimated to be $10.8 million
and $2.4 million, respectively. The
estimated maximum lifetime risk would
be reduced by about 11 percent, to a
range of 0.15 in 10,000 to 2.5 in 10,000.
Several control techniques are
available for controlling fugitive
emissions, but the operational
differences among cotton gins inhibit an
across-the-board technique. Although
each technique has been used with
varying degrees of success by a portion
of the industry, most of the cotton gins
either have not employed any of these
techniques or have applied them
improperly. Cotton gins are typically
small operation, and it has not been
demonstrated that most gin operators
are capable of applying fugitive
emission control techniques on a
continuous basis. In addition, none of
.these techniques has ever been
evaluated with regard to emissions
reduction efficiency or cost of control.
Consequently, little is known about the
impacts of applying techniques to
reduce fugitive emissions.
Although the estimated costs of long-
cone cyclones (capita) cost of $20,000 to
$80,000 and annualized costs of $5,000 to
$20.000) may not appear unreasonable
for most industries, a preliminary
economic analysis reveals that the
cotton gin industry would be severely
affected by such costs. Cotton gins
typically operate less than one-third of
the year. The profitability of the cotton
gin industry varies considerably from
year to year, so that in some years the
gins may operate profitably, while in
other years they do not. It appears that
the cost of long-cone cyclones would put
many gins in a position whereby they
would not be able to continue operation.
The cost of this control would reduce
cash flow at a typical size gin operating
at a 100 percent utilization rate by 31
percent. For a gin operating at 70
percent utilization rate, the cash flow
would be reduced by 98 percent.
Considering these economic impacts,
EPA judges that the existing level of
control for process emissions is BAT. In
addition, because available information
does not allow determination of the
effectiveness of possible fugitive
emission control techniques, and
because such techniques have not been
demonstrated to be amenable to all but
operational variabilities of cotton gins,
EPA has determined that the existing
level of fugitive emission control is BAT.
In conclusion, EPA is not proposing
standards under Section 112 for cotton
gins because the existing level of control
is considered to be BAT and the Agency
cannot, from the data available,
reasonably conclude" that the risks
remaining after BAT are unreasonable,
in light of the impacts of requiring
controls more stringent than BAT.
There are statutes other than the
Clean Air Act that give the Agency the
authority and the mechanism to reduce
the inorganic arsenic emissions from
cotton gins. For instance, under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA has the
authority to further restrict or cancel the
use of arsenic acid as a cotton plant
desiccant. Such an action could reduce
or eliminate the arsenic portion of the
particulate matter emissions created
during the ginning process. In addition
to presently limiting the application rate
of arsenic acid to 3 pints per acre of
cotton plants, the Agency also is
conducting an intensive risk-benefit
analysis regarding the use of arsenic
acid at this rate of application. The
analysis is expected to lead to a
decision by the Administrator to not
change, further restrict, or cancel the use
of this desiccant (see 43 FR 428S7). The
background information developed for
this notice (such as the public exposure
estimates] and other data, such as the
ambient arsenic data now being
collected near cotton gins in Texas, wiii
be factored in the Administration's
proposed decision regarding the future
use of the desiccant under FIFRA
(scheduled for 1984). Substitutes are
being considered; but based on the
analysis to date, it appears that there
are no chemicals or new desiccation
techniques that are nearly as cost-
effective as arsenic acid in preparing the
short season cotton for mechanical-
stripper harvesting. Paraquat is the only
other desiccant registered for use on
cotton fields, but it is not as effective a
desiccant as arsenic acid.
EPA also has authority under Subtitle
C—Hazardous Waste Management—of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) to require special
handling, storage and treatment of any
hazardous waste material that is
generated from cotton ginning. Since the
gin wastes contain arsenic, the wastes
may be identified as hazardous wastes
under the Hazardous Waste
Management regulations (see 40 CFR
261). If gin wastes are classified as
hazardous and the gin generates and
stores enough of the wastes on site, then
the storage, transportation, and disposal
of the wastes must meet the standards
established irjider RCRA, e.g., the piles
of gin wastes must be designed and
operated to control dispersal of the
waste by the wind (see 40 CFR 264.250).
However, based on very limited data in
the technical literature, it appears that
the wastes would not be classified as
hazardous and would not be subject to
the hazardous waste regulations.
As seen from the other inorganic
arsenic source category discussions, the
OSHA workplace standards often
indirectly provide for reduction of
inorganic arsenic emissions to the
atmosphere. However, in the case of
cotton gins, OSHA's current inorganic
arsenic workplace standard does not
apply to agricultural facilities such as
cotton gins (see 29 CFR 1910.1018(a)).
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary lead is produced by
smelting lead-bearing scrap, arid
accounts for about half of the lead
produced in the United States. In 1980,
about 60 secondary lead smelters owned
by 26 companies produced 676,000 Mg of
lead. Though the exact number of
smelters currently operating is difficult
to determine due to the relatively rapid
rate at which smelters are closing, it is
estimated that 40 smelters are currently
operating.
The normal sequence of operations of
a secondary lead smelter is scrap
receiving, charge preparation, furnace
smelting, and refining and alloying.
Prepared lead scrap (primarily used
batteries) is combined with other
furnace feed materials and charged to a
reverberatory or blast furnace. The
molten lead product is tapped into a
holding and refining pot. Arsenic
emissions occur during these operations
because arsenic is present in many of
the furnace feed materials and in all of
the furnace products. The lead-bearing
feed materials to reverberatory furnaces
typically consist of crushed battery
scrap that contains about 0.03 to 0.07
V-N.O.P-9
-------
Fsdsral Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
percent arsenic by weight. The lead-
bearing feed materials to blast furnaces
typically consist of crushed battery
scrap and/or reverberatory furnace slag
that contains as much as 2 percent
arsenic by weight. Smelting furnace
products can contain from 0.001 to 3
percent arsenic by weight. A large
proportion of the arsenic fed to
reverberatory furnaces reports to the
reverberatory furnace slag, while a large
proportion of the arsenic fed to blast
furnaces reports to the hard lead
product. During the smelting operations,
the arsenic-containing raw materials are
subjected to high furnace temperatures,
which can vaporize the arsenic in the
form of arsenic trioxide. Uncontrolled
arsenic emissions can vary widely and
are affected by such factors as the
amount of arsenic in the feed material,
the operating conditions of the furnace,
the amount of chlorides in the feed
material, and the slag composition.
The sources of arsenic emissions from
secondary lead smelters can be divided
into three broad classes. These are
process emissions, process fugitive
emissions, and area fugitive emissions.
Process emissions occur from the main
furnace vents and consist of metal and
metal oxide fumes entrained in the
furnace combustion products. The
furnace offgas streams are directed to
one or more control devices prior to
atmospheric discharge. Process fugitive
emissions occur intermittently during
furnace charging, slag tapping, lead
tapping, and refining. They are collected
by hoods and directed to a control
device prior to atmospheric discharge.
The area fugitive sources can include
the battery storage area, the battery
breaking yard, the charge make-up area,
the slag storage area, smelter access
roads, and furnace building fugitives. A
study at one smelter showed that the
largest area fugitive contributors to lead
emissions were the charge make-up area
(32 percent), the battery breaking yard
(21 percent), and the slag storage area
(19 percent). Of the area fugitive
sources, the charge make-up area and
the slag storage area are expected to be
significant sources of arsenic emissions.
The prime contributor to fugitive
emissions in the battery breaking yard is
the lead oxide battery paste which does
" not contain arsenic. Flue dust handling
in the charge make-up area is of
particular concern because of the
relatively high arsenic content and small
particle size of the flue dust at
secondary lead smelters. However, this
source is well controlled at most
smelters.
As a result of complying with the
applicable SIP's and NSPS for
particulate emissions, secondary lead
smelters have applied fabric filters to
control particulate emissions from
smelting furnaces. The average of the
operating temperature data available for
fabric filters used on secondary lead
smelting furnaces is 80° C (176° F). Fabric
filters provide good control of arsenic in
particulate form; and because the fabric
filters used at most secondary lead
smelters are operated at relatively low
temperatures, it is believed that some of
the vapor-phase arsenic is condensed
and captured as well. Several plants
have installed a scrubber after the fabric
filter to comply with State and/or local
SOi emission regulations. It is estimated
that arsenic emissions from a scrubber/
fabric filter combination may be about
60 percent less than arsenic emissions
from a fabric filter alone. (As described
later, this estimate is based on very
limited data and is uncertain.)
The OSHA workplace standard for
lead has resulted in good control of
process fugitive sources at secondary
lead smelters. Furnace charging, slag
tapping, and lead tapping are controlled
at most smelters by a combination of
hoods and enclosures coupled with low-
temperature (<37°C) fabric filters.
The OSHA lead standard also directly
affects the control of some of the area
fugitive sources, in particualr the flue
dust handling practices in the charge
make-up area. A recent telephone
survey and visits fo five secondary lead
smelters showed that the majority of
smelters have improved their fuel dust
handling practices in an attempt to meet
the OSHA lead standard. Thus, as
mentioned earlier, the area fugitive
source with the highest potential for
arsenic emissions, flue dust handling, is
well controlled at the majority of
smelters.The most prevalent control
technique used is direct recycle of flue
dust to the furnace via screw conveyors.
A survey of the lead SIP's that are
currently being developed to achieve
compliance with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead
indicated that additional area fugitive
emission controls will be required for at
least nine secondary lead smelters that
have caused lead NAAQS exceedences.
There very little actual arsenic
emissions data available for secondary
lead smelters. However, particulate and
lead emissions from furnaces at
secondary lead smelters have been well
characterized, and several studies of
combustion sources have shown that
lead and arsenic behave in a similar
manner when exposed to high
temperatures. Because of the parallels,
arsenic emissions have been estimated
from measured process and fugitive lead
emissions at a secondary lead smelter in
conjunction with lead-to-arsenic ratios
measured in dustfall near secondary
lead smelters. The available flue dust
arsenic content data from different
smelters range from 0.04 to 1.1 percent
by weight arsenic, indicating the
potential for a wide range of arsenic
emissions from plants in the source
category. In the following discussion,
arsenic emission ranges are shown for
individual plants. The ranges shown for
individual plants reflect the variability
in lead-to-arsenic ratios observed at
different smelters. The estimated
nationwide emissions and the estimated
annual cancer incidence, however, are
based on the mid-point of the estimated
emission ranges in order to reflect the
industry as a whole. Since most of the
flue dust arsenic content data available
are clustered at the low end of the range
of data, use of the midpoint is a
conservative approach. The estimated
maximum lifetime risk is based upon the
maximum emissions estimated for
individual plants because this risk
parameter reflects the worst case
ambient concentration situation.
The estimated baseline nationwide
arsenic emissions from process sources
at secondary lead smelters is 15.0 Mg/
yr. Estimated individual plant arsenic
emissions from process sources
controlled by fabric filters range from
0.016 to 0.33 Mg/yr for a small plant and
from 0.085 to 1.3 Mg/yr for a large plant,
depending on the lead content and the
lead-to-arsenic ration of the particulate
emissions. Based on these emissions
estimates, the aggregate risks associated
with process sources at secondary lead
smelters are estimated as ranging from
0.08 to 1.3 cancer incidences per year,
and the estimated maximum lifetime
risk calculated ranges from 0.3 in 10,000
to 5 in 10,000.
The estimated baseline nationwide
arsenic emissions from process fugitive
sources at secondary lead smelters is
12.3 Mg/yr. Estimated individual plant
arsenic emissions from process fugitive
sources controlled by fabric filters range
from 0.012 to 0.24 Mg/yr for a small
plant and from 0.048 to O.S8 for a large
plant, depending on the lead content
and the lead-to-arsenic ratio of the
particulate emissions. Based on these
emissions estimates, aggregate risks
associated with process fugitive sources
at secondary lead smelters are estimate
to range from 0.07 to 1.3 lung cancer
incidences annually, and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk calculated ranges
from 0.4 in 10,000 to 6.5 in 10,000.
The estimated baseline nationwide
arsenic emissions from area fugitive
sources at secondary lead smelters is
V-N,0,P-10
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
27.9 Mg/yr. This estimate was obtained
by applying a fixed lead-to-arsenic ratio
to e;ich component of a set of measured
area fugitive lead emissions data from
one secondary lead plant. However, it is
expected that the lead-to-arsenic ratio is
not the same for each of the component
area fugitive sources and that the
estimate is likely to overstate the
magnitude of area fugitive arsenic
emissions from secondary iead smelters.
Estimated individual plant arsenic
emissions from area fugitive sources
range from 0.028 to 0.56 Mg/yr for a
small plant and from 0.11 to 2.2 Mg/yr
for a large plant. Based on these
emissions estimates, the aggregate risks
associated with area fugitive sources at
secondary lead smelters are estimated
to range from 0.2 to 3.3 lung cancer
incidences annually, and the estimated
maximum lifetime risk calculated ranges
from 2 in 10,000 to 32 in 10,000.'
Nationwide, the total baseline
estimated arsenic emissions from
process, process fugitive, and area
fugitive sources are 55 Mg per year. The
estimate maximum lifetime risk ranges
from 2.1 in 10,000 to 34 in 10,000. This
range is calculated using the maximum
ambient arsenic concentration predicted
by dispersion modeling results for each
of 40 secondary lead smelters known to
be operating. The estimate of arsenic
emissions used in the model for this
calculation corresponds to the high end
of the individual plant ranges given
above for process, process fugitive, and
area fugitive sources. Daily ambient
arsenic monitoring has been conducted
for 3 years at five sites located around
the plant that has-the highest flue dust
arsenic content identified at any
secondary lead smelter. The measured
average arsenic concentrations are a
factor of 2 lower than the modeled
arsenic concentration for this plant
when the high-end arsenic emission
estimates are input to the model. Based
on the dispersion modeling results for
each of the 40 secondary lead smelters
known to be operating, the estimated
annual cancer incidence from all
emissions sources ranges from 0.4 to 5.7.
The arsenic emissions estimates input tn
the model for this calculation
correspond to the midpoint of the
individual plant emissions ranges for
process, process fugitive, and area
fugitive sources.
The control strategy considered for
reducing process arsenic emissions from
secondary lead smelters consists of a
combination system of a fabric filter .
followed by a scrubber to control
furnace emissions. Under the existing
OSHA standard for lead, sources of
process fugitive emissions are already
well controlled. The area fugitive source
that is believed to be of most concern
(flue dust handling) is well controlled at
most plants, and no other significant
area fugitive sources that are not
controlled with BAT have been
identified. This leaves the addition of
scrubbers to existing fabric fil.ter
systems for the control of process
emissions as the only viable control
strategy.
The fabric filter/wet scrubber
combination is a demonstrated
technology in the secondary lead
smelting industry. However, retrofitting
existing smelters with scrubbers may be
difficult because of space limitations,
and may cost more than installation at a
new facility. Use of a scrubber would
also result in wastewater treatment and
solid waste disposal problems.
Actual measurements of the inorganic
arsenic emissions reduction efficiency of
scrubbers have not been made. The
arsenic emission reduction estimates
used in this analysis are based on lead
emissions reduction data and are
uncertain. By adding a scrubber to
control furnace emissions, estimated
nationwide arsenic emissions from
process sources would be reduced from
15.0 Mg/yr to about 6.8 Mg/yr, resulting
in a cost effectiveness range of $600,000
to $12 million per Mg of arsenic.
Estimates show that the maximum
lifetime risk associated with process
sources of arsenic emissions at
secondary lead smelters would be
reduced by about 65 percent relative to
the current levels (from a range of 0.3 in
10,000 to 5 in 10,000 to a range of 0.11 in
10,000 to 1.76 in 10,000). However, the
maximum lifetime risk associated with
all sources of arsenic emissions at
secondary lead smelters would be
reduced by less than 1 percent. The
reason for this is that the fugitive
emissions, which are released at or near
ground level, have the greatest effect on
exposure. The estimated annual cancer
incidence for process sources would
decline by about 60 percent, but the
estimated annual incidence for
secondary lead smelters as a whole
wnulH Hprlinp Viu nnlv ahnut 14 nprrpnt
.- —j j — ,
(from a range of 0.4 to 5.7 per year to a
range of 0.31 to 4.9 per year).
Nationwide capital and annualized
costs associated with the use of wet
scrubbers at all secondary lead smelters
would be about $21.6 million and $13.4
million, respectively. A preliminary
economic analysis indicates that these
costs would have severe economic
impacts on an already severely
depressed industry. The control costs
would result in a 3.5 percent increase in
the price of lead if the control costs can
be passed on to the lead consumer. It is
more likely, however, that the control
costs will not be passed forwdrd in lead
prices because of competition from
primary lead smelters for the same
market. Instead, secondary lead
smelters would attempt to pass costs
backward to lead scrap dealers.
Because domestic smelters are in
competition with foreign smelters for
purchasing lead scrap, it is expected
that passing costs back to lead scrap
dealers would increase the rate of
export of lead scrap and possibly force
the closure of at least seven of the
smaller smelters. In addition, the
economic analysis indicates that several
smelters would have difficulty financing
the required capital.
EPA is not proposing standards under
Section 112 for inorganic arsenic
emissions from secondary lead smelters
because, based on the information
available, EPA has determined that the
existing level of control represents BAT,
and the Agency cannot, from the data
available, reasonably conclude that the
risks remaining after application of BAT
are unreasonable, considering the
uncertainty in the available data, and
the negative economic impacts that
would result from additional control.
The Agency plans to continue its efforts,
begun before the Court order was
received, to obtain additional data on
arsenic emission rates and control
system performance for both fugitive
and process sources by conducting tests
at several secondary lead smelting
facilities. The data will not be available
until after this notice is published. When
the data have been cqilected and
evaluated, the information will be added
to the docket relevant to this notice and
will be available for public review.
Requests for Comments
EPA requests comments on its
proposed decisions not to issue
standards for inorganic arsenic
emissions from the categories of sources
just described. These decisions will be
reconsidered if additional information
indicates that reductions of public
health risks are significantly greater,
costs are significantly lower, or controls
are more available than those on which
EPA based its decision.
Source Categories for Which Standards
Are Proposed
Summary of Proposed Standards
National emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants are proposed
for low-arsenic-throughput copper
smelters, high-arsenic-throughput copper
smelters, and glass manufacturing
V-N,0,P-11
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
plants. Each owner or operator of an
existing source subject to any of these
standards would have to be in
compliance with the standard within 90
days of promulgation of the final
standard, unless a waiver of compliance
from the Administrator is obtained. A
waiver of compliance for a period not
exceeding 2 years can be obtained. Each
owner or operator of a source for which
construction or modification commences
after the date of publication of the
proposed standard would have to
operate the source in compliance after
the date of promulgation of the final
standard. The proposed standards are
summarized in this section.
Low-Arsenic-Throughout Copper
Smelters
The proposed standards for primary
copper smelters processing feed
material with an annual average
inorganic arsenic content less than 0.7
percent inorganic arsenic would require
control of secondary emissions from
converter operations and from smelting
furnace matte and slag tapping
operations. The proposed standards for
converter secondary emissions would
apply to smelters with an average
annual inorganic arsenic feed rate to the
converters of 6.5 kilograms per hour or
greater. The standards for matte and
slag tapping operations would apply to
smelters with an annual average
combined inorganic arsenic process rate
in the matte and slag of 40 kilograms per
hour or greater.
For the capture of secondary
emissions from converter operations the
proposed standards would require the
installation of a secondary hood system
consisting of a fixed enclosure with a
horizontal air curtain on the converters.
For the collection of secondary
emissions from matte and slag tapping
and converter operations the proposed
standards would limit particulate
emissions from the collection device to
11.6 milligrams of particulate matter per
dry standard cubic meter of exhaust air.
Compliance with the proposed
particulate emission limit would be
determined by measuring the total
particulate matter emissions using EPA
Reference Method 5. Continuous opacity
monitoring of gases exhausted from a
particular control device would be
required to ensure the control device is
being properly operated and maintained.
Continuous monitoring of airflow, and
inspection and maintenance procedures
would be required to ensure the
secondary hood system is being
properly operated and maintained. The
reporting requirements for the proposed
standards consist of semiannual
reporting of occurrences of excess
opacity and occurrences of airflows
lower than a reference performance
level, and annual reporting of the annual
average arsenic content of the smelter
feed material, the annual arsenic feed
rate to the converters, and the annual
arsenic process rate in the matte and
slag.
High-Arsenic-Throughput Copper
Smelters
The proposed standards for primary
copper smelters that process feed
material with an annual average
inorganic arsenic content of 0.7 percent
or more would require control of
secondary emissions from converting
operations. The proposed standards are
expressed in terms of an equipment
specification for the capture system and
a maximum allowable particulate
emission limit for the collection device.
The required equipment would consist
of a fixed enclosure with a horizontal air
curtain. Particulate emissions from the
collection device would not be permitted
to exceed 11.6 milligrams per dry cubic
meter of exhaust gas.
Compliance with the proposed
emission limit would be determined
using EPA Reference Method 5.
Continuous monitoring of the opacity of
the exhaust from the particulate
collection device would be required. To
ensure the proper operation of the
capture system, continuous monitoring
of the airflow, and inspection and
maintenance procedures would be
required. The reporting requirements of
the proposed standards consist of
semiannual reporting of occurrences of
excess opacity and occurrences of
airflows lower than a reference
performance level, and annual reporting
of the annual average arsenic content of
the feed material.
Glass Manufacturing Plants
The proposed standards for glass
manufacturing plants would require
either (1) control of inorganic arsenic
emissions from each glass melting
furnace to the level achievable by an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or fabric
filter, or (2) that uncontrolled (i.e.,
preceding an add-on control device)
inorganic arsenic emissions be
maintained at 0.40 Mg/yr or less. Each
owner or operator choosing to comply
with the proposed standards by
reducing inorganic arsenic emissions to
levels achievable by an ESP or fabric
filter would be required to meet a
particulate matter emission limit. The
particulate emission limits would vary
according to different categories of
glass. (The particulate emission limits
are listed in Table IV-1 of Part IV of this
preamble.)
EPA Reference Method S would be
used to determine compliance with the
particulate emission limits. The opacity
of the exhaust from the collection device
would be required to be monitored
continuously. EPA Reference Method
108 would be used to demonstrate that
uncontrolled emissions of inorganic
arsenic are 0.40 Mg/yr or less. The
reporting requirements of the proposed
standards would consist of semiannual
reporting of occurrences of excess
opacity.
Summary of Environmental, Health,
Energy, and Economic Impacts
The nationwide impacts of the
proposed standards for inorganic
arsenic emissions from low-aresenic-
throughput copper smelters, high-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters, and
glass manufacturing plants are
summarized in Table 1-1. There are no
wastewater impacts associated with
any of the proposed standards. The
impacts of the proposed standards for
each of these source categories are
presented in detail in Parts II, III, and
IV.
TABLE l-l.—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Environment*) Impacts
Arsenic emissions, mg/yr
Health Impacts '
Maximum He&nt rlak x 10'4 —
Cmco incttmcA ot* ysv ....... .—•...........
Low4raanfca
NoNESHAP
738
3200,000 ._
«3 10 490 ....___._._....
0.10 to 1.6 -_..__.
wper tmoftem
NESHAP
627
3,211,000....
9.4 to 160 i
0.04 to 0.64 ,-._.
HigtKaraeric a
NoNESHAP
282
182.000 __
230 to S.600
1.1 to 17.4
PPOT WTWK6fV
NESHAP
172 _ _..
193000
56 to 920
0.21 to 9.4
Glass manufa
NoNESHAP
38.7
20
8.4 to 100
0.07 to 1.2
stufnQ plants
NESHAP
4.7.
87.
0.97 to 15.6.
0.01 to 021.
V-N.O.P-12
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE l-l.—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS—Continued
Cost/Economic Impacts
Incremental capital costs, millions of dol-
lars.
Incremental armuafeed costs, milliona ol
dollars.
Incremental energy impacts, MW-hr/yr
Low-arsenic copper smelters
No NESHAP
NESHAP
353
9 5
0 1 to 44
-f 25000
High-arsenic copper smelters
No NESHAP
NESHAP
35
15
o s to o e
+ 1 500
Glass manufacturing plants
No NESHAP
NESHAP
27.4.
4.9
0.04 to 3.1.
+ 3.400.
'The ranges in these quantifications of public health impacts reflect the uncertainty of combining the three different dose-response relationships relevant to the three occupational studies
which EPA used as the basis for the development of unit risk estimates. Other significant uncertainties associated with EPA's quantification of public health impact are discussed in the Puol*
Health Risks section of this notice. In addition, the modeled ambient air concentrations depend upon (1) plant configurations, which differ and are difficult to determine for more than a few
plants; (2) emission point characteristics, which differ from plant to plant and are difficult to obtain for more than a tew plants; and (3) emission rates, which differ among plants and with time.
II. INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSIONS
FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
PROCESSING FEED MATERIALS
CONTAINING 0.7 PERCENT OR
GREATER ARSENIC
Proposed Standards
The proposed standards would
regulate inorganic arsenic emissions
from primary copper smelters that
process feed material with an annual
average inorganic arsenic content of 0.7
weight percent or more. The proposed
standards would require the use of best
available technology (BAT) to limit
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from copper converting operations.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
are emissions that escape capture from
the primary emission control system.
The BAT for the capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
converter charging, blowing, skimming,
holding, and pouring operations is a
secondary hood system consisting of a
fixed enclosure with a horizontal air
curtain. For collection of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions, BAT is a
baghouse or equivalent control device.
The proposed standards are expressed
in terms of equipment specifications for
the capture system and a maximum
allowable particulate emission limit for
the collection device. Particulate
emissions from the collection device
would not be permitted to exceed 11.6
milligrams of particulates per dry
standard cubic meter of exhaust gas
(mg/dscm). This limit reflects BAT for
collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions.
To determine the applicability of the
proposed standards to a primary copper
smelter, the inorganic arsenic content of
the feed materials would be measured
using the proposed Reference Method
108A. To determine compliance with the
proposed particulate emission limit.
Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, and 5 in
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 60 would be
used. Continuous opacity monitoring of
gases exhausted from a particulate
control device would be required to
ensure the control device is being
properly operated and maintained.
Continuous monitoring of airflow would
be required to ensure the secondary
hood system is being properly operated
and maintained.
Summary of Health, Environmental,
Energy, and Economic Impacts
The proposed standards would affect
primary copper smelters that process
feed material having an annual average
inorganic arsenic content of 0.7 weight
percent or more. This category is
defined as high-arsenic-throughput
smelters. The only existing primary
copper smelter in the high-arsenic-
throughput smelter category is owned
and operated by ASARCO, Incorporated
(ASARCO) and located in Tacoma,
Washington. The annual average
inorganic arsenic content of the feed
material is not expected to be increased
to 0.7 percent or above at any other
existing smelter, and no new smelters
are projected to be built. For this reason
only the ASARCO smelter located in
Tacoma, Washington (hereafter referred
to as the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter),
has been analyzed for the purpose of
calculating the health, environmental,
economic, and energy impacts of the
proposed standards.
As will be discussed in the next
section, to facilitate regulatory analysis
EPA has separated the primary copper
smelting industry into two source
categories based on the annual average
inorganic arsenic content of the smelter
feed material. Primary copper smelters
which process feed material with an
annual average inorganic arsenic
content less than 0.7 weight percent are
addressed in Part III of this preamble.
The proposed standards would reduce
total inorganic arsenic emissions from
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter from the
current level of 282 megagrams (Mg) (311
tons) per year to a level of 172 Mg (189 .
tons) per year. As a result of this
reduction in inorganic arsenic emissions,
it is estimated that the number of
incidences of lung cancer due to
inorganic arsenic exposure for the
approximately 370,000 people living
within about 20 kilometers (12.5 miles)
of the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter would
be reduced from a range of 1.1 to 17.6
incidences per year to a range of 0.2 to
3.4 incidences per year. The proposed
standards would reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk from exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic from a range
of 2.3 to 37 in 100 to a range of 0.58 to 9.2
in 100. The maximum lifetime risk
represents the probability of a person
contracting cancer who has been
exposed continuously during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual inorganic
arsenic concentration due to inorganic
arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. (These estimated
health impacts were calculated based
on a number of assumptions and contain
considerable uncertainty as discussed in
Part I of this preamble and in Appendix
E of the background information
document.)
Application of the controls required
by the proposed standards would
increase the amount of solid waste (i.e.,
collected particulate matter containing
inorganic arsenic) entering the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter waste
disposal system by approximately 11
gigagrams (Gg) (12,000 tons) per year.
Currently, the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter
generates approximately 182 Gg (200,000
tons) per year of solid waste (including
slag). The additional amount of solid
waste generated can be handled by the
existing waste handling system at the
smelter. Because the control systems
expected to be used to achieve the
proposed standards are dry systems,
there would be no water pollution
impact.
Energy impacts under the proposed
standards would be increased electrical
power consumption. The annual energy
requirement for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter is approximately 2.9 xlO9
kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/y).
Additional energy requirements at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter due to the
proposed standards are estimated to be
approximately 1.5XlO7 kWh/y,
representing an increase in the annual
V-N.O.P-13
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
smelter energy consumption of about 0.5
percent.
For the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter,
capital and annualized costs required to
meet the proposed standards would be
Hpproximately $3.5 million and SI.5
million, respectively. The primary
economic impacts associated with the
proposed standards are projected
decreases in profitability for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. It is
anticipated that the proposed standards
will not adversely affect the economic
viability of the smelter or employment at
the smelter. In addition, it is estimated
that the proposed standards could result
in an increase in the price of copper of
up to 0.8 percent.
Rationale
Selection of Source Category
Copper smelting involves the
processing of copper-bearing ores
containing varying concentrations of
inorganic arsenic. EPA estimates that
current controlled emissions of
inorganic arsenic from primary copper
smelters are 1.012 megagrams (Mg)
(1.116 tons) per year.
Several studies have assessed health
problems in communities where primary
copper smelters are located. Increased
lung cancer has been reported among
male and female residents living near a
primary copper smelter located in
Anaconda. Montana (this smelter was
permanently closed in 1981). The .
National Cancer Institute has released a
study showing excess mortality from
respiratory cancer in counties where
primary copper smelters are located.[74)
EPA initiated a study in 1977 of the
populations exposed to various ambient
air concentrations of inorganic arsenic.
This study, in summarizing 1974 data
collected by EPA's National Air
Sampling Network (NASN), shows that
the annual average concentration of
inorganic arsenic for five urban areas
within 80 kilometers of selected smelters
was 10 times greater than the annual
average for all of the sites (in excess of
250) in the nationwide network. At a site
within 16 kilometers of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter, the annual average
was more than 25 times the national
average.
Based on information provided by the
copper smelting industry, EPA has
determined that the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter processes feed containing a
higher concentration of inorganic
arsenic than any other primary copper
smelter in the United States. The
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is a custom
smelter. ASARCO purchases ore
concentrates from other mining and
milling producers to process at its
Tacoma smelter. Typically, feed
material containing on the average 4.0
weight percent inorganic arsenic is
processed at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter at the rate of 940 kilograms of
inorganic arsenic per hour (kg/h). The
level of inorganic arsenic concentration
in the feed materials processed at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is an order of
magnitude greater than the level
processed at the other 14 primary copper
smelters. The second highest average
inorganic arsenic content in the feed
material processed at a domestic
smelter is 0.6 weight percent. The
second highest average process rate of
inorganic arsenic at a domestic smelter
is approximately 170 kg/h. In fact, the
inorganic arsenic process rate for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is
significantly greater than the combined
inorganic arsenic process rate of 625 kg/
h for the other 14 smelters.
Because of the potential for high
inorganic arsenic emissions and the
proximity of the population, calculated
risks and cancer incidence are
substantially higher for the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter than for other smelters.
Consequently, the benefits associated
with the application of specific control
technologies to the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter versus the other smelters are
significantly different when considered
in terms of emission and risk reduction,
costs, energy, and other impacts. For
this reason, EPA believes it is
reasonable for purposes of regulation to
separate smelters into two source
categories based on the annual average
inorganic arsenic concentration in the
feed.
The source category for high-arsenic-
throughput smelters is primary copper
smelters processing feed with an annual
average inorganic arsenic content of 0.7
percent or more. The value 0.7 percent
.was selected based on the consideration
of the inorganic arsenic content of the
feed materials processed at the existing
smelters other than the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. The regulatory analysis
of the 14 existing smelters which
process feed material with an annual
average inorganic arsenic content less
than 0.7 weight percent is presented in
Part III of this preamble.
EPA has, as a matter of prudent health
policy, taken the position that human
carcinogens must be treated as posing
some risk of cancer at any non-zone
level of exposure. Therefore, in
conjunction with the Administrator's
determination that (1) there is a high
probability that inorganic arsenic is
carcinogenic to humans, and (2) that
there is significant public exposure to
inorganic arsenic emissiono from the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
Administrator has determined that
inorganic arsenic emissions from high-
arsenic-throughput smelters are
significant and should be regulated.
In making the decision to regulate
high-arsenic-throughput smelters, the
Administrator considered whether other
regulations affecting high-arsenic-
throughput smelters were adequate to
control atmospheric inorganic arsenic
emissions. The Administrator has
concluded that existing regulations are
not adequate to protect the public health
and welfare from sources of inorganic
arsenic emissions at high-arsenic-
throughput smelters with an ample
margin of safety. Based on an analysis
of the costs and impacts of more
stringent alternatives, it is the
Administrator's judgment that a
substantial reduction in inorganic
arsenic emissions to the atmosphere
from the current level is achievable and
appropriate. Therefore, EPA has decided
to proceed with the development of
standards to control inorganic arsenic
emissions from high-arsenic-throughput
smelters under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act.
EPA expects that only the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter would be in the high-
arsenic-throughput smelter source
category. Should any other existing
smelter process feed materials having
an annual average inorganic arsenic
feed content above 0.7 weight percent,
the smelter would become subject to the
proposed standards. In addition, the
proposed standards would also apply to
any new smelter processing feed
materials with an annual average
inorganic arsenic concentration of 0.7
weight percent or more.
Other than the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter, no existing smelter is expected
to process feed materials having an
annual average inorganic arsenic feed
content above 0.7 weight percent within
the next 5 years. Also, it is projected
that no new domestic primary copper
smelters will be built within the next 5
years. This projection is based on EPA's
conclusion that annual industry growth
will be accommodated by existing
smelters, which are presently not
operating or are operating below
capacity.
Description of Smelting Process and
Emission Points
A primary copper smelter is a facility
that produces copper from copper
sulfide ore concentrates using
pyrometallurgical techniques. These
techniques are based on copper's strong
affinity for sulfur and its weak affinity
for oxygen as compared to that of iron
and other base metals in the ore. The
V-N,0,P-14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
purpose of smelting is to separate the
copper from the iron, sulfur, and other
impurities present in the ore
concentrate.
Primary copper smelting involves
three basic steps. First, the copper
sulfide ore concentrates are heated in a
roaster to remove a portion of the sulfur
contained in the concentrate. The solid
material produced by a roaster is called
"calcine." The calcine is loaded into
small rail cars (called "larry cars"). This
operation is called "calcine
discharging."
The larry cars transfer the calcine to a
smelting furnace. At most smelters, raw
copper sulfide ore concentrate is
charged directly to the smelting furnace.
In the smelting furnace, the calcine or
raw, unroasted ore concentrate is
heated to form a molten bath containing
separate layers of matte (an impure
mixture of copper and iron sulfide) and
slag (a mixture of nonmetallic
impurities). Molten slag is skimmed from
the upper layer of the bath and poured
from openings in the furnace walls
(called "ports") into inclined troughs
(called "launders"), which empty the
slag into a vessel mounted on a small
rail car (called a "slag pot"). This
operation is called "slag tapping."
Molten matte is poured from a second
set of furnace ports into launders, which
empty the matte into ladles. This
operation is called "matte tapping."
The ladle is transported by an
overhead crane to a copper converter.
The molten matte is poured from the
ladle into a large opening on the top of
the converter vessel. Air is blown into
the converter to first oxidize the iron
sulfide in the matte. The resulting iron
silicate slag is poured directly from the
converter mouth into a ladle. When all
of the iron is oxidized and removed, the
remaining copper sulfide is oxidized to
form a high-purity copper product
(called "blister copper"). The blister
copper is poured directly from the
converter into a ladle for transfer to an
anode furnace (for further refining of the
copper) or directly to the anode casting
area (for casting of the copper into
copper anodes).
Roaster and smelting furnace offgases
are produced by the combustion of fuel
and the reaction of materials in the high-
temperature environments. Converter
offgases result from blowing air through
the matte and the reaction of materials
in the molten matte. Inorganic arsenic in
the ore concentrates is volatized during
roasting, smelting, and converting, and
is exhausted from the process
equipment in the offgases. Offgases
discharged from roasters, smelting
furnaces, and converters, in the absence
of any controls, would have the highest
inorganic arsenic emissions of any of
the copper smelting sources at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. An inorganic
arsenic material balance was provided
by ASARCO and reviewed by EPA to
inventory the inorganic arsenic inputs
versus outputs from each process at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. The material
balance shows that the inorganic
arsenic emission rates in the absence of
any controls would be 255 kg/h for the
roasters, 608 kg/h for the smelting
furnace, and 207 kg/h for the converters.
During converting, most of the
remaining amount of inorganic arsenic
and other impurities originally in the
copper ore are removed from the copper
matte to produce blister copper (98 to 99
percent pure copper). Blister copper
from the converters may be further
refined in anode furnaces prior to
casting of copper anodes (solid slabs of
blister copper). Because of the small
quantity of inorganic arsenic remaining
in the blister copper charged to the
anode furnace, inorganic arsenic
emissions from anode furnaces are very
low when compared to the inorganic
arsenic emissions from roasters,
smelting furnaces, or converters. The
material balance for teh ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter shows that inorganic
arsenic emissions from anode furnaces
in the absence of any controls would be
0.4 kg/h.
The ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is the
only primary copper smelter that
recovers arsenic from collected waste
materials. Dust collected in the flues and
control devices at the smelter is
processed to produce arsenic trioxide
for sale to arsenic chemical
manufacturing companies. In addition,
metallic arsenic is produced at the
smelter site. The material balance
shows that inorganic arsenic emissions
from the arsenic trioxide and metallic
arsenic manufacturing processes in the
absence of any controls would be 376
kg/h.
Secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converters are those
emissions that escape capture from the
primary emission control system. When
the converter is rolled out for charging
matte into the converter mouth.
skimming slag formed in the converter,
or pouring blister copper into a ladle, the
primary hood is moved up and away
from the converter mouth to provide
clearance for the overhead crane and
ladle. As a result, charging, skimming,
and pouring operations can emit
significant amounts of secondary
inorganic arsenic because these
operations occur outside the range of the
converter's primary offgas exhaust
hood. Additional secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions also escape capture
by the primary offgas exhaust hood
during blowing and holding operations.
For the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
material balance shows that the
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
rate from converter operations in the
absence of any controls would be 14 kg/
h.
Secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions also escape to the atmosphere
during calcine discharging at the roaster
and during matte tapping and slag
tapping at the smelting furnace. An
estimate based on the material balance
for the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter shows
that inorganic arsenic emissions from
matte tapping in the absence of any
controls would be 4 kg/h. Inorganic
arsenic emissions from calcine
discharging and slag tapping are
estimated to be less than 1 kg/h.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from anode furnace operations are less
than 0.1 kg/h. Miscellaneous sources of
secondary inorganic emissions from
primary copper smelter operations
include the handling and transfer of dust
from control device storage hoppers,
equipment flues, and dust chambers. At
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter these
activities are conducted at many
locations throughout the plant. Although
the amount of inorganic arsenic
emissions at each location is very small,
the cumulative total of emissions from
many locations can be a significant
quantity. The material balance for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter shows that
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from miscellaneous sources would be
about 6 kg/h in the absense of any
controls.
Policy for Determining Control Levels
For this source category, which
consists of only the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter, a three-step approach has been
followed to determine the control
requirements being proposed. This
approach is based on the policy
discussed in Part I of this preamble.
The first step consists of determining
whether current controls at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter reflect
application of BAT. BAT is the
technology which, in the judgment of
EPA, is the most advanced level of
control which is adequately
demonstrated considering
environmental, energy, and economic
impacts. BAT considers economic
feasibility: and, foe this smelter, BAT
does not exceed the most advanced
level of control that the smelter could
afford without closing.
For those emission points where BAT
is in place. EPA determines whether a
NESHAP standard is needed to assure
V-N,0,P-15
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
that BAT will remain in place and will
be properly operated and maintained. A
primary consideration is the existence of
other Federally enforceable standards. If
BAT is not in place on specific emission
points or if there is reason to expect that
BAT may not remain in operation, these
emission points are identified for
development of standards.
The second step involves the selection
of BAT for the emission points at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter identified for
the development of standards. To select
BAT. regulatory alternatives are defined
based on demonstrated control
technology. The environmental.
economic, and energy impacts of the
alternatives are determined. Based on
an assessment of these impacts, one of
the alternatives is selected as BAT.
The third step involves consideration
of regulatory alternatives beyond BAT
for all of the inorganic arsenic emission
points at the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter.
The risk of cancer incidence due to
inorganic arsenic exposure in the
population distributed around the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is estimated.
This estimated risk which remains after
application of BAT is evaluated
considering costs, economic impacts,
risk reduction, and other impacts that
would result if a more stringent
alternative were selected. If the residual
risk is judged not to be unreasonable
considering the other impacts or beyond
BAT controls, more stringent controls
than BAT are not required. However, if
the residual risk is judged to be
unreasonable, then an alternative more
stringent than BAT would be required.
Determination of the Adequacy of
Current Controls
Inorganic arsenic emission sources at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are
currently controlled using a variety of
capture and collection techniques.
Capture techniques are used to gather
and confine secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions and to transport them to a
collection device. Collection techniques
are used to remove inorganic arsenic
from process offgases and captured
gases prior to venting the gases to the
atmosphere. Each inorganic arsenic
emission source at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter was examined by EPA
to determine the extent to which
inorganic arsenic emissions are
currently controlled and whether the
level of control represents BAT.
Controls currently in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter collect
inorganic arsenic emissions in the
roaster, smelting furnace, converter, and
anode furnace process offgases. During
these process operations, inorganic
arsenic is volatilized and emitted as a
metallic oxide vapor in the process
offgases. By cooling the process
offgases, the inorganic arsenic vapor
condenses to form inorganic arsenic
particulates. which can be collected in a
conventional particulate control device.
Because of the high-inorganic-arsenic
content of the feed materials process at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
concentration of inorganic arsenic in the
process offgases greatly exceeds the
inorganic arsenic saturation
concentration at gas temperatures less
than 121" C (250°F). Consequently, for
process offgases cooled to temperatures
below 121° C, inorganic arsenic emission
control levels can be achieved that
approach the performamce capability of
a control device for collecting total
particulate matter.
Roaster process offgases at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are cooled to
a temperature less than 121° C and the
inorganic arsenic particulates are
collected in a baghouse. The smelting
furnace process offgases are cooled to a
temperature of 92° C, and the inorganic
arsenic particulates are collected in an
electrostatic precipitator. Converter
process offgases are exhausted to a
liquid SOt plant or a single-contact
sulfuric acid plant Because the presence
of solid and gaseous contaminants can
cause serious difficulties in the
operation of the SOi or acid plants, the
converter process offgases are first
cleaned by passing the gases through a
water spray chamber, an electrostatic
precipitator. scrubbers, and mist
precipitators. This gas cleaning process
removes over 99 percent of the
contaminants, including inorganic
arsenic, from the offgases prior to
entering the SO* or acid plants. In the
event that the volume of converter
process offgases exceeds the capacity of
the SOt and acid plants or when the
plants are not operating, the excess
converter offgases are diverted to an
electrostatic precipitator. This
electrostatic precipitator also serves as
the full-time control device for the anode
furnace process offgases. Cooling of the
gases in the ducting lowers the gas
temperature to less than 120° C prior to
entering the electrostatic precipitator.
Controls for inorganic arsenic
emissions from roaster, smelting
furnace, converter, and anode finance
process offgases are in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter in order to
comply with existing total particulate
emission regulations of the Puget Sound
Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA).
These regulations are expressed in
terms of very stringent process weight
particulate emission limits. The
PSAPCA regulations are included as
part of the Washington State
implementation plan (SIP) for attaining
the Federal ambient air quality standard
for particulate matter and, therefore, are
Federally enforceable regulations.
Roaster, smelting furnace, converter,
and anode furnace process offgases are
potentially significant sources of
inorganic arsenic emissions. Because of
the high inorganic arsenic vapor
concentrations in the process offgases at
a high-arsenic-throughput smelter,
cooling of the offgases to below 121° C
results in condensation of the vapor to
form particulates. Thus, collection of the
inorganic arsenic particulates in
properly designed and operated
particulate control devices can
effectively control the emission to the
atmosphere of inorganic arsenic in the
process offgases. The types of control
systems currently used at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter to collect inorganic
arsenic from process offgases achieve
inorganic arsenic collection efficiencies
greater than 96 percent.
The control systems in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter to control
roaster, smelting furnace, converter, and
anode furnace process offgas inorganic
arsenic emissions represent the best
demonstrated level of control
considering economic feasibility.
Therefore, the roaster, smelting furnace.
converter, and anode furnace process
offgases are already controlled using
BAT. Existing Federally enforceable
regulations require the controls to
remain in place and to be properly
operated and maintained to reduce total
particulate matter emissions. These
regulations serve to assure that BAT for
inorganic arsenic will remain in place.
Therefore, additional standards based
on BAT are not necessary at this time
for smelter roaster, smelting furnace,
converter, or anode furnace process
offgases.
Existing controls in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter significantly
reduce the quantity of inorganic arsenic
emissions from the arsenic trioxide and
metallic arsenic manufacturing
processes. Arsenic laden offgases from
the Godfrey roasters pass through the
arsenic kitchens where arsenic trioxide
condenses on the walls of the chambers
and is collected as a product. Gases
passing through the kitchens are vented
to a baghouse. The temperature of the
gases at the inlet to the baghouse is less
than 121° C. Offgases from the metallic
arsenic furnaces are also vented to the
same baghouse. Inorganic arsenic
emission points at conveyors, charge
hoppers, storage bunkers, and the
barreling and carloading stations are
controlled by capturing the emissions
using local hoods and venting the
V-N.O.P-16
-------
/ Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. }uly 20. 1883 / Proposed Rules
emissions to several small baghouses.
These controls are in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter to comply
with PSAPCA arsenic and particulate
regulations and with the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) inorganic
arsenic worker exposure standard.
The composition of the total
particulate matter emissions from the
arsenic manufacturing processes at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is inorganic
arsenic particulates. All inorganic
arsenic emission points are controlled
by collecting the particulate emissions
using baghouses. The major process
offgas streams are combined and vented
to a new baghouse installed in 1982. The
baghouse design represents the most
advanced level of particulate matter
collection technology demonstrated to
date. Additional reduction inorganic
arsenic emissions is not possible using
available control technology. Therefore,
EPA considers the controls at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter arsenic
manufacturing plant to be BAT. Since
these controls are required by Federally
enforceable regulations, EPA is not
developing additional BAT standards
for arsenic manufacturing processes at
this time.
The major source of secondary
arsenic emissions at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter is the converter
operations. ASARCO has recently
installed a prototype control system on
one of the three converters used at the
smelter for copper converting
operations. (A fourth converter is used
as a holding furnace only.) A secondary
hood system consisting of a fixed
enclosure with a horizontal air curtain is
used to capture the secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions. The captured
emissions are vented to an electrostatic
precipitator (designated by ASARCO as
the No. 2 ESP). The company is planning
to install similar secondary hood
systems on the other two converters arad
to vent the captured emissions to the
No. 2 ESP. However, regulations do not
exist that would specifically require the
use of BAT to limit secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from converter
operations. Because of the potential for
converter operations to emit large
quantities of secondary inorganic
arsenic, and because of the
demonotrated availability of coratrolo for
these emissions EPA decided to develop
standards based, as a minimum, on BAT
for secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converter operations.
Smelting furnace secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from matte tapping
smelter. Copper matte or slag flows from
ports in the furnace walls through a
launder which directs the molten
material to a point where it is
transferred to a ladle or slag pot. At the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the matte
tapping launders are enclosed by
semicircular covers. Slag tapping
launders are covered by fixed hoods
mounted above the troughs. Local
exhaust hoods are mounted about 1
meter (3 feet) above each tap port. At
each launder-to-ladle transfer point for
matte tapping, a retractable exhaust
hood is used to capture emissions
generated at the ladle. An overhead
crane places the ladle on the floor in
front of the launder. The hood is then
lowered over the ladle prior to tapping
and is raised after the tap is complete.
The overhead crane returns and picks
up the ladle of molten matte for transfer
to the converters. At each launder-to-
slag pot transfer point for slag tapping,
large fixed exhaust hoods are mounted
above the slag pot transfer point. The
captured secondary emissions from
matte tapping and slag tapping are
vented to the No. 2 ESP.
At the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, all
emission points from smelting furnace
matte tapping or slag tapping are
enclosed or are covered by local
exhaust hoods. In EPA's judgment, this
capture system, if properly operated and
maintained, represents BAT for capture
of secondary emissions from smelting
furnace matte tapping and slag tapping
because no other demonstrated
technology can achieve a higher level of
capture efficiency. The capture system
is in place to fulfill a tripartite
agreement between ASARCO, OSHA.
and the United Steelworkers of America
(union representing workers at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter). The
agreement specifies the engineering
controls and work practices to be
implemented at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter for achieving compliance with
worker exposura otandard and,
therefore, is Federally enforceable.
Although not specified in the agreement,
the captured secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions are vented to an
electrostatic precipitator for collection.
The level of performance of this control
device is equivalent to the level of
performance of EAT for collection of
process inorganic arsenic emissions.
predpitator; therefore, EPA concluded
that BAT is in place at the ASARCO-
collected at the ASASCO-Tacoma
arsenic emissions from smelting furnace
matte tapping and slag tapping.
Roaster secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from calcine discharge are
also captured and collected at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. Calcine is
gravity loaded into larry cars from
hoppers located at the bottom of the
roaster. An exhaust hood is mounted on
either side of each hopper. A spring-
loaded top having three small openings
covers each larry car. When the larry
car is positioned under the hopper, the
openings in the car top align with the
hopper outlet and the two exhaust
hoods. Because the top is spring-loaded.
a tight connection is achieved between
the top and the hopper outlet and hoods.
During loading, an induced draft fan is
activated to ventilate the space under
the car top and to capture the emissions
generated by the loading operation. The
captured secondary emissions are
combined with the roaster offgases prior
to venting to the baghouse. In addition
to the local hoods located at the calcine
discharge point, the calcine hopper area
is enclosed to form a tunnel-like
structure. This area is ventilated with
the exhaust air being combined with the
exhaust air from the local exhaust
hoods.
The capture system used at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter for capturing
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from roaster calcine discharge is the
most advanced technology
demonstrated. In EPA's judgment, this
system represents BAT. Similar to the
controls in place at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter for smelting furnace
matte tapping and slag tapping, the
calcine discharge capture system is in
place to fulfill the tripartite agreement to
achieve the OSHA inorganic arsenic
worker exposure standard. The captured
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
are vented to the baghouse which has
been determined to be BAT for
collection of inorganic arsenic emissions
from the roaster process offgases.
Therefore, BAT is in place at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter for capture
and collection of secondary inorganic
emissions from roaster calcine
discharge.
To control secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from the handling and
transfer of flue dust, the ASARCO-
Tacome smelter has implemented the
best control practices available. All dust
conveyor systems are enclosed in dust-
tight housings. Hopper and storage bins
are equipped with dust level indicators.
Dust-tight connections are used to
transfer material from hopers and bins
to vehicles. This equipment is in place to
fulfill the tripartite agreement to achieve
V-N.O.P-17
-------
Fsderal KegisSsir / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
the OSHA worker exposure standard.
Because BAT is already required in
order to comply with existing Federal
regulations, additional standards based
on BAT are not necessary at this time
for miscellaneous sources of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions at high-
arsenic-throughput smelters.
The anode fumances in operation at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are of an
atypical design that is not used at
anyother primary copper smelter located
in the United States. Secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions (perhaps up
to 0.1 kg/h) escape to the atmosphere
from a large opening in the anode
furnace wall. This opening allows the
furnance operators to perform activities
necessary for refining the blister copper.
Secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from the anode furnace could
conceivably be captured using an
elaborate secondary hood system.
However, the effectiveness of such a
theoretical capture system is uncertain
considering the design of the anode
furnaces and the nature of operations
required to operate the furnaces. EPA
believes that any capture system
designed to provide the necessary
access to the anode furnaces would
impose very high costs. Based on the
small reduction in total smelter
inorganic arsenic emissions that would
be expected to result from controlling
anode furnace secondary emissions, it is
EPA's judgment that the costs for
installing controls to capture the anode
furnace secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions are excessive. Therefore, EPA
has determined that the existing
equipment represents BAT and, as a
result, no standards are being developed
at this time for secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from anode furnaces.
In summary, roaster, smelting furnace,
and converter process offgases as well
as anode furnace, arsenic plant, and flue
dust handling sources are judged to be
currently controlled using BAT. Also,
secondary inorganic emissions from
roaster calcine discharge, and smelting
furnace matte tapping and slag tapping
are captured and collected using BAT.
These controls are required by existing
Federally enforceable regulations or are
expected by EPA to remain in place and
to be properly operated and maintained.
With the exception of the prototype
secondary hood on one converter, no
controls are currently in place to limit
secondary emissions from the
converters. Therefore, because capture
technology has been demonstrated, EPA
decided to develop standards based, as
a minumum, on BAT for secondary
emissions from converters.
Selection of BA Tfor Converters
Control Technology. Primary
converter hoods capture process
emissions during converter blowing
periods; but, during charging, skimming,
holding, or pouring operations, the
mouth of the converter is no longer
under, the primary hood, and converter
emissions escape capture by the hood.
There are three alternative control
methods for capturing secondary
emissions from converter operations: (1)
fixed and retractable secondary hoods,
(2) air curtain secondary hoods, and (3)
Four domestic smelters currently use
fixed secondary hoods to capture
converter secondary emissions. These
hoods are attached to the upper front
side of the converter primary hoods.
More complex retractable secondary
hood designs are used at one domestic
smelter and smelters in Japan. Visual
observations made at two domestic
copper smelters showed that fixed and
retractable secondary hoods captured a
portion of the secondary emissions from
converter operations. However, the
capture efficiencies of existing fixed and
retractable secondary hood designs are
judged by EPA to be less than SO
percent.
A more advanced method for the
capture of converter secondary
emissions is the use of an air curtain
secondary hood. Walls are erected to
enclose the sides and the back of the
area around the converter mouth. A
portion of the enclosure back wall is
formed by the primary hood. Openings
at the top and in the front of the
enclosure allow for movement of the
overhead crane cables and block, and
the ladle. Edges of the walls in contact
with the primary hood or the converter
vessel are sealed. A broad, horizontal
airstream blows across the entire width
of the open space at the top of the
enclosure. This airstream is called an
"air curtain." The air curtain is produced
by blowing compressed air from a
narrow horizontal slot extending the
length of a plenum along the top of one
of the side walls. The air is directed to a
receiving hood along the top of the
opposite side wall. An induced draft fan
in the ducting behind the receiving hood
pulls the airstream into the hood. When
the converter is rolled out away from
the primary hood for charging,
skimming, or pouring, the air curtain
sweeps the converter offgases and
emissions which are generated by
material transfer between the converter
and the ladle into the receiving hood.
The captured emissions ere then vented
to a collection device or released
directly to the atmosphere through a
stack.
The air curtain secondary hood has
been demonstrated as an effective
method for capturing converter
secondary emissions. For the past 3
years, air curtain secondary hoods have
been in place to control converter
secondary emissions at copper smelters
in Japan. A prototype air curtain
secondary hood was installed in 1982 on
one of the converters at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter.
In January 1983, EPA conducted a test
program designed to evaluate the
effectiveness of the capture of
secondary emissions by the prototype
air curtain secondary hood at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. The capture
efficiency of the system was evaluated
by performing a gas tracer study and
visual observations. The gas tracer
study involved injecting a gas tracer
inside the boundaries of the fixed
enclosure and measuring the amount of
the gas tracer in the exhaust gases in the
ducting downstream of the enclosure
receiving hood. The capture efficiency
was then calculated by a material
balance of the inlet and outlet tracer gas
mass flow rates. Based on the results of
this test program, EPA believes an air
curtain secondary hood is capable of
achieving an overall capture efficiency
of 95 percent.
Capture of converter secondary
emissions by building evacuation is
accomplished by controlling the airflow
patterns within the building housing the
converters and by maintaining a
sufficient air change or ventilation rate.
Control of airflow in the ventilated area
is obtained by isolating it from other
areas and by the proper design and
placement of inlet and outlet openings.
Proper location and sizing of inlet and
outlet openings provide effective airflow
patterns so that the secondary emissions
cannot escape to adjacent areas or
recirculate within the area.
EPA believes that a well-designed
building evacuation system should be
capable of achieving at least 95 percent
capture efficiency of secondary
emissions. However, the building
evacuation systems currently used in the
non-ferrous metallurgical industry have
not demonstrated this level of control. A
building evacuation system is being
used at the ASARCO copper, lead, and
zinc smelter located in El Paso, Texas,
to capture secondary emissions from
copper converters and a zinc smelting
furnace operated inside a building.
While preventing the venting of
secondary emissions to the ambient air
outside the building, uoe of ths building
evacuation oyotsra at the ASARCO-E1
V-N,0,P-18
-------
Faderal Kogistoff / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1S83 / IPropoged Rules
Paso smelter has resulted in elevated
concentrations of inorganic arsenic,
lead, and SO>. inside the building in
addition to excessive heat buildup. To
alleviate these unacceptable working
conditions, building openings have been
increased and roof ventilators designed
for emergency use only have been
operated routinely. As a result of
increasing the number of building
openings, the capture efficiency of the
building evacuation system has been
decreased. The building evacuation
system as presently operated at the
ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter achieves a
capture efficiency of less than 95
percent.
The control technology for the
collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions is based on the
cooling of the exhaust gases to condense
the inorganic arsenic vapors to form
participates, and the subsequent
collection of the inorganic arsenic
participates in a conventional
particulate control device. Baghouse and
electrostatic precipitator control devices
are currently used at primary copper
smelters to collect secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions as well as particulate
matter emissions.
To evaluate the efficiency of a
conventional particulate control device,
EPA tested the baghouse in place at the
ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter used for the
collection of secondary emissions from
the converters. Emission measurements
for inorganic arsenic and total
particulates were conducted at the
baghouse inlet and outlet for three test
runs. At the baghouse outlet, inorganic
arsenic concentrations ranged from
0.015 to 0.39 milligram per dry standard
cubic meter of exhaust gas (mg/dscm).
The corresponding total particulate
concentrations at the baghouse outlet
ranged from 1.1 to 11.6 mg/dscm. Gas
temperatures at the baghouse inlet were
less than 50°C (112°F). The inorganic
arsenic collection efficiency was over 89
percent for two of the test runs and was
greater than 94 percent for the third test
run. The test results showed that the
overall average inorganic arsenic
coiieciion efficiency of the baghouse for
three test runs was 96 percent. EPA
concluded from the tests that a properly
designed, operated, and maintained
baghouse or equivalent particulate
control device can achieve a collection
efficiency of at least 88 percent for
inorganic arsenic.
Regulatory Alternatives. To determine
the level of control that reflects BAT for
control of converter secondary
emissions, technical alternatives were
identified for reducing inorganic arsenic
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter.
For the purpose of analysis, these
alternatives are identified here and in
the background information document
as Regulatory Alternatives I and II. For
Regulatory Alternative I. no national
emission standard would be established
for inorganic arsenic emissions from
high-arsenic-throughput smelters. No
additional controls beyond the controls
already in place at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter to comply with existing
regulations (e.g. Washington State
implementation plan, OSHA inorganic
arsenic worker exposure standard)
would be required. Regulatory
Alternative I corresponds to the
baseline level of control.
Regulatory Alternative II represents
control of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converter opertions at
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. This
alternative is based on capture of the
secondary emissions using a secondary
hood consisting of a fixed enclosure
with a horizontal air curtain. The
captured secondary emissions would be
vented to a baghouse or equivalent
control device for collection.
Regulatory Alternative I (baseline
case) would not change the existing air
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of operations at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. Total inorganic arsenic
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter would remain at the current
level of 282 Mg (311 tons) per year. In
addition, there would be no energy or
economic impacts associated with this
alternative.
Regulatory Alternative II would
reduce total inorganic arsenic emissions
from the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter by
110 Mg (121 tons) per year to a level of
172 Mg (189 tons) per year. The amount
of collected particulate matter
containing inorganic arsenic would be
approximately 11 gigagrams (Gg) (12,000
tons) per year. This would increase the
amount of solid waste generated at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter from 182 to
193 Gg {200,000 to 213,000 tons) per year,
an increase of about 6 percent. The
additional1 solid waste can be handled
by the smelter's existing solid waste
disposal system. Because the alternative
is based on use of an electrostatic
precipitator, a dry particulate collection
device, there would be no water
pollution impact.
The energy impacts of Regulatory
Alternative II would be increased
electrical energy consumption. To
operate the control system specified by
the alternative, annual electrical energy
consumption would be 1.5x10'
kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/y). Total
smelter energy consumption is
approximately 2.9X109 kWh/y. Thus.
Regulatory Alternative II would increase
the total ASARCO-Tacoma electrical
energy consumption by 0.5 percent.
The capital costs for installing the
control system specified by Regulatory
Alternative II is S3.5 million. This
represents a major capital expenditure
for ASARCO. However, ASARCO is a
major publicly held corporation with a
good credit rating and good access to
financing. Even considering the
possibility of additional capital
expenditures for control equipment for
the two ASARCO low-arsenic-
throughput smelters (the ASARCO-El
Paso and Hayden primary copper
smelters are addressed in Part III of this
preamble), it is EPA's determination that
ASARCO would be able to obtain the
necessary capital to install the control
system at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. The annualized cost to
implement Regulatory Alternative II is
estimated to be $1.5 million. If ASARCO
chooses to absorb the costs by reducing
its profit margin, the profitability of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter could be
reduced up to 8 percent. If ASARCO
chooses to maintain its normal profit
margin and attempts to recover the costs
by increasing copper prices, the price
increase would amount to 0.5 to 0.6
percent.
In summary, under Regulatory
Alternative II. total smelter inorganic
arsenic emissions would be reduced by
39 percent from 282 Mg per year to 172
Mg per year. The reduction in emissions
would be achieved with a small increase
in the amount of solid waste generated
at the smelter. There would be no water
pollution impact Energy consumption at
the smelter would be slightly increased.
The primary economic impacts
associated with this alternative are a
projected modest decrease in
profitablity for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter and a possible small increase in
the price of copper. In EPA's judgment,
this alternative would not adversely
affect the economic viability of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter or
employment at the smelter. Because a
significant reduction in inorganic
arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter is achievable with
reasonable economic, energy, and non-
air quality environmental impacts. EPA
selected Regulatory Alternative II as
BAT.
It should be noted that the level of
control selected as BAT is based upon
the Adminstrator's best judgement and
the information available at this time.
As discussed later, comments and
information are being requested on
V-N90,P-19
-------
Federal Kegistsir / Vol. 418. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Propo8ed Rules
additional control measures. The final
decision on BAT will reflect
consideration of these comments and
may. therefore, include measures (e.g.,
production curtailments or improved
operating and housekeeping practices)
which are not now included in
Alternative II.
Consideration of Emission Reduction
Beyond BA T and Decision on Basis for
Proposed Standards.
After identifying BAT, EPA
considered the estimated residual health
risks and possible control alternatives
that would reduce emissions to rates
lower than that achievable with BAT.
The health risk is expressed by the
number of incidences of cancer due to
inorganic arsenic exposure in the
population distributed around the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. Based on
epidemiological studies, EPA derived a
unit risk number for exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic. The unit risk
number is a measure of potency
expressed as the probability of cancer in
a person exposed to 1 (ig/m 3 of
airborne inorganic arsenic for a lifetime
(70 years). Annual cancer incidence (the
number of cases per year) associated
with inorganic arsenic emissions from
the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is the
product of the total population exposure
around the smelter and the unit risk
number divided by 70 years. Total
exposure is determined by dispersion
modeling estimates of the inorganic
arsenic concentration in the ambient air
surrounding the smelter combined with
data for the distribution of the estimated
370.000 people living within about 20
kilometers (12.5 miles) of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. For the current level of
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the annual
cancer incidence is estimated to range
from 1.1 to 17.6 cases per year. With
BAT in place at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter i'or all of the significant
inorganic asenic emission points it is
estimated that the annual cancer
incidence would be reduced to a range
of 0.2 to 3.4 cases per year. Application
of BAT would reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk from exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic from a range
of 2.3 to 37 in 100 to a range of 0.58 to 9.2
in 100. The maximum lifetime risk
represents the probability of a person
contracting cancer who has been
continuously exposed during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual inorganic
arsenic concentration due to inorganic
arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter.
All known control alternatives were
examined with the particular emphasis
on the further contol of secondary
emissions, which on the basis of
modeling results, cause the highest
ambient exposure and resultant health
risks. This examination, which included
evaluation of controls used on smelters
in both the United States and Japan as
well as the possibility of technology
transfer from other source categories,
identified no demonstrated
technological controls more efficient
than those identified as BAT. Therefore,
the remaining alternatives are limited to
two basic categories: (1) production
limitations or curtailments and (2)
limitations on the smelter inorganic
arsenic throughput.
Impacts of Controls Beyond BA T
Without specific and detailed
knowledge of all economic information,
which is known only to ASARCO, EPA
cannot estimate with certainty the
extent to which production curtailment
or limitation on inorganic arsenic feed
rate may be affordable. The smelter is
currently operating under a production
curtailment program designed to limit
ambient sulfur dioxide (SO8) levels. This
program, which EPA believes to achieve
at least a corresponding effect on
ambient inorganic arsenic
concentrations, currently results in
production curtailment of approximately
30 percent. When converter controls are
in place, the amount of curtailment
needed may be less but is expected to
be not less than 20 or 25 percent. Thus.
while further curtailments may be
possible, it is doubtful that the degree of
curtailment necessary to significantly
reduce risk (e.g., a 50 percent additional
curtailment would reduce the estimated
maximum risk from a range of 0.58 to 9.2
in 100 to a range of 0.29 to 4.6 in 100)
would be affordable.
An analysis of the importance of high-
inorganic-arsenic feed to the economic
viability of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter leads to the conclusion that the
smelter would probably close if high-
inorganic-arsenic-contact materials
could not be processed. High-inorganic-
arsenic-content copper ore concentrate
and lead smelter by-products represent
about one third of the feed material
input to the ASARCO-Tanoma smelter.
If forced to discontinue use of these feed
materials, ASARCO would need to
compete with other copper smelting
companies for additional supplies of
copper ore. In the face of Japanese
competition and current copper ore
shortages, it is questionable whether
sufficient supplies of low-arsenic-
content copper ore concentrate could be
obtained at prices that would allow
profitable operation. More importantly,
the use of high-inorganic-arsenic feed
allows ASARCO to produce arsenic
trioxide and metallic arsenic. EPA
estimates that the sale of arsenic
trioxide and metallic arsenic represents
about 10 to 15 percent of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter's total revenue and
could account for most of the profit.
Therefore, for purposes of this analysis,
EPA is concluding that any potential
means for limiting inorganic arsenic
emissions to the extent necessary to
significantly reduce risks would result in
closure of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter,
The arsenic produced by the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter supplies
about one third of the total nationwide
demand for arsenic. The remaining two-
thirds is imported and represents over
half of the world production outside the
U.S. If ASARCO-Tacoma stopped
production of arsenic, the world arsenic
production capacity would have to
increase by 25 percent to makeup the
shortage. It is considered doubtful that
such an increase would be possible even
with substantial upward price pressure.
The impact that this shortage would
have on industrial products (e.g..
pressure treated lumber) and
agricultural uses (e.g., cotton desiccants,
herbicides) has not been estimated.
Consideration of Health Risks
As detailed in Section I of this
preamble, the estimated health risks
cited above associated with exposure to
ambient inorganic arsenic are at best
only a very crude estimator of the actual
health effects. The degree of uncertainty
in these estimate is very large because
of the many assumptions and
approximations involved in their
derivation. Nevertheless, the estimated
risks due to emissions from the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter are high
relative to other inorganic arsenic
sources and to other sources of
hazardous pollutants that have been
regulated. These levels, therefore,
provide a basis for serious question as
to whether limiting emissions based on
BAT would protect public health and
provide an ample margin of safety.
Moreover, direct ambient exposure is
not the only potential health impact
since the inorganic arsenic emitted into
the atmosphere accumulates on.land
and in water resulting in other avenues
of exposure. It should be noted that
primarily due to arsenic, the
Commencement Bay Near Shore Tide
Flats area (which includes the
ASARCO-Tacoma .smelter) has been
proposed as a National Priority List Site
by EPA under the Superfund program
(47 FB 58073, December 30,1832).
V-N,0SP-20
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
Consideration of Impacts of Beyond
BAT
Closure of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter would result in severe social
and economic impact on the local
economy. Moreover, since the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is the only
domestic smelter capable of smelting
high-impurity copper ores and
production of associated by-products
including arsenic, closure of the smelter
would result in a total loss of this
domestic production capability. Closure
of the smelter would eliminate the jobs
of about 500 ASARCO employees and
300 additional jobs in the Tacoma area.
Closure would also mean elimination of
$20 million per year in revenues to local
companies and $2 million per year in
State and local taxes.
Decision and Proposed Standards
As detailed in Part I of this preamble,
under EPA's interpretation of Section
112, the smelter should be controlled at
least to the level that reflects BAT and
to a more stringent level if necessary to
prevent unreasonable risks. The
decision as to whether the remaining
risks are unreasonable is based upon
consideration of the individual and
population risks and consideration of
the impacts, including costs, economic,
and other impacts associated with
further reduction of these risks.
The primary purpose of standards
promulgated under Section 112 is to
protect the public health. The
Administrator is concerned that the
estimated residual risk after application
of BAT at ASARCO-Tacoma may be
unreasonable, and, as such, that
additional controls beyond BAT may be
warranted. As indicated earlier, EPA
has not identified technological controls
more efficient than BAT: therefore, in
making a decision on an appropriate
control level of ASARCO-Tacoma, the
Administrator's consideration of beyond
BAT alternatives was limited to
production and arsenic throughput
limitations. These control measures
could further reduce emissions of
inorganic arsenic and associated health
risks. Arsenic throughput, for example,
could be limited to a level comparable
to a low-arsenic-throughput smelter
(less than 0.7 percent inorganic arsenic
in the total smelter charge), although
estimated health risks would still be
expected to be higher for ASARCO-
Tacoma than for the other smelters due
to its location in a highly populated
area.
The Administrator believes that
control beyond BAT could result in
closure of the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. This would reduce the smelter
contribution to the estimated health
risks to zero; but would also result in a
loss of jobs, a loss of domestic
production capacity in both the copper
and arsenic industries, and a loss of
revenues to local businesses and
governments. Certainly the impacts
associated with closure of the smelter
would be felt directly and immediately
by the local population, particularly the
employees of the smelter. With these
potential serious negative impacts, a
decision to require beyond BAT controls
must be carefully considered.
Given that the calculated health risks
estimated to remain after the application
of BAT would be the basis for a decision
to require beyond BAT controls and. in
this case, possibly cause closure of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, the
Administrator believes it is necessary to
scrutinize the basis for these calculated
estimates as a part of the decision-
making process. The estimated health
risks were calculated by combining a
unit risk estimate for inorganic arsenic
with the ambient concentrations of
inorganic arsenic predicted by modeling
and with population data for the area
surrounding the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. As discussed in Part I of this
preamble and Appendix E of the BID,
there are simplifying assumptions and
fundamental uncertainties inherent in
each of the components of the
calculation, resulting in a number of
uncertainties in the risk estimates.
Uncertainties in the unit risk estimate
exist due to a number of simplifying
assumptions. Among these is the
assumption that a linear relationship
exists between cancer risks and level of
exposure and this relationship is the
same at the low levels of public
exposure as at the high levels of
occupational exposure. There is no solid
scientific basis for any mathematical
extrapolation model that relates
carcinogen exposure to cancer risk at
the extremely low concentrations that
must be dealt with in evaluating
environmental hazards. Because its
scientific basis, although limited, is the
best of any of the current mathematical
extrapolation models, the linear
nonthreshoid model has been adopted
here as the primary basis for risk
extrapolation at low levels of exposure.
Additional assumptions made in the
determination of the unit risk estimate
are that all people are equally
susceptible to cancer and that persons
are exposed continuously from birth
throughout their lifetimes (70 years}. The
Administrator believes that the
assumptions made in determining the
unit risk estimate are reasonable for
public health protection in that they lead
to a rough but plausible estimate of the
upper-limit of risk. That is, it is not likely
that the true unit risk would be much
more than the estimated unit risk, but it
could be considerably lower.
Uncertainties in the ambient modeling
exist due to the limitations of the
dispersion model and the assumptions
and potential error in the data input to
the model. Limitations in the model
include its inability to account for the
variable operating conditions of the
smelter and variable meteorology: that
is, one set of operating and
meteorological conditions was assumed
for modeling purposes. The
meteorological conditions used are
believed to be representative. However,
the smelter operating conditions used in
the modeling do not account for the
frequent curtailment of operations now
required at ASARCO-Tacoma to reduce
emissions of sulfur dioxide, and
therefore, probably result in an
overestimate of ambient air
concentrations of inorganic arsenic
(since arsenic emissions would be
reduced as well). Also, the model does
not account for sources of arsenic other
than the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter that
are in the area.
In addition, there were many inputs to
the model such as location of each
emission source at the smelter and the
rate, temperature, and height at which
those emissions are released to the
atmosphere. Each of these input
parameters is subject to error, but
perhaps the most crucial parameter is
the estimate of emission rates. The
emission rates used by EPA were based
on actual emission test data whenever
possible. However, for some sources.
most notably converter secondary
emissions, test data were not available
at the time the estimates were made;
therefore, some assumptions were made
for modeling and impact analysis
purposes. The EPA assumedrfor
instance, that converter secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions were
approximately 15 percent of those
measured in the primary converter
offgases. Preliminary results of testing
conducted in January 1983 on converter
No. 4 ai ASARCO-Tacoma indicate thai
emissions may be significantly less than
this.
Additional uncertainties arise from
the use of population data. The people
dealt with in the analysis are not
located by actual residence. They are
"located" in the Bureau of Census data
for 1970 (the most recent available) by
population centroids of census districts.
The effect is that the actual locations of
residences with respect to the estimated
ambient air concentrations is not known
V-N.O.P-21
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 •/ Proposed Rules
and the relative locations used in the
exposure model have changed since the
1970 census. In addition, it is assumed
that people remain in the same location
for a lifetime (70 years), the only
exposure of the population that occurs is
due to the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter.
and only persons within 20 kilometers of
the emission source are affected.
In summary, there is a high degree of
uncertainty in the estimated health risks
due to the many assumptions and
uncertainties associated with the
components of the estimates. While the
estimated risks may be meaningful in a
relative sense, they should not be
regarded as accurate representations of
true cancer risks. Furthermore, it should
be n5ted that: (1) ambient monitoring
data available for the Tacoma area
show significantly lower ambient
concentrations of inorganic arsenic than
those predicted by the model, and (2)
data on lung cancer incidence rates for
the ten largest cities in Washington for
the years 1970 through 1979 show that
Tacoma ranks fifth, and the lung cancer
rates in Tacoma are below the national
average lung cancer rate.
In light of the high degree of
uncertainty in the estimated health
risks, the apparent absence of further
control alternatives short of closure, the
serious negative impacts associated
with closure, and the absence of
comments from the affected public, the
Administrator cannot conclude at this
time that the risks remaining after the
application of BAT are unreasonable.
Therefore, standards are being proposed
for the category of high-arsenic-
throughput smelters based on the
application of BAT.
Even though standards are proposed
based on BAT, the Administrator
remains concerned that the astimated
residual health risks, although uncertain,
are high relative to those estimated for
other source categories regulated by
NESHAPs as well as other sources of
arsenic. The Administrator believes it is
necessary to take extraordinary
measures to ensure that his final
determination of the control level that is
appropriate for high-arsenic-throughput
copper smelters is based on the most
complete and accurate information
available. Therefore, the following steps
are being taken:
First, EPA is continuing to refine its
estimates of emissions and associated
health risks for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. This will include a complete,
on-site emission source inventory by
EPA personnel, emission testing where
feasible, and improved modeling. In
particular, efforts are currently
underway to model the effect of
ASARCO-Tacoma's production
curtailment. Additionally, further
evaluation of controls that could
potentially be applied to reduce
emissions of inorganic arsenic
(particulary secondary emissions) at
ASARCO-Tacoma will take place. This
evaluation will not be limited to add-on
control equipment but will also cover
other measures such as improved
operating and housekeeping practices.
Secondly, a public hearing for the
proposed standards for high-arsenic-
throughput copper smelters will be held
in the Tacoma, Washington area. This
will give those people who would be
most affected by the standards the
opportunity to comment in person.
Finally, the Administrator has
established a special task force to be
chaired by EPA's Region X office in
Seattle, Washington. The task force will
aid the Administrator in securing
available information from the area
which would be most pertinent in the
development of the final standards for
high-arsenic-throughput copper smelters.
In addition to participating in EPA's
evaluation of emission sources and
applicable control technologies, the task
force will consult with experts outside
of EPA in the areas of health impacts
analysis and innnovative control
technologies for arsenic.
The Administrator is requesting
comments on all aspects of the proposed
standards and their associated impacts.
Comments are also requested on other
control measures that may be BAT and
on alternatives that would reduce
estimated health risks more than the
alternative of applying BAT, but would
not result in smelter closure. These
comments should consider in particular,
the means of reducing low-level
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions,
which result in the highest exposure.
The Administrator is also specifically
requesting comments on whether the
estimated residual health risks
associated with the BAT alternative are
unreasonable, considering the
uncertainty of these estimates and that
the only apparent alternative for
significantly reducing the risks would
likely result in closure of the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter.
Selection of Format of Proposed
Standards
Under the authority of Section 112 of
the Clean Air Act, national emission
standards must, whenever possible, take
the format of a numerical emission limit.
Typically, an emission limit is written in
terms of an allowable mass emission
rate (mass of pollutant per unit time) or
an allowable concentration (mass of
pollutant per volume of gas). In some
instances, a process weight limit (weight
of pollutant per unit of product or input)
or a minimum percent emission
reduction of pollutant (control system
collection efficiency) is used. Ail of
these types of standards require the
direct measurement of emissions to
determine compliance. As a alternative.
or as a supplement to a standard
involving direct measurement of
emissions, an emission limit may take
the form of a restriction on opacity as
measured by EPA Reference Method 9
or on visible emissions as measured by
EPA Reference Method 22 or other
method. However, in certain instances.
numerical emission limits are not
possible. Section 112(e)(2) recognizes
this situation by defining two conditions
when it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission limit. The
conditions are: (1) when the pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant; or (2) when the
application of a measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations. In
such instances. Section 112(e)(l)
authorizes design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards.
For the development of a standard for
the capture of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from converter
operations. EPA first considered
establishing a numerical emission limit.
However, mass rate, concentration.
process weight, and percent emission
reduction formats for the capture of
secondary emissions from converter
operations are not feasible because
neither the capture efficiency nor the
quantity of emissions that escape
capture by the secondary hood system
can be measured accurately. Visible
emission data are available which
describe the performance of secondary
hood systems over a limited range of
operating conditions. However, these
data are not considered to represent a
sufficient basis for establishing emission
standards which must be achieved at all
times. Therefore, the format selected for
the proposed standards for the capture
of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converter operations is
one in which equipment and work
practices are specified.
For the development of a standard for
the collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from converter
operations, EPA concluded a numerical
emission limit is feasible. EPA first
considered developing an emission limit
specifically for inorganic arsenic.
Inorganic arsenic emissions from
converter operations vary in relation to
the inorganic arsenic content of the ore
concentrate processed. Smelting a high-
V-N,0,P-22
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
inorganic-arsenic-content ore
concentrate has the potential for higher
inorganic arsenic emissions than a low-
inorganic-arsenic-content-ore
concentrate. The ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter is a custom smelter processing
ore concentrates shipped from domestic
and foreign copper mines. An
interruption or discontinuation in
shipments from one supplier could
change the average inorganic arsenic
content of the total smelter charge
processed at the ASARCO-Ta*coma
smelter. Thus, the future inorganic
arsenic content of secondary emissions
from the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter may
increase or decrease depending on the
mix of suppliers selling ore concentrate
to ASARCO.
The potential variability in the
inorganic arsenic content of secondary
emissions from the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter increases the complexity of
developing numerical emission limits
specifically for inorganic arsenic.
Emission limits for inorganic arsenic
based on a mass emission rate, process
weight, or concentration format would
establish an upper limit on inorganic
arsenic emissions only. An inorganic
arsenic emission limit based on the BAT
emission control requirements
specifically for the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter based on current data might not
require application of BAT is other ore
concentrates were processed. In
contrast, a percent reduction format
would require the application of BAT
regardless of the level of inorganic
arsenic content in the feed materials.
However, high collection efficiency may
not be continuously achievable for the
entire range of inorganic arsenic
concentrations which could occur in the
captured gas streams from the
secondary emission sources.
As an alternative, an emission limit
for total particulates that reflects the
level of control device performance
necessary to achieve BAT for collection
of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions can be developed. There are
several advantages to using a total
particulate emission limit to regulate
innrpanic Brsenic emissions. First, total
particulate emissions from primary
copper smelter operations remain
relatively contant regardless of the
inorganic arsenic content of the ore
concentrate. Thus, a total particulate
emission limit would require the use of
BAT for all high-arsenic ore
concentrates regardless of variations in
the inorganic arsenic content of the feed.
The second advantage to a total
particulate emission limit is that EPA
Reference Method 5 can be used to '
determine compliance. This method is
widely used; and because it captures
larger quantities of particulates, it offers
the potential for greater precision.
Therefore, for these reasons EPA
decided to develop standards for
collection of inorganic arsenic emissions
based on a total particulate emission
limit.
Mass emission rate, percent emission
reduction, process weight rate, and
concentration formats were considered
by EPA for setting emission limits for
the collection of captured secondary
emission gas streams. All four of these
formats provide viable alternatives for
setting total particulate emission limits.
A mass rate format would limit total
particulate emissions per unit of time.
However, this format would not reflect
differences in production rates (e.g.,
amount of ore concentrate, calcine, and
matte processed)..The mass emission
rate standard would only place an upper
limit on the total amount of particulates
emitted per hour or per day.
A percent reduction format would
specify a minimum percent reduction of
total particulate emissions across a
control device. Determination of
compliance with a percent reduction
standard requires measurement of both
uncontrolled and controlled emissions.
The measurement of emissions at the
inlet to control devices poses testing
difficulties due to ductwork and control
device configurations. The ductwork
modifications necessary to perform
accurate inlet testing at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter would significantly
increase the cost of the compliance
determination.
A mass per unit production format
would limit total particulate emissions
per unit of copper produced or smelter
charge. Determination of compliance
with a mass per production unit
standard requires the development of a
material balance or production values-
concerning the operation of the copper
smelter. Development of this
information depends on the availability
and reliability of process data provided
by the company. Gathering these data
increases the testing and recordkeeping
rpniiiromontc on^ r*rtneonitonftir
increases (he compliance determination
costs.
A concentration format would limit
total particulate emissions per unit
volume of exhaust gases discharged to
the atmosphere. Compliance
determination of concentration
standards requires a minimum of data
and information, decreasing the costs of
testing and reducing chances of
measurement errors. Furthermore,
vendors of particulate control devices
usually guarantee equipment
performance in terms of pollutant
concentration in the discharge gas
stream. There is a potential for
circumventing a concentration standard
by diluting the exhaust gases discharged
to the atmosphere with excess air. thus
lowering the concentration of total
particulates emitted but not the total
mass emitted. However, for this
application, this problem can be solved
by specifying a measurement location.
Therefore, because a concentration
format would involve lower resource
requirements and a less complicated
compliance determination procedure
than the other formats, EPA selected a
concentration format as the most
suitable format for the proposed
standards for collection of secondnry
emissions.
Selection of Sumerial Emission Limit
and Equipment Sfieri fit -at ions
The proposed standards are based
upon the application of a secondary
hood system to capture converter
secondary emissions and a baghouse or
equivalent particulate control device to
collect the captured secondary
emissions from converters.
The format selected for the proposed
standard for capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
converters consists of equipment and
work practice specifications. EPA
believes that the prototype secondary
hood design installed on converter No. 4
at the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is
capable of achieving a capture
efficiency level consistent with BAT if
the system is installed and operated
properly. Therefore, the design and
operation of this system were the basis
for the equipment and work practice
specifications.
The principal components of the
secondary hood system are a hood
enclosure,-an air curtain plenum and
exhaust hood, fans, and sufficient
ductwork to convey the captured
emissions to a control device. Because
each secondary hood system must be
custom designed due to variations in
converter configuration and spacfi
ol.nil'.K:!:*.. 17n/\ **V.n.-r. nnl trt f.nnf,:F,,
u » LUIULTIII l y , Ul t k oliULfl* llwl ll* o^l^Klljr
physical dimensions for the hood
enclosure. Instesc!. HPA decided to
specify the design ;rdctices that are
necessary to follow in order to obtain a
secondary hood system capable of
achieving at least a 95 percent capture
efficiency. These design practices are:
(1) the configuration and dimensions of
the hood enclosure are sized so thnt the
converter mouth, charging ladles,
skimming ladles, and other material
transfer vessels are housed within the
confines or influence of the hood during
V-N,0,P-23
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
each mode of converter operation; (2)
the back of the hood enclosure is fully
enclosed and sealed against the primary
hood: (3) the edges of the hood enclosure
side walls in contact with the converter
vessel remain sealed during each mode
of converter operation: (4) the size of the
opening at the top and front of the hood
enclosure necessary for the entry and
egress of ladles and crane apparatus is
minimized to the fullest extent practical;
and (5) the hood enclosure is fabricated
in such a manner and of materials of
sufficient strength to withstand
incidental contact with ladles and crane
apparatus with no damage.
The air curtain is produced by
blowing compressed air from a narrow
horizontal slot extending the length of a
plenum along the top of one side wall of
the hood enclosure. The dimensions of
this slot and the velocity of the air
biown through the slot are essential
design parameters for determining the
momentum of the air curtain. Sufficient
air curtain momentum must be
maintained to prevent emissions rising
from the converter operations inside the
hood enclosure from penetrating the air
curtain and escaping to the ambient air.
To ensure that the owner or operator
has the capability of developing
sufficient momentum in the air curtain to
capture secondary emissions, the
proposed standards specify that the air
curtain fan be sized to deliver a
minimum of 22.370 watts (30 air
horsepower) at the slot.
After installation of an air curtain
secondary hood system, the owner or
operator would be required to operate it
at conditions optimum for the capture of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
(see "Optimization of Secondary Hood
Air Curtain System"). In addition, the
owner or operator would be required to
visually inspect the components of the
system at least once every month and
maintain each converter and associated
secondary hood system in a manner
consistent with minimizing inorganic
arsenic emissions.
Over a 1-week period, EPA personnel
observed the ASARCO prototype
secondary hood system during all
converter operating modes. Based on
these observations, EPA concluded that
the work practices followed by the
individual converter and crane
operators can significantly impact the
amount of secondary emissions that are
captured by the secondary hood system.
To assure the maximum capture of
secondary emissions, the Administrator
is proposing five work practices to be
followed by the converter and crane
operators. These work practices are (1)
ait curtain and exhaust flow rates shall
be increased by the converter operator
to optimum conditions prior to raising
the primary hood and rolling the
converter out for skimming; (2) once
rolled out, the converter operator shall
hold the converter in an idle position
until fuming from the molten bath ceases
prior to commencing skimming; (3)
during skimming, the crane operator
shall raise the receiving ladle off the
ground and position the ladle as close as
possible to the converter to minimize the
drop distance between the converter
mouth and receiving ladle; (4) the rate of
flow into the receiving ladle shall be
controlled by the converter operator to
the extent practicable to mimimize
fuming; and (5) upon completion of a
charge, the crane operator shall
withdraw the charging ladle from the
confines of the hood enclosure in a slow
and deliberate manner.
The Administrator believes that it
may be appropriate to specify minimum
time periods to be associated with some
of these work practices, such as with (1).
(2), and (4) above. The public is invited
to comment on the need to specify
minimum times to be associated with
the proposed work practice standards
ans on what times may be appropriate.
ASARCO has stated it intends to
install air curtain secondary hood
systems (similar to the system already
in place on converter No. 4) on its
converters that will remain in service at
the Tacoma smelter. EPA therefore
expects that ASARCO would meet
NESHAP requirements for controlling
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from converters at Tacoma by installing
air curtain secondary hood systems.
However, the proposed equipment
specification is not intended to preclude
the use of other secondary inorganic
arsenic capture systems which may be
as effective as an air curtain secondary
hood. Upon written application to EPA.
the use of an alternative secondary
inorganic arsenic capture system which
has been demonstrated to EPA's
satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of
capture efficiency for inorganic arsenic
may be approved (see "Equivalent
Systems for the Capture of Secondary
Emissions from Converter Operations"
in Part III of this preamble).
To reflect the level of control device
performance necessary to achieve BAT
for collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions, EPA selected a
format specifying a maximum allowable
total particulate emissions limit. For
selecting the numerical value of the
limit, EPA reviewed the particulate
emission source test results for the
control devices judged to represent BAT.
The test results were discussed in the
Control Technology section of this part
of the preamble. These results consist of
a series of three consecutive sample
runs for which the measured total
particulate matter emissions at the
control device outlet ranged from 1.1 to
11.6 mg/dscm. The average value for the
three runs was 5.1 mg/dscm. The results
show that a control level of at least 11.6
mg/dscm can be achieved; and. most
likely, control devices will achieve
significantly lower emission levels.
Therefore, EPA selected 11.6 mg/dscm
as the proposed emission limit.
Selection of Emission Test Methods
The use of EPA Reference Method 5—
"Determination of Particulate Emissions
from Stationary Sources" in Appendix A
of 40 CFR Part 60 would be required to
determine compliance with the
concentration standard for total
particulate matter emissions.
Calculations applicable under Method 5
necessitate the use of data obtained
from three other EPA test methods
conducted before the performance of
Method 5. Method 1—"Sample and
Velocity Traverse for Stationary
Sources" must be conducted in order to
obtain reprensentative measurements of
pollutant emissions. The average gas
velocity in the exhaust stack is
measured by conducting Method 2—
"Determination of Stack Gas Velocity
and Volumetric Flow Rate—(Type S
Pitot Tube)." The analysis of gas
composition is measured by conducting
Method 3— "Gas Analysis for Carbon
Dioxide, Oxygen, Excess Air and Dry
Molecular Weight." These three tests
provide data necessary in Method 5 for
converting volumetric flow rate to mass
flow rate. In addition, Method 4—
"Determination of Moisture Content in
Stack Gases" is suggested as an
accurate mode of predetermination of
moisture content.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
Section 114 of the Clean Air Act
authorizes EPA to establish monitoring
requirements for the purpose of
determining violations of standards
proposed under the Clean Air Act. All
monitoring data must be maintained in
such a manner so as to be accessible to
EPA.
The performance of the equipment
used to capture the secondary emissions
from the coverter operations is highly
dependent on flow rate. If the flow rate
is not measured, it is not possible for
either the operator or EPA to determine
whether the equipment is properly
operated and maintained. Therefore the
proposed standards require continuous
monitoring of the time and air flow rate
through the air curtain systems, and
keeping a log of times for each of the
V-N,0,P-24
-------
Kognste / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
converter operations. This would allow
the correlation of recorded gas flow
rates with the corresponding converter
operation.
To help the Administrator determine
whether each secondary hood system is
being properly operated and maintained,
measured airflow rates would be
compared to source specific reference
values established during the
optimization of each system for each
converter operating mode. (See
"Optimization of Secondary Hood
System".) To establish source specific
airflow reference values, the owner or
operator would determine the flow rates
that correspond to each converter
operating mode while the secondary
hood system is operating under optimum
conditions.
The proposed standards for the
collection of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions are based upon a total
particulate concentration limit. One
alternative to monitoring the
performance of the collection device is
to periodically test the collection device
using Method 5. However, this
alternative is costly and is not
considered reasonable. Continuous
monitoring of opacity or an operating
parameter of the collection device may
be used to indirectly monitor
performance by indicating whether or
not the collection device is operating in
the same manner as when it
demonstrated compliance during the
emission test. Of these two alternatives,
monitoring opacity is simpler to apply.
Therefore, the monitoring requirement
selected for the collection of secondary
arsenic emissions is to continuously
monitor opacity using a
transmissometer.
To implement this monitoring
requirement, it would be necessary to
establish a reference opacity level
against which future performance of the
control system could be compared. To
establish the source specific reference
opacity level, the owner or operator of
the source would be required to conduct
continuous opacity monitoring during
the emission test. The opacity
monitoring results would be reduced to
8-minute averages, and the opacity level
would be established at the 97-5 percent
upper confidence level of a normal or
log normal (whichever is more
representative) distribution of the 6-
minute average opacity values. This
opacity value would be the basis for
determining whether the collection
device is continuously performing
effectively. Any monitored opacity
reading above the emission test opacity
reading would indicate that the
collection device may no longer be
meeting the proposed total particulate
emission limit. A Method 5 test could
then be performed to determine
compliance.
Optimization Of Air Curtain Secondary
Hood System
It is intended that the installation of
equipment specified in the proposed
standards for the capture of converter
secondary emissions will give the owner
or operator of each affected converter
the capability of reducing emissions to a
level consistent with the application of
BAT. In developing the equipment
specifications, the Administrator has
been specific for some requirements as
in the case of fan horsepower capacity,
and more general for others, such as the
dimensions of the secondary hood.
Some of the requirements are general
because unless there are any new
smelters, which is considered unlikely, .
each installation will be a retrofit; that
is, each air curtain secondary hood
system will have to be custom designed
to fit each existing converter. Due to
space limitations, existing pollution
control equipment already in place and
other considerations, the exact
configuration of each secondary hood
with air curtain system installed will
vary from smelter to smelter.
Beyond hood configuration, the
performance of each air curtain
secondary hood system will depend on a
balance of several other parameters,
including the dimensions of the air
curtain slot, the velocity of air through
the slot, and the distance from the slot
to the offtake. These parameters are
adjustable in the sense that they can be
altered in a relatively short time and at
relatively small cost. It is expected that
after the initial installation of each air
curtain secondary hood system, there
will be a "shakedown" or optimization
period during which the proper balance
of system parameters will be determined
for each particular installation.
For every air curtain secondary hood
installation, there will be an optimum
set of operating conditions, beyond
which further "fine tuning" of the system
will not result in increased capture
nfft^inn,*., C«"»:« — 14or~U
-------
Fedagai Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
system (as in 3) after modification to
compare its performance to pre-
modification performance. After this,
steps 4 and 5 would be repeafed as
needed until there was agreement
among the panel members that the
system had been optimized. The panel
would then recommend a set of optimum
operating conditions for that system to
the Administrator along with
documentation of their evaluation. In the
event of disputes, panel members would
submit separate recommendations. The
Administrator would make a final
determination of the optimum conditions
J^dOn^ f*r* *K« r>r*M«!'n ««nnvw nw^ltinn
uuS^u On iiic panel o icirfimimciiuaiiwii
and supporting documentation.
If, subsequent to a determination that
a system has been optimized, an owner
of operator proposes to make an
additional modification to the system,
the panel would again be convened and
would observe the system both before
and after the change as prescribed in (3)
above. The modification could be
approved by the Administrator if the
panel found it did not reduce capture
efficiency.
The Administrator believes this
approach would assure that the air
curtain secondary hood system is
designed and operating conditions
established which will minimize
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
to the greatest extent possible, but
would also allow the owner or operator
to make modifications to the system that
would not reduce capture efficiency.
The public is invited to comment on the
need to evaluate the optimization of
each air curtain secondary hood system
and on the panel approach being
considered by the Administrator.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirement
Owners or operators of sources
covered by the proposed standards
would be subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards, as well as those
prescribed in the General Provisions
(Subpart A) of 40 CFR Part 61. Under
§ 61.10 of the General Provisions, an
initial report from each existing source
is required to be submitted within SO
days of the effective date. For purposes
of determining initial applicability, the
proposed standards for nigh-arsenic-
throughput smelters specify that the
initial report required in § 61.10(a) will
include information on the weight
percent inorganic arsenic in the total
smelter charge. The proposed standards
further require that each month the
computation of a rolling annual average
of the inorganic arsenic content of the
total smelter charge be made and that
the monthly computation of a rolling
annual average of the inorganic arsentic
content of the total smelter charge be
made and that the monthly
computations be recorded and dept on
site for at least 2 years. The monthly
computations would have to be reported
to EPA on an annual basis to ensure that
applicability with respect to the
standards had not changed.
Under Section 114, EPA is authorized
to establish reporting requirements to
determine whether there is a violation of
standards proposed under the Clean Air
Act. Concern as to whether the systems
for the control of inorganic arsenic
emissions are continuing to meet the
proposed standards would primarily
arise when monitoring showed opacity
levels in excess of those determined
during the compliance demonstration or
airflow rates that vary significantly from
those established during the
optimization procedure. Therefore, in
determining the necessary reporting
requirements, it was considered
reasonable to require reporting only
when such "excess emission" conditions
exist. Reporting of these excess
emission conditions would be required
on a semiannual basis. Currently, only
the copper smelting companies collect
any of this information. In addition,
there are no reporting requirements by
other governmental agencies for this
type if information which would result
in overlapping data requirements. The
types of information to be included in
the reports are discussed below.
For the converter secondary hood
system, each semiannual report would
indicate: (1) the reference airflow rates
established for each converter
operational mode, and (2) a record of
airflow rates for each day when the
airflow rates are less than 20 percent of
the corresponding reference values.
For the collection devices for
secondary emissions, each semiannual
report would provide: (1) a record of
transmissometer readings for each day
on which the opacity exceeded the
reference opacity limit determined at the
time the collection device demonstrated
compliance, and (2) the values of the
emission test opacity limits.
Impacts of Reporting aad Recordkeeping
Requirements
EPA believes that these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are
necessary to assist the Agency in (1)
identifying sources, (2) observing the
compliance testing and demonstration of
monitoring devices, (3) determining
initial compliance, and (4) enforcing the
standard after the initial compliance
determination.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. L S3-511) requires that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that qualify
as an "information collection request"
(ICR). For the purposes of
accommodating OMB's review, EPA
uses 2-year periods in its impact
analysis procedures for estimating the
labor-hour burden of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The average annual burden on high-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters to
comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards over the first 2
years after the effective date is
estimated to be 1,310 person-hours.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations upon small
businesses be identified and analyzed.
The RFA stipulates that an analysis is
required if a substantial number of small
businesses will experience significant
impacts. Both measures must be met;
that is. a substantial number of small
businesses must be affected and they
must experience significant impacts, to
require an analysis. Twenty percent or
more of the small businesses in an
affected industry is considered a
substantial number. The EPA definition
of significant impact involves three
tests, as follows: (1) prices of products
produced by small entities rise 5 percent
or more, assuming costs are passed on
to consumers; (2) annualized investment
costs for pollution control are greater
than 20 percent of total capital spending;
or (3) costs as a percent of sales for
small entities are 10 percent greater than
costs as a percent of sales for large
entities.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) definition of a small business for
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Code 3331, Primary Smelting and
Refining of Copper, is 1,000 employees.
The ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is owned
by a company that has more than 1,000
employees. Therefore ASARCO does
not meet the SBA definition of a small
business and thus no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
III. INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSIONS
FROM PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
PROCESSING FEED MATERIALS
CONTAINING LESS THAN 10.7
PERCENT ARSENIC
The proposed standards would
regulate inorganic arsenic emissions
from primary copper smelters that
process feed material with an annual
V-N,0,P-26
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
average inorganic arsenic concentration
less than 0.7 percent. Standards are
being proposed to regulate secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from copper
smelting furnaces and all converter
operations. These standards are being
proposed both for the capture and for
the collection in a control device of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from converter operations. The proposed
standards would also require the
collection of secondary emissions from
matte and slag tapping operations at the
smelting furnace.
The proposed standards for converter
operations would apply to smelters with
an annual average arsenic feed rate to
the converters of 6.5 kilograms per hour
(kg/h) average or greater. The proposed
standards for matte and slag tapping
operations would apply to smelters with
an annual average combined inorganic
arsenic process rate in the matte and the
slag of 40 kg/h or greater.
The proposed standard for the capture
of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from converters would be an
equipment standard. The proposed
standard would require the installation
of a secondary hood system consisting
of a fixed enclosure with a horizontal air
curtain on the converters. Equivalency
determinations for control techniques
other than the secondary hood system
as specified in the equipment standard
would be made on a case-by-case basis.
None of the proposed standards would
limit the control technique which may
be used to comply with the proposed
standards provided equivalency in
performance can be shown.
The proposed standard would limit
participate emissions from the collection
device to 11.6 milligrams of particulate
matter per standard cubic meter (mg/
dscm) of exhaust air. To determine
compliance with the proposed
particulate emission limit, Reference
Methods 1, 2, 3, and 5 in Appendix A of
40 CFR Part 60 would be used.
Continuous opacity monitoring of gases
exhausted from a particulate control
device would be required to ensure the
control device is being properly
operated and maintained. Continuous
monitoring of airflow and inspection
and maintenance procedures would be
required to ensure the secondary hood
system is being properly operated and
maintained.
Summary of Environmental, Health,
Energy, and Economic Impacts
The proposed standards affect
primary copper smelters which process
feed material having an annual average
inorganic arsenic content less than 0.7
percent. This category is defined as low-
arsenic-throughput smelters.
It is estimated that the proposed
standards would affect six existing
domestic primary copper smelters. No
new smelters are projected to be built in
the next 5 years. Analysis of the 14
smelters in the category included
calculation of the environmental,
economic, and energy impacts of the
proposed standards.
The proposed standards would reduce
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from the affected smelters by about 111
megagrams per year (121 tons per year).
As a result of this inorganic arsenic
emission reduction, it is estimated that
the number of incidences per year of
lung cancer due to inorganic arsenic
exposure for persons residing within 20
kilometers of the affected smelters
would be reduced from a range of 0.1 to
1.6 incidence per year to a range of 0.04
to 0.64 incidence per year. The proposed
standards would reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk from exposure to
airborne inorganic arsenic at the low-
arsenic-throughput smelters from a
range of 43 in 10,000 to 690 in 10,000 to a
range of 9.4 in 10,000 to 150 in 10,000.
The estimated maximum lifetime risk
represents the probability of a person
contracting cancer who has been
exposed continuously during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual inorganic
arsenic concentration due to emissions
from the smelters. These estimated
health impacts were calculated based
on a number of assumptions and contain
considerable uncertainty as discussed in
Appendix E of the background
information document (BID) for this
source category.
Application of the controls required
under the proposed standards would
increase the amount of solid waste (i.e.,
arsenic-laden dust) entering the smelter
waste handling systems by
approximately 11,100 Mg (12,100 tons)
per year. Currently, the low-arsenic-
throughput smelters generate
approximately 3.2X10" Mg (3.5X108
tons) per year. The additional amount of
solid waste generated under Obs
proposed standards would «t3
relatively minimal quantifco wfeseh
could be easily bandied by tbe omeiters.
The control systems expected to be
used to meet the proposed standards are
dry systems. Therefore, there would be
no direct water pollution impact. If
scrubbers were used to meet the
proposed standards, secondary water
pollution impacts may result if the
arsenic-containing dusts are disposed of
along with acid plant slurry. However,
no adverse water pollution impact is
anticipated since the amount of
additional wastewater generated could
be treated at existing water pollution
control systems installed due to existing
regulations.
Energy requirements under the
proposed standards would result in
increased electrical consumption.
Current annual energy requirements for
the affected low-arsenic-throughput
smelters total approximately 6.0xlO3
MW utility capacity. Additional energy
requirements at the low-arsenic-
throughput smelters due to the proposed
standards are estimated to be
approximately 6.4 MW, or
approximately 0.1 percent above plant
energy requirements without the
proposed standards.
Capital and annualized costs required
to meet the proposed standards would
be approximately $35.3 million and $9.5
million, respectively. The primary
economic impacts associated with the
proposed standards are projected
decreases in profitability for the sis
affected low-arsenic smelters if costs
cannot be passed through. If the costs
are passed forward in the form of a
price increase, it is estimated that the
proposed standards would result in a 0.1
to 4.4 percent increase in the price of
copper. Under the proposed standards,
no plant closures are anticipated.
The control technology, which is the
basis for the proposed standards, should
be less costly when integrated into the
original design of a new plant rather
than retrofitted to an existing plant.
Therefore, EPA considers it appropriate
to apply the proposed standards to new
plants, thereby establishing a minimum
level of required inorganic arsenic
control for all low-arsenic-throughput
smelters.
Rationale
Selection of Source Category
Copper smelting involves the
processing of copper-bearing ores
containing varying concentrations of
inorganic arsenic. Several studies have
assessed health problems in
communities where copper smelters are
located. A detailed discussion of these
studies can be found in Part II of this
preamble, which discusses the high-
arsenic-throughput smelter category. In
making the decision to regulate low-
arsenic-throughput smelters, the
Administrator considered that arsenic
emissions from the source category and
resulting exposure are significant. Based
on an analysis of the costs and impacts
of more stringent alternatives, it is the
Administrator's judgment that a
substantial reduction in secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions to the
atmosphere from the current level is
achievable and appropriate. There are
V-N,0,P-27
-------
Fedora! Kogista? / Vol. •58. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
no other regulations in place which
cause these reductions to occur.
Therefore. EPA has decided to proceed
with standards to control secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from low-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters
under Section 112.
The two source categories for primary
copper smelters are: (1) smelters
processing feed with an annual average
inorganic arsenic content less than 0.7
percent (low-arsenic-throughput
smelters), and (2) smelters processing
feed with an annual average inorganic
arsenic content 0.7 percent or more
Selection of the value 0.7 percent was
based on the consideration of the
highest average inorganic arsenic
concentration currently used at a
domestic smelter other than the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter (the one high-
arsenic-throughput smelter). Each
category is evaluated separately for the
purpose of establishing regulations.
Only the category of smelters which
process feed material with an annual
average inorganic arsenic content less
than 0.7 percent is being addressed in
this section of the preamble.
Description of Emission Points
A description of the copper smelting
process is presented in Part II of this
preamble and will not be repeated here.
The discussion which follows is limited
to the emission points at low-arsenic-
throughput smelters.
Inorganic arsenic emissions from
primary copper smelters can be
categorized as either process emissions
or secondary emissions. Process
emissions are those emissions from
roasters, smelting furnaces, and
converters which are confined in
exhaust gas streams. Secondary
emissions are those emissions which
escape capture from the primary
emission control system. Chapter 2 of
the BID for this source category
discusses in detail all potential sources
of inorganic arsenic emissions at
primary copper smelters.
Process emission sources at low-
arsenic-throughput primary copper
smelters are the roasters, smelting
furnaces, converters, and anode
furnaces. The three sources which have
the greatest potential arsenic emissions
are the roasters, smelting furnaces, and
converters. Currently, these process
sources are generally well controlled at
9 of the 14 existing low-arsenic-
throughput smelters. Because process
emissions are a significant source of
inorganic arsenic emissions, especially
at those sources which are not well
controlled. EPA evaluated ths
requirements of additional process
controls.
Anode furnaces at primary copper
smelters are used to treat the blister
copper. Blister copper, due to the nature
of the smelting process, has a low
concentration of inorganic arsenic. In
addition, there is no known U.S.-applied
control technology demonstrated to
reduce emissions from the anode
furnaces. Therefore, process emissions
from anode furnaces were not
considered for regulation.
Converter operations (charing,
blowing, skimming, holding, and
pouring), multihearth roaster discharge.
and smelting furnace matte and slag
tapping have the greatest potential for
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions.
Converter operations are difficult to
control in terms of capturing the
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions;
however, secondary emissions from the
converters are typically 7 to 25 times
greater than matte and slag tapping
emissions combined. There is limited
capture of these secondary emissions at
5 of the 14 smelters and emissions are
collected at 2 of these smelters. _
However, EPA believes that further
control of secondary emissions from
converters is possible at all smelters.
Therefore, EPA has considered further
regulations for these sources.
Currently all of the 14 existing
smelters use localized hoods to capture
furnace matte tapping emissions and
roaster calcine discharge emissions.
Twelve of the fourteen existing smelters
use localized hoods to capture furnace
slag tapping emissions. In most of these
cases, the localized hoods were installed
to reduce worker exposure to pollutants
discharged into the furnace building.
Only three smelters use collection
devices to control these captured
emissions, while the other smelters
discharge the emissions to the
atmosphere. Since collection devices
have been demonstrated on these
secondary inorganic arsenic emission
sources to reduce arsenic emissions to
the atmosphere, EPA also considered
these sources for further regulation.
Further regulations are not being
considered for the control of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
miscellaneous sources. These
miscellaneous sources include the
transfer, handling, and conveying of
dust from control device storage
hoppers, smelter flues, and dust
chambers. These secondary emission
sources are relatively small and would
be difficult to control further.
Policy for Determining Control Levels
For this source category of 14 existing
smelters EPA used a three-step
approach for determining the control
levels upon which the proposed
standards are based. This approach is
based upon the policy described in Part
1 of this preamble.
The first step consisted of examining
the adequacy of current controls for
each inorganic arsenic emission source
at the low-arsenic smelters. The level of
current control for each source was
compared to EPA's determination of
BAT for the source. For the sources
judged by EPA to have BAT in place,
EPA then determined if Federally
enforceable standards required the
controls to be continuously operated
and maintained or if these controls
could reasonably be expected to remain
in use without regulations. Based on this
evaluation, EPA identified the emission
sources at the low-arsenic smelters
which required the development of
standards to assure inorganic arsenic
emissions were controlled continuously
using BAT.
The second step involved the
selection of BAT for the emission points
at the low-arsenic smelters identified for
the development of standards. To select
BAT, regulatory alternatives were
defined, based on current or projected
controls plus new controls as called for
by the particular alternative. The
environmental, economic, and energy
impacts of the alternatives were
determined. Based on an assessment of
these impacts, the alternatives which
reflected BAT at each smelter were
selected.
The third step involved consideration
of regulatory alternatives beyond BAT
for all of the inorganic arsenic emission
sources at the low-arsenic smelters. The
risk of cancer incidence due to inorganic
arsenic exposure in the population
distributed around the low-arsenic
smelters was estimated. This estimated
risk which remains after application of
BAT was evaluated considering costs,
economic impacts, risk reduction, and
other impacts that would result if a more
strigent alternative were selected. If the
residual risk was judged not to be
unreasonable considering the other
impacts of controls beyond BAT, more
stringent controls than BAT would not
be required. However, if the residual
risk was judged to be unreasonable,
then an alternative more strigent than
BAT would be required.
Determination of the Adequacy of
Current Controls
Inorganic arsenic emissions sources at
the low-arsenic smelters are currently
controlled using & variety of capture and
collection techniques. Capture
techniqueo are used to gather end
V-N,0,P-28
-------
Faderai Kogisteff / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
confine secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions and to transport them to a
collection device. Or, in some cases,
secondary emissions are captured and
simply vented out of a tall stack for
better dispersion. Collection techniques
are used to remove inorganic arsenic
from process offgases and captured
gases prior to venting the gases to the
atmosphere. Each inorganic arsenic
emission source at the low-arsenic
smelters was examined by EPA to
determine the extent to which inorganic
arsenic emissions are currently
controlled and whether the level of
control represents BAT. In performing
the examination, EPA reviewed the
existing process operations and
pollution control equipment. Four of the
smelters were undergoing improvements
due to either consent degree
requirements (Phelps Dodge-Ajo. Phelps
Dodge-Morenci, and ASARCO-Hayden)
or modernization (Kennecotte-Hurley).
For purposes of evaluating whether BAT
controls were installed, the new smelter
configurations were used.
The first sources to be examined were
the process sources (roasters, smelting
furnaces, and converters) at the low-
arsenic-throughput smelters. During
these process operations, inorganic
arsenic is volatilized and emitted
predominantly as a metallic oxide vapor
in the process offgases. By cooling the
process offgases, the inorganic arsenic
vapor sublimates to form inorganic
arsenic particulates, which can be
collected in a conventional particulate
control device. The two most important
factors affecting the collectability of
inorganic arsenic emissions are the
operating temperature of the control
device and the concentration of arsenic
in the exhaust gas stream. The
temperature of the offgas stream
determines the amount of inorganic
. arsenic which can exist as vapor. The
concentration of inorganic arsenic
compared to the satuation vapor
pressure at the offgas temperature
determines the quantity of inorganic
arsenic which can condense and
potentially be captured in a particulate
control device. Vapor pressure dst«
indicate a significant logarithmic
increase in the vapor pressure of arsenic
trioxide (the prevalent oxide of
inorganic arsenic in the offgas), and thus
the amount of arsenic which can exist in
the vapor state, with temperature.
Furthermore, the vapor pressure data
indicate that arsenic trioxide maintains
an appreciable vapor pressure at
relatively low temperatures. EPA test
data demonstrate the need to cool the
gas stream to be treated as much as
practicable to condense as much of the
arsenic trioxide vapor as possible prior
to its entering a control device for
collection. There are limits to the extent
to which the offgases can be cooled.
Corrosion due to the condensation of
sulfuric acid can be a major problem if
gases are cooled below the acid dew
point. Therefore, to ensure the use of
existing electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
technology without major corrosion
problems, BAT evaluations for flue gas
cooling to enhance particulate inorganic
arsenic collection are limited to a
minimum temperature of 121°C (250°F).
Four of the existing smelters
incorporate roasting of the copper ore
concentrates to remove impurities prior
to entering the smelting furnaces. The
ASARCO-E1 Paso and Phelps Dodge-
Douglas smelters use multihearth
roasters, and the Tennessee Copper-
Copperhill and Kenneycott-Hayden
smelter use fluid bed roasters. Process
offgases from the fluid bed roasters at
Tennessee Copper-Copperhill and
Kennecott-Hayden and the multihearth
roasters at ASARCO-E1 Paso are treated
by acid plant controls to remove SO2
emissions before being exhausted to the
atmosphere. Because of the highly
efficient particulate removal equipment
required, the acid plant controls are
considered 99 percent effective for the
removal of arsenic. These acid plant
controls represent the most advanced
level of control adequately
demonstrated considering economic
feasibility. Therefore, the roasters at
these smelters are already controlled
using BAT.
The multihearth roaster at Phelps
Dodge-Douglas uses an ESP operating at
an elevated temperature (260°C) to
control process offgases. EPA estimates
that this control device currently •
achieves an emission reduction of about
30 percent. EPA evaluated the
possibility of cooling the process gases
to 121°C prior to entering the ESP. The
expected concentration of inorganic
arsenic in the offgases, after cooling to
121 °C, was calculated using arsenic
emission rates and flow rate data
supplied by the company. This
C-iloulfited CQHGSntrStion 19 them
compared to the saturation
concentration at 121°C. However, the
concentration of arsenic in the offgases
at Phelps Dodge-Douglas would still be
below the saturation concentration. As a
result, it is predicted that the inorganic
arsenic would remain in the vapor state
and pass through the particulate control
device with no additional particulate
arsenic removal. Because no additional
arsenic emission reduction is predicted
.when this gas stream is cooled to 121°C,
and because additional cooling would
necessitate costly corrosion resistance
measures, EPA concluded that the
existing ESP at Phelps-Douglas
represents the most advanced level of
control adequately demonstrated
considering economic feasibility, and is
thus BAT.
Smelting furnace offgases at all but 6
of the 14 smelters are controlled
currently by acid plants or will be
controlled by acid plants under consent
decree. As with the roasters, the acid
plants are considered to be 99 percent
efficient for removing inorganic arsenic
and represent BAT controls at these
smelters. The ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter
cools the smelting furnace offgases to
about 105°C before entering an ESP. The
inorganic arsenic concentration in the
smelting furnace offgases greatly
exceeds the inorganic arsenic saturaton
concentration at 10°C, and, therefore,
the arsenic is present predominantly in
the particulate state. Test data indicate
that the inorganic arsenic removal
efficiency for the cold ESP at ASARCO-
El Paso is approximately 96 percent.
Additional cooling is not predicted to
result in any appreciable increase in
arsenic removal; therefore, the existing
cold ESP at ASARCO-E1 Paso represents
the most advanced level of control
considering economic feasibility, and is
thus BAT.
The remaining five smelters all control
smelting furnace offgases with
electrostatic precipitators operating at
temperatures between 190°C and 315°C.
EPA evaluated the possibility of
achieving additional inorganic arsenic
removal in the existing ESP's by cooling
the gas streams to 121°C. In all cases,
the concentration of inorganic arsenic
would be well below the saturation
concentration at 121°C. As a result, the
inorganic arsenic would remain as a
vapor as it passed through the
particulate control device, and no
additional inorganic'arsenic removal
could be predicted. As with the roasters
at Phelps Dodge-Douglas, cooling the
gas stream further to try to condense the
arsenic to particulate would cause
serious corrosion problems and would
ponniro r-noHv nroyontStive m88?ureS:
Consequently, EPA concluded that the
existing ESP's on the smelting furnace
offgases at the Kennecott-Hayden,
Magma-San Manuel, Kennecott-McGill,
Phelps Dodge-Douglas, and the White
Pine smelters were BAT for these
sources.
Converter process offgases at 11 of
the 14 low-arsenic-throughput smelters
are controlled by acid plants. As with
the other process sources, these controls
are considered BAT for inorganic
arsenic. Converter offgases at the Phelps
V-N,0,P-29
-------
tar / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
Dodge-Douglas smelter are controlled by
an ESP operating at 230°C, and at the
Kennecott-McGill smelter by
multiclones operating at 433CC. The
converters at the White Pine smelter are
uncontrolled with an exhaust gas
temperature of 345°C. In all cases, EPA
evaluated the possibility of cooling the
gas streams to 121'C and collecting the
particulate inorganic arsenic in and ESP.
The calulations for the Phelps Dodge-
Douglas and White Pine smelters
indicated that the concentration would
be below the saturation concentration,
;ind no additional arsenic removal was
predicted. As concluded previously, the
existing control scenarios at these two
smelters are then considered BAT. The
calculations for the Kennecott-McGill
smelter, however, indicated that the
concentration of inorganic arsenic was
significant enough that cooling of the
gas stream to 121°C would result in the
condensation of over half of the arsenic
present to the particulate state and
would allow collection of this
particulate in a particulate control
device.
To summarize the process emission
sources, EPA concluded that the control
systems currently in place at ten
smelters and those systems which will
be installed due to consent decree and
modernization programs at four smelters
to control roaster, smelting furnace, and
converter process offgas inorganic
arsenic emissions (with the exception of
the process emissions from the
converters at Kennecott-McGill)
represent the most advanced level of
control adequately demonstrated
considering economic feasibility.
Therefore, these process sources are
already controlled by BAT. Existing
Federally enforceable regulations for
particulate and SO, emissions will
require the controls to remain in place
and to be properly operated and
maintained to reduce emissions. These
regulations serve to assure that BAT for
inorganic arsenic will remain in place. It
should be noted that if the controls
required by consent decree at the three
smelters are not installed as expected,
EPA will reconsider the need for process
standards based upon BAT.
In particular, there is some
uncertainty regarding the consent
decree for the Phelps Dodge-Ajo smelter.
The smelter is negotiating changes to the
consent decree because the company
now feels that the changes outlined in
the decree (installation of oxygen-fuel/
oxygen sprinkle smelting and acid plant
controls) are no longer required to
comply with the recently approved
multipoint rollback (MRP) SIP
regulations for sulfur dioxide control (48
FR 1717. January. 14.1983). If the
smelting furnace and associated
pollution control equipment changes are
not made as specified in the existing
consent decree. EPA would then
reconsider the need for standards for
smelting furnaces. It is expected that
standards based on BAT for smelting
furnaces would affect only the Phelps
Dodge-Ajo smelter and would
necessitate cooling of the reverberator^
furnace exhaust gas. Such cooling would
result in reduction of inorganic arsenic
emissions of about 110 Mg/yr (from
about 200 Mg/yr to 90 Mg/yr) at a
• capital cost of about SI.5 million and an
annualized cost of $1.6 million.
Additional inorganic arsenic control
can be achieved by the addition of flue
gas cooling and particulate controls at
the Kennecott-McGill smelter.
Therefore, because of the sizeable
current inorganic arsenic emission rate
(394 Mg/yr) and because demonstrated
technology is available, EPA decided to
evaluate standards based on BAT for
the converter process offgas emissions
from the Kennecott-McGill smelter.
In all cases, secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from the low-arsenic-
throughput cooper smelters are cool
enough to be present essentially in
particulate form only. This allows the
captured secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions to be collected in
conventional particulate control devices.
The major source of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions at the low-arsenic-
throughput smelters is the converter
operations. There is limited capture of
secondary converter emissions at 5 of
the 14 smelters, and particulate control
equipment to collect the captured
emissions is or will be installed at two
of these. Total baseline secondary
emissions from the converters at all the
'smelters are 137 Mg/yr. These emissions
have the greatest potential health
impact because they are generally low-
level emissions and are not emitted
through stacks. Technology for capture
and collection of these emissions has
been demonstrated. Therefore, because
of the potential for the converter
operations to emit large quantities of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions.
and because of the demonstrated
availability of controls for these.
emissions, EPA decided to evaluate
standards based on BAT for secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
converter operations.
Three of the low-arsenic-throughput
smelters have multihearth roasters with
associated calcine discharge secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions. One of
these smelters, however, will be
changing over to a smelting technology
which does not require roasting as part
of a consent decree modification
discussed in the regulatory baseline
section. For the two remaining smelters,
calcine discharge secondary emissions
are captured in localized hoods and sent
to a particulate control device. This
equipment is already installed at these
smelters and is considered BAT.
Smelting furnace secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from matte tapping
operations are captured at all smelters
using localized hoods. This equipment is
installed at all smelters and is
considered best technology for capture.
Secondary emissions from furnace slag
tapping operations are currently
captured at 11 of the 14 smelters. This
capture is also accomplished with
localized hooding. Because this
equipment is not used at all smelters,
EPA analyzed the impacts of requiring
capture for slag tapping secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions.
Captured secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from matte tapping operations
are collected in particulate control
devices at two smelters and captured
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from slag tapping are collected at only
one smelter. Because these inorganic
arsenic emissions are in the particulate
state and because capture and
collection equipment have been
demonstrated in the industry, EPA
decided to analyze the alternative of
requiring collection of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from matte
and slag tapping operations.
Selection of BAT for Process and
Secondary Inorganic Arsenic Emissions
The control of process and secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions at low-
arsenic-throughput primary copper
smelters is identical to the technology
discussed in Part II of this preamble.
Therefore, the discussion on technology
is only summarized here.
Capture of Secondary Emissions.
The capture of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from primary copper
smelters can be achieved by the
application of local ventilation
techniques (i.e., ventilation hoods and
air curtains) or general ventilation
techniques (i.e., building evacuation).
Once captured, the emissions may be
vented directly to a collection device or
combined with process exhaust gases
prior to collection.
Converter Operations—Local
ventilation techniques for the capture of
secondary emissions include the use of
fixed secondary hoods, retractable
secondary hoods, or air curtain
secondry hoods. General ventilation
techniques, such as building evacuation.
V-N909P-30
-------
Foderal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
take the form of either natural air
changes due to wind and density
differences, or mechanically assisted air
changes.
" The most effective local ventilation
technique evaluated for the capture of
converter secondary emissions involves
the use of a secondary hood system
consisting of a fixed enclosure with an
air curtain. In January, 1983, EPA
conducted a test program designed to
evaluate the effectiveness of the capture
of secondary emissions by the prototype
fixed-enclosure-with-air-curtain system
at the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. This
system was determined to be
representative of a capture system
which could be used at all smelters. The
capture efficiency of the system was
evaluated by performing a gas tracer
study and visual observation. The gas
tracer was released inside the
boundaries of the fixed enclosure, and
the amount of the gas tracer in the
exhaust gases was measured in the
ducting downstream of the enclosure
receiving hood. The capture efficiency
was then calculated by a material
balance of the inlet and outlet tracer gas
mass flow rates. Based on the results of
this test program, the ovrall average
capture efficiency of the fixed-
enclosure-with-air-curtain system was
determined by EPA to be 95 percent.
Capture of converter secondary
emissions by building evacuation is
accomplished by controlling the airflow
patterns within the building housing the
converter and by maintaining a
sufficient air change or ventilation rate.
In theory, EPA believes a building
evacuation system should be capable of
achieving at least 95 percent capture of
secondary emissions. However, the
building evacuation systems in use have
not demonstrated this level of control.
Building evacuation is presently being
used at ASARCO's primary copper
smelter located in El Paso, Texas, to
capture secondary emissions from the
converters. While preventing the venting
of secondary emissions to the ambient
air outside the building, use of the
building evacuation system at the
ASARCO-E! Paso smelter has resulted
in elevated concentrations of inorganic
arsenic, lead, and SO, inside the
building, in addition to excessive heat
buildup. To alleviate these unacceptable
working conditions, building openings
have been increased, and ventilators
designed for emergency use have been
operated routinely. Consequently, the
building evacuation system at the
ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter achieves a
capture efficiency less than 95 percent.
Slag Tapping—Local ventilation
techniques for slag tapping operations
are very similar to those used for matte
tapping. EPA observed furnace slag
tapping operations at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter at both the tap port and
the slag launder to slag pot transfer
point using EPA Methods 22 and 9. The
performance demonstrated by the matte
tapping controls at ASARCO-Tacoma
suggests that a properly designed and
operated ventilation system applied to
slag tapping operations should be
capable of achieving at least SO percent
capture.
Collection of Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions.
As discussed previously, the two most
important factors affecting the
collectability of inorganic arsenic
emissions are the operating temperature
of the control device and the
concentration of arsenic in the exhaust
gas stream. The temperature of the
offgas stream determines the amount of
inorganic arsenic which can exist as
vapor. The concentration of inorganic
arsenic compared to the saturation
vapor pressure at the offgas temperatue
determines the quantity of inorganic
arsenic which can condense and
potentially be captured in a particulate
control device.
Several methods were evaluated for
cooling the converter process offgas at
the Kennecott-McGill smelter. These
methods included tempering with
dilution air, radiative cooling, and
evaporative cooling. Each method has
its advantages and disadvantages.
Dilution air is the simplest method.
However, it may be uneconomical as the
amount of dilution air required may
result in a two- to four-fold increase in
gas volume to be treated and, thus, an
increase in the size and cost of the
collection device and fan applied. In
addition, dilution air lowers the
concentration of arsenic in the gas
stream, thus increasing the amount of
arsenic which can exist in the vapor
phase. Radiative cooling relies on heat
loss due to natural convection and
radiation to achieve cooling. The major
drawback to this method is limited
flexibility for temperatue control.
Evaporative cooling is relatively simple
and requires little space. The major
drawback to this method is the potential
for corrosion. Which method, or
combination of methods, is used to
achieve cooling depends on the specific
circumstances.
In contrast to process offgases,
secondary emission streams are
relatively lower in temperature, seldom
having a temperature higher than 93° C
(200° F). At this low temperature, further
cooling of the secondary emissions
would have an insignificant effect on the
amount of inorganic arsenic which could
be collected by the control device.
Therefore, additional gas cooling prior
to collection is not required for
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions.
Converter process inorganic arsenic
emissions may be effectively collected
through the use of baghouses,
electrostatic precipitators, or venturi
scrubbers if emissions are sufficiently
precooled. Baghouse collectors (fabric
filters) have historically achieved a high
collection efficiency over a broad range
of applications, although never
specifically for control of converter
offgases. Single-stage electrostatic
precipitators are widely used in the
primary copper industry for the control
of process particulate emissions from
converter operations. Both wire-in-plate
and wire-in-tube types are used. They
are generally, however, operated at
elevated temperatures, usually at 200° C
to 340° C (400° F to 650° F). The
application of venturi scrubbers at
primary copper smelters is limited to a
few smelters where scrubbers are used
to augment process gas stream
precleaning and cooling prior to acid
manufacturing. High operating costs and
water handling problems make their use
less desirable than other control
devices.
The concentration of arsenic in the
gas stream is very important in
determining achievable arsenic emission
reductions. To achieve any arsenic
trioxide emission reduction by
condensation, the quantity of arsenic
trioxide in the gas stream must be
sufficiently high so that the resultant
arsenic trioxide concentration at the
control device operating temperature
exceeds the predicted saturation
concentration. The concentration of
inorganic arsenic in the converter
offgases from the Kennecott-McGill
smelter exceeded the saturation
concentration at a temperature of 121°
C. Calculations indicated that over half
of the arsenic present was in the
particulate state.
The effect of the overall collection
efficiency of the control device on
achievable arsenic emission reduction is
self-evident; the higher the efficiency for
particulate matter, the higher the
efficiency for arsenic.
To evaluate the performance
capabilities of various collection devices
on process emissions, EPA conducted
emission source tests on process gas
streams from roasters, smelting
furnaces, and converters. Baghouse,
electrostatic precipitator (ESP), and
venturi scrubber collection systems
were evaluated. Based on the test
results for the collection efficiency of
baghouses, electrostatic precipitators.
V-N.O.P-31
-------
Federal Rogistisr / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
and venturi scrubbers, EPA concluded
that these three control devices, when
applied to process arsenic emission
sources, are equivalent in performance.
Given sufficiently high arsenic
concentration in the offgas and
sufficiently low offgas temperature,
control efficiencies for inorganic arsenic
in excess of 97 percent can be achieved.
Captured secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions may be effectively collected
through the use of baghouses,
electrostatic precipitators, and venturi
scrubbers. Only three domestic copper
smelters use baghouse or ESP collection
devices exclusively for secondary
emissions. No presently operating
primary copper smelter uses a venturi
scrubber for the collection of secondary
emissions. There is no reason to believe
that a venturi scrubber system could not
be installed to effectively collect
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions,
but high operating costs and water
handling problems associated with the
use of venturi scrubbers make their use
less desirable than other devices.
To help evaluate the performance of
collection devices used to collect
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions,
EPA conducted tests on the baghouse at
ASARCO-E1 Paso used to treat
combined converter and anode furnace
secondary emissions. The results of
these tests are summarized below.
Secondary emissions from converters
and anode furnaces at the ASARCO-El
Paso smelter are captured by building
evacuation. Inlet and outlet emission
measurements for inorganic arsenic
were made by EPA at the El Paso
baghouse during converter operations.
Tests were conducted only when one or
more converters were in operation. The
test results indicated an average
inorganic arsenic removal efficiency of
96.2 percent, with a range (in three runs)
from 94.5 to 99.1 percent.
In summary, baghouses, electrostatic
precipitators, and venturi scrubbers are
comparable in terms of secondary
inorganic arsenic emission reduction
performance. However, due to lower
inlet loadings associated with secondary
emissions in general, it is expected that
collection devices used for secondary
emissions streams will not always
achieve high inorganic arsenic collection
efficiencies, because of the lower
arsenic concentrations in these gas
streams.
Selection of Regulatory Baseline
In selecting the basis of the proposed
standards, it was first necessary to
establish the regualtory baseline. The
regulatory baseline represents no
additional regulatory action. In other
words, the baseline alternative
describes the industry in the absence of
a NESHAP arsenic regulation. The
baseline alternative provides the basis
for computing the incremental impacts
associated with each of the regulatory
alternatives selected for consideration.
The regulatory baseline was selected
as including only those existing air
pollution controls installed before the
court order (January 13,1983) or
required by existing legal actions. EPA
realizes that it may be necessary for
some smelters to install additional
controls iA the future to meet other
Clean Air Act or OSHA requirements.
However, given the uncertainty of future
deadlines concerning controls required
under OSHA or the nonferrous smelter
order (NSO) program, it was not
possible to anticipate, for purposes of
this analysis, what controls would be
required or when they would have to be
installed.
Thiee smelters (Phelps Dodge-Ajo and
Morenci. and ASARCO-Hayden)
currently are operating under consent
decrees to install new furnace
configuration and acid plant control
equipment for SOa removal. Final
compliance dates for these consent
decrees have been established as 1985.
Since these controls are mandated by
the court and final compliance will be in
the near future, these controls were
considered as part of the regulatory
baseline.
In addition, the Kennecott-Hurley
smelter is currently modernizing its
facilities. This work has already begun
and is expected to be completed at
about the same time as the smelters
operating under a consent decree. For
these reasons, the smelter configuration.
after modernization, was selected as
part of the regulatory baseline. Chapter
4 of the BID for this source category
explains in detail the process and
control equipment considered in the
regulatory baseline.
Regulatory Alternatives
Following the definition of the
regulatory baseline, designated as
Alternative I, four other regulatory
alternatives were defined for the low-
arsenic-throughput smelters. These
alternatives represent application of
inorganic arsenic controls independently
on various emission points at the
smelters and are characterized by the
control equipment that would be
required (beyond what is required to
meet baseline requirements) to meet
these levels of control.
Alternative II would require the
control of process inorganic arsenic
emissions. This alternative affects only
one smelter where additional inorganic
arsenic removal io predicted (Kennecott-
McCill). This alternative is based on the
use of flue gas cooling followed by a
particulate control device (baghouse.
ESP, or scrubber) to collect process
arsenic emissions. Under this
alternative, an adequate particulate
control device operating at less than
121° C (250° F) would be required to be
installed on the converter process
offgases at the Kennecott-McGill
smelter.
Alternative III would require the
capture and collection of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from
converter operations. This alternative is
based on the use of a secondary hood
system or equivalent for the capture of
secondary emissions and a particulate
control device (baghouse or an
equivalent technology) for the collection
of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions from the converters.
Alternative IV would require the
capture of slag tapping secondary
emissions and the collection of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from matte tapping and slag tapping
operations. Under this alterantive the
capture of the slag tapping secondary .
emissions would be accomplished using
localized ventilation hoods. Collection
of the secondary emissions would be
accomplished in a particulate control
device (baghouse or an equivalent
technology).
Selection of Best Available Technology
Alternative II would require cooling
and particulate collection for the
process emissions from the converters at
the Kennecott-McGill smelter. As
discussed earlier in the adequacy
determination, the concentration of
inorganic arsenic in the reverberatory
furnace offgases at Kennecott-McGill is
well below the saturation concentration
at 121 °C, resulting in no predicted
arsenic collection from the furnace gas
stream, even with cooling to 121°C prior
to passage through the existing ESP. The
analysis of this alternative therefore
assumed use of evaporative cooling to
cool the converter offgases to 121°C and
installation of an electrostatic
precipitator for the collection of
paniculate arsenic emissions.
Calculations of the predicted inorganic
arsenic concentration indicated that
about 60 percent of the arsenic in the
offgases would be in particulate form at
the reduced temperature. Assuming the
ESP would achieve 66 percent reduction
of the particulate arsenic, and overall
inorganic arsenic emission reduction of
57 percent was predicted (161 M§ As/
yr).
The costo associated with these
controls would be about £8.Q million
V-N,0,P-32
-------
KegisJai? / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
capital investment and an annualized
cost of about $4.1 million. The economic
analysis of Alternative II indicated a 45
to 150 percent reduction in profitability
(the latter case indicating a net
operating loss) for the Kennecott-McGill
smelter if the converter process controls
were installed and the costs were
absorbed by the company. If the costs
could be passed through, copper prices
would have to be raised 10 to 15 percent.
Considering these impacts, EPA's
analysis indicated Kennecott-McGill
would close rather than install the
controls. EPA has concluded that the
cost and economic impact of additional
controls for the converter process
emissions at the Kennecott-McGill
smelter are unreasonable and that such
controls are beyond BAT. Therefore, the
exiting process controls at the
Kennecott-McGill smelter are
considered BAT for that particular
smelter. In addition, arsenic emissions
which are discharged to the atmosphere
through stacks are subject to much
greater dispersion than the ground-level
secondary emissions.
It should be pointed out that this BAT
decision is based primarily on the
economic analysis performed for the
Kennecott-McGill smelter and the
conclusion that this smelter would likely
close if required to install process
controls. Thus, while multiclones, when
considered from a technical perspective,
are clearly not the best possible
controls, the Agency believes that
multiclones are the best available
technology considering cost at this
smelter. The Agency recognizes that this
decision serves to perpetuate any
economic dispartiy which results from
the use of process controls on some
smelters and not on others. However,
the Agency does not believe that
elimination of such inequity is an
appropriate purpose of a NESHAP.
Alternative III would require the
capture of secondary emissions from
converter operations and the collection
of the emissions in a participate control
device (baghouse or equivalent). As
noted earlier, the converter is the largest
source of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions at the copper smelters. None
of the existing smelters currently has
best controls installed for limiting
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from converters. Therefore, the cost and
environmental impacts of installing a
secondary hood system consisting of a
fixed enclosure and air curtain were
evaluated for all 14 smelters. The
smelters were ranked as to their
potential to emit secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions from the converters
(see Table III-l). The analysis indicates
that significant emission reduction is
achievable at a reasonable cost for the
six smelters with the greatest potential
inorganic arsenic emissions. The
economic analysis indicates that the
imposition of controls on the Kennecott-
McGill smelter would cause serious
reductions in profitability (12 to 40
percent). It should be noted, however,
that this analysis is necessarily limited
and cannot include all factors known to
the company. However, considering the
cost of converter controls alone, with no
Other control costs required, the analysis
does not predict closure at Kennecott-
McGill.
TABLE Hl-1. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR CONVERTER
OPERATIONS
Smeller
ASARCO-EI Paso -
ASARCO-Hayden
Kcnrccott-McGifl _
Kormacott-Garfield
Phsips Dodga-Morenti
Prtatos Qnrioa Doualas
Phalp9 Dodga-Ajo
Inspiration-Miami ...
Ph8lpo Dodge-Hidalgo
Mcgma-San Manual
Kcnngcott-Hurley
Potential orsertc
cmsstona. Mg/yr
680
585
459
77
69
65
43
26
1 7
12
0 7
05
05
03
Arcarte food rate
to converters. hg/
h
639
97 1
41 6
192
97
12
4.2
4 1
54
22
07
06
076
05
Baselins arsenic
omission3, Mg/yr
875
301
456
77
8.9
6.5
43
2.6
1 7
1.2
07
03
05
03
Predicted cr&3n!c
emission
reduction, Wg/yr
189
24.9
41 6
7.0
8.3
59
4.0
2.3
1 6
1.1
06
0.45
046
027
Annualized control
costs. S1.000
307
408
2,688
1.300
1.908
1.982
2.943
1.562
2.943
1.745
1.278
3.979
2.296
1,278
Cost per unit
emission
reduction. S/Mg
As
16.200
16.400
64.800
185.400
302.900
335.900
710.800
679.100
1.777,000
1,586.000
2,130.000
6.842.000
5.B61 .000
4.733.000
At the remaining eight smelters, which
have lower potential secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
converters, the costs of the controls with
respect to the emission reduction
achievable are very high (cost
effectiveness ranging from about
$700,000 per megagram arsenic reduced
to over $8 million per megagram arsenic
reduced). In addition, the analysis
indicates that the imposition of controls
on the remaining eight smelters would
close at least two (Phelps Dodge-
Douglas and Tennessee Copper-
Copperhill), and the affordability was
questionable for three more. Therefore,
EPA has concluded that the costs and
economic impacts are disproportionate
to the emission reduction benefits for
these eight smelters and that BAT would
not include converter controls for these
eight facilities.
In establishing this cutoff between the
group of six omeltero with the greatest
potential converter fugitive emissions
and the group of eight with lower
potential emissions, the Agency
considered emission rates, emission
reduction potential, control costs, and
the economic impacts of controls. This
analysis led to the clear conclusion that
the additional control is reasonable for
the smelters with the highest potential
emissions and that control is
unreasonable (considering the small
benefit) for smelters with the lowest
potential emissions. The analysis did
not, however, provide a clear, objective
formula for establishing the precise
point at which costs and other impede
become unreasonable relative to the
emission reduction benefits. Therefore,
the cutoff being proposed reflects the
Agency's best judgment of BAT, based
on consideration of the factors which
are relevant to this decision and most
particularly on the Agency's judgment
that arsenic emissions should be
minimized. The Agency recognizes that
others may have different views on
where an appropriate cutoff, if any,
should be made and is specifically
requesting comments on this.
To ensure that the proposed standards
would be based only on those sources
where additional controls would
represent BAT, a cutoff expressed in
objective measurable terms was sought
to exclude the eight smaller emitters
discussed above. The parameter
V-N,0,P-33
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 4fl, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
selected is the total arsenic feed rate to
the converters. The potential inorganic
arsenic emissions from the converters is
closely related to the arsenic feed rate
to the converters. To obtain the arsenic
feed rate, a grab sample of the feed
materials to the converters would be
required daily with subsequent analysis
of a monthly composite sample for
inorganic arsenic using Method 108A.
Measurement of this parameter does not
present a burden since the smelters
monitor the quality of the converter feed
for production purposes. Therefore, a
cutoff based at the level of 6.5 kg/h
arsenic feed rate was selected. This feed
rate would be calculated using the
average percent arsenic in the converter
feed materials and the feed rate of these
materials.
Establishing the cutoff on the basis of
arsenic input to the converters also
provides the potential opportunity for
the smelters to use lower arsenic ores
and thereby avoid the need for
converter controls. EPA has not
examined the extent to which this
practice may be possible but realizes
that this possibility is limited by
contract, ownership, and physical
proximity to ore deposits. Nevertheless,
this does provide a means for reducing
emissions which is possibly less
expensive than use of control
technology.
Alternative IV would require the
capture of fugitive emissions from slag
tapping operations using localized
ventilation techniques (hooding) and the
collection of the emissions from both
matte and slag tapping operations in a
particulate control device (baghouse or
equivalent). Again the smelters were
ranked as to their potential to emit
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from matte and slag tapping operations
(see Table III-2). The analysis indicates
that the costs are not unreasonable and
the potential emission reductions are
greatest for the four smelters with the
greatest potential to emit secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions. The
analysis also indicates that seven of the
remaining ten smelters would
experience very high costs associated
with the small amount of emission
reduction ($640.000/Mg As to over $6
million/Mg As). Therefore. EPA
concluded that, for the four smelters
with the greatest potential to emit, BAT
is additional controls, and, for the ten
remaining smelters, BAT is no
additional controls.
TABLE HI-2.—ENVIRONMENTAL AND COST IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SECONDARY INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR MATTE
AND SLAG TAPPING OPERATIONS
Smelter
ASARCO-Hayden
ASAflCO-Ef Paso
Kennacotl-McGtU
Kennocott-GarfiekJ
Pnelps Dodge-Moreno
Phelpg Oodge-Dougtas...
Phefps Dodge-Ajo
Ptetps Dodge-Hiloalgo
Kennecott- Hu^ey
Tennessee Copper-Copperhill
Magma-San Manuel :
Whito Pino
Potential crsenic
omts&ono, Mg/yr
138
6.5
45
20
09
09
08
06
06
0?
0 1
009
009
OOS
Arsenic process
rate.1 kg/h
i960
102 1
534
487
105
94
195
102
142
43
1 6
1 1
1 0
06
BaseMne arsenic
emissions, Mg/yr
18
1 2
45
20
09
09
08
04
06
02
0 1
009
009
005
Predicted arsenic
emission
reduction Mg/yr
0
04
39
1 7
08
08
0 7
035
052
0 17
008
007
008
004
Annuahzed control
costo, 81,000
0
153
257
510
511
257
261
510
257
257
265
257
54
257
Cost per unit
omission
reduction. S/Mg
Ao
382500
65800
302400
642.500
321 300
372800
1 469.000
494.300
1 512000
3313000
3.671.000
6.425.000
6 425 COO
1 Combined arsenic process rate in both BM mane ond slag.
As in the case of the converter
secondary emission cutoff, EPA selected
a parameter which would objectively
differentiate between the two groups of
smelters. The arsenic content of the
matte and slag are directly related to the
quantity of secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions. Because it is likely that
emissions from matte and slag tapping
operations would be combined into one
collection system, a cutoff based on the
combined arsenic content of the matte
and the slag was selected. This
approach was considered reasonable
since only daily grab samples of matte
and slag would be required with arsenic
analysis performed on a monthly
composite sample using Method 108A.
The arsenic content would be calculated
using the percent arsenrc in the matte
and slag and the matte tap and slag tap
rates. The cutoff selected to exclude
smaller sources where costs become
unreasonable was 40 kg/h total arsenic
in the matte and the furnace slag.
Additional standards for requiring slag
tapping emissions capture will not be
necessary since all smelters operating
above the matte and slag tap cutoff
already have installed localized hoods
considered to be BAT. It should be
noted that using this cutoff would
require the Kennecott-McGill smelter to
install collection equipment for matte
and slag tapping operations. The
imposition of matte and slag tap
controls in addition to converter
controls at the Kennecott-McGill smelter
increases the cost impacts at this
smelter and pushes them closer to
closure.
The following paragraphs discuss the
energy and environmental impacts
associated with the selection of BAT. By
applying fixed enclosures with air
curtains and particulate control
technologies with efficiencies of 95
percent and 96 percent, respectively, to
converter secondary emissions (91.2
percent overall reduction), and
particulate control technologies with
efficiencies of 96 percent to captured
matte tap and slag tap secondary
emissions at the affected smelters, a
total emission reduction associated with
the proposed standards of 111 Mg/yr of
arsenic (from 134 Mg secondary
emissions to 23 Mg secondary
emissions) is achieved.
Standards based upon BAT will
require the use of approximately 6.4
MW of electricity beyond the baseline
energy requirements for the affected
low-arsenic-throughput smelters.
With respect to solid waste impacts,
standards based upon BAT would result
in approximately 11,100 Mg per year of
additional solid waste beyond baseline
for the affected low-arsenic-throughput
smelters. This quantity is not signifcant
in terms of the total solid waste
currently generated annually at these
smelters (estimated at 3.2 million Mg).
As all the control technologies
selected involve dry control systems,
there will be no direct water pollution
impact. If scrubbers were used,
secondary water pollution impacts
V-N,0,P-34
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
might result if the arsenic-containing
dusts are disposed of along with acid
plant slurry. However, no adverse water
pollution impact is anticipated since
existing regulations require control of
these wastes.
EPA has considered each of the
impacts cited above and concludes that
they are reasonable in light of the
emission reduction achieved.
Consideration of Risk Remaining After
BA T and Selection of the Level of the
Standard
With the implementation of converter
controls for smelters with a total arsenic
feed to the converter of 6.5 kg/h or
greater and the implementation of matte
and slag tap controls for smelters with a
combined arsenic process rate of 40 kg/
h or greater in the matte and the slag,
BAT would be in place at all smelters.
EPA estimated the health risk remaining
after application of BAT to all of these
smelters and examined the residual risk
to determine whether the risk is
unreasonable in view of the health risk
and other impacts that would seresult if
a more stringent regulatory alternative
were selected as BAT.
The health risk is expressed by the
estimated number of incidences of
cancer due to inorganic arsenic
exposure in the population distributed
around the affected smelters. For the
current level of inorganic arsenic
emissions from the smelters, the annual
cancer incidence is estimated to range
from 0.1 to 1.6 incidence per year. With
BAT in place at these smelters for all of
the significant inorganic arsenic
emission points, the estimated annual
cancer incidence would be reduced to a
range of 0.04 to 0.64 incidence per year.
Application of BAT would reduce the
estimated maximum lifetime risk from
exposure to airborne inorganic arsenic
from a range of 43 in 10,000 to 690 in
10,000 to a range of 9.4 in 10,000 to 150 in
10,000. The estimated maximum lifetime
risk represents the probability of a
person contracting cancer who has been
continuously exposed during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual inorganic
arsenic concentration due to inorganic
arsenic emissions from ihe iuw-arsenic-
throughput smelters.
Regulatory alternatives beyond BAT
were examined by EPA for inorganic
arsenic emission points at three
categories of smelters: (1) smelters
where additional controls for secondary
emissions from converter operations,
and matte and slag tap operations
would be installed to achieve BAT; (2)
smelters where additional controls for
only secondary emissions from
converter operations would be installed
to achieve BAT; and (3) smelters where
BAT is already in place for all sources,
and no additional controls would be
required to achieve BAT.
There are four smelters (ASARCO-E1
Paso, ASARCO-Hayden, Kennecott-
McGill, Kennecott-Garfield) in the first
category. Implementation of converter
controls and matte and slag tap controls
for secondary emissions would result in
BAT for these sources. The EPA
analysis indicated that except in the
case of Kennecott-McGill, there were no
demonstrated technologically based
alternatives for further reduction of
inorganic arsenic emissions for these
smelters short of shutdown. The
alternative of flue gas cooling for
converter process controls at Kennecott-
McGill was evaluated previously.
Although this technology would result in
approximately 60 percent reduction in
converter process arsenic emissions, the
associated costs are predicted to result
in closure. There is then, in effect, no
alternative for beyond BAT reduction of
inorganic arsenic emissions from the
Kennecott-McGill smelter short of
closure. Shutdown of these four smelters
would reduce the estimated residual
cancer incidence for the source category
from a range of 0.0€ to 0.64 incidence per
year to 0.01 to 0.23 incidence per yean
however, this would result in the loss of
about 2,000 jobs.
There are two smelters (Kennecott-
Hayden, Phelps Dodge-Morenci) in the
second category. Implementation of
converter controls for secondary
emissions would result in achieving BAT
for these sources. Addition of matte and
slag tap controls would have virtually
no effect on the residual risk reduction
estimate and would impose additional
capital and annualized costs($2.68
million and $0.77 million, respectively).
Addition of flue gas cooling at
Kennecott-Hayden would result in no
additional arsenic emission reduction,
and, therefore, no-reduction in estimated
residual risk.
The remaining eight smelters are in
the third category, where the analysis
concluded that BAT was currently in
place at these smelters. Alternatives
beyond BAT considered for these
smelters were additional process
controls at the Magma-San Manuel,
Phelps Dodge-Douglas, and White Pine
smelters, and the addition of converter,
and matte and slag tap secondary
emission controls at all eight smelters.
The EPA analysis indicated that no
additional arsenic emission reduction
could be achieved by requiring flue gas
cooling at Phelps Dodge-Douglas,
Magma-San Manuel and White Pine so
there would be no reduction in
estimated residual risk. Requiring
secondary emission controls for
converter operations at all eight
smelters would result in a reduction of
estimated cancer incidence from a range
of 0.04 to 0.64 incidence per year to a
range of 0.03 to 0.55 incidence per year.
Estimated maximum lifetime risk would
be reduced from a range of 9.4 in 10.000
to 150 in 10,000 to a range of 7.5 in 10,000
to 120 in 10,000. However, the imposition
of these controls would close at least
two smelters and the viability of three
more is questionable. Requiring
secondary emission controls for matte
and slag tap at all eight smelters would
result in no reduction of estimated
residual risk of cancer incidence.
An alternative to reducing inorganic
arsenic in the emission offgases is to
reduce inorganic arsenic in the feed
material to the smelter. However,
reducing the arsenic content of the feed
materials prior to the smelting process
through physical or chemical means has
not been technologically demonstrated
for pyrometallurgical smelters.
In summary, EPA conluded that
implementation of any alternatives
beyond BAT would mean closure of 4
smelters and use of controls more
effective than BAT at the remaining 10
smelters. These beyond BAT
alternatives reduce the estimated
maximum lifetime risk to a range of 7.5
in 10,000 to 120 in 10,000 and the
estimated annual cancer incidence to a
range of 0.008 to 0.12. However,
imposition of controls more effective
than BAT would likely close 2 of the 10
smelters and the viability of 3 more is
questionable. At smelters where
controls more effective than BAT could
be applied without causing closure, the
resultant reduction in risk would be
negligible. Considering the relatively
small reduction in risk that would be
possible by alternatives beyond BAT,
and the very high costs and economic
impacts of these alternatives, EPA
concluded that the estimated residual
risks associated with BAT are not
unreasonable. Therefore, the proposed
standards are based on BAT.
Alternative Regulatory Strategies
EPA recognizes that the policy upon
which the proposed decision is based
gives limited weight to information on
exposure and health risks in determining
BAT and gives substantial weight to the
economic feasibility of installing
technologically available emission
controls. For example, the degree of
public exposure to inorganic arsenic
from low-arsenic copper smelters varies
significantly from plant to plant. This is
because the BAT being proposed for this
source category is based primarily on
the economic and technical feasibility of
V-N,0,P-35
-------
:er / Vol. 48, Nor i J / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
controlling smelters with varying
arsenic feed rates. Because it is more
cost-effective on a dollars per megagram
basis to control smelters with higher
arsenic input levels, EPA is proposing to
require secondary emission controls on
converters only for existing smelters
with an inorganic arsenic feed rate of 6.5
kg/h or greater. Since some smelters
with arsenic feed rates lower than 6.5
kg/h are located in areas with relatively
high population while other smelters
with arsenic feed rates greater than 6.5
kg/h are located in areas with relatively
low populations,-EPA recognizes that its
method for determining BAT may result
in the lack of controls on certain
smelters that pose greater estimated
health risks than some of the smelters
that the Agency is proposing to regulate.
The Agency therefore requests public
comment on the degree to which
information on exposure and public
risks should be used to establish BAT.
EPA is considering two alternatives
for using this information to determine
BAT for low-arsenic primary copper
smelters. As detailed below, these are
subdividing source categories according
to (1) population density (e.g., defining
high and low population density source
categories), and (2) estimated before-
control cancer incidence rates and
maximum individual risk. Once EPA has
adopted a specific set of population
exposure categories, the Agency would
establish BAT for sources in each
exposure category and then consider the
residual risk. The following discussion
describes how these could be applied
and includes cutoff criteria that
illustrate the possible application to
low-arsenic copper smelters. EPA
requests comments on the approaches
outlined below and, although the cutoffs
which are presented are for illustrative
purposes, comments are also requested
on these or other cutoffs which may be
appropriate. Comments received will be
considered by the Agency both in
making final decisions on this standard
and by an agencywide task force on
toxics integration which is considering a
unified Agency strategy on regulation of
toxic chemicals.
Population Density Approach
Under this alternative, EPA would
subdivide the source category on the
basis of population density before
determining BAT. The advantage of this
approach is that a stricter standard
could be applied to plants where
potential exposures, and thus potential
threats to public health, are greater.
Under this approach, EPA would first
subdivide the source category according
to the population living within some
distance of the plant. EPA is considering
defining this distance as 20 kilometers
around each copper smelter. Up to this
distance dispersion models used to
calculate concentrations are reasonably
accurate. At further distances they are
less reliable and predict only very small
concentrations of inorganic arsenic. EPA
would then subdivide each source
category into population density
subcategories. For example, low arsenic
copper smelters would be subdivided
into high population density and low
population density smelters. EPA is
considering defining the high/low
population density cutoff as 10,000
people using the most recent reasonably
available population census tract data.
BAT would be defined for both high and
low density population categories.
High Population Density—For high
population density low arsenic copper
smelters, EPA would consider requiring
secondary inorganic arsenic control
systems for converter operations at
smelters with arsenic feed rates greater
than 25 kg/h. According to the
information contained in the
background information documents
(BID's), this would result in controls at
the ASARCO-E1 Paso smelter. EPA is
also considering requiring secondary
inorganic arsenic emission systems for
matte and slag tapping operations at
smelters in this subcategory where the
combined arsenic process rate in both
the matte and slag operations exceeds
15 kg/h. This would result in controls on
the ASARCO-E1 Paso, Kennecott-
Garfield, and Inspiration-Miami
smelters.
Low Population Density—For low
population density low-arsenic copper
smelters, EPA is considering requiring
secondary emission control systems for
converter operations at smelters with
feed rates greater than 35 kg/h. This
.would result in controls on the
Kennecott-McGill and ASARCO-
Hayden smelters. EPA is also
Considering requiring secondary
emission control systems at matte and
slag tapping operations at smelters in
this subcategory when the combined
process rate exceeds 35 k/h. This would
result in controls on the Kennecott-
McGill and ASARCO-Hayden smelters.
Cancer Incidence And Health Risk
Based Approach
A second alternative would be for
EPA to make more explicit use of both
before-control maximum individual risk
and estimated incidence of cancer in the
exposed population in subdividing these
source categories. As stated earlier,
maximum individual lifetime risk is the
probability of someone contracting
cancer who is continuously exposed to
maximum annual average arsenic
concentration during an entire lifetime
(70 years). Cancer incidence is a
summation of all the risks to people
living within 20 kilometers of a source
divided by 70 to yield expected cancer
incidences per year.
The major disadvantage in this
approach is the great uncertainty
surrounding health risk estimates. One
must make numerous assumptions when
producing quantitative estimates of
public health risks. More particularly.
factors such as meteorology, terrain,
population distribution, plant
characteristics, reentrainment of
inorganic-arsenic-containing dust, and
other site specific factors all affect the
extent of public exposure to arsenic.
Moreover, individual characteristics
such as physiology, physical activity
level, activity patterns, and the effects of
exposures to other substances alter the
sensitivity of individuals to inorganic
arsenic. In order to estimate exposure
effects, EPA must make a considerable
number of simplifying assumptions that
may well affect the accuracy of the final
risk estimates. These assumptions and
the methodologies are laid out in the
background information documents
listed in the beginning of this preamble.
Nevertheless, risk information,
whatever its limits, is the information
that bears most directly on the harms
EPA seeks to avoid. The approach EPA
now follows relies on use of this
information in the Agency's analysis of
residual risk when deciding whether
controls beyond BAT are appropriate.
The Agency requests comment on the
appropriateness of using such
information in subdividing categories for
the purposes of establishing BAT.
If this approach were followed, the
Agency would subdivide the low-arsenic
copper smelters into higher risk and
lower risk subcategories. For instance, if
the before-control maximum individual
risks and estimated cancer incidence
rates from a smelter exceeded some
predetermined levels, the smelter would
be placed in the higher risk category. If
they did not, it would be placed in the
lower risk category. BAT would then be
defined for each subcategory.
EPA would determine the high/low
risk cutoff by jointly considering
maximum individual risk and cancer
incidence. That is, if the before-control
maximum estimated individual risk level
for a particular plant were 10"°, the
estimated annual cancer incidence rate
would have to exceed some value, e.g.
0.14, in order for the plant to fall into the
higher risk category. For a plant
imposing a higher estimated maximum
individual risk, say 10"a, the estimated
annual cancer incidence rate necessary
V-N,0,P-36
-------
/ Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
to place it in the higher risk category
might be lower, e.g. 0.014. Theoretically,
for the higher maximum individual risk
levels, the Agency could set the
estimated cancer incidence level in such
a way that even one person at that high
exposure would cause e plant to be
regulated. For instance, if the before-
control estimated individual risk for a
particular plant is 10~B, the before-
con trol estimated annual cancer
incidence level could be set as low as
0.00014 (10~8 divided by 70) so that a
single individual having near that source
at a 10"2 risk would place it in the higher
risk category.
For purposes of illustration only, EPA
presents the following possible cutoffs.
These are not the product of any
particular analytical methodology,
although they appear to provide
defensible results when applied to low-
arsenic-feed smelters. They are offered
primarily to assist commenters in
focusing on the new approaches
suggested.
tfttra
rnoximurn
crtdivKlu&l
risk is
greater
than:
10-
10-
10-
10-
10-
10-
ond
Tha
annual
concer
tnctdsnco
b greater
than:
0.0014
0.0014
0.0140
0.0140
0.1400
1.4000
Then
Tt»
cmatter
oouldbs
dasoifisd
"highsj
ristt"
The Administrator would like to
reiterate that these numbers are
presented only for illustrative purposes.
The Administrator recognizes that the
selection of these numbers should
involve public discussion.
EPA's analysis indicates that using
these cutoffs would result in the
Kennecott-McGill, ASARCO-Hayden,
Inspiration Miami, ASARCO-E1 Paso,
and Phelps Dodge-Ajo smelters being
classified "higher risk" while all other
omelters would be "lower risk."
BAT for higher risk smelters would be
defined as secondary inorganic arsenic
control systems for converter, matte
tapping, and slag tapping operations.
BAT for lower risk smelters would be
the existing level of control.
If EPA were to follow this approach,
the final rule would probably specify the
unit risk number, dispersion model[s]
and modeling assumptions, and
method[s] for establishing the numbers
and locations of exposed persons that
would be used to determine maximum
individual risk and expected annual
cancer incidence for each smelter.
Selection of Format of Proposed
Standards
Under the authority of Section 112, a
NESHAP must, whenever possible, take
the format of a numerical emission limit.
Typically, an emission limit is written in
terms of an allowable mass emission
rate (mass of pollutant per unit time) or
an allowable concentration (mass of
pollutant per volume of gas). In some
instances, a process weight limit (weight
of pollutant per unit of product or input)
or a minimum percent emission
reduction of pollutant (control system
collection efficiency) is used. All of
these types of standards require the
direct measurement of emissions to
determine compliance.
However, in certain instances,
numerical emission limits are not
possible. Section 112(e)(2) recognizes
this situation by defining two conditions
when it is not feasible to prescribe or
enforce an emission limit. The
conditions are: (1) when the pollutants
cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant; or (2) when the
application of a measurement
methodology is not practicable due to
technological or economic limitations. In
such instances, Section 112(e)(l)
authorizes design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards.
Mass rate, concentration, process
weight, and percent emission reduction
emission limits for the capture of
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
from converter operations are not
considered feasible. Opacity data are
available which describe the
performance of fixed enclosures with air
curtains over a limited range of
operating conditions. However, these
data are not considered to represent a
sufficient basis for establishing emission
standards which must be achieved at all
times. Therefore, the proposed "
standards for the capture of secondary
emissions from converter operations
will be set forth in terms of equipment
and work practice requirements.
Secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions vary due to the changes in the
arsenic content of the feed and other
process variables. Therefore, if
standards were to be set specifically for
arsenic collection for secondary
emission streams, an efficiency standard
would appear to*be a logical choice to
assure the application of BAT in all
cases. However, the concentration of
arsenic in secondary emissions gas
streams could be very low. It is not
possible to guarantee that a consistently
high collection efficiency for arsenic
could be attained over the entire range
of arsenic concentrations which might
occur in secondary emissions gas
streams. For this reason, an efficiency
standard cannot be set which would
both be achievable and assure the
application of BAT for secondary
inorganic arsenic control for all normal
operating conditions.
As an alternative to standards
specifically for arsenic, standards for
total particulate (which would include
arsenic particulate) were considered for
the collection of secondary emissions.
Secondary emission gas streams are
cool enough so that the inorganic
arsenic in the gas stream should exist
and be collectable as particulate. In
addition, while the arsenic fraction may
vary, total particulate emissions are
relatively constant in terms of
concentration, thus making it possible to
select a standard which would require
the use of BAT for arsenic regardless of
variations in the arsenic content of the
feed. Such a standard achieves the
result of minimizing inorganic arsenic
emissions by requiring use of the best
available technology. For these reasons,
standards expressed as concentration of
total particulate were selected for the
collection of secondary emissions from
matte and slag tapping, and converters.
Selection of Emission Limits and
' Equipment Specification
As described previously, the proposed
standards for smelters will require the
application of secondary hood systems
to capture converter secondary
emissions. Baghouses, or equivalent
control technologies, will be requied to
collect the captured secondary
emissions from matte and slag tapping,
and converters. EPA has determined
that the combination of these
technologies represents the best
available technology (BAT) for limiting
inorganic arsenic emissions from
-primary copper smelters comprising the
low-arsenic-throughput smelter source
category, considering cost, economic,
and energy impacts. The proposed
standards are, therefore, designed to
limit organic arsenic emissions to levels
attainable through the installation and
proper use uf these ieciiiiOiOgies.
The proposed standards for the
capture of secondary arsenic emissions
from converters are set forth in terms of
equipment and work practice
requirements. The proposed equipment
specification reflects the prototype
secondary hood air curtain system
installed at the ASARCO-Tacoma
smelter. The proposed work practice
standards are based on EPA's
observation or work practices at
ASARCO-Tacoma that significantly
impact the amount of secondary
V-N,0,P-37
-------
Fedetrai Kegistsr / Vol. 48,' No. 140 / Wednesday, July !2b. 1983 /' Proposed"
emissions that are captured by the
secondary hood system. The equipment
specification and work practice
standards proposed for the low-asenic-
throughput smelters are identical to
those proposed for high-arsenic-
throughput smelters. A detailed
description of these equipment and
work practice requirements can be
found in Part II of this preamble under
"Selection of Emission limits and
Equipment Specifications."
The proposed standards for secondary
emission collection systems are based
upon the performance of baghouses. As
described under "Control Technology,"
EPA believes that a properly designed
and operated ESP or wet scrubber
would also be capable of achieving this
level of performance. The emission limit
for secondary emissions being proposed
is 11.6 milligrams of particulate matter
per standard cubic meter (0.005 grains
particulate matter per standard cubic
foot) measured at the outlet of the
collection device. This standard is
applicable to secondary emissions from
matte and slag tapping, and converter
operations. The performance test
method to be used for the emission
standard is EPA Reference Method 5,
which measures both inorganic arsenic
and other particulate emissions at 121°
C (250° F).
The limit of 11.6 mg/dscm (0.005 gr/
dscf) for secondary emissions is based
upon data obtained using Method 5 on
the secondary emission control system
at ASARCO-E1 Paso. The performance
of this system and the test results are
described under "Control Technology"
and are presented in Appendix C of the
BID for this source category.
Optimization Of Secondary Hood Air
Curtain System
It is intended that the installation of
equipment specified in the proposed
standards for the capture of converter
secondary emissions will give the owner
or operator of each affected converter
the capability of reducing emissions to a
level consistent with the application of
BAT. In developing the equipment
specifications, the Administrator has
been specific for some requirements as
in the case of fan horsepower capacity,
and more general for others, such as the
dimensions of the secondary hood.
Some of the requirements are general
because unless there are any new
smelters, which is considered unlikely,
each installation will be a retrofit; that
is, each air curtain secondary hood
system will have to be custom designed
to fit each existing converter. Due to
space limitations, existing pollution
control equipment already in place and
other considerations, the exact
configuration of each secondary hood
with air curtain system installed will
vary from smelter to smelter.
Beyond hood configuration, the
performance of each air curtain
secondary hood system will depend on a
balance of several other parameters.
including the dimensions of the air
curtain slot, the velocity of air through
the slot, and the distance from the slot
to the offtake. These parameters are
adjustable in the sense that they can be
altered in a relatively short time and at
relatively small cost. It is expected that
after the initial installation of each air
curtain secondary hood system, there
will be a "shakedown" or optimization
period during which the proper balance
of system parameters will be determined
for each particular installation.
For every air curtain secondary hood
installation, there will be an optimum
set of operating conditions, beyond
which further "fine tuning" of the system
will not result in increased capture
efficiency. Section 112(e)(l) of the Clean
Air Act states, in part, that if the
Administrator promulgates a design or
work practice standard, "he shall
include as part of such standard such
requirements as will assure the proper
operation and maintenance of any such
element of design or equipment."
"Proper operation" of an air curtain
secondary hood system includes
operating the system as close to
optimum conditions as possible, and the
owner or operator would be required to
do so under the proposed standards. It is
not the Administrator's intent, however,
to require the owner or operator to
operate a system beyond optimum
conditions (i.e., at flow rates and power
requirements that do not achieve
additional capture) or to prevent
operational changes that may not affect
the capture efficiency of the system.
Authority for determination of the
optimum conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood system installed to meet
the proposed standards would vest with
the Administrator. Due to the variables
involved, and the fact that each
installation will be site specific, it is not
possible for the Administrator to
prescribe in advance what will
constitute optimum operating conditions
for each air curtain secondary hood
installation. Objective techniques, such
as the tracer study used to evaluate the
air curtain secondary hood system on
the No. 4 converter at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter, are available to help
determine capture efficiency. However.
a final determination of whether a
system has truly been optimized, or if
not. what steps should (or could) be
taken to improve it, will largely be a
matter of judgment.
One approach the Administrator is
considering as a method for determining
optimum conditions for each air curtain
secondary hood installation would be to
have each system evaluated by a panel
of persons with expertise in assessing
visible emissions of air pollutants. The
panel could be comprised of 3 or more
persons, including representatives of
industry, EPA, and local air pollution
control agencies.
The panel would evaluate each air
curtain secondary hood as follows: (1)
the panel would review the plans and
specifications of the system prior to
installation; (2) the panel would agree
on initial operating conditions for the
system: (3) the panel would observe the
operation of the system during each
mode of converter operation under the
initial operating conditions. Estimates of
the capture effectiveness achieved,
based on visual observations, would be
recorded by each panel member for
each mode of operation. In addition.
comments on the minimum and
maximum capture effectiveness
achieved, the duration, location and
density of visible emissions observed,
and a qualitative assessment of the
volume of the emissions escaping
capture (e.g., light, moderate, heavy,
etc.) would be recorded: (4) based on
this initial evaluation, the panel would
agree on what modifications would be
needed to further optimize the operation
of the air curtain secondary hood; and
(5) the panel would again view the
system (as in 3) after modification to
compare its performance to pre-
modification performance. After this,
steps 4 and 5 would be repeated as
needed until there was agreement
among the panel members that the
system had been optimized. The panel
would then recommend a set of optimum
operating conditions for that system to
the Administrator along with
documentation of their evaluation. In the
event of disputes, panel members would
submit separate recommendations. The
Administrator would make a final
determination of the optimum conditions
based on the panel's recommendation
and supporting documentation.
If, subsequent to a determination that
a system has been optimized, an owner
or operator proposes to make an
additional modification to the system,
the panel would again be convened and
would observe the system both before
• and after the change as prescribed in (3)
above. The modification could be
approved by the Administrator if the
panel found it did not reduce capture
efficiency.
V-N,0,P-38
-------
iff / Vol. 40, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1883 / Proposed Rules
The Administrator believes this
approach would assure that the air
curtain secondary hood system is
designed and operating conditions
established which will minimize
secondary inorganic arsenic emissions
to the greatest extent possible, but
would also allow the owner or operator
to make modifications to the system that
would not reduce capture efficiency.
The public is invited to comment on the
need to evaluate the optimization of
each air curtain secondary hood system
and on the panel approach being
considered by the Administrator.
Equivalent Systems for the Capture of
Secondary Emissions From Converter
Operations
Although the equipment specified in
the proposed regulation for the capture
of secondary emissions from converter
operations is an air curtain secondary
hood system, it is not EPA's intention to
preclude the use of other capture
systems that may be as effective as the
air curtain secondary hood system.
Under Section 112(e)(3) of the Clean Air
Act, if a design, equipment, work
practice or operational standard is
promulgated, the Administrator is
authorized to approve an alternative
means of emission limitation if it will
achieve a reduction at least equivalent
to the means specified in the regulation.
The Administrator anticipates that the
promulgated standards for both high-
and low-arsenic throughput copper
smelters will include provisions under
which a source owner may obtain
approval for the use of an alternative
capture system. Approval would be
based on demonstration that the
alternative system is equivalent or
superior to the air curtain secondary
hood system in terms of capture efficient
for secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions. Demonstration of . _
equivalency would have to be by a
method approved by the Administrator
and designed specifically for the system
to be evaluated.
As previously indicated, the prototype
air curtain secondary hood system
installed en converter No. 4 at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter is the basis
for the equipment specifications in the
proposed standards. The performance of
the ASARCO-Tacoma system was
evaluated by EPA in January 1983. The
techniques used to evaluate the
ASARCO system included (1) a tracer
mass balance, (2) opacity measurements
with a transmissiometer, and (3) visual
observation. Details of the evaluation
program are discussed in the report,
"Evaluation of an Air Curtain Hooding
System for a Primary Copper
Converter—ASARCO, Inc.. Tacoma,
Washington."(15)
Although problems were encountered
with transmissiometer readings, the
results of the tracer study and visual
observations provided a basis for
judging the capture efficiency of the
system. In the tracer study, a suitable
tracer (sulfur hexafluoride) was
quantitatively injected at various points'
within the air curtain control area during
all modes of converter operation. By
combining the measurements of the
tracer concentration at a sampling point
downstream of the secondary hood
suction plenum with flow rate
measurements, it was possible to
calculate the amount of tracer captured
by the air curtain and suction plenum.
The capture efficiency was then
calculate from the amount of tracer
injected and the amount captured. The
tracer study indicated an overall
average capture efficiency of the
ASARCO-Tacoma system of 95 percent.
Throughout the tracer study, visual
observations of the ASARCO-Tacoma
air curtain secondary hood system were
also made by EPA and local agency
personnel. System performance was
characterized by a variety of visual
indicators, including the duration and
opacity,of fume spillage from the hood
and an assessment of the capture
effectiveness achieved. In general, the
observation logs showed that the visual
assessments of capture effectiveness
correlated with the average collection
efficiencies determined by the tracer
technique. Lighting, background
conditions, and occasional viewing
obstructions (such as the overhead
crane) caused problems during the
observation of the hood during some
modes of converter operation. The
capture effectiveness of the system was
most viewable during charging
operations and althoughJhe system's
capture effectiveness varied depending
on mode of converter operation, it was
felt that the capture effectiveness
observed during charging was a good
indicator of the system's overall
performance.
The Administrator believes that both
the tracer technique and the use of
visual observations may also be suitable
methods for evaluating the performance
of alternative capture systems to
determine equivalency. Specifically, the
Administrator believes it would be
reasonable to consider an alternative
capture system equivalent to a
secondary hood with air curtain system
if the results of a tracer study designed
specifically for that system showed an
overall average capture efficiency of 95
percent or greater. With regard to visible
emission observations, the
Administrator believes that an
alternative system may be equivalent to
a secondary hood with air curtain
system if no visible emissions were seen
to escape the capture system during
converter charging.
The public is invited to comment on
the possible use of these techniques to
determine equivalency and also to
suggest any other techniques that may
be effective.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
This section discusses the selection of
the proposed monitoring requirements.
The purpose of monitoring is to
determine whether or not the equipment
used to control arsenic emissions is
properly operated and maintained to
meet the proposed emission standards.
Authority for these proposed monitoring
requirements is found in Section 114 of
the Clean Air Act which authorizes the
Administrator to require monitoring
equipment or methods for the purpose of
determining violations of standards
proposed under the Clean Air Act. In
addition, all monitoring data would be
maintained in such a manner so as to be
accessible to the Administrator and his
authorized personnel.
The performance of the equipment
used to capture the secondary emissions
from the converter operations is highly
dependent on flow rate. If the flow rate
is not measured, it is not possible for
either the operator or EPA to determine
whether the equipment is properly
operated and maintained. Therefore the
proposed standards require continuous
monitoring of the time and air flow rate
through the air curtain system, and
keeping a log of times for each of the
converter operations. This would allow
correlation of recorded gas flow rates
with the corresponding converter
operation.
To help the Administrator determine
whether each secondary hood system is
being properly operated and maintained,
measured air flow rates would be
compared to source specific reference
values for each converter operating
mode. To establish source specific air
flow reference values, the owner or
operator would determine the flow rates
which correspond to each converter
operating mode while the secondary
hood system is operating under optimum
conditions.
Monitoring performance of the
collection device for secondary
emissions is important to the operator
and EPA to determine whether the
collection equipment is properly
operated and maintained. One
alternative to monitoring the
V-N,0,P-39
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
performance of the collection device is
Jo periodically test the collection device
using EPA Reference Method 5.
However, this alternative is not
considered reasonable. Continuous
monitoring of opacity or an operating
parameter of the collection device may
be used to indirectly monitor
performance by indicating whether or
not the collection device is operating in
the same manner as when it
demonstrated compliance. Of these two
alternatives, monitoring opacity is
thought to be somewhat simpler to
apply. The recommended monitoring
requirement for the collection of
secondary emissions is to continuously
monitor opacity using a
transmissometer.
To implement this monitoring
requirement, it would be necessary to
establish a reference opacity level
against which future performance of the
control system could be compared. To
establish the source-specific reference
opacity level, the owner or operator of
trie source would be required to conduct
continuous opacity monitoring during
the emission test. The opacity
monitoring results would be reduced to
6-minute averages, and the opacity level
would be established at the 97.5 percent
upper confidence level of a normal or
log normal (whichever is more
representative) distribution of the 8-
minute average opacity values. This
opacity level would be the basis for
determining whether the collection
device is continuously performing
effectively. Any monitored opacity
reading above the emission test opacity
reading would indicate that the
collection device may no longer be
meeting the proposed total particulate
emission limit. A Method 5 test could
then be performed to determine
compliance.
Selection of Emission Test Methods
The emission test method selected to
determine compliance with the proposed
standard for the collection of secondary
emissions is EPA Reference Method 5.
This test method measures particulate
emissions (both inorganic arsenic and
other particulates) collected at 121°C
(250'F). (For a full discussion of this
method, see Appendix A. 40 CFR 00,] As
was noted and explained earlier, it is
necessary to measure total particulate
matter rather than just inorganic arsenic
for secondary emissions. Therefore, EPA
Reference Method 108 is inappropriate
and was not considered.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirement
Owners and operators of sources
covered by the proposed standard
would be subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards, as well as those
prescribed in the General Provisions
(Subpart A) of 40 CFR Part 61. Under
§61.10 of the General Provisions, an
initial report from each existing source
is required to be submitted within SO
days of the effective date. For purposes
of determining initial applicability, the
proposed standards for low-arsenic
throughput smelters specify that the
initial report required in §61.10(a) will
include information on the weight
percent inorganic arsenic in the total
smelter charge, the converter arsenic
charging rate, and the smelting furnace
arsenic tapping rate. The proposed
standards further require that each
month the computation of a rolling
annual coverage of the inorganic arsenic
content of the total smelter charge, the
converter arsenic charging rate, and the
smelting furnace arsenic tapping rate be
made and that the monthly
computations be recorded and kept on
site for at least 2 years. These monthly
computations would have to be reported
to EPA on an annual basis to ensure that
applicability with respect to the
standards had not changed.
Under Section 114, the Administrator
is authorized to establish reporting
requirements to determine whether
there is a violation of standards
proposed under the Clean Air Act.
Concern as to whether the systems for
the control of arsenic emissions are
continuing to meet the proposed
standards would primarily arise when
monitoring showed opacity levels in
excess of those determined during the
compliance demonstration or air flow
rates that vary significantly from those
established during the optimization
procedures. Therefore, in determining
the necessary reporting requirements, it
was considered reasonable to require
reporting only when such "excess
emission" conditions exist. Reporting of
these excess emission conditions would
be required on a semiannual basis.
Currently, there are no existing sources,
besides the copper smelters, which
collect any of this information. In
addition, there are no reporting
requirements by other governmental
agencies for this type of information
which would result in overlapping data
requirements. The types of information
to be included in the reports are
discussed below.
For the converter secondary hood
system, each semiannual report would
indicate: (1) the reference air flow rates
established for each converter operating
mode, and (2) a record of air flow rates
for each day when the air flow rates are
less than 20 percent of the
corresponding reference air flow rate
values.
For the collection devices for
secondary emissions, each semiannual
report would provide: (1) a record of
transmissometer readings for each day
on which the opacity exceeded the
opacity limit determined at the time the
collection device demonstrated
compliance, at any time of the day; and
(2) the values of the emission test
opacity limits.
Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
EPA believes that these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are
necessary to assist the Agency in (1)
identifying sources, (2) observing the
compliance testing and demonstration of
monitoring devices, (3) determining
inital compliance, and (4) enforcing the
standard after the initial compliance
determination.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that qualify
as an "information collection request"
(1CR). For the purposes of
accommodating OMB's review, EPA
uses 2-year periods in its impact
analysis procedures for estimating the
labor-hour burden of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The average annual burden on low-
arsenic-throughput copper smelters to
comply with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standards over the first 2
years after the effective date is
estimated to be 15,200 person-hours.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexiblity Act of 1980
(RFA) requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations upon smalt
business be identified and analyzed.
The RFA stipulates that an analysis is
required if a substantial number of small
businesses will experience significant
impacts. Both measures, substantial
numbers of small businesses and
significant impacts, must be met to
require an analysis. If either measure is
not met then no analysis is required.
Twenty percent or more of the small
businesses in an affected industry is
considered a substantial number. The
EPA definition of significant impact
involves three tests, as follows: one,
costs of production rise 5 percent or
more, assuming costs are not passed
onto consumers; or two, annualized
investment costs for pollution control
are greater than 20 percent of total
V-N90SP-40
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
capital spending; or three, costs as a
percent of sales for small entities are 10
percent greater than costs as a percent
of sales for large entities.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) definition of a small business for
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
Code 3331, Primary Smelting and
Refining of Copper, is 1,000 employees.
The 14 low-arsenic-throughput smelters
are owned by seven companies. All
seven have more than 1,000 employees.
Therefore, none of the seven companies
meets the SBA definition of a small
business and thus no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required.
IV. INORGANIC ARSENIC EMISSIONS
FROM GLASS MANUFACTURING
The proposed standard would limit
the amount of inorganic arsenic emitted
from glass melting furnaces to levels
achievable by best available technology
(BAT). The Administrator has
determined that BAT for glass melting
furnaces that emit greater than 0.40 Mg
(OM ton) per year of arsenic
uncontrolled is the use of an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or fabric
filter. The application of BAT for these
furnaces represents at least a SO percent
reduction in the amount of arsenic that
would othfrwise be emitted. The
Administrator has also determined that
for furnaces that emit 0.40 Mg (OM ton)
per year or less arsenic uncontrolled, the
cost of applying add-on control devices
is disproportionate to the emission
reduction that would result, and,
therefore, that BAT for these furnaces is
no control. Consequently, the proposed
standard would require each owner or
operator of a source to either leduce
emissions to levels achievable by en
ESP or fabric filter, or Co maintain
ancontFolled (i.e., preceding an add-on
control device) arsenic emission levels
at 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year or less.
The source which would be covered
by the proposed otondard is each glass
melting furnace that! uoes arsenic as &
raw material. The proposed standard
would exempt pot furnaces. The
proposed standard would not explicitly
exempt any other furnace type;
however, it is expected that all-electric
melting furnaces, hand glass melting
furnaces, and small (i.e., less than 4.55
Mg (5.00 tons) per day capacity)
furnaces would be able to comply with
the proposed standard without having to
use an add-on participate control device
since it io believed that the uncontrolled
arsenic emissions from these furnaces
would not exceed 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per
year. Thio belief io based on limited
information about these furnace types.
Therefore, comments are specifically
requested on this subject.
Each owner or operator choosing to
comply with the proposed standard by
reducing arsenic emissions to levels
achievable by an ESP or fabric filter
would be required to meet an emission
limit expressed in terms of particulate
matter. The emission limits would be
expressed in terms of particulate matter
because particulate matter levels
accurately reflect the performance of
ESP'o and fabric filters in reducing
arsenic emissions. The particulate
emission limits would vary according to
the different categories of glass and
would be expressed as grams of total
particulate matter (as measured by
Reference Method 5) per kilogram of
glass produced. These proposed
particulate emission limits are presented
in Table IV-1:
TABLE IV-1. EMISSION LIMIT
lg ol paticulate-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
at uncontrolled levels at or below 0.40
Mg (0.44 ton) per year. Thus, it was
assumed that these furnaces would not
need to install add-on control devices to
comply with the standard. Of the
remaining 27,13 are already controlled
by either ESP's or fabric filters, and
company representatives have indicated
that these controls can achieve the
proposed particulate emission limits.
Therefore, the impact analysis assumes
that 14 furnaces would need to install
add-on controls to comply with the
proposed standard.
It is presumed that there are more
arsenic-using furnaces than the 32 that
were included in the impact analysis.
However, insufficient information about
location, size, ownership, and emissions
were available on these furnaces to
i;.elude them in the analysis. It is
believed, though, that the arsenic
emissions from the arsenic-using
furnaces that are included in the
analysis represent the majority of the
arsenic emissions from glass melting
furnaces. Moreover, it is believed that
these furnaces account for most of the
f jrnaces that would have to install add-
on particulate control devices to comply
with the proposed standard. The
arsenic-using furnaces that are not
included in the impact analysis are
believed to be mostly pot furnaces, all-
electric furnaces, and fossil-fuel-fired
furnaces (other than pot furnaces) used
to produce handmade glass products.
Pot furnaces are exempt from the
proposed standard and, as mentioned
earlier, it is considered unlikely that
either of the other two furnace types
would have uncontrolled (i.e., preceding
an add-on control device) arsenic
emissions greater than 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton)
per year.
The impact analysis also does not
consider impacts on new glass melting
furnaces. This is because, in the absence
of the proposed standard, new glass
melting furnaces would need to install
add-on particulate control devices as a
result of being subject to the new source
performance standard (NS.PS) for glass
manufacturing plants. Though the NSPS
exempts all-electric furnaces, hand glass
melting furnaces, and small [ie., less
than 4.55 Mg (5.00 tons) per day
capacity] furnaces, it is believed that
these furnace types could comply with
the proposed standard without having to
install add-on control devices.
The proposed standard would reduce
total inorganic arsenic emissions from
the 32 glass melting furnaces from the
current level of 36.7 Mg (40.4 tons) per
year to 4.7 Mg (5.2 tons) per year. As a
result of this reduction in arsenic
emissions, it is estimated that,
nationwide, the number of incidences of
cancer resulting from exposure to
arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants would be reduced
from a range of 0.073 to 1.17 incidences
per year to a range of 0.013 to 0.210
incidence per year. The proposed .
standard would reduce the estimated
maximum individual lifetime risk from
exposure to airborne arsenic from a
range of 6.4 in 10,000 to 100 in 10,000 to a
range of 0.97 in 10,000 to 15.6 in 10,000.
The maximum individual lifetime risk
represents the probability of someone
contracting cancer who has been
exposed continuously during a 70-year
period to the maximum annual arsenic
concentrations due to the arsenic
emissions from glass manufacturing
plants.
The proposed standard wguld achieve
the reduction in nationwide arsenic
emissions with small adverse impacts
on other aspects of the environment.
The control devices which would be
used to meet the standard do not
produce wastewater effluents. Most of
the arsenic-containing particulate matter
collected would be recycled to the
furnace. That which could not be
recycled would be subject to disposal
requirements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and would represent an industry-wide
increase of 67 Mg (74 tons) in the
amount of solid waste generated under
current conditions.
The energy impact of the standard
would be minimal. The electricity
requirements of the add-on particulate
controls for all the affected furnaces
amount to about 3,400 megawatt-hours
per year or about a 1 percent increase in
the total energy requirements of all the
affected furnaces.
The capital and annualized costs to
'install and operate an add-on control
device for a 100-ton-per-day furnace
would be $2.6 million and $494,000,
respectively. Based on the costs of
applying add-on control devices to the
14 existing furnaces that are expected to
have to install add-on control devices,
total industry-wide capital and
annualized costs would be $27.4 million
and $4.9 million, respectively. If the
control costs are passed on to the
consumer in the form of product price
increases, the price increeeec for the 14
furnaces are estimated to range from
0.04 to 3.1 percent. This estimate
assumes that only the price of the
arsenic-containing glaoo product would
be increased to absorb the control costs.
If control costs were absorbed by the
glass producer, declines in the profits on
the sales of the arsenic-containing glooo
were estimated to range STOBJ 2.1 to 10.0
percent for 12 of the 14 furnaces. The
remaining two furnaces, from which
arsenic-containing glass is only a part of
the annual glass production, were
estimated to have profit declines of 44.0
and 68.6 percent. These impacts were
calculated assuming that the control
costs are charged only to the arsenic-
containing glass. To the extent that the
control costs would be spread over all
the glass produced at these furnaces, the
profit impacts would be less.
Rational
Selection of Source Category
Glass manufacturing plants are among
the nine categories of stationary sources
of inorganic arsenic emissions that were
identified as potentially posing
significant risks to public health. An
estimated 36.7 Mg (40.4 tons) of
inorganic arsenic is emitted each year
from glass melting furnaces at glass
manufacturing plants.
Arsenic is currently used in only a
small fraction of all the glass
manufactured in the U.S., primarily as a
fining agent and to provide certain
properties to the glass. In 1978 there
were 129 glass-producing companies
which together operated 338 individual
plants. As of May 1983,15 plants were
identified by EPA as using arsenic.
These 15 plants are operated by 5
companies in 8 states and contain at
least 32 furnaces that use arsenic. The
use of arsenic in glass production
declined 80 percent between 1968 and
1981. However, further declines are not
anticipated unless additional substitutes
for arsenic can be found.
Glass manufacturing plants are
usually categorized into one of four
general sectors: flat glass, container
glass, pressed and blown glass, and
wool fiberglass. Although the currently
known use of arsenic is mostly confined
to the pressed and blown glass sector,
the potential for arsenic use remains in
other sectors. Arsenic is not known to
have ever been used as raw material in
the wool fiberglass sector. However,
until a few years ago, arsenic was used
as a raw material in the container and
flat glass sectors. Even though most of
the plants in these sectors have stopped
using arsenic and industry
representatives state that there is no
technical need for the use of arsenic in
these sectors, the EPA is not certain that
arsenic use in these sectors has been
completely eliminated or will not be
used in the future. Therefore, the source
category was not defined to exclude any
of the four sectors.
There ere no existing regulations
designed to control ambient
V-N,0,P-42
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
concentrations of arsenic. However,
some State participate matter
regulations have resulted in the use of
add-on control devices that effectively
reduce particulate emissions and,
consequently, arsenic emissions that are
in particulate form. For example, the 13
existing arsenic-using furnaces that are
controlled with electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's) or fabric filters
account for less than 2 percent of the
arsenic emitted by the 32 known
arsenic-using furnaces.
In the absence of a standard, the
estimated maximum individual lifetime
risk of contracting cancer would range
from 6.4 in 10,000 to 100 in 10,000 for the
most exposed individuals. Maximum
individual lifetime risk is the probability
of someone contracting cancer who is
continuously exposed to the maximum
annual average arsenic concentration
during an entire lifetime (70 years).
Additionally, in the absence of a
standard there would be an'estimated
0.073 to 1.17 cancer incidences per year
due to arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants. As discussed in
Part I, because there is considerable
uncertainty in the assumption!) and
methodology used to quantify the health
impacts, these estimates should not be
construed as accurate, absolute values.
and should be used for comparison
purposes only.
Based on the magnitude of arsenic
exposures from this source category, the
resulting estimated maximum individual
lifetime risks and estimated incidence of
cancer in the exposed population
(including consideration of the
uncertainties associated with these
quantitative risk estimates), and the
availability of control technology to
reduce arsenic emissions, EPA finds that
arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants create a
significant risk of cancer and that
development of a national emission
standard under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act is warranted for this source
category.
Selection of Emission Points to be
Covered by the Standard
Glass manufacturing involves three
basic steps: raw material handling and
mixing: melting; and forming and
finishing.
In the first step, the raw materials,
such as sand and soda ash, are received.
unloaded, and mixed according to the
desired product recipe. Although the
potential for fugitive emissions from the
handling and mixing of these dry
products is high, owners and operators
of glass manufacturing plants have
responded to standards promulgated by
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) by
implementing stringent controls. These
controls, which are designed to protect
employees from exposure to arsenic in
the workplace, mainly involve the use of
a liquid rather than a powdered form of
arsenic. Where powdered arsenic
trioxide is still used, handling and
mixing operations ere in enclosed areas,
•which are vented through fabric filters.
With these controls in place, total
emissions from the handling and mixing
of raw materials amount to less than 1
percent of total glass industry emissions.
Because the industry is uniformly
practicing these effective fugitive
controls, fugitive emissions from the
handling and mixing step were not
considered for further controls.
After the raw materials are mixed.
they are introduced into the melting
furnace, where at temperatures of 1500°
to 1700°C they are transformed into a
uniform bed of molten glass. Virtually
all of the air pollutants, including
arsenic, from glass manufacturing plants
are generated in the melting furnace.
These pollutants result from the
combustion of the furnace fuel, usually
natural gas, and from the physical and
chemical reactions in the melting
furnace.
The majority of the arsenic introduced
into the melting furnace remains in the
glass produced from the furnace. The
amount retained varies according to
several factors, such as the type of glass
being manufactrued and the type of
furnace. Data submitted by the industry
indicate that the arsenic retained in the
glass ranges from 70 to 99 percent. Most
of the remainder of the arsenic is
emitted in the combustion gases—either
in a vapor state or, upon cooling, in the
form of particulate matter—and is
released through the furnace stack.
One of the factors that determines the
amount of uncontrolled arsenic
emissions is the type of furnace used.
Most existing plants using arsenic as a
raw material have either regenerative-
or recuperative-type furnaces.
Regenerative furnaces recover heat from
combustion gases by alternating the use
of two chambers of refractory heating
material called checkerworks. By
contrast, recuperative furnaces use one
continuously operating, ehell-and-tube
heat exchanger for combustion air
preheating. Both regenerative furnaces
and recuperative furnaces melt raw
materials by firing fossil fuels. The
melting in some fossil-fuel-fired furnaces
is augmented by the use of electricity.
All-electric resistance melters are also
used. Electric melting, which is more
energy efficient than using fossil fuel
and which currently accounts for about
10 percent of the glass melting, is
believed to produce significantly lower
levels of arsenic emissions than fossil-
fuel-fired furnaces. However, the use of
electric melting is limited to the
production of certain types of glass.
Some furnaces melt glass in covered
pots. These furnaces, termed "pot
furnaces" contain one or more
refractory vessels, called "pots." in
which glass is melted by indirect
heating. The openings to these pots are
in the outside walls of the furnace and
are covered with refractory stoppers
during melting. Because the glass is
sealed off from the furnace atomsphere.
no material from the glass melt can
escape from the furnace with the
furnace exhaust. Therefore, pot
furnaces, as described here, wold emit
no arsenic emissions.
In addition to the arsenic emissions
from the glass melting furnace, there is
the potential for exposure to fugitive
airborne arsenic particles from residue
or slag which accumulates on the
checkerworks of regenerative furnaces
and from collected particulate matter
(flue dust) at furnaces controlled by
add-on control devices. This potential
arises when the material is improperly
disposed of and is reentrained as wind-
blown fugitive particulate matter.
Currently, the industry either recycles
this material as a furnace feed or
disposed of it as hazardous waste.
The third step involving potential
emissions from glass manufacturing
plants in the forming and finishing
process. In this final step, the hot molten
glass is extracted from the furnace and
subjected to a variety of different
forming methods including pressing;
blowing in molds; and drawing, rolling.
and casting. Then the formed glass is
immediately conveyed to continuous
annealing ovens to remove internal
stresses by controlled cooling. As is the
case in the first step, materials handling
and mixing, the amount of total
emissions, including arsenic, in this final
step is negligible.
Based on current estimates of arsenic
emissions from glass manufacturing
plants, virtually all of the emissions
fruffi glass manufacturing plants are
released from the glass melting furnace.
Therefore, EPA selected the glass
melting furnace as the only emission
point to be covered by the proposed
standard. Associated with this selection
EPA designated "each glass melting
furnace that uses arsenic as a raw
material" as the "source" to which the
proposed standard applies. However,
EPA concluded that pot furnaces should
be exempt from the proposed standard
because, even though they may use
V-N,0,P-43
-------
F«dtera! KegisSisir / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1083 / Proposed Rules
arsenic as a raw material, they do not
emit arsenic.
Selection of Basis of Proposed Standard
The selection of the basis of the
proposed standard involved first an
identification of techniques for reducing
inorganic arsenic emissions from new
and existing glass manufacturing plants.
This was followed by an identification
of regulatory alternatives and an
analysis of the environmental, energy,
and economic impacts of each. Based on
this analysis, the alternative
representing best available technology
(BAT) was selected. BAT is that
technology, which in the judgment of the
Administrator, is the most advanced
level of control adequately
demonstrated, considering economic,
energy, and environmental impacts. For
existing sources, BAT would not exceed
the most advance level of control that at'
least most members of an industry could
afford without plant closures. Following
the selection of BAT, the process was
carried a step further by examining the
residual health risks remaining after
application of BAT to determine
whether they were unreasonable in view
of the health benefits and costs that
would result if a more stringent
alternative than BAT were selected as
the basis for the standard.
Identification of Emission Techniques
There are three basic approaches for
reducing inorganic arsenic emissions
from glass melting furnaces. These
include (1) the use of add-on particulate
collection devices, (2) the use of electric
boosting or all-electric furnaces to
reduce furnace emissions, and (3) the
reduction or elimination of arsenic as a
feedstock in the raw material batch.
A particulate collection device is an
effective arsenic emission control device
provided the arsenic is in particulate
form. There are two forms of add-on
control devices used to control
particulate emissions from glass melting
furnaces that use arsenic: electrostatic
precipitators (ESP's) and fabric filters.
Eleven of the 32 known arsenic-using
furnaces use ESP's and 2 use fabric
filters. Testing performed by the
industry and the EPA has shown that
both fabric filters and ESP's can reduce
arsenic emissions by at least 80 percent.
Since arsenic in vapor form is not
captured by a particulate control device,
the effectiveness of a particulate control
device in controlling arsenic emissions
would be enhanced if vapor-phase
arsenic were condensed to particulate
form prior to entering the control device.
Based on theoretical considerations, it
would be expected that arsenic io
emitted from glass melting furnaceo ao
arsenic trioxide. The vapor pressure
characteristics of arsenic trioxide
suggest that in low-temperture gas
streams there would be a smaller
fraction of the total arsenic in the vapor
phase than at higher temperatures.
However, available data from EPA tests
of particulate control devices on two
glass furnaces that use liquid arsenic
acid in the batch materials (rather than
powdered arsenic trioxide) are contrary
to the expected theoretical relationship
between gas stream temperature and the
amount of arsenic in the vapor phase.
At one plant, where- the gas stream
temperature was about 210°C (408°F),
the concentration of arsenic in the inlet
gas stream was such that all of the
arsenic present would be expected to be
in the vapor phase. However, less than 1
percent of the total arsenic was in the
vapor phase, as evidenced by the fact
that the control device (an ESP) was 99
percent efficient in reducing the arsenic
emissions. At another plant, where the
gas temperature within the control
device was 138°C (280°F), the
concentration of arsenic in the inlet gas
stream was such that all the arsenic
present would be expected to be in the
vapor phase at the control device
temperature, yet the control device (a
fabric filter) was determined to be 93
percent efficient. Because these test
data do not support the expected
theoretical relationship between gas
stream temperature and the portion of
the total arsenic that is in vapor form, it
is uncertain whether gas stream cooling
would be effective in increasing the
efficiency of particulate control devices
in reducing arsenic emissions from glass
melting furnaces. Although the expected
theoretical relationship was not
demonstrated on the two control devices
used on glass furnaces that use liquid
arsenic acid in the batch material, the
relationship may be demonstrated at
furnaces using powdered arsenic
trioxide, because powdered arsenic
trioxide may result in a substantial
higher portion of arsenic in vapor form.
The second technique for reducing
arsenic emissions from glass plants is
through the use of an all-electric or
electric boosted furnace. In an all-
electric furnace no direct fossil fuel
combustion is involved. Electric
boosting is the term used to describe a
method of glass melting in which an
electric current is used to augment glass
melting in a furnace firing gas or oil. For
all-electric and electric boosted
furnaces, heat is generated by passing
an electric current through the molten
glass. Because the heat is supplied
internally to the gloBO, a higher
percentage of the total energy oupplied
to the furnace is converted to usable
heat.
The use of electricity can decrease the
generation of emissions from the glass
melting furnace. However, the percent
reduction of arsenic emissions achieved
by electric boosting is uncertain and
may be variable. The EPA's estimates of
the industry's uncontrolled arsenic
emissions include the reductions
achieved by electric boosting. For
example, the furnace identified as
having the highest arsenic emissions in
the industry uses electric boosting. All-
electric melters generally have much
lower emissions than do fossil-fuel-fired
furnaces because the surface of the
melter generally is maintained at near
ambient temperatures. This minimizes
losses from vaporization and,
accordingly, reduces emissions from the
melter.
Even though there may be emission
reductions achieved by electric boosting
and all-electric melters, it is not
technically possible to use electric
boosting in all furnaces or to substitute
all-electric melters for fossil-fuel-fired
furnaces. Only certain types of glass
have the electrical properties suitable
for electric melting, and some glass
formulations corrode the electrodes
used in the all-electric me'ters.
Therefore, EPA concluded that the use
of electric boosting or all-electric
melters is not a demonstrated control
technique in the sense that neither
electric boosting nor all-electric melters
can be specified and evaluated for the
purpose of developing standards.
The third approach to reducing or
eliminating arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants is to reduce or
eliminate the use of arsenic as a raw
material for the glass being produced.
The complete elimination of arsenic as a
raw material appears to be feasible for
the container, flat, and wool fiberglass
categories. However, if certain specialty
glasses in the pressed and blown
category are to be continued to be
produced, arsenic use must continue
since there are currently no substitutes
available. Arsenic use in the production
of certain specialty glass has been
reduced to the minimum amounts
necessary to maintain the quality and
quantity of products demanded by the
market place. Therefore, to reduce
arsenic use further or to eliminate it
entirely would probably result in the
elimination of the arsenic-containing
products and, possibly, the shutdown of
most or all existing furnaces using
arsenic in the pressed and blown glass
category. However, the EPA believes
that there may be no technical barrier to
the elimination of arsenic in the
-------
Federal KegisJsr / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
production of glass in the other
categories. Therefore, the EPA invites
comments on the feasibility of
eliminating arsenic use in the flat glass..
container glass, and wool fiberglass
categories.
Identification of Regulatory Alternatives
The EPA has considered the available
emission reduction technique and
identified three regulatory alternatives
for reducing arsenic emissions from new
and existing glass manufacturing plants.
Under Regulatory Alternative I, no
national emission standard would be
established for arsenic emissions from
glass manufacturing plants. Therefore.
under this alternative, no additional
controls beyond those already
mandated by other regulations (e.g..
State implementation plans, NSPS)
would be required. Regulatory
Alternative I corresponds to the
baseline level of control.
Regulatory Alternative II is based on
the use of add-on particulate collection
devices (ESP's or fabric filters) on glass
melting furnaces and represents at least
BO percent arsenic emission control at
these furnaces.
Regulatory Alternative III would ban
arsenic emissions altogether. This could
be accomplished either through the
elimination of arsenic as a feedstock or
through any method that assures
complete retention of the arsenic in the
glass. The EPA is not aware of any
means of assuring that arsenic is
completely retained in the glass.
Therefore, it is believed that Alternative
III would result in the elimination of
arsenic as a feedstock and, possibly, the
closure of many or all of the arsenic-
using glass furnaces in the pressed and
blown glass category.
Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives
The individual furnace impacts
presented below are computed by
applying the regulatory alternatives to
various-sized hypothetical individual
furnaces, called "model furnaces." The
industry-wide impacts that are
presented represent the aggregate
impacts on the furnaces that EPA
expects would be affected by each
regulatory alternative. As discussed
previously, EPA limited its impact
analysis to those arsenic-using furnaces
for which EPA has arsenic emissions
data. There are 32 such furnaces; and. as
discussed previously, it is believed that
these furnaces represent the majority of
the arsenic emissions from glass melting
furnaces. Regulatory Alternative I would
affect no furnaces. Regulatory
Alternative II would necessitate that the
19 furnaces that emit arsenic and
currently do not have edd-on controls
install add-on particulate controls to
reduce arsenic. Regulatory Alternative
III would affect all 32 furnaces that emit
arsenic.
Environmental Impacts. Under
Regulatory Alternative I there would be
no change in environmental impacts.
Arsenic emissions from arsenic-using
furnaces would be about 36.7-Mg/yr
(40.4 tons/yr). In addition, particulate
emissions from these furnaces would be
950 Mg/yr (1.056 tons/yr).
Under Regulatory Alternative II, the
arsenic emissions from existing arsenic-
using furnaces would be reduced to
approximately 4.3 Mg (4.8 tons) per year
and particulate emissions would be
reduced to 82 Mg/yr (SO tons-yr). No
adverse water pollution impacts would
occur since the add-on control devices
do not produce wastewater. The
arsenic-containing particulate matter
collected by the add-on control device
would increase the solid waste
generated at a glass plant. However, it is
a common practice in the industry to
recycle the collected particulate matter
back to the furnace thereby minimizing
the potential solid waste impact of
Regulatory Alternative II. To the extent
that the collected particulate matter is
not recycled, it is handled as a
hazardous waste. Assuming that is
would only be possible to recycle SO
percent of the particulate matter, it is
estimated that 87 Mg (88 tons) per year
would have to be disposed of under
Alternative II. This represents an
increase of 67 Mg (74 tons) in the
amount of solid waste generated under
baseline conditions.
Under Regulatory Alternative III,
arsenic emissions from glass melting
furnaces would be zero. If the industry
were to respond to Regulatory
Alternative III by closing down the
existing arsenic-using glass furnaces, all
air pollutants which would have been
emitted from these furnaces would be
eliminated. There would be little or no
reduction in water quality since glass
plants do not discharge effluent, and e
small, positive solid waste impact would
result. It was estimated that about 20 Mg
of solid waste are currently disposed of
per year by the existing arsenic-using
glass manufacturing plants.
Energy Impacts. Regulatory
Alternative! would have no energy
impacts. The incremental energy
impacts of Regulatory Alternative D
above the baseline case result from the
electrical requirements of the add-on
control device and fans. The annual
electric energy use of a particulate
control device for a 100-ton-per-day
furnace is estimated to be about 270,000
kilowatt-hours, or about 30 times the
average annual consumption of a typical
single family household. The total
industry-wide energy impact under
Regulatory Alternative II amounts to
about 3.4 million kilowatt-hours per year
based on use of add-on control devices.
Regulatory Alternative III would result
in a nationwide energy savings of
580.000 megawatt-hours per year if the
industry were to respond to Alternative
III by closing the 32 arsenic-using glass
furnaces. However, these savings do not
take into account the energy losses that
may occur because of the absence of
certain specialty glasses used in energy
conservation and solar-energy
collection.
Cost and Economic Impacts.
Regulatory Alternative I would have no
cost or economic impacts. The cost and
economic impacts of Regulatory
Alternative II are based on the costs of
retrofitting ESP's , which are slightly
more expensive than fabric filters. In
this sense, the cost and economic
impacts, which are quantified in this
section, are worst-case estimates. The
economic impacts of Regulatory
Alternative HI focus on those associated
with the shutdown of the 32 arsenic-
using furnaces.
The capital cost of Regulatory
Alternative II for a 100-ton-per-day glass
melting furnace would be about S2.6
million (all costs for 4th quarter 1962
dollars). The annualized costs of
Regulatory Alternative II would be
approximately $494,000 for this same
size furnace. If this same furnace
produced tableware or other machine-
made consumerware and if these costs
were passed through in the form of
product price increases, it was
estimated that the product price
increases would be 0.5 and 0.4 percent
for capacity utilization rates of 70 and
100 percent, respectively. If the glass
manufacturer completely absorbed these
costs, the decreases in profit on sales
were estimated to be 5.1 and 3.1 percent
for capacity utilization rates of 70 and
100 percent, respectively.
Worst-case economic impacts of
Regulatory Alternative II were also
analyzed. These impacts would be
associated with individual arsenic-
containing products and would occur ai
furnaces that produce these products as
a limited part of their full production.
The production of TV envelope tubes
and borosilicate tubing were estimated
to incur the most adverse impact, with
impacts being particularly large at 25-
ton-per-day furnaces that produce the
particular product only 25 percent of the
time. In the case of TV envelope tubes, if
100 percent of the control costs were
passed through in the form of price
increases for the TV envelope tube
V-N,0,P-45
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
product only, price increases of 13.3
percent were predicted. If these costs
were completely absorbed and charged
only to the TV envelope tube product,
profit on sales were estimated to
decrease by 114 percent. Similarly, for a
25-ton-per-day furnace that produces
borosilicate tubing only 25 percent of the
time, it was estimated that the cost of
controls could result in a price increase
of 8.2 percent assuming full cost pass-
through. If the costs were completely
absorbed by the manufacturer, the
decrease in profit on sales was
estimated to be 122 percent.
it is believed that these impacts
represent worst-case impacts for
hypothetical furnace size/product type
combinations. No actual furnaces
matching these cases and currently
without add-on controls are known to
exist. The arsenic-using furnaces that
are known to produce TV envelope
tubes are at least 100-tpn-per-day
furnaces and are already controlled by
add-on control devices and, therefore,
are not expected to be affected by
Alternative II. Likewise, the arsenic-
using furnaces that have been identified
as producing borosilicate tubing are not
expected to be affected by Alternative II
because they are already controlled by
add-on control devices.
The cost and economic impacts that
are expected to result from Regulatory
Alternative II are those expected for the
19 known arsenic-using furnaces that
would need to install add-on control
devices under Regulatory Alternative II.
The industry-wide impacts, based on
control of these 19 furnaces, are
discussed below.
Industry-wide capital costs for
Alternative II would be about §29.8
million and the annualized costs would
be about $5.4 million. If these costs are
passed through in the form of price
increases, it is estimated that the price
increases would range from 0.04 to 3.1
percent for the 19 furnaces expected to
incur the cost of Regulatory Alternative
II. If the costs are fully absorbed,
decreases in profit on sales for these 19
furnaces are estimated to range from 2.1
to 68.6 percent. These impacts assume
that the cost of control would be
charged only to the arsenic-containing
product. To the extent that glass
producers would spread the control
costs over all products produced by the
affected furnace, the impacts would be
less. Moreover, it is believed that the
assumptions of full cost absorption or
full cost pass-through are not valid,
because it is expected that glass '
producers would balance cost
absorption and price increases so that
economic impacts are minimized.
If the industry responded to
Regulatory Alternative HI by closing all
existing arsenic-using furnaces, the
economic impacts would be significant.
It is estimated that these furnaces
produce products which are valued at
$1.9 billion annually and provide jobs
for about 30,000 workers. Communities
relying on the plants containing these
furnaces would be adversely affected by
the layoffs and lost tax revenues. Other
impacts are very difficult to quantify
and include the possible loss of valuable
products which currently make use of
glass containing arsenic. Regulatory
Alternative III is not expected to affect
furnaces that produce container glass, •
flat glass, and wool fiberglass because it
is believed that arsenic is not being used
in the production of these glass types.
Selection of Best Available Technology
In selecting best available technology
(BAT) for new and existing glass melting
furnaces, EPA examined the regulatory
alternative to determine the most
advanced level of control adequately
demonstrated considering the economic,
energy, and environmental impacts and
technological problems associated with
retrofit. The EPA first considered the
most stringent option. Regulatory
Alternative III, which would ban arsenic
emissions from glass melting furnaces.
As discussed previously, the only
apparent means of meeting this
alternative is to eliminate arsenic as a
feedstock. Thus, the arsenic-containing
specialty glass products would be
eliminated and, in the worst case, the
existing arsenic-using glass melting
furnaces would be forced to close. Since
it is estimated that these furnaces
produce products valued at $1.9 billion
annually and provide about 30,000 jobs,
the economic impact of furnace closure
would be significant. In addition, the
loss of the specialty glass products
would have indirect adverse impacts
that are difficult to quantify. Given the
direct and indirect adverse economic
impacts of furnace closure, the EPA
rejected Alternative III as BAT and next
considered Regulatory Alternative II.
Regulatory Alternative II would result
in at least 90 percent reduction of
arsenic emmissions from affected glass
melting furnaces. However, because of
the differences among furnaces,
particularly the differences in
uncontrolled arsenic emissions rates,
EPA examined the effect of these
differences on the cost impacts and
emission reduction benefits of
Alternative II. This examination led to
the decision that furnaces that emit 0.40
mg (0.44 ton) or less arsenic per year
uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an add-on
control device) should be excluded from
the requirement to achieve 90 percent
control of arsenic emissions. This
decision is based on EPA's conclusion
that the cost of add-on controls for such
furnaces is unreasonable considering
the small emission reduction that would
be gained by controlling them.
The EPA arrived at this conclusion
after examining the arsenic emission
reductions that would be acheived by
add-on control devices installed on each
of the 19 existing arsenic-using furnaces
that do not already have add-on
controls. As shown in Table FV-2 which
lists the furnaces in order of decreasing
emissions, the magnitude of
uncontrolled arsenic emissions from
each furnace and the emission reduction
achieved by controlling each furnace
become relatively small near the bottom
of the list. Nothing this and the fact that
the annualized cost of controlling each
furnace remains relatively constant
regardless of the magnitude of emissions
from the furnace, EPA conclude that as
the emissions from furnaces become
smaller, the cost of controlling the
furnaces becomes unreasonable
considering the emission reduction
achievd. Therefore, EPA decided that it
was reasonable to establish an emission
level whereby furnaces that emit at or
below this level would be excluded from
the 90 percent control requirement,
which necessitates the use of an add-on
control device. In EPA's judgment this
level is 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year. The
cost-effectiveness of control at this level
is $795,000 per megagram. With an
exclusion at this level, 99.5 percent of
the total potential emission reduction
would be achieved by installing add-on
control devices on the 14 furnaces that
emit more than 0.40 (0.44 ton) per year.
V-N,0,P-46
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV-2. EMISSION AND COST ESTIMATES FOR THE 19 UNCONTROLLED ARSENIC-USING FURNACES
Existing furnaces
wrtnout add-on
control devices
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Uncontrolled arsenic
emissions. Mg/yr
15.20
3.35
309
3.09
1.99
1.83
1.82
1.27
091
0.76
0.73
0.55
0.55
0.4S
0.12
•O.M
Emission reduction
achievable by add-on
control device. Mg/yr
13.68
3.02
2.78
278
1.79
1.65
1.64
1.14
0.62
0.68
0.66
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.11
0.036
Cumulative emiasion
reduction as percent of
total potential emission
reduction (psrcont)
42.50
51.88
60.52
89.16
74.72
79.85
84.95
8849
81.04
93.15
95.20
63.75
63.36
99.50
99.88
*£9.99
Anrmatized cost of cdd-on
control device (dollars)
494.000
339.000
S38.000
342.000
348.000
494.000
226.000
269.000
242.000
494.000
295.000
328.000
357.000
318.000
132.000
348.000
Commutative annualized
cost as percent of total
potential ennuakzed cost
(percent)
9.16
1545
22.27
2861
35.08
44.22
48.41
5340
57.89
67.05
7252
78.56
85.18
91.08
93.53
«99.S8
Cost pe' i"!' i-n-isv
reduction S'V-j
36
112
132
123
194
299
137
236
295
726
447
652
714
795
1.200
9.666
0 Four furnaces vented to one otack.
* Tot^J not equal to 100 percent due to round-off error.
In establishing this exclusion level
between the group of furnaces with the
greatest potential emissions and the
group with lower potential emissions,
the Agency considered emission rates.
emission reduction potential, control
costs, and the economic impacts of
controls. This analysis led to the clear
conclusion that control is reasonable for
furnaces with the highest potential
emissions and that control is
unreasonable (considering the small
benefit) for furnaces with the lowest
potential emissions. The analysis did
not, however, provide a clear, objective
formula for establishing the precise
point at which costs and other impacts
become unreasonable relative to the
emission reduction benefits. Therefore,
the level being proposed reflects the
Agency's best judgment of BAT, based
on consideration of the factors which
are relevant to this decision and most
particularly on the Agency's judgment
that arsenic emissions should be
minimized. The proposed exclusion level
would have the effect of extending the
degree of control that is now in place at
13 of the 32 arsenicjusing furnaces to 14
additional furnaces that are currently
without add-on controls. EPA believes
that this level would exclude all-electric
furnaces and small hand glass furnaces.
The Agency recognizes that others may
have different views on where an
appropriate cutoff, if any, should be
made and is specifically requesting
comments on the appropriateness of the
level selected and on the validity of the
data on which the selection was based.
In making this selection, the
Administrator recognizes that certain
products may be adversely impacted
and that in certain cases, glass
producers may discontinue production
of these products or change this
production to other furnaces. Also,
while no closures have been predicted,
the Administrator recognizes that the
closure of one or more furnaces is not
impossible. However, considering the
extent to which controls are now used in
the industry and the significant
emissions from glass-melting furnaces,
the Administrator has concluded that
the degree of control reflected by
Alternative II is BAT.
Consideration of Risk Remaining After
BAT
After Regulatory Alternative II was
selected as representing BAT, EPA
examined the estimated health risks
remaining after the application of BAT
to determine whether they are
unreasonable in view of the risk
reduction and other impacts that would
result if controls beyond BAT were
selected. <
After the application of BAT, it is
estimated that there would be 0.013 to
0.210 cancer incidence per year due to
arsenic emissions from existing arsenic-
using glass furnaces. The estimated
maximum individual lifetime risk to the
most exposed population after the
application of BAT would range from
0.87 in 10,000 to 15.0 in 10,000.
Eliminating the 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton} per
year exclusion level would not affect the
estimated maximum lifetime risk and
would have negligible effect on
estimated cancer incidence. Therefore,
Alternative HI represents the only
alternative that would significantly
affect estimated maximum lifetime risk
and estimated cancer incidence. Under
Regulatory Alternative HI, there would
be zero arsenic emissions from glass
melting furances and, therefore, no
increased risk of cancer due to arsenic
emissions from glass planto above that
which would exist from exposure to
other sources of arsenic emissions.
However, under Regulatory Alternative
111, there would be severe economic
impacts resulting form potential furnace
closures. Considering that the reduction
in risk that is possible with Alternative
III is small relative to the high costs of
the elimination of the products derived
from arsenic-using glass furnaces and
the possible elimination of the jobs
provided by these furnaces, EPA
determined that the risks remaining
after applying BAT are not
unreasonable. The EPA concluded.
therefore, that the proposed standard
should be based on BAT (Regulatory
Alternative II).
Though it was decided that the
proposed standard should not ban
arsenic emissions, EPA believes that
there is no technical need for the use of
arsenic in the container glass, flat glass,
and wool fiberglass sectors, and is
considering including in the final
standard a ban on arsenic emissions
from these three sectors. The EPA
specifically requests comments oil this
subject.
Selection of Format of Proposed
Standard
The decision by EPA that the
proposed standard should be based on
BAT means that the proposed standard
should require the level of control
achievable by BAT. It was determined
that BAT is represented by Regulatory
Alternative II. which means, in effect,
that BAT for furnaces that emit greater
than 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) of arsenic per
year uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an
add-on control device) is the use of an
add-on participate control device, while
BAT for furnaces that emit 0.40 Mg (0.44
ton) or less per year io no control.
V-N,0,P-47
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
Consequently, the proposed standard
should require that a furnace either meet
the.level of control achievable by add-
on particulate control devices or
maintain uncontrolled arsenic emissions
at 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year or less.
The selection of the format of the part of
the standard that would require the
level of control achievable by an add-on
particulate control device is discussed in
this section.
The level of control achievable by an
add-on particulate control device could
be described in terms of either the level
of arsenic control achievable or the level
of particulate matter control achievable.
A format that would limit the amount of
inorganic arsenic emitted was
considered. However, among the
various glass batch recipes, there is
considerable variability in the arsenic
emission levels due to variability in the
amount of arsenic used in the feedstock
and the amount of arsenic retained in
the product glass. Therefore, if the
arsenic emission limit were set high
enough to allow for the maximum
arsenic emissions level that would be
expected for the variability observed,
the standard may not result in each
furnace being controlled to the BAT
level. Some furnaces might be able to
achieve the arsenic limit without
installing an add-on particulate control
device.
Using an efficiency format, which
would require a percent reduction of
arsenic emissions, the problem of the
variability in the arsenic emissions level
would be avoided. However, to
demonstrate compliance with an
efficiency standard, it is necessary to
make emission measurements at both
the inlet and outlet of the control device.
Because measurements at two locations
are necessary, the cost of demonstrating
compliance with an efficiency format
standard is higher than demonstrating
compliance with other format types.
The EPA decided that a format that
would limit the amount of particulate
matter emitted would be a better
approach to dealing with the variability
of arsenic emission levels than an
efficiency format. Because arsenic
particulate matter is only e fraction of
the total particulate matter emitted from
a glasa melting furnace, the variability
that is observed in arsenic emission
levels should not be observed in the
levels of total particulate matter emitted
from a furnace. Moreover, particulate
emission levels accurately reflect the
performance of add-on particulate
control devices. Therefore, EPA decided
that the format of the part of the
proposed standard that would require
the level of control achievable by add-
on particulate control devices should be
a particulate matter emission limit.
The regulation of inorganic arsenic
through a particulate emission limit
which necessitates the use of an add-on
particulate control device is effective for
reducing arsenic in the particulate form.
However, as discussed in a previous
section, arsenic in the vapor phase is not
controlled by particulate collection
devices. Since the vapor pressure
characteristics of arsenic trioxide
suggest that at lower temperatures there
should be a smaller fraction of the total
arsenic in the vapor phase than at
higher temperatures, it initially
appeared reasonable to consider
establishing an upper limit for the
temperature of the gas stream entering
the control device. However, as
discussed earlier, available test data on
furnaces that use liquid arsenic acid in
the batch material (rather than
powdered arsenic trioxide) raise
uncertainty about the effect of gas
cooling on the arsenic control
performance of particulate collection
devices used on glass furnaces. These
data showed that the fraction of total
arsenic in particulate form was much
greater than expected based on vapor
pressure considerations. This may be
due to the use of liquid arsenic acid,
which may result in arsenic compounds
that have a lower vapor pressure than
arsenic trioxide. Based on the available
date, EPA decided that the proposed
standard should not specify an upper
limit on the gas stream temperature.
However, EPA plans to gather more
information on the effect of temperature
and type of arsenic (liquid arsenic acid
or powdered arsenic trioxide) used in
the batch material7. Based on the new
information EPA may require a
. temperature limit, the use of liquid
arsenic acid, or both a temperature limit
and the use of liquid arsenic acid in the
final standard and is requesting
comment on this subject.
It seems reasonable that any
temperature limitation should apply
only to those furnaces that would have
to install add-on control devices to
comply with the proposed standard.
This is because estimates of the cost of
installing a new add-on control device
show that the total annualized costs of
gas cooling followed by a particulate
collection device are generally less than
the total annualized costs of a control
device alone. This lower annualized cost
is due to the fact that gas cooling results
in a smaller volume of gas to treat and
thus reduces the required size of the
particulate collection device. Thus, to
the extent that limiting temperature
results in capture of arsenic that would
otherwise be emitted as vapor, this is
accomplished at no extra cost at
furnaces that would need to install
control devices. For furnaces that
already have an add-on particulate
control device in place, retrofitting and
operating a gas cooling system would
increase the cost of control.
Selection of Emission Limits
After it was determined that the
format for the proposed standard would
be a particulate emission limit, the
selection of specific particulate emission
limits which would reflect BAT for each
industry sector remained to be
addressed by EPA.
Within the glass industry, there are
several distinct industry sectors based
upon the type of glass produced. The
different glass types require distinct
furnace sizes, furnace configurations,
and operating conditions, and
consequently, have different emission
levels. Equally important, from a
regulatory perspective, are the
distinctions in the market conditions
and product slates. These distinctions in
economic conditions reflect differences
in the ability of the various industry
sectors to bear the costs of regulation. In
the development of the glass
manufacturing plant NSPS, these
technical and economic conditions were
taken into account in establishing
emission levels reflecting best
demonstrated technology (BDT) for six
glass industry sectors. The BDT on
which the NSPS is based is the same as
the BAT that the EPA selected to serve
as the basis of the proposed standards
[i.e., the use of add-on particulate
control devices {ESP"s or fabric filters)].
Because of this and because EPA has
determined that add-on particulate
control devices used on existing glass
furnaces can meet the NSPS emission
limits, the proposed standard would
establish the identical emission limits by
industry sector established for the glass
manufacturing plant NSPS promulgated
on October 7,1980 (45 FR 66742).
Therefore, the proposed standard would
set six different emission limits—one
each for three of the four recognized
industry sectors (container glass, flat
glass, and wool fiberglass) and three
within the pressed and blown sector.
These six emission limits were further
differentiated by the type of fuel used in
the glass furnace. As for the glass
manufacturing plant NSPS, oil-fired
furnaces would be allowed a 30 percent
increase over the limits established for
gas-fired furnaces and all-electric
furnaces (except for flat glass for which
there is no differential). This difference
V-N.O.P-48
-------
Federa! Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
reflects the inherent emission
contributions of the oil and gas fuels.
Demonstration of Compliance
An owner or operator who chooses to
comply with the proposed standard by
achieving the participate emission
limits, must demonstrate compliance by
measuring particulate emissions using
EPA Reference Method 5. This method is
discussed in the "Selection of Emission
Test Methods" section. The proposed
standard would require that an owner or
operator who wants to comply with the
proposed standard by maintaining
uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an add-on
control device) arsenic emissions at or
below 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year,
demonstrate compliance by measuring
uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an add-on
control device) arsenic emissions from
the furnace using EPA Reference
Method 108. This method is being
proposed today and is discussed in the
"Selection of Emission Test Methods"
section. The proposed standard allows
that another method be used if the
Administrator determines it to be
adequate for determining compliance. In
addition, as provided under § 61.13 of
the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part
61, the Administrator may waive the
requirement for an emission test. It is
intended that this waiver provision
would allow an owner or operator who
can clearly demonstrate through
material balance or other non-test data
that the annual uncontrolled arsenic
emissions from a furnace do not exceed
0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) not to have to conduct
an emission test. The results of the
arsenic emission measurement would be
used to develop a "measured arsenic
emission factor" for the arsenic-
containing glass type that was being
produced while the Method 138 (or
equivalent method) test was being
conducted.
In addition, the proposed standard
would require that the owner or
operator perform a material balance
calculation for the furnace operating
conditions existing during the Method
109 (or equivalent method) test. This
calculation would be used to develop a
"theoretical arsenic emission factor."
The ratio of the measured arsenic
emission factor to the theoretical arsenic
emission factor would be computed for
use in estimating measured arsenic
emissions as described in the following
paragraphs.
For the initial demonstration that a
furnace is in compliance with' the
proposed standard, the owner or
operator would estimate the arsenic
emissions from the furnace over the next
12-month period, using the measured
arsenic emission factor that was
developed for the arsenic-containing
glass produced while the Method 108
test was conducted along with an
estimate of the amount of this arsenic-
containing glass that will be produced
during the next 12-month period. If
arsenic-containing glass types other
than the type that was produced during
the test are expected to be produced
during the next 12 months, then the
owner or operator would develop
theoretical emission factors for these
glass types based on material balance
calculations. Then, by multiplying these
theoretical emission factors by the ratio
of the measured to theoretical emissions
factor, measured arsenic emission
factors would be computed for the other
glass types. These emission factors
would then be used, along with
estimates of the amounts of the other
glass types that will be produced during
the next 12 months, to estimate arsenic
emmissions for that period.
The proposed standard would require
that 6 months after the initial
compliance demonstration, and every 6
months thereafter, the owner or operator
calculate and record what the level of
uncontrolled arsenic emissions was
during the .preceding 6-month period.
This level would be computed using one
or more measured emission factors
(depending on whether one or more
arsenic-containing glass types were
produced) and the known amounts of
arsenic-containing glass that were
produced during the period. For the
purposes of these 6-month calculations.
it would not be necessary to conduct a
Method 108 test again. The measured
emission factors would be computed, as
discussed earlier, by multiplying
theoretical emission factors by the ratio
of the measured to theoretical emission
factor that was calculated initially. If the
6-month calculation reveals that arsenic
emissions during the preceding 12-month
period (or 6-month period, in the case of
the first 6-month calculation) exceeded
0.40 Mg (0.44 ton), then the source was
in violation of the standard and the
owner or operator must report this fact
to the Administrator within 10 days of
performing the calculation.
In addition to requiring a retrospective
estimate of arsenic emissions for the
previous 6-month period, the proposed
standard requires that every 6 months
the owner or operator estimate the
uncontrolled arsenic emissions expected
during the next 12-month period. If this
estimate indicates that uncontrolled
arsenic emissions will exceed 0.40 Mg
(0.44 ton), then the owner or operator
must demonstrate compliance with the
particulate emission limits, and, within
10 days, give written notice to the
Administrator of when they intend to
conduct the Method 5 compliance test.
Selection of Monitoring Requirements
The proposed standard would require
owners or operators choosing to comply
with the standard by achieving the
particulate emission limits of the
standard to install, operate, and
maintain a continuous opacity
monitoring system. Monitoring of source
emissions provides a convenient tool for
enforcement authorities and a means by
which plant operators can detect control
equipment malfunctions. No method
exists for continuously measuring
particulate emissions directly. However.
the opacity of exhaust gases can be
measured continuously by using a
transmissometer. A transmissometer is
an optical device mounted in the stack
which continuously monitors the
percentage of light transmitted through a
representative portion of the flue gas
and records as percent opacity the
percentage of light attenuated due to
absorption and scattering by particulate
matter. The total installed cost of a
transmissometer is about $25.000 per
source with annualized costs of about
$14,000 (including data handling and
training operators). Compared to the
costs of a particulate control device.
these costs are small and were
determined to be reasonable considering
that there are no other reasonable
alternatives for insuring that the control
device is continuously functioning
properly.
There are currently insufficient
opacity data from glass manufacturing
plants to establish a single opacity limit
for all sources. Therefore, the proposed
standard would require that a source-
specific opacity level be established for
each affected source at the time of the
particulate emission test that
demonstrates compliance with the
particulate emission limits. This opacity
level would not be an enforceable
visible emission limit, but rather would
'serve as an indicator for plant and
enforcement personnel that the control
device may not be operating properly.
To establish the source-specific
opacity level, the owner or operator of
the source would be required to conduct
continuous opacity monitoring during
rhe emission test. The opacity
monitoring results would be reduced to
6-minute averages, and the opacity level
would be established at the 97.5 percent
upper confidence level of a normal or
log normal (whichever is more
representative) distribution of the 6-
minute-average opacity values.
The proposed standard would require
that all opacity monitoring results be
V-N,0,P-49
-------
KsgiQte / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
maintained at the source for a period of
at least 2 years and that the owner or
operator submit a report to EPA every 6
months if opacity in excess of the
source-specific level occurred during the
preceding 6-months period. The reports
of the excess emission would not be
used directly in determining compliance
with the standard, but would serve as
an indication to enforcement authorities
that an emission test may be required.
Selection of Emission Test Methods
Two emission test methods were
selected for use in implementing the
proposed standard. However, the
proposed standard allows other test
methods to be used if the Administrator
(1) specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology, (2)
approves the use of an equivalent
method, or (3) approves the use of an
alternative method the results of which
he has determined to be adequate for
indicating whether a specific source is in
compliance.
The EPA Reference Method 5,
"Determination of Particulate Emissions
from Stationary Sources," (Appendix A,
40 CFR 60) was selected as the emission
test method for demonstrating
compliance with the proposed
particulate emission limits. Reference
Method 5 has been shown to provide a
representative measurement of
particulate emissions and was specified
for use in demonstrating compliance
with the glass manufacturing plants
NSPS. As was done in the glass
manufacturing plant NSPS, the proposed
standard would modify Method 5 for
this application to allow a higher filter
box temperature. This modification was
made to eliminate the effects of sulfuric
acid on the measurement of particulate
matter. Sulfur trioxide (SOa), which
exists as a gas in the exhaust gas of
furnaces firing fuel oil containing more
than 0.5 weight percent sulfur, is not
collected by an add-on particulate
control device but may condense as
sulfuric acid onto the filter of the
sampling train when the filter box
temperature is at 120°C (the temperature
specified by Method 5). Therefore, to
prevent sulfuric acid from being
collected by the sample filter and
counted as particulate matter, the
proposed standard would allow
operation of the filter and the probe at
up to 177°C, which is above the sulfuric
acid dew point. This modification would
be allowed only for furnaces that are
firing fuel oil having a sulfur content
greater than 0.5 weight percent.
Calculations applicable under Method
5 necessitate the use of data obtained
from other EPA reference methods—
Methods 1, 2, 3, and optionally Method
4. These are also described in Appendix
A of 40 CFR 60. The proposed regulation
explains how the results of Method 5 are
converted into the units of the emission
limits. Since the proposed emission
limits would be expressed as mass of
emissions per unit of mass of glass
produced, it will be necessary to
quantify the mass of glass pulled. Glass
production would be determined by
direct measurement or computed from
materials balanced data. The materials
balance computation may consist of a
process relationship between feed
material input rate and the glass pull
rate. In all materials balance
computations, glass pulled from the
furnace shall include product, cutlet, and
any waste glass. The hourly glass pull
rate for a furnace would be determined
by averaging the glass pull rate over the
time of the performance test.
The EPA Reference Method 108,
"Determination of Particulate and
gaseous Arsenic Emissions," was
selected as the emission test method for
determining whether a furnace emits
0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) or less of arsenic per
year uncontrolled (i.e., preceding an
add-on control device). This method is
being proposed today along with the
proposed standard. Method 108
produces emission measurement results
expressed as mass of arsenic emitted
per hour. Since the exclusion level
would be expressed as mass or arsenic
emitted per year, the proposed
regulation prescribes that the results of
Method 108 be used to established an
emission factor (i.e., mass of arsenic per
unit of mass of glass pulled). This
emission factor would then be used
along with yearly production estimates
to estimate the mass of arsenic emitted
per year.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
Owners or operators of sources
covered by the proposed standard
would be subject to the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the
proposed standard, as well as those
prescribed in the General Provisions
(Subpart A) of 40 CFR Part 61. Sources
subject to the proposed standard are all
glass melting furnaces that use arsenic
as a raw material (except pot furnaces).
Reporting Requirements
Existing sources, arsenic-using
furnaces for which construction or
modification commenced before the
date of publication of the proposed
standard, would be required to submit
an initial source report to EPA as
provided in § ei.lO(a). The owner or
operator of each existing source is
required to provide the following data in
this initial source report: identification
of owner or operator, source location,
technical information on furnace design
and production process, types of
hazardous pollutants emitted, amount of
hazardous pollutants emitted over the
past 12 months, a description of any
pollution controls which may be in
place, and a statement of the feasibility
of complying with the standard within
SO days of the date of promulgation of
the standard. The purpose of this report
is to assist EPA in identifying all
existing arsenic-using glass furnaces
and the amounts of arsenic emitted, and
to determine their likelihood of
compliance. Section 61.10(c) requires
that the owner or operator report to EPA
any changes in the initial source report.
For new sources, arsenic-using
furnaces for which construction or
modification commenced after the date
of publication of the proposed standard,
there is a series of one-time reports
designed to confirm whether the furnace
is affected by the standard and to
provide notice to EPA of important
milestones in the construction or
modification process. The first of these
is a written application to EPA from the
owner or operator of the furnace. This
report, required by § 61.08, is for the
purpose of determining whether the
planned construction or modification of
the furnace would qualify the furnace as
a new source subject to the standard. If,
based upon this report, EPA determines
that the furnace would be a new source
that is subject to the standard, EPA will
inform the owner or operator that the
furnace is subject to the proposed
standard whereupon the owner or
operator would apply to EPA for
approval to construct or modify the
furnace. This application, prescribed
under g 61.07, requires that the owner or
operator provide process and emissions
control data to EPA so that the Agency
can determine if the source would
comply with the standard. After EPA
has approved the proposed construction
or modification, the owner or operator
would be required to notify EPA of
certain project milestones including
notification of the anticipated date of
initial startup, as required in
§ 61.09(a)(l), and notification of the
actual date of startup, as required under
§ 61.09(a)(2).
To allow EPA to confirm that a source
is in compliance with the standard, the
proposed standard requires that the
owner or operator of a source notify
EPA of the anticipated date of the initial
emission test and, as applicable, the
demonstration of the opacity monitoring
system. After these tests have been
V-N,0,P-50
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
completed, the owner or operator is
required to report the results to EPA in
order the compliance can be determined.
The owner or operator of a source
choosing to comply with the proposed
standard by meeting the particulate
matter emission limits would be
required to report to EPA every 6
months if occurrences of excess opacity
were recorded during the reporting
period. These reports would identify the
date, time, and duration of the excess
opacity occurrences. Although these
reports would not be used directly to
determine compliance, they would serve
as the primary means by which EPA
enforcement personnel can evaluate the
performance of the controls. Based on
these reports, EPA may require
additional emission testing.
The owner or operator of a source
choosing to comply with the proposed
standard by maintaining uncontrolled
arsenic emissions at 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton).
per year or less would be required to
perform calculations every 6 months to
estimate what arsenic eimissions were
during the preceding 6-month period and
what level of arsenic emissions is
expected during the next 12-month
period. If these calculations reveal that
arsenic emissions exceeded 0.40Mg (0.44
ton) during the past 12-month period,
then the owner or operator must report
this to the Administrator within 10 days
of performing the calculation. If these
calculations indicate that arsenic
emissions will exceed 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton)
during the next 12-month period, then
the owner or operator must demonstrate
compliance with the particulate matter
emission limits and must, within 10 days
of performing the calculation, notify
EPA of the anticipated date of the
emission test.
Recordkeeping Requirements
The owner or operator of a new or
existing source would be required to
maintain a file of the following recores:
all measurements, including monitoring
and testing data; all calculations used to
produce the required reports of emission
estimates: monitoring system
performance evaluations, including
calibration checks and adjustments: the
occurrence and duration of any startup.
shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of the furnace: and
malfunction of the air pollution control
sysem; any periods during which the
continuous monitoring system or device
is inoperative: and all maintenance and
repairs made to the air pollution
controls or monitoring system. These
records would be required to be
maintained at the source for a period of
2 years. The purpose of the
recordkeeping requirements is to enable
EPA enforcement authorities to verify
data submitted in reports and, in
general, to aid in determining
compliance with the proposed standard.
Impacts of Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
EPA believes that these reporting and
recordkeeping requirements are
necessary to assist the Agency in (1)
identifying arsenic-using glass furnaces.
(2) observing the emission testing and
demonstration of the opacity monitoring
devices, (3) determining initial
compliance, and (4) enforcing the
standard after the initial compliance
determination. The proposed standard
provides that new or mofified glass
furnaces, which are subject to the
proposed standard and choose to
comply with the proposed standard by
achieving the particulate matter
emission limits, would not be subject to
the NSPS for glass manufacturing plants.
Therefore, there would be no
duplication of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements between the
two standards.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) requires that the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) approve reporting and
recordkeeping requirements that qualify
as an "information collection request"
(ICR). For the purposes of
accommodating OMB's review. EPA
uses 2-year periods in its impact
analysis procedures for estimating the
labor-hour burden of reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The average annual burden on the
glass manufacturing industry to comply
with these reporting and recordkeeping
requirements over the firest 2 years is
estimated to be 26.900 person-hours. The
supporting statement that documents
calculation of this burden is filed as item
II-B-4 in docket A-83-08.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
of 1980 requires that differential impacts
of Federal regulations upon small
businesses be identified and analyzed.
The RFA stipulates that a regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if a
substantial number of small businesses
will experience significant impacts. Both
measures must be met. That is.
substantial numbers of small businesses
must be affected and they must
experience significant impacts to require
an analysis. Twenty percent or more of
the small businesses in an affected
source category is considered a
substantial number.
Though EPA taken actions to identify
small businesses in the glass industry,
the Agency has insufficient information
about the number of small businesses
that would be affected by the proposed
standard (i.e., the number that use
arsenic) to determine conclusively
whether a substantial number would
incur significant impacts. Consequently.
because EPA could not conclude that a
regulatory flexibility analysis was not
needed, a preliminary analysis has been
prepared.
This analysis involved the
identification of the small businesses in
the country and an investigation of the
use of arsenic and arsenic emissions
from the furnaces at several of these
facilities. The analysis indicated that
because of several aspects of the
proposed standard, it is unlikely that a
substantial number of small buisnesses
would incur significant impacts. These
aspects are: (1) the exclusion of furnaces
that emit 0.40 Mg of arsenic per year or
less from the requirement of add-on
control devices. (2) the exemption of pot
furnaces, and (3) the provision that the
emission testing requirement can be
waived if non-test methods are
adequate to demonstrate that arsenic
emissions do not exceed 0.40 Mg/yr. The
analysis is filed as item II-B-5 in docket
A-83-08. The analysis will be completed
before the standard is promulgated as
final.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
As prescribed by Section 112,
establishment of these standards was
preceded by the Administrator's
determination that inorganic arsenic
presents a significant carcinogenic risk
to human health, and is, therefore, a
hazardous air pollutant as defined in
Section 112(a)(l) of the Act. Inorganic
arsenic was added to the list of
hazardous air pollutants on June 5. I960.
In accordance with Section 117 of the
Act, publication of these proposed
standards was preceded by consultation
with appropriate advisory committees.
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
standards, including health, economic,
and technological issues, and on the
proposed test method.
These standards will be reviewed 5
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for
integration with other programs, the
existence of alternative methods.
enforceability, improvements in
emission control technology and health
data, and reporting requirements.
An economic impact assessment was
prepared for each standard and for
other regulatory alternatives. All
V-N.O.P-51
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
aspects of the assessment were
considered in the formulation of the
standards to ensure that costs were
carefully considered in determining the
levels of the standards. The economic
impact assessment for each standard is
included in the BID'S for the proposed
standards.
Public Hearings
Public hearings will be held to discuss
the proposed standards in accordance
with Sections 112(b)(l)(B) and 307(d)(5)
of the Clean Air Act. As indicated in the
DATES section of this preamble, two
hearings are scheduled. The first hearing
will be held in Washington, D.C. on
August 23, 24, and 25,1983. The second
hearing, which will address only the
proposed standards for the high-arsenic
primary copper smelter category, will be
held in Tacoma, Washington on August
30,1983. Persons wishing to make oral
presentations on the proposed standards
should contact the appropriate person
listed in the DATES section of this
preamble. Oral presentations will be
limited to 15 minutes each. Any member
of the public may file a written
statement before, during, or within 30
days after each hearing. Written
statements should be addressed to the
Central Docket Section address given in
the Addressses section of this preamble.
A verbatim transcript of each of the
hearings and written statements will be
available for public inspection and
copying during normal working hours at
EPA's Central Docket Section in
Washington, D.C. (see Addresses
section of this preamble). Also, a
verbatim transcript of the hearing to be
held in Tacoma will be placed in the
Docket A-80-40 that will be available at
the EPA Region X office in Seattle (see
Addresses section of this preamble).
Docket
The docket is an organized and
complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA in the development of the proposed
standards. The principal purposes of the
docket are (1) to allow interested parties
to readily identify and locate documents
so that they can intelligently and
effectively participate in the rulemaking
process, and (2) to serve as the record in
case of judicial review (except for
interagency review materials
[§ 307(d)(7)(A)]).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The reporting and recordkeeping
(information collection) provisions
associated with the proposed standards
(§§61.06, 61.07, 61.09, 61.10, 61.163,
61.164, 61.166, 61.173, 61.176, 61.177.
61.178. 61.183 61.186, 61.187, 61.188) have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Section 3504(h) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Each final rule will
explain how the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements respond to
any OMB or public comments. Public
comments on the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements should be
sent to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB to the
attention of the desk officer for EPA.
Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirements of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. None of the proposed
standards is considered major because
none is expected to result in:
(1) an annual effect on the eonomy of
$100 million or more;
(2) a major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
(3) significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
This rulemaking was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by the Executive
Order 12291.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A preliminary regulatory flexibility
analysis has been prepared for the
proposed standard for glass
manufacturing plants. The results of this
analysis, which are discussed in more
detail in Part IV of this preamble,
indicate that it is unlikely that the
proposed standard for glass
manufacturing plants would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business
entities. However, because this
conclusion is based on limited
information about small glass firms,
comments and information are
specifically requested on this subject.
The regulatory flexibility analysis will
be completed prior to promulgation of
the final standard.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
Pursuant to provisions of 5 U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that the proposed
standards for high-arsenic and low-
arsenic copper smelters, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
business entities because none of the
firms in the copper smelting industry is
small.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control. Asbestos,
Beryllium, Hazardous materials.
Mercury. Vinyl Chloride.
Dated: July 11.1983.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
References
(1) Lee, A.M. and J.F. Fraumeni, Jr.,
"Arsenic and Respiratory Cancer in Man: An
Occupational Study," Journal of National
Cancer Institute. 42:1045-52, Iflfi9, Docket
Number (OAQPS 79-8) 1I-I-I.
(2) National Academy of Sciences.
"Arsenic," Committee on Medical and
Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants.
Washington, D.C. 1977, Docket Number
(OAQPS 79-8) II-A-3.
(3) International Agency of Research on
Cancer, "IARC Monographs on Evaluation of
the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to
Humans," Supplement 4, October 1982.
(4) U.S. EPA, "An Assessment of the Health
Effects of Arsenic," April 1978, Docket
Number (OAQPS 79-8) II-A-5.
(5) U.S. EPA, Science Advisory Board.
Subcommittee on Arsenic, Report of the
Subcommittee's Review of Arsenic as a
Possible Hazardous Air Polllutant, May 22-
23,1978, January 10,1979, and April 18,1979.
Docket Numbers (OAQPS 79-8) II-B-3, II-B-
4, and Il-B-6.
[6] Suta, Benjamin, "Human Exposures to
Atmospheric Arsenic," SRI International,
Report to EPA under Contract No. 68-01-4314
and 68-02-2835, May 1980, Docket Number
(OAQPS 79-8) II-A-9.
(7) U.S. EPA, "An Assessment of Health
Effects of Arsenic Germane to Low Level
Exposure," Revised External Review-Draft,
Washington, D.C., October 1978, Docket
Number (OAQPS 79-8) II-A-6.
(8) National Academy of Sciences, Safe
Drinking Water Committee, National
Research Council, "Drinking Water and
Health," Washington, D.C., 1977.
(9) U.S. EPA, "The Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Final Risk Assessment on Arsenic,"
May 2,1980, Docket Number (OAQPS 79-8)
II-A-10.
(70) U.S. EPA, et. al., "Environmental
Cancer and Heart and Lung Disease." Fifth
Annual Report to Congress by the Task Force
on Environmental Cancer and Heart and
Lung Disease, August, 1982.
(11) Systems Application. Inc. "Human
Exposure to Atmospheric Concentrations of
Selected Chemicals." (Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina). Volume I,
Publication Number EPA-2/250-1. and
Volume II, Publication Number EPA-1/250-2.
(12) U.S. EPA, "Health Assessment
Document for Acrylonitrile." Draft Report
from Office of Health and Assessment, EPA-
600/8-82-007. November 1982.
(13) Carcinogen Assessment Group, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
"Carcinogen Assessment Group's Final
V-N,0,P-52
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
Report on Population Risk to Ambient
Benzene Exposures." 1978.
(]4) Blot. W.J. and Fraumeni, J.F.. Jr.
"Arsenical Air Pollution and Lung Cancer."
The Lancet, pp. 142-144, July 1975.
(5) PEDCo Environmental, Inc., "Emission
Test Report-Evaluation of an Air Curtain
Hooding System for a Primary Cooper
Converter ASARCO, Inc.. Tacoma.
Washington," (preliminary draft). Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Traingle Park, N.C., Volumes I and
II. March. 1983. Docket Number (A-60-4) II-
A-40.
It is proposed that Part bl of Chapter
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart N and a new Reference
Method 108 to Appendix B, as follows:
PART 61—{ AMENDED]
1. The Table of Contents of Part 61 is
amended by adding Subpart N and by
adding an entry for new Test Method
108 to Appendix B as follows:
Subpart N—National Emission Standards
(or Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From
Glass Manufacturing Plants
Sec.
61.160 Applicability and designation of
source.
61.1601 Definitions.
61.1602 Emission limits.
61.1603 Procedures for demonstrating
compliance.
61.1604 Emission monitoring.
61.1605 Emission testing.
61.1606 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
*****
Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 108—Determination of Particulate
and Gaseous Arsenic Emissions
*****
Authority: Sees. 112 and 301(a). Clean Air
Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(aJ).
and additional authority as noted below.
2. Part 61 is amended by adding
Subpart N as follows:
Subpart N—National Emission
Standard for Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Glass Manufacturing
Plants
! 61.160 Applicability and designation of
source.
(a) The source to which this subpart
applies is each glass melting furnace
that uses arsenic as a raw material,
except pot furnaces.
(b) An owner or operator who would
be subject to the provisions of both 40
CFR Part 60, Subpart CC and to this
subpart, shall be exempt from 40 CFR
Part 60 Subpart CC if he demonstrates
compliance with { 61.162(a)(l).
§61.161 Definitions.
The terms used in this subpart are
defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 61.02,
or in this section as follows:
"Arsenic-containing glass type"
means any glass that is distinguished
from other glass solely by the weight
percent of arsenic in the batch feed
material and by the weight percent of
arsenic in the glass produced. Any two
or more glasses that have the same
weight percent of arsenic in the batch
feed material as well as in the glass
produced shall be considered to belong
to one arsenic-containing glass type,
without regard to the recipe used or any
other characteristics of the glass or the.
method of production.
"Borosilicate recipe" means raw
material formulation of the following
approximate weight proportions: 72
percent silica, 7 percent nepheline
syenite, 13 percent anhydrous borax, 8
percent boric acid, and 0.1 percent
miscellaneous materials.
''Container glass" means glass made
of soda-lime recipe, clear or colored,
which is pressed and/or blown into
bottle, jars, ampoules, and other
products listed in Standard Industrial
Classification 3221 (SIC 3221).
"Flat glass" means glass made of
soda-lime recipe and produced into
continuous flat sheets and other
products listed in SIC 3211.
"Glass melting furnace" means a unit
comprising a refractory vessel in which
raw materials are charged, melted at
high temperature, refined, and
conditioned to produce molten glass.
The unit includes foundations,
superstructure and retaining walls, raw
material charger systems, heat
exchangers, melter cooling system,
exhaust system, refractory brickwork,
fuel supply and electrical boosting
equipment, integral control systems and
instrumentation, and appendages for
conditioning and distributing molten
glass to forming apparatuses. The
forming apparatuses, including the float
bath used in flat glass manufacturing,
are not considered part of the glass
melting furnace.
"Glass produced" means the weight of
the glass pulled from the glass melting
furnace.
"Lead recipe" means raw material
formulation of the following
approximate weight proportions: 56
percent silica, B percent potassiurn,
carbonate, and 36 percent red lead.
"Malfunction" means any sudden and
unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment or process equipment
or of a proess to operate in a normal or
usual manner. Failures that are caused
entirely or in part by poor maintenance,
careless operation, or any other
preventable upset condition or
preventable equipment breakdown shall
not be considered malfunctions.
"Measured arsenic emission factor"
means the amount of inorganic arsenic.
expressed in grams per kilogram of glass
produced, as determined based on
inorganic arsenic measured using EPA
Reference Method 108.
"Pot furnace" means a glass melting
furnace that contains one or more
refractory vessels in which glass is
melted by indirect heating. The openings
of the vessels are in the outside wall of
the furnace and are covered with
refractory stoppers during melting.
"Pressed and blown glass" means
glass that is pressed, blown, or both,
including textile fiberglass,
noncontinuous flat glass, noncontainer
glass, and other products listed in SIC
3229. It is separated into:
(a) Glass of borosilicate recipe.
(b) Glass of soda-lime and lead
recipes.
(c) Glass of opal, fluoride, and other
recipes.
"Shutdown" means the cessation of
operation of a source for any purpose.
"Soda-lime recipe" means raw
material formulation of the following
approximate weight proportions: 72
percent silica, 15 percent soda, 10
percent lime and magnesia, 2 percent
alumina, and 1 percent miscellaneous
materials (including sodium sulfate).
'Theoretical arsenic emission factor"
means the amount of inorganic arsenic.
expressed in grams per kilogram of glass
produced, as determined based on a
material balance.
"Uncontrolled arsenic emissions"
means the inorganic arsenic in the glass
melting furnace exhaust gas preceding
any add-on particulate control device.
"Wool fiberglass" means fibrous glass
of random texture, including fiberglass
insulation, and other products listed in
SIC 3296.
{61.162 Emission limits.
(a) Each owner or operator of a. glass
melting furnace subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall comply with either
paragraph (a)(lj or paragrph [a}(2) of
this section.
(1) No owner or operator shall cause
to be discharged into the atmosphere—
(i) From any glass melting furnace
fired exclusively with a gaseous fuel or
using an all-electric melting process,
particulate matter at emission rates
exceeding those specified in Table N-l,
Column 2, or
(ii) From any glass melting furnace
fired exclusively with a liquid fuel,
particulate matter at emission rates
V-N,0,P-53
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
exceeding those specified in Table N-l,
Column 3, or
(iii) From any glass melting furnace
fired simultaneously with gaseous and
liquid fuels, particulate matter at
emission rates exceeding STD as
specified by the following equation:
J = X(0.3Y + 1)
where:
STD = Particulate matter emission limit, g of
particulale/kg of glass produced.
X = Emission rate specified in Table N-l for
furnaces fired with gaseous fuel (Column
2).
Y = Fraction of total (gaseous and liquid) fuel
heating value supplied by the liquid fuel
fired in the glass melting furnace as
determined in § 61.165(b)(9).
TABLE N-1.— EMISSION LIMITS
[g ol paniculate/kg of glass produced]
Column 1
Glass Manufacturing Plant Industry
Sector
P'essed and Clown glass:
Soda-lime and lead recipes
Other than tKxosMicau. soda-
lime, and lead recipes (includ-
ing opal, lluoride. and other
Column 2
Furnaces
fired with
gaseous
fuel and
All-
electric
melters
0.100
0500
0.100
0.250
0.250
0225
Columns
Furnaces
fired with
liquid fuel
0 130
0650
0.130
0325
0325
0225
(2) No owner or operator shall operate
a glass melting furnace with
uncontrolled arsenic emissions in excess
of 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) per year.
§61.163 Procedures tor demonstrating
compliance.
(a) Unless a waiver of emissions
testing is obtained under § 61.13, each
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall test
emissions from each source using the
test methods and procedures as
specified in § 61.165:
(1) Within 90 days of the effective
date of the standard for a source that
has an initial startup date preceding the
effective date; or
(2) Within 90 days of startup for a
source that has an initial startup date
after the effective date.
(b) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
provide the Administrator at least 30
days prior notice of the emissions test to
afford the Administrator the opportunity
to have an observer present.
(c) Each emissions test shall be
conducted while the source is operating
under such conditions as the
Administrator may specify to the owner
or operator based on representative
performance of the source.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the emissions test
within 60 days of conducting the test.
(e) Each owner or operator who
chooses to comply with § 61.162(a)(2)
shall determine the level of uncontrolled
arsenic emissions by:
(1) Measuring uncontrolled arsenic
emissions from the source according to
procedures described in 5 61.165(c).
Uncontrolled arsenic emissions shall be
measured during the production of the
arsenic-containing glass type (as defined
in § 61.161) that the owner or operator
expects will generate the highest rates
of uncontrolled arsenic emissions from
the source during the succeeding 12
months. The result of this measurement
shall be converted to a "measured
arsenic emission factor," expressed as
g/kg, as described in { 61.165(c)(5).
(2) Deriving a "theoretical arsenic
emission factor," expressed as g/kg,
based on a material balance calculation
performed for the same batch of glass
produced during the measurement of
arsenic emissions required under
§ 61.163(e)(l).
(3) Calculating the ratio of the
measured arsenic emission factor from
§ 61.163(e)(l) to the theoretical arsenic
emission factor from § 61.163(e)(2). This
ratio shall be used as a "correction
factor" in the development of arsenic
emission estimates based on the use of
theoretical emission factors as
described in § 61.163(e)(4) and
§ 61.163(f).
(4) Estimating uncontrolled arsenic
emissons for the initial 12-month period
as follows:
(i) If the arsenic-containing glass type
(as defined in I 61.161) that was
produced during the measurement of
uncontrolled arsenic emissions required
under § 61.163(e)(l) is the only arsenic-
containing glass type that will be
produced during the 12-month period,
then the owner or operator shall
estimate arsenic emissions for the 12-
month period by multiplying the --
measured arsenic emisson factor from
S 61.163(e)(l) by the amount (in kg) of
the arsenic-containing glass type that
the owner or operator plans to produce
during the 12-month period.
(ii) If arsenic-containing glass types
(as defined in § 61.161) other than the
type that was produced during the
measurement of arsenic emissons
required under S 61.163(e)(l) will be
produced during the 12-month period,
then the owner or operator shall
estimate uncontrolled arsenic emissions
for the 12-month period as follows:
(A) For each arsenic-containing glass
type that will be produced during the 12-
month period the owner or operator
shall:
(1) derive a "theoretical arsenic
emission factor" based on a material
balance calculation, and
(2) calculate a "measured arsenic
emission factor" by multiplying the
theoretical arsenic emission factor from
§ 61.163(e)(4)(ii)(A)(l) by the "correction
factor" from § 61.163(e)(3).
(6) Uncontrolled arsenic emissons for
the 12-month period shall be estimated
by multiplying each measured arsenic
emissons factor from
§ 6l.l63(ej(4)(ii)(A)(2) by the amount (in
kg) of the respective arsenic-containing
glass types that the owner or operator
plans to produce during the 12-month
period, and summing the products of
each multiplication.
(f) The records required by S 61.166(c),
shall contain the following:
(1) an estimate of the uncontrolled
arsenic emissons from the source during
the immediately preceding 6-month
period computed as follows:
(i) For each arsenic-containing glass
type (as defined in § 61.161) produced
during the preceding 6 months,
determine a "measured arsenic emission
factor" as follows:
(A) If the arsenic-containing glass
type is the same as that produced during
the measurement of arsenic emissions
required by § 61.163(e)(l), use the
"measured arsenic emission factor"
from § 61.163(e)(l).
(B) If the arsenic-containing glass type
is other than the type produced during
the measurement of arsenic emissions
required by § 61.163(e)(l), use the
procedures described in
§ 61.163(e)(4)(ii)(A)(2).
(ii) For each arsenic-containing glass
type produced during the preceding 6
months, estimate the uncontrolled
arsenic emissions during the preceding 6
months by multiplying each measured
arsenic emission factor from
§ 61.163{f)(l)(i) by the amount (in kg) of
the respective arsenic-containing glass
type that was produced during the
preceding 6 months.
(iii) Sum the products obtained in
§ 61.163(f)(l)(ii) to obtain the estimated
uncontrolled arsenic emissions from the
source during the preceding 6 months.
(2) an updated arsenic emission
forecast for the next 12-month period
taking into account anticipated changes
in production rates, arsenic-containing
glass types to be produced, and other
factors that might affect uncontrolled
arsenic emissions, and computed by the
procedures described in § 61.163(e)(4)(i)
and (ii).
V-N.O.P-54
-------
Federal Regi§ter / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
§31.184 EmlocJon monitoring.
(a) An owner or operator who chooses
to comply with § 61.162(a)(l) shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a continuous monitoring system for the
measurement of the opacity of emissions
discharged into the atmosphere from the
source.
(b) All continuous monitoring systems
shall be installed and operational prior
to conduction of an emissions test as
required in § 61.163(a). Verification of
operational status shall, as a minimum,
consist of an evaluation of the
monitoring system in accordance with
the requirements and procedures
contained in Performance Specification
1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. A
written report of the results of the
continuous monitoring system
evaluation shall be furnished to the
Administrator within 60 days of
conducting the evaluation.
(c) During the emission test required
in § 61.165(b) each owner or operator
subject to § 61.164(a) shall:
(1) Conduct continuous opacity
monitoring during each test run.
(2) Calcuate 6-minute opacity
averages from 24 or more data points
equally spaced over each 6-minute
period during the test runs.
(3) Determine, based on the 6-minute
opacity averages, the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level of a normal or
lognormal (whichever the owner or
operator determines is more
representative) distribution of the
average opacity values.
(4) An owner or operator may
redetermine the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level as described in
B 61.164(c)(3) if the owner or operator
conducts continuous opacity monitoring
during each test run of an emission test
that demonstrates compliance with the
emission limits in § 61.162(a)(l), and
recalculates the 6-minute averages
described in § 61.164(c)(2).
(d) The requirements of § 60.13(d),
• (d)(3), and (f) shall apply to an owner or
operator subject to | 61.164(a).
(e) Except for system breakdowns.
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and
span adjustments required under
% 60.13(d) and (d)(3). all continuous
monitoring systems shall be in
continuous operation and shall meet
minimum frequency of operation
requirements by completing a minimum
of one cycle of sampling and analyzing
for each successive 10-second period
and one cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
(f) An owner or operator subjects to
§ 61.164(a) shall reduce all opacity data
to 6-minute averages. Six-minute
averages shall be calculated from 24 or
more data points equally spaced over
each 6-minute period. Data recorded
during periods of monitoring system
breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks,
and zero and span adjustments shall not
be included in the data averages
computed under this paragraph.
(g) After receipt and consideration of
written application, the Administrator
may approve alternative continuous
monitoring systems for the measurement
of one or more process or operating
parameters that is or are demonstrated
to enable accurate and representative
monitoring of a properly operating
control device. After the Administrator
approves an alternative continuous
monitoring system for an affected
source, the requirements of § 61.164(a}-
(f) will not apply for that source.
§ S1.1 S3 (Emission tooting.
(a) Emission tests shall be conducted
and data reduced in accordance with
the test methods and procedures
contained in this section unless the
Administrator—
(1) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology;
(2) Approves the use of an equivalent
method;
(3) Approvesthe use of an alternative
method the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance; or
(4) Waives the requirements for
emission tests as provided under g 61.13.
(b) Reference Method 5 in Appendix
A of 40 CFR Part 60 shall be used to
determine compliance with
§ 61.162(a)(l) as follows:
(1) Method 1 shall be used for sample
and velocity traverses, and
(2) Method 2 shall be used to
determine velocity and volumetric flow
rate.
(3) Method 3 shall be used for gas
analysis. •
(4) Method 5 shall be used to
determine the concentration of
participate matter and the associated
moisture content. Each test shall consist
of three separate runs. The sampling
time for each run shall be at least 60
minutes and the collected particulate
matter shall weigh at least 50 mg. For
the purpose of determining the
concentration of particulate matter, the
arithmetic mean of the results of the
three runs shall apply.
(5) For any glass melting furnace fired
with a liquid fuel containing more than
0.50 weight percent sulfur, Method 5
shall be conducted with the probe and
filter holder heating system in the
sampling train set to provide a gas
temperature no greater than 177°C.
(6) The particulate emission rate. F..
shall be computed as follows:
where:
E = QxC
E = particulate emission rate. g/h.
Q = average volumetric flow rate from
Method 2. dscm/h.
C= average concentration of particulate
matter from Method S. g/dscm.
(7) The rate of glass produced, P. shall
be determined by dividing the weight, in
kilograms (kg), of glass pulled from the
source during the emission test by the
number of hours (h) taken to perform the
test. The glass pulled, shall be
determined by direct measurement or
computed from materials balance.
(8) For the purposes of demonstrating
compliance with the emission limits in
§ 61.162(a)(l), the furnace particulate
emission rate. R. shall be computed as
follows:
where:
R = furnace emission rate, g/kg.
E = particulate emission rate from
S 61.165(b)(6). g/h.
A = zero production rate correction as
follows:
A = 227 g/h for container glass, pressed and
blown (soda-lime and lead) glass, and
pressed and blown (other than
borosilicate. soda-lime, and lead) glass.
A =454 g/h for pressed and blown
(borosilicate) glass, wool fiberglass, and
flat glass.
P=rate of glass production from
§ 61.165(b)(7). kg/h,
(9) When gaseous and liquid fuels are
fired simultaneously in a glass melting
furnace, the heat input of each fuel,
expressed in joules, is determined
during each testing period by
multiplying the gross calorific value of
each fuel fired (in joules/kilogram) by
the rate at which each fuel is fired (in
kilogram/second) to the glass melting
furnace. The decimal fraction of liquid
fuel heating value to total fuel heating
value is determined by dividing the heat
input of the liquid fuels by the sura of
the heat input for the liquid fuels and ihe
gaseous fuels. Gross calorific values are
determined in accordance with
American Society of Testing and
Materials (A.S.T.M.) Method D
240.64(73) (liquid fuels) and D 1826-64(7)
(gaseous fuels), as applicable. The
owner or operator shall determine the
rate of fuels burned during each testing
period by suitable methods and shall
confirm the rate by a material balance
over the glass melting system.
(c) Reference Method 108 in Appendix
B of 40 CFR Part PI shall be used to
V-N,0,P-55
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
determine compliance with
§ 61.162(a)(2) as follows:
(1) Method 1 shall be used for sample
and velocity traverses, and
(2) Method 2 shall be used to
determine velocity and volumetric
flowrate.
(3) Method 3 shall be used for gas
analysis.
(4) The rate of glass produced, P (kg/
h) shall be determined by dividing the
weight, in kilograms (kg), of glass pulled
from the source during the emission test
by the number of hours (h) taken to
perform the test. The glass pulled, in
kilograms, shall be determined by direct
measurement or.computed by materials
balance.
(5) For the purpose of the procedures
described in § 61.163(e)(l). the
"measured arsenic emission factor"
shall be computed as follows:
R. = E.^-P
where:
R. = ' measured arsenic emission factor," g/
kg.
E. = arsenic emission rate from Method 108,
8/h.
P-- rate of glass production from
|61.165(c)[4), kg/h.
§01.166 Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator required to
install a continuous opacity monitoring
system under § 61.164 shall submit a
written report to the Administrator
semiannually if excess opacity occurred
during the preceding 6-month period. For
purposes of this section, an occurrence
of excess opacity is any 6-minute period
during which the average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitoring
system, exceeds the opacity level
determined under § 61.164(c)(3) or, of
rocleterminecl. the opacity under
(b) All semiannual reports shall be
postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each 6-month period and shall
include the following information:
(1) The magnitude of excess opacity,
any conversion factor(s) used, and the
date and time of commencement and
completion of each occurrence of excess
opacity.
(2) Specific identification of each
occurrence of excess opacity that occurs
during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions of the source.
(3) The date and time identifying each
period during which the continuous
monitoring system was inoperative,
except for zero and span checks, and the
nature of the system repairs or
adjustments.
(c) Each owner or operator who
demonstrates compliance with
§ 61.162(a)(2) shall, 6 months after
demonstrating compliance and every 6
months thereafter, record the arsenic
emission estimates prescribed under
§ 61.163(f).
(1) If the arsenic emission estimates
prescribed under § 61.163(f)(l) reveal
that uncontrolled arsenic emissions
during the preceding 12-month period [or
preceding 6-month period, in the case of
the first 6-month period following the
demonstration of compliance with
§ 61.162(a)(2)l exceeded 0.40 Mg (0.44
ton) per year, then the owner or operator
shall report this fact to the
Administrator. All such reports shall be
postmarked by the 10th day following
the end of the 6-month reporting period.
(2) If the arsenic emission estimate
prescribed under § 61.163(0(2) indicates
that uncontrolled arsenic emissions will
exceed 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton), then the
owner or operator shall demonstrate
compliance with | 61.162(a)(l). In this
case, the owner or operator shall, within
10 days, notify the Administrator of the
anticipated date of the emission test
required under § 61.163(a).
(d) Any owner or operator of a source
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall maintain a file of the following
records: all measurements, including
monitoring and testing data; all
calculations used to produce the
required reports of emission estimates;
monitoring system performance
evaluations, including calibration
checks and adjustments; the occurrence
and duration of any startup, shutdown.
or malfunction in the operation of the
furnace; any malfunction of the air
pollution control system: any periods
during which the continuous monitoring
system or device is inoperative: and all
maintenance and repairs made to the air
pollution controls or monitoring system.
This file shall be recorded in a
permanent form suitable for inspection
and shall be retained for at least 2 years
following the date of such
measurements, maintenance, reports,
and records.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
3. Part 61 is amended by adding
Method 108 to Appendix B as follows:
Appendix B—Test Methods
Method 108—Determination of Participate
and Gaseous Arsenic Emissions
1. Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. The Method applies to
the determination of inorganic arsenic (As)
emissions from stationary sources as
specified in the regulations.
1.2 Principle. Participate and gaseous
arsenic emissions are withdrawn
isokinetically from the source and collected
on a glass mat filter and in water. The
collected arsenic is then analyzed by means
of atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
2. Apparatus.
2.1 Sampling Train. A schematic of the
sampling train is shown in Figure 108-1; it is
similar to the Method 5 train of 40 CFR 60.
Appendix A.
Note.—This and all subsequent references
to other methods refer to the methods in 40
CFR 60, Appendix A. The sampling train
consists of the following components:
2.1.1 Probe Nozzle. Probe Liner. Pilot
Tube, Differential Pressure Gauge, Filter
Holder, Filter Heating System, Metering
System, Barometer, and Gas Density
Determination Equipment. Same as Method 5,
Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.6 and 2.1.8 to 2.1.10.
respectively.
BILLING CODE: 6560-SO-M
V-N.O.P-56
-------
TEMPERATURE
SENSOR
I
M
O
cn
THERMOMETER
«.
REVERSE TYPE
PITOTTUBE
ORIFICE
MANOMETER
Figure 103-1 Ar;jriic sampling train.
AIR TIGHT
PUMP
I
»
E.
90
oo
o
CD
a.
(C
CO
a.
ro
O
•a
o
CO
(D
Q.
90
5T
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
2.1.2 Impingers. Six impingers connected
in series with leak-free ground-glass fittings
or any similar leak-free nonrontaminating
fittings. For the first, third, fourth, fifth, and
sixth impingers. use the Greenburg-Smith
design, modified by replacing the tip with a
1.3-cm-ID (0.5 in.) glass tube extending to
about 1.3 cm (0.5 in.) from the bottom of the
flask. For the second impinger, use the
Greenburg-Smith design with the standard
tip. The tester may use modifications (e.g.,
flexible connections between the impingers.
materials other than glass, or flexible vacuum
lines to connect the filter holder to the
condenser), subject to the approval of the
Administrator.
Place a thermometer, capable of measuring
temperature to within 1°C 12"K), at the outlet
of the sixth impinger for monitoring purposes.
2.2 Sample Recovery. The following items
are needed:
2.2.1 Probe-Liner and Probe-Nozzle
Brushes, Pelri Dishes. Graduated Cylinder or
Balance. Plastic Storage Containers. Rubber
Policeman, and Funnel. Same as Method 5,
Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 to 2.2.B. respectively.
2.2.2 Wash Bottles. Polyethylene (2).
2.2.3 Sample Storage Containers.
Chemically resistant, polyethylene or
polypropylene for glassware washes. 500- or
l.OUO-ml.
2.3 Analysis. The following equipment is
needed:
2.3.1 Spectrophotometer. Equipped with
an electrodeless discharge lamp and a
background corrector to measure absorbance
at 193.7 nm. For measuring samples having
less than 10 ng As/ml, use a vapor generator
accessory.
2.3.2 Recorder. To match the output of the
Spectrophotometer.
2.3.3 Beakers. 150-ml.
2.3.4 Volumetric Flasks. Class 50 = . 100 = .
3X1 =. 500 = , and l,000 = ml;and
polypropylene. 50=ml.
2.3.5 Erlenmeyer Flasks. 250 = ml.
2.3.6 Balance. To measure within 0.5 g.
2.3.7 Volumetric Pipets. 1 = . 2 = . 3 = . 5 = .
fl -, and 10 = ml.
2.3.8 PARR Acid Digestion Bomb.
2.3.9 Oven.
2.3.10 Hot Plate.
3. Reagents
Unless otherwise specified, use American
Chemical Society reagent grade (or
equivalent) chemicals throughout.
3.1 Sampling. The reagents used in
sampling are as follows:
3.1.1 Filters. Silica Gel, Crushed Ice. and
Stopcock Grease. Same as Method 5.
Sections 3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.4. and 3.1.5,
respectively.
3.1.2 Water. Deionized distilled to meet
American Society for Testing and Materials
Specification D 1193-74. Type 3 (incorporated
by reference—see § 60.17). When high
concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present, the analyst may omit
the KMnO4 test for oxidizable organic matter.
3.1.3 Hydrogen Peroxide (HaO,). 10
Percent (W/V). Dilute 294 ml of 30 percent
Had to 1 liter with water.
3.2 Sample Recovery. 0.1 N sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) is required. Dissolve 4.00 g
of NaOH in aboiut 500 ml of water in a 1-liter
volumetric flask. Then, dilute to exactly 1.0
liter with water.
3.3. Analysis. The reagents needed for
analysis are as follows:
3.3.1 Water. Same as 3.1.2.
3.3.2 Sodium Hydroxide. 0.1 N. Sane as
3.2.
3.3.3 Sodium Borohydride (NaBH,). 5
Percent (W/V). Dissolve 5.00 g of NaBH. in
about 500 ml of 0.1 N NaOH in a 1-liter
volumetric flask. Then, dilute to exactly 1.0
liter with 0.1 N NaOH.
3.3.4 Hydrochloric Acid (HCI).
Concentrated.
3.3.5 Potassium Iodide (KI), 30 Percent
(W/V). Dissolve 300 g of KI in 500 ml of water
in a 1-liter volumetric flask. Then, dilute to
exactly 1.0 liter with water.
3.3.6 Sodium Hydroxide. l.O.N. Dissolve
40.00 g of NaOH in about 500 ml of water in a
1-lter volumetric flask. Then, dilute to exactly
1.0 liter with water.
3.3.7 Phenolphthalein. Dissolve 0.05 g of
phenolphthalein in 50 ml of 90 percent
ethanol and 50 ml of water.
3.3.8 Nitric Acid (HNO3). Concentrated.
3.3.9 Nitric Acid. O.8.N. Dilute 52 ml of
concentrated HNOa to exactly 1.0 liter with
water.
3.3.10 Nitric Acid. 50 Percent (V/V). Add
50 ml concentrated HNO3 to 50 ml water.
3.3.11 Stock Arsenic Standard, 1 mg As/
Ml. Dissolve 1.3203 g of primary standard
grade As»O3in 20 ml of 0.1 N NaOH.
Neutralize with concentrated HNO>. Dilute to
1.0 liter with water.
3.3.12 Arsenic Working Solution, 1.0 fig
As/ml. Pipet exactly 1.0 ml of stock arsenic
standard into an acid-cleaned, appropriately
labeled 1-liter volumetric flask containing
about 500 ml of water and 5 ml of
concentrated HNO* Dilute to exactly 1.0 liter
with water.
3.3.13 Hydrofluoric Acid. Concentrated.
. 3.3.14 Air. Suitable quality for atomic
absorption analysis.
3.3.15 Acetylene. Suitable quality for
atomic absorption analysis.
3.3.16 Quality Assurance Audit Samples.
Arsenic samples in glass vials prepared by
the Environmental Protection Agency's (F.PA)
F.nvironmental Systems Laboratory at the
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Each
set will consist of two vials with two
unknown concentrations. When making
compliance determinations, obtain an audit
sample set from the Quality Assurance
Management Office at each EPA regional
office.
4. Procedure.
4.1 Sampling. Because of the complexity
of this method, testers must be trained and
experienced with the test procedures in order
to obtain reliable results.
4.1.1 Pretest Preparation. Follow the
general procedure given in Method 5. Section
4.1.1. except the filter need not be weighed.
4.1.2 Preliminary Determinations. Follow
the general procedure given in Method 5,
Section 4.1.2, except select the nozzle size to
maintain isokinetic sampling rates below 28
liters/min (1.0 cfm).
4.1.3 Preparation of Collection Train.
Follow the general procedure given in
Method 5, Section 4.1.3, except prepare the
impingers as follows:
Place 150 ml of water in each of the first
two impingers and 200 ml of 10 percent HjO>
in the third, fourth, and fifth impingers. Weigh
and record the weight of each impinger and
liquid. Transfer approximately 200 to 300 g of
preweighed silica gel from its container to the
sixth impinger. Set up the train as shown in
Figure 108-1.
4.1.4 Leak-Cheak Procedures. Follow the
leak-check procedures given in Method 5,
Sections 4.1.4.1 (Pretest Leak-Check), 4.1.4.2
(Leak-Checks During Sample Run), and 4.1.4.3
(Post-Test Leak-Check).
4.1.5 Arsenic Train Operation. Follow the
general procedure given in Method 5, Section
4.1.5, except maintain a temperature of 110°
to 135°C (230° to 275°F) around the filter and
maintain isokinetic sampling flow rates
below 28 liters/min (1.0 cfm). For each run.
record the data required on a data sheet such
as the one shown in Figure 108-2.
BILLING CODE 8560-SO-H
V-N,0,P-58
-------
PLANT
LOCATION
OPERATOR
DATE
RUN NO.
SAMPLE BOX NO
METER BOX NO..
METERAH@
CFACTOR
PITOTTUBE COEFFICIENT.Cp.
SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE _
ASSUMED MOISTURE. %_
PflOBJ LENGTH, m (III
NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO
AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, tml.n.}.
PROBE HEATER SETTING .
LEAK RATE. m3/m.n.{elm| •
PROBE LINER MATERIAL .
Q.
1
I.
(Jl
10
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER
TOTAL
SAMPLING
1IME
Ifll. mm.
AVERAGE
STATIC
PRESSURE
nun Hg
(in Hgl
STACK
TEMPERATURE
<'s>
°C I°F|
VELOCITY
HEAD
-------
Ksgiste? / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
4.1.6 Calculation of Percent Isokinetic.
Same as Method 5. Section 4.1.8.
4.2 Sample Recovery. Begin proper
cleanup procedure aa soon as the probe is
removed from the stack at the end of the
sampling period.
Allow the probe to cool. When it can be
safely handled, wipe off all external
participate matter near the tip of the probe
nozzle, and place a cap over it to prevent
losing or gaining particulate matter. Do not
cup off the probe tip tightly while the
sampling train is cooling because a vacuum
would form in the filter holder.
Before moving the sampling train to the
cleanup site, remove ihe probe from the
sample train, wipe off the silicone grease, and
cap the open outlet of the probe. Be careful
not to lose any condensate that might be
present. Wipe off the silicone grease from the
niter inlet where the probe was fastened and
cap it. Remove the umbilical cord from the
last impinger and cap the impinger. If a
flexible line is used between the first
impinger and the filter holder, disconnect the
line at the filter holder, and let any
condensed water of liquid drain into the
impingers. After wiping off the silicone
grense, cap off the filter holder outlet and
impinger inlet. Use either ground-glass
stoppers, plastic caps, or serum caps to close
Ihpse opening.
Transfer the probe and filter-impinger
assembly to a cleanup area that is clean and
protected from the wind so that the chances
of contaminating or losing the sample is
minimized.
Inspect the train before and during
disassembly, and note any abnormal
conditions. Treat the sample as follows:
4.2.1 Container No. 1 (Filter). Carefully
remove the filter from the filter holder, and
place it in its Identified petri dish container.
Use a pair of tweezers or clean disposable
surgical golves or both to handle the filter. If
it is necessary to fold the filter, fold the
particula'e cake inside the fold. Carefully
transfer to the petri dish any particulate
matter and filter fibers that adhere to the
filter holder gasket by using a dry Nylon
hristle brush and a sharp-edged blade or
both. (.Vote: Mention of trade names or
.specific products does not constitute
endorsement by EPA.) Seal the container.
4.2.2 Container No. 2 (Probe). Taking care
that dust on the ouside of the probe or other
exterior surfaces does not get into the
sample, quantitatively recover particulate
matter or any condensate from the probe
nuzzle, probe fitting, probe liner, and front
half of the filter holder by washing these
components with 0.1 N NaOH and placing the
wash in a plastic storage container. Measure
and record to the nearest ml the total volume
of solution in Container No. 2. Perform the
rinsing with 0.1 N NaOH as follows:
Carefully remove the probe nozzle, and
rinse the inside surface with 0.1 N NaOH
from a wash bottle. Brush with a Nylon
bristle brush, and rinse until the rinse shown
no visible particles, after which, make a final
rinse of the inside surface.
Brush and rinse the inside parts of the
Swagelok fitting with 0.1 N NaOH in a similar
way until no visible particles remain.
Rinse the probe liner with 0.1 N NaOH.
While squirting 0.1 N NaOH into the upper
end of the probe, tilt and rotate the probe so
that all inside surfaces will be wetted with
the rinse solution. Let the 0.1 N NaOH drain
from the lower end into the sample container.
The tester may use a funnel (glass or
polyethylene) to aid in transferring the liquid
washed to the container. Follow the rinse
with a probe brush. Holding the probe in an
inclined position, squirt 0.1 N NaOH into the
upper end as the probe brush is being pushed
with a twisting action through the probe.
Hold the sample container underneath the
lower end of the probe, and catch any liquid
and particulate matter brushed from the
pru'ue. Run ihe brush through the probe three
times or more until no visible particulate
matter is carried out with the rinse or until
none remains in the probe liner on visual
inspection. With stainless steel or other metal
probes, run the brush through in the above
prescribed manner at least six times since
metal probes have small crevices in which
particulate matter can be entrapped. Rinse
the brush with 0.1 N NaOH. and
quantitatively collect these washings in the
sample container. After the brushing, make a
final rinse of the probe as described above.
It is recommended that two people clean
the probe to minimize sample losses.
Between sampling runs, keep brushes clean
and protected from contamination.
After ensuring that all joints have been
wiped clean of silicone grease, brush and
rinse with 0.1 N NaOH the inside of the front
half of the filter holder. Brush and rinse each
surface three times or more if needed to
remove visible particulate. Make a final rinse
of the brush and filter holder. Carefully brush
and rinse out the glass cyclone, also (if
applicable). After all washings and
particulate matter have been collected in the
sample container, tighten the lid so that liquid
will not leak out when it is shipped to the
laboratory. Mark the height of the fluid level
to determine whether leakage occurs during
transport. Label the container to identify
clearly its contents.
Rinse the glassware a final time with water
to remove residual NaOH before
•reassembling. Do not save the final rinse
water.
4.2.3 Container No. 3 (Silica Gel). Note
the color of the indicating silica gel to
determine whether it has been completely
spent, and make a notation of its condition.
Transfer the silica gel from the sixth impinger
to its original container, and seal. The tester
may use as aids a funnel to pour the silica gel
and a rubber policman to remove the silica
gel from the impinger. It is not necessary to
remove the small amount of particles that
may adhere to the impinger wall and are
difficult to remove. Since the gain in weight is '
to be used for moisture calculations, do not
use* any water or other liquids to transfer the
silica gel. If a balance is available in the field,
the tester may follow the procedure for
Container No. 3 in Section 4.5 (Analysis).
4.2.4 Container No. 4 (Arsenic Sample).
Clean each of the first two impingers and
connecting glassware in the following
manner
a. Wipe the impinger ball joints free of
silicone grease, and cap the joints.
b. Weigh the impinger and liquid to within
±0.5 g. Record in the log the weight of liquid
along with a notation of any color or film
observed in the impinger catch. The weight of
liquid is needed along with the silica gel data
to calculate the stack gas moisture content.
c. Rotate and agitate each impinger, using
the impinger contents as a rinse solution.
d. Transfer the liquid to Container No. 4.
Remove the outlet ball-joint cap, and drain
the contents through this opening. Do not
separate the impinger parts (inner and outer
tubes) while transferring their contents to the
cylinder.
e. (Note: In Steps e and f below, measure
and record the total amount of 0.1 N NaOH
used for rising.) Pour approximately 30 ml of
0.1 NaOH into each of the first two impingers.
and agitate the impingers. Drain the 0.1 N
NaOH through the outlet arm of each
impinger into Container No. 4. Repeat this
Deration a second time; inspect the impingers
for any abnormal conditions.
f. Wipe the ball joints of the glassware
connecting the impingers and the back half of
the filter holder free of silicone grease, and
rinse each piece of glassware twice with 0.1
N NaOH; transfer this rinse into Container
No. 4. ,'Do not rinse or brush the glass-fritted
filter support.) Mark the height of the fluid
level to determine whether leakage occurs
during transport. Label the container to
identify clearly its contents.
4.2.5 Container No. S (SO0 Impinger
Sample). Because of the large quantity of
liquid involved, the tester may place the
solutions from the third, fourth, and fifth
impingers in separate containers. However.
the tester may recombine them at the time of
analysis in order to reduce the number of
analyses required. Clean the impingers
according to the six-step procedure described
under Container No. 4 using water instead of
0.1 N NaOH as the rising liquid.
4.2.6 Blanks. Save a portion of the 0.1 N
NaOH used for cleanup as a blank. Take 200
ml of this solution directly from the wash
bottle being used and place it in a plastic
sample container labeled "NaOH blank."
Also save samples of the water and 10
percent H, On, and place in separate
containers labeled"Ha O blank"and"H0 Oo,"
respectively.
4.3 Arsenic Sample Preparation.
4.3.1 Container No. 1 (Filter). Place the
filter and loose particulate matter in a 150-ml
beaker. Also, add the filtered material from
Container No. 2 (see Section 4.3.3). Add 50 ml
of 0.1 N Naoh. Then stir and warm on a hot
plate at low heat (do not boil) for about 15
minutes. Add 10 ml of concentrated HNCs.
bring to a boil, then simmer for about 15
minutes. Filter the solution through o glass
fiber filter. Wash with hot water, and catch
the filtrate in a clean 150-ml beaker. Boil the
filtrate, and evaporate to dryness. Cool, add 5
ml of 50 percent HNOn. and then warm and
stir. Allow to cool. Transfer to a 50-ml
volumetric flask, dilute to volume with water,
and mix well.
If there are any solids retained by the filter,
place the filter in a PARR acid digestion
bomb, ardf add 5 ml each of concentrated
HNOn and HF acids. Seal the bomb, and heat
it in an oven at 150'C for 5 hours.
V-N,0,P-60
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
CAUTION: Placing paper filters or any other
kind of cellulose in the bomb could lead to an
explosive hazard.
Remove the bomb from the oven, and allow
it to cool. Quantitatively transfer the contents
of the bomb to a 50-ml polypropylene
volumetric flask, and dilute to exactly 50 ml
with water.
4.3.2 Container No. 4 (Arsenic Impinger
Sample).
Note.—Prior to analysis, check the liquid
level in Containers No. 2 and No. 4; confirm
as to whether leakage occurred during
transport on the analysis sheet. If a
noticeable amount of leakage occurred, either
void the sample or take steps, subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to adjust the
final results.
Transfer the contents of Container No. 4 to
a 500-ml volumetric flask, and dilute to
exactly 500 ml with water. Pipet 50 ml of the
solution into a 150-ml beaker. Add 10 ml of
concentrated HNOs, bring to a boil, and
evaporate to dryness. Allow to cool, add 5 ml
of 50 percent HNOs, and then warm and stir.
Allow the solution to cool, transfer to a 50-ml
volumetric flask, dilute to volume with water,
and mix well.
4.3.3 Container No. 2 (Probe Wash). See
note in 4.3.2 above. Filter (using a glass fiber
filter) the contents of Container No. 2 into a
200-ml volumetric flask. Combine the filtered
material with the contents of Container No. 1
(Filter).
Dilute the filtrate to exactly 200 ml with
water. Then pipe! 50 ml into a 150-ml beaker.
Add 10 ml of concentrated HNOs, bring to a
boil, and evaporate to dryness. Allow to cool,
add 5 ml of 50 percent HNOs, and then warm
and stir. Allow the solution to cool, transfer
to a 50-ml volumetric flask, dilute to volume
with water, and mix well.
4.3.4 Filter Blank. Determine a filter blank
using two filters from each lot of filters used
in the sampling. Cut each filter into strips,
and treat each filter individually as directed
in Section 4.3.1. beginning with the sentence,
"Add 50 ml of 0.1 N NaOH."
4.3.5 0.1 N NaOH and Water Blanks.
Treat separately 50 ml of 0.1 N NaOH and 50
ml water, as directed under Section 4.3.2.
beginning with the sentence, "Pipet 50 ml of
the solution into a 150-ml beaker."
4.4 Spectrophotometer Preparation. Turn
on the power; set the wavelength, slit width,
and lamp current; and adjust the background
corrector as instructed by the manufacturer's
manual for the particular atomic absorption
Spectrophotometer. Adjust the burner and
flame characteristics as necessary.
4.5 Analysis.
4.5.1 Arsenic Determination. Prepare
standard solutions as directed under Section
5.1. and measure their absorbances against
0.8 N HNOa. Then, determine the
absorbances of the filter blank and each
sample using 0.8 N HNOs as a reference. If
the sample concentration falls outside the
range of the calibration curve, make an
appropriate dilution with 0.8 N HNOs so that
the final concentration falls within the range
of the curve. Determine the arsenic
concentration in the filter blank (i.e., the
average of the two blank values from each
lot). Next, using the appropriate standard
curve, determine the arsenic concentration in
each sample fraction.
4.5.1.1 Arsenic Determination at Low
Concentration. The lower limit of flame
atomic absorption spectrophotometry is 10 fig
As/ml. If the arsenic concentration of any
sample is at a lower level, use the vapor
generator which is available as an accessory
component. Follow the manufacturer's
instructions in the use of such equipment.
Place a sample containing between 0 and 5
fig of arsenic in the reaction tube, and dilute
to 15 ml with water. Since there is some trial
and error involved in this procedure, it may
be necessary to screen the samples by
conventional atomic absorption until an
approximate concentration is determined.
After determining the approximate
concentration, adjust the volume of the
sample accordingly. Pipet 15 ml of
concentrated HC1 into each tube. Add 1 ml of
30 percent KI solution. Place the reaction tube
into a 50°C water bath for 5 minutes. Cool to
• room temperature. Connect the reaction tube
to the vapor generator assembly. When the
instrument response has returned to baseline,
inject 5.0 ml of 5 percent NaBHi. and
integrate the resulting Spectrophotometer
signal over a 30-second time period.
4.5.1.2 Mandatory Check for Matrix
Effects on the Arsenic Results. Since the
analysis for arsenic by atomic absorption is
sensitive to the chemical composition and to
the physical properties (viscosity, pH) of the
sample (matrix effects), check (mandatory) at
least one sample from each source using the
"Method of Additions."
Three acceptable "Method of Additions"
procedures are described in the General
Procedure Section" of the Perkin Elmer
Corporation Manual (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17). If the results of the
Method of Additions procedure on the source
sample do not agree to within 5 percent of the
value obtained by the routine atomic
absorption analysis, then reanalyze all
samples from the source using the Method of
Additions procedure.
4.5.2 Container No. 5 (SO, Impinger
Sample). Observe the level of liquid in
Container No. 5, and confirm whether any
sample was lost during shipping. Note any
loss of liquid on the analytical data sheet. If a
noticeable amount of leakage occurred, either
void the. sample or use methods subject to the
approval of the Administrator, to adjust the
final results.
Transfer the contents of the Container(s)
No. 5 to a 1-liter volumetric flask and dilute
to exactly 1.0 liter with water. Pipet 10 ml of
this solution into a 250-ml Erlenmeyer flask,
and add two to four drops of phenolphthalin
indicator. Titrate the sample to a faint pink
end point using 1 N NaOH. Repeat and
average the titration volumes. Run a blank
with each series of samples.
4.5.3 Container No. 3 (Silica Gel). The
tester may conduct this step in the field.
Weigh the spent silica gel (or silica gel plus
impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g: record this
weight.
4.6 Audit Analysis. With each set or sets
of compliance samples, analyze the two
unknown audit samples in the same manner
as the source samples to evaluate the
techniques of the analyst and the standards
preparation. The same person, standarfd
reagents, and analytical system shall be used
both for each set or sets of compliance
samples and the EPA audit samples.
If this condition is met for compliance
samples that are analyzed frequently, it is
only necessary to analyze the audit samples
once per quarter.
Calculate the concentration, in g/m3. using
the specified sample volume in the audit
instructions. (Note: The acceptability of the
analyses of the audit samples may be
obtained immediately be reporting the audit
and compliance results by telephone.)
Include the results of both audit samples
with the results of the compliance
determination samples in appropriate reports
to the EPA regional office or the appropriate
enforcement agency.
5. Calibration.
Maintain a laboratory log of all
calibrations.
5.1 Standard Solutions. For the high level
procedure pipet 1, 3. 5, 8, and 10 ml of the 1.0-
mg As/ml stock solution into separate 100-ml
volumetric flasks, each containing 5 ml of
concentrated HNO3. If the low-level
procedure is used, pipet 1. 2, 3. and 5 ml of 1.0
°g As/ml standard solution into the separate
flasks. Dilute to the mark with water. Then
treat the standards in the same manner as the
samples (Section 4.3.4).
Check these absorbances frequently
against 0.8 N HNO3 (reagent blank) during
the analysis to insure the base-line draft has
not occurred. Prepare a standard curve of
absorbance versus concentration. (Note: For
instruments equipped with direct
concentration readout devices, preparation of
a standard curve will not be necessary.) In all
cases, follow calibration and operational
procedues in the manufacturer's instruction
manual.
5.2 Sampling Train Calibration. Calibrate
the sampling train components according to
the indicated Sections of Method 5: probe
Nozzle (Section 5.1), Pilot Tube Assembly
(Section 5.2), Metering System (Section 5.3).
probe Heater (Section 5.4). Temperature
Gauges (Section 5.5). leak Check of Metering
System (Section 5.6). and Barometer (Section
5.7).
5.3 1 N Sodium Hydroxide Solution.
Standardize the NaOH titrant against 25 ml
of standard 1.0 N sulfuric acid.
6. Calculations.
6.1 Nomenclature.
B»,=Water in the gas stream, proportion by
vuiui'ne
C. = Concentration of arsenic as read from
the standard curve, "g/ml
Cc = Actual audit concentration, g/m3
Cd = Determined audit concentration, g/mj
GSOI=Concentration of SOj. percent of
volume
C. = Arsenic concentration is stack gas. dry
basis, converted to standard conditions,
g/dscm (g/dscf)
E.=Ar»enic mass emission rate, g/hr
Fa=dilution factor (equals 1 if the sample has
not been diluted)
I = Percent of isokinetic sampling
mbl=Total mass of all six impingers and
contents before sampling,
V-N.O.P-61
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
m,, = Total mass of all six impingers and
contents after sampling, g
mn = Total mass of arsenic collected in a
specific part of the sampling train, "g
ms03 = Mass of SOt collected in the sampling
train, g
m, —Total mass of arsenic collected in the
sampling train, "g
N = Normality of NaOH titrant, meg/ml
Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter
temperature (see Figure 108-2). °K (°R)
V. = Volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml
Vm = Volume of ga sample as measured by
the dry gas meter, dcm(dcf)
Vn,(11(1) = volume of gas sample as measured
by the dry gas meter correlated to
standard conditions, scm(scf)
Vn = Volume of solution in which the arsenic
is contained, ml
Vv,,n=Total volume of solution in which the
SOi is contained, liter
V.,o,= Volume of SO, collected in the
sampling train, dscm(dscf)
V, = Volume of NaOH titrant used for the
sample (average of replicate titrations),
ml
Vlb = Volume of NaOH titrant used for the
blank, ml
V,,,, Volume of gas sampled corrected to
standard conditions, dscm(dscf) •
V»',«> = Volume of water vapor collected in
the sampling train, corrected to standard
conditions, scm(scf).
AH—Average pressure differential across the
orifice meter (see Figure 108-2), mm H,O
(in. H,0).
6.2 Calculate the volume of SO, gas
collected by the sampling train.
Vso,=K, (V, - Vlb) N (V^/VJ Eq. 108-1
Where:
K, = 1.203x lO"5 m3/rneq. for metric units.
= 4.248X10"« ft'/meq. English units.
6.3 Calculate the sulfur dioxide
concentration in the stack gas (dry basis
adjusted to standard conditions) as
follows:
- X 100 Eq.108-2
6.4 Calculate the mass of sulfur dioxide
collected by the sampling train.
Msl» = K2(V,-V11>)N(Violn/V.) Eq. 108-
3
Where:
K,= 0.032 g/meq.
6.5 Average dry gas meter temperatures
(TJ and average orifice pressure drop AH).
See data sheet (Figure 108-2).
6.6 Dry Gas Volume. Using data from this
lust, calculate VmiM> by using Eq. 5-1 of
Method 5. If necessary, adjust the volume for
leakages. Then add Vsoa.
Vlo, = Vm(Kd, + Vso, Eq. 108-4
6.7 Volume of Water Vapor.
V»i,,d)=K,(m0-mt>1-mSoj) Eq. 108-5
Where:
K1 = 0.001334 m'/g for metric units.
= 0.047012 ft'/g for English units.
0.8 Moisture Content.
Eq. 108-6
6.9 Amount of arsenic collected.
6.9.1 Calculate the amount of arsenic
collected in each part of sampling train, as
follows:
mD=C.FdV,, Eq 108-7
6.9.2 Calculate the total amount of arsenic
collected in the sampling train as follows:
mi = mn(filters) + mn(probe)+mjimpinger
s) - nUFilter blank) - mJNaOH) - m.
(H.O) Eq.108-8
6.10 Calculate the aresnic concentration in
!he stack gas (dry basis, adjusted to standard
conditions) as follows:
C.=KJ(mJVmt»a] Eq. 108-9
Where:
K.=10-«g/Mg
6.11 Pollutant Mass Rate. Calculate the
arsenic mass emission rate using the
following equation.
E.=C.Q* Eq. 108-10
The volumetric flow rate. Cv should be
calculated as indicated in Method 2.
6.12 Isokinetic Variation. Using data from
this test, calculate I. Use Eq. 5-8 of Method 5.
except substitute Vm for Vm(n<1>.
8.13 Acceptable Results. Same as Method
5, Section 6.12.
6.14 Relative Error (RE) for QA Audits,
Percent.
100
RE = C.-C, X — Eq. 108-11
C.
7. Bibliograph.
1. Same as Citations 1 through 9 of Section'
7. of Method 5.
2. Pearkin Elmer Corporation. Analytical
Methods for Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometry. 303-0152. Norwalk.
Connecticut. September 1978. pp. 5-6.
3. Standard Specification for Reagent
Water. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Part 31; Water, Atmospheric Analysis.
American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia. PA. 1974. pp. 40-42.
It is proposed that Part 61 of Chapter
I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart O and new Reference
Method 108A to Appendix B, as follows:
1. The Table of Contents of Part 81 is
amended by adding Subpart O and by
adding an entry for new Test Method
108A to Appendix B as follows:
Subpart O—National Emission Standards
for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From
Primary Copper Smelters Processing Feed
Materials Containing Less Than 0.7 Percent
Arsenic
Sec.
61.170 Applicability and designation of
sources
61.171 Definitions
61.172 Standards for new and existing
sources
61.173 Compliance provisions
61.174 Equivalent equipment and
procedures
61.175 Test methods and procedures
61.176 Monitoring requirements
61.177 Recordkeeping requirements
61.178 Reporting requirements
Appendix B—Test Methods
*****
Method 108A—Determinations of Arsenic
Content in Ore Samples From Nonferrous
Smelters
Authority: Sees. 112 and 301(a), Clean Air
Aci as amended (42 u.S.C 7412 and 760l(a)j.
and additional authority as noted below.
2. Part 61 is amended by adding
Subpart O as follows:
Subpart O—National Emission
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Primary Copper
Smelters Processing Feed Materials
Containing Less Than 0.7 Percent
Arsenic
§61.170 Applicability and designation of
sources.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to each smelting furnace and
each copper converter in operation at all
new and existing primary copper
smelters, except as noted in S 61.172 (c)
and (d), processing a total smelter
charge containing less than 0.7 weight
percent inorganic arsenic on a dry basis
averaged over a 1-year period.
(b) [Reserved).
§61.171 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of Part 61, and the following terms shall
have the specific meanings given to
them:
"Blowing" means the injection of air
or oxygen-enriched air into the molten -
converter bath.
"Charging" means the transfer of
copper matte or any other material to a
copper converter.
"Converter arsenic charging rate"
means the hourly rate at which arsenic
is charged to the copper converter based
on the arsenic content of the copper
matte and of any lead matte that is
charged to the copper converter.
"Copper converter" means any vessel
in which copper matte is charged and is
oxidized to copper.
"Copper Matte" means any impure
metallic sulfide mixture produced by
smelting copper sulfide ore
concentrates.
"Holding" means the suspension of
blowing operations while the molten
converter bath is heated.
V-N,0,P-62
-------
Register / Vol. 46. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
"Malfunction" means any sudden and
unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment, process equipment or
of a process to operate in a normal usual
manner. Failures that are caused
entirely or in part by poor maintenance,
careless operation, or any other
preventable upset condition or
preventable equipment breakdown shall
not be considered malfunctions.
"Primary copper smelter" means any
installation or any intermediate process
engaged in the production of copper
from copper bearing materials through
the use of pyrometallurgical techniques.
"Secondary emissions" means
inorganic arsenic emissions that escape
capture by a primary emission control
systm.
"Secondary hood system" means the
equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans,
and dampers) used to capture and to
transport secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions.
"Shutdown" means the cessation of
operation of a stationary source for any
purpose.
"Skimming" means the removal of
slag from the molten converter bath.
"Smelting furnace" means any vessel
in which the smelting of copper ore
concentrates or calcines is performed
and in which the heat necessary for
smelting is provided by an electric
current, rapid oxidation of the sulfur
contained in the concentrate, or the
combustion of a fossil fuel.
"Smelting furnace arsenic tapping
rate" means the hourly rate at which
arsenic is transferred from the smelting
furnace during tapping based on the
combined arsenic content of the copper
matte and slag.
"Tapping" means the transfer of
copper matte or slag from the smelting
furnace.
"Total smelter charge" means the
- weight-on a-dry-basis of-all-eopper ore-
concentrates processed at a primary
copper smelter plus the weight of all
other materials introduced into the
roasters, smelting furnaces, and
converters at a primary copper smelter
over a 1-month period.
§ 81.172 Standards Jor new and existing
oourcso.
(a) Except as provided under
paragraph (c) of this section, the owner
or operator of each copper converter
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall reduce inorganic arsenic emission
to the atmosphere by meeting the
following equipment and operating
requirements, or equivalent, as provided
in § 61.174:
(1) The owner or operator shall equip
each copper converter with a secondary
hood system, the principal components
of which are a hood enclosure, air
curtain fan(s), exhaust system fan(s),
and sufficient ductwork to convey the
captured emissions to a control device.
Each secondary hood system shall meet
the following specifications:
(i) The configuration and dimensions
of the hood enclosure shall be such that
the copper converter mouth, charging
ladles, skimming ladles, and any other
material transfer vessels used will be
housed within the confines or influence
of the hood enclosure during each mode
of copper converter operation.
(ii) The back of the hood enclosure
shall be fully enclosed and sealed
against the primary hood. Portions of the
side-walls in contact with the copper
converter shall be sealed against the
copper converter.
(iii) Openings in the top and front of
the hood enclosure to allow for the entry
and egress of ladles and crane
apparatus shall be minimized to the
fullest extent practicable.
(iv) The hood enclosure shall be
fabricated in such a manner and of
materials of sufficient strength to
withstand incidental contact with ladles
and crane apparatus with no damage.
(v) One side-wall of the hood
enclosure shall be equipped with a
horizontal-slotted plenum along the top
and opposite side-wall shall be
equipped with an exhaust hood. The
horizontal-slotted plenum shall be
designed to allow the distance from the
base to the top of the horizontal slot to
be adjustable up to a dimension of 76
mm.
(vi) The horizontal-slotted plenum
shall be connected to a fan. When
activated, the fan shall push air through
the horizontal slot, producing a
horizontal air curtain above the copper
converter and directed to the exhaust
hpod. The^fan power output installed
shall be sufficient to overcome static
pressure losses through the ductwork
upsteam of the horizontal-slotted
plenum and across the horizontal-
slotted plenum, and to deliver at least
22,370 watts (30 air horsepower) at the
horizontal-slotted plenum discharge.
(vii) The exhaust hood shall be sized
to completely intercept the airstream
from the horizontal-slotted plenum
combined with the additional airflow
resulting from entrainment by the
airstream of the surrounding air. The
exahust hood shall be connected to a
fan. When activiated, the fan shall pull
the combined airstream into the exhaust
hood.
(viii) The entire system shall be
equipped with dampers and
instrumentation, as appropriate, so that
the desired air curtain and exhaust flow
are maintained during each mode of
copper converter operation.
(2) At all times the owner or operator
of each copper converter shall operate
the converter and associated secondary
hood system in such a manner as to
optimize the capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions.
(i) Optimum operating conditions for
each secondary hood sysetem shall be
determined by the Administrator on a
case-by-case basis.
(ii) The owner or operator shall
operate each copper converter to
optimize the capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions as follows:
(A) The air screen and exhaust flow
rates shall be increased to their
optimum conditions prior to raising the
primary hood and rolling the converter
out for skimming.
(B) Once rolled out, the converter
shall be held in an idle position until
fuming from the molten bath ceases
prior to commencing skimming.
(C) During skimming, the crane
operator shall raise the receiving ladle
off the ground and position the ladle as
close to the converter as possible to
minimize the drop distance between the
converter mouth and receiving ladle.
(D) The rate of flow into the receiving
ladle shall be controlled to the extent
practicable to minimize fuming.
(E) Upon the completion of the charge,
the charging ladle or vessel used shall
be withdrawn from the confines of the
secondary hood in a slow deliberate
manner.
(3) The owner or operator of each
copper converter shall perform the
following inspeciton and maintenance
requirements after installing the
secondary hood system to comply wi!h
paragraph (a)(l) of this section.
(i) At least once every month, visually
inspect the components'of the secondary
hood system that are exposed to
potential damage from crane and ladle .
operation, including the hood enclosure,
side- and back-wall hood seals, and the
air curtain slot.
(ii) Replace or repair any defective or
damaged components of the secondary
hood system within 30 days of
discovering the defective or damaged
components.
(iii) Maintain each copper converter
and associated secondary hood system
in a manner consistent with minimizing
inorganic arsenic emissions. A
determination of whether acceptable
maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information supplied to
the Administrator, which may include
but is not limited to monitoring results,
review of maintenance procedures,
V-N,0,P-63
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
inspection of the source, and review of
records.
(b) Except as provided under
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this
section, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall allow
gases that contain particulate matter in
excess of 11.6 milligrams per dry
standard cubic meter to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any smelting
furnace secondary hood system or any
copper converter secondary hood
system.
(c) The provisions of f 6l,l72fa) and
(bj do not apply to a copper converter if
the converter arsenic charging rate is
less than 6.5 kg/h averaged over a 1-
year period, as determined under
§61.175.
[d) The provisions of S 61.172 (b) do
not apply to a smelting furnace if the
smelting furnace arsenic tapping rate is
less than 40 dg/h averaged over a 1-year
period, as determined under § 61.175.
(e) The emission limits set forth in
S 60.172 (b) apply at all times except
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction.
§ 61.173 Compliance provisions.
(a) The owner or operator of each
copper converter to which § 61.172
applies shall demonstrate compliance
with the requirements of 5 61.172 (a)(l)
as follows:
(1) The owner or operator of each '
existing copper converter shall install
capture equipment to meet the
requirements of § 61.172(a)(l) no later
than 90 days after the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance has been
approved by the Administrator in
accordance with 9 61.11.
(2) The owner or operator of each new
copper converter shall install capture
equipment to met the requirements of
§ 61.172(a)(l) prior to the initial startup
of the converter, except that if startup
occurs prior to the effective date, the
owner or operator shall meet the
requirements of I 61.172(a)(l) on the
effective date.
(b) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under | 61.13, the
owner or operator of each smelting
furnance and copper converter to which
§ 61.172 (b) applies shall test emissions
as specified in § 61.175 to demonstrate
compliance with $ 61.172(b) as follows:
(1) After achieving optimum operating
conditions for the equipment required in
§ 61.172(a)(l) but no later than 90 days
after the effective date in the case of an
existing smelting furnace or copper
converter or a new smelting furnace or
copper converter that has an initial
startup date preceding the effective
date, or
(2) After achieving optimum operating
conditions for the equipment required in
§ 61.172(a)(l) but no later than 90 days
after startup in the case of a new
smelting furnace or copper converter,
initial startup of which occurs after the
effective date, or
(3) At such other times as may be
required by the Administrator under
Section 114 of the Act
(c) Each owner or operator subject to
paragraph (b) of this section shall
provide the Administrator 30 days prior
notice of the emissions test to afford the
Administrator the opportunity to have
an observer present, v
(d) Each emission test shall be
conducted while the source is operating
under such conditions as the
administrator may specify to the owner
or operator based on representative
performance of the source.
(e) Each owner or operator subject to
paragraph (b) of this section shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the emission test
within 60 days of conducting the test.
$61174 Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
(a) Upon written application from any
person, the Administrator may approve
the use of equipment or procedures that
have been demonstrated to his
satisfaction to be equivalent, in terms of
capturing inorganic arsenic emissions, to
those prescribed under { 61.172(a). For
an existing source, requests for using
equivalent equipment or procedures as
the initial means of capture are to be
submitted to the Administrator within 30
days of the effective date of the
standard. For a new source, requests for
using equivalent equipment or
procedures are to be submitted to the
Administrator with the application for
approval of construction required by
861.07.
(b) Demonstration of equivalency
shall be made using a method approved
by the Administrator.
(c) The Administrator may condition
approval of equivalency on
requirements that may be necessary to
' ensure operation and maintenance to
achieve the same emission capture as
the equipment prescribed under
S 61.172(a).
(d) If in the Administrator's judgment
an application for equivalency may be
approvable, the Administrator will
publish a notice of preliminary
determination in the Federal Register
and provide the opportunity for public
hearing. After notice and opportunity for
public hearing, the Administrator will
determine the equivalence of the
alternative means of emission capture
and will publish the final determination
in the Federal Register.
$61.175 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Emission tests shall be conducted
and data reduced in accordance with
the test methods and procedures
contained in this section unless the
Administrator—
(1) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology;
(2) Approves the use of an equivalent
method;
(3) Approves the use of an alternative
method the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance; or
(4) Waives the requirement for
emission tests as provided under { 61.13.
(b) For the purpose of determining
compliance with { 61.172(b). reference
methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
shall be used as follows:
(1) Method 5 for the measurement of
particulate matter,
(2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
(3) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate,
(4) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
(5) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
(c) For Method 5, the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 60 minutes
and the minimum sampling volume shall
be 0.85 dscm (30 dscf) except that
smaller times or volumes when
necessitated by process variables or
other factors may be approved by the
Administrator.
(d) For the purpose of $ 61.172{c), the
converter arsenic charging rate shall be
determined as follows:
(1) Grab samples of copper matte and
any lead matte charged to a copper
converter shall be collected daily and a
composite sample representative of each
calendar month f hall be analyzed for
inorganic arsenic.
(2) Copper matte and lead matte
samples shall be individually analyzed
using Method 108A to determine the
weight percent of inorganic arsenic
contained in each sample.
(3) Converter arsenic charging rate
shall be calculated once per month using
the following equation:
AcWc+A,W
100 He
Where:
RC is the converter arsenic charging rate (kg/
h)
AC is the monthly average weight percent of
arsenic in the copper matte charged
during the month (%)
V-N,0,P-64
-------
toff / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
AI is the monthly average weight percent of
arsenic in the lead matte charged during
the month (%)
Wc is the total weight of copper matte
charged to the copper converter during
the month (kg)
W, is the total weight of lead matte charged
to the copper converter during the month
(kg)
He is the total number of hours the copper
converter was in operation during the
month (h)
(4) An annual arsenic charging rate
shall be determined for each copper
converter once per month by computing
the arithmetic average of the 12
converter arsenic charging rate values
for the preceding 12-month period.
(e) For the purpose of g 61.172(d), the
smelting furnace arsenic tapping rate
shall be determined as follows:
(1) Grab samples of smelting furnace
copper matte and slag shall be collected
daily and a composite sample
representative of each calendar month
shall be analyzed for inorganic arsenic.
(2) Copper matte and slag samples
shall be individually analyzed using
Method 10SA to determine the weight
percent of arsenic contained in each
sample.
(3) Smelting furnace arsenic tapping
rate shall be calculated once per month
using the following equation:
100 H,
where:
R, is the smelting furnace arsenic tapping rate
(kg/h)
An is the monthly average weight percent of
arsenic in the copper matte tapped
during the month (%]
AC is the monthly average weight percent of
arsenic in the slag tapped during the
month (%)
WB is the total weight of copper matte tapped
from the smelting furnace during the
month (kg)
W0 io the total weight of olag tapped from the
smelting furnace during the month (kg)
HI is ths tots! nunjbsr of hours the sin^ltin0
furnace was in operation during the
month (h)
(4) An annual average smelting
furnace arsenic tapping rate shall be
determined for each smelting furnace
once per month by computing the
arithmetic average of the 12 smelting
furnace arsenic tapping rate values for
the preceding 12-month period.
(f) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this oubpart shall
collect daily grab samples of the total
smelter charge and shall analyze a
composite sample representative of each
calendar month for inorganic arsenic.
The procedures used to collect the
samples of the total smelter charge shall
be approved by the Administrator.
Samples shall be analyzed for inorganic
arsenic using Method 106A.
(g) An annual average weight percent
of arsenic in the total smelter charge
shall be determined for each smelter
once per month by computing the
arithmetic average of the 12 arsenic
weight percent values for the preceding
12-month period.
g @1J7®
(a) An owner or operator of a source
that is subject to the emission limit
specified in g 61.172(b) shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate 0
continuous monitoring system for the
measurement of the opacity of emissions
discharged from the source according to
the following procedures:
(1) All continuous monitoring systems
and monitoring devices shall be
installed and operational prior to
conduction of an emissions test as
required in 8 81.175(a). Verification of
operational status shall, as a minimum,
consist of an evaluation of the
monitoring system in accordance with
the requirements and procedures
contained in Performance Specification
1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60. The
owner or operator shall furnish the
Administrator a written report of the
results of the continuous monitoring
system evaluation within 60 days of
conducting such evaluation.
(2) The requirements of B 60.13 (d) and
(f) shall apply to an owner or operator
subject to the emission limits of § 61.172.
(3) Except for system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and
span adjustments required under
g 60.13(d) all continuous monitoring
systems shall be in continuous operation
and shall meet minimum frequency Of
operation requirements by completing a
minimum o? one cycle of sampling and
analyzing for each successive 10-second
period and one cycle of data recording
for each successive 6-minute period.
(4) The owner or operator shall
calculate S-nrdnutc opacity averages
from 24 or more data points equally
spaced over each 9-minute period. Data
recorded during periods of monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks, and zero and span adjustments
shall not be included in the data
averages.
(5) During the emission test required
in g 31.173(b) each owner or operator
subject to this paragraph shall:
(i) Conduct continuous opacity
monitoring during each test run.
(ii) Calculate 6-minute opacity
averages from 24 or more data points
equally spaced over each 6-minute
period during the test runs.
(iii) Determine, based on the 6-minute
opacity averages, the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level of a normal or
lognormal (whichever the owner or
operator determines is more
representative) distribution of the
average opacity values.
(iv) An owner or operator may
redetermine the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level if the owner or operator
conducts continuous opacity monitoring
during each test run of an emission test
that demonstrates compliance with the
emission limits in § 61.172(b), and
recalculates the 6-minute averages
described in this paragraph.
(b) An owner or operator of a source
that is required to install the equipment
prescribed under § 61.172{a) shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a continuous monitoring device for the
measurement of the air flow rate
through the horizontal-slotted plenum
and through the exhaust hood.
§ 31.177
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source for a period of at
least 2 years a monthly record of the
total smelter charge and the weight
percent of arsenic contained in this
charge, and the monthly calculations of
the average annual weight percent of
arsenic in the total smelter charge for
the preceding 12-month period.
(b) Each owner or operator required to
install the equipment precribed in
g 61.172(a) shall maintain at the source
for a period of at least 2 years records of
the visual inspections and maintenance
performed as required in § 61.172(a)(3).
(c) Each owner or operator who is
exempt from g 61.172 (a) and (b) as
described in g 61.172(c) shall maintain at
the source for a period of at least 2 years
the following records:
(1) For each copper converter, a daily
record of the amount of copper matte
and any lead matte charged to the
copper converter and the hours of
operation.
(2) For each copper converter, a
monthly record of the weight percent of
arsenic contained in the copper matte
and lead matte as determined by
§ 31.175(d).
(3) For each copper converter, the
monthly calculations of the average
annual arsenic charging rate for the
preceding 12-month period as
determined by g 81.175(d).
(d) Each owner or operator who is
exempt from g 61.172 (a) and (b) as
V-N9OsP-65
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
described in § 61.172(d) shall maintain
at the source for a period of at least 2
years the following records:
(1) For each smelting furnace, a daily
record of the amount of copper matte
and slag tapped from the smelting
furnace and the hours of operation.
(2) For each smelting furnace, a
monthly record of the weight percent of
arsenic contained in the copper matte
and slag as determined by § 61.175(e).
(3) For each smelting furnace, the
monthly calculations of the average
annual smelting furnace arsenic tapping
rate for the preceding 12-month period
as determined by § 61.175(e).
(e) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of § 61.172(b) shall
maintain at the source, for a period of at
least 2 years, a file of the following
records: all measurements, including
monitoring and testing data; all
calculations used to produce the
required reports of emission estimates;
monitoring system performance
evaluations, including calibration
checks and adjustment; the occurrence
and duration of any startup, shutdown,
or malfunction in the operation of the
stationary source; any malfunction of
the air pollution control system; any
periods during which the continuous
monitoring system or device is
inoperative; and all maintenance and
repairs made to the air pollution control
or monitoring system.
(0 Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of § 61.176(b) shall
maintain at the source for a period of at
least 2 years records of the reference
flow rates for the horizontal-slotted
plenum and exhaust hoods for each
converter operating mode established
during optimum operating conditions as
determined by the Administrator under
§ 61.l72(a)(2), and the average actual
flow rates. In addition, a daily log shall
be maintained of the start time and
duration of each converter operating
mode.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
§61.178 Reporting requirements.
(a) F0r purposes of the information
required in the initial report prescribed
in § 61.10(a)(5), each owner or operator
shall provide the average weight percent
of arsenic in the total smelter charge, the
average converter arsenic charging rate,
and the smelting furnace arsenic tapping
rate over the last 12 months preceding
the date of the report.
(b) Each owner or operator subject to
§ 61.176(a) shall submit a written report
to the Administrator semiannually if
excess opacity occurred during the 6-
month period. For purposes of this
paragraph, an occurrence of excess
opacity is any 6-minute period during
which the average opacity, as measured
by the continuous monitoring system.
exceeds the opacity level determined
under § 61.17S(a)(5).
(c) Each owner or operator subject to
§ 61.176(b) shall submit a written report
to the Administrator semiannually if the
air flow rates monitored are less than 20
percent of the reference flow rates, for
any converter operating mode.
Reference flow rate values for each
converter mode shall be determined
when the equipment prescribed under
5 61.172(a) is operating under optimum
operating conditions, as determined by
the Administrator under § 61.172(a)(2).
(d) all'semiannual reports shall be
postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each 6-month period and shall
include the following information:
(1) The magnitude of excess opacity,
any conversion factor(s) used, and the
date and time of commencement and
completion of each occurrence of excess
opacity.
(2) The magnitude of reduced flow
rates and the date and time of
commencement and completion of each
occurrence of reduced flow rate.
(3) Specific identification of each
period of excess opacity or reduced flow
rate that occurs during startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions of the
source.
(4) The date and time identifying each
period during which the continuous
monitoring system or monitoring device
was inoperative, except for zero and
span checks, and the nature of the
system repairs or adjustments.
(e) The owner or operator of each
primary copper smelter shall submit a
written report to the Administrator
annually which includes:
(1) The monthly computations of the
average annual weight percent of
inorganic arsenic in the total smelter
charge for each preceding 12-month
period as calculated under § 61.175(f).
(2) The monthly computations of the
average annual converter arsenic
charging rate as calculated in
§ 61.175(d).
(3) The monthly computations of the
average annual smelting furnace arsenic
tapping rate as caluctated in § 61.175(e).
(f) The annual report required in
§ 61.178(c) shall be postmarked by the
30th day following the end of each
calendar year.
3. Part 61 is amended by adding
Method 108A to Appendix B a > follows:
Appendix B—[Amended]
Method 108A—Determination of Arsenic
Content in Ore Samples From Nonferrous
Smelters
1 Applicability and Principle.
1.1 Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of inorganic arsenic (As)
content of process ore and reverberatory
matte samples from nonferrous smelters and
other sources as specified in the regulations.
1.2 Principle. Arsenic bound in ore
samples is liberated by acid digestion and
bnniyzttu by atomic absorption
spectrophotometry.
2. Apparatus.
2.1 Sample Preparalion
2.1.1 Parr Acid Digestion Bomb. Stainless
steel with vapor-tight Teflon cup and cover.
2.1.2 Volumetric Pipets. 2- and S-ml sizes.
2.1.3 Volumetric Flask. 50-ml
polypropylene with screw caps, (one needed
per sample). 100-ml glass (one needed per
standard).
2.1.4 Funnel. Polyethylene or
polypropylene.
2.1.5 Oven. Capable of maintaining a
temperature of approximately 105 °C.
2.1.6 Analytical Balance. To measure to
within 0.1 mg.
2.2 Analysis
2.2.1 Spectrophotometer and Recorder.
Same as in Method 108. Section 2.3.1 and
2.3.2. except a graphite furnace should be
used in place of the vapor generator
accessory when measuring samples with low
as levels.
2.2.2 Volumetric Flasks. Class A. 50-ml
(one needed per sample and blank).
2.2.3 Volumetric Pipets. Class A. 1-. 5-. 10-
. and 25ml sizes.
3. Reagents.
Unless otherwise specified, use ACS
reagent grade (or equivalent) chemicals
throughout.
3.1 Sample Preparation.
3.1.1 Water. Same as in Method 108.
Section 3.1.2. Use in all dilutions requiring
water.
3.1.2 Nitric Acid (HNiO-j), Concentrated.
HANDLE WITH CAUTION.
3.1.3 Nitric Acid. 0.5 N. In a 1-liter
volumetric flask containing water, add 32 ml
of concentrated HNCS and dilute to volume
with water.
3.1.4 Hydrofluoric Acid (HF).
Concentrated. HANDLE WITH CAUTION,
3.1.5 Potassium Chloride (DC1) Solution,
10 percent (w/v). Dissolve 10 g KC1 in water.
add 3 ml concentrated HNCS and dilute to
100ml.
3.1.6 Filter. Teflon filters. 3 micron
porosity. 47mm size. (Available from
Millipore Co.. Type FS, Catalog Number
FSLWO4700.)
3.2 Analysis.
3.2.1 Water. Same as in Section 3.1.1.
3.2.2 .Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). 0.1 N.
Dissolve 2.00 g of NaOH in water in a 500-ml
volumetric flask. Dilute to volume with water.
V-N,0,P-66
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
3.2.3 Nitric Acid. 0.5 N. Same as in
Section 3.1.3.
3.2.4 Potassium Chloride Solution, 10
percent. Same as in Section 3.1.5.
3.2.5 Stock Arsenic Standard. 1 mg As/ml.
Dissolve 1.320 g of primary grade AsjOs in 20
ml of 0.1 N NaOH. Slowly add 30 ml of
concentrated HNOs. Dilute to 1 liter with
water.
3.2.6 Nitrous Oxide. Suitable quality for
atomic absorption analysis.
3.2.7 Acetylene. Suitable quality for
atomic absorption analysis.
3.2.6 Quality Assurance Audit Samples.
Same as in Method 108, Section 3.3.16.
4. Procedure.
4.1 Sample Collection. A sample that is
representative of the ore lot to be tested must
be taken prior to analysis. The sample must
be ground into a finely pulverized state. (A
portion of the samples routinely collected for
metals analysis may be used provided the
sample is representative of the ore being
tested.)
4.2 Sample Preparation. Weigh 50 to 500
mg of finery pulverized sample to the nearest
0.1 mg. Transfer the sample into the Teflon
cup of the digestion bomb, and add 2 ml each
of concentrated HNO> and HF. Seal the bomb
immediately to prevent the loss of any
volatile arsenic compounds that may form.
Heat in an oven at 115°C for 2 hours. Then
remove the bomb from the oven and allow it
to cool. Using Whatman No. 4 filter paper,
quantitatively filter the digested sample into
a 50-ml polypropylene volumetric flask. Rinse
the bomb three times with small portions of
0.5 N HNO*. and filter the rinses into the
flask. Add 5 ml of KCL solution to the flask,
and dilute to 50 ml with 0.5 N HNO3.
4.3 Spectrophotometer Preparation. Same
as in Method 108, Section 4.4.
4.4 Preparation of Standard Solutions.
Pipet 1. 5.10, and 25 ml of the stock As
solution into separate 100-ml volumetric
flasks. Add 10 ml KC1 solution and dilute to
the mark with 0.5 N HNO3. This will give
standard concentrations of 10, 50,100. and
250 g As/ml. For low-level-arsenic samples
that require the use of a graphite furnace,
prepare a series of standard solutions in the
range appropriate to the sample
concentrations and the graphite furnace
operating range.
Dilute 10 ml of KC1 solution to 100 ml with
0.5 N HNO', and use as a reagent blank.
Measure the standard absorbances against
the reagent blank. Check these absorbances
frequently against the blank during the
analysis to assure that baseline drift has not
occurred.
Prepare a standard curve of absorbance
versus concentration. (Note: For instruments
equipped with direct concentration readout
devices, preparation of a standard curve will
not be necessary.) In all cases, follow
calibration and operational procedures in the
manufacturer's instruction manual. Maintain
a laboratory log of all calibrations.
4.5 Analysis
4.5.1 Arsenic Determination. Determine
the absorbance of each sample using the
blank as a reference. If the sample
concentration falls outside the range of the
calibration curve, make an appropriate
dilution with 0.5 N HNO'so that the final
concentration falls within the rage of the
curve. From the curve, determine the As
concentration in each sample.
4.5.2 Mandatory Check for Matrix Effects
on the Arsenic Results. Same as in Method
108, Section 4.5.1.2.
4.5.3 Audit Analysis. Same as in Method
108, Section 4.6.
5. Calculations,
5.1. Calculate the percent arsenic in the
ore sample as follows:
% AS =•
W
Where:
C. = Concentration of As as read from the
stand curve, g/ml.
Fs = Dilution factor (equals 1 if the sample has
not been diluted).
W=Weight of ore sample analyzed.
5 = 50-ml sample x 100 / lOs'jig/ing.
6. Bibliography.
1. Same as Citations 2 and 3 in Section 7 of
Method 108.
2. Unpublished Report. Emission
Measurement Branch, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. August 1980.
It is proposed that Part 61 of Chapter
I. Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations be amended by adding a
new Subpart P as follows:
1. The Table of Contents of Part 61 is
amended by adding Subpart P as
follows:
Subpart P—National Emission Standards
for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions From
Primary Copper Smelters Processing Feed
Materials Containing 0.7 Percent or Greater
Arsenic
Sec.
61.180 Applicability and designation of
sources.
61.181 Definitions.
61.182 Standards for new and existing
aourccs.
61.183 Compliance provisions.
61.184 Equivalent equipment and
procedures.
61.185 Test methods and procedures.
61.186 Monitoring requirements.
61.187 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.188 Reporting requirements.
Authority: Sec. 112 and 301(a). Clean Air
Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7601(a)),
and additional authority as noted below.
2. Part 61 is amended by adding
Subpart P as follows:
Subpart P—National Emission
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
Emissions From Primary Copper
Smelters Processing Feed Materials
Containing 0.7 Percent or Greater
Arsenic
§ 61.180 Applicability and designation of
sources.
The provisions of the subpart are
applicable to each copper converter in
operation at a primary copper smelter
processing a total smelter charge
containing 9.7 weight percent or more
inorganic arsenic on a dry basis
averaged over a 1-year period.
§61.181 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of Part 61, and the following terms shall
have the specific meanings given to
them:
"Blowing" means the injection of air
or oxygen-enriched air into the molten
converter bath.
"Charging" means the transfer of
copper matte or any other material to a
copper converter.
"Control device" means the air
pollution control equipment used to
collect particulate emissions.
"Copper converter" means any vessel
in which copper matte is charged and
oxidized to copper.
"Copper matte" means any impure
metallic sulfide mixture produced by
smelting copper sulfide ore •
concentrates.
"Holding" means the suspension of
blowing operations while the molten
converter bath is heated.
"Primary copper smelter" means any
installation or any intermediate process
engaged in the production of copper
from copper bearing materials through
the use of pyrometallurgical techniques.
"Process emissions" means inorganic
arsenic emissions from roasters,
smelting furnaces, or copper converters
that are captured and transported to a
primary emission control device.
"Roaster" means any facility in which
a copper ore concentrate charge is
heated in the presence of air to
eliminate a significant portion (5 percent
or more) of the sulfur contained in the
total smelter charge.
"Secondary emissions" means
inorganic arsenic emissions that escape
capture by a primary emission control
system.
"Secondary hood system" means
equipment (including hoods, ducts, fans.
and dampers) used to capture and to
transport secondary inorganic arsenic
emissions.
V-N,0,P-67
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20. 1983 / Proposed Rules
"Shutdown" means the cessation of
operation of a stationary source for any
purpose.
"Skimming" means the removal of
slag from the copper converter bath.
"Smelting furnace" means any vessel
in which the smelting of copper ore
concentrates or calcines is performed
and in which the heat necessary for
smelting is provided by an electric
current, rapid oxidation of the sulfur
contained in the concentrate, or the
combustion of a fossil fuel.
"Tapping" means the transfer of
copper matte or slag from the smelting
furnace.
"Total smelter charge" means the
weight on a dry basis of all copper ore
concentrates processed at a primary
copper smelter plus the weight of all
other materials introduced into the
roasters, smelting furnaces, and copper
converters at a primary copper smelter
over a 1-month period.
§81.102 Stan<3ar«to 1 or now and onloJIng
oourcoo.
(a) The owner or operator of each
copper converter to which this subpart
applies shall reduce inorganic arsenic
emissions to the atmosphere by meeting
the following equipment and operating
requirements, or equivalent as provided
in § 61.184:
(1) The owner or operator shall equip
each copper converter with a secondary
hood system, the principal components
of which are a hood enclosure, air
curtain fan(s), exhaust system fan(s),
and sufficient ductwork to convey the
captured emissions to a control device.
Each secondary hood system shall meet
the following specifications:
(i) The configuration and dimensions
of the hood enclosure shall be such that
the copper converter mouth, charging
ladles, skimming ladles, and any other
material transfer vessels used will be
housed within the confines or influence
of the hood enclosure during each mode
of copper converter operation.
(ii) the back of the hood enclosure
shall be fully enclosed and sealed
against the primary hood. Portions of the
side-walls in contact with the copper
converter shall be sealed against the
i:opper converter.
(iii) Openings in the top and front of
the hood enclosure to allow for the entry
and egress of ladles and crane
apparatus shall be minimized to the
fullest extent practicable.
(iv) The hood enclosure shall be
fabricated in such a manner and of
materials of sufficient strength to
withstand incidential contact with
ladles and crane apparatus with no
damage.
(v) One side-wall of the enclosure
shall be equipped with a horizontal-
slotted plenum along the top and the
opposite side-wall shall be equipped
with an exhaust hood. The horizontal-
slotted plenum shall be designed to
allow the distance from the base to the
top of the horizontal slot to be
adjustable up to a dimension of 76'mm.
(vi) The horizontal-slotted plenum
shall be connected to a fan. When
activated, the fan shall push air through
the horizontal slot, producing a
horizontal air curtain above the copper
converter and directed to the exhaust
hood. The fan power output installed
shall be sufficient to overcome static
pressure losses through the ductwork
upstream of the horizontal-slotted
plenum and across the horizontal-
slotted plunum. and to deliver at least
22,370 watts (30 air horsepower) at the
horizontal-slotted plenum discharge.
(vii) The exhaust hood shall be sized
to completely intercept the airstream
from the horizontal-slotted plenum
combined with the additonal airflow
resulting from entrainment by the
airstream of the surrounding air. The
exhaust hood shall be connected to a
fan. When activated, the fan shall pull
the combined airstream into the exhaust
hood.
(viii) The entire secondary hood
system shall be equipped with dampers
and instrumentation, as appropriate, so
that the desired air curtain and exhaust
flow rates are maintained during each
mode of copper converter operation.
(2) At all times the owner or operator
of each copper converter shall operate
the converter and secondary hood
system in such a manner as to optimize
the capture of secondary inorganic
arsenic emissions.
(i) Optimum operating conditions for
each secondary hood system shall be
determined by the Administrator on a
case-by-case basis.
(ii) The owner or operator shall
operate each copper converter to
optimize the capture of secondary
inorganic arsenic emissions as follows:
(A) The air screen and exhaust flow
rates shall be increased to their
optimum conditions prior to raising the
primary hood and rolling the converter
out for skimming.
(B) Once rolled out, the converter
shall be held in an idle position until
fuming from the molten bath ceases
prior to commencing skimming.
(C) During skimming, the crane
operator shall raise the receiving ladle
off the ground and position the ladle as
close to the converter as possible to
minimize the drop distance between the
converter mouth and receiving ladle.
(D) The rate of flow into the receiving
ladle shall be controlled to the extent
practicable to minimize fuming.
(E) Upon the completion of the charge,
the charging ladle or vessel used shall
be withdrawn from the confines of the
secondary hood in a slow deliberate
manner.
(3) The owner or operator of each
copper converter to whiph this subpart
applies shall meet the following
inspection and maintenance
requirements after installing the
secondary hood system to comply with
paragraph (a)(l) of this section:
(ij At least once every month, visually
inspect the components of the secondary
hood system that are exposed to
potential damage from crane and ladle
operation, including the hood enclosure,
side and back wall hood seals and the
air curtain slot.
(ii) Replace or repair any defective or
damaged components of the secondary
hood system within 30 days of
discovering the defective or damaged
components.
(iii) Maintain each copper converter
and associated secondary hood system
in a manner consistent with minimizing
inorganic arsenic emissions. A
determination of whether acceptable
maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information supplied to
the Administrator, which may include
but is not limited to monitoring results,
review of maintenance procedures,
inspection of the source, and review of
records.
(b) Except as provided under
paragraph (c) of this section, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any copper
converter any secondary emissions that
exit from a control device and contain
particulate matter in excess of 11.6
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter.
(c) The emission limits set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section apply at all
times except during periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction.
§ 31.103 Compliance) prowlolono.
(a) The owner or operator of each
copper converter shall meet the
requirements of § 61.182(a)(l) as follows:
(1) The owner or operator of each
existing cooper converter shall install
control equipment to meet the
requirements of § 61.182(a)(l) no later
"than 90 days after the effective date,
unless a waiver of compliance has been
approved by the Administrator in
accordance with § 61.11.
(2) The owner or operator of each new
copper converter shall install control
equipment to meet the requirements of
V-N,0,P-68
-------
Regis!®? / Vol. 48, No. 140 / Wednesday, July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
% 61.182(a](l) prior to the initial startup
of the converter, except that if startup
occurs prior to the effective date, the
owner or operator shall meet the
requirements of § 61.182(a)(l) on the
effective date.
(b) Unless a waiver of emission
testing is obtained under § 61.13, the
owner or operator of each copper
converter shall test emissions as
specified in i 61.185 to demonstrate
compliance with § 61.182(b) as follows:
(1) After achieving optimum operating
conditions for the equipment required in
§ 61.182(a)(2) but no later than SO days
after the effective date in the case of an
existing converter or a new converter
that has an initial startup date preceding
the effective date, or
(2) After achieving optimum operating
conditions for the equipment in
g 81.182(a)(2) but not later than 60 days
after startup in the case of a new
converter initial startup of which occurs
after the effective date, or
(3) At such other times as may be
required by the Administrator under
Section 114 of the Act.
(c) Each owner or operator subject to
paragraph (b) of this section shall
provide the Administrator 30 days prior
notice of the emissions test to afford the
Administrator the opportunity to have
an observer present.
(d) Each emission test shall be
conducted while the source is operating
under such conditions as the
Administrator may specify to the owner
or operator based on representative
performance of the source.
(e) Each owner or operator subject to
paragraph (b) of this section shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the emissions test
within 60 days of conducting the test.
g 31.184 Squlvotont Q^jytpmont en«3
(a) Upon written application from any
person, the Administrator may approve
the use of equipment or procedures that
have been demonstrated to his
satisfaction to be equivalent in terms of
capturing inorganic arsenic emissions, to
those prescribed under g 61.182(a). For
an existing source, requests for using
equivalent equipment or procedures as
the initial means of capture are to be
submitted to the Administrator within 30
days of the effective date of the
standard. For a new source, requests for
using equivalent equipment or procedure
ore is to be submitted to the
Administrator with the application for
approval of construction required by
i 61.07.
(b) Demonstration of equivalency
shall be made using a method approved
by the Administrator.
(c) The Administrator may condition
approval of equivalency on
requirements that may be necessary to
ensure operation and maintenance to
achieve the same emission capture as
the equipment prescribed under
§ 61.182(a).
(d) If in the Administrator's judgment
an application for equivalency may be
approvable, the Adminstrator will
publish a notice of preliminary
determination in the Federal Register
and provide the opportunity for public
hearing. After notice and opportunity for
public hearing, the Administrator will
determine the equivalence of the
alternative means of emissions capture
and will publish the final determination
in the Fsdsra! Register.
§ 81.105
(a) Emission tests shall be conducted
and data reduced in accordance with
the tests methods and procedures
contained in this section unless the
Administrator —
(1) Specifies or approves, in specific
cases, the use of a reference method
with minor changes in methodology;
(2) Approves the use of an equivalent
method;
(3) Approves the use of an alternative
method the results of which he has
determined to be adequate for indicating
whether a specific source is in
compliance; or
(4) Waives the requirement for
emission tests as provided under g 61.13.
(b) For the purpose of determining
compliance with § 61.182(b) reference
methods in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A
shall be used as follows:
(1) Method 5 for the measurement of
particulate matter,
(2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
(3) Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rate,
(4) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
(5) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
(c) For Method 5, the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 60 minutes,
and the minimum sampling volume shall
be 0.85 dscm (30 dscf) except that
smaller times or volumes when
necessitated by process variables or
other factors may be approved by the
Administrator.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
collect daily grab samples of the total
smelter charge and analyze a composite
sample representative of each calendar
month for inorganic arsenic. The
procedures used to collect the samples
of the total smelter charge shall be
approved by the Administrator. Samples
shall be analyzed for inorganic arsenic
using Method 108A.
(e) An annual weight percent of
arsenic in the total smelter charge shall
be determined for each smelter once per
month by computing the arithmetic
average of the 12 arsenic weight percent
values for the preceding 12-month
period.
§31.103 Monitoring requiremento.
(a) An owner or operator of a source
that is subject to the emission limit
specified in § 61.182(b) shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a
continuous monitoring system for the
measurement of the opacity of emissions
discharged from the source according to
the following procedures:
(1) All continuous monitoring systems
and monitoring devices shall be
installed and operational prior to
conducting an emissions test as required
in § 61.185(a). Verification of operational
status shall, as a minimum, consist of an
evaluation of the monitoring system in
accordance with the requirements and
procedures contained in Performance
Specification 1 of Appendix B of 40 CFR
Part 60. The owner or operator shall
furnish the Administrator a written
report of the results of the continuous
monitoring system evaluation within 60
days of conducting such evaluation.
(2) The requrements of § 60.13 (d) and
(f) shall apply to an owner or operator
subject to the emission limit of § 61.182.
(3) Except for system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and
span adjustments required under § 60.13
(d) and (d)(3), all continuous monitoring
systems shall be in continuous
operations and shall meet minimum
frequency of operation requirements by
completing a minimum of one cycle of
sampling and analyzing for each
successive 10-second period and one
cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period.
(4) An owner or operator shall
calculate 6-minute opacity averages
from 24 or more data points equally
spaced over each 6-minute period. Data
recorded during periods of monitoring
system breakdowns, repairs, calibration
checks, and zero and spar, adj-jstrr.er.ts
shall not be included in the data
averages computed under this
paragraph.
(5) During the emission test required
in g 61.183(b) each owner or operator
subject to this paragraph shall:
(i) Conduct continuous opacity
monitoring during each test run.
(ii) Calculate 6-minute opacity
averages from 24 or more data points
equally spaced over each-6-minute
period during the test runs.
(iii) Determine, based on the 6-minute
opacity averages, the opacity value
V-N,OsP-69
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 140 / Wednesday. July 20, 1983 / Proposed Rules
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level of a normal or
lognormal (whichever the owner or
operator determines is more
representative) distribution of the
average opacity values.
(iv) An owner or operator may
redetermine the opacity value
corresponding to the 97.5 percent upper
confidence level if the owner or operator
conducts continuous opacity monitoring
during each test run of an emission test
that demonstrates compliance with the
emission limits in § 61.182(b), and
recalculates the 6-minute averages
described in this paragraph.
(b) An owner or operator of a source
that is required to install the equipment
prescribed under { 61.182(a) shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a continuous monitoring device for the
measurement of the air flow rate
through the horizontal-slotted plenum
and through the exhaust hood.
§ 61.187 RecordkMpIng requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
maintain at the source for a period of at
least 2 years a monthly record of the
total smelter charge and the weight
percent of arsenic contained in this
charge, and the monthly calculations of
the annual weight percent of arsenic in
the total smelter charge for the
preceding 12-month pe.riod.
(b) Each owner or operator required to
install the equipment prescribed in
§ 61.182(a) shall maintain at the source
for a period of at least 2 years records of
the visual inspections and maintenance
performed as required in § 61.182(a)(3).
(c) Any owner or operator of a source
subject to the provisions of $ 61.182(b)
shall maintain a file of the following
records: all measurements, including
monitoring and testing'data; all
calculations used to produce the
required reports of emission estimates;
monitoring system performance
evaluations, including calibration
checks and adjustments; the occurrence
and duration of any startup, shutdown.
or malfunction in the operation of the
stationary source; any malfunction of
the air pollution control system: any
periods during which the continuous
monitoring system or device is
inoperative; and all maintenance and
repairs made to the air pollution control
or monitoring system.
(d) Each owner or operator subject to
the provisions $ 61.186 (b) shall
maintain at the source for a period of at
least 2 years records of the reference
flow rates for the horizontal-slotted
plenum and exhaust hoods for each
converter operating mode established
during optimum operating conditions as
determined by the Administrator under
"5 61.182(a)(2), and the average actual
flow rates. In addition, a daily log shall
be maintained of the start time and
duration of each converter operating
mode.
(Section 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414))
§ 61.188 Reporting requirements.
(a) For purposes of the information
required in the initial report prescribed
in § 61.10(a}(5), each owner or operator
shall provide the average weight percent
of arsenic in the total smelter charge
over the last 12 months preceding the
date of the report.
(b) Each owner or operator required to
install a continuous opacity monitoring
system under $ 61.186 shall submit a
written report to the Administrator
semiannually if excess opacity occurred
during the 6-month period. For purposes
of this paragraph, an occurrence of
excess opacity is any 6-minute period
during which the average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitoring
system, exceeds the opacity level
.determined under § 61.186(a)(5).
(c] Each owner or operator subject to
5 61.186(b) shall submit a written report
to the Administrator semiannually if the
air flow rates monitored are less than 20
percent of the reference flow rates, for
any converter operating mode.
Reference flow rate values for each
converter mode shall be determined
when the equipment prescribed under
§ 61.182(a) is operating under optimum
operating conditions, as determined by
the Administrator under § 61.182(a)(2).
(dj All semiannual reports shall be
postmarked by the 30th day following
the end of each 6-month period and shall
include the following information:
(Ij The magnitude of excess opacity.
any conversion factor(s) used, and the
date and time of commencement and
completion of each occurrence of excess
opacity.
(2) The magnitude of reduced flow
rates and the date and time of
commencement and completion of each
occurrence of reduced flow rate.
(3) Specific identification of each
period of excess opacity or reduced flow
rate that occurs during startups,
shutdowns, and malfunctions of the
source.
(4) The date and time identifying each
period during which the continuous
monitoring system or monitoring device
was inoperative, except for zero and
span checks, and the nature of the
system repairs or adjustments.
(e) The owner or operator of any
primary copper smelter shall submit a
written annual report to the
Administrator, which includes the
monthly computations of the average
annual weight percent of inorganic
arsenic in the smelter charge for each
preceding 12-month period as calculated
in § 61.185(d).
(f) The annual report required in
§ 61.178(c) shall be postmarked by the
30th day following the end of each
calendar year.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414))
|H« Doc 83-19381 Filed 7-14-83: 3:13 pro)
BILLING CODE 8560-SO-M
V-N,0,P-70
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 163 / Monday. August 22. 1983 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61
[AH-FRL-2410-5]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Amended notice of public
hearing and extension of public
comment period.
SUMMARY: The public hearings to be
held in Washington, D.C. and Tacoma.
Washington'for the purpose of receiving
comments on the listing of inorganic
arsenic as a hazardous pollutant and on
the content of the proposed national
emission standards for inorganic arsenic
have been rescheduled. The end of the
comment period has also been extended.
DATES: Two public hearings will be held.
One hearing will be held in Tacoma.
Washington, on November 2,1983. This
hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. and may
be continued on November 3,1983, if
necessary to provide all persons wishing
to speak an opportunity to do so.
Another hearing will be held in
Washington, D.C., on November 8, 9,
and 10,1983, beginning at 9:00 a.m. each
day. Comments must be received on or
before December 10,1983.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony at the Tacoma hearing must
notify Ms. Laurie Krai by October 25,
1983, at telephone number (206) 442-1089
or mailing address: Air Programs
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X, 1200 6th Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
Persons wishing to present oral
testimony at the Washington, D.C.
hearing must notify Mrs. Naomi Durkee
by October 31,1983, at telephone
number (919) 541-5578 or mailing
address: Standards Development
Branch, MD-13, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. 27711.
ADDRESSES: Hearings. The public
hearing to be held in Tacoma,
Washington will be held at the Tacoma
Bicentennial Pavilion, Rotunda Room
1313 Market Street, Tacoma,
Washington.
The public hearing to be held in
Washington, D.C., will be held at the
Department of Agriculture, Thomas
Jefferson Auditorium, South Building,
14th and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, D.C.
Comments. Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate is possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 410 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Specify the following Docket Numbers:
A-80-40 High-arsenic and low-arsenic
copper smelters
A-83-8 Glass manufacturing plants
A-83-fl Secondary lead
A-83-10 Cotton gins
A-83-11 Zinc oxide plants
A-83-23 Primary zinc, primary lead, arsenic
chemical manufacturing
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Naomi Durkee (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY SMFORMATIOM: Public
Hearing. The hearing in Tacoma.
Washington will be for the purpose of
receiving comments on the proposed
standards for high-arsenic copper
smelters. The hearing in Washington,
D.C. will consist of two separate
sessions. The first session wiH be for the
purpose of receiving comments on the
listing of arsenic as a hazardous
pollutant. The second session will be for
the purpose of receiving comments on
the content of the proposed regulations.
The order of items on the agenda of the
second session will be: (1) high-arsenic
copper smelters. (2) low-arsenic copper
•melters. (3) glass manufacturing plants,
and (4) others. Persons planning to
attend this hearing may call Mrs. Naomi
Durkee (919) 541-5578 after November 1,
1983, to obtain en estimated time and
date at which each subject will be
addressed.
Background: On June 5,1980. EPA
listed inorganic arsenic as a hazardous
air pollutant under Section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. On July 20,1983, EPA
proposed standards in the Federal
Register (48 FR 33112) for the following
categories of sources of emissions of
inorganic arsenic: high-arsenic primary
copper smelters, low-arsenic primary
copper smelters, and glass
manufacturing plants. EPA identified
other categories of sources emitting
inorganic arsenic; but, after careful
study, determined that the proposal of
standards for these categories of sources
was not warranted. These categories of
sources are primary lead smelters,
secondary lead smelters, primary zinc
smelters, zinc oxide plants, cotton gins,
and arsenic chemical manufacturing
plants.
In the July 20,1983, Federal Register
notice, EPA announced the date ending
the public comment period on the listing
of inorganic arsenic as a hazardous
pollutant and on the proposed national
emission standards for inorganic
arsenic. EPA also announced two public
hearings: the first in Washington, D.C.,
to receive comments on the listing of
inorganic arsenic as a hazardous
pollutant and on the proposed
standards; the second in Tacoma,
Washington, to receive comments
specifically on the proposed standards
for inorganic arsenic emissions from
high-arsenic copper smelters.
EPA has received several requests to
postpone the public hearings to allow
additional time for commentera to
prepare their oral testimony. This notice
amends the dates of the public hearings
in response to those requests. In
addition, this notice extends the end of
the public comment period to provide an
opportunity for submission of rebuttal
and supplementary information to
testimony presented at the hearings as
required by Section 307(d)(5) of the
Clean Air Act.
Dated: August 11,1983.
Charles L. BlHn«,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and
Radiation.
V-N.O.P-71
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 177 / Monday, September 12. 1963 / Proposed Rotes
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart61
[AH-FRL 2378-2]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
Correction
In FR Doc. 83-19361, beginning on
page 33112 of the issue of Wednesday.
July 20,1983, make the following
corrections:
1. On page 33155, second column,
second indented paragraph, line six, the
parenthetical expression "(90 tons-yr)"
should read "(90 tons/yr}".
2. On page 33161, first column, third
line, the word "the" should read "that".
3. On page 33161, second column,
third line from the bottom the word
"has" should follow "EPA".
4. On page 33166, in 5 61.166(a), the
last word in the third line from the end
of the paragraph reading "or' should
read "if.
5. On page 33168, in Method 108 of
Appendix B to Part 61, the first column,
the equal signs in paragraphs 2.3.4
through 2.3.7 should be replaced with
hyphens.
6. On page 33171, in the third column,
make the following corrections:
a. In paragraph 5.1, seventh line, the
citation "ug" should read *Vg".
b. In the following undesignated
paragraph, third line, the word "draft"
should read "drift".
c. In paragraph 6.1, the fifth line, "ug"
should read *>g".
d. In the last line of the page, "g."
should be inserted after "sampling,".
7. On page 33172, first column, the
fourth and eighth lines, "ug" should read
>8"-
8. In the same column, paragraph 6.4.
the first letter in the formula now
reading "M" should read "m".
\ 9. On page 33174, first column, in
S 61.172{d), fourth line, "40 dg/h" should
read "40 kg/h".
10. On page 33174, third column, in
8 61.175(d)(3), the formula reading:
He-
should lead:
p • *CW<
100 tic
100 HC
11. On page 33175, first column, in
§ 61.175(e)(3), the formula reading:
A.W.+
«.- *•*•
IOOH,
should read:
12. On page 33176, Method 108A to
Appendix B of part 61, third column,
paragraph 2.2.1, last line, "as" should
read "As".
13. On page 33177, make the following
corrections:
a. In the first column, paragraph 4.2,
eighth line, "115°C" should read "105°C".
b. In the second column, paragraph
5.1, in the third line following "Where:",
"F5" should read "Fd". In the sixth line
following "Where:", "100/10ss" should
read "100/10*'.
c. In the third column, in the fifth line
of the text of § 61.180, "9.7" should read
•ur1.
BtUMGCOK UOt-01-M
V-N.O.P-72
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 243/ Friday, December 16, 1983 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR Part 61
[AH-FRL 2489-8]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
£G£NCY: Environments! Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Reopening of public comment
period.
SUMMARY: The period for receiving
written comments on the proposed
national emission standards for
inorganic arsenic is being reopened.
EPA is extending the public comment
period in response to several requests to
do so.
DATE: Comments must be postmarked
on or before January 31,1984.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 410 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Specify the following Docket Numbers:
A-83-40 High-Arsenic and Low-Arsenic
Copper Smelters
A-63-8 Glass Manufacturing Plants
A-83-6 Secondary Lead
A-83-10 Cotton Gins
A-83-11 Zinc Oxide
A-83-23 Primary Zinc, Primary Lead,
Arsenic Chemical Manufacturing
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kir. Robert L Ajax, Chief, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Pro'ection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, telephone (919) 541-5573.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
5,1980, EPA listed inorganic arsenic as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act. On July 20,
1983, EPA proposed standards in the
Federal Register (48 FR 33112) for the
following categories of inorganic
arsenic: high-arsenic primary copper
smelters, low-arsenic primary coppor
smelters, and glass manufacturing
plants. EPA identified other categories
of sources emitting inorganic arsenic:
but, after careful study, determined that
the proposal of standards for these
categories of sources was not
warranted. These categories of sources
are primary lead smelters, secondary
lead smelters, primary zinc smelters,
zinc oxide plants, cotton gins, and
arsenic chemical manufacturing plants.
The public comment period for the
proposed standards was scheduled to
end on September 30,1983. In an August
22,1983, Federal Register notice, EPA
extended the end of the comment period
to December 10,1933. EPA has now
received several requests to allow
additional time for written comments on
the proposed standards to be submitted
beyond the December 10 deadline. The
United Steelworkers of America
(USWA) has advised EPA that in
cooperation with several environmental
organizations, they are devising a
control strategy that they plan to
recommend for inclusion in the
standards for high-arsenic primary
copper smelters. The only existing
smelter in the high-arsenic category is
the ASARCO smelter in Tacoma,
Washington. The USWA has asked that
EPA make available the Agency's
revised modeling results for the Tacoma
smelter that are now being finalized, as
discussed below, and allow additional
time afterwards for the public to review
the results and submit comments. The
Natural Resources Defense Council
subsequently joined the USWA in this
request.
The results of the modeling will be
made available about the first of
January 1934. Additional documentation
for the modeling will also be placed in
the public docket at that time. To allow
the public additional time to prepare
comments on these results and other
aspects of the proposed standards. EPA
is reopening the public comment period
until January 31,1984.
A principal element upon which the
proposed standards for the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter was based is the results
of an ambient dispersion mode! and the
associated estimates of exposure to
arsenic in the Tacoma area. However,
as discussed in the Federal Register
notice of proposal, there were
fundamental uncertainties in the
dispersion modeling and in the inputs to
the model, such as emission rates for the
various arsenic emission sources at the
smelter. Therefore, as described in the
preample to the proposed rules, EPA is
continuing to refine its estimates of
arsenic emissions from the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter, performing improved
dispersion modeling, and evaluating
additional controls that could
potentially reduce arsenic emissions
below the level achievable with BAT as
proposed. The progress on each of these
steps is discussed below.
Refinement in Emission Estimates Since
Proposal
Since proposal of the standards, EPA
has refined its estimate of both low-
level fugitive emissions and process
emissions venled through the 565-foot
tall main stack. EPA has revised its
estimates of fugitive emissions frora the
No. 4 converter at ASARCO-Tacoma
based on emission test results. The
estimates of fugitive emissions from the
No. 1 and No. 2 converters have been
revised based on visual observations by
EPA personnel.
New information about other sources
of fugitive emissions at the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter has been obtained by
EPA and contractor personnel during
extensive iris^ectio"0 o^ th** cmpltpr t}ii«
past summer. Potential sources of
fugitive arsenic emissions not identified
by EPA at proposal have been evaluated
and emission estimates have been
made. Emission estimates made
previously have been reviewed. It
should be stressed, however, that
fugitive emissions from these other
sources at the smelter are not diiectly
measurable; EPA's estimates are based
on visual observation and engineering
judgment and are, therefore, still subject
to significant imprecision.
To refine the estimate of arsenic
emissions from process emissions
V-N,0,P-73
-------
Kogisteir / Vol. 4®, No. 243/ Friday, December 18, 3983 / Proposed Rules
vented through the main stack, EPA
conducted emission source testing in
September 1983. The operation of the
smelter was closely monitored to assure
that testing was conducted while the
smelter was operating normally. The
test results were carefully evaluated and
are considered to be valid.
Refined arsenic emission estimates for
fugitive and main stack sources were
announced in a press release on
October 20,1983, by EPA's Region X
office and are available in the public
docket.
Improved Dispersion Modeling. As
indicated in the Federal Register notice
of proposal, the dispersion model
analysis used by EPA before proposal to
predict air quality in the vicinity of the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter was limited
in its ability to simulate the actual
operation of the smelter, the terrain
around the smelter, meteorological
conditions, and other factors. That these
limitations could lead to significant error
was confirmed by comparing ambient
arsenic concentrations predicted by the
model to values actually measured at
monitoring sites around the smelter.
This comparison showed that the model
predicted concentrations about an order
of magnitude greater then those actually
measured.
Following proposal, EPA undertook
work to improve the dispersion
modeling results for the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter. A sophisticated model
was selected and tailored specifically to
simulate the operation of the smelter,
including the frequent production
curtailments that occur to avoid
exceedances of the ambient air quality
standards for sulfur dioxide. In addition,
the best available information on
emissions, meteorology, and other
factors crucial to performing dispersion
modeling were obtained and input to the
model. The modeling results will be
finalized within a few weeks, and will
be available about the first of January
1984. These results and additional
documentation on the new modeling will
be placed in the dockets available for
public inspection at EPA's Region X
office in Seattle and at EPA
headquarters in Washington, D.C.
After completing development of the
model, EPA plans to use the model as a
tool to help evaluate the effects of
various control scenarios for arsenic
emissions on ambient concentrations
and exposure levels around the smelter.
The Administrator will consider the
results of this evaluation in making his
final decision on the standards for the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter.
Evaluation of Additional Controls for
Arsenic. As described in the Fsdaral
Kegistar notice of proposal, EPA
planned further investigation to identify
controls that could potentially reduce
fugitive arsenic emissions at the
ASARCO-Tacoma smelter. This has
been done. During extensive inspections
of the ASARCO-Tacoma smelter, EPA
and contractor personnel observed on a
daily basis the process operations, the
control equipment performance, and the
worker operating and housekeeping
practices. Based on these observations
EPA has identified control measures
that could be instituted, in addition to
installing air curtain secondary hoods
on the converters, that could reduce
fugitive arsenic emissions from the
smelter. Based on this and on comments
received at the public hearings and in
writing, EPA has developed a list of
specific control measures to be
considered in the development of the
final standards.
The additional control measures
currently being considered are
presented below:
Equipment
A. Reverberatory Smelting Furnaces.
I. Install leak-tight covers on pig iron
charging ports.
2. Install leak-tight cover on bath level
measurement port.
3. Upgrade hood design and operation
to achieve at least SO percent capture
efficiency for hoods over calcine
charging ports.
4. Upgrade hood design and operation
to achieve at least 90 percent capture
efficiency for hoods over slag tapping
ports and launders.
B. Arsenic Plant. 1. Install dust-tight
conveyor system for transfer of raw dust
from the bunkers to the Godfrey roaster
charge hoppers.
2. Install solid refractory arch on each
Godfrey roaster.
3. Install water-cooled screw
conveyor system for transfer of hot
calcine from roaster deck on each
Godfrey roaster.
4. Install pneumatic conveyor system
for transfer of calcine from Godfrey
roaster water-cooled screw conveyors to
Herrschoff roasters or to railcar loading
station.
5. Install enclosure around the kitchen
pulling areas. Ventilate space within the
enclosure to a control device.
C. Chemical Plants. 1. Install
pneumatic conveyor system for transfer
of white dust from chemical plant
electrostatic precipitators to enclosed
storage bin located at arsenic plant.
Work Practices
The company will prepare and submit
for approval by EPA or the delegated
authority agency a detailed plan
describing the inspection, maintenance,
and housekeeping work practices the
company will implement to achieve all
of the following objectives:
1. No accumulation of material having
an arsenic content greater than 2
percent of any surface within the plant
boundaries outside of a dust-tight
enclosure.
2. Immediate clean-up of any spilled
material having an arsenic content
greater than 2 percent.
3. Regular scheduled maintenance of
all smelter process, conveying, and
emission control equipment to minimize
equipment malfunctions.
4. Regular inspection of all smelter
process, conveying, and emission
control equipment to ensure the
equipment is operating properly. The
inspection procedure shall be performed
at least once per shift in each smelter
department. For each smelter
department, a prescribed inspection
route shall be followed by the inspector
so that the inspector observes each
piece of equipment. The inspector shall
document the operating status of each
piece of equipment.
If the inspector finds malfunctions or
damaged equipment, the inspector will
immediately report the situation to
smelter supervisory personnel.
9. Repair of malfunctioning or
damaged equipment identified to
smelter supervisory personnel will begin
as soon as personnel can be made
available. If personnel qualified to
perform the work necessary to complete
the repair are not available at the
smelter when needed, the personnel will
be called to work. If the malfunctioning
or damaged equipment affects process
operations involving material having an
arsenic content greater than 2 percent.
the affected operations will be shut
down until the equipment is repaired.
Ambient Monitoring Requirement
During the public hearings for the
proposed standards, the State of
Washington and others recommended
that EPA consider an ambient
monitoring requirement to ensure the
proper implementation of arsenic
emission control measures at the
Tacoma smelter. EPA is investigating an
ambient monitoring requirement as a
means of assessing control technology
performance.
Reopening of the Public Common!
As discussed earlier, the results of the
modeling related to the ASARCO-
Tacoma smelter are now being finalized
and will be made available about the
First of January 1884. Additional
documentation for this modeling will
V-N90,P-74
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 55 / Tuesday. March 20. 1984 / Proposed Rules
also be placed in the public docket at
that time. In order to allow time for the
public to review these results and
prepare comments on them and other
aspects of this rulemaking. EPA is
reopening the public comment period
until January 31.1984.
Dated: December 9.1983
Joseph A. Cannon,
Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
|FK Dot SJ-33348 Filed 1Z-1S-8H. 0 4r. urn;
•ILUMO CODE •SCO-60-M
40CFRPart61
IAH-FRL 2546-4)
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of reopening of public
comment period and request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The public comment period
for the proposed national emission
standards for inorganic arsenic for glass
manufacturing plants is being reopened.
This reopening is for two limited
purposes. The first purpose is to receive
comments concerning the emission of
inorganic arsenic from glass
manufacturing plants which produce
soda-lime glass. Data received since the
proposal of these standards indicate
that a substantially higher portion of
inorganic arsenic.emissions from
furnaces producing soda-lime glass may
be in vapcr phase than from furnaces
producing other types of glass. EPA is
requesting comments on three regulatory
options that are being considered for
soda-lime furnaces. The second purpose
for reopening the comment period is to
receive comments on a possible revision
of the zero prodction rate offsets. The
deadline for comments on all other
aspects of the proposed standards was
January 31.1964.
DATE: Comments must be received on or
before April 19.1984.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW. Washington. D.C. 20460.
Specify Docket Number A-83-8.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. R. E. Myers or Mr. J. U. Crowder.
Industrial Studies Branch. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711, telephone (919)541-5601.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
5.1980. inorganic arsenic was listed by
EPA as a hazardous air pollutant under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (44 FK
377886). Standards for the control of
emissions of inorganic arsenic from
glass manufacturing plants wore
proposed in the Federal Register on July
20.1S83 (48 FR 33112).
The preamble to the proposed
standards identifies add-on participate
matter control devices, such HS
electrostatic precipitators (FSf'j or falir.':
fillers, as the best available technology
(BAT) for the control of inorganic
arsenic emissions from glass
manufacturing plants thai emit <;r< .itirr
than 0.40 Mg (0.44 ton) of arser.ir. per
year. In investigating the factors
affecting the performance of partimlalf-
matter control devices, EPA evaluated
the effect of gas stream temperature cm
the formation of vapor-phase arsenic
Arsenic in vapor form would not be
collected by a control device such as ii
fabric filter or ESP. The preamble
discussion points out that the vapor
pressure characteristics of arsenic
trioxide (the from of arsenic
theoretically expected to be found in th«
emissions from glass melting furnaces)
would indicate that at temperatures
typical of flue gas streams from glcss
furnaces, all arsenic would be
theoretically in the vapor phase. The
data collected on this question prior to
the proposal of the standards, however.
revealed a very large fraction of the
arsenic to be in the solid phase.
To summarize briefly the test results
given in the proposal preamble. EPA
examined test data from two glass
manufacturing plants that use liquid
arsenic acid (rather than powdered
arsenic trioxide) in the batch materials.
In the first test on a lead glass furnace.
less than 1 percent of the total arsenic in
the gas stream was found to be in the
vapor phase, even though a! trip flue giss
temperature of-204'C (400"FJ all oT the
arsenic would be expected to bo in Shu:
vapor phase if present as arsenic
trioxide. At the second plant producir-.i;
borosilicate glass, the control devi; e
temperature of 138*C (280'F) was also
high enough that all arsenic would be
expected to be in the vapor phase, but
the control device (a fabric filter) WHS
found to be 93 percent efficient in
reducing arsenic emissions. This
indicated that the arsenic was primarily
in the solid phase. Based on these test
ddta.^EPA concluded at the time of
proposal that it was not certain that thr
cooling of the gas stream would be
effective in increasing the arsenic
emission reduction efficiency of the
particulate matter control devices at
glass manufacturing furnaces that use
arsenic acid.
V-N.O.P-75
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 55 / Tuesday. March 20, 1984 / Proposed Rules
As noted in the preamble to the
proposed regulation, EPA has continued
its testing program for arsenic emissions
from glass manufacturing furnaces. This
testing effort has been directed at an
investigation of the effects of flue gas
temperature and of the use of arsenic
acid versus arsenic trioxide on control
efficiency. For the purposes of this
investigation, emission tests were
conducted on two glass ft;rr.aces. One
test was conducted on a lead glass
furnace equipped with an ESP. Arsenic
emissions were measured by the
proposed EPA Reference Method 108 at
the inlet and the outlet of the ESP with
arsenic trioxiHe being added to the
batch. In order to determine the
temperni'jre effects, single point
monitoring (sampling without
traversing] was also conducted with the
gas temperature maintained at 121*C
and 288"C (250°F and 550*F) at the filter
of the sampling train. Four weeks later,
another set of Method 108 tests was
conducted on the same furnace with
liquid arsenic acid being added to the
batch. Single point monitoring was also
conducted at \2\°C and 286°C (250'F
and 550°F). The test results showed no
difference in arsenic emissions from the
use of arsenic trioxide versus arsenic
acid. The arsenic control efficiency of
the ESP was in both cases found to be
greater than 97 percent at a flue gas
temperature of about 196°C (385°F). The
single point tests showed no significant
impact of temperature on the solid
fraction of arsenic captured by the
sampling train. Solid-phase arsenic was
greater than 99 percent at both 121 °C
and 288°C (250"F and 550°F). Therefore,
EPA has concluded that the use of
arsenic acid would not increase arsenic
emissions reduction by partiruiale
control devices.
A seccn i i?st was performed on a
furnace tv.-it manufactures glass from a
soda-lime recipe, and which operates
within a particulale control device. EPA
Method 108, as well as single point tests
at 121°C, 204°C, and 288°C (250°F, 400T.
and 550°F), were conducted. Individual
runs on Method 108 showed that
between 66 and 84 percent of the arsenic
was in the solid phase. The single point
test data showed that for that particular
furnace the vapor-phase arsenic content
of the vent stream increased with an
increase in gas stream temperature
above 121'C (250°F). Although the test
data show a lack of consistency in the
percent of solid-phase arsenic present in
the gas stream at 121*C (250'F) and
204°C (400°F). a general trend toward
decreasing solid-phase arsenic with
increasing temperature is apparent.
These data indicate that there is a
relationship between gas stream
temperature and the percentage of solid-
phase arsenic for soda-lime glass
furnaces. This relationship is depicted in
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Solid/Vapor Arsenic Phase
Relationships With Temperature
Filtered Gas Temperature'P
This finding has significant
implications for strategies intended to
control inorganic arsenic emissions from
soda-lime glass furnaces. Since the
amount of arsenic being emitted in the
vapor phase cannot be controlled with
participate matter control devices, the
achievable arsenic emission reduction
will be limited by the percent of the
arsenic that is in the solid phase at the
operating temperature of the particulate
control device. An analysis of the test
data from the soda-lime glass furnace
indicates that at a flue gas temperature
of 288°C (550°F), only 20 to 30 percent of
the arsenic emitted would be in solid
phase. This percentage of arsenic in the
solid phase would be increased to
approximately 50 percent if the gas
stream were cooled to 210°Q400°F) and
to approximately 76 percent if the gas
stream is cooled to 121°C (250°F). This
analysis is available for review in the
docket, or-from Mr. R.E. Myers at the
telephone number listed at the beginning
of this notice.
Based on the above conclusions. EPA
is considering three regulatory options
for possible application to soda-lime
glass furnaces which would be subject
to any add-on control requirements that
may be included in the final standard.
The first option would place no
restrictions on the gas stream
temperature entering the particulate
matter control device at a soda-lime
glass furnace. Available {information
indicates that flue gas temperatures fur
soda-lime glass furnace range from
about 232°C (450°F) to 5KTC (950rF|. The
resulting arsenic control achieved by an
effective particulate matter control
device would, therefore, be substantially
less than 50 percent, depending on the
temperature. This option would not
require any additional cost for cooling
the gas stream, and the cost of control
would remain comparable with that for
glass furnaces producing other types of
glass. The capital and annualized costs
would be the costs associated with the
installation and operation of the
particulate control device.
The second option under
consideration would be to restrict the
gas stresm temperature for a soda-lime
glass furance to about 10°C to 20"C
(1ST to 36°F) above the acid dew point
of the gas stream. This level would
tovoid acid condensation that can
adversely impact the effectiveness of
ESPs or fabric filters and increase
system maintenance costs by causing
premature deterioration of fabric filter
bags or corrosion of piping, precipitator
plates, and other system components.
The temperature range'at which the
control device should operate would
differ for each furnace, since the acid
dew point of individual gas streams
varies significantly with the batch
composition, the moisture in the flue
gas, end the fuel used in the glass
furnace. Consequently, were this option
adopted, the temperature range required
by the standard would have to be
tailored individually for each facility.
The second option would result in a
higher percentage of the arsenic in the
gas stream being in the solid phase.
Consequently, greater emission
reductions would be achieved through
the use of particulate matter control
devices than are achievable under the
first option. However, with this option, b
significant percentage of the inorganic
arsenic in a gas stream will continue to
be in the vapor-phase. This percentage
would vary with the temperature or the
flue gas from the individual soda-lime
furnace. Because arsenic in the vapor-
phase cannot be controlled with either a
fabric filter or an ESP, this vapor-phase
arsenic would be vented to the
atmosphere. In some cases, the
additional cost of cooling the gases (e.g..
with an evaporative cooler) may be
completely offset by the reduced cost of
the control device resulting from the
decrease in the flue gas volume.
The third option would require that
the gas stream temperature entering a
particulate matter control device be
restricted to 121°C (250°F). This
represents the lowest temperature at
V-N.O.P-76
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 55 / Tuesday. March 20. 1984 / Proposed Rules
which data on the solid-phase fraction
of inorganic arsenic emissions from
soda-lime glass furnaces have been
collected, and for which the proportion
of solid-phase arsenic can be
determined without extrapolation. At
this temperature, however, it is expected
that most furnace operators will begin to
experience problems with acid
condensation in the gas stream, as
discussed above. Consequently, it will
probably be necessary to install a dry
scrubber upstream of the particulate
control device in order to remove the
acidic components of the gas stream.
The capital and annualized costs for a
dry scrubbing system are shown in
Table 1. The capital costs for these
systems for soda-lime glass furnaces are
projected to be about $500,000 to
$725,000 depending upon the furnace
size. The annualized costs range from
about $101.000 to $157,000. The dry
scrubbing system would increase the
capital cost of the control system for
various size furnaces by 30 to 70 percent
over the cost of an ESP alone. The
annualized costs are increased by about
30 to 45 percent.
TABLE 1.—CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COSTS of DRY SCRUBBER SYSTEMS
Capital cosl, dollars .. „
23(25)
508000
82 700
18400
101 100
45(50)
530000
6630C
20000
106500
91(100)
611 000
9940C)
26600
126.000
181(200)
726,000
118 SOO
38400
156900
As stated previously, EPA is
considering each of these regulatory
options as a potential response to the
effect of high gas stream temperatures
on the control of inorganic arsenic
emissions from soda-lime glass
furnaces. EPA is requesting comments or
information from any interested parties
on these or other regulatory approaches
to controlling arsenic from soda-lime
glass furnaces. These comments will be
considered by the Agency as a part of the
ru'emaking proceedings for inorganic
arsenic emissions from glass furnaces.
In addition to reviewing regulatory
options for soda-lime glass
manufacturing. EPA is also reevaluating
the application of zero production
offsets. These offset values were
determined during the development of
the new source performance standards
for glass manufacturing plants (40 CFR
Part 60). The emission limits for glass
furnaces are expressed in terms of
grams of particulate emissions per
kilogram of glass produced. The
emission levels in this format, which are
achievable by best demonstrated
technology, vary according to the
production level of the glass
manufacturing furnace. The purpose of
the zero production offsets is to express
the emission limits for each type of glass
in a mathematical form that represents
the emissions achievable at any level of
production. The offsets included in the
existing NSPS were not intended to
apply to glass furnaces as small as some
of the existing glass furnaces that may
be subject to the NESHAP. The existing
zero production offsets applied to such
small furnaces may result in emission
limits that are higher than would be
appropriate for best demonstrated
technology. The zero production offset
values are being reviewed and new
values may be recalculated for inclusion
in the promulgated standards. EPA
invites comments on the zero production
offset values.
Dated: March 9.1984.
John C Topping, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
|FR I)oc 9*-->236 Filed 3-19-W: B:45 urn)
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M
V-N.O.P-77
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 184 / Thursday. September 20. 1984 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40CFRPart61
(AD-FRL-2673-4]
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Proposed
Standards for Inorganic Arsenic
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; Reopening of
Public Comment Period on new
information.
SUMMARY: The period for receiving
written comments on the proposed
national emission standards for
inorganic arsenic emissions from low-
arsenic throughput primary copper
•metiers is being reopened. EPA is
extending the public comment period for
the limited purpose of allowing comment
on EPA's analyses of new information
concerning arsenic emissions and
control costs for low-arsenic throughput
primary copper smelters.
DATE: Comments must be postmarked
on or before November 5,1984.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
•ubmitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Central Docket Section (LE-131). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 410 M
Street. SW., Washington. D.C. 20460.
Specify the following Docket Number:
A-80-40 High-Arsenic and Low-Arsenic
Copper Smelters.
fOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Ms. Linda Chaput, Standards
Development Branch, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division
(MD-13), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711. telephone number (919) 541-5578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
5,1980, EPA listed inorganic arsenic as a
hazardous air pollutant under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act. On July 20,
1983. EPA proposed several rulemaking
actions in the Federal Register (48 FR
33112), one of which was a national
emission standard for inorganic arsenic
emissions from low-arsenic primary
copper smelters. The public comment
period for the proposed standards,
which was extended twice at the
request of members of the public, ended
oa January 31,1984.
A number of commenters on the
proposed standards for low-arsenic
throughput primary copper smelters
-commented that EPA's estimates of
arsenic emissions at these smelters were
too high and the estimates of control
costs were too low. The information
submitted by the commenters was
analyzed, and. where necessary, EPA
requested addition information to
substantiate or clarify that provided
during the public comment period. EPA
subsequently reevaluated the cost and
emission estimates for these facilities
using the new information as well as the
previously available information on low-
arsenic primary copper smelters. As a
result, significant changes have been
made to some estimates of emissions
and control costs that EPA cited at
proposal In addition, one commenter
also requested that, if the final standard
is based on information not presented at
proposal, EPA provide an opportunity to
comment on the new information before
making a final decision. Because of the
changes and EPA's-desire to ensure that
the standards are based on the most
complete and accurate information
available, EPA is reopening the public
comment period until November 5,1984.
Comments must be limited to EPA's
additional analyses of costs and
emissions; the comment period for all
other aspects of the rulemaking ended
January 31,1984. EPA has placed the
relevant comment summaries and the
additional analyses in the public docket
(Item No. IV-B-32 of Docket A-80-40).
V-N,0,P-78
-------
FsdJaral
Ssptember 20, 1S84 / PFoposod Rules
Simcs
Several copper companies commented
1 EPA had overestimated the amount
©3 arsenic in materials omelted at
several of their omeltero and, hence,
overstated emissions from the smelters.
Comments of this type were received for
ASARCO's El Paso and Hayden
omelters, Kennecott's Hayden, McGill,
and Garfield smelters, and Phelps
Otodge's Morenci and Ajo smelters.
For each of these smelters, EPA
reviewed the information on which the
proposal emission estimates were based
to light of the comments submitted.
Where judged appropriate, revisions to
(its® proposal estimates were made. All
of the revised estimates of inorganic
araenic emissions are Sower then the
proposed estimates with the exception
------- |