-------
MCTHOD J—DBTEimNlTIOH Of STACK O*S VnOCSft
 AND VOLDMITf C FLOW BATI (Tin 8 FlTOT TORI)
1. Prlnelplt tni ApflicaHlltr
  1.1  Principle. The average gas velocity In a stock Is
determined from the gas density and from measurement
of the average velocity head with a Type 8 (Stausscheibe
or reverse type) pitot tube.
  1.2  Applicability. This method is applicable  for
measurement of the average velocity of a gas stream and
for quantifying gas Dow.
  This procedure is not applicable at measurement sites
which fall lo meet the criteria of Method I, Section 2.1.
 Also, the method cannot be u»d for direct measurement
 in cyclonic or swirllnggu nreami; Section 2.4 of Method
 1 shows how to determine cyclonic or swirling how con-
 ditions. When unacceptable conditions eilst, alternative
 procedures, subject to the approval of the Administrator,
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, must b* em-
 ployed  to make accurate flow  rate  determinations:
 exam pies of such alternative procedures are: (1) to Install
 straightening vanes; (2) to calculate the total voluiwtrio
 flow rate stolchlometrlcally, or (3) to move to another
 measurement site at which tb« flow Is acceptable.

 2. Apparatia

  Specifications for the apparatus are given below. Any
other apparatus that has been demonstrated (subject to
approval of the Administrator) to be capable of meeting
tin specification] will b* considered acceptable.
  2.1  Type B Pilot  Tube. The Typ« B pitot tab*
 (Figure 2-1) shall be made of metal tubing (e.g., stain-
 less steel). It Is recommended that the external tubing
 diameter  (dimension Di, Figure 2-2b) be between 0.48
 and O.M centimeters (fit and H Inch). There shall be
«n equal distance from the base of exh leg «f tha pitot
 tab* to lie (aaA-epening plane (dimensions P* and Pi,
 Figure 2-2b); H Is recommended that this distance b«
 between 1.06 and l.Mtlmec the eiternal tubing diameter
 Ths toe* openings of the pilot tube shall, preferably, b*
 aligned u shown In Figure 2-2; however, sliRhl misalign-
                                                                                              menu of the openings are permiasible (gee Viguin 2-3)
                                                                                               Tbt Typ« 8 pitot tube aWl have a known coefficient,
                                                                                              •wlermlDed as outlined in Beetion 4. An Idt-ntiHcaUon
                                                                                              pnmber shsj] b* aetfned to the pilot tube; this number
                                                                                              shall be permanently marked or engraved on th* body
  1,90.2.54 em-
  (0.75-1.0 in.)
                      7.62 cm (3 in.)*
                                        ^      TEMPERATURErtNSOR
                                                                                                  LEAK-FREE
                                                                                                 CONNECTIONS
                    SUGGESTED (INTERFERENCE FREE)
                    PITOT TUBE • THERMOCOUPLE SPACING
                    Figure 2-1.  Type S pitot tube manometer assembly.
                                                                   111-32

-------
         TRANSVERSE
          TUBE AXIS
                             FACE
                           1 OPENING -H
                            PLANES
                             A SIDE PLANE
LONGITUDINAL
 TUBE AXIS
          Dt
                    8
                                                       NOTE:
                            B-SIDE PLANE

                             (fa)
                           A ORB
Figure 2-2. Properly constructed Type S pilot tube, shown
in:  (a) end view; face opening planes perpendicular to trans-
verse axis; (b) top view; face opening planes parallel to lon-
gitudinal axis; (c) side view; both legs of equal length and
centerlines coincident, when viewed from both sides. Base*
line coefficient values of 0.84 may be assigned to pitot tubes
constructed this  way.
                           111-33

-------
        TRANSVERSE
         TUBE AXIS
                               i      «      I

LUN6ITUD1NAI
  fUBEAXIS—
                                                w
          Figure 2*3. Types of face-opening misalignment that can result from field use or Im-
          proper construction of Type S pitot tubes.  These will not affect the baseline value
          of Cp($) so long as 01 and 02 < 10°, 01 and 02'< 6°. z < 0,32 cm (1/8 In.) and w <*
          0.08 cm (1/32 In,) (citation 11 in Section 6).
                                           111-34

-------
  A Ktandard pltot tub*maybMiscd Insb-adofeTjrpeS,
 Provided that It meets the spcctn«'l«n» of Sections 2.T
 »nd 4.7; note, however,  that the static and Impact
 prewire hole* of standard pilot tubes are susceptible t»
 pliiEiiing In  pnrtlrulnte-livden cos streams. Therefore,
 whrnovcr a standard pltot tube is tisfd to perform •
 Iravi-rsn, adequate  proof  must  l>e  furnished that the
 niii'iiiiiirs of the pilot tulic h:\ve not plugged up during the
 Ir.ui-rsc period-  Mils ean lie done by taking a velocity
 h-'ad lAp) rntdiiiKHt the final traverse point, cleaning out
 lht> inipnct mid static holes of the standard pilot tube by
 ' rtd-pptae. OliCTWse, reec   ic run.   o
at I he Cnal traverse point is unsuitably  low, another
jMlnt may  he  sclivltd. If "hack-purging"  at  regular
intervals is part of Ihe procedure, tnen comparative Ap
ri'iidinss shall be taken, us above, for the last two back
 i'iinss sa    e taen, us aove, or
luireos at which suitably hiRh Ap readings are observed.
  2.-J   DinVrentlal 1'rcssuro Gauge. An Inclined manom-
tier or pquirnlpiit device is used.  Most sampling trains
are equipped  with a  10-in.  (water column) Inclined-
vertical inanotneter, having 0.01-in. HiO divisions on the
0- to 1-in. inclined seal*, and 0.1-ln. HiO divisions on the
I- to in-in. vertical scale. This type of manometer for
other gauge of equivalent sensitivity) Is satisfactory tor
the measurement o/ Ap values as low as 1.3 mm (0.05 in.)
H,O.  However, a differential pressure gauge of greater
sensitivity shall be used (subject to th* approval of the
Administrator). If any of the following Is found to be
true: (1) the arithmetic average of all Ap readings at thy
traverse points in the stack la less than 1.3 mm (0.05 In.)
1I:O; (2) for traverses of 12 or more points, more than 10
percent of the Individual Ap readings are below LI mm
(0 OS In.) HiO;  (3) for treverew of fewer than 12 points,
rrior* than one Ap reading Is below 1.3 mm (O.peln.) HjO
Citation 18 la Section 6 describes commercially available
Instrumentation tot tbe measurement ol tow-rang* gaa
velocities.
  As an alternative to criteria (1) throngh  (31 above, the
'""owing calculation may be performed to determine the
necessity of using a more sensitive differential pressure*
gauge:
•where:
  Ap<- Individual velocity head nadiu at a Uaverse
       point, mm HiO (in. H.O).
    «• Total number of traverse points.
   A-0.13 nun HiO when metric units are used and
       0.005 In HiO when English units are used.

V T Is greater than l.OS. the velocity head data are
onaroptabla and a more sensitive differential preawre
EHUfe must b« used.
  NOTE.—If  differential  pressure gauges other than
inclined manometers are used (e.g., magnehellc gauges),
their calibration must be checked  after each test eerie*.
To check the calibration of a differential pressure gauge.
compare Ap readings of the gauge with those of a gsmig*-
oii manometer at a minimum of three points, epptx>i>
"lately representing the range of Ap values In the stack.
31, at each point, the values of Ap as read by the dlfleren-
'.al pressure gauge and gauge-oil  manometer agree »
within * percent, the diflerentlal pressuregaugesheflbe
considered to be in proper calibration. Otherwise,  tfce
test aeries shall either be voided, or procedures to a4Mt
the measured Ap values and Anal results shall be used,
subject to the approval of the Administrate.      .
  2.3 Temperature  Gauge. A thermocouple, Ilquld-
luied bulb thermometer,  bimetallic thermometer, mer-
cury-in-glass thermometer, or other gauge  capable of
measuring temperature to within 1.3 percent of the mini-
*num absolute  stack  temperature shall  be  used. The
o,m aiso figure 2-7 In Section 4). Alternate positions ™»
be used II the pltot tube-temperature gauge systens to
calibrated according to the procedure of Section 4. Pro-
vided that a difference of not more than 1 percent In the
average velocity measurement is Introduced, tb* tem-
perature gauge need not be attached to th* pltot tub*:
tint alternative U subject  to  the approval  of  tbe
Administrator.
  1.4  Pressure Prohr and Gauge. A piezometer tube and
mercury- or water-filled U-tube manometer capable ol
measuring stock pressure to within 2.5 mm (O.I In.) ITg
Is used. The, static Up of a standard type pilot tube or
one leg  of a Type  X pilot tube with the face opening
planes positioned parallel  to  the gas flow may also  be
u.ii-d us  tho pressure probe.
  2.5  Doromcter. A mercury, aneroid, or other barom-
eter capable  of measuring  atmospheric  pressure  to
within 2.5 mm UR (0.1 In. llg) may be used. In many
caws, the barometric reading may be obtained  from a
nearby  national weather service station. In  which caaa
the station  value  (which Is the absolute  barometric
pressure) shall be  requested  and  an  adjustment for
elevation dlfTercneej between the weather station and
the sampling point shall be applied at a rate of minus
2.5  mm (0.1 In.) Ug per 30-meter (100 foot)  elevation
Increase, or vice-versa for elevation decrease.
  2.8  Gas Density Determination Equipment. Method
3 equipment, If needed (see  Section 3.6), to determine
the stack gas dry molecular weight,  and  Reference
Method 4 or Method 5 equipment for moisture content
determination; other methods may  be  used subject to
approval of the Administrator.
  2 7  Calibration I'itot Tube. When calibration of the
Type 8 pltot tube la necessary (see Section 4), a standard
Ditot tube  U iued ai  a reference. The standard pltet
tube shall, preferably, have a known coefficient, obtained
either (1) directly from the National Bureau of Stand-
ard*, Route 270, Quince Orchard Road, Oalthersburg,
 Maryland, or (2) by calibration against another standard
 pltot tube with an  NBS-traccable coefficient. Alter-
 natively. a standard pltot tube designed according to
 the criteria given In 2.7.1 through 2.7.5 below and Illus-
 trated In Figure 2-4 (see also Citations 7, 8, and 17 la
 Section «) may be used. Pilot tubes designed according
 to these specifications will have baseline coelQclenU of
 about O.OOiO.Ol.
   2.7.1 I lemlspherlcal (shown In Figure 2-4), ellipsoidal
 or conical tip.                                      '
   2.7.2 A minimum of sUdiaoietors straight run (basod
 upon D, the external diameter of tbe tuhe) between tbe
 tip and the static pressure boles.
   2.7.» A minimum of eight diameters  straight run
 between the static  pressure holes and the centcrline ol
 the external tube, following the 90 ilrgrce bend.
   2.7.4 Static pressure holesof equal size (approximately
 0.1 D), equally spaced In a pletomcler ring configuration.
   2.7.5 Ninety degree  bcud, with curved or mltered
 Junction,
   2.8  Differential  Presrare  Gauge for Type B  Pilot
 Tube Calibration. An Inclined manometer or equivalent
 Is used.  If  the  single-velocity calibration  technique Is
 employed (see Section 4.1.2.3), the calibration differ
                                                                                                           tial
                       ...,   e caraon   fferen-
    pressure gauge shall be readable to the nearest 0.11
mm IIiO (0.005 In. HiO). For mnltlveloclty calibrations,
the gauge shall be readable to the nearest 0.13 mm H.O
(0.005 in HiO) for Ap values between 1.3 and 25 mm HiO
(0.06 and 1.0 In. BiO), and to the nearest U mm BiO
(0.04 In. BiO) for Ap values above 25 mm H,O (1.0 In.
HiO).  A special, more sensltrn (aun will  be  required
to read Ap value* below  1.3 mm  HiO  [0.05 In. HiOl
(see Cltatian 18 U Section 6).
                                                                                                                 CURVED OR
                                                                                                            MITEREOJUNCTION
                                                                                                                 HEMISPHERICAL
                                                                                                                        TIP
                                                                                                                              STATIC
                                                                                                                               HOLES
                                                                                                   2
                                                                  Figure 2-4. • Standard pitot tubt design specifications.
                                                            Set up the apparatus as shown In Flgun 3-1;
                                                          llary tubing or surge tanks Installed between the
                                                      manometer and pltot tube may be used to dampen Ap
                                                      HUIlQUldQl ••'**• fleiWk fcMWV tfttfj  tft «vw rw M»*u|rvu tmfp
                                                      fluctuations. It la recommended, but not required, that
                                                      a pretest leak-check be conducted, as follows: (1) blow-
                                                      through tbe pitot Impact opening until at least 7.6 em
maUl nWIV IW M 1VO*» »w ovwvuua, \nf uv w*iv Mtuv w»
tbe static pressure side, except using auction to obtala
the minimum of 7.1 em (1 In.) HiO.  Other leak-cheek
procedures, subject to the approval of the Administrator,

mJ.S  Level ud tero the manometer. Because the ma"
nometer level and nra may drift due to vibrations and
temperature changes, make periodic checks during the
traverse. Record all necessary data a* shown  In  the
example data sheet (Figure 2-5).
 ' 8.3  Measure the velocity head and temperature at the
traverse points specified by Method 1. Ensure that the
proper differential pressure gauge Is being used  for tbe
range of Ap value* encountered (see Section 2.2). If It ie
Decenary to change to a more sensitive gauge, do so, and
remeasure the Ap and temperature readings at each tra-
verse point. Conduct a post-teat leak-check (mandatory),
H described la Section 3.1 above, to validate the traverse
run.
  8.4  Measure the statlB pressure In tbe alack.  One
reading Is usually adequate,
  U  Determine the atmospheric pressure.
                                                                            111-35

-------
PLANT.
PATE.
        , RUN NO.
STACK DIAMETER OR DIMENSIONS, m(in.)
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, mm Hg (in. Hg)_
CROSS SECTIONAL AREA, m*(ft2).	

OPERATORS 	
PIT.OTTUBEI.D.NO.
  AVC. COEFFICIENT, Cp«.
  LAST DATE CALIBRATED.
                                     SCHEMATIC OF STACK
                                        CROSS SECTION
   Trmrst
    ft. No.
 Vtl.Hd.,Ap
mm (in.) H20
                                 Stack Temperature
mm Hg (in.Hg
                               Avinji
                     Figure 2-5.  Velocity traverse data.
                                 in-36

-------
,.3» Determine the stack gas dry molecular weight.
,  ,. combustion provenes or procmnra that emit eatan-
Hally C0i. Oi, CO. and.Ni, use Motliod 3. For procesoat
""ittlng tssentlAlly air,  an analysis need not to  con-
'luotcd; use a dry molecular wolfbt o( 20.0. For other
      s. other methods, subjectto the approval of the
Anlnistrator, must to used.
..•'' Obtain  tlu  moisture content from Reference
        (or equivalent) or from Method S.
  •> 8 Determine the cross-sectional ares of the stack
'" diii-t at tho sampling location. Whenever possible,
i>iiysii-aHy measure the stack dimensions rather than
"*">» blueprint*
. J.I  Typo S Pilot Tube. Ik-fore its initial use, care- '
",'y «nnuue the Type S pilot tube in top, side, and
r"d.»'cws to verify that the fac* openings of the tub*
2 5 *"«ii«l within the specifications Uhutrated In Figure
mL?r.2~3- Th« Pitot tube shall not to used if It tails to
"'«t these alignment speciflcaUoni.
an* ;? v«rtfylng the  face opening alignment, measure
•™> fecord the following dimension! of the pltoj tub*:
 (a) the external tubuw dltmetat (dimension Z>i, Figure
 2-3b); and (b) the  MM-to-openlng  plan* distances
 (dimensions PA and Fv, Figure 2-2b). If D, ti totween
 0.48 and 0.98 cm (M« and H In.) and It Pt and Pa an
 equal and between 1.09 and 1 .CO R,. there are two posilble
 options: (1) tho pilot tube may to calibrated according
 to the procedure outlined In Sections 4.1.3 through
 4.1.5 below, or (2) a baseline  (Isolated tube) coefficient
 value of 0.84 may bo assigned to the pilot tub*. Not*,
 however, that if the pilot tuto Is part of an assembly,
 calibration may still  be  required, despite knowledge
 of the baseline  coefficient value  (see Section  4.1.1).
  If Di, PA, and Pa are outside the specified limits, the
 pilot tube must be calibrated as outlined In 4.1.2 through
 4.1.5 below.
  4.1.1 Type S Pltot Tube Assemblies. During sample
 aud velocity traverses, the Isolated  Type 8 pi tot tuto Is
 not always used: in many Instances, the pltot tuba Is
used In combination with other sourcMampI Ing compon-
ents (thermocouple, sampling probe, notzle) as part ol
an "assembly." The presence of other sampling compo-
 nents can sometimes affect the baseline value of the Trpa
S pltot tube coefficient (Citation 9 In Section «); therefore
an assigned (or  otherwise known) baseline toefflclent
valne ma; or may not to valid tor a given aammbly. The
baseline and assembly coefficient values will be Identical
only when the relative placement of the components In
the assembly Is such that  aerodynamic  Interference
effects are eliminated. Figures 2-4 through 2-8 Illustrate
Interference-tree  component arrangements for Type  8
pilot tubes having eiternal tubing diameters between
0.48 and O.'JB cm (Hi and H In.). Typo S pltot tabe a.wm-
btlw that fall to meet any or all of the specifications of
Figures 2-8 through 2-8 shall be calibrated according to
the procedure outlined in Sections 4.1.2 through  4.1.8
below, and prior to calibration,  the values of the Inter-
component spaclngs (pltot-noiile,  pilot-thermocouple,
pitoi-proh* sheath) shall to measured and recorded,
  NOT*.—Do not use any Type 8 pltot tuto assembly
which la constructed such that tho Impact pressure open-
ing plane of the pltot tuto Is below the entry plane ofthe
noisla (see Figure 2-db).
  4.1.3 Calibration Setnp. If the Types pltot tuto  Is to
be calibrated, one leg of the tuto shall to permanently
marked A, and the other,  1. Calibration shall be done In
• flow system having the  following  .e&entlal design
features:
                                                       TYPES PITOT TUBE
                                                 I
                                             I>
           1.90 cm 0/4 in.) FOR 0N -1.3 cm (1/2 In.)
                                    SAMPLING NOZZLE
                            A.  BOTTOM VIEW; SNOWING MINIMUM PITOT HOZZLE SEPARATION.
                SAMPLING
                  PROBE
          SAMPLING
           NOZZLE
              STATIC PRESSURE
               OPENING PLANE
                                                                                                          IMPACT PRESSURE
                                                                                                           OPENING PLANE
                                                           NOZZLE ENTRY
                                                               PLANE
                                  SIDE VIEW; TO PREVENT PITOT TUBE
                                  FROM INTERFERING WITH GAS FLOW
                                  STREAMLINES APPROACHING THE
                                  NOZZLE. THE IMPACT PRESSURE
                                  OPENING PLANE OF THE PITOT TUBE
                                  SHALL BE EVEN WITH OR ABOVE THE
                                  NOZZLE ENTRY PLANE.
                      Figure 2-6.  Proper pitot tube • sampling nozzle configuration to present
                      aerodynamic interference; buttonhook • type nozzle; centers of nozzle
                      and pitot opening aligned; Dt between 0,48 and 0.95 cm (3/16 and
                      3/8 in.).
                                                                111-37

-------
                       THERMOCOUPLE

                                    -u-
                            TYPESPITOTTUBE
       SAMPLE PROBE

              I
                                                                                             THERMOCOUPLE
                                                                                                                              Z>S.ftttm i
                                                                                                                                        •H
                                                                                                     TYPE SPITOT TUBE
                                                                                     SAMPLE PROBE
                                   Figure 2-7.  Proper thermocouple placement to prevent interference;
                                   Dt between 0.48 and 0.95 cm (3/16 and 3/8 in.).
                                                                            TYPE SPITOT TUBE
                                                   SAMPLE PROBE
                                      Y>7.62cm(3InJ
 Figure 2-8.   Minimum pitot-sample probe separatfon  needed to prevent interference;
      between t).48 and  0.95 cm (3/16  and  3/8  in.).
  < 1.2,1 The ttowinf CM stream ratal be confined to a
du, t ol definite eroas-cecUonal area, eltber circular or
rectangular. For circular erass-eecUons, the minimum
duct diameter shall be 30.fi cm '(12 in.); -for rectangular
eross-sections, tb» width (shorter side) shall be at least
25 4 era (10 in.).
  4.1.21 Tbe crcej-secUonaluea of tbe calibration-duet
must bo constant eta a distance of 10 or mon duct
diameters. For a rectangular cross-wctlon, use an equlva-
knt diameter, calculated from the following equation,
to detenu ine the number of duct diameters:
                                Equation 2-1

where:
  D.—Equivalent diameter
   L" Length
   w-wtdib

  To ensure the presence of stable, fully developed flow
patterns at  the calibration site, or  "test section," the
site must be located at least eight diameters downstream
and two diameters upstream from tbe nearest disturb-
ances.
  NOTE.—Tbe eight- and two-diameter criteria are not
absolute; other test section locations may be used (sub-
ject to apiiroval of the Administrator), provided that Ihe
flow at the test site la stable aud demonslrably parallel
to the duct ail:.
  4.1.2.3  The flow system shall have the capacity to
generate a lest-Mellon velocity around (15 m/mln (3,000
ft/min). This velocity mast be constant with time to
guarantee steady flow during calibration.  Note that
Type 8 pltot tube coefficient! obtained by single-velocity
calibration at 915 ra/min (3,000 ft/mln) will generally be
valid to within ±3  percent for the  measurement of
velocities above 309 m/rain (1.000 It/min) and to within
±5 to 6 percent for the measurement of velocities be-
tween 180 and 305 m/mln (600 and 1,000 ft/mln). If a
more precise correlation between C, and velocity I*
desired, tbe flow system shall have  tbe capacity  to
generate at least four distinct, time-invariant test-section
velocities covering tbe velocity range from 180 to 1,524
m/mln  (600 to 5,000 ft/min), and calibration data shall
to taken at regular velocity intervals over Ibis range
(see Citations 9 and 14 In Section e lor details).
  4.1.2.4 Two entry  ports, one each for tbe standard
snd Type 8 pilot tubes, shall be cut In tbe test section;
the standard pltat  entry port shall be located slightly
downstream of tbe Type 8 port, so that tbe standard
and Type S impact openings will lie in the same croos
sectional plane during calibration. To facilitate align-
ment of tbe pilot tubes during calibration, It Is advisable
that tbe test section be constructed of pleiigla* or some
other i  ansparent material.
  4.1.3  Calibration Procedure. Note that this procedure
Is a general one and must not be used without first
referring to the special considerations presented In Sec-
tion 4.1.5. Note also that this procedure applies only to
single-velocity calibration To obtain calibration data
tor the A and B sides  of tb« Type S pilot tube, proceed
as follows:
  4.1.3.1 Make sore  that the manometer  Is properly
filled and that tbe oil is free front conuxnilnat Ion and is of
tbe proper density. Inspect and leak-check all pilot tines;
repair or replace if necessary.
  4.1.3.3  Level ami aero tbe manometer. Turn on the
fan and allow tbe flow to stabilise. Seal the Type 5 eutry
port.
  4.1.3.3  Eosnretbattbemanometerlslevelandterofd-
Position tbe standard pilot tube at tbe calibration point
(determined as out lined ip Bction 4.1.5.1), and align the
tube so that U> tip Is pointed directly into the flow. Par-
ticular care should be taken In aligning the tube to avoid
yaw and pilch angles. Make sure that the entry port
surrounding the tube Is properly sealed.
  4.1.3.4  Read Ap,,j and record its value In a data table
similar to the one shown In figure 3-9. Remove the
standard pitot tube from the duct and disconnect it from
the manometer. Seal the standard entry port.
  4.1.3 J  Connect the Type 8 pilot tube to the manom-
eter. Open the Type 8 entry port. Check the manom-
eter level and tero. Insert and align the Type S pltot tnl»
so tliai its A side impact opening Is at tb« same point at
was (he standard pltot tube and It pointed directly Into
the How. Make sure that the entry port surroundiiig tbe
tube Is properly sealed.
  4.1.3.6  Read Ap, and enter Its value In the data table-
Remove the Type 6 pitot tube from the duct and  dif
connect It from the manometer.
  4.1.3.7  Repeat steps 4.1.3.3 through 4.1.3.6 above until
three pairs of Ap readings have been obtained.
  4.1.3.8  Repeal  steps 4.1.3.3 through 4.1.3.7 above for
the B  side of the Type S pilot ttibe.
  4.1.3.9  Perform calculations, as described In faction
4.1.4 below.
  4.1.4 Calculations.
  4.1.4.1  For eacii of th« sis pairs of Ap readings (I.e.,
three from side A and three from side Bl obtained in
Section 4.1.3 above, calculate the value of the Type 8
pilot tube coellicieiii as follows:
                                                                     111-38

-------
WOT TUBE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:

CALIBRATED BY.'.	.	
                                                                     .DATE:,

RUN NO.
1
2
3

"A" SIDE CALIBRATION
' Aptld
em H20 '
(in. H20)




APW
emHaO
(in. H20)



Cp (SIDE A)
Cpd)





DEVIATION
Cpd)-Cp(A)





RUN NO.
1
2
a
"B" SIDE CALIBRATION
A Ji rtd
emH20
(ln.«20)




A Pit)
cmHaO
(in.H20)



Cp (SIDE B)
Cp(>)





DEVIATION
Cp(»)'Cp(B)




    AVERAGE DEVIATION  • 0 (A OR B)
                                               S jCpW-Cp(AORB)]

                                               1	_	r- -•- MUST BE ) from C,  (side B ). Use the fol-
                                                                                                     lowing equation:

                                                                                                             Dcviation = C,.:.)-f7»(A or B)

                                                                                                                                       Imitation 2-3

                                                                                                       41.1 4   Calculate  *, Ibe avpra«a deviation from the
                                                                                                      mean, for both the A and D sides of the pilot tube. Vi»
                                                                                                      the following equation:
whet,;
                                 Equation 2-2
       according to the criteria of flections 2.7.1 to
       J.7.5 of this method.   ...........
     i - Velocity bead measured by tbe standard prtot
       tube,cmHiO(ln.HiO)         	
   Ap.-Veloclty bead measured by the Type B pltot
       tube, cmHjCMtn. HiO)
4.1.4.3  Calculate C, (aide A), the nMU A-dde coat-
   et,;                                               4.1.4J  Calculate C, (ride A), the nMU A-dde CO*
   -TypeB pilot tube coefficient                  Bclent, «nd £  (tide  B), tb* mean B-ald« coefficient;
  V.M> -BtandaMpitrt tube coefficient: n* O.W If U»   ealeulaU tb« difference  between tb«M two tvrertc*
         coefficient li unknown »nd the tul» to designed   values.

                                                                                                                A or B)=
                                  Equation 2-4

  4145  Use the Type 8 pilot tube only if the values of
• (side A) and t (side U) are less than or equal to O.jDl
and If the absolute value of the difference between C,
(A) and C, (B) Is 0.01 or leas.
  4.1.6  Special consideration*.'
  4.1.5.1  Selection of calibration point.
  4.1.5.1.1  When an Isolated Type B pilot tube Is cali-
brated, select a calibration point at or near the center of
tlie duct, and follow tbe procedure outlined In Sections
4.1.3 aud 4.1.4  above. The Type d pilot coefficient! ao
obtained, 1.*., ~, (side A) and C, (side B), will  be valid,
so long as either:  (1)  tbe isolated pilot tube Is used; or
(2) the pltot tube Is used with other components (notile,
thermocouple,  sample probe) In an arrangement that !•
free from aerodynamic interference eOecti (see Figures
2-0 through 2-8).
  4.1.5.1.2 For Type B pltot tube-thermocouple com-
binations (without sample probe), select a calibration
point at or near the center of the duct, and follow tbe
procedures outlined In Sections  4.1.3 and 4.1.4 above;
The coefficients so obtained will be valid so long as tbe
pitot tube-thermocouple combination Is used by Itself
or with other components In an Interference-free arrange*
ment (Figures  2-8 and 2-8).
  4.1.5.1.3  For assemblies  with sample  probes,  the
calibration point should be located at or near the center
of tbe duct; however, insertion of a probe sheath Into •>
small duct may  cause significant cross-sectional area
blockage and yield incorrect coefficient values (Citation B
in Section S). Therefore, to mlntmlzo the blockage effect,
the calibration point may be  a few Inches off-center it
necessary. The actual blockage effect will be negligible
when the theoretical blockage,  as determined  by •
projected-area model of tho probe sheath, is 2 percent or
less of Ibe duct cross-sectional area for assemblies wl thoat
eitemal sheaths (Figure 2-10a), and 3 percent or less for
assemblies with eiternal sheaths (Figure 2-10b).
  4.1.6.2  For  those probe assemblies In which  pilot
tobe-notile interference is a factor (i.e.. those in which
the pitot-nozzel separation  distance falls to  meet tbe
specification illustrated in Figure 2-6»), the value of
C>(.) depends upon tbe amount of free-space between
the tube and nor.tle, and therefore Is a function of notile
site. In these Instances, separate calibrations shall b«
performed with eacb of the commonly used notile siief
In place. Note that the single-velocity calibration tech-
nique is acceptable for this purpose, even  though tbe
larger nottle'alies (> 0.835 em or H In.) are not ordinarily
used lor Isoklnetlo sampling  at  velocities  around oil
n/mln (3,000 ft/min), which la the calibration velocity;
note also that  it is not necessary to draw an Isoklnetlo
•ample during calibration (see Citation It In Section 8).
  4.1.5.3  For * probe assembly  constructed such that
HJ pitot tube is always used In the same orientation, only
one side of the pltot tube need be calibrated (the aide
which will (Me the flow). The pltot tube must still meet
the alignment specifications of Figure 2-2 or 2-3, however,
end must have an average deviation (*) value of 0.01 «*
leet (see Section 4.1.4.4).
                                                                          111-39

-------
   .1
                                                         ESTIMATED
                           Figure 2-10.   Projected area models for typical pitot tube assemblies.
  4.1.«  Field pat and BectJtbratlon.
  4161  Field Use.
  4X6.U  When a Type B pilot tuba (Isolated tub* or
assembly) Is used In the field, the appropriate coefficient
value (whether assigned or obtained by calibration) shall
be used to perform velocity calculations. For calibrated
Type 8 pilot tubes, the A »lde coefficient shall be used
when the A side of the tube boas the flow, and the B side
coefficient shall be used when the B side (aces  the flow;
alternatively, the arithmetic average of the A and B side
coefficient values may be used, Irrespective of which tide
faces the flow.                                 .
  4.1.6.1.1  When • probe assembly Is used to  sample a
small duct (12 to 88 In. In diameter), tlie probe sheath
sometimes blocks a tignlfluant part of the duct crose-
sectlon, causing a reduction In  the effective  value of
7f M. Consult Citation > In Section 6 for details. Con-
ventional  pilot-sampling  probe assemblies  are   cot
recommended for use In ducts having inside diameters
dialler than 12 inches (Citation It In Section 6}.
  4.1.5.3  Recalibratlon.
  4.1.6.11  Isolated Pilot Tubes. After each field use, the
pilot tube shall be carefully Teexamlned in top, side, and
end views. If the pilot face openings  are still aligned
within the specifications Illustrated In Figure 2-2 or 2-J.
It can be assumed that the baseline coefficient of the pilot
tube has not changed. If, however, the tube has been
damaged to tb« extent that It no longer meets the specifi-
cations of Figure 2-2 or 2-3. the damage shall either be
repaired to restore proper alignment ol the face opening!
or the tube shall be discarded,
  4.1.6.2.2 Pitot Tube Assemblies. After each field use.
check the face opening alignment of the pitot tube, as
ID Section 4.1.6.2.1; also, remeasure the Intercomponent
•pacings of the assembly. If the Intercomponent spacing*
have not changed  ana the face opening alignment  Is
acceptable, it can be assumed that Ihe coefficient of the
assembly has not changed. If the face opening alignment
Is no longer within the specifications of Figures 2-2 or
J-J, r!J«o>
to the approval of the Administrator.
  If, during calibration, the absolute tern peretures meas-
ured with the gauge being  calibrated aijd Ihe reference
gauge agree within  1JS  percent,  the  temporal urc data
taken in the field shall be considered valid. Otherwise.
the pollutant emission  test shall either be considered
Invalid or adjustments (If appropriate) of the lest  ram)!*
shall be made, subject to the approval of the Administra-
tor.
  4.4  Barometer Calibrate the barometer used against
a mercury barometer.
                                                                         111-40

-------
A CiUTT m>t f*>ciHatlons. retaining at l«ut one eitra
OB •" fl*11r* beyond that of th« acquired data. Round
"Ofliuiwajtw fin*) calculation.
  *••  Nomenclature.
   •* - Croes-eectlonal area ol stark, ra« (ft« ).
  "••-Water TUpor In th» gu itrMm (from Method 6 or
       Reference  Method 4), proportion by  volume.
   C»-Pltot tube coefficient, dlmenalonleea.
  #»- Pilot tub* constant,

    34 07 J5. r(9fo-mo\e)(mm Hg)"|"»
           accL   (°K)(mraH,O)   J

**«* metric UTtemand

    85 4fl IL r(n>/lb-mol«)(iB.Hg)-)'*
       '    §ec L   CR)(in.H|0)    J


    *<-^£cniar«reight of lUck ga«.  dry  bails (ie«
    „ Section ».0) c/I-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
    «.- Molecular weight of stack gu, wet basis, I/I-
       mol» Ob/lb-mole).
            1-B.,)+18.0 B«          Equation 2-«

     •r- Barometric pressure et measurement site. ma
    -HgUn. Hg).
    *'«-Btack static pressure, mm Hg On. UK).
    J .-Absolute lUck gas pressure, mm Ug (In. Kg).

                                      Equation 2-4
   **««- Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (20.92
      la. Hg).
   iileil at Ilio Aiinunl  Mwllncol
Hi* Air 1'olliilion Control AssocliUlon, 61. Uula, Mo.,
June M-IU. IU70.)
  «. Btiuid.ird Mi'thcxl for Sampling Shwks for ParllculaU
Moltor. In:  1!I7I Oook of ABTM HlniiiluriH. I'art 'a.
I'hihiili-lplilit, I'ft. 11*71. ASTM D.-sltnullon () ••.>!KM-71.
  :•. Vi'iinuiil, J. K. Elementary Fluhl Mivluuilcs. New
Yiirk. Jolui Wiloy anil Sons, Inc. 11)47.
  (I.  Kluiil  Motors—Thrlr  Theory  and  Applionlion.
AiiiiTlr.iii SiM'ii-ly of Mrcliiuilt'ttl KiiKimvrs, Now York,
N V I".VI.
  7. ASH I1AF. iranillionk of Kiin»r 1»76.
  U, Vloclty
f 'iillbrai ion Tocluiliiups iw A Mruiu of Determining Ty|w
fl I'ltol Tube (-'oelllcli'iits. U.S. Knvlmnmrntal Proleo-
lion Agnncy, Kmlsslon Mca.«ui™ii-iit llrunch, Research
Triangle Park,  N.C. August 1!>7.V
  14. Vollaro, R. F. The Use of Typ* S Pilot Tubes for
the Measurement of Low Veloi'lllos. U.ti. Euvironm«nlal
Protection Agency,  Emission M«asumii»nt Branch,
Reaearch Triangle  I'ftrk, N.C. November 1976.
  IS. Smltli, Miirvin L. Velocity rallbrallon of EPA
Type Sourco  Sumplliig  Probe.  United Teclmologte*
Corporntton,  1'ratt and  Whitney  Aircraft  Division,
Kait Hartford, Conn. 1975.
  K. Vollaro, R. F. Ri-commendwl Procedure for Sample
Traverses In Ducts Smaller th«n 12 Inches in Diameter.
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Emission
MeacureruflU Branch, Research  Triangle Park, N.C.
November I'l'B.
  17. Ower, E.  and R. C. Panklmrtt. The Measurrment
of Air Flow, 4th Ert., London, Pcrgamon  Press. 1'JM.
  IS. Vnlloro, R. F. A survey o«'ommi'u:lnlly  Available
fiistniincntatlon for the  Miuvmmnent of  Ixiw-Range
(liu Vi-locilles. V'.S. Environmenlal Proleclion Agnncy.
RniiKslon  Meosurvmrnt  Brunch,  K.'»'nrch  Triangle
Turk. N.C. November 1976. (Unpublished Paper)
  l«. llnyp. A. W., C. C. St. Piern-, 1>. 8. Smith,  D.
Motion, anil J.  fltelner. An E»|)«riiu<'»tol Investigation
                                                                                                  of Ihe KITorl nf I'uol TuU1 Sampling I'rolw Coullirnra-
                                                                                                  lioim <>n Hi* Magnitude u[ the H Ty|u-  I'ilnt Tube Co-
                                                                                                  rincli'iil for (•oiniu.'i.-ially Avullftlil* S,jiirf* Sampling
                                                                                                  Probee. Prcpnreil by the Unlvmily of W|nd«or lor th*
                                                                                                  MlnlMry nf the Environment, Toronto,  CtnmJa,  Feb-
                                                                                                  ruary 1U7.V
                                                                            111-41

-------
  METHOD  3—(Us  ANA tram  ro«  CAKBOM Dioxicsj.
   UITQCN, KICKS* Ai«, AND IJnr MOT.KCUU»WKIQBT

  I. Princlpk ant AppHctbilUi

   I.I  Principle. A fas sample is ••xlrarlcd from a stack,
  liy uiie of Hie  fallowing methods: (1) single-point,  p^,
  Minplliw i_>)  single-point, integrated sampling; or (8)
  imilil-ixmit. iniifiralril sampling.  Th«  gas  sample la
  uimlyjod for percent carton diuiide (COj). percent o«y-
  KI'II (0:), and, if unvs.sttry,  pcruent carlnjn monoxide
  (CO). If a ilry molecular  weight determination la to be
  made, ellher ati Orsat or a f'yrite ' analyzer m:iy be used
  for the analysis; for excess air or emission rail correction
  (actor determination, an Or.sat analyicr must h« used.
   U  Applicability. Tills method Is applicable  tor de-
  li running C0> and lit conciHilratlons, excess air, and
  dry molecular weight of a sample from a gas stream of a
  (ost>l!-fuel combustion process. The me.thod may also b«
  •v .:; ible toother processes where it ban been determined
  •':   • mpounda other than i.'Oi, O»,  CO, and nitrogen
  (.:    are  not present in  concentration*,  sufficient to
 airect the results.
   Other methods, as well  as modifications to tho proce-
 dure described  herein, are also appllc able lor some or all
 of the above determinations. Example of siieciric meth-
 ods and modifications include: (I) a multi-point  samp-
 ling metilod using an Orsat analyzer to analyze indi-
 vidual emb sainplns obtained at each point; (2) » method
 using CO- or Ot and stolchiuuiotric calculations to deter-
 mine ilr.»  -i.olocular weight and excess air; 13) assigning a
 value uf 'H',0 for dry molecular weight, In lieu of actual
 ineasurerui nts,  for processes burning natural g&s. coal, or
 nil. These metnods and modifications may be used,  but
 are subject to tin: approval of llin Aduiinislralor.

 -. Apporoiut

  As an alte.'naiivf 10 the .*:iiiipling apptuiitus iuid &y&-
 mills  described  herein,  other rumpling systems (e.g.,
 liquid displacement) may be used provided such systems
 are capable of  obtaining a representative sample and
 maintaining a constant sampling nito, mid .ire otherwise
 cupuble of yielding  acceptable  ri'sulls.  Use of such
 systums is subject to tua approval of the Administrator.
  'J.I  Urub Sampling (Figure 3-1).
  -M.l  Probe.  The probe should bo  made of staialeM
 suwl or Iwrosillcirte glass tubing and should bo equipped
 with an hi-stack or out-stack liltcr to removo particul»t«
 nifltter (a  plug of glass wool IB satisfactory for  ibis pur-
 pose). Any other material Inert to Oi,  COi, CO. and Ni
and resistant to temperature at sampling conditions may
 be used for  the probe; examples of  such material an
aluminum, copper, quartz glass and Tcllon.
  t.1.1 Puinp. A one-way squeeze bulb, or equivalent,
\i used to  transport the gis sample  to tbe  aualyter.
  .' 2  Integrated Sampling (Figure 3-2).
  .'..'.1  frobe. A probe such a* that described in Section
- I I is suitable.
    2.2.}  ConduiMr. All alr-noled or vattr-eooled eon-
  ".'"?' ^"r*nd Nt,may be used to remove excess tnolftnn
  which  would Interfere with the operation ol th« pmnp
  and flow meter.
    2.2.8  Valve. A needle valve Is used to adjust sample
  •as flow rate.
    2.2.4  Pump. A leak-free, diaphragm-type pump, or
  equivalent, Is uted to transport iampW gas to the flexible
  bag. Install a small  surge tank between the pump and
  fate rnnler to eliminate the pulsation effect of the dia-
  phragm pump on the rotametcr.
    2(2.«   Rate WeUr. The rolameler, or equivalent rat*
  «n«ter,  nsed  should  be capable of measuring  flow  rat*
  «o within ±2 percent of tiie selected flow rate.  A flow
  rate range of (WO to 1000 cm'/min is supcested.
    i.2.8  Fleilble Ha?. Any leak-free plastic le.g , Tedlar
  Mylar,  Teflon) or plaslic-coai«d aluminum (e.g., alumi-
  niied Mylar) bag,  or equivalent,  having  a  capacity
  consistent with the selected flow rale and time length
  « ,Jf£ ""!• raBy bf 1ised A capacity it the range ol
  U to M liters is suggested.
   To leak-check the bag, connect It to a vrat.'-r manometer
  and pressurize the bag to 5 to 10 cm H-O (2 to 4 in. HiO).
  AUOW to stand for 10 minutes. Any displacement in the
  water manometer indicates a leak. An aller.ifltlve leek-
  emck method Is to pre£suri7e the bag to 8 to 10 em HiO
  (2 to14 in. HiO) and allow to stand overnight. A deflated
  tax indicates a leek.
   2.2.7  Pressure Gauge. A water-Oiled TJ-tiil*  manom-
 eter, or Mulvalent, of about 28 cm (12 in.) U  used for
  Uie flexible bag leak-check.
   JJ.8  Vacuum  Gauge. A roer"'iry tngnonMttr  or
 equivalent, of at Itast 760 mrr Fg isoin. Hg) Is used for
 tbe sampling train leak-check.
  2.3  Analysis. For Orsat »ud Fyrltc analyzer main-
 tenance and operation prw»-jure«, follow the instructions
 noornmended by  the p  .iL-factunr, unless otherwise
 specified herein.
  2.3.1  Dry Molecular Weight Determination. An  Orsat
•nalytar or Fyrlte type r  -'  •utiongas aualyter may be
  ' Mention of trade names or specific product) does not
constitute endorsement by  tlie  Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
  2.3.2  Emission Rate Cc     ion Factor or Excess Air
peurmmation. An Orsat a.ialytar must be used. For
low CO, (less than 4.0 percent) or Ugh Oi (greater than
15.0 percent) concentrations, the measuring burette  of
the Onat must have at least 0.1 percent subdivisions.

1. Dm MeUnJat WtitU Dtttrminitttn

  Any or the three sampling and analytical procedures
ocacribed below may  be used  tor  determinuig the dry
molecular weight.
  3.1  Single-Point, Grab  Sampling  and  Analytical
Pnwedure.
  1.1.1  Tbe sampling point In tbe duct shall either be
at UM eentroid of the cross section or at a point no cloaar
to the walls than 1.00m t3.3 ft ),unl«s« otherwise specified
by tbe Admialitrator.
   1.1.2  8«t up tbe equipment M shown ia Flfun (-1,
 •making aura all connections ahead of the analyser are
 tight and leak-tree. If an Oraat analyier h mad. It to
 recommended  that the analyzer be leaked-checked by
 tallowing the procedure In Section 5; however, the l«afc-
 «b*ck Is optional.
   1.1.3  Place the probe in the stack, with the Op ol U»
 probe positioned at the sampling poin t; porge the sampl-
 ing line. Draw a sample Into tbe anaJjTfr and imme-
 diately analyte U for percent COi and percent Ot. Deter-
 mine the percentage ol the fas  that Is NI and CO by
 subtracting the sum of the percent COi and percent Ot
 from 100 percent. Calculate the dry molecular weight a*
 indicated In Section 8.3.
   *.1.4   Repeat the sampling, analysis, and calculation
 procedures, until the dry molecular weights ol any three
 crab samples dilTer from their mean by no more than
 •.8 g/g-mole (0.3 Ib/lb-mole). Average these three molec-
 ular  weights,  and report the  results to the nearest
 •.I g/g-mole Qb/lb-mole).
   S.2  Single-Point, Integrated Sampling and Analytical
 Procedure,
   3.2.1  The sampling poiut in the duct shall be located
 ••specified in Section 3.1.1.
   3.2.2  Leak-check (optional)  the Ceilble bag  as In
 Section 2.2.0. Bet up the equipment as shown In Figure
 3-2. Just prior U  sampling,  leak-check  (optional)  the
 train by placing a vacuum gauge at the condenser inlet.
 pulling a vacuum  of at least 250 mm !Ig (10 in. I!g>.
 plugging the outlet at the quick disconnect, and then
 turning off the pump. The vacuum should remain stable
 (or at least O.A minute. E vtu-ual* the Qeiihle bag. Connect
 Ih* probe and place it in the  stack, with the tip of the
 probe positioned at Uic sampling point; purge the sampl-
 ing line. Neit, eonnri t the bag and make sure iliat fcl'
connections are  tight and Irak free.
  323  fcainple  at a constant rate. The sampling run
(Jicxild be simultsneoiift with, and for the same lot*!
Irngth of time as. the pollutant emission rate deirrTuiiia-
Uon. Collection of at Irs t 30 liters il. on ft1) of sample gas
M  recommended; however, smaller volume* may be
«U*cted. if desired.
  S 2.4   Obtain  one integrated flue gas sample during
•acb poll iant  emission rate  determination. Within »
hours afi*r the  sample is taken,  analytc  it for percent
COi and percent Oi u&iug either an Orsat analyter or a
Fyrite-type  combustion gas analyzer. If an Orsat ajia-
lyior is used, U Is recommended that the  Onat  le«k-
rbetk described  In Section a  be  performed before, this
deUrmination; however, the check h optional. Ueter-
ruin* in* pen«nta«e ol tbe gas that is N t and CO by sub-
tractuvg tbe sum of the oercent CO. and percent  Oi
 from 100 percent. Oalculat* the dry molecular welcbt M
Indicated in Section*A                      ^^
                                          PROBE
                                                                                 FLEXIBLE TUBING
                      'f

                           > en TC
                             FILTER (GLASS WOOL)
                                                                  TO  ANALYZER
                                                              SQUEEZE BULB
                                                        Figure 3-1. Grab sampling trairi.
                                                                          111-42

-------
                                               RATE METER
          AIR-COOLED
          CONDENSER
JROBE
     N
        FILTER
     (GLASS WOOL)
                                                             PUMP
                                          VALVE
                                              QUICK DISCONNECT

                                                         Jl
                                     RIGID CONTAINER'
                          Figure 3-2. Integrated gas-sampling train,
TIME




TRAVERSE
PT.




AVERAGE
Q
1pm





SDEV*





XDEV
                                           (MUSTBE<10%)
                     Figure 3-3. Sampling rate data.
                                      111-43

-------
   SJJ  B*|»Jt tb« analysis and ealcnlatlon procedures
 nntll the Individual dry molecular weight! tor any three
 analyses differ from  their man by no more than O.S
 C/g-mole (08 Ib/lb-mole). Average these three molecular
 weights, and report tbe results to tbe nearest 0.1 g/g-mole
 (O.llb/lb-mole).
   S »  Multi-Point, Integrated Sampling ind Analytical
 Procedure.
   1.3.1  Uolcrs  otherwise  specified by  the  Adminis-
 trator, a minimum of eight traverse points shall be used
 for circular ctackb baring diameters less then 0.61  m
 (24 ln.)i a minimum of nine shall be used for rectangular
 (tacks having equivalent  diameters  less than 0.81  m
 (24 In.)- and a minimum ot twelve traverse points shall
 b« used lor all other cases. The  traverse point: shall be
 located according to Method 1. Tbe use of (ewer points
 is subject to approval of tbe Administrator.
   3.3.2  Follow the procedures outlined In Sections 3.2.2
 through 3.2.5, ejcept  for the following: traverse all sam-
 pling points and sample at each point for an equal length
 of lime. Record sampling data as shown In Figure 3-3.
 a. Enlttlen Ktle Corttdltn factor or Eiau Air Dtttr-
   minction

   Noil.—A Fyrlte-type combustion gas analyter ts not
 acceptable for excess air or emission rate correction factor
 determination, unless approved by tbe Administrator.
 If both  percent CO, and percent Oi are measured, tbe
 analytical res'jlta of any of the three procedures given
 below may also be used for calculating tbe dry molecular
 weight.
   Each of the three procedures below shall be used only
 when specified in an applicable subpart oJtbe sUndards.
 The use of these procedures for other purpose? must have
 ipecific prior approval of the Administrator.
   4.1  Single-Point,   Orab  Sampling and  Ana!jtic.J
 Procedure.
   4.1.1   The sampling point In the duct shall either be
 at the centroid of the cross-section or at a point no clow r
 to tbe walls than 1.00m 13.3ft),  unless otherwise specified
 by tbe Administrator.
   4.1.2   Set up tbe equipment as shown In  Ficure 3-1,
 mating  sure all connections ahead of the aimlyier are
 tisht and leak-free.  Leak-chock the Or*at  analyzer ac-
 cording  to tbe procedure described in BWtiou 5.  This
 leak-check is mandatory.
  4.1.1  Place tbe probe in tbe stack, with tbe Up of the
 probe positioned at the sampling point; purge the sam-
 pling line. Draw a mm pie into tbe analyur. For emission
 rate correction factor determination, Immediately ana-
 lyse the sample, u outlined In Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5,
 for percent COi or percent Oj. If ezom air ts desired,
 proceed ts follows; (1) immediately analyce tbe sample,
 as in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.6, for percent COi. Oi, and
 CO; (2)  determine the percentage of the gas that is Ni
 by subtracting the sura of the percent CO>, percent Oi,
 and percent CO from 100 percent; and (3)  calculate
 percent excess air u outlined In Section 6.2.
  4.1.4  To ensure complete absorption of the CO>, Oj,
 or if applicable, CO, make repeated passes through each
 absorbing solution until two eonsocutive readings are
 the same. Several passes (three  or four) should b« m»de
 b»twMn   readings.  (If constant readings  cannot be
 obtained after three consecutive readings,  replace tee
 absorbing solution.)
  4.1.6  After  the analysis Is  completed,  leak-check
 (mandatory) the Orsat analyser ouce again, as described
in Section 5. For tbe results of the analysis to be valid,
the OrsJt analyier must pass this leak test before and
after t)><  -.nalysis. NOTE.—Since this single-point, grab
 sampling and analytical procedure Is normally conducted
In conjunction with a single-point,  grab sampling and
analytical procedure  for a pollutant, only ono analysis
Is ordinarily conducted. Therefore,  great cam must bo
taken to ohtain a valid sample  and analysis. Although
 In most easel only COi or O. It required, it It rw»m-
nended that both COi and O> be measured, and that
 Citation  ft in the Bibliography  be used to validate the
analytical data.
  4.2  Blngle-1'oiut, Integrated Sampling and A nalyi ir.il
Procfdurr.
  4.2.1  The sampling point in I lie duct slull be Icx.Urd
M spccifipj in Section 4.1.1.
   4.2.2  Lent-chock (mandatory) the flcilble hue «c jn
 Section 2.2.8. 6ft up the equipment as shown in Fiirure
 3-2. Just prior U) sampling, leak-check (innn-Suiory) the
 train by placing a vacuum gauge at the comlftisor inlet,
 pulling a vacuum  of at least 250 mm lig (10 in. HIT),
 plugging the outlet at tbe  quick disconnect, and tben
 turning off the pump. Tbe vacuum shall remain stable
 for at wast OS minuU. JEvacuate th« £eiibl<> bag. Oon-
 nect tbe probe and place it in the stack, with the Up of the
 probe positioned at the sampling point; puree the sam-
 pling line. Next, connect the bag and  ma,:e euro that
 all connections are Light and leak free.
   4.2.3  Sample at a constant rate, or as specified by tbe
 Administrator. The sampling run must bef. multaneous
 with, and for the same toul  length of time far, the pollut-
 ant emission rate  determination.  Collec' at least  30
 liters (1.00 ft') of sample gas.  Smaller volumes may  bo
 collected, subject to approval of the Administrator.
   4.2.4  Obtain one integrated flue gas sample  dtirinp
 each pollutant emission rate  determination. For emission
 rate correction factor determination, analyto the sample
 within 4 hours alter it is taken for percent COi or permit
 Oi (as outlined  in  Sections 4.2.5 through 4.2.7). The
 Orsat  analyier  must  be  leak-checked  (iff Section 6)
 before the analysis. If eiccss air is desired, proceed a*
 follows: (1) wit'hin 4 hours after the sample is taken.
 analyze it (as in Sections 4.2.6 through 4.J.7; lor perc*m
 Cpj. Oj, and CO:  (2) determine the percentage  of the
 gas that is Ni by subtracting the sum of ilirpi'nviii COi.
 percent Oi, and  percent CD from  100 UTCIMII : 13) cal-
 culate percent excess air, a* uullmnl in Section C -.
   4.2.5  To ensure complete absorption  of the l'O;. Oj.
 or if applicable, CO, make rej  aitu  pas-.-s thnmiih i-a.'h
 absorbingsolution until two ai ..sccmivc reading? arc Ilia
 same. Several pass's (three o-  (our)  should t>e uiaiU' be-
 tween readings. (Ifconstant  failingscannot b»ul>laln.d
 after three consecutive r  Jing.s replace the ulisumng
 solution.)
   4.2.8  Repeat the analysis until the folkmnip criteria
 are met:                                 .      ,
   4.2.8.1  For percrnl  Cf     'peat  the  analytical pro-
 cedureunllltheresiillsofi     in* analypitf difli-r by nn
 more than (•) 0.3 percent bv  .olume when COi Is greater
 than 4.0 percent or tt)) 0.2 jx-nvnt hy volume when fO.
 Is less than or equal to 4.0 percent. ATM-ape the three ac-
 ceptable values of percent  CUi and report the r faults to
 the nearest 0.1 percent.               .  ..  ,
   4.2 8 2 For percent Oj, repeat the analytical procedure
 until the results of any tbr<* analyses dIBcr by DO more
 than (a) 0.3 percent by volume when Oi is less than U.O
 percent or (b) 0.2 percent, by volume when Oi Is greater
 than 15.0 percent Average tbe throe  acceptable values of
 percent Oj and report the  remits to the nearest  0.1
 percent.
   4.2.6.3  For percent CO, repeat the analytical proce-
 dure until the results ol any three analyses differ by no
 more than 0.3 percent. Average the three  acceptable
 valuer of percent CO and rti-oi i the results to tbe nearest
 0.1 percent.
   4.2.7  After the  analysis  is completed,  leak-check
 (mandatory)  the Orsat analyzer once again, as described
 in Section 5. For the results of the analysis to be valid, the
 Orsat analyzer must pass this leak test before and after
 the anal) sis. Note: Although inmost instances only COi
 or Oi is required, it is recommended that both COi and
 Oi be measured, and that Citation 5  in the Bibliography
 tie used to validate the analytical data.
   4.3  Multi-Point, Integrated Sampling and Analytical
 Procedure.
  4.3.1   Both the minimum  number of sampling points
 and the sampling point location shall be as specified in
 Section 3.3.1 ol this method. The use  ol fewer points than
 specified is Jabject to the approval of the Administrator.
  4.3.2   Follow the procedures outlined in Sections 4.2.2
through  4:2.7, eicept  for  the following: Traverse  all
 sampling points and sample at each point for an equal
length of time. Record sampliug data as shown in Figure
8-3.
C.  Ltak-Ckeck Preadunfar Oriat Anelyteri

  Moving an Orsat analyzer frequently causes It to leak.
Therefore, an Orsat  analyzer should  be thoroughly leak-
checked on site before the flue  gas sample is introduced
into it. The procedure far leak-checking an Oriat analyzer
is:
  4.1.1  Bring the liquid level in each plrwtt* up to the
 reference mark on tbe capillary tubing and then close tbe
 pipette stopcock.
  4.1.2  Raise the leveling bulb sufficiently to bring the
 confining liquid meniscus onto the graduated portion el
 the burette and  then close the manifold stopcock.
  5.1.3  Record  the meniscus portion.
  S.I.4  Observe the meniscus In  the  burette and the
 liquid level In tbe pipette for movement over the neit 4
 minutes.
  6.1.5  For tbe Orsat analyzer to pass the leak-check,
 two conditions must be met.
  A.1.5.1  The liquid level  In each pipette must  not fall
 below the bottom of the capillary tubing during this
 4-minutelnterval.
  8.1.5.2  Tbe meniscus In  the burette  must not  cbaiig-
 by more than 0.2 ml during this 4-minuttI nUrval.
  4.1.8  If tbe analyier fails the leak-check procedure,»»
 rubber connections  and stopcocks should be chocked
 Until the cause of tbe leak is identified. Leaking stopcocks
 must bn disassembled, cleaned, and  regreased. Leaking
 rubber connections must be replaced. After the analy W
 Is -easaembled,  tbe teak-check procedure  must M
 repeated.

 6. Calculcaont

  8.1   Nomenclature.
     M<— Dry molecular weight, g/g-mole (Iblb-mole).
   %EA-Percent eieess air.
  %COs-Percent COiby volume (dry besli-).
    %Oi- Percent Oi by volume (dry basis).
   %CO-Percent CO by volume (dry basin.
   9rNj-Pnrc«nt Nt by volumu (dry basJs).
   0.264-Ratio  of O( to NI in air, v/v.
   0.2W-Molecular weight of Nj or CO, divided  uy 100.
   0.320=Mo!ecular weight of O> divide*; hy 100.
   0 *40»Molex:ular weight of COj divided by 100.
  «.2   Percent Eicest Ai/.  Calculate the nfreent eieess
 ah- (If  applicable),  ty  substituting  the appropriate
 values o!  percent Oj, CO, and Nj (obtained from Section
 4.1.3 or 4.2.4) into Equation 3-1.
 %EA=
                   %OS-0.5%CO
         10.264 %N,(%0,-<
                                    Kquation
  Norr.— The equation  above assumes that  ambient
air is used as the source ol Oi and that th« fuel does not
contain appreciable amounts of NI (as do coke oven or
blast furnace gases). For those, cases when appreciable
amounts of Ni are present  (coal, oil, and natural gas
do not contain appreciable amounts ol NI) or when
oivgen enrichment Is used,  alternate methods, subject
to approval ot the Administrator, art' required.
  8.8  Dry  Molecular  Weight. Us» Kquation S-2 to
calculate  the dry  molecular weight of   the stack ga9
                                    Equation 3-2

  Nort.— The above equation does not tcnslder argon
in air (about 0.9  percent, molecular weight of 37.7).
A negative error of about 04 percent is  Ir.trodueed'
The tester may opt to include areon in the analysis using
procedures subject  to approval of the Administrator.

7. BMiotrapki

  1. Altshuller, A. P. Storage ot Oasrj and Vapors In
Plastic  Bags. International Journal of Air and Water
Pollution. 8:75-81. 1963.
  2. Conner, William D. and J. S. Nader. Air Sampling
Plastic  Bags. Journal of the American Industrial Hy-
giene  Association. M:291-297. 1964.
  3. Purrell Manual for Oas Analysts, Seventh edition.
Burrell  Corporation,  2223 Fifth Avenue,  Pittsburgh,
Pa, 15219. 1051.
 ' 4. Mitchell, W. J. and M. R. MldRett. Field Reliability
of the Orsat Analyier. Journal of Air Pollution Control
Association «£:49I-4B5. May 11)76.
  6. Shjsehara, R, T., R. M. Neullcht, and W. S. Smith-
Validating  Orsat Analysis Data from Fossil Fuel-Fired
Units. Black Sampling News.  {(2)21-26. August, 1970.
                                                                            UI-44

-------
         4—DlTZBUDUTlOX OT MotSTUBE CONTIXT
                  Di BTICI OASU
   }•'  Principle. A gas sample is eitracted at k tu...,,...,
 Jjw from the source; moisture Is removed from the sain-
 i™«  stream  and determined either • volumetrically 01
 «f»vlmetrical!y.
 . '•'  Applicability. This  method  la  applicable  for
  ''Twining the moisture content of stack gas.
   '*"i> procedures are  given. The first  is a reference
 fim k   ' *°r ecc»r»l<' determinations of moisture content
 ifcX A* "f "wdcd to calculate emission data). The
 •°M>na tf Btl approximation method, which provides
 """nates of percent moisture to aid In sotting isoklnnic
..»>  .  "* ral" P'ior (0 B pollutant emission measure-
 'nent run. The approiimation method described herein
 w only a suggested approach;  alternative  means for
 ££??x!P»Un* the moisture content, e.g.. drying tubes.
 «^t ?ull>-dry ou'b techniques, condensation techniques,
 "Mchlometric calculations, previous  experience, tie.,
 «"al» acceptable.                    ^
 „;, e reference method is often conducted slmultane-
fflii
]ff' y with a pollutant emission measurement run;
''''.calculation of percent isokinetle, pollutant em
                                            ; when
                                 pollutant emission
    .             percen  sonee, pouan  emsson
 th. ' .  •• (or "" run shaU ** based upon the results of
 J"« reference method or Its equivalent; these calculations
 shall
 rnTt k°' ** based upon the results of the approiimation
 th.   , • unl«ss 'he approiimation method la shown, to
 {JJftttUfactlonof the Administrator, XJ.S. Environmen-
 ts,;/0''"'01' Agency, to be capable ol yielding results
 wlAnln 1 percent  H>0 of the reference method.
                                        .
       .— The reference method may yield questionable
,      when applied to saturated gas streams or to
.t™01* that contain water droplets. Therefore, when
]r)l~'J»iiditions exist or are suspected, a second deter-
"unatJon of the moisture content shall  be made ainuil-
 taneously with the reference method, as follows: Assume
 that the gas stream I* saturated. Attach a temperature
 sensor (capable of measuring to *1°  C 
-------
  If means other than silica gel ar« used to determine the
amount of moisture leaving the condenser, it is r««m-
mended that silica gel (or equivalent) still be used be-
twe«n  the  condenser system  and pump, to  prevent
moisture condensation  In  the  pump and  metering
devices and  to  avoid the need to make corrections (or
moisture in the metered volume.
  i.1.3 Cooling System. An  ice bath container and
crashed ice (or equivalent) are used to aid in condensing
moisture.
  2.1.4 Metering System. This system Includes a vac-
uum gauge, leak-Ire* pump,  thermometers capable of
measuring temperature to within 3° C (8.4° F), dry gas
meter capable of measuring volume to within 'I percent,
und related  equipment as shown in  Figure 4-1. Other
metering systems, capable  of maintaining a constant
sampling rale and determining sample gas volume, may
be used,  subject to the approval of the Administrator.
  2.1.5  B»rom«tcr. Mercury, aneroid, or  other barom-
eter capable o( measuring atmospheric pressure, to within
2.J mm Hg (0.1 in. ilg) may be used. In many cases, th«
barometric  reading may be  obtained  (rom a  nearby
national  woalher service station, in which case the sta-
tion valuo  (which is the absolute barometric pressure)
shall  be requested and an  adjustment  for  elevation
differences  between the weather station and the  sam-
pling point shall he applied at a rate of mlnui 2.4 mm Hg
(0.1 in. Ilg) per 30 m (100 It) elevation increase or vk«
verso fur elevat ion decrease.
  IM.e  tjrnduated Cylinder  and/or Balance. Tlirse
Items are used to measure condensed water and mohlura
caught In the silica gel to within 1 ml or 0.8 g. Graduated
cylinders shall  h»v« subdivisions no greater than 2 ml.
Most laboratory liaiances are capable  of weighing to the
nearest 0.5  g or less. These  balances are suitable for
use bere.
  2.2  Procedure. The following procedure is written for
a condenst' sjstem  isuch as the iiuplngrr system de-
scribed In Section S.I.2) mcorporaiing volumetric analy-
ttti to measure the condensed moisture, and silica gel and
gravimetric analysis to measuru the moisture leaving the
condenser.
  2.2.1  Unlessothenrise specified by the Administrator,
• minimum of eight traverse points shall be  used for
circular stacks having diameter? less than 0.61 m (24 in.),
• minimum of nine points shall be used for rectangular
stacks having equivalent diameters less than 0.61 m
U4 ill.). and a minimum of twelve travers points shall
be used in  all other cases. The  traverse points shall be
located  according to Method 1.  The use of fewer points
Is subject to the approval of t IIP Administrator. Select a
suitable probe and probe length such that all traverse
poiuts can be sampled. Consider sampling from opposite
sides of the stack, (four total sampling ports)  for larxe
stacks, to permit use of shorter probe lengths. Mark the
probe with heat resistant tape or by come other method
to denote the  proper distanrc into the stack or duct for
each sampling point. Flace known volumes of water in
the first two impingcis. UYigh and record the weight ol
the silica gel to the. nearest 0.1 g, and transfer the «ilica
feel to the fourth unpiiiRcr; alu-rnatively, the  silk'Agel
uiay Urst be transferred to tile irapinger, aiid the wi-igbt
 of the silica gel plus impiufjer recorded.
  2.2.2  Select a total sampling  time  such that a mini-
mum total gas volume of 0-00 soni (21 scl) will he col-
lected, at a rate no greater than O.OJ1 m'/'min W.75 dm).
When both moisture content and pollutant emission rat*
are to be determined, the moisture determination shall
b* simultaneous with, and  for the same total length of
time as, the pollutant emission rate run, unless otherwise
specified In an applicable subvert .if the standards.
  2.2.3  Set up the sampling  tm.u as mown in Figure
4-1.  Turn on  the probe bc-U .  and  (if applicable) tbe
Utter heating  system  to ten- xratures of about 120* C
(248° F), to prevent water condensation ahead of to*
condenser;  allow time fi  Che temperatures to stabilise.
 PUce crushed ice In the Ice bath container. It I* recom-
 mended, but not required, that»leak check be don«, a*
 follows: Disconnect tbe probe Itom tbe first impinge' or
 (if applicable) from the fiJter bolder. Plug tbe Inlet to tb>
 first impinger (or filter bolder) and pull a 380 mm (15 in.)
 Hg vacuum; a lower vacuum may be used, provided that
 it is  not exceeded during tbe test. A  leakage rate In
 ntffs of 4 percent of the avenue sampling rate or 0.00057
 mVmin (0.02 cfm),  whichever Is less, Is unacceptable,
 Following the! eak check, reconnect the probe to tot
 sampling' train.
  2.2.4  During tbe sampling run, maintain a sampling
 rate within 10 percent of constant rate, or as specified by
 the Administrator.  For each nm. record  the data re-
 quired on tbe eiample data sbeet shown In Figure 4-2.
 Be sure to record the dry gas meter reading  at the begin-
 ning and end of each sampling time increment and when-
 ever sampling Is halted. Take other appropriate reading*
 at eacb sample point,  at least once  during each Um*
 Increment.
  2.24  To begin sampling, position tbe probe Up at the
 flnt traverse point. Immediately  start  the pump and
 adjust the flow to the  desired  rate. Traverse the cross
 section, sampling at each traverse point for an equal
 length of time.  Add more Ice  and, If nttMsary, salt to
 maintain a temperature of lea than 30° C (08° F) »t tb«
silica gel outlet.
  2.2.6 After collecting the sample, disconnect the probe
from the niter bolder (or from the first Impinger) and con-
duct * leak check (mandatory) as described in  Section
 1-28. Record the h«k rale. If the leakage rate aiceeds thi
 allowable raU,  the tester shall either reject thk test re-
 mits or shall correct the sample volume as In Section 6.3
 ef Method 5. Next, measure the volume  ol the moisture
 condensed to the nearest ml. Determine the increase in
 weight of tbe silica gel (or silica gel plus implnger) to tbe
 rarest 0.5 g. H«cord this Information (see example data
 sr.ent. Figure 4-3) and calculate the moisture percentage,
 a* dfwribed in  2.3 below.
   flANT	

   ;OCATION_

   OPERATOR.

   DATE	,
   MUM NO	

   AMIIENT TEMPERATURE.

   IAROMETRIC PRESSURE.

   PROSE LENGTH »(W	
                                                             SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMtER















TOTAL
SAMPIINO
TIME
(«).nwk
















AVERAGE
STACK
TEMPERATURE
•C(«F)

















PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE METER
(AM).
•mti.JHjO

















BETER
KEADIN6
CAS SAMPLE
VOLUME
»» (h>)









.







&v«
•»«t»»

















(AS SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
AT MY CAS METER
WLET
-------
  HEATED PROBE      SILICA GEL TUBE
         RATE METER,

              VALVE
FILTER
(GLASS WOOL)
    MIDGET IMPINGERS
PUMP
         Figure 4-4. Moisture-sampling train • approximation method.
    LOCATION.
    TEST	
                   COMMENTS
    DATE.
    OPERATOR.
    BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.
CLOCK TIME





GAS VOLUME THROUGH
METER, (Vm),
m* (ft*)





RATE METER SETTING
n£/min. (ft3/mlit.)





METER TEMPERATURE, .
°C(*F)


I


      Figure 4-5. Field moisture determination • approximation method.
                                111-47
-------
  2.S  Calculations. Carry out the following r»lpiilatlons,
retaining at least one extra decimal figure beyond that of
the acquired data.  Round off figures aft«r filial calcula-
tion.
  NOTI.—If tho  posWcpt lo:ik  rrtte  (S,.rii,,n  J •• H)  .-i-
civds the  allowaulfl rat<  iwrrrt  thi> vHlnr  of t'« In
Ki|U!\l|i>M t-a. OS drSirllii-t t'l S.rtioil 03 ol Mi-lliodlt.
  2.3r* Moiftnre Conti'iit.

FINAL
INITIAL
DIFFERENCE
uriNGU •
VOLUME.
ml •



£. "-4CEL
W .'..HI.
V



      Cijure 4 3. Analytical data • reference method
  ; 1.1  Nomenclature.
      B.,=Proportion of wuler vapor, l>y \oliimi-, in
           the gas stream.
      Uw Molecular weight of water, 18.0  g/g-mvle
           (18.0 Ib/lb-mole).
      J'.-Absoluts pressure  (for this method,  same
           as barometric pressure) at the dry gas meter,
           min Ilg (in. Hg).
     P.(1^ Standard  absolute  pressure, TW)  mm Hg
           (29.02In. Hg).
       R-Ideal gas constant, 0.08236 (mm Hg)  toi1)/
           (K-inole) (°K) for metric'units and  21.&5 (in.
           UK) (ft»)/flb-mole) (°B) for EnBlish units.
      T, -Absolute Urnperature at meter. *K ("H).
     l'»<"Standard  absolute tempeiaturt*,  £Kr E
           (528' H).
      V.-'Dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter,
           dcm (dcf).
     AK.=Incremental dry gas volume measured by
           dry gas in«ter at each traverse point, dcm

   V.(,i«)-Dry gas volume measured by the dry gas
           meter, corrected  to standard conditions,
           dscm (dscf).
  V«ion>™ Volume of water vapor condensed corrected
           to standard conditions, scm (scO-
  Vwdifl -Volume of water vapor collected In  silica
           gel corrected to standard conditions, scm
           (scO.
       V>- Final volume of condenser water, ml.
       Ki-Initial volume, If any, of condenser water,
           ml.
       If,-Final weight of silica  gel or i>ilica gel plus
           Impinger, g.
       W-Initlal weigtit of silica gel or silica gel plus
           impinger, g.
        V-Dry gas meter calibration factor.
       P.-Density  of  water, O.W82  g/nil
           Ib/ml).
  2.8.2  Volume of water vapor condiMised.
                  = Kt(V,-V,)
                                      Kqnaliun 41
When:
  Ki-0.00l333 mi/ml (or metric units
    -0.04707 ft'/ml for English units
  283 Volume of water vapor collected In silica gel.
          V    ,  it •
          ' Iff! t(ttu) '
whew:
  JSTi-O.OOI33« m>/k lor metric units
    •0.04718 ft'/glor English units
  2.1.4 8am pie gas volume.
                    Fir  yi*«M«.t
           ni (itil) =K ' m *  , if ~~\ t ~rn


                    K y VmPm

                      'r ~Tm"


  Vi'j-O 38JW 'K/inm Ilg fur metric unit*
    -17.44 'Hftn. lit for RilKllsh unil«
                     f.	K»,,.,   !•_»'.,_..,_(.,:)	

                            V'.f (...I) i  1   ., iii.i) + V« (.u)

                                                   Ki|imtliin 4-4

                 N'ori: —In  saturated or nnudliirc droplcl-ladni gas
               streams, two calculations of lln> moisture content ol the
               stack, gas shall be made, one  using a valu« based upon
               tbe saturated conditions (we Section 1.2), and another
               baaed upon the results of the impinger pnalysis. The
               lower of these two valued of Hr- shall be considered cor-
               rect.
                 2.3.D   Verification ol constant sampling rote. For each
               time increment,  determine the  AK..  Calculate  the
               average. If the value (or any time increment diilcrs from
               the average by more than  in percent, reject  the results
               and repeat the1 run.

               3. Approilmatlon Method

                 The approximation  method dcsurlhcd 'ji'low is pre-
               sented only as a suggested method (see Section 1.2).
                 3.1  Apparatus.
                 3.1.1   Probe. Stainless steel or glass tubing, sufficiently
               heated  to prevent water condensation  and equipped
               with a tllter (cither In-atack or Imaled out-stack) to re-
               move paniculate matter. A ping of glass wool, inserted
               Into the end of the probe, Is *  at ^.uctoi y (liter.
                 3.1.2   Impingers. Two mid- .t Impingen,  each  with
               30 ml capacity, or equivalent
                 ,1.1.3   Ice Bath. Containe. and ice, to aid in condens-
               ing moisture tit impinger
                 .1.1.4   Drying Tube.  l°ul>e packed  with new or re-
               generated 6- to 16-mcsli initiCBling-type  silica gel (or
               equivalent Uesiccant), t» "lr» the sample gas and to pro-
               tect the meter and pump.
                 3.1.5   Valve. Needle va     J regulate tlui sample gas
               flow rait*.
                 3.1.6   Pump. Leak-free, diaphragm type,  or equiva-
               lent, to pull the gas sample through the train.
                 3.1.7  Volume meter. Pry gas  meter, sufficiently ac-
               curate to measure the sample volume within 2%, and
               calibrated over the ranne of flow rates and  condition!
               actually encountered during sampling.
                3.1.8   Hate  Meter.  Rotameter,  to measure the now
               range from 0 to31pm (0 to 0.11 elm).
                3.1.0   Graduated Cylinder.  25 ml.
                3.1.10  Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other barom-
               eter, as described In Suction 2.1.5 above.
                3.1.11  Vacuum Gauge.  At least 760 mm Ilg (30 in.
               Hg) gauge, to be used for the sampling leak check.
                3.2 Procedure.
                3.2.1  Place  eioctly 5 ml distilled water in each im-
               plnger. Assemble tbe apparatus without the probe u
               shown In Figure 4-4. Leak check the train by placing  a
               vacuum  gauge at  tbe inlet to the first im plnger -and
               drawing  a vacuum of at hast 250 nun Bg (10 In. Hg),
               plugging the outlet of the rotameter, and then turning
               off the pump.  Tbe vacuum shall remain constant for at
               east one minute. Carefully release the vacuum gauge
               Ibefore unplugging the rotameter end.
                 3.2.2   Connect tbe probe. Insert It  Into the stack, and
               •ample at a constant rtu of 21pm (0.071 cfm). Continue
               sampling until tb» dry gu  meter  registers about M
               liters (1.1 It') or until visible liquid droplets are canted
               over from the first  Impinger to tbe second.  Record
               temperature,  pressure, and dry gas meter readings u
               required by Figure 4-4.
                 ,1.2,3  After  collecting the sample, combui* the eon-
               leuts of the two impingers and measure the volume to tin
               nearest 0.8 ml.
                3.3 Calculations. Tbe calculation method presented U
Equation 4-2   designed to estimate the  moisture  In the stack gas;
               therefore, other data, which ore only necessary for ac-
               curate moisture determinations, ore  not collected. Tbe
               fallowing equations adequately estimate th« moisture
               eonUnt,  for the purpose of determining Loklnollc sam-
               pling rate settings.
                3.3.1  Nomenclature.
                   B..-Approilm»te  proportion, by  volume, of
                        water vapor in  the gas stream louving toe
                        second impinger, p.02i.
                   B.,- Water vapor in the gas stream, proportion by
                        volume.
                    M.-Molecular weight  of  water,  18.0 g/g-mol«
                        US.Olbrtb-mole)
Kimatluii f 1        P»-Absolute pressure (for Ibis method, same u
                        barometric pressure) at the dry gas meter.
                   Put-Standard  aosolut*  pressure,  700  mm  Hi
                        <».92tn. HI).      r                  •*
     R =• Ideal gu constant, 0.06238 (mm Hg) (ml/
         (g-mole)  (°K)  tor  metric units and 21,85
         (in. Hg) (ff)ftb-mo!e)  (°H)  for  English
        units.
    T.-Absolut* temperature at meter, *Z (*R)
   7ii4-8tiuidard absolute  temperature,  293*   K
        '£28* B)
     V,~ Final volume of tmplnger contents, ml.
     v<-Initial volume of Impinger contents, ml.
    V«—Dry gas volume meanired by dry gas meter,
        dm (dcf).
V.(,i<)=Dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter,
        corrected to  standard  conditions,  dscm
         (dscf).
V.,t,i«)"Votame of water vapor condensed, corrected
        to standard conditions, son (sen.
    •.-Density of water, 0.9982 gMl (0.002201 Ib/ml).
3.8.2  Volume 01 water vapor collected.
                                                                 v...
                                                                                        Equation 4-5
                                                     where:
                                                       Ei-0.0013S3 m'/ml for metric units
                                                          -0.04707 HVml for English units.

                                                       3.3.3  Oas volume,
                                                                                        Eqtiation 4-6
                                                     wtere:
                                                       Ki°C.>5i« "K/mrn Hg for metric unlU
                                                         -17.44 "B/u. B| for English uuiM
                                                       3J.4 Approilmate moisture content.
                                                                                                          t. Calibration
                                                                           -—    - +(0-025)
                                                                                       Equation 4-T
                                                       4.1  For the reference method, calibrate equipment a*
                                                     specified in the following section* ul Method 5: .S.cllfn S.3
                                                     (metering system);  Section 6.4 Ueaiperature  gaofiM.;
                                                     aud Section 8.7  (barometer). The  recommended lea»
                                                     check of tb« metering system (Section S.« of Method «
                                                     also applies to the reference method. For tbe approilm*'
                                                     lion method, use the procedures outlined In Section 5.1 '
                                                     of Method 0  to calibrate tbe metering system, and tb<
                                                     procedure of Method 5,  Section 5.7 to  calibrate  tn'
                                                     Barometer.
                                                       1. Air Pollution Engineering Manual (Second Edition).
                                                     Daniclson, i. A. (ed.).  0.8. Environmental Protection
                                                     Agency. Offlce of Air Quality Planning and Standards-
                                                     Bttearch Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. AP-w

                                                       2. Devorktn, Howard, et at. Air Pollution Source Test-
                                                     Ing Manual. Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles*
                                                     Calif. November, 1M3.
                                                       3. Methods for Determination  of Velocity, Voluio*;
                                                     Dust and Mist Content of Oases. Western Precipitation
                                                     Division of Joy Manufacturing Co., Los Angeles, Calu-
                                                     Bulletin WP-50.1M8.
                                                                         111-48
-------
           *—DITERMINATIOX  or   Evtrt'i   Diosii'i
        "iiissiove FBOM  BIATIO.VAHV  Buvm-is

  '' &iȣJPfe ant AovlictbHitit

   i:'.Principle. A  gas sample Is «traoUd  from the
   TOmm. point In the stack.  Tbe  sulturic acid mist
           sulfur trioxide) and tbe  sulfur dioxide are
           Tbe sulfur dioxide tract ion is measured by
   1 P*num-tborin titretion method.
 *«i*r  vPPlieaVuiiy. This method ii applicable for tbe
 —  '""nation of sulfur diniide emissions from stationary
         The minimum dctecuMe limit of tbe method
             rmioed to be 3.4 milliframs (nifO of 601%!'
            >'ft'). Although, no  upper limit has be*D
 nun .  «.,  • lesls  ha** shown that concentrations af
 IB i*   ~'((00 ing/m" of 60t can b* collected efficiently
 «(3 £ midtr('1  Impingers, each  containing 15 luillUilm
 »0 mi  rc*Dl hydrogen peronde, at a rat* of 1,0 Ipm for
 «on7.°ul*s- B«sed on theorem*) calculations, tlie upper
             limit in a 20-Uter sample is about 93,300
 e»ii?ss"'1* Internments are free ammonia, water-soluble
 renin ns'  and fluoridcf.  Tue cations »nd fluorides tat
 »tirt K J b3' S1*55 1*001 fill ere and an isopropanol bubbler,
 ait h?nt* do not •n«'ct "'« 9O' »naly(«" «»nipj«f
 tton.  "6 ukfn from a fas stream  wiih liigli con«-ntra-
 «ontr ?L*^y Lnf metallic fumes  (such as  in Inlets to
 be n  !•   T'l'**\ • hich-elfldeocy glass filxr filler mu.«i
 the «  , '" P1*** of the floss wool plug (i.e., the one in
•   pP'Olf i to remove the osliou interferemr.
 Dem  ?nuu<>uia interferes by reerlinfi »itli Sf>, to form
 IjJ) cvaal* iulfile and by reacting with the indicator.
 «nn*i *.raniom'* if present (this can be, det«rmined by
 ^""ledgp of the process and noticing whit* paniculate
 j-^'wr m the prob« and isopro|>anol bubblei), alterna-
 te,   Y^L1011*. subject to the approval of the Adiiuiuslra
 "           EnTironmi-ntal  Protection  Agency,  ore
         CUM

 t-l  . ''fmpUng. Tbe sampling train U shown In Figure
 Wu, w  Component  paru are. discussed  below.  The
 iSr* an the option of substituting  sampling eqoip-
 JJ?" Qeicrlbed In Method 8 In place of tbe m!d«el 1m-
     r equipment of Method 6. However, the Method 8
    l??!"' b« modified to Include a neat«d filter between
 «Ttf     *nd laopropanol Implnier, and tbe operation
 g. toe  tainpUng train and cample analytic most be at
      " nt«* Bnd •cJution Tolurcw defined In Method 8.
       tester also has the option of determinlnf 8O>
                 n peniculate matter and moisture
                 (1) replacing the water In a Method &
         lysUm with 8 percent perioslde solution, or
  til Ty nplaclnf tbe Method i water impinjer lyitem
    f » Method S laopropanol-nlter-pwotlde syitem. The
                     be conaiaMnt with tbe procedure
   Probe. Borosllicate glass, or stainless steel (other
   ~ of construction may be used, subject to tbe
     of the Administrator), approximately 6-mm
    meter, with a heating system to prevent water
   >Uon and a filter (either  uvstack or heated out-
  to remove particnlate matter, Including sulfuric
™lst. A plug of glass wool  it a satisfactory filter.
        iler and
 -
Bubbl
                    Implnfen. One midget bubbler,
                             .                     ,
.]-"> medium-come glase frit and borotJllcate or qoarti
"•« wool packed  In top (tee Figure 6-1) to prevent
        «la mist  carryover,  and three 90-ml mid«et
          The bubbler and midget Implngen must be
          in Mr|M with leak-free jlasa connectors. 8111-
         e may be naed, If necessary, to prevent leakwe.
  f? >he option of tbe tester, a midget Impiogar may be
     in place of the midget bubbler.
    "cent for each test run and must be documented in
    ~~ «. If the efficiency is found to be acceptable after
        of three  tests, further documentation la not
       1 To conduct the efficiency test, an extra ab-
_.    must be added and analysed separately. This
tkJt0J5?ort>*rmurt"^contain more than 1 percent of

        Olaas Wool, BorosUicat* or quarts,
        Stopcock  Grease.  Acetone-insoluble,  baat-
       uliccne freate may be used.  If necessary.
        Temperature Gauge.  Dial  thermometer,  or
       lent, to measure temperature of gas leaving 1m-
     [ train to within T C (2*?.)
              [ Tube. Tube packed wttb «• to It-nwah
              t silica gel, or equivalent, to dry tne gas
 fiff* and to protect the meter and pump. If tbe slliac
 ilL?" °MD uaM previously, dry at 176* C (350* F) for
 Bva^Jte!3««W.k^"^'!fli.AS22!!!
                                          .
       other types of desiccants (equivalent or better)
       uaed, subject to approval of the Administrator.
       Value. Needle value, to regulate (ample gas flow
        Pump. iMk-free diaphragm pump, or •qniv-
     , to pun gu through tbe train. Install a small tank
   **en the pump  and rate meter to eliminate  the
   uatlon effect of the diaphragm pump on tbe rotameter.
   -l.R  Rate Meter.  Rotameiar, or equivalent, capable
 Treasuring flow nte to ^thin 1 percent of the selected
 •"* r»l< of    t          n.
                                                1.1.10  Volume Meter. Dry (H  meter,  (offlclently
                                              aocuret* to meanirp tbe sample volume within 2 percent,
                                              otllbrated  at  the selected  flow  rate  and  conditions
                                              actually encountered during sampling, and equipped
                                              with a temperature gauge (dial thermometer, or equiv-
                                              alent)  capable of measuring  temperature  to  within
                                              fC (4.4'F).
                                                11.11   Barometer. Mercury, amerold, or other barom-
                                              eter capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
                                              XJ mm Bg  (0.1 in. Hg). In many cam, the barometric
                                              reading  may be obtained from a nearby national weather
                                              avrloa station. In which caa« the ststlon value (which
                                              If the absolute barometric pressure) shall be requested
                                              and an  adjustment  for elevation differences between
                                              the weather station and sampling point shall  be applied
                                              mtarateofmlnus2.5nunHg(0.1ln. He) per 80m (100ft)
                                              elevation increase or vice versa for elevation decrease.
                                                1.1.12   Vacuum Gauge. At least 760 mm Bg (30 In.
                                              Hg) gauge, to be used for leak check of tbe sampling

                                                S.3  Sample  Recovery.
                                                12.1   Wash  bottles. Polyethylene or glass,  600 ml,
                                              two.
                                                3.2.2   Storage Bottles. Polyethylene, 100 ml,  to store
                                              Imptnger samples (one per sample).
                                                8.1  Analysis.
                                                U.I   Pipettes. Volumetric type, S-ml. 30-ml (one per
                                              sample), and 26-ml sties.
                                                3.1.2   Volumetric Flasks. 100-ml site (one per sample)
                                              and 100-ml ilu.
                                                »J.8   Burettes. A- and 50-ml sites.
                                                1,1.4   Krlenmeyer  Flatkt.  230  mi-alt* (one for each
                                              sample,  blank, and standard).
                                                ».«,<>   Dropping Bottle. IK-ml slse, to add Indicator.
                                                U.«   Graduated Cylinder. 100-ml site..
                                                U.7   Bpeetrophotometer. To mcASure abaorbance a.
                                              U3 nanometers
     r»l< of about 1000 oflAnln.
  Unless otherwise Indicated, all reagents must conform
to the specifications established by tbe  Committee on
Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society.
Where such specifications are not available, use the best
available grade.
  8.1  Sampling.
  1.1.1  WaterTDeionised, distilled to conform to A6TM
specification  Dl 183-74, Type 3. At the option of tbe
analyst, the KMnOi test for oxldiiable organic matter
may be omitted when high concentration:  of organii
matter are not eipected to be present.
  11,2  Isopropanol, 80 percent. Mix 80 ml of isopropanol
with 20ml of delonlied, distilled water. Check each lot of
isopropanol for peroxide Impurities as follows: shake 10
ml of Isopropanol with  10 ml of  freshly  prepared 10
percent potassium Iodide solution.  Prepare a blank by
similarly treating 10ml of distilled water. After 1 minute,
read the absorhance at U2 nanometers on  a spectro-
pbotometer. If absorbance exceeds 0.1, reject alcohol for
use
  Peroxides may be removed trom isopropanol by redis-
tilling or by  pusage through  a column of activated
alumina;  however, reagent  grade isopropanol  with
suitably low peroxide levels may be obtained from com-
mercial sources. Rejection  of contaminated  lots  may.
therefore, be a more efficient procedure.
  I.I.I  Hydrogen Peroxide, t Percent. Dilute SO percent
hydrogen  peroxide  1:9 (v/v)  with deionited, distilled
water (JO ml Is needed per sample). Prepare frwh  dally.
  114  Potassium Iodide Solution, 10 Percent. Dissolve
10.0 grams  KI in deloniied. distilled water and dilute to
100 ml. Prepare when needed.
  1.2   Sample Recovery^
  1.2 1  Water. Delonlied, distilled, as In  3.1.1.
  1.2.2  Isopropanol. 80 Percent. Mix 80ml of isopropanol
with 20 ml of deloniied, distilled water.
  •Jl  Analysis
  I.S.1  Water. Delonlied, distilled, as In 3.1.1.
  1.1.3  Isopropanol, 100 percent.
  *.*.*  Thorln   Indicator,   l-(o-arsonopbenyUttoV2-
napbtbol-3.6-disullonlc acid, oUwdlura salt, or equiva-
lent. Dissolve 0.20  g in 100 ml of deloniied, distilled
water.
  14.4  Barium  Perchlorate Solution. 0.0100 N. DiJ-
solve 1.95 g of barium perchloraU trihydrate (Ba(ClO.)i-
IHrOl in 300 ml distilled water and dilute to 1 liter with
"rSxJriwfAlternatiTely.  i 22 g of lBaCI,.2H,O] may
be used Instead of  the parchlorate. Standardise  as In
Section 8.4.

   a i S Sulfurtc Acid Standard, 0.0100 N. Purchase or
standard!!* to '0.0002 N against 0.0100 N NaOH  which
hat previously  been standardlted against  potassium
acid phthalate (primary standard grade).

4. Proenfurt,

   411  Preparation of collection train. Measure 15 ml of
•0 percent isopropanol Into the midget bubbler and IS
ml of 3 percent hydrogen peroxide into each of the first
two midget Implngen. Leave the final midget Imnlnger
dry Assemble the train as shown In Figure 8-1. Adjust
nrotw healer to a temperature sufficient to prevent water
condensation. Place crushed ice and water around the
Implnfen.
   412  Leek-check procedure. A leak cfwrk prior to the
 sampling run Is optional, however, a leak check after the
 sampling run is mandstory. The leak-check procedure is
 as fallows:
   With the probe dKronnected. place a vacuum ftauge at
 the  inlet to the bubbler and pull a vacuum of 250 mm
 (10 In.) Hg; plug or pinch off the outlet of the flow meter,
 and then turn  off the pump. The  vacuum shall remain
 stable  for at  least 30  seconds.  Carefully release  the
 vacuum gauge before releasing  the flow meter end to
 prevent bark flow of the Implnger fluid
   Other leak check procedures may be used, subject to
 the approval of the Administrator, U.S  Environmental
 Protection Agency. The procedure used In Method  5 is
 not mutable for diaphragm pump*.
   4.1.3 Sample collection   Record the  Initial dry  gas
 meter reading and  barometric pressure  To begin sam-
 pling, position  the tip of the probe at the sampling point,
 connect the probe to the bubbler, and start the pump
 Adjust  the  sample flow  to a  constant  rat*  of  ap-
 pronimatfly 1.0 llter'mln as Indicated by the rotameter
 Maintain this  constant rate (*10 percent) during  the
 entire sampling  run. Take readings (dry gas  meter
 temperatures at dry gas meter and at tmpinger outlet
 and  rate meter) at  least every S  minutes. Add more Ice
 during the  run to Veep the temperature of the gases
 leaving the last Implnger at 20" C («8* F) or less. At  the
 conclusion of each run, turn off the pump, remove probe
 from the stack,  and record the final readings. Conduct a
 leak check as In Section 4.1.2. (This leak check is manda-
 tory )  If a leak  is  found, void tbe test run. Drain the Ice
 bath, and purge the remaining part of the train by draw-
 Ing clean ambient air through the system for 15 minutes
 at the sampling rate.
   Clean ambient air  can be provided  by paring  air
 through a charcoal filter  or through an extra  midget
 Implnger with  IS ml of 3 percent H>Oi. The tester may
 opt to simply use ambient air, without purification.
   4.2  Sample Recovery. Disconnect the Implngers after
 purging. Discard the contents otthe midget bubbler, Pour
 the contents of the midget Impingen into a leak-free
 polyethylene bottle for shipment. Rinse the three midget
 Implngers and  tbe connecting  tubes with delonlied
 distilled water,  and add the washings to the same storage
 container. Mark the fluid  level. Seal  and identify  the
 sample container.
  4.1  Sample Analysis. Note level of liquid In container,
 and  confirm whether any sample was tost during ship-
 ment;  note this on analytical data sheet. If a noticeable
 amount of leakage has occurred,  either void tbe sample
 or use methods, subject to the approval of the Adminis-
 trator, to correct the final results.
  Transfer the  contents of tbe  storage  container to a
 100-ml volumetric  flask  and dilute to  exactly  100  ml
 with deionited, distilled water. Pipette a 20-ml aliquot of
 this solution into a 250-znl Erlenmeyer flask, add 80 ml
 of 100 percent Isopropanol and two to four drops of thorln
 Indicator, and titrate to a pink endpoint using 0 0100 N
 barium pe.rchlora.te  Repeat and average  the tltration
 volumes. Run a blank with each series of samples. Repli-
 cate  tltratlons must agree  within  1 percent or 0.2 ml,
 whichever Is larger.

  (Noil.—Protect  the  0.0100 N  barium  perchloraU
 solution from evaporation at all times.)

 S. OatltroHim

  1.1  Metering System.
  £.1.1  Initial  Calibration. Before Its initial use in tbe
 field, first leak check the metering system (drying tube.
 needle valve, pomp, rotametar, and dry gas meter) as
 follows: place a  vacuum gauge at  tbe inlet to the drying
 tube and pull a vacuum of 250 mm (10 In.) Hg; plug or
 pinch off the outlet or the flow meter, and then turn  off
 the pump. The vacuum shall remain stable for at least
 JO seconds. Carefully release the vacuum gauge before
 releasing the flow  meter end.
  Next, calibrate  the metering system  (at the sampling
 flow rate specified by the method) as follows: connect
 an appropriately  sited wet test meter (e.f., 1 liter per
 revolution) to the Inlet of the drying tube. Make three
 Independent calibration  runs, using at least five revolu-
 tions of the dry  gas meter per run. Calculate the calibra-
 tion factor, Y (wet test meter calibration volume divided
 by the dry gas meter volume, both volumes adjusted to
 the same reference temperature and pressure), for each
 run, and average the results. If any rvalue deviates by
 more than 2 percent from tbe  average, the metering
 system Is unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use the aver-
 age as the calibration factor for  subsequent test run*.
  6.1.2  Post-Test Calibration Check. After each field
 test series, conduct a calibration check as in Section 5.1.1
above, eicept for  the following variations:  (a) tbe leak
check Is not  to be conducted, (b)  three, or more revolu-
 tions of tbe dry gas meter may be used, and (e) only two
 independent runs  need be made. If the calibration factor
does not deviate by more than S percent from the Initial
calibration factor (determined In Section 5.1.1), then the
dry gas meter volumes obtained during the test series
are acceptable. If the calibration factor deviates by more
 than i percent, recalibrate the metering system as  in
 Section J.I.I, and for the calculations, use tbe calibration
factor (initial or reealibratlon) that yields the lower gas
volume for each test run.
                                                                          111-49
-------
  5.2  Tfc srntotMters.  Ct'lbriis •#aln*t
 iKS tepuwnieen.
  6 J  Rotameter. The retaonetw need not »« ea'JbrMsA
but should b< '.!«*R«<1 and mtintnlnssti *«»rdtai! to ta»
iBRfiutocturar'i ituirucUon.
  4.4  Bcromswr. Callbreu .ieainrt » nwrewr lM«»a-
cl*r.
  5.5  B*rtura Percblcrato Solution. S{an«5»nSl«*  the
bsriom MirfcioitU: solntion ifulust 25 ml of gunoira
Rilfuric acid in whicii 100 iaj oS 1GO percent i.wpropftnol
 Teiuin*
frwrncted  W
                                                                                toa dry t«
                                                                                 conditions,
                                                                                                  7.
  CVTT cut csicutalooj, itwiotas »t k-ut on* sttrm
c;«lm*J 8rJ" beyond that of liis MijoirKi data. Ekannd
ci' iufarsi eftar Ansd
  j.l
                                                      ro»t*r
                                                      dftcui
                                                «'.«i."Tct*J vue   i
                                                      dkixide «ujspl« la contained. 100 ml.
                                                  t'i'Volutm fiJ burton perchlamte titrtnl nsef.
                                                      for th«  Siffiple, na (»Tiii^e« ol >-«pbc»ti
                                                      tit.TtSiOlL'S).                           .
                                                 Vii-Vohua* o< bad-ora psrcblormUi t!trtP.« used
                                                      for th« blsink. ssl.
                                                   I'»Dry 5»» meter caJltrsUor fector.
                                                K.CS >•» Equivalent writ ht of roSto dksiiiJe.
                                              9.2  Dr> iiaiuptc C66  volume, oorreclad to stand*r«S
                                             aondltlons.
u »Conetntrstion of sulfur dioslS8 " EAriiJ Eg for metrte onl(*.
                                                      »17.WeBi1n- Be for EngUah oalts.
                                                    $.S  Suirm dioxide eonceotnUtm.
                                                    C8
 V.- Volume rieatatla cllqnet Utrat«2, iul.
V«,»'Drr e«« voSoaM as laeaiasfwfl by fJt« (iry jt*
    raatw. dlCK, (flt<)-
                                                                   . to SMtirte nnlt*.
                                                                      . flw Fcjluh antu.
                                  I. Atmo«pheri« Emi«aloiw frsm Bwlfurk
                                Wrturlna Frocf«3«. U.S. UHEW, PH8. Dlvls'on of Atf
                                Polltstic-n. Ptt'bUe Health B«nflo«  Puollatton N*
                                W»-AP-!3. Cittrtnnatt, Ohio. 1485.               an,
                                  2. Corhett, JJ. ?. The D- *HB-      ,
                                   8. Knoll. J. E. »nd M. B. Midg«tt. Th« A pp!l cation iW
                                 KPA Mathod « lo Hi«h Sulfur Dloiide ('0^^n'»u
                                 Eti»iroiui.«nt*i proweUon Agency. K«ioj.;-b
                                    k. N.C.      --'-
             «EWD i
       mm QUARTZ OR
         PV8EX WOOL)
                                         STACK WAU.
                                                                                          MIDGET IMPJWGERS
                                                                                                                   THERMOMETER
                                                                FIDGET BUBBLER
                                            GLASS V1TOOL

                                           -1-1	~"~iS.
                                                               SILICA GEL

                                                              DRYING TUBE
                                                           ICE BATH


                                                     THERMOMETER
                                                                                                                                 -  PUMP
                                                Figure 6-1.  S02 sampling train.
                                                                                              SURGE TANK
                                                                       in-so
-------
tttd
                             or
                  PBOK STATIC-HUT BOUBCH
                        nple la collected In »n evaeo-
           oontalttinf • dilute niUurie  acid-bydrofen
         fcbaorblng  solution, ud tb« nitrogen oxidea,
          ttyu °"d«- **• measured eolorimeterlcally
          Pbenoldijulfoaic «cid (PD8) procedure.
       Applicability. Thto method It applicable to the
                Jtrog eo oxldct emitted from stationary
                  « th« method has been determined
                 ramj NO. (*s NO,) per dry standard
            without having to dilate the ample.
               <«• "•«• 7-0. Other greb samplliv
                      capable  of measuring sample
                     .
              n ±2.0 percent and collecting a sufficient
               to tUow •naJytlcal reproduclblUtr to
       *S.P«roent, will be ooiuldered acceptable alter-
         Qb'*et *° «PPTOT»I of the Admlnbtrator, U.S.
                Protection  Afanqr.  The  tollowlnf
                In a»mpllnf :
        Probe. BonMlllaate flaai tublnf, lufflelently
          Pr*T«n*  **ter oondenjaUon  and equipped
        ln-«tack or oot-«ack alter to remove paniculate
       {»,,Plut °' *>•• *ool 1* satUlactory for thl*
       >; ' 9taial««. litel or Teflon > tubinc may abo be
     fe *"• Probe. Hertlm to not ntet
           dwinf tbTporflni period.
  'J**°1ou of trad* name* or »peelflo prodncU does not
          endonemeat by the  Knrironmental  Pro>
   1.1.2  Collection Flask, Two-liter boroaUlcate, round
 bottom flask, with short Deck and 24/40 standard taper
 opening, proUct*d against Implosion or breakage.
   2.1.3  Flask  Valve, T-bore stopcock  connected to a
 M/40 standard taper Joint.
   3.1.4  Temperature Oauge. Dial-type thermometer, or
 other temperature gauie,  capable of measuring 1° C
 If F) Intervals from -6 to V? C (25 to 125° F).
   1.1.5  Vacuum Line.  Tubing capable of withstanding
 a vacuum of 75 mm Hg (3 in. Hg) absolute pressure, with
 "T" connection and T-bore stopcock.
   2.1.6  Vacuum  Oauge. U-tube  manometer.  1 meter
 (K In.), with 1-mm (0.1-in.) divisions, or other gauge
 capable of measuring pressure to  within ±2.5  mm Hg
 (O.lOin. Hg).
  2.1.7  Pump.  Capable of evacuating  the collection
 flaik to a pressure equal to or less than 75 mm Hg (1 In.
 Hg) absolute.
  2.1.8  Squecte Bulb. One-way.
  1.1.9 Volumetric Pipette. 25 ml.
  2.1.10 Btoprock and  Ground Joint Grease.  A high-
 vacuum, high-temperature  chlorofluorocarbon grease Is
 required. HjJocarbon 2S-46 has been found to beeflectlve.
  2.1.11  Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other barom-
 eter capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
 2.5 mm He  (0.1 In. Hg). In many cases, the barometric
 reading may be obtained from a nearby national weather
 service station, In which case the station value (which Is
the absolute barometric pressure) shall he-requested and
an adjustment  for elevation differences between the
weatlicr station and sampling point shall be applied at a
rate of minus 2.5 mm He (0.1 In. Hg) per 80 m (100 ft)
aUvation increase, or vice vena for elevation decrease.
  2.2  Sample Recovery- The following equipment Is
required for sample recovery:
  12.1  Graduated Cylinder. 60 ml with 1-ml divisions.
  2A2  Storage  Containers.  Leak-tree  polyethylene
bottles.
                                                                                                                    n
                                                                                                            ^  *P within 0.1
          PROBE
             \
                                                                                EVACUATE
                                                       FLASK
       FILTER
                  SOC
       3 NQ. 12/6
                110mm
 ***AY STOPCOCK;
 T*ORE. | PYREX.
LITER. ROUND^OnOM.  SHORT NECK.
                                                                                                      WITH J SLEEVE NO. 24/40
                                    Figure 7-1.  Sampling train, flask valve, and flask.
                                                                      111-51
-------
   Unless otl.enrts* indicated, it is Inured tnat all
 reagent* conform lo the specifications established by the
 Committee on  Analytical Reagents  of tbe  American
 Ctmnlca!  Socltly. where such fpeclfloetlons  an avail
 tb!:, otherwise, use the best available grade.
   3.1  Sampling.  To prepare the absorbing solution,
 osntiously add 2.8 ml concentrated HiSOt to 1 liter of
 •Xonited, distilled water.  Mix well and add  6 ml of 3
 pfrcu...  hydrogen ptiroxlde, freshly prepared from SO
 percf  '.  hydrogen  peroxide solution.  The   absorbing
 solution ibould be used within 1 week of 1U preparation.
 D^ not expose to extreme heat or direct sur ught.
   •^  Sempl" Recovery. Two reagents a. s required for
 _.uple recovery:
   3.2.1  Bodlum Hydroxide (IN). Dissolve 40 g  NaOH
   •*  onlsed, distilled water and dilute to 1 liter.
    t.t  Water. Deionlsed. distilled to conform M ASTM
 ,:clncetJon D1U3-74,  Type S. At tbe option of the
 analyst, the EMNOi test for oxldlxable orgvuic ma'.ter
 •n»y be omitted when high ooncentntlo'j of  organic
 uiatter are not expected to be prez ;nt.
   3.3  Analysis. For the aa«'./sis, tbe following reagents
 are required:
   3.3.1  Fuming 8v jtiric Acid. IS to 18 percent by weight
 lit*  tuUur trior,de. HANDLE WITH  CAUTION.
   3.3.2  Pbeno'. White solid.
   3.3.3  BulfVj-lc Acid.  Concentrated, W percent  mini-
 mom a: »>• HANDLE WITH CAUTION.
   3.3 4  '-jtassium Nitrate. Dried at 104 to 110° C (220
 to 330° 1-) for a minimum of 2 hours Just prior to prepare
 tirni  Astandard solution.
   '.4.5  rtandard   KNOi  Solution.   Dissolve  exactly
 LltSg of dried potassium nitrate (KNOi) in  deionited,
 dlsttllV water  and  dilute to  I liter with deionited,
 distill, - K itter in a 1,000-ml volumetric flask.
   3.3.6  Working Standard KNOi Solution.  Dilute 10
 ml of .  t  standard solution to  100 ml with  delonired
 distllledwater. One milliltter of the working standard
 solution Is equivalent to 100 us nitrogen dioxide (NOi)
   3.3.7   Water. Deionited,  distilled  as In Section  3.2.2
   3.3.8   Phenoldisulfonic Acid  Solution. Dissolve 24 g
 of pure  white phenol In 160 ml concentrated sulfuric
 add on a steam bath  Cool, add 76 ml fuming sulfuric
 acid, and beat at  100° C (212° F) for  2 hours. Store in
 • dark, stoppered bottle.
 4. Froadwti

   4.1  Sampling.
   4.1.1  Pipette 25 ml of absorbing solution into a sample
 flask, retaining a sufficient quantity for vise in  preparing
 the calibration standards. Insert the flask valve stopper
 Into the flask  with the valve in the "purge" position.
 Assemble tbe  sampling  train  as shown In Figure 7-1
 and place the  probe at  the sampling point. Make sure
 that all  fittings an tight  and leak-free,  and that all
 ground glass Joints nave been  properly greased  with a>
 nigh-vacuum,   high-temperature  chiorofluorocarbon-
 based stopcock grease. Turn -the flask valve and  the
 pump valve to their "evacuate" positions.  Evacuate
 the flask to 76 mm Hg  (3 In. Hg) absolute pressure, or
 test  Evacuation to a pressure approaching the vapor
 pressure of water at the existing temperature is desirable
 Turn the pump valve to Its ''vent  position and turn
 ofl tbe pump.  Check for leakage by  observing tbe ma-
xwneter  lor any pleasure fluctuation. (Any variation
   Ireater  than  10 mm Hi (0.4  In. Hg) over a period of
   minute  1s not acceptable, and the flack Is  not to be
 ' toed until the leakage  problem Is corrected. Pressure
 tot tbe flask is not to exceed 76 mm Hg (3 In. Hg) absolute
 at the time sampling Is commenced.) Record the volume
 of tbe flask and valve (V,), tbe flask temperature (Til.
 and  tbe barometric pressure.  Turn tbe flask valve
 counterclockwise  to its "purge" position and  do the
 •ame with the pump valve. Purge tbe probe and tbe
 vacuum tube using tbe equeete bulb. If condensation
 occurs In the probe and the flask valve area, heat the
 probe and purge until tbe condensation  disappears.
 Next, turn the pump valve to Its "vent" position. Turn
 tbe flask valve clockwise to III "evacuate  position and
 record the difference In the mercury levels In the manom-
 eter. Tbe absolute internal pressure In the flask (Pi)
 la equal to tbe barometric pressure less tbe manometer
 reading. Immediately turn tbe flask valve to tbe "sam-
 ple" position and permit the gas to enter tbe flask until
 pressures In the ftafk and sample line (I.e., duct, stark)
 are equal.  This will usually require about 16 seconds;
 • longer period Indicates a ''plug" in the probe, which
 must be corrected before sampling is  continued. After
 collecting tbe sample, turn the flaf k val ve to Its "purge"
 position and disconnect the flask from tbe  sampling
 train. Shake the flask for at least 6 minutes.
   4.1.2  H tbe (as being sampled contains insufficient
 oxygen for tbe conversion of NO to NOj (e.g.,  an ap-
 plicable  fubpart of the standard may require taking a
 sample of a calibration gas  mixture of NO in NO, then
 oxygen shall be introduced  into tbe flask U permit this
 emverslon. Oxygen nay be introduced into  the flask
 by one of three methods; (1) Before evacuating the
                                                     record  tu*  ti.  •*•  temperature (T,), the  barometric
                                                     prusiire, and tbe difference between tbe mercury levels
                                                     n tbe manometer.  Tbe absolute  internal pressure In
                                                     tbe flask (p,) is tbe barometric pressure lest the man-
                                                     ometer reading. Transfer tbe contents of -the flask  to a
                                                     bai-trw polyethylene  bottle.  Rinse  the  flask twice
                                                     with 5-m) portions of defaulted, distilled water and add
                                                     the rinse water  to the bottle. Adjust the pH to between
                                                     ( and 12 by adding sodium hydroxide (1 K), dropwise
                                                     (about 25 to 35 drops). Check the pH by dipping a
                                                     stirring rod into the solution and then touching tbe rod
                                                     to the pH test paper. Remove as little material as possible
                                                     during this step Mark tbe height  of the liquid level so
                                                     that the container  can be checked  for leakage after
                                                     transport  Label tbe container to clearly  Identify Its
                                                     contents Seal tbe container for shipping. '
                                                       4-8  Analysis. Note the level of the liquid in container
                                                     and confirm whether or not any sample was lost during
                                                     etipirient; note  this on the analytical data sheet.  U s
                                                     noticeable amount of leakage has occurred, either void
                                                     tbe sample or use methods, subject to tbe approval of
                                                     tbe Administrator, to correct tbe final results. Immedi-
                                                     ately  prior to  analysis, transfer  the  contents of tbe
                                                     shipping container  lo a &0-ml  volumetric, flask,  and
                                                     rinse tbe container twice  *,-;th S-tnl portions of deionited,
                                                     distilled water.  Add tbe rinse watfr to tbe flask  and
                                                     dilute to tbe mark with deionited. distilled water;  mix
                                                     thoroughly.  Pipette a 25-ml aliquot into the procelatn
                                                     evaporating  dish. Return any unused portion of tbe
                                                     •ample to tbe polyethylene storage bottle. Evaporate
                                                     the 26-ml aliquot to dryness on a steam bath and allow
                                                     to cool. Add 2 ml pheDOldisulfonic acid solution to th<
                                                     dried  residue and triturate thoroughly with a po^lethy •
                                                     «ne noliceman.  Make sure the solution contacts all tie
                                                     residue. Add. 1  ml deionited, distilled water and  four
                                                     drops of concentrated sulfuric  acid. Heat the solution
                                                     on a steam bath for 3 minutes  with occasional stirring.
                                                     Allow the solution to cool, add 20 ml deionited, distilled
                                                     water, mix well by  stirriug, And add concentnOed  am-
                                                     monium hydroxide, dropwise, with constant stirring,
                                                     until tbe pH Is  10 (as determined by pH  paper). If tbe
                                                     •ample  contains solids, the.w must be  removed by
                                                     filtration (centrifugatioi: is an acceptable  alternative,
                                                     subject to the approval 'A ilx- Administrator) , as follows
                                                     filter through Whitman No 41 filter paper Into a 100-ml
                                                     volumetric flask; rinse the evaporating dish with three
                                                     *-ml portions of deionited, distilled water; filter these
                                                     three  rinses. Wash tbe filter with at least three 14-ml
                                                     portions  of deionited, distilled water. Add the filter
                                                     washings to tbe contents of the volumetric flask  and
                                                     dilute to tbe mark with deionited. distilled water. If
                                                     aolidt are absent, the solution can be transferred directly
                                                     to the 100-ml volumetric flask and diluted  to tbe mark
                                                     with deioniwd.  distilled wate>. Mix the contents of the
                                                     flask thoroughly, and measure tbe absorbanc* at the
                                                     optimum wavelength used for tbe standards (Section
                                                     6.2.1), using the  blank solution as a  tero reference. Dilute
                                                     tbe sample and  tbe blank with equal volumes of delon-
                                                     bed, distilled water If the absorhance exceeds A+, the
                                                     absorbanee of the 400 & N Oi standard (se« Section 6.2.2) .

                                                     ». CtltotHm

                                                       6.1  Flask Volume. Tbe volume of the collection flask-
                                                     •ask valve combination  must be known  prior to sam-
                                                     pling. Assemble tbe Oask and flask valve and Oil will
                                                     water, to tbe stopcock. Ueasure the volume of water to
                                                     ±10 ml. Record this volume on tbe flask.
                                                       6.2  Speetropbotometer Calibration.
                                                       1.2.1  Optimum Wavelength Determination. For both
                                                     fixed   and  variable wavelength   spectrophotomelers,
                                                     calibrate against standard certified wavelength of 410
                                                     DID, every ( months. Alternatively, for variable wave
                                                     length ipectropbotometm. scan the spectrum between
                                                     400 and 416 nm using a 200 ^ NOi standard solution (see
                                                     Section 8.2.2). If a peak  does not occur, tbe spectropho-
                                                     tometer Is probably malfunctioning, and should be re-
                                                     paired When a peak Is obtained within the 400 to 416 nm
                                                     range, the wavelength at which this peak occurs shall be
                                                     the optimum wavelength for the  measurement of ah-
                                                     sorbance for both the standards and samples.
                                                       (.2.2  Determination  of  BptctrophoUmeter  Calibra-
                                                     tion Factor K,. Add 0.0, 1.0. 2.0. 10. and 4.0 ml of the
                                                     KNOi working  standard solution (I ml -100 n NOi) to
                                                     a series of five porcelain evaporating dishes. To each,  add
                                                     » ml of absorbing solution.  10 ml deionited,  distilled
                                                     water, and sodium hydroxide (IN), dropwise, until tbe
                                                     pH Is between  t and 12 (about 25 to SB drops each).
                                                     Beginning with  the  evaporation step, follow the analy-
                                                     sis procedure of  Section 4.3. until the solution has be»n
                                                     transferred to the 100 ml volumetric flask end diluted to
                                                     tbe mark Measure the absorbanee of each solution, at the
                                                     optl'.iji!m wavelength, as determined in Section 6.2.1.
                                                     This calibration  procedure must be repeated on each day
                                                     that samples an" analyted Calculate the spectrophotom-
                                                     »Ur calibration factor as follows:
sampling flask, flush with pure cylinder oxygen, then
aramait flask to 75 mm Hg (3 In. fig) absolute pressure
or less; or (2) Inject oxygen into tbe flask after sampling,
or (3) terminate sampling with a minimum of 60 nun
Be (2 in. Hg) vacuum remaining In tbe Bask, record
this final pressure, and then vent the flask to tbe at-
mosphere until the Bask  pressure Is almost equal to
atmospheric pressure.
  4.2  Sample Recovery. Let tbe flask set for a minimum
of 16 tours and then shake tbe cofiUnU lor 2 minutes
Connect tbe flask to a mercury filled TJ-tube manometer.
Open the valve from the flask to tbe manon>t«r and
                                   Equation 7-1

  JT,- Calibration factor
  Xi- Absorbanee of the lOOwf NOi standard
  A,- Absorbanee of tbe 200-ng NO, standard
  Xi- Absorbanc* of the SOO-wg NOt standard
  At" Absorbanee of the 400-* NOi standard
  1.3  Barometer. Calibrate against a cnrcury barom-
eter.
  3.4  Temperature Gauge. Calibrate dial Uwrmom*.«rs
tsaliut mercury -ln-gl»M thermometers,
                                                        6.S  Vacuuu O age. Calibrate mechanic.*! ttu««. It
                                                      used, r»flnit a p *cury manometer cuch as u>*:. epx*-
                                                      fled In 2.1.8.
                                                        6.6  Analytic.'  Balance. Calibrate against  stut&rd
                                                      weights.

                                                      6. CalaJelioni

                                                        Carry out * le calculations, retaining at least one extra
                                                      decimal figu  a beyond that of tbe acquired data. Bound
                                                      ofl figures a' -er final calculations.
                                                        I.I  Noc tnclature.
                                                          A-A  .lorbance of sample.
                                                          C-C jncentration of NO, as NOi, dry basis, cor-
                                                             r ct«d   to   standard   conditions,   mg/dscoi
                                                              ib/dscO                                   .
                                                          F' dilution  factor (I e.,  26/6, 26/10,  etc., required
                                                             only  If sample dilution  was  nwded to reduce
                                                             the absorbanc* into the range of calibration).
                                                         K "Bpiictrophotometer calibration factor.
                                                          • i-Hsss of NO, as NOi In gas sample. ia.
                                                          '/•Final absolute pressure of flask, nun Hg (in. Hg)
                                                          ^•Initial absolute pressure of flask, mm Hg (l»
                                                             H«).
                                                        ••.id-Standard absolute pressure, 780mm Hg (29.92 i"
                                                             He)
                                                          T/-Final absolute temperature of flask ,*K (°R)
                                                          TV-Initial absolute temperature of flask. °K <°R>-.
                                                        T.,d"Standard absolute temperature, 293* K (628° H)
                                                        V,,—Sample volume  at standard conditions (dry
                                                             basis), ml.
                                                          V/-Volume of flask and valve, ml.
                                                         V.oVolume of absorbing solution, 26 ml           ,
                                                          2-60/20, the aliquot factor.  (If other than a 26-inl,
                                                             aliquot waft used for analysi.*, tbe  correspond-
                                                             Ing factor must b« substituted).               .
                                                        6.2 Sample volume, dry basis, corrected to standard
                                                      conditions.
                                                      ' «t^"5
                                                                         v  )    -~
                                                                         Vm'
                                                                                 -~
                                                                                T,   T
                                                                                        Equation 7-2
                                                     where:
                                                                         °K
                                                        A'i = 0.3858	H- for metric units
                                                                      mm Hg


                                                            = 17.64 .  "?,  for  English units
                                                                     in. Hg

                                                       6.3  Total H NOi per sample.
                                                                                        Equation 7-3

                                                       Note.—Mother than a 24-ml aliquot is used for ansly
                                                     aii, the factor 2 mutt be rtpWc.d by a correspondinl
                                                     factor.
                                                       6.4  Sample concentration, dry  basis,  corrected to
                                                     standard conditions.

                                                                         ~_   _r  Vfl
                                                                                       Equation 7-*

                                                     where:

                                                       Jr.-10» Ei/5£ for metric units
                                                          = 6.243 X 10-« -~  for English units
7.  BMiotrtfkt

  1. Standard Methods of Chemical Analysis. 6tb ef
New  York, D. Vna Nostrand  Co., Inc. 1K2.  Vol. >•
p. 320-330.
  S. Standard Method of Tect for Oxides of Nitrogen In
Gaseous Combustion  Products  (Phenoldisulfonic Afl?
Procedure). In: 1968 Book of ASTM Standards, Fart V>-
Philadelphia, Pa. 1968. ASTM Designation D-160»~60.
p. 726-729.
  3. Jacob. M. B. The Chemical Analysis of Air PoUut'
ants.  New York.  Interacience  Publishers, Inc. I960'
Vol. 10, p. 341-346.
  4. Beany. R. L., L. B. B«rger, and H. H. Schrenl-
Determination of OUdes of Nitrogen by tbe Pbenoldisw;
fonlc  Acid Metbod. Bureau of Uines, U.S. Dept. <"
Interior. H. I. 3687. February 19M.
  6. Hsmll, H. F. and D.  B. Csmann. CollsboratlV'
Study of Metbod  for tbe Determination of Nltrcf'"
Oxide Emissions from St»tion«ry Buurces (Fossil Fu«>'
Fired Steam Generators). Southwest Research lnstl««»
report for Environmental Protection Agency. K«e»rtD
TrUngle Park, N.C. October 6,  1073.
  6. na.mll. H. F. and  ». E. Thomat. Coll»bcr»tiT«
Study of Mrtbod  for the Dr>rrolration of Nttro*'"
Oxide Emissions from Stationary Coiuces (Nitric Ac>»
Fl&nts). Scutbveit Be«carch lustitute report for »n
vlronraenul  Protection  Aftacy.  Resmrrh Tiianf"
Pnfk, N.C. May «. 1074.
                                                                          rri-52
-------
         8— DCTIMIINATION  or Boiruajc Aero Miai
  AND SUITU* DIOXIDE EMISSION* FROM SrinotrAir
  oooacKs      '
I-
, l-l  Principle. A gas sample Is eitractnd Isoklnetlcally
mnn the stack. The sulfunc acid mJsl (Including sulfur
jrioitidc) and the sulfur dioiide are separated. and both
'raciipns are measured separably by Ibe barium -thorin
Utraiion method.
 . 1.2  Applicability. This method is applicable (or the
determination of sulluric acid mist (including nilhir
trtoiide. and In (he absence of other paniculate mailer)
*»d sulfur  dloilde emissions  trom  stationary sources.
Collaborative  tests have shown that the minimum
detectable limits ol the method are O.OS mlllijrrmms/cuble
"wier (0.03> 10-' pounds/cubic font) (or sulfur trtoiide
•nd 1.2 mg/m> (0.74  10-' Ib/lt'l tor sulfur dioilde. No
upper limits have been established, llased on theoretical
calculations fur  200 miUililns of 3  percent  hydrogen
Peroiide solution, the  upper concentration  limit for
fjjlfur dioiide in a l.u m> (35.3 ft') gas sample is about
12.500 mg'mi (7.7X10-* lb/fl>). The  upper limit «"• I*
"tended by increasing the quantity of pcronde solution
"> the impingers.
  Possible Interfering agents ol this method are fluoridu,
[fee ammonia, and dimethyl  aniline. II any  of these
Interfering agents are present (this can be determined by
knowledge ol l»« process), aHematlTe methods, subject
to the approval of the Administrator, are  required.
                              Filterable paniculate matter mar rw determined along
                            with SUi and 3O, (subject to  the approval ol the Ad-
                            ministrator); however, the procedure used for panic ulata
                            matter must  be consl.nont  with the speclAcatlona and
                            procedures given In Method S.
                             2.1  Sampling. A  schematic  of the sampling train
                            used la this method Is shown In Figure 8-1; It is similar
                            to the Method 5 train r«rcpi that the filter position la
                            different and the filter holder does not have to be healed.
                            Commercial models ol t his 1 rai n are available. For those
                            who desire to build their own. however, complete oon-
                            Itnji-llon details arc di-srriUnl Iti .M'TD-nxi  Change*
                            from the  Al'TD-irjil dm union! and allowable modi-
                            fications to Figure  8-1 are discussed In  the following
                            lubsccUons.
                             The operating and  maintenance procedures  lor the
                           sampling train are dnscillwd In APTDO576. Since correct
                           ilsiW Is Important In obtaining valid results, all  uscn
                           should ri'jj thu Al'TD-Gtftt (lociirr.L-nt and adopl the
                           operating and nialniriiance pruci-vlures outlined In  It,
                           unless otherwise sixi-iflcd herein. Fun her details and
                           guideline*  on oixTuiion and maintenance arc given In
                           Method  5 and should  bu  read and followed whenever
                           they am applicable.
                             2.1.1  Prolw Nozzle. Same as Method 5, Section 2.1.1.
                             '212  I'rolw IJner. Uorculllcatn or i|uaru (lass, with a
                           heating system  to prevent vlsllile condeiualion during
                           tampling. Do not uw meial probe liners.
  2.1.3 1'ilot Tube. Same as Method 5, Section 2.1.3.

  2.1.4 Differ* ntlal Pmtnre Oaugr. Bame aj Method I
Section 2.1. 4.
  2.1.« Filter Holder. Boralllcat* glase,  with a glass
frit BJter support and a illlcone rubber gasket. Otber
IMket materials, e.g., Teflon or Vlton,  may be used «ub-
faet U) tht i approval of the Admlnlsuntor. The holder
tatgn (ball provide a positive seal against  leakage from
the ouUide or iround the filter. The fllWr holder shall
be placed between th» first tod second Implngers. Note
Do not heat the fllt»r holder.
  11.8 Implngers— Four, ai thown In Figure 8-1 Th*
•m and third shall be of the OrWnburgSmlth rjjg^
irtth .tandard Up.  Tbe aeeond and fourth ahaflbV rf
tbe Ore*nburg-Bmlth d»«lgn, modlfled by replaelnt the
Intert with an lapproilmately 13 millimeter &s In.^ ID
flf". ilP£' h*^!n(t 'tt un«""Wcted tit) located 13 mm
(0.5 In.) from the bottom of the flask. «lmlla/«.llMUon

                                        ""
       Meurlng Byitem. B&me aj Method 8,  Section

   ' -     *™"- Bam* M M«th
-------
  L2.1  Wash Bottles. Polyethylene or glass,  (00 ml.
 (two).
  113  Graduated Cylinders.  180  ml.  1 liter. (VahT
 Betrlc flasks may also be used.)
  UJ  Blora-
tool-}, e-disulfonic  acid,  disodlum  salt, or equivalent..
Dissolve 0.201 In 100 ml of delonlted. distilled water.
  1.1.4  Barium Perchlorate (0.0100 Normal). Olsnlvi
 I.ticofbarlumperchlorate trtnydnte(B*(CIOOr3BrO)
 la 300 ml delonlted. distilled water, and dilute to 1 liter
 with Isonropanol; 1.22 t of barium chloride dlhydrate
 (BaCli-IHiO) may be oeed Instead of the barium per-
 ahlor»tf. Standardise wKb anlfurle acid as In Section 5.2
 This solution most be proUeted asalnst eraporatlon at
 allUxoes.             •-        ••        t~-

  1.3.5  Sulfurlc Acid Standard (0.0100 N). Purchase of
 standardlie to ±0.0002 N afainst 0.0100  N NaOH that
 has  previously  been standardited afainst primary
 standard potassium acid phthalate.

 4. ProefduTt
  4.1  aampUnt.
  4.1.1  Pretest Preparation. Follow the procedure out-
 lined in Method i.  Section 4.1.1; niters should be In-
 sprctrd. but need not be desiccated, weifhed, or Identl-
 llrd. If the effluent (as can be couidrred dry, I.e., mois-
 ture free, the silica (el nrtd not be weighed.
  4.1.2  Preliminary Determinations. Follow the pro-
 cedure outlined in Method S, Section 4.1.2.
  4.1.3  Preparation ol Collection Train. Follow the pro-
 redun outlined In  Method 5, Section 4.1.3  (eicrpt for
 the second paragraph and other obviously inapplicable
 parts) and use Figure 8-1 instead of Figure 5-1. Replace
 the second paragraph with: Place 100 ml of 80 percent
Isopropanol in the first Impinger, 100 ml of 3 percent
hydrogen peroxide In both  the second and  third Im-
pincers; retain a portion of each reagent tor use as a
blank solution. Place about JOOg of sluea gel In the tourth
implrurer.
   PLANT.
   LOCATION	

   OPERATOR	

   DATE	

   RUN NO	

   SAMPLE BOX NO..

   METER BOX NO. _

   METER AH*	I

   CFACTOR	
  PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT, C».
                                      STATIC PRESSURE. MM H| (M. Hi).

                                      AMBIENT TEMPERATURE	

                                      BAROMETRIC PRESSURE	

                                      ASSUMED MOISTURE, X	

                                      PROBE LENGTH,m (ft)	
                                                SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
                                      NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO	

                                      AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, emlinj.

                                      PROBE HEATER SETTING	^___

                                      LEAK RATE,m3/mia,(efm)	

                                      PROBE LINER MATERIAL	

                                      FILTER MO.  	
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER












TOTAL
SAMPLIN6
TIME
W.mla.






*






AVERAGE
VACUUM
MM H|
(M.H|)














STACK
TEMPERATURE
• 4*














VELOCITY
HEAD
(^PS),
MMH20
<1«.HiO)














PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE
METER.
MMH20
(IB.H20)














BAS SAMPLE
VOLUME,
M3(f|3)



'










BAS SAMPLE TEMPERATU RE
AT DRY GAS METER
INLET,
•C(»F)












Avo
OUTLET,
•C(«F)












Av0
Avg
TEMPERATURE
OF GAS
LEAVING
CONDENSER OR
LASTIMPINGER.
•C(»F)














                                                                FlBurtB*2.  FI*M date.
                                                                       HIII-54'
-------
  !*on.—if molitun content I* to be determined by
 Sfl"*." analysis, writ h each «f Uw fir* UUM Implngers
   « tad recorded.
    •«  Pretest  Leak-Check  Proo«dun.  Follow to*
     Procedure outlined In Method S, Section 4.1.4.1,
      that the probe heater  shall be adjusted to the
         temperature required to prevent condenee-
       •J*0 that verbage such as,"• • • plugging the
•«.   « the filter holder • • *," shall be replaced by.
Ts. _J>lu»fing the Inlet to the first Impinier •  •
•*•
   1 Pretest Teal-check it optional,
JM1* Train Operation. Follow tbe baric procedures
t?™jMd In Method S, Section 4.1.5, in conjunction with
7* "lowing special instructions. Data shall be recorded
Jjasheet similar to the on*in Figure 8-1 Tb* sampling
7* {Ml not exceed 0.030 mVmfn (1.0 eta) during tbe
i£j- Periodically during the test, observe tbe connecting
"W betw~n the probe and first Implnger for signs of
            If It does occur, adjust the probe beater
    „ upward  to the  minimum temperature required
	_"»nt condensation. If component changes become
nSaff during a run, a leak-check shall be done Im-
^UJjately before each change, according to the procedure
    ""In Section 4.1.4 4 of Method 5 (with appropriate
        Ions, as  mentioned  In  Section 4.1.4  of this
        record all leak rate*. If tb* leakage rat«(s)
        * specified rate, tb* tester shall either void tb*
   ' * shall plan to  correct th* sample volume as out-
     ~> Section 6.3 of Method S. Immediately  after com-
      changes, leak-checks  are  optional. If  the**
  ••weeks an done, tbe procedure outlined  In Section
^«-l of Method S (with appropriate  modification*)


      turning  ofl tbe pump and recording the final
      1 at th* conclusion of each run, nmov* the probe
        -   -   -   -  -     .rt.tejt (mandatory) leak-
                         etnod 5 (with appropriate
_».  	,	leak rate. If th* post-test
tSJ«« rat* exceeds tbe specified acceptable rate, the
u?r.5hall either correct the sample volume, as outlined
  fiUf'on 6.3 of  Method S. or shall void the run.
Du£*'n the Ice  bath and, with the probe disconnected,
to?,' the remaining part of tht train, by drawing clean
^oient  air through the system  for 15 minutes at the
  £He flow rate used for sampling.
     "'••—Clean ambient air can be provided by passing
      >ugh a charcoal filter. At tbe option of the tester,
      *  air (without cleaning) may be used.
      Calculation  of Percent Isoklnetlc. Follow the
      ure outlined in Method J, Section 4.1.4.
  r~  Sample Recovery.
,  **»  Container No. 1. If a moisture content analysis
X* *« done, weigh tb* first impinger plot content* to
  T^fest 0.5 g andreoord this weight.
»JI*Mfer the contents of the  first implnger to a 250-ml
Shotted cylinder.  Rinse the probe, first Implnger, all
3?°ectlng glassware before tbe filter, and tbe front half
JL">« filter holder with 80 percent Isopropanol. Add the
ni* *olut!on to tbe cylinder. Dilute to 290 ml with 80
CV*nt isopropanol. Add the filter to the solution, mix,
»«>i "fufer to the storage container. Protect the solution
jjrinft evaporation. Mark tbe level of liquid on bet
  * «nur and Identify the sample container.
is tJ\ Container No. S. If a moisture content analysis
(&i». **  done- w*i«h th* second and third  Impingen
Si"* contents)  to tbe nearest 0.5  g and  record these
M^tbta.  Also, weigh the spent silica gel  (or silica gel
  Sijnptager) to the nearest 0.4g.
transfer  th*  solutions from tbe second  and third
r£PlBgers to a  1000-ml graduated  cylinder. Rinse all
"*"—  glassware (Incfudlnibacknalfof alter bolder)
        * filter and silica geTlmplnger with detonized,
        water,  and add this rinse water to UM cylinder.
      w> a volume of 1000 ml with delonlsed. distilled
      Transfer th* solution to a storag* container. Mark
     I**! of liquid on tbe container. Seal and Identify tbe
         itafni
vo.u   ' »*«<*• Conduct a pott-tost (mandatory) leak
iSSf M in Section 4.1.4.3 of Method 6 (with appropriate
H?jnc*tion) and record the leak rate. If the post-test
  « Anal    '
 ^M* the level of liquid In containers 1 and 3, and eon-
              not any sample was lost during ship-
                                     . If a notloe-
   it; note this on the analytical date sheet. If a	
?"• amount of leakage has occurred, either void tb*
JSJSJ*,or us* methods, subject to th* approval of tb*
*J?l'>istrator. to correct tbe final results.  •
thTV  Container No.  1. Shake tb* container holding
KLtfopropenol solution  and tb* filter. If tbt filter
£**ks up, allow the fragments to settle for a few minute*
uS** .removing a sample. Pipette a I00-ml aliquot of
Solution Into a 250-ml Erlenmeyer flaek, add 2 to 4
SS?5f thorin Indicator, and titrate to a pink Midpoint
Sfflf 0.0100 N barium percblorate. Repeat tbe Miration
   1» second aliquot ofaunpte and average tb* tltratton
 rn%r JUpIlcato Utratloni moat agree within 1 percent
  ••• mi, whichever Is greater.
fathf  Container No. 8. Thoroughly mix tbe "tattoo
S&* container holding the contents of th* second and
CrulnnlnMn —«—^- -.««—«-u—~t -* —mjj. into »
 mug 0.0100 N barium ntrchlorate. Repeat tb* trtreuon
 with a second aliquot of sample and average the UtratJon
 nines. Replicate titratlooa most ape* within 1 percent
 or OJ ml. whichcTer la greater.
  44.3 Blanks. Prepare blanks by adding I to 4 drop*
 of tborin Indicator to 100 ml of 80 percent isopropanol.
 TltraU the blank* In tb* same manner as tb* sample*.
  (.1  Calibrate equipment usini tb* procedures sped-
fted In the following sections of Method 8: Section 8J
(metering system); Section 5.5  (temperature gauges);
iietion S.7  (barometer). Not* that Uw recommended
leak-check or tbe metering system, deecrlbed in Section
».6 of Method 4. also applies to this method.
  fcl  Standardise tbe barium nereblonte solution with
IB ml of standard sulfuric acid, to which 100 ml of MO
ptreant Isopropanol bas been added.
  Note.—Carry out calculations retaining at least on*
extra decimal figure beyond that of tbe acquired data.
Bound ofl figures after final calculation.
  4.1  Nomenclature.
      X.-Cross-sectional area of noule, m» (ft1).
      BM-Water vapor In the gas stream, proportion
            by volume.
  CHiBO.-SuUuric acid (Including BOi) concentration,
            g/dscm (lb/dscf).
    C80i-Sulfur dioxide concentration, g/dscm Ob/
            dscf).
        /-Percent of isokinetic sampling.
       AT-Normality of barium perchlorate titnnt, g
            equivalents/liter:              „   ^.
    Pbar-Barometric pressure at the sampling site,
            mm Hg (In. HI).              „  „
       P.-Absolut* stack gas pressure, mm H| On.

     Atd-SUndard absolute pressure, 700 mm Hg

      7*.-Average absolute dry gas meter temperature
            
        t.-Average stack gas  velocity, calculated by
          Method 2, Equation 3-9. using data obtained
          from Methods. mVsec (ft/we).
    Vaoln-Totel  volume of solution in which th*
          aulfuric acid  or  sulfur dioxide sample is
          contained. 2,10 ml or 1,000 ml, respectively.
       V,-Volume of barium perehlorate titrant used
          lor tb* sample, ml.
      Vn-Volome of barium perchlorato titrant used
          for the blank ml
        X-Dry gas meter calibration factor.
      AH-Average pressure drop across orifice meter,
          mm (In.) HfO.
        e 'Total sampling time, mln.
      U.S-8Dedflc gravity of mercury.
       40-sec/min.
      100- Conversion to percent.
  4.2-  Avenue dry gas meter temperature and average
orifice pressure drop See data sbeei(Figure 8-2).
  44  Dry Oas Volume. Correct tbe sample volume
measured by the dry gas meter to standard conditions
Off C and 760 mm Hg or 4T F and ».«In. Hg) by using
Equation 6-1.
                                                    • (•Id)'
                                                                            "+Cl3.6
                                                                                  _ .,..._ -,
                                                                                  Equation 8-1
where:
  jr,-o.MiStK/nun
                                                                   „  ,
                                                                   Hg lo
                                                            • R/m. Hg for
 eosst* tbe moisture content of tbe sterk g*», usbic Equa-
 tion i-* of Method t. Tbe "Note" in Section 6.4 of Method
 I also applies to tbis metbod. Not* that If tbe effluent gas
 stream can be considered dry, tbe volume of water vapor
 sod moisture content need not be calculated.
   *v5  SuUuric acid mist (Including SOi) concentration.
                                                                                                                                     Equation 8-2
                                                                                                     where:
                                                                                                      £1-0.0(904 t/mllliequivalent for metric units.
                                                                                                         -1.081X10-" Ib/meq for Bntllsh units.
                                                                                                      4*ft BuUur dioxide p
                                                                                                                                lUUi)
                                                                                                                                     Equation 8-3
     -0.0X203 g/meo for metric units.
     -7.081X10-Mb7meq for English unite.
  4.7 Isokinetic Variation.
  4.7.1  Calculation from raw data.

 j   100 T.[K4 Vlt+ (VJTm) P^t + Ag/13.6)]

                    609V.P.X.

                                 Equation 8-4

 where:
  jr,-0.0034M mm Hg-mVml-*K for metric unite.
     •0.003878 In. Hg-It'/ml-'R for English units.
  4.7.2  Calculation trom intermediate values.
                                                                                                                        TtVm
                                                                                                                              (.up
                                                                                                                                    Equation 8-5
                                                                                                    Where:
                                                                                                      X»-4-330 lor metric unit*.
                                                                                                        •0.09490 for BngUth units.
                                                                                                      44 Acceptable Results. If 90 percent ?T.IH)M1. April. 1971.
I                     lor metric units.
                      English unite.

  NOTE.—If the leak (ate observed during any manda-
tory leak-checks exceeds tbe specified aowpUble rate,
tb* tester shall *ltb*r comet tbe value of V. fa Equation
W STdeSlbed In Section 4J of Method «), or shall
Invalidate tb* test run.

  M  Volume  of Water Vapor and Moisture Content.
 Calculate th* volum* of water vapor using Equation
 (-4 of Method  ft; tbe weight of wVtor eottectedi mtbe
 tanplngers and silica gel  can be directly convened to
 nffllUUrs (th*  specific gravity of water Is 1 g/ml). Cal-
   .. J. J. Maintenance. Calibration,
of IsoUactic Source-Sampling Equipment,  Office of
Air  Programs,  Environmental  Protection  Agency.
lUteawhlTriangl* Park. N.C. APTD-OW4. Marcli. 1974.
  «. Hiioll. H. /.and D. E. Camann. Collaborative
Study of Method for Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
•minions from Stationary Sources (Fossil Fuel-Find
Steam Generators). Environmental Protection Agency.
Besearch  Triangle  Park,  N.C.  KPA-eW4-74-OM.
December, 197S.
  7. Annual Book of ABTM Standards. Part «; Water,
f tmpspheric Analysis, pp. 40-42.  American Society
for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, Pa. 1974.
                                                                             111-55
-------
 METHOD  t—flBWB.  mmiOXATION  OS* TO*
   oMcxrr or xtossiOMs  imoic  nmomx.T
   BO0BCB
   Many stationary sources discharge visible
 emissions Into th* atmosphere; these emls-
 •ion* an usually in th* shape of a plume.
 HiU method involves th* determination of
 plume  opacity  by qualified observers. The
 method Include* procedures for the training
 and certification of observers, and procedures
 to be used In the Held for determination of
 plume opacity. Tbe appearance of a plume as
 viewed by an observer depends upon a num-
 ber of variables, some of which may be con-
 trollable and sons of which may not  be
 controllable in the field. Variables which can
 be controlled to an extent to which they BO
 longer exert a  significant Influence upon
 plume  appearance include: Angle of the ob-
 server with respect to the plume; angle of the
 observer with respect to the sun; point of
 observation of attached and detached steam
 plume;  and angle of  the observer with re-
 spect to a plume emitted .from a rectangular
 stack with a large length to width ratio. Tbe
 method includes specific criteria applicable
 to these variables.
   Other varlablr which may not be control-
 lable In the fle'tu are luminescence and color
 contrast betwev -  the plume and the back-
 ground BTAlnst  vilch the plume  is viewed.
 These vat tablet  exert an influence upon the
 appearance of a plume as viewed by  an ob-
 server,  and can affect the ability of the ob-
 server  to accurately assign opacity  values
 to the observed  plume. Studies of the theory
 of plume opacity and field studies have dem-
 onstrated that a plume Is most visible and
 presents the greatest apparent opacity when
 viewed  against a contrasting background. It
 follows from  this, and is confirmed by field
 trials,  that the  opacity of a plume,  viewed
 under conditions where a contrasting back-
 ground Is present can be assigned  with the-
 greatest degree of accuracy. However, the po-
 tential for a positive error Is also the greatest
 when a plume Is viewed under such contrast-
 ing conditions. Under conditions presenting
 a less contrasting background, the  apparent
 opacity of a  plume  is less and approaches
 zero as the color and luminescence contrast
 decrease toward zero. As a result, significant
 negative  bias and negative errors can  be
 made when a plume  is viewed under leas
 contrasting conditions. A negative  bias de-
 creases rather than Increases the possibility
 that a plant operator will be cited for a vio-
 lation  of opacity standards due to observer
 error.
   Studies have been undertaken to determine
 the magnitude of positive errors which can
 be made by qualified  observers while read-
 ing plumes under contrasting conditions and
 using  the  procedures set forth  in this
 method. The  results of these studies  (field
 •trials) which involve a total of 700 sets of
 35 readings each are  as follows:
   (1) For black plumes (133 sets at a smoke
 generator).  100 percent  of the sets were
 read with a positive error * of less  than 7.0
 percent.opaelty; 09 percent were read with
 a positive error of less than 5 percent opacity.
   (3) For whit*  plumes (170 sets at a smoke
 generator, 168 sets at a ooal-flred power plant,
 398 sets at a sulfurle add plant), 99 percent
 of the sets were read with a positive error of
 less than 74 percent opacity; 95 percent were
 read with a posltlvs error oTless than  ft per-
 cent opacity.
  The positive observational error associated
with an average of twenty-five  readings is
therefor* established. The accuracy of- the
method must be taken into account-when
 detennlning   possible  violations  of appli-
cable opacity standards.

  1 War a sst. positive *rror*xav*rag* opacity
 determined toy obssrvsrs*  SB observations.
 average opacity  determined .from transmit-
 sometert M recordings.
   1. Principle and appHoabfltty.

   l.f Principle. The opacity of emissions
 from stationary sources Is determined vis-
 ually by a qualified observer. -
   1.3 Applicability.  This  method  Is appli-
 cable for the determination of the opacity
 of emissions from stationary sources pur-
 suant to I 80.11 (b) and for qualifying ob-
 servers for visually determining opacity  of
 emissions.                    .   -
   a.  Proceturet. The observer qualified  In
           with paragraph 8 of this method
 shall us* the following procedures  for vis-
 ually detennlning the opacity of emissions:
   3.1  Position^* The qualified observer sball
 stand  at a distance sufficient to provide a
 clear view of the  emissions with  th* sun
 oriented In the 140* sector to his back. Con-
 sistent with maintaining tha above require-
 ment, the observer shall, as much as possible.
 make his observations from a position such
 that bis. line of  vision is approximately
 perpendicular to th* plume direction, and
 when  observing opacity of emissions from
 rectangular outlets (e.g. roof.monitors, open
 baghouses,  nonclrcular stacks),   approxi-
 mately perpendicular to the longer axis of
 the outlet. The observer »line of sight should
 not Include more than  JCM plume at a time
 when multiple stacks are  Involved, and In
 any case the obser r should make his ob-
 servations with his line of sight perpendicu-
 lar to the longer axis of such a set of multi-
 ple stacks (e.g.  stu>-   v-\cks on baghouse*).
   23 Field records.  \ > observer shall re-
 cord the name of the plant, emission loca-
 tion, type  facility,  observer's jttam*  and
 affiliation, and the date on a field data sheet
 (Figure 9-1). The time, estimated  distance
 to the emission  location, approximate wind
 direction, estimated wind speed, description
 of th* sky condition (presence and color of
 clouds),  and plume background are recorded
 on a field data sheet at the time opacity read-
 ings are  initiated and completed.      •  .
 -  23  Observations.  Opacity  observations
 shall bo mads at tbs point of greatest opacity
 In that  portion of  the plum* where con-
 densed water vapor Is not present. Tbe ob-
 server  shall not look continuously at th*
 plume, but Instead shall observe th* plume
 momentarily at  K-second intervals.
   33.1  Attached steam plumes. When con-
 densed water vapor Is present within the
 plume as It emerges from the emission out-
 let, opacity observations shall be made be-
 yond the point in th* plume at which con-
 densed water vapor Is no longer visible, The
 observer  shall record the approximate dis-
 tance from the emission outlet to th* point
 in th* plum* at which th* observations are
 made.
  332 Detached steam plume. When water
 vapor In the plum* condenses and becomes
 visible at a distinct distance from the emis-
 sion outlet, the opacity of emissions should
 be evaluated at the emission outlet prior to
 the condensation of water vapor and the for-
 mation of the steam plume.      •  •  •
   3.4 Recording observations.' Opacity ob-
 servations shall be recorded to th* nearest 5
 perce t at IB-second intervals on  an ob-
 servational record sheet. (See Figure 9-3 for
 an example.)  A »i«
-------
    •ui
                           US Slim AMU
 »• Light source...
           response
    «f photocell.


 «• Angle of view. ___

 *• Angle & projec-
    tion.
 •• Calibration error.

 *• Zero  *nd  span
    •drift.
   .  Speotfloation
 Incandescent    lamp
   operated at nominal
   rated voltage.
Photoplo    (daylight
- spectral response of
  the  human  eye—
 . reference 4.3) .
16*  maximum total
  angle.
IS*  maximum totol
  angle.
±3%  opacity. maxl-
±1%   opacity,    50
  minutes.
       Bmoke meter evaluation. The smoke
       design and performance are to be
*»«u«ted as follows:
  8.8.2.1  light  source. Verify from manu-
x*cturerl« date  and frotr  roltage  measure-.
**at» made ait  the lamp,  as Installed. that
*ae lamp ta operated wlthji ±8 percent of
*«• nominal rated  voltage.
  83.2.2  Spectral  responie  of  photocell.
veruy  from manufacturer's date  that tbe
vaotocell has a photoplc response; 1*, the
•P»ctrai sensitivity of the  cell snail closely
'Pproxlmate the standard speetral-lumlnos-
^ curve for photoplc vision which to refer-
•»ced in (b) of  Table 9-1.
  3-3.2.3  Angle  of  view. Check construction
f^Btetry to ensure that the total angle of
^** of the smoke plume, as seen  by the
Photocell, does  not exceed 16'. The  total
     of new may  be calculated from: «s2
     d/2L, where  «= total angle  of view;
       sum of the photoeeU diameter+th*
         of  the   Umtting aperture;   and
    »e  dlstedoe from the  photocell to the
        aperture.  The  Umtting aperture is
   Point In the path between the photocell
        amok*  plum*  where the angle of
       Btoat restricted.  Xn  amok* generator
      meUrs this to normally «n orifice
        Angle of projection.  Check oon-
        geometry to ensure that the total
 angle of  projection of the  lamp  on the
 •moke plume does not •need IB*. The total
 angle of projection may be calculated from:
 *=3 tan-i d/2L. where t= total angle of pro-
 jection: d= the  sum of the  length of the
 lamp filament 4-  the diameter of the Hmi+i^g
 aperture; and let the distance from the lamp
 to the limiting aperture.
   3.8.3.5  Calibration error. Using neutral-
 density niters of known opacity, check the
 •nor between the  actual response and the
 theoretical linear  response  of the smoke
 meter. This cheek  is accomplished by first
 calibrating the smoke meter according to
 84.1  and  then Inserting a series of  three
 neutral-density niters of nominal opacity of
 SO, 60, and 70 percent  In the smoke meter
 pathlength. Filters oallbarted within ±3 per-
 cent  shall be used. Oare should  be taken
 when Inserting the Alters to prevent  stray
 light from affecting the meter. J£ake a total
 of five nonconsecutive readings  for  each
 filter. The tnarlmum' error on any one read-
 ing shall be S percent opacity.
   3.3.2.6  Zero and span drift. Determine
 the xero and span  drU; t/ calibrating and
 operating the smoke ge Aerator In  a normal
 manner over a 1-hou?  period. The drift is
 measured by check'^g the cero and span at
 the end of this period.
   8.3.2.7  Response  "Y-i. Determine the re-
 sponse time  by proc . g the series of five
 simulated 0 percent aud 100 percent opacity
 values and observing the tune required to
 reach stable response. Opacity values  of  o
 percent and  100  percent may be simulated
 by alternately switching the power to the
 light  source oS  and on  while the smoke
 generator is not operating.
   4. JJetcrcnoet.
   4.1   Air  Pollution Control  District Rules
 and Regulations, Los Angeles County Air
 Pollution  Control District, Regulation IV,
 Prohibitions, Rule 60.
   4.2   Welsburd, Melvln L, Field Operations
 and Enforcement  Manual for Air, VS. Envi-
 ronmental  Protection Agency, Research Tri-
angle  Park, K.O.,  APTD-1100, August 1972.
pp. 4.1-4.36.              .
  44   Condon, E. VH sad Odlshaw, H, Band-
book of Physios, UcOraw-KUl Co, N.T, N.T,
 UM,Tabtaa.l,p.«-<3,
                                                             111-57
-------
                                     RECORD OF VISUAL DETERMINATION OF OPACITY
                                      PAGE	of
COMPANY
LOCATION	
TEST NUMBER.
DATE
TYPE FACILITY^
CONTROL DEVICE
                  HOURS OF OBSERVATION.
                  OBSERVER
                  OBSERVER CERTIFICATION DATE_
                  OBSERVER AFFILIATION	
                  POINT OF EMISSIONS	
                  HEIGHT OF DISCHARGE POINT
CLOCK TIME
OBSERVER LOCATION
  Distance to Discharge
  Direction from Discharge
  Height of Observation Point
BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION
WEATHER CONDITIONS
  Wind Direction
  Wind Speed
     •
  Ambient Temperature
SKY CONDITIONS (clear.
  overcast* X clouds, etc.)
PLUME DESCRIPTION
  Color
  Distance Visible
 OTHER IHFOKUVTIOU
                              initial
Final
SWfoRY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Number










Tin*
Start— End










Opacltj • .
Sum









!
Average










             Readings ranged froh      to	% opacity
             The  source was/was not in compliance with _
             the  time evaluation was made.
-------
                    FIGURE 9-2 OBSERVATION RECORD
                   PASS    OF
    COMPANY
    LOCATION
    TEST NUMBER"
    MTE	
OBSERVER 	
TYPE FAClLtTV
POINT OF EHISS1QHT
 I
on
Mr.














.








•






Wn.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
M
12
13
14
'5
6
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24"
25
26
27
28
29

0






























Seconds
15






























JO






























4b






























STEAM PLUME
'check if applicable)
Attached






























Detached






























COMMENTS




























,

FIGURE 9"Z i
(Co.
.COMPANY
LOCATION
TEST NUMBER
DATE.


•HP.































Min.
30
31'
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
"4>
43
44
45
4fi
4>
48
49
so
SI
S?
"' 53
54
55
Sfi
57
58
59
Seconds
IT































IS






























30































45






























d
A































ORSERWTJGH RECORD
WISE	OF.
       OBSERVER	
       TYPE FAClLITV
       POINT OF EMISSlSfiT
                                                                                                    (FB Doc.74-26160 Filed ll-ll-74;8:46 cm]
-------
  APPENDIX B—PEBTORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
  Performance Specification  1—Performance
specifications and  specification  test proce-
dures for transmlssometer systems for con-
tinuous measurement Of the opacity of
stack emissions .
  1. Principle and  Applicability.
  1.1 Principle. The opacity of  paniculate
matter  In stack emissions is measured by a
continuously  operating emission  measure-
ment system. These systems are  based  upon
the principle or transmlssometry which Is a
direct measurement of the attenuation cf
visible  radiation   (opacity)  by  paniculate
matter  In a stack effluent. Light  having spe-
cfic spectral characteristics Is projected from
a lamp  across the stack of a pollutant source
to a light sensor. The light Is attenuated due
to  absorption and scatter by the paniculate
matter  in the  effluent. The percentage of
visible  light  attenuated is  denned  as the
opacity of the emission. Transparent  stack
emissions that  do  not  attenuate  light will
have a  transmlttance of 100  or an opacity of
0. Opaque stack emissions that attenuate all
of the visible light  will have a transmlttance
of 0 or  B.I opacity of 100 percent. The tra-ns-
mlssometer Is evaluated by use of  neutral
density niters to determine  the  precision of
the continuous monitoring system. Tests of
the system are performed to determine zero
drift, calibration  drift, and response  time
characteristics of the system.
  1.2 Applicability. This performance spe-
cification is  applicable to  the  continuous
monitoring systems specified In the subparts
for measuring opacity cf emissions.  Specifi-
cations lor continuous measurement of vis-
ible emissions are  elven In terms of design,
performance,  and   Installation  parameters
These specifications contain test procedures.
Installation requirements, and data compu-
tation procedures -for evaluating the  accept-
ability of the continuous monitoring- systems
subject to approval by the Administrator.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1 Calibrated Filters. Optical filters with
neutral spectral  characteristics  and  known
optical  densities to visible light or  screens
known to produce specified optical  densities.
Calibrated filters with accuracies certified by
the manufacturer  to  within  ±3 percent
opacity shall be used.  Filters required are
low, mid, and high-range filters with nom-
inal optical  densities as follows when the
transmlssometer Is  spanned at opacity levels
specified by applicable subparts:
                 Calibrated filter optical densities
                   with equivalent opacity in
Span value

SO 	
60
70 	
60 	
90 ...
100 	

parenthesis
Low- Mid-
range range
0. 1 (20) • 0 I (37)
1* (20) 2 '37)
1 (20) 3 (50)
1 (20) 3 (SO)
1 (20) 4 (60)
1 (20) 4 (86)


Hlph-
ranpe
0.3 (&0)
8 (M)
4 (ROV
6 (7i)
7 '60'<
9 (67^5)

  It Is recommended that filter calibrations
be checked with a well-collimated photoplc
transmlssometer of known linearity prior to
use. The filters shall be  of sufficient  size
to attenuate the entire light beam of the
transmlssometer.
  2.2 Data  Recorder. Analog chart  recorder
or other suitable device with Input voltage
range compatible with the analyzer system
output.  The  resolution  of  the  recorder's
data output shall be sufficient to allow com-
pletion  of the  test procedures within  this.
specification.
  23 Opacity measurement System. An in-
stock  transmlssometer  (folded  or  single
path) -with the optical design specifications
designated below,  associated control units
and apparatus to keep optical surfaces clean.
  3. Definitions.
  3.1  Continuous Monitoring  System. The
total equipment required for the determina-
tion of pollutant opacity in a source effluent.
Continuous monitoring  systems consist  of
major subsystems as follows:
  8.1.1 Sampling Interface. The portion of a
continuous monitoring  system for opacity
that protects  the analyzer  from the effluent.
  3.12 Analyzer. That portion of  the con-
tinuous monitoring system which senses the
pollutant and generates a signal output thai.
Is a function  of the pollutant opacity.
  3.1.3 Data  Recorder. That portion of the
continuous monitoring system that processes
the analyzer output and provides a perma-
nent record of the output signal In terms of
pollutant opacity.
  3.2  Transmissometer.  The portions  of  £
continuous monitoring  system for opacity
that Include the sampling  Interface and the
analyzer.
  3.3  Span. The value of opacity at which
the continuous  monlto'lnt system is sot to
produce the maximum ''ate  display output.
The span shall be set a,,  an opacity specified
In each applicable sr^part.
  3.4  Calibration Error.  The difference be-
tween the opacity reading Indicated by the
continuous  monl'U.'J: •*  system  and  the
known values of a *   ,  ; of  test standards.
For this method the  test standards are  a
series of calibrated optical  filter or screens.
  3.5 Zero Drift. The change In continuous
monitoring system output over a stated pe-
riod of time of normal continuous operation
when the pollutant  concentration  at the
time of the measurements la zero.
  3.6 Calibration Drift. Toe  change In the
continuous monitoring system  output over
a stated period of time of normal continuous
operation -when  the pollutant concentration
at the time of the measurements is the same
known upscale value.
  3.7  System  Response.  The time  Interval
from a step change In opacity  In the stack
at the Input to the continuous monitoring
system to the time at which 95 percent of
the corresponding final value Is reached as
displayed on the continuous monitoring sys-
tem data recorder.
  3.8  Operational Test Period.  A minimum
period of  time over  which a continuous
monitoring  system Is  expected  to  operate
within  certain  performance  specifications
without  unscheduled  maintenance, repair,
or adjustment.
  3.9 Transmlttance. The  fraction of Incident
light that Is transmitted through an optical
medium of Interest.
  8.10 Opacity. The fraction of Incident light
that Is attenuated by an optical medium of
Interest. Opacity (O) and transmlttance (T)
are related as'follows:
                 O=1-T
 • 3.11 Optical Density. A logarithmic meas-
ure of the amount of light that It attenuated
by  an optical medium of  Interest.  Optical
density (D) Is related  to the transmlttance
and opacity as follows:
  D=-log,0T
  D=-log,0(l-0)
  8.12 Peak . Optical Response.  The wave-
length of maximum sensitivity.of the Instru-
ment.
  3.13  Mean Spectral  Response. The wave-
length which bisects the total area under
the curve obtained  pursuant to paragraph
8.2.1.
  8.14 Angle of View. The maximum (total)
angle of radiation  detection by the photo-
detector  assembly of the analyzer.
  8.15 Angle of Projection.  The maximum
(total)  angle that contains 95 percent of
the radiation projected from the lamp assem-
bly of the analyzer.
   8.16 Pathlength. The depth of effluent in
 ttie light boom between the receiver and the
 transmitter of the single-pass transmlssom-
 eter,  or the depth of effluent between the
 transceiver and  reflector of a  double-pass
 transmlssometer. Two pathlengths are refer-
 enced by this specification:
   8.16.1  Monitor  Pathlength. The depth of
 effluent at the Installed location of the con-
 tinuous monitoring system.
   3.16.2 Emission Outlet  Pathlength. The
 depth of effluent at the location emissions are
 released to the atmosphere.
   4. Installation Specification.
   4.1  Location. The  transmlssometer must
 be located across a section of duct or stack
 that  will provide a paniculate  matter flow
 through  the  optical  volume of  the trans-
 mlssometer that Is representative of the par-
 tlculate matter flow  through  the duct  or
 stack. It Is recommended that the monitor
 pathlength or depth of effluent for the trans-
 mlssometer Include the  entire diameter  of
 the duct or  stack. In Installations  using  a
 shorter pathlength, extra caution  must be
 used  In determining the measurement loca-
 tion representative of the paniculate matter
 now through  the  duct or stack.
   4.1.1 The transmlssometer location shall
 be downstream from  all paniculate control
 equipment.
   4:1.2 The transmissometer shall be located
 as far from bends and obstructions as prac-
 tical.
   4.1.3  A transmlssometer  that Is  located
 In the duct or stack  following  a bend shall
 be installed  in the  plane  defined  by the
 bend  where possible.
   4.1.4  The  transmlssometer should be In-
 stalled in an accessible location.
   4.1.5 When required by the Administrator.
 the owner or operator  of a source must
 demonstrate that the transmlssometer Is lo-
 cated In  a section of duct or stack where
 a  representative paniculate matter distribu-
 tion exists. The determination shall  be ac-
 complished by examining the opacity profile
 of the effluent at a series of positions across
 the duct or stack while the plant Is In oper-
 ation at maximum or reduced operating rates
 or by other tests, acceptable to the Adminis-
 trator.  .
   4.2  Slotted Tube. Installations that require
 the use of a slotted tube shall use a slotted
 tube  of  sufficient size and blackness so as
 not to Interfere with the free flow of effluent
 through the entire optical volume  of the
 transmlssometer  or reflect  light Into the
 transmlssometer  photodetector.  Light re-
 flections may be  prevented by using black-
 ened  baffles within the slotted tube to pre-
 vent the lamp radiation from Impinging upon
 the tube walls, by restricting the angle of
 projection of the  light and the angle of view
 of the photodetector  assembly  to less than
 the cross-sectional area of  the slotted tube,
 or by other methods.  The owner or operator
 must show that  the manufacturer of the
 monitoring system  has  used  appropriate
 methods  to minimize light reflections  for
 systems using slotted tubes.
   4.3  Data Recorder Output. The continuous
 monitoring system output  shall permit ex-
panded display of the span opacity  on a
 standard  0 to 100 percent scale. Since all
 opacity standards are based on  the  opacity
 of the effluent exhausted to the atmosphere,
 the system output shall  be based upon the
 emission outlet pathlength and permanently
 recorded. For affected facilities whose moni-
 tor pathlength is different from the facility's
 emission outlet pathlength, a graph shall be
 provided with the Installation.to show the
 relationships between the continuous moni-
toring system recorded opacity based upon
 the emission outlet pathlength and the opac-
ity of the effluent at the analyzer location
 (monitor pathlength). Testa for  measure-
ment  of opecity  that ore required by this
performance specification ore based upon the
                                                                  HI-60
-------
*°mtor pathlength. The graph neceeeary to
jonvert  the data  recorder output  to the
•Mltor pathlength-basis shell be eatakdiebed
••follows:
   ot (1-0.) =(1^1.) toff (1-0.)
»!»**•:
  °i-tbe opacity of the effluent baaed upon

 '><>i= the' opacity of the effluent based upon

  Ji=the emission outlet pathlength.
  Ii=tbe monitor pathlength.
  '•Optical Design Specifications,
  The optical design specifications set forth
|? Section 6.1  shall be met In  order for a
™*Murement system  to  comply  with  the
•uirements of this method.
   - Determination ofionformance with De-
                .
      he continuous monitoring system for
•vtasurement of opacity shall  be demon-
J«»ted to conform to the design speclflca-
     set forth as follows:
        peak Spectral Response. The peak
        response of the continuous  monl-
      systems shall occur between 600 nm
?*»d 800 nm. Response at any wavelength be-
    400  nm  or above  700 nm shall  be less
     10 percent of the peak response  of the
        us monitoring system.
        Mean Spectral Response. The mean
      l response of the continuous monitor-
!*| system shall occur between 600 nm and
WO am
  •-U Angle of View. The total angle of flew
•"•« be no greater than 5 degrees.
  ••1.4  Angle of Projection. The  total angle
* Projection shall be no greater  than 6 de-
osnterllne of projection. Repeat  the test in
the vertical direction.
  7, Continuous  Monitoring  Bretepi  Per-
formanee specification*.
  The continuous monitoring system  shall
meet  the performance specification! In Table
1-1 to be considered  acceptable under  this
method.

  TABLE  1-1.—Performance tpertfeatto**
 „ ,    Conrformanoe with th« requirements
 °» •e'etlon 8.1 may be demonstrated by the
 "*ner or operator of the affected facility by
 ««ting 6Mn  miiyzer or by obtaining a oar-
 !~c»te of conformance from the instrument
 rufacturer. The certificate  must  certify
    < at least one analyzer from each month's
 Production was tested and satisfactorily met
 r*1 applicable requirements.  The certificate
 "Mist state that the fint analyzer randomly
 ••topled  met all requirement* of paragraph
 "of this specification. If any of the require-
 *5*nts were  not  met, the certificate  mu*t
 •*ow that the entire month's analyzer pro-
 Auction was resampled according to the mlll-
 ;***  standard  10SD  sampling  procedure
 2*n~8TD-105D) Inspection level II; was re-
    " tor each of  the  applicable require-
       under  paragraph  6 of this cpeclnca-
   n: and was determined to be acceptable
 r°aer MTL-STD-105D procedures. The-certlfl-
 JjMe of oonformanee must ahow the results
 r*  «ach  test performed for  the  analyzers
 r^Pled  during the  month tbe analyser be-
 ""f Inatalled was produced.
  6.3 The general test procedures to be fqj-
 *°wei=*um of all data points,
     t »7s*=tj—o/2, and
   C.I.M=95  percent confidence  interval
           estimate  of  the average mean
           value.
   The value* In this  table  are  already cor-
 rected for n-I degrees of freedom. Use n equal
 to tfce number of sample* a* data point*.
                                                                111-61
-------
              Values for t.075

2 ,
g
4. .
5
6
7. ..
;
9

,1 '.975
12. 706
4 303
	 8.182
	 2.776
2 571
	 2.447
2 865
2.JOC

n
10 	
11 ...
12 	
13 	 	
14 	
JS 	
18 	


'.975
2.262
2.228
2.201
2.179
2.160
2 MS
2.131


  92 Data Analysis and Reporting.
  0.2.1  Spectral  Response.   Combine   tbe
spectral  data obtained In accordance with
paragraph 8.3.1 to develop the effective spec-
tral  response curve of the transmlssometer.
Report the wavelength at which tbe peak
response occurs, the wavelength at which  the
mean  response  occurs, and  the  maximum
response at any wavelength  below *00  nm
aud  above 700 nm expressed as a percentage
      of the peak response ae required under para-
      graph 6.2.
       9.3,2 Angle of View. Using the data obtained
      In accordance with paragraph  6,3.2, calculate
      the response of tbe receiver as & function of
      viewing angle In the horizontal and vertical
      directions  (26 centimeters of arc with a
      radius of 3 meters equal S degrees).. Report
      relative angle of view curves as required un-
      der paragraph 6.2.
       9.2.3 Angle  of Projection. Using tbe data
     obtained in accordance with paragraph 6.3.3,
     calculate the  response of the photoelectric
     detector as a function of projection angle in
     tie horizontal and vertical directions. Report
     relative angle of projection curves as required
     under paragraph 6.2.
       9.2.4 Calibration Error. TJslng the data from
     paragraph  8.1  (Figure  1-1).  subtract the
     known filter  opacity value from the va'.ue
     shom> by the measurement system for each
     of tbe 15 readings. Calculate the  mean and
     95 percent confidence Interval of tbe five dif-
     ferent values at each test filter value accord-
     LOW                          Mid
     Range 	» opacity      '  Range
     Span Value	X opacity
   _% opacity
      High
      Range	% opadt.
 Date of Test
 Location of Test
           Calibrated Filter
                              1
Analyzer Reading
   % Opacity
         Differences
          S Opacity
JO

1L

12
14
Mean difference

Confidence Interval
Low
                          Hid
                                                                          High
Calibration error « Mean Difference3 + C.I.
 Low* mid or high range
 Calibration flVter opacity - analyzer reading
 'Absolute valu*
                                ing to equatlrms 1-1 and 1-2. Report the su1*
                                of the absolute mean- difference and the 8s
                                percent  confidence Interval for each of tSf,
                               ' three test niters.
                  figure t-1*  Calibration Error test
                                                                                           SM* Fiiur.

                                                                                           «Ml)ftlr ifu
               ..... J ••». H	ll-t t«M          .
    9.2.6 Zero 'Drift.  Using the zero opacity
  values measured every 24 hours during tb«
  field test (paragraph 8.2). calculate the dif-
  ferences between the zero point after clean*'
  ing. aligning, and adjustment, and the zer*
  value 24 hours  later Just prior to clesnWS-
  aligning,  and  adjustment.   Calculate  t»«!
  mean value  of  these points e J  the cocfl'
  dence Interval using equations 1-1 and l*1f.
  Report tbe sum of the absolute mean valu?
  and the 95 percent confidence interval.
    9.2.6 Calibration  Drift. Using  the  *P*fl
  value  measured vvery 24 hours during tB*
  field  test, calculate  the  differences betweeS
  the span value after cleaning, aligning. aO»
  adjustment of zero  and  span, and tbe sp&4
  value  24  hours  later Just after elearjal
  aligning, and adjustment of zero and befcr*
  adjustment of  span.  Calculate  the m«s9
  value  of these  points and tbe  conf.ds«e«
  Interval using equations  1-1 and 1-2. Rep
  the sum of the absolute mean value and
  confidence interval.
   93.1 Response Time. Using the data fro«*
 paragraph 8.1, calculate  the  time interv*'
  from filter Insertion to 95 percent of the flr.»'
 stable  value for all  upscale and  downscsK
 traverses. Report the mean of the 10 upsc*l*
 and downncale test times.                ^
   92A Operational Test Period. During th«
 168-hour operational test  period,  tbe  con'
 ttnuous monitoring system shall not requir*
 any corrective maintenance, repair, replace-
 ment, or adjustment otter than that clear!?
 specified as required In tbe manufacturer1'
 operation and maintenance manuals as rotf*
 tine and expected during  * one-week period'
 If the continuous monitoring system is opei'
 ated  within  the  specified performance  p*'
 rameters and  does  not  require  corrective
 maintenance, repair, replacement, or adjust*
 meat other than as  specified above during
 tbe 168-hour test period, the operation*'
 test period shall have been successfully ccH'
 eluded. Failure of the continuous  monitor-
 ing system to meet these requirements shsU
 call for a  repetition of the  168-hour ten
 period. Portions of the tests which were sat*
 Isfactorlly completed need not be repeated-
 Failure to meet any  performance specifica':
 Uon(s) shall  call for a  repetition of tD*
 one-week operational test period  and t
 specific portion of .the tests  required
 part graph 8 related to demonstrating co
pllanee with  the failed  specification.  A"
 maintenance and  adjustments required shall
be  recorded.  Output  readings  shall be  re-
corded before and After all adjustment*.
                                                 ....	~~enta| Statistics." Department
                                               Of Commerce, National Bureau of Standard*
                                               Handbook  91,  1963.  pp. 8-*!.-paragraph*

                                                 JOJJ '"Performance Specifications for SU-
                                               tlonary-Source Monitoring System! for Oa*«*
                                               and Visible Emissions," Environmental Pr<**
                                               Uction -Agency,  Research  Triangle  Fark>
                                               	PA-UO/4-74-01*. January K"
                                                                   111-62
-------
                          (fee
                                        t.2.1)   0>tt Of Tut ,
           .   ™  e«"a
           (••fere elr»ntna
           ii»4 idjuitaent)
                                               Sptn ftciding   •             C«11brtt1on
                           Zero Drift  ' (Aftrr cleinlng and tero tdjuttiwnt        OH ft
                            -(&Z«ro)       but before spin tdjuitmtnt)     .      (&S|»n)
     ttr* Drift • Hein Zero Drift*
              Brlft • M«n Jp«n Drift*
                                       . + CI  (Zero)

                                              + CI
              SPECIFICATION a — PERFORMANCE
                 AND SPECIFICATION TEST "RO-
           FOR  MONITORS  OF SOs ANB NOl
          ATIONARY SOURCES
            «">d
            e. Th
«t»S.   or 0]tWes  of nitrogen pollutants in
0":K emissions is measured by a  contlnu-
    - Principle «">d Applicability,
  (i:1 "inclple. The concentration, of sulfur
  «t»S.
  0ll":K
   Zr*  operating emission measurement sys-
      Concurrent with operation of the con-
  u^Jous monitoring  system, the pollutant
  *B»..entr&tlon8 are al5° measured with refer-
      methods (Appendix A), An average of
     continuous monitoring system  data is
       ted for each reference method testing
       and compared to determine the rela-
  *»*LaccUracy of tne continuous monitoring
     m' other tests of the continuous mon-
        system are also performed to deter-
      calibration  error,  drift,  and response
      ctertstlcs of  the system.
  Uteaf AW>Hcablllty. Tihls performance spec-
  tin    n lB applicable to evaluation of con-
  ouous monitoring systems for measurement
 -^nitrogen oxides or sulfur dioxide pollu-
     - These specifications contain test pro-
         installation requirements, and data
             procedures for evaluating the
             of the continuous monitoring
      Calibration Qas Mixtures. Mixtures of
                              .
 Zjj°wn concentrations of pollutant gas in a
   >uent gas shall be prepared. The pollutant
         *** *ulfur dloxjde or the appropriate
            nitrogen specified by paragraph
 toJSr ^tk111 subparts. For sulfur dioxide gas
 :r"ctures, the diluent gas may be air or nltro-
    • POT nitric oxide  (NO) gas mixtures, the
    **U gas shall be oxygen-free «10 ppm)
    °Sen, and for nitrogen dioxide  (NO.) gas
 r"•  The
              may require date to be *ub-
                                                                    HI-63
-------
 mltted to demonstrate that the  collisions
 sampled  or  viewed are consistently  repre-
 sentative for several typical facility proceea
 operating conditions.           • •   •
   43 The owner or operator may perform a
 traverse to characterize any stratification of
 effluent gases that might exist in a stack or
 duct. If no stratification is present, sampling
 procedures under paragraph 4.1 may be ap-
 plied even though the eight diameter criteria
 is not met.
   4.4 When single point sampling probes for
 extractive systems are  Installed  within the
stack or duct under paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2.1.
the sample may not, be extracted at any point
less than  1.0 meter from the stack or duct
wall. Multipoint  sampling probes Installed
under paragraph 4.2.2 may be located at any
points  necessary to.obtain consistently rep-
resentative samples.

5. Continuous Monitoring System Pertorm-
     SDecmcatlons.
         lflcat
         ntlni
      le continuous monitoring system  shall
  meet the performance specifications in Table
  2-1  to be  considered  acceptable under 'this
  method.
                        TABLE 2-1.—Performance tpeciflcations
                   Pvwntitr
                                                             Sptcifuaiim
1 Accuracy' 	--	-	  <20 pet ot the mean value o( tie reference method test
                                               data.
2. Calibration error i	
                                                                                                  Adjustments. Zero and  calibration
                                                                                         corrections and adjustments an allowed only
                                                                                         at 34-hour Intervals  or at such  shorter !*>•
                                                                                         tervals  as the manufacturer's -written  in*
                                                                                         structions specify.  Automatic  corrections
                                                                                         made by  tb» measurement system without
                                                                                         operator intervention or Initiation are allow-
                                                                                         able at any time. During the entire 168-hour
                                                                                         operational test  period,  record on the  ex-
                                                                                         ample sheet shown in Figure 2-5 the value*,
                                                                                         given by  zero and spaa  gas pollutant con*,.
                                                                                         centratlons before and after adjustment at;
                                                                                         24-hour Intervals.
                                                                                           63 Field Test for Response Time.
                                                                                           63.1 Scope of Test.  Uae the entire continu-
                                                                                         ous monitoring system as installed. Including
                                                                                         sample  transport lines If used. Flow ratts.
                                                                                         line  diameters, pumping rates, pressures  (dp
                                                                                         not allow the pressurized calibration gas to
                                                                                         change the normal operating pressure ui  til*
                                                                                         sample line),  etc.. shall be  at  the nominal
3. Zero drift (2 h)'			  Zpctofspan
4. Zero drift (24 h)'	     Do.
s. Calibration drift (2 h)>	     Do.
8. Calibration drift (24 b)»	  2.S pet. of span
7 ReatonM time			  15 mln maximum.
8 Operational period	  U8b minimum.
 £5 pet of eacMM pet, M pet) calibration gajinlitore  — "•*"- •"">;. ••*•. «""' »• »' «» »°="
   value.                                    values for normal operation as specified
                                           the  manufacturer's written instructions.
  1 Eipteasad a* mm of absolute mean value plus 95 pet confidence Interval of a series <. teau.
   6. Ptrfor""ve7 Specification Teat  Proce-
 dures. Vhe following test procedures shall be
 used to  determine  conformance  with  the
 requirements of paragraph  5. For  NO.  an-
 requirementa of paragraph  5. For  NO.  an-
 alyzers that  oxidize  nitric  oxide  (NO) to
 r.l'trogen  dioxide  (NO.), the response time
 test under paragraph 6.3 of this method shall
 be performed using nitric oxide (NO) span
 gas. Other tests for NO, continuous monitor-
 ing systems under paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 and
 all tests for sulfur dioxide systems shall be
 performed using the pollutant span gas  spe-
 cified by each subpart.
   6.1 Calibration Error  Test Procedure.  Set
 up and calibrate the complete  continuous
 monitoring system according to the manu-
 facturer's  writen instructions. This may be
 accomplished either  in the laboratory or in
 the fleld.
   6.1.1  Calibration  Oas  Analyses. Triplicate
 analyses of the gas  mixtures shall be per-
 formed within two weeks prior to use using
 Reference Methods 6 for SO, and 7  for NOi.
 Analyze each calibration gas mixture (50%,
 GO %) and record the results on the example
 sheet shown in Figure 2-1. Each sample  test
 result must be within 20 percent of the aver-
 aged  result or the  tests shall be repeated.
 This step may be omitted for non-extractive
 monitors where dynamic calibration gas mix-
 tures are not used  (6.12).
   6.1.2  Calibration  Error Test  Procedure.
 Make a total of 15 nonconsecutlve measure-
 ments by alternately using zero gas and each
 :aliberatlon gaa mixture concentration (e.g.,
 O't. 50%.  0%, 90%. 50%, 90%,  50%. 0%.
 etc.). For nonextractlve continuous monitor-/
 lag systems, this test procedure may be per-
 formed  by- using two or more calibration gas
 cells whose concentrations are certified  by
 the manufacturer to be functionally equiva-
 lent to these gas concentrations. Convert the
 continuous monitoring system output read-
 Ings to ppm and record the results on  the
 example sheet shown In Figure 2-2.
   6.2 Field  Test for  Accuracy  (Relative).
 Zero Drift, and Calibration Drift. Install and
 operate the continuous monitoring system in
 accordance with the manufacturer's written
 instruction* and drawings as follows:
   6.2.1 Conditioning Period.  Offset the zero
setting  at  least 10 percent of the span so
that negative zero  drift can be quantified.
Operate the eystem  for an Initial 168-hour
conditioning  period  In  normal  operating
manner.
  6.2.2 Operational Ten Period. Operate the
continuous monitoring system, for an addi-
 tional 168-hour  period  retaining  the  zero
 offset. The systeir. shall  monitor the source
 effluent  at  all  times except  when being
 zeroed, calibrated, or bacipurged.
   6.2.2.1  Field Tes:    • Accuracy  (Relative).
 For continuous mo.  •. ring systems employ-
 Ing extractive sampling, the probe tip for the
 continuous monitoring system and the probe
 tip for the Reference Method sampling train
 should be placed at adjacent locations in the
 duct. For NOT continuous monitoring  sys-
 tems, make  27 NOX concentration measure-
 ments, divided into nine sets, using the ap-
 plicable reference method. No more than one
 set of tests, consisting of three individual
 measurements,  shall  be  performed  in  any
 one hour. All individual measurements of
 each  set shall  be performed concurrently,
 or within a three-minute Interval  and the
 results averaged. For SO, continuous moni-
 toring systems, make nine SO. concentration
 measurements using the applicable reference
 method.  No  more than  one measurement
 shall be performed in any one hour. Record
 the reference method test data and the con-
 tinuous monitoring  system concentrations
 on the example data sheet .shown In Figure
 2-3.
   6.2.2.2 Field Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
 bration Drift. For extractive systems, deter-
 mine the values given by zero and span gas
 pollutant concentrations at two-hour Inter-
 vals until 15 seta of data are obtained.  For
 nonextractlve measurement systems, the zero
 value  may be determined by mechanically
 producing a  zero condition that provides a
 system check of the analyzer Internal mirrors
 and all electronic circuitry including  the
 radiation source and  detector assembly or
 by Inserting three or more calibration  gas
 cells nnd computing the zero point from  the
 upscale measurements. It this latter tech-
 nique Is used, a graph(s) must be retained
 by the owner or operator for each measure-
 ment system that shows the relationship  be-
 tween the upscale measurements  and  the
 zero point. The span of the system shall be
 checked by using a calibration gaa cell cer-
 tified by the manufacturer to be function-
 ally equivalent to 50 percent of span concen-
 tration. Record-the zero and span measure-
 ments (or the. computed zero drift) on  the
 example data sheet shown in Figure 2-4.
 The two-hour periods  over which measure-
 ments are conducted need not be consecutive
 but may not overlap. All  measurements  re-
quired under this, paragraph  may be con-
ducted concurrent  with teats under para-
graph 6.2.2,1.
                                           the analyzer is used to sample more than one,
                                           pollutant source (stack), repeat this test tot
                                           each sampling point.
                                             6.3.3 Response  Time Test Procedure, in-
                                           troduce zero gas into the continuous moni-
                                           toring system sampling interface or as close
                                           ta the sampling interface as possible. Wb«D
                                           the system output  reading has stabilized)
                                           switch quickly to a known  concentration  "f
                                           pollutant gas. Rf cord the time from concen-
                                           tration switching to 95 percent of final stab'*
                                           response.  For non-extractive  monitors, ta«
                                           hlghe: •, available calibration gas concentra-
                                           tion snail be  switched  into and out of to";
                                           sample  path  and  response  times recorded-,
                                           Perform this test sequence  three (3) time*
                                          • Record  the  results  of each test  on th*
                                           example sheet shown In Figure 2-0.
                                             7- Calculations. Data Analysis and Report'
                                           ing.        •               -           "
                                             7.1 Procedure for determination  of mean
                                           values and confidence Intervals.
                                             7.1.1 The  mean  value of a data set ;W
                                           calculated according to equation 2-1.

                                                             i  n
                                                          £~-Sx
                                                             n «•'    Equation  2-'
                                           where:
                                             xt = absolute value of the measurements,
                                             2=sum of the Individual values.
                                             S== mean value, and
                                             n = number of data points.

                                             7.1.2 The  95 percent confidence  Interval
                                           (two-sided)  is calculated according to equft*
                                           tion 2-2:
                                                                                                  nyn —
                                                                                                                   Equation 2-2
                                                                                       where:
                                                                                          £x,=sum of all datn points,
                                                                                          t.«,=«tt— a/2, and
                                                                                         C.I.M=»9S  percent  confidence  interval
                                                                                                estimate  of the average
                                                                                                value.
                                                                                                    Values for «,076
                                                                                                 n
                                                                                                 2-
                                                                                                 4-
                                                                    12,700
                                                                     4.303
                                                                     *. 183
                                                                     Z77»
                                                                     zsn
                                                                     Z+47
                                                                     ZS*4
                                                                     2.3M
                                                                     2.242
                                                                     2.228
                                                                     2.201
                                                                     2,179
                                                                     2.1*0
                                                                     2. US
                                                                     mi

                                            The values la thla table are already
                                          rected  for  n-1 degreea of freedom. 0«c
                                                                    111-64
-------
      to the  number of eampl«e M « reference method test points, determine
 •"•average pollutant concentration reported
  J the eontlttuoui monitoring system. These
 "«rag«  concentrations shall be determined
 '™«> the continuous monitoring system data
 •«  *ed under 7.2 J by integrating or aver-
 »r .5  th* PON"*"*1 concentrations over each
  i the time Intervals concurrent  with  each
 ?«renee method  testing period. Before pro-
 T**41^ to the next step, determine the basis
 **•« or  dry)  of the continuous monitoring
      data and reference method test data
            *. If the  bases  tre not  con-
      . apply  a moisture correction to either
      ce method concentrations or the con-
  Uou»  monitoring system concentrations
   Appropriate. Determine the   correction
  «)r by moisture tests concurrent with the
    nce tnetnod testing periods. Report the
    ture test method and the correction pro-
    re employed.  Per each of the nine test
   » determine the  difference for each test
   K y 8ubtractlng the respective reference
   ttod test concentrations (use  average of
   , wt OI thrw mr 'Urements  for NO.)
   * the continuous monitoring system inte-
    &  or  averaged Cx \centrations.  Using
(hi o«a*t*1 compu^  the mean difference and
ttr*    P*rcent confidence interval of the dif-
l, *nce*  (equations 3-1 and 9-2). Accuracy
or ''Ported  au  the sum of the absolute value
con«   mean dlflerence  and the 95 percent
P^«      lnt*rval  of  the differences ex-
«OB  ed **  * percentage of the mean refer-
      athed value.  Use  the example sheet
      in Figure 2-3.
frc.     Calibration  Error.  Using  the data
  * Paragraph 0.1.  subtract the  measured
         concentration  determined  under
 »jjl~p'*ph 6.1.1  (Figure 3-1)  from the value
 for    by tn* continuous mom tor Ing system
   *»oh  of the five  readings at each con-
  .."'Uon measured under 6.1.3 (Figure 3-2).
  j^uiate the mean of these difference values
    th* 95 percent confidence Intervals  ac-
       to equations 3-1 and  3-3. Report  the
      Son error (the sum of the  absolute
    • of the mean difference and the 95 per-
*»eh confld«nce Interval) as a percentage of
t|0" Respective  calibration  gas  concentra-
  ., • °*« example sheet shown in Figure 2-2.
co&c    Zero 0rtn  
-------
            Calibration Gas Mixture Data (From Figure 2-1)

            Mid (505) 	ppn        High (90J)
Run t
          Calibration Gas
         Concentration-pom
Measurement System
  Reading, ppn
                                                          Differences,   ppm
1
n
1

15
                                                                 Hid    High
                            Mean Difference' + C.I.
Mean difference

Confidence Interval

Calibration error = £j^age Calibration Gas Concentration


 Calibration gas concentration - measurement system reading

"Absolute value
                                                            x 100
                    Figure 2-2.  Calibration Error Determination
tit
*>.
.
,
3
4

•f-

.
f
ten
fit
Ml
teui
'1*1
tou
•ml

. Itnn «t Ntthed iwwitt
»W?t 1

1
i
I
1
. !




nftrtnct I
MlM (W,
MfltMCt t




HUM
«UnFlU •
•&1







NO. «0. •







'|
|
t«t fiint
"Sj.4**1*
1
1














"S"'^
Am1y»r t-NMr
torritt (»»•)•


















Olfttrtuct
(om)









MMH of










lt>(SO.) •• »(K»
*Mri tf tut oilfinnui « MI cMftftwt'liittrMl . ,_ . . ...
Ktll • • • n,,,, r^f.r,^, HtlM »4lwt - -
l«t. M4 rtport HtMd irM« W tettralH IIIUtNM Iftrift!

• 	 I (HO,)
                          t-1.  «cu»o BtUnlMttw (SO, Ml •,)
                                       T T T - 66
-------
MU
           Ttat
         (•fin  tod
                    •Mtt
                              Itft
 Drift      Sptir      DHft
(*Z*ro)    feeing     (*Sptn)
                 ClUkrtttQA
                    Drift
                 ( Spiff- Ztre)
Zero Cflft • IHttn 1m Orift*
C»1(br«t1on Drift - [Hwn Spin Drift-
•A»»lute Vtlul.
« KpanJ x 16
     [Sp«n]
                                      tl
                   r;surc ^-4.  2tro inc LiMbrdtien Crui (2 nour)
 Date                        Zero                  Span            Calibration
 and            Zero        Drift                Reading              Drift
 Time         Reading      (iZero)      (After  zero adjustment)     (aSpan)
Zero  Drift - [Mean Zero  Drift*	* C.I. (Zero)	]

                  « [Instrument Span] x  TOO »	.

Calibration Drift • [Mean  Span Drift*	+  C.I."(Span)
                 
-------
      Date Of TtSt	

      Span Gas Concentration

      Analyzer Span Setting _
                                      pom
       Upscale
                                     _seeond»

                                      seconds
                                      seconds
                    Average upscale response
                                                     seconds
                                      seconds
       Downscale
                                      seconds
                                      seconds
                 *   Average downscale response

  Systeri average response -time (slower time) • _
                                                  	seconds

                                                     seconds.

  ^deviation from  slower  /[average upscale minus average dewnseaU ]   100t ..
  system average response   [_slower time.        J       -  •
                         Flgure 2-6.  Response Time
                  ;iflg*.tion a—Performance
specifications ana specification  teat proce-
dures (or monitors of CO, and O, from sta-
tionary sources.
  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. Effluent  gases are continu-
ously sampled and  are analyzed for carbon
dioxide or oxygen by a continuous monitor-
In; system. Tests of the system are performed.
during a minimum operating period to deter--
mine  zero  drift,  calibration  drift, and  re-
sponse time characteristics.
  1.2  Applicability. This  performance speci-
fication is  applicable  to  evaluation of con-
tinuous monitoring systems for measurement
of carbon dioxide or oxygen. These specifica-
tions contain test procedures, installation re-
quirements, and  data computation proce-
dures for evaluating the acceptability of the
continuous monitoring systems subject to
approval by  the Administrator.  Sampling
may include either extractive or  non-extrac-
tive (In-sltu) procedures.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Con
        ontlnuous  Monitoring System for
Carbon Dioxide or Oxygen.
  2.2 Calibration Oas  Mixtures. Mixture of
known concentrations  of carbon dioxide or
oxygen in nitrogen or  air. Mldrange and 90
percent of span carbon dioxide- or oxygen
concentrations are required. The 90 percent
of apan gas mixture is  to be used to set and
check the analyser span and is referred to
*4 span  gas.  For oxygen analyzers,  If the
span Is higher than 31 percent O,, ambient
air may be used in place of the 90 percent of
span calibration  gai   mixture.  Triplicate
analyses of the gas mixture (except ambient
air)  shall  be performed within  two weeks
prior to use using Reference Method 3 of
this  part.
  34 Zero Oas. A gas containing less than 100
ppm of carbon dioxide or oxygen.
  2.4 Data Recorder. Analog chart recorder
or other suitable device with Input voltage
range compatible with  analyzer system out-
put.  The  resolution of the recorder's data
output shall be sufficient to allow completion
of the test procedures  within  this specifica-
tion.       -
  3.
  1.1  Continuous  Monitoring System. TIM
total equipment required for the determina-
tion of carbon dioxide or oxygen la a given
 source effluent. The system consists of three
 major subsystems:
   3.1.1 Sampling Interface. That portion of
 the continuous monitoring system  that per-
 forms one' or more of the -following opera-
 tions:  delineation,  acquisition, transporta-
 tion, and conditioning of  a  sample of the
 source effluent or protection of the analyzer
 from  the  hostile aspects  of  the sample or
 source environment.
   3.1.2 Analyzer. That portion of  the  con-
 tinuous monitoring system which senses the
 pollutant gas and generates a signal output
 that la a function of  the pcllutant concen-
 tration.
   3.1.3 Data Recorder. That  portion of the
 continuous monitoring system that provides
 a permanent record of  continuous
 monitoring system  Is expected to* operate
 within  certain performance  specifications
 without unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
 adjustment.         .       '  x .
.  S.T Response time. The tine interval from
 • step change in concentration at the Input
 to the continuous monitoring system to the
 tin* at which 09 percent at the eortespoad-
lag flnal value Is displayed on the eaottouov*
•Mattering system data recorder.
   4. Installation Specification.
   Oxygen or carbon dioxide continuous mon
Itorlng systems' shall-be Installed at a lo<*
tlon where measurements are directly rep"*
sentatlve  of  the total effluent from •*»•
: affected facility or representative of the sam»
effluent sampled by a SO, or NO. continue"*
monitoring system.  This requirement snau
be complied with by  use of applicable re-
quirements In Performance Specification 9 o>
this appendix as follows:
   4.1 Installation of Oxygen or Carbon v>
'oxide  Continuous Monitoring  Systems NO*
Used to Convert Pollutant Data. A  sampllw
location shall be selected in accordance wJ*»
the  procedures under - paragraphs 4-3.1 J*
4.2.2, or Performance Specification  2 of tW»
appendix.   .  •                   .      _.
   4.2 Installation of Oxygen or Carbon D»
oxide  Continuous Monitoring Systems W*J
to Convert Pollutant Continuous MonltonW
System- Data to Units of .Applicable Stand'
ards. The diluent continuous monitoring sy»
tern (oxygen or carbon dioxide) shall be »'
stalled at a sampling location where measure*
ments that can be made are representative o>
the effluent gases sampled by the pollute"**
continuous monitoring system(s). Conform
ance with  this requirement may be accorn
plished la  any- of the following ways:      ,
   4.2.1  The sampling location for the diluent
system *> all-be near the sampling location V*
the polutant continuous monitoring systein
such that the same approximate  point W
(extractive systems)  or path  (In-sltu sys
terns)  in  the  cross section Is sampled 
-------
the accuracy ol the response curve of the
.  «-2 Field Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
bration Drift.  Install and operate  the
continuous monitoring system in accord-
ance with the manufacturer's written in-
ductions and drawings as follows:

 TABLE 3-1. — Perfortnnnce »pecification*
      Ptnmdtr
                          SpeeSfitatlon
                 	 <0.4 pet Oi or COt.
                 	 <0.ipct O»orCO».
        	,)'_. ?0.4 pet O:or CO..
i A—••tlonrtrift (24 W. <0.4 pel Oi OT COj.
e nperaUonsl period	 iw b minimum.
 • Response lime	.	 lOmln. •

wife1***"*' M mm of absolute raesn value plus W pet
""Uldence interval of s series of tetts.
  6.2.1 Conditioning Period. Offset the eero
•«tlng  at least 10  percent of span so that
"«6atlve eero drift may be  quantified. Oper-
*'* the  continuous monitoring system for
•& initial 168-hour conditioning period In a
normal  operational manner.
  6.2.2.  Operational Test  Period. Operate the
Continuous monitoring system  for an addl-
'»«nal 168-hour period maintaining the eero
.£*«. The system shall monitor the source
«ra\jent  at  all times except  when - being
z*roed, calibrated, or backpurged.
  6.2.3 Flew Test for Zero Drift and Callbra-
«on Drift. Determine the  values  given  by
•*FO and mldrsnge gas concentrations at two-
four  Intel vals until IB sets of  data are ob-
J*llied. For non-extractive continuous rnonl-
Joring systems,  determine the aero  value
EjVen by a mechanically  produced «ero con-
^ttlon cr by computing" the aero value  from
upscale measurements using  cisJibrated gas
**U« certified by the manufacturer. The mid-
r»nge checks shall be performed  by using
^tlned calibration gas cells  functionally
!°.uivn]ent to less than SO  percent of span.
***cord these readings on the example sheet
'"Own in Figure 3-1. These  two-hour periods
?>*ed not be consecutive, but may not overlap.
'n-sttu CO, or O,  analyzers which cannot be
"«*d with a calibration gas cell may be cali-
""•ated by alternative procedures acceptable
~ the Administrator. Zero and calibration
corrections  and  adjustments  are  allowed
«niy at  24-hour Intervals or at  such shorter
intervals as  the manufacturer's written In-
•wuetions  specify.   Automatic  corrections
*««
-------
 MU
 >*t
           TI
                              Zire
 Itro
 Drift
(tttra)
                                                Sptu
                                                          Drift
U11»r»t1«r.
  Drift
   7tro Drift . LH«n Z»re OrHt*         t tl (Ztro
   Cillbrttlon Drift « [Htui Span Br)ft*        » CI \ 5in~
  '•Absolutt Vitw.                  ——
                               F
-------
   Date of Test _
   Span Gas Concentration _ pp»
   Analyzer Span Setting  _ ppm
                       1*         •   seconds
   Upscale             2. _ seconds-
                       3.            seconds
                 Average upscale  response _ seconds

                       1 . _ seconds
   Downscale           2. _ seconds
                       3. _ seconds
                 Average downscale response _ seconds

System averege response time (slower time) •           seconds
            from slower m  average  uoscale minus evereoe downscale    ., .„
system average response                  slower tirce   ..               IU *
                            Figure  3-3.   Response
                  (Stc. 114. of th» Cl**a Air Act M
                  (49DAC. 18S7C-9).).
                                   :-7i
-------
    TKI* 4O—Pratoetion of EnvlronnMnl

     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAFTUt C—AIR PROQHAM8

PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

Additions and  Miscellaneous Amendment*
               OPACITY

  It is evident from comments received
that an Inadequate explanation was given
for applying both an enforceable opacity
standard and an enforceable concentra-
tion standard to the same source and that
the relationship between the concentra-
tion standard  and the opacity standard
was not clearly presented. Because all
but one of the regulations Include these
dual standards, this subject is dealt with
here from the general viewpoint. Specific
changer,  made to the regulations pro-
posed for a specific source are described
In the discussions of each source.
  A discussion of the major points raised
by the comments on the opacity standard
follows:
  1. Several  commentators  felt  that
opacity  limits  should be only guideline!
for  determining  when to  conduct the
stack tests needed to determine compli-
ance with concentration/mass standards.
Several  other  commentators  expressed
the  opinion that the  opacity standard
was more stringent than the concentra-
tion/mass standard.
  A* promulgated  below,  the  opacity *•
standards are  regulatory requirements,
just like the concentration/mass stand-
ards. It Is not necessary to show that the
concentration/mass  standard  Is being
violated In order to support enforcement
of the opacity  standard. When opacity
and concentration/mass standards are
applicable to the same source, the opacity
standard la »* nan restrictive than the
concentration/mass standard.  The con-
centration/mass standard is established
at a level which will result In the design.
Installation, and  operation of  the  beat
adequately demonstrated system of emis-
sion reduction (taking costs Into ac-
count)  for each  source.  The  opacity
standard Is established at a level which
will require proper operation and mainte-
nance of such control systems  on a day-
to-day basis, but  not require  the design
and Installation of a control system more
efficient or expensive than that required
by the concentration/mass standard.
   Opacity standards are a necessary sup-
plement to concentration/mass stand-
ards. Opacity standards help ensure that
sources  and  emission control systems
continue to be properly maintained and
operated so as to comply with concen-
tration/mass standards. Particulate test-
Ing  by  EPA method 8 and most other
techniques requires  an expenditure of
$3,000 to 110,000 per test including about
300 man-hours of technical  and semi-
technical personnel. Furthermore, sched-
uling and preparation are required such
thaVtt  Is  seldom possible to conduct a
test wtth IMS than 3 wwks notice. Itera-
tor*. m*thod  | particulaU tests can be
AqrHw^Trt only on an Infrequent baste.
     RUIEJ AND MOUIATIONS

  If then wen no standards other than
concentration/mass standard*, it would
be possible to  inadequately operate or
maintain pollution control equipment at
all times except during periods of per-
formance testing. It takes 2 weeks or
longer to schedule a typical stack test.
If only small repairs were required, e.g.,
pump or fan repair or replacement of
fabric filter bags, such remedial action
could be delayed until shortly before the
test is conducted. For some  types  of
equipment such as scrubbers, the energy
input could be reduced (the pressure drop
through  the  system) when stack tests
weren't being conducted, which  would
result in the release of significantly more
particulate matter than normal. There-
fore, EPA has  required  that operators
properly  maintain air pollution control
equipment at all times  (40 CFIV 60.11
(d)) and meet opacity standards- at all
times except during periods of startup,
shutdown,  and malfunction (40  CFR
60,ll(c)), and  durini;  other periods of
exemption as  specimxi  in  individual
regulations.
  Opacity of eml—ions is indicative of
whether  control  ^ulpment is properly
maintained and operated. However, It is
established as an 'i Dependent enforce-
able standard, ratl  - than an indicator
of maintenance and operating conditions
because information concerning the lat-
ter is peculiarly  within  the control of
the plant operator. Furthermore, the
time and expense required to prove that
proper procedures have  not been fol-
lowed an so great that the provisions of
40 CFR 60.11 (d) by themselves (without
opacity standards) would not provide an
economically sensible means of ensuring
on a day-to-day basis that emissions of
pollutants  an  within  allowable limits:
Opacity standards require nothing more
than a trained  observer and can be per-
formed with no prior notice. Normally,
it Is not even necessary tar the observer
to be admitted to the plant to determine.
properly  the opacity of stack emissions.
Where observed opacities an within al-
lowable limits,  it Is not normally neces-
sary for enforcement personnel to enter
the plant or contact  plant personnel.
However, in some cases, including times
when  opacity  standards may not  be
violated, a full investigation of operating
and maintenance conditions will be de-
sirable. Accordingly, EPA  has  requirt-
ments for both opacity  Ujnlts and proper
operating and  maintenance procedures.
  2. Some commentators suggested that
the regulatory opacity limits should be
lowered to be consistent with the opacity
observed  at existing plants; others felt
that  i he  opacity limits wen too strin-
gent. The regulatory opacity limits an
sufficiently close to observed opacity to
ensure proper operation and  mainte-
nance of control systems on a continuing
basis but still allow some room for minor
variations from the conditions existing
at the time opacity readings wen made.
  3. Then are specified periods  during
which opacity standards do not apply.
Commentators questioned the rationale
for these time exemptions, as proposed.
some pointing out  that  the exemptions
wen not Justified  and some that they
were inadequate. Ttoe exemptions fur-
ther nflect the stated purpose of opacity
 standards by providing relief from snd>
 standards during periods when accept*
 able systems of emission reduction ar*
 judged to be Incapable of meeting P*J*
 scribed opacity limits. Opacity standard*
 do not apply to emissions during period*
 of startup,  shutdown, and malfunction
 (see FEDERAL  REGISTER of October  l'f
 1973,38 FR 28584). nor do opacity stand*
 ards apply during periods judged nee***
 sary to permit the observed excess em»*
 sions caused by  soot-blowing  and  u°'
 stable  process  conditions. Some conro'
 sion resulted  from  the fact that tn*
 startup-shutdown-malfunction  regula-
 tions were proposed separately (see
 ERAL REGISTER  of May 2, 1973, 38
 10820) from the regultions for this'gr
 of new sources. Although this was point-
 ed out in the preamble (see FEDERAL R**'
 ISTER of June  11, 1973, 38 FR 15408) *>
 this group of  new  source performance
 standards, It appears to have escaped th*
 notice of several commentators.
  4. Other  comments,  along with • re-
 study of sources and additional opacity
 observations, have led  to definition °»
 specific time exemptions, where needed*
 to account for excess emissions result***
 from soot-blow'.ng  and  process varia-
 tions. These specific  actions replace t«*
 generalized  approach  to time  exemp-
 tions.  *' minutes per hour, contained *°
 all but  one of the proposed  opacity
 standards. The intent of the 2 minute*
 was to prevent the  opacity  standard*
 from being  unfairly  stringent and rev
 fleeted an arbitrary  selection of a tin*
 exemption to serve this purpose. Con**
 meats  noted that observed opacity aoo
 operating conditions did not support tW*
 approach. Some pointed out  that these
 exemptions wen not warranted; other*
 that they wen inadequate. The cyclic**
 basic oxygen steel-making process, W»
 example,  does not  operate  in.houw
 cycles  and  the inappropriateness  of *
 minutes per hour in  this case would »P*
 ply to. other cyclical processes which ex-
 ist both in sources now subject to stand'
 ards of performance and sources '°*
 which standards will be developed In to*
 future. The time exemptions now pr°*
.vide for  circumstances  specific to ("*
 sources and, coupled with the startup'
 shutdown-malfunction  provisions  an*
 the hlgher-than-observed opacity limit"
 provide much better assurance that t»*
 opacity  standards  are  not  unfair''
 stringent.
    Dated: February 23. 1974.

                  Rtmsn&E. Tunt,
                       Admtntitmtar-


           ifomtt, VOL >»,  NO. 4f-
        -HMBAV, MAftCH f, 1*74
                                                   111-12
-------
^ 40—Protection of the Environ
     CHAPTER i—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION  AGENCY
      •UBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
              fFRLttl-6]
 "f*T  60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
       FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
           Opacity Provisions
      June 29, 1973, the United States
       of Appeals for the District of
       >la in "Portland Cement Assocla-
    V. Ruckelshaus," 486 P. 2d 375 (1973)
 £*anded to EPA the standard of per-
 (SSjance for Portland cement plants (40
 j*** 60.60 et seq.)  promulgated by EPA
 £?** section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
 |?wie remand, the Court directed EPA to
 ^consider among other things the -use
 DaiM  opaclty "taadards. EPA has pre-
 of 71. a response to the remand. Copies
 jJUlis response are available from the
 fusion standards and Engineering
 Ae.  on«   Environmental   Protection
 3?*&cy, Research Triangle Park,  N.C.
  'ui Attn: Mr. Don R. Goodwin. In de-
 ^oping toe response, EPA collected and
         a substantial amount of ta-
         which Is summarized and ref-
        in the response. Copies of this
       lion are available for inspection
 or S* normal office hours at EPA's Office
 £„ Public Affairs,  401  M Street SW.,
 ^r'bington, D.C. EPA determined  that
 (J;  Portland cement plant standards
^eraliy did not require revision but did
p*and that certain revisions are ap-
IL cnate to the opacity  provisions of
tola'*andards.  The provisions promul-
ru!*0 herein Include a revision to § 60.11,
     lance with Standards and Mainte-
      Requirements,  a revision to the
       standard for Portland cement
    _and revisions to Reference Meth-
    The bases for the revisions are dis-
      in detail In the Agency's response
       remand. They are summarized
       revisions  to 160.11 Include the
            of paragraph (b) and the
    . —  of  paragraph (e). Paragraph
   ,has  been revised to  indicate that
      Reference  Method 9 remains the
            accepted means for deter-
     . compliance with opacity stand-
     in this part. EPA will accept as
    ative evidence in certain situations
   'under certain conditions the results
..continuous  monitoring  by transmis-
hT^ter to determine whether a violation
     > fact occurred. The revision makes
    . that even  in such situations the
       of opacity readings by Method 9
       presumptively valid and correct.
     ' provisions in paragraph (e)  pro-
    a  mechanism for an  owner or op-
      to petition the Administrator to
though an opacity standard for an af-
uffed facility where such facility meets
Inapplicable standards for which a per-
bi^ance test is  conducted under  160.8
   rails  to meet an applicable opacity
       ", This provision is  intended prl-
      to apply to cases where a source
      i a very large diameter stack which
     i the opacity of the emissions to be
                                              MftfS AND tIGUlATIONS


                                          greater than if a stack of the diameter
                                          ordinarily used in the Industry were In-
                                          stalled. Although this  situation  Is con-
                                          sidered to be very unlikely to occur, this
                                          provision will accommodate such a situa-
                                          tion. The provision could also apply to
                                          other situations where for any reason an
                                          affected facility could fall to meet opacity
                                          standards while meeting mass emission
                                          ttsn^flrxlf.  although no such situations
                                          an expected to occur.
                                           A revision to the opacity standard for
                                          Portland cement plants is promulgated
                                          herein. The revision changes the opacity
                                          limit for kilns from 10 percent to 20 per-
                                          cent. This  revision Js  based on EPA's
                                         policy on opacity standards and the new
                                         emission 'data from Portland cement
                                         plants evaluated by EPA during Its re-
                                         consideration.  The preamble  to  the
                                         standards of performance which were
                                         promulgated on  March 8, 1974 (39 PR
                                         9308) sets forth EPA's policy on opacity
                                         standards:  (1) Opacity limits are Inde-
                                         pendent  enforceable   standards;   (2)
                                         where opacity and  mass/concentration
                                         standards are  applicable  to the  same
                                         source,  the mass/concentration stand-
                                         ards are established at a level  which
                                         wDl result hi the design, installation, and
                                         operation of the best adequately demon-
                                         strated  system of emission  reduction
                                         (taking costs into account); and <3) the
                                         opacity standards are  established at a
                                         level which will require proper operation
                                         and maintenance of such control systems.
                                         The new data  Indicate  that  Increasing
                                         the opacity limits for kilns from 10 per-
                                         cent to 20 percent is justified, because
                                         such a standard will still require the de-
                                         sign, Installation, and operation of the
                                         best adequately demonstrated system of
                                         emission reduction (taking costs Into ac-
                                         count) while eliminating or
 the situations where It wOl be necessary
 to promulgate a new opacity standard
 under! 60.11 (e).
   In evaluating the accuracy of results
 from qualified observers following the
 procedures of Reference Method 9, EPA
 determined that some revisions  to Ref-
 erence Method 9 are consistently able to
 evaluation  showed   that   observers
 trained and certified in accordance with
 the procedures prescribed under  Ref-
 erence Method 9 are consistently able to
 read opacity with errors not exceeding
 + 1& percent based upon single sets of
 the average of 24 readings. The revisions
 to  Reference   Method 9 include  the
 following:
  1. An  Introductory section is added.
 This Includes  a discussion of the  con-
 cept of visible emission reading and de-
 scribes the effect of variable viewing con-
 ditions. Information  is  also presented
 concerning the accuracy of the method
 noting that the accuracy of the method
 must be taken into account when  de-
 termining possible violations of appli-
 cable opacity standards.
  2. Provisions  are added which  specify
 that the determination  of opacity re-
 quires averaging 24 readings taken at 15-
•econd intervals. The purpose for taking
 24 readings Is both to extend the averac-
                                                                             made. and to take sufficient readings to
                                                                             Insure acceptable accuracy.
                                                                               3. More specific  criteria concerning
                                                                             observer position with respect to the sun
                                                                             are added. Specifically, the sun must be
                                                                             within  a 140* sector to the observer's
                                                                             back.
                                                                               4. Criteria  concerning an observer's
                                                                             position with respect to the plume  are
                                                                             added. Specific guidance is also provided
                                                                             for reading emissions from rectangular
                                                                             emission  points with large length to
                                                                             width ratios, and for reading emissions
                                                                             from multiple stacks. In each of these
                                                                             cases, emissions are to be read across
                                                                             the shortest path length.
                                                                            x 5. Provisions are added to make clear
                                                                             that opacity of contaminated water or
                                                                             steam plumes is to be read at a point
                                                                             where water does not exist In condensed
                                                                             form. Two specific Instructions are pro-
                                                                             vided:  One for the case where  opacity
                                                                             can be observed prior to the formation
                                                                             of the condensed water plume, and one
                                                                           ' for the case where opacity  Is to be ob-
                                                                            served after the condensed water plume
                                                                           •has dissipated.
                                                                              «. Specifications  are added for the
                                                                            smoke generator used for qualification
                                                                            of observers so that State  or local air
                                                                            pollution control agencies may  provide
                                                                            observer qualification training consistent
                                                                            with EPA training.
                                                                              In developing this regulation we have
                                                                            taken into account the comments  re-
                                                                            *&!*.£ IS*0088 *° toe September 11,
                                                                            1974 (39 PR 35852) notice  of proposed
                                                                            rulemaklng which proposed among other
                                                                            things certain  minor changes to  Refer-
                                                                            ence Method  9. This regulation  repre-
                                                                            sents the rulemaking with respect to the
                                                                            revisions to Method 9.
                                                                              The determination of compliance with
                                                                            applicable opacity standards  will  be
                                                                            based on an average of 24  consecutive
                                                                            opacity readings taken at 15 second In-
                                                                            tervals. This approach is a satisfactory
                                                                            means of enforcing opacity standards in
                                                                            cases where the violation is a continuing
                                                                            one and time exceptions are not part of
                                                                            the applicable  opacity standard. How-
                                                                            ever,  the opacity standards  for  steam
                                                                            electric generators In 40 CPR 60.42 and
                                                                           fluid  catalytic  cracking unit catalyst
                                                                           regenerators in 40 CPR 60.102 and nu-
                                                                           merous opacity standards in State im-
                                                                           plementation plans specify various time
                                                                           exceptions. Many State and local air pol!
                                                                           lunon control agencies use' a different
                                                                           approach hi enforcing opacity standards
                                                                           than  the  six-minute  average  period
                                                                           specified in this revision to Method 9.
                                                                           EPA recognizes that  certain types of
                                                                           opacity violations that  are Intermittent
                                                                           in nature require a different approach
                                                                           to applying the opacity standards than
                                                                           this revision to Method 9. It is EPA's in-
                                                                           tent to propose an additional revision to
                                                                           ^S0? *8  «P«ifylng  an  alternative
                                                                           method to enforce opacity standards. It
                                                                           u our Intent that this method specify a
                                                                           minimum number of readings that must
                                                                           be taken, such u a minimum of ten read-
                                                                           ings above the standard in any one hour
                                                                           period prior to citing a violation. EPA is
                                                                           in tha DroCMB nt nnnly.tng aynfl
                                               _             •—— — ••»»•«•-  «u «uw IUUUOB m asuuygiag available data
                                               over wtitoh the obeervattoossn  MM! determining the error savolved ta
                                                 .! 111-73
-------
                                             mutt AND
reading opacity to this manner and jrtfl
propose this revision to Method 9 as 910911
us this .analysis is completed. The Agency
solicits comments and recommendations
on the need for tills additional revision to
Method 8 and wpyld welcome  any jsug-
festions particularly from air  pollution
control agencies on haw we might make
Method 9 more response to the needs of
these agencies.
  These actions are effective on Novem-
ber 12, 1974. The Agency finds good cause
exists for not publishing these actions
as a notice of proposed rulemaklng and
for making  them  effective  immediately
upon publication  for  the  following
reasons:
  (1) Only minor amendments are be-
ing made to the opacity standards which
were remanded.
  (2) The TTJ3.  Court of  Appeals for
the District of Columbia Instructed EPA
to complete the remand proceeding with
respect  to the Portland cement  plant
standards by November 5, 1974.
  (3) Because opacity standards are the
subject of other litigation, it is necessary
to reach a final determination with re-
spect to the basic Issues Involving opacity
at this time In order to properly respond
to this Issue with respect to such other
litigation.
  These regulations are Issued under the
authority  of sections 111 and 114 of the
Clean Air Act. as amended (42  UJS.C.
1857c-6and9).      .
                   JOHN QVAM.KS,
             * Acting Administrator.
  HDCtAL MOOTS* VOL '*•• *

    -TOESDAY, ttOVENWM IS,  1**4
    Title 40— Protection of Environment

     CHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              [FBL 392-7]

  PART ^—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE F£R NEW STATIONARY
     Five Categories pf Source* }n the
      Phosphate Fertilizer .Industry
                  STANDARDS

  Many  commentators  challenged  the
proposed  opacity  standards  on  the
grounds that EPA had shown no correla-
tion between fluoride  emissions and
plume  opacity, and that no data were
presented which showed that a violation
of the  proposed opacity standard would
indicate  simultaneous violation  of  the
proposed  fluoride  standard.  For  the
opacity standard  to be  used as an  en-
forcement tool to Indicate possible vio-
lation  of the fluoride standard, such a
correlation  must be  established. The
Agency has  reevaluated the opacity test
data and determiJ'H that the correlation
Is Insufficient to  •• pport a standard.
Therefore, standards for visible emissions
for diammonium phosphate plants, triple
superphosphate  plants, and  granular
triple  superphosphate storage facilities
have been deleted. This action, however,
is not meant to set a precedent  re-
garding promulgation of visible emission
standards. The situation which necessi-
tates this decision relates only to fluoride
emissions. In the future, the Agency will
continue to set opacity standards  for
affected facilities  where such standards
•re desirable  and warranted based on
test data.
  In place of the opacity standard, a pro-
vision has been added which requires an
owner  or operator to monitor the total
pressure drop across an affected facility's
scrubbing system. This requirement will
provide an  affected facility's scrubbing
system. This requirement will provide for
a record  of  the operating  conditions of
the control system, and  will serve as ah
effective method for monitoring compli-
ance with the fluoride standards.
          cwnnjents were received fijfc
          toe«ecttoiJ* requiring jt AT
   ......   ,„ device which hw an*ccur&#
of * -9 percent over Jte operating
The cpjnmenfc&r* Mt that  |
ipcy could  not  be met and
capital  and operating costs put,,,.,
   Uclpated utility. First  of all, "weigh*1
    s" are common devices In the r
phate fertilizer Industry as raw ma
feeds  are  routinely  measured.
felt there would be no economic
resulting from this requirement:
plants  would  have  normally ii  ......
weighing devices anyway. Second, con*
tacts with the Industry led EPA to be*
lleve that the ± 5 percent accuracy re-
quirement would be easily met, and  »
search of pertinent literature showed
that weighing devices with ± 1 percent
accuracy are commercially available.
  Effective date. In accordance with sec-
tion 111 of the Act, these regulations prf*
scribing standards of performance  ft*
the selected stationary sources are effec-
tive on August 4, 1975. and apply j?
source- at which construction or modlfl/
cation commenced after October 22, 107*'
                RUSSELL E. TBAIH,
                     Administrator,
  JULY
                                                                                         1975.
   NORM MOItTM, VOL 40, NO. 182-

      -WEDNESDAY, AUGUST ft, 197S
                                                         JH-74
-------
 t     60— STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
         Monitoring  Requirements  and
   ^•visions   to  Performance  Testing
   Methods

 tt °n September 11. 1974 (39 PR 32852),
 J2*.  Environmental Protection Agency
 to a  pr°P°sed revisions to 40 CFB Part
 si' Standards of Performance for New
  ««onary Sovirces, to establish specific
 .            pertaining  to continuous
 **MSsion monitoring system performance
 Jj^cttlcations, operating procedures, data
 i??se requirements would apply to new
 p"* modified  facilities covered under

 Scut60' but would not apply to extetmg
  Simultaneously (39  PR  32871),  the
     cy  proposed revisions to 40  CFR
     51, Requirements  for the Prepara-
     Adoption, and Submittal of Imple-
 fit«i  Uon Plans, which  would  require
     s to revise their State Implementa-
     Pians   to include  legal en-
         procedures requiring  certain
        stationary sources to monitor
         on a continuous  basis. These
            would apply to existing fa-
      , which are not covered under Part

 n Interested parties participated in the
 "'emaking by sending comments to EPA.
      i of 105  comment letters were re-
      on the proposed revisions to Part
 l      monitoring equipment manufac-
    rs> data Processing equipment manu-
    urers, industrial users of monitoring
          air  pollution control agencies
         state, local, and EPA regional
      other Federal agencies,  and con-
       . Copies of the comment letters
        and a summary of the issues and
      responses are available for Inspec-
     and copying at the  U.S.  Environ-
       Protection Agency, Public Infor-
       Reference Unit,  Room 2922 (EPA
       ). 401 M  Street, S.W., Washing-
    D.c. In addition, copies of the issue
       y and EPA responses may be ob-
       upon written request from the
     Public  Information  Center  (PM-
     401 M Street, S.W.. Washington.
r-C. 20460  (specify Public  Comment
 u"imary: Emission Monitoring Require-
    ***• Tne comments have been care-
     considered,  additional  Information
    been collected  and  assessed,  and
      determined by the  Administrator
      appropriate, changes have been
     to the proposed regulations. These
     es are incorporated  In the regula-
     Promulgated herein.
            BACKGROUND
 At the time the regulations were pro-
Posed (September 11.  1974),  EPA had
Promulgated 12 standards  of perform-
.. *e for new stationary sources under
       . in  of the  Clean  Air Act. as
        , four of which required the af-
      facilities to install and operate
       which  continuously monitor the
     of pollutant emissions, where the
     cal feasibility  exists using  cur-
      available  continuous monitoring
i**nology.  and  where the colt  of the
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS

 systems is  reasonable.  When, the four
 standards that require  monitoring sys-
 tems were promulgated, EPA had limited
 (Knowledge about the operation of such
 systems because only a few systems had
 been installed;  thus, the requirements
 were specified in general terms. EPA
 Initiated a program to develop perform-
 ance specifications and  obtain Informa-
 tion  on the  operation of continuous
 monitoring  systems. The program was
 designed to assess the systems' accuracy,
 reliability,  costs, and problems  related
 to installation, operation, maintenance,
 and data handling. The proposed regu-
 lations (39 FR 32852) were based on the
 results of this program.
  The  purpose  of regulations promul-
 gated herein  is  to  establish  minimum
 performance specifications for continu-
 ous  monitoring systems, minimum data
 reduction requirements, operating pro-
 cedures, and reporting requirements for
 those affected facilities required to In-
 stall continuous  monitoring systems.
 The  specifications and procedures are
 designed to assure that the data obtained
 from continuous monitoring systems will
 be accurate and reliable and provide the
 necessary Information for determining
 whether an owner or operator is follow-
 ing  proper  operation and maintenance
 procedures.
  SIGNIFICANT  COMMENTS AND CHANGES
    MADE To PROPOSED  REGULATIONS
  Many of the comment letters received
 by  EPA contained  multiple comments.
 The most significant comments and the
 differences  between  the proposed and
 final regulations are discussed below.
  (1) Subpart A—General  Provisions.
 The greatest number of comments re-
 ceived pertained to the methodology and
 expense of obtaining and reporting con-
 tinuous  monitoring  system  emission
 data. Both air pollution control agencies
 and affected users of monitoring equip-
 ment presented  the  view that the pro-
 posed regulations  requiring  that all
 emission data be reported were exces-
 sive,  and that reports  of only excess
emissions and retention of all the data for
two  years  on  the  affected  facility's
 premises is sufficient. Twenty-five com-
 mentators suggested that the  effective-
 ness of the operation and maintenance of
 an affected facility and  its air pollution
control system could be determined by
reporting only excess emissions. Fifteen
 others recommended deleting the report-
ing requirements entirely.
  EPA has reviewed these comments and
has contacted vendors of monitoring and
data acquisition equipment  for  addi-
tional Information to more fully assess
the  impact  of the proposed reporting
requirements.  Consideration  was  also
given to the resources that would be re-
quired of EPA to enforce the proposed
requirement, the costs  that  would be
incurred by  an affected  source, and the
effectiveness  of  the  proposed require-
ment in comparison with a requirement
to report only  excess  emissions.  EPA
concluded that  reporting  only  excess
emissions would assure proper operation
and  m»lntfrnmrf of the air  pollution
 control  equipment and would result in
 lower costs to the source and allow more
 effective use of EPA resources by elimi-
 nating the need for handling and stor-
 ing large  amounts of data.  Therefore,
 the regulation promulgated herein re-
 quires owners or operators to report only
 excess emissions  and to  maintain  a
 permanent record of all emission data
 for a period of two years.
   In addition,  the proposed specification
 of minimum data  reduction procedures
 has been changed. Rather than requiring
 integrated averages as proposed, the reg-
 ulations promulgated herein  also spec-
 ify a method by which a minimum num-
 ber of data points may be used to com-
 pute average emission rates. For exam-
 ple, average opacity emissions over a six-
 minute period  may be calculated from a
 minimum  of  24  data  points  equally
 spaced over each six-minute period. Any
 number of equally spaced data points in
 excess of 24 or continuously  integrated
 data may  also be used to compute six-
 minute  averages. This specification of
 minimum   computation   requirements
 combined with the requirement to report
 only excess emissions provides source
 owners  and operators with  maximum
 flexibility to select from a wide choice of
 optional  data  reduction  procedures.
 Sources which monitor only opacity and
 which infrequently  experience excess
 emissions  may choose to  utilize strip
 chart recorders, with or without contin-
 uous  six-minute integrators;  whereas
 sources monitoring two or more pollut-
 ants plus other parameters necessary to
 convert  to units of the emission stand-
 ard may choose  to utilize existing com-
 puters or electronic  data  processes in-
 corporated with  the monitoring system.
 All data must be retained for two years,
 but only excess emissions need be re-
 duced to units of the standard. However.
 in order to report excess emissions, ade-
 quate procedures must be utilized to in-
 sure that excess emissions are identified.
 Here again, certain sources with minimal
 excess emissions can determine excess
 emissions by review of strip charts, while
'sources with varying emission and  ex-
 cess air rates  will most likely  need to
 reduce all data to units of the standard to
 identify  any excess emissions. The regu-
 lations promulgated herein allow the use
 of extractive, gaseous monitoring systems
 on a time sharing basis by installing sam-
 pling probes at several locations, provided
 the minimum  number of data points
 (four per hour) are obtained.
   Several commentators stated that the
 averaging periods for reduction of moni-
 toring data, especially opacity, were too
 short and  would result in an excessive
 amount of data that must be reduced and
 recorded. EPA evaluated these comments
 and concluded that to be useful to source
 owners and operators as well as enforce-
 ment agencies, the averaging time for the
 continuous monitoring data should be
 reasonably consistent with the' averag-
 ing time for the reference methods'used
 during performance tests. The data re-
 duction  requirements for opacity have
 been substantially reduced because the
 averaging period was changed from one
                                                     111-75
-------
                                             IULIS AND  WOULAtlONS
 minute, which was proposed, to six min-
 utes to be consistent with revision* made
 to Method 9  (30 FR 39872).
   Numerous comments were received on
 proposed { 60.13 which resulted in several
 changes. The proposed section has been
 reorganized and revised In several  re-
 spects  to accommodate the  comments
 and provide clarity, to more specifically
 delineate the equipment subject to Per-
 formance Specifications in Appendix B,
 and to more specifically define require-
 ments for equipment purchased prior to
 September  11, 1974.  The provisions in
 ( 60.13  are not intended to prevent  the
 use of any equipment that can be demon-
 strated  to  be  reliable and  accurate;
 therefore, the  performance  of monitor-
 ing systems is specified in general terms
 with minimal references to specific equip-
 ment types. The provisions in { 60.13(1)
 are included to allow owners or operators
 and equipment vendors to apply to  the
 Administrator for approval to use alter-
 native  equipment or  procedures  when
 equipment capable of producing accurate
 results  may not. be commercially avail-
 able (e.g. condensed water vapor inter-
 feres with  measurement of  opacity),
 when unusual circumstances may justify
 less costly procedures, or when the owner
 or  operator or  equipment  vendor may
 simply prefer to use other equipment or
 procedures that are consistent with  his
 current practices.
  Several paragraphs  in {60.13  have
 been changed on the basis of the  com-
 ments received. In response to comments
 that the monitor operating frequency  re-,
 quirements did not consider periods when*
 the monitor is Inoperative or undergo-
ing maintenance, calibration, and adjust-
ment, the operating frequency require-
ments have been changed. Also the fre-
quency of cycling requirement for opacity
monitors has  been changed to be con-
sistent with the response time require-
ment in  Performance  Specification 1,
which reflects the capability of commer-
cially available equipment.
  A second area that received comment
concerns maintenance performed  upon
continuous  monitoring systems.   Six
commentators noted that the proposed
regulation requiring extensive retestlng
of continuous monitoring systems for  all
minor failures would  discourage  proper
maintenance of the systems. Two other
commentators noted the difficulty of de-
termining a  general list of critical com-
ponents, the replacement-of which would
automatically require a retest of the sys-
tem. Nevertheless, it  Is EPA's opinion
that some control  must be exercised to
insure that a suitable monitoring system
Is not rendered unsuitable by substantial
alteration or a lack of needed mainte-
nance. Accordingly, the regulations pro-
mulgated herein require that owners  or
operators submit with the quarterly re-
port information on any repairs or modi-
fications made to the system during the
reporting period. Based upon this infor-
mation, the Administrator  may  review
the status of the monitoring system with
the owner or operator and, If determined
to be necessary, require relating of the
continuous monitoring system (•).
   Several commentators noted that the
 proposed reporting requirements are un-
 necessary for affected facilities not re-
 quired to Install continuous monitoring
 ^ystems.  Consequently, the regulations
 promulgated herein do not contain the
 requirements.
   Numerous  comments were received
 which indicated that some monitoring
 systems may not be compatible with the
 proposed  test  procedures  and require-
 ments. The comments were evaluated
 and,  where appropriate,  the  proposed
 test  procedures and requirements  were
 changed.  The  procedures  and require-
 ments promulgated herein are applicable
 to the majority  of  acceptable systems.;
 however, EPA recognizes that there may
 be some  acceptable systems available
 now  or in the future which could not
 meet the requirements. Because of this,
 the regulations promulgated herein in-
 clude a provision which allows the Ad-
 ministrator to approve alternative testing
 procedures. Eleven commentators noted.
 that adjustment of the monitoring in-
 struments may not be necessary as a re-
 sult of daily zero and span checks. Ac-
 cordingly, the  regulations promulgated
 herein require acu-' *ments  only when
 applicable 24-hour  '» ft limits are ex-
 ceeded. Four commentators stated  that
 it is not necessary to introduce calibra-
 tion gases near the probe tips. EPA has
 demonstrated In field evaluations  that
 this requirement is necessary in order to
 assure  accurate  results; therefore,  the
 requirement has been retained. The re-
 quirement enables detection of any dilu-
 tion or absorption of pollutant gas by the
 plumbing and conditioning systems prior
 to  the pollutant gas entering the gas
 analyzer.
  Provisions have been added to these
 regulations to require that  the gas mix-
 tures used for the daily calibration check
•of extractive continuous monitoring sys-
 tems be traceable to National Bureau of
 Standards (NBS) reference gases. Cali-
 bration gases used  to  conduct system
 evaluations under  Appendix B must
 either be analyzed prior to use or shown
 to be traceable to NBS materials. This "
 traceabUlty requirement will assure the
 accuracy of the calibration gas mixtures
 and the comparability of data from sys-
 tems at all locations. These traceability
 requirements will not be applied, when-
 ever the NBS materials are not available.
 A list of available NBS Standard Refer-
 ence Materials may be obtained from the '
 Office of Standard Reference Materials,
 Room B311. Chemistry  Building,  Na-
 tional Bureau of Standards, Washington,
 D.C. 20234.
  Recertificatlon  of the continued  ac-
 curacy of the calibration gas mixtures is
 also necessary and should be performed
 at Intervals recommended  by the cali-
 bration gas mixture manufacturer. The
.NBS materials and calibration gas mix-
tures traceable to these materials should
 not  be used after  expiration of their
stated shelf-life. Manufacturers of cali-
bration gas mixtures generally me NBS
 materials  for   traceability   purposes.
 therefore, these amendments to tb* rev*
 ulations will not impose additional re-
 quirements upon most manufacturers-
   <2)  Subpart  -1>—Fossil-Fuel  Fired
 Steam Generators. Eighteen commenta-
 tors had questions or remarks concern-
 ing the proposed revisions dealing with
 fuel analysis. The  evaluation of these
 comments and discussions with coal sup*
 pliers and electric utility companies led
 the  Agency to conclude that the pro*
 posed provisions for fuel analysis are not
 adequate or consistent with  the current
 fuel situation. An attempt was made to
 revise the proposed provisions; however,
 It became  apparent that an in-deptto
 study would be necessary before mean-
 ingful provisions could be developed. The
 Agency has decided to promulgate all «
 the regulations except those dealing with
 fuel analysis. The fuel  analysis provi-
 sions of Subpart D have been reserved
 in the regulations promulgated herein.
 The Agency has initiated a study to ob-
 tain the  necessary information on  the
 variability of sulfur content in fuels, and
 the capability of fossil  fuel  fired steam
 generators  to use  fuel analysis  and
 blending to prevent excess sulfur dioxide
 emissions. The results of this study wiU
 be used to determine whether fuel anal-
 ysis  should  be allowed  as a means  of
 measuri .g excess emissions,  and if  al-
 lowed,  what procedure  should be  re-
 quired. It should be pointed out that
 this action does not affect facilities which
 use flue gas desulfurization as a means
 of complying with  the  sulfur  dioxide
 standard;  these  facilities are still re-
 quired  to install continuous  emission
 monitoring systems  for  sulfur dioxide-
 Facilities which use low sulfur fuel as a
 means of complying with the sulfur di-
 oxide' standard may use a  continuous
 sulfur dioxide monitor or fuel analysis-
 For facilities that elect to use fuel anal-
 ysis procedures, fuels are not required
 to be sampled or analyzed for prepara-
 tion of reports of excess  emissions until
 the Agency finalizes  the procedures and
 requirements.
   Three  commentators   recommended
 that carbon dioxide continuous monitor-
 ing systems be allowed as an  alternative
 for oxygen monitoring for measurement
 of the amount of diluents in flue gases
 from steam  generators. The Agency
 agrees with this recommendation and has
 included a provision which allows the use
 of carbon  dioxide monitors.  This pro*
 vision allows the use of pollutant moni-
 tors that  produce data  on a wet basis
 without requiring additional  equipment
 or procedures for correction of data to •
 dry basis. Where CO, or O, data'are not
 collected on  a consistent basis (wet or
 dry)  with the pollutant data, or where
 oxygen  is measured on a wet basis, al-
 ternative procedures to provide correc-
 tions for stack moisture  and  excess air
 must be approved by the  Administrator.
 Similarly, use of a carbon dioxide  con-
 tinuous monitoring system downstream*
 of a flue gas desulfurization system is not
 permitted without the Administrator'*
prior approval due to the potential for
 absorption of CO, within the control
device. It should be noted that when any
fuel  is fired directly  In the stack gase*
                                                      111-76
-------
                                             tULIS AND  IEOULAT10NS
 tor reheating,  the P and  F,  factors
 Promulgated herein must  be prorated
 °Med upon the total  heat input of the
 •Wels fired within the facility regardless
 °J we locations of fuel firing. Therefore,
 J*y facility using a flue gas desulfuriza-
 ?°n system may be limited to dry basis
 JJtonitoring instrumentation due to the
 •»trlctions on use of a COs diluent moni-
 *>r unless water vapor is also measured
 •wbject to the Administrator's approval.
  Two commentators  requested that an
 jwaitional factor (P ») be developed for
 •~e with oxygen continuous monitoring
 !»8«ras that measure flue gas diluents on
 •wet basis. A  factor of this type  was
 *yaiuated by EPA, but is not being pro-
   sated with  the regulations herein.
    error in the accuracy of the factor
     exceed ±5 percent  without addi-
      measurements to correct for va-
      s in flue gas moisture content due
 r> fluctuations in ambient humidity or.
 '«el moisture content. However, EPA will
        instaUation of wet basis oxygen
        on a case-by-case  basis if the
 i     or operator will proposed use of
 rational measurements and procedures
 r1 control the accuracy of the P,.. factor
 *'tnin acceptable limits. Applications for
 •Pproval of such systems should include
 *&e frequency and type of additional
 Measurements proposed and the resulting
 r*uracy of the P« factor under the ex--
 '^mes   of    operating    conditions
 *nticlpated.
 * °ne commentator stated that the pro-
 r'sed requirements for recording  heat
 ^Out are superfluous because this infor-
 Jration is not needed to convert monitor-
 2« data to units of the applicable stand-
    EPA has reevaluated this require-
     and has determined that the con-
    on of excess emissions into units of
 ye standards will  be based upon  the
 ^•'actors and that measurement of the
 g**es of fuel firing will not be needed ex-
 T-pt when combinations of fuels are fired.
 • jteordingly, the regulations promulgated
 r£tein require such measurements only
 w«en multiple fuels are fired.
         n commentators questioned the
         for the proposed increased op-
        temperature of the Method  5
         rain for fossil-fuel-flred steam
         .particulate testing  and  the
     for raising  rather than lowering
  * temperature. A brief discussion of the
      le behind this revision was pro-
     in the preamble to  the proposed
     tions, and a more detailed discus-
°'°n is provided here. Several factors are
j? Primary importance in developing the •
r*<* base for a standard of performance
rpp in specifying the reference method
jj' Use in conducting a performance test,
    The method used for data gathering
   establish a  standard must be the
   e as. or must have a known relation-
    to, the method subsequently estab-
    d as the reference method.
  o. Hie method should measure pollUt-
r||* emissions indicative of the perform-
JJr0* of the best systems of emission re-
ration. A method meeting this criterion
r™ not necessarily measure emissions
* they would exist after dilution and
 cooling to ambient temperature and pres-
 sure, as would occur upon release to the
 atmosphere. As such, an emission factor
 obtained through use of such a method
 would, for example, not necessarily be of
. use in an ambient dispersion model. This
 seeming inconsistency results from the
 fact that standards of performance are
 Intended to result in installation of sys-
 tems of emission reduction which  are
 consistent with best demonstrated tech-
 nology, considering  cost. The Adminis-
 trator, in establishing such standards, is
 required to  identify best demonstrated
 technology and to develop  standards
 which reflect such technology. In order
 for these  standards to  be  meaningful,
 and for the  required control technology
 to be predictable, the compliance meth-
'ods must  measure emissions which are
 Indicative  of the performance  of such
 systems.
   c. The method should include sufficient
 detail as needed to produce  consistent
 and reliable test results.
   EPA relies primarily upon  Method  5
 for gathering a consistent data base-for
 particulate matter standards. Method  5
 meets the above criteria by providing de-
 tailed sampling methodology  and  in-
 cludes an out-of-stack filter to facilitate
 temperature control. The latter is needed
 to define particulate matter on a com-
 mon basis  since it is a function of tem-
 perature and is not an absolute quantity.
 If temperature is not controlled, and/or
 if the effect of temperature upon particu-
 late formation is unknown, the effect on
 an emission control limitation for partic-
 ulate matter may be variable and un-
 predictable.
   Although selection of temperature can
 be varied from industry to industry. EPA
 specifies a nominal  sampling tempera-
 ture of 120° C for most source categories
 subject to  standards  of performance.
 Reasons for  selection of 120°  C include
 the following:
   a. Filter temperature must be held
 above 100° C at sources where moist gas
 streams are present. Below 100° C, con-
 densation can occur with resultant plug-
 ging of filters and possible gas/liquid re-
 actions. A  temperature of 120° C allows
 for   expected   temperature  variation
 within the train, without dropping below
 100° C.
   b. Matter existing in particulate form
at 120° C  is indicative 'of the perform-
 ance of the best particulate emission re-
duction systems for most industrial proc-
esses. These include systems of emission
reduction that may involve-not only the
final control  device, but also the process
and stack gas conditioning systems.   ,
  c. Adherence to one established tem-
perature (even  though some  variation
may be needed for some source categor-
ies) allows comparison of emissions from
source category to source category. This
limited standardization  used in the de-
velopment  of standards of performance
Is a benefit to equipment vendors and to
source owners by providing a consistent
basis for comparing test results and pre-
dicting control system performance. In
comparison,  In-stack  filtration takes
place at stack temperature, which usually
 is not constant from one source to the
 next. Since the temperature varies, in-
 stack filtration does not necessarily pro-
 vide a consistent definition of particulate
 matter and does notjallow for compari-
 son of various  systems of control. On
 these bases, Method 5  with  a sampling
' filter temperature controlled  at approxi-
 mately 120* C was promulgated as the
 applicable test method for new fossil-fuel
 fired steam generators.
   Subsequent to the promulgation of the
 standards  of  performance  for steam
 generators, data became available indi-
 cating that certain combustion products
 which do not exist as particulate matter
 at the elevated temperatures existing in
 steam generator stacks  may be collected
 by Method 5 at lower temperatures (be-
 low 160°  C).  Such material, existing in
 gaseous  form  at stack  temperature,
 would not be controllable by emission re-
 duction systems involving electrostatic
 precipitators    (ESP).    Consequently,
 measurement of such condensible matter
 would not be indicative of the  control
 system performance. Studies conducted
 in the past two years have confirmed that
 such condensation can occur. At sources
 where fuels containing 0.3 to 0.85 percent
 sulfur were burned, the incremental in-
 crease in particulate matter concentra-
 tion resulting from sampling at  120° C
 as compared to about 150° C was found
 to be  variable,  ranging from  0.001  to
 0.008 gr/scf. The variability is not neces-
 sarily predictable, since total sulfur oxide
 concentration, boiler design and opera-
 tion, and fuel additives each appear to
 have a potential effect. Based upon these
 data, it is concluded that the potential
 increase in particulate concentration at
 sources meeting  the standard  of  per-
 formance for sulfur oxides is not a seri-
 ous problem in comparison with the par-
 ticulate standard which  is approximately
 0.07 gr/scf. Nevertheless, to insure  that
 an unusual case will not occur where a
 high concentration of condensible mat-
 ter, not controllable with an ESP. would
 prevent  attainment of  the  particulate
standard, the sampling  temperature al-
lowed at fossil-fuel fired steam boilers is
being raised to 160" C.  Since this tem-
perature is attainable at new steam gen-
erator stacks, sampling  at temperatures
above 160° C would not yield results nec-
essarily representative of the .capabilities
of the best systems of emission reduction.
 . In  evaluating  particulate  sampling
techniques and  the effect of sampling
temperature,  particular attention  has,
also been given to the  possibility that
SO, may react in the front half of the
Method 5 train to form particulate mat-
ter: Based upon a series of comprehen-
sive tests involving both source and con-
trolled environments, EPA has developed
data that show such reactions do not oc-
cur to a significant degree.  *
  Several control agencies commented on
the Increase in sampling temperature
and suggested that the need is for sam-
pling at lower, not higher, temperatures.
This is  a  relevant comment and  is one
which must be considered in terms of the
baste upon which standards are  estab-
lished.
                                                      111-77
-------
   For existing boilers which are not sub-
ject to this  standard, the existence of
higher  stack temperatures and/or  the
use of higher sulfur fuels ma; result In
significant condensation  and resultant
high  indicated  participate  concentra-
tions when  sampling  is  conducted  at
120° C. At one coal fired steam generator
burning  coal containing  approximately
three percent sulfur, EPA  measurements
at 120° C showed an increase of 0.05 gr/
dscf over an average of seven runs com-
pared  to samples collected at approxi-
mately 150° C. It is believed that this In-
crease resulted,  in  large  part, if not
totally, from 8O3 condensation  which
would  occur  also when the stack emis-
sions are released into the atmosphere.
Therefore,  where standards  are based
upon emission reduction to achieve am-
bient air quality standards rather than
on  control technology  (as is the  case
with the standards promulgated herein),
a lower  sampling temperature may be
appropriate.
  Seven commentators questioned the
need  for traversing for  oxygen  at 12
points within a duct during performance
tests. This  requirement, which is being
revised  to apply only  when participate
sampling is performed  (no more than 12
points  are  required) is Included to in-
sure that potential stratification result-
ing from air in-leakage  will not ad-
versely  affect   the  accuracy  of  the
particulate test.
  Eight commentators stated that the
requirement for continuous monitoring
of nitrogen oxides should be deleted be-
cause only two  air quality control re-**
glons have ambient levels of nitrogen
dioxide that exceed the  national ambient
air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide.
Standards of performance issued under*
section 111  of the Act are designed to re-
quire affected facilities  to design and in-
stall the best systems of emission reduc-
tion (taking Into account the cost of such
reduction). Continuous emission  mon-
itoring systems  are  required to insure
that the emission control systems are
operated and maintained  properly. Be-
cause of this, the Agency  does not 'feel
that it is appropriate to delete the con-
tinuous emission monitoring system re-
quirements for nitrogen oxides; however,
In evaluating these comments the Agency
found  that some situations may  exist
where the nitrogen oxides monitor Is not
necessary to  insure proper  operation
and maintenance. The quantity of nitro-
gen oxides emitted from certain types of
furnaces is considerably below the nitro-
gen oxides  emission limitation. The low
emission level is achieved through the
design of the furnace and does not re-
quire  specific operating procedures or
maintenance  on a continuous basis to
keep the nitrogen oxides emissions below
the applicable standard. Therefore, in
this  situation,  a continuous  emission
monitoring system for nitrogen oxides is
unnecessary.  The regulations promul-
gated herein  do  not  require continuous
emission monitoring systems for nitrogen
oxides on facilities whose  emissions are
30 percent or more below the applicable
standard.
      «ULIS AND REGULATIONS

   Three  commentators  requested  that
 owners or operators of steam generators
 be permitted to use NO, continuous mon-
 itoring systems  capable of measuring
 only nitric oxide (NO) since the amount
 of nitrogen  dioxide  (NO=)  in the flue
 gases  is comparatively small. The reg-
 ulations proposed and those promulgated
 herein allow use of such systems or any
 system meeting all of the requirements
 of Performance  Specification 2 of Ap-
 pendix B. A system that measures only
 nitric oxide (NO) may meet these specifi-
 cations including the relative accuracy
 requirement  {relative to the reference
 method tests which measure NO  + NO*)
 without modification. However, in the
 Interests of maximizing the accuracy  of
 the system and creating conditions favor-
 able to acceptance of such systems (the
 cost of systems  measuring  only NO  is
 less), the owner or operator may deter-
 mine the proportion of  NO5 relative-to
 NO  in the flue gases and use a factor  to
 adjust the continuous monitoring system
 emission data (e.g. 1./3  x NO = NO,)
 provided that the factor is applied not
 only to the perfon. ance evaluation data,
 but  also applied consistently to all data
 generated by the Continuous monitoring
 system thereafter.    s procedure is lim-
 ited to facilities tlu.i, have less than  10
 percent NO» (greater than 90  percent
 NO) In order to not seriously impair the
 accuracy of the system due to NO* to NO
 proportion fluctuations.
   Section 60.45 (g) (1) has been reserved
 for the future specification of the excess
 emissions for opacity that must be re-
 ported. On November 12, 1974  (39 FR
 39872), the Administrator promulgated
 revisions to Subpart  A.  General Provi-
 sions, pertaining to the opacity provi-
 sions and to Reference Method 9, Visual
 Determination of the Opacity of Emis-
 sions  from  Stationary  Sources.  On
 April 22,1975 (40 FR  17778), the Agency
 issued  a notice  soliciting comments on
 the  opacity  provisions  and Reference
 Method 9. The Agency intends to eval-
 uate the comments received and make
 any  appropriate revision to  the  opacity
 provisions and Reference Method 9. In
 addition, the Agency is  evaluating the
 opacity standards for fossil-fuel  fired
 steam generators under -5 80.42(a) (2)  to
 determine if changes are  needed because
 of the new Reference Method 9. The pro-
 visions on excess emissions  for  opacity
 will be issued after the Agency completes
 its evaluation of the opacity  standard.
   (3)  Subpart O—Nitric Add  Plants.
 Two commentators questioned the long-
 term validity of the proposed conversion'
 proct lures for reducing data to units of
 the standard. They suggested that the
 conversion could  be accomplished by
 monitoring the flue gas volumetric rate.
 EPA reevaluated the proposed procedures
 and  found that monitoring the flue gas
 volume would be the most direct method
 and would also be an accurate method of
converting monitoring data, but would
require the Installation of an additional
continuous monitoring system. Although
 this option is available and would be ac-
ceptable subject to the Administrator's
approval, EPA dow not beUtre that th*
 additional expense this method (moni-
 toring volumetric  rate) would  entail »
 warranted. Since nitric acid plants.  fot
 economic and  technical reasons,  typi-
 cally- operate within  a fairly  narrow
 range of conversion efficiencies (90-9*
 percent) and tail gas diluents (2-5 per-
 cent  oxygen),  the ffjie gas  volumetric
. rates are reasonably proportional to tW
 acid,  production  rate.  The  error that
 would be introduced into the data from
 the maximum variation of these param-
 eters is  approximately 15  percent antf
 would usually be much less. It is expected
 that the tail gas oxygen concentration
 (an indication of the degree of tail ga*
 dilution) will be rigidly controlled at fa-
 cilities using catalytic converter control
 equipment.  Accordingly, the proposed
 procedures for data conversion have been
 retained due to the small  benefit that
 would result from  requiring additional
 monitoring equipment.  Other procedures
 may be approved by the Administrator
 under (80.13(1).
   (4) Subpart H—Sulfuric Acid Plants-
 Two commentators stated that the pro*
 posed procedure for conversion of moni-
 toring data to units  of the standard
 would result  in  large data reduction
 errors. EPA has evaluated  more closely
 the operations of sulf uric add plants ana
 agrees that the proposed procedure  is in-
 adequate. The proposed conversion pro* _
 cedure assumes that the operating con-
 ditions of the affected facility  will re-
 main approximately the same as during
 the continuous monitoring  system  eval-
 uation tests. For sulfurtc acid plants this "
 assumption  is Invalid. A sulfuric aclo
 plant is typically designed to operate at
 a   constant  volumetric   throughput;
 (scfm). Acid production rates are altered'
 by by-passing portions of the process ai'
 around the furnace or combustor to vary'
 the concentration of  the gas entering,
 the converter. This procedure produces
 widely varying amounts of tail gas  dilu-
 tion relative to the production rate. Ac-
 cordingly, EPA has developed new con*:
 version procedures whereby the appro-
 priate conversion factor Is computed,
 from on analysis of the SO, concentra-
 tion entering the converter.  Air Injection
 plants must make additional corrections
 for the diluent air added. Measurement,
 of the inlet SO, is a normal quality con-,
 trol procedure used by most sulfuric acid '
 plants and does not represent en addi-
 tional cost burden. The Reich test  of
 other suitable procedures may be used.  ,
   (5)  Subpart J—Petroleum ReflnerW-
 One  commentator stated that  the re-
 quirements for installation of continuous;
 monitoring systems for oxygen and fire-
 box temperature  ore  unnecessary  and
 that installation of a flame detection de-
 vice would be superior  for process  con-
 trol purposes.  Abo, EPA has obtained,
 data  which show  no Identifiable rela-
 tionship  between,  furnace temperature-
 percent oxygen In the flue gas, and car*
 bpn monoxide emissions when the facil-
 ity is operated* in  compliance with thf
 applicable standard. Since firebox tern**
 perature and oxygen measurements m«J
 not be preferred by source  owners *n<*
 operator* for process control,  and &>
                                                    111-78
-------
        method Is available for transle-
        these measurements Into quanti-
       reports of excess carbon monoxide
      wns, this reQulrement appears to
    or little use ^ the affected facilities
  S,J° EPA. Accordingly, requirements for
  *"s«ilation  of continuous  monitoring
  -"Wins for  measurements of firebox
  ^nperature and oxygen are deleted from
  *g regulations.
    nce EPA nas not y6* developed per-
          specifications for carbon mon-
       or hydrogen sulflde  continuous
            systems, the type of equip-
          may be Installed by an owner
  aH.operator *n compliance with EPA re-
        nte- is  undefined. Without con-
        Performance evaluations of such
       ent,  Httte  reliance can be placed
  j*«n the value of any data such systems
  or+K  wnerate. Therefore,  the sections
  a>*i? regulation requiring these systems
  ?* being  reserved until EPA proposes
  g"°nnance specifications applicable to
  *» and  CO monitoring systems. The
  Fovlslons of 5 60.105 (a) (3) do not apply
  t-J "Q owner or operator electing to moni-
  .J «"8. In that case,  an  H.S monitor
  ?°>>ld not be installed until specific H,S
       ring  requirements are promul-
      ' At the time specifications are pro-
 {JJpd' all owners or operators who have
 Si* entered into binding contractual ob-
         to purchase continuous monl-
      equipment by [date of publication]
 £J« be  required  to Install  a carbon
  •JMioxlde continuous monitoring system
 !r« a hydrogen sulflde continuous moni-
 ""nng system (unless a sulfur dioxide
 iVT^nuous monitoring system has been
 ^tailed) as applicable.
 ^Section 60.105(a)<2). which specifies
 "ie excess emissions for capacity  that
 *"ust be reported,  has been reserved for
 fj!e,same reasons  discussed under fossil
  lei-flred steam generators.
   <6) Appendix B — Performance Specl-
         A large  number  of comments
      received In  reference  to specific
      ical and editorial changes needed
   the specifications. Each of these com-
       nas  been reviewed and several
      s in format and procedures have
     made. These include adding align -
      procedures  for opacity  monitors
 ,/«I more specific Instructions for select-
 "8 a location for installing the monltor-
     equipment. Span requirements have
     specified so that commercially pro-
     d equipment  may  be  standardized
 "Here possible. Hie format of the speci-
 fications was simplified by redefining the
 ftQuirements in terms of percent opacity,
 "J oxygen, or carbon dioxide, or percent
 r* span. The proposed requirements were
    terms of  percent of the  emission
      rd which  is less convenient or too
       since reference  to  the emission
           would  have represented a
       of pollutant  concentrations  de-
 "tnding upon the amount of diluents (i.e.
 *«cess air and  water vapor)  that are
 Present in the effluent. In order to- call-
• ~**te gaseous monitors in terms of a
 r£*ciflc concentration, the requirements
 r?re revised to delete reference to the
 ^ssiori standards.
    our commentators noted that the ref -
        methods used to evaluate  oon-
       KULES AND  KIOULATIONS

 tlnuous monitoring system performance
 may be less accurate than the systems
 themselves.  Five  other  commentators
 questioned the need for 27 nitrogen ox-
 ides reference  method  tests.  The  ac-
 curacy specification for gaseous monitor-
 ing systems was specified at 20 percent, a
 value in excess of  the actual accuracy
 of monitoring systems that provides tol-
 erance for reference method inaccuracy.
 Commercially    available   monitoring
 equipment has been evaluated using these
 procedures and the combined errors  (I.e.
 relative accuracy) In the reference meth-
 ods and the monitoring  systems have
 been shown not to exceed 20 percent after
 the data are averaged by the specified
 procedures.
   Twenty commentators noted that the
 cost estimates contained in the proposal
 did not fully  reflect installation costs,
 data reduction and recording costs,  and
 the costs of evaluating the continuous
 monitoring systems. As a result,  EPA
 reevaluated the cost analysis. For opac-
 ity monitoring alone, Investment costs
 including data reduction equipment  and
 performance  tests  are  approximately
 $20,000, and annual operating costs are
 approximately $8,500. The same location
 on  the stack used for conducting per-
 formance tests with Reference Method 5
 (particulate) may be used by Installing
 a separate set of ports for the monitoring
 system so that no additional expense for
 access is required. For power plants that
 are required to install opacity, nitrogen
 oxides, sulfur dioxide,  and diluent  (O,
 or CO.) monitoring systems, the  invest-
 ment cost Is approximately $55,000,  and
 the operating cost is approximately $30,-
 000. These are significant costs but are
 not unreasonable in comparison to the
 approximately seven million dollar in-
 vestment cost for  the smallest steam
-generation facility affected by these regu-
 lations.
   Effective  date. These regulations  are
 promulgated under the authority of sec-
 tions 111. 114  and 301 (a) of the Clean
 Air Act as amended 142 U.S.C. 1857c-6",
 1857C-9, and 1857g(a)] and become ef-
 fective October 6, 1975.
   Dated: September 23,1975.
                    JOHN QTTARLIS,
                Acting Administrator.
    •IOIIAI HOKTft, VOL 4«, NO.  1*4-

       -MONDAY, OCTOM* «, W5
                                                       111-79
-------
 ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
   STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
 STATIONARY SOURCES

  Lignite-Fired Steam Generators
       SUBPART D
      ni-80
-------
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
               AGENCY
           [40CFRPart60]
              ITBL 660-*)
 •lANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
         STATIONARY SOURCES
      Ugnite-Fired Stesm Generators
   5»e Environniental Protection Agency
        is considering  amendments to
         D of  40  CFR Part  60  (Fossil
 ....      __ Steam  Generators) to estab-
 3? «tandards  of performance for emis-
 jons of nitrogen oxides from new lignite-
 J*n*a steam generators of greater than 73
 UU^awatts heat input (250 million Btu
     hour) and to  incorporate the Inter-
       M  System  of Units  (modernized
       system), as applicable.
 __, December 23, 1971 (38 FR 24877),
 rJTA Promulgated  standards of perform-
 22? for fossil fuel-fired steam genera-
 SK Included were standards for partic-
 ?*w matter, sulfur divide, and nltro-
 •^ oxides applicable to gaseous, liquid.
 ^d solid fossil fuel-fired facilities. How-
 •j*r, because of a lack of information on
 r^en  oxides emissions,  lignite-fired
 '•cilltles were exempted from the nitro-
 ;!5 oxides standard for solid fossil fuels,
 vuiough they  are subject to the stand-
 *£!* for particulate matter and sulfur
 "•oxide.
                                   _
           gathered additional taforma-
 2°0  on lignite-fired faculties and  the
 **<*g«wnd materials on the proposed
 JS*ndment to Subpart D have been pub-
 J!"«ed in a report entitled ••standards
 zjvport  and Environmental  Impact
 ?**tement, Volume  1: Proposed Stand-
 X**  of Performance for Lignite.-Fired
. 2**> Generators", hereafter referred to
 !*8SEIS. Copies are available on request
 £°o» the EPA Public Information Cen-
 J* (PM-215), Environmental Protection
 5*ency. Washington, D.C. 20480 (specify:
 5«ndards Support  and Environmental
 ffPact statement. Volume  1: Proposed
 2J*ndards of Performance  for Ltgnlte-
 gjjd Steam Generators) , The infonna-
 *wo contained in the 8SEIS is briefly dfe-
 «J»*sed in this preamble to the proposed
 ***ndard of performance.
 •;..-, INTIRKATIOWAL SYSTEM OF UlUTS

 ,ln  accordance with the  objective to
 zjjplement national  use of the metric
 gjtem, EPA presents numerical values in
 JPth  metric units and English units in
 5* regulations and  tmh"1**** publlca-
 •Jona. in an effort to simplify use of  the
       units of measurement, EPA now
                            ,
     the International System of Units
 ;81> as set forth in a publication by the
 zjojerican Society for Testing and Mate-
 S*** entitled "Standard for Metric Prac-
 22!" (Designation:  E OTO-76), There-
 ***.  EPA Is proposing  to revise the
 rpproprlate  flections of Subpart D  to
 fleet use of 81 units.
 v        PROPOSED STAHDARD
; i^the proposed etandard of performance
 •fait* emissions of nitrogen oxides  to
 !J« nanograms  per joule of heat input
 'w.8 pound per million Btu) from lignlte-
 *«d steam generators having a capacity
           PROPOSED IULES

 greater than 71 megawatts heat input
 rate (250 million Btu per hour). The pro*
 posed standard reflects  the degree  of
 emission limitation  achievable through
 the application of the best system  of
 emission reduction which (taking into
 account the cost of  achieving such
-reduction) has been adequately demon-
 strated.! The best system Is considered to
 be a combination of staged combustion
 and low excess air.
  ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

   Based on historical growth rates, it is
 estimated that 25 new lignite-fired steam
 generators would be subject to the pro-
 posed standard by  1985. The proposed
 standard would reduce NO. emissions by
 128,000 Mg/yr (141,000 T/yr). Control-
 ling NO, emissions  to the level  of  the
 proposed standard would result in in-
 significant Increases In capital and an-
 nualized costs for the utility.
   Sinoe approximately 90 percent of lig-
 nite-fired  steam generators of rated ca-
 pacity greater than 73 MW heat input
 are owned by electric utilities, the cost of
 complying with the proposed standard
 was analyzed for the lignite utility indus-
 try. The cost to the utilities appears to,
 be negligible relative to  the capital in-
 vestment  costs.  Available information
 indicates that, at most,-nltrogen oxides
 control would Increase  capital invest-
 ment costs by only 0.5 percent for a new
 lignite-fired utility boiler and ancillary
 equipment. This cost increase for NO.
 control represents an estimated increase
 of two dollars per Installed kilowatt rela-
 tive to an estimated typical cost of about
-400-dollars  per .installed kilowatt, ca-
 pacity based on costs for a bituminous
 coal-fired boiler island. The costs for NO.
 control would have negligible effect  on
 power costs to consumers. The review of
 the economic impact has shown* that the
 proposal is not a major action under the
 Inflationary  Impact Statement  (US)
 program, and no IIS is needed.
  • The environmental Impact of the pro-
 posed standard is beneficial  since  the
 increase in emissions due to growth of
 lignite-fired steam generators would  be
 minimized.  The  proposed  standard
 should  result In a 20 percent reduction
 in the mass of nitrogen oxide emissions
 from new  lignite-fired boilers. It would
 reduce the atmospheric burden of nitro-
 gen oxides and would help prevent in-
 creased ambient oxidant concentrations
 In areas where  lignite-fired steam gen-
 erators will be located (primarily North
 Dakota and Texas). There are no ad-
 verse environmental impacts associated
 with the  proposed standard. Control
 techniques required to comply with the
 proposed standard do nor cause.boiler
 efficiency losses, and thus there.are no
 Incremental energy demands associated
 with the proposed standard, A complete
 analysis of the economic and environ-
 mental impacts may be found in Chap-
 ters VI and  VHI of the 8SEIS.

           CONTROC SYSTEMS

   Nitrogen oxides from fossil-fuel com-
 bustion are formed via two mechanisms:
 (1) Thermal fixation (oxidation) of at-
 mospheric nitrogen (N«)  In the combus-
 tion air,  and (2) oxidation  of  organic
 nitrogen in the fuel. Oxidation of Nt can
 be prevented by reducing the level of
 thermal excitation in the flame by means
 of (a) flue gas recirculation, (b) staged
 combustion,  (c) water injection, (d) re-
 duced air preheat, or (e) combinations
 of these  techniques. Nitrogen oxides
 emissions  due to the oxidation of or-
 ganic  nitrogen in the fuel can be con-
 trolled by using fuels with small amounts
 of organic nitrogen and by removing oxy-
 gen from the  volatilization  zone  by
 means of (a) low excess air, (b) staged
 combustion,  and/or (c)  fuel/air mixing
 pattern  adjustment  (burner  design).
 Fuels  such as coal, residual oil, and lig-
 nite contain 0.2 to 1.8 percent organic
'nitrogen, and oxidation of this  fuel-
 nitrogen may be responsible for as much
 as 80-90 percent of  the total nitrogen
 oxides emissions  from  pulverized  coal
 combustion. Therefore, the organic nitro-
 gen content  of  fuel may be a limiting
 factor in controlling nitrogen  oxides
 emissions. The fact that the organic ni-
 trogen content of the UJS. lignites does
 not vary appreciably precludes nitrogen
.. oxides control  by  switching to lignite
 with a lower organic nitrogen content.
   Water injection and reduced air pre-
 heat significantly reduce the efficiency
 of a steam generator, and consequently
 are not practical -nitrogen  oxides con-
 trol methods. Flue gas recirculation does
 not reduce  nitrogen  oxides  emissions
 caused by the oxidation of the organic
 nitrogen in the lignite and It adversely
 affects the efficiency  of a  steam gen-
 erator. Therefore, low excess air (LEA),-
 staged combustion (SC), low  emission
 burners, and combined LEA and SC are
 considered the most feasible control sys-
 tems.
   In addition to the control systems just
 discussed, the fuel burning equipment
 design parameters can affect the amount
 of nitrogen oxides emitted and the de-
 gree to which the control systems are
 effective. Lignite-firing has been demon-
 strated in pulverized-ftred, cyclone-fired,
 and stoker-fired steam generating unite.
 Stoker-fired  units have the lowest heat
 release rate  and thus have lower nitro-
 gen oxides emissions than the other type
 units but are limited In physical size and
 are not expected to be of Importance in
 future lignite-fired  steam,  generating
 units. Cyclone-fired units have the high-
 est heat release rate and the highest ni-
 trogen oxides emissions: Pulverized-fired
 units have a  tower heat release rate than
 cyclone-fired units, but a higher release
 rate than stoker-fired units.'

          EPA TEST PROGRAM

   Of the 15 lignite-fired units in domestic
 operation In  1974, four utility sized units
 were chosen  for IPA's test program. In-
 eluded were  three pulverized'ftred units
 (two tangentlaUy-fired and one horizon-
 tally opposed-fired), and one  cyclone-
 fired unit.         .
 ••  Operating  with low excess air and/or
 staged combustion, all types of fuel burn-
 Ing equipment exhibited reduced nitro-
 gen oxides emissions over baseline eon-
                                       MOISIM, VOL 4i, NO. t4?_WEDNCSDAY, DKIMMI ti, im
                                                          -81
-------
 dtttons, T&* bortHBtUBr opposed- and
 cyclone-fired units we more responsive
 to nitrogen adder control techniques on
 * percentage basis, bat the tangentially-
 flnd  units  wing  stated  combustion
 yielded the lowest nitrogen oxides emis-
 sions. Cyclone-fired unit* cannot be de-
 pendably operated with low excess air
 firing or  staged combustion because of
 flame Instability   problems;   however,
 staged combustion of cyclone-fired units
.can be achieved by firing auxiliary  fuel.
   On  the basis of the test  data. It ap-
 pears  that the cyclone-fired units can-
 not  consistently meet a nitrogen oxides
 standard more stringent than 340 nano-
 tnuns per Joule (0.8 pound per minion
 Btu).  The test data also indicate  that
 horizontally opposed-fired unite would
 have difficulty consistently  achieving a
 nitrogen oxides standard of 260 nano-
 grams per Joule (0.8 pound mflllon Btn)
 over a long time  period. However, de-
 velopment of low emission burners ap-
 pears promising for application to horl-
 •ontany  opposed-fired units, and such
 units should be able to attain a  standard
 of 260 nanograms per Joule.  Tangen-
 tially-fired units should have no difficulty
 meeting  a standard  of MO nanograms
 per Joule.
   RATIONAL* FOR Piorosxo BTANBAKAS
  In deciding the nitrogen oxides limit
 for the proposed standard. EPA consid-
 ered proposing the  same standard for
 lignite-fired  steam  generators as the
 present standard  for coal-fired steam
 generators, MO nanograms per Joule (0.9
 pound pet mfflott Btu). In the  Mud* o*
 control of nitrogen oxides emfsstons from
 lignite-fired  steam  generators, staged
 combustion and low excess afar were found
 to reduce emissions significantly below
 800 nanograms per Joule input (0.7 pound
 per  mutton Btn).  The measured emis-
 sion levels of 172 to 230 nanograms per
 Joule heat input  <0.4 to 9A pound per
 million Btu) indicated that the present
 standard for coal-fired units would not
 require use of best demonstrated control
 technology, considering costs, for lignite-
 fired units. Studies on control  of nitro-
 gen oxides emissions by combustion mod-
 ification techniques have shown emis-
 sion levels for modern bituminous  and
 •ubbitumlnous coal-fired utility  steed
 milts to be similar to those observed for
 lignite-fired  units.  The lower  emission
 levels observed for the lignite and bitu-
 minous fired units reflect an improve-
 ment in combustion  modification tech-
 niques and in the design of the burners
 and of boilers between 1070 and 1974.
   Tangentially-flred  units  could  most
 likely meet a standard of 220 nanograms
 per  Joule (0.5 pound per million Btu).
 This standard, however may not be eon-
 sistently achievable by the horizontally-
 opposed fired boilers. Since the manufac-
 turers of  those units do not make tan-
 •entlally-fired boilers, a standard of 220
 nanograms per Joule could leave only one
 manufacturer  of  complying   boilers,
 which would remove the option  of power
 companies to obtain competitive bids.
 •PA request* comments on the follow-
 ing issues: (1) Whether hortoontally-op-
 posed find tatters could matt a standard
 of 230 nanograms per Joute; (» if not
 what would be the effect on the competi-
 tive ft»T«riMi of ft*f fKi"
-------
     selection of a pulvertred-flred unit
    a  North Dakota lignite  with high
 fouling potential Indicates that pulver-
 "•d-nred  units  are price competitive
 wh cyclone-fired units and that at least
 "Q* utility believes  that cyclone-fired
 "ttts are not required for use of a lignite
 »tth high fouling potential
   In addition to this limited  experience
     firing'high sodium lignite, preliml-
    . _   _.   »        .  •	_»	i _ ,» •	
                             ,
     results from a study conducted by
 {•"•DA showed that cyclone-fired units
 Jave a statistically significant lower ash
 ^Position re.te  than pulverized-flred
 Jfuts. The test was conducted while the
 S^ts were firing 3.5 to 4.5 percent sodium
 tttnite and insufficient Information  Is
 •Callable  to allow comparison at higher
 •paium  levels.  One possible interpreta-
 «on of  these data is that cyclone-fired
 ™«tfi can operate on high sodium lignite
 }p«ater than six percent) more reliably
 «&n pulverized-flred units. However, the
 •Judy's  results are not consistent with
 J1*  experience of operating commercial
 yttts and the data may not  warrant
 "rawing this conclusion.
  EPA  has concluded  from evaluation
 W the  available information that  (1)
 **Ue there are differences in operational
 c}»aracteristlcs of  pulverized  arid  ey-
 2?ne-flred units, both types can reliably
 °>*rate on high sodium lignite  and (2>
 ^clone-fired units do not have signifi-
 **nt operation maintenance, or cost ad-
 **Qtages over pulverized-flred units. The
 manufacturers of pulverized-fired units
 Jtiieve that these units can be as effec-
 ffVe as cyclone-fired unite for  burning
 Suites,  including  those  with  high so-
 £«un. Combustion Engineering, which la
 Stalling the units "for UFA, is confident
 *hat pulverized-flred unite can be prop-
 Jrty designed  to handle the ash fouling
 Rod slagging  problems of high sodium
 JJjRUte.  Babcock  and Wilcox, the other
 ™»ajor supplier of lignite-fired units, al-
 *° believes that a pulverized-flred unit
 **n be designed to reliably burn high
 "Xttum lignite. Due to the limited Infor-
 *ation available at this time and dlffer-
.S°t  possible Interpretations of  the ta-
 i°rmation, EPA realizes that the assess-
 fc«it of relative reliability of pulverized
 •tti cyclone-fired unite for firing high
 !*?'um lignite Is debatable. Therefore.
 PA is requesting that all Interested per-
 •Ons submit factual Information on  this
 JJsue during the comment period. Fac-
 •JJM information Is specifically requested
 <** the following areas of Interest:
   1. Investment costs and operation and
 JMntenance coats for either pulverlzed-
 nr*d or cyclone-fired large steam genera-
 *°rs  designed for  moderate  or  high
 *°.  Ill, 114 and 301 (») of tbe Clean Air
 Act, M amended by *ee. 4 (ft) of Pub. L. 91-
 604, M Btat. 1678 and by MO. 18(e) (9) of Pub.
 L. »1-«M. M BUt. 1713  (43 TJB.C. 1S67C-6,
 18B7o-«,aa41M7K(»»>
   The Environmental Protection Agency
 has determined that this document does
 not contain a major proposal requiring
 preparation  of  an  Inflation Impact
 Statement under Executive Order 11821
 and OMB Circular A-107.
  Dated: December 15,1976.
                 Rtrssux E. TRAIN,
                      Adminittrator.

  It is proposed to amend Part 60 of
 Chapter L Title 40 of the Code of Fed-
 eral Regulations by revising Subparte A
 and Das follows:
      Subpart A—General Provisions
  1. Section 60.2 is amended  by substi-
 tuting the International System of Units
 (SI) In paragraph  (1) as follows:
 § 60.2   Definition*.
     •       •      •       •      •
  (1)  "Standard conditions"  means  a
 temperature of 293 K (68*F> and a pres-
 sure of 101.3 kilopascals (29.92  in. Hg>.
     *       •      •       •      •
 Subpart D—Standards of Performance for
    Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
  2. Section 60.41 is amended by adding1
 paragraph (f) as follows:
 §60.41  Definitions.
     •       •      •       •      •
  (f) "Coal" means all solid fossil fuels
 classified as anthracite, bituminous, sub-
 bituminous,  or lignite by A.S.T.M. Des-
 ignation D 388-66.
  3. Section  60.44 Is amended by adding
 paragraph (a) (4) and by revising para-
 graph (b)  as follows:
 § 60.44  Standard for nitrogen oxide*.
   (a)  • • •
  <4)  260 nanograms per joule heat in-
 put (0.60 pound per million Btu)  derived
'from lignite.
  (b)  When different fossil fuels are
 burned simultaneously in any combina-
 tion, the applicable standards (in ng/J)
 shall be determined by proration. Com-
 pliance shall be determined by using the
 following formula:
 where:
 J'Snojt U the prorated standard fornitrojen oxide* when
  burnini different foeli tUnnlUneoaoly, In nftnocruns
  Mr looir be»t Input derived (ram *U fossil furls tired or
  from til fo«8ll fuel and wood retldne fired:
 * ti tb« ptrcenUee ol toUl hurt Input derived from
  lignite;
 * if tbe poreenUre of toUl hMt Input derived from
  tueouifotidlfiul:
 f u tbe Mroenuce of total beat Input derived from liquid

 t li the penentar* of total beat Input derived from RoUd
  foeail nut (eioept limit* oratolid lots!! fuel con talainc
  Jt pet, bjr weight, or more of eoal refuse).
 When a solid fossa fuel containing 25
 percent, by weight, or more of coal refuse
 is burned  In combination  with gaseous.
 liquid or other solid fossQ fuel, or wood
 residue, the standard for nitrogen oxides
 does not apply.
  4. Section 60.45 Is amended by adding
•paragraph (f) (4) (vi)  as follows:
 6 60.45  Emission and furl  monitoring.
     •       •      •      •      •
   (f)  • «  •  .
   (4)  • • •
  (vi)  For  lignite  coal  as  classified
 according  to A.6.T.M.  D  388-66,  F=>
 2.659 XlO'i dscm/J (0900  dscf/mfllion
 Btu)  and F«=0.616X10-'  scm  COz/J
 (1920 scf COi/mllUon Btu).
  |FR Doc.76-374»4 Filed ia-ai-7fl;«:48 am]
                             MDfJAL IMISfU. VOL 41, MO. 147—WIONUDAY, OiCIMUt tt. 1*7*
                                                      111-83
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
    AGENCY
   STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
 STATIONARY SOURCES
 PETROLEUM REFINERY
       SUBPftRTJ
        111-84
-------
                                                  PtOPOJID  RULES
   ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION
               AGENCY
            [40CFRP»rt60]
              |FRL 610-7]
   STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
       NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
 *rtrolmim Refinery Sulfur Recovery Plants
   Notice is hereby given that under the
 •Mhority of section 111 of the Clean Air
 Actf  as amended, the  Administrator is
 'Proposing standards of performance for
 •*w, modified or reconstructed petroleum
 "•finery sulfur recovery plants.
   The Administrator is also proposing a
 f*w reference method to be used for de-
 *ert&t&ing emissions of hydrogen sulfide
 •M reduced sulfur compounds from pe-
 •"oleum refinery sulfur recovery plants.
          PROPOSED  STANDARDS

   As proposed, the standards would ap-
 Wy to petroluem refinery sulfur recovery
 Hants. Generally, these plants are phys-
 •ffUy located within petroleum reftneries.
 yccaeionally, however, refineries will
 P*pe the sulfur-rich gas stream to a near-
 y facility, such  as a chemical  plant,
 •Here the sulfur is recovered. The stand-
 **•»  would apply to all- refinery sulfur
 •jcovery plants, whettfer they are physi-
 e»uy locate(ts*i*fin a petroleum refinery,
 *» within the confines of another facility.
 .The standards would limit the concen-
 tration  of  sufur  dioxide  (SO,)  in  the
 mes discharged  to the atmosphere to
 "•025 percent by volume at zero percent
 ffygen and on a dry basis.  Where  the
 JjUsslon control system installed to com-
    with these standards discharges re-
        emissions  of hydrogen  sulflde
     ) . carbonyl sulflde  (COS) . and car-
    disulflde (CS,). the standards would
      the concentration of H£ and the
      concentration of HA COS and CS,
 (calculated as SO,) in the gases dis-
 ^•rged to  the  atmosphere, to 0.0010
 Jfcroent and 0.030 percent by volume at
 •tro Percent oxygen and on a dry basis,
 *««pectively.
   ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
 ..     proposed standards would require
 «ew, modified or reconstructed refinery
 •jUfur recovery plants to reduce  emis-
 •**» by about  09 percent compared to
        s from existing refinery sulfur
         plants. This would increase the
        sulfur recovery of a typical re-
; Jpery sulfur recovery plant from  about
 94 Percent to about 99.9 percent.
 mtlt is expected that the proposed stand-
 TV would apply to about 80 new re-
 jwery sulfur plants by 1980. Few, ff any,
 modifications or reconstructions of exlst-
 gt refinery sulfur plants are anticipated.
 *a» proposed standards would reduce
 national sulfur dioxide emissions from
 gese new refinery sulfur plants by about
 •0,000 tons per year.
  .This reducUco tn national SO,  emls-
 •wns would be obtained without adverse
 *»PacU on other aspects of the environ-
 5»eat, such as increased solid waste dto-
 Joeal, water poButfon, or noise. The pro-
 *°«ed standards would also result la a
nductlon In the growth of national en-
ergy consumption by some M million kw-
hr/yr, or about 90,000 barrels of fuel oil
per year, by 1980.
  The economic Impact of the proposed
standards would be reasonable both on
large and on small refiners, although it
ii somewhat more severe on small re-
finers than large refiners. For the small
refiner [processing less than 30,000 bar-
rels per calendar day (BCD) ], the pro-
posed standards could reduce profitabil-
ity, as measured by return on assets, by
IA to 7.5 percent. A price increase of only
0.25 to 1.0 percent on all petroleum prod-
ucts, however, would restore the small
refiner's  profitability. The Impact on a
large refiner  (processing more than 30,-
000 BCD)  is considerably less  due to
economies of scale. The proposed stand-
ards could reduce the profitability of a
large refiner by 0.6 to 1.5 percent. A price
increase  of only 0.10 to 0.30 percent on
all petroleum products, however, would
restore the large  refiner's profitability.
Consequently, the  proposed standards
would not adversely affect the growth of
either the large refinery or the small re-
finer sector of the domestic refining in-
dustry.            /
  To comply with these proposed stand-
ards,  the Investment  required  by  the
domestic refining  industry would total
some $110 million (MM)  over the five-
year period from 1»76 to  1980; the an-
nual  operating  costs  of  the Industry
would increase by some $16 MM per year
by 1980  and petroleum product prices
could increase by  0.1  to 1.0 percent.
  The review of the economic impact has
shown that the proposal is not a major
action under  the  Inflationary  Impact
Statement (US) program  and no ns is
needed.
  SELECTION or SOURCE CATEGOHY AND
         •AFFECTED FACILITIES

  Section 111 of the Clean Air Act di-
rects  the  Administrator   to  establish
standards of  performance for new sta-
tionary sources of air pollution which
may contribute significantly to air pol-
lution which causes or contributes to the
endangerment of public health or wel-
fare. Sulfur recovery plants are a major
source of SO, f»«i««, carbonyl sulflde
 (COS) and carbon disulflde (CS.) to the
 atmosphere.  The  proposed standards.
 therefore, include limits on emissions of
 these pollutants.
               RATIONALE

 ' Two alternative systems of 80s  emis-
 sion control were considered as candiates
 to serve as the basis for standards of
 performance:  (1)  the low-temperature
 extended Claus reaction  system (alter-
 native I) and (2)  various tail gas scrub-
 bing systems (alternative n>. The  alter-
 native I systems reduce emisssion from
 uncontrolled  refinery  sulfur  recovery
 plants by 80-85 percent, while the  alter-
 native n systems reduce emissions by 98-
 99 percent. Overall sulfur recovery of the
 refinery sulfur plant is  increased from
 95 to 99.9 percent with the use of an al-
 ternative n system.
   Standards of performance based on al-
 ternative I would have  an essentially
 negligible impact on SOa emissions since
 most state implementation plans (SIP's)
 already  require  equivalent control.  As
 outlined above, however, standards based
 on alternative n would reduce SCh emis-
 sions by about 90 percent below  levels
 required by most SIP's and would lead to
 a reduction in  national SOi emissions of
 some 55,000 tons per year in 1980. Stand-
 ards based on  alternative TJ would also
 have no adverse environmental Impacts
 to other areas such as increased  water
 pollution, solid waste disposal, energy
 consumption, or noise. In addition, the
 economic impact of standards based on
 alternative n would be reasonable both
 on large and on small refiners. Conse-
 quently, alternative']!  represents  the
 best system of emission  reduction and
 the proposed standards are based on this
 alternative.
   The tan gas  scrubbing systems of al-
 ternative n, however. Include two differ-
 ent types of emission control systems for
 reducing SO* emissions from refinery sul-
tur recovery plants: oxidation control
 systems and reduction control systems.
 Xa the oxidation control system, the SO*
 emissions from a refinery sulfur plant are
 controlled directly by taO gas scrubbing.
 In the reduction control system, the SO*
 emissions are first converted to H« emis-
 sions which are then controlled by tad
 gas scrubbing. Residual emissions dis-
 charged into the atmosphere from oxida-
 tion control systems or from reduction
 control  systems which are  followed by
 Incineration  consist of  BO».  Residual
 emissions  discharged from reduction
 control systems which are not followed
 by Incineration, however, consist of H«S,
 COS (carbonyl sulflde) and CS> (carbon
 disulflde).  Standards Mm
-------
                                                 fWOPOSED IWJS
are properly operated And maintained,
tffifaBrimm of reduced sulfur compounds
) that
can  be present  in the tall  gases  dis-
charged to the atmosphere. Where this
approach has been followed.-emissions of
HiS are lllmted to 10 ppm and emissions
of reduced sulfur compounds'are limited
to either 300 or 000 ppm.
  Where  emissions  of  reduced  mdfur
compounds are limited indirectly by local
regulations, these  regulations  require
that the best available emission control
technology be installed. In the process
of specifying the best emission control
technology.  local  ah* pollution control
agencies have contacted EPA, vendors of
various emission  control  system,  and
other local air pollution control agencies
where these emission control systems
have been installed. In terms of limiting
emissions  of reduced sulfur compounds,
this  approach has achieved the same end
result as the direct regulatory approach.
All 25 reduction control system which are
now  operating have be.^ d-slgned and
guaranteed by the ve .dors of these sys-
tems to limit emissions to less than 10
ppm BjS  and ksr than 300 or 500 ppm
reduced sulfur compounds.
  Consequently, the current 25 petroleum
refinery sulfur v   "'* which have  in-
stalled reduction t  . rol systems which
are not followed by incineration are not
considered  by  EPA to  be  significant
sources of reduced sulfur compound emis-
sions. Developing State plans under sec-
tion  lll(d) to control emissions of these
pollutants from  these faculties,  there-
fore, would not reduce existing emission
levels.
„ On the other hand, if EPA were to pro-
pose standards of performance for refin-
ery sulfur plants only for BO, without
limiting emissions of reduced sulfur com-
pounds, this action could  be interpreted
to mean that EPA does not consider the
potential  air pollution problem posed by
emissions of reduced sulfur compounds
to be important Such an interpretation
could encourage new plants to be bunt
without limiting emissions of these pol-
lutants.
  Having determined that the proposed
regulation should cover emissions of re-
duced sulfur compounds from new refin-
ery sulfur recovery plants, but not ex-
isting ones, KPA is left with (he problem
of selecting the appropriate pollutants to
control with the proposed  standards.
TJmiting  «tni««if«n« of  BO» alone would
be unsatisfactory due to the risk of re-
duced sulfur compound  pollution from
new  plants. Tlimiting  reduced  sulfur
compound emissions as well as BOi for
new  sources will cause some expenditure
of effort on the part of EPA and the af-
fected States which is not in fact neces-
sary to achieve control of existing plants,
  Considering all *he facets of this  sit-
uation. EPA proposes to limit emissions
of both  SO, and reduced sulfur com-
pounds by these standards of perform-
ance, fulfilling the intent of section 111
of the Act to prevent new air pollution
problems  lor requiring new, modified, or
reconstructed plants to Install the best
jystens of r"*^*'"* reduction consider-
ing costs. However, EPA to eonsideruK
two alternative routes for treating tfl*
problem  of existing sources. One alter*
native to for EPA to issue a guideline
document under  40 CFR  «0.22 (based
primarily on the information available
in the support  documents for the**
standards of performance) and to re-
quire the seven affected States to submi'
plans under 40 CFR 60.23.  Those State*
that  already  regulate  reduced  sulfur
compounds by State law will be able *>
submit relatively simple control plan*-
Those States In which regulation of re-
duced sulfur compounds  has been »c'
eomplished "by  local ordinances DOW
have  to  provide for State enforcement
before their  control plans can be *P*
proved.
  If the first  alternative appears to D*
excessively burdensome, EPA is also con-
sidering  a second  alternative, because
the 25 existing sources are  well eon*
trolled. The purpose of limiting pollut-
ant emissions from existing sources un-
der the provisions  of section lll(d)  *
to control a pollutant which may cause
or contribute to the endangennent o*
public fcealth or welfare, but "is D«»
known to be "hazardous" jrithin tU«
meaning of section 112, and to not con-
trolled  -jnder  sections 108  through 11°;
Since action  under section lll(d)  P
this instance would not further control
the pollutant  in  question, and exteti»»
refinery  sulfur plants which have •**'
•tailed reduction control systems not tot'
lowed by incineration are not endanger'
tog the public health or welfare, the con'
elusion can be drawn that there to *?•
purpose  to limiting emissions of tne£
pollutants under section lll(d). Und**
this  alternative, EPA would not tesue •
guideline document, the chain of e**0:!
requiring States to develop  plans »*J
controlling emissions of these pollut**11*
would not be Initiated and these pi***
would not be developed. (A detailed di*r
cussion of this alternative may be fouO°
in the Standards Support and Environ:
mental Impact Statement for Fetrokui*
Sulfur Recovery Plants.)           ln,
 • The data and Information available w
•electing specific  emission limits includ*
the results of emission tests both by *"!
Agency and by local air pollution controj
agencies, discussions with  owners •*£
operators which have metalled and *[*
now operating either the oxidation #>".
trol systems or the reduction control syj:
terns, and discussions with the vendors'
these emission control systems. The &*
emission limit to based on emission te*£
at a  refinery sulfur plant  controlled *»•
an oxidation  control system  and ***
refinery sulfur plant controlled by » J**:
duction control  system  followed by *°lf
dneratlon. The BUB and reduced sulf^
compound emission limits  are based *~
emission source tests at three reno"*
sulfur plants controlled by reduction con
trol systems not followed by taclneratto*
The numerical values were selected Jj£
eluding a reasonable margin for ert**
taking Into consideration th« limited d*£
   e.  the relatlv*-newness" ef the »»»**
                                MDfftAl MOUnt. VOL 41, NO. in MONDAY,
                                          4, m*
                                                      111-86
-------
                                                  PtOPOSED iUlIS
  **ted, pilot-plant data Available  from
  "'odors on long-term operation, and the
  Sjperlenoe of owners and operators with
  wese emission control  systems.
  ..The 0.025 pereent by volume limit for
  •Oi emissions and the  0.030 percent by
  joiume  limit for reduced  sulfur coin-
  round emissions are also equivalent, in
  we sense that both require achieving the
  •f** degree of overall sulfur recovery
  "•*•. 99.9 percent). The numerical  limit
  °°BO, emissions is lower due to the some-
  wnat greater volume of gases-discharged
  «om oxidation control systems and re-
  Auction control systems followed by in-
  *™«ration, which is Inherent in their
 '"'sign an(| operation.
   It  should  be noted that standards of
  wformance for new sources established
 !J«ler section 111 of the Clean Air Act
 fHtect emission limits  achievable  with
  we best adequately demonstrated system
 J* emission reduction  considering the
 JJ*t of such systems. State implementa-
 22* Plans (BIP's) approved or promul-
 •f ted under section 110  de-
 Jwned to protect public health and wel-
 •»fe. For that purpose SIP's must in some
 5*«es require greater emission reductions
 •ban those required by standards of per-
 •onnance for new sources. Indeed, build-
 P* of new sources may be precluded al-
 *°Bether in some geographical areas,  in
 •fOition,  States are free under.section
 *** of the Act to establish more stringent
 "fclsslon limits  than those established
 "Wer aection 111 or those necessary  to
 f*taln or maintain the NAAQ under sec-
 **°n no. Thus, new sources may in some
 **»«  be subjact  to limitations  more
 •tWngent than EPA's standards of  per-
 formance  under section 111,  and  pro-
 Active  owners and operators  of  new
 •ources should be aware of this possibil-
, 'v In planning for such facilities.

               ENERGY
   The Impact of the proposed standards
 °Q the energy consumption of a refinery
 •Ulfur recovery plant varies depending
 pn the type of emission control system
 "Stalled to comply with the standards.
 *f an oxidation control  system  or a re-
 duction  control system followed  with
 incineration  were   used,  the  overall
 •nergy consumption of  a typical sulfur
 Recovery plant would be Increased by
 •ome 30 percent. If a reduction control
 •ntem not followed by incineration were
A»»ed, however, the overall energy con-
sumption would be reduced by some 60
 Percent.  These  percentages an  high
 Primarily because refinery sulfur recov-
 ery plants consume  little energy. Typi-
 WUly, for example, a refinery sulfur re-
 covery plant accounts for less than 1 per- ,
 tent of the total energy consumed within'
 • Petroleum refinery.
  Assuming half  of  the refinery sulfur
 Recovery plants affected  by the proposed
 standards by 1980 Install oxidation con-
 trol systems or reduction control systems
followed by incineration and half install
 •eduction control .systems not followed
 by Incineration, the  proposed standards
 would reduce national energy consump-
 tion in 19M by some 54 million kw-hr/yr,
 or about 90,000 barrels  of  fuel oil per.
 year.
       MONITORING, TESTING, AND
            RBCOKDKEBPXNC

   As proposed, the regulations would re-
 quire monitoring of emissions released to
 the atmosphere  to insure that the emis-
 sion control systems installed to comply
 with the proposed standards  are properly
 maintained and operated. If an  oxida-
 tion control system or a reduction con-
 trol system followed by Incineration were
 installed, monitoring of SO, emissions
 would be  required and  If  a reduction
 control system not followed by-incinera-
 tion were  installed, monitoring of  H B
 and reduced sulfur compound emissions
 would be required.
   Emission monitoring systems for BO,
 are readily available and performance
 specifications  for  these  monitors have
 already been promulgated by EPA in 40
 CFR Part 60 Appendix B. Although a few
 emission monitoring systems for HjS and
 reduced sulfur compounds are available.
 EPA has not yet developed performance
 specifications for these monitors. Conse-
 quently,  until EPA. proposes  and pro-
 mulgates these  performance  specifica-
 tions, owners and operators subject to the
 requirement to install HJS and reduced
 sulfur compound emission monitors will
 not be required  to do so. The require-
 ment to install these monitors is included
 in the proposed regulations;  however, to
 ensure that when EPA promulgates these
 performance specifications, those owners
 and operators who have installed reduc-
 tion control systems not followed by in-
 cineration which are subject to the pro-
 posed standards will be required to retro-
 fit these monitors. This will enable en-
 forcement personnel to ensure that these
 emission control systems are  being prop-
 erly operated  and maintained.
  The reference method for determining
 compliance also depends on the emis-
 sion control system employed to comply
 with the proposed  standards. If an oxi-
 dation control system  or a  reduction
 control system followed by Incineration
 were installed, Method 6—Determination
 of Sulfur Dioxide  Emissions from'Sta-
 tionary Sources would be used to deter-
 mine emissions of BO* If a reduction
 control system not followed by incinera-
 tion were installed, the proposed Refer-
 ence Method 15—Determination of Hy-
 drogen Sulflde and Beduced Sulfur Com-
pound  Emissions from Sulfur Recovery
 Plants would be used to determine emis-
 sions of HJS and total emissions of HJB.
 GO'S, and CS,  (calculated as  SO,).
  The proposed Reference Method 16 to
 based on gas  chromatographic separa-
 tion followed by flame photometric de-
 tection. This method permits separation
 and identification of each individual pol-
 lutant  (i.e.. HJS, COS and CS,). To de-
 termine compliance with the proposed
 standards,  a  sample of the gases dis- '
 charged to the atmosphere  Is analyzed
 to determine emissions of HJ3, COB and
 CS*. The concentration of HJB in these
 gases is  determined directly. The con-
centration of reduced sulfur  compounds
 In these gases te determined indirectly.
 by adding together the concentrations of
 HJS. COB and C8». Since emissions are
 calculated as SO*, however, the concen-
 trations of CSi (having twice the sulfur
 per molecule of gas) is multiplied by
 two before adding it to the concentra-
 tions of HJB and COS.
  AMENDMENT or SUBPAKT J or PART €0

   The proposed standards would be in-
 corporated  into  40  CFR Part  60  by
 amending  Subpart  J—Standards   of
 Performance for Petroleum Refineries.
 Maintaining clarity  within Subpart J
 while incorporating the proposed stand-
 ards requires amendment  of a number
 of existing paragraphs.  In all but the
 case discussed  below, these paragraphs
 have merely  been  rewritten with  no
 change In content or intent.
   Recently, it has been  brought to the
 attention of  the Administrator  that  as
 Subpart J is now written, a fluid cataly-
 tic cracking unit incinerator waste-heat
 boiler is an affected  facility subject  to
 the standard limiting emissions  of par-
 ticulate matter. Thus, if an owner or op-
 erator installs an Incinerator waste-heat
 boiler, that boiler must comply with the
 standard on participate emissions.
   An  incinerator  waste-heat   boiler.
 however, is an emission control device
 which  reduces emissions  of  carbon
 monoxide from a fluid catalytic cracking
 unit  catalyst regenerator. It was  not
 EPA's intent that  installation   of  an
 emission control device to reduce carbon
 monoxide emissions would then  require
 installation of another emission  control
 device to  reduce particulate emissions.
 Rather, the intent was to consider the
 fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst re-
generator together with  any associated
 incinerator waste-heat boiler in terms  of
 controlling particulate emissions. If  an
 incinerator  waste-heat  boiler   which
 burns additional liquid or solid  fossDe
 fuel is In use. an increase  in total par-
 ticulate emissions  would be permitted.
 consistent with good control of particu-
 late emissions from the combustion of
 that increment of fuel. Accordingly, fluid
 catalytic  cracking   unit   incinerator
waste-heat boilers have been  deleted
from the list of affected facilities. This
amendment of Subpart J. however, is not
a  change in the intent of the existing
 standard of performance limiting emis-
sions of paniculate matter.
      •  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  As prescribed by section 111  of the
Clean Air Act as amended, this proposal
of standards of performance has been
preceded by the Administrator's deter-
mination that  refinery sulfur recovery
plants contribute significantly to air pol-
lution which causes or contributes to the
endangerment of public health or wel-
fare. By publication of this determina-
tion in this Issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER
he adds petroleum refinery sulfur re-
covery plants to the list of affected facili-
ties under the source category of petro-
leum refineries. In  accordance with sec-
tion 117 of the Act, publication of these
proposed standards  was  preceded  by
                                       HOISTM. VOL 41, NO. 193—MONDAY. OCTOMI 4,
                                                 ii.III-87
-------
                                                nOFOSED  UJLES
 eonsuHatton with appropriate  advisory
 committee;.  Independent experts,  and
 Pederal  deiNu liueuts and agencies.
   Interested persons may participate in
 tfr% ralemaktng  bjr submitting written
 comments (In triplicate) to the Emission
 Standards and Engineering Drrteion, VS.
 Environmental Protection At ency.  Re-
 search Triangle  Park, North Carolina
 3T711, Attention: Mr. Don R-Ooodwln.
 The Administrator win  welcome com-
 ments on aU aspects of the proposed
 regulations, including the designation of
 •ulfur recovery plants as a  significant
 contributor to air pollution welch causes
 or contributes to the endangerment of
 public health or welfare, economic  and
 technological Issues, and the proposed
 test method.
   Comments are  Invited specifically on
 the severity  at the economic impact of
 the proposed standards on the small re-
 finer, since a aumber of interested par-
 ties have expressed  objection  to  the
 absence of a lower level cut-off  exempt-
 ing the  small refiner from  compliance
 with the standards. Any comments sub-
 mitted to the Administrator on this issne,
 however,  should contain specific tafor-
 matlon and data pertinent to an evalua-
 tion of the  magnitude of this impact
 and its severity.
   Also, the Administrator would be espe-
 cially Interested in receiving comments
 regarding  the issue of controDmg re-
 duced sulfur compound emissions with-
 out implementing section lll(d).  par-
 ticularly as this would affect the seven
 States involved.
   AH relevant comments received on or
 before December 8, 1974 will  be  con-
 sidered. Comments received wffl be avail-
 able for public inspection and  copying
 at the EPA  Public Information Refer-
 ence Unit. Room 2823 (EPA Library),
 Ml M  Street, 8W.. Washington,  D.C,
 904CO.
   y ft^lpgpyi^ip fl iluOTI&fttiOU OB ulCS£ pTO*
 posed standards of performance has been
 published in a document "Standard Sup-
 port and Environmental Impact State-
 Bunt— Standards  ef  Performance  for
 Petroleum Refinery Sulfur Plants." This
 document presents the factors considered
 in tbe  development  of tbe proposed
 standards, including alternative emission
.control systems, emission test data, en-
 vironmental  impact, costs fd economic
 considerations. Copies of the document
 are available free af charge  by writing
 to the Public Tnfmnnflttfn Center CPM-
 915),  U.B.  Environmental   Protection
 Agency, Washington, D.C. 10460 (specify
 "Standards Support and
  It is proposed to amend 40 CTB Part
 Mas follows:
 Impact Statement— Standards of Per-
 formance for Petroleum Refinery Sulfur
 Plants").
   Authority. This  motlce  of  proposed
 rtdemaking is lamed under the authority
 of sections 111, 114 and MKa) af the
 Clean JUt Act, at  amended (43 TT8.C.
 IWTo-eandf).
   Dated: September 10. IBM.   •
 S«be*rt J— Standards ef ____
          Petroleum Rateeriet
   1. Section 60.100 is revised as follows:
 160.100  Applicability and JattfMttoa
     el affected facility.
   The provfetons of this sobpart areap-
 phcabto to the tolknrtng affected faclXl-
 ties hi petroleum refineries: staid cata-
 lytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators,
 fuel gas combustion devices, and sulfur
 recovery plants.

   2. Section 80.101 is amended by adding
 paragraphs (1) through (1) as follows:
 §60.101  Definition*.
     •      *  -•'   •      •      •
     O> •Sulfur  recovery plant" means
 a  process unit which converts hydrogen
 sulflde produced within a petroleum re-
 finery to elemental sul'ur The sulfur re-
 covery plant  need no» be physically lo-
 cated within a petrolr jm refinery.
   (J) "Oxidation fntrol system" means
 an' emission  control system  which re-
 duces  emissions from  sulfur recovery
 plants by eonrart  i these emissions to
 sulfur dioxide.
   Ck> "Reduction co-itrol system" means
 an emission  control system  which re-
 duces  emissions from  sulfur recovery
plants by converting these emissions to
 sulfur dioxide.
   (k) "Reduction control system" means
 an emission  control system  which re-
 duces  emissions from  sulfur recovery
 plants by converting these emissions to
 hydrogen sulflde.
   (1) "Reduced   sulfur   compounds"
 mean hydrogen  sulflde OHjS). earbonyl
 sulflde (COB) and carbon dteumde (C8>) .
   3. Section M.102 is amended by revis-
 ing paragraph (a) Introductory text and
 paragraph (b) as follows:
 £60.102  Standard  for paniculate  mat-
     ter.
   (a) On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by t 60.8  is completed, no owner
 or operator subject  to the provlatow of
 this subpart shall discharge or cause the
 discharge into the atmosphere tram any
 fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst re-
 generator:
     •     . •      •      •     •
   (b) Where the gases discharged by the
 fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst re-
 generator pass through an incinerator or
 waste heat boiler hi which auxiliary  or
 rapp.' -mental liquid or soUd fossfl fuel to
 burned, particulate  matter hi excess  of
 that permitted by paragraph (a) (1)  of
 this section may  be emitted to the atmos-
 phere, except that Jw incremental rate
 of
exceed 43.0 g/MJ (040 Ib/muTion Btaa) af
heat taput attributable to aueh Bqutt er
send fossa fuel
                             trator.
  4. Section MJ04 to
ing paragraph («J a*
                                                               dedbymu-
 1*0,104  Standard lor self or dioxide.
   (a) On and after the date en wbteh
 the performance test required to be eon*
 ducted by 1 60.6 to completed, no owner
 or operator subject to .the provisions of
 this subpart shall:
   (1) Burn in any fuel gas  combustion
 device any fuel gas which contains hy-
 drogen sulflde in excess of 390 mg/dscn>
k (0.10 gr/dBCf ) . except that the gases re-
 sulting from the combustion of fuel g**
 may be treated to control sulfur dloxid*
 emissions provided the owner or opera*
 tor demonstrates to the satlfifartVt"  °*
 the Administrator fh*t this  is as effec*
 ttve  IP preventing  sulfur f*nr*'!\'' eoJ**
 aions to the atmosphere.
   (2) Discharge or cause **** discharge
 of any gases into the atmosphere froja
 any sulfur recovery rlFnt fflnt>tn1*tg ^
 excess of:
   (1) 0.025 percent by volume of sulfur
 dioxide at zero percent oxygen on a dry
 basis If »mi«fifmc ff£ controlled by "*
 oxidation control system, or a reduction
 control system followed by incineration-

  . (U) 0.030 percent by volume of reduce*
 sulfur ffETWvi ' and 0.0010 percent »*
 volume of hydrogen sulfide calculated **
 sulfur <« txide at zero percent oxygen «*
 a dry busls if «nie«i^«- aje controlled W
 a reduction control system not f«now«o
 by Incineration.
     •      •      •       •      •
   5. Section 66.105 is amended by addinf
 paragraphs (a)  M) and (5) and (e) (3)
 (1) and(il) aafonows:
 § 60.105  EnuMien mvuHfimf.
   (a) • •  •
   (4) An histrument for continuous1'
 monitoring  and recording  eoncentt*"
 tions of HaS in fuel gases burned to aw
 fuel gas combustion device, If coropllanC*
 with I 60.104 (a) is achieved by removin*
 as from the fuel gas before it is burned!
 or an histrument for continuously mow^
 toring and recording concentrations **
 SO.  m  the gases  discharged into «"'
 atmosphere from the combustion of **•?
 fuel  gas, tf compliance with  I BO.104^
 to achieved by removing  BO. from tDc
 combusted fuel gases. If the  concentra-
 tion of as is monitored,  fuel gas
 bustion devices having a common
 of fuel  gas may be monitored at
 location, ff monitoring at this loca
 accurately represents the concentratM"1
 of HA m the fuel gas burned.       ijf
   (5) An instrument  for continuous'/
 monitoring and recording concentration'
 of SO. m the gases discharged into tt>*
 atmosphere from toe sulfur recoveJT
 plant if compliance with 1 00.104 (b)  *
 achieved through th« nse of an oxldauov
 control system, or a reduction  foaVr
 system followed by incineration: or  •*
 frnrfr^m^tpt fflT
 and gecordlnt
 reduced sulfur
 dtocharged into the atmosphere fwo P*
 •attur recovery ptent tt fravatftamm «^
 |«Ll«4(b>  k achieved tfareagto th* **
T ftff^»»^yni«y BMnflf
 eoneentratkios ef HJitf*
r oasnpoands m the •***
                              MOMAl K04ITWf VOL 41, NO. HI  MONDAY. OCtOMt 4,


                                                    111-88
-------
                                             rtoposn  tuus
a reduction control system not fol-
    y incineration.
   <1) (Reserved]  ~
   (a) [Reserved]
   (3) Sulfur dioxide,  (i)  Any  hourly
 Period during which the average con-
 •fntratfoo of HjB in fuel gas combusted
 * any fuel gas combustion device subject
 •J  I60.l04(a)  exceeds  230  mg/dscm
 <°'10  gr/dscf).   If  compliance  with
 JW.lMU) .la achieved by removing HJ3
 •rom the fuel gas before it is burned; or
 •*>» hourly period during which the aver-
 *** conceutratton of SO, In the gases
 •"Charged into the atmosphere from any
 *»»  gas combustion device subject to
 >t0.104(a>  exceeds  the  level specified
 ** I 60.104(a), if compliance with I 60.-
 *P* exceeds the levels specified in 160.-
 *WO>) <2) if compliance with I «,104(b>
 "Achieved through the use of reduction
 Control systems not followed by inciner-
 ation.
   *•  Section  60.106 is  amended  by re-
 T^mg paragraphs  (c)   and  (d)  as
 follows:

 t €0.106  Tetl metbodt and procedure*.

     Tor the purpose of determining
Compliance with |60.104(a>. Method 11
"5*U be  used to determine the concen-
 *»tjon of HJS and Method 6 shall  be
2*a to determine the concentration of

   (1) if Method  11  is used, the gases
•«mpled  shall  be introduced  into the
•wnpllng train at approximately atmos-
weric pressure.  Where  refinery  fuel
f*8 lines are operating at pressures sub-
•tanttaLy above atmosphere, this may be
      pllshed with a flow  control valve.
       line pressure is high enough  to
w—e the sampling train without a
vacuum pump, the pump may be elim-
™»ted from  the  sampling  train.  The
••mple shaU be drawn from a point near
the centrold  of the fuel gas line. The
•uiumum sampling time shall  be 10
"••unites and the minim^it^ sampling vol-
Jjme 0.01 dscm (0.35 dscf) for each sam-
**}»• The arithmetic average of two sam-
*;*» of equal sampling time shall con-
stitute one run. Samples shall be taken
** approximately  1-hour Intervals. For
•tost fuel gases, sample times exceeding
•0 minutes may result m depletion of the
oanecting solution, although fuel gases
•ontaming low ooncentrations of hydro-
     fulflde may necessitate sampling for
 longer periods of time.
   CT> If Method  t is used. Method 1
 •hall be used for velocity traverses and
 Method 3 for determining velocity and
 volumetric flow rate. The sampling site
 for determining SO, concentration by
 Method 6 shall be the same as for deter-
 mining volumetric flow rate by Method
 9. The sampling point in the duct for
 determining  SO,  concentration   by
 Method 6 shall be at the centrold of the
 cross section if the cross sectional area
 Is less than 5 m' (£4 f f) or at a point no
 closer to the walls than 1 m (30'inches)
 if the cross sectional area is 5 m' or more
 and the centrold is more  than one meter
 from the wall.  The sample shall be ex-
 tracted at a rate proportional to the gas
 velocity at.the sampling point. The mlnl-
'tniifn sampling ffm* «H»ii be 10 minutes
 and the minimum sampling volume 0.01
 dscm (0.36 dscf) for each sample. The
 arithmetic average of two samples of
 equal sampling time shall constitute one
 run. Samples shall be taken at approx-
 imately one-hour intervals.
   (d)  For the  purpose of  determining
 compliance with 180.104 (b),  Method 6
 shall be used to determine the concentra-
 tion of SO. and Method 16 shall be used
 to determine the concentration of EJB
 and reduced sulfur compounds.
  (1) Zf Method 6 is used, the procedure
 outlined in paragraph (c) (2) of this sec-
 tion shall be followed except  that each
 run shall span a minimum of four con-
 secutive  hours of continuous sampling.
 A number of separate samples  may be
 taken for each run, provided the total
sampling time of these samples adds up
 to a minimum of four consecutive hours.
 Where more than one sample is used, the
 average SO, concentration for the run
 •ban be calculated as the time weighted
average of the SO, concentration for each
 sample according to the formula:
                                  Where:
                                  C»<*80i eouMntntion tor the run.
                                   K-Number olMBjph*,
                                  Ctt"BO, MOOtotnUoo tar MmpI* I.
                                  (if-Oenttmioai Mmpttnf Um« at Mmple I.
                                   r-Tottl tontfamoaf •mpllni tlm* of til .VuraplM.

                                    (2) If Method 15 Is used, each run
                                  shall consist of 16 samples taken over a
                                  minimum of four hours. The """pii^y
                                  point shall be at the oentroid of the cross
                                  section of the duct if the cross sectional
                                  area is less than  6 m* (64 ft*)  or at a
                                  point no closer to the walls than 1 m (80
                                  inches) if the cross sectional area Is 8
                                  m* or more and the oentroid is more than
                                  1  meter from the wall. To Insure mini-
                                  mum residence time for the sample Inside
                                  the sample lines, the sampling .rate shall
                                  be at least 3 liters/minute (0.1 ff/mln).
                                  The SO, equivalent for each run shall be
                                  calculated as the  arithmetic average of
                                  the SOi equivalent of each sample dur»
                                  ing the run. Reference Method 4 shaH be
                                  used to determine the moisture content
                                  of the gases. The sampling point for
                                  Method 4 shall be adjacent to the sam-
                                  pling point for Method 15. The sample
                                  •hall be extracted at a rate proportional
                                          VOL 41, MO. Itl  «OM»*T.
to the gas velocity at the sampling point.
Bach run shan span A t«inim^m of f our
consecutive  hours of continuous sam-
pling. A number of separate samples may
be taken for each run provided the total
sampling time of these samples adds up
to a minimum of four consecutive hours.
Where more* than one sample is used, the
average  moisture content for the run
shall be calculated as the time weighted
average of the moisture content of each
sample according to the formula:
                                                                                 .   *-£«-&]
                                                                         B.,-Proportion by TOlume of vtler rtpor in UM CM
                                                                              ctnuo tor UK run.
                                                                          fTm Number of Mtnplee.
                                                                          Bw-ProporUon br volumt of witer Ttpor 111 the |w
                                                                             Mnun lor th« uunple i.
                                                                          C--Continuous (unpUnf tlm* tot simple I,
                                                                           r-ToUl coDtlnnoiw nmplinf time of kll N umpta.
  4. W«
                                             1:111-89
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS
      FURNACES

 Standards of Performance For New
     Stationary Sources
       SUBPART N
      111-90
-------
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
               AGENCY
           [40 CFR Part 60]
              (FRL 864-C1
 •TANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
        STATIONARY SOURCES
 1(011 »nd Steel Plants: Basic Oxygen Process
               Furnaces
 .  Notice is hereby given that under sec-
 «°ns 111, 114, and 301 of the Clean Air
 •Act, as amended, the Administrator  is
 JJJoposing amendments  to the standards
 J* Performance for basic oxygen process
 'ttrnaces (BOPP).
           or PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
 M     proposed  amendments  to the
 •tandards  of  performance  for  BOPP.
 '»cUities would limit the opacity of emis-
 •wns from  the control device,  require
 Monitoring of operations of the control
 Jfcvice. and clarify the term "startup" as
 r*Pplies to BOPF facilities. Compliance
 JWth  the proposed opacity limits would
 5* determined by  conducting observa-
 «pns in  accordance  with  Reference
 *«ethod 9. The continuous monitoring of
 operations Is specific to  venturi scrubber
 Mission control equipment because all
 fluently planned facilities will be con-
 tolled  by  venturi scrubbers. The pro-
 wed monitoring provisions require con-
 wnuous monitoring of the pressure loss
 •*POSS the throat of the scrubber and the
 *ater supply pressure to the scrubber. As
 *ne provisions of 40 CFR 60.1KO apply
 w BOPF faculties, "startup"  means the
 jetting into operation of a BOPF which
 J*» been out of production  for a con-
 Jwuous time period of eight hours or the
 •ettlng into operation of a relined BOPF.

             BACKGROUND '

   On June 11, 1973 (38 FB 15406), the
 Administrator proposed as Subpart N to
 *° CFR part 60, standards of perform-
 *°ce  for new basic oxygen process fur-
 **ces (BOPFs). The proposed standards
•™ated particulate matter emissions to no
 "tore than 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf)
 *°d to less than 10 percent opacity ex-
 J*Pt for two minutes in any one hour.
 rpmmentm  on the proposed standards
 Dinted out the inappropriateness of the
 **o minutes per hour exemption for the
 fyclic ateel production process  and the
 "Oaohievabllity of the level of the pro-
   ed opacity  standard. Evaluation of
    comments on the proposed standard
    EPA to conclude that further study
•     required for development of ade-
 2j»te provisions. On  March 8, 1974 (39
 *R 8308), the  Administrator  promul-
 gated the standard of performance llmit-
 J5* emissions from new BOPFs to less
 Bum  50 mg/dscm; however, the opacity
 •tandard and the attendant continuous
 •monitoring requirement were not pro-
 ^Ulgated At  that time. The opacity
 •wndard was reserved pending study of
 £*> the reasons for the observed varia-
 tions in the  opacity  of emissions from
 *tU'-eontrolled  facilities  and  (2)  the
 eject that exempting periods of startup.
 •butdown.  and malfunction  from ap-
 Wicability  of opacity standards  would
          PROPOSED RUliS

 have on the level of the opacity standard
 and the need for a time exemption.
  On November 12. 1974 (39 FR 39872),
 EPA revised Reference Method 9 and the
 general provisions applicable to opacity
 standards  of  performance.  Reference
 Method 9. the method  for determining
 compliance with opacity standards, was
 revised to require that opacity  observa-
 tions be recorded at IS-second intervals
 with a minimum  of 24 observations (six
 minutes), to obtain sufficient  observa-
 tions to ensure acceptable accuracy. The
 use  of sets of  opacity observations (or
 six-minute average opacity values) pre-
 cludes a single high reading from being
 considered  a  violation.  In  addition,
 I 60.1 He)  was added to the general pro-
 visions to provide a means for an owner
 or operator to  petition EPA to  obtain a
 higher opacity  standard for any facility
 that demonstrates compliance with the
 mass standard concurrent with failure
 to achieve the opacity standard. Section
 60.1KO allows opacity standards to be
 established at  levels  which reflect the
 maximum expected effects of the normal
 range of operating variables and stack
 diameters at well-controlled new facili-
 ties.
  In light of the'Method 9 revisions and
 the  questions on  the  appropriate emis-
 sion limitation and format for the opacity
 standard,  additional opacity  data  were
 obtained and the bases and rationale for
 an opacity standard for BOPFs  were
 thoroughly reevaluated.  The reevalua-
 Uon Included consideration of the effects
 on opacity of process variations, of varia-
 tions In performance characteristics of
 control devices,  and  of definition  of
 startup periods for BOPFs. The proposed
 opacity standards  are  established  at
 levels  which are achievable  by well-
 maintained and properly operated  con-
 trol equipment capable of reducing emis-
 sions to the  level of  the concentration
 standard,  50 mg/dscm  (0.22  gr/dscf).
 Copies of  the report on  the data bases
 and rationale for the proposed opacity
 standard may be  obtained upon written
 request from the EPA Public Informa-
 tion Center  (PM-215),  Environmental
Protection Agency,  Washington.  D.C.
 20460 (specify:  Background Information
 for an Opacity Standard of Performance
 for Basic  Oxygen Process  Furnaces  in
 Iron and Steel Plants).
 ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFLATIONARY IMPACT
  Opacity  standards  are set  at levels
 which ensure proper operation and main-
 tenance of the control system, but which
 do  not require use of a more efficient
 system. The opacity standards  and the
 continuous monitoring requirements pro-
 posed herein do not Impose any addi-
 tional significant  requirements  or costs
 over those required to comply with the
 concentration standard. Therefore, this
 proposal is not considered a major action
 under the Inflationary .Impact State-
 ment (US) program and no ns Is re-
 quired. The environmental Impacts  of
 the standards of performance for BOPFs
 also are incurred  in complying with the
 concentration standard. During the de-
 velopment of the concentration stand-
ard, the intermedia effects of the stand-
ard  were assessed and determined to be
negligible. No additional intermedia ef-
fects would be incurred in complying with
opacity standards for BOPFs. Therefore,
a formal environmental  Impact state-
ment has not been prepared. The envi-
ronmental impact of the proposed opac-
ity standards is beneficial as the stand-
ards would  ensure compliance  of new
BOPFs with the concentration standard
throughout their operational life.

       DATA BASE FOR A STANDARD

  The standard  of  performance limits
emissions from  all  new basic  oxygen
process furnaces to less than 50 mg/dscm
(0,22 gr/dscm).  Emissions "from  basic
oxygen process furnaces can  be con-
trolled  to this level .by use of  a  well-
designed and operated high  energy ven-
turi  scrubber or an electrostatic precipi-
tator. In the development of an opacity
standard  for  BOPFs.  opacity observa-
tions were conducted at six facilities ac-
cording to the procedures of Method 9
(39 FR 39872). Because of a known dif-
ference between the particle size distribu-
tions, and hence light scattering proper-
ties, of emissions from bottom  blown
BOPFs and top blown BOPFs, the opacity
of emissions from  both type furnaces
were investigated in  the  background
study on a standard.
  The facilities observed in the study
were representative  of several  control
levels  based on available  particulate
matter emission data and an engineering
judgment of the current condition of the
control system.  The condition of the con-
trol  system was assessed on  the basis of
review of operating  parameters, design
parameters,  and maintenance condition
of the control system. From the observa-
tion  of six facilities, it was noted that
higher emissions occurred at the begin-
ning of the steel production cycle for
both types of control systems. The higher
opacity emissions are attributable to the
greater evolution rate of  particulate
matter and the lower gas temperature at
the start of the oxygen blow as well as a
lag in the response of the control device.
For  scrubber-controlled  top or  botton
blown BOPFs  the six  minute  average
opacity levels observed  at the start of
oxygen blow were less than 20 percent,
and the six minute average opacity levels
during the remainder of the cycle were
less  than 10 percent opacity. Electro-
static precipltator controlled facilities
exhibited opacity levels less than 30 per-
cent during the start of oxygen blow and
levels less than 16 percent during the
remainder of the cycle. The difference
between the opacity  levels observed for
the two  types  of control systems pri-
marily reflects differences in diameter of
discharge stacks rather  than significant
differences in the performance.

  RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARD
~ Section 111 of the Act requires EPA to
set emission standards which reflect "the
degree of emission limitation achievable
through application of the best  system
of emission reduction which (taking into
account toe cost  of achieving such re-
                              MDMAl MOWn, VOL. 41. «O. 41
                                 MAKM t, 1fT7
                                                   ni-91
-------
                                                 WOPOSSD tvm
duetton) the Administrator determines
DM been adequately demonstrated." The
standards  of  performance  require an
owner or operator to conduct a perform-
ance tect after the Initial startup of an
affected facility to ensure that the  con-
trol system was properly designed  and
Installed. Section }ll(e> of  the  Act re-
quires that new sources continue to be in
compliance with the standards through-
out their operational life. Opacity stand-
ards are established in conjunction  with
mass  or concentration  standards as a
means of ensuring that control equip-
ment is  adequately   maintained  and
properly operated  at  all times between
performance tests.
  In EPA's judgment, the opacity levels
associated with well-designed and oper-
ated facilities differed by type of control
system due to design features. Therefore,
•election of the emission limitation for
the standard required consideration of
whether the level  would ensure proper
operation and maintenance of all facili-
ties. In the development of the proposed
standard EPA considered several alter-
native regulatory approaches. The alter-
natives   considered   included   opacity
levels based on  data  from electrostatic
precipitator-controlled  facilities,   sep-
arate opacity  limitations  for   electro-
static precipitator-controlled and scrub-
ber-controlled facilities, and an opacity
level based on data from scrubber-con-
trolled  facilities. An  opacity  standard
based on performance of electrostatic
precipitator-controlled systems was not
selected because the standard would not
require  proper operation and  mainte-
nance of  venturi scrubber-controlled
facilities. In addition, the steel industry
currently has no plans for the construc-
tion of  any new electrostatic precipita-
tor-controlled  BOPF facilities, thus this
standard would not accomplish its in-
tended purpose. Setting separate opacity
standards for the two  control systems
was  also rejected  because only one of
the control systems is expected to be
used.  Thus the proposed opacity stand-
ard  is  based  on  the performance of
scrubber-controlled  facilities.   Should
any affected BOPF be controlled  with an
electrostatic  precipitator and  comply
with the participate limit of  50 mg/dscm
but not the opacity limits, a separate
opacity  limit would  be  established for
that faculty under 40 CFR 60.11 (e). The
provisions  of  40  CFR  60.11 (e) allow
owners or operators of sources which ex-
ceed the opacity standard while  concur-
rently  achieving  the   concentration
standard to request  establishment  of a
specific .opacity standard for that fa-
cility.
  The proposed standard would  limit
peak opacity which occurs at the begin-
ning o? the cycle  and the opacity  over
the remainder of the cycle. The opacity
limit for the beginning  of the cycle is
necessary because  of the increased  par-
tlculate loading and fas density at the
Startup of the operation. Emissions  dur-
m *R« PJrt«i of startup of  the produc.
WPB eyete  «? no* fmpm frm £>*
opacity standard as a "tfajmn" under
the provision*  of  40 CFB 0U|<£> &§'
«Mse emissions during this period are
subject to the concentration standard
and  are controllable.
  The proposed standard would  limit
emissions  during the beginning of the
production cycle to less than 20 percent
opacity and emissions over the remain-
der of the cycle to less than  10 percent
opacity. To 'simplify enforcement, the
opacity standard would allow the period
of higher opacity emissions to  occur
once per steel production cycle. Restric-
tion   of  the  higher  opacity emission
period to  the beginning of the produc-
tion  cycle would require the observer to
synchronize  observations  with   shop
operations. In addition,  the proposed
standard could be enforced more readily
at facilities with several furnaces ducted
to a  single, common control system.
  Standards of performance for new
Sources established under  section 111 of
the Clean  Air Act reflect emission limits
achievable with  the  best  adequately
demonstrated system  01  emission re-
duction considering  -he  cost  of  such
systems.   State  implementation  plans
(SIP's) approved «r promulgated under
section 110 of the Act, on the other hand,
must provide fo  "~*e  attainment and
maintenance  of :  „  anal  ambient air
quality standards (nAAQS) designed to
protect public health and welfare. For
that purpose SIP's must in some cases
require greater emission reductions than
those required by standards of perform-
ance for new sources. In addition, States
are free under section 116 of the Act to
establish more stringent emission limits
than those established under section 111
or those necessary  to attain or maintain
the NAAQS under section 110. Thus, new
and  existing  sources may  in some cases
be subject to limitations more stringent
than EPA's standards  of  performance
under section ill.

         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  In accordance with section U7(f) of
the  Act, publication of these proposed
amendments to 40 CFR  Part 60 was
preceded  by  consultation  with appro-
priate advisor>- committees, Independent
experts, and Federal departments and
agencies.  Interested persons may  par-
ticipate in this ruleinaking by submitting
written comments  (in triplicate) to the
Emission  Standards  and Engineering
Division,   Environmental   Protection
Agency, Research  Triangle Park,  North
Carolina,  27711. Attention: Mr. Don R.
'Goodwin. Comments on all aspects of the
proposed amendments to the regulation
are  welcome, including economic  and
technological  Issues. All comments re-
ceived not later than May  2, 1977. will be
considered. Comments  received will be
available  for  publi:  inspection at the
EPA Public Information Reference Unit
(EPA  Library).  Room 2922.  401 M.
Street, 6W., Washington, Dr. 204*9-
                                       preparation of an Icowwnic Impact
                                       ment under Jt»«cutlT» Order 11949.
                                         Dated: February 23, 1977.
«7» lit
                                                                QPARLES.
                                                       Acting Administrator.

                                         Jt is proposed to amend part 60 of
                                        Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
                                        Regulations as follows.:
                                          1. The table of sections is amended by
                                        revising Subpart N as follows :
                                        Subpart «— «Und»rd* of r>»rfomi»net tor Irp"
                                                    •nd Steel Hint*
Sec.
60.143
                                              Monitoring of operations.
Agtocy
4m pot
                     ttost
                      propwaj
  2. Section 60.3 is amended by adding
a new abbreviation as follows:
§ 60.3  Abbreviations.

  Pa—pascal.
    •      •      •       •       *
Subpart N—Standards of Performance f»r
          Iron and Steel Plants
  3. Section 60.142 Is amended by adding
paragraph (a) (2- and (b) as follows'

§ 60.142  Standard for paniculate »•'•
     te
  (a)  •  • •
     •      •      •       •       •
  (2) Exit from a control device and ex-
hibit 10 percent opacity or greater, ex-
cept that an opacity of greater than 11
•percent but less than  20  percent m&}'
occur once per steel production cycle.
  (b)  For  purposes  of  this  subpart.
"startup" means the setting into opera-
tlon of a BOPF which has been out °»
production for  a minimum  continuous
time period of eight hours or the setting
into operation of a relined BOPF
  4. A new f 60.143 is added  as follows:

§ 60.143  Monitoring of operation*.
  (a) The owner or operator of an af'
fected facility shall maintain dally rec-
ords of the time and  duration of eacP
steel production cycle.
  (b) The owner or operator of any af*
fected facility that uses venturi  scrubber
emission control equipment shall inst*'*'
calibrate, maintain,  and  continuously
operate the following monitoring device*:
  (DA monitoring  device for  the c°n»
Unuous measurement of the pressure )<**
through the venturi  construction of W*
control equipment. The monitoring de-
vice is to be certified by the manufactur-
er to be accurate within ±250 Pa <**
inch water).
  <2> A monitoring device for  the con-
tinuous measurement of the  water sup-
ply pressure  to Jhe  cpntrp) equipment
17w monitoring dev|c* i* to be errtlflf?
by the manufacturer t» be accurate  *«&<
to ± 5 percent of the design water suppl*
pressur*. Th* pressure sensor or tap mWf*
be located close |p |he-water flWP&arff
point. The Administrator may  be co»'
suited for approval of alternative  >
tions for the pressure sensor or tap  •
  (c) All monitoring devices required i
diT paragraph  (b.)  of  this section
      **• ««, we. 4i«4rppmmr,
                                                                               i, 1*77
-------
                    PROPOSED RUtES

          to be recalibrated annually, and at other
          times as the Administrator may require,
          In accordance with the procedures under
          ie0.13(b>(3>.
            (d)  Any owner or operator subject to
          requirements  under paragraph  (b)  of
          this section shall report for each calendar
          quarter all measurement results that are
          more than 10  percent below the average
          levels maintained during the most recent
          performance test conducted  under { 60.8
          which the affected facility demonstrated
          compliance with  the  standard  under
          |60.142(a)(l>. The accuracy of the re-
          spective measurements, not to exceed the
          values specified in paragraphs (b) (1) and
          (b) (2) of this  section, may be taken into
          consideration   when   determining  the
          measurement  results that must be re-
          ported.
          (fleet.. Ill,  114, 801(»),  Clean Air Act,  u
          amended, Pub.  L. 81-804. 84 BUt. 1878 (43
          UJB.C. 18570-0, 1U700, 1867g(A)).)
            |nt Doc.77-«M3 Filed  3-l-77;8:4» ami
KOitAL UOISTU, VOL. 42, NO. 41—WIONISOAT, MARCH 1, It77
                       iJIII-93
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
    AGENCY
   STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
 STATIONARY SOURCES

     Kraft Pulp Mills
      SUBPART BB
-------
                     PIOPOSED  RULES
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                AGENCY

             [40CFRPart60J
               [FRL 606-9]
           KRAFT PULP MILLS
      Standards of Performance for New
            Stationary Sources
    Notice is hereby given that under the
  •uthority of section 111 of the Clean Air
      as amended, the Administrator  is
           standards of performance for
      and modified kraft pulp mills. The
          rator also is proposing to amend
         ,. A, Reference Methods, in Part
  »  by adding a  reference, method for
  "^measurement of total reduced sulfur
         emissions  and  an  alternate
         for the measurement of partlc-
       matter.

           PROPOSED STANDARDS
   The proposed standards would  limit
  fusions  of  particulate  matter  from
       affected facilities  at kraft  pulp
       The limits are: (1) 0.10 gram per
     standard cubic meter (g/dscm) for
          furnaces,  <2)  0.15 gram per
          of  air-dried pulp  (g/kg ADP)
      smelt  dissolving  tanks,  (3)   0.15
         for  H""»  Min« when burning
       1 gas, and (4) 0.30 g/dscm for lime
     1 when burning oil. Visible emissions
     i recovery furnaces would be  limited
   _35 percent opacity.
         the  proposed standards,  TRS
           would be limited to 5 parts
 tfr —-Ion < the mills on occasions when meteoro-
 1°fical conditions produce downwash of
 •tack plumes. The proposed standards
 would substantially reduce ground level
           ambient air concentrations of particu-
           late matter around new kraft pulp mills
           below current levels found around  ex-
           isting mills.
             The secondary environmental Impact
           of the  proposed  standards would be
           minor.  No additional  solid waste han-
           dling  or disposal  problems would be
           caused by the standards because  the
           additional particulate matter collected
           from recovery furnace systems, smelt
           dissolving tanks, and lime kilns can be
           recycled to the kraft pulping process.
           Increased water demand and treatment
           would be  slight because  mill  process
           water can be used in scrubbing systems
           for lime kilns and smelt dissolving tanks.
           and the scrubbing system effluent could
           be recirculated to  the kraft  pulping
           process with no increased effluent.  The
           increased mud washing necessitated by
           the standard  could  Increase water de-
           mand. A relatively small amount of par-
           ticulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and  ni-
           trogen oxides  would be discharged. Into
           the air if the power plant that supplies
           the additional electrical power required
           by the standards is fired with fossil fueL
                     ENIROT IMPACT

            The energy  requirements of the pro-
           posed standards have been  evaluated.
           Compared to  the requirements  of  the
           average State standards, the incremental
          energy that would be required to control
          all new. modified, and  replaced  affected
          facilities at kraft pulp mills by 1981  has
          been estimated at an equivalent of about
          1,440,000 barrels of Number 6 fuel oil per
          year. The magnitude of this requirement
          Indicates that  the  proposed  standards
          would not have a major impact on  the
          imbalance between national energy  de-
          mand and domestic  supply.
            The incremental energy requirements
          of the proposed standards would be gen-
          erated by the use of fans or pumps to
          circulate exhaust gases or scrubbing liq-
          uids  through control devices, and  the
          direct consumption of natural gas or fuel
          oil to incinerate exhaust gases or main-
          tain process conditions that reduce  the
          generation of pollutants. The incremen-
          tal energy represents an increase of ap-
          proximately 4.3 percent above the process
          energy requirements for new kraft pulp
          mills.
                    ECONOMIC IMPACT

            The proposed regulations could affect
          an estimated  17 million tons of  kraft
          pulping capacity by  1981. About  a third
          of that capacity would be affected as a
          result of mill capacity  expansions. The
          remainder would be affected via replace-
          ment of depreciated designated facilities.
          It is projected that the equivalent of 33
          new mills or expansions at existing mills.
          with a capacity of 500 T ADP/day, will
          occur through 1980. Replacement of ex-
          isting  depreciated designated facilities
          will result at an estimated 35 mills.
            Total  incremental Investment  costr
          through  1981 are projected to be $104
         million. The fifth-year annuallzed costs,
         including depreciation and 'interest, are
         estimated at $33 million. About a third of
         these costs would be Incurred by mills ex-
         panding capacity, while the remainder
  would be incurred by mills replacing de-
  preciated designated facilities.
    The costs that new, modified, and re-
  constructed kraft pulp mills would incur
  to comply with the proposed standards
  are considered reasonable. No difference
  in Impact among mill sizes could be dis-
  tinguished, and the proposed standards
  would not have  an adverse impact on
  either small or large mills. The capital re-
  quired for typical new mills would be in-
  creased by less than 2 percent, and the
  price of semi-bleached kraft pulp would
  be increased by less than 2 percent. The
  effect the  proposed  standards  would
  have on demand and supply of kraft pulp
  and on the future growth of the  kraft
  pulp  Industry is considered negligible.  It
  is emphasized that the costs are consid-
  ered  reasonable for new  and modified
  sources and that it is not implied that the
  same costs apply to the retrofitting of
  existing sources. The review of the eco-
  nomic impact has shown  that the pro-
  posal is not a major action under the
  Inflationary  Impact  Statement (US)
  program and no ns is needed.

   SELECTION or SOURCE CATEGORY AND
          ATRCTEO FACILITIES

   Section 111 of the Act directs the Ad-
  ministrator to establish standards of per-
 formance for stationary sources that may
 contribute significantly to air pollution
 which causes or contributes to the en-
 dangerment of public health or welfare.
 Kraft pulp mills are a major source of
 TRS compounds and particulate matter
 emissions. TRS compounds can have an
 adverse effect on public welfare, and par-
 ticulate matter can have an  adverse ef-
 fect on public health and welfare. Kraft
 pulp mills were selected for the develop-
 ment of  standards based on expected
 growth of the industry and the beneficial
 impact that would result from the ap-
 plication of best technology for air pollu-
 tion control. Kraft pulping has histori-
 cally been a rapidly growing Industry.
 with a growth rate of 5.5 percent per year
 between  1956  and 1975.  The annual
 growth rate for 1976 to 1978 is projected
 to be 2.5 percent, but estimates show that
 the growth rate may return to a higher
 rate in 1979.
   TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills
 an composed primarily of hydrogen sul-
 fide, methyl mercaptan. dimethyl sulflde,
 and dimethyl  disulflde. These  sulflde
 compounds are extremely  odorous  and
 exhibit odor threshold concentrations of
 no more than a few parts per billion. A
 study of the national social and economic
 impacts of odors performed in 1971-1973
 by Copley International Corporation for
 EPA found that the pulp and paper in-
 dustry ranks in the upper quarter of all
 odor sources in terms of strength  and
 public objection to the odors.  The emis-
 sions from each pulp mill surveyed in the
 study affect an average of 44,000 persons
 over an area of approximately 100 square
miles. The survey of 184 local air pollu-
tion control agencies in the United States
ranked the pulp and paper source cate-
gory as the fastest growing odor prob-
KDUAl MOUTH, VOL 41. NO. 117—niOAY. SWIMMI 14. 1*74


                   ljlII-95
-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES
   The establlslm*ent*6f standards ef per-
 formance for TRS emissions from knft
 pulp mills under section 111 of the Act
 would involve section ill (d) which pro-
 Tides for control of any air pollutants
 which are  not on list* published pur-
 suant to section IDBta) or 112(b) (1) (A)
. of the Act. TRS1 has not been named on
 either list Specifically, section 111 (d> re-
 quires that the Administrator prescribe
 • procedure to assure that States develop,
 Implement, and enforce emission stand-
 ards for existing- sources that would be
 subject to the standard  of performance
 If 'they were new sources. EPA promul-
 gated regulations that establish proce-
 dures and requirements for submittal of
 State plans under section lll(d)  on No-
 vember 17, 1075 (40 FR 53339) . As a con-
 •equence of the provisions of section 111
 (d).  promulgation  of this standard  of
 performance  for  new  and  modified
sources would require that the States de-
velop  emission standards for existing
 kraf t pulp tniii«.
   The proposed  standards would apply
to  all process  gas  streams which have
been identified as major sources of TRS
compounds or participate matter at kraf t
pulp miii« The following affected facul-
ties are specified by the proposed stand-
ards:  (1)  Digester system,  (2)  brown
stock washer system,  (3) multiple-effect
evaporator system,  (4) black liquor oxi-
dation system,  (5) recovery furnace, (*)
•melt dissolving tank. (7) lime  kiln, and
 <8) condensate stripping system.
  Water treatment ponds are significant
•ources of TRS emissions at  some kraf t
pulp mm* Evaluations of odors  In the
Immediate vicinity of mills indicate that
TRS emissions from these ponds vary
considerably from source to source, and
do not produce an odor problem at some
mills Methods for measuring TRS emis-
sions from kraft pulp mill water treat-
ment ponds are not available at this time.
and the  proposed standards  would not
apply to  these facilities. Emissions from
ponds  can be avoided by treating the
process condensate stream to a conden-
a*te stripper system prior to discharge
Into the pond, but bacterial action could
generate additional TRS in some ponds.
EPA intends to further investigate meas-
urement  and emission control  methods
for water treatment ponds at kraft pulp
mills, and determine whether regulation
under the performance standard is ap-
propriate,
  Bark and power boilers are two sources
of partlculate  emissions at  kraft pulp
mflls that are not covered by  the pro-
posed standards. EPA  plans  to develop
new source  performance standards for
Industrial boilers, and this source cate-
gory win include boners at  kraft pulp
              RATIONALE

  'The bases for the proposed standards
include  Include  Information  derived
from (1) available technical literature
•D the kraft pulping industry and emis-
sion control of the kraft pulping process.
<*> published studies sponsored by EPA
•f emission control  of the kraft pulping
~  cesa,  (» information gathered dor-
    vtrito to pollution control agenda*
 and kraf t pulp mfflt m the United States,
 (4) comments and suggestions solicited
 from  expert*, and (5)  the remits of
 measurements of emissions conducted by
 SPA and by the industry. The proposed
 standards for TRS emissions would re*
 quire  combinations of several  control:
 methods:
   1. Use of improved process operating
 procedure* to reduce  the generation of
 TRS,  such as control of the black liquor
 firing  rate, the  oxygen concentration
 within the furnace, and the alr-to-sollds
 ratio  during operation  (recovery fur-
 nace)  ; more  efficient  mud washing and
 control of temperature and oxygen con-
 centration (lime kiln); and use of clean
 water that is low in dissolved sulfldes in
 the particul&te scrubber (smelt dissolv-
 ing tank).
   2. Use of process equipment such as the
 indirect-contact  evaporator system  or
 black  liquor oxidation system that in-
 herently reduces the generation of TRS
 (recovery f urnance a stt*ii).
   3. Use  of control rjuipment  such as
 scrubbers with caustic solution to collect
 TRS (lime kiln).
   4. Uae of Incineration to convert TRS
 into less  objecticjtMe compounds (di-
gester system, brow  . xk washer system,
 multiple-effect evap .,/ator system, black
 liquor oxidation system, and condensate
 •tripper system).

          RECOVERY FURNACE

   The  recovery furnace is the  largest
 •ingle  source  of partlculate matter and
 TRS at a kraft pulp mill. In the direct-
 contact conventional furnace, heat is re-
 covered by directly contacting the fur-
 nace combustion gases with black liquor
 in a direct-contact evaporator. Most of
 the  TRS discharged from direct-contact
 recovery furnaces Is generated in the di-
 rect-contact evaporator, which also col-'
lects an appreciable portion of the par-
 tlculate matter generated by the combus-
 tion of black liquor in the furnace.
   The two methods for reducing TRS
emissions from recovery furnaces  are:
 (1)  The use of a black liquor oxidation
system to reduce the sodium sulfide con-
tent of the black liquor before evapora-
tion in a direct-contact evaporator, and
thereby the formation of TRS  in the
direct-contact  evaporator, and  (2) the
elimination  of the direct-contact eva-
porator In an Indirect-contact recovery
furnace.  Since  comparable  emission
levels of TRS can be achieved by these
two control methods, the proposed stand-
ards could be attained by using either
type of recovery  furnace. However, the
proposed emission limit  of 5 ppm TRS,
four-hour average, is  lower  than that
being achieved by some existing recovery
furnaces of either type and would there-
fore require more careful operation and
additional  black  liquor  oxidation for
comparable new furnaces.
  Electrostatic preclpitaton (ESP's) are
used almost universally to control par-
tlculate matter emissions from kraft re-
covery  furnaces.  Scrubbers with rela-
tively low collection efficiencies an in us*
at a few faculties. Tests performed by
EPA demonstrate that the proposed par-

               rd eould'b* achieved^*
 properly designed and' well maintained)
 ESP.
   The industry, has stated that ESP's op-
 erated on kraft- recovery  furnaces/ sig-
 nificantly deteriorate- over the- life of the
 ESP even when it is well maintained, in
 response, EPA obtained information from.
 mfll operators and vendors of ESP's anff
 concluded  that  good  maintenance ot'
 wires, collection plates, and rapping sys-
 tems would ensure that paniculate mat*
 ter emissions from a properly designed:
 and operated ESP would- not increase***
 a large -extent over the life of the ESP"-
 EPA recognizes that ESP's for kraft re-
 covery furnaces must withstand  more
 severe  service than for some other ftp"
 plications.  Accordingly,  the  proposed
 standards would require the more rug*
 gedly designed ESP's in order to accom-
 modate, for example,  the more severe
 plate rapping and  stressing of wires ex-
 perienced at kraft pulp mills. The addi-
 tional cost of the more ruggedly designed
 ESP was Included in the economic anal-
 ysis and is considered  to be reasonable.
   The Industry has also stated that the
 performance of ESP's operated on krai*
 recovery furnaces  should be allowed to
 deteriorate until there is  a sufficient
 amour'  it maintenance to be perform*0
 that the necessary shutdown of the fur*
 nace would be Justified. EPA believes toe*
 this Is a reasonable approach. According*
 ly,  the  proposed  partlculate  matte*
 standard for recovery furnaces wouljj
 allow some deterioration;  the propose*
 emission limit has been set somewhat
 higher than  the  levels  known to "
 achievable on the basis of both the re-
 suits of  partlculate matter tests  pel"
 formed by EPA and design levels for ne*
 kraft recovery furnace ESP's.
   EPA has determined that an oxygf*
 concentration in excess of 8 percent V*
 the gas stream measured after the recov
 ery furnace control device represents ex-
 cessive air inleakage and results In exces-
 sive dilution of the gas stream. The pr$!
 posed standard, therefore,  requires tl»»;
 an concentrations of partlculate matter
 and TRS measured after  the recover/
 furnace control device that have an oxf *
 gen concentration In excess of t perce**
 be corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
              Lna KTLK

   Lime kOns are a major source of P***
 tlculate matter emissions at kraft pwr
 mills. Because the lime mud that te pro**
 eased In the kiln contains residual qua0*
 titles of  Eulfldes, lime kflns are
 sources of TRS emissions.
  The two methods for controlling
 emissions from lime kilns are: (1)  mor«
 efficlent  washing to reduce  the suUWf,
 content of the lime mud, and control oj
 kfln exhaust gas temperature and oxyf **
 content, and (2> use of sodium hydroxtof
 (caustic)  In the scrubber that control*
particulate emissions from most kilo*'
Tests carried out by EPA  demonstrM*
that when the first TRS control metlK*1
{process control)  Is applied,  the sftow'
taneous addition of caustic to a scrub***
produces a significant reduction to tf**
emission- below  that  achievable  wt*
                                             VOL 41, NO. tS7—«*AT,
                                       14, W«
-------
  Process control alone.  The  annuallaed
  •ost for caustic addition to the scrubber
  fe small where the caustic Is not part of
  fee  make-up in  the kraft causticlzing
  •ystem. Accordingly, the proposed stand-
  ard  of 6 ppm  TRS, four-hour average,
  Would require both the best process con-
  trols for lime kiln operation and caustic
  Addition to the scrubber, or an equivalent
  «ystem.
    In developing the proposed standards,
  •PA carried out six tests for particulate
  emissions from lime kilns. In  each case
  we control device for particulate matter
  *as  a medium pressure- drop scrubber,
  we most widely used control technique In
  we domestic industry. However, one do-
  jaestic kraft pulp mill controls particu-
  late  emissions with an electrostatic pre-
  tipitator.  Based  on design parameters
  tad  emission data supplied by the opera-
  tor of this ESP, this system achieves an
  •mission level  significantly below that
  determined by EPA for medium pressure
  Jrop scrubbers. However, the waste gases
  from the  digester system and multiple-
  effect evaporator system,  which  could
  fee-re economically be incinerated In the
  June kiln, are processed in a separate
  Incinerator at this facility to control TRS
  •missions. The cost and energy penalties
  for the separate Incinerator are relative-
  ly large. The industry  has commented
  that It may not be feasible to incinerate
  we waste gases from other sources in a
  *Un controlled by an ESP, because gases
  *ay explode in the ESP when flameouts
  Jccur m the kiln. Solutions to this poten-
  tial problem, such as automatic diverting
  W inlet gases away from the kiln when
  a fiameout occurs, have been considered,
  out there Is at this time  no demonstrated
  technology that will ensure that explo-
 ; Ions would not occur.
    In arriving at  the proposed standard
  'or  particulate matter emissions from
  ttme kilns, EPA considered the alterna-
  tives of a medium pressure drop scrubber
  Uone. an ESP alone, and both particulate
  •ontrol systems  operated In series.  A
  •eparate  incinerator to control .TRS
  •missions from digester systems, mul-
  tiple-effect evaporator systems, and coo-
  pensate stripper systems was included In
  the  two alternative ESP systems. EPA
  Concluded that the  relatively large in-
  elements in cost and energy usage asso-
  ciated with the  ESP alternatives were
  fcot justified by the additional particulate
  •octroi  coined beyond  that achievable
  with a medium pressure drop scrubber
  •lone. Consequently, the proposed par-
  tlculate matter standard would require
  * medium pressure drop scrubber (ap-
  proximately  30 inches water gauge),  or
  equivalent.
.   EPA has  determined that an oxygen
*  oonoentration in the gas stream meas-
  ured after the lime kiln control device
t  m excess of 10 percent represents exces-
  sive air toleakage;  therefore,  the pro-
  posed standards  require that all meas-
  urements of particulate matter and TRS
  that have aa oxygen concentration  to
  •ness of 10 percent be corrected to  20
  Peroent oxygen.
          PtOFOSED RULES

        BUILT Dtssotvnrc TAJIK

  Smelt dissolving tanks discharge par-
ticulate  matter  comprised  of -finely
divided Emelt particles that are entrained
In the steam emitted from the tank. On
an  uncontrolled basis, the quantity of
particulate emissions is  small in com-
parison with that from recovery furnaces
and lime  kilns.  TRS emissions  can be
generated in the dissolving tank or In a
scrubbing device that collects particulate
matter, depending primarily on the sul-
flde content of water used to dissolve the
smelt  and to perform  the  scrubbing.
Standards In terms of concentration of
pollutants are not considered-appropri-
ate for smelt dissolving tanks because the
effluent stream is primarily air  and no
correction for  oxygen content and dilu-
tion air is possible to ensure effective en-
forcement.
  Particulate emissions from  smelt dis-
solving tanks are controlled by using wire
mesh  demister  pads  or  low  energy
scrubbers. The scrubbers remove particu-
late  matter  much  more- effectively,
though the energy requirements and op-
erating  costs  are  higher  than  for
demisters. The  proposed  particulate
standard  for  smelt  dissolving  tanks
would require the use  of low  energy
scrubbers, or equivalent systems, and is
supported by four EPA tests on two types
of low energy scrubbers. The proposed
TRS standard for smelt dissolving tanks
would prevent the use of water highly
contaminated with sulfldes for dissolving
the smelt and for particulate scrubbing
systems.
            OTHER SOURCES
  Approximately one-quarter of the total
uncontrolled TRS emissions from a typi-
cal kraft pulp  mill are generated by the
digester  system, brown stock  washer
system, black  liquor  oxidation  system,
multiple-effect evaporator  system, and
condensate stripper  system.  Ineffective
control of these facilities could  have a
large Impact on localized odor problems.
The effluent streams can be incinerated
In the recovery furnace, the lime kiln, or
a separate incinerator to oxidize most
of the TRS. The quantity of auxiliary
fuel required for incineration Is greatly
reduced If incineration is performed in
the recovery furnace and the lime kiln.
If the noncondensable gases ftrom the
brown stock washer system and the black
liquor oxidation  system are Incinerated,
for example, in the  recovery furnace,
some  auxiliary  fuel may be required.
However, the noncondensable gases from
the digester system, multiple-effect evap-
orator system, and condensate stripper
system would not require additional fuel
if incinerated in the lime kiln as pan of
the primary air feed to the kfln. The pro-
posed standard of 5 ppm TRS, four-hour
average, for each of these five affected
facilities would  require incineration in
the recovery furnace and the lime kiln,
or equivalent.
          OPACITY STANDARD

  An opacity standard Is proposed for
recovery  furnace •ystems  to  ensure
proper operation and maintenance of the
partciulate  control device.  No  opacity
standards  are  proposed for lime kilns
and smelt dissolving  tanks,  which fre-
quently  generate  persistent  plumes of
condensed  water vapor. The  effluent
plume is so greatly dispersed by the time
the vapor plume disappears that the ob-
served-opacity  would  not be  as effective
an indicator of the performance of the
patriculate  control  system  as  other
parameters. .Monitoring the operating
parameters of the control system would
be more effective.
     STATE IMPLEMENTATION  PLANS

   It should be noted that standards  of
performance for new sources established
under section 111 of  the Clean Air Act
reflect emission limits  achievable with
the  best adequately demonstrated sys-
tems of  emission  reduction considerinc
the  cost of such  systems.  State imple-
mentation plans  (SIP's)  approved  or
promulgated under section 110 of the Act
on the other hand, must provide for the
attainment and maintenance of national
ambient air quality standards 
designed to protect public health and
welfare. For that  purpose SIP's must in
some cases  require greater emission re-
ductions than those required by stand-
ards of  performance for new  sources.
In addition, States are free under sec-
tkm 116 of the  Act  to establish more
stringent emission limits than those es-
tablished under  section  111 or  those
necessary  to  attain  or  maintain the
NAAQS  under section  110.  Thus, new
and existing sources may in some cases
be subject to limitations more stringent
than EPA's standards  of performance
under section 111.

      TISTIKC, MONITORING, AND
           . RECOKDKEENNG
   Under the proposed  standards,  per-
.formance tests for TRS emissions ac-
cording  to  Reference Method  16 pro-
posed herein would be required for all
affected facilities. Performance tests for
particulate  matter emissions from re-
covery furnace systems, lime kilns, and
smelt dissolving  tanks would  also be
required.  Particulate matter emissions
would be measured by Reference Meth-
ods  1 through 6. Method 17 (in-stack
filter) is being proposed as an alterna-
tive method to measure particulate emis-
sions from the recovery furnace. It is
being proposed in Appendix A, Refer-
ence Methods, because the Agency in-
tends to also propose Method  17 as a
reference method to measure particu-
late matter from  grain elevators.
   The proposed standards include pro-
visions for continuously monitoring the
opacity of visible emissions  discharged
from  recovery  furnaces.  To  ensure
proper operation  and  maintenance of
scrubbers installed on lime kilns and on
•melt dissolving tanks, provisions are in-
cluded for monitoring the pressure drop
•cross the scrubber and the scrubbing
fluid supply pressure to the scrubber.
   Where  emissions  from  the  oSgester
system,  brown stock  washer  system.
                               NONA! KOISTM. VOL 41, NO. W—HIOAV. tOTIMW 14.  W*
                                                      111-97
-------
                                                  rtOTOSED MILES
  nultlpte-effect evaporator lyrtem. bUek
  liquor oaddattoo system,  or eondensate
  •tripper are Incinerated In a device other
  tban a Ume kfln of rteuveij furnace, it
  It proposed that the firebox temperature
  ef the device be monitored.
    A  requirement  for  the  continuous
  monitoring of TR8 emlnionc from the
  recovery furnace and lime kUn  to also
  proposed. Hie specifications for continu-
  ous TRS monitors are not being proposed
  at this time because they  have not been
  completely developed. However, the de-
  velopment  of  these specifications  are
  Imminent and  they are expected to be
  promulgated at the time that the kraft
  pulp mill standards of performance are
  promulgated.
   A requirement to monitor the oxygen
  concentration  of the gas stream on a
 dry.basis after  the  control device is be-
 ing proposed for the lime >"" and re-
 covery -furnace. The mentoring of  oxy-
 gen concentrations  Is necessary to cor-
 rect  the TRC and  particulate concen-
 trations for the Ume kiln and  recovery
 furnace when the oxygen concentrations
 in the respective gas streams are  in ex-
 cess of 10 percent and 8 percent oxygen.
   Records of performance  testing  meas-
 urements, continuous monitoring system
 measurements,  and  monitoring  device
 measurement would have to be  retained
 for at least two years following the date
 of the  measurements  by  owners or
 operators subject to the  provisions of
 this  subpart. This  requirement Is in-
 eluded under t 60.7(d) of the regulation.
         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

   As  prescribed by section  111, this pro-
 posal of standards of performance has
 been  preceded by the  Administrator's
 determination that kraft pulp mills con-
 tribute significantly  to  air pollution
 which causes or  contributes to  the en-
 dangerment of public health or welfare
 and by his  publication of this determi-
 nation  in  this  issue of  the  PKDIBAL
 REGISTER. In accordance with section 117
 at the Act, publication of these proposed
 standards was preceded by consultation
 with  appropriate  advisory  committees,
 independent experts, and  Federal  de-
 partments and agencies.
  Interested persons may participate in
 this rulemaklng by  submitting  written
 comments (in triplicate)  to the Emission
 Standards  and   Engineering Division,
 0.8. Environmental  Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
 Z7711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin.
 The Administrator  will  welcome  com-
 ments on all aspects of the proposed
 regulations,  including the  designation
 of kraft pulp mills as a significant con-
 tributor to air pollution which causes or
contributes  to  the   endangerment  of
 public health or welfare, economic and
 technological issues, and the proposed
 test methods. All relevant comments re-
 ceived on or before  Kovember 22, 1870
 will be considered. Comment! received
 will be available tor public inspection
 tod copying-** the KPA Public informa-
 tion Referent* unit, Room M22   "Neutral  sulflte  semichemlcal
  pulping operation" means any operation
  in which pulp is produced from wood bf
  cooking (digesting) wood chips in a solu-
  tion of sodium sulflte and sodium bicar-
  bonate,  followed  by  mechanical  defi-
  brating (grinding).
    (c) "Total  reduced  sulfur  (TRS>-
  means the sum of the sulfur compounds,
  primarily hydrogen sulflde. methyl  mer-
  captan. dimethyl  sulfide. and dimethyl
  disulfide, that are released  during the
  kraft pulping operation and measured by
  Method 16.
    (d) "Digester system" means each con-
  tinuous digester or each batch digester
  used for the cooking of wood to whit*
  liquor, and associated flash tank(s), blow
  tank(s),  chip  steamerCs),  and   con-
  denser (s).
    (e)  "Brown  rtock  washer  system"
  means knotters, vacuum pumps, and fil-
  trate t  is used to wash the pulp fol-
  lowing *.he digester system.
    (f) -Multiple-effect evaporator  sys-
  tem" means the multiple-effect evapora-
  tors   tend  associated eondenser(s)  ana
  hotwelHs) used to concentrate the spent
  cooking liquid that is separated from the
  pulp (blackliquor).
    (g) "Black liquor oxidation system
  means the  vessels used to oxidize,  wltD
  air or oxygen, the black liquor, and as-
 sociated storage tank(s).
    (h)  "Recovery  furnace"  means  th«
 unit  used for burning black liquor to re-
 cover chemicals consisting primarily °*
 •odium carbonate and sodium sulfide-
 The  recovery fumance Includes the di-
 rect-contact 'evaporator  for  a conven-
 tional furnace.
    (1)  "Smelt dissolving tank" means »
 vessel used for dissolving the smelt  eOt*
 lected from  the recovery furnace.
   (j)  "Lime kite" means a unit used W
 calcine Ume mud, which consists  P»'
 marlly of calcium carbonate, into qulc*'
 Ume,  which  is calcium oxide.        „
   (k)  "Condensate  stripper system
 means a column, and associated condefl*
 sen.  used to strip, with air or  •tea*
 TRS    compounds  from   conden**'*
 streams from various processes within *
 kraft pulp milL

 8 60.282  Standard for paniculate  **•*''
   *  ter.
   (a)  on and after the date on
 the performance test required to be coo*
 ducted by 160.8 is completed, no owflfj
 er operator subject to the provisionsJJJ
 this subpart shall cause to be dlschart*0
 Into the atmosphere;                 ^
   (1)  Fran  any recovery furnace *w
 gases which;
   (1) Contato Darticulai* matter Jo •*'
 cess of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 gr/d»cf).  „
   (U>  Kxhihit  u  percent opacity *
greater.                   ^^
                                    Hour**; vtc 41, MO. ttr-M»A«,
                                                  111-98
-------
                                                  PROPOSED  1UIES
   «)  From any  smelt dissolving tank
 •ny  races which  contain  particulate
 matter in excess of 0.16 g/Kg ADP (OJ
 Jb/tonADP).
   (3)  Prom any lime  kiln  any eases
 which:
    Contain particulate matter in ex-
 cess of 0.15 g/dscm (0.087 gr/dscf> when
 Caseous fossil fuel is burned.
   (11)  Contain particulate matter in ex-
     of 0.30 g/dscm (0.13 gr/dscf) when
  PUd foasU fuel ie burned.
 160.283   Standard for total reduced Mil-
     lar 
 of  this section, to monitor and record
 the-concentratlon of TRS emissions dis-
 charged into the  Atmosphere from  any
 digester system, brown stock washer sys-
 tem, multiple-effect  evaporator system.
 black  liquor oxidation system, recovery
 'urnace,  lime kiln, or condensate •««>-
 »er system. The span shall be set at »
 HW concentration of 80 ppm.
   (8)  A  continuous  monitoring system
 to monitor and record the percent of
oxygen by  volume  In the  cases  dis-
charged  from any recovery  furnace  or
lime  *""  The  continuous monitoring
system shall be located downstream  of
the control device (s)  for  the recovery
furnace or lime kiln, and  all measure-
ments shall be made on a dry basis. The
span of this system shall be set at 20 per-
cent oxygen.
  (b) Any owner or operator subject  to
the provisions of this subpart shall in-
stall,  calibrate,  maintain,  and  operate
the  following  continuous  monitoring
devices:
  (1) A monitoring device  which meas-
ures the combustion temperature at the
point  of  incineration  of effluent gases
which are emitted from any digester sys-
tem, brown stock washer system, multi-
ple-effect evaporator system, black liq-
uor  oxidation  system, or •condensate
stripper  system  and which are com-
busted in a power boiler or separate in-
cineration unit. The monitoring device
is to be certified by the manufacturer  to
be accurate  within  ±2* C (±3.6* P).
  (2)  For any lime kiln or smelt  dis-
solving tank using  a scrubber emission
control device:
  (1)  A monitoring device  for the con-
tinuous measurement  of  the  pressure
loss of the gas stream through the con-
trol equipment.  The monitoring device
is to  be certified by the manufacturer
to be accurate to within a gage pressure
of ±260 pascals (ca.  ± I inch water gage
pressure).
  (11)  A monitoring  device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the scrubbing
liquid supply pressure to  the  control
equipment. The monitoring device is  to
be certified by the manufacturer to  be
accurate within  ±5 percent  of design
scrubbing liquid  supply pressure.  The
pressure  sensor or tap is to be located
close  to  the scrubber liquid discharge
point. The Administrator may be con-
sulted  for  approval  of   alternative
locations.
  (c) Any owner of operator subject  to
the provisions of  this subpart shall cal-
culate and record on a daily basis:
  (1) Four-hour  average TRS concen-
trations  for  the  six consecutive four-
hour periods of each operating day. Each
four-hour average shall be determined
as the arithmetic mean of the appro-
priate four contiguous one-hour average
total reduced sulfur concentrations pro-
vided  by each  continuous monitoring
system installed under paragraph  (1)  of this section are met.

| 60.285  Teat methods and procedure*.

  (a)  Reference methods in Appendix A
of this part,  except as provided under
i «0.8 (b) . shall be used to determine com-
pliance with 1 80.282 (a) as follows:
  (1)  Method  8  for  the concentration
of particulate matter and the associated
moisture content,
  (2)  Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (8) When   determining  compliance
with 1  60.282 (a) (2) . Method 2 for velocity
•nd volumetric flow rate,
                                      •MUM, VOL 41, NO.  187—flUMV, ttnUMB M, 1t7«
                                                     i 111-99
-------
                                                             fiuiis
    <4 > Method 3 for gas analysis, and
    (i) Method 9 for visible emissions.
    b) For Method 6, the sampling time
  ftf each run shall be at least 60 minutes
  t Ad the sampling rate shall  be at least
  '<.85 dscm/hr  (0.53  dscf/mln)  except
  that shorter sampling times, when neces-
  sitated by process variables or other fac-
  tors, may be approved by the Adminis-
  trator. Water shall be used as the cleanup
  solvent Instead of acetone in the sample
 recovery procedure outlined in Method 5.
   (c) Method  17  (la-stack:  filtration)
 may be used as an alternate method for
 Method 5 for  determining  compliance
 with f 60.282(a> (1)  (1): Provided, That
 a constant value of 0.009 g/dscm (0.004
 gr/dscf) is added to the results of Method
 17 and the  stack  temperature is no
 greater than 205* C (ca. 400* F). Water
 shall be used as the cleanup solvent in-
 stead of acetone In  the sample recovery
 procedure outlined in Method 17.
   (d) For the  purpose of determining
 compliance with { 60.283(a) (1), (2), (3),
 and (4), the following reference methods
 shall be used:
   (1) Method  16 for the concentration
 of TRS,
   (2) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
   (3) When   determining  compliance
 with  { «0.283(a) (3),  Method 2 for veloc-
 ity and volumetric flow rate.
   (e) All concentrations of particular
 matter and TRS from the lime kiln and
 recovery furnace that are measured as
 required by this section shall be corrected
 to 10 volume percent oxygen and 8 vol-
 ume percent  oxygen, respectively, when .
the oxygen concentrations exceed these
values.
   Arrnroxx A—•REFKRZKCC METHOD*
  2. Method 16 and Method 17 are added
to Appendix A as follows:
                               IIMRAl MOOT*, WOC 41, MO. 117—MlftAY, JUntMMi 14, Wft



                                                    III-100
-------
                                            PtOPOSED  IULES
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             AGENCY
          [40 CFR Part 60]
         KRAFT PULP MILLS

   Standards of Performance for New
     Stationary Sources; Correction

4cument have not been  available to all
toterested parties to time to allow their
Meaningful review and comment by »o-
y*mber 22. The public comment period Is
Jherefore being  extended to allow addi-
tional time for  all Interested parties to
tftrticlpate In this rulemaklng. EPA has
*celved a request Irom the todustry to
«rtend the comment period by 4B d»y§
through January 7,1*77. An extension of
this length does not, however.
Justified because the printing and ship-
ping delay  has  resulted In only a two-
week delay in processing requests for the
document. EPA has therefore determined
that the comment period will  be ex-
tended by three weeks and all comments
postmarked by December 13,1976. will be
considered.  Comments should  be  sub-
mitted (In  triplicate) > to-the Emission
Standards  and Engineering  Division
(MD-13), UU.  Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park.
North  Carolina  27711, Attention:  Mr.
Don R. Goodwin.
  Dated: November IB, 1976.
                Roont STULAW,
        Atsistant Administrator /or
         Air and Waste Management.
 (PR Doc.76-M661 Ftlatf ll-19-76;8:46 an)
 NPMAl MOUnt* VOt. 41, NO. 227—TUISOAY. NOVIMNt 21, 1fT4
                                                li'III-101
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
 LIME MANUFACTURING
       PLANTS

Standards of Performance and Addition
 to Lilt of Categories of Stationary
        Source*
      SUBPART HH
        IJI-1QSI
-------
                                                PtOPOSID IULIS
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

          [40CFRPsrt60]
             [FRL 704-1]
 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
        STATIONARY SOURCES.
       Lime Manufacturing Plant*

 AOENCY:  Environmental  ProtecUon
 Agency.

 ACTION: Pi-oposed rule.
 8ttMMARY:  The  proposed' standards
 Would limit emissions of participate mat-
 **'  from  new,  modifled,  and recon-
 structed lime manufacturing plants. The
 •tandards implement the Clean Air Act
 *Hd  are based on the Administrator's
 ^termination  that lime manufacturing
 Want emissions contribute significantly
 *° air pollution. The Intended effect is to
 }*Q.ulre new. modifled, and reconstructed
 Jwie manufacturing plants  to use the
 •"•t  demonstrated system of  emission
        .
&ATES: Comments must be received on
Or before July 5. 1077.
ADDRESS: Comments should be sub-
JJltted, preferably In  triplicate, to. the
^mission Standards and Engineering Di-
2*lon, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North  Caro-
Bl* 27711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Good-
Win.

  The Standards Support and Environ-
Jitental Impact Statement (SSE1S) may
J* obtained from the public Information
Center (PM-215),  U.S.  Environmental
protection  Agency,  Washington,  D.C.
20460 (specify "Standards Support and
Environmental Impact Statement, Vol-
•"ae l: Proposed Standards of Perform-
**ce for -Lime Manufacturing Plants").
  All public comments received will be
Available for inspection and copying dur-
«g normal business hours at EPA's Pub-
   Information Reference Unit, Room
     (EPA Library), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C.
     FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
  *nd  Engineering  Division, Environ-
 . mental Protection Agency, Research
  Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
  telephone  number 019-688-6146, ex-
  tension 271.
SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
   SUMMARY or ENVIRONMENTAL AND
          ECONOMIC IMPACTS
  The proposed standards could Impact
»n estimated 6.8 teragrams (7.5 million
Jons) of lime manufacturing capacity by
1982. About  one-third of  that would be
due to replacement of existing facilities
•od the remainder due to installation of
*">ulpment needed for expansion of in-
dustry capacity. EPA estimates that ap-
proximately  8 to 10 new rotary lime kilns
*Qd one new lime hydrator will be built
**ch year for the next five yean.
  The proposed standards would reduce
national participate emissions from lime
manufacturing plants by about 13 giga-
grams (about 14,200 tons) through 1082.
This  reduction would be accomplished
with  only minimal  adverse  environ-
mental impacts on water pollution and
solid  waste handling  and disposal. Na-
tional energy consumption would be de-
creased slightly by the equivalent of nine
cubic meters or about 55 barrels of No. 6
fuel oil per day in 1082.
  Total  incremental  Investment  costs
through 1082 to meet the proposed stand-
ards are projected to be about $3 mil-
lion. The annuallzed  costs in  1082, in-
cluding depreciation  and interest,  are
estimated to be about $5 million. The
potential price increase that would result
from  implementation  of the  proposed
standards for new or reconstructed kilns
has been estimated to be about 80 cents
per megagram of lime produced, or an in-
crease of approximately 2.6 percent. The
costs for control of particulate emissions
from the affected facilities are considered
reasonable.
  The proposed particulate standard for
rotary lime kilns is based on the use of a
baghouse or an electrostatic preclpitator.
Use of either of these systems would re-
sult in minimal  adverse environmental
impacts.  A venturl scrubber could also
be used to meet the standards.  Although
venturl scrubbers would result in an ad-
ditional  beneficial environmental Im-
pact by reducing SO, emissions by about
7 percent, they would also result in ad-
verse Impacts on solid waste disposal,
water pollution, and energy consump-
tion.
  The proposed particulate standard for
lime hydrators is based on the use of a
scrubber. Since the typical State stand-
ard for this facility also requires the use
of  a scrubber, there would be minimal
environmental Impacts associated with
the proposed standard. The Incremental
energy required Is small, an increase of
less than one percent. All of the collected
particulate matter could be recycled to
the unit along with the scrubbing water.
Therefore, there would be no adverse en-
vironmental impacts on solid waste dis-
posal or  water pollution.
 RATIONALE rox THE PIOPOSID STANDARDS

  The proposed standards would require
the best  demonstrated technology, con-
sidering costs, for the control of particu-
late matter emissions  be Installed and
properly operated at new, modifled, and
reconstructed    lime   manufacturing
plants. The proposed standards wen de-
veloped based on Information derived
from  (1)  available technical literature
on  the lime manufacturing industry and
applicable emission control technology,
(2) technical studies performed for EP.A
by  Independent research organizations,
(3) information obtained from the Indus-
try during visits to lime plants and meet-
Ings with various representatives of the
industry. (4)  comments and suggestions
solicited from experts, and (8) the results
of emission measurements conducted by
EPA and the Industry.
  It should be noted  that standards .of
performance for new sources established
under section 111 of the Clean Air Act
reflect emission limits achievable  with
the best demonstrated systems of emis-
sion reduction  considering the cost of
such  systems.   State implementation
plans (SIP'S) approved or promulgated
under section 110 of the Act, on the
other hand, must provide for the attain-
ment and maintenance of national am-
bient air quality standards (NAAQS) de-
signed to protect public health and wel-
fare. For that purpose  SIP'S must In
some cases require greater emission re-
ductions than those required by stand-
ards of performance  for new  sources.
For example, EPA's Interpretative  Rul-
ing (41 FR 55524, December 21,1076) on
the construction of a new or modifled
source in an area that exceeds a NAAQS
requires, among other things, that the
new source must meet an emission limita-
tion which reflects the "lowest achiev-
able .emission rate"  for such  type of
source. At a minimum, the  lowest rate
achieved in practice would  have to be
specified unless the applicant can dem-
onstrate that it cannot achieve  such
a rate. In no event could the rate exceed
any applicable standard of performance
for new sources.
  This  stringent requirement  reflects
EPA's Judgment that a new source should
be allowed to emit pollutants  into  an
area violating a NAAQS only if its  con-
tribution to the violation is reduced to
the greatest degree possible. While cost
of achievement may be an Important fac-
tor in determining a standard of  per-
formance  for new sources applicable to
all areas of the country  (clean as well
as dirty) as a minimum,  the cost factor
must be accorded far  less weight in de-
termining an appropriate emission lim-
itation for a source locating in an  area
violating  statutorily-mandated  health
and  welfare  standards.  Thus, while
there.may be technology available for
new sources which have been determined
not to be appropriate for standards of
performance purposes, because of  the
greater consideration of the  cost factor,
this technology still should be considered
for purposes of determining  the "lowest
achievable emission rate" for such  type
of sources. The existence of  a standard
of performance for new .sources should
not be viewed as the ultimate In achiev-
able control and should not limit the Im-
position of a more stringent standard,
where appropriate.
  in addition, States are free under sec-
tion 116 of the Act to establish even more
stringent emission limits  than those es-
tablished under section ill or those nec-
essary to attain or maintain the NAAQS
under section 110, including the emis-
sion offset policy requirements outlined
here. Thus, new sources may in some
cases be subject to limitations more strin-
gent than EPA's standards of perform-
ance under section 111, and  prospective
owners  and  operators of new sources
should be aware of  this possibility In
planning for such facilities.
  Selection of the Source Category, Pol-
lutants, and Affected  FaciHHe$. Section
111 of the Act directs the Administrator
to establish standards of performance
                               Ft&tXAl UOISTtt, VOL 41, NO. IS—TUIJDAY, MAY 1, 1*77
                                                    JHI-103
-------
                                                  PROPOSED RUlfS
  for new and modified stationary sources
  that may contribute significantly to air
  pollution which causes or contributes to
  the endangerment of public health or
  welfare. Lime manufacturing plants have
  been shown to be a significant source of
  particulate  matter  emissions. A  study
  performed for EPA in 1975 by The Re-
  search  Corporation  of New England
  ranked the lime industry twenty-fifth on
  • list of 112 stationary source categories
  which are emitters of particulate mat-
  ter, Lime plants have also been Identi-
  fied as sources that are capable of con-
  tributing to the deterioration of existing
  air quality (39 FR 42510).
    Lime plants have been selected for the
  development  of standards of  perform-
  ance based on the expected growth rate
  Of the industry, the wide range of plant
  locations across the United States, and
  the reduction in  particulate emissions
  achievable with application of the best
  technology for emission control, consid-
  ering costs. Since  1930, the demond for
  lime  products has been increasing at a
  growth rate  of about five percent  per
  year. This rate is  projected to continue
  through 1982.  In  1975, there were  179
  lime  plants located in 40 states in  the
  United States, producing a total of about
  20 teragrams  (22  million tons) of lime
  per year.
   Lime plants are sources of emissions
  of  particulate matter,  nitrogen oxides
  (NO,), carbon monoxide (CO), and sul-
 fur dioxide  by using a scrub-
 ber, therefore,' Is attained at a relatively
 large economic impact.
   This economic impact  and  the  as-
 sociated adverse environmental impact
 on water pollution, solid waste disposal
 and increased energy consumption are
 not considered reasonable In light of the
 relatively small beneficial impact on air
 quality.  The  Administrator has  deter-
 mined, therefore,  that a  standard of
 performance  for  control  of  SO, from
 lime kilns is  not justified  and an  SO.
 standard is not being  proposed.
   Particulate matter  Is  emitted from
 both the lime kiln and the lime hydrator.
 Potential particulate emissions from un-
 controlled  facilities would amount to
 about 15 kilograms per megagram (kg/
 Mg) of limestone feed from the kiln  and
 about 20 kg/Mg  of lime feed from the
 hydrator.  The average State emission
 limit for both kilns and hydrators is 0.5
 kg/Mg of  feed. Through application of
 the best demonstrated emission control
 technology, the  emissions  from  these
 facilities could be further reduced to 0.15
 kg/Mg from the kiln  and 0.075 kg/Mg
 from the hydrator. These emission rates
 represent  incremental  reductions   In
 particulate emissions from rotary lime
 kilns and  lime hydrators  controlled to
 eomnly with the average State standard
 of 70 and 85 percent, respectively.
  Lime kilns and hydrators account for
 virtually all of the particulate matter
 emitted from lime plants. Small amounts
 of  fugitive particulate emissions may
 occur from various points in the process,
 but these have not been quantified and
 applicable  control  technology has  not
 been investigated. No  standards  for
 control of  fugitive emission*,  therefore,
 are being proposed.                  s
  Xotary Lime Kttni.  The lime kiln Is
 the largest source of particulate  emls-
 aions at a lime  manufacturing plant.
 Although there  are several  types of
 kilns In use by the industry, the proposed
 standards would apply only  to  rotary
 kilns. Approximately 90 percent  of the
 lime produced In the VS. is produced tt
 rotary kilns, and virtually all the new
 kilns that have been built in the last few
 years have been of  the rotary  type. The
 rotary kiln  Is the  only kiln  that can
 utilize coal  for fuel and still  maintain
 acceptable product quality. Since the
 lime manufacturing Industry desires the
 capability in the future to burn coal, the
 present trend  is to build  and operate
 rotary kilns whenever possible.
   The format of the proposed particu-
 late standard for the kiln could be either
 a concentration standard or a mass-pet•
 unit-of-llmestone standard. Concentra-
 tion standards  are normally  easier to
 enforce than  mass standards. A con-
 centratlon standard,  however,  would
 penalize the more  energy  efficient kiln
 operations. Since reduced fuel  consump-
 tion results   In  smaller   exhaust g»J
 volumes, a concentration standard would
 require  the  most energy efficient Win
 operators  to achieve a higher  degree of
 control.                             .
   The majer prcblem usually associated
 with  mass-per-unit-of-feed   standards
 Is  determining the  feed rate.  The feed
 rate of the limestone into the kiln, how*
 ever,  is measured  routinely   at IW*
 plants,  thereby allowing  the  emission
 rate to be calculated directly.  Since tn«
 mass-per-unit-of-limestone feed form»»
 is more equitable for the energy efficient
 lime producers, this format is used »o*
 the proposed standard.
   EPA considers the following  three de-
 vices to be  representative of the be*'
 systems of emission reduction,  consider-
 ing costs, for  particulate  matter: (1'
 fabric filters. (2)  electrostatic preclp"*'
 tors (ESP), and (3) venturl scrubber**
   Source tests were'conducted on thf*?
 baghouses, two ESP's and one scrubber-
 Particulate emissions from  the test run*
 on the lime kilns controlled by baghouj**
 or ESP's ranged from 0.016 to 0.290 *•'.
-Mg of feed (0.033 to 0.580  Ib/ton), f£°
 averaged 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 Ib/ton). O°f
 out of the three baghouses tested did no*
 meet the level  of the proposed  stand*"1:
 All three baghouses tested were  operatin*
 under essentially the same condition*,'
 However, for reasons explained in detav
 in the 88EIS, it is EPA's Judgment tb»{
 the baghouse that did not meet the lei*;
 of the proposed standard does not repj"
 sent the best control technology and v|
 data obtained from  that facility are »fj
 used In the selection of  the  propo**0
 standard.                           ^
  EPA also tested one scrubber for P»L
 tlculafe emissions and found an emUw'S
 rate of about 0.22 kg/Mg at a preWUf?
 drop of about  3.7 kilopascals (15 inch*
 w.c.). This scrubber, however, Is not con
 sldered to  represent best technology- **
 explained In the 88EIS, a venturl scrOj>.
 ber with, a higher pressure drop of abp«J
 5.4  kilopascals .(22  Inches  w.C.)  WfU£j
 meet the level  of the proposed  stand**0
 In EPA's Judgment.                 .*,*
 .. The results of the source tests on «r
 four rotary lime kilns that were conw0
                                 HMfcM WWII, VOL it NCI. H-WW0AV, *UT |, ItTT
-------
                                                  PROPOSID RUIIS
 "M to represent the best control technol-
 Jy (two baghouses and two ESP's)  sup-
 Dort a particulate standard of 0.15 kg/Mg
 (°-3 Ib/ton). A standard of 0.15 kilogram
 ? Partlculate matter per megagram ot
 "fcestone feed,  therefore, Is being  pro-
 fcfced for rotary lime kilns.
   Visible  emissions data were gathered
 *Urtng particulate tests at six lime plants.
 *U of the 1056 six-minute average opac-
 ity values were  obtained as specified In
 «?A Reference Method 9. An analysis of
 We djfitributicn of  the data shows  that
 over two-thirc's  of the six-minute aver-
 *«es were equal to zero percent opacity
 *M over 99 percent of the readings fall
 2»tween zero and  10 percent  opacity.
 ^ed on these data, the proposed stand-
 ard would  limit visible emissions  to
 }0 percent  opacity. This would Insure
 H>at the best system of emission reduc-
 tion,  installed to comply  with the  par-
 tteulate  standard, is properly operated
 ^maintained.                    ,  .
 ..When a scrubber Is used for control of
 'he particulate emissions, It  is very dlffl-
 PUt to accurately read visible emissions
 because of the steam plume that Is pres-
 *°t. Due  to enforcement  difficulties, an
' ?Daclty standard would not be effective
 jft this case, and EPA is therefore exclud-
 ln* rotary  lime kilns  controlled  with
 **ubbers from  the proposed  opacity
 standard.
   time Hydrators.  Lime  hydratora are
 *«o significant sources of  particulate
 JJatter  at lime manufacturing  plants.
 '•Jttrently, hydrators are .used to treat
 Jpout 10 percent of the lime produced In
 wie TJ.S. Both pressure and atmospheric
 ^e hydrators are covered  by the  pro-
 «osed standards.
 .  The format of the proposed standard
 * a mass-per-unit-of-lime feed. A  con-
 ^ntration format was not selected be-
 °Ause the gas volume from the hydrator
 *crubber Is not proportional to the  pro-
 duction rate and therefore it la not  pos-
 *'ble to prevent dilution by correcting to
 **ro percent oxygen and water. A  low
 Paniculate   concentration,   therefore,
 *ould not necessarily result In a low mass
 ffeission rate. Since the feed rate of the
 u>ne  into the  hydrator can be easily
 pleasured, the emission rate can be calcu-
 lated directly.
   Scrubbers  are the most widely  used
 Method of particulate control on  lime
 nydrators. EPA source tested two scrub-
 bers in use on atmospheric hydrators.
 Jhe range of the six test runs on the two
 facilities was 0.032 to 0.087 kg/Mg (0.065
 to 0.173 Ib/ton). Compliance with the
 'emulations Is determined from an aver-
 age of three test runs on an affected f acll-
 Jty [40 CFE 60.8(f) ]. The average of the
 three tests on the first unit was 0.04 kg/
 Mg (Q.08 Ib/T)  and the average of the
 Jnree tests on the second unit was 0.06
 *K/Mg (0.13 Ib/T). Setting the proposed
 •tandard at  0.075 kg/Mg (0.15  Ib/ton)
 assures that the owner or operator of the
 hydrator would be required to Install and
 operate the best control device.
   Due to the presence of a steam plume
 from the scrubber stack, no accurate
visible emissions readings could be taken.
EPA believes that an  opacity standard
for this facility would be ineffective due
to enforcement difficulties. No standard
of performance limiting visible emissions
from  the hydrator,  therefore, is being
proposed.

       CONSIDIRATIOK OF IMPACTS

  The proposed standards would reduce
the particulate  emissions from new lime
kilns by 99 percent below the levels that
would occur with no control and by 70
percent below the levels required by a,
typical  State  standard  for  existing
sources. The proposed standards would
also reduce particulate emissions from
new lime hydrators by 85 percent com-
pared to the requirements of the average
State standard. The maximum- 24-hour
average ambient air concentration of
particulate matter due to emissions from
a typical lime kiln controlled to the level
required by the proposed standard would
be about 2.0 micrograms per cubic meter
  The secondary environmental Impacts
due to the proposed standards would be
minor. There would  be no Impact on
water pollution. Solid waste handling and
disposal problems would be minimal. All
of the  particulate collected from the
hydrators can be returned to the process.
When dry control systems are used on
the lime kiln, the  additional amount of
solid waste generated is estimated to be
about 3 percent. A negligible amount of
particulate matter, sulfur  dioxide, and
nitrogen oxides would be discharged Into
the air  by the  power plant which sup-
plies the additional electrical power re-
quired to meet the proposed standards.
  In the  absence  of  standards of per-
formance, the lime manufacturing indus-
try would be expected to follow the cur-
rent trends in particulate control to meet
the applicable State standards. It is esti-
mated that  60  percent of  the industry
would use a baghouse, 20 percent would
use a scrubber, and 20 percent would use
an ESP for control. The expected distri-
bution of control  techniques to  comply
with the proposed standards is 80 per-
cent baghouse  control  and 20 percent
ESP control. The difference in energy
consumption between these two  fore-
casted distributions In the use of various
emission control techniques amounts to
an  energy savings of  about 12.8x10*
kw-hr/yr In  1982.  This is equivalent to
approximately 9 m' (55 barrels) of oil per
day in 1982 and represents a total energy
savings  of about 0.2 percent for  a new
lime manufacturing plant.
  The control costs that new, modified.
and reconstructed lime plants would In-
cur to meet the emission level required
by the proposed standards are considered
reasonable. The capital costs for typical
new lime plants would be  Increased by
about 3.5 percent.  The price of the lime
product  would  increase  by only about
three percent. The proposed standards,
therefore, are expected to have minimal
Impact on the future growth rate of the
lime Industry.
       TUTUfO, MOHXTOUHO, AH»
            RXCORDKHNiro

  Performance tests to determine com-
 pliance  with  the  proposed  standards
 would be required.  Reference Method 5
 (40  CFR Part 60,  Appendix  A) would
 be used to measure the amount of par-
 ticulate emissions. In addition. Method 2
 for  velocity and volumetric  flow  rate.
 Method 3 for gas analysis, and Method 4
 for stack gas moisture would be used to
 determine the necessary emission data.
  A measurement of the mass rate of
 feed would also be required during a per-
 formance test, because the units of the
 proposed standards  for the rotary lime
 kiln and  the hydrator are kilograms of
'particulate per  megagram of limestone
 or lime feed. A measuring device such as
 a conveyor belt scales would be required
 to determine the mass rate of feed. This
 device must be accurate to  within ±5
 percent over Its operating range.
  The proposed standards would require
 continuous  monitoring of the  opacity
 of the visible emissions discharged from
 the  lime kiln. When a scrubber Is used
 to control the  emissions, entrained water
 droplets prevent the accurate measure-
 ment of opacity; therefore, in this case
 the. proposed standard would  require
 monitoring the pressure drop across the
 scrubber and the scrubbing fluid supply
 pressure  to the scrubber rather than
 opacity.  The pressure  sensor or tap for
 the  monitoring  device used on the kiln
 scrubber should be located close to the
 scrubber liquid discharge point. The Ad-
 ministrator may be consulted for  ap-
 proval of alternative locations.
  No opacity data  wen obtained for
 emissions from  the  lime hydrator. and
 no opacity standard is being proposed.
 Monitoring of the operating parameters
 of the scrubber presents a good Indica-
 tion of scrubber performance. The pro-
 posed regulations therefore require mon-
 itoring of the water  flow rate  to  the
 scrubber and of the electric current used
 by  the scrubber rather than  opacity.
  Excess emissions for the lime kiln are
 defined as all six-minute periods in which
 the  average opacity of the stack plume
 exceeds  10 percent. The provisions for
 the  reporting  of these excess »miminn«
 are  contained in | 60.7(c) of Part 60.
 No definition  of excess emissions from
 lime hydrators is included in the  pro-
 posed regulations since no opacity stand-
 ard has been developed.
. Records of performance tests and con-
 tinuous  monitoring  system  measure-
 ments would have to be retained for at
 least two years following the date of the
 measurements by owners and operators
 subject to this subpart. This requirement
 is Included under 160.7(d) of the gen-
 eral provisions of Part 60.

            MlSCItUHIOTO
  As prescribed by  section 111 of  the
 Act, this proposal of standards has been
 preceded by the Administrator's deter-
 mination that emissions from lime man-
 ufacturing plants contribute to air pol-
 lution which  causes or contributes  to
                                 NDBAl MWS1K, VOL 4J, NO. ••—TUOOAV, MAY J, 1*77
                                                   ,III-105
-------
                                                 PROPOSED -RULES
 the cndangerment of public health or
 welfare, and  by his publication of this
 determination in this issue of the FED-
 B*AL REGISTER. In accordance with sec-
 tion 117 of the Act, publication of these
 proposed  standards  was  preceded  by
 consultation with appropriate  advisory
 committees, independent  experts,  and
 Federal departments and agencies.
   Interested persons are invited to par-
 ticipate in this rulemaking. The admin-
 istrator will welcome comments on all
 aspects of the proposed regulations, in-
 cluding the designation of the  source
 category  of lime manufacturing plants
 as a significant contributor to air pollu-
 tion which causes or contributes to the
 endangerment of public health  or wel-
 fare, economic and technological issues,
 and the proposed test methods.
   Economic  Impact   Analysis.  The
 screening criteria used by EPA to deter-
 mine if a  proposal is a major  action
 under the Economic Impact Statement
 program  are: (1) additional  national
 annualized compliance costs, including
 capital charges,  will total  $100 million
 within any calendar year by the attain-
 ment date, if applicable, or within five
 years of implementation; (2) total addi-
 tional cost of production is more than
 five percent of the selling price; and (3)
 net national energy consumption will be
 increased  by the equivalent of 25,000
 barrels of oil a day (ca. 4,000 m1 per
 day), EPA has determined that the im-
 pact* associated with  the proposal of
 these standards  of performance do not
 exceed these screening criteria. This ac~
 tion, therefore, does not contain a major
 proposal requiring preparation  of  an
 Economic Impact Analysis under Execu-
 tive Orders 11821 and  11949 and OMB
 Circular A-107.
    Authority.  This  notice  of  proposed
 rulemaking is issued under the authority
 of sections 111,  114 and 301 (a)  of the
 dean Air Act, as amended, Pub. L. 91-
 604. 84 8tat.  (42 U.8.C. 1857C-6,  1857C-
 9,1857g(a)>.

   Dated: April 20,1977.
               DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                       Administrator.

   It is proposed to amend Part 80 of
.Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Fed-
 eral Regulations as follows:
   1. By adding subpart HH as follows:
 Subpart HH—Standard! of Performance for Urn*
            Manufacturing Plant*
 See.
 00.340  Applicability and designation of af-
         fected faculty.
 60.341  Definitions.
 60.343  Standard for participate matter.
 00.343  Monitoring of emlMloni and opera-
        •tlon*.
 00444  Teat methods and procedures.
   AUTHOIJTT:  Sec*. 411 and  301 (a), Clean
 Air Act, a* amended  by  aee.  4(a)  and aeo.
 16(c)(3) of Pub. L. 91-604, 04 BUt. 1683,
 1713; fl BUt.  804 (43 TJ.S.C. 1867C-6, 1887g
 (a); we*. 00.843 and 60.344 alao Uiued under
 atw. 1J4 Clean Air A«t, M amend** by a*c.
       4 (a)  of Pub. L. 81-604,  84 Btat. 1687 (43
       TJ.8.C. 1867C-8).
        Subpart HH—Standards of Performance
            for Lime Manufacturing Plants
       6 60.340   Applicability and designation
           of affected facility.
         The provlisons of this subpart are ap-
       plicable to the following affected facili-
       ties used  in the manufacture of lime:
       rotary lime kilns and lime hydra tors.

       S 60.341   Definition!.      .  .
         As used in this subpart, all terms not
       defined  herein  shall  have  the  same
       meaning given  them in the Act and in
       subpart A  of this part.
         (a) "Lime  manufacturing plant" in-
       cludes any plant which produces a lime
       product from limestone by calcination.
       Hydratlon of the  lime  product  is  also
       considered to be part of the source.
         (b) "Lime product" means the prod-
       uct produced by the calcination process
       including,  but  not 7 ml«cd to, calcitic
       lime, dolomitic lime,  and  dead-burned
       dolomite.
         (c) "Rotary liru£ kiln" means a  unit
       with an Inclined rotating  drum  which
       is used to produce - lime product from
       limestone  by calcii   „ in.
         (d) "Lime hydrutor" means  a  unit
       used to produce hydrated lime product.

       § 60.342  Standard for  paniculate mat-
           .t«r.
         (a) On  and after the date on which
       the performance test required to be con-
       ducted by { 60.8 is completed, no owner
       or operator subject to the  provisions of
       this subpart shall cause  to be discharged
       into the atmosphere:
         (1) From  any rotary lime kiln  any
       gases which:  (i)  Contain participate
       matter in excess of 0.15  kilogram per
       megagram of limestone feed; (11) Exhibit
       10 percent opacity or greater.
         (2) From any lime hydrator any gases
       which contain particulate matter in ex-
       cess of 0.075 kilogram per megagram of
       lime feed.
       § 60.343  Monitoring  of emissions  and
            operations.
         (a) The owner or operator subject to
       the provisions of this subpart shall In-
       stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
       continuous monitoring system, except as
       provided in paragraph  (b) of this sec-
       tion, to monitor and record the  opacity
       of the  gases discharged into the atmos-
       phere from  any rotary lime  kiln.  The
       spar of this system shall be set at 40 per-
       cent opacity.
         (b) The owner or operator of any ro-
       tary lime kiln using  a wet  scrubbing
       emission  control devise subject to the
       provisions of this  subpart  shall not be
       required to monitor the opacity  of the
       gases discharged as required in para-
       graph  (a) of this  section,  but shall in-
       stall, calibrate,  maintain,  «»d operate
the following continuous monitoring de-
vices:
  (DA monitoring device fox the con-
tinuous measurement of the pressure lost
of the gas stream through  the scrubber.
The monitoring device must be accurate
within ±250  pascals gauge pressure.
  (2)  A monitoring device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the scrubbing
liquid supply pressure to the control de-
vice. The monitoring device must be ac-
curate within  ±5 percent  of  design
scrubbing liquid supply pressure.
  (c)  The owner or operator of any !!»•
hydrator using a wet scrubbing emission
control device subject to the provision*
of this subpart  shall  install,  calibrate.
malntalri, and operate the following con-
tinuous monitoring devices:
  (1)  A monitoring device for the con"
tinuous measuring of the scrubbing U4"
uld flow rate.  The monitoring  devil*
must  be accurate within ±5 percent o*
design scrubbing  liquid flow rate.
  (2) A monitoring device for the con*
tinuous measuring  of the electric cur-
rent,  in amperes, used  by  the scrubber-
The monitoring device must be accurate
within ±10 percent over its normal op-
erating range.
  (d)  For  the purpose of  conducting *
performance test under I «0.8, the owner
or ope.ator of any lime manufacturing
plant subject to  the provisions of tW*
subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain
and operate  a device for measuring tn*
mass  rate  of limestone feed to any af*
fected rotary lime kiln and the mass raw
of lime feed  to any affected lime hydra'
tor. The measuring device used must P*
accurate to  within ±5 percent  of &*
mass  rate over its operating range.   .
  (e) For the purpose of reports requU»o
under I 60.7(c), periods of excess emtfj
alone that  shall be reported are define"
as all six-minute periods during wbiw*
the average  opacity of the plume fr°5
any lime kiln subject to paragraph (a) Ol
this subpart exceeds 10 percent.
| 60.344  Test methods and procedure*
  (a) Reference methods In Appendix A
of this part, except as provided unof*
'|60.8(b>  shall  be used   to deterjnSj?
compliance with  I 60.322 (a) as follow?:
  (1)  Method 5 for the measurement O1
particulate matter,
  (2)  Method 1 for sample and
traverses,
  (3)  Method 3  for velocity and
metric flow rate,
   (4) Method 3 for gas  analysis.
   (5)  Method 4 for stack  gas m
and
   (6)  Method 9 for visible emission*.
   (b)  For  Method 5, the sampling
for each run shall be at least 80 mi
and the sampling rate shall be  at
0,85  dwrn/hr  (0.53  dscf/min).  fJ
that shorter sampling time*, when »****!
sitated by process variables or other *J|f
ton, may & approved by ttw AdminW***
tor,
   (fit Doc.77-lS4«3 Filad M-77tl:4l •»)
(•MM* MiWfNi
                                                     it, NO, P*-fUI»AY, HAT I, Iff?
-------
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
    Tltte 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
               |FRL 423-61

 PART  51—REQUIREMENTS   FOR  THE
   PREPARATION.  ADOPTION  AND  SUB-
   MITTAL OF  IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
 Emission  Monitoring of Stationary Sources
   On Septemoer  11.  1974. the Environ-
 mental Protection Agency (EPA)  pro-
 Posed revisions to 40 CFR Part 51. Re-
 quirements for the Preparation, Adop-
 •Jon, and Submittal of  Implementation
 p'ans. EPA proposed to expand 5 51.19 to
 •* Sulfuric acid plants (sulfur di-
oxide) ;  and
    Petroleum refineries'fluid catalytic
cracking   unit  catalyst  regenerators
 'opacity).
  Simultaneously,  the Agency proposed
similar  continuous emission monitoring
requirements for new sources for each of
the previously identified source categor-
ies, subject to the provisions of federal
new Source Performance Standards set
jorth in 40 CFR Part 60. Since many of
the technical aspects of the two proposals
w«re similar, If not the same, the  pro-
 posed regulations for Part 51 (i.e... those
 relating to SIP's and existing sources*
 included by reference many specific tech-
 nical details set forth in 40 CFR Part 60.
 (39 FR 32852).
   At the time of the proposal of the con-
 tinuous  emission monitoring regulations
 in the FEDERAL REGISTER, the Agency in-
 vited comments on the proposed rule-
 making  action. Many interested  parties
 submitted comments. Of the 76 comments
 received. 35 were from electric utility
 companies. 26 were from oil refineries or
 other industrial companies, 12 were from
 governmental agencies, and 3 were from
 manufacturers and/or suppliers of emis-
 sion monitors.  No comments  were  re-
 ceived from environmental groups. Fur-
 ther, prior to the proposal of the regula-
 tions in the FEDERAL REGISTER, the Agency
 sought comments from various State  and
 local air pollution control  agencies  and
 instrument  manufacturers.  Copies  of
 each of these comments  are  available
 for public inspection at the  EPA Freedom
 of Information  Center, 401  M  Street,
 S.W..  Washington,  B.C.  20460. These
 comments have  been considered, addi-
 tional infonnatlon collected and assessed,
 and where determined by  the Adminis-
 trator to be appropriate,  revisions  and
 amendments have been made  in for-
 mulating these regulations promulgated
 herein.
   General Discussion  of Comments. In
 general,  the comments received by  the
 Agency tended to raise various objections
 with specific portions of the regulations.
 Some misinterpreted the proposed reg-
 ulations,  not  realizing  that  emission
 monitoring under the proposal was  not
 required unless a source was  required to
 comply with an adopted emission limita-
 tion or sulfur in fuel limitation that was
 part of an approved or promulgated State
 Implementation Plan. Many questioned
 the Agency's authority and the need to
 require sources to use continuous emis-
 sion monitors.  Others stated that  the
 proposed  regulations were inflationary,
 and by themselves could not reduce emis-
 sions to  the atmosphere nor  could they
 improve air quality. A relatively common
 comment was that the benefits to be  de-
 rived from the  proposed emission moni-
 toring program were not commensurate
 with the costs associated with the pur-
 chase, installation, and operation of such
 monitors. Many'stated that the proposed
 regulations were not cost-effectively ap-
 plied and  they  objected to  all sources
 within an identified source category  be-
 ing required to  monitor emissions, with-
 out regard for other considerations. For
 instance, some suggested that it was un-
 necessary  to monitor emissions  from
steam generating plants  that may soon
 be retired from operation, or steam gen-
 erating boilers that are infrequently used
 (such as for peaking and cycling opera-
 tions)  or for those  sources  located in
 areas of the nation which presently have
 ambient concentrations better than na-
tional ambient air quality standards. This
 latter comment was especially prevalent
 in relation to the need  for  continuous
emission  monitors designed to  measure
emissions of oxides of nitrogen. Further.
commentors  generally  suggested  that
 state and local control agencies, rather
 than  EPA  should  be  responsible for
 determining which sources should moni-
 tor emissions. In this regard,  the  com-
 mentors suggested that a determination
 of the sources which should install con-
 tinuous  monitors should  be made  on a
 case-by-case basis. Almost all objected to
 the data reporting requirements stating
 that the proposed requirement of sub-
 mission of all collected data was excessive
 and burdensome. Comments from  state
 and local air pollution control agencies in
 general  were similar to those  from the
 utility and industrial groups, but in addi-
 tion, some indicated that the manpower
 needed to implement the programs re-
 quired by the proposed regulations was
 not available.
   Rationale  for  Emission   Monitoring
 Regulation. Presently, the Agency's reg-
 ulations setting  forth the requirements
 for approvable SIP's require States  to
 have legal authority to require owners
 or operators of stationary sources to in-
 stall, maintain, and use emission moni-
 toring  devices  and  to  make periodic
 reports of emission data to the  State
 (40 CFR 51.II(a) (6)). This requirement
 was designed to partially implement the
 requirements of Sections 110(a) (2) (F)
 (11) and (iii) of the Clean Air Act, which
 state that implementation  plans must
 provide  "requirements  for  installation
 of equipment by owners or operators of
 stationary sources to monitor emissions
 from such sources",  and "for periodic
 reports on the nature and  amounts of
 such emissions". However, the original
 implementation  plan requirements did
 not require SIP's to contain legally en-
 forceable procedures mandating contin-
 uous emission monitoring and recording.
 At the time the original requirements
 were published, the Agency had accumu-
 lated little data on the availability and
 reliability of continuous monitoring de-
 vices.  The Agency  believed  that the
 state-of-the-art  was such that it  was
 not prudent  to require existing sources
 to install such devices.
   Since that time, much work has been
 done by the  Agency and others to field
 test and compare various continuous
 emission monitors. As a result of  this
 work, the Agency now believes  that for
 certain sources,  performance specifica-
 tions for accuracy, reliability and dura-
 bility can be established for continuous
 emission  monitors of oxygen, carbon
 dioxide,  sulfur dioxide, and oxides of
 nitrogen and for the continuous meas-
 urement of opacity.  Accordingly, It Is
 the Administrator's judgment that Sec-
 tions 110(a)(2)(F)  (it) and  (ill) should
 now be more fully imolemented.
  The  Administrator  believes  that  a
 sound  program of continuous  emission
 monitoring and reporting will  play an
 important  role in the effort to attain
 and maintain national standards. At the
 present time, control agencies rely upon
 infrequent manual  source   tests  and
 periodic  field  inspections  to  provide
 much of  the enforcement infonnatlon
 necessary  to  ascertain compliance of
sources with  adopted regulations. Man-
ual source tests are generally performed
on a relatively infrequent basis, such as
                              m>C*Ai UOOTM, VOL 40. NO. 1*4—MONDAY, OCTOMR *, 1*75
                                                   I1I-107
-------
                                                RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   once per year, and In some cases, affected
   sources probably have never been tested.
   Manual  stack  tests are  generally per-
   formed under  optimum operating con-
   ditions, and as such, do not reflect the
   lull-time  emission  conditions  from  a
   source. Emissions  continually vary with
   fuel firing rates, process material feed
   rates and various other  operating condi-
   tions. Since manual stack tests are only
  conducted for a relatively short period
  of time (e.g., one  to three hours), they
  cannot be representative of all operating
  conditions.  Further,  frequent  manual
  stack  tests  (such  as  conducted  on  a
  quarterly  or more frequent basis')  are
  costly and may be more expensive than
  continuous monitors that provide much
  more  information.  State  Agency en-
  forcement  by field  inspection  is  also
  sporadic, with only occasional inspection
  of certain sources,  mainly for visible
  emission enforcement.
    Continuous emission  monitoring and
  recording  systems, on the other hand,
  can provide a continuous record of emis-
  sions under all operating conditions. The
  continuous  emission  monitor is  a good
  indicator of whether a  source is using
  good operating  and maintenance prac-
  tices to minimize emissions to the at-
  mosphere and can also  provide a valu-
  able record to Indicate the performance
  of a source in complying with applicable
  emission control regulations. Addition-
  ally, under certain instances,  the  data
  from continuous monitors may be suf-
  ficient evidence  to issue  a notice  of vio-
  lation. The continuous emission  record
 can  also be  utilized  to  signal a plant
  upset or equipment malfunction so that
 the plant operator can  take corrective
 action to reduce emissions. Use of emis-
 sion monitors can therefore provide val-
 uable information to-minimize emissions
 to the atmosphere  and  to assure  that
 full-time control efforts, such as good
 maintenance  and operating  conditions,
 are being utilized by source operators.
   The,Agency believes that it is necessary
 to establish national minimum require-
 ments for emission monitors for specified
 sources rather than allow States  to de-
 termine  on a case-by-case basis the spe-
 cific sources which need to continuously
 monitor  emissions. The categories  speci-
 fied in the regulations represent very sig-
nificant  sources of emissions  to the at-
mosphere.  States in  developing  SIP's
have generally adopted control regula-
tions to  minimize emissions from  these
sources. Where such regulations exist, the
Agency believes that continuous emission
monitors are necessary to  provide infor-
mation that may be used  to provide an
indication of source compliance. Further.
It is  believed that if the selection  of
•ources on a case-by-case basis were left
 to the States, that  some States would
 probably not undertake  an  adequate
emission  monitoring  program.   Some
 Btata Agencies who  commented on the
 22u?ie^,urewlfttlon8  Questioned  the
          el?rt of Cl">sslon monitoring
           their  opinion  that the pro-
         "1  llemenu  wer«  Premature.
          ,il» 4  the  Administrator's
          thftt. In order  to mure an
   adequate  nationwide  emission  moni-
   toring program, minimum emission mon-
   itoring requirements must be established.
     The source categories affected by the
   regulations were  selected  becau.sc they
   are significant sources of emissions  and
   because the Agency's work at the time of
   the proposal of these regulations in the
   field of continuous emission monitoring
   evaluation focused almost exclusively on
   these source categories. The Agency is
   continuing to develop data on monitoring
   devices for additional .source categories.
   It is EPA's Intent to expand the minimum
   continuous emission monitoring require-
   ments  from time to time when the eco-
   nomic  and  technological feasibility of
   continuous  monitoring  equipment  is
   demonstrated and where such  monitor-
   ing is deemed appropriate for other sig-
   nificant source categories.
    Discussion of Major Comments. Many
  commentors discussed  the  various cost
  aspects of the proposed regulations, spe-
  cifically stating  that the costs  of con-
  tinuous monitors were excessive and  in-
  flationary. A total of 47 commentors ex-
  pressed concern fc. the cost and/or cost
  effectiveness  of  continuous  monitors.
  Further, the Agency's cost estimates  for
  purchasing and  : .  ailing  monitoring
  systems and the cob.- ;or data reduction
  and reporting were questioned. In many
  cases, sources provided cost estimates for
  installation and operation of continuous
  monitors considerably in excess of the
  cost estimates provided by the Agency.
    In response to these comments, a fur-
  ther review was undertaken by the Agen-
  cy to assess the cost impact of the regu-
  lations. Three conclusions resulted from
  this review. First, it was determined that
  the cost ranges  of  the various emission
  monitoring  systems  provided  by the
  Agency  are generally accurate  for new
  sources.  Discussions   with   equipment
  manufacturers 'and suppliers  confirmed
  this cost information.  Approximate in-
  vestment costs, which  Include the cost
 of the emission monitor, installation cost
 at a new facility, recorder, performance
 testing, data reporting systems and asso-
 ciated engineering costs are as follows:
 for opacity. $20,000; for sulfur  dioxide
 and  oxygen or oxides  of nitrogen and
 oxygen,  $30,000: and for a source  thai
 monitors opacity, oxides of nitrogen, sul-
 fur dioxide and oxygen.  $55,000.  Annual
 operating costs, which include data re-
 duction  and report preparation, system
 operation, maintenance, utilities, taxes,
 insurance and annualized capital costs
 at 10^ for  8 years are: $8,500; $16,000;
 and $30.000 respectively  for  the cases
 desci'bed above.(l)
   Secondly, the  cost  review  indicated
 that the cost of installation of emission
 monitors  for existing sources  could be
 considerably higher than for new sources
 because of the difficulties in  providing
 access to a  sampling location  that can
 provide a representative sample of emis-
 sions. The cost estimates provided by the
 Agency In the proposal were specifically
 developed for new  sources whose  In-
stallation costs are relatively stable since
 provisions for monitoring equipment can
be Incorporated at the time of plant de-
•Ign. This feature la not available for ex-
   isting sources, hence  higher costs ger
   erally result. Actual, costs of installatio
   at existing sources may vary from on
   to five times the cost of normal install-0
   tion at new sources, and in some  cast
   even higher costs can result. For exam
   pie. discussions with instrument suppli
   ers indicate that a typical cost of instal
   latlon of an. opacity monitor on an exist
   ing source may be two to three times ttv
   purchase price of the monitor. Difflcul
   ties also exist for installation of gaseou
   monitors at exist tog sources.
     It should be noted that these installs.
   tion costs Include material costs for scaf-
   folding,  ladders,  sampling  ports  an'
   other items necessary to provide acee*
   to a location where source emissions ca>
   be measured. It is the Agency's oplnioi
   that such costs cannot be.solely  attrib
   uted to these continuous emission moni-
   toring regulations. Access  to samplinr
   locations  is generally  necessary  to de-
   termine compliance with applicable stat<
   or local emission limitations by routine
  manual stack testing  methods. There-
  fore, costs of providing access to  a  rep-
  resentative sampling location are more
  directly attributed to the cost of com-
  pliance with, adopted  emission limita-
  tions, than with these  continuous emis-
  sion monitoring regulations.
    Lastlj. the review of cost information
  indicated that a numb-sr of commentor*
  misinterpreted the extent of the pro-
  posed regulations, thereby providing  cost
  estimates for continuous monitors which
  were not required. Specifically, all coro-
  mentors did  not recognize that the pro-
  posed regulations required emission mon-
  itoring for a source only if an applicable
  State or local emission limitation of «n
  approved SIP affected such a sourc*.  For
  example, if the approved  SIP did  not
  contain an adopted control regulation to
  limit oxides of nitrogen from steam-
  generating, fossil fuel-fired boilers of a
  capacity in excess of 250 million BTUper
 hour heat input, then such source need
 not monitor oxides of  nitrogen emis-
 sions. Further, some utility industry com-
 mentors included the costs of continuous
 emission monitors for sulfur dioxide. The
 proposed regulations, however, generally
 allowed the use of fuel analysis by speci-
 fied ASTM procedures as an alternative
 which, in most cases, is less  expensive
 than continuous monitoring. Finally, the
 proposed regulations required the con-
 tinuous  monitoring of  oxygen In the
 exhaust gas  only  If  the source  must
 otherwise continuously monitor oxides of
 nitrogen or sulfur dioxide. Oxygen In-
 formation is used solely to provide a cor-
 rection for  excess air when converting
 the measurements of gaseous pollutant*
 concentrations in the exhaust gas stream
 to units of an applicable emission limi-
 tation. Some commentors did not recog-
 nize this point (which was not specifical-
 ly stated In the proposed regulations'
 and provided  cost estimates for oxygen
 monitors when thev were not required W
 the proposed regulations.
   While  not all commentors' cost esti-
 mates were  correct, for various reason*
noted above, it is clear  that  the cost2
 associated   with   Implementing these
emission monitoring regulations are sif-
                              NOUM M0ISTM, VOU 40, NO.  t»4—MONDAY, OCTOMR ft. Iff*
                                                   III-108
-------
                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS
        t.  The Administrator, however.
          that the benefits to be  derived
       emission monitoring are such that
  "•' costs are not unreasonable. The Ad-
  jninistrator  does, however,  agree with
  Jjiany commentors that the proposed reg-
  uiations, in some cases, were not  applied
  cost-effectively and. as such, the  regula-
  "°ns  promulgated  herein  have  been
  •Codified  to  provide exemptions  to cer-
  win  sources i'rom these minimum re-
  tirements.
    One comment from another Federal
  *8ency concerned the time  period that
  wnissions are to be averaged when re-
  Porting excess emissions. Specifically, the
  c°nimentor assumed that the emission
  control  regulations   that   have  been
  *«opted by State and local agencies were
  •enerally designed to attain annual am-
  Went air quality standards. As such, the
  ""nmentor pointed out that short-term
  'Mission levels in  excess of the adopted
  «nission standard should be acceptable
  I0rreasonable periods  of time.
  .The Administrator does not agree with
  Jjj's rationale for  the  following reasons.
  *irst, it is not universally true that an-
  nual ambient standards were the design
       of emission control regulations. In
       cases,  reductions to attain short-
       standards  require  more  control
  *nan do  annual standards. Even if the
  Regulations  were  based  upon  annual
  Jjandards. allowing  excess emissions  of
  •ne adopted emission control regulation
  °n a short-term basis  could  cause non-
  compliance with annual standards. More
  •mportantly. however, a policy of  legally
  •'lowing excesses of adopted control reg-
  ««ations would in effect make  the current
  """ssion limitation unenforceable. If the
  •URgestion were implemented, a question
  would arise as to what is the maximum
  «nission level that would not be consid-
 Jjijea an excess to the adopted regulation.
  *ne purpose of the adopted emission lim-
 •£•    was  to establisn  the  acceptable
 "mission level. Allowing emissions in ex-
 J*ss  of that adopted level would cause
 ^nfusion. ambiguity, and in many cases
• y°uid result in an unenforceable  situa-
 "°n.'Hence  the Administrator does not
 concur with the commentor's suggestion.
 .Modifications to the Proposed  Regu-
 }«ions. The  modification to  the  regu-
 lations which has  the  most  significant
 '"'Pact involves the monitoring require-
 £>ents for oxides of nitrogen at fossil
 *«ei-flred steam generating boilers  and
 *'  nitric acid plants. Many commentors
 correctly noted  that  the  Agency in the
 J?fst (June 8, 1973. 38 FR  15174) had In-
 "icated that  the need  for many  emis-
 '"jn  control  regulations  for  oxides  of
 nitrogen  were  based  upon  erroneous
 «»ta. Such a statement was made after
 * detailed laboratory analysis of the ref-
 erence  ambient  measurement  method
 *°r nitrogen dioxide revealed the method
 :°   Rive   false   measurements.   The
 *arnpllng  technique generally indicated
 Concentrations  of   nitrogen  dioxide
 "'Bher  than  actually  existed  in  the
 •wnosphere.  Since  many  control  agen-
 cies prior  to that announcement had
 •Qopted emission regulations  that were
 a«termined to be  needed based  upon
  these erroneous data, and since new data.
  collected by  other  measurement tech-
  niques, indicated  that in most areas of
  the nation such control regulations were
  not necessary to satisfy the requirements
  of the  SIP,  the Agency suggested that
  States   consider  the   withdrawal  of
  adopted control regulations for the con-
  trol of oxides of nitrogen  from their SIP's
  (May 8,  1974, 39 PR 16344). In many
  States,  control agencies  have not taken
  action to remove these regulations from
  the SIP. Hence, the commentors pointed
  out that the proposed regulations to re-
  quire continuous  emission monitors on
  sources affected by  such regulations is
  generally unnecessary.
    Because of the unique situation  in-
  volving oxides of nitrogen control regu-
  lations,  the  Administrator  has  deter-
  mined that the proposed regulations to
  continuously monitor oxides  of nitrogen
  emissions may place an undue burden on
  source operators, at least from a  stand-
  point of EPA specifying minimum moni-
  toring  requirements.  The   continuous
  emission  monitoring requirements  for
  such sources therefore have been modi-
  fied. The final regulations  require  the
  continuous   emission   monitoring  of
  oxides of nitrogen  only for those sources
  in Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR's)
 where the Administrator  has specifically
 determined that a control strategy  for
  nitrogen dioxide   is  necessary. At the
 present  time such  control strategies are
 required only  for  the Metropolitan Los
 Angeles Intrastatc and  the  Metropoli-
 tan Chicago Interstate AQCR's.
   It should be noted  that a recent com-
 pilation of valid  nitrogen  dioxide  air
 quality data suggests that approximately
 14 of the other 245  AQCR's in the nation
 may need to develop a control strategy
 for nitrogen dioxide. These AQCR's are
 presently being evaluated by the Agency.
 If  any additional AQCR's are identified
 as  needing a control  strategy for  nitro-
 gen dioxide  at that  time, or any time
 subsequent to this promulgation,  then
 States in  which those AQCR's are lo-
 cated must  also revise  their SIP's  to
 require continuous  emission  monitoring
 for oxides of  nitrogen  for specified
 sources.  Further, it should be noted that
 the regulations promulgated  today are
 minimum .requirements, so that States,
 if they believe the control of oxides  of
 nitrogen from sources is necessary may,
 as  they  deem  appropriate,  expand the
 continuous emission monitoring require-
 ments ,to apply to additional sources not
 affected by these minimum requirements.
  Other  modifications to the proposed
 regulation resulted from  various  com-
 ments. A number of commentors noted
 that the proposed  regulations included
 some sources whose emission impact on
 air quality was relatively minor. Specifi-
 cally, they noted that  fossil  fuel-fired
steam generating units that were used
solely for peaking and cycling purposes
should be exempt from the proposed reg-
 ulations.  Similarly,  some suggested that
smaller sized units, particularly steam-
generating units less than 2,500 million
BTU per hour heat input, should also
be  exempted.  Others  pointed out that
  units soon to be retired from operation
  should  not be  required to install con-
  tinuous monitoring  devices  and that
  sources located in areas of the nation
  that already have air quality better than
  the national standards should be relieved
  of the required monitoring and reporting
  requirements. The Agency has considered
  these comments and has made the fol-
  lowing judgments.
    In relation to fossil  fuel-fired  steam
  generating units, the Agency has deter-
  mined that such units that have an an-
  nual boiler capacity factor of 30% or less
  as currently denned by the Federal Power
  Commission  shall  be exempt from the
  minimum requirements  for monitoring
  and reporting. Industrial boilers used at
  less  than 30% of their annual capacity,
  upon demonstration to the State, may
  also be  granted an exemption from these
  monitoring requirements. The rationale
  for this exemption is based upon the fact
  that all generating units do not produce
  power at their full  capacity at all times.
  There are three major classifications of
  power plants based on the  degree  to
  which their rated capacity is utilized on
  an annual basis. Baseload  units are de-
  signed to run at near full capacity almost
  continuously. Peaking units are operated
  to supply electricity during periods of
  maximum system demand. Units which
  are  operated  for  intermediate service
  between the  extremes of baseload and
  peaking are termed cycling unite.
   Generally  accepted  definitions  term
  units generating 60 percent or more of
  their annual capacity as baseload.  those
  generating less than 20 percent as peak-
  ing and those between 20 and 60 percent
 as cycling. In general, peaking units are
 older, smaller, of  lower  efficiency, and
 more costly to operate than base load or
 cycling units. Cycling units are also gen-
 erally older,  smaller  and  less efficient
  than base load units. Since the expected
 life of peaking units is  relatively short
 and total emissions from such units are
 small, the benefits  gained by installing
 monitoring instruments  are  small  in'
 comparison to the  cost of such equip-
 ment. For cycling units, the question of
 cost-effectiveness is more difficult to as-
 certain.  The units at the upper end of
 the capacity factor range 
-------
                                              RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
 ply with the proposed regulations. For
 fossil fuel-fired steam generating- units.
 the exemption  relating to  the  annual
 boiler  capacity  factor  previously  dis-
 cussed should generally provide relief for
 older units. It is appropriate, however,
 that the age of the facility be consid-
 ered for other categories of sources af-
 fected  by the proposed regulations. As
 such, the final regulations allow that any
 source  that  is scheduled  to  be  retired
 within five years of the inclusion of mon-
 itoring requirements for the source in
 Appendix P  need not comply with the
 minimum emission monitoring require-
 ments promulgated  herein. In the  Ad-
 ministrator's  judgment, the selection of
 five years as the allowable period for
 this exemption  provides reasonable re-
 lief for those units that will  shortly be
 retired.  However, it  maintains full re-
 quirements on many older units  with a
 number of years of  service remaining.
 In  general, older units operate less effi-
 ciently  and are less well controlled than
 newer units so that emission monitoring
 is generally useful. The exemption pro-
 vided in the  final regulations effectively
 allows such retirees slightly more than a
 two-year period of relief, since the sched-
 ule of implementation of the regulations
 would generally require the installation
 of  emission   monitors  by early  1978.
 States must  submit,  for EPA approval,
 the  procedures they  will  implement to
 use this  provision.  States are advised
 that such exemptions should only be pro-
 vided where a bona  fide intent to cease
 operations ha* been clearly established..
 In  cases  where such sources postpone
 retirement, States shall have established
 procedures to require such  sources to
 monitor and report emissions. In this re-
 gard, it should be noted  that Section
 113'c) '2) of the Act provides that any
 person who falsifies or misrepresents  a
 record, report or other document filed or
 required under the Act shall, upon con-
 viction, be subject to fine  or imprison-
 ment, or both.
  A further modification to the proposed
 regulations affects the minimum size of
 the units within each of the source cate-
 gories to which emission monitoring and
 reporting shall be required. As suggested
 by many commentors. the Agency has in-
 vestigated the cost effectiveness  of re-
 quiring all units  within the identified
source categories to install emission mon-
 itors. Each pollutant for  each  source
 category identified in the proposed reg-
 ulations was evaluated. For fossil fuel-
 fired steam generating units, the pro-
 posal required compliance for all boilers
 with 250 million BTU per hour heat in-
put, or greater. For opacity, the proposed
regulations required emission monitoring
 for all coal-fired  units, while only those
 oil-fired units that had been observed as
 Violators of visible emission regulations
 or must use an emission control device to
 meet participate matter regulations were
 required to install such devices.  Gas-
 fired units were  exempted by the pro-
 posed regulations.
  After  investigating the particulate
emission potential of these sources, it has
 been determined that no modification In
 the size limitation for boilers in relation
 to opacity is warranted. The  rationale
 for this judgment is  that the smaller-
 sized units affected by the proposed reg-
 ulation tend to be less efficiently oper-
 ated or controlled for particulate matter
 than are the larger-sized units. In fact,
 smaller units generally tend to emit more
 particulate  emissions  on an equivalent
 fuel basis than  larger-sized units.  (2)
 Because of the potential of opacity regu-
 lation violations, no modifications have
 been made  to  the regulations as to the
 size of steam generating boilers  that
 must measure  opacity.
   Emissions  of oxides of nitrogen from
 boilers are a function of the temperature
 in the combustion chamber and the cool-
 ing of the combustion products.  Emis-
 sions vary considerably with the size and
 the type of unit. In general, the larner
 units produce  more oxides of nitrogen
 emissions.  The Agency  therefore finds
 that the minimum size of a unit affected
 by the final regulations can be increased
 from 250  to  1.000 mil'.on BTU per hour
 heat input,  without significantly reduc-
 ing the total emissions of oxides of nitro-
 gen that would be affected by monitoring
 and reporting reqr6%  of  the  boilers
 over 250 million BTU per hour heat input
 capacity, on a national basis, while main-
 taining emission monitoring and report-
 ing requirements for approximately 1Sr'r-
 of the potential oxides of nitrogen emis-
 sions from such sources. C2> Further, in
 the 2 AQCR's where  the Administrator
 has specifically  called  for  a  control
 strategy for nitrogen dioxide, the boilers
 affected by the regulation constitute 50%
 of the steam  generators greater than 250
 million  BTU per hour heat input,  yet
 they emit 80 «f  of the nitrogen oxides
 from  such  steam generators  in  these
 2 AQCR's.<2)
  Also, certain types of boilers or burn-
 ers, due to their design  characteristics.
 may on a regular basis attain emission
 levels of oxides of nitrogen  well below
 the emission limitations  of the applica-
 ble plan. The regulations have been  re-
 vised  to  allow  exemption  from the
 requirements  for  installing  emission
 monitoring and recording equipment for
 oxides of nitrogen when  a  facility  is
 shown during performance tests  to op-
erate  with oxides of  nitrogen  emission
 levels 30% or more below the emission
limitation of the  applicable  plan.  It
should be noted that  this provision ap-
 plies solely to oxides  of  nitrogen  emis-
 sion* rather than other pollutant emis-
sions, since oxides of nitrogen emissions
are more  directly related to boiler de-
sign  characteristics   than   are   other
 pollutants.
  Similar evaluations were  made for
nitric acid plants, sulfuric acid  plants
 and catalytic cracking unit catalyst re-
 generators at petroleum refineries. For
each of these Industries it wa* found that
 modifications to the proposed regulations
could be made to increase the minimum
size of the unite affected by the proposed
 regulations  without   significantly  de-
creasing the total emissions  of various
 pollutants  that  would  be affected  by
 these monitoring and reporting require-
 ments.  Specifically, for nitric acid plants
 it was found that by modifying the pro-
 posed regulations to affect only those
 plants that have a total daily production
 capacity of 300 tons or more of nitric acid
 < rather than affecting  all facilities as
 proposed)  that approximately 79%  of
 the nitric acid production on a national
 basis would be affected by the provisions
 of  these  monitoring and reporting re-
 quirements. On the other hand, such »
 modification  reduces the number  of
 monitors required for compliance with
 these regulations by approximately 467r.
 (2)  At  the present time, only nitric acid
 plants in AQCR's where the Administra-
 tor  has specifically  called for a control
 strategy for nitrogen dioxide will be can-
 didates for continuous emission monitor-
 ing  requirements  for  the reasons men-
 tioned previously. In the 2 AQCR's where
 such a  control strategy has been called
 for.  there is only one known nitric acid
 plant and that is reported to be less than
 300  tons  per day  production capacity--
 hence no nitric acid plants at the present
 time will be affected by these monitoring
 requirements.                        .
  Similarly, evaluations of sulfuric acid
 plants pid catalytic cracking catalyst re-
 generators  at  petroleum refineries  re-
 sulted in the  conclusion that minimum
 size  limitations of 300 tons per day pro-
 duction rate at sulfuric acid plants, and
 20,000 barrels per day of fresh feed W
 any catalytic cracking unit at petroleujn
 refineries  could  be  reasonably estab-,
 lished.  Such modifications  exempt aP'
 proximately 37%  and 39% respectively,
 of such plants on  a  national basis from
 these emission monitoring and reporting
 reauirements.  while  allowing about 9%.
 of the sulfur dioxide emissions from sul-
 furic acid plants and 12%  of the par*
 ticulate matter emissions from catalytic
 cracking units to be emitted to the at-
 mosphere without being measured W»fl
 reported.  <2)  The Agency  believe th*».
 such modifications provide a reasonable
 balance  between  the costs associate^
 with emission monitoring and reporting'
 and  the need to obtain such information-
  A  number of commentors  suggested
 that sources be exempt  from  the f>t°'f
 posed emission monitoring regulations »»
 such sources are located within areas Oj
 the  nation that  are already attaining
 national standards.  The  Administrator
 does not believe that such an approflcn
 would be  consistent  with Section 110 0*
 the Clean  Air Act. which requires con-
 tinued maintenance  of ambient stand"
ards after attainment. In many Brew
 the  standards are being  attained only
through   effective  implementation  .«*
emission limitations. Under the Clean Air
Act.  continued compliance with  etnisf
sion  limitations in these areas is just •»,
important as compliance  in areas whic"
have  not  attained the standards.     A
  Another major  comment .concern*"'
the  proposed  data  reporting  requn**
ments. Thirty-four (34) eommentors e*
pressed  concern at the amount of d,a*5
which the proposed regulations require"
to be recorded, summarized, and
                              MMIAl tMISTIt, VOl. 40, NO. t»4—MONDAY, OCTOfttt «,
-------
                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS
  J8^ to  the State. It was generally indi-
  J«t«d by the commentors that the data
  Importing requirements were excessive.
  ~°mmentors  questioned the purpose of
  ^'Porting all  measured data while some
  jjlate agencies indicated they have lim-
  JjW resources to handle such informa-
  «on. EPA believes that,  in some cases.
  ™J6 commentors misconstrued the data
  •"Porting  reauirements   for   existing
  *°Urces. In light of each of these com-
  ?|ents. the fina,' regulations, with  respect
  ^  the  data  reporting requirements for
  •jjseous  pollutants and  opacity, have
  "•en modified.
   por gaseous emissions,  the  proposed
  filiations required the reporting of all
  '."e-hour averages obtained by the emis-
  *lon monitor. Because of the comments
  °n  this  provision, the Agency has reex-
  "•iiined the proposed  data reporting re-
           . As a result, the Agency has
           ! that only information con-
                                         one clock minute or such other time pe-
                                         riod deemed appropriate by the State.
                                         Averages may be calculated  cither  by
                                         arithmetically averaging a minimum of
                                         4 equally spaced data points per minute
                                         or by integration of the monitor output.
                                          Some  commentors  raised  questions
                                         concerning the provisions in the proposed
                                         regulations which allow  the use of fuel
                                         analysis  for computing emissions of sul-
                                         fur dioxide in lieu of  installing a con-
                                         tinuous monitoring device for this  pol-
                                         lutant. Of primary concern with the fuel
                                         analysis   approach  among  the com-
                                         mentors  was the frequency of the analy-
                                         sis to determine the sulfur content of the
                                         fuel. However, upon inspection of the
                                         comments by  the  Agency,  a more  sig-
                                         nificant  issue  has  been uncovered.  The
                                        issue involves the determination of what
                                        constitutes excess emissions when a  fuel
                                        analysis is used as the method to measure
                                        source emissions. For example, the sulfur
                     the data
 the
           , the
    source should  identify the emission
     (i.e., emissions stated in pounds per
      averaged over a  two-hour time
*°urcp«
°Pacitv
**o
         a i
        s  o     eous oan   rand
         p«,,™nto fSl .  i2»inli «f
         fnrt  to S* J,,h rfQPta Ivon
         and  to make such data avail-

           havl
    .
     to the State on the apparent reason
 ,,,r all noted violations of applicable reg-
 UI*tions.
      proposed  data  reporting require-
                 navc also becn modi-
   these regulations, it  is the Adminis-
    >r's judgment that for opacity States
     obtain  excess  emission  measure-
       during each  hour of operation.
  'jvever,  before  determining   excess
        i, the number of minutes
IBM"'' exetnPted  by State opacity regu-
 •Mons should be considered.  For ex-
*"nple, where  a  regulation  allows  two
JVlr|utes  of  opacity  measurements in
'*cess  of  the  standard,  the  State
£*ed only  require the  source to re-
  rt all opacity measurements in excess
   the standard during  any one hour.
       the two-minute exemption.  The
**cess  measurements shall be  reported
*n actual per cent opacity averaged for
                                                  f a total load °f coal m*y be
                                         wlthin acceptable limits in relation to a
                                   the
 f.  -*• »*•» ^ii*too«v*i ICVCID 411. wvcaa ui tn6
 "DPHcable emission limitations "i.e., ex-
 jj*s emissions) for the time period spec-
  ff'd  in  the regulation with which com-
 PJjance is determined. In other words, if
    applicable emission  limitation re-
                    1.0
                                        tank, such fuel oils tend to stratify and
                                        may not be a  homogeneous mixture.
                                        Thus, at times, fuel oil in excess of allow-
                                        able limits may be combusted. The ques-
                                        tion which arises is whether the combus-
                                        tion of this higher  sulfur coal or oil is a
                                        violation of an applicable sulfur content
                                        regulation. Initial investigations of  this
                                        issue have indicated a relative lack of
                                        specificity on the subject.
                                         The Agency is confronted with  this
                                        problem not only in relation to specifying
                                        qulrcments for existing sources
                                        I" «to*to»» to enforcement considerations
                                        for new sources affecled by New Source
                                        Performance Standards. At this time, a
                                        «"<>« thorough investigation of the situ-
                                       of this investigation, the Agency will set
                                       forth its findings and provide guidance
                                       to State and  local control agencies on
                                       this issue. In the meantime, the portion
                                       of the proposed regulations dealing with
                                       fuel analysis is being withheld from pro-
                                       mulgation at this time. As such, States
                                       shall not be required to adopt provisions
                                       dealing with emission monitoring or re-
                                       porting of sulfur dioxide emissions from
                                       those sources where the  States may
                                       choose to allow the option of fuel anal-
                                       ysis as an alternative to sulfur  dioxide
                                       monitoring.  However, since  the fuel
                                       analysis alternative may  not  be  utilized
                                       by a  source that has installed sulfur di-
                                       oxide control equipment  (scrubbers),
                                       States shall set forth legally enforceable
                                       procedures which require emission moni-
                                       tors on such sources, where these emis-
                                       sion  monitoring  regulations  otherwise
                                       require their installation.
                                         Other Modifications to Proposed Reg-
                                       ulations.  In addition to reducing the
                                       number of monitors required  under the
                                                                                proposed regulations, a number of modi-
                                                                                fications to various procedures in the
                                                                                proposed  regulations  have been  con-
                                                                                sidered  and are  included  in  the final
                                                                                regulations. One modification which has
                                                                                been made is the deletion of the require-
                                                                                ment to install continuous monitors at
                                                                                "the most representative" location. The
                                                                                final regulations require the  placement
                                                                                of an'emission monitor at "a representa-
                                                                                tive" location in the exhaust gas system.
                                                                                In many cases "the most representative"
                                                                                location may be difficult to locate and
                                                                                may be inaccessible.without  new  plat-
                                                                                forms, ladders, etc., being installed. Fur-
                                                                                ther, other representative locations can
                                                                                provide  adequate information on pollut-
                                                                                ant  emissions  if minimum criteria for
                                                                                selection of monitoring locations are ob-
                                                                                served. Guidance in determining a repre-
                                                                                sentative sampling" location is contained
                                                                                within  the Performance  Specification
                                                                                for each pollutant monitor in the emis-
                                                                                sion  monitoring  regulations   for  New
                                                                                Source Performance Standards (Appen-
                                                                                dix B. Part 60 of this  Chapter). While
                                                                                these  criteria  are  designed  for  new
   A further modification to the proposed
 regulation is the deletion of the require-
 ment for new performance  tests when
 continuous  emission monitoring  equip-
 ment is modified  or repaired. As  pro-
 posed, the  regulation would have re-
 quired a new performance test whenever
 any part  of  the  continuous  emission
 monitoring  system was  replaced.  This
 requirement was originally incorporated
 in the regulations to assure  the  use of
 a well-calibrated, finely  tuned  monitor.
 Commentors pointed out that the  re-
 quirement of conducting new perform-
 ance tests whenever any part of  an in-
 strument is changed or replaced is costly
 and in many cases not  required. Upon
 evaluation of this comment, the Admin-
 istrator concurs that performance tests
 are not required after each repair or re-
 placement  to  the  system. Appropriate
 changes have been made to the regula-
 tions to delete the requirements for new
 performance  tests.  However, the final
 regulations require the reporting  of the
 various  repairs  made  to the emission
 monitoring system during each quarter
 to the State. Further, the State must
 have nrocedures to require sources to re-
 port to the State on a quarterly basis in-
 formation on the amount of time and the
 reason why the continuous monitor was
 •not in operation. Also the State must
 have legally enforceable  procedures to
 reouire a source to conduct a new per-
 formance test xvhenever. on the basis of
 available information,  the State  deems
su^n test is necessary.
  The  time period proposed for the in-
stillation of  the reouired  monitoring
system, i.e.. one vi>ar after  plan apnroval.
wns thought hv 21 commentors to be too
brief, orimarilv because of lack of avail-
nble instruments, the lack of trained ner-
noniiol  and the time available for instal-
lation  of the required monitors. Eouio-
ment suonlicrs  were  contacted  by the
Agency and  thev confirmed  the avail-
ability  of emission  monitors.  However.
                              KMIAl MOIfTtl, VOl. 40, NO.  1*4—MONDAY. OCTOUI 6, WS
                                                   'Hi-Ill
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
 th« Administrator has determined that
 the time necessary for purchase, instal-
 lation and performance testing of such
 monitors may require more than  one
 year for certain  installations, especially
 where gaseous monitors are required. In
 order to provide sources with ample time.
 the Agency has modified the final regula-
 tions to allow States to adopt procedures
 that will provide sources 18 months after
 the approval or promulgation of the re-
 vised SIP to satisfy the installation and
 performance testing: procedures required
 by these continuous monitoring regula-
 tions. A provision is also included  to al-
 low, on a case-by-case basis,  additional
 extensions for sources where good faith
 efforts have been undertaken to purchase
 and install equipment, but where such
 installation  cannot   be  accomplished
 within  the time  period  prescribed  by
 the regulations.
   A number of State and local agencies
 also commented on the lack of time pro-
 vided sources to install the monitors re-
 quired  by  the  proposed  regulations.
 These agencies also indicated that they
 must acquire sufficient skilled manpower
 to  implement the  regulations, such  as
 personnel to provide guidance to sources,
 to  monitor  performance tests  and  to
 analyze the emission data that are to be
 submitted by the sources. Further, some
 State agencies indicated that more than
 six months was needed to develop the
 necessary  plan revisions. Most  State
 agencies who commented stated that one
 year should be provided to allow States
 to revise their^SIP's. The  Administrator
 is  aware of the various priorities which*
 confront State and local agencies at this
 time 'e.g., compliance schedules, enforce-
 ment actions, litigation proceedings, re-
 evaluation of adequacy of SIP's to attain
 and maintain national standards, etc.*
 and, as such, believes  that a six-month
 postponement in  the submittal of plan
 revisions to require emission monitoring
 and reporting is  justified and prudent.
 Hence. States must submit plan revisions
 to satisfy the requirements of this sec-
 tion within one year of promulgation  of
 these regulations  in the FEDERAL REGIS-
 TER. However. States  are-advised that
 such  plan revisions may be  submitted
 any time prior to the final date, and are
 encouraged to do so where possible.
  The proposed regulations provided the
 States with the option of allowing sources
 to continue to use emission monitoring
 equipment that does not meet perform-
 ance specifications set forth in the regu-
 lations for up to five years from the date
 of approval of the State regulations  or
 EPA  promulgation. Some commenters
 asked that this provision be extended
 indefinitely. In some cases they indicated
 they  had recently purchased and had
 already  installed  monitoring systems
 which were only  marginally away from
meeting the applicable performance spec-
 ifications.  The Agency believes,  how-
 ever, that such a modification to the pro-
 posed regulations should not be allowed.
 It is believed that such a provision would
 result In inadequate monitoring systems
 being maintained  after their useful life
 has ended. Though some monitoring sys-
 tems will probably Inst longer than five
 years, it is believed that this time period
 will provide adequate time to  amortize
 the cost of such equipment.  In cases
 where  existing emission monitors arc
 known not to provide reasonable  esti-
 mates of emissions. States  should  con-
 sider more stringent  procedures to pro-
 vide a  more speedy retirement of  such
 emission monitoring systems.
   Some commentprs raised  the question
 of  whether  existing  oxygen  monitors
 which are installed in  most fossil fuel-
 fired steam generating boilers to monitor
 excess oxygen for the purposes of com-
 bustion control could be used to satisfy
 the requirement for monitoring oxygen
 under the proposal. Upon investigation.
 it'has  been determined that,  in some
 cases, such oxygen monitors may be used
 provided  that they are located  so  that
 there is no influx of dilution air between
 the oxygen  monitor and the continuous
 pollutant monitor. In some cases, it may
 be possible  to  instal1  the continuous
 monitoring  device at »'ie same location
 as  the existing oxygen monitor. Care
 should be taken, hr >vcver, to assure that
 a representative sample is obtained. Be-
 cause  of  the var'ous possibilities  that
 may arise concern  '   the usefulness of
 existing oxygen  i.. -.itors. the State
 should  determine, alter a  case-by-case
 review, the acceptability of existing oxy-
 gen monitors.
  Another technical  issue  which  was
 raised suggested that continuous emis-
 sion  monitors  which  provide  direct
 measurements of pollutants in units com-
 parable to the emission limitations and
 other devices not  specifically identified
 in  the  proposed regulations are avail-
 able for purchase and installation. The
 Agency is aware that various monitor-
 ing systems exist but  has not as yet de-
 termined specific performance specifica-
 tions for these monitoring systems  that
 are directly applicable to  the  source
 categories covered by these regulations.
 However, it is not EPA's intent to deny
 the use of any equipment that can be
 demonstrated to be reliable and accurate.
 If monitors can be demonstrated to pro-
 vide the same relative degree of accuracy
 and durability as provided by the  per-
formance specifications in Appendix B
of Part 60,  they shall generally be  ac-
 ceptable to  satisfy the requirements of
 these regulations under Section 3.9 of
Appendix P.  Further, where alternative
 procedures  (e.g., alternate procedures
for conversion of data to units of appli-
cable regulations)  can be .shown by the
 State to be equivalent to the procedures
 set i >rth in  Appendix P of these regula-
 tions,  then  such  alternate procedures
 may be submitted by the State for ap-
 proval by EPA. Section 3.9 of Appendix P
 identifies certain e •camples where alter-
 native emission monitoring .systems or
 alternative procedures will generally be
 considered by the  Agency for approval.
  It should  be noted-that some sources
 may be Unable to comply with the regu-
 lations  because of technical difficulties.
 (e.g.,  the presence  of condensed water
 vapor in the flue gas), physical limita-
 tions of accessibility at the plant facility.
 or. in other cases, because of extreme
 economic hardship. States should  use
 their judgment in implementing  these
 requirements in such cases. Section 6 of
 Appendix P of this Part provides various
 examples where the installation of con-
 tinuous emission monitors would not be
 feasible  or reasonable.  In such  cases
 alternate emission monitoring  (and re-
 porting! by more routine methods, such
 as  manual  stack  testing, must be  re-
 quired. States in preparing their revised
 SIP must set forth and describe the cri-
 teria they will use to identify such un-
 usual cases, and must further describe
 the alternative procedures they will im-
 plement to otherwise satisfy the intent of
 these regulations. States are advised that
 this provision  is  intended for unusual
 cases, and, as such, should not be widely
 applied.
  It was pointed  out by  some  corn-
 mentors that  carbon  dioxide monitors
 could probably be used in lieu of oxygen
 monitors to provide information to con-
 vert emission  data to the units of  the
 applicable  State  regulation.  Detailed
 discussion of  the  technical merits anfl
 limitations of this approach is discussed
 in the Preamble to the Part 60 Regula-
 tions. As pointed out in  that Preamble.
 such monitors  may be used in certain
 situations. Modifications have therefore
 been made to the Part 51 regulations to
 allow the use of such monitors which in-
 clude references  to technical specifica-
 tions contained in Part 60 for carbon d'"
 oxide monitors. Also, the cycling time for
 oxygen monitors has been changed froni
 one hour to 15  minutes to correspond to
 the specification in Part 60. The differ-
 ence between  cycling times in  the two
 proposals was  an oversight. The cycling
 time for carbon dioxide  monitors w"1
also be 15 minutes as in Part 60.
  A number of other miscellaneous  tecn-
 nical comments were also received. Corn-
mentors indicated  that the proposed ex-
emption for opacity monitoring require-
ments  that may be granted to oil-nreo
and gas-fired  steam generators shouw
also apply to units burning a combina-
tion of these fuels. The Administrator
concurs with this suggestion and an ex*
eruption for such sources burning oil a»B
gas has ben provided in the final reg«*
lations subject  to  the same restrictions
as  are  imposed  on  oil-fired steal"
generators.                         ._
  As previously indicated, the  rcguia
tions for emission  monitoring for exWJ^
ing sources refer in many cases to w>;
specific  performance  specifications  J**
farth in the emission monitoring regul»
tions for new sources affected by P*™.?!,;
Many of the comments received on *«»J
proposed regulations in effect pointed w
issues affecting both proposals. In man»
cases, more specific technical Issues ar*
discussed in the Preamble to the Part »v
Regulations and as such  the reader J»
referred to that Preamble. Specifically-
the Part 60 Preamble addresses the «*.
lowing topics: data handling and reptf *
JnB techniques: requirements lor reporp
ing repairs and replacement parte ««*•;
location  of  monitoring   instrument*'
changes to span requirements, opera*"1*
                              NMHUU. HttUM, VOL 40, NO. <•<  MONDAY. OCTOMt *,
                                                  |


                                                  1111-112
-------
  frequency requirements, sulfuric ncid and
  nitric  acid  plant  conversion  factors:
      for opacity monitorinR equipment,
         in the eyeliner time and in allcn-
       procedures.  The reader is  cau-
  r'oned. however, that specific  reference
  jo regulations in the Part 60  Preamble
  w strictly to federal New Source Perform-
  ance Regulations rather than State and
  local control agency  regulations  which
  •nect existing sources and which are part
  01 an applicabi'e plan.
   "i addition  to  the many  technical
  Comments received, a  number of legal
  'Ssues were raised. Several commentors
 Questioned EPA's statutory authority to
  promulgate these regulations and pointed
 "Ut other alleged legal defects in the pro-
 U^al. The Administrator has considered
  •nese comments, and has found them un-
 Persuasive.
       commentor argued that new 40
      5l.l9 will require "revisions" to
 existing state plans; that •"revisions" may
 °J called for under Section 110 A  revision  to the  data  reporting
 requirements to require the submittal by
 the source of the State, emission data in
 excess of the applicable emission limita-
 tion for  both opacity and  gaseous  pol-
 lutants, rather than all measured data, as
 proposed. A provision has been added to
 require information on the cause of all
 noted violations of applicable regulations.
   <6> A clarification to indicate that the
 continuous monitoring of oxygen is not
 required unless the continuous monitor-
 ing: of sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen
 oxides emissions is required by the appli-
 cable SIP.
   (7) A  revision to  allow the placement
 of  continuous emission  monitors at "a
 representative location"  on the exhaust
 gas system rather  than at "the most
 representative location" as required by
 the proposed regulations.
   f8i  A revision to delete  the  require-
 ments of new  performance tests each
 time the  continuous monitoring equip-
 ment is repaired or modified. However, a
 new provision is included to require that
 a report of all repairs and maintenance
 performed during the quarter shall be re-
 ported by the source to the State.
   <9>  A modification to  provide sources
 18  months rather  than  one year after
 approval  or promulgation of the revised
 SIP to comply with the continuous moni-
 toring regulations adopted by the States.
   (10) A  modification to provide States
 one year, rather than  the six  months
 after the  promulgation of these regula-
 tions in the FEDERAL REGISTER to submit
 plan revisions to satisfy the requirements
 promulgated herein.
  Requirements of States. States shall be
 required to revise their SIP's by Octo-
 ber 6, 1976 to include legally enforceable
 procedures to require emission monitor-
 ing, recording and reporting, as a mini-
 mum for those  sources specified in  the
 regulations promulgated .herein. While
 minimum requirements have been estab-
 lished, States may, as they deem appro-
 priate, expand these requirements.
  The regulations  promulgated  herein
 have been revised in light of the various
 comments to  generally provide  a more
 limited introduction into  this new meth-
 odology.   Cooperation among  affected
 parties, i.e.. State and local control agen-
 cies, sources, instrument manufacturers
 and suppliers, and this Agency is neces-
 sary  to  move successfully  forward in
 these areas of emission monitoring and
 reporting  prescribed in  the Clean  Air
 Act. Assistance can be obtained from  the
 EPA Regional Offices in  relation to  the
 technical and procedural aspects of these
 regulations.
  Copies of documents referenced'in this
 Preamble  are available for public inspec-
 tion at the EPA Freedom  of Information
 Center. 401 M Street. B.W.. Washington.
D.C.  20460.  The Agency  has  not pre-
 pared  an  environmental  impact state-
ment for  these  regulations since they
                              MOMAL IMISTM, VOL 40, NO. 1*4—MONDAY, OCTOUI «, I*TS
                                                    III-113
-------
                                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
  were proposed (September 11.1974) prior
  to the effective date for requiring volun-
  tary environmental  impact  statements
  on EPA's regulatory  actions  (see 39 FB
  16186. May 7. 1974).
    The  regulations  set  forth below  are
  promulgated under the authority of sec-
  tions ll-(ill)  and 301(n>
  of the  Clean Air Act,  as amended  (42
  U.S.C. 1857c-5(F)(ii)-(iii>. 1857g
  (a) 1 and are effective November 5. 1975.

    Dated: September 23,1975.

                      JOHN QUARLES,
                  Acting Administrator^
                REFERENCES
   1. Jenkins. R. E.. Strategies nnd Air Stand-
 ards Division. OAQPS. EPA. Memo to R. L.
 Ajax.  Emission Standards and  Engineering
 Division, OAQPS. EPA. Emission  Monitoring
 Costs. February 27, 1975.
   2. Young, D. E., Control Programs Develop-
 ment Division, OAQPS,  EPA. Memo to E. J.
 Llllls.  Control Programs  Development  Di-
 vision, OAQPS, EPA, Emission Source Data
 for In-Slack Monitoring Regulations. June 4,
 1D7S.
   1. Section  51.1 is  amended  by adding
 paragraphs (z),  (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd),
 and (ee)  as follows:
 § 51.1   Definition!).
     •      •       •        *       •
   (z) "Emission standard" means a reg-
 ulation (or portion thereof) setting forth
 an allowable rate of emissions,  level of
 opacity, or prescribing equipment or fuel
 specifications .that  result  in  control  of
 sir pollution emissions.
   (aa)  "Capacity factor" means  the
 ratio of the average load on a machine or
 equipment for the period of time consid-
 ered to the capacity rating of the ma-
 chine or equipment.
   (bb)  "Excess emissions" means emis-
 sions of an air pollutant in excess of an
 emission standard.
   (cc) "Nitric acid plant" means  any fa-
 cility producing nitric acid 30 to  70 per-
 cent in strength by either the pressure or
 atmospheric pressure process.
   (dd) "Sulfuric  acid plant" means any
 facility producing sulfuric acid  by the
 contact process by burning elemental sul-
 fur, alkylation acid, hydrogen sulflde,  or
acid sludge, but does not include facili-
 ties where conversion to sulfuric acid is
utilized primarily as a means of prevent-
ing emissions to the atmosphere  of sul-
 fur dioxide or other sulfur compounds.
   (ee) "Fossil fuel-fired  steam  gener-
ator" means a furnace or boiler used  in
 the process of burning fossil fuel  for the
 primary purpose of producing  steam by
heat transfer.
  2. Section 51.19 is amended by  adding
 paragraph (e) as follows:

 151.19  Source Mirvcillaticr.
  (e)  Legally enforceable procedures  to
require  stationary sources  subject  to
        »*andard4 as part of an appli-
        n to Install, calibrate, maintain,
            «|uiph1ertt far corttinuttusly
               recprdihtetiilsstohsj and
         ,     iWdrftiaO°ri
         bt P of this part.
 *ibto
 •«
    (1) Such procedures shall identify the
  types of sources, by source category and
  capacity, that must install such  instru-
  ments, and shall identify for each source
  category  the  pollutants  which must be
  monitored.
    (2) Such procedures shall, as a mini-
  mum, require  the  types of sources set
  forth in Appendix P of this part (as such
  appendix may be amended from time to
  time) to meet the applicable require-
  ments set forth therein.
    (3) Such procedures shall contain pro-
  visions which require  the owner  or op-
  erator of each source subject to continu-
  ous  emission monitoring and  recording
  requirements  to  maintain  a file of all
  pertinent information. Such information
  shall  include  emission  measurements,
  continuous monitoring system perform-
  ance testing measurements, performance
  evaluations, calibration checks, and ad-
  justments and maintenance performed
  on such monitoring systems and other re-
  ports and records required by Appendix
  P  of this Part for at k.ist two years fol-
  lowing the date of sucn measurements or
  maintenance.
    (4) Such procedures shall require the
 source owner or operator to submit in-
 formation  relatin,   'o  emissions  and
 operation of the em.  :.3n monitors to the
 State to the extent described in Appendix
 P  as  frequently or  more frequently as
 described therein.
   (S> Such procedures shall provide that
 sources  subject to the requirements of
 { 51.19(e) (2) of this section shall have
 installed  all necessary  equipment and
 shall have begun monitoring and record-
 ing within 18 months of (1) the approval
 of  a State plan requiring monitoring for
 that source or  (2) promulgation by  the
 Agency of monitoring  requirements for
 that source. However, sources that have
 made good faith efforts to purchase, in-
 stall, and begin the  monitoring and re-
 cording of emission  data but who have
 been  unable  to  complete such installa-
 tion within the time period provided may
 be given reasonable extensions of time as
 deemed appropriate  by  the State.
  (6)  States shall  submit revisions to the
 applicable  plan which  implement the
 provisions of this  section by October 6,
 1976.
  3. In Part 51. Appendix P is added as
 follows:
    *       •      • *       *      *
 APPENDIX P—MINIMUM  EMISSION MONITORING
              REQUIREMENTS
  1.0 Purpose. This  Appendix P sets  forth
 the  minimum requirements for continuous
 emission monitoring and recording that each
 State Implementation Plan must Include In
order to be approved under the provisions of
 40 CFR 51.10(e). These requirements Include
 the  source categories to be affected: emission
 monitoring,  record!  ig.  and  reporting re-
 q\ilrements lor those sources: performance
specifications for accuracy,  reliability, and
durability of acceptable monitoring systems:
and techniques to convert emission data to
                                                                                                                        in
                                                                                                                        »«
  directly for compliance determination or any
  other purpose .deemed  appropriate by the
  State. Though the monltorlhg requirements
  are specified In detail. States are given some
  flexibility  to resolve difficulties that  may
  arise during  the  Implementation  of  these
  regulations.
    1.1 Applicability.
    The State plan thall require the owner Of
  operator of MJ, emission source In a Category
  listed in this Appendix  to: (1) Install, cali-
  brate, operate, and maintain all  monitoring
  equipment necessary for continuously moni-
  toring the pollutant* specified in  this Ap-
  pendix  for the applicable source category:
  and  (2) complete the installation and per-
  formance tests of such equipment and begin
  monitoring and recording within 18 months
  of plan approval or promulgation. The source
  categories and the respective monitoring re-
  quirements are listed below.
    1.1.1 Fossil fuel-fired steam generators, as
  specified In paragraph 2.1 of this appendix.
  shall be  monitored  for opacity, nitrogen
  oxides emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, '
  and oxygen or carbon dioxide.
    1.1.2 Fluid  bed  catalytic  cracking  unit
  catalyst  regenerators, as,specified In para-
  graph 2.4 of this appendix, shall be moni-
  tored for opacity.
    1.1.3 Sulfuric acid  plants,  as specified in
  paragraph  2.3  of  this  appendix, shall be
  monitored for sulfur  dioxide emissions.
    1.1.4 Nitric  acid plants, as  specified
  paragraph  2.2  of  this  appendix, shall
  monitored for nitrogen oxides emissions.
    1.2  Ex'Tipttons.
    The States may Include provisions wlthlrt
  their regulations to grant exemptions froth
  the monitoring requirements of  paragraph
  1.1 of this appendix for any source which U'
    1.2.1 subject to a new source performance
 standard promulgated In 40 CFR Part 6?
 pursuant to Section  ill of  the  Clean  Air
 Act:  or               .                 ;
    1.2.2 not subject to an  applicable emission
 standard of an approved plan;  or           "
    1.2.3 scheduled for retirement within 8
 years  after  Inclusion of monitoring require?
 ments for the source Ih Appendix P. provided
 that adequate evidence and guarantees «r«
 provided that clearly  show that the source
 will cease operations prior to such date.
   1.3  Extensions.                      ..>
  States may jllow  reasonable extensions of
 the time provided for Installation of monltort
 for facilities unable to meet the prescribgo
 tlmeframe (I.e., 18  months frohi pifch If*
 proval or promulgation) provided the owMjf
 or operator Of auch facility demonstrates tW*
 good  faith efforts have been made to obw»
 and Install such devices within »uch pre-
 scribed tlmeframe.
  1.4   Monitoring Syttem Malfunction.
  The State plan may provide a ...'."
 exemption from thu monitoring  and  ..
 Ing requirements of this appendix durlii
 period of monitoring system malfuriwr.^
 provided  that the sotlrce  owner or bberitff
 shows, to the satisfaction of the SUte, th»J
 the malfunction was  unavoidable »n»J**
graphs, witH.afe annual average capitertf »HS
tpr of greater tl1«n 30 p'erceiU. fts repOrtWij"
the. Federal Power camirilssloil  fof «ki«.n»tf
year, Ih74. br ,«U Otherwts* dem6hstr».i««/,r
                                         utilized by  source operators
                                         *«$«ioh levtoii of klo* tr
                                         afdi. SUcH data may bS used
                               maintain
                                 stfiri
                                                    40, HO.
                                                                                   4.
-------
                                                  RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  2.1.1  A continuous monitoring system for]   Each  catalyst regenerator for fluid  bed
*l>e measurement of opacity which meets the I catalytic cracking units of greater than 20.-
Performance   specifications  of  paragraph/ 000 barrels per day fresh feed capacity shall
••'•1 of this appendix shall be Installed, call-i  Install,  calibrate, maintain, and operate a
Dr*ted. maintained, and operated In accord-1 continuous monitoring system for the meos-
ance with the procedures of this appendix by \ urement of opacity  which  meets the per-
>he owner or operator of any such stenm  I formance specifications of 3.1.1.
8*nerator  of  greater than  2SO~  million BTU     3.0 Minimum specifications.
Pw hour heat Input except where:          I   All State plans shall require owners or op-
  2.1.1.1 gaseous fuel In the only fuel burned,   erators  of  monitoring  equipment Installed
"~                                          to comply with this Appendix, except as pro-
                                            vided In paragraph 3.2, to demonstrate com-
   3.1.1.2 oil or & mixture of gas and oil are
  »ne only fuels burned and the source Is able
  t° comply with  the applicable paniculate
  "»»Uer and opacity regulations without utlll-
  *»tlon  of  paniculate   matter  collection
  fSulpment. and where the source has never
  &*«n  found, through any administrative or
  judicial proceedings, to be In violation of any
  visible emission standard of  the applicable
  Plan.
   2.1.2  A continuous monitoring system for
  the  measurement of sulfur  dioxide which
  "Wets the performance specifications of para-
  graph 3.1.3 of this appendix shall be Installed.
  Wibrated. maintained, and operated on any
  JOssll fuel-fired  steam generator of greater
  than  250 million BTU per hour heat  Input
  *hlch has  Installed sulfur dioxide pollutant
  "ontrol equipment.
   2.1.3  A continuous monitoring system for
  the measurement  of  nitrogen oxides which
 '•fleets the performance specification of para-
 graph 3.1.2 of this appendix shall be Installed.
• callbrated.  maintained, and operated on fos-
 '" fuel-fired  steam  generators  of  greater
 than 1000 million  BTU per hour heat input
 *hen such  facility Is located In an Air Qual-
 Jty Control Region where  the  Administrator
 nts specifically determined that  a  control
 "rategy for nitrogen  dioxide Is necessary to
 •'tain  the national   standards, unless the
 •°urce owner or operator demonstrates dur-
 ing source  compliance tests as  required by
 ll>e state that such a source emits nitrogen
 oxides at levels 30 percent or more below the
 emission  standard within  the  applicable
 P'an,
   2.1.4 A continuous monitoring system for
 the measurement of  the  percent oxygen or
 ^rbon dioxide  which meets  the perform-
 *nce  specifications of paragraphs 3.1.4  or
 3-1.5 of this appendix shall be Installed, call-
 "fated, operated, and maintained on fossil
 •uei-flred steam generators where measure-
 ments of oxygen or carbon dioxide In the flue
 ?•* are required to convert either sulfur dl-
 °xide or nitrogen  oxides  continuous emls-
 «wn monitoring data, or both, to \inlts of
 the emission standard within the applica-
 ble plan.
  2-2  mtric ocM plants.
  Bach nitric acid plant of greater than 300
 *on» per day production  capacity, the pro-
 "uctlon capacity being expressed as 100 per-
 cent acid, located  In an Air Quality Control
 **«gion where the Administrator has  specif-
 ically determined that a control strategy for
 nitrogen dioxide  is necessary to attain  the
 national standard  shall   Install, calibrate,
 maintain, and  operate a  continuous moni-
 toring system for the  measurement of nltro-
"n oxides  which  meets  the performance
tpeclflcatlon* of  paragraph 3.12 for each
nitric  acid  producing facility within such
Plant.
2.3 Sulfuric acid plants. -
  Each Sulfuric acid  plant of greater than
300 tons per day production capacity, the
Production  being  expressed  as 100 percent
•eld,  shall Install,  calibrate, maintain  and
operate a continuous  monitoring system for
'he measurement of  sulfur dioxide  which
meets the performance specifications of 3.1.3
•or each  sulfuric  acid  producing . facility
Within such plant.
  2.4  Fluid bed catalytic cracking unit eata-
'Vit regencraton at petroleum reflnerte'i.
                                            pltance with the following performance spec.
                                            Ideations.
                                              3.1 Performance specifications.
                                              The performance specifications set forth
                                            In  Appendix B of  Part 60 are Incorporated
                                            herein  by  reference, and shall be used  by
                                            States to determine acceptability of monitor-
                                            ing equipment  Installed pursuant  to this
                                            Appendix except that (1) where reference Is
                                            made to the "Administrator" In Appendix B.
                                            Part 60, the term "State" should be Inserted
                                            for the purpose  of this Appendix (e.g.,  In
                                            Performance Specification 1, 1.2. "... moni-
                                            toring systems subject to approval by the
                                            Administrator,"  should  be Interpreted  as.
                                            ". . . monitoring systems subject to approval
                                            by the  State"),  and (2) where reference Is
                                            made to the "Reference Method" In Appendix
                                            B. Part 60,  the State- may allow  the  use  of
                                            either the State approved reference method
                                            or the Federally approved reference method
                                            as published In Part 60 of this Chapter. The
                                            Performance Specifications to be used with
                                            each  type of monitoring system are listed
                                            below.
                                             3.1.1 Continuous monitoring systems for
                                            measuring  opacity shall comply  with Per-
                                            formance Specification ).
                                             3.1.2 Continuous monitoring systems for
                                            measuring nitrogen oxides shall comply with
                                            Performance Specification 2.
                                             3.1.3 Continuous monitoring systems for
                                           measuring sulfur dioxide shall comply with
                                           Performance Specification 2.
                                             3.1.4 Continuous  monitoring systems for
                                           measuring oxygen shall  comply  with Per-
                                           formance Specification 3.
                                             3.1.5 Continuous  monitoring systems for
                                           measuring carbon dioxide shall comply with
                                           Performance Specification 3.
                                            . 3.2 Exemptions.
                                             Any source which has purchased an emis-
                                           sion monitoring system(s) prior to Septem-
                                           ber 11, 1974, may  be exempt  from  meeting
                                           such test procedures prescribed In Appendix
                                           B of Part 60 for a period not  to exceed five
                                          •years from plan approval or promulgation.
                                             3.3 Calibration Oases.
                                             For nitrogen oxides monitoring systems In-
                                           stalled on fossil fuel-fired steam generators
                                           the pollutant gas used to prepare calibration
                                           gas mixtures (Section 2.1, Performance Spec-
                                           ification 2,  Appendix  B,  Part  60)  shall  be
                                           nitric oxide (NO). For nitrogen oxides mon-
                                           itoring systems. Installed on nitric acid plants
                                           the pollutant gas used to prepare calibration
                                           gas mixtures (Section 2.1, Performance Spec-
                                           ification 2, Appendix B, Part 60 of this Chap-
                                           ter) shall be nitrogen dioxide  (NO,). These
                                           gases shall also be used for dally checks under
                                           paragraph 3.7 of this appendix  as applicable.
                                           For sulfur dioxide monitoring systems in-
                                           stalled on fossil fuel-fired steam generators
                                           or sulfurlc acid plants the pollutant gas used
                                           to prepare calibration gas mixtures (Section
                                           2.1, Performance Specification 2. Appendix B.
                                           Part 60 of this Chapter) shall  be sulfur di-
                                           oxide (SO,).  Span and zero gases should be
                                           traceable to  National  Bureau  of Standards
                                           reference gases whenever  these  reference
                                           gases are available.  Every six months from
                                          date> of  manufacture, span and zero  gases
                                           shall be  reanalyzed by conducting triplicate
                                           analyses  using the reference methods In Ap-
                                           pendix A. Part 60 of this chapter as follows:
                                           for sulfur dioxide, use Reference Method 6:
                                           for nitrogen oxides, use Reference Method 7;
  and for carbon dioxide or oxygen, use Ref-
  erence Method 3. The gases may be analyzed
  at less frequent Intervals if longer shelf lives
  are  guaranteed by the manufacturer.
   3.4 Cycling times.
   Cycling  times Include the  total time  a
  monitoring  system  requires  to  sample.
  analyze and record an emission measurement.
   3.4.1 Continuous monitoring systems for
  measuring opacity shall  complete a  mini-
  mum of one cycle of operation  (sampling.
  analyzing, and data recording) for each suc-
  cessive  10-second period.
   3.4.2 Continuous monitoring systems for
  measuring oxides  of  nitrogen, carbon diox-
  ide,  oxygen, or sulfur dioxide shall complete
  a minimum  of one cycle of operation  (sam-
  pling, analyzing,  and data recording)  for
  each successive 16-mlnute period.
   3.5 Monitor location.
   State plans  shall require all continuous
  monitoring systems or monitoring devices to
  be installed  such  that representative meas-
  urements of  emissions or process parameters
  (I.e., oxygen, or carbon dioxide) from the af-
 fected facility are obtained. Additional guid-
 ance for location of continuous monitoring
 systems to obtain representative samples are
 contained  In  the  applicable  Performance
 Specifications of Appendix  B of Part 60 of
 this  Chapter.
   3.6 Combined effluents.
   When the  effluents from two or more af-
 fected facilities of similar design and operat-
 ing characteristics are combined before being
 released to the  atmosphere,  the State plan
 may  allow monitoring systems to be Installed
 on the combined effluent. When the affected
 facilities are not of similar design and operat-
 ing characteristics, or when the effluent from
 one affected facility U released to the atmos-
 phere through more than one point, the State
 should establish alternate procedures to im-
 plement the Intent of these requirements.
   3.7 Zero and drift.
   State plans shall require  owners or opera-
 tors  of  all continuous monitoring systems
 Installed In  accnrdnnce  with  the require-
 ments of tills Appendix to record the Tiero and
 span  drift  In  accordance with the method
 prescribed by the manufacturer of such in-
 struments:  to subject the Instruments to the
 manufacturer's recommended zero  and span
 check at least once dally unless the manu-
 facturer has  recommended  adjustments at
 shorter intervals, in which case such recom-
 mendations shall be followed:  to adjust the
 zero  and span  whenever the  24-hour zero
 drift  or 24-hour calibration drift  limits of
 the applicable performance specifications in
 Appendix B of Part 60 are exceeded; and to
 adjust continuous monitoring systems refer-
 enced  by paragraph 3.2  of this  Appendix
 whenever the 24-hour zero  drift or 24-hour
 calibration  drift exceed 10  percent of the
 emission standard.
  3.8  Span.
  Instrument span  should be approximately
 200 per cent of the expected Instrument data
 display output corresponding to the emission
 standard for the source.
  3.9  Alternative procedures  and  require-
 ments.
  In cases where States wish to utilize differ-
 ent, but equivalent, procedures and require-
 ments for continuous monitoring  systems,
 the State plan must provide a description of
 Mich  alternative proceduers for approval by
 the Administrator. Some examples  of-Situa-
 tions  thnt  may require alternatives follow:
  3.9.1 Alternative monitoring  requirements
 to accommodate continuous monitoring sys-
 tems thnt require corrections for stack mois-
 ture conditions (e.g., nn instrument measur-
ing steam generator SO, emissions on a wet
basis could be used with'an Instrument mea-
suring oxygen concentration on a dry bails
If acceptable  methods of measuring stack
moisture conditions are  used  to allow ac-
                               MMIAL noism. vot, «, NO. IM—MONDAY. OCTOBER *, ms
                                                         'HI-115
-------
                                                   RULES AND REGULATIONS
  curate adjustment of the measured SO_, con-
  centration to dry basis.)
    3.9.2 Alternative  location! for Installing
  continuous monitoring systems or monitor-
  ing devices when the owner or operator can
  demonstrate that installation at alternative
  locations win enable accurate and represent-
  ative measurements.
    3.9.3 Alternative procedures  for perform-
  ing calibration checks (e.g.some Instruments
  may demonstrate superior drift characteris-
  tics that require checking at less frequent
  Intervals).
    3.9.4 Alternative monitoring requirements
  when the effluent from one affected facility or
  the  combined effluent  from two or more
  Identical affected facilities Is released to the
  atmosphere through  more than  one-point
  (e.g..  an extractive, gaseous monitoring sys-
  tem used at several points may be approved
  If the procedures recommended are suitable
  for generating accurate emission  averages).
   3.9.5 Alternative  continuous  monitoring
  systems that  do not meet  the spectral  re-
  sponse requirements In Performance  Speci-
  fication 1. Appendix B of Part 60. but ade-
  quately demonstrate a definite and consistent
  relationship  between  their measurements
 and the  opacity measurements of a  system
 complying with  the  requirements In Per-
 formance Specification 1. The State may re-
 quire  that such demonstration be performed
 for each affected facility.
   4.0 Minimum data requirements.
   The  following  paragraphs set  forth  the
 minimum data reporting requirements neces-
 sary to comply with »51.19(e) (3) and  (4).
   4.1 The State plan 'shall require  owners
 or operators of facilities required  to  Install
 continuous monitoring systems to  submit a
 written report of excess emissions for each
 calendar quarter and the nature and cause of
 the excess emissions. If known. The  averaging
 period  used for data reporting should  be
 established by  the State to correspond  to the
 averaging  period  specified  In the  emission
 test method used  to determine compliance
 with an emission standard for the pollutant'
 source category In question. The required re-
 port shall  include, as a  minimum, the data
 stipulated In this Appendix.
   4.2 For  opacity measurements,  the  sum-
 mary shall consist of the magnitude In actual
 percent opacity of all one-minute  (or such
 other time period deemed appropriate by the
 State) averages of opacity greater  than the
 opacity standard In the  applicable plan for
 each hour of operation of the facility.  Aver-
 age values may be obtained by Integration
 over the averaging period  or by arithmeti-
 cally averaging a  minimum  of four equally
 spaced. Instantaneous opacity measurements
 per minute. Any  time period exempted shall
 be considered before determining the excess
 averages of opacity  (e.g.. whenever a  regu-
 latlon  allows two minutes  of opacity meas-
 urements In excess of the standard, the State
 shall require the  source to report all opacity
 averages, in any  one hour,  in excess of the
standard,   minus  the  two-minute exemp-
tion).  If  more than  one opacity  standard
applies, excess emissions  data must be sub-
mitted In relation to all such standards.
  4.3 For gaseous measurements the  sum-
mary shall consist of emission averages.  In
the units of the applicable standard, for each
averaging period during which the appli-
cable standard was exceeded.
  4.4 The' date and time  Identifying  each
period  during which the continuous moni-
toring  system  was Inoperative, -except tar
zero and  span checks, and the  nature  of
system repairs  or adjustments shall be re-
ported, Th* State may require proof of con-
tinuous  monitoring  system performance
«|>etiev«*ey»t«ri repairs or adjustment* have
 Mtn tttaoe*
    4.S  When no  excess emissions  have oc-
  curred and the continuous monitoring «).<-
  tem(s) have not been inoperative, repaired.
  or adjusted, such  Information  shall be In-
  cluded In the report.
    4.6 The State plan shall require owners or
  operators of affected facilities  to  maintain
  a Ale of all Information reported In the quar-
  terly summaries, and all other data collected
  either by the continuous  monitoring system
  or as necessary to convert monitoring datn
  to the  units of the applicable standard for
  a minimum of two years from the date of
  collection  of  such data  or submission of
  such summaries.
    5.0 Data RMuftion.
    The  State plnn  shall  require owners or
  operators of affected  facilities to use the
  following procedures for  converting moni-
  toring data to units of the standard where
  necessary,
    5.1 For fossil fuel-fired steam generators
  the following  procedures  shall be used to
  convert gaseous emission monitoring data In
  parts per million to g/mllllon cal (Ib/mllllon
  BTU) where necessary:
    5.1.1  When  the  owner  or operator  of a
  fossil fuel-flred steam generator elects under
  subparagraph 2.1.4 of thl?  Appendix to meas-
  ure oxygen  In  the  flue gases,'the measure-
  ments of the  polluf nt concentration and
  oxygen  concentration shall eneh be  on  n dry
  basis and the following conversion procedure
  used:

                       -.).«
   6.1,2 When the  owner or operator elects
 under subparagraph 2.1.4 of this  Appendix
 to measure carbon dioxide In the flue gases.
 the measurement  of the pollutant concen-
 tration and the carbon dioxide concentration
 shall each be on a consistent basis (wet or
 dry)  and the following conversion procedure
 used:
                        100
   8.1.3 The values used in the equations un-
 der paragraph 5.1 are derived as follows:

         E=pollutant  emission,  g/mllllon
            cal (Ib/mllllonBTU).
         C=pollutant   concentration,   g'
          '  dscm 60.84fb) of thin chapter;
  633  multiply the conversion factor by the
average sulfur dloxld« concentration in the
  flue gases to obtain average aulfur dioxide
  emissions In Kg/metric ton (ib/short ton):
* and
    5.2.3 report  the  average sulfur  dioxide
  emission for each averaging period  In excess
  of the applicable emission standard in the
  quarterly summary.
    5.3  For nitric acid  plants  the  owner or
  opera tor shall;
    53.1 establish a  conversion factor accord-
  ing to the procedures of |60.73(b) of this
  chapter.
    5.3.2 multiply the conversion factor by the
  average nitrogen oxides concentration In the
  flue gases to obtain the nitrogen oxides emis-
  sions in the units of the applicable standard:
    5.3.3 report  the  average  nitrogen  oxides
  emission for each averaging period In excess
  of the applicable emission standard. In the
  quarterly summary.
    5.4 Any State may allow data  reporting
  or reduction procedures varying from those
  net forth in this Appendix  If  the  owner or
  operator of a source shows to the satisfaction
  of the State that his procedures are at least
  as accurate as  those In this Appendix. Such
  procedures may Include but are not limited
  to, the following:
    5.4.1 Alternative procedures for computing
  emission averages that do not require Inte-
  gration of data (e.g.. some facilities may dem-
  onstrate that the variability of their emis-
  sions Is sufficiently small to allow accurate re-
  duction of data based upon computing aver-
  ages from equally spaced data points over the
  averaging ->erlod).
   5.4.2 Al x.'rnatlve methods of converting pol-
  lutant concentration measurements  to  the
  units of the emission standards.
    6.0 Special Consideration.
   The State plan may provide for approval, on
  a  case-by-case  basis, of alternative  monitor-
  Ing requirements different  from the provi-
  sions of Farts 1 through 5 of this Appendix if
  the provisions of this Appendix  (i.e..  the in-
  stallation of a continuous emission monitor-
  ing system)  cannot be Implemented by •
  source due to physical plant limitations or
  extreme economic reasons. To  make use of
  this provision.  States must Include In their
  plan specific criteria for  determining those
  physical  limitations or extreme economic,
 situations to be considered by the State. 1"
  such  cases, when  the State exempts any
  source subject to this Appendix by use of thl*
 provision  from Installing continuous eml**
 slon monitoring systems, the State shall »*J
 forth  alternative emission monitoring  and
 reporting requirements (e.g., periodic manual
 stack  tests) to  satisfy  the intent of the*
 regulations.  Examples of such  special cast*
 Include, but are not limited to, the following!
   6.1  Alternative monitoring requirement*
 may be prescribed when Installation of a con-
 tinuous monitoring system or monitoring «••..
 vice specified by this Appendix would not pro-
 vide  accurate  determinations of emission*
 (e.g., condensed, uncomblned  water vapor
 may  prevent an accurate determination o<
 opacity  using  commercially  available eon*
 tlnuous monitoring systems).
   6.2 Alternative  monitoring requirement*
 may be prescribed when the affected  facility
 Is infrequently operated (e.g.. some  affeetW
 facilities may operate less than one montn
 per year).
  6.3 Alternative  monitoring requirement*
 may be prescribed when the State determine*
 that the requirements of this Appendix would
 Impose an extreme economic  burden on tn*
 sourc* owner or operator,
  6.4 Alternative  monitoring, requirement*
 may be prescribed when the State determine*
 that monitoring systems prescribed  by tl»f
 Appendix cannot be Installed due to ptir*1**1
 limitations at the facility.
  |FH Uoc.75-30560 Filed 10-3-15;!:4* sfrtl
                                 MNMM MOttTM, VOt.  40, NO  1*4—MOMBAV, 0€f



                                                         l'XXX-116
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
    AGENCY
  NATIONAL  EMISSION
   STANDARDS FOR
   HAZARDOUS AIR
    POLLUTANTS
       XII-117
-------
                     Emission Msnsten*
 161.60  Applicability.
   (a)  lids subpart  applies  to  plant*
 which produce:
   (IMBthylene dlchloride by reaction of
 0079111  uul  nydrofui  cDlondt with
 ethylene,
   (9)  Vtajl chloride by any prepay.
and/or
   (8) One or more polymers containing
any fraction of polymerized vinyl chlo-
ride.
   (b)  Thla  subpart does not apply  to
equipment used In research and develop-
ment If the reactor used to polymerize
the vinyl chloride processed in the equip-
ment has a capacity of no more than
0.19m* (50 gal).
   (c)  Sections of this subpart other than
If 91.61;  81.64 (a) (1), (b), (c), and (d);
61.67; 61.68: 61.69; 61.70;  and 61,71 do  not
apply to equipment used in research and
development if the reactor used to po-
lymerize  the vinyl chloride processed in
the equipment has a capacity of greater
than 0.19 m* (50 gal)  and no more than
4.07m* (1100gal).
 § 61.61  Definition*.
  Terms used in this subpart are defined
 in the Act, in subpart A of this part, or
 in this section as follows:
  (a)  "Ethylene dlchloride plant" in.
 eludes any plant which produces ethyl-
 ene dlchloride by reaction of oxygen and
 hydrogen chloride with ethylene.
  (b)  "Vinyl chloride  plant" includes
 any plant which produces vinyl chloride
by any process.
  (c) "Polyvlnyl 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, Le., 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
plastlclzer  or plastlclzer/dOuent  mix-
tares.
  (h) "Latex resin" means a resin which
is produced by a polymerization process
which Initiates from free radical catalyst
sites and is sold undrted.
  (1)  "Bulk resin' 'means a resin which
to produced by a polymerisation process
to which no water Is  used.
  (f>  "inproeses wastewater" means any
      which, during manu
 processing,  on*Tfi  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 M
 wastewater.
    Ot)  "Wastewater treatment  proms*"
 includes y**y process which  modifies
 characteristics such as BOD. COD. TSS,
 tad 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 op^-ating procedure"
 means  a formal wrif«en procedure offi-
 cially adopted  br the plant owner or
 operator and_ava^tle on a routine basis
 to those persons responsible for carrying
 out the procedure
   (n)  "Run" met - 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 dlchloride 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
 I 61.65(a).
   (s)  "Stripper" includes any vessel hi
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 polymerisa-
tion step in the plant process flow.
   (t)  "Standard temperature" means a
 temperature of 20* C ' 69*  F).
   (u) "Standard  pressure"  means  a
pressure of 760 mn of Hg (29.92 to. of
Hg).
 § 61.62  Emission standard for ethylene
     dichloride plant*.
   (a) Ethylene  dlchloride purification:
 The concentration of vinyl chloride in
 all exhaust gases discharged to the at-
 mosphere from  any equipment used In
 ethylene dlchloride purification  to  not
 to exceed 14 ppm, except as provided to
  161.85 (a).  This requirement does  not
  apply to equipment that has been opened
  to out of operation, and met the require*
  ment hi  |6l.65(b)(6)(i)  before  beinf
  opened.
    (b) Oxychlorinatton  reactor: Except
  as  provided in  |61.65. This  re-
  quirement does  not  apply to equipment
  that has been opened, is out of operation
  and met the requirement  in § 61.65(t»
  (6) (I) before being opened.
 § 61.64  Emission standard for
      chloride plants.
   An owner or operator of a polyvinyl
 chloride plant shall comply with the re-
 quirements of this section and t  61.65.
   (a) Reactor: The following  require-
 ments apply to reactors:
   (1) The concentration of vinyl chlo-
 ride in all exhaust gases discharged t°
 the atmosphere from each reactor is no*
 to exceed  10 ppm, except as provided U*
 Paragraph (a) (2) of this  section an*
 I 61.65(a).
   (2) The reactor opening loss from eacb
 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 solid*
 basis. This requirement applies  to any
 vessel which is used as  a reactor or  «•
 both a reactor and  a  stripper.  In tb«
 bulk  process,  the product means the
 gross  product of prepolymerization and
 postpolymerizatlon.
   (3)  Manual vent valve discharge: EX-
 cept for an emergency manual vent vaW*
 discharge,  there is to be no discharge to
 the  atmosphere from any mammi yen*
 valve on a polyvinyl chloride reactor  i»
 vinyl  chloride service.  An  emergency
 manual vent valve discharge means •
 discharge to the atmosphere which could
 not  have been avoided by taking meas-
 ures to prevent the discharge. Within 1"
 days of any discharge to the atmosphers
 from any manual  vent valve, the owner
 or operator of the source from which tW
 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 determininf
 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 ol
 vinyl chloride to all exhaust gate* dto-
 charged  to the atmosphere from each
 •tttpper la not to exceed 10 ppm, except
 *» Provided In  161.65(a>. Thta requlre-
 pent doea not  apply to equipment that
 h*4 been opened, la out of operation, and
 "net the requirement In 161.85(b) (6) (t)
 before being opened.
   (c)  Mlx<"g.   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
 •tripper  
 Acquirement m f 61.65 (1)  before
 "•Ing opened.
   (d) Monomer recovery  system. The
 concentration of vinyl chloride in all ex-
 haust gases discharged to the atmos-
 Dhere from each monomer recovery sys-
 tem la not to exceed 10 ppm, except as
 Provided in 161.65(a). This requirement
 Joes not apply to equipment that, has
 peen opened, Is out of operation, and met
 the  requirement in I 61.65(b) (6) (1)  be-
 fore being opened.
   (e) Sources following the stripperCs):
 The  following  requirements  apply  to
 emissions  of vinyl chloride to  the at-
 ^oephere  from the combination of all
 •ources following the strtpper(s)  [or the
 reactorCs) If the plant has  no strtp-
 Per(s>3  in the plant process flow in-
 cluding but not limited tc< centrifuges,
 concentrators,  blend tanks, filters,.dry-
 en,  conveyor  air discharges, baggers,
 •torage containers, and inprocess waste-
 water:
   (1) In polyvinyl chloride plants using
 •tripping  technology to control vinyl
 chloride emissions, the weighted- average
 residual vinyl chloride concentration in
 Ml  grades  of  polyvinyl chloride resin
 processed through the  stripping opera-
 tion  on each  calendar day,  measured
 immediately after the  stripping opera-
 tion la completed, may not exceed:
     2000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride
 dispersion resins, excluding latex resins;
   2 g/kg (0.002 Ib/lb) product from
 the  stripper(a)  [or  reaetor(s)  if  the
 Plant has no-stripper (a) 1 for dispersion
 Polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex
 resins, with the product determined on ft
 Ary solids basis;
   (11) 0.4 g/kg  (0.0004 Ib/Ib>  product
 from the strippers [or  reactor(s) if the
 Plant has no stripperCs) J for atf other
 Polyvinyl chloride resins, including later
 fatal, with the product determined en
• a dry solids basis.
 | 61.65  E-iMkui *undard for ethylem
     dichloride, vinyl chloride-and poly-
     vinyl chlorid« plant*.
  An owner or operator of an ethylene
dichloride, vinyl  chloride,  and/or poly-
vinyl chloride plant  shall  comply  with,
the Requirements of this section.
    Fugitive emission sources:
   (1) Loading  and  unloading  lines:
Vinyl  chloride  emissions from loading
and unloading lines in vinyl  chloride
service which are opened.to the atmos-
phere after each loading or unloading op-
eration are to be minimized as follows:
  (1) 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 la to be
reduced so that the parts combined con-
tain no greater than 0.0038 m* (0.13 ff)
of vinyl  chloride, at standard tempera-
ture f""1 pressure: and
  (tt) Any vinyl  chloride removed from
a loading or unloading line In accord-
ance with paragraph (b) (1) (1)  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 161.86.
  (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 161.66.
  (3) Leakage from pump, compressor,
and agitator seals:
' (1) Rotating pumps:  Vinyl  chloride
emissions from   seals on  all  rotating
pumps in vinyl chloride service are to be
minimized by ^ftft^1ng sealless pumps,
pumps with double mechanical seals, or
equivalent  as provided in  f 61.66. If
doable mechanical seals are used, vinyl
chloride  emission from the seals are to
be minimised by maintaining the pres-
sure between the two seals so that any
Mak that occurs is  Into the pump; by
darting any vinyl chloride between the
two seals through a control
 which the concentration of vinyl chlo-
 ride m the exhaust gases den not ex-
 ceed  10 ppm; or equivalent as provided
 in 161.66.
   (11) 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
 to 161.66. If  double outboard seals are
 used, vinyl chloride emissions from the
 seals are to be minimized by maintaining
 the pressure  between the two  seals so
 that  any leak that occurs is into the
 pump; by ducting any vinyl chloride be-
 tween the two seals  through a control
 system from which the concentration of
 vinyl chloride in the exhaust gases does
 not exceed 10  ppm;  or equivalent as
 provided In (61.66.
   (ill)   Rotating  compressor:   Vinyl
 chloride emissions from seals on all ro-
 tating  compressors in vmyl 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 ""MnWnlng 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 hvatniung
 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 doea not'exceed 10 ppm;
 or equivalent as provided in i 61.66.
   (v) Agitator: VinylTchloride emissions
from seals on all agitators in vinyl chlo-
ride service are to be minimized by in-
stalling agitators with- double mechani-
cal seals, or  equivalent as provided in
 161.66.  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 vmyl chloride in the exhaust
 gases does not exceed 10 ppm; or equiva-
 lent as provided in 161.66.
   (4)  Leakage from relief valves: Vmyl
chloride emissions due to leakage from
each relief valve oh 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 161.66.
                                                    HI-119
-------
   (5) Manual renting of gases: Except
 at provided  In  I 61.64(a) (8), all rases
 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 } 61.06.
   (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, to* quantity of vinyl ehlo-
 ride  la to be reduced so that the equip-
 ment contains no more than 2.0 percent
. by volume vinyl chloride or 0.0950 m* (28
 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) (1)  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
 S 61.88. .
   (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 48 days'of the effective
 date  of these regulations, unless a waiver
 of-compliance is granted under  581.11.
 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 phurt  /here 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 arid 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.
   (il) 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 sl»T that it can
 fee used to measttre emissions from local-
 fa*d 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
 8.2.1  and 5.2.2 of  Test Method 106 and
 in accordance with section 7.1 of Test
 Method 106, or
   (B) A calibration gas cylinder stand-
 ard containing the appropriate concen-
 tration of vinyl chloride. The  gas com-
 position of the calibration gas cylinder
 standard is to have been certified by the
 manufacturer. The  manufacturer must
 have recommended a wim'Tin shelf life
 for each cylinder so tv.at the concentra-
 tion  does  not chanr.o greater  than £5
 percent from the r stifled value. The date
 of gas  cylinder  preparation,  certified
 vinyl chloride concentration and recom-
 mended max'mw.   'elf life must have
 been  affixed^ to tht  „ inder before ship-
 ment from  the manufacturer  to  the
 buyer. If a gas chromatopraph  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 6.2.3.2 of Test Method
 106 for certification of cylinder stand-
 ards and for establishment and verifica-
 tion of calibration standards are to be
 followed.

 (Sao*. 113 and Ml (a).  Ototn Air Act (49
 TT.S.C. 1SJ70-7 and 1887g(a)).)
   (iv) The location and number of points
 to be monitored and  the frequency-of
 monitoring provided for in the program
 are acceptable when they are compared
 with  the number of  pieces of equipment
 in vinyl chloride service and the size and
 physical layout of the plant.
   (v) It contains an acceptable plan of
 action to be taken when a leak is  de-
 tected.
   (vi) it contains a definition of leak
 •which is acceptable when compared with
 the background concentrations of vinyl
 chloride in the areas of the plant to be
 monitored by the vinyl chloride monitor-
 Ing -ystem. 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 f he 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.
   (B)  inprocesswastewater: Vinyl chlo-
ride emissions til the atmosphere from
inprooess wastewater are to be reduced
••follows:
  (i)  The  concentration of vinyl chlo-
ride In each uproces*i 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 inproceM
 wastewater stream is to be reduced to no
 more than 10 ppm by weight before bcinf
 mixed with any other inprocess wastewa-
 ter stream which contains less than 10
 ppm vinyl chloride; before being exposed
 to  the atmosphere, before being  dis-
 charged to a wastewater treatment proc-
 ess ; or before being discharged untreated
 as  a wastewater. This paragraph doei
 apply to water which Is used to displace
 vinyl chloride from equipment before n
 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  961.64(a)(2) or  para*
 graph (b) (6) of this section.
   (11) Any vinyl chloride removed from
 the inprocess wastewater in accordance
 with paragraph (b) (») (1) 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, 'js equivalent as provided
 in  | 61.66.
   (c)  The requirements  in  paragraph*
 and (b) (8) of this section are to be in-
 corporated into a  standard operating
 procedure, anr made available upon re*
 quest for inspection by the Administra-
 tor. The standard operating procedure »
 to include provisions for measuring the
 vinyl chloride in equipment 5*4.78  m*
 (1.250 (tal> in  volume for which nn emis-
 sion limit is prescribed in 1 61.680>> <*>
 (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 1»
 I 61.67 (g) (8) (i) (A) or (g) «B) (i) (B) .


 § 61.66   Equivalent equipmtnt und pro-
     cedure*.
  Upon written application from an own-
 er  or operator, the Administrator  m*?
 approve use of equipment or procedure*
 which hare  been demonstrated  to hi*
 satisfaction to  be equivalent In terms  of
 reducing vinyl  chloride emissions to tW
 atmosphere to those prescribed for com-
 pliance with a specific paragraph of tbJ*
 subpart. For  an existing source, any W-
 quest for using an equivalent method •*
 the initial measure of control Is to V*
 submitted to the Administrator wlthW
 30 days of the  effective date. For a n*W
source, any request for using an equiva-
lent method  Is to be submitted to tb*
Administrator with the application for
approval of construction or modification
required by 1 61.07.
161.67  EmtMioa M-ts.
  t»> Unless a waiver of emission testi**
to obtained under I«i.ll, the ow*e*£
operator of a source to which tfci*
                                                    111*120
-------
But  appliM shall test emissions Iron
the source,
  (!) Within 90 days of the effective date
to the case of an existing source or ft
    source which has an Initial startup
    preceding the effective date, or
  (2) Within 90 days of startup  In the
  se of a new source, initial startup of
Which occurs after the effective date.
   When at an possible, each "ample
<• to be analyzed within 24 hours, but In
^o case In excess of 72 hours of sample
collection. Vinyl chloride emissions  are
to be determined within 30 days after the
•mission test. The owner  or operator
•hall report the determinations  to  the
Administrator by a registered letter dte-
fcttched before the close ol the next busi-
Oess day following the determination.
   (f ) The owner or operator shall retain
*t the plant and make  available, upon
Bequest, for Inspection by the Adminis-
trator. for a minimum of 2 yean records
« emission test result!  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
 **ch test as  required  by  paragraphs
 ,  (g)(4>.  and
 (g) (5) of this section, unless an equiva-
 lent method  or  an alternative method
 baa been approved by the Administrator.
 *T the. Administrator finds  reasonable
 founds to dispute the  results obtained
 by an equivalent or alternative method,
 he may require the  use of a reference
 method. If the results of the reference
 *nd equivalent or alternative methods
 *o not agree, the results obtained by the
 reference method prevail, and the Ad-
 Kunlstrator  may notify the  owner  or
 operator that approval of  the  method
 Previously considered to be equivalent or
 alternative la withdrawn.
   (l>  Test Method 106  to to be  used to
 determine the  vinyl chloride emissions
 from any source  for which an emission
 limit Is prescribed In If 61.62(a) or  (b>
  I 61.63(a), or }f 6I.64(a) (1), , (c) , or
   , or from any control system to which
 reactor  emissions are  required to  be
 ducted in i 61.64 (a) (2) or to which fugi-
 tive emissions are required to be ducted
The sampling point  in  the duet is to
be at the centrold of the cross section.
The sample is to be extracted at » rate
proportional to  the  gas  velocity at the
sampling point.  The  sample  Is to  be
taken over a minimum of one hour, and
Is to contain a minimum volume of 50
liters corrected  to standard conditions.
  (11) Each emission test to to consist of
three runs. For the purpose of determin-
ing emissions, the average of results of
all runs Is to apply. The  average Is to be
computed on a time weighted basis.
  (ill) For gas streams containing more
than 10  percent  oxygen the concentra-
tion of vinyl chloride as determined by
Test Method 106 Is to be corrected to 10
percent oxygen (dry basis) for determi-
nation of emissions by using the follow-
ing equation:
                 _        10.9
                   20.9-percent O,

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

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

                 .60) Q10-1 (100]
                      -
         .,        ,
 • Density of vinyl chloride at one
            atmosphere and   20*  C  iu
            kg/m».
      Q~* Volumetric flow rate in mVhr as
           • determined  by   Reference
            Method 2  of Appendix A to
            Part 60 of this chapter.
    lp-*«« Conversion factor for ppm.
      /-Production rate (kg/hr).

   (2) Test Method 107 to to be used to
 determine  the concentration of vinyl
 chloride In each inprocess  wastewater
 stream for which an emission limit to
 prescribed In | «l.«B(b> (»>(!>.
   (3) Where  a stripping 'operation to
 vied to attain the emission limit In 1 61.-
 04 (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 an to be determined by the)
 Administrator for each Individual plant
 •BUM ttoae of the test baaed on the
 plants operation.
   (II) Each sample to to be taken Imme-
diately following the stripping operation.
   (ill) The  corresponding  quantity of
material processed by each stripper to 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)(l)  of thto
section.
   (4) Where control  technology other
than or in addition to a stripping opera-
tion to used to attain the emission limit
in 161.64(e), emissions are to be deter-
mined as follows:
   (i)  Test Method 106 to to be used to
determine atmospheric emissions from
all of the process  equipment simultane-
ously. The  requirements of paragraph
(g) (1) of thto section are to be met.
   (11) Test Method 107 to 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 to to be de-
termined  by using the following equa-
tion:
              ICt R 10-*) [1001
                     Z
where:
  Cir»kf vinyl chloride/100 kg product.
   C«-the concentration of vinyl chloride u measured
       by Teat Method 107.
   A-water flow rate In 1/hr, determined In acoordano*
       with, a method which has been submitted t*
       and approved by the Administrator.
  10-«-ConversUm (actor forppm.
   Z-Froductton rate (kg/fir), determined In accord-
       ance with a method which hae been submitted
       and approved by the Administrator.

   (5) The reactor opening loss for which
an emission limit to prescribed to 161.64
(a) (2) to to be determined.  The number
of reactors for which the determination
to to be made to 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
•hat to atoovased as a stripper, the deter-
•rtnattnn may be made immediately fol-
lowing the stripping operation.
     Kxcept as provided la paragraph
(g)<«)(tt>  of thto section,  the  reactor
opening loss to to be determined using
the following equation:

       cjf (2.60) (10-*) (Co)

where:
   C-kf vlny 1 ehlorld* emlssloBS/kfprediMt
   r-Capaelty of the reactor In m».
  140-Density of viny(l ehlorld* at one atmosphere and
  10-i-Converstonuetor  lor ppm.
  Ct-ppm by volume vinyl chloride at determined by
      Test Method IOC or a portable hydrocarbon
      detector which measures hydrocarbons
      with a sensitivity of at least 10 mm.
   X-Number of batches since the reactor was last
      opened to the atmosphere.
   Z-Average kt of polyvinyl chloride produced par
      baton In the number of batches si nee the reactor
      waflatt opened to the atmosphere.

  (A) 'if Method  106 to used to deter-
mine the concentration of vinyl chloride
(Cb), the sample to to be withdrawn at
a conirtftnt rate with a probe of sufficient
length to reach  the vessel bottom from
the manhole. Samples are  to be taken
for I minutes within 6 Inches of the ves-
                                                      III-121
-------
 set bottom. 8 minute* 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) Hie production  rate of polyvinyl
 chloride (Z)  Is to be  determined by a
 method submitted to and approved by the
 Administrator.
   (11) A calculation based on the dumber
 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 Lrtlk
 resins.
 (Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act M amende*
 (42UJ9.C. l*67c-»>.)
 § 61.68  £mi*i*oa monitoring-.
   (a) A vlnyle chloride monitoring sys-
 tem Is to be used to monitor on a con-
 tinuous basis tiie emissions from  the
 sources for which emission limits are pre-
 scribed In ! 61.62,
 andJ61.64(a)(l>,. and
 for any control system  to which reactor
 emissions are required  to be ducted In
 J61.64 or to which  fugitive emis-
 sion/; are required to be ducted in
 i 01.68(bHDOi),  and  (b)<2).  (b)(5),
 (b) (•) (11). and (b) (9) (ID.
   (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 sample*
 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 aa eqottaient or attema-
 ttve method. The vinyl chloride monitor-
 ing system used to meet the requh-ementc
 to f 61.6S(b) (8) (!) may be used to meet
 the requirements of this section.
   (c) A dafly span check la to be con-
 ducted for each vlnyle 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 I 61.62 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 chrom itograph Is used as
 the  vinyl  chloride nor Coring  system.
 these gas mixtures mr / be directly used
 to prepare a chroinp .ograph calibration
 curve as describee3 in section 7.3 of Test
 Method 106.  The  requirements  In sec-
 tions 5.2.3.1 and •i^.S.S of  Test Method
 100 for certif.cat.    >f cylinder stand-
 ards and for estah.. •  nent and verifica-
 tion of calibration standards are to be
 followed.

(Sec. 114 of the Clew Air Act M  amended
(42UJS.C. 1867C-0).)
  piece of equipment and each procedure
  Is being ueed.

  (Bee.  114 of the Clean Air Act M amended
  (4IU.8.C. 1867C-0).)
§ 61.69  Initial report.

  (a) An  owner  or operator of  any
source to which this subpart applies shall
submit » statement in writing notifying
the  Administrator  that  the equipment
and procedural specifications In SS 61.65
              ,        ,       ,        .
(b)(6), (b)(7),  and    The owner or operator of any
  (a) (2) to to be determined. The number
  source to which this subpart applies shaH
  submit to the Administrator on Septem-
  ber 15 and March 18 of each year a report
  in writing  containing too information
  required by this  section. The first semi-
  annual report is  to be submitted follow-
  ing the first full 6 month reporting period
  after the initial report is submitted.
    (b) (1) to the case of an existing source
  or a new source which hat an  Initial
  startup date preceding the effective date,
  the first report Js to be submitted within
  180 days of the effective date,  unless *
  waiver of compliance  is granted  under
  3 61.11. If a  waiver  of compliance  1*
  granted, the first report is to be sub-
  mitted on a date scheduled by the Ad-
  ministrator.
    (2) In the casr of a new source  which
  did not have an '.nltial  startup date pre-
  ceding the effective date, the first report
  is  to bi . ubmitted within 180 days  of the
  initial siartup date.
    (c) Unless  otherwise specified,  tb«
 owner  or operator shall use the Test
 Methods  hi Appendix B to this part to
 conduct  emission tests as  required by
 paragraphs (c)(2)  and  (c)(3)  of thi*
 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 ft1'
 tentative method,  he may require the us*
 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 pro-
 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 emit'
 sions which  averaged  over any  hour
 period (commencing on the hour) »**
 in  excess of the  emission  limits pre-
 scribed in Si 61.62(a) or (b), I 61.63(»>•
 or i! 6LM(a)Q),  (b), (c>. or (d>, or **
 any control  system to which  reactor
 emissions are required  to be ducted »
 I 61.64(a) (2) or to which fugitive emis-
 sions are required to be ducted in 161.**
 (b) (1) (11), (b) (2), (b) (B), (b) (8) (ID. Of
  If batch stripping is used, i
reeentattve «u
                                                      III-122
-------
•aeh (rade of resin Immediately follow-
ing the completion of the stripping op-
eration, and Identified by resin type and
trade and the date and time the batch
j» completed. The  corresponding quan-
tity of material processed In each strlp-
Per batch is to be recorded and  Identi-
fied by resin type and grade and the
6ate and time  the batch is completed.
  (11) if continuous  stripping is used.
°ne representative sample of polyvlnyl
chloride resin As to to taken for  each
trade of resin processed or at Intervals
<* • hours for each grade of resin which
» being processed, whichever is more fre-
quent. The sample Is to be taken as the
nsin flows out of the stripper and iden-
tified by resin type and  grade and the
date and  time the sample  was taken.
*he corresponding quantity of material
Processed by each stripper over the time
Period represented by the sample during
the eight hour period, is  to be recorded
                                        and Identified by resin type and grade
                                        and the date and time it represents.
                                          (ill)  The quantity of material proc-
                                        essed by the stripper is to be determined
                                        on a dry solids basis and by a method
                                        submitted to  and approved by the Ad-
                                        ministrator.
                                          (iv)  At  the prior request of the Ad-
                                        ministrator, the owner or operator shall
                                        provide duplicates of  the samples  re-
                                        quired  in paragraphs  and (c) (2) (11) 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 strlpper(s)
                                        that calendar day, according to the fol-
                                        lowing  equation:
                       Or,
                                              Or,
*here:
    A=24-hour average concentration of
          type  T<  resin in  ppm  (dry
          weight basis).
    Q-= Total  production  of  type  7,
          resin  over the 24-hour period,
          in kg.
    3>>Type  of  resin; »=1,2 . . . m
          where m is  total number of
          resin  types * produced during
          the 24-hour period.
    Af= Concentration of vinyl chloride
          in  one  sample  of  grade  G<
          resin, in ppm.
    P«= Production  of  grade  Ot  resin
          represented  by the sample, in
          kg.
    
-------
                                          APPENDIX. A - REFERENCE METHODS
           106 — DBTIBMINATION or VINTT.
     CKLOUDI noif STATIOHA*Y SOURCES
   Performance of this method should not b»
 attempted by persona  unfamiliar with  the
 operation  of a  gas chromatograph, nor  by
 those who are unfamiliar with source sam-
 pling, M there are many details  that  are
 beyond the scope of this presentation. Cure-
 must be exercised  to  prevent exposure  of
 sampling personnel to vinyl chloride, a car-
 cinogen.
   1.  principle and Applicability.
   1.1  An integrated  bag sample  of stack
 gas containing vinyl chloride (eUoroethene)
 Is subjected to chromatographio analysln, us-
 tag a flame lonizatlon detector.
   1.3  The method la applicable to the meas-
 urement of vinyl chloride In stack gases from
 •thylene dlchlorlde, vinyl chloride and poly-
 vinyl chloride manufacturing processes, ex-
 cept  where the vinyl chloride Is contained in
 particulate matter.
   2.  Range and Sensitivity.
   The lower limit of detection will vary ac-
 cording to the chromatograph used. Values
 reported Include 1  X  10-' mg and  4 x 10 '
 mg.
   S. Inter jerenct*.  Acetaldehyde,  which can
 occur in some vinyl chloride sources, will In-
 terfere with the vinyl chloride  peak from
•the Chromasorb 102 ' column. See  sections
 4.3.2  and  6.4. If  resolution  of the vinyl
 chloride peak is still not satisfactory for a
 particular  sample,  then chromatograph pa-
 rameters can  be further altered  with prior
 approval of the Administrator. If alteration
 of  the  chromatograph parameters  falls  to
 resolve  the vinyl chloride peak,  then sup-
 plemental confirmation of the vinyl chloride
 peak through an absolute analytical tech-
 nique, such as mass spectroscopy.  must  b*
 performed.
  «.  Apparatus.
  4.1  BsJBpttng (Figure 108-1).
  4.1.1  Probe— Stainless steel, Pyr*i glass.
 or Teflon tubing according to stack  temper-
 ature, each equipped with a glass wool plug
 to remove particulate matter.
  4.1 Jt . Sample line — Teflon, 8.4 mm outside
 diameter,  of  sufficient  length to  connect
 probe to bag. A new unused piece Is employed
 for each series of bag samples that constitutes
 an smlssion test.
  4.15  Male (9) and female (3) stainless
steel  quick-connects, with ball checks (one
pair without) located as shown  In  Figure
 108-1.
  4.1.4  Tstilar bags. 100 liter capacity— To
 contain sample. Teflon bags ar* not accept-
 able.  Alumlnlzed Mylar bags may  be used,
 provided  that  the samples  are analyzed
 within 94 hours of collection.
  4.13  Rigid leakproof containers for 4.1.4,
 with  covering to protect contents from sun-
 light.
  4.1.8  Needle valve— To adjust sample flow
 rate.
  4.1.7  Pump— Leak-free. Minimum capac-
 ity 9 liters per minute.
  4.13  Charcoal tube— To prevent admis-
 sion of vinyl chloride to atmosphere  in vicin-
ity of samplers.
  4.14  Plow meter— For observing sample
flow rat*; capable of measuring a flow range
from 0.10 to 1.00 liter per minute.
  4.1.10  Connecting tubing—  Teflon.  -6.4
 mm  outside diameter, to assemble sample
 ttam (Figure 106-1).
  4.1.11  Pltot tube— Type S (or equivalent) ,
                         i on speclflo prod-
                         rtOMMMQ* ky tt*
 attached to the probe so that the sampling
 flow rat* eaa be regulated proportional to
 the stack gas velocity.
   43  Sample recovery.
   4.3.1  Tubing—Teflon,  6.4   mm  outside
 diameter, to connect bag to gas chromato-
 graph sampl* loop. A new unused  piece to
 employed for each aeries of bag samples that
 constitutes an emission test, and to to be dis-
 carded upon conclusion of analysis of those
 bags.
   4.3  Analysis.
   4.8.1   Oas  chromatograph—With  flame
 lonlaatioa  detector,  potentlometrio   strip
 chart recorder and 1.0 to 5O ml heated sam-
 pling loop In automatic sampl* valve.
   4.8.9  Chromatographte column. Stainless
 steel, a mx8.a mm, containing 80/100 mesh
 Chromasorb  102. A secondary column of OE
 8P-96,20 percent on 60/80 mesh AW Chroma-
 sorb P, stainless steel, 9 mxSJ mm or Pora-
 pak T, 80/100 mesh, stainless steel, 1 mxS.3
 mm Is required If acetaldehyde la present. If
 used, a secondary column is placed after the
 Cbromasorb  103  column.  The   combined
 columns should then be operated at 130* C.
   4.3.3  Plow meters  (2)—Rocameter type,
 0 to 100 ml/mln eapaclt /. ..ith Jow control
 valves.
   4.3.4  Oas  regulatorr—For   required  gas
 cylinders.
   4.35  Thermometer-Accurate to* one de-
 gree centigrade, to measure temperature-of
 heated sample I^p  '  'me of sample Injec-
 tion.
   4.3.8  Barometer—A —rata to 5 """ Hg, to
 measure atmospheric  pressure around  gas
 chromatograph  during sample analysis.
   4.3.7  Pump—Leak-free. Minimum capac-
 ity 100 ml/mln.
   4.4  Calibration.
   4.4.1  Tubing—Teflon,  8.4   m*n  outside
 diameter, separata pieces marked for each
 calibration concentration.
   4.4.9  Tedlar  bags—Stxteen-lnch  square
 size, separate bag marked for  each calibra-
 tion concentration.
   4.4.8  Syringe—0.5 ml. gas tight.
   4.4.4  Syringe—CO/O, gas tight.
   4.4J  now meter—Rotameter type. • to
 100O  mVmln rang* accurate  to  $1*. to
 meter nitrogen  m preparation of standard
 gas mixtures.
   4.4.6  Stop watch—Of known accuracy, to
 tune gas flow In preparation of standard gae
 mixture*.
   6. Reagenta. It 1* necessary  that aU  rea-
 gents be of chromatographic grade.
   0.1  Analysis.
   6.1.1  Helium gas or  nitrogen  gas—Zero
 grade, for chromatographic carrier gas.
   5.1.3  Hydrogen gas—Zero grade.
   5.1.3  Oxygen gas, or Ah-, M required by
 tit* detector—Zero grade.
   6.3  Calibration.  Use on* of  the following
 options: either 6.3.1 and 6.3.3, or 6.3.3.
   6.3.1  Vinyl chloride, 99J9+ percent. Pur*
 vinyl chloride gas certified by the  manufac-
 turer to contain a minimum of MS  percent
 vinyl chloride for use  in the preparation of
 standard gas mixtures In Section 7.1. If the
 gas manufacturer maintains a bulk cylinder
 supp!" of 89.9+ percent vinyl  chloride, the
 certification  analysis may have  been per-
 formed on this supply rather  than on each
 gas cylinder prepared from this bulk supply.
 The date of gas cylinder preparation and the
 certified  analysis mus, hiwe been  affixed to
 the cylinder  before shipment  from the gas
 manufacturer to the buyer.
   5.3.3  Nitrogen gat. Zero grade, for prepa-
 ration of standard gas mixtures.
  8.3.3  Cylinder standard*  (3). Otu  mix-
 ture standards  (50. 10. and  6 ppm vinyl
 chloride in nitrogen cylinders)  for which the
gas composition lias  been certified by the
manufacturer. The manufacturer must have
reoosnmended a maximum shelf life tor each
eyHnder so that the concentration does not
 change greater than  ±6 perosnt from the
 certified valu*. The date of gas cylinder prep-
 aration, eertifled  vinyl chloride concentra-
 tion and recommended maximum shelf life
 must have been affixed to the cylinder befors
 shipment from the gas manufacturer to the
 buyer. These gas mixture standards may be
 directly used  to  prepare a chromatograpb
 calibration curve as described In section 7.8.
   6.3.3.1  Cylinder  standard*  certification-
 The concentration of vinyl chloride in nitro-
 gen in each cylinder must have been certified
 by the manufacturer by a direct analysis of
 each cylinder using an analytical procedure
 that the manufacturer had calibrated on She
 day of cylinder analysis.  The calibration of
 the analytical procedure shall, as a minimum,
 have utilized a three-point calibration curve.
 It Is recommended that  the manufacturer
 maintain two calibration standards and us*
 these standards In the following way:  (1) •
 high concentration standard (between 60 and
 100 ppm)  for  preparation  of  a calibration
 curve by an  appropriate dilution technique;
 (3) a low concentration standard (between
 6 and 10 ppm)  for verification of the dilution
 technique used.
   6.2.32  Establishment and verification Of
 calibration standard*.  The concentration of
 each calibration standard must have  been
 established  by  the  manufacturer   using
 reliable   procedures.   Additionally,    each
 calibration standard must  have been  veri-
 fied by  the  manufacturer by  one  of  the
 followinp  procedures,   and the  agreement
 betwee:   the initially  determined concen-
 tration value and the verification concen-
 tration value must be within ± 6 percent:
 (1) verification value determined by com-
 parison  with  a calibrated  vinyl  chloride
 permeation  tube,  (3)   verification   value
 determined by comparison  with a gas  mix-
 ture prepared  in  accordance with the pro-
 cedure described  in section 7.1 and  using
 99.8+ percent vinyle chloride, or (3)  verifi-
 cation  value   obtained   by  having   the
 calibration standard analyzed by  the Na-
 tional Bureau  of Standards. All  calibration
 standards  must  be  renewed   on a   time
 interval  consistent  with  the  shelf  life of
 the cylinder  standards sold.
   8. Procedure.
   6.1  Sampling. Assemble the sample  train
 as In Piguro 106-1. Perform a bag leak check-
 according to Section  7.4. Observe that all
 connections  between the  bag and the probe
 ar* tight.  Place the end of the probe at th»
 oentrold of  the stack  and start the pun?
 with the  needle valve adjusted to  yield »
 flow of 0.5 1pm. After  a period of Urn* suffi-
 cient  to purge the line several times has
 elapsed, connect  the  vacuum  line to tbS
 bag and evacuate the bag until  the rotam-
 eter indicates  no flow. Then reposition tb*
 sample and vacuum lines and begin the ac-
 tual sampling, keeping the rate proportional
 to the stack velocity. Direct the gas exiting
 th* rotameter away from sampling personnel*
 At the end of the sample period, shut off tb«
 pump, disconnect th*  sampl* line from th*
 bag, and  disconnect the  vacuum line fro*
 th* bag container. Protect th* bag contain**
 from sunlight.
   6.2  Sample storage. Sample bags must be
 kept out  of direct sunlight.  When  at *J)
 possible analysis to to be performed  within
 94  hours, but in no  ease in excess  of 1*
 hours of sample  collection.
  6.3 Sample recovery, with a piece 'of Tsf-
lon tubing identified for that bag. connect •
bag Inlet valve to the gas chromatograpb
sample; valve. Switch the valve to withdraw
gas from th* bag through th* sampl* loop-
Plumb th* equipment so th* sampl*  «•*
passes from th* sample valve to the leak-fr**
pump, and then to a charcoal tube, followed
•y a 0-100 ml/min rotameter with flow eon-
Met vatveu
  6.4 Analysis. Bet the eduma tempera***
                                                            III-124
-------
 ** ltd* o lii* asOsotar temperature to lew*
 O. and th* sample loop temperature to 70* O.
 When optimum hydrogen and oxygen flow
 rates have been determined verify and main-
 tain  these flow rates during all chromato-
 graph operations.  Using  zero  helium or
 nitrogen as the carrier gas. establish a flow
 rate in tbe range consistent with tbe manu-
 facturer's requirements for satisfactory de-
 tector operation. A flow rat* of  approxi-
 mately 40 ml/mln should produce adequate
 separations, observe th*  base line periodi-
 cally and determine that the noise level has
 •tabllisjed and that base line drift has ceased.
 Purge the sample loop for thirty seconds at
 tbe  rate of 100 ml/mln.  then  activate tb*
 •ample valve. Record tb* Injection tun* (th*
 Position of tbe pen on the ehart at tbe tlm*
 af sampl* Injection), the samp** number, tb*
 •amps* loop temperature, tb* eoiuasa teaa-
 Paratun. carrier gas flow rate. ohs*t  speed
 and tb* attenuator setting. Reoord  tb* lab.
 aratery pleasure. Prom tb* ehart. select th*
 Peak having tb* retention tlm* correspond-
 ing to vtnyl chlortd*. as determined la Seo-
 t»on TJL Maasur* tb* peak ana. A., by us*
 •f a disc Integrator or a planlmeter. Me* •
 fttr* tb* peak height, B.. Reoord A. K».and
 tb* retention time. Repeat  the injection at
 Wast two times or until two consecutive vinyl
 chloride peaks do not vary In area more than
 •%. The average value for  these two areas
 *U1 be used to compute the bag concentra-
 tion.
  Compare the ratio of H» to Am for the vtnyl
 «hlorld« sample with the same ratio for the
 •tandard peak which ls closest in height As
 a- guideline, if these ratios differ by  mor*
 than 10%, th* vinyl chloride peak  may not
 o* pur* (possibly acetaldehyde  Is present)
 **d the secondary column should  be em-
 Ployed (see Section 4.3.8).
  «•*  Measure the ambient temperature and
 barometric pressure near  tb* bag.  (Assume
 •to. relative humidity to be 100 percent.)
 *rom a water saturation vapor pressure table,
 Determine and record the water vapor con-
 tent of tb* bag.
  7. Calibration and Standards.
  7.1  Preparation of vinyl chloride ttcnU-
 **d fat mixture*. Evacuate  a slxtoen-lnch
 •Ware Tedlar bag  that has passed a leak
 fbeck (described In Section 7.4) and meter
 "> B  liters of  nitrogen. While  the bag Is
 niling, use  the  0.6 ml syringe to  Inject
 8*0*1  of  88.9+  percent  vinyl   chloride
 trough  the wall of  the  bag.  Upon with-
 drawing  tbe  syringe  needle, immediately
 cover tbe resulting hole  with  a piece- .of
 adhesive  tape.  The  bag  now contains  a
 *tayl chloride concentration of 60 ppm. In
 a like manner  use the  other  syringe  to
 Prepare gas mixtures having 10 and B ppm
 **nyl chloride concentrations.  Place  each
 Jag  on a smooth surface and  alternately
 Depress opposite sides  of  the bag 60 times
 to further mix the gases. These gas  mixture
 •tandarda may be used for 10 days from the
date of preparation, after  which time prep-
 aration of  new gas mixtures is required.
 iCAtmoN.—Contamination may be  a prob-
 **m when a bag Is reused  if the new gas
nuxture  standard contains  a  lower  con-
 e*ntratlon  than the previous gas  mixture
  7.3  Determination  of  vinyl chloride re-
lation tlm*. Ibis section can be performed
itmultaneously with Section TJ. Establish
cbromatograph conditions  Identical  with
•aoae In Section  6.3.  above. Set attenuator
to X i  position.  Flush  th*  sampling loop
**th zero helium or  nitrogen and  activate
«»e sample valve. Record  tb* Injection tlm*v
«»* sample loop  temperature, tb*  column
tomperatur*. th*  carrier  gas nowyrat*. th*
'hart speed and the attenuator  setting.
•••cord  peaks and detector responses that
••Bur In the absence of vinyl chloride. ICaltt-
     conditions. With the equipment plumb-
             tdentleaUy to Seotton • J, fluefe
                                                                                 10S-1.
                                                                                           U.) tig ««»rlln| tr.tl,
                                                                         03
the sample loop for 30 seconds at the rate of
100 ml/mln with one of the vinyl ehlorfd*
calibration mixtures and activate the sampl*
valve. Record the Injection time. Select th*
peak  that corresponds to  vinyl ehlorid*.
Measure th* distance on tb* chart from th*
injection Urn* to the time at which the peak
»«Hnnini occurs. This quantity, divided by
th* chart speed, Is denned as the retention
time. Record.
  7.3  Preparation  of  ehromatograpn  cali-
bration curve. Blake a gas chromatographto
measurement of each gas mixture standard
(described In section 6.3.3 or 7.1) using con-
ditions identical with those listed In sections
6.3 and 6.4. Flush-the sampling loop (or 80
seconds at the rate of 100 ml/mln with each
standard gas mixture and activate the sam-
ple valve. Record  O,, the concentration of
vinyl chloride 'Injected, the attenuator set-
ting,  chart speed,  peak area,  sample  loop
temperature, column  temperature,  carrier
gas flow rate, and retention time. Record the
laboratory pressure. Calculate A,, the  peak
area multiplied by the attenuator setting.
Repeat  until two Injection areas are within
5 percent, then plot these points v. C«. When
the other concentrations have been plotted.
draw  a smooth curve  through  the  points.
Perform calibration daUy,.or before and after
each set of bag sample*, whichever Is more
frequent..
  7.4  Bag leak checks. While pertormano*
of this section Is required subsequent to bag
use, It Is also  advised that It be performed
prior to bag use. After each use, make sur*
a bag did not develop leaks as follows. To leak
cheek, connect a water manometer and pres-
surlB* th* bag to 6-10 cm H,O (3-4 bx H,O).-
Allow to stand for 10 minutes. Any dtsplaos-
ment la th* water manometer indicates a
leak. Also check the rigid container for teaks
in this manner.
  (Nora: Aa alternative leak cheek method
Is to pressurize the bag to 6-10 cm Bio or
S-4 in.  H.O and allow  to stand overnight.
A deflated bag Indicates a leak.)  Tor  *ach
aampl*  bag la Its rigid container, plao* a
rotameter in-line between th* bag and tb*
pump Inlet. Evacuate th* bag. Pallur* of th*
rotameter to register aero flow when th* bag
appears to b* empty Indicates a teak.
  I. Calculations.
  •,1  Determine  th* sampl*  peak area as
toUews:
                                                                           Mut'tM »t tr.J. MUI ea >;eclfle
                                                                                                        
„                 * Collection and Analy-
«oal Procedure for Vlnn Cblorlde In Air,"
by O. D. Clayton and Associate*, December
U, 1»74. XPA Contract No. 68-0»-14OI, Task
Order Ho. 3. XPA Report oX. T6-VCI/-1.
  «. "SteAdardtmttoa of Stattonary Souros
•mission Isethod for Vinyl Chlorid*." by ItttV
vast Rssearcfa ZnsUtota. 1976. BPA Contract
"•• 6*~4BV106cX Task order Ho. T.
                                                        III-125
-------
    Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTCR C—AIR PROGRAMS
              [FBI. 618-1}
 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
 ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
        Standard for Vinyl Chloride
   On December 24, 1975, under section
 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42
 U.S.C. 1857), the Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency (EPA)  added vinyl chloride
 to  the  list of hazardous  air pollutants
 (40 FB 59477)  and proposed a national
 emission standard for it (40 FR 59532).
 The standard covers plants which manu-
 facture   ethylene    dlchloride,   vinyl
 chloride, and/or polyvinyl chlortHg.
  EPA decided to regulate vinyl chloride
 because it has been  implicated as the
 causal agent of angiosarconm and other
 serious  disorders, both carcinogenic and
 noncarcinogenic,  in people with occupa-
 tional exposure and in animals with ex-
 perimental exposure  to vinyl  chloride.
 Reasonable extrapolations from  these
 findings cause  concern  that vinyl chlo-
 ride may cause or contribute to  the same
 or  similar disorders at  present ambient
 air levels. The purpose of the standard is
 to  minimize  vinyl  chloride  emissions
 from all  known process and fugitive
 emission sources in ethylene dichloride-
 vinyl chloride  and polyvinyl  chloride
 plants to  the level  attainable with best
 Available  control technology.  This will
 have the effect of furthering the protec-
 tion of public health by minimizing the
 health risks to the people living  in the
 vicinity of these plants and to any addi-
 tional people who are exposed as a result
 of new construction.
  Interested parties participated in the
 rulemaklng by sending comments to EPA.
 The comments have been  carefully con-
 sidered, and where determined by the
 Administrator to be appropriate, changes
 have been made to the regulation as pro-
 mulgated.                     -
       SUMMARY or THE STANDARD

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

 are  required to be  captured and  con-
 trolled.

   HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

   EPA prepared a document entitled the
 Quantitative Risk Assessment for Com*
 munity Exposure to Vinyl Chloride which
 estimates the risk from vinyl chloride
 exposure to populations living in the vi-
 cinity of vinyl  chloride-emittinc plants
 before and after implementation of  con-
 trols to meet the standard. There are no
 dose-response data for the  concentra-
 tions of vinyl chloride found  in the am-
 bient air. Therefore, assessments of risk
-at ambient  levels  of  exposure were ex-
 trapolated from dose-response data from
 higher levels of exposure using both a
 linear  model and a  log-probit model.
 Extrapolations made with each of these
 models entailed using different sets  of
 assumptions. Because different assump-
 tions can be made in extrapolating to
 low  doses, the health risks are reported
 in ranges.
   It was estimated thd*, 4.6 million  peo-
 ple live within 5 miles of ethylene dicho-
 ride-vinyl chloride and polyvinyl chlo-
 ride  plants  and  that the  average  ex-
 posure around these plants before instal-
 lation of controls  n "ieet the standard
 is 17 parts per  b.  un. The exposure
 levels for uncontrolled plants were  cal-
 culated based on  estimated  1974 emis-
 sion  levels.  Using the  linear  dose-re-
 sponse  model,   EPA  found   that  the
 rate of initiation of  liver angiosarcoma
 among people living around uncontrolled
 plants is expected to range from less than
, one  to ten cases of liver angiosarcoma
 per year of exposure to  vinyl chloride.
 The  log-probit  model gave predictions
 that are 0.1 to 0.01 times this rate. This
 wide range is an indication of the un-
 certainties in extrapolation to low doses.
 Due  to the long latency time observed In
 cancer cases resulting from vinyl chloride
 exposure, increases initiated by exposure
 this  year will not be diagnosed until the
 1990's or later. Vinyl chloride Is also es-
 timated to produce an equal  number of
 primary cancers at other sites, for a total
 of somewhere between less than one and
 twenty cases of  cancer per year of ex-
 posure among residents around plants.
 The  number of these  effects is expected
 to be reduced at least in proportion to the
 reduction in the ambient annual average
 vinyl chloride concentration, which  is
 expected to  be 5 percent of the uncon-
 trolled levels after the standard is  im-
 plemented.  ;
   Changes  in the standard since pro-
 posal do  not affect the level  of control
 required. Thus, the environmental  im-
 pact of the  promulgated standard is,
 with one exception,  the  same as that
 described in Chapter  6 of Volume I of
 the Standard Support and Environmen-
 tal Impact Statement. According to data
 submitted by the Society  of Plastics In-
 dustry, Inc.  
-------
 discussed In Chapter  7  of Volume I of
 the Standard Support and Environmen-
 tal Impact Statement. Comments on the
 Proposed standard have  resulted in only
 Wie major change In  the economic  1m-
 Pact analysis. EPA estimated that there
 »ould be four plant closures as a result
 W the promulgated standard. Of the four
 Plants Identified as possible closure can-
 didates, one has given notice that it no
 longer produces polyvlnyl chloride and
 the other three  .have indicated that they
 do not intend to close as a result of the
 •tandard.
   The economic impacts of the promul-
 gated  standard  may  be  summarized as
 follows: The total capital cost for exist-
 «g plants  to meet the standard is esti-
 mated to be $198  million, of which  $15
 "Ullion is  for ethylene  dichlorlde-vlnyl
 chloride plants  and $183 million is for
 Polyvinyl chloride  plants. EPA estimates
 that these  plants will  have to spend $70
 'Billion Per year to maintain the required
 emission levels. In addition, the total
 capital cost for existing plants to meet
 Joe EPA's  1983  water effluent  guideline
 Citations is expected to be $83 million
 *nd the total annualized operation cost
 18 $17  million. The costs to the industry
 °f meeting the OSHA standard cannot be
 Quantified at this time, but they are ex-
 Pected to overlap to some degree with the
 costs to meet EPA's  fugitive  emission
 regulations. The costs of meeting  the
 •Ueltive emission regulations are Included
 *J the  total costs cited  above for meeting
 the promulgated regulation. Broken  out
 Jeparately, the  capital cost  of  meeting
 the fugitive emission  regulations Is  $37
 Billion and the annualized  cost Is  $25
 Billion.
  The  standard  is  not expected to deter
 construction of new ethylene dichloride-
 7*nyl  chloride plants   or most  types of
 Jew polyvinyl chloride plants.  For one
 type of polyvinyl chloride plant  (disper-
 •lon process) that  represents 13 percent
 °* the  industry production, the standard
 Jjould  significantly deter the construc-
 *ton of smaller plants.
 -It is estimated that the price of poly-
 ytayl chloride resins will rise by approxl-
 *»ately 7.3 percent in  order to maintain
 Decontrol  profitability and also to re-
 cover the total annualized  control costs
Necessitated by the standard at ethylene
rjchlorlde-vinyl chloride plants and poly-
v*nyl chloride plants.  This increase  is
**tlmated to translate  into a maximum
*°nsumer price increase  In goods fabri-
c*ted from  polyvinyl  chloride resins of
 •Pproximately 3.5  percent. Recovery of
effluent annualized costs plus  mainte-
nance  of precontrol profitability Is esti-
jaated  to add approximately 2 percent to
 R°lyvlnyl chloride resin prices and result.
•J* an  additional  maximum consumer'
*>nce increase of 1 percent.
         PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION
  During the public comment period, 50
Comment letters  on the proposed stand-
ard were received. There were  24 from
 industry; 3 from environmental groups:
 *  from Federal, State, and local agen-
     and 8 from Individual citizens.  As
        by section 112(b) (1) (B) of the
      RULES AND REGULATIONS

 Act, a public hearing was held on the
 proposed standard on February 3, 1976,
 in Washington. D.C. Presentations were
 made  by  the Environmental Defense
 Fund,  the Society of the Plastics Indus-
 try, Inc., Dow Chemical Company, Dia-
 mond  Shamrock Corporation, and  Air
 Products and Chemicals, Inc. Copies of
 the comment letters received, the public
 hearing record,' and a summary of  the
 comments  with  EPA's responses  are
 available for public inspection and copy-
 Ing at  the EPA Public Information Ref-
 erence Unit, Room 2922 (EPA Library),
 401 M  Street. SW., Washington, D.C. In
 addition, copies of the  comment  sum-
 mary and Agency responses may be ob-
 tained upon written request from  the
 Public  Information  Center  
-------
   Another  approach suggested by  the
 commenters was to base the standard (or
 each Individual emission point on cost
 versus  benefit  Several  of the fugitive
 emission sources were named specifically
 as ones for which the costs of control
 were substantially higher than the bene-
 fits. Although EPA did determine a cost-
 benefit ratio  for  the  controls required
 for  a number of  emission points, EPA
 does not believe such a ratio is an appro-
 priate basis on which to set a standard.
 Section 111  of the Clean Air Act provides
 for the development of standards  based
 on best control  technology (considering
 costs). Even under section 111, however,
 standards are not based on a  fine bal-
 ancing of costs versus benefits. Instead,
 costs are considered In terms of the af-
 fordability of  the control technology  re-
 quired to achieve a given emission level
 and the economic impact of possible
 standards  on the  industry  in  ques-
 tion. Unlike section 111, section 112 does
 not  explicitly  provide  for consideratlon-
 of costs, so  It  would clearly be  inappro-
 priate to, consider  costs to a greater  ex-
 tent under  section 112  than  would be
 done under  section 111. As discussed In
 the preamble  to the proposed standard
 for  vinyl chloride, EPA believes  costs
 may be considered under section 112,  but
 only to a very  limited  extent; i.e., to
 assure that  the costs of control technol-
 ogy  are not grossly disproportionate to
 the  amount  of   emission  reduction
 achieved. In  comparison  with   other
 emission points,  the costs of controlling
 the fugitive emission sources mentioned
 by the. commeuters are relatively  small
 compared with the amount of  emission''
 reduction achieved.
  Several  commenters  recommended
adding to the  regulation a provision  for
excess  emissions during startup,  shut-
down, and malfunction. EPA considered
this comment, and decided that this
addition Is not necessary for the  vinyl
 chloride standard. Startup and shutdown
of the process has essentially no  effect
 on emissions to the atmosphere for poly-
 vinyl chloride production, and technology
exists to avoid excess  emissions during
startup and shutdown  at  ethylene  dl-
 chloridevtnyl chloride plants. We do not
believe plants  should be allowed to emit
excess  emissions during malfunctions,
and therefore are requiring them to shut
down Immediately.
  (3) Selection of source categories. In
the preamble  to the proposed standard
EPA recognized that some small research
and  development  facilities • may  exist
where the emissions of vinyl chloride are
insignificant and covering these facilities
under the standard would be unnecessary
and inappropriate. However, EPA did not
have sufficient information available to
clearly define  which facilities should be
excluded  from   the   standard,  and
encouraged  Interested parties to submit
 such Information  during the  comment
period. Based  on the information sub-
 mitted.  EPA decided to exempt  poly-
 vinyl chloride, reactors and  associated
 equipment from applicability of all  parts
 of the standard if  the reactors  an used
 tax research and development and have a
      RULES AND REGULATIONS

 capacity of no more than 0.19  m* (50
 gal). Reactors in this size range can gen-
 erally be found in a laboratory, whereas
 the larger  reactors are typically  pilot
 scale facilities. Emissions from laboratory
 scale equipment are relatively small, and
 application  of  the controls required  by
 the standard would be expensive and Im-
 practical. EPA also decided to exempt re-
 search'and development facilities  con-
 taining reactors greater than 0.19 m* (SO
 gal) and no more than 4.07 m* (1100 gal)
 In capacity from all parts of the standard
 except  the  10  ppm limit  for  reactors,
 strippers, monomer recovery systems, and
 mixing, weighing and holding containers.
 EPA  decided not to require these facili-
 ties to meet other parts of the standard
 because of  the technical  problems in-
 volved  In doing so.  For  example, the
 standard for reactor opening is based in
 part on reducing the frequency of open-
 ing the reactor. Research  and  develop-
 ment reactors  have to  be opened after
 every batch for thorough cleaning. Also,
 stripping technology 's Developed indi-
 vidually for each reslr  In  research and
 development equipment. Therefore, at-
 tainment of the st  'pping limitations  in
 the research and development equipment
 would not always b*> possible. The 4.07
 m'  (1100 gal) figui   -as selected as an
 upper cut-off point iccause there are no
 commercial reactors smaller than this.
  (4) Emission limits. The only major
 change  In the  emission  limits  between
 proposal and promulgation is the addi-
 tion of a provision for emergency manual
 venting of vinyl chloride from reactors
 to the atmosphere. The proposed  stand-
 ard prohibited all manual venting to the
 atmosphere. In  the preamble to the  pro-
 posed standard, EPA invited interested
 persons to comment on whether permit-
 ting manual venting to the atmosphere
 could result in overall lower emissions.
 There are several methods available for
 preventing  relief discharges from reac-
 tors, one of  which is manual venting  of
 part of the reactor contents for purposes
 of  cooling  and reduction in  pressure
 within the reactor. The higher the tem-
 perature and pressure within the reac-
 tor,  the greater the amount of vinyl
 chloride which  has to  be removed  to
 bring the reactor under control. Manual
 venting can be  done at a lower pressure
 than  the pressure required to open the
relief valve. For this reason manual vent-
ing can result  in lower emissions than
would occur by allowing the reactor  to
discharge through the relief valve. Fur-
 thermore, a manual vent valve  is under
the control of  an  operator and can be
closed. A relief valve may become clogged
with  ~esln  and not close. The  result
would oe loss of all the reactor contents.
  The contents  of a reactor can be man-
ually vented to a gasholder or other hold-
ing vessel. However, in some cases, such
as during severe weather conditions, sev-
eral reactors may be out of control at
one time. There would  be Insufficient
holding capacity under these conditions
 to manually vent the contents of all the
 reactors to a gasholder. Therefore, when
 all other measures to prevent relief valve
discharges have been exhausted,
 venting will be permitted as a last resort
 before the  relief valve opens. The same
 notification procedures are required for
 manual venting to the atmosphere as are
 required for relief discharges.
   There are several changes in the nu-
 merical emission limits  in the  promul-
 gated standard. Except for the standard
 for reactor opening loss, these  changes
 simply involve conversion to the Interna-
 tional System of Units (SI). There was
 an error involved In the original calcula-
 tion used to derive the standard for reac-
 tor opening. Correcting  this error dou-
 bles  the allowable  emissions. It is em-
 phasized that the change in  this stand-
 ard is a correction, and not a change in
 the intent for the degree of  control re-
 quired.
   The  proposed standard  required  the
 Installation of  a rupture  disc  beneath
 each relief valve to prevent leakage from
 the relief  valve. A  provision has been
 added to the promulgated standard  so
 that a rupture disc  Is  not  required if
 the relief valve is tied Into a process line
 or recovery system.  In this case, any
 leakage from the relief  valve would be
 contained.
   The  regulation for  obtaining vinyl
 chloride.samples has been changed to an
 operating   procedure.   The  proposed
 standar' stated that there were to be
 no emissions  from  taking  the samples.
 Several commenters pointed out that the
 use of the word "no" would make this
 regulation impractical to enforce. There-
 fore, the promulgated standard specifies
 the operating procedure which EPA orig-
 inally intended to be used  to control
 this source. This revision is only a change
 in  wording and does not represent ft
 change in the level of the standard.
  The regulation for taking samples has
 also been revised to apply only to sam-
 ples containing at  least 10  percent by
 weight vinyl chloride. This is consistent
 with  the other parts of the standard
 which  apply  to equipment  "in  vinyl
 chloride service." "In vinyl chloride serv-
 ice"  distinguishes  between  situation*
 where vinyl chloride is clearly Involved"
 and situations where vinyl  chloride is •
 minor component or contaminant, and
 as  defined  In  promulgated   |61.61<1)
 means that a piece of equipment' eon*
 tains or contacts either a liquid that i»
 at least 10 percent by weight  vinyl chlo-
 ride or a gas that is at least 10  percent
 by volume vinyl chloride.
  The proposed standard required a vinyl
 chloride monitoring system for continu-
 ously measuring vinyl chloride levels boflj
 within the plant (for leak detection) and
 within stacks. The proposed standard did
 not outline required specifications for the
 monitoring system,-except that it was to
 analyze the samples with gas chromatog-
 raphy, or if all hydrocarbons were •*:
 Burned to be vinyl chloride, wlth'infrared
 spectrophotometry, flame ion detection,
 or equivalent It required that each plan*
 submit  a description  of  its monltormf
 system to EPA, so that EPA could deter-
mine whether it was acceptable or no*
Comments  were  received Indicating •
need for EPA to specify some criteria for
judging the. acceptability of monltortJJf
systems. The accuracy of the
                               RDUAL UOISm, VOL 41, NO, Ml—THUISDAY, OCTOMt II, W«
                                                      11-128 -
-------
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
 ing system would be related to the f re-
 'quency  of calibration. Therefore, EPA
 has Included in the promulgated stand-
 ard requirements for the frequency of
 calibration and procedures to be carried
 out in the calibration of the monitoring
 instruments.
   The portable hydrocarbon detector re-
 quired by  the proposed standard was re-
 quired to  have a sensitivity  of 5  ppm)
 Comments were received indicating that
 instruments In this sensitivity range are
 delicate and require continuing mainte-
 nance. The portable hydrocarbon detec-
 tor is required for. leak detection and for
 measuring vinyl chloride concentrations
 Inside the equipment  before opening it.
 A  5  ppm  sensitivity  is not  needed  in
 either case, and the required sensitivity
 has been changed to 10 ppm in the pro-
 mulgated standard.
   The proposed  standard contained  a
 single regulation  for  compressors. The
 Promulgated standard has separate regu-
 lations for rotating  and  reciprocating
 compressors. This is consistent with hav-
 ing separate regulations for rotating and
 reciprocating pumps in both the pro-
 Posed and promulgated standards.
   Section 61.66 of the proposed standard
 Provided for the use of equivalent meth-
 ods of control which have been approved
 by EPA. The promulgated standard re-
 quires that the plant owner or operator
 submit a  request for determination  of
 equivalency within 30 days of the pro-
 mulgation  date If the alternative control
 method Is  intended as the Initial means
 of control. The purpose of this is to pro-
 vide time for EPA to evaluate the method
 before the  plant has to be in compliance
 (for existing sources, 90 days after the
 Promulgation date). EPA also suggests
•that this request  for  determination of
 equivalency be accompanied  by a re-
 quest for waiver of compliance pursuant
 to section  112(c)(l)(B)(li)  of the Act.
 The request for a waiver for compliance
 •hould provide for the case where  EPA
 determines that a method is not equiv-
 •Jent and  the plant needs to purchase
 other  equipment.  In no  ease will the
 Waiver of compliance be extended beyond
 TOO yean  from the date of  promulga-
 tion.
  There  are several wording clarifica-
 tions which have been made In the pro-
 mulgated standard. The  definition for
 'in vinyl chloride service" ({60.61(1))
 has been  clarified by stating  that  It
 means equipment that  contacts  vinyl
 chloride as well as equipment that con-
 wins vinyl chloride. This would  include
 •Uch equipment as agitators.
  Words have been added In 5! 61.62,
 '1.63, and  61.64 to clarify that the 10
"5pm emission limits do not have to be
 met when  equipment has already  been
 °Pened in  compliance with the  regula-
 tion for  opening of equipment. Equip-
 ment  that has  met  the opening of
 equipment  regulation  can contain  more
 fhan 10 ppm vinyl chloride and would be
 »  violation of the  standard  If  this
 statement  were not included.       .  ,
  The requirements for stripping poly-
 Vinyl chloride  resins  to specified levels
 h*ve  been  revised in  1161.64 (e),  61.67
 j£g)(3)(ll). and  61.70(c)(2)(l)  so that
 measurement of the vinyl chloride levels
 In the resins is to be made immediately
 after stripping is completed rather than
 as the resin is. being transferred out of
 the stripper. This allows a plant to carry
 out operations in a stripper after strip-
 ping has been completed but before it Is
 transferred out of the stripper. This is
 consistent with the original Intent of the
 standard.
   The regulation for loading and unload-
 ing lines In §61.65(b)(l)  has been re-
 vised  to  clarify that it applies only to
 lines that are disconnected after  each
 loading or unloading operation. Perma-
 nently installed pipelines that are opened
 Infrequently for  inspection or mainte-
 nance, for example,  are covered by the
 opening of equipment regulation rather
 than  the loading and unloading line
 regulation.
   The regulation-for inprocess  waste-
 water  In the proposed standard could
 have been misinterpreted to require in-
 dividual   treatment   of   wastewater
 streams.  Section 61.65(b)C9) (1)  of the
 promulgated  standard  clarifies  that
 wastewater streams that are required to
 be treated (Le., those containing greater
 than 10 ppm vinyl chloride) can be com-
 bined  to be  treated.  However,  waste-
 water  streams that contain greater than
 10 ppm  vinyl chloride cannot be com-
 bined with wastewater streams that con-
 tain less than 10 ppm vinyl chloride be-
 fore treatment; i.e.,  dilution cannot be
 used to meet the  standard.
   The commenters recommended several
 changes  In the emission  limits  which
 have not been Incorporated into the
 promulgated standard. These  are  dis-
 cussed in the following paragraphs.
   It was recommended that the require-
 ment  for double mechanical seals on
 pumps, compressors, and agitators be re-
 moved because the single seals currently
 used on this equipment have small emis-
 sions and are more reliable than double
 mechanical seals. EPA Is aware that each
 fugitive 'emission source,  such  as one
 pump,  taken by itself causes  relatively
 small emissions. Fugitive emissions con-
 sidered as a whole  are  a significant
 source of emissions, however, and the in-
 tent of the standard Is to reduce these.
 Double mechanical seal pumps are com-
 monly  used in the Industry for emission
 reduction. Sealless pumps or equivalent
 systems are available as options to double
 mechanical seals.
  The  commenters  recommended  In-
 creasing  the  averaging time for the 10
ppm limits and the emission limits for
 reactor opening and stripping to 30 days.
 Borne  of  the  commenters apparently
 thought that the 10 ppm limits had to be
 met on an instantaneous basis. However,
 since the performance test for determin-
 ing compliance consists of three runs for
a minimum of an hour each, the aver-
 aging time for the 10 ppm limit Is at least
 three hours.  Increasing the averaging
time to 30 days for any of the emission
limits would  permit higher  peak emis-
sion levels. EPA has determined that this
 is neither desirable nor necessary.
  Some commenters requested that the
•tripping levels for dispersion resins be
 made the same as for other resins and
 others requested that they be made less
 stringent EPA decided not to make the
 standard for stripping dispersion resins
 the same as for other resins because there
 is sufficient  evidence to Indicate that
 these resins  are more difficult  to strip
 than other resins. With regard  to mak-
 ing  the stripping  levels for dispersion
 resins less stringent, only one of the eight
 manufacturers of dispersion resins spe-
 cifically commented that the dispersion
 resin standard  should be  made less
 stringent Only two of several grades of
 dispersion resins made by this company
. cannot meet the 2,000  ppm limit. The
 proposed standard takes into considera-
 tion that some resins are more difficult
•to strip  than others by providing for
 averaging among different resins.
   (5) Testing, reporting, and  record-
 keeping.  There  are  several  relatively
 minor changes in the testing, reporting,'
 and recordkeeping requirements. A pro-
 vision has been added to S 61.67 which
 requires that  stack gas samples  taken
 with Test Method 106 are to be analyzed
 within 24 hours.  This is consistent with
 the requirements in the proposed Test
 Method 106, The promulgated standard
 also 'specifies that in averaging the re-
 sults of the three runs required by Test
 Method 106, a time-weighted average is
 to be used.
   One  eommenter requested that the
 oxygen content and moisture content be
specified for" the 10, ppm concentration
 standards. The proposed standard speci-
 fied that the vinyl chloride concentration
is to be corrected to 10  percent oxygen
 (wet basis) If combustion Is used as the
control measure.  In  the -promulgated
standard, this requirement has been ex-
panded to all control measures.
   A  provision has been added to the
promulgated standard which states that
if a reactor is also used as a stripper, the
reactor opening emissions may be deter-
mined immediately following the strip-
ping operation. If a  reactor Is also used
 as a stripper, the resin is in the reactor
when it is opened. This means that vinyl
chloride in the resin which has  already
been stripped  to acceptable levels can
escape from  the resin and become part
of the reactor opening loss. It Is EPA's
Intent that once a resin has been stripped
to the required levels, that additional
controls are not required. Under the new
provision, vinyl chloride escaping from
the resin  after it has been  stripped to
acceptable levels is not counted as part
of the reactor opening loss.
  A  section requiring continuous moni-
toring of stack emissions'has been added
to the promulgated standard. The con-
tinuous monitoring of stack emissions
was  required In the  proposed standard.
The addition of a specific paragraph for
emission  monitoring  serves  only  to
clarify the requirement.
  The standard has been revised so that
the Initial report requires a "description"
rather than a "detailed description'" of
the equipment used  to control fugitive
emissions. Several commenters  pointed.
out  that n detailed 'description .would
contain proprietary  Information.  EPA
agrees that a detailed description In the
                             ROEIAl MOISTM, VOL 41, NO. 90S—THURSDAY,.OCTOKI 21,  1976


                                                    111-129^,
-------
                                            IUUS AND IMUlATIONf
tlonal information to needed, BPA eta
•Main tt under Mctton ii« of «b« Act end
the plant era request ooondenUnl treat-
srat m accordance with 40 CFR Part 3
for  mformatloo  tt  belteres  to  b*

  oSepropoeed standard required that
             report be submitted every
ISO  days.  The  promulgated  standard
specifies dates for the submlttal of the
report*, tt also  specifies that the first
semiannual report does not have to be
submitted until at least six months after
the Initial report Is submitted.
  The standard has been revised to elim-
inate the requirement to record the cause
of any leak detected by the vinyl chlo-
ride detector, the action taken to repair
the leak, and the amount of time re-
quired to repair the leak. EPA Is con-
cerned only that leaks are detected and
repaired. That this has been done can be
established by looking at the strip chart
record of measurements made by the
vinyl chloride detector. These records are
stm required for the portable hydrocar-
bon detector however.
  Several commentators recommended
that the companies be allowed an extra
two weeks  to submit to EPA data from
the initial  performance test They also
recommended that they submit the data
by regular mafl rather than registered
man. EPA has not adopted either of these
recommendations. A source is supposed
to be in compliance with the standard
within M dan* the promulgation i sf
the standard/The standard requires tbat
the emission tests be done within th* .
•0 day period, and permits an extra 30
days for determination of results. The
purpose of using registered man to to
document the fact that emission data
have been sent and received. Thla way
If the results are lost In the man, there
win be no question that they were sent.
  (•> rest method. Test Method 106 hat
been changed to recognize that on a gas
ehromatograph equipped with a Cnrom-
osorb  102 column,  acetaldehyde mar
Interfere with th* vinyl chloride peak.
When a sample to expected to contain
acetaldehyde, a secondary column as de-
scribed in section 4.3.2 must be employed.
Mass spectroscopy or another  absolute
analytical technique to required to con-
firm the vinyl chloride peak obtained
with the gas ehromatograph, only if peak
resolution with the secondary column to
not successful.
  In section 4.1.4, alumlnlsed Mylar bags
can be substituted for Tedlar bags. EPA
now has data to allow this substitution,
provided that the samples are analysed
within 24 hours of collection.
  In section 5.1.8 of Test Method  10i
the requirement to use "oxygen gas" hat
been replaced with "oxygen gas or air, ai
required by the detector." Several corn-
mentors stated that most gas chromato-
graphs are designed to use hydrogen and
air for their flame detectors. When used
in this way, they art capable of detect*
taf 0 J ppm vinyl chloride in air. This to
sensitive musjli Cor sAonttorlnf  th* 19
  to section 6.4 of T*t Method 1M the
requirement for an automatic Integrator
has been replaced with a requirement for
a disc integrator or planlmeter for meas-
uring peak area. This  change to In re-
sponse to a comment which states that
automatic integrators are unnecessarily
elaborate and expensive.
  A new section 8.5 has  been added to
Test Method 106 which requires deter-
mination of the water  vapor content of
the sampling bag by measuring the am-
bient temperature and pressure near the
bag. The vinyl chloride concentration of
the bag can then be reported on a dry
basis. A provision for checking the rigid
container for leaks has been added to
section 7.4  of Test Method  106.
  The only change in Test Method 107 to
the provision In Section 5.3.3 for use of
Carbopak C as well as  Carbopak A.
  AUTHOUTT: Section lia of the Clean Air
Act M added .by see. «(») of Pub. L. 01-604,
84 Stot. 188B (43 UB.O. 18B7O-7: Section 114
of tb« Clean Air Act, •» uAf-* t-y see. 4(a)
of Pub. L. 01-604, 84 Bt»t.  '.087, and amended
by Pub. L. 03-910, MO. *;*) (4), 88 BUt. 980
<49 U.S.O. 18670-0); «.

  Dated: October ll i  >76.
                    Jon QIUIIM,
               Acting Admtittatmtar.
           neiiTM, VOL  4i, NO. MS-

      -THUfSDAr, OCTOSU J1, Iff*
 standard.
                                                    iIII-130
-------
                                                FROPOttO RULES
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY
           [40CFRP»rt61]
           VINYL CHLORIDE.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
             Mr Pollutants
AGENCY:   Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Pi oposed rule.
SUMMARY: The proposed amendments
are being  oade  to  the  vinyl chloride
standard w.iich has  promulgated Octo-
ber 21. 1976, and would apply to new
and yxlfft'pg ethylene  dichlorlde, vinyl
chloride, and polyvlnyl chloride  plants.
The standard and the proposed amend-
ments implement the Clean Air Act and
are based on the Administrator's deter-
mination that vinyl chloride is a hazard-
ous air pollutant The intended effect of
the proposed amendments is to require
Improved effectivenest  of control tech-
nology at existing plants, Impose more
stringent emission limits on new sources,
and prohibit an emission increase within
the vicinity of an fr<«M"g source due to
the construction of a hew source.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 1, 1977.
ADDRESSES : Comments should be sub-
mitted (preferably in triplicate)  to the
Emission  Standards and  Engineering
Division,   Environmental   Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, Attention:  Mr. Don R. Good-
win.
  All public comments received may be
Inspected and copied at  the Public In-
formation  Reference  Unit   (EPA  Li-
brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C.
FOR FUUTHKK INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
  and  Engineering  Division,  Environ-
  mental Protection Ager-oy,  Research
  Triangle  Park,  North Carolina  27711,
  Telephone No. 819-688-8148, cart. 271.
SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:

             BACKGROUND

  On October 21, 1976, EPA promulgated
ft standard for vinyl chloride under the
authority of section 112(b) (1) (B)  of the
Clean  Air   Act,   as  amended (41  FR
48561). The standard  applies to  ethyl-
ene diehloride, vinyl  chloride, and poly-
Vinyl chloride plants,
  On November 19, 1976. the
mental Defense Fund (EDF) petitioned
the United States  Court of  Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit to review
the standard. Motions to intervene were
subsequently filed  on behalf of the So-
ciety of the Plastics Industry, Inc., the
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and
Air  Products and  Chemicals, toe., ana
*ere granted by order of the Cour^on
January 18.  1977. On  March 24,  1977.
SDF and EPA  moved to dismiss the
Jwoceedings  to  view of » settlement
agreement requiring EPA to take certain
 additional actions. These Include a re-
 statement of EPA's policy for regulating
 carcinogens  under section 112 of  the
 Clean Air Act; the proposal of amend-
 ments  which would require increased
 efficiency of existing control equipment,
 require more stringent control at new
 sources, and prohibit Increases in emis-
 sions within the vicinity of an existing
 source due to new construction; and the
 initiation of a review of the vinyl chlo-
 ride standard three years after the pro-
 mulgation of the amendments.
          ZERO EMISSION GOAL

   The vinyl chloride standard  has been
 criticized  for allegedly placing unwar-
 ranted emphasis on technological rather
 than  health  considerations. Although
 EPA disagrees  with this criticism, It
 seems appropriate to restate EPA's  ap-
 proach to the regulation of carcinogens
 in general and under Section 112 of the
 Clean Air Act, and  to explain how  the
 vinyl  chloride standard and  the pro-
 posed amendments are consistent with
 this approach and with the protection
 of public health.
   On May 25. 1976, EPA published in-
 terim  procedures  and  guidelines  for
 health risk and economic impact assess-
 ments of suspected carcinogens (41  FR
 21402), which define EPA's approach to
 regulatory action for suspect  carcino-
 gens. As  Indicated in that publication,
 there are two steps involved in  the deci-
 sion-making process with regard to the
 regulation of a potential carcinogen. Al-
 though different EPA statutory author-
 ities  impose different requirements, in
 general two decisions must be made with
 regard to each potential carcinogen. The
 first decision is whether a particular sub-
 stance constitutes  a cancer risk. The
 second decision is what regulatory  ac-
 tion, if any, should be taken to  reduce
 that  risk.
   In deciding whether a  cancer risk
 exists, EPA will consider  a substance a
 presumptive cancer  risk when  it causes
 a statistically significant excess incidence
 of benign or malignant tumors in hu-
 mans or animals. In the  case of vinyl
 chloride, EPA  evaluated  all  available
 data and  concluded that a cancer risk
 exists. In  deciding how and whether to
 regulate, EPA examined section  112 of
 the Clean Air Act. Section 112 of the Act
 requires that emission standards be set
 "at the level which  In the judgment of
 the Administrator provides an  ample
 margin  of safety to protect the public
 health from such hazardous air pollut-
 ants." This requirement appears to as-
 sume that each pollutant regulated  will
 have a threshold level of effects  below
 which  no health  effects will occur.  As
 explained in the documentation for the
 current standard (40 FR 59532* Decem-
 ber 24, 1975; 41 FR 46560, October 21,
 1978), It has not been possible to deter-
 mine  If there is a threshold level of
 effects for vinyl chloride and  it is  not
 certain  that such a threshold may be
. determined In the near future. In  the
 absence of strong evidence to the con-
 trary, then, the only level of vinyl chlo-
 ride which would appear to be absolutely
 protective of health Is aero, which may
be achievable only by banning vinyl chlo-
ride emissions completely. That, in turn,
would require closing the entire industry.
As explained in the eailier rulemaking it
Is not  clear that Congress would have
Intended this result, so instead EPA re-
quired  the lowest level achievable using
technological means. (See 40 FR 59534
and 41 FR 46562).
  In order to  insure that the standard
continues to approach the only level of
emissions which Is  known to be abso-
lutely protective of  health, namely zero
emissions, EPA is proposing amendments
which require more efficient use of exist-
ing control technology at existing plants
and more effective controls  at  new
plants, and which encourage technology
to reach this goal without banning vinyl
chloride.
MORI STRINGENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING
               SOURCES

  EPA is proposing amendments which
would require  sources presently  subject
to a 10  ppm  emission limit  to reduce
emissions to 5 ppm within three years of
promulgation of the amendments. The
affected sources include ethylene diehlo-
ride purification; vinyl chloride  forma-
tion and purification; reactors, strippers;
mixing, weighing, and holding contain-
ers; monomer  recovery  systems;  and
fugitive emissions which have been cap-
tured in accordance with  the existing
regulation.* If the owner or operator of
a source believed that a control system
would not be capable of meeting the  5
ppm limit, he  would be able  to  request
that the Administrator approve an in-
terim emission  limit for that  source.
Such requests would have to be made one
year before the compliance date. In re-
questing an interim emission limit,  the
owner or operator would have to submit
supportive data  and meet with EPA to
discuss his particular problems in attain-
ing compliance.  The meeting would be
announced In the FEDERAL REGISTER and
any Interested party would be allowed to
attend  and submit written or oral com-
ments. If an Interim emission  limit were
granted to the source, the required emis-
sion level would be specified in a written
notification from EPA  and In the FED-
ERAL REGISTER. Each source granted an
interim emission limit would be reviewed
every three years to determine whether
emissions could be reduced to 5 ppm. or
at least to a lower interim emission limit.
  In proposing the reduction from 10 to
5 ppm, it is not EPA's Intent that a con-
trol system which has been installed to
  •As an explanatory note, paragraph (b) of
i 61.65 contains nine fugitive emission regu-
lations. For several of  ttiese, the fugitive
emissions are required to be captured  and
ducted to a control device meeting 19 ppm.
According to the proposed amendments, the
emissions from this  control device  would
have to be reduced to B ppm In the same way
any other source currently required to meet
10 ppm would have to do. Bather than In-
corporating both the 8 and 10 ppm emission
limit* In each paragraph In I 81.88(b),  *>
separate  paragraph (c)  containing these
emission limit* Is being added to I 81.88. All
the  other  paragraphs la  (b)  are  oroes-
referenoed In paragraph (o).  , -   _
                                      MOUm.VOl.4S, HO, lat—THUtSDAV, JUNI ft,  ItTT
                                                •HI-131.
-------
meet the  10 ppm emission limit be re-
moved and replaced with  anottoer more
efficient control system or  that a second
control system be added behind the first
control system. Hie purpose of the pro-
posed amendment is to force owners and
operators  to maximize the effectiveness
of existing control systems.
MOR*  SBUNOEKT STANDAKDS JTOR  Niw
               SOURCES

  The proposed amendments would also
require more stringent controls for new
sources; l.e., sources for which construc-
tion is commenced after the date of pro-
posal of  these  amendments. According
to  § 61.02 of  the  General Provisions.
"commenced" means that an owner or
operator  has undertaken  a continuous
program of construction or modification
or that an owner or  operator has entered
into a contractual obligation to under-
take and  complete,  within a reasonable
time, a continuous program of construc-
tion or modification.
  New sources of types which would be
subject to the 10  ppm emission limit
under the current  standard would  be
required under the amendments to meet
a 5 ppm  emission limit at the time of
startup. With new sources there would be
no provision allowing requests for  EPA
approval  of an Interim emission limit.
New sources would  be required to meet
the more stringent emission limit at the
time of startup, because  they have  an
opportunity to design their equipment to
meet the 5 ppm emission limit at the time
construction  is  commenced.  Existing
sources, on the other hand, require time
to maximize the effectiveness of their
control systems.
  The proposed amendment would also
require ethylene dichloride-vinyl chlor-
ide plants to control emissions from new
oxychlorination reactors to 5 ppm.  This
requirement is based on installation of
a recycling and oxygen feed system with
an incinerator or equivalent control de-
vice. The  current standard limits emis-
sions from the oxychlorination reactor
to 0.2 g/kg (0.0002 Ib/Ib) of the 100 per-
cent ethylene  dicMoride  product from
the oxychlorination reactor. This emis-
sion limit  can be met by changing proc-
ess parameters, rather than installing a
control device. During the development
of the current standard EPA considered
requiring  existing  sources  to control
emissions  with an incinerator or equiva-
lent technology, but rejected this ap-
proach because a large quantity of fuel
would be  required  to reduce emissions
from a relatively small source. An exist-
ing oxychlorination  reactor typically has
a large volume, low  hydrocarbon effluent
gas stream, and large quantities of sup-
plemental fuels  would be required for
combustion of its emissions.
  A new. plant can reduce  the volume of
Its effluent gas stream and make it more
concentrated by recycling the gas stream
and .using oxygen Instead  of air to feed
into  the  process.  (3,  4)   the current
standard was not based on this technol-
ogy because it was not considered feasi-
ble to retrofit existing plants so that they
could use oxygen Instead of air. The re-
          PROPOSED IW11S

cycling and oxygen feed methodoigy to
considered feasible for new oxychlorina-
tion reactors because It can be .Incorpo-
rated at the time of construction. Since
the use of this technology would elimin-
ate the supplemental fuel problem re-
ferred to above, it Is EPA's Judgment that
new oxychlorination reactors should be
controlled to the  same  extent that is
proposed for other emission sources.
  The proposed amendment also Includes
a more stringent emission limit for new
polyvinyl chloride resins being processed
In  equipment, following the stripping
operation.  That  is,  the  amendment
would apply to resins for which produc-
tion for the  purpose of  marketing  was
commenced after  the  proposal  of  the
amendment. The amendment would re-
quire all new resins except new disper-
sion resins to be stripped  to 100 ppm and
new dispersion resins to be  stripped to
600 ppm. These limits for new products
'would be  one-fourth of the  limits con-
tained In the standai 3 f" 'Ins except new dis-
persion resins w*.     have  to be con-
trolled  to' 0.01  kg/kg product and the
equipment used for new dispersion resins
would have to be controlled to 0.05 kg/kg
product.                         	
  A "new source"  to denned in 40 CER
61.02 as a stationary source, the con-
struction  or modification of which is
commenced after proposal of a standard.
There was some question based on  this
definition as to whether the amendment
to the stripping standard  for new sources
should apply to new polyvinyl chloride
resins or the installation of  new equip-
ment following the stripper. If the ap-
plicability of toe  amendment for new
sources were based on the installation of
new equipment following the stripper, it
would be difficult to determine what con-
stitutes a new source at an existing plant
This is based on the reasoning that the
stripping  standard  requires  that all
equipment following the  stripper in the
process be controlled as a unit The series
of equipment following the stripper in-
cludes pumps and  conveying equipment
which might be expected to be replaced
on a frequent and routine basis. Replac-
ing one of these  pieces of equipment
would in effect cause the whole series of
equipment following the stripper to have
to meet the standard for new sources. In
other words, an resins processed In the
serf - of the equipment  would  have to
meet the lower standard even though
only a minor part of the-equlpment had
been  replaced.
  EPA decided th;;t a more reasonable
and direct approach was to make the
proposed amendment apply to the pro-
duction of new polyvinyl  chloride resins.
This Is based on the reasoning that emis-
sions from the equipment following the
stripper are a function of the amount of
vinyl chloride left In the resin after, the
•tripping  operation Is completed;  1*,
the resin Is the source of the emissions
 rather "ttan the equipment The same
• equipment can be used to process differ-
 ent resin grades. Variations, in the emis-
 sions from the equipment are a function
 of the resin being processed rather, than
 the characteristics of the equipment. The,
 control technology which is used for the
 equipment following the stripper Is like-
 wise  more directly linked to the resin
 than the equipment. Stripping is used to
 control the emissions due to the vinyl
 chloride in the resin before the resin is
 processed In the equipment.
   Before the  hazards of vinyl chloride
 became known, stripping technology was
 employed  by  polyvinyl chloride  manu-
 facturers to recover raw materials  for
 economic  purposes. As a  result of a
 standard promulgated  by  the Occupa-
 tional Safety and Health Administration
 (39 PR 35890) , some companies Investi-
 gated improvements in stripping meth-
 odology  for emission control purposes.
 «>
 Optimum stripping  consists of a set of
 operating conditions which must be de-
 veloped experimentally on  an Individual
 basis for the many resins. In developing
 the current standard,  EPA recognized
 that  stripping technology for dispersion
 resins had not been refined to the same
 extent s it had been for other resins and
 that  Libre was more difficulty in strip-
 ping dispersion resins than other resins.
 For this reason a less stringent emission
 limit was established for dispersion res-
 ins. Dispersion resins  are permitted a
 higher emission limit under the proposed
 amendment for the same reason.
   EPA believes  that  for  some  resins.
 companies have already developed strip-
 ping  technology which would meet the
 proposed  amendment.  (2)  For  other
 resins, the proposed standard would re-
 quire  additional improvement In strip-
 ping  technology. If stripping technology
 has not been  developed to  the  extent
 necessary to meet the proposed amend-
 ment for a particular resin, the  manu-
 facturer would have the option  of de-
 veloping the technology or not producing
 the resin.
   The  current  standard,  unlike  the
 proposed amendment, was  not based o»
 the premise that an owner or operator
 would have the option of not producing
 a particular resin. It is EPA's JudgmeO*
 that the owner or operator making a new
 product has more freedom of choice than
 the owner  or operator already making a
 particular  product  hi  selecting those
 resins which are to be  produced. BPA»
 standard  would be Included  In  tne
 variables  under consideration  when
 decisions are  being made  as to
 resins are to be produced.
   The proposed amendment would
 to any new source, whether it constituted
 replacement of an existing source In •»'
 existing plant, the expansion of an ex»*-
 tog plant, or part of an  entirely new
 plant. That Is, If a new oxychlorinatiw*
 reactor or a new polyvinyl chloride re*
 actor were installed at an existing plan1-
 it would be subject to the emission lw*™?
 for new sources. . Thi» means that,1 »:
 existing sources are •• gradually
 with i new. sources in an existing^ P»°w
                               NMRM MOtSTIR, VOL «», HO. 10t~-THUUDAYj JVM I, 1977
-------
                                                   PROPOSED  RULES
 the  overall emission  level from that
 existing plant would be reduced.

            EMISSION OFFSET

   Because  the present  vinyl  chloride
 standard focuses on.reducing emissions
 rather than attaining a particular am-
 bient air quality concentration, there la
 no  provision for limiting the size of
 plants or the  clustering  of  plants in a
 geographical area. The doubling of the
 size of an exiting plant or the construc-
 tion of a nev plant beside  an existing
 plant would considerably Increase  the
 ambient  at- concentrations  of  vinyl
 chloride in \tie vicinity of the plant(s)
 even If the vinyl chloride standard was
 met. EPA  determined at the  time  of
 promulgation of the  current  standard
 that the costs of prohibiting the produc-
 tion  of  vinyl  chloride  and polyvlnyl
 chloride were too high and the continued
 operation of existing plants should  be
 allowed. EPA believes, however, that the
 standard should Include a  mechanism
 for prohibiting an Increase  in ambient
 concentrations of vinyl chloride due to
 new construction in areas where existing
 sources are already located.
  Accordingly,  EPA  Is  proposing   an
 amendment which would prohibit an in-
 crease in emissions  within 8 kilometers
 (km)  (approximately  five miles)  of  an
 existing source  due  to the construction
 of a new emission source.  This means
 that if a new source were added  to  an
 existing plant, the Increase In emissions
 due to that new source would have to be
 offset by  a  reduction in emissions from
 other existing sources within that plant
 or at other plants within 8 km of the
 construction site of the new source. Simi-
 larly, a  new plant  could not  be con-
 structed within 8  km of  an  existing
 Plant (s)  unless the  emission  increase
 due to the new plant were offset by an
 emission reduction at the existing plant
 or plants. This  provision  may result  in
 few existing plants being  expanded and
 few new plants being constructed in the
 vicinity of existing plants. However, the
 proposed  amendment does not  preclude
 this possibility.
  The offset provision  would apply only
 to new construction which results  in an
 Increase in production rate. Replacing or
adding equipment such as pumps,  com-
 pressors, agitators', sampling equipment
 and unloading hoses Is a routine practice
at existing  plants. Additions of equip-
 ment of this nature would, in and  of It-
self, be expected to result in little, if any.
Increase  In  emissions. In EPA's Judg-
ment, a plant should not be required  to
Prove this fact  each time one  of  these
Pieces of equipment is added. The  addi-
tion of this type of equipment  in con-
junction with major process equipment,
however, is likely to result'in both an in-
crease in emissions  as well as an in-
crease in  production rate, and is there-
fore covered by the offset  provision.
  If the offset provision were adopted.
the  reduction  to emissions could  be
 achieved in the production rate-of  an
existing source or sources. The baseline
 •mission rate would be determined based
 <» the maximum production  rate which
 had  been  attained by  each  existing
 source. The allowable emission rate for
 each source would be based on the maxi-
 mum production rate  at which that
 source would be operated  in the future.
   Also, if the emissions from an existing
 source were already below the emission
 limit  applicable  to It,  the  proposed
 amendment would give the'source credit
 for the difference between the emission
 limit and the actual emission level. That
 Is  the baseline emission rate would be
 based on the standard rather than on an
 emission test. It is EPA's judgment that
 this is a more equitable approach than
 penalizing a  source which has already
 taken measures to reduce emissions below
 the standard. Such  a source would have
 less room for further reducing emissions.
   The emission limits applicable to both
 the existing and new  sources involved
 in the offset arrangement would be con-
 tained in the approval of new construc-
 tion granted by the Administrator under
 40 CFR 61.08.
   EPA believes that a  policy of no net
 increase in emissions due to new con-
 struction is justified because of the haz-
 ardous nature of vinyl chloride.  How-
 ever,  EPA recognizes the potential diffi-
 culties In  implementing such a policy
 and Interested persons are urged to sub-
 mit comments and  factual information
 relating  to this policy.
         REVIEW or STANDARD
   EPA plans  to undertake a full-scale
 review of Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 61
 beginning three years" from the promul-
 gation of any amendments. In the study
 EPA will review information concerning
 technological advances in the control of
 vinyl  chloride emissions to determine
 what further changes might then be ap-
 propriate to move  toward the  goal of
 zero vinyl chloride emissions. EPA will
 also consider recent health data to de-
 termine whether the approach for  regu-
 lating vinyl chloride should  be altered.
        ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
  The proposed amendment,  in contrast
 to the current standard, would encourage
 the development of new technology and
 improvements In existing technology and
 would have the following three positive
 environmental Impacts: (1) further re-
 duction of emissions at existing plants,
 (2) no Increase in emissions within 8 km
 of  an existing  source,  and  (3)  lower
 emissions from new  sources than would
 be  accprnpllshed through  the current
 standard regardless  of the'construction
 site. These environmental Impacts would
 provide progress toward the ultimate
 goal of zero emissions without banning
vinyl chloride, and in the process would
 provide additional protection of public
health by further minimizing the health
 risks to the  people living In the vicinity
of existing plants and to any additional
 people who are exposed as a result of new
 construction.
  Specifically, for those  existing sources
 which are currently subject to a 10 ppm
emission  limit, emissions  would be re-
duced by half within three years  after
the promulgation date of these amend-
 ments. At both an existing average-sized
 ethylene dichloride-vlnyl chloride plant
 and an existing average-sized polyvlnyl
 chloride plant,  which contain  other
 sources than the ones required to meet
 a 5 ppm emission  limit, it is estimated
 this will have the effect of reducing total
 emissions by less than one percent. Emis-
 sions at existing plants would be further
 reduced as existing oxychlorination re-
 actors are replaced with new oxychlori-
 nation reactors  and as new  polyvinyl
 chloride resins are preduced to replace
 existing ones.
   Under the proposed amendment, emis-
 sions from new plants would be consider-
 ably lower than they would be under the
 current standard.  For  a  typical new
 average-sized  ethylene dichlorlde-vlnyl
 chloride  plant (318x10" kg/yr or  700
 XlO" Ib/yr produced), the hourly emis-
 sions would  be 5.1 kg (11.5  Ib) instead
 of 10.3 kg (23.1  Ib). For a typical new
 average-sized dispersion polyvlnyl chlo-
 ride plant  (46x10'  kg/yr or  100x10*
 Ib/yr production),.the emissions would
 be about 9 kg/hr (20 Ib/hr)  Instead of
 17.5 kg/hr (39 Ib/hr) and for a typical
 new average-sized  suspension  polyvlnyl
 chloride (68x10' kg/yr or 150x10' Ib/yr
 production) the emissions would be 13.5
 kg/hr)   (30 Ib/hr)  instead of  16 kg/hr
 (36 Ib/hr). These  emissions are calcu-
 lated based on the emission factors pub-
 lished In the documentation  for the ex-
 isting standard. (1) Ambient air concen-
 trations  are  expected to  be  reduced
 proportionately.
   The only negative  environmental im-
 pact would be an increase in hydrogen
 chloride emissions  at ethylene dichlo-
 rlde-vlnyl chloride plants if incineration
 were used to control emissions from new
 oxychlorination reactors. However, due
 to  the corrosion  problems  which would
 otherwise occur on plant property and
 in  the community,  plants  are expected
 to use scrubbers to control the hydrogen
 chloride emissions. The proposed amend-
 ment is  not expected to have a signifi-
 cant impact on energy consumption.

           ECONOMIC  IMPACT

   The potential economic impacts of the
 proposed standard are:
   (1) Costs for  research and develop-
 ment of Improved methodology for oper-
 ation of existing control technology so
 that it can be used to meet  the 5 ppm
 emission limit.
   (2) Costs for research and  develop-
 ment of improved stripping  techniques
 to meet the standard for new polyvinyl
 chloride resins.
   (3) Cost of research and development
 or licensing for converting over to the
 oxygen system for a new oxychlorinatiou
 reactor.
   (4) Possibly'increased transportation
 costs of raw  materials In the case that
 the offset policy results in the construc-
 tion of a new plant farther from  an
 existing  plant  than it otherwise would
have been.
  (5) Costs of building a new plant more
than 8 km from an  existing plant In the
event that the offset requirement pre-
 cluded  the  expansion  of  an  existing
 plant.
                               HMtAl MOUTH, VOi. 42, NO. 106—TMUISOAY, JUNI 1, 1*77
                                                      HI-133
-------
                                                   PROPOSED RULES
     (0) Delay In the production of a par-
  ticular resin due to .time spent develop-
  ing stripping technology for that resin.
     (7) No growth In the production of a
  particular resin due to the inability to
  strip that resin to required levels.
    The  types  of costs which have been
  named would be difficult to quantify. The
  costs would be expected to vary consider-
  ably from one plant to another depend-
  ing on the amount of research and de-
  velopment than had already been done,
  the extent to which technology could be
  transferred from other plants and proc-
  esses, and the plans for new construction.
    One area In which cost estimates can
  be generated  is the use of an oxygen-
  recycle oxychlorination process  as op-
  posed to  an air-based system. The pro-
  posed amendment does not require the
  use of  the oxygen-recycle  system, but
  many plants would be  expected  to em-
  ploy this  system to avoid the high costs
  of  Incinerating  the  hi£h  volume gas
  stream from a typical air-based system.
  The primary cost of using  the ox-^en-
  recycle system is the cost of the  oxygen
  Itself. The cost of the oxygen for a par-
  ticular plant would depend on whether
  the plant was located where there is  a
 considerable demand for both the  oxygen
 and nitrogen products of air separation.
 According to one recent article,  if it is
 assumed that such a demand exists, the
 cost of  the  oxygen ($14.34/ton)  would
 be approximately equivalent to the cost
 of  compressing  air for  use  in the air-
 based system.  (1)  Another report in
 which this assumption was not made and
 the economics of the air and oxygen sys-
 tems were being compared,  It was con-
 cluded that overall production economics
 "favor the oxygen process even If vent
 gas incineration would not  be required
 lor  an air-based plant since the cum of
 all  remaining  advantages  offered  by
 oxygen-based plant operation more than
 outweighs  the incremental cost for the
 oxygen feed." (2)
  Miscellaneous: The Administrator In-
 vites comments on all aspects of the pro-
 posed amendments.
                  (3) "Qoodrlch Reports Impressive Progress
                In Solving Vinyl Chloride Problem," Ameri-
                can Paint and Coatings Journal, Vol. 60, No.
                31, January 12, 1976, p. 24.
                  (3) E, w. Wlmer and R. E. Feathers, "Ox-
                ygen Gives Low  Cost  VCM,"  Hydrocarbon
                Processing, March 1976, pp. 81-64.
                  (4)  Peter  Reich,  "Air  or  Oxygen  For
                VCM?,"  Hydrocarbon  Processing,  March,
                1076, pp. 85-8&.

                  It is proposed  that Subpart P  of 40
                CFB Part 61 be amended as follows:
                  l. In § 61.08, paragraph (b)  is revised
                to read as follows:

                § 61.08   Approval by llic Administrator.
                  (b)  If the Administrator determines
                that a stationary source for which an
                application pursuant to § 61.07 Was sub-
                mitted will  not,  if  properly  operated,
                cause  emissions  in  violation of  the
                standard or  violation of § 61.73, he will
                approve the construction or modification
                of such source.
                 2. Section  61.62
               follows:
                                                             .evised to read as
 (Section 112 of the Clean Air Act sec. 4 (a) of
 Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1385 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-
 7) and section 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act
 sec. 2 of Pub. L. No. 90-148, 84 Sjat. 604 as
 amended by sec. (15) (c) (2) of Pub. L. 91-604,
 84 Stat. 1713 (42  U.8.C.  1867  g(a)). Sees.
 61.67 and 61.68 also proposed under the au-
 thority of section 114 of the Clean Air Act,
 as added by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 01-604, 84
Stat. 1687 and amended by Pub. L. 93-319
 sec.  6(a)(4),  88   ~
                § 61.62  Emissic..   aiidurd for ethylene
                    di -liloride plants.

                 An owner t.f o.   *x3r of an ethylene
               dichloride plant  s.     comply with the
               requirements of thk section and 5 61.65.
                 (a) Ethylene dichloride purification:
               Except  as  provided in  §61.65(a),  the
               concentration of vinyl chloride  in all
               exhaust gases discharged to the atmos-
               phere  from  any equipment used  In
               ethylene dichloride  purification is  not
               to exceed the appropriate emission limit
               as follows:
                 (1)  Each source for which  construc-
               tion had commenced on or before  (date
               of proposal of  these amendments), 10
               ppm until (date three  years after pro-
               mulgation of these  amendments)  and
               5 ppm after (date three years after the
               promulgation of these amendments).
                 (2) Each source for  which construc-
               tion commenced  after  June  2, 1977, 5
               ppm.
                 (b)  Oxychlorination  reactor: Except
               as provided In  5 61.65(a), emissions of
               vinyl chloride to the  atmosphere  are
               not to exceed the appropriate emission
               limit as  follows:
                (1) Each  source for which construc-
               tion  had commenced  on or before  (date
               of proposal  of these  amendments), 0.2
               g/kg  (0.0002 Ib/lb of the 100 percent
               ethylene dichloride  product  from  the
              oxychlorination reactor.
                (2) Each  source for which construc-
       	      Stat.  256  (42  U.S.C.
18570-9).)

  NOT*,—The   Environmental   Protection  tlon commenced after June 2, 1977, 5
Agency has determined that this document  PP111
^ff.apt^nt'iaftJMjOT proper requiring     (c> The requirements of this section
                                              apply to equipment that has been
                                       opened, is out of operation and met the
under Executive Orders
OMB Circular A-107.
and 11949 and

  Dated: May 27, 1977.

               DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                      Administrator.
              Rzmxvcxs
  (1) Standard Support and Environmental
     LfiSf*^*-' *"»*»»*<»» Standard  for
     Chloride, EPA-480 1»-7WX», October,
              requirement In  5 6l.6P(b) (6) (1)
              being opened.
                                                                       before
                3. Section 61.63 is revised to read as
              follows:

              § 61.63  Emission   standard  for  Vinyl
                  chloride planU.

                An owner or operator of a vinyl chlo-
              ride plant shall comply with the require-
              ments of this section and { 61.85.
     (a) Vinyl chloride formation and pu-
   rification:   Except  as   provided  in
   §61.65(a), 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 the appro-
   priate emission limit as follows:
     (1) Each source, for which construc-
   tion had commenced on or before June 2,
   1977, 10 ppm until (date three years af-
   ter promulgation of these amendments)
   and 5 ppm after (date three years  after
   promulgation of these amendments).
    (2) Each source for  which construc-
   tion commenced after  June 2, 1977,  5
   ppm.
    (b) The  requirements of this section
   do not apply to equipment that has been
   opened, is out of operation,  and met the
   requirement in f  61.65(b) (6) (i) before
   being opened.
    1. Section 61.64  is amended by revis-
   ing paragraphs (a)(l), (b),  (c),  (d) and
   (e)  and by adding paragraph (f) as fol-
   lows:

   § 61.64   Emission  standard for poiyvinyl
       chloride plants.
    An owner or operator of a polyvinyl
  chloride plant shall comply with the re-
  quirements of this section and § 61.65.
    (a) * iactor:  The following  require-
  ments ,>.pply to reactors:
    (1) Except as provided in paragraph
   (a) (2) of this section and § 61.65(a), the
  concentration of vinyl chloride in all ex-
  haust gasas discharged to  the  atmos-
  phere from each reactor is not to exceed
 •the  appropriate emission  limit  as  fol-
  lows:
    (i) Each source for which construction
  had commenced on  or before June 2,1977
  10 ppm until (date 1 'ire? years after pro-
  mulgation of these amendments) and 5
 ppm  after (date three years after pro-
 mulgation  of these amendments).
    (ii)  Each  source for which construc-
 tion commenced after June 2,   1977,  5
 PPm.
     *       *      *       •       *
    (b)  Stripper: Except  as provided in
 §61.65(a),  the  concentration of vinyl
 chloride in all exhaust gases  discharged
 to the atmosphere, from each stripper is
 not to exceed the appropriate emission
 limit as follows:
   (1)  Each  source for which construc-
 tion had commenced on  or before June
 2, 1977 10 ppm until (date three years
 after  promulgation  of 'these  amend-
 ments) and  5 ppm after (date three
 years  after final promulgation of these
 amendments).
   (2) Each source for which construction
 commenced after June 2, 1977, 5 ppm.
   (c)  Mixing, weighting, and  holding
 containers:  Except as provided In i 81 ••
 65(a), the concentration  of vinyl chlo-
 ride in all exhaust gases discharged to
 the atmosphere from each mixing, weigh-
 ing, or holding container In vinyl chlo-
 ride service which precedes the stripper
 (or the reactor If the plant has no strip-
 per) in the plant process flow is'not to
 exceed the appropriate emission limit as
 follows:
   (1)  Each source, for which  construc-
tion had commenced on or before  
-------
                                                  PROPOSED RUIES
 of proposal  of these  amendments),  10
 ppm until (date three years after pro-
 mulgation of these amendments) and 5
 ppm after (date three years after pro-
 mulgation of these amendments).
   (2)  Each source for which construc-
 tion  commenced after June 2, 1977, 5
 ppm.
   (d)  Monomer recovery system. Except
 as provided In  § 61.65(a), the concentra-
 tion of vinyl chloride in all exhaust gases
 discharged to the atmosphere from each
 monomer recovery system is not to ex-
 ceed  the appropriate  concentration  as
 follows:
   (1)  Each ..ource for which construc-
 tion had commenced on or before (date
 of proposal of these amendments),  10
 ppm until (date three  years after pro-
 mulgation of these amendments) and 5
 ppm after (date three  years after pro-
 mulgation of these amendments).
   (2)  Each source for  which construc-
 tion commenced after  June 2,  1977,  5
 ppm.
   (e)  Sources following the stripper(s):
 The  following  requirements  apply  to
 emissions of vinyl chloride to the atmos-
 phere  from  the  combination  of  all
 sources following the stripper(s) [or the
 reactor(s) If  the plant has no stripper]
 in the plant process flow including, but
 not limited,  to centrifuges, concentra-
 tors, blend tanks, niters, dryers, conveyor
 air discharges, baggers,  storage con-
 tainers, and inprocess wastewater.
   (1)  In polyvinyl chloride plants using
 stripping  technology to  control  vinyl
 chloride emissions:
   (1)  For a grade or grades of polyvinyl
 chloride resin which have been produced
 by the plant  on or before June  2, 1977,
 the  weighted  average residual  vinyl
chloride concentration In all the grades
Processed through the stripping opera-
tion on each calendar day, measured im-
mediately after the stripping operation
Is completed,  may not exceed the appro-
priate emission limit as follows:
  (A)  2,000 ppm for polyvinyl chloride
 dispersion resins, excluding latex resins;
  (B)  400 ppm for all other polyvinyl
 chloride  resins, including latex resins,
averaged  separately for each  type  of
resin;
  (11)  For a grade or grades of polyvinyl
 chloride resin which have not been pro-
duced  by the plant on or before  June  2,
 1977,   the  weighted  average  residual
vinyl  chloride concentration in  all the
grades processed through  the stripping
operation on  each calendar day, meas-
ured immediately after the stripping op-
 eration is completed, may not exceed the
 appropriate emission limit as follows:
   (A)  500 ppm for polyvinyl chloride
 dispersion resins, excluding latex resins;
   (B)  100 ppm for all other polyvinyl
 chloride  resins, Including  latex resins,
 averaged  separately for each  type  of
 resin;  or
   (2)  In polyvinyl chloride plants con-
 trolling vinyl  chloride emissions with
 technology, other than stripping or In
 addition  to stripping:
   (i)  For sources being used to process
 a grade or grades of polyvinyl chloride
 resin all of which had been produced by
 the plant on or before June 2,1977:
   (A) 2 g/kg  (0.003 Ib/lb)  product from
 the strlpper(s)   [or  reactor(s)  if  the
 plant has no stripper(s) ] for dispersion
 polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding latex
 resins, with the product determined on
 a dry solids basis;
   (B) 0.4  g/kg  (0.004  Ib/lb)  product
 from the stripper(s)  (or  reactor(s) if
 the plant has no  stripper (s)) for all
 other polyvinyl chloride resins. Including
 latex  resins,  with  the  product  deter-
 mined on a dry solids basis.
   (11)  For sources being used to process
 any grade of polyvinyl chloride resin not
 produced by the plant on or before June
 2,  1977:
   (A)  0.5  g/kg (0.0005  Ib/lb) product
 from the stripper(s) (orreactor(s) if the
 plant has no stripper(s)) for dispersion
 polyvinyl chloride resins, excluding la-
 tex resins, with the product determined
 on a  dry solids basis;
   (B)  0.1  g/kg.  (0.0001  Ib/lb) product
 from  the strippers  (or reactor(s)  If  the
 plant has no  stripper(s))  for all other
 polyvinyl  chloride  resins,   Including
 latex  resins,  with  the product  deter-
 mined on a dry solids basis.
   (f)  The requirements of paragraphs
 (b), (c), and  (d) of this section do not
 apply  to  equipment that  has  been
 opened, Is out of operation, and met  the
 requirement In  S 61.65(b) (6) (i)  before
 being opened.
   6. Section 61.65 is amended as follows:
   A. By replacing the phrase "10 ppm"
 with the phrase "the appropriate emis-
 sion  limit specified  In  J  61.65 (c)" in
 paragraphs (b) (1)01), (b)(2), (b)(3)
 (1), (b)(3)(li). (b)(3)(ili), (b)(3)(iv),
 (bHSHv), (b)(5),  (b)(6)(il),  and  (b)
 (9) (11);
   B. By revising paragraph  (c) and add-
 ing paragraph (d)  as set  forth  below.

 § 61.65  Emission standard for elhylene
    didiloride, vinyl chloride, and poly-
    vinyl chloride plants.
    *      •       *      •      *
   (c)  The emission limit which  is not
 to be exceeded Is as  follows:  (1)  Each
 source, for which  construction had com-
menced on or before June 2,  1977, 10
ppm until  (date three years after pro-
 mulgation of  these amendments)  and
 5 ppm after (date three years after pro-
 mulgation of these amendments).
   (2)  Each source  for which construc-
tion commenced  after June 2, 1977, 5
 ppm.
   (d) The requirements in paragraphs
 (b)(l). (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b) (7)
 and (b) (8) of this section are to  be  in-
 corporated into a  standard operating
 procedure, and made  available upon  re-
 quest for Inspection by the Administra-
 tor. The standard  operating procedure
is to  Include  provisions  for  measuring
 the vinyl chloride  in equipment  ££4.75
 m* (1250 gal)  in volume for which  an
 emission limit is prescribed in J 61.65
 (b) (6) (i)  prior to  opening the equip-
 ment and using Test Method 106, a port-
 able hydrocarbon detector,  or an  equiv-
 alent  or alternative methol. The  meth-
 od of measurement is  to meet the re-
 quirements  In  561.67(g)(5)(i)(A)  or
 (g)(5)(l)(B).
   6. In S 61.67, paragraph (a) is revised
 to read as follows:

 g 61.67  Emission tests.
   (a)  Unless a waiver of emission test-
 Ing is obtained under { 61.13, the owner
 or operator  of a  source to  which this
 subpart applies  shall  test  emissions
 from the source as follows:
   (1)  For an existing source or a new
 source which has an Initial startup date
 preceding October 21,1976:
   (i) Within 90 days following October
 21, 1976, and
   (11)   For  those  sources   subject  to
 §561.62(a); 61.63(a); 61.64  (a)(l), (b),
 (c), and (d);  and/or 61.65(b)(l), (b)
 (2), (b)(3),  (b)(5), (b)(6), and/or (b)
 (9), within 90 days following (date three
 years  after  the  promulgation date  of
 these amendments).
   (2) For a new source for which initial
 startup occurs after October 21. 1976,
 within 90 days of startup.
    •      •     •      *      •
   7. In 5 61.68, paragraph (c) is revised
 to read as follows:
 § 61.68  Emission monitoring.
    *      *     *      •      *
   (c) A daily span check is to be con-
 ducted for each vinyl chloride monitor-
 Ing system used. For all of the sources
 listed in paragraph  (a)  of this section.
 except for the one for which an emission
 limit is prescribed in { 61.62(b) (1), the
 dally span check Is to be conducted with
 a concentration of vinyl chloride equal to
 the concentration emission  limit appli-
 cable to it. For a source subject  to the
 emission limit  prescribed in ! 61.62 (b)
 (1),  the daily span check is to be con-
 ducted 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 8 61.67. The calibration is to be
 done with either:
    «      *      •      •      *
  8. A new S 61.72  is added  to read as
 follows;

 § 61.72  Request  for interim emission
    limit.
   (a) If in the opinion of the owner or
 operator of  an  existing source, that
 source will be unable to comply with the
 5 ppm emission limit hi  it 61.62(a) (1);
 61.63(a)(l);  61.64  (a)(l)(i),  (b)(l).
 (c)(l), (d)(l);  and/or  61.65(0(1)  on
 or before (date three  years  after pro-
 mulgation of these  amendments), the
 owner or operator of that source may re-
 quest that the Adminstrator approve an
 interim emission  limit for  that source.
 The request is to be in writing and is to
 be submitted to the Administrator within
 six months prior to (date two years after
 promulgation of  these  amendments).
 The request is to Include:
   (1) The reasons  the source is  in-
 capable of being in compliance with the
 5 ppm emission limit and data to support
those reasons, and
                               HMIAl MOifTU. VOL. 42, NO.  106—THUMOAY, JUNI 9, 1*77


                                                        III-135
-------
                                                   PROPOSED RUlf S
    (2)  A suggested interim emission Umlt
  and description of the methodology for
  attaining that limit
    (b)  Any owner or operator of a source
  who has submitted to the Administrator
  a written request for  an Interim  emis-
  sion limit in accordance with & 61.72(a),
  shall within 60 days of the date of the
  written request  meet with the Admin-
  istrator concerning the information con-
  tained in the request. The meeting is to
  be open to  Interested  persons, who  are
  to be allowed to submit oral or written
  testimony relevant to compliance of the
  source.
    (c) The Administrator will within 120
  days of  receipt  of the written request
  required by paragraph  (a) of  this sec-
  tion, notify the owner or operator  in
  writing of approval or denial of approval
  of an Interim emission  limit.
    (d) If an interlnl emission limit is ap-
 proved the notification is  to include the
 level of the interim emission limit, which
 may be the level  requested or a  more
 stringent one.
   (e)  A determination  to deny  approval
 of an  interim emission limit is to  set
 forth the specific grounds on which such
 denial is based.
   (f) Approval for any interim  emission
 limit  granted for any source under
 i 61.72 (c) shall expire three years  from
 the date of issuance. The owner or op-
 erator may request an  extension of ap-
 proval for an Interim emission limit or a
 lower  Interim  emission limit.  The re-
 quest is to be  in writing,  is to be sub-
 mitted within six months prior to a year
 before the expiration date and  is to In-
 clude the Information  listed  in { 61.72
 (b), (c),  (d), and (e) are  to apply.
   0. A new { 61.73 Is added  to  read as
 follows:
 § 61.73  Offset of emiiuion* due to new
     coiutruction.
   (a) No owner or  operator is  to  con-
 struct a new source which alone or  in
 combination with other sources-being
 constructed at  the same time results  in
 an increased production rate  unless he
 demonstrates to the Administrator's sat-
 isfaction that such construction  will not
 cause an increase in vinyl chloride emis-
 sions within  8  km of any  other source
 which is subject to this subpart.
   (b) Reduction in production  rate  is
 an allowable mechanism for attaining an
 offset in emissions.
   (c) The baseline emission rate is to be
 determined based on the level of emis-
 sions allowable by the standard.
   (d) Reducing emissions  from  an in-
 terim emission limit to the standard for a
 source is  not an acceptable  means of
 achieving an emission offset.
   (e) in the application for approval of
construction required by {61.07.  owners
or operators  of sources subject  to  this
subpart shall include, in addition to the
 Information required by | 61.07, the fol-
lowing information:
   (1) The name,  address, and location
 ofwtf Plant subject  to this subpart
which is located within 8 km of the pro-
posecMlocation of the source to be con-
  (f) The emission limits applicable to
both the new source(s) andthesource(s)
at which emissions are being reduced to
balance the Increase in emissions due to
the  new construction are to  be estab-
lished by the Administrator In the ap-
proval  for construction required  by
! 61.08.
(Sees. 112 and 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act.
see. 4(a) of Pub. L. No. 01-604, 84 Stat. 1883;
MC. 3 of Pub. L. No. 00-148, 81 Stat. 604 (42
UJS.C. 1856C-7,  1867g(a)).  Sees. 61.67 Mid
61.68 also lasuM under sec.  114 of the Clean
Air Act,  see 4(a)  of Pub. L. No. 01-604, 84
Stat, 1687 (43 V.S.C..1B67C-0).}
  [PR Doc.77-16572 Mled 6-1-77:8:46 am]
   FtDRAL IIOISTIft, VOI.-42. NO. 106-

       —THUtSDAY. JUNI 2, 1977
                                                            III-136
-------
       SUMMARY TABLES OF MONITORING INFORM

Table ff                Subject
   1        NSPS Cource Categories Require
            to Continuously Monitor
   2        Operational Monitoring Require
   3        Emission Limitations
   4        Proposal and Promulgation Date
            NSPS Source Categories
   5        NSPS Continuous Monitoring
            Requirements
   6        Quarterly Reporting Requiremen
   7        Definitions of Excess Emissior
   8        Spanning and Zeroing
   9        Span Specifications
   10       Notifications Requirements
   11       Specification Requirements
   12       Performance Specifications
   13       When to Run Monitor Performant
   14       Requirements for SIP Revision*
   15       Existing Sources Required to
            Continuously Monitor Emission*
   16       NESHAP Monitoring Requirement*
            for Vinyl Chloride Sources
                     Hl-137
-------
                               Table #1
        NSPS  SOURCE  CATEGORIES  REQUIRED TO
SUBPART         SOURCE  CATEGORY
                                   CONTINUOUSLY  MONITOR

                                    CONTINUOUS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

                                   POLLUTANT (section) PROCESS (section)
   G

   H

   J
T,U,V,W,X
   T
   U
   V
   W

   X
   Y
STEAM GENERATORS
Solid fossil fuel  or solid fossil
fuel and wood residue

Liquid fossil fuel or liquid
fossil fuel and wood residue

Gaseous fossil fuel or gaseous
fossil fuel and wood residue
Combination of fossil fuels or
combinations of fossil fuels and
wood residue

NITRIC ACID PLANTS

SULFURIC ACID PLANTS

PETROLEUM REFINERIES


PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS


PRIMARY ZINC SMELTERS


PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS


PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PLANTS
Wet process phosphoric acid
Superphosphoric acid
D1ammonium phosphate
Triple  superphosphate
Granular triple superphosphate
COAL  PREPARATION PLANTS
                                Tti-158
opacity (60.45a)
SO, (60.45b)
 )jj (60.45c)
opacity (60.45a)
S09 (60.45b)
NO* (60.45c)

NOX (60.45c)

opacity (60.45a)
S02 (60.45b)
NO* (60.45c)

NOY (60.73a)
  /\
S02 (60.84a)

opacity (60.105a)
S02 or H2S (60.105a)

opacity (60.165a)
S02 (60.165b)

opacity (60.175a)
S02 (60.175a)

opacity (60.185a)
S02 (60J85a)
                                                                    or C02 (60.45d)


                                                                 02 or C02 (60.45d)


                                                                 0£ or C02 (60.45d)

                                                                 00 or CO, (60.45d)
                    Total pressure
                    across process
                    scrubbing system

                    (60.203c)
                    (60.213c)
                    (60.223c)
                    (60.233c)
                    (60.243C)
                    exit gas'
                    (60.253a)
                    pressure loss
                    through ventun
                    (60.253a)
                                                                  water supply
                                                                  sure to control  d
                                                                  equipment (ou.f
-------
                          Table #1, continued
SUBPART
        SOURCE  CATEGORY
 CONTINUOUS M3NITORING REQUIREMENTS

POLLUTANT (section)  PROCESS (section)
AA
         FERRORALLOY  PRODUCTION FACILITIES
STEEL PLANTS
                      Hl-139
                                   opacity (60.264a)
opacity  (60.273a)
flowrate through
hood (60.265c)
furnace  power
input 60.265 (b)

volumetric  flow
rate through each
separately  ducted
hood (60. 274b)

pressure in the
free space  inside
the electric arc
furnace (60.274e)
-------
                          Table #2

            OPERATIONAL MONITORING REQUIREMENTS  (NSPS)

                      (Non-continuous)
     Subpart
     Requirement
E.  Incinerators
F.  Portland Cement
    Plants

G,  Nitric Acid Plants
H.  Sulfuric Acid Plants
J,  Petroleum Refineries
K.  Storage Vessels for
    Petroleum Liquids
Daily charging rates and hours
of operation.

Daily production rates and kiln
feed rates,

Daily production rate and hours
of operation.

The cpnvers-jon factor shall be
determined, as a minimum, three
times daily by measuring the
concentration of sulfur dipxide
entering the converter.

Record daily the average coke
burn-off rate an4 hours of
operation for any fluid catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerate*
subject to the particulate or
carbon monoxide standard.
Maintain a file of eaqh type
petroleum liquid stored and 1
dates of storage.  Show when
storage vessel is empty.
Determine and record the average
monthly stprage temperature and
true vapor pressure of the pe-
troleum liquid stored if ;
Cl) the petroleum liquid, as
stored, ha.s a vapor pressure
greater than 26 mm Hg but less
78 mm and is stored in a stprajs*
vessel other than one equipped
with a floating ropf, a vapor
recovery system or thfi*" eQW^8'
       or        '              tftf
               other than one
                                   storage vesse
                                   ecpippsd with
                                   sy§tfi er  its equivalent
-------
Table #z continued
     Subpart
                                    Requirement
0.
Sewage Treatment
Plants
    Primary Copper
    Smelter
    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
                        III-141
Install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a flow measuring
device which can be used to
determine either the mass or
volume of sludge charged to the
incinerator.

Keep a monthly record of the
total smelter charge and the
weight percent (dry basis) of
arsenic, antimony, lead, and
zinc contained in this charge.

Determine daily, the weight of
aluminum and anode produced.
Maintain a record of daily
production rates of aluminum
and anodes, raw material feed
rates, and cell or potline
voltages.

Determine the mass flow of
phosphorus -bear ing feed
material to the process.
Maintain a daily record of
equivalent ?®
                               Determine the mass flow of
                               phosphorus -bear ing feed material
                               to the process.
                               Record daily the equivalent
                               P205 feed.

                               Determine the mass flow of
                               phosphorus-bearing feed material
                               to the process.
                               Maintain a daily record of
                               equivalent P2°5 feed.

                               Determine the mass flow of
                               phosphorus-bearing feed material
                               to the process.
                               Maintain a daily record of
                               equivalent P205 feed.

                               Maintain an accurate account
                               of triple superphosphate in
                               storage.
                               Maintain a daily record of
                               total equivalent P^Oc  stored.
-------
 Table #2 continued
      Subpart
     Requirement
 Z.  Ferroalloy Production
     Facilities
AA.  Steel Plants:
     Electric Arc Furnaces
                     III-142
Maintain daily records of  (1)
the product; (2) description
of constituents of furnace
charge, including the quantity,
by weight;  (3) the time and
duration of each tapping period
and the identification of
material tapped (slag or product)*
(4) all furnace power input
data; and (5) all flow rate data
or all fan motor power consump-
tion and pressure drop data.

Maintain daily records of  (1)
the time and duration of each
charge;  (2) the time and
duration of each tap;  (3)
all flow rate data, and (4)
all pressure data.
-------
                          Table  #.3

                     EMISSION  LIMITATIONS  (NSPS)
SUBPART
                      POLLUTANT
   EMISSION  LEVELS
   D
Fossil Fuel-Fired
Steam Generators

   Liquid fossil
   fuel
         Solid fossil
         fuel
         Gaseous fossil
         fuel
         Mixture of
         fossil fuel
                            Particulate


                            Opacity

                            so
                      Particulate
                            Opacity
                            SO
*x = percentage of total
 y » percentage of total
 z » percentage of total
                      Particulate


                      Opacity

                      NOY
                        A


                      Particulate


                      Opacity

                      S02

                      NOX


                   heat  input from
                   heat  input from
                   heat  input from
    43 ng/joule.
    (0.10 lb/10°BTU)

    20%, 401   2 min/hr

    340 ng/joule
    (0.80 lb/10°BTU)

    130 ng/joule
    (0.30 lb/10°BTU)

    43 ng/joulefi
    (0.10 lb/10°BTU)

    20%, 40%   2 min/hr

    520 ng/joule
    (1.2 lb/10°BTU)

    300 ng/joule
    (0.70 lb/10°BTU)

    43 ng/joule,
    (0.10 lb/10° BTU)

    20%, 40%   2 min/hr

    86 ng/joule,.
    (0.20 lb/10b BTU)

   43 ng/jouleft
    (0.10 lb/10°BTU)

   20%, 40%   2 min/hr

   y(340)  + z(520) *
        y * z
   x(86)  + y(130) •»• z(300)
       x + y + z

gaseous fossil fuel
liquid fossil fuel
solid fossil fuel
                         III- 14.3
-------
Table #"3>  continued
SUBPART

   E  Incinerators
   F  Portland Cement
      Plants

         Kiln
         Clinker cooler
         Other emission
         points

      Hortrpfc- /tebfe Plants
   H;  Sulfuric Acid'
      Plants^
   I   Asphalt Concrete
      Plants
   J  Petroleum
      Refineries

         Catalytic
         cracker
                             POLLUTANT

                             Particulate-
Particulate


Opacity

Particulate



opacity

Opacity


NOV
Opacity

SO;,
      mist



PaTtilcuOiate


Opacity
Participate
                 EMISSION LEVELS
                                                       J to.- 112* C02)
                                             0.15, kg/metric ton
                                             CO.,50 Ib/ton)

                                             10%

                                             0.05 kg/metric ton
                                             of feed;
                                             (0.10 Ib/ton)

                                             20%

                                             10%
                                             1.5  kg/metric tons
                                             of acid produced
                                             C3.,0 l>b/tom of arid
                                             produced)

                                             10%

                                             2  kg/metric tons
                                             of acid produced.
                                             C4i.,0 1'b/ton of
                                             acid produced!)\

                                             0.075 kg/metric tons
                                             of acid produced
                                             (0.15 lb/ton>

                                             90 mg/dscm
                                             (fO.041 gr/dscf)'

                                             20%
                                            exemtion)
-------
Table #3,  continued
SUBPART
   K  Storage Vessels
      for Petroleum
      Liquids
   L  Secondary Lead
      Smelters

         Reverberatory
         and blast
         furnaces
         Pot furnaces

   M  Secondary Brass
      and Bronze Plants

         Reverberatory
         furnaces
         Blast and elec-
         tric furnaces

   N  Iron and Steel
      Plants

   0  Sewage Treatment
      Plants
   P  Primary Copper
      Smelters

         Dryer
POLLUTANT


CO

Hydrocarbons
Particulate



Opacity

Opacity




Particulate


Opacity

Opacity


Particulate


Particulate


Opacity




Particulate
                                            EMISSION LEVELS
0.05%

If vapor pressure is
78-570 mm Hg the stor-
age vessel shall be
equipped with a float-
ing roof or a vapor
recovery system or thin
equivalents.  If vapor
pressure is greater than
570 mm Hg, the storage
vessel shall be equipped
with a vapor recovery
system
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)
20%

10%
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)

20%

10%
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)

0.65 g/kg dry sludge
input (1.30 lb/ton)

20%
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)
                       TTT-145
-------
Table # 3, continued

SUBPART
         Roaster, smelting
         furnace, copper
         converter
 POLLUTANT

 Opacity

 SO,,
                            Opacity

   Q  Primary Zinc Smelters

         Sintering machine  Particulate
         Roaster
   R  Primary Lead Smelters

         Blast or rever-
         beratory furnace,
         sintering ma-
         chine discharge
         end
         Sintering ma-
         chine,  electric
         smelting furnace,
         converter
      Primary Aluminum
      Reduction Plants

         Soderberg
         plants
         Prebake
         plants
Opacity

S02

Opacity


Particulate
Opacity

SO-
                            Opacity
Total
fluorides
Opacity

Total
fluorides
         Anode  bake
         plants
Opacity

Total
fluorides

Opacity
EMISSION LEVELS

20%

0.065*
                 20%
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)

20%

0.0651

20%
50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf)
20%

0.065%
                20%
1 kg/metric ton of
Al produced
(2 lb/ton)

10%

0;95 kg/metric ton
of Al produced
(1.9 lb/ton)

10%

0,05 kg/metric ton
of Al produced

20%
                     III-146
-------
Table C 3, continued
SUBPART
 POLLUTANT
 EMISSION LEVELS
   T  Phosphate Ferti-
      lizer Industry:
      Wet Process
      Phosphoric Acid
      Plants

   U  Phosphate Ferti-
      lizer Industry:
      Super-phosphoric
      Acid Plants
      . -- . .1 : •
   V  Phosphate Ferti-
      lizer Industry:
      Diamraonium Phos-
      phate

   W  Phosphate Ferti-:
      lizer Industry:
      Triple Super-
      Phosphate

   X  Phosphate Ferti-
      lizer  Industry:
      Granular  Triple
      Superphosphate

   Y   Coal ^Preparation
      Plants

        Thermal dryer
 Total
 f3 uorides
        Pneumatic
        coal cleaving
        equipment
        Processing and
        conveying equip-
        ment,  storage
        systems,  trans-
        fer and loading
        systems
 Total
 fluorides
 Total
 fluorides
 Total
 fluorides
 Total
 fluorides
Particulate


Opacity

Particulate



Opacity

Opacity
 10 g/metric ton of
 P?0r feed
 (0.020 Ib/ton)
 5 g/metric ton of
 P20r  feed
 CO.020 Ib/ton)
 30  g/metric ton of
 P20r  feed
 (0.060  Ib/ton)
 100  g/metric  ton  of
 equivalent  P,0C feed
 (0.20  Ib/ton?  5
0.25 g/hr/metric  ton
of equivalent  P~0C
stored     .     L  b
(5.0 x 10"4 Ib/hr/ton)
0.070 g/dscm
(0.031 gr/dscf)

20%

0.040 'g/dscm
(0.031 gr/dscf)
10*

20%
                        'IIT-T47
-------
SUBPAftf
• f . r., f*«rr*


   z
Electric
merged arc
furnaces
furnaces
                            Particulate
                            Participate


                            Opacity

                            Opacity
                                             LEVELS
0,45
(0,99
(high
alloys)
0,23 kg/MW-hr
(0.§J Jb/MW-hr)
(chyonje ^nd man-
ganese alloys)
opacity
CP
Opacity
15%
201
10*
12 jng/dscm
(O.QflSZ gr/4scf>

SI

0, except!;
3Q| - charging
40% ••

101
-------
                                Table  #  4
        PROPOSAL AND PROMULGATION DATES FOR NSPS SOURCE CATEGORIES
Subpart
Source
Promulgation
   Date
Proposed Dare
D
E
F
G
H
I

J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
TUVW3
Z
AA

f . . . ,,. 	 	
Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators
Incinerators
Portland Cement Plants
•
! Nitric Acid Plants
: Sulfuric Acid Plants
•
Asphalt Concrete Plants
i
Petroleum Refineries
.
Storage Vessels, for Petroleum
! Liquids ,,
Secondary Lead Smelters
Brass and Bronze Production Plants
Iron and Steel Plants
Sewage Treatment Plants
Primary Copper Smelter
Primary Zinc Smelter
Primary Lead Smelter
Primary Aluminum .Reduction Plants
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
Coal Preparation Plants -i;
. :•••:..:,••• •}•'.-. y •;• .*;:: ,,.••..-. < ';
Ferroalloy Production Facilities
'
Steel Plants: Electric Arc
Furnaces

~1 2/2 3/71 "'
12/23/71
12/23/71
12/23/71
12/23/71
3/8/74

3/8/74
3/8/74
3/8/7,4
, 3/8/74
J»... .:.» •-. ; ,. ...j.,.. ,.. 	 ,„.
3/8/74 :•
3/8/74
1/15/76
1/15/76
.
1/15/76
1/26/76
•
8/6/7S
- 1/15/76- ,
." •'-. •<*•••> --. •;
5/4/76
.
9/23/75

8/17/71
8/17/71
8/17/71
8/17/71
8/17/71
6/11/73

6/11/73
6/11/73
6/11/73
"
! 6/11/73
6/11/73
6/11/73
10/16/74
10/16/74
10/16/74
10/23/74
10/22/74
,; .10/24/74
10/21/74
10/21/74

                            111-149
-------
                             Table #5
                CONTINUOUS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS



'•'-1!.   Installed and-operational  prior to conducting performance tests


  II.   Conduct monitoring  system  performance evaluations during per*-
       formance  tests  or 30  days  thereafter (for specification
       requirements, see Table  #11)

 III.   Check  zero and  span drift  at least daily (see Table #8)

  IV.   Time for  cycle  of operations (sampling,  analyzing,  .and data
       recording)
       A.  Opacity - 10 seconds
       B.  Gas Monitors -  15 minutes

  V.   Installed to provide  representative sampling

  VI.   Reduction  of data
       A.  Opacity - 6-minute  average
       B.  Gaseous Pollutants - hourly average

VII*   Source must notify  agency,  more than 30  days  prior,  of date
      -*apon which  demonstration o£ continuous monitoring system
       performance is  to commence.
   Performance tests shall be conducted within 60 days after
   achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected
   facility will be operated, but not later than 180 days after
   initial startup of such facility.
                                 Ill-ISO
-------
                           Table *$,
               QUARTERLY REPORTING. REQUIREMENTS1'  (NSPS)
  I.  Excess Emissions
      A.  Description of Excess Emission
          1.  Magnitude
          2.  Conversion factors used
          3.  Date and time edP commencement and completion
      B.  Explanation of Excess .Emission
          1.  Occurrances during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions
          2.  Nature and cause of malfunction
          3.  Corrective and preventative action taken
      C.  To be Submitted in Units Same as Standard

 II.  Continuous Monitoring SysteFS
      A.  Date and Time when System was Inoperative (except for
          zero and span checks)
      B.  Nature of System  Repairs or Adjustments

III.  Lack of Occurrances During A Quarter
      A.  Absence of Excess Emissions during Quarter
      B.  Absence of Adjustments, Repairs, or Inoperativeness of
          Continuous Monitoring System




  "Each owner or operator required to install a continuous monitoring
   system shall submit a written report ... for every calendar quarter"

  "All quarterly reports shall be postmarked by the 30th day following
   the end of each calendar quarter..."
                                  UJ-151
-------
SUBPART

   D
   H
 POLLUTANT

 opacity
            SO
           NO,
           NO.
SO
           Opacity
           SO,
           Opacity


           so2


           Opacity
           Table #7

DEFINITION OF EXCESS EMISSIONS   (NSPS)


      EXCESS EMISSION

      any six-minute period during which the aver-
      age opacity of emissions exceeds 20% opacity,
      except that one six-minute average per hour
     ..of up to 27%  opacity need not be reported.

      any three-hour period during which the average
      emissions  of  S02  (arithmetic average of three
      contiguous one-hour periods)  exceed the
      standard

      any three-hour period during which the average
      emissions  of  NOX  (arithmetic average of three
      contiguous one-nour  periods)  exceed the
      standard

      any three-hour  period during which the  average
      nitrogen oxides emissions  (arithmetic  average
      of  three contiguous  one-hour periods)  exceed
      the  standard

      all  three  hour periods  (or  the arithmetic
      average  of  three consecutive one hour periods)
      during which  the integrated average  sulfur
      dioxide  emissions exceed the applicable
      standards

     all  one-hour periods  which contain two or more
     six-minute  periods  during which the average
     opacity exceeds 30  percent.

     any six-hour period during which the average
     emissions of SO, (arithmetic average of six
     contiguous  one-nour periods) exceed the
     standard

     any  six-minute period during which the average
     opacity exceeds the standard

     any  six-hour period during which  the average
     emissions of S02 (arithmetic mean of six con-
     tiguous one-hour periods)  exceed  the standard

     any  six minute period during which  the  average
     opacity exceeds  the  standard

     any  two hour period during which  the average
     emissions of SO, (arithmetic mean of two
     contiguous  one-Hour periods)  exceed the
     standard
                                III-152
-------
Table f 7, continued
SUBPART    POLLUTANT        EXCESS EMISSION


   R       Opacity          any six minute period during which the
                            average opacity exceeds the standard

           S07              any two hour period during which the
                            average emissions of S02 (arithmetic mean
                            of two contiguous one hour periods) exceed
                            the standard

   Z       Opacity          all six minute periods in which the average
                            opacity is 15 percent or greater

  AA       Opacity          all six minute periods during.which the
                            average opactiy is 3 percent or greater
                             III-153
-------
                              Tab-He-

                        SPAWNENff AND' JEROING

  !•   Explanations o>f Zero, aitd? Span dfcecks;
      A.   Extractive gas monitors
          I.   Span*. gas composition
              a.  S02 " sulfur dioxide/nitragem air gas mixture
             ,b.  NO - nitric oxide/'oxpg.en»free n&trogpa- ntixlraire
              c..  N02 - nitrogen dioxide/aiir mixture
          2.   Zero gases
              a.  Ambient air
           or b.  A ga's certified by the manufacturer to contain- less.
                  than 1 ppm of the pollutant gas
          3.   Analysis of span and zero gases
              a.  Span and zero gases certified by their manufacturer
                  to be traceable to National Bureau of Standards
                  reference gases shall be used whenever these gases
                  are available
              b.  Span and zero gases should be reanalyzed every
                  six months after date of manufacture with Reference
                  Method 6 for SO? and 7 for NOX
              c-  Span and zero gases shall be analyzed two weeks
                  prior to performance specification tests
      B.   Non-extractive gas monitors
          1.   Span check - certified gas cell or test cell
          2.   Zero check - mechanically produced or calculated
              from upscale measurements
      C,   TransHiissometers
        »  1.   Span cheek is a neutral density filter that is
              certified within * 3 percent opacity
          2.   Zero check is a simulated zero
      B.   Span values are specified in each subpart (see table #10}
          I.   Span  check is 90%  of span.

 II.   Adjustment of Span and Zero
      A,   Adjust the zero and span whenever the zero or calibration
          drift exceeds the limits of applicable performance
          specification in Appendix B.
          1.   For opacity, clean optical surfaces before adjusting
              zero or span drift
          2.   For opacity systems using automatic zero adjustments,
              the optical surfaces shall be cleaned when the cumu-
              lative automatic zero compensation exceeds four percent
              opacity

III.   How to  Span and Zero
      A.   Extractive gas monitors
          1.   Introduce the zero and span gas into the monitoring
              system as near the probe as practical
      B.   Non-extractive gas monitors
          1.   Use a certified gas cell or test cell to check span
          2.   The zero check is performed by computing the zero value
              from upscale measurements or by-mechanically producing
              a zero
      C.   Transmissometers
          1.    Span  check with  a  neutral  density  filter
          2,    Zero  check by simulating a zero opacity
                                III-154
-------
                               Table  # 9
                          SPAN SPECIFICATIONS
  SUBPART
  D  Fossil Fuel Fired
     Steam Generators
      liquid fossil fuel
      solid fossil fuel

      gaseous fuel
      mixtures of fossil fuels

  G  Nitric Acid Plants
  H  Sulfuric Acid Plants
  J  Petroleum Refineries
  P  Primary Copper Smelters

  Q  Primary Zinc  Smelters

  R  Primary Lead  Smelters
 Z  Ferroalloy Production
    Facilities
AA  gteel Plants
 POLLUTANT
 opacity
 S02
 NOX
 opacity
 S02
 NOV
   A.
 NOX
 opacity
 S02
 NOX
 N02
 so2
 Opacity
 S02
 Opacity
 S02
 Opacity
Opacity
S02
Opacity
Opacity
 SPAN
 80, 90, or 100% opacity
 1000 ppm
 500 ppm
 80, 90, or 100% opacity
 1500 ppm
 iooo
 500 ppm
 80,90,  or 100% opacity
 lOOOy + 1500z 1
 500 (x+y)  + lOOOz
 500 ppm
 1000 ppm
 60,70,  or  80% opacity
 100 ppm
 80  to 100%  opacity
 0.20% by volume
 80  to 100%  opacity
 0.20% by volume
 80  to 100%  opacity
 0.20% by volume
not specified
not specified
   x • fraction of total heat input from gas
   y • fraction of total heat input from liquid fossil fuel
   z » fraction of total heat input from solid fossil fuel
   Span value shall be rounded off to the nearest 500 ppm
                            ,111-155
-------
                            Table #10
                   NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS l  (NSPS)
Requirements

  I.  Date of Commencement of Construction

 II.  Anticipated Date of Initial Startup

III.  Actual Date of Initial Startup

 IV.  Any physical or operational change
      to a facility which may increase
      the emission rate of any air
      pollutant to which a standard
      applies

      A. The precise nature of. tl.e change
      B. Present and proposed emission
         control systems
      C. Productive capacity before and
         after the change
      D. Expected completion date of
         change

  V.  Date upon which demonstration of
      continuous monitoring system
      performance commences
Time Deadline

Less than 30 days after
such date
Less than 60 or more than
30 days prior to date
Within 15 days after date
Postmarked 60 days or
as soon as practical
before the change is
commenced
more than 30 days prior
  "Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
   furnish the Administrator written notification..."
                             IH-156
-------
                                Table #11

                       SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS  (NSPS)
                       Sept. 11, 1974
October 6,  1975
Before
CASE 1*
CASE 2*
CASE 3*
CASE 4
CASE 5
CASE 6
PI
P
P



After Before

I

PI
P

After Specification
Requirements


I

I
PI
None-unless re-
quested by the
administrator
None-unless re-
quested by the
administrator
Accuracy
All requirements
in Appendix B
All requirements
in Appendix B
All requirements
in Appendix B
 P - Purchased

 I - Installed


*  Cases 1,2,  and  3  shall  be upgraded or replaced with new continuous
   monitoring.systemsand  shall comply with Specification Requirements
   fn Appendix B by  September 11, 1979
                            III-157
-------
                        Table  riz
                PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
                  TRANSMISSOMETERS
Calibration error
Zero drift (24h)
Calibration drift  (24h)
Response time
Operational test period
£ 3 pet opacity
£ 2 pet opacity
£ 2 pet opacity
10s maximum
168 hours
                    NOand S0'2
Accuracy

Calibration error

Zero drift (2h)
Zero drift (24h)
Calibration drift (2h)
Calibration drift (24h)
Response time
Operational period
£20 pet  of the mean value
 of the reference method test data
£5  pet of (50 pet, 90 pet)
 calibration gas mixture value
 2 pet of span
 2 pet of span
 2 pet of span
 2.5 pet of span
 15 min maximum
 168 h minimum
                    02 and C02
Zero drift (2h)
Zero drift (24h)
Calibration drift (2h)
Operational period
Response time
£0.4 pet 02 or C02
<.0.5 pet 02 or C02
£0.4 pet 02 or C02
 168 H minimum
 10 min
                         IIt-158
-------
                       TABLE  #13
          WHEN TO RUN THE MONITOR PERFORMANCE TEST
   INITIAL
   FACILITY
   START-UP
                180
               DAYS
                MAX
MAX
PRODUCTION
RATE
REACHED
PERFORMANCE
TEST & SUBMIT
REPORT FOR
COMPLIANCE
60
DAYS
                    MONITOR
                    PERFORMANCE
                    TEST
                        f
                        30
                        DAYS
                                     60
                                    DAYS
                                        MONITOR PERFOR-
                                        MANCE TEST
                                        REPORT
                                      1
                         ni-159
-------
                            Table  #14

                 REQUIREMENTS FOR  SIP REVISIONS


  I.  Submit SIP Revisions by October 6, 1976

 II.  Contain monitoring requirements for the following
      sources (as a minimum)

      A.  Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
      B.  Sulfuric Acid Plants
      C.  Nitric Acid Plants
      D.  Petroleum Refineries
      (see Table #15)

III.  Require that sources evaluate the  performance
      of their monitoring system

 IV.  Require the sources to ^aintain a  file of all
      pertinent continuous monitoring data

      A.   Emission measurements
      B.   Monitoring system evaluation data
      C.   Adjustments and maintenance performed on  the
          monitoring system

 V.   Require the source  to submit  periodic  (such period
      not  to  exceed 3 months)  reports containing the
      following  information.

      A.   Number and magnitude of excess  emissions
      B.   Nature and cause  of  excess  emissions
      C.   Statement  concerning absence of excess
          emissions  and/or  monitor  inoperativeness

VI.   Require  that monitoring begin within 18 months of
      EPA  approval of the SIP revision (or within 18
      months  of  EPA  promulgation)
                       itI-160
-------
                       TABLE #15
EXISTING SOURCES REQUIRED TO CONTINUOUSLY MONITOR EMISSIONS
Source

Fossil Fuel-Fired
 Steam Generators
Pollutant
  SO,
                         NO.
                         Opacity
Nitric Acid Plants
Sulfuric Acid Plants

Petroleum Refineries
  NO.
  SO
 Opacity
          Comments
1.  >250 x 10° Btu/hr
2.  Source that has
    control equipment
    for S02

1.  >1000 x 106 Btu/hr
2.  Located in a designated
    non-attainment area
    for N02.
3.  Exempt if source is
    30% or more below the
    emission standard

1.  >250 x 106 Btu/hr
2.  Exempt if burning gas
3.  Exempt if burning oil,
    or a mixture of oil
    and gas are the
    only fuels used and
    the source is able
    to comply with the
    applicable particu-
    late matter and
    opacity standards with-
    out installation of
    control equipment

1.  >300 ton/day
2.  Located in a  designated
    non-attainment  area
    for N02.

1.  >300 tons/day

1.  >20,000 barrels/day
                        III-161
-------
                      Table # 16

            NESHAP MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
              FOR VINYL CHLORIDE SOURCES

I    EDC PLANTS
     A.  All exhaust gases discharged from any equipment
         used in EDC purification.
     B.  Emissions from each oxychlorination reactor

II   VC PLANTS
     A.  All exhaust gases discharged from any equipment
         used in vinyl chloride formation.

Ill  PVC PLANTS
     A.  All exhaust gases discharged from each reactor.
     B.  All exhaust gases discharged from each stripper.
     C.  All exhaust gases discharged from each mixing,
         weighing or holding container which precedes the
         stripper (or reactor if plant has no stripper).
     D.  All exhaust gases discharged from each monomer
         recovery system.

IV   EDC, VC AND PVC PLANTS - ANY CONTROL SYSTEM TO WHICH
     REACTOR EMISSIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DUCTED FROM
     A.  Loading or unloading lines
     B.  Slip gauges
     C.  Manually vented equipment
     D.  Equipment opened to the atmosphere from which
         vinyl chloride is removed prior to opening
     E.  Inprocess wastewater
                        III-162-
-------
VENDORS OF CONTINUOUS
MONITORING EQUIPMENT
                                      Page__NOj
1.  Vendors                            IV-1
2.  Addresses                          IV-4
-------
                        VENDORS OF CONTINUOUS MONITORING EQUIPMENT
                    VENDOR
—^•___^—^———   ^™"••^•••i^*^
Acurex Corporation, Autodata Division
Adam David Company
Air Resources, Inc.
Alden Electronic and Impulse Recording
Applied  Dynamics
Babcock  and Wilcox  Company, Bailey  Meter Co
Ball Brothers Research Corporation
Beckraan  Instruments, Inc. Process Inst. Div.
Beeton Dickinson and Company
Bell and Howell Company
The Bendix Corporation,  Env. Science Division
The Bendix Corporation,  Process  Instruments Div
BIF, A Unit of General Signal
BioMarine Industries, Inc.
The Bristol Company
Campbell Scientific
Calibrated Instruments,  Inc.
Cambridge Instrument Company
CEA  Instruments
Cleveland Controls, Inc.
Climatronics  Corporation
Climet  Instruments
Contraves-Goerz  Corporation
 Curtis  Instruments, Inc.
 De-Tec-Tronic Corporation
 Digilab, Inc.
 E. I.  Du Pont de Nemours and Company
 Dynatron, Inc.
 Ecologic Instrument corporation
 Ecology Board,  Inc.
 Electronics Corporation of American
 Energetics Science, Inc.
 Environmental Data Corporation
 Environmental Measurements, inc.
 Environmental Research  and Technology
Data
Handling
SO., NOV Opacity O? CO? TRS HpS Equipment





r Co.

Div.

dsion
snts Div.




















X




X

X





X

X
X


X


X
X

X


X

X
X






X







X






X
X

X

X
X

X
IIV-1
X




X










X


X

X


X

X

X



X
X



X

X
X




X

X

X





X
X
X
X


X



X




X

X











X


X
X




X

X






X

















X























X






X
X

X

X
X

X



X
X
X

X
X
\
X
X
X
X
X
X



X
X

X



1
X




X


-------
                            -2-
VENDOR
                                      Data
                                      Handling
SO,  NOy  Opacity  O?  C0?  TRS  H^S  Equipment,
Esterline Angus
Ethyl Intertech Corporation
Fisher and Porter Company
FluiDynamic Devices Ltd.
F & M Systems Company
FoldaRoll
The Foxboro Company
FX Systems Corporation
General Electric Company
General Monitors, Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
HNU Systems, Inc.
Horiba Instruments, Inc.
Houston Atlas, Inc.
Ikor, Inc.
Infrared Industries
Intertech Corporation
Jacoby-Tarbox Corporation
KVB Equipment Corporation
Lazar Research Labs, Inc.
Lear Siegler, Inc.
Leeds and Northrup Company
Meloy Labroatories, Inc.
Meteorology Research, Inc.
Metrodata Systems, Inc.
Mine Safety Appliance Company
Monitor Labs, Inc.
Motorola, Inc.
Pho tomation , Inc .
Quindar Electronics, Inc.
Reliance Instrument Mfg. Company
Research Appliance Company
RFI* Industries, Inc.
Rockwell International

X










X






X
X
X
X
X

X
X







; IV- 2
I

X










X







X

X
X

X
X










X















X


X
X

X




X

X
X





X







X










X
X

X

X











X








X

X


X



X

X



X





















X

























X







X

X

X





X


X


X
X









X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X





X

X

X


X


X

X
X

X

X
X
X


-------
                        -3-
VENDOR
                                 Data
                                 Handling
NOV  Opacity  0.  CO   TRS  H-S   Equipment
Milton Roy Company
Science Associates, Inc.
Source Gas Analyzers, Inc.
Spatial Data Systems, Inc.
Sun Electric Corporation
Sybron Corporation
Teledyne, Inc. Analytical Instruments Division
•Teledyne Geotech
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Thermco Instrument Corporation
Thermo Electron Corporation
Thermox Instruments, Inc.
Tracor, Inc.
Robert H. Wagoner Company, Inc.
Weather Measure Corporation
Western Precipitation Division
Western Research and Development Ltd.
Whit taker Corporation
Wilks Scientific Corporation
Xonics , Inc .
IV- 3










X

X



X
X
X


I


X,







X




X

X
X
















X

X

X




X




X
X


X

X



X
X
X




X

















X















X




X










X





X


X
X
X





X

X
X
X

X
X

X



X

X


X


-------
Acurex Corporation
Autodata  Division
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain  View,  Ca.  94042

Adam David Company
115 East  Maple  Avenue
Langhorne, Pa.  19047

Air Resources,  Inc.
800 East  Northwest  Highway
Palatine, 111.  60067

Alden  Electronic &  Impulse Recording
 Equipment Company, Inc.
Washington Street
Westboro, Ma.   01581

Applied Dynamics
Post Office Box 1488
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

Babcock & Wilcox, Company
Bailey Meter Company
298Q1  Euclid Avenue
Wickliffe,  Oh.  44092

Ball Brothers Research Corp.
Environmental Systems Group
Post Office Box 1062
Boulder, Colo.  80302

Beckman Instruments, Inc.
Process Instruments Division
2500 Harbor Blvd.
Fullerton, Ca.  92634

Becton Dickinson &  Co.
Edmont-Wilson Division
3089 Walnut Street
Coshocton, Oh.  43812

Bell and Howell Company
Electronics and Instruments Group
360 Sierra Madre Villa
Pasadena, Ca.  91109

The Bendix Corp., Env. Science Div.
1400 Taylor Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21204
The Bendix Corp., Process Inst. Div.
Post Office Drawer 633.
Lewisburg, W. Va. 24901

BI?< A Unit of General Signal
345 Harris Avenue
Providence, R, j. 02901
BioMarine .  Industries, Inc,
45 Great Valley Ctr.
Malvern, Pa.  19355
The Bristol Company
Waterbury,  Ct, 06720

Campbell Scientific
Post Office Box 551
Logan, Utah 84321

Calibrated  Instruments, Inc.
731 Saw Mill River Rd.
Ardsley, N. Y. 10502

Cambridge Instrument Co.
73 Spring Street
Opsining, N. Y. 10562
CEA Instruments
Div. of CEA Combustion, Inc.
61 Taylor Reed Place
Stamford, Ct. 06906

Cleveland Controls, Inc.
1111 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland,  Oh.  44109
Climatronics Corporation
1324 Motor  Parkway
Hauppage, N. Y. 11787

Climet Instruments
Division of Wehr Corporation
1620 West Colton Avenue
Redland, Ca.  92373
Contraves-Goerz Corporation
301 Alpha Drive
Pittsburgh, Pa.  15238

Curtis Instruments, Inc.
200 Kisco Avenue
Mount Kisco, New York 10549

De-Tec-Tronic Corporation
2512 North Halsted Street
Chicago, Illinois  60614

Digilab, Inc.
237 Putnam Avenue
Cambridge, Ma.  02139

£. I. Du Pont de Nemourg and Company
1007 Market Street
Wilmington, Del.   19898
                                     IV-4
-------
                                           -2-
 Dynatron, Inc.
 Energy Conservation Systems
 57 State Street
 North Haven,  Ct.   06473

 Ecologic Instrument Corporation
 587 Old Willets Path
 Hauppauge,  N. Y.  11789

 Ecology Board,  Inc.
 9257 Independence Avenue
 Chatsworth, Ca.   91311

 Electronics Corporation of  America
 1  Memorial  Drive
 Cambridge,  Mass.   02142

 Energetics  Science,  Inc.
 85 Executive Blvd.
 Elmsford, N. Y.   10523

 Environmental Data Corporation
 608 Fig Avenue
 Monrovia, California  91016

 Environmental Measurements, Inc.
 215 Leidesdorff Street
 San Francisco, Ca.   94111

 Environmental Research & Technology, Inc.
 696 Virginia Road
 Concord, Ma.  01742

 Esterline Angus
 A  Unit of Esterline  Corporation
 Post Office Box 24000
 Indianapolis, Indiana  46224

 Ethyl Intertech Corporation
 Sub. of Ethyl Corporation
 19  Roszel Road
 Princeton, N. J. 08540  -

Fisher & Porter Company
Warminster Road
Warndnster, Pa.   19874

FluiDynamic Devices, Ltd.
 3216 Lenworth Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
Canada

F  & M Systems Company
 2525 Walnut Hill Lane
Post Office Box 20778
Dallas, Texas  75220
 FoldaRoll Company
 Post Office Box 24121
 Los Angeles, California  90024
 The Foxboro Company
 38 Niponset Avenue
 Foxboro,  Ma.  07039

 FX Systems Corporation
 P.O.  Box  818,  77  Cornell  Street
 Kingston, N. Y. 12401

 General Electric  Co.,  Re-entry & Env. Sys.. Div.
 3198 Chestnut  Street
 Philadelphia,  Pa.   19101

 General Monitors,  Inc.
 3019  Enterprise Street
 Cost  Mesa,  Ca.  92626

 Hewlett-Packard,  Avondale Division
 Route 41  and Starr Road
 Avondale,  Pa.  19311

 HNU Systems, Inc.
 383 Elliot Street
 Newton Upper Falls, Ma.   02164

 Horiba Instrument,  Inc.
 1021  Durgea Avenue
 Irvine, Ca.  92714

 Houston Atlas, Inc.
 10216 Geogibelle
 Houston, Texas  77043
Ikor, Inc.
217 Middlesex Turnpike
Burlington, Mass.  01803
Infrared Industries, Western Division
Post Office Box 989
Santa Barbara, Ca.  93102

Intertech Corporation
Subsidiary of Ethyl Corporation
19 Roszel Road
Princeton, New Jersey  08540

Jacoby-Tarbox Corporation
808 Nepperham Avenue
Yonkers, New York 10703
                                       IV-5
-------
                                         -3-
 KVB Equipment Corporation
 17332 Irvine Blvd.
 Tustin,  Ca.   92680

 Lazar Research Labs,  Inc.
 509 North Fairfax Avenue
 Los Angeles,  Ca.  90036

 Lear Siegler,  Inc.
 Environmental  Technology Division
 74  Inverness Drive, East
 Englewood, Co.  80110

 Leeds and Northrup Company
 Sumneytown Pike
 North Wales, Pa.  19454

 Meloy Laboratores, Inc.
 Instrument and Systems Division
 6715  Electronic Drive
 North Springfield, Va.   22157

 Meteorology Research, Inc.
 Theta Sensors, Inc.
 Box 637
 Altadena, Ca.  91001

Metrodata Systems, Inc.
 Post Office Box 1307
Norman, Okla.  73069

Mine Safety Appliance Company
 400 Penn Center
Pittsburgh, Pa.  15235

Monitor Labs, Inc.
 4202 Sorrento Valley Blvd.
San Diego, Ca.  92121

Motorola, Inc.
1120 Connecticut  Avenue, NW
Suite 1120
Washington, D. C.  20036

Photomation,  Inc.
270 Polaris Avenue
Mt. View, Ca. "94041

Quindar Electronics, Inc.
60 Fadem Road
Springfield,  N. J.  07081

 Reliance Instrument Mfg.  Company
 164 Garibaldi Avenue
 Lodi, N. a.  07644
 Research Appliance Company,  Chemed Corp.
 Route 8
 Gibsonia,  Pa.   15044

 RFL Industries,  Inc.
 Boonton,  New Jersey  07005
Rockwell International, Air Monitoring Center
242 .A Hillcrest Drive
Newbury Park, Ca.  91320

Milton Roy Company
Hays-Republic Division
4333 South Ohio Street
Michigan City, Ind.  46360

Science Associates, Inc.
230 Nassau Street
Box 230
Princeton, N..J.   08540

Source Gas Analyzers, Inc.
7251 Garden Grove Blvd.
Garden Grove, Ca.  92641

Spatial Data Systems, Inc.
132 Aero Carnino
Goleta, Ca.  93017

Sun Electric Corp.
6323 Avondale Avenue
Chicago, 111.  60631

Sybron  Corporation
Taylor Instr. Proc.  Contr. Division
95 Ames Street
Rochester, N. Y.  14601

Teledyne, Inc., Analytical Instrument Division
333 West Mission Drive
San Gabriel, Ca*  91776

Teledyne Geotech
3401 Shiloh Road
Garland, Texas  75041

Texas Instruments, Inc.
P. 0. Box 5474, Mail Station 147
Dallas, Texas  75222
                                     IV-6
-------
                                            -4-
 Thermco Instrument Corporation
 Post Office Box 309
 Laporte, In.  46350

 Thermo Electron Corporation
 85 First Avenue
 Waltham, Ma. 02154

 Thermox Instruments, Inc.
 6592 Hamilton Avenue
 Pittsburgh , Pa.   15206

 Tracer, Inc.
 Instruments Division
 6500 Tracer Lane
 Austin, Texas  78721

 Robert H.  Wagoner Company,  Inc.
 Passaic Avenue
 Chatham,  N.  J. 07928

 Weather Measure  Corp.
 3213 Orange Grove Ave.
 North Highlands,  Cal.   95660

 Western Precipitation  Division
 Joy Manufacturing Co.
 Post Office  Box  2744 Terminal  Annex
 Los Angeles,  Ca.   90051

 Western Research  and Development, Ltd.
 1313 44th Avenue NE
 Calgary, Alta

 Whittaker Corporation
 Environmental  Production  Division
 9100  Independence Avenue
 Chatsworth, Ca.  91311

 Wilks Scientific Corporation
 140 Water
 Post Office Box 449
 South Norwalk, Ct. 06856

 Xonics, Inc.
 6862 Hayvenhurst Avenue
Van Nuys, Ca.  91406
                                    IV-7
-------
       BIBLIOGRAPHY
                                          Page  No.
1.   Bibliography Index                       v"1


2.   Bibliography                             V-2


3.   Availability of EPA Publications         V-7
-------
                      BIBLIOGRAPHY  INDEX


Subject                                   Reference Numbers

Transmissometry
  Principles and application              1, 12, 13, 29, 33, 39
  Instrumentation                         8
  Evaluation of methods                   31
  Used at Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam
    Generator                             2
  Used at Refinery                        41

Gaseous Emission Monitoring
  Principles and application              7, 9, 10, 21, 23, 24, 47,
                                          48, 49
  Instrumentation                         8, 26, 44
  Evaluation of methods                   3, 15, 20, 31, 36
  Used at Copper Smelter Acid Plants      40, 42
  Used at Sulfuric Acid Plants            43
  Used at Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam
    Generators                            2
  Used at Steel Plants                    46
  Sampling handling                       31, 32

References used for the establishment
and support regulations                   2, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42

Vendors                                   18, 27,  37

Regulations                               45

General                                   4, 5, 6,  11,  14,  16,  19,
                                          22, 25,  28,  20,  50
                         V-l
-------
                        BIBLIOGRAPHY


1.  Avetta, Edward D.,  IN-STACK TRANSMISSOMETER EVALUATION
    AND APPLICATION TO  PARTICIPATE OPACITY MEASUREMENT.  EPA
    contract no. 68-02-0660 Owens, Illinois NTIS PB 242402
    Jan. 1975.

2.  Baladi, Emile Midwest Research Institute, MANUAL SOURCE
    TESTING AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING CALIBRATIONS AT THE
    LAWRENCE ENERGY CENTER OF KANSAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY,
    EPA contract no. 68-02-0228, EPA Report no. 73-SPP-3,
    May 7, 1976.

3.  Barnes, H. B., C.  R.  Fortune, and J.  B. Homolya, AN
    EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY FOR THE CHARACTER-
    IZATION OF GASEOUS  SULFUR EMISSIONS FROM COMBUSTION
    SOURCES, Presented  at the Fourth National Conference on
    Energy and the Environment, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 4-7,
    1976.

4.  Blosser, R. 0., A.  G. Kutyna, R. A. Schmall, M. E.
    Franklin, and K. Jain.  THE STATUS OF SOURCE EMISSION
    MONITORING AND MEASUREMENTS.  Presented at the Technical
   "Association of the  Pulp and Paper Industry, Annual
    meeting Miami Beach,  Florida, January, 1974.

5.  Bonam, W. L. and W. F. Fuller, CERTIFICATION EXPERIENCE
    WITH EXTRACTIVE EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEMS, SRI-
    Proceeding of Workshop on Sampling, Analysis, and Moni-
    toring of Stack Emissions, April, 1976, PB-252-748.

6.  Brooks, E. F., GUIDELINES FOR STATIONARY SOURCE CONTIN-
    UOUS GAS MONITORING SYSTEMS, EPA Contract number
    68-02-1412, TRN Systems Group, November, 1975.

7.  Brooks, E. F., C. A.  Flegal, L. N. Harnett, M. A. Kolpin,
    D. J.  Luciani, and  R. L. Williams CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT
    OF GAS COMPOSITION  FROM STATIONARY SOURCES, TRW Systems
    Group, EPA Contract no. 68-02-0636, EPA-600/2-75-012.

8.  Chapman, Robert L., INSTRUMENTATION FOR STACK MONITORING.
    Pollution Engineering, September, 1972.

9.  Cheney, J. L., and  J. B. Homolya, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
    SULFUR DIOXIDE CONTINUOUS. MONITOR INCORPORATING"A PIEZO-
    ELECTRIC SORPTION  DETECTOR, The Science of the Total
    Environment 5, 69-77 1976.

10. Cheney, Norwood, and Homolya, THE DETECTION OF SULFUR
    DIOXIDE UTILIZING  A PIEZO-ELECTRIC CRYSTAL COATED WITH
    ETHYLENEDINITRILOTETRAETHANOL,    Analytical' Letters,
    9(4) 361-377, 1976.

                          V-2
-------
                           -2-
11. Cheremisinoff, P. N. and R. A. Young, NEW DEVELOPMENTS
    IN AIR QUALITY INSTRUMENTATION.  Pollution Engineering,
    7(2):  24 1975.

12. Connor, W. D., A COMPARISON BETWEEN IN-STACK AND PLUME
    'OPACITY MEASUREMENTS AT OIL-FIRED POWER PLANTS.  Presented
    at the Fourth National Conference on Energy and the
    Environment, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 4-7, 1976.

13. Conner, William D. MEASUREMENT OF THE OPACITY AND MASS
    CONCENTRATION OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS BY TRANSMISSOMETRY,
    Chemistry and Physics Laboratory, EPA-650/2-74-128
    November, 1974.

14. Cross, F. L. Jr., and H. F. Scheff, CONTINUOUS SOURCE
    MONITORING.  Chemical Engineering/Deskbook Issue 125-127
    June,  1973.

15. Driscoll, Becker, McCoy, Young, and Ehrenfeld, Walden
    Research Corp., EVALUATION OF MONITOR METHODS AND
    INSTRUMENTATION FOR HYDROCARBONS AND CARBON MONOXIDE
    IN STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS, EPA Contract no. 68-02-0320,
    EPA-R2-72-106, November, 1972.

16. Elliot, T. C. MONITORING BOILER STACK GASES, Power, 92-94,
    April, 1975.

17. Ellis, D. H. RELIABILITY OF STACK SAMPLING METHODS VS.
    CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS.  Air Pollution Control
    Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Design, Operation
    and Maintenance of High Efficiency Control Equipment, St.
    Louis, Mo., 1973 p. 145-147.

18. Environmental Science and Technology, Pollution Control
    Issue, Vol. 10, no. 11, October, 1976.

19, Fennelly, Paul, F., DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
    FOR A CONTINUOUS MONITORING PROGRAM, GCA Corp., March, 1977.

20. Green, M. W., R.  L. Chapman, S. C.  Creason, R. N. Harvey,
    G.  A.  Heyman, and W. R; Pearson, EVALUATION OF MONITORING
    SYSTEMS FOR'POWER PLANT AND SULFUR RECOVERY PLANT EMISSIONS,
    EPA Contract no.  68-02-1743, Beckman Instruments, Inc.,
    EPA 600/2-76-171, June, 1976.

21. Homolya,  CONTINUOUS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR GASEOUS
    EMISSIONS, EPRI Workshop Proceedings, Special Report #41,
    p.  17  October, 1975.
                        V-3
-------
                          -3-

 22. Homolya, J. B., COUPLING CONTINUOUS GAS MONITORS TO
    EMISSIONS SOURCES, Chem Tech, 426-433, July 1, 1974.

 23. Homolya, CURRENT TECHNOLOGY FOR CONTINUOUS MONITORING
    OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS, Journal of the Air Pollution
    Control Assoc., 25(8) 809-814 August, 1975.

 24. Homolya, THE DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS FOR CONTINUOUS SOURCE
    MONITORING SYSTEMS OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS, Proceedings
    of the Fourth National Conference on Energy and the
    Environment, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 4-7, 1976.

 25. James R. E. and C. D. Wolback, QUALITY ASSURANCE OF
    STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSION MONITORING DATA, Inst. of
    Electrical and Elcectronics Engineers, Inc., 36, 1976.

 26. Jaye, Frederic C., MONITORING INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE
    MEASUREMENT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE IN STATIONARY SOURCE
    EMISSIONS.  TRW Systems GT<. ip, EPA Project 17205 NTIS
    PB 220202.

 27. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Product
    Guide, Vol. 27, no. 3, March, 1977.

 28,-Karels, Gale &. ,  Gary R.  Kendall, Thomas E. Perardi, and
    A. Levaggi, USE OF REAL-TIME CONTINUOUS MONITORS IN
    SOURCE TESTING.  Presented at APCA annual meeting June 15-
    20, 1975.   Paper 75-19.5,  NTIS PB 230934/AS GPO.

29. Knapp, K.  I.,  NEW TECHNIQUES FOR CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT
    OF MASS EMISSIONS, Proceedings of the EPRI Workshop on
    Sampling,  Analysis and Monitoring of Stack Emissions
    EPRI-41 April, 1976.

30. Lillis and Schueneman, CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING:
    OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS, Journal of the Air Pollution
    Control Association,  August, 1975.

31. McRanie, Richard D.,  John M.  Craig, and George 0. Layman,
    EVALUATION OF  SAMPLE  CONDITIONERS AND CONTINUOUS STACK
    MONITORS FOR MEASUREMENT OF S02, NOX, AND OPACITY IN
    FLUE GAS FROM  A COAL-FIRED STEAM GENERATOR, Southern
    Services,  Inc., February,  1975.

32. McNulty, K.  J., J.  F. McCoy,  J.  H.  Becker, J.  R.  Ehrenfeld,
    and R. L.  Goldsmith,  INVESTIGATION OF EXTRACTIVE SAMPLING
    INTERFACE  PARAMETERS, EPA Contract no.  68-02-0742,  Walden
    Research Division of  Abcor, Inc., EPA - 650/2-74-089,
    October, 1974.

33. Woffinden, and Ensor, OPTICAL METHOD FOR MEASURING THE MASS
    CONCENTRATION  OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS, EPA Contract no.
    68-02-1749, Meteorology Research, Inc.  EPA-600/2-76-062,
    March, 1976.

                         V-4
-------
                          -4-
 34.  Nader, John  S. ,  CURRENT  TECHNOLOGY  FOR  CONTINUOUS MONI-
     TORING OF  PARTICULATE  EMISSIONS,  Journal  of  the Air
     Pollution  Control Association, August,  1975,  814-821.

 35.  Nader, John  S. ,  Frederic Jaye, and  William Conner,
     PERFORMANCE  SPECIFICATIONS  FOR STATIONARY SOURCE
     MONITORING SYSTEMS  FOR GASES AND  VISIBLE  EMISSIONS. NERC
     Chemistry  and  Physic Lab. NTIS PB 209190, January, 1974.

 36.  Osborne, Michael C. . M.  Rodney Midgett, SURVEY OF CONTINUOUS
     GAS MONITORS TO EMISSIONS SOURCES,  Chem Tech, 426-433,
     July, 1974.

 37.  Pollution  Engineering, Environmental Yearbook and Product
     Reference  Guide, Vol.  9, no. 1, January,  1977.

 38.  Quick, Durle L., FIELD EVALUATION OF S02  MONITORING
     SYSTEMS APPLIED TO  H2S04 PLANT EMISSIONS,, Volumes I § II,
     EPA Contract no. 68-02-1292, Scott  Environmental Technology,
     EPA-650/2-75-053a (Vol.  I)  and EPA-650/2-75-0536 (Vol. II),
     July, 1975.

 39.  Reisman, E., W. D.  Gerber,  and N. D. Potter, IN-STACK
     TRANSMISSOMETER MEASUREMENT OF PARTICULATE OPACITY AND MASS
     CONCENTRATION, EPA  contract #68-02-1229 Philco-Ford Corp.,
    NTIS PB 239864/AS,  November, 1974.

 40. Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., CONTINUOUS MONITOR-
     ING OF A COPPER SMELTER ACID PLANT, Phelps Dodge Ajo,
    Arizona Report no.  73-CUS-2.

 41. Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. SUMMARY OF CONTINUOUS
    MONITORING OPACITY  DATA,  REFINERY FCC CO BOILER, PHILLIPS
    PETROLEUM, Avon, California, EPA  contract no. 68-02-1400,
    Report no. 74-CAT-2, March,  1976.

42. Scott Research Laboratories, CONTINUOUS MONITORING OF A
    COPPER SMELTER DOUBLE CONTACT PROCESS ACID PLANT,  EPA
    Contract no.  68-02-0233,  Report no.  73-CUS-2, May,  1974.

43. Shotles,  R. S., and J.  R. Dallar, CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT
    OF SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, Mississippi Chemical  Corpor-
    ation, Pascagoula,  Mississippi,  EPA Report no.  73-SFA-3B.

44. Snyder,  Arthur D. Edward  C.  Eimutis, Michael  G.  Konicek,
    Leo P. Parts, and Paul  L. Sherman, INSTRUMENTATION  FOR
    THE DETERMINATION OF NITROGEN OXIDES CONTENT  OF STATIONARY
    SOURCE EMISSIONS.  NTIS PB 204-877 Vol.  1 PB  209-190  Vol. 2,
    January,  1972.
                         V-5
-------
                          -5-
45. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, STANDARDS OF
    PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES, Federal Register,
    40:46250-46270, October 6, 1975.

46. Roy Weston, Inc., FINAL REPORT ALAN WOOD STEEL COMPANY,
    CONSHOHOCKEN PENNSYLVANIA,  EPA Contract no. 68-02-0240,
    Report no. 73-BOF-l, December, 1975.

47. Wolf, Philip C., CONTINUOUS STACK GAS MONITORING Part
    One:  ANALYZERS, Pollution Engineering, 32-36 June, 1975.

48. Wolf, Philip C., CONTINUOUS STACK GAS MONITORING Part Two:
    GAS HANDLING COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES, Pollution
    Engineering,.. 26-29, July, 1975.

49. Wolf, Philip C., CONTINUOUS STACK GAS MONITORING Part
    Three:  SYSTEMS DESIGN, Pollution Engineering, 36-37,
    August,  1975.

50. Zegel,  W.  C.,  and T. Lachajczyk, THE VALUE OF CONTINUOUS
    MONITORING TO  THE USER, The Journal of the Air Pollution
    Control  Association, Vol.  25, no.  8, 821-823, August,
    1975.
                    V-6
-------
                Availability of EPA Publications


     Copies of United States EPA publications are available

free of charge, as long as supplies last, from the EPA

library in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  When

supplies are exhausted, one may purchase publications from

the United States Government Printing Office or the National

Technical Information Service.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Library (MD-35)
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
commercial phone 919-541-2777
     FTS phone 629-2779

National Technical Information Service
U. S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia  22151
     703-321-8543

Superintendent of Documents
Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402
                         V-7
-------
                              TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                        (Please read Instructions on the reverse before cwnplcitngj
 1, REPORT NO,
  340/1-78-002
                                                  3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO,
 4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
                                                   5. REPORT DATE
      Regulations and  Resource File of  Continuou
      Monitoring Information
                                                                1Q78
                                                  6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                   8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
     William J. Pate
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                   10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
      Entropy Environmentalists, Inc.
      P.  0.  Box 12291
      Research Triangle  Park,  N. C.  27709
                                                  11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                    68-01-4148
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                   13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
      U.  S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
      Office of Enforcement
      Office of General  Enforcement
      Washington. D. C.  20460	
                                                     Interim
                                                  14.
                                                                 CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
     The  Environmental  Protection Agency  has promulgated  revisions to
     40 CFR Part 60, New Source Performance  Standards, and 40 CFR
     Part 61, National  Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
     that require specified categories  of stationary sources to
     continuously monitor emissions.  The EPA has also required States
     to revise their SIP's to include continuous emission monitoring
     regulations.
     This report is a compilation of the  following continuous emission
     monitoring information:  EPA  organizations and personnel involved
     with continuous emission monitoring;  continuous emission monitoring
     regulations; vendors of continuous monitoring equipment; and a
     bibliography of continuous monitoring literature.
 7.
                           KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
               DESCRIPTORS
                                      b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
      Continuous Emission  Monitoring
        Regulations

      New Source Performance Standard
                                        Continuous Emission
                                        Monitoring
     13B


     14D
                                       19. SECURITY CLASS
                                        Unclassified
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

     Release Unlimited
21. NO. OF PAGES'"
                                       20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                        Unclassified
                                                             22, PRICE
EPA potm iiio-t (*•»»)
-------