Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources : A Compilation as of January 1, 1979


  8   STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
      FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  |   AS OF JANUARY 1, 1979
  *   (First Supplemental  Information Packet
  LU
  (0
  c

      for Updating November 1977 NSPS
  g   Regulations Compilation,
  1   EPA-340/1-77-015)
  CO
o
o
O)
is o>
  >    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
<  9    OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
  c    OFFICE OF GENERAL ENFORCEMENT
  -?    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

-------
                                   EPA-340/1-77-015
                                   EPA-340/1-79-001
  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES  -
 A  COMPILATION  AS  OF JANUARY 1,1979
                        by

                 PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
                  Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
                 Contract No. 68-01-4147
                EPA Project Officer: Kirk Foster
                     Prepared for

           U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  Office of Enforcement
                Office of General Enforcement
             Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
                 Washington, D.C. 20460

                     January 1979

-------
                                PREFACE





     This document is a compilation of the New Source Performance



Standards promulgated under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, repre-



sented in full as amended.   The information contained herein updates the



original  compilation published by the Environmental  Protection Agency in



August 1976 and Supplement I issued in March 1977 (EPA 340/1-76-009 and



340/1-76-009a).



     The format of this document permits easy and convenient replacement



of material as new standards are proposed and promulgated or existing



standards revised.  Section I is an introduction to  the standards,



explaining their purpose and interpreting the working concepts which



have developed through their implementation.  Section II contains a



"quick-look" summary of each standard, including the dates of proposal,



promulgation, and any subsequent revisions.  Section III is the complete



standards with all amendments incorporated into the  material.  Section



IV contains the full text of all revisions, including the preamble



which explains the rationale behind each revision.   Section V is all



proposed amendments to the standards.  To facilitate the addition of



future materials, the punched, loose-leaf format was selected.  This



approach permits the document to be placed in a three-ring binder or to



be secured by rings, rivets, or other fasteners; future revisions can



then be easily inserted.

-------
     Future Supplements to New Source Performance Standards  -  A Com-
pilation will be issued on an as needed basis by the Division  of Sta-
tionary Source Enforcement.   Comments and suggestions regarding this
document should be directed  to:   Standards Handbooks, Division of Sta-
tionary Source Enforcement (EN-341),  U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.  20460.

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.    INTRODUCTION TO STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
      STATIONARY SOURCES
II.   SUMMARY OF STANDARDS AND REVISIONS
III.  PART 60 - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
               STATIONARY SOURCES
                         SUBPART A - GENERAL PROVISIONS
     Section
     60.1      Applicability
     60.2      Definitions
     60.3      Abbreviations
     60.4      Address
     60.5      Determination of construction or
               modification
     60.6      Review of plans
     60.7      Notification and recordkeeping
     60.8      Performance tests
     60.9      Availability of information
     60.10     State authority
     60.11     Compliance with standards and maintenance
               requirements
     60.12     Circumvention
     60.13     Monitoring requirements
     60.14     Modification
     60.15     Reconstruction
                                                       Page
                                                        1-1

                                                       II-l
                                                      III-l
                                                      III-3
                                                      III-3
                                                      III-3
                                                      III-4
                                                      III-5

                                                      III-5
                                                      III-5
                                                      III-6
                                                      III-6
                                                      III-6
                                                      III-6

                                                      III-7
                                                      III-7
                                                      III-8
                                                      111-10
     Section
     60.20
     60.21
     60.22
                SUBPART B - ADOPTION AND SUBMITTAL OF STATE PLANS
                            FOR DESIGNATED FACILITIES
Applicability
Definitions
Publication of guideline documents, emission
guidelines, final compliance times
III-ll
III-ll
III-ll

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Section
60.23    Adoption and submittal of state plans; public            III-ll
         hearings
60.24    Emission standards and compliance schedules              111-12
60.25    Emission inventories, source surveillance                111-12
         reports
60.26    Legal authority                                          111-13
60.27    Actions by the Administrator                             111-13
60.28    Plan revisions by the State                              111-13
60.29    Plan revisions by the Administrator                      111-13

         SUBPART C - EMISSION GUIDELINES AND COMPLIANCE           III-14
                    TIMES

       SUBPART D - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR FOSSIL-
                  FUEL FIRED STEAM GENERATORS
Section
60.40    Applicability and designation of affected                111-15
         facility
60.41    Definitions                                              111-15
60.42    Standard for particulate matter                          II1-15
60.43    Standard for sulfur dioxide                              111-15
60.44    Standard for nitrogen oxides                             Ill-IB
60.45    Emission and fuel monitoring                             111-15
60.46    Test methods and procedures                              111-17

    SUBPART E - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR INCINERATORS
Section
60.50    Applicability and designation of affected facility       111-18
60.51    Definitions                                              111-18
60.52    Standard for particulate matter                          III-l^

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
60.53    Monitoring of operations
60.54    Test methods and procedures
 Page
111-10
111-18
      SUBPART F - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PORTLAND
                        CEMENT PLANTS
Sectl on
60.60    Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.61    Definitions
60.62    Standard for particulate
60.63    Monitoring of operations
60.64    Test methods and procedures
111-19
111-19
111-19
111-19
111-19
           SUBPART G - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                      NITRIC ACID PLANTS
Section
60.70    Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.71    Definitions
60.72    Standard for nitrogen oxides
60.73    Emission monitoring
60.74    Test methods and procedures
111-20
111-20
111-20
111-20
111-20
           SUBPART H - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                     SULFURIC ACID PLANTS
Section
60.80    Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.81    Definitions
60.82    Standard for sulfur dioxide
60.83    Standard for acid mist
60.84    Emission monitoring
60.85    Test methods and procedures
111-21
111-21
111-21
111-21
111-21
111-21
                                   vi 1

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
           SUBPART I - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                    ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS
Section
60.90    Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.91    Definitions
60.92    Standard for particulate matter
60.93    Test methods
                                                                         Page
                                                               111-22
                                                               111-22
                                                               111-22
                                                               111-22
           SUBPART J - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                     PETROLEUM REFINERIES
Section
60.100   Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.101   Definitions
60.102   Standard for particulate matter
60.103   Standard for carbon monoxide
60.104   Standard for sulfur dioxide
60.105   Emission monitoring
60.106   Test methods and procedures
                                                               111-23
                                                               111-23
                                                               111-23
                                                               111-23
                                                               111-23
                                                               111-23
                                                               111-23
Section
60.110
60.111
60.112
60.113
           SUBPART K - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
             STORAGE VESSELS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUIDS
Applicability and designation of affected facility
Definitions
Standard for hydrocarbons
Monitoring of operations
111-25
111-25
111-25
111-25
           SUBPART L - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                    SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS
Section
60.120   Applicability and designation of affected facility
                                                               111-26
                                    vm

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
60.121   Definitions
60.122   Standard for particulate matter
60.123   Test methods and procedures
  Page

 111-26
 111-26
 III-76
      SUBPART M - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR SECONDARY
           BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT PRODUCTION PLANTS
Section
60.130   Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.131   Definitions
60.132   Standard for particulate matter
60.133   Test methods and procedures
111-27
111-27
111-27
III-27
           SUBPART N - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                     IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
Section
60.140   Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.141   Definitions
60.142   Standard for particulate matter
60.143   Monitoring of operations
60.144   Test methods and procedures
111-28
111-28
111-28
111-28
111-28
           SUBPART 0 - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                    SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
Section
60.150   Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.151   Definitions
60.152   Standard for particulate matter
60.153   Monitoring of operations
60.154   Test methods and procedures
111-29
111-29
111-29
111-29
111-29

-------
                        TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
           SUBPART P - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                    PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
Sectlon
60.160   Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.161   Definitions
60.162   Standard for participate matter
60.163   Standard for sulfur dioxide
60.164   Standard for visible emissions
60.165   Monitoring of operations
60.166   Test methods and procedures
                                                                        Page
111-30
111-30
111-30
111-30
111-30
111-30
111-31
           SUBPART Q - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                     PRIMARY ZINC SMELTERS
Section
60.170   Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.171   Definitions
60.172   Standard for particulate matter
60.173   Standard for sulfur dioxide
60.174   Standard for visible emissions
60.175   Monitoring of operations
60.176   Test methods and procedures
111-3?.
111-32
111-32
111-32
111-32
111-32
111-32
           SUBPART R - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                     PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
Section
60.180   Applicability and designation of affected facility
60.181   Definitions
60.182   Standard for particulate matter
60.183   Standard for sulfur dioxide
60.184   Standard for visible emissions
60.185   Monitoring of operations
60.186   Test methods and procedures
 111-33
 111-33
 111-33
 111-33
 111-33
 111-33
 111-33

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                        Page

           SUBPART S - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                PRIMARY ALUMINUM REDUCTION PLANTS
Section
60.190   Applicability and designation of affected facility            111-34
60.191   Definitions                                                   111-34
60.192   Standard for fluorides                                        111-34
60.193   Standard for visible emissions                                111-34
60.194   Monitoring of operations                                      111-34
60.195   Test methods and procedures                                   111-34

       SUBPART T - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PHOSPHATE
   FERTILIZER INDUSTRY:  WET PROCESS PHOSPHORIC ACID PLANTS
Section
60.200   Applicability and designation of affected facility            111-36
60.201   Definitions                                                   111-36
60.202   Standard for fluorides                                        111-36
60.203   Monitoring of operations                                      III-36
60.204   Test methods and procedures                                   111-36

       SUBPART U - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PHOSPHATE
       FERTILIZER INDUSTRY:  SUPERPHOSPHORIC ACID PLANTS
Section
60.210   Applicability and designation of affected facility            111-37
60.211   Definitions                                                   III-37
60.212   Standard for fluorides                                        111-37
60.213   Monitoring of operations                                      111-37
60.214   Test methods and procedures                                   111-37

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                      Page

       SUBPART V - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PHOSPHATE
       FERTILIZER INDUSTRY:   DIAMMONIUM PHOSPHATE PLANTS
Section
60.220   Applicability and designation of affected facility           II1-38
60.221   Definitions                                                  II1-33
60.222   Standard for fluorides                                       111-38
60.223   Monitoring of operations                                     III-38
60.224   Test methods and procedures                                  III-38

       SUBPART W - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR PHOSPHATE
       FERTILIZER INDUSTRY:   TRIPLE SUPERPHOSPHATE PLANTS
Section
60.230   Applicability and designation of affected facility           111-39
60.231   Definitions                                                  111-39
60.232   Standard for fluorides                                       III-39
60.233   Monitoring of operations                                     111-39
60.234   Test methods and procedures                                  111-39
     SUBPART X - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE PHOSPHATE
     FERTILIZER INDUSTRY:  GRANULAR TRIPLE SUPERPHOSPHATE
                      STORAGE FACILITIES
Section
60.240   Applicability and designation of affected facility           111-40
60.241   Definitions                                                  ni-40
60.242   Standard  for fluorides                                       III-40
60.243   Monitoring of operations                                     III-40
60.244   Test methods and procedures                                  III-40
                                  xn

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                        Pago

           SUBPART Y - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                    COAL PREPARATION PLANTS
Section
60.250   Applicability and designation of affected facility            111-41
60.251   Definitions                                                   111-41
60.252   Standards for participate matter                              111-41
60.253   Monitoring of operations                                      111-41
60.254   Test methods and procedures                                   111-41

       SUBPART Z  - STANDARDS OF  PERFORMANCE FOR FERROALLOY
              PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Section
60.260   Applicability and designation of  affected facility            ill-4^
60.261   Definitions                                                   111-42
60.262   Standard for parti culate matter                               111-42
60.263   Standard for carbon monoxide                                  111-42
60.264   Emission monitoring                                           111-42
60.265   Monitoring  of operations
60.266   Test methods and  procedures
       SUBPART AA - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR STEEL
              PLANTS:  ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
Section
60.270   Applicability and designation of affected facility           111-45
60.271   Definitions                                                  111-45
60.272   Standard for particulate matter                              111-45
60.273   Emission monitoring                                          111-45
60.274   Monitoring of operations                                     111-45
60.275   Test methods and procedures                                  111-46

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                      Page
                 SUBPART BB - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
                         FOR KRAFT PULP MILLS
Section
60.280   Applicability and designation of affected facility           111-47
60.281   Definitions                                                  111-47
60.282   Standard for participate matter                              111-47
60.283   Standard for total reduced sulfur (TRS)                      111-47
60.284   Monitoring of emissions and operations                       111-48
60.285   Test methods and procedures                                  111-48

                SUBPART DD - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
                          FOR GRAIN ELEVATORS

Section
60.300   Applicability and designation of affected facility           111-50
60.301   Definitions                                                  111-50
60.302   Standard for participate matter                              111-50
60.303   Test methods and procedures                                  111-50
60.304   Modification                                                 111-50
                 SUBPART HH - STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
                     FOR LIME MANUFACTURING PLANTS
60.340   Applicability and designation of affected facility           111-51
60.341   Definitions                                                  III-51
                                  xiv

-------
Section                                                               Page
60.342   Standard for participate matter                              111-51
60.343   Monitoring of emissions and operations                       111-51
60.344   Test methods and procedures                                  111-51
                                    xv

-------
                               TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE METHODS

Method 1  -
Method 2  -


Method 3  -


Method 4  -

Method 5  -


Method 6  -


Method 7  -


Method 8  -


Method 9  -


Method 10  -


Method 11  -


Method 12  •

Method ISA •
Sample and velocity traverses for stationary
sources

Determination of stack gas velocity and volumetric
flow rate (Type S Pi tot Tube)

Gas analysis for carbon dioxide, excess air, and
dry molecular weight

Determination of moisture in stack gases

Determination of particulate emissions from
stationary sources

Determination of sulfur dioxide emissions from
stationary sources

Determination of nitrogen oxide emissions from
stationary sources

Determination of sulfuric acid mist and sulfur
dioxide emissions from stationary sources

•Visual determination of the opacity of emissions
from stationary sources

Determination of carbon monoxide emissions
from stationary sources

Determination of hydrogen sulfide content of
fuel gas streams in petroleum refineries
[Reserved]

Determination of total fluoride emissions
from stationary sources - SPADNS Zircomium
Lake method
Method  138 -  Determination of total  fluoride emissions
              from stationary sources - Specific  Ion
              Electrode method

Method  14  -  Determination of fluoride emissions  from
              potroom  roof monitors  of primary  aluminum
              plants
                                                                          Page
Ill-Appendix A-1


Ill-Appendix A-4


Ill-Appendix A-1 4


Ill-Appendix A-17

Ill-Appendix A-21


Ill-Appendix A-28


II I -Appendix A- 30

Ill-Appendix A-32


I II -Appendix A-35


Ill-Appendix A-39


Ill-Appendix A-41
I II -Appendix



II I -Appendix A-51



Ill-Appendix A-55
                                      xvi

-------
                                                                          Page

Method 15 -  Determination of hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl           Ill-Appendix A-57
             sulfide, and carbon desulfide emissions from
             stationary sources

Method 16 -  Semi continuous determination of sulfur emissions      Ill-Appendix A-60
             from stationary sources

Method 17 -  Determination of particulate emissions from           Ill-Appendix A-68
             stationary sources (in-stack filtration method)
                                   xvii

-------
                              TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
    APPENDIX B - PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
     APPENDIX  C  -  DETERMINATION  OF  EMISSION  RATE  CHANGE
     APPENDIX  D  -  REQUIRED EMISSION  INVENTORY INFORMATION
IV.  FULL TEXT OF REVISIONS (References)
•V.   PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
       Page







Ill-Appendix B-l







Ill-Appendix C-1







III-Appendix D-l







      IV-1







       V-l
                                      xvm

-------
                           I INTRODUCTION





     The Clean Air Act of 1970,  building on prior Federal, state and



local  control  agency legislation and experience, authorized a national



program of air pollution prevention and control  which included receptor/



effect and specification standards, emission standards for mobile



sources, and - for the first time - nationwide uniform emission standards



for new and modified stationary sources.  This is a compilation of the



emission standards authorized in Section 111 of the Act:  Standards of



Performance for New Stationary Sources, commonly referred to as new



source performance standards or NSPS.



     Taking up less than two pages of the 56-page Clean Air Act, NSPS



have become an important and integral  part of Federal air pollution



control activities.  The major purpose of NSPS is that of preventing new



air pollution  problems.  Section 111 of the 1970 Act, therefore, requires



the application of the best adequately demonstrated system of emission



reduction (taking into account the cost), permits control of existing



sources which  increase emissions, and can be applied to both new and



existing sources of a pollutant not regulated by Sections 109 and 112.



Standards may  apply to specific equipment and processes, or to entire



plants and facilities [Section lll(b)(2)], and may be revised whenever



necessary.  Since the standards are based on emissions, the owner or



operator of a  source may select any control system desired, but he must



achieve the standard.  Installation and operation of a control  system
                                    1-1

-------
 is not enough:  compliance is based on actual emissions.  Finally,
there is no provision for variances or exemptions; the NSPS must be met
during normal operation (start-up, shutdown, and malfunction periods are
provided for in specific regulations).
     In developing NSPS or determining whether violations of NSPS have
occurred, Section 114 of the Act permits EPA to require an owner or
operator to keep records, make reports, monitor, sample emissions, and
provide other information.  Section 114 also grants EPA rights of entry,
access to records and monitoring systems, and authority to sample
emissions.
     NSPS may be used to complement other standards (ambient air quality,
hazardous pollutant, or mobile source), or may constitute the sole
approach to controlling a specific air pollutant or air pollution
source.   The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are attained
through state implementation plans (SIP) and mobile source emission
standards.  The SIP are based on emission inventories.  NSPS provide the
standard test methods and accurate emission measurements required for a
meticulous emission inventory.  The emission measurements made during
NSPS development can be used to support SIP regulations, and usually
prove easier to enforce than a general regulation because they are
tailored to specific sources.  By imposing more stringent control on new
sources, NSPS extend the usefulness of SIP's and of control equipment by
reducing the rate at which emissions increase.
                                    1-2

-------
     Protection of air quality is also aided by NSPS.  No significant
deterioration (non-degradation) regulations, as a minimum, require that
SIP apply best available control technology to specified categories of
new sources.  Usually, NSPS will represent best technology.  For sources
not subject to NSPS, selection of best available control technology may
be aided by NSPS studies and by transfer of NSPS-determined technology
between similar industries.
     Hazardous pollutant standards which do not require absolute best
control to protect public health can be supplemented by NSPS that (1)
minimize environmental accumulation of the pollutant if long-term effects
are suspected and (2) increase margins of safety gradually, with less
economic impact, by requiring best control of new sources.  Even if the
hazardous pollutant standard represents best existing technology, NSPS
can be applied as control technology improves, increasing the margin of
safety without penalizing existing plants.
     Finally, NSPS can be used alone to control emissions of designated
pollutants.  This is the most feasible approach when emissions of a
pollutant could endanger public health or welfare if not limited, but
the number of existing sources is small.  In situations where neither
hazardous nor ambient air standards are justified, NSPS may be used.
Public health could, for example, be endangered yet there could be
insufficient data to set ambient air standards that would with certainty
protect the public.  Or a pollutant may affect public welfare, but
                                    1-3

-------
not public health, another situation where NSPS could be used instead of
the more complex SIP approach.
NSPS Working Concepts
     The development of working concepts and standard-setting processes
for both NSPS and hazardous pollutant standards reflects interpretations
of the Act that have evolved, and continue to evolve, during its imple-
mentation.
     Affected facility.  The term "affected facility" does not appear in
the Act, but is used in NSPS regulations to identify the equipment/
system/process to which an NSPS applies.  This concept permits full
utilization of the authority in Section lll(b)(2) to "distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes within categories."  Affected facilities range
from process equipment (cement plant kilns) to entire plants (asphalt
concrete, nitric acid).  Some NSPS exempt facilities below a specified
size (steam generators, storage tanks).  Distinctions may also be made
between the materials used (different standards for coal, oil, and gas
fired steam generators) or the material produced (different electric arc
furnace standards for ferroalloys and steel production).
     Standards of performance.   Senate Report No. 91-1196 explains that
this refers to the degree of control which can be achieved.  EPA is to
determine achievable limits and let the owner or operator determine the
most economically acceptable technique to apply.  The definition appearing
in the 1970 Act contains two phrases which also require explanation:
     (a)  Emission limitations.  This term refers to the maximum
          allowable quantity of concentration of pollutant that
                                    1-4

-------
may be emitted to the atmosphere.  Standard test methods
are absolutely essential to the establishment of emission
limitations, because different methods yield different
results.  The test method used to collect data for the
standard must be used to determine compliance unless a
correlation with other test methods is established.
Several attempts have been made to correlate particulate
matter test methods, but statistical analyses of these
data indicate that sampling errors and process and other
variations mask any correlation that may exist.  Even if
such correlations do exist, they will very probably differ
for each source category.
     An advantage of emission limitations is that any
system of control may be applied; the owner/operator is
responsible only for meeting the standard.  This helps
assure proper maintenance and permits innovative control
techniques, but can create problems if well-designed,
properly operated control equipment for some reason exceeds
allowable emission levels.   In addition, when a large number
of small sources, such as stationary internal combustion
engines, are involved, the cost of even a single performance
test can be a significant fraction of the cost of the unit.
For standardized units like gas turbines, prototype testing
could be substituted, but a few categories (petroleum product
storage tanks, for example) may best be regulated with equip-
ment standards.
                         1-5

-------
(b)   Best system of emission reduction.   In the selection of
     this system, the Act requires  that  the cost of achieving
     such reduction be taken into account and that the system
     be adequately demonstrated.   The latter stipulation does
     not necessarily require that the system be in widespread
     use or even that it be in  full-scale use at all.   Experi-
     mental  results could suffice,  as could reasonable transfer
     of technology from one category to  another.   In practice,
     however,  the system selected is usually the best  available
     full-scale  operating system.   This  should be expected,
     since a well-controlled existing plant provides actual
     cost figures,  emission data, and operating and reliability
     information that experimental  results  cannot.
          An NSPS applies nationwide over tremendous geographic,
     geologic, and  climatic variations.   Standards must there-
     fore provide for differences  in raw materials (whether
     friability  of  different coals  affects  coal  cleaning plant
     emissions),  weather (whether scrubbers can operate during
     Alaskan winters),  operating  parameters (whether seldom
     operated  emergency power supply gas turbines should be
     controlled),  and other factors.  These variables  are
     especially  important because there  is  no provision for
     granting  variances from NSPS,  other than total  exclusion
     or a separate  NSPS.
                               1-6

-------
     Stationary sources.  A stationary source is any potential  or actual
source of air pollution.  This has come to include, by implication, the
control system and ducting which handles the exhaust gases from the
source.  An affected facility is then a new or modified stationary
source to which a standard applies.
     Modification.  Basically a modification is any change in an existing
source which increases emissions.  EPA has interpreted this as  applying
only to emissions to the atmosphere from sources for which NSPS have
been proposed or promulgated, and has excluded some changes from the
definition (such as increases in the hours of operation).  Determination
of modification can, however, become complex.  The regulation defining
modifications was promulgated on December 16, 1975.
     Designated pollutants.  When the pollutant for which an NSPS is set
is not listed as either a hazardous (Section 112) or a criteria (Section
108) pollutant, it is defined as a designated pollutant and action under
Section lll(d) of the Act is initiated.  In a process similar to that
required for state implementation plans, states are to establish existing
source emission standards for this designated pollutant and submit
control plans to EPA.  Standards and control plans are required only for
existing sources to which the NSPS apply if such sources were new sources.
     Regulations establishing this procedure have been difficult to
formulate; the role of state agencies in the determination of best
control of existing sources is probably the most controversial  issue.
The regulation promulgated on November 17, 1975, specifies that EPA
either issues guidelines (welfare pollutants) or an emission value
                                    1-7

-------
(health pollutants) which states are to utilize in a manner analogous to



the SIP process.



     Continuous monitoring.  The lack of a variance process, the need to



account for nationwide process variations, and the implications of



emission standards that must be attained:  all point to the need for



continuous air pollutant emission monitoring.  Present manual source



test methods require such a high investment in both funds and personnel



that they may be used only once every six months or year to determine



compliance.  Such tests reveal almost nothing about the effect of process



or raw material variations on emissions.



     As a first step in improving emission data gathering and in moving



toward the next step in emission standards, EPA is requiring continuous



monitoring on certain pollutant-affected facility combinations.  Regu-



lations promulgated on October 6, 1975, specify performance criteria



that continuous monitoring instruments  installed as NSPS requirements



must meet.  Specified "continuous" data output ranges from the second-



by-second opacity meter readings to the once every 15 minutes output



from NO  instruments.
       A


     This document contains all New Source Performance Standards,



promulgated under Section  111 of the Clean Air Act, represented in full



as amended.  As more sources of pollution are investigated and new



technology developed, the  New Source Performance Standards will continue



to be updated to achieve their primary  purpose of preventing new air



pollution problems.





                                         Gary  D. McCutchen

                                         U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency
                                 1-8

-------
    SECTION II
SUMMARY OF STANDARDS
    AND REVISIONS

-------
                II.  SUMMARY OF STANDARDS AND REVISIONS

     In order to make the information in this document more easily
acessible, a summary has been prepared of all New Source Performance
Standards promulgated since their inception in December 1971.  Anyone
who must use the Federal Register frequently to refer to regulations
published by Federal agencies is well aware of the problems of sifting
through the many pages to extract the "meat" of a regulation.  Although
regulatory language is necessary to make the intent of a regulation
clear, a more concise reference to go to when looking up a particular
standard would be helpful.  With this in mind, the following table was
developed to assist those who work with the NSPS.  It includes the
categories of stationary sources and the affected facilities to which
the standards apply; the pollutants which are regulated and the levels
to which they must be controlled; and the requirements for monitoring
emissions and operating parameters.  Before developing standards for a
particular source category, EPA must first identify the pollutants
emitted and determine that they contribute significantly to air pollu-
tion which endangers public health or welfare.  The standards are then
developed and proposed in the Federal Register.  After a period of time
during which the public is encouraged to submit comments on the pro-
posal, appropriate revisions are made to the regulations and they are
                                  II-l

-------
promulgated in the Federal  Register.   To cite such a promulgation, it is
common to refer to it by volume and page number, i.e. 36 FR 24876, which
means Volume 36, page 24876 of the Federal Register.  The table gives
such references for the proposal, promulgation and subsequent revisions
of each standard listed.
                                                  Linda S.  Chaput
                                                  U.S.  Environmental
                                                    Protection Agency
                                 II-2

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Source category
Subpart D - Fossil-Fuel Fired
Steam Generators
Proposed/effective
8/17/71 (36 FR 15704)

Promulgated
12/23/71 (36 FR 24876)
Revised
77WV7 (37 FR 14877)
10/15/73 (38 FR 28564)
6/14/74 (39 FR 20790)
1/16/75 (40 FR 2803)
10/6/75 (40 FR 46250)
12/22/75 (40 FR 59204)
11/22/76 (41 FR 51397)
1/31/77 (42 FR 5936)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/15/77 (42 FR 41122)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41122)
12/5/77 (42 FR 61537)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
3/7/78 (43 FR 9276)










Affected
facility


Coal, coal /wood
residue fired boilers
>250 million Btu/hr


Oil, oil/wood residue
fired boilers
>250 million 8tu/hr


Gas, gas/wood residue
fired boilers
>250 million 8tu/hr

Mixed fossil fuel
fired boilers
>250 million Btu/hr



Lignite, lignite/wood
residue
>250 million Btu/hr







Pollutant


Particulate
Opacity
S02
NOX

Particulate
Opacity
502
NOX

Particulate
Opacity
NOX

Particulate
Opacity
S02
NOX (except lignite
or 25% coal refuse)

Particulate
Opacity
SO 2
NOX (as of 12/22/76)






Emission level


0.10 lb/106 Btu
20%; 27% 6 min/hr
1.2 lb/106 Btu
0.70 lb/106 Btu

0.10 lb/106 Btu
202!, 27% 6 min/hr
0.80 lb/106 Btu
0.30 lb/106 Btu

0.10 lb/106 Btu
20%; 27% 6 min/hr
0.20 lb/106 Btu

0.10 lb/106 Btu
20%; 27% 6 min/hr
Prorated
Prorated


0.10 lb/106 Btu
20%; 27% 6 min/hr
1.2 lb/106 Btu
0.60 lb/106 Btu
0.80 lb/106 Btu for
NO, SD, WT lignite
burned in cyclone-
fired unit


Monitoring
requirement


No requirement
Continuous
Continuous*
Continuous*

No requirement
Continuous
Continuous*
Conti nuous*

No requirement
Continuous*
Continuous*

No requirement
Continuous
Continuous*
Continuous*


No requirement
Continuous
Continuous*
Continuous*




'exceptions; see
standards

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)
Source category
Subpart E - Incinerators
Proposed/ef f ec t i ve
8/17/71 (36 FR 15704)
Promulgated
12/23/71 (36 FR 24876)
Revised
6/14/74 (36 FR 20790)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Subpart F - Portland Cement Plants
Proposed/effective
8/17/71 (36 FR 15704)
Promulgated
12/23/71 (36 FR 24876)
Revised
6/14/74 (39 FR 20790)
11/12/74 (39 FR 39872)
10/6/75 (40 FR 46250)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 4)424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Affected
facility

Incinerators
>50 tons/day



Kiln
Clinker cooler
Fugitive
emission points
Pollutant

Particulate



Particulate
Opacity
Particulate
Opacity
Opacity
Emission level

0.08 gr/dscf (0.18
g/dscm) corrected
to 12% C02



0.30 Ib/ton
20%
0.10 Ib/ton
10%
10%
Monitoring
requirement

No requirement
Daily charging
rates and hours


No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
Dally production
and feed kiln
rates

-------
                             STANDARDS OF  PERFORMANCE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY  SOURCES (Continued)
I
(J1
Source category
Subpart G - Nitric Acid Plants
Proposed/effective
5717/71 (36 FR~T5704}
Promul gated
12/23/71 (36 FR 24876)
Revised
5/23/71 (38 FR 13562)
10/15/73 (38 FR 28564)
6/14/74 (39 FR 20790)
10/6/75 (40 FR 46250)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Suopart H - Sulfuric Acid Plants
Proposed/effective
8/17/71 (36 FR 15704)
Promulgated
12/23/71 (36 FR 24876)
Revised
5/23/73 (38 FR 13562)
10/15/73 (38 FR 28564)
6/14/74 (39 FR 20790)
10/6/75 (40 FR 46250)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Affected
facility
Process equipment
Process equipment
Pollutant
Opac i ty
NOX
S02
Acid mist
Opacity
Emission level
10%
3.0 Ib/ton
4.0 Ib/ton
0.15 Ib/ton
10%
Monitoring
requirement
No requirement
Continuous
Daily production
rates and hours
Continuous
No requirement
No requirement

-------
                          STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES  (Continued)
I
cr>

Source category
Subpart I - Asphalt Concrete Plant
Proposed/effective
6/1 1/73 (38~FR 15406)
Promulgated
3/8/74 (39 FR 9308)

Revised
10/6/7? (40 FR 46250)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Subpart J - Petroleum Refineries
Proposed/ef f ecti ve

6/l'/73 (38 FR 15406)
10/4/76 (41 FR 43866)



Promulgated
3/8/74 (39 FR 9308)


Revised
10/6/75 (40 FR 46250)
6/24/77 (42 FR 32426)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/4/77 (42 FR 39389)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
3/15/78 (43 FR 10866)
Affected
facility
s
Dryers; screening and
weighing systems; stor-
age, transfer, and
loading systems; and
dust handling equipment






Catalytic cracker


With incinerator or
waste heat boiler



Fuel gas
combustion


Claus sulfur re-
covery plants
>20 LTD/day
(as of 10/4/76)




Pollutant

Particulate

Opacity








Particulate

Opacity
Particulate


CO

S02



SO?







Emisison level

0.04 gr/dscf
(90 mg/dscm)
20%








1.0 lb/1000 Ib
(1.0 kg/1000 kg)
30% (6 min. exemption)
Additional 0.10
Ib/million Btu
(43.0 g/HJ)
0.05%

0.10 gr H2S/dscf
(230 mg/dscm) fuel
gas content

0.025% with oxida-
tion or reduction
and incineration
0.030% with reduc-
tion only


Monitoring
requirement

No requirement

No requirement








No requirement

Continuous
No requirement


Continuous

Continuous



Continuous


Continuous

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)

Source category
Subpart K - Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids
Proposed/effective
6/11/73 (38 FR 15406)
Promulgated
3/8/74 (39 FR 9308)

Revised
4/17/74 (39 FR 13776)
6/14/74 (39 FR 20790)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Subpart L - Secondary Lead Smelter
Proposed/effective
6/11/73 (38 FR 15406)

Promulgated
3/8/74 (39 FR 9308)
Revised
4/17/74 39 FR 13776)
10/6/75 40 FR 46250)
7/25/77 42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Affected
facility


Storage tanks
>40.000 gal. capacity








Reverberatory and
blast furnaces

Pot furnaces
>550 lb/ capacity







Pollutant


Hydrocarbons









Paniculate
Opacity

Opacity







Emission level


For vapor pressure
78-570 ion Hg (1.5
psia-11.1 psia).
equip with floating
roof, vapor recovery
system, or equiv-
alent; for vapor
pressure >570 mm Hg
(11.1 psia). equip
with vapor recovery
system or equivalent
0.022 gr/dscf
(50 mg/dson)
20%

1 01






Monitoring
requirement


No requirement






Date, type, vapor
pressure and tem-
perature
No requirement
No requirement

No requirement

-------
                           STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES  (Continued)
CO

Source category
	
Subpart M - Secondary Brass, Bronz
and Ingot Production Plants
Proposed/ effective
6/11/73 (38 FR 15406)

Promulgated
3/8/74 (39 FR 9308)

Revised
10/6/75 (40 FR 46250)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Subpart N - Iron and Steel Plants
Prgposed/effecti ye
6/11/73 (38 FR 15406)
Promulgated
3/8/74 (39 FR 9308)
Revised
7725777 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
4/13/78 (43 FR 15600)


Affected
facility
;

Reverberatory
furnace


Blast and
electric furnaces






Basic oxygen
process furnace










Pollutant


Participate

Opacity


Opacity






Particulate

Opacity









Emission level


0.022 gr/dscf
(SO mg/dscm)
202


10%






0.022 gr/dscf
(50 mg/dscm)
10% (20*
exception/cycle)







Monitoring
requirement


No requirement

No requirement


No requirement






No requirement

No requirement

Time and dura-
tion of each
cycle; exhaust
gas diversion;
scrubber pressure
loss; water
supply pressure

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)

Source category
Subpart 0 - Sewage Treatment
Plants
Proposed/effective
6/11/73 (38 FR 15406)
3/8/74 (39 FR 9308)

Revised
4/17/74 (39 FR 13776)
5/3/74 (39 FR 15396)
10/6/75 (40 FR 46250)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
Subpart P - Primary Copper Smelter
Proposed/ effective
10/16/74 (39 FR 37040)

Promulgated
1/15/76 (41 FR 2331)


Kevised
2726/76 (41 FR 8346)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)

Affected
facility


Sludge incinerators
>10% from municipal
sewage treatment or
>2,205 Ib/day muni-
cipal sewage sludge





•s
Dryer



Roaster, smelting
furnace,* copper
converter

"Reverberatory furnaces
that process high-im-
purity feed materials
are exempt from S02
standard

Pollutant


Particulate

Opacity








Particulate

Opacity

S02
Opacity








Emission level


1.30 Ib/ton
(0.65 g/kg)
20%








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

0.065%
20%







Monitoring
requirement


No requirement

No requirement

Mass or volume of
sludge; mass of
any municipal
solid waste



No requirement

Continuous

Continuous
No requirement


Monthly record of
charge and weight
percent of ar-
senic, antimony.
lead, and zinc

-------
                             STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)
I
o

Source category
Subpart Q - Primary Zinc Smelters
Proposed/effective
10/16/74 (39 FR 37040)

Promulgated
1/51/76 (41 FR 2331)

Revised
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Subpart R - Primary Lead Smelters
Proposed/ef f ecti ye
10/16/74 (39 FR 37040)

Promulgated
1/15/76 (41 FR 233] )

Revised
7725/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Affected
facility

Sintering machine



Roaster






Blast or reverberatory
furnace, sintering
machine discharge end

Sintering machine,
electric smelting
furnace, converter




Pollutant

Particulate

Opacity

S02
Opacity





Particulate

Opacity

502
Opacity





Emission level

0.022 gr/dscf
(SO ng/dsca)
20*

0.065X
201





0.022 gr/dscf
(50 ng/dscn)
201

0.065X
20X




Monitoring
requirement

No requirement

Continuous

Continuous
No requirement





No requirement

Continuous

Continuous
No requirement

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)
Source category
Subpart S - Primary Aluminum
Reduction Plants
Proposed/effect i ve
10/23/74 (39 Fft 37730)
Promulgated
1/26/76 (41 FR 3825)
Revised
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Subpart T - Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry
Proposed/effective
10/22/74 (39 FR 3"7602)
Promulgated
8/6/75 (40 FR 33152)
Revised
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Affected
facility

Potroom group
Anode bake plants


Wet process
phosphoric acid

Pollutant

Opacity
Total fluorides
(a) Soderberg
(b) Prebake
Total fluorides
Opacity


Total fluorides

Emission level

10%
2.0 Ib/ton
1.9 Ib/ton
0.1 Ib/ton
20%


0.02 Ib/ton

Monitoring
requirement

No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
Daily weight, pro-
duction rate of
aluminum and anode
raw material feed
rate, cell or
potline voltages

No requirement
Mass flow rate,
dai ly equivalent
P£05 feed, total
pressure drop
across scrubbing
system

-------
                            STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES  (Continued)
I
ro

Source category
Subpart I) - Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry
Proposed/effective
TO/22/74 (39 FR 37602)
Promulgated
8/6/75 (40 FR 33152)

Revised
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Subpart V - Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry
Proposed/effective
10/24/74 (39 FR 37602)

Promulgated
8/6/75 (40 FR 33152)

Revised
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Affected
facility


Superphosphoric acid







Dianroonium phosphate









Pollutant


Total fluorides







Total fluorides









Emission level


0.01 Ib/ton







0.06 Ib/ton








Monitoring
requirement


No requirement
Mass flow rate,
dally equivalent
P20s feed, total
pressure drop
across scrubbing
system


No requirement
Mass flow rate,
dally equivalent
P20s feed, total
pressure drop
across scrubbing
system

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)

Source category
Subpart W - Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry
Proposed/effective
10/22/74 (39 FR 37602)

Promulgated
8/6/75 (40 FR 33152)

Revised
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Subpart X - Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry
Proposed/effectiye
10/22/74 (39 FR 37602)

Promulgated
8/6/75 (40 FR 33152)

Revised
7/25/77 (42 fR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Affected
facility


Triple superphosphate










Granular triple super-
phosphate









Pollutant


Total fluorides










Total fluorides









Emission level


0.2 Ib/ton










5.0 x 10"4
Ib/hr/ton








Monitoring
requirement


No requirement
Mass flow rate.
daily equivalent
P205 feed, total
pressure drop
across scrubbing
system




No requirement
Mass flow rate.
daily equivalent
P205 feed, total
pressure drop
across scrubbing
system

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)
Source category
Subpart Y - Coal Preparation
Plants
Proposed/effective
10/24/74 (39 FR 37922)
Promulgated
1/15/76 (41 FR 2232)
Revised
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
9/7/77 (42 FR 44812)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)

Affected
facility

Thermal dryer
Pneumatic coal
cleaning equipment
Processing and convey-
ing equipment, storage
systems, transfer and
loading systems
Pollutant

Particulate
Opacity
Participate
Opacity
Opacity
Emission level

0.031 gr/dscf
(0.070 g/dscm)
2Q%
0.018 gr/dscf
(0.040 g/dscm)
10%
201
Monitoring
requirement

Temperature ,
Scrubber
pressure loss.
Water pressure
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)
Source category
Subpart Z - Ferroalloy Production
Facilities
Proposed/effect i ye
10/21/74 (39 FR 37470)

Promulgated
5/4/76 (41 FR 18497)

Revised
5/20/76 (41 FR 20659)
7/25/77 (42 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
3/3/78 (43 FA 8800)








Affected
facility


Electric submerged arc
furnaces















Dust handling equip-
ment
Pollutant


Particulate













Opacity
CO
Opacity

Emission level


0.99 Ib/MU-hr
(0.45 kg/NW-hr)
(•high silicon alloys')
0.51 Ib/HK-hr
(0.23 kg/MU-hr)
(chrome and Manganese
alloys)

No visible emissions
guy escape furnace
capture system
No visible emission
•ay escape tapping
system for >40X of
each tapping period
15S
201 volume basis
10t

Monitoring
requirement


No requirement






Flowrate
monitoring In
hood
Flowrate
monitoring in
hood

Continuous
No requirement
Mo requirement

-------
                              STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES  (Continued)
i
CT>
Source category
Subpart AA - Steel Plants
Proposed/effective
10/21/74(39 FR 37466}
Promulgated
9/23/75 (40 FR 43850)
Revised
7/25/77 (40 FR 37936)
8/17/77 (42 FR 41424)
9/7/77 (42 FR 448)2)
3/3/78 (43 FR 8800)
Affected
facility
Electric arc furnaces
Dust handling equip-
ment
Pollutant
Partlculate
Opacity
(a) control device
(b) shop roof
Opacity
Emission level
0.0052 gr/dscf
(12 ag/dsoi)
31
01 except
<20X-charg1ng
< 401- tapping
lot
Monitoring
requirement
No requirement
Continuous
Flowrtt*
Monitoring in
capture hood.
Pressure
•onitorlng
In DSE system
No requirement

-------
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)
Source category
Subpart BB - Kraft Pulp Mills
Proposed/effective
9/24/76 (41 FR 42012)

Promulgated
2/23/78 (43 FR 7568)

Revised
8/7/78 (43 FR 34784)






























Affected
facility

Recovery furnace












Smelt dissolving tank



Lime kiln










Digester, brown stack
washer, evaporator.
oxidation, or strip-
per systems





Pollutant

Paniculate



Opacity

TRS
(a) straight recovery


(b) cross recovery


Partlculate

TRS

Partlculate
(a) gaseous fuel


(b) liquid fuel



TRS


TRS








Emission level

0.044 gr/dscf
(0.10 g/dscm)
corrected to
8t oxygen

35%


5 ppm by volume
corrected to 8t
oxygen
25 ppm by volume
corrected to 8%
oxygen
0.2 Ib/ton
(O.I g/kg
0.0168 Ib/ton
(0.0084 g/kg)
0.067 gr/dscf
(0.15 g/dson)
corrected to
lOt oxygen
0.13 gr/dscf
(0.30 g/dscm)
corrected to
10% oxygen
8 ppm by volume
corrected to 10%
oxygen
5 ppm by volume
corrected to 10%
oxygen*

•exceptions;
see standards



Monitoring
requirement

No requirement



Continuous


Continuous





No requirement

No requirement

No requirement



No requirement



Continuous


Continuous



Effluent gas Incinera-
tion temperature; scrub-
ber liquid supply pres-
sure and gas stream
pressure loss

-------
                               STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (Continued)
I
oo
Source category
Subpart 00 - Grain Elevators
Proposed/effective
8/3/78 (43 FR 34349)
Promulgated
8/3/78 (43 FR 34340)




Subpart HH - Line Manufacturing P
Proposed/effective
5/3/77 (42 FR 22506)
Promulgated
3/7/78 (43 FR 9452)
Affected
facility

Column and rack
dryers
Process equipment
other than dryers
Fugitive emissions:
Truck unloading;
railcar loading
or unloading
Grain handling
Truck loading
Barge, ship
loading
ants
Rotary line kiln
Line hydrator
Pollutant

Opacity
Participate
Opacity
Opacity
Opacity
Opacity
Opaci ty

Partlculate
Opacity
Particulate
Emission level

OX
0.01 gr/dscf
(0.023 g/dson)
01
5t
OX
lot
20%

0.30 Ib/ton
(0.15 kg/Mg
101
0.15 Ib/ton
(0.075 kg/Mg)
Monitoring
requirement

No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement
No requirement

No requirement
Continuous except
when using wet
scrubber
No requirement
Mass of feed to
rotary lime kiln
and hydrator

-------
  SECTION  III
   STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
 STATIONARY SOURCES

-------
    Title 40— PROTECTION  OF

             ENVIRONMENT

 Chapter I — Environmental Protection
                  Agency
        SUBCHAPfER C — AIR PROGRAMS
 PART 60 — STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
    ANCE   FOR   NEW   STATIONARY
    SOURCES '.'«

         Subpart A — General Provision*
Sec.
60.1    Applicability.
60.2    Definitions.
60.3    Abbreviations.
60.4    Address.
60.6    Determination  of  construction  or
60.6    Review of plans.
60.7    Notification and record keeping.
60.8    Performance testa.
60.9    Availability of information.
60.10   State authority.
60.11   Compliance  with   standards  and
          maintenance requirements.4
60.12   Circumvention.5
60.13   Monitoring requirements.
60.14   Modification.22
60.15   Reconstruction.22
   Subpart B — Adoption and Submlttal of Stat*
         Plans for Designated Facilities 2 '
Sec.
60.20  Applicability.
60.21  Definitions.
60.22  Publication of  guideline  documents,
         emission guidelines, and final com-
         pliance times.
60.23  Adoption  and,  submlttal  of  State
         plans;  public bearings.
60.24  Emission  standards and  compliance
         schedules.
60.25  Emission  Inventories,  Kmrce  sur-
         veillance, reports.
60.26  Legal authority.
60.27  Actions by the  Administrator.
60.28  Plan revisions by the State.
60.29  Plan revisions by the Administrator.

      Bubpart C — Emlnlon OuMaUnes »md
             Compliance Times 73
Sac. .
00.30  Scope.
66.31  Definitions.
90.32  Designated faculties.
60.88  Xmlsslon guidelines.
60.34  Compliance  times.

    Subpart D — Standards of Performance for
       Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generators
60.40  Applicability and  designation  of  af-
         fected facility.
60.41  Definitions.
60.42  Standard for paniculate matter.
60.43  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
60.44  Standard for nitrogen oxides.
60.45  Emission and fuel monitoring.
60.46  Teat methods and procedures.
    Subpart E — Standards of Performance for
                 incinerators
60.50  Applicability and designation of  af-
         fected facility.
60.61  Definitions.
60.62  Standard for paniculate matter.
60.53  Monitoring of operations.
60-64  Teat method! and procedures.

    Subporl F — Standard! of Performance fot
            Portland Cement Plontt
 60.60  Applicability   and   designation   of
         affected facility
 80.81  Definitions.
 60.62  Standard for paniculate matter
 60.63  Monitoring of operations.
 60.64  T«8t methods and procedures

 Subpart &—Standard* of Performance tor Nitric
                 Acid Plcnti

 60.70  Applicability  and designation  or ef-
         fected facility.
 60.71  Definitions.
 80.72  Standard for nitrogen oxides
 80.73  Emission monitoring.
 80.74  Test methods and procedures

 Subpart H—Standards of Performance for Sulfurlc
                 Acid Planti

 60.80  Applicability  and designation of af-
         fected facility.
 60.81  Definitions.
 60.82  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
 60.83  Standard for acid mist.
 80.84  Emission monitoring.
 60.86  Test methods and procedures

 Subpart I—Standards of Performance for Asphalt
                Concrete Plants •"
 60.90   Applicability and designation  of af-
          fected facility.
 60.91   Definitions.
 60.92   Standard  for paniculate matter.
 80.93   Test methods and procedures.

    Subpart J—Standards of Performance for
             Petroleum Refineries^
 60.100  Applicability and designation  of af-
          fected facility.
 60.101  Definitions.
 60.102  Standard for paniculate matter.
 60.103  Standard for carbon monoxldo.
 60.104  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
 60.105  Emission monitoring.
 80.106  Test methods and procedures.

 Subpart K—Standards of Performance for Storage
         Vessels for Petroleum  Liquids 5
 60.110  Applicability  and   designation  of
          affected facility.
 80.111  Definitions.
 60.112  Standard for hydrocarbons.
 60.113  Monitoring of operations.

    Subpart I—Standards of Performance for
           Secondary Lead Smelters 5
Sec.
60.120  Applicability  and   designation   of
          affected facility.
60.121   Definitions.
60.122  Standard loTpartletslate matter.
 60.123  Test methods and procedures.

Subpart W—Standards of Performance  for Sec-
ondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production Plants ^
60.130  Applicability  and  designation   of
          affected facility.
60.131   Definitions.
60.132  standard for paniculate matter.
60.133  Test methods and procedures.

  Subpart N—Standards of Performance for Iron
               and Steal Plants 5
60.140  Applicability  and  designation   of
          affected facility.
60.141   Definitions.
80.142  Standard for paniculate matter.
60.143  (Reserved]
60.144  Test methods and procedures.

    Subpart O—Standards of performance for
           Sewage Treatment Plants 5
60.160  Applicability  and  designation   of
          affected facility.
60.161   Definitions.
60.1S2  standard for paniculate matter.
60.163   Monitoring of operations.
60.164  Test methods and procedures.
    Subpart P—Standards of Performance for
           Primary Copper Smelters 26
 60.160  Applicability and  designation of af-
          fected facility.
 60.181  Definitions.
 60.182  Standard for paniculate matter.
 60.163  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
 60.184  Standard for visible emissions.
 80.166  Monitoring of operations,
 60.166  Test methods and procedures.
    Subpart Q—Standards of Performance for
            Primary Zinc Smelters 26
 60.170  Applicability  and  designation   of
          affected facility.
 60.171  Definitions.
 60.172  Standard for paniculate matter.
 60.173  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
 60.174  Standard for visible emissions.
 60.175  Monitoring of operations.
 00.176  Test methods and procedures.
    Subpart R—Standards of Performance for
            Primary Lead Smelters 26
 60.180  Applicability  and  designation   of
          affected facility.
 60.181  Definitions.
 60.182  Standard for paniculate matter.
 60.183  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
 60.184  Standard for visible emissions.
 60.185  Monitoring of operations.
 GO.188  Test methods  and procedures.
    Subpatt S—Standard* of  Performance lew
      Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants2'
 60.190  Applicability and designation of af-
          fected facility.
 60.191  Definitions.
 fin 192  Standard for fluorides.
 60.193  Standard for visible emissions.
 60.194  Monitoring of operations.
 00.195  Test methods and procedures.
 Subpart T—Standards of Performance  for  the
  Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry: Wat  Process
  Phosphoric Acid Plants 14
 60.200  Applicability  and  designation   of
          affected facility.
 00.201  Definitions,
 60.202  Standard for fluorides.
 60.203  Monitoring of operations.
 60.204  Test methods and procedures.
 Subpait U—Standards of Performance  for  the
  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superphosphorlc
  Acid Plants '4
 60.210  Applicability  and   designation   of
          affected facility.
 60.211  Definitions.
 60.212  Standard for fluorides.
 60.213  Monitoring of operations
 60.214  Test methods and procedures.
 Subpart V—Standards of Performance  for  the
  Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry: Dlammonlum
  Phosphate Plants ' 4
 60.220  Applicability   and   designation   of
          affected facility.
 60.221  Definitions.
 60.222  Standard tor fluorides.
 60.223  Monitoring of operations.
 00.324  Tost methods and procedures.
Subpart W—Standards of Performance  for  the
  Phosphate Fertilizer  Industry:  Triple  Super-
  phosphate Plants '4
60.230  Applicability and designation of af-
          fected facility.
60.231  Definitions.
 60.232  Standard for fluorides.
 60.233  Monitoring of operations.
 60.234  Test methods and procedures.

 Subpart X—Standards of Performance for  the
  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:  Granular Triple
  Superphosphate Storage Facilities 'J
60.240  Applicability and designation of  af-
          fected facility.
                                                             III-l

-------
60.241 Definitions.
60.343 Standard for fluorides.
60.343 Monitoring of operation*.
60.344 Test methods and procedure*.
Subpart V—Standard* of Pertormanc* for Coil
Preparation Flint* 24
60.350 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.3S1 Definition*
60.363 Standards for particular matter.
60.363 Monitoring of operations.
60.364 Test methods and procedure*.
Subpart Z—Standards of Performance for Ferro-
alloy Production Facilities 33
60.380 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.361 Definitions.
60.363 Standard for participate matter.
60.363 Standard for carbon monoxide.
60.364 Emission monitoring.
60.265 Monitoring of operations.
60.366 Teat methods and procedures.
Subpart AA—Standard* of Performance for SUel
Plant*: Electric Arc Fumacm '*
60.270 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60.371 Definitions.
60.373 Standard for participate matter.
60.373 Emission monitoring.
60.374 Monitoring of operations.
60.375 Test methods and procedures.

Subpart U—Standard* of Performance for
Kraft Pulp Mllli 82

60.360 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60.261 Definitions.
60.282 Standard for paniculate matter.
60.283 Standard for total reduced sulfur
(TRS).
60.284 Monitoring of emissions and oper-
ations.
60.285 Test methods and procedures.
Subpart DO—Standard* of Performance fa*
Oraln fie voter* 90

Sec.
60.300 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60.301 Definitions.
60.302 Standard for paniculate matter.
60.303 Test methods and procedures.
60.304 Modification.

Subpart HH—Standards of Perfor-
mance for Lime Manufacturing
Plants85

Sec.
60.340 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60.341 Definitions.
60.342 Standard for paniculate matter.
60.343 Monitoring of emissions and oper-
ations.
60.344 Test methods and procedures.
Appendix A—Reference Methods
14
Appendix B—Performance Speclficatlona
18
Method 1—Sample and velocity traverses for
stationary sources.
Method 3—Determination of stack gas ve-
locity and volumetric flow rate (Type S
pilot tube).
Method 3—Oas analysis for carbon dioxide.
excess air. and dry molecular weight.
Method 4—Determination of moisture In
stack gaaes.
Method 6—Determination of partlculat*
emissions from stationary sources.
Method 6—Determination of sulfur dioxide
emissions from stationary sources.
Method 7—Determination of nitrogen oxide
emissions from stationary sources.
Method 8—Determination of sulfurtc acid
mist and sulfur dioxide emissions from
stationary sources.
Method 9—Visual determination of the opac-
ity of emission* from stationary sources.
Method 10—Determination of carbon monox-
ide emissions from stationary sources.3
Method 11—DETERMINATION OF HYBROGEN
SULFIDE CONTENT OF FUEL GAS STREAMS IN
PETROLEUM REFINERIES 79
Method 13—[Reserved |
Method ! 3A—Determination of total fluoride
emissions from stationary sources—
8PADNS Zirconium Lake Method.
Method 13B—Determination of total fluoride
emissions from stationary sources—Spe-
cific Ion Electrode Method.
Method 14—Determination of fluoride eml»-
slons from potroom roof monitors of
primary aluminum plants. 2 7
METHOD 15. DETERMINATION or HYDROGEN
SULFIDE. CARBONYL SumoE. AND CARBON
DISULFIDE EMISSIONS FBOM STATIONARY
SOURCES 84

METHOD-1». SEMICONTIWUOUS DETERMINATION
OP SULFTra EMISSIONS FBOM STATIONARY
80TOCES 82
METHOD 17. DETERMINATION OF PARTICOLATE
EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES (IN-
STACK FILTRATION METHOD)82
Performance Specification 1—Performance
specifications and specification test proce-
dures for transmlssometer systems for con-
tinuous measurement of the opacity of stack
emissions.
Performance Specification 3—Performance
specifications and specification test proce-
dures for monitors of 8O, and NO. from
stationary sources.
Performance Specification 3—Performance
specifications and specification test proce-
dures for monitors of GO, and O, from sta-
tionary sources.
Appendix C—Determination of Emission
Rate Change 12
Appendix D—Required Emission Inventory
Information 21
AUTHORITY: Sec. 111. 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411,
7601(a)>, unless otherwise noted. 68,83
III-2

-------
   Subpart A—General  Provisions
§60.1   Applicability.82'
  Except as provided In Subparts B and
C, the provisions of this  part apply  to
the owner or operator of any stationary
source which contains an affected facil-
ity, the construction or modification  of
which  is commenced after the date  of
publication in this part of any standard
(or, if  earlier, the date of publication  of
any  proposed standard)  applicable  to
that facility.

§ 60.2   Definition*.
  As used in this  part,  all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the  Act:
  (a)  "Act"  means the Clean  Air Act
(42 U.8.C, 1857  et  seq.. as amended by
Public  Law  91-604, 84  Stat. 1678).
  (b)  "Administrator"  means the Ad-
ministrator of the  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency or his authorized repre-
sentative.
    "Alternative method" means  any
method of sampling and analyzing for an
air pollutant  which is not a reference or
equivalent  method but which has been
demonstrated to the Administrator's sat-
isfaction to,  in specific  cases, produce
results adequate for his determination of
compliance. 5
  (v) "Paniculate  matter" means any
finely divided solid or liquid material,
other  than   uncomblned  water,  as
measured  by the reference methods
specified  under each applicable  sub-
part, or an  equivalent  or alternative
method. W°
   (w)  "Run" means  the net  period of
time during which an emission sample
Is  collected. Unless otherwise specified,
a run may be either intermittent or con-
tinuous within the limits of good engi-
neering practice.5
   (x) "Six-minute  period1-' means  any
one of the 10 equal parts of a one-hour
period. 18
   (y) "Continuous  monitoring system"
means  the total  equipment,  required
under  the  emission monitoring sections
in applicable subparts, used to sample
and condition (if applicable) , to analyze,
and  to  provide a  permanent record of
emissions or process parameters. 18
   (z) "Monitoring  device"  means  the
 total  equipment,  required  under  the
 monitoring of operations sections In ap-
 plicable subparts, used to measure  and
 record  (If  applicable)  process param-
 eters.'8
   (aa)  "Existing facility" means,  with
 reference to a stationary source, any ap-
 paratus of the type for which a standard
 Is promulgated in this part, and the con-
 struction or modification of which  was
 commenced before the  date of proposal
 of that  standard;  or  any  apparatus
 which could be altered  in such a way as
 to be of that type.22
   (bb)  "Capital expenditure" means an
 expenditure for a physical or operational
 change to an existing facility which ex-
 ceeds the product of the applicable "an-
 nual  asset  guideline repair  allowance
 percentage" specified in the latest edi-
 tion of Internal Revenue Service Publi-
 cation  534 and  the existing facility's
 basis, as defined  by section 1012 of the
 Internal Revenue Code.  22
 §60.3   Uniu and  ubbre%ialion».3'42

   Used in this part are abbreviations and
 symbols of units of measure. These are
 defined as follows:
   Ca)  System  International (SI) units
 of measure:

 A—*mper«
 t—gram
 Ha—Hertz
 J—Joule
 K—degree Kelvin
 kg—tttlogrnm
 m—motor
 tn»—cubic meter
 mg—milligram—10-' gram
 mm—millimeter—10-' meter
 Mg—megigram—10* grim
 mol—mole
 N—newton
 ng—n-tnogram—10-" gram
 nm—nano:aetcr—10-' meter
 P»—pascal
 »—Mcond
 T—volt
 W—wat*
 a—ohm
 
-------
mol. wt.—molecular weight
ppb—parts per bllUon
ppm—parts per million
pel*—pounds per square Inch absolute
twig—pounds per square roeb gag*
•R—degree BmniriM
tat—cuMc feet at standard condition*
•cfli—cubic feet per hour at standard condi-
  tion*
acm—(ruble meter at standard condition*,
sec—second
aq (t—square feet
ltd—at standard conditions

   
 § 60.4   Address m
   (a)  All requests, reports, applications.
 submittals. and other communications to
 the Administrator pursuant to this part
 shall be submitted in duplicate and ad-
 dressed to the  appropriate Regional Of-
 flce  of the  Environmental  Protection
 Agency, to the attention of the Director.
 Enforcement Division. The regional of-
 fices are as follows:
  Region I (Connecticut. Maine. New Hamp-
 shire.  Massachusetts,  Rhode Island, Ver-
 mont). John F. Kennedy Federal  Building,
 Boston. Massachusetts 02303.
  Region  II (New York, New Jersey,  Puerto
 Rico,  Virgin Islands). Federal Office  Build-
 ing.  28 FedsraJ  Plaza (Foley Square), New
 York, N.Y.  1000T.
  Region III (Delaware. District of Columbia.
 Pennsylvania.  Maryland, Virginia, West Vir-
 ginia),  Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut
 Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.
  Region  IV  (Alabama,  Florida.  Georgia.
 Mississippi. Kentucky. North Carolina. South
 Carolina, Tennessee). Suite 300,  1421 Peach-
 tree Street. Atlanta. Georgia 30309.
  Region  V (Illinois, Indiana. Minnesota.
 Michigan, Ohio,  Wisconsin), 230 South Dear-
 born Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604.59
  Region   VI   (Arkansas.  Louisiana.  New
 Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas).  1800 Patterson
 Street. Dallas, Texas 75301.
  Region  VII  (Iowa,  Kansas. Missouri. Ne-
 braska) , 1735 Baltimore Street, Kansas City.
 Missouri 63108.
  Region  vni  (Colorado. Montana.  North
 Dakota. South Dakota, Utah. Wyoming). 196
 Mncoln Towers, !860 Lincoln Street. Denver.
 Colorado 80203.
  Region  IX  (Arizona.  California. Hawaii.
 Nevada. Guam.  American Samoa). 100 Cali-
 fornia Street. San Francisco. California 94111
  Region  X  (Washington,  Oregon.  Idaho.
Alaska).  1200 Sixth Avenue. Seattle. Wash-
ington 08501.

   (b)  Section  lll(c) directs the Admin-
istrator  to delegate  to each State,  when
appropriate, the authority  to implement.
and enforce standards  of performance
for new stationary  sources located  In
such  State. All Information required  to
be  submitted  to  EPA under paragraph
(a)  of this  section, must also be sub-
mitted to the  appropriate  State  Agency
of any State to which this authority has
been   delegated  (provided,  that  each
specific  delegation  may except  sources
from a certain Federal  or  State  report-
ing requirement). The appropriate  mail-
ing address for those States whose dele-
gation request has  been approved is  as
fallows:

   (A)  (reserved)

   (B)  Stale  of  Alabama. Air  Pollution Con-
Irol Division, Air Pollution Control Commis-
sion.   645 S.  McDonouch   Street,  Mom
fernery. Alabama 3610-t "

   (C)  (reserved).

  (D) Arizona.
  Marlcopa County Department of Health
Services, Bureau ot Air Pollution Control.
1825 East Roosevelt Street. Phoenix, Ariz.
85006.
  Ptma  County Health   Department, Air
Quality Control District 151 West Congress,
Tucson, Ariz. 85101.51.e?
  (F) California.
  Bay  Area- Air Pollution  Control District,
939 Ellis  Street. San Francisco. Call/. 94109.
  Del Norte County  Air Pollution Control
District,  Courthouse,  Crescent City, Calif.
96531.
  Fresno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict,   515  South  Cedar  Avenue, Fresno,
Calif. 93702
  Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District.  5600' South  Broadway,  Eureka.
Calif. 95501.
  Kern County Air Pollution  Control Dis-
trict. 1700 Flower Street 
-------
  (EE)  New  Hampshire  Air  Pollution
Control Agency, D- partment of Health
and Welfare, State Laboratory Building.
Hazen Drive.  Concord. New Hampshire
05301.*

(FF)—State of New Jersey: New Jersey  De-
  partment  ot  Environment*!  Protection.
  John Pitch Plaza. P.O. Box 3807. Trenton.
  New Jersey 08816."

  (GO [reserved]


  (HH)—Nsw  York:  New  Tor*  State  De-
partment of Environmental Conservation. 60
Wolf Ro»d, New York  12333,  attention: DIvl-
aion of Air Resources.'9
   (Ill  North Carolina Environmental  Man-
 agement Commission. Department of Natural
 and Economic 'Resources. Division  of  Envi-
 ronmental Management. P.O. Box 37987. Rn-
 letgh. North Carolina 37611. Attention:  Air
 duality Cectlon. *»
   (JJ)-State of North Dakota, State Depart-
 ment of  Health,  State  Capitol. Bismarc-k
 North Dakota 58501. 47
   (KK) Ohio-
   Medina,  BummJt  and Portage Co-unties;
 Director. Air Pollution Control. '77  South
 Broadway, Akron, Ohio, 44306.
   Stark County; Director, Air Pollution Con-
 trol Division,  Canton City Health  Depart-
 ment,  City Hall. 218 Cleveland Avenue SW,
 Canton, Ohio. 44702.
   Butler.  Ctermont. Hamilton  and Warren
 Counties;  Superintendent.  Division  of  Air
 Pollution Control, 2400 Beekman Street, Cin-
 cinnati. Ohio, 44214.
   Cuyaboga County: Commissioner, Division
 of Air Pollution Control, Department  ot
 Public Health and  Welfare, 2736 Broadway
 Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio, 44115.
   Loraln County; Control Officer. Division of
 Air Pollution Control, 200 West Erie Avenue,
 7th Floor, Loraln. Ohio, 44052.
   Belmont,  Carroll,  Columbians.  Harrison,
 Jefferson,  and  Monroe  Counties;  Director,
 North  Ohio Valley Air Authority (NOVAA),
 •14 Adams Street, Steubenvllle, Ohio,  43013.
   Clark, Darke, Qre«ne, Miami,  Montgomery,
 and Preble Counties; Supervisor,  Regional
 Air Pollution  Control  Agency  (RAPCA),
 Montgomery County Health Department, 481
 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio, 44402.
   LUCM County and the City ot Roes/ord (la
 Wood  County);  Director,  Toledo Pollution
 Control Agency. 26 Main Street, Toledo, Ohio,
 486M.
   Adams.   Brown,   Lawrence,  atid   scioto
 Oountlee;  Kaglneer-Dlrector,  Air  Division.
 PorUmouth City BeeJth  Department.  740
 Second street, Portsmouth, Ohio, 4&662.
   Allen, Aahland,  Auglalze.  Crawford. De-
 fiance, Erie, Fulton,  Hancock Hardln, Henry,
 Huron.  Knox,   Marlon,   Mercer,   Morrow.
 Ottawa, Pauldlng,  Putnam, Rjchland, Ban-
 dusky,   Beneoa,   Van    Wert,   William*
 Wood  (except City ot Boaaford), and Wyan-
 dot Counties; Ohio Environment*! Protec-
 tion Agency, Northwest District Office.  Ill
 West  Washington  Street,  Bowling  Oretn,
 Ohio. 43403.
   Aantabula.  Oeeuga,  Lake,  Mihonlug
 TrumbuU. and Wayne Countlss; Ohio Envi-
 ronmental Protection Agency. Northeast Dts-
 trlot Office, 2110 Bast Aurora Road,  Twins-
 burg, Ohio, 44067.
   Athens, Ooehocton, Oallla, Guernsey, High-
 land,  Hocking,   Holmes,  Jackson,   Melg*
 Morgan,  Uuaklngum,  Noble,  Perry,  Pike
 Bos*.  Tusoamwat,  Vlnton, and Washington
 Counties;  Ohio Environmental  Protection
 Agency. Southeast  District Office, Route 3,
 Aox 803, Logan, Ohio, 43188.
   Champaign, Clinton,  Logan,  and  Shelby
 Counties;  Ohio EnTironsaental  Protection
 Agency, Southwest.  District Offloe,  7 Baat
 fourth Street, Carton. Ohio,  46402
  Delaware,  PmirfteJd.  Payett*,  Franklin
Uoiing,  UexUeon,  Ptckaway.  aad  Union
Oouatles;  Ohio Environment*!  Protection
Agency.  £>ntr»l  District Office.  369  Ids'.
Broad Street. Oolumbua, Ohio. 43216 "3
  (LU [reserved].


  (MM)—State of Oregon, Department
of  Environmental  Quality,  1234  SW
Morrison Street, Portland. Oregon 07205.


 (NN)(») City  of Philadelphia:  Philadelphia
  Department  ot  Public  Health.  Air  Man-
  agement Services, 801  Arch Street, Phila-
  delphia. Pennsylvania  18107."
  COO) State of Rhode Island.  Department
of  Environment!!  Management.  83  Park
Street. Providence,  R.I. 02908 '?
   (PP)  State  of South  Carolina, OO«  ol
 Environmental Quality Control, Department
 of  Health and Environmental  Control, 3000
 Bull Street. Columbia. South Carolina 2900156
    |QQ>  State of South Dakota. Depan-
 ment of Environmental  Protection. Joe
 Poss  Building,   Pierre,  South  Dftiota
 57501 3J

    . (SSl  |rcwr\c«l|
    (TT)—State of Utah,  Utah Air Con-
 servation Committee.  State Division of
 Health, 44 Medical Drive, Salt Lake City.
 Utah 84113.
  (TTUl —State of Vermont. Agency or Environ-
  mental  Protection   Box  486.  Montpeller.
  Vermont 06002 u
        Determination of construction
        .Ufir-olinn  22
                                                                                                                         or
   (W) Commonwealth of Virginia. Vn -
 cinia State Air Pollution Control Board
 Room 1106. Ninth Street Office Building
 Richmond, Virginia 23219.30


  (WW) (I) Washington: State ot Washing-
ton. Department of Ecology. Olympla. Wash-
ington 88504
  (U) Northwest Air Pollvitlon Authority. 207
Pioneer  Building. Second and  Pine Streett,
Mount Vernon, Washington 98273
  (111) Puget  Bound  Air  PolHuion control
Agency,  410 West Harrison Street. Seattle,
Washington 98119.
  (17) Spokane County Air Pollution Control
Authority,  North  til  Jefferson, Spokane,
Washington B8301.
  (V) Southwest Air  Pollution Coutrol Au-
thority,-Suite 7801 H. NB Haze) Dell Avenue,
Vancouver, Washington 96966. I2<28


  OCX)  (reserved).

  (TT) Wisconsin—
Wisconsin Department ot Natural Resources.
  P.O. Bos  nai. IsexUsoa, Wuconln  M707*

   (ZZ)  State of Wyoming, Air  Quality  Di-
 ylslon of the Department of Environmental
 Quality. Hathaway Building, Cheyenne, Wyo.
 •3009. i*

  (AAA) litkcrvedj.

   (BBS)—Commonwealth of  Puerto  Rlro
 Commonwealth  of  Puerto Rico  Envlroc:-
 mental  Quality  Board. P.O Box  11786 6an-
 turct.P.R 00910 77

  'tCCO—US, Virflln lalanda: UJS. Vir-
gin Islands Department of Conservation
and Cultural Affairs, P.O. Box  578, Char-
lotte  Amalie, St. Thomas,  U.S.  Virgin
Island*  00801.'"

   (ODD) Irewrved).
                                         §60.5
                                             modification.
                                           (a)  When requested  to  do so by an
                                         owner  or  operator,  the Administrator
                                         will make  a determination of  whether
                                         action taken or intended to be taken by
                                         such owner or  operator  constitutes con-
                                         struction  (Including  reconstruction)  or
                                         modification   or   the  commencement
                                         thereof within  the meaning of this part.
                                           fb) The Administrator will respond to
                                         any request  for a  determination  under
                                         paragraph (a)  of  this section within  30
                                         days of  receipt of such  request.
§60.6  Review of plans.
   (a)  When  requested to do so by an
owner or operator, the Administrator will
review plans for construction or modifi-
cation  for the  purpose  of  providing
technical advice to the owner or operator.
   (b) (1)  A separate request shall be sub-
mitted for each construction or modifi-
cation project. 5
   (2)  Each request shall identify the lo-
cation of such project, and  be accom-
panied by technical information describ-
ing the proposed nature, size, design,  and
methcci of operation of  each  affected fa-
cility involved in  such project, Including
Information  on any requlpment to be
used for measurement or control of emto-
slons. 5
   (c) Neither a request for plans review
nor advice furnished by the Administra-
tor in response to such  request  snail (1)
relieve an owner or operator  of legal
responsibility for compliance with  any
provision of thla part or of any applicable
State or local requirement, or (2) prevent
the Administrator from Implementing or
enforcing any provision of this part or
taking any other action authorized by th»
Act.
                                          § 60.7   Notification and record kecptaf.
                                             (a)  Any owner or operator subject to
                                          the provisions of Uus part shall furnish
                                          the Administrator written notification at
                                          follows:
                                             (1) A notification of the date construc-
                                          tion (or recoustructlon as denned under
                                          i 60.15) of an  affected facility la com-
                                          menced postmarked  no later than  30
                                          days  after  such date.  This requirement
                                          shall not apply in the case of mass-pro-
                                          duced facilities which are purchased In
                                          completed form.22
                                             (2)  A notification of the anticipated
                                          date  of initial  startup of  an affected
                                          facility  postmarked not more than  60
                                          days nor less than 30 days prior to such
                                          date.«
                                             (3)  A notification of the actual data
                                          of initial startup of an affected facility
                                          postmarked within 10 days  after  euoh
                                          date.S2
                                             (4)  A notification of any physical or
                                          operational change to an existing facil-
                                          ity'which may Increase the emission rate
                                          of any air pollutant to which a  stand-
                                          ard  applies, unless that change Is spe-
                                          cifically exempted  under an  applicable
                                                         III-5
-------
sub part or In I 60.14ie>  and the exemp-
tion  1* not denied under  | 60.14<4).
This notice shall be postmarked 60 days
or M  soon as practicable before the
change if commenced and shall Include
information describing  the  precise na-
ture of the change, present and proposed
•mission  control  systems,  productive
capacity of the facility before and after
the change, and  the expected  comple-
tion date of the change The Administra-
tor may request additional relevant In-
formation subsequent to this notice. 2!
  (5) A notification of the  date  upon
which  demonstration of the continuous
monitoring  system  performance  com-
mences In accordance  wtth |60.13(c).
Notification shall  be postmarked not less
than 30 days prior to such date. '8
  (b)  Any owner or operator subject to
the  provisions of this part shall  main-
tain records of the occurrence and dura-
tion of any startup, shutdown, or mal-
function in  the operation  of an affected
facility; any malfunction of the air pol-
lution  control equipment; or any periods
during which a continuous monitoring
system or monitoring device is  inopera-
tive. '8
   (c)  Each owner or operator  required
to Install a continuous monitoring sys-
tem shall submit a  written report of
excess emissions (as defined in applicable
•ubparts) to the Administrator  for every
calendar  quarter.  All  quarterly reports
shall be postmarked by the 30th day fol-
lowing the-end of each calendar quarter
and shall Include the following  informa-
tion: 18
  .(1) The magnitude of excess emissions
computed in accordance with 5  60.13(h),
any conversion factor(s)  used,  and  the
date and time o*  commencement and
completion of each time period  of excess
emissions.1 ^
   (2)  Specific Identification   of  each
period  of excess  emissions that  occurs
during startups,  shutdowns, and mal-
functions of  the  affected facility. The
nature and cause of any malfunction (If
known), the corrective action  taken or
preventatlve measures adopted.18
   (3) The date and time Identifying each
period during  which  the  continuous
monitoring system was Inoperative ex-
cept for zero and span checks and the
nature of the system repairs or adjust-
ments. '8
   (4)  When  no  excess emissions have
occurred  or  the  continuous  monitoring
system
-------
that lr.  FUO:WT'. !:•;•  the Administrator.
Opp,city reading.: a!  .wtions of  plumes
which  contain condensed,  unconibined
water vapor shali not be used for pur-
poses of  determining compliance with
opacity standard".  '\'\v  results of con-
tinuous monitoring  by  transmissometer
which  indicate that  tl'.e opacity at the
time visual  observations were made was
not in excess of the .standard are proba-
tive  but not conclusive evidence of the
actual  opacity of an emission, provided
that the source shall meet the burden of
proving that the  instrument used meets
(at the time of  the alleged violation'
Performance Specification 1 in Appendix
B of thts  part, has been properly main-
tained and  (nt the  time of vhe  alleged
violation)   calibrated,   and  that  the
resulting  data have not hern  tampered
with ill any  way. IL'-60
  (cl The opacity standards set forth in
this  part  shall apply at all  times except
during periods of startup, shutdown, mal-
function,  and as otherwise  provided In
the applicable standard.
  (d) At  all times, including periods of
startup,   shutdown,  and   malfunction.
owners and  operators shall,  to the extent
practicable,  maintain and  operate any
affected facility including associated air
pollution  control equipment in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control
practice for minimizing emissions. De-
termination of whether acceptable oper-
ating and maintenance procedures are
being used wllJ be based on  information
available to  the Administrator which may
Include, but is not limited to, monitoring
results, opacity observations,  review of
operating and, maintenance procedures,
and inspection of the source.
  (e) (1) An owner or operator of an af-
fected  facility  may  request  the  Admin-
istrator to  determine opacity of emis-
sions from  the affected facility  during
the initial performance tests required by
J60.8.10
  (2) Upon receipt  from such owner or
operator of  the written report of the re-
sults of the performance tests required
by § 60.8, the Administrator will make
a finding concerning compliance with
opacity and other applicable standards.
If the  Administrator finds  that an af-
fected  facility is  in  compliance with all
applicable standards  for which perform-
ance tests are conducted in accordance
with 5 60.8  of this part but during the
time such performance  tests are being
conducted fails  to  meet ajiy applicable
opacity  standard, he shall notify the
owner or operator and advise him that he
may petition  the  Administrator  within
10 days of receipt of notification to make
appropriate  adjustment to  the  opacity
standard for the affected facility.!°
  <3) The Administrator will grant such
a petition upon a demonstration by the
owner or  operator that the  affected fa-
cility and associated air pollution con-
trol equipment was operated and main-
tained  in a manner to minimize the
opacity of emissions during the perform-
ance tests;  that  the performance tests
were performed under the conditions es-
tablished by the Administrator; and that
tb« affected facility  and associated air
pollution,  control  equipment  were in-
capable of being adjusted or operated to
meet, the applicable opacity standard.
   "i>  The Administrator  v,in e.staWlsh
an  opacity standard for  ihe affected
facility  meeting UK; above requirements
at a level at  which  the source  will  be
able, as Indicated  by the  performance
and opacity  tests,  to meet  the  opacity
standard  at all times during which the
source is meeting the mass or concentra-
tion emission  standard. The  Adminis-
trator will promulgate the new  opacity
standard  In the FEDERAL REGISTER. 10
(Sec. 114. Clean Air Act  U nmended (42
U.S.C. 7414)). «883

§ 60.12    Circumvention.'
  No  owner or operator subject  to the
provisions of this part shall  build, erect.
Install,   or use  any  article,  machine,
equipment or process, the use of which
conceals an emission which would other-
wise constitute a violation of an applica-
ble  standard.  Such concealment  In-
cludes,  but is not limited to, the use of
gaseous diluents to achieve compliance
with  an  opacity   standard  or  with a
standard which is based on the concen-
tration  of a pollutant in the gases dis-
charged to the atmosphere.

                                 Ift
§ 60.13    Monitoring reipiiremrnt*.

   (a) For the  purposes  of this section,
 all continuous monitoring systems re-
 quired  under applicable subparts shall
 be subject to the provisions of this sec-
 tion  upon  promulgation  of  perfor-
 mance   specifications  for  continuous
 monitoring system under Appendix B
 to this  part, unless: 82
   (1)   The   continuous   monitoring
 system Is subject  to the provisions  of
 paragraphs  (c)(2)  and  (c)<3) of  this
 section, or82
   (2) otherwise specified In (in applica-
 ble subpart or by the Administrator.57
   (b) All continuous  monitoring systems
ami monitoring devices shall bo installed
and operational prior to  conducting per-
formance tests under § 60.8.  Verification
of operational stf.tus shall,  as a mini-
mum, consist of the following:
   (1) For continuous monitoring  sys-
tems referenced in paragraph  (c) (1)  of
this section,  completion of the  condi-
tioning  period  specified by  applicable
requirements in Appendix B.
   (2)  For continuous monitoring  sys-
tems referenced In paragraph  (c) (2)  of
this section, completion of seven day? of
operation.
   (3.)  For monitoring devices referenced
in applicable subparts, completion of the
manufacturer's  written  requirements  or
recommendations for checking the op-
eration  or calibration of  the device.
  (c)  During  any   performance  tests
required under § 60.8 or within 30 days
thereafter and  at  such  other times  as
may be required by  the Administrator
under section  114 of  the Act, the  owner
or operator of any affected facility shall
conduct continuous monitoring  system
performance evaluations and furnish the
Administrator within  60 days thereof two
or, upon request, more copies of a written
report of the results of such tests.  These
continuous  inonkon;;^ system perform-
ance  evaluations snail be conducted In
accordance  with the following specifica-
tions and procedures:
   '. 1)  Continuous  monitoring systems
listed  within  this paragraph  except- as
provided in paragraph to)(2) of tins sec-
tion shall be evaluated  in  accordance
with  the requirements and procedures
contained in the  applicable  perform-
ance  specification  of Appendix  B. as
follows:
   (0 Continuous msj'.ttoring systems for
u'.ei'.stinng  opacity  of omissions  shall
comply -.vi!h rr."f-ir--"".<^  "Tveific'.Ttfo". '.
   (ii>  Continuous :r.e-:vito!-;n!i systems for
rnensiirliv:  :i>;>;'.!'«  emissions
slia'l comply  wi'1! i'erfo'-r'iii'.'.cf' Specifi-
cation 11.
  >iii'  Co:it!i!!:o;i-: •wiiti'riit: sy.'.-fo.'iis for
rnep.surh]': suU'ur dioxide  emissions shall
comply with PiT[,ir:;i:incr  Specification 2.
  'U'i  Continuous moy.itorin;; systems for
measiinnu the .ixy.-.eii io'-.tent or carbon
dioxide  content  of  eilluent  rinses  shall
comply  with  IVrfo1. ::i:i:-.co Specifier!-! ion
3
   '°-  An owner or operator who, ji-jor
to  September 11. '1074.  entered into a
hindinfc eonu-aetua:  obligation to  pur-
chase   specific  continuous  monitoring
system t\Hupuiie::;s except, as referenced
by paragraph H-- v:-< liiii  of this section
shall comply v/itl! the following require-
ments:
   (i)  Continuous momi.orin  svfems for
measuring opiv.-iiy o:"  emission:- shnl1. be
capable  of  niensuviiii: emission   ;ev- •'••
within  ' :!0 percent v-.-'ih a  conflc'eiu.
level of !),ri lid-cent. The Calibration Terror
Test  and assoriaied calculation proce-
dures  set forth  in I'enorinarro Specifi -
cation 1 01'  Appendix R sh:•? used for
demolish at.irj.;  eoiuplir.ico   with  (his
specification.
   ill'1  Continuous  monitoring systems
for niea.siiremer,'  of  nitrogen  oxides or
sulfur dioxide r-ha!! be capable of meas-
uring emission levels within -'20 percent
with a confidence level 01' D5 percent.. Tin;
Calibration  Krror Test. the. Field Test
for Accuracy  (Relative),  and assoc'atcd
operatini; and calnualU'i; procedures set
forth in Perfonnanre  fc'pi'ciP.cation  :! of
Appendix 13 shall i>e  used for ileuien-
strating compliance  wiih  this  r.neeifvu-
tlon.
   (iii)  Owners or oner;Uurs ot all con-
tinuous monitoring systems installed on
an affected facility  prior to October e,
1975   are  not   required  to   conduct
tests under iiaraiiirvphs u--(?) U) and'o.-
(it)  of this section unless mi nested by
the Administrator ;:
  '3) All continuous i')o;;i!oniH; systems
referenced by x-r.ij.iMph  -,•':;:>  oi  this
secTion shai: he mr'-adci,  or replaced i if
necessary! wi;h ncn co)i:i:iiii>!is iiiiwi-
t.orlliR  syslems. and liu- i>:-v. or inipi I'-.-'f!
systems  shall  be  detnor.sl rated to rum-
ply with applicable  pf.TionnuiM-e speci-
fications under paragraph (c> (1)  of thi.s
section on or before September 11.  1979?'
  (d)  Owners or operators of all  con-
tinuous monitoring systems Installed In
accordance  with  the provisions of  this
part fihall check the zero  and spaa drift
                                                      III -7
-------
a* te«8t onc« daily in accordance with
the method prescribed by the manufac-
turer of such systems unless the manu-
facturer  recommends  adjustments  at
•hotter intervals, in which case such
recommendations shall be followed. The
Mro and span shall, as a minimum,  be
adjusted whenever the 24-hour zero drift
or 24-hour calibration drift limits of the
applicable performance specifications In
Appendix B are exceeded. For continuous
monitoring systems measuring opacity of
emissions,  the optical surfaces  exposed
to the effluent gases shall be cleaned prior
to performing the zero or span drift ad-
justments except that for systems using
automatic  zero adjustments, the optical
surfaces shall be cleaned when the cum-
ulative automatic zero compensation ex-
ceeds four percent opacity. Unless other-
wise approved by the Administrator, the
following procedures, as applicable, shall
be followed:
   (1) For extractive continuous  moni-
 toring systems measuring  gases, mini-
 mum procedures shall include Introduc-
ing applicable zero and span gas mixtures
 into the measurement system as near the
 probe as is practical. Span and zero gases
 certified by  their manufacturer to  be
 traceable to National Bureau of Stand-
 ards reference gases shall be used when-
 ever these reference gases are available.
 The span and zero gas mixtures shall be
 the same composition as specified In Ap-
 pendix B of this part. Every six months
 from date of manufacture, span and zero
 gases shall be reanalyzed by  conducting
 triplicate analyses with Reference Meth-
 ods 6 for  SO,. 7 for NO,, and  3 for O,
 and CO,, respectively. The gases may be
 anatywd  at let* frequent  intervals if
 longer shelf lives are guaranteed by  the
 manufacturer.
    (2)  For  non-extractive   continuous
 monitoring  systems  measuring  gases,
 minimum procedures shall include up-
 scale check(s) using a certified calibra-
 tion gas cell or test  cell  which Is func-
 tionally equivalent to a known  gas con-
 centration. The zero check may be per-
 formed by computing the zero value from
 upscale  measurements or by mechani-
 cally producing u zero condition.
    (3) For continuous monitoring systems
 measuring opacity of  emissions, mini-
 mum procedures shall include a method
 for producing a simulated zero opacity
 condition and an upscale (span) opacity
 condition using  a  certified  neutral den-
 sity filter or other related  technique to
 produce a known obscuration of the light
 beam. Such procedures shall provide a
 system  check of the analyzer Internal
 optical  surfaces and all electronic cir-
 cuitry Including the lamp and  photode-
 tector assembly.
    (e) Except for system breakdowns, re-
 pairs, calibration  checks, and  zero and
 apan adjustments required under para-
 graph 8.83
 § 60.14  Modification."
   (a)  Except as provided under  para-
 graphs (d), (e) and  (f) of this section,
 any physical  or operational change to
 an existing facility which results  in an
 Increase  In  the emission  rate to  the
 atmosphere of any pollutant to which a
 standard applies shall be considered a
 modification within the meaning of sec-
                                                       III-8
-------
lion  111 of the Act. Upon  modification,
nn existing facility sh;\l! bfi-.-oine an af-
fected  facility for  each  pollutant  to
which ;i. standard applies and for which
there i.s an increase in the emission rate
to the atmosphere.
  (b) Emission rate shall he expressed as
kg/hr of any  pollutant, dischiu-yed into
the atmosphere for which a standard is
applicable. The Administrator shall use
the following to determine emission rate:
  (1) Emission  factors  as  specified  in
the latest issue  of "Compilation of Air
Pollutant  Emission Factors,"  E:PA Pub-
lication No. AP-42, or  other mission
factors determined by the Administrator
to be superior  to AP-41! emission factors,
in cases where  utilization  of emission
factors  demonstrate  taut  the emission
level resulting from tlv? physical or op-
era tioiml change will  cither clearly in-
crease or clearly not increase.
  (2) Material   balances,   continuous
monitor data,  or manual emission  tests
in cases where  utilization  of emission
factors as referenced in paragraph  (b)
(1)  of this section does not demonstrate
to   the   Administrator's   satisfaction
whether the emission level resulting from
the physical or operational change  will
either clearly increase or clearly not in-
crease, or where an owner or operator
demonstrates  to   the  Administrator's
satisfaction that  there  are reasonable
grounds to dispute the result obtained by
the Administrator utilizing emission fac-
tors as  referenced in paragraph (b> and
(u), can be applied. An owner or operator
may completely and permanently close
any  facility within  a  stationary source
to prevent an Increase In the total emis-
sion rate regardless of whether such
reference,   equivalent  or   alternative
method can be applied, if the decrease
in emission  rate from such closure can
be adequately determined by any of  the
procedures prescribed under paragraph
(b> of this section. The owner or oper-
ator of the source shall have the burden
of demonstrating compliance with this
section.
   (1> Such demonstration shall  be in
writing and shall include: (i) The name
and address of the owner or operator.
   (ID  The  location  of  the stationary
•source.
   Oii)  A complete description of the  ex-
Ist'nFT facility undergoing  the physical
or operational change resulting In an in-
crease  in emission  rate,  any applicable
control system, and the physical or  op-
erational change to such facility.
  Civ)  The  emission rates Into the  at-
mosphere from the existing facility of
eacii pollutant to which a  standard  ap-
plies determined  before  and after  the
physical  or  operational  change  takes
place, to the extent such information Is
known or can be predicted.
     The Administrator may require
 the use of continuous monitoring devices
 and compliance with necessary reporting
 procedures for each  facility described in
 paragraph (dXlHiii)  and  (d)UHv) of
 this section.
   (e)  The following shall not, by them-
 selves, be considered modifications under
 this part:
   (1) Maintenance, repair, and replace-
 ment  which the  Administrator deter-
 mines to be routine for a source category,
 subject to  the provisions  of paragraph
 (c) of this section and J 60.15.
   (2)  An Increase In production rate of
 an existing facility, if that increase can
 be accomplished  without a capital ex-
 penditure on that facility.90
   (3)  An Increase In the hours of opera-
 tion.
   (4)  Use  of an  alternative fuel or raw
 material if, prior to the date any stand-
 ard under  this part becomes  applicable
 to that source type, as provided by § 60.1,
 the existing facility was designed to ac-
 commodate  that  alternative  use.  A
 facility shall be considered to be designed
 to accommodate  an alternative fuel or
 raw material if that use could be accom-
 plished under the facility's construction
 specifications as  amended prior  to the
 change. Conversion to coal required for
 energy considerations, as specified in sec-
 tion 119(d)(5)  of the  Act,  shall  not be
 considered  a modification.
   (5) The  addition or use of any system
 or device whose primary function Is the
 reduction of air pollutants, except when
 an emission control system Is removed
 or is replaced by a system which the Ad-
 ministrator determines to  be  less  en-
vironmentally beneficial.
  (6)  The   relocation  or  change  in
ownership of an existing facility.
  (f)  Special provisions set forth under
an applicable subpart of this part shall
supersede any  conflicting  provisions of
 this section.
  (g)  Within  180 days of the comple-
 tion of  any  physical  or operational
change subject to the control measures
specified in paragraphs (a) or (d)  of
this section, compliance with  all appli-
cable standards must be achieved.
                                                      111-9
-------
§60.15   Reconstruction.32
  (a) An existing facility, upon recon-
struction, becomes  an affected facility.
irrespective  of  any change in  emission
.rate.
  (b) "Reconstruction" means the  re-
placement of components  of an existing
facility to such an extent that:
  (1) The fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 60 percent of  the
fixed capital cost that would be required
to construct a  comparable entirely new
facility, and
  (2) It is technologically and  econom-
ically feasible  to meet  the applicable
standards set forth in this  part.
  (c) "Fixed  capital cost" means  the
capital  needed  to  provide  all the  de-
preciable components.
  (d) If  an owner or operator of an
existing facility proposes to replace com-
ponents, and the fixed capital cost of the
new components exceeds  50 percent of
the fixed capital cost that would be re-
quired  to construct a  comparable  en-
tirely new facility, he  shall notify  the
Administrator  of the proposed replace-
ments.  The notice  must be postmarked
60 days (or as soon as practicable)  be-
fore construction of the replacements is
commenced and must include the  fol-
lowing information:
  (1) Name and address of the owner
or operator.
  (2) The location of the existing facil-
ity.
  (3) A brief description  of the existing
facility  and  the components which are to
be replaced.
  (4) A description of the existing air
pollution control  equipment  and  the
proposed air  pollution control equip-
ment.
  (5) An estimate of the fixed capital
cost of  the replacements and of con-
structing a comparable  entirely  new
facility.
  (6) The estimated life  of the existing
facility after the replacements.
  <7> A discussion of any economic or
technical limitations the facility  may
have in complying with  the applicable
standards of performance after the pro-
posed replacements.
  (e) The  Administrator  will  deter-
mine, within 30 days of the receipt of the
notice required by paragraph (d)  of  this
section and any additional information
he  may reasonably require, whether the
 proposed replacement constitutes  re-
 construction.
  (f) The Administrator's determination
under paragraph (e) shall be based on:
   (1) The fixed capital cost of the re-
placements  In  comparison to the fixed
capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable  entirely  new
 facility;
   (2) The estimated life  of the facility
after the replacements compared to the
life of a comparable entirely new facility;
   (3) The extent to which the compo-
nents being replaced cause or contribute
to the  emissions from the facility;  and
   (4) Any economic or technical limita-
tions  on  compliance  with  applicable
standards of performance which are in-
herent In the proposed replacements.
  (g)  Individual stibparts of  this part
may include  specific provisions  which
refine and delimit the concept of recon-
struction set forth in this section.
                                                      111-10
-------
  Subpart B—Adoptior: and Submrttal wf
   S'.ate Finns for Das'gnated Facilities 2I

§ 60.20   App.lii-nbilily.
  The provisions of this subpart apply
to States upon publication  of  a final
guideline  document under §60.22fa).

§ 60.21   Definitions.
  Terms used  but  not defined in  this
subpart shall have  the  meaning given
them In the Act and In subpart A:
  (a) "Designated pollutant" means any
air pollutant,  emissions of  which  are
subject to a standard of performance for
new stationary sources but for which air
quality  criteria have not  been  Issued,
and which Is not Included on a list pub-
lished under section 108 (a)  or section
112(b) (IMA) or the Act.
  (b) "Designated  facility" means any
existing facility (see §60.2(aa)) which
emits a designated pollutant and which
would be  subject to a standard of  per-
formance for that pollutant If the exist-
ing faculty were an affected facility (see
§60.2(e)).
  (c) "Plan" means  a  plan  under  sec-
tion  lll(d) of the Act which establishes
emission standards for designated  pol-
lutants  from  designated  facilities  and
provides  for  the   Implementation  and
enforcement of such emission standards.
  (d) "Applicable plan" means the plan,,
or most recent revision thereof, which
has been  approved under  § 60.27(b)  or
promulgated under  § 60.27(d).
  ie> "Emission  guideline"   means  a
guideline  set forth  in subpart C of this
part, or in a flnal  guideline document
published  under §60.22(a),  which  re-
flects the degree of emission reduction
achievable through  the application of the
best system of emission reduction which
 (taking Into account the  cost  of such
reduction) the Administrator has  de-
termined  has been adequately  demon-
strated for designated facilities.
  (f) "Emission  standard"   means  a
legally  enforceable  regulation setting
forth an allowable rate of emissions Into
the  atmosphere, or  prescribing equip-
ment specifications  for control of air pol-
lution emissions.
  (g) "Compliance  schedule"  means  a
legally  enforceable  schedule  specifying
 a date or dates by which a source or cate-
gory or sources must comply with specific
emission standards contained in a  plan
or with any increments of progress to
 achieve such compliance.
  (h) "Increments of progress" means
steps to achieve compliance which must
 be taken  by  an owner or operator of a
 designated facility,  Including:
  (1) Submlttal of a final control  plan
 for the  designated facility to the appro-
 priate air pollution  control agency;
   (2) Awarding of contracts for emis-
 sion control systems or for process modi-
 fications,  or  issuance of orders for the
 purchase  of component parts to accom-
 plish emission control or process modi-
 fication.
   (3) Initiation of on-site construction
 or Installation of emission control equip-
 ment or process change;
   (4) Completion  of on-slte construc-
 tion or installation of  emission control
 equipment or process change; and
   (6)  Final compliance.
   (1) "Region"means an air quality con-
trol region designated under section 107
of the Act and described In Part 84 oi
this chapter.
   (j) "Local agency" means any local
governmental agency.

§ 60.22  Publication  of jrnldeline docm-
     menu, emission piiidrlhies, and final
     compliance limes.
   (a)  After promulgation of a standard
of performance for the control of a des-
ignated pollutant from affected facilities,
the  Administrator  will publish a draft
guideline document containing Informa-
tion pertinent  to control of the desig-
nated  pollutant from designated facil-
ities. Notice  of the availability  of  the
draft guideline  document  will be pub-
lished in the FEDEHAL REGISTER, and pub-
lic comments on Its contents win be tov
vited. After consideration of public com-
ments, a flnal guideline document will be
published and  notice of its  availability
will be published tn the FEDERAL REGISTER.
     Guideline documents  published
under this section will provide Informa-
tion for the development of State plans,
such as:
   (1) Information concerning known or
suspected endangerment of public health
or welfare caused, or contributed to.-by
the designated pollutant.
   (2) A  description of systems of emis-
sion reduction  which, in the judgment
of the Administrator,  have been  ade-
quately demonstrated.
   <3) Information on the degree of emis-
sion reduction  which is achievable wtth
each system, together with information
on the costs and environmental effects of
applying each system to designated fa-
cilities.
   <4) Incremental  periods of time nor-
mally  expected  to be necessary for the
'design, installation, and startup of iden-
tified Control systems.
   (5) An emission guideline that reflects
the  application of  the best  system of
emission reduction  (considering the cost
of such  reduction)  that has  been ade-
quately demonstrated for designated fa-
cilities, and the time within which com-
pliance with emission standards of equiv-
alent stringency can  be achieved. The
Administrator, will specify different emis-
sion guidelines or  compliance times or
both for different sizes, types, and classes
of  designated  facilities when costs of
control, physical limitations, geographi-
cal location, or similar factors make sub*
cntegorizatlon appropriate.
   16) Such other available Information
as  the Administrator  determines  may
contribute to the formulation cvf State
plans.
   (c) Except as  provided in paragraph
(d) (1) of this section, the emission guide-
lines and compliance  times  referred to
in paragraph (b) (5)  of this section  win
be proposed for comment upon publica-
tion of  the  draft  guideline  document,
and after consideration of comments wlfl
be promulgated la Subpart C of this part
with such  modifications as  may  be  ap-
propriate.
   (d) (1) If the Administrator determine
that a designated  pollutant may cauM
 or contribute to endangerment of publto
 welfare, but that adverse effects on pub-
 lic  health  have not been demonstrated,
 he will Include the determination In th*
 draft guideline document and In the F»»-
 ERAL REGISTER  notice of its availability.
 Except as provided In paragraph.(d) 12)
 of  this  section, paragraph (c)  of thla
 section  shall  be  inapplicable  In  such
 cases.
   (2) If the Administrator determines at
 any time on the basis of new information
 that a  prior determination under para-
 graph (d) (1) of this section Is Incorrect
 or  no  longer  correct,  he will publish
 notice of the determination In the FED-
 ERAL REGISTER,  revise the guideline docu-
 ment as necessary under paragraph (a)
 of this section, and propose and promul-
 gate emission guidelines and compliance
 time*   under  paragraph (o)  or  thh
 section.
 8 60.23  Adoption and •ubmitlal of Stale
      plans; public hearing*.
   Ca) (1) Within nine months after no-
 tice of the availability of a flnal guide-
 line document Is published under § 60.23
 (a), each State shall adopt and  submit
 to the Administrator, In accordance vith
 3 60.4, a plan for the control of the desig-
 nated pollutant to which the guideline
 document applies.
   (2) Within nine months after notice of
 the availability of a  flnal revised gude-
 llne  document is published  as provlled
 in 5 60.22(d)(2), each State shall aobpt
 and  submit to the  Administrator any
 plan revision necessary  to meet  the K-
 qulrements of this subpart.
   (b) If no designated facility is locatid
 within a State,  the  State shall  submit
 a letter of certification to that effect b
 the  Administrator within the time spe-
 cified in paragraph  (a)  of tills section
 Such certification shall exempt the StaU
 from the requirements  of this subpart
 for that designated pollutant.
   (c) (1)  Except as  provided  in  para-
 graphs (c) (2) and (c) (3) of this section,
 the State shall, prior to  the adoption of
 any  plan  or revision thereof,  conduct
 one  or more public hearings within the
 State on such plan or plan revision.
   (2)  No hearing shall  be required for
 any change to an increment of progress
 In an approved compliance schedule un-
 less  the change Is likely to  cause the
 facility to be unable to comply with the
 flnal  compliance date in  the schedule.
   (3) No hearing shall  be required on
 an emission standard in effect prior to
 the effective date of this subpart If it was
 adopted  after a  public  hearing  and Is
 at least as stringent as the corresponding
 emission guideline specified in the  appli-
 cable  guideline  document  published
 under 9 60.22(a).
   (d) Any  hearing  required by  para-
 graph (c) of this section shall be held
 only after reasonable notice. Notice shall
 be given at least 30  days prior  to the
date of such hearing  and shall include:
  (1) Notification to  the  public by
prominently advertising  the  date, time,
and place of such hearing In each region
affected;
  (2) Availability, at  the time of public
announcement, of each proposed plan or
                                                       IIT.-I i
-------
revision thereof for public Inspection In
at least one location In each region to
which It will apply;
  (3) Notification to the Administrator;
  (4) Notification to each local air pol-
lution control agency In each region to
which the plan or revision will apply; and
  (5) In the  case of an interstate  re-
gion, notification to  any other State In-
cluded in the region.
  (e) The State shall prepare and retain,
for a minimum of 2 years, a record of
each hearing for inspection by any Inter-
ested party. The record shall contain, as
a minimum, a list of witnesses together
with the text of each presentation.
  if) The  State shall submit  with  the
plan or  revision:
   (1) Certification that each hearing re-
quired by paragraph (c)  of this section
was  held In accordance  with the notice
required by paragraph  (d) of  this sec-
tion; and
   (2) A list of witnesses and their orga-
nizational affiliations, if any, appearing
at the hearing and a brief written sum-
mary of each  presentation  or written
submission.
   (g) Upon  written application  by  a
State agency  (through the appropriate
Regional Office), the Administrator may
approve State procedures designed to In-
sure public participation In the matters
for which hearings are required and pub-
lic notification of the opportunity to par-
ticipate If, in the Judgment of the  Ad-
ministrator,  the  procedures,  although
different from the requirements of  this
subpart, in fact  provide  for  adequate
notice to and participation of the public.
 Ths Administrator may impose such con-
 ditions  on  his approval  as he deems
 necessary.  Procedures  approved  under
 this section shall be deemed to satisfy the
 requirements  of this subpart regarding
 procedures for public hearings.

 §60.24   Emission standards nnd compli-
     ance schedules.
   (a) Each plan shall  Include emission
 itandards and compliance schedules.
    Emission standards shall pre-
scribe allowable rates of emissions except
when it is  clearly  impracticable. Such
cases will be  identified In the  guideline
documents issued under § 60.22. Where
emission standards  prescribing equip-
ment specifications  are  established, the
plan shall,  to  the  degree possible, set
forth the emission reductions achievable
by Implementation of such specifications,
and may permit compliance by the use
of equipment  determined by the State
to be equivalent to that prescribed.
   (2) Teat methods and procedures for
determining compliance with the emis-
sion standards shall be specified in the
plan. Methods other than those specified
In Appendix A to this part may be speci-
fied in the plan If shown to be equivalent
or  alternative  methods  as defined in
§60.2 
-------
standard or compliance schedule of the
plan.
  (2) Identification of  the achievement
of any increment of progress  required by
the applicable plan during the reporting
period.
   (D Identification of designated facili-
ties that have ceased operation during
the reporting period.
  (4) Submission of emission Inventory
data  as described In paragraph (a) of
this section for designated facilities that
•were not in operation at the time of plan
development but began  operation during
•the reporting period.
  (5) Submission of additional data as
necessary to update the  Information sub-
mitted under paragraph (a)  of this sec-
tion or In previous progress reports.
  (6) Submission of copies of technical
reports on all performance  testing  on
designated facilities conducted under
paragraph (b) (2) of this section, com-
plete with concurrently recorded process
data.


§ 60.26  Logal authority.
   (a)  Each  plan- shall show  that the
State has  legal  authority to carry out
the plan, Including authority to:
   (1)  Adopt  emission   standards   and
compliance schedules applicable to des-
ignated facilities.
   (2)  Enforce applicable laws, regula-
tions, standards, and compliance sched-
ules, and seek Injunctlve relief.
   (3)  Obtain Information necessary to
determine  whether  designated  facilities
are In compliance with applicable  laws,
regulations, standards, and  compliance
schedules,  Including authority to require
recordkeeplng and to make  inspections
and conduct tests of designated facilities.
   <4)  Require owners  or operators of
designated facilities to Install, maintain,
and use emission monitoring devices and
to make periodic reports to the  State on
the nature and amounts of emissions
from such facilities; also authority  for
the State to make such data  available to
the public  as reported and as correlated
with  applicable  emission standards.
   (b)  The provisions of law or regula-
tions which the State determines provide
the authorities  required by this section
shall be specifically Identified. Copies ol
such laws  or regulations shall  be  sub-
mitted with the plan unless:
   (1)  They have been approved as por-
tions  of  a  preceding  plan  submitted
under this slibpart or as portions of an
Implementation  plan  submitted under
section 110 of the Act, and
   (2)  The State demonstrates  that the
laws or regulations are  applicable to the
designated pollutant(s) for which the
plan Is submitted.
   (c)  The plan shall show that  the legal
authorities specified in this  section are
available to the State at the time of sub-
mission of  the plan. Legal authority ade-
quate to meet the requirements  of para-
graphs (a) (8) and (4) of 'this section
may be delegated to the State under sec-
tion 114 of the Act.
   (d)  A  State  governmental   agency
other than the  State air pollution  con-
trol fcgenoy may be assigned responsibil-
ity for carrying out a portion of a plan
If the plan demonstrates to the Admin-
istrator's satisfaction'that the State gov-
ernmental agency has the legal authority
necessary to carry out that portion of the
plan.
  (e) The State  may authorize a local
agency  to carry out a  plan, or portion
thereof, within the local agency's Juris-
diction  If the plan demonstrates  to the
Administrator's  satisfaction  that  the
local agency has the legal authority nec-
essary to implement the plan or portion
thereof, and that the authorization does
not  relieve  the State  of  responsibility
under the Act for carrying out the plan
or portion thereof.
§ 60.27  Actions fcy the Admini«tra«or.
   (a) The Administrator may, whenever
he determines necessary, extend the pe-
riod for submission of any plan or plan
revision or portion thereof.
   (b) After receipt of a plan Or plan re-
vision, the Administrator will propose the
plan  or  revision for approval or  dis-
approval. The Administrator will, within-
four months after the date required for
submission  of a plan or plan revision,
approve or disapprove such plan or revi-
sion or each portion thereof.
   (c) The Administrator will, after con-
sideration of any State  hearing  record,
promptly prepare and publish proposed
regulations  setting forth a plan, or por-
tion thereof, for a State if:
   (1) The  State fails to  submit a plan
within the time prescribed;
   (2) The State falls to  submit a plan
revision required by § 60.23(a) (2) within
the time prescribed; or
   (3) The Administrator disapproves the
State plan or plan revision or any por-
'tlon thereof, as unsatisfactory 'because'
the requirements of this subpart have not
been met.
   (d) The Administrator will, within six
months after the date required lor stlb-
mlsslon  of   a  plan  or  plan 'revision,
promulgate the regulations proposed un-
der paragraph (c)  of this  section with
such modifications as may be appropriate
unless, prior to such promulgation, the
State has adopted and submitted a plan
or-plan revision which the Administra-
tor determines to be approvable.
   
-------
   Subpart C — Emittion GukJetlr** and
          'Compliance Times 7 3

{ 60.30  Scope.
  This subpart contains emission guide-
lines and  compliance times tor the con-
trol of certain designated pollutants from
certain  designated faculties  In accord-
ance with section lll(d> of the Act and
Subpart B.
§ 60.31   Definition*.
  Terms used  but not defined in this
subpart have the meaning given them
in the Act and in Bubparts A and B Of
this part.
§ 60.32  Designated ficililie*.
  (ft)  Sulfuric  acid production  units.
The designated facility to which |( 60.33
(a) and 60.34(a) apply ic each existing
"sulfuric  acid  production unit"  as de-
fined in { 60.81 (a) of Subpart H.
§ 60.3$  Emission guideline*.
  (a)  Sulfuric  acid production  units.
The emission  guideline for  designated
facilities is 0.25 gram sulfuric acid mist
(as measured by Reference Method 8. of
Appendix A) per  kilogram  of sulfuric
acid produced  (0.5 lb/ton), the produc-
tion  being   expressed  as 100 percent
 B 60.34  Compliance times.
   (a)  Sulfuric  acid production  units.
Planning,  awarding  of contracts,  and
installation  of  equipment  capable of
attaining the level of the emission guide-
line established under I 60.33 (a) can be
accomplished within 17 months after the
effective date of a State emission stand-
 ard for sulfuric acid mist.
                                                       111-14
-------
Swbport D—Standards of Performance
for Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam Generator*
 § 60.40   Applicability and designation of
     affivted facility. M9-64
   (a) The affected facilities to which the
 provisions of this subpart apply are:
   (1) Each fosstl-fuel-flred steam gen-
 erating unit of more than 73 megawatts
 heat  Input  rate (250  million  Btu per
 hour).
   (2) Each fossil-fuel and wood-residue-
 flred  steam  generating unit capable of
 firing fossil fuel at a heat Input rate of
 more than  73 megawatts  (250  million
 Btu per hour).
   (b) Any change to an  existing fossil-
 fuel-flred  steam  generating   unit  to
 accommodate  the  use  of  combustible
 materials, other  than  fossil  fuels  u
 defined In this subpart, shall not bring
 that unit under the  applicability of thla
 subpart.
  (c) Except as provided In paragraph
 (d) of this  section, any  facility under
 paragraph (a) of this section that com-
 menced construction  or modification
 after August 17, 1971,  Is subject to the
 requirements of this subpart.84
  (d)     The    requirements     of
 |§60.44(a)(4),  (a)(5), (b), and (d). and
 60.45(f)(4)(vi)  are applicable to lignite-
 fired steam generating units that com-
 menced construction  or modification
 after December 22.1976.M


 § 60.41   Definitions. 3
   As used In this subpart, all  terms  not
 defined  herein shall have  the meaning
 given them in the Act,  and In Subpart A
 of this part.
   (a)  "Fossil-fuel flred  steam generat-
 ing unit" means a furnace or boiler used
 In the process of burning fossil fuel for
 the purpose of producing steam by heat
 transfer.
   (b)  "Fossil  fuel"  means natural gas,
 petroleum,  coal, and any form of solid.
 liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such
 materials for the purpose of creating use-
 ful heat.
   (c) "Coal refuse"  means waste-prod-
 ucts of  coal mining, cleaning,  and coal
 preparation operations (e.g.  culm, gob,
 etc.)  containing coal,  matrix material,
 clay, and other organic and  Inorganic
 material."
   (d) "Fossil fuel and wood residue-fired
 steam generating unit" means a furnace
 or  boiler used In the process  of burning
 fossil fuel and wood residue for the pur-
 pose of producing steam by heat transfer.
   (e) "Wood residue" means bark, saw-
 dust, slabs,  chips, shavings,  mill trim,
 and other wood products derived from
 wood processing and forest management
 operations.4'
   (f) "Coal" means all solid fuels clas-
 sified as anthracite, bituminous, subbl-
 tumlnous, or  lignite by the American
 Society for Testing  Material. Designa-
 tion D 38B-66.84
 § 60.42   Standard for paniculate matter.
   (a)  On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
 or  operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the  atmosphere from any affected
 facility any gases which:
   (1)  Contain particulate matter in ex-
 cess of 43 nanograms per  joule heat in-
 put (0.10  Ib  per million  Btu)  derived
 from fossil fuel or fossil fuel  and wood
 residue.49
   (2>  Exhibit greater than 20 percent
 opacity  except  for  one six-minute  pe-
 riod per hour of not more than  27  per-
 cent opacity.1876
 § 60.43  Standard for sulfur dioxide.2 8
   (a)  On and after  the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into  the  atmosphere  from any  affected
 facility any gases  which contain sulfur
 dioxide in excess of:
   (1) 340 nanograms per joule heat In-
 put  (0.80 Ib per  million Btu)   derived
 from liquid fossil fuel or liquid fossil fuel
 and wood residue.49
   (2)  520 nanograms per joule heat In-
 put (1.2 Ib per million Btu) derived from
 solid fossil fuel  or solid  fossil fuel and
 wood residue.4"
   (b) When  different fossil  fuels  are
 burned simultaneously in any combina-
 tion, the  applicable standard (in ng/J)
 shall be determined by proratlon using
 the following formula:
          PSw.- =
                     y'+z
 where:
  PSsn, is the proriued standard for sulfur
    dioxide  when  burning  different fuels
    simultaneously, in nanograms per Joule
    heat  input derived from all fossil fuels
    fired  or  from nil  fossil fuels and wood
    residue fired.
  y Is the percentage of total heat Input de-
    rived from liquid fossil fuel, and
  a Is the percentage of total heat input de-
    rived from solid fossil fuel.

  (c)  Compliance shall be based on  the
 total  heat  Input from all  fossil  fuela
 burned, Including gaseous fuels.
 from liquid fossil fuel or liquid fossil fuel
 and wood residue.49
   (3)  300 nanograms per joule heat in-
 put  (0.70  Ib  per million  Btu)  derived
 from solid fossil fuel or solid fossil fuel
 and  wood residue  (except lignite or a
 solid fossil  fuel  containing  25 percent,
 by weight, or more of coal refuse) ."•
  (4) 260  nanograms  per Joule heat
 input (0.60 Ib per million  Btu) derived
 from lignite or lignite and  wood resi-
 due  (except  as  provided  under para-
 graph (a)(5) of this section).84
  (5) 340  nanograms  per Joule heat
 Input (0.80 Ib per million Btu) derived
 from lignite which  is mined In North
 Dakota, South  Dakota, or Montana
 and  which is burned in a cyclone-fired
 unit.84
  (b) Except as provided  under para-
 graphs (c)  and (d) of  this section,
 when different fossil fuels are burned
 simultaneously  in  any  combination,
 the applicable standard (in ng/J) is de-
 termined by  proration using the fol-
 lowing formula:
where:
               to+x+t+3
  PSm,= la the prorated standard for nitro-
     gen  oxides  when  burning  different
     fuels simultaneously,  In  nanograms
     per  joule heat Input derived from all
     fossil fuels fired or from all fossil fuels
  „  and  wood residue fired:
  v=is the percentage of totaJ heat Input
     derived from lignite:
  *-U the percentage of total heat Input
     derived from gaseous fossil fuel;
  V-ls the percentage of total heat Input
     derived from liquid fossil fuel; and
  z~\& the percentage of total heat Input de-
     rived from solid fossil fuel (except lig-
     nite).                          ^
  (c) When a fossil fuel containing at
least  25 percent,  by weight, of coal
refuse is burned In combination with
gaseous, liquid,  or other  solid fossil
fuel or wood residue, the standard for
nitrogen oxides does not apply.84
  (d)  Cyclone-fired units  which  burn
fuels containing at least 25 percent of
lignite that Is mined in North Dakota,
South  Dakota,  or Montana  remain
subject to paragraph (a)(5) of this sec-
tion regardless of  the  types of fuel
combusted  In  combination with that
lignite.84

                               <, 8,18.
 § 60.44   Standard for nitrogen oxide*. 8   § 60.45   Emirsion and fuel monitoring.
   (a)  On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by 5 60.8 Is completed, no owner
 or  operator subject to the  provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the  atmosphere from  any affected
 facility any gases which contain nitro-
 gen oxides, expressed as NO3 in excess of:
  (1) 86 nanograms per joule heat input
 (0.20 Ib per million Btu)  derived from
gaseous fossil  fuel or gaseous fossil fuel
and wood residue.49
  (2) 130 nanograms per joule heat in-
put  (0.30  Ib per  million Btu) derived
  (a) Each owner or operator shall in-
stall, calibrate,  maintain,  and operate
continuous monitoring systems for meas-
uring the  opacity of emissions,  sulfur
dioxide emissions, nitrogen oxides emis-
sions, and  either oxygen or carbon di-
oxide except as  provided  In paragraph
(b) of this section. 57
  (b) Certain of the continuous  moni-
toring system requirements under para-
graph (a)  of this section do not apply
to owners or operators under the follow-
ing conditions: 57
  (1) For a fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
                                                      111-15
-------
•rator that burn* only caseous fossil
fuel, continuous monitoring systems for
measuring the opacity of emissions and
sulfur dioxide  emissions an  not re-
quired.*7
   (t ) For a fossa fuel-fired steam gen-
erator that does not use a flue gas dt-
sulfurlzatlon device, a continuous moni-
toring system lor measuring sulfur  di-
oxide emissions  is not required if the
owner or operator monitors sulfur  di-
oxide emissions  by fuel  sampling and
analysis under paragraph   of this
section.57
   (S) Notwithstanding I 60.13 *>.  in-
stallation of a  continuous monitoring
system for nitrogen oxides may be  de-
layed"untll after the initial performance
tests under { 60.8 have been conducted.
If the owner or operator demonstrates
during the performance test that emis-
sions of nitrogen oxides are less than 70
percent of  the applicable standards in
1 00.44, a continuous monitoring system
for measuring  nitrogen oxides  emissions
 is not required. If the Initial performance
test  results  show that nitrogen oxide
emissions are greater than 70 percent of
the applicable  standard, the  owner or
 operator shall Install a continuous moni-
 toring system for nitrogen oxides within
 one year after the date of the initial per-
 formance tests under I 80.8 and comply
 with aD other applicable monitoring re-
 quirements under this part.37
   <4> If an owner or operator does not
 install any  continuous monitoring  sys-
 tems for sulfur  oxides and nitrogen ox-
 ides, as provided under paragraphs (b)
  (1)  and (b)(3)  or paragraphs (b>(2)
 end  (b) (3) of this section a continuous
 monitoring system for measuring either
 oxygen or carbon dioxide is not required?7
   (c> For performance .evaluations un-
 der  1 60.13 (c)   and calibration  checks
 under  1 60.13 (d). the following proce-
 dures shall be used:57
  . (1) Reference Methods 6 or 7, as ap-
 plicable, . shall be used  for conducting
  performance evaluations of sulfur diox-
  ide and nitrogen oxides continuous mon-
  itoring systems.57
    (2)  Sulfur  dioxide or nitric oxide, as
  applicable, shall be used for  preparing
  calibration g&s mixtures under Perform-
  ance Specification 2 of Appendix B to
  this part.57
    (3)  For affected facilities burning fos-
  sil fuel (s) , the span value for  a continu-
  ous  monitoring system measuring  the
 opacity of emissions shall be 80, 90, or
  100  percent and for p. continuous moni-
  toring system measuring sulfur oxides or
  nitrogen oxides the span value shall be
  determined as follows:
             [In paru per million]
    FcMil fuel
             Span value lor
             sulfur dioxide
           Span value lor
           nitrogen oxides
  Qu.
  uw	
 . d	
Comblnntloru..

 i Not applicable.
where:
0>    VSffi
i.ooof+i.iooj
                                       l-tbt fraction at toUl b**t Input dcslvttf
                                         from gweoua fowl) fuel, and
                                       y-tbe fraction of toUl best Input derived
                                         from liquid foesll fuel, «nd
                                       i-th* traction at total h*»t input derived
                                         from eoUd fatal fuel. ''
                                         (4) All  span values computed under
                                       paragraph  »nd  %CO,  are determined under
                                          paragraph (f) of this section."

                                           (f)  The  values used in the  equations
                                        under paragraphs (e)  (!) and (2) of this
                                        section are derived as follows:
                                          U)  ff= pollutant emissions,  ng/J (lb/
                                        million Btul .
                                          (2)  C«spollutant concentration, ng/
                                        dscm  (Ib/dscf ) , determined by multiply-
                                        ing the average concentration  (ppm) for
                                           each one-hour period by 4.15x10' M ng/
                                           dscm  per  ppm  (2.59XIO-*  M Ib/dscf
                                           per ppm)  where 3f=po!lutant molecu-
                                           lar weight, g/g-mole (Ib/lb-tnole). M=
                                           84.07 for sulfur dioxide and 46.01  for ni-
                                           trogen oxides.4'
                                              (3)  %<>3, %CO»=  oxygen or carbon
                                           dioxide volume  (expressed as percent),
                                           determined with equipment specified un-
                                           der paragraph (d) of this section.
                                              (4)  F, F,.= a factor representing a
                                           ratio of the volume  of dry  flue  gases
                                           generated  to the calorific value of the
                                           fuel combusted (F), and a factor  repre-
                                           senting a ratio of the volume of carbpn
                                           dioxide generated to  the  calorific value
                                           of of the fuel combusted (FJ, respective-
                                           ly. Values of F and F, are given  as fol-
                                           lows:
                                              (t)  For  anthracite coal as  classified
                                           according  to A.B.T.M. D 388-66,  F=
                                           2.723x10" dscm/J (10.140 dscf/million
                                           Btu>  and  F,=0.532xlO-'  scm   CO,/J
                                           (1.880 scf CO./mUlion Btu).49
                                              (ID For subbltumlnous and bituminous
                                           coal as classified according to A.S.T.M. D
                                           388-66.  f=2.637X10-1   dscm/J   (9.820
                                           dscf/million  Btu)  and  Fc=0 486X10-'
                                           scm COt/j (1,810 scf COs/mlllion Btu).
                                              (Ill) For liquid fossil fuels  including
                                           crude,  residual,  and   distillate  oils,
                                           r=2.476xlO-T dscm/J  (9,220  dscf/mil-
                                           lion  Btu) and F,=0.384X10'T scm CCVJ
                                            (1.430 scf COj/milllon Btu).49-*7
                                              (Iv) For gaseous fossil  fuels. F= 2.347.
                                            XIO"1 dscm/J(8,740  dscf/million Btu).
                                            For natural gaj, propane, and  butane
                                            fuels. Fc=0.27flxlO-' scm COi/J (1.040
                                            scf  COi/mllllon Btu)  for natural  gas,
                                            0.322X10-' scm  COi/J (1,200 scf COi/
                                            million Btu) for propane, and 0.338X ID"1
                                            scm CO:// (1.260 scf COi/million Btu)
                                            for butane.4^7
                                              (v) For  bark  F=2.889xiO-r dscm/J
                                           (9,840  dscf/railllon Btu)  and Fc=0.500
                                           X10-' scm  CO,/J (1,880 scf CO:/mllllon
                                           Btu). For wood residue  other than bark
                                           F=2.492X 10-'dscm/J (9,280 dscf/million
                                           Btu)   and  P,=0.494X10-'  scm  CCVJ
                                           (1,840 scf CXVmllMon Btu).45!67
                                              (vi)  For lignite coal  as classified ac-
                                           cording   to  A.S.T.M.   D   388-66,
                                           F-2.658x10-' dscm/J (9900  dscf/mil-
                                           lion Btu) and Fc=0.516xlO-' scm CO,/
                                           J (1920 scf CO,/milllon Btu).84
                                              (6)  The owner or operator may use the
                                            following  equation to  determine an P
                                            (actor (dscm/J  or dsd/mllllon Btu)  on
                                            a dry basis (if it Is desired to calculate F
                                           on a wet basis,  consult the Administra-
                                            tor) or Fc factor (scm COW, or scf COi/
                                           million Btu) on  either basis In lieu of the
                                            F or Ft factors  specified In  paragraph
                                            if i (4) of this section:49
500
MO
MO
1227.2 (pot. H)+»6.5 (pet. C)4-36.6 (pet. 8)4-8.7 (pet. N)-28.7 (pot, 0)]
                                QCV

                            (SI units)
                                                                          (English units)
                                                       111-16
-------
            2.0X10-' (pet. C)
                  GCV
(SI units)

321X10'(%C)
    GCV
           F.'
             (English units)
                            49,67
  (1)  H, C, 8, N. and O are content by
weight of hydrogen, carbon, sulfur, ni-
trogen,  and oxygen  (expressed as per-
cent) . respectively, as determined on the
same  basis as GCV by ultimate analysis
of the fuel fired, using A.S.T.M. \nethod
D3178-74 or D3176 (solid fuels) , or com-
puted from results using A.S.T.M. meth-
ods   D1137-53(70),  D1945-64C73),  or
D1946-67H2) ( gaseous luels) as applica-
ble.
  (ii> GCV is the gross calorific  value
(kJ/kg, Btu/lb)  of the fuel combusted,
determined by the A.S.T.M. test methods
D 2015-66(72)  for solid fuels and D 1826-
64(70) for gaseous fuels as applicable.49
  (Hi) For affected facilities which fire
both fossil  fuels  and nonfossil fuels, the
F or  F, value shall  be subject to the
Administrator's approval.49
  (6)  For affected facilities firing com-
binations of fossil fuels or fossil fuels and
wood  residue, the F or  Fr factors deter-
mined by paragraphs (f ) (4) or (f ) (5) of
this section shall be prorated in accord-
ance with the applicable formula as fol-
lows:
 where:
       Xi— the fraction of total heat Input
             derived from each type of fuel
             (e.g. natural gas, bituminous
             coal, wood residue, etc.)
 Ft or (Fc) i = the applicable F or Fc factor for
             each fuel type determined In
             accordance with  paragraphs
             (f)(4)  and  (f)(5)   of  this
             section.
        n^the  number  of  fuels being
             burned In combination. 45>
   (g) For the purpose of reports required
 under f 60.7(c), periods of excess emis-
 sions that  shall be reported are defined
 as follows:
   (1) Opacity. Excess emissions are  de-
 nned as any six -minute  period  during
 which the  average  opacity of emissions
 exceeds 20 percent opacity,  except that
 one six-minute  average per hour of up
 to  27 percent opacity need not  be  re-
 ported.76
   (2> Sulfur dioxide. Excess emissions
 (or affected facilities  are defined  as:
   (i) Any   three-hour  period  during
 which the  average emissions (arithmetic
 average of  three contiguous one-hour pe-
 riods) of sulfur dioxide as measured  by a
 continuous monitoring system exceed the
 applicable  standard under § 60.43.
   (3) Nitrogen  oxides.  Excess emissions
 (or affected facilities using a continuous
monitoring system for measuring nitro-
gen oxides are defined as any three-hour
period during which  the  average  emis-
sions  (arithmetic average of three con-
tiguous one-hour periods)  exceed the ap-
plicable standards under §  60.44.
 (Sec.  1U. Clean Air Act Is  amended (42
 U.S.C. 7414)). 6SS3
§ 60.46  Test methods and procedures. 8'IB
  (a) The reference methods in Appen-
dix A of this part, except as provided in
$ 60.8ib) , shall be used to determine com-
pliance with the standards as prescribed
in §§ 60.42, 60.43, and 60.44 as follows:
  (1) Method 1 for selection of sampling
site and sample traverses.
  (2) Method 3  for  gas analysis to be
used when applying Reference Methods
5, 6 and 7.
  (3) Method 5 lor concentration of par-
ticulate matter and the associated mois-
ture content.
  (4) Method 6 for concentration of SO»
and
  (5) Method  7  for  concentration of
NOx.
  (b)  For Method 5, Method 1 shall be
used to select the sampling site and the
number of traverse sampling  points.  The
sampling time  for  each  run  shall be at
least 60  minutes  and  the  minimum
sampling volume shall be 0.85  dscm (30
dscf ) except that smaller sampling times
or volumes, when necessitated by process
variables or  other factors, may  be  ap-
proved  by the Administrator. The probe
and filter holder heating systems in the
sampling train shall be set to provide a
gas  temperature  no greater than 433 K
 (320°F).49
  (c) For Methods 6 and 7, the sampling
site  shall be the same as  that selected
for Method 5. The sampling point In the
duct shall be at the centrold of the cross
section or at a point no  closer to  the
walls than 1  m <3.28  ft). For Method 8,
the sample shall be extracted  at a  rate
proportional  to the gas velocity at the
sampling point.
  (d)  For Method 6,  the minimum sam-
pling time shall  be 20 minutes and the
minimum  sampling  volume  0.02 dscm
 (0.71 dscf) for each sample. The arith-
metic  mean  of  two samples shall  con-
stitute  one run. Samples shall be taken
 at approximately 30-mlnute  intervals.
   (e)  For Method 7, each run shall con-
 sist of  at least four grab samples taken
 at  approximately  15-mlnute  Intervals.
The  arithmetic  mean of the samples
 shall constitute the run value.
   (f) For each run  using the methods
specified by  paragraphs (a)(3>,  ,
 and (a) (5> of this section, the  emissions
expressed in  ng/J (Ib/milllon Btu) shall
be  determined  by  the  following  pro-
 cedure :
                 —...-—_. .
                 20.9 — percent O,
     (1) E— pollutant emlsion ng/J  When combinations of fossil fuels
 or fossil fuel and wood residue are fired.
 the heat input, expressed in watts  (Btu/
 hr>.  is  determined during: each testing
 period  by multiplying the gross calorific
 value of each fuel  fired  (in  J/kg  or
 Btu'Ib) by the rate  of each fuel burned
 i in  kg/sec  or Ib.'hr).  Gross  calorific
 values are determined in accordance with
 A.S.T.M. methods D 2015-66172)  (solid
 fuels>,  D 240-64(731  (liquid fuels), or D
 1826-64(7)  (gaseous fuels) as applicable.
 The  method used to determine calorific
 value of wood residue must be approved
 by the Administrator. The owner or oper-
 ator  shall  determine the rate  of fuels
 burned  during each  testing period  by
suitable methods and shall confirm  the
 rate  by a material balance over the steam
 generation system.49

 (Sff. 114,  Clean Air  Act 1»  unended <«
 U.S.C. T4I4)).A8-83
     36 FR 24876, 12/23/71  (1)

        as amended

           37 FR 14877,  7/26/72  (2)
           38 FR 28564,  10/15/73 (4)
           39 FR 20790,  6/14/74  (8)
           40 FR 2803,  1/16/75  (11)
           40 FR 46250,  10/6/75  (18)
           40 FR 59204,  12/22/75 (23)
           41 FR 51397,  11/22/76 (49)
           42 FR 5936,  1/31/77  (57)
           42 FR 37936,  7/25/77  (64)
           42 FR 41122,  8/15/77  (67)
           42 FR 41424,  8/17/77  (68)
           42 FR 61537,  12/5/77  (76)
           43 FR 8800,  3/3/78  (83)
           43 FR 9276,  3/7/78  (84)
                                                  111-17
-------
Subpart E—Standards of Performance
           for Incinerators

 § 60.50  Applicability and designation •:•'.
     effected facility. 8, 64
   (a) The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable  to each Incinerator of more
 than 45 metric tons per day charging
 rate (60 tons/day), which Is the affected
 facility.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion  or modification after  August  17,
 1971, Ifi subject to the requirements of
 this subpart.

 § 60.51   Definition*.
  As used In this subpart, all terms not
 defined  herein shall  have the meaning
 given them in the Act and In Subpart A
 of this part.
  (a) "Incinerator" means any furnace
 used In the process ol burning solid waste
 for the  purpose of reducing the volume
 of the  waste by removing combustible
 matter.8
  (b) "Solid waste" means refuse, more
 than  50 percent of which  is municipal
 type waste consisting  of a mixture of
 paper, wood, yard wastes,  food wastes,
 plastics, leather, rubber, and other com-
 bustibles, and noncombustible materials
 such as glass and rock.
  (c) "Day" means 24 hours.8
 § 60,52   Standard for participate matter.8
  (a) On and after the date on  which
 the performance test reaulred to be con-
 ducted by  | 60.8 Is completed, no  owner
 or operator subject  to  the provisions of
 this part shall cause to  be discharged
 Into the atmosphere from  any affected
 facility any gases which  contain par-
 tlculate matter In excess of 0.18 g/dscra
 (0.08 gr/dscf)  corrected  to 12 percent
 CO,.


 § 60.53  Monitoring of operations."
   (a) The owner or operator of any In-
 cinerator subject to the provisions of this
 part shall record the daily charging rates
 and hours of operation.

 (Sec.  114. Clean Air Act is amended  (42
 V.B.C. 7414».*8.83
 § 60.54  Teat methods and procedures.8
   (a) The  reference methods In  Ap-
 pendix A to this part, except as provided
 for In S60.8(b),  shall be used to  deter-
 mine compliance with the standard pre-
 scribed in § 60.52 as follows:
   (1) Method  5 for the concentration of
 partlculate matter  and the associated
 moisture content;
   (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses;
   (3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
 metric flow rate; and
   (4) Method 3 for gas analysis and cal-
 culation of  excess air, using the Inte-
 grated sample technique.
  (b) For Method 5, the sampling time
 for each run shall be at least 80 minutes
 and the minimum sample volume shall
 be  0.85  dscm  (30.0  dscf)  except that
smaller J-tiapltr-i
       nur- Mi.'.'.e'.^il.-.U-vib;; proccsi varl-
abks •.•;• o;.hn i'tck-r.:. inty  a-.-,  ^provrf
by the Ad,r!.)!MrA^:-.
  (c)  If a  wet 5cruobr:r is usnd. Use rjWi
analysis sample shall i c-fiect flue &as con-
ditions after the scrubber, allowing for
carbon dioxide absorption by  sampling
the gas on the scrubber ln:et and outlet
sides according to either the procedure
under paragraphs (c) (1)  through (c) (5)
of this section or the procedure  under
paragraphs (c)(l).  (c) (2)  and  (c)(8)
of this section as follows:
  (1)  The  outlet sampling site shall be
the same as for the particulate matter
measurement. The  Inlet site  shall  be
selected according to  Method  I,  or ae
specified by the Administrator.
  (2)  Randomly select 9 sampling points
within the cross-section at both the inlet
and outlet  sampling sites. Use the first
set of three for the first run, the second
set for the  second run, and the third set
for the third run.
  (3)  Simultaneously  with  each  par-
tlculate matter run, extract and analyze
for COi an integrated gas sample accord-
Ing to Method 3, traversing the three
sample  points and  sampling  at  each
point for equal increments of time. Con-
duct the runs at both inlet and  outlet
sampling sites.
  (4)  Measure the volumetric  flow rate
at the inlet during each partlculate mat-
ter run according to Method 2,  using the
full number of traverse points. For the
Inlet make  two full velocity traverses ap-
proximately one hour apart during each
run and average the results. The  outlet
volumetric  flow rate  may be determined
from   the   particulate  matter   run
(Methods).
  (5)  Calculate the  adjusted  CO, per-
centage using the following equation:
     (% COa) .«; = {% CO,) 41 (Qj|/$«.)
where:
  ( % COi) • percentage
              which removes the effect of
              COi absorption and dilution
              air,
  (%COa)n  la the percentage of CO« meas-
              ured before toe scrubber, dry
              basts,
        Qtt Is the volumetric flow rate be-
              fore the scrubber,  average of
              two  runs, dscf/mln  (using
              Method 2) , and
         Quo Is the volumetric flow rate after
              the scrubber,  dscf/mln (us-
              ing Methods 2 and B) .
    (8) Alternatively, the following pro-
 cedures may be substituted for the pro-
 cedures under paragraphs (c) (3), (4).
 and (5)  of this section:
    (i)  Simultaneously with each partlcu-
 late matter run, extract and analyze for
 COi, Os, and Na an Integrated gas sample-
 according to Method 3, traversing the
 three sample points  and  sampling for
 equal Increments of time at each point.
 Conduct the  runs at both  the Inlet and
 outlet sampling sites.
    (11) After  completing  the analysis of
 the gas sample, calculate the percentage
 of excess air (% EA) for both the inlet
 and outlet sampling sites using equation
 3-1 in Appendix A to this part.
   (?!i) Calculate the adjusted CO, per-
 centage  using the following  equation:
                               _
                        lOO-M%KA).
 where :
   ( % COa) >di IB the adjusted outlet COi per-
              centage,
   (%CO«)«i Is the percentage of COi meas-
              ured before the scrubber, dry
              basis,
   ( % EA) i   is the percentage  of excess Mr
              at the Inlet, and
   ( % EA) •   Is the percentage  of exc«M air
              at the outlet.
   (d) Partlculate matter emissions, ex-
pressed In g/dscm, shall be corrected to
12 percent CO, by using  the  following
formula:
where:
  ftj
                   120

                  %oo»
        Is the concentration of partlculat*
          matter  corrected to  13  percent
          CO,.
  6      Is the concentration of parttoulate
          matter as measured by Method B,
          and
  % CO* Is the percentage of CO, as meas-
         ured by Method 3,  or when ap-
         plicable, the adjusted outlet CO,
         percentage   as  determined  by
         paragraph  (c) of  this section.


 (Sec. 114, Clean Air Act Is amended (42
 U.S.C. 7414)). 48. 83
     36 FR 24876,  12/23/71  (1)

        as amended

           39 FR 20790,  6/14/74 (8)
           42 FR 37936,  7/25/77 (64)
           42 FR 41424,  8/17/77 (68)
           43 FR 8800,   3/3/78  (83)
                                                      111-18
-------
Subpart F—Standard* of Performance
     for Portland Cement  Plants
 § 60.60  Applicability and designation of
     affected facility. 64
   (a) The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable to the following  affected fa-
 cilities in Portland  cement plants: kiln,
 clinker  cooler,  raw mill system, finish
 mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material
 storage, clinker storage, finished product
 storage, conveyor transfer points, bag-
 ging and bulk loading and unloading sys-
 tems.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification  after August  17,
 1971, Is subject to  the  requirements of
 this subpart.

§ 60.61  Definitions.
  As used In this subpart, all  terms not
defined herein  shall have  the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Portland cement plant"  means
any facility manufacturing Portland ce-
ment by either  the wet or dry process.8

§ 60.62   Standard for particulars matter.8
   (a) On and  after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by  § 60.8 is  completed, no owner
 or  operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the atmosphere from any kiln any
 gases which:
   (1) Contain particulate matter in ex-
 cess of  0.15 kg per metric ton of feed
 (dry basis) to the kiln (0.30 Ib per ton).
  (2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent
opacity.10
   
-------
Subpart G—Standards of Performance
        for Nitric Acid  Plants
§ 60.70  Applicability and designation of
    affected facility. 64
  (a)  The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to each nitric acid production
unit, which is the affected facility.
  (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after August 17,
1971,  Is subject to the requirements of
this subpart.

§ 60.71  Definitions
  As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In  the Act and in Subpart A
of tills part.
  (a)  "Nitric  acid   production   unit"
means any facility producing weak nitric
acid by either the pressure  or atmos-
pheric pressure process.
  (b)  "Weak  nitric  acid" means add
which is 30  to 70 percent in strength.


§ 60.72  Standard for nitrogen oxide*.3'8
  (a)  On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 la completed, no owner
or  operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere from any affected
facility any gases which:
  (1)  Contain   nitrogen  oxides,   ex-
pressed as NO,, in  excess of 1.3  kg  per
metric ton of  add produced (3.0 Ib per
ton),  the production being expressed a*
100 percent nitric acid.
  (2)  Exhibit  10 percent  opacity,  or
greater. 18


 §60.73  Emission monitoring.
  (a)  A continuous  monitoring  system
 for the measurement of nitrogen oxides
 shall be Installed, calibrated, maintained,
 and operated by  the  owner or operator.
 The pollutant gas used to  prepare cali-
 bration gas mixtures under paragraph
 2.1. Performance Specification 2 and for
 calibration  checks  under  § 60.13(d)  to
 this part, shall be nitrogen dioxide (NO:) .
 The span shall be set at 500 ppm of nitro-
 gen dioxide. Reference Method 7 shall
 be  used for conducting monitoring sys-
 tem performance evaluations under i 60.-
method test data averages by the moni-
toring data averages to obtain a ratio ex-
pressed in units of the applicable stand-
ard to units of the  monitoring data, I.e.,
kg/metric ton per ppm (Ib/short ton per
ppm>. The conversion factor shall be re-
established during any performance test
under i 60.8 or any continuous .monitor-
ing system performance evaluation under
§ 80.13(c).
  (c) The owner or operator shall record
the daily production rate and hours of
operation.
   [Reserved] 8

  (e) For the purpose of reports required
under 3 60.7fc), periods of excess emis-
sions  that shall be  reported are defined
as any three-hour  period during which
the average  nitrogen oxides emissions
(arithmetic average of three  contiguous
one-hour periods) as measured by a con-
tinuous  monitoring; system  exceed  the
standard under } f>0.72(a).**18
   (b)The owner or operator shall estab-
 lish a conversion factor for the purpose
 of converting monitoring data into units
 of  the applicable standard (kg/metric
 ton, Ib/short ton) . The conversion factor
 shall be established by  measuring  emis-
 sions  with  the continuous "monitoring
 system concurrent with measuring .emis-
 sions with the applicable reference methr
 od tests. Using only that portion of tho
 continuous  monitoring emission  data
 that  reoresents emission  measurements
 concurrent  with the reference method
 test periods, the conversion factor shall
 be determined by  dividing the reference
                    Act * amend€d (42
 8 60.74  Test meihodj and procedure*. 8
   (a)  The reference methods In Appen-
 dix A to this part, except as provided for
 in g 60.8(b), shall be used to determine
 compliance with the standard prescribed
 in i 60.72 as follows:
   (1)  Method 7 for the concentration of
 NO,:
   (2)  Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses;
   (3)  Method 2 for velocity and volu-
 metric flow rate; and
   (4)  Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (b) For Method 7, the sample site shall
 be selected according to Method 1  and
 the sampling point shall be the centroid
 of the stack: or duct or at a point no
 closer to the walls than 1m (3.28 ft).
 Each run  shall consist of at least four
 grab samples taken at approximately 15-
 mlnutes Intervals. The arithmetic mean
 of the  samples  shall constitute the run
 value. A velocity  traverse shall be per-
 formed once per run.
   (c) Acid production rate, expressed In
 metric tons per hour of 100 percent nitric
 acid, shall be determined  during each
 testing period by suitable methods and
 shall be confirmed by a material balance
 over the production system.
   (d)  For each  run, nitrogen oxides, ex-
 pressed In  g/metrlc  ton  of  100 percent
 nitric acid, ahall be determined by divid-
 ing the emission rate in g/hrby the acid
 production rate. The emission rate shall
 be determined by the equation.
              g/hr-Q.xc
 where  Q.~volumetric flow rate of  the
 effluent In dscm/nr, as determined In ac-
 cordance with paragraph (a)<3> of this
 section, and c-NO. concentration in
 g/dscm, as determined  in accordance
 with paragraph (a) (1) of this section.

 (Sec. 114.  Clem Air Act ii  amended  (42
 U.S.C. 7414)). «8-83
36 FR 2*876, 12/23/71  (1]

   as amended
      38 FR 13562,
      38 FR 28564,
      39 FR 20790,
      40 FR 46250,
      42 FR 37936,
      42 FR 41424,
      43 FR 8800,
5/23/73  (3)
10/15/73  (4)
6/14/74  (8)
10/6/75  (18)
7/25/77  (64)
8/17/77  (68)
3/3/78 (83)
                                                     111-20
-------
Subparf H—Standards of Performance
       for  Sulfuric Acid Plants
§ 60.80  Applicability and designation of
     affected facility. 4*
  (a) The provisions of this subpart  are
applicable to each sulturic acid produc-
tion unit, which is the  affected facility.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph  (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or  modification after August  17,
1971, is subject to  the requirements of
this subpart.
 §60.81  Definitions.

   As used  in this subpart, nil terms not
 defined herein shall  have the meaning
 given them in the Act and in Subpart A
 of this part.
   (a)  "Sulfuric  acid  production  unit"
 means  any facility producing  suifuric
 acid by the contact process by  burning
 elemental sulfur, alkylntion acid, hydro-
 gen  sulflde, organic  sulfides and mcr-
 caplans, or acid sludge, but does not in-
 clude facilities where conversion to sui-
 furic acid Is utilized primarily as a means
 of preventing  emissions to  the atmos-
 phere  of sulfur dioxide  or  other sulfur
 compounds.
   (b) "Acid mist" means sulfurlc add
 mlstr aa measured by Method 8 of Ap-
 pendix A to this part or an equivalent or
 alternative method. 8
 § 60.82   Standard for »ulfur dioxide.
   (a) On and after the date on which the
 performance  test required  to  be con-
 ducted by 9 60.8 la completed, no owner
 or operator subject  to the  provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the  atmosphere from  any affected
 facility any gases which contain sulfur
 dioxide in excess of 2 kg per metric ton
 of acid produced (4 Ib per ton), the pro-
 duction being  expressed  as  100 percent
 H,BOi.

 | 60.83  Standard for acid mku 3< 8
   (a) On and after the date on which the
 performance  test required  to  be con-
 ducted by I 60.8 is completed, no owner
 ox operator subject to the  provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the  atmosphere from  any affected
 facility any gased which:
   (1)  Contain acid mist,  expressed as
 H.SO,,  in excess of 0.075 kg per metric
 ton of add produced <0.15 Ib per ton),
 the production, being expressed aa 100
 percent H3O«.
   (3)   Exhibit 10 percent  opacity, or
 greater.  IB

 § 60.84   Emission monitoring. le
   (a)  A  continuous  monitoring system
 for the measurement of sulfur dioxide
 shall be Installed, calibrated, maintained.
 and operated  by the owner or operator.
 The pollutant  gas used to prepare cali-
 bration gas mixtures under  paragraph
 9.1. Performance Specification 2 and for
calibration  checks under  560.13(d)  to
this part, shall be sulfur dioxide  (SO,).
Reference  Method 8 shall  be used for
conducting monitoring system perform-
ance evaluations  under  § 60.13(c)  ex-
cept that only the sulfur dioxide portion
of the Method 8 results shall be used. The
scan shall  be set  at 1000 ppm of  sulfur
dioxide.
   (b) The owner or operator snail  estab-
lish a conversion factor for the purpose
of converting monitoring data into units
of  the  applicable standard (kg/metric
ton, Ib/short ton). The conversion fac-
tor shal] be determined, as  a minimum,
three times daily by measuring the con-
centration  of sulfur dioxide  entering the
converter using suitable methods  (e.g.,
the  Reich  test.  National Air Pollution
Control Administration Publication No.
999-AP-13   and  calculating the appro-
priate conversion factor for each  eight-
hour period as follows:

                1.000-O.Olorl
                    r-s    J
where:
  CF  reconversion factor {kg/rnetrte ton per
      ppm, Ib/short ton per .ppm).
    k  ^constant derived from  material bal-
      ance. For  determining  CF in  metric
      units. k = 0.0653. For determining CP
      1C English units, k = 0.1306,
    r = percentage of sulfur dioxide by vol-
      ume entering tbe gas converter. Ap-
      propriate corrections must  be made
      for air injection plants subject to the
      Administrator's approval.
   i = percentage of sulfur dioxide by TO!-
      ume in the emissions to the atmos-
      phere determined by the continuous
      monitoring  system required  under
      paragraph (aj  of this section.

   (c) The  owner  or operator shall re-
cord all conversion factors and values un-
der paragraph  (b) of this section from
which they were computed (i.e., CF, r,
and s).
  (d)  [Reserved] 8
  (e) For the purpose of reports  under
J60.7
-------
Subpart I—-Standard* of Performance for
        Asphalt Concrata  PlanU 5

 § 60.90  Applicability and designation of
     • fleeted facility. 64
  (a) The affected facility to which the
provisions of this subpart apply Is each
asphalt concrete plant. For the purpose
of this subpart, an asphalt concrete plant
is comprised only of any combination of
the  following:  dryers;   systems  for
screening, handling, storing, and weigh-
ing hot aggregate;  systems for loading,
transferring, and storing mineral filler;
systems  for mixing asphalt concrete;
and  the loading, transfer, and  storage
systems  associated  with  emission con-
trol systems.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after June  11, 1973.
 is .subject to  the  requirements  of  this
subpart.
§ 60.91   Definition*.
  As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and in subpart A
of this part.
  (a) ''Asphalt concrete  plant"  means
any facility, as described in 5 60.90, used
to  manufacture asphalt concrete by
beating and  drying aggregate and mix-
Ing with asphalt cements.

§ 60.92  Standard for participate mailer.
   (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 discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from any
affected  facility any gases which:
   (1) -Contain participate matter in ex-
cess of 00 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf).
   (2) Exhibit  20  percent opacity,  or
greater,  is

§ 60.93  Test method* and procedure*.
   (a) The reference methods appended
to this part, except as provided for in
 I60.a
-------
Subpart J—Standards of Performance for
          Petroleum Refineries5

{60.100 Applicability and designation of
    affected facility.64-e6
  (a)  The provisions of  this subpart
are applicable to the following affect-
ed  facilities  in  petroleum refineries:
fluid  catalytic  cracking unit catalyst
regenerators, fuel gas combustion de-
vices,  and all  Claus sulfur recovery
plants except Claus plants of 20  long
tons per d&y (LTD) or less associated
with a small petroleum refinery.  The
Claus  sulfur recovery plant need  not
be  physically   located  within   the
boundaries of a petroleum refinery to
be an affected facility, provided it pro-
cesses gases produced within a petro-
leum refinery.
  (b) Any fluid catalytic cracking  unit
catalyst regenerator of fuel gas com-
bustion device under paragraph (a) of
this section  which commences  con-
struction  or  modification after  June
11, 1973. or any Claus sulfur recovery
plant under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion which commences construction or
modification  after October 4, 1976. Is
subject to the  requirements of  this
part.
§60.101  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the  meaning
given them in the Act and in Subpart A.
  (a)  "Petroleum  refinery" means any
facility engaged In producing  gasoline,
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel
oils,  lubricants,  or  other   products
through distillation  of petroleum or
through redistillation, cracking or  re-
forming   of   unfinished   petroleum
derivatives.
  (b)  "Petroleum" means the crude oil
removed from the earth and the oils de-
rived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
  (c)  "Process gas" means any gas gen-
erated by a  petroleum refinery process
unit, except  fuel gas and process  upset
gas as defined in this section.
  (d)  "Fuel  gas" means any gas which
Is generated  by a petroleum  refinery
process unit and which is combusted, In-
cluding any gaseous mixture of natural
gas and fuel gas which Is combusted.
  (e)  "Process upset gas" means any gas
generated by a petroleum refinery process
unit as a result of  start-up, shut-down,
upset or malfunction.
  (f) "Refinery process unit" means any
segment of  the  petroleum refinery In
which a specific processing operation is
conducted.
  (g)  "Fuel   gas   combustion  device'
means  any equipment, such as process
heaters, boilers and flares used  to com-
bust fuel gas, but does not Include fluid
coking unit and fluid catalytic cracking
unit incinerator-waste heat boilers or fa-
cilities In which gases are combusted to
 produce sulfur or sulfuric acid.
   (b)  "Coke burn-off" means  the coke
removed from the surface of the fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst by com-
bustion in the catalyst regenerator. The
rate of coke burn-off Is calculated by the
formula specified In § 60.106.
  (i)  "Claus  sulfur  recovery  plant"
means  a process  unit which recovers
sulfur  from  hydrogen sulfide  by  a
vapor-phase   catalytic   reaction   of
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.86
  (j)   "Oxidation   control  system"
means  an  emission  control system
which  reduces  emissions  from sulfur
recovery  plants by  converting  these
emissions to sulfur dioxide.86
  (k)   "Reduction  control  system"
means  an  emission  control system
which  reduces  emissions  from sulfur
recovery  plants by  converting  these
emissions to hydrogen sulfide.85
  (1)  "Reduced  sulfur  compounds"
mean hydrogen sulfide (HjS), carbonyl
sulfide  (COS)  and  carbon  disulfide
(CS,).86
  (m)   "Small  petroleum  refinery"
means a petroleum refinery which has
a  crude  oil  processing capacity  of
50,000 barrels per  stream day or less.
and which is owned or controlled by a
refinery with a total  combined  crude
oil  processing capacity of 137,500 bar-
rels per stream day or less. &>

{ 60.102  Standard for paniculate matter.
  (a) On and  after the date on which
the performance  test  required  to be
conducted by § 60.8  is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall discharge or
cause  the discharge into the  atmos-
phere from any fluid catalytic crack-
ing unit catalyst regenerator:86
  (1) Particulate matter In excess of
1.0  kg/1000 kg (1.0 lb/1000 Ib) of coke
burn-off In the catalyst regenerator.
   (3)  Oases  exhibiting greater than 30
 percent opacity, except for one six-min-
 ute average opacity reading In any one
 hour period.18-61'66
  (b) Where the gases discharged by
the fluid catalytic  cracking  unit cata-
lyst regenerator pass through  an in-
cinerator or waste heat boiler in which
auxiliary or  supplemental  liquid  or
sold fossil fuel  is  burned, particulate
matter in excess of that permitted by
paragraph (a)(l) of this section may
be  emitted to the atmosphere,  except
that the  Incremental  rate of particu-
late matter emissions shall not exceed
43.0 g/MJ (0.10  Ib/million  Btu)  of
heat Input attributable to such liquid
or solid fossil fuel.86

§ 60.103  Standard for carbon monoxide.
  (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 discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from the
fluid  catalytic cracking  unit  catalyst
regenerator any gases which contain car-
bon monoxide In excess of 0.050 percent
by volume.
 § 60.104  Standard for sulfur dioxide.86
   (a) On and after the date on which
 the performance  test required to be
 conducted  by § 60.8 is completed, no
 owner or operator subject to the provi-
 sions of this subpart shall:
   (1) Burn in any  fuel gas  combustion
 device any fuel gas which contains hy-
 drogen  sulfide in excess of 230  mg/
 dscm  (0.10  gr/dscf),  except that the
 gases resulting from trie combustion of
 fuel gas may  be treated  to  control
 sulfur dioxide emissions provided the
 owner or operator demonstrates to the
 satisfaction of the Administrator  that
 this is as effective in preventing sulfur
 dioxide  emissions  to the atmosphere
 as restricting the  H, concentration in
 the fuel gas to  230 mg/dscm  or  less.
 The combustion in a  flare  of  process
 upset gas, or fuel gas which is released
 to the  flare as a result of  relief valve
 leakage,  is  exempt from   this para-
 graph.
   (2) Discharge or cause the discharge
 of any gases into the atmosphere from
 any Claus  sulfur  recovery  plant  con-
 taining in excess of:
   (i) 0.025 percent  by volume of sulfur
 dioxide  at  zero  percent  oxygen on a
 dry basis if emissions are controlled by
 an oxidation control  system, or a re-
 duction  control system followed by in-
 cineration, or
   (ii) 0.030 percent by volume  of re-
 duced sulfur  compounds and  0.0010
 percent  by volume of hydrogen sulfide
 calculated  as  sulfur  dioxide at  zero
 percent oxygen on a dry basis if emis-
 sions  are controlled  by a  reduction
 control system not followed by incin-
 eration.
   (b) [Reserved]
 §60.105
itoring.
   (a)  Continuous  monitoring systems
 shall be installed, calibrated, maintained,
 and operated by the owner or operator as
 follows :
   (1)  A continuous monitoring system
 for  the measurement of the opacity of
 emissions discharged into the atmosphere
 from the fluid catalytic cracking unit cat-
 alyst regenerator. The continuous moni-
 toring system shall be spanned at 60, 70,
 or 80 percent opacity.
  (2) An instrument for continuously
 monitoring and recording the concen-
 tration of carbon  monoxide  in  gases
 discharged into  the atmosphere from
 fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
 regenerators. The span  of this  con-
 tinuous  monitoring  system  shall  be
 1,000 ppm.86
  (3) A continuous  monitoring system
for the measurement of vsulfur dioxide in
the gases discharged into the atmosphere
from the combustion of fuel gases (ex-
cept where  a continuous monitoring sys-
tem  for the measurement  of  hydrogen
sulfide  is installed under  paragraph (a)
(4)  of  this section). The pollutant gas
used to prepare calibration gas mixtures
under paragraph 2.1, Performance Speci-
                                                    111-23
-------
flcatlon 2 and for calibration checks un-
der  5 60.13 (d),  shall be sulfur dioxide
(SOt). The span shall be set at 100 ppm.
For  conducting monitoring system per-
formance  evaluations  under 8 60.13 (c),
Reference  Method 6 shall be used.
  (4) An Instrument for  continuously
monitoring and  recording concentra-
tions of hydrogen sulflde In fuel gases
burned  in any  fuel  gas combustion
device,     if     compliance     with
|60.104(a)(l) Is achieved by removing
HiS  from  the  fuel  gas before  it  is
burned; fuel gas combustion devices
having a  common source of fuel gas
may be monitored at one  location,  if
monitoring at this location accurately
represents the  concentration of H,S in
the  fuel gas burned. The span of this
continuous monitoring system shall be
300  ppm.84
  (6) An instrument for continuously
monitoring  and  recording concentra-
tions of SO, in  the gases discharged
Into the atmosphere  from any  Claus
sulfur recovery  plant if  compliance
with §60.104(a)(2) is achieved through
the  use of an oxidation control system
or a reduction  control system followed
by Incineration. The span of this con-
tinuous monitoring  system  shall  be
sent at 600 ppm.86
   6) An instrument(s) for continuous-
ly monitoring  and recording the con-
centration of  HiS and reduced sulfur
compounds  in  the  gases  discharged
into the atmosphere  from any  Claus
sulfur recovery  plant if  compliance
with § 80.104(aX2) is achieved through
the  use of a reduction control system
not   followed  by  Incineration.  The
span(s) of this continuous monitoring
system(s)  shall be set at 20 ppm for
monitoring and recording the concen-
tration of HtS  and 600 ppm for moni-
toring and recording the concentration
of reduced sulfur compounds.86
  (b)  [Reserved]
  
-------
  (6) For each run, emissions expressed In kg/1000 kg (English units: lb/1000 Ib)
of coku  burn-off In the catalyst regenerator shall be determined by the following
equation:

                           K.^lOOO-jp (Metric OE English Units)

\vhere:
    U.--Iiiirtlcul:iUi omission rato, kg/1000 kg (English units: Ib/lOOOlb) of coke knim-oflln tho fluid catalytic crack-
        Ir.g unit catalyst regenerator.
  1000 "conversion factor, kc to 1000 kg (Kngllsh units: Ib to 1000 Ib).
    Hx = l>tirltcnUte on-.tsilim t<>te, Vs/hr (English units1. It/hi).
    Ut = coko burn-oil rato, kit/1"' (English units: Ib/hr).

  (7) In those instances to which auxiliary liquid or solid fossil fuels are burned
In an incinerator-waste heat boiler, the rate of partlculate matter emissions per-
mitted under 5 60.102(b) must be  determined. Auxiliary fuel heat input, expressed
In millions of cal/hr (English units: Millions  of Btu/hr) shall  be  calculated for
each run by fuel flow rate measurement and analysis of the liquid or solid auxiliary
 fossil fuels.  For  each run, the  rate  of  partlculate  emissions permitted under
 5 60.102(b) shall be calculated from the following equation:

                             R.=1.0+-~ (Metric Units)
                             n.-!.0-H^-— (English Unite)

where:
    K,-a1ln\vnble paniculate emission rato, kp/IOOO kp (Eii(:llfli unUs: Ui/'lOOO 1L) o! coke  burn-oft in the
        llulil catalytic. crackinK unit catalyst i
   1.0-- tvnlsslo
        rrnck
   0.1S-- mntrlc
    t<--coke In
i standard, 1.0 kp.'IOOO kit (English unit?: 1.0 Ib/1000 Ib) of ccko burn-olT In the fluid catalytic
r'-K unit catalyst ro^eni'Mlnr.
mils minimum allowable Incremental rate of prirllciilato emissions, p/:r.ll!lon cftl.
units maximum allowable Incremental rato. nf inrticnltUo emissions. Ib/mlllion Htu.
nit from solid or liquid fossil fui'l. million cul/hr (Knyllsh units: million Btu/hr),
rn-ofl ruto, kg/lir (Kiujllsli units: lb/)ir).
  (b) For  the purpose of  determining
compliance with § 60.103, the integrated
sample technique of Method 10 shall be
used. The sample shall be extracted at a
rate proportional to the gas velocity at a
sampling point near the centroid of the
duct. The sampling time shall not be less
than 60 minutes
  (c) For the purpose of  determining
compliance     with    § 60.104fa)( 1),
Method  11  shall be used to determine
the concentration of  H,S  and Method
6 shall be used to determine the  con-
centration of SO,.86
  (1) If  Method 11 is used, the gases
sampled shall be  introduced into  the
sampling train at approximately atmo-
spheric  pressure. Where refinery  fuel
gas lines  are operating  at  pressures
substantially above atmosphere,  this
may be  accomplished with a flow  con-
trol valve. If the line pressure is high
enough  to operate the sampling train
without a  vacuum pump,  the  pump
may be  eliminated from the sampling
train. The sample shall be drawn from
a point  near the centroid of the  fuel
gas line. The minimum sampling time
shall be 10 minutes and the minimum
sampling volume 0.01 dscm (0.35 dscf)
for each sample.  The arithmetic aver-
age of two samples of equal sampling
time shall constitute one run. Samples
shall be taken at approximately 1-
hour intervals.  For  most fuel  gases,
sample  times  exceeding   20  minutes
may result in depletion of the collect-
ing solution, although fuel gases  con-
taining  low concentrations of hydro-
gen sulfide  may  necessitate sampling
for longer periods of time.86
  (2) If  Method  6 is used, Method. 1
shall be used for velocity traverses and
Method 2 for determining velocity and
volumetric  flow  rate.  The  sampling
site for determining SOa concentration
by  Method 6 shall be the  same as for
determining  volumetric  flow rate  by
                             Method  2. The sampling point in the
                             duct  for  determining  SO, concentra-
                             tion by Method 6 shall be  at  the  cen-
                             troid  of  the cross section if the cross
                             sectional area is less than 5 ml(54 ft1)
                             or at a  point  no closer to the walls
                             than  1 m (39 inches) if the cross  sec-
                             tional area is  5  m'  or  more  and  the
                             centroid is more than one meter from
                             the wall. The sample shall be extract-
                             ed at a rate proportional to the gas ve-
                             locity at the sampling point. The mini-
                             mum sampling time shall  be  10  min-
                             utes  and  the  minimum  sampling
                             volume 0.01  dscm (0.35 dscf) for  each
                             sample. The arithmetic average of two
                             samples  of  equal sampling time shall
                             constitute one run.  Samples shall be
                             taken at  approximately )-hour  Inter-
                             vals.8*
                               (d)  For the purpose  of determining
                             compliance     with    § 60.104(a>(2),
                             Method  6 shall be used to determine
                             the concentration of SO, and  Method
                             15 shall be used to determine  the con-
                             centration of H,S and reduced sulfur
                             compounds.86
                               (1)  If Method  6  is used, the proce-
                             dure  outlined  in paragraph  (c)(2> of
                             this section  shall be followed except
                             that each run shall  span a minimum
                             of four consecutive hours of continu-
                             ous 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  shall be
                             calculated as the time weighted aver-
                             age of the SO, concentration for each
                             sample according to the formula:
                                                    '•".
                                                     r'
Where:
  O - SOj ronrentration for the run
  A'-- Number of samples.
  C< -- SO: concentration for sample i.
  U, - Continuous sampling time of sample t.
  T = Tolal continuous sampling time of  all
     A' samples. s*

  (2) If  Method  15 is  used, each run
shall consist of 16 samples taken over
a minimum of three hours. The sam-
pling point shal! be at the centroid  of
the cross  section  of  the  duct  if the
cross sectional area is less than 5 m1
(54 ft') or at  a point  no closer  to the
walls than  1 m (39 inches) if the cross
sectional area Ls  5  m! or more and the
centroid is more than 1  meter from
the wall. To insure minimum residence
time for the sample inside the sample
lines,  the  sampling  rate  shall  be  at
least 3 liters/minute (0.1 ft'/min). The
SO, equivalent for each run  shall  be
calculated as the arithmetic average  of
the SO,  equivalent  of  each  sample
during  the run.  Reference Method 4
shall be used  to determine the mois-
ture  content  of  the gases. The sam-
pling point for Method 4 shall be adja-
cent to the sampling point for Mathod
15. The sample shall be extracted at a
rate proportional to the gas velocity  at
the sampling point.  Each run  shall
span a minimum  of four  consecutive
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 moisture content for
the run shall  be calculated as the time
weighted average of the moisture con-
tent of each  sample according to the
formula:
  B^~Proportion by volume of water vapor
     in the gas stream for the run.
  N= Number of. samples.
  B,:-Proportion by volume of water vapor
     In the gas stream for the sample i.
  t,,-Continuous sampling time for  sample
     i.
  T ---Tola! continuous sampling time of nil
     N samples.

(Sec. 114 of  the Clean Air Act. as amended
(42 USC 7414)). 8s
     36 FR 24876, 12/23/71  (1)

       as amended
           39 FR
           40 FR
           42 FR
           42 FR
           42 FR
           42 FR
           43 FR
           43 FR
9308,
46250
32426
37936
39389
41424
8800,
10866
 3/8/74  (5)
  10/6/75 (18)
  6/24/77 (61)
,  7/25/77 (64)
,  8/4/77  (66)
,  8/17/77 (68)
 3/3/78  (83)
,  3/15/78 (85)
                                                     III-24a
-------
III-24b
-------
 Subpart K—Standards of Performance for
  Storage Vessels  for Petroleum  Liquids^

 160.110  Applicability  Kiid «eai£iutk-n
      of affected facility.'4
    (a)  Except as provided In 5  60.110(b).
 the affected, facility to  which this  sub-
 part  applies  Is each  storage  vessel for
 petroleum  liquids which  has  a storage
 capacity  greater than  151,412  liters
 (40,000 gallons).
    (b)  This subpart does not  apply  to
 storage vessels  for petroleum or conden-
 sate stored, processed, and/or  treated at
 i  drilling and  production facility prior
 to custody transfer.8
    (c)  Subject  to the  requirements  of
 this subpart is  any faculty under para-
 graph (a)  of this section which:
    (1)  Has a  capacity  greater than
 151,412 liters  (40,000 gallons), but  not
 exceeding 245,000 liters (65,000 gallons,
 •nd commences construction or modifi-
 cation after March 8,1974.
    (2)  Has a  capacity  greater than
 345,000 liter (85,000 gallons),  and com-
 mences  construction   or  modification
 after June 11. 1973.
§ 60.111  Definition*.
  As used In this subpart, all terms not
denned herein shall  have the meaning
gji't-n them  tn the Act and In Subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Storage vessel" means any tani,
reservoir, or  container  used  for the
storage of  petroleum liquids, but does
not include:
  (1) Pressure vessels which are designed
to operate  In excess  of  15  pounds per
square  inch gauge without, emissions  to
the atmosphere except under emergency
conditions,
  (2) Subsurface caverns or porous rock
reservoirs, or
  (3)  Underground  tanks  If  the total
volume of  petroleum liquids  added  to
and taken  from a tank annually doe*
not exceed twice the volume  of the tank.
  (b)  "Petroleum liquids" means petro-
leum,  condensate.  and any  finished  or
Intermediate products manufactured  In
a petroleum refinery  but does not mean
Number 2 through Number  6 fuel oils
as  specified In  A.S.T.M.  D396-69. gas
turbine fuel oils Numbers 2-OT through
4-GT as specified In  A.S.T.M. D2880-71.
or dlesel fuel oils Numbers 2-D and 4-D
as specified  In A.8.T.M. D975-38.8
  (:•)  "Petroleum refinery"  means any
facility engaged  In producing gasoline.
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel
oils, lubricants, or other products through
distillation  of  petroleum  or  through
redistillation,  cracking, or reforming  of
unfinished petroleum derivatives.
  (d)  "Petroleum" means the crude oil
removed from the earth and  the oils
derived from  tar sands,  shale, and coal.'
  (e) "Hydrocarbon" means any  organic
compound  consisting  predominantly  of
carbon  and hydrogen/
  U> "Condensate" means hydrocarbon
liquid separated from natural gas which
condenses due to changes in  the tem-
 peiature  and/or pressur;  rurid remits
 Maui'i a:  stsiirinrd "cr^'tfc':'
   11; .•  'Custody  iransJ-;:''  ,i.u .'.:•: >  '•';•*.-
 transfer of procured petroiejir.  i-r:ci or
 conaen.saie,   after   processing   and/or
 treatir.t;  Ir,  the proauc:;1..-  operations.
 from h'.oraiie  i.\"ks or autorui-tic: irans-
 ;'tr  frfciiitiec  to  pipelines oi' any other
 forms of transportation.5
   ih)  "Drilling and production fa. ;llty"
 means  all drilling  and  servicing  equip-
 ment, wells, flow lines, separators, equip-
 ment, gathering lines, und auxiliary non-
 •ransportatlon-reiated  equipment  used
 In the production of  petroleum but does
 not Include natural gasoline  plants.8
   U) "True vapor  pressure"  means the
 equilibrium partial pressure  exerted  by
 a petroleum liquid  as determined in ac-
 cordance   with  methods   described  xii
 American  Petroleum  Institute Bulletin
 2511,  Evaporation  Loss  from  Floating
 Roof Tanks. 1962.
   (j) "Floating  roof" means  a storage
 vessel cover consisting of a double deck,
 pontoon single  deck, internal floating
 cover or covered floating roof, which rests
 upon and is supported by the petroleum
 liquid being contained,  and Is  equipped
 with a closure seal or seals to close the
 space  between the roof edge  and tank
 wall.
   ik)  "Vapor recovery system" means a
 vapor gathering system capable  of col-
 lecting all hydrocarbon vapors and g.'.ses
 discharged from the storage vessel r'. e.ny .stor-
age vessel to wiiir.h this  subpart applies
                ,•., ^ouvje vei'-sel deter-
                   '"•i!  average monthly
                   •.•..! true vapor pres-
                ^!"..;-i:  liquid stored nt
                  "
  il) The petvoieum iUjUltl  has a true
va;x>r pressure,  ii.;  clored. greater  than
2C mm Hg <0.5 pila) but less than 78 mm
Hg (1.5 psla) and is stored In a storage
vessel other than one equipped  with a
floating roof,  a vapor recovery  system
or thrir equivalents : or
  (2) The petroleum Jiquld  hus a true
vapor pressure,  as  stored, greater  than
470 mm Hg (9.1 psia) and Is stored in
a storage vessel other than one equipped
with  a  vapor  recovery   system or  Us
equivalent.
   The avenge uior.tuiy storage tem-
perature is  an arithmetic average cal-
culated  for each calendar month, or por-
tion thereof if storage Is  for less than a
month,  from  bulk liquid storage  tem-
peratures  determined   at  least  once
every 7 days.
  id) The true  vapor pressure  shall be
determined  by  the procedures  In API
Bulletin 2517.   This  procedure  Is  de-
pendent  upon  determination  of  the
storage  tempsraturo and  the Reid vapor
pressurs. \vhlcr-  renuhes  sampling of the
petroleum liquids hi the storage vessels.
Unless  the  Administrator requires  in
specific cases that  the stored petroleum
liquid be sampled ,  Jie true vapor pres-
sure may be  determined  by using tlie
average  monthly   storage  temperature
and the typical Ruld vapor pressure. For
those liquids for which certified specifi-
cations  limiting  the Reid vapor pressure
exist, that Held vapor pressure  may be
used. For  other  liquids, supporting  ana-
lytical data must bo  mude available  or?
reque.st to tliti Adir.nv.strator when typi-
cal Reid vapor pic'ssiad  Ls used.
 
-------
Subpart L—Standard* of Performance for
        Secondary  Lead SmeKers s
 160.120   Applicability and  designation
     of affected facility.1^

   (a)  The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable to the following affected fa-
 cilities in secondary lead smelters:  pot
 furnaces  of  more than 250 kg (550 Ib)
 charging capacity, blast  (cupola)  fur-
 naces, and reverberator? furnaces.
   (b)  Any facility under paragraph  (a)
 of this  section  that commences con-
 struction or  modification after June 11,
 1973, is subject to the requirements of
 this subpart.
                                         U) Method 3 for gas analysis.
                                         (b)  For method 5, the sampling time
                                       (or each run shall be at least 60 minutes
                                       and the sampling rate shall be at least
                                       0£ dscm/hr (0.53 dscf/mln) except that
                                       •horter sampling times, when neceeltated
                                       by process variables or other factors,
                                       may be approved by the Administrator.
                                       {"articulate sampling Shan be conducted
                                       during representative periods of. furnace
                                       operation, 
-------
Subpart M—Standards of Performance for
  Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot  Pro-
  duction Plants 5
8 60.130  Applicability  and dnicnation
     of affected facility. 64

   (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to  the following affected fa-
 cilities In secondary brass or bronze in-
 got production  plants:   reverberator?
 and electric furnaces of 1,000 kg  (2,205
lb> or  greater production capacity and
 blast  
-------
Subpart N—Standard! of Performance for
          Iron and Steel Plant* 5

 160.140   Applicability  and dwlfnation
     of affected facility. A 4
   (a) The affected facility to which the
 provisions of this subpart apply la each
 basic oxygen  process furnace.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification after June  11, 1973,
 la subject to  the requirement* of this
 subpart.
 § 60.141   Definitions.
   As used In this subpart, all terms not
 defined herein shall have the meaning
 given them in the Act  and in subpart A
 of this part.
   (») "Basic  oxygen  process furnace"
 (BOPP) means any furnace producing
 steel by charging scrap steel, hot metal,
 and flux materials Into a vessel  and in-
 troducing  a high volume of an oxygen-
 rich gas.
    "Steel  production  cycle"  means
 the operations required to produce each
 batch of steel and Includes the following
 majo(  functions:  Scrap charging, pre-
 heating (when used),  hot metal charg-
 ing, primary oxygen blowing, additional
 oxygen blowing (when used), and tap-
 ping.
   (c) "Startup means the setting into
 operation for the first steel production
 cycle of  a rellned BOPP or a BOPP
 which has been out of production for a
 minimum continuous time period of
 eight hours.88
 § 60.142   .Standard  for paniculate mat-
     ter.
   (a)  On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by S 60.8 Is completed, no owner
 or operator subject  to the provisions of
 this subpart shall  discharge or cause
 the discharge into the atmosphere from
 any affected  facility any  gases which:
   (1)  Contain participate  matter in ex-
 cess of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf >
   (2)  Exit from  a  control device and
 exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater,
 except that an opacity of greater than
 10  percent but  less  than 20  percent
 .may  occur once per steel production
 cycle.88
install,  calibrate,  maintain,  and con-
tinuously operate monitoring devices
as follows:
  (DA monitoring device tor the con-
tinuous measurement of the pressure
loss through the  venturi constriction
of the control equipment. The moni-
toring device is to be certified by the
manufacturer to  be accurate within
±250 Pa (±1 Inch water).
  (2) A monitoring device for the con-
tinous  measurement  of  the  water
supply pressure to the control equip-
ment. The monitoring device Is to be
certified by the manufacturer to be ac-
curate within ±5 percent of the design
water supply pressure. The monitoring
device's  pressure  sensor or  pressure
tap must be located close to  the water
discharge  point.  The Administrator
may be consulted for approval of alter-
native  locations  for the   pressure
tensor or tap.
  (3) All monitoring devices shall be
synchronized each day with  the time-
measuring  Instrument  used  under
paragraph (a) of this  section. The
chart recorder error directly  after syn-
chronization shall not exceed 0.08 cm
(V4» inch).
  (4) All monitoring devices shall use
chart recorders which are operated at
a minimum chart speed of 3.8 cm/hr
(1.5 in/hr).
  (5) All monitoring devices  are  to be
recalibreated  annually, and at other
times as the Administrator may re-
quire, in accordance with the  proce-
duces under } 00.13(bX3).
  (c) Any owner or operator  subject  to
requirements under paragraph (b)  of
this section shall  report for each cal-
endar quarter all measurements over
any three-hour period that average
more than 10 percent below the aver-
age levels maintained during the most
recent   performance  test  conducted
under § 60.8  in which the affected fa-
cility demonstrated compliance with
the standard under  860.142(a)(l). The
accuracy of the  respective  measure-
ments, not to exceed the values speci-
fied In paragraphs (bXl) and (bX2>  of
this section, may be taken into consid-
eration  when  determining  the mea-
surement results that must  be report-
ed.
  { 60.143  Monitoring of operation*.88
   (a) The owner or operator of an af-
  fected facility shall maintain a single
  time-measuring   instrument   which
  shall be used in recording daily the
  time and duration of each steel pro-
  duction  cycle, and the time and dura-
  tion of any diversion of exhaust gases
  from  the  main  stack  servicing the
  BOPP,
   (b) The owner or operator of any af-
  fected facility that uses venturi scrub-
  ber emission control equipment shall
For the purpose of this subpart, opac-
ity observations taken at 15-aecond In-
tervals immediately before and after a
diversion  of exhaust  gases  from the
•tack may be considered to be consecu-
tive for the purpose of computing an
average   opacity   for  a six-minute
period. Observations taken during a di-
version shall not be used in  determin-
ing compliance with the  opacity stan-
dard.88
  (b)  For Method 5, the  sampling for
each run shall continue for an integral
number of cycles with total duration  of
at least 60 minutes. The sampling rat«
shall be at least 0.9 dscm/hr (0.53 dscf/
mini except that shorter sampling times.
  (c)  Sampling of flue  gases during
each  steel production cycle shall be
discontinued whenever all flue gases
are diverted from  the  stack  and shall
be  resumed  after  each   diversion
period,88

(Sec.  114.  Clean Air Act la imeoded  (43
U.S.C. 7414 ». 68. S3
 § 60.144  Test method* and procedures.
   (a)  The reference methods appended
 to  this part,  except as provided for In
 §60.8(b), shall be used  to determine
 compliance with the standards prescribed
 in  8 60.142 as follows:
   (1)  Method 5 for  concentration of
 particulate matter and associated mois-
 ture content,
   (2)  Method 1 for sample and  velocity
 traverses,
   (3)  Method 2 for volumetric flow rate.
 and
    (4)  Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (5)  Method 9 for visible emissions.
     36 PR 24876, 12/23/71 (1)

       as amended

           39 FR 9308, 3/8/74  (5)
           42 FR 37936, 7/25/77 (64)
           42 FR 41424, 8/17/77 (68)
           43 FR 8800, 3/3/78  (83)
           43 FR 15600, 4/13/78 (88)
                                                    111-28
-------
Subpart O—SUmdardt of Performance lor
        Sewage Treatment Plants 5


g 60.150   Applicability  »nd  designation
     of affected furilitT. 75

   (a)  The affected facility Is each  in-
cinerator that combusts wastes contain-
ing more  than 10 percent sewage sludge
(dry basis) produced  by municipal sew-
age treatment plants, or each Incinerator
that charges more than  1000 kg (2205
Ib) per day municipal sewage sludge (dry
basis).
  Xb)  Any facility under paragraph (a.)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after June  11. 1973,
is subject to the  requirements of  this
subpart.
| 60.151   Definition*.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have  the meaning
given them In the Act and in subpart A
of this part.
g 60.152   Standard  for  p*rticul«le mai-
     ler.
   (a) On and after the date on which the
performance test required  to be con-
ducted  by § 60.8 is completed, no  owner
or operator  of any sewage sludge  Incin-
erator subject to  the provisions of this
subpart shall discharge or cause the dis-
charge into the atmosphere of:
   (1) Partlculate matter at a rate  in ex-
cess of 0.65  g/kg dry sludge Input (1.30
Ib/ton dry sludge input).
   (2) Any gases which exihibit 20 per-
cent opacity or greater. '•


§60.153   Monitoring of operations.
   (a)  The owner or  operator of  any
sludge incinerator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall:
   (1) 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 in-
cinerator. The  flow  measuring device
nhall have  an accuracy of ±5 percent
over Its operating  range.
   (2)   Provide  access   to the  sludge
charged so that a well mixed representa-
tive grab  sample of the sludge can be ob-
tained.
   (3)  Install, calibrate,  maintain, and
operate a weighing device for determin-
ing  the  mass of  any  municipal  solid
waste charged to  the Incinerator  when
sewage sludge and municipal solid waste
are Incinerated  together. The weighing
device shall  have an accuracy of ±5 per-
cent over 1U operating range.
  (1)  Method  5  for  concentration  of
particulate matter and associated mois-
ture content,
  (2)  Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses.
  '3)  Method 2 for volumetric flow rate,
and
  (4)  Method 3 for gas analysis.
    For Method 5,  the sampling time
for each  run shall  be at least 60 min-
utes  and  the sampling rate shall be  at
least 0.015 dscm/min (0.53 dscf/min>,
except  that  shorter  sampling   times,
when  necessitated by process  variables
or other factors, may be approved by the
Administrator.
   ic)  Dry sludge charging  rate shall b«
determined as follows:
   (1)  Determine  the mass  (S«)  or vol-
ume Or)  of sludge charged to the  In-
cinerator during  each run  using  a flow
measuring  device meeting  the require-
ments of  5 60.153(a)(l). If total input
during a run is measured by a flow meas-
uring device, such readings shall be used.
Otherwise, record the flow measuring de-
vice readings at 5-minute intervals dur-
ing  a run.   Determine  the  quantity
charged during each interval by averag-
ing the flow rates at  the beginning and
end  of the Interval and then multiplying
the average for each interval by the time
for each interval.  Then add  the quantity
(8«e.  114.
O.S.C.
                 Air  Act it  amended  (41
 | 60.154  Te.1 Method* and Procedures.
   (a) The reference methods appended
 to  this  part, except as provided for in
 f60.8(b), shall be used  to determine
 compliance  with   the  standards  pre-
 scribed in 5 60.152 as follows:
                         for each interval to determine the total
                         quantity charged during the entire run,
                         (S*) or Ov).
                            (2) Collect  samples  of  the  sludge
                         charged to the incinerator in non-porous
                         collecting jars at the beginning of each
                         run and  at approximately  1-hour In-
                         tervals thereafter until the test ends, and
                         determine for each sample the dry sludge
                         content (total solids residue)  In accord-
                         ance with "224 O. Method for Solid and
                         Semlsolld Samples," Standard Methods
                         for  the  Examination  of  Water  and
                         Wastewater, Thirteenth Edition. Ameri-
                         can Public Health Association. Inc., New
                         York, N.Y.,  1971, pp. 539-41, except that:
                            (i) Evaporating dishes shall be ignited
                         to at least 103°C rather than the 550'C
                         specified in step 3(a) (1).
                            (11)  Determination of volatile residue,
                         step 3
-------
Subpart I*—Standards of Performance for
        Primary Copper Smelters ™
    "Sulfurlc acid plant" means any
facility producing sulfuric  acid by the
 contact process.
    (i)  "Fossil fuel"  means natural gas,
 petroleum, coal, and any form of  solid,
 liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such
 materials  for  the purpose of  creating
 useful heat.
    (j>  "Reverberatory smelting furnace"
 means any vessel  in which the smelting
 ot copper sulflde ore concentrates or cal-
 cine* is performed and In which the heat
necessary for smelting  is provided pri-
marily by combustion of a fossil fuel.
  
-------
system installed under paragraph (b) of
this section, exceeds the standard under
5 60.164(a).
  (2) Sulfur dioxide. All six-hour periods
during which the average emissions of
sulfur dioxide, as measured by the con-
tinuous  monitoring  system  installed
under § 60.163, exceed  the  Jevel  of the
standard.  The Administrator will  not
consider emissions in excess of the level
of the standard for less than or equal to
1.5 percent of the six-hour periods dur-
ing the quarter as indicative of a poten-
tial violation of S60.1Kd> provided the
affected  facility, including air pollution
control  equipment, is  maintained and
operated in a manner consistent  with
good  air pollution  control  practice for
minimizing emissions during these pe-
riods. Emissions in excess of the level of
the standard during  periods of startup,
shutdown,  and malfunction are not to be
included within  the  1.5  percent.74

(Sec.  11«. Cletn Air Act li amended (42
V.S.C. 7410). M 83
 §60.166  Test inrtluicls uiul  proTiluros.
   (a)  The reference methods in Ap-
 pendix A to this part, except  as provided
 for in J 60.8.°8 83
U intended (43
                                                                                      36 FR  24876,  12/23/71 (1)

                                                                                         as  amended

                                                                                           41  FR 2332, 1/15/75 (26)
                                                                                           41  FR 8346, 2/26/76 (30)
                                                                                           42  FR 37935, 7/25/77  (64)
                                                                                           42  FR 41424, 8/17/77  (68)
                                                                                           42  FR 57126, 11/1/77  (74)
                                                                                           43  FR 8800, 3/3/78 (83)
                                                    111-31
-------
 Subpart Q—Standards of Performane* for
         Primary Zinc Smaltere 26


| 60.170  Applicability  and designation
     of affected facility."
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected facili-
ties In primary zinc smelters: roaster and
sintering machine.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construe-
tton or modification after October 10.
1974, la subject to  the  requirements  of
thia subpart.
 § 60.171   Definitions.
  As used In this subpart. all terms not
 denned herein shall  have the meaning
 given them in the Act and in subpart A
 of this part.
   (a) "Primary zinc smelter" means any
 Installation engaged In the production, or
 any Intermediate process In the produc-
 tion, of zinc or zinc oxide from zinc sul-
 flde ore  concentrates through  the use
 of pyrometallurglcal  techniques.
  (b)  "Roaster" means any facility In
 which a  zinc sulflde  ore  concentrate
 charge Is heated In the presence of air
 to eliminate a significant portion (more
 than 10 percent) ot the sulfur contained
 In the charge.
  (c)  "Sintering machine" means  any
 furnace In which calcines are heated in
 the  presence of air to agglomerate the
 calcines into a hard porous mass called
 "sinter."
  (d) "Sulfurlc acid  plant"  means  any
 facility producing  sulfuric acid  by the
 contact process.
§ 60.172  Standard for paniculate  mat-
     ter.
   (a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by t 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere from any sintering
machine any  gases which contain par-
Uculate matter in excess of 50 mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf).


| 60.173  Standard for lulfur dioxide.
   (a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by 3 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator  subject to the provisions of
tl\is subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from  any roaster
any gases which contain sulfur dioxide in
excess of 0.065 percent by volume.
   (b)  Any  sintering  machine  which
eliminates more than 10 percent of the
sulfur initially  contained  In  the  zinc
sulflde ore concentrates will be consid-
ered as a roaster  under paragraph (a)
of this section.
| 60.174  Standard for vUiblc emlinioru.
  (a) On and after the date on which the
performance  test  required  to be con-
ducted by  5 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions ol
this subpart shall  cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere from any sintering
machine any visible emissions which ex-
hibit greater than  20 percent opacity.
  (b) On and  after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by  { 60.8 la completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere  from any  affected
facility that use* a sulfuric acid plant to
comply  with the  standard set forth in
{ 60.173, any visible emissions which ex-
hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.
  (c) For the purpose of reports required
under §60.7(c>. periods of excess emis-
sions that shall be reported are defined
as follows:
  '!)  Opacity. Any six-minute period
during which the average  opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitoring
system installed under paragraph (a) of
this section, exceeds  the standard under
I 60.174(a>.
  (2)  Sulfur dioxide. Any two-hour pe-
riod, as  described  In paragraph (b) of
this section, during  which the average
emissions of sulfur dioxide, as measured
by the continuous monitoring system in-
stalled under paragraph (a) of  this sec-
tion, exceeds the standard under 5 60.173.
g 60.175  Monitoring of operations.
   (a) The owner or operator of any pri-
mary zinc smelter subject to the provi-
sions ot this BUbpart shall  install and
operate:
   (1) A continuous monitoring system to
monitor and record the opacity of gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from any
sintering machine. The span of this sys-
tem shall be set at  80 to 100  percent
opacity.
   (2) A continuous monitoring system to
monitor and record sulfur dioxide emis-
sions discharged Into  the  atmosphere
from any roaster subject to } 60.173. The
span of this system shall be set  at  a
sulfur dioxide concentration of 0.20 per-
cent by volume.
   (1) The continuous monitoring system
performance evaluation required  under
 §  60.13Cc) shall be completed prior to the
Initial  performance test required  under
 §  60.8.  During the  performance evalua-
tion, the span of the continuous monitor-
Ing system may be set at a sulfur dioxide
concentration of 0.15 percent by volume
if necessary to maintain the system out-
put between 20 percent and 90 percent
 of full scale. Upon completion of the con-
tinuous monitoring system performance
evaluation,  the  span of the continuous
monitoring system shall be set at a sulfur
 dioxide concentration of 0.20 percent by
 volume.
   (11) For the purpose of the continuous
monitoring system performance evalua-
 tion required under i 60.13(c), the ref-
 erence  method  referred  to under the
 Field Test  for  Accuracy  (Relative)  in
 Performance Specification 2 of Appendix
B to this part shall be Reference Method
 6. For  the performance evaluation, each
 concentration measurement shall be of
 one hour duration.  The  pollutant gas
 used to prepare the calibration gas mix-
 tures required under paragraph 2.1. Per-
 formance Specification 2 of Appendix B,
 and for calibration checks under } 60.13
 (d), shall be sulfur dioxide.
   
-------
Subpart R—Standards of Performance for
         Primary Lead Smtlters 26
 § 60.180  Applicability and designation
     of affected facility.^
   (a)  The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable  to  the  following  affected
 facilities In primary  lead smelters: sin-
 tering machine,  sintering machine dis-
 rcharge end,  blast furnace, dross rever-
 beratory furnace, electric smelting fur-
 nace, and converter.
   (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section  that commences  con-
 struction or modification  after October
 16, 1974, Is subject to the requirements
 of this subpart.

S 60.181  Definition*.
  As used In  this subpart, all terms not
defined  herein  shall have  the meaning
given them m the Act and In subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Primary lead smelter" means any
Installation or any intermediate process
engaged  In the production of lead from
lead sulflde  ore  concentrates  through
the use of pyrometallurglcal techniques.
  (b) "Sintering machine" means any
furnace In which a lead srulflde ore con-
centrate charge Is heated in the presence
of air  to eliminate sulfur contained  in
the  charge  and  to agglomerate the
charge  Into a hard  porous mass called
"sinter."
  (c) "Sinter bed" means the lead sulnfle
ore concentrate charge  within a sinter-
ing machine.
   (d) "Sintering machine discharge end"
means any apparatus which receives sin-
ter as It is discharged from the conveying
grate of a sintering machine.
   (e) "Blast furnace" means any reduc-
tion furnace  to which sinter is  charged
and which  forms  separate  layers  of
molten slag and lead bullion.
   (f)  "Dross  reverberator  furnace"
means any furnace used for the removal
or  refining  of  Impurities  from  lead
 bullion.
   (g) "Electric smelting furnace" mean*
any furnace In which the heat necessary
 for smelting  of the lead sulflde ore con-
 centrate charge Is generated by passing
 an electric current through a portion of
 the molten mass In the furnace.
   (h)  "Converter" means any vessel to
 which  lead  concentrate  or bullion  Is
 charged and refined.
   (1) "Sulfurlc acid plant" means any
 facility  producing  sujfurlc acid by the
 contact process.
 | 60.182  Standard for partirulute mai-
     ler.
   (a)  On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by { 60.8 Is completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the atmosphere from any blast fur-
 nace,  dross reverberatory  furnace,  or
 sintering  machine  discharge end  any
 gases  which contain partlculate matter
 in excess of 59 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
 § 60.183   Standard for sulfur dioxide.
   (a)  On and after  the date  on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by i 60.8 Is completed,  no owner
 or  operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the atmosphere  from any sintering
 machine,  electric  smelting  furnace, or
 converter gases which contain  sulfur di-
 oxide  In  excess  of   0.065  percent  by
 volume.


 § 60.184   Standard for visible  emission*.
   (a)  On and after  the date  on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8 Is completed,  no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere from any  blast fur-
 nace,  dross reverberatory  furnace, or
 sintering  machine discharge  end  any
 visible emissions  which exhibit greater
 than 20 percent opacity.
   (b)  On and after  the date  oil which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8 Is completed,  no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the  atmosphere  from  any affected
 facility that uses a sulfurlc acid plant to
 comply with  the standard set forth In
 5 60.183,  any  visible  emissions  which
 exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity.

 § 60*185   Monitoring of operations.
   (a)  The owner or  operator  of  any
 primary lead smelter subject to the pro-
 visions of this subpart shall install  and
 operate:
   CD  A  continuous  monitoring system
 to  monitor and record the opacity of
 gases  discharged into  the  atmosphere
 from  any  blast  ftirnace, dross  rever-
 beratory  furnace, or  sintering  machine
 discharge end. The span of  this system
 shall be set at 80 to 100 percent opacity.
   (2)  A  continuous  monitoring system
 to  monitor and  record sulfur  dioxide
 emissions discharged  into  the  atmos-
 phere   from  any sintering  machine,
 electric furnace or converter subject to
 { 60.183.  The  span of this system shall
 be  set at a sulfur dioxide concentration
 of 0.20 percent by volume.
   (i)  The continuous  monitoring system
 performance evaluation required under
 § 60.13(c) shall be completed prior to the
 initial performance test required under
 { 60.8. During  the performance evalua-
 tion, the  span of the continuous moni-
 toring system  may be  set  at a  sulfur
 dioxide concentration of 0.15 percent by
 volume if necessary to maintain the sys-
 tem output between  20 percent and 90
•percent of full scale. Upon completion
 of  the continuous monitoring  system
 performance evaluation, the  span of the
 continuous monitoring system shall be
 set at a sulfur dioxide concentration of
 0.20 percent by volume.
   Cii)  For the purpose of the continuous
 monitoring system performance evalua-
 tion required under § 60.13(c), the refer-
 ence method referred  to under the Field
 Test  for  Accuracy  (Relative)   In Per-
                                                       III-33
 forrrmnce Specification 2 of Appendix B
 to this part shall be Reference Method
 6. For the performance evaluation, each
 concentration measurement  shall be of
 one hour duration. The pollutant gases
 used to prepare the calibration gas mix-
 tures required under paragraph 2.1, Per-
 formance Specification 2 of Appendix B,
 arid for calibration checks under § 60.13
 (d), shall be sulfur dioxide.
   (b) Two-hour average sulfur dioxide
 concentrations  shall  be  calculated  and
 recorded daily  for the  twelve consecu-
 tive two-hour periods of each operating
 day. Each two-hour average shall be de-
 termined as the arithmetic mean of the
 appropriate  two  contiguous one-hour
 average  sulfur  dioxide  concentrations
 provided by the continuous  monitoring
 system installed under paragraph (a) of
 this section.
   (c)  For the  purpose of  reports  re-
 quired under § 60.7(c), periods of excess
 emissions that shall be  reported are de-
 fined as follows:
   (1)  Opacity.  Any  six-minute  period
 during which  the average  opacity,  as
 measured by the continuous  monitoring
 system installed under paragraph (a) of
 this section,  exceeds the standard under
 § 60.184(a).
   (2) Sulfur dioxide.  Any two-hour pe-
 riod,  as  described in  paragraph  (b)  of
 this section, during  which the average
 emissions of sulfur dioxide, as measured
 by the continuous monitoring system in-
 stalled under paragraph (a)  of this sec-
 tion, exceeds the standard under § 60.183.
§ 60.186  Test methods and procedures.
   (a)  The reference methods in Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided for
in § 60.8(b), shall be used to determine
compliance  with  the  standards  pre-
scribed in §§ 60.182, 60.183 and  60.184 as
follows:
   CD  Method  5  for  the  concentration
of particulate  matler and  the associated
moisture content.
   (2) Sulfur dioxide concentrations shall
be  determined  using  the continuous
monitoring  system installed In accord-
ance with § 60.185(a>. One 2-hour aver-
age period shall constitute one run.
   (b) For Method 5,  Method 1 shall be
used for selecting the sampling site and
the number of traverse points, Method 2
for determining velocity and volumetric
flow rate and Method 3 for determining
the gas analysis. The sampling time for
each run shall  be at least 60 minutes and
the minimum  sampling volume shall be
0.85 dscm (30  dscf) except that smaller
times or volumes, when necessitated by
process variables or other factors, may be
approved by the Administrator.


(Sec.  114.  Clean Air  Act Is amended  (42
U.S.C. 7414)). 6883

     36 FR 24876, 12/23/71 (1)

        as amended

           41  FR  2332, 1/15/76  (26)
           42  FR 37936,  7/25/77 (64)
           42  FR  41424,  8/17/77 (68)
           43  FR  8800,   3/3/78  (83)
-------
Subpart $—Standards of Performance for
   Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants J7
§60.190  Applicability and designation
    of affected facility."
  (a) The affected facilities in primary
aluminum  reduction  plants to  which
this subpart applies are potroom groups
and anode bake plants.
  (t» Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section  that commences con-
struction or modification after October
33, 1974, Is subject to the  requirements
of this subpart.
 | 60.191   Definition*.
  As used In this subpart, all terms not
 denned herein shall  have the meaning
 given them In the Act and in subpart A
 of this part.
    The rate of aluminum production
 shall be determined as follows :
  (1) Determine the weight of alumi-
 num In metric tons produced during a
 period from the last tap before a run
 starts  until  the  first tap after the run
 ends using  a  monitoring device which
 meets the requirements of § 60.194(a).
  (2) Divide the weight of aluminum
 produced by the length of the period  in
 hours.
  (e) For anode bake plants, the alumi-
 num  equivalent  for  anodes  produced
 shall be determined  as follows :
  (1) Determine the  average  weight
 (metric tons)  of anode produced In the
 anode bake plant during a representative
 oven  cycle  using  a monitoring  device
 which  meets the requirements  of  § 60.-
 lS4
-------
be determined using the following equa-
tion:
               _c.Q, 10-'
            £"	M~	
Where:
  £i, = »node bake plant emissions of  tot*l
        fluorides In kg/metric  ton of alu-
        mlnum equivalent.
   Ci=concentr8tlon ot  total fluorides  In
        mg/dscm as determined by Method
        13A or 13B.
  <}, = volumetric flow  rate ot the effluent
        gM  stream  In  dscm/hr as deter-
        mined by Method 3.
  10-"—conversion factor from mg to kg.
  M, = aluminum equivalent for anodes pro-
        duced  by  anode bake  plants  In
        metric  ton/hr  M  determined by
        teo.lOft(e).

<8ec.  114. Cle&o Air Act If amended (42
U.S.C. 7414)).68-83
                                                                                         36  FR 24876,  12/23/71 (1)
                                                                                             as amended

                                                                                                41  FR  3825,  T/26/76  U/)
                                                                                                42 FR  37936,  7/25/77  (64)
                                                                                                42 FR  41424,  8/17/77  (68)
                                                                                                43 FR  8800,  3/3/78  (83)
                                                        111-35
-------
Subpart T—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Wet-
  Process Phosphoric Acid Plants "

 160.200  Applicability  and designation
     of affected facility.**
   (a) The affected facility to which the
 provisions of this subpart apply is each
 wet-process phosphoric acid plant For
 the purpose of this subpart, the affected
 facility Includes any combination of:
 reactors, filters, evaporators,  and hot-
 wells.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of  this  section that  commences con-
 struction or modification after October
 22, 1974, is  subject to the  requirements
 of this subpart.

§ 60.201  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart,  all terms not
defined herein shall have  the meaning
given them  in the Act and in Subpart A
of this part.
  (a)   "Wet-process  phosphoric  acid
plant" means any facility manufactur-
ing phosphoric  acid  by reacting  phos-
phate rock  and acid.
  (b) "Total fluorides" means elemental
fluorine and all fluoride compounds as
 measured by reference methods specified
in $ 60.204,  or equivalent or alternative
methods.
  (o) "Equivalent P3OB feed" means th»
 quantity of phosphorus,  expressed as
phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the proc-
ess.
§ 60.202  Standard for fluorides.
  (a) On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
ducted  by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to  be discharged
 into the atmosphere from any  affected
 facility any gases which  contain  total
 fluorides in excess of 10.0 g/metrlc ton
 of equivalent P:O5 feed (0.020 Ib/ton).
 § 60.203  Monitoring of operations.
   (a) The owner or operator of any wet-
 process phosphoric acid plant subject to
 the  provisions of  this subpart shall in-
 stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate  a
 monitoring device which can be used to
 determine  the mass  flow of phosphorus-
 bearing feed material to the process. The
 monitoring device shall have an accu-
racy of ±5 percent  over  its operating
range.
  (b) The owner or operator of any wet-
process  phosphoric  acid   plant  shall
maintain a daily record  of equivalent
 P.O. feed by first determining the total
 mass rate in metric ton/hr  of phosphorus
bearing feed using a monitoring device
 for measuring mass fiowrate which meets
 the  requirements  of paragraph  (a)  of
 this section and then by proceeding ac-
 cording to 5 60.204(d) (2).
   (c) The owner or operator of any wet-
 process phosphoric  acid subject to the
 provisions of this part shall install, cali-
 brate, maintain, and operate a monitor-
ing device which continuously measures
and permanently records the total pres-
sure drop across the process scrubbing
system. The monitoring device shall have
an accuracy of  ±5 percent over Its op-
erating range.
(Sec. 114. Clean  Air  Act ii amended  (43
U.S.C. 7414)).48-83
§ 60.204  Test  methods and procedures.
  (a) Reference methods In Appendix A
of this part, except as provided In 5 60.8
(b),  shall be used to determine compli-
ance  with the standard prescribed  in
(60.202 as follows:
  (1) Method 13A or 13B for the concen-
tration  of total fluorides and the asso-
ciated moisture content,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3) Method  2 for velocity and vol-
umetric flow rate, and
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
  (b) For Method 13A or 13B. the sam-
pling time for each run shall be at least
60 minutes and the minimum  sample
volume shall be 0.85 dscm  (30 dscf)  ex-
cept  that shorter sampling  times  or
smaller volumes, when  necessitated  by
process variables or other factors, may
be approved by the Administrator.
  (c) The air  pollution control system
for  the  affected facility shall  be con-
structed so that volumetric flow rates
and  total fluoride emissions can be ac-
curately determined  by applicable test
methods and procedures.
   (d) Equivalent P,O» feed shall be de-
termined as follows:
   (1) Determine the total mass rate in
metric  ton/hr  of  phosphorus-bearing
feed  during  each  run  using  a flow
monitoring  device meeting the require-
ments of § 60.203 (a).
   (2) Calculate the equivalent PX>. feed
by multiplying the percentage P>O» con-
tent, as measured by the  spectrophoto-
metrlc tnolybdovanadophosphate method
 (AOAC Method 9). times the total mass
rate of phosphorus-bearing feed. AOAC
Method 9 is published in the  Official
Methods  of Analysis of the Association
of Official Analytical Chemists, llth edi-
tion. 1970, pp. 11-12. Other methods may
be approved by the Administrator.
   (e) For each run, emissions expressed
in g/metric ton of equivalent PjO« feed
shall be determined using the following
equation:
             „  (C.Q.)  10-'
                                        lfr,o,=Equlvalent  ptp,  f*«d  in metric
                                                ton/tor M 
-------
Subpart U—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Super-
  phosphoric Acid Plants M
 | 60.210  Applicability «nd  designation
     of affected facility.64

   (a) The affected facility to which the
 provisions of this subpart apply Is  each
 super/phosphoric  acid  plant.  For  the
 purpose  of  this  subpart. the  affected
 facility Includes  any combination of:
 evaporators,  hotwells, acid  sumps, and
 cooling tanks.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of  this section  that  commences  con-
 struction  or modification after October
 22, 1074, Is subject to the requirements
 of this suboart.


 fi 60.211  DeEnitiorw.
  "As used In this subpart, all terms not
 defined herein, shall have the meaning
 given them In the Act and In subpart A
 of this part.
   (a)  "Superphosphoric  acid  plant"
 means any facility which concentrates
 wet-process phosphoric acid to 66 per-
 cent or greater FX>» content by weight
 for eventual consumption as a fertilizer.
   (b)  "Total fluorides" means elemen-
 tal fluorine and  all fluoride compounds
 as measured by  reference methods spe-
 cified in § 60.21,4, or equivalent or alter-
 native methods.
   (c)  "Equivalent P,O, feed" means the
 quantity  of  phosphorus, expressed  as
 phosphorous   pentoxlde,  fed   to   the
 process.


 f 60.212  Standard for fluoride*.
   On and after the date on which
 the performance  test required to be con-
 ducted by 5 60.8  Is completed, no owner
 or operator subject  to the ^provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the atmosphere from any affected
facility any  gases which contain  total
 fluorides In excess of 5.0 g/metric ton of
equivalent PiO, feed. (0.010 Ib/ton).
| 60.213  Monitoring of operation*.
   (a)  The  owner  or operator of any
Superphosphoric  acid plant subject  to
the provisions of this subpart shall in-
stall,  calibrate,  maintain, and operate
a  flow monitoring  device which can  be
used  to determine the  mass flow  of
phosphorus-bearing feed material  to the
process. The flow monitoring device shall
have an accuracy of ± 5 percent over  Its
operating range.
   (b)  The  owner  or operator of any
Superphosphoric acid plant shall main-
tain a dally record  of equivalent PjO>
feed by first determining  the total mass
rate In metric  ton/hr of phosphorus-
bearing feed using a flow monitoring de-
vice meeting the requirements of  para-
«raph  (a)  of  this  section and then  by
proceeding according to i 60.214(d> (2),
   (c)  The owner  or  operator of any
•uperphosphorlc acid plant subject  to the
provisions of this part shall Install, call-
prate,  maintain, and operate a monitor-
ing device which continuously measures
and permanently records the total pres •
•ure drop  across the  process scrubbing
system. The monitoring device shall have
.an accuracy  of  ±  5 percent  over  its
•Derating range.

 (S«c. 114. Clem Air Act  U  amended  (43
 U.S.C.
 % 60.214  Test methods and procedures.
   (B.I Reference  methods  In  Appendix
 A of this part, except as  provided  In
 |60.8(b), shall be  used  to determine
 compliance with the standard prescribed
 In i 60.212 as follows:
   (1) Method ISA or 13B for the concen-
 tration  of total fluorides and  the asso-
 ciated moisture  content.
   (2) Method 1 for sample  and velocity
 traverses,
   (3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
 metric flow  rat-;, and
   <4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (b) For Method 13A or  138, the sam-
 pling time for each run shall be at least
 «0 minutes  and  the minimum sample
 volume  shall be at least 0.85  dscm  (30
 dscf ) except that shorter sampling times
 or smaller volumes, when necessitated by
 process  variables or other factors, may
 be approved by the Administrator.
   (c) The  air  pollution control  system
 for the  affected facility  shall be con-
 structed so that volumetric flow rates and
 total fluoride emissions can be accurately
 determined  by applicable  test methods
 and  procedures.
    (d) Equivalent P.XX feed shall be deter-
 mined as follows:
    (1) Determine the total mass rate in
 metric  ton/hr  of   phosphorus-bearing
 feed during each run using a flow moni-
 toring device  meeting the requirements
 of 560.213(a).
    (2) Calculate the equivalent P-.O; feed
 by multiplying the percentage P,O3 con-
 tent, as measured by the spectrophoto-
 metric molybdovanadophosphate method
 (AOAC Method 9) , times  the total mass
 rate of phosphorus-bearing feed. AOAC
 Method  9  Is  published in the  Official
 Methods of Analysis of the Association of
 Official Analytical Chemists, llth edition,
 1970, pp. 11-12. Other methods may be
 approved by the Administrator.
    (e) For each run, emissions expressed
 to g/metrlc ton of equivalent P:O5 feed,
 shall be determined using the following
 equation :
               _
                    Mr 30j
 where:
      £ = Emlsslons of total fluorides In g/
           metric ton of equivalent  P2O.
           feed.
      Ct — Concentration of total fluorides In
           mg/dscm  as  determined   by
           Method ISA or 13B.
      Q, = Volumetric flow rate of the effluent
           gas stream In dscm/hr as deter-
           mined by Method 2.
     10-3= Conversion factor for mg to g.
    U /Y>;= Equivalent P,O, feed  In  metric
           ton/hr M determined by i 60.-
           214(d).
  (8«c.  114. Clean  Air  Act  I* amended  (42
  UJS.C. 7414)). 6« 83
36 FR 24876,  12/23/71  (1)

   as amended

      40 FR 33152,  8/6/75 (14)
      42 FR 37936,  7/25/77 (64)
      42 FR 41424,  8/17/77 (68)
      43 FR 8800,   3/3/78 (83)
                                                      111-37
-------
•ubpart V—Standard* of Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Dianv
  monlum Phosphate Plants u
 I 60JM  Applicability  and dwlgnatlo.
     of affected facility."

   (A)  The affected facility to which the
 provisions of this subpart apply is each
 granular diammonlum phosphate plank.
 For the purpose of this subpart, the af-
 fected facility Includes any combination
 of: reactors, granul&tors, dryers, coolers.
 screens, and mills.
   (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification after October 22.
 1974. is subject to the  requirements of
 thissubpftrt.

 160.221  Definition*.

  As used in this subpart, all terms not
 defined herein  shall have  the  meaning
 liven them  in the Act and in subpart A
 «f this part.
  (a)  "Granular  diammonlum  phos-
 phate  plant"-means any plant manu-
 facturing granular diammonlum phos-
 phate  by reacting  phosphoric acid with
 ammonia.
  (b)  "Total fluorides" means elemental
 fluorine and all fluoride compounds as
 measured by reference methods speci-
 fied in { 60.224. or equivalent or alter-
 native methods.
  (c)  "Equivalent  P,O> feed" means the
 quantity  of phosphorus, expressed  as
 phosphorous pcntoxide,  fed to the proc-
f 60.222  Standard for fluorides.
   (a)  On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by i 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere  from any affected
facility any gases which contain total
fluorides In excess of  30 g/metric ton of
equivalent PtO. feed (0.060 Ib/ton).

| 60.223  Mdiklioring of operation*.
   (a)  The  owner  or operator  of  any
granular diammonlum  phosphate plant
subject to the provisions of this subpart
'«hall  Install, calibrate, maintain,  and
operate a flow monitoring device which
 can be used to determine the mass flow
of phosphorus-bearing  feed material to
 the process. The flow monitoring device
 •hall  have  an accuracy of ±5 percent
 over Its operating range.
   (b)  The  owner  or operator  of  any
granular diammonlum  phosphate plant
 •hall  maintain a dally  record of equiv-
 alent  PiOi feed by first determining the
 total mass rate In metric ton/hr of phos-
 phorus-bearing feed using a flow moni-
 toring device meeting the requirements
ofparagraph (a) of this section and then
 by proceeding according to  160.224(d)
42).
    (o)  The  owner  or operator  of  any
 granular  diammonlum  phosphate plant
 subject to the provisions of this part shall
 Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
 a monitoring device which continuously
 measures and permanently records  the
 total pressure drop across the scrubbing
 aystem. The monitoring device shall have
 •a accuracy of ±5 percent over its  OP-
 •nUing range.
<8«c. 114, Cl
UAC. 1414)).
                 Air  Act U amended
 | 60.224  Test methods and procedure!.
   (a)  Reference methods in Appendix A
 of this part, except as provided  for in
 I 60.8 (b) , shall be used to determine com-
 pliance with the standard prescribed in
 I 60.222 as follows:
  . (l)  Method ISA or  13B  for the con-
 centration of total fluorides and the as-
 sociated moisture content,
   (2)  Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses,
   (3)  Method 2 for velocity and volu-
 metric flow rate, and
   (4)  Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (b)  For  Method ISA or  13B, the
 sampling time for each run shall be at
 least  60  minutes and  the  minimum
 •ample volume shall be at least 0.85 dscm
 (30  dscf) except that shorter sampling
 times  or 'smaller  volumes  when, neces-
 sitated by  process  variable* or other
 factors, may be  approved by the Ad*
 mlnistrator.
  (c)  The air pollution control  system
 for the affected  facility shall be con-
 structed  so  that volumetric flow rate*
 and  total fluoride emissions can be ac-
 curately determined by applicable teet
 methods and procedures.
  (d)  Equivalent PiO. feed shall  be de-
 termined aa follows:
  (1)  Determine the total maw rate  in
 metric  ton/hr of phosphorus-bearing
 feed during  each run using a flow moni-
 toring  device meeting the requirements
 of 160.223 (a).
  (2)  Calculate the equivalent PA feed
 by multiplying the percentage P«0i con-
tent, as measured by. the speotrophoto-
 metric molybdovanadophospnate method
 (AOAC Method 9>, times the total mass
 rate of phosphorus-bearing feed. AOAC
Method 9 la published  in  the  Official
Methods of  Analysis of the Association
 of Official Analytical Chemists, llth edl-
 Won, 1970, pp. 11-12. other methods may
 be approved by the Administrator.
  (e) For each run, emissions expressed
in g/metrlo  ton of equivalent PtOt feed
•hall be determined using the following
 equation:
            Sm-------
Subparl W—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphato Fertilizer Industry: Triple
  Superphosphate Plants 14


§ 60.230  Applicability  and  designation
     of iiffri-Utl facility.**

  ia> The affected facility to which the
provisions of  this subpart apply Is each
triple superphosphate plant. For the pur-
pose of this subpart,  the affected facility
includes  any  combination of:  mixers,
curing belts  (dens), reactors, granula-
tors, dryers, cookers, screens, mills, and
facilities which  store run-of-pUe triple
superphosphate.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after October  22,
1974, Ls subject  to the  requlremente of
this subpart.
 § 60.231   Definition*.
  As used In this subpart, all terms not
 defined herein shall have the meaning
 given them In the Act and In subpart A
 of this part.
   (a) "Triple   superphosphate  plant"
 means any facility manufacturing triple
 superphosphate by  reacting  phosphate
 rock with phosphoric acid. A rule-of-pile
 triple superphosphate  plant  Includes
 curing and storing.
   (b) "Run-of-pile  triple  superphos-
 phate" means any triple superphosphate
 that has not been processed in a granu-
 lator and is  composed of particles at
 least 25  percent by  weight of which
 (when not caked) will pass through a 1ft
 mesh screen.
   (c) "Total   fluorides"  means   ele-
 mental  fluorine  and all fluortde  com-
 pounds   as  measured  by  reference
 methods specified in 8 60.234, or equiva-
 lent or alternative methods.
   (d) "Equivalent PiO. feed"  means the
 quantity  of phosphorus,  expressed  as
 phosphorus pentoxlde, fed to the process.


 % 60.232   Standard for fluorides.
   (a) On and after the date on which the
 performance test required to  be  con-
 ducted by (60.8 is completed, no owner
 or operator subject to  the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into  the  atmosphere from any  affected
 facility any gases which contain  total
 fluorides in excess of 100 g/metric ton of
 equivalent PiOi feed (0.20 Ib/ton).
 | 60.233  Monitoring of operations.
   (a) The owner or operator of any triple
 superphosphate plant subject to the pro-
 visions of this subpart shall install, cali-
 brate, maintain, and operate a flow moni-
 toring device which can be used to deter-
 mine the mass flow of phosphorus-bear-
 ing feed material to the process. The flow
 monitoring device shall have an accuracy
 of ±5 percent over its operating range.
   (b)  The owner  or operator  of any
 triple superphosphate plant shall main-
 tain a dally record of equivalent PjO. feed
 by first determining the total mass rate
In metric ton/hr of phosphorus-bearing
feed using a flow monitoring device meet-
Ing the requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section and then by proceeding
according to I 80.234-------
Subpart X—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Gran-
  ular Triple Superphosphate Storage Fa-
  cilitie* "<

 1 60.240  Applicability and designation
     of affected facility."
   (e)  The affected facility to which the
 provisions of this  subpart apply is each
 granular  triple superphosphate storage
 facility. For the purpose of this subpart,
 the affected facility Includes any combi-
 nation of: storage or curing piles, con-
 veyors, elevators, screens, and mills.
   (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this .section that commences construc-
 tion or modification after October 22,
 1974, Is subject to the requirements of
 this subpart.

§ 60.241  Definition..
  As used In this  subpart,  all  terms not
denned herein shall have  the meaning
given them In the Act and In subpart A
of this part
  (a) "Granular   triple superphosphate
storage facility" means any facility cur-
Ing or storing granular triple superphos-
phate.
  (b) "Total fluorides" means elemental
fluorine and  all fluoride compounds  as
measured by reference methods specified
In 5 80.244. or equivalent or alternative
methods.
  (c) "Equivalent P;O,  stored"  means
the quantity of phosphorus, expressed as
phosphorus pentoxlde,  being cured  or
stored in the affected facility.
  (d)  "Fresh granular triple superphos-
phate" means granular triple superphos-
phate produced no more than  10  days
prior to the date of the performance lest.

 § 60242  SUndard for fluoride*.
   (a)  On and after the date on which the
 performance test required to be  con-
 ducted by i 60.8 Is completed, no owner
 or  operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall  cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere from any affected
 facility any  gases which  contain  total
 fluorides  In excess of 0.25 g/hr/metric
 ton of equivalent  PrOi stored (5.0 x 10"1
 Ib/hr/ton of equivalent PiOi stored).

 §60-243  Monitoring of operation*.
   (a)  The owner or operator  of any
 granular  triple superphosphate  storage
 facility subject to the provisions of this
 subpart shall maintain an accurate ac-
 count of triple superphosphate In storage
 to  permit  the  determination  of the
 amount of equivalent PiO. stored.
   (b) The owner or operator  of any
 granular triple superphosphate  storage
 facility shall maintain a dally record of
 total equivalent P.O. stored by multiply-
 ing the  percentage P,O, content,  as
 determined by §60.244(0(2), times the
 total'mass of granular triple superphos-
 phate stored,
   (c)  The owner or operator  of any
 granular triple superphosphate  storage
 facility subject to the provisions of this
 part shall install, calibrate, maintain,
 and operate a monitoring device which
continuously measures and permanently
.records the total pressure drop across the
process scrubbing sytem. The monitoring
device shall have an accuracy of ±5 per-
cent over its operating range.
(Sec.  114.  Clean  Air Act it amended (42
U.S.C. 7414 ».*»• 83
•§ 60.244  Test methods and procedure*.
  (a) Reference methods In Appendix A
of this  part, except as provided for In
 I 60.8(b), shall be  used to determine
compliance with the standard prescribed
In f 60.242 as follows:
  (D Method 13A or  1SB for  the  con-
centration of total fluorides and the as-
 sociated moisture content,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses,
  (3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate, and
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
  -------
Subpart Y—Standards of Performance for
        Coal Preparation Plants 2l5
§ 60.250  Applicability  and designation
     of affertcci f
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to any of  the following af-
fected  facilities  in  coal  preparation
plants which process more than 200 tons
per day : thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-
cleaning  equipment (air tables) , coal
processing and conveying equipment (In-
cluding breakers  and  crushers),  coal
storage systems, and coal transfer and
loading systems.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after  October  24,
1974. la subject to  the  requirements of
this subpart. 7I

g 60.251  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein  have the meaning given
them in the Act and In subpart A of this
part.
  (a)  "Coal preparation plant" means
any  facility   (excluding  underground
mining operations) which prepares coal
by  one or more of the  following proc-
esses: breaking, crushing, screening, wet
or dry cleaning, and thermal drying.
  (b) "Bituminous coal" means solid fos-
sil  fuel classified as bituminous coal by
A.B.TM. Designation D-388-66.
  (c) "Coal" means all solid fossil fuels
classified  as anthracite, bituminous, sub-
bituminous, or  lignite by AJS.T.M. Des-
ignation D-388-66.
  (d) "Cyclonic flow" means a splrallng
movement of exhaust gases within a duct
or stack.
  (e) "Thermal dryer"  means any fa-
cility In which the moisture content of
bituminous  coal is reduced by contact
with a heated  gas  stream which is ex-
hausted to the  atmosphere.
  (f) "Pneumatic  coal-cleaning equip-
ment" means any facility which classifies
^bituminous coal by size or separates bi-
tuminous  coal from refuse by application
Of air stream (s).
1  (g)  "Coal processing and  conveying
"equipment"  means  any machinery used
to reduce the size of coal or to separate
jcoal from refuse, and the equipment used
to convey coal to  or remove  coal and
Refuse from the machinery.  This  In-
fcludes,  but  Is not  limited to,  breakers,
'crushers,  screens, and conveyor belts.
  (h) "Coal storage system" means any
facility used to store coal except for open
storage piles.
:  (1)  "Transfer  and  loading  system"
means any facility  used to transfer and
toad coal  for shipment.

8 60.252  Standards for  paniculate mai-
     ler.
  (a) On and  after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by |  60.8 is completed, an owner
or operator  subject to  the provisions of
this subpart shall not cause to be dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from  any
thermal dryer gases which:
   (J) Contain particulate matter in ex-
cess of 0.070 g/dscm (0.031 *r/d*cf).
   (2)  Exhibit  20  percent  opacity  or
greater.
   Ob) On and after the date on which the
 performance test required to be  con-
 ducted by 5 60.8 Is completed, an owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall not  cause to be  dis-
 charged into the atmosphere from  any
 pneumatic  coal  cleaning  equipment,
 gases which:
   (1) Contain particulate matter in ex-
 Cess of 0.040 g/dscm (0.018 gr/dscf).
   (2)  Exhibit  10  percent  opacity or
 greater.
   (c) On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted  by f 60,8 Is completed, an owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall not  cause  to be  dis-
charged into the atmosphere from  any
 coal  processing and  conveying  equip-
ment, coal storage system, or coal trans-
fer and loading system processing coal,
gases which exhibit 20 percent opacity
or greater.


 § 60.253   Monitoring of operation*.
   (a) The owner or operator of any ther-
 mal dryer shall  Install, calibrate, main-
 tain, and continuously operate monitor-
 Ing devices as follows:
   (1) A monitoring device for the meas-
urement of the  temperature of ttie gaa.
stream  at the exit of the thermal dryer
 on a continuous basis. The  monitoring
device is  to  be  certified by  the  manu-
facturer to be accurate within. ± 3 • Fahr-
enheit
   (2) For affected facilities that use ven-
 turi scrubber emission control  equip-
ment:
-   .(1) A monitoring Device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the pressure  losa
through the Tenturl constriction  of  the
control equipment. The monitoring  de-
vice is  to be certified by  the manufac-
turer to  be  accurate  within ±1 inch
water gage.
   (ii) A monitoring device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the  water sup-
ply  pressure to  the control  equipment.
The monitoring  device Is to be certified
by the manufacturer to be accurate with-
in  ±5 percent of design water  supply
pressure. The pressure sensor or tap must
be located close to the  water discharge
point.  The Administrator may be con-
sulted for approval of alternative loca-
tions.
   
-------
Subpart Z—Standards of Performance for    Control  device (and  located at or near
        Ferroalloy Production FaciM«e»33'M •»* <*evice> 8ervlnB any electric sub-
                                         merged arc furnace subject to this sub-

 §60.260   Applicability and  delimitation
     of affected facility.6*
   (a) The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable to the following affected fa-
 cilities: electric submerged arc furnaces
 which produce silicon metal, ferroslllcon,
 calcium silicon, sUlcomanganese zircon-
 ium,   ferrochrome    silicon,   silvery
 iron,  high-carbon ferrochrome, charge
 chrome, standard ferromanganese, sill-
 comanganese, ferromanganese silicon, or
 calcium  carbide;  and  dust-handling
 equipment.35
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification  after October 21,
 1974,  is subject  to the requirements of
 this subpart.

 § 60.261   Definitions.
   As  used In this subpart, all terms not
 denned  herein  shall have the meaning
 given them  in the Act and in subpart A
 of this part.
   (a) "Electric submerged arc furnace"
 means any  furnace  wherein  electrical
 energy is converted to heat enjrgy by
 transmission of current "between  elec-
 trodes partially submerged in the furnace
 charge.
   (b) "Furnace charge" me?ns any ma-
 terial Introduced into the electric,sub-
 merged arc  furnace and may consist of,
 but is not limited to, ores, slag, carbo-
 naceous mateiial, and limestone.
   (c)  "Product  change"  means  any
 change In the composition of ths furnace
 charge that  would cause the electric sub-
 merged  arc  furnace to become subject
 to a different mass standard applicable
 under this subpart.
   (d) "Slag" means  the more or less
 completely  fused and vitrified  matter
 separated during the  reduction  of  a
 metal from i(s ore.
   (e) "Tapping" mean* the removal of
 slag or product from the electric sub-
 merged arc  furnace under  normal op-
 erating conditions  such as  removal of
 metal under normal pressure and move-
 ment by gravity down the spout Into the
 ladle.
   (f) "Tappmg  period" means the time
 duration from  InltlatlDn of  the process
 of opening the tap hole until plugging of
 the tap hole is complete.
   (g) "Furnace cycle" means the time
 period from completion  of a furnace
 product tap  to the completion of the next
 consecutive  product tap.
   (h) "Tapping station"  means that
 general area where molten product or
 •lag  Is removed  from the electric sub-
 merged arc  furnace.
   (1) "Blowing  tap"  means any tap  In
 which an evolution of gas forces or pro-
 jects jets of flame  or mstal sparks be-,
 yond the ladle, runner, or collection hood. *
     70 percent by  weight
chromium, 5  to 8 percent by weight car-
ban, and 3 to 6 percent by weight silicon.
  (s). "Silvery iron" means any ferro-
silicon, as denned  by A.S.T.M. designa-
tion 100-69,  which contains  less than
SO percent silicon.
   (t)  "Ferrochrome silicon" means that
al'.oy  as defined by A.S.T.M. designation
A482-66.
   (u)   "Silicomanganess   rirconlum"
means that alloy containing 60 to 85 per-
cent by weight silicon, 1.5 to 2.5  percent
by  weight calcium,  6 to 7 percent by
weight zirconium, 0.75 to 1.25 percent by
•jvclpht  aluminum,  5  to  7 percent  by
weight manganese, and 2 to 3 percent by
weight barium.
   (v)   "Calcium  silicon"  means that
alloy  as denned by A.S.T.M. designation
A4D5-G4.
   (w) "Ferrosllicon" means that alloy as
denned by A.S.T.M. designation A100-69
grades A, B, C, D, and E which contains
63 or more percent by weight silicon.
   (x) "Silicon metal" means any silicon
alloy  containing more than 96 percent
silicon by weight.
   (y) "Ferromanganese  silicon"  means
that alloy containing 83 to 66 percent by
weight manganese, 28 to 32 percent by
weight silicon, and a maximum of  0.08
percent by weight carbon.
8 60.262  Standard for paniculate mat-
    ter.
   (a) On and after the date on which the
performance  test  required  to be con-
ducted by ;60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere  from any  electric
submerged arc furnace any gases which:
   (1) Exit froir. a control device and con'
tain particulate matter in excess  of 0.45
kg/MW-hr (0.99 Ib/MW-hr) while  sili-
con metal, ferrosilicon, calcium silicon,
or  slllcomanganese zirconium is being
produced.
   (2) Exit from a control device and con-
tain particulate matter in excess of 0.23
 kg/MW-hr (0.51 Ib/MW-hr) while high-
 carbon  ferrochrome,  charge  chrome,
 standard ferromanganese, sillcomanga-
 nese, calcium carbide, ferrochrome sili-
 con,  ferromanganese silicon, or  silvery
 Iron is being produced.
   (3) Exit from a control device and ex-
 hibit 16 percent opacity or greater.
   (4) Exit from an electric submerged
 arc furnace and escape the capture sys-
 tem and are visible without  the  aid of
 instruments. The  requirements  under
(this subparagraph apply only during pe-
 riods when flow  rates are being  estab-
 lished under J 60.265(d).
   <6) Escape- the capture system at the
 tapping station and are visible without
 the aid of instruments for more than 40
 percent of each tapping period. There are
 no limitations on visible emissions under
 this subnaragraph  when  a blowing  tap
 occurs.  The requirements under this sub-
 paragraph apply only during  periods
 when flow rates are  being established
 under 560.265Cd).
   (b) On and after the date  on which
 the performance  test required to be con-
 ducted  by  j 60.8 ts  completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions ol
 thh subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere from  anv dust-han-
 dling equipment any gases which exhibit
 10 percent opacity or greater.
 § 60.263  Standard for carbon monoxide.
   (a) On and  after the date  on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted  by 560.8 is  completed,  no owner
 or operator sublet to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere from any electric
 submerged arc furnace any gases which
 contain, on a  dry  basis,  20 or  greater
 volume   percent  of carbon  monoxide.
 Combustion of such gases under  condi-
 tions acceptable  to the  Administrator
 constitutes compliance with this section.
 Acceptable conditions  include, but  are
 not limited to,  flaring ot gases or use of
 gases as fuel Tor  other processes.
 § 60.264  Em'snion monitoring.
   fa> The owner or operator subject to
 the provisions  of this  subpart shall  in-
 stall,  calibrate, maintain and operate a
 continuous monitoring system for meas-
 urement of the opacity of emissions dis-
 charged into the atmosphere  from  the
 control  devlce(s).
   (b) For the purpose  of .reports  re-
 quired under J «0.7(c), the owner or  op-
 erator shall report as excess emissions
 all six-minute periods  In which the  av-
 erage onaclty is 15 percent or greater.
   (c) The  owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of  this subnart shall sub-
 mit  a  written report of any  product
 change  to the Administrator. Reports of
 product changes must be postmarked
 not later than  30 days after implemen-
 tation of the prcduct change.

 (Sec. 114,  Clean  Air Act U amended <*2
 U.8.C. 7414)). «8. 83

 6  60.265 Monitoring of operation*.
   (a) The owner or operator of any elec-
 tric submerged arc furnace subject to the
 provisions  of  this subpart shall  raaln-
              111-42
-------
tain  dally records of  the  following in-
formation:
  (1) Product being produced.
  (2) Description of constituents of fur-
nace charge.  Including the quantity,  by
weight.
  (31 Time and duration  ot  each  tap-
ping period and the Identification of ma-
terial tapped  (slag or product.)
  (4) All furnace power Input data ob-
Ulned under  paragraph  of this sec-
tion.
  tt> AB flow rate data obtained under
pATftjtraph fc) of this  section  or all Jan
motor power  consumption  find pressure
drop data obtained under pnragraph (e)
of this section.
  (b) The owner or operator subject to
the  provisions of thJs  subpart shall  In-
stall, calibrate, maintain,  and operate a
device to measure find continuously  re-
cord (he furnace power Input. The fur-
nace power input may be measured at the
output or input  side of the transformer.
The device must have an accuracy of  ±5
percent over  Its  operating  range.
  Co) The owner or operator subject to
the  provisions of this  sub"art shall  In-
stall, callbrnte, and maintain a monltor-
1ns  device that continuously measures
and  records  the volumetric  flow  rate
through  each separately ducted hood of
the  capture  system, except as provided
under paragraph (e) of this section. The
owner or operator of  an electric  sub*
merged arc furnace th?.t Is  equipped wit.h
a water  cooled cover  which is designed
to contain and prevent escape of  the
generated gas and partlculat2  matter
shnll monitor only  the volumetric flow
rate through  the canture system for con-
trol  of emissions from the tapping sta-,
tlon. The owner or  operator may Install
tho monitoring devicefs) in any appro-
priate location In the exhaust duct such
tha', reproducible  flow rate monitoring
will result. The flow rate monitoring de-
vice  must have an accuracy of ±10 per-
cent over Its normal operating range and
must be calibrated according  to  the
manufacturer's  instructions.  The  Ad-
ministrator may require  the  owner  or
operator to demonstrate the accuracy of
J,he monitoring device relative to Meth-
ods 1 and 2 ot AnpendJx A tc this p?rt.
  (d) When performance  tests are  con-
ducted under the provisions of.  i 60.8 of
this  part to demonstrate compliance
with the standards urder §§ 60.262ta)
(4)   and  (5), the volumetric flew  rate
through  each separately ducted hood of
the capture system must be determined
using the monitoring device required
under paragraph (c) of this section. The
volumetric flow rates must be determined
for furnace power Input levels at 50 and
100 percent of the nominal rated capacity
of the electric submerged arc furnace.
At all times  the electric submerged arc
furnace Is operated, the owner or oper-
ator shall maintain the volumetric flow
rate  at or above the appropriate leveli
for  that  furnace power Input level de-
termined during  thj  most recent  per-
formance test. If emissions due to tap-
ping are  captured and ducted  separately
from emissions of the electric submerged
arc  furnace, during each tapping period
the owner or operator shall  maintain
the exhaust Mow rates  through the cap-
ture system over  the tapping station at
or above  the  levels established during
the most recent performance test. Oper-
ation at lower flow rates may be consid-
ered by the Administrator to be unac-
ceptable operation and maintenance of
the affected facility. The owner or oper-
ator may request that these flow rates be
reestablished by  conducting  new per-
formance  teats under { 60.8 of thli part.

   (e) The owner or operator may as an
 alternative to paragraph (c) of this sec-
 tion determine the volumetric flow  rat*
 through each fan of the capture system
 from the fan  power consumption, pres-
 sure drop across the fan and the fan per-
formance curve. Only data specific to the
 operation of the affected  electric sub-
 merged arc furnace are acceptable for
 demonstration of compliance with the
 requirements  of  this  paragraph.  The
 owner or  operator shall maintain on. file
 a permanent  record  of the  fan per-
 formance curve 'prepared  for a specific
temperature) and. shall:
   (1) Install,  calibrate, maintain,  and
operate a  device to continuously measure
and record the power consumption of the
fan motor ^me^sured (n kilowatts),  and
   <2> Install,  calibrate, maintain,  and
operate a device  to continuously meas-
ure .Td record the pressure droo across
the fan. The fan nower consumption and
pressure  dron  measurements must be
synchro"l-ed to allo-" real time compar-
 isons of the data. The monitoring de-
vice? must hflve an accuracv of ^5 per-
cent over  the'r normal  operating ranges,
   (O The volumetric  flow  rate through
each fnn of the car-lure system must be
determined from  the  fan power con-
sumotlon,  fan  pressure drop, and  fan
performance curve i«ne:lfied under para-
gra^h (e)  of thli section, during anv per-
formance test required under i 60.8 of
this p-rt to tiemonstrnte comnllpnce with
the standards under 58  SO.262(a)  (4)  and
 (5). The o«-ner or operator shall deter-
mine the volumetric flow rate at a rerre-
sentatlve temnernture for furnace power
.input levels of JO  and 100 percent of tha
nominal rated  capacity of the  electric
submerged arc furnace. At  all times the
e'ectrlc  submerged  arc furnace Is  op-
erated, the owner or operator ehall main-
tain the fan poxver consumption nnd fan
pressure dron at leve's such that the  vol-
umetr.
 (Sec. 114. Clean Air  Act  U amended (43
 U.S.C. 7414)>.6B. 83


 §60.206  Teal mclhodt andproeedarei.
   (a) Reference methods hi Appendix A
 of this part, except as provided tt  f 60.8
 (b), ahall be used to determine compli-
 ance with the standards prescribed  In
 160.262  and {60.263 as  follows:
   (1) Method 6 for the concentration of
 partlculate matter and  the associated
 moisture content except that the heating
 systems specified In paragraphs 2.1.2 and
 2.1.4 of Method 5 are not to be used when
 the carbon monoxide content of the gas
 stream  exceeds 10 percent by volume,
 dry basis.
   (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses.
   (3) Method 2 for velocity and volumet-
 ric flow rate.
   (4) Method 3 for gas analysis, includ-
 ing carbon monoxide.
  (b) For Method 6, the sampling time
 for each run Is to include  an Integral
 number of furnace cycles. The sampling
 time for each run must  be at  leist 60
 minutes and  the minimum sample vol-
 ume must be 1.8 dscm (64 dscf) when
 sampling  emissions  from  Open electric
 submerged arc furnaces with wet scrub-
 ber control devices, sealed electric sub-
 merged arc furnaces, or semi-enclosed
 electric submerged arc furnaces. When
 sampling emissions from  other  types of
 installations, the sampling time for each
 run must be at least 200 minutes and the
 minimum sample  volume must be S.I
 dscm (200 dscf). Shorter sampling times
 or smaller sampling  volumes, when ne-
 cessitated by process variables or other
 factors, may be approved by the Admin-
 istrator.
  (c) During the performance test, the
 owner or operator shall record the maxi-
 mum open hood are* (In hoods with
 segmented or otherwise moveable sides)
 under which  the process is expected to
 be operated and remain in compliance
 with all standards. Any future operation
 of the hooding system with open areas in
 excess of the maximum Is not permitted,
   The owner or  operator shall con-
 struct the control device so  that  volu-
 metric flow rates and partlculate matter
 •missions can be accurately determined
 by applicable test methods and proce-
 dures,
  (•) During any  performance test re-
quired under  160.8  of this part, the
 owner or operator shall not allow gaseous
 diluents to be idded to the effluent gas
•trnm after the fabric  In an open  pres-
surised fabric filter collector unless the
                                                     111-43
-------
total gas volume flow from the collector
is accurately determined and considered
In the determination of emissions.
  (f)  When compliance with } 60.263 is
to be attained  by combusting  the gas
stream  in  a flare, the location of the
sampling site for  participate matter  is
to be upstream of  the flare.
  (g)  For  each run, particulate matter
emissions,  expressed  in kg/hi  (Ib/hr),
must  be determined  for each  exhaust
stream at which emissions are quantified
using  the following equation:
where:
  JC«= Emission*  of  participate mutter In
        kg/hr (lb/br>.
  C> = Concentration of participate matter In
        kg/deem (Ib/dscf) a> determined by
        Method 6.
  Qi= Volumetric flow rate of the effluent ga*
        stream in ds:m/br (daof/hr) at de-
        termined by Method 2.
   (h) For Method 5, particulate matter
emissions from the affected facility, ex-
pressed in kg/MW-hr (Ib/MW-hr) must
be  determined  for each run using  the
following equation:
                  N
where:
  C= Emissions of partlculaU from the af-
       fected  faculty,' In kg/MW-hi (lb/
       MW-hr).
  lt= Total number of exhaust streams at
       which emissions are quantified.
  £»= Emission of particulate matter from
       each exhaust stream In kg/hr (lb/
       br), as determined ID paragraph (g)
       of tula section.
  p = Average furnace  power  Input during
       the sampling period. In megawatta
       as determined according to I 00.363
 (Sec.  114. Clean Air Act U amended U3
                                                                                       36  FR 24876, 12/23/71  (1)

                                                                                          as amended
                                                                                             41 FR 18498.
                                                                                             41 FR 20659,
                                                                                             42 FR 37936,
                                                                                             42 FR 41424,
                                                                                             43 FR 8800,
5/4/76  (33)
5/20/76  (35)
7/25/77  (64)
8/17/77  (68)
3/3/78  (83)
                                                       111-44
-------
 Subpart AA—Standards of Performance
  for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces  '*
§ 60.270  Applicability and designation
     of affected facility.*4
   (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following  affected fa-
cilities In steel plants: electric arc fur-
naces and dust-handling  equipment.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (ft)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification  after  October 21,
1974, Is subject to the requirements of
this subpart. 71
{ 60.271   Definitions.
  As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein  shall have the  meaning
given them In tiie Act and in subpart A
of this part
  (a) "Electric  arc  furnace"   CEAF)
means any furnace that produces molten
steel  and heats  the charge  materials
with electric arcs from carbon electrodes.
Furnaces from which the molten steel is
cast into the shape of finished products,
such as in a foundry, are not affected fa-
cilities included within the scope  of this
definition. Fumaces which,  as the pri-
mary source of Iron, continuously feed
prereduced ore pellets  are not affected
facilities  within  the  scope  of  this
definition,
   Cb) "Dust-handling equipment" mean*
any equipment used to handle partlcu-
lete matter collected by the control de-
vice and located  at  or near the control
device lor an EAF subject to this sub-
part.
   (c)  "Control device" means the air
pollution control equipment used to re-
move  participate  matter  generated by
an EAF(s) from the effluent gas stream.
   (d)  "Capture   system"  means  the
equipment (including ducts,  hoods, fans,
dampers, etc.)  used to capture or trans-
port participate matter generated by an
JEAF to the air pollution control device.
   (e)  "Charge" means, the addition  of
Iron and  steel  scrap  or other materials
Into the top of an electric arc furnace.
    <3) of this section shall apply
 only during periods when flow rates and
 pressures  are being  established under
 I 60.274 -------
owner or operator thall install, calibrate,
and maintain a tnonltorinf cUvlce that
continuously records the presiure in tbe
free space Inside the EAF. The pressure
•hall be recorded  as 15-minute inte-
grated averages. Tbe monitoring device
may be Installed in any  appropriate lo-
cation In the ZAP such that reproduc-
ible results  will be obtained.  The pret-
sjure monitoring device shall have an ac-
curacy of ±1 mm of water  gauge orer
ita normal operating range and shall be
calibrated  according to  the  manufac-
turer's instruction*.
   (f) When the owner or operator of an
XAP is required to demonstrate compli-
ance with the standard  under { 60.212
 (a) (3) and at any other time  the Ad-
ministrator may require  (under section
 114 of the Act, as amended), the pressure
in tHe free space inside the furnace shall
be determined during the meltdown and
 refining  period(s) using the monitoring
 device under paragraph  <3)  and  furnish  the  Adminis-
trator a written report of the results of
the test.
  (d) During any performance test re-
QU'jed under } 60.8 of this part, no gase-
ous  diluents  may  be   added  to   the
•eBuent gas stream after 'the fabric in
any pressurized  fabric  filter collector,
unless the amount. of  dilution is sepa-
rately determined and considered in the
determination of emissions.
    being tested, the
concentration of participate matter shall
be  determined  using  the  following
equation:
 where:
           C.-concentratSon of parttculate rrmtW
               la tag/dscm (fr/dscl) u determine*
               b; method 5.
           AT- total number  of control devices
               tested.
           0.,-volometric. flow rate ot the effluent
               KU stream In  decm/hr (dscWu) ai
               determined by method 2.
  (C.<}.). or (Q,),- value ol the applicable parameter (or
               each control device Maud.

 .  (f) Any control device  subject to the
 provisions of this subpart shall  be de-
 signed and constructed to allow meas-
 urement of  emissions  using applicable
 test methods and procedures.
   
-------
  Subporl SB—Slondardi of Pvrformenct for
            Kraft fulp Mill*82

60.280  Applicability and designation of af-
   fected facility.
  (a) The provisions of this  subpart
are applicable to the following affect-
ed facilities  in kraft pulp mills: digest-
er system, brown stock washer system.
multiple-effect  evaporator   system.
black liquor oxidation  system, recov-
ery  furnace,  smelt  dissolving  tank,
lime kiln,  and condensate  stripper
system. In  pulp  mills where  kraft
pulping is combined with neutral  sul-
fite semichemicaJ  pulping, the provi-
sions of  this subpart  are applicable
when  any  portion  of the  material
charged to an affected  facility is pro-
duced by the kraft pulping operation.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section  that commences  con-
struction  or modification  after  Sep-
tember 24, 1876, is subject to the re-
quirements of this subpart.

} 60.281  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein  shall have the same
meaning given them In  the Act and in
Subpart A.
  (a) "Kraft pulp mill" means any sta-
tionary source  which   produces  pulp
from  wood  by  cooking  (digesting)
wood chips  in  a water  solution  of
sodium hydroxide and  sodium sulfide
(white liquor)  at high temperature
and  pressure.  Regeneration * of  the
cooking chemicals through a recovery
process Is also considered part of the
kraft pulp mill.
  (b)  "Neutral  sulfite semlchemical
pulping operation"  means any oper-
ation In which pulp  Is produced from
wood  by  cooking  (digesting)  wood
chips In  a solution  of  sodium sulfite
and  sodium bicarbonate,  followed  by
mechanical deflbratlng (grinding).
  (c) "Total reduced  sulfur  (TRS)"
means the  sum of  the  sulfur com-
pounds hydrogen sulfide, methyl  mer-
captan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl
dlsulflde, that are released during the
kraft pulping operation and measured
by Eeference Method 16.
  (d)  "Digester  system" means  each
continuous digester or  each batch  di-
gester used for the cooking of wood In
white  liquor,  and  associated  flash
tank(s), below tank(s), chip steamer(s),
and condenser(s).
  (e) "Brown stock washer  system"
means brown stock washers and associ-
ated knotters, vacuum  pumps, and fil-
trate tanks used to wash the pulp fol-
lowing the digester system.
   of this section; or
  (U) The gases are combusted in a re-
covery furnace subject to the provi-
sions of paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) of
this section; or
  (ill)  The  gases  are  combusted with
other waste gases  in an incinerator or
other  device, or combusted in a lime
kiln or recovery furnace not subject to
the provisions of this  subpart, and are
subjected to a minimum temperature
of 1200* F. for at least 0.5 second; or
  (iv)  It has been demonstrated to the
Administrator's  satisfaction   by  the
owner  or operator that  Incinerating
the exhaust gases from a new, modi-
fled, or reconstructed  black liquor  oxi-
dation system or brown stock washer
system In an existing  facility  is tech-
nologically  or economically not  feasi-
ble. Any exempt system  will  become
subject to  the provisions  of this sub-
part if the facility  Is changed so that
the gases can be Incinerated.
  (v)  The  gases   from the  digester
system, brov/n  stock  washer  system.
condensate  stripper system, or black
liquor  oxidation system are controlled
by a means other than combustion. In
this case, these systems shall not dis-
charge any  gases  to the  atmosphere
which contain TRS in excess of 6 ppm
by volume on a dry basis, corrected to
the actual oxygen content of  the  un-
treated gas  stream.91
  (2) From  any straight kfaft recovery
furnace any gases which contain TRS
in excess of 5 ppm by volume on a dry
basis,  corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
  (3) From  any cross recovery furnace
any gases which contain TRS in excess
of 25  ppm  by volume  on  a dry  basis,
corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
  (4) From any smelt  dissolving tank
any gases which contain TRS in excess
of 0.0084 g/kg black liquor solids (dry
weight)  [0.0168  Ib/ton liquor solids
(dry weight)).
  (5) From  any lime  kiln any  gases
which  contain TRS In excess of 8 ppm
by volume on a dry basis,  corrected to
10 percent oxygen.
                                                  111-47
-------
140.284  Monitoring of emluloiti and op-
   eration*.
  (a) Any owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall in-
stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate
the following .continuous  monitoring
systems: •
  (DA continuous monitoring system
to monitor and record the opacity of
the gases discharged Into  the atmos-
phere from any recovery furnace. The
span of this system  shall be  set at 70
percent opacity.
  (2) Continuous monitoring  systems
to monitor and record the concentra-
tion of TRS  emissions on  a dry basis
and the percent of oxygen by volume
on a dry basis in the gases discharged
into the atmosphere from any  lime
kiln,    recovery   furnace,   digester
system,  brown stock washer system,
multiple-effect   evaporator   system,
black liquor oxidation system, or con-
densate stripper system, except where
the provisions  of J60.283(a)(l) (ill) or
(iv) apply.  These systems shall be  lo-
cated   downstream  of  the  control
devices) and the span(s) of these con-
tinuous monitoring system(s) shall be
set:
  (I) At a TRS  concentration of  30
ppm for the TRS continuous monitor-
ing system, except that for any cross
recovery furnace the span  shall be set
at 50 ppm.
   At 20  percent oxygen for  the
continuous oxygen monitoring system.
  (4)
apply.
  (1) Calculate and record on a dally
basis 12-hour average TRS concentra-
tions for the two  consecutive periods
of each  operating day. Each 12-hour
average  shall be  determined  as  the
arithmetic mean of the appropriate 12
contiguous  1-hour  average  total re-
duced  sulfur concentrations  provided
by each continuous monitoring system
Installed under  paragraph  (a)(2)  of
this section.
  (2) Calculate and record on a daily
basis 12-hour average oxygen concen-
trations  for the  two consecutive  peri-
ods of each operating day for the re-
covery furnace and  lime kiln. These
12-hour  averages shall  correspond to
the 12-hour average TRS concentra-
tions  under paragraph (cXl) of this
section and  shall be  determined as an
arithmetic mean of the appropriate 12
contiguous 1-hour average oxygen con-
centrations provided by each continu-
ous monitoring system installed under
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
  (3) Correct all 12-hour average  TRS
concentrations to  10 volume percent
oxygen,  except that all 12-hour aver-
age TRS concentration from a recov-
ery furnace shall be  corrected  to -8
volume  percent using  the  following
equation:
        Cm~ C»«UX(21 -X/21 - y>
where:

C^-the   concentration  corrected   for
   oxygen.
C1M- = the concentration  unconnected for
   oxygen.
JT»the  volumetric oxygen concentration In
   percentage to be corrected to (8 percent
   for recovery furnaces and 10 percent for
   lime fclins. incinerators,  or  other de-
  . vices).
y-the  measured 12-hour average volumet-
   ric oxygen concentration.
  (d) For the purpose  of reports re-
quired under  }60.7(c),  any  owner or
operator subject to  the provisions of
this subpart shall report periods of
excess emissions as follows:
  (!) For emissions from any recovery
furnace  periods of  excess  emissions
are:
  (I) All  12-hour averages of TRS con-
centrations above 5 ppm by volume for
straight kraft recovery furnaces and
above  25 ppm by volume  for cross re-
covery furnaces.
  (11)  All 6-mlnute  average  opacities
that exceed  35 percent.
  (2) For emissions from any  lime kiln,
periods of excess emissions are all 12-
hour  average  TRS   concentration
above 8 ppm by volume.
  (3) For emissions from  any digester
system,  brown stock washer system,
multiple-effect   evaporator   system,
black liquor oxidation system, or con-
densate  stripper  system periods  of
excess emissions are:
  (1) All 12-hour average TRS concen-
trations above 5 ppm by volume unless
the provisions of {80.283(a)(D (i), (11).
or (Iv) apply; or
  (11) All periods in excess of 5 minutes
and  their duration during which the
combustion  temperature at  the point
of incineration  is  less  than 1200*  F.
where     the      provisions      of
$ 60.283(a)UXU) apply.
  
-------
ture is no greater than 205' C (ca. 400°
F>. Water shall be used as the cleanup
solvent  Instead  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),  (4). and (5), the following refer-
ence methods shall be used:
  (1) Method 16 for the concentration
of TRS,
  (2) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
  (3) When  determining  compliance
with §60.283(a)(4), use the results  of
Method 2,  Method 16, and the  black
liquor solids feed rate in the following
equation to determine the TRS  emis-
sion rate.
Where:
£ = mass of TRS emitted per unity of black
   liquor solids (g/kg) Clb/ton)
Cm. - average  concentration  of  hydrogen
   sulflde  CHiS)  during the  test  period.
   PPM.
CM.JB = average  concentration of  methyl
   mercaptan  (MeSH)  during  the  test
   period, PPM.
COM, = average  concentration  of dimethyl
   sulflde (DMS) during the test  period.
   PPM.
CPKDJ = average concentration of dimethyl
   dlsulfide (DMDS) during the test period.
   PPM.
Fm <= 0.001417  K/m1 PPM for metric units
  = 0.08844 lb/ft' PPM for English units
f»aa = 0.00200  g/m' PPM for metric units
  = 0.1248 Ib/ff PPM for English units
Fna = 0.002583 g/m' PPM for metric units
    •= 0.1612 Ib/ff PPM for English units
FDXM = 0.00391T g/m' PPM for metric units
    = 0.2445 Ib/ff PPM for English units
C«i = dry volumetric stack gas  flow rate cor-
   rected to standard  conditions, dscm/hr
   (dscf/hr)
BLS = black liquor solids feed rate, kg/hr
   (Ib/hr)
  (4)  When  determining  whether  a
furnace Is straight kraft recovery fur-
nace  or a   cross  recovery  furnace.
TAPPI Method T.624 shall be used to
determine sodium sulflde,  sodium  hy-
droxide and sodium carbonate.  These
"determinations   shall  be  made  three
times daily from the green liquor and
the dally average values shall be con-
verted  to sodium oxide  (Na,O) and
substituted Into the following  equa-
tion to determine the preen liquor sul-
fidity:
   OLS - 100  CK..VC,,.,' + CH.OT -f Cx.,ro,
Where:
QLS = percent green liquor sulf idlty
CMJ,! = average  concentration  of  f/aa  ex-
   pressed as Na*O 
CR.O// = average  concentration  of NaOH
   expressed as Na,O (mg/1)
C^.CO, = average concentration of Na,CO,
   expressed as Na,O (mg/1)

  (e) All concentrations of particulate
matter  and TBS  required  to  be mea-
sured by this section from lime kilns
or Incinerators shall be corrected  10
volume percent oxygen and those con-
centrations  from  recovery  furnaces
shall be corrected to  8  volume percent
oxygen.  These corrections shall  be
made  In  the  manner  specified   in
f 60.284(0(3).
                                                                                      36  FR 24876, 12/23/71
                                                                                         as amended
                                                                    (i:
                                                                                            43 FR 7568. 2/23/78  (82)
                                                                                            43 FR 34784, 8/7/78  (91)
                                                      111-49
-------
      Subpart DO—-Standard* of
   Performance for Grain Elevators 90

$60.300  Applicability and  designation of
   affected facility.
  (a)  The provisions  of this subpart
apply to each affected facility at any
grain terminal elevator  or  any grain
atorage elevator,  except as provided
under §80.304(b). The affected facili-
ties are each truck unloading station,
truck, loading station, barge and ship
unloading station, barge and ship load-
ing  station,  railcar  loading station,
railcar unloading station, grain dryer,
and all grain handling operations.
  (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section which commences con-
struction, modification,  or reconstruc-
tion  after  (date  of reinstatement  of
proposal) is  subject  to the  require-
ments of this part.

J 60.301  Definition*.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the act and in subpart A
of this part.
  (a)  "Grain" means corn, wheat, sor-
ghum, rice, rye, oats, barley, and soy-
beans,
  (b)  "Grain  elevator"  means any
plant or Installation at  which grain is
unloaded,  handled,  cleaned,  dried,
stored, or loaded.
  (c) "Grain terminal elevator" means
any grain elevator which has a perma-
nent  storage capacity of more than
88.100 m' (ca. 2.5 million U.S. bushels).
except  those located at animal food
manufacturers, pet food manufactur-
ers,  cereal manufacturers,  breweries.
and livestock feedlots.
  (d) "Permanent storage   capacity"
means grain storage capacity which is
inside a building, bin, or silo.
  (e)  "Railcar" means railroad hopper
car or boxcar.
  (f)  "Grain  storage  elevator" means
any   grain elevator  located at any
wheat flour  mill, wet corn mill,  dry
corn  mill (human consumption), rice
mill,  or soybean oil  extraction plant
which has a  permanent grain  storage
capacity of 35,200 m9  (ca.  1  million
bushels).
  (g) "Process emission" means  the
participate matter which is collected
by a capture system.
  (h) "Fugitive  emission"  means  the
particulate matter which is not collect-
ed by a capture system and  is released
directly Into  the atmosphere from an
affected facility at a grain elevator.
  (i)  "Capture   system" means  the
equipment such as sheds, hoods, ducts,
fans, dampers, etc. used  to collect par-
ticulate matter generated by an affect-
ed facility at  a grain elevator.
  (J) "Grain unloading station" means
that portion  of a grain elevator where
the  grain is transferred  from a truck,
railcar, barge,  or ship  to a receiving
hopper.
  (k)  "Grain loading station" means
that portion of a grain elevator where
the grain is transferred from the ele-
vator to a truck, railcar, barge, or ship.
  (1) "Grain handling  operations" In-
clude bucket elevators or legs (exclud-
ing legs  used  to  unload barges  or
ships), scale hoppers and surge bins
(garners), turn heads,  scalpers,  clean-
ers, trippers, and the  headhouse and
other such structures.
  (m)  "Column  dryer"  means  any
equipment used to  reduce the mois-
ture  content of grain  in which the
grain flows from the top to the bottom
In one or more continuous packed col-
umns between  two  perforated  metal
sheets.
  (n)  "Rack dryer" means any equip-
ment used to reduce the moisture con-
tent of grain in which  the grain flows
from  the  top to the bottom in  a cas-
cading flow around rows of  baffles
(racks).
  (o)  "Unloading leg" means  a device
which includes a bucket-type elevator
which is used  to remove grain from a
barge or ship.
  (3) Any truck loading station which
exhibits greater than 10 percent opac-
ity.
  (4) Any barge or ship loading station
which exhibits greater than 20 percent
opacity.
  (d) The owner or operator of any
barge or ship unloading station shall
operate as follows:
  (1) The unloading  leg shall be en-
closed from the top (including the re-
pelving hopper)  to the  center line of
the bottom pulley and ventilation to a
control device shall be maintained on
both sides of the  leg and the grain re-
ceiving hopper.
  (2) The total rate of air ventilated
shall  be  at  least 32.1  actual  cubic
meters per cubic meter of grain  han-
dling capacity (ca. 40 ftVbu).
  (3) Rather than meet the  require-
ments of subparagraphs (1) and <2), of
this paragraph the owner or operator
may use other  methods  of  emission
control if it is demonstrated to the Ad-
ministrator's satisfaction  that  they
would reduce emissions of particulate
matter to the same level or less.
{ 60.302  Standard for particulate matter.    § 60-303  Teat methods and procedures.
  (a)  On  and after the 60th  day of
achieving the  maximum  production
rate at which the affected facility will
be  operated, but  no later than  180
days after initial startup, no owner or
operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall  cause  to be  dis-
charged   into  the  atmosphere   any
gases  which exhibit greater than  0
percent opacity from any.
  (1) Column dryer with column plate
perforation  exceeding 2.4 mm diame-
ter (ca. 0.094 inch).
  (2)  Rack  dryer   in which  exhaust
gases  pass  through a  screen filter
coarser than 50 mesh.
  (b) On and after  the  date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by {60.8 is  completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions  of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged into the atmosphere from
any affected facility except  a grain
dryer any process emission which:
  (1)  Contains  particulate  matter in
excess of 0.023 g/dscm (ca. 0.01  gr/
dscf).
  (2) Exhibits greater than 0 percent
opacity.
  (c)  On  and after the 60th  day of
achieving the  maximum  production
rate at which the affected facility will
be  operated, but  no later than  180
days after initial startup, no owner or
operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall  cause  to  be  dis-
charged Into the atmosphere any fugi-
tive emission from:
  (1)  Any Individual truck  unloading
station, railcar  unloading  station, or
railcar loading  station, which exhibits
greater than 5 percent opacity.
  (2)  Any grain handling  operation
which exhibits  greater than 0 percent
opacity.
                                                     111-50
  (a) Reference methods  in appendix
A of this part, except  as  provided
under §60.8(b), shall be used to deter-
mine  compliance with  the standards
prescribed under § 60.302 as follows:
  (1) Method 5 or method 17 for con-
centration of  particulate  matter  and
associated moisture content;
  (2) Method 1  for sample and velocity
traverses;
  (3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate;
  (4) Method 3  for gas analysis;  and
  (5) Method 9  for visible emissions.
  (b)  For method  5,  the sampling
probe and filter holder shall be  operat-
ed without heaters. The sampling time
for each run,  using method 5  or
method 17,  shall be at least 60  min-
utes.  The minimum sample   volume
shall be 1.7 dscm (ca. 60 dscf).
(Sec. 114,  Clean  Air  Act, as amended (42
U.8.C. 7414).)

§ 60.304  Modifications.
  (a) The factor 6.5 shall be  used In
place  of  "annual  asset  guidelines
repair allowance percentage," to deter-
mine whether a capital expenditure as
defined by § 60.2(bb) has been made to
an existing facility.
  (b) The following physical changes
or changes in the method  of operation
shall not by themselves be considered
a modification  of any existing facility:
  (1) The addition of gravity loadout
spouts  to existing  grain storage or
grain transfer bins.
  (2)  The installation  of  automatic
grain weighing  scales,
  (3) Replacement of motor and drive
units  driving existing grain handling
equipment.
  (4)  The installation  of permanent
storage capacity with no increase in
hourly grain handling capacity.

      36  FR 24876, 12/23/71 (1)

          as amended

            43  FR  34340, 8/3/78  (90)
-------
Subporf  HH—Standard*  of  Perfor-
  mance   for   Urn*  Manufacturing
  Planti 85

{60.340  Applicability  and  designation of
    affected facility.
  (a)  The  provisions of this  subpart
are applicable to the following affect-
ed  facilities used in the manufacture
of lime: rotary lime kilns and lime hy-
drators.
  (b)  The  provisions of this  subpart
are not applicable to facilities used In
the manufacture of lime at kraft pulp
mills.
  (c) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of  this section  that  commences con-
struction or modification after May 3,
1977.  is subject to the requirements of
this part.

160.341  Definitions.
  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 calci-
nation. Hydratlon of  the lime product
is also  considered to be  part of  the
source.
  (b)  "Lime product" means the prod-
uct of the calcination process Includ-
ing, but not limited  to, calcltic lime,
dolomitlc  lime, and dead-burned dolo-
mite.
  (c) "Rotary  lime kiln" means a unit
with an Inclined rotating drum which
is used to produce a lime product from
limestone by calcination.
  (d)  "Lime hydrator"  means a unit
used  to produce hydrated lime prod-
uct.

{ 60.342  Standard Tor participate matter.
  (a)  On and after the date on which
the performance test required  to  be
conducted  by  {60.6  is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions  of this subpart  shall cause to be
discharged into the atmosphere:
  (1)  Prom any rotary  lime kiln any
gases which:
  ti)  Contain  paniculate  matter  In
excess of 0.15  kilogram  per megagram
of limestone feed (0.30 Ib/ton).
  (II)  Exhibit  10 percent  opacity  or
greater.
  (2)  From any lime  hydrator any
gues which contain paniculate matter
in excess  of 0.076 kilogram per  mega-
gram of lime feed (0.15 Ib/ton).

{ 60.343  Monitoring of emliiloni and op-
    eratloni.
  (a) The owner or operator subject to
the provision* of this subpart shall in-
stall,  calibrate, maintain,  and operate
a  continuous   monitoring   system,
except aa provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, to monitor and record the
opacity of a representative portion of
the gases  discharged Into  the atmos-
phere from any rotary  lime kiln. The
•pan  of thii system  shall be set at 40
percent opacity,
   (b) The owner or operator of any
 rotary lime kiln using a wet scrubbing
 emission  control device  subject to the
 provisions of this subpart shall not b«
 required to monitor the opacity of the
 gases discharged  as required in para-
 graph (a) of this  section, but shall in-
 stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate
 the following  continuous monitoring
 devices:
   (DA monitoring device for the con-
 tinuous measurement of the pressure
 loss of the  gas  stream  through the
 scrubber. The monitoring device must
 be accurate within  ±250 pascals (one
 inch of water).
   (2) A monitoring device for the con-
 tinuous measurement of the scrubbing
 liquid supply pressure to the control
 device. The monitoring device must be
 accurate  within  ±5 percent of design
 scrubbing liquid supply pressure.
   (c) The owner  or operator of any
 lime hydrator using a wet  scrubbing
 emission  control device  subject to the
 provisions of this subpart shall install,
 calibrate,  maintain, and operate the
 following  continuous  monitoring  de-
 vices:
   (DA monitoring device for the con-
 tinuous  measuring  of the  scrubbing
 liquid  flow  rate.  The  monitoring
 device must be accurate within ±5 per-
 cent of  design  scrubbing liquid flow
 rate.
   (2) A monitoring device for the con-
 tinuous  measurement of the electric
 current, In amperes, used by the scrub-
 ber. The monitoring device must be ac-
 curate  within ±10 percent over its
 normal operating range.
   (d) For the purpose of conducting  a
 performance  test under  §60.8, the
 owner or operator of  any lime manu-
 facturing plant subject to the  provi-
 sions of this subpart shall Install, cali-
 brate, maintain,  and operate a device
 for measuring the mass  rate of lime-
 stone feed to any affected rotary lime
 kiln and the mass rate of lime feed to
 any affected Jime hydrator.  The mea-
 suring device used must be accurate to
 within  ±5  percent  of the mass rate
 over its operating range.
   (e) For the  purpose of reports re-
 quired  under  560/1(0),  periods  of
 excess emissions that shall be reported
 are defined as all six-minute periods
 during  which the average  opacity of
 the plume from any lime kiln subject
 to paragraph (a)  of this subpart Is 10
 percent or greater.

(Sec. 114 oJ the Clean Air Act, as vnented
(43UJ3.C. 7414).)

ftOM4 Te»t methods and procedure*.

  (a) Reference methods in  Appendix
 A  ol this  part,   except  as provided
under §60.8(b), shall be used to deter-
mine  compliance  with Jfl0.322(a)  as
follows:
  (1) Method  5 for the measurement
of particulate matter,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses.
  (3) Method  2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate,
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis,
  (5) Method 4 for stack gas moisture,
and
  (6) Method 9 for visible emissions.
  (b) For Method 5, the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 60 min-
utes  and the sampling rate shall be at
least  0.85 std m>/h,   dry  basis (0,53
dscf/min),  except that shorter sam-'
pling times,  when necessitated by pro-
cess variables  or other factors, may be
approved by the Administrator.
  (c) Because of  the high  moisture
content (40  to 85  percent by volume)
of the exhaust gases  from hydrators,
the Method 5 sample train may  be
modlfled to include a calibrated orifice
immediately   following  the  sample
nozzle  when testing lime hydralors. In
this  configuration, the sampling rate
necessary for  maintaining isoklnetic
conditions can be directly related to
exhaust gas velocity without a  correc-
tion  for moisture  content. Extra care
should be exercised when cleaning the
sample train  with  the orifice in  this
position following the test runs.
(Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 UJS.C. 7414).)
                                              36 FR 24B76, 12/23/71 (1)
                                                 as amended
                                                    43 FR 9452, 3/7/78 (85)
                                                    111-51
-------
                                                     Appendix A—Reference Methods 8
  T!i« reference methods In thrs appendls are refcrrrd to
 In I W.8 (rerlormance Tula) and 180.11 (Compliance
 With Standards and Maintenance Requirement*) of 40
 C'FR Part 60, Suhpart A (General Provisions). Rptclftc
 iijcs of these reference method* are described In  the
 standards  of performance  contained In the  Inbparu,
 beginning wild Eulinert D..
  WItliln each standard ol |>erformanrf, a section titled
 "Test Methods ami  Procedures" Is  provided (o  (I)
 Identify  the r«t  methods applicable to the  facility
 atih)wt to  tho respective standard and (2) Identify toy
 spwial Instructions or conditions to he followed when
 applying a nuthod 10 tho respective facility. Such In-
 structions  (for example, establish sampling rates, vol-
 umes, or Uunpratures) arc to be used either In addition
 to, or as a BUbstllute for procednros In a reference method.
 Similarly,  lor sources subject to  emission monitoring
 retirement!, upeclfle Iruitractloni pertAlnint to an>  int
 of a reference method are provided In the subvert or la
 Appendln  B.

  Iwlimlon of methods In this appendix Is not Intended
 M  an endorsement or denial  or their applicability to
 Bournes that ire not subject to standards of perfonnanoa.
 The methods an potentially applicable to other source*;
                           however, applicability should b« confirmed by careful
                           and appropriate evaluation of the conditions prevalent
                           at men sources.
                            The approach followed In the formulation of the rpf-
                           erence- njctliods Involves specifications for e'julpmont.
                           procedures, find performance. ]n concept, a performance
                           sp«cin<'fttlon approacii would b^ preferable in all methods
                           becaiiso thl« allows tlic ere^tesl fleilbllily to  tlio uwr.
                           In prM-llci. li"n ever, thl?8|ipronch l.'iinpraclii'alin rnrwl
                           ««*»  bf«ii5i>  rxrforniancfl  5|x-clflrnliniu  onnnnt  be
                           established.  Mn?t  of  tho  mrihixls di'.'i'rlh"! herein,
                           Ihrrcforp. Involve ppe^iflc CQiiipntcnt «iK-cincfltiom and
                           procedure, and only a few inrthod.c i:i lliis niip'-ndin rely
                           on peiforwa/irc crllrii.i.
                            Minor clmnces in Hit-  rt-ferem e willows  ?honld not
                           necf*:\rlly  nttr^i  the vjt'ieiI«  r"K
             .STATIONART Soi KI F.H 69
      50
         0.5
DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE A)

                   1.0                            1.5                             2.0
                                        2.5
       40
  O
  a.
  00
  oc
  C£.
  UJ
  CO
       30
       20
  z>
  5
  i   10
\
T
A

"
f


5
I
—



|
1
4
'DISTURBANCE

MEASUREMENT
:- SITE

DISTURBANCE

                 * FROM  POINT OF  ANY TYPE OF
                   DISTURBANCE  (BEND,  EXPANSION. CONTRACTION, ETC.)
                                                                                          I
                                                                                                          8
                                                                                                                    10
                   DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE B)

                    Figure 1-1.  Minimum number of traverse points for particulate traverses.
                                                      Ill-Appendix  A-l
-------
             .\ppltcatllHt

  1.1  Principle. To kid In thr reprcsemaiive in<-a.«nrf-
ment of pollutant emissions and/or total volumetric flow
rate from a stationary lource, a measurement site where
the affluent stream If flowing In a known direction Is
wiecud, and the rrogt-KCtlon of the flack Is divided Into
» nurnbn of tonal areas. A traverse point Is thrn located
wllhln «*oh of th«M equal are«.
  1.2  Applicability. This method In applicable to (low-
Int C>* nmrnn hi duett, itacks, and flues. Thr method
nannot be nwd when: (1) flow 1$ cyclonic or sv Irllng (see
flection 2,4), (2) a slack ft smaller tban shout 0.30 mew
(13 In.) In  diameter, or 0.071 m> (113 In.1) In cron-ctc-
ttonal area, or (8) th« measurement site Is lens than two
stack or dnct diameters downstream or loss thnn a half
diameter upstream from a flow disturbance
  Th* requirement! of this method must be considered
before construction ola new facility from which emission!
will b» measured; failure to do so may require subsequent
alterations to the stack or deviation (torn the standard
procedure, CMM Involving variants aro subject to ap-
wovaj by  the' Administrator.  U.S. Environmental
rrotMUm Agency.

4. Pntitvtt

  2.1  Selection  «f Measurement  Bite.  Sampling or
velocity measurement  Is performed at a rile located at
leott elf hi rtaok or duct diameters downstream and two
diameters upstream from any flow disturbance snoh ai
a bntd, wpanston, or contrition In Hit stack, or from a
visible flame. If nMCNtry, an nllernntlve location nay
be adeoted, at a position at least two slack or duct d/-
ametere downstream and a half diameter upstream trora
any flow disturbance.  For  a rectangular crow section,
an equivalent diameter (fl.) shall be calculated from the
Mowing aquation, to determine the  uprtream and
downstream distances:


                       2LIF
                                             where /.-length and IK«wldth.
                                              2.3  DetermlDlng the Number of Traverse Points.
                                              2.3.1  Fartloulat*  Traverses.  When  the eight- and
                                             two-diameter crlterloncan be met, the ml ol mum number
                                             of traverse point* shall be: (1) twelve, for circular or
                                             rectangular stacks with  diameters  (or equivalent 41-
                                             tuotten) grater than 0.61 meter (24 In.); (2) eight, for
                                             circular slacks with diameters  between 0.30 and 0.91
                                             meter (12-24 In.}; (3) nine,  lor rectangular stacks wltb
                                             equivalent diameters between 0.30 saj 0.61 meter (12-24
                                             In.).
                                              When the eight- and two-diameter criterion cannot b«
                                             met, the minimum number of traverse points Is deter-
                                             mined from Figure  1-1. Before  referring to the figure,
                                             however, determine  the distances from the chosen meat-
                                             urement site to the nearest  upstream and downstream
                                             disturbances,  and divide each  distance by the stack
                                             diameter or equivalent  diameter, to determine  th»
                                             distance In temu of the number ol duct diameters. Then,
                                             determine from Figure 1-1 the minimum number or
                                             traverse points that corresponds: (1) to tbe number of
                                             duct  diameters  upstream;  and (2) to  the number of
                                             diameters downstream. Select the higher of the two
                                             minimum numbers of traverse points, or a greater value,
                                             so that for circular stacks the number Is a multiple of 4,
                                             and for rectangular  stacks,  the number Is oue bf thos«
                                             shown In Table 1-1.

                                             TAW.*  1-1. Croii-ieettonol h'jout /or rtfrYingutor ilaekl

                                                                                       Mn-

                                             •Vs"hr*  87                              •«£
                                                       "'
                                                29.
                                                30.
                                                88.
                                                42.
                                                49.
                                                                                        413
                                                                                        U4
                                                                                        5l4
                                                                                            7i7
  2.2.2  Velocity  (Non-Fartlculate)  Traverse*.  When
velocity or volumetric Sow rate Is to b« determined (but
not paniculate matter), the same procedure as that for
particular traverses (Section 2.2.1)  Is followed,  except
that Figure 1-2 may be used Instead of Figure 1-1.
  2.1 Cross-Sectional Layout and Location of Traverse
Point*.
  2.8.1  Circular Slacks. Locate  the traverse points on
two perpendicular djaraotersaccordlng to Table 1-2 and
the example shown In Figure 1-3. Any equation  (for
eiarnples, see Citations 2 and 3 In the Bibliography) that
lives the same value&a/ those In Table 1-2 may be used
fn lieu of Table 1-2. »~
  For participate traverses, one of the diameters m ust b*
in a plane containing the greatest expected concentration
variation, e.g., after bonds, one diameter shall be In tbe
plane of the bend. This requirement becomes less critical
as the distance from the disturbance Increases; therefore,
•(her diameter local long may be used, subject to approval
of the Administrator.
  In addition,  for stAcks having diameters greater than
0.91 m (24 In.) no traverse polnu shall be located within
2.5 centimeters (1.00 In.) of the stack walls; and for suck
diameters equal to or less than 0.61 m (24 In.), no traverse
pftlntt shall be located within 1.3 ciu (O.M In.) of tbe stack
walls. To meet these criteria, observe the procedures
flven below,
  2.3.1.1  Blacks With Diameters Greater Than 0.61 m
(24 In.). When any of the traverse points as locaud In
Section 2.3.1 fall within 2.6 cm (1.00 In.) of tbe stack walls,
relocate them away from the stack walls to: (1) a distance
of 2.5 cm  (1.00 in.]; or (2) a distance equal to tbe  nntle
Inside diameter, whichever Is larger. These relocated
traverse points (on each end of a diameter) aliall  be tbe
"adjusted" traverse  polnU.
  Whenever two successive traverse points are combined
to form a single adjusted Inverse point, treat tbe ad-
justed politt as two separate traverse points, both in tbe
sampling  (or velocity measurement) procedure, and la
recording tho data.
    60
40
     30
     20
     10
            DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE A)

  0.5                           1.0                            1.5                            2.0
                                                                                                                                        2.5
                                                                    T
                                                                                                     T
                                                                                                     A
                                                                                                          D

                                                                                                                  DISTURBANCE


                                                                                                                 MEASUREMENT
                                                                                                                 £-    SITE
                                                                                                                  DISTURBANCE
                                        1
         2               3              4               567               8               9

                DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM  FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE R)
                                                                                                                                    10
           Figure 1-2.  Minimum number of traverse points for  velocity {nonparticqlate} traverses,
                                                        Ill-Appendix   A-2
-------
TRAVERSE
POINT
1
2
3
4
5
<
DISTANCE,
N of diameter
it*
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.9
                  Figure 1-3. Example showing circular stack cross section divided into
                  12 equal »rtaa, with location of traverse points indicated.
   Table 1-2.  LOCATION  OF TRAVERSE POINTS IN CIRCULAR STACKS

            (Percent of stack diameter from inside wall to traverse point)
Traverse
point
number
on « .
diameter
I
2
3
<[
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
"1
13
14
15
16
J7
13
19
201
21
22
23
24
Number of traverse points on a diameter
2
14.6
85.4






















4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3




















6
4.4
14.fi
29.6
70.4
85.4
95.6


















8
3.2
10.5
19.4
32.3
67.7
80.6
89.5
96.8
















10
2.6
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.8
97.4














12
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.6
64.4
75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9












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










16
1.6
4.9
8.5
12.5
16.9
22.0
28.3.
37.5
62.5
71.7
78.0
83.1
87.5
91.5
95'. 1
98.4








18
1.4
4.4
7.5
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6
29.6
38.2
61.8
70.4
76.4
31.2
35.4
89.1
92.5
95.6
98.6






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




22
1.1
3.5
6.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
21.8
26.2
31.5
39.3
60.7
68.5
73.8
78.2
82.0
35.4
88.4
91.3
94.0
96.5
98.9


24
1.1
3.2
5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1
19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
39.8
60.2
67.7
72.8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.8
39.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
98.9
                                                      "minimum  number o(  points"  mairlx  were
                                                      expanded  to  36  points,  the  final   matrix
                                                      could be 9x4 or 12x3. nnd would  not neces-
                                                      sarily havf  to  be 6x6. Alter corwtructinx tho
                                                      final matrix,  divide  tne  s!:ick  cross-st'rtion
                                                      Into  fls  many  equal  rorl.ingiilnr.  c'.emei-.tal
                                                      areas as traverse points,  and  lorate n  tr*
                                                      verse  point  at the centroid  of each equal
                                                      area.8'
                                                        The situation of traverse points being too clooe to tb«
                                                      rtaot walls la  mx eiperted to  ari» with rectAiigiiln.-
                                                      stafto. If this problem should tJtr arise, the  Adminis-
                                                      trator must be contacted  (or rasotutlori a! the ruattsr.
                                                        3.4  VerifVcallonof Ahsenc* of Cy Ionic Flow Inmost
                                                      stationary scums,  the dlm"Jon ot  stivk ga» now  Li
                                                      essentially  parallal  to  Che  stack  wallj.   [i,-%wov«r.
                                                      eydonk flow may exist n) after sich devices as ;-rr\.tM In lUcki hart^ t*i«enU4l Inlttl  Of othsr  dtu-t con-
                                                      flganUlou whkk t«nd  to Indue*  swirling;  in  tho.v
                                                      IruUnoM. the  prw»nc« or  absence of cyclonic flow  Bt
                                                      the a»mpung location must he determined. The follow 1:15
                                                      techniques are acceptable for this d<>taruilnaUcn.
1 - 1
o 1 o |
1 1
-1 _
0 j c j
r i
O | O 1
1 1
O 1 0
i
_. .-,...
1
0 j 0
	 i 	 __.
1
0 , 0
.. J- _..

                                                                                                         Figure 1 4. Example showing '•^ct.ingulj: sUtx cio
                                                                                                         section divided i;ito 12 equal jreos, ui'.h ;i travorvi
                                                                                                         pomt at centroid of each ares.


                                                                                                          L«vel and eero  tho nianotnoUT. i.Vntuv'.  a  Ty}^
                                                                                                        pilot tube to the manometer. I'o-uluti ihi- Ty'iV ^  I1!
                                                                                                        tub* at etu-h travwso point, in s\uvp.ss;on. so i!',;U t
                                                                                                        planes of the tow openings of tho pilot tubo 'ire ',i.'riu-'..;i
                                                                                                        vil&r to the suck cro^s-sv.-i(o:\al pHvr.c  --vhiv; ^;;-\ T-J-.K
                                                                                                        pilot tulie is In ;hi3 po«iiron, it is at "0° rvfoiciuv."  N.
                                                                                                        tbe difTcr&mial procure (Ap1 nv\dlng »t t'.vli  '_rj-.^
                                                                                                        poliU.  If a null {;cro}  pilot  r<»;\viing  is  ob',;ii:u'ii  RI
                                                                                                        reference at a (civnn imvt>rso  j^liit, mi ftccoptftt'l*  ''<
                                                                                                        condition eibla at  tlmi point. II UK* pU->t rcsd;:ip S.^ t
                                                                                                        teroatO^rf UTOIICP. rout* tho piiiv. tube (i!(> -i> .1  'X)1 y;
                                                                                                        anpie),untilanaUrt-ailingisobiAiMi^l-C'trodi!!;. •>'.••i-rtui
                                                                                                        and record tti« rulue of t!1.^  : )',>i:;ou  rtnglo <»   I" !
                                                                                                        nearrat drgrce. After tho null UV!IM:.-II' li.is Ivn nppl;
                                                                                                        at each  lrtver« p»)iiit. cnicubu idc fiv.-r.n;.-' jl  :it.- a
                                                                                                        lllW* villlOS of o; .l^sigLl u vri!iii\5 ot H'1 10 tllii.i^ t-i'lllU'i
                                                                                                        wh.Ich no rotation wna rr>quiiiJ  tn.verx'-s.1''
                                                       1. D«?tormin!i'.n Dust finlO''^trH!ii->i; !M :i tt.;.-< .-^l i..;v.i-..
                                                     ASME.  Performance 'IVst I'oil.i  No. tl.  Sow  VorV.
                                                     1MT.
                                                     »2. Ocvorkln.  Haven),  et M.  -Vlr  I'o'.'.u;:. •>  ?-. n:.-:'
                                                     Twtirti?  Mnnnal. Atr f^llntlon Cnntrnl i):s[(i.  (. f.r-*
                                                     AJigclu, C'A. N'ovombor  I'.KV)
                                                       3. Methods  for I)oter:-.:!:iMlon of V,.-iviv,  v.:l-.i!i:i',
                                                     Dust and Mist Content of (iiv.i\i. Wt-.ti-.-n t'livipi.-ul-i"
                                                     DMiion o( Joy Miinutactuhnfc t\>. l.\>-^ .'iii^ili--.  *'\.
                                                     Dtilloiln W!'-40. I'.iOS.
                                                       ^. Smnilard -Method for Hn:Mnllii|(St:u-li-i(.>r ;\u-'.i,Ml»iv
                                                     Matter.  In: 1U71 Book of AST.M  Sun.l.ii.h.  1'sit .'.I.
                                                     ASTM DoslnnallOK l)-»2»-Tl. l'!-,il:i.l. •!.-!. In. I'n. r.'.M.
                                                       5. IJan?on. II. A.. nil. 1'ivriWvihuc SMv.v1.    '
                                                     for  Ijirxe Powor ri.irl.s  l-n''i!rtinjr N'niit::
                                                     USKi'A, OHI). KSIll.. lti'->iiri-li l'i!:li.i;:
                                                     EPA-COO/2-76-170. Juiic l'.:70.
                                                       8. Kutropy Eiivjroiinionl.'iii^t^, Inr  !).•:
                                                     tllfl Olitlmunl  Nu::i\)er ol ^ftir.plii.): i': :• i^
                                                     of Method 1  Criteria. Eiivlriiiut-.iM-.iitl rr.it,..
                                                     rtp-oiuch Trlanglo 1'ark, N.C. Kl'A I'uiitiii
                                                     3172, Tiisk 7.
                                                                                                                                              :/"i i:-  t I--M'
                                                                                                                                                1'n:!.. N/'
  2.3.1.2  Stacks With Diameters Equal to or Less Than
0.61 m  (M In.). Follow the procedure In Section 2.3.1.1,
noting  only lh»l &nj  "adHisted"  points  should b«
relocst«d avay from toe stack walla to: (1) A distance at
1.3 cm  (0.50 In.); or (2) a distance equal to tbe  noul«
loalde diameter, whichever Is larger.
  2.3.2   Rectangular  Starb. Determine  tbe number
ot traverse point* u explained In Sections 2.1 and 2.2 ol
this method. From Table 1-1, determine the grid  con-
figuration. Divide tbe stack crosa-aectlon Into as many
equal rectangular elemental areu u tracers*  point*,
and then locate a traverse point at the centroid of each
equal area according to tbe eiample In Figure 1-4.
  II the  tester  desires to use more thnn the
minimum    number   of   traverse    points,
expand the  "minimum  number  of  traverse
points" matrix  (sec Table 1-1) by adding the
extra  traverse points along one or the other
or both legs of  the matrix; the  final matrix
need rot be balanced. For example.  If a 4x3
                                                          Ill-Appendix  A-3
-------
MKTBbD 3-DiTiRumvnoH o? STACK O*s VELOCITY 0
 AJCD VOLOMITRIC FLOW RATI (Tirt 8 PITOT TUBI) *'
 1. Principle and AprUcaWUt

  1.1  Principle. The average gas velocity In a stock I)
 determined from the gas density and from measurement
 of thp average velocity head with a Type 8 (Stausscheib*
 or reverse type) pltot tube.
  1.1  Applicability.  This  method  IB  applicable for
 measurement of the average velocity of a gas stream and
 for quantifying gu flow.
  This procedure Is not applicable at measurement slt«s
 which fall to meet the criteria of Method 1, Section 2.1.
Also, ihe method cannot b« used for direct measurement
In cyclonic or swirling gas streams. Section 2.« ot Method
1 shows how to determine cyclonic or swirling How con-
ditions. When unacceptable conditions exist, alternative
procedures, subject to the approval of the Administrator,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, must be em-
ployed  to make  accurate  (low rate determinations:
eiamnles of such alternative procedures are: (1) to install
straightening vanes; (2) to calculate the total volumetrlo
flow rate stolchlometrtcally, or (3) to move to another
measurement site at which the Bow Is acceptable.

2. Apparolut

  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
the specifications will be considered acceptable.
  2.1  Type B Pilot Tube. The Type 8 pilot tube
 (Figure 2-1) shall be made of metal tubing (e.g., stain-
 less steel). It Is recommended that the external tubing
 diameter (dimension D,, Figure 2-2b) be between 0.«
 •nd O.M centimetore (f|, and % Inch). There shall be
.an equal distance from the base of each leg of the pltot
 tube to It* face-epenlng plane (dimensions Pi and P«,
 Figure 2-2b); it la recommended that this distance be
 between 1.06 and 1.60 times the eiternal tubing diameter.
 The lace openings of the pltot tube shall, preferably, be
 aligned as shown In Figure 2-2; however, slight misalign-
 ments ofthe openings are permissible (see Figure 2-3).
  Th« Type 8 pltot tube shall have a known coefficient,
 determined as outlined  In Section 4. An identification
 nomlw "ball be assigned to the pilot tube; this number
 •hall be permanently marked or engraved on the body
 •Mhetubo.
  1,90-2.54 cm*
  (0.75-1.0 in.)
                   t^ngwj^rtMSj^nTjy

                   I  7.62 cm (3 in.)*
                                       >^B"24*uaaai

                                •ijajir
                                                TEMPERATURE SENSOR
                                                                                                  LEAK-FREE
                                                                                                 CONNECTIONS
                     SUGGESTED (INTERFERENCE FREE)
                     PITOT TUBE • THERMOCOUPLE SPACING
                      Figure 2-1.  Type S pitot tube manometer assembly.
                                                       Ill-Appendix  A-4
-------
       TRANSVERSE
        TUBE AXIS
                            FACE
                          'OPENING
                           PLANES

                             (a)
                           A SIDE PLANE
LONGITUDINAL
TUBE AXIS *|
* D,
\ *
A
B
                              T
                           B-SIOE PLANE
                             (b)
                                                     NOTE:
                                           PB
                          A ORB
                            (c)
Figure 2-2. Properly constructed Type S pitot 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.
                   Ill-Appendix A-5
-------
       TRANSVERSE
        TUBE AXIS
iy
                            i     w      1
                                                             \;
                              (b)
LONGITUDINAL
 TUBE AXIS
                           -4

                                             (I)
                                             (l)
          Figure 2*3. Types of face-opening misalignment that can result from field use or im-
          proper construction of Type S pltot tubes. These will not affect the baseline value
          of Cp(s) so long as ai and 02 < 10°, fa and 02 < 5°. * < 0.32 cm (1/8 In.) and w <
          0.08 cm (1/32 In.) (citation 11 in Section 6).
                                Ill-Appendix  A-6
-------
   A jtandarS pilot hrtw may be \ wd Ins-teaa oU Tyjt 8,
 provided that It meet* the  'Pf'"™11^0^1',0'1'.?;:
 iml 4 2- note. however, thai tli» static  and  Impact
 P "snire l™es of jiftmlnrd pilot tubes are JiiKfr.tlbf.tt>
  .liiii.g In  narlln.lMc-lrulen  «"  s'ri'ams.  Iherefore,
   K-vcr a standard pilot ml* Is m.xi to  perform  a
 travrrv  ftdrriiiftt. pi""' >«»st ll* (tt««slwd tU»l th.
 r t, inM nt I he pilot  ube Im'C not |.lu«ed up during he
 n  v-  t« U.at ir 4P
 it 'the  final  traverse pi.lnt  is mmiluibly low,  another
 win  may bo seized. II  "HMk-inirgliig" at regular
  ,,t"rvals is part ol  th. pr.vedurc.  llie.i comparHlHr. Af_
 railings slmll be tnken. w above,  lor the last two back--
 [urge?  it wl.U'h suitably l.lsh a;i readings are observed.8'
  •••{  PiiT.'reiitlal I'rcMiiro Uouge. An Inclined manom-
 eter or  equivalent device Is used.  Must sampling train*
 nre  equipped with  a 10-ln. (water column   inclined-
 v 'il' il InSSSmeter. having 0.01-ln. n,O dlvs on, on th.
 0- to i-ln. Inclined scale, and 0.1-ln. H>0 divisions on th«
 1- to in-ln. vertical  wale. This type of  manometer or
 other gauge of equivalent , sensitivity i to sa»sfac.tory for
 the measurement of upvalues as low as 1.3 mm (0.08 in,)
 H.O Howwr, a differential pressure gauge of greater
 sensitivity shall to  used  (subject wtb» approvaj o( tb.
 Administrator), if any of the following  Is found to b*
 true: (D the arithm.llc avfrage of all ap readings at the
 traverse points In the stack Is lass tban 1.3mm  (0.08 in.)
 IT'O- (2) (or traverses ol 12 or more points, more then 10
 pcWo'nt ol the Individual ip readings are below 1.8 mm
 CO 05 in )  Hid, (31 for U»T*ree* of fewer than 12 polnw,
 more than one 4p readlnj Is below 1.8 mm (0.08 in") BjO.
 Citation 18 io Section e describee oommerclally available
 liutnuneniattoa tor the measuremenl ofk>»-rang« gas

 "A^Bnl'ltfrnaliT. to criteria (1) through (3) above, th«
 following raltiulallon may be performed to determine the
 necessity u( using a more sensitlfe dlrTetenllal pressure
 gauge:
W4pf-ritdlvldual velocity head r»8dl«g at  a  traven.
       point, mm H,0 (In. H.O).
    fi-TotalnumberoftravertepoluU.
   A--0.13 ram HiO  when metric un(W »re usod and
       O.OOS In H>0 when EngUsb units are used,

If T la greater than l.OS. the vfloclty head data ar«
unacceptable and a more sensitive differential preaiur.
gaugg must be used.
  NOTE.— If differential  pressure  gauges other than
Inclined manometers are used (e.g., raagnebellc gauges),
their calibration must be checked after each tost lertw.
To check  the calibration of a differential pressure gauge.
compare 4p readings of the gauge with those of a gauge-
oil manometer at » minimum of three point*, approil-
mately representing the range of Ap value. In the stack.
II, at each point, the values of Af as read by the differen-
tial pressure gauge  and gatigo-oll  manometer am. ta
within S percent, the differential pressure gauge stall be
considered to be In proper calibration. Otherwlat, tli«
test aeries  shall either be voided, or procedures to adjujt
Ihe measured Ap values and final results shall be utod,
subject to  the approval of the Admln4»trator.
  2.3  Temperature Gauge.  A  thermocouple,  liquid-
filled bulb thermometer, bimetelllo thermometer, mer-
cury-ln-glajs thermometer, or other gauge capable of
measuring temperature to within l.S percent of the mini-
mum absolute  stack  temperature sjiall  b« used. Th.
temperature gauge shall be attached to the  pltot tub.
such, that  the lenaor tip doe, not touch any metal; th*
gaug« shall be In an interference-tree arrangement with
respect to th. pltot tube face opening! (s»e Figure t-1
and also Figure 2-T in Section 4). Alternate po»Ulona ran
be mod if th. pltot ttibo-teropemur* laug.  iy.ua U
calibrated according to the procedure of Section 4. Pro-
vided that a difference, of not more than 1 poroent la th.
average velocity meaiurement li Introduced, thi tern-
 p«mun gai\ge nnd not be attached to tha pilot tub«;
 thb  alternative  lj  subject  w  tb. approval  of  tbi
 Administrator.
  3.4  Prrjuurc Probe and Oauge. Aplptometer tube and
 mercury- or watcr-llllod  U-tube manometer capable of
 measuring slack pressure to within 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) Hf
 Is used. The, stalio Up ot a standard Xyp« pitot tube ot
 on. leg of a Type S pltot tube with tho face opening
 plnnrs nosiUoncd parallel to  the gas flow may ilso  be
 UMM! iu tho pressure prob«.87
  2.S Daromctor. A mercury, aneroid, or other bnrom-
 etcr capable  of  meiuurlng  atmospherlo  pressure  to
 within 2.5 mm lln (0.1 In. Tig) may be used. In many
 cases, the  Iwomoiric reading may be obtained from i
 nearby national weather service siatlon, In  which case
 the  station vnli.e (which  Is the  absolute  barometric
 pressure)  slmll be rrqtK'Stod and an  adjustment  for
 elevation  differences between the weather station and
 the sampling point shall be applied at a rate ol minus
 2.5  ram (0.1 In.)  Hg per 30-meter (100 foot)  elevation
 Increase, or vice-versa for elevation decrease.
  2.8 OBJ Density Determination Equipment. Method
 3 equipment, if needed  (see Section 3.6), to determine
 th.  stack  gas  dry  molecular weight,  and  Relerenc.
 Method 4 or Method 5 equipment for moisture content
 determination; other methods may  be  used subject to
approval of th. Administrator,
  2.7  Calibration Pilot Tub*. When calibration oJ th.
Type 8 pitot tube l» necessary  (se* Section 4), a standard
 pltot tub* li u*ed as a teterau*. The Aandard  pltot
 tub. shall, preferably, have a known coefficient, obtained
 either (1)  directly from the National Bureau of Stand-
ards, Route 270, Quince Orchard Road, Ualthersburg,
 Maryland, or (25 by calibration against another standard
 pltot tube with an NBS-traccable coeMlclent.  Alter-
 natively, a standard pltot tube <1i\nllal  Prcs.'tire  Gauge for Type  8  Pltot
 Tub* Calibration. An Inclined manometer or equivalent
 Is used. If the single-velocity  calibration  tKhnirme Is
 employed (see Section  4.1.2.3). the calibration differen-
 tial pressure gauge shall be readable to the neare.st 0.13
 mmlliO (0.005 In. U.O). For multlvcloclty calibrations,
 the gangs shall ba readable to the nearest 0.13 mm  ifiO
 (0.009 In itiO) for Ap values between 1.3 and 2-1 mm  HiO
 (0.09 and 1.0 In.  HtOK  and to the nearest 1J mm  IltO
 (0.05 In. HiO) for ip voluej above 25 mm  HiO (1.0 lu.
 HiO). A special, more  sensitive gauga will bs roqiUred
to read  Ap vahiet below  1.3  mm  1I.O (DOS lu.  U|O|
(]«. Citation 18 la Section 6j.
                                                                                                                 CURVED OR
                                                                                                            MITEREO JUNCTION
                                                                                             STATIC
                                                                                              HOLES

                                                                                             (-0.1D)
                                                                                HEMISPHERICAL
                                                                                       TIP
                                                                                                                        "3
                                                                                                                        '1
                                 Figure 2-4,-Standard pitot tube design specifications.
                     ).  Prtutut

                      3.1  Set up the apparatus as shown In  Flguce 3-1.
                     Capillary tuning or surge, tanks Installed bctwoin in. .
                     nanometer and pltot tub« may be usod to  dampen ip
                     fluctuations. It li rocomraended, but not required, that
                     a pretest leak-check b. conducted, as follows: (I) blow
                     through the pltot Impact opening until at least 7.9 cm
                     (3 In.) HiO velocity pressure registers on th. manometer;
                     then, close  oQ th. Impact opamns. Th. ptrasur. shall
                     remain stable for at least It seoondi; (2) do the tame for
                     tb. italic pressure «l4e, uoept using suction to obtain
                     tie minJmum ol 7.d .m  (i la) H,0.  Other te»lc-«b«»k
                                     .                .
                     ptocertom, subj4* Si-c-tlnn 2,'.!). .1 H I
                                                     neceuary to change to ainorosoiulil''!'jtnuge. 
-------
PLANT.
DATE.
        , RUN NO.
STACK DIAMETER OR DIMENSIONS, m(in.)
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, mm Hg (in. Hg)_
CROSS SECTIONAL AREA, m2(ft2)	
OPERATORS .	
PIT.OT TUBE 1.0. NO.
  AVG. COEFFICIENT, Cp = .
  LAST DATE CALIBRATED.
                                      SCHEMATIC OF STACK
                                         CROSS SECTION
   Traversa
    Pt.No.
 Vet. Hd.,AjJ
mm (in.)
                                  Stack Temperature
P9
(j (in.
mm H(j (in.Hg)
                                 Average
                      Figure 2-5. Velocity traverse data.
                          Ill-Appendix  A-8
-------
  „.„  „,	  •« >•'»<•* gas diy
Knr combustion privoasw or pra-a-wa mat emit
u.illy COi, (>i. ('<>. iir.i'.-N'i, us*- M.-thuil .1. for pr
'•inittlnn e^e'i'.Lil'y air. an ft ;ily>l^  lir''(' ri°t  I-
!i:,'led; uw »'.!'>' mol.vuinr    •-'--'•»'"  ••'-
pr:Vl\W.S. O'.l'-tT n'.'-lh.jds, su
Ar. ir.usl boused.
            I'10  :uo:stnro
M,-i!:od < a
 .! »  IJi'li'i
IH  lltli't HI
p::y<;, illy
                    ,o!ixular vrelght.
                    that emit eeeen-
                          irooeasee
               .,	be con-
               •lxl:i  ol '-"'-O. For other
             vt to t lie npproval of the

              n::r,nt from  Reference
              :; M.'Lhod 5.
 ii<} or fru ..... ------
 um !ho rross-sei-tii'ual area ol the  jtaok
u1 s'\:::t>li:iK !"• -i'.:'1'!  wherever possible,
'M.-'i.-(; '•'•'•<' M
                                           ,
                             «:oiu rutiier  thin
  I 1  Typi- S 1'ilut Tul'c Ik-luif ;ls tiniial use.  care-
fully ft-vuiiio the Type S ;ntot tube 111 top, side, and
i-nii vicivs to verify that the face openings of the  tube
itreftllKueil w;thln theMKvihratlons iliustrnlfd In Flinirt
'22 or 2-3. The pltot r.:be shall not b6 Uied if it fails to
meet the-« aligiuiscnt srwciflcations.
  AfUtf verifyliiz the face opening alignment, n;eamue
uid record the (ollowliig dlmmsionj ol the  plto; lube:
(») the eiternal tubing dl »nd If Pt and Pan*
eqital and between 1.OS and 1 50D,, there are two possible
options: (1) the pilot tub* may be calibrated according
to  the procedure outlined In Sections 4.1.2  through
4.1.6 below, or  (2i a baseline  (Isolated tube) coeOli-lent
value of O.S4 may bo aisi.gned to the pilot tube. Note,
however, tliat It the pilot tube is part ot an assembly,
calibration  may still  be  required,  despite knowledge
ol  the baseline cociIWent value  (see Section 4.I.1).8
 If Di, P*. and I'B are. outside the specified limits, the
pilot tube must be calibrated as outlined in 4.1 2 tliroiigh
4 1 j beluw.
 4-1-1  Type 3 Pilot Tute Assemblies. During sample
and velocity traverses, the isolated Type 8 pilot lube U
not always used: in many Instances, the  pilot tube U
used In combination with other source-sampling compon-
ents (thermocouple, sampling probe, nottle) as part ol
an  "assembly." The pr.\nce of other sampling compo-
in'iitscan some times affect Ihebasellne value of the Type
8 pilot tube coefficient (Citation 9 In Sections); therefore
an  assigned (or otherwise known)  baseline coefficient
value may or ra»r not be Talld for »liven assembly. The
baseline and assembly coefficient values will be Identical
only when ihe relative  placement nf the components la
the assembly Is such  that aerodynamic Interference
effects are eliminated. Figures 2-6 through 2-8 Illustrate
Interference-free component arrangements for Type 8
pilot  tubes having external tubing diameters between
0 «and O.U6 em (M» and M in.). Type S pilot tube asseo>
bllM that fall to meet any or all of the specifications of
Figures 2-fl through 2-8 snail be calibrated according to
the procedure outlined In Section! 4.1.3  thru'.igh  4.1.6
below, and prior to calibration, the values of the Inter-
component spaclngs (pltoUnoule,  pilot-thermocouple,
pltot-proho slieolh) shall be measured  and recorded.
  NOTE.—Do not use any Type S pilot tube assembly
which Is constructed such  that the Impact pressure open-
ing plane of the pilot tube is below the entry plane of the
notile (see Figure 2~6b).
 4.1.2  Calibration Setup. If the Type 8 pilot lube U to
be calibrated, one leg of the tub* shall be permanently
marked A, and the other, B. Calibration shall be done In
• flow system  having the  following .essential  design
features: 87

    I
                                                        TYP£SPITOTTUBE
                                                                                 I
                                                           .90 em (3/4 in.) FOR Dn - 1.3 cm {1/2 in.)
                                     SAMPLING NOZZLE
                             A.  BOTTOM VIEW; SHOWING MINIMUM PITOT-NOZZLE SEPARATION,
                 SAMPLING
                   PROBE
                  V
                                              SAMPLING
                                                NOZZLE
                         t
                                    /
                             TYPES
                           PITOT TUBE
                                                            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.
                                                            STATIC PRESSURE
                                                             OPENING PLANE
                                                                                                            IMPACT PRESSURE
                                                                                                             OPENING 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.).
                                                    Ill-Appendix  A-9
-------
THERMOCOUPLE
W>M2on;

-^i
flu 	 , 	 	 .. , &, ,""" 1
Z>i.0»tm|3/«lr.)
                                                                                          THERMOCOUPLE
                                                                                                                          ZX.Otcm
                                                                                                                                   •*
                                                                                                                             (2 in.)
                          TYPE SPITOT TUBE
SAMPLEPBOBE
                                                                    OR
                                                                                            TYPE SPITOT TUBE
                                                                                 . SAMPLE PROBE
                                  Figure 2-7. Proper thermocouple placement to prevent interference;
                                  Ot between 0.48 and 0.95 cm (3/16 and 3/8 in.).
                                                                          TYPE SPITOT TUBE
                                                  SAMPLE PROBE
                                                         I!Ill  HI
                                                                              Y>7.62cm(3inJ
 Figure 2-8.  Minimum pitot-sample probe separation needed  to prevent interference;
 Dt  betweenTJ.48 and  0.95 cm  (3/16  and  3/8  in.).
  4.14.1  Tb»ftowta|pntmmimiftb«oon4D*lt«»
4uot w daAnlU eroM-iectloaal area, either olrouUr or
ncUniulw. for circular eros*-Motkni, UN minimum
4uot diameter ahall be 80.8 cm XU In.): <<* ncUniute
•TOM sections, tot width (snorter ildi) shall U at Mat
l».4om (lOln.).
  4.1.8J Tb*cn»MoU»iulin*oftht<«Ubr*tton4oet
•rait b« constant wer a distance of 10 or more duet
itamaUr*. For a rectangular oroanectlon, UM an equlv»-
Mot diameter, oalciilated tram tht following equation,
to determine the number of duet diameters:
                               Equation 2-1
         Irtlent dtsraeUr
         ith
  To amor* the presence of stable, fully developed Sow
patterns at thi calibration ili«, or "test section," toe
ate muit bt lootMd »t iMft tlfhi dlunttert downitnun
•nd two dUm«Wri optimal from tb« tMirett dlitwb<
  NOTI.—Tbi ilfbt- tad two-dl»m«ter orlterU tn not
kbwIuM; otbir UK Notion locuioiu m»y b* iu*d (mb>
kot to »pproT»l of tht AdmlnJitrttor), provided tbtt tht
Bow M ft* tMt lit* U lUbli lad dimoiutnbly p*mu*l
lethtdiwtuli.
  I.1.IJ Th» flow ipUrn ihtll h»r« tbi MDMltr U>
         UM^Mttoo vtloeltr tNQBd »I6 m/En (1,000
                                         ft/mln), Thli Telocity mutt b« oonrUnt with time to
                                         nitnntw  peroent for the measurement  of velooltlei be-
                                         tween 180 and SOS m/mln (600 and 1,000 ft/mln). If t
                                         more preolie correlation  between  C,  and velocity li
                                         desired, the flow tyitem (ball have the capacity  to
                                         fenente at leait four dlitlnet, tlme-lnvarlan t teat-MCtloo
                                         TilooltlM ooverlni the velocity range from 180 to 1,525
                                         m/rnln (400 to MOO ft/mln), and calibration daU snail
                                         b* Uken M regular velocity Intervals over tbti range
                                         tht CiUtlonj t and 14 In  Section I tor detail]).
                                           4.1.2.4 Two entry ports, one etob for the lUndard
                                         •nd Type B pltot tubet, ibkll be cut In the teat lection;
                                         Me lUndard pltot entry  port thall be located slightly
                                         downitieam of the Type B port, eo that the ilaodud
                                         and Type 8 Impact openings will lie In the same oroav
                                         Motional plane during calibration. To facilitate align-
                                         ment of the pltot tubes during calibration, It Is advisable
                                         that tbe teif section be construct*! of plexlglas or some
                                         other transparent material.
                                           4.1.S Calibration Procedure. Note that this procedure
                                         li a general one and must not be used without first
                                         referring to the ipeclal considerations presented in Sec-
                                         tion 4.1.6. Note alw that this procedure annllei only to
                                         ingle-velocity calibration. To obtain calibration, dele,
                                         torlhe A and B sides of tbe Type 8 pltot lube, proceed
                                         H follows:
                                           4.1.8.1 Make pure that the manometer  li properly
                                         filled and that tbe oil 1s (ret from contamination and U of
                                         the proper Sennit 7. Inspect and leak-check all pilot llnei;
                                         repair or repUoe If necessary.
  4.1.8.3  Level and sero the manometer. Turn on the
tan and allow the flow to siabUlte. Seal the Type S entry
port.
  4.1.8.8  Ensure tbat tbe manometer Is level and tero*d.
Position tbe standard pltot tube at tbe calibration point
(determined ei out lined Ip Botlon 4.1.4.1), end align the
tube so that Its tip Is pointed directly Into the flow. Par-
ticular care should be taken In aligning the tube U> avoid
yaw and pitch angles. Make sure that tbe entry port
surrounding the tube Is properly M-alcd.
  4.1.3.4  Read Ap,,d and record Us value In a data table
similar to the one shown In Figure 2-6. Remove the
standard pltot tube from the duct  and disconnect U from
the manometer. Seal the standard entry port.
  4.1.8.4  Connect the Type  B phot tube to the manom-
eter. Open  the Type 8 entry port. Cheek the  manom-
eter level and tero. Insert and align the Type 8 pltot tube
so that Its A side Impact opening  Is at the same point as
w»s the standard pivot tube and h pointed directly Into
UM Uow. Make sun that the entry port surrounding the
tube Is properly soiled.
  4.1.8.6  Read Ap, and enter Its value In liie data table.
Remove the Type 8 pltot tube from the duct  and dis-
connect It from the manometer.
  4.1.8.7  Repeal sleus 4.1.3.3 through 4.1.3.0 above until
three pairs of Ap readings have  been obtained.
  4.1.3.8  Repeat steps 4.1.8.8 through 4.1.3.7 above for
tbe B sldf of the Type 8 pltot lube.
  4.1.8.9  Perform calculations, as described In fret loo
4.1.4 below.
  4,1.4 Calculations,
  4,1.4.1  For each of the sli pelrs of Ap readings (I.e.,
three from  tide A and ihree Irotu side  B)  obtained In
Section 4.1.8 above,  calculate the value of  the  Type 8
pilot tubi ooe(tlcloiil as follows:
                                                     Ill-Appendix  A-10
-------
PITOT TUBE IDENTIFICATION NUMIEN:

CALIBRATED BY.',	
                                                                    .DATE.'.

RUN NO.
1
2
3
"A" SIDE CALIBRATION
Apttd
cmH20
(in.H20)




APW
cmHjO
(in. H20)



Cp (SIDE A)
Cpd)





DEVIATION
CpW-CplA)





RUN NO-.
1
2
3
"B" SIDE CALIBRATION
APstd
em H20
(In. H20)




APM
emHjO
(In.HjO)



Cp (SIDE B)
CpM





DEVIATION
CpM-BpW




    AVERAGE DEVIATION  • a (A ORB)
                                               S|CpW-Cp(AORB)j
                                                                      •MUSTBE from C, (side B) .Use the fol-
                                                                                             lowing equation:
    t i,>
                                                    according to the criteria ol Section! 3.7.1  to
                                                    2.7.5 of t&li method.              ..  ,  „ .
                                              Ap.u-Velocity bead measured bj tbe standard pttot
                                                    tube, cmHiOttn. H,O)       	
                          _     ..    „ n      A j>.-Velocity bead measured by tb* Type 8 pita*
                          Equation 2-2        *  tut*, cm H.O  ^ me4n B
(roe trom aerodynamic Interference (-fleets  (s«e Figure!
2-0 through 2-8).
  4.1.5.1.3  For Type 8 pltot tube-thermocouple com-
bination! (without sample probe), select a calibration
point at  or near tbe center of tbe duct, and follow the
procedures outlined In Sections 4.1.3 and  4.1.4 above;
The coefficients so obtained wilt be valid so long as the
pltot tube-thermocouple  combination Is used  by Itself
ojwilhother components In an Interbroace-tree arrange*
ment (Figures 2-4 and 2-8).
  4.1.5.1.3  For  assemblies  with  sample  probes,  tbe
calibration point should be located at or near the center
of the duct: however, Insertion of a probe sheath into •
small duct may  cause significant cross-sectional area
blockage and yield Incorrect coefficient values (Citation 9
In Section 6). Therefore, to minimize the blockage efleoL
the calibration point may be a few Inches off-center li
necessary. Tbe actual blockage effect will be negligible
when  the  theoretical  blockage, as determined by  t
projected-area model of the probe sheath. Is  2 percent or
less of the duct cross-sectional area for assemblies without
external sheaths (Figure 2-10a), and 3 percent or less for
assemblies with external sheaths (Figure 2-10b).
  4.1.5.2  For those probe assemblies In   which  pilot
tabe-nottle Interference is » factor  (I.e., those In which
the  pltot-notile separation  distance falls  to meet tbe
specification  Illustrated In  Figure 2-ea),  the  value ol
C,(,i depends upon tbe amount  of tree-space between
Ihe tube and nottle, and therefore Is a function of nottle
site. In  these Instances, separate calibrations shall be
performed  with each of the commonly used nottle sliM
In place. Note that the single-velocity calibration tech-
nique  li acceptable for this purpose, even though tbe
larger notile.'sltes  O0.635 cm or Jj In.) are not ordinarily
used lor isolbnetlo  sampling at velocities around 916
m/mln (3,000 tt/mln), which Is the calibration  velocity;
note also thai It 19 not accessary to draw an Isoklnetia
sample during calibration (soc Citation 19 in Section a).87
  4.1.5.9  For a probe assembly constructed such that
Ri pi tot tube Is always used In tn« same orientation, only
one side of tbe pilot tube need be calibrated  (the side
which will face the flow). The pltot tube must still meet
I be alignment specifications of Figure 2-2 or 2-3, however,
tod must have an average deviation (*} value of 0.01 Of
less (see Section 4.1.4.4).
                                                        Ill-Appendix  A-ll
-------
                                      (a)
                                                       ESTIMATED
                                                       SHEATH
                                                       BLOCKAGE
                       PhcWl

                       [DUCT AREAJ
x  tOO
                          Figure  2-10.  Projected-area  m.odets for typical pilot tube assemblies.
  4.1.6 Field Oae and Recallbratlon.
  4.1.«.l  Field UK.
  4.1.8.1.1  Wb«n a Type B pilot tub* (l»l»ted tube or
assembly) li used In the field, the appropriate coefficient
Talue (whether aasigned or obtained by calibration) shall
be uaed to perform velocity calculations. For calibrated
Type a pilot tubes, the A side coefficient shall be used
when the A side ol the tube bees 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 ol which side
taces the flow.
  4.1.6.1.2 When a probe assembly Is used to  sample a
small duct (12 to 36 In. In diameter), the probe sheath
sometimes blocks a significant part of the duct crow-
lection, causing a reduction In the effective value ol
7,i.i.  Consult Citation 9 In Section ( lor details. Con-
ventional  pilot-sampling probe  assemblies  are  not
recommended for use In ducts having Inside diameters
smaller than 12 Inches (Citation 16 in Section 8).
  4.1.6.]  Heeallbratlon.
  4.1.6.1.1 Isolated Pilot Tubes. After each field use, the
ultot tubs shall be carefully Teeiamlned In top. side, and
end views. If the pilot face openings are still aligned
within the specifications Illustrated In Figure 2-2 or 2-3,
It can be assumed that the baseline coefficient of the pltot
tube has not changed.  If, however, the tube has been
damaged to the 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 of the face openings
or the tube shall be discarded.
  4.1.6.2.2  Pltot Tube  Assemblies. After each field n»,
check the face opening alignment of the pltot tube, as
In Section 4.1.6.2.1; also, rorneasure the Intorcomponent
•pacings of the assembly. If the Intel-component spacing!
have not changed and the face opening alignment  la
acceptable, It can be assumed that the ooofndpnt of the
assembly has not changed. If the face opening alignment
li no longer within the specifications of Figures 2-2 or
2-3, either repair the damage or replace the  pltot tube
(calibrating the new assembly. If necessary). If the Inter-
component spacing! have changed,  restore the original
(pacings or recalibrate the assembly.
  4.2  Standard pltot tube (If applicable). If a standard
pltot tube Is uses for the velocity traverse, the tub* shall
be constructed according to the criteria of Section 2.7 and
shall be assigned a baseline coefficient value of 0.99.  If
the lUndarf pltot tub* Is used as part o! an assembly.
       the tube ahall be In an Intorferenoe-free arrangement
       (subject to the approval o! the Administrator).
         4J  Temperature Gauges. Aft«r each field use, cali-
       brate dial thermometers, liquid-filled  bulb thermom-
       eters, thermocouple-potentiometer systems, and other
       gauges at a temperature within 10 percent of the average
       absolute  stack temperature. For temperatures up to
       406° c (761° F), use an A8TM mercury-In-glass reference
       thermometer, or equivalent, as a reference: alternatively,
       either a  reference thermocouple and  potentiometer
       (calibrated by NB8) or thermometrlo fixed points, e.g.,
       loe bath  ana boiling water (corrected for barometric
       pressure)  may be used. For temperatures above 405" 0
       (761° F), use an NBS-callbrated reference thermocouple-
       potOTtiometer system or an alternate reference, subject
       to the approval of the Administrator.
       gauge                r	.	
       taken In the field shall be considered valid. Otherwise.
       the pollutant emission test shall either be considered
       invalid or adjustments (If appropriate) of the test resulti
       shall be made, subject to the approval of the Administra-
       tor.
         4.4  Barometer. Calibrate the barometer used against
       a mercury barometer.
                                                         Ill-Appendix  A-12
-------
6.  Cbfcutaloiu
  Carry out calculations, retaining  at least one ertra
decimal figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round
off figures after final calculation.
  (.1  Nomenclature
   X-Cro»-»ectlonal area of stack, m1 (ft*).
  B..-Water vapor In the gas stream (from Method 5 or
       Reference  Method 4),  proportion by  volume.
   C,-Pltot tube coefficient, dimenalonless.
   ff,-Pltot tube constant,

    „. Q_ _ra_  r(g/g-mo1e)(mmHg)1"»

           BeoL   (°K)(mmH,0)  J

lor the metric system and

    R.    ft r(lb/lb-mole)(to.Hg)-|'/'

    86'*9 wo L   (°R)(in.H,OjJ


tor tie English system.
    ^-Molecular weight of stack  gas, dry basis (see
       Section 3.6) g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
    if.-Molecular weight ol stack  gas, wet basis, g/g-
       mole (Ib/lb-mole).

       -AMl-B-)+18.0.B«          Equation 2-i
   Pt.t-Barometric pressure at measurement  site, mm
       Hg(in. Hg).
    P,-Btack static pressure, mm Hg (In. Hg).
    P»M Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg  (la. Hg).

    .   ~Piu+Pi                      Equation 3-t
   P,id-8tandard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.W
       In. Hg).
    Q.a-Dry volumetric stack gas flow rate corrected to
       standard conditions, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
      (.-Stack temperature, 'C (°F).
    T.-Absolute stack temperature, °K (°R).
     -273-K'or metric

     -4W-H. for English
                                      Equation 2-7

                                      Equation 2-8
 T,,j-Standard absolute lemperewre, 293 °K (528° R)
   r.-Ave,rae« stack gas velocity, m/sec (ft/soc).
  dp-Velocity head of stack gas, mm HiO  (In. H(0).
 3.800- Conversion factor, sec/fir.
 18.0-Molecular weight  of  water, g/g-mole  (Ib-lb-
     mole).
8.3  Average staok gas velocity.

       »,= /r,c,(VAp.r.-y/J^

                                Equation 2-9

(.8  Average stack gas dry volumetric flow rate.
                               Equation 2-10
  1. Mark, L. 8. Mechanical Engineers' Handbook. New
York McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. 1941.
  2. Perry, J.  E.  Chemloal  Eiurloeen' Handbook. N«w
York. WcOrtjr-HUJ Book Co., Inc. 1«00.
  3. Slnii.-linrn. R. T  W.  f. Todil. mid W. 9. Smith.
8inuilup:\ui;« o( Krcors in Sttu-k Situipllug Mt'tisurementa.
 L'.S.  Knvlronnifiitrtl   ProKX'iion  AKi'iicy,   Research
Tiiunulf l';irk, N.C. (I'rf.vntfilat the Atminil Moellniof
ilio Air  I'ollmiun Conlrol  Association, SI. Louis, Mo.,
Jim? U-1'A. I'.ITO.)
  4 SiiUiihinl  Mnhoil for Snmpllni! Siivcks for Piwllculnle
\fiilliT.  In: UI71  Hook  nl  A8TM Sl:iiul;inls  1'ilrt 23.
I'liiliuli-lpliiii,  Pa. I-J71.  ASTM  Di-signiiiioii 1)--»W8-71.
  :>. Vriinavit.  J. K. Eleimentnry  Fluid Mrolimica. New
Vnrk. -lnliii Wili>y und Sons, Inc. l'.H7.
  li.  l-hiul Minors—Thrir  Throry mid  Applioution.
Anniiii':ui  tioi-icty of .MccluinlCiil  En^iiiiHT.-f, \o\v York,
N.Y. l-vvi.
  :. ASM It..IE irniullmok ol yiiiiilniiu-iiiaU. lnTJ. p. JOS.
  8. Annual liouk of ASTM Sliiiiilanl.«. I'.iM .'». I'J74. p.
tflH.
  !i. VolV.iro,  R. F. liuiili'liuci tar TS |w S ^itot Tulx)
Calibriuiiin.   U.3. Envlroniririitiil  Proi«'flii>u AKicin  Meiisuremcnt  Branch, Reworch Tiianglo Park.
N.('. November  1U76.
  13. Vollftro,  R. F. An Evaluation, of Single-Velocity
riillbrttaoiiT«chnlr\«c   asaMoatuof Uet«rmlnlniTyp<
8 I'ltol Tube  CocJIIclculs.  U.S. Kiivlroiunenial Protec-
lion Agency, Emission Mposuienn'iit  lirmich,  Research
Triangle Park N.C. August l'J75.87
  14. Vollaro,  R.  F. The Use of Type 8 I'Hot Tubes for
the Measurement of Low Velocities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,  Emission  MiMdurt'iiipnt Branch,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Novtmtet 1976.
  15. Smith,  Marvin L. Velocity Calibration of  EPA
Type Source  SumpHng Prorw. United  Technologies
CorporDtlon,  Pratt  and Whitney Aircraft  Division,
I'.Mt Hartford  Conn. 1075.
  16. Vollaro, R. F. Recommended Procedure (or Sample
Traverses  In Ducts Smaller than 12 Inches In Diameter.
U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Emission
Measurement  Branch,  Research Triangle Pork, N.C.
November l'J76.
  17. Ower, E. and R. C. Panklmrst. Tlic ^^a8uremeot
ol Air Flow, 4th Ed., London, Pergimioii Press. 1W6.
  IS. V'olluro, R. F. ASnrvey ot Coninii-njliiHy Available
Instrumentation  For the Measurement of  Low-Range
tiiu Vrtocitirs. U.S. EnvlroraiiHHol ProtfCllon Agency,
Emission  Meusurement Bnuiuh,  Ri'Si'arch  Triangle
Tnrk, N.C. November 1076. (Unpublished Paper) 87
  19. Onyp, A. W., C. C. St. Pierre, D. 8. Smith,  D.
Motion, and J. Stclner.  An  Eicperlmental Investigation
                                                                                                      of the Effect of Pilot Tube-Sampllng Probe Configura-
                                                                                                      tions on the Magnitude of the 8 Type 1'ltot Tube Co-
                                                                                                      efficient for Cainnierrhilly Available Source Sampling
                                                                                                      ProbM. Pr'pnred by the Univernity of Windsor for the
                                                                                                      Ministry o( the Environmont. Toronto, Canada,  Feb-
                                                                                                      ruary 1U75.
                                                        Ill-Appendix  A-13
-------
  METHOD  3— OA«  AKALTSW ron OARBOX PIOXIDB,
    OXTOEN, KXCKWAia, AND 1>RY Mol.KCUt.AR WKIOBT

  I. Prlnciplt and Applicability

    1.1  Principle. A gas maniple la i>xlrac(oU from a stock,
  l>y vile of the following  methods: (1) single-point, grab
  SAmpllngj  (2) single-point,  Integrated sampling; or (3)
  multl-imlnt,  iiiti-gratrd  sampling. The  goa  sample ii
  analyzed for percent carrion dioxide (CO(), percent oxy-
  RCII (Oi), and, if nori'.ssury,  ix-rccnt carbon monoxide
  tCU). If a dry molecular wvluht determination Is to be
  made, either an Orsat or a Fyrtte ' analyzer nmy be used
  for the analysis; for excess air or emission rate corvecllon
  factor determination, an Orsat analyzer must be used.
    1.2  Applicability. This method Is applicable for de-
  termining  CO] and <>>  concentrations, excess air, and
  dry molecular weight of a sample from a gas stream of a
  fossil-fuel combustion process. The method may also be
  applicable toother processes where It has been determined
  that compounds other than COi, Ot, CO, and nitrogen
  (Ni) are  not present' la concentrations sufficient to
  allect the results.
    Other methods, as well a« modifications to the proce-
  dure described herein, are also applicable for some or all
  of the above determinations. Exuiuplus <>! siwclflc meth-
  ods and modifications Include: (1) a  multi-point samp-
  ling method  using  an Orsat  analyzer to analyze Indi-
  vidual grab satnpKis obtained at each point; (2) a method
  using CO) or Oi and stolchlomctrlc calculations to deter-
  mine dry molecular weight and excess air; (3) assigning a
  value of 30.0  for dry molecular weight, In lieu of actual
  measurements, for processes burning nature! gas, coal, or
  nil. These methods and mollifications may be used, but
  aro subject to the approval nt thfl Administrator. t'.S.
  Km-lrnnmi'ninl ProWm" AiloiiryB/
 '-'. Apporotui

   As an alternative to the sampling np;mvulns and sys-
 tems described herein,  other  sampling systems (e.g.,
 liquid displacement) may be used  provided such systems
 are capable of obtaining a representative sample and
 maintaining a constant sampling rule, und ore otherwise
 capable  of  yielding  acceptable  results.  Use of such
 systems Is subject to  the approvnl of the Administrator.
  2.1  Grab Sampling (Figure 3-1).
  2.1.1  Probe. The probe should be  made of stainless
 HUsel or borosillcote glass tubing ar.d should be equipped
 with an In-stack or out-stock (liter to remove paniculate
 matter  (a plug  of glass wool Is satisfactory for this pur-
 pose). Any other material Inert to Ot,  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 Tellon.
  2.1.2 Pump, A one-way squeeze  bulb, or equivalent,
 Is used  to  transport the gas  sample to trie  analyzer.
  2.2  Integrated Sampling (Figure 3-2).
  2.2.1  Probe. A probe such us that drier!bed In Section
2.1.1 Is suitable.

   < Mention of trade name* or specific products does not
 constitute endorsement by the Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency.
   1.2.2  Condenser. An air-cooled or water-cooled con-
 denser,  or other condenser that will  not remove Ot
 COi, CO, and NI, may be used to remove excess molitore
 which wonld Interfere with the operation of the pump
 and flow meter.
   2.2.8  Valve. A needle valve Is nsed to adjust sample
 gas flow rate.
   2.2.4  Pump A leak-free, diaphragm-type pump, or
 equivalent, It used to transport sampW gas to the flexible
 bag.  Install a small surge tank between the pump and
 rote meter to eliminate the pulsatloi effect of the. dia-
 phragm pump on the rotametcr.
   2 2.6  Rate Meter. The  rotameter, or equivalent rat*
 meter, used  should  be capable of measuring  flow rate
 to within ±2 percent of the selected flow rate. A flow
 rate range of MO to 1000 cm'/mln is sugRested.
   2.2.6   Flexible Ba«. Any leak-free plastic (e.g., Tedlar,
 Mylar, Teflon) or plastic-coated aluminum (e.g., alumi-
 nlzed  Mylar) bait,  or  equivalent,  having a  capacity
 consistent with the selected flow rale and time length
 of the test run, may be used. A capacity in the range of
 M to «0 liters is suggested.
  To leak-check the bag, connect It to a water manometer
 and pressurize the bag to 5 to 10 cm HiO  (2 to 4 in. BiO).
 Allow to aland for 10 minutes. Any displacement in the
 •water manometer indicates a leak. An alternative leak-
 check method Is to prassurire the bag to 6 to 10 cm HiO
 (2 to 4 ID. BtO) and allow to stand overnight. A deflated
 be* Indicates a leak.
  2.2.7  Pressure Gauge. A water-filled TJ-tube manom-
 eter, or equivalent, of about 28  cm (12  In.) Is  used lor
 the flexible bag leak-check.
  2.2.8 Vacuum  Gauge.  A mercury  manometer  or
 equivalent, of at least 760 mm Eg (30 in. Hg) Is used for
 tbe sampling train leak-check.
 . 2.3  Analysis. For Orsat and Fyrlte  analyzer main-
 tenance and operation procedures, follow  the Instructions
 recommended by the manufacturer, unless otherwise
 specified  herein.
  2.3.1  Dry Molecular Weight Determination. An Great
analyzer or Fyrlte type combustion gas analyzer may be
used,
  2.8.2  Emission Rate Correction Factor or Excess Air
Determination. An Orsat analyzer must be used. For
 low COi  (leas than 4.0 percent) or high Oi (greater than
15.0 percent)  concentrations, the measuring burette of
tbe Oraat must have at least 0.1 percent  subdivisions.

 S. D>t Vofwu/or WtlgU Detcrmlntttm

  Any of the three sampling and analytical procedures
 deKribed below may be used for determining the dry
 molecular weight.
  8.1  Single-Point,   Grab  Sampling and Analytical
 Procedure,
  81.1  Tbe sampling point In the duct shall either be
 at the centred of the cross section or at a point no cloeer
 to tbe walls than 1.00m (3.3ft), unless otherwise specified
bj tot Administmot.
  8.1.2  Set up tbe equipment as ahown In Figure 3-1,
making sure all connections ahead of tbe analyzer are
tight and leak-free. If an Orsat analyzer is used, It 1«
recommended  that tbe analyzer be leaked-checked by
following the procedure In Section 6; however, the leak-
check Is optional.
  8.1.3  Place the probe In the stack, with tbe tip of the
probe positioned at tbe sampling point; purge tbe sampl-
ing line. Draw a sample into the analyzer and Imme-
diately analyze It for percent COi and percent Oi. Deter-
mine  tbe percentage of the gas that is Nt and CO by
subtracting the sum of the percent COi and percent Oi
from 100 percent. Calculate the dry molecular weight as
indicated ID Section 6.3.
  3.1.4  Repeat the sampling, analysis, and calculation
procedures, until the dry molecular weights of any three
crab samples differ from their mean by no more than
0.3 g/g-mole (0.3 lb/lb-mole). Average these three molec-
ular weights,  and  report  tbe results to tbe nearest
9.1 t/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole).
  3.2  Single-Point, Integrated Sampling and Analytical
Procedure.
  3.2.1   The aamplfog point in the duct shall be located
as specified in Section 3.1.1.
  8.2.2  Leak-check  (optional)  the  flexible bag  as In
Section 2.2.8. Set up the equipment as shown In Figure
3-2. Just prior U) sampling, leak-check (optional) tbe
train by placing a vacuum gauge at the condenser inlet,
pulling a vacuum of at  least 290 mm Hg (10 in. Hg),
plugging the outlet at the  quick disconnect, and then
turning off the  pump. The vacuum should remain stable
for at least O.S minute. Evacuate the flexible bag. Connect
the probe and  place It in the stark, with the tip of tho
probe positioned at tlic sampling point; purge the sampl-
ing line. Next, connect the bag and make sure that all
connections are light and leak free.
  3.2.3  Sample at a constant rate. The sampling run
should be simultaneous with, and  for the same total
length of time as, the pollutant emission rate determina-
tion. Collection of at least 30 liters (1.00 ft>) of sample gas
is  recommended;  however, smaller  volumes may be
collected If desired.
  324  Obtain one Integrated flue gas .sample  during
each pollutant emission rale determination. Within 8
hours after tbe sample Is taken, analyze it for percent
COi and percent Oj using either an Orsat analyzer or a
Fytit*-type combustion gas analyzer. If an Orsat ana-
lyzer is  used, It Is recommended that tbe Orsat Irak-
i-heck described In Section 4 be performed before this
determination; however, the check to optional.  Deter-
mine the percentage of the (te that U N, and CO by sub-
tracting tbe  nun of the oercent COi and percent Oi
from 100 percent. CalcnlaU the dry molecular weight ai
Indicated in Section *.S.  87

                                           PROBE
                              FILTER (GLASS WOOL)
                                                                                  FLEXIBLE TUBING
                                                                                                                        TO ANALYZER
                                                               SQUEEZE BULB
                                                          Figure 3-1.  Grab-sampling train.
                                                            III-Appendix  A-14
-------
                                              RATE METER
          AIR-COOLED
          CONDENSER
.PROBE
        FILTER
     (GLASS WOOL)
                                              QUICK DISCONNECT

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




TRAVERSE
PT.




AVERAGE
Q
1pm





% DEV."





%DEV
                          Q • Q avg
                                          (MUSTBE<10%)
                     Figure 3-3- Sampling rate data.
                             Ill-Appendix A-15
-------
  »JJ  Repeat tie analysis and escalation procedures
until the Individual dry molecular weights (or any three
analyses differ from tbsir mean  by no more than  OS
g/g-mole (0.3 lb/lb-tno)c). Average these three molecnlar
weights, and report the results to the nearest 0.1 g/g-mol«
(O.llb/lb-niole).
  8.3  Multi-Point, Integrated Sampling and Analytical
Procedure.
  8.8.1  Unless otherwise specified by  the  Adminis-
trator, a minimum of eight traverse points shall be used
for circular stackb having diameters less then  0.61 m
(24 ia.), a minimum of nine shell be used for rectangular
stacks having equivalent diameters  leu than  0.61 m
(24 la.), and a minimum of twelve traverse points shall
b« used tor all other cases. The traverse points shall be
located  according to Method 1. The use of (ewer points
Is subject to approval of the Administrator.
  3.3.2  Follow the procedures outlined In Sections 3.2.2
through 3.2.6, eicept tor the following: traverse all sam-
pling points and sample at each point for an equal length
ol time. Record sampling  data as  shown In Figure 3-3.


a. Emltilo* Rate Cdntdltn Factor  a  EJMI  Ait Deter-
   mination

  Non.—A Fyrlte-type combustion gas analyzer is not
acceptable for excess air or emission rate correction factor
determination, unless approved  by the Administrator.
If both percent  COi and percent O> are measured, tb«
analytical results of any  of the three procedures given
below may also be used lor calculating the dry molecular
weight.
   Each of the three procedures below shall be used only
when specified In an applicable subp&rt ol the standards.
the use of these procedures for other purposes must have
(pacific prior approval ol  the Administrator.
   4.1  Smgle-Poiut,  Grab Sampling and  Analytical
Procedure.
   4.1.1  The sampling point In the duct shall either be
at the centrold ol the cross-section or at a point no closer
to the walls than 1.00 m (8.8 li), unless olherv. ist specified
by the Administrator.
   4.1.2  Set up the equipment as shown In Figure 3-1,
mating suto all connections ahead of the analyzer are
tight and  leak-tree. Leak-chcok  the  Orsat analyzer ac-
cording to the procedure described in Section  i.  This
leak-check It mandatory.
   4.1 .a  Place th< probe ID the slack, with the tip of toe
probe positioned at the sampling point;  purge toe sam-
pling line. Draw a sampl* Into the analyser. For emission
rate correction factor deUnninatlon. Immediately ana-
lyst the sample, as outlined in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.6,
for percent COi or percent Ot. If eioess air Is desired,
proceed as follows: (1) Immediately analyt*. the sample,
u In Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.2, for percent COi. Oi, and
 CO;  (2) determine tie peroentagd at the gas that Is Ni
by subtracting the sum of the percent COi, percent Oi,
and percent CO from 100 percent; and (3) calculate
percent excess air as outlined In Section 6.2.
   4.1.4  To ensure complete absorption of the COt, Ot,
er if applicable,  CO, make repeated passes through each
absorbing  solution until two consecutive readings are
the same. Several passes  (three or four) should be made
between  readings. (It  constant  readings  cannot  be
obtained  after three consecutive readings,  replace the
absorbing solution.)
   4.1.9  Xfur  the analysis Is   completed,  teak-chWk
(mandatory) the Orsat analyser ouce again, as described
in Section 5. For the remits of the analysis to be valid,
the Orsat analyzer must  pass this leak test before ana
after  the analysis. NOTE.—Blnce 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, Rival care must bo
taken to obtain a valid sample and analysis. Although
In most cases only CO: or Ot It required, It Is  recom-
mended that both COi and Ot be measured, and that
Citation ft In the Bibliography be  used to validate the
analytical data.
   4.2  Single-Point, Integrated Sampling and Analylleiil
Procedure.
   4.2.1  The sampling point in the duel ahull be loniled
as spcclfM In Section 4.1.1.
  4.J.2  I/onk-clirck  (mandatory) the fleilblc bae as in
Section 2 2.6 Set up the equipment as shown in Figure
3-2. Jusl prior u> sampling, leak-check (nmnumory) the
train by placing a vacuum gauge at the condenser Inlet,
pulling a vacuum of at least 250 mm U|  (10 In. Hg),
plugging the outlet  at  the quick disconnect, and Own
turning 08 the pump. The vacuum shall remain stable
lor at least 0.5 minute.  £vaouat» the Beilble bag. Oon-
neot the probe and place It In the stack. with the tip of the
probe positioned at the  sampling point;  purg' the sam-
pling fine. Next, connect  the bag  and make sure that
all connections are tight and leak free.
  4.2.3 Sample at a constant rate, or u specified by the
Administrator. The sampling run must be simultaneous
with, and for the same total length of time as, the pollut-
ant emission rate detarmlnauo-n.  Collect at least 3D
liters (1.00 fi') of sample gas. Smaller volumes  may be
collected, subject to approval of the Administrator.
  424  Obtain  one  Integralod flue gen sample daring
each pollutant emission rate determination. For emission
rate correction factor determinntlon, analytc the t&mpb
within 4 hours after It IB taken fur percent COior percent
Oi (as outlined In Sections 4.2.5 through 4.2.7).  The
Orsat analyter  must be  leak-chocked  (sre Section 5)
before tho analysis.  If oiccss air Is dwlred. proceed as
follows- (l)  within 4 hours after the sample. Is taken,
anulytt it (as In BocUoiu 4.2.6 through 4.2.7) for percent
CQiiOt, and CO: (2) determine the perceniap' of the
pas that (sNibysubtrsctlni! the sum of the pou-cm COi.
umonl Oi,  and peicent CO from 100 INTCFIII; (3) cal-
culate percent excess air, as out lined in Sect mil 6.2.
  4.2.6  To ensure complete absorption  of tho ('<)>, Ot,
or If applicable, CO, make repealed passes through each
absorbing solution until two consecutive reading: are I lie
same. Several passes (three or  four) should he umdr be-
tween readings. (If constant readings cannot be obtained
after three  consecutive reading;, replace the abfoiulng

  4.2.»  Repeal the analysis until  Die follo-»i»R criteria

  42(1  For percent COi, repoat the  analylieal pro-
cedure until toe rc&ults of any three uisjytus dtfitr by no
more than (a) 0.3 percent by volume when COi Is greater
than 4.0 percent or (b) 0.2 percent by volume when C Oi
Is less than or equal to 4.0 |*n-ent. Average the three ac-
ceptable values of percent COi and report the results to
the nearest 0.1 peroent.
  4242  For percent Oi. repeat the analytical procedure
tmtll the result! ot any  three analyses dln>r by no more
than (a) 0.8 percent by  volume when Oi It leas than 1S.O
peroent or (b) O.S percent by volume when O> Is greater
than or eaual loli.O percent. Average the three accept -
able valuM of Percent 0.  and report the results to
the nearest 0.1 percent. 87
  4.2.6.3 For percent CO, repeat  the analytical proce-
dure until  the results of any three analyses dlfler by no
more than  0.3  percent. Average  trie three acceptable
values of percent CO and report the results to the nearest
0.1 percent.
  4.2.7  After  the analysis  Is  completed,  leak-check
(mandatory) the Orsat analyzer once again, as described
In Seel Ion S. For the results of the, analysis to be valid, the
Orsat analyzer must pus this leak test  before and after
the analysis. Note: Although In most instances only C0»
or Oi is required, It Is recommended that both COi and
Ot be measured, and that Citation 5 In the Bibliography
be used to validate the analytical data.
  4.3  Multi-Point, Integrated Sampling and Analytical
Procedure.
  4.8.1  Both the minimum number of  sampling points
and the sampling point location shall be u specified In
Section 3.8.1 ot this method. The use of fewer points than
specified feMbject to the approval of the Administrator.
  4.5.2  Follow the procedures outlined  In Sections 4.2.2
through  4.2.7, except  for the following:  Traverse all
sampling points and sample at each point for an equal
length of time. Bocord sampling data as shown In Figure
8-3.
6. Ltak-Cti>ct Proudurt far Or«ol Xnolymi

  Moving an Orsat analyzer frequently causes It to leak,
Therefore, an Orsat enalyier should be thoroughly leak-
checked on site before the Hue gas nample Is Introduced
Into It. The procedure for leak-checking an Orsat analyter
Is:
  5.1.1  Bring the liquid level In each pipette up to the
reference mark on the capillary tubing and then close the
pipette stopcock.
  6.1.2  Raise the leveling bulb  sufficiently to bring the
confining liquid meniscus onto the graduated portion of
the burette and then close the manifold stopcock.
  8.1.3  Record the meniscus position.
  8.1.4  Observe the meniscus in the burette and the
liquid level la the pipette (or movement over the nest 4
minutes.
  8.1.8  For the Orsat analyter to  pass the leak-check,
two condl lions must be met.
  8.1.6.1  The liquid level In each pipette most  not fall
below the bottom of the oaplllary tubing  during this
4-mlnutelnterval.
  6.1.5.2 The meniscus In the burette must not change
by more than 0.2ml during this 4-mlnutelnterval.
  6.1.4  If the analyter falls the leak-check procedure, all
rubber  connections and  itopcocks should  be checked
until the cause of the leak Is Identified. Leaking stopcocks
must be disassembled, cleaned, and regressed. Leaking
rubber connections must be replaced. After the analytei'
Is  reassembled, the leak-check  procedure must  b«
repeated.

«. Cabuteffoni

  6.1 Nomenclature.
     Af<—Dry molecular weight, g/g-moJe (Ib/lb-mole).
   %E A-Percent excess air.
  %COi-Peroent COt by volume (dry basis).
    %pi-Percent Otby volume (dry basis).
   %CO-Percent CO by volume (dry basis).
    %Ni-Percent NI by volume (dry basis).
    0.2*4 - Ratio of Oi to Ni In air, v/v.
    0.280-Motecular weight of NI or CO, divided by 100.
    0.320-Mol«cular weight of Oi divided  by 100.
    0.440-Molecular weight of COi divided by 100.
  (.2 Percent Eicess Air. Calculate  the  percent eicess
air  (if  applicable),  by substituting   the  appropriate
values of percent Ot, CO, and N,(obtained from Section
4.1.8 or  4.2.4) Into Equation 8-1.

                    %0,-0.5%CO	

            0.264 %N,- ( %0,-O.S  7cCO)

                                    Equation 3-1

  NOTE.—The equation  above assumes that ambient
air Is used as the source of Oi and that the fuel does not
contain appreciable amounts of Ni (as do coke oven or
blast furnace gases). For those  cases when appreciable
amounts of Nt are present (coal,  oil,  and  natural gas
do not  contain  appreciable amounts of NO or  when
oxygen  enrichment Is used, alternate  methods,  subject
to approval of the Administrator, are required.
  4.S Dry  Molecular  Weight.  Use  Equation  3-2 to
calculate the dry  molecular weight of  the stack gas

   Af<-0.440(%CO,)-|-0.320C%0!)+0.280(%Ni+%CO)

                                    Equation 3-2

   NOTE.—The above equation  does not tonslder  argon
 In air  (about 0.9 percent,  molecular  weight of  87.7),
 A  negative error  ot about 0.4 percent  Is  Introduced.
 The tester may opt to Include argon In the analysis  using
procedures  subject to approval of the Administrator.

7. BtbHwrapby

   1. Altshuller,  A. P. Storage of Oases and Vapors In
 Plastic Bogs. International Journal  of Air and Water
 Pollution.7:78-81.  1963.
   2. Conner, William D. and J.  8. Nader. Air Sampling
with Plaslii; BUIJ.  Journ.il rvf the  Arnyican industrial
 llyricne Allocution. M:»)-2o,7. li*». 87
   S Burrell Manual for  Oas Analysts, Seventh edition.
 Burrell Corporation, 2223  Fifth Avenue,  Pittsburgh,
 Pa. 18219.1051.
   4. Mitchell, W. J. and M. R. Mldsett. Field Reliability
 of the Orsat Analyzer. Journal of Air Pollution Control
 Association »;491-4W. May 1970.
   8. Shlgehara, R. T., R. M. Neulicht, and W. S. Smith.
 Validating Orsat Analysis Data from  Fossil Fuel-Fired
 Units.  Stack Sampling News. 4(2)21-26. August, 1976.
1100

  87
                                                            Ill-Appendix   A-16
-------
          4—DETEBMWATION  OT MOISTURE COXTINT
                  IN STICK OASIS

 1. Principle and AppllcrtUUi/

   1.1  Principle. A gas sample is extracted at a consUmt
 rate from the source; moisture  Is removed (torn the sam-
 ple  stream and  determined  either  volumetrlcally  or
 gravlmr-trlcally.
   1.2  Applicability.  This  method  Is  applicable lor
 determining the moisture content ol stack gas.
   Two procedures arc given.  The first  is a reference
 method. Tor accurate determinations of moisture content
 (such as  are ncodi'il to calculate emission data). The
 second is  an  appiovimation  luvthod,  which provides
 estimates of percent im.isture to aid in sotting isokmetic
 sampling rales prior to a pollutant  emission measure^
vment run. The approximation method described  bcrein
 Is ouly  a suggested approach' alternative means tor
 approximating the moisture content, e.g., drying  tubes,
 wet bulb.dry ou\b techniques, condensation technique*,
 stolchlometric  calculations, previous experience, etc.,
 are also acceptable.
   The reference method  is often conducted simultane-
 ously with a pollutant t-missiun measurement run; when
 it Is, calculation of |wrccnt Isoklnetlc, pollutant emission
 rate, etc., lor the run shall be based upon \ho resuUs oi
 the reference method or its equivalent; these calculations
 shall not bo based upon the results of the approximation
 method, unless the approximation method is shown, to
 the satisfaction of the Administrator, U.S. Environmen-
 tal Protection Agency, to be capable of yielding results
 within 1 percent H:C of the reference method.
   NOTE.—The reference method may yield questionable
 results when  applied lo saturated gas  streams or to
 streams that contain water droplets  Therefore, when
 these conditions exist or  are suspected, a second deter-
 mination of the moisture content shall be made  slmut-
                                                   taneously with the reference method, as follows: Assume
                                                   that the gas stream Is saturated  Attach a temperature
                                                   sensor (capable of measuring to  »1" C  (P F)| to the
                                                   reference method probe. Measure  ttie stack gas tempera-
                                                   ture at each traverse point (see Section 2.2.1) during the
                                                   reference method traverse: calculate tbe average stack
                                                   gas temperature. Next, determine the moisture pftroent-
                                                   afe. eitBer  by: (1)  using a  psychrometric chart and
                                                   making  appropriate  corrections  If stack  pressure  Is
                                                   different from that of the chart, or (2) using saturation
                                                   Taper pressure table?. In cases where the psychromeulc
                                                   chart  or the saturation vapor pressure  tables are not
                                                   applicable (based on evaluation of the process), alternate
                                                   methods, subject to the approval of the Administrator,
                                                   shall be used.

                                                   2. Kefatna Mtthod

                                                     The procedure described In Method 6 (or  dettrmlninf
                                                   moisture content is acceptable as a reference method.
                                                     2.1  Apparatus.  A schematic o( trie sampling  train
                                                   used in this reference method Is shown In Figure 4-1.
                                                   All components  shall be maintained and  calibrated
                                                   according to the procedure outlined In Method 5.


                                                    I.V.I  Ptob«. TUt  sMob«  \i  cuustcvKteil  o( «a.Uu>9«
                                                   iteel or  tiara  tubing,  suinciently  heated  to prevent
                                                   water condensation, and Is equipped with a niter, either
                                                   ln-«tack (e.g., a plug of glass  wool Inserted into the end
                                                   of y>« probe) or be&tcd out-stack (e.g., as described la
                                                   Method 6), to remove paniculate matter.
                                                    When stack conditious permit, other metals or plastic
                                                   tubing may bo used fo. tlie probe, subject to the approval
                                                   ol the Administrator.
                                                    2.1.2  Condenser.   The condenser  c-onslats of  four
                                                   IniDlngfrs connected in series with ground  glass leak-
                                                               tret fitting or any similarly leak-free non-contaminating
                                                               fittings. The first, tbird, and fourth implngers shall b*
                                                               «f the Orwnburg-Smlth design, modified by replacltif
                                                               tbe tin with a 1.3 centimeter  (H inch)  ID gifts* tub*
                                                               utendlng to about  1.3 cm  (H In.) from  tho bottom of
                                                               th§ flask. The second implngtr shall be of the Oreenbuif-
                                                               Smith design with the standard tip. Modifications (*.(.,
                                                               using fleslble connections between the Implngers, uslnf
                                                               materials other than glass, or using fletible vacuum Han
                                                               to  connect the filter holder to the coudciiser) may b«
                                                               u?«l. subject to the  approval of the Administrator.
                                                                 Tlif first t\»"o impinxcrs shall contain known volumes
                                                               of water, the third shall be  rinpty, and the fourth shall
                                                               contain a known weight of 3- to Ifr-mesh Indicating typ«
                                                               silica gel. or «
-------
  If means other than illict i«l are tued to determine the
•mount of moliior* leaving the condenser. It l» recom-
mended that illlct fel (or equivalent) mil be used be-
tween  the  eondecier system  »nd pump, to prevent
moisture condeoiatlon  In  the pump end metering
devices and to  avoid the need to  make corrections lor
moisture In the mttcred volume.
  2.1.>  Cooling System. An  lot  bath container  and
trained Ice (or equivalent) are uted to aid In condensing
moUture.
  2.1.4  Metering System. Thli system Includes a  vac-
num gauge, leak-tree pump,  thermometer! capable  of
measuring temperature to within 3* C (6.4° F), dry gas
meter capable of measuring volume to within J percent,
and  Kitted equipment at shown  In  Figure t-t. Other
metering systems, capable of maintaining a constant
sampling rate and determining sample gas volume,  may
be UMd, subject to the approval of the Administrator.
   2.1.1  Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other barom-
eter capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
Mmm Hg (0.1 In. Hg) may be ut«d. In many case», the
barometric  reading may be  obtained  from a nearby
national weather service  station, In which cue the sta-
tion valuo (which It the absolute barometric pressure)
  ' 'I be requested and  an  adjustment  for elevation
     ences between the weather station and the  sam-
  _._ point shall be appllwl at a rate of inlnu* i » mm Ilg
.J.I to, Hg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation Increase or vice
versa tor elevation decrease.
   2.1.1  Graduated  Cylinder  and/or  Balance. These
Items are used to measure condensed water and motMure
eaoght la tbe silica gel to within l ml or 0.5 g. Graduated
Sunders shall have subdivisions  no greater than 2 ml.
Host laboratory balances are capable  of weighing to the
oeareit 04  g or lets. These balances  are suitable for
use Sere.
   2.2  Procedure. The following procedure It written for
a condenser  system  (such  as  the lmpln|er system de-
scribed In S.'cllon 2.1.2) IiiC'jrporailiig rolum»lrlc analy-
sts to measure the condensed moisture, and silica jel and
gravimetric analysis to mcasuro tbe moisture leaving the
condenser.
  2.2.1  Unless oth erwlso specified by the Administrator,
a minimum of eight traverse points shall be  used for
circular stocks having diameters less than 0.61 m (24 In.),
a minimum of nine points shall be nscd for rectangular
stacks having equivalent diameters less than 0.61 m
(24 In.), and a minimum of  twelve traverne points shall
be used la all other cases. The (rater's points shall be
located  sccordlng to Method 1. The use ol fewer polnte
Is subject to the approval of the Administrator. Select a
suitable probe and probe length such that all traverse
poluts can be  sampled. Consider sampling from opposite
sides  of the stack (four total sampling ports)  for large
stacks, to permit use of shorter probe lengths. Mark the
probe with heat resistant tape or by some other method
to denote the proper dlstanre Into the stack or duct (or
each sampling point. Place  known volumes of water In
the first two linplngcu. Weigh and record (he weight of
the silica gel  to the nearest 0.3 g, and transfer the «IHca
gel to the fourth ImphiRvr; alternatively, the  .'Illcatel
may ilrst be transferred to tliclrnplnger.aud the wdgot
 ol the silica gel plus Impinger reoordcd.87
  2.2.2  Select a total sampling time «uch that a mini-
mum total gas volume of O.W s.'m (21 AI SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
AT DRY OAS METER
INLET
(TuilB^M















A*
A*.
omtT
(Tnoyt).'C('F)















A*

TEMFERATURI
OF OAS
LEAVINO
CONOINSEROR
LASTIMPINOCR,
•C I«F)















,

                                                   Figure 4-2,  Field moiiture determination-reference method.87
                                                           Ill-Appendix   A-18
-------
  HEATED PROBE
SILICA GEL TUBE
FILTER
{GLASS WOOL)


   ICE BATH
RATE METER

    VALVE
r
jj

r
                                                    SURGE
                                                    TANK
                                                \
                                         DRY GAS ]
                                        VJ4ETERJ
    MIDGET WRINGERS
             PUMP
         Figure 4-4. Moisture-sampling train - approximation method.
     LOCATION.
     TEST
                               COMMENTS
     DATE
    OPERATOR
     BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
CLOCK TIME





GAS VOLUME THROUGH
METER, (Vm),
m3 (ft3)





RATE METER SETTING
m3/min. (ft^/min.)





METER TEMPERATURE. .
°C (°F)


-


      Figure 4-5.  Field moisture determination - approximation method.
                         Ill-Appendix A-19
-------
  9.9  Calculations. Carry out the following calculations,
Mtalning at least one ertrt, decimal figure beyond that of
tot acquired data. Round off figures alter final calcula-
tion.

FINAL
INITIAL
DIFFERENCE
U»INOU '
VOLUME.
ml '



SIllCAoa
WEIGHT,
«



      Fiyuro 4 3. Analy'tol data • reference method.
  2. .1.1  Nomcnclalurr,
      ./?•*•*= Proportion of waler vupor, by  volume, In
           the gas stream.
      A/w» Molecular weight ol  water,  18.0 g/g-mole
      P.=Absolute  pressure (for this mrlhod,  same
           aa barometric pressure) at Hie dry gas meter,
           nun Hg (In. Kg).
     Substandard absolute  pressure,  TiiO  mm Hg
           (29.02 In. 1*8).
       fi = Ideal gas  constant, 0.0623$ (mm Hg)  (m')/
           (g-inole) (°K) for metric units and 21.85 (In.
           Hg) (ft')/(lb-raole) <°R) for English units.
      T.-Absolut* temperature at meter. 4K t°R>.
     7'.,j=Standard absolute  temperature, 293°  K
           (MS" R).
      V." Dry gas volume measuri'd by dry gas mcUr,
           dcm (dcf).
     AV.-Incremental dry  gas volume  measured  by
           dry gas ineler at each travvra point, dcm
           (dcf).
   V.i.io-Dry gat volume measured by the >lry gas
           meter,  corrected to  standard  conditions,
           dscm (dscf).
  V.tdnl-Volome ol water vapor condensed corrected
           to standard conditions, scm (set).
  V.,K,i<, -Volume of water vapor  collected In  silica
            ?el corrected to standard conditions, scm
            scQ.
       VO-Final volume of condenser water, ml.
       Ki-Inltlal volume, If any, of condenser water,
           ml.
       W,-Final weight of silica gel or silica gel plus
           Impinger, g.
       If,-Initial weight of silica gel or silica gel plus
           Impinger, g.
        K-Dry gas meter calibration fivtor.
       p.-Denslty.-Of  water, O.W82  g/ml  /g for metric units
     -0.04718 /t'/g for English units
  1.8.4  Sample gas volume.
                          V  /'
                            m
                          --_-
                            ' m
  A'i-0.38W°K/inin llf tnr nii'lrlr uniis
     - 17.64 °H 'In. llg for Kimllsli unlln
                                      Kqnatlon 4-2
                                              i 4-3
  NOTI— If the n-ist-tcst  lonk ™ti> (S,.fii,.n
 ivds the allowiibln  rate,  min-ft lli»' valr.i-
  iiiinHiiii 4-3. aa i.itnre i-onteiit of the
stack gas shall be made, one using a value based upon
the saturated conditions (tec Sei-tion 1.2). and another
based upon the results of the impinger analysis. The
low«r of these two values ol it,, shall be considered cor-
rect.
  230 Verllkatlon of •:onstant sampling rate. For each
time  iiii-rpinent,  determine the  il/..  Calculate  the
average. If the value for any time iin rement diifiTS from
the average by more than  in pi-nrnt, ri'Jivl the resnlM
and repeal the nui.

3. Approximation Mfthod

  The approsimatlon  mrlhod d.-s. rilji'd boluw Is [«<••
wilted only as a suggested nirlhod (sec Sa'tion  1.2).
  3.1  Apparatus.
  3.1.1 Probe. StalnJess steel or glass tubing, sufficiently
heated to prevent water condensation and equipped
with a (liter (citber In-slack or heated out-stack) to re-
move paniculate matter. A ping of glass wool, inserted
Into the end of Che probe, Is a satisfactory filter.
  3.1 2 Implngers. Two midget Implngers, each  with
30 ml capacity, or equivalent.
  3.1.3 Ire Bath. Container and iee, to aid In condens-
ing  moisture In implngers.
  3.1.4 Drying Tube.  Tub* packed  with new  or re-
geniriated a- to 16-mcsh Indicating-type silica gel (or
i"|im-ali'iit desiccont), to dry the sample gas and to pro-
tect the mpter ftnd pump.
  H.I..S \'alvc. Needle valve, lo rrgulate the sample gas
flow mii>.
  3.1.8 I'liinp. Leak-free, diaphragm type, or cquiva-
ii'iit, to null the gas sample through the train.
  3.1.7 \'olume meter. Ory gas meter, sufficiently ac-
curate to measure the  sample volume within 2%, and
calibrated over the range or flow rates and conditions
actually encountered during sampling.
  3.1.8 Hate  Meter.  Rotamelcr, to .rnoasurc  (lie flow
range horn 0 to 3 1 pm (0 to 0.1 1 elm). °'
  3.1.9 Graduated Cylinder. 25 ml.
  3.1.10  Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other barom-
eter, as described In Section 2.1.5 above.
  •1.1.11  Vacuum Gauge. At least 760 uim Hg CIO In.
Hg) gauge, u> be used for the sampling leak check.
  3.2  Procedure.
  3.2.1 Place exactly 5 nil distilled water In  each Lm-
pinger.  Leak check the sampling train as follows:
Temporarily  Insert  a vacuum gauge  at nr
near Ihe probe Inlet; then, plug the  yrcbc;
Inlet and  pull a vacuum of al least 250 mm
Hg  (10  in. HK>.  Note,  the  time rattf  of
change  ol  the  dry gas meter dial:  alternati-
vely, a rotametcr (0-10 cc/minl may be tem-
porarily  attached   to the  dry  gas   meter
outlet to determine the leakage rate. A leak
rate not In excess  of 2  percent of the aver-
age sampling rate  Is acceptable.
  NoTE.-Carefully  release  the  probe inlet
plUK before turning off the pump.1'7

  3.3.2 Connect tbe probe, insert It into the stack, and
(ample at a constant rate of 2 1pm (0.071 crm). Continue
sampling until  th«  dry gas  meter registers about 30
liters  {I. I fl>) or until visible, liquid droplet: are carried
over  from the first lmplng«r to tbe second.  Record
temperature,  pressure, and dry gas meter readings as
required by Figure 4-i.
  3.2.3 After collecting the sample,  combine  the eon-
leu ts of the two implngers and measure the volume to the
nearest 0.5 ml.
  3.3  Calculations. The calculation method presented Is
designed  to estimate the moisture In the stack gas;
therefore, other data, which are  only necessary for ac-
curate moisture determinations, are not collected. The
following equations adequately estimate iho moisture
content, for  the purpose of determining nokinclic sam-
pling rate settings.
  3.3.1 Nomenclature.
    fiv.-Approilmate  proportion,  by  volume, ol
         water  vapor In (he gas stream leaving the
         second Impinger, 0.025.
      B«,=> Water vapor in the gas si ream, proportion by
          volume.
      A/y-Molecular  weight  of  water,  18.0 g/g-mole
          (IS.Olb/lb-molei
      Pm =• Absolute pressure (for Ibis method, same u
          barometric pressure) at the dry gas meter.
     P.M-Standard  absolute  pressure,  760 mm  Hi
          (29.92 in. Hg).                          *
       K=Ideal gas  constant,  0.06238  (mm Hg) (ml/
          (g-mole)  (»K)  for metric units and  2185
          (fii^Hg)  (ft«)/lb-mole)  <°R)  for  English

      T.-Absolute temperature at meter, "K («R)
     ''•irf-Standard  absolute  temperature, 293°  K
          
-------
MITHOD5— DEIIIIIIINATIOK Or PARTICDLATK EMUllOSS
            FROM STATIO.VARV .SOURCES

1. Principti and Applicability

  1.1  Principle. Particular matter is withdrawn Iso-
klnetlcally from tbe source and collected on a glass
fiber filter maintained at a temperature In tbe range of
120±14" C (248±25°  F) or such  other temperature u
specified by an applicable subpart  o( the standards or
approved by the Administrator, U.S. Environment*!
Protection Agency,  (or a particular  application. Tbe
paniculate mass, which  Includes  any  material that
condenses  at or above the filtration temperature, 1*
determined gravlmetrically alter removal ol uncomblned
water.
  1.2  Applicability.  This method is applicable for the
determination of paniculate emissions from stationary
sources.
  2.1  Sampling  Train. A  schematic of the smmiKng
ualn used in this method Is shown lu Figure 5-1. Coin-
plot*  construction details  are  given  in  APTD-0581
(Citation 2 in Section 7);  commercial  models of this
train are also available. For changes from APTD-0581
and for allowable modifications of  tbe train shown In
Figure 5-1, see Ihe following subsections.
  The operating and  maintenance procedures for the
sampling train are described In APTD-0676 (Citation 3
to Section 7). Since correct usage Is important In obtain-
ing valid results, all users should read APTD-0576 and
adopt tiie operating and maintenance procedures out-
lined In it, unless otherwise specified herein. The sam-
pling train consists of the following components:
  S.L1 Probe NoitU. Stulnleas steel (316) or glass, with
gtarp, tapered leading edge. The  angle of taper shall
be <90° tad tbe taper shall be on the ouulde to preserve
a constant Internal diameter. Tbe probe nottle shall be
of tbe button-book or elbow design, unless otherwise
ipeclfied  by the Administrator. If made of stainless
steel, tbe noetic  shall be constructed from seamless tub-
Ing; other materials of construction mar be u»ed, subject
to tbe approval of the Administrator. 87
  A range ol not tie met suitable for Isoklnetlc sampling
•hould be available, e.g., 0.32 to 1.27 cm (>« to )! la.)—
or larger U higher volume sampling trains are used—
inalde dlamet«r (ID) notiles In Increments of 0.16 am
(M« in.). Each not tie shall be  calibrated  according to
the procedures outlined In Section 5.
  2.1.2 Probe Liner. Borosllicale or quart! glass tubing
with a heating system capable of maintaining a gas tem-
perature at tbe exit end during sampling of 120±14° C
(24£±25° F), or such other temperature as specified by
ao applicable subpart of the standards or  approved by
the Administrator for a  particular application. (Tbe
tetter may opt to operate tbe equipment at a temperature
lower  than that specified.) Since tbe actual temperature
at the  outlet of tbe probe Is not usually monitored during
sampling, probes constructed according to APTD-0681
and utlliimg the calibration curves of APTD-0576 (or
•alibralgd  according  to  the   procedure  outlined  In
APTD-0576) will be considered  acceptable.
  Eitber borosite.te or quarti glass probe Uners may be
Med for stack temperatures up to about 480° C ,800° F):
quant liners shall be used lor •.emporaturee between 480
and 900° C (900 and 1,050° Fj. Both types ol linen ma;
be used at higher temperatures  than specified for short
periods of time, sub)e«t to the approval ol the Adminis-
trator.  The softening temperature  for boroslllcate Is
*WC (1,508° F), and tor quant It iil,50(0C (2,732° F).
  Whenever practical, every effort should be made to use
borosihcate or quaru glass probe liners. Alternatively,
metal linen (e.g., 316 stainless steel, Incoloy 825 ' or other
corrosion resistant metals)  made of seamless tubing may
be used, subjec. to tbe approval of tbe Administrator.
  S 1.3 Hluit Tube. T/po S, as  described in Section 2.1
* Method 2, or other device approved by tbe Adminis-
trator  The pilot tube shall be attached to the protx (as
shown in Figure 5-4) to allow constant monitoring of tbe
•tack gai velocity To* He pact (high preourc) opening
plane of the pilot tube shall be even with or above the
not tie entry plane (see Method  2, Figure 2-6b) during
sampling. The Type S pilot tube assembly shall have a
known coefficient, determined as outlined m Section 4 of
Method 2.

  i Mention ol trade names or specific products does not
constitute endorsement by tbe Environmental Protec-
tion Agancy.
  1.1.4 Differential Pressure Gauge. Inclined manom-
 eter or equivalent doro (two), as  uecrlbed In Section
 1.2 of Method 2.-One manometer s'talj be u»d .or Telocity
 head (o.p) readings, and tbe other, for orifice differential
 prtfsurx readings.
  2.1.5 Filter Bolder. BorosiUcate glass, with a glass
 frit filter support and a slUcone rubber gasket. Other
 materials of construction  (e.g., stainless steel, Teflon,
 Vlton) may be  used, subject to  approval  of tbe Ad-
 ministrator. Tbe bolder design shall provide a positive
 seal against leakage from the outride or around tbe filter.
 The holder jhalf t>e attached Immediately at the outlet
 of tbe probe (or cyclone, If used).
  2.1.6 Filter Beating System. Any heating system
 capable of maintaining a temperature around tbe filter
 bolder during sampling o.  120±14° C (248*2.'.°  F), or
 such other temperature as specified  by an  applicable
 subpart of the standards or approved by the Adminis-
 trator for a  particular application.  Alternatively, tbe
 tester may opt to operate tbe equipment at a temperature
 lower than that specified. A temperature gauge capable
 oi measuring temperature to within .1° C (5.4° F) shall
 be Installed so that the temperature around tbe filter
 bolder can be regulated and monitored during sampling.
 Heating systems other than tbe one shown In APTD-
 0581 may be used.
  2,1.7  Condenser. The following system shall be used
 to determine the  stack  gas  moisture  content: Four
 irapinsers connected  In  series  with  leak-free ground
 glass fittings or any similar  leak-tree non-contaminating
 fittings. The first, third, and fourth tmplngere shall b«
 o! tbe Grrenburg-Smilh design, modified by replacing
 tbe Up with 1.3 cm (H In.) ID glass tube attending to
•bout  l..t cm (H in.) from the bottom ol the flask. Tbe
second Implnger shall  be ol tbe Green burg-Smith design
with tbe standard tip. Modifications (e.g.. using flexible
connections  between  the  Itnpmgrrs, using  materials
other than glass, or using flexible vacuum lines to connect
the filter holder to the oondonsw) may be used lublect
to tbe approval  al the Administrator.  Tbe first and
second  Implngers shall contain known quantities of
water  (Section 4.1.3). the third shall be empty, and, tbe
fourth shall  contain a known  weight of silica gel. or
equivalent desiccant. A thermometer, capable of measur-
                         TEMPERATURE SENSOR

                                                                                 IMPINGER TRAIN OPTIONAL,MAY BE REPLACED
                                                                                         BY AN EQUIVALENT CONDENSER
                                    - PROBE

                                      TEMPERATURE
         HEATED AREA     THERMOMETER
                                                           THERMOMETER
                  P.TOTTUBE-

                          PROBE     /        STACK
                 REVERSE-TYPE
                   PITOTTUBE
                      IMPINGERS                       ICE  BATH

                                    BY-PASS VALVE
                                    PITOT MANOMETER

                                                  ORIFICE
                                                                                  CHECK
                                                                                  VALVE
                                                                                                                                     VACUUM
                                                                                                                                       LINE
                                                                                                               VACUUM
                                                                                                                GAUGE
                                 THERMOMETERS
                                                                                                    MAIN VALVE
                                                                                  AIR-T.IG.HT
                                                                                     PUMP
   DRY GAS METER



   Fjgure 5 1.  Particulate-sampling train.
                                                       Ill-Appendix  A-21
-------
Ing temperature to within 1" C (2* F) shall be placed
>t tbe outlet of the  fourth  taping* lot  moo/toting

  Alternatively,  any system that  cools the  sample gas
stream and allows measurement of the water condensed
and  moisture leaving the condenser, each  to  within
1 ml or 1 g may  be used, subject to the approval of the
Administrator.  Acceptable  means are to measure the
condensed water either gravlmetrloaUy or voluraetrteally
and to measure the moisture leaving the condenser by:
(1) monitoring the temperature  and pressure  at the
eilt of the condenser and using Gallon s law of partial
pressures; or (2)  passing the sample gas stream through
a  tared silica gel (or  equivalent  dcslccanl)  trap  with
exit gases kept below 20° C  (68°  F) and  determining
tile weight gain.
  If means other than silica gel are used to determine
the amount of moisture leaving  the condenser.  It Is
recommended that silica gel  (or  equivalent)  still  be
used between the condenser system and pump to prevent
moisture condensation In the pump and metering devices
and to avoid the need to make corrections for moisture la
the mctercd volume.
  NOTE.—If a determination of the paniculate  matter
collected In the implngcrs Is desired In addition U> mois-
ture content,  the Impinger system  described above shall
be used, without modification.  Individual Stales or
control  agencies  requiring  this  Information  shall  be
contacted as to the sample recovery and analysis of the
Implnger contents.
  2.1.8  Metering System.  Vacuum  gauge,  leak-free
pump, thermometers capable of measuring temperature
towlthin3°C (5.4° F),dry ROS molcjcapable ol measuring
volume to within 2 percent, and related equipment, as
ahown In Figure 5-1. Other metering systems capable of
maintaining sampling  rates wltbiu 10 percent  of Iso-
klaetfc and ol determining sample volume  to within 2
percent may.br used, subject to the approval  of the
Administrator. When  the metering sysluta Is used in
oon|unctlon with a pilot tube, the systum shall unable
checks ol IsokJnetlc rates.
  SamplingIratnsuUUtlngmolerlngsystemsdesigned for
higher Bow rates than that described In APTO-OS81 or
APTD-057G may be used provided that tbe specifica-
tions 01 this method are met.
  2.1.0  Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, Mother barometer
capable t>(  meesurlnp  atmospheric pressure to  wtthia
2.6 mm 11 (! (0.1 In. lie). In many cases, the barometric
reading may be obtained from a nearby national weather
service station, ID which case the Halloo, value (which IB
ihc absolute barometric pressure) shall be requested and
an adjustment  tor  elevation  differences betwwn Uie
weather station and sampling point shall be applledat a
rate of minus 2.5 mm Dg (0.1 In.  HB) per 30 m (100 ft.)
elevation Increase or vice versa for elevation  decrease.
   21 10  Oas   Density  Determination  Equipment.
Temperature sensor *nd pressure gauge, as described
In Sections 5.8 and 2.4 of Method 2, and gas analytar,
If necessary, as described In Method 3. The temperature
wnsor shall, preferably, be  permanently attached to
the pilot tube, or sampling probe In a filed configuration,
micb that the tip of the sensor e»t«nds beyond the leading
edge of tbe probe sheath and does not touch any metal.
 Alternatively, the sensor may be attached just  prior
to use In the HP Id Note, however, that If the temperature
sensor is attached In the field, the  sensor must be placed
In an Interference-free arrangement with resp«ct to the
Type 8 pilot tube openings (sec Method 2,  Figure 2-7).
 A» a second alternative, if a difference of not more than
 1 percent In the average velocity  measurement Is to be
Introduced, the temperature gauge need not be attached
to the probe or  pilot  tube. (This alternative Is subject
to the approval of the Administrator.)
   2.2  Sample   Recovery.  The  following  Items are

 "221' Probe-Liner and Trobe-Notile Brushes. Nylon
bristle brushes  with  stainless st*el wire bandies. The
 probe brush shall have extensions (at least ae long as
the probe) of stainless sUel, Nylon, Tenon, or similarly
Inert material. The brushes shall  be properly sited aud
•bapcd to brush out the probe liner and nottle.
   222 Wash Bottles—Two.  Glass wash  bottles are
recommended; polyethylene wash bottles may be used
 at the option of the tester. It Is recommended thai acetone
 not be stored In polyethylene bottles tor longer than a
month.
  2.2.3  Glass Sample Storage Containers. Chemically
 resistant, boroslllcale glass bottles, /or acetone washes.
 MO ml or 1000 ml. Screw cap liners shall either be rubber-
 backed Teflon or shall be constructed so as to be leak-free
 and resistant to chemical attack by acetone. (Narrow
 mouth glass bottles have been found to be less prone to
 leakage)  Alternatively,  polyethylene bottles may be
 used.
  2.2 4  Prtri Dishes. For filter samples, gla«s or poly-
 «tbyletie,.iuiles9 otherwise specified by  the Admin-
 istrator.  87
  2.2.6  Graduated Cylinder and/or Balance. To meas-
 ure  condensed water to within 1 ml or 1 g. Graduated
 cylinders shall have subdivisions no greater than 2 ml.
 Most laboratory balances are capable of weighing to tbe
 nearest 0.8 g or less. Any  of these balances Is suitable for
 use here ana in Section 2.3.4.
  2.2.«  Plastic Storage Containers. Alr-tlght contafners
 to store silica gel.
  2.2.7  Funnel and  Rubber  Policeman.  To  aid In
 transfer of silica gel to container: not necessary If silica
 gel Is weighed In the field.
  2.2.8  Funnel. Glass or polyetblene, to aid In sample

  2.3  Analysis. For analysis, the following equipment Is
 needed.
  2 8.1  Glass Weighing Dishes.
  2.3.2  Desiccator.
  383  Analytical Balance..To measure to within 0.1
  mg.
  2.3.4  Balance. To measure to within 0.5 g.
  2.3.J  Beakers. 240 ml.
  2.8.6  Hygrometer. To  measure tbe relative humidity
 Of tbe laboratory environment.
  5.3.7  Temperature Gauge. To measure the tempera-
 ture of the laboratory environment.

 I. Reatcnti

  8.1 Sampling. The reagents used in sampling are as
 fellows:
  1.1.1   Filters.  Glass fiber  filters,  without organic
 binder, exhibiting at 1 east 99.M percent efficiency (<0.05
 percent penetration)  on  0.3-micron  dloctyl phtbalate
 smoke particles. The filter efficiency test shah be  con-
 ducted In accordance with A8TM standard method D
 2986-71. Test data from  the  supplier's quality  control
  1.1.2.  Silica  Gel. Indicating type.  6 to It mesh. If
previoiMly used, dry at J74° C (350* F) for 2 hours. New
silica gel may be used as received. Alternatively, other
types of deslccants (equivalent or better) may be used,
subject  to tbe approval of the Administrator.
  3.1.3  Water,  when analysis of the material caught In
the tmplngers Is required, distilled water shall be used.
Run blanki prior to field use to eliminate a high blank
on test samples.
  8.1.4  Crushed Ice.
  8.1.4  Stopcock Grease. Acetone-Insoluble, heat-stable
silicons grease.  This Is  not  necessary  If screw-on con-
nectors with Teflon sleeves, or similar, are used. Alterna-
tively, other typos of stopcock grease may be used, sub-
ject to tbe approval of the Administrator.
  3.2  Sample Recovery. Acetone—reagent grade, <0.001
percent residue, In  glass bottles—Is required. Acotone
from metal containers generally has a high residue blank
and should not be nsed, Sometimes, supplier! transfer
aoeUme to (lass bottta from metal containers; thus,
acetone blanks  shall be  run prior \a field use and only
acetone with low blank value* (<0.001 percent) shall be
us«d. In no ease shall a blank  value of greater than 0.001
percent of the weight of acetone used be subtracted from
the sample weight.

  S.3 Andysls. Two reagent* art required lor tbe analy-
sis:
  8.8.1  Acetone. Same  as 3.2.
  8.8.2  Deslccant.  Anhydrous calcium sulfate, Indicat-
ing type. Alternatively, other types of dealccanti may be
used, subject to the approval oftbe Administrator.

4. Proeeifure
  4.1 Sampling. Tbe complexity of this method Is such
that, In order to obtain reliable results', testers should be
trained and  experienced with the test procedures.
  4.1.1  Pretest Preparation. All the components  shall
be maintained and calibrated according to the procedure
described In APTD-0576, unless  otherwise specified
herein.
  Weigh several 200 to SOOgportloiisofslllcage.l In air-tight
contafners to the nearest 0.5 g. Record the toul weight of
the silica gel plus container, on  each container. As an
alternative,  the silica  gel need not be prewelghed, but
may be  weighed  directly  in Its  implnger  or sampling
holder lust prior to train assembly.
  Check fillers visually against light for Irregularities and
flaws 01 plnholc leaks. Label fillers of the proper diameter
on the back side near the edge using cumbering machine
ink. As  an  alternative, label  the  shipping containers
(glass or plastic purl dishes) and keep the filters In these
containers at  all times except  during sampling  and
weighing.
  Desiccate  the fillers at  20*5.6"  C (68±10°  F)  and
ambient pressure  for at least 24 hours and  weigh at In-
tervals of at least 6 hours to  a  constant  weight,  I.e.,
<0.5 mg change from  previous weighing; record results
to the nearest 0.1 mg. During each weighing the  filter
must not be exposed to the laboratory atmosphere for a
period greater than  2  minutes  and a'relative humidity
above SO percent.  Alternatively (unless  otherwise speci-
fied  by the Administrator), the fillers may be  oven
dried at 105" C (220° F) for 2 to 3 hours, desiccated lor 2
hours, and weighed.  Procedures other than those de-
scribed, which account for relative humidity effects, may
be used, subject to the approval of the Administrator.
  4.1.2  Preliminary Determinations. Select the  sam-
pling site and the minimum number of sampling points
according to Method 1 or as specified by the Administra-
tor. Determine Hie stack pressure, lemperaturc, and the
range of velocity heads usl ng Method 2; it Is recommended
that a leak-clirvk of the pilot lines (see Method 2,  Sec-
tion 3.1) be performed. Determine the moisture content
using Approximation  Method  4  or  its  alternatives for
the purpose of making tsotinetic sampling rate settings.
Determine the stack gas dry molecular weight, as des-
cribed In Method 2, Section 3.6; If lulrgralea Method 3
sampling Is used for molecular weight determination, the
Integrated bag sample shall be  taken simultaneously
with, and for the  same total length of time as, the par-
Uculatc sample run.
  Select a nozzle slue based on tlie range of velocity heads,
such that It  is not necessary to change the nozzle size la
order to maintain isoklnellc sampling roles. During the
run, do  not change the  nozzle size. Ensure that the
proper differential pressure gauge Is chosen  for the range
of velocity heads encountered (see Section 2.2 of Method
2).
  Select a suitable probe liner and probe length such that
all  traverse  polnte  can be sampled. For large  stacks,
consider sampling from opposite sides, of  the stack to
reduce tlie length of probes.
  Select a total sampling tune greater than or equal to
the minimum total  sampling Um« specified In the test
procedures for the specific Industry  such  that  (1) the
sampling time per point is not less than 2 mln (or some
greater time interval as specified by tbe  Administrator),
and (2) the sample volume taken (corrected to standard
conditions) will exceed the required  minimum total gas
sample  volume. The  latter Is  baaed on au approximate
average sampling rate.
  it is recommended that  the number of minutes  sam-
pled at each point be  an Integer or an Integer plus one-
naif minute, In order to avoid UmPlwpInf; errors.The
aampllng time at each noint shall tx the lame. "
  In some circumstances, e.g., batch cycles, It may be
necessary to sample for shorter  times  at  tbe traverse
points and to obtain  smaller gas sample  volumes. In
iheee  cases,  the Administrator's  approval must  first
be obtained.
  4.1.3  Preparation of Collection Train. During prep-
aration  and  assembly of tbe sampling train, keep all
openings where contamination can occur covered until
Just prior to assembly or until sampling Is about to begin.
  Place 100 ml of water In each of the first two Implngers,
have  Ihe third impinger empty. »nd transfer approxi-
mately 200 to 300 g of prewelghed  silica  gel from Its
container to  the fourth Implnger. More silica gel may b«
used,  but care should  be taken to ensure that It Is not
entrained and carried out from the implnger  during
sampling. Place tbe container In  • clean place for later
use In the sample  recovery. Alternatively the weight of
tbe silica gel plus Implnger may  be determined to the
unrest 0.& ( and recorded.
                                                              Ill-Appendix   A-2 2
-------
  Using » tweeter or dean diiposable surgical gloves.
Dlace • labeled (Identified) ana weighed filler In the
Biter holder. Be lure .hat the filter Is properly centered
tnd  the jasket properly  placed to as to prevent the
sample gas stream from circumventing the liter. Check
the filter for Usars after assembly is completed.
  When glut  liners are  used, Install the Mlected nettle
mlnr a vlton A  O-ring when stack temperatures are
tea than 200° C (BOO* F)  and  an asbettoe string gasket
Uheu  temperature, are  higher.  Bee  A*TD-fo?6  to
details. Other coiniectlng systems using rither 310 slain
(ess rteel or Teflon ferrules may  be used  When metal
liners are used, Install the nof.tle as above or by a leak-
free direct  mechanical connection. Mark the probe with
heat resistant tape or by tome oilier method to denote
the proper distance Into the rtaci or dutt for each sam-
pling point.
  Set up the train as In Figure 5-1, using (If necessary)
a very light' coat  of silicons grease on all ground glass
Joints, Rreaslnft only the outer portion (sec APTD-a'.TC.)
to avoid possibility of contamination  by  the silicon?
crease. Subject to the approval of the Administrator, a
(lass cyclone may be used between the probe and filter
holder when  the total  paiticulalccati'h is cxpcvtcdio
eicced 100 ing or when water dropMjarc p-i-i-m In Ihr

  Place crushed Ice around the implngiw.
  4.1.4  Leak-Check PrK-eduieB.
  4141  Pretest  Leak-Check. A pretest Icak-rlio k  Is
recommended, but not required. If the tester opts lo
conduct the protest lci\k-check, the following procedure
shall be used.
  After the sampling train has been assembled, turn on
and set the filter and probe heating systems at the desired
operating temperatures. Allow time tor th« temperatures
toBtabllltc IfaVlion A 0-rlng or other leak-free connec-
tion Is used In assembling the probe notile to the probe
liner, leak-cherk the train at the sampling site by plug-
ging the nottle and pulling a 380 mm Hg (IS In. Hg)
  NOTE.—A lower vacuum may be used, provided that
 It Is not exceeded during the test.
  If an asbestos string Is used, do not connect the probe
 to the trnln during the leak-check.  Instead,  leak-cluck
 the train by first plugging the Inlet to tbe niter holder
 (cyclone, If applicable) and pulling a 380mm Hg (18 In.
 Hg) veeinun (sec Note Immediately above).  Then con-
 nect the probe to the train and leak-check at about Si
 mm Hg (I In. Hg) vacuum; alternatively, the  probe may
 b« leak-checked with tbe rest of tbe sampling train, in
 one jtep, at 380 nun  Hg (15 In. Hg) vacuum. Leakage
 rates In  excess of 4 percent of the average sampling rau
 or 0.00047 m '/mln (0.02 cfm), whichever is less, are
 unacceptable.
  The following leak-check Instructions for the sampling
 twin described In APTD-QMt! and APTD-0.581 may be
 helpful. Start the pump with bypo&s valve  fully open
 and coarse adjust valve completely  closed. Partially
 open the coarse adjust valve and slowly close the bypass
 valve until the desired vacuum Is reached. Do not reverse
 direction of bypass valve; this will cause water to back
 up  into the filler  holder. If the desired vacuum Is el-
 ceeded.  cither leak-check at this higher vacuum or end
 the leak chei-k as shown below and start over.
  When  the leak-check Is completed, first slowly remove
 the plug from the inlet to the probe, tiller  holder,  or
 cyclone  (if applicable) and  Immediately turn oft the
 vaccuiu  pump. This prevents the water In thelmplngers
 from being forced backward Into the  filter holder and
 silica gel from being entrained backward Into the third
 tapingor.
  4.1.4.2  Leak-Checks During  Sample Run. If, during
the sampling run, a  component  (e.g., filter assembly
or impingerj change  becomes  necessary, a leak-check
•hall be conductoa Immediately  be/ore the  change U
made. The leak-check shall be done according to the
procedure outlined In Section 4.1.4.1 above, except that
 It shall be done at a vacuum equal to or greater than the
maximum value recorded up to that point In the test.
 If the leakage rate Is found to bo no treater than 0.00057
m'/mln (0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of the average sampling
rate (whichever IB less), the results ore acceptable, and
no correction will naed to be applied to the total volume
of dry gas metered; If, however,  a higher leakage rate
Is obtained, the taster shall either record the leakage
rate and plan to correct tbe sample volume as shown In
Section 6.3 of this method,  or thai) void the sampling
run.87
  Immediately after component  changes, leak-cherts
are optional, I) such leak-checks are done, the procedure
outlined In Section 4.1.4.1 above sholl be uied.
  4.1.4.3  Post-teat Leak-Check. A leak-chock is manda-
tory at the  conclusion of each sampling run. Tbe leak-
eheck shall  bo done  In accordance with the  procedures
outlined In  Section 4.1.4.1, except that It shall be con-
ducted at a vacuum equal to or greater than the maxi-
mum value readied during tbe sampling run. If the
leakage rate is found  to be no grwvlcr than 0.00027 m'/jnln
(0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of the average sampling raw
(whichever IB less),  the results are acceptable, and no
correction need be applied to tho total volume of dry gai
Dieterod. If, however, a higher  leakage rai« Is obtained,
the tester shall either record the leakage rate and correct
the sample volume, asihown In Section 8.3of this method,
or (hall void the san pllng run.
  4.1.6   Paniculate  Train  Operation.   During  the
sampling ran,  maintain an leoklnettc sampling rate
(within 10 percent  of true Isoklnetic unlera ttherwlM
specified by the Administrator)  and  a temperature
around the filter of 120*14" C (J48±24° F), or tuch other
temperature at specified by an applicable tubp&n of tb»
standards or approved by the Administrator.
  For each run, record the data required on a dau sheet
inch M the one shown In Figure 6-3. Be sure to record the
InJUsJ dry gu mtltr reading. Record the dry cai meMr
readings at the beginning and end of eaoh sauipltDi tin*
Increment, when changes In flow rates are made, D«Ior«
and a/ter each leak check, and when sampling Is oalud.
   PLANT	

   LOCATION.

   OPERATOR,.

   DATE	

   RUNNO,_
   SAMPLE BOX NO.,

   METER BOXNO._

   METER A.Hj__

   CFACTOR	
                                           AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.

                                           BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.

                                           ASSUMED MOIJTURE,X_

                                           PROBE LENGTH,m (ft)	
   WOT TUBE COEFFICIENT, Cf
                                                  SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
                                           rtOZZLE lOENTIf ICATION NO	

                                           AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, Ml (In.).

                                           PROBE HEATER IETTINO	

                                           LEAK RATE,m'/mln.(efm)	

                                           PROBE LINER MATERIAL	
                                           STATIC PRESSURE, mm Hj (In. Hjl,.

                                           FILTER NO	
TRAVERSE POINT
, NUMBER











-
TOTAL
fAMPLINO
TIME
(fl. mln,













AVERAGE
VACUUM
mm Hg
(In. Hg)














STACK
TEMPERATURE
IV
•C <»F|














VELOCIH
HEAD
lA'sl'
mm(ln,tHiO














PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICS
METER
mmHjO
(In. HjOl














OAS SAMPLE
VOLUME
n> (tl'l














GAS SAMPLE TEMPERATURE
AT DRY OAS MITER
INLET
•C I'fl












AVQ.
OUTLET
•c 1*1-1












Avg.
Avg.
FILTER HOLDER
TEMPERATURE,
•C («F»














TEMPERATURE
1 Of OAS *
LIAVINQ
CONDENSER OR
LAST IMPINQIR,
•ctvi














                                                            Figure  5-2,  Participate Held data.
                                                           Ill-Appendix  A-23
-------
Take other readings required by Figure 5-2 at least onot
at eacb sample point during each time Increment and
additional reading: when significant changes (20 percent
variation In velocity head readings) necessitate addi-
tional  adjustment  In  flow  rate.  Level and  (era the
manometer. Because the manometer level and tero may
drift due to vibration* and temperature changes, mak«
periodic checks during the  traverse.
  Clean the portholes prior to tb» teat run to mlnlmlM
the chance of sampling deposited material. To begin
sampling, remove the rjotile cap, verily that the finer
and probe beating systems are Dp to temperature, and
that the pilot tuw and probe are properly positioned.
Position toe noule at the first trsversejiolnt with the Up
pointing directly Into the gas stream. Immediately start
the pump and adjust the  flow to Isoklnetlc conditions.
Nomographs are available, which aid In the rapid adjust-
ment of the Isoklnetlo sampling rate wlthobt eioasstv*
computations. Then nomographs are designed for um
when the Type 8 pilot tabe coefficient Is 0.86*0.02, and
the Jtaok gas equivalent density (dry molecular weight)
It equal to 29±4. APTD-057C details the procedure for
using the nomographs.  II C, and Mt are outside the
above stated ranges do not uae the nomographs unless
appropriate step* (see Citation 7 In Section 7) are taken
to compensate tor the deviations.
  When the stack Is under significant negative pressure
(height of Implnger stem), take care  to close the coarse
adjust valve before Inserting the probe Into the slack to
prevent water Irom backing Into the filter bolder. II
necessary, the pump may be turned on with the coarse
adjust valve closed.                             :
   when the probe Is In position, block oH the opening!
•round the probe  and porthole to prevent  unrepre-
sentative dilution of the gas stream.
   Traverse the stack cross-section, as required by Method
1 or as specified by  the Administrator, being careful not
to bump the  probe nettle Into the stack  walls when
sampling near the walls or when removing or Inserting
the probe  through the portholes; this minimizes the
chance of extracting deposited material.
   During the  test  run, make  periodic adjustments to
keep the  temperature around  the filter bolder  at the
proper level;  add  more lc« end, If necessary, salt to
maintain a temperature of less tlian 20" C (68° F) at the
condenser/silica  gel outlet.  Also,  periodically check
the level and tcro of the manometer.
   If the pressure drop across the filter becomes too high,
making twkinetic  sampling dlfllcult to maintain, the
filter may  he  replaced  In  the midst of a sample run. It
Is recommended that another complete fillor asscinhlv
be used rather than attempting  to change the filter Itself.
B*lore a new ftllet assembly ts installed, conduct & Icak-
checlc (we Section 4.1.4.2). The total paniculate  weight
shall include the summation of all fllKr assembly catches.
   A single train shall be used for the entire sample run,
except In raws where simultaneous sampling Is required
In two or more separate ducts or at two or more different
 locations within the same  duct, or, In cases where equip-
 ment failure necessitates a change of trains. In all other
 situations, the use of two or more trains will be subject to
 the approval of the Administrator.

   Note that when two or more trains are used, separate
  analyses of tb« front-bait and (It applicable) Unpinger
  catches from eacb train shall be performed, unless Identi-
  cal nottle sins were used  on all trains, In wblcb case, the
  front-half catches from  the Individual  trains may be
  combined (as may the Implnger catch es)and one analysis
  of front-half  catch and one analysis of Implnger catch
  may be performed. Consult with the Administrator for
  details concerning the calculation Of results when two or
  more trains are used.
    At the end of the sample run, turn ofl the coarse adjust
  valve, remove the probe  and nottle from the stack, turn
  00 the pump, record the  final dry gas meter reading, and
  conduct a post-test leak-chock,  as  outlined In Section
  4.1.4.3. Also, leak-check  the pilot lines as described In
  Method 2, Boctlon 3.1; the linos must pass this leak-check.
  In order to validate the. velocity head data.
    4.1.6 Calculation of  Percent Isoklnetlc.  Calculate
  percent Isoklnetlc (see Calculations, Section 6) to deter-
  mine whether the run  was valid or another test run
  should be made. II there was difficulty In maintaining
  Isoklnetlc rates  due to source conditions,  consult with
  the Administrator lor possible variance on the Isokinetlc
  rates.
  4.2  Sample  Recovery. Proper  cleanup  procedure
begins as soon as the probe Is removed from the stack at
the end of the sampling .icrlod. Allow the prolxi to cool.
  When the probe can be safely handled, win* ofl all
external paniculate metier near the  tip or  tlie probe
notrle and place a con over It to prevent losing or gaining
particular matter. Do not cap ofl the probe Up tightly
while tlie sampling  train  Is cooling down as this would
create a vacuum In the filter holder, thus drawing water
from the Implngers Into the filter holder.
  Before moving  the sample train  to  the cleanup site,
remove  the probe from the sample train, wipe off the
sHlcone grease, and cap the open outlet of the probe. Be
careful not to lose any condensate that  might be present.
Wipe off the silicone grease from the filter Inlet where the
probe was  fastened and cap It. Remove the umbilical
cord from the last Implnger and cap the Implnger. If a
flexible line Is used between the first  Imptnger. or con-
denser and the filter holder, disconnect  the line at the
filter bolder  and let  any condensed wotw or liquid
drain Into the Implngers  or condenser. After wiping off
the slllcone grease, cap oS the filter  holder outlet and
Implnger Inlet.  Either  ground-glass  stoppers, plastic
caps, or serum caps may be used to close these, openings.
  Transfer the probe and fllter-lmplnger assembly to the.
cleanup area. This area should he clean and protected
from the wind so that the chances of  contaminating or
losing the sample will bo inlnimiied.
  Save a portion of the acetone  used for cleanup as  a
blank. Take200 ml of this ncHone dlm-tly from the  waali
bottle being used and plnce It In a glnss sample container
labeled "ace.1 one blank."
  Inspect the, tralu prior 1o and during dtesfinWy »r»l
note any  abnormal condliloiis. Trent the  samples ea
follows:
  ContDfntr No. 1. Carolully remove the filler Irom the
filter holder and place It In Its Identlliwl pctrl dish con-
tainer. Use a pair of  tweezers und/or clean  disposable
•urglcal gloves to handle the filter. If It  l.« nccc.ssnry to
fold the niter, do so such that the paniculate cnke Is
Inside the fold.  Carefully transfer to the pctrl dish any
paniculate matter and/or filter fibers which adhere to
the fUtor holder gasket,  by  using  a  dryNyloo bristle
brush and/or a sharp-edged blade. Seal the container. °>
  Container No. t. Taking care to see that dust on the
outside of the probe or other exterior  surface* does lot
get Into the sample, quantitatively recover paniculate
matter or any condensate from the probe nottle, probe
fitting, probr Un«r, and front half of the Alter hoVta by
washing these components with acetone and placing the
• ash io a glass container. DistllM water may b« OMd
instead of aoetone when approved by the Administrator
»od shall b» used wbcu tpK-,tfl«i by »h» Admtatftntor,
In these oases, B»e a water blank and follow th»  Admin-
istrator's directions on Analysis. Perform the  acetone
rinses as follows:
  Carefully remove the probe nottlc «»d clr»n the Inside
surface by  rlnsinc with acelnm' from a wash  bottle and
brushing with  a Nylon  bristle .brush. Hru'h uinil the
acetone rinse shows no  visible  panicles, after which
make a fbial rinse of the inside stirfm'i*  whh aeeiono.87
  Brush and rinse the inside pans  of  Ihr Swagelok
fitting with acetone in » similar  way until  no visible
particles remain.
  Rinse ilie  pro!*-  Itm-t  ultli acr-tone by  lililnc and
relating thr prolH' while squirting acetone Into Us upper
end so thai all  Inside  suila/-rs will  be wetlcd with ace-
tone. Let the aceionc Jrain from lite lower end Into the
sample container. A funnel es have small  crevices in which
paniculate matte1* can be entrapped.  Rinse  the* brush
with acetone, atid quantitatively collect these washing*
m the sample container. After  lite brusliinc.,  make a
Anal acetone riuse of th«" prolie as described above.
  It is recommended that two people be used  to clean
tbe probe to minimi!? sainple'losses. Between sampling
runs, keep brushes clean and protected from conutinlna-
Uon.
  After tnfurlng that all Joints hav? b«n wiped clean
 of slUeone (rrea.se, clwui the msio* ol the trout hall at the
 filler holder by nibbing the surfaces with aNykm bristle
 brush  -uid  rinsing wjtb  ae*tone.  Rins« e*rb  surfaot
 Uiree times or more If needed to remove visible pflrlicu-
 IX* Ukie 4 final rinse of tit* brush and filter bolder.
 Ceje'ully rinse out thr gins* cyclone, also (If applicable).
 AfUr all I'Vlow watOmifrF and partlailBte nmlt«r have
 be«n coDected in the sample container, tighten tlie lid
 on  UM sample container so that »<«tone will not  leak
 out  when It Is shipped  to the  laboratory. Maik the
 beJfht of tbe  Hind level to ^t^nnine whether or not
 taaiage occuired during Iransvwo.. Label tbe coutainer
 io dearly ioVntify its coDienu.o'
  Container A'c. S. Note the color of the indicating silica
 fel(o determine if It hasr»»?enroinpkii»'iy spent and mak«
 a notation of it-1^ coixlitic-n Transfer tne silica gel from
 the fourth inipinger u> it« oiigiiml  <«ntainer and seal.
 Aftmnelmay make it easier to j>onr tliesilii a gel without
 splllln*  A niblxs- ndirewui mmy I* >i*«d »6 an aid In
 removing the silica gel from  the  inipliiger. It  hi nut
 necMGory u> remove the binall kmotint of etric»Uy or
fravinKtrically.
  Whenever possible, containers «bottld be shipped In
 aoch a w»y that they remain upright at all tim«s.
  4.t Analysis. Keoord the data, required  on a sheet
 such as the one shown in Figure 5-8 Handle each sample
 eotntwner as follows:
  Otmlainrf  /s'o. J.  LeAve the contente In tbe shipping
 container or transfer the tiller and any loose partu'Ulat«
 Irora the sample conlainer  (a a Ured  glass weighing dish.
 Desirrate for 24 boura in a desiccator containing anhy-
drous calcium sultste. Weigh to a constant weight  and
 report the reCTtlts to the nearest 0.1 mg. For purposes of
 \M» fte
-------
6. Calibration
  Maintain u laboratory lop of all calibrations.
  5.1  1'robo NottU. Probe ootzles shall be calibrated
belorc their initial use in the field. Using a micrometer,
measure the inside diameter of the notilo to the nearest
0.021 mm (0.001 In.). Mate thrae separate measurement!
using different diameters each time, and obtain the aver-
age o( the measurements. The difference between the high
and low numbers shall not exceed 0.1  mm (0.004 In.).
When nonles become nicked, dented, or corroded, they
snail be reshaped, shirDenod,  and recalibrated before
use.  Each noztle shall be permanently and  urjqu&lr
Identified.
  5.2  Pilot Tube. The Type S pitot tube assembly shall
be calibrated according to  the procedure outlined in
Section 4 cf Method 2.
  5.3  ^fo1erllls System. Before Its Initial use In the field,
the mntcritip system shall be calibrated according to the
procedure outline'! in APTD-<»j70. Instead of physically
adjusting the dry ^as meter dial readings to correspond
to the wet test meter readings, calibration factors may bo
used to mathematically correct the gasmeter dial readings
to the proper values. Bolore calibrating the metering sys-
tern, it  Is suRRosted that a leak-check  be  conducted.
For metering systems  having  diaphragm pumps, the
ncrrnml kiit-chcck ptoccduie will not  detect leakages
within ths pump. For these cases the  following leak-
check procedure is suggested: make a 10-minute calibra-
tion run at 0.00057 m '/mln (0.02cfm); at the end of the
run.  take the difference of the measured wet test meter
and dry pas meter volumes: divido the difference by 10.
to get the leak  rate. The leak rate should not exceed
0.00057 m Vmin (0.02elm).
  After each field use, the calibration of the  metering
system shall be checked by performing three calibration
runs at  a single, intermediate orifice setting (based on
the previous field test),  with the vacuum set at the
maximum value reached during the  test series. To
adjust the vacuum, Insert a valve between the wet test
meter and '.ho Inlet of the metering system. Calculate
the average value of the calibration factor. If the calibra-
tion has changed by more- than  5 percent, recalibrate
the tncter over th«- full range of orluce settings, as out-
lined In APTD-0576.
  Alternative procedures, e.g..  using the orifice meter
coefficients, may be used, subject to the approval of the
Administrator.
   NOTE.—If the dry gas meter ooefnclont values obtained
 before and alter & test series rilfler  by more than 5 percent,
 the  tost series shall either be voided, or calculations for
 the test series shall bo performed using whichever meter
 coefficient value (I.e., before or  alter) gives  the lower
 value of total sample volume.
   6.4  Probe Heater Calibration.  The  probe heating
 system shall be calibrated  before Its Initial use in the
 field according to the procedure outlined In APTD-0576.
 Probes constructed »V«s a \«ak la U» mtter box, leaks, I! prweat, must
 be corrected.
   5.7  Barometer. Calibrate, against a mercury barom-
 eter.

 6. Calculations

   Carry out calculations, retaining at  least  one extra
 decimal figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round
 oft figures after the final calculation. Other forms of the
 equations may be used as long as they  give equivalent
 results,
PUnL

fete.
Run No..
Filter No..
Amount liquid lost during transport

Acetone blank volume, ml	

Acetone wash volume, ml	
Acetone blank concentration, mg/mg (equation 5-4).

Acetone wash blank, mg (equation 5-5)	
CONTAINER
NUMBER
1
2
TOTAL
WEIGHT OF PARTICULATE COLLECTED.
mg
FINAL WEIGHT


^xCI
TARE WEIGHT


^xcT
Less acetone blank
Weight of participate matter
WEIGHT GAIN






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




SILICA GEL
WEIGHT,
9



8* | ml
     * CONVERT WEIGHT OF WATER TO VOLUME BY DIVIDING TOTAL WEIGHT
        INCREASE  BY DENSITY OF WATER Hg/ml).

                                               INCREASE, g   ,
                                                   1  g/ml


                                  Figure 5-3.  Analytical  data.
                                                          III-Appendix  A-25
-------
                  RUBBER
                                SS&        """"
                                                                                                VACUUM
                                                                                                 GAUGE '
 HOW INTO TUBING
 UNTIL MANOMETER
HEADS 6 TO 7 INCHES
   WATER COLUMN
                            ORIFICE
                          MANOMETER
                                                                                                       AIR-TIGHT
                                                                                                         PUMP
                                               Figure 5-4.  Leak check of meter box.
     Nomenclature
      -Cro*>*eoUoaal area of aoido, m' (It1),
      -Water vapor In tb* CM ilnam, proportion
        by volume.                       •  g7
 C,   -Aoeton* blank reeldue oonoentration. mi/|.
. *)    • Oonoentration of partloulat* mattar in naok
         5n, dry bull. MJwt** <« tt*nd*rt o»n
-------
                            Norr—In  •tomted  or  water  droplet-laden  na
                          •tr-eamt, two eatoutottons oi ttte moisture content of the
                          Mack P* tnall b4 made, one tram tbe Implnger analyst*
                          (Equation {-8V tnd » second from tbe assumption of
                          »tm*ated conditions. Tb« tower of tbe two values of
                          B^ shall be considered correct. Tbe procedure tor deter-
                          nlnlng tbe moisture content based upon assumption of
                          ttturated conditions lj given In the Note of Section 1.3
                          •/Method 4. For toe purposes of this method,tbeaverage
                          Hack gas temperature bom Figtue 6-2 may be used to
                          make this determination, provided that the accuracy of
                          tbe tn-etack temperature sejisor is ± I" C (2° F).
                            66  Acetone Blank Concentration.
                                                                Equation 5-4
                            67  Acetone, Wash Blank.

                                          W«= C« J .„ p.
                                                                Equation 5-5
                            6.8  Total ParUculate  Weight.  Determine the total
                          paniculate catch from tbe sum of tbe weights obtained
                          from containers 1 and 2 lass the acetone blank (s« Furore
                          i-f). NOTK.—Refer to Section 4.1.4 to anist In calculation
                          el results Involving two or mor» filter assembles or two
                          or more sampling trains.
                            (9  Paniculate Concentration.
                                  c.= (0.001
                            t.10  Conversion Factors:
                                                                Equal ion i *"
                          From
                          «ft'
                          «*«
                          J/fi'
                                           To
m'
rr;fl'
ib.ft'
 '
                                                                Multiply by
                            6.11  IsokinetJc Variation.
                            6.11.1  Calculation
                                                       D»«».
                                             60 fv.P. A.
                                                                   Egudlion 5-7
                                                                               87
                             Jfi-O.OOMM mm Hg-m'/mJ-'K for metric units.
                                -0.002669 in. Hg-ft>Anl-*R for English anil*.
                             (.11.2 Calculation From Intermediate Values.
                                                                Equation 5-8
                           wowe:
                             Ifi" 4.320 for metric uuils
                               ••0.09440 lor English units.
                             8.12  Acceptable BesulU. If 90 percent < 7 <110 per-
                           cent, tbe results are acceptable. If the results are low in
                           comparison to tbe standard and / Is beyond tbe accept-
                           able range, or, If / Is less than $0 percent, the Adminis-
                           trator may opt to accept tbe results.  Use Citation 4 to
                           make judgments  Otherwise, refect the resultf and repeat
                           the test.
7. BililioeTapl,y

  1. Addendum to Specifications for Incinerator Testing
at Federal Facilities. PHS, NCAPC. Dec. «, 1967.
  1 Martin,  Robert M.  Construction Details of Iso-
klnetic Source-Sampling Equipment. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research  Triangle  Park,  N.C.
APTD-0661. April, 1971.
  8. Horn, Jerome J.  Maintenance, Calibration, and
Operation of Isoklnetlc Source  Sampling Equipment.
Environmental Protection Agency.  Research Triangle
Park. N.C. APTD-0576. March. 1572.
  4. Smith, W. B., R.  T. Shlgeha/a, and W. T. Todd.
A Method of Interpreting Stack Sampnng Data. Paper
Presented at the 63d Annual Meeting of tbe Air Follu.
tioD  Control Association, St. Louis, Mo.  June 14-19,
1970.
  8. Smith. W. 8., ft ml. Stack Oas Sampling Improved
and Simplified With Nev  Equipment. APCA Paper
No. «7-119.1987.
             «. Specification:  for Incinerator Testing  at  Federal
            Facilities. PHS, NCAPC. 1M7.
             7. Shigehara, R.  T. Adjustments in the EPA Nomo-
            graph for Different Pilot Tub* Coefficients and Dry
            M«leoular  Weights.  Stack  Sampling  Newi 1:4-11.
            October. 1971.
             6. VoUaro, R. T. A Survey of Commercially Available
            Instrumentation For the Measurement of Low-Range
            Oa« Velocities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
            Emission Measurement  Branch.  Research  Triangle
            Park. N.C. November, 197« (unpublished papnr).
             ». Annual Book of A8TM Standards. Part 28. Oaeeous
            Fuclt; Coal and Coke; Atmospheric Analysis. American
            Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, Pa.
            1974. pp. 817-622.
                                   Ill-Appendix   A-27
-------
METHOD  ft—DETEBMIKATIOX  or
       EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOVWES

1. Pritulflt and AfpKetWtt

  1.1  Prfnclple. A  gas sample Is «itracted from  the
sampling  point in the stack.  The sulfurlc  acid mist
(Including  sulfur trioxlde) and the sulfur dloild«  are
separated.  Tbe «uUur dioxide fraction Is measured by
tbe barium-tborln UtraUoo motuod.
  1.2  Applicability. This method is applicable for  tb«
determination olaultur dloiide emissions from stationary
sources. The minimum detectable limit ol the method
has been determined to be 3.4 milligrams (ing) of EOt'm"
(2.12X10-'  Ib.'It').  Although no  upper limit bas been
established, test*  bare shown that concentrations as
high as 80,000 mg/m' of SOi can be collected efucicntly
ID two midget Implngorg, each containing 15 rullJUilw*
of 3 percent hydrogen peroxide, at a rale ot 1.0 Ipm for
20 minutes. Based on theoretical calculations, ihe oppei
eonoenlratlon limli in a 20-Uier cample is about *3,300
mg/m>.
  Possible  interfere!)!* are free ammonia, water-fduble
cations, and fluorides. Tbo cations and fluorides  are
removed by glass woo) filters and an Isopropanol bubbler,
and htnct do not affect the SOi analysis, when samples
are being taken from a BBS stream with liigli concentra-
tions  of very fine metallic fumes  (such as in inlets to
control devices), a Men-efficiency glass fiber filter most
b« used In place of the gloss wool plug (I.e., the one to
the probe) to remove Uio catiou intetfetems.
  Free anxmoiila Interferes by reading with 8Ot to form
partlculale sulflte and by  reacting with  the indicator.
If free ammonia is present (this ean be determined by
knowledge of the process and noticing white paniculate
matter In  the probe and Isopropanol bubbler), alterna-
tive methods, iuli|ect to the approval of the AduiluisVa-
tor,   U.S.  Environmental  I'roierllon  Agency,  ar»
required.

2. .4pporolui

  2.1  BampUng. Trie sampling train is showii In Figure
4-1, and component parts  an discussed below. The
tetter ha*  the option of substituting sampling equip-
ment described In Method 8 In place of tbe midget Im-
plnger equipment of Method 5.  However,  tbe Metfcod 8
into muit be modified to Include a heatM filter between
tbe probe and laopropanol Implnger, and the operation
o( tn» saropUng train and (ampta analysis must bt M
tbe flow rates and solution volumes defined In Method 8.
  The teller also bas the  option  of determining 8O>
simultaneously  with paniculate matter and moisture
with a Metbod81sopropanol-nlt«r-peroxtde system. Tbe
analysis for BQi must be consistent with the, procedure
in Method S.87
  3.1.1 Probe. Boraslllcate glass, or stainless iteel (other
materials of construction may be used, subject to the
approval of tbe Administrator), approximately 6-mm
Inside diameter, with a beating system to prevent water
condensation and a filter (either ln-«tack or heated out-
Hack) to remove paniculate, matter, Including  sulfurlc
add mist. A plug of glass wool Is a patlstactory filter.
  2.1.2 Bubbler and Implngers. One midget bubbler,
with medium-coarse glass frit and boros)Ucat« or quarts
(Ian wool packed In top (see Figure ft-l)  to  prevent
solfurlc  acid mist carryover, and three 30-m]  midget
Imptngert Tbe bubbler and midget Implngers mutt be
connected In aeriea with leak-free glass connectors. Bill-
oone (rease may be used, If necessary, to prevent leakage.
  At tbe option of tbe tester, a midget Implnger may be
and In place of tbe midget bubbler.
  Other collection absorbers and flow rates may be used,
but are subject to the approval of tbe Administrator.
Alao, collection efficiency must be shown to be at least
W percent for each test run and must be documented In
tbe report. If the efficiency Is found to be acceptable after
a scries of three tests, further documentation Is not
nqulred. To conduct  the efficiency test, an extra ab-
sorber must be added and  analyted separately. This
otra absorber must not contain more than 1 percent of
the total SOi.
  1.1.8  Olass Wool. Boroslifcate or quarts.
  1,1.4  Stopcock  Grease.  Acetone-Insoluble,  heat-
stable silicon* crease may be used. If necessary.
  11.6  Temperature  Gauge.  Dial  thermometer, or
equivalent, to measure temperatun of (as leavl&f Im-
plncer train to within l°C (2* F.)
  Tl.t  Drying Tube. Tube packed with ft- to  Ift-mesh
Indicating type silica (el, or equivalent, to dry the gas
  3.1 J  Pump. Leak-tree diaphragm pomp, or equir-
 slant, to pull gas through tbe train. Install a imalJlurge
 tank between tbe pump and rate meter to eliminate
 the pulsation effect of the diaphragm pump on the rota -

  8.1.9  Rate Meter. Rotameter, or equivalent, capable
 ol measuring Bow rate to within 1 percent of tbe selected
 Bow rate of about 1000 co/mln.
  2.1.10 Volume Meter. Dry gas meter, sufficiently
accurate to measure the sample volume within 2 percent,
calibrated at  tbe  selected  flow  rate and condition:
actually encountered during sampling,  and equipped
with a temperature gauge (dial thermometer, or equiv-
alent)  capable  of  measuring temperature to  within
vc tf.fr).
  2.1.11 Baronufar. Mercury, aneroid, or other barom-
eter capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
2.1 mm Sg (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
ia the absolute barometric pressure) shall be requested
and  an adjustment for elevation  differences  between
Ux weather station and sampling point shall be applied
at a rate of minus 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 In. Hg) per 30m (100 ftV,
elevation Increase or vice  versa for elevation decrease?'
  1.1.12 Vacuum Gauge and rolametcr. At least 760
mm  HR (30 ui.Hg) gauge, and 0-40 cc/mln rotametcr
to be used lot leak check of the sampling train. 87

  2.2.1  Wakh bottles. Polyethylene or gjau, 500 ml,
two.
  2.2.2  Storage Bottles. Polyethylene, 100 ml, to store
Implnger samples (one per sample).
  2.8  Analysis.
  2.3.1  Pipettes. Volumetric type, S-rnl, 20-ml (one per
sample), and 25-ml sites.
  2.3.2  Volumetric Flasks. 100-ml site (one per sample)
and 1000-ail stee 87                            ^
  3.3.3  Burettes, s- and 50-ml sites.
  2.3.4  Erlenmeyer Flasks. 240  mi-site  (one  for each
sample, blank, and standard).
  2.3.6  Dropping Bottle. 126-ml  site, to  add Indicator.
  M.»  Graduated  Cylinder. 100-ml site.
  3J.7  Spectropbotometex. To measure  absorbance at
M2 nanometers.

1. Xeatcntt

  Unless otherwise Indicated, all reagents must conform
to tbe specifications established  by tbe  Committee on
Analytical Reagents of tbe American Chemical Society.
Where such specifications are not available, use tbe best
•v»llabl«psde.
  3.1  Sampling.
  3.1.1  WaterTDelonlted, distilled to conform to A8TM
specification D1193-74,  Type 3.  At the option of tbe
analyst, tbe OinO« test for oxldltable organic matter
may be omitted when Ugh concentrations ot organic
matter are not expected to be present.
  3.1 .S  Isopropanol, 80 percent. Mix 80 ml of Isopropanol
with 20ml of delonlted. distilled water. Check each lot of
laopropanol for peroxide Impurities as follows: shake 10
ml of Iscpropanol  with 10 ml of freshly  prepared  10
percent potassium  iodide solution. Prepare a blank by
similarly treating 10 ml of distilled water. After 1 minute,
read  tbe absorbance at 342  nanometers on a  ipectro
photometer. II absorbance exceeds 0.1, reject alcohol for
use.
   Peroxides may be removed from Isopropanol by redis-
tilling or by passage  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.
  1.1.1  B)drogrn Peroxide, 3 Percent. Dilute 30 percent
hydrogen peroxide 1:9  (v/v) with delonlted, distilled
water (30ml is needed per sample). Prepare fresh dally.
  1.1.4  Potassium fodlde Solution, 10 Percent. Dissolve
10.0 grams KI In delonlted, distilled water and dilute to
100 ml. Prepare when needed.
  1.2  Sample Recovery.
  3.2.1  Water. Defended, distilled, as in 3.1.1.
  1.2.2  Isopropanol, 80 Percent. Mix 80 ml of Isopropanol
with 20 ml of delonlted, distilled  water.
  3,3 Analysis.
  3.8.1  Water. Delonlted, distilled, as In  3.1.1.
  8 3.2  Isopropanol, 100 percent.
  8.8.8  Thorin   Indicator.  l-(c-arsonophenylato)-2-
naphthol-S.ft-dlsulfenlc acid,  dlsodlum salt, or equiva-
lent.  Dissolve 0.20 g In 100 ml of delonlted, distilled
water.
  34.4  Barium Perchlonte Solution, 0.0100 N.  DIs-
aolve 1651 of barium perchlorate tribvdrate (Ba(CIO.)r
3HX>! In MO ml distilled water and dilute to 1 liter with
Isopropanol. Alternatively, 1  22 g of [BaClr2HiO|  may
be used Instead of the perchlorate. SUndardlte as  In
flection J.4.8/

   3.3.6 Sulfurlc Add Standard, 0.0100 N. Purchase or
 SUndardlte to '0.0002 N against 0.0100 N NaOH which
 has previously been  standardised against  potassium
 acid phthalate (primary standard grade).

 4. Procedure.

   4.1  Sampling.
   4.1.1 Preparation of collection train. Measure IS ml ol
 M percent Isopropanol  Into the midget bubbler and 18
 ml of 3 percent hydrogen  peroxide Into each of the tint
 two midget Implngers. Leave the final midget Implnger
 dry Assemble the train as shown In Figure 6-1. Adjust
 probe heater to a temperature sufficient to prevent water
 condensation. Place crushed Ice and water around the
 Implngrn.
  4.1 3  Leak-checle procedure. A leak check prior to the
sampling run Is optional: however, a leak checV after the
sampling run Is mandatory. The leak-check procedure Is
as follows:
  Temporarily attach a  suitable  (e.g.,  0-40
ee/mln) rotameter to the outlet ot the dry
gaa meter and place  a vacuum  gauge at or
near Uie  prob« inlet. Plug the  probe Inlet,
pull a vacuum of at teast  250 mm Hg (10 tn.
Hg), and  note the flow rate as indicated by
the rotameter. A leakage rate not. In excess
o/ 3 percent of tbe average campling rate Is
acceptable.

  NOTE Care/oily release  the  probe  Intel
plug before turning off the pump.

  It ie suggested (not mandatory) that the
pump  be leak-checked   separately,  either
prior  to or after the sampling run.  If  done
prior  to the  sampling run, the pump  leak-
check  shall precede  the  leak check  of the
suunpling train described Immediately above:
if  done after the sampling run,  the pump
leak-check shall follow the train leak-check.
To leak check the pump,  proceed as follows:
Disconnect the drying tube from the probe-
Implnger assembly. Place a vacuum gauge at
tbe inlet to  either the drying  tube or the
pump, 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 should remain stable for at least 30
seconds.  87
  Other leak check procedures may be used, subject to
the approval of the Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The procedure used In Method S Is
not suitable for diaphragm pump*.
  4.1.3  Sample collection.  Record  the  Initial dry gts
meter reading and barometric pressure  To begin sam-
pling, position the tip ot 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-
proximately 1.0 llter'mln as Indicated by the rotaroeter.
Maintain this constant rate <*10 percent) during the
entire sampling  run. Take readings (dry gas  meter,
temperatures at dry gas meter  and at  Implnger outlet
and rate meter) at least every 5 minutes.  Add more ice
during the  run  to keep th« temperature of the (cases
leaving the last Implnger at 20° C «#> F) or less.  At the
conclusion of each run, turn off the pump,  remove probe
from the atack. and record tbe Anal readings. Conduct a
leak check as In Section 4.1.2. (This leak check Is manda-
tory ) If a leak is  found, void the test run. or 11.1'  proceO •
nret ftcrept&ble to the Administrator U> adjual  the umpk
volume lor  the leUife  Drain the >••« h"»th. and  puqte
the remaining part of the train by drc ring clean  umblent
tlr through the system for 15 minuter at the sampling
rate. 87
  Clean ambient air can  be provided  by passing  air
through a charcoal filter or through an  extra midget
Implnger with If ml of 3 percent HjOi.  Tha taster may
the contents of the midget Implngers Into a leak-free
polyethylene bottle for shfpment. RUue the three midget
implngers and  tbe  connecting tubes with  delonlted,
distilled water, and add the washing) to the same storage
container. Mark the fluid  level. Seal and Identify the
sample container.
  48  Sample Analysts. Note level of llauld In container,
and confirm whether any sample was lost during ship-
ment; note this on analytical data sheet. If a noticeable
amount of leakage has occurred, either void the sample
or use methods, subject to the approval of the Adminis-
trator, to correct the final results.
  Transfer the  contents of the storage  container to a
100-ml volumetric flask and dilute M exactly 100 ml
with deionlted,  distilled water. Pipette a 20-ml aliquot of
this solution Into  & ttO-ml Erlenmeyer fiask, add 80 ml
of 100 percent Isopropanol and two to lour drops of tborln
Indicator, and titrate to a pink endpolnt using 0.0100 N
barium  perchlorate.  Repeat and average the tltration
volumes. Run a blank with each series of samples. Repli-
cate Utratlons must agree within 1 percent or 0.2 ml,
whichever Is larger.

  (NoTi.—Protect  the  0.0100 N  barium  perchtorate
solution from evaporation at all times.)

i. Calibration

  S.I Metering System.
   5.1.1  Initial  Calibration. Before Its Initial use in the
 field, flrst leak  check the metering system (drying tube,
 needle valve, pump, rotameter, and dry gas meter) M
                                                          Ill-Appendix  A-28
-------
follows: place a vacuum gauge at the inlet to the drying
tube and pull a vacuum of ISO mm (10 In.) Hg: plug or
pinch off the outlet of the flow meter, and then turn o€
the pump. The vacuum shall remain stable lor at lea*
30 seconds.  Carefully release the vacuum gauge before
releasing the flow met«rend.o'
  Next, calibrate the metering system (at the satnpUac
flow rat* specified by the method) as follows: connect
an appropriately sized wet test  meter (e.g., 1 liter  p*r
revolution)  to the inlet of the drying tube. Make three
Independent calibration runs, using at least nve revolu-
tions of the dry gas meter per run. Calculate the callbrv
tlon (actor, V (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 Y value devlat«4 by
more than  3 percent from the  average,  the metering
system Is unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use the aver-
age as the calibration factor for subsequent test runt.
  6.1.3  Post-Teit  Calibration Check. After each field
test series, conduct a calibration check as In Section 5.1.1
above, except for the following variations: (a) the leak
check Is not to  be conducted, ft) three, or more revolu-
tion* of the dry gas meter may be used, and (c) oaly two
Independent runs need be made. If the calibration factor
does not deviate by more than 5 percent from the Initial
calibration factor (determined in Section 5.1.1), then the
dry gas meter  volumes obtained during the test serin
are acceptable.  If the calibration factor deviates by mor»
than 5 percent, recalibrate the  metering system as In
Section 5.1.1, and for the calculations, use the calibration
factor (Initial or recallbratlon) that yields the  lower gu
volume for each test run.
  5.3  Thermometers,  Calibrate  against  mercury-ln-
glass thermometers.
  5.8   Rotameter. Theiotameter need not be calibrated
but should be  cleaned and maintained according to the
manufacturer's Instruction,
  5.4  Barometer. Calibrate against a mercury barom-
eter.
  5.5  Barium  Perchlorate Solution.  Standardly th<
barium perchlorate solution against 35 ml of standard
sulfuric acid to which 100 ml of 100 percent Isopropanol
has b«en added.
                                                    t.

                                                    Carry out calculations, retaining at least one eitra
                                                   decimal figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round
                                                   oft figures after final calculation.
                                                    6.1  Nomenclature.

                                                       C«, -Concentration of sulfur dloilde,  dry  bads
                                                             corrected to standard conditions, mgfdscm
                                                          .   Clb/dscf).
                                                         .V-Normality of  barium  perchlorate tltrant,
                                                             mllllequlvalents/ml.
                                                       Pt.,-Barometric pressure at the exit orifice of the
                                                             dry gas meter, mm Hg (In. Hg).
                                                       JVd-Standard  absolute pressure, 760  mm Hf
                                                             C29.92ln. Hg).
                                                        T.- Average dry gas meter absolute temperature,

                                                       T.ia- Standard  absolute  temperature,  293°  K
                                                             (528°  R).
                                                         V'.-Volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml.
                                                        I'. - Dry gas volume as measured by the dry gai
                                                             meter, dcm (dcf).
                                                    ^•(.idJ-Dry gas volume measured  by  the dry ga*
                                                             meter,  corrected  to standard  conditions,
                                                             dscjn  (dscf).
                                                       V«,in-Total volume of solution In which the sulfur
                                                             dloilde sample Is contained. 100 ml.
                                                         Vi -Volume of barium perchlorate tltrant used
                                                             for  the sample, ml (average  of replicate
                                                             tltratlons).
                                                        Vii-Volume, of barium peichlorate tltrant used
                                                             lor the blank, ml.
                                                         K-Dry gas meter calibration factor.
                                                       32.03-Equivalent weight of sulfur diotlde.
                                                    6.2  Dry sample gas  volume, corrected  to standard
                                                   conditions.
  tfi-0 S&M °K/mm Hg tor metric, uniu.
     -17.64 °R/ln. Hg lor English unit*.
  6.1  Sulfur dioxide concentration.
                                                   when:
                                                                                        Equation 6-1
                                      Equation i-3
 where:
  Ki-31.03 mg/meq. for metric unlu.
     -7.061 X10-* Wmeq. tor English unlu.

7.

  1. Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfuric Add Manu-
facturing Processes. U.S. DHEW. PHS, Division of Air
Pollution. Public  Health Service  Publication  No.
999-AP-13. Cincinnati, Ohio. 1965.
  2. Corbett. P. F. The Determination of SOi and  BOi
In Flue  Oases. Journal of the Institute of Fuel. U: 237-
243, 1961.
  3. Malty, H. E. and E. K. Dlehl. Measuring Flue-Oai
80i and SOt Power. 101: 94-97. November 1957.
  4. Patton.W. K.andJ. A. Brink. Jr. New Equipment
and Techr.lo.ues for Sampling Chemical Process Oases.
J. Air Pollution Control Association. 13:162.  1963.
  5. Rom, J. J. Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation
of Isokinctlc Source-Sampling  Equipment. Office of
Air  Programs,  Environmental  Protection  Agency.
 Research Triangle Park, N.C. APTD-C576. March 1»73.
  6. Ha.mll, H.  F. and D. B. Camann.  Collaborative
Study of Method for the Determination of Sulfur Dloilde
Emissions from Stationary Sources  (Fossil-Fuel Fired
Steam Generators). Environmental Protection Agency,
 Research  Triangle  Park,  N.C.   E PA-650/4-74-034.
December 1973.
  7. Annual Book of A8TM Standards. Part 31; Water,
Atmospheric Analysis. American Society for Testing
and Materials. Philadelphia, Pa. 1974. pp. 40-43.
  8. Knoll, J. E. and M. R. Mtdgclt. The  Application ot
 EPA Method 6 to High Sulfur Dioilde Concentrations.
 Environmental Protection Agency.  Research  Triangle
 Park, N.C. EPA-600/4-76-038. July 1978.
                                                                                                                    THERMOMETER
PROBE (END PACKED
  WITH  QUARTZ OK
    PYREX WOOL)
                                      STACK  WALL
                                                                                          MIDGET  IMPINGERS
                                                                                                                                   SILICA GEL

                                                                                                                                 DRYING TUBE
                                                                                                                                    PUMP
                                           Figure 6-1.   S02 sampling  train.
                                                                                                   SURGE TANK
                                                           Ill-Appendix  A-29
-------
MITHOD  7—DrrMvnunoN  or  NITKOOIK Oznu
       EMBROMS PROM STATIONARY Boutcu
1. PrtnetpU ana1 AppHabUtt,

  1.1  Principle. A grab sample Is ooU«eted to an evacu-
ated flask containing a dilute suUurlo acid-hydrogen
peroxide absorbing solution, and the nitrogen oxldea,
except nitrous oxide, ate  measured  colortmeterically
using the phenoldlsulfonic add (PD8) procedure.
  1.2  Applicability. This method Is applicable to the
measurement of nitrogen oxldea emitted from stationary
sources. The range of the method hai been determined
to be 3 to MO milligrams NO, (as NOi) per dry standard
cubic meter, without having to dilate toe sample.

t-Apjnntut

  2.1  Sampling (tee Figure 7-1). Other grab sampling
systems or equipment,  capable of measuring sample
volume to within ±3.0 percent and collecting a sufficient
sample volume  to allow analytical reprxxfuclblUtr to
within ±5 percent, will be considered acceptable alter-
natives, subject to approval of the Administrator, U.8.
Environmental  Protection  Agency.  The  following
equipment Is used In sampling:
  3.1.1  Probe. BoroaUlcate glass  tubing, sufficiently
heated to  prevent  water condensation  and equipped
with an In-stack or out-stack filter to remove partlculate
matter (a  plug  of glass wool Is satisfactory for thla
purpose). Stainless steel or Tenon > tubing may also be
used for the probe. Heating Is not necessary If the probe
remains dry during the purging period.
  > Mention of trade names or specific products does not
consulate  endorsement by the  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
      2.1.2  Collection Flask. Two-llMr borosillcat*, round
     bottom flask, with short neck and 24/40 standard taper
     opening, protected against Implosion or breakage.
      2.1.3  Flask Valve. T-bore stopcock connected  to a
     24/40 standard taper ]olnt.
      2.1.4  Temperature Oauge. Dial-type thermometer, or
     other temperature gauge, capable  of measuring 1° C
     (3° F) Intervals from -6 to 50* C (24 to 125° F).
      8.1.5  Vacuum Line. Tubing capable of withstanding
     • vacuum of 75 Dun H« (3 In. He) absolute pressure, with
     "T" connection and T-bore stopcock.
      2.1.6  Vacuum  Gauge. O-tube manometer. 1 meter
     (86 In.), with 1-mrn (0.1-ln.) divisions, or other gauge
     capable o'f measuring pressure to within ±2.5 mm Hg
     (0.10 In. Hg).
      2.1.7  Pump. Capable of  evacuating the collection
     flask to a pressure equal to or less than 75 mm Hg (3 In.
     Hg) absolute.
      2.1.8  Squeeze Bulb. One-way.
      2.1.9  Volumetric Pipette. 25 ml.
      2.1.10 Stopcock and Ground Joint  Grease. A high-
     vacuum, hign-Wmperature chlorofluorocarbon grease Is
     required. Halocarbon 25-58 has been found to be effective.
      3.1.11 Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other barom-
     eter capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
     2.S mm Hg (0.1 In. Hg). In many cases, the barometric
     reading may be obtained (rora a nearby national weather
     service station. In which case the station value (which Is
     the absolute barometric pressure) shall be requested and
     an  adjustment for elevation differences between  the
     weather station and sampling point shall be applied at a
     rate of minus 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 In. Hg) per 80 m (100 ft)
     elevation increase, or vice versa Inr elevation decrease.
      2.2 Sample Recovery. The  following equipment Is
     required for sample recovery:
      2.2.1  Graduated Cylinder. 50 ml with l-ml divisions.
      2.2-2  Storage  Containers.   Leak-free polyethylene
     bottles.
  2.2.3 Wash Bottle. Polyethylene or glass.
  2.2.4 Glass Stirring Rod.
  2.2.5 Test Paper for Indicating pH. To cover the pH
range of 7 to u.

men' ^"ee^ed6' *"  th* in*17*14' tn* '°!1<"rin« «jnlp-

  2.3.1 Volumetric Pipettes. Two  1 ml, two 2 ml, one
t ml, one 4 ml, two 10 ml, and one 25 ml lor each sample
and standard.

  2.S.2  Porcelain Evaporating  Dishes. 174- to 250-mJ
 capacity with lip for pouring, one for each sample and
 each  standard. The Coors No. 45008 (shallow-form, 1M
 ml)  has  been found to be satisfactory. Alternatively,
 polymethyl pentene beakers (Naige No. 1203. 150 ml) . or
 glass beakers (150 ml) may be used. When glass beakers
 are used, etching of the beakers may cause solid matter
 to be present In the analytical sten; the solids should be
 removed by nitration (see Section 4.3) . 87
  Z.3..1  Steam Bath. Low-temperature ovens or thermo-
 statically controlled hot plates kept below 70° C (160° F)
 are acceptable alternatives.
  2.3.4  Dropping Pipette or Dropper. Three reqolred.

                             ' *M "" each
  2.3.8  Graduated Cylinder. 100 ml with l-ml divisions.
  2.3.,   Volumetric Flusks. 50 ml (one for each sample
 nrl each standard 1,1 00 ml (one for each sample and each
  2.3.8 Spectropnowmeter. To measure Mworbance at
410 run.
  2.8.0 Graduated Pipette. 10ml with 0.1-ml divisions.
  2.3.10  T«t Paper for Indicating pH. To  cover the
pH raivge ot 7 to 14.
  2.3.11  Analytical Balance. To measure to within 0 1
mg.
          PROBE
                                                        FLASK VALVE
       FILTER
 GROUND-GLASS SOCKET.
        § NO-  12/6


                       f
                 110 mm
 3-WAY STOPCOCKr
 T-BORE. i PYREX,
 2-mm BORE. 8-mm OO
             GROUND-GLAS

               STANDARD TAPER.

              \ SLEEVE NO. 24/40
                                                         FLASK
    FLASK SHIELD>i\
                                                                           SQUEEZE BULB


                                                                        MP VALVE

                                                                                PUMP
                                                                            THERMOMETER
                                                                       210 mm
GROUND-GLASS
SOCKET. § NO. 12/6
PYREX
                                                                                                                   0AM ENCASEMENT
                                                                                                         BOILING FLASK •
                                                                                                         2-LITER, ROUND-BOTTOM. SHORT NECK.

                                                                                                         WITH { SLEEVE NO. 24/40
                                      Figure 7-1.  Sampling train, flask valve, and flask.
                                                        III-Appendix  A-30
-------
   Unless  otherwise Indloattd, It U Intended  that all
 reagents conform to the specifications established by the
 Committee  on  Analytical  ReMenls of the American
 Chemical Society, where itich ipeclBoatlons arc avail-
 able; otherwise, use the best available grade.
   S.1  Sampling.  To prepare the  absorbing  solution,
 cautiously add 2.8 ml  concentrated BiSOi to 1 liter of
 delonlied, distilled water. Mix well and add 0 ml of 3
 percent hydrogen peroxide, freshly prepared  from SO
 percent hydrogen  peroxide solution.  The  absorbing
 solution shouldoe used within I week ot Its preparation.
 Do not expose to extreme heat or direct sunlight.
   *J  Sample Recovery. Two reagents are required for
 sample recovery:
   S.3.1  Sodium Hydroxide (IN). Dissolve 40 g NsOH
 In delonlted, distilled water and dilute to 1 liter.
   3.3.2  Water. Delonlied, dlstlUed to conform to ASTM
 specification D11M-74, Type 8. At tbe option of the
 analyst, the EHNOi test for oxldltable organic matter
 may be omitted  when high concentrations of organic
 matter are not expected to be present.
   3.8  Analysis, For the analysis, th« following reagents
 an required:
   ».».! Fuming BuUuric Acid. 15 to IB percent by weight
 tree  sulfur  trioxlde. HANDLE  WITH  CAUTION.
   S.S.2 Phenol. White solid.
   8.8.8 Sulfurlc Acid. Concentrated,  M percent mini-
 mum assay. HANDLE WITH CAUTION?
   S.8.4 Potassium Nitrate. Dried at IDS to 110° C  (220
 to 280° F) for a minimum of 2 hours (tut prior to prepara-
 tion of standard solution.
   8.8.8  Standard  KNOi  Solution.  Dissolve  exactly
 2.1tt g of dried potassium nitrate (KNOi) In delonlted,
 distilled water  and dilut* to 1 liter with delonltad,
 distilled water la a 1,000-ml volumetric flask.
   8.8.0  Working Standard KNOi Solution. Dilute 10
 ml of the standard solution to 100 ml with delonlied
 distilled water,  One mllllllter of the working standard
 solution Is equivalent to  100 ut nitrogen dioxide (NOi).
   8.3.7  Water. Delonlied,  distilled as In Section 8.2.2.
   8.8.8 • Pbenoldtsulfonlc Add Solution.  Dissolve 36 g
 of pure white phenol  In 1(0 ml concentrated lulfuric
 •old on a  it«am bath.  Cool, add 71 ml fuming sulfurlc
 acid, and  heat at 100°  C (213° F) for 2 hours.  Store In
 a dark, stoppered bottle.

 4. ProesdurM

   4.1  Sampling.
   4.1.1  Pipette 25 ml of absorbing solution Into a sample
 flask, retaining a sufficient quantity for use In preparing
 the calibration standards Insert tbe flask valve stopper
 Into tht flaik with the valve In  the "purge" position.
 Assemble  the sampling train as shown In Figure  7-1
 and  place  the probe at the sampling point. Make sure.
 that all flttlngs art tight  and leak-free, and tbat all
 	id flail Joints have been properly greased with a
 	'vacuum,   high-temperature   chlorofluorocarbon-
 based stopcock  grease. Turn tbe  flaik valve and the
 pump valve to  their "evacuate" positions. Evacuate
 the flaik to 7i mm H| (8 In. Eg) abiolute pressure, or
 law.  Evacuation to a preuure approaching the vapor
 pratjurt of water at tht existing temperatureli desirable
 Turn tbe pump valve  to Its T'ventv' position and turn
 off the pump. Check lor leakage by observing the ma-
 nomttar tor  any pressure fluctuation.  (Any variation
  imUr than 10 torn Hg (0.4 In,  Eg) cvir a period of
  I mlnut* Is not acceptable, and the flaik Is not to be
•> used until  tbi leakage problem It corrected.  Presiure
  In tbi flask is not to exceed 79 mm Hg (8 In. Hg) absolute
  at the time sampling li commenced. TReoord the volume
  el tbi flaik ind valve (V/), the flaik temperature (ft),
  and th«  barometric preaiure.  Turn  tbi flask  valve
  eouatarclockwlM  to it*  "purge"  position and do  the
  •un* with tbe  pump  valve. Purge tbe probe  and  the
  vacuum tub* using the squeew bulb. If condensation
 occurs In  tht probe and thi flaik valve area. be*t  the
 probe and  purge until  tbe condensation dlsepptan.
 Nut, turn toe pump valve to Its "vent" petition.Turn
 tbe  flask ram olockwiie to Its "ivacuater' petition and
 record tht difference In tbt mercury levels In the manom-
 tUr. Tbt absolute Internal pressure In tht flaik  (Pi)
 a taual to tbt barometric preaiure. lew tbt manometer
 reading. Immediately turn  tht flaik valve to the "sun-
 pis" position and  permit tht gas to ent»r tbe flaik until
 pruturti In  tht flaik and MmpTe lint  (I.e., duct, itack)
petition and Ulioonnect the flaik from the  sampling
train. Shut tbi fliik lor at least 8 mlnntei.
  4.1.3  U tb» gas bilng sampled contain! Insufficient
	1  for the  eonvenlon of NO  to NOi (e.g., an ap-
         	        quire taking a
puoabli lubpart of the standard may requ	
Mmple of a calibration gas mixture of NO In Ni), then
oxygen shall be Introduced Into the flaik to permit this
ponvenlon. Oxygen nay be Introduced Into the flaik
by  one  ot three  methods;  (1) Before  evacuating the
sampling flask, fluih with pure cylinder oxygen, then
evacuate Bask to 76 mm Hg (8 In. Hg) absolute preuure
or leu; or (2) Inject oxygenlnto tbe flask after sampling;
or (8) terminate sampling with a minimum of 60 mm
Hg (2 In. Hg) vacuum remaining In the flask, record
this final pressure, and then vent tht flaik to the at-
Biosphere until the flask preeiure la almost equal  to
atmospheric preuure.
  4.1  Sample Recovery. Let tbe flask set for a minimum
of It hours and then shake the contents for 2 mlnutee
Connect tbe fluk to a mercury filled U-tube manometer
Open the valve from the flask to the manometer and
record  the fluk  temperature  (TV), the  barometric
pressure, and the dlflerence between the mercury levels
ID the manometer. The absolute Internal preuure In
tbe flask (/>/) i» tbe barometric pressure less the man-
ometer reading. Transfer the contents of tbe flask to a
teak-tree polyethylene  bottle.  Rinse tbe flask twice
with J-ml portions of delonlted, distilled water and add
the rinse water to the bottle. Adjust the pH to between
t and 12 by adding sodium hydroxide (1 N), dropwlse
(about  25 to K  drops). Check the pH  by dipping a
stirring rod Into the solution and then touching the rod
to the pH test paper. Remove as little maUrlal as possible
during this step. Mark the height ol the liquid level so
that the container can be checked for  leakage after
transport. Label the container to clearly Jdentlfy  Its
contents. Seal the container for shipping.!/
  4J Analysis. Note the level of the liquid In container
and confirm whether or not any sample was lost during
shipment; note this on the analytical data sheet. If a
noticeable amount of leakage has occurred, either void
the B&mple or use methods, subject to tbe approval of
the Administrator, to correct  tbe final results. Immedi-
ately prior  to analysis, transfer the contents of  tbe
shipping container to a SO-ml volumetric flask, and
rinse the container twice with  5-ml portions of delonlted.
distUlfca water. Aoo tbe rinse  -water v>  thti flask anfl
dilute to the mark wltb deioniwd, distilled water; mix
thoroughly. Pipette a 25-ml aliquot Into tbe prooelaln
evaporating dish. Return  any unused portion of  tbe
sample to tbe polyethylene storage bottle. Evaporate
the 26-ml aliquot to dryness on a steam bath and allow
to cool. Add 2 ml phenoldisul/onlc acid solution to tht
dried residue and triturate thoroughly with a polyetbyl-
ene policeman. M&ke sun the solution contacts all  the
residue. Add 1 ml delonlxed, distilled water and four
drops of concentrated  suUuric acid. Heat the. solution
on a steam bath lor 8 minutes with occasional stirring.
Allow the solution to cool, add 20 ml delonlted, distilled
water, mix well by stirring, and add concentrated am-
monium hydroxide, dropwlse, with constant ttlrrmg,
until tbe pH Is 10 (as determined by pR paper). If the
sample contains solids, those  must be  removed  by
filtration  (oentrUugatton Is an acceptable alternative,
subject to the approval of the Administrator), as follows:
filter through Whatman No. 41 filler paper Into a 100-ml
volumetric flask; tin* tbe  evaporating dish with three
S-mt portions of delonJMd, distilled water; filter these
tbrw rinses. Wash tbe  filter  with at least three 18-ml
portions of  deionlted, distil)ed  water.  Add tbe filter
washings  to the contents of  the  volumetric flask and
dilute to the mark with delonlted, distilled water.  If
solids art absent, the solution  can be transferred directly
to tbe 100-ml volumetric flasi and diluted to the mark
with delonlMd. distilled water. Mix the contents of the
flaik thoroughly, and rnauurt the absorbanoe at  the
optimum  wavelength  used for the standards (Section
6.S.I) uslnj the blank solution asa tcro reference. Dilute
tbe sample and tbe blank with  equal volumes of delon-
U«sJ, distilled water 11 the absoTh&nce nwdi At, the..
abtorbsnce of the 400 »ig NOi standard (sou Section 8.2.2)P7

ft.  Cntlbrtltm

  6.1  Flaik Volume The volume of the collection flask-
flaik valve combination  must b* known  prior to sam-
pling. Assemble  the flaak and flask valve and fill wllb
water, to the stopcock  Measure the volume of water to
±10 ml. Record this volumt  on the flask.
  1.2 Spectrophotometer Calibration.
   8.3.1 Optimum Wavelength Determination.
Calibrate  the wavelength scale of the spec-
trophotometer every 6 monlhj, Tbe calibra-
tion  may  be  accomplished  by  using   an
energy source  with  MI Intense line emission
•uch M a  mercury lamp, or by uilng a sorte*
of  (lass  filters)  iptumlnc  the  meaiurtns
range of the apectrophotomet«r. Calibration
material*  are available  commercially  and
from  the  National  Bureau  of  Standards.
Specific detail! on the u*e of mich material*
ahould be nipplled by  the  vendor;  general
information about calibration  technique
can be  obtained   from  general  reference
book* on analytical chemlatry.  The wave-
length Kale of the ipectrophotomoter mu*t
read correctly within  ± » nm at  all  calibra-
tion  points;  olherwtw,  the  apectrophoto-
meter shall be repaired  and recalibrated,
Once  the wavelength scale of the spectro-
photometer Is In proper calibration, use 410
nm as the optimum wavelength for the mea-
surement  of  the  aboorbance of  the stan-
dard* and sample*. B7
  Alternatively,  a scanning procedure  may
be  employed  to determine the proper mea-
suring wavelength. If the Instrument Is a
double-beam  spectrophotometer,  scan the
spectrum between  400  and 415 nm  using a
100 iig NO, standard solution In the sample
cell and a  blank solution  In the  reference
cell. If a  peak  does not occur, the spectro-
photometer Is probably malfunctioning and
should be repaired.  When a peak Is obtained
                                                                                                     within the 400 to 416 tun range, the wave-
                                                                                                     length at which this peak occur* shall  ,be
                                                                                                     the  optimum wavelength  for the  measure-
                                                                                                     ment  of absorbance of both the standards
                                                                                                     and the samples. For a single-beam gpectro-
                                                                                                     paotometer. follow  the scanning procedure
                                                                                                     described above, except that the blank and
                                                                                                     standard  solutions  shall  be  scanned  sepa-
                                                                                                     rately. The  optimum  wavelength  shall  be
                                                                                                     the  wavelength at which the maximum dif-
                                                                                                     ference In absorbance between  the standard
                                                                                                     and the blank occur*.87
                                                                                                       1.2.3  Determination of Spectrophotometer
                                                                                                     Calibration  Factor  K^ Add 0.0 ml,  a  ml. 4
                                                                                                     ml,  0 ml, and  8 ml of the  KNO, working
                                                                                                     standard solution (1 ml -100 M> NO,) to a
                                                                                                     series  of five (0-ml volumetric flasks.  To
                                                                                                     each flask, add 25 ml of absorbing solution.
                                                                                                     10 ml delonized, distilled water, and sodium
                                                                                                     hydroxide (1 M) dropwlw untU th« pH U be-
                                                                                                     tween >  and II (about 38 to SB drop* each).
                                                                                                     Dilute to the mark  with deIonized, dlstlUed
                                                                                                     water. Mix thoroughly and pipette a  25-ml
                                                                                                     aliquot of each solution Into  a separate por-
                                                                                                     celain evaporating dish.B7
                                                                                                     Beginning with the evaporation step, follow the analy-
                                                                                                     sis procedure of Section 4.1. until the solution has been
                                                                                                     transferred to the 100 ml  volumetric flask and diluted to
                                                                                                     the mark Measure the absorbance of each solution, at the
                                                                                                     optimum wavelength, as determined In Section 9.3.1.
                                                                                                     This calibration procedure must be repeated on each day
                                                                                                     that samples ar* analysed. Calculat* tht spectrophotom-
                                                                                                     eter calibration factor as follows:
                                                                                                             K.-lOO^
                                                                                                                                     Equation 7-1
                                                                                                     where:
                                                                                                       /f.-Calibration factor
                                                                                                       Mi-Absorbance of the lOO-ng NOi standard
                                                                                                       A i m Absorbanoe of tbe S00>g NOi sUndard
                                                                                                       Xi-Absorbsjice of the SOOng N0> standard
                                                                                                       <*i-Abtorbanoe of the 400-*g NOirtandard
                                                                                                       9.8  Barometer. Calibrate agtlnit a mercury barom-
                                                                                                     eter.
                                                                                                       9.4   Temperature Gauge. Calibrate dial thtrmoniiUrs
                                                                                                     agali.it mercury-ln-glass thermometers.
                                                                                                       9.9   Vacuum  Osuge.  Calibrate mechanical gauges, If
                                                                                                     UMd, against a mercury manometer weh ai that tpecl-
                                                                                                     fled In 1.1.8.
                                                                                                       8.8  Analytical Balance. Calibrate against standard
                                                                                                     weights.

                                                                                                     e). OolcuJoKonj

                                                                                                       Carry out the calculations, retaining at least one extra
                                                                                                     decimal figure beyond that ol tbe acquired data. Round
                                                                                                     oft figures after final calculation!.
                                                                                                       8.1   Nomenclature.
                                                                                                        X-Abnorbance ol sample.
                                                                                                         C-Concentrailon  of NO. at NOi,  dry  bails, cor-
                                                                                                           rected  to   standard   conditions,   rng/dscm

                                                                                                         f-Dilution factor (U , 29/8, 39/10,  etc., required
                                                                                                           only  If  sample  dilution was needed  to  reduce
                                                                                                           tht absorbanoe.  Into the range of calibration).
                                                                                                        /f ."Sneftropholonieter calibration factor.  ..
                                                                                                        m-Mssi of NO, as  NOi in gu samplo.«, °
                                                                                                        /•/•Final absolute pressure of flsik, mm Hg (In. Hi).
                                                                                                        Fi-Inltlal absoluU; preuure of flask, mm Hg (in.

                                                                                                       PM " Standard i btolutf preHure, 7(0 ram Hg (30.43 in.
                                                                                                            H«>-
                                                                                                        TV-Final absolute temperature of flaik ,*K (°R).
                                                                                                                                         k, "K CR).
                                                                                                                                          '      *
                                                                                                         Ti- Initial absolute temperature of flask,        .
                                                                                                       r(ld- Standard absolute temperature, 308' K O38* R)
                                                                                                        V',,»8amp]e  volume it itindtrd  oondltloni  (dry
                                                                                                            bulsj, ml.
                                                                                                         v,- Volume of flaik and valve, ml.
                                                                                                         V.- Volume of absorbing solution, 39 ml.
                                                                                                          3-50/28, the sllqunl factor. (If other than a 36-rnl
                                                                                                            allquol wai used  for analytic,  the correspond-
                                                                                                            ing factor must be substituted) .
                                                                                                       (.3  Sample volumr, dry ba>!>, oorrtcUd to itandard
                                                                                                      conditions
                                                                                                     where:
                                                                                                          , = 0.3858
                                                                                                                       °K
                                                                                                                     mm Hg

                                                                                                                      °R
                                                                                                                                      Equation 7-2


                                                                                                                               for metrics units
                                                                                                             17.64 .   V,   for English units
                                                                                                                    in. Hg
                                                       Ill-Appendix  A-31
-------
  «.» Total « NOt per sample.
                                Equation 7-3

  Notl.— Holder Uuui a Z5-mI aliquot It used (or analv-
 ti«, (be factor i must b< replaced by a oorrespondlni

  8.4  Sample concentration, dry basis, correct^ to
itandard conditions.
  >. Jacob, H. B. The Chemical Anal
ants.  New York. IntenclenM Publ
                                                                                     ofAlrPoUut-
                                                                                     >,  Inc. I960.
                  C=K,
                          m
                                Equation 7-4
	..„_  . „.». uiwvciBiicv ruDlisnen,  inc. 1960.
Vol. 10. p. JU-3M.
  4. Beatty, R. L., I/. B. Berger, and B. H. SchrenJc.
Determination of Oxides of Nitrogen by the Fbenoldliul-
fonlc  Acid Method. Bureau of Mines, U.6. Dept. ot
Interior. R. I. 3687. February 1943.
  «. H&mll, H. F. and P. E. Catoann. C«)laboratlr«
Study of Method  for  the Determination of Nitrofen
Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources (Fossil Fuel-
Fired  Steam Generators). Southwest Research Instlttrt*
report for Environmental  Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. October 8,1878.
  6. Eamll, H. F. and R. E. Thomas. Collaborative
Study of Method  for  the Determination of Nitrofen
Oslde Emissions from Stationary  Sources (Nitric Add
Plants). Southwest Research Institute report for En-
vironmental  Protection Agency.  Research  Triangle
Park,  N.C. May », 1974.87
       )0»        for metric units
           jig/ml
       6.243 X 10-»      . for English units
7. fi(U(o«raj>ftr

 1. Standard Metbodi of Chemical Analysis. 6th ed.
New York^D. Van Nostrend Co., Inc. 1962. Vol. 1,
p. 8»-330. «/
 3. Standard Method of Test for Oxides of Nitrogen In
Oueoiu Combustion Products (Phenoldlsulfonlc Add
Procedure), tn: 1968 Book of A8TM Standards, Pan 26.
Philadelphia, Pa. 1968. A8TM  Designation D-190WIC,
                                                         Ill-Appendix  A-31a
-------
III-Appendix A-31b
-------
MITIIOD fr-DitiMUHAnoM of Saintue AOD Mm
  AMD SOlrU* DlOXIDI EMUMOm fHOM STiTtOHAlT
  Sonicw

I. Prlndpli and ApptlettUUy
  1.1  Principle. A gu sample li extracted ItoklnetlceJIy
from the ilack.  The lullurio add mill (Including sullur
trloslde) and (he nillur dlojlde ue separated, and both
fnclloru art measured separately by the birlum-thorin
tttntlon ra«lhod.
  l.t  Applicability. Thli nmhod  U applicable for  the
dtUrmltutlon of  mlfurio acid mist (Including lulftir
Utoilde, end In the ibwnce ot other paniculate matter)
tad niltu/ dloilde emissions from stationary tourceav
Collaborative test!  have ihown  that the minimum
detectable limits of the method art 0.0.1 milliirrami/cublo
mater (O.taxiO-1  poundi/cublc foot) [or lulfur trioilde
and 1.2 mg/m' (O.Tl   10-< Ib/ft") for  sulfur dlmlde. No
upper limits hare been established, lined on theoretical
calculations (or 200 mlUIUters  ot  3  percent  hydrogen
ptfoilde solution, Ihe upper  concentration  limit for
eulrar dlotld« In a l.u m> <».»  ft') (as sample It ibout
11MO mj/rai (7.7XIO-* 1WII').  The uppet limit can be
eitended by Increasing the quantity of wroildd totatloa
In the Implngen.
  PoMlble Interfering agent) of this method are fluoride*,
fret ammonia,  and dimethyl aniline. If any of those
Interfering agent) are present (this can be determined by
knowledge ol th« proof**), aUemitl** melhodt. subject
U the apwoul  of the  Administrator, U.S.EPA are


  Filterable  paniculate matter may he de-
termined along with SO, and SO, (subject lo
the  approval of  the Administrator) by  In-
                     serting a heated glass fiber filter  between

                     the  probe  and  Isopropanol Implnger (see
                     Section 2.1 of Method 8). If this option  Is

                     chosen, participate analysis Is  gravimetric
                     only:' H.SO. acid mist Is not determined sep-
                     arately. 87

                     2. Affarntm

                      3.1  Sampling.  A tchetnaUo  of the sampling  train
                     uv-d In iMj method Is shown In Flguie fr-1; It D dmllar
                     to the Method 5 train wcpl that the niter position li
                     dlttertnt and the niter holder dors not have tow heated.
                     Comraerdal models of this train are available. For thoae
                     who desire  to build Iheir own. howevrr, iomplcle con-
                     itmcllon details are described hi Al'TOJi'<-Qj7i> itoi'iirccnt and adopt  the
                     operating and maintenance fruLtdurca outlined  In It,
                     unless oihcrwlso spo Uner. Uoroslllcaln or i|uarU glus, with a
                     hcattntt system to i>rovi>ni vl^llile coitdfii^itiaii during
                     sampUit). Do not use racial ptobe liners.
  -.1.1.3  1'ltot Tub«. Same aa Method 5. Soctlon 3.1.8.

  1.1.4  Differential PratonOauge. Same at Method 5,
Seel loo 2.1.4.
  2.U  PUUr Holdu. BorteUlcaU ilaae, with » llaat
frit filter support and a illlcone rubber gasket. Other
niket oiatenai), e.g., Teflon or Vlum, may be usediub-
feet to the approval of the Administrator. The holder
design iball provide a positive teal against leataje from
the outelde, or around the filter. The filter bolder shall
tx placed between the flirt tod tecond Implngen. Now:
Do not heat the niter holder.
  1.1.6  Implngen—7our. as ihown In 7lran ft-t. The
Ditt and third «riall be of the Oreenbun-Bmlth dealgn
with standard tips. The second and fourth  ihall  b» of
the Oreenburg-Smith design, modified by replacing the
Inaert with an approitmately 13 millimeter (O.J in.) ID
glan tube, having an  unconslrlcted tip located 13 nun
(OS In.) from the bottom of the flask. Similar collection
efSUms, which have been approved by the Adminis-
trator, may be med.
  1.1.7  Metering  SyiUm. Same as Method 5,  BecUcm
3>]<8<
  ».l^  Barometer, flame as Method t. Section 2.U.
  11 .g  Oas Density  Determination Equipment. Same
U Method 5, Section 2.1.10.
  11.10  Temperature Gauge. Thermometer, or equiva-
lent, to m»a.Tur« Vht wmptratui* o« the gas leaning the
taplnger train to within F C (2» t).
  12 Sample Reeoverr.
                                  TEMPERATURE SENSOR
                                                 PROBE
PITOTTUBE

TEMPERATURE SENSOR
<=z
-------
  Ill  Wiib Bottls*. PolyttbyketM or glass, 400  nl.
  U.9  Graduated Cylinders. 280 ml, 1 liter. (V«hr
•etrle flasks may alto be used.)

JtH. f"*1* l£U"-,.l*t*-fr4 ran) .
  114  Trip Bal*ne*. tOOfrun oapadty, to measure to
sfc&J 1 
-------
  Notl.—If moisture content Is to be determined by
Implnger analysis, weigh each of the first three Implngers
(plug abaorblngsolutlon) to the nearest 0.6 g and record
these weights. The weight of tbe silica gel (or silica gel
plus container) must also be determined to the nearest
0.5 g and recorded.
  4.1.4   Pretest  Leak-Check  Procedure.  Follow  the
basic procedure outlined  In Method 6, Section 4.1.4.1,
noting  that the probe heater shall be adjusted to tbe
minimum temperature  required to prevent condensa-
tion, and also that verbage such as, •'• •  • plugging the
Inlet to the  filter holder  • • •," shall be replaced by.
	plugging the Inlet to the flat Implnger • • V'
The pretest leak-check I* optional. °>
  4.1.6   Train Operation. Follow the basic procedure!
outlined In Method 6, Section 4.1.6, in conjunction with
the following special Instructions. Data shall be recorded
on a sheet tlmlUr to tbe one In Figure 8-2. The sampling
rate shall not exceed 0.030 ra'/mfn (1.0 eta) during the
run. Periodically during the test, observe the connecting
line between tht probe and  flrrt Implnger for signs ol
condensation. If It doe* occur, adjust the probe  neater
setting upward to the minimum temperature  required
to prevent condensation. If component changes become
necessary during a run, a leak-check shall be done Im-
mediately before each change, according to the procedure
outlined In Section 4.1.4.2 of Method 6 (with appropriate
modifications,  as mentioned  In  Section  4.1.4 of  this
method); record  all  leak  rate*. If the leakage rated)
exceed  the specified rate, the tester shall either void the
run or  shall plan to correct the sample volume as out-
lined In Section 6.3 of Method 6. Immediately after com-
ponent changes,  leak-checks  are  optional.   If  these
leak-checks are done, the procedure outlined In Section
4.1.4.1  of Method  S  (with appropriate modifications)
ihall be used.

  After turning  off the  pump and recording  the final
readings at the conclusion of each run, remove the probe
from the stack. Conduct a post-test (mandatory) leak-
oheck as In Section 4.1.4.8 of Method 5 (with appropriate
modification) and record the leak rate.  If the  post-test
leakage rate exceeds tbe specified acceptable  rate, the
tester shall either correct the sample volume, as outlined
In Section 9.3 of Method 5, or shall void the run.
  Drain the ice batb and, with the probe disconnected,
 purge  the remaining part of the train, by drawing clean
ambient air through the system for 16 minutes at the
 average flow rate used for sampling.
   Noil.—Clean ambient air can be provided by passing
 air through a charcoal Alter.  At the option of trie tester,
 ambient air (without cleaning) may be used.
  4.1.6  Calculation of Percent Isoklnetlc. Follow tbe
 procedure outlined In Method 6, Section 4.1.3.
   4.2  Sample Recovery.
  4.2.1  Container No. 1. If a moisture content analysis
 Is to be done, weigh the tint Implnger plus contents to
 the nearest 0.5 g and record this weight.
  Transfer the contents of the first Implnger to a 250-ml
 graduated cylinder. Rinse the probe, first Iraplnger. all
 connecting glassware before the filter, and the front half
 of the filter  holder with 80 percent Iscpropanol. Add the
 rinse solution to the cylinder. Dilute to 2SO ml with 80
 percent Isopropanol. Add the Alter to the solution, mix,
 and transfer to the storage container. Protect the solution
 against evaporation. Mark the level of llrmjd  on, ihc
 container and Identify the sample container. Vr
   4.2.2  Container No. 2. If a moisture content analyst*
 Is  to be done, weigh tbe second and third imnlngert
 (plus  contents) to the nearest O.s g and record these
 weight*. Also, weigh tbe spent silica gel (or silica gel
 plutlmpinger) to the nearest 0.6g.
   Transfer  the solutions from tbe  second and third
 Implngers to  a 1000-ml  graduated  cylinder.  Rinse  all
 connecting glassware (Including back half of filter holder)
 between the filter and silica gelimplnger with delonlted,
 distilled water, and add this rinse water to tbe cylinder.
  Dilute to a volume of 1000 mi with delonlted, distilled
 water. Transfer the solution to • storage container. Mark
 the level of liquid on the container. Seal and identify tht
 sample container.
    4.3   Analysis.
    Note the level of liquid In containers 1 and 2, and con-
  firm whether or not any sample was lost during ship-
 ment; note this on the analytical data sheet. If a notice-
 able amount of leakage has occurred, either void tbe
 (ample or use methods, subject to the approval of tht
  Administrator, to correct the final result*.  •
   4.3.1  Container No. 1. Shake the container  holding
  the Isopropanol solution and the filter. If  the filter
  breaks up, allow the fragment* to settle for a few minute*
  before removing a sample.  Pipette a 100-m!  aliquot of
  this solution Into a 250-ml Erlenmeyer flask, add 2 to 4
  drops of thortn Indicator, and titrate to a pink endpoint
  using 0.0100 N barium perchlorate. Repeat the tltratlon
  with  a second aliquot of sample and average the tltratlon
  value*. RepUotte tltntion* mart afree within 1  percent
  or 0.2 ml, whichever 1* greater.
   44J  ConUlnv No. 3. Thoroughly mix the solution
 In the container holding the contact* of the second and
 third  Implngers. Pipette a KVml aliquot of sample Into a
 160-ml Erlenmeyer  flask. Add 40 ml of Isopropanol. 2 to
 4 drop* of tborin Indicator, and tltraie to a pink endpoint
oxnf 0.0100 N barium perch lorate. Repeat the tltratlon
with a second aliquot of sample and average the tltratlon
valur*. Replicate tltratlon* mutturrM within 1 percent
or 0.2 ml, whichever Is greater. =7
  4.3.8  Blanks. Prepare blanks by adding 2 to 4 drops
of thorln indicator to 100 ml of 80 percent iaopropanol.
Titrate the blanks in the same manner as the samples.
                                                     cmate the moisture content of tbe stack gas, using Equa-
                                                     tion 6-3 of Method 5. The "Note" In Section 6.5 of Method
                                                     8 also applies to this method. Note that If t he effluent gat
                                                     stream can b« considered dry, tbe volume of water vapor
                                                     •nd moisture content need not be calculated.
                                                       6.4  Sulfuric add mist (including 80i) concentration
6.

  6.1  Calibrate equipment using the procedure* speci-
fied In tbe following sections of Method 6: Section 64
(metering system); Section  6.5  (temperature gauges):
Section 5.7  (barometer). Note that the recommended
leak-check ofthe metering system, described In Section
6.4 ol Method 5, also applies to this mttbcd.
  6.2  Standardly the barium perchlorate solution vlUi
29 ml of standard sulfuric acid, to which 100 ml of 100
percent Isopropanol has been added.

6. Calculation*

  Note.—Carry out calculations retaining at least one
extra decimal figure beyond that of tbe acquired data.
Round ofl figures after final calculation.
  (.1  Nomenclature.
       .4.-Cro89-3ectiotialareaofnoitle.ni' (ft*).
      B.,-Water vapor in the gas stream, proportion
            by volume.
  C,;,.,' -Sul/urlcacid (IncludingSOi) concentration,
            g/dscm (lb/dscf). 87
    C,,J -Sulfur dioxide concentration,  g/dscm Ob/
            d&cf). "*
         7-Percent of tsokluetlc sampling.
       rV-Normallty of barium perchlorate titrant, g
     ,,     equivalents/liter.
     "h,, -Barometric pressure »t the sampling site,
            mmHg (in. Hg). *>'
       F,-Absolute stack gas  pressure, mm  Hg (In.

     P.id- Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm  Hg
             (29.92in. Hg). 87
       7*.- Average absolute dry gas meter temperature
             (aee Figure 8-2), °K(°R).
       7",-Avere*e absolute stack gas temperature (see
     -,     Figures^)," K (° R).
     1 .m -Standard absolute  temperature,  293°  K
             (528° R).S/
       V,«-Volume of (ample aliquot  titrated, 100 ml
             for HtSOi and 10ml tor 80:.
       Vi,-Total volumeof liquid collected In Implngers
            and silica gel, ml.
       V.-Volume of gas sample as measured by dry
  ..       gas meter, dcm (del).
   Vmt.Mi-volumeof gaa sample measured by theory
           gas meter corrected to standard conditions,
           dscm (dscf). 87
        r.-Average stack gas velocity,  calculated  by
           Method 2. Equation 2-0. using dataobtalned
    .,     from Method 8, rn/sec (ft/sec).
     Vioir-Total volume of solution in which  the
           sulfuric  acid or  sulfur dioxide sample  Is
           contained. 2.V) ml or 1,000 ml, respectlvely.87
       V.-Volume of barium perchlorate titrant used
           for tbe (ampie. ml.
       fit-Volume of barium perchlorate titrant nsed
           for tbe blank, ml.
        y-Dry gas meter calibration factor.
       AH-Average pressure drop acrosi orifice meter,
           mm  (In.) HrO.
        9-Total sampling time, mln.
       13.8- Specific gravity of mercury.
       «0-secfmln.
       100—Conversion to percent.
  6.2   Average dry gas rcelf.r temperature and average
oriflr* pressure drop. See data sheet (Figure 8-2).
  (.3   Dry  Oas  Volume. Correct the sample  volume
measured by the dry gas meter to standard conditions
(20° C and 760 mm Hg or 68" F and 29.92 In. Hg) by using
Equation 8-1.
                                                             -H,gcy
                                                                     -K,
                                                                                        Equation 8-2
                                                      where:
                                                        ATi-0 049CH g/mllli equivalent for metric nnlta.
                                                          -1.081XKH Ib/meo. for English units.
                                                        fl.ft Sulfur dioxide concentration.
                                                                                       Equation 8-3
                                                     where:
                                                     .  Ki-O.GXXBrtmeq for metric units.
                                                          -7.rj61X10-*lWmeq lor English unit*.
                                                       8.7 laokinetic Variation.
                                                       6.7.1  Calculation from raw data.
                                                                                        Equation 8-4

                                                     where:
                                                       tfi-0.003464 mm Bg-m»/ml-°K f,,r metric units.
                                                          -0.002676 in. Hg-Tt'/ml-°R for English units.
                                                       (.7.2  Calculation from Intermediate values.
                                                                                                       87
                                                                   TVaMA.F, 60(1-5,,,)

                                                                           m rr

                                                                 "Kt •&•
               ,/r..a\   u>nU3.e/
                 \ Tm )       P,,d
                    — " 1 * m *          rp


                                   Equation  8-1

 where:
  K> 0.8848 «K/mra Hg lor metric units.
     -17.64 °R/in. Hg for English units.

  Noli.—If the leak rate observed during any manda-
 tory leak-checks eicwds the tpeclfled acoept»M«  rate,
 the tester shall either correct the value of V. In Equation
 g-1 (as  described in Section 93 of Method  6), or  shall
 Invalidate the test run.


   t.t  Volume of Water Vapor and  Moisture Content.
 Calculate the  volume of water vapor using Equation
 6-2 of  Method 6: the  weight of water collected in the
 Implngers and silica gel can be  directly converted to
 miniliten (the specific gravity of water Is 1 i/ml). Cal-
                                                                                       Equation 8-5
                                                     There:
                                                       £T,-4.320 for metric units.
                                                          -O.OMSOfor English unite.
                                                       9.8  Acceptable Results. If 90 percent l!t>erap/:ir

                                                       1.  Atmospheric Emissions from Bulfuric Aoid Manu-
                                                     facturing  Processes.  U.S.  DHEW, PH8. Division of
                                                     Air Pollution. Public Health Service Publication No.
                                                     W-AP-13. Cincinnati. Ohio. 1965.
                                                       2. Corbctt.  P. F. The Determination of BOi and BOi
                                                     In Flue Oases. Journal ofthe Institute of Fuel. I4V237-243.
                                                     wei.
                                                       3. Martin, Robert M. Construction Detallsoflsokinetlc
                                                     Source Sampling Eoulpment. Environmental Protection
                                                     Agency.  Research Triangle Park, N.C. Air Pollution
                                                     Control Office Publication No. APTD-0581. April, 1971.
                                                       4. Pattoa. W. F. and J. A. Brink, Jr. New Equipment
                                                     and Techniques for  Sampling Chemical Process Oases.
                                                     Journal of Air Pollution Control Association. /W62.1983.
                                                       6. Rom, J.). Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation
                                                     of Isoklnetlc Source-Sampling Equipment,  office of
                                                     Air  Programs,  Environmental  Protection  Agency.
                                                     Renaroh Triangle Park, N.C. APTD-0574. March, 1972.
                                                       6. Hamll, B. F. and D. E. Caraann. Collaborative
                                                     Study of Method for Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
                                                     Emissions  from Stationary  Sources (Fosall Fuel-Fired
                                                     Steam Generators).  Environmental Protection Agency.
                                                     Research   Triangle  Park,  N.C.  EPA-650/4-74-024.
                                                     December, 1973.
                                                       7. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part 81; Water,
                                                     Atmospheric  Analysis,  pp.  40-12. American  Society
                                                     for resting and Materials. Philadelphia, Pa. int.
       Ill-Appendix  A-34
-------
METHOD  9—VISUAL DCTEBMJJTATIOtf  OF THE
  OPACITY  Or EMISSIONS FEOM  STATIONARY
  SOOTCE3  lf)
  Many stationary sources discharge visible
emissions Into the atmosphere: these emis-
sions are usually  In the shape of  a plume.
Ttis method Involves  the determination of
plume opacity  by qualified observers. The
method Includes procedures for the training
and certification of observers, and procedures
to lie used In the  field for determination of
plume opacity. The appearance of a plume aa
viewed by an observer depends upon a num-
ber of variables, some of which may be con-
trollable and some of which may not  be
controllable in the field. Variables which can
be controlled to an extent to which they no
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. The
method  Includes specific criteria applicable
to these variables.
  Other variables  which  may not be control-
lable In the field are luminescence  and color
contrast between  the plume and the back-
ground  against which the plume is viewed.
Theso variables exert au 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 trie 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
follow?  from this, frntf IB confirmed by field
trials, that the  opacity  of a  plume, viewed
under conditions  whk continuously  at the
plupif. but- lnsl<:'!-.£* shall observe the ]>lume
momentarily »>  )5-*scond  Intervnls.
  2.3.1  Attached steam  plumes. When con-
densed  water vapor  Is present within the
plumo ii? It emerges iroci the, emission out-
let, opacity observations shall  bo made be-
yond  the point In the plume at which  con-
densed water vapor Is no longer visible. The
observer shall record  the  approximate dis-
tance from the emission outlet to the poijr.
In the plumo at which the observations nre
made.
  2 3.2  Detached steam  plume. When water
vsipor In the plume condenses and becomes
visible at a distinct distance from the emis-
sion outlet, the opacity of emissions should
be  evaluated nt the emission, outlet prior to
the condensation of water vapor and the for-
mation  of the steam plume.
  2.4  Recording observations.  Opacity ob-
servations shall be recorded to  the nearest 5
percent  at  15-secoiid Intervals on an ob-
servational record sheet. (See Figure 9-2 for
on  example.) A minimum of 24 observations
shall  be recorded. Each momentary observa-
tion recorded s!)«ll bo deemed  to  represent
the average opacity of emissions for n IB-
second period.
  2.5  Data Reduction. Opacity shall be de-
termined as on  ixvorago  of 24  consecutive
observations recorded nt 15-Becond Intervals.
Divide the observations recorded on the rec-
ord sheet Into  sets of 24 consecutive obser-
vations. A set  Is  composed of  any 24  con-
secutive observations. Sets need not be con-
secutive In time and In  no case shall two
sets overlap. For each set of 24 observations,
calculate the average by summing the opacity
of the 24 observations and dividing this sum
 by 24. If an applicable standard specifies an
 averaging  time requiring more than 24 ob-
 servations, calculate the average for all ob-
 servations  made  during the specified time
 period. Record the average opacity on a record
 sheet. (See Figure 9-1 for an example.)
   3. Qualifications and testing.
   3.1  Certification requirements. To receive
 certification as a qualified observer, a can-
 didate must be tested  and demonstrate the
 ability to assign opacity readings In 5 percent
 Increments to 25 different black plumes and
 2} different  white, plumes, with  an  error
 not to exceed 15 percent opacity on any one
 reading  and an average error not to exceed
 7.5 percent opacity In each category. Candi-
 dates shall be tested according to the pro-
 cedures  described  In paragraph 3.2. Smoke
 generators  used  pursuant to paragraph  32
 shall be  equipped with  a smoke meter which
 meets the  requirements of paragraph  3.3.
   The certification shall be valid for a period
 of 6 months, at which tUne the qualification
 procedure  must be repeated  by any observer
 In order  to retain certification.
•  32  Certification procedure.  The certifica-
 tion test consists of showing the candidate a>
 complete run of 60 plumes—25 black plumes
 and 25 white  plumes—generated by a smoke
 generator. Plumes within each set of 25 black.
 and 25 white runs shall be presented In ran-
 dom order. The candidate assigns an opacity
 value to each  plume and records MB obser-
 vation on a suitable form. At tbc completion
 of each run of 60 readings, the score of the
 candidate Is determined. If a candidate falls
 to qualify,  the complete run of 50 rcndlngs
 must be repeated in any retest. The smoke
 test may be administered as port of a smoke
 school or training program, and may be pre-
 ceded by training or familiarization runs of
 the smoke generator during which candidates
 are shown  black and white plumes of known
 opacity.
   3.3  Smoke  generator specifications. Any
smoke generator  used  for the pxirposes of
 paragraph S.2 shall be equipped with u smoko
meter  Installed to  measure opacity  across
tlio diameter  of the  smoke generator  stovck.
The smoke meter  out.put shall display In-
stack opacity based ujxin a pathlenpUi equal
 to the stock exit diameter, on a full 0 to 100
percent  chart recorder scale.  The smoke-
meter optical design a-'id performance shnll
meet the specifications shown  In Table 9—1.
The smoke  moter  shall  be calibrated as pre-
scribed In  paragraph 3J.I  prior to Uio con-
 duct of  each  smoke reading  test. At  lhe>
completion  of  each test, the zero ajid spiui
drift shall  be  checked  and If  the  drift ex-
 ceeds f.l pcnx-nt opacity, Uio condition sh:!.;!
be corrected, pr.o.- to conducting tir.y subse-
 quent  teat runs. The smoke meter shall bo
aercinstraU-d.  a*, the time of Installation, to
meet the specifications listed In Table »-l.
Tola demonstration  shall  bo reported fol-
lowing any subsequent repair or replacement
of the photocell or associated electronic cir-
cuitry Including the chart recorder or oxitput
meter, or every 6  months, whichever occurs
first.
   S.3J.  Calibration.  The  smoke meter  IB
 calibrated  after allowing ft minimum of SO
 mlnutee  warmup  by alternately producing
simulated opacity of 0  percent  anil 100 per-
cent. Whea stable  response at  0 percent or
 100 percent Is noted, tbe smoke meter  is ad-
 justed to produce an output of  0 percent or
 100 percent, as appropriate. This calibration
Bhall be  repeated until  stable 0 percent and
100 percent readings »-.•« produced  without
adjustment.  Simulated 0 percent  and  100
percent opacity values may be produced by
alternately switching the power to the light
source on and off while the smoke generator
Is  not producing smoko.
                                                  Ill-Appendix  A-35
-------
    TiBU »-t—BMOKE METER DESIGN AND
        PERTOBKAXCE 6PECITICATION3
Parameter:
&. Llgtot source	
b. Spectral response
    of photocell.
o. Angle of view	

d. Angle of  projec-
    tion.
e. Calibration error_

t. Zero   and   span
    drift.
g. Response time—
    Specification
Incandescent    lamp
  operated at nominal
  rated voltage.
Fhotoplc    (daylight
  spectral response of
  the  human  eye—
  reference 4.3).
15*  nvttTimiiTTi  total
  angle.
15*  maximum  total
  angle.
:t3%  opacity,  maxi-
  mum*
±1%    opacity.   30
  minutes.
S6 seconds.
  3.3.2  Smoke meter evaluation. The smoke
meter  design and  performance are to be
evaluated as follows:
  3.3.2.1 Ught source. Verify from manu-
facturer's data and from voltage  measure-
ments made at the lamp, as Installed, that
the lamp 4s  operated within, :tS percent of
the nominal rated voltage.
  8.3.2,2 Spectral  response  of  photocell.
Verily from manufacturer's  data  that tie
photocell has a pholoplc response; 1.0, the
spectral sensitivity of  the cell  shall closely
approximate t'na slandc.viJ Bpe-ctrol-Iumlnor;.
Ity curve inr photoplc  vision wtich Is refer-
enced  In (b) of Table  0-1.
  3.3.2.3  Angle of view. Check construction
geo>r\::cry to ensure that the UHA! tingle c>*
view  of the smoke plume, as  seen by the
photocell,  does not exoeod  16*. The  total
angle  of view may be  calculated from:  f=3
tan-*  d/2L,  where f=total angle  of view;
d=the sum of the photocell diameter+the
diameter  of the  limiting  aperture;   and
L=tho distance Irom  toe photocell to th»
limiting aperture. The U-Tiltlng aperture Is
the point ax the path  between  Che photocell
and the smoke plume wfcere  tb« angle of
view is most restricted. In mnoke generator
smoke meters this Is normally An orlflca
plate.
   3.3.2.4  Angle of  projection. Chect  con-
struction geometry to ensure that the total
angle of  projection of  the lamp on  the
smoke plume does not exceed 16*. The total
angle of projection may be calculated from:
6=2 tan-1 d/2L, where 8= total angle of pro-
jection; d= the sum of tbe length of  the
lamp filament + the diameter of the limiting
aperture; and L= the distance from tbe lamp
to the limiting aperture.
  3.3.2.6  Calibration «rror. tiling  neutral-
density filters of known opacity, check  the
error between the actual response  and  the
theoretical  linear response of  the  smoke
meter. This check la accomplished by first
calibrating  the  smoke  meter according to
3.3.1 and  then  Inserting a series of three
neutral-density filters of nominal opacity of
20, 60, and 76 percent In the srnota meter
pathlength. Filters callbartod within ±2 per-
cent shall be used. Care should  be taken
wlien. Inserting  the .filters to  prevent stray
light from affecting the meter. Make a total
of  five nonconsecutlve  readings  for each.
filter. The maximum error on any one read-
Ing shall bo S percent opacity.
  3.3.2.6   Zero  and  span  drift.  Determine
tbe zero anC span drift by calibrating  and
operating the smoke generator In a normal
manner over a  1-hour  period. The drift  is
measured by checking tbe zero and span at
the end of this period.
  332.1   Response time. Determine tbe re-
sponse time by producng tbe series of five
simulated 0 percent and 100 percent opacity
values and observing the  time  required to
reach stable response.  Opacity  values of  0
percent and 100 percent may be simulated
by alternately  switching tbe  power to the
light source off and on while the smoke
generator Is not operating.
   4. ^?/c.-;ncc5.
  4.1  Air Pollution Control District Rulea
and Regulation*, Los  Angeles  County Air
Pollution  Control  District, Regulation IV,
Prohibitions, Rule SO.
   42  Wsisburd. Melvtn L. Field Operations
and Enforcement Manual for Air, VJB. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C., APTD-1100. August 1912.
pp. 4.1-436.
   4.3  Condon, E. T/., and Odishaw, H., Hand-
book of Physics, McGraw-Hill Co.. N.T, N.T,
 1066, Table 3.1, p. 6-52.
                                                  Ill-Appendix  A-36
-------
                    COMPANY	_
                    LOCATION	

                    TEST NUMBER,

                    DATE	
                    TYPE FACILITY__

                    CONTROL DEVICE
                                                          RECORD OF VISUAL DETERMINATION OF OPACITY
                                                                                                 PAGE	of
                                                                             HOURS OF OBSERVATION.

                                                                             OBSERVER	
                                                                             OBSERVER CERTIFICATION  DATE_

                                                                             OBSERVER AFFILIATION	__

                                                                             POINT OF EMISSIONS	
                                                                             HEIGHT OP DISCHARGE POINT
(D
3
 I
to
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, % clouds, etc.)

PLUME DESCRIPTION
  Color

  Distance Visible

 OTHER INFORMATION
                                                   Initial
                                                           Final
          SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
(lumber


!
i
i

i
I



TW
Start— End










Opaciti
Sum










"verage










                                                                                            Readings ranged from
                          to
opacity
The source was/was not in compliance with
the time evaluation was reads;
                                                                                                                                           .at
-------
                     FIGURE 9-2  OBSERVATION RECORD
                   PAGE
OF
     COMPANY
     LOCATION
     TEST NUMBER"
     HATE	
OBSERVER 	
TYPE FACILITY
POINT OF EWSSTW
H
M
 I
0>
D
 I
U)
co
Hr.






























Mln.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
U
12
U
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

0






























Seconds
15






























JO






























45






























STEAM PLUME
(check if applicable)
Attached






























Detached































COMMENTS









































FIGURE 9-2 C
(Cor
COMPANY
LOCATION
TEST
PATE
•Hr.































NUMBER



Mln.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Seconds
0






15






1





1





















j














30






























[Fl
45






























(eh
Ai






























T. Doc.74
OBSERVATION RECORD
PAGE	OF	
                                               OBSERVER 	
                                               TYPE FACILITY    "~
                                               POINT OF EHISSlOW
                                                                                                        Doc.74^26160 Filed ll-ll-74;8:46 dm]
-------
METHOD 10—DETERMINATION- OP CARBON MON-
 OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SotmcEs 5
  1.  Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. An Integrated or continuous
gas sample is extracted from a sampling point
and  analyzed for carbon monoxide (CO) con-
tent using a Luft-type nondlspersive infra-
red analyzer (NDIE)  or equivalent.
  3.2 Applicability. This  method Is appli-
cable for the determination of carbon mon-
oxide emissions from  stationary sources only
when specified by  the test procedures for
determining  compliance  with  new  source
performance standards.  The  test procedure
will  Indicate whether  a continuous  or an.
Integrated sample la to be used.
  2.  Range and sensitivity.
  2.1  Range. 0 to 1,000 ppm.
  2.2 Sensitivity. Minimum  detectable  con-
centration is  20  ppm for a 0 to 1,000 ppm
span.
  3.  Interferences. Any substance having a
strong absorption  of infrared  energy  will
Interfere to some extent. For example,  dis-
crimination ratios for water (H,O)  and  car-
bon  dioxide  (CO,)  are  3.6  percent H,O per
7 ppm CO and  10  percent  CO. per 10 ppm
CO, respectively, for devices measuring In the
1,500 to 3,000 ppm range. For devices meas-
uring In the 0 to 100 ppm range, Interference
ratios can be as high as 3.5 percent H.O per
25 ppm CO and  10 percent CO, per 50 ppm
CO.  The use of silica gel and ascarlte traps
will  alleviate the major Interference prob-
lems.  The  measured gas  volume  must be
corrected If these traps are used.
  4.  Precision and accuracy.
  4.1 Precision. The precision of most NDIR
analyzers  la approximately  ±2 percent of
span.
  4.2 Accuracy. The accuracy of most NDIB
analyzers  la approximately  ±5 percent of
span after calibration.
  6.  Apparatus.
  6.1 Continuous sample (Figure 10-1).
  5.1.1 Probe.  Stainless steel  or  sheathed
Pyrex l glass, equipped with a filter to remove
partlculate matter.
  5.1.2 Air-cooled condenser  or equivalent.
To remove any excess moisture.
  6.2 Integrated sample (Figure 10-2).
  52.1 Probe. Stainless steel  or  sheathed
Pyrex glass, equipped with a filter to remove
partlculate matter.
  5.2.2 Air-cooled condenser  or equivalent.
To remove any excess moisture.
  6.2.3 Valve. Needle  valve, or equivalent, to
to adjust flow rate.
  5.2.4 Pump. Leak-free diaphragm  type, or
equivalent, to transport gas.
  5.2.5 Rate meter. Rotameter, or equivalent.
to measure a flow range from 0 to  1.0  ll»er
per mln. (0.035 cfm).
  5.2.6 Flexible  bag.  Tedlar,  or equivalent,
with a capacity of 60 to 90 liters (2 to 3 ft •).
Leak-teat the bag In the  laboratory before
•using by  evacuating  bag with  a pump  fol-
lowed by  a dry gas meter. When evacuation
Is complete, there should be no flow through
tbe meter.
  6.2.7 Pitot fu&e. Type S, or equivalent, at-
tached to the probe so that the  sampling
rate  can  be  regulated proportional  to the
stack  gas  velocity  when velocity Is varying
with the time or & sample  traverse  la con-
ducted. .
  5.3 Analysts (Figure 10-3).
                                 TABLE 10-1.—Field  data
  Location	
  Test	
  Date	
  Operator 	
                                                                     Comments:
                 Clock time
                                                 Rotameter setting, liters -per minute
                                                       (cubic feet per minute')
              Atl-COOLtO CC«CC«E«
   'Mention of trade names or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
   6.1 Calibration gases. Known concentration
of CO In nitrogen. (N3) for instrument span,
prepurifled grade of N3 for zero, and two addi-
tional concentrations corrcspcruding approxi-
mately to 60 percent and 30 percent span. The
,sparx concentration shall not exceed 1.5 times
the  applicable source  performance standard.
The  calibration  cases shall be certified by
the  manufacturer to  be  within ±2 percent
at tbe specified concentration.
   6.2 Silica gel. Indicating type. 6 to 16 mesh,
dried at 175° C (347- P) for 2 hours.
   6.3 Ascarite. CorumeiclrHy available.
   7. Procedure.
   7.1 Sampling.
   5.3.1 Carbon monoxide analyser. Nondlsper-
 slve  Infrared  spectrometer,  or  equivalent.
 This  instrument should  be  demonstrated,
 preferably by tbe manufacturer,  to meet or
 exceed ' manufacturer's  specifications  and
 those described in this method.
   5.3.2 Drying  tube. To contain  approxl--
 mately 200 g of .silica gel.
   5.3.3 CaJibraiion  gas. Refer to paragraph
 6.1.
   5.3.4 Filter. As  recommended by NDIR
 manufacturer.
   5.3.5 CO, removal tube. To contain approxi-
 mately 500 g of ascarite.
   5.3.6 Ice watt-r  bath. For ascarite and silica
 gel tubes.
   5.3.7 Valve. Needle valve, or equivalent, to
 adjust flow rate
   6.3.8 Rate meter.  Rotameter or equivalent
 to measure gas flow rate of 0 to 1.0 liter per
 niin. (0.035 cfm)  through NDIR.
   5.3.9 Recorder  (optiorial).  To provide  per-
 manent record of NDIR readings.
   6. Reagents.
  7.1.1  Continuous sampling   Sot up the
equipment A3 shown in  Figure  10-1 makJus
sure all connections are leak free.  Place th?
probe in the stack at i\ sftrapiicg point and
purge the  sampling line. Connect the ana-
lyzer and  begin drawing sample  into th«
analyzer.  Allow 5  minutes for  the  system
to stabilize,  then  record the analyzer  rend-
ing as required by the  test procedure. (See
{ 72 and 8). CO: content of the gas may b«
determined by  using the Method 3  lute-
grated sample  procedure (36  FP. 2-18flt>). or
by weighing tlie ascarlte CO, removal tube
and  computing  CO. concentration  from the
gas  volume  sampled  and the  weight c^i»
of the tube.
  7.1.2  Integrated  sampling.  Evacuate the
flexible  bap. Sec up the equipment as ahown
in Figure  10-2  with the hag disconnected.
Place the probe in the stuck ami purge the
sampling line. Connect the bag.  making suro
that all connections are  leak free. Sample, at
a  rate  proportional  to  the  stack velocity.
CO.  content of  the pas  may be determine^
by using  the Method  3 Integrated  snnipla
procedures  (3<5  FR  ?48B6), or  by  weighing
the ascarile CO. removal tube  and coroput-
Inr. COj concentration, from the (;:« volume
sampled and the woiijht t:ain of the tube.
  7.2 CO Analysis. Assemble the  apparatus aa
shown in Figure 10-3. calibrate the  Ln^iru-
mcut, and. perform  other reouJrcd opcraticiu
as described  In paragraph 8. Purge annlyzw
with Nj prior to Introduction of  each sample-.
Direct the sample stream through the instru-
ment for the tost period, recording  t)ic  read-
ings. Check the zero and  span oj-nln after :hi>
test  to assxjre that  any drift or  malfunction
Is detected. Record the sampjr data on Table
10-1.
  8.  Calibration. Assemble the apparatus ac-
cording to  Figure 10-3. Generally an Im.lru-
ment requires 11 warm-up period before sta-
bility Is obtained. Follow tbo immufacturcr'-i
Instructions  for specific procedure. Allow  n.
minimum  -.lino  of  oin>  houi  for warm-up.
During  this  time  check  the sample  condi-
tioning  apparatus. I.e.. filter, condenser, dry-
Ing tube, and CO] removal tube, to  ensure
that each  component is In good operating
condition. Zero and calibrate the instrument
according to the manufacturer's procedures
using, respectively,  nitrogen and the calibra-
tion gases.
                                                  Ill-Appendix  A-39
-------
  8. Calculation — Concentration of carbon monoxide. Calculate the concentration of carboa
monoxide In the stack using equation 10-1.
where:
                                                                       equation 10-1
       3,,Mk=concentration of CO in stack, ppm by volume (dry basis),

            = concentration of CO measured by NDIR analyzer, ppm by volume (dry
                basis). *

        FCO,= volume fraction of COj In sample. J.e., percent CO» from  Orsafc
                divided by 100.
10. Bibliography.
10.1 McElroy, Frank. The Intertech NDIR-CO
    Analyzer, Presented at  llth  Methods
    Conference on Air Pollution, University
    of California, Berkeley, Calif.,  April 1.
    1970.
10.3 Jacobs, M. B., et al., Continuous Deter-
    mination of  Carbon Monoxide and  Hy-
    drocarbons In Air by a Modified Infra-
    red  Analyzer, J.  Air Pollution Control
    Association. 9(2) :110-114. August 1959.
10.3 MSA LIRA  Infrared  Gas and  Liquid
    Analyzer Instruction Book, Mine Safety
    Appliances Co, Technical Products Di-
    vision, Pittsburgh, Pa.
10.4 Mode)a 215A, 3J6A, and 416A Infrared
    Analyzers,  Beck man Instruments,  Inc.,
    Beckman Instructions  1635-B, Puller-
    ton, Calif, October 1967.
10.5 Continuous  CO  Monitoring  System,
    Model A5611, Intertech Corp., Princeton,
    N.J.
10.6 tJNOR Infrared Oas Analyzers, Bendlx
    Corp., Ronceverte, West Virginia.
                                      ADDENDA

  A. Performance Specifications for NDIR Carbon Monoxide Analyzers.

Range (minimum)	  0-1000ppm.
Output (minimum)	  0-10mV.
Minimum detectable sensitivity	  20 ppm.
Rise time. 90 percent (maximum)	.	30 seconds.
Fall time, 90 percent (maximum)	  30 seconds.
Zero drift (maximum)	,	  10% to 8 hours.
Span drift (maximum)	-  10% In 8 hours.
Precision  (minimum)	  ± 2% of full scale.
Noise (maximum)	  ± 1 % of full scale.
Linearity  (maximum deviation)	.-  2% oJ full scale.
Interference rejection ratio	  COj—1000 to 1, HjO—500 to 1.
  B. Definitions  of  Performance Specifica-
tions.
  Range—The  minimum   and  maximum
measurement limits.
  Output—Electrical signal which Is propor-
tional to ttie measurement; Intended for con-
nection to readout or data processing devices.
Usually expressed as millivolts or milllamps
full scale at. a given Impedance.
  Full scale—The maximum measuring limit
for a given range.
  Minimum   detectable    sensitivity—The
smallest amount  of input concentration  that
can be  detected  as the concentration ap-
proaches zero..
  Accuracy—The  degree of  agreement be-
tween  a measured value and the true value;
usually expressed as ± percent of full scale.
  Time to 90 percent response—The time In-
terval  from a step change in the  Input  con-
centration at the instrument inlet to a read-
Ing of 90 percent of the ultimate  recorded
concentration.
  Kise Time (90  percent)—The Interval be-
tween  Initial  response time and time to 90
percent, response  after a step Increase In the
Inlet concentration.
  Fall Time (90 percent)—The Interval be-
tween initial response time and time to 90
percent response after a step decrease In the
Inlet concentration.
  Zero Drift—The change in instrument out-
put over  a stated  time period, usually 24
hours, of unadjusted continuous  operation
when the Input concentration is zero; usually
expressed as percent full scale.
  Span Drift—The change in Instrument out-
put over  a stated  time period, usually 24
hours, of unadjusted continuous  operation
when  the  Input  concentration is  a stated
upscale value;  usually expressed as percent
full scale.
  Precision—The  degree of  agreement be-
tween repeated measurements of  the same
concentration,  expressed as the average de-
viation of the stogie results from the mean.
  Koise—Spontaneous deviations   from  a
mean  output not caused by Input concen-
tration changes.
  Linearity—The  maximum deviation  be-
tween an actual Instrument reading and the
reading predicted by e. straight line drawn
between upper  and lower calibration points.
                                                  Ill-Appendix  A-40
-------
METHOP  11— DETERMINATION  OF  HYDROCW
  SCLFIDZ  CONTENT OF FT7IL OAS STREAMS IK
  PETROLEUM REFINERIES
                      79
  1. Principle and applicability. 1.1  Princi-
ple. Hydrogen sulfide (HiS) is collected from
a source in a series of midget implngers and
absorbed in pH 3.0 cadmium sulfate (CdSO.)
solution  to  form cadmium  sulfide  (CdS).
The latter compound is then measured lodo-
metrically. An impinger containing  hydro-
gen peroxide is  Included to remove  SO, as
an Interfering species. This method is a revi-
sion of the H.S method  originally published
in the FIDZRAL REGISTER. Volume J9, No. 47,
dated Friday. March 8. 1974.
  1 2  Applicability. This method Is applica-
ble for the determination  of the hydrogen
sulflde content of fuel gas streams at petro-
leum refineries.
  2. Range and sensitivity. The lower limit
of detection  is approximately  8 mg/m' (6
ppm). The maximum of the range  is  740
mg/m' (520 ppm).
  3. Interferences.  Any  compound that re-
duces Iodine or oxidizes  Iodide ion will inter-
fere in this procedure, provide It Is collected
In the cadmium sulfate Implngers. Sulfur
dioxide In concentrations of up  to 2,600 mg/
m' is eliminated by the hydrogen peroxide
solution. Thiols precipitate with hydrogen
sulfide. In the absence of H.S, only co-traces
of thiols are collected. When methane- and
ethane-thiols at a total level of 300 mg/m1
are present in addition to H,S, the results
vary from 2 percent low at an H.S conce'n-
tratlon of 400 mg/m' to 14 percent high at
an H,S concentration of 100 mg/m'. Carbon
oxysulfide at a concentration of 20 percent
does  not interfere.  Certain carbonyl-con-
talning  compounds  react  with Iodine  and
produce  recurring end  points. However, ac-
etaldehyde and acetone at  concentrations of
1  and 3  percent, respectively, do not inter-
fere.
  Entrained hydrogen peroxide produces a
negative interference equivalent to 100 per-
cent of that of an equimolar quantity of hy-
drogen sulfide. Avoid the ejection of hydro-
gen peroxide Into the cadmium sulfate im-
plngers.
  4. Precision and accuracy. Collaborative
testing has shown the within-laboratory co-
efficient of va.ria.Uon to be 2.2 percent and
the overall coefficient  of  variation  to be  5
percent. The method bias  was shown to be
—4.8  percent when  only H,S was present. In
the presence of the interferences cited in
section 3. the bias was positive at low H.S
concentrations and negative at higher con-
centrations. At 230 mg  H,S/ra', the  level of
the compliance  standard, the bias was +2.7
percent. Thiols  had no effect on the preci-
sion.
   5. Apparatus.
   5.1  Sampling apparatus.
   5.1.1  Sampling line.  Six to 7 mm (Vt In.)
Teflon1  tubing  to  connect the  sampling
 train to the sampling valve.
   8.1.2  Implngers.  Five midget  tmplngers,
each  with 30 ml capacity. The Internal di-
ameter of the impinger tip must be 1 mm
 ±0.05 mm. The Impinger  tip must be posi-
 tioned 4 to 6 mm from the  bottom of the Im-
pinger.
   5.1.3  Glass or Teflon connecting tubing
 for the Impingers.
   5.1.4  Ice bath container. To maintain ab-
 sorbing solution at  a low temperature.
   5.1.5  Drying tube. Tube packed with 8- to
 18-mesh Indlcattng-type silica gel, or equiv-
 alent, to dry the gas sample and protect the
 meter and pump. If  the silica gel has been
 used previously, dry at 175' C C350' F) for  2
 hours.  New silica  gel  may  be used as re-
ceived.  Alternatively, other types  of deslc-
 cants (equivalent or better) may  be used,
 subject to approval of the Administrator.
  NOTE.—Do not use more than 30 g of silica
 gel. Silica gel absorbs gases such as propane
 from the fuel gas stream, and use of exces-
 sive amounts of silica gel could result  In
 errors  in   the  determination  of  sample
 volume.

  8.1.•  Sampling  valve.  Needle  valve  or
 equivalent to adjust gas flow rate. Stainless
 steel or other corrosion-resistant material.
  5.1.7  Volume meter. Dry gas meter, suffi-
 ciently  accurate  to  measure the  sample
 volume within 2 percent, calibrated  at the
 •elected flow rate (-1.0 liter/mln) and  con-
 ditions  actually  encountered during sam-
 pling.  The  meter  shall be equipped with a
 temperature gauge  (dial  thermometer  or
 equivalent) capable  of  measuring tempera-
 ture to within 3' C (5.f F). The gas meter
 should have a petcock, or equivalent, on the
 outlet connector which  can be closed during
 the leak check. Oas volume for one revolu-
 tion of the meter most  not be more than  10
 liters.
  6.1.8  Flow  meter.  Rotameter or  equiv-
 alent,  to measure flow rates In the range
 from 0.5 to 2 llters/mln  (1 to 4 cfh).
  5.1.9  Graduated cylinder, 25 ml size.
  5.1.10  Barometer.  Mercury,  aneroid,  or
 other  barometer capable of measuring at-
 mospheric pressure  to  within 2.5  mm Hg
 (0.1 In. Hg). In many cases, the barometric
 reading may be obtained from a nearby Na-
 tional  Weather Service station,  in  which
 case,  the station value  (which Is the abso-
 lute barometric pressure) shall be requested
 and an adjustment for elevation differences
 between the weather station  and the sam-
 pling point shall  be applied  at a rate  of
 minus 2.5 mm Hg  (0.1. in. Hg)  per 30 m  (100
 ft) elevation Increase or vice-versa for eleva-
 tion decrease.
  5.1.11  U-tube manometer. 0-30 cm water
 column. For leak ctieck  procedure.
  6.1.12  Rubber squeeze  bulb.  To pressur-
 ize train for leak check.
  5.1.13  Tee. pinchclamp, and connecting
 tubing. For leak check.
  6.1.14  Pump. Diaphragm pump, or equiv-
 alent. Insert a small  surge tank between the
 pump and rate meter to eliminate the pulsa-
 tion effect of the diaphragm  pump on the
 rotameter. The  pump  Is used  for thn air
 purge  at the  end of the  sample run: the
 pump  Is not  ordinarily used  during sam-
 pling,  because fuel gas  streams are usually
 sufficiently pressurized to force sample gas
 through the train at the required flow rate.
 The pump need not  be  leak-free unless It Is
 used for sampling.
  5.1.15  Needle valve or critical orifice. To
 &el air purge now to 1 llter/min.
  5.1.16  Tube  packed  with  active carbon.
 To filter air during purge.
  6.1.17  Volumetric flask. One 1,000 ml.
  6.1.18  Volumetric pipette. One 15 ml.
  6.1.18  Pressure-reduction regulator.  De-
 pending on  the sampling stream pressure, a
 pressure-reduction regulator may be needed
 to reduce the pressure of the gas stream en-
 tering  the Tenon sample line to  a safe level.
  5.1.20  Cold trap.  If  condensed water or
 amine is present  In the  sample stream, a
 corrosion-resistant cold trap shall  be used
 Immediately after the sample  tap. The  trap
 shall not be operated below 0' C (32* F)  to
 avoid condensation  of  Ci or C, hydrocar-
 bons.
  5.2  Sample recovery.
  6.2.1  Sample   container.  Iodine  flask.
 glass-stoppered: 500 ml size.
  6.2.2  Pipette. 50 ml volumetric type.
  6.2.3  Graduated cylinders.  One  each 25
 and 250 ml.
  'Mention of trade names of specific prod-
ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
  5.2.4  Flasks. 125 ml. Erlenmeyer.
  5.2.5  Wash bottle.
  5.2.6  Volumetric flasks. Three 1,000 ml.
  5.3 Analysis.
  5.3.1  Flask. 500 ml glass-stoppered iodine
flask.
  5.3.2  Burette. iO ml.
  5.3.3  Flask. 125 ml. Erlenmeyer.
  5.3.4  Pipettes, volumetric. One 25 ml: two
each 50 and 100 ml.
  6.3.5  Volumetric flasks.  One  1,000 ml;
two 500 ml.
  6.3.6  Graduated cylinders.  One  each 10
and 100 ml.
  6. Reagents. Unless otherwise Indicated, it
is Intended that all reagents conform to the
specifications established by the Committee
on  Analytical Reagents  of the American
Chemical Society, where such specifications
are  available. Otherwise, use  best available
grade.
  6.1 Sampling.
  6.1.1  Cadmium  sulfate   absorbing  solu-
tion. Dissolve 41 g of 3CdSO.8H,O and 15
ml of 0.1 M suit uric acid in a 1-liter volumet-
ric  flask that contains approximately *» liter
of   delonlzed distilled   water.  Dilute  to
volume with defonized water. Mix thorough-
ly.  pH  should  be 3 ±0.1. Add 10 drops of
Dow-Corning Antifoam B. Shake well before
use. If Antifoam B is not used, the alternate
acidified iodine  extraction  procedure (sec-
tion 7.2.2) must be used.
  6.1.2  Hydrogen   peroxide.   3   percent.
Dilute 30  percent hydrogen peroxide to 3
percent as needed. Prepare fresh daily.
  6.1.3  Water. DeioniEed. distilled to con-
form  to   ASTM  specifications  DU93-72.
Type 3. At thr-  option  of the analyst, the
KMnO, test  for  .-ixidtzable  organic matter
may be omitted when high concentrations
of  organic matttv  are not  expected to be
present.
  6.2 Sample recovery.
  6.2.1  Hydrochloric  acid  solution (HC1).
3M. Add 240  ml of concentrated HC1 (specif-
ic gravity  1.19) to 500 ml of deionlzed, dis-
tilled  water  In  a  1-lller volumetric flask.
Dilute to 1 liter with delonlzed water. Mix
thoroughly.
  6.2.2  Iodine solution 0.1 N. Dissolve 24 g
of potassium Iodide (KI) In  30 ml of delon-
lzed, distilled water. Add 12.7 g of rcsub-
llmed Iodine  (I,) to the potassium Iodide so-
lution. Shake the mixture until the  iodine Is
completely dissolved. If possible, let the so-
lution stand  overnighl in the dark. Slou-Jy
dilute the solution to 1 liter with deionlzed,
distilled water, with swirling.  Filter the so-
lution If  It is cloudy. Store'  solution In  a
brown-glass reagent bottle.
  6.2.3  Standard iodine solution. 0.01 N. Pi-
pette 100.0 ml of the 0.1  N Iodine  solution
Into a 1-llter volumetric flask and dilute to
volume with delonlzed. distilled water. Stan-
dardize dally as In section 8.1.1. This solu-
tion must be protected from light. Reagent
Dottles and flasks must be kept tightly stop-
pered.
  6.3 Analysis.
  6.3.1  Sodium  thlosulfate  solution, stan-
dard 0.1 N. Dissolve 24.8 g  of sodium thio-
sulfate pentahydrate 
In 1 liter of delonlzed,  distilled water and
add 0.01 g of anhydrous sodium  carbonate
(Na,CO.) and 04 ml of chloroform  (CHCU
to stabilize. Mix thoroughly by shaking or
by aerating with nitrogen for approximately
15 minutes and  store In a  glass-stoppered,
reagent bottle.  Standardize as In  section
8.1.2.
  6.3.2  Sodium  thlosulfate  solution, stan-
dard 0.01 N. Pipette 50.0 ml  of the standard
0.1  N thlosulfate solution Into a volumetric
flask and  dilute  to 500 ml with distilled
water.
                                                     Ill-Appendix  A-41
-------
  NOTE.—A 0.01 N phenylarslne oxide solu-
tion may be prepared Instead of 0.01 N thlo-
sulfate (see section 6.3.3).

  6.3.3  Phenylarslne  oxide solution, stan-
dard 0.01 N. Dissolve 1.80 g of phenylarslne
oxide (C.H.AsD) In 150 ml  of 0.3  N sodium
hydroxide. After settling, decant  140 ml of
this solution Into 800 ml of distilled water.
Bring the solution to pH 6-7 with  6N hydro-
chloric acid and dilute to 1 liter.  Standard-
ize as In section 8.1.3.
  6.3.4  Starch  Indicator  solution. Suspend
10 g of soluble starch In 100 ml of  delonized.
distilled  water  and add 15 g of  potassium
hydroxide  (KOH)  pellets.  Stir  until  dis-
solved, dilute with 900 ml  of delonized dis-
tilled water and let stand'for  1 hour. Neu-
tralize the alkali  with concentrated  hydro-
chloric acid, using an Indicator paper similar
to Alkacid lest ribbon, then add 2 ml of gla-
cial acetic acid as a preservative.

  NOTE.—Test starch Indicator solution  for
decomposition  by  titrating, with  0.01  N
Iodine solution. 4  ml  of  starch solution  In
200 ml of distilled water that contains  1 g
potassium Iodide.  If more  than 4 drops  of
the 0.01  N iodine solution are required  to
obtain the blue color, a fresh solution must
be prepared.

  7. Procedure.
  7.1  Sampling.
  7.1.1  Assemble   the sampling  train   as
shown In figure  11-1. connecting the five
midget Implngers In series.  Place  15 ml of 3
percent hydrogen  peroxide solution  In the
first implnger.  Leave the  second Implnger
empty. Place 15 ml of  the  cadmium sulfate
absorbing solution In the third, fourth, and
fifth  Implngers. Place  the  Implnger  assem-
bly in  an Ice bath  container  and place
crushed Ice around the Implngers.  Add more
Ice during the run. if needed.
  7.1.2  Connect the rubber bulb and mano-
meter to first Implnger, as shown In figure
ll-l. Close the petcock on the dry gas meter
outlet. Pressurize the train to 25-cm water
pressure with the bulb and close off  tubing
connected to rubber bulb.  The train must
hold a 26-cm water pressure with not more
than a 1-cm drop In pressure In a 1-mtnute
Interval. Stopcock grease is acceptable  for
sealing ground glass joints.

  Non.—This leak check procedure Is  op-
tional at the beginning of  the sample run,
but Is mandatory  at  the conclusion. Note
also that If the pump Is used for sampling. It
Is recommended (but not required) that the
pump be  leak-checked separately, using a
method consistent with the leak-check pro-
cedure  for diaphragm pumps outlined  In
section 4.1.2 of  reference method  6, 40 CPR
Part 60, Appendix A.

  7.1.3  Purge the connecting  line between
the sampling valve and  first  Implnger.  by
disconnecting the line from the first  Im-
plnger. opening the sampling valve, and  al-
lowing process gas to flow  through the line
for a minute or two.  Then, close the sam-
pling  valve and reconnect the line  to the Im-
plnger train. Open the petcock on the dry
gas meter outlet. Record the Initial dry ftas
meter reading.
  7.1.4  Open  the sampling- valve and  then
adjust the valve to obtain a rale of approxi-
mately  1 llter/mln.  Maintain  a  constant
(±10  percent) flow rate during the  test.
Record the meter temperature.
  7.1.5  Sample for at least 10 min.  At the
end of  the  sampling time, close the  sam-
pling  valve and record the final volume and
temperature readings. Conduct a leak check
as described In Section 7.1.2 above.
  7.1.6  Disconnect the Implnger train  from
the sampling  line.  Connect  the  charcoal
tube and the pump, as shown In figure  11-1.
Puree  the train rat a rate  ot  I JlWr/m/n)
with clean ambient air fpr 15 minutes  to
ensure that all H.S is removed from the hy-
drogen peroxide. For sample recovery, cap
the  open ends  and  remove the Implnger
train to  a clean  area that is away from
sources of heat.  The area  should  be well
lighted, but not exposed to  direct sunlight.
  7.2  Sample recovery.
  7.2.1  Discard the contents of the hydro-
gen peroxide implnger. Carefully rinse the
contents  of the third, fourth, and fifth im-
plngers Into a 500 ml iodine flask.

                                                                               VALVE
                                                                    IFOR Aio PURGE)
                                                           PUMP
                          Figure 11-1. H2S sampling train.
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-42
-------
  NOT*.—The Implngers normally have only
 a thin film  of  cadmium sulflde  remaining
'after a water rinse. If  Antlfoam B was not
 used or it significant  quantities of  yellow
 cadmium sulfide remain In the Implngers,
 the alternate recovery procedure described
 below must be used.
  7.2.2  Pipette  exactly 80  ml  of  0.01 N
 Iodine  solution  Into a  125 ml  Erlenmeyer
 flask. Add 10 ml of 3 M HC1 to the solution.
 Quantitatively  rinse  the  acidified' Iodine
 Into the Iodine  flask. Stopper the flask Im-
 mediately and shake briefly.
  7.2.2  (Alternate).  Extract the  remaining
 cadmium sulflde from the third, fourth, and
 fifth Implngers  using the acidified Iodine so-
 lution. Immediately s>fler pouring the acidi-
 fied Iodine into an Implnger,  stopper it and
 shake for a few moments, then transfer the
 liquid to the iodine flask.  Do not transfer
 any rinse portion from one Impinger to an-
 other; transfer It directly to the Iodine flask.
 Once the acidified Iodine solution has  been
 poured Into any glassware containing cadmi-
 um  sulflde,  the container must be tightly
 stoppered at all times  except when adding
 more  solution,  and this must be done as
 quickly  and  carefully  as  possible.  After
 adding any acidified Iodine solution  to the
 Iodine flask,  allow a few minutes  for absorp-
 tion of the H.S before  adding any further
 rinses. Repeat the Iodine extraction until all
 cadmium sulflde Is removed  from the 1m-
 pingers. Extract that part of the  connecting
 glassware that contains visible cadmium sul-
 fide.
  Quantitatively rinse all of the  iodine from
 the  implngers, connectors,  and  the beaker
 Into the iodine flask using delonlzed,  dis-
 tilled  water. Stopper  the  flask  and shake
 briefly.
  7.2.3  Allow  the  Iodine  flask  to  stand
 about 30 minutes in the dark  for absorption
 of the  H,S Into the Iodine, then complete
 the tltratlon  analysis as In section 7.3.
  NOTE.—Caution!  Iodine evaporates  from
 acidified Iodine  solutions. Samples to which
 acidified iodine have been added may  not be
 stored, but must  be analyzed In the  time
 schedule stated  in section 7.2.3.

  7.2.4  Prepare a blank by adding 45 ml of
 cadmium sulfate absorbing solution to an
 Iodine flask.  Pipette exactly 60 ml of 0.01 N
 Iodine  solution  Into a  125-ml  Erlenmeyer
 flask.  Add 10 ml  of 3  M  HC1.  Follow the
 same Implnger  extracting  and quantitative
 rinsing procedure  carried  out  in  sample
 analysis. Stopper the  flask,  shake  briefly,
 let stand 30 minutes in  the dark,  and  titrate
 with the samples.
  NOTI.— The blank must be handled by ex-
 ictly the same  procedure  as  that used for
 the samples.

  7.3  Analysis.
  NOTE.—Tltration  analyses should be  con-
 ducted at the sample-cleanup area in order
 to prevent loss  of  Iodine from the sample.
 Titratlon should never be made In direct
 sunlight.
  7.3.1  Using 0.01  N sodium thlosulfate so-
 lution (or 0.01 N phenylarslne oxide, If ap-
 plicable), rapidly titrate each sample In an
 iodine flask  using gentle mixing, until  solu-
 tion is light  yellow. Add 4 ml  of starch  Indi-
 cator solution and continue titrating slowly
 until the blue color just disappears. Record
 Vn. the volume of sodium thlosulfate  solu-
 tion used, or V»T. the volume of phenylar-
 line oxide solution used (ml).
  7.3.2  Titrate  the blanks  In  the  wm»
 manner u  the uunplu. Run bl&nkj  each
day until replicate values agree within O.OS
ml. Average the  replicate  tltration values
which agree within 0.05 ml.
  8. Calibration and itandardi.
  8.1  Standardizations.
  8.1.1  Standardize the 0.01 N  Iodine solu-
tion dally as follows: Pipette 25 ml of the
Iodine solution Into a  125  ml  Erlenmeyer
fl&sk. Add 2 ml of 3 M  HC1. Titrate rapidly
with standard 0.01 N thlosulfate solution or
with 0.01 N phenylarsine oxide until the so-
lution is light  yellow,  using gentle mixing.
Add four drops of starch  Indicator solution
and continue titrating slowly until the blue
color  Just disappears. Record V,, the volume
of thlosulfate  solution used,  or Va,  the
volume  of phenylarsine oxide solution used
 in 45  ml of deionized,  distilled
water, then  add 10 ml  of  3  M hydrochloric
acid solution. Pipette 50 ml of  the  dlchro-
m&te  solution  Into this  mixture.  Gently
swirl the solution once and allow It to stand
In the dark  for 5  minutes. Dilute the  solu-
tion with 100 to 200 ml of  deionized distilled
water, washing down the  sides of the  flask
with part of the  water. Titrate with 0.1 N
thiosulfate until the solution is light yellow.
Add 4 ml of starch indicator  and  continue ti-
trating slowly  to a green end point.  Record
Vi, the  volume of thlosulfate  solution used
(ml).  Repeat until replicate analyses agree
within  0.05 ml.  Calculate  the normality
using equation  S.I. Repeat the standardiza-
tion  each week,  or after each  test series,
whichever time is shorter.
  8.1.3  Standardize the 0.01  N Phenylar-
sine  oxide (If applicable) as  follows:  oven
dry potassium dlchromate (K.Cr,O.) at 180
to 200' C (380 to 390' F). Weigh to the near-
est milligram. 2 g of the  KiCr.O,;  transfer
the dlchromate to a 500 ml volumetric flask,
dissolve in  delonlzed,  distilled  water,  and
dilute to exactly 500 ml. In  a 500 ml Iodine
flask, dissolve approximately 0.3 g of potas-
sium  Iodide  (KI) in 45 ml of deionized, dis-
tilled  water; add  10 ml  of 3M hydrochloric
acid.  Pipette 5 ml of the K.Cr.O, solution
Into the Iodine flask. Oently swirl the con-
tents  of the flask once and allow to stand In
the dark for 6 minutes. Dilute the solution
with  100  to 200  ml of deionized.  distilled
water, washing down the  sides of the flask
with part of the water. Titrate  with 0.01 N
phenylarsine oxide  until  the  solution is
light  yellow. Add  4 ml of starch Indicator
and continue titrating slowly to  a green end
point. Record  VA,  the volume of phenylar-
slne oxide used (ml). Repeat until replicate
analyses agree within 0.05 ml.  Calculate the
normality using  equation 9,2. Repeat  the
standardization each week or after each test
series, whichever lime is shorter.
  8,3  Sampling train calibration. Calibrate
the sampling train components a* follows:
  8.2.1  Dry gat meter,
  8.2,1.1  Initial calibration. The dry  (as
meter shall  be calibrated before Its Initial
use In the field. Proceed u follows: First, as-
semble the following components In series:
Drying tube, needle valve, pump, rotameter,
and  dry gas  meter.  Then, leak-check the
system as follows: Place a vacuum gauge (at
least 760 mm Hg) at the inlet to the drying
tube and pull a vacuum of  250  mm (10 In.)
Hg; plug or pinch off the outlet ol 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.
  Next, calibrate the  dry gas  meter (at the
sampling flow rate specified by the method)
as follows: Connect  an appropriately sized
wet test meter (e.g.. 1  liter per revolution) to
the Inlet of the drying tube. Make three In-
dependent calibration runs, using at least
five  revolutions of the  dry gas meter per
run.  Calculate the calibration factor,  Y (wet
test meter calibration volume divided by the
dry gas meter volume, both volumes adjust-
ed to the same reference temperature and
pressure), for each run, and average the re-
sults. If any Y value deviates by more than 2
percent from the average, the  dry gas meter
Is unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use the
average as the calibration factor for subse-
quent test runs.
  8.2.1.2 Post-test calibration check. After
each field test series, conduct a calibration
check as In section 8.2.1.1. above, except for
the following  variations: (a) The leak check
is not  to  be conducted,  (b) three or  more
revolutions  of the dry  gas meter may  be
used,  and  (3)  only two Independent runs
need be made. If the calibration (actor does
not deviate by more  than  5  percent from
the Initial calibration factor (determined In
section 8.2.1.1.), then the dry gas meter vol-
umes obtained during the test series are ac-
ceptable. If the calibration factor deviates
by more than 5 percent,  recalibrate the dry
gas meter as In section  8.2.1.1, and for the
calculations, use the calibration factor (Ini-
tial or recallbratlon)  that yields the lower
gas volume for each test run.
  8.2.2   Thermometers.   Calibrate  against
mercury-in-glass thermometers
  8.2.3   Rotameter. The rotameter need not
be calibrated,  but should be cleaned and
maintained according  to the manufacturer's
Instruction.
  8.2.4   Barometer. Calibrate against a mer-
cury  barometer.
  9. Calcuiattoru. Carry out calculations re-
taining at least one  extra decimal  figure
beyond that of the acquired  data. Round off
results only after the final calculation.
  9.1  Normality of the Standard (-0.1  N)
Thlosulfate Solution.

              N.-2.039W/V,

where:

W- Weight of K.Cr.O, used,  g.
V|- Volume of Na.8,0. solution used, ml.
N,-Normality of standard IhlosuUale solu-
   tion, g-eq/llter.
3.039'Conversion  factor

<6 eq.  1,/mole K,Cr,O,J  (1,000 ml/liter)/.
  (294.2 g  K.Cr.O./mole) 110 aliquot factor)

  9.2  Normality of Standard  Phenylarsine
Oxide Solution (If applicable).

             NA-0.2039 W/V,

where:

W.Weight of K.Cr.O, used,  g.
V».Volume of C.H.A.O used, ml.
N,"Normallty of  standard  phenylarsine
   oxide solution,  g«ecj/lltcr.
0.2039-Convention factor
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-43
-------
(6 eg.  1,/mole K.Cr.O,) (1,000  ml/liter)/
  (249.2  B  K,Cr.O,/mole)  (100  aliquot
  factor)
  9.3  Normality of Standard Iodine Solu-
tion.
               N,-NTV,/V,

where:
N,-Normality of standard  iodine solution,
   g-eq/llter.
V,-Volume  of  standard  Iodine  solution
   used. ml.
NT-Normality of standard  (-0.01  N) thlo-
   sulfate solution; assumed to be 0.1 N,. g-
   eq/liter.
VT-Volume of thiosulfate solution used. ml.
  NOTE.—If  phenylarslne  oxide  is  used
Intead of thiosulfate. replace NT and VT  In
Equation 9.3 with N. and  Vu. respectively
(see sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.3).
  9.4   Dry Oas Volume. Correct the sample
volume measured by the dry gas meter  to
standard conditions (20* C) and 160 mm Hg.
      V.uu.-V.Y t(T«/T.) (Pw,/P«)l

where:
V„<„,,,= Volume at standard  conditions of gas
    sample through the dry gas meter, stan-
    dard liters.
V,-Volume of gas sample  through the dry
    gas meter (meter conditions), liters.
TV,- Absolute temperature at standard con-
    ditions. 293- K.
TV-Average dry gas meter temperature. 'K.
P^.t. Barometric pressure  at  the  sampling
   site, mm Hg.
PM-B Absolute  pressure at standard condi-
   tions. 760 mm Hg.
Y-Dry gas meter calibration factor.
  9.5  Concentration  of HiS.  Calculate the
concentration  of HiS  In the gas stream at
standard  conditions   using  the  following
equation:
      C,l« = K[(V1TN,-VTrNT) sample-
         (1.000 llters/m1) (1.000
  m«/g>/ = ( 1.000 ml/liter) <2H,Seq/mo]e)

V,,=Volume   of  standard  Iodine   solu-
   tion = 50.0 ml.
N,=Normality of standard iodine solution.
   g-eq/llter.
Vn-Volume of standard (-0.01 N) sodium
   thiosulfate solution, ml.
NT = Normality of standard sodium thiosul-
   fate solution, g-eq/liter.
V«uui=Dry  gas volume  at standard condi-
   tions, liters.
  NOTE.-'If phenylarslne oxide Is used In-
stead of thiosulfate, replace  Nt and Vn in
Equation 9.S with N, and  VAT, respectively
(see Sections 7.3.1 and 8.1.3).
  10.  Stability. The absorbing  solution Is
•table for at least 1 month. Sample recovery
and analysis should begin within 1 hour of
sampling to minimize oxidation of the acidi-
fied cadmium sulflde. Once iodine has been
added to the sample, the remainder of the
analysis procedure  must be completed ac-
cording to sections 7.2.2 through 7.3.2.
  11. Bibliography-
  11.1  Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide.
Ammoniacal  Cadmium  Chloride Method.
API Method 772-54. In: Manual  on Disposal
of Refinery Wastes, Vol. V: Sampling and
Analysis  of Waste  Oases  and  Paniculate
Matter.   American   Petroleum  Institute,
Washington. D.C.. 1954.
  11.2  Tentative Method of Determination
of Hydrogen Sulflde and Mercaptan Sulfur
In Natural  Oas. Natural Oas Processors As-
sociation,  Tulsa. Okla..  NOPA  Publication
No. 2265-65. 1965.
  11.3  Knoll.  J. E.. and M. R. Mldgett. De-
termination of Hydrogen Sulflde In Refin-
ery Fuel Oases, Environmental  Monitoring
Series. Office  of  Research  and Develop-
ment. USEPA. Research Triangle Park. N.C.
27711. EPA 600/4-77-007.
  11.4  Schelll. O.  W..  and M. C.  Sharp.
Standardization of  Method 11  at a Petro-
leum  Refinery. Midwest Research Institute
Draft Report  for   USEPA. Office  of Re-
search and Development. Research Triangle
Park. N.C.  27711, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
1098.  August  1976.  EPA  600/4-77-088*
(Volume 1) and EPA 600/4-77-088b (Volume
2).
(Sees. Ill, 114. 301(a>. Clean  Air  Act M
amended (42 U.SC. 7411. 7414. 7601).)
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-44
-------
UTTKOD 13—DETETMINAIION OF TOTAL  tt.~O-
  BIDE EMISSIONS FEOM STATIONABT SOURCES—

  8PAON8 ZKCONrUM LAKX METHOD I4
  1. Principle
  1.1   Principle.  Gaseous  and  partlculate
fluorides are withdrawn Isoklnetlcally from
the source using a sampling train. The fluo-
rides are collected in the impinger water and
on  the filter of the sampling train.  The
•weight of total fluorides in the train Is de-
termined  by the SPADNS Zirconium Lake
oolorimetric method.
  1.2   Applicability. This method IB applica-
ble for the deternlinatloa of .fluoride emis-
sions from stationary sources  only when
specified by  the test  procedures for deter-
mining compliance •with  new source  per-
formance standards. Fluorocarbons. such as
Preons, are not  quantitatively collected or
measured by this procedure.
  2. Range and Sensitivity.
  The SPADNS Zirconium Lake analytical
method covers the range from  0-1.4 ne/ml
fluoride. Sensitivity has not been determined.
  3. Interferences.
  During the laboratory analysis, aluminum
In excess of 300 mg/llter and silicon dioxide
In excess  of 300 Ag/liter will prevent com-
plete recovery of fluoride. Chloride will distill
over and Interfere with the SPADNS Zirconi-
um Lake  color  reaction. If chloride Ion. is
prewnt, use of Specific Ion. Electrode (Method
13B)  i£ recommended; otherwise a chloride
determination is required and 5 mg of silver
eulfate (see section 7.3.6) must be added for
each  mg  of chloride  to prevent chloride in-
terference. If sullurlc acid is carried over In
the distillation, It will cause a positive Inter-
ference. To avoid sulfuric acid carryover, it
is important to stop distillation at 1T6*C.
  4. Precision, Accuracy and  Stability.
  4.1  Analysis.  A relative standard devia-
tion of 3 percent was obtained from twenty
replicate  Intralaboratory determinations on
stack emission samples with a concentration
range of  39  to  360 mg/L A phosphate rock
standard  which was analyzed by this pro-
cedure contained  a  certified value of 3.84
percent. The average of five determinations
was 3.88 percent fluoride.   .     '
   4.2   Stability. The  color  obtained when
 the  sample  and  oolorimetric  reagent are
mixed Is  stable for approximately iwo hours.
After .formation of the color, the absorbances
 of the sample and standard solutions should
 be measured at the same temperature. A 3*C
 temperature difference between sample and
standard solutluos will produce an  error of
approximately 0.005 mg F/liter.
   5. Apparatus.
   5.1  Sample train. See Figure 13A-1; It is
 similar to the Method 5 train except for the
 Intel-changeability of the position of the fil-
 ter.  Commercial  models  of this train ore
 available. However, If one desires to build Ms
own, complete  construction details are de-
 scribed In APTD-0581; for changes from the
 APTD-0581  document and  for  allowable
 modtfications to Figure  I3A-1, see  the fol-
 lowing subsections.
   The operating and maintenance procedures
for  the  sampling  train are  described  In
 APTD-OS76. Since correct usage is Important
 In obtaining valid results, all users should
 read the  APTD-0576  document and  adopt
 the operating and maintenance procedures
 outlined   In  it. unless  otherwise specified
 herein.
   6.1.1  Probe nozzle—Stainless steel (316)
 with sharp, tapered leading edge. The angle
 of taper  shall be  £30* and  the taper shall
 be on the outside to preserve a constant
 internal diameter. The probe nozzle shall be
of the button-hook  or elbow design, unless
otherwise specified by the Administrator. The
 wall thickness of the nozzle shall be less than
or equal  to that  of 20 gauge tubing, I.e.,
 0.165 cm  (0.065 In.) and the distance from
 the tip of the nozzle to  the first  bend or
point of disturbance  shall be at  least two
times the outside nozzle diameter. The nozzle
shall be constructed from seamless stainless
Bteel tubing. Other configurations and con-
struction material may be used with approval
from the Administrator.
  A range  of  sizes suitable for  isokinetlc
sampling should be available. e,g., 0.32  cm
(% to.)  up to 1.27 cm (Vi  in.) 
  5.1.6  Filter heating system—Wnen mois-
ture condensation is a problem, any heating
system capable of maintaining a temperature
around the  filter holder during sampling of
no   greater  than,  120±14°C (248±25°F).
A temperature gauge  capable of measuring
temperature to within 3'C (5.4°F) "shall  be
Installed so that when the filter  heater  is
used,  the  temperature  arsund  the filter
holder can be regulated and monitored dur-
ing sampling.  Heating systems  other  than
the one  shown in APTD-0681 may be used.
  6.1.7   Implngers—Four   Implngers   con-
nected as shown in Figure 13A-1 with ground
glass (or equivalent),  vacuum tight fittings.
The first,  third, and  fourth Implngers  are
of  the Greenburg-Smlth design, modified by
replacing the  tip with a  114 cm (H  in.)
inside diameter glass  tube extending to  1 ft
cm ('/4  in.) from the bottom of  the flask.
The second Impinger  is of the Oreensburg-
Smlth design with the standard tip.
  6.1.8   Metering  system—Vacuum  gauge,
leak-free pump,  thermometers  capable  of
measuring   temperature   to within   3°C
 (~6°F), dry gas  meter with 2%  accuracy at
the required  sampling  rate,  and  related'
equipment,  or  equivalent, as  required  to
maintain an  isokinetlc  sampling rate and
to  determine  sample  volume.  When the
metering system is used in conjunction with
a pltot tube, the system shall enable checks
of Isokinetlc rates.
  5.1.9   Barometer—Mercury,   aneroid,   or
other barometers capable  of measuring at-
mospheric  pressure  to within  2.5 mm Hg
(0.1 in. Hg). in many cases, the barometric
reading  may  be obtained from a  nearby
weather  bureau station, in which case the
station value shall be requested and  an ad-
justment for  elevation differences shall  be
applied at a  rate of minus 2.6 mm Hg (0.1
In.  Hg) per 30 m (100 ft) elevation increase.
  6.2  Sample recovery.
  6.2.1  Probe   liner  and  probe   nozzle
brushes—Nylon bristles with stainless steel
wire handles. The  probe  brush shall have
extensions, at least as long as the probe,  of
stainless steel, teflon, or similarly Inert mate-
rial. Both brushes shall be properly sized and
shaped  to  brush out the  probe liner and
nozzle.
  5.2.2  Glass wash bottles—Two.
  6.2.3  Sample  storage   containers—Wide
mouth, high  density polyethylene  bottles,
1 liter.
  6.2.4  Plastic storage containers—Air tight
containers of sufficient volume to store silica
gel.
  6.2.5  Graduated cylinder—2fiO ml.
  6.2.6  Funnel  and  rubber policeman—to
aid in transfer of silica gel to container; not
necessary If silica gel Is weighed In the field.
  6.3  Analysis.
  5.3.1  Distillation apparatus—Glass distil-
lation  apparatus assembled as shown In Fig-
ure 13A-2.
  5.3.2  Hot  plate—Capable of heating  to
600° C.
  6.3.3  Electric muffle furnace—Capable  of
heating to 600° C.
  6.3.4  Crucibles—Nickel,  75 to  100 m! ca-
pacity.
  6.3.5  Beaker, 1600 ml.
  5.3.6  Volumetric flask—50 ml.
  5.3.7  Erlenmeycr  flask or plastic bottle—
600 ml.
  5.3.8  Constant temperature  bath—Capa-
ble of maintaining a constant temperature of
±1.0"  C  In the range of room  temperature.
  5.3.9  Balance—300 g capacity  to measure
to ±0.5 g.
  5.3.10  Spectrophotometer — Instrument
capable of measuring absorbance at 570 nm
and providing at least a 1 cm light path.
  6.3.11  Spectrophotometer cells—1 era.
  6. Reagents
  6.1  Sampling.
  6.1.1  Filters—Whatman No.  1  filters,  or
equivalent, sized to fit filter holder.
  6.1.2  Silica  gel—Indicating  type,  6-16
mesh.  If previously  used,  dry  at  175°  C
(360° F)  for 2 hours. New  silica gol may be
used as received.   •<
  6.1.3  Water—Distilled.
  8.1.4   Crushed Ico.
  0.1.5  Stopcock grease—Acetone Insoluble,
heat stable sillcone grease. This IB not neces-
sary  If  screw-on  connectors  with  teflon
sleeves, or similar, tire used.
  6.2  Sample recovery.
  6.2.1   Water—Distilled  from  same con-
tainer as C.I.3.
  6.3  Analysis.
  6.3.1  Calcium   oxide   (CaO)—Certified
grade  containing 0.005 percent .-fluoride  or
less.
  6.3.2  Phenolphthflleln Indicator—0.1 per-
cent In 1:1 ethanol-water mixture.
  6.3.3  Silver  sulfato (AgjSOJ—ACS re-
agent grade, or equivalent.
  6.3.4  Sodium hydroxide  (NaOH)—Pellets,
ACS reagent grade, or equivalent.
  6.3.5  Sulfurlc   acid   (HjSO,)—Concen-
trated, ACS  reagent  grade, or equivalent.
  6.3.6  Filters—Whatman No. 541, or equiv-
alent.
  6.3.7  Hydrochloric  acid  (HC1)—Concen-
trated, ACS reagent grade, or equivalent.
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-4 5
-------
  9.8.8  water—OlrtUled,  from  MUM  con-
tainer'as 6,1.8.
  8.8.9  Sodium fluoride—standard nlutlon.
Dissolve  0,9.910 g  of Mdlum fluorld*  in  1
lltxr of distilled water.  Dilute 100 ml of this
solution  to i liter with distilled water. On*
mlllllittr of th» solution contain*  0.01 tag
of fluoride,
  0.8.10   SPADNS  solution— t4,Sdihydroxy-
8-(p-sulfophenylaBO)-a,7-naphthalene - dl-
itilfonlo  add trisodlum salt), Dissolve  0.960
±,010 g of SPADNS reagent in 600 ml dis-
tilled water. This solution U stable for e/t
least on* month, If stored In a well-sealed
bottle protected from sunlight.
  8.8.U   Reference solution—Add  10 ml of
SPADNS solution (6.8.10) to 100 ml distilled
water and aoldlfy with a solution prepared by
diluting  7 ml  of concentrated HOI to 10 ml
with distilled water. ThUi solution Is used to
set  the  sptotrophotometw 'uero  point  and
should D» prepared daily.
  0,8.18  SPADNB  Mixed  Reagent—Dissolve
0.185 ±0.005 g of  Bltoonyl chloride ootahy-
drate (ZrOOl.,8H,O), In 98 ml distilled water.
Add 850 mid concentrated HOI and dilute to
000 ml with distilled  water.  Mix equal vol-
umes of this solution and SPADNS solution
to form a single  reagent. This  reagent  is
stable for at least two  months.
  7, Procedure.
  Mont  The fusion and distillation steps of
this procedure will not be required, if it oan
be shown to the satisfaction of the Adminis-
trator that the samples contain only water-
soluble fluorides.
  7,1 SampUnp. The sampling shall be con-
ducted by competent  personnel experienced
with this test  procedure.
  7.1.1  Pretest preparation.  AH train  com-
ponents  shall  be maintained and calibrated
according to  the  procedure described  in
APTD-0676, unless otherwise specified herein.
  Weigh approximately 300-800 g of silica gel
in air tight containers to the nearest  0.6 g.
Record the total weight, both silica gel and
container, on  the container.  More silica gel
may be used but care should be taken during
sampling that it Is not entrained and carried
out from the implnger. Ae an alternative, the
tllloa gel may  be weighed directly in the im-
plnger or ite  sampling holder  just prior to
the train assembly.
  7.1.2  Preliminary  determinations, Select
the sampling site and the minimum number
of sampling points according  to Method 1 or
as specified by the Administrator. Determine
the  stack  pressure, temperature,  and the
range of velocity heads using Method 2 and
moisture content using Approximation Meth-
od  4 or its alternatives for the purpose of
making Isoklnetlo sampling rate calculations.
Estimates may be used. However'; final results
will be based  on actual measurements  made
during the test.
  Select a nozzle size based on the range of
velocity  heads such that it is not necessary
to change the nozzle size in order to main-
tain isoklnetlo sampling rates. During the
run,  do  not change the nozzle size. Ensure
that the differential pressure gauge is capable
of  measuring the minimum velocity  head
value to within 10%.  or as specified by  the
Administrator.
  Select a suitable probe liner and  probe
length such that  all traverse points can be
sampled. Consider sampling from opposite
sides for large stacks to reduce  the length of
probes.
  Select a total sampling time greater than
or equal to the minimum total sampling time
specified in -the test procedures for the spe-
cific industry such that the sampling time
per  point is not less than a mln. or  select
some greater time Interval as specified by the
Administrator, and  such  that the sample
volume that will be taken will exceed the re-
quired  minimum total gas  sample volume
specified in the test procedures for the spe-
cific industry. The latter is based on an ap-
proximate average sampling  rate. Note aleo
that the minimum total sample volume is
corrected to standard conditions.
  It is recommended that a halt-integral or
integral number of minutes be sampled at
each point  in  order  to  avoid timekeeping
errors.
  In eome circumstances, e.g. batch cycles, it
may be necessary to sample for shorter times
at the  traverse  points and to obtain smaller
gas sample volumes. In these oases, the Ad-
ministrator's approval must first be obtained.
  7.1.3  Preparation of collection, train. Dur-
ing preparation and  assembly of  the  sam-
pling train, keep all openings where contami-
nation can occur covered until just prior to
assembly or until sampling is about to begin.
  Place 100 ml  of  water In each of the first
two implngers, leave the  third  Implnger
empty,  and place  approximately 200-300 g
or  more,  if necessary, of prewelghed  silica
get in the fourth implnger. Record the weight
of the sOloa gel and  container on the data
sheet. Place the empty container in a  clean
plaoe for later  use in the sample recovery.
  Place a filter in the filter holder. Be sure
that the filter  is nrooerlv centered and the
gasket properly placed so at to not allow the
sample gas  stream to circumvent  the  filter.
Check filter for tears after assembly is com-
pleted.
  When glass liners are used, install selected
nozzle  using a  Vitoa A O-rlng?  the Viton A
O -ring is installed  as a seal when theaoteala
is connected to a glass liner. Bee APTO-0678
for details.  When  metal liners are used, In-
stall the uosxie ae above or by a leak free
direct  mechanical connection.  Mark the
probe with  heat resistant  tape or by some
other method to denote the proper distance)
into the stack or  duct  for each sampling
point.
  Unless otherwise specified by the Admin-
istrator, attach a  temperature probe to the
metal sheath of the sampling probe so that
the sensor extends beyond the probe tip and
does not touch any metal. Its position should
be about 1.9 to 2.54 cm (0.76 to 1  in,)  from
the pltot tube  and probe  nozzle  to  avoid
interference with the gas flow.
  Assemble  the train  as  shown in Figure
13A-1 with the  niter between the third and
fourth  implngers.  Alternatively, the  filter
mar be placed  between the probe and first
Implnger if  a 30 mesh stainless steel screen
Is  used for the filter support.    A filter
heating  system   may  be   used    to
prevent     moisture      condensation,
but the temperature around the filter holder
shall  not  exceed  120±14°C   (248±26'P).
[(Note: Whatman No. 1 filter decomposes at
160*O  (800'F)).1  Record filter location on
the data sheet. So
  Place crushed ice around the Implngers.
  7.14  Leak check  procedure—After the
sampling train  has been, assembled, turn oa
and set (if applicable)  the probe  and filter
heating system (s)  to reach 8  temperature
sufficient to avoid condensation In  the probe.
Allow time  for  the temperature to stabilize.
Leak check  the train at the sampling site by
plugging the nozzle and pulling a 360 mm Kg
(18 in.  Hg) vacuum. A leakage rate in ex-
cess of 4%  of the average sampling rate or
0.00057 mVmin. (0.02 cfm), whichever is less,
Is  unacceptable.
  The  following leak check Instructions for
the sampling train described in APTD-0576
and APTD-0881 may be helpful.  Start the
pump  with by-pass  valve  fully  open and
ooarse  adjust valve completely closed. Par-
tially open the coarse adjust valve and slowly
olose the by-pass valve until 380 mm Hg (15
In.  Hg) vacuum is reached. Ho not reverse
direction  of by-pass  valve. This will  cause
water to back  up into the filter  holder, If
880 mm  Eg (16 in. Hg) is exceeded, either
leak check at this  higher vacuum or end the
leak obeok as described below and start over.
  When • the leak  check: is completed, first
slowly remove the plug from the inlet to the
probe or filter  holder and immediately turn
off the vacuum  pump. This prevents  the
water  in  the irapingere from  being forced
backward Into the filter holder (If placed
before the unplagers)  and silica gel from
being  entrained  backward into the  third
implnger.
 Leak checks shall be conducted as described
whenever the train is disengaged,  e.g.  tot
silica gel  or  filter changes during the test,
prior to each test run, and at the completion
of each test run.  If leaks are found to be in
excess of the acceptable rate, the test will be
considered invalid. To  reduce lost time due
to leakage occurrences, it is recommended
that leak  checks be conducted between port
changes.
  7.1.8  Paniculate train operation—During
the sampling run, an isoklnetlc sampling rate
within 10%. or as specified by the Adminis-
trator, of true Isokinetio shall be maintained.
  for each run, record the data required on
the example data  sheet shown In figure )3A~
3. Be sure to record the initial dry gas meter
reading, Record the dry gas meter readings at
the beginning and end of each Bamnllns time
Increment, when, changes in flow rates  are
made,  and when sampling  is halted. Take
other data point readings at least  once at
each sample  point during each  time incre-
ment and additional readings when signifi-
cant changes (30% variation in velocity head.
readings)  necessitate additional adjustments
in flow rate. Be  sure to level and  zero  the
manometer.
  Clean the portholes prior to the test run to
minimize  chance  of   sampling  deposited
material.  To  begin  sampling,   remove  the
nozzle cap,  verify (if  applicable) that  the
probe heater Is working and filter heater is
up to  temperature, and that the pltot tube
and probe are properly positioned. Position
the nozzle at the first traverse point with  the
tip pointing directly into the gas stream, Im-
mediately start  the pump  and adjust  the
flow to isoklnetio  conditions. Nomographs are
available  for sampling  trains  using type S
pltot tubes with  0.86±0.02 coefficients (Op),
and when sampling in air or a stack gas with
equivalent density (molecular  weight,  Ma,
equal to 29±4).  which aid in the rapid  ad-
justment  of the Isoklnetlc sampling  rate
without excessive computations. APTD-0676
details the procedure for using these nomo-
graphs. If CP and Md are outside the above
stated ranges,  do not  use the nomograph
unless appropirate steps are taken to com-
pensate for the deviations.
  When the stack is under significant nega-
tive pressure (height of Implnger stem), take
care to close the coarse adjust  valve before
inserting  the probe into the stack to avoid
water backing Into the filter holder. If neces-
sary, the  pump may be turned  on  with  tne
coarse adjust valve closed..
   When the probe is  in position,  block off
the openings around the probe  and porthole
to prevent unrepresentative dilution of  the
gas stream.
  Traverse the stack cross section, as required
by Method 1  or as specified by the Adminis-
trator, being careful not to bump trie probe
noozle into  the stack  walls when sampling
near the walls or  when removing or Inserting
the probe through the  portholes to minimize
chance of extracting deposited  material.
  During the test run,  make periodic adjust-
ments to  keep the probe and (If applicable)
filter temperatures at their proper values. Add
more ice  and,  If necessary, salt to the  ice
bath, to maintain a temperature of  less than
20*O (68'F) at the Implnger/silioa gel outlet,
to avoid excessive moisture losses.  Also,  pe-
riodically check  the level and  zero of  the
manometer.
  If the pressure drop across the filter  be-
comes high enough to make Isoklnetlo sam-
pling difficult to  maintain, the  filter may be
replaced in the midst of a sample run. It is
                                                  Ill-Appendix  A-4 6
-------
recommended that  another complete filter
iiMmbly bt UMd rather than attempting to
ehang* the filter itMlf. After the new Alter or
filter assembly  Is Installed conduct a leak
check. The final  emission resulte shall  b«
based on the summation of all filter catches.
  A single train shall be used lor the entire
sample run,  except for filter and silica gel
changes. However. If approved by the Admin-
istrator, two or  more trains may be used for
a single  test run when there are two or more
ducU or sampling  ports.  The final emission
results shall  be based on the total  of  all
sampling train catches.
  At the end of the sample run, turn off the
pump, remove  the probe and nozzle from
the stack, and record the final dry gas meter
reading. Perform  a  leak  check.'  Calculate
percent  isoklnetlc  (see calculation section)
to  determine  whether  another  test run
ahould be made. If there U difficulty in main-
taining  laoldnetlc rates due to source con-
dition*,  consult with the  Administrator for
jKKstbte variance on th» UoklneUo rates.
  7.3  Sample recovery. Proper cleanup pro-
cedure begins M  soon as  the probe Is re-
moved from  the  stack at the  end of the
sampling period.
   When the  probe can be safely bandied,
wipe off all external paniculate matter near
the tip of the probe nozzle and place a cap
over It  to keep  from  losing part  of the
simple.  Do not cap off the probe tip tightly
while the  sampling train Is cooling down, as
this  would create  a  vacuum In the filter
holder,  thus  drawing  water  from the Im-
plngers  into  the  filter.
  Before moving  the sample train to the
cleanup site, remove  the probe  from the
sample train, wipe off the sillcone grease, and
cap the  open outlet of the probe. Be careful
not to lose any condensate. If present. Wipe
•off the sillcone grease from the filter inlet
where the probe  was fastened  and cap It.
Remove the  umbilical cord  from the last
implnger and cap the  Implnger. After wip-
ing off the sillcone grease, cap off the filter
holder  outlet and  implnger Inlet. Ground
glass stoppers,  plastic  caps,  or  serum caps
may  be used to close these openings.
  Transfer the probe and fllter-lmplnger as-
sembly to  the cleanup area. This area should
be  clean and protected from the wind so that
the chances of  contaminating or losing the
sample will be minimized.
  Inspect  the train prior to and during dis-
assembly and note any abnormal conditions.
Using a  graduated cylinder, measure and re-
cord  the volume  of the water in the first
three implngers, to the nearest ml-, any con-
densate  In the  probe should be Included in
this  determination.  Treat the  samples  as
follows:
  7.3.1   Container No.  1.  Transfer the im-
plnger water from the graduated cylinder to
this container.  Add the filter to this con-
tainer.  Wash all  sample  exposed surfaces,
including  the probe tip,  probe,  first three
implngers, implnger connectors, alter holder,
and graduated cylinder thoroughly with dis-
tilled water.  Wash each  component three
separate  times  with water and clean the
probe and nozzle with brushes. A rnaxlTnum
wash of  500 ml Is used, and the washings are
added to the sample container which must
be made of polyethylene.
  7.2.2   Container No. 2.  Transfer the silica
gel from the fourth impingar to  this con-
tainer and seal.
  7.8  Analyst. Treat the contents of each
sample container as described below.
  7.3.1   Container No. 1.
  7.3.1.1   Filter this container's contents, in-
cluding  the Whatman No. 1  filter, through
Whatman No. 541  Alter paper, or equivalent
into •> IBM ml beaker. Npte: If filtrate volume
  1 With acceptability of the tett run to be
based on the same criterion as in 7.1.4.
exceeds  900 ml make  nitrate  basic  with
NaOH to phenolphthaleln and evaporate to
less than 900 ml.
  7.S.1.2  Place the Whatman No. 641  filter
containing  the Insoluble matter  (including
the Whatman No. 1 filter) In a nickel cruci-
ble, &dd a few  ml of water and macerate the
filter with a glass rod.
  Add 100 mg  caO to the crucible and mix
the  contents thoroughly to  form a slurry.
Add a  couple  of drops  of phenolphthaleln
Indicator. The  indicator  will turn red in a
basic  medium. The slurry should  remain
basic during the evaporation of  the water
or fluoride .ion will be lost. If the indicator
turns  colorless during  the evaporation, an
acidic condition is  indicated. If this happens
add CaO until  the  color turns red again.
  Place the crucible in a hood under Infra-
red lamps or on a hot plate at low heat. Evap-
orate the water completely.
  After evaporation of the water, place the
crucible on a  hot  plate under a hood end
slowly Increase the temperature  until the
paper  chars. It may take several  hours for
complete charring of the filter to occur.
  Plaae the crucible In a cold mufle furnace
 and gradually  (to prevent itnolrtng) increase
 the temperature to 600'C, and maintain un-
 til, the contents are reduced  to an ash. Re-
 move the crucible from the furnace and allow
 it to cool.
  7.3.1.3  Add  approximately  4 g of crushed
 NaOH to the crucible and  mix. Return the
 crucible to  the muffle furnace, and fuse the
 sample for  10  minutes at «00°C.
  Remove the  sample from the furnace and
 cool to ambient temperature. Using  several
 rinsings of warm distilled water transfer the
 contents of the crucible to the beaker  con-
 taining  tha filtrate  from  container No.  1
 (7.3.1). To assure complete sample removal.
 rinse finally with two 20 ml  portions of 25
 percent  (v/v) sulfurlc acid and carefully add
 to  the beaker.  Mix well and transfer a one-
 flter volumetric flask. Dilute to volume with
 distilled water and mix  thoroughly.  Allow
 any undlssolved solids to settle;
  1.32  Container  No.  2.  Weigh  the spent
 silica gel and report to the nearest 0.6 g.
  7.3.3  Adjustment of acid/water ratio in
 distillation flask—(Utilize a protective shield
 When carrying  out this procedure.) Place 400
 ml  of distilled water In  the  distilling  flask
 and add 200 ml of  concentrated H^SO,.  Cau-
 tion:  Observe   standard  precautions  when
mixing the  H,SO, by slowly adding the acid
 to the flask  with constant swirling. Add some
eoft glass beads a.nd several small pieces of
broken glass tubing and assemble the ap-
paratus as shown In Figure 13A-2. Heat the
 flask until it reaches a temperature of 176°C
to adjust the acid/water ratio for subsequent
 distillations. Discard the distillate.
  7.3.4  Distillation—Cool  the contents  of
the distillation Qaak to below 80°C. Pipette
an  aliquot of sample containing less than 0.0
 mg F directly Into the distilling flask and add
 distilled water  to make a total volume of 220
ml  added to the distilling flask. [For an es-
timate of what size aliquot does not exceed
0.6  mg F, select an aliquot of the solution
 and treat as described in Suction  7.3.3.  This
will give an approximation of the  fluoride
content, but only  an approximation since
interfering  ions have not been removed by
the distillation  step. 130
  Place a 250 ml volumetric flask at the  con-
denser exit. Now begin distillation and grad-
ually Increase  the  n\eat  and  collect all the
distillation  up  to  176°C. Caution: Heating
the solution above  175'C will cause sulfurlo
 acid to distill over.
  The acid in the distilling flask can be  used
until there  Is  carryover  of Interferences or
poor fluoride recovery. An occasional check of
fluoride  recovery with standard solutions Is
advised. The acid should  be changed when-
ever there is less than 90  percent recovery
 or blank values are higher than 0,1 jig/ny.
 Note: If the sample contains chloride? ad4
 8 mg AgjSO, to the flask  for  every mg of
 chloride. Gradually increase  the heat  and
 collect at the distillate up to 176'C. Do not
 exceed 175*C.
   7.3.6  Determination  of  Concentration—
 Bring the distillate In the 250 ml volumetric
 flask to the mark with distilled wafer  and
 mix  thoroughly. Pipette a suitable  aliquot
 from the distillate (containing 10 ^g to 40
 Ag fluoride) and dilute to 50 ml with  dis-
 tilled water. Add 10 ml of SPADMS Mixed Rea-
 gent (see Section 6.3.12)  and mix thoroughly.
   After  mixing,  place  the sample in a con-
 stant temperature bath containing the stand-
 ard solution for thirty minutes before read-
 ing  the absorbance  with  the  spcctropho-
 tometer.
   Set the spectrophotometer to zero absorb-
 ance at 670 nm  with  reference  solution
 (6J.11), and chock the snectrophotometer
calibration  with  the standard solution. De-
termine  toe absorbance of the samples and
determine the concentration from the cali-
bration curve. If the concentration does  not
fall within the range of the calibration curve,
repeat the  procedure using t. dlflerent size
aliquot.
   8. Calibration.
  Maintain a laboratory log of all calibrations.
   8.1  Sampling  Train.
 •  8.1.1  Probe nozzle—Using a  micrometer,
measure the Inside diameter  of the nozzle
to the  nearest 0.025 mm (0.001  In.). Make
3  separate  measurements  using different
diameters each time and obtain the  average
of the measurements. The difference between
the high and  low numbers shall not exceed
0.1 mm (0.004 In.).
   When  nozzles  become  nicked,  dented, or
corroded, they shall be reshaped, sharpened,
and recalibrated before use.
   Each   nozzle  shall  be  permanently  and
uniquely Identified.
   8.1.2  Pltot tube—The  pltot tube shall be
calibrated according to the procedure out-
lined In Method 2.
  8.1.3  Dry gas meter  and oriflce   meter.
Both meters shall be calibrated according to
the procedure outlined In APTD-0678. When
diaphragm  pumps with  by-pass  valves are
used, check for  proper metering system de-
sign by calibrating the dry gas meter at an
additional  flow  rate of  0.0067 m'/mln.  (0.2
cfm)  with  the  by-pass valve fully  opened
and then with it fully closed. If there  is more
than *2 percent difference In  flow rates
when compared  to the fully closed position
of the by-pass valve, the system Is not de-
signed properly and must be corrected.
  8.1.4  Probe heater calibration—The pcobe
heating system shall be calibrated according
to the procedure contained In APTD-0578.
Probes constructed according to APTD-Q581
need  not be  calibrated  If  the calibration
curves In APTD-0676 ore used.
  8.1.5  Temperature gauges—Calibrate dial
and  liquid  filled  bulb thermometers against
mercury-in-glass  thermometers.  Thermo-
couples  need  not be  calibrated.  For other
devices, check with the Administrator.-
  8.2  Analytical Apparatus. Spectrophotom-
eter.  Prepare the blank standard by  adding
10 ml of 8PADNS mixed reagent to 80 my of
distilled  water.  Accurately prepare a series
of standards from the standard fluoride solu-
tion (see Section 6.3.0)  by diluting 2, 4, e,
8,  10, 12, and 14 ml volumes to 100 ml with
distilled water. Pipette 50 ml from each solu-
tion and transfer to a  100 ml  beaker. Then
add 10 ml of 8PADN8 mixed reagent to each.
These standards  will contain  0,  10,  20, 80,
40, BO, 80, and 70 Ag of fluoride (0—1.4 ng/ml)
respectively.
  After mixing, place the reference standards
and  reference solution in a constant tem-
perature bath for thirty minutes before read-
Ing the  absorbance with the spectrophotom-
eter. All samples should be adjusted  to this
                                                  Ill-Appendix  A-4 7
-------
same temperature  before  analyzing. Since
a 3'C temperature difference between samples
and  standards wilt  produce an error of ap<
proxlmately 0.005 mg P/llter,  care must be
taken to see that samples and  standards are
at nearly  Identical  temperatures when ab-
sorbances are recorded.
  With  the spectrophotometer at B70 nm,
use the reference solution (see section 6.9.It)
to set the absorbance to zero.
  Determine  the  absorbance  of the stand-
ards. Prepare a calibration curve by plotting
Mg P/50 ml versus absorbance on linear graph
paper. A standard curve should be prepared
Initially  and  thereafter   whenever   the
8PADNS mixed reagent Is newly made. Also,
a calibration standard should be run with
each set of samples  and If It differs f»>m tho
calibration  curve by  ±3  percent,  * new
standard curve should be prepared.
  9.  Calculations.
  Carry out  calculations, retaining at least
one  extra decimal figure beyond that of the
acquired data. Round off figures after final
calculation.
  9.1 Nomenclature.
Ai = Aliquot  of  distillate  taken  for  color
  development, ml.
4»= Cross sectional area of nozzle, ma (ft8).
/I i = Aliquot  of total  sample  added to still,
  ml.
Bu>—Water vapor in the gas stream, propor-
  tion by volume,
O, = Concentration  of fluoride In stack gas,
  mg/m»,  corrected  to standard  conditions
  of 20' C, 780 mm Kg (88* P. 29.92 In. Hg)
  on dry basis.
Ft = Total weight of fluoride in sample, mg.
,jtgF=Concentration  from  the calibration
  curve, ^g.
/=Percent of Isoklnetlc sampling.
nu=Total  .amount  of paniculate  matter
  collected, mg.
M« = Molecular weight of water, 18 g/g-mole
  (18 Ib/lb-mole).
•n. = Mass of residue  of acetone after evap.
  oration, mg.
Pbir = Barometric pressure  at  the sampling
  site, mm  Hg (In.  Hg).
P, = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (In.
  Hg).
P. i a = Standard absolute  pressure, 760 mm
  Hg (29.92 In. Hg).
R=Ideal gas constant, 0.08236 mm  Hg-mV
  •K-g-mole (21.83 in. Hg-ltV°R-lb-mole).
Tm = Absolute average dry  gas meter  tem-
  perature  (see fig. 13A-3), °K (°R).
Ti = Absolute average stack gas temperature
  (see flg.  13A-3).  "K <°R).
I*i i a = Standard absolute  temperature. 293"
  K  (528°  R).
Vo = Volume  of acetone blank, ml.
V.» = Volume of  acetone used In wash,  ml.
fa=Volume  of distillate  collected, ml.
Vi» = Total volume of liquid collected In 1m-
  plngers and silica gel, ml. Volume of water
  In Blllca gel equals silica gel weight in-
  crease in'grams times 1 ml/ gram. Volume
  of liquid collected In Lmplnger equals final
  volume  minus  Initial volume.
Vm= Volume of gas sample as measured by
  dry gas meter,  dcm (dcf).
Vmni4> = Volume  of  gas sample measured by
  the dry  gas meter  corrected to standard
  conditions, dscm  (dscf).
V«.(•!!) = Volume  of  water  vapor In the gas
  sample corrected  to standard conditions,
  scm (scf).
Vi= Total volume of sample,  ml.
«,=Stack gas velocity, calculated by Method
  2,  Equation. 2-7 using data obtained from
  Method D,  m/seo  (ft/sec).
W.=Welght of residue in acetone wash, mg.
AH=Average pressure differential across the
  orifice (see fig. 1SA-3),  meter,  mm Had
  (in. H»O).
p.=Density of acetone, rag/ml (see label on
  bottle )i
p.-Denalty  of water, 1  g/ml (0.00220 lb/
  ml).
e=Total sampling time, mln.
13.6=Specific  gravity of mercury.
80 =r Sec/mln.
100 = Conversion to percent.
  Q.2  Average dry gas  meter temperature
and  average orifice pressure drop. See data
                      sheet (flg. 13A-3).
                        9.3  Dry gaa volume. Correct the sample
                      volume  measured by  the  dry gas  meter to
                      standard conditions (20° C, 760 mm Hg  (68°
                      P,  20.92  Inches  Hg)  ]  by using  equation
                      13A-1.
                                                  „„
                                                     "
                                                           r-f AH/13.C
                                                                —
where:
  £•=0.3865 'K/mm Hg for metric unite.
    cl7.ee 'R/ln. Hg for English units.
  9.4  Volume of water vapor.
•where:
  X=0.00134 mVml for metric units.
    =0.0472 f t'/ml for English un Its.
  0.6  Moisture content.
                                                                       equation 13A-1
                                                                       equation 13A-2
                                           V.(.,
                                                 equation 13A-3
                        If the liquid  droplets are present In  the
                       gas stream assume the stream to be saturated
                       and use a  psychrometrlc chart to obtain an
                       approximation of the moisture percentage.
                        9.6  Concentration.
                        9.0.1   Calculate the amount of fluoride in
                       the sample according to Equation 13A-4.
                                                 equation 13A-4
                      - where:
                        .ff=10-" mg//ag.
                        9.6.2  Concentration  of  fluoride  In stack
                      gaa. Determine the concentration of fluoride
                      In the stack gas according to Equation 13A-S.
              *-• • *- «*•  ir
                      I fti(ifd)

                           equation 13A-5

 where:
  K=35.31 ftvrn'.
  9.7  Isoklnetlc variation.
  9.7.1  Calculations from raw data.

= 100 T. \KV_,_f±(VJTm)  (Pi
                 00 ev.P.A,
                                                                      equation 13A-8
•where:
  K=0.00346 mm Hg-mVml-''K  for  metric
       units.
    =0.00267 In. Hg-ft*/ml-°R for  English
       units.
  9.7.2  Calculations from Intermediate val-
ues.
                                               .,t 100
                               ' T.tJv.8AnPt 60 (1-j
                                                                      equation  13A-7
where:
  #=4.383 for metric units.
    =0.0944 for English units.
  9.8 Acceptable  results.   The  following
range sets the limit on acceptable isoklnetlc
sampling results:
                        If  90 percent  
-------
       mVi.??     TEMPERATUlCE
 1.1cm 10.76 in.)
                    "71
          ORIFICE MANOMETER
AIRTIGHT
 PUMP
                                13A 1
                                         i- 5Jr]i|]hng lf.f
                               'CONNECTING TUBE
                                   12-mm ID
                                    f21 40   V
THERMOMETER TIPMUST EXTEND BELOW
        THE LIQUID LEVEL
                    WITH J10/30—'
                            HEATING
                             MANTLE
                                                                  124/40
                                                                  CONDENSER
       260ml
     VOLUMETRIC
       FLASK
                        Figure 13A-2.  Fluoride Distillation Apparatus
                        Ill-Appendix  A-49
-------
                      10. References.
                      Bellack, Ervin,  "Simplified  Fluoride  Dis-
                    tillation Method," Journal o] the American
                    Water Works Association #50: eSO-C (1958).
                      MacLeod. Kathryn E.. and Howard L. Crist,
                    "Comparison of  the  SPADNS—Zirconium
                    Lake and Specific Ion  Electrode Methods of
                    Fluoride  Determination In Stuck Emission
                    Samples."  Analytical  ChemM.-y  45:   1272-
                    1273  (1973).
                      Martin, Robert  M.,  "Construction Details
                    of Isoktnetlc  Source Sampling Equipment,"
                    Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollu-
                    tion  Control  Office  Publication No.  APTD-
                    0581.
                      1973  Annual  Book  of ASTM  Standards,
                    Part 23. Designation: D 1179-72.
                      Rom, Jerome J.,  "Maintenance.  Calibra-
                    tion,  and Operation  of Isoklnetlc  Source
                    Sampling Equipment," Environmental  Pro-
                    tection Agency, Air Pollution  Control  Office
                    Publication No. APTD-0576.
                      Standard Methods for the Examination of
                    Water and  Waste Water,  published jointly
                    by  American  Public  Health  Association,
                    American  Water   Woika  Association  and
                    Water Pollution  Control  Federation,  13th
                    Edition (1971).
SAMflE IOH HO .

METERBOXNO._
»n»i mi coin ICIEHI.C,	
                           iCHIUAUC Of S1AC« CMJSS SCCtlON
AMBIENT TEMPtBATURC.	„

lAflOUETRIC >BESSU»(

ASSUMED MOISTUBt, X

fBOBEUNCTH.nl |(lj

H02ZII IDIKTiriCAIIOII NO

AVERACCCAtlBRATEONOZZtE DIAMETER,emI.«

raOBE»l>TERSETTI«(S

IBAK BATE. m!/»»» Irtml

mm UNEfl MATBfllAl
WUMtt*












10TAI
AVIMOI
5AMPVINO














STATIC














174CK
irsi
•c i*ri














VdOCITf
HEAD














muuu
OtfftRtHUAl
ACROSS
CM if ICE
!••• H;0!














CAS SAUPIE
VOLUWC














GAS SAMKf TEUPdlATUKE
AI OUT CAS WflEH
If* (I
•c i'n












Av».
OuHIT
•c I'M












A»fl.
A,(.
HiTEHHOiOEIt
TtWEUtultt.














W OAS
HAVING
CONDtfrtl* 0*














                                        13A-3. Flilt int.
                          Ill-Appendix  A-50
-------
MITKOD 138—DtnnUlNATIOM OF TOTAL M,UO-
  ftioi IMISSIONB rnoM STATIONARY BOUBCM—
  BFSCiriO ION HJtCTRODB MITKOD.  I*

  1.  Principle and Applicability,
  1,1  Principle. Osseous and paniculate flu.
orldes are withdrawn isoklnetloally from th«
source using a sampling  train.  The  fluorides
are collected In  the implnger water and on
the filter of the sampling train. The weight
of total fluorides In the  train la  determined
by the specific ion electrode method,
  1.3  Applicability.  This  method  Is ap-
plicable for  the  determination  of fluoride
emissions from stationary sources only when
specified by  the  test  procedures for deter-
mining  compliance with  new source  per-
formance  standards,  Fluorocarbons such  u
Freons,  are not quantitatively collected  or
measured by this procedure.
  2.  Range and  Sensitivity.
  The fluoride specific Ion electrode analyti-
cal method covers the range of 0.02-3,000  «g
F/ml;  however,  measurements of less  than
0.1 /ig F/ml require extra ewe. Sensitivity has
not been determined.
  3.  Interferences.
  During the laboratory  analysis, aluminum
In excess of 300 trig/liter and silicon dioxide
In excess of 300 mg/llter will  precent com-
plete recovery of fluoride.
  4.  Precision, Accuracy  and Stability.
  The accuracy of fluoride electrode measure-
ments  has been  reported by various re-
searchers to be In the range ot 1-8 percent in
a concentration range of 0.04  to 60 mg/1. A
change in the temperature of the sample will
change the electrode response; a change of
1*0  will produce a 1,6 percent relative error
in the measurement. Lack at stability in the
electrometer used to measure KMF can intro-
duce error. An error of 1 millivolt In the KMP
measurement produces a relative error of 4
percent regardless  of the absolute concen-
tration being measured.
   9. Apparatus,
  5.1  Sample  train.   See Figure   13A-1
 (Method ISA); It Is similar to the Method 8
train except  for  the interchangeablllty  of
the position of the filter. Commercial models
of this train  are available. However, if one
desires  to build his own, complete construc-
tion details are described in APTD-0581; for
changes from the APTD-0681  document and
for allowable modifications to  Figure  13A-1,
see the  following subsections.
  The operating and maintenance procedures
for  the sampling  train  are  described  In
APTD-0576.  Since  correct  usage Is  Impor-
tant  in obtaining  valid  results,  all  users
should  read the APTD-0576 document and
adopt the  operating and  maintenance pro-
cedures outlined In it, unless otherwise spec-
 ified herein.
  6.1.1  Probe nozzle—Stainless  steel  (316)
with sharp, tapered leading edge. The angle
of taper shall be £30° and the  taper shall be
on the  outside to preserve a constant Inter-
nal  diameter. The  probe nozzle  shall be of
the  button-hook  or elbow design,   unless
otherwise  specified  by  the Administrator.
The wall thickness of the nozzle  shall  be
less  than or equal  to that of  20  gauge tub-
Ing,  i.e., 0.166 cm (0.065 In.) and the distance
from the tip of the nozzle  to the first bend
or point of disturbance shall be at least two
times the outside nozzle diameter. The noz-
zle shall be constructed from seamless stain-
less  steel tubing. Other  configurations and
construction material may be used with ap-
proval from the Administrator.
   A range of sizes  suitable   for Isoklnetlo
sampling should be  available, e.g.,  0.32 cm
 (ft  in.) up to 1.27 cm (^  in.)  (or larger if
higher  volume  sampling trains are  used)
Inside diameter (ID)  nozzles  in increments
of  0.16 cm  (Ms  in.). Each nozzle shall  be
calibrated according to the procedures out-
lined  In the calibration section.
  A.1.2  Probe  liner—Boroslllcate  glass  or
stainless steel (316).  When the filter  la lo-
cated immediately after the probe,  a  probe
heating system may be used to prevent Alter
plugging resulting  from  moisture conden-
sation. The  temperature In the probe shall
not exceed 120±14°C (24B±26°F).
  8.1.3  Pilot  tube—Type 8, or other device
approved by the Administrator,.attached to
probe to allow constant monitoring of  the
stack gas velocity. The face openings of the
pilot  tube and the probe nozzle shall be ad-
jacent and parallel to each other, not neces-
sarily on the  same plane,  during sampling,
The free space between the nozzle and pltot
tube shall be  at least 1.9 cm (0.75 In.). The
free  space shall be set based  on a 1.3 om
(0.5 in.) ID  nozzle, which Is the largest  alee
nozzle used.
  The pltot tube must also meet the criteria
specified in  Method 2 and be calibrated ac-
cording to the procedure in the  calibration
section of that method.
  5.1.4  Differential   pressure    gauge—In-
clined manometer capable of   measuring
velocity head  to  within 10  percent of  the
minimum measured value. Below a differen-
tial  pressure  of  l.s  mm  (0.06  In.)  water
gauge, mlcromanometers with  sensitivities
of 0.013  mm  (0.0008 In.)  should be  used.
However,  mlcromanometers  are  not  easily
adaptable  to  field  condition1;  and  are  not
easy to use with pulsating flow. Thus, other
methods or  devices  acceptable to thn  Ad-
ministrator  may  bo  used  when   conditions
warrant.
  6.1 6 Filter holder—If locntcd between the
probe (\nd first  Implnger,  boroslUcate glass
with  a 20 mesh stainless steel screen filter
support Mid fi Hlllconc rubber gasket: neither
a glass frit filter support nor a sintered  metal
filter  support  may be used If the  filter Is In
front of the Implngers.  If  located between
the third  nnd fourth  Implngers. boroslllcate
glass  with a glass frit  filter support and  a
slllcone rubber gaskot. Other  materials of
construction may be used with approval from
the Administrator, e.g., If probe liner Is stain-
less steel, then filter holder may be stainless
steel. The holder design shall provide a posi-
tive seal against leakage from the  outside or
around the filter. 30
  5.1.8  Filter heating system—When  mois-
ture condensation Is a problem, any heating
system capable of maintaining a- temperature
around  the filter  holder during sampling of
no greater than 120 ±WC (248±25'F). A
temperature gauge capable of measuring tem-
perature to  within 3°C (6.4°F) shall be in-
stalled so that when the filter heater is used,
the temperature around the filter holder can
be regulated and monitored during sampling.
Heating systems other than the  one shown
In APTD-0581 may be used.
  5.1.7  Implngers—Four   Implngers   con-
nected as shown In Figure 13A-1 with ground
glass  (or equivalent), vacuum tight fittings.
The first, third, and fourth Implngers are of
the Greenburg-Smlth design, modified by re-
placing the Up with a l'/4 cm (i/a in.) inside
diameter glass tube extending to  1'4 cm (V4
In.) from the bottom of the flask. The second
Implnger is  of the Oreenburg-Smlth design
with the standard tip.
  5.1.8  Metering  system—Vacuum  gauge,
leak-free  pump,  thermometers  capable of
measuring   temperature   to  within   S'C
(~8'F), dry gas meter  with 2 percent ac-
curacy at the required sampling rate,  and
related equipment, or equivalent,  as required
to maintain an isoklnetlc sampling rate  and
to  determine  sample  volume.  When  the
metering system Is used in conjunction with
a pltot tube, the  system shall enable checks
of isoklnetlc rates.
  8.1,9  Barometer—Mercury,   aneroid,   or
other barometers capable ot measuring at-
mospheric prsuure to within 9.8 mm Hg (0.1
In Hg),  In many oases, tht barometric read-
ing may be obtained from a nearby weather
bureau  station, in which case tht station
value shall be requested and an adjustment
for elevation differences shall be applied at a
rate of minus  2.8 mm Hg (0.1 In, Hg) pir 80
m (100  ft) elevation increase.
  6.2  Sample recovery.
  5.2.1  Probe   liner  and   probe   nowle
brushes—Nylon bristles  with stainless steal
wire handles.  The  probe brush shall have
extensions, at  least as long aa  the probe, of
stainless steel, teflon, or similarly inert matt-
rial. Both brushes shall be properly alnd and
shaped to brush out the probe liner and not>
zle.
  6.2.2  Glass  wash bottles—Two,
  6.2.3  Sample storage  containers—Wide
mouth,  high  density polyethylene bottles, 1
liter,
  6.2.4  Plastic storage containers—Air tight
containers of sufficient volume to store silica
gel.
  5.2.6  Graduated cylinder—260 ml.
  5.2.6  Funnel and rubber  policeman—To
aid In transfer of silica gel to container; not
necessary if silica gel is weighed in the field.
  6.3  Analysis.
  6.3.1  Distillation apparatus—Olaia d lit Il-
lation apparatus assembled as shown in fig-
ure 13A-2 (Method  ISA).
  6.3.2  Hot plate—Capable  of heating  to
600'0.
  5.3.3  Electric muffle furnace—Capable  of
heating to 600*0.
  6.3.4  Crucibles—NlcXel, 7ft  to  100  ml
capacity.
  6.3.6  Beaker—1500 ml,
  6.3.8  Volumetric flask—50 ml.
  6.3.7  Erlenmeyer flask or plastic bottle—
600ml.
  8.3.8  Constant  temperature  bath—Ca-
pable of maintaining a constant temperature
of ±1.0'C In the range of room  temperature.
  8.3.9  Trip   balance—300  g  capacity   to
measure to ±0.5 g.
  6.3.10   Fluoride Ion activity sensing elec-
trode.
  6.3.11   Reference  electrode—Single junc-
tion;  sleeve  type. (A comblntlon-type elec-
trode having  the  references electrode  and
the fluoride-Ion sensing electrode built Into
one unit may also be used.)
  6.3.12   Electrometer—A pH  meter  with
millivolt scale capable  of ±0.1  mv  resolu-
tion, or  a specific Ion meter made specifically
for specific Ion use.
  6.3.13   Magnetic stlrrer and  TFE  fluoro-
carbon coated stripping bars.
  8. Reagents.
  6.1  Sampling.
  6.1.1  Filters—Whatman No.  1 filters,  or
equivalent, sized to fit  niter holder.
  6.1.2  Silica  gel—Indicating  type.  8-18
mesh.  If  previously used,  dry  at  178'O
(350°F)  for 2  hours. New silica gel may be
used as received.
  6.1.3  Water—Distilled.
  8.1.4  Crushed Ice.
  6.1.6  Stopcock grease—Acetone Insoluble,
heat stable slllcone grease. This Is not neces-
sary  If  screw-on   connectors  with  teflon
sleeves,  or similar, are used.
  6.2  Sample recovery.
  8.2.1  Water—Distilled  from  same  con-
tainer as 6.1.3.
  6.3  Analysis.
  6.3.1  Calcium  oxide   (CaO)—Certified
grade containing 0.006 percent fluoride  or
less.
  6.3.2  Phenolphthaleln Indicator—0.1 per-
cent In 1: 1 ethanol water mixture.
  6.3.3  Sodium  hydroxide  (NaOH)—Pel-
lets, ACS reagent grade or equivalent.
                                                 Ill-Appendix  A-51
-------
  6.3.4  Sulfurlc   acid   (H.SO,)—Concen-
trated. ACS reagent grade or equivalent.
  6.3.5  Filters—Whatman No. 841, or equiv-
alent.
  8.3.6  Water—Distilled,  from  same  con-
tainer as 6.1.3.
  6.3.7  Total Ionic  Strength  Adjustment
Buffer  (TI8AB)— Place  aproxlmately  600
ml of distilled water In a 1-llter beaker. Add
£7 ml glacial acetic acid, SB g sodium  chlo-
ride, and 4 g CDTA (Cyclohexylene dlnltrllo
tetraacetlc acid). Stir to dissolve. Place the
bea.ker In a  water bath to cool It. Slowly
add  5 M NaOH to the  solution,  measuring
the pH continuously with a calibrated pH/
reference electrode pair, until  the pH is 6.3.
Cool to room temperature. Pour Into a 1-liter
flask  and dilute  to volume with  distilled
water. Commercially prepared TISAB buffer
may  be substituted for the above.
  6.3.8  Fluoride  Standard Solution—0.1  M
fluoride reference solution. Add 4.20 grams of
reagent grade sodium fluoride  (NaF) to a  1-
llter volumetric flask and add enough dis-
tilled  water  to  dlsolve. Dilute  to  volume
with distilled water.
  7.  Procedure.

  NOTE: The fusion and distillation steps  of
this  procedure wilt not be required, If it can
be shown to  the satisfaction of the  Admin-
istrator that the samples contain only water-
soluble fluorides.
  7.1   Sampling. The sampling shall  be con-
ducted by competent personnel  experienced
with this test procedure.
  7.1.1  Pretest preparation. All  train com-
ponents shall be  maintained and calibrated
according to  the  procedure  described  In
APTD-0678, unless otherwise specified here-
in.
  Weigh approximately 200-300 g  of silica gel
In air tight containers to the nearest  0.6 g.
Record the total  weight, both silica  gel and
container, on the container. More silica  gel
may be used but care should be taken during
sampling that It Is not entrained  and carried
out from the implnger. As an alternative, the
silica gel may be weighed directly In  the im-
plnger or its sampling  holder Just prior  to
the train assembly.
  7.1.2  Preliminary determinations. Select
the sampling site and the minimum  number
of sampling points according to Method 1  or
as specified by the Administrator. Determine
the  stack  pressure, temperature, and the
range of velocity  heads  using  Method  2 and
moisture   content  using  Approximation
Method 4 or Its alternatives for  the  purpose
of making Isoklnetlc sampling rate calcula-
tions. Estimates may be used. However, final
results will  be  based on  actual measure-
ments made during the test.
  Select a nozzle size based on the range of
velocity heads such that It Is not necessary
to change the nozzle size In order to maintain
Isoklnetlc sampling rates. During  the run.  do
not change the nozzle size. Ensure that the
differential  pressure gauge  Is   capable  of
measuring the minimum velocity head value
to within 10 percent, or as specified by the
Administrator.
  Select a Suitable probe liner  and  probe
length such  that  all traverse  polnte can  be
sampled.  Consider sampling from opposite
sides for large stacks to reduce the length of
probes.
  Select a total sampling time greater than
or equal  to the  minimum total sampling
time specified in  the test procedures for the
specific Industry such that the sampling time
per  point Is not less than 2 mln. or  select
tome  greater time Interval as specified  by
the Administrator, and such that the sample
volume that will be taken will exceed the re-
quired minimum total gas sample  volume
specified In the teat procedures for the spe-
cific Industry. The latter Is based on an ap-
proximate average sampling rate. Note also
that the minimum total sample volume Is
corrected to standard conditions.
  It Is recommended that a half-integral or
Integral number of minutes  be sample at
each point  in order  to avoid timekeeping
errors.
  In some circumstances, e.g. batch  cycles, It
may be necessary to sample for shorter times
at the traverse points and to obtain smaller
gas sample volumes. In  these  cases, the Ad-
ministrator's approval must first be obtained.
  7.1.3  Preparation of collection train. Dur-
ing preparation and assembly of the sampling
train, keep all openings where contamination
can occur covered until Just prior to assembly
or until sampling Is about to begin.
  Place 100 ml of water Vn each of  the flint
two  implngers, leave  the  third  Implnger
empty, and place approximately 200-300 g or
more, if necessary, of prewelghed silica gel In
the fourth Implnger.  Record the weight of
the silica gel and container on the data sheet.
Place the  empty container In a clean place
for later use In the sample recovery.
  Place a filter In the filter holder. Be sure
that the filter  Is properly centered  and the
gasket properly placed so as to not allow the
sample gas stream to circumvent the  filter.
Check filter for tears after assembly Is com-
pleted.
  When glass liners ore used, Install selected
nozzle using a Vlton A  O-rlng; the Vlton A
O-rlng Is Installed as a seal where the nozzle
la connected to a glass liner. See APTD-OB76
for details. When metal liners are used, In-
stall the nozzle as  above or  by a leak free
direct mechanical connection. Mark the probe
with heat resistant tape or by  some  other
method to  denote the proper distance Into
the stack  or duct for each sampling point.
  Unless otherwise  specified by the Admin-
istrator, attach a temperature probe  to the
metal sheath of the sampling probe so that
the sensor extends beyond the probe tip and
does not touch any metal. Its position should
be about 1.0 to 2.54 cm (0.75 to 1 In.) from
the pltot tube and probe nozzle to avoid In-
terference- with the gas flow.
  Assemble  the train  as shown In  Figure
13A-1  (Method 13A) with the filter between
the  third  nnd fourth  Implngers.  Alterna-
tively, the filter mny be placed between the
probe the first Implnger If a 20  mesh stain-
less steel screen is  used for  the filter sup-
port. A filter heating system may be used to
prevent moisture condensation, but  the tem-
perqture around  the filter holder shall not
exceed 1200±14°C (248±25°F).  [(Note: Whal-
man No. 1  filter decomposes at 150°C (300°
F)).|  Record  filter location  on  the data
sheet. 5°
  Place crushed Ice around  the Implngers.
  7.1.4  Leak  check  procedure—After the
sampling train has been assembled, turn on
and set (If applicable)  the probe and filter
heating system (s)  to reach  a temperature
sufficient to avoid condensation In the probe.
Allow time for the  temperature to  stabilize.
Leak check the train at the sampling site by
plugging the nozzle and pulling a 380 mm
Hg (16 in. Hg) vacuum.  A leakage rate in ex-
cess of 4% of the average sampling rate of
0.0057 mVmln. (0.02 cfm), whichever Is less,
Is unacceptable.
  The following leak check Instruction  for
the sampling  train described In APTD-0576
and APTD-0581 may  be helpful. Start the
pump  with by-pass valve fully open and
coarse adjust  valve completely closed. Par-
tially open the coarse adjust valve and slow-
ly close the by-pass valve until  380 mm Hg
(15 In. Hg)  vacuum Is  reached. Do tiot re-
verse direction of  by-pass valve.  This will
cause water to back up Into the filter holder.
If 380 mm Hg (15 In. Hg) is exceeded, either
leak check at this higher vacuum or end the
leak check as described below and start over.
  When  the  leak  check Is  completed,  first
slowly remove the  plug from the Inlet to the
probe or filter holder and Immediately  turn
off  the  vacuum  pump. This prevents the
water In the  Implngers from being forced
backward Into the filter holder (if placed
before the implngers)  and silica gel from
being entrained  backward  Into the third
Implnger.
  Leak  checks shall  be conducted  as de-
scribed whenever the train Is disengaged, e.g.
for silica gel or filter changes during the test,
prior to each test run, and at the completion
of each  test run. If leaks are found to be in
excess of the acceptable rate, the test will  be
considered Invalid. To reduce lost time due to
leakage  occurrences, It Is recommended that
leak  checks  be   conducted between  port
changes.
  7.1.5  Partlculato train operation—During
the sampling run, an  Isoklnetlc sampling
rate within  10%, or as  specified by the Ad-
ministrator, of true Isoklnetlc shall be main-
tained.
  For each run, record  the data required  on
the  example  data sheet shown In  Figure
13A-3 (Method 13A). Be sure to record the
Initial dry  gas  meter  reading.  Record the
dry gas  meter readings nt the beginning and
end of each sampling time Increment, when
changes  In  flow rates are made, and when
sampling is halted. Take other data point
readings at  least once at each sample point
during each time  Increment and additional
readings when  significant   changes  (20%
variation In velocity  head  readings)  neces-
sitate additional adjustments In  flow rate.  Be
sure to  level  and  zero the  manometer.
  Clean  the portholes prior to the test run
to minimize chance  of sampling deposited
material. To  begin sampling,  remove the
noz/.le cnp.  verify  (If applicable)  that the
probe heater Is working and filter heater Is
up  to temperature, and that the pltot tube
and probe are properly positioned.  Position
the nozzle at the first traverse point  with
the tip pointing directly Into the gas stream.
Immediately start the pump nnd adjust the
flow to Isoklnetlc conditions. Nomographs are
available for  sampling  trains using  type S
pltot tubes  with 0.85±0.03  coefficients  (Cp),
and when sampling In air or a stack gas with
equivalent density  (molecular  weight, Md.
equal to 29±4), which  aid In the rapid ad-
justment of  the  Isoklnetlc sampling  rate
without excessive  computations. APTD-0678
details the procedure for using these nomo-
graphs.  If Cp and  Md are outside the above
stated ranges, do not use the nomograph un-
less appropriate steps are taken to  compen-
sate for the  deviations.
  When  the stack Is under  significant  neg-
ative  pressure (height  of  Implnger  stem),
take care to close the  coarse  adjust valve
before inserting the probe Into the stack  to
avoid water  backing Into the filter holder. If
necessary, the pump may be turned on  with
the coarse adjust valve closed.
  When  the  probe Is In position, block off
the openings around the probe and porthole
to prevent unrepresentative dilution of the
gas stream.
  Traverse the stack cross section,  as re-
quired by Method 1 or as specified by the Ad-
ministrator, being careful not to bump the
probe nozzle  Into the stack  walls  when
sampling near the walls or when removing
or  Inserting the  probe through the port-
holes to minimize chance of extracting de-
posited  material.
  During the test run, make periodic adjust-
ments to keep the probe and (If applicable)
filter  temperatures at  their proper  values.
Add more Ice and, If necessary, salt to the
loe bath, to maintain a temperature of less
than 20'C (68«P)  at the Implnger/slllca gel
outlet,  to avoid  excessive  moisture losses.
                                                 Ill-Appendix  A-52
-------
Also,  periodically check  the level and zero
of the manometer.
  If  the pressure drop across the filter be-
comes high enough to make Isoklnetlc sam-
pling difficult to maintain, the niter may be
replaced In the midst of a sample run. It Is
recommended that another complete filter as-
sembly  be  vised rather than  attempting to
change  the niter Itself. After the new niter
or filter assembly  Is  Installed,  conduct a
leak  check. The final emission results shall
be based on  the summation of all filter
catches.
  A single train shall be used for the entire
sample  run.  except for filter and silica gel
changes. However, If approved by the Admin-
istrator,  two or more trains may be used for
a slngio test run when there are two or more
ducts or sampling ports. The final emission
results  shall  be  based  on  the  total of  all
sampling train catches.
  At the end of the sample run, turn off the
pump, remove the probe  and  nozzle from
the stack, and record the final dry gas meter
reading.  Perform  a  leak  check.' Calculate
percent Isokiiietlc (see calculation section) to
determine whether another test run should
bo made. If there Is difficulty in  maintaining
isoklnetlc rates due to source conditions, con-
sult   with  the  Administrator for  possible
variance on the Isoklnetlc rates.
  7.2 Sample recovery. Proper cleanup pro-
cedure  begins as soon  as the probe  is  re-
moved  from  the stack at  the  end  of  the
sampling period.
  When  the  probe can  be  safely handled, •
wipe  off all external  partlculate matter near
the tip  of the probe nozzle and place a cap
over It to keep from losing part of the sam-
ple.  Do  not  cap off  the probe  tip  tightly
while the sampling  train Is cooling  down,
as this  would create a vacuum  In the niter
holder,  thus drawing  water  from the  1m-
plngcrs  Into the niter.
  Before moving the  sample  train  to  the
cleanup  site,  remove  the probe from  the
sample  train, wipe off the  sllicone  grease,
and  cap the open outlet of  the  probe.  Be
careful  not to lose any condensate,  if pres-
ent.  Wipe off the sllicone grease from  the
niter  Inlet where the probe was fastened
and cap It. Remove the umbilical cord from
tho last Implnger and cap the Implnger. After
wiping  off  the sllicone grease,  cap off  the
lilter  holder  outlet   and  Implnger  Inlet.
Ground glass stoppers, plastic caps, or serum
caps may be vised to close these openings.
  Transfer the probe and  filter-lmplnger as-
sembly to the cleanup area. This area should
be clean and  protected from the wind so that
the chances of contaminating or  losing the
sample will be minimized.
  Inspect the train prior to and during dis-
assembly and note any abnormal conditions.
Using a graduated cylinder, measure and re-
cord  the volume of the  water  In the first
three imptiigcrs, to the nearest ml; any con-
den.sate In  the probe should b« Included in
this  determination.  Treat  the  samples  as
follows:
  7.2.1  Container No. I.  Transfer the Im-
plnger  water  from the graduated cylinder
to this  container.  Add  the  filter  to this
container.  Wash all  sample exposed  sur-
faces, Including the probe  tip, probe, first
three implngers,  Implnger connectors, filter
holder,  and graduated cylinder  thoroughly
with  distilled water. Wash each  component
three separate times  with water and  clean
the probe and nozzle with brushes.  A max-
imum wash of 500 ml Is used, and the wash-
Ings  are added  to  the  sample  container
which must be made of polyethylene.
  7.2.2  Container No. 2. Transfer the silica
gel  from the  fourth Implnger to this con-
tqlner and seal.

  1 With acceptability of the test run  to  be
based on the same criterion as in 7.1.4.
  7.3  Analysis. Treat the contents of each
sample container as described below.
  7.3.1  Container No. 1.
  7.3.1.1   Filter this container's contents, In-
cluding the Whatman  No 1 filter, through
Whatman No. 641 filter paper,  or equivalent
Into a 1500  ml beaker. NOTE: If filtrate vol-
ume exceeds 900 ml make filtrate basic with
NaOH to phenolphthaleln  and evaporate to
less than 900 ml.
  7.3.1.2   Place the Whatman  No. 541 filter
containing the Insoluble matter (Including
the Whatman No. 1 niter) In  a nickel cru-
cible, add a few  ml of  water and macerate
the filter with a glass rod.
  Add 100 mg CaO to the  crucible and mix
the contents thoroughly to form a slurry. Add
a couple of drops of phenolphthaleln Indi-
cator. The Indicator will turn red In a baslo
medium.  The  slurry should remain  basic
during  the  evaporation  of the  water  or
fluoride  Ion  will  be  lost.  If the Indicator
turns  colorless during  the evaporation, an
acidic condition Is indicated. If this happens
add CaO until the color turns red again.
  Place the crucible In a hood under  In-
frared lamps or on a hot plate at low heat.
Evaporate the water completely.
  After evaporation of  the water, place  the
crucible on  a hot plate under a hood and
slowly increase the temperature  until  the
paper chars. It may take  several  hours for
complete charring of the niter to occur.
  Place the  crucible In a cold muffle furnace
and gradually (to prevent smoking) Increase
the temperature to GOO'C, and maintain until
the contents are reduced to an ash. Remove
the crucible from the furnace and allow It to
cool.
  7.3.1.3   Add approximately 4 g of crushed
NaOH to the crucible and mix. Return  the
crucible to the muffle furnace,  and fuse the
sample for 10 minutes at 600°C.
  Remove the sample from the furnace and
cool to ambient temperature.  Using several
rinsings  of  warm  distilled  water transfer
the contents of the crucible to the beaker
containing the nitrate  from container  No.
1  (7.3.1). To assure complete sample  re-
moval, rinse finally with two 20 ml portions
of 25 percent  (v/v) sulfurlc acid and care-
fully  add to the beaker. Mix  well and trans-
fer  to a one-liter  volumetric  flask.  Dilute
to volume  with   distilled  water  and  mix
thoroughly.  Allow any undlssolved  solids to
settle.
  7.3.2  Container No.  2. Weigh the  spent
silica gel and report to the nearest 0.6 g.
  7.3.3  Adjustment of acid/water ratio In
distillation flask—(Utilize a protective shield
when carrying out this procedure). Place 400
ml  of distilled water In the distilling flask
and add 200 ml of concentrated H.SO,. Cau-
tion:  Observe  standard precautions  when
mixing the H..SO, by slowly adding the acid
to the flask with constant swirling. Add some
soft  glass beads and several  small pieces of
broken glass tubing and assemble the  ap-
paratus as shown  In Figure 13A-2. Heat  the
flask  until It reaches a temperature of 176*C
to adjust the acid/water ratio for subsequent
distillations. Discard the distillate.
  7.3.4  Distillation—Cool  tho contents  of
the distillation flask to below  80°C. Pipette
an   aliquot  of   sample  containing   leas
than  0.6 mg F directly Into  the  distilling
flask and add distilled water  to make a total
volume of 220 ml added  to  the distilling
flask. (For an estimate  of  what size aliquot
does not exceed 0.6 mg P,  select an aliquot
of the solution and  treat as  described  In
Section 7.3.5. This  will  give  an approxima-
tion  of the fluoride content, but only an ap-
proximation since Interfering Ions have  not
been removed by the distillation step.]50
  Place a 250 ml volumetric flask at the con-
denser  exit.  Now begin  distillation  and
gradually Increase the heat and  collect all the
distillate up to 175°C. Caution: Heating  the
solution above 175*C will cause tulfurie Mid
to distill over.
  The acid  In the  distilling flask  can be
used until  there Is carryover of Interferences
or  poor fluoride  recovery.  An  occasional
check  of  fluoride recovery  with standard
solutions   la  advised.  The  acid  should
be changed  whenever there Is leas than SO
percent recovery or blank values  are higher
than 0.1 dg/ml.
  7.3.5  Determination  of  concentration-
Bring the distillate In the 250 ml  volumetric
flask to the mark  with distilled  water and
mix thoroughly. Pipette a 25 ml aliquot from
tho distillate. Add an equal volume of TISAB
and  mix.  The sample  should  be  at the
same  temperature  as the  calibration stand-
ards  when  measurements   are  made.  If
ambient lab temperature fluctuates  more
than  ±2'C from the temperature at which
the  calibration standards were  measured,
condition samples  and standards In a con •
slant temperature  bath measurement, stir
the sample with a magnetic etlrrer during
measurement to minimize  electrode response
time. If the st'.rrer  generates enough heat to
change  solution temperature, place a  piece
of  Insulating  material   such   as   cork
between the stlrrer and the  beaker. Dilute
samples (below 10-« M fluoride Ion content)
should  be   held  In  polyethylene  or poly-
propylene beakers during measurement.
  Insert the fluoride and reference electrodes
Into the solution.  When a steady millivolt
reading 1$ obtained, record It. This may take
several  minutes.  Determine concentration
from  the  calibration, curve.  Between  elec-
trode measurements,  soak  the fluoride sens-
Ing electrode In distilled water for 30 second*
and then remove and blot dry.
  8. Calibration.
  Maintain  a  laboratory   log   of   all
calibrations.
  8.1  Sampling Train.
  8.1.1  Probe  nozzle—Using1 a micrometer,
measure the Inside diameter of the nozzle
to the nearest 0.025  mm  (0.001  In.). Make
3  separate  measurements using  different
diameters each time and obtain the average
of the measurements. The difference between
the high and low  numbers shall  not exceed
0.1 mm (0.004 In.).
  When nozzles become nicked,  dented, or
corroded, they  shall be reshaped, sharpened.
and recalibrated before use.
  Each  nozzle  shall   be  permanently and
uniquely identified.
  8.1.2  Pitot tube—The pilot tube shall be
calibrated  according  to  tho procedure out-
lined In Method 2.
  8.1.3  Dry gas meter nnd orifice  meter.
Both meters shall  be  calibrated according to
the procedure outlined in APTD-0570. When
diaphragm   pumps  with by-pass  valves are
used,  check for  proper  metering system
design by calibrating the dry gas meter at an
additional  flow rate of 0.0087 m'/mln. (0.3
cfm)  with  the by-pass  valve  fully opened
and then  with It  fully closed. If there Is
more  than  ±2 percent difference in  flow
rates when  compared to the fully closed posi-
tion of the  by-pass valve,  the system Is not
designed properly and must be corrected.
  8.1.4  Probe heater  calibration—The probe
heating  system shall be calibrated according
to the procedure  contained In APTD-0578.
Probes constructed according to APTD-0681
need not  be calibrated If  the  calibration
curves In APTD-0576 are used.
  8.1.5   Temperature  gauges—Calibrate dial
and liquid  filled bulb thermometers against
mercury-in-glass   thermometers.   Thermo-
couples  need not   be  calibrated.  For  other
devices,  check with the Administrator.
  8.2  Analytical Apparatus.
  8.2.1   Fluoride Electrode—Prepare fluoride
standardizing solutions by serial dilution of
                                                Ill-Appendix  A-53
-------
Uw 0,1 M fluoride standard solution. Pipette
10 ml ot 0.1 M NkF into a 100 ml volumetric
fluk and make up to th« mark with distilled
water for a 10-' M standard solution. Dm 10
ml of 10-' M solution to make a id-4 M solu-
tion In the same manner. Repeat for 1CH and
10-* M solutions.
  Pipette 00 ml of eaob standard into a sep-
arate beaker. Add 50 ml ot TISAB to eacb
beaker. Place tbe electrode in the most dilute
standard solution. When a steady millivolt
reading Is  obtained, plot the  value  on the
linear  axis of semi-log graph paper  versus
concentration on the  log  axle.  Plot  the
nominal value  for  concentration  of  the
standard on the log axis, e.g.. when 80 ml of
10-' M standard is diluted with 60 ml TISAB.
the concentration is still designated "10-' M".
  Between  measurements soak the fluoride
sensing electrode  In distilled  water  for 30
seconds, and  then  remove and  blot  dry.
Analyze  the standards going from dilute to
concentrated standards. A straight-line cali-
bration curve will be obtained, with nominal
concentrations of 10-*. 10-«,  10-»,  10-',  10-'
fluoride  molarlty  on the  log  axis  plotted
versus electrode potential (in millivolts) on
the linear scale.
  Calibrate the  fluoride electrode dally, and
check it hourly. Prepare fresh fluoride  stand-
ardizing solutions dally of 10-' M or  less.
Store  fluoride  standardizing  solutions In
polyethylene  or polypropylene  containers.
(Note: Certain specific ion meters have been
designed specifically for  fluoride  electrode
use and give a direct readout of fluoride Ion
concentration. These meters may be used In
Ueu of calibration curves for fluoride meas-
urements over narrow concentration ranges.
Calibrate the meter according to  manufac-
turer's Instructions.)
  0. Calculations.
  Carry out calculations, retaining at least
on* extra decimal figure beyond that ot tbe
acquired data. Bound  off figures after final
calculation.
  9.1  Nomenclature.  ,
AnsOroM sectional area of nozzle, m1 (ff).
X<=Aliquot ot  total sample added to still,
  ml.
S»f=Water vapor In the gas stream, propor-
  tion by volume.
C»=Concentration of fluoride in stack gas,
  mg/m'. corrected  to standard conditions
  of 20' 0, 760 mm Hg (68* F, 29.82 in. Bg)
  on dry basis.
fta>Total weight of fluoride in sample, mg.
fa Percent of isoklnetlo sampling.
If=Concentration of fluoride from calibra-
  tion curve, molarlty.
m«=Total   amount  of  paniculate   matter
  collected, mg.
«»=Molecular weight of water, 18 g/g-mole
   (18  Ib/lb-mole).
HUB Mass of residue of  acetone after evap-
  oration,  mg.
Pnr=Barometric  pressure at  the sampling
  site,  mm Hg  (In. Hg).
P<=Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (In.
  Hg).
Pn4=Standard  absolute pressure, 760  mm
  Hf (29.82in. Hg).
A«Ideal gas constant, 0.06236 mm  Hg-m1/
   •K-g-mole  (21.88  in. Hg-tf/'R-lb-mole).
r»«Absolute! average dry gas  meter tem-
  perature  (see  flg. 13A-3), *K  (*B).
f«»Absolute average stack gas temperature
  (see  flg.  13A-8), *K (•»).
fiuaStandard  absolute temperature, 293*
  X (flW  R).
ftBVolume  of acetone blank, ml.
/••B Volume of acetone-used in wash, ml.
^•Volume of distillate collected, ml.
VumTotal volume of liquid collected In 1m-
  plngen and silica gsl, ml. Volume of water
  lR fUloa.  gel equals silloa gel weight la-
  crease In grams times 1  ml/gram. Volume
  of liquid collected in implnger equals final
  volume  minus Initial volume.
y »:= Volume of gas sample as measured by
  dry  gas  meter, dcm (dcf).
Vm(tni = Volume of gas sample measured by
  the  dry gas meter corrected  to  standard
  conditions,  dscm (dsct).
V»(Kd] = Volume  of water  vapor In the gas
  sample  corrected to  standard conditions.
  scm (set).
Vi = Total volume  of sample, ml.
u. = Stack  gas velocity, calculated by Method
  2, Equation 2-7 using data obtained  from
  Method  6, m/seo (ft/sec).
W.=Welght of residue in  acetone wash, mg.
AH=rAverage  pressure differential across tbe
  orifice  (see  fig.  13A-3), meter,  mm HiO
  (in. H:0).
p. = Density of acetone, mg/ml (see label on
  bottle).
p--Density of water, 1  g/ml  (0.00220 lb/
  ml).
f) = Total sampling time, rain.
I3.8=8peclflc gravity of mercury.
60 = Sec/mln.
100=Conversion to percent.
  9.2  Average  dry gas meter  temperature
and average orifice pressure  drop. See data
sheet  (Figure 13A-3 of Method 13A).
  9.3  Dry gas volume. Use  Section  9.3 of
Method 13A.
  9.4  Volume of Water Vapor. Use Section
9.4 of Method 13A.
  9.5  Moisture Content.  Use Section 9.5 of
Method ISA.
  9.6  Concentration
  9.6.1  Calculate  the amount of fluoride in
the sample according to equation 13B-1.
                  Vi
             Fi^K-(Vt)  (M)
                  Ai
where:
  K = 19 mg/ml.
  9.6.2  Concentration  of fluoride  In  stack
gas.  Use  Section  9.6.2  of Method 13A.
  9.7  Isoklnetlc  variation. Use Section  9.7
of Method ISA,
  9.8  Acceptable  results.  Use Section 9.8 of
Method ISA.
  10.  References.
  Bellack, Ervln, "Simplified  Fluoride Distil-
lation Method,"  Journal  of the  American
Water Works Association  #60: 630-8 (1968).
  MacLeod, Kathryn E., and Howard L. Crist,
"Comparison  of  the   SPADNS—Zirconium
Lake  and Specific Ion Electrode Methods of
Fluoride  Determination In Stack Emission
Samples," Analytical Chemistry 46: 1272-1273
(1973).
  Martin. Robert M. "Construction Details of
Isoklnetlo Source Sampling  Equipment,"
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pol-
lution Control Office Publication No. APTD-
0581.
  1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part
28. Designation: D 1179-72.
  Pom, Jerome J., "Maintenance, Calibration,
and Operation of Isoklnetlc Source Sampling
Equipment,"   Environmental    Protection
Agency, Air Pollution Control Office Publica-
tion No. APTD-0576.
  Standard Method! tor the  Examination o/
Water and Waste Water, published Jointly by
American Public Health Association, Ameri-
can Water Works Association and Water Pol-
lution  Control   Federation,  13th Edition
(1971).
                                                Ill-Appendix  A-54
-------
METHOD   It—DETERMINATION  OF   FLUORIDE
  EMISSIONS  FROM POTROOM ROOF  MOH1TOW
  OT FRIMART ALUMINUM PLANTS 2/

  1.  Principle and applicability.
  1.1 Principle.   Gaseous  and  paniculate
fluoride  roof monitor emissions are drawn
Into a permanent sampling manifold through
several  large nozzles. The sample  Is trans-
ported from the sampling manifold to ground
level through a duct. The gas In the duct Is
sampled using Method 13A or 13B—DETER-
MINATION OF  TOTAL FLUORIDE EMIS-
SIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES. Ef-
fluent velocity and volumetric flow rate are
determined with anemometers permanently
located  In the roof monitor.
  1.2 Applicability. This method Is applica-
ble for  the determination of  fluoride emis-
sions from  stationary  sources only  when
specified by  the test  procedures  tor deter-
mining compliance with  new source perform-
ance standards.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1.1  Anemometers.  Vane'   or   propeller
anemometers with   a  velocity  measuring
threshold  as low as  15 meters/minute and a
range up to at least 600 meters/minute. Each
anemometer  shall generate an electrical sig-
nal which can be calibrated to the velocity
measured  by the anemometer. Anemometers
shall be able to withstand dusty and corro-
sive atmospheres.
  One  anemometer  shall be  Installed for
every 85 meters of  roof monitor length. If
the roof monitor length  divided by 85 meters
Is not a whole  number, round the fraction
to  the  nearest whole nu.nber to determine
the number  of anemometers needed. Use one
anemometer  for any roof  monitor less than
 85 meters  long. Permanently mount the
anemometers at the  center  of each equal
length along the roof monitor. One anemom-
eter shall be Installed la the same section
of the  roof monitor that contains the sam-
pling; manifold   (see section 22.1). Make a
velocity traverse ol  the width of  the  roof
monitor where an anemometer Is to be placed.
This traverse may be mnde with  any suit-
 able low velocity measuring device, and shall
be made  during notm.it  process  operating
 conditions. Install the anemometer it a point
of average velocity along this  traverse.
   2.1.2  Recorders. Recorders equipped with
 signal transducers fur converting the electri-
cal signal from  each anemometer  to a con-
 tinuous recording of air flow velocity,  Or to
an Integrated  measure  of  volumetric flow.
For the purpose of recording  velocity, "con-
tinuous"  shall  mean one  readout per 16-
mlnute or shorter time  Interval. A constant
amount of time shall elapse  between read-
Ings. Volumetric flow rate may be determined
by an electrical count of anemometer  revo-
lutions. The  recorders or counters shall per-
mit Identification of  the  velocities or (low
rate measured by ench individual  anemom-
eter.
      Figure 14 2 Stapling M^ilold l^d Noi/ifi.

  2.2  Roof monitor air sampling system.
  2.2.1  Sampling  ductwork. The  manifold
system  and  connecting  duct shall  be per-
manently Installed to draw an  air sample
from  the roof monitor  to  ground  level. A
typical  Installation of duct for  drawing a
sample  from a roof monitor to ground level
Is shown  In Figure 14-1. A  plan of a  mani-
fold system that Is located In a roof monitor
Is shown In Figure 14-2. These drawings rep-
resent a typical Installation for a generalized
roof monitor. The dimensions on  these fig-
ures  may be  altered slightly to  make the
mtinlfold  system  fit Into a  particular roof
monitor, but the  general configuration shall
be followed. There shall be eight nozzles, each
having a diameter of 0.40 to 0.50 meters. The
length of  the manifold system from  the first
nozzle to  the eighth  shall be 35  meters or
eight percent of the length of the  roof  moni-
tor, whichever Is greater. The  duct leading
from  the roof monitor  manifold  shall  be
round with  a diameter of 0.30 to 0.40 meters.
As shown  in Figure 14-2. each of the sample
legs of the manifold shall have a device, such
as a blast  gate or valve, to enable adjustment
of Row  Into each sample  nozzle.
  Locate  the  manifold along  the  length of
the roof  monitor so  that It  lies near the
mldsectlon of the roof monitor. If the design
of a particular roof monitor makes this im-
possible, the manifold may be located else-
where along  the  roof monitor,  but  avoid
locating the manifold near  the ends of the
roof  monitor or  In  a  section where  the
aluminum reduction pot arrangement  Is not
typical of the rest of the potroom. Center the
sample  nozzles In  the  throat of  the roof
monitor.  (See Figure  14-1.)  Construct nil
sample-exposed surfaces  within the nozzles,
manifold  and sampl* duct  of 316 stainless
steel. Aluminum may be used If a new duct-
work  system  Is  conditioned with  fluoride-
laden roof monitor air  for  a period of six
weeks prior to Initial testing. Other materials
of construction may be used If It Is demon-
strated  through  comparative  testing  that
there Is no loss of fluorides In the system. All
connections In the ductv/ork  shall  be leak
fret.
  Locate two sample ports In a vertical sec-
tion of the duct  between the roof  monitor
and exhaust fan. The sample ports shall be at
least  10  duct diameters downstream and
two diameters upstream  from anjr flow dis-
turbance such as  a bend  or contraction. The
two sample  ports  shall be situated  90°  apart.
One of the sample ports shall be situated so
that the duct can be traversed In  the  plane
of the nearest upstream  duct bend.
  2.2.2  Exhaust  fan.  An  Industrial fan  or
blower  to be  attached to the  sample  duct
at ground level.  (See Figure 14-1.)  This ex-
haust fan shall  have a maximum capacity
such that a large enough volume of a,ir can
be pulled through the  ductwork  to main-
tain an Isoklnetlc sampling rate  In all  the
 sample nosEles for all flow r»t«s normally en-
 countered In the roof monitor.
   The exhaust fan volumetric flow rate shall
 be adjustable so that the roof monitor air
 can be drawn Isoklnetlcally Into the sample
 nozzles. This control of flow may be achieved
 by a damper on the Inlet to the exhauster or
 by any other workable method.
   2.3  Temperature  measurement apparatus.
   2.3.1 Thermocouple. Installed In  the  roof,
 monitor near the sample duct.
   2.3.2  Signal  transducer.  Transducer  to
 change the  thermocouple voltage output  to
 a temperature readout.
   2.3.3 Thermocouple  wire. To reach  from
 roof  monitor  to  signal  transducer  and
 recorder.
   2.3.4 Sampling train.  Use the train de-
 scribed In Methods 13A and 13B—Determi-
 nation of  total fluoride emissions from  sta-
 tionary sources.
   3. Reagents.
   3.1  Sampling and analysis. Use  reagents
 described  In Method  13A or 13B—Determi-
 nation of  total fluoride emissions from  sta-
 tionary sources.
   4. Calibration.
   4.1  Propeller anemometer.  Calibrate  the
 anemometers so that their electrical  signal
 output corresponds to the  velocity  or volu-
 metric flow they  are  measuring.  Calibrate
 according  to manufacturer's Instructions.
   4.2  Manifold intake nozzles. Adjust the ex-
 haust  fan  to draw a  volumetric flow  rate
 (refer  to Equation  14-1) such  that the en-
 trance velocity into  each  manlfoM noezle
 approximates the average effluent velocity In
 the roof monitor.  Measure the velocity of tti»
 air  entering each nozzle by  Inserting an  a
 type pilot tube Into a 2.5 cm or less diameter
 hole (see Figure 14-2)  located in the mani-
 fold between each blast gate (or valve)  and
 nozzle. The  pilot  tube tip shall be extended
 Into the center of the manifold. Take care
 to Insure that ther; Is no leakage around the
 pttot probe which could affect the Indicated
 velocity In the manifold  leg. If the velocity
 of air  being drawn Into  each nozzle Is  not
 the  same,  open or close each blast gate (or
 valve)  until  the velocity In each nozzle Is the
 s.ime.  Fasten each blast  gate  (or valve)  so
 that It will remain in this position and close
 the pilot port holes. This calibration shall be
 performed  when  the manifold system Is In-
 stalled. (Note: It  Is recommended that this
 callbratto'n be repeated  at least once a year.)
   5. Procedure.
   5.1 Rao] monitor velocity determination.
   5.1.1  Velocity value for'scttlng isokinetic
 How. During the  24 hours  preceding a test
 run, determine the velocity  Indicated by  the
 propeller anemometer  In the section of roof
 monitor containing  the sampling manifold.
 Velocity readings  shall  be taken every 15
 minutes or at shorter equal time Intervals.
 Calculate the average velocity for the 24-hour
 period.
  5.1.2  Velocity determination durinff a test
 run. During  the actual test run, record the
 velocity or  volume readings of each propeller
 anemometer  in  the roof  monitor.  Velocity
 readings shall be taken for each anemometer
 every Ifi minutes  or at shorter equal  time
 intervals (or continuously).
  52    Temperature recording.  Record  the
 temperature  of the roof monitor every  two
 hours during the test  run.
  6.3  Sampling.
  6.3.1   Preliminary air  flow in duct.  During
 the 24  hours  preceding the test,  turn on the
 exhaust  fan   and  draw  roof  monitor   air
 through the manifold duct to condition the
 ductwork. Adjust  the  fan  to draw a volu-
 metric flow through the duct such that the
velocity of gas entering the manifold nozzles
approximates the average velocity of  the air
leaving the  roof monitor.
  6.3.2   Isokinetic  sample rate adjustment.
Adjust the  fan so  that the  volumetric  flow
                                                  Ill-Appendix  A-55
-------
rate In the duct is such that air enters Into
the manifold sample nozzles at  a velocity
equal  to the 24-hour average velocity deter-
mined under 6.1.1. Equation 14-1  gives the
correct stream velocity which la needed In the
duct at the sample ports In order for sample
gas to be drawn Isoklnetieally Into the mani-
fold nozzles. Perform a pilot traverse of the
duct at the sample ports to determine If the
correct average velocity In the duct has been
achieved. Perform the pltot determination
according to Method 2. Make this determina-
tion before the start of a test run. The fan
setting need not be changed during the run.
            8 (D»)'
1 minute
 80 sec
where:
  Vn=deslred  velocity In  duct at  sample
        ports, meter/sec.
  Z>n=dlameter of a roof monitor manifold
        nozzle, meters.
  D*=dlameter  of duct at  sample  port,
        meters.
  Vm=average  velocity of the  alt stream In
        the roof monitor, meters/minute, as
        determined under section S.t.l.
   5.2.3  Sample train operation. Sample the
 duct using the standard fluoride train and
 methods described In Methods 13A and 13B—
 Determination  of total fluoride emissions
 from stationary sources. Select sample trav-
 erse points according to Method  1. II a se-
 lected sampling point Is less  than one Inch
 from the stack wall, adjust the location of
 that point to  one Inch away from the wall.
   5.3.4  Each test run shall last eight hours
 or more. If a question exists  concerning the
 representativeness of an eight-hour test, a
 longer test period up to 24 hours may be se-
 lected. Conduct each run  during a  period
 when  all normal operations  are  performed
 underneath the sampling manifold, I.e. tap-
 ping, anode changes, maintenance, and other
 normal duties.- All pots In the potroom shall
 be operated In a normal manner during the
 test period.
   6.3.5  Sample  recovery. Same as Method
 13A or 13B—Determination of total fluoride
 emissions from stationary sources.
   6.4  Analysis. Same as Method 13Aor 1 SB-
 Determination  of total fluoride emissions
 from stationary sources.
  6. Calculations.
  8.1 tsokinetic sampling test. Calculate the
mean  velocity measured during each sam-
pling run by the anemometer In the section
of the rool monitor containing the sampling
manifold. If the mean velocity recorded dur-
ing a particular test run does not fall within
±20 percent of the mean velocity established
according to 5.3.2, repeat the run.
  6.2 Average velocity of roof monitor gases.
Calculate the average roof monitor velocity
using all the velocity or volumetric flow read-
Ings from section 6.1.2.
  6.3 Roof  monitor temperature.  Calculate
the mean value of the temperatures recorded
In section 5.2.
  6.4 Concentration of fluorides in roof moni-
tor air in mg Fjm?. This Is given by Equation
13A-8  In  Method  13A—Determination  of
total  fluoride  emissions   from  stationary
sources.
  6.8 Average volumetric  flow from roof Is
given by Equation 14-2.
         __ V™. (A) (Mt) Pm (294'K)
      '""(I'm + 273°) (76lTmmHg)
where:
   Qm=average  volumetric flow from rool
         monitor at standard conditions on
         a dry basis, mVmln.
    X=roof monitor open area. m".
  Vm i = average velocity of air  In the rool
         monitor, meters/minute  from sec-
         tion 6.2.

   P«i=atmospherlc pressure, mm Hg.
   Tm=roof monitor temperature, 'C, from
         section 6.3.
  M*=mole  fraction  of  dry gas,  which Is
              ,.  ,,   100-100(8..)
         given by Mt=	—	

   B»«=l3 the proportion by volume of water
         vapor  In the  gas  stream,  from
         Equation 13A-3.  Method 13A—De-
         termination of total fluoride emis-
         sions from stationary sources.
                                                   III-Appendix  A-5 6
-------
METHOD  15. DETERMINATION  OF HYDROGEN
  SVLFIDE.  CARBONYL  SULFIDE. AND  CARBON
  DISULFIDE EMISSIONS FROM  STATIONARY
  SOURCES 86

              INTRODUCTION
  The  method described  below  uses the
principle of gas chromatographic separation
and  flame  photometric detection  (FPDl.
Since there are many systems or sets of op-
erating  conditions  that represent  usable
methods of determining sulfur emissions, all
systems which employ this  principle, but
differ only In details of equipment and oper-
ation, may be  used as alternative methods,
provided that the criteria set below are met.

       1. Principle and applicability

  1.1 Principle. A gas sample Ls  extracted
from the  emission source  and diluted  with
clean dry  air. An aliquot of  the  diluted
sample  is  then analyzed for  hydrogen sul-
fide  CH,S). carbonyl  sulfide  (COS),  and
carbon disulfide (CS,) by gas chromatogra-
phic (GO separation and flame photomet-
ric detection (FPD).
  1.2 Applicability. This method is  applica-
ble  for  determination of the above sulfur
compounds from tail  gas  control  units of
sulfur recovery plants.

          2. Range and sensitivity

  2.1 Range. Coupled  with a gas chromto-
graphic system utilizing a 1-milliliter sample
size, the  maximum  limit  of the FPD for
each sulfur compound is approximately 10
ppm. It may be necessary to dilute gas  sam-
ples from sulfur  recovery plants hundred-
fold (99:1) resulting  In an upper limit of
about 1000 ppm for each compound.
  2.2 The  minimum  detectable  concentra-
tion of the PPD is also dependent on sample
size and would be about 0.5 ppm for a  1 ml
sample.

              3. Interferences
  3.1 Moisture Condensation.  Moisture con-
densation in the sample delivery system, the
analytical column, or  the FPD burner block
can cause losses  or Interferences. This po-
tential is eliminated  by heating the sample
line, and  by conditioning  the sample  with
dry dilution air to lower its dew  point below
the operating  temperature of the OC/FPD
analytical system prior to analysis.
  3.2 Carboft Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide.
CO and COi have substantial desensitizing
effects  on the flame photometric drtector
even after 9:1  dilution. (Acceptable  systems
must demonstrate that they have eliminat-
ed this interference by some procedure  such
as eluding CO and CO, before any of the
sulfur compounds to be measured.)  Compli-
ance with  this requirement  can be  demon-
strated  by  submitting chromatograms of
calibration gases  with and without CO, in
the diluent gas. The CO, level should be ap-
proximately 10 percent for the case  with
CO,  present.   The   two  chromatographs
should show agreement within the precision
limits ot section 4.1.
  3.3 Elemental Sulfur. The condensation of
sulfur vapor in the sampling line can lead to
eventual coating  and even blockage of the
sample line. This  problem can be eliminated
along with the moisture problem by heating
the sample line.

               4. Precision

  4.1 Calibration Precision. A series  of three
consecutive injections of the same  calibra-
tion gas. at any dilution, shall  produce re-
sults which do not vary by more  than ±13
percent from  the mean of the  three injec-
tions.
  4.2 Calibration Drift. The calibration drift
determined  from the mean of  three injec-
tions made at the beginning and end of any
8-hour period shall not exceed ±5 percent.

               5, Apparatus

  5.1.1  Probe. The probe must  be  made of
Inert  material  such  as  stainless  steel or
glass. It should  be designed to Incorporate a
filter and to allow calibration gas  to enter
the probe at or  near the sample entry point.
Any portion of the probe  not exposed to the
stack gas must  be healed to prevent mois-
ture condensation.
  5.1.2  The  sample line  must be  made of
Teflon,'no greater than 1.3 cm (Vj In) inside
diameter. All parts from the probe to the di-
lution  system  must be  thermostatically
heated to 120' C.
  5.1.3  Sample  Pump. The sample pump
shall be a leakless Teflon coated diaphragm
type or equivalent. If the pump is upstream
of the dilution system, the pump head must
be heated to 120' C.
  5.2 Dilution System. The dilution system
must be constructed  such  that all sample
contacts  are made of Inert  material  (e.g.
stainless steel or Teflon). It must be heated
to 120' C and be capable of approximately a
9:1 dilution of the sample.
  5.3 Gas Chromatograph. The  gas chroma-
tograph  must  have  at least the following
components:
  5.3.1  Oven. Capable of maintaining the
separation column at the proper operating
temperature ±r C.
  5.3.2  Temperature  Gauge.  To  monitor
column oven,  detector, and  exhaust tem-
perature ±r c.
  5.3.3 Flow System. Gas metering system to
measure  sample,  fuel, combustion  gas. and
carrier gas flows.
  5.3.4 Flame Photometric Detector.
  5.3.4.1 Electrometer. Capable  of full scale
amplification of linear ranges of 10"'to 10"'
amperes full scale.
  5.3.4.2 Power  Supply. Capable of deliver-
ing up to 750 volts.
  5.3.4.3  Recorder.  Compatible with  the
output voltage range of the electrometer.
  5.4 Oas  Chromatograph  Columns. The
column system  must be demonstrated to be
capable of resolving  three  major  reduced
sulfur compounds: H,S, COS. and CS,.
  To demonstrate that adequate resolution
has been achieved the tester must submit a
chromatograph  of a calibration  gas contain-
ing all three reduced sulfur compounds in
the concentration range  of the applicable
standard.  Adequate  resolution  will be de-
fined  as base  line  separation  of  adjacent
peaks when the amplifier attenuation Is set
so that the smaller peak  is at least 50  per-
cent of full scale. Base line  separation is de-
fined as a return to zero  ±5 percent In the
interval between  peaks. Systems not meet-
Ing this criteria may be considered alternate
methods subject to the approval of the Ad-
ministrator.
  5.5.1  Calibration System. The calibration
system must contain  the following compo-
nents.
  5.5.2  Flow System.  To  measure  air flow
over permeation tubes at ±2 percent. Each
flowmeter shall be  calibrated after a com-
plete test series  with a wet test meter. If the
flow measuring  device differs from the wet
test meter by 5 percent, the completed test
shall be discarded. Alternatively, the tester
may elect to use the  flow data that would
yield the lowest flow measurement. Calibra-
tion with a  wet test meter before  a test la
optional.

  'Mention of trade names  or specific prod-
ucts does not constitute an endorsement by
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  5.6.3 Constant Temperature Bath. Device
 capable  of  maintaining  the  permeation
 tubes at the calibration temperature within
 ±1.1'C.
  6.5.4 Temperature  Gauge. Thermometer
 or equivalent  to monitor bath temperature
 within ±1' C.

               6. Reagents
  8.1 Fuel. Hydrogen  (Hi) prepurified grade
 or better.
  6.2 Combustion  Gas. Oxygen  (Oi) or air.
 research purity or better.
  6.3  Carrier   Gas.  Prepurified grade  or
 better.
  6.4 Diluent.  Air containing  less than 0.6
 ppm total  sulfur compounds and less  than
 10 ppm each  of moisture and total hydro-
 carbons.
  6.5 Calibration  Gases.  Permeation tubes,
 one each of H.S.  COS, and CS., gravlmetri-
 cally calibrated and certified at some conve-
 nient operating temperature. These tubes
 consist  of  hermetically sealed FEP Teflon
 tubing  in  which  a  liquified  gaseous sub-
 stance is enclosed. The enclosed gas perme-
 ates through the tubing  wall at a constant
 rate.  When the  temperature  is constant,
 calibration gases  covering a wide range of
 known concentrations can be  generated by
 varying and accurately measuring the flow
 rate of diluent gas passing over the tubes.
 These calibration gases are used  to calibrate
 the  GC/FPD system  and   the  dilution
 system.

           7. Pretest Procedures

  The following procedures are optional but
 would be helpful In preventing any problem
 which  might occur later  and Invalidate the
 entire test.
  7.1  After   the  complete  measurement
 system  has been  set  up at  the  site and
 deemed to  be operational, the following pro-
 cedures should be completed before sam-
 pling is Initiated.
  7.1.1  Leak Test. Appropriate  leak test pro-
 cedures should be employed to verify the In-
 tegrity of all components, sample lines, and
 connections. The following leak test proce-
 dure Is suggested: For components upstream
 of the sample pump,  attach the probe  end
 of  the  sample line  to  a  manometer  or
 vacuum  gauge, start  the  pump nnd  pull
 greater than 50 mm (2 In.) Hg vacuum, close
 off the  pump outlet, and  then stop  the
 pump and ascertain that there Is no leak for
 1 minute. For components after the pump.
 apply a slight  positive pressure and check
 for leaks by applying a liquid  (detergent In
 water,  for example) at each joint. Bubbling
 indicates the presence of a leak.
  7.1.2 System Performance. Since the com-
 plete  system  is calibrated following each
 test, the precise calibration of each compo-
 nent is not critical. However, these compo-
 nents should  be  verified to be operating
 properly. This verification can be performed
 by observing the response of fiowmeters or
 of the GC output to changes in flow rates or
 calibration gas concentrations  and ascer-
 taining the response to be within predicted
 limits.  If any  component or the complete
 system falls to respond In a normal and pre-
 dictable manner, the source of the  discrep-
 ancy  should  be   idcntlfed  and  corrected
 before proceeding.

              8. Colibrafion
  Prior to  any sampling  run.  calibrate  the
system using the following procedures. (If
more than  one run is performed  during any
24-hour period, a  calibration  need not be
performed  prior to the second  and any sub-
sequent runs. The calibration must, howev-
er, be verified  as  prescribed in  section 10,
after the last run made within the  24-hour
                                                    Ill-Appendix  A-57
-------
 period.)
  8.1 General Considerations. This section
 outlines steps to be followed for use of the
 OC/FPD and the dilution system. The pro-
 cedure does not include detailed instruc-
 tions because the operation of these systems
 is complex, and It requires an understanding
 of the Individual system being  used. Each
 system should include a written operating
 manual describing In detail the operating
 procedures associated with each component
 In the measurement system. In addition, the
 operator shuld be familiar with  the operat-
 ing principles of the components; particular-
 ly the OC/PPD. The citations  In the Bib-
 liography at the end of this method are rec-
 ommended for review for this purpose.
  8.2 Calibration Procedure. Insert the per-
 meation tubes Into the tube chamber. Check
 the  bath  temperature to assure agreement
 with the calibration temperature of  the
 tubes within ±0.rC. Allow 24 hours for the
 tubes to equilibrate. Alternatively equilibra-
 tion may be verified by Injecting samples of
 calibration gas at 1-hour Intervals. The per-
 meation  tubes  can  be  assumed  to have
 reached   equilibrium   when   consecutive
 hourly samples agree within the  precision
 limits of section 4.1.
  Vary the amount of air flowing over the
 tubes to produce the desired concentrations
 for calibrating the analytical and dilution
 systems. The air flow across the tubes must
 at all tiroes exceed the flow requirement of
 the analytical systems. The concentration In
 parts per million generated by a bube con-
 taining a specific permeant can be calculat-
 ed as follows:
                          Equation 15-1
 where:
  C = Concentration of permeant produced
     In ppm.
  F.-Permeatlon rate of the tube In «/
     mln.
  M = Molecular weight of the permeant:  g/
     g-mole.
  L=Flow rate. 1/mln. of air over permeant
     @ 20'C. 760 mm  Hg.
  K = Gas constant at 20'C  and  760 nun
     Hg- 24.04 l/gmole.
  8,3 Calibration of analysis system. Gener-
 ate a scries of three or more known concen-
 trations  spanning  the linear range of the
 FPD (approximately  0.05 to 1.0 ppm)  for
 each of the four major sulfur compounds.
 Bypassing the dilution system, inject  these
 standards In to the OC/FPD analyzers and
 monitor  the responses. Three  Injects  for
 each concentration must yield the precision
 described In  section  4.1. Failure to attain
 this precision Is an Indication of a problem
 in the calibration or analytical system. Any
 such problem must be Identified and cor-
 rected before proceeding.
  8.4 Calibration Curves. Plot the OC/PPD
 response In current (amperes) versus  their
 causative concentrations In ppm on log-log
 coordinate graph paper for each sulfur com-
 pound. Alternatively,  a least squares equa-
 tion may be generated from the calibration
 data,
  8.5 Calibration of Dilution System. Gener-
 ate a know concentration of hydrogen sul-
 fled  using the  permeation  tube system.
Adjust the flow rate  of diluent air for the
 first dilution stage so  that the desired level
of dilution is approximated. Inject the dilut-
ed calibration gas Into the OC/FPD system
and monitor Its response.  Three injections
for each dilution must yield the precision
described In section 4.1.  Failure to attain
this precision In this step Is an Indication of
a problem in the dilution system. Any such
problem  must be identified and corrected
before proceeding.  Using  the  calibration
data for H.S (developed under  8.3) deter-
mine  the diluted calibration gas concentra-
tion In  ppm. Then  calculate  the dilution
factor as  the ratio of the calibration  gas
concentration before dilution to  the diluted
calibration gas  concentration  determined
under this paragraph. Repeat this  proce-
dure for each stage of dilution required. Al-
ternatively,  the OC/FPD  system may be
calibrated by generating a series  of three or
more concentrations  of  each sulfur com-
pound and diluting these samples before in-
jecting them into the OC/FPD system. This
data will then serve as the calibration data
for the unknown samples and a separate de-
termination of  the dilution factor will not
be  necessary. However,  the precision  re-
quirements of section 4.1 are still applicable.

    8. Sampling and Analysis Procedure

  9,1  Sampling. Insert the sampling probe
Into the test port making certain that no di-
lution air enters the stack through the port.
Begin sampling and dilute the  sample  ap-
proximately 9:1 using the dilution  system.
Note that the precise dilution factor is that
which is determined  In paragraph 8.5. Con-
dition the entire system  with  sample for  a
minimum of  IS minutes prior to commenc-
ing analysis.
  9.2 Analysis.  Allquots  of diluted sample
are injected Into the GC/FPD analyzer for
analysis.
  9.2.1 Sample  Run. A sample run is com-
posed of 16 Individual analyses (injects) per-
formed  over a period of not less than  3
hours or more than 6 hours.
  9.2.2 Observation for Clogging of Probe. If
reductions in sample concentrations are ob-
served during a sample run that cannot be
explained by  process conditions, the sam-
pling must  be  interrupted to determine  If
the sample probe Is clogged with  paniculate
matter. If the probe  is found to  be clogged.
the test must be stopped  and the results up
to thai  point discarded. Testing may resume
after cleaning the probe or replacing It with
a clean  one. Afler  each run.  the sample
probe must be Inspected and. If necessary.
dismantled and cleaned.

          10. Post-Test Procedures

  10.1 Sample Line Loss. A known  concen-
tration  of hydrogen  sulflde at the  level of
the applicable standard. ±20 percent, must
be  Introduced Into the sampling system at
the opening of the probe In sufficient quan-
tities to ensure that  there Is  an excess of
sample  which must be vented to the atmo-
sphere.  The sample  must be  transported
through the  entire sampling system to the
measurement system in the normal manner.
The  resulting   measured   concentration
should  be compared  to the known value to
determine the sampling system loss. A sam-
pling system loss of more than 20 percent  Is
unacceptable. Sampling losses of 0-20 per-
cent  must be corrected by dividing the re-
sulting  sample concentration  by the frac-
tion of recovery. The known gas sample may
be  generated using permeation tubes. Alter-
natively,  cylinders  of  hydrogen  BUlflde
mixed in air may be used provided they are
traceable to permeation tubes. The optional
pretest  procedures provide a good guideline
for determining if  there  are  leaks  in  the
sampling system.
  10.2 Recallbratlon. After each run, or
after a series of runs made within a 24-hour
period, perform a partial recalibratlon using
the procedures in section 8. Only H«B (or
other permeant) need be used to recalibrate
the GC/FPD analysis system <8.3) and the
dilution system (8.5).
  10.3 Determination of Calibration Drift.
Compare  the calibration curves obtained
prior to the runs, to the calibration curves
obtained under paragraph 10.1. The calibra-
tion drift should not exceed the limits set
forth In paragraph  4.2. If the drift  exceeds
this limit, the  intervening  run  or runs
should be considered not  valid. The tester,
however, may instead have the  option of
choosing the calibration data  set which
would give the highest sample values.

             11. Calculations

  11.1 Determine the concentrations of each
reduced sulfur compound detected  directly
from the  calibration  curves. Alternatively.
the concentrations may be calculated using
the equation for  the least squares line.
  11.2 Calculation of SO, Equivalent.  SO,
equivalent will be determined for each anal-
ysis made by summing the concentrations of
each  reduced sulfur  compound  resolved
during the given  analysis.

    SO, equivalent = 2(H,S. COS, 2 CS,)d

                          Equation 15-2
where:
  SO, equivalent- The sum  of the  concen-
     tration of each of the  measured com-
     pounds  (COS. H.S, CS.) expressed as
     sulfur dioxide  in ppm.
  HfS- Hydrogen sulflde, ppm.
  COS = Carbonyl sulflde, ppm.
  CS,- Carbon dlsulflde, ppm.
  d= Dilution factor, dlmenslonless.
  11.3 Average SO, equivalent will be deter-
mined as follows:
 Average SO^ equivalent
N
t   S

i «  1
                                  equ1v.(
                           H (1 - Bwo)
                             Equation 15-3
where:
  Average  SO,  equivalent,-Average  SO,
     equivalent In ppm, dry basis.
  Average SO, equivalent, = SO,  In ppm as
   •  determined by Equation 15-2.
  N=Number of analyses performed.
  Bwo = Fraction of volume of water vapor
     In the gas stream as  determined by
     Method 4—Determination of Moisture
     in Stack Gases (36 FR 24887).

           12. Example System

  Described  below  is a system  utilized by
EPA in gathering  NSPS data. This system
does not now reflect all the latest develop-
ments in equipment and column technology,
but It  does represent one system that has
been demonstrated to work.
  12.1 Apparatus.
  12.1.1 Sample System.
  12.1.1.1 Probe. Stainless steel tubing, 6.35
mm (Vi In.) outside diameter, packed with
glass wool.
  12.1.1.2 Sample Line. Vu inch inside diam-
eter Teflon  tubing heated to 120' C. This
temperature is controlled by a thermostatlc
heater.
  12.1.1.3  Sample  Pump. Leakless  Teflon
coated diaphragm  type or equivalent.  The
pump head Is heated to 120' C by enclosing
It in the  sample dilution box  (12.2.4 below).
  12.1.2 Dilution System. A schematic dia-
gram  of the  dynamic  dilution system  Is
given in Figure 16-2. The dilution system Is
constructed  such  that all sample contacts
are made of inert  materials.  The dilution
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-58
-------
tyslem which la heated to 120' C must be ca-
pable  of  ft minimum of  9:1  dilution of
i»mple. Equipment  used In the  dilution
tyitem Is listed below:
  12.1.2.1 Dilution Pump.  Model A-180 Koh-
myhr  Teflon  positive displacement type.
nonadjustable 180  ec/mln. ±2.0 percent, or
equivalent, per dilution stage. A 9:1 dilution
of sample la accomplished by combining 180
cc of sample with 1350 cc of clean dry air as
shown In Figure 16-2.
  12.1.2.2 Valves. Three-way Teflon solenoid
or manual type.
  12.1.2.3 Tubing. Teflon tubing and fittings
are used throughout from the sample probe
to the OC/PPD to present an Inert surface
for sample gas.
  12.1.2.4  Box. Insulated box,  heated  and
maintained  at 120' C, of sufficient dimen-
sions to house dilution apparatus.
  12.1.2.6 Flowmeters. Rotametere or equiv-
alent to measure flow from 0 to 1800 ml/
mln. ±1 percent per dilution stage.
  12.1.3.0 Oas  Chromatograph.
  12.1.3.1  Column—1.83 m (6 ft.) length of
Teflon tubing, 2.16 mm (0.085 In.) Inside di-
ameter, packed with deactivated silica gel,
or equivalent.
  12.1.3.2  Sample Valve. Teflon six port gas
sampling valve, equipped  with a 1 ml sample
loop, actuated by compressed air (Figure 18-
1).
  12.1.3.3  Oven.   For containing  sample
valve,   stripper  column   and  separation
column.  The  oven  should  be capable of
maintaining an elevated  temperature rang-
ing from ambient to 100* C. constant within
±1'C.
  12.1.3.4  Temperature  Monitor. Thermo-
couple pyrometer  to measure column oven,
detector, and exhaust temperature ±1' C.
  12.1.3.5   Flow   System.  Gas  metering
system to measure sample flow, hydrogen
flow, oxygen flow  and nitrogen carrier gas
flow.
  12.1.3.8  Detector. Flame photometric de-
tector.
  12.1.3.7 Electrometer. Capable of full scale
amplification of linear ranges of 10''to 10"'
amperes full scale.
  12.1.3.8 Power Supply. Capable of deliver-
ing up to 750 volts.
  12.1.3.9  Recorder.  Compatible with  the
output voltage range of the electrometer.
  12.1.4   Calibration.   Permeation    tube
system (Figure 18-3).
  12.1.4.1 Tube Chamber. Glass chamber of
sufficient dimensions to  house permeation
tubes.
  12.1.4.2 Mass Flowmeters. Two mass flow-
meters In the range 0-3 1/mln. and 0-10 I/
mln. to measure air flow over permeation
tubes at ±2 percent.  These flowmeters shall
be cross-calibrated at the beginning of each
test. Using  a  convenient now  rate In the
measuring range  of  both  flowmeters, set
and monitor the flow rate of gas over the
permeation  tubes. Injection  of  calibration
gas generated at this flow rate as measured
by  one flowmeter followed by  injection of
calibration gas at the same flow rate as mea-
sured by the other flowmeter should agree
within the specified precision limits. If  they
do  not, then  there  Is a  problem with the
mass flow measurement. Each mass  flow-
meter  shall be calibrated prior to  the  first
test with a wet test meter and thereafter at
least once each year.
  12.1.4.3  Constant Temperature Bath. Ca-
pable  of maintaining permeation  re-
search purity or better.
  12.2.3 Curler Gas. Nitrogen CN.) prepurl-
fled grade or better.
  12.2.4 Diluent. Air containing lew than 0.5
ppm total sulfur compounds and  less than
10 ppm each of moisture  and total hydro-
carbons,  and  filtered  using MSA  filter*
46727 and 79030, or equivalent. Removal of
tulfur compounds can be verified by  Inject-
ing dilution air only, described  In section
8.3.
  12.2.6  Compressed Air.  60 psig for OC
valve actuation.
  12.2.6   Calibration  Oases.  Permeation
tubes gravlmetrlcally calibrated  and cent-
fled at 30.0- C.
  12.3 Operating Parameters. The operating
parameters for the  OC/FPD system  are as
follows: nitrogen carrier gas flow rate  of 100
cc/mln, exhaust temperature of 110*  C. de-
tector temperature  105' C,  oven  tempera-
ture of 40'  C. hydrogen  flow rate of  80 cc/
minute,  oxygen flow rate  of 20 cc/mlnute,
and sample flow rate of 80 cc/mlnute.
  12.4 Analysis. The sample valve Is actu-
ated for 1 minute in which time  an aliquot
of diluted sample Is Injected onto the sepa-
ration column. The valve Is then deactivated
for the remainder of analysis cycle In which
time the sample loop Is refilled and the sep-
aration column continues to be foreflushed.
The  elutlon time for each compound will be
determined during calibration.

             13. Bibliography
  13.1 O'Keeffe. A.  E. and G. C.  OHman.
"Primary Standards for Trace Gas  Analy-
sis." Anal. Chem. 38.760 (1966).
  13.2 Stevens.  R.  K.. A. E. O'Keeffe. and
G. C. Ortmun. "Absolute Calibration of a
Flame Pliotoinetric Detector to  Volatile
Sulfur Compounds  at Sub-Part-Per-Million
Levels." Environmental  Science  and Tech-
nology 3.7 (July, 1969).
  13.3 Mulick, J. D.. R.  K. Stevens,  and R.
Baumgardner.  "An  Analytical System De-
signed to  Measure Multiple Malodorous
Compounds Related to Kraft Mill  Activi-
ties." Presented at  the 12tn Conference on
Methods In Air Pollution and Industrial Hy-
giene Studies, University of Southern Cali-
fornia, Los  Armeies. Calif. April 6-8, 1911.
  13.4 Devonald. R. H., R. S. Sercnius. and
A. D. Mclntyre. "Evaluation of  the  Flame
Photometric Detector for Analysis  of Sulfur
Compounds." Pulp  and  Paper Magazine of
Canada. 73.3 (March. 1972).
  13.5 Grlmlpy,  K.  W.,  W.  S. Smith, and
R. M. Martin. "The Use of a Dynamic Dilu-
tion System  In  the Conrt.tlonlng  of Sta"ck
Oases for Automatrd Analysis by  a Mobile
Sampling   Van " Presented  at   the 63rd
Annual  APCA Meeting in  St. Louis, Mo.
June 14-19. 1970.
  13.6 General  Reference. Standard  Meth-
ods of Chemical Analysis Volume  III A and
B lnstrumenla.1  Method:;.  Sixlh  EcllUon.
Van  Nostrand Reinhold Co.
                                                 Ill-Appendix  A-59
-------
METHOD 16. SEMICONTI1TDOOB  DETERMINATION
  OF 8DLTUR  EMISSIONS  FROM  STATIONARY
  sources B2

              Introduction

  The  method described below  uses  the
principle of gas chroraatographlc separation
and  flame  photometric  detection.  Since
there are many systems or sets of operating
conditions that represent usable methods of
determining sulfur emissions,  all systems
which employ  this principle,  but differ only
In details of equipment and  operation, may
be  used  as  alternative methods, provided
that the criteria set below are met.
  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. A gas sample  Is extracted
from the emission source and diluted with
clean dry air. An  aliquot  of  the  diluted
sample Is then analyzed for hydrogen sul-
fide (H.S). methyl  mercaptan  (MeSH). di-
methyl sulfide (DMS) and  dimethyl disul-
flde (DMDS) by gas chromatographlc (OC)
separation and name photometric detection
(FPD). These  four compounds  are known
collectively as  total reduced sulfur (TR8).
  1.2  Applicability. This method Is applica-
ble for determination of TRS  compounds
from recovery furnaces, lime  kilns,  and
smelt dissolving tanks at kraft pulp mills.
  2. Range and Sensitivity.
  2.1  Range. Coupled  with a gas chromato-
graphlc  system   utilizing a ten mllllllter
sample size, the maximum limit of the FPD
for each sulfur compound Is approximately
1 ppm. This limit Is expanded by dilution of
the sample  gas before analysis. Kraft mill
gas  samples  are  normally  diluted  tenfold
(8:1), resulting In  an upper limit of about 10
ppm for each compound.
  For sources  with emission levels between
10 and 100 ppm, the measuring range can be
best extended by reducing  the sample size
to 1 mllllllter.
  2.2 Using the  sample  size, the minimum
detectable concentration Is approximately
50 ppb.
  3. Interferences,
  Z.I  Moisture   Condensation.  Moisture
condensation In the sample  delivery system,
the analytical column, or the  FPD  burner
block can cause losses or Interferences. This
potential is  eliminated by  heating the
sample line, and by conditioning the sample
with dry  dilution air to  lower Its dew point
below the  operating  temperature  of the
OC/FPD analytical system prior to analysis.
  3.2  Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Diox-
ide. CO and CO,  have substantial desensitiz-
ing effect on  the flame  photometric detec-
tor even  after 9:1 dilution.  Acceptable sys-
tems  roust demonstrate that they  have
eliminated this Interference by some proce-
dure  such  as   elutlng  these  compounds
before any of the compounds to be  mea-
sured.  Compliance  with this  requirement
can be demonstrated by  submitting chroma-
 tograms of calibration gases with and with-
 out COi  in the diluent  gas. The CO, level
 should be approximately 10 percent  for the
 case with CO, present. The two chromato-
 graphs should show agreement within the
 precision limits of Section 4.1.
   3.3  Paniculate    Matter.    Partlculate
 matter In gas samples  can cause Interfer-
 ence by eventual clogging of the analytical
 system. This  Interference must be eliminat-
 ed by use of a probe filter.
   3.4  Sulfur  Dioxide. SO.  is not a specific
 Interferent but may be present in such large
 amounts that it  cannot  be  effectively sepa-
 rated from  other compounds  of Interest.
 The procedure  must  be designed to elimi-
 nate this problem either by  the choice of
 separation  columns or  by  removal  of SQi
 from the sample.
  Compliance with this section can be dem-
onstrated by submitting chromatographs of
calibration  gases  with SO. present In the
same quantities expected from the emission
source to  be tested.  Acceptable  systems
shall show baseline separation with the am-
plifier  attenuation set so that the reduced
sulfur  compound  of  concern  Is at least 50
percent of full scale.  Base line separation Is
defined as a return to zero ± percent in the
Interval between peaks.
  4. Precision and Xecuracv.
  4.1  OC/FPD and  Dilution System Cali-
bration Precision. A series of three consecu-
tive Injections of  the same calibration gas.
at any dilution, shall produce results which
do not vary by more than ±3 percent from
the mean of the three injections.
  4.2  GC/FPD and  Dilution System Cali-
bration Drift. The calibration drift deter-
mined  from the mean  of three injections
made at  the  beginning and end of any  8-
hour period shall not exceed ± percent.
  4.3  System  Calibration  Accuracy. The
complete system must quantitatively trans-
port and analyze with an accuracy of 20 per-
cent.  A correction factor Is  developed to
adjust calibration  accuracy to  100 percent.
  5. Apparatus (See Figure 18-1).
  6.1.1 Probe. The probe must be made of
inert  material  such  as stainless  steel or
glass. It should be  designed to incorporate ft
filter  and to  allow calibration gas  to  enter
the probe at or near the sample entry point.
Any portion of the probe not exposed to the
stack  gas must be heated to  prevent mois-
ture condensation.
  G.I.2 Sample Line. The sample line must
be made  of Teflon.1 no greater than  1.3 cm
(Vi)  inside diameter.  All parts  from the
probe  to the  dilution system  must be ther-
mostatically heated to 120' C.
  6.1.3 Sample Pump. The  sample pump
shall be a leakless Tenon-coated  diaphragm
type or equivalent. If the pump is upstream
of the dilution system, the pump head must
be heated to 120' C.
  6.2   Dilution System. The dilution system
must be constructed  such  that  all sample
contacts  are  made of  Inert materials (e.g.,
stainless steel or Tenon). It must be heated
to 120' C. and be capable of approximately a
9:1 dilution of the sample.
  5.3   Oas  Chromatograph.  The gas chro-
matograph must have at least the following
components:
  5.3.1 Oven. Capable  of maintaining the
separation  column at the proper operating
temperature ±1' C.
  5.3.2 Temperature  Oauge.  To  monitor
column oven, detector,  and  exhaust tem-
perature ±T  C.
  6.3.3 Flow System. Oas metering system
to measure sample, fuel, combustion gas,
and carrier gas flows.
  5.3.4 Flame Photometric Detector.
  6.3.4.1  Electrometer. Capable of full scale
amplification of linear ranges of  10"' to 10"'
amperes full scale.
  6.3.4.2  Power Supply. Capable of deliver-
ing up to 750 volts.
  5.3.4.3  Recorder.  Compatible  with the
output voltage range of the electrometer.
  5.4   Oas  Chromatograph  Columns.  The
column system must be demonstrated to be
capble of resolving the four major reduced
sulfur compounds: H.S. MeSH,  DMS, and
DMDS. It  must also demonstrate freedom
from known Interferences.
   1 Mention of trade names or specific prod-
 ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
 Environmental Protection Agency,
 To demonstrate that adequate resolution
has been achieved, the tester must submit a
Chromatograph of a calibration gas contain-
ing all four of  the TRS compounds In the
concentration range of the applicable stan-
dard. Adequate resolution will be defined as
base line separation of adjacent peaks when
the amplifier attenuation Is set so  that the
smaller peak is at least 60 percent of full
scale.  Base line separation is defined In Sec-
tion 3.4. Systems not meeting this criteria
may be considered  alternate  methods sub-
ject to the approval of the Administrator.
  6.5.  Calibration System. The  calibration
system must contain  the  following compo-
nents.
  5.5.1  Tube Chamber. Chamber of glass or
Tenon of  sufficient  dimensions to  house
permeation tubes.
  5.5.2  Flow System. To  measure air now
over permeation tubes at  ±2  percent. Each
flowmeter  shall be calibrated after a com-
plete  test series with a wet test meter. If the
flow measuring device differs from the wet
test meter by 6 percent, the completed test
shall  be discarded. Alternatively, the tester
may elect to use the  flow data  that would
yield the lowest now measurement. Calibra-
tion with a wet test meter before a test Is
optional.
  6.5.3  Constant Temperature Bath. Device
capable  of maintaining  the  permeation
tubes at the calibration temperature within
±0.1' C.
  6.5.4  Temperature  Oauge.  Thermometer
or equivalent to monitor bath temperature
within ±TC.
  6. Reagents.
  6.1   Fuel.  Hydrogen   )   prepurlfled
grade or better.
  6.2   Combustion Oas. Oxygen  (O.) or air.
research purity or better.
  6.3   Carrier   Oas.  Prepurlfled  grade or
better.
  6.4   Diluent.  Air containing less than 50
ppb total sulfur compounds and less than 10
ppm each  of moisture and total hydrocar-
bons.  This gas must be heated  prior to
mixing with the sample to avoid water con-
densation at the point of contact.
  6.6   Calibration Oases. Permeation tubes.
one each of HA MeSH,  DMS. and DMDS,
agravlmetrlcally calibrated and certified at
some  convenient  operating  temperature.
These tubes consist of hermetically sealed
PEP Tenon tubing in which a liquified gas-
eous substance Is enclosed. The enclosed gas
permeates through the tubing wall at a con-
stant rate. When the temperature Is con-
stant,  calibration  gases  Governing a wide
range  of known concentrations can be gen-
erated by varying and accurately measuring
the now rate of diluent gas passing over the
tubes. These calibration gases are used to
calibrate the OC/FPD system and the dilu-
tion system.
  7. Pretest Procedures. The following proce-
dures  are optional but would be helpful in
preventing any problem which might occur
Inter and invalidate the entire test.
  T.I   After  the  complete  measurement
system has been  set up at the  site and
deemed to be operational, the following pro-
cedures should be completed before sam-
pling is initiated.
  7.1.1  Leak  Test. Appropriate leak test
procedures should be employed to verify the
Integrity of all components, sample  lines,
and connections. The following leak test
procedure Is suggested: For components up-
stream  of the  sample  pump,  attach the
probe end of the sample  line to a ma- no-
meter or vacuum gauge, start the pump and
pull greater than 50 mm (2 in.) Hg vacuum.
close off the pump outlet, and then stop the
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-60
-------
pump and ascertain that there IB no leak for
1 minute. For components after the pump,
apply a slight positive pressure and check
for leaks by applying a liquid (detergent In
water, for example) at each joint. Bubbling
Indicates the presence of a leak.
  7.1.2  System  Performance.   Since   the
complete system Is calibrated following each
test, the  precise calibration of each compo-
nent Is not critical. However, these compo-
nents should  be verified  to be operating
properly. This verification can be performed
by observing the response of flowmeters or
of the GC output to changes In flow rates or
calibration gas  concentrations  and ascer-
taining the response to be within predicted
limits. In any component, or If the complete
system falls to respond in a normal and pre-
dictable manner, the source of the discrep-
ancy should be identified and corrected
before proceeding.
  8. Calibration. Prior to any sampling run.
calibrate the  system using  the following
procedures. (If more  than one  run Is  per-
formed during any 24-hour period, a calibra-
tion need not be  performed  prior to  the
second and any  subsequent runs. The  cali-
bration must,  however, be verified as  pre-
scribed In Section  10, after the  last run
made within the 24-hour period.)
  8.1  General Considerations. This section
outlines steps to be followed for use of  the
OC/FPD and the dilution system. The pro-
cedure does not include  detailed Instruc-
tions because the operation of these systems
Is complex, and  It requires a understanding
of the  Individual system being  used. Each
system should Include a written operating
manual  describing In detail the operating
procedures associated with each component
In the measurement system. In addition,  the
operator should be familiar with the operat-
ing principles of  the components; particular-
ly the GC/FPD. The citations In the  Bib-
liography at the end of this method are rec-
ommended for review for this purpose.
  8.2  Calibration Procedure. Insert the per-
meation  tubes  Into  the  tube  chamber.
Check  the  bath  temperature to  assure
agreement with the calibration temperature
of the tubes within ±0.1* C. Allow 24 hours
for the  tubes  to equilibrate. Alternatively
equilibration may  be verified by injecting
samples of calibration gas at  1-hour Inter-
vals. The permeation tubes can be assumed
to have reached equilibrium when consecu-
tive hourly samples agree within the preci-
sion limits of Section 4.1.
  Vary the amount of air flowing over  the
tubes to produce the desired concentrations
for calibrating the analytical  and dilution
systems. The air flow across the tubes must
at all times exceed the flow requirement of
the analytical systems. The concentration in
parts per million generated by a tube con-
taining a specific permeant can be calculat-
ed as follows:           o
                      •K
where:
                           Equation 18-1
C-Concentration of permeant produced In
   ppm.
P,~ Permeation rate of the tube  In i»g/mln.
M-= Molecular weight of the permeant (g/g-
   mole).
L-Flow rate. 1/mln, of air over permeant @
   20- C, 760 mm Hg.
K = Gas constant  at  20'  C  and 760  mm
   Hg = 24.04 1/gmole.

  8.3  Calibration of analysis system. Gen-
erate a series of three or more known  con-
centrations spanning the linear range of the
FPD  (approximately  0.06 to 1.0 ppm) for
each of the four major sulfur compounds.
Bypassing the dilution system, Inject these
standards into the OC/FPD analyzers and
monitor  the response*.  Three injecu  for
each concentration must yield the precision
described in Section 4.1. Failure to attain
this precision Is  an indication of a problem
In the calibration or  analytical system. Any
such  problem  must  be identified and cor-
rected before proceeding.
  8.4  Calibration Curves. Plot the OC/FPD
response In current  (amperes) versus their
causative concentrations in  ppm on log-log
coordinate graph paper for each sulfur com-
pound. Alternatively, a least squares equa-
tion may be generated  from the calibration
data.
  8.S  Calibration of Dilution  System. Gen-
erate  a known concentration of  hydrogen
sulfide using the permeation tube  system.
Adjust the flow  rate of diluent air for  the
first dilution stage so that the desired level
of dilution is approximated. Inject the dilut-
ed calibration gas Into  the GC/FPD system
and monitor Its  response. Three  Injections
for each dilution must yield  the precision
described in Section 4.1. Failure to attain
this precision In  this step Is an indication of
a problem  in the dilution system. Any such
problem  must be  identified  and  corrected
before proceeding.  Dslng  the calibration
data  for H.S (developed under 8.3) deter-
mine  the diluted calibration gas concentra-
tion  In  ppm. Then  calculate the dilution
factor as the  ratio  of the  calibration  gas
concentration before dilution to the diluted
calibration  gas  concentration determined
under this  paragraph. Repeat this proce-
dure for  each stage of  dilution required. Al-
ternatively, the  OC/FPD  system may  be
calibrated by generating a series of three or
more  concentrations of each sulfur com-
pound and diluting these samples before in-
jecting them into the OC/FPD system. This
data will then serve  as the calibration data
for the unknown samples and a separate de-
termination of the dilution factor will  not
be  necessary.  However, the  precision  re-
quirements of Section  4.1 are still applica-
ble.
  9. Sampling and Analysis Procedure.
  9.1  Sampling. Insert the  sampling probe
into the  test port making certain that no di-
lution air enters  the stack through the port.
Begin sampling  and dilute  the sample  ap-
proxlmtely  6:1  using  the dilution  system.
Note  that the precise dilution factor is that
which Is determined In paragraph 8.5. Con-
dition the  entire system with sample for a
minimum of 15 minutes prior to  commenc-
ing analysis.
  6.2  Analysis. Aliquots of diluted sample
are Injected Into the OC/FPD analyzer for
analysis.
  9.2.1  Sample Run. A sample run Is com-
posed of 16 individual analyses (Injects) per
formed   over a  period of not less than  3
hours or more than 6 hours.
  9.2.2  Observation  for Clogging of Probe.
If reductions In  sample concentrations  are
observed during  a sample run that cannot
be explained by process conditions, the sam-
pling  must be Interrupted to determine If
the sample probe Is clogged with paniculate
matter.  If the probe  is found to be clogged.
the test must be stopped and the  results up
to that point discarded. Testing may resume
after  cleaning the probe or replacing it with
a  clean  one. After  each run, the sample
probe must be Inspected and, If necessary,
dismantled and cleaned.
  10. Pott-Test Procedurei.

  10.1 Sample  line  loss. A  known  concen-
tration  of  hydrogen sulfide at the level of
the applicable standard, ± 20 percent, must
be Introduced into the sampling system tat
sufficient quantities to injure that there to
an excess of  sample which must be vented
to the atmosphere. The sample must be In-
troduced immediately after the probe and
filter and transported through the remain-
der of the sampling system to the measure-
ment system  In the normal manner. The re-
sulting measured concentration should be
compared to  the known value to determine
the sampling  system loss.91
  For sampling tosses greater than 20 per-
cent In a sample run. the sample run is not
to be used when determining the arithmetic
mean of the performance test. For sampling
losses of 0-20 percent, the sample concen-
tration must  be corrected by dividing the
sample concentration by the fraction of re-
covery. The fraction of recovery Is equal to
one  minus  the ratio of the measured con-
centration  to the known  concentration of
hydrogen sulfide In the sample line loss pro-
eecure. The known gas sample may be gen-
erated using permeation tubes. Altenv..live-
ly, cylinders  of hydrogen  sulfide mixed in
air may be  used provided they are traceable
to permeation tubes. The  optional pretest
procedures  provide a good guideline for de-
termining if there are leaks In the sampling
system."

  10.2 Recalibratlon.  After  each run.  or
after a series  of runs made within a 24-hour
period, perform a partial recalibratlon using
the  procedures in Section 8. Only HiS (or
other permeant) need be used to recalibrate
the OC/FPD analysis system (8.3) and the
dilution system (8.5).
  10.3  Determination of Calibration  Drift.
Compare the calibration  curves  obtained
prior to the runs, to the calibration curves
obtained under paragraph 10.1. The calibra-
tion drift should not exceed the limits set
forth In paragraph 4.2. If the drift exceeds
this  limit,  the  intervening  run  or  runs
should be considered not  valid. The tester,
however, may Instead  have  the  option of
choosing the calibration  data set  which
weuld give the highest sample values.
  11. Calculations.
  11.1  Determine  the  concentrations of
each reduced sulfur compound detected di-
rectly from the calibration curves. Alterna-
tively, the concentrations may be calculated
using the equation for the least square line.
  11.2 Calculation of TRS. Total reduced
sulfur will  be determined  for each anaylsls
made by summing the  concentrations of
each  reduced  sulfur  compound  resolved
during a given analysis.
   TRS-I (H.S. MeSH. DMS. 2DMDS)d
                                                                                       where:
                                                                                                                 Equation 18-2
TRS = Total reduced  sulfur  In ppm, wet
   basis.
HJ3»Hydrogen sulfide, ppm.
MeSH = Methyl mercaptan, ppm.
DMS = Dimethyl sulfide. ppm.
DMDS-Dlmethyl disulflde, ppm.
d-Dilution factor, dimenslonless.
  11.3  Average TRS. The average TRS will
be determined as follows:
                        N
                        r   TRS
Average TRS-
                              ,

                               ,
                            wo
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-61
-------
Average TR8-Average toUl reduced luflur
   In ppm. dry but*.
TUB,-Total reduced sulfur in ppm u deter-
   mined by Equation 18-3.
If-Number of samples.
B^-Fractlon  of volume of water vapor In
   the gas stream as determined by method
   4-Determinatlon of MoLjture in Stack
   Oases (86 FR 24887).
  11.4 Average concentration of individual
reduced sulfur compounds.
where:
                          Equation 16-3
8,-Concentration  of  any  reduced sulfur
   compound  from the  1th sample  Injec-
   tion, ppm.
C-Average concentration of any one of the
   reduced sulfur compounds (or the entire
   run, ppm.
If-Number of injection* in any run period.
  13. Example System. Described below it a
system utilized by  EPA In (fathering NSP8
data. This system  does not now reflect all
the Htest developments in equipment and
column technology, but  it doc* represent
one system that has been demonstrated to
work.
  12.1  Apparatus.
  12.1.1 Sampling  System.
  12.1.1.1  Probe. Figure 16-1 Illustrate* the
probe used in  lime kiln* and other sources
where  significant  amounts  of paniculate
natter are present, the probe Is designed
with the deflector shield placed between the
sample and the gas inlet holes and the glass
wool plugs to  reduce clogging  of the  filter
and possible adsorption of sample gas. The
exposed portion of the probe  between the
sampling port  and the sample line is heated
with heating tape.
  12.1.1.2  Sample Line •/,. inch inside diam-
eter Teflon tubing, heated to  120' C. This
temperature is controlled by a  thermostatlc
heater.
  11.1.1.3  Sample  Pump.  Leaklecs Teflon
coated diaphragm  type or equivalent. The
pump head Is heated to 120* C by enclosing
It In the sample dilution box (12.2.1 below).
  12.1.2 Dilution System.  A schematic dia-
gram of the  dynamic dilution system is
given In Figure 16-2. The dilution system ls
constructed such that all sample contacts
are made of  inert materials.  The dilution
system which Is heated to 120* C must be ca-
pable  of  a  minimum ot  0:1  dilution of
sample. Equipment  used in  the  dilution
system Is listed below.
  12.1.2.1  Dilution Pump.  Model  A-150
Kohmyhr  Teflon  positive   displacement
type, nonadjustable 180 cc/min. ±2.0 per-
cent, or equivalent, per dilution stage.  A 0:1
dilution ot sample  U accomplished by com-
bining 180 cc of sample  with 1,360  oe of
dew dry air as shown in Figure 16-3.
  11.1.2.2  Valve*.  Three-way  Teflon  sole-
noid or manual type.
  12.J.2.3  Tubing.  Teflon  tubing  and  fit-
Unas are used throughout from the sample
probe  to the  OC/FPD to present  an inert
surface for sample  gas,
  12.1.2.4  Box.  Insulated 'box, heated and
maintained at 120* C. of  sufficient dimen-
sions to house dilution apparatus.
  12.1.2.6  Flowmeten.    Rotometers   or
equivalent to  measure flow from 0 to 1400
ml/mln ±1 percent per dilution stage.
  12.1.3  Oai  Chromatograph  Columns.
Two types of columns arc used for separa-
tion of low and  high molecular  weight
sulfur compounds:
  12.1.3.1  Low  Molecular  Weight  Sulfur
Compounds Column (OC/FPD-1).
  12.1.3.1  Separation Column. 11 m by 2.16
mm (36  ft  by 0.08S in) inilde diameter
Teflon tubing  packed  with  30/60  mesh
Teflon coated with 5  percent polyphenyl
ether and  0.06  percent  orthophosphoric
acid, or equivalent (see Fltrure 16-3).
  12.1.3.1.2  Stripper or Precolumn. 0.6 m
by 2.16 mm (2 ft by 0.085 in) Inside diameter
Teflon tubing packed u in 5.3.1.
  12.1.3.1.3  Sample Valve. Teflon 10-port
ga* sampling valve, equipped with  a  10  ml
sample loop, actuated by compressed  air
(Figure 18-3).
  12.1.3.1.4  Oven.  For  containing sample
valve,  stripper  column  and  separation
column. The oven should  be capable  of
maintaining an elevated temperature rang-
ing from ambient to 100' C, constant within
±rc.
  12.1.3.1.8  Temperature Monitor. Thermo-
couple pyrometer to measure column oven,
detector, and exhaust temperature ±1* C.
  12.1.3.1.6  Flow   System.  Oa*  metering
system to measure sample flow, hydrogen
flow, and oxygen flow (and nitrogen carrier
gas flow).
  12.1.3.1.7  Detector.  Flame  photometric
detector.
  12.1.3.1.8  Electrometer.  Capable of  full
scale amplification of linear ranges of 10"*
to 10*4 amperes full scale.
  12.1.3.1.9  Power Supply. Capable of deli-
vering up to 750 volts.
  12.1.3.1.10 Recorder.  Compatible   with
the output  voltage range  of the electrom-
eter.
  12.1.3.2  High  Molecular  Weight  Com-
pounds Column (OC/FPD-11).
  12.1.3.2.1.  Separation  Column. 3.05 m by
2.16 mm (10 ft by 0.0886 in) inside diameter
Teflon tubing  packed  with  30/60  mesh
Teflon coated with 10 percent Triton X-305,
or equivalent.
  12.1.3.2.2  Sample Valve. Teflon 8-port gas
sampling  valve  equipped  with a  10  ml
sample loop, actuated  by compressed  air
(Figure 16-3).
  12.1.3.2.3  Other Components.  All compo-
nent* same as In 12.1.3.1.4 to 12.1.3.1.10.
  12.1.4  Calibration.   Permeation    tube
system (figure 16-4).
  12.1.4.1  Tube  Chamber. Glass chamber
of  sufficient dimension* to  house  perme-
ation tubes.
  12.1.4.2  Mass  Flowmetera.  Two   mass
flowmeters in the range 0-3 1/mln. and 0-10
1/mln. to measure air flow over permeation
tube* at ±2  percent. These flowmeten shall
be cross-calibrated at the beginning of each
test, Using  a convenient  flow rate in the
measuring  range  of both  flowmeters.  set
and monitor the flow rate of gas over the
permeation  tube*. Injection  of  calibration
gas generated at this flow rate as measured
by  one nowmeter  followed by injection of
calibration gas at the same flow rate as mea-
sured by the other flowmeter should agree
within the specified precision limits. If they
do  not. then there Is a problem with  the
mass flow measurement.  Each  mass  flow-
meter shall  be calibrated  prior to the first
test with a wet test meter and thereafter, at
leut once each year.
  12.1.4.3  Constant Temperature Bath.  Ca-
pable of maintaining permeation tubes at
certification temperature  of 30' C. within
±o.r c.
  18.J  Reagents
  13.J.1  Fuel. Hydrogen    prepurifled
grade or better.
  12.2.2.  Combustion Oa*. Oxygen 
-------
Photometric Detector (or Analysis of Sulfur
Compound*."  Pulp and Paper Magazine of
Canada. 7J.3 (March. tr>2>.
  11.6  OrlrrUey. K W.. W. 8. Smith, and R.
M. Martin. "The Use of a Dynamic Dilution
System In the Conditioning of Stack Oases
for Automated Analysts by a Mobile Sam-
pltn* Van." Presented at the 63rd Annual '
APCA Meeting In St. Louis. Mo. June 14-19.
1*70.
  11.6  Genera] Reference. Standard Meth-
ods of Chemical  Analysis Volume III A and
B  Instrumental  Methods.  Sixth  Edition.
Van Nostrand Relnhold Co.
                                                                                                                    en
                                                                                                                    c
                                                                                                                    a
                                                                                                                    ia
                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                    to

                                                                                                                    3
                                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                                    $-
                                                                                                                    (O
                                                                                                                    cn
                                                                                                                    c:
                                                                                                                    c
                                                                                                                   •I—
                                                                                                                    ra
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                   I/I
                                                                                                                   IO
                                                                                                                   cn
                                                                                                                   ai
                                                                                                                   ex
                                                                                                                   t:
                                                                                                                   ro
                                                                                                                   t.
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                   d.
                                                                                                                   i
                                                                                                                  UD
                                                                                                                   ai
                                                                                                                   s_
                                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                                   o>
                                             Ill-Appendix  A-63
-------
t


PROBE






STACK TO GC/FPD ANALYZERS
10:1 102:1
J
i — •
FILTER
(GLASS WOOL)


V
-



•x
FILTER









H HEATED
2 SAMPLE
7 LINE
§ \
H-
X
1







"^ •"" • ^"^ »




PuSiYiv't
' DISPLACEMENT
PUMP
(150cc/min)—~

PERMEATION
TUBE
CALIBRATION
\
kL
GJLS _^t
t
I

I

	 (-} *






A-N
DIAPHRAGM 1 	
PUMP
(HEATED) '
^^




••^•S^^te

• ^^^ ^^™ ••





•^S^^
«•

\
/



v — v.








~>^
c
r
v.



/


*










>,
•_«i9r^te

~~ ~~ ~"i
1 DILUENT AIR
1
|
1
1
1
I
i
I
I
__ 1
1
1
I

.) |

3 -WAY
.•v VALVE
1 ^













1





1350 ec/min
1
II
7* 3
111



1

r




25PSI
CLEAN
DRY AIR




	 |





~ DaiirTclirBoTHEATED
TO 100°C
                                                                        FLOWMETER
                VENT
Figure 16-2. Sampling and dilution apparatus.
-------
                    SAMPLIf.'G VALVE
                        GC/FPD-I
M
H
M
 I
n>
3
X
>
 I
CT\
J1
                                                  STRIPPER
                                                  Q1M1
                                                                                                       FLAME PHOTOMETRIC DETECTOR

                                                                                                     EXHAUST
                  SAMPLE
                    LOOP
                                                                                                                   750V
                                                                                                               PO'/.'ER SUPPLY
  SAM'LE ^
    OR   '*"
CALISRATIOM
    GAS
    SAMPLING VALVE FOR
         GC/FPD-li
                   VACUUM.
                    SAMPLE--3
                      OR
                  CALIBRATION
                     GAS
                                                £3- CARRIER
                                                           •^•~ TO GC/FPD-II
                                                          Figure 16-3. Gas chrcmatog'aphic-flanc photometric analyzers.
-------
         TO INSTRUMENTS
              AND
         DILUTION SYSTEM
 CONSTANT
TEMPERATURE
    BATH
                PERMEATION
                   TUBE
                 Figure 16-4. Apparatus for field calibration.
                          Ill-Appendix A-66
-------
                           VENT
                                                                                                       VENT
H
M
M
tf
n>
H-
x
 i
CTl
-J
              CO C3
              •J
              <
              u
                                       PROBE
SAMPLE
 LINE
                                                                                         SAMPLE
                                                                                          PUMP
                                          DILUTION
                                          SYSTEM
                                                                                                             1
                                                                                                             GAS
                                                                                                       CHROMATOGRAPH
                                       Figure 16- 5. Determination of sample line loss.
-------
METHOD IT.  DETERMINATION Of  PMITICtJLATt
  EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOOTCES (lit-
  STACK FIITIMTJON METHOD)82

              Introduction
  Particulate matter is not an  absolute
Quantity: rather. It Is a function of tempera-
ture and  pressure. Therefore, to  prevent
variability  In  paniculate matter  emission
regulations and/or associated test methods.
the temperature and pressure at which par-
tlculate matter is to be measured must be
carefully defined. Of the two variables (I.e.,
temperature and pressure), temperature has
the greater effect upon  the amount of par-
ticulate matter In an effluent gas stream; In
most stationary source categories, the effect
of pressure appears to be negligible.
  In method 5,  250* F  Is established  as a
nominal   reference   temperature.  Thus,
where Method 5 is specified in an applicable
subpart of the standards, partlculate matter
is defined with respect  to temperature. In
order to maintain a  collection temperature
of 250' F, Method 5 employs  a heated glass
sample probe and a heated  filter holder.
This equipment is somewhat cumbersome
and requires care In Its operation. There-
fore, where partlculate matter concentra-
tions (over the normal range of temperature
associated with a specified source category)
are  known to be Independent of  tempera-
ture, It Is desirable  to  eliminate the  glass
probe and heating systems,  and  sample at
•tack temperature.
  This method describes an In-stack  sam-
pling system and  sampling procedures for
use  in such cases. It Is  Intended to be used
only when specified by an applicable sub-
part of the standards, and only within the
applicable temperature  limits (if  specified).
or when otherwise approved  by the Admin-
istrator.
  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. Partlculate matter Is with-
drawn isoklnetlcally  from the source and
collected  on a glass  fiber filter maintained
at stack temperature. The partlculate  mass
Is determined gravlmetrically after removal
of uncomblned water.
  1.2  Applicability. This method applies to
the  determination of partlculate emissions
from  stationary sources  for  determining
compliance  with new source performance
standards, only  when specifically provided
for  In an applicable subpart of the  stan-
dards. This method Is not  applicable  to
stacks that contain  liquid droplets or are
saturated with water vapor. In addition, this
method shall not be used  as written  if the
projected cross-sectional area of  the  probe
extension-filter   holder  assembly  covers
more than 5 percent of the stack cross-sec-
tional area (see Section 4.1.2).

  2. Apparatus.
   2.1  Sampling Train.  A schematic of the
 sampling train used in this method is shown
 In  Figure  17-1.  Construction  details for
 many, but not all, of the train components
 •re given In APTD-0581 (Citation  2 In Sec-
 tion 7); for changes from the APTD-0581
 document and  for allowable modifications
 to Figure 17-1, consult with the Administra-
 tor.
                                                  III-Appendix  A-68
-------
                          TEMPERATURE     IN-STACK
                             SENSOR     FILTER HOLDER
M
H
H
 I
(D

a
H-
X
              : - y > 1.9 cm (0.75 in.)«	i   /
                     ^Hlfe
                                                                                         IMPINGER TRAIN OPTIONAL, MAY Bf. REPLACED
                                                                                              BY AN EQUIVALENT CONDEhSER
                 z>7.6tm (3 in.)*
                                                                                                                                  THERMOMETER
                                                                                                                                       CHECK
                                                                                                                                       VALVE
                                    IN-STACK
                                     FILTER
                                    HOLDER
                                      REVERSETYPE
                                       P1TOTTUBE
                                            ORIFICE MANOMETER



                        ' SUGGESTED (INTERFERENCE FREE) SPACINGS
                                                                               DRY GASMETER
                                                                                                                                         VACUUM
                                                                                                                                           LINE
                                                    Figure 17-1. Paniculate-Sampling Train. Equipped with In Stack Filter.
-------
  Tht  operating and  maintenance prooe-
dura for many of the sampling train com-
ponents are dMorlbtd in APTD-0876 (Cita-
tion 3  In Section 7). Since correct  usage U
Important  In  obtalnini valid resulu, all
UMM ihould read th« APTD-Of 76 document
and adopt  the operating and maintenance
procedure* outlined In  ft, unleu otherwise
specified herein. Tht  umpllni train  com
tuu of the following components:
  11.1 Probe  Norfe,  Stainless steel (316)
or tlau,  with iharp, tapered leading edge.
Th« anile  of taper ahall be 030'  and  the
taper shall be  on the ouUlde to preserve a
constant  Internal  diameter,  The probe
nogale shall be of the button-hook or elbow
design, unless otherwise specified by the Ad-
ministrator. If made of stainless steel,  the
noule shall  be constructed  from seamless
tubing. Other materials of construction may
be used subject to the approval of the  Ad-
ministrator.
  A  ranie  of  sises  suitable for isoklnettc
•ampllnf should be available, e.g., 0.32 to
1.17 em  
-------
values (00.001 percent) shall be used. In no
CMC shall  t blink value of greater  than
0.001 percent of the weight of actions used
be subtracted from the sample weight.
  3.3  Analysis.
  3.3.1  Acetone. Same as 3.2.
  3.3.2  Deslccant. Anhydrous calcium sul-
fate.  Indicating type.  Alternatively, other
types of desiccants may be used, subject to
th» approval of the Administrator.
  4. Procedure.
  4.1  Sampling.  The  complexity  of  this
method is such that, in order to obtain rell-
able results, testers should be trained and
experienced with the test procedures.
  4.1.1  Pretest  Preparation.  All   compo-
nents shall be maintained and calibrated ac-
cording  to   the procedure  described  In
APTD-0516.   unless  otherwise  specified
herein.
  Weigh several 200  to  300  g  portions of
silica gel in air-tight containers to the  near-
est 0.5  g. Record  the total weight of the
silica gel plus container,  on each container.
As an alternative, the silica gel need not be
preweighed, but may be weighed directly in
Its impinger or sampling holder Just prior to
train assembly.
  Check filters visually against light for Ir-
regularities  and flaws  or  plnhole  leaks.
Label filters of the proper size on the back
side near the  edge  using  numbering ma-
chine ink. As an alternative, label the ship-
ping containers (glass or plastic petrl dishes)
and  keep  the filters In these containers at
all times except during sampling and weigh-
ing.
  Desiccate  the filters at 20±5.6' C (68±10*
P) and ambient pressure  for  at least 24
hours and weigh at  Intervals of at  least 6
hours  to  a constant  weight, i.e.. 00.5 mg
change  from previous weighing; record re-
suite  to the nearest  0.1 mg. During  each
weighing the filter must not  be exposed to
the  laboratory  atmosphere  for a  period
greater than 2 minutes and a relative hu-
midity  above  80  percent.  Alternatively
(unless  otherwise specified by the Adminis-
trator),  the filters may be oven dried at 105*
C (220*  F) lor 2 to 3 hours, desiccated  for 2
hours, and weighed. Procedures other  than
those described, which account  for relative
humidity  effects, may be used,  subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
  4.1.2  Preliminary Determinations. Select
the sampling site and  the minimum number
of sampling points according to Method 1 or
a* specified by the Administrator.  Make a
projected-area model  of  the probe exten-
sion-filter holder assembly, with the  pltot
tube face openings positioned along the cen-
terllne of the stack, as shown In Figure 17-2.
Calculate  the estimated cross-section block-
age, as shown in Figure 17-2. If the blockage
exceeds 5 percent of the duct cross sectional
area,  the  tester has  the  following  options:
(Da suitable out-of-stack filtration method
may be  used Instead of in-stack filtration; or
(2) a special In-stack arrangement, in which
the  sampling  and velocity  measurement
sites are separate,  may be used; for details
concerning this approach, consult with the
Administrator (see also Citation 10  In Sec-
tion  7). Determine the stack pressure, tem-
perature, and the range of velocity heads
uilng Method 2; it is recommended that a
leak-check of the pltot lines (see Method 2,
Section 3.1) be  performed. Determine the
moisture' content  using  Approximation
Method 4 or Its alternatives for the purpose
of making isoklnetlc sampling rate settings.
Determine the  stack gas dry  molecular
weight,  ai described In Method 2. Section
J.S; if Integrated Method 3 sampling Is used
for molecular weight determination, the In-
tegrated bag sample shall be taken simulta-
neously with, and for the same total length
of time as, the particular sample run.
                                                                   STACK
                                                                    WALL
      IN STACK FILTER-
      PROBE EXTENSION
         ASSEMBLY
                       ESTIMATED
                       BLOCKAGE
  fsHADEDAREA)
* [_ DUCT AREA J
X  100
            Figure  17-2. Projected-area model  of cross-section blockage
             (approximate average for a sample traverse)  caused by an
                in-stack filter holder-probe extension assembly.
                                                  Ill-Appendix  A-71
-------
  Select a nozzle size baaed on the range of
velocity heads, such that It Is not necessary
to change the nozzle size In order to main-
tain Isoklnetlc sampling rates. During the
run, do not change the nozzle size. Ensure
that the proper differential pressure gauge
Is chosen for the range of velocity heads en-
countered (see Section 2.2 of Method 2).
  Select a probe extension length such  that
all traverse points can be sampled. For large
slacks,  consider  sampling  from  opposite
sides of the stack to  reduce the length of
probes.
  Select a total sampling time greater than
or equal to the  minimum  total sampling
time specified In  the test procedures for the
specific Industry  such that (1) the sampling
time per point Is not less than 2 minutes (or
some greater time  Interval  If specified by
the  Administrator),  and  (2) the  sample
volume  taken (corrected to standard condi-
tions)  will exceed  the required  minimum
total gas sample volume. The latter is based
on an approximate average sampling rate.
  It  Is recommended  that the number of
minutes sampled at each point be an Integer
or an Integer plus one-half minute, In order
to avoid timekeeping errors.
  In some circumstances, e.g.. batch cycles.
It  may be necessary to sample for shorter
times at the traverse points and to obtain
smaller gas sample volumes. In these cases.
the Administrator's approval must first be
obtained.
  4.1.3  Preparation  of  Collection Train.
During  preparation  and assembly of  the
sampling train, keep all openings where  con-
lamination  can  occur  covered  until  Just
prior to assembly or untU sampling Is about
to begin.
  If  implngers are used to  condense stack
gas moisture, prepare them as follows: place
100 ml o/ water In each of the first two 1m-
plngere,  leave the  third  Implnger empty,
and transfer approximately  200 to 300  g of
prewelghed silica  ge)  from  Its container to
the fourth Implnger. More silica gel may be
used, but care should be taken to ensure
that It Is not entrained and carried out from
the  Implnger  during  sampling.  Place  the
container In a clean place  for later use In
the  sample  recovery.  Alternatively,  the
weight of the silica gel plus implnger  may
be determined to the nearest  0.5 g and re-
corded.
  If  some means other than Implngers  Is
used to condense moisture, prepare the  con-
denser (and, If appropriate, silica  gel lor
condenser outlet) for use.
  Using a tweezer or clean disposable surgi-
cal gloves,  place a labeled  (Identified)  and
weighed  filter In the  filter holder. Be sure
that the filter Is properly centered and the
gasket properly placed so as not to allow the
sample gas stream to circumvent the filter.
Check filter for tears after assembly is com-
pleted. Mark the probe extension with heat
resistant tape or by some other method to
denote the proper distance Into the stack or
duct for each sampling point.
  Assemble the train as In Figure 17-1, using
a very light  coat of slllcone grease on all
ground glass joints and  greasing only  the
outer portion (see APTD-0576) to avoid pos-
sibility  of contamination  by the  slllcone
grease.  Place crushed Ice  around the  im-
pingers.
  4.1.4  Leak Check Procedures.
  4.1.4.1  Pretest Leak-Check.   A  pretest
leak-check Is recommended,  but not re-
quired. If the tester opts to conduct the pre-
test leak-check,  the  following  procedure
shall be used.
  After the sampling train  has been  assem-
bled, plug the Ink-t to the probe nozzle with
a material that will be able  to withstand the
stack  temperature. Insert the filter  holder
Into the stack and  wall approximately 5
minutes  (or longer, if necessary) to  allow
the system to come to equilibrium with  the
temperature of the stack gas stream. Turn
on the pump and draw a vacuum of at least
380 mm  Hg (15  In. Hg);  note that a  lower
vacuum may be used, provided that It Is not
exceeded  during  the  test. Determine  the
leakage rate. A leakage  rate  In excess of 4
percent of the  average  sampling rate or
0.00057 m'/mln.  (0.02 cfm), whichever Is
less. Is unacceptable.
  The following  leak-check Instructions for
the sampling train described in  APTD-0578
and APTD-0581  may  be  helpful. Start  the
pump  with  by-pass  valve  fully open and
coarse adjust valve completely closed. Par-
tially  open  the  coarse  adjust  valve and
slowly .close the  by-pass valve until  the de-
sired vacuum Is reached.  Do not reverse di-
rection  of by-pass valve.  If the  desired
vacuum  is exceeded,  either  leak-check at
this higher vacuum or end the leak-check as
shown below and start over.
  When  the  leak-check  is  completed, first
slowly remove the plug from the inlet to the
probe nozzle  and immediately turn  off  the
vacuum  pump. This  prevents water from
being forced  backward and keeps silica gel
from being entrained backward.
  4.1.4.2  Leak-Checks During Sample Run.
If. during the sampling  run, a  component
(e.g., filter assembly or impinger) change be-
comes  necessary, a leak-check shall  be con-
ducted immediately  before the change is
made. The leak-check shall be done accord-
Ing to the  procedure outlined  In  Section
4.1.4.1 above, except that It shall be done at
a vacuum equal to or greater than the maxi-
mum value recorded up to that point In the
test. If the  leakage rate is found to be no
greater than 0.00057 m'/mln (0.02 cfm) or 4
percent  of  the  average sampling  rate
(whichever  Is  less), the results are accept-
able, and no correction will need to be  ap-
plied to the total volume of dry gas metered;
If, however, a higher leakage rate Is  ob-
tained, the  tester shall  either record the
leakage rate and plan to correct the sample
volume  as  shown in  Section 6.3  of  this
method, or shall void the sampling run.
  Immediately  after  component changes,
leak-checks are optional; If such leak-checks
are done, the procedure outlined in  Section
4.1.4.1 above shall be used.
  4.1.4.3  Post-Test  Leak-Check. A  leak-
check Is mandatory  at  the  conclusion  of
each sampling run. The leak-check shall be
done In accordance with the procedures out-
lined in Section  4.1.4.1. except that It shall
be conducted at a vacuum equal to or great-
er than the  maximum value reached during
the sampling  run. If the leakage  rate is
found to  be  no greater than 0.00057  m'/min
(0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of the average sam-
pling rate (whichever  is less), the results arc
acceptable,  and  no correction need  be  ap-
plied to the total volume of dry gas metered.
If.  however, a higher leakage rate Is  ob-
tained, the  tester shall  either record the
leakage rate and correct the sample volume
as shown In Section  6.3 of this method, or
shall void the sampling run.
  4.1.5  Paniculate     Train     Operation.
During the  sampling  run, maintain a sam-
pling rate such  that sampling is within 10
percent of  true isoklnetlc, unless otherwise
specified by the Administrator.
  For each run, record the data required on
the example data sheet shown In Figure 17-
3. Be sure to record the initial dry gas meter
reading. Record the dry gas meter readings
at  the beginning and  end  of each sampling
time Increment, wlien changes in flow rates
are made, before and after each leak check,
and when sampling Is halted. Take other
readings  required by  Figure  17-3  at  least
once at each sample point during each time
increment and additional readings when sig-
nificant changes (20 percent variation In ve-
locity head readings)  necessitate additional
adjustments in flow rate. Level and zero the
manometer.  Because   the  manometer level
and zero may drift due  to vibrations  and
temperature changes,  make periodic checks
during the traverse.
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-72
-------
       PLANT	
       LOCATION.
       OPERATOR.
       DATE	
       RUN NO	
       SAMPLE BOX NO..
       METER BOX NO._
       METER AH®.	
       C FACTOR	
       PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT, Cp .
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE	
ASSUMED MOISTURE. X	
PROBE EXTENSION LENGTH, m(ft.)
NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO	
AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER cm (in.).
FILTER NO.	
LEAK RATE, m3/,nin,(cfm)	
STATIC PRESSURE, mm Hg (in. Kg)
                                           SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
TRAVERSE POf*7
NUMBER












TOTAL
SAMPLING
TIME
(9). mm.













AVERAGE
VACUUM
WR1 HS
(in. H|)














STACK
TEMPERATURE
o(T5'-
°C (*F>














VELOCITY
HEAD
3 
-------
  Clean the portholes prior to the test run
to minimize the chance of sampling the de-
posited material. To begin sampling, remove
the nozzle cap and verify that the pilot tube
and  probe  extension  are  properly  posi-
tioned. Position the nozzle at the  first tra-
verse  point with  the Up  pointing  directly
into the gas stream. Immediately start  the
pump and adjust  the flow to  Isoklnetic con-
ditions.  Nomographs  are available, which
aid In the rapid adjustment to the isokinetic
sampling rate  without excessive computa-
tions. These nomographs are designed  for
use when the Type S pilot tube coefficient
Is  0.85±0.02, and the stack gas equivalent
density  (dry molecular weight)  Is  equal to
29 ±4. APTD-0576 details the procedure for
using the nomographs. If C, and M, are out-
side the above stated ranges, do not use the
nomographs unless appropriate steps (see
Citation 7  In Section 7)  are  taken to com-
pensate for the deviations.
  When the stack is under  significant nega-
tive  preaeur*  (height of  Implnger stem),
take care to close the coarse adjust valve
before inserting the probe extension assem-
bly Into the stack  to prevent water from
being forced backward.  If necessary,  the
pump may  be  turned on  with  the coarse
adjust valve closed.
  When the probe is  In position, block off
the openings around the probe and porthole
to prevent  unrepresentative dilution of the
gas stream.
  Traverse  the stack cross section, as re-
quired by Method 1 or as  specified by  the
Administrator,  being  careful not  to  bump
the probe nozzle  into the stack  walls when
sampling near  the walls  or when removing
or Inserting  the  probe extension  through
the portholes,  to minimize chance of  ex-
tracting deposited material.
  During  the  test  run,  take  appropriate
steps  (e.g.,  adding  crushed Ice  to  the  im-
pinger ice bath) to maintain  a temperature
of less than 20' C (68* F) at the condenser
outlet: this  will prevent excessive  moisture
losses. Also, periodically check the  level and
zero of the  manometer.
  If the pressure drop across the  filter be-
comes too high, making Isokinetlc  sampling
difficult to  maintain, the filter  may be re-
placed in the midst of a sample run. It Is
recommended that  another complete filter
holder  assembly  be used  rather  than at-
tempting to change the filter Itself. Before a
new filter holder  Is installed, conduct a leak
check, as outlined  In  Section 4.1.4.2. The
total  paniculate  weight  stall include  the
summation of all filter assembly catches.
  A single train shall be used for the entire
sample  run. except  In  cases where  simulta-
neous sampling Is required In two  or more
separate ducts  or at two or more  different
locations within the same duct,  or, In cases
where  equipment  failure  necessitates  a
change of trains.  In all other situations, the
use of two  or more  trains will be subject to
the approval  of  the  Administrator. Note
that when two or more  trains are used,  a
separate analysis of the collected  part leu-
late from  each train  shall  be  performed,
unless identical nozzle sizes were used on all
trains, In which case the paniculate catches
from  the Individual trains may be combined
and a single analysis performed.
  At the end of the sample  run. turn off the
pump, remove the probe extension  assembly
from  the stack, and record  the final dry gas
meter reading. Perform a leak-check, as out-
lined In Section 4.1.4.3. Also,  leak-check the
pltot  lines  a*  described  In Section 3.1 of
Method 2;  the lines  must pass this leak-
check, In order to validate the velocity head
data.
  4.1.6  Calculation of  Percent Isokinetlc.
Calculate percent  Isokinetlc  (see  Section
6.11) to  determine whether another test run
should  be  made. If there  Is difficulty  In
maintaining Isoklnetic rates due to source
conditions, consult  with the Administrator
for possible variance on the Isoklnetic rates.
  4.2  Sample Recovery.  Proper  cleanup
procedure begins as soon as the probe ex-
tension  assembly is removed from the stack
at the end of the sampling period. Allow the
assembly to cool.
  When the assembly can be safely handled.
wipe off all external partlculate matter near
the tip  ol the probe nozzle and place a cap
over it to prevent losing or gaining partlcu-
late matter. Do not cap off the probe tip
tightly  while the sampling train Is cooling
down as this would create  a vacuum In the
filter holder, forcing condenser water back-
ward.
  Before moving th« sample train to  the
cleanup  site, disconnect the  filter holder-
probe nozzle assembly  from the probe ex-
tension; cap the open inlet of the probe ex-
tension. Be careful  not  to  lose any conden-
sat«,  If  present.  Remove the umbilical cord
from the  condenser outlet  and  cap  the
outlet. If a flexible  line  Is used between the
first implnger (or condenser) and the probe
extension, disconnect the line at the probe
extension and let  any  condensed water or
liquid drain into the impingers or condens-
er. Disconnect the probe extension from the
condenser; cap the probe extension outlet.
After wiping off the sillcone grease, cap off
the condenser Inlet. Ground glass stoppers,
plastic caps,  or  serum caps (whichever are
appropriate)  may  be used to  close  these
openings.
  Transfer  both  the  filter  holder-probe
nozzle assembly and  the condenser to the
cleanup area. This area should be clean and
protected from the wind so that the chances
of contaminating or losing the  sample will
be minimized.
  Save  a  portion of the acetone used for
cleanup as a blank. Take 200  ml of this ac-
etone directly from the wash bottle being
used and place It In a glass sample container
labeled  "acetone blank."
  Inspect the train  prior to and during dis-
assembly and note any abnormal conditions.
Treat the samples as follows:
  Container  No. 1.  Carefully remove  the
filter from the filter holder and place It in
Its Identified petri dish container. Use a pair
of tweezers and/or clean disposable surgical
gloves to handle the filter. If It is necessary
to fold the filter, do so such that the partlc-
ulate cake Is inside the fold. Carefully trans-
fer to the petri  dish any particulate matter
and/or  filter  fibers which adhere to  the
filter holder gasket, by using a dry Nylon
bristle brush  and/or a  sharp-edged blade.
Sea] the container.
  Container No  2.  Taking care to  see that
dust on the outside of  the probe nozzle or
other exterior surfaces does not get Into the
sample,  quantitatively  recover partlculate
matter  or any condensate  from the probe
nozzle,  fitting, and front half of the filter
holder by  washing these components with
acetone and placing the wash In a glass con-
tainer. Distilled water may be used Instead
of acetone when approved by the Adminis-
trator and shall be used when specified by
the Administrator; in  these  cases, gave a
water blank  and follow Administrator's  di-
rections on analysis. Perform the acetone
rinses u follows:
  Carefully  remove  the probe nozzle and
clean the inside surface by rinsing with ac-
etone from a wash bottle and brushing with
a Nylon  bristle brnsh. Brush until acetone
rinse shows no visible particles, after which
make a final rinse of the Inside surface with
acetone.
  Brush  and rinse with  acetone the  Inside
parts of the fitting in a similar way until no
visible particles remain.  A funnel  (glass or
polyethylene) may be  used to aid  in  trans-
ferring liquid washes to the container. Rinse
the  brush with acetone  and quantitatively
collect these washings In the sample con-
tainer.   Between   sampling  runs,   keep
brushes clean and protected  from contami-
nation.
  After ensuring that all Joints are  wiped
clean of siilcone grease (If applicable), clean
the  Inside of the front half of the filter
holder by rubbing the surfaces with a Nylon
bristle brush  and  rinsing  with  acetone.
Rinse  each surface three times or more  If
needed to remove visible particulate.  Make
final rinse of the brush and filler holder.
After all  acetone washings and paniculate
matter are collected In the sample contain-
er, tighten the lid on  the sample container
so lhal acetone will  not  leak out when it Is
shipped to the laboratory. Mark the height
of the fluid  level to determine whether or
not  leakage  occurred  during  transport.
Label  the container to clearly Identify  its
contents.
  Container No. 3. if silica gel Is used  in the
condenser system for  moslture conient de-
termination, note the color of the  gel to de-
termine  If  It has been completely  spent;
make a notation of  Its condition. Transfer
the  silica gel back to  its original container
and  seal. A  funnel may make it  easier to
pour the silica gel without spilling,  and a
rubber policeman may be used as  an  aid in
removing the silica gel. It is not necessary to
remove the small amount of dust particles
that may adhere to  the  walls and are diffi-
cult  to remove. Since the gain in weight is to
be used for moisture calculations, do not use
any  water or other  liquids  to transfer the
silica gel. If a balance  Is  available In the
field,  follow the procedure  for  Container
No. 3 under "Analysis."
  Condenser Water. Treat the condenser or
implnger water as follows: make a notation
of any color or film In the liquid catch. Mea-
sure the liquid volume to within ±1  ml by
using a graduated cylinder or, If a balance Is
available, determine  the liquid weight to
within ±0.6  g. Record the total volume or
weight of liquid present. This Information is
required to calculate the moisture content
of the effluent gas. Discard the liquid after
measuring  and recording the  volume  or
weight.
  4.3  Analysis. Record the data required on
the  example sheet  shown In Figure  17-4.
Handle each sample container as follows:
  Container Wo. 1. Leave the contenls In Ihe
shipping container or transfer the  filter and
any  loose partlculate from the sample con-
tainer to a tared glass weighing dish.  Desic-
cate for  24 hours In a desiccator containing
anhydrous calcium sulfate. Weigh to  a con-
stant weight and report the results to the
nearest 0.1 mg. For purposes of this Section.
4.3, Ihe lerm "constant weight" means a dif-
ference of no more than 0.5 mg or 1 percent
of total weight less tare weight, whichever Is
greater, between two consecutive weighings,
with no  less than 6  hours of desiccation
time between weighings.
  Alternatively, the sample may be oven
dried at the average  stack temperature or
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-74
-------
108' C mO' P). whichever U lew, tor J to 3
houn, cooled In the deiiccfttor. Mid weighed
lo » constant weight, unlew otherwise speci-
fied by the AdminUtrrtor. The twtar m»v
lUo opt to oven dry the a&mple »t the «»•
»ge «uck temperature or 106' C (MO' K>,
whichever ti lew. tor 3 to » hou«, *M«h the
tunple, and ute thl*  weight u  *
weight.
Plint.

Oitc.
Run No.
Filter No.
                                     Amount liquid loit during tnniport

                                     Acttont Wink volum«, ml	

                                     Acetone wish volume, ml	
                                     Acetone black concentration, mg/mg (equation 17-4)

                                     Acetone wash blank, mg {equation 17-5)  	
                                       CONTAINER
                                         NUMBER
                                          TOTAL
                         WEIGHT OF PARTICIPATE COLLECTED.
                                        mg
                                                        FINAL WEIGHT
                                     TARE WEIGHT
                                                             Less acetone blank

                                                             Weight of paniculate matter
WEIGHT GAIN

FINAL
INITIAL
LIQUID COLLECTED
TOTAL VOLUME COLLECTED
VOLUME OF LIQUID
WATER COLLECTED
1MPINGER
VOLUME,
ml




SILICA GEL
WEIGHT,
9



g' ml
                                          * CONVERT WEIGHT OF WATER TO VOLUME BY DIVIDING TOTAL WEIGHT
                                            INCREASE BY DENSITY OF WATER dg'mlj.

                                                                         INCREASE, g  . VQLUME WATER_ m|

                                                                            1 g/ml


                                                                Figure 17-4. Analytical data,
                                            Ill-Appendix  A-75
-------
  Container No. 2. Note the level of liquid in
the container  and confirm on the analysis
sheet  whether  or .not  leakage  occurred
during transport. If a noticeable amount of
leakage has occurred, either void the sample
or use methods, subject to the approval of
the Administrator, to correct the final re-
sults. Measure the liquid  In  this container
either volumetrlcally to ±1 ml or gravirae-
trlcally to ±0.5 g. Transfer the contents to a
tared 250-ml beaker and evaporate to dry-
ness at ambient temperature and pressure.
Desiccate for 24 hours and weigh to a con-
stant weight. Report the results to the near-
est 0.1 mg.
  Container No. 3.  This step may be con-
ducted in the  field. Weigh the spent silica
gel (or silica gel  plus implnger) to the near-
est 0.6 g using  a balance.
  "Acetone Blank" Container. Measure ac-
etone in this container either volumetrlcally
or gravlmetrlcally. Transfer the acetone to a
tared 250-ml  beaker and evaporate to dry-
ness at ambient temperature and pressure.
Desiccate for  24 hours and weigh to a con-
stant weight. Report the results to the near-
est 0.1 mg.

  NOTE.—At the option of the tester,  the
contents of Container No. 2  as well as the
acetone blank container may be evaporated
at temperatures higher than  ambient. If
evaporation Is done at an  elevated tempera-
ture, the temperature must be  below the
boiling point of the solvent; also,  to prevent
"bumping," the evaporation process must be
closely supervised, and the contents of the
beaker must  be  swirled occasionally  to
maintain an even temperature.  Use extreme
care, as acetone is highly flammable and
has a low flash point.

  6.  Calibration. Maintain a  laboratory log
of all calibrations.
  5.1  Probe Nozzle. Probe nozzles shall be
calibrated  before  their initial use  in  the
field.  Using   a  micrometer,  measure  the
irulde diameter of the nozzle to the nearest
0.025  mm (0.001 in.).  Make three separate
measurements  using   different  diameters
each  time, and obtain the  average  of the
measurements. The difference between the
high and low numbers shall not exceed 0.1
mm  K0.004 in.).  When  nozzles  become
nicked,  dented, or corroded, they shall be
reshaped,  sharpened,   and   recalibrated
before use. Each nozzle shall be permanent-
ly and uniquely Identified.
  5.2  Pilot Tube. If the pilot tube is placed
In an interference-free arrangement with re-
spect to the other probe assembly compo-
nents, Its baseline (isolated tube) coefficient
shall  be determined as outlined in Section 4
of Method 2. If the probe assembly is not in-
terference-free, the pilot tube assembly co-
efficient shall be determined by calibration,
using methods subject to  the approval  of
the Administrator.
  5.3  Metering  System. Before  its initial
use in the field, the metering system shall
be  calibrated  according to the  procedure
outlined in APTD-0576. Instead of physical-
ly adjusting the dry gas meter dial readings
to correspond to the  wet test meter read-
ings,  calibration  factors  may be used  to
mathematically correct the gas meter dial
readings to the proper values.
  Before calibrating the metering system. It
 Is suggested that a leak-check be  conducted.
 For  metering  systems  having  diaphragm
 pumps,  the  normal  leak-check  procedure
 will not detect  leakages within  the pump.
 For  these cases the  following  leak-check
 procedure is suggested: make a 10-minute
calibration  run at  0.00057 mVmin (0.02
cfm); at the end of the run, take  the differ-
ence of the measured wet test meter and
dry gas meter volumes: divide the difference
by  10. to get  the  leak rate. The leak rate
should  not exceed  0.00057 m'/mln (0.02
cfm).
  After each field use. the calibration of the
metering system shall be  checked by per-
forming three calibration runs at a single,
Intermediate orifice setting (based  on  the
previous field test), with the vacuum set at
the maximum value reached during the test
series. To adjust the vacuum. Insert a valve
between the wet test meter and the Inlet of
the metering system. Calculate the  average
value of the calibration factor. If the cali-
bration has changed by  more  than 5 per-
cent,  recalibrate  the meter  over the  full
range of  orifice  settings, as  outlined  In
APTD-0576.
  Alternative procedures, e.g., using the ori-
fice meter coefficients, may be used, subject
to the approval of the Administrator.
  NOTI.—If the dry gas meter coefficient
values obtained  before  and  after  a  test
series differ by more than 5 percent,  the
test series shall either be voided, or calcula-
tions for the test series shall be performed
using whichever  meter  coefficient  value
(i.e., before or after) gives the lower value of
total sample volume.
  5.4  Temperature Gauges. Use  the proce-
dure In Section 4.3 of Method 2 to calibrate
In-stack temperature gauges. Dial thermom-
eters, such as are used for the dry gas meter
and  condenser outlet, shall be  calibrated
against mercury-ln-glass thermometers.
  5.6  Leak Check  of  Metering  System
Shown In Figure 17-1. That  portion of the
sampling train  from the pump to the orifice
meter should be leak checked prior to initial
use and after each shipment. Leakage after
the pump will  result in less volume being re-
corded than Is actually sampled. The follow-
ing procedure is suggested (see Figure 17-5).
Close the  main  valve on the meter box.
Insert a   one-hole  rubber  stopper  with
rubber tubing attached Into  the  orifice ex-
haust pipe. Disconnect and vent the low side
of the orifice manometer. Close off the low
side orifice tap. Pressurize the system to 13
to 18 cm (5 to 7 In.) water column by blow-
Ing into  the rubber tubing.  Pinch off the
tubing and observe the manometer for one
minute. A loss of pressure on the mano-
meter indicates a leak In the meter box:
leaks, if present, must be corrected.
                                                   Ill-Appendix  A-76
-------
            x
            o
             _
            0)
            s
            E
            n>
            O)
            3
            CT
  5.6  Barometer. Calibrate  against a mer-
cury barometer.
  6. Calculations. Carry out calculations, re-
taining  at  least  one  extra  decimal  figure
beyond that of the acquired data. Round off
figures  after the final calculation.  Other
forms of the equations may be used as long
as they give equivalent results.
  6.1  Nomenclature.
A,, = Cross-sectional area of nozzle, m1 (ft1).
B«=Water vapor In the gas stream, propor-
    tion by volume.
C. = Acetone blank  residue  concentration,
    mg/g.
c,=Concentration of particulale matter In
    stack gas, dry basis, corrected to stan-
    dard conditions, g/dscm (g/dscf).
1-Percent of isoklnetic sampling.
I» = Maximuir.  acceptable  leakage  rate  for
    either a  pretest leak check or for a leak
    check  following a component change;
    equal to 0.00057 m'/min  (0.02 cfm) or 4
    percent  of the  average  sampling rate.
    whichever Is less.
L, = Individual leakage rate observed during
    the leak check conducted prior to  the
    "ilh" component change <1»1. 2, 3 ... n),
    m'/mLn (cfm).
L» = Leakage rate  observed during the post-
    test leak check, mVmin (cfm).
mn = Total amount of paniculate matter col-
    lected, mg.
M.^Molecular  weight of  water. 18.0 g/g-
    mole (18.0 lb/lb-mole).
m. = Mass of residue of acetone  after evapo-
    ration, mg.
P».r-Barometric pressure  at the sampling
    site, mm lit. On. Hg).
P. = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg tin.
    He).
P,ui=Standard absolute pressure,  760  mm
    Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
R = Ideal gas constant. 0.06236  mm Hg-m"/
    •K-g-mole (21.85 in. Hg-ft'/'R-lb-mole).
Tm=Absolute average  dry gas  meter tem-
    perature (see Figure 17-3). *K CR>.
T.=Absolute average stack gas temperature
    (see Figure 17-3). 'K CR).
TM=Standard  absolute temperature. 293'K
    (528'R).
V. = Volume of acetone blank, ml.
V.. = Volume of acetone used in wash. ml.
V,, = Total volume of liquid collected In  Im-
    pingers and silica  gel (see Figure 17-4).
    ml.
Vm = Volume of  gas sample as measured by
    dry gas meter, dcm (dcf).
V.,(.ni = Volume of gas sample measured by
    the dry gas meter, corrected to  standard
    conditions, dscm (dscf).
V^.^i = Volui.ie  of water  vapor In the  gas
    sample,  corrected  to  standard  condi-
    tions, scm (scf).
v.c stack gas velocity,  calculated by Method
    2. Equation  2-9.  using  data  obtained
    from Method 17, m/sec (ft/sec).
W. = Welght of residue In acetone wash. mg.
Y = Dry gas meter calibration coefficient.
aH = Average pressure differential  across
    the orifice meter (see Figure 17-3V  mm
    H,O (in. H,O).
p.-=Denslty  of acetone, mg/ml (see label on
    bottle).
= „•= Density of water. 0.9982 g/ml (0.002201
    Ib/ml).
6 = Total sampling time, mln.
fi,-Sampling time interval, from the begin-
    ning of a run until the first component
    change, min.
fl, = Sampling time  Interval,  between  two
    successive  component changes,  begin-
    ning with the Interval  between the first
    and second changes, min.
Ill-Appendix  A-77
-------
»,-Sampling tlm« Interval, from the final
    component change, until the end of
   the sampling run. mln.
ll.6>8peclflc gnvlty of mercury.
80. Sec/ram.
100-Conversion to percent.
  6.2  Average dry gu meter temperature
and average orifice pressure drop. Bee data
•beet (Figure 17-S).
  4.1  Dry Oas Volume. Correct the sample
volume  measured by the dry gu meter to
standard conditions (20* C. 760 mm Kg or
IT F. 29.82  In. Hc> by using Equation 17-1.
                                           6.6 Acetone Blank Concentration.
   Vm(std) "
                         "bar*
                                AH
                               TJT
                            rstd
                   Pbar + (AH/13.6)
                          Equation 17-1
where:

Ki»0.38(8'  K/mm Hg  for  metric  units;
    17.64* R/ln. Hg for English unite.
  NOTE.— Equation 17-1 can be used as writ-
ten unless the leakage rate observed during
any of the mandatory leak checks (i.e.. the
pott-test leak check or leak checks conduct-
ed prior to component changes) exceeds L..
If L, or L, exceeds L.. Equation 17-1 must be
modified as follows:
  (a)  Case I. No  component changes made
during sampling  run. In this case,  replace
V. in Equation 17-1 with the expression:
  (b) Case  II.  One  or more component
 changes made during the sampling run. In
 this case, replace V. in Equation 17-1 by the
 expression:
        
                                          g/lt>	 g/ra-	 35.31
                                            6.11  Isoklnetlc Variation.
                                            6.11.1  Calculation from Raw Data.
                                              100 T  'KV
                                                      31c
                                                                    Equation 17-7
                                          where:

                                          K,-0.003464  mm Hg-mVml-'K  for metric
                                              units; 0.002869 in. Hg-ft'/ml-'R for Eng-
                                              lish units.
                                    V
                                            6.11.2 Calculation
                                          Values.
                                                                from   Intermediate
  1. Addendum to Specifications for Inciner-
ator Testing at Federal  Facilities.  PHS,
NCAPC. December 6, 1967.
  2. Martin, Robert M., Construction Details
of Isoklnetlc Source-Sampling Equipment.
Environmental   Protection  Agency.  Re-
search Triangle Park,  N.C. APTD-0581.
April, 1971.
  3. Rom, Jerome J., Maintenance, Calibra-
tion,  and Operation of Isoklnetlc Source-
Sampling Equipment. Environmental  Pro-
tection  Agency. Research  Triangle  Park,
N.C. APTD-0576. March, 1972.
  4. Smith, W. 8., R. T. Shigehara, and W.
F. Todd. A  Method of  Interpreting Stack
Sampling Data. Paper Presented at the 63rd
Annual Meeting of  the Air  Pollution  Con-
trol Association, St. Louts. Mo. June 14-19,
1970.
  6. Smith. W. 8., et al.. Stack Oas Sampling
Improved and Simplified with New Equip-
ment. APCA Paper No. 67-119.1967.
  6. Specifications for Incinerator Testing at
Federal Facilities. PHS, NCAPC. 1967.
  7.  Shigehara, R.  T..  Adjustments in the
EPA Nomograph lor Different  Pilot Tube
Coefficients  and Dry  Molecular Weights.
Stack Sampling News 2:4-11. October.  1974.
  8. Vollaro, R. P., A Survey  of Commercial-
ly Available Instrumentation for the  Mea-
surement of Low-Range Oas Velocities. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Emission
Measurement Branch.   Research Triangle
Park,  N.C.  November.  1976 (unpublished
paper).
  9. Annual  Book of ASTM Standards. Part
26. Gaseous Fuels;  Coal and Coke; Atmo-
spheric Analysis. American Society for Test-
ing  and  Materials.  Philadelphia,  Pa.  1874.
pp. 617-622.
  10. Vollaro. R. F., Recommended Proce-
dure for Sample Traverses in Ducts Smaller
than 12  Inches in  Dlamet/"- G'.o. Environ-
mental Protection  Ap;ncy.  Emission  Mea-
surement Branch. .Research  Triangle Park,
N.C. November, )-»76.


(Sec. 114. Clean Air Art U amended (41
U.S.C. 7414)).68'83
 and substitute only for those leakage rates
 (I* or UJ which exceed L..
  •.4 Volume of water vapor.
                                                     TV      P
                                               1 .    s VstoT std
                                                    itd
                                                                          ws'
   Vw(std)  "  Vlc
                                    1C
                         Equation 17-2
where:
Ki-0.001333 m'/ml for metric units: 0.04707
    ft'/ml for English units.
  •.5  Moisture Content.


        B         Vttd)
              Vstd) * vw(»td)

                          aquation 17-3
                                                          T  V
                                                           s  Vstd
                                                                     Equation 17-8
                                           where:

                                           K.-4.320 for metric units; 0.09450 for Eng-
                                              lish units.
                                             6.12 Acceptable  Results.  If  90  percent
                                           010110 percent, the results are acceptable. If
                                           the remits arc low  in  comparison to the
                                           itbndarc! and  !  u beyond the  acceptable
                                           range, or. If I Is less than 90 percent, the Ad-
                                           ministrator may opt to accept the results.
                                           Use Citation  4 In Section 7 to  make  Judg-
                                           ment*. Otherwise, reject the result* and
                                           repeat the test.
                                             7. Bibliography.
                                                    Ill-Appendix  A-78
-------
                                         18
  APPENDIX B—PJ^FORKANO: SPECIFICATIONS

  Performance SpeclSciitio:'. i— Performance
s::>ecl!icatic:::;  and  specification  test  proce-
dures for traasmlssomctcr systems  for con-
tinuous measurement of the opacity of
stack emissions   23
  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
tlie  principle  of tnr.ismissoinetry which Is a
direct  measurement  of the  attenuation  cf
visible  radiation   (opacity)   by paniculate
ir-.atter  in a stack effluent. Llqht having spe-
ciic  spectral characteristics is projected from
a lamp  across the stack of  r. 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 defined  as  the
opacity of the emission.  Transparent stack
emissions  thtit do  not  attenuate  light will
have n.  transmlttnnce of 100 or an opacity of
0. Opaque stack emissions that, attenuate  all
of the visible lii:ht  will have a transmittar.ee
of 0 or  an opacity of 100 percent. The trans-
mlssometer is evaluated by  use of neutral
density niters ;o determine  the precision of
the  cotitir.uous 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  ;;•,  applicable to  the continuous
monitoring systems specified in the subparts
for  measuring opacity cf  emissions. Specifi-
cations for continuous  measurement of vis-
ible emissions nrs  rriv.?r. In  terms of  design.
performance, and   installation  parameters.
These specifications contain test procedures.
installation requirements, and data compu-
tation  procedures for evaJuating the accept-
ability  of the continuous monitoring systems
subject to approval by  the Administrator.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Calibrated Filters. Optical filters with
neutral  spectra:  characteristics and  known
optical  densities to visible  llpht or  screens
known  to produce  speciiied optical densities.
CaJlbrated filters with accuracies certified by
the  manufacturer  to  within  :±3  percent
opacitv  shall bf used.  Filters required are
low. mid.  and h!(:h-r.:nj;e niters with nom-
inal optical  densities  as  follows  when  the
transimssometer is spr.nned  at opacity levels
speclfied  by  applicable pubparts:
                 CclibrM<-d f:ll
    Span vnliir             jifi
 (ivrmit opfifitv)
                  Low.
                              oplical detuil
                             en: opacity in
                                     Hirh-
                   0.1 (IK!   0.: f.ITi  (1.3
70
SO
'•0
HO
                             .4 C«>)
                                       (6".
  It is  recommended that filter calibrations
bo checked with u wetl-collimattd photo;::c
trunsmfssomeler of known  linearity prior ;o
use. The  filters Bhal!  be of  sufficient  MM
to HHenuati1  the entire iighi  beam of Hie
transmissc meter.
  2.? Data Recorder.  Analog chart  recc-.-dc.-r
or other suitable device will: input voltage
raii;;e  compatible with  the  r.nMyror ?yf'.r-i;i
output.  The  resolution of the  recorder's
data output shall be sufficient to allow ccr.~.-
pletlor. of  the  tesl proredtirc; within  this
spec.ficatlon. 23
  2.3 Opacity measurement System. An In-
slack   transmissometer  (folded  or  single
path)  with the optical  tics!e;:i 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'ol pollutant opacity in a source effluent.
Continuous monitoring systems  consist  of
major subsystems as follows:
  3.1.1 Sampling Interface. The portion of a
continuous monitoring system  for opacity
that protects  the analyzer from the effuent.
  3.1.2 Analyzer. That portion of  the  con-
tinuous monitoring system wlilch senses the
pollutant and generates a signal output that
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  Transmlssometer. The .portions  of  si
continuous monitoring system  for opacity
that Include the sampling Interface and the
analyzer.
  3.3  Span. The value of opacity at which
the continuous  monitoring  system  Is set  to
produce the maximum data display output.
The span shall be set at an opacity specified
In each applicable subpart.
  3.4  Calibration Error. The difference be-
tween  the opacity  reading  Indicated by the
continuous  monitoring  system,  ana  the
known values of a •series of test standards.
For this  method  the  test standards are  a
series of calibrated optical  filters or screens.
  3.5  Zero D.-tft. 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 is, zero.
  3.6  Calibration Drift. The change in the
continuous monitoring system output  over
a stated period of time of norm:tl continuous
operation when  the pollutant concentration
at the time of the measurements Is the same
known upscale value.
  3.7  System  Response. Tlic  t!me  interval
from  a step change i-n opacity in the stack
at tho Input  to the  continuous  monitoring
system  to the time at which 95 percent of
the corresponding  filial 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
ir.:muari!)(; system  is  expected  to operate
wUhiu  certain  performance  specifications
without   unscheduled  maintenance, repair.
or adjustment.
  :1 9 Transmitumce. The fraction of incident
lit;lit  thai is transmitted  through an optical
medium of interest.
  3.10 Opacity. The fraction of incident liyht
lh:il Is attenuated  by an optical medium of
In'.crcs;. Opacity (Ol  and transmittuncc CD
are related us follows:
                 O.I   T
  lj.ll  Optical Density. A logarithmic meas-
ure of the amount of  light that it attenuated
by  nn optical medium of  Interest. Optical
density (D)  is related  to the transmittanee
and opacity as fellows:
  D-: -lop..T
  D.- --log!., (1-0)
  3.12 Peak  Optical  Response.  The  wave-
length of maximum'sensitivity.of the Instru-
ment.
  3.13 Mean  Spectral Respoti.se. The wave-
limp th  which bisects the total  area  under
the cv.rve obtained  pursuant  to paragraph
9.2.1.
  3 14 Angle of  View. The maximum (total)
angle  of  radiation detection by the photo-
detector assembly of  the analyv.er.
  3.15 Anglo  of  Projection. The maximum
 (total) angle that contains 05 percent  of
the radiation projected from the lamp assem-
bly ol the anahv.cr.
  3.16 Pathlength.  The depth  of effluent In
the light beam 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
transmissometer. Two pathlengths are refer-
enced by this specification:
  3.16.1 Monitor  Pathlength. The depth of
effluent at the Installed location of the con-
tinuous monitoring system.
  3.16.2 Emission Outlet  Pathlength. Trie
depth of effluent at the location emissions are
released to the atmosphere.
  4. Installation Specification.
  4.1  Location. The transmissometer must
be located  across a section of duct or stack
that will provide a participate matter flow
through  the  optical volume of the trans-
missometer that Is representative of the pr.r-
tlculate matter  flow  through  the duct  or
stack.  It is  recommended  that  the monitor
pathlength or depth of effluent for the trans-
missometer  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
flow through  the duct or  stack.
  4.1.1 The  transmissometer 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  transmissometer 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 transmissometer 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 tr.insmlssometer is lo-
cated  In a  section  of  duct ov  stack where
a representative paniculate matter distribu-
tion exists   The determination  sh.Ul  be ac-
complished by examining tb.e opacity proP.U-
«T the effluent at n  scries of positions across
tho duct or stacX while the plant Is In oper-
ntlon ut m.xximum or reduced operating rates
or by other  tests  acceptable to  the Adminis-
trator  .
  4 ^  Slotted Tube.  Installations that  require
the use of a  slutted tube shii'l  use a  slotted
;u')o  of sulliciont sixe and blackness so  as
not to interfere wl'.h tho free How of i-!!luon;
thr.iugh  the  entire optical volume  of  tho
transiulssoinpi.er  ur rollout light into  tho
transmissoinetor  photude:t:r*or  Iilght  ro-
llotnions id.-iy be  prevented by  using black-
ened  bailies within  the slotted  tube  Hi pre-
vent '.he lur.ip iv.dsiition from unpiu;4irg upon
the tube w.ills.  IA  restricting  the  ane.li1  of
projection of i!io  !ij;ht  and the  aiiglo  ol view
of the phoUHietccior assembly   to less tln:i
tho cros.s-sectioual  area of the  slot'.cd lube.
or by other  ino'.liocis 'Iho owner or oporalor
must  show  that  Iho immifiiriuror  of  the
mo:ii:ori:ii;  .system  has   used  appropriate
methods to  mitiiinixil1  lifjlu  retiectu'iis  im
sysu-ms uslm: slotted tubes.
  •!..i  Data Recorder Output. Tho continuous
mor.itoring  sys'.em  output shall penult ex-
panded display  of  the span  opacity on  a
standard 0  to 100  percent scale. .Sinec all
opacity standards are  based on the opacity
of tiic diluent exhausted to the atmosphere.
tho system ouiput  shall  ho billed upon  the
omission outlet p;ti hlei:i,r: h am! permanent!*'
iTcarded. For  aH'ected facilities  whoso moni-
tor pathlcni;th is  dilieronl from  the facility's
omission outlet ptahlength. a siraph shall bo
provided with the  Installation   to show  the
relationships between the continuous moni-
toring system recorded opacity based upon
the emission outlet pathlcngth and the opac-
ity  of  the  ellHicnt  at the  analyxer location
(monitor piUhiength).  Tests  tor measure-
ment  of opacity  that  are  required  by this
performance specification are based upon the
                                                    Ill-Appendix  B-l
-------
monitor pathlength. The graph  necessary to
convert  the data  recorder  output to  the
monitor pathlength-basls shall be established
;xs follows:

   log(l-(U=U,/l.) log (1-0..)
where:
  O.-the opacity of the effluent based upon
        1,-
  0..-=the opacity of the effluent based upon

  l^the'cmlsslon outlet pathicngth.
  1,= the monitor pathlength.

  5. Optical Design Specifications.
  The optical design specifications  set forth
in Section 6.1  shall be met In  order  for  a
measurement  system  to  comply with  the
requirements of this method.
  6. Determination of Conformnncc with De-
sign Specifications.
  C.I The continuous monitoring system for
measurement  of opacity shall  be" demon-
strated  to conform to the design specifica-
tions set forth as follows:
  C.t.l   Peak Spectra! Response. The peak
spectral response  of the continuous  moni-
toring systems  shall occur between 500  nm
and 600 nm. Response at any wavelength be-
low 400 nm or  above  700  nm shall be  less
than  10 percent of the peak  response  of the
continuous monitoring system.
  6.1.2   Mean Spectral Response. The  mean
spectral response of the continuous  monitor-
ing system shall occur between 500 nm and
GOO nm.
  6.1.3 Angle of View. The total angle of view
shall be no greater than 5 degrees.
  6.1.4  Angle of Projection. The total  angle
of projection shall be no greater  tUan  5  de-
ijri'ss.
   6.2  Concformance  with  the requirements
 of section 6.1  may  be demonstrated by the
 owner or operator of the affected facility  by
 testing each analyzer or by  obtaining a cer-
 tificate of conformance from the Instrument
 manufacturer.  The certificate  must  certify
 that  at least one analyzer from each month's
 production was tested and satisfactorily met
 all applicable requirements. The  certificate
 must state that the first  analyzer randomly
 sampled  met all  requirements  of  paragraph
 6 of this specification. It any of the require-
 ments  were not met. the  certificate must
 show that the  entire month's analyzer pro-
 duction was resampled according to the  mili-
 tary   standard  105D  sampling  procedure
 (MIL-8TD-105D) Inspection level II; was re-
 Ussted  for  each of the applicable require-
 ments  under paragraph 6 of this specifica-
 tion; and was  determined to be acceptable
 under MfL-STD-105D procedures. The certifi-
 cate  of  conformance must show the  results
 of  each  test  performed  lor the  analyzers
 sampled  during the month  the analyzer be-
 ing Installed  was produced. 57
   (53 The general test procedures to  be fqj-
 lowed to demonstrate conformance with  Sec-
 tion  6  requirements  are  given  as follows:
 (These procedures will not be applicable  to
 all designs  and will require modification In
 some cases. Where analyzer  and optical de-
 sign Is certified by the manufacturer to con-
 lorm with the  angle ot view  or angle ot  pro-
 jection  specifications,  the  respective  pro-
 cedures may be omitted.)
   6.3.1  spectral  Response. Obtain spectral
 data for detector, lamp, and filter components
 used  In the measurement system from their
 respective manufacturers.
   0 3.2 Angle of View. Set the  received up
 as specified by the manufacturer. Draw an
 arc with  radius of 3 meters.  Measure  the re-
 ceiver  response to a small (less than   3
 centimeters) non-directional light source at
 5-centlmeter Intervals on the arc for 26 centi-
 meters on either side of the  detector center-
 line.  Repeat the test In the vertical direction.
   8.3.3 Angle of Projection. Set the projector
 up as specified by the manufacturer. Draw
 an nrc with radius of 3 meters. Using a small
 photoelectric light detector (less than   3
 centimeters), measure the light Intensity at
 6-ccntlmctcr  Intervals  on  the  arc  for 26
 centimeters on either side of the light source
centerllne of projection. Repeat the test in
the vertical direction.
  7. Continuous  Monitoring  System  Per-
formance Specifications.
  The  continuous monitoring  system shall
meet the performance specifications in Table
1-1 to be considered acceptable under this
  TANI.V. 1-1. — /Vr/nniiftiirr xprri/i"rifiri».»
          Paramtlir
n. . r.ilibratiort error	
 h Zero drift CM hi		
r.C:iH>>rntl nn <\rlll i'il h;	
(1. Hi'sponse time	
e. Operational lest period	
                              Specifications
  • Kxpsrssr-'l ns sum of ;il>=ohiU' ni.-an value am! Il'.c
!>.*) pel confidence inti-rvn! of a series of '.esis.

  8. Performance  Specification  Test Proce-
dures. The following test procedures shall be
used to determine conformance with the re-
quirements of paragraph 7:
  8.1  Calibration Error and  Response Time
Test. These tests are to be performed prior to
Installation of the system on the stack and
may be performed at the  affected facility or
at other locations provided that proper notifi-
cation Is given. Set  up  and calibrate  the
measurement  system as specified by  the
nmmifacturer's written Instructions for the
monitor  pathlength to be used  In the In-
stallation. Span the analyzer  as specified In
applicable subparts.
  8.1.1 Calibration Error Test. Insert a series
of calibration filters In the  transmlssometer
path at the midpoint. A  minimum of three
calibration  filters  (low.  mid.   and  high-
range) selected In accordance with the table
under paragraph 2.1  and calibrated within
3 percent must be used. Make a total of five
nonconsecutlve readings  for  each  filter.
Record  the  measurement  system  output
readings in percent opacKy.  (See Figure 1-1.)
  8.1.2 "System  Response  T;st.  Insert  the
high-range  filter  In  the  transmissometer
path five times and record the time required
for the system  to respond  to 95  percent of
final zero and  high-range filter values. (See
Figure 1-2.)
  8.2 Pleld'Test for Zero  Drift and Calibra-
tion. Drift. Install the continuous monitoring
system on the affected facility and perform
the following alignments:
  8.2.1 Preliminary Alignments.  AS soon as
possible  after  installation and  ouce a year
thereafter when the facility Is not in opera-
tion, perform the  following optical and zero
alignments:
  8.2.1.1  Optical Alignment. Align the light
beam from the trausmlssoraeter upon the op-
tical surfaces located across the effluent (i.e..
the rctroflector or photodetector as applica-
ble) in accordance with the manufacturer's
Instructions.
  8.2.1.2 Zero Alignment. After the transmis-
someter  has  been optically aligned and the
transmlssometer mounting is mechanically
stable  (i.e.. no movement of the  mounting
cVue to thermal con traction of,  the stack.
duct, etc.) and a clean stack condition has
been  determined  by a steady  zero opacity
condition, perform the zero alignment. This
alignment is performed by balancing the con-
tinuous monitor system response so that any
simulated zero check coincides with an  ac-
tual zero check performed  across the moni-
tor pathlength of the clean stack.
  8.2.1.3 Spr.n. Span the continuous monitor-
ing system at the  opacity  specified In sub-
parts n:id offset the  zero setting  at least 10
percent ol span so that negative drift can be
quantified.
  8.2.2. Final  Alignments. After the prelimi-
nary alignments have been completed and the
affected  facility has  been started up and
reaches  normal operating  temperature,  re-
check  ;lie optical  alignment in  accordance
wilh 8.2.1.1 ot  this specification, If the align-
ment has shifted, realign the optics, record
any detectable shift In the opacity measured
by the system that can be attributed to the
optical realignment, and notify the Admin-
istrator.  This condition  may not be objec-
tionable  if the aflected facility operates wah-
in a fairly constant and adequately narrov;
range of  operating temperatures that  does
not  produce  significant  shifts  In optkn!
alignment during normal  operation c!  the
faculty. Under circumstances where the facil-
ity  operations  produce fluctuations in  the
effluent gas temperature that result in  Blg-
n'.ficnnt  misalignments,  the  Administrator
may require improved mounting structures or
another location for installation of the trans-
mlssometer.
  8.2.3 Conditioning Period.  After  complet-
ing the post-startup alignments,  operate the
system for an initial  168-hour conditioning
period In a  normal operational manner.
  8.2.4 Operational Test Period.  After com-
pleting the  conditioning period, operate the
system for an additional 168-hour period re-
taining the zero offset. The system shall mon-
Itoi-  the  source  effluent at  all times except
when being  zeroed or calibrated.  At 24-hour
Intervals the zero and span shall be checked
according to the manufncturcr's Instructions.
Minimum procedures  used, shall provide  a
system check of the analyzer Internal mirrors
and  all  electronic circuitry  including  the
lamp acd photodetector assembly and shall
Include a procedure  for producing ft simu-
lated zero opacity condition and  a simulated
upscale (span) opacity condition ns  viewed
by the receiver.  The manufacturer's written
Instructions may be used providing that they
equal or exceed these minimum  procedures.
Zero and span the transmlssometer. clean all
optical surfaces exposed to the effluent, rea-
lign optics,  and make any necessary adjust-
ments to the calibration ot the system dally.
These zero and  calibration  adjustments and
optical realignments  are allowed only at 24-
hour Intervals or at such shorter Intervals as
the manufacturer's written instructions spec-
ify.  Automatic   corrections  made  by  the
measurement system without operator inter-
vention  are allowable at any time. The mag-
nitude of any zero or span drift adjustment.?
shall be recorded. During  this 168-hour op-
erational test period, record the following at
24-hour  intervals: (a) the zero reading  and
span readings after the system is calibrated
(these readings should be set at  the came
value at  the beginning of each 24-hour pe-
riod);, (b)  the  zero  reading after each 24
hours of operation, but before cleaning  and
adjustment; and (c)  t*e  scan readint! after
cleaning  and zero edlustmer.t,  but before
span adlustment. (See Flsure 1-3.)
  8. Calculation. Data Analysis, and Report-
Ing.
  9.1 Procedure for Determination ol Mean
Values and Confidence Intervals.
  9.1.1 The  mean value of the data set is cal-
culated  according to equation  1-1.
                      '"'     Equation 1-1
where x..-— absolute value of the individual
measurements.

   £ = sum of the individual values.
   x=mean value, and         ..
   n = number of data points.

   0.1.2  The  95  percent confidence' interval
(two-sided)  is calculated according to equa-
tion 1-2:
            nyn- 1
•vvhrrc
    £x
    t
  C.I
                             Equation 1-2
            m of all dnta points,
      t;5 = t, — o/2, and
      .«s = 95  percent  confidence  interval
          estimate  of the  average  mean
          value.
  The values  In this table are  already cor-
rected for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal
to the number of samples as data points.
      Ill-Appendix   B-2
-------
              Values for '.37.5
*>
3

5

7

9

12 TO"'
4 3TQ
3. 15C
2 776
1 571
2 447
2.355
1300

10 	
11 ..
1'.' 	
13 	
14 	
15 	
10 	


i T,"
2. 22S
	 2. -:ii
° 17^
	 2 . ]M
	 2 145
	 2.131


  92 Data Analysis and Reporting.
  9.2.1  Spectral  Response.   Combine  the
spectral  data obtained in accordance with
paragraph 6.3.1  to deve'.ap the effective spec-
tral response curve of the transmissometer.
P.eport  the wavelength at which  the peak
response occurs, the wavelength at which the
mean response  occurs, and  the  maximum
response  at  any wavelength  below 400 nm
and above 700 nm  expressed  as a percentage
     of the peak response as required under para-
     graph C.2.
       9.2/2 Angle of View. Using the c!Ma. obta!n?d
     In accordance with piraerraph G.3 2. calculate
     the response of the receiver as a function of
     vieu-ing angle In the horizontal  and  vertical
     directions  (26  cent'.meters  of  arc  with  a
     radius o! 3 meters  equal  5  decrees). Rencrc
     relative angle of view curves as required un-
     der p&rafcrapn 6.2.
       9.2.3 Angle of  Projection. Using  the data
     obtained In accordance with paragraph 6.3.3.
     calculate the  response of the photoelectric
     detector as a function of projection anisic- in
     the horizontal and vertical dtrectians. Henort
     relative angle of projectior. curves «s requ:rt-d
     under paragraph G.2.
       9.2.4 Calibration Error. Uslr.p the data fro::i
     paragraph  S.I  (Figure  1-1). subtract  the
     known filter opacity value  from  the va'.ue.
     shown by the measurement  system for e.ich
     of the 15 readings. Calculate  the mean  and
     95 percent confidence tntorvn) of  the five dif-
     ferent values at each test filter value accord-
Low M1d
Range % opacity Range 5 opacity
Span Value % opacity

High
Range ' opacity


            Calibrated  Filter
Analyzer Reading
   % Opacity
Differences
 % Opacity
 n
 u
 15.
 Mean difference

 Confidence interval


 Calibration error =• Mean Difference   + C.I.
                                                             Low
                                                                      Hid
                                     High
  Low, mid or high range
 >
 'Calibration filter opacity  -  analyzer reading
  Absolute value
                    Figure 1-1,   Calibrator. Error Test
                        ir.r: to equations 1-1 and 1-2. Report the sum
                        of'the absolute  mean difference and  the 95
                        percent  cor.fideucc Interval for each  of the
                        three test Rlteis,
                       L
  P2.5  2ero  Drift  Us::ir;  the zero opacity
values :ne.is'.:rec every 2-1  hours during the
fu-'.d left  tn.-i.nuzraph S."}.  cr.lou'.av the dll-
ft'rer.cer bef.veei: the ;~e:o point rtfti.'r c!e:.:;-
:r.i:. p.h,:::i:ir. and adjustment, and the 1'ern
vai-.ie 2-; hour;:  Liter n:s:  prior to  clf.-.:'.:i:~.
iiiiimi".!.-.  r;i:cl   i.c'.justmetit   Calculate  :hc
m!':i:: :•&':'.:,:  o:"  :lie>e po:::us  a:;d the rnf:i-
riciiti: intcrv.-.; x:?::::: eci:.-it:o:-.:: 1-1  ar.d  ;-.'.
H'.-por-  thf s-.im o:' t'r.e r.Lvo'.ute Mier-.r. v;-.:ue
(if.d the 9.i percer.l ccniitlfnrr !:i'U'rv:;l
  F'J.6  Cahhraf.cn  Drift.  Us'.nj:  the  r;;:.::
vr.lus' measure:: every  '.'•;  hr\:rr durir.n t'-.o
::elri  test, i-nli-ui.-.te  tin- difference^ hr>-\vee:-.
                       :::Vi'rva! L;.si:ii: equations )-..; RTIQ 1-2. Ki\v-.>-.-i
                       t.lln 5:jr;' of t.ht1 jih-::!;;:o niP^i?: vaJur ftr.c i^^1
                       en::',;ier.re iiiter'.Ti!
                         SV2." Re?po:; = e Time. U^lnp the dr.ta  from
                       |>:iraRrr>ph  8.1. chlculate the  time  inierval
                       !rr>::i filter ltifpr;!o:5 t.i ;T) percent of the T.:::i;
                       s'.i'.blo  vrilvjo  for  >\'.'> •l:;ytCaU'  imd citHvi^c.^r
                       inverses  Report the nn-a:'.  of the 10 upFcnlc
                       n;id riownscalc test times.
                         9^.8 Operational Test I'erlod. Durlnfr ;!«•
                       IGB-hour  O()erationiil  t«?t.  period, the  co:1.-
                       tlRUous monitorial! system  Rhnll not require
                       ar.y corrective mr.liiteriarice. repair, replace-
                       ment, or iidjuftmcnt other  than thn;  r'.er.vly
                       spccifleti  hi-  required in the manufiu-turerV
                       operation  and ir.nintci'.rince manuals as rou-
                       tine ant! expected  dvirinp ;i  o:'.e.-wt'd;  ;>or:o;i.
                       If ti:e cr.rit:nxious monitorinr; Gyst^rn !.'• o;>er-
                       ntc(\  within  the  sneciliEti  per:'orni:oicc  pa-
                       rameters   nnd tioer  iiot  require  coiTectivt:
                       maiiit?nniico. j-ep:i!r. rephicement. or arilurl-
                       mortt  other  thai)  as specified  ftho\pe  durli.p
                       tht>  Ifi8-hour test  period,  the.  operational
                       U"",L period shall have been  sMrcrssfully  ce.n-
                       cluded. V*nl!urp of the  cor.tinuous morutor-
                       in£ system to meet these requirements f.h:;!!
                       cnil  for u. repetition  of  the li'B-hour  test
                       period. Portions of the uvts v.hich were SM-
                       isfactorily comi)It'ted need  not he ronea'e;i
                       P'Hlliirc to meet  any perf»rnin:ioi>  Kpeciiie.i-
                       tlon(s) shall  cp.ll  for  a repetition  of  the
                       one-week  onevational  test  period  unrt  !!.:u.
                       specific  portion  of  the  tests  required  by
                       pnrnK'rapfi 8 related to demonstrntlni; com-
                       pliance with,  the  failed specification.  All
                       maintenance  find ndluslirit'nts required sh.il!
                       be  recorded.  Output readings  shal!  be  re-
                       corded before and after all adjustments.
                       10. References.
                        10.1  "Exoerlmental Statistics." Department
                      of Commerce. National Bureau of Standards
                       Handbook PI,  1963.  pp. 3-31,  paragraphs
                       3-3.1.4.
                        10.2  "Performance Specifications  for fita-
                      tlonary-Source Monitortne Systems for Gases
                      and Visible Emissions," Environmental Pro-
                      tection Agency.  Research  Triangle  Park.
                      N.C.. EPA-650/2-74-013. January 1974.
                                                    Ill-Appendix   B-3
-------
   Zero Setting

   Span Setting ,
(5« paragraph 8.2.1)    Date of Test
   Oat?     Zero RcMlruj                           Span Seeding
   and     (Before clpgning    Zero Or(ft   (Aftrr cleanly jnd jcro adjustment
   Tin*    and adji/jtment)       UZero)       liut btforc span adjustment)
                                               Calibration
                                                 Drift
                                                (4$pan)
   Zero Drift • Mean Zero Drift*

   Calibration Drift • Mean Span Drift'
              _ » CJ (Zero) 	

                    + CI (Span)
    Abiolule value
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION 2—PERFORMANCE
  SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIFICATION TF.ST TOO-
  CEDURES FOR  MONITORS OP  SO; AND  NOx
  FROM STATIONARY SOURCES

  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. The concentration of sulfur
dioxide or oxides of nitrogen pollutants in
stack emissions Is measured by  a continu-
ously operating emission measurement sys-
tem. Concurrent with operation of the  con-
tinuous  monitoring system,  the pollutant
concentrations  are also measured with refer-
ence methods (Appendix A).  An average of
the continuous monitoring system  data Is
computed for each reference method testing
period and compared to  determine the  rela-
tive  accuracy of the continuous  monitoring
system. Other tests of  the continuous  mon-
itoring system  are also performed to deter-
mine calibration error,  drift, and  response
characteristics  of the system.
  1.2  Applicability. This  performance  spec-
ification  Is applicable to  evaluation  of  con-
tinuous monitoring systems for measurement
of nitrogen  oxides  or  sulfur  dioxide pollu-
tants. These specifications contain test pro-
cedures,  installation requirement!!, and  data
computation  procedures  for evaluating the
acceptability  of the continuous  monitoring
systems.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Calibration Gas Mixtures.  Mixtures of
known concentrations  of pollutant gas  in a
diluent gas shall be prepared.  The pollutant
gas shall be sulfur dioxide or the appropriate
oxlde(s)  of nitrogen specified by paragraph
6 and within subparts.  For sulfur dioxide gas
mixtures, the diluent gas may be air or nitro-
gen.  For  nitric oxide (NO) gas mixtures, the
diluent gas shall be oxygen-free  «10 ppm)
nitrogen, and for nitrogen dioxide (NO.) gas
mixtures the diluent gas shall be air. Concen-
trations  of approximately 50 percent and 90
percent of span are required. The 90 percent
gas mixture Is  used to set and to check the
span and is referred to as the span gas.
  2.2  Zero Oas. A gas certified  by the manu-
facturer  to contain leas  than  1  ppm of the
pollutant gas  or ambient air  may  be  used.
                    2.3 Equipment for measurement of the pol-
                  lutant gas concentration using the reference
                  method  specified in the applicable standard.
                    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 specifi-
                  cation.
                    2.5 Continuous monitoring system for SO.
                  or NOv pollutants as applicable.
                    3. Definitions.
                    3.1  Continuous  Monitoring  System. The
                  total equipment required for the determina-
                  tion  of  ft pollutant gas concentration  In  a
                  source effluent. Continuous monitoring sys-
                  tems consist of major  subsystems as follows-
                    3.1.1 Sampling Interface-  That portion of
                  an extractive continuous monitoring system
                  that performs one or  more of the following
                  operations: acquisition, transportation, and
                  conditioning of a sample of the source efflu-
                  ent or that portion of an in-situ continuous
                  monitoring system that protects the analyzer
                  from the effluent.
                    3.1.2 Analyser—That  portion  of  the  con-
                  tinuous monitoring system which senses the
                  pollutant gas and generates a signal output
                  that is a function of  the pollutant concen-
                  tration.
                    3.1.3 Data Recorder—That portion of the
                  continuous monitoring system that provides
                  a permanent record of the output signal in
                  terms of concentration units.
                    3.2' Span. The value of  pollutant concen-
                  tration  at  which  the  continuous monitor-
                  ing system Is set to produce the maximum
                  data display output. The span  shall  be set
                  at the concentration specified in each appli-
                  cable subpart.
                    3.3  Accuracy  (Relative). The degree  of
                  correctness  with  which  the  continuous
                  monitoring system yields the  value of gas
                  concentration  of n sample relative to  the
                  value given by a defined  reference method.
                  This accuracy  is expressed in terms of  error.
                  which is the difference between the paired
                  concentration  measurements expressed as  a
                  percentage of  the mean reference value
    3.4 Calibration  Error. The difference be-
   tween  the  pollutant  concentration  Indi-
   cated by the continuous  monitoring system
   and the Known  concentration of  the  test
   iro.s mixture.
    3.5 7:cm  Drift. The change in the continu-
   ous  monitoring system  output over a stated
   period of time of  normal continuous opera-
   tion when  the pollutant concentration at
   the time for the measurements is zero.
    3.fi Calibration  Drift. The change in the
   continuous monitoring system output over
   a stat"d time period of normal  continuous
   operations  when  the pollutant  concentra-
   tion at  the time of the  measurements  is the
   .same known upscale value.
    3.7 Response  Time.  The  time  interval
   from a  step change  in pollutant  concentra-
   tion at  the input to the  continuous moni-
   toring system to  the time at which 95 per-
   cent of the  corresponding  final  value is
   reached  as  displayed  .  path (in-situ
 systems)  must be corroci.cd M.2.1 r.nrt 4 2.2)
 so as to bo representative of the total emis-
 sions  from  the  affected  facility.  Conform-
 ance  with this requirement may be accom-
 plished in cither of the  following ways:
   4.2.1 Installation of  a diluent continuous
 ino.iltoring system  (O. or CO. as applicable)
 In  accordance with  the  procedures  under
 paragraph 42 of Performance Specification
 .! of  this appendix.  If the pollutant  and
 diluent monitoring  systems are  not of the
 same  type (both extractive or both  In-sltu).
 the extractive system must  use a multipoint
 probe.
   4 2.2 Installation   of  extractive  pollutant
 monitoring systems using multipoint sam-
 pling  probes or in-situ  pollutant  monitoring
 systems that  sample or view emissions which
 are consistently representative of  the total
emissions  for  the entire cross  eectlon. The
Administrator may  require  d'ata  to be sub-
                                                   III-Appendix  E-4
-------
milted  to demonstrate  that  tie emissions
sampled  or  viewed  are  consistently  repre-
sentative for several typical  facility  process
operating conditions.
  4.3 The owner or operator  '.nay perform a
traverse to characterize any stratltication of
effluent gases tnat might exist m a stack or
duct. If no stratification  [3 present, sampling
procedures fnder paragraph  4.1 may be ap-
plied even though the eight diameter criteria
is not met.
  4.-: When sltigle point sampling probes for
extractive systems axe 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  Irom the stack or duct
  wa'.l. 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 Perform-
  ance Spec:2cat:ons.
    The  continuous monitoring system  shall
  meet the performance specifications In Table
  2-1 to  be considered acceptable  under'this
  method.
                         TABLE  '2-1.—Performance .ipeeificution.t
)  Accuracy :	  	_	  3 pctof jpa"
i. 7,>ro Ann ;:i M i	      DO.
."-. Caiihrauon rind (2 h) '	      Do.
f-  Calibration iir.fl (24 h) •	  2.5 pet. nf span
7. Response time	 	  l.i mtr. rnaurrm:::.
*. OperaQon:il ptrloU	  1Mb minimum.
  1 Expressed as sum of abtolulf rr.^firi vaiuo ph'o r-o pet;
  6. Performance Specification  Test  Proce-
dures. The following test procedure* shall be
•.lied  to  determine conformance  with  the
requirements  cf paragraph  5. For  NO,  ;'.:*-
requlrcments  of paragraph  5. l-'or  NO,  ;ux-
.-•.Iv-iers that  oxidize  nitric  oxide  (NO)  to
r.itrogen  dioxide  (NO,), the response  time
tfat under paragraph 6.:iof this method shall
r,t  performed  using nitric oxide  (NO) span
i:as. Other tests for NO, continuous  monitor-
li:g systems under paragraphs 6.1 and G.2  and
a:i  tests for sulfur dioxide systems shall be
performed using the pollutant span gas spe-
cined by each  subpart.
  6.1  Calibration  Error  Test Procedure, bet
vii>  and  calibrate  the oom.olele coullnuous
rr:onltorlng  system according to the  ma:tu-
facturer's writen  instructions. This may bil
accomplished  either in  the  laboratory or in
•-he field.
  6.1.1 Calibration Gus  Analyses.  Triplicate
ar.alvsei of the  gas mixtures shall  be per-
i jrmed within two weeks pr'.or to use using
Eeierence Methods 6  lor SO, and " for NOt.
Analyie  each  calibration gas mixture  (50':";.
'.,0'',) and record the  results on  the example
fiheet shown in Figure 2-1. Kach sample  te.sc
f-'sult must be within  2'J 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 (3.1.2).
  6.1.2  Calibration Error  Test  Procedure.
Make a total  of 15 nonconsecutlve measure-
ments by alternately uslp.g :'.ero gas and each
:a'.lberatlon gas mixture conci;:'.tratlon (e.g.,
D'V, so1"-.  Q'-c,  90':;..  50-,7..  907,, 50%. o%.
c-tc.). For nonextractlve continuous monitor-,
in.! systems, this test  procedure may be per-'
formed by using two cr more calibration gas
jells  whose concentrations  are  certified  by
the manufacturer to be  functionally equiva-
lent to these gas concentrations.  Convert the
continuous  monltcnnc .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 U>
accordance  with the manufacturer's written
Instructions and drawings as< follows:
  6.2.1 Conditioning Period. Offset  the. zero
setting at least  10 percent  of  the span so
that  negative ?.ero drift can be quantified.
Operate  the system for an  Initial  168-hour
conditioning  period   In  normal operating
manner.
  6.2.2 Operational Test Period. Operate  trie-
continuous  monitoring system Tor an  addl-
:oi:iit!.>r.ce iiircrval n( a si"!.'
  uonal  168-hour  period  retaining  the zero
  ollset  The  system .shai:  monitor the source
  eiiiuent  at  all  times except  when  being
  7.eroed. calibrated, or In-j.k.piugcc!.
    r,.2.2.1 Field  Test for Accuracy  (Relative:).
  l-'or continuous r.ionlroring systems employ-
  In-.; extractive sap.jphni:. the probe tip for the
  continuous mom tori::;; system and the probe
  tip for riie Reference Method sampling train
  should b« placed at adjacent locations  in the
  duct.  For  NO,, continuous  monitoring sys-
  tems,  make  27  .VOX concentration measure-
  ments, divided  into i::uc sets, using the ap-
  plicable reference rr.rthod. No more thru, one
  set  of tests, ror.sixf.ug of three Individual
  measurements,  shall  be  performed in  any
  one hour. All  individual measurements of
  c:'.:-h Get  shall  be  performed  concurrently.
  or  vithirt  ;-. three-:nir.;itf  interval up,ri  thf.
  rf:»'a',ts averted  Lor  oO, continuous  moni-
  toring systems, !::::'M- nine. SO. concenuatlon
  msaiuremer.tf  using the applicable reference
  method. No more  than  one  measurement
  shall bo pfrtorn\fd In any one  hour. Record
  the rctercnca method  test data and the con-
  tinuous  monitoring system  concentrations
  on the example cat.a sheet shown In Figure
  2-;(.
    6.22.2 Field  Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
  bration Drift. For extractive systems, deter-
  mine the values rclven by zero and  span gns
  pollutant concentrations at  two-hour  Inter-
  vals ur.tll  15 sets  o( data are obtained.  For
  no:iextract!ve mc-tiiurcruent systems, the zero
  value  may  be  determined  by  mechanically
  producing  a zero condition  that  provides  a
  system check of the analyzer Internal mirrors
  and nil  electronic  circuitry Including  the
  radiation  source  and  detector assembly  or
  by inserting three  or more calibration  gas
  cells and computing the zero poitit from the
  upscale measurements. If this latter  tech-
  nique-  is used,  a graph(s) must be retained
  by the owner or operator for each measure-
  ment, system that shows the relationship be-
  tween  the  upscale measurements  and  the
  ?:ero point. The span of the- system shall be
  checked by uslnt; a calibration gds cell cer-
  tified by the manufacturer  to  be  function-
  ally equivalent to 50 percent of span concen-
  tration. Record the- zero and span mensure-
  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 t>e con-
 ducted  concurrent  with  tests  under  para-
  graph 6.2.2.1.
   6.3.2.3 Adjustments. Zero  and calibration
 corrections and adjustments are allowed only
 at 24-hour Intervals  or  at such shorter  In-
 tervals as  the  manufacturer's •written  In-
 structions  specify.  Automatic  corrections
 made by the 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 values
 given by zero and span gas pollutant con-
 centrations before and after adjustment at
 24-hour Intervals.
   6.3 Field Test for Response Time.
   6.3.1  Scope of Test.  Dse the entire continu-
 ous monitoring system as Installed. Including
 sample transport-  lines If  used.  Flow  rates.
 lino diameters, pumping rates, pressures  (do
 not allow  the pressurized  calibration gris to
 change the normal operating pressure In  the
 sample line) . etc.. shall  be  at the nominal
 values  for normal operation  as specified lu
 the manufacturer's written  Instructions. 11
 the analyzer Is used to sample more than one
 pollutant source (stack), repeat this  test for
 each sampling point.
   6.3.2  Response  Time Test Procedure. In-
 troduce zero gas into the continuous moni-
 toring system  sampling Interface or as close
 ID  tho sampling Interface as pcssiblc. When
 the. system  output reading has  stabilized,
 switch quickly to a known concentration of
 pollutant g:u.  Record  the time from concen-
 tration switching to 95 percent of final stable
 response.  For  lum-extractlve monitor.*, the
 highest available calibration gas conn. Mira-
 tion shall  be switched Into  and out of the
 sample path  and  response times  recorded.
 Perform this  test sequence  three  (3)  umes.
 Record  the   results  of  each  test  0:1  the
 example sheet shown  In Figure  2-0.
   7. Calculations, Data Analysis and l(c;>ort-
 Ing.
   7.1 Procedure  for determination of mean
 values and confidence intervals.
   T.l.l The  mean value  of a  data  sot is
 calculated  according to equation  2-1.
                   n  I"'     Equation ?  1
where:
   x, - absolute value of the measurements.
   i^=sum of the individual values.
   x^mean value, and           33
   n = number of data points.
   7.1.2 The  95 percent confidence  interval
(two-sided)  Is calculated according to equa-
tion 2-2:
            I! V 11-1
                              Equation 2-2
  hen;:
    Hxi = stim of all data points,
    t .9:1 -=t.| — or/2, and
  C.I. ,s — y.i  percent  confidence  interval
          cst.irnato  of  the average incai:
          value.
                               23
              Values for '.975
n
i 	

^
5 	
6 	
7 	

9 	
I?::::::::::::

13 	 t 	
U 	 -..
li 	
IS 	
'.975
1° 706
4303
3.182
. 	 ?. 770
3.S71
2. -117
2. Mi
2.3(>i
'.'.'.'. 2!~S
O "fl]
2. \T)
2. 16(1
2.UJ
2.J31
  The  values  In  this table arc already  cor-
rected  for n-1  degrees of freedom.  Use n
                                                   I'll-Appendix  B-5
-------
 equal  to  the number  of samples aa  data
 points.
   12   Data Analysis and Reporting.
   7.2.1  Accuracy (Relative). For eich of the
 olne reference method test points, determine
 the average pollutant concentration reported
 by the continuous monitoring system. These
 average concentrations  shall be determined
 from the continuous monitoring system  data
 recorded under 12.1 by  Integrating or aver-
 aging the pollutant concentrations over  each
 3f the time Intervals concurrent with  cacb
 reference method testing period. Before  pro-
 ceeding to the next step, determine the basis
 (wet or dry) of the continuous monitoring
 system data and reference method test  data
 concentrations. If  the  buses  f.re  not  con-
 sistent, apply a moisture correction to either
 reference method concentrations or the con-
 tinuous monitoring system  concentrations
 as appropriate.  Determine the  correction
 .'actor by moisture tests  concurrent with the
 reference method testing periods. Report the
 moisture test method and the correction  pro-
 cedure employed. For each of the  nine  test
 runs determine the difference for each  test
 run by subtracting the  respective  reference
 method  test concentrations (ut>e average of
 each set of three  measurements for NOi)
 from the continuous monitoring system Inte-
 grated  or   averaged concentrations.  Using
 these data, compute the  mean difference  and
 the 95 percent confidence interval of the  dif-
 ferences (equations 2-1  and 2-2). Accuracy
 Is reported a'j the sum of the absolute value
 of the  mean  difference  and '.he 95  percent
 confidence   Interval of  the differences  ex-
 pressed as & percenUiye  of the mesn  refer-
 ence  method value. Use the  '.'xample sheet
 shown in Figure 2-3.
   7.2.2   Calibration Error.  Using the data
 from paragraph 6.1, subtract the measured
 pollutant concentration determined under
 pnrHj.-raph (j.l.i (Figure 2-1) /rom the value
 shown by tho continuous moi.'l'.ormrj system
 for each of  the five readings  «t each con-
 centration me-xsured under  8.1.2 (Figure 2-2).
 Calculate the mean of these (inference values
 a:»d  the  95 percent  confidence Intervals  ac-
 cording to equations 2-1  and 2-2. Report  the
 calibration error (the sum of  the  absolute
 value of the mean difference and the 95 per-
 cent confidence Interval) as a percentage of
 each  ,-t.spectlpe calibration ^n? eoucenti-a-
 tlon. Use example sheet shown In Figure 2--2.
  7.2.3  Zero Drift (2->>our). Using the zero
 concentration  values  measured each  two
 hours during tbe field test,  calculate the dif-
 ferences between consecutive two-hour read-
Ings  expressed In ppm. Calculate the mean
difference and tbe confidence interval using
  equations 2—1 and 2-2. Report the zero drill
  as the gum of the absolute mean value and
  the  confidence  Interval  as a percentage of
  span.  Use  example  ^eet  shown In Figure
  2-4.
   7.2.1   Zero Drift (24-hour). Using the zero
  concentration  values measured  every  24
  hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
  ferences between the zero  point  after zero
  Rdjustraent. and the zero value 24 hours later
  Just prior to zero adjustment. Calculate the
  mean  value of these  points and the  confi-
  dence  Interval using  equations 2-1 and 2-2.
  Report the zero drift  (the sum of the abso-
  lute mean and confidence interval) as a per-
  centage of spaa. Use example sheet Kfiown !n
  Figure 2-5.
   7.2.5  Calibration  Drift  (2-nour).  Using
  the calibration values obtained at two-hour
  Intervals during the field test, calculate the
  differences   between  consecutive  two-hour
  readings expressed as ppm.  These  values
  should  be  corrected  for the  corresponding
  zero drift during that two-hour  period. Cal-
  culate the  mean  and confidence  iiit-erval  of
  these corrected dljference values  using equa-
  tions 2-1 and 2-2. Do  not use the differences
  between  non-consecutive readings.  Report
  the calibration drift as the sum ol the  abso-
 lute  mean and confidence Internal as c. per-
 centage ot span. Use the example sheet shown
 in Figure 2-4.
   7.2.G Calibration Drift  (24-hour). Using
 the   calibration  values measured every  24
 hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
 ferences between  the  calibration  concentra-
 tion  reading after zero and calibration ad-
 justment, and the calibration  concentration
 reading '?.\ hours later after /ero adjustment
 but  befi-.-e calibration adjustment. Calculate
 the mean value of these differences and the
 confidence Interval using equations 2-1 and
 2-2. Report the calibration drift (the Bum  of
 the absolute mean and confidence Interval)
 as u  percentage of  span. Ose the  example
 sheet shown In Figure 2-5.
   7.2.7  Response  Time.  Using  the charts
 from paragraph 6.3, calculate the time Inter-
 val from concentration switching to 95  per-
 cent  to the  final stable value for ail upscale
 and downscale  tests. Report the mean of the
 three upscale test times and the mean of the
 three downscale  test  times.  The  two aver-
 age times should not differ by  more than 15
 percent of the slower time. Report the Blower
 time as the system response time. Use the ex-
 ample sheet shown In Figure 2-6.
  7.2.8 Operational Test Period. During the
 168-hour  performance  and operational  test
period,  the  continuous monitoring system.
shall not require any corrective  maintenance,
repair, replacement, or adjustment other than
 that dearly specified as required in the op-
 eration &nd maintenance manuals as routine
 and expected during  a one-week period. If
 the continuous monitoring  system  operates
 within the specified performance parameters
 and does not require corrective maintenance.
 repair, replacement or adjustment other than
 as  specified above during the 166-hour test
 period, the operational period will be success-
 fully concluded. Failure  of  the continuous
 monitoring system to meet this requirement
 shall call for a repetition of the 166-hour test
 period. Portions of the test which were satis-
 factorily  completed need not  be repeated.
 Failure to meet any performance specifica-
 tions shall call  for a repetition of the one-
 weeK performance test  period and that por-
 tion of the testlug  which Is related  to the
 failed  specification. All maintenance and ad-
 justments required  shall be  recorded. Out-
 put readings  shall  be  recorded before  and
 after all adjustments.
  8. References.
  8.1 "Monitoring Instrumentation  Jor  the
 Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide In Stationary
 Source Emissions," Environmental Protection
 Agency,  Research Triangle Park, N.C., Feb-
 ruary 1973.
  8.2 "Instrumentation for the Determina-
 tion of Nitrogen Oxides Content of Statlou-
 ary Source Emissions," Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C..
 Volume-  1, APTD-0847, October 1971; Vol-
 ume 2, APTD-0942, January  1972.
  3.3 "Experiments!  Statistics," Department
of Commerce, Handbook  91,  1963, pp. 3-31.
 paragraphs 3-3.1.4.
  8.4 "Performance  Specifications for Sta-
 tionary-Source Monitoring Systems for Gases
and  Visible  Emissions," Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park. N.C.,
EPA-650/2-74-013. January 1974.
        H_tJ.fttw_Ci.Hcr
-------
            Calibration  Gas Mixture Data (Fron Figure 2-1)

            Mid (50:) 	ppn        High (90S) 	ppm
          Calibration  Gas
Run t    Concentration.psm
Measurement Systen
  Reading,  pon	
                                                         Differences,  pen
10
12
13
                                                                         "1
                                                                Hid    High
Mean difference

Confidence interval                                              +
                                          ?.
Calibration error =  7	il-'r--D-f-7-i";P_.+—t-L	:	 x IQO
                    Average  Calibration Gas Concentration
 Calibration gas concentration  - rsaiure'riont system reading
•>
"•Absolute value
                    Figure 2-'i.   Calibration Error Determination
rest
No.
Oete
an*]
KM
I
1
?
.,
4
Reference Mctr.oo Samples
Sarp?e I

•0 NO W '• NO S»-=plt
iirof, 1 Siop^ 2 ' !+r.J< 3 A?tr«at
(ppn) (9pn) (PP«r) i (PP"1)
Artllyler t-40ur
Average (pp>")'
SO, HO
i ! !
1 ! '
1

1 i :
, | ! I
5 . '
6 i !
7
„
,
lean
.fit
ISt
KCU
' E«





i


1
1
T.lUt (SO;
itthoc
nbtrviU •


M«a»i reference »etfxxJ
test. 
-------
JlU                                    Zero
 I         7(m«               2«ro      Drift
;o.       Bejtn  Emt    Wte    ReMIng     UZero)
SMI
           Span
           Drift
           (iSpan)
                                                                 Calibration
                                                                   Drift
                                                                 ( Span- Zero)
Zen> Drift * L>'*i" len 9rfi"t«          « Cl UC'Q)
OUCreUon Orffi • [Keen Sssn DfiU*   ~.  _* CI (bpi
•Atjiolute Value,
     • [S?anj x 100
                  f;$urc 2't.  2cro t
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 ICO =

Calibration Drift •= [Mean Span Drift*	
         C.I.  (Span)
                 •» [Instrument  Span] x 100 =
* Absolute value
                Figure 2-5.   Zero and Calibration  Drift (24-hour)
                        Ill-Appendix  B-8
-------
       Date  of Test
     Span Gas Concentration

     Analyzer Span Setting _
                                      _ppm
                             1
                                       seconds
       Upscale
                          E	seconds

                          3 	seconds

                  Average upscale response _
                                                      seconds
       Downscale
                                       _seconds

                                        seconds
                                        seconds
                                                      secc-rrJs

                                                      seconds.
                   Average  dcwnscale response

System average response  tirre  (slower tins) =

^deviation  from slower   _   averace  upscale minus average J;'..
syste.i average response  "  [_
                                            slower  tir.e
                                                                  -   x ICO' =
                          Figure 2-6.   Response Tine
  Performance Specification 3—Performance
specifications and  specification  test proce-
dures for monitors of CO. and  O; from sta-
r.oiiary sources.
  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. Effluent  Rases  are continu-
ously sampled and  are analyzed  for carbon
c-ioxlde or oxygen by a continuous mon:tor-
:r.2 system. Tests of the system are performed
during a minimum operating period to deter-
mine V.LTO drift,  calibration  drift,  and re-
-•v'.mse time characteristics.
  11 Applicability. This  performance specl-
licition  is applicable  to  evaluation of  con-
ttnv.ouo monitoring systems for measurement
o; c.irbon 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
r.-.^y include either extractive or non-extrac-
tive (in-sltu) procedures.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Continuous  Monitoring  System  for
Carbon Dioxide or Oxygen.
  2.2 Calibration  Gas Mixtures. Mixture of
known  concentrations of  carbon  dioxide or
oxygen  in nitrogen or air. Mldrange iind 90
percent  of  span carbon  dioxide  or  oxygen
c.incentrr.tlons are required. The 90 percent
of span gas mixture is to be used to set and
check the analyzer  span and Is referred to
ao  span gas.  For oxygen analyzers. If the
?pan  Is higher than 21 percent O,,  ambient
a:.-  may be used in place of the 90 percent of
span  calibration gas  mixture.  Triplicate
analyses of the gas mixture (except  ambient
air)  shall be  performed within two  weeks
prior to use using  Reference Method  3 of
this part.
  2.3 Zero Gas. A gas containing  less than 100
p?m 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 or  the  recorder's  data
output shall be sufficient to allow completion
of the test procedures within this specifica-
tion.
  3. Definitions.
  3.1  Continuous Monitoring  System.  The
total equipment required  for the determina-
tion of  carcoa dioxide or oxygen Jn a given
                                           source eHluent. The system ccr.sists cf three
                                           major subsystems:
                                             3.1.1  S.s.'npli.Tg  I.-i.'er/aje. That portion of
                                           the continuous monitoring system t,i>.at per-
                                           forms cue or  ir.ore of the following  opera-
                                           tions: delineation,  acquisition. trai-.sporta-
                                           tion. and  conditioning of a  sample  of  the
                                           sjurce tfll-.ient or protection of the analyzer
                                           :'rt>m the  hostile  aspects of  the sairroie or
                                           source environment
                                             3.1.2  Analyser.  That portion of ihu  con-
                                           tinuous monitoring oy.-ii-ni which senses the
                                           pollutant gas :\nd generates a signal output
                                           that is a function of the p~r.utant concen-
                                           tration
                                             3.1.3  D.ita Recorder. Tii.it  portio:1.  of  the
                                           continuous monitoring system  that provides
                                           a  permanent record  of the output si^r.::! in
                                           terms of cjnccntra:uu units.
                                             32 SpAi\.The value of oxygeti or c.ubtn) di-
                                           oxide coi.ce.ntr;Ulon at which  the continuous
                                           monitoring system Is set  that,  producer  the
                                           maximum dat:\ display output  for trie pur-
                                           poses of this method, the span shall  be set
                                           no less than 1.5 to 2.5 times the normal car-
                                           bon dioxide  or normal oxygen concentration
                                           In tVte stack gas of the attoctec; facility.
                                             3.3 Mldrange. The  value of  :-Ny^e:i or c:»r-
                                           bon dioxide concentration that  is representa-
                                           tive of the  normal conditions In  the stack
                                           gas of. the atfected facility at  typical operat-
                                           ing rates.
                                             3.4 Zero Drift. The change  la the contin-
                                           uous monitoring system output over a  stated
                                           period of time of  normal  continuous  opera-
                                           tion when the carbon dioxide  or oxygen con-
                                           centration at the  tlmo for the measurement.',
                                           is  zero.
                                             3.5 Calibration  Drift. The  change  In  tho
                                           continuous monitoring system output  over a
                                           stated time period of normal continuous  op-
                                           eration when the carbon  dioxide or oxygen
                                           continuous monitoring system  is measuring
                                           the concentration  of span gas.
                                             3.6 Operational  Test Period.  A minimum
                                           period of  time over which the continuous
                                           monitoring system  Is  expected to operate
                                           within  certain performance  specifications
                                           without unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
                                           adjustment.
                                             3.7 Response time. The time Interval from
                                           a  step change In concentration at the Input
                                           to the continuous monitoring system  to  the
                                           time at which 95 percent of the correspond-
 ing final value Is displayed OD the continuous
 monitoring system data recorder.
   4. Installation Specification.
   Oxygen or carbon dioxide continuous mon-
 itoring systems'shall  be Installed at a loca-
 tion where m-easuremer.ts are directly repre-
 sentative  of  the  total effluent  from  the
 affected facility or representative of the same
 effluent sampled by a  SO, or N'O, continuous
 monitoring system. This requirement shall
 be complied  with  by use of  applicable re-
 quirements In Performance Specification 2 of
 th.ls appendix as follows:
   4.1 Installation of Oxygen or Carbon  US-
 oxide  Continuous  Monitoring  Systems Not
 Used to Convert Pollutant Data. A sampling
 location shall be selected in accordance with
 the  procedures  unrier  paragraphs  4.K.I  or
 4.2.2. or Performance  Specification 2 of thif.
 appendix.
   4.2 Installation of Oxygen or Carbon  Di-
 oxide continuous Monitoring Systems Used
 to Convert Pollutant Continuous Monitoring
 System Data to  Units of Applicable Stand-
 ards. The diluent continuous monitoring sys-
 tem (oxygen cr carbon dioxide) snail be In-
 stalled nt a sampling location where measure-
 ments that can be made are representative of
 the effluent  gases sampled by the pollutant
 continuous monitor!:-." system(s). Conform-
 nnce with this requirement may be accom-
 plished In any of tho  followlnp ivayr.t
   4.2.1  The sampling location for the diluent
 system shairbe tv?ar the sumplir.f* location foi
 the pollutant, continuous monitoring system
 such  thai tho  same  approximate point (si
 (extractive systems)  or path  (in-.s!tu  .v/s-
 teins)  in  the cross section  is  sampled  or
 viewed
   4.2,'J  The diluent and pollutant continuous
 monir.oniii; systems mjy be  Installed at ;i:f-
 f:*rep.t locations it the eitluent i',a.>es :it I)L th
 .sampling locatu.'ns art nonstruti.'ied ns tietor-
 r.ilnert under ;>!i:-;u-;rtipl;s 4.1  or 4.3. ro::o:i!i-
 a:ico  Sp?ci:icu: 10:1  ti  of  this  appendix  aiKl
 there i.i r.o in-Vakaije  fccurrini;  'ofC/viv:! '.ho
 two sampling locuuons.  if :hc eii'.uesit -last's
 r.re strati.'ied  tit.  either  location, thf? proce-
 dure-,  under  p::r;u;:-;ip!»  4'J.:'.  •Vf'oiinrtiice
 Speci.'icn ; ion :1 oi" tills  appendix shall l;e usoci
 i'or K'.siaUlni; continuous monltorm;; sy:.;r::i:\
 ut that  location.
  5.  Co:'.li:iuuus Moi:i tdrlMi; System Pn (or:r.-
 unce Speeifu'iulon^.
  Tile  continuous  monitoring  system shall
 meet the pertorm.ii-.ee  speciiicatloiis in Table
 3-1 to  lie  considered  acceptable  under  thU
 method.
  u  Performance  Specification Test,  proce-
 dures.
  The t'oUowini; tesl pvocedurcs shall bf ust";
 to determine co:i;nrma:ice with tho require-
 m;nts  of paragraph 4.  Due to the wide varia-
 tion existing In analyzer designs and princi-
 ples  of operation, thcso procedures  arc r.ot
 applicable to ail nnnly/.cr.s. Where this oorv.r:-.
 alternative  procedures,  .subject  to tho  ap-
 proval   of  the Administrator,  may  be. em-
 ployed. Any such alternative procedure.-', must
 fulfill  the some  purposes (verify :i-spo;;sc,
 drift, nr.d accuracy) us  vhe following proce-
 dures,  and  must  clearly demonstrate con-
 formiince with speculations  In  Table  3-1.
  6.1 Calibration Cher!:. Kstablisli a cali-
 bration  curve for  tht> continuous moni-
 toring system usinK  zero. micir:inne. ar.d
span concentration gas mixtures. Vciify
 that the resultant curve of analy/rv vc.ul-
in» compared with  the calibration  <;a>
value is consistent with the expected re-
 sponse  curve as describecj by the analyze!
manufacturer. If  the  expected  response
curve  is  not  produced, additional cali-
bration gas measurements shall  be made,
or additional  steps undertaken  to vcrifv
                                                   Ill-Appendix  B-9
-------
 the accuracy of the response curve of the
 analyzer.
   6.2 Field Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
 bration Drift, tnstnll and  operate  the
 continuous monitoring system in accord-
 ance with the manufacturer's written in-
 structions and drawings as  follows:
  TABU'. 3-1.—JPtT/orniflncc testifications
       Parameter
                           Specification
I. Z«ro value from
upscale measurements tisitif '.••.•Ii'nraiod K::?.
••ells certified by the manufacturer. The mid-
range  checks shall be performed by using
certified calibration  gas cells functionally
equivalent to less than  50  percent of span.
Record these readings on the example shoot
shown In Figure 3-1. These  two-hour periods
need not be consecutive but may not. overlap.
fn-sltu CO. or  O,  analysers  which cannot be
fitted with a calibration yns cell may be cali-
brated by  alternative  procedures  acceptable
to  the  Administrator. Zero and  calibration
corrections   and  adjustments are allowed
only ui 24-hour Intervals or at such shorter
Intervals as  the manufacturer's  written  In-
structions   specify.  Automat!.:  corrections
made by the continuous monitoring  system
without  operator  intervention or  Initiation
arc allowable at any  time.  During the en-
tire 1GB-hour test period, record  the values
given by zero and span gas concentrations
before and after adjustment at 24-hour In-
tervals In tbe example  sheet shown In Figure
3-2.
  6.3  Field Test for Response Time.
  6.3.1 Scope of Test,
  This test shall be accomplished using the
continuous  monitoring system as  Installed,
Including sample  transport lines If  used.
Flow  rates, line diameters,  pumping  rates.
pressures (do not allow the  pressurized cali-
bration gas to change  the normal operating
pressure  In the sample line). etc., shall  be
nt the nominal values for normal operation
as  specified  In the manufacturer's written
instructions. If the analyzer  Is used to sample
more thnn one source (stack), this test shall
be repeated for each, sampling  point.
  6.3.2 Response Time  Test  Procedure.
  introduce  zero  gas  into  the continuous
monitoring system sampling Interface or  as
close to the  sampling  interlace as possible.
When the system output reading has stabi-
lized. switch qulcMy to a Xnown concentra-
tion of gas at 90 percent of span. Record the
time  from concentration  switching to  95
perct.it of final stable response.  After the
system response has stabilized  at  tbe upper
level, switch  quickly to a zero gas. Record
the time from concentration switching to  95
percent of final stable response.  Alterna-
tively. for nonextractlve continuous monitor-
ing systems, the highest available calibration
gas concentration shall be switched Into and
out of the snmplc path and  response times
recorded. Perform this test sequence  three
(3) times.  For each test, record the results
on  the  data  sheet  shown In  Figure 3-3.
  7. Calculations, Data Analysis, end Report-
Ing.
  7.1  Procedure for  determination of mean
values and confidence intervals.
  7.1.1 The mean value of a datix  set is cal-
culated according to equation  3-1.
                                        n
                                           '--1     Equation 3-1
                      where:
                        x, = absolute value of the measurements,
                        Szrsum of the Individual values,
                        x = mean value, and '
                        n = number of data points.

                        7.2.1  The 95  percent confidence Interval
                      (two-sided) is calculated according to equa-
                      tion 3-2:
                          C.I.,j - - -'rfi^ vrTfvvT,; f-
                                 11 Vn — 1
                                 11 Vn
                                                   1'Cquation J-'2
                      where:
                         xXzrsum of all data points,
                        '.975 = 1, -a/2, nnd                     23
                        C.I.c.t--95  percent  confidence  interval
                          estimates of the average mean value

                                   Valves )or  '.975
                       n                                   '.975
                       2 - ..... - ................. ________  12.703
                       3 ..... - ..........................  4.303
                       4 ------------ ....... ---- .........  3.182
                       5 ........ -- ...... ----- ...........  2.776
                       C - ....... -- .................... ...  2.571
                       1 -------- .............. . ....... ..  2.447
                       8 ---------- ................... ...  2.365
                       9 ..... - ........ - ....... .- ...... .,  2.306
                      10 ................ ._„ .............  2.262
                      11 ------------ ..... _ ______________  2.228
                      12 ..... ------- ........ . ..... ------  2.201
                      13 ------ ............ - ..... - ..... „  2.179
                      14 ------ ......... ------- ..... -----  2.160
                      15 ................. - ..... . ...... __  2. 145
                      16 ....... ------------------ ..... ..  2.131
                      The values In this table are already corrected
                      for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use  n equal to
                      the number  of samples  as data  points.
                        7.2 Data Analysis and  Reporting.
                        7.2.1 Zero  Drift (2-hour). Using the zero
                      concentration  values  measured  each  two
                      hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
                      ferences  between  the consecutive  two-hour
                      readings expressed  In  ppm.  Calculate  the
                      mean difference and the  confidence Interval
                      using equations 3-1 and 3-2. Record the sum
                      of  the absolute mean value and  the  confi-
                      dence  Interval  on the data sheet shown In
                      Figure 3-1.
                        7.2.2 Zero  Drift  (24-hour). Using the zero
                      concentration  values measured   every  24
                      hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
                      ferences  between  the zero point  after zero
                      adjustment  and the zero  value  24  hours
                      later Just prior  to zero adjustment.  Calculate
                      the mean value of these points and the con-
                      fidence interval using equations 3-1 and 3-2.
 Record the zero drift (the sum of the Rb-
 solute mean and confidence Interval) on the
 data sheet shown In Fijrure 3-2.
   7.2.3 Calibration Drift (2-liour). Usinp the
 calibration values obtained at two-hour in-
 tervals during the :':eld  test,  calculate the
 differences  between  consecutive  two-hour
 readings  expressed  as ppin.  These vaiVic's
 should be corrected  for  the correspond:^
 aero drift during that two-hour period. Cal-
 culate tbe mean and  confidence Interval o'
 these corrected difference values using equa-
 tions 3-1 and 3-2. Do not use the differences
 between  non-consecutive readings.  Record
 the sum of  the nbfoliite mean and  confi-
 dence  iv.terval upon  the data sheet shown
 In Fis-ure 3-1.
   7.2.4 Calibration Dr!l: (24-hour). Using the
 calibration  values mef.surert every  24 ri'ov.rs
 during the  field  test, calculate the d:;-cr-
 ences  between the calibration  concentration
 reading  after zero and  calibration ac!ju>t-
 ment ami the calibration concentration rend-
 Ing 24 hours later after zero adjustment but
 before calibration adjustment. Calculate the-
 mean  value of these differences and the con-
 fidence interval  usinj; equations .1-1 and 2-2.
 Record the H\:r.i of the  absolute mean ESK!
 coniidence Interval on the data sheet sbov.'i
 In Fifrvfre 3-2.
   7.2.5 Operational Test Period. During the
 158-hour performance and operational test
 period, the  continuous  monitoring  system
 shall not receive any corrective maintenance,
 repair, replacement,  or  adjustment  other
 than that clearly specified us required in the
 manufacturer's written operation and main-
 tenance  manual? ns  rr, .itine  and  e\peclcci
 during a one-week period. If the continuous
 monitoring system operates  within the speci-
 fied performance parameters and does net re-
 quire corrective mr.lnter.nnce, repair, replace-
 ment or adjustment o'.hcr than as specif:?;;
 above  during the 163-hour test period, ibp
 operational period will be successfully con-
 cluded. Failure of the  continuous monitor;:;?
 sysl/em to  meet this  requirement shall ca'.l
 for a  repetition  of the 168 hour test period.
 Portions of the lest which were satisfacto: l!y
 completed need not be repeated. Failure vo
 meet   any  performance  specifications shall
 call for a repetition of the one-week perform-
 ance test period  and that portion of the test-
 ing which Is related to the failed speciricr.-
 tlon. All maintenance and  adjustments re-
 quired shall be recorded. Output  readings
 shall  be recorded before and  after all ad-
 justments.
  7.2.6 Response Time. Using the data devel-
 oped under paragraph  5.3, calculate the time
Interval from concentration  switching to 95
percent to the final stable value for all up-
scale and downscale tests. Report the mean of
the three upscale test times and the mean of
the three downscale test times. Tbe two av-
 erage  times should not differ by more  than
 15 percent of the slower time.  Report the
 slower time as the system response time. Re-
cord the results on Figure 3-3.
  8. References,
  8.1  "Performance  Specifications  for  Sta-
tionary Source Monitoring Systems for GBSCS
and Visible Emissions," Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C..
EPA-650/2-74-013, January 1974.
  8J2 "Experimental Statistics," Department
of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards
Handbook  91.  1963,  pp. 3-31,  paragraphs
3-3.1.4.
 (Sees.  Ill and 114 of the Clean Air Act. as
amended by  sec. 4(a)  or  Pub. L. 91-604. 84
Stat. 1678 (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6, by see. 16(c) (2)
of Pub. L. 91-604, 85  Stat.  1713 (42 U.S.C.
I857g)).
                                                 Ill-Appendix  B-10
-------
hu
                    MU
                           I«ro
 Z«r»
 Drift
(tZ.ro)
                                                      Ortft
                                                                  Brlft
IS
                 ro flrl/t*        * ti
   CilfbntlM Drift • [K«»n Spjn BrtH*       * CI (Span"
   •Absolutt Vilut.
                             Figure 3-1.  lira and Cj1lbrJt1o
-------
  Dstt of Teit ________
  Span Gas Concentration _ ppm
  Analyzer Span Setting  _ ppm
                     T. _ _ seconds
  Upscale            2. _ seconds
                     3. _ seconds
               Average upscale response _ seconds

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

System average response time (slower time) •» _ seconds
           from  slower „  average upscale minus average downscale
system average response                 slower time
                          Figure 3-3.   Response
                 Sac.
                        Ill-Appendix  B-12
-------
          C — DiTiBuiNiRON  oi  EMISSION  RATX
  L fittrodwtton.
  1.1 The following method shall b« used tc determine
whether » physical or operational change to an existing
facility resulted la an increase In the emission rate to the
atmosphere. The method  used 19  the Student's t  test,
commonly Died to make Inferences from small samples.

  1. Data.
  3.1 Each emission test shall consist ot a runs (usually
three) which produce « emission rate*. Thos two sets ot
emission rates are generated, one before and one after the
change, tb«  two seta being of equal site.
  2.3 when  using manual emission tests, except as pro*
Tided In I 00.800) of this pan, the reference methods ot
Appendix A to this pan shall be used In accordance with
the procedures specified In the applicable subpart both
before and after the change to obtain the data.
  13 W^enuslngoontlnuousmonltors.tlufaoUltysaallbt
operated a* If a manual emission tost were being per-
formed. Valid data using the averaging time which would
be required If a manual emission test were being con-
ducted shall be used.

  8. Procedure.
  1.1 Subscripts a  and b denote  prechange and poet.
change respectively.
  1.3 Calculate the arithmetic mean emission rate, E, tor
each set of data using Equation U
                                            (1)
 vhere:
  A -Emission rate for the I th run.
   •-number ol rani

  L8 Calculate the sample variance, S>, lor each get of
 data using Equation 2.
                                            (3)
  8.4 Calculate  the pooled estimate, S», using  Equa-
tion 1
                                           (3)
                   n. + n»-2
   S Calculate the test statistic, I, using Equation 4.
  4. Ravlii.

  4.1 If £,> E. and Of, where f Is the critical value of
i obtained from Table 1,  then with  95% confidence the
difference between ~'i and ~K. Is significant, and an In.
crease In emission rate to the atmosphere has occurred.
                    TABLJ 1
                                          t(9S
Degree of freedom (n.+»»-2>:
                                          am/I.
                                          tenet
                                          Ineti
    3 ............................................. 1920
    3 ............................................. iSM
    4 ............................................. i 183
    6 .......................................... _ 3.015
    « ........................................ ____ 1.948
    7 ............................................. 1.8M
    8 ............................................. 1.880

  Forg       ______ . _____
statistical handbook or tait.

  (.1 Assume tb« two performance tests produced the
tallowing set of data :

Testa:                                    Testb
    Run i. 100 ...................................  115
    Run 3. f» ....................................  120
    Bun 8. 1W .................................. .1  125

  6.3 Using KnuatlOD 1—
                                                                 116+120+126
                                                                        3
                                                                                   '120
                                                    5.8 Using Equation 2—
                                                    (100-102)'+ (95-102)' + (110-102)«
                                                  "                   3-1
                                                                                          -68.8
                                                  Sf

                                                    (115- 120)'+ (120- 120)'+ (126-120)*
                                                  *°                   3-1
                                                                                            -26
                                                   5.4 Using Equation 8—
,    r(3
 '~L
                                                           -l)  (68.5) + (3-1)
)T/>
 J   J-(
                                                                                                      !.! IJslng Equation 4—

                                                                                                                     120-102
                                                                                                               t •-" —
                                                                                                                  6.48  i+i
                                                                              ; = 3.412
                                                   6.8 Since (»i+m-2)-4, C -3.182 (from Table 1). Thus
                                                 slooe Of the difference In the values of E, and £> U
                                                 significant, and there has been an Increase in emission
                                                 rate to the atmosphere.

                                                   4. Cbn/touow Monitoring Data.
                                                   «.! Hourly averages from  oonttnuotu monttorttw de-
                                                 vices, where available, should b« used as d*W fa
                                                 toe above procedure followed.
                                                                                                     (Sec.  114,  Cleu^Alr  Art  if  wntnded  (43
                                                          Ill-Appendix  C-l
-------
APPENDIX D—BIQCIRID EMISSION INVENTORY
              INFORMATION

  (a) Completed NEDS point source form(s)
for  the entire plant containing the desig-
nated facility, including Information on the
applicable criteria  pollutants. If data con-
cerning the plant 'are already In NEDS, only
that Information must be submitted which
la necessary to update the existing NEDS
record for that plant. Plant and point Identi-
fication codes  for  NEDS records shall cor-
respond  to  those  previously  assigned  In
NEDS; for plants not In NEDS, these codes
shall  be  obtained from  the  appropriate
Regional  Office.
  (b) Accompanying the basic NEDS Inforr
matlon shall be the following  Information
on each designated facility:
  (1) The  state and  county Identification
codes,  as well as  the  complete plant  and
point Identification codes of the designated
facility In NEDS. (The codes are needed to
match these data with the NEDS data.)
  (2)A description of the designated facility
Including, where appropriate:
  (1) Process name.
  (11)  Description  and  quantity  of each
product (maximum per hour and average per
year).
  (Ill)  Description and quantity of raw ma-
terials handled for each product  (maximum
per hour and average per year).
  (Iv) Types of fuels burned, quantities and
characteristics   (maximum  and   average
quantities per hour, average  per year).
  (v)  Description and  quantity  ol  solid
wastes generated (per  year) and method of
disposal.
  (3) A description of  the air pollution con-
trol equipment In use or proposed to control
the designated  pollutant,  including:
  (1) Verbal description of equipment.
  (11) Optimum control efficiency, in percent,
This shall  be a combined efficiency  when
more than  one device operate In aeries, The
method of  control efficiency determination
shall  be Indicated  (e.g.,  design  efficiency,
measured efficiency, estimated efficiency).
  (ill)  Annual average control efficiency, in
percent, taking Into account control equip-
ment down time. This shall be a combined
efficiency when more than one device operate
In series.
  (4) An estimate of the designated pollu-
tant emissions from  the designated facility
(maximum per hour  and average per year).
The method of emission determination thall
also  be specified' (e.g., stack teat, material
balance, emission factor),
                                                                                        (Sec. m. Clean Air  Act  li  amended  U3
                                                                                        U.S.C. 74H».»8 83
                                                   Ill-Appendix  D-l
-------
SECTION  IV
  FULL TEXT
     OF
  REVISIONS
-------
                          IV.   FULL TEXT OF REVISIONS
Ref.                                                                   Page

     36 FR 5931, 3/31/71  - List of Categories of Stationary Sources.
     36 FR 15704, 8/17/71 - Proposed Standards for Five Categories:
              Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators, Portland Cement
              Plants, Nitric Acid Plants, and Sulfuric Acid Plants.

 1.  36 FR 24876, 12/23/71 - Standards of Performance Promulgated for
              Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators, Incinerators, Port-
              land Cement Plants, Nitric Acid Plants, and Sulfuric
              Acid Plants.                                              1

 1A.  37 FR 5767, 3/21/72 - Supplemental Statement in Connection with
              Final Promulgation.                                      21

 2.  37 FR 14877, 7/26/72 - Standard for Sulfur Dioxide; Correction.    25

     37 FR 17214, 8/25/72 - Proposed Standards for Emissions During
              Startup, Shutdown, and-Malfunction.

 3.  38 FR 13562, 5/23/73 - Amendment to Standards for Opacity and
              Corrections to Certain Test Methods.                     26

     38 FR 15406, 6/11/73 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
              Asphalt Concrete Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage
              Vessels for Petroleum Liquids, Secondary Lead Smelters,
              Brass and Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel
              Plants, and Sewage Treatment Plants.

 4.  38 FR 28564, 10/15/73 - Standards of Performance Promulgated for
              Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.     26

 4A.  38 FR 10820, 5/2/73 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
              Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, & Malfunction.       28

 5.  39 FR 9308, 3/8/74 - Standards of Performance Promulgated for
              Asphalt Concrete Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage
              Vessels for Petroleum Liquids, Secondary Lead Smelters,
              Brass and Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel
              Plants, and Sewage Treatment Plants; and Miscellaneous
              Amendments.                                              30
-------
 6.   39  FR 13776,  4/17/74  -  Corrections  to  March  8,  1974  Federal
              Register.                                                 45

 7.   39  FR 15396,  5/3/74 - Corrections  to March 8,  1974 and  April
              17,  1974 Federal  Register.                                46

 8.   39  FR 20790,  6/14/74  -  Standards of Performance,  Miscellaneous
              Amendments.                                               46

     39  FR 32852,  9/11/74  -  Proposed Standards of Performance  -
              Emission Monitoring  Requirements and  Performance Test-
              ing  Methods.

     39  FR 36102,  10/7/74  -  Proposed Standards of Performance  for
              State Plans  for  the  Control of  Existing  Facilities.

     39  FR 36946,  10/15/74 - Proposed Standards of  Performance for
              Modification,  Notification, and Reconstruction.

     39  FR 37040,  10/16/74 - Proposed Standards of  Performance for
              Primary  Copper,  Zinc, and  Lead  Smelters.

     39  FR 37470,  10/21/74 - Proposed Standards of  Performance for
              Ferroalloy Production Facilities.

     39  FR 37466,  10/21/74 - Proposed Standards of  Performance for
              Steel Plants:  Electric Arc Furnaces.

     39  FR 37602,  10/22/74 - Proposed Standards of  Performance -
              Five Categories  of Sources in the Phosphate Fertilizer
              Industry.

     39  FR 37730,  10/23/74 - Proposed Standards of  Performance for
              Primary  Aluminum Reduction Plants.

     39  FR 37922,  10/24/74 - Proposed Standards of  Performance for
              Coal  Preparation Plants.

 9.   39  FR 37987,  10/25/74 - Region V Office:  New  Address.             51

10.   39  FR 39872,  11/12/74 - Opacity Provisions for New Stationary
              Sources  Promulgated  and Appendix A, Method  9 - Visual
              Determination  of the Opacity  of Emissions from Station-
              ary  Sources.                                              51

     39  FR 39909,  11/12/74 - Response to Remand,  Portland Cement
              Association  v. Ruckelshaus, Reevaluation of Standards.
                                        11
-------
     40 FR 831,  1/3/75  -  Reevaluation  of  Opacity  Standards  of  Perform-
              ance  for  New Sources  - Asphalt  Concrete  Plants.

11.   40 FR 2803,  1/16/75  - Amended  Standard  for Coal Refuse (promul-
              gated December 23,  1971).                                 57

     40 FR 17778,  4/22/75 - Standards  of  Performance,  Proposed  Opa-
              city  Provisions,  Request for  Public  Comment.

12.   40 FR 18169,  4/25/75 - Delegation of Authority  to State of
              Washington.                                              58

13.   40 FR 26677,  6/25/75 - Delegation of Authority  to State of Idaho.  58

14.   40 FR 33152,  8/6/75  - Standards of Performance  Promulgated for
              Five  Categories of Sources  in  the Phosphate  Fertilizer
              Industry.                                                59

     40 FR 39927,  8/29/75 - Standards  of  Performance for Sulfuric
              Acid  Plants - EPA Response  to  Remand.

     40 FR 41834,  9/9/75 - Opacity  Reevaluation - Asphalt  Concrete,
              Response to Public Comments.

     40 FR 42028,  9/10/75 - Proposed  Opacity Standards for Fossil
              Fuel-Fired Steam Generators.

     40 FR 42045,  9/10/75 - Standards  of Performance for  Fossil Fuel-
              Fired Steam Generators  - EPA  Response  to Remand.

15.   40 FR 42194,  9/11/75 - Delegation of Authority  to State  of
              California.                                              74

16.   40 FR 43850,  9/23/75 - Standards  of Performance Promulgated for
              Electric Arc Furnaces in the  Steel  Industry.              75

17.   40 FR 45170,  10/1/75 - Delegation of Authority  to State  of
              California.                                              80

18.   40 FR 46250,  10/6/75 - Standards  of Performance Promulgated
              for Emission Monitoring  Requirements and Revisions
              to Performance Testing  Methods.                          81

19.   40 FR 48347,  10/15/75 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              New York.                                               102

20.   40 FR 50718,  10/31/75 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              Colorado.                                               102

21.   40 FR 53340,  11/17/75 - Standards of Performance, Promulgation
              of State Plans for the control of Certain Pollutants
              from Existing Facilities (Subpart B and Appendix D).    103
                                        n
-------
     40 FR 53420,  11/18/75 - Reevaluation of Opacity Standards  for
              Secondary Brass and Bronze Plants and  Secondary  Lead
              Smelters.

22.  40 FR 58416,  12/16/75 - Standards of Performance, Promulgation
              of Modification, Notification and Reconstruction Pro-
              visions.                                                113

23.  40 FR 59204,  12/22/75 - Corrections to October  6, 1975, Federal
              Register.                                               118

24.  40 FR 59729,  12/30/75 - Delegation of Authority to State  of
              Maine.                                                   118

25.  41 FR 1913, 1/13/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              Michigan.                                               119

26.  41 FR 2231, 1/15/76 - Standards of Performance  Promulgated for
              Coal  Preparation Plants.                                 119

26.  41 FR 2332, 1/15/76 - Standards of Performance  Promulgated for
              Primary Copper, Zinc and Lead Smelters.                 123

27.  41 FR 3825, 1/26/76 - Standards of Performance  Promulgated for
              Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants.                      133

28.  41 FR 4263,1/29/76 - Delegation of Authority to Washington Local
              Authorities.                                            138

     41 FR 7447, 2/18/76 - Reevaluation of Opacity Standards for
              Municipal Sewage Sludge Incinerators.

29.  41 FR 7749, 2/20/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              Oregon.                                                 138

30.  41 FR 8346, 2/26/76 - Correction to the Primary Copper, Zinc,
              and Lead Smelter Standards Promulgated on 1/15/76.      139

31.  41 FR 11820,  3/22/76 - Delegation of Authority  to State of
              Connecticut.                                            139

32.  41 FR 17549,  4/27/76 - Delegation of Authority  to State of
              South Dakota.                                           139

33.  41 FR 18498,  5/4/76 - Standards of Performance  Promulgated for
              Ferroalloy Production Facilities.                       140

     41 FR 19374,  5/12/76 - Revised Public Comment Summary for Mod-
              ification, Notification,  and Reconstruction.

     41 FR 19584,  5/12/7.6 - Phosphate Fertilizer Plants,  Draft Guide-
              lines Document - Notice of Availability.
-------
34.   41  FR 19633, 5/13/76 - Delegation of Authority to  Commonwealth
              of Massachusetts and Delegation of Authority  to  State
              of New Hampshire.                                       145

35.   41  FR 20659, 5/20/76 - Correction to Ferroalloy Production
              Facilities Standards Promulgated on May 4,  1976.         146

36.   41  FR 21450, 5/26/76 - Delegation of Authority to  State of
              California.                                             146

     41  FR 23059, 6/8/76 - Proposed Amendments to Reference Methods
37.  41 FR 24124, 6/15/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of Utah. 146

38.  41 FR 24885, 5/21/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              Georgia.                                                147

39.  41 FR 27967, 7/8/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              California.                                             147

40.  41 FR 33264, 8/9/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              California.                                             148

41.  41 FR 34628, 8/16/76 - Delegation of Authority to Virgin
              Islands.                                                148

42.  41 FR 35185, 8/20/76 - Revision to Emission Monitoring
              Requirements.                                           149

     41 FR 36600, 8/30/76 - Proposed Revisions to Standards of
              Performance for  Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic
              Cracking  Unit Catalyst Regenerators.

43.  41 FR 36918, 9/1/76 - Standards of Performance - Avail-
              ability of Information-                                 149

44.  41 FR 40107, 9/17/76 - Delegation of Authority to
              State  of  California.                                    149

45.  41 FR 40467, 9/20/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              Alabama.                                                150

     41 FR 42012, 9/24/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
              Kraft  Pulp Mills.

46.  41 FR 43148, 9/30/76 - Delegation of Authority to the State
              State  of  Indiana.                                       150

     41 FR 43866, 10/4/76 - Proposed Revisions to Standards of
              Performance for  Petroleum Refinery Sulfur  Recovery
              Plants.
-------
47.  41  FR 44859, 10/13/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              North Dakota.                                            150

     41  FR 46618, 10/22/76 - Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-
              making of Air Emission Regulations - Synthetic
              Organic Chemical  Manufacturing Industry.

     41  FR 47495, 10/29/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
              Kraft Pulp Mills; Correction.

48.  41  FR 48342, 11/3/76 - Delegation of Authority to  State of
              California.                                             151

     41  FR 48706, 11/4/76 - Proposed Revisions to Emission Guide-
              lines for the Control  of Sulfuric Acid Mist from
              Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units.

49.  41  FR 51397, 11/22/76 - Amendments to Subpart D Promulgated.      151

     41  FR 51621, 11/23/76 - Proposed Standards of Performance
              for Kraft Pulp Mills - Extension of Comment Period.

     41  FR 52079, 11/26/76 - Proposed Revision to Emission Guide-
              lines for the Control  of Sulfuric Acid Mist from
              Existing Sulfuric Acid Production Units;  Correction.

50.  41  FR 52299, 11/29/76 - Amendments to Reference Methods
              13A and 13B Promulgated.                                154

51.  41  FR 53017, 12/3/76 - Delegation of Authority to  Pima
              County Health Department; Arizona.                      155

52.  41  FR 54757, 12/15/76 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              California.                                             155

53.  41  FR 55531, 12/21/76 - Delegation of Authority to the State
              of Ohio.                                                156

     41  FR 55792, 12/22/76 - Proposed Revisions to Standards of
              Performance for Lignite-Fired Steam Generators.

54.  41  FR 56805, 12/30/76 - Delegation of Authority to the States
              of North Carolina, Nebraska, and Iowa.                  156

55.  42 FR 1214, 1/6/77 - Delegation of Authority to State of
              Vermont.                                                157

     42 FR 2841, 1/13/77 - Proposed  Standards of Performance for
              Grain Elevators.
-------
56.  42 PR 4124, 1/24/77 - Delegation  of Authority  to  the  State
              of South Carolina.                                       158

     42 FR 4863, 1/26/77 - Proposed Revisions to  Standards of
              Performance for Sewage Sludge Incinerators.

     42 FR 4883, 1/26/77 - Receipt of  Application and  Approval
              of Alternative Test Method.                              158

     42 FR 5121, 1/27/77 - Notice of Study to Review Standards
              for Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators;  S02
              Emissions.

57.  42 FR 5936, 1/31/77 - Revisions to Emission  Monitoring
              Requirements and to Reference Methods Promulgated.       159

58.  42 FR 6812, 2/4/77 - Delegation of Authority to City  of
              Philadelphia.                                           161

     42 FR 10019, 2/18/77 - Proposed Standards for Sewage
              Treatment Plants; Correction.

     42 FR 12130, 3/2/77 - Proposed Revision to Standards  of Per-
              formance for Iron & Steel Plants; Basic Oxygen
              Process Furnaces.

     42 FR 13566, 3/11/77 - Proposed Standards of Performance  for
              Grain Elevators; Extension of Comment Period.

59.  42 FR 16777, 3/30/77 - Correction of Region  V Address and
              Delegation of Authority  to the State of Wisconsin.       161

     42 FR 18884, 4/11/77 - Notice of  Public Hearing on Coal-
              Fired Steam Generators S02 Emissions.

     42 FR 22506, 5/3/77 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
              Lime Manufacturing Plants.

60.  42 FR 26205, 5/23/77 - Revision of Compliance with
              Standards and Maintenance Requirements.                  162

     42 FR 26222, 5/23/77 - Proposed Revision of Reference
              Method 11.

     42 FR 32264, 6/24/77 - Suspension of Proposed Standards of
              Performance for Grain Elevators.

61.  42 FR 32426, 6/24/77 - Revisions  to Standards of Performance
              for Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking  Unit
              Catalyst  Regenerators Promulgated.                       162
                                      VTI
-------
62.  42 FR 37000, 7/19/77 - Revision and Reorganization of the
              Units and Abbreviations.                                 164

     42 FR 37213, 7/20/77 - Notice of Intent to Develop Standards
              of Performance for Glass  Melting Furnaces.

63.  42 FR 37386, 7/21/77 - Delegation  of Authority to the State
              of New Jersey.                                          165

64.  42 FR 37936, 7/25/77 - Applicability Dates Incorporated
              Into Existing Regulations.                              165

65.  42 FR 38178, 7/27/77 - Standards of Performance for
              Petroleum Refinery Fluid  Catalytic Cracking Unit
              Catalyst Regenerators and Units and Measures;
              Corrections.                                             168

66.  42 FR 39389, 8/4/77 -  Standards of Performance for Petroleum
              Refinery Fluid Catalytic  Cracking Unit Catalyst
              Regenerators, Correction.                               168

67.  42 FR 41122, 8/15/77 - Amendments  to Subpart D; Correction.      168

68.  42 FR 41424, 8/17/77 - Authority Citations; Revision             169

69.  42 FR 41754, 8/18/77 - Revision to Reference Methods 1-8         170
              Promulgated.

70.  42 FR 44544, 9/6/77 -  Delegation of Authority to the State
              of Montana.                                             206

71.  42 FR 44812, 9/7/77 -  Standards of Performance, Applicability
              Dates; Correction.                                      206

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

72.  42 FR 46304, 9/15/77 - Delegation  of Authority to the State
              of Wyoming.                                             207

     42 FR 53782, 10/3/77 - Proposed Standards of Performance
              for Stationary Gas Turbines.

73.  42 FR 55796, 10/18/77  - Emission Guidelines for Sulfurlc
              Acid M1st Promulgated.                                  208

74.  42 FR 57125, 11/1/77 - Amendments  to General Provisions
              and Copper Smelter Standards Promulgated.               209
                                      viii
-------
75.   42 FR 58520,  11/10/77 - Amendment to Sewage Sludge Incin-
              erators Promulgated.                                     211

76.   42 FR 61537,  12/5/77 - Opacity Provisions  for Fossil-Fuel-
              Fired Steam Generators Promulgated.                      212

     42 FR 61541,  12/5/77 - Opacity Standards for Fossil-Fuel -
              Fired Steam Generators:   Final  EPA Response to
              Remand.

77.   42 FR 62137,  12/9/77 - Delegation of Authority to the
              Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.                            214

     42 FR 62164,  12/9/77 - Proposed Standards  for Station-
              ary Gas Turbines; Extension of  Comment Period.

78.   43 FR 9, 1/3/78 - Delegation of Authority  to the State
              of Minnesota.                                           214

79.   43 FR 1494, 1/10/78 - Revision of Reference Method II
              Promulgated.                                            215

80.   43 FR 3360, 1/25/78 - Delegation of Authority to the
              Commonwealth of Kentucky.                               219

81.   43 FR 6770, 2/16/78 - Delegation of Authority to the
              State of Delaware.                                      220

82.   43 FR 7568, 2/23/78 - Standards of Performance Pro-
              mulgated for Kraft Pulp Mills.                           221

83.   43 FR 8800, 3/3/78 - Revision of Authority Citations.            249

84.   43 FR 9276, 3/7/78 - Standards of Performance Promul-
              gated for Lignite-Fired Steam Generators.               250

85.   43 FR 9452, 3/7/78 - Standards of Performance Promul-
              gated for Lime Manufacturing Plants.                    253

86.   43 FR 10866, 3/15/78 - Standards of Performance Pro-
              mulgated for Petroleum Refinery Claus Sulfur
              Recovery Plants.                                        255

87.   43 FR 11984, 3/23/78 - Corrections and Amendments to
              Reference Methods 1-8.                                  262

     43 FR 14602, 4/6/78 - Notice of Regulatory Agenda.
                                        IX
-------
88.  43 FR 15600, 4/13/78 - Standards of Performance Promul-
              gated for Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces:  Opacity
              Standard.                                               2f>5

89.  43 FR 20986, 5/16/78 - Delegation of Authority to State/
              Local Air Pollution Control Agencies in Arizona,
              California, and Nevada.                                 268

     43 FR 21616, 5/18/78 - Proposed Standards of Performance
              for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids.

     43 FR 22221, 5/24/78 - Correction to Proposed Standards
              of Performance for Storage Vessels for Petroleum
              Liquids.

90.  43 FR 34340, 8/3/78 - Standards of Performance Promulgated
              for Grain Elevators.                                    269

     43 FR 34349, 8/3/78 - Reinstatement of Proposed Standards
              for Grain Elevators.

91.  43 FR 34784, 8/7/78 - Amendments to Standards of Perform-
              ance for Kraft Pulp Mills and Reference Method 16.      277

     43 FR 34892, 8/7/78 - Proposed Regulatory Revisions Air
              Quality Surveillance and Data Reporting.

     43 FR 38872, 8/31/78 - Proposed Priority List for Standards
              of Performance for New Stationary Sources.

     43 FR 42154, 9/19/78 - Proposed Standards of Performance
              for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and
              Announcement of Public Hearing on Proposed Stan-
              dards.

     43 FR 42186, 9/19/78 - Proposed Standards of Performance
              for Primary Aluminum Industry.

92.  43 FR 47692, 10/16/78 - Delegation of Authority to the
              State of Rhode Island.                                  278

     43 FR 54959, 11/24/78 - Public Hearing on Proposed Stan-
              dards for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.

     43 FR 55258, 11/27/78 - Electric Utility Steam Generating
              Units; Correction and Additional Information.

     43 FR 57834, 12/8/78 - Electric Utility Steam Generating
              Units; Additional Information.
-------
2-1S76
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
1  Title  40—PROTECTION  OF

           ENVIRONMENT

Chapter 1—Environmental  Protection
               Agency

      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS

PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
   ANCE   rOR  MEW   STATIONARY
   SOURCES
  On August  17, 1971 (36 F.R.  157C4)
pursuant to section 111 of the Clean Air
Act  as  amended, the   Administrator
proposed  standards of performance for
steam  generators,  Portland  cement
plants,  incinerators, nitric acid  plants,
and suifuric acid  plants.  The proposed
standards, applicable to sources the con-
struction  or modification  of  which was
initiated after August  17,  1971, included
emission limits for one or more of four
pollutants  (particulate  matter,  sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides,  and suifuric
acid mist) for each source category. The
proposal included  requirements for per-
formance testing,  stack gas monitoring,
record keeping and reporting, and pro-
cedures by  which EPA will provide pre-
construction review and  determine the
applicability of the standards to specific
sources.
   Interested parties  were afforded an
opportunity to participate in the rule
making by submitting comments.  A total
of more than 200  interested  parties, in-
cluding Federal, State, and  local agen-
cies, citizens groups, and commercial and
industrial organizations submitted com-
ments.  Following  a review of the pro-
posed  regulations and consideration of
 the comments, the regulations,  includ-
 ing the appendix, have been revised and
 are being promulgated today. The prin-
 cipal revisions are described below:
   1. Particulate   matter  performance
 testing procedures have  been revised to
 eliminate the requirement for impingers
 in the sampling train. Compliance will be
 based only on material collected in the
 dry filter and the probe preceding the
 filter. Emission limits have been adjusted
 as appropriate to reflect the change in
 test methods.  The adjusted standards re-
 quire the same degree of particulate con-
 trol as the originally proposed standards.
   2. Provisions have been added whereby
 alternative test methods  can be  used to
 determine  compliance. Any  person who
 proposes  the use  of  an   alternative
 method will be obliged  to provide evi-
 dence  that the alternative  method'  is
 equivalent to  the reference method.
   3. The definition of modification, as it
 pertains  to increases in  production rate
 and changes of fuels,  has been clarified.
 Increases in production rates up to design
 capacity will not be considered a modifi-
 cation nor will fuel switches if the equip-
 ment was originally designed to  accom-
 modate such fuels. These provisions will
 eliminate inequities where equipment had
 been put Into partial  operation prior to
 the proposal of the standards.
   4. The definition of a new source was
 clarified to include construction which
Is  completed within an organization as
well as  the more common situations
where the facility is designed and con-
structed by a contractor.
  5. The provisions regarding  requests
for EPA plan review and determination
of construction or modification have been
modified to emphasize that the submittal
of such requests and attendant informa-
tion is  purely  voluntary. Submittal of
such a request will not bind the operator
to supply further information; however.
lack of sufficient information may pre-
vent the Administrator from rendering
an opinion. Further provisions have been
added to the effect that information sub-
mitted  voluntarily for such plan review
or determination of applicability will be
considered confidential, if the owner or
operator requests such confidentiality.
   6. Requirements for notifying the Ad-
ministrator prior to commencing con-
struction have been deleted. As proposed,
the provision would have required notifi-
cation prior to the signing of a contract
for construction of a new source. Owners
and operators still will be  required  to
notify the Administrator 30 days prior to
initial  operation  and to  confirm  the
action  within 15 days after startup.
   7. Revisions  were incoporated  to per-
mit compliance testing to be deferred up
to 60 days after achieving the maximum
production  rate but no longer  than 180
days after initial startup. The  proposed
regulation  could  have required  testing
within  60 days after startup but denned
startup as  the beginning  of routine
operation. Owners or operators  will  be
required'to notify the Administrator at
least 10 days prior to compliance testing
so that an EPA observer can be en hand.
Procedures have been modified so that
 the equipment will have to  be operated
 at maximum expected production rate,
 rather  than rated capacity, during com-
 pliance tests.
   8. The criteria for evaluating perform-
 ance teiting results have been simplified
 to eliminate the  requirement  that  all
 values  be within 35 percent of  the aver-
 age. Compliance  will be based  on the
 average of three repetitions conducted in
 the specified manner.
   9. Provisions were  added to  require
 owners or operators of affected facilities
 to maintain records of compliance tests,
 monitoring  equipment,  pertinent anal-
 yses, feed rates, production rates, etc. for
 2 years and to make such  information
 available on request to the  Administra-
 tor. Owners or operators will be required
 to summarize the recorded data daily
 and to convert recorded data into the
 applicable units of the standard.
   10.  Modifications were  made to the
 visible  emission  standards for  steam
 generators,  cement  plants, nitric acid
 plants, and  suifuric acid  plants. The
 Ringelmann  standards have  been de-
 leted;  all limits will be based on opacity.
 In every case, the equivalent opacity will
 be at least as stringent as  the proposed
 Ringelmann  number.  In  addition, re-
 quirements have been altered for three
 of the  source categories so that allowable
 emissions will  be less than 10  percent
 opacity rather than  5 percent or less
 opacity. There  were  many comments
tliat  observers  could  not  accurately
evaluate emissions of 5 percent opacity.
In addition, drafting errors in the pro-
posed visible emission limits for cement
kilns  and steam generators were cor-
rected. Steam generators will be limited
to visible emissions not greater than 20
percent opacity and cement kilns to not
greater than 10 percent opacity.
  11.  Specifications for  monitoring de-
vices  \vers  clarified, f.r.d  directives for
calibration \veve  included. The  instru-
ments are to be  calibrated at least once
a day, or more  often if specified by the
manufacturer. Additional  guidance  on
the selection and use of such instruments
will be provided  at a later date.
  12.  The requirement for sulfur dioxide
monitoring  at   steam generators  was
deleted for  those  sources  which  will
achieve the standard by burning low-sul-
fur fuel, provided that  fuel_analysis  is
conducted and recorded dally. American
Society  for Testing  and  Materials
sampling  techniques are  specified for
coal and fuel oil.
  13.  Provisions  were added to the steam
generator standards to  cover those in-
stances where mixed fuels  are  burned.
Allowable emissions will  be determined
by prorating the heat input of each fuel,
however, in the case of sulfur dioxide, the
provisions allow  operators the option of
burning   low-sulfur fuels  (probably
natural gas) as  a means of compliance.
  14.  Steam  generators fired with lignite
have  been  exempted from the nitrogen
oxides limit. The revision  was  made in
view of the lack of information on some
types of lignite burning. When more in-
formation is developed, nitrogen oxides
standards  may  be extended to lignite
fired  steam generators.
  15.  A provision was added to  make it
explicit that the  suifuric acid plant
standards  will  not  apply  i« scavenger
acid plants. As stated in the backgroiuid
document, APTD 0711, which was issued
at the time the proposed standards were
published, the standards were not m«mt
to apply to such operations, e.g., where
suifuric acid plants are  used primarily
to control sulfur dioxide or other sulfur
compounds  wliich  would  otherwise be
vented into the  atmosphere.
   16. The  regulation has been revised
to provide that  all materials submitted
pursuant to these regulations -will be di-
rected to EPA's Office  of General En-
forcement.
   17. Several other  technical   changes
have  also been made. States and inter-
ested parties are urged to make a careful
reading of these regulations.
  As  required by section 111 of  the Act,
the standards of performance  promul-
gated herein "reflect the degree  of emis-
sion  reduction  which (taking  into ac-
count the cost of achieving such reduc-
tion)  the Administrator determines has
been   adequately  demonstrated".  The
standards of performance are based on
stationary  source testing conducted by
the Environmental Protection  Agency
and/or contractors and on data derived
from various other sources, including the
available technical literature. In the com-
ments on the proposed standards, ni?uy
questions were  raised as  to costs and
                              FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL 36,  NO.  247—THURSDAY. DECEMBER 23, 1971
                                                      IV-1
-------
               RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                  24877
demonstrated capability of control sys-
tems to meet the standards. These com-
ments  have been evaluated and investi-
gated,  and  it  is  the  Administrator's
Judgment that emission control systems
capable of meeting the. standards have
been adequately demonstrated'and that
the standards promulgated  herein  are
achievable at reasonable costs..
  The  regulations establishing standards
of performance for steam generators, in-
cinerators,  cement plants,  nitric  acid
plants, and sulfuric acid plants are here-
by promulgated effective on publication
and apply to sources, the construction or
modification of which was commenced
after August 17,1971.

  Dated: December 16, 1971,

       WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
                     Administ rotor,
    Environmental Protection Agency.

  A new Part 60 is added to Chapter I,
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as
-follows:
        Subpart A—General Provision!

60.1    Applicability.
80.2   Definitions.
60.3   Abbreviations.
60.4   Address.
60.6   Determination  of  construction or
        modification.
60.6   Rortew of plans.
60.7   Notification and recordlceeplng.
60.8   Performance tests.
60.9   Availability of Information.
60.10   State authority.

    Subpart D—Standards of Performance for
       Fosiil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
flO.40   Applicability  and designation of af-
        fected facility.
60.41   Definitions.
60.42   Standard for particulate matter.
60.43   Standard for  sulfur dloxldo.
60.44   Standard for  nitrogen oxides.
60.45   Emission and fuel monitoring.
60.46   Test methods and procedures.

    Subpart E—Standard! of Performance for
                Incinerators
60.60   Applicability  and designation of af-
        fected facility.
60.61   Definitions.
80.62   Standard for  particulate matter.
60.63   Monitoring of operations.
60.54  Test methods end procedures.

    Subpart F—Standards of Performance for
           Portland  Cement Plants
oQ.60   Applicability   and  designation  of
        affected facility.
80.61   Definitions.
60.62   Standard for  particulate matter.
60.03  Monitoring of operations.
60.64  Test methods and procedures.

Subpart G—Standards of Performance for  Nitric
                Acid Plants
60.70  Applicability  and designation of ef-
        fected facility.
 60.71   Definitions.
 60.72  Standard  for nitrogen  oxides.
80.73  Emission monitoring.
 60.74  Test methods and procedures.

 Subport H—Standards of Performance for Sulfuric
                Acid Plants
 60.80  Applicability  and designation of af-
        fected facility.
 60.81  Definitions.
          Sec.
          60.82  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
          60.83  Standard for acid mist.
          60.84  Emission monitoring.
          60.85  Test methods and procedures.
                   APPENDIX—TEST METHODS
          Method 1—Sample and velocity traverses for
                 stationary sources.
          Method 2—Determination of stack gas veloc-
                .ity and volumetric flow rate (Type S
                 pilot tube).
          Method 3—Gas analysis for carbon dioxide,
                 excess air, and dry molecular weight.
          Method 4—Determination  of moisture  in
                 stack gases.
          Method 5—Determination   of  particulate
                 emissions from stationary sources.
          Method 6—Determination of  sulfur dioxide
                 emissions from stationary sources.
          Method 7—Determination of nitrogen oxide
                 emissions from stationary sources.
          Method 8—Determination  of sulfuric acid
                 mist  and  sulfur dioxide  emissions
                 from stationary sources.
          Method 9—Visual determination of the opac-
                 ity  of  emissions  from  stationary
                 sources.
             AUTHORITY: The provisions of this Part 60
          Issued under sections 111. 114, Clean Air Act;
          Public Law 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713.

              Subpart A—General  Provisions
           § 60.1  Applicability.
             The provisions  of  this  part apply to
           the owner  or operator of any stationary
           source, which contains an affected facil-
           ity the  construction or  modification of
           which Is commenced after the date of
           publication in this part of  any proposed
           standard applicable to such facility.
           § 60.2  Definitions.
             As  used in this part, all terms not
           defined herein shall have  the meaning
           given them in the Act:
              (a) "Act" means  the  Clean  Air Act
           (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq., as amended by
           Public Law  91-604,  84  Stat. 1676).
              (b)  "Administrator" means the  Ad-
           ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
           tection Agency or his authorized repre-
           sentative.
              (c) "Standard" means  a standard of
           performance  proposed or promulgated
           under this part.
              (d)  "Stationary source" means  any
           building, structure,  facility, or installa-
           tion which emits or may  emit any  air
           pollutant.
              (e)  "Affected  facility"  means,  with
           reference to a stationary source, any ap-
           paratus to  which a standard is applicable.
              (f) "Owner or operator" means any
           person who owns, leases, operates, con-
           trols, or supervises an affected facility
           or  a  stationary source of which an  af-
           fected facility is  a part.
              
-------
2-1S7S
     RULES AND  REGULATIONS
ft." — c-:bic feet.
'l.- — square Jeet.
mia. — L")lnute(s).
hr. — h
§ 60. t  Address.
  All applications, requests, submissions,
and reports under this part shall be sub-
mitted in triplicate and addrc:>ed to tile
Environmental Protection Agency, Office
or 3er.eral Enforcement, Waterside  Mall
5\V.. Yv'as'nington, DC 20450.

§ 60.5  Di'termiiKilion of conjtruclion or
    modification.

  When rec.uested to do .so by an owner
or operator, the .^ciuiini?trntor will make
a determination of wheth;.-:' actions taken
or inienced to be taken by sucii owner or
operator constitute construction or modi-
fication  cr  the commencement L^.orcT.f
within the meaning of this part.

§ 60.6  Review of plans.
  (a) When  requested  to do so by  an
owner or operator, the Administrator wUH
review plans for  construction or modifi-
cation  for  the  purpose of  providing
technical advice to the owner or operator.
  (b)  (1) A  separate  request shall  be
submitted for each affected facility.
   (2) Each request shall (i) identify the
location of such affected facility, and 
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       24S79
§ 60.43   Standard for sulfur dioxide.
  On and after the date on which  the
performance test required to  be con-
ducted by S 60.8 is  initiated no owner
or operator subject to  the provisions
of this part shall discharge or cause  the
discharge into the atmosphere of sulfur
dioxide  in excess of:
  (a) 0.80 Ib. per million B.t.u. heat in-
put (1.4 g. per million cal.), maximum 2-
hour average, when liquid fossil fuel is
burned.
  (b) 1.2 Ibs. per million B.t.u. heat input
(2.2  g.  per  million cal.),  maximum 2-
hour average, when solid  fossil  fuel Is
burned.
  (c) Where  different fossil  fuels  are
burned  simultaneously to any combina-
tion, the applicable standard  shall be
determined  by  proration.  Compliance
shall be determined using  the following
formula:
             r(0.80)-rZ(1.2)

                x+y+z
where:
  jc IB the percent of total beat Input derived
   from gaseous fossil lucl and,
  y is the percent ol total beat Input derived
   from liquid fossil fuel and,
  z Is the percent of total hetit input derived
   from solid fossil fuel.
% 60.4't   Standard for nitrogen oxides.
  On and after the date on which  the
performance test required to  be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is initiated no owner or
operator subject to the provisions of this
part shall discharge or cause  the dis-
charge into  the atmosphere of nitrogen
oxides in excess of:
  (a) 0.20 Ib. per million B.t.u. heat in-
put (0.36 g.  per million cal.), maximum
2-hour average, expressed as NO;, when
gaseous fossil fuel is burned.
  (b) 0.30 Ib. per million B.t.u. heat in-
put (0.54 g.  per million cal.). maximum
2-hour average, expressed  as NO.-, when
liquid fossil fuel is burned.
  (c) 0.70 Ib. per million B.t.u. heat in-
put (1.26 g.  per million cal.). maximum.
2-hour average, expressed  as NCX when
solid fossil fuel (except lignite) is burned.
  (d) When different  fossil  fuels  are
burned  simultaneously in any combina-
tion the applicable standard shall be de-
termined by proration. Compliance shall
be  determined by using the following
formula:
         X(0.20) +y(0.30) +z(0.70)
                x+y+z
 where:
  x IB tbe percent of total heat input derived
    from gaseous fossil fuel and,
  y is the percent of total heat Input derived
    from liquid fossil fuel and,
  t is tbe percent of total beat Input derived
    from solid fossil fuel.

 § 60.45  Emiss/oii  and furl  monilomifi:.
   (a) There  shall  be  installed,  cali-
 brated, maintained, and operated, in any
 fossil fuel-fired  steam generating unit
 subject to the provisions ot this  part,
 emission  monitoring  instruments  as
 follows:
   (1) A  photoelectric  or   other  type
 smoke  detector  and recorder,  except
where  gaseous  fuel  is  the  only  fuel
burned.
  (2) An instrument  for continuously
monitoring and recording sulfur dioxide
emissions, except where  gaseous  fuel is
the only fuel burned, or where compli-
ance is achieved through low sulfur fuels
and representative  sulfur  analysis  of
fuels ere conducted daily in accordance
with paragraph (c) or (d) of this section.
  (3) An instrument  for continuously
monitoring  and recording emissions  of
nitrogen oxides.
  (b) Instruments and sampling systems
installed and used pursuant to this sec-
tion shall be capable of monitoring emis-
sion levels within ±20  percent  with a
confidence  level of 95 percent and shall
be  calibrated In accordance  with the
method(s)  prescribed by the  manufac-
turer^)  of such  instruments;   instru-
ments shall be subjected to manufactur-
ers recommended zero  adjustment and
calibration procedures at least once per
24-hour operating peric-d unless the man-
ufacturer (s)  specifies  or  recommends
calibration at shorter intervals, in which
case such specifications or recommenda-
tions shall be followed.  The  applicable
method specified in the appendix of this
part shall be the reference method.
  (c) The  sulfur content of solid fuels,
as burned, shall be uetennined  iii accord-
ance with the following  methods of the
American  Society  for  Testing  and
Materials.
   (1) Mechanical sampling by Method
D 2234065.
   (2) Sample preparation by  Method D
2013-65.
   (3) Sample  analysis  by Method  D
271-68.
   (d) The sulfur content ol liquid fuels,
as burned, shall be determined in accord-
ance with the American Society for Test-
ing and Materials Methods D 1551-68, or
D 129-64, or D 1552-64.
   (e) The rate of fuel burned for  each
fuel shall be measured daily or at shorter
intervals  and  recorded.  The  heating
value and  ash  content of fuels shall  be
ascertained at  least once per week and
recorded. Where the steam  generating
unit is  used to generate electricity, the
average electrical output and the mini-
mum and  maximum hourly  generation
rate shall be  measured and recorded
daily.
   (f) The owner or  operator  of any
fossil fuel-fired steam generating unit
subject  to  the  provisions  of this  part
shall maint?.in  a file of all measureineuU
required by this part. Appropriate meas-
urements shall be reduced to the units
of  the  applicable standard  daily, anri
summarized monthly, The record of any
such,  measurement (s)   and  summary
shall be retained for at least 2 years fol-
lowing  the date of  such measurements
and summaries.
§ 60.46  Tcs! methods and procedures.
   (a.1  The provisions of this section  are
applicable to performance  tests  for  de-
termining  emissions of participate mat-
ter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides
from fossil fuel-fired steam  generating
units.
  (b) All performance tests shall be con-
ducted while the affected facility is oper-
ating at or above the maximum steam
production rate at which such facility
will be operated and while fuels or com-
binations  of   fuels  representative  of
normal operation are being burned and
under such oilier relevant conditions as
the Administrator  shall  specify  based
on representative performance of the
affected facility.
  (c) Test  methods  set  forth in the
appendix  to  this  part  or equivalent
methods approved by the Administrator
shall  be used as follows:
  (1) For  each repetition, the average
concentration of participate matter shall
be  determined  by  using Method  5.
Traversing during sampling by Method 5
shall  be according  to Method 1. The
minimum sampling time shall be 2 hours,
and minimum sampling volume shall be
60 ft.3 corrected to standard conditions
on a dry basis.
  (2) For  each repetition, the  SO» con-
centration  shall be determined by using
Method 6. The sampling site shall be the
same as for determining volumetric flow
rate.  The  sampling- point  in  the  duct
shall  be at the  centroid of  the  cross
section  if tbe cross sectional area is less
than  50 ft.' or at a point no closer to the
•walls  than 3 feet if the cross  sectional
area is 50 ft.* or more. The sample shall
be extracted at a rate proportional to the
gas velocity at the sampling point. The
minimum sampling time shall be 20 min.
and minimum sampling volume shall be
0.75 ft.1 corrected to standard conditions.
Two samples shall constitute one repeti-
tion   and  shall  be  taken  at  1-hour
intervals.
  (3) For  each repetition the NO, con-
centration  shall be determined by using
Method 7.  The sampling site  and  point
shall  be the same as for  S
-------
24880
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (2) For SO-, c=SO, concentration in
Ib./f t.J, as determined in accordance witli
paragraph  (c) (.2)  of this  section., cor-
rected to standard conditions, dry basis.
  (3) For NO,, c=NO. concentration in
lb./f t.1, as determined in accordance witli
paragraph  (O (3)  of this  section, cor-
rected to standard conditions, dry basis.

Subpart E—Standards of Performonce
           for Incinerators

§ 60.30  Applicability and designation of
     affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are  ap-
plicable to each, incinerator of more than
ft1) tons per clay charging rate, which is
tue affected facility.
§ 60.51  Definitions.
  As  used iii  l.his subpart, ?;J  term?  not
denned herein shall have  the meaning
.given them In the Act and in Subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Incinerator" means any furnace
used In the process of burning solid waste
for the primary purpose of reducing the
volume of  the waste by removing com-
bustible matter.
  (b)  "Solid waste" means refuse, more
than 50 percent  of  which is  municipal
type  waste consisting of a mixture of
paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes,
plastics, leather, rubber, and other com-
bustibles, and noncombustible  materials
such as glass and rock.
  xc,
                              FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 36,  NO.  247—THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, J971


                                                       IV- 5
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       248S1
where  Qi=volumetric  flow rate of the
total effluent In f t.'/hr. at standard condi-
tions, dry basis,  as determined in ac-
cordance with paragraph (c) (2) of this
section, and, c=particulate  concentra-
tion in Ib./ft.', as determined in accord-
ance  with  paragraph  (c)U)  of  this
section, corrected to standard conditions,
dry basis.

Subpcrt G—Standards of Performance
        for Nifric Acid  Plants
§ 60.70 Applicability and designation  of
    affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to each nitric acid production
unit, which is the affected facility.
§ 60.71  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the  meaning
given them in the Act and in Subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Nitric   acid production   unit"
means any facility producing weak nitric
acid by either the  pressure or atmos-
pheric pressure process.
   In excess of 3 Ibs. per  ton of acid
produced   <1.5  kg. Per metric  ton),
maximum 2-houi average, expressed as
N02.
   (b)  10  percent opacity or greater.
f 60.73  Emission monitoring.
   (a)  There  shall  be  installed,  cali-
brated, maintained, and operated, in any
nitric acid  production  unit subject  to
tho provisions of this subpart, an instru-
ment  for continuously monitoring and
recording emissions of nitrogen oxides.
   (b)  The  instrument   and  sampling
system installed and  used pursuant  to
this section shall be capable of  monitor-
ing emission levels within ±20 percent
with a confidence level of 95 percent and
shall be calibrated  in accordance with
the method
-------
       method(s) prescribed by the  manufac-
       turer(s)  of such Instrument, the Instru-
       ment shall be subject to manufacturers
       recommended zero adjustment calibra-
       tion procedures at least once per 24-hour
       opirating  period  unless the  manufac-
       turer(s)  specified or recommends  cali-
       bration  at shorter intervals,  In  which
       case such specifications or recommenda-
       tions  shall be followed. The applicable
       method specified in the appendix of this
       part shall be the reference method.
         (c)  Production rate and  hours of op-
       eration shall be  recorded dally.
         Cd)  The owner or operator of any sul-
       furic acid production unit subject to the
       provisions of this subpart shall maintain
       a file  of  all  measurements required  by
       this subpart. Appropriate measurements
       shall be reduced to the units of the ap-
       plicable standard daily and summarized
       monthly. The record  of  any such meas-
       urement  and summary shall be retained
       for  at least 2 years  following the  date
       of such measurements and summaries.
y     § 60.85   Tost methods and procedures.
 I        (a)  The provisions of this section are
•-J     applicable to performance tests for deter-
       mining emissions of acid mist and sulfur
       dioxide from sulfuric  acid production
       units.
         (b)  All performance tests shall be con-
       ducted while the affected facility is oper-
       ating  at  or  above the  maximum  acid
       production rate at which such facility
       will be operated and under such other
       relevant conditions as the Administrator
       shall specify based on representative per-
       formance of the affected facility.
         (c)  Test methods set forth in the ap-
       pendix to this part or equivalent methods
       as approved by  the Administrator shall
       be used as follows:
         (1)  For each  repetition the  acid  mist
       and SO,  concentrations shall  be  deter-
       mined by using Method 8 and traversing
       according to Method 1. The  minimum
       sampling time shall be 2 hours, and mini-
       mum  sampling  volume  shall be  40 ft.'
       corrected to standard  conditions.
         (2)  The volumetric flow rate .of  the
       total effluent shall be determined by using
       Method 2  and traversing according  to
Method  1.  Gas  analyrls  shall  be per-
formed by  using the integrated sample
technique of Method 3. Moisture content
can be considered to be zero.
   (d)  Acid produced, expressed In tons
per hour of  100 percent sulfuric acid
shall be determined during each 2-hour
testing period by suitable flow meters and
shall be confirmed by a material balance
over the production system.
   (e)  For each repetition acid mist and
sulf ur dioxide emissions, expressed in lb./
ton of 100 percent sulfuric acid shall be
determined by dividing the emission rate
in  Ib./hr.  by  the  acid  produced. The
emission  rate shall be  determined  by
the  equation,  lb./hr.=Q3xc,   where
Qs=volumetrlc flow rate  of the effluent
in  ft.'/hr- at  standard conditions, dry
basis as determined In accordance with
paragraph  (c)(2)  of this section, and
c=acid mist and SO, concentrations in
lb./ft.8 as determined in accordance with
paragraph  (c)(l)  of this section, cor-
rected to standard conditions, dry basis.
        AFPEwnix — TEST METHODS

METHOD 1 — SAMPLE AND VELOCITY TRAVERSES
         TOR STATIONARY BOTJRCES

  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. A sampling site  and the
number of traverse points are selected to aid
In the extraction of a representative sample.
  1.2  Applicability.  This  method should
be applied only when specified by the test
procedures for determining compliance with
the New Source  Performance Standards. Un-
less otherwise specified, this method 13 not
Intended to apply  to gas streams other than
thoso emitted  directly to  the atmosphere
without further processing.
  2. Procedure.
  2.1  Selection of a sampling slto and mini-
mum  number of traverse points.
  2.1.1 Select a sampling cite that IB at least
eight  stack or duct diameters downstream
and two diameters upstream from  any flow
disturbance such as a bend,  expansion, con-
traction,  or  visible flame.  Fo.v rectangular
cross section, determine an equivalent diam-
eter from the following equation:
      i    j-
equwalent d
  2.1.2  When  tlio  above  sampling  slto
criteria can bo met, the minimum number
ot traverse points Is twelve (12).
  2.1.3  Some sampling situations render tho
above  sampling  slto  criteria  Impractical.
When this Is  the case, choose a convenient
sampling location and use Figure 1-1 to de-
termine- the minimum  number of traverse
points.  Under no conditions should a sam-
pling point bo selected within 1 lucti of the
stack wall. To obtain the r.umber o£ traverse
points  Tor stacks or ducts with a diameter
less than  2 feet, multiply  the number  of
points obtained from Figure 1-1 by 0.67.
  2.1.4  To use Figure l-l first measure the
distance from'the chosen sampling location
to the nearest upstream and downstream dis-
turbances.  Determine  the  corresponding
number of traverse points for tuch tilstnnco
from  Figure 1-1.  Select  tho  higher of tho
two numbers of traverse point*, or a greater
value, such that for circular stacks tho num-
ber la a multiple  of 4, and for rectangular
stacks tho  number  follows tho criteria or
section 2.2.2.
  2.2  Cross-sectional layout and location of
traverse points.
  2.2.1  For circular stacKs locate  tho  tra-
verse  points or. at least two diameters ac-
cording to  Figure 1-2 and Tnblo  1-1.  The
traverse axes shall  divide tho stack  cross
section Intolequal  parts.
CO
GO
to
                             NUMBER OF DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM'
                                     (DISTANCE A)
              FROM POINT OF ANY TYPE OF
              DISTURBANCE (BEND. UPANSIOM, CONTRACTION. ETC.)
                                                                                   JO
                                                                                   c
                                                                                   m
                                                                                   in
                                                                                   IB
                                                                                   m
                                                                                   O

                                                                                   |

                                                                                   O
                                                                                   z
                           equation 1-1
                            NUMOER OF DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM'
                                       (D.'STANCE B)
                                                                  Flflurs 1-1. Minimum number of travorso points.
         FEOERAl REGISTER.  VCU.  36. NO. 247—THURSDAY. DECEMBER 23.  1971
-------
                                                                                             Table 1-1.  Location of traverse points in circular stacks
                                                                                            (Percent of stack diameter from Inside vail to traverse point)
       Figure 1-2.  Cross section of circular stac'k divided into 12 equal
       areas, showing location of traverse points at centroid of each area.
H
<

00



o


-- — -.-

o
	

o


I
1
1
o .; ?
1
, 	 i 	
! 	 ,--i 	
1
0 1 0
I
r
I
0 1 0
1
1



o




o
	
.__ ._-

0


     Figure 1-3.  Cross section of rectangular stack divided into 12 equal
     areas, with traverse points at centrpid of each area.
Traverse
point
number
on a.
diameter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
M
20
21
22
23
24
Number of traverse points on a diameter
2
14.6
85.4






















4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93,3




















6
4.4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6


















8
3.3
10.5
19.4
3Z.3
67.7
80.6
89.5
96.7
















10
2.5
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.8
97.5














12
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.5
64 ..5
65.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9












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










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








18
1.4
4.4
7.5
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6
29.6
38.2
61.8
70.4
76.4
81.2
85.4
89.1
92.5
95.6
98.6






20
1.3
3.9
6.7
9.7
12.9
16.5
20.4
25.0
30.6
33.8
61.2
69.4
75.0
79.6
83.5
87.1
90.3
93.3
95.1
98.7




22
I.I
3.5
6.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
21.8
26.1
31.5
39.3
60.7
68.5
73.9
78.2
82.0
85.4
88.4
91.3
94.0
96.5
98'.9


24
T.1
3.2
5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1
19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
3.9.8
60.2
67.7
72.8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.8
89.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
98.9
o
                                                                                                                                                           o
                                                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                                                           o
                                                                                                                                                           z
           No. 247—Ft. II-
                                                   FEDERAi. REGISTER, VOL. 36,  NO. 247—TtlURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1971
oo
83
-------
21884
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
  2.2.2  For  rectangular stacks divide  the
crc« section into as many equal rectangular
nre-.is ns traverse points, sucb that the ratio
of the length to the width of the elemental
arcao is between,  one and two. Locate  the
u-.iverse points at the cetjtrolcl of each equal
orua according to Figure 1-3.
  3. References.
  Determining Dust Concentration In a Gas
S'recun. ASME Performance Test Code  "27,
.\-vn- To.-k. N.Y.. 195".
  DovorkLn,  Howard,  et al.. Air  Pollution
S.,ur« Testing Maaual, Air Pollution Control
District, Los Angeles.  Calif.  November 1963.
  Methods  for  Determination  of Velocity,
Volume, Dust and Mist Content ot Gases,
Western Precipitation Division of Joy Manu-
facturing  Co., Los Angeles.  Calif.  Bulletin
\V?-30. 1968.
  Standard Method for  Sampling Stacks for
paniculate  Matter, In:  1971 Book of ASTM
Standards, Part 23, Philadelphia,  Pa. 1971,
ASTM Designation D-2928-71.

METHOD  2—DETERMINATION  OP  STACK   CAS
  VELOCITY ANH3 VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE  ITTPE
  S PTTOT  TTTBE)

  1. Principle and applicability.

  1.1  Principle. Stack gas velocity  is deter-
mined from the gas density and from meas-
urement of the velocity head using a Type S
(Stauschelbe or reverse type) pitot tube.
  1.2  Applicability. This method should be
applied only when specified  by the  test pro-
cedures for determining compliance with the
New Source Performance Standards.

  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Pi-tot tube—Type  S (Figure 2-1),  or
equivalent,  with a  coefficient within  ±5%
over the working range.
  2.2  Differential  pressure  gauge—Inclined
manometer, or equivalent, to measure velo-
city head  to  within 10% of the minimum
value.
  2.3  Temperature gauge—Thermocouple or
equivalent attached to  tha pitot  tuba  to
measure stack temperature to witMn 1.5ft of
thrj  minimum absolute  stack  temperature.
  2.4  Pressure gauge—Mercury-filled ET-tube
manometer, or equivalent, to measure stacH
pressure to within 0.1 In. Hg.
  2.5  Barometer—To  measure atmospheric
pressure to within 0.1 In. Hg.
  2.6  Gas analyzer—To analyze gas composi-
tion for determining molecular weight.
  2.7  Pitot  tube—Stoadarrt type,  to  caJi-
bi.it« Type S pioot tube.

  3. Procedure.
  3.1  Set up  the apparatus as shown In Fig-
ure  2-1.  MaSe sure all connections  are tignt
and leak free. Measure the velocity head and
temperature at  the  traverse points specified
by Method 1.
  3.2  Measure  the static pressure in the
stack.
  3.3  Determine the  stack gas molecular
weight by gas analysis and  appropriate cal-
culations as indicated In Method 3.
                                       PIPE COUPLING
                     TUBING ADAPTER
  4. Calibration.

  4.1   To calibrate the pitot tube, measura
the velocity head at some point la a flowing
gas stream with both a Type S pitot tube and
a standard type pitot  tube witn Scnown co-
efficient. Calibration should  b« doce in th«
laboratory and the velocity of the Sowing gaa
stream  should  be  variert over the  normal
working range. It is recommended that the
calibration be repeated after use at each field
site.
  4.2   Calculate  tho  pitot tube  coefficient
using equation 2-1.
             — • C
                 '
                      -
                    "y ip,«.,  equation
where:
  Crt,,,=Pitot tube coefficient  of  Type  3
            pitot tube.
   Cp>,j=.-Pitot tube coefficient of standard
            type pitot tube (if unknown, use
            0.99).
   ip.ta= Velocity head measured by stand-
            ard type pitot tub«.
  ipt. n= Velocity head measured by Type S
            pitot tube.
  4.3  Compare the coefficients of the Type S
pilot tube determined first with  one leg and
then the other pointed downstream. Use the
pitot tube only u the two coefficients differ by
no more than 0.01.
  5.  Calculations.
  rjs« equation 2-2 to calculate the stack gag
velocity.


     ( V.) ... =

                             Equation 2-2
Tyruro:
   (V,).,,.- Stack fas velocity, tot per weond (f.p.j.).
                                                                                                 C\, = Pitot tube cor(71cl<'nt, dlmcnslonloss.
                                                                                             (T,),.,.-- Averngc nbsokKO st-icte gas tempomturft,

                                                                                                   . = AviT3i!6 velocity head ol stack gas. Incliw
                                                                                                      11:0 (see Kip. ;-•.!).
                                                                                                   , = Absolute stack t^as pressuro, [nrtu\s Kg.
                                                                                                   i = Mo!eculai  weight oisuok gtia (wet bask).
                                                                                                      Ib./lb.-molo
                                                                                                 Ma = Dry inolc«ul;\r wplulit ol stuck s»s (Icon
                                                                                                      Method 3).
                                                                                                Bw, ^Proportion by volume of -voter V;\]xjr lo
                                                                                                      Uic S33 stream (from Metlitxl 4).

                                                                                            Pigure 3-2 shows a sample recording sheet
                                                                                          for  velocity traverse data. TJse the  averages
                                                                                          In the last  two columns of Figure 2-2 to de-
                                                                                          termine the average slack gaa  velocity from
                                                                                          Equation 2-2.
                                                                                            Tjse Equation 2-3  to calculate ttie
                                                                                          gns volumetric ilow rate.
    Figure 2-1.   Pitot tube-manometer assembly.
                                                                                                                       Equation 2-3
                                                                                          \rhoro:
                                                                                             Qj»»VoluiDetric Ilow rato, dry basis, standard cond>
                                                                                                 lions, rt.'fhr.
                                                                                             A=»Cross-soct1onnl are,s of stack, ft.1
                                                                                           T.id—AbsoIiKo tomporaturft at standard cottctltlonCt
                                                                                                 bXi" K.
                                                                                           Pitd=Absoluto pressuro ot standard conditions, 29-98
                                                                                                 inches Llg.
                                 FEDERAL  REGISTER. VOL. 36, NO.  247—THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23. 1971

                                                                iv-9
-------
                         RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                      24883
  6. References.

  Mark, Ii. S_ Mechanical Engineers' Band-
book, McGraw-Hill Book Co, Inc, Mew York,
N.Y.. 1951.
  Perry, J.  H., Chemical  Engineers' Hand-
book, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York,
N.Y., 1960.
  ShlgeUara, R. T., W. F. Todd, and W. 8.
Sialtb, Significance of Errors In stack Sam-
  PLANT_

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

  OPERATORS	
pllog Measurements. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, St. Louis, Mo., June 14-10, 1970.
  Standard Method for Sampling Stacks for
Paniculate Matter, In: 1971 Book of ASTM
Standards. Part 23,  Philadelphia,  Pa., 1971,
ASTM Designation D-2928-71.
  Veanard. J. K., Elementary Fluid Mechan-
ics, John Wl'.ey & Sons. Inc., New York, N.Y.,
1947.
                 SCHEMATIC OF STACK
                    CROSS SECTION
Traverse point
number





















Velocity head,
in. H2O





















AVERAGE:
vs;















Slack Temperature
|TS),°F















I












                        Figure 2-2. Velocity traverse data.
          FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 36, NO.  247—THURSDAY. DECEMBER 23.  1971

                                    IV-10
-------
                                                   RULES  AND REGULATIONS
METIIOD 3	CAS ANALYSIS FOR CASJ3ON DIOXIDE.
  KXCCS3 AIR, AXH DRY MOLECU1.AB  WEIGHT

  1.  Principle end applicability.
  1.1  Principle.  An Integrated or grab gas
s?.mple  Is extracted from  a sampling point
nr.d  analyzed for its components  using an
Orsat finalyzer.
  1.2 Applicability. This method should be
o.oplied  only when specified by the test pro-
cedures for determining compliance with the
Kc-w Source Performance Standards. The test
procedure ^vlll Indicate  whether a grab sam-
ple or an integrated sample is to be used.
  2.  Apparatus.
  2.1  Grab sample (Figure 3-1).
  2.1.1  Probe—Stainless  atocl  or  Pyrex1
{''•o.ss, equipped with a filter to remove partic-
ulate milter.
  2.1.2  Pump—One-way  squeeze  bulb, or
equivalent,   to   transport  gas  sample  to
analyzer.
  2.2  Integrated sample (Figure 3-2).
  2.2.1  Probe—Stainless   steel  or  Pyrexl
glass, equipped with  a  filter to re-move por-
ticulato matter.
  2.2.2  Air-ccoled condenser or equivalent—
To remove any excess moisture.
  2.2.3  Needle valve—To  adjust flow rate.
  Z.2.4  Pump—Leak-free,  diaphragm  type,
or equivalent, to pull gas.
  2.2.5  R-.te  meter—To  measure   a flow
runs? from  0 to  0.035  cfra.
  e.i.'j  Flexible bag—Tedlar.1 or equivalent,
witn a capacity ol 2  -.0  3 cu. ft. Leak test the
bag  la ti:e laboratory before \i-jiug.
  2.2.7  Picot tube—Typa  S,  or equivalent,
attached to the probe so that the sampling
flow rate  can bo regulated proportional to
the stack  gas velocity when velocity is vary-
ing  with  time  or   a  sample  traverse  Is
conducted.
  2.3  Analysis.
  i..i \  Or'i.f. uiiaiyzer, or equivalent.
                   PROBE
                                           FLEXIBLE TU8ING
                                                                        TO ANALYZER
 FILTER [GLASS WOOL)
                                          SQUEEZE BULB
                         Rgure 3-1. Grab-sampling train.
                                              RATE METER
                                                       \lrnnl
                                    VALVE
          AIR-COOLED CONDENSER

     PROBE
 FILTER (GLASS WOOL)
                                                                   QUICK DISCONNECT
                                   BIGID CONTAINER'
                 Flgura 3-2.  Integrated gas - sampling
  3. Procedure.
  3.1  Grab sampling.
  3.1.1  Set up  the equipment as shown In
Figure 3—1, mail a g sure all connections are
leak-free. Place  the probe In the stack at a
sampling point and purge the sampling line.
  3.1.2  I>raw sample Into de analyap-
  3.2  Integrated sampling.
  3.2.1  Evacuate the flexible bag. Set up the
equipment as shown In Figure 3-2 with tie
bag disconnected.  Place  the  probe  in the
stack and purge the s.-anpllng ILae. Connect
the bag-, making sure that all coortectiocs are
tight and thic there are  no leaks.
  3.2.2  Sample  at a rate proportional to the
stack velocity.
  33  Analysis.
  3.3.1  Determine  the CO.. O:. ajid CO con-
centrations as soon  as possible. Make as many
passes as are necessary to give constant read-
ings. If more  than  ten passes are necessary,
replace the absorbing solution.
  3.3.2  For grab sampling, repeat the sam»
phng and  analysis  until three  consecutive
samples  vary  no more than 0.5 percent by
volume for each component being analyzed.
  3.3.3  For Integrated sampling, repeat tho
analysis of the sample- until three consecu-
tive analyses vary no more  than 0.2 percent
by   volume  for  each  component   belns;
analyzed.
  4. Calculations.
  4.1  Carbon dioxide. Average the three con-
secutive  runs .-u-.d  report the  result to the
nearest 0.1%  cor
  4J3  Excess air. Use Equation 3-1 to calcu-
late excess air. and  average  the runs.  Report
the result to the nearest 0.1%  excess  air.

<:iEA =
                                             0.264(% VJ-CTc 0;)+0.5(% CO)X1°°
                                                                          equation r.-l
                                             •where:
                                               %EA = Percenl excess air.
                                               9"oOJ = Percent oxygen by volume, dry basis.
                                               ?iN3 = Percent  nitrogen by  volume,  dry
                                                       basis.
                                               % CO = Percent  carbon monoxide by vol-
                                                       ume, dry basis.
                                               0-264=Ratio of oKygcn to nitrogen In Air
                                                       by volume.
                                               4.3  Dry  molecular weight. XJse Equation
                                             3-2  to calculate dry  molecular weight and
                                            .average  the runs. Report the result  to the
                                             nearest  tenth.
                                                                           equation 3-2

                                             where:
                                                  Mcr=Dry molecular weight, Ib /Tb-mola.
                                               %CO^=Percent carbon dioxide by volume,
                                                       dry basis.
                                                %Oi=Percent  'oxygen  by  volume,  dry
                                                       basis.
                                                %Nj=Percent  nitrogen by  volume.  Art
                                                       basis.
                                                0.44=Molecular weight of carbon dloxlcM
                                                       divided by  100.
                                                C.32=Molecular weight of oxygen divided
                                                       by 100.
                                                0.28=Molecular weight of nitrogen aaa
                                                       CO divided by 100.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 36. NO. 247—THURSDAY. DECEMBER 23,  1971


                                                             IV-11
-------
M
  6. References.
  Altsliiillcr, A. P., et ill., Storage of  Onscs
nnct Vapors lu Plastic  Bags. Int.  J. Air &
Water Pollution, 6:75-81, 19S3.
  Conner. William  D., and  J. S. Nader, Air
Sampling with Plastic Bngs, Journal of the
American Industrial Hygiene  Association,
25:201-297,  May-June 1064.
  Devorkln.  Howard, et  al., Air Pollution
Source Testing Manual, Air Pollution  Con-
trol  District, Los Angeles, Calif., November
19G3.

  METHOD 4	DETERMINATION OF  MOISTURE
              IN STACK CASES

  1. Principle and applicability.
  l.l  Principle. Moisture is removed  Irom
the gas stream, condensed, and  determined
volumctrically.
  1.2  Applicability. This method  Is appli-
cable for the  determination of moisture in
r.tnck gas only when specified by  test pro-
cedures for dclcrmlnf.ig  compliance with New
Source Performance Standards. This method
docs 7\ot  apply when liquid droplets nre pres-
ent in the gar. stream '  and  t!ie  moisture Is
subsequently used  In the determination of
stack  gas  molecular weight.
  Other  methods such  ns drying tubes, wet
bulb-dry  bulb technique!;,  and  volumetric
co'.Hlcusrttlon techniques  may be xiscd.
  '2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Probe—Slr.lnleus  steel or Pyrcx : glass
sufficiently heated  to prevent  condensation
       1 If liquid droplccs arc present in the  gas
     stream, assume the stream to be saturated,
     determine the average slack ens. temperature
     by traversing  according  to  Method 1, nnd
     use a psyeliromotrlc chart to obtain on  ap-
     proximation of the moisture percentage.
       'Trade name.
                             	 \	 	*
                           WO — "T>  VT
     where:
        Vwc=Volumo  of water  vapor collected
               (.-taiulnrd conditions), cu. ft
         Vt=Finr.l volume of impinger contents,
               ml.
         Vi^Inltial  volume  of  Impinger con-
               tents, ml.
          R = Idenl   gas  constant,  21.83   inches
nnd equipped with a filter to remove partlcu-
Irxtc  matter.
  2.2  Implngers—Two  midget  implngers,
each with 30 ml. capacity, or equivalent.
  2.3  Ico  bath  container—Tp  condense
moisture In implngers.
  2.4  Silica gel tube  (optional)—To protect
pump and dry gas meter.
  2.5  Needle  valve—To regulate gas  flow
rate.
  2.6  Pump—Leak-free, diaphragm type, or
equivalent, to pull  gas through train.
  2.7  Dry gas meter—To measure to within
l"n of the tota' sample  volume.
  2.8  Rotametcr—To measure a flow range
from 0 to 0.1  c.f.m.
  2.9  Graduated cylinder—26 ml.
  2.10  Barometer—Sufficient  to read  to
within 0.1 Inch Hg.
  2.11  Pilot tube—Typo 3,  or  equivalent.
attached to probe so  that the sampling flow
ir.te  can  be  regulated proportional  to the
scick gas velocity when velocity Is  varying
with time or a sample traverse is conducted.
  3.  Procedure.
  3.1  Place exactly 5 ml. distilled water In
each Impinger. Assemble  the apparatus with-
out the probe as shown  in Figure 4-1. Leak
check by plugging the inlet  to the first 1m-
ptngcr and drawing a vacuum. Insure- that
How  through tho dry gas meter Is less than
1 ••;. of the sampling rate.
  3.2 Connect  the probe  and sample at a
r.cmsUnt rate of 0.075 c.f.m. or at a rate pro-
pvrtlcnal  to the stadk gas velocity. Continue
sampling  until the dry gas meter registers  1
cubic foot or until visible liquid droplets are
cnrrlcd over from the first Impiugcr to the
second.  Record temperature,  pressure,  and
ciry gas meter readings ns required by Figure
4-2.
  3.3 After collecting the sample, measure
tho volume increase to Die nearest 0.5 ml.
  4.   Calculations.
  4.1 Volume of water vapor collected.
                                                          ml-     .
                                                                              equation 4.-1
                                                      Hg—cu. ft./lb. mole-°K.
                                               pn.o=Density of \vatcr, 1 g./ml.
                                               T,.a = Absolute temperature at standard
                                                      conditions, 530° II.
                                               Pju^Absolute pressure  at standard con-
                                                      ditions. 29.92 Inches Hg.
                                              Mir:o=Molecular weight  of water, 18 lb./
                                                      Ib.-mole.
                                                                                                    HEATED PROBI
\
SIUCA GEL TUBE


             VALVE
                                                                                              FILTER'(GLASS WOOL)
                                                                                                                                                                         ROTAM6TER
                                                                                                          ICE BATH
                                                                                                          LOCATION.

                                                                                                          TEST
                                                                                                                                                        PUMP
         Figure 4-1. Moisture-sampling train.

        	  COMMENTS
                                                                                                                                                                   DM GAS METER
                                                                                                          DATE
                                                                                                          OPERATOR
                                                                                                          BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
CLOCK TIME





GAS VOLUME THROUGH
METER. (Vn>),
ft3





BOTAMETER SETTING
ft^/min





METER TEMPERATURE,
•f





                                                                                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                                                                                   v»
                                                                         Figure 4-2. Field rnoislure determination.
                                                           PEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 36, NO.  247—THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1971
                                                                                                                                                                                   S2
                                                                                                                                                                                   CO
                                                                                                                                                                                   25
-------
2-1S3S
                                                   RULES AND REGULATIONS
4.2  Gas volume.
                 _
            in. Hg\  T
                              equation 4-2
where:
  Vm. =Dry  gas volume through meter at
          standard conditions, cu. ft.
  Vu> =Dry gaa volume measured by meter,
          cu, ft.
  Pa, = Barometric pressure at the dry gas
          meter, inches E#.
  P. u= Pressure at standard conditions, 29.92
          inches Hg.
  T.t.i= Absolute  temperature  at standard
          conditions, 530' R.
  Tm ^Absolute temperature at meter ( T +
          460). •».
4.3  Moisture content.
-        V-°    I B
JV°=vC+vZ+B"
                          V,.
                         .. + V.
                                -+(0.025)
                              equation 4-3

where:
  B»o = Proportion by volume of water vapor
          In the gas stream, dlmenslonless.
  V». =Volume  of  •water  vapor  collected
          (standard conditions), cu ft.
  Vm« =Dry  gas  volume  through  meter
          (standard conditions). cu. ft.
  Bv»i<:=Approxiniate volumetric proportion
          of water vapor In the s35 stream
          leaving the impingers, 0.025.
  5. References.
  Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Daniel-
son, J. A. (ed.), U.S. DHEW, PHS, National
Center for Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati,
Ohio, PHS Publication  No. &99-AP-40, 1367.
  Devorkln,  Howard, et al.,  Air  Pollution
Source Testing Manual, Air  Pollution  Oon-
troi District, Los Angeles, Calif.,  November
1063.
  Methods for Determination of  Velocity.
Volume,  Dust and Mist Content  of  Gases,
Western. Precipitation Division of Joy Manu-
facturing Co., Los  Angeles,  Calif.. Bulletin
WP-60, 1968.

METHOD  5—DBTEEMINATION OP PASTICULATS
   EMISSIONS FROM  STATIONABT SOOHCES

  1. Principle and  applicability.
  1.1 Principle. Partlculete matter Is with-
drawn isoklnetioally from the source and Its
•weight is determined gravi metrically after re-
moval of uncomlblned water.
  1.2 Applicability. This method is applica-
ble for the determination of particu)»te emis-
sions from  stationary   sources only when
specified by the test procedures for determin-
ing  compliance  with New Source  Perform-
ance Standards.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1 Sampling train. The design  specifica-
tions of  the partlculate  sampling train used
by EPA (Figure 5-1) are described in APTD-
0531. Commercial models at  this  train are
available.
  2.1.1  Nozzle—Stainless  steel (316)  with
sharp, tapered leading  edge.
  2.1.2  Probe—Pyrex"  glass with a heating
system capable of maintaining a minimum
gas  temperature  of  250* F. at the exit end
during  sampling  to prevent condensation
from occurring.  When length  limitations
(greater than about 8 ft.) are encountered at
temperatures less than 600* P., Incploy 825 ',
cr equivalent, may be used. Probes for sam-
pling gas streams at temperatures in excess
ot 600*  F. must have been approved by the
Administrator.
  2.1.3  Pilot tube—Type S,  or equivalent,
nt%.ache volume.
  2.1.7  Barometer—To measure atmcspheric
pressure to ±0.1 inches Hg.
  2.2  Sample recovery.
                                                    PR03E
                                             REVESSE-TYPE
                                              P1TOT TU2E
  2.2.1  Probe  brush—At  least as  long u
probe.
  2.2.2  Glass ivash battles—Two.
  2.2.3  Gla^s sample storage containers.
  2.2.4  Graduated cylinder—25O  sol.
  2.3  Analysis.
  2.3.1  Gloss wel;hlng dishes,
  2.3.2  Desiccator."
  2.3.3  Analytics!  balance—To measure to
±0.1 mg.
  2.3.4  Trip  balance—300 g. capaci'"  to
meftsure to ±0.05 g.
  3. Reager.if.
  3.1  Sampling.
  3.1.1  Filters—-Glass fiber. MSA  1103 Bfa",
or equivalent,  numbered  for  identification
nr.ci prcwei'jhed.
  3.1.2  S::!cA  gel—Indicating  type.  6-16
mesh, dried  :it  173° C. (350* F.) for  2 hours.
  3.1.3  \V:..tor.
  3.1.4  Crushed Ice.
  3.2  Sair.p'.ij rccovttrr.
  3.2.1  AcoMr.e—lies-geut grade.
  3.3  Analysis.
  3.3.1  Water.


    !.'«?iNGEif TRAIN OPTIONAL. MAY BE  REPLACED
           FY AH EQUIVALENT CONDENSER
                                                                        HEATED AREA  FiLTcR HOLDER  /  THERMOMETER   CHECK

                                                                                                                   .-VALVE
                                                                                                                     .VACUUM
                                                                                                                       LINE
                                                         PIT01 r^ANGVETER

                                                                   ORIFICE
                                                         THERMOMETERS'
                                     IMPtNGERS            ICE BATH
                                            BY-PASS VALVE
                                                                                                        VACUUM
                                                                                                         GAUGE
                                                                                                 MAIM VALVE
                                                                    DRY TEST METER
                                          AIR-TIGHT
                                            PUMP
                                                                      Figure 5-1 • ^articulate-sampling tram.
                                              3.3.3  Dcsicr.-.at—Dr:er;fo.' indicating.
                                              4. Procedure.
                                              4.1  Sampling
                                              4.1.1  After selecting the sampling site and
                                            the  minimum number of satnpllng points,
                                            determine the stack pressure, temperature,
                                            moisture, and range  of velocity head.
                                              4.1.2  Preparation   of   collection  train.
                                            Weigh to  the nearest gram approximately 200
                                            g. of silica gel. Label  a filter of proper diam-
                                            eter, desiccate.' for at least  24 hours  and
                                            weigh to the nearest 0.5 raj. in n room where
                                            the  relative humidity is less thrm 50%. Place
                                            100  ml. of  water in each of  the  first two
                                            implngers, leave the third implnger empty.
                                            and place approximately 200 g. of prewelghed
                                            silica gel  In the fourth implnger. Set up the
                                            train without the probo  as in Figure  5-1.
                                            Leak check the sampling  train at  the sam-
                                            pling site by plugging up the Inlet  to the ni-
                                            ter holder and pulling a 15 in. Hg vacuum. A
                                            leakage rate not in excess of 0.02 c.f.m.  at a
                                            vacuum  of  15 In. Eg Is acceptable. Attach
                                            the  probe and adjust the heater to  provide a
                                            gas temperature of about 250° F. at  the probe
                                            outlet. Turn  on the  niter heating system.
                                            Place crushed ice around the Implngers. Add
  1 Trade name.
                                              'Trade  name.
                                              1 Dry using Drlerlte'
                                                                  at 70' P. ±10" P.
                                            more Ice during the run to keep the temper-
                                            ature of the g;iseg leaving tho last Impinger
                                            as low ns possible find preferably at 70" P..
                                            or less. Temperatures above 70" F. may result
                                            in damage to the dry gas meter  from elthw
                                            moisture  condensation or excessive  heat.
                                              4.1.3  Partlculate train operation. For each
                                            run. record  the tints required on tha example
                                            sheet shown In Figure 5-2. Take readings  at
                                            each sampling point, at least every 5 minutes.
                                            and when significant  changes In stack con-
                                            ditions  necessitate  additional  adjustment*
                                            in How rate. To begin saropltng. position the
                                            nozzle ftt the first traverse  point with the
                                            tip pointing  directly into the ons  stream.
                                            Immediately sUirt the pump  :\nd adjust the
                                            flow to Isokiuetlc conditions. Sample for  at
                                            least i miaatc.i at cuch traverse point; sam-
                                            pling tlmo must  be the ssme for each point.
                                            Maintain isoklnetlc sampling throughout the
                                            sampling period. Nomographs are available
                                            which aid In the rapid adjustment of the
                                            sampling rate without other computation,*-
                                            APTD-0576  details the procedure for using
                                            these nomographs. Turn off the pump at the
                                            conclusion of each run and  record the final
                                            readings.  Removo the probs and nozzle from
                                            the stack and handle In accordance with the
                                            sample recovery process described In sectioo
                                            4.2.
                                FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 36, NO.  247—THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1971


                                                             IV-13
-------
                                                   RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                 24889
                                  SCMIUAIIC Of STACC CTOSS UCIKW
ruvmtroun
WMOt












TOTAL
fAMUNO
I«
«.•<«•













AvfAAGC
STATIC
nasmt
(P$I.U.»t»














sues
TUJTUUkTVK
(tj!.*f














vooctn
MAO
U'sl-














Ktssuat
DiFruExruL
ACJWSJ
OUIICt
VCTC*
I»W.
U.KjO














GAS (AMU
VDUA«
N*}.t?














GAS sAtnc TK»I«ATU«
AT OUT GAS vmtt
INUT
n»h>.*f












Av«.
OUTUT
'<- «.„'••'












A«».
Avg.
S»l*ttK»
Tl»«M,tua£,
"f














tOflTIUnitt
or CAS
U«W«
ccnwwr.8 on
LAJT KTKCU).
• F














                                                  Tm—Average dry gas meter temperature,
                                                         •R.
                                                 Pb,r—Barometric pressure at the orifice
                                                         meter, inches Hg.
                                                  AH—Average pressure drop across tiie
                                                         orifice meter, Inches H2O.
                                                 13.6—Specific gravity of mercury.
                                                 p  —Absolute pressure at standard con-
                                                         ditions, 29.92 Inches Hg.

                                               0.3  Volume of water vapor.
                                                                       (.0474
                                                                              cu. ft.N
                                                                               ml.  /
                                                                                                                                   V,
                                          Flsure52. Particular liclii dm.
  4.3  Sample recovery. Exercise care in mov-
ing the collection train from the test site to
the sample recovery area to minimize  tho
lost of  collected  sample  or the gain  of
extraneous partlculate matter. Set aside  a
portion of the acetone used In the sample
recovery as a blank for analysis. Measure the
volume of water from tbe first three Im-
pingers, then discard. Place the eamples in
containers as follows:
  •Container  No.  1. Remove the filter from
Its bolder, place  in this container, and  seal.
  Container  No.   2. Place loose partlculate
matter  aud  acetone  washings  from  all
sample-exposed surfaces  prior to  the filter
in this container and seal. Use a razor blade,
brush, or rubber  policeman to lose adhering
particles.
  Container  NO.   3. Transfer  the  silica gel
from the fourth impinger to the original con-
tainer and seal.  Use a rubber policeman as
an  aid .In  removing silica gel  from  the
luap\nger.
  4.3   Analysis. Record the data required on
tbe example  sheet shown  In Figure  5-3.
Handle each sample container as follows:
  Container  No.  1. Transfer the  filter and
any loose paniculate matter from the sample
container to  a  tared glass  weighing dish,
desiccate, and dry to a constant weight. Re-
port results to the nearest 0.5 mg.
  Container  No. 2. Transfer  the  acetone
washings to a tared beaker and evaporate to
dryness at ambient temperature  and pres-
eure. Desiccate and dry to a constant weight.
Report results to tbe nearest 0.5 mg.
  Container No. 3. Weigh the spent silica gel
and report to the nearest gram.
  5. Calibration.
  Use methods  and equipment whlca have
been approved  by  the  Administrator  to
calibrate  the orifice  meter, pilot  tube, dry
gas  meter,  and probe  heater.  Recalibrate
after each test series.
  6. Calculations,
  6.1 Average dry  gas  meter temperature
and average  orifice pressure  drop.  See data
sheet (Figure 5-2).
  6.3 Dry gas volume.. Correct  the sample
volume measured by  the dry gas  meter  to
standard conditions (70° P., 29.92 Inches Hg)
by  using Equation 5-1.
                                                                           equation 5-2
                                             •where:
                                               Vw.l4«= Volume of  water vapor In the gas
                                                        earn pie   (standard   conditions).
                                                        cu. ft.
                                                 VJ.B= Total volume of liquid collected in
                                                        impingers and silica gel (see Fig-
                                                        ure 5-3), ml.
                                                      Density of water, 1 g-/mL
                                                  a/)— Molecular weight of water, 18 lb./
                                                        Ib.-mole.
                                                   R«= Ideal  gas  constant,  21.83  Inches
                                                        Hg—cu. ft./lb.-mole-°R.
                                                 T.td-= Absolute temperature  at standard
                                                        conditions, 530* R.
                                                 ?,,„•= Absolute pressure at standard con-
                                                        ditions, 29.92 Inches  Hg.

                                               0.4  Moisture content.
                                                         B«,,= :
                                                                           equation 5-3

                                             wlicio:
                                               B.o = Proportion by volmnc of water vapor in tlicp;.s
                                                      stream, dlinenslonlcss.
                                               VwlU,=Voluino of water In the gas sample (standard
                                                      conditions), cu. ft.
                                               v">ui = Volume of gas sample through the dry gas mcl ••:
                                                      (standard coudltlons), cu. It.
                                               6.5  Total partlculate  weight. Determine
                                             the total partlculate catch-from  the sum of
                                             the  weights  on  the  analysis   data  sheet
                                             (Figure 5-3).
                                               6.8  Concentration.
                                               6.6.1  Concentration in gr./s.cJT.
                              equation 5-1
•where:
  Vm.,d= Volume of gas sample through the
           dry  gas  meter  (standard  con
-------
2-1890
RULES AND REGULATIONS
                               PLANT.

                               DATE
                                        where:
                               RUN NO.
CONTAINER
NUMBER
1
2
TOTAL
WEIGHT OF PARTICULATE COLLECTED,
mg
FINAL WEIGHT


^^-^^^
TARE WEIGHT


il>"-nt of isokinotlc sampling.
  Vit---Tolal volurao of liquid collected la Impingen
       and silica fd (3e« Fljr. S-3), mL
 PII.O™ Density of wruer, 1 g.fr.il.
   R™lUi-;il JTM  cnnsunt,  21.S3 inches Ug-cu. ft-AK
       m-ilo-0 R. .
>!n,o-MolocuI:ir wlc'.it of water, IS Ib./Ib.-moI*.
        lurai' of c;iss!u:p jvc-TV1 tlry cru racier Icmpe
                                                                                                      isco i-'it:ure 5-^), °K.
                                                                                                  »,-B:uoriH'fric pressure at sampling siu»,
                                                                                                      h\-.
                                                                                                   -*.Uvi:a;<> iirtssiira drop  across tbo orl/Jce (v»
                                                                                                      l-'U. .S-J). inoiies H:O.
                                                                                                   --Al>soliiti> ^v"rx:o stack gas Icinpcratur* (Me
                                                                                                      Ki,;. .V2).0K.
                                                        ..
                                             (' -  u^i( j.unp;:nK' f ioio. mir?.
                                            V. --S:,>,-ic i;;is viOocily  calculated  by  Method t,
                                                 Kq'cnion "J-2. ft./s^.
                                            1',- Ao.viisjU1 .st.\ck 1:0$ pressure, inches 11^
                                            A,. Cicss-si'ciionnl ;ire.i o/no>'ile. sq. ft.

                                          6.8  Acceptable   results.  Tho  following
                                        range sets the limit on acceptable Isoklnettc
                                        sampling results:
                                        Lf 90"^ < 1 < 110%. the results ore acceptable,
                                          otherwise, reject the results  and  repeat
                                          the test.
                                          7. Reference.
                                          Addendum to Specifications for Incinerator
                                        Testing at  Federal Facilities,  PHS. NCAPC.
                                        Dec. 6. 1967.
                                          Martin, Robert M., Construction Details of
                                        IsokLnetlc Source Sampling Equipment, En-
                                        vironmental Protection Agency.  APTD-0581.
                                          Rom. Jerome J..  Maintenance.  Calibration,
                                        and Operation of  Isoklnetic  Source  Sam-
                                        pling Equipment.  Environmental Protection
                                        Agency. APTD-0576.
                                          "Smith,  w. S.. R. T. Shlgehara, and  W. P.
                                        Todd, A Method of Interpreting  Stack Sam-
                                        pling Data. Paper  presented at the 63c! An-
                                        nual  Meeting  of the Air  Pollution Control
                                        Association, St. Louis, Mo.. June  14-19. 1970.
                                          Smith.  W. S.. et al..  Staclc Gas Sampling
                                        Improved and  Simplified  with New Equip-
                                        ment, APCA paper No.  67-119, 19B7.
                                          Specifications  for  Incinerator  Testing  at
                                        Federal Facilities,  PHS, NCAPC,  1967.
                                        METHOD 6 - DjrrERMIMATION OP SUt.njR DIOXIDE
                                            EMISSIONS FHOM STATIONARY SQUHCKS
                                          1. Principle ar.d  applicability.
                                          1.1   Principle. A fas sample Is extracted
                                        from  the sampling point In the slack. The
                                        acid mist, including sulfur trtoxicie. is sepa-
                                        rated  from the sulfur dioxide.  The  sulfur
                                        dioxide iraction Is  measured by the bariutn-
                                        thorln tltratlon method.
                                          1.2  Applicability.  This  method Is  appli-
                                        cable for the determination of sulfur dioxide
                                        emissions from stationary sources only when
                                        specified by the test procedures for determin-
                                        ing compliance with New Source Performance
                                        Standards.
                                          2. Apparatus.
                                          •2.1   Sampling. See  Figure 6-1.
                                          2.1.1  Probe — Pyrex '  glass, approximately
                                        6 to  6 mm. ID. with a  heating system  to
                                        prevent condensation and a filtering medium
                                        to remove paniculate matter Including sul-
                                        furic  acid mist.
                                          2.1.2  Midget  bubbler — One,  with  glass
                                        wool  packed In top to prevent sulfurlc. a^d
                                        mist  carryover.
                                          2.1.3  Glass wool.
                                          2.1.4  Midget Impingcrs — Three.
                                          2.1.5  Drying tube — Packed  with 6  to  10
                                        mesfi indicating-type slllcfl gel. or equivalent,
                                        to dry the sample.
                                          2.1.6  Valve — Needle  valve, or  equivalent,
                                        to adjust flow rate.
                                          2.1.7  Pump — Leak-free, vacuum type.
                                          2.1.8  Rate meter — Rotameter or equiva-
                                        lent, to measure a 0—10 s.c.f.h. flow range.
                                          2.1.9  Dry gas meter — Sufficiently accurate
                                        to measure the sample volume  within !%•
                                          2.1.10  Pitot tube — Type S, or equivalent,
                               OV.P.An
                                                                             Equation 5-6     ' Trade names.
                                  FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL.  34,  NO.  247—THURSDAY,  DECEMBER 23. 1971


                                                               IV-15
-------
necessary only If a sample traverse  l» re-
quired,  or  If stack, gas velocity varies with
time,
  22 Sample recovery,
  3.2.1  Ol&M wnfth bottlee—Two.
  2.2.3  Polyethylene  storage  bottles—To
otoro Implnger samples.
  2.3  Analysis.
PROBE (END PACKED
WITH QUARTZ OR     V ST.ACK WALL
PYREX WOOL}         . \S^         MIDGET BUBBLER MIDGET IMPINGERS

                            GLASS WOOL
  TYPE SPJTOT TUBE
                   SILICA GEL DRYING TUBE
                           THERMOMETER
                                                                      •PUMP
                               DRY GAS METER   HOTAMETER
                             Figure 6-1. SOj sampling train.
  2.8.1  Pipettes—Transfer  type, 6 ml.  and
10 ml. sizes  (0.1 ml. divisions) and 26 ml.
size  (0.2 ml. divisions).
  2.3.2  Volumetric  flasks—50 ml.,  100  ml.,
and 1.000 ml.
  2.3.3  Burettes—6 ml. and 50 ml.  ,
  2.3.4  Erlenmeyer flask—125 ml.
  3.  Reagents.
  3.1  Sampling.
  3.1.1  Water—Delonized. distilled.
  3.1.2  Isopropanol, 80%—Mix 80 ml. of iso-
propanol with 20  ml. of distilled water.
  3.1.3  Hydrogen peroxide, S%—dilute 100
ml. of 30% hydrogen peroxide to 1 liter with.
distilled  water. Prepare Iresh dally.
  3.2  Sample recovery.
  3.2.1  Water—Delonized, distilled.
  3.2.2  Isopropanol. 00%.
  3.3  Analysis.
  3.3.1  Water—Dclonlzod, distilled.
  3.3.2  Isopropanol.
  3.3.3  Thorln indicator—l-(o-arsonophcn-
ylaso) -2-nr.phthol-3.6-disulfonic acid, dlso-
dlum salt (or equivalent). Dissolve  0.20 g. In
100 ml. distilled water.
  3.3.4  Barium  pcrchlorato (0.01  N)— Dis-
solve-  1.95  (?.   of   barium  perclilorato
[Ba(ClO,)j«3HjO] in 200 ml. distilled water

      No. 217—Pt. II	3
and dilute to 1 liter with isopropanol. Stand-
ardize with sulfurlc  acid. Barium  chloride
may bo used.
  3.3.6  Sulfurlo  acid standard  (0.01  N) —
Purchase  or  standardize  to  ±0.0002   W
against 0.01N NaOH  which  has  previously
been  standardized  against potassium acid
phtiialate (primary standard grade).
  4.  Procedure.
  4.1   Sampling.
  4.1.1  Preparation of collection train. Pour
15 ml. of 80% Isopropanol Into the midget
bubbler and 15 ml. of 3% hydrogen peroxide
into  each of the first  two midget  Implngers.
Leave the flnal midget Impingcr dry. Assem-
ble the train  as shown In Figure 6-1. Leak
check  the sampling train at the sampling
site by plugging the probe Inlet and pulling
a 10 Inches  Hg vacuum. A leakage rate not
in excess  of 1% of  the sampling rate is ac-
ceptable.  Carefully release  the probe  inlet
plug and  turn off the pump. Place  crushed
Ico around the Implngers. Add morn  ice dur-
ing the- run to keep tho temperature of the
'.-.•"srs leaving tho last Impingcr at 70°  P. or
:<"s.
  4.1.2  Sample collection. Adjust tho sam-
ple flow  rato  proportional to the stack gas

          PEDES.V. RCOIj'iei1,  VOl. 3i, HO.  I-
 velocity. Take r«ndlng» »t> least every nv« .
 minutes ar.y «,
                    dry gas meter, and probo heater.
                      6.2  Standardize the  barium  percblorate
                    against 25 ml. of standard sulfurlo acid con-
                    taining 100 ml. of Isopropanol.
                      6. Calculations.
                      6.1  Dry gas volume.  Correct  th« sample
                    volume measured by  the dry gas meter to
                    standard conditions (70* P. and 29.92 Inches
                    Hg) by using equation 6-1.

                                      /V.PH.
                               in. IlgA  T
                                                                                                                  A
                                                                                                                  /
                                                                                                                                                                  equation 6-1
                                                                                                                                     where:
                                                                                                                                       V •>.,,
                                                                                                = Volume of gas sample through the
                                                                                                    dry gaa meter  (standard condi-
                                                                                                    tions), cu. ft.
                                                                                             Vm— Volume of gas sample through tho
                                                                                              "    dry  gas  meter  (meter  condi-
                                                                                                    tions) , cu. ft.
                                                                                            T,,3-= Absolute temperature at  standard
                                                                                                    conditions, 630' B.
                                                                                             Tm = Average dry gas meter temperature,
                                                                                                    °R.
                                                                                            Pblf— Barometric pressuro at  the orifice
                                                                                                    inotcr, inches Hg.
                                                                                           ' P,,,= Absolute pressure at standard con-
                                                                                                    ditions, 29.92  inches Hg.
                                                                                           6.2  Sulfur dloxldo concentration.
.= (7.05X10-5—"V)  --
3   \           g.-nil./
 where:
       City Concentration of sulfur dioxide
               at  standard  conditions, dry
               basis, Ib./cu. ft.
  7.05 X 10-5'" Conversion factor, Including tho
               number of  grams per  gram
               equivalent  of  sulfur  dioxide
               (32 g./K.-eq.). 453.6 g./lb., and
               1.000 ml./l., ib.-l./g.-ml.
        V,= Volume,of barium pcrchlorato
               tltrant used for tho  sample,
               ml.
       V,,,-'Volume  of barium perchlorato
               tltrant used for tho blank, ml.
         JV>= Normality of barium pcrchlorato
               tltrant. g.-cq./l.
      V,oln = Total solution volume of sulfur
               dloxiJe. 60 ml.
        V, = Volume  of samplo aliquot ti-
               trated,  ml.
     V™,t4 = Volume of gas sample  through
               tho  dry gas meter (standard
               conditions), cu. ft., seo Equa-
               tion 6-1.

r-.Tiv.-ncDAv, r.icL.v.Brs 23, 1971
                      7.  References.
                      Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfurlc Acid
                    Manufacturing Processes, U.S. DHEW,  PHS,
                    Division of Air Pollution. Public Health Serv-
                    ice Publication No. 039-AP-13,  Cincinnati,
                    Ohio. 1965.
                      Corbett,  P.  P.',  The Determination of SO,
                    and SO, in Pluo Gases, Journal of the Insti-
                    tute of Fuel, 24:237-243, 1961.
                      Mntty, R. E. and  E. K.  Dlchl, Measuring
                    Flue-Gas SO2  and SO,, Power 101:04-97, No-
                    vember. 1057.
                      Patton,  W.  P.  and J.  A. Brink, Jr., New
                    Equipment  and  Techniques for Sampling
                    Chemical Process Gases, J. Air Pollution Con-
                    trol Association, 13, 162 (19G3).

                    METHOD 7	DETERMINATION OF NITROGEN OXIDE
                       EMISSIONS  FROM  STATIONARY SOURCES

                      1.  Principle  and applicability.
                      1.1  Principle.  A grab  eamplo  It collected
                    In an  evacuated  flask  containing a dilute
                    sullurlc  acid-hydrogen  peioxldo absorbing
                    solution,  and  tho  nitrogen  oxides, except
                                                                                                                                                                                  m
                                                                                                                                                                                  v>
                                                                 o
                                                                 yo
                                                                 m
                                                                 O
                                                                          equation 0-2   li
-------
24892
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
nitrous oxide,  are measure colorlmetrically
using  the   pheuoldlsulfonlc   acid   (PDS)
procedure.
  1.2   Applicability. This method Is applica-
ble for the  measurement of nitrogen oxides
from  stationary sources only when specified
by the test  procedures Jor determining com-
nlinnce  with   New  Source   Performance
Sv.siuards.
  2.  Apparatus.
  2-1   Sampling. See Figure 7-1.
  2.1.1  Probe—Pyrex'  glass,   lieated,  with
filter  to remove particulate matter. Heating
I'j unnecessary  if the probe remains dry clur-
;-.:•; trio purslr-speriod.
  2.1.2  Colioctlon  flask—Two-liter.  Pyrex.1
round bottom with short  neck and 24/40
standard  taper opening,  protccteU  against
implosion or breakage.

  1 Trade name.
  2.1.3  Flask  valve—T-bore  stopcock  con-
nected to  a  24/40 standard taper  Joint.
  2.1.4  Temperature gauge—Dial-type ther-
mometer, or  equivalent, capable or measur-
ing 2° F. Intervals Irorn 25' to 125° P.
  2.1.5  Vacuum  line—TubLng  capable  or
withstanding a vacuum ol 3 inches Hg abso-
lute pressure, with "T" connection and, T-bore
stopcock, or equivalent.
  2.1.G  Pressure gauge—U-tube manometer.
36  inches,  with  0.1-inch  divisions,   oc
equivalent.
  2.Z.7  Pump—Capable of producing a vac-
uum of 3 ir.c-ies Hg absolute pressure.
  2.1.8   Squeeze bulb—One way.
  2.2  Sample recovery.
  2.2.1  Pipette or dropper.
  2.2.2  Glass storage containers—Cushioned
lor shipping.
                                                                      -SOLUUE BUU
  CROUNO-GLASS SOCKET.
      5 NO. 1115
         GROUND-GLASS CONE,
          STANDARD TAPER,      GROUND-GLASS
                            SOCJEr. 5 NO. \l,S
                            PYREX
  3-'.1M StOPCOCK.-
  T-BOBf. I. PVBH-
  2-min 80RE. 8-lw.
                                                              BOILING HASK •
                                                                  . ROuNo-Bono.M
                                                              WITH JSIEIVE NO. 21/-10
                              e 7-1. Sampling train, tlos^ v^lve. -nd
   2.2.3   Glass wash bottle.
   2.3  Analysis.
   2.3.1   Steam bath.
   2.3.2   Beaters or casseroles—250 ml.,  one
for each sample and standard (blank).
   2.3.3   Volumetric pipettes—1.2, and 10 ml.
   2.3.4,   Transfer pipette—10 ml. wltn 0.1 ml.
 divisions.
   2.3.5   Volumetric  flask—100  ml.,  one for
 each sample, and 1,000  ml. for the standard
 (blank).
   2.3.6   Spectrophotometer—To measure ab-
 Borbance at 420 nm.
   2.3.7   Graduated  cylinder—100 ml.  with
 1.0 ml. divisions.
   2.3.8   Analytical balance—To measure to
 0.1 mg.
   3. Reagents.
   3.1  Sampling.
   3.1.1   Absorbing solution—Add 2.8 ml. of
 concentrated H^SO,  to 1  liter of  distilled
 water. Mix well  and add 6 ml. of 3 percent
 hydrogen peroxide. Prepare a fresh  solution
 weekly and do not expose to extreme heat or
 direct sunlight.
   3.2  Sample recovery.
   3.2.1   Sodium  hydroxide  (IN)—Dissolve
 40 g. NaOH in distilled water and dilute to 1
 liter.
   3.2.2  Red litmus paper.
  3.2.3  Water—Deiouized, distilled.
  3.3  Analysis.
  3.3.1  Fuming sulfuric acid—15 to 18% by
 weight free sulfur trloxide.
  3.3.2  Phenol—White solid reagent grade.
  3.3.3  'Sulfuric acid—Concentrated reagent
 grade.
  3.3.4  Standard solution—Dissolve 0.5495 g.
 potassium nitrate (KNO3) in distilled water
 and dilute to 1 liter. For the working stand-
 ard solution, dilute 10 ml.  of the resulting
 solution to 100 ml. with distilled water. One
 ml. of the  working  standard  solution  is
 equivalent to 25 Ag- nitrogen  dioxide.
  3.3.5  Water—Detonized, distilled.
  3.3.6  Phenoldisulfonlc  acid   solution—
 Dissolve 25 g. of pure white phenol In  150 ml.
 concentrated sulfuric  acid on  a  steam bath.
 Cool, add  75 ml. fuming sulfuric  acid, and
 heat at 100° C. for 2 hours.  Store in a dark,
 stoppered bottle.
  4. Procedure.
  4.1 Sampling.
  4.1.1  Pipette 25  ml. of absorbing solution
 Into a  sample flauk.  Insert the flask valve
 stopper into the flask with  the valve in the
 "purge" position.  Assemble  the  sampling
 train as shown in  Figure  7-1  and place the
 probe  at the sampling point. Turn the flask
 valve and the pump valve to  their "evacuate"
positions. Evacuate the flask to at least 3
Inches Hg absolute pressure. Turn the, pump
valve to Us "vent" position and  turn off the
pump. Check the manometer for any fluctu-
ation in the mercury level. If there is a visi-
ble change over the  span  of ou«  minute,
chec'rC for lea^s.  Record th»  initial  volume!
temperature. &nd barometric pressure. Turn
the das'* valve to its  "purse" position, and
then  do the same with  the pump valve.
PLirge the probe and the vacuum tube using
the squeeze btu"3. If condensation occurs in
the probs and flask valve area, heat the probe
and pLirje until the condensation disappears.
Then turn  the pump valvs to its "vent" posi-
tion.  Turn  the flask  valve  to Its "sample"
position and allow  sample to enter  the  Haas
for about  15 seconds. After collecting  the
sample,  turn the  flask valve to  its  "purge"
position and disconnect the  flask from  the
sampling  train.   Shake  the flask,  for.  5
mi mites.
  4.2  Sample r'X'-overy.
  4.2.1  Let the flask  set for a minimum o(
IS hours arid than shake the contents for 2
minutes. Connect  the flask to   a  mercury
filled  U-tube manometer,  open the  valve
from the flask to the manometer, and record
the flask pressure  and temperature along
with the barometric pressure. Transfer  the
flask contents  to a container for shipment
or to a 230 ml.  beaker  for analysis. Rinse tho
flask  with   two portions of  distilled \v.\ter
(approximately 10 ml.) and  add  rinse water
to the sample. For a blank use 25 ml. of ab-
sorbing solution and tho same volume of dis-
tilled water os used In  rinsing the flask. Prior
to shipping or analysis, ac'.d  sodium  hydrox-
ide (1JV| dropwlse Into both the  sample and
the blank   until alkaline to litmus paper
(about 25 to 35 drops In each).
  4.3  Analysis.
  4.3.1  If  the  sample has  been shipped in
a container, transfer  the contents  to a  250
ml. beaker  using  a small amount of distilled
water. Evaporate the solution to dryncss on a
steam bath  and then cooi. Add 2  ml. phenol-
dlsulfonlc ncid solution to the dried residue
nnd  triturate thoroughly with  a glass rod..
Make sure  the solution contacts  all  tho  resi-
due. Add 1  ml. distilled water »nd four drops
of concentrated sulfuric acid. Heat, the solu-
tion on a steam bath for 3 minutes with oc-
casional sUrvlng. Cool, add  20 ml. tlisUllcd
water, mix  well by stirring,  and add  concen-
trated ammonium  hydroxide dropwlse with
constant stirring  until  alkaline to  lltiir.is
paper.  Transfer tho solution to a  100  nil.
volumetric flask imd wash the benker three
times with  4 to  5 ml. portions  of distilled
water.  Dilute to the  mark  and mix  thor-
oughly. If the sample  contains solids, trans-
fer a portion of the solution to ft clean, dry
centrifuge  tube,  and  centrifuge, or filter  n
portion of  the solution. Measure  tho absorb-
nnce of  each sample  at 420  nm. using  the
blank solution as a zero. Dilute the sample
and  the bliuik. with  a suitable  amount c>f
distilled water if absorbance falls outside the
range of calibration.
  5. Calibration.
  5.1  Flasl: volume. Assemble tho flask and
flask valve  and fill  with water  to the stop-
cock.  Measure  the  volume of water lo  r: 10
ml. Number and record thj  volume on tho
flask.
  5.2  Spectrophotomotor. Add 0.0 to 16.0 nil.
of standard solution to n series of beakers. To
each beaker add 25 ml. of absorbing solution
and  add sodium  hydroxide  (\N)  tlropivls*
•until  alkaline to litmus paper (about 2,r. to
35 drops).  Follow the analysis proceduie ol
section  4.3 to collect enough data to draw a
calibration curve of concentration In pg.  NCtj
per sample versus absorbance.
  6. Calculations.
  6.1   Sample volume.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 36, NO.  247—THURSOAr, DECEMBER 23, 1977


                                                              IV-17
-------
                                                 RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                                           24893
where:
  V(>-> Sample  volume at  standard condi-
         tions (dry basis), mL
  T.,4— Absolute temperature  at  standard
         conditions, 530° B.
  P,tt" Pressure  at  standard   conditions,
         •2932 Inches Hg.
   V,= Volume of flask and valve, ml.
   V,= Volume of absorbing solution, 25 ml.
                                               pf=Final  absolute  pressure  of  flask,
                                                     Inches Hg.
                                               P, = Initial  absolute pressure of  flask.
                                                     inches Hg.
                                               Tt=»Filial absolute temperature of flask,
                                                     °R.
                                               7,"= Initial absolute temperature of flask,
                                                     °R.
                                              8.2   Sample concentration. Read pf. NO.
                                            for each sample  from  the  plot of f%. NOJ
                                            versus  absorbance.
where:
    C= Concentration  of  NO,  as NO.,  (dry
         basis), Ib./s.c.f.
   m-=Mass of NOa In gas sample, n%.
  Vlt-=Sample volume at  standard condi-
         tions (dry basis). ml.
  1. References.
  Standard Methods  of Chemical Analysis.
8th etL New York. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.,
1982, vol. 1, p. 329-330.
  Standard Method of Test  for Oxides of
Nitrogen In  Gaseous  Combustion Products
(Phenolclisulfonic Acid Procedure). In: 19G8
Book of ASTM Standards, Part 23, PhlJadc:-
phla, Pa. 1958, ASTM Designation D-160S-60,
p. 725-729.
  Jacob, M. B., The Chemical Analysis of Air
Pollutants, New York, N.Y.. Interscience Pub-
lishers. Inc., 1960, vol.  10, p. 351-336.

METHOD 8—DETEBUINVIION OF SULFOKIC ACID
  MIST AND SCTLFUB DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TKOM
  STATIONARY SOOUCES

  1. Principle and applicability.
  1.1 Principle.  A gas sample  Is extracted
from a campling pol:it in the stack and the
acid mist Including sulfur  trioxlde Is sepa-
rated from sulfur dioxide. Both fractions arc
measured separately  by the barium-thorin
Htration method.
  \Z Applicability. Thin method IB applica-
ble to ditermluatton  of sulfuric acid  mist
(including Bulfur trioxide)  and sulfur diox-
ide from stationary sources only when spe-
cified by the  test procedures for determining
      PROBE
  REVERSE-TYPE
   PIIOTTUEE
                                                                         liquation 7-2

                                            compliance with  the New Source Perform-
                                            ance Standards.
                                              2. Apfcratus.
                                              2.1  sampling.  See Figure  8-1. Many of
                                            the  design specifications of  this sampling
                                            train are described in APTD-0581.
                                              2.1.1  Nozzle—Stainless steel  (316)  with
                                            sharp, tnperod leading edge.
                                              2.1.2  Probe—Pyrex ' glass  with a heating
                                            system to prevent visible condensation dur-
                                            ing sampling.
                                              2.1.3  Pilot  tube—Type  S,  or equivalent,
                                            attached  to  probe  to  monitor  stack gas
                                            velocity.
                                              2.1.4  Filter holder—Pyrex ' glass.
                                              2.1.5  Iinplngers—Four as shown, lu Figure
                                            8-1. Tiie first ni;d third are of the Greenburg-
                                            Smlth design with standard tip. The second
                                            and fourth ore of the Greenburg-Smith tie-
                                            sign, modified by replacing the standard tip
                                            with  a '/2-inch ID glass  tube extending to
                                            one-half  Inch Irotn  the  bottom of  the itn-
                                            plnger flask.  Similar   colleclion  systems,
                                            which have been approved by the Adminis-
                                            trator, may be used.
                                              2.1.0  Mtlerlug  system—Vacuum  gauge,
                                            lealc-free  pump,  thermometers  capable of
                                            measuring temperature to within 5* P.. dry
                                            gas  meter with  2%  accuracy,  and  related
                                            equipment,  or equivalent, as  required to
                                            maintain  au  isokinetlc  sampling rate and
                                            to determine sample volume.
                                              2.1.7  Barometer—To measure atmospheric
                                            pressure to ±0.1 Inch Hg.
                                               '• Trade name.
                                                                       THERMOMETER
                 PJTOT MANOMETER



                      ORIFICE
                                         ICE BATH     WRINGERS

                                              BY-PASS VALVE
                                                                              VACUUM
                                                                               LINE
                                                                           VACUUM
                                                                             GAUGE
                                                              MAIN VALVE


                                                           •AIR-TIGHT
                                                             PUMP
                       DRY TEST METER

                          Figure 8-1,  Sulfurle acid mist sampling train.
  2.2  Sample recovery.
  2.2.1  Wash bottles—Two.
  2.2.2  Graduated  cylinders—250  ml.,  500
ml.
  2.2.3  Glass sample storage containers.
  2.2.4  Graduated cylinder—250ml.
  2.3  Analysis.
  2.3.1  Pipette—25 ml., 100 ml.
  2.3.2  Buretfe—50ml.
  2.3.3  Erlenrueyer flask—250 ml.
  2.3.4  Graduated cylinder—100ml.
  2.3.5  Trip  balance—300  g.  capacity,  to
measure to ±0.05g.
  2.3.G  Dropping bottle—to add  Indicator
solution.
  3. Reagents.
  3.1  Sampling.
  3.1.1  Filters—Glass  fiber, MSA type 1106
EH, cr  equivalent,  of  a suitable size to fit
in the filter holder.
  3.1.2  Silica  go!—Indicating   type,  G-16
mesh, dried at 175" C.  (350° F.) lor 2 hours.
  3.1.3  Water—Deionized. distilled.
  3.1.4  Isopropanol, 80%—Mix  800  ml. of
isopropauol with 200 ml. of deionized, dis-
tilled water.
  3.1.5  Hydrogen peroxide. 3C'c—Dilute 100
ml. of 30% hydrogen peroxide to 1 liter with
deionized. distilled water.
  3.1.6  Crushed Ice.
  3.2 Sample recovery.
  3.2.1  Water—Deionized, distilled.
  3.2.2  Isopropnnol,80To.
  3.3 Analysis.
  3.3.1  Water—Deionized, distilled.
  3.3.2  Isopropanol.
  3.3.3  Thorin indicator—l-(o-arsoncphcn-
yla7.o)-2-naphthol-3, ij-cUsuttontc  acid,  cU-
sodium  salt  (or equivalent). Dissolve 0.20 g.
in  100 ml. distilled water.
  3.3.4  Bnruim  pcrchlorate   (001JV)—Dis-
solve 1.95  ?,. of  bp.rium  perchloratc  IB,".
(CO,),3 H..C)  In 200 ml. distilled water anil
dilute'to 1 liter with Isopropancl. Standardize
with sulfuric acid.
  3.3.5  Sulfuric acid  standard  (0.01N) —
Purchase or standardize to H; 0.0002 A' against
0.01 N  ttaOH  which has  previously bee;-.
standardized .against primary  standard  po-
tcisium acic!  pl-.tlial.ite.
  4. Procedure.
  4.1 Sampling.
  4.1.1  After selecting the sampling site ar.d
the minimum mimb'.'r  of  sampling points,
determine the su-.clc pressure,  temperature,
moisture, and rauge of velocity head.
  4.1.2  Preparation   of  collection  train.
Place 100 ml. of 80% Isopropanol In the first
implnger. 100 ml. of 3% hydrogen peroxide in
both, the second and third Implngers,  and
about 200 g.  of BSHca.  gel in, the fourth 1m-
piiiger.  Hetaiu a portion of the  reagents for
uso as  blank solutions. Assemble  the train
without the probe as shown in Figure  8-1
with the  niter between the flrst and  second
impingers.  Leak check  the sampling trtin
at  the sampling silo by plugging the inlet to
the first Impinrjer and pullUig :; 15-inch Hg
vacuum. A  leakage nvt-e not in exceso of 0.02
cJ.m. at  a vacuum of  15  mches  Fg is ac-
ceptable.  Attach the probe and turn  on the
probe  heating  system. Adjust  tlie probe
heater  setting  during  sampling to  prevent
any visible condensation.  Place crushed Ice
around the Impingers. Add more ice  during
the run to keep the temperature of tha sa^es
leaving the  last impinger  at 70° F. or less.
   4.1.3  Train operation. For each run, re-
cord the data required on the example ebect
shown  iu Figure 8-2.  Take readings at  each
sampling point at least every 5 minutes and
when significant changes in stack conditions
necessitate additional  adjustments  In  flow
rate. To begin sampling, position the nozzle
at  the flrst traverse point with the tip point-
ing directly Into the  gas  stream. Stnrt the
pump and Immediately adjust  the  flow to
isokinetlo  conditions.   Maintain  l&oklnetic
sampling throughout the  sampling  period.
Nomographs  are available  which aid in the
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl.  36, NO. 247—THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1971
                                                              IV-18
-------
H

 I
M
VD
rapid adjustment, of the sampling rate with-
out other computations. APTI>-0578 details
the procedure for using these nomographs.
At tho conclusion of  each run; turn off the
pump aud record the  final readings. Remove
                                                    tho  probo from the stack and disconnect It
                                                    from the train. Drain tho Ice bath and purge
                                                    the  remaining part of the train by drawing
                                                    clean, ambient air through the system for 16
                                                    minutes.
       n«cr

       IOCATI0.1

       OPE BATCH

       DA1I

       BJTJ NO.

       SAMPLE IO« NO

       unm BOX NO,
       C TAC70B
                                                                        AUDIf KT TfUPERATU!tZ_
                                                                        tAitouncic FUSIVJU_
                                                                        AS3UUtOMOIS1UHC.«_
                                                                        (itAltA BCI gtnitjn
                                                                            ir.-om. m.___
                                                                           C DIAMETTA \a,	
                                                                        ntoa HEAHH SEUI^OL
                                   SCHtUATIC Of STACK CKOSS SICTIOf;
TMVFWt POINT
NU1UU












TOTAL
SAWllNG
TlUt
III. «*!.













AVEHAGl
STATIC
mount
|»s1.ln.H».














STACK
TLUP£R&TUKE
I'j.'r














vrtocin
MAD
I'M.














rttnuu
DlfflRIMIAL
ACHOS£
Office
uiru
I* HI.
U.H;0














CAS SAWU
VOLUME
(WO. II3














OAJ SAWlf TO.MMTXIK
AT Dfif CASl'IKR
INI a
(Tn,ta.l.'f












Avj.
OUHfT
lte«a,l.''












Av3-
AvB.
SAl'lf «0«
HUPiflATURE.
•F














ILtPif.'CER
TLMPfRATUKI.
V














                    V  (—'^
                    Vml  m
                                     .
                                     'l3.6
where:
  Vm,,4=-Volume of gas sample through tho
           dry  gas meter  (standard condi-
           tions) , cu. ft.
     Vm---Volume of gas sample through the
           tlry   gas  motor  (meter  condi-
           tions), cu. ft.
   Tltll= Absolute  temperature at  standard
           conditions. 630" R.
                                                                                                                 304= [ 1.08>
                                                                                                              ->II;B04
                                                                                                                                .08X10-
                                       , Ib.-l.
                                       g.-ml
     Ciijso," Concentration of sulfurlc acid
               at  standard  conditions,  dry
               basis. Ib./cu. ft.
 3.08X 10-""- Conversion factor Including the
               number of  grams  per gram
               equivalent  of  sulfuric  acid
               (49 g./E.-ecj.), 453.0 g./ll)., und
               1.000 ml./I.. Ib.-l./p.-ml.
        V,--Volume  o' barium porchlorato
               tltrant used for the  sample,
               ml.
       Vtlt--'Volume  of barium perchlorate
               tltrant used for the blank, ml.
                                                                                                                                                                  AH
                                                        equation 8-1

                              Tm—Average dry gas meter temperature,

                             Pbn,— Barometric  pressure  at th»  Orifice
                                     meter, Inches Hg.
                              AH— Pressure  drop across  the  orifice
                                     meter, inches H:O.
                             lS.8->3pi!clllc gravity of mercury,
                             P.,a" AbbOluto pressure at  standard con-
                                     ditions, 29.92 inches Hg.
                            0.3   Suifurlo acid concentration.
                                    Vm.,4              equation 8-2

                                  N " Normality of barium perchlorato
                                        tltrant, g.-eq./l.
                               V.„,„=•-Total solution volume  of  sul-
                                        furio acid (first Implngcr and
                                        filter), ml.
                                 V, =< Volume  of  simple  aliquot  tl-
                                       ' trated, ml.
                               Vl".uliJ Volume of goa sample  through
                                        the dry gas metor (standard
                                        conditions). cu. ft., see Equa-
                                        tion 8-1.

                            0.3  Sulfur dioxide concentration.
                                                                                                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                                                                                                      50
                                                                                                                                                                                      m
                                                                                                                                                                                      O
  4.2  Sample recovery.
  4.2.1  Transfer  tho Isopropanol from  the
first Implnger to a 250 ml. graduated cylinder.
Rinse the probe, first Implnger. and all con-
necting glassware before the filter with 80%
Isopropanol.  Add  the rinse  solution to  the
cylinder. Dilute to 250 ml. with 80%  Isopro-
panol. Add the filter to tho  solution, mix,
and transfer to a  suitable storage container.
Transfer the  solution from  the second and
third Implngcrs to a 500 ml. graduated cyl-
inder. Hlnse  all glassware between the filter
and silica gel Implnger  with delonlzed, dis-
tilled water and add this rinse water to  the
cylinder. Dilute to a volume of 600 ml. with
delonlzcd, distilled water. Transfer the solu-
tion to a suitable storage container.
  4.3  Analysis.
  4.3.1  Shake the container  holding Iso-
propanol and thu filter.  If the filter breaks
up, allow the fragments to settle for u few
minutes before removing a  sample. Pipette
a 100 ml. aliquot of sample  Into a 2fiO  ml.
Erienm'jycr flask  and add 2  to  4 drops  of
thorln.  Indicator.  Titrate the sarnplo with
                                                     barium perchlorute to a pink end point. Make
                                                     sure  to  record volumes.  Repeat  the titra-
                                                     tlori with a second aliquot of sample. Shake
                                                     tho container holding the  contents of the
                                                     second and third  Implngers. Pipette a 25 ml.
                                                     aliquot of sample  into a 250 ml. Erlenmeyer
                                                     flask. Add 100 ml. of  Isopropanol and 2 to 4
                                                     drops of thorin indicator. Titrate the sample
                                                     with barium, perchlorate to a pink end point.
                                                     Repeat the titrailon with a second aliquot of
                                                     sample.  Titrate  the  blanks  in  the same
                                                     manner as the samples.
                                                       5. Calibration.
                                                       5.1  Use standard methods and equipment
                                                     which have been  approved by the  Adminis-
                                                     trator to calibrate the orifice  meter, pltot
                                                     tube, dry gas meter, and probo heater.
                                                       5.2  Standardize the barium perchlorate
                                                     with 25  ml. of standard  sulfurln  acid con-
                                                     taining 100 ml. of  Isopropanol.
                                                       0. Calculation},
                                                       8.!  Dry gus  volume. Correct the cample
                                                     VGlumo measured  by  the dry gas  meter to
                                                     standard conditions (70°  K, 29.nd               equation 8-3

                              Vmi:d" Volume of gas sample through
                                        tha dry gaa meter  (standard
                                        conditions), cu. ft., see Equa-
                                        tion  8-1.
                            7. References.
                            Atmospheric Emissions from Suifurlo Acid
                          Manufacturing Procei;sea, U.S. DHEW,  PHS,
                          Division of Air Pollution. Public Health Sorv-
                          Ico Publication  No. BOU-AP-13. Cincinnati.
                          Ohio. 1U05.
                            Corbett, D. F..  Tho Determination  of SO,
                          and SOa in Flue  Gases. Journal of tho Insti-
                          tute of Fuel, 2i:237-2-13, 19Q1.
                            Martin, Robert M., Construction Details of
                          Isoklncile Sourco Sampling Equipment, En-
                          vlroiunental  Protuctloix Agency, Air Pollution
                          Control Ollico Publication No. APTD-0681.
                           Patton, W. I1.,  and J. A. Drink. Jr.,  New
                          Equipment  and  Techniques for  Sampling
                          Chemical Process Qtucu, J. Air Pollution  Con-
                          trol A«oo. 13, 103 (1033).
                                                        FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOl.  34,  NO. 247—THURSDAY,  DECEMBER 33,  1971
-------
                           RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                         24895
  Bom, Jerome J.. Maintenance, Calibration.
and  Operation of Isoklnetic  Source Sam-
pling Equipment, Environmental  Protection
Agency. Air Pollution  Control Office Publi-
cation No. APTD-0576.
  Sh«U Development Co. Analytical Depart-
ment, Determination of Sulfur Dioxide and
Sulfur Trloxlde in Stack  Oases,  Emeryville
Method Series, 4516/59&.

METHOD  9—VISUAL DETERMINATION  OF  THE
  OPACITY  OP  EMISSIONS  FnOM  STATIONARY
  SOT7BCES

  1.  Principle and applicability.
  1.1  Principle. The relative  opacity of an
emission from a  stationary source is de-
termined  visually by  a  qualified observer.
  1.2  Applicability.  This  method Is appli-
cable for  the determination of the  relative
opacity of  visible  emissions Jiom stationary
sources only when specified by test proce-
dures for determining compliance with the
New Source Performance Standards.
  2.  Procedure.
  2.1  The qualified observer  stands at ap-
proximately two stack  heights, but not more
than a quarter of a mile from the  base  of
the etack with the sun to his back. From a
vantage point perpendicular to the plume,
the  observer  studies  the  point of  greatest
opacity in  the plume.  The data required  in
Figure 9-1 is recorded every 15 to 30 seconds
to the nearest 5% opacity. A minimum of 25
readings Is taken.
  3.  Qualifications.
  3.1  To certify as an. observer, a candidate
must complete a smokereading  course con-
ducted  by  EPA, or equivalent;  In  order to
certify  the  candidate  must assign opacity
readings In 5% increments to  25  different
black plumes and 25 different white plumes,
with an error not to exceed 15 percent on
any  one reading and an average error not to
exceed  7.5  percent  In  each category. The
smoke  generator used  to  qualify  the  ob-
servers must be equipped with  a calibrated
smoke indicator or light transmission meter
located in  the source  stack if  the  smoke
generator is to determine the actual opacity
of the emissions. All qualified observers must
pass  this test  every 6  months  In  order to
remain certified.
  4.  Calculations.
  4.1  Determine the average opacity.
  5.  References.
  Air Pollution Control District Rules and
Regulations, Los Angeles County Air Pollu-
tion  Control District, Chapter 2, Schedule 6,
Regulation 4, Prohibition, Rule 50,17 p.
  KudluJc, Rudolf, Ringelmann Smoke Chart,
U.S.  Department of Interior, Bureau  of Mines,
Information Circular No. 8333, May 1967.











































1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
70
21
72
M
3«
76
?«
27
78
7V


































































































































30
31
32
13
14
36
3C
3?
38
39
40
41
42
41
44
45
16
47
4B
49
iO
ftl
»
5J
64
54
te
47
48
S9



































































































































S.H1. totkl.nn


Ob*er,ct
D-l" . ,i
T.~



Wind dlr«c([an „ , < —
W.'wi ite.d













Sum of not. i«co»d«i
I oi*l no, t*«dm4b




                             Figure 9-1. Field data.

                        (PR Doc.71-18624''Piled 12-22-71;8:45 am]
           FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 36,  NO. 247—THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1971


                                          IV-20
-------
                                                        NOTICES
                                                                        5767
IA
   STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
       NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

   Supplemental Statement in Connection
         With Final Promulgation

     I. EPA  published Standards of Per-
   formance for New Stationary Sources in
   final form, prefaced by a "concise gen-
   eral  statement of their basis  and pur-
pose" as required by section 4(c) of the
Administrative  Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(c),  on December 23,  1971. 36 FJR.
24876. Petitions for review of certain of
these standards were filed on January 21
and 24  by the Essex Chemical Corp. et
al.,  the Portland Cement Association,
and the Appalachian Power Co. et  al.
(U.S. Court of  Appeals  for the District
of Columbia, Nos. 72-1072, 72-1073, and
72-1079).
  On February 18, 1972, almost 2 months
after EPA published the New Stationary
Source Standards, the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for  the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit  handed   down  Its  decision  In
"Kennecott  Copper  Corp. v.  Environ-
mental Protection. Agency" (C.AX>.C. No.
71-1410),  which  concerned  a. national
secondary ambient air quality standard
promulgated by EPA pursuant to sec-
tion 109 (b)  of the Clean Air Amend-
ments of 1970, 42 U.S.C. 1857C-4(b). The
court there held that although the "con-
cise  general  statement" prefacing  the
standard involved satisfied the require-
ments of section 4(c) of the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, it would  nonetheless
remand the cause to the Administrator
for a more specific  explanation of how
he had  arrived at the standard.
  In light of the decision in  "Kennecott
Copper," and in the interest of a speedy
judicial determination of the validity of
the Standards of .Performance for New
Stationary Sources,  we have  prepared
this  statement  of the basis  of the Ad-
ministrator's decision to promulgate the
standards to supplement that appearing
as the preface to the final standards as
published  in December  1971. Although
if  the point were raised it  might ulti-
mately  be determined that  this state-
ment was not necessary to satisfy the
doctrine expressed  by the  "Kennecott
Copper" opinion,  EPA considers It fun-
damental to the national policy embodied
in the Clean Air Amendments" of 1970
to expedite all steps of promulgation and
enforcement  of  standards and  imple-
mentation plans  to  bring about clean
air. The speedy eradication  of any un-
certainty as to the validity of the stand-
ards for new  stationary  sources is  an
important part of this process. Accord-
ingly,  considering  the  particular  se-
quence  of events  and pressures of time
involved here,, we think it most  appro-
priate  to  include this  supplementary
statement in the record  now, thereby
ensuring the rapid conclusion of judicial
review of the validity of the standards.
  H.  1. The Particulate  Test Method.
Particulate  emission  limits  were  pro-
posed for steam generators, incinerators,
and  cement plants, based on measure-
ments made with the full EPA sampling
train, which includes a dry filter  as well
as impingers, which contain water and
act as condensers and scrubbers. In the
impingers the gases are cooled to about
70.° F. before metering.
  There were objections to the  use of
impingers in the EPA  sampling train.
                                                                                 with suggestions  that the  participate
                                                                                 standards be based either on the "front
                                                                                 half" (probe and filter) of the EPA sam-
                                                                                 pling train  or on  the  American Society
                                                                                 of Mechanical Engineers test procedure.
                                                                                 Both of these  methods  measure  only
                                                                                 those materials that are solids or liquids
                                                                                 at 250° F. and greater temperatures.
                                                                                  It Is the opinion of EPA engineers that
                                                                                 particulate standards based either on the
                                                                                 front half or the full EPA sampling train
                                                                                 will require the same  degree of control
                                                                                 if appropriate limits are applied. Analy-
                                                                                 ses by EPA show that the material col-
                                                                                 lected in the impingers of the sampling
                                                                                 train Is usually although not  in  every
                                                                                 case a  consistent fraction of the total
                                                                                 particulate  loading. Nevertheless,  there
                                                                                 is some question that all of the material
                                                                                 collected in the impingers would truly
                                                                                 form particulates in the atmosphere un-
                                                                                 der normal dispersion conditions. For
                                                                                 instance, gaseous sulfur dioxide may  be
                                                                                 oxidized to a particulate form—sulfur
                                                                                 trioxide and sulfuric acid—in the sam-
                                                                                 pling train. Much  of the material found
                                                                                 in  the  impingers is  sulfuric acid and
                                                                                 sulfates. There  has been  only limited
                                                                                 sampling with the full EPA  train such
                                                                                 that the occasional anomalies cannot be
                                                                                 explained fully at this  time. In any case,
                                                                                 the front half of the EPA train is con-
                                                                                 sidered a  more acceptable  means  of
                                                                                 .measuring  filterable  particulates  than
                                                                                 the ASME mjthod in  that a more effi-
                                                                                 cient filter is required  and the filter has
                                                                                 far less mass than the principal ASME
                                                                                 filter in relation to the sample collected.
                                                                                 The latter  position was reinforced by a
                                                                                 recommendation of the  Air Pollution
                                                                                 Control Association.
                                                                                  Accordingly, we determined that,  for
                                                                                 the three   affected source  categories,
                                                                                 steam « generators,  incinerators,   and
                                                                                 cement  plants,   particulate  standards
                                                                                 should be based  on the front  half of the
                                                                                 EPA sampling train with mass emission
                                                                                 limits adjusted as follows:








Steam Generators-
pounds per million
Btu heat Input 	
IncJnerntore— grains
per standard cubic
foot at 12 percent
COj . ...
Cement Kilns —
pounds per ton feed..
Cement Coolers-
pounds per ton feed ..

Originally
proposed
partlculato
standards,
full El" A.
tram



0.20



0.10

0.30
0.10
Reco:jinn'n
-------
5768
               NOTICES
tests which showed compliance with the
originally  proposed  standard all  indi-
cated implnger catches of 20 to 30 per-
cent. All  five  of these tests indicate
compliance with the  original and the
revised standard.
  In the case of cement plants, holding
to  the same  allowable emission .rate
wliile  changing  the  sampling  method
results  in  a slight relaxation  of the
standard.  This permits an  electrostatic
pvecipitator as well as a fabric filter to
meet the emission standard.
  2. The   Sulfur  Dioxide Standard for
Steam  Generators of  1.2  Pounds Per
Million B.T.V. Heat Input.  The Admin-
istrator took into account the following
facts in determining that there has been
adequate demonstration of  the achieva-
btlity of the standard.
  There are  at present three  SO. re-
moval systems In operation at U.S. power
stations. Moreover, a total of  13  electric
power companies have  contracted for the
construction  of  seventeen  additional
units, most of which will become opera-
tional  in the next 2 years. Most of these
employ lime or limestone scrubbing, but
magnesium oxide and  sodium hydroxide
scrubbing  and  catalytic oxidation also
will be used. In addition, seven units will
be equipped with water scrubbers for' fly
ash collection in  the  anticipation that
they may be converted to SO, removal in
the future. Eight different firms are de-
signing the installations. One of the In-
stallations, a sodium hydroxide scrubber,
Is guaranteed by the designer to achieve
90 percent or better SO: removal. Four
others are guaranteed at 80 percent or
better. Table I summaries information
about  these installations. Generally, the
standard of 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide
per million B.t.u. input can be met by
the  removal  of  70-75 percent  of the
sulfur dioxide formed  in the burning of
coal of average sulfur content (i.e., 2.8-3
percent).
  A 125-megawat.t unit now operated by
the Kansas Power and Light Co. at Law-
rence, Kans., was put into  operation in
December 1988. Several problems were
experienced originally  and appreciable
revisions have been made to improve the
system. The most successful  operation of
the scrubber has occurred during 1971.
  In some respects the plant is atypical
in  that it is not required  to burn coal
continually. Natural  gas  is  available
much  of the time, and the station also
has. a  supply of  fuel oil that can, be
burned In  emergencies when natural gas
is not available. Kansas Power and Light
has used this flexibility to advantage in
the operation of  the  scrubber.  It fre-
quently switches the unit from coal to
natural gas, bypassing the  scrubber, so
that they can inspect the internals for
possible malfunction.  The generating
unit was seldom operated longer than  4
weeks on coal firing without making such
Inspections. In most Instances,  little or
no maintenance was required during the
outage, and the company  then merely
inspected the scrubber.
                                                     TABLE I— SUUTUB Dioxroe REMOVAL SYSTEMS AT U.S. STZAM-ELECT
        Power station
                          Unit
                          size
                    New or                Anticipated
    Designer BO, system  retro- Scheduled startup   efficiency of
                      fit                 SO: r«no»3l
Limestone Scrubbing:

    ). Union Electric Co..Merameo
       No. 2.

    2. Kansas  Power &  Light,
       Lnwrenco Station No. 4.
    3. Kansas  Power &  Ll|?bt,
       Lawrenoj Station No. 5.

    4. Kansas City Power 4- Light,
       Hawthorne Station Mo. 3.
    6. Kansas City Power A Light,
       Hawthorne. Station No. 4.
    6. KnnSBs City Power it Light,
       Lacygne Station.
    7. Detroit Edison Co., St. Clair
       Station No. 3.
    8. Detroit  Edison Co., River
       Rouce Station No. i.
    9. Commonwealth Eduton Co.,
       Will County Station No. 1.
   10. Northern States Power Co.,
       Sherborae County Station,
       Minn., No. 1.
   11. Arizona  Pnbllo  Service,
       Cholla Station Co.
   12. Tennessee Valley Authority,
       Widow's  Creek  Station
       No. 8.
   13. Duquesne Light Co., Philips
     Station.
   14. Louis-rills Oaj &  Electric
     Co.. Paddy's Run Station.
   It. City o(  Key West, Stock
     Island.'
   16. Union Electric Co., Meramec
     No. 1.
Bodlom  Hydroiide Scrubbing In-
  stallations:
    1. Nevada Power Co.,  Reed
     Gardner Station.

Magnesium Oilde Scrubbing Instal-
  lations:
    1. Boston  Edison  Co., Mystic
     Station No. 6.'
    2. Potomac Electric  Tower,
     Dlckerson No. 3.
Catalytic Orldatlon:
    1. Wlnoa Power, Wood River •'.
 140 Combustion Engineer, S


 125 Combustion Engineer. R

 430 CombustlonEngrneer. N


 100 Combustion Engineer. R

 100 Combustion Engineer. R

 800 Babcock&Wilcoi	N

 180 Peabody	 R

 265 Peabody	 R

 175 Babcock&Wiloox	R

 700 Combustion Engineer. N


 116 Research. CottreU	R

 550 Undecided	 R
                                                     September 1968.... Opetited at 73%
                                                                     tifliciency during
                                                                     EPA test.
                                                     December 1068	    Do.

                                                     December 1OT1	Will start at 66%
                                                                     and b»up-
                           100  Chemico	 R

                                                R

                                                N

                           12.5  Combustion Engineer. R
 70  Combustion Engi-
      neer.
 37  Zum.	
                           250  Combustion Equip-
                                ment Associates.
150  Cbemico	K

105 	do	 E


100  Monsanto	 R
                ^1 ouvu "~ «*/o
Lntel972.	 Guaranteed 70%.

LateJ972	    Do.

Latel»72	80% as target.

Late 1072	90% as target.

Late 1972	    Do.

February 1972.	Guaranteed 80%.

1978	


December 1973	

1974-TS	


March 1973...	    Do.

Mid-late 1972	    Do.

Early 1372	 Guaranteed 9»%
                removal.
Spring 1973	80% as target.
                          1973	 Guaranteed 90%
                                          SOt while bora-
                                          Ing 1% 3 coal.
                                                     February 1972	90% target.

                                                     Early 1974	90%.


                                                     June 1972	 Guaranteed 8S?a
                                                                     SO: removal.
 i Oil-flrcd plants (remainder arc coal-Qred).
 ' Partial EPA funding.

  All water from the pond  is recycled
back to the scrubber. Slowdown from
cooling towers constitutes makeup water.
The sludge oxidizes  to  sulfate  in  the
pond.  E"entually,  sulfate  may  be  re-
moved from the system and  taken with
the ash to landfills.
  The limestone system for the new 430-
megawatt  steam-electric unit   at  the
Lawrence station is essentially the same
as the smaller unit. It has been operated
only on a limited basis to date. The com-
pany plans to operate at 65 percent  SO2
removal, then upgrade to 80 percent or
more based on experience with the 125-
megawatt  unit.  With the new  system
sulfate crystallization will  be   accom-
plished in  tanks. The company plans to
run clarified liquor from the crystallizers
directly back to the scrubbers. A solids
content of 6-10 percent will be main-
tained  in  the recycle liquor to  prevent
scaling in exposed surfaces.
  Combustion engineering pilot studies.
Pilot studies conducted by the Combus-
tion Engineering Co.  on a 1  mw. equiv-
alent stream showed 95 percent SO, re-
moval  with continuous crystallization
and 100 percent water recycle from crys-
tallizers. The studies form the basis upon
               which CE is guaranteeing that its new
               installations will remove at least 70 per-
               cent of SO0.
                 Battersea scrubber. The principle  of
               alkaline  scrubbing  has  been  demon-
               strated at the Battersea  Power Station
               in England, where a scrubber has  been
               in use since 1932. A multiple stage proc-
               ess is employed. Alkaline river water is
               used in the first stage and lime-neutral-
               ized  liquor  in  subsequent stages.  The
               steam generator is of 3,500 million B.t.u.
               rating. Reports Indicate that  the effi-
               ciency of this system exceeds 90 percent
               when the boiler  is  fired with  0.8  to 1
               percent sulfur coal. Similar systems are
               in operation on  two 150-mw.  oil-fired
               boilers at the Bankside Power Station in
               England.
                 Swansea  scrubber. Lime  scrubbing
               processes  were installed  on coal-fired
               units at the Swansea Power Station and
               the Fulham Power  Station in  England
               prior to World War n. The system at the
               Fulham Station reportedly operated suc-
               cessfully until shut down for security rea-
               sons early during World War H.  It was
               not reactivated  after  the  war.  The
               Swansea  installation was operated for
               about 2 years on a coal-fired power boiler
                                 FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOU 37, NO. 55—TUESDAY, MARCH 21,
                                                        IV-2 2
-------
                                                      NOTICES
                                                                         5769
and Is not  now  In  service.  Unlike  the
Baturrsea and Bankside operations, these
units utilized a continuous liquid recycle.
The systems were reported to operate at
SO: efficiencies of 90 percent or greater.
  Bahco lime scrubbing.  The two-stage
system has  been  demonstrated at about
98 percent SO, removal over a 6-month
period on a 7-mw. oil-flred steam genera-
tor in Sweden.  The process is~now being
offered  under  license  in  the  United
States by Research Cottrell. None of the
Bahco systems have yet been installed on
coal-fired boilers. Nevertheless, the two-
stage scheme appears to offer definite ad-
vantages over  single-stage processes in
achieving high  removal efficiencies.
  Wellman  power gas sulfite scrubbing.
The sulfite-bisulflte system has been in-
stalled on two oil-flred boilers in Japan.
The combined capacity is about 650 mil-
lion B.t.u. per hour. Since it was put into
operation in  June  1971, removal  ef-
ficiencies  of 95 percent have  been re-
ported with exit levels of about 0.2 pounds
SOi per million B.t.u. The system has not
been operated on  a  coal-fired  boiler.
However, since precipitators have been
shown to remove particulates down to the
same level as oil-fired units,  application
of the sulfite system to coal-fired boilers
should be feasible.
  A principal difficulty in operating lime
based scabbing  systems has been  the
tendency to form scale on scrubber sur-
faces, Union Electric, TV A, and to a les-
eer extent Kansas Power and Light have
reported scaling  problems. The experi-
ence  of Kansas  Power  and Light and
European  and  Japanese installations
show that scaling can be held to a toler-
able level. Present designs probably will
be revised to optimise cost versus scaling.
The use of two or more stages would ap-
pear desirable for high sulfur coals.
  In all probability, there will be some
scale formation in all closed circuit lime
scrubbing systems for SO2 abatement. At
the Bahco installation as at the Kansas
Power and Light  installation  in  the
United States, this is minimized by keep-
ing the solution  pH in the acid  region.
In addition  to  this,  a Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries pilot plant in Japan has em-
ployed seed crystals and a delay tank and
was reportedly able to operate for  500
hours without  any sign  of scaling (i.e.,
the  scaling took  place on the  seed
crystals).
  In addition to operating at an acid pH,
the Bahco system employs a wide open
scrubber that  can  tolerate appreciable
scale deposits.  It was reported that the
installation  of additional  spray heads to
more thoroughly wash the wetted sur-
faces at  the  Bischaff  installation  in
West Germany helped to prevent scale
formations.
  All three installations cited above have
reported successful periods of operation
while employing the  above-mentioned
techniques.  The most successful of these
Is  the Bahco  unit  which has  had no
serious   operational   difficulties  since
November  1969.  These  examples show
that lime systems can be operated with-
out unscheduled shutdown due to scale
problems.
  3.  Cost o/ compliance with steam, gen-
erator standards. The economic impact
of the new source performance standards
and  requisite pollution control expendi-
tures have been developed for a typical
new   coal-fired  unit of  600-megawatt
(MW) capacity. The Investment cost for
such a plant would be $120 million plus
$18 million for sulfur dioxide and partlc-
ulate control and $1 million for nitrogen
oxide control. The $19 million total can
be compared to $3.6 million which would
have been expended for participate con-
trol  if sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide
abatement were not required.
  On an annualized basis the pollution
control costs would be 0.13 cents per kw.-
hr.  for sulfur  dioxide  and paniculate
control  plus 0.01 cents per kw.-hr. for
nitrogen oxide control. Particulate  con-
trol  alone would cost 0.01 cents per kw.-
hr. An average revenue of 1.56 cents per
kw.-hr. is assumed. Based on  these fig-
ures, the  cost of pollution  control will
be about 9 percent of the delivered cost
of electricity if all plants operated by the
utility in question had to incur a  com-
parable cost. Using a figure of $130 per
year as the average residential electric
bill,  the increased cost of electricity to a
residential  customer would be about $1
per month if the total cost of control is
passed on to the customer.
  An indication of  the impact of in-
creased electricity cost on industrial con-
sumers  may be  obtained by examining
the relationship of electricity cost to pro-
duction costs. An upper limit may be ap-
proximated  by  considering the alumi-
num industry, a large consumer of elec-
trical energy. If the  aluminum industry
were to incur an increase of nine percent
in electricity cost, production costs would
increase by  about 1.4 percent. Although
aluminum smelters usually consume hy-
droelectric power and would not realize
pollution control costs increases,  none-
theless,  the figures show that even for
a large consumer the impact of increased
electricity cost Is fairly small. In general,
the  estimated electricity  cost increase
will  have only a minor impact on  pro-
duction costs.
  Each year the power industry puts into
operation  about 49 new steam-electric
units. On the average, 29 are  fired  with
coal, seven with oil, and 13 with natural
gas.  Most of the oil-fired  units and a
few of the coal-fired units may burn low
sulfur fuel. The number requiring flue
g&s desulf urization is estimated to be be-
tween 20 and 3Q per year. Most of these,
15 to 20, will be  located east of the Mis-
sissippi River.
  The foregoing cost  projections are
based on estimated costs of $30 per in-
stalled kilowatt for sulfur dioxide scrub-
bing systems which will also be capable
of controlling coal participate to the level
of the standard. Some power distributors
have questioned the figure and suggest
that the actual cost may be close to $70
per kw. Nevertheless, a review of appli-
cable cost estimates for calcium base SOa
scrubbing system shows support for the
EPA estimate.
  The four estimates listed in table n
for new plants range from $18.7 to $25.67
per kw. Three of the plants are large—
680 to 1,000 mw. All five estimates for
retrofitting existing plants show greater
cost, ranging from $28.6 to $61.8 per kw.
The retrofit estimates  tend  to  cover
smaller steam generators, only one of the
five being greater than 180. mw. In addi-
tion, the retrofit  costs tend  to reflect
unusual circumstances which  would not
be expected at new plants. All are  closed
circuit limestone or calcium  hydroxide
systems except for the small unit at Key
West, Fla. In the  closed circuit system,
all waters are recycled to avoid problems
of liquid and solid waste disposal.

                TABLE II
COST ESTIMATES TOR EQCrPPING COAL TIREP BTEAU-
 ELECTR1C  PLANTS WITH CALCTCM  BABE f>CRVBB:NG
 8T6TEMB (1971 ESTIMATES)
   Source of estimate
                       EIio
                             Cflpltnl cost
Zurn Industries (Key West
Installation).
Northern States Po-wcr Co..
Baocock A- WUcoi (Hypo-
thetical plant lu mld-
•we.st).
Tennessee Valley
Authority.
Do ... . .
Louisville Gas ct Electric
Co.
DuQuosne Ll^ht Co
GortunomvMHb Edison
Co.
Detroit Edison Co

37 MW
(New).
2-6SO MW
(New).
600 MW
(New).
1000 MW
(New).
650 MW
(Retro-
fit).
70 MW
( Retro-
fit) .
100 MW
(Retro-
fit).
175 MW
( Retro-
fit).
4-1 SO MTV
( Retro-
fit).
$20.4/k-w.
$18.7/kw.
{25.67/Kw.
$19.20/kw.
JW.610
Jfll.S'kw.
}2S.G/kw.
W5;k\v.
M9/tw.
S-W.O/kw.

  Projected capita]  costs  for nitrogen
control will range from nil to $3.50 per
kw. The greatest  cost will be incurred
from those units which will use combina-
tions of flue gas recirculation and off-
stoichiometric combustion to achieve the
standard. Many of these will be gas-fired
boilers which will not have to expend any
capital for sulfur dioxide or particulatc
control. The least cost will be for comer-
fired coal burning boilers  which should
be able, to meet the standards without
any modification. Comer-fired units are
sold by only one of the four major U.S.
power  boiler manufacturers. The other
three firms have experience with nitrogen
oxide reduction schemes for gas and oil
burning but it is uncertain what methods
they will employ with coal burning. Con-
sequently,  precise costs are  uncertain,
but it is expected that the nitrogen oxide
standard will  stimulate interest in com-
bustion techniques which can achieve the
required emission  levels at little  or  no
increase in cost.
  4. The  nitrogen  oxide  standard for
coal-fired steam generators. The stand- •
ards set an emission limit of 0.7  pound
of nitrogen oxide per million B.t.u. coal-
fired steam generators. This is roughly
equivalent  to  a stack gas concentration
of 550 parts per million for a bituminous-
fired operation. Several electric utilities
and three of the four major boiler manu-
facturers commented that the technology
was not fully  demonstrated to achieve
the standard.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 55—TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1972
                                                     TV-
-------
5770
               NOTICES
  The coal standard is based principally
on  nitrogen oxide levels achieved with
corner-fired boilers which are manufac-
tured by  only  one company—Combus-
tion Engineering. This  firm  has con-
firmed in writing that it will guarantee
to meet the nitrogen oxide standard.  In-
vestigations  by  an  EPA  contractor
showed that other types of boilers could
meet the standard under modified burn-
Ing conditions.  In fact, two  of the three
remaining companies  have  informed
EPA they will guarantee that  their new
installations will meet the EPA standard
of  0.7  pound/million B^t.u.  on  new
installations.
  5. Partiev.la.te standards for kilns in
Portland cement plants. Particulate emis-
sion limits of 0.3 pound per ton of feed
to  the  kiln were proposed for cement
kilns. This is  roughly equivalent to  a
stack gas concentration of 0.03 grains per
standard cubic  foot.
  The  Portland  Cement  Association,
American Mining Congress, a local con-
trol agency-and the major cement pro-
ducers commented that the kiln standard
was either too strict or it is not based on
adequately demonstrated technology, i.e.
fabric filters can not be used for all types
of cement plants. On the other hand, a
comment was  received from an equip-
ment manufacturer stating that equip-
ment other than fabric  niters also  can
be used to meet the standard and citing
supportive data for electrostatic precip-
itators. In addition,  the AMC, a local
agency and cement producers commented
that  the  particulate  standards  for
cement kilns  are  stricter  than  those
promulgated  for  power   plants   and
municipal incinerators. Further they ob-
jected to  the test method to be used to
determine compliance.
  The proposed standard was based prin-
cipally on particulate levels achieved at
a kiln controlled by a fabric filter. Sev-
eral  other kilns  controlled  by  fabric
filters had no visible emissions but could
net be tested due to  the physical layout
of  the  equipment. After proposal,  but
prior to promulgation a second kiln con-
trolled by a fabric filter was tested  and
found to have particulate emissions in
excess of the proposed standard. How-
ever, based on the  revised particulate
test  method,  the  second  installation
showed particulate emissions  to be  less
than 0.3 pound per ton of kiln feed.
   The promulgated standard is roughly
equivalent to a  stack gas concentration of
0.03 grains per standard cubic foot.  The
power plant standard is equivalent to
.0.06 grains per standard cubic foot at
normal excess air rates. The incinerators
standard is 0.08 grains per standard cubic
foot corrected  to 12  percent carbon di-
 oxide. Uncorrected, at normal conditions
 of 7.5 percent carbon dioxide it Is equiva-
 lent to 0.05 grains per standard cubic
 foot. The difference between the particu-
 late standard for  cement plants  and
 those for steam generators and incinera-
 tors is attributable to the superior tech-
 nology available therefor (that is, fabric
filter technology has not been applied to
coal-fired steam generators or incinera-
tors).
  In sum, considering the revision of the
particulate test method, there are suffi-
cient data to Indicate that cement plants
equipped with fabric niters and precipi-
tators can meet the standard.
  6. Cost of achieving particulate stand-
ard for kilns  at Portland cement plants.
A limit of 0.3 pounds per ton of feed to
the kiln was proposed. Tha limit applies
to all  new wet  or dry  process  cement
kilns.
  Three  cement  producers commented
that a well-controlled plant would cost
much more than  indicated by EPA. A
meeting between American Mining Con-
gress and EPA revealed that that asso-
ciation felt the cost of  an uncontrolled
cement plant as reported  by EPA was
low by a factor of 1.5 to 2. However, the
association agreed that  EPA had  accu-
rately  estimated  the cost of the pollu-
tion control  equipment  itself. Accord-
ingly,  no change in the  standard was
warranted on account of cost. Indeed, if
the industry is correct in asserting that
the cost  of  an  uncontrolled  plant is
higher than that estimated by EPA, that
means that the cost of pollution control
expressed as  a percentage of total cost
is  less than the 12 percent figure cited
in  the background document,  APTD-
0711, which was distributed by EPA at the
time the standards were proposed.
  1. Sulfur dioxide and acid mist stand-
ards for sulfuric acid plants. Sulfur di-
oxide emission limits of 4 pounds  per
ton of acid produced and acid mist emis-
sion limits of  0.15 pounds per ton of
acid produced were proposed for sulfuric
acid plants.
  Several sulfuric acid  manufacturers
and the  Manufacturing Chemists  Asso-
ciation commented  that  the proposed
SO. standard is unattainable in day-to-
day operation at one of the plants tested
or that it is unduly restrictive. They as-
serted that to meet th .  standard,  the
plant would have to be "designed to 2
pounds per ton" to allow for the inevita-
ble gradual loss of conversion efficiency
during a period of operation, and that
units capable of such performance have
not been demonstrated  in  this country.
Essentially, the same parties commented
that there is published data showing that
due to the vapor pressure of sulfuric acid,
the acid  mist standard is not attainable.
  The proposed standard was based prin-
cipally on sulfur dioxide levels achieved
with dual absorption acid plants and one
single absorption plant controlling emis-
sions with a sodium sulfite Sd recovery
system. There  are only three dual  ab-
sorption plants in this country. Company
emission data at one of the plants tested
indicates the plant -was meeting the pro-
posed  standard  for a year of operation
when the production rate was less than
600 tons per  day. The plant  is rated at
700 tons per day. At  the second U.S.
plant, emissions were about 2 pounds per
ton about two months after startup. Dis-
 cussion  with foreign dual  absorption
 plant designers  and operators  indicates
 normal operation at 99.8 percent conver-
 sion  or higher  for 99 percent  of  the
 time over a period of years. This conver-
 sion efficiency is equivalent to approxi-
 mately  2.5  pounds  per ton  of  acid
 produced.
   Complaints from the industry that it
 cannot meet the acid mist standard ap-
 pear to be based on experience with other
 test methods than EPA's.  Such other
 methods measure more sulfur trioxide
 and acid vapor, in addition to acid mist,
 than does the EPA method. Tests of sev-
 eral plants with the EPA test method
 have shown acid mist emissions well be-
 low the emission limits  as  set  in  the.
 standards.
   8. Cost  of achieving sulfur  dioxide
 standard at sulfuric acid plants.  A limit
 of 4 pounds of sulfur dioxide per ton of
 acid produced is set by the regulation.
 The limit applies to all types of new con-
 tact acid plants except those operated
 for control purposes, as at smelters.
   The  sulfuric  acid industry has com-
 mented that (1) the cost of achieving the
- proposed sulfur  dioxide standard is about
 three  times the EPA estimate, and (2X
 promulgation of a standard 60  percent
 less restrictive  than proposed  by  EPA
 would reduce the control cost 47 percent.
   In developing the parallel cost  esti-
 mates,  both  the industry and EPA as-
 sume  the  dual absorption  process  will
 be used to control sulfur burning plants
 and many spent acid plants. The more
 costly Wellman-Power Gas sulfite scrub-
 bing system will be used  with plants
 which  process  the  most contaminated
 spent acid feedstocks where capital in-
 vestment  historically  is  80   percent
 greater than sulfur burning plants.  The
 Wellman-Power Gas process would  also
 be used for  retrofitting existing plants
 where appropriate. Both the dual  absorp-
 tion and Wellman-Power Gas  processes
 have been demonstrated on commercial
 installations.  Seventy-six  dual  absorp-
 tion  plants  have  been  constructed or
 designed since  the  first  in  1964. Only
 three, however,  are located in this coun-
 try. One sulflte  scrubbing process is now
 in operation in the United  States  and
 four more will be put into service in 1972.
 All are  retrofit  installations. Two other
 such scrubbers are  being  operated in
 Japan. These seven installations consist
 of three acid  plants, two- claus sulfur
 recovery plants, an oil-fired boiler,  and
 a kraf t pulp mill boiler.
   Control costs. EPA engineers have re-
 viewed the industry analysis and find no
 reason to change their original cost esti-
 mate. As summarized in Table in, EPA
 estimates that the cost of achieving the
 standard is $1.07 to $1.32 per ton of acid
 for  dual absorption systems and $3.50
 per ton for sulflte scrubbing systems. The
 industry estimate for a sulfur burning
 dual absorption plant is $2.31  greater
 than EPA's. We believe  the industry's
 estimate to be excessive for the following
 reasons.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 55—TUESDAY, MARCH 21.  1972


                                                     IV-2 4
-------
                TXBLlIU

SJTIKATED  COBW Or CONTEOIJ.IKO 80LFCB  DIOXIDE
     FROM CONTACT 8UL7URIC ACID PLANTS
                  Dual Bbsa-p-  Sodium sulfito
                  lion process   scrubbing
                  In-
                 dustry
EPA   In-  EPA
     dustry
Suifur burning plants:
 Direct iDTOsiment
   (Thousands of J)-_  2,000
 Total Added Cost
   (S/Too)a).		   3.3S

6pcnt acid.plants:
 Direct Investment
   (Thousands of J).~  3,100
 Total Added Cost
   (S-,Ton)o)	   *.W
 650  Not antici-
     pated lor new
 3.07  sulfur burning
       plains.
 WO  ?,200  2,300
i. 32   4.11
            3.50
 o) Total added cost Includes depreciation, taies, 16%
return on investment after taxes and other allocated
costs.
  Seventy-two percent of the difference
between the Du Pont and EPA estimates
is  due to  direct investment, plant over-
head, and operating costs for auxiliary
process and  storage  equipment which
Du Pont  predicts  will be necessary to
satisfy the standards. EPA  does not be-
lieve that such  auxiliary equipment will
be necessary  in practice to  meet the
standard.
  Twenty percent of the difference is due
to differences in estimates  of the  cost
and consumption of utilities. Elimination
of auxiliary equipment referred to above
reduces the consumption rate of  both
electricity and steam. Eight percent re-
sults from the industry's apportionment
of "other  allocated  costs"  (Corporate
Administration, i.e., sales, research, and
development,  main office,  etc.) in pro-
portion to their estimate of the additional
investment  required  for  control.  Al-
though an accepted procedure  for inter-
nal cost accounting, this does not repre-
sent  a true  out-of-pocket cost.
  In sum, the EPA analysis shows that
meeting the proposed standard  with  a
dual absorption  plant requires a substan-
tial  investment  over an  uncontrolled
plant but only  30  percent  as great as
indicated  by  the  industry. Moreover,
relaxation of  the proposed  standard by
60 percent (to the level recommended by
the industry)  would decrease the cost of
control in dual absorption plants only 10
to 15 percent. For sulfur burning plants
the cost differential would  be  $0.10 per
ton  of  acid.  For spent acid  plants,  it
would be $0.17.
  Economic impact oj proposed stand-
ard. Most sulfuric acid production is cap-
tive   to  large  vertically  integrated
chemical, petroleum, or fertilizer manu-
facturers. An  increasing volume  of pro-
duction also results from the recovery
of sulfur dioxide from  stack  gases or
the regeneration of spent  acid  instead
of its discharge into .streams.
  Depending on the  abatement  process
selected and  the plant size, the direct
investment  for  control can  range  from
H to 38 percent of  the investment in an
uncontrolled acid plant.
  The added  cost of air  pollution  con-
tool,  coupled with  the inherent market
disadvantage of the small manufacturer,
may make future construction  of plants
              NOTICiS

of less than 500 tons per day economi-
cally unattractive exceipt as a sulfur re-
covery system, for another manufactur-
ing process.
  It is estimated that the average market
price  will  increase by  $1.07  per ton
reflecting the lower end of the cost range.
This represents  a small increase in the
$31 per ton market price and will  have
little effect on the  demand for  acid.
  The increasing production of recovered
and regenerated acid,  as  a result  of
abatement efforts, will inhibit the growth
of  conventional  acid production  and
threaten eventually to displace much of
that production.
         WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
                      Administrator.
  MARCH 16, 1972.
  [FR Doc.72—4338 Filed 3-20-72:8:61 am]
 2  Title  40—PROTECTION

         OF  ENVIRONMENT
 Chapter  I—Environmental  Protection
                Agency
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS

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

     Standard for Sulfur  Dioxide;
               Correction

  The new source performance standard
published December  23.  1911  (36  FJR,
24876), which is  applicable to sulfur di-
oxide  emissions  from fossil-fuel fired
steam  generators, Incorrectly omits  pro-
vision for compliance by burning natural
gas In combination with oil or coal. Ac-
cordingly, in  § 60.43  of Title 40  of  the
Code of Federal Regulations, paragraph
 (c) is revised and a new paragraph  (d)
is added, as follows:
 § 60.43  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
     •       •       •       •      *
   (c) Where  different fossil fuels  are
burned simultaneously in any combina-
tion, the applicable standard shall  be-
determined  by proration  using the fol-
lowing formula:
            y(0.80)  + z (1.2)
                 y +  z
where:
  y is  the percent  of total beat input  de-
    rived from liquid fossil fuel ani,
  z Is the percent ol total beat Input derived
    from solid fossil fuel.

  (d) Compliance shall be based on  the
total heat  Input from all  fossil fuels
burned, including gaseous fuels.
  This  amendment shall  be  effective
upon publication in the FEDERAL REGISTEB
(7-25-72).

  Dated: July 19,1972.
                 JOHN QUARLES, Jr.,
               Acting Administrator.
  [FK Doc.72-11381 Filed 7-25-72;8:49 am]
                                                                FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL 37, NO. 144-


                                                                  -WEDNESOAY, JUIY  26, 1972
  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37,  NO.  55—TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1972
                                                       IV-25
-------
H
<

K>
cn
 3    SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
 Amendment to Standards for Opacity and
    Corrections to Certain Test Methods
  On December 23. 1971,  pursuant to
 section  111 of the  Clean  Air Act, as
 amended, 40  CPR part 60  was adopted
 establishing regulations for the control
 of air pollution from new cement plants,
 sulfuric acid  plants, nitric acid plants,
 municipal  incinerators, and fossil-fuel-
 flred  steam generators. The standards
 included opacity limits for visible air pol-
 lution • emissions; 40 CFR  60  is being
 amended  to  clarify  the  application of
 opacity  standards. The revisions do not
 alter the stringency of the regulation.
  It was EPA's  intention that condensed
 water not be considered a visible air con-
 taminant for purposes of new source per-
formance  standards. Condensed  water
 was specifically  exempted  from  iiie
 opacity  limits  'promulgated for  steam
 generators and cement  plants.  Nitric
acid plants and sulfuric acid plants were
not exempted since there is  normally lit-
tle water vapor in stack gases from these
sources. However, under certain weather
conditions, scrubbers will generate a visi-
ble plume of condensed water. Therefore,
in order to clarify  enforcement proce-
dures, provisions are being added to ex-
empt condensed water from opacity lim-
its for sulfuric acid plants and for nitric
acid plants.
  The  appendix to part GO incorrectly
presents  certain  oata  and  equations.
These typins/printirtg  errors are being
corrected.
  This amendment makes certain clari-
fications  and  corrections  but does  not
change the substance of the regulation.
Therefore, the Administrator h^s deter-
mined that it is unnecessary to publish
a notice of proposed rulemaking or delay
the effective date of this amendment and
for this good cause has not done so.
  This amendment  shall  be  effective
May 23,1973.
  Dated May 16, 1973.

                 ROBERT W. FBI,
               Acting Ad7ni7iistrator.
  Part 60, chapter  I,  title 40, Code of
Federal   Regulations,  is  amended  as
follows:
  1. In § G0.72, a new paragraph (c)  is
added as follows:
§ 60.72   Standards for  nitrogen oxides.
     »      t       »      *      «
  (c) Where  the  presence  of vnicom-
bined water is the only reason for failure
Tr v P^ijO R j
V-- ^Ms.o P
[".id lb.
.M 454 gm.
	 A KA1A CU- *^' TT
ml. •
equation 5-2
             0.00267 in. Hg-cu. ft.
             "
                                           .V./p   ,   H\T/     min \
                                         °+i\:CPb"+i3:u) K1-607™ )
                                                            •
                               fiV.P.A,

                 (FR Doc.73-10061  Plied 5-22-73:8:45 am]

            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38,  NO.  99— WEDNESDAY,  MAY 23, 1973
                                                                    equation 5-fi
         Title 40 — Protection of Environment    Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, and
          CHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL                   Malfunction
              PROTECTION AGENCY           The Environmental Protection Agency
           SUBCHAPTER c — AIR PROGRAMS      promulgated Standards  of Performance
      PART  60 — STANDARDS OF  PERFORM- for New Stationary Sources pursuant to
      ANCE  FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES section Hi of the Clean Air Act Amend
                                                                                    to meet  the requirements of paragraph
                                                                                    (b) of this section, such failures shall not
                                                                                    be considered a violation of this section.
                                                                                      2. In § 60.83. a new paragraph (c)  is
                                                                                    added as follows:
                                                                                    § 60.83   Standards for acid mist.
                                                                                       (c) Where the presence of uncombined
                                                                                    water Js the only reason for failure  to
meet the requirement of paragraph (b)
of this section, such failure shall not be
considered a violation of this section.
  3. Table 1-1 in method 1 of the appen-
dix to part  60  is  revised  to  read as
follows:
  4. Equations 5-2 and 5-6 in method 5
of the appendix are revised to read as
follows:
                                                                                                Table 1-1.   Legation of traverse points in circular stacks
                                                                                                 (Percent of stack diameter from inside wall to traverse point)
Traverse
point
number
on a
diameter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ia
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?2
?3
24
Number of traverse points on a diameter
2
H.6
85.4






















4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3




















6
4.4
14,7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6


















8
3.3
10.5
19.4
32.3
67.7
80.6
89.5
96.7
















10
2.5
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.0
97.5














12
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.5
64.5
75.0
82.3
88.2
53.3
97.9












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










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








18
1.4
4.4
7.5
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6
29.6
38.2
61.8
70.4
76.4
81.2
85.4
89.1
92.5
95.6
98.6






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




22
1,1
3.5
6.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
21.8
26.1
31.5
39.3
60.7
68.5
73.9
78.2
82.0
85.4
88.4
91.3
94.0
96.5
93.9


.24
1.1
3.2
5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1
19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
39.8
60.2
67.7
72.8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.8
89.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
93.9
8
                                                                                                                                                                   70
                                                                                                                                                                   m
                                                                                                                                                                   in
                                        Z
                                        D
                                        m
                                        O
                                        C
                                                                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                                                                   Z
                                                                                                                                                                   en
-------
                                            RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                      28565
merits of 1970, 40 U.S.C. 1857^-6, on De-
cember  23,  1971, for fossU  fuel-fired
steatr. generators, Incinerators, Portland
cement  plants, and  nitric and sulfuric
acid plants (36 F.R. 24876), and proposed
Standards  of Performance on June 11,
1973. for asphalt concrete plants, petro-
'leum refineries, storage vessels for petro-
leum liquids,  secondary lead smelters,
secondary  brass and bronze  ingot pro-
duction plants, iron and steel plants, and
sewage  treatment plants  (38 FR 15406),
New or modified sources in these cate-
gories are  required  to  meet  standards
for emissions of air pollutants which re-
flect the degree of emissions  limitation
achievable  through  the  application of
the  best system  of  emission  reduction
which (taking into account the cost of
achieving such  reduction) the Admin-
istrator determines has been  adequately
demonstrated.
  Sources which ordinarily comply with
the  standards may  during  periods of
startup, shutdown, or malfunction un-
avoidably release pollutants in excess of
the  standards. These regulations make
it clear that compliance  with emission
standards,  other  than opacity  stand-
ards, is  determined through performance
tests conducted under   representative
conditions. It is anticipated that the ini-
 tial performance test  and  subsequent
performance tests will ensure  that equip-
ment is installed which will  permit  the
standards  to be attained  and that such
equipment is not allowed to  deteriorate
to  the  point  where  the  standards  are
no loader maintained. In addition, these
regulations require that the plant oper-
ator use maintenance arid operating pro-
cedures designed to  minimize emissions.
This requirement will ensure that plant
operators properly maintain and operate
the  affected  facility and  control  equip-
ment between  performance  tests and
during periods of startup, shutdown, and
unavoidable malfunction.
  The Environmental Protection Agency
on  August 25, 1972, proposed procedures
pursuant to which new sources could be
deemed not to be in  violation of the new
source  performance  standards if emis-
sions during startup, shutdown, and mal-
function unavoidably exceed  the  stand-
ards (31 FR 17214). Comments received
were strongly  critical of the reporting
requirements and the  lack  of  criteria
for  determining when  a malfunction
occurs.
  In response to these  comments,  the
Environmental  Protection Agency  re-
scinded the August 25,1972, proposal and
 published  a new proposal on  May 2,
 1973 (38  PR 17214). The purpose and
 reasoning in support of the May 2, 1973.
 proposal are set forth in the preamble
 to  the proposal. As these  regulations
 being promulgated are in substance the
 same as those of the May 2, 1973, pro-
 posal,  this preamble will discuss only
 the comments received  in response to
 the proposal and changes made to the
 proposal. *
  A total of 28 responses were received
 concerning the proposal (38  FR  10820).
 Twenty-one  responses  were received
 from the  industrial  sector,  three from
State and local  air  pollution control
agencies, and four from EPA represent-
atives.
  Some air pollution control agencies
expressed a preference for more detailed
reporting  and  for  requiring reporting
immediately following malfunctions and
preceding startups and shutdowns in or-
der to facilitate handling citizens' com-
plaints and emergency situations. Since
States already have  authority to require
such reporting and  since promulgation
of these reporting requirements does not
preclude any State from requiring more
detailed or more frequent reporting, no
changes were deemed necessary.
  Some   comments   indicated    that
changes were needed  to more  specif-
ically define those periods of emissions
that must  be reported on  a quarterly
basis. The regulations have been revised
to respond to this comment. Those pe-
riods which must be reported are denned
in applicable subparts. Continuous mon-
itoring  measurements will  be used for
determining those emissions  which must
be reported. Periods of excess emissions
will beiaveraged over specified time pe-
riods in accordance  with  appropriate
subparts. Automatic recorders are cur-
rently available that produce records on
magnetic tapes that can be processed by
a central compucing system for the pur-
pose of arriving at  the necessary aver-
ages. By this mc-tho-i and by deletion of
requirements for  making emission esti-
mates,  only  minimal  time  will  be re-
quired by plant operators in preparing
quarterly  reports. The time period for
making quarterly reports has been ex-
tended to 30 days beyond the end of the
quarter to allow sufficient time for pre-
paring necessary reports.
  The May 2, 1973, proposal required
that affected facilities be operated and
maintained "in a manner consistent with
operations during the most  recent per-
formance  test indicating compliance."
Comments  were  received   questioning
whether it would be possible or wise to
require  that  all of  the operating  con-
ditions  that  happened to exist  during
the  most recent performance test  be
continually maintained. In  response to
these comments,  EPA revised this re-
quirement to provide that affected facili-
ties  shall  be operated and  maintained
"in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practice  for minimizing
emissions" (§ 60.11(d)).
  Comments were  received  indicating-
concern that the proposed  regulations
would grant  license to sources to con-
tinue operating after malfunctions are
detected.  The  provision of §60.11(d>
requires that good operating and main-
tenance practices be followed and thereby
precludes continued operation in a mal-
functioning condition.
  This  regulation is  promulgated pur-
suant to sections 111 and 114  of the Clean
Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857c~b,
1857c-9).
  This  amendment is  effective Novem-
ber  14,  1973.
  Dated October 10, 1973.
                    JOHN QUARLES,
                Acting Administrator.
  Part 60 of Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as iollow-s:
  1. Section 60.2 is amended by adding
paragraphs (p), (q), and (r) as follows:
§ 60.2  Definitions.
  (p) "Shutdown" means the cessation
of operation  of an affected facility for
any  purpose.
  (q) "Malfunction" means any sudden
and  unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment or process equipment
or of a  process to operate in a normal
or usual manner. Failures that are caused
entirely or in part by poor maintenance,
careless operation, or any other  prevent-
able   upset   condition  or  preventable
equipment breakdown shall not be con-
sidered  malfunctions.
  (r) "Hourly period" means  any  GO
minute period commencing on the hour.
  2.  Section  GO.7  is amended by adding
paragraph  (c) as follows:
§ 60.7  Notification nml rwordkcepini;.
     *****

  ic> A written  report of excess emis-
sions as defined  in applicable  subparts
shall be submitted to the  Administrator
by each owner or operator for each cal-
endar quarter. The report shall include
the  maRn.it.Mde of  excess  emissions as
measured  by the required monitoring
equipment  reduced to the units  of the
applicable standard, the date, and time
of commencement and completion of
each period of excess emissions. Periods
of excess emissions due to startup, shut-
down, and  malfunction  shall  be spe-
cifically identified. The nature and cause
of any malfunction tlf known), the cor-
rective action taken, or preventive meas-
iires  adopted shall  be reported.  Karh
quarterly report is due  by the  30th day
following the end of the calendar quar-
ter.  Reports  are  not required  for any
quarter unless there have been periods of
excess emissions.
  3.  Section  60.8  is amended by revising-
paragraph  (c) to read a.s  tallows:
§ 60.8  lYrforniam-e It-sis.
     •       *      *  .     *       •

   (c) Performance tests  shall be con-
ducted under such conditions as the Ad-
ministrator shall  specify to the plant op-
erator   based     on    representative
performance of the affected facility. The
owner or operator shall make  available
to the Administrator such records as may
be necessary to determine the conditions
of the performance tests. Derations dur-
ing  periods  of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction  shall not constitute repre-
sentative conditions of performance tests
unless otherwise  specified in the appli-
cable standard.
  4.  A new  § 60.11 is added as follows:
§ 60.11  CompIiHiicc  willi MnndnrtU "mi
     inMIIIIrtiiincc requirements.
   (a) Compliance with standards in this
part, other than opacity standards, shall
be determined only by performance tests
established by § 60.8.
                              FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 38,  NO.  198—MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 1973

 *Mav  2,   1973  Preamble  immediately  follows  these  revisions.
                                                   IV-21
-------
28566
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (b) Compliance with opacity stand-
ards In this part shall be determined by
use of Test Method 9  of the appendix.
  (c) The opacity standards set forth In
this part shall apply at all times except
during periods of startup, shutdown, mal-
function,  and as otherwise provided in.
the applicable standard.
  (d) At  all times, including periods of
startup,  shutdown,  and  malfunction,
owners and operators shall, to the extent
practicable,  maintain and  operate  any
affected facility  including associated air
pollution control equipment in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control
practice for  minimising emissions.  De-
termination of whether acceptable oper-
ating and maintenance procedures are
being used will  be based on information
available to the Administrator which may
Include, but ls"not limited to, monitoring
results, opacity  observations, review of
operating  and maintenance procedures,
and inspection of the source.
  5. A new paragraph is added to § 60.45
as follows:
§ 60.45  Emission and fuel  monitoring.
     *       •      *      •      »
  (g) For the  purpose of  reports re-
quired pursuant to  5 60.7(c), periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as follows:
  (1) Opacity. All hourly periods during
•which there are three or  more  one-
minute periods when the average opacity
exceeds 20 percent.
  (2) Sulfur dioxide. Any two consecu-
tive hourly periods during which average
sulfur dioxide   emissions  exceed  0.80
pound per million B.t.u. heat Input for
liquid fossil fuel burning  equipment or
exceed 1.2 pound per million B.t.u. heat
Input for solid fossil fuel burning equip-
ment; or for sources which elect to con-
duct representatives analyses of .fuels in
accordance  with paragraph (c)  or (d)
of this section in lieu of .installing and
operating a monitoring device pursuant
to paragraph (a) (2) of this section, any
calendar day during which fuel analysis
ehows that  the limits of  5 60.43  are
exceeded.
  (3) Nitrogen oxides. Any two consecu-
tive hourly  periods during which the
average nitrogen oxides emissions exceed
0.20 pound per million B.t.u. heat Input
for  gaseous  fossil fuel burning equip-
ment, or exceed 0.30 pound per million
B.tu. for liquid fossil fuel burning equip-
ment, or exceed 0.70 pound per million
B.t.u.  heat  Input for  solid  fossil  fuel
burning equipment.
  6. A new paragraph is added to § 60.73
as follows:
 § 60.73   Emission monitoring.
     •       •      •      •      •

   (e) For the purpose of making written
reports pursuant to $ 60.7(c), periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are denned as any two consecutive hourly
periods during which  average nitrogen
oxides  emissions exceed 3  pounds per
ton of acid produced.
 FEDERAL KCISTHT, VOL 3», NO.. 198—MONDAY. OCTOBER IS,  1973
  7. A new paragraph is added to 5 60.84
as follows:
§ 60.84  Emission monitoring.
    •      •      •      •      •
  (e)  For the purpose of making written
reports pursuant to § 60.7(c), periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as any two consecutive hourly
periods  during  which  average   sulfur
dioxide emissions exceed 4 pounds  per
ton of acid produced.
 JPB Doc.73-21896 Piled 10-12-73:8:45 am]
                                        4fl

                                           ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                                       AGENCY

                                                   [40 CFR  Part 60]
                                          STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR
                                              NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
                                        Emissions During Startup,  Shutdown and
                                                      Malfunction
                                          The Environmental Protection Agency
                                        promulgated standards of performance
                                        for new stationary sources  pursuant  to
                                        section 111 of the Clean Air Amendments
                                        of 1970, 40 U.S.C.  1857c-6, on Decem-
                                        ber   23,  1971,  for  fossil  fuel-fired
                                        steam generators, incinerators, portland
                                        cement plants, and nitric and sulfuric
                                        acid plants. (36 FR 24876). New or modi-
                                        fled  sources in those categories  are re-
                                        quired to meet standards for emissions
                                        of air pollutants which reflect the de-
                                        gree of emissions limitation achievable
                                        through the application of the best sys-
                                        tem  of emission reduction which (taking
                                        Into account the cost of achieving such
                                        reduction) the Administrator determined
                                        to be adequately demonstrated.
                                          On August 25,1972, the Environmental
                                        Protection Agency proposed procedures
                                        pursuant to which  new sources could
                                        be deemed not to be in violation of the
                                        new  source performance standards  if
                                        emissions during startup, shutdown and
                                        malfunction unavoidably  exceeded the
                                        standards (37 FR 17214). A total of 141
                                        responses  were  received   during  the
                                        period allowed for  official comment on
                                        the  proposal.  Comments received were
                                        strongly critical of  the various  report-
                                        Ing requirements, and the lack of more
                                        specific 'criteria for  granting exceptions
                                        to the standards. A number of comments
                                        were directed  toward EPA's  policy on
                                        delegating  enforcement of  these proce-
                                        dures to the States as provided under sec-
                                        tion 111 of the Clean Air Act. This  new
                                        proposal is intended to respond to these
                                        criticisms. The August 25, 1972, proposal
                                        Is hereby withdrawn.
                                          Attempts to classify all of the  situ-
                                        ations in which excess emissions due to
                                        malfunction, startup and shutdown could
                                        occur and  the amount and  duration of
                                        excess  emission from each  such  situ-
                                        ation indicated that it is not feasible to
                                        provide quantitative standards or guides
                                        which would  apply  to periods- of  mal-
                                        functions,  startups  and shutdowns.
                                          Comments received in response to the
                                        .proposal, however, strongly emphasized
                                        the difficulties in planning and financing
                                        new sources when no assurance could
                                        be made that  the sources would be In
                                        compliance with the standards or would
                                                     IV-2 8
-------
                                                 PROPOSED  RULES
be granted a waiver in those cases where
failure to meet the standard was not the
fault  of  the plant owner  or operator.
Accordingly,  the  approach,   described
below is. now proposed by EPA. This ap-
proach  will  ensure that  new sources
install the best adequately demonstrated
technology ana operate and maintain
such  equipment  to  keep  emissions as
low as. possible.
  The proposed regulations make it clear
that compliance  with, emission  stand-
ards, other than opacity standards, is de-
termined  through  performance  tests
conducted under  representative  condi-
tions. The present tests for new sources
require that initial performance tests
be conducted within 60 days after achiev-
ing the  maximum production rate at
which a facility will be operated but not
later  than. 180 days after startup and
authorizes subsequent tests  from time
to time as required by the Administrator.
It is  anticipated  that  the initial  per-
formance test and subsequent perform-
ance  tests will ensure that  equipment
is installed which will permit the  stand-
ards to be attained and that such equip-
ment is not  allowed to  deteriorate to the
point where the standards  are no longer
maintained.  In addition,  the  proposed
regulation requires that the plant oper-
ator  use maintenance  and  operating
procedures designed to minimize emis-
sions in excess  of the standard. This re-
quirement will  ensure  that plant opera-
tors properly maintain and operate the
affected  facility and control equipment
between performance  tests and  during
periods of startup,  shutdown  and un-
avoidable malfunction.
   Although  the requirements in the pres-
ent regulations for continuous  monitor-
ing will be unaffected by these proposed
regulations, it is  made clear  that meas-
urements obtained as the results of such
monitoring  will be used as evidence in
determining whether good maintenance
and operating procedures are being fol-
lowed. Thjy will not be. usea to determine
compliance  with  mass emission  stand-
ards unless approved as equivalent or al-
ternative method for performance test-
ing. EPA may in the future require that
compliance with  new source emissions
standards be determined by  continuous
monitoring. In  such cases, the applicable
standard will  specifically require that
compliance  with mass  emission limits be
determined  by  continuous monitoring.
Such standards will provide for malfunc-
tion, startup and shutdown situations to
 the extent necessary.
   With respect to the opacity standards,
 a different  approach  was used because
 this is a.  primary means of enforcement
 using visual surveillance  employed by
 State and Federal officials. EPA believes
 that the burden  should remain  on the
 plant operator to justify a  failure to
 comply with opacity standards. This dif-
 ference  is justified because  determina-
 tion of mass emission levels requires close
 contact with plant personnel, operations
 and records and the burden  imposed on
 enforcement  agencies   to   determine
whether good maintenance and operat-
ing procedures  have been  followed  is
not significantly greater than the burden
of  determining  mass emission  levels,
However, opacity observations are taken
outside  the plant and  do not require
contact with plant personnel, operations
or records, ar.d the burden of determin-
ing whether good maintenance and op-
erating  procedures have been followed
would be much greater than determining
whether opacity standards have been
violated. Nevertheless, EPA has  recog-
nized that malfunctions, startups  and
shutdowns may result  in the opacity
emission levels being exceeded. Accord-
ingly, the  standards will not apply  in
such cases. However, the burden will  be
upon, the plant operator rather than EPA
or the States  to show that the opacity
standards were not met because of such
situations. In the  event of any dispute,
the owner or operator of the source may
seek review in an  appropriate court.
  The reporting- requirements in these
proposed regulations have been  greatly
simplified. They require only that at the
end of each calendar quarter owners and
operators  report emissions measured  or
estimated to be greater than those allow-
able under standards applicable during
performance tests.
  EPA believes that the proposed report-
ing requirements along with application
of  the  opacity  standards will provide
adequate information to enable EPA ar.d
the States to effectively enforce the new
source  performance standards.  Addi-
tional information and shorter reporting
times would not materally Increase en-
forcement capability and could, in fact.
hinder such efforts due to the additional
time p.nd  manpower required to process
the information.
  The primary purpose of the quarterly
report is to provide  EPA and the States
with sufficient information to determine
if  further  inspection or  performance
tests are warranted. It should be noted
that the Administrator can delegate en-
forcement of the standards to the States
as provided by section HHcHl)  of the
Clean Air Act, as amended. Procedures
for States to request this delegation are
available from EPA  regional offices. It is
EPA's policy that upon delegation any
reports required by these proposed regu-
lations  will be sent to the appropriate
State. (A  change in  the address for  sub-
mittal of  reports ns provided in 40 CFR
60.4 will be made after each delegation.)
  These proposed regulations mil have
no significant adverse-  impact  on  the
public  health and welfare. Those  sec-
tions of  the Clean Air Act which are
specifically required to protect the public
health  and welfare, sections 109 and 110
(National Ambient Air Quality Standards
and their implementation), section 112
 (National  Emission  Standards for Haz-
ardous Air Pollutants), and section 303
 (Emergency Powers to Stop the Emis-
sions of Air Pollutants Presenting an Im-
minent and Substantial Endangernient
to  the  Health  of  Persons), will  be un-
affected by these  new proposed regula-
tions and -will continue to be effective
controls protecting the public health and
•welfare.
  Interested persons may participate In
this proposed  rulemaklng by submitting
written comment in  triplicate to  the
Emission  Standards   and  Engineering
Division,   Environmental   Protection
Agency, Research Triangle  Park, N.C.
27711,  Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin,
All relevant comments received not later
than June  18, 1973, will bo  considered.
Receipt of comments  will be acknowl-
edged  but the Emission Standards and
Engineering Division  will not  provide
substantial response to individual  com-
ments. Comments received will be avail-
able for public inspection during normal
business hours at the  Office of Public
Affairs, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
  Tlu's notice of proposed rulemakin? is
Issued under the authority of sections 111
and 114 of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 1857C-6. 1857C-9).
  Dated April 27, 1973.
                 JOHN QUARLES,
             Acting Administrator.
    Environmental Protection Agency.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 84—WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1973
                                                      IV-29
-------
9308
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
 ^ Title 4O—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER 1—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SU8CHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART 60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Additions and Miscellaneous Amendments
  On June 11. 1973 <38 FR 15406), pur-
suant to section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, the Administrator proposed
standards of performance for new and
modified, stationary sources within seven
categories of stationary sources:  (1) As-
phalt concrete plants, (2) petroleum re-
fineries, (3) storage vessels for petroleum
liquids, <4> secondary lead smelters, (5)
secondary brass and bronze  ingot pro-
duction plants, ^(6) Iron and steel plants,
and  (7) sewage treatment plants. In the
same  publication,   the  Administrator
also  proposed amendments to subpart A,
General Provisions, and to the Appendix,
Test Methods, of 40 CFR Part 60.
  Interested parties  participated In the
rulemaklng by sending comments to EPA,
Some 253 letters, many with multiple
comments, were received from commen-
tators, and about 152 were received from
Congressmen making inquiries on behalf
of their constituents. Copies of the com-
ments received directly are available
from public Inspection at the  EPA Office
of Public Affairs,  401  M  Street SW.,
Washington, B.C. 20460. The comments
have been considered,  additional data
have been collected and  assessed, and
the  standards  have been reevaluated.
Where  determined  by  the  Adminis-
trator  to  be  appropriate,  revisions
have  been  made  to   the  proposed
standards.  The  promulgated   stand-
ards, the  principal  revisions  to the
proposed standards, and  the Agency's re-
sponses to major comments are summar-
ized  below. More detail may be found in
Background Information for New Source
PerfdTnance Sta idards: Asphalt Con-
crete Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Stor-
age  Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters
and  Refineries, Brass and Bronze Ingot
Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants,
and  Sewage Treatment Plants, Volume 3,
Promulgated Standards, , are still available
on request from the office noted above.
  In accordance with section 111 of the
Act, these regulations prescribing stand-
 ards of performance for the selected sta-
 tionary  sources  are effective on Feb-
 ruary 28, 1974  and apply to sources the
 construction or modification of which
 was  commenced  after  June 11, 1973.
          GENERAL PROVISIONS

  These  promulgated  regulations in-
 clude changes to subpart A, General Pro-
visions, which applies to all new sources.
The general provisions were published on
December 23, 1971 (36 PR 24876). The
definition of "commenced" has been al-
tered to exclude the act of entering into
a binding agreement to construct or mod-
ify  a  source from among the specified
acts which, if taken by an owner or op-
erator of a source on or after the date on
which an applicable new source perform-
ance  standard  is  proposed,  cause  the
source to be subject to the promulgated
standard. The  phrase "binding agree-
ment" was duplicate terminology for the
phrase "contractual obligation" but  was
being construed incorrectly  to apply to
other arrangements. Deletion of the first
phrase  and  retention  of  the  second
phrase eliminates the problem. The defi-
nition of "standard conditions" replaces
the definition of "standard or normal
conditions" to avoid the confusion, noted
by commentators, created by the dupli-
cate terminology. The promulgated defi-
nition also  expresses  the  temperature
ajid pressure in commonly used metric
units  to be consistent with the Adminis-
trator's policy of converting  to the met-
ric  system. Four definitions are  added:
"Reference    method,"    "equivalent
method,"  "alternative  method,"   and
"run,"  to  clarify  the  terms used  in
changes to  § 60.8,  Performance  Tests,
discussed below. The definition of "par-
tlculate matter" is  added here and re-
moved from each of the subparts specific
to this group of new sources to avoid rep-
etition.  The word "run," as  used in the
sections pertinent to performance tests,
Is denned as the net time required to  col-
lect an  adequate sample of a pollutant,
and may be either intermittent or con-
tinuous.  Section 60.3,  Abbreviations,  is
revised to include new abbreviations, to
accord more closely with standard usage,
and to  alphabetize the listing. Section
60.4, Address, is revised to change the ad-
dress  to which all requests, reports,  ap-
plications,  submittals,  and other com-
munications will be submitted to the  Ad-
ministrator pursuant  to any regulatory
provision. Such  communications are now
to be addressed to the Director of the En-
forcement  Division in the  appropriate
EPA regional office rather than to  the
Office of General Enforcement in Wash-
ington, D.C. The addresses of all 10 re-
gional offices are included, and the "in
triplicate" requirement is changed to "in
duplicate."  Some  of  the  wording-  is
changed in § 60.6, Review of Plans, to re-
quire  that owners  or operators request-
Ing review  of plans for construction or
modification make a separate request for
each  project rather than for each  af-
fected facility  as  previously  required;
each  such facility, however,  must  be
identified and appropriately described. A
paragraph is added to § 60.7, Notification
and Recordkeeping, to require  owners
and operators to maintain a file of all re-
corded information required by the regu-
lations for at least 2 years after the dates
of such information,  and this require-
ment is removed from the subparts spe-
cific to  each of the new sources in  this
group to avoid repetition. Section 60.8,
Performance Tests, is amended (1) to re-
quire  owners and operators  to give the
Administrator 30 days' advance notice,
instead of 10 days', of performance test-
ing to  demonstrate  compliance  with
standards in order to provide the Admin-
istrator with a better opportunity to have
an observer present, (2)  to  specify the
Administrator's authority to permit, in
specific cases, the use of minor changes to
reference  methods, the use of equivalent
or altemative methods, or the waiver of
the performance test requirement, and
(3) to specify that each performance test
shall  consist of three runs except where
the Administrator appioves the use of
two runs  because oi circumstances be-
yond  the control of the owner or opera-
tor. These amendments give  the Admin-
istrator needed flexibility  for making
judgments for  determining  compliance
with  standards. Section  CO.12,  Circum-
vention, is added to clearly prohibit own-
ers and operators from using devices or
techniques which conceal,  rather than
control, emissions to comply  with stand-
ards of performance for new sources. The
standards  proposed  on  June 11,  1973,
contained  provisions  which  required
compliance to  be based on undiluted
gases. Many commentators  pointed out
the inequities of these provisions and the
vagueness of the language used. Because
many processes require the  addition of
air in various quantities  for cooling, for
enhancing combustion,  and for  other
useful purposes, no single definition of
excess dilution air  can be  sensibly ap-
plied. It is considered preferable to state
clearly what is prohibited and to use the
Administrator's authority to specify the
conditions for compliance testing in each
case to ensure  that the prohibited con-
cealment is not used.
               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
changes 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 guidelines
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.
  As  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. Where opacity
and concentration/mass standards are
                                 FEDE2AL HOISTER, VOL 39, NO. 47—«IDAY, MARCH 8,  1974


                                                      IV-30
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                                                               9309
applicable to the same source, the opacity
standard Is not more restrictive than the
concentration/mass standard.  The con-
centration/moss standard is established
tvt a level which will result In the design,
instaUatton, and  operation  of the best
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. Particular test-
ing by EPA method 5 and  most other
techniques requires  an expenditure  of
$3,000 to $10,000 per test including about
300 man-hours of technical and semi-
technical personnel. Furthermore, sched-
uling  and preparation are required such
that it Is seldom possible to conduct a
test with Jess than 2 weeks notice. There-
fore, method 5 particulate tests  can be
conducted only on an infrequent basis.
  If there were no standards other than
concentration/mass standards, 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.
'.It 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 CFR 60.11
(d)) and meet opacity standards at all
times except during periods of startup.
shutdown, and  malfunction  (40  CFR
60.11 (c)), and during  other periods o!
exemption, as  specified in  individual
regulations.
  Opacity of emissions is Indicative of
whether control  equipment  is properly
maintained and operated. However, it is
established as an independent enforce-
able standard, rather 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 are 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 are 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 for the observer
to be admitted to the plant to determine
properly the opacity of stack emissions.
Where observed opacities are 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 require-
ments for both opacity limits 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 the opacity limits  were too  strin-
gent. The regulatory opacity limits are
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 were  made.
  3. There arc  specified periods  during
which  opacity standards do  not apply,
Commentators questioned  the rationale
for  these time exemptions, ns proposed,
some pointing out that the exemptions
were not justified and some that they
were inadequate. Time exemptions fur-
ther reflect the stated purpose of opacity
standards  by  providing relief from such
standards  during periods  when accept-
able systems  of emission  reduction are
judged  to  be  incapable of meeting pre-
scribed opacity limits. Opacity standards
do not apply to emissions during periods
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction,
(see FEDERAL REGISTER  of October  15,
1973, 38 FR 28564), nor do opacity stand-
ards apply during periods  judged neces-
sary to permit the observed excess emis-
sions  caused  by soot^blowing and  un-
stable  process conditions.  Some  confu-
sion resulted from,  the fact that  the
startup-shutdown-malfunction  regula-
tions were proposed separately (see FED-
ERAL REGISTER  of May  2,  1973,  38 FR
10820)  from the regultions for this group
of new sources.  Although this was  point-
ed out  in the preamble (see FEDERAL REG-
ISTER of June 11, 3973, 38  FR 15400) to
this group of new  source performance
'standards, it appears to have escaped the
notice of several commentators.
  4. Other comments,   along with re-
study of sources and additional opacity
observations,  have  led to  definition of
specific time exemptions, where needed,
to account for excess emissions resulting
from  soot-blowing  and process  varia-
tions. These specific actions replace the
generalized  approach  to  time exemp-
tions, 2 minutes per hour, contained In
all  but one  of the proposed opacity
standards.  The intent of  the 2 minutes
was to prevent the opacity standards
from  being unfairly stringent  and re-
flected an arbitrary selection of a time
exemption to serve this purpose. Com-
ments noted  that observed opacity and
operating conditions did not support this
approach. Some pointed out that these
exemptions were not warranted; others,
that they were inadequate. The cyclical
basic oxygen steel-making process,  for
example,  does  not  operate  In hourly
cycles  and the  Inappropriateness of  2
minutes per hour In this case would  ap-
ply to other cyclical processes whteh  ex-
ist both in sources now subject to stand-
ards of  performance  and sources  for
which standards will be developed In  the
future. The time exemptions  now pro-
vide for circumstances specific to  the
sources and,  coupled with the etartup-
shutdown-malfunction  provisions  arid
the hlgher-than-observed opacity limits,
provide much better assurance that  the
opacity  standards   are  not  unfairly
stringent.

       ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS

  The  promulgated standards for  as-
phalt concerete plants limit particulate
matter emissions to 90 mg/dscm  (0.04
gr/dscf and 20  percent opacity.
  The  majority of  the comments  re-
ceived  on the seven  proposed standards
related to the proposed standards for  as-
phalt concrete  plants.  Out of the  253
letters, over  65  percent related to  the
proposed standards  for asphalt concrete
plants. Each  of the comments was  re-
viewed and evaluated.  The Agency's  re-
sponses to the comments received are in-
cluded in Appendix E of Volume 3 of  the
background information document. The
Agency's rationale for the promulgated
standards for asphalt concrete  plants is
summarized  below.  A  more  detailed
statement is  presented in Volume 3 of
the background Information  document.
  The  major differences between  the
proposed  standards and the  promul-
gated standards are:
  1. The  concentration  standard   has
been changed from  70  mg/dscm (0.031
gr/dscf)  to 90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf).
  2. The  opacity  standard  has  been
changed from  10  percent  with  a   2-
minute-per-hour  exemption to 20 per-
cent with no specified time exemption.
  3. The  definition  of  affected facility
has been  reworded  to  better  define  the
applicability of the  standards.
  The  preamble to  the proposed stand-
ard (38 FR 15406)  urged nil Interested
parties to submit factual data during  the
comment period to ensure  that  the
standard  for asphalt  concrete  plants
would, upon promulgation, be consistent
with the requirements of section 111 of
the Act. A substantial  amount of  In-
formation on emission  tests  was sub-
mitted in response  to  this request. The
information is summarized and discussed
In Volume 3 of the background informa-
tion document.
  The proposed concentration  standard
was based on  the  conclusion  that  the
best demonstrated  systems of  emission
reduction, considering costs, are well  de-
signed, operated, and maintained bag-
houses or venturl scrubbers.  The  emis-
sion test  data  available at the time of
proposal  indicated   that  such systems
could attain an emission level of 70 mg/
Nm*. or 0.031 gr/dscf. Alter considering
comments on the proposed standard and
new emission test data, u thorough eval-
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 47—FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1974


                                                      IV-31
-------
 9310
     RULES  AND REGULATIONS
ulatlon was made of the achlevabllity of
the proposed standard. As a result of this
evaluation,  the  concentration standard
was changed to  90 mg/dscm, or 0.04 gr/
dscf.
  With the  exception of three cases, the
acceptable data had shown that the pro-
posed concentration standard, 0.031  gr/
dscf. Is achievable  with a properly  de-
signed. Installed, operated, and  main-
tained baghouse-or venturi scrubber. The
three  exceptions,  two  plants equipped
with baghouses  and one with a venturi
scrubber, had emissions between 0.031
and 0.04 gr/dscf.
  Some of the major comments received
from the industry were (1) the proposed
concentration standard of 0.031 gr/dscf
cannot be  attained either  consistently
or at all with currently available equip-
ment;  (2) the standard should be 0.06
gr/dscf; (3) the standard should allow
higher emissions when heavy fuel oil is
burned; <4) the type of aggregate used
by a plant changes and affects the emis-
sions;  (5) EPA failed to  consider  the
impact of the standard on mobile  plants,
continuous-mix plants, and drum-mixing'
plants; and 
-------
                                            RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        9311
of the -comments received, the Agency
reexamined  this point  with particular
attention to the small  refiner.
  The details  of the anlaysis are pre-
sented in Appendix C to Volume 3 of the
background  information document The
domestic  petroleum  industry is  ex-
tremely  complex  and  highly sophisti-
cated. Thus, any analysis of the petro-
leum refining industry will of necessity be
based on a  number of simplifying as-
sumptions. Although the assumptions in
the economic impact statement  appear
reasonable, the statement should not be
viewed as definitively identifying specific
costs; rather it Identifies -a range of costs
and approximate impact points. The an-
alysis examines more than the economic
impact of the standard for fuel gas com-
bustion  systems.' It also examines the
combined  economic  impact of  this
standard for fuel  gas -combustion sys-
tems, the standards for fluid catalytic
cracking units, the water quality effluent
guidelines being developed for petroleum
refineries, and EPA's regulations requir-
ing the reduction  of lead  in gasoline.
Essentially, the economic impact of 'pol-
lution control' is  reviewed in light of
the petroleum import  license-fee • pro-
gram being administered by the Oil and
Gas OfiPse of the Department of  the In-
terior (38 FR 9645  and 38 PR 16195).
  This program is designed to encourage
expansion and construction of U.S. pe-
troleum refining capacity and -expansion
of U.S. crude oil production by imposing
a fee or tariff ori imported petroleum
products and  crude oil. Although this
program is  currently being phased into
practice with  the full  impact not to be
felt until mid-1975, the central  feature
of the program is to impose a fee of 21c
per barrel above world price on imported
crude oil and a fee of 63c per barrel above
world price on imported petroleum prod-
ucts such as gasoline, fuel  oils, and ^un-
finished'  or  intermediate  petroleum
products.
  Under the conditions currently exist-
ing in the United States, which are fore-
cast  -to  -continue   throughout the  re-
mainder of this decade and most of the
next decade, and with domestic demand
for crude  oil -and petroleum products
far outstripping domestic supply and pe-
troleum refining capacity, the import 11-,
cense-fee progVam will encourage domes-
tic prices  of  crude oil and  petroleum
products to increase to world levels plus
the fee or tariff. Thus, -an incentive  of
42# per barrel <63t« per  barrel minus 21^
per barrel)  Is provided to domestic re-
finers by this program. In cases where
'independent'  refiners continue to enjoy
a captive supply of  domestic crude oil, or
where 'major' refiners engaged in the
exploration and production of domestic
crude are successful in supplying their
refineries with domestic crude ofl. this
incentive will  approach the full 63tf per
barrel fee imposed on imported petro-
leum products.
   The analysis indicates that the incen-
tive provided to the domestic petroleum
refining Industry by the import  license-
fee program Is -greater than the costs
of  -pollution control requirements. The
differences in control costs for the small
refiner relative to the large refiner will
still -exist, but with .the fee system In
operation  the .small refiner willvnot be
forced Into  a no-growth situation be-
cause of compliance with EPA  require-
ments. Therefore small refineries are not
exempt from the standards.
  In response to comments received on
the proposed opacity  standard,  addi-
tional  data were  obtained  on visible
emissions from four well-controlled cata-
lyst regenerators. The data, which are
summarized in Volume  3 of the  back-
ground information document,  indicate
that 20 percent opacity is too restrictive
for a well-controlled plant. As indicated
above in the discussion on  -opacity, it is
the Administrator's  intent to set opacity
standards such that they are not  more
restrictive than the applicable concen-
tration or mass standard. In the case of
catalyst regenerators, It is the judgment
of the Administrator that if visible emis-
sions  exceed 30 percent opacity except
for 3 .minutes in any 1 hour, such emis-
sions  will  also clearly exceed the stand-
ard of 1.0  kilogram of participate matter
per 1,000 kilograms  of  coke bum-oS.
Therefore, the promulgated standard of
30 percent except for 3 minutes in any
1 hour is judged to  be not  more restric-
tive than  the mass standard of 1.0 kg/
1,000 kg of coke burn-off.
   An additional relief from the opacity
standard  is provided by  the regulations
promulgated on October  15, 1973 (38 FR
28564), which  exempt from opacity
standards any  emissions generated dur-
ing startups,  shutdowns,  or malfunc-
tions.  A general discussion of the pur-
pose of opacity standards and the issues
involved in setting  them is included in
Chapter 2 of Volume 3 of the background
information document.
   Commentators  pointed out that  the
volume of gases discharged to the atmos-
phere  from  catalyst regenerators can
vary significantly, depending upon  the
overall system used to control emissions
of particulate matter and carbon monox-
ide. Consequently, the degree of control
required to meet the proposed concen-
tration standard  (50 mg/Nms)  for par-
ticulate matter depends  upon the over-
all type  of  emission   control  system
employed.
   The various types of emission control
systems utilized by  catalyst regenerators
and the alternative means  of expressing
an emission  standard   for  particulate
matter .other than by an allowable con-
centration of  particulate  matter were
evaluated. The alternative ways of  ex-
pressing the standard were (1) specifica-
tion of control efficiency,  (2)  limiting
emissions based on a process weight re-
striction,  and (3) limiting emissions on
the basis of the size or capacity of  a
unit.  Expressing the standard in terms
of kilograms of particulate matter  per
1,000  kilograms of  coke  bum-off  was
determined to be the best alternative.
   Several of  those who wrote to  the
Agency indicated that the proposed par-
ticulate matter standard   for catalyst
regenerators <50  mg/Nm*)  was too re-
strictive.  To fully evaluate these  com-
ments, additional data on emissions from
well-controlled units were obtained from
Industry and a control agency. "This new
Information and the detailed rationale
for the promulgated standard are pre-
sented In Volume 3 of the background
information document.
  This evaluation led to the conclusion
that  the  allowable particulate matter
emissions -should be increased to provide
for the unavoidable increase In emissions
due to the deterioration of the cyclones
within a catalyst regenerator. The revi-
sion reflects a change  in toe Agency's
judgment  on what  -emission limit is
achievable using  the best systems of
emission reduction; it is  not a change
in what the Agency considers to be the
best systems of  emission reduction that
have  been adequately demonstrated
STORAGE VESSELS FOR PETROLEUM Listrrns

  The promulgated standard applies io
storage vessels  with capacities greater
than  151,412 liters (40,000 gallons) that
contain crude petroleum, condensate, or
finished or intermediate  products of a
petroleum  refinery. To reduce emissions
of  hydrocarbons to the atmosphere,  a
vapor recovery system or equivalent con-
trol is required  if the stored liquid has
a  true vapor  press-ire,  under storage
conditions, greater than 570 millimeters
of  mercury  
-------
9312
      RUIES AND REGULATIONS
trol of hydrocarbon  emissions may be
used ia lieu ot the systems specified by
toe  standard. An example of an equiv-
alent control system la one which in-
cinerates with  an  auxiliary fuel the-
hydrocarbon emissions from the storage
tank before such emissions are released
into the atmosphere.
  The storage of crude oil and conden-
.sate at  producing  fields is  specifically
exempted from  the standard. The  pro-
posed regulation had Intended such an
exemption by  applying  the standard
only to  storage vessels with  capacities
above  65,000  gallons.  Industry  repre-
sentatives  indicated  that  this  action
would exempt essentially all of the  pro-
ducing   field  storage,  but later  data
showed  that larger tanks  are used In
these locations. The specific exemption
in  the  promulgated regulation  better
suits the intention. The  standard  now
applies at capacities greater than 40,000
gallons,  the  size originally selected as
being most consistent with existing State
and local regulations before it was in-
creased to exempt producing field stor-
age. Producing  field  storage is exempt
because  the low level of emissions, the
relatively small  size of these tanks, and
their commonly remote locations argue
against Justifying the switch from the
bolted-construction,  fixed-roof tanks in
common use to the welded-construction,
floating-roof tanks that  would be re-
quired lor new  sources to comply  with
the  standards.
  The proposed standard  required the
use  of  conservation vents when petro-
leum liquids  were stored  at true vapor
pressures less than  78 mm Hg. This re-
quirement  is deleted because,  as com-
mentators validly argued, certain stocks
foul these vents, In cold  weather the
vents must be locked open or removed to
prevent  freezing, and the beneficial ef-
fects of such vents are minimal.
  The  monitoring  and recordkeeping
requirements are substantially reduced
from those which were proposed. Over
half of  those who  commented on  this
regulation argued that  an unjustifiable
burden was placed on  owners and op-
erators o£ remote tank farms, terminals,
and marketing  operations. EPA agrees.
The basis for the proposed standard was
the  large, modem refinery which could
have met the proposed requirements  with
little difficulty. The reduced  require-
ments  aid  both enforcement officials
and  owners/operators   by  reducing
paperwork without sacrificing the ob-
jectives of the regulation.
   Some specific maintenance require-
ments  were  proposed but  are deleted.
Commentators pointed out that these re-
quirements were not sufficiently explicit.
A recent change to the General Provi-
 sions, subpart A, (see FEDERAL REGISTER
 of  October 15,  1973, 38 FR 28564) re-
 quires  that  an affected facilities  and
emission control systems be  operated
and maintained in a manner consistent
with good air pollution control practice
for  minimising emissions. This provision
will ensure the use of good maintenance
practices lor storage vessels, which was
Che intent of the proposed maintenance
requirementa.
SBCONDAR? LKAD SHELTERS AND REFINERIES
  The  promulgated   standards   limit
emissions of paniculate matter (1) from
blast (cupola)  and  reverberatory fur-
naces  to no more  than 50  mg/dscm.
(0.022 gr/dscf)  and to less than 20 per-
cent opacity, and (2)  from pot furnaces
having charging  capacities  equal to or
greater than 250  kilograms  to less than
10 percent opacity.
  These standards are the same as those
proposed except that the 2-minutes-per-
hour exemption is removed from both
opacity standards. The general rationale
for this change is presented above In the
discussion of opacity. Two  factors led
to this change in the opacity standards:
(1) The separately promulgated regula-
tions that provide exemptions from the
opacity  standards  during  periods  of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (see
FEDERAL  REGISTER of  October 15,  J973,
38 FR 28564),  and (2)  the  comments,
reevaluation  of data, and collection of
new data and information which  show
that there is no basis for time exemp-
tions in  addition to those provided for
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions,
and that the opacity standard is not
more restrictive than the concentration
standard.
  Minor changes to the proposed version
of the regulation have  been made to
clarify meanings  and to  exclude repeti-
tive provisions and definitions which are
now included in subpart A, General Pro-
visions, and which are applicable to all
new source performance standards.
   SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT
          PRODUCTION PLANTS
  The promulgated standards Emit the
emissions of particulate matter (1) from
reverberatory furnaces having produc-
tion capacities equal to or greater than
1,000 kg  (2,205  Ib) to  no more than 50
mg/dscm (0.022 gr/cJscf) and to less than
20 percent  opacity,   (2)  from electric
furnaces  having capacities  equal to or
greater than 1,000 kg  (2,205 Ib) to less
than  10 percent opacity, and (3)  from
blast (cupola) furnaces having capacities
equal to or greater than  250 kg/hr (550
Ib/hr) to less than 10 percent opacity.
  These standards are the same as those
proposed except that the opacity limit
for emissions from the affected reverber-
atory furnaces is Increased from  less
than 10 percent to less than 20 percent
and  the  2-minutes-per-hour exemption
is removed from all three opacity stand-
ards.  The general rationale for  these
changes is presented in the discussion of
opacity above. The three factors  which
led to these changes are (1) the data and
comments, summarized hi Volume 3 of
the background Information document,
which show, in  the  judgment of the
Administrator, that the opacity standard
proposed for reverberatory furnaces was
too restrictive and that the promulgated
opacity standard  is not more restricted
than the concentration  standard.  (2)
the separately promulgated  regulations
which, provide exemptions from opacity
standards during periods  of  startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (see  FED-
ERAL REGISTER of October 15. 1973,  38
FR 28564). and (3)  the  comments, re-
evaluation of data, and collection of new
data and  Uiformation which  shew .thab
there Is  no  basis for additional time
exemptions.
  Minor changes to the proposed version
of the regulation have  been made  to
clarify meanings and to  exclude repeti-
tive  provisions  and  definitions  which
are now included In subpart A, General
Provisions, and which are applicable to
all new source performance standards.
         IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
  The promulgated standards limit the
emissions of particulate matter from
basic oxygen process furnaces to no more
than 50  mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). This
is the  same concentration  limit as was
proposed. The opacity standard and the
attendant  monitoring requirement are
not promulgated at  this time. Sections
of the regulation are reserved for the
inclusion of these portions at a later date.
Commentators pointed out  the Inappro-
priateness of the proposed opacity stand-
ard  (10  percent opacity except for 2
minutes each hour) for this cyclic steel-
maklns process.  The separate promul-
gation of regulations  which provide ex-
emptions from opacity standards  during
periods of startup, shutdown, and mal-
function  (see FEDERAL REGISTER of Octo-
ber 15, 1973, 38  PR 28564)  add another
dimension to the problem, and new data
show variations in opacity for reasons
not yet well enough identified.
  The promulgated regulation represent*
no substantial change to that proposed.
Some  wording  is changed  to   clarify
meanings and, as discussed under Gen-
eral Provisions above, several provisions
and definitions are deleted from this sub'
part and added to subpart A, which ap-
plies  to  all new source  performance
standards, to avoid repetition.

      SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
  The promulgated standards for sludge
Incinerators at  municipal sewage treat-
ment plants limit particulate er.ilssio.ns
to no more than 0.65 g/kg  dry  sludge
input (1.30 Ib/ton dry sludge input) and
to less than 20 percent opacity. The pro-
posed  standards  would have-  limited
emissions to a concentration of  70 mg/
Nm" (0.031 gr/dscf) and to less than  10
percent opacity except for  2  minutes  in
any 1 hour. The  level of control required
by the standard remains the same, but
the units are changed from  a concentra-
tion  to a mass basis because the deter-
mination of combustion  ah- as opposed
to dilution air for these facilities is par-
ticularly  difficult and could lead to un-
acceptable degrees of  error. The section
on test methods is revised In accord-
ance with the change of units for the
standard.
  A section is added  specifying instru-
mentation  and  sampling access  points
needed  to determine  sludge charging
rate. Determination of this rate is neces-
sary as a result of the change of units
for the standard, How measuring devices
with an accuracy of ±5_percent must be
installed  to determine 'either the mass
or volume of the sludge charged  to the
incinerator, and access  to the  sludge
charged  must be provided BO a well*
                                 FEDERAL REOISTtt, VOL. 39, NO.. 47—«IDAY, MARCH 8r 1974
                                                      IV-3 4
-------
                                              RUIES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                           9313
mixed representative grab sample of the
sludge can be obtained.
  The general  rationale for the chp.nge
In the opacity standard  is  presented
in  the  di-';cussion  of  opacity  p.bovc.
The   three  fncbors  winch led  to  this
change are  (1)  the data, -summarixed
in Volume 3 of the background Informa-
tion  document, which, in  the judgment
of the Administrator, show that the pro-
posed  opacity star.dard  was too restric-
tive ar.d that the  pi-onmlsiited str.Tir.avd
is  not more restrictive than the mass
standard. (2) the separately promulgated
regulations which  provide exemptions
from opacity standards during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction i:;ee
FEDERAL REGISTEH  of October 15, 1973, 33
PR 28564), and (3)  reevaluatioii of data
ind collection of new data and informa-
.ion  which show that there  is no basis
.'or additional time exemptions.
  Minor changes to the proposed version
Df the regulation have  been made  to
:larify meanings and to exclude  repeti-
tive provisions  and definitions which are
now included in subpart A, Cejieral Pro-
visions, and are  applicable  to  all new
source performance standards.
             TEST METHODS
  Test Methods  10  and 11 us proposed
contained typographical errors that are
now corrected in both textund equations.
Some  wording is  changed   to  clarify
niuiuiiugs and procedures us well.
  la Method 10. which is for oeterrnina-
lion of CO  -emissions,  the term  "grab
sampling" is  changed  to "continuous
sampling" to  prevent  confusion.  The
Orsat analyser is deleted  from the list
of analytical equipment because a  less
complex method of  analysis v.-.is judged
sufficiently sensitive. For clarincation, a
sentence  is added to the section on re-
agents requiring calibration gases to be
certified by the manufacturer. Tempera-
ture of the  silica -gel  is chanced from
IT7'C (350'P) to 175°C (347'P)  to be
consistent with the emphasis on metric
units as the primary units. A -technique
for' determining: the CO: content of tiie
gas has been  added  to  both the  con-
tinuous and integrated sampling proce-
dures. This technique may be used rather
than  the  technique  described  in Method
3. Use of the  latter technique  was re-
quired in the proposed Method  10.
   Method 11, which Is for determination
of U.-S emissions, Is modified to  require
five  midget  implngers rather than the
proposed  four. The fifth impinger con-
tains hydrogen peroxide to remove sul-
fur dioxide  as an interferant. A para-
graph is  added specifying  the hydrogen
peroxide  solution to  be used, and  the
procedure description  Is altered to in-
clude procedures specific to the fifth im-
pinger. The term "Iodine number flask" Is
changed to "iodine flask" to prevent con-
fusion.

   Dated: February  22, 1974.
                  RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
                       Administrator.
  Part 60. Chapter I. Title 40. Code of
 erk-rii! Regulations,  is amended by re-
vising subpart A, by adding newsubparts
I,J.K.L,M.N.  ar.d   O,  and  by  adding
Methods 10 and 11 to the Appendix, as
follows:
Sec.
602
60.3
604
60 .C
S-3.7
60,8.
       Subpart A—Genera! ^revisions


       Definitions.
       Abbreviations.
       Address.
       i'CTH'W O* plu.HS.
       NoMSca'.lo:! uud recorcikeeplng.
       Performance CcsU.
Subpart I—Standards of Performance for Asphalt
             Concrete Plants

60.90   Applicability  an|i designation of ef-
         fected facility.
6091   Derinl-.lons.
60 R2   Standard  for  partlculate  matter.
0093   Tef.  metliuds 4»itl procedures.

   Subpart J—Standards of Performance for
            Petroleum Rtfineriys

GO.JOO  Applicability  and designation of sf-

60.301  j:cl::.:-.i,-.r.s
GO 101?  Star.dard for paniculate matter.
60.103  Standard lor carbon monoxuie.
00.104  Standard lor stslfr.r dioxide.
60.105  Kmlssior. monitoring.
()0 10G  Test "methods and procedures.

Subpart K—Standards of Performance for Storage
        Vessels for Petroleum Liquids

60.110  Appli-j.iblhty   and  designation  of

fiO.lll  r>e!\:il;>di-.s.
60.112  Standard fcir hydrocarbons.
60.113  Monitoring of operations.

   Subparl L—Standards of Performance for
         Secondary Lead Snu-Uecs

GO.120  Applicability   find  designation  of
         effected fucillty.
60.K21  DeTinitjoiis.
60.122  Standard for particulate matter.
60.1Z3  'i est nH-thods antj procedures.

Subpnrt M—Stendftrds of  Performance  for Sec-
ondary tirats and 6ron?e Iri^ot Prodoction Plants

60.130  Applicability   and  designation  of
         alifctcd (acillty.
60.131  Definitions.
00.132  S-undurd for paniculate matter.
60.133  Tist r.ietiiods o.nd procedures.

  Subpart r»—Standards M *Vrforrn»rtc« lor Iron
             and Steel Plants

60.140  Applicability  and  designation  of
         lUTected Vacuity.
60.141  DeJlnltlons.
GO.142  Standard for partlculate matter.
60.143  | Reserved ]
80144  Te.ft, methods end procedures.

   Subpart O-~Starwfards ctt Pej-formance for
         ^crwage Trantm*nt Plant*

60.150  Applicability  ana  designation  of

60.151  Definitions.
60.162  Standard for partlcxilate matter.
60.153  Monitoring of operations.
00.154  T»?st methods and procedures.

        Ar>rrr.-i>rx—^Trsr Mrrsocs

Method 10—Determination erf car bo u mou-
             oxlde  omissions  from sta-
             tlonnry BOUTCCS.
Method 11—Determination of hydrogen mil-
             fide emissions from stationary
             source.-:.

  ATJTHOIUTT: Sees. 111.  114. Pub. L. -91-60-1
(42 TJ.S.C. 1857(c) (6)  Bnd(9)).
      Subpart A — General ProvteJons
  1 .  Section 60.2 is amended by revising
paragraphs (1) and (1) and adding para-
graphs  (s),  (i),  (u),  (v),  and  7—HUDAY, MARCH 8, T974


                                                         IV-35
-------
93,14
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
hr—hxrar(s)
HC1—hydrochloric acW
HE—meroury
H..O—water
HJ3—hydrogen sulflde
H.]SO,—Bulfurlc acid
In.—Inca(es)
•K—degree Kelvin
k—1,000
kg—kilogram (8)
1—liter (a)
1pm—llter(a) permlnute
Ib—pound (s)
m—meter(s)
meq—mill Equivalent (s)
mln—minute(s)
ing—milllgram(s)
ml—mllllllter(s)
mm—millimeter (s)
mol. wt.—molecular weight
mV—millivolt
Nj—nitrogen
run—nanometer(s)—10-* meter
NO—nitric oxide
NO,—nitrogen dioxide
NO,—nitrogen oxl-les
O.—oxygen
ppb—parts per billion
ppm—parts per million
psla—pounds per square Inch absolute
OR—degree Bank.tne
B—at standard conditions
sec—second
SO —sulfur dioxide
SO,—eulf ur trloxlde
^g—mlcrogram(a)—-lO-* gram

  3. Section  60.4 is  revised to read as
follows:

§ 60.4  Address.
  All requests, reports, applications, sub-
mittals, and other communications to the
Administrator pursuant to this part shall
be submitted In duplicate and addressed
to the appropriate Regional Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency, to the
attention of  the Director,  Enforcement
Division. The regional offices are as fol-
lows:
  Region I (Connecticut, Maine, New Hamp-
shire,  Massachusetts  Rhode  Island,  Ver-
mont), John P. Kennedy Federal Building,
Boston, Massachusetts 02203.
  Reg'sn II (New Tork, New  Jersey, Puerto
Rico. Virgin Islands), Federal Office Building.
26 Federal Plaza  (Foley Square), New York,
N.Y. 10007.
  Region TXT (Delaware, District of Colum-
bia, Pennsylvania, Maryland,  Virginia, West
Virginia), Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19108.
  Region IV (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mia-
slsslppl, Kentucky, North  Carolina,  South
Carolina, Tennessee), Suite  300, 1421 Peach-
tree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
  Region  V (Illinois, Indiana,  Minnesota,
Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin), 1 North Wacker
 Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
  Region VT (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexi-
 co, Oklahoma, Texas),  1600  Patterson  Street,
 Dallas. Texas 76201.
  Region VTJ  (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,  Ne-
 braska) , 1738 Baltimore Street, Kansas City,
 Missouri 64108.
   Region  VIH  (Colorado,  Montana,  North
 Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming), 916
 Lincoln Towers, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver,
 Colorado 80203.
   Region  CE  (Arizona, California,  Hawaii,
 Nevada, Ouazn, American Samoa), 100 Cali-
 fornia Street, San Francisco, California MILL.
   Region  X  (Washington,  Oregon,  Idaho,
 Alaska), 1300  Sixth Avenue,  Seattle, Wash-
 ington 08101.
  4. In § 60.6, paragraph  (b)  Is revised
to read as follows:

§ 60.6  Review of plans.
     *       *      •      •      •
  (b) (1)  A separate request shall be sub-
mitted for each construction or modifica-
tion project.
  (2) Each request shall identify the lo-
cation of such  project, and be accom-
panied by technical information describ-
ing the proposed nature, size, design, and
method of operation of each affected fa-
cility involved in such project,  including1
information on any requipment to be
used for measurement or control of emis-
sions.
  5. In } 60.7 paragraph (d)  Is added as
follows:
§ 60.7  Notification and reconlkfieping.
     »«*«<.
  (d) Any owner or  operator  subject to
the provisions of this part shall maintain
a  file of all measurements,  Including
monitoring   and  performance  testing
measurements, and all other reports arid
records required- by  all applicable sub-
parts. Any  such measurements, reports
and records shall be retained for at least
2 years following the date  of such meas-
urements, reports, and records.
  6. Section 60.8 is amended by revising
paragraphs (b)  and  (f) and by deleting
in paragraph (d) the number  "10" after
the word "Administrator"  and  substitut-
ing the number "30." The revised para-
graphs (b)  and (f) read as follows:

§ 60.8  Performance teats.
   fb)  Performance tests shall be con-
 ducted and 'data reduced in accordance
•-with the test methods and procedures
 contained in  each  applicable subpart
 unless  the Administrator  (1)  specifies
 or approves, in specific cases, the use of
 a reference method with minor changes
 in  methodology, (2)  approves the  use
 of an equivalent method,  (3) approves
 the use of an alternative method the re-
 sults of which he has  determined to be
 adequate for indicating whether  a spe-
 cific source is in  compliance,  or  (4)
 waives the requirement for performance
 tests because the owner or operator of
 a source  has  demonstrated  by  other
 means  to the Administrator's satisfac-
 tion that the affected facility is in com-
 pliance  with the standard. Nothing in
 this  paragraph shall  be   construed  to
 abrogate the Administrator's  authority
 to require testing  under section  114 of
 the Act.
     *****
   (f)  Each performance test shall con-
 sist of  three separate runs using  ths
 applicable test method. Each run shall
 be conducted for the time and under the
 conditions  specified In the applicable
 standard. For the  purpose of determin-
 ing  compliance   with an  applicable
 standard, the arithmetic  means  of re-
 sults of the three "runs shall apply. In
 the event that a sample Is accidentally
 lost or conditions occur in which one of
 the three runs must be discontinued be-
cause of forced shutdown, failure of an
irreplaceable  portion  of  the   sample
train, extreme meteorological conditions,
or  other  circumstances,  beyond  the
owner or operator's control, compliance
may, upon the  Administrator's approval,
be determined using the arithmetic mean
of the results of  the two other runs.
  7. A new 5 60.12 is added to subpart
A as follows:
§ 60.12  Circumvention.
  No  owner  or operator subject to the
provisions of this part shall build, erect,
install,  or  use  any  article,  machine,
equipment or process, the use of which
conceals an emission which would other-
wise constitute a  violation of an applica-
ble standard.  Such  concealment in-
cludes, but is not limited to,  the use of
gaseous diluents  to achieve compliance
with  an  opacity standard or  with a
standard which is based on the concen-
tration of a  pollutant in the gases dis-
charged to the atmosphere.
  8. In Part 60, Subparts I, J, K, L, M,
N, and O are added as follows:
Subpart I—Standards of  Performance for
        Asphalt Concrete Plants
§ 60.90  Applicability and designation of
    affected facility.
  The affected facility to which the pro-
visions  of this subpart  apply  is  each
asphalt concrete  plant. For the purpose
of this subpart, an asphalt concrete  plant
is comprised only of any combination of
the  following:  Dryers;  systems  for
screening, handling, storing, and weigh-
ing hot aggregate; systems for loading,
transferring, and storing mineral filler;
systems  for  mixing asphalt concrete;
and the loading,  transfer, and..storage
systems associated with emission control
systems.
§ 60.91  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall  have  the meaning
given them in  the Act and in ~ubpart A
of this part,
  (a)  "Asphalt concrete plant" means
any facility, as described In §  60.90, used
to  manufacture  asphalt  concrete  by
heating and  drying aggregate and mix-
Ing wit.h asphalt cements.
§ 60.92  Standard for paniculate matter.
  (a) On  and after  ttie  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 discharge or cause the
discharge Into-the atmosphere from any
affected facility any  gases which:
  (1) Contain participate matter in ex-
cess of 90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf).
  (2) Exhibit  20  percent opacity, or
greater.  Where the presence  of uncom-
blned water is the only reason for failure
to meet the  requirements of  this para-
graph, such failure shall not be a viola-
tion of this section,

§ 60.93  Test methods and procedures.
  (a) The reference methods appended
to this part, except  aa  provided for In
 560.8
-------
                                            RUtB AND tEGUlATKJNS
                                                                              931S
compliance with the standards prescribed
in § 60.92 as follows:
  (I) Method 5 for the concentration of
participate matter and  the associated
moisture content.
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3) Method  2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate, and
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
  (b) For Method 5, the sampling time
for each run shall  be at least 60 minutes
and the sampling rate shall be at least 0.9
dscm/hr <0.53  dscf/min)  except  that
shorter  sampling  times,  when  necessi-
tated by process variables or other fac-
tors, may be approved by the Adminis-
trator.
Subpart  J—Standards of Performance for
          Petroleum Refineries
§ 60.100  Applicability and  designation
     of affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to the following  affected facil-
ities in petroleum  refineries:  Fluid cata-
lytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators,
fluid catalytic craclcing unit incinerator-
waste heat boilers, and fuel gas combus-
tion devices.
§ 60.101  Definitions.
  As used  In this  subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A.
   (a) "Petroleum refinery"  means any
facility engaged in producing  gasoline,
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel
oils,  lubricants,   or  other  products
through  distillation   of  petroleum or
through redistillation, cracking or re-
forming   of   unfinished   petroleum
derivatives.
   (b) "Petroleum" means the crude oil
removed from the earth and the oils de-
rived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
   (c) "Process gas" means any gas gen-
erated by  a  petroleum refinery process
unit, except  fuel  gas and  process  upset
gas as defined in this section.
   (d) "Fuel  gas"  means any gas  which
is  generated  by  a. petroleum  refinery
process unit and which is combusted, in-
cluding any gaseous mixture of natural
gas and fuel gas which is combusted.
   (e) "Process upset gas" means any gas
generated by a petroleum refinery process
unit as a result of start-up, shut-down,
upset or malfunction.
   (f) "Refinery process unit" means any
segment  of  the petroleum  refinery in
which a specific processing operation is
conducted.
   OK) "Fuel   gas  combustion  device"
means  any equipment, such as process
heaters, boOers and flares used to com-
bust fuel gas, but does not include fluid
coking  unit and fluid  catalytic cracking
unit Incinerator-waste heat boilers or fa-
cilities in which gases are combusted to
produce sulfur or sulfuric acid.
   urn-oS in the catalyst regenerator.
         (2)  Gases exhibiting 30 percent opac-
       ity or greater,  except for 3 minutes in
       any 1 hour. Where the presence of un-
       combined water is the only reason lor
       failure to meet the requirements of this
       subparagraph, such failure shall not be a
       violation  of this section.
         (b)  In  those instances in -which aux-
       iliary  liquid  or solid  fossil fuels are
       burned in the fluid catalj^ic cracking
       unit incinerator-waste  heat boiler, par-
       ticular matter in excess of  that permit-
       ted by paragraph (a) (1) of this section
       may be emitted to the atmosphere, ex-
       cept that the incremental rate of partic-
       ulate  emissions shall not exceed 0.18 g/
       million cal (0.10 Ib/million Btu) of heat
       input  attributable to s'.:di liquid or solid
       fuel.
       § 60.103   Standard for carbon inonoxulo.
         (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 discharge or cause the
       discharge into the atmosphere from the
       fluid  catalytic  cracking  unit catalyst
       regenerator any gases which contain car-
       bon monoxide in excess of  0.050 percent
       by volume.
       § 60.104-   Standard for sulfur dioxide.
         (a)  On and after the date on which
       the performance test required to be con-
       ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no own-
       er or operator subject to the provisions of
       this subpart  shall burn in any fuel gas
       combustion  device any fuel  gas which
       contains  H^S in excess of  230 mg/dscm
       (0.10  gr/dscf), except as provided  in
       paragraph (b)  of this section. The com-
       bustion of process upset gas in & flare,
       or the combustion in a flare of process
       gas or fuel gas which  is released to the
       flare as a result of relief valve leakage, is
       exempt from this paragraph.
           An  Kistru:r.rnt  'or  contir.uou;-:y
monitoring and recordinp concentrations
of SO:  in the gases discharged  into ihe
atmosphere from the combustion of fuel
gases except where the requirements of
 § 60.104(a) are met.
   (b) Instruments and sampling  systems
installed and used pursuant to this sec-
tion shall meet specifications pi-escribed
 by the Administrator and  each instru-
ment shall be calibrated in accordance
•Kith the method prescribed hy the manu-
 facturer cf such insi-rur.iout. The instru-
ments  shall  be subjected to the manu-
facturer's recommended 7.cro adjustment,
 and calibration procedures nt lonst once
 per 24-hour operating period ur.les* il'.r-
 manufacturer  specifies  or  recommends
 calibration at shorter intervals. ii\ which
 case such specifications or recommenda-
tions shall be followed.
   (c)  The average  coke  burn-oil' rale
 (thousands erf kilogram 'hrl and hours of
 operation  for any fluid catalytic crack-
 ing unit catalyst  repcnerator subject to
 § 60.102 or 60.103 shall be recorded daily.
   (d>  For any fluid catalytic crackincr
 unit catalyst regenerator whic-h i5 subject
to S 60.102 and which utilizes an inciner-
 ator-waste heat boiler  to  combust, the
 exhaust gases from the catalyst rt>i;e:i-
 erator. the owner or operator .shall re-
 cord daily the rate  of  combustion of
 liquid  or solid  fossil fuels  Oitcrs/hr or
 kUograms/hr) and  the hours of opera-
 tion during  which  liquid or solid lov;;!
 fuels are combusted in the  incinerator-
 waste heat boiler.
   (e) For the  purpose of  reports pur-
 suant  to  560.7(c), periods of excess
 emissions that shall be reported are de-
 fined as follows:
   (1)  Opacity. All  hourly periods in
 which  there are four or  more 1-minute
 periods during which the average opacity
      No. 47—Pt. H	2
KDERAl REGISTER, VOL  39, MO. 47—FRIDAY, MARCH «. 1974


                      IV-3 7
-------
9316
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
of the gases discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any fluid catalytic  cracking
unit  catalyst  regenerator  subject  to
§ 60.102 exceeds  30 percent.
   (2)  Carbon monoxide.  All hourly pe-
riods during which the  average carbon
monoxide concentration in the gases dis-
charged  into the atmosphere from any
fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst re-
generator  subject  to § 60.103  exceeds
O.C50 percent by volume; or any hourly
period  in  which  Oi  concentration and
firebox temperature measurements indi-
cate  that the average concentration of
CO in the gases discharged into the at-
mosphere   exceeds  0.050  percent  by
volume>-for sources which  combust the
exhaust  gases .from any fluid  catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerator sub-
ject to § 60.103 in an incinerator-waste
heat boiler and for which the owner or
operator elects to monitor in accordance
with 5 60.105 (a) (3).
   (3)  Hydrogen sulfide.  All hourly pe-
riods during which the average hydrogen
sulfide content of any fuel gas combusted
in any fuel  gas  combustion device sub-
ject  to  § 60.104 exceeds 230  mg/dscm
(0.10 gr/dscf> except where the require-
ments of § 60.104(b)  are met.
   (4)  Suljur dioxide. All hourly periods
during which the average sulfur dioxide
emissions  discharged  into the—atmos-
phere from any fuel gas combustion de-
vice subject to § 60.104 exceed  the level
specified in § 60.104(b), except where the
requirements of § 60.104(a) are met.
§ 60.106  Test methods  and procedures.
   (a) For  the  purpose  of determining
compliance with § 60.102 (a) (1),  the fol-
lowing reference  methods and calcula-
tion procedures shall be used:
   (1) -For gases  released to the atmos-
phere from  the fluid catalytic  cracking
unit catalyst regenerator:
   .
   English units material balance factor divided by 100, Ib-min/hr-lt1.
   fluid catalytic  cracking  unit catalyst regenerator eihaust gas How rat« before enuring the emission
     control system, IB determined by method 2, dscm/min rial balance ,'actor divided by 100, )b-min/hr-U'.
   air rale to nuid catalytic crackine unit catalyst regenerator, as determined from fluid catalytic cricking
     unit control nxjnj instrumentation, dscm/min (English uiu'Ls: n.scf/min).
   raetric units material biUnco factor divided by 1UO, kg-min/hr-m*.
   English units material balance facior divided by 100, Ib-miu/ui-lt'.
   O.OlSo1'
    Qn c

   %COj
   % CO
    % Oi
    2.088
   0.13G3=
    QaA

   O.fXKH
   0.006'2-

   (5) Particulate emissions shall be determined by the following equation;

                            RB=(60X10-')QavC. (Metric Unite)
or
                            Ri=(8.J7X10-')QnvC, (English Units)
where:
                            Ri! = pruticulat« emission rate, kg/hr (English units: Ib/nr).
    MX 10-« = metric units conversion facior, min-UgAir-iug.
   8.67X10"*™ English units conversion (actor, min-l b/hr-gr.
      Q,HV = volumelnc Dow rate of gases discharged into the atmosphere from the fluid catalytic cracking unit
             catalyst regenerator following tho emission control system, as determined by Method 2, dscm/min
             (English uniu: dscf/min).
        C.^piuiicnlat« emission concentration disclir\rge:
    K.=allowable particulate emisj-lon  rate, kg/1000 kg (English units: lb/1000 Ib) ot coke burn-off in the
        fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator.
    ].0=emlsslon standard, 1.0 kg/1000 kg (English units: 1.0 lb/1000 Ib) of coke burn-ofl in the fluid catalytic
        cracking unit catalyst regenerator.
   O.lS^jnetric units maiimuro allowable incremental rate of particulate emissions, p/million cal.
   0.10=Euglish units laiuimum allowable Incremental rat« of particular emissions, Ib/mJIiion Bta.

    H=bent Input from solid or liquid fossil fuel, million cal/hr (English nnits: million Btu/hr).
    R.-coke bura-ofi rate, kg/hr (English unite: Ib/hr).
   (b)  For  the purpose of  determining
compliance with § 60.103, the integrated
sample technique of Method 10 shall be
used. The sample shall be extracted at a
rate proportional to the gas  velocity at a
sampling point near the  centroid of the
duct. The sampling time shall not be less
than 60 minutes.
   (c)  For  the purpose of  determining
compliance with $60.104(a). Method 11
shall be  used. When refinery fuel gas
lines are  operating at pressures substan-
tially above atmospheric, the gases sam-
                                     pled must be introduced into the sam-
                                     pling train at approximately atmospheric
                                     pressure. This may be accomplished with
                                     a flow .control valve. If the line pressure
                                     is high  enough  to operate the sampling
                                     train without a vacuum pump, the pump
                                     may be  eliminated from the sampling
                                     train. The sample shall be drawn from a
                                     point near the  centroid of  the fuel gas
                                     line. The minimum sampling time shall
                                     be 10 minutes and the  minimum sam-
                                     pling volume 0.01  dscm (0.35 dscf) for
                                     each sample. The arithmetic  average of
                                    ttOB«Al REGISTER  VOL 39.  NO. 47—FRIDAY, MARCH 8,  J974

                                                            IV-3 8
-------
                                            RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        9317
two  samples shall  constitute one  run.
Samples shall be taken at approximately
i-hour  intervals. For  most fuel gases,
sample times exceeding 20 minutes  may
result in depletion of the collecting solu-
tion, although fuel gases containing low
concentrations of hydrogen  sulflde  may
necessitate sampling for longer periods of
time.
  (d) Method 6 shall be used  for de-
termining concentration  of  SOi in de-
termining compliance  with  S60.104(b),
except that H=S concentration of the fuel
gas may be determined instead. Method
1 shall be used for velocity traverses and
Method 2  for determining velocity  and
volumetric flow rate. The sampling site
for determining SOi concentration by
Method 6  shall  be the  same  as for
determining  volumetric  flow rate by
Method 2. The  sampling point in the
duct for determining SOi concentration
by Method 6 shall be at the centroid of
the cross  section if the  cross sectional
area is  less than 5 m" (54  ft1)  or  at a
point no closer  to the walls than  1 m
(39 inches)  if the  cross sectional  area
is 5 m1 or more and the centroid  is more
than one  meter from the  wall.  The
sample shall be extracted at a rate  pro-
portional  to the  gas velocity  at the
sampling point. The minimum sampling
time shall be 10 minutes and the mini-
iuuiu sampling volume 0.01 dscm  (0.35
dscf) for  each sample. The arithmetic
average of two samples shall constitute
one run. Samples shall be taken at ap-
proximately 1-hour intervals.
Subpart K—Standards of Performance for
  Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
§60.110  Applicability and designation
     of affected facility.
  . (a) Except as provided in §-€0.110(b),
the affected facility to which this  sub-
part applies is eacn storage vessel for
petroleum liquids  which has a  storage
capacity  greater  than   151,412  liters
(40,000  gallons).
  (b) This  subpart does not apply to
storage vessels for  the crude petroleum
or condensate stored, processed, and/or
treated, at  a drilling and  production
facility prior to custody  transfer.

§ 60.111  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of this  part.
  (a> "Storage vessel" means any tank,
reservoir,  or  container  used  for the
storage of petroleum  liquids, but  does
not  include:
  (1) Pressure vessels which are designed
to operate in excess of  15  pounds per
square inch gauge without emissions to
the atmosphere except under emergency
conditions,
   (2) Subsurface caverns or porous rock
reservoirs, or
   (3)  Underground tanks if the  total
volume of petroleum  liquids added to
and taken from a tank annually  does
not exceed twice the volume of the tank.
   (b) "Petroleum  liquids" means crude
petroleum, condensate, and any  finished
or intermediate product* manufacturea
in a petroleum refinery but does not
mean Number 2 through Number 6 fuel
oils as specified in ASTM-D-396-69, gas
turbine fuel oils Numbers 2-GT through
4-GT as specified in ASTM-D-2880-71,
or diesel fuel oils Numbers 2-D and 4-D
as specified in ASTM-D-975-68.
  (c) "Petroleum refinery"  means any
facility engaged in  producing  gasoline,
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel
oils, lubricants, or other products through
distillation  of   petroleum  or  through
redistillation, cracking, or reforming  of
unfinished petroleum derivatives.
  (d) "Crude petroleum" means a nat-
urally  occurring mixture which consists
of hydrocarbons and/or sulfur, nitrogen
and/or oxygen  derivatives of hydrocar-
bons and which is a liquid at standard
conditions.
  (e) "Hydrocarbon" means any organic
compound consisting predominantly  of
  (f) "Condensate"  means hydrocarbon
liquid separated from natural gas which
condenses due  to changes in the tem-
perature and/or pressure and remains
liquid  at standard conditions.
  (g) "Custody  transfer" ' means the.
transfer of produced crude petroleum
and/or condensate, after processing and/
or treating in the producing operations,
from storage tanks or automatic trans-
fer facilities to pipelines or any  other
forms  of transportation.
   (h).  "Drilling and  production facility"
means all drilling and servicing equip-
ment, wells, flow lines, separators, equip-
ment, gathering lines, and auxiliary non-
transportation-related equipment used in
the  production of crude petroleum but
does not include natural gasoline plants.
  (I) "True vapor pressure" means the
equilibrium  partial pressure  exerted  by
a petroleum liquid as determined in ac-
cordance with methods described  in
American Petroleum Institute Bulletin
2517,' Evaporation Loss from  Floating
Roof Tanks, 1862.
   (j) "Floating roof" means a storage
vessel cover consisting of a double deck,
pontoon single deck, internal  floating
cover or covered floating roof, which rests
upon and is supported by the petroleum
liquid  being contained, and is  equipped
with a closure  seal or seals to  close the
space  between the roof edge and tank
wall.
   (k) "Vapor recovery system" means a
vapor gathering system capable of col-
lecting all hydrocarbon vapors and gases
discharged from the storage vessel and
a vapor disposal system capable of proc-
essing  such hydrocarbon vapors and
gases so as  to  prevent their emission to
the atmosphere.
   (1)  "Reid vapor pressure" is  the abso-
lute vapor pressure  of volatile  crude  oil
and  volatile   non-viscous  petroleum
liquids, except  liquified petroleum  gases,
as determined  by ASTM-D-323-58 (re-
approved 1968).

§61.112  Standard for hydrocarbons.
   (a)  The owner or operator of any^stor-
age  vessel to which  this subpart applies
shall store petroleum liquids as follows:
  (1) If the true vapor pressure of the
petroleum liquid, as stored. Is equal to
or greater than 78 mm Hg (1.5 psia) but
not greater than 570 mm Hg (11.1 psia),
thi storage vessel shall be equipped with
a floating roof, a vapor recovery system.
or their equivalents.
  (2) If the true vapor pressure of the
petroleum liquid as stored Is greater than
570 mm Hg  (11.1 psia), the storage ves-
sel  shall be equipped with a  vapor re-
covery system or its equivalent.
§60.113  Monitoring of operations.
  (a) The owner  or  operator  of any
storage vessel to which this subpart ap-
plies shall for each such storage vessel
maintain a file of each type of petroleum
liquid stored,  of the typical Held vapor
pressure of each type of petroleum liquid
stored, and of the dates of storage. Dates
on which the storage vessel Is empty shall
be shown.
  (b) The owner or operator of any stor-
age vessel to which this subpart applies
shall for each such storage vessel deter-
mine and record the  average monthly
storage temperature and true vapor pres-
sure of the petroleum liquid  stored at
such temperature if:
  (1) The petroleum liquid has a true
vapor pressure,  as  stored,  greater  than
26 mm Hg (0.5 psia) but less than 78 mm
Hg (1.5 psia)  and is stored in a storage
vessel other than one equipped  with a
floating roof, a vapor recovery  system
or their equivalents; or
  (2) The petroleum liquid has a true
vapor pressure, as  stored,  greater  than
470 mm Hg (fl.l psia) and is stored in
a storage vessel other than one equipped
with  a  vapor recovery  system  or  Its
equivalent.
  (c) The average monthly storage tem-
perature is  an arithmetic  average cal-
culated lor each calendar month, or por-
tion thereof if storage is for less than a
month,  from  bulk liquid storage  tem-
peratures  determined  at  least  once
every 7 days.
   (d) The true vapor pressure shall be
determined  by  the procedures   in API
Bulletin 2517. This procedure  is  de-
pendent  upon  determination  of  the
storage  temperature and the Reid vnpor
pressure, which requires sampling of the
petroleum liquids in the storage  vessels.
Unless  the  Administrator  requires  in
specific cases that  the stored  petroleum
liquid be  sampled,  the true vapor pres-
sure may be  determined by  using the
average  monthly   storage temperature
and the typical Reid vapor pressure. For
those liquids for which certified  specifi-
cations  limiting the Reid vapor pressure
exist, that Reid vapor pressure may be
used. For other liquids, supporting ana-
lytical data must be made available  on
request to the Administrator when  typi-
cal Reid vapor pressure is used.
Subpart L—Standards of Performance for
        Secondary Lead Smelters
§ 60.120  Applicability and designation
     of affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to  the following affected facil-
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 47—FRIDAY, MARCH B, 1974
                                                    IV-3 9
-------
9318
                                   RULES AND REGULATIONS
Itles In  secondary lead smelters: Pot
furnaces of more  than 250 kg (550 Ib)
charging  capacity, blast  (cupola)  fur-
naces,  and reverberatory furnaces.

§ 60.121  Definition*.
  As used In this subpart,  all terms not
denned herein shall  have  the meaning
given them In the Act and in subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Reverberatory furnace" Includes
the following types of reverberatory fur-
naces:  stationary,   rotating,  rocking,
and tilting.
  (b) "Secondary lead smelter"  means
any facility producing lead from a lead-
bearing scrap material by smelting to the
metallic f orm,
  (c) "Lead"  means  elemental lead or
allows In which the  predominant com-
ponent is lead.
§ 60.122
     ter.
Standard for paniculate mat-
  fa) 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 discharge or cause the
discharge into  the atmosphere from a
blast  (cupola)  or reverberatory furnace
any gases which:
  (1) Contain  particulate matter in ex-
cess of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
  (2) Exhibit  20  percent opacity  or
greater.
  (b) On and  after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by 5 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from any
pot furnace any gases which exhibit 10
percent opacity or greater.
  (c) Where the presence of uncombined
water Is the only  reason for failure to
meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)
(2) or (b)  of this section, such failure
shall not be a violation of this section.
§ 60.123  Test  methods and procedures.
  (a) The reference methods appended
to this  part, except as provided for hi
§ 60.8 (b), shall  be used  to determine
compliance with the standards prescribed
ln§ 60.122 as follows:
  (1) Method 5 for the concentration of
particulate  matter and  the associated
moisture content,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3) Method  2 for velocity and  volu-
metric flow rate, and
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
  (b) For method 5,  the  sampling time
for eacbr run shall be at least 60 minutes
and the sampling  rate shall be at.least
0.9 dscm/hr (0.53 dscf/mln) except that
shorter sampling times, when necesitated.
by proces? variables  or  other factors,
may be  approved by the Administrator.
Parttculate sampling shall be conducted
during representative periods of furnace
operation,  Including charging  and tap-
ping.
Subpart M—Standards of Performance for
   Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Pro-
   duction Plants
§ 60.130  Applicability  and  designation
     of affected facility.
   The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to  the following  affected facil-
ities in secondary brass or bronze ingot
production  plants:  Reverberatory and
electric furnaces of 1,000 kg (2,205 Ib)  or
greater production  capacity  and'blast
(cupola) furnaces of 250  kg/hr (550 Ib/
hr)  or greater production capacity.
§ 60.131  Definitions.
   As used in this subpart, all terms not
denned herein shall have the meaning
given them  in the Act and in subpart A
of this part.
   (a) "Brass or bronze" means any metal
alloy containing copper as its predom-
inant constituent, and lesser amounts of
zinc, tin, lead,  or other metaJs.
   (b)  "Reverberatory furnace" includes
the following types of reverberatory fur-
naces: Stationary, rotating, rocking, and
tilting.
   (c) "Electric furnace" means any fur-
nace which uses electricity to produce
over- 50 percent of the  heat required  in
"the production of reflned brass or bronze.
   (d)  "Blast furnace"  means'any  fur-
nace used to recover  metal from slag.

§ 60.132 Standard for paniculate matter.
   (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 discharge or cause the
discharge into  the  atmosphere from a
reverberatory furnace any gases which:
   (1) Contain particulate matter in ex-
cess of 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
   (2)  Exhibit  20 percent opacity or
greater.
   (b)  On and after  the date on  which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator  subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall discharge or cause the
discharge into the atmosphere from any
blast (cupola)  or electric furnace any
gases which exhibit  10 percent opacity
or greater.
   (c)  Where the presence of uncom-
bined water is the only reason for fail-
ure to meet the  requirements of para-
graphs (a) (2)  or (b)  of this section,
such failure shall not be  a violation of
this section.
§ 60.133  Test  methods and procedures.
   (a)  The reference methods appended.
to this part, except  as  provided  for in
|60.8(b), shall be used  to determine
compliance  with the  standards pre-
scribed in § 60.132 as follows:
   (1)  Method  5  for the  concentration
of particulate matter and the associated
moisture content.
   (2)  Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,"1
   C3)  Method 2  for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate, and
   (4)  Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (b)  For Method 5, the sampling time
 for  each  run  shall  be at  least  120
 minutes and the sampling rate shall be
 at least  0.9 dscm/hr  (0.53  dscf/min)
 except that shorter sampling times, when
 necessitated by process variables or .other
 factors, may be approved by the Admin-
 istrator.  Particulate  matter  sampling
 shall be conducted during representative
 periods of charging- and  refining,  but
 not during pouring of the heat.
 Subpart N—Standards of Performance fn»
          Iron and Steel Plants
 § 60.140  Applicability and  designation
   of affected facility.
   The affected facility to which the pro-
 visions of this subpart apply is each basic
 oxygen process furnace.
 § 60.141  Definitions.
   As used In this subpart,  all terms Not
 defined herein  shall have  the meaning
 given them in the Act and in subpart A
 of this part.
   (a)  "Basic  oxygen  process  furnace"
 (BOPF)  means any furnace  producing
 steel by charging scrap steel, hot metal,
 and flux materials into a vessel and in-
 troducing a high volume of an oxygen-
 rich gas.
   (b)  "Steel production cycle"  means
 the operations required to produce each
 batch of steel and includes the following
 major  functions: Scrap charging, pre-
 heating (when  used), hot metal  charg-
 ing, primary  oxygen blowing, additional
 oxygen blowing (when used),  and tap-
 ping.

 § 60.142  Standard for particulate  mat-
    ter.

   (a)  On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall  discharge  or  cause
 the discharge Into the atmosphere from
 any affejted  facility  any gases which:
   (1)  Contain particulate matter in ex-
 cess of 50 mgydscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
   (2)  [Reserved.]
 § 60.143   [flescrved]
 § 60.144  Test  methods and procedures.
   (a) The reference methods appended
 to this part, except as provided  for in
 |60.8(b), shall  be  used to  determine
 compliance with the standards prescribed
 In § 60.142 as follows:
   (1)  Method  5 for  concentration  of
particulate matter and associated mois-
 ture content,
   (2)  Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses,
   (3)  Method 2 for volumetric flow rate,
 and
   (4)  Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (b)  For Method  5, the sampling for
 each run shall continue  for an Integral
 number of cycles with total duration of
 at least 60 minutes. The sampling rate
 shall be at least 0.9 dscm/hr (0.53 dscf/
 mln) except that shorter sampling times,
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39. NO. 47—FRIDAY. MARCH  8, 1974

                                                     iy-4o
-------
      necessitated by  process variables
>r otber factors, may be approved by the
Administrator. A cycle shall start at the
beginning  of either the  scrap preheat
or the oxygen blow and shall terminate
immediately prior to tapping.
Subpart 0—Standards of Performance for
        Sewage Treatment Plants
S 60.150  Applicabilicr  and  designation
     of affected facility.
  The affected facility to which the prov
visions  of  this subpart apply is  each
incinerator which burns the  sludge pro-
duced by  municipal sewage treatment
facilities.
§ 60.151  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein  shall have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of this part.
§ 60.152  Standard for participate  mat-
     ler.
  (a) On and after the date on which the
performance  test  required  to be  con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator of any sewage sludge incin-
erator subject to  the provisions  of this
subpart shall discharge or cause the dis-
charge into  the atmosphere o£:
  (1) Particulate matter at a rate in ex-
cess of  0.65 g/kg-dry sludge  input  (1.30
Ib/ton dry sludge input).
  (2) Any gases which exihibit 20 per-
cent opacity or greater. Where the pres-
ence  of  uncomblned water is the -only
reason for  failure to meet the require-
ments of this  paragraph, such  failure
shall not be a violation of this section.
§60.153  Monitoring of operations.
  (a}-The  owner  or  operator of any
sludge incinerator subject to  the  provi-
sions of this subpart shall:
  (1) 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 incin-
erator. The flow measuring device shall
have an accuracy of ±5 percent over its
operating range.
  (2) Provide  access  to  the   sludge
charged so  that a well-mtxed represen-
tative grab  sample of the sludge can be
obtained.
§60.154  Tesl-Methods and  Procedures.
   maybedeleted.
                                            (iii)  The Quantity  of dry sludge  per
                                          unit sludge charged shall be determined
                                          in terms of either EOT (metric units: mg
                                          dry  sludge/liter sludge  charged or Eng-
                                          lish  units: lb/ft3) or R™,  (metric units:
                                          mg  dry sludge/mg sludge  charged  or
                                          English units: Ib/lb).
                                            (3) Determine the  quantity, of dry
                                          sludge per unit sludge charged In terms
                                          of either RD, or RD1I.
                                            (i) If  the volume of sludge charged is
                                          used:

                                         — (Metric Units)
                            So-(8.021) —   (English Units)
wliore:
      SD=avcrafc dry sludpc clianriup rale during tlie run, kc/hr (Enclisli units: li,,'. V
     «Dv=(ii-er8fre quantity ol dry sludge tier wait volume ol sludge clinked to tie incinerator, taf/l (English
           uni ts: lb/Ji»).
      1 6v«sludpe charged to the Incinerator during the run, m* (English units: gal):
       T»duration of ruo, min (English units: miu).
   60X10-'=rri6trlc units conversion (actor, l-iR-min/m'-ms-hr.
     6.021 "'Eagllsb units conversion (actor, til-mi n/gal-hr.

   (11) If the mass of sludge charged is used:
                         SD
                            = (50) Ro"s? (Metric or English Units)
vrtierc:
     S
   RD
        avcrsce dry slmlpo charging rate during the run. kg/hr (English units: Jb/hr).
        average ratio ol quantity o( dry sludge to quantity ot sludge charged to the Incinerator, mg/mg (ErjgHsb
         units: Ib/lb).
    SM^sludpe c-barged during the run, kg (English units: Ib).
     T-duratlon ot run, min (Metric or English units).
     60=conversJon factor, min/tir (Motricor English units).

  (d) Particulate emission rate shall be determined by:

                          c«\r=ceQs (Metric or English Units)
where:
   <;•»=>participate matter mass emissions, mp/hr (English nnlts: IWhr).
    c'» paniculate matter concentration, mg/m' (Engllsb units: Ih.'dscO.
   Q/i=> volumetric slack casflow rew;riscm/hr (English units: dsci/hr). Q-and c* sliuU b« determined Ufiug Methods
        2 and 6, respectively.

  (e) Compliance with g 60.152 (a) shall be determined as follows:

                               Cdi^tKH)!11 (Metric TJnits)
                                      CD

                                        or

                              Cj.=(2000)^ (English Units)
                                     bo


   GJ,"paniculate cr..lssioii discharge, g/kc. dry sludge (English onlta: ib/lon dry sludge);
   ]o-'=Mctric convorsiou /actor, p/mc.
   2000«*Englisb conversion iactor, ib/ton.
  9. Methods 10 and 11 are added to the
appendix as follows:
MTTHOD 10—DETERMINATION OF CARBON MON-
 OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES

  I. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. An Integrated or continuous
gas sample IE extracted from a sampling point
and analyzed for carbon monoxide (CO) con-
tent using a Lull-type uondispersive infra-
red analyzer (NDIR) or equivalent.
  1.2 Applicability. This  method  Is appli-
cable lor the determination of carbon mon-
oxide emissions from stationary sources only
wben specified by tbe test  procedures for
determining compliance  with new source
                                          performance standards. The test procedure
                                          will Indicate  whether a continuous or an
                                          integrated sample Is to be used.
                                            2. Range and sensitivity.
                                            2.1  Range. 0 to 1,000 ppm.
                                            22 Sensitivity. Minimum detectable  con-
                                          centration Is 20 ppm for a 0  to 1,000  ppm
                                          span.
                                            3. Interferences. Any substance having  a
                                          strong  absorption  of  infrared energy  will
                                          Interfere  to some extent. For  example, dis-
                                          crimination ratios for water (H.O) and car-
                                          bon dioxide  (CO,)  are 8.5  percent H,O per
                                          7 ppm CO and 10  percent CO, per  10  ppm
                                          CO, respectively, for devices measuring In the
                                          l.&OO to 3,000 ppm  range. For devices meas-
                                  FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 47—FRIDAY, MARCH 8,  1974
                                                        IV-41
-------
9320
      RULES  AND REGULATIONS
tiring In the 0 to 100 ppm range, Interference
ratios can be as high aa 3.5 percent H,O per
25 ppm CO and 10 percent CO, per SO ppm
CO. The use  of silica gel and ascarlte traps
will  alleviate  the major Interference prob-
lems. The measured gas  volume must be
corrected If these trap* are usedx
  4.  Precision and accuracy.
  4.1  Precision. The precision of most NDER
analyzers la  approximately  ±a  percent of
span.
  4.3  Accuracy. The accuracy of most NDIB
analyzers Is  approximately  ±5  percent of
span after calibration.
  6.  Apparatus.
  6.1  Continuous sample (Figure 10-1).
  5.1.1 Probe.  Stainless  steel  or abeathed
Pyrex' glass, equipped with a filter to remove
partlculate matter.
  5.1.2 Air-cooled condenser, or  equivalent.
To remove any excess moisture.
  6.2 Integrated sample (Figure 10-2).
  5.2.1 Probe.  Stainless  steel  or sheathed
Pyrex glass, equipped with a  filter to remove
particulate matter.
  6.2.2 Air-cooled condenser or  equivalent.
To remove any excess moisture.
  55.3 Valve. Needle valve, or equivalent, to
to adjust Sow rate.
  6.2.4 Pump. Leak-free  diaphragm, type, or
equivalent, to transport gas.
  6.2.5 Rate meter. Rotameter. or equivalent,
to measure a flow  range from  0  to 1.0 liter
per mln. (0.035 dm).
  6.2.6 Flexible bag. Tedlar, or  equivalent,
with a capacity of 60 to 90 liters (2 to 3 ft •).
Leak-test the  bag  In the  laboratory before
using by evacuating bag with a pump fol-
lowed by a dry ga« meter.  When evacuation
Is complete, there should be no flow through
the meter.
             AU-COOUDCONMNSO
          ttott
             \
                            IOAM17ZO
        fMOIOASIOOU
  6.3.1 Carbon monoxide analyzer. Nondlsper-
slve  Infrared  spectrometer,  or  equivalent.
This  Instrument should  be demonstrated,
preferably by the manttfactur«r, to meet or
exceed  manufacturer's  rpeclncatlons  and
tbose described ID this method.
  5.3.2 Drying  tube. To contain approxi-
mately 200 g of silica gel.
  5.3.3 Calibration  gas. Refer to paragraph
6.1.
  5.3.4 Filter. As  recommended by  NDIH
manufacturer.
  53.5 CO, removal tube. To contain approxi-
mately 500 g of ascarlte.
  6.3.6 let-water batli. For ascarlte and silica
gel tubes.
  6.3.7 Vaive. Needle valve, or equivalent, to
adjust flow rate
  53.8 Bate meter.  Rotameter or equivalent
to measure gaa flow rate  of 0 to  1.0 liter per
mln. (0.035 cim)  through NDIR.
  63.9 Recorder  (optional).  To provide per-
manent record of NDIR readings.
  6. Reagents.
  6.1 Calibration gases. Known concentration
of CO In nitrogen (Mi) for Instrument span,
prepurifled grade of N, for zero, and two addi-
tional concentrations corresponding approxi-
mately to 60 percent and 30 percent span. The
apart concentration shall not exceed 1,5 times
the applicable source performance standard.
The calibration gases shall  be  certified by
the manufacturer to be within  ±2 percent
of the-specified concentration.
  6.2 Silica gel. Indicating type, S to 16 mesh,
dried at 175" C (347° F) for a hours.
  6.3 Ascarite. Commercially available.
  1. Procedure.
  7.1 Sampling.
  7.».l Continuous sampling.  Set up  the-
equipment as shown in Figure  10-1 making
sure all connections are leak free. Place tha
probe in the stack  at a sampling point and.
purge the sampling line.  Connect the ana-
lyzer and  begin  drawing sample into the-
analyzer. Allow  5 minutes  for  the  system.
to stabilize, then record the analyzer read-
ing aa required by  the- teat procedure. (See
11 7.2 and 8).CO,  content  of the gas may be
determined  by using  the Method 3  Inte-
grated sample procedure  (38 FR 24886), or
by weighing  the  ascarlte  CO, removal tube
and  computing CO, concentration from the
gaa  volume sampled  and  the  weight gain
of the tube.
  7.1.2 Integrated  sampling. . Evacuate the
flexible bag. Set up  the equipment as shown
In Figure 10-2 with the  bag disconnected.
Place the probe In  the stack and purge tha
sampling line. Connect the bag, making sure
that all connections are leak free. Sample at
a rate proportional to the  stack  velocity.
CO,  content  of the gas may bo determined
by using  the Method  3  integrated  samplo-
procedures (36 FR 24886),  or  by weighing-
the ascarlte CO, removal  tube and comput-
ing CO, concentration  from the gas volume
sampled and the weight gain of the tube.
  7.2 CO Analysis. Assemble the apparatus a»
shown In Figure  10-3, calibrate the lustru<
ment, and perform other required operations
as described  In. paragraph, a. Purge analyzer
with N, prior to introduction, of each sample.
Direct thfe sample stream through the instru-
ment for the test period, recording the read-
ings. Check the-zeio and span again after thp,
test  to assure that  any drift or malfunction
Is detected. Record the sample data on Table
10-1.
  8.  Calibration. Assemble the apparatus ac-
cording to Figure 10-3. Generally an Instru-
ment requires a warm-up period before sta-
bility Is obtained. Follow the manufacturer's
Instructions  for specific procedure. Allow a
minimum  time  of  one hour for warm-up.
During this  time check the sample condi-
tioning apparatus. I.e.,  filter, condenser, dry-
ing  tube, and CO, removal tube, to ensure
that each  component  Is  la good operating
condition. Zero and calibrate the Instrument
according to the manufacturer's procedures
using, respectively,  nitrogen and the calibra-
tion gasee.
                                                                           TABLB 10-1.—Field data
                                            Location —
                                            Test ___
                                            Dot* _.	
                                            Operator —
                                                                                                             Comments:
Clock time

Rct&meter setting, Uteri per minute
(ciiWe feet per minute)

   6.2.7 Pitot tube. Type S, or equivalent, at-
 tached .to the probe so that the  sampling
 rate can be  regulated proportional  to the
 stack gas velocity when velocity la varying
 with the time or a sample  traverse la con-
 ducted.
   63 Analysis (Figure 10-3).
   1 Mention o.' trade names or specific prod-
 ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
 Environmental Protection Agency.
   9. Calculation—Concentration of carbon monoxide. Calculate the concentration of'carbon
 monoxide In the stack using equation 10-U

                             cco,UA=alC'co,rolK(l—Pea,}               equation 10-1
 where:

     Cco.u.k=conceQtratlon of CO In stack, ppm by volume (dry bads).

     CcojjiuR11*concentration of-CO measured by NDIR analyser, ppm by volume (dry
                 basis).

         Fco»= volume fraction of COi tn sample; Le., percent COt from Onat  analysfc
           ^    divided by 100.
                                    KDIRM REGISTER, VOL 39; NO. 47—FRIDAY, MARCH  9,  1974
                                                            iy-42
-------
                                                  RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                  9321
 10. B:blioyraphy.
 10.1 McElroy, Frank, The Intertcch NDIR-CO
     Analyzer.  Presented at  llth Methods
     Conference on Air Pollution, University
     of California, Berkeley, Calif, April  i,
     1970.
 10.2 Jacobs, M. B., et «J., Continuous Deter-
     mination -of Carbon Monoxide and Hy-
     drocarbons In Air by o Modified Infra-
     red Analyzer, J.  All Pollution Control
     Association. 9(2):1IO-114. August  1959.
 10.3 MSA  LIRA  Infrared Gas  and  Liquid
     Analyzer Instruction Book, Kline Safety
     Appliances Co..  Technical  Products Di-
     vision, Pittsburgh, Pa.
 10.4 Models 215A,  S15A, and 415A. Infrared
     Analyzers, Beckman  Instrumente. Inc..
     Bcckmin  Instructions I635-B, Puller-
     ton, Calif., October 1867.
 10.5 Continuous  CO  Monitoring   System,
     Model A5611, Intertcch Corp_ Princeton.
     N-J.
 10.6 UNOK Infrared Gas Analyzers, Bendix
     Corp., Ronce-verte,  West Virginia.
  A. Perjonmince Specifications /or NDIR Carbon Monoxide Analyzers.

Flange (minimum)	  0-lOOOppm,
Output (minimum)	  0-JOmV.
Minimum detectable  sensitivity	  20ppm.
Rise time, 90 percent (maximum)	  SOseconds.
Fall time. 90 percent  (maximum)	,.  SOseconds.
Zero drift (maximum)	._  10% in 8 hours.
Spindrift (maximum)	  10% in 8 hours.
Precision  (minimum)	',.  -4- 2% of full scale.
Noise (maximum)	  ± 1 % of full scale.
Linearity (maximum  deviation)	  2^ of full scale.
Interference rejection ratio..	  CO,—1000 to 1, HjO—500 to 1.
  B. Definitions  of Performance Specifica-
tions.
  Kange—The  minimum  and   maximum
measurement limits.
  Output—Electrical olgnal which lj propor-
tional to the measurement; intended for con-
nection to readout or data processing devices.
Usually expressed as millivolts or mllllamps
full scale at a given  Impedance.
  Full scale—The maximum measuring limit
for a given range.
  Minimum   detectable   sensitivity—The
smallest amount  of Input concentration thnt
can  be  detected as the concentration  ap-
proaches zero.
  Accuracy—The degree of agreement  be-
tween a measured value-and the true  value;
usually  expressed as ± percent of full scale.
  Time  to 90 percent response—The time in-
terval from a step change in the Input con-
centration at the Instrument inlet to a react-
ing of 90 percent of the ultimate recorded
concentraHon.
  Rise Time <90  percent)—The Interval be-
tween initial response  time and time to 90
percent response  after a step Increase  in tbe
inlet concentration.
  Fall Time (90  percent)—The Interval be-
tween Initial response  time and time to 90
percent response  after a step decrease  In the
inlet concentration.
  Zero Drift—The change In Instrument out-
put  over  a stated  time period, usually 24
hours,  of unadjusted  continuous operation
when the  Input concentration Is zero; -usually
expressed as percent full scale.
  Span Drift—The change In Instrument out-
put  over  a stated  time period, usually 24
hours,  of unadjusted  continuous operation
when the input  concentration  Is a  stated
upscale  value;  usually  expressed as percent
full scale.
  Precision—The degree of agreement  be-
tween repeated measurements of the same
concentration, expressed as the average de-
viation of the single results from the  mean.
  Noise—Spontaneous  deviations  from  a
mean output not caused by  Input  concen-
tration changes.
  Linearity—The  maximum  deviation  be-
tween an  actual Instrument reading and the
reading  predicted by a  straight  line  drawn
between upper and lower calibration points.
METHOD 1 1	DETERMINATION Or JETrDROCEN-STn,-
  FIDE EMISSIONS  PBOK BTAT1ONABY 8OTJECES
  1.  Principle and applicability.
  1.1  Principle.   Hydrogen sulfi.de  (H,S)  Is
collected from the source In a series of midget
 impingers and  reacted with  alkaline  cad-
 mium hydroxide  |Cd(OH),|  to  form  cad-
 mium sulnde (CdS). The  precipitated CdS
 Is then  dissolved In hydrochloric acid and
 absorbed In a known volume of Iodine solu-
 tion. The iodine consumed Is a measure of
 the H.S content of the gas. An  implnger con-
 taining hydrogen  peroxide is Included to re-
 move SO, as an interfering species.
   12 Applicability. This method  is applica-
 ble for the determination  of  hydrogen sul-
 fide emissions from  stationary sources only
 when  specified  by the test procedures for
 determining compliance with the  new source
•performance standards.
   2. Apparatus.
   2.1 Sampling train.
   2.1.1 Sampling line—6- to 7-mm (%-lnch)
 Teflon' tubing to connect sampling train to
 sampling -valve, with provisions for  heating
 to prevent condensation. A pressure  reduc-
 ing valve prior  to the  Teflon  sampling line
 may  be  required  depending   on sampling
 stream pressure.
   2.12.  Impingers—Five  midget  Implngers,
 each with 30-ml capacity, or equivalent.
   2.1.3 Ice bath container—To maintain ab-
 sorbing solution at B  constant temperature.
   2.1.4  Silica gel drying  tube—To  protect
 pump and dry gas meter.
   2.1.5 Needle valve, or equivalent—Stainless
 Bteel or other corrosion resistant material, to
 adjust gas flow rate.
   2.1.6 Pump—Leak free, diaphragm type, or
 equivalent,  to transport gas.  (Not required
 if sampling stream under positive pressure.)
   2.1.7 Dry gas  meter—Sufficiently accurate
 to measure sample volume to  within 1 per-
 cent.
   2.1.8 Rats meter—Rotamoter. or equivalent,
 to measure a flow rate of 0 to 3 liters per
 minute (0.1 ft'/mln).
   2.1.9 Graduated cylinder—25 ml.
   2.1.10 Barometer—To measure atmospheric
 pressure within :£2.5 mm  (rj.l In.) Hg
   22 Sample Recovery.
   2.2.1 Sample container—500-ml  glass-stop-
 pered Iodine fi&sk.
   2.2.2 Pipette—SO-ml volumetric type.
   2.2.3 Beakers—250 ml
   2.2.4 Wash bottle—Glass.
   23 Analysis.
   2.3.1 Flask—500-ml glass-stoppered Iodine
 flask.
  'Mention of trade names or specific prod-
 ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
 Environmental Protection Agency.
   2.3.2 Btiretfe—One 50 ml.
   2.3.2 Flask—125-ml conical.
   3. Reagents.
   3.1 Sampling.
   3.1.1 Absorbing  solution—Cadmium  hy-
droxide (Cd(OE)J—Mix 4.3 g cadmium eul-
fate hydrate  (3 CdSO,.eHaO)  and  0.3 g  ol
sodium hydroxide (NaOH)  In  1 liter of dts-
tllJed water (H.O). Mix well.
   Note: The cadmium hydroxide formed  in
this mixture will precipitate as a.white sus-
pension. Therefore,  this solution  must  be
thoroughly mixed before using to ensure  an
even distribution of the cadmium hydroxide.
   3.1.2 Hydrogen peroxide, 3 percent—Dilute
30 percent hydrogen  peroxide to -3 percent
as needed. Prepare fresh dally:
   3.2 Sample recovery.
   32.1 Hydrochloric  acid solution \HCl),  10
percent by weight—Mix 230 ml  of concen-
trated HC1 (specific gravity 1.19) and 770  ml
of distilled B_O.
   3.2.2 Iodine solution, OJ.  N—Dissolve  24 t;
potassium iodide (KI) In  30 ml of distilled
H.O In a 1-llter graduated  cylinder.  Weigh
12.7 g of resubltmed  Iodine (I.) Into a weigh-
ing bottle  and add  to the potassium iodide
solution. Shake the mixture  until tbe Iodine
is completely dissolved. Slowly dilute the so-
lution to  1  liter with  distilled  H.O, with
swirling. Filter  the  solution, if cloudy, and
store in a brown glass-stoppered bottle.
   3.2.3 Standard iodine solutimt, 0.01 N—Di-
lute 100 ml of the 0.1 N Iodine solution  In ;i
volumetric  flask to  1  liter with  -dlstilli-cl
water.
   Standardize daily as follows: Pipette 25  n-.l
of the 0.01 N iodine solution  into a 125-ml
conical flask.  Titrate with  standard  0.01  JV
thiosulfate solution  (see paragraph 3 3.2) un-
til the solution is a light yellow. Add a lew-
drops  of the  starch solution  and  continue
titrating  until  the   blue color  Just  disap-
pears.  From the results of this tltratlon. cal-
culate the exact normality  of   the  Iodine
solution (tee paragraph 6.1).
   3.2.4 Distilled, deionized water.
   3.3 Analysis.
   3.3.1 Sodium tliiosul/atc solution,  standard
OJ N—For each liter of solution, dissolve
24.8 g of sodium thiosulfate (NA.E.O, - 5H..O)
In distilled water and add 0.01 g of anhydrous
sodium carbonate  (Nn.CO,)  and 0.4 ml  of
chloroform (CHC1,)  to  stabilize. Mix thor-
oughly by shaking or by aerating with nitro-
gen for approximately IB minutes, and store
In a glass-stoppered glass bottle.
   Standardize frequently as follows:  Weigh
Into a 500-ml volumetric tlask about 2  g  of
potassium   dlchromate  (K.Cr,O.)  weighed
to the- nearest milligram and  dilute  to the
500-ml mark   with   distilled  H...O.  Use  dl-
chromate which has been crystallized from
distilled  water and  oven-dried nt  182"C  to
199°C  (360'F to 390*F). Dissolve  approxi-
mately 3 g of potassium iodide (KI)  in 60  ml
of distilled water In B glass-stoppered. 500-jnl
conical flask,  then add  5  ml  of  20-percent
hydrochloric acid solution. Pipette-  50 ml  of
the  dlcbromate solution Into  this  mixture.
Gently swirl the solution once and allow It
to stand In the dark for 5  minutes.  Dilute
tbe solution with 100 to 200 ml of distilled
water, washing  down the sides of the fltisk
with  part  of the water. Swirl the  solution
slowly and titrate with the tholsulfate solu-
tion until  the  solution Is light yellow.  Add
4 ml of starch solution and continue with ft
slow tltration  with the thiosulfate until the
bright blue color has disappeared and only
the pale green color  of the chromic Ion re-
mains. From thl£ tltratlon, calculate tbe ex-
act normality of the sodium thiosulfate solu-
tion (seeparagraph 5.2).
   3.3.2 Sodium thiosulfate solution, standard
0.01 AT—Pipette 100 ml of tbe standard 0.1  N
tblosulfate solution Into a  volumetric flask,
and dilute to  one liter with distilled  water.
                                    FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL 39, NO. 47—FRIDAY,  MARCH I, 1974
                                                            IV-43
-------
9322
      RULES  AND REGULATIONS
  3.3.3 Starch  indicator solution—Suspend
10 g of soluble starch in 100 ml of distilled
water and  add 16  g of potassium hydroxide
pellets. Stir until  dissolved, dilute with 900
ml of distilled water, and let stand 1 hour.
Neutralize  the  alkali  with concentrated hy-
drochloric  acid, using an  indicator paper
similar to Alkacld  teet ribbon, then add 2 ml
of glacial  acetic acid as  a preservative.
  Test for decomposition by titrating 4 ml of
starch solution In 200 ml of distilled water
with 0.01 N iodine solution. If more than 4
drops of the 0.01  N Iodine  solution are  re-
quired to obtain the  blue color, make up a
fresh starch, solution.
  •4.  Procedure.
  4.1 Sampling.
  4.1.1 Assemble the sampling train as shown
In Figure  11-1, connecting  the flve midget
Implngers in series. Place IS ml of 3 percent
hydrogen peroxide In the first Impinger. Place
15 ml of the  absorbing solution  in  each  of
the next three  Implngers, leaving the fifth
dry.  Place crushed Ice around the Implngers,
Add more  Ice  during the  run to keep the
temperature of the  gases tearing  -the last
implnger at about 20°C (70'F), or less.
  4.1.3 Purge  the connecting  line between
the  sampling valve and the  first Impinger.
Connect the sample line to the train. Record
the  initial reading on the dry gaa  meter aa
shown In Table 11-1.
          TABLE  ll-l,—field data
 Location	  Comments:
 Test		
 Date —		
 Operator	
 Barometric pressure	

Clock
a mo


Gas volume
through
motor (V»),
liters (cubic
feet)
Rotameter
getting, Lpm
(cubic leet
per minute)


Meter
temperature.
« C C F)

into a 250-ml beaker. Add 5O ml of 10 percent
HC1 to the solution. Mil weJl.
  43.2 Discard the contents of the hydrogen
peroxide Impinger. Carefully transfer the con-
tents of the remaining  four Implngers to a
600-ml Iodine flask.
  4.2.3 BJnse the  four absorbing ImpLngers
and connecting glassware with three portions
of the acidified Iodine solution. Use the en-
tire 100 ml of acidified  Iodine for this pur-
pose. Immediately alter pouring the acidified
iodine Into an Impinger, stopper It and shake
for a few moments before transferring the
rinse to the iodine flask. Do not transfer any
rinse portion from one Impinger to another;
transfer it directly to the iodine flask. Onc«
acidified Iodine solution has be«n poured Into
any glassware containing  cadmium sulnde
sample, the container must be  tightly stop-
pered at all tlmea except when  adding more
solution, and this must be done as quickly
and carefully aa  possible. After adding any
acidified iodine solution to the iodine flask.
allow a few minutes for absorption of the H,S
into the Iodine before  adding any further
rinses.
   4.1.3 Open the flow control valve and ad-
 just the  sampling rate to 1.13 liters per
 minute (0.04 ctm). Bead the meter temper-
 ature and record on Table 11-1.
   4.1.1 Continue sampling a minimum of 10
 minutes. If the yellow color of cadmium sul-
 fida la visible in the third Impinger, analysis
 should confirm that the applicable standard
 has been  exceeded. At the end of the sample
 time, 'close the flow control valve and read
 the final  meter volume and temperature.
   4.1.6 Disconnect  the Impinger train from
 the sampling line. Purge the train with clean
 ambient air for 15 minutes to ensure that all
 H,S is removed from the hydrogen peroxide.
 Cap the open ends and move to the sample
 clean-up  area.
   4.3 Sample recovery.
   4.2.1 Pipette 60 ml of 0.01 N iodine solution
  4.3.2 Titrate the blanks In the same man-
ner as the sampies.
  4.2.4 Follow this rinse with two more rinses
using distilled water. Add the distilled water
rinses  to the Iodine fl^my Stopper the flask
and shake well. Allow about 30 minutes for
absorption of the H,3 tato the Iodine, then
complete the analysis tltratlon,
  Caution: Keep  the  Iodine flask  stoppered
except -when adding sample or tltrant.
  4.2.5 Prepare » blank In an Iodine  flask
using 45 ml of the absorbing solution. 50 ml
of 0.01 JV  iodine  solution, and 50  ml of 10
percent HC1. Stopper the flask, shake well
and analyze with the samples.
  4.3 Analysis.
  Note: This  analysis titration should  be
conducted at the sampling location In order
to prevent loss of Iodine  from the sample.
Titration  should never be made  in  direct
sunlight.
  4.3.1 Titrate the solution In.  the flask with
0.01 N sodium tblcsulfate  solution until the
solution is light yellow. Add 4 ml of tho
starch  Indicator  solution  ttnd  continue
titrating urt.il the blue color just disappears.
   5. Calculations.
   5.1  Normality of the standard iodine solution.

                                      x,   ffrVr
                                       '    V,
where:
     Nr= normality of iodine, g-eq/liter.
     Vt= volume of iodine used, col.
     NT= normality of sodium thios\ilfate, g-eq/!iter.
     VT= volume of sodium  thiosulfate used, ml.
   6.2  Normality oj the standard thiosuljate sululion.
                                                                                                                   equation 11-1
                                                                               AV=2.04
                                                                                           _
                                                                                         VT
                                            •where:
                                                  W= weight of KiCrtOi used, g.
                                                  VT= volume of NajSj03 used, ml.
                                                  JVV=normality of standard thiosulfatc solution, g-eq/liter.
                                                2.04=converaion factor

                                                      (6 eq Ii/mote KaCr207) (1,000
                                                                       equation 11-2
                                            _
           (294.2 g AT,OjO:/mole)  (10 aliquot factor).

   5.3  Dry gas volume.  Correct the sample volume measured by the dry gas meter  to
standard conditions [2rC(70°F)] and 760 mm (20.92 Inches) Hg] by using equation 11-3.
                                                                       equation 11-3
                                            where»
     Vmjld=volume at standard conditions of gas sample through the dry  gaa meter,

               standard liters (scf).
        V».=vo)ume of gas sample through the dry gas meter {meter conditions), Liters
               (cu. ft.).
      T.id=absolute temperature at standard conditions,  294°K (530°R).
        Tm= average dry gas meter temperature, °K (°R),
      •Pb»r= barometric pressure at the orifice meter, mm Hg (In. Hg).
      P. td=absolute pressure at standard conditions, 760 mm Hg (29.02 in. Hg).
   5.4 Concentration of H2S.—Calculate the concentration of H2S  in  the gas stream at
 standard conditions using equation 11-4)
                 »^KjB                      y

 where (metric units):
      CHJB=concentration of H2S at standard conditions, mg/dscm
         K=con version factor=17.0X10J

             (34.07 g/mole H^)(l,000 l/m»)(1.000 mg/g)
           ~         (1,000 ml/1)(2HjS eq/mole)

        T/"/=volume of standard iodine solution, ml,
        W/=nomciality of standard iodine solution, g-eq/liter.
        Vr=volume of standard sodium  thiosulfate solution, ml.
        >VT=*nonnality or standard sodium thiosulfate solution, g-eq/lltet.
     VM(|d=dry gaa volume at standard conditions, liters.
                                     FEDtRAl REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. *7—FRIDAY, MAtCH 8, 197<
                                                           IV-4 4
-------
                                       RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                     9323
                            unite):
                                17.0(15.43 gr/g)
                               "   (1,000 1/m1
                6. References.
                45.1  Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide,  Ammoniacal Cadmium Chloride Method,
              API  Method 772-54. In: Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, Vol. V: Sampling
              and Analysis of Waste  Gases and Particulate Matter, American Petroleum Institute,
              Washington, D.C., 1954.
                6.2  Tentative Method for Determination  of Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercapfcan Sulfur
              in Natural Gas, Natural Gas Processors Association, Tulsa, Oklahoma, NGPA Publi-
              cation No. 2265-65,  1965.

                                    [FK Doc.74-4784 Filed 3-7-74:8:45 am)
                           FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL Jfl. MO. 47—WCAV, «4A»CH «. 1974
No. 47—Ft.
           0  .RULES AND REGULATIONS

             Title 40—Protection of Environment
              CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
                  PROTECTION AGENCY
               SU3CHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
          PART  60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
          ANCE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
          Additions and  Miscellaneous Amendments
                        Correction
           In FB Doc. 74-4784 appearing at page
          9307 as the  Part n of the issue of Friday,
          March  8,  1974,  make  the following
          changes:
           1. After the lasi line of § 60.1HCe). in-
          sert "carbon and hydrogen".
           2. In the second column on page 9317,
          what  Is now designated  as "5 61.112
          Standard for hydrocarbons", should read
          "§  60.112 Standard for hydrocarbons".
           3. In the second line of 5 60J2J (c), the
          word "allows"  should read "alloys".
           4.In §60.154:
           a. In the last  line of the formula in
          paragraph  
          should read as follows:
                {p  (Metric Unit
Cdl=(2000)^=
           OE>
                      (English Unity)
 whore:
      Cj.™ participate emission ilisclKure
           p/kg dry sludge (English unit*:
           Ib/ton dry sludge).
     10"J= Metric conversion factor. g;in^.
    2000= English conversion  factor",  Hi/
           ton.

   5. On page 9320, under paragraph 0.
 Calculation — Concentration  of   carbon
 monoxide,  In  the  second   equation
 under "where"  "''CO.vn>»" should  rend
 m:(-»/~»    »t
  t-UNLIR .
   6. In the third column on page 9321,
 in  the  ninth  line from the bottom  of
 paragraph two under "3.3.1  Sodium thi-
 osidfate solution, standard O.I N", "thoi-
 sulf ate" should read "tniosulfate".
  7. In the third column on page 9322,
 paragraph "4,3.2" should be transferred
 to appear below paragraph "4.3.1".
  8. In paragraph 5.2 on page 9322, the
last word "sulution" should read "solu-
 tion".
  9. In the formula 011 page 9323, put a
 closed parenthesis after "m"'.
                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 75—WEDNESDAY.  APRIL 17, 1974
                                               IV-45
-------
                                            RUfcES AND REGULATIONS
7  Title 40—Protection of Environment

    CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY
     SUBCHAPTEH  C—AIR PROGRAMS
 PART  6O—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

Additions and  Miscellaneous Amendments

              Correction

  In FK Doc. 74-4784 appearing at page
9307 as the Part H of the issue of Friday.
March 8,  1974. and  corrected on  page
13776  In   the  Issue  of  Wednesday,
April 17,1974. on page 13776, "paragraph
c."- should read as  follows:
  c. The  formula  In paragraph  (d)
should read as follows:
   (d) Particulate emission rate shali be
determined by:
  c«« = CaQa (Metric or English Dulls)
where:
  c.»=Partlculate  matter  mass  emissions.
        mg/hr  (English units: Ib/hr).
   c« = Partlculate   matter  concentration,
        mg/nv (English units: Ib/dscf).
   O*=Volumetrlc  stack   gas  flow   rate.
        dscm/hr  (English units: dscf/hr).
        Q* and cs  shall be determined using
         Methods 2 and 5, respectively.


FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  39, NO. 87—FRIDAY  MAY 3, 1974
                                     8        SUBCHAFTW C—AIR PROGRAMS
                                        PART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
                                        ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
                                              MfeceKaneous Amendments
                                          On December 23,1371 (38 PR 24876).
                                        •pursuant to section 111 of the dean Air
                                        Act,  as  amended., the  Administrator
                                        promulgated subpart A, General Provi-
                                        sions, and subparts D. E, F, O, and H
                                        which set forth standards of performance
                              for new and modified facilities within
                              five categories of stationary sources: (1)
                              Fossil fuel-flred steam generators, (2)
                              Incinerators. (3) Portland cement plants,
                              (•4) nitric  acid plants, and (5)  sulfurtc
                              acid plants. Corrections to these stand-
                              ards were published, on July 28,1972 (37
                              FB 14877), and on May 23, 1973 (38 FR
                              13562).  On October 15. 1973  (38 FB
                              28564). the Administrator amended sub-
                              part  A, General Provisions, by adding
                              provisions to regulate compliance with.
                              standards of performance during startup,
                              shutdown, and maLf unction. On March 8,
                              1974  (39 FB 9308), the Administrator
                              promulgated Subparts I,  J. K, L, M, N.
                              and O which set forth standards of per-
                              formance for new and modified  facilities
                              within seven  categories of  stationary
                              sources: (1-) Asphalt concrete plants, (2)
                              petroleum refineries, (3)  storage vessels
                              for petroleum  liquids,   (4>  secondary
                              lead smelters, (5) brass and bronze ingot
                              production plants,  (6)  Iron and steel
                              plants, and (7) sewage treatment plants,
                              In the same publication, the Administra-
                              tor also promulgated amendments  to
                              subpart A. General Provisions. Correc-
                              tions to these standards  were published
                              on April 17, 1374 (39 FB 13776).
                                Subpart D. E. F. a, and H are revised
                              below to be consistent with the October
                              15,1973, and March. 8,1974, amendments
                              to subpart A. At the same time, changes
                              in wording are made to clarity the regu-
                              lations. These amendments do not mod-
                              ify the  control  requirements  of- the
                              standards of performance.  Also, to- be
                              consistent with the Administrator's pol-
                              icy of converting to the metric system,
                              the standards of performance and other
                              numerical entries, which were originally
                              expressed in English units, are converted
                              to metric units. Some of the numerical
                              entries are rounded after conversion  to
                              metric units. It should be noted that the
                              numerical  entries  in   the  reference
                              methods in the appendix win be changed
                              to metric units at  a later date.
                                The new source performance standards
                              promulgated March 8,. 1974, applicable
                              to petroleum storage  vessels.  Included
                              within, their  coverage storage vessels  in
                              the 40,000 to 65,000  gallon size range.
                              The preamble  to  that publication dis-
                              cussed the fact that vessels of  that siw-
                              had not been included in  the  proposed
                              rule, and set forth the reasons  for their
                              subsequent inclusion. However, through
                              oversight, nothing was set forth in the
                              regulations or preamble prescribing the
                              effective date  of  the standards  as  to
                              vessels within the 40,000  to 63,000 gallon
                              range.
                                 Section ltl(a) (2) of trie Act specifies
                              that onlr a source for which construc-
                              tion I* commenced after the date  on
                              which a pertinent new source  standard
                              is prescribed is subject to ^be  standard
                              unless the source  was  covered by the
                              standard as  proposed. In this  case, the
                              date of prescription or promulgation of
                              the standard is clearly the operative date
                              since there was no proposal date. Ac-
                              cordingly, 5 60.1 is amended  below^ to
                              conform to the language of section 111
                               (a) (2),  and an  persons  are advised
                              hereby that the provisions of Part  60
ROIRAl
VOU S9, NO.-
                                                                        JUNf-14, W4
                                                     IV-4 6
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                      20791
promulgated  March  8,  1974,  apply  to
storage vessels for petroleum liquids In
the 40,000 to 65,000 gallon size range for
which construction Is commenced on or
after that date.
  On March 8,1974, 5 60.7 and 60.51(a) are re-
vised to eliminate the requirement that a
unit have a "primary"  purpose.  This
change is  Intended to  prevent circum-
vention of a standard by simply defining
the primary  purpose  of a unit as some-
thing other  than steam production  or
reducing the volume of solid waste.
  Ill  J 60.46,  A.S.TJM. Methods D2015-
66 (Reapproved 1672),  D240-64 (Eeap-
proved 1973), andD1826-64 (Keapproved
1970) are specified for measuring heat-
Ing value. Prior to this  issue no method
was  specified for determining  heating
value.
  The phrase "maximum  2-hour aver-
age" in the  standards  of performance
prescribed in  §1 60.42, 60.52, 60.62, 60.72,
and  60.82  is  deleted. Concurrently,  in
§§ 60.46, 60.54, 60.64, and 60.85 the sam-
pling time requirements for particulate
matter and acid mist are changed from a
minimum of 2 hours to a minimum of 60
minutes per run. The phrase "maximum
2-hour average" is not consonant  with
§ 60.8(f)  which requires that compliance
be determined by averaging the results of
three  runs.  Results  from perlcrmance
tests  conducted  at power plants  and
other sources have not  shown any de-
crease In the accuracy  or  precision  of
1-hour samples as compared with 2-hour
samples, and therefore  the extra hour
required to sample for  2  hours is not
justified. The time interval between sam-
ples  for  eulfur  dioxide  and  nitrogen
oxides was originally  established so that
one run would be completed at approx-
imately the same time as the particulate
matter run. To  maintain this relation-
ship, the sampling Intervals specified In
1160.46 and 60.74 are shortened to be
consistent  with  the  60-minute-per-run
requirement.
  The requirement prescribed In J $ 60.46,
60.64, 60.74 and 60.85 for using  "suit-
able flow meters" for measuring fuel and
product flow rates is deleted. Such meters
may be used if available, but other suit-
able methods of determining- the flow
rate of  fuel or product during the test
period may also be used.
  A procedure specifying how to allow for
carbon dioxide absorption In a wet scrub-
ber and a  formula for correcting par-
ticulate matter  emissions to a basis of
12 percent  CO3 are added to J  60.54.
  In anticipation of  adding  other ap-
pendices, the  present appendix to Part
60 is being  retitled "Appendix A—Refer-
ence Methods."  The  definitions of  "ref-
erence method" and "partlculate matter"
are amended to be consistent  with this
change.
  In the regulations In Subpart K set-
ting forth the performance standard lor
storage vessels for petroleum liquids, the
definition of "crude  petroleum" was to
have been changed to be consistent with
the definition of "petroleum" in Subpart
J. This change was  Inadvertently not
made in 39 FR 9308 and thus 55 60.110
and 60.111  are  amended by  replacing
the  term   "crude  petroleum"   with
"petroleum."
  The remaining structural and  word-
Ing changes are made for purposes of
clarification.
  On June 29, 1973, the  TJ.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia re-
manded to EPA for further consideration
the new source  performance standards
for Portland  cement  plants.  Portland
Cement Association v.  Ruckelshaus, 48G
F.2d 375. On  September 10,  1973, the
some  Court remanded to 7TPA for fur-
ther consideration the new source per-
formance standards  for  sulfuric  acid
plants and  coal-fired steam electric gen-
erators. Essex  Chemical Co. v. Ruckels-
haus,  486 F.2d 427. The Agency has not
completed its consideration with respect
to  the  remanded  standards.   These
amendments are not intended  to consti-
tute a response  to the remands. At the
time the Agency completes its considera-
tion with respect to the remanded stand-
ards, it  will publicly  announce its  deci-
sion and at that time if any revisions ol
the standards are  deemed necessary or
desirable, will  make such revisions.
  These actions  are effective on June 14,
1974. The Agency finds good ce.use exists
for not publishing these actions as a no-
tice of  proposed  rulemaking and for
making them effective immediately upon
publication for the following reasons:
  1. These  actions are intended for clar-
ification and for maintaining consistency
throughout the regulations. They are not
intended to alter the  substantive  con-
tent of the regulations.
  2. Immediate  effectiveness of the ac-
tions enables the sources involved to pro-
ceed with certainty in conducting  their
affairs, and persons wishing to seek. Ju-
dicial review oi the actions may do M>
without delay.
(42 TJJ3.C, 1867 (e) (6) tad (6))

  Dated:  June 10,1974.
                    JOHN QUARLJSS,
                Acting Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1.  Section  60.1 IB revised to read as
follows:
§60.1   Applicabailjv
  The  provisions of this part apply to
the owner or operator of any stationary
source  which contains an affected fa-
cility the construction or modification of
•which  is commenced alter the date of
publication in this part of any standard
(or, if  earlier, the date of publication of
emy  proposed  standard)  applicable to
such facility.
  2.  Section 50.2 is amended by revising
paragraphs (s) and (v) a5 follows:
§ 60.2   Definitions.
    *      *      •      •      •
   (s) "Reference  method" means  any
method of sampling and analysing for
an air pollutant  as described  to  Ap-
pendix A to this part.
    •      »      •      •      •
  (v) "Particulate  matter"  means  any
finely  divided -solid  or liquid material,
other than uncomblned water, as meas-
ured by Method 5 of Appendix A to this
part or an  equivalent or alternative
method.
    •      •      •      •      *
  3.  Section  60.40  is revised to read as
follows:
§ 60.40  Applicability ami designation of
     affected facility.
  The  provisions of Oils subpart are ap-
plicable to each fossil fuel-fired steam
generating unit of  more than 63  million
kcal per hour heat input (250 million Btu
per hour), which is the affected facility.
Any  change  to  an existing fossil fuel-
fired steam generating unit to accommo-
date the use of combustible materials,
other than fossil fuels as defined In  this
subpart, shall not bring: that unit under
the applicability of this subpart.
  4.  Section 80.41 is amended by deleting
"primary" In paragraph  (a), revising
paragraph (b), and deleting  paragraph
(c). As amended, § 60.41 reads as follows:
§ 60.41  Definitions.
' As used in this subpart, all terms not
denned herein  shall have the meaning
given them in the Act,  and in subpart A
of this  part.
  (a) "Fossil fucl-flred steam generat-
ing unit" means a furnace or boiler used
In the  process of burning fossil fuel for
the purpose of producing steam by beat
transfer.
  (b) "Fossil fuel" means  natural gas,
petroleum, coal, and any form of solid.
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from such
materials for the purpose of creating use-
ful heat.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39,  NO.  116—FRIDAY, JUNE M,  1974
-------
20792
            RULES AND REGULATIONS
  5. Section 60.42 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 60.42  Standard for pardenLrte matter.
  (a)  On and after- the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by S 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any affected
facility any gases which:
  (1)  Contain participate matter in ex-
cess of 0.18 g per million cal heat input
(0.10 Ib  per million Btu)  derived  from
fossil f ueL
  (2)  Exhibit  greater than 20 percent
opacity except that a  maximum  of 40
percent opacity shall be permissible for
not more t>»«"> 2  minutes in. any hour.
Where the presence of uncombined water
is the only reason for failure to meet the
requirements  of  this  paragraph,  such
failure will not be a violation at this sec-
tion.
  8. Section 60.43 Is revised to read as
follows:
§ 60.43  Standard for ml/ax dioxide.
  (a> On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by S 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any affected
facility any gases which contain sulfur
dioxide In  excess of:
  (1)  1.4 g per million cal heat input
 C0.80 Ib per million Btu)  derived  from
liquid fossil fuel.
  (2)  2.2 g per million cal beat Input
 (1.2 Ib per million  Btu)  derived  from
solid fossil fuel.
  (b)  When  different  fossil fuels are
burned simultaneously  In any combina-
tion, the- applicable standard shall  be
determined by proratlon using the fol-
lowing formula:
              jr(1.4)+z(2.2)

                  y+*
 where:
  y Is  the percentage of total heat laput de-
      rived from liquid fomtt fu«t, and
  z la  tb» percentage-of total beat Inpnt de-
       rived from wild 106811 fart.
   (c)  Compliance shall be based on the
 total  heat  Input from all  fossil  fuel»
 burned. Including gaseous fuels.
  7. Section 60.44 Is revised to read a*
 follows:
 S 60.44-  Standard for nitrogen oxide*.
   (a) On  and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by i 60.3. is. completed, no owner
 or operator subject to  the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the atmosphere from any affected
 facility  any gases which, contain nitro-
 gen oxides, expressed aa NO, In excess of:
   (1) 0.36 g per million cal heat  Input
 (0.20 Ib per minion Btu) derived from.
 gaseous fossil fuel.
    (2) 0.54 g per million cal heat Input
 (0.30 Ib per  mutton Bto> derived trout.
 liquid foasflftwL
         (3)  1.26 g per million cal heat input
       (0.70 Ib per million Btu) derived  from.
       solid fossil fuel (except lignite) .
         (b) When different  fossil fuels are
       burned simultaneously In any combina-
       tion, the applicable  standard shall be
       determined  by  proratlon. Compliance
       shall be determined by using the follow-
       ing formula:
                      x+y+z
       where:
         2 la the percentaga of total beat Input de-
            rived Irom gaseous fossil fuel,
         y la the percentage of total beat Input de-
            rived from lUjuld fossil fuel, and
         t It the percentage of total heat Input de-
            rived  from, solid fossil  fuel  (except
            lignite).

       $ 60.45   [Amended]
         8.  Section 60.45 Is amended by delet-
       ing and reserving paragraph (f).
         9.  Section 60.45 is revised to read sa
       follows:
       § 60.46   Teal method* and procedures.
          (a) The reference methods  in  Ap-
       pendix A to this part, except aa provided
       for In § 60.80>), shall be used to deter-
       mine compliance with  the standards
       prescribed  in  §5 60.42, €0.43, and  60.44
       as follows:
          (1) Method 1 for sample  and velocity
       traverses;
          (2) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
       metric flow rate;
          (3) Method 3 for gas analysis;
          (4) Method 5 for the concentration of
       participate matter and  the associated
       moisture con tent;
          (5> Method 6  for the concentration
       of SO,; and
          (6) Method 7  for the concentration
       Of NO*.
          (b) For Method 5, the sampling time
       for each run shall be  at least 60  mln-
       trtes and the  minimum  sample  volume
       shall be 0.85  dscm  (30.0 dscf) except
       that sntftfler sampling ttnes or sample
       volumes, when necessitated by  process
       variables or other factors,  may be  ap-
       proved  by the- Administrator.
          (c) For Methods 6 and 7, the sampling
       site shall be the same as that for deter-
       mining volumetric flow rate. The sam-
       pling point in the duct shall be at the
       centroid of the cross section or  at a
       point no closer to the wans than  1 m
       (3.28 ft).
          (d) For Method 6. the minimum sam-
       pling- time shall be 20 minutes and the
       minimum sample  volume, shall  be 0.02
       dscm  (0.71 dscf) except that  smaller
       sampling times or sample volumes, when
       necessitated  by  process variables or
       other factors, may be approved by the
       Administrator. The sample  shall be ex-
       tracted at a rate proportional to the gas
       velocity at the  sampling  point.  The
       arithmetic average of two samples shall
       constitute  one run. Samples shall be
       taken  »at  approximately   30-minute
       intervals.
          (e) For Method 7, each run shall con-
       flict  of at least four grab samples taken
at  approximately 15-mlnute. • Intervals,
The arithmetic mean  of  the samples
shall  constitute- the run  values.
  CO  Heat input, expressed in cal per
hr  (Btu/hr), shall be determined dur-
ing each testing period by multiplying
the heating value of  the fuel by the
rate of fuel burned. Heating value shall
be  determined  in  accordance-  with
AJ5.T.M. Method D2015-66 (Reapproved
1972). D240-64 (Reapproved 1973),  or
D1826-64 (Reapproved  1970). The rate
of fuel burned during each testing period
shall be determined by suitable methods,
and shall  be confirmed by  a. material
balance  over  the  steam  generation
system.
  (g)  For each run, emissions expressed
in g/milllon cal shall be determined  by
dividing the emission rate in g/hr  by
the- heat input. The emission rate shall
be determined  by the  equation  g/hr=
Qs  x  c  where- Q3=volumetric flow rate
of the total effluent in dscm/hr as deter-
mined for  each run In  accordance witJx
paragraph (a) (2) of this  section.
  (1)  For partlculate matter, c=partlc-
ulate  concentration in g/dscm. as deter-
mined  Jn  accordance  with paragraph
(a) (4)  of  this  section.
  (2)  For  SOj» c=SO3 concentration In.
g/dscm, as  determined in  accordance
with, paragraph (a) (5)  cf this section.
  (3)  For NOx, c=NOx  concentration in
g/dscm,  as-  determined m  accordance
with paragraph (a) (8)  of this section.
  10.  Section 60.50 Is revised to read as
follows:
§ 60.50  Applicability- and designation of
    affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to each incinerator of more than
45  metric  tons per day charging rate
(50 tons/day)„ which  is  the affected
facility.

§ 60.51  [Amended!
  11.  Section, GO.51 is  amended by strik-
ing the  word  "primary"  in paragraph
(a) and by deleting, paragraph (d).
  12.  Section 60.52 Is  revised to read
as follows i
§ 60.52  Standard for paniculate matter.
  (a) On  and  after the date on whtch
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by  § 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this part shall cause to  be discharged
into the atmosphere  from any affected
facility any gases which  contain par-
tlculate matter in excess of 0.18 g/dscm
(0.08  gr/dscf>  corrected  to 12 percent
CO..
  13.  Section. 60.53 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 6O.53  Monitoring of operation*.
  (a) The owner or operator of any in-
cinerator subject to the provisions of this
part shaD record the dafly charging rates
and hours of operation.
  14.  Section 60.54 is revised to read as
follows:
IfOHAL U6MTB. VOL, 3»,. NO.
                                                                             M. )»74
                                                      IV-48
-------
                                             Rt/tES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        20793
§ 60.54   Test methods anrf procedure*.
  (a) The  reference  methods  in Ap-
pendix A to this part, except as provided
for in i 60.£(bJ, sha!1  be  used to deter-
mine compliance with the standard pre-
scribed in § 60.52 as follows:
  (1) Method 5 for the concentration of
particulate  matter and  the  associated
moisture content;
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses;
  (3) Method 2 for velocity  and volu-
metric flow rate; and
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis and cal-
culation  of  excess  air, using the inte-
grated sample technique.
  (b)' For Method 5, the  sampling time
for each run shall be at least 60 minutes
and the minimum  sample volume shall
be  0.85  dscm  (30.0 dscf)  except  that
smaller  sampling times or sample vol-
umes, when necessitated by process vari-
ables or other factors,  may be approved
by the Administrator.
  (c) If a wet scrubber is used, the gas
analysis sample shall reflect flue gas con-
ditions after the scrubber, allowing for
carbon dioxide absorption by sampling
the gas on the scrubber inlet and outlet
sides according  to either  the procedure
under paragraphs (c) (1) through (c) (5)
of this section or the procedure under
paragraphs  (c)U), (c) (2) and  (c) (6)
o» this section as follows:
  (1) The outlet sampling site shaH be
the same as for the particulate matter
measurement.  The inlet  site shall be
selected according  to  Method J_  or as
specified by the Administrator.
  (2) Randomly select 9 sampling points
within the cross-section at both the inlet
and cratlet sampling sites. Use the first
set  of three for the first run, the second
set  for the second run,  and the third set
for the third ran.
  •(3) Simultaneously  with,  each par-
ticulate matter run, extract and analyze
for  CO. an Integrated gas sample accord-
ing to Method 3,  traversing  the three
sample points  and sampling  at each.
point for equal Increments of time. Con-
duct the runs at both Inlet and outlet
sampling-sites.
  (4) Measure the  volumetric flow rate
at the Inlet during each particulate mat-
ter  run according to Method 2, using the
full number of traverse points. For the
inlet make two full velocity traverses ai>-
proximately one hour apart during each
run and average the results. The outlet
volumetric flow rate may  be determined
from  the  particulate   matter  run
(MethodS).
  (5) Calculate the adjusted CO> per-
centage  using  the  following  equation:
     (% CO).«!=(% C0l)«l ((Ju/Q«.)
where:
  (% COi)i«) is  the adjusted OCX percent&ga
             which removes the effect ol
             COi absorption and dilution
             air.
  (% CO.) ii  Is the percentaga ct COi meas-
             ured before the scrubber, dry
             basis,
             the. volumetric flow rtta bo-
             lore the scrubber, average ol
             two runs, dscf/mln (using
             Method 2). and
         Qiolt the volumetric flow rate after
              the scrubber, dscf/mla  (us-
              ing Methods 2 find 5'}

   (6) Alternatively, the following pro-
cedures may be substituted for the pro-
cedures under  paragraphs (c)  (3),  (4)..
and (5) of this sections
   (i) Simultaneously with each particu-
late matter run, extract and analyze for
COj, O,, and N; an integrated eas sample
according  to Method 3, traversing  the"
three, sample points and  sampling for
equivi increments of time at each  point.
Conduct the runs at both  the  inlet  and
outlet sampling sites.
   (ii) After completing the analysis of
the gas sample, calculate the percentage
of excess air < % EA) for both the inlet
and outlet sampling sites using equation
3-1 In Appendix A to this part.
   (Ui)  Calculate the adjusted  CO, per-
centage  using  the  following  equation:
L.100-K%EM.
          . = t% cop,.

where :
  (% CO±)i«i Is the adjusted outlet COi per-
              centage,
  (% CO2)ai  la the percentage ot COi mens-
              ured before the scrubber, dry
              basis,
  (% EA) i   Is the percentage or excess  air
              at the Inlet, and
  <% EA),   Is the percentage of exceos  air
              Bt the outlet.

  (d) Particulate matter emissions, ex-
pressed in g/dscm, sliall be corrected to
12 percent COi by using the following
formula:
                    12c
•where:
                    : COj
  Ci»    Is the concentration of particrzlat*
          matter corrected  to  12  percent
          CO,,
  c     IE tho concentration, of parUculut*
          matter as measured by Method 5.
          nad
  % COi Is tb» percentage of CO* as meas-
          ured  by  Method 3, or when ap-
          plicable, the adjusted outlet COr
          percentage  as determined  by
          paragraph (c)  or  thte  section.

§ 60.61   [Amended!

  15. Section 60.61 Is amended by delet-
ing paragraph  (b).
  16. Section 60.62 is revised to read as
follows:

§ 60.62  Standard for participate  mutter.

  (a)  On and  after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by I 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator  subject to the provisions ol
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any kiln any
gases which:
  (1)  Contain particulate matter in ex-
cess of 0.15 kg  per metric  ton of feed
(dry basis) to the  kiln (0.30 Ib per ton).
  (2)  Exhibit greater than  10 percent
opacity.
  (b)  On and after the date on which.
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator  subject to the provisions of
this subpart shaE cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere  fron: any clinker
 cooler any gases which:
   (1)  Contain particulate matter in ex-
 cess of 0.050  kg per metric ton of feed
 (dry basis) to the Bin (0.10 Ib per ton).
   (2)  Exhibit 10  percent opacity,  or
 greater.
   (c)  On and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by § 60.8 is completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere from  any affected
 facility other than the kiln and clinker
 cooler any gases which exhibit 10 percent
 opacity, or greater.
   (d)  Where the  presence  of  uncom-
 bined water is the only reason for failure
 to meet the requirements of paragraphs
 (a) (2), (b) (2), and (c), such failure will
 not be  a violation  of this section.
   17. Section 60.63 Is  revised  to read as
 follows:
 § 60.63  Monitoring of operations.
   (a)  The owner  or  operator   of  any
 Portland cement plant subject to the pro-
 visions of this part  shall record the daily
 production rates and kiln feed rates.
  .18.  Section  60.64 is revised to read as
 follows:
 § 60.64  Test methods  and procedures,
   (a)  The reference methods  in Appen-
 dix A to Uiis part, except as provided for
 in § G0.8(b). shall be used to  determine
 compliance with  the standards  pre-
 scribed in § 60.62 as follows:
   (1)  Method 5 for the concentration
 of particulate matter and the  associated
 moisture content;
   (2)  Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses;
   (3)  Method 2  for velocity  and volu-
 metric flow rate; and
   (4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (b) For Method 5, the miniaium sam-
 pling time and minimum sample volume
 for each run, except when process varia-
 bles or other factors justify otherwise to
 the satisfaction  of the Administrator,
 shall be as follows:
   (1)  60  minutes and 0.85 dscm (30.0
 dscf) for the kiln,
   (2)  60  minutes and 1.15 dscm (40.6
 dscf) for the clinker cooler.
   (c)  Total kiln feed rate (except fuels),
 expressed in metric tons per hour on a
 dry basis, shail  be determined during
 each testing period by  suitable methods;
 and shall be confirmed  by a material bal-
 ance over the production system,
   (d)  Por each run, particulate matter
 emissions,  expressed in r/metrlc ton of
 kiln feed, shall be determined by divid-
 ing the emission rate in g/hr by the kiUi
 feed rate. The  emission rate shall  bu
 determined by the  equation, g/hr=C?.
-------
20794
      RULES  AMD  REGULATIONS
§ 60.72  Standard for liilrogi PI oxides.
  (a) On and  after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 Ls completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
(•his subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere  from any affected
facility any gases which:
  (1) Contain   nitrogen   oxides,   ex-
pressed as NO.-, In excess of 1.5 kg  per
metric ton of acid produced  (3.0 Ib  per
ton), the production  being expressed as
100 percent nitric acid.
  (2) Exhibit  10  percent  opacity,  or
greater. Where the presence  of uncom-
bined water is the only reason for failure
to meet  the requirements of this para-
graph, such failure will not  be a viola-
tion of this section.
§60.73  [Amended]
  20. Section 60.73 is  amended by delet-
ing and  reserving  paragraph (d).
  21. Section 60.74 Is revised to read as
follows:
§ 60.74  Teat mot)io<]> iitirf procedure.*.
  (a) The reference methods in Appen-
dix A to this part,  except as provided for
in { 60.8(b), shall  be  used to determine
compliance with the standard prescribed
in § 60.72 as follows:
  (1) Method 7 for the concentration of
NO.:
  <2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses;
  (3) Method 2 for velocity and  volu-
metric flow rate; and
  (4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
  (b) For Method 7, the sample site shall
be selected  according to Method 1 and
the sampling point shall be the centroid
of the stack or duct or at a point no
closer to the walls than 1 m (3.28 ft).
Each run shall  consist of  at least four
grab samples taken at approximately  15-
mlnutes  Intervals.  The arithmetic mean
of the samples shall  constitute the run
value.  A velocity traverse shall  be per-
formed once per run.
    Acid mist and sulfur  dioxide emis-
sions, expressed In  g/metric ton of 100
percent H^O,, shall  be determined by
dividing the emission  rate In g/hr by the
acid production rate. The emission rate
shall  be determined by the equation,
g/hr=Q.Xc/ where Q, — volumetric flow
rate of the effluent in dscm/hr as deter-
mined in  accordance with  paragraph
(a) (3) of this section, and c—-acid mist
and SO,  concentrations in  g/dscm  as
determined  in accordance  with  para-
graph (a)(l) of this section.
§60.110  Uimwlcd]
  27. Section  60.110(b) is  amended  by
striking the words "the crude."
  28. In  §60.111, paragraphs (b). (d).
efniilion»i.
     •      »      •      •       4
  ib) "Petroleum liquids" means petro-
leum, condens.itc, and any finished  or
Intermediate products manufactured  In
a petroleum refinery but does not mean
Number 2  through Number  6 fuel oils
as  specified  in A.S.T.M.  D396-R9, gns
turbine fuel oils Numbers 2-GT through
4-GT as specified in A.S.T.M. D2880-71.
or diescl fuel oils  Numbers  2-D and 4-D
as specified in A.S.T.M. D975-68.
     •      •      *      •       •
  
-------
                                           RULES AND REGULATIONS
 Title 40—Protection of the Environment
             (FRL 385-2]

    CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION  AGENCY
     SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART 52—APPROVAL AND  PROMULGA-
  TION  OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
  ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS  AIR POLLU-
  TANTS
      Region V Office: New Address

  The Region V Office of EPA has been
relocated. The new address  is: EPA, Re-
gion V, Federal Building, 230 South Dear-
born, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This change
revises Region V's office  address appear-
ing In §5 52.16, 60.4 and  61.04 of Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations.

  Dated: October 21, 1974.

                ROGER STRELOW,
        Assistant Administrator for
          Air and Waste Management.

  Parts 52, 60 and 61, Chapter I, Title 40
of the Code  of Federal  Regulations arc
amended as follows:

§§ 52.16, 60.4, 61.04   [Amended]

  1. The address of the Region V office Is
revised  to read:
Heglon V (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio,
  Wisconsin)   Federal Building, 230  Soutn
  Dearborn, CnScago, Ullnols  60608.
 [FE Doc.74r-24919 Filed 10-24-74;8:45 ami
    FEOEPAl REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. JOft-


       -FRIDAY, OCTOBER 35, 1974
10
                                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 219-


                                               -TUESDAV, NOVEMBER 13,  197*
     Title 40—Protection of the Environment
        CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
            PROTECTION AGENCY
         SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
                 [FBi 291-6]

    PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
    ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
              Opacity Provisions
     On June 29, 1973,  the  United  States
    Court of Appeals  for the District of
    Columbia In "Portland Cement Associa-
    tion v. Ruckelshaus," 486 F. 2d 375  (1973)
    remanded to EPA the standard of per-
    formance for Portland cement plants (40
    CFR 60.60 et seq.) promulgated by EPA
    under section  111 of the Clean Air Act.
    In the remand, the Court directed EPA to
    reconsider  among other things the use
    of the opacity standards.  EPA has pre-
    pared a response to the remand. Copies
    of this response are available from the
    Emission  Standards  and Engineering
    Division,   Environmental   Protection
    Agency,  Research  Triangle Park, N.C.
    27711, Attn: Mr. Don R. Goodwin. In de-
    veloping the response, EPA collected and
    evaluated a substantial amount of In-
    formation which is summarized and ref-
    erenced In the response. Copies of  this
    information are available  for inspection
    during normal  office hours at EPA's Office
    of Public Affairs,  401  M Street  SW.,
    Washington. D.C. EPA determined that
    the  Portland  cement  plant  standards
    generally did not require revision but did
    not find that  certain revisions are ap-
    propriate  to  the  opacity  provisions of
    the standards. The provisions  promul-
    gated herein include a revision to § 60.11,
    Compliance with Standards and Mainte-
    nance  Requirements,  a revision to the
    opacity standard for Portland cement
    plants, and revisions to Reference  Meth-
    od 9. The bases for the revisions are dis-
    cussed in detail in the Agency's response
    to the remand. They are summarized
    below.
     The revisions to 5 60.1] Include the
    modification of paragraph tb)  and the
    addition of paragraph (e).  Paragraph
    (b)  has  been revised to  indicate thnt
    while Reference Method 9 remains the
    primary and accepted means for  deter-
    mining compliance  with opacity stand-
    ards in this  part,  EPA will accept as
    probative evidence hi certain situations
    and under certain conditions the results
    of continuous monitoring by transmis-
    someter to determine whether a violation
    has in fact occxirred. The revision  makes
    clear that even In such  situations the
    results of opacity readings by Method 9
    remain presumptively valid and correct.
     The provisions in paragraph (e) pro-
    vide a mechanism for n,n owner  or op-
    erator to petition  the Administrator  to
    establish an opacity standard for  an af-
    fected facility wher" such facility meets
    all applicable standards for which a per-
    formance test Is conducted under § 60.8
    but  fails to meet an applicable opacity
    standard. This provision is intended pri-
    marily to apply to cases where a  source
    Installs a very large diameter stack which
    causes the opacity of the emissions to be
                                                     IV-51
-------
                                            RULES AND T.EOULATIONS
                                                                       39873
greater than IT 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
nffected facility could fall to meet opacity
standards while meeting  mass emission
standards, .although no such situations
are expected to occur.
  .A revision to the opacity standard for
Portland cement plants is promulgated
herein. The revision changes the opacity
limit lor kilns from 10 percent to 20 per-
cent. This  revision  is  based tm 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 *re applicable  to the same
source, the mass/concentration stand-
ards are  established at  a level which
•will result in 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 Wins 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 (talcing costs into ac-
count)  while eliminating  or minimising
the situations where it  will be necessary
to  promulgate a new  opacity  standard
tinder § 60.1 He).
  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
•f 7.5  percent based upon single sets of
the average of 24 readings. The revisions
to  Reference  Method fl 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-
cuires averaging 24 readings taken at 15-
second Intervals.  The purpose for taking
24,  readings is both to extend the averag-
ing tine orer which the observations are
made, and to take sufficient readings to
inrure .acceptable accuracy.
  3. ilore  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.
  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 plurne
lias dissipated.
  €. Speciacations  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
iaken into account the comments re-
ceived in response to the September 11,
1974  (39 FR 35852) notice  of proposed
rulemaking 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 fl.
  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 CFR 60J02 and nu-
merous opacity standards in  State Im-
plementation plans specify various time
exceptions. Many State and local air pol-
lution control  agencies use a different
approach in 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
in applying the opacity standards than
this revision to Method 9. It is'EPA's In-
tent to propose an additional revision to
Method  9 specifying  an   alternative
method to enforce opacity standards. It
is our intent that this method specify &
minimum number of readings that must
be taken, such as a minimum of ten read-
ings above  the standard in any one hour
period prior to citing a violation. EPA Is
in the process of analyzing available data
and determining the «TOT Involved In
reading opacity In this manner and wCl
propose this revision to Method 9 as soon
as this snalysis Is completed. The Agency
solicits comments and recommendations
on the need for this additional revision to
Method 9 and would -welcome any sug-
gestions particularly from air pollution
control agencies on how we'might make
Method 9 more responsive to the needs ol
these agencies.
  These actions are  effective on Novem-
ber 12, 1974. The Agency finds good cause
exists lor -not publishing these actions
as a notice of proposed rulemaking and
for making them  effective  immediately
-upon  publication   for   the following
reasons:
   CD Only minor amendments are be-
ing made to the opacity standards which
were remanded.
   C2) The UJS. 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 filial determination -with re-
spect to the basic issues involving opacity
at this time in order to  properly respond
to this Issue -with respect to snch other
litigation.
   These regulations  are issued under the
authority of sections 111  and 114 .of the
Clean Air Act.  as amended (42 TF.S.C.
1857c-6and9).
   Dated: November 1,1C74.
                     JOHN QCARLES,
                Acting Administrator.

   Part 60 of Chapter 1.  Title 40  of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
   1. Section 60.11 Is amended by revis-
ing paragraph (b)  and adding paragraph
, reading as follows:
§ 60.11  Compliance with Flandards «tid
     maintenance requirements.
     •       •       •      «      »
   (b) Compliance -with  opacity stand-
ards in this part shall be determined by
conducting  observations  in accordance
with Reference Method  9  in Appendix
A of this  part. Opacity readings of por-
tions of plumes which contain condensed,
uncombined  water  vapor shall  not be
used for purposes of determining com-
pliance with opacity standards. The re-
sults of continuous monitoring by trans-
missometer which   indicate that  the
opacity at the time visual  observations
were made was not In  excess  of the
standard  are probative  but not con-
clusive evidence of the  actual opacity of
an emission,  provided  that the  source
shall meet the harden of proving that the
Instrument used meets (at the tune of
the  alleged   violation)    Performance
Specification  1  in Appendix E of  this
part, has'been properly maintained and
(at  the time  of the alleged violation)
calibrated, and  that the resulting data
have not been tempered -with to any way.
     •      •       •       •      •
   (e) (1) An owner or operator of an af-
fected facility may  request the Admin-
                             FEOFRAl REGISTER, VOL  39, NO. 21?—TUESDAY, NOVEMBEft 13, 1974

                                                      IV-5 2
-------
39874
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
Istrator to  determine  opacity of  emls-
sions from  the affected facility during
the initial performance tests required by
y 60.8.
   (.2)  Upon receipt from such owner or
operator of  the written report of the re-
sults of the performance tests  required
by  3 60.S, the  Administrator_.will  make
A  iindlng concerning  compliance  with
opacity and other  applicable standards.
If the  Administrator finds  that an af-
fected  facility  is in compliance with  all
applicable standards for which perform-
ance tests are  conducted in accordance
with I 60.8  of  this part but during the
time  such performance  tests are  being
conducted falls to meet any applicable
opacity . standard,  he  shall notify  the
owner or operator and advise him that he
may petition the Administrator within
10 days of receipt of notification to make
appropriate  adjustment to  the  opacity
standard for the affected facility.
   (3)  The Administrator will grant such
a petition upon a demonstration by the
owner  or operator  that the  affected fa-
culty and associated air pollution  con-
trol  equipment was operated and main-
tained  In a manner  to minimize  the
opacity of emissions during the perform-
ance tests;  that the  performance  testa
were performed under the conditions es-
tablished by the Administrator; and that
the  affected facility and associated air
pollution,  control  equipment were  in-
capable of being  adjusted or operated to
meet the applicable opacity standard.
   (4)  The  Administrator will establish
an opacity  standard  for  the  affected
facility meeting the  above requirements
at a level at  which the source will  be
able, as  indicated  by  the  performance
and opacity tests,  to meet  the  opacity
standard at all times during which the
source  is meeting the mass or concentra-
tion  emission  standard.  The Adminis-
trator  will promulgate  the  new  opacity
standard In the FEDERAL REGISTER.
  2. In 5 60.62, paragraph (a) (2)  Is re-
vised to read as follows:
§ 60.62  Standard for paniculate matter.
   (a)   •  • •
   (2)  Exhibit  greater than 20 percent
opacity.
   3. Appendix A—Reference Methods Is
amended by revising  Reference Method
9 as follows:
      fa/reams. A.—REFERENCE METHODS
 METHOD 8	VISUAL DFTEHMINATIOtJ  OF  THE
  OPACITY  or  ruissioNS  raoM  STATIONARY
  SOT7UCE3
  Many stationary sources discharge visible
 emissions Into tie atmosphere; these emis-
 sions are usually  In the shape of a plume.
 This method  Involves the determination of
 plume  opacity by qualified  observers.  The
 method Includes procedures for the training
 and certification of observers, and procedures
 to be used In the  field for determination of
 plume opacity. The appearance of a plume as
 viewed  by an observer depends upon a num-
 ber  of variables, some of which may be con-
 trollable and eome  of  which may  not be
 controllable In the field. Variables which can
 be controlled  «o an extent to which they no
longer exert *  significant  Influence. upon.
plume appearance Include: Angle of toe ob-
server with respect to the plume; angle of th«
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. The
method Includes  specific criteria applicable
to these variables.
  Other variables which may not be control-
lable In the field are luminescence and color
contrast  between the plume and the back-
ground against which the plume Is viewed.
These variables exert an Influence upon the
appearance of a plume aa  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 lesa 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  less
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 769  seta of
25 readings each are as follows:
  e  opacity  of  emissions
from stationary  sources Is determined vis-
ually by a qualified observer.
  1.2 Applicability. This  method la  appli-
cable for the determination of the opacity
of emissions  from stationary  sources pur-
suant to 5 80.11 (b) and for qualifying  ob-
servers for visually determining opacity of
emissions.
  2.  Procedures. The observer qualified In
accordance with paragraph 3 of this method
shall use the following  procedures for vis-
ually determining the opacity  of emissions:
  1 For a set, positive error=aver»g» opacity
determined by  observers' 38 observations-
average opacity determined from tnm.vnln-
eometer's 25 recordings.
  2.1  Position... The qualified observer shall
stand  at a.  distance sufficient to provide a
clear view of the emissions with  the sun
oriented in the 140* sector to his back. Con-
sistent with maintaining the above require-
ment, the observer shall, aa much as possible,
make hu  observations from a position such
that his  line  of vision  is approximately
perpendicular to the 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's line of sight should
not  Include  more than one plume at a time
when multiple stacks are Involved, and In
any  case the observer 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. stub" stacks on baghouses).
  2.2 Field  records. The observer  shall re-
cord the name  of  the plant, emission loca-
tion, type  facility,  observer's  name  and
affiliation, and the date on a field data sheet
(Figure &-1). The time, estimated  distance
to the emission  location, approximate wind
direction,  estimated wind  speed, description
of the sky condition (presence and color ol
clouds), and plume background are  recorded
on a field data sheet at the time opacity read-
ings are Initiated and completed.
  2.3  Observations.   Opacity observations
shall be mada at the point of greatest opacity
In that portion of the plume where con-
densed water vapor Is not present.  Tho ob-
server  shall not  look  continuously at the
plume, but Instead shall observe the plume
momentarily at 15-iecond Intervals.
  2.3.1  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 madd be-
yond tbo point In  the plume at  which con-
densed water vapor Is no longer visible. Tho
observer shall record  the  approximate  dis-
tance from the emission outlet to the po;;>t
In the plume at which the observations ftre
made.
  2.33  Detached steam plumo. When watar
vapor In the plume condenses and  becomes
visible at a distinct distance Irom thJ 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.
  2.4  Recording observations. Opacity ob-
servations shall be recorded to the nearest 5
percent at  15-second  Intervals  on  aa ob-
servational record sheet. (See Figure 9-2 for
an example.) A minimum of 24, observations
shall be recorded. Each momentary  obs«rvn-
tlon recorded shall be deemed to represent
the  average  opacity of emissions for a 15-
second period.
  2.5  Data  Reduction. Opacity shall be de-
termined  as an average  of 24 consecutive
observations recorded at 15-second intervals.
Divide the observations recorded on  the rec-
ord she«t  Into sets of 24  consecutive obser-
vations. A set Is  composed  of any  24 con-
secutive observations.  Sets need not be con-
secutive In  time and.In  no  case shall  two
sets  overlap. For each  set of 24 observations,
calculate the average by summing the opacity
of the 24 observations and  dividing this sum
by 24. If an  applicable standard specifics on
averaging  time  requiring  more than 24 ob-
servations, calculate the average for all ob-
servations made during the specified tlm«
period. Record the average opacity on a record
sheet. (See Figure 9-1 for an example.)
  3.  Qualifications and testing.
  3.1 Certification requirements. To receive
certification  as  a qualified observer, a can-
didate  must be tested and demonstrate the
ability  to assign opacity readings In 5 percent
Increments to 25 different blnck plumes and
25 different  white plumes,  with an error
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 219—TUESDAY, .NOVEMBER 12,  1974


                                                         IV-5 3
-------
                                                 RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                              39875
not to exceed 15 percent opacity on any one
reading  and en average error not to exceed
7.5 percent opacity la each category. Candi-
dates shall be tested  according to the pro-
cedures  described In  paragraph 32. Smoke
generators  used pursuant to paragraph 32
snail be equipped wltb a smoke meter which
meets the requirements of paragraph 3.3.
  Tbe certification shall V>e vaMd lot a period
of 6 months, at which time the qualification
procedure must be repeated by any observer
la order to retain certification,
  S3  Certification procedure. The certifica-
tion test consists of showing the candidate a
complete run of 50 plucaes—25 black plumes
and 25 white plumes—generated by a smoke
generator. Plumes within each set of 25 black
and 25 white runs shall be presented In ran-
dom order. The candidate assigns an opacity
value to each plume and records his obser-
vation on a suitable form. At tbe completion
of each run of 60 readings,  the score of the
candidate Is determined.  If a candidate falls
to qualify, the complete  run of 50 readings
must be repeated in any retest. Tbe smoke
test may be administered as part of a smoke
school or training program, and may be pre-
ceded by training or familiarization runs of
the smoke generator during which candidates
are shown black and white plumes of known
opacity.
  S3  Smoke  generator  specifications.  Any
smoke generator used for tbo purposes of
paragraph 22 shall be equipped wltb a smoke
meter Installed  to  measure opacity across
the diameter of tbe smoke  generator stock.
The  smoke meter  output shall display in-
stack opacity based upon a pathlength equal
to the stack exit diameter, on a lull 0 to 100
percent  chart  recorder  scale. The smoke
meter optical design and performance shell
meet the specifications shown In Tablo 9-1.
The smoke meter shall be calibrated as pre-
scribed  In paragraph 3.3.1 prior to  the con-
duct  of each smoke  reading  test. At Uio
completion of each teft, the Hero  and span
drift  shall  be checked and  if the drilt ex-
«-eds ±1 percent opacity, the condition shall
be corrected prior to conducting any subse-
quent test runs. The  smoke meter shall be
demonstrated, at the time of installation, to
meet the specifications listed  in Table 9-1.
This  demonstrattoa  shall  bo  repented  fol-
lowing any subsequent repair or replacement
of the photocell or associated electronic cir-
cuitry Including the chart recorder or output
meter, or every  6 months, whichever occurs
first.
    TABLE O-t	6MOKE METEK DESIGN AND
        PERFORMANCE  SPECIFICATIONS
Parameter:              Specification
a. Light Bource-	  Incandescent   lamp
                       operated at nominal
                       rated voltage.
Parameter:               Specification
b. Spectral response  Photopic   (daylight
    of photocell.       spectral response of
                       the  human  eye—
                       reference  4.3).
c. Angle of view	  15*   maximum  total
                       angle.
d. Angle  of  projec-  15*   maximum  total
    tton.               angle.
e. Calibration error.  ±3%  opacity,  maxi-
                       mum.
t. Zero   and   span  il%    opacity,   30
    drift.              minutes.
g. Response tune...  <5 seconds.
  3.3.1 Calibration.  The  smoke  meter  Is
calibrated after allowing a minimum of  30
minutes  warmup by  alternately producing
simulated opacity of 0 percent and 100 per-
cent.  When stable response at 0 percent or
100 percent Is noted, the smoke meter Is ad-
justed to produce an output of 0 percent or
100 percent, as appropriate. This calibration
shall be repeated  until stable 0 percent and
100 percent readings  are produced  without
adjustment. Simulated  0 percent  and  100
percent opacity values may be produced  by
alternately switching the power to the light
source on and off while the sraoke generator
is not producing smoke.
  3.35 Smoke meter evaluation. The emoke
meter design and  performance ore  to  be
evaluated as  follows:
  3.3.2,1  Light source.  Verify from manu-
facturer's  dfrt* and from voltage measure-
ments made «.* the lamp, aa installed, that
tho lamp  Is operated  wjthln ±5 percent of
the nominal rated voltage.
  a.S.2.2  Spectral  respon&e   of  photocell.
Verily from  manufacturer's  data that tho
photocell  has a photoplc response;  I.e., the
spectral sensitivity  of the  cell shall closely
approximate tho standard spectral-luminos-
ity curve lor photoplc vision  which  Is refer-
enced In. (b)  of Table 9-1.
   3.3.2.3   Anrto of view. Checl: construction
geometry  to ensure that the total angle or
view  of the  smoke plume, «.s  seen by  the
photocell,  docs not exceed 15". The total
angle of  view may be calculated from: 6=2
tan,-*  d/2Ij, where  fl=total angle  of view;
d=the sum of tho photocell dlameter+the
diameter  of  the limiting  aperture; and
I.=the distance from the  photocell to the-
limiting  aperture. The limiting aperture la
the point In the path between the photocell
and the amoke  plume  where tbe angle of
view la most restricted. In Emote generator
smoke meters  this is normally an orifice
plate.
  3.3.2.4  Angle of projection. Check  con-
struction geometry to ensure that  the  total
angle of  projection of  the lamp on the
amoke plume does not  exceed IB*. The  tou.1
angle of projection may be calculated from:
0=2 tan-1 d/2L. where i= total angle of pro-
jection; d= the sum of the length of tbe
lamp filament + tbe diameter of the limiting
aperture; and L= the distance from the  latop
to the limiting aperture.
  3.3.2-5  Calibration error. Using  neutral-
density filters of known opacity, check tho
error between the actual response an£ the
theoretical  linear response of the smoke
meter. This check Is accomplished by first
calibrating  the smoke meter according to
3.S.1  and taea Inserting a series  of  three
neutral-density filters of nominal opacity of
20, 60, and 75 percent In the smoke meter
pathlength. Filters calibarted within ±2 per-
cent  shall  be used. Care should  be taker.
•when inserting the filters to  prevent  stray
light from affecting the meter. Make a total
of  five nonconsecutlve  readings  for  each
filter. The maximum error on any one  read-
ing shall be S percent opacity.
  3.3.2.6  Zero and  span  drift. Determine
the zero and span drift by calibrating and
operating the cmoke generator in  a normal
manner over a 1-bour period. The drift  Li
measured by checking the zero and span fit
the end of this period.
  3.3.2.7 Response time. Determine the re-
sponse time by producng the series of five
simulated 0 percent and 100 percent opacity
values and observing  the  time required to
reach stable response. Opacity values of  C
percent and 100 percent may be simulated
by alternately switching  the  power to the
light source off  and  on while the smoke
generator Is not operating.
   4,. References.
  4.1  Air  Pollution Control District  Rules
and  Regulations,  Los Angeles County Air
Pollution  Control District, Regulation IV.
Prohibitions, Rule 50.
  4.2  Welsburd, Melvln L, Field Operations
and Enforcement Manual for Air, US.  Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Research Tri-
angle Park, N.C,  APTD-1100,  August 1973.
pp. 4.1-4.S5.
   4JJ  Condon, E. U., and Odfshaw, IL, Hand-
book of Physios, McGraw-Hill Co., N.Y, K.I,
 1958, Table 3.1. p. 6-52.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 39, NO.  219—TUESDAY, NOVEMKt 12,  W4


                                                           IV-5 4
-------
                                                                                                                                                   ta
                                                                                                                                                   ID
                    COMPANY	
                    LOCATION	
                    TEST NUMBER.
                    DATE	
                    TYPE FACILITY_
                    CONTROL DEVICE
                                                                        FIGURE 9-1
                                                         RECORD OF VISUAL DETERMINATION Op OPACITY
                                                                                                                PAGE	of	
                                                                                            HOURS OF OBSERVATION.
                                                                                            OBSERVER       	
                                                                                            OBSERVER CERTIFICATE  DATE_
                                                                                            OBSERVER AFFILIATION	
                                                                                            POINT OF EMISSIONS^	
                                                                                            HEIGHT OP DISCHARGE POINT_
H
<
I
Ul
Ul
I
I
     S
     •f
     M
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 (deaf,
  overcast, % cloudsi etc.)
PLUME DESCRIPTION
  Color
  01 stance Visible
OTHCR INFORIiATIOH
Initial



































Final











R
T
t
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY !*
----- >
Set
(lumber










Tlrpp
Start— End










Opacity
Sum










"verage










eadlngs ranged from t 	 _tp 	 % opacity
he source was /was not in compliance with ,afc
he time evaluation was made.
NO REGUtATfOMS
-------
                           FIGURE 9-2  OBSERVATION RECORD
                   PAGE	OF	
           COMPANY
           LOCATION
           TEST NUMBER"
           HftJE	'
OBSERVER 	
TYPE FACILITY     •""
POINT OF EMISSIW
H

 I
cn
en
Hr.






























M1n.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

0






























_ Secon
TT






























30






























s
45






























STEAM PLUME
(check if applicable)
Attached






























Detached































COMMENTS






























COHP/
LOCA1
TEST
PATE
•Hr.






























FIGURE 9-2 C
(Cor
\NY
rion
NUMBER



M1n.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
11
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Seconds
0






























Ib






























30






























4b:






























(eh
At






























[PR Doc.74
OBSERVATION RECORD
PAGE	OF.	
        OBSERVER 	
        TYPE FACll'lYV
        POINT OF EMISSTSNT
                                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                                                    in
                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                      70
                                                                                                                                                                    o
                                                                                                                                                                    VI
                                                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 219—TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1974
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        2803
11
               (FRL 306-3]
 PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
               Coal  Refuse

   On December 23, 1911 (36 FR 24876).
 pursuant to section 111 of the Clean Air
 Act,  BO amended,  the  Administrator
 promulgated standards of performance
 for nitrogen oxides emissions from fossil
 fuel-fired steam generators of more than
 63 million kcal per hour (250 million Btu
 per hour)  heat Input. The purpose of
 this amendment is to clarify the applica-
 bility of  § 60.44 with  regard  to units
 burning significant  amounts  of  coal
 refuse.
   Coal refuse is the low-heat value, low-
 volatlle, high-ash  content waste  sep-
 arated  from coal,  usually at the mine
 site. It can  prevent restoration  of  the
 land and produce acid water runoff. The
 low-heat value, high-ash characteristics
 of coal refuse preclude combustion  ex-
 cept in cyclone furnaces  with  current
 technology, which because of the furnace
 design  emit nitrogen oxides  (NO*)  in
 quantities  greater  than that  permitted
 by the standard of performance. Prelimi-
 nary test results on an experimental unit
 and emission factor calculations indi-
 cate that NO» emissions would be two to
 three times  the standard  of 1.26 g  per
 million  cal heat input (0.7  pound  per
 million Btu), At the time of promulga-
 tion of  5 60.44 in 1971, EPA was unaware
 of the possibility of burning coal refuse
 in  combination with  other fossil-fuels,
 and thus the standards of performance
 were not designed  to apply to coal refuse
 combustion. However, since coal refuse is
 a fossil fuel, as defined under § 60.4Kb),
 its combustion is included  under  the
 present standards of performance.
   Upon learning of the possible pix>blem
 of coal refuse combustion units meeting
 the standard of performance for NOx,
 the Agency  Investigated  emission data,
 combustion characteristics of the mate-
 rial, and the possibility of burning it in
 other than cyclone furnaces before con-
 sideration was given  to revising  the
 standards  of performance. The investi-
 gation  indicated no reason to exempt
 coal refuse-fired units from the particu-
late mutter or sulfur dioxide standards of
performance, since achievement of these
standards Is.not entirely dependent on
furnace design. However, the investiga-
tion convinced the Agency that with cur-
rent technology it is not possible to burn
significant amounts of  coal refuse and
achieve the NOx standard of perform-
ance.
  Combustion of coal refuse piles would
reduce the volume of a solid waste that
adversely affects the environment, would
decrease the quantity of coal that  needs
to be mined, and would reduce acid water
drainage  as the  piles  are  consumed.
While NOx emissions from coal refuse-
fired  cyclone boilers are expected  to  be
up to three times the standard of per-
formance,  the  predicted  maximum
ground-level concentration Increase for
the only currently  planned coal refuse-
fired  unit (173 MW)  Is only two micro-
grams NOx per cubic meter.  This pre-
dicted increase would  raise  the  total
ground-level concentration around this
source to only five mlcrograms NOx per
cubic meter, which Is well below the na-
tional ambient standard. For these rea-
sons, § 60.44 Is being amended  to exempt
steam generating units burning at least
25  percent (by weight)  coal refuss from
the NOx standard of performance. Such
units must comply with the  sulfur di-
oxide and particulate matter  standards
of performance.
  Since this amendment is a clarification
of the existing standard of performance
and is  expected to only apply to one
source,  no formal  Impact statement Is
required for this rulemaking, pursuant to
section Kb)  of the "Procedures for the
Voluntary Preparation of Environmental
Impact Statements" (39 FR 37419),
  This action is effective on January  18,
1975. The Agency finds good cause exists
for not publishing this action as a  notice
of  proposed rulemaking and for making
it effective immediately upon publication
because:
   1. The action is a clarification  of  an
existing  regulation and Is not Intended
to  alter  the overall substantive content
" of  that regulation.
   2.  The  action  will  affect  only  one
planned source and is not ever expected
to  have wide applicability.
   3. Immediate effectiveness of the ac-
tion enables the source involved to pro-
ceed with  certainty in  conducting  its
affairs,
 (42 -U&.C: 18470-6, 9)

   Dated: January 8,1975.
                    JOHN QUARLES,
                Acting  Administrator.
   Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40  of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is emended
 as follows:
   1. Section 60.41 is amended by adding
 paragraph (c)  as follows:
 60.41  Definitions.
     *      *      *      •      •
   (c) "Coal refuse" means waste-prod-
 ucts  of coal mining, cleaning, and coal
 preparation operations  (e.g. culm, gob,
 etc.) containing coal,  matrix material,
                                                                               clay, and other  organic  and Inorganic
                                                                               material

                                                                                  2. Section 60.44 Is amended by revising
                                                                               paragraphs (a) (3)  and (b) as follows:
                                                                               60.44   Standard for nitrogen oxides.
                                                                                  (a) •• »  •
                                                                                  (3) 1.26 g per million  cal heat input
                                                                                (0.70 pound per million Btu)  derived
                                                                               from solid fossil fuel (except lignite or
                                                                               a solid  fossil fuel containing 25 percent.
                                                                               by weight, or more of coal refuse) .
                                                                                  •(b)  When different fossil fuels are
                                                                               burned simultaneously in any combina-
                                                                               tion, the applicable  standard shall be
                                                                               determined by proration using the fol-
                                                                               lowing formula:
                                                                                       X (OSS) +y (0.64) +z (1.26)
where:

  x is the percentage of total heat Input de-
     rived, from gaseous fossil fuel,
  y Is the percentage of total heat Input de-
     rived from liquid fossli fuel, and
  z Is the percentage of total heat Input de-
     rived  from solid fossil  fuel (except
     lignite or a solid fossil fuel containing
     25 percent, by weight, or more of coal
     refuse).

When lignite or a solid fossil fuel con-
taining 25 percent by weight, or more of
coal refuse is burned in combination with
gaseous, liquid or other solid fossil fuel,
the standard  for  nitrogen  oxides does
not apply.
  [m Doc.76-1644 Filed l-lfr-76;8:45 tun}
                               fEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 11—THURSDAY, JANUARY  16, 1975
                                                       IV-5 7
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                    364-7]
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
     Delegation of Authority to State of
               Washington

   Pursuant to the delegation of authority
for the standards of performance for new
stationary sources (NSPS) to the State
of Washington on February 28,1975, EPA
is  today amending 40 CFR 60.4 Address.
A  notice announcing this delegation was
published on April 1,1975 (40 PR 14632).
The amended § 60.4 Is set forth below.
    The Administrator finds good  cause
for making this rulemaldng effective Im-
mediately as the change is -an adminis-
trative change and not one of substan-
tive content. It imposes no additional
substantive   burdens  on  the  parties
affected.
   This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. 42 TJ.S.C. 1857c-6.
    Dated: April 2,1975.

                  ROOTR STRELOW,-
         Assistant Administrator for
          Air and. Waste Management,

    Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code  of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
       Subpart A—General Provisions
    1. Section 60.4 is revised  to read as
follows:
§69.4  Address.
  (&) An requests, reports, applications,
submlttals, and other iv>'TiTTnir'*f'-H-*-*f>nf to
the Administrator pursuant to tola part
snail be submitted in duplicate and ad-
dressed to the appropriate Regional Of-
fice  of the  Environmental Protection
Agency, to the attention of the Director.
Knforcement Division. The regional of-
fices are as follows:
  Region I (Connecticut, Maine, New Bamp-
ehlre, Massachusetts.  Rhode  Island. Ver-
mont), John P. Kennedy Federal Building,
Boston,  Mamachueetta 02203.
  Region II (New  York. New Jersey, Puerto
Rico,  Virgin Islands), Federal  Office-Build-
ing, 26  Federal Plaza {Foley Square), 'New
York, N.Y. 10007.
  Region m (Delaware, District of Columbia,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Vir-
ginia), Curtis Building, Sixth  and Walnut
Streets,  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.
  Region  IV' (Alabama,' Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, Keatuc&y, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee), Suite 300, 1421 Peach-
tree Street, Atlanta, Georgia 80309.
  Region  V (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Michigan,  Ohio, Wisconsin) , 1 North Wacker
Drive, Chicago, • Illinois  60606.
  Region  VI  (Arkansas,  Louisiana, New
Mexico,  Oklahoma, Texas), 1600 Patterson.
Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
  Region Vn  (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Ne-
braska), 1735 Baltimore Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 63108.
  Region VIH (Colorado,  Montana, North.
Dakota,  South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming) , 196
Lincoln  Towers, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver,
Colorado 80203.
  Region IX  (Arizona,  California,  Hawaii.
Nevada,  Guam, American Samoa) , 100 Cali-
fornia Street, San Francisco, California 84111.
  Region  X (Washington,  Oregon, ~ Id aha.
Alaska), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wash-
ington 98101.

   (b) Section 111 (c) directs the Admin-
istrator to delegate to each State, when
appropriate, the  authority to implement
and enforce standards of performance
for new  stationary sources located In
such State. All Information  required to
be submitted to EPA  under paragraph
^a)  of  this section, must also be sub-
mitted  to the appropriate State Agency
of any State to which this authority has
been delegated  (provided,  vthat  each
specific delegation may except sources
from a  certain Federal or State report-
Ing requirement) . The appropriate mall-
Ing address for those States whose dele-
gation  request has been approved is as
follows:
   (A)-(Z) {reserved].
   (AA)-(W) [reserved].
  WW-Washlngton: State of  Washington,
Department of Ecology,' Olympla, Washing-
ton 98504.
   (XX)-(ZZ)  (reserved).
  (AAA)-(DDD) [reserved] .
   [FR Doc.75-10797 Filed 4-24-75;8:45 am]
                                                                                    13
                                                                                                  [FRL S8S-4J
             REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 81-

          -fWDAV, AMU JS, 1975
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation of Authority to State of Idaho
  Pursuant -to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance for
new~stationary  sources    to the
State of Idaho on June 9, 1975,  EPA  Is
today amending: 40 CFR 60.4, Address, to
reflect this delegation. A notice announc-
ing this delegation is published today at
40 PR 26728. The amended § 60.4, which
adds the address of the State of Idaho,
Department  of  Health and  Welfare to
which all reports,  requests, applications,
submlttals, and communications to the
Administrator pursuant to this part must
also be addressed, is set forth below.
  The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice and for
malting  this rulemaking effective  im-
mediately in that it is  an administra-
tive change and not one of  substantive
content.  No additional substantive bur-
dens are imposed on the parties affected.
The delegation which is reflected by this
administrative amendment was effective
on June 9, 1975, and it serves no purpose
to delay the technical change of this ad-
dition  of the State address to the Code
of Federal Regulations.
  This nilemaking is  effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 111 of the Clean  Air Act, as
amended.
(42 US.C. 18570-G.)

  Dated: June 18,1975.

                ROBERT H. BAUM,
     Actbtff Assistant Administrator
                    tor Enforcement.
  Part 60 of Chapter  I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations  is amended
as follows:
  1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b)  is amended
by revising subparaerapa (N) to read as
follows:
§ 60.4   Addrws.
    •       •       •      •       •
  (b)  f  •  •
  (A)-(M> • • •
  (N)  State of Idaho, Department of Health.
and Welfare, Stat&hoiue.  Botae, Idafco, 83701.
   •       •      *       •       *
  (PR D00.7S-166S3 Plted6-24-7S;S:*5 im]

   ROERAl RECJJTER,  VOL. 46,  NO.  123-

                r, JUNE «,
                                                         IV-5 8
-------
14 .Til32
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
       Title 40—Protection of Environment
         CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
             PROTECTION AGENCY
                  [FRL 392-7]

     PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
    ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
         Five Categories of Sources in the
          Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
      On  October 22,  1974  (39 FR  37602),
    under section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
    as amended the Administrator proposed
    standards of performance  for five new
    affected facilities within the phosphate
    fertilizer  industry   as  follows:   Wet-
    process phosphoric acid plants, super-
    phosphoric   acid  plants,   diammonium
    phosphate plants, triple superphosphate
    plants, and granular triple superphos-
    phate storage facilities.
      Interested parties participated in the
    rulcmakinpf  by  sending comments  to
    EPA. The Freedom  of Information Cen-
    ter, Rrn 202 West  Tower, 401  M-Street,
    SW., Washington, D.C. has  copies of the-
    comment letters received and a summary
    of the issues and Agency responses avail-
    able  for  public inspection.  In addition,
    copies of  the issue summary and Agency
    responses may be obtained  upon written
    request from the EPA Public Informa-
    tion Center (PM-215). 401 M Street, SW.,
    Washington.  D.C. 204GO (specify "Com-
    ment  Summary:  Phosphate  Fertilizer
    Industry").  The  comments have  been
    considered and where determined by the
    Administrator to be appropriate,  revi-
    sions  have  been made  to  the proposed
    standards, and the revised version of the
    standards of performance for five source
    categories within the phosphate fertilizer
    industry  are herein promulgated.  The
    principal revisions to the proposed stand-
    ards and  the Agency's responses to major
    comments are summarized  below.
                 DEFINITIONS
      The comment was made that the desig-
    nation of affected  facilities (§560.200,
    60.210. 60.220, 60.230, and  60.240)  were
    confusing as  written  in  the proposed
    regulations.  As a result of  the proposed
    wording,  each component of an affected
    facility could have been  considered a
    separate affected facility. Since this was
    not the intent, the afectccl facility desig-
    nations have been  reworded. In the new
    ivordir.fr,  the listing of components of an
    iffected facility is  intended for identifi-
    cation of  those emission sources to which
    the standard for fluorides  aoplics. Any
    sources not listed are not covered by the
    standard. Additionally, the definition  of
    a "superphosphoric acid plant" 1ms been
    changed  to include facilities which con-
    centrate  wet-process phosphoric acid  to
    C6 percent or greater  P.O. content in-
    stead of  GO percent as  specified in the
    proposed regulations. This was the result
    of a comment stating that solvent ex-
    tracted acids could be evaporated  to
    Urenter than CO percent P:O-. using con-
    ventional evaporators in the wet-process
    phosphoric acid plant. The  revision clar-
    ifies the original intention of preventing
    certain   wet-process  phosphoric   acid
    plants from  being  subject  to  the  more
restrictive standard for superphosphoric
acid plants.
  One commentator was  concerned that
a loose interpretation of the definition of
the  affected facility for  diammonium
phosphate plants might result in certain
liquid fertilizer plants becoming subject
to the standards. Therefore, the word
"granular"  has  been inserted  before
"diammonium phosphate plant"  in  the
appropriate  places in subpart  V to clarify
the intended meaning.
  Under the standards for triple super-
phosphate   plants  in  §60.231(b)-.  the
term "by weight" has been added to the
definition of "run-of-pilc  triple  super-
phosphate." Apparently it was not clear
as  to  whether  "25 percent  of  which
(when not  caked)  will pass  through a
1C mesh screen" referred to  percent by
weight or by particle count.
          OPACITY 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 determined that the  correlation
is  insufficient  to support 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
are 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 nn
effective method  for monitoring compli-
ance with the fluoride standards.
   REFERENCE METHODS 13A.  AND 1313
  Reference  Methods  13A  and  1315,
which  prescribed testing and  analysis
procedures  for fluoride cmis.'uons. were
originally proposed  along with stand-
ards  of  performance  for  the  primary
aluminum induslry  (30 FR 37730). How-
ever, these methods  have been included
with the standards of performance  for
the phosphate fertilizer industry and the
the fertilizer standards are being prom-
ulgated before the  primary  aluminum
standards. Comments were receive":'! irom
the phosphate fertilizer industry and the
primary aluminum industry as the meth-
ods are applicable to both industries. The
majority of the comments discussed pos-
sible changes to procedures and to equip-
ment specifications. As a result of these
comments  some  minor  changes were
made. Additionally,  it has been deter-
mined  that  acetone  causes  a  positive
interference in the analytical procedures.
Although the bases  for the standard are
not affected,  the acetone wash has been
deleted in  both methods to prevent  po-
tential errors. Reference Method 13A has
been  revised  to  restrict  the  distillation
procedure  (Section 7.3.4)  to  175'"C  in-
stead of the proposed 180°C in order to
prevent positive interferences introduced
by sulfuric. acid  carryover  in  the distil-
late  at the higher  temperatures. Some
commentators expressed a desire to re-
place the methods with totally different
methods of  analysis. They  felt they
should  not be restricted  to  using  only
those methods published by the Agency.
However, in rrsix>nse to these comments.
an equivalent or alternative method may
be used after approval by  the Adminis-
trator according to  the  provisions of
§60.8(b) of the regulations  (as revised
in 39 FR 9308).
           FLUORIDE CONTROL
  Comments  were received which ques-
tioned  the need  for  Federal  fluoride
control because fluoride emissions pro lo-
calized and ambient fluoride  concentra-
tions are very low. As discussed in  the
preamble  to  the proposed regulations.
fluoride was  the only  pollutant other
than  the criteria pollutants, specifically
named as  requiring Federal  action in
the March 1D70 "Report of  the Secre-
tary of Health. Education, and Welfare
to the United States tfllsO  Congress."
The report concluded  that  "inorganic
fluorides arc highly irritant  and toxic
gases" which, even in low ambient con-
centrations,  have  adverse  effects  OH
plants and animals. The  United States
Senate Committee on Public  Works in
its report on  the Clean Air Amendments
of 1970 (Senate Report No.  
-------
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       33153
 Control"  (Contract EHSD 71-14) pub-
 lished in January 1972, the phosphate
 fertilizer  industry ranks near the  top
 of  the list  of  fluoride emitters  in  the
 U.S., accounting for  nearly  14 percent
 of  the total  soluble  fluorides emitted
 every  year. The Agency contends  that
 these facts justify naming the phosphate
 fertilizer industry a  major  source  of
 fluorides.
    DJAMMONIUM PHOSPHATE STANDARD
  One commentator contended that the
 fluoride standard for diammoniutn phos-
 phate plants  could  not be  met under
 certain extreme  conditions. During  pe-
 riods of high air flow rates through the
 scrubbing system, high ambient temper-
 atures, and high  fluoride  content  in
 scrubber liquor,  the commentator  sug-
 gested that the standard would  not  be
 met even by sources utilizing best dem-
 onstrated control technology. This com-
 ment was refuted for two reasons:  (1)
 The surmised  extreme conditions would
 not occur and (2) even if the conditions
 did occur, the performance of the control
 system would be such as  to meet the
 standard  anyway.  Thus the fluoride
 standard  for  diammonium  phosphate
 plants was not revised.
        POND WATER STANDARDS
  The question of the standards for pond
 water  was raised in the comments. The
 commentator felt that it  would  have
 been more logical if the Agency had post-
 poned proposal  of  the phosphate  fer-
 tilizer regulations until standards of per-
 formance for pond water had also been
 decided uixm, instead of EPA saying that
 such pond water standards might be set
 Jn  the future.  EPA   researched  pond
 water standards along with the other
 fertilizer standards, but due to the com-
 plex nature of pond chemistry and a gen-
 eral lack of available information,  si-
 multaneous  proposal  was not feasible.
 Rather than delay new source fluoride
 control regulations, possibly for several
 years, the Agency  decided  to proceed
 with  standards  for  five  categories  of
 sources within the industry.
          ECONOMIC IMPACT
  As was Indicated by the comments re-
 ceived,  clarification   of  some of  the
Agency's statements concerning the eco-
nomic impact of the standards is neces-
sary. First, the statement that "for three
 of  the five  standards  there will  be no
 increase in power consumption over that
 which results from State and local stand-
 ards"  is misleading  as written  in the
 preamble  to the proposed regulations.
The statement should have been qualified
 in that this conclusion was based on pro-
 jected  construction   in  the  industry
 through 1980,  and was not meant to be
 applicable past that time. Second, some
 comments suggested that the cost data in
 the background document were out  of
 date. Of course  the time between the
 gathering of economic data and the pro-
 posal of regulations may  be as long as a
 year or two because of necessary inter-
 mediate  steps in the  standard  setting
 process, however, the economic data are
 developed with  future industry  growth
 and financial status in mind, and there-
 fore, the analysis should be viable at the
 time of standard proposal. Third, an ob-
 jection was raised to the statement that
 "the disparity  in  cost  between  triple
 superphosphate and diammonium  phos-
 phate  will only hasten the trend toward
 production of diammonium  phosphate."
 The commentator felt that  EPA should
 not place itself in a position of regulating
 fertilizer  production. In response,  the
 Agency does not set standards to  regu-
 late production. The standards are set to
 employ the best system  of emission re-
 duction considering cost. The standards
 will basically require  use of a packed
 scrubber for compliance in  each of the
 five  phosphate fertilizer source catego-
 ries. In this  instance, control costs  (al-
 though considered reasonable  for both
 source categories) are higher for  triple
 superphosphate plants  than for diam-
 monium phosphate plants. The reasons
 for this are that (1) larger gas volumes
 must be scrubbed  in triple superphos-
 phate facilities and (2) triple suprephos-
 phate storage facility emissions must also
 be scrubbed. However, the greater costs
 can be partially offset in a plant produc-
 ing both granular  triple superphosphate
 and  diammonium  phosphate with  the
 same manufacturing facility and  same
 control device. Such a facility can  op-
 timize  utilization of the  owner's capital
 by operating his phosphoric acid plant at
 full  capacity and  producing a product
 mix that will maximize profits. The In-
 formation gathered by the Agency indi-
 cates that all new facilities  equipped to
 manufacture  diammonium   phosphate
 will  also produce granular triple super-
 phosphate to satisfy demand for direct
 application materials and exports.
     CONTROL OF TOTAL FLUORIDES
  Most of the commentators objected to
 EPA's control of "total fluorides" rather
 than "gaseous and water soluble flu-
 orides." The rationale for deciding to set
 standards for total fluorides is presented
 on pages 5 and 6 of volume 1 of the back-
 ground document.  Essentially  the  ra-
 tionale is  that some "insoluble" fluoride
 compounds will slowly dissolve if allowed
 to remain in the water-impinger section
 of the  sample train. Since EPA did  not
 closely control the  time between capture
 and filtration of the fluoride samples, the
 change was made  to insure  a more  ac-
curate data base. Additional comments on
 this  subject  revealed concern that  the
switch   to  total fluorides would bring
 phosphate  rock operations  under  the
standards.  EPA did not intend such  op-
 erations to be controlled by these regula-
 tions, and  did not include them in  the
 definitions of affected facilities; however,
 standards for these operations  are cur-
 rently  under development  within  the
Agency.
      MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
 *• Several  comments were received with
 regard to  the sections requiring a  flow
 measuring device which has an accuracy
of ± 5 percent over Its operating range.
 The  commentators felt that this accu-
racy could  not be met  and  that  the
 capital  and operating costs  outweighed
anticipated  utility. First of all,  "vveigh-
belts"  are common devices in the phos-
phate  fertilizer Industry as raw material
feeds  are  routinely  measured.   EPA
felt there would be no economic impact
resulting from this requirement because
plants would have normally  installed
weighing  devices  anyway.  Second,  con-
tacts with the industry- led EPA to be-
lieve that the ± 5 percent accuracy re-
quirement  would  be easily met, and  a
search of  pertinent  literature  showed
that weighing devices with ± 1  percent
accuracy  are commercially available.

     PERFORMANCE  TEST PROCEDURES

   Finally  some  comments  specifically
addressed § 60.245 (now § 60.244) of the
proposed granular triple superphosphate
storage facility standards.  The first two
remarks contended that  it is impossible
to tell when the storage building is filled
to  at  least  10 percent of the  building
capacity without requiring an expensive
engineering survey, and that it was also
impossible to tell how much triple super-
phosphate  in the  building Is fresh and
how much is over  10 days old. EPA's ex-
perience has been that plants typically
make surveys to determine the  amount
of  triple  superphosphate   stored,  and
typically keep good records of the move-
ment of triple superphosphate into and
out  of storage so  that it Is possible to
make  a good estimate of  the age and
amount of  product.  In  light of  data
gathered  during  testing,   the  Agency
disagrees with the  above contentions and
feels the requirements are reasonable. A
third comment stated that § 60.244  (pro-
posed 5 60.245) was too restrictive, could
not  be met  with partially  filled  storage
facilities, and that the 10 percent  re-
quirement was not valid or practical. In
response, the requirement of § 60.244(d)
(1)  is  that  "at least  10  percent of  the
building   capacity"  contain  granular
triple superphosphate. This means that,
for a performance test, an  owner or  op-
erator  could have  more than 10  percent
of the  building filled. In fact it is to his
advantage to have more than 10 percent
because of the likelihood  of  decreased
emissions  (in  units of the  standard) as
calculated by the.equation in § 60.244(g).
The data   obtained   by  the  Agency
show that the standard can be met with
partially filled buildings. One commenta-
tor did not agree with the requirement in
§60.244(e)   [proposed § 60.245(e) 1  to
have at least five days maximum produc-
tion of fresh granular triple superphos-
phate  in the  storage building before a
performance  test. The  commentator
felt  tills   section was    unreasonable
because it dictated production schedules
for  triple  superphosphate.  However,
this section applies only when  the  re-
quirements of § 60.244(d) (2) [proposed
§  G0.245(d) (2) 1 are not  met.  In  ad-
dition this requirement is not unreason-
able  regarding production  schedules
because performance  tests  are  not  re-
quired  at regular intervals. A perform-
ance test  is  conducted alter a  facility
begins  operation;  additional  perform-
ance tests are conducted  only when the
facility is  suspected of violation of the
standard of performance.
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40. NO. 1S2—WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 6. 1975
                                                     IV-60
-------
                                                RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
  Effective date. In accordance with sec-
tion 111 of the Act, these regulations pre-
scribing  standards of  performance for
the selected stationary sources are effec-
tive on  August  4,  1975,  and apply  to
sources at which construction or modifi-
cation commenced after October 2 2.1974.
                  RUSSELL E. TRAJN.
                       Administrator.
  JULY 25,  1975.

  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code  of  Federal Regulations is  arhend-
ed as follows:
  1. The table of sections is  amended by
adding Subparts T. U.  V, W, and X and
revising  Appendix A  to read as follows:
Subpart T—Standards of Performance  for the
  Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry: Wet   Process
  Phosphoric Acid Plants

00.200  Applicability  and  designation  of
         affected facility.
R02f)l  Definitions.
CO .202  Standard for fluorides.
(50.203  Monitoring of operations.
60.204  Test methods and procedures.

Subpart U—Standards of Performance  for the
  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Superpti osphoric
  Acid Plants

00210  Applicability  and  designation  of
         affected facility.
C0.211  Definitions.
00.212  Standard for fluorides.
C0.213  Monitoring  of operations.
60.214  Test methods and procedures.

Subpart V—Standards of Performance  for the
  Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry: Diammonium
  Phosphate Plants

60.220  Applicability  and  designation  of
         affected facility.
60.221  Definitions.
00222  Standard for fluorides.
60.221  Monitoring of operations.
60.224  Test methods and procedures.

Subpart W—Standards of Performance  for the
  Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry: Triple  Super-
  phosphate Plants

60.230  Applicability and designation of af-
         fected facility.
60.231  Definitions.
60.232  Standard for fluorides.
60.233  Monitoring of operations.
60.234  Test methods and procedures.

Subpart X—Standards of Performance  for the
  Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Granular  Triple
  Superphosphate Storage Facilities
60.240  Applicability and designation of af-
         fected facility.
60.241  Definitions.
CO 242  Standard for fluorides.
60.243  Monitoring of operations.
60.244  Test methods and procedures.
     APPENDIX A—REFERENCE METHODS

Method 1—Sample and velocity traverses for
    stationary sources.
Method 2—Determination of stack  gns ve-
    locity and volumetric flow rate  (Type S
    pitot tube).
Method 3—Gas  annlysls  for carbon  dioxide,
    excess air, and dry molecular weight.
Method 4—Determination of  moisture In
    slack gases.
Method 5—Determination  of participate
    emissions from stationary sources.
Method 6—Determination of sulfur dioxide
    emissions from stationary sources.
Method 7—Determination of nitrogen oxide
    emissions from stationary sources.
Method  8—Determination of sulfurlc  acid
    mist  and sulfur dioxide  emissions from
    stationary sources.
Method n—Visual determination of the opac-
    ity of emissions from stationary sources.
Method 10—Determination of carbon monox-
    ide emissions from stationary sources.
Method 11—Determination of hydrogen  sul-
    nde emissions from stationary sources.
Method 12—Reserved.
Method 13A—Determination of total fluoride
    emissions   from  stationary  sources—
    SPADNS Zirconium Lake Method.
Method 13B—Determination of total fluoride
    emissions from stationary sources—Spe-
    cific Ion Electrode Method.

  2. Part 60 Is amended by adding sub-
parts T,  U, V, \V, and X as follows:
Subpart T—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphate  Fertilizer  Industry: Wet-
  Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
§ 60.200   Applicability and designation
     of affected facility.
  The affected facility to which the pro-
visions of this subpart apply is each wet-
process phosphoric  acid plant. For  the
purpose  of this  subpart,  the  affected
facility includes any combination of: re-
actors, filters, evaporators, and hotwells.
§ 60.201   Definitions.
  As used  In this subpart, all  terms  not
defined herein shall have  the meaning
given them In the Act and In  subpart A
of this part.
  (a)  "Wet-process  phosphoric  acid
plant" means any facility manufactur-
ing  phosphoric  acid by reacting  phos-
phate rock and  acid.
  (b) "Total fluorides" means elemental
fluorine  and all  fluoride compounds as
measured by reference methods specified
in § 60.204, or equivalent  or  alternative
methods.
  (c) "Equivalent P=Oc feed" means  the
quantity  of  phosphorus,  expressed  as
phosphorous pentoxide, fed to the proc-
ess.
§ 60.202   Standard for fluorides.
  (a) On  and after the date on which
the performance test required  to be con-
ducted by  § 60.8  Is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any  affected
facility any  gases which  contain total
fluorides in excess of 10.0 g/metric  ton
of equivalent P.O.-. feed (0.020  Ib/ton).
§ 60.203   MoniloriiiK of operations.
  fa) The owner or operator of any wet-
process phosphoric acid  plant subject to
the  provisions  of this subpart shall in-
stall, calibrate, maintain,  and operate a
monitoring device which can be used to
determine  the mass flow of phosphorus-
bearing feed material to the process. The
monitoring device  shall have an  accu-
racy  of  ±5 percent over its  operating
range.
  (b) The owner or operator of any wet-
process  phosphoric  acid  plant  shall
maintain a daily  record  of  equivalent
P:O; feed by first determining the total
mass rate in metric ton/hr of phosphorus
bearing  feed using  a monitoring device
for measuring mass flowrate which meets
the  requirements of paragraph  (a)  of
this section and then by proceeding ac-
cording to I 60.204(d) (2) .
  (c) The owner or operator of any wet-
process phosphoric acid subject to the
provisions of this part shall instaJl, cali-
brate, maintain, and operate  a monitor-
ing device which continuously measures
and permanently records the total pres-
sure drop across the process scrubbing
system. The monitoring device shall have
an  accuracy of ±5 percent over its op-
erating range.
§ 60.20 I  Test  methods mid procedures.
  (a) Reference methods in Appendix A
of this part, except as provided In § 60.8
(b), shall be used  to determine compli-
ance with the standard  prescribed  in
§ 60.202 as follows:
  (1) Method 13A or 13B for the concen-
tration of total fluorides and the asso-
ciated moisture content,
  (2) Method  1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3)  Method  2 for  velocity and vol-
umetric flow rate, and
  (4) Method  3 for gas analysis.
  (b) For Method 13A or 13B, the  sam-
pling time for  each run shall be at least
60  minutes and the minimum  sample
volume shall be 0.85  dscm  (30 dscf) ex-
cept  that shorter sampling times  or
smaller volumes, when necessitated  by
process variables or  other  factors, may
be  approved by the Administrator.
  (c) The- air pollution control system
for  the  affected facility shall  be  con-
structed  so that volumetric  flow  rates
and total fluoride  emissions  can be ac-
curately determined by applicable test
methods and procedures.
  (d) Equivalent P:OS feed shall be de-
termined as follows:
  (1) Determine the total  mass  rate in
metric  ton/hr  of  phosphorus-bearing;
feed  during  each run using   a  flow
monitoring device  meeting the  require-
ments of § 60.203(ci> .
  (2) Calculate the equivalent P.-OA feed
by  multiplying the percentage P:O-. con-
tent. as  measured  by the spectrophoto-
metric molybdovtinadophosphate method
(AOAC Method 9), times the total  mass
rate of phosphorus-bearing feed. AOAC
Method  9 is  published  in the  Official
Methods  of Analysis of the Association
of Official Analytical Chemists, llth edi-
tion. 1970. pp. 11-12. Other methods may
be  approved by the Administrator.
  (e) For each run, emissions expressed
Jn g/metrlc ton of equivalent P-XX feed
shall be  determined  using the following
equation:
where :
     E .— Emissions of  total fluoride* in p'
          metric  ton  of  equivalent  PO,
          feed.
     C, = Concentration of total fluorides in
          mg/dscm   as   determined   by
          Method 13A or  13B.
     Q, = Volumetric flow rate of the effluent
          gas stream  in dscm/hr as deter-
          mined by Method 2.
    10-' = Conversion factor for mg to g.
  Mr,ic=: Equivalent P.O.  feed  in   metrio
          ton/hr  as determined • by ( 60.-
          204(d).
                              FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL 40, NO. 152—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6,  1975


                                                        IV-61
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        ^5155
Subpart U—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Super-
  phosphoric Acid Plants
§60.210  Applicability  mid designation
     of affected facility.
  The affected facility to which the pro-
visions  of  this  subpart apply  is  each
superphosphoric acid plant. For the pur-
pose of  this subpart, the affected facility
includes any  combination  of: evapora-
tors, hotwells, acid  sumps,  and cooling
tanks.
§60.211  Definition*.
  As used in this subpart,  all terms not
defined hereia shall have  the meaning
given them In the Act and in subpart A
of this part.
   (a) "Superphosphoric   acid   plant"
means  any facility  which concentrates
wet-process phosphoric acid to 66 per-
cent or greater P£>» content  by weight
for eventual consvimptlon as a fertilizer.
   (bi "Total  fluorides" means  elemen-
tal fluorine and  all  fluoride compounds
as measured by reference methods spe-
cified in 5 60.214. or equivalent or alter-
native methods.
   (c) "Equivalent P.O.-. feed" means the
quantity  of  phosphorus,  expressed  as
phosphorous  pentoxide,   fed   to  the
process.
§ 60.212   Stmuliiril for fluoride?.
   (a) On and after the date on  which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted  by  § 60.8  is completed, no  owner
or operator subject  to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any  affected
facility any  gases  which contain  total
fluorides in excess of 5.0 g/metrlc  ton of
equivalent P-Or. feed (0.010  Ib/ton),
§ 60.213  Monitoring of oricnitiotis.
   (a)  The  owner  or  operator of  any
superphosphoric  acid  plant subject to
the  provisions of this subpart shall in-
stall, calibrate, maintain, and  operate
a flow  monitoring device which can be
used to determine  the  mas?  flow  of
phosphorus-bearing feed material  to the
process. The flow monitoring device shall
have an accuracy of ± 5 percent over its
operating range.
   (b)  The  owner  or  operator of  any
superphosphoric  acid plant shall  main-
tain  a  daily  record of equivalent P£>-.
feed by first determining the total mass
rate in metric  ton/hr of  phosphorus-
bearing feed using a flow monitoring de-
vice meeting  the requirements of para-
graph  (a) of this section and  then by
proceeding according  to § 60.214(d) (2).
   (c)  The  owner  or  operator of  any
superphosphoric acid plant subject to the
provisions of this part shall install, cali-
brate, maintain,  and operate a monitor-
ing  device which continuously measures
and permanently records the total pres-
sure drop across the  process scrubbing
system. The monitoring device shall have
an  accuracy  of ±  5 percent  over  its
operating range.
§ (iO.214  Test rnctliotl* and procedures.
    For each run, emissions expressed
in g/metric  ton of equivalent P;G- feed.
shall be determined using the following
equation:
                (C.Q,} 10 3
 where:
      E = Emisslons  of total fluorides In g/'
          metric  ton of equivalent  P.O.
          feed.
     C, = Concentration of total fluorides In
          mg/dscm  as  determined   by
          Method  13A or 13B.
      "Granular  diammonium  phos-
phate plant"  means  any plant manu-
facturing  granular  diammonium phos-
phate by reacting phosphoric  acid with
ammonia.
  (b) "Total fluorides" means elemental
fluorine and  all fluoride compounds as
measured  by  reference  methods speci-
fied  in § 60.224, or  equivalent or alter-
native methods.
  (c) "Equivalent P.O.-. feed" means the
quantity of  phosphorus, expressed  as
phosphorous pcntoxide, fed to  the proc-
ess.
§ 60.222   Sland:ml  for fluorides.

  (a) On and after the date  on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 is completed,  no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this  subpart shall cause to be discharged
into  the  atmosphere  from any affected
facility  any gases which contain  total
fluorides in excess of  30 g/metric ton of
equivalent P.O.-. feed (0.060 Ib/ton).

§ 60.223   Monitoring of operations.
  (ai The owner or operator  of  any
granular diammonium phosphate plant
subject to the provisions of this subpart
shall install,  calibrate,  maintain,  and
operate a flow monitoring device which
can  be used to determine the mass flow
of phosphorus-bearing feed material  to
the process. The  flow monitoring device
shall have an accuracy  of rt5  percent
over its operating range.
  (b) The owner or operator  of  any
granular diammonium phosphate plant
shall maintain a daily record  of equiv-
alent P.O.. feed by first  determining the
total mass rate in metric  ton/hr of phos-
phorus-bearing feed using a flow moni-
toring device  meeting the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section and then
by proceeding according to §60.224(d)
(2i.
  (ci The owner or operator  of  any
granular diammonium phosphate plant
subject to the provisions of this part shall
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a monitoring  device which continuously
measures  and permanently records the
total pressure drop  across the  scrubbing
system. The monitoring device shall have
nn accuracy  of :±5 percent over its op-
crating range.

§ 60.22 I  Test methods unil procedures.

   Reference methods in Appendix A
of this  part,  except as provided for  in
§ 60.8(b), shall be used to determine com-
pliance with  the standard prescribed  in
§ 60.222 as follows:
  (1) Method ISA  or 13B for  the con-
centration of  total fluorides and the as-
sociated moisture content,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3) Method 2  for  velocity and  volu-
metric flow rate, and
  (4 > Method 3 for gas analysis.
  (b) For  Method   13A or  13B.  the
sampling time for each  run shall be  at
least 60  minutes  and  the  minimum
sample volume shall be at least 0.85 dscm
(30  dscf)  except that shorter sampling
                              FEDERAL REGISTER.  VOL. 40. NO. 152—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST A,  1975
                                                    IV-6 2
-------
33156
RULES AND REGULATIONS
times or smaller volumes when neces-
sitated  by  process  variables  or  other
/actors, may  be approved  by the Ad-
ministrator.
  ic) The air pollution control  system
for the affected facility shall  be con-
structed  so that volumetric  flow rates
and  total fluoride emissions can be ac-
curately  determined  by applicable test
methods and procedures.
  (d> Equivalent P.-O, feed  shall be de-
termined as follows:
  (1) Determine the total mass rate in
metric  ton/hr  of   phosphorus-bearing
feed during each run using a flow  moni-
toring device  meeting the requirements
of § 60.223(a).
  (2) Calculate the equivalent P.O. feed
by multiplying the  percentage P-.-0-. con-
tent,  as measured by the spectrophoto-
metric molybdovanadophosphate method
(AOAC Method 9), times the  total mass
rate of phosphorus-bearing feed. AOAC
Method 9  is  published in  the Official
Methods of Analysis of the Association
of Official Analytical Chemists, llth edi-
tion, 1970, pp.  11-12. Other methods may
be approved by the Administrator.
  (e) For each run, emissions expressed
in g/metric ton of equivalent P;0i feed
shall be determined using the following
equation:
            E=(C.Q.) IP"3

where:
      £ ir Emissions of total fluorides In g/
          metric ton of equivalent P:O,.
     C,=Concentrtition oJ total  fluorides" In
          mg/dscin  as  determined   by
          Method 13A or 13B.
     (J^Voliimetrlc flow rate of the effluent
          gas  stream In dscm/hr as deter-
          mined by Method 2.
   10-'=: Con version  factor for mg to g.
  •Mj-,o5 = Equlvft!ent  P..O, feed  In  metric
          ton/hr as determined by  5 00.-
          224.
                                       § 60.233   Monitoring of operations.
                                          (a) The owtier or operator of any triple
                                       superphosphate plant subject to the pro-
                                       visions of this subpart shall install, cali-
                                       brate, maintain, and operate a flow moni-
                                       toring device which can be used to  deter-
                                       mine the  mass flow of phosphorus-bear-
                                       ing feed material to the process. The flow
                                       monitoring device shall have an accuracy
                                       of ±5 percent over its operating range.
                                          (b) The owner  or  operator of  any
                                       triple superphosphate plant shall  main-
                                       tain a daily record of equivalent P.O. feed
                                       by first determining the total mass  rate
                                       in metric ton/hr of  phosphorus-bearing
                                       feed using a flow monitoring device meet-
                                       ing  the requirements  of paragraph (a)
                                       of this section and  then by  proceeding
                                       according to  5 GO.234id) <2>.
                                          (c) The owner or operator of any triple
                                       superphosphate plant subject to the pro-
                                       visions of this part shall install, calibrate,
                                       maintain, and  operate  a monitoring de-
                                       vice which continuously measures  and
                                       permanently records the total pressure
                                       drop across the process scrubbing system.
                                       The monitoring device shall have an ac-
                                       curacy of ±5 percent over its operating
                                       range.
                                       § 60.23 t   To.-C inotfiixfs find procoiJurc".
                                          (a) Reference methods in Appendix A
                                       of this  part, except as provided  for  in
                                       § GO.8(b), shall be used to determine com-
                                       pliance  with  the  standard prescribed  in
                                       5 60.232 as follows:
                                          (1) Method 13A or 13B for the concen-
                                       tration of total fluorides and the asso-
                                       ciated moisture content,
                                          (2) Method 1 ior  sample and velocity
                                       traverses.
                                          (3) Method  2  for velocity and volu-
                                       metric flow rate,  and
                                          (4) Method 3 for pas analysis.
                                          (b) For Method 13A or 13B. the sam-
                                       pling time for each  run shall be at least
                                       60 minutes and  the  minimum sample
                                       volume  shall be  at  least 0.85 dscm (30
                                       dscf) except that shorter sampling times
                                       or smaller volumes, when necessitated by
                                       process  variables or other factors, may
                                       be approved by the Administrator.
                                          (c) The air pollution control system
                                       for  the  affected  facility shall be con-
                                       structed  so that volumetric  flow rates
                                  am', total fluoride emissions can be ac-
                                  curately determined  by applicable  test
                                  methods and procedures.
                                     (d) Equivalent PjO; feed shall be deter-
                                  mined as follows:
                                     CD Determine the total mass rate in
                                  metric  ton/hr  of  phosphorus-bearing
                                  feed during each run using a flow moni-
                                  toring device  meeting the requirements
                                  of § 60.233(a).
                                     '21 Calculate the equivalent P.-Oj. feed
                                  by multiplying the percentage P:Oc con-
                                  tent, as  measured by the spectrophoto-
                                  metric molybdovanadophosphate method
                                  (AOAC Method 9>. times the total mass
                                  rate of  phosphorus-bearing feed. AOAC
                                  Method  9  is  published  in  the  Official
                                  Methods of Analysis of the Association of
                                  Official Analytical Chemists, Hth edition,
                                  1970. pp. 11-12. Other methods may be
                                  approved by the Administrator.
                                    (el For each run,  emissions expressed
                                  in p/metric ton of equivalent P;O5 feed
                                  shall be  determined  using the following
                                  equation:
                                              .._((".Q.i  10 »
                                               •-   M",^
                                  where :
                                        £-= Emissions  of total fluorides In p/
                                            metric ton of equivalent  Pfl,
                                            feed.
                                       Ct--.Concentration of total fluorides in
                                            mp, ciscin.  as  determined   by
                                            Method  13A or 13B.
                                       Qtr; Volumetric flow rate of the effluent
                                            gas stream in dscm/hr  us deter-
                                            mined by Method 2.
                                      10-'.. Conversion factor for trig to (T-
                                    Afiyi.- Equivalent  P.O.  iced  In.  metric
                                            ton/hr as  determined  by  5 60.-
                                            23-t(d).

                                  Subpait X—Standards of Performance for
                                    the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Gran-
                                    ular Triple Superphosphate Storage Fa-
                                    cilities
                                  g 60.2-10  Applicability  ami designation
                                       t>t afirrlcd facility.
                                    The affected facility to which  (lie pro-
                                  visions  of  this subpart apply  is each
                                  granular triple  superphosphate storage
                                  facility. For the purpose of this  subpart,
                                  the  affected  facility includes  any com-
                                  bination of: storage or curing piles, con-
                                  veyors, elevators, screens and nulls.

                                  § 60.2 11  Di-fniiiions.

                                    As rised in this subpart, nil torms no(
                                  defined  herein shall have  the menninfi
                                  given them in the  Act and in subpart A
                                  of this part.
                                    (a) "Granular triple superphosphate
                                  storage  facility" means any  facility cur-
                                  ing or storing Granular triple superphos-
                                  phate.
                                    (b) "Total fluorides" means elr-nicnta!
                                  fluorine  and all lluoride compounds as
                                  measured by reference methods specified
                                  in 5 GO ^!4'!,  or equivalent or alternative
                                  methods.
                                    -------
                                               RULES  AN!' REGULATIONS
                                                                           3315
g 60.212  Slumlord for fluorides.
  (a) On and after the date on which the
performance  test  required  to  be  con-
ducted  by i 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator subject to the  provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere  from  any affected
facility any gases  which  contain  total
fluorides  in excess of 0.25  g/hr/metnc
ton  of equivalent P-.Ot stored (5.0 x 10"'
Ib/hr/ton of equivalent Pid stored).
§ 60.213  Monitoring of oprrjilions.
   The  owner  or  operator  of  any
jranular  triple  superphosphate storage
facility subject to the provisions  of this
subpart shall maintain an  accurate ac-
:ount of triple superphosphate in storage
to  permit  the  determination  of  the
amount of  equivalent P.O« stored.
  (b) The  owner  or operator  of  any
granular  triple  superphosphate storage
facility shall  maintain a daily record of
total equivalent PSO-. stored by multiply-
ing  the  percentage  P,O:   content,  as
determined by §60.244(11(2), times the
total mass  of granular triple superphos-
phate stored.
  (c) The  owner  or operator  of  any
granular  triple  superphosphate storage
facility subject to the provisions  of this
part shall  install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a  monitoring  device  which
continuously  measures and permanently
records the total pressure drop across the-
process scrubbing sytem. The monitoring
device shall have an accuracy of ±5 per-
cent over its operating range.
§ 60.214   Test methods and procedures.
  (a) Reference methods in Appendix A
of  this part,  except as provided  for in
§60.8(b).  shall be  used  to determine
compliance with the standard prescribed
in § 60.242 as follows:
  (1) Method  13A or 13B  for  the con-
centration  of total fluorides and the as-
sociated moisture content.
  (2) Method 1 for sample  and velocity
traverses,
  (3)  Method  2 for  velocity and volu-
metric flow rate, and
   (4)  Method 3 for gas analysis.
  (b) For Method 13A or 13B. the sam-
pling time  for each run shall be at least
60  minutes and the minimum sample
volume shall be  at least 0.85 dscm (30
dscf) except that shorter sampling times
or  smaller volumes,  when  necessitated
by process variables or other factors, may
be approved by the Administrator.
   (c)  The  air  pollution control  system
for  the affected facility shall be con-
structed  so that  volumetric flow  rates
and total fluoride emissions can  be ac-
curately  determined  by applicable  test
methods and procedures.
   (d) Except as provided  under  para-
graph  (e)  of  this  section,  all perform-
ance tests on granular triple superphos-
phate  storage  facilities  shall  be con-
ducted only when the following quanti-
ties of  product are being cured or stored
Jn the facility:
   O) Total granular triple superphos-
phate—at least 10 percent of. the  build-
ing capacity.
  (2) Fresh granular  triple superphos-
phate—at least 20 percent of the amount
of triple superphosphate in  the  building.
  (e) If the provisions set forth in para-
graph (d) (2) of  this section exceed pro-
duction  capabilities  for fresh  granular
triple superphosphate, the owner or oper-
ator shall have at least five days maxi-
mum production of fresh granular triple
superphosphate  in the building  during
a performance test.
  (f)  Equivalent  P.OB stored  shall be
determined as follows:
  (11  Determine the total  mass stored
during each run using an accountability
system  meeting  the  requirements  of
§ 60.243(a).
  (2)   Calculate  the  equivalent  P.O-,
stored,  by  multiplying the percentage
Pi-O.-. content, as measured  by  the spec-
trophotometric    molybclovanadophos-
phate method (AOAC Method  9), times
the total mass stored. AOAC Method  9
is published  in  the  Aflicial Methods of
Analysis of the  Association of  Official
Analytical  Chemists, 11th edition,  1970,
pp.  11-12.  Other methods  may  be ap-
proved by the Administrator.
   (g)  For each run,  emissions expressed
in  g/lir/metric  ton  of equivalent P,O3
stored shall be determined using the fol-
lowing equation:
             ;•;=
                 C (',t = Eqtilvalent  P,O, feed  in  metric
           tons as measured by § 60.244(d).

  3. Part 60 16 amended by adding Reference
Methods 13A  and 13B  to Appendix A as
follows:
METHOD 13—DKTETMINATION OF TOTAL FLUO-
  RIDE EMISSIONS ?1tOM STATIONARY SOURCES	
  SPADNS ZIRCONIUM LAKE METHOD

  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1   Principle. Gaseous and paniculate
fluorides are withdrawn isoklnetically from
the source using a sampling train. The fluo-
rides  are collected In the Impinger water and
on  the filter  of  the  sampling  train.  The
weight of total fluorides In the train Is de-
termined  by the SPADNS Zirconium Lake
colorlmetrlc method.
  1.2   Applicability. This method is applica-
ble for the  determination of fluoride emis-
sions  from  stationary sources only when
specified,by the test  procedures for deter-
mining compliance- with  new  source per-
formance- standards. Fluorocarbcms. such as
Freons, aro  not quantitatively  collected or
measured by this procedure.
  2. Range and Sensitivity.
  The SPADNS Zirconium Lake analytical
method covers the range from  0-1.4 dg/ml
fluoride. Sensitivity has not been determined.
  3. Interferences.
  During the laboratory analysis, aluminum
In excess of 300 mg/Uter and silicon dioxide
in excess of 300 ^g/llter  will prevent com-
plete  recovery of fluoride. Chloride will distill
over and Interfere with the SPADNS Zirconi-
um Lake color reaction.  If chloride Ion Is
present, life of Specific Ion Electrode (Method
13B) is recommended:  otherwlso a chloride
determination  Is required and 5 mg of silver
sulfate (sec section 7.3.G)  must be added for
each mg of chloride  to prevent chloride In-
terference. If sulfuric acid Is carried over In
the distillation, it will cause a positive inter-
ference. To avoid sulfuric acid carryover. It
Is Important to stop  distillation at 175°C.
  4. Precision,  Accuracy anil SiabiiUy.
  4.1   Analysis.  A relative standard devia-
tion of 3 percent was obtained from twenty
replicate Intralaboratory  determinations  on
stack emission samples  with a concentration
ranRC of 30  to 3CO mg/1. A phosphate rock
standard which was  analyzed by this pro-
cedure  contained a  certified value of 3.84
percent. The average of five determinations
was 3.88 percent fluoride.
  4.2   Stability. The  color obtained when
tlio sample and colorlmetrlc reagent arc
mixed  Is stable for approximately two hours.
After formation of the color, the ab.wrbances
of the  sample and standard solutions should
be measured at the same  temperature. A 3°C
temperature difference between sample and
standard solutlnos will produce an error of
approximately 0.005 mg F/llter.
  5. Apparatus.
  5.1   Sample train.  See  Figure 13A-1; It Is
similar to the  Method 5 train except for the
interchangcabllity of the position of the  fil-
ter.  Commercial  models of this train are
available. However. If one desires to bulJd his
own. complete  construction details aro de-
scribed in APTD-0581;  for changes from .the
APTD-0581  document  and  for  allowable
modifications  to  Figure  13A-1. see the fol-
lowing subsections.
  The operating and maintenance procedures
for tho  sampling train  are  described  In
APTD-057G. Since correct usage 13 Important
In obtaining valid results,  all users should
read the APTD-0576  document  and adopt
the operating  and maintenance  procedures
outlined In It, unless otherwise  specified
herein.
  5.1.1   Probe  nozzle—Stainless sled (316)
with sharp, tapered leading edge. The angle
of taper shall  be p"30° and  the  taper  shall
be on  the outside to  preserve a  constant
Internal diameter. The  probe nozzle shall be
of the  button-hook or  elbow design, unless
otherwise specified by the Administrator. The
wall thickness of the nozzle shall be less than
or equal to that of 20  gauge tubing, I.e..
0.1C5 cm (0.055 In.)  and the distance  from
the tip of  the nozzle  to the first bend or
point of disturbance shall be at least  two
times the outside nozzle diameter. The nozzle
shall be constructed  from seamless stainless
steel tubing. Other configurations and con-
struction material may be used with approval
from the Administrator.
  A range  of  sizes  suitable  for  Isoklnetlc
sampling should  be  available. e.g., 0.32 cm
(!J, In.) up to 1.27 cm  (
-------
33158
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
pilot tube shall be at least 1.9 cm (0.75 In.).
1 'hi? free space shall be set based on a 1.3 cm
(05 In.)  ID nozzle, which Is the  largest •size
no/x.Ie used.
  The pilot tube  must also meet  the criteria
specified in Method 2 and be calibrated ac-
cording to the procedure In the  calibration
section of that method.
  5.1.4  Differential   pressure   gauge—In-
clined  manometer capable of measuring ve-
locity head  to within 10% of the minimum
measured value. Below a differential pressure
of 1.3  mm  (0.05  In.)  water gauge,  mlcro-
manometers with sensitivities of 0.013 mm
(0.0005 In.)  should be used. However, micro-
manometers arc not easily adaptable to field
conditions and are not  easy to use with pul-
sating  flow. Thus, other methods or devices
acceptable-  to the  Administrator may  be
used when conditions warrant.
  5.1.5  Filter holder—Boroslllcate glass with
a glass frit  filter  support and a sillcone rub-
ber gasket.  Other materials  of construction
may be  used with  approval from the  Ad-
ministrator, e.g., If  probe liner  Is stainless
steel, then  filter holder may be stainless steel.
The holder design shall provide a positive
seal  against  leakage  from  the  outside or
around the  filter.
  5.1.G  Filter heating  system—When mois-
ture condensation Is  a  problem, any heating
system capable of maintaining a temperaturo
around the filter holder during sampling of
no  greater than  120±14'C  (248±25°F).
A temperature gauge capable of measuring
temperature to within 3°C  (5.4°F) 'shall be
Installed so that when the filter  heater  Is
used,  the  temperature  around  the  filter
holder can  be regulated and monitored dur-
ing  sampling. Heating  systems  other than
the  one shown in APTD-0581 may be used.
   5.1.7   Implngcrs—Four  Implngers  con-
nected as shown In Figure 13A-1 with ground
glass (or equivalent), vacuum tight fittings.
The first,   third,  and  fourth  Implngcrs  are
of the Greonburg-Smith design,  modified by
replacing  the  tip with  a  I1/,  cm  ('/2  In.)
Inside diameter glass tube extending to 1'xi
cm  C/2  In.) from the bottom of  the flask.
The second Implnger Is  of  the Greensburg-
Smith design with the standard tip.
   5.1.8   Metering  system—Vacuum   gauge.
 leak-free  pump,  thermometers  capnble  of
measuring   temperature  to  within  3°C
 (~5*F), dry gas  meter with 2Ct  accuracy at
the required  sampling rate,  and   related
equipment, or  equivalent,  as  required  to
maintain  an Isoklnetlc  sampling rate and
to determine sample  volume.   When  the
 metering system Is used In conjunction with
 a pilot tube, the system shall enable  checks
of Isoklnetlc rates.
   6.1.9   Barometer—Mercury,  aneroid,   or
 other  barometers capable of  measuring at-
 mospheric  pressure  to within  2.5 mm Hg
 (0.1 In.  Hg). In  many cases, the barometric
 reading may  be obtained  from  a  nearby
 weather bureau  station, In which  crtse  the
 station value shall be  requested and  an ad-
 justment  for elevation  differences shall  be
 applied  at  a rate of minus 2.5 mm  Hg (0.1
 In. Hg)  per 30 m (100  ft) elevation Increase.
   5.2  Sample recovery.
   5.2.1   Probe   liner   and   probe   noEzle
 bnishes—Nylon  bristles  with stainless steel
 wire handles. The  probe brush shall  have
 extensions, at least as  long as the probe, of
 stainless steel, teflon, or similarly inert mate-
 rial. Both brushes shall be properly sized nnd
 shaped,  to  brush out  the  probe  liner and
 nozzle.
   5.2.2  Glass wash bottles—Two.
   5.2.3  Sample   storage  containers—Wide
 mouth,  high  density  polyethylene  bottles,
 1 liter.
   5.2.4  Plastic storage containers—Air tight
 containers of sufficient volume to store silica
 get
  5.2.5  Graduated cylinder—250 ml.
  5.2.6  Funnel and rubber  policeman—to
aid in transfer of silica gel to container;  not
necessary If silica gel Is weighed In the held.
  5.3  Analysis.
  5.3.1  Distillation apparatus—Glass  distil-
lation apparatus assembled as shown in Flg-
uro 13A-2.
  5.3.2  Hot plate—Capable of  heatine  to
500' C.
  5.3.3  Electric muffle furnace—Capable of
heating to 800' C.
  5.3.4  Crucibles—Nickel, 75 to 100 ml ca-
pacity.
  5.3.5  Beaker. 1500 ml.
  5.3.6  Volumetric flask—50  ml.
  5.3.7  Erlenmeycr flask or plastic bottle—
500 ml.
  5.3.8  Constant  temperature  bath—Capa-
ble of maintaining  a constant temperature of
±1.0° C In the range of room  temperature.
  5.3.9  Balance—300 g capacity to measure
to ±05 g.
  5.3.10   Spectrophotometer —  Instrument
capable of measuring  absorbance at 570 nm
and providing  at least a 1  cm light path.
  5.3.11   Spectrophotometer cells—1 cm.
  C. Reagents
  6.1  Sampling.
  S.I.I  Filters—Whatman No. 1  filters, or
equivalent, sized to fit Alter holder.
  6.1.2  Silica   gel—Indicating  type.   G-16
mesh.  If  previously used,  dry at  175°  c
(350° F)  for 2 hours.  New silica gel mtvy bo
used as received.
  C.I.3  Water—Distilled.
  0.1.4  Crushed Ice.
  0.1.5  Stopcock grease—Acetone  insoluble,
heat stable sillcone grease. This Is not neces-
sary  If  screw-on   connectors  with   teflon
sleeves, or similar, are used.
  6.2  Sample recovery.
  6.2.1  Water—Distilled  from  same  con-
tainer as 6.1.3.
  63  Analysis.
  6.3.1  Calcium   oxide   (CoO)—Certified
grade- containing  0.005  percent fluoride  or
less.
  6.3.2   Phenolphthalein Indicator—0.1  per-
cent In 1:1 ethanol-watcr mixture.
  6.3.3  Silver  sulfatc  (Ag^SO.)— ACS  re-
agent grade, or equivalent.
  6.3.4   Sodium hydroxide (NnOH)—Pellets,
ACS reagent grade, or equivalent.
  6.3.5  Sulfuric   acid   (H.SO,)— Concen-
trated.  ACS reagent grade, or  equivalent.
  6.3.6   Filters—Whatman No. 541, or equiv-
alent.
  6.3.7   Hydrochloric  acid  (HC1)—Concen-
trated.  ACS reagent grade, or equivalent.
  6.3.8   Water—Distilled,  from same  con-
tainer as 6.1.3.
  6.3.9   Sodium fluoride—Standard solution.
Dissolve  0.2210 g  of  sodium fluoride  In  1
liter of distilled water. Dilute  100  ml  of this
solution  1x5 1  liter with distilled  water. One
mllllliter of the solution contains 0.01  mg
of fluoride.
  63.10  SPADNS   solution—|4.5cllhydroxy-
3-(p-STilfophcnyia70)-2,7-naphUialene  -  dl-
sulfonlc  acid trisodium salt|. Dissolve  0.9GO
±.010 g of SPADNS reagent In 500 ml dis-
tilled water.  This solution  Is  stable for  at
least one month,  if stored  In  a  well-scaled
bottle protected from sunlight.
  6.3.11   Reference solution—Add  10  nil  of
SPADNS  solution (6.3.10)  to 100 ml distilled
water and acidify with a solution prepared  by
diluting  7 ml  of concentrated  HC1 to 10 ml
with  distilled  water. This  solution is used  to
set the  Spectrophotometer  zero   point and
should  be prepared dally.
   6.3.12  SPADNS  Mixed  Reagent—Dissolve
0.135 ±0.005 g of  zlrconyl chloride octahy-
drate (ZrOC1..8H,O), In 25 ml distilled wnter.
Add 350 ml of  concentrated HC1 and dilute to
600 ml with  distilled water. Mix  equal vol-
umes of  this solution and SPADNS solution
to form tv  single reagent. This  reagent Is
stable  for at least two months.
  7.  Procedure.
  NOTE:  The fusion and distillation steps of
this  procedure will not be required, If It can
be shown to the satisfaction of the Adminis-
trator  that  the samples contain only water-
soluble fluorides.
  7.1   Sampling. The sampling shall be  con-
ducted  by competent  personnel  experienced
with this test procedure.
  7.1.1  Pretest  preparation. AH train com-
ponents  shall be maintained and calibrated
according  to the  procedure  described  In
APTD-0576, unless otherwise specified herein.
  Weigh approximately 200-300 g of silica gel
In nlr  tight containers to the nearest 0.5 g.
Record  the  totnl weight,  both silica gel  and
container, on the container. More silica gel
may be used but care should be taken during
sampling that It  Is not entrained and carried
out from the Implnger. As an alternative, the
silica gel may be weighed directly In the 1m-
plnger or Its  sampling holder Just prior to
the train assembly.
  7.1.2  Preliminary  determinations. Select
the sampling site and  the minimum number
of sampling points according to Method  I or
as specified by the Administrator. Determine
the  stack  pressure,  temperature,  and  the
rnnce  of velocity heads using  Method 2  and,
moisture content using Approximation Meth-
od 4 or Us alternatives  tor the purpose of
making Isoklnetlc sampling rate calculations.
Estimates may be used. However, final results
will  be based on actual measurements made
during the  test.
  Select a nozzle size  based on the range of
velocity  heads such that It Is not necessary
to change the no?./Ic  size in order  to main-
tain isokinetic  sampling  rates.  During tho
run. do  not change the  noz?.le sl?.e.  Ensure
that the differential pressure gauge Is capable
of  measuring  the  minimum  velocity  head
valuo  lo within  )0:;-, or as specified'by the
Administrator.
  Select a  suitable probe liner  and  probe
length  such that all traverse  points can be
sampled. Consider sampling  from opposite
sides for large stacks tn reduce the  length of
probes.
  Select a  total  sampling lime greater  l.him
or equal to  the minimum total sampling time
specified  in the  test procedures  for the  spe-
cific Industry such  that the  sampling  time
per  point  is not less  than 2  mln.  or select
some greater time Interval as specified by the
Administrator,  and such  that  the  sample
volume that will be laken will exceed the re-
quired minimum total gas sample volume
specified In the  test procedures  for the spe-
cific Industry. The latter l.s based on an ap-
proximate-  average  sampling rate. Note  also
that tlie minimum total sample  volume  Is
corrected to standard conditions.
  It Is recommended  tluu  a half-Integral or
Integral number of minutes  be sampled at
each point In  order  to avoid  timekeeping
errors.
  In some clrcumMances, e.g.  hatch cycles. It
may bo necessary to sample for shorter times
at tlie  traverse  points and to  obtain smaller
gas  sample volumes. In these  cases, the Ad-
ministrator's approval must, llrst be  obtained.
   7.1 .'J  Preparation of collection tr.Mn.  Dur-
ing  preparation and  assembly of tho  sam-
pling train, keep all openings where contami-
nation can occur covered until Just prior to
assembly or until sampling Is about to bei;iu.
   Place  100 ml  of \vntcr  in each of  the-  llrst
two  Implngers.  leave the third  Implnger
empty,  and place  approximately  200-300  g
or  more. If necessary, of  prewelghed silica
gel In  the fourth implngcr. Record the weight
of the silica  gel and  container on  the data
slice t. Place the empty container in a clean
place  for later  use In the sample  recovery.
   Place, a filter In the filter holder. Be sure
that the filter Is properly  centered  and tho
                                  FEDERAL  REGISTER,  VOL. 40, NO.  152—WEDNESDAY,  AUGUST  6,  1975


                                                             IV-6 5
-------
                                                   RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                33159
 gasket properly placed so as to not allow the
 sample gas stream to circumvent  the filter.
 Check Miter for tears after assembly Is com-
 pleted.
   When glass liners are used, Install selected
 nozzle using a Vlton A O-rlng; the Vlton A
 O-rlng Is Installed as a seal where the nozzle
 Is connected to a glass liner. See APTD-0570
 for details. When metal liners are used, In-
 stall  the nozzle  as  above or  by a leak free
 direct  mechanical  connection.  Mark  the
 probe with heat resistant tape or by  some
 other method to denote the proper distance
 Into  the stack or duct  for  each  sampling
 point.
   Unless otherwise specified by the Admin-
 istrator, attach a temperature probe to the
 metal sheath of the sampling probe so that
 the sensor extends beyond the probe Up and
 loes not touch any metal. Its position should
 >e about 1.9 to 2.54 cm  (0.75 to 1  In.)  from
 ;he  pltot tube and probe nozzle  to avoid
 .ntcrferenco with tho gas now.
   Assemble the  train as shown  In Figure
 13A-1 with the filter between the  third and
 fourth  Implngers.  Alternatively,   the  filter
 may  be  placed  between  the  probe and the
 first  Implnger. A filter heating system may
 be used to prevent moisture condensation.
 but the temperature around the filler holder
 shall  not  exceed  120±140C  (248±25°F).
 | (Note: Whatman No. 1  filter decomposes at
 160'C (300°F)).J  Record  filter location  on
 the data sheet.
   Place crushed Ice around the Implngers.
   7.14  Leak  check  procedure—After  the
 sampling train has been assembled, turn on
 and  set  (If applicable) the probe mid  filter
 heating  system(s)  to reach  a  temperature
 sufficient to avoid condensation In tho probe.
 Allow time  for the temperature to stabilize.
 Leak  check  the train at the sampling site by
 plugging the nozzle and pulling a 380 mm Kg
 (15 In. Hg) -vacuum. A leakage rate In ex-
cess of 41J.  of the average sampling rate or
0.00057 mVmln. (0.02 cfm), whichever Is less,
 is unacceptable.
  The following leak check Instructions for
the sampling train described  In APTD-057G
 and  APTD-0581 may be  helpful.  Start  the
 pump with  by-pass  valve fully  open and
coarso adjust valve  completely  closed.  Par-
tially open the coarse adjust vnlve find slowly
close  the by-pass valve until 380 mm Hg (15
In. Hg) vacuum is reached. Do not reverse
direction  of by-pass  valve. This will  cause
water to bock  up Into the filter  holder. If
380 mm  Hg (15 In.  Hg)  Is exceeded, either
leak  check at this higher vacuum or end the
leak  check as described below and start over.
   When  the leak  check is completed,  first
slowly remove the plug from the inlet to the
probe or filter holder and  Immediately turn
off the vacuum pump.  This prevents  the
 water In  the Implngers from being forced
 backward Into the  filter holder (If placed
before the  Implngers) and silica  gel from
 being  entrained  backward Into the  third
 Implnger.
  Leak checks shall be conducted as described
 whenever the train is  disengaged, e.g.  for
silica gel or filter changes  during  the  test,
prior  to each test run, and at the completion
of each test run. If leaks are found to be  In
exce-is of the acceptable rate, the test will be
considered Invalid. To reduce lost time due
 to leakage  occurrences, It  IB  recommended
 that leak checks be eonducted between  port
changes.
  7.1.5  Participate train  operation—During
the sampling run, an leoklnctlc sampling rate
 within 10%, or as specified by the Adminis-
trator, of true Isoklnetlc shall be maintained.
  For each run, record the data required on
the example data sheet shown  In Figure 13A-
3. Bo  sure to record Iho Initial dry gas meter
reading. Record the dry gas meter readings at
the beginning and end of each sampling time
 Increment,  when  changes In flow rates  are
 made, and when sampling  is  halted. Take
 other  data point readings at least once  at
 each sample point during each time Incre-
 ment  and additional readings when signifi-
 cant changes (20% variation In velocity head
 readings) necessitate additional adjustments
 In  flow  rate. Be sure to level and  zero the
 manometer.
  Clean  the portholes prior to the test run to
 minimize   chance of   sampling  deposited
 material. To  begin  sampling, remove tho
 nozzle cap,  verify fit  applicable) that the
 probe  heater is working and filter heater Is
 up to  temperature, and that the pltot tube
 and probe  are- properly positioned. Position
 the nozzle at the first traverse point with the
 tip pointing directly Into the gas stream. Im-
 mediately  start the  pump  and adjust the
 flow to Isoklnetlc conditions. Nomographs are
 available for sampling  trains using type S
 pilot tubes with 0.85±0.02 coefficients (Cn),
 and when sampling in air or  a stack gas with
 equivalent  density  (molecular weight, M.I.
 equal  to 29:<:4), which aid in the rapid ad-
 justment of  the Isoklnetlc  sampling rate
 without  excessive computations. APTD-0576
 details the  procedure for using these nomo-
 graphs. If Ci. and M.i  are  outside the above
 stated ranges,  do not use  the nomograph
 unless approplrate steps are  taken  to  com-
 pensate  for the deviations.
  When  the stack.is under significant nega-
 tive pressure (height of Implnger stem), take
 care to close the  coarse adjust valve before
 Inserting the probe  Into the stack to avoid
 water backing Into the filter holder. If neces-
 sary, the pump may  be turned on with the
 coarse adjust valve closed.
  When  the probe Is  In position, block  off
 the openings around the probe and porthole
 to prevent  unrepresentative  dilution of the
 gas stream.
  Traverse the stack cross section, as required
 by Method 1 or as specified by the Adminis-
 trator, being careful not to bump the probe
 nozzle  Into the stack walls  when sampling
 near the walls or when removing or Inserting
 the probe through the portholes to minimize
 chance of  extracting deposited material.
  During the test run, make periodic adjust-
 ments  to keep  the probe and  (If applicable)
 filler temperatures at theJr proper values. Add
 more Ice and,  if necessary,  salt to the Ice
 bath, to  maintain a temperature of less than
 20°C (GB'F) at the implnger/Elllca gel outlet,
 to avoid excessive moisture losses. Also, pe-
 riodically check tho level  and  zero of the
 manometer.
  If the  pressure  drop  across the filter be-
 comes  high  enough to make  Isoklnetlc sam-
 pling difficult to maintain, the filler may  be
 replaced  in  the midst of a sample run. It  is
 recommended that another  complete  filter
 assembly be used rather than attempting  to
 change the filter Itself. After the new filter or
 filter assembly is  Installed conduct a leak
 check.  The  final emission results shall  be
 based on the summation of all filter catches.
  A single train shall be used for  the entire
sample run,  except for filter and silica gel
 changes.  However, if approved by the Admin-
 istrator,  two or more trains may be used for
 a single test run when there are two or more
ducts or  sampling ports. The final emission
results shall be based  on the  total of all
sampling train catches.
  At the  end of the sample run, turn off the
pump,  remove  the probe  and nozzle  from
the stack, and record the final dry gas meter
reading.  Perform  a  leak check.1  Calculate
percent Isokinetlc  (see  calculation section)
to  determine  whether  another  test  run
should be made. If therejs difficulty in main-
taining Isokinetlc  rates due  to  source con-
  1 With acceptability of tho test run  to bo
based on the same criterion as in 7.1.4.
 dltlons. consult with the Administrator  for
 possible variance on the Isoklnetlc rates.
   7.2   Sample recovery. Proper cleanup pro-
 cedure begins  as soon  as  the probe Is  re-
 moved from the stack  at the end of the
 sampling period.
   When the probe can  be safely  handled,
 wipe off all external partlculate matter neat
 the tip of the probe nozzle and place a cap
 over It to  keep from  losing  part of the
 sample. Do not cap off the probe tip tightly
 while the sampling train Is cooling down, at
 this would  create  a vacuum  In  the  filter
 holder,  thus drawing  water  from the  Im-
 plngers Into the filter.
   Before moving the sample  train to the
 cleanup site,  remove  the  proba  from the
 sample train, wipe off the slllcone grease, and
 cap the open outlet of the probe. Be careful
 nol to lose any condensate, If present. Wipe
 off  the slllcone grease from  the filter Inlet
 where  the  probe was fastened  and cap It.
 Remove the  umbilical  cord  from the  last
 Implnger and  cop the Impinger. After wip-
 ing off the slllcone grease,  cap off the filter
 holder outlet  and  Implnger  Inlet. Ground
 glass stoppers, plastic caps,  or serum caps
 may be used to close these openings.
   Transfer the probe and ftlter-implnger as-
 sembly to the cleanup area. This area should
 be clean and protected from the -wind so that
 the chances of contaminating or losing the
 sample will be minimized.
   Inspect the train prior to and during dis-
 assembly and note any abnormal conditions.
 Using a graduated cylinder, measure and re-
 cord the volume of the water  in  the first
 three Implngers, to the nearest ml; any con-
 densate lu the probe should  be Included In
 this determination.  Treat  the  samples as
 follows:
   7.2.1   Container No. 1. Transfer the  Im-
 plnger water from the graduated cylinder to
 this container. Add the  filter  to  this con-
 tainer.  Wash  all  sample exposed surfaces,
 including the  probe tip, probe, first three
 Implngers, Implnger connectors, niter holder.
 and graduated cylinder thoroughly with dis-
 tilled  water.  Wash  each component three
 separate times with  water  and clean  the
 probe and  nozzle with brushes. A maximum
 wash of 500 ml is used, and the washings are
 added to the sample container which must
 be made of polyethylene.
   7.2.2   Container No. 2. Transfer the silica
 gel from the fourth impinger  to  this con-
 tainer  and seal.
   7.3  Analysis. Treat the contents of each
 sample container as described below.
   7.3.1   Container No. 1.
   7.3.1.1 Filter this container's contents, in-
 cluding the  Whatman No.  1  filter, through
 Whatman No. 541 filter paper, or equivalent
 Into a 1500 ml beaker. Note: If filtrate volume
 exceeds  900 ml  make-  nitrate  basic with
 NaOH  to phenolphthaleln and evaporate to
 less than 900 ml.
   7.3.1.2 Place the  Whatman No.  54.1 filter
 containing the  Insoluble matter (Including
 the Whatman No. 1  filter) In  a nickel cruci-
 ble,  add a few ml of water and macerate the
 filter with a glass rod.
   Add 100  mg  CaO to the crucible and mix
 the  contents  thoroughly to form  a slurry.
 Add a  couple  of  drops  of phenolphthaleln
 Indicator, The  Indicator will  turn  red In a
 basic medium.  The  slurry should remain
 basic during the  evaporation of the  water
 or fluoride  Ion will be lost.  If the  indicator
 turns colorless  during  the  evaporation, an
 acidic condition is indicated. If this happens
 add CaO until the color turns reel again.
   Place the crucible in a hood under Infra-
 red lamps or on a hot plate at low heat. Evap-
 orate tlie water completely.
  After evaporation  of the water, place the.
 crucible on a hot plate under  a hood and
slowly  Increase  the temperature until the
paper chars.  It  may take several hours for
complete charring  of the- filter to occur.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL, 40, NO. 152—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6.  1975


                                                          IV-6 6
-------
 33160
       RULES  ANT  REGULATIONS
  Place the crucible In a cold muffle furnace
and gradually (to prevent smoking) increase
the temperature  to GOO'C. and maintain un-
111  the  contents  are reduced  to on ash. Re-
move- the crucible from the furnace and allow
it  to cool.
  7.3.1.3  Add approximately  4 g of crushed
NaOH to  the crucible  and mix.  Return tho
crucible to the muffle furnace, and fuse the
sample  for 10 minutes at 600°C.
  Remove the sample from the furnace and
rool to ambient  temperature. Using several
rinsings of warm distilled water transfer tho
contents of the crucible  to the beaker con-
taining the  filtrate  from  container No.  1
(73.1). To assure complete sample removal.
rinse finally  with two  20 ml  portions  of  25
percent (v/vl sulfurlc add and carefully add
to the beaker.  Mix well and transfer a cne-
IHer volumetric flask.  Dilute to volume with
distilled water and mix thoroughly. Allow
any  undlssolved  solids to settle.
  7.3.2  Container No. 2. Weigh  the spent
silica gel and report to the nearest 0.5 g.
  733  Adjustment  of acid/water ratio  In
distillation flask— (Utilize a protective shield
when carrying out this procedure.)  Place 400
ml  of distilled water  In  the  distilling Iln.sk
and  add 200  ml of concentrated II  SO,  Cau-
llon: Observe  standard  precautions  when
mixing  the H.SO, by slowly adding the add
to the flask with constant swirling.  Add some
Boft  glass  beads and several small pieces  of
broken  gloss tubing and assemble the ap-
paratus as shown In Figure 13A-2. Heat the
flask  until  It reaches a temperature of 175'C
to adjust the acid/water ratio for subsequent
distillations.  Discard the distillate.
  7.3.4  Distillation—Cool the  contents  of
the distillation flask to below 80 C. Pipette
nn aliquot of sample containing less than 0(5
nm F directly into the distilling flnsk and add
distilled water to make a total volume of 220
ml added  to  the  distilling flask. [For an es-
timate of  what size aliquot does not exceed
O.G  mg  F. select  an aliquot  of the solution
and  treat  as  described  In Section  7.3 0. This
will  give an  approximation  of  the fluoride
content, but  only an  approximation  since
Interfering Ions have  not been removed by
the distillation step. ]
  Place a 250 ml volumetric flask at the con-
denser exit. Now  begin  distillation  and grad-
ually Increase  the rietit  and  collect all the
distillation up to  17.VC.  Caution: Heating
the solution  above 176"C will cause sulfurlc
acid to distill over.
  The acid In the distilling flask can be used
until there  is  carryover  of Interferences  or
poor fluoride  recovery.  An occasional check  of
fluoride recovery  with  standard solutions  Is
advised. The  acid should be changed when-
ever there  is  less than flO  percent recovery
or blank values are higher than 0.1 ,,g,'ml.
Note: If the sample contains chloride, add
5 mg Ag.SO,  to  the flask for every mg  of
chloride. Gradually  increase  the  heat  and
collect at  the distillate up to 175°C. Do not
exceed 175°C.
  7.3.5  Determination  of  Concentration—
Bring the distillate In the 250 ml volumetric
flnsk  to the  mark with distilled water and
mix  thoroughly.  Pipette  a suitable  aliquot
from the  distillate  (containing 10 j,g to  40
,,[{ fluoride)  and  dilute to 50 ml  with  dis-
tilled water. Add 10 ml of SPADNS Mixed Rea-
gent (see Section 6.3.12) and mix thoroughly.
  After mixing, place  the sample  In a con-
stant temperature bath containing the stand-
ard solution  for thirty minutes before read-
Ing  the nbsorbancc with  the  spcctropho-
tometer.
  Set the  spectrophotometer to zero absorb-
ancc  at 570 nra  with  reference  solution
(6.3.11), and check  the spectrophotometer
 calibration  with the standard  solution. De-
 termine the al>sorbance of the samples and
 de'«rm!ne the concentration from the cali-
 bration curve. If the concentration does not
 fall within the range of the calibration curve,
 repeat  the  procedure using a  different size
 aliquot.
   8. Calibration.
  Maintain a laboratory log of all calibrations.
   8.1   Sampling Train.
   8.1.1  Probe nozzle—Using ft micrometer,
 measure the  Inside  diameter of  the  ncv/./le
 to the  nearest  0.025 mm (0.001  In.). Mn)[  gas sample  measured by
   the dry  g;is  meter corrected to standard
   conditions, dscm  (dscf).
 V» i».h ^ Volume  of water vapor  In  the gas
   sample  corrected to standard  conditions.
   scm (scf).
 Vi --Total  volume  of sample, ml.
 u,-Stack gas.velocity, calculated by Method
   2. Equation 2 7 using data obtained from
   Method  5.  lu/sec  (ft/sec).
 1V« —Weight of residue In acetone wash, 11117.
£// —Average pressure differential across the
   orlllce (see fig.  13A-3),  meter, mm II:O
   (Hi. ILO).
fla-.Density of acetone, mg/'iul (see  label on
   bottle).
p_  Density  of  water.  1  g/ml  (O.CX?i!0 It).'
 "ml).
<) —Total sampling lime.  niln.
 i:i.6---bpcciiic gravity of  mercury.
00. Scc/mlu.
 100:;Conversion  to percent.
  9.2  Average  dry  g.ts  meter  temperature
and average  orifice  pressure drop. See datA
sheet (fig. ISA-3).
  fl.3  Dry  gas  volume. Correct  the sample
volume  measured by the dry gas meter to
BtMidard conditions |20°  C, 760 mm Hg (08*
F. 23.92 Inches  Hg)]  by   using equation
13A-1.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL.  40,  NO. 1S2—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST  6.  197S
                                                           IV-6 7
-------
RULES  AND REGULATIONS

             . A/r
                                                                                                    331(51
                             ™
                 ..        ..  J ,ld
                 rn(.M)= I m -f-
                                       n
                                       1 lid
                           Pt.,4- AH/13.6
                                 T.
where:
  K =0.3655 °K/mm Kg for metric units.
    = 17.65 'ft/in. Hg for English units.
  9.4  Volume of water vapor.
                                         P.  flTjM
                            1 •<•"•>-Ki<  s/; "P. «
where:
  K = 000134 mVml for metric units.
    = 0.0472 ftVml for English units.
  9.5  Moisture content.
                                                 oquntii'ti i;'A-3

                        If the liquid droplets are present In  the
                      gas stream tissume the stream to be saturated
                      and use » psychrometrlc chart to obtain an
                      approximation of the moisture percentage.
                        9G  Concentration.
                        9. c.l  Calculate the amount of fluoride in
                      the snmplc according to Equation J3A-4.
                                                                      equation  13A-1
                                           equation 13A-2
                                  ,      ---
                                        A , A d
                                                equation DA -4

                      where:
                        K — 10-" mg/jig.
                        9.6.2  Concentration of fluoride  In  stack
                      gas. Determine the concentration of fluoride
                      In the stack gas according to Equation 13A-5.
                      where:
                        9.7   Isokinetlc variation.
                        9.7.1  Calculations Crom raw data.

                        ion  T.[K\'i,\  ( VJTn)(l\,,
                                         '
                                                                      equation 1J5A-0
where:
  #=0.00346 mm Hg-mVml-"K for metric
       units.
    =0.00267 In.  Hg-ftVml-"R for English
       units.
  9.7.2  Calculations from Intermediate val-
ues.
                                                  100
                            ,    _. r™ (,M,/' .M 100 _
                             " T.,,,v~e .1 „"/'," oo ( i-fir.)
                                  .  ._.
                                  l'.v,A»0 (!-
                                                                               l.'>A-7
where:
  K = 4.323 for metric units.
    = 0.0944 for English units.
  9.8  Acceptable  results.  The   following
range sets the limit on acceptabje  Isokinetlc
sampling results:
  If 90 percent  
-------
.331(12
RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                            n         • TEMPfRATUrtt
                            'V5'""   ,  SINSOR
                               ..  —
                      1.9cm (0 Ib.nl'  ,, 5
                                                  I .11.111 1.1.'.  I I !. • I I-' <-l'-'|H


                                                       CONrjCCTIfJG TUBE
                     THERMOMETER TIPMUST EXTEND BELOW
                               THE LIQUID LEVEL
                                           WITH! 10/30 —:
                                             £24/40 —
                      J24/40
          ^J      ADAPTER
                                                                                            COMOENSER
                                               Fiyure 13A-2. Fluoride Dislillalion Apparatus
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40,  NO. 152—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST  6, 1975


                                                            IV-6 9
-------
                                                   RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                       BkftQMuiuc PRESSURE,
                                                       ASSIWID MOISTURE.*
                                                       WOlt ItNCrM.iBtliJ.
                             $C>n**AtiC Of JtACJ
 Mt:riioi> nn—DETFRMIKATKIN or TOTAL FC.UO-
  RIIIK EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOORCFS—
  SPECIFIC ION Ei.F.cTnonE METHOD.

  !. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1   Principle. Gaseous and participate flu-
 orides are withdrawn  Isoklnetlcally from tlio
 .source using n sampling  train. The fluorides
 MO collected  In the Impiuncr water and on
 t.lic niter of the sampling train. The weight
 of total  fluorides In the  train Is determined
 by I lie specific Ion electrode method.
  1.2   Applicability.  This   method  is  ap-
 plicable  for ihe dcterml.uulun of  fluoride
 pinlsMcjii-s from .•Uallon.try sonirc.s only ivhcn
 .specified  l>y thn test  procedures for deter-
 mining  comnlun.ee with nf.v  source  per-
 formance standards  Fluorncarhons such as
 l-'reon.s,  are not  quantitatively  collected or
 nir;usiircd by tills procedure.
  'I  Range, mid Sciisitii'ily.
  The fluoride specific  Ion olcclioiic analyli-
 cal  mei.hod covers the range of 0.02-2,000 /I 0.04  to 80 mg,l. A
change III the  temperature of the sample will
change the electrode response; a change of
 I'C will produce a  1.5 percent relative error
in Ihe measurement. Lack of stability in  the
 electrometer used to measure EMF can Intro-
 duce error. An error of 1 millivolt In the EMF
 measurement  produces a relative error of 4
 percent  regardless  of  the absolute concen-
 traiion being measured.
  5  Apparatus.

  !i 1   Sample  train.  Sec   Figure  13A-1
 (Method 13A); It Is similar to the Method f>
 Irani  except  lot the  JntcrcliftngcabtlKy  of
 the position of the  niter.  Commercial models
(if this train are available. However,  if one
 c constructed from seamless stain-
 less  steel tubing. Other  configurations and
 construction material may be used  with ap-
 proval from the Administrator.
   A  range  of  sir.es  suitable  for  tsokinelic
 sampling should  be ni-.illaWe.  ep.. 0.32 cm
 <'* in.)  up to 1.27 cm (", In.) (fir larger  If
 higher  volume  sampling trains  are  used)
 Inside diameter  each other, not ncrrs-
snrlly on  the  same  plane, during sampling.
The free space between the nozzle and pilot
 lube shall be at  least 1.9 cm  (0.75  In.). The
free space shall  be  set  based  on a 1.3 cm
 (0.5 In.) ID nozzle, which Is the largest size
 nozzle used.
   Tlin pilot tube niu.'-t also meet  the criteria
 specified In Method 2  and be calibrated ac-
 cording to the procedure In  the  calibration
 section o! that, mothod.
   5.14   Differential    pressure   gauge— In-
 clined  manometer  capable   of  measuring
 velocity  head  to  ui;hin  10  percent  of the
 minimum measured  value. Below a differen-
 tial pressure  of  1.3  mm (0.05  In.)  water
 gaunt,  rolcromannmcters with  sonsltlvltlc?
 of  0.013  mm  (0.0005  In.) should  be  used.
 However,  micromnnomet.ors  are  not  easilv
 adaptable to  field  conditions and are not
 easy to use with pulsating now. Thus, other
 methods or  devices acceptable to the Ad-
 ministrator  may  be used when  conditions
 warrant.
   5.1.5   Filter    holder—Borosilicate    gift's
 with a  glfi^s  frit filter support and a silicor.c
 rubber  gasket.  Other materials of construc-
 tion may be used  with approval from the
 Administrator,  ec  if  probe  liner  is  stain-
 Jess ste^i. then  fillpr holder may be stainless
 sleel. Tlie holder design shall provide  a pos:-
 tive seal against  Ir-akngc from the oxitslile
 or around the filler.
   6.I.G   Filter heating system—When mois-
 ture condensation  is a problem, any heating
 system  capable of maintaining a temperatui e
 around  the filter holder during sampling  of
 no greater than 120il4°C (248  :!: 2S*F).  A
 temperature gauge capable of measuring tem-
 perature  lo within 3'C (5.4'FI shall be in-
 stalled so Uiut when the filter heater Is used.
 the temperature around the filter holder can
 be regulated and monitored during sampling
 Heating systems other than  the  one shown
 )n  Af'TD-OSai  may lie  used.
   5.1.7   Impingers—Four   ImpUigcrs   con-
 noctcd as shown in Figure I3A-1 with ground
 Illaxs K
-------
 3316-1
       RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   5.3  Analysis.
   5.3.1   Distillation apparatus—Glass distil-
 lation apparatus assembled as shown In Fig-
 ure 13A.-2 (Method 13A).
   6.32   Hot,  plate—Capable  of  heating to
 600 °C.
   5.3.3   Electric  nuime  furnace—Capable of
 heating  to 600°C.
   5.3.4   Crucibles—Nickel, 75  to  100   ml
 capacity.
   6.3.5   Beaker—1500  ml.
   5.3.0   Volumetric flask—50 ml.
   5.3.7   Krlenmeyer flask  or plastic  bottle—
 500 ml.
   6.3.8   Constant  temperature  bath—Cap-
 able, of maintaining n constant temperature
 of il.O"C in the  range of room temperature.
   5.3.9   Trip  balance—300  g  capacity  to
 measure to ±0.5 g.
   5.3.10  Fluoride Ion activity sensing elec-
 trode.
   6.3.11  Reference  electrode—Single  junc-
 tion;  sleeve type. (A combination-type elec-
 trode having the  references electrode and
 tho IHiorlcle-ion sensing electrode  built Into
 0110 unit, may also be xiscd).
   5.3.12  Electrometer—A pH  meter with
 millivolt scale capable  of :'.O.I  mv  resolu-
 tion, or a specific ion meter made  specifically
 for specific Ion use.
   5.3.13  Magnetic stlrrcr and TFE  fluoro
 carbon coated stripping  bars.
   6. Reagents.
   G.I   Sampling.
   G.l.l   Filters—Whatman No. 1  filters,  or
 equivalent, sized to /It filter holder.
   6.1.2   Silica  get^— Indicating  type. 6-16
 mesh.  If  previously  used,  dry   at  175°O
 (350°F)  for 2 hours. New silica gel  may be
 used ns received.
   6.1.3   Water—Distilled.
   6.1.4   Crushed ice.
   G.I.5   Stopcock grease—Acetone Insoluble,
 heat stable sillcone grease. This is not neces-
 sary  If  screw-on  connectors  with  tcllon
 Blecvcs. or similar, are used.
   6.2   Sample recovery.
   G.2.1   Water—Distilled  from  same con-
 tainer as 6.1.3.
   6.3  Analysis.
   6,3.1   Calcium   oxide   (CaO)— Certified
 grade containing 0.005  percent fluoride  or
 less.
   6.3.2   Phenolphthalein Indicator—0.1 per-
 cent In !:1 ethanol  water mixture.
   6.3.3  Sodium   hydroxide  (NaOH)—Pel-
 lets, ACS reagent grade  or equivalent.
   0.3.4  Sulfurlc    acid    (H..SO.)—Concen-
 trated, ACS reagent grade or equivalent.
   0.3.'  Filters—Whatman   No.   Ml,   or
 equivalent.
   6.3.6   Water—Distilled,  from  same con-
 tainer as 6.1.3.
   6.3.7  Total  Ionic  Strength  Adjustment
Buffer  (TISAB)—Plnce   approximately  500
 ml of distilled water In n l-lltcr beaker. Add
 57 ml glacial  acetic ncid.  58 g sodium chlo-
 ride, p.nd 4 g CDTA (Cyclohexylcne dlnitrllo
 tetraacetlc acid).  Stir to dissolve. Place  the
 beaker In  a water  bath  to cool  It.  Slowly
 add  6  M NaOH to the  solution,  measuring
tho pH continuously with a calibrated pH/
reference electrode pair, until the pH  Is  5.3.
 Cool to room temperature. Pour Into a I-Ilter
flask  and  dilute  to  volume  with dlslllled
water. Commercially prepared  T1SAI3 buffer
may be substituted  for the above.
   6.3.8  Fluoride Standard Solution —0.1  M
 fluoride reference solution. Add 4.20 grams of
 reagent grade sodium fluoride (NaF)  to a 1-
 lltcr volumetric flask  and add  enough dis-
 tilled water  to  dissolve.  Dilute  to  volume
 with distilled water.
   7.  Procedure.
   NOTE:  The fusion  and distillation steps of
 this procedure will not be required, If It can
 be shown to the  satisfaction of the  Admin-
 istrator that the samples contain only water-
 soluble fluorides.
   7.1  Sampling. The sampling shall be con-
 ducted by competent personnel experienced
 with this test procedure.
   7.1.1  Pretest preparation. All  train com-
 ponents shall be  maintained and calibrated
 according to the  procedure  described  in
 APTD-057G,    unless   otherwise   specified
 heroin.
   Weigh approximately 200-300 g of silica gel
 In air tight containers to the nearest 05 g.
 Record the total weight, both silica gel and
 container, on the container. More  silica gel
 may be used but care should be taken during
 sampling that it Is not entrained r.nd carried
 out  from the  Implnger. As an alternative, the
 silica gel  may be weighed directly in the 1m-
 plnger or Its  sampling holder  Just prior  to
 the train  assembly.
  7.1.2 Preliminary  determinations. Select
 the sampling  site  and the minimum numb'';'
 of sampling points according to Method 1 or
 as specified by the Administrator. Determine
 the  stack pressure,  temperature,  and  the
 range of  velocity  heads  using Method 2 and
 moisture   content   using   Approximation
 Method 4 or its alternatives for the purpose
 of making isoklnetlc sampling  rate calcula-
 tions. Estimates may be used. However, final
 results will  be based  on  actual measure-
 ments made during the test.
  Select a nozzle  si7.e based on the range  of
 velocity heads such that it  Is not necessary
 to chnngc the  no//.lc si7.e in order to maintain
 isoklnetlc sampling rates. During the run. do
 not  change the nozzle size.  Ensure that the
 differential  pressure  gauge is  capable  of
 measuring the minimum velocity  head value
 to within 10  percent, or as  specified  by the
 Administrator.
  Select  a suitable probe  liner  and probe
 length such  that  all traverse points  can be
 sampled.  Consider sampling from opposite
 sides for large stacks to reduce the length  of
 probes.
  Select  a total sampling time  greater Shan
 or equal  to   the  minimum total sampling
 time  specified In the test procedures for the
 specific Industry such that the sampling time
 per point Is  not less  than  2 min.  or select
 some greater  time interval as specified by
 the Administrator, and such that  the sample
 volume that will be taken will exceed  the re-
 quired minimum  total  gas sample volume
 specified in the test procedures lor the spe-
cific  industry. The latter Is based on  an ap-
proximate average sampling rate.  Note also
 that  the.  minimum total sample volume  is
 corrected  to standard conditions.
  It  is recommended that a half-Integral  or
 Integral  number of minutes be sampled  at
 e.ich  point In order  to  avoid  timekeeping
 errors.
  In some circumstances, e.g. batch cycles, It
 may be necessary to sample for shorter times
 at the traverse points and to obtain smaller
[jus sample volumes. In  these cases, the Ad-
 ministrator's approval must first be obtained.
  7.13 Preparation of collection train llur-
 ing preparation and assembly of the sampling
 train, keep all openings where contamination
can occur covered until just prior to assembly
or until sampling  Is about  to begin.
  Place 100 ml of water In  eai'h of the first,
 tuv>   impinger.s, Ic.ive  the  linn]  impin^cr
empty, and place approximately 'xa 3UO g or
more, if necessary, of preweighed silica gel )n
the fourth Impiugcr.  Record the weight of
 the silica  gel and container rn I lie data sheet.
Place the empty container  in a clean place
for later use in the sample recovery.
  Place a filter in the filter holder. Be sure
that  the  filter Is properly centered and the
gasket properly placed so as  to not allow the
sample gas stream to  circumvent the filter.
Check filter for tears after assembly Is com-
pleted.
  When glass  liners are used. Install selected
no7,7.1e using  a Vlton  A O-rlng:  the Viton  A
O-rlng Is  Installed as a sen!  where the no7,?.Ie
 Is connected to a glass liner. See APTD-0576
 for details. When  metal liners are used, In-
 stall  the no7,7.le as above or  by  a leak free
 direct mechanical connection.  Mark the probe
 with heat  resistant tape or  by  some other
 method to denote  the  proper distance  Into
 the stack or  duct for each sampling point.
  Unless otherwise specified by the Admin-
 istrator, attach a  temperature probe to the
 metal sheath of the sampling probe  so  that
 the sensor extends beyond the probe  tip and
 does  not touch any metal. Its position should
 be  about 1.0 to 2.54 cm  (0.75  to  1  In.)  from
 the pilot tube and probe no/.7.1e to avoid In-
 terference- with the gas flow.
  Assemble the  train as shown  In  Figure
 1.7A-1 (Method 13A) with the filter between
 the  third  and fourth  Impingers. Alterna-
 tively, the filter may be placed between tho
 probe and first Itv.pingcr. A filter heating sys-
 tem may be used  to prevent  moisture con-
 densation, but the temperature around the
 filter  holder  shall  not exceed  120()-tl4'C
 (248  ; 25 F).  |(Note: Whatman No.  1  filter
 decomposes  at  150'C   |300F)).|  Record
 inter location on the data sheet.
  Place  crushed Ice around the  Impingers.
  7.1.1   Leak   check  procedure—After  the
 sampling tralti has been assembled, turn on
 and set (if applicable)  the  probe and  filter
 heatin;; system in)   to  roach a temperature
 sufficient to avoid condensation In Die probe.
 Ailo\v time for tho temperature to stablll7.e.
 Leak  check the train at the  sampling  site by
 plugging the  no7.-/.le and pulling a 380  mm
 HIT (15  In. HK) vacuum. A leakage rate in ex-
 cess of 4rn  of the  average  sampling  rate of
 0.0057 mV'mln. (0.02 cfm). whichever Is  less,
 is unacceptable.
  The  following leak check Instruction  for
 the- sampling train described  In APTD-0576
 and APTD-0581  may be helpful.  Start  tho
 pump  with  by-pass  valve  fully  open  and
 coarse adjust valve  completely closed.  Par-
 tially open the coarse adjust valve and slow-
 ly close  the by-pass  valve until 380 mm Hg
 (15 in.  Hg) vacuum Is  reached. Do Not re-
 verse direction  of  by-pass  valve.  Tills  will
 cause- water to back up Into  the filter  holder.
 If 3UO nun Hg (15 In. I!,;) Is exceeded, either
 leak check at  this higher vacuum or end tho
 leak check ns described below and start over.
  When the leak  check Is  completed,  first
 slowly remove the plug from the Inlet to the
 prolir or filter holder and Immediately turn
 otf  the/  vacuum pump.  This  prevents  the
 water in tiie Impingers from  being  forced
 backward  into  the  filter holder  (If  placed
 before-  the  Impingers)  and silica  gel from
 toeing entrained backward  Into  the third
 Implnrccr.
  Leak   checks  shall  be conducted  as  de-
 scribed whenever tho train Is disengaged, eg.
 for silica gel or filler  changes during the test,
 prior  to each test run. and at the completion
 of each  test run. If leaks are found to be In
 excess o[ the acceptable rate, the test  will be
 considered invalid.  To reduce In;.! time due to
 leakage  occurrcm-cr..  It Is recommended (hut
 leak  checks  be  conducted  between  port
 changes.
  7.1.5   r.irtlculale tr.iln operation  During
 the  rainplmi;  run. uu  IsnklneUc  sampling
 rate within 10','. or  a-, .".perilled by the  Acl-
 miui.xtrator. of true isokinelic shall  be main-
 tained.
  l-'or each  run. record I he data required on
 the  example  data  .-.heel  shown   in  l-'lgure
 DA :i (Method  ISA]. He sure  to  record  the
 initial  dry  gas  mcler  reading. Record  the
dry i;as meter readings at the beginning and
cud of each sampling time Increment, when
changes in  flow rates are made,  and  when
sampling Is halted   Take other data point
readings at  least once at each  sample point
during  each time  Increment and  additional
readings  when  significant  changes  (20%
variation In velocity head readings)  ncces-
                                 FEDERAl REGISTER,  VOL. 40, NO.  152—WEDNESDAY,  AUGUST  6,  1975
                                                           iy-7i
-------
                                                   RULES AND  REGULATIONS
-Hate additional adjustments in flow rate. Be
 ;ure to  level and  7,ero the manometer.
  Clean  the  portholes prior to  the test run
lo minimize chance of sampling deposited
material. To begin  sampling,  remove the
rH:/v.le cap. verify  (If  applicable)  that the
probe heater is working and niter heater Is
up  to temperature,  and that the pilot tube
nnd  probe are properly positioned. Position
ilie  nozzle at  the  first traverse point with
'lie tip pointing directly Into the gas stream.
Immediately start the pump and adjust the
How to Isokiuctlc conditions. Nomographs are
available for sampling trains  using  type S
pilot tubes with 0.86±0.02 (coefficients (Cr),
and  when sampling In air or a stack gas with
equivalent density  (molecular weight. M.,.
equal to 29±4), which aid In the rapid ad-
justment of  the isoklnetlc sampling  rate
without  excessive computations. APTD-057G
details the procedure for using these nomo-
graphs. If Cn and Mt are  outside the above
stated ranges, do not use the nomograph un-
less  appropriate steps are  taken to compen-
sate for the deviations.
  When  the  stack  Is under  significant neg-
ative pressure (height of Impinger  stem),
take care lo close  the-  coarse  adjust valve
before Inserting the probe Into the stack  to
avoid water backing into the filter holder. It
necessary, the pump mny he turned on with
the coarse adjust valve closed.
  When  the  probe  Is In  position, block oil
the openings around the probe and porthole
to prevent unrepresentative dilution of the
gns stream.
  Traverse the stack cross section,  as  re-
quired by Method 1 or as specified by the Ad-
ministrator,  being careful not to bump the
probe  nozzle  Into  the stack  walls  when
sampling near the  walls or when removing
or Inserting  the probe through the port-
holes to  minimize chance of extracting de-
posited material.
  During the test run. make periodic adjust-
mcnts lo keep  the probe and (If applicable)
niter  temperatures  at  their proper  values.
Add  more Ice and,  If necessary, salt to the
Ice bath, to maintain a temperature of less
than 20'C (68'P)  at the Impinger/slllca gel
outlet, to  avoid excessive moisture  losses.
Also, periodically check the level and zero
of the manometer.
  If  the  pressure drop  across the filter be-
comes high enough to make Isoklnetlc sam-
pling difficult to maintain, the niter may be
replaced  In the midst of a sample run. it is
recommended that another complete filter as-
sembly bo used rather than attempting  to
change trie filler Itself. After the new filter
or niter assembly   Is Installed, conduct  a
leak check. The final emission  results shall
bo based on the  summation   of all  niter
catches.
  A single train shall be used for the  entire
sample run,  except  for niter and silica gel
changes.  However, If approved by ihc Admin-
istrator, two  or more trains may be used for
a single test run when there arc two or more
ducts or sampling ports. The final emission
results shall be  based on the  total  of  all
sampling train catches.
  At the end of the sample run, turn off the
pump, remove the  probe  and  nozzle  from
the stack, and record the final dry gas meter
reading.  Perform  a  leak  check.1 Calculate
percent Isoklnetlc (see calculation section) to
determine whether another  test run  should
be made. If there Is  difficulty In maintaining
isoklnetlc rates due to source conditions, con-
sult with  the  Administrator  for possible
variance on the Isoklnetlc rates.
  1 With acceptability of the test run. to be
 based on the same criterion as In 7.1.4.
   7.2  Sample recovery. Proper cleanup pro-
cedure begins as somi  as  the probe Is re-
moved from  the stack at  the end of  the
sampling period.
   When the  probo can  be safely  handled.
wlpo off all external paniculate matter near
the tip of the probe nozzle and place  a cap
over  it to keep from losing part of the sam-
ple. Do not  cap off  the probe tip tightly
while the sampling  train  Is  cooling down.
as this would create a vacuum  In the filter
holder, thus  drawing  water from  the  1m-
pingers Into the niter.
   Before  moving the  sample  train to  the
cleanup site, remove  the probe  from  the
sample train, wipe off the sllicone grease,
and  cap  the  open outlet of  the probe. Be
careful not to lose any concicnsate.  If pres-
ent.  Wipe off the sillcone grease  from  the
filter  lulet  where the  probe  was  fastened
and cap It.  Remove the umbilical cord from
the last Implngcr and cap the impinger. After
wiping off  the  slllcone grease. ca.p  of!  the
filter  holder   outlet  and  impiuger  Inlet.
Ground glass  stoppers., plastic  caps, or serum
cups  may be \ised to close these openings.
   Transfer the probe and flltcr-lmpingcr as-
sembly lo the cleanup area. This area should
be clean and protected from the wind so thai
the chances of  contaminating  or losing the
sample will  be minimized.
   Inspect the train prior to and during dis-
assembly and note any abnormal conditions.
Using a graduated cylinder, measure and re-
cord  the  volume of  the water In.  the first
three Implngers, to the nearest ml; any con-
dcnsale In the probe  should be Included In
this  determination.  Treat  the samples  as
follows:

No. 71778.  Pauley.  J.  E.,  8-5-75

   7.2.1 Container No. 1. Transfer  the  Im-
plngcr water from the  graduated  cylinder
to this container.  Add the  filter  to  this
container. Wash all  snmple  exposed  sur-
faces. Including the probe  tip. probe,  first
three Implngers, Impinger  connectors, niter
holder, and  graduated  cylinder thoroughly
with distilled water. Wash, each component
three separate times  with water and  clean
the probe and no/ale  with brushes.  A  max-
imum wash of 500 ml  Is used, and the wash-
ings  are added  to  the  sample container
which must be made of polyethylene.
   7.2.2 Container No. 2. Transfer  the  sUIca
gel from  the  fourth impinger to this con-
tainer and seal.
   7.3  Analysts.  Treat the  contents  of each
sample container as described below.
   7.3.1  Container No. 1.
   7.3.1.1  Filter this container's contents, in-
cluding the  Whatman No  1  filter,  through
Whatman No. 541 filler  paper, or equivalent
Into a 1500 ml beaker. NOTE: If filtrate vol-
ume  exceeds 900 ml make filtrate basic with
NaOH to  phcnolphthaleln and evaporate to
less than 900  ml.
   7.3.1.2  Place the Whatman No.  541  filter
containing the  Insoluble matter (Including
the- Whatman No. 1 filter) In a nickel  cru-
cible, add a few ml of  water  and  macerate
the filter with a glass rod.
   Add 100 mg CaO to the crucible and mix
'(tie contents thoroughly to form a slurry. Add
a  couple  of drops  of phenolphlhaleln  Indi-
cator. The Indicator will turn  red In a  basic
medium.  The slurry  should  remain  basic
during the  evaporation of  Ihe water  or
fluoride Ion  will be lost.  If  the  Indicator
turns colorless  during the  evaporation, an
acidic condition la Indicated. If this happens
adii CaO until the color turns red again.
   Place  the  crucible  In & hood under  in-
frared lamps  or oa a hot plate at low  heat.
Evaporate the water completely.
   After evaporation of the water, place  tlio
 crucible on  a hot plate  under a  hood and
 slowly  increa.se  the  Icmperature  until  the
 paper chars. It may take several  hours for
 complete charring of  the filter to occur.
   IMacc the  crucible in a cold muffle furnace
 find gradually (to prevent smoking) Increase
 the temperature to 600"C. and maintain until
 the contents arc reduced to an ash. Remove
 the crucible from the furnace and allow it to
 cool.
   7.1.1.3  Add approximately 4  g  of crushed
 NaOII  to the crucible  and mix. Return  the
 crucible to the muffie furnace,  and fuse  the
 sample for 10 minutes at COO°C.
   Remove the sample from the furnace and
 cool  to ninblcnt temperature. Using several
 rinsings  of  warm  distilled  water transfer
 the contents of the crucible to  the beaker
 containing  the filtrate from container  No.
 1   (7.3.1). To assure  complete  snmple  re-
 moval, rinse finally with two 20 ml portions
 of 25 percent (v/v) sulfurlc acid  and care-
 fully add to the beaker. Mix well  and trans-
 fer  to  a one-liter  volumetric  llask.  Dilute
 to volume  with  distilled water  and  mix
 thoroughly.  Allow  any undissolved solids to
 settle.
   7.3.2  Container No. 2. Weigh  the spent
 silica gel and report to the nearest 0.5 g.
   7.3.3  Adjustment of acid/water ratio lu
 distillation flask—(Utilize a protective shield
 when carrying out this procedure). Place 400
 ml of distilled  water  In  the distilling flask
 and add 200 ml of concentrated H.SO,. Cau-
 tion:  Observe  standard   precautions  when
 mixing the HSO, by slowly  adding the acid
 to the flask with constant swirling. Add some
 .^oft glass  beads and several small pieces of
 broken  glass tubing and assemble the  ap-
 paratus as shown lu Figure  13A-2. Heat  the
 flask until it reaches a temperature of I75°C
 lo adjur.l the acid/water ratio tor subsequent
 distillations. Discard the distillate.
   7.3.4   Distillation—Cool  the  contents  of
 the- distillation flask to below 80"C. Pipette
 an  aliquot  of   sample  containing   less
 than O.G mg F  directly  Into the  distilling
 flask and add distilled  water to make a total
 volume  of  220 ml added  to  the  distilling
 flask.  |For an estimate of what size aliquol
 does  not exceed 06 mg F, select  jm aliquot
 of the solution and  treat  as  described  In
 Section  7.3.G. This will give  an approxima-
 tion of the fluoride content, but only an ap-
 proximation since  interfering ions  have  not
 been  removed by the distillation step.]
   Place a 250 ml volumetric flask at the con-
 denser  exist.  Now begin  distillation  and
 gradually Increase the heat and collect all the
 distillate up to 175"C. Caution: Heating  the
 solution above 175°C will cause sulfurlc acid
 to distill over.
   The  acid  in  the distilling nask can  be
 used  until there is carryover of  interference;
 or poor  fluoride  recovery.  An   occasional
 check  of  fluoride recovery  with  standard
 solutions  Is  advised.   The  arid  should
 bo changed  whenever  there Is  less U'nn  9C
.percent recovery or blank values  are higher
 than 0.1 ug/ml.
   7.3.5   Determination  of  concentration—
 Bring the distillate In the 250 ml  volumetric
 nask  lo the mark with distilled  water and
 mix thoroughly. Pipette a 25 ml  aliquot from
 the dlstillalc. Add an equal volume of TISAB
 and  mix.  Tlio  sample should  be  at the
 ?amo temperature  ns the  calibration stand-
 ards  when   measurements   are   made.  If
 ambient  lab temperature fluctuates  more
 than ±2°C  from the  temperature at which
 the  calibration  standards were   measured,
 condition samples  and standards  In a con-
 stant  temperature bath  measurement, stir
 the sample  with a magnetic slirrer during
 measurement to minimize electrode response
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL  40,  NO, 152--WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6. 1975
                                                            IV-7 2
-------
33166
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
time. If the stirrer generates enough heat to
change  solution  temperature,  place  a piece
of   Insulating   material   such   as  cork
betsveen the stlrrcr and  the  beaker. Dilute
samples (below  10-< M fluoride Ion content)
should  be  held in  polyethylene  or  poly-
propylene beakers during measurement.
  Insert the fluoride and reference electrodes
Into the solution.  When a steady  millivolt
rending Is obtained, record It. This may take
several  minutes.  Determine   concentration
from the calibration curve.  Between elec-
trode measurements, soak the fluoride sens-
Ing electrode In distilled water for 30 seconds
and then remove und blot dry.
  8. Calibration.
  Maintain    a  laboratory   log    of   all
calibrations.
  8.1 Sampling Train.
  8.1.1  Probe nozzle—Using   a micrometer.
measure the  Inside diameter  of the nozzle
to  the  nearest  0.025 mm (0.001 in.). Make
3  separate  measurements using   different
diameters each  time and obtain the average
of the measurements. The difference between
tlio  high and low numbers shall not exceed
0.1  mm  (0.004 In.).
  When noz/.lcs become  nicked, dented, or
corroded, they shall be reshaped, sharpened.
and recalibrated before use.
  Each   1107.210  shall  be  permanently  and
uniquely Identified.
  8.1.2  Pilot tube—The  pilot tube shall be
calibrated  according to  the procedure out-
lined In Method 2.
  8.1.3  Dry  gas  meter  and  orifice  meter.
Both meters shall be calibrated according to
the procedure outlined In APTD-0576. When
diaphragm  pumps  with  by-pass  valves  arc
used,  check  for  proper metering  system
design by calibrating the dry gas meter at an
additional flow rate of  0.005Y m'/mln.  (0.2
cfm) with  the by-pass  valve  fully opened
and then  with  It  fully  closed. If  there Is
more than  ±1 percent  difference  In  flow
rates when compared to the fully closed posi-
tion of the by-pass valve, the system Is  not
designed properly and must be corrected.
  8.1.4   Probe heater calibrntion—The probe
hentlng system shn!l be  calibrated  according
to  the  procedure contained  In APTD-057C>.
Probes  constructed  according  to APTD-0581
need not  be  calibrated If  the calibration
curves In APTD-0576 are used.
  8.1.6  Temperature gauges—Calibrate  dial
and liquid  filled bulb thermometers against
mcrcury-ln-glass   thermometers.   Thermo-
couples need  not  bn calibrated. For other
devices, check with the Administrator.
  8.2  Analytical Apparatus.
  8.2.1   Fluoride Electrode—Prepare fluoride
standardizing solutions  by serial dilution of
the 0.1 M fluoride  standard  solution. Pipet
10  ml of 0.1 M  NaF Into a 100 ml volumetric
flask and make up to the mark with distilled
water for & 10-2 M standard solution. Use 10
ml of 10-3 M solution to make a 10-1 M solu-
tion Ir. the same manner. Reapt 10'* and  10'5
M  solutions.
  Pipet 50  ml of each standard Into a sep-
arate beaker. Add 50 ml of  TISAB to each
beaker. Place the electrode In the most dilute
standard solution.  When a  steady millivolt
reading Is  obtained, plot the  value  on  the
linear  axis of  semi-log  graph paper versus
concentration  on   the  log  axis.   Plot  the
nominal  value  for  concentration   of  the
standard on the log axis, e.g., when 50 ml of
10-: M standard Is diluted with 60 ml TISAB,
the concentration Is still designated "10-1 M".
  Between measurements  soa-k the fluoride
sensing electrode In  distilled  water for 30
seconds, and theu remove and blot  dry.
Analyze the  standards going from dilute to
concentrated standards.  A  straight-line cali-
bration curve will be obtained, with nominal
concentrations of  IOP.  10P,  IO-3, 10-', 10-'
concentrations of  10-:',  10-'.  10-'. 10-:. 10-1
concentrations of  10-'.  10''.  10-'. 10f:. I0f
fluoride  molarlty on  the  log  axis  plotted
versus electrode potential  (In millivolts) on
the linear scale.
  Calibrate  the fluoride  electrode dally, and
check it hourly. Prepare  fresh fluoride stand-
ardising solutions dally of 10-2  M or less.
Store  fluoride  standardising  solutions  In
polyethylene  or  polypropylene   containers.
(Note: Certain specific ion meters have been
designed  specifically  for  fluoride electrode
use and give a direct readout ot fluoride Ion
concentration. These  meters mny be used In
lieu of  calibration curves  for  fluoride meas-
urements over narrow concentration ranges.
Calibrate  the meter according  to manufac-
turer's Instructions.)
  tl. Calculations.
  Carry out calculations,  retaining nt least
one extra decimal figure beyond  that of the
acquired  data. Round off  figures after final
calculation.
  9.1  Nomenclature.
X.,= Cross sectional area of nozzle,  m-  (ft-).
Ai — Aliquot of total sample  added  to still,
  ml.
B«. = Water vapor In  the gas stream, propor-
  tion by volume.
C.— Concentration of fluoride In stack gas,
  nig/m1. corrected to  standard conditions
  of 20° C.  7CO mm Hg  (C8° F. 29.92 in. Hg)
  on dry basis.
Fi = Total weight of fluoride in  sample, mg.
7 = Percent  of  Isoklnctic sampling.
Af = Concentration of  fluoride  from  calibra-
  tion curve, molaruy.
j7u —Total  amount  of  partlculate matter
  collected, mg.
Mi — Molecular weight of water,  18 g/g-mole
  (18 Ib/lb-mole).
?n. = Mass of  residue  of acetone after  evap-
  oration, mg.
Pi,., —Barometric pressure at  the sampling
  site,  mm  Hg (In. HE).
P, — Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (In.
  HE).
PIKI —Standard absolute  pressure.  7GO mm
  Hg (2902 In. Hg).
R\= Ideal  gas constant.  0.0623G mm Hg-mV
   •K-g-moie  (21.83 In.  JIg-ftVR-lb-mole).
TV— Absolute  average  dry gas  meter  tem-
  perature  (see-  fig. 13A-3). °K  (°R).
Ti = Absolute- average stack gas  temperature
   (see  fig.  13A-3), °K  f"R).
7.),!=.-Standard absolute  temperature,  293'
  K (528° R).
Va=:Volume of acetone  blank, ml.
 V«.,- = Volume of acetone used In was!),  ml.
Vii=Vohimo of distillate collected,  ml.
Fit-Total  volume of liquid collected In im-
  plngers and silica gel,  nil. Volume of  water
  In  silica  go'  equals silica KC!  weight  In-
  crease In  grams times 1 ml/gram. Volume
  of liquid  collected In Implnger equals finiil
  volume minus initial volume.
V.n = Volume  of  gas sample as measured by
  dry gas meter, dcm (dcf).
Vm(.io> = Volume of gas sample measured by
  the dry gas  meter corrected  to standard
  conditions, dscm (dscf).
V»(nrt) = Volume of water  vapor in the gas
  sample  corrected to  standard conditions,
  scm  (scf).
Vi = TotaI volume of sample, ml.
v> — Stack gas velocity, calculated by Method
  2. Equation 2-7 using data obtained from
  Method 5. m/sec (ft/sec).
TVo = Welght of residue  In acetone wash, mg.
&U — Average pressure differential across tha
  orifice (see fig. 13A-3),  metor,  mm  HaO
  (In. H.-O).
,,„:= Density of  acetone, mg/ml (see label oa
  bottle).
p^- Density of  water.  1 g/ml  (0.00220 lb/
  ml).
O = Totnl sampling time. min.
13.6 = Specific gravity of mercury.
60=Scc/mln.
100-Conversion  to percent.
  9.2  Average  dry gas meter  temperature
and average orifice pressure drop. Sec data
sheet  (Figure 13A-3 of Method 13A).
  93  Dry  gas volume. Use  Section  9.3 of.
Method 13A.
  0.4  Volume  of  Water Vapor. Use Section
D.4  of Method 13A.
  9  .">  Moisture Content. Use Section 9.5 of
Method 13 A.
  9.<>  Concentration
  fl.fi 1  Calculate the amount of fluoride In
the sample according to equation 13B-1.

                  Vi
             Ft-K-iV.:) (M)
                  A i
where:
  K -: 1J me; 'ml.
  9.6.2  Concentration  of  fluoride  In  stack
gas. Use Section  n 6.2  of  Method  13A.
  9.7  Isoklnctic variation. Use  Section  9.7
of Method 13A.
  98   Acceptable  results. Use Section 9.8 of
Method 13 A.
  10.  References.
  Bellnck. Ervln. "Simplified Fluoride  Distil-
lation  Method." Journal  o/  the  American
Water Works Association £50: 5;iO-6 (1958).
  MacLeod.  Kathryn E., :'.nd Howard I/. Crtst,
"Comparison  of  the-  St'ADNB—Zirconium
Lake and  Specific Ion Electrode- Methods of
Fluoride Determination In Stack  Emission
Samples." Analytical Chemistry 45:  1272-1273
(]97in.
  Mni-tln. Robert M. "Construction  Details of
Isokinctic   Source Rumpling  Equipment,"
Environment.il Protection  Agency.  Air  Pol-
lution Control  Office  Publication No. APTD-
OSBI.
  1973 Annual Rook of ASTM Standard.'!. Part
23.  Dc.Mj:natlon:  D 1170-72.
  Pom.  Jerome J . "Maintenance. Cal'braltnn.
dud Operation of Isokmetio Sovirce Sampling
Equipment,"    Environmental    Protection
Agency. Air  Pollution Control Olllce Publica-
tion No. APTD-051G.
  Standard  Metlioils /or the Examination o/
Water anr) Waste Water, published Jointly by
American  Public Health Association. Ameri-
can Water Works Association and Water Pol-
lution  Control  Federation,  13th  Edition
(1971).
(Sections  111 and 114 of the Clean Air Act.
as amended  by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-C04,
84 Slat. 1G78 (42  U.S C. 1857 c-0. c-9))
   lFRDoc.75-'20478 Filed 8-B-7G;8:45 am]
                                  FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL.  40.  NO. 152—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1975
                                                             IV-7 3
-------
                                      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
15
                IFRL 428-4]

   PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Delegations of Authority to State of Cali-
    fornia on Behalf of Bay Area, Monterey
    Bay Unified, Humboldt County and Del
    Norte County Air Pollution Control Dis-
    tricts

    Pursuant to the  delegations of author-
  ity for the standards of performance for
  new stationary  sources  (NSPS) to the
  State of California on behalf of the Bay
  Area and  Monterey Bay Unified-Air Pol-
  lution Control Districts  (dated May 23,
  1975), and on behalf of the  Humboldt
  County and Del Norte County Air Pol-
  lution Control Districts  (dated July 10.
  1975), EPA is today amending  40 CFB
  60.4, Address, to reflect these delegations.
  Notices announcing  these delegations
  are published today in the Notices Sec-
  tion. o£ this issue. The  amended  5 60.4
  is set forth below. It adds the addresses
  of the Bay Area, Monterey Bay Unified,
  Humboldt County  and Del Norte County
  Air Pollution Control Districts, to which
  must be addressed all reports, requests,
  applications, submittals, and  communi-
  cations  pursuant to this part by sources
  subject to the NSPS located within these
  Air Pollution Control Districts.
    The Administrator finds good  cause
  for foregoing prior public notice and for
  making this  rulemaklng  effective Im-
  mediately in that it is an administrative
  change  and not one of  substantive con-
  tent. No additional substantive burdens
  are imposed on the parties affected. The
  delegations which are reflected by this
  administrative amendment were  effec-
  tive on May  23,  1975   (Bay  Area and
  Monterey Bay Districts)  and on July 10,
  1975 (Humboldt County and  Del  Norte
  County  Districts)  and It serves no pur-
  pose to delay the technical  change of
  this addition of the Air Pollution Control
  D'r.trict addresses  to the Code cf Federal
  Regulations.
    This rulemaldng is effective immedi-
  ately, and Is issued under the authority
  of section 111 of  the Clean Air Act, as
  amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6.
    Dated:  September 6.1975.
                STANLEY  W. LECRO,
          Assistant Administrator jor
                          Enforcement.
    Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
  Code of Federal Regulations is amended
  as follows :
     1. In §  60.4, paragraph (b) is amended
  by revising subparagraph (F) ,.to read as
  follows:
  § 60.4  Address.
       *       »       •       #       •
     (b) • • *
    (A)-(E)  • • •
     (F) California
    Bay Area Air Pollution Control District,
  839 Ellis St., San Francisco, OA 04109.
    Del Norta  County Air  Pollution Control
  District, 5600  3.  Broadway, Bur»ka,  CA
  85501.
    Humboldt  County Air  Foliation Control
  District, 6600 a. Broadway, Eureka, OA 98001.
  Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District. 420 Church St. (P.O. Box 487), Sa-
linas, CA 93901.
  [PR Doc.75-24202 Piled 9-10-75;8:45 am]



    FEDERAL RECISTW, VOL. 40, NO. 177-


      -TKl«SOAY, SEPTEMBER 11,  197i
                                                  IV-74
-------
    43850

1 x.    Title 40—Protection of Environment
        CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
            PROTECTION AGENCY
         SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
                 [FHL 407-31

     PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
    ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
    Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry
      On October  21, 1974  (39 FR 37466),
    under section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
    as amended, the Environmental Protec-
    tion Agency (EPA)  proposed standards
    of performance for  new  and modified
    electric arc furnaces in the steel industry.
    Interested  persons  participated In  the
    rulemaking by submitting written com-
    ments to EPA, A total of 19 comment let-
    ters was received, seven of which came
    from the industry, eight from State  and
    local air pollution control agencies,  and
    four from Federal agencies. The Free-
    dom of  Information Center,  Room 202
    West Tower, 401 M  Street, S.W., Wash-
    ington, B.C., has copies of the comment
    letters received and a summary of the
    Issues and Agency responses available for
    public Inspection.  In addition, copies of
    the Issue summary and Agency responses
    may be  obtained  upon written request
    from the EPA Public Information Cen-
    ter CPM-215), 401 M Street, S.W., Wash-
    ington,  D.C.   20460  (specify—Public
    Comment  Summary: Electric Arc Fur-
    naces in the Steel Industry). The com-
    ments have been carefully considered,
    and where determined by the Adminis-
    trator to be appropriate,  changes have
    been made to the  proposed  regulation
    and are incorporated in the regulation
    promulgated herein.
      The bases for the proposed standards
    are presented in "Background Informa-
    tion  for  Standards  of  Performance:
    Electric Arc Furnaces  In  the Steel In-
    dustry," (EPA-450/2-74-017a, b). Copies
    of this document are available on request
    from the  Emission  Standards and  En-
    gineering  Division,  Environmental Pro-
    tection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
    N.C.   27711,  Attention:   Mr.   Don  R.
    Goodwin.
           SUMMARY OF REGULATION

      The  promulgated  standards of  per-
    formance  for new and modified electric
    arc  furnaces  In   the  steel   industry
    limit particulate matter emissions from
    the control device,  from the shop,  and
    from  the  dust-handling  equipment.
    Emissions from the control  device are
    limited to less than 12 ms/dscm (O.OOS2
    gr/dscf) and 3 percent opacity. Furnace
    emissions escaping capture by the collec-
    tion system and exiting from the shop
    are limited to zero  percent opacity, but
    emissions  greater  than  this  level are
    allowed during  charging  periods  and
    tapping  periods.  Emissions  from  the
    dust-handling equipment  are limited  to
    less than 10 percent opacity. The regula-
    tion requires  monitoring of  flow rates
    through each separately ducted emission
    capture hood and  monitoring of  the
    pressure Inside the electric arc furnace
    for direct shell evacuation systems. Ad-
      RULES AND REGULATIONS

 dltionally,  continuous  monitoring  of
 opacity of emissions from the control de-
 vice is required.

   SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS AND CHANGES
    MADB TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION

   All of the comment letters received by
 EPA contained multiple comments. The
 most significant comments and the dif-
 ferences between the proposed and pro-
 mulgated regulations are discussed below.
 In addition to the discussed changes, a
 number of paragraphs  and sections of
 the proposed regulation were reorganized
 In the  regulation promulgated herein.
   (1)  Applicability.  One commentator
 questioned whether electric arc furnaces
 that use  continuous  feeding  of  prere-
 duced ore pellets as the primary  source
 of Iron can comply with the proposed
 standards  of   performance  since-  the
 standards were based  on data from con-
 ventionally charged  furnaces. Electric
 arc  furnaces that  use  prereduced ore
 pellets were  not investigated by EPA
 because this process was still  being re-
 searched  by the steel Industry  during
 development of  the standard and was
 several years from extensive use on com-
 mercial sized furnaces.  Emissions from
. this  type of  furnace are generated at
 different rates and In different amounts
 over the  steel  production  cycle  than.
 emissions from  conventionally charged
 furnaces.  The proposed standards were
 structured for  the  emission cycle of a
 conventionally   charged  electric  arc
 furnace.  The  standards, consequently,
 are not suitable for application to electric
 arc  furnaces that  use  prereduced ore
 pellets- as the primary  source of iron.
 Even with use of best available control
 technology,  emissions from these fur-
 naces may not be controllable to the level
 of all  of  the   standards  promulgated
 herein; however, over the entire cycle the
 emissions may  be less than those from
 a  well-controlled  conventional electric
 arc furnace. Therefore, EPA believes that
 standards of performance for electric arc
 furnaces  using  prereduced ore  pellets
 requue a different  structure than  do
 standards  for  conventionally  charged
 furnaces. An investigation into the emis-
 sion reduction achievable and best avail-
 able control  technology for  these fur-
 naces will be conducted in the future and
 standards of performance will be  estab-
 lished. Consequently, electric arc fur-
 naces that use continuous feeding of pre-
 reduced ore pellets as the primary source
 of Iron are not subject to the require-
 ments of this subpart.
   (2) Concentration standard tor emis-
 sions from the control device. Four com-
 mentators recommended revising  the
 concentration standard for the control
 device  effluent to 18 mg/dscm  (0.008 gr/
 dscf) from the proposed level of 12 nig/
 dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf). The argument for
 the  higher standard was that the pro-
 posed  standard had  not been demon-
 strated on either carbon steel shops or on
 combination  direct  shell evacuation-
 canopy hood control systems. Emission
 measurement data presented In "Back-
 ground Information  for  Standards of
Performance: Electric Arc^Furnaces In
the  Steel Industry" show that carbon
steel shops  as well as alloy steel  shops
can reduce particulate matter emissions
to less than 12 mg/dscm by application
of well-designed fabric filter  collectors.
These data also show that combination
direct shell evacuation-canopy hood sys-
tems can control emission levels to  less
than 12 mg/dscm. EPA believes that re-
vising the standard to 18 mg/dscm  would
allow relaxation of the design require-
ments of the fabric filter collectors  which
are  installed to meet the standard.  Ac-
cordingly,  the  standard  promulgated
herein limits particulate matter  emis-
sions from the control device to less than
12 mg/dscm.
  Two commentators requested that spe-
cific  concentration and opacity stand-
ards be established for emissions from
scrubber controlled direct shell evacua-
tion systems. The argument for a sep-
arate concentration standard was that
emissions from scrubber controlled  direct
shell evacuation systems can be reduced
to  only  about 50  mg/dscm  (0.022  gr/
dscf) and, thus, even with the proposed
proration provisions under §60.274(b),
It is not possible to use scrubbers  and
comply with the proposed concentration
standard. The commentators also argued
that a  separate opacity standard  was
necessary "for scrubber equipped systems
because the effluent is more concentrated
and, thus, reflects and scatters more  vis-
ible light than  the effluent from  fabric
niter collectors.
  EPA would like to emphasize that use
of venturt scrubbers to  control the efflu-
ent from direct shell evacuation systems
Is not considered to be a "best system of
emission  reduction considering costs."
The promulgated standards of perform-
ance for electric arc  furnaces  reflect
the degree oi emission  reduction achiev-
able  for systems discharging emissions
through  fabric filter collectors. EPA be-
lieves, however,  that the regulation does
not  preclude use of control systems that
.discharge direct shell evacuation system
emissions  through  venturl   scrubbers.
Available  Information  Indicates   that
effluent from a direct  shell  evacuation
system can  be controlled to 0.01 gr/dsci
or less using a high energy venturl scrub-
ber  (pressure drop greater than  60 in.
w.g.). If the scrubber reduces participate
matter emissions to 0.01 gr/dscf, then the
fabric filter collector is only required tc
reduce the. emissions  from the canopy
hood to about 0.004 gr/dscf in order for
the  emission rates to be less than  0.0052
gr/dscf. Therefore, It Is technically feasi-
ble  for a facility to use a high energy
scrubber and a fabric filter to control the
combined furnace emissions to less than
0.0052 gr/dscf. A concentration standard
of 0.022 gr/dscf for scrubbers would not
require installation of  control devices
which have  a collection efficiency com-
parable to that of best control technology
 (well-designed and well-operated  fabric
filter collector). In addition, electric arc
furnace particulate matter emissions are
invisible to  the  human eye  at effluent
concentrations  less than  0.01 gr/dsci
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 40,  NO.  IBS—TUESDAY.  SEPTEMBER 23, 1975
                                                       IV-75
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       43851
when emitted  Irom  average diameter
stacks. For the reasons discussed above.
neither a separate concentration stand-
ard nor a separate opacity standard will
be established as suggested by the com-
mentators.
  (3) Control  djevice opacity standard.
Four commentators suggested that  the
proposed control device opacity stand-
ard either be revised from less than five
percent opacity to less than ten percent
opacity based on six-minute average val-
ues or that a time exemption be provided
for visible emissions during the cleaning
cycle of  shaker-type fabric filter collec-
tors.  •
  EPA's  experience Indicates that a time
exemption to  allow for  puffing during
the cleaning cycle of the fabric filter col-
lector is not necessary. For this appli-
cation", a well-designed and  well-main-
tained fabric filter  collector should have
no visible emissions during all phases of
the  operating  cycle. The promulgated
opacity standard, therefore, does not pro-
vide a time exemption for puffing of the
collector during  the cleaning cycle.
  The suggested revision of the proposed
opacity standard to ten percent (based on
six-minute  average  values)  was  con-
sidered  In  light of recent changes in
Method  8 of Appendix A to this part (39
FR  39872). The revisions to Method 9
require  that  compliance with opacity
standards  be determined by averaging
sets of 24 consecutive observations taken
at 15-second intervals (six-minute aver-
ages) . AH  six-minute average values of
the  opacity data used as the  basis  for
the  proposed opacity standard  are zero
percent.  EPA believes that the  ten per-
cent standard  suggested by the com-
mentators would allow much less effec-
tive operation  and maintenance of the
control  device than is required by the
concentration  standard. On the basis of
available data,  a  flve percent  opacity
standard (based on six-minute average
values)  also is  unnecessarily lenient.
  The proposed opacity standard of zero
percent  was revised slightly upward to be
consistent  with previously  established
opacity  standards  which are less strin-
gent than their associated concentration
standards without  being unduly lax. The
promulgated   opacity  standard  limits
emissions from the control device to less
 than  three percent opacity  (based on
 averaging seta  of 24 consecutive observa-
 tions taken at 15-second intervals). Use
 of  six-minute  average values  to deter-
 mine compliance with applicable opacity
 standards makes  opacity levels of any
 value possible, Instead of  the  previous
 method's limitation of values at discrete
 intervals of flve percent opacity.
   (4) Standards on emissions from, the
 shop. Twelve  commentators questioned
 the value of the shop opacity standards,
 arguing that  the proposed standards
 are  unenforceable, too  lenient, or  too
 stringent
   Commentators arguing for less stiin-
 gent or more stringent  standards  sug-
 gested various alternative opacity values
 for the charging or tapping period stand-
 ards, different averaging periods, and a
 different limitation on emissions from-the
shop during the meltdown and refining
period of the EAF operation. Because of
these  comments,  the basis -for  these
standards was thoroughly  reevaluated.
including  a review of all  available data
and follow-up contacts with commenta-
tors who  had  offered suggestions. The
follow-up contacts revealed that the sug-
gested revisions were opinions only and
were not  based on actual data. The re-
evaluation of the data bases of the pro-
posed  standards  reaffirmed  that  the
standards represented, levels of emission
control achievable by application of best
control  technology   considering  costs.
Hence, EPA concluded that the standards
are reasonable Oneither too stringent nor
too lenient)  and  that revision of these
standards is not  warranted in the  ab-
sence  of specific information indicating
such a need.
   Pour commentators believed that the
proposed  standards  were  impractical to
enforce for the following reasons:
   (1)  Intermingling of emissions from
non-regulated  sources  with  emissions
from  the electric arc furnaces  would
make  enforcement   of  the  standards
impossible.
   (2)  Overlap of operations  at multi-
furnace shops  would make it difficult to
identify the periods  in which the charg~
ing and tapping standards are applicable.
   (3)  Additional  manpower  would  be
 required  in  order   to   enforce  these-
standards.
   (4)  The standards would require ac-
 cess  to the  shop, providing the  source
with notice of surveillance and the re-
 sults would not be representative of rou-
 tine emissions.
   (5)  The  standards would  be  unen-
 forceable at facilities with  a mixture of
 existing and new electric  arc furnaces
 in the same shop.
   EPA considered all of the comments on
 the enforceability of the proposed  stand-
 ards and concluded that some changes
 were  appropriate. The proposed regula-
 tion was  reconsidered with the intent of
 developing more  enforceable provisions
 requiring the same level of control. This
 effort resulted in several  changes  to the
 regulation, which are discussed below.
   The promulgated regulation retains the
 proposed limitations on  the  opacity of
 emissions exiting from the shop  except
 for the exemption  of one minute/hour
 per EAP during the refining and melt-
 down periods. The  purpose of  this ex-
 emption  was to provide some allowance
 for puffs due to "cave-ins" or addition of
 iron ore  or burnt lime through the slag
 door,  only one suspected "cave-in" and
 no puffs due to additions occurred during
 15 hours of observations at a well-con-
 trolled facility;  therefore, it was  con-
 cluded that these brief uncontrolled puffs
 do not occur frequently and whether or
 not a "cave-in" has  occurred is best eval-
 uated on a case-by-case  basis. This ap-
 proacb was also necessitated  by recent
 revisions  to  Method 9  (39 FR  39872)
 which require basing compliance  on six-
 minute averages of  the observations. Use
 of six-minute averages of  opacity read-
 ings  is not consistent with  allowing a
 time   exemption.   Determination   of
whether  brief puffs of emissions occur-
ring during refining and  meltdown  pe-
riods are due to "cave-ins" will be made
at the time of determination of compli-
ance. If such emissions are considered t.o
be due to a "cave-in" or other uncontroll-
able event, the evaluation may be  re-
peated without any change in operating
conditions.
  The purpose of the proposed opacity
standards limiting the opacity of emis-
sions from the shop was to require good
capture  of  the  furnace emissions. The
method  for routinely  enforcing these
capture  requirements  has been  revised
in the regulation promulgated herein in
that the owner or operator is now re-
quired to demonstrate compliance with
the shop opacity standards just prior to
conducting the performance test on the
control device. This performance evalua-
tion will establish the baseline operating
flow rates  for each of the canopy hoods
or  other fume  capture hoods and  the
furnace pressures for the electric arc fur-
nace using direct shell evacuation sys-
tems. Continuous monitoring ol the flow
rate through each separately ducted con-
trol system is required for each  electric
arc  furnace subject  to this regulation.
Owners or operators of electric arc fur-
naces that use a direct shell evacuation
system to  collect the refining and melt-
down  period  emissions are required tn
continuously monitor the  pressure inside
the furnace free space. The flow rate and
pressure data will provide a continuous
record of  the operation  of the control
systems. Facilities that  use a  building
evacuation system for capture and con-
trol of emissions are not subject to the
flow rate  and pressure monitoring re-
quirements if the building roof is never
 opened.
   The shop opacity  standards promul-
gated herein are applicable only during
demonstrations of compliance of the af-
fected  facility. At all other times the
operating conditions must be maintained
at the baseline values or better.  Use of
 operating  conditions that will  result in
poorer capture of  emissions constitutes
 unacceptable operation and maintenance
 of the affected facility. These provisions
 of the promulgated regulation, will allow
 evaluation of the performance of the col-
 lection system without interference from
 other emission sources because the non-
 recrulated  sources can be shut down for
 the duration of the evaluation. The moni-
 toring of  operations requirements  will
 simplify enforcement of  the regulatior.
 because neither the enforcing  agency
 nor the owner  or operator must sbow
 that any apparent violation was or was
 not due to operation  of non-regulated
 sources.
   The promulgated regulation's monitor-
 Ing of operation requirements will add
 negligible  additional costs to  the  total
 cost of  complying with the promulgated
 standards  of performance.  Flow  rate
 monitoring devices of sufficient accuracy
 to meet the requirements ol § 60.274 Cb)
 can be  installed for $600-54000 depend-
 ing on the. flow profile of the area being
 monitored and the  complexity of the
 monitoring device. Devices that monitor
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 185—TUESDAY,  SEPTEMBER 23. 1975
                                                       IV-7 6
-------
 43852
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
.the pressure inside the free space of an.
electric arc furnace equipped with a di-
rect shell evacuation system are Installed
by most owners or operators in order to
obtain better control of the furnace oper-
ation. Consequently, for most owners or
operators,  the "pressure monitoring re-
quirements will only result in the addi-
tional costs for installation and operation
of a strip chart recorder. A suitable strip
chart recorder can be installed for less
than $600.
  There are no data reduction require-
ments  hi the flow rate monitoring pro-
visions. The pressure  monitoring  pro-
visions  for the direct shell evacuation
control systems require recording of the
pressures as 15-minute integrated aver-
ages. The pressure Inside the electric arc
furnace above the slag and metal fluctu-
ates rapidly. Integration of the data over
15-minute  periods is necessary to provide
an indication of the operation of the sys-
tem. Electronic and mechanical Integra-
tors are available at an initial cost of less
than $600  to accomplish this task. Elec-
tronic  circuits to produce a continuous
integration of  the data can be built di-
rectly into the monitoring device or can
be provided as a separate modular com-
ponent of  the  monitoring system. These
devices can provide a continuous  inte-
grated average on a strip chart recorder.
  (5) Emission monitoring. Three com-
mentators  suggested deletion of the pro-
posed  opacity monitoring requirements
because  long path lengths and multiple
compartments in pressurized fabric filter
collectors  make monitoring  infeasible.
The proposed opacity monitoring require-
ments have not  been deleted  because
opacity monitoring is feasible on the con-
trol systems of interest (closed or suction
fabric filter collectors). This subpart also
permits  use of alternative control  sys-
tems which are not amenable to testing
and monitoring using existing proce-
dures,  providing the  owner or operator
can demonstrate compliance by alterna-
tive methods.  If the owner or operator
plans to install a pressurized fabric filter
collector, he should submit for the Ad-
ministrator's approval the emission test-
Ing procedures and the method of mon-
itoring the emissions of the collector. The
opacity  of emissions from  pressurized
fabric filter collectors can be monitored
using present instrumentation at a  rea-
sonable cost. Possible alternative methods
for monitoring of emissions from  pres-
surized  fabric filter  collectors  include:
 (1) monitoring of several compartments
by a conventional path length transmis-
 someter and rotation of the transmis-
 someter to other groups of collector'corn-
 partments on  a scheduled basis or (2)
 monitoring  with  several conventional
 path  length transmissometers. In addi-
 tion to monitoring schemes based on con-
 ventional path length transmissometers,
 a long  path transmissometer could be
 used  to monitor emissions from a  pres-
 surized fabric filter collector. Transmis-
 someters capable of monitoring distances
 up to 150 meters are commercially avail-
 able and have been demonstrated to ac-
 curately monitor  opacity.  Use of  long
 path  transmissometers on  pressurized
fabric filter collectors has yet to be dem-
onstrated, but if properly installed there
is no reason to believe that the transmis-
someter will not accurately and  repre-
sentatively monitor emissions.  The best
location for a long path transmissometer
on  a fabric filter collector will depend on
the specific design features  of  both;
therefore, the best location and monitor-
ing procedure must be established on an.
individual basis  and is subject to the
Administrator's approval.
  Two commentators  argued  that  the
proposed reporting  requirements  would
result  in excessive paperwork  for  the
owner or operator. These commentators
.suggested basing the reporting  require-
ments on hourly averages of the  moni-
toring data. EPA believes that  one-hour
averaging  periods  would  not  produce
values that would meaningfully  relate to
the operation of  the fabric filter collec-
tor  and would not be  useful for com-
parison  with Method 9 observations. In
light of  the revision of Method  9 to base
compliance  on six-minute averages,  al]
six-minute periods in which the average
opacity is three percent or greater shall
be  reported  as periods of excess emis-
sions.  EPA does not believe that this re-
quirement will  result  In  an  excessive
burden for properly operated and  main-
tained facilities.
  (6)  Test   methods  and  procedures.
Two commentators questioned the pre-
cision  and accuracy of Method 5 of Ap-
pendix A to this part when applied to gas
streams with  particulate  matter con-
centrations  less than 12 mg/dscm. EPA
has reviewed the sampling and analytical
error  associated with Method  5 testing
of low concentration gas streams.  It was
concluded  that  if the  recommended
minimum sample volume  (1GO  dscf)  is
used,  then the errors  should be within
the acceptable  range for the  method.
Accordingly, the recommended minimum
sample volumes and times of  the pro-
posed  regulation are being promulgated
unchanged.
  Three commentators questioned what
methodology was to be used In testing of
open or pressurized fabric filter collec-
tors. These commentators advocated that
EPA develop a reference test method for
testing of pressurized fabric filter collec-
tors. From EPA's experience,  develop-
ment of a single test procedure for repre-
sentative sampling of  all  pressurized
fabric filter collectors is not feasible be-
cause  of significant variations in the de-
sign of these control devices. Test  proce-
dures  for demonstrating compliance with
the standard, however,  can be developed
on  a case-by-case basis. The promulgated
regulation does require  that the  owner
or  operator design and  construct the
control  device  so  that  representative
measurement of  the particulate matter
emissions is feasible.
  Provisions in 40 CFR 60.8(b)  allow the
owner or operator upon approval by the
Administrator  to show compliance with
the standard of  performance by  use of
an "equivalent" test method or  "alterna-
tive" test method. For pressurized fabric
filter collectors, the owner or operator Is
responsible  for development of an "alter-
native" or  "equivalent" test procedure
which must be approved prior to the de-
termination of compliance.
  Depending on the design of the pres-
surized fabric  filter collector,  the per-
formance test may require use of  an
"alternative" method which would pro-
duce  results  adequate   to  demonstrate
compliance.  An  "alternative"  method
does  not  necessarily require that  the
effluent be discharged through  a stack.
A possible alternative procedure  for test-
ing is representative  sampling of emis-
sions  from  a  randomly  selected, repre-
sentative  number of compartments of
the collector. If the flow rate of efiluer.t
from  the compartments  or other condi-
tions   are  not amenable  to isokinetic
sampling,  then subUokinetic sampling
(that  is.  sampling  at  lower velocities
than the gas stream velocity, thus biasing
the sample toward collection of a greater
concentration than is actually present)
should be used. If a suitable "equivalent"
or "alternative" trst procedure is not de-
veloped by the owner or operator, then
total  enclosure of the collector and test-
ing by Method 5 of Appendix A to  this
part is required.
  A new par.israph has been added lo
clarify that during  emission testing of
pressurized  fabric  filter collectors  the
dilution air vents must be blocked off for
the period of  testing or the amount, of
dilution must  be  determined and a cor-
rection applied in order to accurately
determine the emission  rate of the con-
trol device. The need for dilution air cor-
rection was  discussed in  "Baclcprotr.id
Information for Standards of Perform-
ance: Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel
Industry" but  was not  an explicit  re-
quirement in the proposed regulation.
   (7)  Miscellaneous. Some commenta-
tors on the proposed standards of per-
formance for ferroalloy production facil-
ities  (39 FR 37470)  questioned  the  ra-
tionale for  the differences between  the
electric arc furnace regulation  nmi  the
ferroalloy production facilities regulation
with respect to methods of limiting fugi-
tive emissions.  The intent of both regu-
lations is to require effective capture and
control of emissions from the source. The
standards of performance for electric arc
furnaces regulate collection efiieiency by
placing limitations  on  the  opacity  of
emissions from the -shop. The perform-
ance  of the control system is evaluated
at ths shop roof and/or other areas of
emission to the atmosphere because it is
not possible to  evaluate the perfoiTr.ar.ee
of the collection system inside the shop.
In electric arc furnace  shops, collection
systems for capture of charging and tap-
ping period emissions must be located at
least  35 or 40 feet above the furnace to
allow free movement of the crnne which
charges raw materials  to the furnace.
Fumes from charging, tapping, and other
activities  rise  and  accumulate in  the
upper areas of  the building, thus obscur-
ing visibility. Because of  the poor visibil-
ity within  the  shop, the performance of
the emission collection system can only
be  evaluated at the point where  emis-
sions are  discharged to  the atmosphere.
Ferroalloy electric submerged  arc fur-
                              FEDEKAl REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 185—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23,  1975
                                                    IV-7 7
-------
                                            RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                             43833
nace operations do not require this large
free Space between the furnace and the
collection  device   
-------
43854
     RULES AND REGULATIONS
metric flow rate through each separately
•ducted hood shall be determined during
all periods in which the hood is operated
for the purpose of capturing emissions
from  the EAF using the monitoring de-
vice under paragraph (b) of this section.
The owner or operator may petition the
Administrator  for  reestablishment  of
these flow rates whenever  the owner or
operator can  demonstrate to the Admin-
is'trator's satisfaction that the EAF oper-
ating conditions upon  which  the  flow
rates  were previously established are no
longer applicable. The flow rates deter-
mined during the most recent  demon-
stration of compliance shall  be main-
tained (or may be exceeded) at the ap-
propriate level for each applicable period.
Operation at lower  flow rates  may be
considered  by the Administrator to be
unacceptable operation and maintenance
of the affected facility.
  (d) The owner or operator may peti-
tion  the Administrator to  approve  any
alternative method that wil? provide a
continuous record of operation  of  each
emission capture system.
  (e)  Where emissions during any phase
of the heat time are controlled by use
of a  direct shell evacuation system, the
owner or operator shall Install, calibrate,
and maintain a monitoring device that
continuously  records the pressure in the
free space inside the EAF.  The pressure
shall  be recorded  as  15-minute inte-
grated averages. The monitoring device.
may be installed in any appropriate lo-
cation In the EAP  such that  reproduc-
ible results will be obtained. The pres-
sure monitoring device shall have an ac-
curacy of ±5 mm of water gauge over
its normal operating range and  shall be
calibrated  according to the manufac-
turer's Instructions.
  (f)  When the owner or operator of an
EAP is required to demonstrate compli-
ance  with  the  standard under  § 60.272
(a) (3) and at  any other time  the Ad-
ministrator may require (under section
114 of the Act, as amended), the pressure
In the free space Inside the furnace shall
be determined during the meltdown and
refining period(s) using the monitoring
device under paragraph X'/2.}.,oi (Q.^T = value yl Iho noplicabii) parameter for
               e;u-h control device tested.

  (f)  Any  control device  subject to the
provisions  of this subpart shall  be de-
signed and constructed to allow meas-
urement of emissions using applicable
test methods and procedures.
  ig)  Where emissions from any EAF(s)
are combined with emissions from facili-
ties not subject to the provisions  of this
subpart but controlled by a common cap-
ture system and control device, the owner
or operator may use any  of the follow-
ing procedures during  a performance
test;
  <1)  Base compliance on control of the
combined emissions.
  (2)  Utilize a method  acceptable  to
the Administrator  which compensates
for the emissions from the facilities not
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
  (3)  Any combination of  the criteria
of paragraphs  (g> (1)  and  (g) (21  of this
section.
  (lit  Where emissions from any EAF us)
are combined with emissions from facili-
ties not  subject to  the  provisions  of
this subpart, the owner or operator  may
use any of the  following procedures for
demonstrating  compliance with § 60.273
(a)(3):
  (1)  Base compliance on  control of the
combined emissions.
  (2)  Shut down operation  of facilities
not subject to the  provisions of  this
subpart.
  (3)  Any combination of  the criteria
of paragraphs  (h) (1)  and  (h) (2)  of this
section.
(Sees. Ill and 114  of the Clenu Air Act, M
amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 01-604, 54
Btftt. 1678  (43 U.S.O. 18570-6, 18B7O-9))

  (PR Doc.75-25138 Filed 9-22-75;8:4S am)
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL  40, NO. 185—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER  23, 1975


                                                     IV-79
-------
17
      Title 40—Protection of Environment
        CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
            PROTECTION AGENCY
          SUDCKAPTER C-A: PROGRAMS
                 (FRL 438-3|

   PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
   ANCE  FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
   Delegation of Authority To  State  of Cali-
      fornia on Behalf of Kern County  and
      Trinity County Air Pollution Control  Dis-
      tricts
      Pursuant to the delegation of authority
   for  the standards of performance for
   new stationary sources  (NSPS!  to  the
   State of California on behalf of the Kern
   County Air  Pollution  Control  District
   and the Trinity County  Air Pollution
   Control District,  dated August 18. 1975.
   EPA is today  amending  40  CPR 60.4,
   Address, to reflect this delegation. A  No-
   tice announcing  this delegation  is pub-
   lished today at  40 FR ????. The amended
   § 60.4  Is set foi tli below. It adds  the ad-
   dresses of the Kern County and  Trinity
   County Air Pollution Control Districts, to
   which must be adressed all reports, re-
   quests, applications,  submittals,   and
   communications  pursuant to this part
   by sources subject to  the  NSPS  located
   within these Air  Pollution Control Dis-
   tricts.
      The Administrator finds good cause for
   foregoing prior  public notice and  for
   making this rulemaking effective Imme-
   diately in  that it is an administrative
   change and not one of substantive con-
   tent. No additional substantive burdens
   are imposed on the parties affected. The
   delegation which is reflected by this ad-
   ministrative amendment was effective on
   August 18, 1975,  and  It serves no pur-
   pose to delay the technical change of  this
   addition of the Air Pollution Control Dis-
   trict  addresses to the Code of Federal
   Regulations.
      This rulemaking is  effective immedi-
   ately,  and is Issued under  the authority
   of Section  111  of the  Clean Air  Act, as
   amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
      Dated: September 25, 1975.

                 STANLEY W. LEGRO.
           Assistant Administrator  for
                           Enforcement.
      Part 60 of Chapter  I, Title 40 of the
   Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
   as follows:
      1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b) Is amended
   by revising paragraph  P, to read  as
   follows:
   § 60.4  Address.
                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS
  Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dla-
trlct, Box AJ. WeavervUte, CA 9S093.
                            ;8:« am)
      (b)
     F— California—
     Bay Area Air Pollution  Control District,
    938 Ellis St., Saa Francisco, CA 94109.
     Del Norte County Air Pollution  Control
    District, Courthouse, Crescent City. CA 95681.
     Humboldt County Air Pollution  Control
    District, 5600 S. Broadway, Eureka, CA 96601.
     Kern County Air Pollution Control Dis-
    trict. 1700 Flower St. (P.O. Bolt 997), Bakers-
    field, CA 03302.
     Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Con-
    trol District. 420 Church 8t. (P.O. Box 487),
    Salinas, CA 93901.
  FEDERAl REGISTER, VOl. 40,  NO. 191—WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER 1, 1975
                                                     IV-80
-------
    4G250
                                                  RULES AND REGULATIONS
18
              (FRL 423-7|

 PART 6O—STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NF.W STATIONARY  SOURCES
Emission  Monitoring  Requirements  and
  Revisions   to   Performance  Testing
  Methods
  On September 11, 1974 (39 PR 32852),
the  Environmental  Protection  Agency
'EPA) proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part
60,  Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources, to establish specific
requirements  pertaining to continuous
emission monitoring system performance
specifications, operating procedures, data
reduction, and reporting requirements23
These requirements would apply to new
and modified facilities  covered  under
Part 60, but would not apply to existing
facilities.
  Simultaneously  (39 FR  32871), the
Agency proposed revisions  to 40 CFR
Part 51, Requirements for  the Prepara-
tion, Adoption, and Subtnittal of Imple-
mentation  Plans,  which would  require
States to revise their State  Implementa-
tion Plans (SIP's)  to include legal en-
forceable  procedures  requiring  certain
specified stationary sources to monitor
emissions  on a continuous basis. These
requirements would apply to existing fa-
cilities, which are not covered under Part
60.
  Interested parties participated  in the
rulemakLng by sending comments to EPA.
A total of 105 comment letters were re-
ceived on  the  proposed revisions to Part
60 from monitoring equipment manufac-
turers, data processing equipment manu-
facturers,  industrial users of monitoring
equipment, air pollution control agencies
including  State, local, and EPA regional
offices, other Federal  agencies, and con-
sultants. Copies of the  comment letters
received and a summary of the issues and
EPA's responses are available for inspec-
tion and  copying  at  the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection  Agency,  Public Infor-
mation Reference Unit, Room 2922 (EPA
Library),  401  M Street, S.W.,  Washing-
ton, B.C. In addition,  copies of the issue
summary and EPA responses may be ob-
tained upon written  request  from the
EPA  Public Information Center  (PM-
215), 401  M Street,-S.W.,  Washington,
D.C.  20460  (specify  Public  Comment
Summary: Emission Monitoring Require-
ments). The  comments have been care-
fully  considered, additional information
has been  collected f.nd assessed, and
where determined  by  the Administrator
to  be appropriate, changes have been
made to the proposed regulations. These
changes are incorporated in the regula-
tions promulgated herein.
              BACKGROUND

  At the time the  regulations  were pro-
posed  (September  11. 1974),  EPA had
promulgated  12 standards of perform-
ance  for new stationary sources under
section. Ill of the Clean Air-Act,  as
amended,  four of which required the af-
fected facilities to install  and  operate
systems which continuously monitor the
levels of pollutant emissions,  where the
technical  feasibility  exists using cur-
rently available continuous monitoring
technology,  and where the cost  of the
systems is  reasonable. When  the Jtour
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 AJTD  CHANCES
    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 maintenance  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 neert be re-
duced U> units of the  standard, ilowe.cv,
in order to  report excess emissions, ade-
quate procedures must be  utilized (o in-
sure that excess emissions  are identified.
Hire again, certain sources with minimal
excess emissions can determine excess
emissions by review of strip charts, while
sources  with varying emission and ox-
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, Caseous  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 \vel! 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
                                  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 194—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975
                                                        iv-81
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                              46251
minute, which was proposed, to six min-
utes to be consistent with revisions made
to Method 9 (39 FR 39872).
  Numerous comments were received on
proposed 5 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 5 60.13U)
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 whe.i the owner
or  operator or equipment  vendor may
r.irnply prefer to use other equipment  or
procedures that are consistent with  his
omrent practices.
  Several  paragraphs  in  5 80.13  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  retesting
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 retesting of  the
continuous monitoring system(s).
  Several  commentators noted that the
proposed reporting requirements are un-
necessary  for affected  facilities not re-
quired  to  install continuous monitoring
systems. 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 v,ero and span checks. Ac-
cordingly, the  regulations promulgated
herein require  adjustments only  when
applicable 24-hour  drift limits are ex-
ceeded. Pour 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
traceabtlity 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,
B.C. 20234.
  Recertification  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 use NBS
materials   for  traceability   purposes,
therefore, these amendments  to the reg-
ulations will not impose additional re-
quirements upon most manufacturers.
  (2)  Subpart • D—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-depth
study would  be necessary before mean-
ingful provisions could be developed. The
Agency has decided to promulgate all of
the regulations except those dealing with
fuel analysis. The  fuel analysis prwi-
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 will
be used to  determine whether fuel anal-
ysis should be allowed as a means of
measuring 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 a
dry basis-Where Cp. 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's
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 gases
                              FEDERAL MOISTED, VOL. 40, NO. 194—MONDAY,  OCTOBER 6, 197$

                                                     IV-82
-------
 46252
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
for reheating,  the-F and *', factors
promulgated herein must be  prorated
based upon the total heat input of the
fuels fired within the facility-regardless
of the locations of fuel firing. Therefore,
any facility using a flue gas desulfuriza-
tion system may be limited to dry basis
monitoring  instrumentation due to the
restrictions on use of a CO- dDuent moni-
tor unless water vapor is also measured
subject to the Administrator's approval.
  Two commentators requested  that an
additional factor (F  ») be developed for
use with oxygen pontinuous monitoring
systems that measure flue gas diluents on.
a wet basis. A factor  of this type was
evaluated by EPA. but is not being pro-
mulgated with the  regulations herein.
The error in the accuracy  of the factor
may exceed  ±5 percent without  addi-
tional measurements to correct for va-
riations in flue  gas moisture content due
to fluctuations  in  ambient humidity or
fuel moisture content. However, EPA will
approve installation of wet basis oxygen
systems on  a case-by-case basis if the
owner or operator will proposed use of
additional measurements and procedures
to control the accuracy of the Pw factor
within acceptable limits. Applications for
approval of such systems should include
the frequency  and  type of  additional
measurements proposed and the resulting
accuracy of the F»- factor under the ex-
tremes    of    operating    conditions
anticipated.
  One commentator stated that the pro-
posed requirements  for  recording heat
input are superfluous because this infor-
mation is not needed to convert monitor-
ing data to units of the applicable stand-
ard. EPA has reevaluated  this  require-
ment and has determined that the con-
version  of excess emissions into  units of
the standards  will be  bused  upon the
F factors and that measurement of the
rates of fuel firing will not be needed ex-
cept when combinations of fuels are fired.
Accordingly, the regulations promulgated
herein require  such  measurements only
when multiple  fuels are fired.
   Thirteen commentators questioned the
rationale for the proposed  increased op-
erating  temperature of the  Method  5
sampling train for fossil-fuel-fired steam
generator  participate testing  and the
basis for raising rather than lowering
the temperature. A brief discussion of the
rationale behind thio  revision was pro-
vided in the preamble to  the proposed
regulations, and a more detailed discus-
sion is provided here. Several factors are
of primary importance in developing the
data base for a standard of performance
and in specifying: the  reference method
for use in conducting a performance test,
including:
   a. The method used for data gathering
to  establish a  standard  must be the
same as, or must have a known relation-
ship to, the method  subsequently estab-
lished as the reference method.
   b. The method should measure pollut-
ant emissions indicative of the perform-
ance of the best systems of emission re-
duction. A method meeting this criterion
will not necessarily measure emissions
as  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  ou 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  perform!!nee.
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 tha't  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 not allow 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 f uels containing 0.3 to 0.85 percent
sulfur were burned, the incremental in-
crease  in parliculnte 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 Jieces-
savily predictable, since total sulfur oxicio.
concentration, boiler design  and opera-
tion, and  fuel additives each appear to
have ;>  potential effect. Based upon these
date, it is  concluded that the potential
increase in particulate concentration at
sources  meetinc 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 p.r/scf. Nevertheless, to  insure  that
an unusual case  will not occur where a
high concentration of condensible mat-
ter, not controllable with sn 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 pen-
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 participate mut-
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-
r;ur 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
basis upon which standards are estab-
lished.
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL  40. NO. 194—MONDAY.  OCTOBER  6, 1975


                                                      IV-83
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                              46253
  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 may 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  SOs  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),
n 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  paniculate
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
paniculate test.
  Eight commentators  stated that the
requirement for  continuous monitoring
of nitrogen oxides should be deleted be-
cause only two air quality control re-
gions have ambient levels of nitrogen
dioxide  thr.t exceed the national ambient
air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide.
Standards of performance issued under
.section  HI 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 jp.re 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.
  Three  commentators  requested  that
owners or operators of steam generators
be permitted to use NOV continuous mon-
itoring systems  capable of measuring
only nitric oxide (NO) since the amount
of nitrogen dioxide  (NO-) in Uie  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  NO: relative to
NO in the flue gases and use a factor to
adjust the continuous monitoring system
emission data (e.g.  1.03  x  NO = NOS)
provided that the factor is applied not
only to the performance  evaluation data,
but also applied consistently to all data
generated by the continuous monitoring
system thereafter. This procedure is lim-
ited to facilities that have less than 10
percent NO-  (greater than 90 percent
NO) in order to not seriously impair the
accuracy of the system due to NOj to NO
proportion fluctuations.
  Section 60.45(g)U) 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  § 60.42(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  G—Nitric  Acid  Plants.
Two commentators questioned the long-
term validity of the proposed conversion
procedures for reducing  data to units of
the standard. They  suggested that the
conversion could be accomplished  by
monitoririg 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 does not  believe that the
additional expense this method  (moni-
toring  volumetric rate) would entail  is
warranted. Since nitric acid plants, for
economic  and technical reasons,  typi-
cally  operate  within  a fairly  narrow
range  of  conversion efficiencies (90-96
percent)  and tail gas diluents (2-5 per-
cent oxygen), the flue gas volumetric
rates are reasonably  proportional to the
acid production  rate.  The error  that
would  be introduced  into the data  from
the maximum variation of these  param-
eters  is approximately 15  percent and
would usually be much less. It is expected
that the tail gas oxygen concentration
(an indication of the degree of tail gas
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  5 60.13(0.
  (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 mor\, closely
the operations of sulfuric acid plants and
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 sulfuric acid plants this
assumption  is invalid. A  sulfuric  acid
plant is typicallv designed  to operate  at
a   constant  volumetric  ,. throughput
(scfm). Acid production rates are altered
by by-passing portions of the process air
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 an  addi-
tional  cost  burden.  The Reich  test  or
other suitable procedures may be used.
  (5)  Subpart J—Petroleum Refineries.
One commentator stated  that  the re-
quirements for installation of continuous
monitoring systems for oxygen and fire«-
box temperature are  unnecessary  and
that installation of a flame detection de-
vice would be superior for process con-
trol purposes. Also, EPA has obtained
data which show no  Identifiable  rela-
tionship between  furnace  temperature,
percent oxygen in the  flue  gas, and car-
bon monoxide emissions when the  facil-
ity Is  operated  in compliance with the
applicable standard. Since firebox tem-
perature and oxygen measurements may
not be preferred 'by source owners and
operators for process control,  and  no
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 194—MONDAY. OCTOBER 6, 1.975

                                                     IV-84
-------
46254
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
known method is available for transla-
tion, of these measurements into quanti-
tative reports of excess carbon monoxide
emissions, this requirement appears  to
be of  little-use to the affected facilities
or to EPA. Accordingly, requirements for
installation  of  continuous  monitoring
systems  for measurements  of firebox
temperature and oxygen are deleted from
the regulations.
  Since EPA has not  yet developed per-
formance specifications for carbon mon-
oxide or  hydrogen  suifide  continuous
monitoring  systems,  the type of equip-
ment that may be installed by an owner
or operator  in compliance with EPA re-
quirements  is  undefined.  Without  con-
ducting performance evaluations of  such
equipment,  little  reliance  can be placed
upon the value of any data such systems
would generate. Therefore, the sections
of the regulation requiring these systems
are being reserved until  EPA proposes
performance specifications-applicable to
H^S and CO  monitoring systems.  The
provisions of § 60.l05fa> (3) do not apply
to an owner  or operator electing to moni-
tor H.-S. In that case, an H-S monitor
should not, be installed until specific HrS
monitoring  requirements are promul-
gated. Ac the time specifications are pro-
posed, all owners or operators who  have
not entered  into binding contractual ob-
ligations to  purchase continuous moni-
toring equipment by October 6, • 1975 13
\vil! be  required  to  install  a carbon
monoxide continuous monitoring system
and a hydrogen suifide continuous moni-
toring1  system  (unless a  sulfur dioxide
continuous  monitoring system  has  been
installed) as applicable.
   .Section 60l05(a)(2).  which specifies
the excess  emissions  for  opacity  that
must be reported, has been  reserved for
the same reasons discussed under  fossil
fuel-Tired steam generators. 33
   (6) Appendix B—Performance Speci-
fications. A large number of comments
were  received  in reference to specific
technical and editorial changes  needed
in the specifications. Each of these  com-
ments  has  been  reviewed  and  several
changes in  format and procedures have
been made. These include adding align-
ment  procedures for opacity monitors
and more specific instructions for select-
ing a location for installing the monitor-
ins equipment. Span requirements have
been specified so that commercially pro-
duced equipment may be standardized
where possible. The format of the speci-
fications was simplified by redefining the
requirements in terms of percent opacity,
or oxygen,  or carbon dioxide, or percent
of span. The proposed requirements were
in terms   of  percent  of the  emission
standard which is less convenient or too
 vague  since reference to the  emission
 standards  would  have  represented- a
 range  of pollutant  concentrations de-
 pending upon the amount of diluents (i.e.
 excess  air  and  water vapor) that are
 present in  the effluent. In order to cali-
 brate  gaseous monitors  in  terms of a
 specific concentration, the requirements
 were revised  to  delete reference to the
 emission standards.
    Four commentators noted that the ref-
 erence  methods used to evaluate con-
tinuous 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
320,000, and annual operating costs are
approximately 58,500. 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 lor
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  ill. 114 and 30Ua>  of the Clean
Air Act as amended [42 U.S.C. 1857c-6,
 1857C-9. and 1857g(a1 ] and become ef-
fective October 6. 1975.
   Dated: September 23, 1975.
                    JOHN QtTARLES,
                Acting Administrator
   40 CFR Part 60 is amended by revising
Subparts A, D, F, G. H. I, J, L, M, and O,
and adding Appendix  B as follows:
   1. The table of sections is amended by
revising Subpart  A. and adding  Appen-
 dix B as follows:
        Subpart A—General  Provision*
     •       •••>•
   60.13 Monitoring requirements.
     •       »       «       •      «
APPENDIX B—PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
   Performance Specification 1—Performance
 specifications and specification test proce-
 dures  for transmlssometer systems for con-
 tinuous measurement of the opacity of stack
 emissions.
   Performance Specification 2—Performance
 specifications and specification test proce-
 dures for monitors-of  SO,  and NO, from
 stationary sources.
   Performance Specification 3—Performance
 specifications and -specification test proce-
dares for monitors of CO, aad O. from sta-
tionary sources
     Subpart A—General Provisions
  Section 60.2 is amended by revising
paragraph (r) and by adding paragraphs
(x), (y) ,- and (.z) as follows:
§ 60.2  Definitions.
    »      «      •      '*       *
  (r) "One-hour period", jneans any 60
minute   period  commencing  on.  the
hour.
    •      •      •       •       •
  (x) "Six-minute  period" means  any
one of the 10 equal parts of a one-hour
period.
  (y) "Continuous  monitoring system"
means  the  total 'equipment,  required
under the emission monitoring .sections
in applicable  subparts. used to sample
and condition (if applicable), to analyze.
and  to  provide a permanent record of
emissions or process parameters.
  (z) "Monitoring  device" means  the
total  equipment,  required  under  the
monitoring of operations sections in  ap-
plicable subparts, used to measure  find
record  (if  applicable)  -process  param-
eters.
3. In §60.7, paragraph (a) (5)  is added
and  paragraphs  (b),  (O, and  (d)  are
revised. The added and revised provisions
read  as follows:
§ 60.7  Notification nml record keeping.
   (a)  *  •  •
  (5) A notification  of the  date upon
which demonstration of the  continuous
monitoring  system  performance  com-
mences in  accordance with  §60.13(c).
Notification shall be postmarked not  less
than  30 days prior to such date.
  (b) Any owner or operator subject to
the  provisions of this part shaJl main-
tain records of the occurrence and dura-
tion of any startup, shutdown,  or mal-
function in  the operation of  an  affected
facility; any malfunction of the air  pol-
lution control equipment; or any periods
during  which  a continuous  monitoring
system  or monitoring  device is inopera-
tive.
   CO Each owner  or  operator required
to install a continuous monitoring  sys-
tem  shall submit  a written report of
excess emissions (as denned in applicable
subparts) to the Administrator for every
calendar  quarter. All  quarterly reports
shall be postmarked by the 30th day  fol-
lowing  the end of each calendar quarter
and shall include the following informa-
tion:
   (1) The magnitude of excess emissions
computed in accordance with § 60.13(h),
any conversion factor(s) used, and the
date and time of  commencement  and
completion  of each time period of excess
emissions.
   (2) Specific  identification  of  each
period  of excess emissions that occurs
during startups, shutdowns, and  mal-
functions 'of the affected facility.  The
nature and cause of any malfunction -(if
known),  the  corrective action taken or
 preventatlve measures adopted.
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40.  NO.  194—MONDAr, OCTOBER 6,  1975

                                                    IV-8 5
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                                                              46255
  (3) The date and time identifying each
period  during  which the--continuous
monitoring system was inoperative ex-
cept for zero and-span checks and the
nature of  the system repairs or adjust-
ments.
  (4) When  no excess emissions have
occurred or the continuous monitoring
system.(s)  have not been inoperative, re-
paired,  or adjusted,  such information
shall be stated in the report.
  (d) Any owner or  operator subject to
che provisions of this part shall maintain
a file of all measurements, including con-
tinuous monitoring system, monitoring
device, and performance  testing meas-
urements; all continuous monitoring sys-
tem performance  evaluations;  all con-
tinuous monitoring system or monitoring
device  calibration checks; adjustments
and maintenance performed  on these
systems or devices; and all other infor-
mation required by this part recorded in
a permanent form suitable for inspec-
tion. The file shall be retained for at least
two years following  the  date of such
measurements, maintenance, reports, and
records.
  4. A new 8 60.13 is added as follows:
§ 60.13  Monilorinp requirements.
  'a) Unless otherwise approved by the
Administrator or  specified in applicable
subparts,  the requirements of  this  sec-
tion shall apply to all continuous moni-
toring systems required under applicable
subparts.
  (b> All continuous  monitoring systems
and monitoring devices shall be installed
and operational prior to conducting per-
formance tests under $ 60.8. Verification
of  operational  status shall, as a mini-
mum, consist of the following:
  (1) For continuous monitoring  sys-
tems referenced in paragraph  (c)(l) of
this section, completion of the  condi-
tioning period specified  by applicable
requirements in Appendix B.
  <2> Por continuous monitoring  sys-
tems referenced in paragraph  (c) (2) of
this section, completion of seven days of
operation.
  (3) Por monitoring devices referenced
in applicable subparts, completion of the
manufacturer's written requirements or
recommendations for checking the op-
eration or calibration of the device.
  (c)  During  any  performance  tests
required under § 60.8 or within 30 days
thereafter and at such other  times as
may be required by  the Administrator
under section 114 of the Act, the owner
or operator of any affected facility shall
conduct continuous  monitoring system
performance evaluations and furnish the
Administrator within 60 days thereof two
or.  upon request, more copies of a written
report of the results of such tests. These
continuous monitoring system perform-
ance evaluations  shall be conducted in
accordance with the  following specifica-
tions and  procedures:
  (1)  Continuous monitoring systems
listed within this paragraph except as
provided in paragraph (c) <2> of this sec-
tion shall be  evaluated  in accordance
with the  requirements and- procedures
contained  in  the applicable  perform-
ance  specification of  Appendix  B  as
follows:
  (i) Continuous monitoring systems for
measuring  opacity  of emissions  shall
comply with Performance Specification 1.
  -------
 46256
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
   (3> All continuous monitoring systems
referenced by paragraph   (2) of this
section, except opacity, shall complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation (sam-
pling,  analyzing,  and data recording)
for each successive one-hour period.
   (f) All continuous monitoring systems
or monitoring devices shall be installed
such that  representative  measurements
of emissions or process parameters from
the affected facility are obtained. Addi-
tional procedures for  location of contin-
uous monitoring systems  contained  in
the  applicable  Performance  Specifica-
tions of Appendix B of this part shall  be
used.
   Cg) When  the effluents  from a single
affected facility or two or more affected
facilities subject to the same emission
standards are combined before being re-
leased to the atmosphere, the owner  or
operator may install  applicable contin-
uous monitoring systems on each effluent
or on the combined effluent. When the af-
fected facilities are not subject to the
same emission  standards,  separate con-
tinuous  monitoring systems shall be in-
stalled on each effluent.  When the efflu-
ent from one affected facility is released
to the atmosphere through more  than
one  point,  the  owner or operator  shall
install applicable continuous monitoring
systems on each separate  effluent unless
the installation of fewer systems is ap-
proved by the Administrator.
  (h) Owners or operators of all con-
tinuous monitoring systems for measure-
ment of opacity shall reduce all data  to
six-minute  averages  and  for  systems
other than opacity to one-hour averages
for time periods under § 60.2 (x)  and (r)
respectively. Six-minute opacity averages
shall be calculated from 24 or more data
points  equally  spaced  over  each  six-
minute  period. For systems other  than
opacity, one-hour averages shall be com-
puted from four  or  more  data points
equally spaced:  over each  one-hour pe-
riod. Data recorded during oeriods of sys-
tem  breakdowns,   repairs,  calibration
checks, and zero and span adjustments
shall not be included in the data averages
computed  under  this  paragraph. An
arithmetic  or integrated average of all
data may be used. The data output of all
continuous monitoring systems  may be
recorded: in reduced, or nonreduced form
(e.g. ppm pollutant and percent O:  or
Ib/miHion  Btu  of pollutant).  All excess
emissions  shall be converted into  units
of the standard using the applicable con-
version procedures specified in subparts.
After conversion into units of the stand-
ard, the data may be rounded to the same
number of  significant digits used in sub-
parts to specify the applicable standard
(e.g., rounded to the nearest one percent
opacity).
   (1) Upon written  application by an
iwner or operator, the Administrator may
approve alternatives  to  any monitoring
procedures or requirements of this  part
including, but not  limited  to the follow-
ing:
   (i) Alternative  monitoring require-
ments when installation of a continuous
monitoring system or monitoring device
specified by this part would not provide
accurate measurements due to liquid wa-
ter or other interferences caused by-sub-
stances with the effluent gases.
   (ii> Alternative monitoring  require-
ments when the affected facility is infre-
quently operated.
   (ill) Alternative monitoring- require-
ments to accommodate continuous moni-
toring systems that  require additional
measurements to correct for stack mois-
ture conditions.
   (Iv) Alternative locations for installing
continuous monitoring systems or moni-
toring devices when the owner or opera-
tor can demonstrate that installation at
alternate locations will enable accurate
and representative measurements.
   (v) Alternative methods  of converting
pollutant concentration measurements to
units of the standards.
   (vi)  Alternative procedures for per-
forming daily checks of zero and  span
drift that do not involve use of span gases
or test cells.
   (vli) Alternatives to the  A.S.TJvI. test
methods or sampling procedures specified
by any subpart.
   (viii) Alternative continuous monitor-
Ing systems that do not meet the design
or performance requirements in Perform-
ance  Specification 1, Appendix  B,  but
adequately  demonstrate a  definite and
consistent relationship between its meas-
urements   and  the   measurements  of
opacity by  a system complying with the
requirements in Performance Specifica-
tion 1. The Administrator may  require
that such  demonstration  be performed
for each affected facility.
   (ix) Alternative monitoring require-
ments when the  effluent from a single
affected facility or the combined  eftluent
from  two or more affected  facilities are
released to  the atmosphere through more
than one point.
Subpart  D—Standards of Performance for
    Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
§ 60.42   [Amended!
  5. Paragraph   (a) (2)  of  § 60.42  is
amended by deleting  the  second  sen-
tence.
  6. Section 60.45 is amended by revis-
ing paragraphs  of this  section
are conducted. The following procedures
shall be used for monitoring sulfur di-
oxide emissions:
   (1)  For affected facilities which  use
 continuous  monitoring systems.  Refer-
 ence'Method 6 shall be used for conduct-
 ing  monitoring  system  performance
 evaluations under § 60.13 (c). The pollut-
 ant  gas used to prepare calibration  gas
 mixtures under paragraph 2.1. Perform-
 ance Specification 2 and for calibration
 checks under  $G0.13(d>  to this part,
 shall be sulfur dioxide (SO>). The span
 value for the continuous monitoring sys-
 tem shall be determined as follows:
   (i) For affected facilities firing liquid
 fossil fuel the span value shall be 1000
 ppm sulfur  dioxide.
   Cil)  For affected facilities firing solid
 fossil fuel  the span  value shall be 1500
 ppm sulfur  dioxide.
   (iii) For affected facilities firing fossil
 fuels in any combination, the span value
 shall be determined by computation in
 accordance  with the following formula
 and  rounding to  the  nearest  500 ppm
 sulfur  dioxide:
              lOOOy-i-l 5007,
 where:
  yrrthe fraction of total heat Input derived
     from llquJd fossil fuel, and
  3 = thi> fraction of total heat Input derived
     from solid fossil fuel.

   (ivi  For affected facilities which fire
 both fossil fuels and nonfossil fuels, the
 span value shall be subject to the Admin-
 istrator's approval.
   (2) (Reserved]
   (3) For effected facilities using flue sos
 desulfurization systems to achieve com-
 pliance with  sulfur dioxide standards
 under  § 60.43, the continuous monitoring
 system for  measuring  sulfur  dioxide
 emissions shall  be located downstream
 of the desulfurization system and in ac-
 cordance with requirements in Perform-
 ance Specification 2  of Appendix B and
 the following:
   (i) Owners or operators shall  install
 CO:  continuous  monitoring systems,  if
 selected under paragraph (d) of this sec-
 tion, at a location upstream of the desul-
 furization system. This option mny be
 used only if the owner or operator can
 demonstrate that air is not added to the
 flue  gas  between the  CO- continuous
 monitoring' system and the SO., continu-
 ous monitoring system and each system
 measures the CO, and SO: on a dry basis.
   (ii) Owners or operators who install O;
 continuous  monitoring systems  under
 paragraph (d) of this section shall select
 a location downstream of the desulfuri-
 zation system and all measurements shall
be made on a dry basis.
   (iii)  If fuel of a different type than is
used in the boiler is fired directly into the
 flue gas for any purpose (e.g.. reheating)
 the F  or Fc factors  used shall be pro-
 rated  under paragraph  (f) (6)  of  this
 section with consideration given  to the
 fraction of total heat input supplied by
 the additional fuel- The pollutant, opac-
 ity,  CO:,  or O:  continuous monitoring
 system 
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                                                46257
or operator except for any affected facil-
ity ctemonstrated during  performance
tests under 5 60.8 to emit nitrogen oxides
pollutants at levels 30 percent or more
below applicable standards under ! 60.44
of this part. The following procedures
shall be  used for  determining the span
and for calibrating nitrogen oxides con-
tinuous monitoring systems:
   (1) The span value shall be determined
as follows:
   (i) For affected facilities firing gaseous
fossil fuel  the  span value shall  be  500
ppm nitrogen oxides.
    For  affected facilities which  fire
both fossil fuels and nonfossil fuels, the
span value shall be  subject to the Ad-
ministrator's approval.
   (2)  The pollutant gas used to prepare
calibration  gas mixtures  under  para-
graph  2.1, Performance  Specification  2
and for calibration checks  under § 60.13
(d) to this part, shall  be  nitric oxide
(NO). Reference Method 7  shall be used
for conducting monitoring  system per-
formance evaluations  under §60.13(c).
   (d) A  continuous  monitoring system
for measuring  either oxygen or carbon
dioxide in the "flue  gases  shall be  in-
stalled, calibrated, maintained, and  op-
erated by the owner or operator.
   (e)   An owner or operator required to
las tall continuous monitoring  systems
under  paragraphs Cb) and (c)  of  this
section shall for each pollutant moni-
tored  use the applicable conversion pro-
cedure for the purpose of converting con-
tinuous monitoring data into units of the
applicable standards (g/mlllion  cal, lb/
million Btu) as  follows:
   (1)  When the owner or operator elects
under  paragraph (d)  of this section to
measure  oxygen In the  flue gases,  the
measurement of the pollutant concentra-
tion and oxygen concentration shall each
be on a dry basis and the following con-
version procedure shall be used:
                        (wet or dry)  and the following conver-
                        sion procedure shall  be used:
                                  E=CF,
         E=CF
/   20.9   \
V20.9-%0,/
wbere:
  E,  C, F and %O, are determined under
  paragraph  (f) -of  this section.

  (2) When the owner or operator elects
under paragraph  (d) of this section to
measure carbon dioxide in the flue gases,
the measurement  of  the pollutant con-
centration and the carbon dioxide con-
centration shall be on a consistent basts
                 , r
                 c L
                                             100
                                          .% coj
                        wbere:
                         E, C, Fr, and %CO: are determined under
                         paragraph (f) of this section.

                          (f) The values  used  in the equations
                        under paragraphs (e) (1) and (2) of this
                        section are derived as follows:
                          (1) E  = pollutant emission, g/million
                        cal (Ib/millionBtu).
                          (2)  C = pollutant concentration. %/
                        dscm (Ib/dscf),  determined by multiply-
                        ing the average concentration (ppm) for
                        each one-hour priod by 4.15x10'° M g/
                        dscm per ppm (2.59x10-° M  Ib/dscf per
                        ppm)  where M = pollutant molecular
                        weight,  g/g-mole  (Ib/lb-mole). M  =
                        64.07 for sulfur dioxide and 46.01 for
                        nitrogen oxides.
                          (3)  %O.-, %CO:= oxygen  or carbon
                        dioxide volume  (expressed as percent),
                        determined with equipment specified un-
                        der  paragraph (d) of  this section.
                          (4> F, Ff= a factor representing  a
                        ratio of  the volume  of dry  flue gases
                        generated  to the  calorific  value of the
                        fuel combusted (F), and a  factor repre-
                        senting a ratio of the volume of carbon
                        dioxide generated ro the calorific value
                        of of the  fuel combusted (F,), respective-
                        ly. Values of F and F, are given as fol-
                        lows:
  (i)  For anthracite coal as classified ac-
cording to A.S.T.M.  D388-6S,  F=1.139
dscm/million  cal  C10140  dscf/million
Btu) and F,=0.222 scm CCVmillion cal
(1980 scf CO:/million Btu).
  (ii) For  sub-bituminous and bitumi-
nous coal as classified according to ASTM
D388-66, F=1.103 dscm/million cal (9820
dscf/million Btu) and F, = 0.203  scm CO-/
million cal  (1810 scf COVmilUon Btu).
  (iii) For liquid  fossil fuels including
crude, residual, and  distillate  oils,  F=
1.036 dscm/million cal (9220 dscf/million
Btu)  and Fc=0.161 scm COr/million cal
(1430 scf CO;/million Btu).
  (iv)  For gaseous fossil fuels, F= 0.982
dscm/million   cal  (8740  dscf/million
Btu). For natural gas, propane, and  bu-
tane fuels, F,= 0.117 scm CO/million cal
(1040 scf CO-/million Btu)  for natural
ga.s,  0.135 scm CO;/million cal  (1200 scf
COi/million Btu) for  propane, and 0.1-52
scm  CO/million cal  (1260 scf  CO.-/mil-
lionBtu) for butane.
  (5) The  owner  or  operator  may  use
the following  equation to determine an
P  factor  (dscm/million  cal,  or  dscf/
million Btu)  on a dry basis (if it is  de-
sired to calculate F on a wet basis, con-
sult with the Administrator) or F<- factor
(scm CO;/ million cal, or scf CO.-/million
Btu) on either basis in lieu of the F or Fc
factors specified in paragraph  (f) (4) of
this section:
                               ,[
                                F=
            227.0%H-f95.7%C-f35.4%S + S.
GCV
GCV
20.07oC
GCV
321X10"7cC

(metric units)
/T^nellfth units!
  (i)  H, C. S, N, and O are content by
weight of hydrogen, carbon, sulfur, ni-
trogen,  and oxygen  (expressed  as  per-
cent) , respectively, as determined on the
same  basis as GCV by ultimate analysis
of the fuel fired, using A.S.T.M. method
D3178-74 or D3176 (solid fuels), or com-
puted from results using A.S.T.M. meth-
ods  D1137-53(70),  D1945-64(73),  or
D1946-67(72) (gaseous fuels) as applica-
ble.
  (11) GCV is the gross calorific value
(cal/g, Btu/lb) of the  fuel  combusted,'
determined by the A.S.T.M. test methods
D2015-66(72) for solid fuels and D1826-
64(70) for gaseous fuels  as applicable.
  (6)  For affected facilities firing com-
binations of fossil fuels, the F or F, fac-
tors determined by paragraphs  (f)  (4)
or (5) of this section shall be prorated
in accordance with  the applicable for-
mula as follows:


where:
  x,y,z =    the fraction of total  heat
             Input  derived from,  gas-
             eous, liquid, and solid fuel.
             respectively.
  F,, Fs> F. =tthe value  of F for gaseous,
             liquid,  and  solid fossil
             fuels  respectively  under
             paragraphs (f)  (4) or (5)
             of this section.
(ii)         F. = 2lj X-,(Fc)i
                1 = 1
where:
     xi=the fraction of total heat In-
         put derived from each type fue:
         (e.g., natural gas, butane, crude,
         bituminous coal, etc.).
  (Fc)i=the applicable  Fc  factor for
         each fuel type determined in
         accordance  with  paragraphs
         (f) (4)  and (5)  of this section.
  (iii)  For affected facilities which fire
both fossil fuels and nonfossil fuels, the
F or Fc value shall be subject to the Ad-
ministrator's approval.
  (g) For the purpose of reports required
under *§ 60.7(c), periods of excess emis-
sions that shall be reported are defined
as follows:
  (1)  [Reserved!
  (2) Sulfur dioxide.  Excess emissions
for affected facilities are defined as:
  (i) Any  three-hour  period  during
which  the average emissions (arithmetic
average of three contiguous one-hour pe-
riods)  of sulfur dioxide as measured by a
continuous monitoring system exceed the
applicable standard under § 60.43.
  (ii)  [Reserved]
  (3) Nitrogen oxides. Excess emissions
for affected facilities using a continuous
monitoring system for measuring nitro-
                              FEDERAl REGISTER. VOL. 40. NO. 194—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975


                                                      IV-8 8
-------
 46258
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
gen oxides are defined as any three-hour
period during which the average emis-
sions  (arithmetic average orthree con-
tiguous one-hour periods) exceed the ap-
plicable standards under § 60.44.
  7.  Section 60.46 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 60.46  Test methods and procedures.
  (a) The reference methods in Appen-
dix A of  this part, except as provided in
i 60.8(t>). shall be used to determine com-
pliance with the standards as prescribed
in §§ 60.42, 60.43, and 60.44 as follows:
  (1) Method 1 for selection of sampling
sice and sample traverses.
  12) Method 3 for gas analysis to  be
used when applying Reference  Methods
5. 6 and 7.
  (3) Method 5 for concentration of par-
ticulate matter and the associated mois-
ture content.
  (4)  Method 6 for concentration of SO;.
and
  (5)  Method 7 for  concentration  of
NO.x.
  (t>i  For Method 5, Method I shall be
used to select the sampling site and the
number of traverse sampling  points. The
sampling time for each run  shall be at
least 60 minutes and the minimum sam-
pling volume shall  be 0.85 dscm (30 dscf)
except that smaller sampling times  or
volumes,  when  necessitated  by  process
variables or  other factors, may be  ap-
proved by the Administrator. The probe
and  filter holder heating systems in the
sampling train shall be set to provide a
gas temperature no greater than  160° C
(320°F).
  (c>  For Methods 6 and 7. the sampling
site shall be the same as  that selected
for Method 5.'The sampling point in the
duct shall be at the centroirl of the cross
section or at a  point  no closer  to  the
walls than 1  m (3.28 ft). For Method 6,
the sample shall be extracted at a  rate
proportional  to  the  gas  velocity  at  the
sampling point.
  Cd)  For Method 6, the minimum sam-
pling time shall be 20 minutes and  the
minimum sampling volume  0.02 dscm
(0.71 dscf) for each sample.  The arith-
metic  mean  of  two samples shall con-
stitute one run.  Samples shall be taken
at approximately 30-minute intervals.
  (e) For Method 7, each run shall con-
sist of at least four  grab-samples taken
at approximately  15-minute intervals.
The  arithmetic  mean  of  the  samples
shall constitute the run value.
  (f) For each  run using  the  methods
specified  by paragraphs (a) (3), (4_), and
(5)  of this section, the emissions  ex-
pressed in g/million cal fib/million Btu)
shall be  determined by  the following
procedure:
         E = CF
                     20.0
oxygen shall be determined by using the In-
tegrated or grab sampling and analysis pro-
cedures ot Method 3 as applicable. The sam-
ple shall be obtained as follows:

   (i) For determination of sulfur diox-
ide  and nitrogen  oxides emissions,  the
oxygen sample shall be obtained simul-
taneously at the same point in the duct
as used to obtain the samples for Meth-
ods  6 and 7 determinations, respectively
[5 60.46(0 3. For Method 7, the oxygen
sample shall be obtained using the grab
sampling  and  analysis  procedures  of
Method 3.
   (ii)  For determination of particulate
emissions,  the oxygen sample  shall  be
obtained  simultaneously  by  traversing
the  duct at the same sampling location
used for each run of Method 5 under
paragraph (b) of this section. Method 1
shall be used for selection of the number
of traverse points except that  no more
than 12 sample points are required.
   (4)  F = a.  factor as determined  in
paragraphs (f)  (4), (5) or  (6) of § 60.45.
   (g)  Whsn combinations  of fossil fuels
are  fired,  the  heat input, expressed  in
cal/hr  (Btu/hri.  shall  be determined
during each  testing period by multiply-
ing  the gross calorific value of each fuel
fired by the rate  of  each fuel  burned.
Gross calorific value shall be determined
in  accorf.ar.ee  with  A.S.T.M.  methods
D2015-66<72> (solid fuels), D240-64(73)
(liquid fuels), or D18'J5-64(70>  (gaseous
fuels)  as applicable.  The  rate of fuels
burned during each testing period shall
be determined by  suitable  methods and
shall be confirmed by a material balance
over the steam generation system.
Subpart F — Standards of  Performance for
         Portland Cement Plants
§60.62  [Amended]
  8.  Section 60.62 is amended by deleting
paragraph (d) .
Subpart G — Standards of  Performance for
            Nitric Acid Plants
§60.72  [Amended]
  9.   Paragraph  (a) (2)   of  § 60.72  is
amended by deleting the second sentence.
  10. Section 60.73 is amended by  revis-
ing  paragraphs (a',  (b).  (c),  and  (e)
to read as follows:
§ 60.73  Emission monitoring.
  (a)  A continuous  monitoring system
for the measurement of nitrogen oxides
shall be installed, calibrated, maintained,
and  operated  by the owner or operator.
The pollutant gas  used to  prepare cali-
bration gas  mixtures under  paragraph
2.1, Performance Specification 2 and for
calibration checks under  5 60.13(d)   to
this part, shall be nitrogen dioxide (NO:) .
The span shall be set at 500  ppm of nitro-
gen  dioxide.  Reference  Method 7 shall
be used for conducting monitoring sys-
tem performance evaluations under § 60.-
where:
  (1)  E = pollutant emission g/'muilon cal
(ib/mllllon Btu).
  (2)  C — pollutant concentration, g/dscm
(lb/dsc'). determined by Methods 5, 6, or 7.
  (3)  ToO. =  oxygen  content by volume
(expressed  as  percent), dry  basis. Percent
  (b) The owner or operator shall estab-
lish  a conversion factor for the purpose
of converting monitoring data into units
of the  applicable standard  (kg/metric
ton.  Ib/short ton) . The conversion factor
shall be established by measuring emis-
sions with  the continuous  monitoring
system concurrent with measuring .emis-
sions with the applicable reference meth-
od tests. Using only that portion of the
continuous  monitoring  emission  data
that renresents emission measurements
concurrent  with the reference method
test periods, the conversion factor shall
be determined by dividing the reference
method test data averages by the moni-
toring data averages to obtain a. ratio ex-
pressed in units of the applicable stand-
ard to units of the monitoring data, i.e.,
kg/metric ton  per ppm (Ib/short ton per
ppm) . The conversion factor shall be re-
established during any performance test
under § 60.8 or any continuous .monitor-
ing system performance evaluation under
§ 60.13(c).
   (c) The owner or operator shall record
the daily production  rate  and hours of
operation.
     •       «      *       *       »
   (e) For the purpose of reports required
under  § 60.7(c>, periods of excess emis-
sions that shall be reported are defined
as  any  three-hour period  during  which
the average nitrogen oxides emissions
(arithmetic average of three contiguous
one-hour periods) as measured by a con-
tinuous monitoring system exceed  the
standard under § 60.72(a) .
Subpart H — Standards of Performance for
           Sulfuric Acid Plants
§ 60. H3  [Amended]
   11. Paragraph  (a)(2)   of  §60.83  is
amended by deleting the second sentence.
   12. Section 60.84 is  amended by revis-
ing paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and  (e)  to
read as follows :
§ 60.84  Kmission monitoring.
   (a) A continuous  monitoring system
for the measurement of sulfur dioxide
shall be installed, calibrated, maintained,
and operated by the owner or  operator.
The pollutant gas used to  prepaie cali-
bration gas mixtures under  paragraph
2.1. Performance Specification 2 and for
calibration  checks under  §60.13(d>  to
this part, shall be sulfur dioxide  (SO?).
Reference Method 8  shall be  used  for
conducting monitoring system  perform-
ance  evaluations under  § 60.13(c) ex-
cept that only the sulfur dioxide portion
of the Method 8 results shall be used. The
snail shall be set at 1000 ppm  of sulfur
dioxide.
   (b) The owner or operator shall estab-
lish a conversion factor for the purpose
of converting monitoring data into units
of  the  applicable  standard  (kg/metric
ton, Ib/short ton). The conversion fac-
tor shall be determined, as a minimum,
three times daily by measuring the con-
centration of sulfur dioxide entering the
converter using suitable methods (e.p,.,
the Reich  test-.  National  Air Pollution
Control Administration Publication No.
999-AP-13  and  calculating the appro-
priate conversion factor for each  eight-
hour period as follows:
           =
                              FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 40,  NO.  194—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975


                                                     IV-8 9
-------
                                                RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                            4«259
where:
  CP  =convers!on factor (kg/metric ton per
       ppm, Ib/Bhort ton per.ppm).
   k  ^constant derived Irom material bal-
       ance. For determining CF In metric
       units, k = 0.0653. For determining CF
       in English units. k=0.i306.
    r  = percentage of sulfur dioxide by vol-
       ume entering tbe gas converter.  Ap-
       propriate corrections must be made
       for air injection plants subject to the
       Administrator's approval.
   s  =percentage of sulfur dfoxide by vol-
       ume in tbe emissions to the atmos-
       phere determined by the continuous
       monitoring  system  required under
       paragraph  of this section). The pollutant  gas
 used to prepare calibration gas mixtures
 under paragraph 2.1, Performance Speci-
 fication  2 and for calibration checks  un-
 der J 60.13(d) to this part, shall be sul-
 fur dioxide (SOj). The span shall be»set
 at 100 ppm. For conducting monitoring
 system  performance evaluations under
 § 60.13 (c). Reference Method 6  shall be
 used.
  (4) [Reserved!
  (b) [Reserved]
     •       *       •      •       •
  (e) For the purpose of reports under
§ 60.7(c), periods of excess emissions that
shc.ll be reported are denned as follows:
  (1) [Reserved]
  (2) [Reserved]
  (3) [Reserved]
  (4) Any six-hour period daring which
the average emissions (arithmetic  aver-
age  of six contiguous one-hour periods)
of sulfur dioxide as measured by a con-
tinuous  monitoring  system  exceed  the
standard under § 60.104.
Subpart  L—Standards of Performance for
         Secondary Lead Smelters
§ 60.122  [Amended]
  16. Section 60.122 is  amended  by de-
leting paragraph (c).
     •       •       *       •       •
Subpart  M—Standards of Performance for
  Secondary Brass and  Bronze Ingot Pro-
  duction plants
§ 60.132  [Amended]
  17. Section 60.132'is  amended  by de-
leting paragraph  (c).
     •       *       »       •       •
Subpart  0—Standards of Performance for
         Sewage Treatment Plants
§ 60.152  [Amended]
  18. Paragraph  (a) (2) of 5 60.152 is
amended by deleting the second sentence.
     *       *       »      «       «
  19. Part 60 is amended by adding Ap-
pendix B as follows:
  APPENDIX B—PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
  Performance Specification 1—Performance
specifications and  specification test  proce-
dures for transmlssometer systems for con-
tinuous monitoring system exceed the emis-
sions.
  1.  Principle and Applicability.
  1.1 Principle. The opacity of  partlculate
matter In stack emissions is measured hy a
continuously operating  emission measure-
ment system. These systems are based upon
the  principle of transmlssometry which Is a
direct measurement  of the  attenuation cf
visible  radiation  (opacity)  by  particulate
matter in a stack effluent. Light having spe-
cflc 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 particulate
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 an opacity of 100 percent. The trans-
mlssometer Is evaluated  by  use of  neutral
density  filters 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 m the subparts
for measuring opacity of  emissions.  Specifi-
cations for continuous measurement of vis-
ible  emissions are glroi In terms of design.
performance, and Installation  parameters.
Thtse 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 niters with
neutral spectra; 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:
                   hrntfd filter optical densi
                  •vvHh eqatvakni opacity in
Span value

50
GO
70
80
°0
ino 	
P:
Low-
ranfc
0.1 (20)
1 (20)
.) (20)
. ! (20)
.1 (20)
.1 (20)
iron thesis
Mid-
ranf.e
0. 2 (37)
.2 (Vi)
.3 (V>)
.3 (M)
.4 (W)
.4 (W)

Hipll-
ranpc
0.3 (50)
.3 (50)
A (W)
. G (75)
.7 r&O)
.9 (S7H)
  It is recommended that filter calibrations
 be  checked  with a well-colllmated photoplc
 transmlssometer of known linearity prior to
 use. The filters shall  be of sufficient size
 to  attenuate the entire  light beam  of  the
 transmHsoineter.
  22. Data  Recorder. Analog chart recorder
 or  other suitable device  with  input volttiEe
 range compatible with ihc 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.
  2.3 Opacity measurement SysU-m.  An in-
 stack  transrnlssometer  (folded  or  single
 path) with  the optical design specific.-! tio.'is
 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:
  3.1.1 Sampling Interface. The portion of a
 continuous  monitoring system for opacity
 that protects the analyzer from the effluent
  3.1.2 Analyzer.  That portion of  the con-
 tinuous  monitoring system which senses the
 pollutant and generates a signal output that
 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 ol
 pollutant opacity.
  3J2 Transmlssometer. The portions of a
 continuous  monitoring system for opacity
 that include tbe sampling Interface and the
 analyzer.
  33 Span. The value of opacity at which
 the continuous monitoring system is set to
 produce  the maximum data display output.
 The span shall be set at an opacity specified
 in  each applicable suopart.
  3.4 Calibration Error.  The difference  be-
 tween the opacity reading indicated  by  the
 continuous  monitoring  system  and  the
 known values of  a series of test standards.
 For this  method the  test standards  arc a
 series ol calibrated optical filter.? or screens.
  3.5 Zero Drift. The change in continuous
 monitoring  system output over » stated  pe-
 riod of time of normal continuous operation
                                FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL.  40, NO.' 194	MONDAY, OCTOBER  6. 19TS

                                                         IV-90
-------
 46260
       RULES  AND REGULATIONS
when  the- pollutant concentration  at the
Urns of the measurements Is zero.
  3;6  Calibration  Drift.  The- change la 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 La the same
'rht Intensity at
 5-ceruimetcr  Intervals on  the  arc  for  28
 centtmeters on either side of the light  source
 reriiprllne of projection.  Repent the test in
 the vertical direction.
   7. Continuous   Monitoring  System   Per-
 formance Specifications.
   Th« continuous  monitoring  system  shal!
 mtr.t the porform.r.ico  specifications In T.iblc
 1-1  to be considered  acceptable under  this
 method.

  TABM; 1-1.—1'crfanminrc sticcificntimix
          Parainttcr
                              Sptci/icaticmi
11. .Calibration error	  <3 WL opfloily.i
b /iToi!rt!t (24 10	   be  used  In the In-
stallation.  Span the analyzer as  specified In
applicable  subparts.
  8.1.1 Calibration Error Test. Insert a scries
of calibration filters In the transmlssometer
path at the midpoint. A minimum of three
calibration  filters   (low.   mid.   and  high-
range) selected In accordance with the table
under  paragraph 2.1  and  calibrated  within
3 percent must be used. Make a total of five
no'nconsecutlve readings  for each  filter.
                                  FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 40. NO.  194—MONDAY,  OCTOBER  6,  1975
                                                              IV-91
-------
                                                  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                                           46261
Record  the  measurement  system  output
readings In percent opacity. (See Figure 1-j.)
  8.1.2 System  Response  Test, insert the
high-range  filter  In  the  transmlssometer
path flve times and record the-time required
for the system to respond to 95  percent  of
Unfit zero and high-range filter values.  (See
Figure 1-2.)
  8.2 FleW Test for Zero Drift and Calibra-
tion Drift. Install the continuous monitoring
system  on the  affected facility and perform
the following alignments:
  8.2.1  Preliminary Alignments. As soon  as
possible after Installation  and once  a  year
thereafter when the facility Is not In opera-
tion, perform the  following optical and zero
alignments:
  8.2.1.1 Optical Alignment. Align the light
beam from the transmlssometer upon the op-
tical surfaces located across the effluent (l.e.,
the retroflector or photodetector as applica-
ble) In accordance with the manufacturer's
Instructions.
  8.2.1.2 Zero Alignment. After the transmls-
someter has been optically  aligned and the
transmlssometer  mounting  Is  mechanically
stable (I.e.. no movement of the  mounting
due to thermal  contraction  of  the stack,
duct,  etc.) and a  clean stack condition has
been  determined  by a steady eero opacity
condition, perform the zero alignment. This
alignment Is performed by balancing the con-
tinuous monitor system response so that any
simulated  zero check coincides with  an ac-
tual zero  check performed  across the moni-
tor pathlength of  the clean stacV.
  8.2.1.3 Span. Span the continuous monitor-
ing system at the opacity  specified In sub-
parts and  offset the zero setting  at least  10
percent of span so that negative drift  can be
quantified.
  8.2.2. Filial Alignments. After the prelimi-
nary alignments have been completed and the
s.Tected facility  has  been  started up  and
renches normal operating  temperature,  re-
check  the optical alignment In accordance
with 8.2.1.1 of this epectflcation" If  the align-
ment has shifted, realign  the optics, record
nny detectable shift In the opacity measured
by  the system that can be attributed to the
optical  realignment, and notify the Admin-
istrator. This condition may not  be  objec-
tionable If the affected facility operates with-
in a fairly constant and adequately narrow
range of  operating temperatures  that does
not  produce  significant  shifts In  optical
alignment during  normal operation of the
facility. Under circumstances where the facil-
ity operations  produce fluctuations In the
effluent gas temperature that result In sig-
nificant misalignments, the Administrator
may require Improved mounting structures or
another location for Installation of the •trans-
mlssometer. ........
  8.2.3 Conditioning Period. After complet-
ing the post-startup alignments, operate the
system for an Initial  168-hour conditioning
period  In  a normal operational  manner.
  8.2.4 Operational Test Period. After com-
pleting  the conditioning period, operate the
system for an additional 168-hour period re-
taining the zero offset. The system shall mon-
itor the source effluent at all times except
when  being zeroed or calibrated. At 24-hour
Intervals the zero and span shall be checked
according to the manufacturer's Instructions.
Minimum  procedures  used  shall  provide a
system check of the analyzer Internal mirrors
and all electronic circuitry Including the
lamp  and photodetector assembly  and shall
include a procedure for producing a simu-
lated zero opacity condition and & simulated
upscale (span) opacity condition as viewed
by the receiver. The manufacturer's written
Instructions may be used providing that they
equal or exceed these  minimum procedures.
Zero and span the transmlssometer, clean all
optical surfaces trpo»ed to the effluent, rea-
lign optics, and make any necessary adjust-
ments to the calibration of the system dally.
These zero and calibration adjustments and
optical realignments are allowed only at 24-
hour Intervals or at such shorter Intervals as
the manufacturer's written Instructions spec-
ify.  Automatic  corrections  made  by  tbe
measurement system without operator Inter-
vention are allowable at any time. The mag-
nitude of any zero or span drift adjustments
shall be  recorded.  During this 168-hour op-
erational test period, record the following at
24-hour Intervals: (a) the zero reading and
span readings after the system Ls  calibrated
(these readings should be set at the same
value at the  beginning of each 24-hour pe-
riod);. (b) the zero reading  after each  24
hours of operation, but before cleaning and
adjustment;  and  (c) tbe span reading after
cleaning and zero adlustment, but before
span adlustment. (See Figure 1-3.)
  9. Calculation. Data Analysis, and Report-
Ing.
  9.1 Procedure for Determination of Mean
Values and Confidence Intervals.
  9.1.1 The mean value of the data set Is cal-
culated according to  equation  1-1.
                     "=i    Equation 1-1
where  x,= absolute  value of the Individual
measurements.
  I = sum of the Individual values.
  x = mean value, and
  n = number of data points.
  9.1.2 The 95  percent  confidence Interval
(two-sided) Is calculated according to equa-
tion 1-2:
      ..
           nVn-1
                             Equation 1-2
tvhnre
    £xi=sum of all data points,
    t.»:j = *i — o/2, nnd
  C.l.ti=95  percent  confidence  interval
         estimate of  the average mean
         value.

             Values for 1.575
n
2 ....
3 	
4 	
5 . .
6 	
7 	
8 . .
9

'.975
12.706
4.303
3.182
2 776
2.571
2.447
2.365
2.300

n
10 . .
11 	
12 	
13 	
14 	
15 	
16 	


'.975
2.202
2.228
2.20)
2.170
2. IfO
2.145
2. 131


  The  values In this  table are already  cor-
rected for n-1 degrees of freedom. Use n equal
to the number of samples as data points.
  9.2 Data Analysis and Reporting.
  9.2.1   Spectral  Response.  Combine  the
spectral  data obtained In  accordance with
paragraph 6.3.1  to develop  the effective spec-
tral response curve of the transmlssometer.
Report  the  wavelength at which  the peak
response occurs, the wavelength at which the
mean  response occurs, and  the maximum
response at' any wavelength  below 400 nm
and above 700 nm  expressed as a percentage
of the peak response as required under para-
graph 62.
  9.2.2 Angle of View. Using the data obtained
In accordance with paragraph 6.3.2, calculate
the response of the receiver as a function of
viewing angle In the horizontal and vertical
directions  (2(K centimeters of arc with  a
radius  of 3 meters equal 5 degrees). Report
relative angle of view  curves as -required un-
der paragraph-6.2.
  9.2.3 Angle of Projection. Using the data
obtained In accordance with paragraph 6.3.3,
calculate  the response of  the  photoelectric
detector as a function of projection angle In
the horizontal and vertical  directions. Report
relative angle of projection  curves as required
under paragraph 6.2.
  9.2.4 Calibration Error. Using the data from
paragraph 8.1  (Figure 1-1),  subtract  the
known  filter opacity value from the  value
shown by the measurement system for each
of the 15 readings. Calculate the mean and
95 percent confidence Interval of the  five dif-
ferent values at each  test filter  value accord-
ing to equations 1-1 and 1-2. Report the sum
of the absolute mean difference and the 95
percent confidence interval for each of  the
three test filters.
  9.2.5  Zero 'Drift. Using  the  zero  opacity
values measured every 24  hours during  the
field test  (paragraph  8.2),  calculate  the dif-
ferences between the zero  point after clean-
Ing, aligning, and adjustment,  and the zero
value 24 hours later  Just  prior to cleaning.
aligning,  and  adjustment. Calculate  the
mean  value of these points and the confi-
dence  Interval  using  equations 1-1 and 1-2.
Report the sum of the absolute mean  value
and the 95 percent confidence Interval.
  9.2.6  Calibration  Drift.  Using  the  span
vnlue measured every 24  hours during  the
field test, calculate the differences between
the span  value after  cleaning,  aligning, and
adjustment of zero and span, and the span
value  24  hours  later Just  after cleaning,
aligning, and adjustment of zero and before
adjustment of  span. Calculate the  mean
value  of  these  points  and  the confidence
Interval using equations l-l and 1-2. Report
the sum of the absolute mean value  and  the
confidence Interval.
  9.2.7 Response Time. Using the data from
paragraph 8.2,  calculate  the time  Interval
from filter Insertion to 95 percent of the final
stable value  for  all  upscale and downscnlc
traverses. Report the  mean of the 10 upscale
and downscale test times.
  9.2.8 Operational Test  Period. During  the
168-hour  operational test  period, the con-
tinuous monitoring system shall not require
any corrective maintenance, repair,  replace-
ment, or adjustment  other than that clearly
specified as required  in the manufacturer's
operation and maintenance manuals as rou-
tine and expected during a one-week period.
If the continuous monitoring system Is oper-
ated  within  the specified  performance  pa-
rameters  and  does  not require  corrective
maintenance, repair, replacement, or adjust-
ment other than  as  specified above during
the  168-hour  test period, the operational
test period shall have been successfully con-
cluded. Failure of  the continuous monitor-
Ing system to meet these requirements shall
call  for  a repetition of the  168-hour test
period. Portions of the tests which were sat-
isfactorily completed need not be repeated.
Failure to meet any  performance specifica-
tion^) shall  call  for a  repetition of  the
one-week oneratlonal test period and that
specific portion  of the tests  required   by
paragraph 8 related to demonstrating com-
pliance with  the  failed  specification.  All
maintenance and adjustments required shall
be  recorded. Output readings  shall be  re-
corded before and after all adjustments.
10. References.
  10.1 "Experimental Statistics," Department
of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards
Handbook 91,  1963, pp.  3-31, paragraphs
3-3.1.4.
  10.2 "Performance  Specifications for Sta-
tionary-Source Monitoring  Systems for Oases
and Visible Emissions." Environmental Pro-
tection Agency,  Research Triangle  Park.
N.C.. ZPA-6BO/3-74-018, January 1974.
                                 KDEKAl UOISTE*. VOL 40. NO.-194—MONDAY. OCTOBII «.  1975


                                                           IV-9 2
-------
46262
         RULES AND  REGULATIONS
               Calibrated Neutral  Density Filter Data
                        (See paragraph 8.1.1)
 Date of Test
    Low                        Mid
    Range 	' opacity        Range 	% opacity
    Span Value 	X opacity
                     High
                     Range   , t> opacity
                                     Location of Test
          Calibrated Filter
                           1
Analyzer Reading
   X Opacity
Differences
 % Opacity
  L
 15
 Mean difference

 Confidence interval


 Calibration error =  Mean  Difference  + C.I.
                                                     Low     M1d     High
  Low, mid or high range

 Calibration fiVter opacity -  analyzer reading
  Absolute value
                                            Ill U of !•»<_

                                            s»» rnur
                  Figure 1-1.   Calitratlo.- Error Test
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 194—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6,  1973
                                                       IV-9 3
-------
                                                   RULES AND REGULATIONS
    Zero

    Span Setting
                           (See paragraph 8.2.1)   twte of Test .
    Date     Zero
    and    (Before clw'ng
     (me    «nd
                    Span Reading               Calibration
Zero Drift   (Aff.r cleaning and 2ero eiijustment        frlft
  'lZ«ro)       liut before ipen adjustment)           (»Span)
     Itn Drift » Mean Zero Orlft»	
     C»ltl>r«t1on Crftt • Hean Sp«n Drift-
                                          * CI (Zero)
                                                > CI (Span)
      Atuolute value
                           Figure 1-3.  Zero and Calibration Drift Test
PERFORMANCE 8PSCITICATION 2 — PlTSFORMANCE
  SPECIFICATIONS AND SFECiriCATCON TEST PRO-
  CriJUBES  FOR MONITOIIS OF  EOs AVO  MOx
  FKOJlf S
   1. Principle and Applicability.
   1.1  Principle. The concentrntlon. of sulfur
dioxide or oxides ol nitrogen pollutants  in
stack emissions Is  measured by a routlnu-
oubly operating emission  measurement sys-
tem. Concurrent with operation of the con-
tinuous  monitoring system, ^the  pollutant
concentrntlons are also measured with refer-
ence methods (Appendix  A). An average  or
the continuous monitoring system  data  is
computed lor  each  reference method testing
period and compared to determine the rela-
tive accuracy  of the continuous monitoring
system. Other tests of the continuous mon-
itoring system are  also  performed to deter-
mine  calibration error, drift, and response
characteristics of the system.
   1.2  Applicability. This performance spec-
ification  Is applicable to evaluation  of con-
tinuous monitoring systems for measurement
of nitrogen oxides  or sulfur dioxide pollu-
tant*. These specifications contain test pro-
cedures. Installation requirements, and data
computation  procedures  for evaluating the
acceptability  of the continuous monitoring
systems.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1 calibration Gas Mixtures.  Mixtures  ot
known concentrations of pollutant gas In a
dlluant gas Ehall be prepared. The pollutant
gat shall be sulfur dioxide or the appropriate
oxld«(s)  of nitrogen specified by paragraph
6 and within subparts.For sulfxir dioxide gas
mixtures, the diluent gas may be  air or nitro-
gen. For  nitric oxide (NO) gas mixtures, the
diluent gas shall be oxygen-free «10 ppm)
nitrogen, and for nitrogen dioxide (NO.) gas
mixtures the diluent gas shall be air. Conce-n-
tratlons of approximately 50 percent and  90
perwnt of span are required. The 90  percent
gas mixture Is used to set and to check the
span and Is referred to as the span gas.
  22 Zero Oas. A gas certified by the manu-
facturer  to contain lew tbaa 1  ppm of the
pollutant cas  or ambient air may be used.
                  2.3 Equipment for measurement of the pol-
                lutant gas concentration using the reference
                •method  specified In the applicable standard.
                  2.4  Data Recorder. Analog cl-.art 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  specifi-
                cation.
                  2.5  Continuous monitoring system for SO.
                or NO. pollutants as applicable.
                  3. Definitions.
                  3.1  Continuous  Monitoring System. The
                .total equipment required for the determina-
                tion of  a pollutant g.is concentration in a
                source effluent. Continuous  monitoring sys-
                tems consist of major subsystems  as follows:.
                  3.1.1 Sampling Interface—That  portion of
                tin extractive continuous monitoring system
                that performs one or more of the following
                operations: acquisition, transportation, and
                conditioning of a sample of  the source efflu-
                ent or that portion of an In-sltu continuous
                monitoring system that protects the analyzer
                from the effluent.
                  3.15 Analyzer—That portion of the con-
                tinuous  monitoring system which senses the
                pollutant gas and  generates a signal output
                that Is a function of the pollutant concen-
                tration.
                  3.1.3 Data Recorder—That portion of the
                continuous monitoring system, that provides
                a permanent record of the output signal In
                terms of concentration  units.
                  32 Span. The  value  of pollutant concen-
                tration  at  which the  continuous monitor-
                Ing system Is set to produce the  maximum
                data display output. The span shall be set
                at the concentration specified In each appli-
                cable subpart.
                  3.3  Accuracy  (Relative)   The  degree  of
                correctness  with  which   the  continuous
                monitoring system  yields  the value of gas
                concentration  of a sample  relative  to  the
                value, given by a denned reference method.
                This accuracy is expressed In terms of error.
                which Is the difference between  the paired
                concentration  measurements expressed S3 a
                percentage of  the mean  reference value.
                                    46263

  3.4 Calibration Error.  The difference  be-
tween the  pollutant  concentration indi-
cated by the continuous monitoring  system
and the known concentration  of  the  test
gas mixture.
  3.5 Zero Drift. The change In the  continu-
ous monitoring  system output over a stated
period of time of normal continuous opera-
tion  when the  pollutant  concentration at
the time for the measurements IB zero.
  3.6 Calibration Drift. The ch.-fl.nge  In  the
continuous monitoring system-output over
a stated time period of normal  continuous
operations  when the  pollutant  concentra-
tion at the time of the measurements is the
same known upscale value.
  3.7 Response  Time.  The time  Interval
from a step change in pollutant concentra-
tion at the Input to the continuous moni-
toring system to the time at which 95 per-
cent  of  the  corresponding final  value Is
reached  as  displayed  on  the  continuous
monitoring system data recorder.
  3.8 Operational Period. A  minimum period
of time  over which a measurement  system
is expected  to  operate within certain per-
formance specifications without unsched-
uled  maintenance,  repair,  or adjustment.
  3.9 Stratification. A  condition identified
by  a difference  In  excess of 10  percent be-
tween the average concentration In the duct
or stack  and  the concentration »t any point
more than 1.0 meter from the duct or stack
wan.
  4. Installation Specifications.  Pollutant
continuous  monitoring-  systems  (SO.  and
NO,) shall be Installed at  a sampling" loca-
tion where measurements can be made which
are directly representative  (4.1), or which
can  be corrected so as to  be representative
(4,2)  of the tola! emissions from the affected
facility. Conformance with this requirement
shall  be  accomplished as follows:
  4.1  Effluent gases may be assumed to be
nonstratlfied  If  a sampling  location eight or
more stack diameters (equivalent diameters)
downstream  of  any  air  In-leakage  is  se-
lected. This assumption and data correction
procedures under paragraph 4.2.1 may  r.ot
be applied to sampling  locations upstream
of an  air preheater In  a  stream generating
facility under Subpart D of this part.  For
sampling locations  where effluent gases arc
either demonstrated  (4.3)  or  may  be  as-
sumed to be nonstratlfied (eight diameters).
a point (extractive systems) or path (in-sltu
systems) of average concentration may be
monitored.
  4.2 For sampling locations where effluent
gases cannot  be assumed  to  be nonstratl-
fied (less than eight diameters)  or have been
shown under paragraph 4.3 to be stratified,
results obtained must be consistently repre-
sectatire (e.g. e point ot average concentra-
tion may shift  with  load changes)  or  the
data generated by sampling at a point (ex-
tractive  systems) or across a path  (in-situ
systems) must be corrected (4.2.1 and 422)
so as to be representative of the  totai emis-
sions from the  affected facility. Conform-
ance with this requirement may be accom-
plished In  either of the  following ways:
  4.2.1 Installation  of  a diluent  continuous
monitoring system  (O. or CO, as  applicable)
In accordance  with the  procedures under
paragraph 4.2 of Performance  Specification
3 of  this appendix.  If  the pollutant  and
diluent monitoring systems are  not  of  the
same type (both extractive or both  in-sltu).
the extractive system must use a multipoint
probe.
  4.2.2 Installation  of  extractive pollutant
monitoring systems using multipoint sam-
pling probes or In-sltu pollutant  monitoring
systems, tnat sample or view emissions which
are consistently representative of the total
emissions for  the entire cross  section.  The
Administrator may  require  data  to be sub-
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO.  194—MONDAY,  OCTOBER 6, 1975



                                                          IV-9.4
-------
  46264

 mltted to demonstrate  that the emissions
 sampled  or  viewed are consistently repre-
 sentative for several  typical facility process
 operating conditions.
   4.3 The owner  or operator may perform a
 traverse to characterize any stratification of
 effluent gases that  might exist In a stack or
 duct. If no stratification 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
        RULES  AND,.REGULATIONS

  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 Black or duct
  wall. Multipoint sampling  probes Installed
  under paragraph 4.2.2 may be located at any
  points necessary to.obtaln consistently rep-
  resentative samples.

  5. Continuous  Monitoring System Perform-
  ance Specifications.
   The continuous  monitoring system  shall
  meet the performance specifications In Table
  2-1 to be  considered acceptable  under'this
  method.
                         TABLE 2-1.—Performance specifications
                    Parameter
                                                              Specification
1 Accuracy    	  S20 pet of the mean TOlue of the reference method test
                                                data.
2. Calibration error '	  < o pel of each (50 pet, 90 pet) calibration gas mmuro
                                                value.
S. Zero drill (2 b)'	  2 pet of span
4. Zero drift (24 h) >	     Do.
S. Calibration drift (2 h)'	     Do.
0. Calibration drift (24b)i	  2.5 pet. of span
7 Response- tlroo				  ^ m^n maxuniim.
8. Operational period	  168  h minimum.
  1 Expressed as sum of absolute mean value plus 95 pel c
  6. Performance Specification Teat  Proce-
dures. The following test procedures shall be
used to  determine  conformance  with  the
requirements  of paragraph  5. For  NO,  an-
requlrements  of paragraph  5. For  NO*  an-
alyzers that oxidize  nitric  oxide  (NO)  to
nitrogen  dioxide (NO,), the response time
lest 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
nil  tests for sulfur dioxide systems shall be
performed using the pollutant span gas spe-
cified by each subpart.
  6.1 Calibration Error Test Procedure.  Set
up  and  calibrate the complete continuous
monitoring  system according  to the manu-
facturer's wrlten Instructions. This may be
accomplished  either In the  laboratory or In
the  field.
  6.1.1 Calibration Gas Analyses. Triplicate
analyses of the  gas  mixtures shall be per-
formed within two weeks prior to use  using
Reference Methods 6 for SO. and 7  for NO«.
Analyze each  calibration gas mixture  (50%,
S0%) and record the results on the example
sheet shown In Figure 2-1. Each sample test
result must be within 20 percent of the aver-
aged result or  the  tests shall be repeated.
This step may be omitted for non-extractive
monitors where dynamic calibration  gas mix-
tures are  not  used (6.1.2).
  6.1.2  Calibration,  Error  Test Procedure.
Make a total of IS nonconsecutlve measure-
ments by alternately using zero gas and each
callberatlon gas mixture concentration (e.g.,
0-,, 50%, 0%.  90%.  50%.  90%.  50%, 0%,
etc.). For nonextractlvt continuous monitor-
Ing systems, this test procedure may be per-
formed by using two or more calibration gas
cells whose concentrations  are certified by
the manufacturer to be functionally equiva-
lent to these gas concentrations. Convert the
continuous  monitoring system output  read-
ings to ppm aad record the results on the
example sheet shown In Figure 2-2.
  8.2 Field  Teat  for  Accuracy  (Relative),
Zero Drift, and Calibration Drift. Install and
operate the continuous monitoring system In
accordance with  the manufacturer's written
instructions and drawings as follows:
  6.2.1 Conditioning Period.  Offset the zero
setting at least  10 percent  or the  span so
that negative zero drift can be quantified.
Operate the system for an  Initial  168-hour
conditioning  period  in normal  operating
manner.
  6.2.2 Operational Test Period. Operate the
continuous  monitoring system lor an addl-
:onfidence interval of a series of tests.
  tional 168-hour period  retaining  the zero
  o/Iset. The system sh.ill  monitor the source
  effluent  at  all  times  except  when  being
  zeroed, calibrated, or backpurged.
   6.2.2.1  Field Test for Accuracy  (Relative)
  For continuous  monitoring systems employ-
  ing extractive  sampling, the probe tip for the
  continuous monitoring system and the  probe
  tip for the Reference Method sampling train
  should be placed at adjacent locations In the
  duct. For NOX  continuous  monitoring sys-
  tems, make 27 NOt  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  1n any
  one  hour.  All  individual measurements  of
  each  set shall  be performed concurrently,
  or within a three-minute  Interval  and tho
  results averaged. For SO, continuous moni-
  toring systems, make nine SO. concentration
  measurements using  the applicable reference
  method.  Ko  more  than one  measurement
  shall  be performed In any one hnur. Record
  the reference method test data and the  con-
  tinuous  monitoring  system  concentrations
  on the example  data sheet shown In Figure
 2-3.
   6.2.21! Field  Test for Zero Drift and  Cali-
 bration Drift.  For extractive systems, deter-
  mine the values given by zero and span gas
 pollutant concentrations at two-hour Inter-
 vals  until 15 sets of data are obtained. For
 nonextractlve measurement systems, 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 and computing the zero point from the
 upscale measurements. If this  latter tech-
 nique Is used,  a graph(s) must be retained
 by the owner or operator for each measure-
 ment system that shows the relationship be-
 tween  the  upscale  measurements and the
 zero point. The span of the system shall be
 checked by using n  calibration gas 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  tests under para-
 graph 6.2.2.1.
   82.2.3  Adjustments. Zero and  calibration
 corrections and adjustments are allowed only
 at 24-hour Intervals  or at such,  shorter In-
 tervals as  the manufacturer's  written In-
 structions  specify.  Automatic  corrections
 made by the measurement system without
 operator  intervention or initiation are allow-
 able at any time. During tha entire 168-hour
 operational  test period, record on tho ex-
 ample sheet shown In Figure 2-5 the values
 given by zero and  span gas pollutant  con-
 centrations before and  after adjustment at
 24-hour intervals.
   6.3 Field Test for Response Time
   6.3.1  Scope of Teat. 0se the entire continu-
 ous monitoring system as Installed, Including
 sample transport lines  If used. Flow rales.
 line diameters, pumping rates, pressures (do
 not allow the pressurized calibration gas to
 change the normal operating pressure in the
 sample line); etc., shall be  at  the nominal
 values for normal operation, as specified in
 the manufacturer's written Instructions. If
 the analyzer is used to sample more than one
 pollutant source (stack), repeat this test for
 each sampling point.
   6.3.2  Response Time Test Procedure.  In-
 troduce zero  gas Into the continuous moni-
 toring system sampling  Interface or as close
 to the sampling  Interface as possible. When
 the system  output reading has stabilized,
 switch, quickly to a known concentration of
 pollutant gas. Record  the time from concen-
 tration switching to 95 percent of  final stable
 response.  For non -extractive monitors,  the
 highest available calibration gas  concentra-
 tion  shall be switched into and  out of  the
 sample path  and  response  times recorded.
 Perform this  test sequence three (3)  times.
 Record  the   results of  each  test  on   the
 example sheet shown In Figure 3-fl.
   7. Calculations, Data Analysis and Report-
 ing.
   7.1 Procedure for determination of mean
 vn'.ues and confidence  intervals.
   7.1.1 The mean  value of a  data set.  Is
 calculated according to  equation  2-1.
                   r
                     i = 1    Equation  2-1
 where:
   x, = absolut
-------
                                                  RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                46265
 equal  to  th» cumber  of  samples as  data
 points.
   7J2  Data Analysis and Reporting.
   73.1  Accuracy (Relative). For each of the
 nine reference method test points, determine
 the average pollutant concentration reported
 by the continuous monitoring system. These
 average concentrations  shall be determined
 from the continuous monitoring system data
 recorded under 7.2.2 by Integrating or  aver-
 aging the pollutant concentrations over each
 of the time Intervals concurrent with  each
 reference method testing period. Before pro-
 ceeding to the next step, determine the basis
 (wet or dry)  of the continuous monitoring
 system data and reference  method test data
 concentrations. If the  bases are  not   con-
 sistent, apply a moisture correction to either
 reference method concentrations or the con-
 tinuous  monitoring system  concentrations
 as  appropriate. Determine  the  correction
 factor by moisture tests concurrent with the
 reference method testing periods. Report the
 moisture test method and the correction pro-
 cedure employed. For each of the  nine test
 runs determine the difference tor each t«st
 run by subtracting the  respective  reference
 rn»thod test concentrations (use average of
 each set of three measurements for  NO*)
 from the continuous monitoring system  Inte-
 grated or  averaged concentrations. Osing
 these data, compute the  mean difference and
 the 95 percent confidence Interval of the dif-
 ferences (equations 2-1  and 2-2). Accuracy
 Is reported as the sum of the absolute value
 of  the  mean  difference  and the 95 percent
 confidence Interval of  the differences ex-
 pressed as a percentage  of  the mean refer-
 ence  method  value. Use the  example sheet
 shown In Figure 2-3.
   122  Calibration Error.  Using the  data
 from paragraph 6.1, subtract the measured
 pollutant concentration determined  under
 paragraph 6.1.1  (Figure 2-1) from the value
 shown by the  continuous monitoring system
 for each of th» five readings  at each  con-
 centration measured under 6.1.2 (Figure 2-2).
 Calculate the mean of these  difference values
 and the 95 percent confidence Intervals ac-
 cording to equations 2-1  and 2-2. Report the
 calibration error (the sum  of the  absolute
 value of the mean difference and the 95  per-
 cent confidence  Interval) as a percentage of
 each  respective  calibration  gas  concentrn-
 tlon. Use example sheet shown In Figure 2-2.
  7.2.3  Zero Drift (2-hour). Using the  zero
 concentration  values  measured  each  two
 hours during the field teat, calculate the  dif-
 ference* between consecutive two-hour read-
 Ings expressed In ppm. Calculate the mein
difference and  the confidence Interval using
  equations 2-1 and 2-2. Report the zero drift
  as the sum of the absolute mean value and
  the  confidence Interval  as a  percentage  of
  span. Use  example sheet  shown la Figure
  2-4.
   72.4  Zero Drift (24-hour). Using the zero
  concentration  values  measured  every  24
  hours during the field teat, calculate the dif-
  ferences between the zero" point after zero
  adjustment and the zero value 24 hours later
  Just prior to zero adjustment. Calculate the
  mean value of these  points and the confi-
  dence Interval using equations 2-1 and 2-2.
  Report the zero drift  (the sum of the abso-
  lute mean and confidence Interval) as a per-
  centage of span. Use example sheet shown In
  Figure 3-5.
   72.5  Calibration Drift  (2-hour).  Using
  the calibration values obtained at two-hour
  Intervals during the field test, calculate the
  differences   between consecutive  two-hour
  readings expressed  as ppm.  These values
  should be  corrected for the corresponding
  zero drift during that two-hour period. Cal-
 culate the mean and confidence IntervaJ of
  these corrected difference values using equa-
  tions 2-1 and 2-2. Do not use the differences
  between  non-consecutive- readings.  Report
  the calibration drift as the sum of the abso-
 lute  mean and confidence Internal as a per-
 centage of span. Use the example sheet shown
 In Figure 2-4.
   7.2.6 C_llbratlon Drift  (24-hour). .Using
 the calibration values measured  every  24
 hours during the field test, calculate the dif-
 ferences between the calibration concentra-
 tion  reading after zero and calibration ad-
 justment, and the calibration concentration
 reading 24 hours later  after zero adjustment
 but before- calibration adjustment. Calculate
 the mean value of these differences and the
 confidence Interval using  equations 2-1 and
 2-2. Report the calibration drift (the sum of
 the absolute mean and confidence Interval)
 as a percentage  of  span. Use the example
 sheet shown In Figure 2-5.
   7.2.7  Response-  Time.  Using  the  charta
 from paragraph 6.3, calculate the time inter-
 nal from concentration  switching to 95 per-
 cent to the anal stable  value for all upscale
 and dowEEcale tests. Report the mean of the
 three upscale test times and the mean of the
 three downscale test times. The two  aver-
 age times should not differ by more than 35
 percent of the slower time. Report the slower
 time- as the system response time. Use the ex-
 ample ibeet shown In Figure 2-6.
  7.2.8 Operational Test Period. During the
 168-hour performance  and  operational test
period, the  continuous monitoring system
shall not require any corrective maintenance,
repair, replacement, or adjustment other than
 that clearly specified as required In the op-
 eration and maintenance manuals as routine
 and expected during a  one-week period. If
 the continuous monitoring system  operates
 within  the specified performance parameters
 and does not require corrective maintenance,
 repair, replacement or adjustment other than
 as specified above during the  168-hour test
 period,  the operational period will be success-
 fully  concluded.  Failure of the continuous
 monitoring system to meet this requirement
 shall call for a repetition of the 168-hour test
 period.  Portions of the test which were satis-
 factorily completed need  not be  repeated.
 Failure to meet  any performance specifica-
 tions shall call for a repetition of  the one-
 week performance test period  and that por-
 tion of the testing which Is related to the
 failed specification. All maintenance and ad-
 justments required shall be recorded.  Out-
 put readings shall be  recorded before and
 after all adjustments.
  8. References.
  8.1 "Monitoring Instrumentation  for  the
 Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide In Stationary
 Source Emissions," Environmental Protection
 Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,  Feb-
 ruary 1973.
  8.2 "Instrumentation  for the Determina-
 tion of  Nitrogen  Oxides Content of Station-
 ary Source Emissions,"  Environmental Pro-
 tection  Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C..
Volume 1, APTD-0847,  October  1971;  Vol-
ume 2,  AFTD-0942, January 1972.
  8.3 "Expertuental  Statistics," Department
of Commerce, Handbook 91,  1963, pp. 3-31,
paragraphs 3-3.1.4.
  8.4 "Performance  Specifications  for  Sta-
tionary-Source Monitoring Systems for Gases
and Visible Emissions,"  Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, N.C..
EPA-650/2-74-013, January 1974.
                                                                                             rigvrt 2->.  JtMlyttt of Ctlffcrttlon fef
                                KDEXAL REGISTER.  VOL  40.  NO. 194—MONOAr, OCTOBH 4.  1975
                                                           IV-9 6
-------
46266
                                              RULES-AND  REGULATIONS
                                 Calibration Gas Mixture Data (From Figure 2-1)

                                 Hid (505)	ppm        Hfgh  (905!) 	ppm
                               Calibration r,as
                     Run  t    Concentration.pern
Measurement Systen
  Reading,  ppn	
Differences,   ppm
                      11
                                                                                     Hid    High
                      Mean  difference

                      Confidence  interval

                      Calibration error =
  Difference  *  C.I.
                                         Average Calibration Gas Concentration
                                                                               • x 100
                       Calibration gas concentration - measurement system  reading
                      I
                       Absolute value
                                         Figure 2-2.  Calibration Error  Determination
rest
no.
1
?
1
d
-'
€.
f,
7
„
9
lean
.esc
151
ICCU
~ H

Date
anil
Time









reference it
value (SOj
difference*
Confidence
Rcfereice MetTicd Sar-ales
so7
San>!e 1
(5P"j









*thod
K9
Si-pfe \










~ .
ntervals • •
f
f'°»
(P("J









SaSs 3









W Sa-^ile
Avtraoe
lap")









Mean reference method
test value («) )
ppn [50^. "
PP«
ppra (N
(SO.). - »
Analyt?r 1-Hour
Average (PS")4









the df
V-
PI*
.n dlff.r.nce Absolute v.lue) • ?5t confidence Interval _ ,„„ . , ,,„
rati" ' - - Hejn refVwce ««Hod value "'"" 	 ' i
plain and report metnod used to determine Integrated averages.
ean differences • the average of the differences «lnus the »ean reference method USt «









Difference
• (pp«)
so? i,oa









'firenut
M),).
, .
u«.










« («o,)
                                           Figure ?-J.  Accurjcy Oetennlnatlon (S02 and NO^)
                               FEDEKAl REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 194—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 197S

                                                            iy-97
-------
i
 u
-------
 46268
                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
       Date  of Test
       Span Gas Concentration-

       Analyzer Span Setting _
                  pptr,
                  ppm
                            I
                                       seconds
       Upscale
        2         seconds

        3	seconds

Average upscale  response
                                                     seconds
       Downscale
        1

        2

      -3
                                       seconds
                                	seconds

                                	seconds

                  Average downscale  response

Systen average response time (slower  tine) =
                                                    _seconds

                                                     seconds
.deviation from slower r averag
system average response 1
; uoscale nnn.us average dcwnsc
slower tir.e
ale x 100S ••
J
                         Figure 2-6.  Response Tire
  Performance Specification 3—Performance
specifications  and specification test  proce-
dures for monitors of CO, and Oj from sta-
tionary sources.
  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. Effluent gases are continu-
ously sampled and are analyzed for  carbon
dioxide or oxygen by a  continuous monitor-
ing system. Test; 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
appfovi.i  by  the  Administrator. Sampling
may Include either extractive or non-extrac-
tive (in-sltu)  procedures.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Continuous Monitoring  System  for
Carbon Dioxide or Oxygen.
  2.2  Calibration Gas Mixtures.  Mixture  of
known  concentrations of carbon  dioxide  or
oxygen  In  nitrogen or air. Mldrange and  90
percent  of span carbon  dioxide  or oxygen
concentrations are required. The 90 percent
of span gas mixture  Is to be used to set and
check  the  analyzer span and Is  referred  to
as  span gas.  For oxygen  analyzers,  If  the
span  Is higher than 21  percent O., ambient
air  may be used in place of the 90 percent of
spaa  calibration  gas  mixture.  Triplicate
analyses of the gas mixture (except ambient
air)  shall be performed within two weeks
prior  to use  using  Reference  Method  3  of
this part.
  2.3 Zero Gas. 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. Definitions.
  3.1  Continuous  Monitoring  System.  The
total equipment required for the determina-
tion of carbon dioxide or oxygen  In a given
                       source effluent. The system consists of three
                       major subsystems:
                          3.1.1 Sampling Interface.  That portion of
                       the continuous monitoring system that per-
                       forms one or more of  the following  opera-
                       tions: delineation, acquisition, transporta-
                       tion,  and  conditioning of a sample  of  the
                       source effluent or protection of the analyzer
                       from the  hostile aspects of the sample or
                       source environment.
                          3.1.2 Analyzer. That  portion of  the  con-
                       tinuous monitoring system which senses the
                       pollutant gas and generates a signal output
                       that  Is a  function of the pcllutant concen-
                       tration.
                          3.1.3 Data Recorder.  That portion  of  the
                       continuous monitoring  system that provides
                       a  permanent record of  the output signal ID
                       terms of concentration ur.lts.
                          3.2 Span. The value of oxygen or carbon di-
                       oxide concentration at which che continuous
                       monitoring system Is set  that produces  the
                       maximum data display  output. For the pur-
                       poses of  this method, the span shall  be set
                       no less than 1.5 to 2.5 times the normal car-
                       bon dioxide or normal oxygen concentration
                       In the stack ga3 of the affected facility.
                          3.3 Mldrange. The value of oxygen or car-
                       bon dioxide concentration that Is representa-
                       tive of  the normal conditions  in  the stack
                       gas of. the affected facility at typlcil operat-
                       ing rates.
                          3.4 Zero Drift.  The change in the contin-
                       uous  monitoring system output over a stated
                       period of time of normal  continuous  opera-
                       tion when the carbon dioxide or oxygen con-
                       centration at the time for the measurements
                       Is  zero.
                          3.5 Calibration Drttt. The change  In  the
                       continuous monitoring system output over a
                       stated time period of normal continuous  op-
                       eration when the carbon  dioxide or oxygen
                       continuous monitoring  system Is measuring
                       the concentration of span gas.
                          3.6 Operational Test  Period.  A minimum
                       period of  time over which  the continuous
                       monitoring system Is  expected to operate
                       within  certain   performance specifications
                       without unscheduled maintenance, repair, or
                       adjustment.
                          3.7 Response time. The time Interval from
                       a  step change In concentration at the Input
                       to the continuous monitoring system  to  the
                       time  at which 95 percent of the correspond-
 ing flna.1 value la displayed on the continuous
 monitoring system data recorder.
   4. Installation Specification.
   Oxygen or carbon dioxide continuous mon-
 itoring systems'shall be Installed at a  loca-
 tion where measurements are directly repre-
 sentative  of  -the total effluent  from  the
 affected facility or representative oJ the  same
 effluent sampled by a SO. or NO. continuous
 monitoring system.  This" requirement  shall
 be complied with by  use of applicable re-
 quirements In Performance Specification 2 of
 this appendix as follows:
   4.1 Installation  of Oxygen or Carbon Di-
 oxide  Continuous Monitoring  Systems Not
 Used to Convert Pollutant Data. A sampling
 location shall be selected In accordance  with
 the  procedures  under-paragraphs  4.2.1  or
 4.2.2, or Performance Specification 2 of this
 appendix.
   4.2 Installation  of Oxygen or Carbon Di-
 oxide Continuous Monitoring Systems  Used
 to Convert Pollutant Continuous Monitoring
 System- Data  to Units of Applicable Stand-
 ards. The diluent  continuous monitoring sys-
 tem (oxygen or carbon dioxide) shall be In-
 stalled at a sampling location where measure-
 ments that can be made are representative of
 the effluent gases  sampled by the pollutant
 continuous monitoring system(s). Conform-
 nnce with  this requirement may be accom-
 plished In  any of the following ways:
  4.2.1 The sampling location for the diluent
 system shalf be n«ar the sampling location for
 the pollutant continuous monitoring system
 such  that the same approximate poLnt(s)
 (extractive systems)  or path  (In-sltu  sys-
 tems)  In  the cross section Is sampled  or
 viewed.
  4.2.2 The diluent and pollutant continuous
 monitoring systems may be  Installed at dif-
 f3rent locations if the  effluent gases at  both
 sampling locations are nonstratifled as deter-
 mined under paragraphs 4.1 or  4.3. Perform-
 ance  Specification 2 of  this appendix  .ii)d
 there U no In-leakage occurring between the
 two sampling locations. If the effluent gases
 are stratified  at either location,  the proce-
 dures  under  paragraph  4.2.2.  Performnr.rc
 Specification  2 of  this appendix  shall be used
 ior installing continuous monitoring systems
 at that location.
  5.  Continuous Monitoring System Perform-
 ance Specifications.
  The  continuous monitoring  system shall
 meet the performance specifications In Table.
 3-1 to be  considered acceptable under  this
 method.
  6.  Performance   Specification  Test Proce-
 dures.
  The following lest procedures  shall be used
 to determine conformance with the require-
 ments of paragraph 4. Due to the wide varia-
 tion existing In analyzer designs and princi-
 ples  of operation, these- procedures  are not
 applicable to all analyzers. Where this occurs.
 alternative procedures, subject to the ap-
 proval of  the Administrator, may  be  em-
 ployed. Any such alternative procedures must
 fulfill  the  same purposes  (verify response,
 drift, and accuracy)  as the following proce-
 dures,  and must   clearly demonstrate cou-
 formance  with specifications In  Tablo  3-1.

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

                                                          iV-39
-------
                                                  RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                         46269
the accuracy o! the response curve of the
analyzer.
  6.2 Field Test for Zero Drift and Cali-
bration  Drift.  Install and operate the
continuous monitoring system in accord-
ance with the manufacturer's written in-
structions and drawings as follows:
  TABLE  3-1.—Performance  specifications
       Ptmmettr
                           Specification
1. Zero drift (2 h)'	  <e mean  and confidence  Interval  of
these corrected difference values using eo.ua-
tlons 3-1 and 3-2. Do not use the differences
between  non-consecutive readings. Record
the sum  of the  absolute mean  and conf.-
dence interval  upon  the data sheet  shown
in Fieure 3-1.
  7.2.4 Calibration Drift (24-hour). Using the
calibration values measured  every 24 hours
during the  field test, calculate  the  differ-
ences between  the calibration concentration
reading after  zero and calibration Rd)ust-
mer.t and the calibration concentration read-
Ing 24 hours later after zero adjustment but
before calibration adjustment. Calculate the
mean value of these differences and tbe con-
fidence Interval using equations 3-1 and 3-2.
Record the eum  of  the absolute  mean and
confidence Interval on the data sheet shown
in Figure 3-2.
  7.2.5 Operational Test Period. Durlug the
168-hour.performance and operational test
period,  the  continuous  monitoring system
shall not receive any corrective maintenance,
repair,  replacement, or adjustment  other
than that clearly specified as required In the
manufacturer's written operation and main-
tenance  manual? as routine and expected
during a one-week period. If the continuous
monitoring system operates within the speci-
fied performance parameters and does not re-
quire corrective maintenance, repair, replace-
ment or adjustment othc* than as specifiocl
above- during  the lee-hour test period, the
operational period will be  successfully con-
cluded. Failure of the continuous monitoring
system to meet this requirement shail cn'l
for a repetition of the 168 hour test period.
Portions of the test which were satisfactorily
completed need not be repeated.  Failure  to
meet any performance specifications shall
call for a repetition of the one-week perform-
ance test period and that, portion of the test-
Ing which Is related to the failed specifica-
tion.  All maintenance and adjustments re-
quired shall  be  recorded.  Output reading;
shall be recorded before  and  after all ad-
justments.
  7.2.6 Response Time. Using the data devel-
oped  under paragraph 6.3. calculate the time
Interval from  concentration  switching to 9J
percent to the final stable value for all up-
scale and downscale tests. Report the mean of
the three upscale test times and the mean of
the three downscale test times. The two av-
erage times should not differ by more than
15  percent of  the slower  time. Report  the
slower time as the system response time. Re-
cord the results on Figure 3-3.
  8. References.
  8.1 "Performance Specifications for Sta-
tionary Source Monitoring Systems for Oases
and Visible  Emissions," Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.,
EPA-650/2-74-013, January 1974.
  62 "Experimental Statistics," Department
of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards
Handbook 01,  1963, pp.  3*31,  paragraphs
3-3.1.4.
(Sees. Ill and 114 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended  by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L.  91-«04. 84
Stst. 1878 (42 U.8.C. 18C7C-6, by »ec. J5(c) (2)
of Pub. L. 91-604. 85 Stat.  1713  (42 U.S.C.
1887g)).
KDiRAL
                                                   VOL 40. NO. 194 — MONDAY, OCTOMt 6, 1975

                                                           IV-100
-------
46270
                          RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                       Zero               Span
>«t         T1w               Zero       Drift     Spsn       Drift
No.       Begin   £nd    Dat«     Readlno:    Ultra)    Seadfnj     (aSpan)
                                                                                         Calibration
                                                                                            Drift
                         Zero bf\ tl " l,".ian Zero Qrif;'         * CI
                         Calibration OrUt • [;'-esn Span Cri(t'  ~~
                         ' -Absolute Value.
                                                     Flg-.-re 3-1. Zero and Calibration Ortft (2 Hour).
                        ate                       Zero                 Span           Calibration
                        nd           Zero       Drift               Reading              Drift
                        ime        Reading      UZero)      (After  zero  adjustment)     (iSpan)
                       luro Drift  =  [Hsan Zero  Drift*
                                           •t-  C.I.  (Zero)
                       Calibration  Drift = [Mean Span Drift*
                                                       C.I,  (Span)
                         Absolute value
                                       Figure  3-2.   Zero and  Calibration Drift  (24-hour)
                                 FEDERAl REGISTER,  VOL  40, NO. 194—MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1975


                                                            LV-101
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                      45271
                       Dita of Test
                       Span Gas Concentration

                       Analyzer Span Setting

                                           1.

                       Upscale             2.

                                           3.
              . ppm

              _ppm

              .seconds

              _ seconds

               seconds
                                     Average  upscale response
                              seconds
                        Oownscalc
  1.

  2.

  3.
seconds

seconds

seconds
                                     Average  downscale response
                                seconds
                     System averege response time  (slower time)  = _ seconds

                        «v«jtitK'  from slower _   average upscale  minus average dcwnscale
                                            ~
                     system average response
                                                            slower tine
                                                                                     x 1003
                                                Figure 3-3.   Responsa
1 9 Title 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUOCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
               | Fill, 442-3]

   PART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
   ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCE
      Delegation of Authority to State of
                New York
   Pursuint to the delegation of author-
  ity for the standards of performance for
  new stationary  sources  (NSPS)  to the
  Stale of New York on August  6,  1975.
  EPA is today amending 40 CFR 60.4, Ad-
  dress, to reflect this delegation. A Notice
  announcing this delegation is published,
  elsewhere  in today's FEDERAL REGISTER.
  The amended § 60.4, which adds  the ad-
  dross of the New York State Department
  of Environmental Conservation, to which
  reports,  requests,  applications,  submit-
  tals. and communications to the Admin-
  istrator pursuant to this port must also
  be addressed, is set forth below.
   The Administrator finds Rood cause for
  foregoing  prior public notice and for
  making tills rulemaklng effective Imme-
  diately in that It  is  an  administrative
  change and not one of substantive con-
  tent. No additional  substantive  burdens
  nre imposed on the parties affected. Tho
  delegation which Is reflected by  this ad-
  ministrative amendment was effective on
  August C,  1075. and It serves no purpose
  to delay  the technical  change  of  this
  addition of the State address to the Code
  of Federal Regulations. Tills rulemaklng
  Is effective immediately, and  Is Issued
  under the  authority of Section 111 of the
  Clean Air.Act, as  amended. 42 U.S.C.
  1857C-6.
(FR Doc.75-26685 Filed 10-3-76;8:45 am)

   Dated: October 4.1975.
                STANLEY W. LECIIO,
             Assistant Administrator
                     for Enforcement.

   Part  60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
  Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
  as follows:
   1. In 8 GO.4 paragraph (b) is amended
  by  revising  subparagraph  
-------
    53340
     RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
21    Title 40—Protection of Environment
        CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
            PROTECTION AGENCY
         SUBCHAPTER  C—AIR PROGRAMS
                 [FRL 437-4|
    PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
    ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
       State Plans for the Control of Certain
        Pollutants From Existing Facilities
      On  October 7,  1974 (39 FR 36102),
    EPA proposed to add a new Subpart B to
    Part 60  to establish procedures and re-
    quirements for submittal of State plans
    [or control  of certain pollutants from
    existing  facilities  under section lll(d)
    af  the Clean  Air  Act. as  amended  (42
    U.S C. 1857C-GUD ). Interested persons
    participated in the rulemakinp by send-
    ing comments to EPA. A total of 45 com-
    ment letters v.-as  received, 19  of  which
    came from industry.  16 from State and
    local agencies. 5 from Federal agencies.
    and 5  from  other  interested parties. All
    Detriments have been carefully consid-
    ered, and the proposed regulations have
    been  reassessed.  A number  of  changes
    suggested in comments have been  made.
    as well as changes developed within  the
    Agency.
      One significant change, discussed more
    fully below, is that different procedures
    and criteria will apply to submittal and
    approval of State plans where  the Ad-
    ministrator determines that a particular
    pollutant may cause or contribute  to the
    endangcrment of  public  welfare,  but
    that  adverse  effects on  public health
    have not been demonstrated. Such a de-
    termination might be made, for example,
    in the case of a pollutant  that damages
    crops but has no known adverse effect on
    public health. This  chanse is intended
    to allow  States more flexibility in estab-
    lishing plans for  the control  of such
    pollutants than is  provided for plans in-
    volving pollutants  that may affect  public
    health.
      Most other changes were  of a relatively
    minor nature and. aside from the change
    just mentioned, the basic concept of the
    regulations  is unchanged.  A number of
    provisions have been reworded to resolve
    ambiguities  or otherwise  clarify  their
    meaning, and some were  combined  or
    otherwise reorganized to  clarify and
    simplify  the overall organization of Sub-
    part B.
                 BACKGROUND
      When  Congress  enacted  the Clean Air
    Amendments of 1970. if. addressed three
    general categories of  pollutants emitted
    from stationary sources. See Senate Re-
    port No. 91-1IS6. 91st Cong.. 2d Soss.
    18-19  11970). The first category consists
    of pollutants (often referred to as "cri-
    teria  pollutants")  for  which air quality
    criteria and national ambient air quality
    standards are established under sections
    108 and  109 of the Act. Under the 1970
    amendments, criteria pollutants p.re con-
    trolled by State  implementation  plans
    (SIP's)  approved or promulgated  under
    section 110 and. in some cases, by stand-
    ards of performance for new sources es-
tablished tmder section 111. The second
category consists of pollutants listed as
hazardous pollutants under section 112
and controlled under that section.
  The third category consists  of pol-
lutants that are (or may be)  harmful to
public health or welfare but are not or
cannot  be controlled   under  sections
108-110 or 112.  Section  lll(d)  requires
control of existing sources of such pol-
lutants whenever standards of perform-
ance    is ap-
propriate when the pollutant may cause
or contribute to  endangerment of public
health or welfare but is not known to be
"hazardous" within the meaning of sec-
tion 112 and is not controlled under sec-
tions  108-110 because, for example, it is
not emitted from "numerous or diverse"
sources as required by section  10!).
  For  ease of  reference, pollutants  to
which  section 111 id)  applies  as  a  result
of the establishment of standards of per-
formance for new sources are  defined in
§ R0.21(a)  of  the  new  Subpart  B  as
"designated pollutants."  Existing  facil-
ities which emit designated   pollutants
and which would be subject to the stand-
ards of performance for those pollutants.
if  new,  are  defined in §60.2Kb1  as
"designated facilities."
  As indicated previously, the proposed
regulations have been revised  to  allow
States more  flexibility   in establishing
plans   where  the  Administrator deter-
mines  that a designated pollutant may
cause or  contribute to endangerment of
public  welfare,  but that  adverse effects
on  public health have not been  demon-
strated. For convenience of  discussion.
designated pollutants for which  the Ad-
ministrator makes such a determination
are referred to in this preamble as "wel-
fare-related pollutants"  (i.e..  those  re-
quiring control  solely because of their
effects 0:1 public   welfare1.   All  other
designated pollutants are referred to as
"health-related pollutants."
 To date, standards of performance have
been established  under section  111 of the
Act for two designated pollutants-—nun-
rides  emitted  from five categories  of
sources in the phosphate  fertili/er indu~-
try  (40 FR 33152,  August 6.  1975) and
sulfuric acid mist emitted from  sulfuric
acid production units <3G FR 24877. De-
cember 23. 1971). In addition, standards
of performance have been proposed for
fluorides emitted  from primary alumi-
num  plants  (39 FR  37730. October 23,
1974), and final action on these stand-
ards will occur shortly. EPA will publish
draft guideline documents (see next sec-
tion)  for these pollutants in  the near
future. Although a final decision has not
been  made, it  is expected that sulfuric
acid mist  will be determined  to  be  a
health-related  pollutant and  that fluo-
rides  will be determined to be  welfare-
related.
       SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS

  Subpart B provides that after a stand-
ard of performance applicable to emis-
sions of a designated pollutant from new
sources is promulgated, the Administra-
tor will publish guideline documents con-
taining information pertinent to control
of the same pollutant from  designated
(i.e.. existing1 facilities I § 60.22(a) 1. The
guideline documents will include "emis-
sion  guidelines" (discussed  belowi and
compliance times based on factors speci-
fied in  §G0.22(5)  and will  be made
available for  public  comment in draft
form  before being  published   in  final
form. For health-related pollutants, the
Administrator will concurrently propose
and subsequently  promulgate  the emis-
sion  guidelines  and  compliance  times
referred to above  !560.22 (in.
  The  Administrator's  determination
that  a  designated pollutant  is  heath-
relatod. welfare-related, or both and the
rationale for the  determination will be
provided in the draft guideline document
for that pollutant. In making this de-
termination,  the Administrator will con-
sider  such  factors as: il> Known and
suspected effects of the pollutant on pub-
lic health and welfare; (2) potential am-
bient  concentrations  of  the pollutant:
<3i generation  of any secondary pol-
lutants for which  the designated pollut-
ant may be  a  pnvursor; <4i  any syn-
crgistic effect, with other pollutants: and
(Si potential ciTects from accumulation
in the environment 'e.g.. soil, water and
food  chains1.  After  consideration of
comments and other information a final
determination and rationale will be pub-
lished in the final guidelines document.
  For both health-related and welfare-
related  pollutants, emission  guidelines
will reflect  the degree of  control attain-
able with the application  of the best sys-
tems of emission reduction which  (con-
sidering the cost of such reduction) have
been adequately demonstrated for desig-
nated facilities I § 60.21(e) 1. A.s discussed
more  fully  below,  the degree of control
reflected in  KPA'.s crnis.sioii  Kindt-lines
will take into account the costs of rc-tro-
fitting existini: facilities and  thus will
probably be  less  stringent than corre-
sponding standards of performance for
new sources.
  After publication of a final guideline
document for a designated pollutant, the
States will  have nine  months to develop
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  40. NO. 222—MONDAY. NOVEMBER 17. 1975
                                                        IV-103
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        533-11
and  submit plans  containing  emission
standards for  control of that pollutant
from designated  facilities  15 60.23 (a) 1.
For.  health-related  pollutants.   State
emission standards must ordinarily be at
least as  stringent as the corresponding
EPA guidelines to be approvable I § 60.24
(c)l. However.  States  may  apply le&d
stringent standards to particular sources
(or classes of sources)  when economic
factors or physical limitations specific to
particular sources (or classes of sources)
make such application significantly more
reasonable [§60.24(f>]. For welfare-re-
lated pollutants. States may balance the
emission guidelines and other informa-
tion  provided  in  EPA's guideline docu-
ments against other factors of  public
concern  in  establishing their  emission
standards, provided  that  appropriate
consideration is given to the Information
presented in  the guideline  documents
and  at  public hearings and  that other
requirements  of Subpart  B are  met
15 60.24(d)).
  Within four months after the date re-
quired for submission of a plan, the Ad-
ministrator  will  approve or  disapprove
the plan or portions thereof [§ 60.27).
If a  State plan (or portion  thereof) is
disapproved, the Administrator will pro-
mulgate  a  plan (or portion  thereof)
within 6 months  after the date required
for  plan  submission f§ 60.27(d)).  The
plan submittal,  approval/disapproval,
and  promulgation procedures are basi-
cally patterned after section 110 of the
Act  and  40 CFR Part 51  (concerning
adoption and  submittal of State  imple-
mentation plans under section 110).
  For  health-related   pollutants,   the
emission guidelines and compliance times
referred  to above will appear In a new
Subpart C of Part 60. As indicated previ-
ously, emission  guidelines  and compli-
ance times for welfare-related pollutants
will  appear  only  In  the guideline docu-
ments published under 5 60.22(a). Ap-
provals and disapprovals of State plans
and   any plans  (or portions  thereof)
promulgated by  the Administrator will
appear in a new Part 62.

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON PROPOSED REGU-
  LATIONS AND  CHANGES MADE IN FINAL
  REGULATIONS
  Many of the comment letters received
by EPA contained multiple  comments.
The  most significant comments and dif-
ferences between the proposed and final
regulations  are  discussed below.  Copies
of the comment  letters and a summary
of the comments with  EPA's responses
 (entitled "Public Comment  Summary:
Section  lll(d) Regulations") are avail-
able for public inspection and copying at
the  EPA Public  Information Reference
Unit, Room 2922 (EPA  Library), 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. In
 addition, copies  of  the comment sum-
mary may be  obtained upon  written re-
quest from the EPA Public Information
 Center  (PM-215),  401  M Street.  SW..
 Washington, D.C. 20460 (specify "Public
 Comment Summary:  Section  lll(d)
Regulations").
   (1) Definitions and  basic  concepts.
The term "emission limitation"  as de-
fined In proposed 8 60.21 (e) has appar-
ently caused some confusion. As used in
the proposal, the term was not intended
to mean a legally enforceable national
emission standard  as some comments
suggested. Indeed, the term was chosen
in an attempt to avoid such confusion.
EPA's rationale  for  using the  emission
limitation concept is presented below in
the discussion of the basis for approval or
disapproval of State plans. However, to
emphasize  that  a   legally enforceable
standard is not intended, the term "emis-
sion limitation"  has been replaced  with
the  term  "emission  guideline"  Isee
§ 60.21 (e) 1. In addition, proposed $ 60.27
(concerning  publication   of   guideline
documents and so forth) has been moved
forward  in  the  regulations (becoming
§ 60.22) to emphasize that publication of
a   final  guideline  document  is   the
"trigger" for State action under subse-
quent  sections   of   Subpart  B   Isee
§60.23(a)l.
  Many  commentators apparently  con-
fused the degree of control to be reflected
in EPA's emission guidelines under sec-
tion lll(d> with that  to  be required by
corresponding standards of performance
for new sources under section lll(b). Al-
though the general principle (application
of best adequately demonstrated control
technology, considering costs) will be the
same in  both cases,  the degrees of  con-
trol represented  by  EPA's  emission
guidelines will ordinarily be less stringent
than those required by standards of per-
formance for new  sources because the
costs of controlling existing facilities will
ordinarily be greater than those for con-
trol of new sources. In addition, the reg-
ulations have been amended  to make
clear that the Administrator will specify
different emission guidelines for differ-
ent sizes, types, and classes of designated
facilities when costs of control, physical
limitations,  geographical   location,  and
similar factors  make  subcategorization
approprate ti 60.22(b)(5) ]. Thus, while
there may be only one standard of per-
formance for new sources of designated
pollutants, there may be several emission
guidelines specified for designated facil-
ities based on plant configuration,  size,
and other factors  peculiar  to  existing
facilities.
  Some  comments  evidenced confusion
regarding  the relationship of  affected
facilities and designated  facilities. An
affected  facility, as defined in  §60.2(e),
is a new or modified facility subject to a
standard of  performance for  new sta-
tionary  sources.  An  existing facility
 [§ 60.2(aa) ] is a facility of the same type
as  an affected facility, but one the  con-
struction of  which commenced before
the date of proposal of applicable stand-
ards of •performance. A designated facil-
ity r§ 60.21 (d)l  is an existing facility
which emits a designated pollutant.
  A few industry comments argued that
the proposed regulations  would permit
EPA to circumvent  the legal and tech-
nical safeguards required  under sections
 108, 109, kand  110  of  the Act, sections
which the commentators characterized
as the basic statutory process for control
of existing facilities. Congress clearly in-
tended control of existing  facilities under
sections other than 108,109, and 110. Sec-
tions 112 and 303 as well as lll(d) itself
provide for control of existing facilities.
Moreover, action under section lll(d> is
subject to a number of  significant safe-
guards: (1)  Before acting under section
11 ltd)  the Administrator must  have
found under section lll(b)  that a source
category may significantly  contribute to
air pollution which causes vr contributes
to the  endangerment of public health or
welfare, and this finding must be tech-
nically supportable;  (2)  EPA's emission
guidelines will be developed in consulta-
tion with industrial groups and the Na-
tional  Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee,  and  they will  be
subject to  public comment before  they
are adopted; (3) emission standards and
other plan provisions must be subjected
to public hearings prior to adoption; (4)
relief  is available  under  § 60.24(f)  or
$ 60.27'e) (21 where application of emis-
sion  standards  to  particular  sources
would  be unreasonable; and (5) judicial
review of the  Administrator's action in
approving  or   promulgating plans (or
portions thereof) is available under sec-
tion 307 of the Act.
  A number of commentators suggested
that special provisions  for plans  sub-
mitted  under  section  lll(d)  are un-
necesssary since existing  facilities are
covered by State implementation plans
(STPs)  approved or promulgated under
section 110 of  the Act. By its own terms,
however, section 11 ltd)  requires the Ad-
ministrator to  prescribe regulations for
section lll(d)  plans. In  addition, the
pollutants  to which section lll(d) ap-
plies (i.e.. designated pollutants) are not
controlled as such under the SIPs. Under
section 110, the SIPs only regulate cri-
teria pollutants: i.e., those for which na-
tional  ambient  air  quality  standards
have been established under section 109
of  the Act. By definition,  designated
pollutants  are  non-criteria pollutant":
[§60.21(a>]. Although  some designated
pollutants  may occur in particulate  as
well as gaseous forms and thus may  be
controlled  to   some degree under SIP
provisions requiring control of parttcu-
late matter, specific  rather than  Inci-
dental control  of such  pollutants Is re-
quired by section lll(d). For these rea-
sons,  separate  regulations are necessary
to  establish the framework for specific
control of designated pollutants under
section 111 (d).
  Comments of a similar nature argued
that if there   are demonstrable health
and welfare effects from designated pol-
lutants, either  air quality criteria should
be established and SIPs submitted under
sections 108-110 of the Act, or the pro-
visions of section  112 of the Act should
be  applied. Section lll(d) of  the Act
was specifically designed to require con-
trol of pollutants which are not presently
considered  "hazardous"  within   the
meaning of section 112 and for which
ambient air quality standards  have not
been  promulgated. Health and welfare
effects from these designated pollutants
often cannot be quantified or are of such
a nature that the effects are cumulative
and not associated with any particular
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 2:'.2—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1975
                                                       IV-104
-------
 53342
      RUIES AMD REGULATIONS
ambient level.  Quite often, health and
welfare problems  caused by  such pol-
lutr.nts are highly localized and thus  an
extensive  procedure, such as  the  SIPs
require, is not  justified. As  previously
indicated,  Congress  specifically recog-
nized  the need for control  of a third
category of pollutants; It also recognized
that   as  additional  information  be-
comes available, these pollutants  might
later be reclnssified as hazardous or cri-
teria pollutants.
  Other commentators  reasoned  that
since designated  pollutants are defined
as non-criteria and non-hazardous pol-
lutants, only harmless substances  would
fall  within  this  category. These com-
mentators argued that the Administra-
tor should establish that a pollutant has
adverse effects  on public health or wel-
fare  before it could be regulated  under
section lll(d). Before acting under sec-
tion  lll(d), however, the Administrator
must establish a standard of  perform-
ance under section lll(b). In so  doing,
the Administrator must find under sec-
tion  11 Kb) that the source category cov-
ered by such standards may  contribute
significantly to air pollution which causes
or contributes  to the endangerment  of
public health or welfare.
  (2) Boeis for approval or disapproval
ol State plans. A  number  of industry
comments questioned EPA's authority to
require, as a basis for approval of State
plans,  that the States establish emission
standards that (except in cases of eco-
nomic hardship) are equivalent  to  or
more  stringent  than  EPA's  emission
guidelines. In general,  these  comments
argued that EPA has authority only  to
prescribe  procedural  requirements  for
adoption and submittal of State  plans,
leaving the States free to establish emis-
sion  standards on  any basis they deem
necessary  or  appropriate. Most  State
comments  expressed  no objection  to
EPA's  interpretation on this point, and
a few explicitly endorsed it.
  After careful consideration  of  these
comments, EPA continues to believe, for
reasons summarized below, that its in-
terpretation of section lll(d)  is legally
correct. Moreover. EPA believes that  its
Interpretation is essential to the effective
Implementation  of  section llKd), par-
ticularly where health-related pollutants
are  involved.  As discussed  more fully
below, however, EPA has decided that it
is appropriate to allow States somewhat
more flexibility in establishing plans for
the control of welfare-related pollutants
and has revised the proposed regulations
accordingly.
  Although section  lll(d) does not spec-
ify explicit criteria for approval or disap-
proval of State plans, the Administrator
must disapprove plans that are not "sat-
isfactory" (Section lll(d) (2) (A) 1. Ap-
propriate  criteria  must therefore  be
inferred from the language and context
of section lll(d) and from its legislative
history. It seems clear, for example, that
the Administrator must disapprove plans
not  adopted  and submitted in accord-
ance with the  procedural requirements
he prescribes under section 11 ltd), and
 none of  the commentators  questioned
 this  concept. The  principal questions,
 therefore, are  whether  Congress  In-
 tended that  the Administrator base ap-
 provals and  disapprovals on substantive
 as well as procedural criteria and, if so,
 on what types of substantive criteria.
   A brief summary of the legislative his-
 tory of section lll(d) will facilitate dis-
 cussion of these questions. Section 111
 (d> was enacted as part of the Clean Air
 Amendments of 1970. No comparable pro-
 vision appeared in  the  House bill. The
 Senate bill,  however,  contained a sec-
 tion  114  that would have required the
 establishment   of   national  emission
 standards for  "selected  air  pollution
 agents." Although the term "selected air
 pollution  agent" did not include pollu-
 tants  that might affect public  welfare
 [which are subject to control under sec-
 tion lll(d)], its definition otherwise cor-
 responded to the description of pollu-
 tants  to  be  controlled  under  section
 lll(d). Section 114 of the  Senate bill
 was rewritten in conference  to  become
 section lll(d). Although the Senate re-
 port  and  debates include references to
 the intent of  section 114. neither  the con-
 ference report nor subsequent debates in-
 clude any discussion of section 111 (d) as
 finally enacted.  In the absence of such
 discussion. EPA believes Inferences con-
 cerning the legislative  intent of section
 lll(d)  may be drawn from  the  general
 purpose of section 114 of the Senate bill
 and from the manner  in which it was
 rewritten  in  conference.
   After a careful examination of section
 HHd), its statutory  context,  and  its
 legislative history, EPA believes the fol-
 lowing conclusions  may be drawn:
   (1) As appears from the Senate report
 and debates, section 114 of the Senate
 bill was designed to address a  specific
 problem. That problem was how to reduce
 emissions of  pollutants which  are (or
 may  be)  harmful to health but which,
 on the basis  of infonrmtion likely  to be
 available  in  the near  term,  cannot be
 controlled under other  sections of the
 Act ns criteria pollutants or as hazardous
 pollutant?. (It was made clenr that such
 )x>llutants might be controlled as criteria
 or hazardous pollutants as more defini-
 tive information became available.i The
 approach  taken  in section  114  of the
 Senate bill was to require national emis-
 sion standards designed  to assure that
 emissions  of  such pollutants  would not
 endanger  health.
   (2)  The  Committee  of  Conference
 chose to rewrite the Senate provision as
 part of section  111, which in effect re-
 quires maximum feasible control of pol-
 lutants from  new  stationary   sources
 through technology-based standards (as
 opposed to standards designed to assure
 protection of health or welfare or both>.
 For reasons summarized below. EPA be-
 lieves this choice reflected a decision in
conference that a similar approach (mak-
 ing allowances for the costs of controlling
 existing sources) was appropriate for the
 pollutants to be  controlled under section
 lll(d).
   (3) As  reflected in the Senate report
 and debates,  the pollutants to  be con-
trolled under section 114 of the Senate
bill were  considered a category distinct
from  the pollutants  for  which criteria
documents had been  written  or  might
soon be written. In part, these pollutants
differed from the criteria pollutants in
that much less information was  avail-
able concerning  their effects on  public
health and welfare. For that reason, it
would  have  been difficult—if not  im-
possible—to  prescribe legally  defensible
standards  designed  to  protect  public
health or welfare  for  these  pollutants
until more definitive information became
available. Yet the pollutants,  by defini-
tion, were those which (although not cri-
teria  pollutants and  not known  to be
hazardous)  had  or might  be expected
to have adverse effects on health.
   (4)  Under  the circumstances, EPA be-
lieves,  the conferees  decided  (a)  that
control of such pollutants on some basis
was necessary; (b) that, given the rela-
tive lack of information  on their health
and welfare  effects, a technology-based
approach  (similar  to  that   for  new
sources)  would be more feasible than one
involving nn  attempt to set  standards
tied specifically to protection  of health;
and  (c)  that the  technology-based  ap-
proach (making allowances for the costs
of controlling  existing sources)  was a
reasonable means of attacking the prob-
lem until more definitive information be-
came  known, particularly  because  the
States  would be free  under section  116
of the Act to adopt more stringent stand-
ardse if they believed additional control
wns desirable. In short, EPA believes the
conferees chose to rewrite section  114 as
part of section 111 largely because they
intended the  technology-based approach
of that section to extend  (making allow-
ances for the costs of controlling existing
sources)  to action under section lll(d).
In this view, it was  unnecessary  (al-
though it might have been desirable) to
specify  explicit substantive criteria in
section lll(d)  because the intent  to re-
quire a technology-based approach could
be inferred from placement of the pro-
vision in section 111.
  Related considerations support this in-
terpretation of section  llUd'. For  ex-
ample, section  111UD  requires the  Ad-
ministrator  to prescribe  a plan  for a
State  that fails to submit a satisfactory
plan. It is obvious that he could only pre-
scribe  standards  on  some  substantive
basis. The references to section 110 of the
Act suggest that (as  in section 110)  he
was intended  to do generally what  the
States  in  such cases  should have done.
which in turn suggests that (as in section
110) Congress intended the States to pre-
scribe  standards  on  some  substantive
basis. Thus, itsrems clenr that some sub-
stantive criterion was  intended to govern
not only the  Administrator's promulga-
tion of standards but also his review of
State plans.
  Still   other  considerations   support
EPA's  interpretation  of section lll(d).
Even a cursory examination of the legis-
lative history  of the 1970 amendments re-
veals that Congress was dissatisfied with
air pollution  control efforts at all  levels
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 222—MONDAY, NOVEMBER  17, 1975



                                                      IV-105
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        53J13
of government and was convinced that
relatively  drastic measures  were neces-
sary to protect public health and welfare.
The result \vas a series of far-reaching
amendments which, coupled with  virtu-
ally unprecedented statutory  deadlines,
required  EPA and the  States  to take
swift  and  aggressive  action.  Although
Congress left  initial responsibility with
the States  for control  of criteria pollut-
ants under section 110, it set tough mini-
mum  criteria  for such  action  and re-
quired Federal assumption  of  responsi-
bility where State action was inadequate.
It also required direct Federal action for
control of  new stationary sources, haz-
ardous pollutants, and  mobile  sources.
Finally, in an extraordinary  departure
from Its practice of delegating rulcmak-
ing authority  to administrative  agencies
(a departure intented  to  force the pace
of pollution control efforts  In the auto-
mobile industry). Congress itself enacted
what  amounted  to  statutory  emission
standards  for the principal automotive
pollutants.
  Against  this background  of  Congres-
sional firmness, the overriding purpose of
which  was to protect  public health and
welfare, it would make no sense to inter-
pret section llKdi as  requiring the Ad-
ministrator to ba=e  approval or  disap-
proval of State plans solely on procedural
criteria.   Under  that   Interpretation,
States could set  extremely lenient stand-
ards—even standards permitting greatly
increased emissions—so long  as  EPA's
procedural requirements were met. Given
that the pollutants in question are (or
may be) harmful t-o  public health and
welfare,  and that section  llHd)  is the
only provision of the Act requiring their
control, it is difficult to believe that Con-
gress  meant to leave such a gaping loop-
hole in a statutory scheme otherwise de-
signed to force meaningful  action.
  Some  of  the  comments  on the pro-
posed regulations assume that the  States
were intended to -set emission standards
based  directly on protection of  public
health and welfare.  EPA  believes this
view is consistent with its own view that
the Administrator \vas intended to base
approval or disapproval of State plans on
substantive as well as procedural criteria
but believes Congress Intended a technol-
ogy-based  approach   rather  than one
based  directly on protection  of  health
and welfare. The principal  foctors lead-
ing EPA to  this conclusion  are  sum-
marized  above.  Another is  that if Con-
gress  had  intended  an approach  based
directly on protection of health and wel-
fare, it could  have rewritten section 114
of the Senate bill as part of section 110,
which epitomizes that approach,  rather
than  as part of  section 111. Indeed, with
relatively  minor changes  in  language.
Congress could simply  have retained sec-
tion 114 as a separate section requiring
action based  directly on  protection of
health and welfare.
   Still another factor is that asking each
of the States,  many of which had limited
resources and expertise in  air pollution
control,  to set  standards protective of
health and welfare In the absence of ade-
quate Information would have made even
less sense than requiring the Administra-
tor to do so with the various resources at
his command. Requiring  a technology-
based approach, on the other hand, would
not only shift the criteria for  decision-
making to  more solid ground (the avail-
ability and costs of  control technology)
but would also talie advantage of the in-
formation and expertise available to EPA
from its assessment of techniques for the
control of  the same  pollutants from the
same types of sources under section Ml
(b), as well as its power to compel sub-
mission of  information  about such tech-
niques under  section 114  of  the Act (42
U.S.C. 1857c-9l. Indeed, section 114 was
made specifically applicable for the pur-
pose (among others) of assisting  in the
development of State plans under section
11 ltd). For all of these  reasons, EPA be-
lieves  Congress  intended  a technology-
based  approach rather than one based
directly  on protection of health  and
welfare.
  Some  of the  comments  argued  that
EPA's emission guidelines under section
lll(d)  will, in effect, be  national emis-
sion standards for existing sources, a con-
cept they argue was rejected in section
lll(d). In  general, the comments rely on
the fact that although section 114 of the
Senate bill specifically  provided for na-
tional emission standards, section lll(d)
calls for establishment of emission stand-
ards by States. EPA believes that the re-
writing of section  114  in conference  is
consistent  with the establishment of na-
tional criteria by which to judge the ade-
quacy of State  plans, and that the ap-
proach taken in section lll(d) may be
viewed as largely the result of  two deci-
sions: (1)  To adopt a technology-based
approach similar to that for new sources;
and (2) to give Slates a greater role than
was provided  in  section 114. Thus, States
will have primary responsibility  for de-
veloping  and  enforcing  control plans
under section lll(d); under section 114,
they would only have been invited to seek
a delegation of authority to enforce Fed-
erally developed standards. Under EPA's
interpretation of section  lll(d).  States
will" also have authority  to  grant vari-
ances in cases of economic hardship; un-
der  section 114, only the Administrator
would have had authority to grant such
relief. As with section 110, assigning pri-
mary responsibility to Uie States in these
areas  is perfectly consistent with  review
of their plans on some substantive basis.
If there is  to be substantive review, there
must be criteria for  the review, and  EPA
believes it is desirable (if not legally re-
quired) that the criteria be made known
in advance to  the States, to industry, and
to the general public. The emission guide-
lines, each of which will be subjected  to
public  comment before final  adoption,
will serve this function.
   In any event,  whether or not Congress
"rejected" the concept of national emis-
sion standards for existing sources. EPA's
emission guidelines will not have the pur-
pose or effect of national emission stand-
ards.  As emphasized elsewhere  in  this
preamble,  they will  not be requirements
enforceable against any source. Like the
national ambient  air quality standards
prescribed  under  section  109 and  the
items set forth in section 110(a) (2) (A)-
(H), they will only be criteria for judging
the adequacy of State plans.
  Moreover, it is Inaccurate to argue (as
did one comment) that, because  EPA's
emission guidelines will reflect best avail-
able technology considering cost. States
will  be  unable to  set more stringent
standards.  EPA's emission guidelines will
reflect its judgment of the degree of con-
trol  that  can  be  attained  by various
classes of existing sources without unrea-
sonable costs. Particular sources within
a class may  be able to achieve greater
control  without   unreasonable  costs.
Moreover, States that believe additional
control is necessary or  desirable will be
free under section  116 of  the  Act to
require more expensive controls,  which
might have the effect of closing other-
wise marginal  facilities, or to ban par-
ticular  categories  of  sources outright.
Section 60.24(g) has been added to clar-
ify this point. On the other hand,  States
will be free to set more lenient standards,
subject to  EPA review, as provided in
§S60.24(d) and (f)  in  the case of wel-
fare-related  pollutants  and  in  cases of
economic hardship.
  Finally, as discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, EPA's omission guidelines will
reflect subcategorization  within source
categories  where  appropriate,  taking
into  account  differences  in  sizes  and
types  of  facilities and  similar  con-
5560.24  (d)  and (f) In the case of wel-
siderations, including differences in con-
trol  costs  that  may   be  involved for
sources located in different parts  of the
country. Thus. EPA's emission guidelines
will  in effect be tailored to what is rea-
sonably achievable by particular classes
of existing sources, and  States  will be
free to vary from the  levels of control
represented by the emission guidelines in
the  ways mentioned above. In most  if
not all cases,  the result is likely to be sub-
stantial variation in the degree of control
required for particular sources,  rather
than identical  standards for all sources.
  In  summary,  EPA  believes  section
lll(d) is a hybrid provision, intended to
combine primary State responsibility for
plan development and enforcement (as In
section 110)  with the technology-based
approach  (making  allowances  for the
costs  of  controlling existing sources)
taken in section  111 generally. As indi-
cated above,  EPA believes its interpreta-
tion of section lll(d) is legally correct In
view  of the language, statutory context
and legislative history of the provision.
  Even assuming some other interpreta-
tion  were permissible,  however,  EPA
believes  its  Interpretation is essential
to   the  effective   Implementation  of
section  lll(d),   particularly   where
health-related pollutants  are involved.
Most  of  the  reasons  for  this  con-
clusion are discussed above, but It may be
useful to summarize them here.  Given
the relative lack of information concern-
ing the effects of designated pollutants on
public health and welfare, it would 'jo
                              FEDERAL REGISTER.  VOL. 40, NO. 222—MONDAY, NOVEMBER  17, 197S


                                                       IV-106
-------
 53344
     RULES AND  REGULATIONS
 difficult—if  not   impossible—for  the
 States or EPA to prescribe legally defen-
 sible  standards based  directly  on pro-
 tection of  health  and welfare.  By con-
 trast, a technology-based approach takes
 advantage of the  information  and ex-
 pertise available to EPA from its assess-
 ment of  techniques for the control of the
 same pollutants from the same types of
 sources under section 11Kb), as well as
 EPA's power to compel submission of in-
 formation  about such techniques under
 section 114 of the Act. Given the variety
 of circumstances that may be encount-
 ered in controlling existing as opposed to
 new sources, it makes sense to have the
 States develop plans based on technical
 information provided by EPA and make
 judgments, subject to EPA review, con-
 cerning the extent to which less stringent
 requirements  are  appropriate.  Finally,
 EPA review of such plans for their sub-
 stantive  adequacy is essential  (partic-
 ularly for  health-related pollutants) to
 assure that meaningful controls will ba
 Imposed. For these reasons, given a choice
 of permissible interpretations of section
 lll(d), EPA would choose the interpre-
 tation on  which Subpart B is based on
 the  ground that  it is  essential to the
 effective implementation of the provision,
 particularly  where  health-related pol-
 lutants are involved.
  As Indicated previously, however, EPA
 has  decided that  it is appropriate to
 allow  the  States more  flexibility  in es-
 tablishing  plans   for  the  control  of
 welfare-related pollutants than  is pro-
 vided  for plans involving health-related
 pollutants. Accordingly,  the  proposed
 regulations have been revised to provide
 that  States  may  balance the emission
 guidelines, compliance  times  and other
 information  In EPA's  guideline  docu-
 ments against other factors in establish-
 ing   emission   standards,   compliance
 schedules,  and variances for welfare-
 related pollutants, provided that appro-
 priate consideration is  given  to  the in-
 formation  presented  in the  guideline
 documents and at public hearings,  and
.that all other requirements of Subpart B
 are  met t§60.24(d)J. Where  sources of
 pollutants that cause only adverse effects
 to crops are located in nonagricultural
 areas, for example, or  where residents
 of a local community depend on an eco-
 nomically  marginal plant for their liveli-
 hood,  such factors  could be taken into
 account. Consistent with section  116 of
 the  Act, of  course, States will  remain
 free to adopt requirements as stringent
 as  (or more stringent  than)  the corre-
 sponding emission guidelines and com-
 pliance  times  specified in EPA's  guide-
 line   documents   if  they  wish   [see
 860.24  does
not  explicitly  provide for variances, it
does require consideration of the cost of
applying standards to existing facilities.
Such a consideration is  inherently dif-
ferent  than  for new sources,  because
controls cannot be included  in  the de-
sign of an existing facility and  because
physical limitations  may mnke installa-
tion of particular control systems impos-
sible or unreasonably expensive  in some
cases. For these reasons, EPA  believes the
provision ISG0.24(f)l allowing States to
grant  relief in cases of economic hard-
ship (where health-related pollutants are
involved)  is permissible  under  section
lll(d). For the same  reasons, language
has been included in 5 60.24(d) to make
clear that variances  are also  permissible
where welfare-related pollutants are in-
volved, although  the  flexibility provided
by that provision may make variances
unnecessary.
  Several commentators urged that pro-
posed  § 60.23 (e)   [now § 60.24(f»  be
amended to indicate that States are not
required to consider applications for var-
iances if they do  not  feel it appropriate
to do so.  The commentators contended
that the proposed wording would  invite
applications for variances, would  allow
sources  to delay compliance by submit-
ting  such applications, might  conflict
with existing State laws, and would prob-
ably  impose significant burdens on State
and  local  agencies. In addition, there is
some question  whether the mandatoj-y
review provision  as proposed would fie
consistent with section 116 of the Act,
which makes clear that States are free
to adopt  and enforce  standards  more
stringent  than Federal standards.  Ac-
cordingly, the proposed wording has been
amended  to permit,   but  not require,
State review of facilities for the purpose
of applying less stringent standards.  To
give  the States more flexibility,  § 60.24
(f)  has also been amended to permit
variances for particular classes of sources
as well as for particular sources.
  Other comments requested that EPA
make clear whether proposed  § 60.23 Public hearing requirement. Based
on comments that the requirement for a
public hearing on the plan In each AQCR
                              FEDERAL REGISTER.  VOL. 40. NO. 222—MONDAY.  NOVEMBER 17, 1975
                                                       IV-107
-------
                                            RULES AMD REGULATIONS
containing a designated facility Is too
burdensome, the proposed regulation has
been amended to require only one hear-
ing per State per plan. While the Agency
advocates  public  participation  In en-
vironmental  rulemaking, it also recog-
nizes  the  expense  and effort  involved
in holding multiple hearings. States are
urged to hold as many hearings as prac-
ticable  to  assure  adequate opportunity
for public participation. The hearing re-
quirements have also been amended  to
provide that a public hearing is not re-
quired in  those States which  have an
existing  emission  standard  that was
adopted after a  public hearing and is  at
least  as stringent as the  corresponding
EPA emission guidelines, and  to permit
approval of  State notice  and  hearing
procedures different than those specified
in Subpart B in some cases.
   (5)  Compliance  schedules.  The pro-
posed  regulation required  that all com-
pliance schedules be submitted with the
plan.  Several commentators  suggested
that  this  requirement  would  not allow
sufficient time for negotiation of sched-
ules and could  cause  duplicatlve work
If the emission  standards  were not ap-
proved.  For this  reason a new § 60.24
 (e) (2) has been added  to  allow submis-
sion of compliance schedules after plan
submission but  no later than  the date
of the first semiannual report  required
by § 60.25(e).
   (6)  Existing regulations. Several com-
 ments dealt with States which have ex-
isting emission  standards for designated
pollutants. One  commentator urged that
such States be  exempted  from the re-
quirements of adopting and submitting
 plans. However, the Act requires EPA to
 evaluate both the adequacy of a State's
 emission standards and the procedural
 aspects  of the  plan. Thus, States with
 existing regulations must  submit plans.
   Another commentator suggested that
 the Administrator should  approve exist-
 ing emission standards which, because
 they are established on a  different basis
 (e.g..  concentration standards vs. proc-
 ess-weight-rate 'type  standards),  are
 more  stringent than the  corresponding
 EPA emission guideline for some facil-
 ities and  less stringent for others. The
 Agency cannot grant  blanket  approval
 for such  emission standards;  however,
 the Administrator may approve that part
 of an emission  standard which is equal
 to or more stringent than the EPA emis-
 sion guideline and disapprove  that por-
 tion which Is less stringent. Also, the less
 stringent portions may be approvable in
 some cases under § 60.24  (d) or (f).  Fi-
 nally, subcategorizatlon by size of source
 under § 60.22(b) (5) will probably limit
 the number of  cases in which this situa-
 tion will arise.
    Other  commentators apparently  as-
 sumed  that some regulations for desig-
 nated pollutants  were approved  In  the
 State Implementation plans (SIPs).  Al-
 though some States may have submitted
 regulations  limiting emissions of desig-
 nated pollutants with the SIPs, such reg-
 ulations were not considered in the ap-
 proval or disapproval of those plans and
 are not considered part of approved plans
because, under section 110, SIPs, apply
only to criteria pollutants.
  (7) Emission inventory data and re-
ports. Section 60.24 of the proposed reg-
ulations (now § 60.25] required emission
inventory data to be submitted on data
forms  which the Administrator was to
specify in the future. It wa;s  expected
that a computerized subsystem to the Na-
tional  Emission Data System  (NEDS)
would  be available that would accom-
modate emission inventory information
on  the designated pollutants. However,
since this subsystem and concomitant
data form will probably not be developed
and approved in time for plan develop-
ment, the designated pollutant informa-
tion called  for will  not  be  required in
computerized  data format. Instead, the
States will  be permitted to  submit this
information  in   a   non-computerized
format as outlined in a new Appendix D
along with the basic facility information
on  NEDS forms (OMB #15&-R0095) ac-
cording  to  procedures  in APTD 1135,
"Guide for  Compiling a  Comprehensive
Emission  Inventory" available from the
Air Pollution Technical  Information
Center, Environmental  Protection
Agency, Research  Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. In addition, §  60.25(f) (5)
has been  amended to require submission
of  additional information with the semi-
annual reports in order to provide a bet-
ter tracking mechanism for emission in-
ventory and compliance monitoring pur-
poses.
   (8)  Timing. Proposed  § 60.27Ca)  re-
quired proposal of  emission guidelines
for designated pollutants simultaneously
with proposal of corresponding standards
of  performance for new (affected) facil-
ities. This  section, redesignated  § 60.22,
has been amended to require proposal (or
publication for public comment)  of an
emission guideline after promulgation of
the corresponding standard of perform-
ance. Two written comments and several
Informal comments from industrial rep-
resentatives indicated that  more time
was needed to evaluate  a  standard  of
performance   and  the  corresponding
emission  guideline than would be allowed
by simultaneous proposal and promulga-
 tion. Also,  by proposing  (or  publishing)
.an emission guideline after promulgation
 of  the corresponding standard of per-
formance, the Agency can benefit from
 the comments on the standard of per-
 formance  in  developing the  emission
 guideline.
   Proposed § 60.27(a) required proposal
 of  sulfuric  add mist emission guidelines
 within 30  days  after promulgation  of
 Subpart B. This provision was Included
 as an exception to the proposed  general
 rule (requiring simultaneous proposal of
 emission guidelines  and standards  of
 performance)  because it was impossible
 to  propose  the acid mist emission guide-
 line simultaneously with the correspond-
 ing standard of performance, which had
 been promulgated previously. The change
 in   the  general  rule, discussed   above,
 makes the  proposed  exception unneces-
 sary, so it has been deleted. As previously
 stated, the Agency  intends  to establish
 emission guidelines for sulfuric acid mist
 [and for fluorides, for which new source
standards  were promulgated  (40  FR
33152) after proposal of Subpart B] as
soon as possible.
  (9) Miscellaneous. Several commenta-
tors  argued that the nine months pro-
vided for development  of State  plans
after  promulgation  of   an  emission
guideline by EPA would be insufficient. In
most cases, much of the work involved in
plan development,  such  as emission in-
ventories, can be begun when an emis-
sion  guideline is proposed  (or published
for comment)  by  EPA;  thus, several
additional months will be gained. Exten-
sive  control strategies are not ivquired,
and after the first plan is submitted, sub-
mitted,  subsequent  plans  will  mainly
consist of  adopted  emission  standards.
Section 11 ltd) plans will  be much less
complex  than the  SIPs, and Congress
provided only  nine  months for SIP de-
velopment. Also. States may already have
approvable procedures and legal author-
ity [see  §§60.25(d)  and G0.2G(b)J, and
the number of designated  facilities per
State should be few. For  these reasons,
tho  nine-month  provision  has  been
retained.
  Some  comments  recommended  that
the requirements for adoption and sub-
mi ttal of section lll(d)  plans appear in
40 CFR  Part  51 or in some part  of 40
CFR other than Part 60, to allow differ-
entiation  among   such  requirements,
emission  guidelines, new  source stand-
ards and plans promulgated by EPA. The
Agency believes that the section lll(d)
requirements neither warrant a separate
part nor should appear in Part 51, since
Part 51  concerns control  under section
110 of the Act. For clarity, however, sub-
part B of Part 60  will  contain the re-
quirements for  adoption and submittal
of section lll(d)  plans;  Subpart C of
Part 60 will contain emission guidelines
and times for compliance promulgated
under § 60.22 (c); and a new Part 62 will
be used  for approval or disapproval of
section lll(d) and for plans (or portions
thereof)  promulgated  by  EPA  where
State plans are disapproved in whole or
in part.
   Two  comments  suggested  that the
plans  should  specify test methods and
procedures to be used in demonstrating
compliance with the emission standards.
Only when sucli procedures and methods
are  known can the stringency of the
emission  standard  be determined. Ac-
cordingly, this change has been included
ln§60.24(b).
   A new  § 60.29 has been added tu make
clear that the Administrator may revise
plan provisions  he  has promulgated un-
der  560.27(d), and § 60.27(e) has been
revised to make clear that he  will con-
sider  applications  for  variances from
emission standards promulgated by EPA.

   Effective Dale. These regulations be-
come effective on December 17, 1975.
 (Sections 111, 114. and 301 of the Clean Air
Act, ns amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-
C04. 84 Stat. 1078. find by sec. 16(c) (2) of
Pub.  L.  91-G04.  84  Stat.  1713  (43  U.S.C.
 1857C-6. and 1B67C-9. 1857g).

   Dated: November 5,1975.
                    JOHN QCTAHLES.
                Acting Administrator.
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 222—MONDAY. NOVEMBER 17, 1975
                                                       IV-108
-------
53346
     RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  I. The table of sections for  Part 60 is
amended by adding a list of sections for
Subpart B and by adding Appendix D to
the list of appendixes as follows:
    ,       «      •       •       •
  Subpart B—Adoption and Submittatof State
       Plans for Designated Facilities
Sec.
00.20  Applicability.
60.21  Definitions.
50.22  Publication of guideline document*,
        emission guidelines, find final com-
        pliance times.
50.23  Adoption   and  submlttal  of  State
       plans; public hearings.
30.24  Emission standards and  compliance
       schedules.
60.26  Emission   Inventories,  source  sur-
       veillance, reports.
BO.26  Legal  authority.
60.27  Actions by the  Administrator.
CO.28  Plan revisions by the State.
60.29  Plan revisions by the Administrator.
    •       »       »       »      •
APPENDIX  D—REQUIRED EMISSION  INVENTORY
             INFORMATION

  2. The authority citation at  the end ot
the table of sections for Part CO is re-
vised  to read as follows:
  AUTHORITY: Sees. Ill and 114 ot the .Clean
Air Act. as amended by sec. 4 (a) of Pub. L.
91-604, 84 Stat.  )678  (42 U.S.C.  1857C-G,
1857C-9).  Subpnrt B  also Issued  under sec.
S01(&)  of tlie Clean Air Act. as amended by
sec. 16(cH2>  of  Pub.  L.  91-604,  84 stftt.
1713 (42 U.S.C. 1857g).

  3.  Section  60.1 is revised to  read as
follows:

§60.1   Appliraliilii.i.

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

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

  Subpart B—Adoption andSubmittal of
   State Plans for Designated Facilities

§60.20  Applicability.

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

§ 60.21  Urfiniiions.

  Terms used  but not  defined in this
subpart  shall  have  the meaning  given
them in  the Act and  in subpart A:
  (a) "Designated pollutant" means any
air pollutant,  emissions of  which are
subject to a standard of performance for
new stationary sources but for which  air
quality criteria have not been  issued,
and which is not included on  E, list pub-
lished under section 108 (a)  or  section
112(b) (1) (A) of the Act.
  (b)  "Designated  facility" means any
existing  facility (see 5 60.2(aa))  which
emits a designated pollutant and which
would be subject to n standard of per-
formance for that pollutant if the exist-
ing facility were an affected facility (see
1 60.2(e)l.
  (c) "Plan"  means  a plan under sec-
lion lll(d)  of thp Act which establishes
emission standards for designated pol-
lutants  from  designated  facilities and
provides  for  the implementation and
enforcement, of such emission standards.
  (d) "Applicable plan" means the plan,
or most recent  revision thereof,  which
has  been approved under  § C0.27(bi  or
promulgated under 5 G0.27(d).
  (c) "Emission   guideline"  means   a
guideline set forth in subpart  C of this
part, or in  a  final guideline  document
published under  560.22(a<, which re-
flects the degree of  emission  reduction
achievable through the application of the
best system  of emission reduction which
(taking  into account the  cost of such
reduction)  the  Administrator  has de-
termined has  been  adequately demon-
strated  for designated facilities.
  (f) "Emission   standard"  means   n
legally  enforceable   regulation  setting
forth an allowable rate of emissions into
the  atmosphere,  or  prescribing equip-
ment specifications for control of air pol-
lution emissions.
  (g) "Compliance schedule"  means  a
legnlly  enforceable schedule  specifying
a date or dates by which a source or cate-
gory or sources must comply with specific
emission standards contained  in a plan
or with  any increments of progress to
achieve such compliance.
   "Increments of  progress" means
steps to  achieve compliance which must
be taken by an owner or operator of a
designated facility, Including:
  fl) Submittal  of a final  control plan
for the  designated facility to the appro-
priate air pollution control agency;
  (2) Awarding  of contracts  for emis-
sion control systems or for process modi-
fications, or issuance of orders for the
purchase of component parts  to accom-
plish emission control or process modi-
'fication.
  (3) Initiation of on-sitc  construction
or installation of emission control equip-
ment or process change:
  (4) Completion of  on-sitc  construc-
tion or  installation  of emission control
equipment or process change; and
  (5) Final compliance.
  (i> "Region" means an air qnnlity con-
trol  region designated under section 107
of the Act and described in Part  81 of
this chapter.
  (j) "Local  agency" means   any local
governmental agency.
^ 60.22   I'ulilioilioM  of guideline  iloru-
     mnils, omission ^imlrliiu**, :m Information on the degree of emis-
sion  reduction which is achievable with
each  system, together with information
on the costs and environmental effects of
applying each system  to designated fa-
cilities.
  i4) Incremental periods of time nor-
mally expected  to be  necessary for the
design, installation, and startup of iden-
tified control systems.
  <5) An emission guideline that reflects
the  application of the best  system of
emission reduction (considering the  cost
of such reduction) that has  beeii ade-
quately demonstrated for designated fa-
cilities, and the time within which com-
pliance with emission standards of equiv-
alent stringency can  bo achieved.  The
Administrator will specify different emis-
sion  guidelines  or compliance times or
both for different sizes, types, and classes
of desifjnrUt'd  facilities  when  costs of
control, physical limitations, peofiraphl-
cal location, or similar factors make sub-
calepori/ntion appropriate.
  'G> Such other available information
as the  Administrator determines  may
contribute to the formulation of State
plans.
  '(•i Except as  provided  in paragraph
(d> ' D of this seel ion, the emission guide-
lines  and compliance  limes  referred to
in paragraph il:'(5> of this section  will
be proposed for comment upon  publica-
tion  of the  draft guideline document,
and after consideration of comments will
be promulgated in Subpart C of this part
with  such  modifications  as may be  ap-
propriate.
  UP <1>  If the Administrator determines
that a designated pollutant may cause
or contribute to endanp.cnucnt of public
welfare, but that adverse effects on pub-
lic health have not  been  demonstrated,
he will include (.lie. determination in the
draft guideline, document and in the FED-
ERAL RrnrsTEH  notice of its availability.
Except as provided in  paragraph (d) <2>
of this section, paragraph  of  this
section  shall be  inapplicable  in  such
cases.
  (2i If the Administrator determines nt
any time on the basis of new information
that a prior determination  under para-
graph (d)(l)  of this section  is incorrect
or no longer  correct, he will publish
notice of  the determination In the FED-
EUAL REGISTER, revise the guideline docu-
ment as necessary under paragraph  (a>
of this section, and propose and promul-
gate emission guidelines and compliance
times  under  paragraph  (c)   of  this
section.
                              FEDERAL REGISTER. VOt. 40.  NO.  222—MONDAY,  NOVEMBER 17, 1975


                                                     IV-109
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                       53&17
§ 60.23  Adoption and submitlal of Slntc
     plans; public hearings.
  (a) (1) Within nJne months after  no-
tice  of the availability of a final guide-
line  document is published under § 60.22
(a), each State shall adopt and submit
to the Administrator, in accordance with
5 60.4, a plan for the control of the desig-
nated pollutant to which  the guideline
document applies.
  (2) Within nine months after notice of
the  availability of a final revised guide-
line  document Is published as provided
in § 60.22(d)<2), each State shall adopt
and  submit  to the Administrator  any
plan revision necessary to meet the re-
quirements of this subpart.
  (b> If no designated facility is located
within a State, the Stale shall submit
a letter of certification to that  effect to
the  Administrator within the time spe-
cified in paragraph (a)  of this section.
Such certification shall exempt the State
from the requirements of  this subpart
for  that designated pollutant.
  Cc)(l)  Except  as provided  In para-
fO-aphs tc) (2) and (cH3) of this section,
the  State shall, prior to the adoption of
any  plan  or revision  thereof,  conduct
one  or more public hearings within the
State on such plan or plan revision.
   (2)  No hearing shall be required for
any change to an increment of  progress
in an approved compliance schedule un-
loss the change is  likely to cause the
facility to be unable to comply  with the
final compliance  date  In the schedule.
   (3)  No  hearing shall be  required on
an  emission standard In effect prior  to
the  effective date of this subpart if it was
adopted after a  public hearing  and  Is
at least as stringent as the corresponding
emission guideline specified In the appli-
cable  guideline  document   published
under § C0.22(a).
   fd) Any hearing required  by para-
 graph  (c) of  this section shall be  held
 only after reasonable notice. Notice shall
be given at least 30  days prior  to the
 date of such hearing and shall include:
   (1) Notification  to  the  public  by
 prominently advertising  the date, time,
 and place of such hearing in each region
 affected;
   (2) Availability, at the time  of public
 announcement, of each proposed plan or
 revision thereof for public inspection in
 at least one location in each region  to
 which It will apply;
   (3) Notification to the Administrator;
   (4) Notification to each local air pol-
 lution control agency in each region to
 which the plan or revision will apply; and
   (5) In  the  case  of  an Interstate re-
 gion, notification to any other  State in-
 cluded in  the region.
   (e) The State shall prepare and retain,
 lor a minimum of  2 years, a record of
 each hearing for inspection by any inter-
 ested party. The record shall contain, as
 a minimum, a list of witnesses together
 with the  text of each presentation.
   (f> The State shall submit  with the
 plan or revision:
    (1) Certification that each hearing re-
 quired by paragraph (c)  of this section
  waa held  in accordance  with the notice
required  by paragraph  (d)  of  this sec-
tion: and
  (2)  A list of witnesses and their orga-
nizational affiliations, if any, appearing
at the hearing and a brief written sum-
mary  of each  presentation or written
submission.
  (g)  Upon  written  application  by  a
State agency (through the appropriate
Regional Office), the Administrator may
approve State procedures designed to in-
sure public participation in the matters
for which hearings are required and pub-
lic notification of the opportunity to par-
ticipate if, in the judgment of the Ad-
ministrator,  the  procedures,  although
different from  the requirements of this
subpart.  in  fact  provide for  adequate
notice to and participation of the public.
The Administrator may impose such con-
ditions  on  his  approval as he deems
necessary  Procedures  approved  under
this section shall be deemed  to satisfy the
requirements of  this subpart regarding
procedures  for  public  hearings.
§ 60.24  Emission standards nnd compli-
     ance schedules, ,
   (a) Each  plan shall  include  emission
standards and compliance schedules.
   (b)(l> Emission standards shall pre-
scribe allowable rates of emissions except
when it is clearly impracticable.  Such
cases will  be identified in the guideline
documents  issued under  § 60.22. Where
emission standards  prescribing equip-
ment specifications  are established, the
plan  shall,  to the degree  possible, set
forth the emission reductions achievable
by implementation of such specifications,
and may permit compliance by the use-
of  equipment determined by  the State
to be equivalent to that prescribed.
   (2) Test methods and procedures for
determining compliance with  the emis-
sion standards shall be specified in the
plan. Methods other than those specified
In Appendix A to this part may be speci-
fied in the plan if shown to  be equivalent
or alternative  methods  as defined  in
 § 60.2 (t) and (u).
   (3)  Emission standards shall apply  to
all designated facilities within  the State.
A plan may contain emission  standards
adopted by  local jurisdictions  provided
 that the standards are enforceable by
 the State.
   (c)  Except as provided in paragraph
 (f) of tills section,  where the Adminis-
 trator has determined  that a designated
 pollutant may cause or contribute to en-
 dangerment of  public health, emission
 standards shall be no less stringent than
 the corresponding emission guidelinefs)
 specified in subpart C of this part, and
 final compliance shall be required as ex-
 peditiously  as practicable  but no later
 than the  compliance times specified  in
 Subpart C.
   (d)  Where the Administrator has de-
 termined  that  a designated  pollutant
may cause or contribute to endangerment
 of public  welfare but that adverse ef-
 fects on public health have  not been
 demonstrated, States  may balance the
 emission guidelines, compliance times,
 and other Information provided in the
 applicable  guideline document against
other factors of public concern in estab-
lishing emission standards, compliance
schedules,  and  variances. Appropriate
consideration shall be given to the fac-
tors specified in  § 60.22CW and to infor-
mation presented  at the  public hear-
ing (s) conducted under § 60.23(c).
  (e>  (1) Any compliance schedule ex-
tending more than 12 months from the
date required for  submittal of the  plan
shall  include legally  enforceable incre-
ments of prepress  to achieve compliance
for each designated facility or category
of facilities. Increments of progress shall
include,  where  practicable, each incre-
ment of  progress specified in § 60.21 (h)
and shall  include such additional in-
crements of progress as may be necessary
to permit close and effective supervision
of  progress toward final compliance.
   (2> A  plan may provide that  compli-
ance schedules  for individual sources or
categories  of sources will be formulated
after plan  submittal. Any such schedule
shall  be  the subject of  a public hearing
held  according  to § 60.23  and shall  be
submitted to the Administrator within 60
days  after the date of adoption of the
schedule but In no case later than the
date prescribed for submittal of the first
semiannual report required by § 60.25(e).
   (f)  On a case-by-case basis for par-
ticular designated facilities, or classes of
facilities, States may provide for the ap-
plication  of less  stringent  emission
standards or longer compliance schedules
than those otherwise required by para-
graph fc)  of this  section, provided that
the State  demonstrates with respect to
each such  facility  Cor class of facilities) :
   (1)  Unreasonable cost of control re-
sulting from plant age,  location, or basic
process design;
   (2) Physical  impossibility of installing
necessary  control  equipment; or
   (3) Other factors specific to the facility
 (or class of facilities) that make applica-
tion of a less stringent  standard or final
compliance time significantly more rea-
sonable.
   (g)  Nothing  in this  subpart  shall ba
construed  to preclude any State or po-
litical subdivision  thereof from adopting
or enforcing  (1)  emission  standards
more stringent  than emission guidelines
 specified In subpart C of this part or in
 applicable  guideline documents  or (2)
 compliance  schedules   requiring  final
 compliance  at earlier times than  those
specfied in subpart C  or in  applicable
 guideline documents.

§'60.25  Emission  inventories,  source
     surveillance, reports.
    (a) Each plan shall include an inven-
 tory of all designated facilities, including
 emission data for the designated pollut-
 ants  and information related to emissions
 as specified  in Appendix D to this part.
 Such data shall  be summarized in the
 plan, and emission rates  of designated
 pollutants from designated facilities shall
 be correlated  with applicable emissioa
 standards. As used in this subpart, "cor-
 related" means presented in such a man-
 ner as to show the relationship between
 measured  or estimated  amounts of emis-
 sions and  the amounts  of such emissions
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 222—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1975
                                                      IV-110
-------
53348
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
 allowable  under   applicable  emission
 standards.
   (b) Each plan shall provide for moni-
 toring the status of compliance with ap-
 plicable  emission standards. Each plan
 shall, as a minimum, provide for:
   (1) Legally enforceable procedures for
 requiring owners or operators  of  desig-
 nated facilities to maintain records and
 periodically report to the State informa-
 tion on  the  nature and amount of emis-
 sions from  such facilities, and'or such
 other information as may be necessary
 to enable the State to determine whether
 such facilities are In compliance with ap-
 plicable portions of the plan.
   (2) Periodic inspection and, when ap-
 plicable, testing of  designated  facilities.
   Cc) Each plan shall  provide that in-
 formation obtained  by the State  under
 paragraph  (b)  of this section shall be
 correlated  with  applicable   emission
 standards  (see  5 00.25fa»  and  made
 available to  the general public.
   (d) The provisions referred to in par-
 agraphs  (b) and (c)  of this section stiall
 be specifically identified. Copies of such
 provisions shall be submitted  with the
 plan unless:
   (1) They have been approved as por-
 tions of a preceding plan submitted un-
 der this subpart or  as portions  of an
 implementation  plan  submitted  under
 section 110 of the Act. and
   12) The State demonstrates:
   (i)  That  the provisions are applicable
 to the designated poliutant(s) for  which
 the plan is submitted, and
   (11) That the requirements of  5 60.26
 are met.
   (e) The State shall submit reports on
 pfogress in plan enforcement to the Ad-
 ministrator  on a semiannual basis, com-
 mencing with the first full report period
 after approval of a plan or after promul-
 gation of a plan by the Administrator.
 The semiannual periods are January 1-
 June 30 and July 1-Dccember 31. Infor-
 mation  required under  this paragraph
 shall be  included In the semiannual re-
 ports required by 5 51.7 of this chapter.
   (f)  Each progress report shall include:
   (1) Enforcement   actions   initiated
 against  designated  facilities during the
 reporting period,  under  any  emission
 standard  or compliance schedule of the
 plan.
   (2) Identification  of  the achievement
 of any increment of progress required by
 the applicable plan during the reporting
 period.
   (3)  Identification of designated facili-
 ties that  have ceased operation during
 the reporting period.
   '4) Submission of emission inventory
data as  described  in paragraph  (a) of
this section  for designated facilities that
were not in operation at the time of plan
development but began operation during
the reporting period.
  '5)  Submission of additional data as
necessary to update the information sub-
 mitted under paragraph (a) of this sec-
 tion or in previous progress reports.
   (6) Submission of copies  of technical
reports  on  all performance  testing on
designated  facilities  conducted   under
 paragraph (b) (2) of this  section,  com-
 plete with concurrently recorded process
 data.

 § 60.26   Legal authority.
   fa)  Each  plan shall  show  that the
 State  has legal  authority to carry out
 the plan, including authority to:
   (1)  Adopt  emission  standards   and
 compliance schedules applicable to des-
 ignated facilities.
   (2)  Enforce applicable  laws,  regula-
 tions,  standards, and compliance sched-
 ules, and seek injunctive relief.
   (3)  Obtain information necessary to
 determine whether designated facilities
 are in compliance with applicable  laws,
 regulations, standards,  and  compliance
 schedules, including authority to require
 recordkeeping and  to make  Inspections
 and conduct tests of designated facilities.
   (4)  Require owners  or  operators of
 designated facilities to install, maintain,
 and use emission monitoring  devices and
 to make periodic reports to the State on
 the nature and  amounts  of emissions
 from  such facilities;  also  authority for
 the State  to make such data available to
 the public as  reported and as correlated
 with applicable emission standards.
   (b)  The provisions of law or  regula-
 tions which the State  determines provide
 the authorities required by this section
 shall be specifically identified. Copies of
 such laws or regulations shall  be  sub-
 mitted with the plan unless:
   fl)   They have been approved as por-
 tions   oC  a  preceding  plan  submitted
 under  this subpart or as portions of an
 implementation   plan submitted under
 section 110 of the Act, and
   (2)   The State demonstrates that the
 laws or regulations  are applicable to the
 designated pollutant(s)  for  which  the
 plan is submitted.
    and (4) of this section
 may be delegated to the  State under sec-
 tion 114 of the Act.
   (d)  A  State   governmental   agency
 other than the State  air pollution  con-
 trol agency may be  assigned responsibil-
 ity for carrying  out a portion of a.  plan
 if  the  plan demonstrates to the Admin-
 istrator's satisfaction that the State gov-
 ernmental agency has the legal authority
 necessary  to carry out that portion of the
 plan.
   (e)  The State  inny authorize a local
agency to carry  out a plan,  or portion
 thereof, within the  local agency's juris-
 diction if  the  plan  demonstrates to the
Administrator's   satisfaction   that   the
 local agency has the legal authority nec-
 essary to  implement the plan or portion
 thereof, and that the authorization  does
not relieve  the  State of  responsibility
 under  the Act for carrying out the plan
 or portion thereof.
 § f>0.27  Actions by  llic Aclnuni^rulor.
  (a)  The Administrator may, whenever
he determines necessary, extend the pe-
 riod for submission of any plan or plan
 revision or portion thereof.
   (b)  After receipt of a plan or plan re-
 vision, the Administrator will propose the
 plan or  revision for  approval  or dis-
 approval. The Administrator will, within
 four months  after the date  required for
 submission of a plan  or  plan  revision,
 approve or disapprove such plan or revi-
 sion or each portion thereof.
     The State fails to submit a plan
 within the time prescribed;
   (2)  The State fails to submit a  plan
 revision required by § 60.23(a) (2)  within
 the time prescribed; or
   (3) The Administrator disapproves the
 State plan or plan revision or any por-
 tion thereof,  as  unsatisfactory because
 the requirements of this subpart have not
 been met.
   id)  The Administrator will, within six
 months after  the date required for sub-
 mission  of a plan  or  plan  revision,
 promulgate the regulations proposed un-
 der paragraph (c) of this section with
 .such modifications as may be approprinte
 unless,  prior  to such promulgation, the
 State has adopted and submitted a plan
 or "plan revision  which the Administra-
 tor determines to be approvable.
   iel'1)  Excent as provided  in para-
 graph  (e> (2)  of this section, regulations
 proposed and promulgated by the Admin-
 istrator under this section will prescribe
 emission  standards  of the same  strin-
 gency  as  the corresponding  emission
 guidclincis) specified in the  final guide-
 line document published under 5 G0.22(a i
 and will  require final  compliance with
 such standards as expeditiously as prac-
 ticable but no later than the times speci-
 fied in the guideline document.
   <2) Upon application by the owner or
 operator of a designated facility to which
 regulations proposed  and promulgated
 under  this section will  apply, the  Ad-
 ministrator may  provide for the  appli-
 cation of less stringent emission stand-
 ards or longer compliance schedules than
 those otherwise  required by this section
 in accordance with the criteria specified
 in § 60.24.
   *f)  If a State failed to hold a public
 hearing  as required by § 60.23, the
 Administrator will provide opportunity
 for n hearing within the State prior to
 promulgation  of a plan under paragraph
 (d) of this section.

 § 60.28  1'lan r.-visiotis by lb«- Suite.
   ia)  Plan revisions  which have  the
effect of delaying compliance with  ap-
plicable  emission  standards  or  incre-
ments of progress or of establishing Icsf
stringent  emission  standards  shall  be
submitted  lo  the Administrator  within
60 days after adoption in accordance with
the procedures and requirements appli-
cable to development and submission of
the original plan.
  (b) More stringent emission standards.
or orders which have  the  effect  of ac-
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 222—MONDAY,  NOVEMBER 17,  1975
                                                    IV-111
-------
                                                RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                            533-19
celerating compliance, may be submitted
to the  Administrator as plan revisions
in accordance with the procedures  and
requirements applicable to development
and submission  of  the original plan.
   (c) A revision of a plan, or any portion
thereof, shall not be considered part of
an applicable plan until approved by the
Administrator in  accordance with  this
subpart,
§ 60.29   I'lun revisions  )>y  tlic Adminis-
     trator.
   After notice and  opportunity for pub-
lic hearing  in each  affected State,  the
Administrator may revise  any provision
of an applicable plan  if:
   (a) The provision was promulgated by
the Administrator, and
   (b)  The plan, as revised, will be con-
sistent with the Act and with the require-
ments of this subpart,
   5. Part 60 is  amended by adding  Ap-
pendix D as .follows:
APPENDIX D—REQUIRED  EMISSION INVENTORY
              INFORMATION
   (a) Completed NEDS point source form(s)
for the  entire plant containing the  desig-
nated facility, Including Information on the
applicable criteria pollutants. If data  con-
cerning the  plant are already In NEDS,  only
that Information must be submitted which
Is necessary  to  update  the existing NEDS
record for that plant. Plant and point Identi-
fication codes for  NEDS records shall  cor-
respond  to   those  previously assigned  In
NEDS; for plants not  In NEDS, these codes
shall  be  obtained from  the  appropriate
Regional Ofnce.
   (b) Accompnnying the basic NEDS Infor-
mation  shall be the following Information
on each designated facility:
   (1) The state and  county Identification
codes,  as well as  the complete  plant  and
point Identification codes of the  designated
facility  In NEDS. (The codes are needed  to
match these data with the NEDS data.)
   (2)A description of the designated facility
Including, where  appropriate:
  (I) Process name.
   (II)  Description  and   quantity  of  each
product (maximum per hour and average per
year).
   (Ill) Description  and quantity of  raw  ma-
terials handled for each  product (maximum
per hour and average per year).
  (Iv) Types of fuels burned, quantities  and
characteristics   (maximum   and   average
quantities per hour, average per  year).
   (v)  Description and quantity  of  solid
wastes generated  (per year)  and method of
disposal.
   (3) A description of the air pollution con-
trol equipment in use or proposed to control
the designated pollutant,  Including:
   (I)  Verbal description of equipment.
   (11) Optimum control efficiency. In percent.
This  shall  be a  combined efficiency when
more  than  one device operate In series. The
method of  control efficiency determination
shall  be Indicated  (e.g..  design efficiency,
measured efficiency, estimated efficiency).
   (ill) Annual average  control efficiency. In
percent, taking Into account control equip-
ment down time.  This  shall  be  a combined
efficiency when more than one device operate
In series.
   (4)  An estimate of the designated pollu-
tant emissions from the designated  facility
(maximum  per hour and average per year).
The method of emission determination shall
also be  specified  (e.g..  stack test, material
balance, emission  factor).

(Sees. in. 114. and 301  of the Clean Air Act,
as amended by sec. 4(a) of Pub. L.  91-G04.
84 Stnt.  1678, and by sec. 15(c) (2) of Pub. L.
91-604.  84  Stat.  2713  (42  U.S.C.  3857C-6,
1857c-9, 1857g»

  [FRDoc.75-30611 Filed H-H-75;8:45 am)
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40. NO. Ill—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1975
                                                         IV-112
-------
   58416

2 2  Title 40—Protection of Environment
       CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION AGENCY
        SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
                |FRL402-8]

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

facility which  undergoes a modification
within the meaning of the Act and these
regulations becomes an affected facility.
However, generally speaking, the distinc-
tion  between  "affected  facilities"  and
"existing facilities" depends on the date
of construction. The terms are Intended
to be the direct regulatory counterparts
of the  statutory  definitions of "new
source" and "existing source" appearing
in section 111 of the Act.
  "Designated facilities"  form  a sub-
category of "existing facilities." A "des-
ignated  facility"  is an  existing  facility
which emits a "designated  pollutant,"
i.e., a pollutant which is neither  a haz-
ardous pollutant, as denned by  section
112 of the Act, nor a pollutant subject to
national ambient air quality standards.
The  term "designated facilities," how-
ever, has no special relevance to the issue
of modification.

 DEFINITION OF "CAPITAL EXPENDITURE"
  Several commentators argued that the
proposed definition of "capital expendi-
ture," as applicable to the exemption for
increasing the production rate of  an ex-
isting facility  in  § 60.14(e) (2), was  too
vague.   The   regulations  promulgated
herein correct this deficiency by incorpo-
rating by reference and  by requiring the
application of the  procedure contained
in Internal Revenue Service Publication
534, which is available from any IRS of-
fice. The procedure set forth in IRS Pub-
lication  534  is  relatively  straightfor-
ward. First, the  total cost of increasing
the production or operating rate must be
determined. All expenditures necessary to
increasing  the  facility's operating  rate
must be included in this total. However.
for purposes of § 60.14(e) (2) this amount
must not  be reduced by any "excluded
additions," as defined in IRS Publication
534,  as would be done for  tax purposes.
Next, the  facility's basis  (usually  its
cost), as defined by Section 1012  of  the
Internal Revenue  Code, must be  deter-
mined. If the product of the appropriate
"annual asset guideline repair allowance
percentage" tabulated in Publication  534
and  the facility's basis exceeds the  cost
of increasing  the  operating rate,   the
change will not be  treated as a modifica-
tion. Conversely,  if the cost of making
the change is more than the above prod-
uct and the emissions have increased, the
change will be treated as a modification.
  The advantage of adopting the  proce-
dure in IRS Publication 534 is that firm
and  precise guidance is  provided as to
what constitutes a capital expenditure.
The procedure involves concepts and In-
formation which are available to all own-
ers and  operators  and with which they
are familiar, and it is the Administrator's
opinion  that it adequately  responds  to
the complaints  of vagueness made  in
comments.

    NOTIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION

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

   The proposed regulations listed emis-
sion factors as  one possible method to
be used in determining whether a facility
has increased  its emissions. Emission
factors  have  two  major  advantages.
First, they are inexpensive to use. Second.
they  may  be applied prospectively, i.e.,
they can be used in some cases to  deter-
mine whether a particular change  will in-
crease a facility's emissions before the
change is implemented. This is important
to owners  or operators  since they can
thereby obtain  advance  notice  of  the
consequences of  proposed changes they
arc planning prior to commitment to  a
particular course of action. Emission fac-
tors do  not,  however, provide .results as
precise as other methods, such as actual
stack  testing.  Nevertheless,  in   many
cases the emission consequences of a pro-
posed change can be reliably predicted
by  the use of emission  factors. In such
cases, where emissions  will clcnrly in-
crease or will clearly not  increase. Ihe
Agency  will  rely primarily on  emission
factors. Only where the  resulting change
in emission rate is ambiguous, or  whore
a  dispute  arises  as  to  the  result,  ob-
tained by the use of emission factors, will
other methods be used.  Section 60.14
has been revised to reflect this policy.

       THE  "Bunsi.E CONCEPT"
  The phrase "bubble concept" has boon
used to refer to the trading off of emis-
sion increases from  one facility  under-
going n physical or operational change
with  emission reductions from another
facility, in order to achieve no  net in-
crease in tho amount of i\ny nir polhu-
:uit 'to which a .standard applies'  emit-
ted into the atmosphere by the stationary
source taken as a whole.
  Several commentators suggested that
the "bubble concept" be extended to cover
"new construction." Under the proposed
regulations, the "bubble concept" could
be utilized  to offset  emission increases
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  40, NO. 242—TUESDAY, DECEMBER  16, 1975
                                                      IV-113
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        58117
from a facility undergoing a physical or
operational  change  (as   distinguished
from a  "new  facility")  at a lower eco-
nomic cost than would arise If the facil-
ity  undergoing the change were  to  be
considered by EPA as being  modified
within the meaning of section 111 of the
Act and consequently required to meet
standards of  performance. Under  the
suggested approach a new facility could
be added to an existing source without
having   to  meet  otherwise applicable
standards of performance, provided the
amount of any air pollutant (to which a
standard applies)   emitted  into  the
atmosphere by the  stationary  source
taken as a  whole  did  not Increase. If
adopted, this suggestion  could exempt
most new construction at existing sources
from having  to comply with otherwise
applicable  standards  ot  performance.
Such an Interpretation of  the section 111
provisions of the Act would grant a sig-
nificant and unfair economic advantage
to owners or operators of existing sources
replacing facilities with  new construc-
tion as compared to someone wishing to
construct an entirely new  source.
  If the bubble concept  were extended to
cover new construction, large sources of
air  pollution could avoid the application
of new source  performance standards in-
definitely, Such sources could  continu-
ally replace obsolete or worn out facili-
ties with new  facilities of  the same type.
If  the   same  emission  controls  were
adopted, no  overall  emission  increase
would result. In this manner, the source
could continue indefinitely without ever
being required to upgrade ah-  pollution
control systems to meet standards of per-
formance for new facilities. The Admin-
istrator interprets section 111 to require
that new producers of emissions be sub-
ject to  the  standards  whether  con-
structed at a new plant site or an exist-
ing  one.  Therefore, where a new facility
Is constructed, new source performance
standards must be met.  In situations in-
volving  physical or operational changes
to  an  existing  facility which  Increase
emissions from that  facility,  greater
flexibilty Is  permitted to  avoid the im-
position of large control costs if the pro-
jected  increase can  be offset  by  con-
trolling other  plant facilities.
  Several commentators argued  that  If
the  Administrator  adopted the  proposed
Interpretation  of  the  term "modifica-
tion", which would  consider a modifica-
tion to have occurred even if there was
only a  relatively minor  detectable emis-
sion rate increase (thus requiring appli-
cation of standards of performance), the
Administrator  would  in  effect prevent
owners or operators from implementing
physical or  operational changes  neces-
sary to switch from gas  and oil to  coal in
comport with the President's policy  of
reducing gas  and oil  consumption. The
Administrator has concluded that if such
situations exist, they will be relatively
rare and, in any event, will be peculiar
to the  group  of facilities covered by  a
particular  standard   of   performance
rather  than to all  facilities in general.
Therefore, the Administrator has further
concluded that It would be more  appro-
priate  to consider such  circumstances
and possible avenues of relief in connec-
tion with the promulgation of or amend-
ment to particular standards of perform-
ance  rather  than through  the amend-
ment of  the  general provisions  of 40
CPR Part 60.
  Where the use of the bubble concept
is elected  by an owner or operator, some
guarantee  is  necessary  to  insure  that
emissions  do not  subsequently  increase
above the level present, before the  physi-
cal or operational change  in  question.
For example, reducing a facility's oper-
ating rate Is  a permissible means of off-
setting emission increases from another
facility undergoing a physical or opera-
tional change. If the exemption provided
by  § 60.14(e) <2) as promulgated herein
were  subsequently used  to  increase the
first facility's operating rate back  to the
prior level, the intent of the Act  would
be  circumvented  and the compliance
measures  previously  adopted would be
nullified. Therefore, in those cases  where
utilization  of  the  exemptions  under
§ 60.14(e)  (2), (3), or  (4) as  promulgated
herein would effectively negate the com-
pliance measures originally  adopted, use
of those exemptions will not be permitted.
  One limitation placed on utilization of
the "bubble  concept" by the  proposed
regulation was that emission reductions
could be credited only if achieved at an
"existing" or "affected" facility. The pur-
pose of tills requirement was to limit the
"bubble concept" to those facilities  which
could be source tested by EPA reference
methods. One commentator pointed out
that some facilities other than "existing"
or  "affected" facilities (I.e., facilities of
the type for which no  standards have
been  promulgated) lend themselves to
accurate emission  measurement. There-
lore,  5 60.Hid) has been revised to  per-
mit emission  reductions to be  credited
from  all facilities whose emissions  can
be measured by reference, equivalent, or
alternative methods, as defined  in § 60.2
(s), (t), and  (u). In addition, when a
facility which  cannot be tested by  any
of these methods is permanently closed,
the regulations have been revised to per-
mit emission rate reductions from such
closures to be used to offset emission  rate
increases  if methods  such  as  emission
factors clearly  show, to the  Administra-
tor's satisfaction that the reduction off-
sets any increase. The  regulation does
not allow facilities which cannot be  tested
by any of these methods to  reduce their
production as a means of reducing emis-
sions  to offset emission rate Increases be-
cause establishing allowable emissions for
such  facilities  and monitoring  compli-
ance  to insure that the  allowable  emis-
sions  are  not  exceeded  would  be very
difficult and  even  impossible in  many
cases.
  Also, under  the proposed regulations
applicable  to the "bubble concept," ac-
tual emission  testing  was the only per-
missible method for demonstrating that
there has  been no increase  in  the total
emission rate of any pollutant  to  which
a standard applies  from  all  facilities
within the  stationary source.  Several
commentators  correctly  argued that if
methods  such  as  emission  factors  are
sufficiently accurate to determine  emis-
sion rates under  other sections  of the
regulation [i.e. §60.14(b)l. they  should
be adequate for the purposes of utiliza-
tion of the bubble concept  Thus, the
regulations have  been revised to  permit
the use of emission factors  in those cases
where it can be demonstrated to the Ad-
ministrator's satisfaction that they will
clearly show  that total emissions will
or will not increase. Where the Admin-
istrator is not convinced of  the reliability
of emission factors in a particular  case,
other methods will be required.
          O%VNERSHIP CHANGE
  The regulation has  been amended  by
adding § 60.14(e)  (G) which states that a
change in ownership or  relocating  a
source does not by itself bring a source
under these modification regulations.
           RECONSTRUCTION
  Several commentators questioned the
Agency's  legal   authority  to propose
standards  of  performance  on  recon-
structed sources.  Many commentators
further believed that the Agency is at-
tempting  to delete the emission increase
requirement from the definition of modi-
fication. The Agency's actual Intent Is to
prevent circumvention of the law.  Sec-
tion 111 of the Act requires compliance
with  standards of performance  in two
cases,  new construction and modifica-
tion. The  reconstruction provision is in-
tended to apply where an existing facil-
ity's components are replaced to such  an
extent that  it  is technologically  and
economically  feasible for  the  recon-
structed facility to comply with the ap-
plicable standards of performance.  In
the case of an entirely new facility the
proper time to apply the best adequately
demonstrated control technology is when
the facility is  originally constructed.  As
explained in  the  preamble to the  pro-
posed  regulation,  the purpose of the re-
construction  provision is  to recognize
that replacement of many of the com-
ponents of a facility can be substantially
equivalent to  totally  replacing it at the
end of Its useful  life  with  a newly  con-
structed  affected  facility.  For existing
facilities which substantially retain their
character as existing facilities, applica-
tion of best  adequately  demonstrated
control technology is considered  appro-
priate when any physical or operational
change Is made which causes an Increase
in emissions to the atmosphere (this is
modification). Thus, the criteria for "re-
construction" are independent froru the
criteria for "modification."
  Sections 60.14 and 60.15 set up the pro-
cedures and criteria to be used in making
the determination  to apply  best  ade-
quately demonstrated control technology
to  existing facilities  to  which  some
changes have been made.
  Under  the proposed regulations, the
replacement of a  substantial portion  of
nn  existing facility's components con-
stituted reconstruction. Many commen-
tators  questioned  the meaning of "sub-
stantial portion."  After considering the
comments  and the vagueness of  this
term,  the  Agency decided  to revise the
proposed  reconstruction provisions  to
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 242—TUESDAY.  DECEMBER 16. 197$
                                                     IV-114
-------
58-118
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
better clarify to owners or operators what
actions they must take and what action
the Administrator will take. Section 60.15
of  the regulations as revised specifies
that reconstruction occurs upon replace-
ment of components If the fixed capital
cost of the new components exceeds 50
percent of the  fixed capital cost that
would be  required to construct a com-
parable entirely  new facility and It Is
technologically and  economically  feasi-
ble for  the facility  after  the replace-
ments  to comply with  the  applicable
standards of performance. The 50 per-
cent replacement criteria  is  designed
merely to  key the  notification to  the
Administrator; it Is  not an  independent
basis for  the Administrator's determina-
tion. The term "fixed capital cost"  is de-
fined as the capital needed to provide all
the depreciable  components and  Is in-
tended to Include such things as the costs
of engineering, purchase, and Installa-
tion of major process equipment, con-
tractors' fees,  instrumentation, auxiliary
facilities, buildings, and structures. Costs
associated with the purchase and instal-
lation of  air pollution control equipment
(e.g., baghouses,  electrostatic precipita-
tors, scrubbers, etc.) are not considered
In estimating  the fixed capital cost of a
comparable entirely  new facility unless
that control equipment  is  required as
part of  the  process (e.g.,  product re-
covery).
  The revised 5 60.15 leaves the final de-
termination with the  Administrator as
to when  It Is technologically  and eco-
nomically feasible to  comply  with the
applicable standards  of  performance.
Further  clarification  and  definition  Is
not possible because the spectrum  of re-
placement projects that will take place
In the  future at existing facilities is so
broad that  It is  not possible to be anv
more specific.  Section 60.15 sets forth
the criteria which the Administrator will
use In making  his  determination.  For
example,  if  the estimated  life  of the
facility  after  the replacements  Is  sig-
nifllcantly less than the estimated life
of a new facility, the replacement may
not be considered reconstruction.  If the
equipment being replaced does not emit
or cause  an emission of an air pollutant,
It may  be determined that controlling
the  components that  do emit  air  pol-
lutants  Is not  reasonable  considering
cost, and standards  of performance for
new sources should not  be applied. If
there Is  insufficient  space after the re-
placements at an existing facility  to in-
stall the necessary air pollution control
system to comply with the standards of
performance,  then reconstruction  would
not  be determined  to  have  occurred.
Finally, the Administrator will consider
all technical  and economic limitations
the facility may have In  complying with
the applicable standards of  performance
after the proposed replacements.
  While   5 60.15  expresses   the  basic
Agency policy and interpretation regard-
Ing  reconstruction,  Individual subparts
may refine and  delimit  the concept as
applied  to   Individual   categories  of
facilities.
       RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR
            DETERMINATION
  Section 60.5  has been  revised to in-
dicate  that the Administrator will make
a determination  of  whether  an action
by an  owner or operator constitutes re-
construction  within  the  meaning  of
§ 60.15. Also, in  response to a public com-
ment, a new 5 60.5(b) has been added to
indicate the Administrator's intention to
respond to requests  for determinations
within 30 days  of receipt of the request.
           STATISTICAL  TEST

  Appendix C of the regulation incorpo-
rates a statistical procedure  for deter-
mining whether an emission increase has
occurred. Several individuals commented
on the  procedure as proposed.  After con-
sidering  all these comments and  con-
ducting further study into  the subject,
the Administrator has  determined that
a statistical  procedure is substantially
superior to a method comparing average
emissions, and  that  no other statistical
procedure is  clearly  superior  to the one
adopted  (Student's t test). A more de-
tailed analysis of this issue can be found
In EPA's responses  to the  comments
mentioned previously.
  Effective date.  These regulations arc
effective  on  December 16,  1975.  Since
they represent a clarification of  the
Agency's  existing enforcement  policy,
good cause is found for not delaying the
effective  date,  as  required  by 5 TJ.S.C.
553(d)  (3). However,  the regulations will,
In effect, apply retroactively to any en-
forcement activity now in progress since
they do reflect present Agency policy.
(Sections 111,  114. and 301 of  the Glenn Air
Act. as  amended (42 U.S.C. 1857c-C. 1857C-9.
and 1857g))

  Dated: December 8, 1975.
                RUSSEI.L E. TRAIN.
                      Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. The table of sections is amended by
adding 55 60.14 and  60.15 and Appendix
C as follows:
       Subpart A—General Provisions
    •      •      •       •      •
Sec.
60.14  Modification.
60.15  Reconstruction.
Appendix  C—Determination  of  Emission
  Rate Change.
  2. In { 60.2, paragraphs (di  and  (h)
are  revised and paragraphs  (na)  and
(bb) are added as follows:
§ 60.2  nrfiiiilioiis.
     •       *       »       •       •
  (d)  "Stationary source" means  any
building, structure, facility, or installa-
tion which  emits or  may emit  any air
pollutant and which contains any one or
combination of the following:
  (1) Affected facilities.
  (2) Existing facilities.
  (3) Facilities of the type for which no
standards have been promulgated In  this
part.
  (h) "Modification" means any physi-
cal change in, or change  in the method
of operation of, an existing facility which
increases the amount of any air pollutant
(to which  a standard  applies)  emitted
Into the atmosphere by that  facility or
which results in the omission  of any air
pollutant (to which  a standard applies)
into  the   atmosphere  not   previously
emitted.
    *       •      *       «       «
  (aa)  "Existing facility" means,  with
reference to a stationary source, any ap-
paratus of the type for which a standard
is promulgated in this part, and the con-
struction or modification  of  which was
commenced before the  date of proposal
of  that standard;  or any   apparatus
which could be altered In  such a  way as
to be of that type.
  (bb) "Capital expenditure" means an
expenditure for a physical or operational
change  to an existing facility which ex-
ceeds the product of the applicable "an-
nual  asset  guideline  repair  allowance
percentage" specified In the latest edi-
tion of  Internal Revenue  Service Publi-
cation  534  and  the existing facility's
basis, as defined  by  section 1012 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
  3. Section G0.5 is  revised  to read as
follows:

§ 60.5   Drlrrmlnntion  of ronMrnrtion or
     mo d i (ioftl ioii,
  (a) When requested to do so by an
owner or  operator,  the  Administrator
will make  a determination of whether
action taken or Intended to be taken by
such owner or operator constitutes con-
struction (incltidiiiR reconstruction)  or
modification  or  the  commencement
thereof  within the meaning of this part.
  (b) The Administrator will respond to
any request for a determination under
paragraph  (a) of tills  section within 30
days of  receipt of such request.
  4. In  560.7.  paragraphs  (iO(l)  and
(a) (2)  are  revised,  and  paragraphs
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                                                               38119
rifically  exempted mirier an applicable
iubpart or in § 60.MIC) and the exemp-
tion is not denied under §60.14.
This notice shall be postmarked GO  days
or  f»B  soon as  practicable before  the
"hange  i-s commenced  and shall include
information describing the precise  na-
ture of the change, present and  proponed
emission  control  systems,  productive
raparity of the facility before mid after
the chance, and  the expected comple-
tion date of the chance. The Administra-
tor may  request additional relevant in-
formation subsequent  to this notice.
    *      *      •       *       r
  (c> If notification substantially similar
to that in paragraph ia> of this section
is required by any other State or  local
agency,  sending  the  Administrator  a
copy of that notification will satisfy the
requirements of paragraph (at of  this
section.
  5. Subpart A is -amended by adding
55 60.H and 60.15 as follows:

§ 60.1 L  Muilifinilion.
  (a)  Except  as  provided under para-
graphs (d>, (e) and if)  of this section,
any physical or operational change to
an  existing facility which results in an
Increase  in the  emission rate to  the
atmosphere of any pollutant to which  a
standard  applies  shall be  considered  a
modification within the meaning of sec-
tion 111  of the Act.  Upon modification.
an  existing facility shall become an af-
fected  facility for  each  pollutant  to
which a standard applies and for which
there is an increase in  the emission rate
to the atmosphere.
  (b) Emission rate shall be expressed as
kg/hr of any pollutant discharged into
the atmosphere for which a standard is
applicable. The Administrator  shall use
the following to determine emission rate:
  (!)  Emission  factors  as specified in
the latest issue of "Compilation  of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors," EPA Pub-
lication No. AP-42,  or  other  emission
factors determined by the Administrator
to be superior to AP-42 emission factors,
In  cases where  utilization of  emission
factors  demonstrate that the  emission
level resulting from the physical or op-
erational change  will  either clearly in-
crease or clearly not increase.
  (2)  Material  balances,  continuous
monitor data,  or manual emission  tests
In  cases where utilization of  emission
factors as referenced in  paragraph  (b)
'!) of this section does not demonstrate
to  the   Administrator's   satisfaction
whether the emission level resulting from
the physical or operational change will
either clearly increase  or clearly not in-
crease, or where an  owner or  operator
demonstrates  to  the  Administrator's
satisfaction  that  there  are reasonable
grounds to dispute the result obtained by
the Administrator utilizing emission fac-
tors as referenced In paragraph (b)(l)
of this section. When the emission  rate
Is based on results from manual emission
tests or continuous monitoring systems,
the procedures specified  in Appendix C
of this part shall be used to determine
whether an Increase In  emission rate has
occurred. Tests shall  be conducted under
such  conditions  as the  Administrator
shall  specify to the owner or operator
based on representative performance of
the facility. At  least three  valid  test
runs must be conducted  before and at
least three after  the  physical or opera-
tional change. AJ1 operating parameters
which may affect emissions must be held
constant to the maximum  feasible degree
for all test runs.
    A modification shall not be deemed
to occur if  an existing facility undergoes
a  physical  or operational change  where
the OWIHT  or operator demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction (by any
of the procedures prescribed under para-
graph  ib' of this section) that the total
emission rate of  any pollutant has not
increased from all facilities within the
stationary  source to  which appropriate
reference,   equivalent,   or  alternative
methods, as defined in 5 60.2 (s>. (U  and
(u), can be applied. An owner or operator
may completely and  permanently close
any facility within a stationary  source
to prevent an increase in the total emis-
sion rate  regardless of  whether  such
reference,   equivalent  or   alternative
method can be applied, if the decrease
in emission rate  from such closure can
be adequately determined by any of the
procedures prescribed under paragraph

 <3> of this section shall be  &  violation of
 these  regulations except  as otherwise
 provided in paragraph  (e) of  this sec-
 tion.  However, any owner or  operator
 electing to demonstrate compliance  un-
 der this paragraph (d)  must  apply to
 the Administrator to obtain the use of
 any  exemptions under  paragraphs  ici
 (2),  fe)(3), and  (e)(4)  of this section.
 The Administrator will grant  such  ex-
 emption only  if,  in his judgment,  the
 compliance originally demonstrated  un-
 der this paragraph will not  be circum-
 vented  or nullified by the  utilization of
 the exemption.
  (5) The  Administrator  may require
 the use of continuous monitoring devices
 and compliance with necessary reporting
 procedures for each facility described in
 paragraph  (d)U)(iii) and (d)(l)(v) of
 this section.
   Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material if, prior to the date  any stand-
ard under this part becomes applicable
 to that source  type, as provided by 5 60.1,
the existing facility was designed to  ac-
commodate  that   alternative  use.   A
facility shall be considered to be designed
to accommodate an alternative fuel  or
raw material If that use could be accom-
plished  under  the facility's construction
                             FEDEftAl REGISUft. VOL. 40. NO. 247—TUESDAY  DECEMBFt  }6  )975
                                                     IV-116
-------
 58420
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
specifications, as amended,  prior to  the
change. Conversion to coal  required for
energy considerations, as specified In sec-
tion  U9(dH5) of  the Act,  shall not be
considered  a modiflcaUon.
   (5)  The  addition or use of any system
or device ivhose primary function Is the
reduction of air pollutants,  except when
an  emission control  system Is  removed
or is replaced by a system which the Ad-
ministrator determines to  be  less  en-
vironmentally beneficial.
  (6)  The   relocation  or   change   In
ownership of an existing facility.
    Special  provisioas set forth under
an  applicable  subpart of this part shall
supersede  any conflicting provisions of.
this section.
    Within 180  days of  the comple-
tion  of  any  physical  or   operational
change subject to  the control measures
specified  In paragraphs (a)  or  (d)  of
this section, compliance with  all appli-
cable standards must  be achieved.

§ 60.15  Reconstruction.
  (a)  An  existing  facility,  upon recon-
struction,  becomes an  affected  facility,
Irrespective of any change In  emission
rate.
  (b)  "Reconstruction" means  the  re-
placement  of components of an  existing
facility to such an extent that:
  (1)  The  fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent  of  the
fixed  capital cost that would be required
to construct a comparable  entirely new
facility, and
  (2)  It Is  technologically and econom-
Icall.-  feasible to  meet the  applicable
standards set forth in this part.
    "Fixed  capital  cost" means  the
capital needed  to provide  all the  de-
preciable components.
  (d)  If  an  owner or operator of  an
existing facility proposes to  replace com-
ponents, and the fixed capital cost of the
new components exceeds 50  percent of
the fixed capital cost that would be re-
quired to   construct  a  comparable  en-
tirely  new  facility, he  shall  notify  the
Administrator of  the  proposed replace-
ments. The notice must be postmarked
CO days (or as soon as practicable)  be-
fore construction of the replacements Is
commenced and must  Include the fol-
lowing information:
  (1)  Name  and  address at  the owner
or operator.
   (2)  The location of the existing facil-
ity.
   (3)  A brief description of the  existing
facility and the components which are to
be replaced.
   (4)  A description  of the existing air
pollution  control  equipment and  the
proposed  air pollution control  equip-
ment.
   (5)  An  estimate of the  fixed  capital
cost  of the replacements   and  of  con-
structing   a  comparable entirely  new
facility.
   (6)  The estimated life of the existing
facility after the replacements.
   (7)  A  discussion  of  any economic or
technical limitations  the  facility  may
have in  complying  with the applicable
standards of performance after the pro-
posed replacements.
   (e)  The  Administrator  will  deter-
mine, within 30  days of the receipt of the
notice required  by paragraph  (d) of  this
section and any additional Information
he may  reasonably  require, whether the
proposed  replacement  constitutes  re-
construction.
   (f) The Administrator's determination
under paragraph (e) shall be based  on:
   (1)  The fixed capital cost  of the re-
placements  In  comparison to  the  fixed
capital cost  that would  be required to
construct a  comparable  entirely  new
facility:
   (2>  The estimated life of the facility
after the replacements compared  to  the
life of a comparable  entirely new facility;
   C3>  The extent to which the compo-
nents being replaced cause  or contribute
to the emissions from  the  facility; and
   (4) Any economic or technical limita-
tions  on  'compliance  with   applicable
standards of  performance which are In-
herent in the proposed replacements.
   (g)  Individual subparts  of  this part
may  Include specific   provisions  which
refine and delimit the concept of recon-
struction set forth in this section.
   6. Part 60  Is amended by adding Ap-
pendix C as follows:
APFKNDIX  C—DETERMIIATIOH or EMISSION  RAT*
                  C'HiNOK
  \. Introduction.
  1.1 The following mrlhod shall ho avtJ to determine
whether a physical or opo-niUnnal chance lo an pasting
facility resulted In Rti Increase In the emission mlo to tho
atmosphere. Tho metlmcl  used Is the Student's ( Uttt.
commonly used to mnfco inferences from siruilJ samples.
  1. Dalti.
  2.1 Evil emission test shall comlst of n runs (usually
three) which produce n emission rales. Thus two sets o(
emission rates ore gent?r:itM. one before and one afler the
chance the two sets UoiriR of equal si?.«.
  2.2 When usinc manuM cmis'ion lest*, except as pro-
vided In 6 GO.fi(h) of lliis part, the reference, methods nf
Appendli A lo Ihls p:\rt shall ho used (n accordance with
the procedures Sfx-cllird in  the iippllcahlp suhpart both
befnr" and after Ihe change  lo ohuln the data.
  2.3 When usingcnmi minus nmnitors.Ihcftvcllltyshallbe
0(xmilPd as  If a nmiuinl emission tost were being ixr-
formed. Valid daw using the averaging time which would
be required  If n annual emission tost were being con-
ducted shall bo used.
  3. Procrdnre.
  3.1 Subscripts a and h douoto prcchongc and  post-
e}mn£erc,s;H*clivf!ly.
  3.2 Calculate the an thineik mean omission rale, K, for
each set of data using Euuiillon I.
  3.4 Calculate the  pooled estimate, 8*, ostng go.
Hon 3.

           ».-!) S.'+(n6-l) S»n"»
                                      (D
vhc/o:
  A'.-Emlsslon rot« for the f tb run.
  o-ouinbarof runs

  8.3 Calculate the sample varlanM. S1, (or each sot of
d&U using Equation J.
                                      (3)
  1,5 Calculate the test statistic, I, using Eqostioa I
  4. Ktiullt. __
  4.1 II K,> K. and of. where f Is Ihe critical value of
(obtained from Table 1. then wllh 95% confidence the
difference between /*,'» and /-.". Is significant, and an In,
crease In emission rate to  the atmosphere has occurred,

                 TiBLK I
                                     C (65
                                    ftrctat
                                     confi-
                                     dence
Dffiree of freedom (n.+ni-2):               fcwfl
   2	 1920
   3	 13.S3
   4	 1132
   fi	 1015
   6	                            1.W3
   7	 LSftS
   8	 L8«0

  For greater than 8 decrees of Creedom, see any standard
statistical handliook or leiu
  6.1 Assume  the two performance testa produced UM
following set of data:

Ten a:                                Tost b
   Run 1. 100	  115
   Hun 2. 9.S	  120
   lluii 3. HO	  Ui

  6.2 Using Equation 1—
                             120
             115 f 120+125
  6.3 Using Eyuatlon 2—

5.'

   (100-102)i+(95-102)'+(110-102)'
                   3-1
                                   = 58.5
5t5

= ("S-120)'+(120-120)'+(125-120)'
                   3-1
  6.4 Using Equation 3—

     "(3-1) (5.S.5)-I (3-1) (25)T/»
               3-1-3-2

  6.6 Using Equation 4—
                    = 25


                    = 0.40
            6.46
osr
 6.« Since (ni-(-nt-:)*>4, C-2.132 (from Table 1). Thiu
rinco Of tho difterence In the values of t. and /•-'» i3
Eictiincnnt. and thero luis boon an increase lu omission
rate to the almost there.

 fl. CVn/fnuou§ .Woiiiforfn^ Data.
 ft.1 Hourly BverciRes from coiitlnnnus monitoring de-
vlC4« whern avnlhihle. should b« ufted as data points and
the above pnocecJuro followed.
                           — I 5j ^i )  /*  (Sees. Ill and 114 of the Clean Air Act, as ainrnded by
                            \jtl   / /    K«. 4(«> of 1'ub. L. 91-WI, M Slat 1678 (42 U.S.C. lS57o-
                            n-1
                                             (FRDoc.76-33612 Filed l2-\(f-15;6-A5 am]
                                 FEDERAL  REGISTER,  VOL  40, NO. 242—TUESDAY OECEMBU 14, 1973
                                                           IV-117
-------
                                                RULES AND  REGULATIONS
23            IFRL 471-8)

 HRT 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Emission Monitoring Requirements and Re-
    visions to Performance Testing Methods;
    Correction
    In FR Doc. 75-26565 appearing at page
  46250 In the FEDERAL REGISTER of October
  6, 1975, the following changes should be
  made In Appendix B:
    I. On page 4G2GO, paragraph 4.3. line
  21 is corrected to read as follows:
  log (1-0,)=(!,/!,)  102 (1-0-0
    2. On page 462G3. paragraph 4.1, line 8
  is corrected to read as follows:
  of an air preheater In a steam generating
    3. On page 46269, paragraph 7.2.1, the
  definition  of C!.M  is corrected to read
  ns follows:
  C.I.,.,-95  percent  confidence  interval
    estimates of the  average mean value
    Dated: December 16, 1975.
                  ROGER STRELOW,
          Assistant Administrator /or
            Air and Waste Management.
   \f-H Doc.75-34514 Filed 12-19-76:8:46 am|
                                                                              24
last word, now reading "capacity", should
read "opacity".
  4. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of §60.13
on  page 46255,  the parenthetical phrase
"(date  of  promulgation" should read,
"October 6, 1075".
  5. In § 60.13,  the  paragraphs desig-
nated  (g)(l)   and   (g)UMi>   through
(ix) on page 46256 should be designated
paragraph (i) and (i> 1  through <9t.
  6. In the  second line  of Uic  formula
in paragraph (1>(4>  of  § 60.45  on p:i;jc
46257,  the   figure now  rending "6.34"
should read "3.64".
  7. The last line of the first pnranrrnph
in Appendix B on pace 46259 should be
changed to read "tinuoiis measurement
of the opacity of stack omissions".
  8. The paragraph now numbered "22"
In Appendix B on page 4G259 should bo
numbered "2.2".
  9. In the  next to  last  line of para-
graphs  9.1.1 and 7.1.1 on pages 462G1
and 46264 respectively "x" should read
"x"
  10. The first  column in  the  table in
paragraph 7.1.2 on pace 4G264.  the first
column should be headed by  the letter
"n" and figures 1 through 10 should read
2 through 11.
                IFRI. 423-7|

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

  Emission Monitoring Requirements and Re-
  visions  to Performance Testing Methods
                Correction

    111 FR Doc. 75-26565, appearing at page
  46250 in the Issue for Monday, October 6,
  1975, the following  changes  should  be
  made:
    1.  In  the  first  paragraph  on  page
  46250, tlie words "reduction, and report-
  Ing requirements" should be Inserted im-
  mediately following the eighth line.
    2.  In  the seventh from last  line of the
  first full paragraph  on  page  46254. the
  parenthetical phrase should read, "Octo-
  ber 6, 1975".
    3.  In  the second  line of the second full
  paragraph on page  46254, the  next  to


  HDERAL  MOISHR, VOL 40, NO. 246—MONDAY, DECEMUR M, 1»7S
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
               [FRL 474-3]

PART  60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
   ANCE-FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCE
Delegation of Authority to State of Maine
   Pursuant to the delegation of authority
for the standards of performance for new
stationary sources (NSPS)  to the. State
of Maine on November 3, 1975, EPA Is
today amending 40 CFR 60.4, Address,
to reflect this  delegation. A Notice an-
nouncing this delegation Is published to-
day  in  the  FEDERAL  REGISTER.'  The
amended 5 60.4. which adds the address
of the Maine  Department  of Environ-
mental Protection to which all reports,
requests, applications,  submittals, and
communications  to the  Administrator
pursuant to this part must also be ad-
dressed. Is set forth below.
   The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing1 prior  public notice and for
making this rulemaking effective imme-
diately In that It Is an administrative
change and  not one of substantive con-
tent No additional substantive burdens
are Imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective.on
October 7, 1975, and It serves no purpose
to delay the technical change of this ad-
dition to the State address to the Code of
Federal Regulations.
   This rulemaklng Is effective Immedi-
ately, and is Issued under the authority
of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,  as
amended.
(42 U£.C. 38570-6)
   Dated: December 22.1975.
               STANLEY W. LEGRO,
            Assistant Administrator
                    for Enforcement.
                                         1 See FR Doc. 75-85063 appearing elsewhere
                                       in the Notices eectlon of today's FEDERAL REG-
                                       ItfTJ&li.

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

                                        § 60.4  Address.
                                              **•»•*
                                          
-------
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
25
                |FRL 477-7]
        SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
   PART 6o—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
      FOR NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
      Delegation of Authority to the State of
                  Michigan
     Pursuant  to the  delegation  of au-
   thority  to  implement  and enforce the
   standards of performance  for new sta-
   tionary sources (NSPS) to the State of
   Michigan on November 5,  1975, EPA is
   today amending 40 CFR 60.4 Address, to
   reflect  this  delegation.1  The  amended
   § G0.4, which adds the address of the Air
   Pollution Control Division, Michigan De-
   partment of Natural Resources to that
   list of addresses to which all  reports,
   requests, applications, submittals, and
   communications to  the Administrator
   pursuant to this part must be sent, is
   set forth below.
     The Administrator finds good cause for
   foregoing  prior public notice  and  for
   making this  rulemaking  effective im-
   mediately in that It is an administrative
   change and  not one of substantive con-
   tent. No additional substantive burdens
   are imposed on the parties  affected. The
   delegation which is reflected by this ad-
   ministrative amendment was effective on
   November 5, 1975, and it serves no pur-
   pose to delay the technical change of this
   addition of the State address to the Code
   of Federal Regulations.
     ' A Notice  announcing this delegation Is
   published In the Notices section of this Issue.
     This rulemaking is effective immedi-
   ately, and is Issued under the authority
   of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
   amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857C-G.

     Dated: December 31,  1975.

                 STANLEY W.  LECBO,
               Assistant Administrator
                       for Enjorcement.

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

   60.4  Address.
        4       •      •       •      •
                 IPRL447-8]
     (b) * * *
     (A)-(W) • • •
     (X)— Slate of  Michignn,  Air  Pollution
   Control Division,  Michigan Department  of
   Nntural Resources, Stevens T. Mason Build-
   ing, 8th Floor, Lansing, Michigan 48926
       •       •      •    .   •       »
     [PR Doc.76-847 Filed 1-12-76:8:45 am]

      FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 8-

         -TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1976
26
                                                         |FBL 402-TI
 PART 60  STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
          Coal Preparation Plants
   On October 24,  1974  (39 PR  37922).
 under section ill of the Clean Air Act,
 as amended, the Environmental  Protec-
 tion Agency (EPA) proposed standards
 of performance  for new and modified
 coal preparation plants. Interested par-
 ties were afforded an opportunity to par-
 ticipate in the rulemaking by submitting
 written comments.  Twenty-seven  com-
 ment letters were received;  six from coal
 companies, four from Federal agencies,
 four from  steel companies,  four  from
 electric utility  companies,   three  from
 State and local agencies, three from coal
 industry associations and   three  from
 other interested  parties.
   Copies of  the  comment letters and a
 supplemental volume of background in-
 formation which contains  a summary
 of the  comments with EPA's responses
 are available for public inspection and
 copying at the U.S. Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency, Public Information Ref-
 erence  Unit, Room 2922, 401 M Street,
 S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. In addi-
 tion, the supplemental volume of back-
 ground information which contains cop-
 ies of the comment summary with EPA's
 responses may be obtained  upon  written
 request from the EPA Public Informa-
 tion Center  (PM-215).  401  M Street
 S.W.. Washington,  D.C.  20460  (specify
Background Information for Standards
of   Performance:   Coal  Preparation
Plants, Volume 3: Supplemental  Infor-
mation) . The comments have been care-
fully considered, and where determined
by the Administrator to be appropriate,
changes have been made to the proposed
regulations and are incorporated  in the
regulations promulgated herein.
  The bases for the  proposed standards
are presented in. "Background Informa-
tion for Standards of Performance: Coal
Preparation Plants" (EPA 450/2-74-021a,
b). Copies of this document are available
on request from the Emission Standards
Protection Agency,  Research Triangle
and Engineering Division. Environmental
Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention:
Mr. Don R, Goodwin.
  Summary of Regulation. The promul-
gated standards of performance regulate
participate matter emissions from coal
preparation and handling facilities proc-
essing more than 200 tons/day of bitu-
minous coal (regardless of their location)
as follows: (1)  emissions from thermal
dryers  may not  exceed 0.070 g/clscm
(0.031  gr/d.scf)  and  20%  opacity, <2)
emissions from  pneumatic coal cleaning
equipment may }jot exceed 0.040 evUsx-m
(0.018 gr/ dscf)  and 10%  opacity, and
(3)   emissions  from  coal handling and
storage   equipment   (processing   non-
bituminous as well as bituminous coal)
may not exceed 20% opactity.
  Significant Comments and Hcriswns to
the Proposed Regulations. Many  of the
comment letters received  by EPA con-
tained  multiple comments. These are
summarized as follows with, discussions of
any  significant differences  between the
proposed  and promulgated rrp.ulat.ions.
  I.  ^pplicabilitii.—Comments were re-
ceived  noting that the proiwscd stand-
ards \vould apply to any coal handling
operation regardless of sac and  would
require even small tipple operations and
domestic  coal distributors to comply with
the  proposed   standards  for  .fugitive
emissions.  In  addition,  underground
mining activities  may have been inad-
vertently  included under  the proposed
standards. EPA did not intend  to reiut-
late  either these small sources or under-
ground mininir activities. Only sources
which break, crush, screen, clean,  or dry
large amounts of coal wore intended to be
covered.  Sources  which  handle   large
amounts  of coal would include coal han-
dling operations at sources such as barge
loading   facilities,  power  plants,  coke
ovens,  etc. as well  as plants  that pri-
marily clean and/or  dry coal. EPA con-
cluded that sources  not intended to bo
covered by the  regulation handle less
than 200 tons/day;  therefore, the regu-
lation promulgated herein exempts sucli
sources.
  Comments  were received  que.sUimiiur
the  application  of  the standards  to
facilities  processing nonbiturninou.s coals
(including lignite). As was stated  in Uie
preamble  to the proposed regulation, it
is  intended for the  standards to  have
broad applicability when appropriate. At
the  time the regulation  was proposed,
EPA considered the parameters relating
to the control of emissions from thermal
                                  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl.  41, NO. 10—THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976
                                                       IV-119
-------
                                            RULES AND  REGULATION!
                                                                                                               2233
dryers to be sufficiently similar, whether
bituminous or nonbttumlnous coal was
being dried. Since the time of proposal,
EPA has reconsidered the application of
standards to the thermal drying of non-
bituminous coal.  It has concluded that
such application  is not prudent  In  the
absence of specific data demonstrating
the similarity of the drying  character-
istics and  emission  control  character-
istics to those of bituminous coal. There
fire currently very few thermal dryers or
pneumatic  air cleaners processing non-
bituminous  fuels. The  facilities  tested
by EPA to demonstrate  control  equip-
ment representative of best control tech-
nology were processing bituminous coal.
Since the majority of the EPA test data
and  other  information used  to develop
the standards are bnsed upon bituminous
coal  processing,  the participate matter
standards for thermal dryers and pneu-
matic coal cleaning equipment have been
revised to apply  only to  those  facilities
processing  bituminous coal.
  The opacity standard  for  control of
fugitive emissions Is applicable to non-
bituminous ns well  as bituminous coal
since nonbltumlnous processing  facili-
ties  will utilize  similar  equipment  for
transporting,  screening,  storing,   and
loading coal, and the control  techniques
applicable  for minimizing fugitive par-
ticulate matter  emissions will be  the
same regardless of the type of coal proc-
essed.  Typically  enclosures  with some
type of low energy collectors are utilized.
The  opacity of emissions can  also be re-
duced  by effectively covering or sealing
the process from  the atmosphere so that
any  avenues for  escaping emissions are
small.  By minimizing the number  and
the dimensions of the openings through
which fugitive emissions can  escape, the
opacity and the total mass rate of emis-
sions can be reduced independently of
the air pollution  control devices. Also,
water sprays have been demonstrated to
be very effective for suppressing fugitive
emissions and can be used to control even
the most difficult fugitive emission prob-
lems. Therefore,  the control  of fugitive
emissions at all facilities will be required
since there are several control techniques
that can  be applied regardless  of  the
type of coal processed.
  2. Thermal dryer standard.—One com-
mentator  presented data and  calcula-
tions which indicated that because of the
large amount of flne particles in the coal
his company processes, compliance with
the proposed standard would require the
application of a venturl  scrubber with
a pressure drop of 50 to 52 Inches of water
gage. The proposed standard was based
on the application of a venturl scrubber
with a pressure drop of 25 to 35 Inches.
EPA thoroughly evaluated this comment
and  concluded that the commentator's
calculations  and  extrapolations  could
have represented the actual situation.
Rather than revise the standard  on the
basis of the  commentator's estimates,
EPA decided to perform emission tests at
ft plant which processes  the  coal under
question. The plant tested Is controlled
with a venturl scrubber and was operated
et a pressure drop of 29 Inches  during
the emission tests. These tests  showed
emissions of 0.080 to 0.134 e/dscm (0.035
to  0.058  gr/dscf). These  results  are
numerically greater than the proposed
standard; however, calculations indicate
that if the pressure drop were increased
from 29 inches to 41 inches, the proposed
standard would be  achieved. Supplemen-
tal Information regarding estimates of
emission control needed to  achieve  the
mass standard is contained in Section II,
Volume  3  of the  supplemental back-
ground  information document.
   Since the cost analysis of the proposed
standard was based on a venturl scrubber
operating at 25 to 35 inches venturi pres-
sure loss, the costs  of operating at higher
pressure losses were evaluated. These re-
sults  indicated that the  added  cost of
controlling pollutants to the level of the
proposed standard is  only 14 cents  per
ton of plant product  even if  a  50 Inch
pressure loss were used,  and only  five
cents per ton In excess of  the  average
control level required by state regulations
in the major coal  producing  states. In
comparison to  the  $18.95 per  ton deliv-
ered price of U.S.  coal in 1974 and even
higher  prices today,  a  maximum  five
cents per ton economic  impact attribut-
able to these regulations appears almost
negligible. The total Impact of 14 cents
per ton for controlling participate matter
emissions can easily be passed along to
the  customer  since  the  demand  for
thermal drying due to freight rate sav-
ings,  the elimination  of handling prob-
lems  due to freezing, and the needs of
the customer's process (coke ovens must
control  bulk density  and power plants
must control plugging of pulverizers)  will
remain  unaffected  by these regulations.
Therefore, the economic  impact of  the
standard upon thermal drying will  not
be large and the Inflationary  impact of
the standard on the price of coal will be
insignificant (one percent or less). From
the standpoint of  energy consumption,
the power requirements of the air pollu-
tion control equipment are exponentially
related  to the control level  such that a
level  of  diminishing return is reached.
Because the highest pressure loss  that
has been demonstrated by operation of
a  venturl scrubber on  a coal dryer is
41 inches water gage, which is also  the
pressure loss  estimated by a  scrubber
vendor  to be needed  to achieve the 70
mg/dscm standard, and because energy
consumption Increases  dramatically at
lower control levels «70 mg/dscm), a
partlculate matter standard lower than
70 mg/dscm was not selected. At the 70
mg/dscm control level, the trade-off  be-
tween control of emissions at the thermal
dryer versus the increase in emissions at
the power plant supplying the energy is
favorable even though the mass quantity
of all air pollutants emitted by the power
plant (SO, NO*, and partlculate matter)
are compared only to the reduction in
thermal  dryer  particulate matter emis-
sions. At lower than  70 mg/dscm,  this
trade-off Is not as  favorable due to  the
energy requirements of venturi scrubbers
at higher pressure  drops. For this source,
alternative means of air pollution control
have not been fully demonstrated. Hav-
ing considered all comments on the par-
ticulate matter regulation  proposed for
thermal dryers, EPA finds no reason suf-
ficient to alter the proposed standard of
70 mg/dscm except to restrict Its ap-
plicability to thermal dryers processing
bituminous coal.
  3. Location  o/  thermal  drying sys-
tems,—Comments \verc  received on the
applicability of the standard for power
plants with closed  thermal drying sys-
tems where the air used  to dry the coal is
also  used in the combustion process. As
indicated in § G0.252(a), the standard is
concerned only with effluents which are
discharged  into the atmosphere  from the
drying equipment. Since the pulverized
coal transported by heated air is charged
to the steam genera tor in a closed system,
there is no  discharge from  the dryer di-
rectly to the atmosphere, therefore, these
standards for thermal dryers are not ap-
plicable. Effluents from steam generators
are regulated by  standards  previously
promulgated (40  CFR Part 60  subpart
D). However,  these standards  do  apply
to all bituminous coal drying operations
that discharge effluent to the atmosphere
regardless of their physical or geograph-
ical  location.  In  addltlona to  thermal
dryers located In coal preparation plants,
usually in the vicinity of the mines, dry-
ers used to preheat coal at coke ovens are
alsorcgulated by these standards. These
coke oven thermal dryers used  for pre-
heating are similar in  all  respects, in-
cluding the air pollution control equip-
ment, to those use-d in coal preparation
plants.
  4.  Opacity  sJandartls.—The  opacity
standards for  thermal dryer and pneu-
matic coal  cleaners were reevaluated  as
a result of revisions to Method 9 for con-
ducting opacity  observations  (39 FR,
3B872). The opacity stndards were pro-
posed prior to the revisions of Method 9
and were not based upon the concept  of
averaging sets of 24 observations for six-
minute periods. As a result, the  proposed
standards were developed in relation  to
the peak emissions of the facility rather
than the average emissions of six-minute
periods. The opacity data collected by
EPA have been reevaluated in accordance
with the revised Method 9 procedures,
and opacity standards for  thermal dry-
ers and pneumatic coal cleaners have
been adjusted to  levels consistent with
these new procedures. The opacity stand-
ards for thermal dryers and pneumatic
coal cleaners have been adjusted from 30
and  20 percent to 20  and 10  percent
opacity, respectively. Since  the  proijosed
standards were based upon peak rather
than average opacity, the revised stand-
ards are numerically lower.  Each of these
levels is justified  based primarily upon
six-minute  averages of EPA opacity ob-
servations.  These data are  contained In
Section III, Volume 3 of the  supplemental
background Information document.
  5.  Fugitive  emission  monitoring.—
Several commentators  identified  some
difficulties with the proposed procedures
for monitoring the surface moisture of
thermally dried coal. The purpose of the
proposed requirement was  to determine
the probability of fugitive emissions oc-
curing from coal  handling operations
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41,  NO.  10—THURSDAY, JANUARY  15, 1976
                                                     IV-120
-------
 2231
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
 and  to estimate their extent. The com-
 mentators  noted   that   the  proposed
 A S.T.M. measurement methods arc diffi-
 cult  and cumbersome  procedures not
 typically used by  operating  facilities.
 AJso, It was noted that there Is too little
 uniformity of techniques within Industry
 for measuring surface moisture to  spe-
 cify  a  general method. Secondly, esti-
 mation of fugitive emissions from such
 data may not be consistent due to differ-
 ent coal characteristics. Since the opac-
 ity standard  promulgated  herein  can
 readily be utilized by enforcement  per-
 sonnel, the moisture monitoring require-
 ment is relatively unimportant EPA has
 therefore  eliminated this requirement
 from the regulation.
   6.  Open storage piles.—The proposed
 regulation applied the fugitive emission
 standard to coal storage systems, which
 were defined as any facility used  to store
 coal.  It  was  EPA's intention  that  this
 definition refer to some type of structure
 such  as  a bin, silo, etc.  Several com-
 mentators objected  to the potential ap-
 plication  of the fugitive emission stand-
 ard to open  storage piles.  Since  the
 fugitive  emission  standard was not de-
 veloped for application to open  storage
 piles, the regulations promulgated here-
 in clarifies that open storage piles of coal
 are not regulated by these standards.
  7.  Thermal  dryer monitoring equip-
 ment.—A number of commentators felt
 that important variables were not being
 considered for monitoring venturi scrub-
 ber operation on thermal dryers. The
 proposed  standards  required monitoring
 the temperature of  the  gas from  the
 thermal   dryer  and  monitoring  the
 venturi  scrubber  pressure  loss.  The
 promulgated standard requires, in addi-
 tion to the above parameters,  monitor-
 Ing of the water supply pressure to the
 venturi scrubber. Direct  measurement
 of the water  flow  rate was considered
 but rejected  due to  potential plugging
 problems  as  a result of solids typically
 found In  recycled scrubber water. Also,
 the higher cost of a flow rate meter in
 comparison to a simpler pressure moni-
 toring device  was  a  factor in the selec-
 tion of a water pressure monitor  for
 verifying that the scrubber receives ade-
 quate water for proper operation. This
 revision  to the regulations  will  insure
 monitoring of major air pollution control
 device parameters subject to variation
which could go undetected and unnoticed
and could grossly affect proper  opera-
 tion of the control equipment. A pressure
sensor, two transmitters, and a two pen
chart recorder for monitoring  scrubber
venturi pressure drop and  water  supply
pressure, which are commercially avail-
able, will cost approximately two to three
thousand  dollars   installed  for  each
thermal dryer. Tills  cost  is only one-
tenth  of one percent of the total invest-
ment cost of a 500-ton-per-hour thermal
dryer. The regulation also require moni-
toring of  the thermal dryer exit tem-
perature,  but  no added cost will result
because  this  measurement  system  is
normally supplied with the  thermal dry-
ing equipment and is used as a control
point  for the process control system.
   Effective  date.—in  accordance  with
 section 111 of the Act, as amended, these
 regulations   prescribing  standards  of
 performance for coal preparation plants
 are effective on January 15,  1976, and
 apply to  thermal dryers, pneumatic coal
 cleaners, coal processing and  conveying
 equipment,  coal  storage systems,  and
 coal transfer and loading systems,  the
 construction  or modification  of  wliich
 was commenced after October 24, 1974.

   Dated: January 8, 1976.

                  RUSSELL E. TRAIN.
                       Administrator.

   Part 60 of Chapter I of Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
   1. The table of contents is amended by
 adding subpart Y as  follows:
     •       •       •       •       •
  Subpart Y—Standards of Performance for Coal
             Preparation Plants
 SPC.
 60.250   Applicability  and  designation  of
        nltoct-ed faculty.
 G0.251   Definitions.
 60.252   Standards for participate matter.
 60.253   Monltorlnp  of operations.
 60.254   Test methods and  procedures.
   AUTHORITY: Sees. Ill and 114 of the Clean
 Air Act, as amended by sec. 4(a)  of Pub. Ij.
 81-604, 84  Slat. 1G78 (42  U.S.C. 1857c-6, 1857
 c-9) .

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

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

 §60.251   DrfinilioiK.
  As  used in this subpart. all (onus not
 defined herein have the mean inn  given
 them in the Act and in subpart A of this
 part.
  (a)  "Coal preparation plant." means
 any   facility   (excluding  underground
 mlixlng operations) which  prepares coal
 by one or more  of the  following proc-
 esses: breaking, crushing, screenlnf?, wet
 or dry cleaning, and thermal drying.
  (b) "Bituminous coal" means solid fos-
 sil fuel classified  as  bituminous coal by
A.S.T.M.  Designation D-388-G6.
  (c)  "Coal" means  all solid  fossil  fuels
 classified as anthracite, bituminous, sub-
 bituminous,  or lignite by A.S.T.M.  Des-
 ignation D-388-66.
  (d)  "Cyclonic flow" means  a spiraltng
 movement of exhaust gases within a duct
 or stack.
  (e)  "Thermal  dryer" means any fa-
cility  in which the moisture  content of
bituminous  coal  Is reduced by  contact
 with  a heated gas stream which Is ex-
 hausted to the atmosphere.
    (f)  "Pneumatic  coal-cleaning  equip-
 ment" means any facility which classifies
 bituminous coal by size or separates bi-
 tuminous coal from refuse by application
 of air stream(s).
    (g)  "Coal  processing  and  conveying
 equipment" means any machinery used
 to reduce the  size of coal or to separate
 coal from refuse, and the equipment used
 to convey coal  to  or  remove coal and
 refuse from  the  machinery. This  in-
 cludes, but ts not limited to, breakers,
 crushers, screens, and  conveyor belts.
    (h) "Coal storage system" means any
 facility used to store coal except for open
 storage piles.
    HI  "Transfer and  loading system"
 means any facility used to transfer and
 load coal for shipment.
 §  60.2.">2   Standards for particululc nmt-
     I
-------
 control equipment. The monitoring  de-
 vice is  to be certified  by  the manufac-
 turer to be  accurate  within ±1 Inch"
 water gage.
   (ii) A monitoring device for the con-
 tinuous measurement of the water sup-
 ply  pressure to the control  equipment.
 The monitoring device is  to be certified
 by the manufacturer to be accurate with-
 in  ±5  percent of design water  supply
 pressure. The pressure sensor or tap must
 be located close to the water discharge
 point.  The Administrator may be con-
 sulted  for approval  of alternative loca-
 tions.
   (b) All monitoring devices under para-
 graph (a) of this section are to be recali-
 brated annually in accordance with pro-
 cedures under § 60.13(b)(3)  of this part.
 § 60.254  Test methods and  procedures.
    The owner or operator shall con-
 struct  the facility  so  that  particulate
 emissions from thermal dryers or pneu-
 matic coal cleaning equipment  can be
 accurately determined by applicable test
 methods and   procedures under  para-
 graph (a) of this section.
  |FR Doc.76-1249 Filed 1-14-76:8:45 am)
 FEDERAt REGISTER, VOl. 41, NO. lO—THURJDAV,  JANUARY 15, 1976
                                                IV-122
-------
2332
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
     SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
              [FRL 452 -3]
p.RT 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
   FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
 Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters

  On October 1G, 1974  (39  FR  37040),
pursuant to section 111 of the Clean Air
Act,  as amended, the Administrator  pro-
posed standards  of performance for new
and  modified sources within three -iftte-
gorics of stationary sources:  (1) primary
copper smelters. (2) primary zinc smelt-
ers,  and  (3) primary lead smelters. The
Administrator  also  proposed  amend-
ments   to   Appendix   A.   Reference
Methods, of 40 CFR Part 60.
   Interested  persons  representing in-
dustry, trade associations, environmental
groups, and Federal and State govern-
ments participated in the rulemaking by
sending comments to  the Agency. Com-
mentators  submitted 14 letters contain-
ing eighty-five comments. Each of these
comments  has been carefully considered
and  where determined by the Adminis-
trator  to be appropriate, changes  have
been made to the proposed regulations
which  are  promulgated herein.
  The comment letters  received, a sum-
mary of the comments contained in these
letters,  and  the Agency's responses  to
these comments are available for public
Inspection at the Freedom of Information
Center, Room 202  West Tower,  401  M
Street,  S.W.,  Washington, D.C.  Copies
of   the  comment  summary  and  the
Agency's responses may be  obtained by
writing to  the EPA Public Information
Center  ,  401  M Street, S.W.,
Washington. D.C. 20460. and requesting
the Public  Comment Summary—Primary
Copper. Zinc and Lend Smelters.
  The  bases for the proposed standards
are  presented in "Background Informa-
tion for New Source Performance Stand-
ards: Primary  Copper,  Zinc and  Lead
Smelters,  Volume  1, Proposed  Stand-
ards"  
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
flash, electric and rcvcrbcratovy smelting
furnaces. The result was standards which
favored  construction of new  flash and
electric  smelting  furnaces   over  new
reverberatory smelting  furnaces.
  Most of the increase in cower produc-
tion over the next few years will probably
result from expansion of existing copper
smelters. Of the sixteen domestic pri-
mary copper smelters, only one  employs
flash smelting and only  two employ elec-
tric  smelting.  The  remaining  thirteen
employ reverbcratory smelting, although
one  of these thirteen has initiated con-
struction to convert  to  electric smelting
and  another has initiated construction to
convert  to a  new smelting process re-
ferred to as Noranda smelting. (The No-
randa smelting process  discharges a gas
stream of high sulfur dioxide concentra-
tion  which Is easily controlled  at reason-
able  costs.  By virtue of  the definition of
a  smelting furnace, the  promulgated
standards  also apply to  Noranda fur-
naces.)
  In  view  of the Administrator's judg-
ment that  the cost of controlling sulfur
dioxide  emissions  from  reverberatory
furnaces was unreasonable, the Adminis-
trator concluded that an exemption from
the standards was necessary for  existing
reverbcratoi-y smelting furnaces,  to per-
mit expansion of existing smelters at rea-
sonable  costs.  Consequently,  the  pro-
posed standards stated that any physical
changes  or changes  in  the  method  of
operation  of  existing  reverberatory
smelting furnaces, which  resulted in an
increase  in sulfur dioxide emissions from
these furnaces,  would  not cause these
furnaces to  be considered  "modified"
affected  facilities subject to  the stand-
ards. This  exemption, however,  applied
only   where  total emissions  of sulfur
dioxide from the primary copper smelter
in question did not increase.
  Prior to  the  proposal of these stand-
ards, the  Administrator  commissioned
the Arthur D. Little  Co., Inc., to under-
take an independent assessment of both
the technical basis for the standards and
the potential impact  of the standards on
the domestic primary copper smelting in-
dustry. The results  of  this study  have
been  considered together with the com-
ments submitted during the  public re-
view and comment period in determining
whether  the proposed standards should
be revised  for  promulgation.
  Briefly,  the  Arthur  D. Little  study
reached the following conclusions:
  (1) The  proposed  standards  should
have no  adverse impact on new  primary
copper smelters processing materials con-
taining low levels of volatile impurities.
  (2) The  proposed  standards could re-
duce  the capability of new primary cop-
per smelters located In the southwest U.S.
to process  materials of high impurity
content.  This Impact was foreseen  since
the capability of flash smelting to process
materials of high impurity levels was un-
known. Although  electric smelting was
considered technically capable of process-
ing these materials,  the higher costs as-
sociated  with electric smelting, due to the
high cost of electrical power In the south-
west, were considered sufficient to pre-
clude Its use in most cases.
  This conclusion was subject, however,
to qualification. It applied only to the
southwest (Arizona, New Mexico and west
Texas)  and  not  to other areas of the
United States (Montana, Nevada, Utah
and  Washington)  where primary copper
smelters currently operate; and it  was
not viewed as applicable to large new ore
deposits of high Impurity content which
were capable of  providing  the entire
charge to a new smelter. The study also
concluded It was impossible to estimate
the  magnitude of this potential  impact
since it was not possible to predict impur-
ity levels likely to  be produced from new
ore reserves.
  Although considerable doubt existed as
to the need  for  a new  smelter in the
southwest to process materials  of  high
impurity levels in  the future (essentially
all the Information and data examined
indicated  such a  need  Is  not likely to
arise), the Arthur D. Little study  con-
cluded it would be prudent to assume new
smelters in the  southwest should have
the flexibility to process these materials.
To  assume  otherwise according to the
study might place constraints on possible
future plans of  the American Smelting
and  Refining Company.
  (3) The  proposed standards  should
have little or no  impact  on  the ability
of existing primary copper smelters to
expand  copper production. This conclu-
sion  was also subject to qualification. It
was  noted that other means of expand-
ing smelter capacity might exist than the
approaches  studied and that the  pro-
posed standards might or might not in-
fluence the viability of these other means
of expanding capacity. It was also noted
that the study assumed existing single
absorption sulfuric acid plants could be
converted to  double absorption, but that
individual smelters -were  not visited and
this  conversion might not be possible at
some smelters.
  Each  of the comment letters received
by EPA  contained multiple  comments.
The   most  significant  comments,   the
Agency's responses to these comments
and  the various  changes  made  to  the
proposed  regulations for promulgation
in response  to these comments are dis-
cussed below.
  U) Legal authority under section III.
Four commentators indicated that  the
Agency  would exceed its statutory au-
thority under section 111 of the  Act  by
promulgating a standard  of  perform-
ance that could not be  met by  copper
reverberatory smelling  furnaces, which
are extensively used at existing domestic
smelters. The commentators believe that
the "best system of emission reduction"
cited in section  111 refers  to  control
techniques that reduce  emissions,  and
not  to processes  that emit more easily
controlled effluent gas streams. The com-
mentators  contend, therefore,  that a
producer may choose the process that is
most appropriate  in his view, and  new
source performance standards must  be
based ot\ the application of the  best
demonstrated techniques of emission re-
duction to that process.
  The legislative  history  of  Die  1970
Amendments to the Act is cited by these
commentators as supporting  this inter-
pretation  of  section  ill.  Specifically
pointed out is the fact that the House-
Senate  Conference  Committee,  which
reconciled  competing House and Senate
versions of the  bill,  deleted  language
from the Senate  bill  that  would have
granted the Agency explicit authority to
regulate processes. This action, accord-
ing to these commentators, clearly indi-
cates a Congressional-intent not to grant
the Agency such authority.
  The conference bill,  however, merely
replaced the phrase in  the Senate  bill
"latest   available  control  technology.
processes,  operating method  or  other
alternatives" with "best system of  emis-
sion reduction which  (taking into  ac-
count the cost of achieving  such reduc-
tion) tlie Administrator determines  has
been adequately demonstrated." The uso
of the phrase "best  system of emission
reduction" appears  to be  inclusive of
the terms in the Senate bill. The absence
of discussion  in  the conference report
on  this issue  further  suggests that no
substantive change was intended by  the
substitution of the phrase "best system
of emission reduction"  for the phrase
"latest  available  control  technology,
processes, operating method or other al-
ternatives" in the Senate bill.
  For some classes of sources, the dif-
ferent processes used in the production
activity significantly affect the emission
levels of the source  and/or  the  tech-
nology that can  be  applied to control
the source. For this  reason, the Agency
believes that the "best system of emis-
sion reduction"  includes the  processes
utilized  and docs not refer only to emis-
sion control hardware. It is clear that
adherence to existing process utilization
rould serve to undermine  the purpose of
section 111 to require maximum feasible
control of new sources,  in general, there-
fore, the Agency believes that section  111
authorizes  the  promulgation of  one
standard applicable to  all processes used
by a class  of sources, in order that  the
standard  may  reflect  the   maximum
feasible control for that class.  When  the
application  of  a standard  to a given
process would effectively ban the process.
however, a separate standard must Vie
prescribed for it unless some other proc-
ess'es) is available to perform the func-
tion at reasonable cost.
  In determining whether the use of dif-
ferent processes  would necessitate  the
setting of different standards, the Agency
first determines whether or not the proc-
esses are  functionally interchangeable
Factors such as whether the least pollut-
ing process can be used in various loca-
tions or  with  various  raw materials 01
under other conditions are considered
The second important consideration ol
the Agency involves the costs of achiev-
ing the reduction called for by a standard
applicable  to  all  processes used  in ?
source category. Where a single stand-
ard  would  effectively  preclude using :
process which is much less expensive thar
the permitted process,  the economic im-
pact of  the single standard must be  de-
termined to be  reasonable  or separaU
standards are  set. Tills does not mean
however, that the cost of the alternative.1
to the potentially prohibited process car
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 10—THURSDAY, JANUARY 15. 1976
                                                      IV-124
-------
Z3SA
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
be no grater than those which would be
associated  with controlling the process
under a less stringent standard,
  The  Administrator has determined
that the flash copper  smelting process- is
available and will perform the function
ot  the  reverberatory copper  smelting
process  at  reasonable cost, except that
flash smelting has not yet been commer-
cially demonstrated for  the processing
of feed materials with a  high level of
volatile impurities. The  standards pro-
mulgated herein, which do not apply to
copper reverberatory  smelting furnaces
when the smelter charge contains a high
level  of  volatile  impurities,  are there-
fore authorized under section  111 of the
Act.
  (2)  Control of reverberatorij smelting
furnaces. Two commentators represent-
ing environmental croups and one com-
mentator representing a  State pollution
control  agency Questioned  the Adminis-
trator's judgment that the use of various
sulfur dioxide scrubbing systems to con-
trol sulfur  dioxide emissions from rever-
beratory smelting furnaces was unrea-
sonable, especially In  view of his conclu-
sion that  the use  of these systems  on
large  steam  generators was reasonable.
These commentators also pointed  out
that this conclusion was  based only on
nn examination of the use of sulfur di-
oxide scrubbing systems and that  alter-
native means of control, such  as the use
of oxygen  enrichment of  reverberatory
furnace  combustion air, or the mixing
of the gases from the reverberatory fur-
nace  with  the gases  from roasters and
copper  converters  to produce a mixed
gas stream suitable for control, were not
examined.
  This  comment was submitted In re-
sponse to the exemption  Included In the
proposed standards for  existing rever-
beratory smelting furnaces. As discussed
below, the amendments recently promul-
gated by the Agency  to 40 CFR Part 60
clarifying the meaning of "modification"
make this  exemption unnecessary. The
comment Is  still appropriate, however,
since  the promulgated standards now In-
clude an exemption for new reverbera-
tory smelting furnaces at smelters proc-
essing materials  containing high  levels
of volatile  Impurities.
  Section 111 of  the  Clean Air Act dic-
tates  that  standards  of performance be
based on "' ' • the best system of  emis-
sion reduction which (taking Into  ac-
count the cost of achieving such reduc-
tion)  the Administrator determines  has
been  adequately  demonstrated."  Thus,
not only must various systems of  emis-
sion control be  Investigated  to ensure
these systems are technically proven and
the levels to which emissions could be re-
duced through the use of the.'e systems
identified, the co^t.s of the?e systems mr.st
be considered to ensure that standards of
performance will not Impose an unrea-
sonable economic burden on each source
category for which standards  are devel-
oped.
  The control of gas streams containing;
low  concentrations  of  sulfur  dioxide
through the use ot various scrubbing sys-
tems  which  are currently  available Is
considered by  the  Administrator to be
technically  proven  and well  demon-
strated. The use of these systems on large
steam generators is considered reason-
able since electric utilities are regulated
monopolies  and  the costs  incurred to
control sulfur  dioxide emissions can be
passed  forward to  the  consumer. Pri-
mary copper smelters, however, do  not
enjoy a monopolistic position  and face
direct competition  from both  foreign
smelters and other domestic  smelters.
The costs associated with the use of these
scrubbing  systems   on  reverberatory
smelting  furnaces  at  primary  copper
smelters are so large, In the  Administra-
tor's judgment, that they could not be
either absorbed  by  a  copper  smelter
without resulting In a  significant  de-
crease in profitability, passed forward to
the consumer without leading to a signif-
icant loss  in sales, or passed back to  the
mining operations without resulting in a
closing of some mines and a decrease In
mining activity. Consequently,  the Ad-
ministrator  considers  the use  of these
systems to control  reverberatory smelt-
Ing furnaces unreasonable.
  Although  little discussion  Is  Included
In the background document supporting
the proposed standards  concerning  Die
use of oxygen enrichment of reverbera-
tory furnace combustion air, or the mix-
ing of the gases from reverberatory fur-
naces with the gases from roasters and
copper converters, these approaches for
controlling sulfur dioxide emissions from
reverberatory smelting furnaces were ex-
amined. These Investigations,  however,
were not of an In-depth nature  and were
not pursued  to completion.
  A preliminary analysis of oxypen  en-
richment of reverberatory furnace com-
bustion air   to produce a  strong  pas
stream  from the reverberatory  furnace
appeared to  Indicate that the costs asso-
ciated with  this  approach were unrea-
sonable. A similar analysis  of  the mix-
Ing of the gases from  n reverberatory
furnace with the gases discharged trom a
fluid-bed roaster and copper converters
appeared to Indicate that although  the
costs associated with this approach were
reasonable,  it  was  not possible to  use
fluid-bed  roasters in all cases. Multi-
hearth roasters would be required where
materials of high volatile impurity levels
were  processed. Although multi-hearth
roasters discharge strong gas streams (4-
5  percent  sulfur  dioxide). fluid  bed
roasters discharge  much stronger  gas
streams <10-12 percent sulfur  dioxide).
To  determine  the  effect of this  lower
concentration of sulfur  dioxide In  the
gases discharged by multi-hearth roast-
ers on the ability to mix the gases dis-
charged by  reverberatory smelting' fur-
naces with those discharged by  roasters
and copper  converters  to   produce n
mixed gas stream suitable for control at
reasonable  costs would  have  required
further investigation and study.
  Unfortunately, limited resources pre-
vented all  avenues of investigation from
being pursued and In view of the promis-
ing indications from the preliminary in-
 vestigations Into flash and electric smelt-
 Ing, the Agency concentrated its efforts
 In  this area. As discussed  below, how-
 ever, the use of these approaches to con-
 trol sulfur dioxide  emissions from re-
 verberatory smelting furnaces axe under
 Investigation as a means by which the
 promulgated standards of  performance
 could be extended to cover reverberatory
 smelting furnaces which  process mate-
 rials containing high levels of Impurities.
   (3) Materials o/ high impurity levels.
 One  commentator expressed  his  belief
 that the proposed standards would pre-
 vent new primary copper smelters from
 processing materials containing high lev-
 els of Impurities, such  as arsenic, anti-
 mony, lead and zinc. This commentator
 does not feel flash smelting can be con-
 sidered demonstrated for smelting mate-
 rials  containing these  Impurities. The
 commentator also  feels  the  domestic
 smelting industry will not be able to em-
 ploy electric smelting to  process mate-
 rials  of this  nature  In  the  future, since
 electric power  will not be  available, or
 only available at a price which will pre-
 vent Its use by the industry.
  At  the time of proposal of the stand-
 ards for primary copper  smelters, the Ad-
 ministrator was aware that considerable
 doubt existed concerning  the  capability
 of flash smelting to  process materials of
 hiRh  impurity  levels. No  doubt existed.
 however, with regard to tbe capability of
 electric smelting to  process these mate-
 rials. Consequently,  the standards  were
 proposed on  the basis that where flash
 smelting could not be employed to  proc-
 ess  these  materials, electric  smelting
 coxild.
  As outlined above, the Arthur D.  Little
 study concluded that at no flash smelter
 In the world hns the  average composition
 of the M-.il oh.irpe  processed on a rou-
 tine bails  exceeded  0.2 weight  percent
 arsenic, 0.1 weight percent antimony, 45
 weight percent lead  and 5.5 weight per-
 cent zinc.  Tims,  the capability of flash
 smelting to process a charge containing
 higher levels of Impurities than these has
 not  been adequately demonstrated. At
 this time, therefore, only electric smelt-
 Ing preceded by multi-hearth ronsUns
 (In addition to revcrboratory  smelting
 preceded by multi-hearth  roasting) can
 be  considered adequately  demonstrated
 (excluding costs)  for processing  these
 materials.
  The Arthur D.  Little study  also ex-
 amined  the  projected  availability and
 pricing   of  various   forms of  energy
 through  1980 for  those  areas of the
 United  States   where  primary copper
 smelters now oiXM'atc. Although the en-
 ergy  consumed  by electric  smelting  is
 approximately equal to that consumed
 by  reverberntory smelting (taking  Into
 account  the  energy  Inefficiency associ-
 ated with electric power generation>. the
 study concluded that a cost penalty of
 1 to 2 cents per jwund of copper Is asso-
 ciated with  electric smelting  In  the
southwest D.S. due  to the nigh cost ol
electric  power In tills region. This  cost
 penalty was considered  sufficient In the
 Arthur D. Little study to  make  the use
                              FEDERAL REGISTER.  VOL 41,  NO. 10—THURSDAY, JANUARY  15, 1976
                                                      IV-125
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        2335
of electric smelting at new primary cop-
per smelters located In  the  southwest
economically unattractive in most cases.
  Since the basis for the proposed stand-
ards considered electric  smelting ns  a
viable  alternative  should  flash smelting
prove unable to process materials of high
impurity levels, the Administrator has
concluded the proposed standards should
be  revised  for promulgation.  Conse-
quently,   the  standards   promulgated
herein exempt new rcverbcratory smelt-
in?; furnaces  nt primary copper smelters
which  process a total charge containing
more  than 0.2 weight percent arsenic.
0.1 weight percent antimony, 4.5  weight
percent lead  or 5.5 weight percent zinc.
Tills will permit  new primary  copper
smelters to be  constructed to  process
materials of high impurity levels without
employing electric smelting. The promul-
gated  standards of performance  will,
however, apply to new roasters and cop-
per converters at  these smelters, since
the Administrator  has concluded these
facilities can be operated to produce gas
streams containing greater than 3 !z per-
cent sulfur  dioxide  and  that  the costs
associated  with controlling these gas
streams are reasonable.
  Although the Administrator considers
it prudent  to promulgate  the  standards
with this exemption for new reverbera-
tory smelting furnaces, the Administra-
tor believes this exemption m?.y  not  be
necessary. As pointed  out in  the com-
ments submitted by various environmen-
tal  organizations  and private citizens.
neither the use of oxygen  enrichment of
rcverberatory furnace combustion air,
nor the mixing of  the gases from revcr-
beratory furnaces with those from multi-
hearth roasters and copper converters
were Investigated in depth  by the Agency
In developing the  proposed standards.
Either of these approaches could prove
to be reasonable for controllinc sulfur
dioxide  emissions  from  rcverberatory
smelting furnaces.
  Under the promulgated standards with,
the exemptions provided for new rever-
beratory smelting furnaces, new primary
copper smelters could remain among the
largest point sources of  sulfur dioxide
emissions within the U.S.  Consequently,
the Agency's program to develop stand-
ards of performance to limit sulfur diox-
ide emissions from  primary copper smelt-
ers will  continue.  This  program will
focus on  the use of oxygen  enrichment of
reverberatory  furnace  combustion  air
and the mixing of  the Rases, from rever-
beratory smelting  furnaces with those
from multi-hearth roasters and  copper
converters. If  the Administrator con-
cludes either or both of these approaches
can be employed to control sulfur dioxide
emissions from reverberatory  smelting
furnaces at reasonable costs, the Admin-
istrator will propose that this exemption
be deleted.
  (4>  Copper smelter modifications. One
of the major Issues  associated with the
proposed  regulations on   modification.
notification and reconstruction  (39 FR
3694C)  Involved the "bubble  concept."
The "bubble concept" refers to the trad-
Ing off of  emission  increases  from one
existing  facility undergoing a physical
or operational change at a source with
emission reductions from another exist-
ing facility at the same source. If there is
no  net  increase in the  amount  of any
air pollutant (to which  a standard ap-
plies) emitted into the atmosphere by the
source as a whole,  the facility which ex-
perienced an emissions  increase is not
considered modified. Although the "bub-
ble concept" may  be  applied to existing
facilities which  undergo a physical  or
operational change, it may not be applied
to cover construction  of new facilities.
  In commenting on the proposed stand-
ards of performance for  primary copper
smelters,  two commentators suggested
that the bubble  concept  be extended  to
Include  construction of new facilities  at
existing  copper  smelters. These com-
mentators indicated that this could re-
sult in  a substantial reduction  in the
costs, while  at  the  same time leading
to a substantial reduction in emissions
from the smelter.
  To support their claims, these com-
mentators  presented  two hypothetical
examples of expansions at  a  copper
smelter that could occur through  con-
struction  of  new  facilities. Where new
facilities were controlled to meet stand-
ards of performance,  emissions from the
smelter  as  a whole  increased.  Where
some new facilities wore not controlled
to meet standards  of performance, emis-
sions from the smelter  as a  whole de-
crensed substantially.
  These results, however, depend on spe-
cial manipulation  of emissions from the
existing facilities at the  smelter. In the
case where new  facilities are controlled
to meet standards  of performance, emis-
sions from existing  facilities are not
reduced. Thus, with construction  of new
facilities, emissions from the smelter  as
a whole Increase. In the case where some
new facilities are not controlled to meet
standards  of performance,  emissions
from existing   facilities  are reduced
through  additional emission control  or
production  cut-back. Since  emissions
from the existing facilities were assumed
to be very large  initially, a reduction  in
these emissions results in a net reduction
in emissions from the  smelter as a whole.
  These hypothetical examples, however.
appear to represent contrived situations.
In  many  cases,  compliance  with State
Implementation  plans to meet the Na-
tional  Ambient  Air Quality Standards
will require existing copper smelters  to
control emissions to such a degree that
the situations portrayed In the examples
presented by' these commentators are
not  likely  to  arise.  Furthermore,  a
smelter operator may petition the Ad-
ministrator  for  reconsideration  of the
promulgated  standards  if  he believes
they would be infeasible when applied  to
his smelter.
  Another commentator  asked whether
conversion of an existing revcrberntory
smelting furnace from firing natural gas
to firing coal would constitute a modi-
fication. This commentator pointed out
that although the conversion  to firing
coal would increase sulfur dioxide emis-
sions from the smelter by 2 to 3 percent,
the costs of controlling  the  furnace  to
meet   the  standards  of  performance
would be prohibitive.
  The primary objective of the promul-
gated standards is to  control emissions
of sulfur dioxide from  the copper smelt-
ing process.  The data and information
supporting  the  standards  consider  es-
sentially  only  those emissions arising
.from  the basic  smelting  process, not
those arising from  fuel  combustion.  It
is not the direct intent of these  stand-
ards, therefore, to control emissions from
fuel combustion  per sc.  Consequently.
since emissions from  fuel combustion
are negligible in comparison  with those
from  the basic smelting process, and  a
conversion  of   reverberatory  smelting
furnaces to firing  coal rather than nat-
ural gas will aid  In efforts to conserve
natural gas resources, the standards pro-
mulgated herein include a  provision ex-
empting fuel switching in reverberatory
smelting furnaces  from consideration  as
a modification.
  (5)  Expansion  of  existing  smelter.t.
Two commentators expressed  their con-
cern that the proposed standards would
prevent  the  expansion of  existing pri-
mary copper smelters, since  the  stand-
ards apply to modified facilities as well
as  new facilities.  These commentators
reasoned  that the costs associated with
controlling emissions from  each roaster.
smelting  furnace  or copper  converter
modified  during  expansion   would   in
many cases make  these expansions eco-
nomically unattractive.
  As noted  above, the Agency has pro-
posed amendments to the general provi-
sions of 40 CFR Part 60 covering modified
and reconstructed sources. Under these
provisions, standards of performance ap-
ply only where an existing facility at  a
source is reconstructed: where ti change
in an existing facility  results in  an in-
crease in the total  emissions at a source:
and where a new facility is constructed
at a source. Thus,  unless total emissions
from a  primary copper smelter increase.
most  alterations  to  existing  roasters.
smelting furnaces or copper  converters
which increase their emissions will not
cause these  facilities  to be  considered
modified and subject to standards of per-
formance.
  The Administrator does not believe the
standards promulgated herein will deter
expansion  of existing primary copper
smelters.  As discussed earlier, the Ad-
ministrator  concluded  at proposal that
the cost  of controlling  reverberatory
smelting  furnaces  was  unreasonable
(through the use of various sulfur dioxide
scrubbing systems currently  available).
and for this reason included  nn exemp-
tion in  the  proposed standards for ex-
isting reverberatory smelting furnaces.
The prime objective of this  exemption
was to ensure that  existing primary cop-
per smelters could expand copper pro-
duction nt reasonable costs.
  Also,  as discussed  earlier, the Arthur
D. Little study  examined this aspect of
the proposed standards and  concluded
the standards would have little or no im-
pact on the ability of  existing primary
copper  smelters to expand production.
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO.  10—THURSDAY, JANUARY  15, 1976
                                                      LV-126
-------
 2336
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS
This conclusion was subject to two quali-
fications:  other  means  of  expanding
smelter capacity might exist than those
examined and the impact of the proposed
standards on these means of expanding
rapacity is unknown;  and  it  was  as-
sumed that existing single absorption sul-
iuric  acid  plants could be converted to
iMible absorption, but at some smelters
this might not be  possible.
  The Administrator does not feel these
ciu.ilifu'alions seriously detract from  the
essential conclusion  that  the standards
are likely to have little  impact on the ex-
pansion  capabilities of existing copper
smelters. The  various means  of expand-
ing smelter capacity examined in the  Ar-
thur D. Little study represent commonly
employed techniques for increasing cop-
per production from as little as 10 to 20
percent,  to as much as 50  percent at  ex-
isting  smelters. Consequently,  the Ad-
ministrator considers   the   approaches
examined In the study  as broadly repre-
sentative of various means of expanding
existing primary copper smelters and as
a reasonable basis from which  conclu-
sions  regarding the potential impact of
the standards on the expansion capabili-
ties  of  the  domestic   primary copper
smelting industry can be drawn..
  The Administrator views the assump-
tion in the Arthur D.  Little report that
existing  single absorption sulfuric aclci
plants can be converted to double absorp-
tion as a good assumption. Although at
some  existing primary copper  smellers
the physical plant layout might compli-
cate a conversion from single absorption
to double absorption, the remote isolated
location of most smelters provides ample
space for the construction of additional
plant facilities. Thus, while the costs for
conversion may vary  from  smelter to
smelter, it is unlikely that at any smelter
a conversion could not  be made.
  As proposed, provisions  were included
In the regulations specifically stating that
physical  and operating changes to exist-
ing  reverberatory  smelting  furnaces
which resulted in  an increase In sulfur
dioxide emissions  would not be  consid-
ered modifications, provided total emis-
sions  of  sulfur dioxide from  the copper
smelter  did not  increase  above levels
specified in State implementation plans.
  Since  proposal  of   the  standards,
amendments to 40  CFR Part 60 to clarify
the meaning of modification under sec-
tion  111  have  been  proposed.  These
amendments permit changes to existing
facilities within a source which Increase
emissions from these  facilities without
requiring compliance with standards of
performance,  provided total  emissions
from  the source do  not Increase. Since
this was the objective  of  the provisions
included in the proposed regulations  for
primary  copper smelters with regard to
changes to existing reverberatory smelt-
ing furnaces,  these provisions  are  no
longer necessary and have been deleted
from the promulgated regulations.
  (6>   Increased   energy  constnnption.
Two commentators  indicated that  the
Agency's estimate  of the impact of  the
standards  of performance for  primary
copper, zinc and lead smelters on energy
consumption was  much too  low. Since
 the number of smelters which will be af-
 fected  by the  standards is relatively
 small, the Agency has developed a sce-
 nario on  a smelter-by-smelter basis,  by
 which the domestic industry could in-
 crease copper production by 400,000 tons
 by 1980. This increase in copper produc-
 tion represents  a  growth rate of about
 3.5 percent per year and is  consistent
 with historical industry growth  rates of
 3 to 4 percent per year.
  On this new basis, the energy required
 to control all new primary copper, zinc
 and lead smelters constructed by 1980 to
 comply with both the proposed standards
 and the standards promulgated herein is
 the same  and is estimated to  be 320 mil-
 lion kilowatt-hours  per  year.  This  is
 equivalent to about 520.000   barrels  of
 number 6 fuel oil per  year. Relative to
 typical  State implementation plan  re-
 quirements for primary copper, zinc and
 lead smelters, the incremental energy re-
 quired by these standards Is  SO  million
 kilowatt-hours per year, which is equiva-
 lent to  about  80.000 barrels of number 6
 fuel oil  per year.
  The energy required to comply with the
 promulgated  standards  at  these  new
 smelters by 1980 represents no more than
 approximately 3.5 percent of the process
 energy which  would be required to oper-
 ate these  smelters in the absence of any
 control  of sulfur dioxide emissions. The
incremental amount of energy required to
 meet  these standards  is somewhat less
 than  0.5  percent  of the  total  energy
 (process plus air pollution) which would
 be required to operate these new smelters
 and meet typical State Implementation
 plan emission control requirements.
  One commentator stated the Agency's
 initial estimate  of the increased  energy
 requirements  associated  with  the  pro-
 posed standards was  low because  the
 Agency  did not take Into account a  3
 million Btu per ton of copper concentrate
 energy debit, attributed by the commen-
 tator  to electric smelting  compared  to
 reverberatory smelting. The  new basis
 used by the Agoncy to estimate  the Im-
 pact of the  standards on energy con-
 sumption  anticipates  no  new  electric
 smelting by 1980. Consequently, any dif-
 ference in the energy consumed by elec-
 tric smelting compared to reverberatory
 smelting  will have  no Impact  on  the
 amount of  energy required  to comply
 with the standards.
  The Agency's  estimates of  the energy
 requirements  associated  with  electric
 smelting  and reverberatory  smelting,
 which are included in the background In-
 formation  for the proposed  standards.
 nre based on  a  review of the technical
 literature  and contacts with  individual
 smelter operators. These estimates agree
 quite  favorably  with those developed In
 the Arthur D. Little study, which verified
 the Agency's conclusion that  the  overall
 energy requirements associated with  re-
 verberatory and electric  smelting are
 essentially the same. It remains,  the Ad-
 ministrator's conclusion,  therefore, that
 there  Is no energy debit associated with
 electric  smelting compared  to reverbera-
 tory smeltine.
  Another   commentator   feels  the
 Agency's original estimates fail  to take
 into account the fuel necessary to main-
 tain  proper operating  temperatures in
 sulfuric acid  plants. This commentator
 estimates  that  about 82.000  barrels of
 fuel oil per year are required to heat the
 gases in a double absorption sulfuric acid
 plant. The commentator then  assumes
 the domestic non-ferrous smelting in-
 dustry will expand production by 50 per-
 cent in the immediate future, citing the
 Arthur D. Little study for support. Since
 about   30   metallurgical  sulfuric  acid
 plants are  currently in use within the
 domestic smelting industry, the commen-
 tator assumes this means 15 new metal-
 lurgical sulfuric acid plants will be con-
 structed in the future.  This leads to an
 estimated energy impact associated with
 the standards of performance of about
 l!.'i million barrels of fuel  oil per year.
   It should be noted, however, that the
 growth  projections  developed   in  the
 Arthur D.  Little study  are  only  for the
 domestic copper smelting industry, and
 cannot be  assumed  to apply to the do-
 mestic zinc  and lead smelting  Industries.
 Over half the domestic zinc smelters, for
 example, have shut down since 1968 and
 zinc production has  fallen  sharply, al-
 though recently  plans  have  been  an-
 nounced for two new zinc  smelters. In
 addition, the  domestic  lead industry is
 widely viewed as a static Industry with
 little prospect for  growth  in the  near
 future.
   Furthermore,  the  Arthur  D.  Little
 study does not project a, 50 percent ex-
 pansion of the domestic copper smelting
 industry In  the  immediate future. By
 1980. the study estimates domestic cop-
 per production will have Increased by 15
 percent over 1974 and by 1985, domestic
 copper production will have  Increased by
 35 percent.
   The Agency's growth projections for
 the domestic  copper smelting Industry
 are somewhat higher than  those of the
 Arthur D. Little study and forecast a 19
 percent increase in copper production by
 1980 over 1974. The  commentator's esti-
 mate of a 50 percent expansion of the do-
 mestic non-ferrous smelting industry In
 the immediate future, therefore, appears
 much too high. Where the commentator
 estimates that the standards of perform-
 ance  will affect the  construction of lf>
 new metallurgical sulfuric  acid  plants,
 the Agency estimates the standards will
 affect  the  construction of  7  new acid
 plants (C In the copper Industry,  1 in
 the zinc industry and none in the lead
 industry). In addition, the Agency esti-
 mates the standards will require the con-
 version of  6 existing single absorption
 acid plants to double absorption (5 In
 the copper industry. 1 in  the zinc industry
 and none In the lead industry).
   As  noted above,  the  commentator's
 calculations also assume  that these 15
 new metallurgical  acid  plants  do not
 operate ruitolhonnaUy  (i.e.. fuel  firing
 is  necessary to maintain proper  operat-
 ing temperatures).  The commentator's
 estimate  that a double  absorption sul-
furic acid plant requires  82,000 barrels of
fuel oil per year is based on  operation
of   an  acid  plant  designed to operate
autothermally at 4',^ percent sulfur di-
oxide, but which operates on gases con-
                              FEDERAl REGISTER. VOL. 41. NO.  10—THURSDAY, JANUARY 15,  1976
                                                    IV-127
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
tainlng only 3h percent sulfur dioxide
40 percent of the time.
  Using this same basis, the Agency cal-
culates that a sulfuric  acid plant should
require less than 5.000 barrels of oil per
year. A review of these calculations with
two acid  plant  vendors and a private
consultant has disclosed no errors. The
Administrator must assume,  therefore,
that the commentator's calculations are
In error, or assume mi unrealistically low
degree of heat recovery in the acid plant
to preheat  the  incoming gases,  or are
based  on a  poorly  designed  or  poorly
operated sulfuric acid  plant which fails
to achieve the degree  of heat recovery
normally expected In a  properly designed
and operated sulfuric acid plant.
  Regardless of  these calculations, how-
ever, the  Administrator feels that with
good design, operation  and maintenance
of the  roasters,  smelting furnaces, con-
certers, sulfuric  acid plant and the flue
gas collection system and ductwork, the
concentration of sulfur  dioxide  in  the
eases processed  by a sulfuric acid plant
can be  maintained above 3'/2 to 4 percent
sulfur  dioxide. This level Is typically the
autothermal point  at which  no fuel
need be fired to maintain proper oper-
ating  temperatures  in  a well  designed
metallurgical  sulfuric  acid plant. Ex-
cept for occasional start-ups, therefore,
a well  designed and properly  operated
metallurgical sulfuric add plant should
operate autothermally and not require
fuel  for maintaining  proper operating
temperatures. Thus. It remains the Ad-
ministrator's conclusion that the  impact
of the standards on  Increased  energy
consumption,  resulting from increased
fuel consumption to operate sulfuric acid
plants, Is negligible.
  (7)  Emission  control  technology.  As
three commentators correctly noted, the
proposed  standards essentially require
the use of  one  emission control tech-
nology—double  absorption sulfuric acid
plants. These commentators feel, how-
ever, that this prevents the use of alter-
native  emission control technologies such
as single absorption sulfuric  acid plants
and elemental  sulfur  plants, and that
these  are equally effective and,  in the
case of elemental sulfur plants, place less
stress on the environment.
  Although  these  commentators  ac-
knowledge that  double absorption stU-
furtc acid plants operate at a higher ef-
ficiency  than   single  absorption  acid
plants  (99.5 percent vs. 87 percent), they
feel the availability of double absorption
slants  Is lower than that of single absorp-
tion plants  (90  percent vs. 92 percent).
These  commentators also point out that
double absorption acid plants require
more energy to  operate than single ab-
sorption plants.  When  the effect of these
factors on overall sulfur dioxide emis-
sions is considered, these commentators
feel there  Is no essential difference be-
tween  double and single absorption acid
plants.
   The difference In  availability between
single  and double  absorption  sulfuric
acid plants cited by these commentators
was estimated from  data gathered solely
on single absorption acid plants,  and Is
due essentially to only one item—that ot
the acid coolers for the sulfuric acid pro-
duced in the absorption towers. The data
used by  these  commentators,  however,
reflects "old technology" in this respect
If the  data are adjusted to reflect new
acid cooler technology, the availability of
single and  double absorption acid plants
Is estimated to be 94 and 93.5 percent.
respectively.
  Taking into account these differences
in efficiency and availability, the instal-
lation  of  a  1000-ton-per-day  double
absorption  acid  plant  rather  than  a
single absorption acid plant results In an
annual reduction in sulfur dioxide emis-
sions of about 4,500 tons. The difference
In annual availability between single and
double absorption acid plants, however,
does not influence short-term emissions.
Over short time periods the difference in
emissions   between  single  and  double
absorption  acid plants is a reflection only
of their difference in operating efficiency.
Over a 24-hour period,  for example,  a
1000-ton-per-day single  absorption acid
pant will  emit about  20 tons of sulfur
dioxide compared to about 3.5 tons from
a double absorption acid plant. Conse-
quently, the difference in emission con-
trol obtained through  the use of double
absorption  rather than single absorption
acid plants is significant.
  The increased sulfur dioxide emissions
released to  the atmosphere to provide the
greater energy  requirements  of  double
absorption over single absorption acid
plants Is also minimal.  For a nominal
1000-ton-per-day sulfuric acid plant, the
difference in sulfur dioxide emissions be-
tween  a single absorption  plant and  a
double  absorption  plant is about 16.5
tons per day as mentioned above. The
sulfur  dioxide emissions  from the com-
bustion of  a 1.0 percent sulfur fuel oil to
provide the difference in energy required,
however, is of  the order of magnitude
of only 200 pounds per day.
  As mentioned above, these commenta-
tors also feel that elemental sulfur plants
are as  effective as double absorption sul-
furic acid plants and place less stress on
the   environment.  Elemental  sulfur
plants normally achieve  emission reduc-
tion efficiencies of only about 90 percent,
which  is significantly lower than the 994-
percent normally achieved In double ab-
sorption sulfuric  acid  plants.   Conse-
quently, the Administrator does not con-
sider  elemental sulfur plants nearly as
effective as double  absorption  sulfuric
acid plants.
  Although elemental sulfur presents no
potential water pollution problems and
can be easily stored, thus  remaining  a
possible future  resource, the'Adminis-
trator 'does not agree that production of
elemental sulfur places less stress on the
environment than production of sulfuric
acid. At every smelter now producing sul-
furic acid, an  outlet  for  this acid  has
been  found,  either  in copper leaching
operations to recover copper from oxide
ores, or in the  traditional acid markets,
such as the production of fertilizer. Thus,
sulfuric  acid,  unlike  elemental  sulfur,
has found  use as a current resource and
not required storage for  use as a possible
future resource.
  The Administrator believes that tills
situation  will also  generally prevail  in
the future. If sulfuric acid must be neu-
tralized at a specific smelter, however,
this can  be  accomplished with  proper
precautions  without  leading to  water
pollution  problems, as discussed  in  the
background Information supporting  the
proposed  standards.
  A major drawback associated with the
production of elemental sulfur, however,
is the large amount of fuel required as ft
reductant in the process. When compared
to  sulfuric acid  production in  double
absorption  sulfuric  acid  plants,  ele-
mental sulfur production requires Irom
4 to  6 times as much  energy.  Conse-
quently, the  Administrator  is not con-
vinced that elemental sulfur  production,
which releases  about  20 times more sul-
fur dioxide  into  the atmosphere,  yet
consumes 4 to  6 times as much enerpy,
could be considered less stressful on the
environment than sulfuric acid produc-
tion.
        PRIMARY ZINC SMELTERS

  Only one  major comment was sub-
mitted to.the Agency concerning the pro-
posed standards of performance for pri-
mary zinc smelters. This comment ques-
tioned whether it would  be  possible  in
all cases to eliminate  90 percent or more
of the  sulfur originally  present  in  the
zinc concentrates during roasting.
  Most primary  zinc smelters  employ
either the electrolytic smelting process
or  the roast/sinter  smelting  process,
both of which  require a  roasting opera-
tion. The roast/sinter process, however,
requires-a sintering operation following
roasting.  Sulfur not  removed from  the
concentrates during roasting Is removed
during  sintering. Since  the  amount  of
sulfur removed by sintering is small, the
gases  discharged  from  this operation
contain a low concentration of sulfur
dioxide. As discussed  In the preamble to
the proposed standards, the cost of con-
trolling these emissions  was judged  by
the Administrator to be unreasonable.
  The amount  of sulfur  dioxide  emitted
from the sintering machine, however, de-
pends on  the sulfur removal  achieved in
the preceding roaster. To ensure a high
degree of  sulfur removal during roasting
which will minimize sulfur dioxide emis-
sions  from  the sintering machine,  the
sulfur dioxide  standard  applies  to any
sintering machine which eliminates more
than  10 percent of the sulfur originally
present in the zinc concentrates. This re-
quires 90  percent or more of the sulfur
to be eliminated during roasting, which is
consistent with good operation of roast-
ers as presently practiced at the two zinc
smelters In the United States which em-
ploy the roast/sinter process.
  One commentator pointed out that cal-
cium  and magnesium which  are present
as impurities In some zinc concentrates
could combine  with sulfur during roast-
Ing to form calcium and magnesium sul-
fates. These  materials would remain in
the  calcine  (roasted concentrate).  If
these sulfates were reduced In the sinter-
ing operation,  this could lead to more
than  10 percent of the sulfur originally
present In the zinc concentrates  being
                               FEDEKAl MGISTEI, VOL. 41, NO.  10—THURSDAY^ JANUARY  15, 1976


                                                       IV-128
-------
2.1-58
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
emitted  from  the  sintering  machine.
Under  these  conditions  the  sintering
machine would be  required to comply
with the sulfur dioxide standard.
  Although it is possible that this situa-
tion could  arise, as acknowledged by trie
commentator  himself  it does  not  seem
likely. Only a few zinc concentrates con-
tain enouph calcium and magnesium to
carry as much as 10 percent of the sulfur
in the concentrate over into  the sintering
operation, even assuming all the calcium
and magnesium present combined with
sulfur during the roast-ins operation.
  In addition, a number of smelter opera-
tors contacted by  the Agency  indicated
that it  is quite possible that not all the
calcium and magnesium present  would
combine with sulfur to  form  sulfates dur-
ing roasting. It is  equally  possible, ac-
cording to  these opera tors,  that not all
the  calcium  and  magnesium  sulfates
formed would be reduced in the sintering
machine. Thus, even with those few con-
centrates which do contain  a high level
of calcium  and magnesium, the extent
to which calcium and  magnesium might
contribute  t-o high  sulfur emissions  from
the sintering operation is questionable.
  Furthermore,  these  smelter operators
indicated that at  most zinc smelters a
number of different zinc concentrates are
normally blended to provide a homoge-
neous charge to the roasting operation.
As pointed out by these operators, this ef-
fectively permits a  smelter  operator to
reduce the  amount of calcium and mag-
nesium present in the charge by blending
oil  the high levels of calcium and mag-
nesium  present,  in one zinc concentrate
against the low levels present in another
concentrate.
  The Agency also discussed this poten-
tial problem with a number  of mill oper-
ators. These operators  indicated that ad-
ditional milling could be employed to re-
duce calcium  and magnesium  levels in
/.inc concentrates.  Although additional
milling  would entail some additional cost
and probably result in a somewhat higher
loss of zinc to  the tailings,  calcium and
magnesium levels  could be  reduced well
below the point where formation of cal-
cium and   magnesium  sulfate  during
roasting would be of no concern.
  While one may speculate  that calcium
nnd magnesium might lead to the forma-
tion of  sulfates during roasting, which
might in turn be reduced during sinter-
ing, the extent to which  this would
occur is unknown. Consequently, whether
this would prevent a primary zinc smelter
employing  the roast/sinter  process from
limiting emissions from sintering to no
more than  10 percent of the sulfur orig-
inally present in the  zinc  concentrates
is questionable.  The fact remains,  how-
ever, that at the two primary zinc smelt-
ers currently  operating in  the United
States  which  employ  the   roast'sinter
process  this has  not  been  a  problem.
Furthermore,  it appears that if calcium
and magnesium were to present a prob-
lem in  the future, a number of appro-
priate  measures,   such  as  additional
blending of zinc concentrates or addi-
tional milling of those concentrates con-
taining high  calcium  and  magnesium
levels, could be employed to deal with
the situation. As a result,  the standards
of performance promulgated herein  for
primary zinc  smelters require a sinter-
ing machine emitting more than 10 per-
cent of the sulfur originally present in
the zinc concentrates to comply with  the
sulfur dioxide standard for roasters.
        PRJMAHV LEAD SMELTERS
  No major comments were submitted to
the  Agency  concerning   the  proposed
standards  of  performance for  primary
lead smelters.  The proposed standards.
therefore, are  promulgated herein with
only minor changes.
           VISIBLE EMISSIONS
  The opacity levels  contained in  the
proposed standards to limit visible emis-
sions have  been reexamined to ensure
they are consistent with  the provisions
promulgated by the  Agency  since pro-
posal of these standards for determining
compliance with visible emissions stand-
ards  i39  FR 39872). These provisions
specify, in part, that the opacity of visible
emissions will be  determined  as  a  6-
minute average value of 24  consecutive
readings taken at 15 second  intervals.
Reevaluation of the visible  emission data
on which the opacity  levels  in the pro-
posed standards were based,  in terms of
G-minute averages, indicates no need to
change the opacity levels  initially pro-
posed. Consequently,  the  standards  of
performance are promulgated with  the
same opacity limits on visible emissions.
             TF.ST  METHODS
  The proposed standards of  perform-
ance  for primary  copper smelters, pri-
mary  zinc smelters  and   primary lead
smelters were  accompanied  by amend-
ments to Appendix A—Reference Meth-
ods of 40 CFR Part GO. The purpose of
the.se  amendments was  to add  to Ap-
pendix A a new test method (Method  12)
for use in  determining compliance with
the proposed standards of performance.
Method 12 contained performance speci-
fications for the sulfur dioxide monitors
required in the proposed standards and
prescribed  the procedures to  follow in
demonstrating that a monitor mot these
performance specifications.
  Since proposal of those  .strmd.-ini.s of
performance, the Administrator has pro-
posed  amendments to Subpart A-—Gen-
eral  Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, estab-
lishing a consistent set of definitions and
monitoring  requirements  applicable  to
all  standards  of   performance.  These
amendments  include  a  new  appendix
(Appendix  B—Performance  Specifica-
tions!  which contains performance spec-
ification.1; and procedures to follow when
demonstrating that a continuous moni-
tor meets  these performance specifica-
tions.  A continuous monitoring system
for me.'isiirine sulfur dioxide conrentra-
tions  that  is  evaluated in  accordance
•with the procedures contained  in this
appendix will be satisfactory for deter-
mining compliance with  the standards
promulgated herein for sulfur dioxide.
  The proposed Method 12 is  therefore
withdrawn  to  prevent an unnecessary
repetition of information in 40 CPR Part
60.
            EFFECTIVE DATE

  Iii accordance with section 111 of the
Act, these regulations prescribing stand-
ards of performance for primary copper
smelters, primary zinc smelters and pri-
mary lead smelters are effective on  (date
of publication)  1975 and apply to  all
affected facilities  at these  sources  on
which construction or modification  com-
menced after October 16. 1974.

  Dated: December 30, 1975.

                    JOHN QUARLES,
                Acting Administrator.
  Part  60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1.  The table of sections is amended  by
adding  subparts P. Q and R  as follows:
     «       •       *       *       •
   Subpart P—Standards of Performance for
         Primary Copper Smelters
60.1GO  Applicability nnd designation of nf-
         fccted facility.
G0.1GI  Definitions.
GO 162  standard for paniculate matter.
60.103  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
GO 164  Standard for visible emissions.
60.1G5  Monitoring of operations.
60.166  Test methods and procedures.
   Subpart Q—Standards of Performance for
           Primary Zinc Smelters
50.170  Applicability  -and   designation  of
         affected facility.
GO.I7I  Definition.':.
60.172  Standard for paniculate matter.
60.173  Standar-1 for sulfur dioxide.
GO.174  Standard for visible emissions.
00.175  Monitoring of operations.
60.176  Test methods and procedures.
   Subpart R—Standards of Performance (at
          Primary Lead Smelters
60180  Applicability  nnd   designation  of
         ixllecteci facility.
CO.Ifll  Definitions.
G0.1H2  Standard for pnrt.lrul.itc matter
G0.1IJD  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
GO.181  Standard for visible emissions.
OO.I8T>  Monitoring of operations.
60 180  Test  methods and procedures.
  AUTHORITV: (Sees. 111. 114 and 901 of (he
Clean Air Act as amended  (42 U.S.C. 1807c-
6. 18f>7e  !). I857pl.)


  2.   Part 60 is amended by adding sub-
pnrts P, Q and R as follows:

Subpart P—Standards of Performance for
        Primary Copper Smelters
£60.160  Appliriiltility  mill  iloi^milloti
     
-------
                                            RULES  ANH  REGULATIONS
                                                                        2339
  (b) "Dryer"  means  any facility  in
which a copper sulfide ore concentrate
charge is heated in the presence of air
to eliminate  a portion of  the  moisture
from the charge, provided less than  5
percent of the sulfur  contained  in the
charge is eliminated In the facility.
  (c) "Roaster"  means any facility  in
which a copper sulfide ore concentrate
charge is heated In the presence of air
to eliminate a significant portion (5 per-
cent or more)  of the sulfur contained
in the charge.
  (d) "Calcine" means the solid mate-
rials produced by a roaster.
  (e) "Smelting"   means   processing
techniques for the melting of  a copper
sulflde ore concentrate or calcine charge
leading to the formation of separate lay-
ers of molten slag, molten copper, and/or
copper matte.
  (f) "Smelting  furnace"  means  any
vessel In which the smelting  of  copper
sulflde  ore concentrates or calcines is
performed and In which the heat neces-
sary for smelting Is provided by an  elec-
tric current, rapid oxidation of  a portion
of the sulfur contained in the concen-
trate as it passes through  an  oxidizing
atmosphere, or the combustion of a fossil
fuel.
  (g) "Copper  converter"  means  any
vessel to which copper matte is charged
and oxidized to copper.
  (h> "Sulfuric acid  plant" means any
facility producing sulfuvic acid by the
contact process.
   (i) "Fossil  fuel" means  natural gas,
petroleum, coal,  and  any form of  solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel  derived from such
materials for  the purpose of creating
useful heat.
  (j) "Reverberatory smelting furnace"
means any vessel in which the smelting
of copper sulflde ore concentrates or cal-
cines is performed and in which the heat
necessary for smelting Is  provided pri-
marily by combustion  of a fossil fuel.
   (k) "Total smelter charge" means the
weight  (dry basis) of all copper sulfides
ore  concentrates processed  at a primary
copper  smelter,  plus the  weight  of  all
other solid materials Introduced into the
roasters and smelting  furnaces at a pri-
mary copper smelter, except calcine, over
a one-month period.
   (1) "High  level of volatile impurities"
means a total smelter  charge containing
more than 0.2 weight percent arsenic, 0.1
weight percent antimony, 4.5 weight per-
cent lead or 5.5 weight percent zinc, on
a dry basis.
§ 60.162  Slniulurd for pm lirulale  m;il-
     icr.
   (a)  On and after the date  on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted  by § 60.8 is completed,  no owner
or  operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart  shall cause to  be discharged
into the atmosphere from any dryer any
gases which contain  partlculate  matter
in excess of 50 mg/dscm (0.022  gr/dscf).
§ 60.J63  Stnniliiril for sulfur dioxide.
   (b)  On and after the date  on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by 5 60.8 is completed,  no owner
or  operator  subject to the  provisions
of this subpart shall cause  to  be dis-
charged into the atmosphere  from any
roaster, smelting furnace, or copper con-
verter any gases which contain sulfur
dioxide In excess of 0.065 percent by
volume,  except as  provided  in para-
graphs (b) and (c) of this section.
  (b)  Reverberatory smelting  furnaces
shall  be  exempted from paragraph  (a>
of this section  during periods when  the
total smelter charge  at the  primary cop-
per  smelter  contains  a high level of
volatile Impurities.
  (c)  A  change  in  the fuel  combusted
in a reverberatory furnace shall not be
considered a  modification under  this
part.
§ 60.164  Sl/imliird for  visible emi
-------
2340
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
 Subpart Q—Standards of Performance fw
         Primary Zinc Smelters
§60.170   Applicability  and  designation
    of affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to  the following affected facili-
ties In primary zinc smelters: roaster and
sintering machine.
§60.171   Definitions.
  As used In this subpart,  all terms not
defined herein shall have  the  meaning
given them  In the Act and In subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Primary zinc smelter" means any
Installation engaged In the production, or
nny Intermediate process In the produc-
tion, of zinc or zinc oxide from Elnc sul-
fide  ore  concentrates  through  the use
of pyromeUillurgtcal techniques.
  (b) "Roaster"  means any facility In
which  a  zinc  sulflde  ore concentrate
charge Is heated In the presence of air
to eliminate a significant portion (more
than 10 percent)  of the sulfur contained
in the charge.
  (c) "Sintering machine" means  any
furnace In which calcines  are heated in
the presence of  air to agglomerate the
calcines Into a hard porous mass called
"sinter."
  (d) "Sulfuric  acid  plant"  means  any
facility  producing  sulfurlc acid by the
contact process.
§ 60.172   Standard for purticulute  mai-
     ler.
  (a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 Is  completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
tills subpart shall cause to  be discharged
into the  atmosphere from  any  sintering
machine any  gases which contain  par-
ticulate matter in excess of 50  mg/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf).
§ 60.173  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
  (a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by § 60.8 Is  completed, no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
tills subpart shall cause to  be discharged
Into the atmosphere from any roaster
any gases which contain sulfur dioxide in
excess of 0.065 percent by volume.
  (b)  Any  sintering  machine which
sliminates  more than  10 percent of the
sulfur  Initially  contained In  the  zinc
sulfide ore concentrates will be consid-
ered as a roaster under paragraph (a)
of this section,
§ 60.174  Standard for visible omissions.
  (a) On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be  con-
ducted by  § 60.8 Is  completed,  no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
tills subpart shall cause to  be discharged
into the  atmosphere from  any sintering
machine any visible emissions which ex-
hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.
  (b) On and after the date  on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by  § 60.8 is  completed,  no owner
or operator subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to  be discharged
into the atmosphere from any affected
facility that uses a sulfurlc acid plant to
comply with the standard set forth In
5 60.173, any visible emissions which ex-
hibit greater than 20 percent opacity.

§ 60.175   Monitoring of operation*.
   (a) The owner or operator of any pri-
mary zinc smelter subject to the provi-
sions  of  this subpart shall install and
operate:
   (1 >  A continuous monitoring system to
monitor and record the opacity of gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from any
sintering machine. The span of this sys-
tem shall be set at  80  to 100 percent
opacity.
   (2) A continuous monitoring system to
monitor and record sulfur dioxide emis-
sions  discharged Into  the atmosphere
from any roaster subject to § 60.173. The
span  of  this  system  shall  be set  at  a
sulfur dioxide concentration of 0.20 per-
cent by volume.
   (1)  The continuous monitoring system
performance evaluation  required  under
 § 60.13(c) shall be completed prior to the
initial performance test required  under
§ 60.8. During the performance evalua-
tion, the span of the continuous monitor-
ing system may be set at a sulfur dioxide
concentration of 0.15 percent  by volume
if necessary to maintain  the system out-
put between 20 percent  and 90 percent
of full scale. Upon completion of the con-
tinuous monitoring system performance
evaluation,  the  span  of  the continuous
monitoring system shall be set at a sulfur
dioxide concentration of 0.20 percent by
volume.
   (ii) For the purpose of the continuous
monitoring system performance evalua-
tion required under § 60.13 Sulfur dioxide concentrations shall
bo  determined  using the  continuous
monitoring system installed in  accord-
ance with § 60.175(a). One 2-hour aver-
age period shall constitute one run.
  (b) For Method 5. Method  1 shall be
used for  selecting  the sampling site and
the number of traverse points, Method 2
for determining velocity and volumetric
flow rate and Method 3 for determining
the gas analysis. The sampling time for
each run shall be at least 60 minutes and
tfie minimum sampling volume shall be
0.85 dscm (30 dscf)  except that smaller
times or volumes,  when necessitated by
process variables or other factors, may be
approved by  the Administrator.

Subpart R—Standards of Performance for
         Primary Lead Smelters
§60.180  Applicability and designation
     of affected  facility.
  The provisions of this subpart arc ap-
plicable to the  following  affected facili-
ties in primary lead smelters: sintering
machine, sintering  machine  discharge
end. blast furnace, dross  reverberatery
furnace,  electric smelting furnace, and
converter.
§60.181   Definitions.
  As used In  this subpart, nil  terms not
defined herein  shall have the meaning
given them In the  Act and In  subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Primary lead smelter" means any
Installation or any intermediate process
engaged  in the production of  lead from
lead sulfide  ore  concentrates through
the use of pyrometallurgicaJ techniques.
  (b)  "Sintering  machine"  means any
furnace in which a lead sulfide ore  con-
ceptrate  charge is Jieatcd in the presence
of air  to eliminate sulfur contained in
the  charge   and  to agglomerate   the
charge into  a hard porous  mass called
"sinter."
  (c) "Sinter bed"  means the lead sulfide
ore concentrate charge within a sinter-
ing machine.
  (d> "Sintering machine discharge  end"
means any apparatus which receives sin-
ter as It is discharged from the conveying
grate of a sintering machine.
  
-------
                                            RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        2341
centrate charge is generated by passing
an electric current through a portion of
the molten mass In the furnace.
  (h) "Converter" means any vessel to
which  lead  concentrate  or  bullion  Is
charged and refined.
  (i)  "Sulfuric acid  plant" means any
facility  producing suit uric acid by the
contact process.
§ 60.182  Sliiniliiril for  |>;iMirul;ilr mill-
     Icr.
  (a) On and  after  the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted by I  60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator  subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause  to be discharged
into the atmosphere from any blast fur-
nace, dross  reverberatory furnace,  or
sintering  machine  discharge end  any
gases which contain ^articulate matter
In excess of 59 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
§ 60.183  Slumlord for sulfur dioxiilr.
  (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 shaJl cause  to be discharged
Into the atmosphere  from any sintering
machine,  electric smelting  furnace, or
converter gases which contain sulfur di-
oxide In  excess  of  0.065  percent  by
volume.
§ 60.181  .Standard for >isi!iU< missions.
  (a) On and  after  the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted  by i 60.8 is completed, no owner
or operator  subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere  from any blast fur-
nace, dross reverberatory  furnace,  or
sintering  machine discharge  end any
visible  emissions which exhibit greater
than 20 percent opacity.
   (b) On and  after the date on which
the performance test required to be con-
ducted  by § 60.8 Is completed, no owner
or operator  subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere from any  affected
facility that uses a sulfuric acid plant to
comply with the standard set  forth in
§ 60.183.  any   visible  emissions which
exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity.
§ 60.185  Monitoring of operations.
  (a) The owner or  operator  of  any
primary lead smelter subject to the pro-
visions of this subpart shall install and
operate:
  <1> A  continuous  monitoring system
to monitor  and record the opacity  of
gases discharged  into  the  atmosphere
from any blast  furnace,  dross  rever-
beratory furnace,  or sintering machine
discharge end. The span of this system
shall be set at 80 to 100 percent opacity.
  (2) A continuous  monitoring system
to monitor  and  record sulfur dioxide
emissions discharged  into  the atmos-
phere  from  any  sintering  machine,
electric  furnace  or converter subject to
§ 60.183. The span of  this system shall
be set at a sulfur  dioxide concentration
of 0.20 percent by volume.
  (i) The continuous monitoring system
performance evaluation required under
§ 60.13(c) shall be completed prior to the
initial performance test required under
§ 60.8. During the performance evalua-
tion, the span of  the continuous moni-
toring  system may  be set  at a sulfur
dioxide  concentration of 0.15 percent by
volume  if necessary to maintain the sys-
tem  output  between 20 percent and  00
percent of full scale.  Upon completion
of the  continuous  monitoring system
performance evaluation, the span of the
continuous monitoring  system shall  be
set at a sulfur dioxide concentration of
0.20  percent by volume.
   fii) For the purpose of the continuous
monitoring system performance evalua-
tion  required under § 60.13, the refer-
ence method referred to under the Field
Test for  Accuracy  (Relative) in Per-
formance Specification 2 of Appendix B
to this  part shall  be Reference Method
6. For the performance evaluation, each
concentration measurement shall  be of
one  hour duration. The pollutant gases
used to  prepare the calibration gas mix-
tures required under paragraph 2.1, Per-
formance Specification 2 of  Appendix B,
and  for calibration checks under § 60.13
 (d>, shall be sulfur dioxide.
   (b) Two-hour average  sulfur dioxide
concentrations shall be calculated and
recorded  dally for the twelve consecu-
tive two-hour periods of each operating
day. Each two-hour average shall be de-
termined as the arithmetic mean of the
appropriate  two  contiguous  one-hour
average  sulfur dioxide concentrations
provided by the continuous monitoring
system installed under paragraph (a) of
this section.
     For  the  purpose of  reports  re-
quired under § G0.7(cl, periods of excess
emissions that shall be reported arc de-
fined as follows:
   (11  Opacity.  Any  six-minute period
during  which  the  average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitoring
system installed under paragraph (a) of
this section, exceeds the standard under
§ 60.184(a>.
   (2)  Sulfur dioxide.  Any two-hour pe-
riod, as described  in  paragraph (b) of
this section, during  which the  average
emissions of sulfur dioxide, as measured
by the continuous monitoring system in-
stalled under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, exceeds the standard under § 60.183.

§ 60.186  Test  inrlluxls nn
-------
    3826
       RULES AND  REGULATIONS
2 7    Title 40 — Prelection of Environment

        CHAPTER  I— ENVIRONMENTAL
            PROTECTION AGENCY'
         SUBCHAPTER C— AIR PROGRAMS
                 |FRl.
     PART 60— STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
    ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
          Primary Aluminum Industry
     On October  23. 1974 (39 FR 37730*.
    under sections  111 and  114 of  (lie Clean
    Air Act '42 U.S.C  lRf>1c-G. \857c-9 >. as
    amended.  the  Administrator   proposed
    standards of performance for new and
    modified primary  aluminum  reduction
    plants  Interested persons participated
    in tlie riilemakmg by submitting \vriUen
    comments to EPA The comments have
    been carefully considered and.  where  de-
    termined by the Administrator to !>o ap-
    propriate. changes have been  marie  in
    the regulations  as promulKated.
     These regulations  will not.  in  them-
    selves. require control of emissions from
    existing  primary aluminum  reduction
    plants Such control will be required only
   after EPA establishes emission guidelines
    for  existing  plants under section 11 I'd)
    of the Clean Air Act.  which will trigger
   the adoption of  State emission standards
   for  existing  plants. General regulations
   concerning  control of existing sources
   under section lll'di  were proposed  on
   October 7. 1975 Ci!) FR 3C102)  and were
   promulgated  on November 17. 1975  (40
   FR  5333!)).
     The bases for the proposed standards
   are  presented in the first two volumes of
   a background document entitled "Back-
   ground  Information  for Standards  of
   Performance:  Primary  Aluminum  In-
   dustry " Volume 1  'EPA 450 2-74-020a.
   October 1974) contains thn rationale  for
   the  proposed standards and  Volume 2
     con-
   tains a summary of the supporting test
   data. An inflation impact .statement for
   tlie  standards and a  summary  of  the
   comments  received   on  the  proposed
   standards  along with  the Agency  re-
   sponses arc contained in a new  Volume 3
   <•-
 rording is Reference Method 13A or l.'!B
 which  were  promulgated along  with
 standards of  performance for the phos-
 phate  fertilizer  industry  on  August  C,
 1975 (40 FR 33152) .
 SIGNIFICANT   COMMENTS  ANN
   MADE TO THE  PROPOSED REGULATIONS

   Most of the comment letters  received
 by F.HA  contained  multiple comments.
 Copies of the comment letters  received
 and a summary of the comments and
 Agency responses are available for pub-
 lic. i:;:-peet;on and  copying at (lie U.S.
 Knviro/unental Protection Agency.  Pub-
 lic Information  Reference  Unit.  Room
 2922 (EPA Library i. 401 M Street. S.W..
 Washington.  D.C.  20460.  In  addition.
 copies of  the issue summary and Agency
 responses may be obtained upon written
 request from  the EPA  Public Informa-
 tion Outer iPM-215'. 401 M Street. SW.,
 Washington. D.C. 204GO I specify 'Back-
 ground Information for Standards  of
 Performance: Primary Aluminum Indus-
 try Volume 3:  Supplemental Informa-
 tion"  y4fi. October If). H)74'.  In  5 fiO.lDO
 as proposed,  the entire primary alumi-
 num reduction plant was designated as
 the affected  facility. The rimimcnl.-itors
 argued that,  as a result of this  desig-
 nation.  addition  or modification  of  a
 single  potroom   at  an  exist. ing  plant
 would  subject all existing polrooms at
 the plant to  the  standards  for  new
sources. The commentators argued  that
 this situation would unfairly restrict ex-
 pansion. The  Agency  considered  these
comments and .-weed Ui;it there would
be an adverse economic impact, on ex-
 pansion of existing plants unless the
affected facility  designation were re-
 vised.
  To alleviate (he  problem, a  new af-
 fected  facility designation has been in-
corporated in  S f)0.1£>0. The  affected
 facilities   within   primary   aluminum
plants  arc now  each "potroom  croup"
and each  anode  bake plant within pre-
bake plants. This redesignation in turn
required splitting the fluoride standard
for prebake plants into separate stand-
arris ior potroom groups and anode bake
plants  isec discussion in next section).
As denned in S 60. 191 'd'. the term "pot-
room group" means an uncontrolled pot-
 rontn. or a potroom which is controlled
 individually, or  a  group  of  potrooms
 ducted to the same control system. Under
 this revised designation,  addition  or
 modification  of a potroom group at an
 existing plant will not subject the entire
 plant to the standards  i unless the plant
 consists of  only  one potroom group).
 Similarly, addition or modification of an
 anode bake  plant at an exiting prebake
 facility will  not. subject the entire pre-
 bake facility to the  standards. Only the
 new or modified potroom group or anode
 bake  plant  must,  meet  the  applicable
 standards in such cases.
   i2>  Flunrid*'  Standard.  Many com-
 mentators questioned the  level  of  the
 proposed standard;  i e.. 2.0 Ib TF TAP.
 A  number of industrial commentators
 suggested  that  the standard be relaxed
 oi'  that it be specified in terms of  a
 monthly or yearly emission limit  Some
 commentators argued that the test data
 did  not support  the standard and that
 statistical  techniques should have been
 applied to the lest data in  order to ar-
 rive at an  emission standard.
   Standards of  performance under sec-
 tion 111 are  based on  the  best, control
 technology  which 'taking into account
 control  costs i  has  been  "adequately
 demonstrated."   "Adequately  demon-
 strated" means  that the Administrator
 must determine, on  the  basis of  M  in-
 formation  available to  him ' including
 but  not limited to tests and observations
 of  existing  plants  and demonstration
 projects or pilot applications'  and  the
 exercise of sound engineering judgment.
 that the control  technology relied upon
 in setting  a  standard  of  performance
 can  be  nuulo available  and will  be  ef-
 fective (o enable sources to comply with
 the  standards In other  words, test data
 for existing plants are not (he onlv bases
 for standard  setting  As discussed  in the
 background document.  KPA  considered
 not  only test data for  existing plants.
 but  also the  expected  performance of
 newly constructed plants  Sonic existing
 plants tested  did average le^s than  20
 II) TF TAP.  Additionally. KPA believes
 new plants ran  be specifically designed
 for  best control  of air  polliil,ii:t,s and.
 therefore, that new plan! emission con-
 trol  performance should  exceed that of
 well-controlled existing  plants  Kinally,
 relatively simple changes in current op-
 erating  methods 'e.g.. cell tapping1 can
 produce siKnilicanl reductions in  emis-
 sions. For  Die.se  reasons. KPA  believes
 the 2.0 Ib TF TAP standard  is both rea-
 sonable and achievable.  A more detailed
 discussion of the rationale for selecting
 the 2.0 Ib TF  TAP standard is contained
 in  Volume  1  ol  the backe.rcmnd  docu-
 ment, and KPA's  responses lo specific
 cnmmcnl.s on  the fluoride .standard are
 contained in Volume 3
  As a result  til'  Hie reviser) aft'crlcd fa-
cility (lesir.ivalion. the  "1.0  Ib Tt-Vl'AP
standard for prebake plants has been
split into separate standards lor potroom
groups 
-------
                                            RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                                                                              3827
bined standard to be consistent with the
original  affected  facility  designation
(i.e.,  the  entire  primary  aluminum
plant). At  the  time  of  proposal, the
Agency had  not foreseen the potential
problems with modification of a two part
affected facility. Data supporting each
component of the standard as proposed
•is contained in  the background docu-
ment (Volumes  1 and  2). In support of
the potroom component of the standard,
for example, two existing prebakc  pot-
rooms tested  by the  Agency  averaged
less than 1.9 Ib TF/TAP. Because no well
controlled anode bake plants existed at
the time of  aluminum  plant testing, the
components for anode bake plants was
based on a conservatively assumed con-
trol efficiency for technology demonstrat-
ed in the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Using the highest emission rate observed
at two anode bake plants which were not
controlled for fluorides and applying the
assumed control efficiency, it was  pro-
jected that these plants would emit ap-
proximately 0.06 Ib TF/TAP (0.12 Ib TF/
ton of carbon anodes produced). In addi-
tion,  as  indicated in Volume 1  of the
background document, it may be possi-
ble to meet the standard for anode bake
plants simply by better cleaning of anode
remnants. The Agency also has estimates
of emission  rates for  a prebake facility
to be built in the near future. The  esti-
mates indicate that the anode bake plani
at the facility will easily meet  the 0.1
TF/TAP standard.
  One commentator questioned why the
standard was not more stringent  con-
sidering  the  fact  that  Oregon  has
promulgated the following standards for
new primary  aluminum plants:  (a)  a
monthly average of 1.3 pounds of fluoride
ion per ton  of aluminum produced, and
(b) an  annual average of  1.0 pound of
fluoride  ion  per  ton  of  aluminum
produced.
  There are several  reasons  why the
Agency elected  not to adopt standards
equivalent to the Oregon standards. Per-
haps most important, EPA believes  that
the Oregon standards would require the
installation  of relatively inefficient  sec-
ondary scrubbing systems at most. If not
all  new primary aluminum plants. By
contrast, EPA's standard will require use
of secondary  control systems only for
vertical stud  Soderberg  (VSS)   plants
(which  are  unlikely to be built in  any
event) and side-work prebake plants. A
standard  requiring  secondary  control
systems on most if  not all  plants would
have a substantial adverse economic im-
pact  on the aluminum industry, as  is
indicated in the economic section of the
background    document.   Accordingly,
EPA has concluded that considerations
of cost preclude establishing a standard
comparable  to the  Oregon standards.
  A second  reason for  not  adopting
standards  equivalent   to  the   Oregon
standards stems from  the fact  that the
latter were  based on  test data consist-
ing of six monthly  averages (calculated
by averaging from three to nine Individ-
ual tests each month) from a  certain
well controlled plant (which incorporates
both  primary and  secondary control).
Oregon applied  a statistical  method  to
these data to derive the emission stand-
ards it adopted. As discussed in the com-
ment summary, EPA  also  performed a
statistical analysis  of  the  Oregon  test
data,  which yielded   results  different
from those presented in the Oregon tech-
nical report. If  the Agency's results  had
been used, less stringent emission stand-
ards might  have been  promulgated in
Oregon.
  A  third consideration is that the  test
methods used by Oregon were not the
same as those  used by the Agency to
collect emission data  in support of the
respective standards.  Therefore, Ore-
gon's test data and the Agency's  test
data are not directly comparable.
  Finally, a  comment on the standard
for fluorides  questioned whether or not
EPA had considered a new. potentially
non-polluting primary aluminum reduc-
tion process developed by Alcoa.  The
commentator argued that if the process
had  become commercially available, the
standard should be set at  a level suffi-
ciently stringent to  stimulate the  devel-
opment of this  new process. In response
to this  comment, EPA has investigated
the process and has determined that it
is not yet commercially available. Alcoa
plans to test the process at  a small pilot
plant which will begin production early
next year.  If the pilot plant  performs
successfully, it  will  be  expanded to  full
design capacity by the early 1980's. EPA
will monitor the progress of this process
and  other processes under  development
and  will reevaluate the standards of per-
formance for the primary aluminum in-
dustry,  as appropriate,  in  light of  the
new technology.
  (3)  Opacity.  Some  of the industrial
commentators objected to the proposed
opacity  standards  for potrooms  and
anode  bake  plants. They  argued that
good control of  total fluorides will result
in good control of particulate matter,
and therefore that the opacity standards
are unnecessary. EPA agrees  that good
control  of total fluorides will  result in
good control of  particulate matter; how-
ever, the opacity standards  are intended
to serve as inexpensive enforcement tools
that will help to insure proper operation
and  maintenance of  the  air  pollution
control   equipment.  Under   40  CFR
60.11(d), owners and operators of  af-
fected  facilities are  required to operate
and  maintain their control equipment
properly at all times. Continuous monl-
taring instruments are often required to
indicate compliance with 60.11(d).  but
this  is not  possible   in  the  primary
aluminum industry  because continuous
total fluoride monitors are not commer-
cially available. The data  presented in
the background document indicate that
the opacity standards can be easily  met
at well  controlled plants that are prop-
erly  operated and maintained. For these
reasons, the opacity standards have been
retained In the final  regulations.
  EPA recognizes, however, that in  un-
usual circumstances (e.g.,  where  emis-
sions exit from an extremely wide stack)
a source might meet the mass emission
limit but fail to meet the opacity limit.
In such cases, the owner or operator of
the source may petition the Administra-
tor to establish a separate opacity stand-
ard under 40 CPTl 60.1 He) as revised on
November 12, 1974 (39 FR 39872).
   <4i Control ot  Other Pollutants.  One
commentator  was concerned that EPA
did  not  propose  standards  for carbon
monoxide  and sulfur dioxide (SO;)
emissions from  aluminum plants.  The
commentator  arKued  that  aluminum
smelters are significant sources of these
pollutants, and that although  fluorides
are the most toxic aluminum plant emis-
sions, standards for all pollutants should
have been proposed. As discussed in the
preface to Volume  1 of the  background
document, fluoride  control was  selected
as one area of emphasis to be considered
in implementing  the  Clean  Air Act. In
•turn, primary aluminum  plants  were
identified as major  sources of  fluoride
emissions and were  accordingly listed as
a category of sources for which standards
of performance would be proposed. Nat-
urally,  the  initial  investigation   into
standards  for the  primary  aluminum
industry  focused  on  fluoride   control.
However, limited  testing of CO and SO:
emissions was also carried out and it was
determined  (a)  that although  primary
aluminum plants might be a significant
source of SO., SO., control technology had
not been demonstrated in the industry,
and 'b)  that CO emissions  from  such
plants were  insignificant. For these rea-
sons, standards uf performance  were not
proposed for SO., and CO emissions.
  It is possible that SOj control technol-
ogy used in other  industries might be ap-
plicable to aluminum plants,  and recent
information indicates that CO emissions
from such plants may be significant. At
present,  however. EPA has insufficient
data on which to base SO2 and CO emis-
sion standards for aluminum plants. EPA
will  consider  the   factors   mentioned
above and other relevant information in
assigning priorities  for future standard
setting and  invites  submission of perti-
nent information  by  any  interested
parties. Thus, standards for CO and SO3
emissions from primary aluminum plants
may be set in the future.
  (5) Reference Methods  13A and 13B.
These  methods prescribe sampling  and
analysis  procedures  for  fluoride emis-
sions and are applicable to  the testing
of phosphate  fertilizer plants in addi-
tion to  primary aluminum, plants. The
methods were originally  proposed  with
the  primary  aluminum, regulations  but
have been promulgated with the stand-
ards of performance for  the phosphate
fertilizer industry (published August 6,
1975. 40 FR 33152) because the fertilizer
regulations  were  promulgated before
those for primary aluminum.  Comments
on the methods were received from both
industries and mainly concerned  pos-
sible changes  in procedures  and equip-
ment specifications. As discussed in the
preamble to the phosphate fertilizer reg-
ulations, some minor changes were made
as a result of these comments.
  Some commentators expressed a desire
to replace Methods  13A  and 13B  with
totally  different  methods  of  analysis
They felt that they should  not be re-
stricted to using only those methods pub-
lished by the Agency. In response to these
                              FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 41, NO.  17—MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1976

                                                  IV-134
-------
  3828
                                               RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
 comments, an  equivalent or alternative
 method may be used if approved by the
 Administrator  under 40 CPR 60.8.
    (6> Reference Method  14. Reference
 Method 14 specifies sampling equipment
 and  sampling procedures  for measuring
 fluoride emissions from roof monitors.
 Most comments concerning  this method
 suggested   changes  in the  prescribed
 manifold  system.  A number  of  com-
 mentators  objected  to the requirement
 that stainless steel be used as the struc-
 tural material for the manifold and sug-
 gested  that other, less expensive struc-
 tural materials would work as well. Data
 submitted  b.v  one  aluminum manufac-
 turer supported the use of aluminum for
 manifold construction. The  Agency  re-
 viewed these data and concluded that an
 aluminum manifold will provide satisfac-
 tory  fluoride samples if the  manifold is
 conditioned prior to testing  by passing
 fluoride-laden  air  through  the system.
 By using aluminum  instead  of  stainless
 steel, the cost  of installing  a sampling
 manifold would be substantially reduced.
 Since the Agc-ncy had no data  on other
 possible structural materials, it was  not
 possible to endorse their use in the meth-
 od. However,  the following wording ad-
 dressing this subject has been added to
 the method text (§2.2.1): "Other ma-
 terials of construction may be used if it
 is  demonstrated  through comparative
 testing  that there is  no loss  of  fluorides
 in the system."
   Some  commentators also  objected to
 the requirement that the mean velocity
 measured  during fluoride sampling  be
 within ±10 percent of the previous 24-
 hour  average  velocity recorded  through
 the system. In order to reduce the num-
 ber  of  rejected, sampling  runs  due  to
 failure  to meet the above criteria,  the
 requirement has been amended such that
 the  mean   sampling velocity must  be
 within ±20 percent  of  the previous  24-
 hour  average velocity. EPA believes that
 the relaxation  of this requirement will
 not  compromise the  accuracy  of  the
 method.
  (7) Economic Impact. Some comments
 raised questions regarding  the economic
 impact of the proposed regulations. The
 Agency  has considered these  comments
 and responded  to them in  the comment
 summary cited above. As indicated pre-
 viously,  an  analysis  of the inflationary
 and energy impacts of the standards ap-
 pears in Volume 3  of  the background
 document.   Copies of  these  documents
 may be obtained as indicated previously.
  Effective date. In accordance with sec-
 tion 111 of the Act. these regulations are
 effective  January 26,  1976  and apply  to
sources the construction or modification
of  which commenced after proposal  of
 the standards;  i.e.,   after  October  23,
1974.
 (It Is hereby certified that the economic and
inflationary  impacts of  this regulation have
been carefully evaluated In accordance with
Executive Order 11821)

  Dated: January 19,1976.

                 RUSSELL E.  TRAIN,
                      Administrator.
    Part  60  of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
  Code of Federal Regulations, is amended
  as follows:
    1. The table  of sections is amended by
  adding  a  list of sections  for Subpart S
  and by adding Reference Method 14 to
  the list of reference methods in Appen-
  dix A as follows:
     Subpart S—Standards of Performance for
       Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
  Sec.
  60.190  Applicability and designation of af-
         fected facility.
  60.191  Definitions.
  60.192  Standard for iluorldes.
  60.193  Standard for visible emissions.
  60.194  Monitoring of operations.
  60.195  Test methods and procedures.
     •      •      *      «      +
    APPENDIX A—REFERENCE  METHODS
 METHOD 14—DETERMINATION OF FLUORIDE
   EMISSIONS FROM  POTROOM  ROOF MONI-
   TORS OF PRIMARY ALUMINUM PLANTS
   AUTHORITY: Sees. Ill and 114, Clean  Air
 Act, as amended by sec. 4(a), Pub. L. 91-604,
 84 Stat. 1678, 42 U.S.C. 1857 C-6, C-9.

   2. Part 60 is amended by adding sub-
 part S as follows:
  Subpart S—Standards of Performance for
    Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
 § 60.190   Applicability and  designation
     of affected facility.
   The affected facilities in primary alu-
 minum reduction plants to  which this
 subpart applies are potroom  groups and
 anode bake plants.

 §60.191   Definition*.
   As used  in this subpart, all terms not
 defined herein  shall  have the meaning
 given them in the Act and in subpart A
 of this part.
   (a)  "Primary  aluminum  reduction
 plant" means any facility manufacturing
 aluminum by electrolytic reduction.
   (b) "Anode bake plant" means a facil-
 ity which produces carbon anodes  for use
 in a primary aluminum reduction  plant.
   (c) "Potroom" means a building unit
 which houses a group of electrolytic cells
 in which aluminum  is produced.
   (d) "Potroom group" means an uncon-
 trolled  potroom, a  potroom  which  is
 controlled  individually, or a group  of
 potrooms  ducted to  the same  control
 system.
   (e> "Roof monitor" means that portion
 of the roof of a potroom where gases not
 captured  at the  cell  exit   from the
 potroom.
   (f)  "Aluminum equivalent"  means an
 amount of aluminum which can be pro-
 duced from a ton of anodes produced by
 an anode bake plant as determined by
 § 60.195(e).
  (g)  "Total fluorides" means  elemental
fluorine and  all  fluoride compounds as
measured by reference methods specified
in § 60.195 or by equivalent or alternative
 methods [see § 60.8ib)l.  •
  (h) "Primary  control system"  means
an air pollution control  system designed
 to remove gaseous and particulate fluo-
rides from exhaust gases which are cap-
tured at the cell.
      "Secondary control system" means
 an air pollution control system designed
 to remove  gaseous and particulate fluo-
 rides from  gases which escape capture by
 the primary control  system.

 § 60.192  Slumlord for fluorides.
    ia)  On and after  the date on which
 the performance test required to be con-
 ducted by  5 60.8 is completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 tliis subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere  from  any affected
 facility  any gases which contain total
 fluorides in excess of:
    <1>   1  kg/metric  ton  (2  Ib/ton)  of
 aluminum  produced  for  vertical stud
 Soderberg and horizontal stud Soderberg
 plants:
    i2)  0.95 kg/metric ton (1.9 Ib/torO of
 aluminum produced for potroom groups
 at prebake  plants: and
    (3*  0.05 kg/metric  ton (0.1 Ib/ton) of
 aluminum  equivalent  for  anode  bake
 plants.

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

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

 S 6(). 195  Test methods nn  Method  1 for sample and velocity
traverses.
  iiii>  Method 2  for velocity and volu-
metric  flow rate, and
  -------
   (li) Method  1 for sample and velocity
 traverses,
   (ill)  Method 2 and Method 14 for ve-
 locity and volumetric flow rate,  and
     Method 3 for gas analysis.
   (3)  For sampling emissions from roof
 monitors  not  employing stacks   but
 equipped with  pollutant collection sys-
 tems,  the  procedures  under  § 60.8
 shall be followed.
     For Method  13A or 13B, the sam-
 pling time for each run shall  be at least
 eiRht hours for any potroom sample and
 at least four hours for any anode bake
 plant sample, and the minimum sample
 volume shall be 6.8 dscm (240 dscf)  for
 any potroom sample and 3.4  dscm  (120
 dscf)  for any anode bake plant sample
 except that shorter sampling times  or
 smaller  volumes,  when  necessitated  by
 process variables  or other  factors,  may
 be approved by  the Administrator.
  (c)  The air  pollution control system
 for each affected facility  shall be con-
 structed so that volumetric flow rates and
 total fluoride emissions can be  accurately
 determined  using  applicable  methods
 specified  under paragraph (a)  of  this
 section.
  »10-»
where:
      Erf=poiroom group emissions of total
            fluorides  In  kg/metric ton  of
            aluminum produced.
      C.=concentratlon  of total  fluorides
            In  mg/dscm  as determined by
            Method  13A- or   138. or  by
            Method 14, as applicable.
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS

       
-------
 3830

   Locate  (lie imnlfold  along  the length of
 the  roof  monitor  sn  Ilia;  It  lies nenr  the
 mldsr-tlon nf the roof monitor. If the design
 of a parUeular n>fif nvnilov makes ihls  Im-
 •losflfolc. the manifold mny be located clsc-
 Ivhere afon.e the  roof  monitor,  1)1!'  avoid
 locating the manifold near the ends of  the
 roof  monitor  or  in  .1  section  where  thp
 aluminum reduction pot. arrangement Is  not
 lyplcnl of the rest of the potroom. Center the
sample  iio/,/les  In  (lie  '.hroat of tile  root
 monitor.  (Sec  -Figure 14--1.)  Construct   nil
ssmple-expufed surfaces within the  mi/wler.
manifold  and  sample, duel of  Hit; stainless
steel. Aluminum may  he used If a new duct-
work system Is  conditioned \vlth Iluoride-
laden roof monitor air  for a  period of  six
weeks prior to Initial testing. Other materials
of construction may be  used If It Is  demon-
strated  through  c.-miparatlre   lest))!.!; that
 there Is no loss of fluorides In the system. Ail
connections  In  the ductwork  shall  be leak
free.
  Locate two sample ports  in a vertical sec-
tion of  the duct  between  the roof monitor
and exhaust fan. The sample ports shall he at
least, 10  duct  diameters  downstream  and
two diameters  upstream from  any flow dis-
turbance such  as a bend or contraction. The
two sample ports shall be situated 90" apart.
One of the sample ports snail be situated so
that the duct can  !>e  traversed In the plane
of the nearest  upstream duct  bend.
  2.2.2 Exhaust  /an.  An Industrial  fan  or
blower to  be attached to  the  sample duct
at. ground level.  (See Figure 14-1.) This  ex-
haust fan  shall  have  a maximum capacity
such  that a large enough volume of  Mr can
be  pulled  through the  ductwork to main-
tain an Isokinetlc sampling rate  in  all  the
sample nozzles for all flow rates normally en-
countered  In the roof monitor.
  The exhaust  Jan volumetric flow rate shall
be  adjustable so thai the  roof monitor  air
can he drawn Isoklnetically  into the  sample
nozzles. Tills control of How may be achieved
by a damper  on the inlet to the exhauster or
by any other workable method.
  2.3  Temperature measurement  apparatus.
  2.3.1 Thermocouple, installed In the roof
monitor near the sample duct.
  2.3.2  Signal   transducer.  Transducer   to
change the thermocouple voltage  output  to
a temperature  readout.
  2.3.3 Thermocouple  wire. To reach  from
roof  monitor   to  signal   transducer  and
recorder.
  2.3.4 Sampling  train.  Use the  train  de-
scribed  In  Methods 13A  ana 1313—Determi-
nation or total fluoride .emissions from sta-
tionary  sources.
  3.  Reagents.
  3.1  Sampling and analysis.  Use reagents
described.  In  Method 13A or 13B—Determi-
nation of total fluoride  emissions from sta-
tionary  sources.
  4.  Calibration.
  4.1  Propeller  anemometer. Calibrate  the
anemometers so  that  their electrical signal
output corresponds to the  velocity or volu-
metric flow  they are  measuring. Calibrate
according to manufacturer's Instructions.
  4.2  Manilold intake noszlcs. Adjust the ex-
haust fan  to draw a volumetric flow rate
 (refer to Equation 14-1) such that  the en-
trance velocity Into  each  manifold   nozzle
approximates the average effluent  velocity In
the roof monitor. Measure the velocity of the
       RULES  AND  REGULATIONS

 air entering each  no7/le  by inserting an  S
 type pilot tube Hit'' :i '• •> cm or less diameter
 hole (see Figure  M 2) located  In the mani-
 fold between each  blaM gate (or valve)  ^ncl
 nnv:7.1c. The  pilot lithe tip shall lie  extended
 into the center  of  the  manifold. Take care
 to insure that  ther^ is no leakage around the
 pilot probe which  could affect  the Indicated
 velocity in the manifold leg. if the velocity
 of air being drawn into each  noz/lc Is  not
 i.hc name, open «'  close e;ic)i  Mast gate (or
 valve) until  the velocity In each nozzle is the
 snme.  Fasten each  blast gate  (or vnlvc)  so
 that it will remain in this position and close
 the pitot port holes This calibration shall be
 performed when  the manifold  system  Is in-
 stalled.  (Note: It is recommended that this
 calibration be  repeated at  least once a year.)
  5. Procedure.
  5.1  Rooj monitor velocity determination.
  5.1.1   Velocity  value for setting isokinctic
 floit.  During the 24 hours preceding a test
 run. determine thr  velocity Indicated by the
 propeller anemometer in the section of roof
 monitor containing the sampling manifold.
 Velocity readings shall  be  taken every  15
 minutes or at  shorter equal  time Intervals.
 Calculate the average velocity for the 24-hour
 period.
  5.1.2  Velocity determination during a test
 run. During  the  actual tost run. record  the
 Velocity  or volume readings of each propeller
 anemometer In the roof  monitor.  Velocity
 readings s)>.i)J be taken 1m each anemometer
 every 15  minutes or at shorter equal time
 Intervals (or continuously).
  5.2    TC7iiperature recording.  Record the
 temperature  of the roof monitor every two
 hours during the test run.
  5.3   Sampling.
  5.3.1  PrcJi7Jimt the sample  port.s In order for sample
gas to be drawn l.sokinetlcnlly Into the mani-
 fold nozzles.  Perform a pltot traverse of the
 duct at the sample  ports to determine if the
 correct average velocity In  the duct has been
achieved. Perform  the pltot  determination
 according to Method 2. Make this determina-
 tion  before the start of a  test run.  The fan
setting need  not be  changed  during  the run.

            8 (Dnl~      I tnlmite
          "   (D*)-     "'    CO sec
 where:
  V«=deslred  velocity  In duct at  sample
        ports, meter/sec.
  Dn^dlameter of a  roof monitor manifold
        nozzle, meters.
  Z3tf^diamcter  of   duct  at sample  port,
         meters.
  Vm=averagc velocity of the air stream in
        the roof monitor, meters/minute, as
         determined under section 5.1.1.
   5.2.3   Sample train operation. Sample the
 duct using flip standard  fluoride  train nnd
 methods described In Methods 13A and 13B
 Determination  of total   fluoride  emissions
 from stationnrv sources. Select sample trav-
 erse points according to Method 1.  If a se-
 lected siMipllni; point Is less than one inch
 from the stack wall, adjust  the location of
 that point to one  Inch away from the wall.
   5.3.4   Each  test run slia'll last eight  hours
 or more. ][ n  question exists concerning the
 representativeness of  an  eight-hour  lest,  a
 longer test  period up to 24 hours mny be se-
 lected.  Conduct  each run during a period
 when  all normal  operations are performed
 underneath the sampling  manifold, i.e. tap-
 ping, anode changes, maintenance,  and other
 normal  duties. All pots In the potroom shall
 bo operated In a normal manner during the'
 test period.
   5.3.5   Snm,-)(c recovery.  Same as  Method
 ISA  or  131!—Determination of total  fluoride
 emissions from stationary sources.
   5.4  .47in!;/si.v. Same as Method ISA or 13F!—
 Determination  of total  /Juoride  emlssioiis
 from stationary sources.
   6. Calculations.
   6.1 IfOkinrtic sampling  test. Calculate the
 mean  velocity measured  during each sam-
 pling run by the anemometer in the section
 of the roof  monitor containing the sampling
 manifold If the mean velocity recorded dur-
 ing a particular test run does not fall within
 .^20  percent of the menu velocity established
 according to 5.3.2.  repeat the rim.
   6.2 Average velocity of root monitor  gases.
 Calculate the average roof monitor  velocity
 using nil the velocity or volumetric flow read-
 ings from section 5.1.2.
   6.3 Root  monitor temperature.  Calculate
 the mean value of the. temperatures recorded
 In section 5.2.
  0.4 ConceitfrnfiO7t of fluorides in roo/ moni-
 tor nfr in i7ig f. 7i]  . This Is given by Equation
 ISA-5  in  Method  13A— Determination  of
 total  fluoride  emissions   from  stationary
 sources.
  0.5 Average  volumetric  flow from  roof  Is
 given by Equation  14-2.
            V-,. (.-I)  (AM r,; (294'K)
            ("TV,  (-  273';  (7GO mm Jig)
 where:
   Q,,,—average  volumetric  flow  from  roo!
          monitor at standard conditions on
          a dry basis, nr-mln.
     /--root monitor open area, in'-'.
   Vmi --average  velocity of nir In the  fool
          monitor, meters  'minute,  from sec-
          tion 6.1!

   Pm- atmospheric pressure, mm Hg.
   Tm—-roof monitor temperature,  'C, from
          section 0.3.
  jlf.i — mole fraction of dry  Ras.  which  Is
                      100--JOO <#„.»)
          given by,I/,-,    . ^	

   £«•»-• Is the  proportion by volume of water
         vapor  in  the  gas   .stream,  from
          Equation 13A-3. Method  13A- De-
         termination of total  fluoride emis-
         sions from stationary sources.

 (.Sections 1! 1 and  114 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended by section 4(a)  of Pub. I,. 91-604. 84
Slat. 1078 (42 U.S.C. 1B57C-6, c-9) |.

   |FRDoc.76-2133 Filed 1-23-70:8:45 am]
                                  FEDERAL  REGISTER,  VOL. 41. NO.  17—MONDAY, JANUARY  Id,  1976

                                                         IV-137
-------
28
     Title 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
               [PRL 483-7)
   PART 5O—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
   ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
    Delegation of Authority to Washington
              Local Agencies
    Pursuant to section 11 He) of the Clean
  Air Act, as amended, the Regional Ad-
  ministrator ol RcRlon X, Environmental
  Protection  Arrency  (EPA), delegated  to
  the State of Washington Department of
  Ecology on February 28. 1975.  the au-
  thority to  Implement and  enforce  the
  program   for standards of performance
  for new stationary sources (NSPS). The
  delegation  was  announced In the FED-
  ERAL REGISTER  on April  1, 1975  (40  FR
  H632). On April 25, 1975 (40 FR 18169)
  the Assistant Administrator for  Air and
  Waste   Management  promulgated  a
  ch;inge to 40 CFR 60.4, Address to re-
  flect the  delegation to  the State  ol
  Washington.
    On September 30 and October  8 and 9.
  1975. the  State Department of  Ecology
  requested  EPA's  concurrence  In  the
  State's sub-delegation of the MSfa pro-
  gram to four local  air pollution control
  agencies. After reviewing the State's re-
  quest, the  Regional  Administrator  de-
  termined that the  subdelegatlons meet
  all  the requirements outlined in EPA's
  delegation of February  28. 1975. There-
  fore, the Regional Administrator on De-
  cember 5,  1975, concurred In the stib-
  l6;8:i6 am)

                                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  41, NO.  35-

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

    Title 40—Protection of Environment
              I FRL 494-3]
     CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead Smelters;
               Correction
   In FR Doc. 76-733 appearing nt page
 2331 in the  FEDERAL REGISTER of January
 15, 1976, the ninth line of paragraph (a)
 tn's 60.165 is corrected to rend as follows:
 "total smelter  cliarge and the weight."
   Dated: February 20, 1976.
                 ROGER STRELON.
            Assistant Administrator
       jor Air and Waste Management.
   |FR Doc.76-5398 Tiled 2  2S-7G:8-4.'i am |
              |FRL 435-4)

 PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Delegation of Authority to Commonwealth
               of Virginia
   Pursuant to the delegation of authority
 for the standards of  performance for
 new  stationary sources (NSPS)  to the
 Commonwealth of Virginia  on December
 30. 1975, EPA is today amending 40 CFR
 60.4. Address, to reflect this delegation.
 A  Notice announcing this  delegation  is
 published  today at 41 FR 8416 in the
 FEDERAL REGISTER.  The amended  5 60.4,
 which  adds  the address of the  Virginia
 State  Air Pollution  Control Board to
 which  all reports, requests, applications,
 submittals, and communications to the
 Administrator pursuant to tills pa.rt must
 also  be addressed,  is  set forth below.
   The  Administrator finds good cause for
 foregoing  prior  public notice  and for
 making this rulemaking  effective  Im-
 mediately In that It is ap administrative
 change and not one of .substantive con-
 tent. No additional substantive burdens
 are imposed on the parties nfToctcd. The
 delegation which Is reflected by this ad-
 ministrative amendment was effective on
 December 30, 1975, and it serves no pur-
 pose to delay the technical change of tills
 addition of the State address lo (he Code
 of Federal Regulations.
    This rulemaking is  effective  immedi-
 ately, and is issued under Ute authority of
 section 111 of the  Clean Air Act.  as
 amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.

 42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
    Dated: February 21, 1976
                STANLEY W. Lrx.r.o.
             Assistant Administrator
                     for Enforcement.

    Part 60 of .Chapter I, Title 40  of the
 Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
 as follows:
    1. In 5 5D.4, paragraph (b) Is amended
  by revising subparagraph  (W)  to read
  as follows:
§ 60.4   AdJrcM.
  iA)-|
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 41, NO. 39-

      -1HUBSDAY.  FEBRUARY 26,  1976
   (H)  State of Connecticut, Department
of Environmental  Protection, State Of-
fice  Building,  Hartford,  Connecticut
06115.
   [FR Doc.76-7867Filed 3-10-76:8:46 am)
31
      SUBCHAFTER C—VUR PROGRAMS
              | FRL 607-4)
     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 56—

          -MONDAY. MARCH 27, J976
32
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCE
     Delegation of Authority to State of
               Connecticut
   Pursuant to the delegation of authority
 for the standards of performance for new
 stationary sources (NSPS) to the State
 of Connecticut on December 9, 1975. EPA
 Is today amending 40 CFR 60.4. Address.
 to reflect this delegation.  A  Notlc« an-
 nouncing this delepntlon Is published to-
 day at (41 FR 11874) In the FEDKIUL REG-
 ISTER. The  amended  5 00.4. which  adds
 the  address of the Connecticut Depart-
 ment  of Environmental Protection  to
 which all reports, requests, applications,
 submittals.  and communications  to the
 Administrator pursuant to thks part must
 also be addressed, is set forth below.
   The  Administrator  finds good  cause
 for foregoing  prior public notice and for
 making this ruletnaklng effective  Imme-
 diately In Uiat it is  an administrative
 change and not one of substantive con-
 tent. No additional substantive burdens
 are  Imposed on the parties affected. The
 delegation which Is reflected  by tills ad-
 ministrative amendment was  effective on
 December 9. 1975. and it serves no pur-
 pose to delay the technical chance of this
 addition to the Stato address  to the Code
 of Federal Regulations.
   This rulemaking is  effective Immedi-
 ately, and Is Issued under  the authority

 of section 111 of the  Clean  Air Act,  as
 amended.
 (42 UJB.C. 1867C-6)
   Dated: March 15,1976.
              STANLEY W. LEGHO,
            'Assistant Administrator
                    for Enforcement.
    Title 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
               | FRL 529-3)
   PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCE
      Delegation of Authority to State of
              South Dakota
   Pursuant  to the delegation ol author-
 ity for the standards of performance for
 new  stationary  sources  (NSPS)  to the
 State of South Dakota on March 25.1!)76.
 EPA  Ls today amending 40 OFK. 60.4. Ad-
 dress, to reflect this delegation. A Notice
 announcing  this delegation Is published
 today at  41 FR 17600.   The amended
 5 60.4, which odds the address of Depart-
 ment of  Environmental Protection to
 which ail  reports, requests, applications,
 submittals, and  communications to the
 Administrator pursuant to this p;irt must
 also  be nddrcsscti. is set forth below.
   The Administrator finds good cause for
 foregoing  prior  public  notice and for
 making this rulemaking effective imme-
 diately in that  it Is an administrative
 change and  not  one of substantive con-
 tent.  No additional substantive "burdens
 are Imposed on the parties affected. The
 delegation which is reflected by this ad-
 ministrative amendment was effective on
 March 2,r>. 197G. and it serves no purpose
 to delay the  technical change of this ad-
 dition of the State address to the Code of
 Federal Regulations.
   This rulemaking is effective immedi-
 ately, and is issued under  the authority
 of Section 111 of the Clean Air  Act, ns
 amended.
 42 U.S.C. 1857C-C.

   Date: April 20, 1976.

               STANLEY W. LEORO.
            Assistant Administrator
                    for Enforcement.
   Part CO  of Chapter I.  Title 40  of  the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
   1. In § 60.4 paragraph  Cb)  Is amended
 by revising subparagraph QQ to rend as
 follows:
   Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the § 60.'1
 Code of Federal Regulations IB amended     .
 as follows:
   1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b) Is amended
 by revising subparagraph (H) to read as
 follows:
 § 60.4   Address.
                                            (b)
   cb>  '  • •
   (A)-(Z)  • • •
   (AA)-(PP) « • •
   (QQ)  State of South Dakota, Depart-
 ment of Environmental Protection, Joe
 Foss  Building,  Pierre,  South  Dakota
 57501.
      FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 82-
        —TUESDAY, APRIL  27, H76
                                                       IV-139
-------
  18498
33
     Title 40—Protection of Environment
       CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION AGENCY
               JPRL 609-3J
  PART 60—STANDARDS Or  PERFORM-
   ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
       Ferroalloy Production  Facilities

    On October 21. 1974  (39 FR 37470).
  under section 111 of the Clean .Air Act,
  as amended, the Environmental Protec-
  tion Agency (EPA) proposed standards of
  performance for new and  modified fer-
  roalloy production facilities.  Interested
  persons participated  In  the rulemaklng
  by submitting comments  to  EPA. The
  comments have  been carefully  consid-
  ered,  and where determined by the Ad-
  ministrator  to be appropriate, changes
  have  been  made  to  the regulations as
  promulgated.
    The standards limit emissions of par-
  tlculate  matter  and carbon  monoxide
  from  ferroalloy electric submerged  arc
  furnaces. The purpose of the standards Is
  to require effective capture and control
  of emissions from the furnace and tap-
  ping station by application of best sys-
  tems  of  emission reduction. For ferro-
  alloy  furnaces the best system of emis-
  sion  reduction for paniculate matter Is
  a  well-designed  hood  In  combination
  with a fabric filter collector or venturl
  scrubber. For some alloys the best system
  Is an  electrostatic preclpltator preceded
  by wet  gas conditioning  or  a  venturl
  scrubber. The standard for carbon mon-
  oxide repulres only that the gas stream be
  flared  or  combusted  In   some  other
  manner.
    The environmental Impact of  these
  standards Is beneficial since the Increase
  In emissions due to  growth of  the In-
  dustry will be minimized. Also, the stand-
  ards will  remove the incentive for plants
  to locate In areas with less stringent
  regulations.
    Upon  evaluation of  the costs  asso-
  ciated with the standards and their eco-
  nomic Impact, EPA concluded that the
  costs are reasonable and should  not bar
  entry Into the market or  expansion of
  facilities. Tn addition, the standards will
  require at most  a minimal Increase In
  power consumption over that required to
  comply  with the restrictions of most
  State regulations.
         SUMMARY Or REGULATION
    The promulgated standards limit par-
  tlcula.te  matter  and carbon  monoxide
  emissions from the  electric submerged
  arc furnace and limit partlculate matter
  emissions from  dust-handling  equip-
  ment. Emissions  of  partlculate matter
  from  the control device are  limited to
  less than 0.45 kg/MW-hr  (0.89 Ib/MW-
  hr) for furnaces producing high-silicon
  alloys (In general) and to  less than 0.23
  kg/MW-hr  (0.51  Ib/MW-hr)  for  fur-
  naces producing chrome and manganese
  alloys. For both product groups, emis-
  sions  from  the  control device must be
  less than 15 percent  opacity.  The regu-
  lation requires that the collection hoods
  capture all  emissions generated  within
  the furnace and capture all  tapping emis-
  sions  for at  least  60 percent of the tap-
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS

 ping  time. The concentration of carbon
 monoxide In any gas stream discharged
 to the atmosphere must be less than 20
 volume percent.  Emissions  from dust-
 handling equipment may not equal or ex-
 ceed  10 percent opacity. Any owner or
 operator of a facility subject to this regu-
 lation must continuously monitor volu-
 metric flow rates through the collection
 system and must continuously monitor
 the opacity of emissions from the control
 device.
        SUMMARY OP COMMENTS
  Eighteen  comment letters were re-
 ceived on  the proposed standards of per-
 formance. Copies of the comment letters
 and a report which contains  a summary
 of the issues and  EPA's responses are
 available for public  inspection and copy-
 Ing at the U.S. Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency, Public Information Refer-
 ence  Unit (EPA Library). Room  2922.
 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
 Copies of the report also may be ob-
 tained upon  written request from the
 EPA  Public Information Center d did not significantly
bias the results. Therefore, contrary to
the  commenter's  concsrns,  the proce-
dures did  not result in emission limita-
tions  lower than those achievable by best
systems of emission reduction.  The de-
viations and  assumptions made in the
test procedures w°re  trased on considera-
tion of the rarticl" size of  the emissions,
an evaluation of the rerformnnce of the
control systems, and factors affecting the
induction  of  air  into open fabric  filter
collectors.
  EPA tests, and allows testing of, a rep-
resentative number of stacks or compart-
ments in a control device because sub-
sections of a  well-designed and  properly
operating   control device  will  perform
equlvalently.  Evaluation of the control
system and the condition of the control
device by EPA engineers at the time of
the emission test showed  that  sections
not tested were of equivalent design and
in operating  condition equivalent  to or
better than the tested sections. Thus, the
performance of the non-tested  portions
of the control device are considered to be
equivalent  to  or  better th"n the per-
formance of the sections emission tested.
In addition, the particle si2e of emissions
from well-controlled ferroalloy furnaces
was investigated bv EPA and  was found
to consist of  parti ?les of less than two
micrometers aerodynamic  diameter for
all alloys.  The mass and, hence, inertia
of these particles are negligible; there-
fore, they follow  the motion of the gas
stream. For emissions of this size distri-
bution,  concentrations  determined  by
nonlsoklnetic sampling would not be sig-
nificantly different thin those measured
by isoklnetlc sampling.
  EPA determined the total gas volume
flow rate from the open fabric filter col-
lectors by  measuring the  Inlet  volume
flow rate and the volume of air induced
into the collector. The inlet gas  volumes
                                  FtOEKM. HSGISTM, VOL 41, NO. «7—TUtSDAf.  MAY 4, 1976
                                                       IV-140
-------
                                             RULES  AND  REGUTATTOKlS
                                                                       18499
to the collectors were measured during
each run  of  each test; but the yolume
of air Induced into the collector was de-
termined  once during the emission teat.
The total gas volume flow from the col-
lector was calculated as the sum of the
Inlet gas volume and the induced air vol-
ume. Although the procedures used were
not Ideal, the reported gas volumes are
considered to be  rersonably representa-
tive  of  the total gas volumes from  the
facility. This conclusion Is based on the
fact that the quantity of air Induced
around  the bags  in an open collector is
primarily  dependent on  the  open  area.
and  the  temperature  of  the  inlet  gas
stream  and the  ambient air. Therefore.
equivalent air volumes are drawn into the
collector  under   similar  meteorological
end Inlet  gas conditions. During the pe-
riods of emission  testing at the facilities.
meteorological conditions  were uniform
and the volume  of induced air was  ex-
pected  to be constant   Consequently,
measurement of the induced air volume
once during  the  emission test was  ex-
pected to  be sufficient for calculating the
total gas volume flow from the  collector.
  Since conducting the test in  question,
EPA has  gained rdditlonnl  experience
and has concluded that In general it is
preferable to measure the total eas vol-
ume flow  during each run of a perform-
ance  test. This  conclusion,   however,
does not  invalidate  the use of the test
data obtained by the less optimum pro-
cedure of  a single.determination of in-
duced air volume.  EPA evaluated  pos-
sityle variations In the amount of air in-
duced into the collector  by performing
enthalpy  balances using reported  tem-
perature data. The induced air volumes
were calculated assuming adlabatic mix-
ing (no heat transfer by  inlet gases to
collector)  and, hence, are conservatively
high estimates. The calculated induced
air  volumes  did  differ from  the single
measured  values; however, the  effect on
the mass emission rate for the collectors
was not significant. EPA. therefore, con-
cluded that the  use of single measure-
ments of the  induced air volume did not
affect the  level of the standards.
  Another Issue of  concern   to  com-
menters Is  the   reluctance of control
equipment vendors to  guarantee reduc-
tion  of  emissions to less than 0.23 kg/
MW-hr.(0.51 Ib/MW-hr). It  is  EPA's
opinion that this reluctance  does  not
demonstrate  the  unachievability of  the
standard.  The  vendors'  reluctance  to
guarantee this level is not surprising con-
sidering the variables which are beyond
their control. Specific?lly. they  rarely
have any  control over the design of the
fume collection systems for the furnace
and tapping station. Fabric filter collec-
tors tend  to control the concentration of
participate matter  in the effluent. The
mass rate of  emissions from the collec-
tor is determined by the total volumetric
flow rate from the control device, which
is not  determined by vendors. Further,
because of limited experience with  emis-
sion testing to evaluate the perform!nee
of open fabric filter collectors, vendors
cannot  effectlvelr evaluate the perform-
ance of these systems over the guarantee
period. For vendors, establishment of thq
performance guarantes level Is also com-
plicated by the fact that the performance
»f the collector is  contingent upon its
beln? properly operated and maintained.
  Standards of performance are neces-
sarily  based on  dnta from  a limited
number of best-controlled facilities and
on   enginsering  judgments  regarding
performance of the control systems. For
this  reason, there Is a possibility of ar-
riving at different conclusions regarding
the  performance capabilities  of  these
systems. Consequently,  the que-tion  of
vendors' reluctance  to  guarantee their
equipment to  achieve 0.23  kg/MW-hr
(0.51 Ib/MW-hr> was considered  along
with  the results of acuiitional  recent
emission tests  on fabric filter collectors.
Recognizing that the data base for the
standards was limited and that a  num-
ber  of  well-controlled  facilities  had
started operation since completion of the
ori'
standard is not justified. This evaluation
13 discussed in detail in Chapter II of the
supplement" 1 Information  document.  If
and when factual Information Is  pre-
sented  to EPA  wh'ch  clearly  demon-
strates  that  use  of  finer chroms and
manganese ores ('OPS  prevent a propcr'y
operated new furnace, which Is equipped
with the best demonstrated  system  of
emission  reduction (considering  costs),
from meeting the 0.23  kg/MW-hr  (0.51
Ib/MW-hr) sta-'dnrd, FPA v/ill propose a
revision to the standard. The best system
of e"nis«lon reduc'ion  (considering' costs)
is considered to be a well-designed col-
lection hood in combination with a wcll-
dcsiirned  fabric filter collector or  hlch-
cnorRv vcnturl scrubber
  The emission  data obtained by  EPA
and the data  provided  by the Industry
show that the standards of performance
for both product groups are achievable
and the required control system clearly
Is adequately  demonstrated.  The  ques-
tion of  the achievabillty of and the va-
lidity of the data basis for both the 0.23
kg/MW-hr  (0.51   Ib/MW-hr)  and 0.45
kg/MW-hr (0.99  Ib/MW-hr)  standards
is discussed Jn more detail In  Chapter II
of the supplemental  information  docu-
ment.
  (2) Control device opacity standard.
On November 12. 197-1  (39 FR 39872),
after proposal of the  standards for fer-
roalloy facilities. Method 9 was revised to
require  that compliance  with  opacity
standards  be determined by  averaging
sets of 24 consecutive  observations  taken
at  15-second Intervals  (six-minute av-
erages). The proposed opacity standard.
which limited emissions from the control
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41,  NO.  87—TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976
                                                       IV-141
-------
 18500

device to less than 20 percent has been
revised in the  regulation promulgated
herein to require that emissions be less
than 15 percent opacity in order to retain
the intended level of  control.
   (3)  Control system capture require-
ments. Ten commenters criticized fume
capture requirements  for the furnace and
tapping  station  control systems on two
basic points. The arguments were:  <1>
EPA  lacks  the statutory authority  .to
^regulate emissions  within the  building,
 nnd (2) the standards are not technical-
ly feasible at all times.
  EPA has  the  statutory authority un-
,der section 111 of the  Act to regulate any
'new stationary  source which "emits  or
may emit any air pollutant." EPA does
not agre-i with the opinion of the com-
menters that section  111 of the Act ex-
pressly or Implicitly limits the Agency to
regulation  only  of  pollutants which  are
emitted  directly into the  atmosphere.
Partlculate  matter emissions  escaping
capture  by  Vhe  furnace control ?y-tem
ultimately will be discharged to the at-
mosphere outside of the shop; therefore,
they may be regulated under section 111
of  the  Act.  Standards  which regulate
pollutants at the point of emission inside
the building allow assessment of the con-
trol system without  interference from
nonregulated sources  located In the same
building. In addition,  by  requiring evalu-
ation of emissions  before their dilution,
the standards will  resu't in  better con-
trol of the furnace  emissions and will
regulate  affected  ferroalloy  faci'lt'ps
more uniformly than would standards
 limiting emissions from the shop.
   EPA believes the standards on the fur-
nace  and  tapping  station  collection
hoods are achievable  because the stand-
ards are based on observations of normal
 operations at well-controlled  facilities.
 The commenters who argued  that  the
 standards are not technically feasible at
 all times cited examples of abnormal op-
 erations which  would preclude achiev-
 ing the standards.  For examole, several
 commenters cited the fact that violent
 reactions due to im'ia'anccs in the alloy
chemistry occasionally can generate more
 emissions than the hood was designed to
 capture. If  the capture system Is well-
 designed, well-maintained, and properly
 operated, only failures of the process to
 operate  in the normal or usual manner
 would cause the capacity of the system to
 be exceeded. Such  operating perio-ls are
 malfunctions, and,  therefore, compliance
 with  the  standards  of performance
 •would not  be determined during these
 periods. Performance tests under 40 CFR
 60.8(c)  are conducted only during rep-
 resentative conditions,  and periods  of
 Etart-up, shutdown,   and malfunctions
 are not considered representative condi-
 tions.
   Five commenters discussed other op-
 erating conditions which they believed
 would preclude a source from complying
 with the tapping station standard. These
 conditions Included blowing  taps, period
 of poling the tarhole, and periods of re-
 moval of metal and slag from the spout.
 The commentere  argued that blowing
 taps should be exempted from the stand-
 ard  and the tapping station standard
      RULES  AND REGULATIONS

should  be replaced  with  an  opacity
standard or emissions from the shop. The
comments v.erc revUwed and EPA con-
cluded that exemption of blowing taps la
justified.  The  regulation  promulgated
herein exempts  blowing taps from  the
tr.p: ing station standard and includes.a
definition of  blowing  tap. EPA  believes
thnt conditions which result in plugging
of thi ta^hol: and mctnl in the spout are
malfunctions because they are unavoid-
able failures  of the process  to  operate
In the normal or usual manner. Discus-
sions  with experts In the ferroalloy in-
dustry, revealed that these conditions are
not predictable  conditions for which a
preventatlve  maintenance or operation
program could be established. As mal-
function?, \\\-f- period1: arn not subject
to the standards, and  a performance test
would not be  conducted during  such
periods. Therefore, the suggested revision
to the standard to exempt these periods
is not necessary because of  the  existing
provisions of 40 CFR 60.8(c)  and 60.11.
In EPA's judgment, both the furnace and
tapping station standards are achievable
for all normal process operations at fa-
cilities  with  well-designed,  well-main-
tain^'. a~d TO"?ily  operated emission
collection systems.
   Tho  promii'^ated  regulation   retains
the proposed fume capture requirements,
but the  regulation has been  revised to
be more enforceable  than the proposed
capture requirements, which could have
been  enforced  only  on  an  infrequent
basis.  The regulation has been  reorga-
nized to clarify that  unlike the opacity
standards, the collection system capture
requirements  (visible emission   limita-
tions) are subject  to demonstration of
compliance during the performance test.
To provide a means for routine enforce-
ment of the  capture requirements,  con-
tinuous  monitoring of  the  volumetric
flow rateCs)  through  the collection sys-
tem is required  for each affected  fur-
nace. An owner or operator may comply
with  this requirement either by Install-
ing a flow rate  monitoring device in an
appropriate location in the exhaust duct
or by calculating the flow rate  through
the system from fan operating data. Dur-
ing  the performance test, the  baseline
operating flow rate(s) will be established
for the affected  electric submerged arc
furnace. The regulation establishes emis-
sion capture standards which are appli-
cable only during the performance  test
of the affected facility. At all other times,
Uve operating  volumetric flow  rate(s)
shall be maintained at or greater than
the established baseline  values for the
furnace load. Use of lower volumetric
flow  rates than the  established values
constitutes unacceptable  operation  and
maintenance  .of the  affected  facility.
These  provisions of  the promulgated
regulation will ensure continuous mon-
itoring of the operations of the emission
 capture system and will simplify  enforce-
ment of  the emission capture  require-
ments.
   The requirements for monitoring volu-
metric flow rates will add negligible ad-
 ditional  costs  to  the  total  costs of
complying with the  standards  of  per-
 formance. Flow rate  monitoring devices
of sufficient accuracy to meet the re-
quirements of I 60.265(c) can be Installed
for $600-$4000  defending  on the flow
profile of the area being monitored and
the complexity of the monitoring device.
A suitable ship ch;vt recorder  can be
Installed for less than $600. The alter-
native provisions allowing calculation of
the volumetric flow rate(s)  through the
control system from continuous monitor-
ing of fan operations will  result In no
additional  costs  because  the industry
presently monitors fan operations.
   (4)  Monitoring  ot  operations.  The
promulgated regulation requires  report-
Ing  to  the Administrator  any product
changes that wi'l  result In a change in
the applicable standird of  performance
for the affected electric submerged arc
furnace. This  requirement  is  necessary
because electric submerged arc furnaces
may be converted to reduction of alloys
other than the original design alloys by
physical alterations to  the furnace,
changes  to   the   electrode   spacing,
changes in the transformer capacity, and
changes in the  materials charged to the
furnace. Thus, the  emission rate from
the electric submerged arc furnace and
the standard of performance  (which is
dependent on the alloy produced)  may
change during  the lifetime of the  facil-
ity. Conversion  of the furnace  to  pro-
duction of alloys with significantly dif-
ferent emission rates, such as changes
between the product grouos for  the two
standards, may result in the facility ex-
ceeding the applicable standard. Conse-
quently, the reporting requirement was
added to ensure  continued compliance
with  the applicable standards  of  per-
formance.  These  re-orts   of  product
changes will afford the Administrator an
opportunity to determine whether a per-
formance test should be conducted and
will simplify enforcement  of  the  regu-
lation. As with  the  requirements appli-
cable under the proposed regulation, the
performance te^t still must  be conducted
while the electric submerged arc  furnace
is producing the design alloy whose emis-
sions are the most difficult to  control of
the product family.  Subsequent  product
changes within the product family will
not cause the facility to exceed the stand-
ard.
   (5)  Test methods and procedures. Sec-
tion 60.266(d) of the promulgated regu-
lation requires  the owner or operator to
design and construct the control device
to allow measurement of emissions and
flow rates using applicable  test methods
and procedures. This provision  permits
the use of open pressurized fabric filter
collectors (and other control devices)
whose emissions cannot be measured by
reference methods currently in Appendix
A to this part, if compliance with the
promulgated standard can be  demon-
strated by an alternative procedure. EPA
has not specified a single test procedure
for emission testing of open pressurized
fabric filter  collectors  because  of the
large variations In  the design of these
collectors.  Test procedures can be de-
veloped on a case-by-case basis, however.
Provisions in 40 CFR 60.8 (b)  allow the
owner or operator upon approval by the
Administrator to use an "alternative" or
                                  FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41. NO. (7—TUESDAY, MAY 4,  1974
                                                       IV-142
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                        18501
"equivalent" test procedure to rhow com-
pliance with the standards. EPA would
like  to  emphasize that development  of
the  "alternative"  or "equivalent"  test
procedure  is the  responsibility of any
owner or operator who elects  to use a
control device not amenable to testing by
Method 5 of Appendix A to this part. The
procedures  of  an  "alternative"  test
method for demonstration of compliance
are dependent on specific design features
and  condition of  the collector and the
capabilities of the sampling equipment.
Consequently, procedures acceptable for
demonstration of  compliance will vary
with  specific situations. General  guid-
ance on possible approaches to sampling
of emissions from pre--iurized fabric filter
collectors is provided in Chapter IV  of
the supplemental information document.
  Di'.e to the costs of testing, the owner
or operator should obtain EPA approval
for a speclfc test procedure  or other
means for determining compliance be-
fore construction of a new source. Under
the provisions of  5 GO 6, the  owner or
operator of a new  facility  may request
review of the acceptability of  proposed
plans for construction and testing of con-
trol systems which are not amenable  to
sampling by Reference Method 5. If an
acceptable "alternative" test procedure is
not developed by the owner or operator.
then  total  enclosure of the pressurized
labric filter collector and testing  by
Method 5 is required.
  Effective date. In accordance with sec-
tion  111 of the Act. these regulations
prescribing standards of performance for
ferroalloy production facilities are effec-
tive  May 4, 1976,  and apply to electric
submerged arc furnaces and their asso-
ciated  dust-handling  equipment,  the
construction or  modHcation  of  which
was commenced  after October 21, 1974.
(Seoa. Ill and 114 of  the Clem Air Act.
amendei by 3ec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-004. 84
Stat. 1678 (42 U.S.C. 1857C-C. 1857C-9).)

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

  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal  Reeu'altons la amended
as follows:
  1.  The table of sections Is amended by
adding subpart Z as follows:
Subpart Z—Standards of Performance tor Ferro-
         alloy Pioduct o.i Fac.l t.cft
Sec.
60.260  Applicability  and  designation  of
         aflcctea  facility.
60.281  Definitions.
60.262  Standard for partlculate matter.
60.263  Standard for carbon monoxide.
60564  Emission monitoring.
60.265  Monitoring of operations.
60.266  Test methods and procedures.

  2.  Part 60 Is amended by adding sub-
part Z as follows:
Subpart 7—Standards of Performance for
          Ferroalloy Pro auction
§ 60.260   Applicability  nn "Electric submerged arc furnace"
means any furnace  wherein  electrical
energy is converted to heat  energy  by
transmission of  current between  elec-
trodes partially submerged in the furnace
charge.
  (b> "Furnace charge" means any ma-
terial introduced into the  electric,sub-
merged arc furnace mid  may  consist  of.
Uit  is  not  iimitrd to,  ores,  slag,  carbo-
naceous mateiial, ar.d limestone.
  (c)  "Product  change"   means any
change in the composition of the- furnace
charge that would cause the  electric sub-
merged arc furnace  to tccoir.e subject
to a different riass standard  applicable
under this  subpart.
    "Slas"  menns  the more or less
completely fused  and vitrified matter
separated  during the  reduction  of a
metal from i's ore.
  (ei "Tapping"  means  the removal of
slag or product from tl»e electric sub-
merged  arc furnace under  normal op-
crating  conditions such  as  removal  of
metal under normal pressure and move-
ment by gravity down the spout Into the
ladle.
   "Tapping period" means the time
duration from  initlatian of  the process
of opening  the tap hole until plugging of
the tap hole Is complete.
  (g) "furnace cycle" means  the time
period from completion of a furnace
product tap to the completion of the next
consecu' ive product tap.
  (h)  "Tapping  station"   means  that
general area where  molten product  or
slag Is removed from the electric sub-
merged arc furnace.               (
  (i) "Blowing tap" means any  tap  In
which an evaluation of gas forces or pro-
jects jets of flame or  mrtal sparks be-
yond the ladle, runner, or collection hood.
  (j) "Furnace power input" means the
resistive electrical power consumption of
an  electric submerged arc  furnace  as
measured in kilowatts.
  (k) "Dust-handling equipment" means
any equipment used to handle particu-
]; to matter collcctrc! by the nir pollution
control  device  (and  located at or near
such device) serving any electric sub-
merged arc furnace subject  to this sub-
part.
  (1) "Control device" means the nir
pollution control  equipment used  to re-
move participate matter generated by  an
electric submerged arc furnace from  an
effluent gas stream.
  (m)   "Capture  system"  means the
equipment  (Including hoods, ducts, fans,
dampers, etc.) used to capture or trans-
port particulate matter generated  by  an
affected electric submerged  arc furnace
to the control device.
  (n) "Standard ferromanganese" means
that alloy as defined by A.S.T.M. desig-
nation A99-66.
  (o)  "SUlcomanganese"  means  that
aJloy as defined by A.S.T.M. designation
A483-G6.
  tp> "Calcium cnrblde" means material
containing 70  to 85 percent calcium car-
bide by weight.
  (q> "High-carbon ferrochrome" means
that alloy as denned by A.S.T.M. desig-
nation A101-66 grades HC1 through HC6.
  (r) "Charge chrome" means that alloy
CDntainmg 52 'x> 70  percent by  weight
chrcmium, 5 to 8 percent by weight car-
bjn, and 3 to G percent by weight silicon.
  (si "Silvery  iron"  means any  ferro-
silicon. as defined by A.S.T.M. designa-
tion. 100-69.  which  contains  less than
30 percent silicon.
  (t) "Ferrochrome  silicon" means that
al'.jy as defined  by A.S.T.M. designation
A482-GG.
  (u)   "£ilice-man?nness   rlrconium"
means that alloy containing 60 to 65 per-
cent by weight silicon, 1.5 to 2.5 percent
by  weight calcium,  5  to 7 percent  by
weight zirconium, 0.75 to 1.25 percent by
xvciMil  aluminum, 5  to  7  pcrcc.it  by
weight manganese, and 2 to 3 percent by
weight barium.
  (v)  "Calcium  silicon"  means  that
alloy as defined  by A.S.T.M. designation
A405-G4.
  (w) "Ferrosllicon" means that alloy as
defined by A.S.T.M. designation A100-60
grades A. B, C, D, and E which contains
53 or more percent by  weight silicon.
  (x) "Silicon metal" means any  si'lcon
nlloy containing  more  than 96 percent
siiicon bv weight.
  (y) "Ferromanganese silicon"  means
that alloy containing 63 to 66 percent by
weight manganese. 28 to  32 percent by
weight silicon, and a maximum of 0.08
percent by weight carbon.
 while high-
carbon  ferrochrome,   charge  chrome,
standard ferromanganese,  silicomanya-
neic, calcium  carbide, ferrochrome sill-
con, ferromanganese silicon,  or  silvery
Iron is being produced.
  i3> Exit from a control device and ex-
hibit 15 percent opacity or greater.
  (4) Exit from  nn electric submerged
arc furnace and escape the capture sys-
tem  and are  visible  without the  aid of
Instruments.  The requirements  under
this subparagraph apply only during pe-
riods when flow rates are being  estab-
lished under § 60.265cd).
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOt. 41, NO. 87—TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1976
                                                      IV-143
-------
 18502
      RULES AND REGULATIONS
   (6)  Escape the capture system at the
 tapping- station and are visible without
 the aid of instruments for more than 40
 percent of each tapping period. There are
 no limitations on visible emissions under
 this subiaragraph  when a  blowing tap
 occurs. The requirements under this sub-
 paragraph  apply only during periods
 when  flow rates are  being  established
 under 5 60.265Cd).
   (b)  On  and after the date on which
 the performance test required to be  con-
 ducted by § 60.8  is  completed, no owner
 or operator subject to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 into the atmosphere from anv dust-han-
 dling equipment any gases which exhibit
 10 percent opacity or greater.
 §60.203   Standard  for curbon monoxide.
   (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 sublect to the provisions of
 this subpart shall cause to be discharged
 Into the atmosphere  from any electric
 submerged arc furnace any ga-res which
 contain,  on a  dry  basis,  20  or greater
 volume percent  of  carbon  monoxide.
 Combustion of such gases under condi-
 tions acceptable  to the Administrator
 constitutes comnllance with this section.
 Acceptable conditions  include, but  are
 not limited to, flaring of gases or use of
 gases as fuel for other processes.
 § 60.264  Env»»ion  monitoring.
   (a) The owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of this subpart shall in-
 stall, calibrate, maintain and operate a
 continuous monitoring system for meas-
 urement of the opacity of emissions dis-
 charged into the atmosphere from the
 control device(s).
   (b>  For the purpose of  reports  re-
 quired under § 60.7(c), the owner or op-
 erator  shall report  as excess emissions
 all six-minute periods'in which the av-
 erage ooacity is 15 percent or greater.
   (c) The  owner or operator subject  to
 the provisions of  this subnart shall sub-
mit  a written report of any  product
change to the Administrator. Reports of
product changes  must  be postmarked
 not later than 30 days after  implemen-
 tation of the product change.
 § 60.265  Monitor^!* of operations.
   (aJ The owner or operator of any elec-
tric submerged arc furnace subject to the
provisions  of this subpart  shall main-
tain dally  records of the  following in-
formation:
   (1) Product being produced.
   (21 Description of constituents of fur-
 nace charge. Including, the quantity, by
weight.
   (3i Time and duration of each tap-
ping period and the identification of ma-
 terial tapped (slag or product.)
   (4) All furnace power input data ob-
 tained under paragraph Cb)  of this  sec-
 tion.
   (5) AS flow rate data obtained under
 paragraph (c) of this section or all fan
 motor  power consumption and  pressure
 drop data obtained under paragraph 
 of this section.
   (b)  The owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of this subpart shall In-
 stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
 device to measure and  continuously re-
 cord the furnace power input. The fur-
 nace power input may be measured at the
 output or input side of  the transformer.
 The device must have an accuracy of ±5
 percent over its operating range.
   (c)  The owner or operator subject to
 the provisions of this subpart shall In-
 stall, calibrate, and maintain a monitor-
 ins device that  continuously measures
 and records  the volumetric flow rate
 through each separately ducted hood of
 the capture system, except as provided
 under  paragraph fe) of this section. The
 o'.vncr or operator of  an  electric sub-
 merged arc furnace thr* is equipped wii-h
 a water cooled cover which  is designed
 to  contain  and  prevent escape  of  the
 generated  gas and particulato  matter
 shall monitor only the volumetric flow
 rate through the capture system for con-
 trol of emissions from the tapping sta-
 tion. The owner or operator  may install
 the monitoring dcvicefs) in  any  appro-
 priate  location in the exhaust duct such
 tha1, reproducible flow  rate  monitoring
 will result. The flow rate monitoring de-
 vice must have an accuracy of ±10 per-
 cent over its normal operating range and
 must  tie calibrated  according   to the
 manufacturer's  instructions.  The  Ad-
 ministrator may rcouire  the owner  or
 operator to demonstrate the accuracy  of
 the monitoring device relative to Meth-
 ods 1 and 2 of Anpendix A tc this prrt.
   (d)  When performance tests are con-
 ducted under  the provisions  of § GO.8  of
 this part  to  demonstrate   comnlinncc
 with the standards under §§60.262.

 § 60.2f>6   Test methods and procedures.
  fa) Reference methods hi Appendix A
of this part, except as provided  ta 5 60.8
 
-------
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                                        18503
   (1> Method 6 for the concentration of
 participate matter mid  the associated
 moisture content except that the heating
 systems specified In paragraphs 2.1.2 and
 2.1.4 of Method 5 are not to be used when
 the carbon monoxide content of the gas
 stream  exceeds  10 percent  by volume,
 dry basis.
   (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
 traverses.
   (3) Method 2 for velocity and volumet-
 ric flow rate.
   (4) Method 3 for gas analysis, includ-
 ing carbon monoxide.
   (b) For Method 5, the sampling time
 for  each run  is  to include  an integral
 number of furnace cycles. The sampling
 time for each run  must be at le^st 60
 minutes and  the  minimum sample vol-
 ume must be  1.8 dscm  (G4 dscf)  when
 sampling  emissions from open electric
 submerged arc furnaces with wet scrub-
 ber  control devices, ssaled electric sub-
 merged  arc  furnaces, or  semi-enclosed.
 electric  submerged  arc furnaces.  When
 sampling emissions from other types of
 installations,  the sampling time for each
 run must be at least 200 minutes and the
 minimum sample  volume must be 5.7
 dscm (200 dscf).  Shorter sampling times
 or smaller sampling volumes, when ne-
 cessitated by  process variables or other
 factors,  may be approved  by the Admin-
 istrator.
   (c) During the performance test, the
 owner or operator shall record the maxi-
 mum  open hood area  (in hoods with
 segmented or otherwise nioveable sides)
 under which  the process Is expected to
 be operated and remain in compliance
 with all standards. Any future operation
 of the hooding system with open areas in
 excess of the maximum is not permitted.
   (d)  The owner or operator shall con-
 struct the control device so  that volu-
 metric flow rates and participate matter
 emissions can be accurately determined
 by applicable  test methods  and  proce-
 dures.
   (t)  During any performance test re-
 quired  under  § 60.8 of this part,  the
 owner or operator shall not allow gaseous
 diluents to  be added to the  effluent gas
 stream after the fabric In an open pres-
 surized fabric filter collector  unless the
 total gas volume flow from the collector
 is accurately determined and considered
 in the determination of emissions.
   (f)  When compliance with 5 60.263 is
 to be  attained  by combusting  the  gas
 stream in  a  Hare,  the  location of  the
 sampling site for particulate matter is
 to be upstream of the flare.
   (g)  For each run, particulate matter
 emissions,  expressed in kg/hr  Ob/hr),
 must be determined for each  exhaust
 stream at which emissions are Quantified
 using the following equation:
 where:
  £„ = Emissions of  paniculate  matter  In
        kg/hr (Ib/hr).
  C, =Con:entratlon or particular matter In
        kg/dscm (Ib/d3cf) as determined by
        Method 5.
   to the
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  on
January 23.1976, EPA is today amending
40 CFR 60.4.  "Address," to reflect this
delegation.  A  notice  announcing  this
delocnUon  Is published  In the Notices
section of  today's FEDERAL REGISTER. The
amended § 60.4.  which adds the address
of the Massachusetts Department of En-
vironmental Quality Engineering,  Divi-
sion of Air Quality Control, to which all
reports, requests, applications, submlt-
tals. and  communications to the  Ad-
ministrator pursuant to  this part  must
also  be addressed. Is set forth below.
  Tile Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing  prior public  notice  and for
making this ruiemaklng effective  im-
mediately  In that it  is an administra-
tive  change and not one of substantive
content. No additional substantive bur-
 dens are Imposed on the parties affected.
 The delegation which is reflected by this
 admlnlstra.tive amendment was effective
 on January 23, 1976,  and it serves no
 purpose to delay  the  technical change
 of this addition of the  State address to
 the Code of Federal Regulations.
  This rulerrmking is effective immedi-
 ately, and  is issued wider  the authority
 of Section 111 of  the Clean Air Act, ns
 amended.
 42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
  Dated May 3. 1016.

               STANCEV W. LECKO,
            Assistant Administrator
                    for Enforcement.
  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title  40  of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows :
  1.  In § 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
 by revising subparagraph  (W) to  read
 as follows:
  (b) •  •  •
  (W) Massachusetts Department of En-
vironmental Quality Engineering-, Divi-
sion of Air Quality Control, 600 Wash-
ington  Street, Boston,  Massachusetts
02111.
  (PR Doc.76-13822 Filed 6-12-7fi;8:46 am)
 PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Delegation of Authority to State of New
              Hampshire
  Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance for
new  stationary sources  (NSPS)  to the
State of New Hampshire on February  17.
1970,  EPA  is  today  amending  40  CFR
60.4. "Address." to  .'eficct  this delega-
tion. A Notice announcing this (iclofjatlon
is published in the Notices section of  to-
day's FEPEHM.  REGISTER. The amended
§ 60.4, which adds the address of the New
Hampshire Air Pollution Control Af.ency
to  which all  reports, requests,  applica-
tions, submittals. ami communications to
the Administrator pursuant U, this part
must also be  addressed, is set forth be-
low.
  The Administrator finds Rood cause  for
foregoing urior public  notice  mvtl  for
making this mtcmakuu; effective imme-
diately  in that it  is an ndmluistnUive
change  and not one  of substantive con-
tent. No acldttionnl  substantive burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
February 17,  1976, and It tervrs no pur-
pose to delay the technical change of this
addition of the State address to the Code
of  Federal Regulations.
                                                     IV-145
-------
                                               RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   This rulcmaklng Is effective  immedi-
 ately, and is issued under the authority
 of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
 amended.
 42 TJ.8.C. 1861C-6.
   Da ted: May 3,1916.
               STANLEY W. LECRO.
            Assistant Administrator
                     of Enforcement.
   Part 60 o£ Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
 as follows:
   1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b) Is amended
 by revising subparagraph  lEE)  to read
 as follows:
 § 60. t   Acl(lro.«x.
     »      •       •       •      •
    *  * *
   (EE)  New  Hampshire Air Pollution
 Control  Agency,  Department of Health
 and Welfare, State Laboratory Building,
 Hazen Drive,  Concord, New Hampshire
 03301.
  |FB Doc.lfr-13821 Filed 5-12-76;B:45  am)
     FEDERAL REGISTER. VOl. 4T. NO. 94-

       -THURSDAY, MAY  13, 1976
35            (FRL 809-3)
   PART  60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
       Ferroalloy Production Facilities
                Correction
   In PR Doc. 76-12814 appearing: at pagro
  18498 In the FEDERAL RECISTM of Tue»-
  day, May  4, 1976 the following correc-
  tions should be made:
   1. On page 18408, second column, last
  paragraph designated "(1)", second line,
  fourth  word should read  "representa-
  tiveness".
   2. On page 18501. first column, the sub-
  part heading Immediately preceding the
  text, should read "Subpart Z—Standards
  of Performance  for Ferroalloy Produc-
  tion Facilities".
   3. On page 18501, in  2 60.260, second
  column, fourth line from  the top, the
  third word should read "sllicomanBa-".
   4. On page  18501. second column. In
  J 80.261  (i>,  second  line,  third word
  should read "evolution".
   6. On page 18503,  third column, to
  } 60.266(h> the equation should have ap-
  peared as follows:
                                         36
        |OPP—a«0019: FRL845-8]




      FEDERAL  MGISTEH. VOL 41. NO. 99-

         -THUBSOAV, MAY 20,  1976
   Trtle40—Protection of Environmenl
              [FBL 546-4]

     CHAPTER  (—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation  of Authority  to  State of Cali-
  fornia on Behalf of Ventura County and
  Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
  Control Districts
  Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources  (NSPS)  to the
State  of  California  on behalf  of  the
Ventura  County  Air  Pollution  Control
District  and   the Northern  Sonoma
County Air Pollution Control District,
dated  February 2, 197G,  EPA is.  today
amending  40 CFR 60.4, Address.*, to re-
flect this delegation. A Notice announcing
this  delegation Is published today in
the  Notice section of  this  Issue1. The
amended f 00.4 is set forth brlow. It adds
the addresses of the Ventura County and
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District.s. to which must be ad-
dressed nil reports,  requests,  applica-
tions,  submittals, and  communications
pursuant to this part by sources subject
to the NSPS  located within  these Air
Pollution Control Districts.
  The Administrator find.-; good  cause
for foregoing prior public notice and for
making this rulcmakine effective imme-
diately In  that it is  an administrative
change and not one of subst.ijitivc con-
tent. No additional substantive  burdens
arc Imposed on the parties afTeclcd. The
delegation which  is reflected by  this ad-
ministrative amendment WPS effective on
Febraury 2, 1976, and It serves  no pur-
poses  to delay the technical change of
tills addition of the Air Pollution Con-
trol  District addresses  to the Code of
Federal Regulations.
  This rulcmaking  is  effective  imme-
diately.
(Sec. Ill of the Clean  Air Art, as nrnrnded
|« U.8.C. I857c-flJ).

  Dated: May 3, 1976.
              STANLEY  W. LECRO,
            Assistant Administrator
                    for Enforcement.
  Part 60  of'Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
  1.  Section   60.4(b)  Is  amended  by
revising  subparagraph F to read as fol-
lows:
S 60.4  Address.
   (W  * * *
  F California—
  B»y  Ajca Air Pollution Control District,
 839 Ellis St.,  86J3 Francisco. CA 8-1100.
  Del  Norte County Air Pollution Control
 District. Courthouse, Crescent City. CA 95691.
  Humboldt Count; Air Pollution Control
 District, 6000 a Broadway. Eureka, CA 95501..
  Kern County Air Pollution Control District,
 1700 Flow«r 81. (P.O. Box 997), Bakersfleld,
 CAM303.
  Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District, 420 Church  St. (P.O.  Box 487),
Snltnas. CA 03001.
  Northern  Sonomn County  Air  Pollution
Control Dlstrlrt. 3313  Chanate FUJ. Santa-
Rosa. CA 95404.
  Trinity Cmmtv Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict. HDJC AJ. \Vcavcrvillc. CA 9G093.
  Vc-nuira County Air Pollution Control DIs-
trlia. C25 E. Santa  Clara St. Veiitiini. CA
WOOL

     KDERAl UGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 103-

        -WEDNESOAY, MAY  26, 1976
 37
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
              | FRL 5G2-8J
     CHAPTER  1—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Delegation of Authority to State of Utah
  Pursuant to the delegation of  author-
ity for the standards of performance for
twelve (12) categories of new stationary
sources (NSPSi  to the State of Utah on
May 13, 1976, EPA is today amending 40
CFR 60.4. Address, to reflect tills delega-
tion. A Notice  announcing this  delega-
tion  is  published today  in the  FEDERAL
REGISTER.  The  amended 5 G0.4, which
adds the address of the Utah Air Con-
servation  Committee  to which  all  re-
ports, requests, applications, submittnls,
and communications to the Administra-
tor  pursuant to this  part must also be
addressed, is set forth below.
  The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice  and  for
making this rulemaking effective im-
mediately in that it is  an administrative
change and  not one of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive  burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation which is reflected by  this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
May 13, 1970, and  It serves no  purpose
to delay the technical change  of this
addition of the State address to the Code
of Federal Regulations.
  This  rulemaking  is  effective immedi-
ately, and is issued under the authority
of section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
  Dated: June 10.1976.
             STANLEY W. LECRO,
           Assistant Administrator
                    for  Enforcement.
  Part 60 of Chapter  \ Title 40 of  the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
  1.  In § 60.4 paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (TT)  to read
as follows:

9 60.4  AddreM.
   (b)  •  •  •
   (TT)—State of Utah, Utah Air Con-
 servation Committee,  State Division of
 Health, 44 Medical Drive, Salt Lake City,
 Utah 84113.
     •      •       •       •       t
   IFRDoc.76-17433 Filed ft-14-76;8:46 am]

    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 41,  NO. 116-
        -TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1976
                                                        IV-146
-------
                                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
3 8 Title 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
               1FRL 664-8|

          NEW SOURCE REVIEW
    Delegation of Authority to the State of
                 Georgia
   The amendments below Institute cer-
 tain address changes for reports and ap-
 plications required from operators of new
 sources. EPA has delegated  to the State
 of Georgia authority  to review new find
 modified sources. The  delegated author-
 ity  includes  the reviews  under  40  CFR
 Part 52 for the prevention of significant
 deterioration. It also Includes the review
 under 40 CFR Part 60 for the standards
 of  performance  for  new stationary
 sources and  review under 40  CFR Part
 61 for national emission standards for
 hazardous air pollutants.
   A notice announcing the delegation of
 authority Is  published  elsewhere In the
 Notices section this Issue  of the FEDERAL
 REGISTER. These amendments  provide
 that  all reports, requests,  applications,
 submittals. and communications previ-
 ously required for the delegated reviews
 will  now  be  sent  Instead to  the  Envi-
 ronmental Protection  Division.  Georgia
 Department  of  Natural Resources, 270
 Washington Street SW.. Atlanta. Georgia
 30334, instead of EPA's Region  IV.
   The Regional Administrator finds good
 cause for foregoing prior public notice
 and for making this rulemaklnpr effective
 Immediately  In that it Is an administra-
 tive  change and not  one of substantive
 content. No  additional substantive bur-
 dens are imposed on the parties affected.
 The delegation which  Is reflected by this
 administrative amendment  was  effective
 on May 3. 1976, and  It serves  no pur-
 pose  to  delay the  technical change of
 this  addition of the State address to the
 Code of Federal regulations.
   This  rulemaklng Is effective immedi-
 ately, and is Issued under the authority
 of Sections 101. 110. 111. 112 and 301 of
 the Clean Air Act, as amended 42 UB.C,
 1857, 1857C-5, 6, 7 and ISSlg,
   Dated: June 11.1SK76.
                    JACK E. RAVAN,
               Regional Administrator.
  PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
      DELEGATION or AUTHORITY TO THE
             STATE OF  GEORGIA

    Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40. Code of
  Federal Regulations,  is amended as  fol-
  lows:
    2. In § 60.4, paragraph  (b) (L) is re-
  vised to read as follows:
  § C0.4  Address.
      •     •»      •       •       »
    (b)  •  • •
    (L) Stole of Georgia, Environmental Pro-
  tection Division. Department  of Natural Re-
  sources. 270  Washington Street,  S.W., At-
  lanta, Georgia 30334.

     FCDHAl REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 120-

         -MONOAY, JUNE 21,  1v76
39
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS

               [FRL 574-3]
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
 Delegation of Authority to State  of Cali-
  fornia  on Behalf of Fresno, Mendoclno,
  San Joaquin, and  Sacramento County
  Air Pollution Control Districts
  Pursuant to  the delegation of author-
 ity for the standards of performance for
 new stationary sources  (NSPS) to  the
 State  of California on  behalf of  the
 Fresno  County  Air Pollution  Control
 District,  the Mendoclno County Air Pol-
 lution Control  District, the San Joaquin
 County Air  Pollution Control  District,
 and  the  Sacramento County Air Pollu-
 tion Control District, dated March  29,
 3976. EPA  is today  amending  40  CFR
 60.4. Address, to reflect  this delegation.
 A Notice announcing this delegation is
 published today In the Notice Section of
 this Issne. The amended § 60.4 Is set forth.
 below. It adds the addresses of the Fres-
 no County, Mendocino County.  San Joa-
 quin  County, and  Sacramento  County
 Air Pollution Control Districts, to which.
 must be  addressed  all reports, requests,
 applications, submittals, and communi-
 cations pursuant to  this  part by sources
 subject to the NSPS located within these
 Air Pollution Control Districts.
  The Administrator finds good cnuse for
 foregoing prior  public  notice  and  for
 making this rulemaklng effective imme-
 diately in that it Is an  administrative
 chenge and not one of substantive con-
 tent.  No additional  substantive burdens
 are Imposed on the parties affected. The
 delegation which Is  reflected by this  ad-
 ministrative amendment was effective on
 March 29, 1976, and it serves no purpose
 to delay  ttie technical change of this  ad-
 dition of the Air Pollution Control Dis-
 trict  addresses to  the  Code of  Federal
 Regulations.
  This rulemsiking  is effective  immedi-
 ately, and Is Issued  under the  authority
 of section 111  of the Clean Air Act, as
 amended (42 U.S.C. 1857c-«].
  Dated: June 15,1976.
               STANLEY W. LECRO,
            Assistant Administrator
                     for Enforcement.

  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40. of  the
 Code of Federal Regulations, Is amended
 as follows:
  1. In § 60.4, paragraph (b) Is amended
 by revising subparagraph P to read, aa
 follows:
 § 60.4  Addresg.
    •       •      •      «       •
  (b)  •  • *
  (A)-(E)  *  * *
  (F)  California:
 Bay Area Air Pollution Control District,  939
  Ellis St., San Francisco. CA 04109
 Del Norte County Air Pollution Control Dlj-
  trlct, Courthouse. Crescent City, CA 95531
 Fresno County Air Pollution Control District,
  515 S. Cedar Ave.. Fresno, CA 93702
 Humboldt County Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict. 5600  S. Broadway, Eureka, CA 95501
 Kern County Air Pollution Control District,
  1700 Flower St. (P.O. Boi 997), Bakersfleld,
  CA 93302
Mendoclno County  Air  Pollution  Control
  District, County  Courthouse. Uklah.  CA
  95482
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
  District, 420 Church St.  (P.O. Box 487),
  Salinas, CA 93901
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Con-
  trol District. 3313 Chanate Rd., Santa Rosa,
  CA 95404
Sacramento County  Air  Pollution  Control
  District. 2221 Stockton Blvd.. Sacramento,
  CA 95827
San Joaquin County Air Pollution  Control
  District. 1601  B. Hazelton St.  (P.O.  Box
  2009). Stockton. OA 95201
Trinity County  Air Pollution Control Dl»-
  trlct, BOJ AJ, 'Weavervllle, CA 96093
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict, 625 E. Santa Clara St., Ventura. CA
  93001


    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 4~<,  NO. 132-

         -THURSDAY,  JULY  8, 1976
                                                         IV-147
-------
                                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
40
   Title 40 — Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER  I— ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              | FRL 597-1)
PART  60 — STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Delegation  of Authority to  State  of Cali-
  fornia on Behalf of Madera County Air
  Pollution Control District
  Pursuant to the delegation of authority
for the standards of performance for new
stationary sources   to the  State
of California on behalf of the  Madera
County Air Pollution Control  District,
dated May 12, 1976. EPA Is today amend-
ing 40 CFR 60.4 Address, to reflect this
delegation. A Notice announcing this del-
egation Is published in the  Notices Sec-
tion of this issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER,
Environmental Protection  Agency. FRL
S9&-8. The amended 5 60.4 is set forth be-
low.  It  adds the address of the  Madera
County Air Pollution Control District, to
which must be  addressed all reports, re-
quests,   applications,  submlttals.   and
communications pursuant to this part by
sources subject  to  the NSPS  located
within this Air Pollution Control District.
  The Administrator finds good cause for
foregoing prior public notice  and  for
making this rulemaklng effective immed-
iately  In that  it Is  an administrative
change  and not one  of substantive con-
tent. No additional substantive  burdens
are imposed on the parties affected. The
delegation  which is reflected by this ad-
ministrative amendment was effective on
May 12. 1976. and it serves no purpose to
delay the technical change of this addi-
tion of the Air Pollution Control  District
address   to   the   Code   of    Federal
Regulations.
  This  rulemaking is  effective immedi-
ately, and  is issued under the authority
of Section 111  of the  Clean Air Act,  as
amended I42U.S.C. 1857c-6l.

  Dated: July 27, 1976.
                  PAUL DEFALCO.
           Regional Administrator.
                     Region IX. EPA.

  Part  60 of Chapter  I, Title 40 of the
Code  of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
  1.  In 5 60.4 paragraph 
                   CALIFORNIA
Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict. County Courthouse, Uklah, CA 95402
Monterey Bay Unified Air  Pollution Control
  District. 420 Church St. (P.O  Box 487),
  Salinas, CA 93901
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Con-
  trol District. 3313 Chanate Rd.. Santa Rosa.
  CA 95404
Sacramento County  Air Pollution Control
  District. 2221 Stockton Blvd., Sacramento.
  CA 95827
San Joaqutn County  Air  Pollution Control
  District. 1601 E. Hazelton St.  (P.O. Box
  2009), Stockton. CA 95201
Trinity  County Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict. Box AJ, Weavervllle, CA 96093
Ventura County Air  Pollution Control Dis-
  trict. 625 E. Santa  Clara St., Ventura, CA
  93001
                                            |FR Doc.76-23146 Filed 8-6-76:8:45 am)





                                               FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL 41, NO. 154



                                                 •MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1976
   Buy Area Air Pollution Control District, 939
     Bills St.. San Francisco. CA 94109
   Del Norte County Air Pollution Control Dis-
     trict. Courthouse. Crescent City. CA  95531
   Fr-sno County Air Pollution Control District,
     515 S. Cedar Avemie. Fresno, CA 93702
   Humboldt County Air Pollution Control Dis-
     trict. 6600 S. Broadway, Eureka. CA  95501
   Kern County Air Pollution Control District,
     1700  Flower St.  (P.O.  Box  997),  Bakerm-
     fteld. CA 93302
   Madera County  Air Pollution Control Dis-
     trict, 135 W. Yosemlte Avenue. Madera, CA
     93637
4 1  Title 40—Protection of Environment
       CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR  PROGRAMS
                | FRL GOO-4]
   PART 60—STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
   ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY  SOURCE
      Delegation of Authority to the U.S.
               Virgin Islands
    Pursuant to the delegation of authority
 for the standards of performance for new
 stationary sources  (NSPS)  to  the U.S.
 Virgin  Islands on June 30, 1976, EPA  is
 today amending  40 CFR 60.4, Address, to
 reflect this delegation. A Notice announc-
 ing  this delegation  is published at  page
 34G85 of today's FEDERAL REGISTER. The
 amended § 60.4,  which adds the address
 of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Department of
 Conservation and  Cultural Affairs,  to
 which  reports,  requests,  applications,
 submittals,  and  communications lo the
 Administrator pursuant to this part must
 also be addressed, is set forth below.
   The Administrator finds good  cause for
 foregoing prior  public  notice  and for
 making this rulemaking  effective imme-
 diately in that  it Is  fin  administrative
 change and not  one of substantive  con-
 tent. No additional  substantive burdens
 are imposed on the  parties affected. The
 delegation which Is  reflected by this ad-
 ministrative amendment was effective on
 June 30,1976, and it serves no purpose to
 delay the technical  change of this addi-
 tion of the U.S. Virgin Islands address to
 the  Code of Federal Regulations.
   This  rulemaking  Is effective  Immedi-
 ately, and Is Issued  under the authority
 of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as
 amended.
 (42 U.S.C. 1857C-6)

   Dated: August  4, 1976.
              GERALD M. HANSLER,
            Regional Administrator,
                           Region II.
   1.  In  § 60.4 paragraph (b)  Is amended
 by revising subparagraph  (CCC)  to read
 as follows:

 $ 60.4  Address.
     •      •      •      •       •
   (b) *  * *
   (BBB)  *  •  •
   (CCO—U.S. Virgin Islands: U.S. Vir-
 gin Islands Department of Conservation
 and Cultural Affairs, P.O.  Box 578, Char-
 lotte Amalie,  8t. Thomas, U.S. Virgin
 Islands 00801.
   [FR Doc.76-23898 Filed 8-13-76:8:45 am)
                                                                                      FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 41, NO. 159


                                                                                        MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1976
                                                         IV-148
-------
                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS
42            |FRL 698-2]

  PART  &0—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
      Revision to Emission Monitoring
              Requirements
   On  October  6,  1975 (40 PR  46250),
  under  section 111 of  the  Clean Air  Act,
  as amended,  the Environmental  Protec-
  tion Agency    IB re-
 vised to read as follows:
 § 60.4   Address.
   (b)  • • •

   (P) California:
 Bay Area Air Pollution Control  District. 939
   Ellis St.. San Francisco, CA 94103
 Del Norte County Air Pollution Control Dis-
   trict. Courthouse. Crescent City. CA 85531
 Fresno County Air Pollution Control District,
   615 S. Cedar Avenue, Fresno. CA 93703
 Humboldt County Air Pollution Control Dis-
   trict. 6600 S. Broadway. Eureka, CA 05501
 Kern County  Air Pollution Control District,
   1700 Flower St. (P.O.  Box  997), Bakers-
   fleld, CA 93302
 Madera County  Air  Pollution Control Dis-
   trict. 135 W. Yosemltc Avenue, Madera, CA
   93637
 Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
   trict, County Courthouse, UXlah. CA 05482
 Monterey Bay Dnlfled Air Pollution Control
   District. 420 Church St. (P.O. Box 487).
   Salinas, CA 93901
 Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Con-
  trol  District.  3313  Chanate  Rd.. Santa
  Rosa, CA 95404
Sacramento County  Air  Pollution Control
  District. 3701 Branch Center Bead. Sacra-
  mento, CA 95827
San  Joaquln  County  Air  Pollution Control
  District.  1601  E. Hazelton St. (P.O. Box
  2009). Stockton. CA 95201
Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict, 820 Scenic Drive,  Modesto.  CA 95360
Trinity County  Air Pollution Control  Dis-
  trict. Box AJ. Wenvervllle, CA 0COS3
Ventura County Air  Pollution Control  Dis-
  trict. 625 E. Santa  Clara St., Ventura, CA
  93001
                                                                                    (FRDoc.76-27175 Filed 9-16-76;8:45 am]
                                                                                       FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41,  NO.  182
                                                                                        FRIDAY,  SEPTEMBER J7,  197*
                                                      IV-149
-------
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
45
     Title 40—Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION AGENCY
46
    Title 40—Protection of Environment
47T
      SUBCHM>T£R C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION  STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
 Reports and Applications From Operators
    of New Sources; Address Changes
DELEGATION OP AUTHORITY TO THE STATS
             OF ALABAMA
  The amendments below Institute cer-
tain address changes for reports and ap-
plications required from operators of new
sources. EPA has delegated to the State
of Alabama authority to review new and
modified sources. The delegated author-
ity Includes the review under 40 CFR Part
60 for the standards of performance for
new stationary sources and review under
40  CFR Part 61  for national emission
standards for hazardous air  pollutants.
  A notice announcing the delegation of
authority is published elsewhere In this
Issue  of the FEDERAL REGISTER.  These
amendments  provide that all reports, re-
quests,  applications,  submittals,  and
communications previously reulred for
the delegated reviews will now be sent
instead to the Air Pollution Control Divi-
sion,  AJabama  Air   Pollution Control
Commission.  645   South  McDonough
Street. Montgomery, Alabama 36104, In-
stead of EPA's Region IV.
  The Regional Administrator finds good
cause for foregoing  prior public  notice
and for making this rulemaking effective
Immediately in  that it is an administra-
tive change  and not one of substantive
content. No  additional substantive bur-
dens are imposed on the parties affected.
The delegation which is reflected by this
administrative amendment was effective
on August 5.  1976, and it serves no pur-
pose  to delay the technical  change of
this addition  of the State address to the
Code  of Federal Regulations.
  This rulemaking is effective immedi-
ately, and is  Issued under the authority
of sections 111. 112. and 301 of the Clean
Air Act, as  amended 42  U.S.C.  1651,
1857C-5, 6. Tend 1857g.
  Dated: September 9,1976.
                   JACK E. LAVAM.
             Regional Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as fol-
lows:
  1. In 5 60.4, paragraph (b) Is amended
by revising subparagraph (B) to read a»
follows:
§60.1  AJdret*.
    •      •      •       •      •
   (b)  • • •
  (B)  6tat« of Alabama. Air Pollution Con-
trol Division. Air Pollution Control Comml»-
•ion. MS a, McDonougb Street, Montgomery,
Alabama $0104.
    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 41, NO.  113

    MONDAY,  SEPTEMIEt 20,  197*
      CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
               |FRL 623-7)

  PART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
    Delegation of Authority to the State of
                 Indiana
   Pursuant to the delegation of authority
 to Implement the standards of perform-
 ance for new stationary  sources  rNSPS)
 to the State of Indiana on April 21,  1976,
 EPA  Is  today amending 40 CFR  60.4,
 Address,  to reflect this delegation.  A
 notice announcing this delegation is pub-
 lished Thursday,  September 30, 1976 (41
 FR 43237). The  amended  §60.4, which
 adds the address  of the Indiana Air  Pol-
 lution Control  Board to  that list oC ad-
 dresses to which all reports, requests, ap-
 plications, submittals, and communica-
 tions  to the Administrator  pursuant  to
 this part must  be sent, is set forth below.
   The Administrator finds good cause for
 foregoing  prior notice and for  making
 this nilemaking effective immediately in
 that it is an administrative change and
 not one of substantive content. No addi-
 tional substantive burdens are imposed
 on the parties affected.  The delegation
 which is reflected by this administrative
 amendment was  effective  on April 21,
 1976,  and  it serves no purpose to delay
 the technical change of  this addition of
 the State  address to the Code  of Fed-
 eral Regulations.
   This rulemaking is effective immedi-
 ately.
 (Sec.  Ill of the Clean Air  Act, as amended,
 42 U.S.C. 1857C-G.)

   Dated: September 22,  1976.
          GEOKCE R. ALEXANDER.  Jr..
               Regional Administrator.

   Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
    1. In 5 60.4,  paragraph (b) is amended
 by revising subparagraph P, to  read  as
 follows:
 § 60.4  Address.
     «      «      «      «      *
    (b) * •  *
    (A)-(O) • •  •
    (P) State or  Indiana. Indiana Air Pollu-
 tion  Control Board. 1330 West Michigan
 Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 4620C.
                                            [PR Doc.78-28507 Filed 9-29-76:8:45 am]



                                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 41, NO. 191

                                               THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1976
      itle 40 — Protection of Environment
      CHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL
          PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C — AIR PROGRAMS
               IFRL629-8)
  PART 60 — STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
    ANCE FOR  STATIONARY SOURCES
 PART 61— NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
   ARDS  FOR  HAZARDOUS AIR POLLU-
   TANTS
      Delegation of Authority to State of
              North Dakota
   Pursuant to the delegation of author-
 ity for the standards of performance foi'
 new  sources (NSPS)  and national emis-
 sion  standards for hazardous air pol-
 lutants (NESHAPS)  to the  State  of
 North  Dakota on August 30.  1976, EPA
 Is today amending respectively 40  CFR
 60.4  and 61.04 Address, to  reflect this
 delegation. A notice announcing this del-
 egation Is published today  in the notices
 section. The amended H 60.4 and 61.04
 which add the address of the North Da-
 kota  State  Department of  Health  to
 which nil reports, requests, applications.
 submittals, and  communications to the
 Administrator pursuant to  these parts
 must also  be addressed, are  set forth
 below.
   The Administrator finds good cause for
 foregoing prior  public  notice and for
 making this rulemaking effective imme-
 diately in that  it Ls an administrative
 change and not  one of substantive con-
 tent. No additional substantive burdens
 are imposed on the parties affected. The
 delegation which is reflected by this ad-
 ministrative amendment was effective on
 August 30. 1976,  and It serves no purpose
 to delay the  technical  change of  this
 addition to the State address to the Codo
 of Federal Regulations.
   Tills rulemaking Is effective immedi-
 ately, and is issued under the  authority
 of sections 111 and 112 of  the Clean Air
 Act,  as amended, (42 U.S.C. 1857c-8 and
 -71.

   Dated: October 1. 1976.
                     JOHN A. GREEN,
               Regional Administrator.

   Paris 60 and 61 of Chapter I, Title 40
 of the Code of Federal  Regulations are
 respectively amended as follows :
   1.  In 5 60.4. paragraph (b)  Ls amended
 by revising  subparagraph  (JJ) to read.
 as follows:
 § 6O. I
      •
   (b)
                                           (AA)-(II) • • •
                                           (JJ)— State  of North Dakota. SUto  De-
                                         partment of Health, Stet« Capitol, Bismarck.
                                         North Dakota 68601.
                                                                                    FEDERAL REGISTER. VOl. 41, NO.  199


                                                                                      WEDNESDAY", OCTOBER 13, 1976
                                                      IV-150
-------
48
     Title 40—Protection of Environment
       CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
                IFRL, 533-41

  PART 60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
   ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Delegation of Authority  to State of Cali-
    fornia  On Behalf of Santa  Barbara
    County Air Pollution Control District
    Pursuant  to the delegation of author-
  ity for the standards of performance for
  new  stationary  sources (NSPS>  to the
  State of California on behalf  of the
  Santa  Barbara  County  Air   Pollution
  Control  District,  dated September  n,
  1976. EPA  is today amending 40 CFR
  60.4  Address, to reflect this delegation.
  A Notice announcing this delegation is
  published in the Notices section of this
  Issue of the  FEDERAL  REGISTER. The
  amended § 60.4 is set forth below. It adds
  the  address  of  the  Santa   Barbara
  County  Air  Pollution Control District, to
  which must be addressed all reports,  re-
  quests,   applications,   submrttals, and
  communications pursuant to  this part
  by sources  subject to the NSPS located
  within   this  Air  Pollution   Control
  District.
    The Administrator  finds good  cause
  for foregoing prior public notice and  for
  making  this rulemaking effective imme-
  diately   in  that it is an  administrative
  change and not one of substantive con-
  tent. No additional substantive burdens
  are  imposed on the parties affected. The
  delegation which is reflected this admin-
  istrative amendment   was  effective   on
  September  17,  1976 and it serves no pur-
  pose to  delay  the technical  change  on
  this addition of the Air  Pollution Control
  District's address to the Code of Federal
  Regulations.
    This  rulemaking  is  effective immedi-
  ately, and is issued under the authority
  of section 111  of the Clean Air Act,  as
  amended (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6).
     Dated: October 20. 1976.
               PAUL Dr.  FALCO.  Jr..
              Regional Administrator,
                       EPA, Region IX.
    Part 60 o{ Chapter  I, Title  40 of the
  Code of  Federal Regulations is amended
  as follows:
     1.  In  §60.4  paragraph   (b><3>   is
  amended by revising subparagraph F to
  read as follows:
  § 60.1   Address.
     (b)
     C3>
     (A)-(E)
      RULES  AND  REGULATIONS

  Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
 District, 5600 S. Broadway. Eureka, CA 95501.
  Kern  County Air  Pollution  Control  Dis-
 trict.  1700 Flower St  (P.O. Box 997), Bakers-
 fleld.  CA 93302.
  Madcra County Air Pollution Control Dis-
 trict.  136 W. Yosemlte Avenue, Madera CA
 93637.
  Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control
 District.  County  Courthouse,  Ukl&b.  CA
 05482.

  Monterey Ba.y Unified Air Pollution  Con-
 trol District, 420  Church St. (P.O. Box  487).
 Salinas. CA 93901.
  Northern Sonoma County  Air  Pollution
 Control District.  3313  Chanate Pvd., Santa
 Rosn.  CA 05404.
  Sncramemo County Air  Pollution Control
 District.  3101 Branch  Center  Road, Sacra-
 mento. CA 05827.
  San Joaquln County  Air Pollution Control
 District. 1601 E. Hazelton St. (P.O. Box 2009),
 Stockton. CA 95201.
  Santa Barbara  County Air Pollution  Con-
 trol District. 4440 Calle Real. Santa Barbara,
 CA. 93110.
  Stanislaus County Air Pollution Control
 District. 830 Scenic Drive, Modesto. CA 96360.
  Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dis-
 trict.  Box AJ. Weavervllle.  CA 98093.
  Ventura County Air Pollution Control Dis-
 trict.  625 E. SantR  Clara  St.,  Ventura, OA
 93001
   |FR Doc.78-32104 Filed ll-2-76;8:4fi am|


    KDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 41, NO. 213

     WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3,  1976
49
               F—CALIFORNIA
    Bay  Area  Air Pollution Control  District,
   939 Ellis St..  San Francisco. CA 94109.
    Del Norte  County Air Pollution Control
   District. Courthouse. Crescent City. CA 95531.
    Fresno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
   trict. 5)5 S. Cedar Avenue. Fresno. CA 93702.
     Title 40—Protection of Environment
       CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION  AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
                | FRL 639-3 ]

  PART 60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
         Amendments to Subpart D
    Standards  of  performance for  fossil
  fuel-fired steam generators of more than
  73 megawatts (250 million Btu per hour)
  heat input rate are provided under Sub-
  part D of 40 CFR Part GO. Subpart D is
  amended herein to revise the  application
  of the standards of performance for fa-
  cilities burning wood residues In combi-
  nation with fossil fuel.
  Suhpart D contains standards for par-
Ucu'iiUe matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen.
oxidos. and visible emissions from steam
Kcnerntors. These standards, except for
the one  applicable to visible emissions,
are based on heat input.  For sulfur di-
oxide, there nre separate standards for
liquid  fossil  fuel-fired  nnd  solid fossil
fupl-firrd facilities with provisions for n
prorated standard when combinations of
different fossil fuels nre fired.  There Is
no sulfur dioxide standard for gaseous
fossil fuel-fired facilities since they emit
negligible amounts of sulfur dioxide.
  To date, there have been two ways for
a source owner or operator to comply
with the sulfur dioxide standard: fl) By
firing low sulfur fossil fuels or  (2>  by
using flue  pas dpsul/urlzation  systems.
Complying wiUi the standard  by firing
low sulfur fossil fuel  requires an  ade-
quate supply of fuel with a sulfur con-
tent low cnoush to  meet the standard.
However. H  would be possible for the
owner or operator to fire,  for example, a
relatively high sulfur  fossil fuel with a
very low sulfur fossil  fuel (e.g. natural
gas) to obtain a  fuel mixture which
would meet  the standard. The low sulfur
fuel  adds to the heat input but not to
the sulfur dioxide emissions and. thereby,
has an  overall fuel sulfur  reduction ef-
fect. In the pnst. the application of Sub-
part D permitted the hent  content of
fossil furls  but  not  wood residue to be
used In determining compliance with the
standards for participate  matter, sulfur
dioxide and  nitrogen oxides: thr iimend-
ment made herein will allow  the  licat
content of wood residue to be used for
determining compliance with the stand-
ards. The amendment dors not change
the scope of applicability  of Subixxrt D:
all stc-am generating units constructed
after August 17. 1971. and capable of fir-
ing fossil fuel at a heat Input rate of
more thnn 73 megawatts (250 million Btu
per hour) are subject to Subpart D.
     RATIONALE FOR THE AMENDMENTS
  Wood  residue, which  includes bark,
sawdust, chips,  etc., is not a fossil  fuel
and thus hns not been i\lknvod for use as
a dilution agent in complying  with the
sulfur dioxide standard for steam gener-
ators. Several companies have requested
that EI'A revise Subpart D to  permit
blending of wood residue with high sulfur
fos.sil fur-is.  This would enable them to
obtain a fuel mixtuvc low enough \n sul-
fur to  comply with  the  sulfur dioxide
standard. Since  Subpart D  allows the
blending of high  and low sulfur fossil
fuels. EPA lias concluded that  It is rea-
sonable  to  extend  application of  this
principle to wood residue which, although
not n  fossil  fuel,  does  have low sulfur
content
  Severn! companies have expressed in-
terest in constructing stenni generators
which  continuously fire wood residue in
combination with fossil fuel. New (acill-
ties will comply with the standards for
less  cost than at present because they,
will be able to use wood residue, a valu-
able source of energy, as an alternative to
expense low  sulfur  fossil fuels.  Also.
using wood  residue as a fuel supplement
instead of low sulfur fossil fuels will re-
                                                        IV-151
-------
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
suit  in substantial savings  In  the  con-
sumption  of scarce natural gas and  oil
resources, and will relieve  what would
otherwise be  a substantial solid waste
disposal problem. Consumption of energy
and  raw  material resources will be re-
duced  further by minimizing  the  need
for flue gas  dc.snlfumatlon systems  at
new facilities. There  will be no adverse
environmental Impact: neither  sulfur di-
oxide nor nitrogen oxides emissions will
lncrea.se as a  result of this  action.  Con-
sidering  the  beneficial,  environmental,
energy, and economic impacts, it is rea-
sonable to permit wood residue to be fired
as a low sulfur fuel to aid in compliance
with the  standards for  fossil  fuel-fired
steam generators.
  In making this amendment.  EPA rec-
ognizes  that  affected   facilities which
burn substantially more wood residue
than fossil fuel may have difficulty  com-
plying with the  43 nanogram  per  Joule
standard  for  particulate  matter  (0.1
pound per million Btu). There Is not
sufficient  information available at this
time to determine what level of particu-
late matter emissions Is achievable:  how-
ever, EPA Is continuing to gather Infor-
mation on this question. If EPA deter-
mines that the particulate matter stand-
ard   Is   not  . achievable,  appropriate
changes  will be  made to the  standard.
Any change would be proposed for  pub-
lic comment:  however,  in  the interim,
owners and operators will be subject to
the 43 nanogram per joule standard.
       'P1 FACTOR DETERMINATION

  New facilities  firing wood residue  in
combination with fossil fuel will be sub-
ject to the emission and  fuel monitoring
requirements  of  § 60.45  (as revised  on
October  6. 1915. 40 FR  46250). The  'P'
factors listed  in § 60.45(f) (4), which are
used for converting continuous monitor-
Ing data and performance test data into
units of  the  standard,  presently  apply
only to fossil fuels. Therefore. 'P' fac-
tors for bark and wood residue have been
added  to  5 60.45(f) (4). Any owner or op-
erator who elects to calculate his own
'F'  factor must obtain approval of the
Administrator.
     INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM or UNITS

  In  accordance with the  objective  to
Implement national use of the metric sys-
tem, EPA presents numerical  values in
both metric units and English units In
Its  regulations  and  technical  publica-
tions. In  an effort to simplify use of the
metric units of measurements.  EPA now
uses the  International System  of Units
(SI) as set forth in a publication by the
American Society for Testing  and  Ma-
terlaJs  entitled  "Standard  tor Metric
Practice" (Designation:  E 380-76). The
following amendments to Subpart D re-
flect the use of SI units.

            MISCELLANEOUS

  Since these amendments are expected
to have limited applicability, no environ-
mental Impact statement is required for
this rulemaking pursuant to section 1 (b)
ol  the "Procedures for  the  Voluntary
Preparation of  Environmental  Impact
Statements" (39 FR 37419).
  This action is effective on November 22,
197G. The Agency  finds that good cause
exists for not publishing this action as a
notice of proposed rulemakinfe  and for
making  it effective  immediately upon
publication because:
  1. The action  is  expected  to have lim-
ited applicability.
  2. The action will remove an  existing
restriction on   operations  without  in-
creasing emissions and will  have benefi-
cial environmental,  energy,  and  eco-
nomic effects.
  3. The action Is not  technically con-
troversial and does not alter the overall
substantive content of Subpart D.
  4. Immediate effectiveness  of the action
will enable affected  parties to  proceed
promptly and with certainty in conduct-
Ing their affairs.
(Sees. Ill, 114 and  301(a) of  the Clean Air
Act. as amended  by section 4(a) of Pub.L.
91-604. 84 Stat. 1878. and by section  16(c) (2)
of Piih.L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1713 (42  U.8.C.
1857c-fl, 1857C-9, 1857g(a)).)

Date: November 15,1976.
                     JOHN QUARI.ES,
                Acting Administrator.

  Part 60 of  Chapter I. Title 40 of  the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  •1. Section 60.40 is amended by  revising
the designation  of affected  facility and
by substituting the International System
(SI) of Units as follows:   -
§ 60.40  Applicability and designation of
     affected fsicilily.
  (a) The affected facilities  to which the
provisions of this subpart apply are:
  (1) Each fossil fuel-fired steam gener-
ating unit of more than  73 megawatts
heat  input rate (250 million Btu  per
hour).
  (2) Each fossil fuel and wood residue-
fired steam  generating  unit capable of
firing fossil fuel at a  heat input rate of
more than 73 megawatts (250 million Btu
per hour).
  (b) Any change to an  existing fossil
fuel-fired steam generating unit to  ac-
commodate the use of combustible mate-
rials, other than fossil fuels  as defined in
this subpart,  shall not bring that unit
under the applicability of this subpart.
  2. Section 60.41  is amended by adding
paragraphs (d) and (e) as follows:
§ 60.41   Definition*.
    •      •      •      *      *
  (d) "Fossil  fuel and wood residue-fired
steam generating unit" means a  furnace
or boiler used in the  process of  burning
fossil fuel and wood residue  for the pur-
pose of producing steam by heat transfer.
  (e) "Wood  residue" means bark, saw-
dust,  slabs,  chips, shavings,  mill trim.
and other wood products derived from
wood processing and forest management
operations.
  3. Section 60.42 is amended by  revising
paragraph (a)(l) and by substituting SI
units in paragraph (a) (I)  as follows:
 § 60.42  Standard for participate inatlcr.
   (a)  •  •  •
   (1)  Contain particulate matter in ex-
 cess of 43 nanograms per joule heat in-
 put CO.10 Ib  per million Btu)  derived
 from fossil  fuel or fossil  fuel and wood
 residue.
     •       •       •       *      •
   4. Section 60.43 is amended by revising
 paragraphs  (a)(l) and (a) (2), by sub-
 stituting SI units in  paragraphs (a)(l)
 and (a) (2), and by revising the formula
 in paragraph (b)  as follows:
 § 60.43  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
   (a)  •  •  *
   (1)  340 nanograms per joule heat in-
 put (0.80 Ib  per million Btu)  derived
 from liquid fossil fuel or liquid fossil fuel
 and wood residue.
   (2)  520 nanograms per Joule heat in-
 put (1.2 Ib per million Btu) derived from
 solid fossil fuel or solid fossil  fuel and
 wood residue.
   (b)  When  different  fossil  fuels  are
 burned simultaneously In any  combina-
 tion, the applicable standard (in ng/J)
 shall be  determined by proration using
 the following formula:
         PS802 =
                i/(340) + z(520)
where:
  PSsni is the prorated standard for sulfur
    dioxide  when burning different fuels
    simultaneously,   in   nanograms  per
    joule  hent  input  derived  from  all
    fossil fuels fired  or from all fossil fuels
    ixnd wood residue fired,
  y is  the percentage  of  total heat input
    derived  from liquid  fossil  fuel,  and
  2 is  the percentage  of  total hent input
    derived  from solid fossil fuel.
    •       «       •       •       •
  5. Section 60.44 is amended by revising
paragraphs  (a)(l), (a) (2), and (a) (3);
by  substituting  SI  units In paragraphs
(aHD, (a) (2), and (a) (3); and by re-
vising  paragraph (b)  as  follows:

§ 60.44  Standard for nitrogen oxides.

  (a)  •  •  •
  (1) 88 nanograms per joule heat Input
(0.20 Ib per million Btu) derived from
gaseous fossil fuel or gaseous fossil fuel
and wood residue.
  (2) 130, nanograms per joule heat In-
put  (0.30 Ib per million Btu)  derived
from liquid fossil fuel or liquid fossil fuel
and wood residue.
  (3) 300 nanograms per Joule heat In-
put  (0.70 Ib per million Btu)  derived
from solid fossil fuel  or  solid fossil fuel
and wood  residue  (except lignite or a
solid fossil  fuel containing 25 percent,
by weight, or more  of coal refuse).
  (b)  When different  fossil  fuels  are
burned simultaneously in any combina-
tion, the applicable standards (in ng/J)
shall be determined by proration. Com-
pliance shall be determined by using the
following formula:
                              FEOEXAl R'OISTtR, VOl. 41, NO. 226—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22,  1976

                                                     IV-152
-------
                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
            i (86) _+y (130)4-^(300)
     PSNO.=
where:
  PSNO, is the prorated standard for nitro-
    gen  oxides  when  burning  tJifTorent
    fuels  simultaneously,  in  Monograms
    per joule heat input derived from all
    fns3i'I fuels fired or from all fossil fuels
    and wood residue firod,
  x is  the percentage  of totnl h'ent input
    derived   from  gaseous  fossil  fuel,
  y is  the percentage  of totnl heat input
    derived  from  liquid  fossil  fuel, and
  c is  the percentage  of total heat input
    derived  from solid fossil  fuel (except
    lignite or a solid fossil fuel containing
    25 percent, by weight, or  more of coal
    refuse).
When  lignite or a solid  fossil fuel con-
taining 25 percent, by weight,  or  more
of coal refuse Is burned  In combination
with gaseous,  liquid, other  solid  fossil
fuel, or wood residue, the standard for
nitrogen oxides does  not  apply.
  6.  Section 60.45  is amended  by sub-
stituting  SI units In paragraphs  (e),
, (I>(2). (f)(4)(l),  (f)(4)Ui), CO
(4) (ill), (f)(4)(lv), (f)(5),  and  (f) (5)
(ii), by adding  paragraphs (f) (4) (v)
and  (f)(5)(Ui), and  by  revising para-
graph  (f) (6) as follows:
§ 60.45  Emiwion and fuel monitoring.
    •       •       •       •       *
  (e) An  owner or operator required to
Install  continuous monitoring  systems
under  paragraphs  (b)  and  (c)  of this
section shall for  each  pollutant moni-
tored use the applicable conversion pro-
cedure for  the purpose  of converting
continuous monitoring data into units of
the  applicable  standards   (nanograms
per joule, pounds  per million  Btu)  as
follows:
   (f) *  •  •
   (1) E=pollutant emissions, ng/J (lb/
million Btu) .
   (2) C=pollutant  concentration,  ng/
dscm (Ib/dscf), determined by multiply-
ing the average concentration (ppm) for
each one-hour period by 4.15x10' M ng/
dscm per ppm <2. 59x10'' M  Ib/dscf
per  ppm)  where Af==pollutant  molecu-
lar weight, g/g-mole . Af=
64.07 for sulfur dioxide and 46.01 for ni-
trogen oxides.
   (1)  For  anthracite  coal  as classified
according  to A.S.T.M.  D  388-66,  F^-.
2.723 x!0'; dscm/J (10,140 dscf/mUlion
Btu)   and  Ft=0.532xlO-'  scm  CO-JJ
(1,980 scf CO,/miUion Btu).
   (ii) For subbitumlnous and bituminous
coal as classified according to A.S.T.M. D
388-66.  F^2.637X10-7  dscm/J  (9.820
dscf/million  Btu)  and  Fc- 0.486 X 10'1
scm CO2/J (1.810 scf Cos/million Btu).
   (iii> For liquid fossil fuels including
crude,  residual,  and  distillate   oils.
F=-2.476xlO-7  dscm/J  (9,220  dscf/mil-
lion  Btu)   and  Fc^- 0.384  scm  COi/J
(1.430 scf CO2/million Btu).
   (iv) For gaseous fossil fuels. F = 2.347
XIO'1 dscm/J  8,740  dscf /million Btu).
For  natural  gas,  propane, and butane
fuels. Fc= 0.279X 10'1 scm COt/J (1.040
scf COa/million  Btu) for natural  gas,
0.322X10'7 scm COi/J (1,200 scf  COi/
million Btu) for propane,  and 0.338 X 10'7
scm  COi/J (1.260 scf COj/million  Btu)
for butane.
    For bark F= 1.076  dscm/J (9.575
dscf/mUllon Btu) and Fc=0.217 dscm/J
(1.927 dscf/million Btu).  For wood resi-
due  other than bark F—1.038  dscm/J
                (9,233 dscf/million Btu)  and Fc=0.207
                dscm/J (1.842 dscf/million Btu).
                  (5) The owner or operator may use the
                following  equation to  determine an  P
                factor (dscm/J or dscf/million Btu) on
                a dry basis (If It is desired to calculate F
                on a  wet basis, consult the Administra-
                tor)  or Fc factor (scm COi/J. or scf COj/
                million Btu)  on either basis in lieu of the
                F or  Fc  factors specified in  paragraph
                (f) (4) of  this section:
           „ _
+95.7(%C) +35.4 ( %
               GCV
                                                          -28.5(%0)
                                   (SI units)

            10«[3.64(%g)+1.53(%C)+0.:Vr ( %
                                       GCV

                                 (English units)

                                   _20.0(%C)
                                       GCV
                                   (SI units)
                               r ±^
                                        CCi'

                                 (English units)
  (I)
  (ii)  GCV is the gross  calorific value
(kJ/kg. Btu/lb) of the fuel combusted.
determined by the A.S.T.M. test methods
D 2015-66(72) for solid fuels and D 1826-
64(70) for gaseous fuels as applicable.
  (lil) For affected  facilities  which fire
both fossil fuels and nonfossil fuels, ihe
F or Fr value shall be  subject to the
Administrator's approval.
  (6) For  affected facilities firing com-
binations of fossil fuels or fossil fuels and
wood residue, the  F  or F, factors deter-
mined by paragraphs (f) (4) or (f ) (5) of
this section shall be prorated  In accord-
ance with the applicable formula as fol-
lows:
where:
       Xi— the fraction of total heat Input
             derived from each type of fuel
             (e.g.  natural gas. hlUimlnous
             coal,  wood residue, etc.)
Fi or (Fr) i =the applicable F or F, factor lor
             each  fuel type determined  In
             accordance  with  paragraph
             (f)(4)  and  (f) (5)  of  this
             section.
        n = the  number   nf  fuels  being
             burned In combination.
  7. Section 60.46  is amended by sub-
stituting SI units in paragraphs (b) and
(f)  and paragraph (g)  is revised as fol-
lows :
§ (VO.'WV  TrM methods and procedure*.
   'b>  For Method 5. Method 1 shall be
used to select the 'sampling site and the
number of traverse sampling points. The
sampling  time for each  run shall be at
least   60  minutes ancl   the  minimum
sampling  volume1 shall be 0.85 dscm (30
dscf)  except that smaller sampling times
or volumes, when necessitated by process
                variables or  other  factors,  may be ap-
                proved by the Administrator. The probe
                and  filter holder heating systems in the
                sampling train shall be set  to provide a
                gas temperature no greater than 433 K
                (320"F).
                     #      *       •       •      «
                  (f) For each run using the  methods
                specified by paragraphs  (a) (3), (a) (4),
                and   (gaseous  fuels) as applicable.
                The method used to determine calorific
                value of \vood residue must be approved
                by the Administrator. The owner or oper-
                ator shall determine the rate of fuels
                burned during each testing  period by
                suitable methods and shall confirm the
                             FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 41, NO. 226—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22,  1976

                                                      IV-153
-------
 rale by a material balance over the steam
 generation system.
 (Sections  111.  114. and 301 (a) of the Clean
 Al Act as amended by section 4(a) of Pub. L.
 91-604. 84 Stat. 1678 and by section 15(ci (2)
 Of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713  (42  U.S.C.
 1857C-6. 1857C-9.  1857g(a)).

  |FR Doc.76-33966 Filed 11-19-76:8:45 am]
~ V  Title 40—Protection of Environment
       CHAPTER  I—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION AGENCY
                IFRL 630-2|

   PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
   Amendments to Reference Methods 13A
                 and.UB
    On August 8, 1975  (40 FR 33151), the
 Environmental Protection Agency " is corrected to  read "(see
section 7.3.4)".
   (b) Section 5.1.5  is revised  to read as
follows:
  8.1.5 Filter holder—If located between the
probe and flrst Implnger, boroslllcate gla»
with a 20 mean stainless steel screen filter
support and a slllcone rubber gasket; neither
a glass frit filter support nor & sintered metal
filter support may be used If the filter tm In
front of the Impingers.  If located between
the third and fourth Implngera.  boroslllcato
glass with a glass  frit filter support and a
slllcone  rubber gasket. Other materials of
construction may be used with approval from
the Administrator, e.g.. If probe llnor is stain-
less steel, then filter holder may  be stainless
steel. The holder design shall provide a posi-
tive  seal against leakage from the outside or
around the niter.
   (c)  Section 7.1.3  Is amended by re-
vising the flrst two sentences of the sixth
paragraph  to read as follows:
  7.1.3 Preparation of collection train. •  •  •
  Assemble  the train as shown In Figure
13A-1 with the filter between the third and
fourth  implngers.  Alternatively, th«  filter
may be placed between  the probe and first
Implnger If  a 20 mesh stainless steel screen
la used for the filter support. •  •  •
   (d) In section 7.3.4.  the reference In
 the flrst paragraph to "section 7.3.6" is
 corrected to read "section 7.3.5".
   2. Reference Method 13B is amended
 as follows:
   (a) In the third line of section 3. the
 phrase "300fig/liter" is corrected to read
 "300 mg/liter".
   (b) Section 5.1.5 is revised  to read as
 follows:
   5.1.5 Filter holder—If located between the
 probe and first Implnger.  boroslllcate glass
 with  a 20 mesh stainless steel screen filter
 support and a eillcone rubber gasket: neither
 a glass frit filter support nor a sintered metal
 filter support may be used If the filter Is In
 front of the Impingers.  It located between
 the third and  fourth Impingers.  boroelUcate
 glass with a glass frit filter support and a
 slllcone  rubber gasket. Other materials of
 construction may be used with approval from
 the Administrator, e.g.. If probe liner Is stain-
 less steel, then filter holder may  be stainless
 steel. The holder design shall provide a posi-
 tive seal against leakage from the outside or
 around the filter.
   (c)  Section 7.1.3 is amended by revis-
ing  the first  two sentences  of  the  sixth
paragraph to read as follows:
  7.1.3 Preparation of collection train. •  • •
  Assemble the train  as  shown  In Figure
13A-1 (Method 13A) with  the flHer between
the  third  and  fourth  Impingers. Alterna-
tively,  the filter mfly be pinccti  between the
probe the flrst Implnger If a 20 mesh stain-
less steel screen Is used for the filter sup-
port. • • •
     •       •       •      t       •
   (d)  In  section 7.3.4,  the reference in
the flrst paragraph to "section 7.3.6" Is
corrected to read "section 7.3.5".
(Sees. 111. 114. find 301 (a)  Clenn Air Act. as
amended by sec. 4(a) ol Pub L. 01-604, 34
Stat. 1678  and by sec. !5(c)(2) of Pub. L.
01-604. 84 Stftt.   1713   (42 U.S.C. 1857C-6.
1957c-9.and 1857g(2)).)

  |FR Doc.76-34888 Tiled 11-26-78:8:45 am)
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 4».  NO. 230—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 79,  1976
                                                        IV-154
-------
                                                RULES  AND REGULATIONS
51
     Title 40—Protection of Environment
       CHAPTER !—ENVIRONMENTAL
           PROTECTION  AGENCY
       SUBCHAPTER C—ft!R PROGRAMS
                ;FR!, r.r>!-r>)
  PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
   ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Delegation  of  Authority to Pima County
    Health Department On Behaff of Pima
    County Air Pollution Control District
    Pursuant to the delegation of author-
  ity for the standards of performance for
  new  stationary  sources  CNSPS>  in i;\<>
  Pima County Health Department  on be-
  half  of the Pima County  Air Pollution
  Control District, dated Octob?r 7. 19V6.
  EPA is  today  :inuTicltn?r  -'=0 CFR  60.1
  Address, to  reflect this  delegation  A
  document  nnnounritnr this  delegation
  is published today ;U 41 I'll in the Notices
  section   of  tills Usur.  The  attended
  { 60.4 is set forth below. It adds the ad-
  dress of  the Pima County Air Pollution
  Control District, to which must be ad-
  tlrp.ssed ;i)l reports, requests, applications.
  subniittals, and  roinmunications pursu-
  ant to this  part by sources subject to the
  NSPS located within this  Air Pollution
  Control District.
    The Administrator finds pood cause for
  foregoing prior  public notice  and for
  making this rulcmaking effective  imme-
  diately  in  that  it  Is an  administrative
  chniiee and not one of .substantive con-
  tent. No additional  substantive burdens
  arc imposed on the parties affected.  The
  delegation  which is  reflected by this ad-
  ministrative amendment was effective on
  October 7.  1976 and It serves no purpose
  to  delay the  technical change on  this
  addition of the  Air Pollution Control
  District's address to the Code of Federal
  Regulations.
    This ruleimxkinK  is eitective Immedi-
  ately, and  Is issued  under the authority
  of Section  111 of the Clean Air Act. as
  amended (42 U.S.C. 1867c-6>.
    Dated: November  19. 197R
                     R. L. O'COtiNKLC..
        Acting Regional Administrator.
          Environmental     Protection
           Agency,  Jlcyion  IX.
52
    Part 60 of Chapter I,. Title 40 of the
  Code of Federal Regulations is amended
  as follows:
    1. In f 60.4 paragraph (b) Is amended
  by adding subparagraph D to read as
  follows:
  §60.1  Address.
    (A)  (C)  • • •
    D— Arizona
    Plnm County Air Pi/llu'.l!vra  County  Air Pollution Con-
 trol District. •1-440 Calle Real Sar.ta Durham
 CA 93110 .
  Btanlsl.-uis County  Air Pollution  Control
 District. 82O Srcnle Drlrc, Mude.ito, CA 05350.
  Trinity County Air  Pollution  Control  Dis-
 trict.  Bos AJ,  tt'eavcrville. CA OG093.
  Ventura County Air Pollution  Control  Dis-
trict, 625 E. Santft Clara Street  Ventura, CA
03001.
 |FB Doc-76 3(5!125 Klled 12-14-76:8:45 sun]



    FEOCMl *EO1JTM. VOl.  41, NO. 342

     WEDNESOAf.  DECEMBER 15.  1976
              SHEUA M
        Acting Regional Administrator.
          Environmental     Protection
          Agency. Region IX.

    Part 60 of Chapter I, Title  40 of  the
  Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
  as follows:
    1. In § 60.4 paragraph (bi Is amended
  by revising subparagraph P to  read as
  follows :

  § 60.4   Adilrciw.
  (A) -IE) • • • '
  F-Collfornla:
    Bay  Area Air Pollution Control District.
  939 Ellin Street, San Franciaoo. CA 94100.
    Del Norte County Atr Pollution Control
  District, Courthouse. Crescent Olty. CA OBG31.
    Fresno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict, 515 S Cedar Avenue, Fresno. CA 03703.
    Ilumbolcit County Air Pollution Control
  District. W500 S. Broadway. Eureka. CA OGfiOI.
    Kem 'county Air Pollution  Control Dis-
  trict,  1700  Flower Street (P.O.  Box 997).
  Bakcraneld. CA. 93303.
    Modern County Air Pollution Control Dis-
  trict. !$!> W. Yosoinlte Avenue. Mudera CA
  93637.
    Mendoclno County Air Pollution Control
  District,  County  Courthouse.  Tjkiah,  OA
  96482.
                                                         IV-155
-------
53            (FFL 661-61

  PART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
 Delegation of Authority to the State of Ohio
   Pursuant to the delegation of authority
 to Implement the  standards  of per-
 [.•: ::V'iuc   lor  new  stationary  sources
  NSPS1 to  ihe State of Ohio on August 4.
 l'.V.  r.'I'A  Is  !" is amended
 by revising subparagraph  KK,  to read
 as follows:
 § 60.1  A«l.lr<-".
   (.M-(JJ) ' ' '
   (KK) Ohio—
  Medina, Summit and  Poring?  Counties;
Director, Air  Pollution  Control,  177  South
BroadwftV. Akron, Ohio, 44308.
  Stark County; Director, Air Pollution Con-
trol  Division, Canton City Health Depart-
ment, City Hall,  218 Cleveland Avenue SW.
Canton. Ohio, 44702.
  Butler,  Clermont. Hamilton and Warren
Counties;  Superintendent,  Division of Air
Pollution Control, 2400 Beekman Street, Cin-
cinnati. Ohio, 46214.
  Cuvahoga County; Commissioner, Division
of AJr  Pollution Control,  Department of
Public Health  and  Welfare. 2736  Broadway
Avenue. Cleveland,  Ohio. 44116.
  boraln County; Control Officer. Division of
Air Pollution Control. 200 West Eric Avenue.
7th Floor. Lornln, Ohio. 44052.
  Bclmont, Carroll, Columbian!.  Harrison,
Jeflerson.  and Monroe  Counties;  Director,
North Ohio Valley  Air Authority (NOVAA),
814 Adam.i Street. Stcubenvllle. Ohio,  43052.
  Clark, Darkc, Greene, Miami, Montgomery,
and  Preble Counties; Supervisor. Regional
Air  Pollution  Control  Agency  (RAPCA),
Montgomery County Health  Department. 451
\V«*t Third Street.  Dayton.  Ohio, 45402.
      RULES AND  REGULATIONS


  Lucas County and the City of Roasford (in
Wood County); Director,  Toledo  Pollution
Control Agency. 26 Main Street, Toledo, Ohio,
43605.
  Ad a nis.  Broun.  Lawrence,  mid  Scloto
Comities:  Engineer-Director.  A'r  Division.
Portsmouth  City  Health  Department.  740
Second Street,  Portsmouth. Ohio, 45C02
  All"n. A/.hlancl.  Auglalzc. Crawford.  De-
flftiscc. Erie. Fulton. Hancock. Hardli:. Ilonry.
Huron.  Kr.ox.  Marlon.  Morccr.   Morrow.
Ottawa.  Pauldlng, Putnam. Rlchland, San-
dusky.   PPTICCB.   Van   Wort.    Williams.
Wood (except City of Rossford), and Wyan-
(lot CountJe»;  Ohio Environmental Protec-
tion  Agency. Northwest District  Omce.  Ill
We* i  Washington Street.  Bowling  Green.
Ohio. 43402.
  A-Muahula.   Gcaiign.   Lake.  Muhonlng.
Trumbull,  and Wayne Counties;  Ohio Envi-
ronmental  Protection Agency. Northeast Dis-
trict  Office. 2110 East Aurora Road. Tvvlne-
burp. Ohio. 44087.
  Athens. Co*hocton. Gallla. Guernsey. High-
land.  Hocking-. Hol-nos.  Jackson.  Meigs.
Morgan.  MusTclngum,   Noble. Perry,  Pike.
Ro-s. Tuscnvavvas.  Vl'nton, and Washington
Counties:  Ohio Environmental  Protection
Agency.  Southeast District Office,  Route 3,
Bos 603. Logan. Ohio. 43138.
  Champaign. Clinton,  Logan, and  Shelby
Counties:  Ohio Environmental  Protection
Agency,  Southwest District Office. 7 Eaflt
Fourth Street.  Dayton,  Ohio, 45402.
  Delaware.  Fair-field.   Fayette.   Franklin,
1 ikcklug.  Madison,  Plckaway,  and  Onion
Counties;  Ohio Environmental  Protection
Agency.  Central  District  Office.   360 East
Bronci Street-. Columbiw, Ohio, 43216.
    •        •       •       •       t
 [PR Doc 76-37488 Filed 12-20-76:8:45 am|


   FtDMAl RfGISUIt, VOL. 41, NO. 246

      TUESDAY, DECEMBER  21, 1976
 54          (FRL66S-1>
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
   DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY—NEW
            SOURCE REVIEW
   Delegation of Authority to the State of
             North Carolina
   The amendments below institute cer-
 tain  address  changes  for reports  and
 applications required from operators of
 new sources. EPA has  delegated to  the
^State  of North Carolina authority  to
 review  new and  modified sources.  The
 delegated authority includes the reviews
 under 40 CFR Part 52 for the prevention
 of significant  deterioration. It also  In-
 cludes the reviews under 40 CFR Part 60
 for  the standards of  performance  for
 new stationary sources and reviews un-
 der 40 CFR Part Cl for national emission
 standards for  hazardous air  pollutants.
   A notice announcing the delegation of
 authority is published elsewhere in this
 issue  of the  FEDERAL REGISTER.  These
 amendments provide that all reports, re-
 quests,  applications,  submittals.   and
 communications previously  required for
 the delegated  reviews will now be sent
 instead  to the North  Carolina Environ-
 mental  Management Commission.  De-
 partment of Natural and Economic Re-
 sources. Division of Environmental Man-
 agement, P.O. Box 27C87. Raleigh. North
 Carolina 27611.  Attention:  Air Quality
 Section, instead of EPA's Region IV.
   The   Regional  Administrator   finds
 good cr»u?c  for  foregoing prior public
 notice and for making  this rulemaking
 effective  immediately in  that it  is an
 administrative change and  not  one of
 substantive content.  No additional sub-
 stantive burdens are imposed on the par-
 ties affected. The delegation  which is
 reflected by  this administrative amend-
 ment was effective on November 24, 1976.
 and it  serves no purpose to  delay  the
 technical change of this addition of the
 State  address  to the Code of  Federal
 regulations.
  This  rulemakiiiR is effective immedi-
 ately, and is issued under the authority
 of Sections 101. 110, 111, 112. and 301 of
 the Clean Air Act. as amended. 42 U.S.C.
 1857.1857C-5. 6, 7 and 1857g.

  Dated: December21.1976.
                    JOHN A. LITTLE.
      Deputy Regional Admiriistrator.
  PART  60—STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

   2  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code
 of Federal  Regulations,  is amended as
 follows:  In  § 80.4.  paragraph     is
 amended by revising subparagraph (II)
 to read as follows:

 § f.O. I   AiMrr**.
     •      •       •       *       •
     * ' *

   (A)-(HH)  '  '  •
   (IT) North Carolina  Environmental Man-
 agement Commission. Department of Natural
 and  Economic  Resources. Division  of Envi-
 ronmental Management. P.O. Box 27087,  Ra-
 teigfi. North  Carolina, 27611. Attention:  Air
 Quality  Section.
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
              |FRL6G4-3|
PART  60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
    Delegation of Authority to Slate of
               Nebraska
  Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity  for the Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources (NSPS>, to
the State of Nebraska on November 24.
1975.   the  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA) Is today amending 40 CFR
60.4,  (Address. 1. to  reflect  this  delega-
tion. A notice announcing this delegation
Is published (December 30. 1976), in the
FEDERAL REGISTER. Effective  immediately
all  requests,  reports, applications, sub-
mittals. and other communications con-
cerning the 12 source categories  of the
                                                      iy-156
-------
 NSPS which were promulgated Decem-
 ber  23. 1971.  and March 8.  1974. shall
 be sent to Nebraska Department of En-
 vironmental Control (DECi. P.O.  Box
 94653,  State  Hou.se Station,  Lincoln,
 Nebraska  68509. However,  reports  re-
 quired pursuant to 40 CFR 60.7fa! shall
 be sent to EPA. Region VII,  1735 Balti-
 more, Kansas City, Missouri 64108.  as
 well as to the State.
   The Regional Administrator finds good
 cause for forgoing  prior public  notice
 and  making  this rulemaking  effective
 immediately in that it is an administra-
 tive change and  not one of substantive
 content. No additional substantive bur-
 dens are imposed on the parties affected.
 This delegation, which is reflected by this
 administrative amendment, was effective
 on November 24. 1975, and it serves no
 purpose to delay the technical change of
 this addition of the State address to the
 Code of Federal Regulations.
   This  rulemaking  is effective imme-
 diately, and is issued under the author-
 ity of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
 as amended.
 (42 U.S.C. 1857C-3.)

   Dated: December 20.1976.
                 JEROME H.  SVORE,
              Regional Administrator.

   Part  60  of Chapter I,  Title 40  of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows:
   1. In § 60.4  paragraph  (b) is amended
 by revising subparagraph (CO  to read
 as follows:
 § 60.4  Address.
   fb)  *  '  •
   (A1-(BB>  •  '  '
   CCC) Nebraska Department of Envi-
ronmental Control, P.O. Box 94653. State
House Station, Lincoln. Nebraska 68509.
  (FRDoc.76-38234 Filed 12-20-76:8:45 am]

              IFRL 664-61

PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
   Delegation of Authority to the State of
                 Iowa
  Pursuant to the delegation of author-
ity for New Source Performance Stand-
ards (NSPS) to the State of Iowa on
June 6, 1975. the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency is  today amending 40 CFR
60.4, [Address.) to reflect this delegation.
A notice announcing  this delegation is
published (December  30, 1976), in  the
FEDERAL REGISTER.
  The  amended 5 60 4  provides that all
reports,  requests,  applications,  submit-
taJs, and other communications required
for the 11 source categories of the NSPS.
which were delegated to the State, shall
be sent to the Iowa Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (DEQ>. 3920 Delaware
Avenue. P.O. Box 3326. Des Moines. Iowa
50316.  However, reports  required  pur-
suant to  40 CFR 60.7'ai shall be sent to
EPA. Region VII,  1735  Baltimore, Kan-
sas City,  Missouri 64108, as well as to the
State.
    RULES AND REGULATIONS

  The Regional Administrator finds good
cause to forgo prior  public notice  and
make this rulemaking effective  immedi-
ately in that  it is an  administrative
change  and  not one of substantive con-
tent. The delegation was effective June 6,
1975. and it serves  no purpose  to delay
the technical change of the addition of
the St:ite address to the Code of FederaJ
Regulations.
  Tliis  rulemaking  is effective  immedi-
ately and  is issued  under the authority
of Section 111  of the Clean Air Act, as
amended.
(42 U.S.C. 1851C-G.)

  Dated: December 20, 1976.

                 JEROME H. SVORE.
              Regional Administrator.
  Part  60 of Chapter 1, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. In  8 60.4. paragraph  is amended
by revising subparagraph  Q. to read as
follows:
§ 60.4  Acldrrsx.
    •      •      #      *      *
  (b) ' • *
  (A)-(P) '  •  '
  • Q) State  of Iowa,  Department  of
Environmental  Quality, 3920 Delaware.
P.O. Box 3326,  Des  Moines. Iowa 50316.
 |FRDoc.76-3fl?)  is amended
by revising subparagraph (UU> to read
ns follows:

 § 60. t  Addrcs*.
                                        (UIM —Stntr of Vermont. Agency of Knvlron-
                                        nu'ntnl  Protection.  Box  481).  Montpellcr,
                                        Vermont. OSfiOl!.
                                          |FB Doc. 77-547 Filed )-5-77;8:43 om|


                                           FEDERA1 REGISTER,  VOL. 42,  NO. 4

                                            THURSDAY, JANUARY 6,  1977
                                                    IV-157
-------
                                       RULES  AND REGULATIONS

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

                                  DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE STATE
                                            OP SOUTH CAROLINA

                                    2. Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, Code
                                  of Federal Regulations, Is amended by
                                  revising subparagraph  (PP) of §60.4'b)
                                  to read as follows:

                                  § 60.4  A-s.
                                       •       •      «       #       •
                                     (b)  •  • *
                                    (A)-(OO)  • ' '
                                    (PP) Stole of  Smith  I'iirollnn, Oilier  of
                                  Environmental Quality Control, Department.
                                  of Health  ami Environmental Control, 2000
                                  Dull Street. Columbia, SouUi Cnrollim 29201.
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER !—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
     SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
              I Fill, 073-6]

        NEW  SOURCE REVIEW
   Delegation of Authority to the State of
            South Carolina
  The  amendments below institute cer-
tain address changes for reports and ap-
plications required from operators of new
sources. EPA  has delegated to the State
of South Carolina authority to review
new and modified sources. The delegated
authority includes the reviews under 40
CFR Part 52 for the  prevention of sig-
nificant deterioration. It also  includes
the review under 40 CFR Part 60 for the
standards of  ]>crformancc for new sta-
tionary sources and review under 40 CFR
Part 01 for national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants.
  A notice announcing the delegation of
authority is published elsewhere in the
notices section of this Issue of the FED-
KIMI. RK.OISTKU. Thcr.e  amendments pro-
vide thai, nil  reports,  requests,  applica-
tions.  siibiniU.tls.  and communications
previously  required  for   the delegated
reviews will now be sent to Die  Office of
Environmental Quality Control. Dcixirt-
part.ment of Health and  Environmental
Control.  2600  Bull   Street,  Columbia,
Soutli  Carolina  29201. instead of EPA's
Region IV.
  The   Regional  Administrator  finds
good cause for  foregoing prior public
notice  and  for making this ruJemaklng
effective Immediately In that it Is an ad-
ministrative change and not one of sub-
.<;i.;intlve cont/-»t. No additional substan-
tive burdens r.re Imposed  on the parties
affected. The delegation which Is reflect-
ed by this  administrative amendment
was effective on October  15,  and  it
serves  no purpose  to delay the technical
change of this addition of the State ad-
dress to the  Code of Federal  Regula-
tions.
   This rulemaking is effective  Immedi-
ately, and is  issued under the authority
of sections 101, 110,  111, 112,  and 301
of  the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 1857C-5. 6.  7 and 1857g.
   Dated: January 11,  1977.
                   JOHN A. LITTLE,
       Acting Regional Administrator.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 15-MONOAY, JANUARY 24, 1977
               NOTICES


   ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION
               AGENCY
              |FRL G75-4]

AIR  PROGRAMS—STANDARDS  OF  PER-
   FORMANCE   FOR  NEW   STATIONARY
   SOURCES
   Receipt of Application and Approval of
   Alternative Performance Test Method
   On January 26. 1976  (41 FR 382G). the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated standards of  perfonnance
for  new primary aluminum  reduction
plants under 40 CFR Part CO. The stand-
ards  limit  air emissions of gaseous nnd
particulate fluorides from new and modi-
fied primary aluminum reduction plants.
The owners or operators of affected  fa-
cilities are required  to determine  com-
pliance with these standards by conduct-
ing a performance test as specified in Ap-
pendix A—Reference Methods, Method
ISA  or  13B.  "Determination  of  Total
Fluoride  Emissions   from  Stationary
Sources" published In  the FEDF.RAI. REG-
ISTER August G.  1975 (40 FR 33157). As
provided in 40 CFR G0.8
-------
57
    Mlti: 10•-Protection of riwlroiimont
      CHAI'Tll} I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              I Kin,  cG'i 11

 PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
    FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
     Revisions to Emission Monitoring
  Requirements and to Reference Methods
   On  October 6. 1975  (40  PR  4G250),
 under sections 111,  114, and 301 of the
 Clean  Air Act.  as amended, the Envi-
 ronmental  Protection   Agency  (EPA)
 promulgated  emission   monitoring  re-
 quirements and revisions to the perform-
 ance tc.'iliiif!  Referent:!.1 Methods in 40
 C'FK Part 60. Since that time, KPA has
 determined that there is  a  need for a
 number of revisions to clarify the re-
 quirements. Each of the revisions being
 made in  40  CPR Part GO are discussed
 as follows:
   1. Section 60.13. Paragraph (c> '3) has
 been rewritten to clarify that not only
 new  monitoring  systems  but also  up~-
 graded monitoring systems must comply
 with applicable  performance specifica-
 tions.
   Paragraph (e) (1)  is revised to provide
 that data recording  is not required more
 frequently than  once every  six minutes
 (rather than the previously required ten
 seconds)  for continuous monitoring sys-
 tems measuring the  opacity of emissions.
 Since  reports) of excess emissions  are
 based upon  review  of six-minute aver-
 ages, more frequent data  recording  is
 not required  in  order to satisfy these
 monitoring requirements.
   2.  Section  60.45.  Paragraphs   (a)
 through .  and 'el  of
Subnart  D which imnrove the clarity or
further define the intent of  the regula-
tions. Paragraph (d>  has been reserved
for later  addition of fuel monitoring pro-
visions.
  3.  Pcrjormancc Specification I. Para-
graph 6.2 has been rewritten to clarify
requirements that must be met by  con-
tinuous opacity  monitor manufacturers.
Manufacturers must certify that at least
one analyzer from each month's produc-
tion  was  tested and meets all applicable
requirements. If any requirements  are
not met.  the production  for  the month
must, hf resomplrd nrcnrdiny to mi'itarv
standard 105D CvriL-STEMflSD) and re-
tested. Previously  the regulation  re-
quired that each unit of nrndurt'on "ad
to he tested. Conies of  MIT^STD-in.-iD
may be purchased from the Sunerintnnd-
ent  of   Documents.  U.S.  Government
Printing  Office. Wa«hinrton  DC. 70402.
  4.  Performance Specification 2. Figure
2-3 of Performance Specification 2  has
been  corrected  to  properly  define  the
term "mean differences." The  corrections
in the operations now conform with the
statistical definitions of the specifica-
tions.
  5.  General.  These amendments   pro-
vide  optional monitoring procedures lhat
may be selected  by an owner or operator
of a facility  affected by tho  monitoring
requirements of  -10 Cf'll Part.  (!0. Certain
editorial  clarifications arc also included.
Proposal   of  these  amendments is  not
necessary because the. chances arc either
interpretative in  nature, or represent
minor changes in instrumentation test-
ing and data recording, or allow a wider
selection  of equipment to be used. These
changes  will  have  no effect upon  the
number of emission sources that must be
monitored or the quality of the resultant
 rmk'.lon data. The changes nro consist-
 ent  wllh recent determinations nf the
 Admir'otr.itor with respect to use of al-
 ternative continuous monitoring systems.
   G. Effective date. These revisions be-
 come effective March 2, 1977.
 (Sec.-.  111.  1U. 301(a). Clean  Air Act. as
 amended. Pub. L. 91-004. 84 Stat. 1G78  (42
 U.S.C. 18570-6. 1857C-9. 1857g(a)).)
  NOTF.—xjic    Environmental   Protection
 Agency has determined that this document
 does not contain a major proposal  requiring
 preparation of an Inllation Impact State-
 ment JKider Executive Order 11821  and OMB
 Circular A-107.

  Dated: January 19. 1977.

                    JOHN QUARLES.
                Acting Administrator.

  In 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart A. Subpart
 D, and Appendix B are amended as fol-
 lows :
     Subpart A—General Provisions

  1.  Section GO.13 is amended by revis-
 ing  paragraphs  (c) (3) and  (e)(l)  as
 follows:

 § 60.13  Monitoring ri'ijuirrnuTiils.
     •       »       •       *       •
  (C)  '  '  '
  (3) All continuous monitoring systems
 referenced by paragraph  ,  (c), and (e) and by
reserving paragraph  (d)  as follows:
§ d(). l.>  Kmi>siou ami fur! monitoring.
  'a) Each owner or operator shall in-
stall,  calibrate,  maintain,  and operate
continuous monitoring systems for mcas-
urini: the opacity of emissions,  sulfur
dioxide emissions, nitroisen oxides emis-
sions, and cither oxygen or carbon di-
oxide except  a.s  provided in  paragraph
(b> of this section.
   Certain of the continuous  moni-
toring system  requirements under para-
graph  'ai of  this section do not apply
to owners or operators under the follow-
ing conditions:
  il) For a fossi! fuel-fired steam gen-
erator  that burns  only  gaseous fossil
fuel, continuous  monitoring systems for
measuring the opacity of emissions  and
sulfur  dioxide emissions are  not   re-
quired.
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 20—MONDAY, JANUARY  31, 1977
                                                      IV-159
-------
                                              RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
   (2) For a fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
erator that docs not use a flue  gas  cle-
sulfurization device, a continuous moni-
toring system  for measuring sulfur di-
oxide emissions  is not required if  the
owner or  operator monitors sulfur  di-
oxide emissions  by fuel sampling and
analysis under paragraph  (d)  of this
section.
   (3)  Notwithstanding  §60.13(b1.  In-
stallation  of a  continuous monitoring
system  for nitrogen oxides  may be  de-
layed'untll after the initial performance
tests under I 60.8 have been conducted.
If the owner or operator demonstrates
during  the performance test that  emis-
sions of nitrogen oxides are less  than 70
percent  of the applicable standards in
$ 60.44, a continuous monitoring system
for measuring  nitrogen oxides emissions'
Is not required. If the initial performance
test results show  that nitrogen  oxide
emissions are greater than 70 percent of
the  applicable standard, the  owner or
operator shall install a continuous moni-
toring system for nitrogen oxides within
one year after the date of the initial per-
formance tests under § 60.8 and comply
with all other  applicable monitoring re-
quirements under this part.
   (4) If an owner or operator does not
Install any continuous  monitoring sys-
tems for sulfur oxides and nitrogen  ox-
ides, as  provided under paragraphs  (b)
(1)  and (3) of  this section a continuous
monitoring system  for  measuring either
oxygen or carbon dioxide is not required.
   fc) For performance .evaluations  un-
der  560.!3(c)   and calibration checks
under S60.13(d), the  following proce-
dures shall be used:
   (1) Reference Methods 6  or 7, as  ap-
plicable.-shall  be used for conducting
performance evaluations of  sulfur  diox-
ide and nitrogen oxides continuous  mon-
itoring systems.
   (2) Sulfur dioxide or nitric oxide, as
applicable,  shall be used for  preparing
calibration gas mixtures under Perform-
ance Specification  2  of Appendix  B to
this part.
   <3) For affected facilities burning fos-
sil fuel's). the  span value for a continu-
ous  monitoring system measuring  the
opacity of emissions shall be 80, 90, or
100 percent and for a continuous moni-
toring system measuring sulfur oxides or
nitrogen oxides the span value shall be
determined as follows:
            |In parts per million!
FdMll (uol Spun trnlur lor Span vitluo for
sulfur dioxide nitrogen oxides
Oas (0
Liquid 	 1.000
8nhtl . 1 tQO
Comblnnlions.. l.OOOy+l.Mte S00(;
500
son
600
r+v)+l,000»
i Not applicable.
where:
  (4) All span values  computed under
paragraph  (c)<3>  of  this  section  for
burning combinations of fossil fuels shall
be rounded  to the nearest 500 ppm.
  (5) For a fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
erator that simultaneously burns fossil
fuel and  nonfossil fuel, the span value
of  all  continuous monitoring systems
shall be subject to  the Administrator's
approval.
  (d)  (Reserved!
  (e) For  any  continuous  monitoring
system  installed  under paragraph (a) of
this section,  the following  conversion
procedures  shall be  used to  convert  the
continuous  monitoring data into units of
the  applicable standards (ng/J, Ib/mil-
lion Btu) :
  (1) When  a  continuous  monitoring
system  for measuring oxygen is selected,
the  measurement of the pollutant con-
centration  and  oxygen  concentration
shall each be on a consistent basis (wet
or  dry).  Alternative   procedures   ap-
proved  by  the Administrator  shall  be
used when  measurements are on a  wet
basis. When measurements are on a  dry
basis, the following conversion procedure
shall be used:

                     20-9
                20.9- percent Oj

where:
E, C. P, and %0, are determined under para-
  graph (f ) of this section.

  (2)  When  a continuous  monitoring
system for measuring carbon dioxide is
selected, the  measurement  of the  pol-
lutant concentration and carbon dioxide
concentration shall each be on  a con-
sistent  basis (wet or dry) and the fol-
lowing  conversion procedure shall be
used:

         p-rv r    'OP    1
               ' Lpercent COJ
where:
E, C,  Fc and 7«CO. are determined  under
  paragraph (f) of this section.

      APPENDIX B—PERFORMANCE
            SPECIFICATIONS

  3. Performance  Specification   1  is
amended by revising  paragraph  6.2 as
follows:
  e.  • • •
  6.2 Cortformance  with  the requirements
of section  6.1 may be demonstrated by the
owner or operator of the affected facility by
testing each analyzer or by obtaining a cer-
tificate of  conformance from the Instrument
manufacturer. The certificate  must certify
that at least one analyzer from each month's
production was tested and  satisfactorily met
all applicable requirements. The certificate
must state that the  first analyzer randomly
fampled met  all requirements of paragraph
6 of  this specification. If nny of  the require-
ments were  not  met.  the certificate  must
show that the entire month's analyzer pro-
duction  was resampled according to the mili-
tary  standard  105D  sampling  procedure
(MIL-STD-I06D) Inspection level II; was re-
tested for each of the applicable require-
ments under  paragraph 6  of this specifica-
tion; and  was determined  to be acceptable
under MIL-STD-I05D procedures. The certifi-
cate  of conformance must  show the results
of each test performed for the  analyzers
sampled during the month the analyzer be-
ing Installed was produced.
  4. Performance  Specification   2   is
amended  by  revising  Figure  2-3   as
follows:
f«t
HO.
1
?
1
4
CUlt
and
TIM


fie+erence Method Samples
so2
Sair.pt e 1
(ppn)


!

s : :
ji
7
B
9
IP jn
.tit
151 C
l«ur
•E«p

;


reference n
Mine (S02
onfldence 1


etnod
ntervalj •
•lean of
*°»
Sanpfe 1
(ppm)


NO ' NO HO Simple
Sample 2 ! sWe 3 | Ateraoe
(ppra) | (ppm) j (ppm)
1

1
1 i
j






i






Analyser 1-Hour
Average (ppm)*
SOj HOK







i

Mean reference method
test vllut (HO )
oom (SO.) • •
the Differences . «j (0nf Idence'tntervtl ,^ .
lcl" Hean reference Mthod value " '" -
]«(n ind report leUttd used to determine Integrated tvertges










1
Difference

SO, HO,









Mem of
* the difference!
_ Pen
	 * (SOj
HO,)
• 	 I UiO,











x —the fraction of total heat input derived
  from gaseous fossil fuel, and
y-the fraction of total beat input derived
  from liquid fossil fuel, and
c —the fraction of total heat input derived
  from solid foesll tuel.
                                                               Moure 2-3.  Accuracy Determination
                                                                                          and NO)
(Sees. Ill, 114. 301(a), Clean Air Act. as amended. Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1678 (42 U-3.C.
1857C-6. 1857-9,  1857g(a))).

                       |FB Doc.77-2744 Hied 1-28-77:8:46 am]
                               FEDERAL  HEOISTEt, VOL. 42, NO.  20—MONDAY,  JANUARY 31,  1977

                                                      IV-  160
-------
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
58
               (FRL 682-4]
  PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
   ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES-
      Delegation of Authority to City of
               Philadelphia
    Pursuant to the delegation of author.
  ity  for  the  standards of performance
  for  new stationary  sources iNSPS)  to
  the City  of Philadelphia on  Septem-
  ber 30.  1976. EPA  is today  amending
  40  CFR  60.4.  Address,  to reflect this
  delegation. For  a  notice  announcing
  this delegation,  s-ee  FR Doc.  77-3712
  published  in the Notices section of to-
  day's  FEDERAL  REGISTER.  The  amended
  5 60.4. which adds  the  address  of  the
  Philadelphia   Department   of  Public
  Health.  Air Management  Services,  to
  which all  reports, requests, applications.
  suuinittals. and communications to the
  Administrator  pursuant  to  this  part
  must also  be addressed,  is set forth be-
  low.
    The Administrator  finds good  cause
  for  foregoing prior public notice and for
   making this rulcmakmg  effective  im-
  mediately  in that it is an administrative
  clianse and not one of substantive con-
  tent. No additional  substantive burdens
  are imposed on the  parties affected. The
  delegation which is  reflected by this Ad-
  ministrative amendment was effective on
  September 30.  197G.  and it  serves  no
  purpose to delay the technical  change
  of  this address to the Code of Federal
  Regulations.
    This  rulcmaking  is effective  imme-
  diately,  and is issued under the author-
  ity  of section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
  as amended. 42U.S.C. 1857C-6.

    Dated: January 25,1977.
                       A. R. MORRIS,
         Acting Regional Administrator.

    Part 60 of. Chapter I, Title 40 of the
  Code of Federal Regulations is amended
  as follows:
    1. In 5 60.4. paragraph  is amended
  by  revising subparagraph    - ' *
   (A)-(MMl  '  •  '
   (NN) fa) City oi Phll.idclplila: Philadelphia
    Department  of  Public Henlth, Air  Man-
    agement Services. 801 Arch Street. Phila-
    delphia.  Pennsylvania 1D107.
      •      »       *       *      •
      [FR Doc.77-3709 Filed 2-3-77:8:46 am|
       FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO.

          FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY 4,  1977
CO    'ART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
**T   ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
            Region V Address; Correction
        Section 60.4 paragraph (a) Is corrected
      by changing Region V (Illinois, Indiana,
      Minnesota,  Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin),
      1 North Wacker Drive, Chicago,  Illinois
      60606 to Region  V  (Illinois, Indiana,
      Minnesota,  Michigan, Ohio. Wisconsin),
      230 South Dearborn £treet, Chicago, Il-
      linois 60604.

        Dated: March 21, 1977.
              GEORGE R. ALEXANDER, Jr..
                   Regional Administrator.
        [PR Doc.77-9406 Piled S-29-77;8:45 amj


       PART 60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
      ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
        Delegation of Authority to the State of
                    Wisconsin
        Pursuant to the delegation of author-
      ity for the standards of performance for
      new  stationary  sources (NSPS)  to the
      State of Wisconsin on September  28,
      1976, EPA  Is today amending 40 CPR
      60.4,  Address, to reflect this  delegation.
      A Notice announcing this  delegation is
      published today, March 30, 1977, at 42
      PR 16845 in this FEDERAL REGISTER. The
      amended f 60.4,  which adds the address
      of the Wisconsin Department of Natural
      Resources to which all reports, requests,
      applications, submittals, and communi-
      cations to the Administrator pursuant to
      this  part must also be addressed, is set
      forth below.
        The Administrator finds good cause for
      foregoing prior  public notice and  for
      making  this rulemaking  effective im-
      mediately in that it is an administrative
      change and not  one of substantive con-
      tent.  No additional substantive burdens
      are imposed on the parties  affected. The
      delegation which is reflected by this ad-
      ministrative amendment was effective on
      September 28, 1976 and it serves no pur-
      pose to delay the technical change of this
      addition of the State address to the Code
      of Federal Regulations.
        This rulemaking is effective immedi-
      ately, and is issued under the authority
      of section 111 of the  Clean Air Act, as
      amended. 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6.
        Dated: March 21,1977.
              GEORGE R. ALEXANDER, Jr.,
                  Regional Administrator.

        Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40  of the
      Code of Federal Regulations is amended
      as follows:
        1. In 5 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
      by revising  subparagraph  (YY>, to read
      as follows:
      § 60.4  Address.
                                                                                  (b)  • • •
                                                                                  (A)-(XX)  • • •
                                                                                  (TT) Wisconsin—
                                                                                Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
                                                                                  P.O. Box 7921, Madison. Wisconsin 63707.

                                                                                  [PR Doc.77-9404 Filed 3-29-77:8:46 am)
                                                            FEDERAL IECISTH, VOL. 4J, NO. 61—WEDNESDAY,  MARCH JO, 1977
                                                        IV-161
-------
  60

   THIe 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              (PRL 71&-8]

PART  60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
     Compliance With Standards and
       Maintenance Requirements
AGENCY:   Environments!  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY:  This action  amends the
general provisions of the standards  of
performance  to  allow  methods  other
than Reference Method 0 to be used as a
means of measuring plume opacity. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is Investigating a remote  sensing laser
radar system of measuring plume opacity
and believes It could be considered as an
alternative method, to Reference Method
A. This amendment would aBow EPA  to
propose  such  systems  as  alternative
methods in the future.
    RULES  AND REGULATIONS
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 22,1877.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

  Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
  and  Engineering  Division, Environ-
  mental Protection  Agency, Research
  Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
  telephone no. 919-688-8146. ext. 271.
 SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
 As originally expressed, 40 CFR 60.11(b)
 permitted the use of Reference Method 0
 exclusively for determining whether  a
 aource  compiled  with  an  applicable
 opacity standard. By this  action, EPA
 •mends  {60.1 Kb)  so that alternative
 methods approved by the Administrator
 may be used to determine opacity.
   When (60.1Kb)  was originally pro-
 mulgated, the visible emissions  (Method
 9)  technique  of determining plume
 opacity with trained visible emission ob-
 servers was the only expedient and accu-
 rate  method  available to  enforcement
 personnel. Recently, EPA funded the de-
 velopment of a remote sensing laser ra-
 dar system (LJDAR) that appears to pro-
 duce  results adequate for determination
 of  compliance with  opacity standards.
 EPA  is currently evaluating the equip-
 ment and  is  considering  proposing its
 use as an alternative technique of meas-
 uring plume opacity.
  This  amendment will  allow  EPA to
 consider use of the  LJDAR method of
 determining  plume opacity  and, if ap-
 propriate, to approve this method for en-
 forcement of opacity regulations, if this
 method appears to be a suitable alterna-
 tive to Method 9, it will be proposed in
 the FEDERAL  REGISTER for  public com-
 ment. After considering comments, EPA
 wfll determine if the new method will be
 an acceptable  means of  determining
 opacity compliance.
 (8*ca. Ill, 114.301 (»), Clean AH Act. sec. 4(»)
 of Pub. L. 01-604, 84 Stat. 1683; sec. 4 (a) of
 Pub. L. 91-004, 84 Stat. 1667; tee. a at Pub. L.
 Ho. •0-148, 81  BUt 004 (43 TJ.8.C. 18CTO-4.
 U>7c-« and
      —Economic Impact  Analysis: Tiie
Environmental Protection Agency bag deter-
mined that this action does not contain a
major proposal requiring  preparation of an
Economic Impact  Analyst* under Executive
Orders 11821  and  11940 and OMB  Circular
A-JO7.

  Dated: May 10, 1977.

              DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                     Administrator.

  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
  L Section  60.11 Is amended by revising
paragraph ) Compliance with opacity ctand-
•rdi in thic part shall be determined by
conducting  observations in accordance
with Reference Method  9 in Appendix A
of this part or any  alternative  method
that is approved by the Administrator.
Opacity readings of portions of plumes
which contain condensed,  uncomblned
water vapor shall not be used for pur-
poses of determining compliance with
opacity  standards. The  results of con-
tinuous  monitoring by  transmlssometer
which Indicate that the opacity at the
time visual  observations were made was
not In excess of the standard are proba-
tive  but not conclusive  evidence of the
actual opacity of an emission, provided
that the source shall meet the burden of
proving that the Instrument used meets
(at the time of  the alleged violation)
Performance Specification 1 In Appendix
B  of this part, has been properly main-
tained and   (at the  time of the alleged
violation)  calibrated,   and that the
resulting data have not been tampered
with In any way.
    •      *     0       •      •
(Sees. Ill, 114, 301 (a). Clean Air Act, Sec. 4
(a) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1683; oec. 4 (a)
of Pub. L. 81-604, 84 Stat.  1687; Bee. 2 of pub.
L.  No. 9O-148  81 Btat. B04 (42 CB.C. 1857c-fl.
1867C-8.18B7g(a)).)
  [PR Doc.77-14662 Piled 5-20-77:8:48 am]
61
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
 CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-
             TION AGENCY
               (PRL 742-6]

 PART 60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
 Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking
        Unit Catalyst Regenerators
 AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY: This rule revises the stand-
 ard which limits the opacity of omissions
 from  new.  modified,  or reconstructed
 petroleum refinery fluid catalytic crack-
 ing unit catalyst regenerators to 30 per-
 cent, except for one six-minute period in
 any one hour. The revision Is being made
 to make the standard consistent with a
 revision to  the test method for opacity.
 The standard Implements the Clean Air
 Act and is intended to require the proper
 operation and maintenance of fluid cata-
 lytic cracking unit catalyst regenerators.

 EFFECTIVE DATE: June 24, 1976.
 ADDRESSES:  Copies  of the  comment
 letters  and a  report which contains a
 summary of the Issues  and EPA's re-
 sponses are available for public inspec-
 tion  and copying at the U.S.  Environ-
 mental Protection Agency, Public Infor-
 mation Reference Unit  (EPA Library),
 Room 2922, 401 M Street SW., Washing-
 ton, D.C. Copies of the report  also may
 be obtained upon written request from
 the  EPA  Public  Information Center
 (PM-215),   Washington,  D.C.   20480
 (specify Comment Summary—Petroleum
 Refinery    Fluid  Catalytic    Cracking
 Units).
 FOB FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
 TACT:
   Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
   and  Engineering  Division,   Environ-
   mental Protection  Agency,   Research
   Triangle  Park, North  Carolina 27711,
   telephone number 919-688-8146,  ex-
   tension 271.
 SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
              BACKGROUND

   On June 29, 1973, the U.S.  Court of
 Appeals for the DJstrict of  Columbia
 Circuit remanded to EPA the  standards
 of performance for  Portland cement
 plants  (Portland Cement Association v.
 Ruckelshaus, 486 F. 2d 375). One of the
 issues remanded was the use of opacity
 standards.  On November 12, 1974, EPA
 responded  to  the  remand   (39  FR
 39872)  and on May 22,  1975,  the Court
 affirmed  the  use of opacity  standards
 (613F.2d506).
   In the remand response, EPA recon-
 sidered the use of opacity standards and
 concluded that they are a reliable, in-
 expensive, and useful means of ensuring
 •that control equipment is properly main-
 tained  and operated at all times.  EPA
 also made  revisions to the general pro-
                 HOHAI Ksisra, VOL 4*. NO. WL-JKOMDAV, MAT ti,  1*77


                                                      IV-162
-------
                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS
visions  of  40 CFR Part 60 and to the
Reference Method 9.
  EPA reevaluated the -opacity standard
for  petroleum refinery  fluid  catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerators In
light of  the  revisions  to  Reference
Method 9. and proposed a  revision to
this standard on August 30, 1976 (41 PR
36600). The  revision is not the result of
a revaluation of the technical, economic
and environmental basis for the stand-
ard. Consequently, the revised opacity
standard will be neither  more  nor leas
stringent than the previous standard.
and will be consistent with the mass
emission standard (1.0  kg/1000 kg of
coke burnoff).
    SUMMARY or COMMENTS AKD EPA's
              RESPONSES

  EPA  received six letters commenting
on  the proposed revision (three from in-
dustry and three  from State and  local
governments). Two commenters pointed
out that the  basis for the original opac-
ity  standard  assumed new fluid catalytic
cracking units would be of 65,000 barrels
per day capacity,  but  the proposed re-
vision assumed new fluid catalytic crack-
ing units would be of less  than 50,000
barrels per day capacity. Two other com-
menters pointed  out that Jhe  original
standard allowed one three-minute ex-
ception from the opacity standard of
performance  to  accommodate  soot-
blowing in the carbon  monoxide boiler
and that the proposed change  to  six-
minute  averages did not justify adding
an  additional exception.
  A review of the basis for the original
opacity standard  indicates  the com-
menters are correct. Large, new or modi-
fled fluid catalytic cracking  units  will
more likely  be In the  range of 65,000
barrels  per day capacity,  and  one ex-
ception  per hour more accurately reflects
the one three-minute exception allowed
under the previous test method. The ef-
fect of Increased capacity on the opacity
of  partlculate mass emissions was  dis-
cussed both in the FEDERAL REGISTER no-
tice proposing revision of  the opacity
standard and in the background infor-
mation  document supporting the revi-
sion. Considering the effect on opacity of
the greater capacity of a  65,000-barrel-
per-day  fluid  catalytic  cracking  unit
compared  tOc a   50,000-barrel-per-day
unit leads  to the conclusion  that  the
opacity  standard should not be revised
to 25 percent, but should remain at 30
percent opacity. Accordingly, the revised
opacity  standard is  promulgated as 30
percent opacity with one slx-mlnute ex-
ception  period per hour.
  One comment concerned I 60.11(3), and (e) (4)  of  the General
Provisions, will permit determination of
an individualized  opacity standard  for
a  fluid catalytic cracking  unit during-
any performance test and not Just  the
Initial performance test. This will ensure
that a properly operated and maintained
source will not be found In violation of
the  opacity standard, while In compli-
ance with the applicable mass emission
standard.
  The proposed amendment to 5 80.102
(a) (2)  specified  that opacity readings
of  Dortlons of plumes  which contain
condensed, uncombined water  vapor  are
not  to be used for  determining compli-
ance with opacity standards. Since this
provision  has  been added to  5 60.1Kb)
of the General Provisions. It is not neces-
sary to repeat it in Bubpart J  for petro-
leum refineries.
            MISCELLANEOUS
  The opacity standard, as modified,  ap-
plies to all affected facilities for which
construction or modification  was  com-.
menced after June 11, 1973, the date  the
standard was proposed.
  This revision is promulgated under  the
authority of sections 111, 114, and 301(a)
of the  Clean  Air Act.  as amended  by
Public Law 91-604. 84 Statute  1683. 1687
(42 U.S.C. 1857c-6, 18S7c-9) and Public
Law 90-148. 81 Statute  504 (42 U.S.C.
1857g(a)>.
  NOTE.—The   Environmental   Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic  Impact State-
ment under  Executive  Orders  11821   and
11949, and OMB  Circular R-107.

  Dated: June 24. 1977.45
                DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                      Administrator.

  Part 60. Chapter I of Title 40 of  the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. Section 60.102(a)(2)  is revised to
read as follows:

§ 60.102  Standard for particulate matter.

  (a)  •  • •
  (2)  Gases exhibiting greater than 30
percent opacity, except for one six-min-
ute average opacity  reading in any one
hour.
    •       •   .   *      *      •
(Sec. Ill,  Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stet. 1683 (42
U.S.C. 1867C-6); ««c. 301 (a). Pub. L. 90-148.
81 SUt. 604 (42 U.S.C. 1857g(»)).)
  2. Section 60.105(e>(l)  is revised to
read as follows:

§ 60.105  Emission  monitoring.
    «       •      •      •      •
  (e)  • •  •
  (1) Opacity. All hourly periods which
contain two or more six-minute periods
during  which  the  average opacity  as
measured by the continuous monitoring
system exceeds 30 percent.
    *       •      0      •      •

  3. Section 60.106(e) is added to read at.
follows:
§ 60.106  Test methods and procedures.
    •      •      •       •       •
  (e)  An  owner or  operator of an af-
fected  facility may request the Adminis-
trator  to determine opacity of  emissions
from the affected facility during any per-
formance  test  covered under  § 60.8. In
such event the provisions of 18 60.11 (e)
(2). (e) (3), and (e) (4) shall apply.
(Sec. Ill, 114, Pub. L.  91-604, 84  Stat. 1683,
1687 (42 U.3.C. 1857C-6, 1857c-9); sec. 301 (a).
Pub L. 90-148, 81 Stat. 504  (42 U.S.C. 1867g
(»))-)
 |PB Doc.77-1812fl Piled 6-23-77:8:45 ami
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.. 42.  NO.  122—FRIDAY,  JUNE  24, 1977
                                                       IV-163
-------
62
                IPBL 782-81
  PART 60—STANDARDS  Of  PERFORM-
  ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
           Units and Abbreviations
  AGENCY:   Environmental  Protection
  Agency
  ACTION: Final rule
  SUMMARY: This action revises the Gen-
  eral Provisions by reorganizing toe units
  and abbreviations and adding the Inter-
  national System of Unite (SI). Until re-
  cently. EPA did not have a preferred sys-
  tem  of measurement to be used in its
  regulations. Now the Agency  is using SI
  units in all regulations Issued under this
  part. This necessitates that SI units be
  added to the General Provisions to pro-
  vide a complete listing of abbreviations
  used..
  EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 1977.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
  TACT:
    Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
    and  Engineering  Division,  Environ-
    mental Protection  Agency,  Research
    Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
    telephone no. 919-541-5271.
  SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
               BACKGROUND
    Section 3 of Pub. L. 94-168, the Metric
  Conversion Act of 1975,  declares that
  the policy of the United States shall be
  to coordinate and plan the Increasing
  use of the metric system  in the United
  States. On December 10,  1976, a notice
  was published In the FEDERAL  REGISTER
  (41 FR 54018)  that set forth the inter-
  pretation and modification of the Inter-
  national  System of  Units (SI) for the
  United States. EPA incorporates SI units
  in all regulations  issued under 40 CFR
  Part 80 and provides common equivalents
  in parentheses  where desirable. Use of
  SI unite  requires this revision of the ab-
  breviations section (J 60.3)  of  the Gen-
  eral Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60.
           Rzmunin DOCBMIHTS

     An explanation of the International
  Systems  of Units  was  presented  in the
  FBDCRAL   REGISTER   notice  mentioned
  above (41 FR 5401B>. The Environmental
  Protection Agency is using the Standard
  for Metric Practice (E 380-76)  published
  by the American Society for Testing and
  Materials (A.S.T.M.) as its basic refer-
  ence. This document may be obtained by
  sending  $4.00  to A.S.T.M.. 1918  Race
  Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
               MISCELLANEOUS
     As this revision has no  regulatory im-
  pact, but only defines unite and abbrevi-
   RULES AND REGULATIONS

ations used in this part, opportunity for
public participation was Judged unnec-
essary.
(Sections til  and 3Ol(a) of the Clean Air
Act: sec. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1683;
sec. 3 of Pub. L. 90-148.81 8tat. 504 (42 D.8.C.
1867C-6.  1857g(a)).)

Nora.—The   Environmental   Protection
Agency has determined that  this document
does not contain » major proposal requiring
preparation ol an Economic Impact Analysis
under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949 and
OMB Circular A-107.

  Dated: July 8,1977.

               DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                      Administrator.

  40 CFR Part 60 is amended by revis-
ing § 60.3 to read as follows:

§ 60.3  Units and abbreviations.

  Used in this part are abbreviations and
symbols of units of measure. These are
defined as follows:
  (a) System  International  (SI)  unite
ol measure:

A—ampere
g—gram
Ha—hertu
J—Joule
E—degree Kelvin
Kg—kilogram
m—meter
m*—cubic meter
mg—milligram—10-n gram
rant—millimeter—IO-* raster
Ug—megagram—10* gram
mol—mole
N—newton
ng—ninogram—10-' gram
nm—nanometer—10-' meter
Pa—pascal
i—second
•»—volt
W—watt
0—ohm
«g—mlcrogram—10-* gram

  (b) Other units of measure:
Btu—British thermal unit
*O—degree Celsius (centigrade)
cal—calorie
cfm—cubic feet per mLnut*
cu ft—cuMc feet
dcf—dry cubic feet
dcro—-dry cubic meter
dacf—dry cubic feet at standard conditions
dscm—dry cubic  meter  at standard  condi-
  tions
•q—equivalent
•P—degree Fahrenheit
ft—.)

  [PB Doc.77-20551 Piled 7-l&-TT;e:4S am)
                                     FtOfftM tfWSTtt, VQC 41, NO. 13»—TUfSDAY. JUtt 1*, I«7T
                                                           IV-164
-------
                                               RULES AND REGULATIONS
 63           [FRL 762-2]

  PART  60—STANDARDS  OF PERFORM
  ANCE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
  Delegation of Authority to the State of New
                 Jersey
 AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
  Agency.

 ACTION: Final Rule.

 SUMMARY; A notice announcing EPA's
 delegation of authority  for  the New
 Source Performance Standards  to the
 State of New Jersey is published at page
 37387 of  today's FEDERAL  REGISTER. In
 order to reflect this delegation, this docu-
 ment amends EPA regulations to require
 the submission of all notices, reports, and
 other communications called for by the
 delegated regulations to the State of New
 Jersey rather than to EPA.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: July 21,1977.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
 TACT:

   J. Kevin Healy, Attorney, U.S. Envi-
   ronmental Protection Agency,  Region
   n,  General Enforcement  Branch, En-
   forcement Division, 26 Federal  Plaza
   New York, New York 10007, 212-264^
   1196).

 SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
 On May 9, 1977 EPA delegated  author-
 ity to the State of New Jersey to imple-
 ment and  enforce the New Source Per-
 formance Standards. A full account of
 the background to this action and of the
 exact terms of the delegation appear in
 the Notice of Delegation which  is also
 published in today's FEDERAL REGISTER.
   This rulemaking is effective immedi-
 ately, since the Administrator has found
 good cause to forego prior public notice.
 This addition of the State of New Jersey
 address to the  Code of Federal Regula-
 tions  is a  technical change  and imposes
 no additional substantive burden on  the
 parties affected.
  Dated: July 18,  1977.

                    BARBARA BLUM.
               Acting Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
under authority of Section  111  of the
Clean Air  Act  (42 U.S.C.  1857C-6), as
follows:

  (1)  In I 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (FF)  to read
as follows:

§ 60.4  Address.
    *       •      »      •       *
  (b)  • • •
(FT)—State of New Jersey: New Jersey De-
  partment  of Environmental Protection.
  John Fitch Plaza. P.O. Box 2807, Trenton,
  New Jersey 08625.
  |PB Doc.77-21020 Piled 7-20-77:8:46 ami
 64

  PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE  FOR  NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
            Applicability Dates
 AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY:  This action  incorporates
 into the regulations the dates  on which
 the standards of performance are applic-
 able. The dates were not a part of the
 regulations at the time of their promul-
 gation and considerable confusion exists
 over when the standards apply. This ac-
 tion removes  the  confusion and makes
 future enforcement  of the  standards
 easier.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: Augusts*. 1977.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
 TACT:
   Don. R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
   and  Engineering  Division,   Environ-
   mcnta!  Protection  Agency,   Research
   Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
   telephone 919-541-5271.
 SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
 Section 111 of the Clean Air Act provides
 that, "new source" under that section
 means  "any stationary source,  the con-
 struction  or  modification of  which  Is
 commenced after the publication of reg-
 ulations (or, if earlier, proposed regula-
 tions) prescribing a standard of perform-
 ance which  will be applicable to such
 source." Thus, for standards  of perform-
 ance under section 111, the proposal date
 (or, In  the event there was no proposal,
 the promulgation  date)  of  a  standard
 constitutes its applicability date. While
 this information is contained In the "Ap-
 plicability" section (§ 60.2) of  the Gen-
 eral Provisions, the Agency has not, until
 now, Incorporated In the regulations the
 specific  applicability  date(s)  for  each
 standard.
   The absence  of these dates  from the
 various regulations has led to some con-
 fusion. The most frequent mistake is for
 the applicability date to be confused with
 the  effective date.  The effective date  is
 the day on which the regulation becomes
 law (usually the day the final regulation
 is published  In the FEDERAL REGISTER).
 The effective date has customarily been
 noted in the preamble to the final regu-
 lation  when  it  appears  in the  FEDERAL
 REGISTER. A regulation, then, usually be-
 comes effective  upon promulgation and
 applies to sources constructed or modi-
 fied after the proposal date.
  In view of past confusion  and  the
 growing number of regulations, includ-
 ing  revisions  and amendments,   the
Agency has decided to hereafter incor-
 porate the applicability date(s) under
 the "Applicability and designation of af-
 fected facility" section of each subpart.
This action should serve to clarify which
  facilities are affected by these  regula-
  tions. This amendment provides clarifi-
  cation of the applicability dates only lor
  the standards  promulgated to date. An
  applicability statement will be added to
  regulations under proposal and to future
  regulations at the time of promulgation.
             MISCELLANEOUS

   As this action has no  regulatory Im-
  pact, but  only sets  forth applicability
  dates  for  the  purpose of clarification,
  public  participation  was  judged  un-
  necessary.
  (Sees. Ill and 3Ol(a) of the Clean Air Act:
  MC. 4(a) of Pub. L. 91 fl04. 84 Stat. 1683; sec.
  2 of Pub. L. 90-148. 81 Stflt. 504 (42 TT.S.C.
  1857C-6. 1857g(a)).)
   NOTZ.—The  Environmental   Protection
  Agency has determined that this document
  does not contain a mnjor proposal requiring
  preparation of an Economic  Impact Analysis
  under Executive  Orders 11821 and 11949 and
  OMB Circular A-107.

   Dated: July 18. 1977.
                     BARBARA BLUM,
                Acting Administrator.
   40 CFR Part 60 is amended by revising
  Subparts D through AA as follows:
  Subpart D—Standards of Performance for
     Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
   1. Section G0.40 is revised as follows:
  § 60.40  Applicability and designation of
      affci'lrd facility.
   (a) The affected facilities to which the
 provisions of this subpart apply are:
   (1) Each  fossll-fuel-flred steam gen-
 erating unit of more than  73 megawatts
 heat input  rate  (250 million Btu per
 hour).
   (2) Each fossil-fuel and wood-residue-
 flred steam  generating unit capable of
 firing fossil fuel at a heat Input rate of
 more than  73  megawatts  (250 million
 Btu per hour).
   (b) Any change to an existing fossll-
 fuel-flred  steam generating  unit  to
 accommodate the use of combustible
 materials,  other  than fossil  fuels  as
 defined in this subpart, shall not bring
 that unit under the applicability of  this
 subpart.
   (c) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of  this  section  that  commences  con-
 struction  or modification  after August
 17, 1971. is subject to the  requirements
 of this subpart.
 Subpart E—Standards of Performance for
              Incinerators
  2. Section 60.50 is revised as follows:
 § 60.50  Applicability and designation of
     affected  facility.
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to each incinerator  of  more
than  45 metric  tons  per  day charging
rate  (50 tons/day), which is the affected
facility.
    FCOEtAl  REOISTEt, VOL. 42, NO. 140

       THURSDAY, JIHY 11, 1977
                                                      IV-165
-------
                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
   (b) Any facility under paragraph 
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification  after August  17,
 1971. is subject to  the requirements of
 this subpart.
 Subpart F—Standards  of Performance for
          Portland Cement Plants
   3. Section 60.60 is revised as follows:
 § 60.60   Applicability and designation of
      affected facility.
  • (a) The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable to the following affected  fa-
 cilities in Portland cement plants: kiln,
 clinker cooler, raw mill system, finish
 mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material
 storage, clinker storage, finished product
 storage, conveyor transfer points, bag-
 ging and bulk loading and unloading sys-
 tems.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification  after August  17,
 1971, is subject to  the requirements of
 this subpart.
 Subpart G—Standards  of Performance for
             Nitric Acid  Plants
   4. Section 60.70 is revised as  follows:
 § 60.70  Applicability  and designation of
      affected facility.
   (a) The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable to each nitric acid production
 unit, which  is the affected facility.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification  after August  17,
 1971, is subject to  the requirements of
 this subpart.

 Subpart H—Standards of Performance  for
           Sulfuric Acid Plants
   5. Section  60.80 is revised as follows:
 § 60.80  Applicability and designation of
     affected facility.
   (a) The provisions of this subpart are
 applicable  to each sulfurlc acid produc-
 tion unit, which Is the  affected facility.
   (b)  Any facility under paragraph    Subject  to  the  requirement of
this subpart is  any facility under para-
graph  (a) of this section which-.
  <1)  Has  a  capacity  greater  than
151.412 liters  (40,000  gallons), but  not
exceeding 245,000  liters (65,000  gallons,
and commences construction or  modifi-
cation after March 8,1974.
  (2)   Has  a  capacity  greater  than
345,000 liter (65,000 gallons), and com-
mences  construction   or  modification
after June 11.1973.
Subpart L—Standards of Performance for
        Secondary Lead Smelters
  9. Section 60.120 is revised as follows:
§60.120  Applicability and designation
    of affected facility.
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected fa-
cilities in secondary lead smelters:  pot
furnaces of more  than 250 kg (550 Ib)
charging  capacity, blast  (cupola)  fur-
naces,  and reverberator?  furnaces.
  (b) Any facility under  paragraph  (a)
of  this section that  commences con-
struction or modification after June 11,
1973, is subject to the requirements of
this subpart
Subpart M—Standards of Performance for
  Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Pro-
  duction Plant*
  10.  Section  60.130  is revised  as fol-
lows:
§60.130  Applicability and designation
    of affected facility.
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected fa-
 cilities In secondary brass or bronze in-
 got  production  plants:  reverberatory
 and electric furnaces of 1,000 kg (2,205
 Ib)  or greater production capacity and
 blast (cupola) furnaces of 250  kg/hr
 (550 Ib/hr) or greater production ca-
 pacity.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification after June 11, 1973,
 is subject  to  the requirements of this
 subpart.
 Subpart N—Standards of Performance for
           Iron and Steel Plants
   11. Section 60.140 Is revised as follows:

 § 60.140   Applicability  and designation
      of affected facility.
   (a) The affected  facility to which the
 provisions of this subpart apply Is each
 basic oxygen process furnace.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification after June 11, 1973,
 is subject  to  the requirements of this
 subpart.
 Subpart 0—Standards of Performance for
        Sewage Treatment Plants
   12. Section 60.150 is revised as follows:
 g 60.150   Applicability and designation
     of affected facility.
   (a) The  affected  facility to which the
 provisions of this subpart apply is each
 incinerator which burns the sludge pro-
 duced by  municipal sewage treatment
 facilities.
   (b) Any  facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification after June 11, 1973,
 le subject to the requirements  of this
 subpart.
 Subpart P—Standards of Performance for
        Primary Copper Smelters
   13. Section 60.160 is revised as follows:
 § 60.160   Applicability and  designation
     of affected facility.
   (a)  The provisions of this subpart are
 aplicable to the following affected facili-
 ties  in primary copper smelters:  dryer,
 roaster,  smelting  furnace,  and  copper
 converter.
   (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of this section that commences construc-
 tion or modification after  October  16,
 1974, is subject to the requirements of
 this subpart.
 Subpart Q—Standards of Performance for
          Primary Zinc Smelters
  14. Section 60.170 is revised as follows:
 § 60.170  Applicability and  designation
     of affected facility.
   (a)  The provisions of this  subpart are
applicable to the following affected facili-
 ties In primary zinc smelters: roaster and
sintering machine.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after  October  16,
1974, is subject to the requirements of
thi* subpart.
                                 HOHAl MOimt, VOL 42, NO.  UJ_MONDAY, JUIY  JS, 1977


                                                       IV-166
-------
                                              YULES  AND  REGULATIONS
Subpart R—Standard* of Performinc* for
         Primary Lead Smelter*

  15. Section 60.180 Is revised as follows:
{60.180  Applicability and  designation
     of affected facility.
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to   the following  affected
facilities In primary lead smelters:  sin-
tering machine,  sintering machine  dis-
charge end, blast furnace, dross  rever-
Deratory furnace, electric smelting  fur-
nace, and converter.
  (b) Any facility  under paragraph (a)
of  this  section  that commences con-
struction or modification after October
18,  1974, Is subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
Subpart S—Standards of Performance for
    Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
  16. Section  60.190 te revised as  fol-
lows:
§ 60.190  Applicability  and designation
     of affected facility.
  (a)  The affected facilities In primary
aluminum reduction plants  to  which
this subpart applies are potroom  groups
and anode bake plants.
  (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
of  this section that  commences  con-
struction or modification after October
23, 1974, is subject to the requirements
of this subpart. •
Subpart T—Standards of  Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry:  Wet-
   Process Phosphoric Acid Plants
  17.  Section  60.200  Is  revised as fol-
lows:
§ 60.200  Applicability and designation
     of affected facility.
   (a) The affected facility to  which the
provisions of this  subpart apply Is  each
wet-process phosphoric  acid plant. For
the purpose of this subpart, the affected
 facility Includes  any  combination of:
reactors, filters, evaporators,  and  hot-
wells.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of  this section that  commences  con-
struction or modification after October
 22,  1974, Is subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
 Subpart U—Standards of Performance for
   the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Super-
   phosphoric Acid Plants
   18.  Section 60.210 Is  ~evised as fol-
 lows:
 g 60.210  Applicability and designation
     of affected facility..
   (a) The affected facility to which the
 provisions of this  subpart apply  is each
 Buperphosphoric  acid  plant.  For the
 purpose  of  thjs  subpart.  the  affected
 facility includes  any combination of:
 evaporators,  hotwells, acid sumps, and
 cooling tanks.
   (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
 of  this  section that commences  con-
 struction or modification  after October
 22, 1974, Is subject to the requirements
 of this subpart
Subpart V—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Dlam-
  monium Phosphate Plants
  19.  Section 60.220 Is  revised as  fol-
lows:
§ 60.220  Applicability and  designation
    of affected facility.
  (a)  The affected facility to which the
provisions of this  subpart apply Is each
granular diammonium phosphate plant.
For the purpose of this subpart, the af-
fected facility Includes any combination
of: reactors, granulators, dryers, coolers,
screens, and mills.
  (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion  or modification after  October 22,
1974,  is subject to the requirements of
this subpart.

Subpart W—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: Triple
  Superphosphate  Plants
  20. Section 60.230 Is revised as follows:
§ 60.230  Applicability and  designation
    of affected facility.
  (a>  The affected facility to which the
provisions of this  subpart apply is each
triple superphosphate plant. For the pur-
pose of this subpart, the affected facility
Includes any combination  of:  mixers.
curing belts  (dens>, reactors, granula-
tors. dryers, cookens, screens, mills, and
facilities which store  run-of-plle triple
superphosphate.
  (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion  or modification after  October 22,
1974,  is subject to the requirements of
this subpart.
Subpart X—Standards of Performance for
  the Phosphate Fertilizer Industry; Gran-
  ular  Triple  Superphosphate  Storage
  Facilities

  21. Section 60.240 is revised as follows:
§ 60.240  Applicability and  designation
    of affected facility.
  (a)  The affected faculty to which the
provisions of this  subpart apply Is each
granular triple superphosphate storage
facility. For the purpose of this subpart.
the affected facility  includes any combi-
nation of: storage or curing piles, con-
veyors, elevators, screens, and mills.
  (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion  or modification after  October 22,
1974,  Is subject to the requirements of
this subpart.

Subpart Y—Standards of Performance for
         Coal Preparation Plants
  22. Section 60.250 Is revised as follows:
§ 60.250  Applicability and  designation
    of affected facility.
  (a)  The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to any of the following af-
fected  facilities  in coal  preparation
plants which process more than 200 tons
per day: thermal dryers, pneumatic coal-
cleaning equipment  (air tables), coal
processing and conveying equipment (In-
cluding  breakers  and crushers), coal
storage systems, and coal transfer and
loading systems.
  (fe) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after October  21,
1974. is subject to tho requirements  of
this subpart

Subpart Z—Standards of Performance for
      Ferroalloy Production Facilities
  23. Section 60.260 Is revised as follows:
§ 60.260   Applicability  and designation
     of affected facility.
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected  fa-
cilities: electric submerged arc  furnaces
which produce silicon metal, ferroslllcon,
calcium silicon, slllcomang-anese zircon-
ium,    ferrochrome    silicon,   silvery
Iron, high-carbon ferrochrome. charge
chrome, standard ferromanganese, slll-
coinanganese, ferromanganese silicon, or
calcium  carbide:  and  dust-handling
equipment.
  (b> Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after October  21,
1974, is subject to the requirements  of
this subpart.

Jubpart AA—Standards of Performance for
    Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces
  24. Section 60.270 Is revised  as follows:
§ 60.270  Applicability and  designation
     of  affected facility.
  (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected fa-
cilities In steel plants:  electric  arc fur-
naces and dust-handling equipment.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences construc-
tion or modification after October  24,
1974, Is subject to the requirements  of
this sutopart.
(Sees. Ill and  301 (a). Clean  Air Act  u
amended (42 VS.C. 1857c-«. 1867g(»)).)
  |PB Doc.77-21230 Piled 7-22-77:8:48 am]
                               FEDERAL lEGISTEt, VOL  49, NO. 142—MONDAY. JULY 25, 1977

                                                        IV-167
-------
65    __

  Title 40 — Protection of the Environment
      CHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              (FRL 742-6]
 PART 60— STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
 Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking
        Unit Catalyst Regenerators
              Correction
   In FR Doc. 77-18129, appearing at
 page 32426, In Part VI of the issue of Fri-
 day, June 24, 1977. the  EFFECTIVE
 DATE should be  changed to read "June
 24, 1977"

              (FRL-762-ai]
 PART 60— STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
         Units and Abbreviations
              Correction
   In KB Doc. 77-20557, appearing on
 page 37000  In the Issue  for Tuesday,
 July 19, 1977, In  the second column,
 { 60.3 (a) should  be changed so that the
 last abbreviation reads as follows:
 "jig — mlcrogram — 10-* gram".
     RULES AND  REGULATIONS
66
PART  60—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Petroleum Refinery Fluid Catalytic Cracking
   Unit Catalyst Regenerators; Correction
AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects the
Anal rule that appeared at page 32425 in
the FEDERAL REGISTER of Friday, June 24,
1977 (FR Doc. 77-18129).
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 4,1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
   Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
   and Engineering Division,  Environ-
   mental Protection Agency,  Research
   Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
   telephone 919-541-5271.
   Dated: July 29,1977.
                  ERIC O. STORK,
     Acting Assistant Administrator
       for Air and Waste Management.
  In  FR Doc. '77-18129  appearing  on
page 32425  in the FEDERAL REGISTER of
Friday,  June 24,  1977, 5§ 80.102(a) (2)
and 60.105(e) (1) on page  32427 are cor-
rected as follows:
  1. In « 60.102(a) (2). the word "period"
is added in the fourth line immediately
following the words "in any one-hour."
  2. In § 60.105(e) (1), "hourly period" in
the first line is corrected  to read "one-
hour periods."
(Sec. Ill, 114, 301(a) of the Clean Air Act aa
amended [42  U.S.C. 1857C-6, 1657C-9, 1857g
  |FB Doc.77-22357 Piled 8-3-77;8:« am]


        KOERAL HOI$T», VOL. 4),

   NO. 150—THUItSOAY, AUWIST 4, 1977
                iwimn, VOL 41,
    NO. 144— WEDNESDAY, JUIY J7, 1»77
 67
  PART  60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
  ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
    Amendments to Subpart D; Correction
  AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
  Agency,
  ACTION: Correction.
  SUMMARY: This document corrects the
  final rule that appeared at page 51397 in
the FEDHUI RIOISTM of Monday,  No-
vember 23, 1976 (FR tioc. 76-33680).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

  Don R.  Goodwin, Emission Standards
  and Engineering  Division, Environ-
  mental  Protection Agency, Research
  Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. Telephone
  No. 919-541-5271.

  Dated August 8. 1977.

               EDWARD F. TUEHK,
    Acting Assistant Administrator,
      for Air and Waste Management.

  In  FR  Doc.  76-33968, 51 60.45(f) (4.)
and 60.45(f)(5) on page 51399 are cor-
rected as follows:

§ 60.45   [Amended]
  1. In S 60.45(f) (4) (ill) "F, =0.384 son
CXVJ" in the fourth line is corrected to
read "F«=0.384 X10'7 scm CO./J."
  2. In 5 60.45(f) (4) (ir)  a ten paren-
thesis is inserted in the second line be-
tween  "dscm/J" and "8,740."
  3. 5 60.45(f) (4) (v) is corrected to read
as follows:

§ 60.45  Emission and fuel monitoring.
     •      »      •      •       *

  (f) • » •
  <«)•••
  (v) For  bark F=2.589X1Q-* dscm/J
(9,640  dscf/million  Btu)  and  F,=0.500
X10-' scm CO./J (1.860 scf CO,/million
Btu). For wood residue other than bark
F=2.492X 10-'dscm/J (9,280 dscf/million
Btu)  and Ft=0.494X10-' scm  CXVJ
 (1,840  scf CCVmllllon Btu).
     •      •      •      •      •

  4. In § 60.45(f) (5) the F factor and P.
factor equations in SI units are corrected
to read as follows:
                                            ,„_, (227.2 (pet. H)+95.5 (pet. Q + 35.6 Cpot. S)+8.7 (pet. N)-28.7 (pet. O)l
                                           .,„                                 __


                                                                    „   2.0X10-' (pet. C)
                                                                             GCV
                                         (Sec. 111. 114. 301 (a) of the Clean Air Act
                                         at amended (43 0.8 C. 1867o-«.  l8S7o-«.
                                         1887g(a)).)

                                          IPB Doc.77-33403 Piled 8-13-77:8:45 am)
                                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42,

                                          NO. 157—MONOVT, AUGUST IS, 1*77
                                                       IV-168
-------
68
                          RULES AND  REOUIATK>HI
   Title 4O—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              [PRL 775-4)
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
      Authority Citations; Revision
AGENCY:   Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY:  This action revises the au-
thority citations  for  Standards of Per-
formance for New  Stationary  Sources
and  National Emission  Standards for
Hazardous  Air Pollutants. The  revision
adopts a method recommended by the
FEDERAL REGISTER for identifying which
sections are enacted under which statu-
tory  authority,  making  the  citations
more useful to the reader.
EFFECTIVE  DATE:  August 17. 1977.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION  CON-
TACT:
  Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
  and  Engineering  Division, Environ-
  mental Protection Agency. Research
  Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. telephone
  919-541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
This action is being taken in accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 21.43
and  is authorized under section 301 (a)
of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 1857g(a). Because  the  amend-
ments are  clerical in nature and  affect
no substantive rights or requirements,
the Administrator  finds  it  unnecessary
to propose and invite public comment.
  Dated: August 12.1977.
               DOUGLAS M. COSTL«,
                      Administrator.
  Parts 60 and 81 of Chapter I. Title 44
of the Code of Federal Regulations are
revised as follows:
  1. The  authority citation following the
table of sections  in Part 60 is revised to
read as follows:
  AuTHO«rnr: Bee. 111. 301 (a) of tn« Cleu
Air Act M  amended (43 US O. 1867o-6, 18*7(
 (a) ),unle«sotherwise noted,

  2. Following §5 60.10 and 60.24(g)  the
following authority citation is added:
(Sec.  116 of  th» Clean Air Act as amende*
(42 U.S.C.  1857d-l).)

  3. Following §560.7, 60.8. 60.9,  60.11,
60.13.  60.45.  60.46, 60.53.  60.54.  60.63,
60.64,  60.73.  60.74. 60.84,  60.85,  60.93,
60.105,  60.108.  60.113.  80.123,  60.133,
60.144,  60.153,  60.154,  60.165,  60.166,
60.175,  60.176,  60.185.  60.188,  60.194.
60.195.  60.203,  60.204,  60.213,  60.214.
60.223.  60.224,  60.233,  60.234,  60.243,
60.244.  60.253,  60.254,  60.264,  60.26S.
60.266.  60.273, 60.274.  60.275  and Ap-
pendices A, B, C. and D.  the  following
authority citation is added:
(Sec.  114 of  tt>« Clean Air Act ai amended
(42  U.S.C.  1857C-8).).

  4. The authority citation following the
table of sections  In Part 61 is, revised to
read as follows:
  AUTHORITY: Sec.  113, 301 (a) of the Clean
Air Act as amended (43 U.S.C. 1BS7C-7. lBS7g
(a)), unless otherwise noted.

  5. Following I 61.16. the following au-
thority citation is added:
(Sec. 116 of  the Clean  Air Act a* amende*
(42 U.S.C. 1857d-l).)

  6.  Following  5561.09,  61.10,   61.12.
61.13,  61.14. 61.15. 61.24.  61.33.  61.34.
61.43.  61.44. 61.53.  61.54. 61.55.  61.67.
61.68, 61.69.  61.70, 61.71. and Appendices
A and B. the following authority citation
I-, added:
(Sec, 114 of the Clean  Air Act as amende*
(42 UJS.C. 1857C-0).)
 |FB Doc.77-23827  Filed S-1B-77;S:4I an|
          FCDERAL REGISTER,  VOL. 42, NO. 129—WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1*77
                                   IV-169
-------
                                             RULES  AND REGULATIONS
69
 PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE  FOR NEW STATIONARY  SOURCES
    Revision to Reference Methods 1-8
 AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Final Rule.
 SUMMARY: This rule revises Reference
 Methods  1 through 8, the detailed re-
 quirements used to measure  emissions
 from  affected facilities  to  determine
 whether they are In compliance with a
 standard of performance. The methods
 were originally promulgated December
 23. 1971, and since  that time several re-
 visions became apparent  which  would
 clarify, correct and improve the  meth-
 ods. These revisions make the methods
 easier to use, and improve their accuracy
 and reliability.
 EFFECTIVE DATE: September 19,1977.
 ADDRESSES:  Copies  of the comment
 letters are available for public Inspection
 and copying at the U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, Public Information
 Reference Unit (EPA Library),  Room
 2922, 401 M Street, S.W.. Washington.
 D.C. 20460. A summary of the comments
 and EPA's responses may be  obtained
 upon written request from the EPA Pub-
 lic Information Center  (PM-215). 401
 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
 (specify "Public Comment Summary:
 Revisions to Reference Methods  1-8 in
 Appendix A of Standards of Performance
 for New Stationary Sources").

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
 TACT:
   Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
   and  Engineering Division,  Environ-
   mental Protection Agency, Research
   Triangle Park, North  Carolina 27711,
   telephone No. 919-541-5271.

 SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
 The amendments were proposed on June
 8, 1976 (40 FR 23060). A total of 55 com-
 ment  letters  were  received during the
 comment period—34 from industry, 15
 from governmental agencies, and 6 from
 other Interested parties.  They contained
 numerous suggestions which were incor-
 porated In the final revisions.
   Changes common to all eight  of the
 reference methods are: (1) the clarifica-
 tion of procedures  and equipment spec-
 ifications resulting  from the comments,
 (2) the addition of guidelines for al-
 ternative procedures and equipment to
 make prior approval of the Administra-
 tor unnecessary and (3)  the addition of
 an Introduction to each reference meth-
 od  discussing the  general use of the
 method and delineating the  procedure
 for using alternative methods and equip-
 ment.
   Specific changes to  the methods are:

               METHOD 1
   1.  The provision for the use of more
 than two traverse diameters, when spec-
ified by  toe Administrator,  has been
deleted. If one traverse diameter Is In a
plane containing the greatest expected
concentration variation,  the  Intended
purpose of the deleted paragraph will be
fulfilled.
  2. Based on recent data from Fluidyne
(Particulate  Sampling  Strategies  for
Large Power Plants Including Nonunl-
form  How,  EPA-600/2-76-170,  June
1976)  and  Entropy Environmentalists
(Determination of the Optimum Number
of  Traverse Points:  An  Analysis  of
Method 1 Criteria (draft). Contract No.
68-01-3172).  the number of  traverse
points for velocity measurements  has
been reduced and the 2:1 length to width
ratio requirement for cross-sectional lay-
out of rectangular  ducts  has  been re-
placed by a "balanced matrix" scheme.
  3. Guidelines for  sampling in stacks
containing   cyclonic  flow and  stacks
smaller than about  0.31  meter In diam-
eter or 0.071 m1 in  cross-sectional area
will be published at a later date.
  4. Clarification has been made as to
when a check for cyclonic flow Is neces-
sary;  also,  the suggested  procedure for
determination of unacceptable flow con-
ditions has been revised.

              METHOD 2

  1. The calibration  of certain pitot tubes
has been made optional. Appropriate con-
struction and application guidelines have
been Included.
  2. A detailed calibration procedure for
temperature  gauges has  been  included.
  3. A leak check  procedure  for pitot
lines has been Included.
              METHOD 3
  1. The applicability of the method has
been confined to fossil-fuel combustion
processes and to other processes where it
has been determined that components
other than O,, CO,,  CO, and Ni are not
present In  concentrations sufficient to
affect the final results.
  2. Based  on recent research  informa-
tion (Particulate Sampling Strategies for
Large Power Plants Including Nonunl-
form Flow,  EPA-600/2-76-170,  June
1976), the requirement for proportional
sampling has been dropped and replaced
with the requirement for constant rate
sampling. Proportional and constant rate
sampling have been found to give essen-
tially the same result.
  3. The "three  consecutive"  require-
ment has been replaced by "any three"
for  the  determination   of  molecular
weight, COi and Ot.
  4. The equation for excess air has been
revised to account for the presence of CO.
  5. A clearer distinction has been made
between molecular weight  determination
and  emission  rate correction  factor
determination.
  6. Single  point,  integrated  sampling
has been Included.

              METHOD 4

  1. The sampling  time of 1 hour  has
been changed to a  total  sampling time
which will span the length of time the
pollutant emission rate  is being deter-
mined, or such time as specified  In  an
applicable subpart of the standards.
  2. The requirement for proportional
sampling has been dropped and replaced
with the requirement for constant rate
sampling.
  3. The leak check before the test run
has been made optional; the leak check
after the run remains mandatory.
              METHOD 5
  1. The following  alternatives  have
been Included in the method:
  a. The use of metal probe liners.
  b. The use of other materials of con-
struction  for filter holders  and  probe
liner parts.
  c. The use of polyethylene wash bot-
tles and sample storage containers.
  d. The  use of desiccants other  than
silica  gel  or  calcium  sulfate,  when
appropriate.
  e.  The  use of stopcock grease other
than slllcone grease, when appropriate.
  f. The drying of filters and probe-filter
catches at elevated temperatures, when
appropriate.
  g. The  combining  of the filter and
probe washes Into one container.
  2. The leak check prior to a test run
has been  made optional. The post-test
leak check remains mandatory. A meth-
od for  correcting sample volume for ex-
cessive leakage rates has been included.
  3. Detailed leak check and calibration
procedures for the metering system have
been Included.
              METHOD- 6
  1.  Possible Interfering agents  of the
method have been delineated.
  2. The options of: (a)  using a Method
8 Impinger system, or (b') determining
SOi  simultaneously   with   particulate
matter,  have  been   Included  In the
method.
  3. Based on recent research data, the
requirement for proportional sampling
has been dropped and replaced with the
requirement for constant rate sampling.
  4. Tests have shown that Isopropanol
obtained from commercial sources oc-
casionally has peroxide  impurities that
will cause erroneously low SO. measure-
ments. Therefore,  a  test for detecting
peroxides  In Isopropanol has been In-
cluded in the method.
  5. The leak check before the test run
has been made optional; the leak check
after the run remains mandatory.
  6. A detailed calibration procedure for
the metering system has been  included
In the method.

              METHOD 7

  1. For variable wave length spectro-
photometers, a scanning procedure for
determining the point of maximum ab-
sorbance has been Incorporated as an
option.
             METHOD 8

  1. Known interfering compounds have
been listed  to avoid misapplication  of
the method.
  2.  The determination of  filterable
particulate matter (including acid mist)
simultaneously with  SO, and SO2 has
been allowed where applicable.
  3. Since occasionally some commer-
cially available quantities of Isopropanol
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 160—THUxjJAY, AUGUST 18,  1977


                                                       IV-170
-------
                               tULES  AND  REGULATIONS
have peroxide Impurities that wffl eauM
erroneously high sul/urtc add mist meas-
urements, a test for peroxides In Isopro-
panol has been  included In  the method.
   4. The gravimetric technique for mois-
ture  content  (rather than  volumetric)
has  been specified because a mixture Of
isopropyl alcohol  and water  will  have a
volume less than the sum of  the volumes
of Its content.
   5. A closer correspondence  has  been
made between similar parts of  Methods
8 and 5.
              MISCELLANEOUS.

   Several  commenters   questioned   the
meaning cf the  term "subject to the ap-
proval of the Administrator" in relation
to using  alternate test methods and pro-
cedures.  As defined in § 60.2 of subpart
A, the "Administrator" includes any  au-
thorized  representative  of the  Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection
Agency.  Authomed representatives  are
EPA officials  in  EPA Regional Offices or
State, local, and regional  governmental
officials who have been delegated  the re-
sponsibility of enforcing regulations  un-
der 40 CPR 60. These officials in consulta-
tion with other staff  members  familiar
with technical aspects of source  testing
will  render decisions  regarding accept-
able alternate test  procedures.
   In accordance with section 117 of  the
Act, publication of these  methods  was
preceded by consultation with appropri-
ate  advisory  committees.  Independent
experts,  and  Federal departments  and
agencies.
ocific equipment s|wvifieali(ins and
procedures. find only a few metlmd? in this appendu rely
on iH-rfurmmtce criteria.
  Minor chanpes in the reference methods .should not
nfce^nrily affect Hie  vjilidily  of the results a:id it is
recify  or approve (1) equivalent methods, (2)
allenialive methods,  and  (3)  minor chances  in the
mfthudolopy  of. the reference  methods. It  should  be
clearly understood  that unless otherwise identified all
such methods and chnnpes must have prior approval of
the Administrator. An owner employing such  methods or
deviations from the reference methods w ithoul obtaining
prior approval does so at the risk of subsequent disap-
proval or.d rctcstini: with approved method*.
  Within  the  reference methods, certain  specific equip-
ment or procedures arc  recognlted as l»:nR  acceptable
or potentially acceptable and arc Si*-ci!tcally identified
in the methods.  The  items identified as acceptable op-
tions may be used without approval but ni'in be identi-
fied in the test report. Tho potentially  approvable op-
tionn are  cited  as "subject to  the approval  of  the
Administrator" or as  "or equivalent." ^uch  potentially
approvable techniques or alternatives may be used at the
discretion of Ihe owner without prior approval. However.
detailed descriptions for applying  these  potentially
approvalOe techniques or alternativ&s are not provided
in the reference methods. Also, the potentially approv-
able opt ions are not necessarily acceptable in  all npplica-
lioiLs.  Therefore, an  owner electing to use such po-
tentially approvable  techniques or alternatives is re-
sponsible  lor: (1)  assuring that the  techniques  or
alternatives are  in fact applicable and  are properly
eiecuted;  (2) including  a  written description of the
alternative method In  the test report  (the  written
method must be  clear sjid must b* capable ot hoinj! per-
formed without  additional  instruction,  and  thn degree
of detail should b« similar to the detail contained in the
rdereneo methods); and (3) providing any rationale or
supporting data  necessary t« show the validity of the
alternative in the {^articular  application.  Failure  to
meet these requirements can  result in the Adminis-
trator's disapproval of the alternative.
NKTiton
           SAMPLE  A\T> VEI.OCITV  T
              STATIOSART SOVRCKM
I.  PTiiictjili and AppZifadiltfif

  1.1  Principle. To aid in tho representative measure-
me 111 of pollutant emissions and/or total volumetric flow
rale fmm a stationary source, ft measurement site where
the effluent stream is flowing  In a  known tJirrfl«vtion  of  Mrasurt'inrnl Siuv SamplinR or
•velocity  iiiwurt'imTit is pt'rfonnod  ai a sjle lo\sui<-d at
l*Asl t'iglil stack or duct diameters (low nstrifiin and two
diameters upstream from any flow disturbance such a-i
• bend, fxpatision, or CAD tract ion  in  the stArk. or Iron) ft
visible flame. If noce,<"or a reclan^nlar ctus.« section.
an equivalent diamotcr {/><) shall he calculated front the
following equation,  to  dv term me  tlie upsiri-Am  nnd
dovinMr'-an! distances:

                       2iir

                   *~L+W
             ROUAL AIGISTH,  VOL  42,  NO.  160—THUISDAY,  AUGUST It,  1977
                                          IV-171
-------
                                              RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
    50
 to   ...
 £  40

5
Q.
UJ
in
cc
IU
3.30
cc
cc
UJ
i  20
5

S

*  10
S
      0.5
                 DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM FROM FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE A)

                                  1.0                        1.6                        2.0
            2.5
                                                               I
                                                                                           I
I
\
T
A
^

1
J
\

3

M


	
t
4
DISTURBANCE

MEASUREMENT
r~ SITE

^DISTURBANCE

             * FROM POINT OF  ANY TYPE OF
               DISTURBANCE (BEND,  EXPANSION. CONTRACTION. ETC.
                                   I
                                                               I
                     3456789

               DUCT DIAMETERS DOWNSTREAM  FROM  FLOW DISTURBANCE {DISTANCE B)

                Figure  1-1.  Minimum  number of traverse points for paniculate traverses.
                                                                                                                     10
                                        where I-length and iy=wldth.
                                          2.2 Determining the Number of Traverse Points.
                                          2.2.1  Paniculate Traverses. When the  eight-  and
                                        two-diameter criterion can be met, the minimum number
                                        of traverse points shall be: (1) twelve, for circular or
                                        rectangular stacks with diameters (or equivalent di-
                                        ameters) greater than 0.61  meter  (24 in.); (2) eight, for
                                        circular stacks with  diameters between 0.30 and  0.61
                                        meter (12-24 in.); (3) nine, for rectangular stacks with
                                        equivalent diameters between 0.30 and O.C1 meter (12-24
                                        In.).
                                          When the eight- and two-diameter criterion cannot be
                                        met. the minimum number ol traverse points is dcter-
                                        nu'ned from Figure 1-1. Before referring to the figure,
                                        however, determine the distances from the chosen meas-
                                        urement site to the nearest upstream and downstream
                                        disturbances, and  divide each distance by the stack
                                        diameter  or equivalent diameter, to determine  the
                                        distance in terms of the number of duct diameters. Then,
                                        determine from Figure 1-1 the minimum  number of
                                        traverse points that corresponds: (1) to the number of
                                        duct diameters upstream;  and (2) to the  number of
                                        diameters downstream. Select the higher of the two
                                        minimum numbers of traverse points, or a greater value,
                                        so tbat (or circular stacks the number Is a multiple of 4,
                                        and for rectangular stacks, the number is oue ft! those
                                        shown In Table 1-1.

                                        TAP.I.E 1-1. Crotl-iedhnal lit/out fur rtclnnjiilar ilackl

                                                                            Ma-
                                                                             trix
                                                                             lay-
                                                                             aid
                                                                  	  3x3
                                                                  	  4x3
                                                                  	  4x4
                                                                  	  5x4
                                                                  	  5x5
                                                                  	  8xS
                                                                  	  6x8
                                                                  	  7x9
                                                                  	  7x7
                                                 .V;imi«r oftractrte
                                           2O. .
                                           26..
                                           30..
                                           36..
                                           42..
                                           49..
                              KDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 140—THlttSDAY, AUGUST  18, 1977
                                                       IV-172
-------
    50
     40
 O
 a.
 tu
 to
 or
 LU
 >  30
 cc
cc
LU
    -20
2
5
i   10
2
       0.5
                                  RULES AND  REGULATIONS


DUCT DIAMETERS UPSTREAM FROM  FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE A)

                     1.0                           1.5                          2.0
25
                                                                                                      V~7
                                                                                                       V-( DISTURBANCE
                                                                                           MEASUREMENT
                                                                                       h>-   SITE
                                                                                                            DISTURBANCE
                        I
        234              567               89             10


              DUCT DIAMETERS  DOWNSTREAM FROM  FLOW DISTURBANCE (DISTANCE  R)




          Figure  1-2.   Minimum number of traverse points for velocity (nonparticulate) traverses.


                                              2.3.2  Velocity  (Non-ParticulaU)  Trav^r^-1?.  Wlien
                                             velocity or volumetric flow rate is lo be determined (but
                                             not paniculate ntMier), the ^atne, procedure as that for
                                             parUi-ulatp  traverses  (Section  2.2.1) is /ollowt-d,  eicept
                                             tliat Fipuro 1-2 may be used instead of Figure 1-1.
                                              '2:4  Cross-Seel ional Layout and Location of Traverse
                                             )'oints.
                                              2.3.1  Circular Stacks. Lo^'ftto tlir iravi-rse points on
                                             Iwo i>erjk"idirular dioinoli^rs adcordiuR to Tahf*1 !-2 and
                                             Hip rxaiuplf shown in Figure 1-3. Any equation  (Tor
                                             c*itin{>h''Sr$w Cit&tfo)is~aud 3 in the )lib)i0Krap)iy) tiini
                                             Rives UK- sajne vwlues as those in Table 1-2 may bo used
                                             in lifHi of TaMo 1-2.
                                              For paniculate travcrsrs, oiu1 of thr dimnoiersmust be
                                             in a piano conlauiiriR tlienrrate.'i rxptvu-d concentration
                                             variuiion, P.R., afu-r bend?, one diam-'ti-r shall bo  in the
                                             planpof I he bond. Thisrpquirrinent bccoinrs less critical
                                             as l))p ilislancp from tlie disturbanoe mon-n^'s; tlipreforp.
                                             el her diameter local ions may be used, subji-cl lo approval
                                             of tli(' A'lministralor.
                                              In addition, for sticks h;\vin$; dmnu-ters grt-ati-r than
                                             0.01 in (24 in.) no iravrrse iwints;shall hr located witlitn
                                             2.5wiilimc)rw**«Jur«», and in
                                             reA'iirdin^ tJie duta.
                                         IEGISTER,  VOL. 42. NO.  160—THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1977


                                                              IV-173
-------
                                                          RULH AND  REGULATIONS
TRAVERSE
POINT
1
2
3
4
S
6
DISTANCE,
X of diameter
4.4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6
                  Figure 1-3. Example showing circular stack cross section divided into
                  12 equal areas, with location of traverse points indicated.
                                                                                                       <3) to sUcka having tangential Inlets or other duct con-
                                                                                                       fJRnrattoiu  wtdcte tend to  Indue* swirling: In these
                                                                                                       Instance, the presence or absence of cyclonic  flow at
                                                                                                       thesampung location must be determined. The following
                                                                                                       Uchnlques are acceptable (or this determination.
                                                                                                                      I


                                                                                                                    •~r

                                                                                                                      i
                                                                                                                               1

                                                     Figure 14.  Example showing rectangular stack cros»
                                                     section divided into 1 2 equal areas, with a traverse,
                                                     point at centroid of each area.
    Table 1-2.  LOCATION OF TRAVERSE POINTS IN CIRCULAR STACKS

             (Percent of stack diameter from inside wall to traverse point)
Traverse
point
number
on a
diameter
1
2
3
«l
5'
6
7
8
9
10
11
121
13*
14
15
16
37
18
19
201
21
22
23
24
Number of traverse points on a diameter
2
14.6
85.4






















4
6.7
25.0
75.0
93.3




















6
4.4
14.6
29.6
70.4
85.4
95.6


















8
3.2
10.5
19.4
32.3
67.7
80.6
89,5
96.8
















10
2.6
8.2
14.6
22.6
34.2
65.8
77.4
85.4
91.8
97.4














12
2.1
6.7
11.8
17.7
25.0
35.6
64.4
75.0
82.3
88.2
93.3
97.9












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










16
1.6
4.9
8.5
12.5
16.9
22.0
28. a
37.5
62.5
71.7
78.0
83.1
87.5
91.5
95'. 1
98.4








18
1.4
4.4
7.5
10.9
14.6
18.8
23.6
29.6
38.2
61.8
70.4
76.4
81.2
85.4
89.1
92.5
95.6
98.6






2J
1.3
3.9
•6.7
.9.7
12.9
16.5
20.4
25.0
30.6
38.8
61/2
69.4
75.0
79.6
83.5
87.1
90.3
93.3
96.1
98.7




22
1.1
3.5
6.0
8.7
11.6
14.6
18.0
21.8
26.2
31.5
39.3
60.7
68.5
73,8
78.2
82.0
85.4
88.4
91.3
94.0
96.5
98.9


24
1.1
3.2
'5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16.1
19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
39.8
60.2
67.7
72'. 8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.8
89.5
92.1
94.5
96.8
98.9
  2.3.1.2  Stacks With Diameters Equal to or Loss Than
0.61 m (24 in.). Follow the procedure in Section 2.3.1.1,
noting  only that any  "adjusted"  points should be
relocated away from the stack walls to: (1) a distance of
1.3 cm (0.50 In.); or  (2) a distance equal to the notzle
Inside diameter, whichever Is larger.
  2.3.2   Rectangular Stacks.  Determine  the  number
of traverse points as eiplalnod In Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of
this method. From Table 1-1, determine the  grid con-
figuration. Divide the stack cross-section Into as many
equal rectangular elemental areas as traverse points,
and then locate a traverse point at the centroid of each
equal area according to the example In Figure 1-4.
  The situation of traverse points being too close to the
stack walls Is  not  eipectea to arise with rectangular
stacks. If this problem should ever arise, the Adminis-
trator must be contacted (or resolution of the matter.
  2.4  Verification of Absence of Cyclonic Plow. In most
stationary sources,  the direction of stack ja» now is
essentially  parallel- to the  stack  walls,   iiowevor,
cyclonic flow-may wist fl)&n>rsiieh  devices as-cyclones
and Inertlal demlstors following venturi 9cnrt>bem, or
  Level and toro the manomnter. Connect a TjP« "
 pilot tube to the manometer. Position the Type S pilot
 tube at each traverse point, in succession. 90 that  the
 plunus of i be face openings of the pitot tubs are perpendio-
 ulrir to the stuck cross-sectional plane: when the Type 8
 pitot tube is in this position, it Is at "0° reference." Note
 tb»  differeJiual pressure (4p) reading it each  traverse
 point.  If ft mill (zero)  pilot  reading  is  obtained at (r
 reference at a given traverse  point, an acceptable  flo»
 condition exists at that point. II the pitot reading Is  not
 zero at 0° reference, rotate the pitol tube (up to ±W° yaw
 anjrlo), until armll reading is obtained. Carefully detarmi no
 and record the value of the  rotation  angle (a) M>  the
 nearest dcgico. After the null technique has been applied
 at each travrsc point, calculate the average of the abso-
 lute values of a; assign a valuns ofO° to inose potnls for
 which no rotation was required, and include these In  the
 overall avenice. If the averageS-alue of a  is greater than
 10° the overall flow condition In the stack Is unacceptable
 and alternative methodology, subject to the approval of
 the  Administrator, must be  usou to perform accurate
 sample and velocity traverses.

 3. Jliblioyraphy

  \. Determining  Dnst Concentration in a Oas Stream.
 ASME. Performance Tost Code No. 27. New York.
 H'57.
 i 2. Derorltln. IToirard, et  nt. Air  Pollution  Soure*
 Testing Manual.  Air  Pollution Control District. Loi
 Angeles, CA. November !%3
  3. Methods for  Determination  of Velocity. Volume,
 Dust and  Mist Content of  Gases. Western Precipitation
 Division of Joy Manufacturing Co. Los Angeles, CA.
 Bulletin VVP-50. 1068.
  4. Standard Method for Sampling Stacks for Partlculale
 Matler. In: 1071  Uook of  ASTM  Standards. Part 23.
 ASTM Designallon U-292S-71. Philadelphia, Pa. 1971.
  S. Hanson, H. A..etal. 1'artlculale Sampling Strategies
 for Lanro  Power  Plants Including Nonunifonn Flow.
 I.'SEPA.  OKD, ESRL, Rosearch Triangle Park, N.C.
 EPA-60V2-76-170. June l'J78.
  0. Knlropy  Environmentalists, Inc.  Determination of
 the Optimum Number of Sampling Points: An Analysis
 of Method 1 Criteria. Environmental Protection Agency.
 Research Triangle Park, N'.C. KPA Contract No. 68-01-
 3172, Task 7.

 METFIOO 2— DETERMINATION OF STACK  OAS VELOCITT
 AND VOLUMETRIC FLOW KATK (TYPE S  PITOT TUBK)

 I. Principle and Applicability

  I.I Principle. The average gas velocity In a slack Is
 determined from the gas density and from measurement
 ol the average velocity head with a Typo S (Stausscheibe
 or reverse  ly|te) ititot tube.
  1.2 Applicability. This  method Is  applicable  for
 measurement of the average velocity of a gas stream and
 for quantifying gas How.
  This procedure is not applicable at measurement sites
 which fail lo meet the criteria of Method 1, Section 2.1.
 Also, the method cnnnot be used for direct measurement
 In cyclonic or swirling ROS streams; Section 2.4 of Method
 1 shows how lo determine cyclonic or swirling (low con-
 ditions. When unacceptable conditions exist, alternative
 procedures, subject to the approval of the Administrator,
 U.S. PInvironniental ProK-ction Agency, must be  em-
 ployed  to  make  accurate flow  rate determinations:
 examples of such alternative procedures are: (1) to install
 straightening vanes; (2)  to calculate the total volumetrio
 flow rale stoichiometrically, or (3) lo  move to another
 measurement site at which iho flow is acceptable.

 2. Apparatus

  Specifications for the apparatus arc given below. Any
other apparatus that has been demonstrated (subject to
approval of the Administrator) to be capable of meeting
the sjxiciflcations will be considered acceptable.
                                       RDCKAL KOIJTEt, VOL  41, HOl  140—THURSDAY,  AUGUST It,  »»>7


                                                                    IV-174
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
1.90-2.54 cm*
(0.75-1.0 in.l
       " T  " •*.**r-**:ii-f*-?'.ft3r


          I     I   7.62 cm (3 in.)*
                                   jgviii-T.u'm;
                                         TEMPERATURE SENSOR
                                                                                     LEAK-FREE
                                                                                    CONNECTIONS
                                                               MANOMETER
                 •SUGGESTED (INTERFERENCE FREE)
                  WOT TUBE • THERMOCOUPLE  SPACING
                                Figure 2-1.  Type S pitot tube manometer assembly.
                                        2.1  Type S  Pitot Tilt?. Tlie Type  8 pilot tub*
                                       (Figure 2-1) shall be made ol meial tubing (p.p., stain-
                                       less steel). It l» recommended tliat the eitcrnal tubing
                                       diameter (dimension D>, Figure 2-210 be between 0.48
                                       md 0.95 centimeters (Ji» and \i Inch). There shall bo
                                       ui «qual distance from the base of each leg of t!ie pitot
                                       tube to lt« (ace-opening plane ^dimensions Pj and F»,
                                       Figure 2-2b); It Is rscoiuincnded that this distinct be
                                       between 1.06 luid 1M times tbe merna! lubinp diameter.
                                       Tbe lace opening! ol the pilot tube shall, preferably, be
                                       aligned aashowuin Figure 2-2; however, ahelil roisaligu-
                                       uenu of theopenlogs uo pormissibto (sec figure 2-3).
                                        The Type 8 pitot tub* shall have i known coolMclent,
                                       determined u outlined in Section 4. An  identification
                                       number snail bo aligned to the pitot lube; tills number
                                       shall be permanently nwkiMj or onjraved on the body
                                       »f the tube.
                             MDUA1 MOUTH,  VOL 43, NO. I«C—THURSDAY, AUGUST U,  1977



                                                    IV-175
-------
                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
    TRANSVERSE
     TUBE AXIS
                          FACE
                        OPENING
                        PLANES

                           (a)
                         A SIDE PLANE
LONGITUDINAL
TUBE AXIS
)
\
Ot
+
A
B
                                         	       NOTE:
                                          PA

                                          PB
{1-05D'P
                         B-SIDE PLANE

                           (b)
                         A OR B
                           (c)
Figure 2-2. Properly constructed Type S pitot 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 pilot tubes
corlstructed this way.
           lEGKTtR, VOL 43, NO. 160—THURSDAY, AU6QST II, 1977

                          IV-176
-------
                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
        TRANSVERSE
         TUBE AXIS
LONGITUDINAL
  TUBE AXIS'"-
                                                  (9)

            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(s) so long as ai and a2 < 10°, 01 and 02 < 5°. z < 0.32 cm 11/8 in.)  and w <'
            0.08 cm (1/32 in.) (citation 11  in Section 6).
                    ItOERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 160—THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1977
                                           IV-177
-------
                                                             RULES AND  RECITATIONS
  A stnnd&rd pilot tube may bp used Instead of a Type 3,
provided that  It meets the specifications of Sections 2.7
ami  4/J: note, however, tlmt the static  and Impact
pressure holes  at standard pitol tubes Bre siiscepllble to
pluming lu partlciilale-lftdrii  eas  streams.  Therefore,
wh.-nevfr a standard pilot ml* is used to  perform  a
travi-rse. adequate  prnof must he furnished Hmt  Hie
opHiir.cs of the pilot tube have not plunced up during the
n.ivrr.-v period;  this can be done  by taking  a  velocity
hf:iil on) reading at the final traverse p.tint, cleaning out
i he iiiip:ift and static hole.*: or the standard pilot tube by
"t':i0 divisions on the
1-  to  10-ln. Tertical scale. This type of manometer (or
other gauge of equivalent sensitivity) is satisfactory for
the measurement of Ap values as low as 1.3 mm (O.OMn.)
HtO.  However,  a dllterentlal  pressure gauge of greater
sensitivity  shall  be used (subject to (he  approval of tb«
Administrator),  If any of the following I) found to be
true:  (1) the arithmetic average of all Ap readings at the
traverse points to the stack Is less than 1.3 mm {0.06 in.)
IIiO;  (2) (or traverses of 12 or more points, more than 10
percent of the  Individual Ap readings are below 1.3 mm
(0.09 in.) HtO; (3) for tnvenn of fewer than 12 points,
more  than one  Ap reading ta below 1.3 nun (0 015 in.) H:O.
Citation 18 in Section 6 describes commercially available
Instrumentation lor the nieasuremen t of low-range gas
velocities.
  As an alternative to criteria (1) through (3) above, the
following calculation may be performed to determine the
necessity of using a more sensitive differential  pressure
gauge;
where:
  AP(=Individual velocity bud rtadiag  at a traverse
       point, mm HiO (In. H.O).
    n»Tolel number of travane points.
   AT-0.13 mm  HtO when metric units  are used and
      0.005 la EK) when English units are used.

II T  Is greater  than 1.05. the velocity head data are
unacceptable and a  more sensitive differential pressure
gauge must be used.
  NOTE.—If diOerential  pressure gauges other than
Inclined manometers are used (e.g., magnebelic gauges),
their calibration  must be cheeked  after each test*series.
To check the calibration of a differential pressure gauge,
compare Ap readings of the gauge with those of a gauge-
oil manometer at a minimum of three points, approil-
mately representing  the range of Ap values In the stack.
If, at each point,  the values of Ap as read by the differen-
tial pressure gauge  and  gauge-oil  manometer agree to
within i percent, the differential pressure gauge shall be
considered  to be In  proper calibration.  Otherwise, the
test series shall either be  voided, or procedures to adjust
the measured Ap values  and  Anal  results shall be used,
subject to the approval of the Administrate.
  2J  Temperature  Gauge.  A thermocouple, Uquid-
fllled  bulb  thermometer, bimetallic thermometer, mer-
cury-in-glass thermometer, or  other  gauge  capable of
measuring temperature to within 1.5 percent of the mini-
mum  absolute stack temperature snail be  used. The
temperature gauge shall be attached  to the pilot tube
such that the sensor tip  dow not touch  any metal; th*
gauge shall be In an Interference-tree arrangement with
respect  to the pilot  tube face openings  (see  Figure 3-1
and also Figure 2-7 In Section 4). Alternate positions may
be used If the pilot tube-ternpeuuiire gauge system U
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, the tem-
 perature gauge need not be attached to the pilot tube:
 this  alternative  is  subject to the  approval of  the
 Administrator.
   2.4  Pressure Probeund Gauge. A piezometer tube and
 mercury- or watcr-llllcd (J-lul>9 manometer capable of
 measuring stack pressure to within 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) Fig
 is used. The static tap of a standard type pilot tube or
 one leg of a Type X pilot  tube with  the face opening
 planes positioned parallel to tho gas How may also  be
 used 113 the pressure probe.
   2.5  Ilarnmeter. A mercury, aneroid, or other barom-
 eter  capable of  measuring atmospheric  pressure  to
 within 2.5 mm Ifg (0.1 In. Tig) may be used. In many
 cases, the hnromelrlc reading may be  obtained from a
 iifivrby national weather service station.  In which case
 tho station  value (which Is  the  absolute  barometric
 pressure)  shall be  requested and an adjustment for
 elevation  differences between the  weather station and
 tho sampling point shall be applied at a rale of minus
 2.5 mia  (0.1 in.)  Ug per :iO-ini'tcr (100 (oot) elevation
 InereaM, or vice-versa for elevation  decrease.
   2.6  Oas 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 COD ton t
 determination; other methods may be used subject  to
 approval of the Administrator.
   2.7  Calibration Pilot Tuba. When calibration of the
 Type 9 pilot tube Is necessary (see Section 4). a standard
 pilot tub* Is used as a  reference.  The standard  pltot
 tube shall, preferably, have a known coefficient, obtained
 either (1) directly from tho  National Bureau of Stand-
 ards, Route 270, Quince Orchard Hoad,  (jaitliersburg.
  Maryland, or (2) hy calibration against another standard
  pilot lube  with an NHS-trace>il>lo  coflllclcnl.  Alter-
  natively,  a  standard pltot tube designed according to
  the criteria given in 2.7.1 through 2.7.:'> below and illn.t-
  traled In  Kicuro 2-4  (see also Citations 7. 8. and 17 In
  Section 6) may bo used. Pilot lubes ili-si^ned according
  to these specifications will  have baseline cocilicients of
  about D.&titO.ui.
   2.7.1  Hemispheric!!! (shown in Fii'urc2-l),ellipsoidal,
  or conical  tip.
   2.7.2  A minimum of siic diameters straight run (ba-vd
  upon I), the external diameter of the lube) between the
  tip snd the static pressure holes.
   2.7.3  A minimum  of eight diameters stnieht run
  between the static pressure holes »nd Die cc/itcrlmc. of
  the external tube, following the DO U'^rce I>
-------
                           RULES AND REGULATIONS
PLANT.
DATE
        .RUN NO.
STACK DIAMETER OR DIMENSIONS, m(in.)
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE, mm Hg (in. Hg)_
CROSS SECTIONAL AREA. m2(ft2)	
OPERATORS	
PITOT TUBE I.D. NO	
  AVG. COEFFICIENT, Cp = .
  LAST DATE CALIBRATED.
                                       SCHEMATIC OF STACK
                                          CROSS SECTION
   Traverse
    Pt.No.
 Vel.Hd.,AjJ
mm (in.)
                                  Stack Temperature
TS,°K(°R)
mm Hg (in.Hg)
                                  Av»regi
                      Figure 2-5. Velocity traverse data.
                 HMRAL KOISTEft, VOl. «, MO. 160—WUtSDAY, AUGUST »•, 1»77
                                    IV-179
-------
 3.6  Determine Hie slock gas dry molmilar weight.
For combustion processes or profexsw that emit eoaen-
lUilly COj. Oj. CO, and.Ni, use Method 3. For process*
••milling essenlliUly air, an analysis nerd not be con-
ilui-lcd; use a dry molecular welttbt of 'J9.0. For other
tiiwcssea. other methods, subject to iho approval o( the
Administrator, nnisl be used.
 .17  Obtain lh»  moisture content from Reference
Method 4 (or equivalent) or from Method 5.
 :i.s Determine the  cross-soot ional area of the stack
nr  duct lit tho sampling lovalion. Whenever possible,
pityslrally m<\isnro the stack dimensions rather than
nsmg blueprint*.
  4 1 Typ<> 8 Pilot Tube, llefore Us initial use, care-
fully examine the Type 8 pilot tube in top, side, and
end views to verify that the face openings of the tube
urn aligned within the specifications Illustrated In Figure
2-2 or 2-3. The pilot tnbo shall not be used it it fails to
meet these alignment specifications.
  After  verifying the faco opening alignment, measure
mid record the following dimensions at the pitoj tube:
                                                  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                    (a) the external tubing diameter (dimension D,, Figure
                    2-2b); and  (b) the base-to-opening plane  dlstancea
                    (dimensions PJL and Ps, Figure 2-2b). If D, Is between
                    0.48 and 0.06 cm (M« and H In.) and if /=.< and P« are
                    equal and between 1.05 and 1.60 Ri. Ihnre are two possible
                    options: (I) the pilot tube may be calibrated according
                    to the procedure outlined  in  Sections 4.1 2  through
                    4.1.5 below,  or (2) a baseline (Isolated tube) coefficient
                    value of O.M may bo assigned to the pilot tube. Note,
                    however, that if the pilot tube la part of an assembly,
                    calibration  may still he required, despite  knowledge
                    of the baseline  coefficient  value (see  Section 4.1.1).
                     If Dr. Pi, and PB are outside the specified limits, the
                    pilot tube must be calibrated as outlined in 412 through
                    4.1.5 below.
                     4.1.1  Typo S Pilol Tubn Assemblies. During sample
                    and velocity traverses, the isolated Typo S pilot lube is
                    not always used: In many instances, Ihe pilot tube  Is
                    used In combination with other source-sampling compon-
                    ents (thermocouple, sampling probe,  ooizle) as part of
                    an "assembly." The presence of other sampling compo-
                    nents can sometimes affect the baseline value of the Type
                    8 pilot tube coefficient (Citation 9 in Section fl); Iherefore
                    en assigned (or  otherwise known) baseline coefficient
value may or may nol be valid for a eivcn assembly. The
baseline and assembly coefficient values will be identical
only when the relaflve  placement of the components in
the assembly b such  that aerodynamic  liitiTfrrmce
effects are eliminated. Figures 2-6 through 2-8 illustrate
Interference-free component arrangements for Type  S
pilot tubes having external tubing diameters between
0.48 and o,% cm (flu and Win.). Type Spituttnlieas.-vm-
blles that fall to meet any or all of tho specifications of
Figures 2-8 through 2-8 shall be calibrated according to
the procedure outlined in Sections 4.1/2 through 4 1.6
below, and prior to calibration, the values of the inter-
component spacings (pitol-nozzle, pitot-tliiTinocouple,
pilot-probe snealh) shall be measured and recorded.
  NOTE.—-Do not use any Type 3 pilot lube assembly
which is constructed such that the impact pressure open-
ing plane of the pilot lube Is below Ihe entry plane of Ibe
nonle (see Figure 2-6b).
  4.1.2  Calibration Setup. If Ihe Type 8 pilot tube is lo
be calibrated, one leg of the tube shall be permanently
marked A, and the other,  I. Calibration shall be done la
a Bow system  having the  following  essential design
features:

  I
                                                     TYPE SPITOT TUBE
                                                  X £ 1.90 em (3/4 in.) FOR On - 1.3 cm (1/2 in.)
                                  SAMPLING NOZZLE
                          A.  BOTTOM VIEW; SHOWING MINIMUM PI TOT NOZZLE SEPARATION.
              SAMPLING
                PROBE
\
                            SAMPLING
                              NOZZLE
            STATIC PRESSURE
             OPENING PLANE
                                                                                                         IMPACT PRESSURE
                                                                                                                     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 pretre'nt
                        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.).
                                  HOIRAL REOISTt*. VOL 42, NO. 160—THURSDAY, AUGUST  tl, 1977

                                                               IV-180
-------
                                                         RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                                                                                                THERMOCOUPLE
                                                                                                                                 Z> S.M cm
                                                                                                                                    7.62cm(3inJ
  Figure 2-8.   Minimum pltot-sample  probe  separatfon needed to prevent interference;
  Dt between  0.48  and 0.95  cm  (3/16 and  3/8  in.).
  4.1.2.1  Tho flowing fas stream must h* ronflned to ft
duel of deliiUtti cross-fecUonal area, either circular or
rwtaneiilai.  For circular cross-sections,  tho minimum
duct diamctw shall IM 30.5 cm (12 in.): -for raclarigiilar
eross^ectioiis, Ui« width (shorter side) shall bo at least
25.4 cm (10 in.).
  4.1.2.J  Tlif cross-sect i on al area of the calibration duct
tntist  be  conMant orer a distaric* of 10 or more duct
diameters. For a reclanfrular cross-wclion, use an equiva-
lent diajnc-ujr, calculated (rom the following pqu&lion.
U> df tf rminp tbe number of duct dJamrt«rs.
                 D ——'
                        2LJT
                      (L+W)
where:
      Equivalent diameter
   /,= Lenpih
   H'» Width
  To ensure the proscnoe of stable, fully developed flow
patterns at the calibration site, or "test section," the
Rite must be located at least eight diameters downstream
and two diameters upstream from the nearest disturb-
an ces.
  NOTK.— Tlio eight- and  two-diameter criteria are not
absolute; other t*st section locations may bo used {sub-
ject to ap))roval of the Administrator), provided that the
Slow at (he test site is stable and dcnionstrably parallel
to the duct axis.
  4.1.2.X The flow system shall have the  capacity to
generate a lesl-seclion velocity around 915 m/nijn (3,000
          fX/rnin). This velocity must  be. constant with time to
          guarantee, sieady flow during calibration.  Not* lhal
          Type S pilot lube coellicients obtained by single-velocity
          calibration at 015 m/min (3.000 ft/inin) will generally be
          valid to  within  ±3 i-erccnt  for  the  measurement of
          velocities above 305 m/'inin 0,000 fl/min) and to viihiu
          =t5 to 6 peroe:il for the measurement of velocltios bo-
          iwwn ISO and 3(ti m/min (GOO and 1,000 ft/nirn).  If a
          tnore precise correction  between  C, and velui-ily is
          de*ired, the iluw system  shall have  the capacity to
          generate at least four distinct, time-invariant lesi-seciion
          velocities covering the velocity range fjom lt>0 to l.Ail
          m/min  (600 to 5,000 ft^rnin), and calibration data slmll
          LM> taken at regular velocity intervals over  ibis ratigo
          (see Citations 9 and 14 in Section 6 for detail-;).
            4.1.2.4  Two  entry ports, one each for the standard
ion 2-1  ftnt* T^yP* S pilot tubes, shall bo cut in the test section;
          the standard pilot entry port shall be located slightly
          downstream of the Type B port, so thai tbe standard
          and Type S impact openings will lie in the same cross-
          sectional  plane during calibration. To facilitate align-
          ment of the pilot lubes during calibration, it is odvj>ulilo
          ihnt the te?t section bo constructed of ploxiglns or some
          olhnr traiiNpfirent material.
            4.1.3  Calibration i'rocedure. Note that this procedure
          13 a  general one and must not be used without u'rsi
          referring to llie special considerations presented in Sec-
          tion 4.1.5. Note a)^ that l)iis jirfXTtlure applies only 10
          single-velocity calibrolion. To obtain  calittrution  datti
          for the A and b sidus of tho Typo S pilot tube, proceed
          as follows:
            4.1.3.1  Make sure  that  tbe manomoler Is proixrly
          filled and thai ihcoil is free from cont&ininalion and is of
          the pro[>or density. Inspect and Irak -check all pilot lines;
          repair or replace if noci-i^ry.
             4.1.3.2  Le?ol ant) rero the manometer. Turn on Urn
           fan and allow the tlow lo *mbiiue. ^t-al UioTypo ^en;i>
           port.
             4.1.3.3  Ensure that the manometer is level and reroed
           3*0541 Ion the Mandard pilot tube at the cahbiatmii pomi
           (dolennined as ouilined in Sction 4.1.5.1). ami ub^n Hn*
           lube so that its tip is pointed directly into the flow, par-
           (iculsrciircytiould be (alien in nh^iuiii; (ho nihe uiavonl
           yaw and pilch  angle?. Mnke sure tli:it  tliu entry jn'ti
           surrounding the tulx- is properly sr:ilnl.
             4.1.S.4  Keud Ap,,rf andierorfj its vnJue in n ():itu tabln
           siimliir to  ihe, 0110 shown in Figure  !i-'.'. Hfinuve tlm
           tilandard pitoi tube Irom Ihe dnci uml iliscinunvi n fio:n
           tin- manometer. Seftl tin1 stniulard rnirj IHITI.
             4.1.3.A Connect llieTypv S piloi utbe lo themanosn-
           etor. 0;>on tho Tyix*  S pntrv pun. t'heck the manom-
           eter level and r.ero. Insert and align ihv Typv S pilot tuba
           so thai us A skie impact ofjeninp i." ut  tlie simir point ita
           was the standard pilot tube, atirl >s pointed directly into
           the Mow. Make sure that Uie entry purl stirrotinding tbu
           tube is properly si'ftled.
             4.1.3.0 Ketid i;>. ami ruler il< vnHtp in llie tlnta table.
           Rt«niovc tbe Type S pi tot luhc fioni Ihe duct and drs-
           connen n from the iiinmnnoier.
             4.1.3.7 KeiH'iil slcbs 4.!.;<.:$ ilirouj;!! 1.1..1.0 above until
           three piii^ of ip reailinKs huve bi-eu tibiumiul.
             4.1..1.8 Hepeiil sleps 4.1.S.3 tlmnitiii 4.1.H.7 above for
           Die- ]J .side f)/ ibr T>(«- S pilot tnl'*\
             4.1.3.0 I'tTTurm culculutinn.-, n> di-HTibcd in Section
           4.1.4 below.
             4.1.4  Calculation*.
             4.1.4.1 For each  ot the sii piurs of &p readings (i.e..
           thr&o from side  A and ihnu- Irnni side }\) obtained m
           Section 4.1.3 above, raleulntc tin* value uf the Tyi* S
           pitut lube cOH'difK'iil us follow?.
                                      fCDOKAL *MfSlfK, VOL 41, NO.  1*0—TH¥tS»AY,  AVOtrtT 1$, 1997


                                                                      IV-181
-------
                                                        RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
PITOT TUBE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER:

CALIBRATED BYf,	
.DATE:.

RUN NO.
1
2
3
"A" SIDE CALIBRATION
Apjid
cm H20
(in.H20)




APW
emH20
(in. H20)



Cp (SIDE A)
Cp(s)





DEVIATION
Cp(s)-Cp(A)





RUN NO-.
1
*
3
"B" SIDE CALIBRATION
Aprtd
cmHaO
(In.HzO)




Ap(i)
cmHaO
(In.HaO)



Cp(SIOEB)
Cp(s)





DEVIATION
CpW-Cp(B)




     AVERAGE DEVIATION  « a (A OR 8)
                                                S|Cp(i)-Cp(AORB)|
          -MUSTBEjtd=Velocity bead measured by tbe standard pilot
                                                           tube, cm HiO (In. E,O)
                                 Fmmtinn •> 1       Ap,=-Velodty bead measured by tb* Type 8 pitot
                                 Equation 2-2           tube, on H|O (to. HiO)

**£*'   Ttm.«i.n.iit,ih.«i.ffl,.i.nt                   *•*•**  Ctintott C, (ride A), the mean A-slde corf-
   CMO-TwS^DUottabecoerBclent      ......     Went, and S,  (side B),  the mean B-«lde coefficient;
 C,(«>-8tandMdpltettubecoefflclent;ns«0.»Uth»   calculate the difference between  these two average
         coefficient to unknown and the tube fa designed   values.
                                                                                                       a (sidt- A or B)=
                                  Equation 2-4

  4.1.4.5  Use the Type S pilot tube onl? if the values of

( A) and C, (B) is 0.01 or less.
  4.1.6 Special considerations.
  4.1.5.1  Selection of calibration point.
  4.1.5.1.1  When an isolated Type 8 pilot tube is cali-
brated, select a calibration point at or near the center ot
the duct, and follow the procedures outlined In Sections
4.1.3 and 4.1.4 above. The  Type S pilot coefficient* so
obtained, \.t.,~C, (side A) and C, (side B), will be valid,
so long as either: (1)  the Isolated pilot tube Is used: or
(2)  the pilot tube Is used with other components (noztle,
thermocouple, sample probe) In an arrangement that Is
free from aerodynamic  interference effects (s«e Figures
2-6 through 2-8).
  4.1.9.1.2  For  Type S pilot tube-thermocouple com-
binations (without sample probe), select a calibration
point at or near the center of the duct, and follow the
procedures  outlined In  Sections 4.1.3  and 4.1.4 above:
The coefficients so obtained wilt be valid so long as tbe
pilot  tube-thermocouple combination  is used by Itself
or with other components In an interference-free arrange*
ment (Figures 2-6 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 the duct: however, insertion of a probe sheath into *
small duct may cause  significant cross-sectional area
blockage and yield incorrectcoefflcient values (Citation 9
in Section 6). Therefore, to minimize the blockage effect,
the calibration point may  be a few Inches off-center if
necessary. The actual blockage effect will be negligible
when the  theoretical  blockage,  as determined  by «
projected-area model of the probe sheath, Is 2 percent or
less of the duct cross-sectional area for assemblies without
eiternal sheaths (Figure 2-lOaO, and 3 percent or less for
assemblies  with eiternal sheaths (Figure 2-lOb).
  4.1.5.2  For those probe assemblies in which  pilot
tnbe-notzlo interference Is a factor (i.e., those In which
the pilot-uozzel  separation distance falls to meet the
specification illustrated  In  Figure 2-6a), the value of
C,<,1 depends upon the amount of free-space between
the tube and noztle, and therefore Is a function of noztle
size.  In  these instances, separate calibrations shall be
performed with each of the commonly used nottle sites
In place. Note that the single-velocity calibration tech-
nique 13  acceptable for this purpose,  even  though the
larger noztle.'alzes O0.635 cm or }< In.) are not ordinarily
used  for Isoklnetlc sampling at velocities  around 915
m/min (3,000 flAnln), which is the calibration velocity;
note also that It Is not necessary  to draw an Isoklnetlo
sample during calibration (see Citation 19 in Section 6).
  4.1.5.3  For a  probe assembly constructed such that
IK pi tot tube Is always used In the same orlen tatlon, only
one side  of the  pilot tube  need be calibrated (the side
which will  face the flow). The pilot tube must still meet
tbe alignment specifications of Figure 2-2 or 2-3, however,
and must have an average deviation (
-------
                                                           RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
                                        (a)
                                                          ESTIMATED
                                                          SHEATH
                                                          BLOCKAGE
                       " [pUC
                                  xW
                 DUCTAREA
                                    x  100
                            Figure 2-10.   Projected-area  models for  typical pitot tube assemblies.
  4.1.6  Field Use and Recalibration.
  •4.1.6.1  Field Use.
  4.1.G.U  When a Type 8 pitot tube (boated tube or
assembly) Is used in the field, the appropriate coefficient
value (whether assigned or obtained by calibration) shall
b« used to perform velocity calculations. For calibrated
Type S pitot tubes, the A side coefficient shall be used
wlien the A side of the tube faces the flow, and the B side
coefficient shall be used when  the B side faces the  flow;
alternatively, the arithmetic average of the A and B side
coefficient values may bo used, irrespective of which side
tocos the flow.
  4.1.6.1.2 When a probe assembly is used to sample a
small duct (12 to 36 in. in diameter), the probe sheath
sometimes blocks a significant part of the duct cross-
section, causing  a  reduction in the  effective value of
7PM.  Consult Citation 9 in Section G for details.  Con-
ventional pitot-sampling  probe  assemblies are  not
recommended for use In  ducts having inside diameters
smaller than 12 inches (Citation 1G in Section G).
  4.1.G.2  Recalibrotion.
  4.1.6.2.1 Isolated Pitot Tubes. Af(or each field use, the
pilot tube shall be carefully reexamined in top, fide, and
end views. If the pitot lace openings aro still aligned
within the specifications illusvratod in Fipuro 2-2 or 2-3,
It can be assumed that the baseline coefficient of the  pilot
tub* has not changed. If, however, the tube has  been
damaged to the extent that ft no longer merks tbp specifi-
cations of Figure 2-2  or 2-3, the damage shall either be
repaired to restore proper alignment of the face openings
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
in fioction 4.1.6.2.1; also, rcmcasurc the intercomponent
gpacings of the assembly. If the intercom ponom spnclnps
have not changed  and tho face opening alignment is
acceptable, it can be assumed that the cocfllciriit of the
assembly has not changed. If the face opening alignment
is no longer wiUiln the specifications of Figures 2-2 or
3-S. either repair the damage or replace the  pitot tul>o
(calibrating the new assembly. If necessary). If the inter-
oomponent specifics have changed, restore tho original
Bpacmgs  or recalibrate the assembly.
  4.2  Standard pltot lube (if applicable). If a standard
pitot tub* is used for the velocity traverse, the tube shall
Deconstructed according to the criteria of Section 2.7 and
shall be assigned a baseline coefficient value of 0.99. If
the standard pltot tube Is used as part of an assembly.
tho tube shall be  in an  interfercnce-froe  arrangement
(subject to the approval of the Administrator).
  4.3  Temperature Gouges. After each field use, cali-
brate dial  thnrmomelprs,  liquid-tilled bulb thermom-
eters, thermocouple-potentiometer systejus, and other
gauges at a U-mpvraturc1 within 10 percent of the average
absolute  stock U'liipernlun1.  For temperatures  up to
40f»* C (701° F), us* an AST.M im-rcury-m-glass reference
thermometer, or equivalent, tis a reference; alternatively.
either  a  reference  thermocouple and  talent ioiuclor
(calibrated  by Nlis) or ihormomelric (ijiocl IJOIIILS, e.g.,
ice  bath  and boiling wnier (corrected  for barometric
pressure.) may be used.  For tiMHjHratures above 4(15° C
(761° F), use an N LJ.S -calibrated reference thcrinoeouple-
potcnliomfctor system or an alternate rufcruncc, subject
to the approval of the Adminbtralor.
  If. during eali brat ion, the absolute teir.peratures mefls-
urea with the gauge being calibrated and  the reference
gauge agree within  1 '» percent, the temperature data
taken in the field shall bo considered valid. Oihcnviso.
the pollutant emission  tost shall rither be considered
invalid or adjustments (if appropriate) of tho tost results
shall be made, subject to tho approval of the Adminislra-
tor.
  4.4  Barometer. Calibrate the barometer used against
a mercury barometer.

5. Cciculationt

  Carry out calculations, retaining at least ono extrn
decimal figure beyond that  of the acquired data Round
off figures after final calculation.
  6.1  Nomenclature
    X = Cross-swtfonal area of stark, m> (ft1).
  .£?„,= Water vapor In tho gas stream (from Method r. or
       Kefrrpiico Method  4),  proportion  by volume.
   Cp = T*ilot tube coefficient, dimension less.
  XF = Pilot tnbo constant,
        07
— rip/
sec L   (
                      kXnunII20)"
for the metric system and
tor the English system.
    A/rf=Molecufur weight  of stack pas.  dry basis (soe
      Section 3.6} g'g-molo (Iblb-molc'i.
    M. = Molecular weight of stock ^as,  wot  basLi, g.'g-
      mole (Ib/lb-iuoliO.

      — M* (1— #„,) i-18.0 /?«           Equation 2-5

  /*b»f- liurometric pressure at nieasureineni site, niui
      Hp (in. ][R>.
    P,= Sinck  static pressure, mm lip (in. Tig).
    /*! = Absolute suck giis pressure,  mm lip /"'-r"o'e)(in.Hg)1
         y           "°"
                                                                         Equation 2-10
                                         6. Bibliography
                                          1. Mark. L. S. Mpchnnleal Enginoors' Ilondhook. Now
                                         York McGraw-Hill Hook Co., W 1WI.
                                          2. Furry. J. H. Chi>iniral Encineors' Ihindbook. New
                                         York. McOraw-HUl Boot Co., Inc. 1WO.
                                       fCDEKAl RtOISnR,  YOU  .41, NO.  T6&—THUKOAY,  AUGUST  18,  1977

                                                                      IV-183
-------
                                RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  3. Shiicvhar*, R. T., W. F. Tolin Wiley and Sons,  Inc. 11H7.
  il.  Klinil  Miners—Their  Theory And  Application.
American Society of Mechanical  Kiik'iiiriTS,  Now York,
N.Y.  1'i.v.i.
  7. ASM KAF. Handbook of KundiinienhiK  I'-TJ. p. CO*.
  X. Animal Book at ASTM  Slanilunls. I'.in JR. IU74. p.
OH.
  '.I. Volluro, R. F. Guidelines (or  Type rt  I'ilol Tubo
Calibration. U.S. Enviromm-mnl  Proiivtion Agency.
Iti'sciircli Tlanglc Park, N.C. (Presrmeil i\t  1st Annual
Minting,   Source Evaluation Society,  Duylon, Ohio,
September 18, 1975.)
  10. Vollaro. R. F. A Type S Pilot Tulw Calibration
Study. U.S. Environmental Proteotion Agency, Kmis-
sinn Measurement  Branch,   Research  Triangle Park,
N.C. July IW4.
  11. Vollaro, R. F.  The Effects of Impact Opening
Misalignment on the Value  of tho Typo 3 I'itot Tube
CoefHcient.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Emission  Measurement Branch,  Research  Triangle
1'ark, N.C. October 1978.
  12. Volluro, R. F. Establishment of a Baseline Coeffi-
cient  Value for Properly Constructed Typo S  Pilot
Tubes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emis-
sion Measurement  Branch,  Research  Triangle I'ark.
N.C.  November  1976.
  13. Vollaro. R. F. An Evaluation of Single-Velocity
Calibration Techniques as a Means of Determining Type
S I'itot Tube Coefficients. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Emission Measurement Branch, Research
Triangle  Park, N.C. August 1975.
  14. vollftro, R. F. The Use of Type S Pilot Tubes tor
the Measurement of Low Velocities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Emission  Measurement Branch,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. November 1976.
  IS. Smith, Marvin L. Velocity Calibration of EPA
Type Source Sampling Probe. United  Technologies
Corporation, Pratt  and Whitney  Aircraft Division,
East Hartford, Conn. 1978.
  16. Vollaro, R. F. Recommended Procedure for Sample
Traverses In Ducts Smaller than 12 Inches In Diameter.
U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency,  Emission
Measurement Branch,  Research Triangle Pork,  N.C.
November 1076.
  17. Ower, E. and R. C..Pani!mr«t. The Measurement
of Air Flow, 4th Ed., London, Pcrgamon Press. I960.
  18. Vollaro, R. F. A survey of Commercially Available
Instrumentation  for the Measurement of  Low-Range
Clas Velocities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Emission  Measurement Branch,  Research  Triangle
Park, N.C. November 1976.  (Unpublished Paper)
  19. Onyp, A. W.. C.  C. St. Pierre, D. 8. Smith, D.
Motion, and I. Stelner. An Experimental Investigation
of the Effect of Pilot Tube-Sampling Probe Configura-
tions on the. Magnitude of the 8 Type  Pilot Tube Co-
efficient for Commercially Available Source Sampling
Probes. Prepared by the University of Windsor for the
.Ministry of the Environment,  Toronto, Canada. Feb-
ruary i»75.

METHOD 3— CUs ANALYSIS ton CARBON DIOXIDB,
  OXTOEN, EXCESS Am, AND DRY MOI.KCULAK WKIOHT

]. PiincipU and AppticMlUf

  1.1  Principle. A gas sample is extracted from a stack,
l>y one of tho following methods: (1) single-point, grab
sampling; (2) single-|>olnt, integrated sampling; or (3)
multi-point,  inli-grated sampling. The  gas sample la
nnn'.yzcd lor prriviil carrion dlnxido (COi), percent o*y-
Ren (0;), and, if nravssary, |n>rcont carbon monoxide
(CO). If a dry molecular writ-lit 'Irturniinalicm is to be
ruadn, either an Orsat or a Fyrite ' analyzer nv.\y be used
for the analysis; Inr excess air or emission rote correction
factor determination, an Orsat analyzer must be used.
  1.1  Applicability. This  method Is applicable for de-
termining COt and  O: conci'iilrallons, excess air, and
dry molecular weight of a sample from a gas si ream of a
fossil-fuel combustion procrss. The metliod may also be
applicable toother processeswhi'rcithasbren determined
that compounds other than COi, Oi, CO, and nitrogen
(Nt) are not present In concentrations sufficient  to
Qllect the results.
  Other methods, as well as tmxllncallons to tho proce-
dure described herein, are also applicable for some or all
of the above determinations. Examples of specific meth-
ods and modinVallons include: (1) a multi-iwlnt samp-
ling method  using an Orsat analyzer to analyze Indi-
vidual grab samples obtained at each point: (2) a method
using COj or Oi and stolchlonwtrlc, calculations to dct«r-
nil no dry molecular weight and excess air; (.1) assigning a
value  of 30.0 for dry molecular weight, In lieu of actual
measurements, for processes burning natural gas, coal, or
nil. These methods and modifications may be used, but
are subject to the approval of thn Administrator.

2. Apparotui

  As an alternative to the sampling npparnlus and sys-
tems described  herein, other sampling  systems (e.g.,
liquid displacement) may be used provided such systems
are capable of obtaining  a representative sample and
maintaining a constant sampling rule, and are otherwise
capable of  yielding  acceptable results.  Uso of such
systems Is subject to the approval of the Administrator.
  2.1  Grab Sampling (Figure 3-1).
  •.M.I   Probe. The  probe should be made of stainless
steel or borosillcote glass tubing and should be equipped
with an in-slack or out-stock Illtcr to remove paniculate
matter (a plug of glass wool is satisfactory for this pur-
pose). Any other material inert to Oi, COi, CO, and N>
and resistant to temperature at sampling conditions may
he used for the probe; examples of  such material  an
aluminum, copper, quartz glass and Teflon.
  2.1.2 Puinp. A one-way squceie bulb,  or equivalent,
Is used  to transport the gas sample to the analyter.
  2.2  Integrated Sampling (Figure 3-2).
  2.2.1   Piobe. A probe such as that described in Section
2.1.1 la suitable.

  ' Mention of trade names or specific products does not
constitute endorsement by the  Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
                 FEDHIAL RIOISTEt, VOL 43,  NO. 160—THURSDAY, AIXJUST  !«, H77
                                                    IV-184
-------
                               RULES AND REGULATIONS
                         PROBE
                                                 FLEXIBLE TUBING
                'FILTER (GLASSWOOL)
                                     SQUEEZE BULB
                                                                        TO ANALYZER
                                  Figure 3-1.  Grab sampling train.
                                                 RATE METER
          AIR-COOLED
          CONDENSER
PROBE
    \
    \
       FILTER
     (GLASS WOOL)
                                      RIGID CONTAINER
                        Figure 3-2. Integrated gas-sampling train.
               FEDERAL MOSTER, VOL 41, NO. T 60—THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 19T7
                                       IV-185
-------
                                                             RULES  AND  IEGULATIONS
  5 2.2  Condenser. An alr-couled or water-cooled oon-
denser,  or other condenser  that will Dot remove Oi,
«'Oi. CO, and Ni.rnay be used lo remove eioei.1 moisture
which would Interfere with ibe operation of (be pump
&nd flow meUr.
  •J 2.3  Vslv«. A needle valve is used to adjust sample
fas flow raw.
  -'3 4  Pump. A leak-he*,  dlaphrnem-type pump, or
f'Uiivalent, Is ufed 10 transport sample" gas to the flexible.
1 ie Install a small surge tank between the pump and
rate meter lo flimiitate the pulsation tdfect of the dio-
1'lirnpm pump on the rotnmcter.
  '2:2.6  Hate .\1cler. The rolamcter,  or equivalent rate
nieter. rjsvd jhould b« capable of measuring  How ml*
t«> within ±J p«Tvvnt of tlie selected flow rato. A flow
rate range of HW  to lOOUcm'/'niin is sui:e«'sled.
  2.2 6  Fh-iiMe llfie. Any leak-free plastic iff., Trdlar.
Mylar, TeHou) or ota*tic-<:oated alaniiitum (.e.g., alunii-
nizeil Mylar) ban. or  equivalent, having  a capacity
.•onsisient with the seKvtrd  flow rale and time lenuih
uf the test run. may I"* used. A capacity in the range of
M to DO  litors is supcestfd.
  To leak-check the brie, connect It Inn water ii>a:ionifti'r
• nil pressurize the bag to l> to 10cm H:O a to 4 in. H-.O).
Allow to stand for 10 minutes.  Any displacement in the
water manometer Indicates a leak. An alternative leak-
check method Is  to pressurise the bag to S lo 10 cm 11:O
(2 to 4 In.  IIiO) and allow to stand overnight. A deflated
ban Indicates a leak.
  2.2.7  Pressure Oange A water-filled U-tiu>  manom-
eter, or  equivalent, of about 28 cm (12 in.) is used for
the Of51 hie bag leak-check.
  2.2.8  Vacuum  Gauge.  A  mercury  manometer,  or
equivalent, of at  least 760 mm lig 130 in. tig) is used for
th« sampling train leak-check.
  2.3 Analysis.  For Orsat and Fyrlt* analyier main-
tenance and operation procedures, follow the instructions
recommended by  the-  manufacturer, mUe&s otherwise.
i-pecified herein.
  2 3.1  Dry Molecular Weight Determination. An Orsat
analyur or Fyrite type combustion gas analyzer may be
used.
  2.3.2  Emission Rate Correction Factor or Eiccsa Air
Determination. An Orsat  analyter must  be used. For
low  COt (le.is than 40 percent) or high Ot (greater than
ISO percent) concentrations, the measuring burette of
the Orsat must have at least 0.1 percent subdivisions.

3 DtyMolrcutar BVijftl Deltrmlnadon

  Any of  the three sampling and analytical procedures
deacrtbed  below  may be used  for determining the dry
molecular weight.
  3.1 Single-Point,  Orab  Sampling and  Analytical
Procedure.
  3.1.1  The sampling point  in the duct shall either be
at the centroid of the cross section or at A point no closes
to the walls than 1.00 m (3.3 ft), unless otherwise specliled
ly the Administrator.
  8.1.2  Set  up the equipment »s showr In  Figure 3-1,
•making sure all  connections ahead of the analyzer are
light and teak-free. If an Orsat analyter  la used, It is
recommended that the analyter be leaked-cbecked by
following the procedure In Section 5; however, tbe leak-
check is optional.
  3.1.3  Place the probe in the stack, wi th the tip of the
probe positioned  at the sampling point; purge the sam pl-
ing line. Draw a sample into tbe analyzer and Imme-
diately analyze It for percent COi and  percent Oi. Deter-
mine the  percentage of the gas that  Is Ni and CO by
mibtracilng  the sum of the percent COi and percent Oi
from 100 percent. Calculate the dry molecular weight as
indicated in Section 6.3.
  3.1.4  Repeat the sampling, analysis, and calculation
procedures, until the dry molecular weights of »ny three
grab samples difler from their mean  by no more than
0 8 g/g-mole (0.3  Ib/lb-mole). Average  these, three molec-
ular weights, and report the results to tbe nearest
0.1 g/g-mole (lh/lb-niole).
  3.2 Single-Point, Integrated Sampling and Analytical
Procedure.
  3.2.1  The sampling point In the duct shall be located
as specified in Section 3.1.1.
  32.2  Leak-check. (Optional) the fieslble. bag as  In
Section  2.2.6. Set up the equipment as shown In Figure
a-2. lust  prior to sampling, Irak-check (optional)  the
train by placing a vacuum gauge at the condenser Inlet,
pulling  a  vacuum of at least 250 mm Hg {10 In. Hg),
plugging the outlet at  the quick disconnect, and then
(timing ofl I lie pump. The vacuum should remain stable
for at If ast 0.5 minute. Evacuate the flexinlebag. Connect
Die probe and |>bc« It in the stack, with  the lip of the
l>robe positioned at thesampling point; purge the sampl-
ing line. Next, connect the hag and make sure that all
connections are tight and leak free.
  3.2.3  (-ample  at a constant  rate. The sampling run
 thould  b« simultaneous with, and for the same total
 length of time as. the pollutant emission rate determina-
 tion Collection of at least 30 liters (1.00 ft') of sample gas
 is recommended; however,  smaller  volumes  may be
 i ollfctrtl. If desired.
  3 J.4  obtain one integrated due gas sample during
 each pollutant emission rate determination.  Within  8
 hours after tbe sample is taken, analyze  It for percent
 «.'0i and percent 0) using either an Orsat analyzer or a
 Fyrite-tj-pe combustion gas  analyter. If an Orsat  ana-
 lyzer Is used, It  is recommended that the Orsat leak-
 i heck described hi Section S b« performed before this
 determination; however, tbe check  Is optional. Deter-
 mine the percentage of the gas that la Stand CO by sub-
 tracting tbe sum of tbe percent CO:  and percent  Oi
from liiu percent. CftkolaU tbe dry molecular weight u
indicated in Section 8.3.
  3.3.5  Repeat tbe analysis and nuVulatlon procedures
until the individual dry molecular weights for ar.y three
analyses dilTer  from  their mean by no root* than 0.3
g'g-mole (03 Ib/lb-mole). Average these three molecular
weights, and report the rantlM to tbe nearest O.I g/g-mole
(0.1 Ib/lb-mole).
  33  Mulli-roint, Integrated Sampling and Analytical
Procedure.
  3.3.1  Unless  otherwise  specified by the Adminis-
trator, a minimum of eight traverse points shall be used
for circular  stacks having diameters less then 0.61  m
(24 In.). 8 minimum of nine shall be nfcd /or rectangular
stacks having equivalent  diameters  less than 0.01  m
(24 in.), and a minimum of twplvo traverse points shall
be used for all other cases. The  traverse points shall be
located according to  Method 1. Tho use ol fewer points
is subject to approval of the Administrator.
  .1.3.2  Follow  the procedures outlined In Sections .1.2.2
through X'-'..1), euvpt  for the following: traverse all sam-
pling points ami stimplc at each point for an equal length
of time. Kecord  sampling data as shown in Figure 3-3.
 4. Em(»im Rttt Coirtctisn Factor at h'jceti .\a Dtttr-
   ninuan

  NOTI.—A Fyrite-typ* combustion gas analyser Is not
 acceptable lot excess air or emission rate correction be lor
 determination, unless approved by tbe Administrator.
 If both percent CO)  and percent Oi are measured, the
 Analytical results of any of the three procedures given
 bi-low may also be used for calculating the dry molecular
 weight.
  Kach of the three procedures below shall be used only
 when specified in an applicable subpart of the standards.
 The use of these procedures for other purposes must have
 specific prior approval of the Administrator.
  4.1   Single-Point,   Grab  Sampling  and  Ambtieil
 Procedure.
  4.1.1  The sampling point in the duct shall either be
 at the centroid of the  oross-seelion or  at a point no closer
 to the walls than 1.00m W.3It), unless otherwise sjx^uitil
 by tho Administrator.
  4.1.2  Set up the equipment  as shown  in  Figure 3-1,
 making sure all connections ahead  of the analyzer are
 tight and leak-free.  Lefik-check the  Orsat analyzer ac-
 cording to the procedure described  in Section i.  Thu
 leak-check is mandatory.
TIME




TRAVERSE
PT.




AVERAGE
Q
1pm





%DEV.a





                                  avg
                                                        (MUST  BE < 10%)
                   Figure 3-3.  Sampling rate data.
  4.1.3  Place the probe in the slack, with the Up of the
probe positioned at the sampling point; purge the sam-
pling line. Draw a sample into the analyi*r. For emission
rate correction  (actor determination. Immediately »na-
lyu the sample, as outlined in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.},
for percent COi or percent O».  If excess air to desired,
proc«ed as follows: (1) Immediately analyte the sample,
as In Sections 4.1.4 &nd 4.1.5, for percent COi. Oj, and
CO; (2) determine the percentage of the gas that is N>
by subtracting the sum of the percent CO?, percent O?,
and  percent  CO from 100  percent; and  (3) calculate
percent excess air as outlined In Section 8.2.
  4.1.4   To ensure complete absorption ol the COi, Ot,
or if applicable, CO, make repeated passes through each
absorbing solution until  two consecutive  readings are
the same.  Several passes (three or four) srrould be mad*
between readings.  (If  constant  readings  cannot be
obtained after three consecutive readings,  replace  tbe
absorbing solution.)
  4.1.6   After  the   analysis  Is  completed, leak-check
(mandatory) the Or*at analyzer ouce aaaln, as described
in Section 5. For the results of the analysis to be valid,
the Orsat analyzer must pass this leak test belore and
after th« analysis.  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 iwllutant, only ono analysis
Is ordinarily conducted. Therefore, great care must bo
taken to obtain a valid sample and analysis. Although
la most cases only  COi or Oi Is required, It is recom-
mended that both CO: and Oj  be measured, and that
Citation !> in the Bibliography be. used to validate the
analytical data.
  4/2  glnglc-rolnl, Integrated Sampling ami Analytical
Procedure.
  4,2.1  The sampling point m ilic duct stall be located
as speoineil in Section 4.1.1.
  4.2.2  Leak-check (mandatory) the flexible bag as in
Section 2.2.D.  Set up the equipment as shown in Figure
3-2. Just prior to sampling, leak-check (mandatory) the
train by placing a vacuum gauge at the condenser inlet,
pulling a  vacuum  of at least 250 mm  Hg  (10 in. Hg),
plugging the  outlet at the quick disconnect, and then
 turning off the pump. The vacuum (ball remain stable
 for at least 0.6 minut«. Evacuate th* flexible bag. Con-
 nect the probe and ploco It in the stack, with the tip of the
 probe positioned at tbe sampling point; purge the sam-
 pling line. Neit,  connect the bag and make  sure  tbat
 all connections are tight and leak tree.
   4.2.3  Sample at a constant rate, or as spe/clfled by the
 Administrator. The sampling run must b« simultaneous
 with, and for the/ same total length of time as, tbe pollut-
 ant emission rate  determination. Collect  at least 30
 liters tl.OO fi!) of sample gas. Smaller volumes may be
 collected, subject to approval of the Administrator.
   4.2.4  Obtain one Integrated flue gas sample during
 each pollutant emission nuedttcnninatlon. For emission
 rnle correction factor determination, onalyw the sample
 within 4 hours after it  is taken for  percent CO) or percent
 Oi (03  outlined in  Sections  4.2.5 through  4.2.7).  The
 Orsat  analyzer must be Icak-chexked (see Section 5)
 Vfore the. analysis. If excess air is de-sired, proceed as
 follows: (1) within  4  hours  nfter the sample  is taken,
 analyze it (as in Sections 4.•-'.5 through 4.2.7) for percent
 Cpi. Oi, and CO: (2) determine the percentaR"; of lh»
 gas that is Nt by subtracting the sum of the ixnynt COi.
 percent O), and percent CO from 100 percent;  (3) cal-
 culate percent excess air, as outlined in Section 6.2.
  4.2.5  To ensure complete absorption of the COi, O>,
 or If applicable, CO, make repeated passes through mob.
 absorbing solution until two consecutive readings arc (he
 same. Several passes (three or four) should be  nmdo be-
 tween readings. (If constant read! tigs can not be obtained
 after three consecutive readings, replace the absorbing
 solution.)
  4.2.6  Repeat the  analysis until the following criteria
 are met:
  4.2.6.1  For percent COt,  repeat the analytical  pro-
 cedure until the results of any three analyses differ by no
 more than (a) 0.3 percent by volume when COi Is greater
 than 4.0 percent or (b) 0.2 percent by volume when COt
Is less than or equal to 4.0 percent. Average the three ac-
ceptable values of percent COi and report tbe result! to
the nearest 0.1 percent.
  4.2.«,2  For percent Ot. repeat the analytical procedure
until tbe results of any ibree analyses differ by DO men
                                              FEDERAL  REGISTER. VOL. 42,  NO. 160—THURSDAY,  AUGUST  18,  1*77
                                                                           IV-186
-------
                                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
than (ft) 0.3 percent by volume when Oi Is IMS than 15.0
percent or ib) 0.2 percent by volume when Oi Is greater
th»n 15.0 percent. Average the throe acceptable values of
percent Oi and  report  the  results  to the neatest 0.1
percent.
  4 2.6.3  For percent CO, repeat  the analytical proce-
dure until the results of any three analyses dlDcr by no
more  than 0.3  percent. Average  the  three  acceptable
values of percent C'O and report the results to the nearest
0.1 percent.
  4.2.7 Afier  the  analysis  is completed,  leak-check
(mandatory) the Orsal 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 analysis. Note: Although in most instances only COi
or O:  is required, it is recommended that both COi and
Oj be measured, and that Citation 5 in the bibliography
be used to validate the analytical data.
  4.3  Multi-Tom;, Integrated Sampling and Analytical
Procedure.
  4.3.1 Both the minimum number of sampling points
and the sampling point  location shall he as specified in
Section 3.3.1 of this melhod. The use of fewer points than
specified i«*ibject to the approval of the Administrator.
  4.3.2 Follow the. procedures outlined in Sections 4.2.2
through 4.2.7, except for the following:  Traverse all
sampling points  ana sample 81 each point for an equal
length oftiine. Record sampling data as shown In Figure
3-3.

6. Lfok-Chtck Procedure for Ortat Analyzers

  Moving an Orsat analyzer frequently onuses It to leak.
Therefore, an Orsat analyzer should be thoroughly leak-
checked on site before the flue  pas sample is introduced
Into it. The procedure for leak-checking an Orsat analyzer
is:
  5.1.1 Bring the liquid level in each pipette up to the
reference mart on the capillary  tubing and then close the
pipette stopcock.
  5.1.2 Kaisc tlie leveling bulb sufficiently to bring the
confining liquid meniscus onto the graduated portion of
the buretle and then close the manifold stopcock.
  5.1.3 Record the meniscus position.
  5.1.4 Observe  the meniscus In the burette and the
liquid level in the pipette for movement over the next 4
minutes.
  5.1.5 For the Orsat analyzer to pass the leak-check,
two conditions must be met.
  5.1.5.1  The liquid level in each pipette must not fall
below  the bottom of the  capillary tubing during this
4-minutclnlerval.
  5.1.5.2  The meniscus In the burette must not change
by more than 0.2 ml during this 4- minute interval.
  5.1.6 If the analyzer falls the leak-check procedure, all
rubber connections and stopcocks should be checked
until the cause of the Irak Is Identified. Leaking stopcocks
must  be disassembled, cleaned, and regreased. Leaking
rubber connections must be replaced. Alter the analyzer
is reassembled,  the  leak-check  procedure  must  be
repeated.
  6.1  Nomenclature.
     M j- Dry molecular weight, g/g-mole (Ib.lb-mole).
  %E A "Percent excess air.
  %CO!=Pereent COiby volume (dry basis).
    %0i=- Percent Oi by volume (dry basis).
  %CO-Percent CO by volume (dry basis).
    %Nj= Percent Ni by volume (dry basis).
   0.264= Ratio of Oi to Nj In air, v/v.
   0.200 = Molecular weight of Ni or CO, divided by 100.
   0.320-Molecular weight of Oi divided by 100.
   0.440=Molecular weight of COi divided by 100.
  6.2  Percent Excess Air. Calculate the percent excess
air  (if applicable),  by substituting  the  appropriate
values of percent Oi. CO,and N: (obtained from Section
4.1.3 or 4.2.4) into Equation 3-1.
                                               100
             .204 7oNI2(%0J-0.5 %CO)

                                   Equation 3-1

  NOTE.—The equation above assumes that ambient
air Is used as the source of Oj and that the fuel does not
contain appreciable amounts of N» (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 of Ni)  or  when
oxygen enrichment is used, alternate methods, subject
to approval of the Administrator, are required.
  6.3  J)ry Molecular Weipbt.  Use  Equation 3-2 to
calculate  the   dry  molecular weight  of  the  stack gas
  M4=0.440('~cCO:)+0.3:orcO:)-|.0.280(9cN,+c~CO)

                                   Equation 3-2

  NOTE.—The above equation  docs not «onslder  argon
in air  (about  0.9  percent, molecular weight of  37.7).
A negative error of  about 0.4 percent is Introduced.
The tester may opt to include argon In the analysis using
procedures subject to approval of the  Administrator.

7. Bibliography

  1. Altshuller. A. P. Storage  of Oases and Vapors in
Plastic Bags.  International Journal of  Air and Water
Pollution. 6:75-81. 11)63.
  2. Conner, William D. and J. S. Nader. Air Sampling
Plastic Bags.  Journal of the American  Industrial Hy-
giene Association. W:2fll-297. UKH.
  3. Purrell Manual for Gas Analysts, Seventh edition.
Burrell  Corporation,  2223 Fifth Avenue,  Pittsburgh,
1'a. 15210. I'M.
  4. Mitchell, W. J. and M. R. Mldgctt. Field Reliability
of the Orsat Analyzer. Journal  of Air  Pollution Control
Association &:4'Jl-iW. May 1U76.
  5. Shigehara, R. T., R. M. Neulicht. and W. S. Smith.
Validating Orsat Analysis Data from Fossil Fuel-Fired
Units.  Stack  Sampling Nr»'.<.  f(l)2\-2t. August,  1970.
METHOD *— DETERMINATION or MOISTVRE CONTEXT
                  IN STACK (JASKS

1. Principle and Applicability

  1.1  Principle. A gas sample is extracted at a con»t?'it
rate Irom the source; moisture is removed from the sam-
ple stream  and determined  either  volumetrically  or
gravimetrically.
  ).2  Applicability.  This melhod  is applicable  for
determining t lie moisture content ol stack gas.
  Two procedures are given.  The first is a reference
method,  for accurate determinations of moisture content
(such as aie needed to calculate emission data). The
second is an approximation  method,  which provides
estimates of percent moisture to aid in setting isokinelic
sampling rales prior to a pollutant emission measure-
ment  run. The approximation melhod described herein
is only a suggested approach;  alternative  means for
approximating the moisture content, e.g.. drying tubes.
wet bulb-dry bulb techniques, condensation technique*.
stoichiometric calculations, previous  experience,  etc.,
are also acceptable.
  The reference method is often conducted  simultane-
ously with a pollutant emission measurement run; when
il is, calculation of |>ercem isokinetic, potliitnni emission
rate, etc., Jor the run shall lie  based upon the results of
the reference method or its equivalent; these calculations
shall not  be bused upon the results ol the approximation
method,  unless the approximation method  is shown, to
the satisfaction of the Admiiu'strator. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, to be capable  of yielding results
within 1  percent H:O of the reference  method.
  XOTE. — The reference method may yield  questionable.
results when applied to saturated gas streams  or  to
streams that contain water droplets   Therefore,  when
these  conditions exist or are suspected, a second  deter-
mination of the moisture content sliall be  made simul-
taneously with the reference method, as follows: Assume
that the  gas stream is saturated. Attach a  temperature
sensor (capable of  measuring  to *1° C (2°  F)) to  the
reference  melhod probe. Measure tne stack gas tempera-
ture at each traverse point (see Section 2.2 1)  during the
reference  method traverse: calculate the average stack-
gas temperature. Xext, determine the moisture percent-
age. either  by: (1) using a psychrometric  chart and
making  appropriate corrections if slaik  pressure  is
diftercnt  from that of the chart, or (2) using  saturation
vapor pressure tables. In eases where the psychrornetrie
chart  or  the  saturation  vapor  pressure tahles  are not
applicable (based on evaluation of the process!, alternate
methods, subject to the approval of the Administrator,
shall be used.
2 Rt/trtnu M

  The procedure dcseribt-d in Method :> for determining
moisture content is acceptable as a relnexre method.
  2.1  Apparatus  A  schematic  of the  sampling train
used in this reference method is shown in Figure 4-1.
All components shall  be maintained  and calibrated
according to the procedure outlined in Method S.
                                       KOCIAL  MOISTH,  VOL 41,  NO.  160—THUKSDAV,  AUGUST 18,  1977
                                                                          IV-187
-------
                                                           RULES AND  REGULATIONS
       FILTER
 (EITHER  IN STACK  .
OR OUT OF STACK)
                                        STACK
                                         WALL
CONDENSER-ICE BATH SYSTEM INCLUDING
                         SILICA GEL TUBE —y
                                                                                                                 AIR-TIGHT
                                                                                                                    PUMP
                                          Figure 4-1.  Moisture sampling  train-reference method.
  2.1.1  Prob«. The probe is constructed  of  stainless
fteel or glass tubing, gulflcicmly  healed  to  prevent
•water condensation, end Is equipped with a  Alter, either
ln-«tack (e.g., a plug of glass wool Inserted into the end
of the probe) or heated out-slack (e.g., as described In
Method 6), to remove paniculate matter.
  When stack conditions permit, other metals or plastic
tubing may be used (or the prohc, subject to the approval
of the Administrator.
  2.1.2  Condenser.  The  eoiidcnser  consists  of four
Impingers connecled In scries with ground glass, leak-
be* flttlnn or any similarly leak-free non-contaminating
fittings. The Aral, third,  and fourth impingers shall be
cl the Qrccnburg-Smith design, modified by replacing
the Up with a 1.3 centimeter (H inch)  ID glass tube
•rtenulng to about 1.3 cm  (H in.) from  the bottom of
the flask. The second impinger shall be of the Greenburg-
BmlUi design with the standard  tip. Modifications (e.g.,
using flexible connections between the impingers, using
materials other than glass, or using flexible vacuum lines
to connect the filler holder to the condenser) may bo
wed, subject to the approval of the Administrator.
  Tim first two Impingers sliall contain knowii volumes
of water, the third shall be empty, and the fourth shall
contain a known  weight of 6- to Ift-mesh indicating type
Billea gel, or equivalent deslccant. If the silica gel has
teen previously used, dry at 175° C (350°  F) for 2 hours.
New silica gel may be used us received. A thermometer,
capable of measuring temperature to within 1° C  (2° F),
shall bo placed at tlio owlet of the fourth impingcr, for
monitoring purposes.
   Alternatively, any system may lw used (subject to
the approval of the Administrator) that roots the sample
faa stream and allows measurement of both the water
that has been condensed and the moisture leaving the
condenser, each to within 1 ml or 1 g. Acceptable means
are  to measure  the condensed water, either  gravi-
metrlcally or volumetrtcally, and to measure the mois-
ture leaving the condenser  by: (1)  monitoring the
temperature and pressure at the exit of the condenser
Hud using Dalton's law ol partial pressures, or (2) passing
                                                   the sample gas 'stream  through a  tared silica  gel (or
                                                   equivalent duslccant)  trap,  with exit gases kept below
                                                   20° C (68° F). and determining the. weight gain.
                                                     If means other than silioa gel ore used to determine the
                                                   amount of moisture, leaving the condenser. It Is recom-
                                                   mended that silica gel (or equivalent) still be used be-
                                                   tween 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 nietered  volume.
                                                     2.1.3  Cooling  System. An Ice  bath  container and
                                                   crushed Ice (or equivalent) are used  to aid in condensing
                                                   moisture.
                                                     2.1.4  Metering System. This system Includes a vac-
                                                   uum gouge,  leak-free  pump,  thermometers capable of
                                                   measuring temperature to within 3° C (6.4° F),  dry gas
                                                   motor capable of measuring  volume to within  t percent,
                                                   and related equipment as shown in Figure 1-1. Other
                                                   metering  systems, capable  of maintaining a constant
                                                   sampling rate and determining sample gas  volume, may
                                                   be used, subject,to the approval of the  Administrator.
                                                     2.1.6  Barometer. Mercury  aneroid, or other barom-
                                                   eter capable ol measuring atmospheric pressure to within
                                                   2.6 mm fig (0.1 in. Hg) may be usi!d. In many cases, the
                                                   barometric reading may be  obtnlned from  a nearby
                                                   national weather service station, in which case  the sta-
                                                   tion value (which is  tho absolute  barometric pressure)
                                                   shall be  requested and an adjustment  for elevation
                                                   differences between the  wi-ather station and the sam-
                                                   pling point shall be applied at a rate of minus 2.5 mm Hg
                                                   (0.1 In. 1J(()  per 30 m (100 ft) elevation increase or vice
                                                   versa for elevai Ion decrease.
                                                     2.1.6  Cjroduated Cylinder and.'or Balance.  Those
                                                   Items are used to measure condensed water and moisture
                                                   caught In the silica gel to within 1 ml or 0.6 g. Graduated
                                                   cylinders  shall have subdivisions no greater than 2 ml.
                                                   Moat laboratory  balances are capable of weighing to the
                                                   nearest 0.4 g or less. These  balances  are suitable for
                                                   use here.
                                                     2.2  Procedure. The following procedure is written for
                                                   a condenser  system (such as the impinger system de-
                            scribed in Section 2.1.2) incorporating volumetric analy-
                            sis to measure the condensed moisture, and silica gel and
                            gravimetric analysis to measure the moisture leaving the
                            condenser.
                              2.2.1  Unless otherwise specified by the Administrator.
                            a minimum  of eight  traverse points  shall be used for
                            circular stacks having diameters less than O.tfl m (24 In.).
                            a minimum of nine points shall be usod (or rectangular
                            stacks  having equivalent diameters  less than 0.-------
                                                         RULES  AND REGULATIONS
(if applicable) from the filler bolder. Plus the Inlet lo lh«
fust impinper (or filter holder) and pull a 380 mm (ISic.) •
1 !g vacuum; a lower vacuum rosy be used, provided that
It  is not ciccfdcd during the Ust. A leakage rate in
excess of 4 percent of the average sampling rate or 0.00057
rr.Vmin  (002 elm), whichever is less. Is unacceptable.
Following the! cat check, reconnect Ibe probe to tlio
samplHig train.
  2.2.4   J>uring the sampling  run, inaint&tn ft sampling
rate within 1C percent of constant rat?, or as specified by
the Administrator. For each run.  record the data re-
quired on the example dau sheet shown In yiflure 4-2.
lie sure  to record the dry gas meAe.r reading at the beflm-
mng and e.nd of e*cb sampling  time increment and when-
  PLANT-
  ! OCATION	

  OPERATOR	

  DATE	

  RUN NO	

  AMBIENT TEMPERATURE-

  •AROM.ET RIC PRESSU RE _

  FBOBE LENGTH m(W	
ever sampling Is baited Tak« other tpproptfota reading
at each  sample point, at  least  one* during each Unit
Increment.
  2.2.5  To begin sampling, position the probe tip at the
first 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 end, if necessary, salt to
maintain » temperature of leas than 20° C (68° F) at the
silica geJ outlet.
  2 2.6  After collecting the sample, disconnect the probe
from the filter bolder (or from the first impinger)&nd con-
duct • leak check (mandatory) as described in Section
S.2.S. Record the leaV rat*. If the leakage rate «cee
-------
                                    RULES  AND  REGULATIONS

FINAL
INITIAL
DIFFERENCE
IMPINGE*
VOLUME.
ml



SILICA GEL
HEIGHT.
«



      Figure 4 3. Analyticot data •  reference method.
  2. .1.1
 V,,i
2.3.2
        Nomenclature.
      H»t" Proportion of wulei  v.ipor. by volume, in
           tlic Ras stream.
      AfV = Molecular  weight of  water.  18.0 s/g-niol«
           (IB.HIb/lb-mole).
      /*„ = Absolute pressure (for this  mrlhrxl, same
           as barometric pressure) at the ilry cos meter,
           mm llg (in. If*).
      P,ij = htnnaard  absolute pressure, 7011 mm  Hg
           CW.92in. UR).
        /J = Ideal gas constant, 0.06236 (mm Kg) Cm')/
           (g-mole) (°K) Tor metric units and 21.8o (in.
           UK) (ft'Vflb-mole) (°R)  lor English  units.
       7\. = Absolute temperature at meter. 6K i°R).
      7',, <= Standard   absolute  temperature.  203°  K
           MM0 R).
       V. ^ Dry gas volume me asiuvd by dry gas meter,
           clem (del).
       V* =» Incremental dry  gas votnme measured by
           dry BUS meter at each traverse point, dcm
           (Off).
      i.u> = Dry gas volume  measured by the dry gas
           meter,  corrected  to standard conditions,
           dscm (dscf).
        nt "Volume of water vapor condensed corrected
           to standard conditions, scm (set).
       ,ifi —Volume of water vnpor  collected in silica
           gel corrected to standard conditions, sera
           (sot).
       Vr=» Final volume ol condenser water, ml.
        Ki«Initlal volume, if any, of condenser water,
           ml.
       W, = Final weight of silica gel or silica gel plus
           liupingcr, g.
       Ifi-Initial weight of silica gel or silica gel plus
           irapimjcr.g.
        y=Dry gas meter calibration factor.
       P. -Density  of water, 0.9SW2 g/nil  tn.iXK?ni
           Ib/ml).
        Volume o( water vnpor condensed.
                                      Kn.iulion  41
whwe:
  Jfi-0.001333 mVuil for metric Wilts
     -0.04707 IP/ml for English unita
  J.8.3 Volume of water vapor collected In silica gel.
wh«r«:
  lfi-0.001838 m>/K for metric units
    -0.04718 ft'/g lor English units
  2.S.4  Sample gas volume.
                                       Kquatlon 4-2
                                                                         >=v-v   -
                                                                                            K.|n.itiuii4 3
                                                      u h'-rr:
                                                        AV*n3MK°Ki'u\m UK (»r metric units
                                                          = 17.64'K.-'in. IlK lor Knejislt unils

                                                        NOTE—If  tho  post-tett  le.il< mte  tSri-tii.n .'•.'>>)  ej-
                                                      cecds  the  allowable mte.  correct  tin*  value of  r* in
                                                      Ki|linli "i~ > :,,, l,..|) + V n (,,.()
                                                        N'rm: — In sHtnrat<-d or moi,imv droplct-ladfn gas
                                                      streams, two calcitlaltons of tht* moisture <-ontci\t ol the
                                                      stack KW shall be made, one using a value based upon
                                                      the saturated conditions (see Section 1.2). and another
                                                      based upon the result.* of tho  impingcr analysis. The
                                                      lower of these two values of B«f shall be considered cor-
                                                      rect.
                                                        2.3.«1   Vorilication of constant sampling rate. For each
                                                      time increment,  determine the  AW  Calculate the
                                                      average. If the value for any time ini-ivment dilTers from
                                                      the average hy more than  1" percent, rcjc. I the results
                                                      and ropeal the run.
  The approximation method described  bel nil.
  3.1.10  Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or  other barom-
eter, as described In Section 2.1 S above.
  3.1.11 Vacuum Gauge.  At  least 760 inm rig  (30 in.
UK) gouge, to be used for the sampling leak check.
  .1.2  Procedure.
  3.2.1   Place eioctly 5  ml distilled water in each im-
pinger. Assemble the apparatus without  the probe as
shown In Figure 4-4. Leak check the train by placing a
vacuum gauge at the inlet to tho  first impinger and
drawing a vacuum of at least 250 nun  Hg (10 In. Hg),
plugging the outlet of the rotameter, and  then turning
otl the pump.  The vacuum shall remain constant for at
east one minute.  Carefully release the vacuum gauge
Ibefire unplugging the rotameterend.
              FfDEHAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO.  160—THURSDAY,  AUGUST  IS, 1977
                                                  IV-190
-------
                       RULES  AND REGULATIONS
HEATED PROBE      SILICA GEL TUBE
         RATE METER,
             VALVE
  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),
m3 (U3)





RATE METER SETTING
rnVmin. (ft-Vmin.)





METER TEMPERATURE,
°C(°F)





   Figure 4-5. Field moisture determination • approximation method.
         RDCRAl KOTjnt, VOL 49, NO. 110—1MOISDAT, AVOVST 19, T9T7
                               IV-191
-------
                                  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
  3.2.2  Connect the probe. Insert It Into the stack, and
gam pie at a constant rate of 21pm (0.071 dm). Continue
sampling until the dry gas met«r registers about 30
liters (1.1 ft') or until visible liquid droplets are carried
over  from  the first Impinger to the second.  Record
temperature, pressure, and  dry  gas meter readings at
required by  Figure 4^5.
  3.2.3  After collecting th» sample, combine the con-
tents of the two Lmpl ngers and measure tbo volume to the
nearest 0.5 ml.
  .1.3  Calculations. The calculation method presented Is
designed to estimate  the moisture in the stack gas;
therefore, other data, which are only  necessary for ac-
curate moisture determinations,  are not collected. The
following equations adequately  estimate the moisture
content, tor the purpose of diHorrniiiing isokinetlc sam-
pling rate settings.
  3.3.1  Nomenclature.
    B..=Approilmate  proportion,  by  volume, of
          water vapor In the gas stream leaving the
          second Impinger.  0.025.
     B.I-Water vapor in the gas stream, proportion by
          volume.
      M,=Molecular  weight of water,  18.0  g/g-mole
          (18.0 Ib/lb-mole)
      P.-Absolute pressure (for this method,  same as
          barometric  pressure) at the dry gas meter.
     F,u-Standard absolute pressure,  700 mm Eg
          (29.92 In. Eg).
       •R=Ideal gas constant, 0.06238 (mm Eg) (m')/
          (g-mole) (°K>  for  metric  unlta and 21.85
          (In.  Eg) (ft'Mb-mole)  (°R)  for   English
          units.
      T.-Absolute temperature at meter, °E (°R)
     r.n-Standard  absolute  temperature,  293°  K
          (528° K)
      Vr"Final volume of Implnger contents, ml.
      Vi—Initial volume of Implnger contents, ml.
      V.—Dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter,
          dom (dcf).
  V»tiM)™Dry gas volume measured by dry gas meter,
          corrected to  standard  conditions, dscm
          Cdscf).
  V.,(.n)-Volunie of water  vapor condensed, corrected
          to standard  conditions, son (scO.
      '.-Density of water, 0.9982 g/ml (0.002201 Ib/ml).
  8.3.2 Volume of water vapor collected.
   3.,1.4  Approilmate moisture content.
                                  Equation 4-5
where:
  KI—0.001333 rn'/ml for metric units
    •0.04707 ft'/ml for English units.
  3.3.3  Oaa volume.
                       V.P.
                                  Equation
 1. Cali I/ration
                                  Equation 4-7
vten:
  Jft-t.3868 "KVmm Hj (or metric unite
    -17.M "R/ln. Hg for English nnlu
  4.1   For tlie reference method, calibrate equipment as
 specified In the followir^ sections of Method 5: Section 5.3
 (metering system); Section 6.5 (temperature gauges);
 and Section  5.7 (barometer). The recommended leak
 check  of the  metering system (Section 5.6 of Method 5)
 also applies to the reference method. For the approxima-
 tion method, use the procedures outlined in Section 5.1.1
 of Method 6  to calibrate the metering system, and the
 procedure of Method 5,  Section  57 to  calibrate  the
 barometer.

 5. BlbHofraplty

  1. Air Pollution Engineering Manual (Second  Edition).
 Danlelson, J. A. (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
 Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication  No. AP-40.
 1H73.
  2. Devorkin, Boward, et al. Air Pollution Source Test-
 Ing Manual. Air PoUutlon Control District, Los Angeles,
 Call/. November, 1963.
  3. Methods for  Determination of Velocity,  Volume,
 Dust and Mist Content of Gases. Western Precipitation
 Division of Joy Manufacturing Co., Los Angeles, Call/.
 Bulletin WP-50.1U68.

 METHODS— DETERMINATION Of PARTICULATR EMISSIONS
             FROK STATIONARY SOURCES

 1. PrindpltandApplicability

  1.1  Principle. Paniculate  matter  is  withdrawn  Iso-
 kinetically from the source  and collected  on a glass
 fiber filter maintained at a temperature In the range of
 120±U> C (248±2S° F) or such other  temperature as
 specified by an applicable subpart of the standards or
 approved  by the Administrator, U.S.  Environmental
 Protection Agency, for a particular application.  The
 paniculate mass,  which  includes any  material  that
 condenses at  or above the nitration temperature. Is
 determined gravtmetrically after removal of uncombined
 water.
  1.2  Applicability. This method  Is applicable for  the
 determination of paniculate emissions from stationary
 sources.

 2. Apparatus

  2.1  Sampling Train. A  schematic of th« sampling
 train used in  this method is shown in Figure 5-1. Com-
 plete  construction details  are given in APTD-0581
 (Citation 2 in Section 7);  commercial  models of this
 train are also available. For changes from APTD-O581
 and for allowable modifications of the  train shown  in
 Figure 5-1, see the following subsections.
  The  operating and maintenance procedures for  the
 sampling train are described in APTD-0576 (Citation 3
 In Section 7).  Since correct usage la Important in obtain-
ing  valid result*, all users should read APTD-0576 and
adopt the operating and maintenance procedures out-
lined la it, unlem otherwise specified herein. The sam-
pling train consists of the following components:
                      UWSTH, VOt, 4J, NO. !«•—THUJSOAY,  AUGUST 1«,  1977
                                                   IV-192
-------
                                                         RULES AND  REGULATIONS
                            TEMPERATURE SENSOR
 ~  PROBE

  TEMPERATURE
      SENSOR
                                                                                    IMPINGER TRAIN OPTIONAL,MAY BE REPLACED
                                                                                             BY AN EQUIVALENT CONDENSER
                                                              HEATED AREA
                    PITOTTUBE

                            PROBE
                   REVERSE-TYPE
                     PITOTTUBE
THERMOMETER

FILTER HOLDER
THERMOMETER

      /
                                      PITOT MANOMETER           JMPINGERS                       ICE BATH
                                                                        v    , ,    ,      BY-PASS VALVE
                                                    ORIFICE
                                                                                                  CHECK
                                                                                                  VALVE
                                                                                                                                        VACUUM
                                                                                                                                           LINE
                                                                                                                  VACUUM
                                                                                                                   GAUGE
                                   THERMOMETERS
                                                                                                       MAIN VALVE
                                                       DRY GAS METER
                                              AIR-TIGHT
                                                  PUMP
                                                      FjgureB 1.  Particulate-sampling train.
  11.1  Probe Nozzle. Stainless sUel (316) or glass with
 •harp, tape-red leading edge. The angle  of taper shall
 be <30° and the taper shall be on the outside to preserve
 a constant internal diameter. The proble nozzle shall be
 «( th« button-hook or elbow design, unless otherwise
 specified by  the  Administrator. If nude of stainless
 steel, the nocxlc shall be constructed from seamless tub^
 log, other materials of construction may In used, subject
 to the approval of the Administrator.
  A range of nojilesizessuitable for Lsokine-Uc sampling
should be available, e.g., 0.32 to 1.27 cm Oi to h in.)—
or larger If higher volume sampling trains are  used—
Inside diameter (ID)  nozzles In increments of 0.16 cm
  Mention ol trade names or specific products does not
constitute endorsement by tbe Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
             plane ol the pilot tube shall be even with or above the
             notzle entry plane (see Method 2, Figure 2-Ab) during
             sampling. The Type S pilot tube assembly shall have a
             known coefficient, determined as outlined b Section 4 of
             Method 2.
              2.1.4  Differential Pressure Gouge. Inclined manom-
             eter or equivalent devn (.two;, as  uscribed in Section
             2.2of Method 2. One manometer s'taU be used or velocity
             head (Ap) readings, and the other, for orifice differentia:
             pressure readings.
              2.1.5  Filter Holder. Borosillcate glass,  with a glass
             frit  filler support and a  sJlieonc rubber gasket. Other
             materials  of construction  (e.g., "stainless  steel, Teflon,
             Viton) may be used, subject  to approval of the Ad-
             ministrator. The holder design shall provide a positive
             seal  against leakage iron) the outride or around the filler.
             The bolder fhall be attached immediately at the outlet
             ol the probe (or cyclone, II used).
              2.1.6  Filler Heating Bystom.  Any  heating system
             capable of maintaining a  temperature around the filter
             bolder during sampling o. 120±H° C  (248±2.'.° F), or
             such otber temperature as specified b/ an applicable
             subpart ol tho standards  or approved by  the Adminis-
             trator  for a particular application. Alternatively,  tho
             tester may opt to operate the equipment at atcmperaluro
             tower lhan tlial speclucd. A tomptralure gauge capable
             of measuring temperature to within 3" C  (5.4° F) shall
             be installed so that the temperature  around the filter
             holder can be regulated and monitored during sampling.
             Healing systems other e
                 contacted as to tho sample recovery and analysis ol the
                 tmpinger contents.
                  2.1.8 Mt'lerinR  Syslom.  Vacuum  (fft'iRe,  toak-frw*
                 pump. thiTmomeKTS capable ol measuring temporal tiro
                 to within 3° C (.1.4° F), dry gus IUCUT capable ol nmasiirinK
                 volume to willlin 2 pcrcenl. ami ipltilcil ctiuipnic'iu, us
                 shown in Figure 6-1. Other meti'rini; sysinns capable ol
                 maintaining  sampling rales  wiiliiu 10 PITCimblc>
                 chocks 01 isokinrlic rati-5.
                  8amplin«uainsulJliuncmMerlnj!syst«msdesignfd for
                 higher How  rates than lhal described in APTD-0681 or
                 APTU-a',70 may be used provided that the specifica-
                 tions 01 Ihis method are mel.
                  2.1.9 Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other barometer
                 capable of measuring atmospheric pressure lo within
                 2.5 mm 11 f (0.1 In. llg). In many ease;, thr baroraetho
                 reading may be obtained from a nearby national weather
                 service station, in which case tbe station value (which it
FEDERAL IEG15TCX,' VOL  «T, NO. htO— THUflOAY,

                                IV-193
                                                                                                     18,'Tt77
-------
                                                             RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
 i hi1 absolute I womctric pressure) shall b« requested and
 •in adjustment  for elevation  differences  between tbe
 weather station Rnd sampling point shall b« applied at a
 i;Ui! nt minus J,5 mm Hg (0.1  In.  Kg) per 30 m (100 ft)
 • -ii'ViiticMi increase or vice versa lor elevation decrease.
   21.10  lifts   Density   Determination  Equipment.
 Temperature sensor and pressure Range, as  described
 in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of Method 2, and  Raj analyzer,
 if necessary, as described In Mrlhod 3. The temperature
 wnsor shall,  preferably, be permanently attached to
 1 ho pilot tube i>f sampling piohc in a fl«d configuration,
 such that tlmipof the sensor extends beyond the leading
 edge uf the probe sheath  and does not touch any metal.
 Alleniftiiveiy,  the sensor may be attached Just  prior
 (o nar in the, lit'ld. Noti1, ItDwcver, that if the temperature
 • eiis>ir is aitai-licd in llu> lirli), the sensor must be placed
 in mi inU'1-fere.nee.-free arrangement  with respect to the
 Typo H Pilot lube op-niiics (see Method 2, tigure 2-7).
 As a second alternative. i( a diifcrcm-e of not more than
 I iM'rcent in the average  velocity  measurement Is Vo be
 introduced, the temperature gauge need not be attached
 to lUe  probe or  pilot lube. (This alternative  is subject
 to the approval of the Administrator.)
  22 Sample  Recovery.  Tim  following items  are
 needed.
  2 2.1  Probe-I.iner and Frofoe.-Xotr.le Brush™. Nylon
 bristle brushes with stainless steel wire handles. The
 probe brush shall bave eitenslons  (at least as long as
 the probe)  of stainless steel, Nylon,  Tellon, or similarly
 inert material. The brashes shall n« properly  sized and
 shaped to brush out the probe  liner and nozzle.
  222  Wash  Dottles—Two.  Glass wash bottles are
 recommended; polyethylene wash bottles  may be used
 at the option of the tester.  It Is recommended that acetone
 not be stored in polyethylene  bottles for longer than a
 month.
  223  Glass  Sample  Storage Containers. Chemically
 resistant, borosilicate glass bottles, for acetone washes,
 .WO ml or 1000ml  Screw cap liners shall eilher be rubber-
 hacked Teflon or shall be constructed so as to be leak-free
 and  resistant to chemical attack  by acetone.  (Narrow
 month glass bottles have  been  found to be less prone to
 leakage ) Alternatively,  polyethylene bottles may  be
 used.
  22 -I  Potri Dishes.  For niter samples, glairc |M, ;.-i>t in  the
 Sta.'k gas.
   Place crushed ice around the impiiigers.
   4.1.4  Leak-Cheek Procedures.
   4.1.4.1  Pretest  Leak-Check. A pretest huk-.-lie.-k is
 recommended, hut  not required.  If the tester opt." to
 conduct the pretest leak-check, the following procedure
 fholl be used.
   After the sampling train has been assembled, turn on
 and set the filter and prohc heating systems nt the desired
 operating temperatures. Allow time for the temperatures
 to stabilize. If a Viton A O-ringor other leak-free connec-
 tion is used in iissenihlinK the  probe nozzle to the probe
 liner, leak-.-heck the train ot the sampling site by plug-
 ging tbe notile  mid pulling a 380 mm  llg (15  in. Hg)
 vacuum.
   NOTE.—A lower vacuum may be used, provided that
 it is not exceeded during the test.
   ff an asbestos string is used, do not connect the probe
 to the train during th« le.ik-check. Instead, leak-check
 the train by lirst plugging the inlet to the lilter holder
 (cyclone, if appl'u ;i>))cl and pulling a :$0 mm Hg tl."> in.
 Hg) vacuum (see  Note immediately above). Then con-
 nect the probe to the train  and lenk-cherk at about 2.'>
 mm Hg (1 in. Hg) vacuum; iiltcrimtively. the probe may
 bo leak-checked with the rest  of the sampling train, in
 one step, at :WO mm  Hg (I.1; in.  Hg) vacuum. Leakage
 rfttcs in excess of 4 pvn-i'iu of the average sampling rtvte
 or 0.00057  mVniin  \.o.tri cfni),  whit-hever is  less,  are
 unacceptable.
   The following Icak-i-heck instructions for the sampling
 twin described in AI'TD-Otfttand Al'TU-0.'*! may b«
 helpful.  Start the pump with bypass valve fully open
 and course  adjust valve compleu-ly  closed. Partitilly
 open the coarse adjust valve  mid slowly close the bypass
 valve until the desired vacuum is reached. Do not reverse
 dire.-tion of bypass valve; this will cause, water  to back
 up into the lilt»-r  holder. If Ihe desired v.u-uuin is  ex-
 ceeded, either l.-ak-clieek at  this higher vacuum or cl-.d
 the leak check as shown below and start over.
   When the leak-check is completed, Mist slowly remove
 the plug from tho inlet  to the prol>c.  lihcr hulilw, or
 cyclone  (if  applicable)  and immediately mm  off  the
 vaccum pump. This prevents the water in theimpingcrs
 from  being  forced hnekward into the lilter holner and
 silica gel from being  entrained backward into the third
 inipinger.
  4.1.4.2 Leak-Checks During Sample Hun. If, during
 tbe sampling run, a component (e.g.,  lilter assembly
 or Impinger) change becomes necessary,  a  leak-chevk
 shall  be conducted immediately before the change Is
 made. The  leak-check shall be done according to the
 procedure outlined in Section 4.1.4.1 above, eicept that
 H shall be done at a vacuum equal to or greater than the
 maximum  vulue recorded up to that point in the test.
 If the leakage rate is found to be no greater than 0.00057
 m'/min (0.02 rfm) or 4 percent of the average sampling
 rate (whichever is less), the result s ore acceptable, and
 no correction will need to be applied to the total volume
 of dry KOS  metered;  if, however, a higher leakage rate
 is obtained, the tester shall eilher  record the  leakage
 rate and plan to correct the sample volume as shown in
 Section U.3 of this method, or shall void the sampling
 run.
  Immediately  after  component changes, leak-checks
 are optional: if such lenk-checks are done, the. procedure
 outlined in Section 4.1.4.1 above shall he used.
  4.1.4.3  Post-test Leak-Check. A leak-check is manda-
 tory at the conclusion of each sampling  am. Tho leak-
 check shall be done in accordance with the procedures
 outlined in Section 4.1.4.1, cicupt that it shall be con-
 ducted at a vucuum  e^mal to or greater thun the ma»i-
 mum value, reached during Ihe sampling run.  If the
 leakage rate is found to l» no greater than 0.00057 mVmin
 (0.02 cfm)  or 4 percent of the average  sampling rate
 (whichever IB less), the results are acceptable, and  no
 correction need be applied to the total volume of dry gas
 metentd. If, however, a higher  leakage rat* is obtained,
 the tester shall either record the leakage rate and  correct
 the sample volume as shown in Section 6.3 of this method,
 or shall void tho sampling run.
  4.1.5 Paniculate  Train  Operation.   During the
sampling run, maintain an isokluelic sampling rate
 (witlin 10  percent of true isokinetic unless  otherwise
speciDed by  tbe Administrator) and  a temperature
around (he filter of 120±14° C (248±25° F), or such oiher
temperature as specified by an applicable subpart of tbe
standards or approved by the Administrator.
  For each run, record the data required on a data sheet
such as tbe one sbown in Figure 6-2. Be sure to record tb»
initial dry gas metei reading. Record tbe dry gat ro«wor
readings at the beginning and end of eaeb sampling Um*
increment, wben changes in flow rates an made, betor*
and after each leak check, and wbeu sampling is oalMdj
                                        FEDERAL REGISTEt, VOL  42. NO.  160—THURSDAY, AUOUST If,  1977
                                                                           IV-194
-------
                                                            RULES  AND REGULATIONS
 Take other readings reoulred by Figure 5-2 at least one*
 >t e»cb sample point during each tune increment and
 additional readings when significant changes (20 percent
 variation In velocity bead  readings) necessitate addi-
 tional adjustments in Dow rote.  Level and tero  the
 manometer Because the manometer level and ttn may
 drift due to vibrations and temperature changes, make
 periodic checks during the traverse.
  Clean the portholM prior to th« test ran to mlnlmlM
 the chance  of sampling deposited material. To I**In
 sampling, remove Che nozzle cap, verily that U» filler
 and probe heating systems are up to temperature, and
 that Uie pilot tube and probe are properly positioned.
 Position trio noizle at the first traverse point with the tip
 pointing directly Into the gas stream. Immediately start
 the pump and adjust the flow to isokinetic conditions.
 Nomographs are available, which aid in the rapid adjust-
ment of U» totinttle sampling rate without eicesstvt
computations. These nomographs are  designed for uso
when the Type B pilot tube coefficient UO.86ibO.02. and
the stack gas equivalent density (dry molecular weight)
Is equal to 29±4.  APTD-0676 details the procedure (or
using the nomographs.  II C, and  Mi are outside the
above slated ranges do not use the nomographs  unless
appropriate steps  (soe Citation 7 in Section 7) arc takca
to compensate lor the deviations.
   PLANT
   LOCATION	

   OPERATOR,	

   DATE	

   RUN NO	

   SAMPLE BOX NO..

   METER BOX NO. _

   METER AH@	

   CFACTOR	
                                            AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.

                                            BAROMETRIC PRESSURE.

                                            ASSUMED MOISTURE,%_

                                            PROBE LENGTH, m (ft}	
   PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT, Cp.
                                                   SCHEMATIC OF STACK CROSS SECTION
                                            •NOZZLE IDENTIFICATION NO	

                                            AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, cm (in.).

                                            PROBE HEATER SETTING	

                                            LEAK RATE>3/min.(cfm)	

                                            PROBE LINER MATERIAL	
                                            STATIC PRESSURE, mm Hj (in. Hj)_

                                            FILTER NO	
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER












TOTAL
SAMPLING
TIME
(01. rain.













AVERAGE
VACUUM
mm Hg
Jin. Hg)














STACK
TEMPERATURE
|TSI
°C (°F|














VELOCITY
HEAD
(APS).
kinotic.  Calculate
percent isokinrtic (see Calculations, Section C) to deter-
mine whether  the rim was valid or anotHor  test  nm
flbrwld be made  II there was dinii uliy in maintaining
isokinotio rules due- to  source conditions, consult  with
the Administrator fur |>ussihle. variance  on tlti'  isokinetic
tales.
  4.2  Sample  Recovery.  Proper  cleanup  procedure
lupins as  soon as  llir probe Is removed from  the stack at
Hie end of the sampling period. Allow Tlio prol>e to cool.
  When tho probe etui  be  safely Htmdlcd, wiiie ofl oil
external  paniculate, matter near Hie tip of the probe
noztlc ana place a cup ore/ K to prevent  loslnpor gaining
paniculate matter. L)o not cap ofl the probe tip lightly
while the sampling train is cowling down as this would
create a vacuum In the filter holder, thus drawing water
from the Imptngen into the niter holder.
  Before  moving Ihe sample train to the cleanup sllf.
remove the probe from the sample train, wipe off (lie
silicone grease, and cap the open outlet of tho probe. Re
careful not lo lose any condensato that nilcHt t>e present.
Wipe off the silicono grease from tho filler inlet where tho
probe was fastened and cap it. Remove the umbilical
cord from the last impinger and cap the impinger. If a
flexible lino is used between tho first impinger or  cxm-
donser and tho filter holder, disconnect Ihe, line at tho
tiller holder  and let  any condensed  water or liquid
drain into tho impiiiRers or e-omienser. After wiping off
the silicons grease^ cap of! the filter holder outlet  and
impinger  inlet.  EitHer  ground-glass stoppers,  plastic
carts, or serum caps may he used to close these oixMiincs.
  Transfer the probe and filter-impincor ns.-euilily to tHe
cleanup aren. Tins area should be clean and protect.-.!
from the wind so that tHe eliamvs of ccti;i:tinmiitiii£ ur
losinp tHe sample will he. minimized.
  Save a portion of tlie acetone used f«T cleanup a* n
Wank. Take WO ml of this luvione directl> (rum tin w.i-1'.
Ixillle being used and pltice il in u pins* smnpie ct>nlni;i. r
labeled "acetone Maiik."
  Inspect iho iruiii  nnor 10 ntul iliirin); di>-ric.l'!y in .1
noto any  abuormtu comliilun-  Tux tliv  simples :t*
follows
  Container A'o.  /. Carefully remove  the Tiller from ih.>
filler bolder and place  It in Us Identified petri disli  co:-.-
tninrr. Vse a pair  of tweezers and.'or clean disposnH^
surgical stoves to handle Ihe tiller. If it is m-o to
the filler  holder gasket, by using a dry nylon bristle
brush and/or a sharp-edged blado. Seal tho container.
  Conlainrr No. t. Taking care to see that  dust on the
outside of Ihe probe or oilier erterlor surfaces does Dot
get Into the sample, quantitatively recover paniculate
matter or  any condonswte from the probe nozzle, probe
                                                     «OIS«R,  VOL. 42,  NO. 1*0—THURSDAY, AUGUST  18,  1977


                                                                          IV-195
-------
fitting. probe liiB-r. mid frnni lull of the filter hoMw by
vitsliutg these <»nipoiieiiU»>lli acetone and placing the
v iiah in a (tars contaiatr. Distilled vuttw may b* nued
instead o( acetone when approved by the Administrator
:.nd shall b<> used when specified by Ib* Administrator;
m these oases. savawiitcr blank and follow the Admin-
istrator's dim'tions on anal)sis. Perform  Uie acetone
rinses a? follows:
  I'nrrfullv t' iiiuve ibr j»ruU- lu'/Kle find eli*an the Inside
                 with ;icr
                 .J-lou  '•
     ii- ii'-e •'liiiw: no
     n 1",n:il rinse i.l llv i'
mt;ite wiih ai'i'tcrne.
  |ti:t-!i  r it r:n-e :!'.e i! ..nle |ia:t< n( the Swacelnk
''t;i|-J wi''l n.elulie i'l :t -i::.i:.il- U.IJ' Until I1O Visible

  Kii.-e llie )irol*e li:vr «i'h n«-etrtti.< by  tilling and
N.ultr;: I he jiiolv while squill Ultf .ic.-lrtnc iiUO IIS upper
t-iil -n lh;n ittl iiMile smfilecs will lie wetted wilh m-e-
i  •;;,..  1,, i the U4*ei<'i!c Jiain  from  ike lower end  Into tlle
-;iin|'te eoni..iiiiT. A funnel  -plas.s or pelyethylcne) may
l-e i::ii>h.
Hold  ihc probe  in  au iuc.lincd position, squirt  tkcioiw
into llie upper cud as the prolie  Inusli is lielng pushed
with a twisting Aeilon through the nroi*": hold a smnple
'OMtfiiiier underneath the lower  end of ihc pruUe, and
• :Meh  any  acetone and  imniciilnte  mntier whli-h  Is
brushed from the probe. Hun the liiusli  through the
|,rohe three time? or mnrc  until no vle as dcscilbcd alx>ve.
  It is recommended thai two people be used to clean
tlif probe to minimize sample losses. Between sampling
runs keep brt^hcs clean and protected fromconlamina-
tion
  After enfuring that all Joints have heen  wiped clean
of silicone grease, clean the inside of the front half of the
lilter holder by rubhing the surfaces with a nylon bristle
brush and  rinsing with acetoi».  Rinse each  surface
three times or more i( needed  to remove visible  panicu-
late. Make  a llnal rinse of tlie briu.li and tiller holder.
farelully rinse out the glass cyclone, also ill applicable).
After  all acetone washings and paniculate matter have
been collected in the sample  container, tighten the lid
on the sample container to that acetone. wUl not  leak
out when it Is  shipped  to the  laboratory. Mark the
height ol the Itiiid level  to determine whether or not
leakage occurred during transport. Label the container
to clearly Identify its contents.
  Containrr .Vo. J. Note the color of the indicating silica
gel H> determine If it ha? been itmipleiely spent andmake
a notation of its condition. Transfer the silica gel from
the fourth  implnger to Its original container and seal.
A funnel may make It easier to pour the sili. acel without
spilling. A  nibber pollreniait  n>»y be used as an aid in
removing the silica gel from the impinger. It Is nut
necessary to remove the small amount ol dust particles
that may adhere to the Impinger wall and are difficult
to remove, fiinc* the (rain in weight is to be used for
moisture calculations, do not use any water or other
liquids to transfer the silica gel. If a balance is available
In the l\eld, follow the procedure for container'No. 3
inflection 4 3.
  liHflngtt  Hater. Treat the Implugers as follows; Make
a notation of any color or (Urn in the liquid catch. Measure
the liquid which is In the lirst three impingers to within
**l nil by using a graduated cylinder or by weighing it
to within *0.5g by using a balance 'if one is available).
Record the volume or Wright of liquid present. This
information Is reqiiired to calculate the moisture  content
of the effluent gas.
  Discard the liquid after measuring and recording the
volume or weight, ujilesu analysis of the impinger catch
11 required  (see Note, Section  2.1.;;.
  If a different  type of condenser ia used, measure the
amount of  moisture condensed either volumetrically or
gravimetrically.
  Whenever possible, containers  should be shipped In
nuch a way that they remain upright at all times.
  4.3  Analysis. Record the  data required on  a sheet
such as the one shown in Figure 6-3. Handle each sample
i-onlalner as follows!
  Container No. I.  Leave tile contents In the shipping
container or tramfer the lilter and any loose paniculate
from the sample container to a tared glass weighing dish.
Desiccate for 24 hours in a desiccator containing anhy-
drous calcium sitlfate. Weigh  to a constant weight and
t. port the results to the nearest 0.1 mg. For purposes of
this Section, 4.3, the term "constant weight" means a
difference of no more than O.i mg or 1 percent of total
weight less tare weight, whichever It greater, between
two consecutive weighing!, with  no Xss than « hours of
desiccation time between weighings.
    RULES  AND  REGULATIONS


Plant	
Date.
Run No..
Filter No.
                                                      Amount liquid  lost during transport

                                                       Acetone blank volume, ml	

                                                       Acetone wash volume, ml	
                                                       Acetone blank concentration, mg/mg (equation 5-4).

                                                       Acetone wash blank, mg (equation 5-5}	
CONTAINER
NUMBER
1
2
TOTAL
WEIGHT OF PARTICULATE COLLECTED,
mg
FINAL WEIGHT


^xCd
TARE WEIGHT


^x^
Less acetone blank
Weight of parti cu late matter
WEIGHT GAIN






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




SILICA GEL
WEIGHT,
9



g» | ml
                                                             * CONVERT WEIGHT OF WATER TO VOLUME BY DIVIDING TOTAL WEIGHT
                                                               INCREASE BY DENSITY OF WATER (1g/ml);

                                                                                                       INCREASE,.,  ;VOLUMEWATtR)r,,
                                                                                                            1 g/ml


                                                                                         Figure 5-3.  Analytical dafa.
                                       UDEIAL  UOtSTH.  VOL,  42. NO. 160—THUtSOAV, AUGUST  II,
                                                                     IV-196
                                                      1977
-------
                                                           RULES AND  REGULATIONS
   Alternatively, the sample may be oven dried at 105° C
 (220° F) for 2 to 3 hours, cooled in the desiccator, and
 weighed to 8 constant weight, unless otherwise specified
 by the Administrator. The tester m&y also opt to oven
 dry the sample at 105 °C (220° F)  for2to3bours,weigh
 the sample, and use this weight as a anal weight.
   Container AV>. t. Not* the level ofliquid in the container
 »nd confirm on the analysis sheet whether or not leakage
 occurred during transport. II a noticeable amount of
 leakage has occurred,  either void the sample or  use
 methods, subject to the approval of the Administrator,
 to  correct the final results. Measure the  liquid in this
 container either volumelricaHy to  ±1  ml or gravi-
 metrically to ±0.5 g. Transfer the contents to a tared
 250-ml beaker and evaporate  to  drynoss  at ambient
 tcmtxirature and pressure. Desiccate  for  24 hour? and
 weigh to a constant  weight. Report the  results to tho

  Container No. J. Weigh the spent  silica gel (or silica gel
 plus impinges) to the nearest 0.5 f using fl balance. This
 step may be conducted in the field.
    Acetone  Blank" Container. Measure acetone  in this
 container either   volumelricaHy  or gravimelrically.
 Transfer the acetone to a tared 250-ml beaker and evap-
 orate  to dryness at ambient temperature and pressure.
 Desiccate for 24 hours and weigh to a conlsant weight.
 Report the  results to  the nearest 0.1 mg.
  NOTE.—At the option  of the tester, the contents o(
 Container No. 2 as well as the acetone blank container
 may be evaporated at temperatures higher than ambi-
 ent. If evaporation  is done at an elevated temperature,
 the temperature must be below the boiling point of the
 solvent; also, to prevent  "bumping," the evajioration
 process must bo ciosely supervised, and the contents of
 the beaker must be swirled occasionally to maintain  an
even temperature. Use extreme care, as acetone is highly
 flammable and has a  low Bash poiut.

 6. CWItro/ton
  Maintain a laboratory log of all calibrations.
  5.1  Probe Nozzle.  Probe nozzles shall  be calibrated
before their initial use in the field.  Using a micrometer,
measure the Inside  diameter of the  nozzle to the nearest
0.025 mm (0.001 in.). Make three separate measurements
using different diameters each time, and obtain the aver-
age of the measure menu. The difference between the high
and low numbers shall not axceed 0.1 mm (0.004 in.).
When nettles become nicked, dec ted, or corroded, they
shall be reshaped,  sharpened, and recalibrated be/ore
use.  Each nozzle shall be permanently  and  uniquely
Identified.
  ,5.2  Pitot Tube. The Type S pilot tube assembly shall
be ealibrnted according to the procedure outlined in
Section  4 ol Method 2.
  5.3  Metering System. Before it? initial use in the field,
the metering system shall  be calibrated according to the
procedure outlined in APTD-tti76. Instead of physically
adjusting the dry cas meter dial readings to correspond
to the wet test nifter readings, calibration (actors may be
used t o matbcmati rally correct the gas meter d ial readings
to the. proper values. Before calibrating the metering sys-
tem, it  is suggested that a leak-check be  conducted.
For metering systems having diaphragm pumps, the
normal  leak-check  procedure will  not detect leakages
within the pump.  For these, cases the. following leRk-
check procedure is suggested: make a 10-mlnute calibra-
tion run at O.OOft',7 m '/min (0.02 cfm); at the end of tho
run, take the difference ot the measured wet test meter
and dry gas m&ter volumes; divide the difTejence by 10,
to get the leak rate.  The leak  rate should  not exceed
0.00057 m '/mill (0.02 elm).
  Alter  each field use. the calibration of the metering
system shall be cheeked hy performing three calibration
runs at  a single, intermedirtte orifice  setting (based  on
the previous  field test),  with  the  vacuum set at the
maximum value reached during the test  series. To
adjust the vacuum, insert a valve between the- wet test
rnetnr and the inlet ot the metering system. Calculate
the average value of the calibration factor. II tho calibra-
tion has changed by  more than 5 percent, recalibrate
the meter over the  full range of orifice settings, as out-
lined, in  Al'TD-OiT6.
  Alternative  procedures,  e.g., using  (he  orifice meter
coclucienls. may be used, subject to the approval of th«
Adnu'nistrnlor.
                                                                                                         NOTE.—If the cjry gas met«r coefficient values obtained
                                                                                                        before and after a test series differ by more than 5 percent.
                                                                                                        the test scries shall either be voided, or calculations for
                                                                                                        the test series shall be performed using whichever meter
                                                                                                        coefficient value (I.e.,  before or alter) gives tho lower
                                                                                                        value of total sample volume.
                                                                                                         6.4  Probe  Heater Calibration.  The  probe  heating
                                                                                                        system shall  be calibrated before Its initial  use in the
                                                                                                        field according to the procMuicouUincd in Al>TD-Qr>76.
                                                                                                        Probes cxmstrucled according to APTD-05S1 need tint
                                                                                                        be calibrated 11 the calibration curves In APTD-0576
                                                                                                        are used.
                                                                                                         5.5  Temperature Gauges.  Use  the   procedure In
                                                                                                        Section 4.3 ot  Method 2 to calibrate In-slack temperature
                                                                                                        gauges. Dial thermometers, such as are used for the dry
                                                                                                        gas meter  and condenser outlet,  shall  bo  calibrated
                                                                                                        against racrcury-in-glass thermometers.
                                                                                                         5.6  Leak Check of Metering System Shown In Figure.
                                                                                                        5-1. That portion of the sampling train from the pump
                                                                                                        to the orifice meter should be leak checked prior to Initial
                                                                                                        use and after each shipment. Leakage alter the pump will
                                                                                                        result in less volume  beJng recorded than is  actually
                                                                                                        sampled. The- following procedure  Is  suggested  (see
                                                                                                        Figure 5-4): Close  the  main vatvo on tho  metej  box.
                                                                                                        Insert a one-hole mbber stopper with  rubber tublnft
                                                                                                        attached into tho orifice exhs>ut pipe. Disconnect and
                                                                                                        vent the low side o( the orifice manometer. Close oft the
                                                                                                        low side orifice tap.  Pressurize the system to 13 to 18 cm
                                                                                                        (6 to 7 in.) water column by blowing Into  the rubber
                                                                                                        tubing. Pinch off the tubing and observe the manometer
                                                                                                        lor one. minute. A  loss  ol pressure on the manometer
                                                                                                        indicates a leak In tho meter boi; leaks, II present, must
                                                                                                        be corrected.
                                                                                                         5.7  Barometer. Calibrate, against a mercury barom-
                                                                                                       eter.

                                                                                                       6. Calculations

                                                                                                         Carry  out calculations, retaining at least  one extra
                                                                                                       decimal figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round
                                                                                                       off figures after the final calculation. Other forms of the
                                                                                                       equations may be used as long as they give equivalent
                                                                                                       results.                                      "*
                      RUBBER
                      TUBING
                                       RUBBER
                                      STOPPER
     ORIFICE
                                                                                    BY-PASS VALVE
                                                                                                               VACUUM
                                                                                                                GAUGE
   BLOW INTO TUBING
   UNTIL MANOMETER
 READS 5 TO 7 INCHES
     WATER COLUMN
                                  ORIFICE
                               MANOMETER
                                                                AIR-TIGHT
                                                                  PUMP
                                                       Figure 5-4.   Leak check  of meter box.
 & 1  Nomenclature
 X.    —Cross-sectional area of noetic, m' (ft').
 B-   —Water vapor in the gas stream,  proportion
         by volume.
 Cm    — Acetone blank residue concentrations, mg/g.
.c,     —Concentration of paniculate matter in stack
         gat, dry basis, corrected to standard condi-
         tions, g/dscm (g/dscf).
 7     — Percent of isoklnclic sampling.
 L,    = Maximum acceptable leakage rate for either ft
           Ketest leak chock or for a leak check follow-
           j  a  component change; equal to 0.00057
         m'/mln (0.02 cfm) or 4 percent ot the average
         sampling rate, whichever is less.
 Li     -Individual leakage rale observed  during the
         leak check  conducted prior to the "(""
         component  change  (1-1,   2,  3 .... n),
         m'/mln (cfm).
 L,    -Leakage rate observed  during the  post-teat
         leak check, m'/mio (cfm).
 m.    —Total amount of paniculate matter collected,
         tnjr.
 U,    -Molecular weight  of water,  18.0  g/g-mole
         (IS.Olb/lb-mole).
 m,    -Mass of residue of acetone after evaporation,
         mg.
 Pttr   —Barometric  pressure at tb« •ampUnt sjta,
         mm Hg (In. fig).
 P.     -Absolutestack gas pressure, mm Hg (In. Hg).
 P.u   —Standard absolute  pressure, ?M mm  fie
         C28.92 in. Hg).
                                                     K    -Ideal gas constant, 0.062.16 mm Hg
                                                             mole (21.55 in. Hg-flVR-lb-mole).
                                                     T.   -Absolute average dry gas meter temperature
                                                             (sue Figure 5-2), °K (°R).
                                                     T,    -Absolute average stack gas temperature (see
                                                             Figure 5-2), °K (°R).
                                                     T,,4   -Standard  absolute  temperature,  293°  K
                                                             (528° R).
                                                     V,    -Volume of acetone blank, ml.
                                                     Vt „   —Volume of acetone used in wash, ml.
                                                        Vi, = Total volume ol liquid collected In implngers
                                                             and silica gel (see Figure 5-3), ml.
                                                        Vm" Volume of gas sample as measured by dry gas
                                                             meter, 
-------
                                 RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
  mi-ft .IBMl'KVrara Hg tor metric unit*
    »17.64°B/Ln. Ilg for English units

  NOTB.—Equation 6-1 can be used as written unlen
tbe leakage rat* observed during any of tbe mandatory
leak checks (I.e., the post-test leak check car leak checks
conducted prior to component changes) eiceeds i.. If
A, or Li exceeds L., Equation 6-1 must be  modified as
follows;
  fa)  Can I. No component  changes marie  during
sampling nin. In this case, replace V'» in Equation J-l
witb the expression;
                                                     Nor*.—In saturated or  waUr  droplet-laden  DM
                                                    (Ueama, two calculations ol the moisture content ol (be
                                                    stack fas shall be made, one from the Impingw analyst*
                                                    (Equation 5-3), and a second from the assumption of
                                                    saturated conditions. The lower of the  two value* of
                                                    B*. shall be considered correct. The procedure far deter-
                                                    mining the moisture content baaed upon assumption of
                                                    saturated conditions la given in the Note of Section 1.2
                                                    of Method 4. For tbe purposes of this method, the average
                                                    (tack gas temperature from Figure 5-2 may be used to
                                                    make this determination, provided that the accuracy of
                                                    the in-stack temperature sensor a ± 1" C i2° F).
                                                     60  Acetone  Blank Concentration.
  fb) Case II. One  or more component changes made
during the sampling nm.  In  this case, replace V, in
Equation VI by the espression:
  V.
             	'V>  i T  _ T  \« _ f r _ r  \«
             ^^ :/!  \ *•**   "• /"»  \ "P   *^*}**t
                1-2

and substitute only for those leakage rates (L, or  //,)
which exceed L..
                                                                                          Equation 5-4
                                                      6.7  Acetone Wash Blank.

                                                                     IF  — n  v
                                                                     If m — ^ a ' air Pa
                                                                                          Equation 5-5
                                                      6.8  Total Paniculate Weight. Determine the total
                                                    paniculate catch from the stun of the weights obtained
                                                    from containers 1 and 2 less the acetone blank (see Figure
                                                    6-3). NOTE—Refer to Section 4.1.6 to assist In calculation
                                                    of results Involving two or more filter assemblies or two
                                                    or more sampling trains.
                                                      6.9  Paniculate Concentration.
  6.4  Volume of water vapor.
                                      Equation 5-2
•here:
  A")=0.001333 m*/ml for metric units
    -0.04707 (t'/ml lor English UJuts.
  6.5  Moisture Content.

                         —"A'"0
                           ~
6.10
From
,cf
g'lt'
in'
g/ft'
i}ll<>

                                                      1.1 Principle. A  gas sample Is  extracted  from  the
                                                     sampling point In  tbe stack.  Tbe sulfuric acid mist
                                                     ^including sulfur  trioside) and tbe sulfur dioxide are
                                                     separated. The sulfur dioxide fraction is measured by
                                                     tbe barium-tborin titratloD. method.
                                                      1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable for tbe
                                                     determination of sulfur dioxide emissions from stationary
                                                     sources. The minimum detectable limit of tbe method
                                                     has been determined to be 3.4 milligrams (mg) of  SOi'm'
                                                     |2.12X10~: Ib/fi'). Although no upper limit has been
                                                     established,  testa have shown that concentrations as
                                                     high as  80,000 ms.'m' of SOi can be collected efficiently
                                                     in two  midget impingcrs, each containing 1$  milliliters
                                                     of 3 percent hydrogen peroiide, at a rate of 1.0 1pm for
                                                     20 minutes. Based on theoretical calculations, the upper
                                                     concentration limit  in a 20-liter sample is about 93,300
                                                     mR.'ro1.
                                                       Possible Intertetents are free ammonia, water-soluble
                                                     cations, and fluorides. The cations and fluorides are
                                                     removed by glass wool fillers and an isopropanol bubbler,
                                                     and hence do not  affect the SOi analysis. When samples
                                                     are being taken from a eas stream with high concentra-
                                                     tions of very fine metallic tonics  (such as in Inlets to
                                                     control  devices), a high-efficiency glass fiber hlter must
                                                     be used in place of the gloss wool plug (I.e., the one In
                                                     the probe) to remove the cation inlerterents.
                                                      Free anxmonia interferes by reacting with SO) to form
                                                     partlculate sulfite and  by reacting with the  indicator.
                                                     If free ammonia is present (this can be determined by
                                                     knowledge of tbe process and noticing white partlculau
                                                     matter  in the probe and isopropanol bubbler), alterna-
                                                     tive methods, subject to the approval of tbe Administra-
                                                     tor,  U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  an
                                                     required.

                                                     2. /tpporoltu
              FEDEIAL  REGISTER,  VOL  42, NO.  160—THURSDAY, AUGUST  It, 1977

                                              IV-198
-------
                                                                RULES AND  REGULATIONS
        PROBE (END PACKED'
         WITH QUARTZ Ofl
            PYREX WOOL)
                                              STACK WALL
                                                                                                  MIDGET IMPINGERS
                                                                                                                             THERMOMETER
                                                       GLASS WOOL
                        MIDGET BUBBLER
                                                                ICE BATH


                                                         THERMOMETER
                                                                                                       RATE METER      NEEDLE VALVE
                                                  Figure 6-1.   S02 sampling  train.
                                                                                                                                            PUMP
                                                      SURGE  TANK
  2.1  Sampling. The sampling Umln la shown In Firore
 6-1, and component parts an  discussed below.  The
 tester  has the option of substituting sampling equip-
 meat described in Method 8 In place of the midget Im-
 plnger eQuipmem of Method 6. However, the Method 8
 train must be modified to Include & heated filter between
 the probe find isopropanol impinger, and the operation
 of the  sampling train and sample analysis must be  at
 (be flow rates and solution volumes defined ID Method 8.
  The  tester also has the option of determining  BOi
dmuJlaneously with paniculate  matter and moisture
determinations by (1) replacing the water In a Method 5
Implnger system with 3 percent  pcriotide solution,  or
 C2)  by replacing the Method 5 water Itnpinger system
with a  Method 8 Uopropenol-filter-peroilde system.  The
analysis for 80i must be consistent  with the procedure
In Method 8.
  2.1.1   Probe. Borosilicate glass, or stainless steel (other
materials of construction may be used,  subject to the
approval of  the Administrator),  approximately 6-nun
Inside diameter, with a beating system to prevent water
condensation and a filter (either In-slack or hrated  out-
stack)  to remove particulate matter, Including  sulfuric
•eld mist. A plug of class wool  la a satisfactory filter.
  2.1.2  Bubbler and Implngera. One  midget bubbler,
with medium-coarse glass frit and borosllic.au> or quarU
glass wool packed In top  (see Figure 6-1) to prevent
•nlhiric acid mist carryover, and three 30-ml  midget
Implngers. The bubbler and midget Implngers must be
connected In series with leak-free glass connectors.  Bill-
cone frrease may be used. If necessary, to prevent leakage.
  At the option of the tester, a midget liaplnger may be
used In place of the midget bubbler.
  Other collection absorbers and flow rates may be used,
but are subject to the  approval of the Administrator.
Also, collection efficiency must be shown to be at last
W percent for each test run and must be documented  in
the report. If the efficiency Is found to be acceptable after
a series of  three tests, further  documentation Is not
required. To conduct the  efficiency test, an extra ab-
aoiber  must be added  and an&lyted  separately. This
extra absorber must not contain more than I percent  of
tbatotalSOi.
  2.1.3  Glass Wool. Borostllcate or qnartt.
  2.1.4  Stopcock  Grease. Acetone-insoluble, heet-
 atable  slllcone grease may be used, If necessary.
  2.1.5  Temperature  Gauge.  Dial thermometer,  or
 equivalent, to measure temperature of gas leaving ton-
 pfnger train to within 1°C (2s F.)
  2.1.6  Drying Tube. Tube packed with 6- to It-mesh
 indicating type silica gel, or equivalent,  to dry the (as
•ample and to protect the meter and pump. U the dllac  8. Ktagntt
may be used, subject to approval of the Administrator.
  2.1.7 Value. Needle value, to-ogulate sample gas flow
rate.
  2.1.8 Pump. Leak-free disphragm pump, or equiv-
alent, to pull gas through the train. Install a small tank
between  the  pump and rate  meter to eliminate the
pulsation effect of toe diaphragm pump on the rot&meter.
  2.1.9 Rate  Meter. Rotameter.  or equivalent, capable
of measuring flow rate to within 2 percent of toe selected
flow rate ol about 1000 co/mln.
  2.1.10 Volume Meter.  Dry  gas meter, sufficiently
accurate to measure the sample  volume within 2 percent,
calibrated 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
3°C (5.4°F I.
  2.1.11 Barometer. Mercury, ameroid, or other barom-
eter capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
2.6 nun Hg (0.1 in. Hg). In many cases, the barometric
reading may be obtained from a nearby national weather
service station, In which  c»v> the station value (which
Is the absolute barometric pressure)  shall be requested
and  an adjustment  for elevation differences  between
the weather station and sampling point shall be appliad
at a rate of minus 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 in. Hg) per 30 m (100 ft)
elevation Increase or vice versa for elevation decrease.
  2.1.12 Vacuum Gauge. At least 760 mm Hg (30 in.
Bg)  gauge, to be used for leak check of the sampling
train.
  2.2 Sample Recovery.
  2.2.1 Wash bottles.  Polyethylene  or class, 600 ail,
two.
  2.2.2 Storage Bottles. Polyethylene, 100 ml, to store
Unplcger samples (one per samp'e).
  2.3  Analysis.
  2.3.1 Pipettes. Volumetric type, S-ml, 20-ml (one per
ample). and 25-ml sites.
  2.8.2 Volumetric Flasks. 100-ml slu (one per sample)
and 100-mjslte.
  2.3.3 Burettes. 5- and 50-ml sites.
  2.8.4 Erlenmeyer Flasks. ISO  ml-atie (one  for each
•ample, blank, and standard).
  2.3.6 Dropping Bottle. 126-mI  site, to add Indicator.
  1.8.6 Graduated Cylinder. 100-ml site
  2.3.7 Spectropbotometer. To measure abKrbanc* at
«2 nanometers.
  TJnless otherwise Indicated, all reagents must oonlorm
to the specifications established by the Committee on
Analytical Reagents of the American Chemical Society.
Where such specifications are not available, use the best
available gnat.
  8.1  Sampling^
  8.1.1  Water. Deioniied, distilled to conform loASTM
specification Dl 193-74, Type 3. At the option  ol the
analyst, the KMnOi test  for  oxidlzable organic matter
may be omitted when high  concentrations of organic
matter are not eipected to be present.
  8.1.2  Isopropanol, 80 percent. Mil 80 ml of isopropanol
wiUi 20ml of deioniied. distilled \rat«r. Check each lot of
Isopropanol for peroilde Impurities as follows: shako 10
ml of Isopropanol wjtti  10 ml of freshly  prepared 10
percent potassium Iodide  solution. IVpare a blank  by
similarly treating 10ml of distilled water. After 1 minute.
read the absorhance at 382 nanometers on a spectro-
pholometcr.  11 absorbance exceeds 0.1, reject alcohol  for
use.
  Peroxides may be removed from Isoprojmno! by redis-
tilling  or  by passage through  a column of activated
alumina:  however,  reagent  grade  Isopropanol  with
suitably low peroilde levels may bo obtained from com-
mercial  sources.  Rejection of contaminated lots may,
therefore, be a more efficient procedure.
  J.I.8  Hjdrofren Peroilde, 8 Percent. Dilute80percent
hydrogen  peroilde 1:9 (v/v)  with  delonlted. distilled
water (80ml Is needed per sample). Prepare fresh dally.
  1.1.4  Potassium Iodide Solution. 10 Percent. Dissolve
10.0 grams KI in  delonlted, distilled water and dilute to
100 ml. Prepare when Deeded.
  8.2  Sample Recovery.
  8.2.1   Water. Drlonlted, distilled, as In 8.1.1.
  8.2.2  Isopropanol. 80 Percent  Mix 80 ml of Isopropanol
with 20 ml of deioniied, distilled water.
  8.3  Analysis.
  8.3.1   Water. Delonlted, distilled, as In 3.1.1.
  8.3.2  liopropanol, 100 percent.
  9.8.3   Thorin    Indicator.   l-(o-vsonopbenylaio)-2-
naphthol-3,6-dlsulfbnlc acid, dlsodlum salt, or equiva-
lent. Dissolve  0.20 g in 100 ml of delonlted, distilled
water.
  8.34   Barium  Percblorati Solution, 0.0100 N. Dis-
solve l.SSg of barium perchlorate trihydraU (Ba(ClOi)r
SHjO| In 200 ml distilled water and dilute to 1 Liter with
sopropanol Alternatively, 1 22  g of |BaClr2H,01 may
be uaed instead  of the perchlorat< Blandardiee as  In
Section 6.5.
                                        KDfftAl MCISTM,  VOL  42, NO.  140—IHUKDAY, AUGUST  It, 1977

                                                                        IV-199
-------
                 RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
  3.3 5  Sulfurlc Acid  Standard, 0.0100 N. Purchase or
standardize to *O.OOD2 N against 0.0100 N N'aOH which
has  previously been  standardized against  potassium
acid phthalate (primary standard grade).

4. Procedure.

  4.1  Sampling.
  4.1.1  Preparation of collection train. Measure 15 ml of
80 percent isopropanol Into the midget bubbler and 15
ml of 3 percent hydrogen  peroxide Into each of the flrst
two midget fmpingers. Leave the final midget Implnger
dry. Assemble the train as shown In Figure «-l. Adjust
probe heater to a temperature sufficient to prevent water
condensation.  Place crushed Ice and water around the
implngers.
  4.1-2  Leak-check procedure. A leak check prior to the
sampling ran is optional: however, a leak check after the
sampling run Is mandatory. The leak-check procedure Is
as follows:
  With the probe disconnected, place a vacuum gauge 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 of! 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 ol the Administrator. US  Environmental
Protection Agency.  The procedure used in Method 5 Is
not suitable for diaphragm pumps.
  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  rate of ap-
proximately 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 Implnger outlet
and rate meter) at  least every 5 minutes. Ada more Ice
during the run to keep  the temperature of the  gases
leaving the last implnger at 20° C (fig" F) or less. At the
conclusion of each run, turn oft 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 the 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 passing  air
through  a charcoal (liter or through an extra midget
Implnger with 15 ml of 3  percent HiO>. The tester may
opt to simply use ambient al/, without purification.
  4.2 Sample Recovery. Disconnect the Iraplngers after
purging. Discard the contents ofthe midget bubbler. Four
the contents ol the midget implntters Into a leak-tree
polyethylene bottle for shipment. Rinse the three midget
fmpingers and the connecting tubes with delonlzed,
distilled water, and add the washings to the same storage
container. Mark the fluid level. Seal and Identify the
sample container.
  4.3 Sample Analysis. Note level of liquid In container,
and confirm whether any sample was  lost during ship-
ment; note this on analytical data sheet. If a noticeable
amount of leakage has occurred, either void the sample
or use methods, subject to the approval of the Adminis-
trator, to correct the final results.
  Transfer the contents  of the storage  container to a
100-ml volumetric flask  and  dilute to exactly 100 ml
with delonlied, distilled water. Pipette a 20-ml aliquot of
this solution Into a 260-ml Erlenmeyer flask, add 80 ml
of 100 percent Isopropanol and two to four drops of thorin
indicator, and titrate to a pink endpoint using 0.0100 N
barium  perchlorate. Repeat and average the tltratlon
 volumes. Run a blank with each series ot samples. Repli-
cate tltratlons must agree within 1 percent or 0.2 ml,
whichever Is larger.

   (NOT!.—Protect  the  0.0100  N  barium  perchlorate
solution from evaporation at all times.)

 5. CMibratim

   5.1  Metering System.
   J.V.I  Initial Calibration. Before Its Initial use in the
 field, flrst leak check the metering system (drying tube,
 needle valve, pump,  rotameter, and dry gas meter) as
follows: place a vacuum gauge at the inlet to the drying
tube and pull a vacuum of 250 mm (10 In.) Hg: plug or
pinch oft the outlet or the flow meter, and then turn off
the pump. The vacuum shall remain .stable for at least
30 seconds. Carefully release the vacuum gaugo before
releasing  the flow meter end.
  Next, calibrate the metering system (at the sampling
now rale specified by the method) as follows: connect
an appropriately sized wet test meter 'e.g., 1 liter per
revolution) to  the inlut of the drying tube. Make  three
Independent calibration runs, using at least five revolu-
tions of the dry gas motor 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  Y value deviates by
more  than 2 percent from  the average, the metering
system Is unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use the aver-
age as the calibration factor for subsequent test  run*.
  5.1.2 Post-Ten Calibration Check. After each field
test series, conduct a calibration check as In Section 5.1.1
above, except for the following variations: (a) the leak
check Is not to be conducted, (b) three, or more revela-
tions of the dry gas meter may be used, and (c) only two
Independent runs need be made. If the calibration factor
does not deviate by  more than 5 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. II the calibration factor deviates by more
than 5 percent, recalibrate the metering system as in
Section 5.1.1, and for the calculations, use  the calibration
factor (Initial or recatibratlon) that yields the lower gas
volume for each test run.
  5.2   Thermometers.  Calibrate  against  mercury-ln-
glass thermometers.
  5.3   Rotameter. The rotameter need not be calibrated
but should be cleaned and maintained according to the
manufacturer's Instruction.
  5.4   Barometer. Calibrate  against a mercury barom-
eter.
  5.5   Barium  Perchlorate Solution.  Standardize the
barium perchlorate solution against 25 ml of  standard
suUuric acid to which 100 ml of 100 percent isopropanol
has been added.

  6. Calculation*

  Carry  out calculations, retaining at least one extra
decimal figure beyond that of the acquired data. Round
oB figures after final calculation.
  6.1   Nomenclature.

     Cx,  "Concentration of  sulfur dioxide,  dry basis
           corrected to standard conditions,  rog/dscm
        .   (lb/dscf).
       .V-Normallty of barium  perchlorate  tltrant,
           mllllequlvalents/ml.
     Pbtr-Barometric  pressure at the exit orifice of the
           dry gas meter, mm Hg (in. Hg).
     P,id-Standard absolute pressure,  760 mm  Hg
           (29.92 In. Hg).
      T.-Average  dry gas meter absolute  temperature,

      r.n-Standard absolute temperature,  293*   K
           (528° R).
       V.- Volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml.
       V.-Dry gas volume as measured  by the dry gas
           meter, dcm (dcf).
   V.(,u)-Dry gas volume measured by the dry gas
           meter,  corrected  to standard conditions,
           dscm (dscf).
     V.OIO-Total volume of solution in which the sulfur
           dioxide sample Is contained. 100 ml.
       V,o>Volume  of barium perchlorate tltrant used
           for  the  sample,  ml (average of  replicate
           tltrations).
      fit-Volume  of barium percblorate tltrant used
           for the blank, ml.
       K- Dry gas  meter calibration (actor.
     32.03- Equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide.
   6.2  Dry sample gas volume, corrected to standard
 conditions.
                                                Equation 9-1
                                                              where:

                                                               Jfi-0.3858 °K/mm Hg for metric units.
                                                                  -17.64 °R/ln. Hg tor English units.
                                                               6.3  Sulfur dioxide concentration.
                                                                                                    Equation 6-2
                                                              where:
                                                               Jifi-32.03 mg/meq. for metric units.
                                                                  -7.061X10-' Ib/meq. tor English unlu.

                                                              7. Bibliography

                                                                1. Atmospheric Emissions from Sulfurlc Add Manu-
                                                              facturing Processes. U.S. DUEW, PHS. Division of Air
                                                              Pollution.  Public  Health  Service  Publication  No.
                                                              U99-AP-13. Cincinnati. Ohio. 1965.
                                                                2. Corbett. P. F. The Determination of SOi and  SOi
                                                              in  Flue Oases. Journal of the Institute of Fuel. «4-' 237-
                                                              243, 1961.
                                                                3. Matty. R. E. and E. K. Diehl. Measuring Flue-Oas
                                                              SOi and 80». Power. 101: 94-97. November 1957.
                                                                4. Patton, W. F. and J. A. Brink, Jr. New Equipment
                                                              and Techniques for Sampling  Chemical  Process Gases.
                                                              J. Air Pollution Control Association. 13: 162.  1963.
                                                                5. Rom, J.J. Maintenance. Calibration, and Operation
                                                              of Isoklnetic  Source-Sampling  Equipment. Office of
                                                              Air  Programs,   Environmental  Protection  Agency.
                                                              Research Triangle Park, N.C. APTD-0676. March 19T2.
                                                                6. Hamll, H.  F.  and D. E. Camann. Collaborative
                                                              Study of Method for the Determination of Sulfur Dioxide
                                                              Emissions from Stationary Sources (Fossil-Fuel Fired
                                                              Steam  Generators). Environmental Protection Agency,
                                                              Research  Triangle  Park,   N.C.  EPA-650/4-74-024.
                                                              December 1973.
                                                                7. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part 31; Water,
                                                              Atmospheric Analysis. American  Society tor Testing
                                                              ajid Materials. Philadelphia, Pa. 1974. pp. 40-42.
                                                                8. Knoll, J. E. and M. R. Midgett. The Application of
                                                              EPA Method 6  to High Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations.
                                                              Environmental  Protection Agency. Research  Triangle
                                                              Park, N.C. EPA-«00/4-76-03S. July 1976.

                                                              METHOD  7— DETEBXINATION  or  NITBOOEN Oxroi
                                                                     EMISSIONS FBOK STATIONARY SODRCM

                                                              \. Principle and  Applimbattv

                                                                1.1  Principle. A grab sample Is collected In an cvacu-
                                                              aved flask containing a dilute  suUuric acid-hydrogen
                                                              peroxide absorbing solution, and  the nitrogen oxides.
                                                              except nitrous  oxide, ere measured coloruineUrlcaUy
                                                              using the phcnoldisulfonlc acid (PDS) procedure.
                                                                1.2  Applicability. This method Is applicable to the
                                                              measurement of nitrogen oxides emitted from stationary
                                                              sources. The range of the  method has been determined
                                                              to be 2 to 400 milligrams NO, (aa NOi) per dry standard
                                                                        r, without having to dilute toe sample.
cubic meter,
                                                              2. Appamttu

                                                                2.1  Sampling (see Figure 7-1). Other grab sampling
                                                              systems or equipment,  capable  of measuring  sample
                                                              volume to within ±1.0 percent and collecting a sufficient
                                                              sample volume to allow analytical reproduciblUty to
                                                              within ±5 percent, will be considered acceptable alter-
                                                              natives, subject to approval of the Administrator, U.S.
                                                              Environmental  Protection  Agency.  The  following
                                                              equipment Is used In sampling:
                                                                2.1.1 Probe.  Boroslllcate glass tubing, sufficiently
                                                              heated to prevent water condensation and  equipped
                                                              with an In-stack or out-stack filter to remove paniculate
                                                              matter (a plug  of glass wool is satisfactory for  this
                                                              purpose). Stainless steel or Teflon' tubing may also be
                                                              used for the probe. Heating Is not necessary if the probe
                                                              remains dry during the purging period.
                                                                > Mention of trade names or specific products does not
                                                              constitute  endorsement by the Environmental Pro-
                                                              tection Agency.
FEDERAL  REGISTER,  VOl.  42, NO.  1to—THURSDAY,  AUGUST  )», 1977
                                 IV-200
-------
                                                           RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
            PROBE
                           EVACUATE


                          PURGE
                    '^.^

FLASK VALVEv   ff} SAMPLE
         FILTER
  GROUND-GLASS SOCKET.
         § NQ. 12/5

                         f
                   110 mm
  3-WAY  STOPCOCKr
  T-80RE.  1 PYREX.
  2-mm BORE. 8-mm QO
GROUND-GLASS
 STANDARD TAPER.

  SLEEVE NO. 24/40
                                                            FLASK
                                     FLASKSHIELtX_.\
                                                                                                              SQUEEZE BULB

                                                                                                          UMP VALVE

                                                                                                                    PUMP
                                                                                           K-rH EVACUATE
                                                                                                  VENT
                                                                               THERMOMETER
                                 CONE
                                                                          210 mm
                                                GROUND-GLASS
                                                SOCKET. § NO. 12/5
                                                PYREX
                                                                                                                      FOAM ENCASEMENT
                                                                                                             BOILING FLASK •
                                                                                                             2-LITER. ROUND-BOTTOM. SHORT NECK.
                                                                                                             WITH j SLEEVE NO. 24/40
                                        Figure 7-1.   Sampling train, flask valve, and flask.
  2.1.2  Collection Flask. Two-liter borosilicave, round
 bottom flask, with short neck and 24/40 standard taper
 opening, protected against Implosion or breakage.
  2.1.3  Flask Valve.  T-borc  stopcock connected  to a
 24/40standard taper Joint.
  2.].4  Temperature Gauge. Dial-type thermometer, or
 other temperature gauge,  capable of measuring 1° C
 (2C F) intervals from -5 to 50f C (2.S to 125° F).
  2.1.5  Vacuum Line. Tubing capable of withstanding
 a vacuum of 75 mm H& (3 In. Hg) absolute pressure, with
 "T" connection and T-borc stopcock.
  2.1.C  Vacuum  Gauge.  U-tubt manometer.  1 meter
 (3C la.), with 1-imn (0.1-in.)  divisions, or other gauge
 capable of measuring pressure to within ±2.5  mm Hg
 (0.10in. Hg).
  2.1.7   Pump. Capable of evacuating the collection
 flask to a pressure equal vo or less tlian 75 mm Ug (3 in.
 Hg) absolute.
  2.1.8  Squeeze Bulb. One-way.
  2.1.9  Volumetric Pipette. 25 mj.
  2.1.10  Stopcock and Ground  Joint Grease.  A high-
 vacuum, high-temperature chlorofluorocarbon grease is
 required. ITalocarbon 25-58 lias been found to be effective.
  2.1.11   Barometer. Mercury,  aneroid,  or other barom-
eter capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within
2.5 mm  Hg (0.1 in. Hg). In many cases, the baronnetric
reading may be obtained from a nearby national  weather
service station, in winch case the station value (which Is
the absolute barometric pressure) shall be requested and
an  adjustment  for elevation  diflercncca  between  the
weather station and sampling point shall be applied at a
rate of minus  2.5 mm Hg (0.1  In. Hg) per 30 m (100 ft)
elevation increase, or vice versa for elevation decrease.
  2.2  Sample Recovery. The following equipment Is
required (or sample recovery:
  2.2.1   Graduated Cylinder. 50 ml with 1-ml divisions.
  2.2.2   Storage  Containers.  Leak-free  polyethylene
bottles.
  2.2.3   Wash  Bottle. Polyethylene or glass.
  2.2.4   Olass SUrrlng Rod.
  2.2.5   Test Paper lor Indicating pH. To cover tbe pH
ranjseof7tol4.
  2.3  Analysis. For the analysis, the following equip-
ment Is needed:
  2.3.1   Volumetric Pipettes. Two 1 ml, two 2  ml, one
a ml, one 4 ml, two 10 ml. and one 25 ml for each sample
 and standard.
                                       2.3.2  Porcelain  Evaporating Dishes. 175- to  250-ml
                                     capacity with lip for pouring, one for each sample and
                                     each standard. The  Coors No. 45000 (shallow-form, 195
                                     ml)  has been found to be satisfactory.  Alternatively.
                                     polymcthyl pcntene  beakers (Nalgc No. 1203.150ml), or
                                     glass beakers (150 ml) may be used.  When glass beakers
                                     are used, etching of the beakers may eause solid matter
                                     to be present in  the analytical ster>. the solids should be
                                     removed by nitration (see Section 4.3).
                                       2.3.3  Steam Bath. Low-temperature ovens or thermo-
                                     statically controlled hot plates kept below 70° C (160° F)
                                     are acceptable alternatives.
                                       2.3.4  Dropping  Plpotte or  Dropper. Three required.
                                       2.3.5  Polyethylene Policeman. One for each sample
                                     ant Paper for  Indicating  pll. To cover the
                                     pH range of 7 to  14.
                                       2.3.11  Analytical Balance. To measure  to within 0.1
                                     mg.

                                     3. RtattnU
                                       Unless otherwise  Indicated, it Is Intended that all
                                     reagent? conform 10 th«> specifications established by thp
                                     Commitiee on  Analytical  Kcasfiits of tno American
                                     Chemical  Society, where such specifications are avail
                                     able; olherwlse,  use tl>r best available grade..
                                       8,1  Sampling. To prepare  the absorbiiig solution.
                                     cautiously  add 2.8 ml concentrated  UjSO< to 1 liter of
                                     deloniied,  distilled water. Mix well  and add 6 ml  of 3
                                     percent  hydrogen  peroxjde. freshly  prepared  from 30
                                     percent  hydrogen  peroxldo solulion.  The  absorbing
                                     solution  should beust-d within 1 week of Its preparation.
                                     l)o not expose vo extreme heat or direct sunlight.
                                       3,2  Sample Recovery. Two reagents are, required for
                                     sample recovery:
                                       3.2.1   Sodium  Hydroxide (IN). Dissolve 40 g NaOU
                                     In deionited, distilled water and dilute to 1 liter.
                                       3,2.2   Water. Deionited, distilled to conform to ASTM
                                     specification D1193-74, Type  3. At  the option of  the
                                             analyst, the KMNO< test for  oilditable organic matter
                                             may bo omitted when  high  concentrations of organic
                                             matter are not expected to be  present.
                                              3.3  Analysis. For the- analysis, the following reagents
                                             arc required:
                                              3.3.1  Fuming Sulfuric Acid. 15 to 18 percent by weight
                                             free sulfur tnoxide.  HANDLE  WITH  CAUTION.
                                              3.3.2  Phenol. White solid.
                                              3.3.3  Sulfuric Acid.  Concentrated,  95 percent  mini-
                                             mum assay. HANDLK WITH CAUTION".
                                              3.3.4  Polayjum Nitrate. Dried at 105 to 110° C (;:
-------
                                                              RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
 greater thin 10 ram Hg (0.4 in  fig) over a period of
 1 minute Is not  acceptable,  end  the flask Is not to be
 used until the leakage  problem  Is corrected. Pressure
 in the flask Is not to exceed 75 mm Ilg (3 in. Hg) absolute
 at the time sampling is commenced.) Record the volume
 ol the flask and valve (V,), the flask temperature (TO,
 and  the barometric pressure Turn  the  flask valve
 counterclockwise to its  "purge" position and do the
 same with the pump valve  Purge the probe and the
 vacuum  tube using the squeeze bulb. It condensation
 occurs in the probe and the Mask valve area, heat the
 probe and purge until  the condensation  disappears.
 Next, turn tne pump valve to its "vent" position. Turn
 the flask  valve clockwise to its "evaniate'' position and
 record the difference in the mercury levels In the manom-
 eter.  The absolute internal pressure in the flask (P.)
 Is equal  to the barometric pressure less the manometer
 reading. Immediately turn the Mask valve to the "sam-
 ple" position and permit the gas to enter the flask until
 pressures in the Hark and sample line (I.e., duct, stack)
 are equal. This will usually  require about 15 seconds;
 a  longer period indicates a "plug" In the probe, which
 must be corrected before sampling is  continued. After
 collecting the sample, turn the flafk valve to Its "purge"
 position  and  disconnect  the flask from the sampling
 train. Shake the flask for  at least 5 minutes.
   4.1.2  If (ho gas being sampled contains Insufficient
 oiygen for the conversion ol NO to NOi  (e.g., an ap-
 plicable sub pan of the standard may require taking a
 sample of a calibration gas mixture of  NO in Ni), then
 oxygen shall be introduced into the flask to permit this
 conversion.  Oiygen may be  Introduced Into the flask
 by one of three  methods; (I) Before evacuating  the
 sampling  flask, flush with pure cylinder oxygen, then
 evacuate flask to 75 mm Hg (3 In. Hg) absolute pressure
 or less; or  (2) Inject oiygen Into the flask alter sampling;
 or (3) terminate sampling with a minimum of 50 mm
 Hg (2 In. Hg) vacuum remaining in  the flask, record
 this final  pressure, and then vent the flask  to the at-
 mosphere until the  flask pressure is  almost equal  to
 atmospheric pressure.
  4.2  Sample Recovery.  Let the flask set for a minimum
 of 10 hours and then shake the contents for 2 minutes.
 Connect the flask to a mercury Riled U-tube manometer.
 Open the valve from the flask to  the manometer and
 record  the  flask  temperature (TV),  the  barometric
 pressure, and the difference between the mercury levels
 n  the manometer. The  absolute Internal pressure  in
 the flask  (Pi) Is the  barometric pressure less  the man-
 ometer reading. Transfer the  contents  of the flask to a
 leak-free  polyethylene  bottle. Rinse  the  flask  twice
 with 5-ml portions of delonlted, distilled water and add
 the rinse water to  the bottle  Adjust the pH to between
 9 and 12 by adding sodium hydroxide (1 N),  dropwise
 (about 25 to 35 drops).  Check the pH by  dipping  a
stirring rod into the solution and then touching the rod
 to the |>IT test paper  Remove as little material as possible
during this step. Mark the height of the liquid level  so
that  (ho  container  can  be checked for leakage after
transport  Label the container to clearly  identify its
contents. Seal the container for shipping.
  4.3  Analysis. Note the level of the liquid in container
 and confirm whether or not any sample was lost during
 shipment; note this on the analytical  data sheet. If a
 noticeable amount of leakage has occurred, either void
 Iho sample or use methods, subject to the approval of
 the Administrator, to correct the final results. Immedi-
 ately  prior  to  analysis,  transfer  th«  contents of the
 shipping   container  to  a 50-ml volumetric flask,  and
 rinse the container twice with 5-ml portions of delonized.
 distilled  water. Add the rinse water to the flask and
 dilute to the mark with delonized. distilled water; mix
 thoroughly. Pipette a 26-ml aliquot into the  procelaln
 evaporating dish.  Return any unused portion of the
 sample to the  polyethylene storage bottle. Evaporate
 the 25-ml  aliquot to dryncss on a steam bath and allow
 to cool. Add 2 ml phcnoldlsulfonlc acid solution to the
 dried residue and  triturate thoroughly with a poylethyl-
 ene policeman. Make sure the solution contacts all the
 residue. Add  1 ml delonized, distilled water and four
 drops-of concentrated sulfurlc acid. Heat  the solution
 on a steam bath lor 3 minutes with occasional stirring.
 Allow the solution to cool, add 20 ml delonized, distilled
 water, mix well by stirring, and add concentrated am-
 monium  hydroxide,  dropwise, with constant stirring,
 until the  pi! Is 10 (as determined by pH paper). If the
 sample contains  solids,  these  must  be removed by
 filtration  (ccntrlfugatlon Is  an acceptable alternative,
 subject to the approval of the Administrator), as follows:
 Illtcr through Whatman No. 41 (liter paper into a 100-ml
 volumetric llask; rinse the evaporating dish with three
 5-ml portions of delonized, distilled water; filter these
 three rinses. Wash the filter  with  at least three 15-ml
 portions  ol deionized. distilled water. Add  the filter
 washings to the contents of  the volumetric  llask and
 dilute to  the mark with delonized, distilled water.  If
 solids ore absent, the solution can be transferred directly
 to the 100-rol volumetric flask and diluted to the mark
 with deionized, distilled  water. Mix the contents of the
 flask thoroughly, and  measure the absorbance at the
 optimum wavelength used for tho standards (Section
 5.2.1), using the blank solution as a zero reference. Dilute
 the sample and the blank with equal volumes of dclon-
 izcd, distilled water if the absorbance exceeds A,, the
 absorbance of the 400 pg NO) standard (se» Section 5.2.2).

 S. Calibration

   6.1  Flask Volume. The volume of the collection flask-
 flask valve combination  must be  known prior to sam-
 pling. Assemble the flask and flask valve and nil with
 water, to the stopcock. Measure the volume of water to
 ±10 ml. Record this volume nn the flask.
  8.2  Speclropliotomcter Calibration.
  8.2.1  Optimum Wavelength Determination. For both
 fixed  and  variable  wavelength  spectrophotometers,
 calibrate  against standard  certified wavelength of 410
 nm. every fl months. Alternatively, for variable wave
 length spectrnphotometfrs. scan  the spectrum between
 400 and 415 nm using a 200 « N Oi standard solution (see
 Section 5.2.2). If a peak does not occur, the spec.lropho-
 lometer is probably malfunctioning, and should be re-
 paired. When a peak is obtained within the 400 to 415 nm
 range, the wavelength at which this peak occurs shall be
 the optimum wavelength for the measurement of ab-
 sorbance for both the standards and samples.
  5.2.2  Determination of Spectroplmlometer Calibra.
 lion Factor K,. Add 0.0, 1.0. 2.0, 30. and 4.0 ml of the.
 KNOi working standard solution (1 ml = 100 jig NOi) to
 a series of five jwrcelain evaporating dishes. To each, add
 25 ml of absorbing solution. 10 ml  dfionized, distilled
 water, and sodium  hydroxide (IN), dropwise. until the
 pH Is between u,r;.3 to 35 drops each).
 Beginning with the evaporation step,  follow  the analy-
 sis procedure of Section 4.3. until the solution has  fcwn
 transferred to the 100 ml volumetric flask and diluted to
 the mark. Measure the absorbance of each solution, at the
 optimum  wavelength,  as determined in Section 5.2.1.
 This calibration procedure must be repeated on each day
 that samples are analyzed. Calculate the spectrophotom-
 eter calibration factor as follows:
                               6.4  Sample  concentration, dry  basU,  corrected to
                              standard conditions.
                                   Equation 7-1
where:
  ^.-Calibration factor
  .4j -Absorbance ol the 100-jig N'Oj standard
  A>= Absorbance of the 200-rt NOi standard
  Xi = Absorbancc ol the 300-pg NOi standard
  X. "Absorbance of the 400-. dry basis, cor-
       rected  to   standard   conditions,   mg/dscm
       (IWdscf).
    F=Dllution factor (I e., 25/5. 35'IO, etc..  required
       only if  sample dilution was needed to reduce
       the absorbance. into the  range of calibration).
   /c~,=Sncctrophotomeler calibration factor.
    TO = I loss of NO, as NOi In gas sample. MK.
   I'/- Final absolute pressure ol flask, mm Hg (in. Hg).
   Pi- Initial absolute pressure ot flask,  mm Hg (in.
       Hg).
  Pnt = Standard absolute pressure, 700 rum Ilg (20.92 in.
       He).
   Ti- Final absolute temperature of flask ,°K (°R).
   Tt= Initial absolute temperature of flask. °K (°R>.
  T.,d = Slandard absolute  temperature, 2J3° K (528° R)
   V,,=Saoiple volume at standard  conditions (dry
       basis), ml
   V/=> Volume of flask and valve, ml.
   V,« Volume of absorbing solution, 25 ml.
     2 = 60/28, the  aliquot  (actor. (If other  than a 25-ml
       aliquot  was used  for analysis,  the correspond-
       Ine factor must he substituted).
  6.2  Sample volume, dry basis, corrected to standard
conditions.
where:
     , = 0.3858
                   °K
      = 17.64  r
                 mm Hg

                  °R
                                   Equation 7-2
                           for metric units
                in.  Hg

  C.3  Total Mg NOi per sample.

                  m=2KeAF
for English units
                                   Equation 7-3
                                                            -
                                                          ' It
                                                                Equation 7-4
                              where:


                               K,= 103 ™K/~ for metric units
     = 6.243X10-'
                                                   -.
                                                   pg/ml
                                                           for English  units
  NOTE.—If other than e 25-ml aliquot is used for analy-
sis, the factor 2 must be replaced by a corresponding
factor.
 7. Bibliography

  1. Standard Methods of Chemical Analysis. 6th ed.
 New  York, D.  Vna Nostrand Co., Inc.  1962.  Vol.  1,
 p. 329-330.
  2. Standard Method of Test for Oxides of Nitrogen In
 Gaseous Combustion Products (Phenoldisulfonlc Acid
 Procedure). In: 196* Book of ASTM Standards, Part 26.
 Philadelphia,  Pa. 1968.  ASTM  Designation D-1008-60,
 p. 72.VT29.
  3. Jacob, M. B. The Chemical Analysis ol Air Pollut-
 ants.  New  York.  Interscience Publishers,  Inc. 1960.
 Vol. 10, p. 351-35C.
  4. Beatty, R.  L., L. B. Berger, and H. II.  Schrenk.
 Determination of Oxidesof;Nitrogen by the PhcnoldJsul-
 fonic  Acid Method. Bureau  ol Mines,  U.S.  Dept. of
 Interior. R. I. 3687. February 1943.
  5. It.imil. II. F. and  D. E. Camann.  Collaborative
 Study of Method for the  Determination of  Nitrogen
 Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources (Fossil Fuel-
 Fired Steam Generators). Southwest Research Institute
 report for Environmental  Protection Agency.  Research
 Triangle Park, N.C. October 5, 1973.
  6. Llamil, H.  F.  and  R. E. Thomas.  Collaborative
 Study of Method for the  Drtermination of  N'ltrogen
 Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources (Nitric Acid
 Plants).  Southwest Research Institute report for En-
 vironmental  Protection Agency.   Research  Triangle
 Park. N.C. May 8,  1974.

 MITHOO 8—DETERMINATION  or SULFURIC ACID MIST
  AND SULTUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS  FROM STATIONABT
  SOURCES

 1. Principle and Applicability
  1.1  Principle. A gas sample is extracted isokmettcally
from the slack. The sulfuric acid mist (including sulfur
trioxide)  and the sulfur dioxide aro  separated, nnd both
fractions are measured separately by tho barium-thorin
utratfon method.
  1.2  Applicability. This  method is applicable for the
determination  of sulfuric  acid  mist (including  sulfur
trioxide, and in the  absence of other paniculate matter)
and sulfur dioxide  emissions from  stationary sources.
 Collaborative  tests have  shown  that  the minimum
delectable limits of the method are 0.05 milligrams/cubic
meter (0.03X10-'  pounds/cubic  foot) for sulfur trioxide
and 1.2 mg/m> (0.74  10-'  Ib/fl') for sulfur dioxide. No
 upper limits have been established.  Based on theoretical
calculations for  200 miUlliters of  3 percent  hydrogen
 peroxide  solution, tho  upper concentration  limit for
sulfur dioxide in a 1.0 mj (35.3 ft1)  gas sample is  about
 12.500 mg/mJ (7.7X10-<  Ib/fl'). The upper limit can be
extended by Increasing the quantity of peroxide solution
in the impingers.
  Possible interfering agents of this method are fluorides,
free ammonia, and dimethyl aniline.  If  any of these
interfering agents are present (this can be determined by
 knowledge of the process), alternative methods, subject
to  the approval  of the Administrator, are  required.
  Filterable particulate matter may he determined along
with  SOi and  SOi (subject to the approval of the Ad-
 ministrator): however, the procedure used for particulate
matter must be  consistent with the specifications and
 procedures given in  Method 5.

 2. .-Ipparolua

  2.1  Sampling.  A schematic  of  tho sampling  train
 used In this method Is sliown  In Figure 8-1; It Is similar
 to the Method 5 train except  that the filter position is
 different and the filter holder does not have to be heated.
 Commercial models of this train ore available. For those
who desire to build their own. however, complete con-
struction details  are described In APTD-0.'*!.  Changes
from  tho  AI'TD-0581 document and allowable modi-
fications  to  Figure  8-1  are discussed In the following
subsections.
  The operating and  maintenance   procedures  for  the
sampling train are described In APT D-0578. Since correct
usage Is Important In obtaining valid results, all users
should read the  APTD-0576  document and adopt  the
 operating  and maintenance procedures  outlined  In it,
 unless otherwise specified  herein.  Further details and
 guidelines on operation  and maintenance aro given In
 Method  5 and should bo read and  followed whenever
 they arc applicable.
  2.1.1 Probe Nozzle. Same as Methods, Section 2.1.1.
  2.1.2 Probe Liner. Borosillcate or quartz glass, with »
heating system to prevent visible condensation during
sampling. Do not use metal probe liners.
  2.1.3 Pllol Tube. Same as Method 5, Section 2.1.3.
                                         FEDERAL REGISTER,  VOL  42, NO.  160—THURSDAY,  AUGUST  It, 1977

                                                                          ryv-202
-------
                                                          RULES  AND  REGULATIONS


                                 TEMPERATURE SENSOR
                                                PROBE
   PROBE
                    A^-  PITOTTUBE

                           TEMPERATURE SENSOR
                          FILTER  HOLDER
                                                                                                                    THERMOMETER
                                                                               CHECK
                                                                               VALVE
                 7
    REVERSE TYPE
      PI TOT  TUBE
                                                                                                                                        VACUUM
                                                                                                                                           LINE
                                                                                                                                   VACUUM
                                                                                                                                    GAUGE
                                                                                                                     MAIN VALVE
                                       DRY TEST METER
                                               Figure 8-1.  Sulfuric acid mist sampling train.
  2.1.4  Differential Pressure Qauge. Same as Method 5,
Section 2.1.4.
  2.1.S  Filter Bolder. Boroolllcate glass,  with a glass
frit filter support  and 8 slllcone rubber gasket. Other
gasket materials, e.g., Teflon or Vlton, may be used sub-
ject to the approval of the Administrator. The holder
design shall provide a positive seal against  leakage from
the outside or around the filter. The filter holder shall
be placed between tbe first and uecond tmplngen. Note:
Do cot heat the filter bolder.
  2.1,6  Implngers—Four  as shown In Figure 8-1. The
first and third shall be of tbe Oreenburg-Smith design
with standard tips. Tbe second and fourth shall be ot
tbe Oreenburg-Smlth design, modified by replacing  the
insert with an approximately 13 millimeter (0.5 In.)  ID
(lass tube, having an unconstrtcled tip located 13 nun
(OS In.) from the bottom of tbe flask. Similar collection
systems, which  have been approved by tbe Adminis-
trator, may be used.
  2.1.7 Metering System,  Same as Method 5, Section

  2.1.8 Barometer. Same as Method 5, Section 219.
  2.1.9 Gas Density Determination Equipment Same
as Method S, Section 2.1.10.
  2.1.10  Temperature Gauge. Thermometer, or equiva-
lent, to measure the temperature of tbe gas leaving  tbe
anplnger train to within I5 C (2° F).
  2.2  Sample Recovery.
  12.1 Wash  Bottles. Polyethylene or glass, MO ml.
(two).
  2.2.2 Graduated -Cylinders.  240 ml, 1  Ut»r (Volir
metric flasks may also be used.)             '

imn'8i S""^" B,otu"-v.l***-t™> Polyethylemj bottles,
1000 ml site (two tor each tunnling run).
  2.2.4  Trip Balance. SOC^gram capacity, to measure to
±0.9 e (necessary only If a moisture content analysis Is
to bo done].
  2.3  Analysis.
  2.3.1  Pipettes. Volumetric 25 ml, 100ml.
  2.3.2  Bun-ell*. 50 ml.
  2.3.3  Erlemneyer Flask. 260 ml. (one for each sample
blank and standard).
  2.3.4  Graduated Cylinder. 100ml.
  2.3.5  Trip Balance. SCO  g  capacity, to measure to
±0.5 g.
  2.3.6  Dropping  Bottle.  To add indicator solution,
125-mlsi».

Z.Reafftlt

^Unless otherwise Indicated, all reagents are to conform
to the specifications established by the Committee on
Analytical Reagents of the American  Chemical Society,
where such specifications are available. Otherwise, use
the best available grade.
  3.1  Sampling.
  3.1.1   Filters. Game as Method 5, Section 3.1.1.
  3.1.2  SlUea Gel  Same as Method 5, Section 3.1.2.
  3.1.3  Water. Delonlted. distilled to conform to A8TM
specification D11U3-74. Type 3. At  the option  of the
analyst, tbe KMnO. test for ozldliable organic matter
may be omitted when  high concentrations of organic
matter are not expected to be present.
  J.i.4  Isopropanol. 80  Percent. Mix 800 ml of Isopro-
panol with 200 ml of deionlted, distilled water.
  NOIL—Experience has shown that only A. C.8. grade
Uopropanol Is  satisfactory.  Tests  have  shown that
Isopropanol obtained  from commercial sources occa-
cuionajly  has peroxide  impurities that will cause er-
roneously high sulfurlc acid mist measurement.  Use
the following test for detecting pcroildcs In each lot of
i&opropanol: Shako 10 ml of the Isopropanol with 10 ml
of freshly prepared 10 percent potassium Iodide solution.
Prepare a blank by similarly treating 10 ml of distilled
water. After 1 minute, read the sbsorbance on a spectro-
Sbolometer at 352 nanometers. II the absorbanco exceeds
 .1, tbe Isopropanol shall not be used. Peroiides may be
removed from Isopropanol by redistilling, or by passago
through a column of activated alumina. However, re-
agent-fre4c Isopropanol will) suitably low peroxide leveb
is readily available from commercial sources; therefore,
rejection of contaminated  lots may  be more efficient
than following the peroiido removal procedure.
  3.1.5  Hydrogen Peroxide. 3 Percent. Dilute 100 ml
of 30 percent hydrogen peroxide to 1 Uter with delonlud,
distilled water. Prepare fresh daily.
  3.1.6  Crushed Ice.
  3.2 Sample Recovery.
  3.2.1  Wator. Same as 3.1.3.
  8.2.2  Iwpropanol, 80 Percent. Same as 3.1.4.
  3.3 Analysis.
  3.3.1  Water. Same as 3.1.3.
  3.3.2   Isopropanol, 1001'ercent.
  8.3.3   Thortn Indicator. l-(o-araonophrnylato)-2-naph-
thol-3,  ft-dlsulfonic acid, disodaum salt, or equivalent.
Dissolve 0.20 g In JOOmlofdelonlted, toUUed water.
  3.3.4   Barium Perchlorete (0.0100 Normal). Dissolve
1.95 R of barium perchlorate  trihydrato(Ba(C10i)i'3HK))
In 200 ml doioniied. distilled water, and dilute to 1 liter
wlUi Isopropanol; 1.22 g of barium chloride dlhydratc
(BaCli-2HjO) may  be used Instead of the  barium  per-
chlorale. Blandardite wrth sulfurtc acid as In Section S.2.
This solution must be protected against evaporation at
all times.
                                      FfDERAL MOISTH, VOL  42, NO.  T 60—TNUISOAY,  AUGUST II,  1977

                                                              IV-203
-------
                                                            RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
  335 Sulfuric Acid Standard (0 0100 N). Purchase or
standard!!* to ±0.0002 N against OjJIOO N NaOH that
has  previously  been standardiwd  against  primary
standard  potassium acid phthalaU.

4.  Procedure
  4.1  Sampling.
  4 1 1 Pretest Preparalion. Follow the procedure out-
lined  in  Method 5, Sefllon 4.1.1; Ultra should be In-
spectod, but need not be desiccated, weighed, or identi-
fied. l( the effluent gas rnn l» considered dry, I.e., mois-
ture free., the silica gel m-ed not be weighed.
  412 Preliminary Determinations.  Follow the pro-
cedure outlined in Sl.-ir.od 5, Section 4.1.2.
  4 1 3 Preparation of Collection Train. Follow the pro-
cedure outlined in  Method 5,  Section 4.1.3 (except lor
the second paragraph and other obviously inapplicable
parts) and use. Fiiture 8-1 Instead of Figure 5-1.  Replace
the second  paragraph with: Place 100 ml of 80 percent
Isopropanol  in the  first Implnger,  100 ml of 3 percent
hydrogen pcroiide  in both the second and  third  Im-
pingers: retain a  portion of each  reagent for use as a
blank solution. Place about 200g of slUcagel in the fourth
Implnger.
  NOTJ.—If moisture content  Is  to be determined by
I mplnger analysis, weigh each of the first three Im pingen
(plus absorbing solution) to the nearest 0.5 g and record
these weights. The weight of the silica gel (or silica gel
plus container) must also be determined to the  nearest
0.5 g and recorded.
  4.1.4  Pretest Leak-Check  Procedure.  Follow  the
basic procedure outlined  In Method 5, Section  4.1.4.1,
noting that the probe heater  shall be adjusted to the
minimum temperature required to prevent condensa-
tion, and also treat verbage such as,	plugging the
Inlet to the  niter  holder  •  • •," shall be replaced by.
"• ' * plugging the inlet to the first  implnger  • • '."
The pretest leak-check is optional.
  4.1.5  Train Operation. Follow the  basic procedures
outlined In Method 5. Section 4.1.5, In  conjunction with
the following special instructions. Data shall be recorded
on a sheet similar to the one in Figure g-2. The Munplinf
rate shall not exceed 0.030 m'/min (1.0 cfm) during the
run. Periodically during the test, observe the connecting
line between the probe and  first lmping«r for signs of
condensation. If It  does occur, adjust the probe beater
setting upward to th« minimum temperature required
to prevent condensation. If component changes become
necessary during a  run, a leak-check shall be done im-
mediately before each change, according to the procedure
outlined In Section 4.1.4.2 of Method 5 (with appropriate
modifications, as mentioned  In  Bectlon 4.1.4 of this
method); record all  leak  rate*.  If the leakage rate(i)
ezceed thd specified rate, the tester shall either void the
run or shall  plan to correct the sample volume as out-
lined In Section 6.3 of Method 5. Immediately alter com-
ponent changes, teak-checks are optional.  If  then
leak-checks are done, the procedure outlined  In Section
4.1.4.1 of Method 5  (with appropriate  modification*)
shall be used.
  PLANT
  LOCATION	

  OPERATOR	

  DATE	

  RUN NO	

  SAMPLE BOX NO..

  METER BOX N0._

  METER A He	

  CFACTOR	
  PITOTTUBE COEFFICIENT, Cp.
                                      STATIC PRESSURE, mm H| (in. Hi)

                                      AMBIENT TEMPERATURE	

                                      BAROMETRIC PRESSURE	

                                      ASSUMED MOISTU RE, %	

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

                                      AVERAGE CALIBRATED NOZZLE DIAMETER, cm (in.).

                                      PROBE HEATER SETTING.	

                                      LEAK RATE, m3/min,(cfm)	

                                      PROBE LINER MATERIAL	

                                      FILTER NO.  	
TRAVERSE POINT
NUMBER












TOTAL
SAMPLING
TIME
(01, mln.













AVERAGE
VACUUM
mm HI
(in. Hg)














STACK
TEMPERATURE
JT5>'
°C <«F)














VELOCITY
HEAD
(A P$),
mmH20
(in-HjO)














PRESSURE
DIFFERENTIAL
ACROSS
ORIFICE
MtTER,
mm H20
(in.H2-------
                                   RULES AND  REGULATIONS
 nluee. Replicate titrations mnst agree within I percent
 or 0.2 ml, whichever is greater.
   4.3.2  Container No. 2. Thoroughly mix the solution
 In the container holding the contents of the second and
 third Implngors, Pipette a 10-ml aliquot of (ample Into a
 250-ml  Erlenmeyer flask. Add ml of Isopropanol.  2 to
 4 drops of thorin Indicator, and titrate to a pink endpolnt
 using 0.0100 N barium perchloraU. Repeat th» tltratlon
 with a second aliquot 01 sample and average Che Utratlon
 values. Replicate Utrations must agree within 1 percent
 or 0.2 ml, whichever is greater.
   433  Blanks. Prepare blanks by adding 2 to 4 drops
 of thorln Indicator to 100 ml of 80 percent laopropanol.
 Titrate the blanks in tbe same manner as the samples.

 5. Calibration

   6.1  Calibrate equipment using the procedures speci-
 fied In tbe following sections of Method 5: Section 5.3
 (metering system); Section 5.5 (temperature  gauges);
 Section 5.7  (barometer).  Note that  the  recommended
 leak-check of the metering system, described In Section
 6.0 of Method 5, also applies to this method.
  8.2  Standardly the barium perchlorate solution with
 JS ml of standard suUurlc acid, to which 100 ml of 100
 percent Isopropanol has been added.
   Note.— Carry oat calculations retaining at least one
 extra decimal figure beyond that of the acquired data.
 Bound off figures after final calculation.
   0.1  Nomenclature.
       A, "Cross-sectional area of not tie, m> (ft1).
       B»,— Water vapor in the gas stream, proportion
             by volume.
   CHjSOt-Sulfurlc acid (Including BOi) concentration,
             g/dscmflb/dscO.
     CSOj- Sulfur dioxide concentration,  j/dscm  (lb/
             did).
         /- Percent of isoklnetic sampling.
        #— Normality of barium perchlorate tltrant, g
             equivalents/liter.
     Fbar- Barometric pressure at tbe sampling site,
             ffimHg (in. Hg).
       f.-Abaolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg  (In.
            .Hg).
              nda
                                               Hg
     Pstd- Standard  absolute pressure, 700
             (29.92 In. Hg).
       T. - Average absolute drygas meter temperature
             (seeFigure8-2),° E (° R).
       T.—Average absolute stack gas temperature (see

     TWd-Btandard  absolute  temperature, 293°  K
             (428° R).
       V.-Volume of sample aliquot titrated, 100 ml
             for H>SO, and 10 ml for SOi.
       Vi,—Total volume of liquid collected in Implngers
             and silica gel, ml.
       V.-Volume of gas sample a* measured by dry
           gas meter, dcm (del).
  V.(sM) - Volume of gas sample measured by the dry
           gas meter corrected to standard  conditions,
           dscm (dscf).
        •.—Average stack gas velocity, calculated by
           Method 2. Equation 2-0. using da la obtained
           from Method 8, m/sec (ft/sec).
    Vsoln- Total volume of solution  In  which tbe
           •ullurlp acid  or  sulfur dioxide sample  Is
           contained, 250 ml or 1,000 ml, respectively.
       fi-Volume of barium perchlorate tltrant used
           for tbe sample, ml.
       Vn-Volume of barium perchlorate tltrant used
           lor tbe blank, ml.
       y—Dry gas meter calibration factor.
       AH—Average pressure drop across orifice meter,
           mm (In.) HiO.
       6 - Total sampling time, mln.
      18.6-8peclflc gravity ol mercury.
       60-sec/mln.       •
       100-Conversion to percent.
  6.2  Average dry gas meirr temperature and average
orifice pressure drop. See data sheet (Figure 8-2).
  8.3  Dry  Oas Volume.  Correct tbe sample volume
measured by the dry gas meter to standard conditions
(20° C and 760mm Hg or 68° F and 29.92 In.Hg) by using
Equation 8-1.
 '•did)
                             ,PUr-KAg/13.6)

                                      T.

                                  Equation 8-1
where:
  K,~QXSa°KJmm Hg lor metric uniti.
    -17.64 «R/m. Hg for English units.

  Nori.—If tbe look rate observed during any manda-
tory leak-checks exceed* tbe specified acceptable rat*,
DM taster shall either correct the value of Vm Ln Equation
»-l (as described In Section U  of Method 6), or shall
invalidate the t«st run.
  (.4 Volume of Water Vapor and Moisture Content.
 Calculate the volume of water vapor using  Equation
 5-2 of Method 5: tbe weight of water collected in tbe
 Implngers and silica gel can be directly converted to
 millillters (the specific gravity of water Is 1 g/ml). Cal-
 culate tbe moisture content of tbe stack gas, using Equa-
 tion 5-3 of Method 5. The "Note" In Section 6.4 of Method
 5 also applies to this method. Note that  U tbe effluent gas
 stream can be considered dry, the volume of water vapor
 and moisture content need not be calculated.
  «-5 Buliuric add  mist (including SOi) concentration.
       Ca.eo.=l
                            »»(1UO

                                  Equation 8-2

 vhere:
  £•1-0.04904 g/mlUieqnivalent for metric units.
     -1.081X10-" Ib/meq lor English units.
  6.6 Sulfur dioxide concentration.
                                                                          tf(V,-V,0
         ;*>,=
              --K,
                                  Equation 8-3
where:
  KI-0.03203 f/meo for metric units.
    -7.061X10-* Ibjmeq for English units.
  •.7  iBoklnetlc Variation.
  0.7.1  Calculation from raw data.
7=
    100T.lKtVlt
                                  Equation  8—4
where:
  JTI-0.0034M mm Hg-m'/ml-°E for metric units.
    -0.002678 in. Hg-ri>/ml-°R for English units,
  6,7.2 Calculation from Intermediate values.
                                  Equation 8-5
when:
  Ki-4.320 for metric units.
    -O.OWM for Engllsb units.
  6J  Acceptable Results. II 90 percent 
-------
  70
   Trtto 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY
             [FKL 784-7]

PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STAND-
ARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
   Delegation of Authority; New Source
        fieview, State of Montana
AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY:  This rule will change the
address to  which reports  and applica-
tions must  be sent by operators of new
sources to  the  state ol Montana. The
address change is the result of delegation
of authority to the State of Montana for
New Source Performance Standards (40
CFR Part  80) and National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR Part 61).
ADDRESS: Any questions  or comments
should be sent to Director, Enforcement
Division,   Environmental   Protection
Agency, 1860 Lincoln  Street, Denver,
Colo. 80295.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  Mr. Trwin L.  Dicksteln, 303-$37-3888.
SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
The amendments below institute certain
address changes for reports  and appli-
cations required from operators of new
sources. EPA  has delegated to the State
of Montana authority to review new and
modified sources. The delegated author-
ity includes the review  under 40 CFR
Part 60 for the standards of performance
for new stationary  sources and  review
under 40 CFR Part 61 for national emis-
sion   standards  for  hazardous  air
pollutants.
  A Notice announcing the delegation of
authority is published today in the FED-
ERAL REGISTER (42FR.44573). The amend-
ments  provide that all reports, requests,
applications,  submittals, and communi-
cations previously required for the dele-
gated  reviews will now  be sent  to the
Montana Department of Health and En-
vironmental  Sciences instead  of EPA's
Region vm.
   The Regional Administrator finds good
cause  for foregoing  prior public notice
and for making this rulemaking effective
immediately  in that it is an  adminis-
trative change  and not one  of substan-
tive content. No additional  substantive
burdens are  imposed on the parties af-
fected. The delegation which is reflected
by this administrative  amendment was
effective on May 18, 1977, and it serves
no purpose to delay the technical change
of this addition of the State address  to
the Code of Federal Regulations.
   This rulemaking is effective Immedi-
ately,  and  is  issued under  the authority
of sections 111 and 112 of  the Clean Air
     RULES AND REGULATIONS

Act, as amended, 42 UJ3.C. 1857,1857c-5,
6.7 and 1857g.

  Dated: August 17,1977.
                  JOHN A. GREEN,
             Regional Administrator.
  Part 60 of  Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. In { 60.4  paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (BB)  to read
as follows:
8 60.4   Address.
    *      *      *      #     *
  (b) • •  •
  fBB) State  of  Montana,  Department  of
Health and Environmental Services, Cogswell
Building, Helena, Mont. 69601.
    •      •       •      *     *

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

§ 61.04  AddreM.
    •      •       •      •     •
   (b) • • •
  (BB) State  of  Montana,  Department  of
Health end Environmental  Sciences, Cogs-
well Building,  Helena, Mont. 69601.
   [PR Doc.77-36827 Filed 9-3-77:8:45 am]
   FEDERAL  REGISTER,  VOL. 42. NO. 172


     TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6,  1977
 71

   Tttte 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
 PART  60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
      Applicability Dates; Correction
 AGENCY:   Environmental  Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Correction.

 SUMMARY:  This  document correcw
 the  final rule  that  appeared at page
 87935 In  the FEDERAL REGISTER of Mon-
 day, July 25, 1977 (FR Doc. 77-21230).

 EFFECTIVE DATE: September 7, 1977.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
 TACT:
  Don R. OxxxJwin. Emission Standards
  and  Engineering  Division, Environ-
  mental Protection Agency, Research
  Triangle Park,  N.C. 27711,  telephone
  No. 919-541-5271.

  Dated: August 31,1977.

               EDWARD F. TTJERK,
    Acting Assistant Administrator,
      for Air and Waste Management.
  In FR Doc. 77-21230 appearing at page
 37935 in  the FEDERAL REGISTER of Mon-
 day,  July 25. 1977, the following correc-
tions are  made to §§ 60.250(b) and 60.270
 (b) on page 37938:
  1. The  applicability date in { 60.250 (b)
is corrected to October 24,1974.
  2. The  applicability date in § 60.270 (b)
is corrected to October 21, 1974.
 (Sec. Ill,  301 (a) of the Clean Air  Act as
•mended (42 TJ.6.C. 1857C-6, J857g(a)).)
  [FR Doc.77-26023 Filed 9-6-77;8:45 ami
                                           FEDERAL REGISm, VOL. 42, NO.  173

                                            WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBE* 7, 1977
                                                     IV-206
-------
 72
   TttteW-
-Protection of Environment
    CHAPTER 1—ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION  AGENCY
             (FRL 790-41
PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
    Delegation of Authority to State of
               Wyoming
AOENCY:   Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY:  This rule will change the
address to  which reports  and applica-
tions must be sent by owners and opera-
ton of new and modified sources to the
State of Wyoming. The  address change
Is  the  result  of delegation of authority
to the State of Wyoming for New Source
Performance Standards (40 CFR Part
00).
ADDRESS: Any questions or comment*
should be sent to Director. Enforcement
Division,   Environmental   Protection
Agency, 1860 Lincoln street,  Denver.
Colo.  80295.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

  Mr. Irwln L. Dlckstein,  303-«37-3868.
SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
The  amendments  below institute cer-
tain  address changes for  reports and
applications required from operators  of
new and modified sources. EPA has del-
egated to  the  State  of Wyoming au-
thority to review  new  and  modified
•ources.  The delegated  authority In-
cludes the review under  40 CFR Part  80
for the standards of performance for
new  stationary sources.
  A notice announcing the delegation  of
authority Is published today  In the FED-
IHAI.  REGISTER  (Notices Section). The
amendments now  provide that all re-
ports, requests, applications, submlttals,
and communications previously required
for the delegated reviews will now be sent
to the Air Quality Division of the  Wyo-
ming  Department  of  Environmental
Quality Instead of EPA's Region VIH.
  The Regional Administrator finds good
came for  foregoing prior  public notice
and for making this rulemaklng effective
immediately In that it is an administra-
tive change and not one of substantive
content. No additional substantive bur-
dens are Imposed on the parties affected.
The delegation which Is reflected by this
administrative amendment was effective
on August 2.  1977, and It serves no pur-
pose to delay the  technical change of
this addition of the State address to the
Code of Federal Regulations.
(Sec. 111.' Clean Air Act,  as amended (42
U.8.C. 1867, 18B7C-5, fl, 7. 1867g).

  Dated: August 25,1977.
                  JOHN A. QHECN,
             Regional Administrator.
  Part 80 of  Chapter I,  Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amended
as follows:
  1. In 5 80.4 paragraph  (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph  (ZZ) to read
      RULES AND REGULATIONS

u follows:

§ 60.4  Addreu.
    •      •       •      •      *
  (b) '• • •
  (ZZ)  State of Wyoming. Air  Quality Dl-
TUlon of the Department of Environmental
Quality, Hathaway Building, Cheyenne, Wyo.
83003.
    *      *       *      *      •
  |PB Doc.77-36905 Piled 9-14-77;8:45 am]


    FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 179

      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15,  1977
                                                     IV-207
-------
                                            RULES AND  REGULATIONS
73
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
              (PBL 770-7]

     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
PART  60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
 ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
  Emission Guideline for Sulfuric Acid Mist

AGENCY:   Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY:   This  action  establishes
emission guidelines and times for com-
pliance for control of sulfuric acid mist
emissions from  existing  sulfuric  acid
plants.  Standards  of performance  have
been issued for emissions of sulfuric acid
mist, a designated pollutant, from new,
modified, and reconstructed sulfuric acid
plants. The Clean Air Act requires States
to control emissions of designated pollut-
ants  from existing  sources, and  this
rulemaking initiates the States' action
and  provides them guidelines  for what
will be acceptable by EPA.

DATES: State plans providing for the
control of sulfuric acid mist from exist-
ing plants are due for submission to the
Administrator on July 18, 1978. The Ad-
mlnbtrator has  four months from the
date required for submission of the plans,
or until November 18,  1978, to take ac-
tion  to approve  or disapprove the plan
or portions of it.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final guide-
line  document are available by writing
to the EPA Public Information Center
(PM-215), 401 M Street SW., Washing-
ton,  D.C. 20460. "Final Outdance Docu-
ment: Control of  Sulfuric Acid  Mist
Emissions From Existing Sulfuric  Acid
Production Units," June 1977, should be
specified when requesting the document.
A summary of the comments and EPA's
responses may be obtained at the same
address.  Copies of the comment letters
responding to the  proposed  rulemaking
published in  the FEDERAL REGISTER  on
November 4,  1976  (41  PR  48706)  are
available for public inspection and copy-
ing at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,  Public Information Reference
Unit (EPA Library), Room 2922, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

  Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
  and Engineering Division, Environ-
  mental Protection Agency, Research
  Triangle Park, N.C. 27711; telephone:
  919-541-5271.

SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
On November 4, 1976 (41 FR 48706) EPA
proposed an emission guideline  for sul-
furic  acid mist emissions from  existing
sulfuric acid plants and announced the
availability or a draft guideline docu-
ment for public  comment. A discussion
of the background and comments re-
ceived follows:
             BACKGROUND
  Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act
 requires that  "designated"  pollutants
 controlled under standards of perform-
 ance for new stationary sources by sec-
 tion 11 Kb)  of the Act must also be con-
 trolled  at exsiting sources in  the  same
 source category. New source standards of
 performance for sulfuric acid mist were
 promulgated December 23, 1971 (36 FR
 24876). Sulfuric acid mist is considered
 a designated   pollutant:  therefore,  it
 must be controlled under the provisions
 of section lll(d).
  As a step toward implementing the re-
 quirements of section lll(d), Subpart B
 of Part 60, entitled "State Plans for the
 Control of Certain Pollutants From Ex-
 isting  Facilities," was published on No-
 vember 17, 1975 (40 FR 53340).
  Subpart B provides that once a stand-
 ard  of performance for the control of a
 designated pollutant from a new source
 category Is promulgated, the Administra-
 tor  will then  publish a  draft  emission
 guideline and  guideline  document ap-
 plicable to the control of the same pollut-
 ant  from designated  (existing)  facilities.
 For  health-related pollutants, the emis-
 sion guideline will be proposed and sub-
 sequently be promulgated while emission
 guidelines for welfare-related pollutants
 will  appear only in the applicable guide-
 line  document. Sulfuric acid mist is con-
 sidered a health-related pollutant; there-
 fore, the proposed emission guideline and
 the announcement that the draft guide-
 line  document  was  available  for public
 Inspection and comment appeared in the
 FEDERAL REGISTER November 4,1976.
  Subpart B also provides nine months
 for  the  States to develop  and submit
 plans for control of the designated pol-
 lutant from the date that the  notice of
 availability of a final guideline is  pub-
 lished;  thus, the States will have  nine
 months from this date to develop their
 plans for the control  of  sulfuric  acid
 mist at designated facilities  within the
 State.
  Another provision of Subpart B is that
 which  provides  the  Administrator  the
 option of either approving or disapprov-
 ing the State submitted plan or  portions
 of it within four months after the  date
 required for submission. If the plan  or
 a portion of it is disapproved,  the Ad-
 ministrator is required to promulgate a
 new  plan or a replacement of the inade-
 quate portions of the plan. These and re-
 lated provisions of Subpart B are essen-
 tially patterned after section 110 of the
 Act and 40 CFR Part 51 which sets forth
 the requirements for adoption and  sub-
 mit'al of State  implementation plans
 under section 110 of the Act.

       COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
  During the  60-day comment period
 following the publication of the proposed
 emission guidelines on November 4,1976,
 eleven  comment letters were received;
 four  from State pollution control agen-
 cies,  five from  industry and two from
 other government agencies. None of the
 comments warranted, a change in the
emission guideline nor  did  any com-
 ments justify any significant changes In
 the guideline document.
   One commenter believed that sulfuric
 acid mist is included within the defini-
 tion of sulfur oxides as contained in the
 Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides;
 therefore, it is subject to control as a cri-
 teria pollutant under State implemen-
 tation plans,  section 110 of the Clean
 Act, and not  as  a designated pollutant
 under section lll(d)  of  the Act.  EPA
 does not agree with this comment.  Sul-
 furic acid mist is only one of a number of
 related compounds noted  in the criteria
 document defining sulfur oxides. Sulfuric
 acid mist is not listed and regulated in
 and of itsclf. In addition, although some
 designr.ted  pollutants controlled  under
 section lll(d) may occur In particulate
 a? well  as caseous form and thus  may
 be controlled to some degree under State
 implementation plan regulations requir-
 ing control of particulate matter, specific
 rather  than incidental control of such
 pollutants   is  required  under  section
 lll(d).
   Several commenters  were concerned
 that the emission guideline was not based
 on the health and welfare effects of sul-
 furic acid mist or on such other factors
 as plant site location and the hazard of
 cumulative  impacts where emissions
 from other  sources  interacted.  Another
 commenter  noted that since the toxico-
 logical effects of exposure to sulfuric acid
 mist are a function of concentration and
 time, a  daily maximum  time-weighted
 average concentration limitation should
 be considered.
   These comments appear to be  based on
 a  misunderstanding of the intent  and
 purpose  of section lll(d>  of the Act. In
 the preamble to the section  lll(d)  pro-
 cedural regulation  (40 FR 53340),  It is
 stated that section lll(d)  requires emis-
 sion controls based on the general prin-
 ciple of the  application of the best ade-
 quately demonstrated control technology,
 considering  costs, rather  than  controls
 based directly on health or welfare effects
 or on other factors such as those men-
 tioned in the comments. Section lll(b)
 (1) (A)  of the Act requires the Admin-
 istrator to list categories of sources once
 it  Is  determined that they may  con-
 tribute  to the endangerment of public
 health or welfare. While  this is a  pre-
 requisite  tor the development of stand-
 ards under section lll(d), the  emission
 guideline  is  technology-based  rather
 than  tied specifically  to  protection of
 health or welfare. The States, in devel-
 oping regulations for the control of  sul-
 furic  acid  mist,  have the  prerogative
 under 40 CFR 60.24  (f) and (g) to de-
 velop standards which may be based on
health or welfare considerations or on
 any other relevant factors.
  Some of the comments addressed the
 stringency of the emission guideline. One
 commenter  considered  the  emission
 guideline inflexible to the point where its
 application will be too stringent in some
 areas and inadequate In others.  Another
commenter thought the guideline docu-
ment indicated that  facilities using  ele-
mental sulfur as feedstock can meet more-
rigid emission standards and that  the
                             FBEtAl IEOISTEK, VOL 42, NO. 201—TUESDAY, OCTOBR II, 197T


                                                   IV-208
-------
                                             RULES AND  REGULATIONS
emission guidelines should include more
stringent standards for these facilities.
   EPA  has  provided  a great deal  of
flexibility in  developing emission  stand-
ards for the control of designated pollut-
ants under Subpart B of Part 60. Specifi-
cally, 40 CFR  60.24(b) provides  that
nothing under Subpart B precludes any
State from adopting or enforcing more
stringent emission standards than those
specified in the  guideline document. On
the other hand, 40 CFR Part 60.24 (f)
provides that States, "on a case-by-case
basis for particular designated facilities,
or classes of  facilities * • • may provide
for the application of less stringent emis-
sion standards than those otherwise re-
quired * • *" provided certain conditions
are demonstrated by the State. The con-
ditions include unreasonable cost of con-
trol resulting from plant age, location or
basic process design, physical  Impossi-
bility  of installing necessary  control
equipment, and  other factors specific to
the facility that make the application of
a  less  stringent standard  significantly
more reasonable. To include more strin-
gent standards  for facilities using ele-
mental sulfur as feedstock  would cause
an unacceptable  economic  burden for
those sources which have  already in-
stalled  efficient  emission control equip-
ment to meet a  State regulation. To re-
quire these sources to retrofit additional
emission control equipment to meet a
more stringent  standard would  be In-
equitable.
             MXSCtLLANIOTJS
  Nora.—Th«   Environmental  Protection
Agency has determined that this document
don not contain a major  proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis
under Executive Order 11831 and 11949 and
OMB Circular  A-107.

   Dated: September 22, 1977.
               DOUGLAS M. COSTLI,
                      Administrator.
   Part  60 of  Chapter I of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations la  amended
by adding Subpart C as follows:
     Subpirt C—Emlnlon Guideline* sod
             Compliance Tlmet
 Sec.
80.30  Scope.
60.31  Definitions.
90.32  Designated facilities.
60.83  Emission guideline*.
60.84  Compliance times.
  AUTHOIUTT;  Sections lU(d), SOI (a) of the
Clean Air Act  as amended (42 U.8.C.  1M70-4
and 1857g(a)), and additional authority M
noted below,

   Subpart C—Emission Guideline* and
           Compliance Time*
§ 60.30  Scope.
  This subpart contains emission guide-
lines and compliance times for  the con-
trol of certain designated pollutants from
certain  designated  facilities  In accord-
ance with section lll(d)  of the Act and
Subpart B.
f 60.31   Definitions.
  Terms  used but  not defined  in  this
subpart have the  meaning given them
In the Act and In  Subparts A and B of
this  part.
§ 60.32   Designated facilities.
  (a) Sulfuric acid  production units.
The designated facility to which  »{ 60.33
(a) and 60.34(a)  apply is each existing
"sulfuric acid production unit" as de-
fined in 5 60.81 (a) of Subpart H.
§ 60.33   Emission guideline*,
  (a) Sulfuric acid  production units.
The  emission guideline  for  designated
facilities is 0.25 gram sulfuric acid mist
(aa measured by Reference Method 8. of
Appendix  A) per  kilogram of sulfuric
acid  produced (0.5 Ib/ton). the produs-
tlon   being  expressed as  100  percent
HJS The standards of performance fall
 to provide for excessive emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and mal-
 function.
  (2)  The standards  of  performance
prescribe averaging times too short to ac-
 commodate the  normal fluctuation*  in
 sulfur  dioxide emissions   Inherent  In
 smelting  operations.
   EXCESS EMISSIONS DUSJNO STARTUP,
     SHUTDOWN AKD MALFUNCTION
  For all sources covered under  40 CTR
 Part 60, compliance with numerical emU-
 ilon limits must be  determined  through
 performance  teats.  40 CFR 60.8(c>  ex-
empts periods  of startup, shutdown, and
 malfunction from performance teat*. By
 Implication this means compliance with
 numerical emission  limits cannot be de-
 termined during periods of startup, shut-
 down, and malfunction. EPA and Kenne-
 cott have agreed that for clarification
                                                     IV-209
-------
                                                RULES AND REGULATIONS
purposes this should be specifically stated
In the regulation. Therefore, an amend-
ment to this effect is being made in 40
CFR 60.8(c).
  This exemption from compliance with
numerical emission limits during startup,
shutdown  and  malfunction,  however,
does not exempt the owner or operator
from  compliance with the requirements
ol 40 CPR 60.U(d) which says: "At all
times, including periods of startup, shut-
down, and malfunction, owners and op-
erators shall, to the extent practicable.
maintain and operate any affected fa-
cility including  associated air pollution
control equipment  in a  manner con-
sistent  with good  air pollution  control
practice for minimizing emissions."
           AVERAGING TIMES

  Kennecott  alleged  that  a six-hour
averaging time  Is not long enough to
average out periods of  excessive  emis-
sions  of sulfur dioxide which normally
occur at smelters equipped with best con-
trol technology.  According to Kennecott.
the  six-hour  averaging  period simply
does not mask emission variations caused
by normal fluctuations In gas  strengths
and volumes.
  A performance test to determine com-
pliance with  the  numerical  emission
limit  Included In the standard  of per-
formance  consists  of  the  arithmetic
average  of  three  consecutive six-hour
emission  tests.  EPA's analysis  of the
emission  data  presented  In the  back-
ground document  ("Background Infor-
mation for New  Source  Performance
Standards:  Primary Copper,  Zinc, and
Lead  Smelters," October  1974) support-
Ing the standards  of performance for
copper smelters  Indicates  that the pos-
sibility of a performance test  exceeding
the standard of  performance under nor-
mal conditions is extremely low, less than
0.15  percent. This same  analysis, how-
ever,  indicates  that  the  possibility of
emissions averaged over  a single six-
hour  period exceeding  the numerical
emission limit Included In the standard
of performance during normal operation
is about 1.5 percent. To reconcile this
situation  with  the excess  emission re-
porting  requirements, which  currently
require all six-hour periods  In excess of
the level of the sulfur dioxide standard
to be  reported  as  excess emissions. 40
CPR 60.165 Is being amended to provide
that if emissions exceed the level of the
standard for no more than 1.5  percent
of the six-hour averaging periods during
a quarter, they will  not  be considered
Indicative of  potential  violation  of 40
CPR 60.11 
-------
                                                RULES AND REGULATIONS
75           |PRL 781-7)

PART  60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Amendment to Subpart  0: Sewage Sludge
              Incinerators

AGENCY:   Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY:  This rule revises  the  ap-
plicability of the standwd of perform-
ance for sewage sludge incinerators to
cover any Incinerator that burns wastes
containing more than 10 percent sewage
sludge (dry basis)  produced by  munici-
pal sewage treatment plants, or charges
more than 1000 kg (2205  Ib)  per  day
municipal sewage sludge (dry basis). The
State of  Alaska requested  that EPA re-
vise  the  standard because Incinerators
small enough to meet the needs  of small
communities in Alaska  and comply with
the paniculate matter  standard are too
costly, and land disposal is not feasible
In areas with permafrost and high water
tables. The intended effect of the revi-
sion is to  exempt from  the standard
small incinerators for the combined dis-
posal of  municipal wastes and sewage
sludge when  land disposal, which Is
normally a cheaper and preferable alter-
native, is infeasible  due to permafrost,
high water tables, or other conditions.

DATES:  This  amendment  is effective
November  10, 1977,  as  required  by
I 111(b) (1MB) of  the  Clean Air" Act as
amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION  CON-
TACT:

  Don R. Goodwin, Emission Standards
  and  Engineering  Division, Environ-
  mental Protection Agency. Research
  Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
  telephone 919-541-5271.

SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
On January 26. 1977 (42 PR 4863). EPA
published  a   proposed  amendment  to
Subpart  0 of 40 CFR Part 60. An error
in that proposal necessitated a correc-
tion notice that was published  on Feb-
ruary 18, 1977 (42 FR  10019). The pro-
posed amendment exempted any sewage
sludge incinerator located at a municipal
waste  treatment plant having  a  dry
sludge capacity below  140  kg/hr (300
Ib/hr),  and   where it would  not  be
feasible to dispose of the sludge by land
application or in a sanitary landfill be-
cause of  freezing conditions. Prompting
this  amendment was a request by  the
State of Alaska which noted  (1)  the
limited availability of  small sludge in-
cinerators which can meet the particu-
late  matter standard, and  (2) the dif-
ficulty of using landfills as an alternative
means of sewage sludge disposal in some
Alaskan communities because of perma-
 frost conditions.
  During the comment period on that
 proposal, four comment letters were re-
 ceived. Copies of these letters and a sum-
 mary  of  the  comments  with  EPA's
 responses  are  available  for  public In-
 spection and copying at the EPA Public
 Information  Reference Unit. Room 2922
 (EPA Library), 401 M Street SW., Wash-
 ington. D.C.  In addition, copies of the
 comment  summary  and  Agency  re-
 sponses  may be obtained upon  written
 request  from  the Public  Information
 Center  (PM-215), Environmental Pro-
 tection   Agency,   401  M  Street  SW..
 Washington.  D.C.  20460  (specify Public
 Comment  Summary: Amendment  to
 Standards  of performance for  Sewage
 Treatment Plants).
  One commenter requested that indus-
 trial  sludge  incineration  also  be  ex-
 empted by this revision.  Only incinera-
 tors which burn sludge produced by mu-
 nicipal sewage treatment plants are cov-
 ered by  Subpart O.  Incineration of in-
 dustrial  sludges are not covered  because
 they may involve special metal, toxic and
 radioactive waste  problems which were
 not addressed by the original study for
 developing the standard.
  Three  other commenters  questioned
 the applicability of the proposed amend-
 ment. One questioned the  need  for the
 proposed exemption, arguing  that small
 Incinerators  with  control devices suffi-
 cient to meet  the existing paniculate
 emission standard of 0.65 g/kg dry sludge
 input are  commercially  available  and
 should be used. Two others recommended
 wording  to broaden the proposed  exemp-
 tion. They suggested that the amend-
 ment as  proposed is  too restrictive, con-
 sidering  the  ci. ditioi ' faced by small
 communities  ir,  Alask<- One noted that
 high  water-tabie  levei.s  severely  limit
 land disposal of sludyo in  many areas.
 The other  n.acic a sim: :tr comment but
 attributed  the problem u> high  rainfall
 as well.
  Based  upon these comments, EPA re-
.evaluated the need for the  proposed ex-
 emption. EPA  recognizes  that at least
 one type of  Incinerator  (the  fluidized-
 bed type) can be constructed in size cat-
 egories of less than 140 kg/hr (300 Ib/hr)
 And with emission control equipment ca-
 pable of  achieving the existing standard.
 However, separate sludge disposal by an
 Incinerator dedicated exclusively to sew-
 age sludge is unduly costly for a small
 community. This conclusion la based on
 data contained  in two EPA publications:
 A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effec-
 tlve Wastewater  Treatment Bystems
 (EPA-430/9-75-002).   and   Municipal
 Sludge Management:  EPA Construction
 Grants  Program—An  Overview  of  the
 Sludge  Management Situation  (EPA-
 430/9-76-009). Sludge incineration costs,
 especially those for operation and main-
 tenance,  were   compared  for  sewage
 treatment plants of 1 and 10 million gal-
 lons per day (mgd) capacity. Costs for a
 1 mgd plant (about 1000 kg of dry sludge
 per day)  were 100  to 300 percent higher
 than those for a 10 mgd facility. A small,
 remote community which already incin-
 erates Its other municipal wastes would
bear the  heaviest burden If forced to in-
cinerate Its sewage sludge separately.
  In most Instances, neither municipal
waste nor sewage sludge incinerators are
constructed because land disposal Is a
more cost-effective  alternative. The co-
Inclneratlon of sewage  sludge with solid
waste  should be a cost-effective and
energy-efficient   disposal   alternative
whenever land disposal options are not
reasonably available. Since  high  water
table levels,  high annual precipitation.
freezing  conditions, and  other factors
limit or preclude the land application or
sanitary  landfllling  of  sludge, EPA has
decided to broaden  the exemption. Only
freezing  conditions  were  considered in
the proposed exemption. However, an ex-
emption  based on these additional fac-
tors would be difficult to enforce due to
climatic  variability.
  In order to make  the exemption suffi-
ciently broad and  readily enforceable.
EPA has decided to  exemot incinerators
that burn not more than 1000 kg per day
of sewage sludge from municipal sewage
treatment plants provided that the sew-
age sludge (dry basis) does not comprise,
by weight, more than 10 percent of the
total waste burned.  The exemption pro-
vides relief only when  sewage sludge is
co-incinerated  with municipal wastes,
since any Incinerator  combusting more
than 10 percent sewage sludge Is affected
by the emission standard regardless  of
the amount of sludge  combusted.  This
approach, Is based principally on the eco-
nomics of sewage waste disposal and ap-
plies to any small community faced with
very difficult land disposal conditions. It
allows  disposal of  small  quantities  of
sewage sludge In Incinerators primarily
combusting municipal refuse.
  Currently,   sludge  Incineration  for
small communities is 50 to 100 percent
more costly per ton of dry sludge than
land application or  sanitary  landfllling.
Even though  EPA is proposing criteria
for  landfill design  and operation, the
costs of incineration are expected to re-
main significantly higher. Thus, it is ex-
pected that this exemption will not cause
a shift to incineration, but will only pro-
                                                    IV-211
-------
vide relief in areu where land disposal
IB either infeaalble or very costly.
  The purpose of the amendment is to
relieve small communities (<6,000 pop- •
ulstlon)  of  the burden of constructing
separate  incinerators  for   municipal
wastes and sewage sludge in areu where
land disposal is not feasible. Co-incinera-
tion of sewage sludge with solid wastes
la less costly than separate sludge in-
cineration and provides an energy bene-
fit in lower  auxiliary fuel consumption.
Without this amendment, any co-incin-
eration facility would have been consid-
ered a sludge incinerator under Subpart
0.
  Since sludge Incineration costs decline
•as the  quantities  disposed of increase,
this amendment limits the exemption to
co-Incineration units burning  not more
than 1000 kg  (2205 Ib) dry sludge per
day. At an  average generation rate of
0.11 kg (0.25 Ib) dry sludge per person
per  day, the 1000  kg limit represents a
population of approximately 9,000 per-
sons. The 10 percent sludge allowance In
such co-Incineration is based on the fact
that  an average community  generates
about  14 times as  much solid waste p«r
person as dry sludge. Thus the 10 percent
allowance should easily permit a small
community to co-lnclnerate all Its sludge
and solid waste in one facility.
  This  amendment does not affect the
applicability of the National  Emission
Standard for Mercury under 40 CFR Part
61. However, significant mercury  wastes
are  usually  not found  in  sewage  sludge
from small  communities,  but  are more
commonly found in metropolitan  wastes
from Industrial activity.
  It should  be noted that standards of
performance for new sources established
under section  111  of the  Clean Air Act
reflect  emission limit1! achievable with
the  best adequately demonstrated sys-
tems of emission reduction  considering
the  cost of   such systems. State  imple-
mentation plans (BIPs) approved or pro-
mulgated under section 110 of the Act,
on the other  hand, must  provide for
the  attainment and maintenance of na-
tional  ambient air 'quality  standards
 (NAAQ9)  designed to  protect  public
health  and  welfare. For that purpose
SIPs must In some cases require greater
emission reductions than  those required
by  standards  of performance for new
sources.
   States are free  under section  116 of
 the Act to establish even more stringent
emission limits than those necessary to
attain  or maintain the NAAQS under
section 110  or  those for new sources es-
 tablished under section 111. Thus, new
 sources .may in some nn^es  be  subject
 to limitations more stiL.^rnt than EPA's
 standards of performs, • 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 in-
cinerator.  The flow  measuring device
shall have 'an accuracy of  ±5 percent
over its operating range.
   (2)  Provide  access  to  the  sludge
charged so that a well mixed representa-
tive grab sample of the sludge can be ob-
tained.
   (3) Install, calibrate,  maintain, and
operate a weighing device for determin-
ing  the  mass of  any municipal  solid
waste charged to the incinerator when
sewage sludge and  municipal solid waste
are incinerated  together.  The weighing
device shall have an accuracy of ±5 per-
cent over its operating range.
(Sections 111, 114, 301 <•) of the Clean  Air
Act as amended (49  U.8.C. 1857c-«,  1867C-9,
lM7g(a)|.)
   | PR Doe.77-32687 Filed 11-9-77:8:40 »m|
    MOIRAl RMISTIR, VOL 43, NO. 117


     THURSDAY, NOVIMIIR 10, 1977
 76
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
    CHAPTER 1—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
     SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS
              | FRL 803-81
PART   60—STANDARDS OF  PERFORM-
ANCE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY SOURCES
  Opacity Provisions for Fossll-Fuel-Fired
           Steam Generators
AGENCY:  Environmental   Protection
Agency (EPA).'

ACTION: Final  rule.

SUMMARY: This rule revises the format
of the opacity standard and  establishes
reporting requirements for excess emis-
sions   of  opacity for  fossll-fuel-flred
steam  generators. This action is needed
to make the standard and reporting re-
quirements conform  to changes in the
Reference Method for determining opac-
ity which were promulgated on Novem-
ber 12, 1974,  (39  FR  39872). The in-
tended effect  is to limit opacity of emis-
sions In order to  Insure proper operation
and maintenance of facilities subject to
standards of performance.

EFFECTIVE DATE; This rule is effective
on December  5, 1977.

ADDRESSES: A summary of the public
comments received on the September 10,
1975 (40  FR  42028),  proposed rule with
EPA's  responses  Is available for public
Inspection and copying at the EPA Pub-
lic  Information  Reference  Unit  (EPA
Library), room 2922. 401 M Street SW..
Washington,  D.C. 20460.  In addition.
copies  of the  comment  summary may be
obtained by writing  to the EPA Public
Information Center (PM-215>, Washing-
ton, D.C. 20460  (specify: "Public Com-
ment Summary:  Steam Generator Opac-
ity Exception (40 FR 42028) ").

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

  Don R. Goodwin,  Director, Emission
  Standards  and  Engineering  Division
   ,  Environmental  Protection
  Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C,
  27111.  telephone: 919-541-5271.

SUPPLEMENTARY    INFORMATION:
The standards of performance for fossil-
fuel-flred steam  generators as  promul-
gated under Subpart D of Part 60 In De-
cember 23, 1971.  (36 FR 24878)  allow
emissions up  to  20 percent opacity, ex-
cept 40 percent Is allowed for two minutes
In any hour. On October  15, 1973.  (38
FR 28564) a provision was added to Sub-
part D which  required reporting as'excess
emissions  all hourly  periods  during
which there  were three or  more one-
minute periods  when  average  opacity
exceeds 20 percent. Changes to the opa-
city provisions  of Subpart A, General
Provisions, and  to Reference Method 9,
Visual Determination of the Opacity of
Emissions from Stationary Sources, were
promulgated  on  November 12,  1974 (39
                                                      IV-212
-------
                                               RULES  AND  REGULATIONS
PR 39872). Among  these changes is  a
requirement that opacity be determined
by averaging 24  readings taken  at 15-
second intervals. Because of this change,
the Agency reassessed the opacity stand-
ard originally promulgated  under  Sub-
part D. and on September 10,  1975. pro-
posed amendments to the opacity stand-
ard and reporting requirements. Specifi-
cally, these amendments would have de-
leted  the  permissible  exemption  (two.
minutes per hour of emissions of 40 per-
cent opacity) for gaseous and solid fossil
fuels.
  The proposed amendment to the opac-
ity provisions  was based on a review of
available data particularly with respect
to the challenge to the opacity standards
for coal-fired  steam  generators  220 MW heat input' that
are not equipped with hot side precipita-
tors. but again the deletion would have
HtUe effect and would needlessly compli-
cate the regulation.
  Section  60.42(a) '2) is amended by  ex-
pressing   the  two-minute  40  percent
opacity exception in terms of a six-min-
ute  27  percent   average  opacity   (l> which was re-
served  on October 6, 1975. (40 FR 462501
pending resolution of  the  opacity  ex-
ception, is added to require  reporting as
excess  emissions any six-minute period
during  which  the  average  opacity  of
emissions exceeds 20 percent opacity,  ex-
cept for the  one permissible six-minute
period  per  hour  of  up to  27  percent
opacity.
  NOTE.—The   Environmental   Protection
Agency  has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis
under Executive  Orders 11821 and 11D49  find
OMB Circular A-107.

  Dated: November 23, 1977.
               DOUGLAS M.  COSTLE,
                      Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. Section 60.42<2> Is  revised  as
follows :
§ 60.42   Standard for paniculate mailer.

  (a)  •  '  *
  (2)  Exhibit greater than  20 percent
opacity  except for one  six-minute  pe-
riod per  hour of not more than 27 per-
cent opacity.
(Sec. ill, 301(a), Clean Air Act as amended
(42U.S.C. 7411.7801).)
  2. Section 60.45
-------
                                                RULES AND  REGULATIONS
77
PART €0— STANDARDS  OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR  NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
      Delegation of Authority to the
      Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

AGENCY:   Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY : A notice announcing EPA's
delegation  of authority for the  New
Source Performance  Standards to  the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is pub^
llshed at page 62196 of  today's FEDERAL
REGISTER. In order to reflect this delega-
tion, this document amends EPA regula-
tions to require the submission of all no-
tices. reports, and other communications
called for by the delegated regulations
to the Commonwealth  of Puerto Rico
as well as to EPA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 9, 1977.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  J.  Kevin Healy, Attorney, U.S. Envi-
  ronmental Protection  Agency, Region
  n. General Enforcement Branch,  En-
  forcement Division, 26 Federal Plaza,
  New York. N.Y. 10007, 212-264-1196.
SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
By letter dated January 13, 1977 EPA
delegated authority to the  Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico to Implement  and
enforce the New  Source Performance
Standards. The Common -wealth accepted
this  delegation by letter dated October
17, 1977. A fujl account of the background
to this action and of the  exact terms
of the delegation  appears in the Notice
of Delegation which  is also published
in today's FEDERAL REGISTER.
  This rulemaklng is effective Immedi-
ately, since the Administrator has found
good cause to  forgo prior public notice.
This  addition  of the  Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico address  to the Code of
Federal Regulations Is a technical change
and  imposes  no additional -substantive
burden on the parties affected.

  Dated: November 22. 1977.

                 ECKARDT C. BECK.
             Regional Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I.  Title 40  of  the
Code of Federal Regulations ts amended
as follows :
  (1) In { 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraph (BBB) to read
as follows:
§ 60.4  Addrr«*.
  (AAA) • • •
  (BBB) — Commonwealth  of Puerto Rico:
Commonwealth of Puerto Rloo Environmen-
tal Quality Board, P.O. Box 11765. Santurce.
P.R. 00910.
    »       •       •      •       •
  (FRDoc.T7-3S16a Filed 13-6-T7;8:45 am|

    KOfftAl MOISTM, VOL. 41,  NO.  «T

       MIDAV, OtCEMtfR  «, 1*7?
   78
   Title 40—Protection of Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
         PROTECTION AGENCY
              [PRL 838-3)

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

 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY: The amendment below in-
 stitutes an address change for the imple-
 mentation  of technical and administra-
 tive review and enforcement of Preven-
 tion of Significant Deterioration provi-
 sions; Inspections, Monitoring and Entry
 provisions;  Standards  of Performance
 for New Stationary Sources; and Nation-
 al Emission Standards for  Hazardous
 Air  Pollutants. The  notice announcing
 the delegation of  authority is published
 elsewhere In this issue of the FEDERAL
 REGISTER.
 EFFECTIVE DATE:  October 6, 1977.

 ADDRESSES: This amendment provides
 that all reports,  requests, applications,
 and communications required for the
 delegated  authority  will no  longer be
 sent to the US. Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency, Region V Office, but will be
 sent  Instead  to:   Minnesota Pollution
 Control Agency, Division of Air Quality,
 1935 West  County Road B-2, Rosevllle,
 Minn. 651 IS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. CON-
 TACT:

   Joel Morblto, Air  Programs Branch,
   U.8. Environmental Protection Agency,
   Region V, 230  South  Dearborn St.,
   Chicago, HI.  60604. 312-353-2205.

 SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
 The Regional  Administrator finds good
cause for forgoing prior public  notice
and for malting this rulemaklng effective
Immediately in that it Is an adminis-
trative change and not one of substantive
content. No additional substantive bur-
dens are imposed on the parties affected.
The  delegations which are granted by
this  administrative  amendment  were
effective  October  6, 1977. and it  serves
no purpose to   delay  the  technical
change of this  addition of the State ad-
dress to the Code ot Federal Regulations.
This rulemaklng is effective Immediately
and ii issued under authority of sections
101.  110, 111,  112, 114, 160-149 of the
Clean Air  Act, as amended  (42  UJ3.C.
7401. 7410.  7411.  7412. 7414^-7470-78,
 7491). Accordingly, 40 CFR Part* 52, 60
 and 61 are amended as follows:
 PART  32—APPROVAL AND PROMULGA-
   TION OF IMPLEMENTATION  PLANS
         Subpart Y—Minnesota
   1. Section 52.1224 is amended by add-
 ing a new paragraph (b) (5) as follows:
 8 52.1224  General requirement!,
     •      •      •      •      •
 .  (b)  •  • •
   (5)  Authority of the Regional Admin-
 istrator to make  available information
 and data was delegated to the Minnesota
 Pollution Control Agency effective Octo-
 ber 6,  1977.
  2. Section 52.1234 Is amended by add-
 ing a new paragraph (c) as follows:

 i 52.1234  Significant  deterioration  of
     air quality.
     •      •      •      *      «
   (c)  All applications and other infor-
 mation required pursuant to f 62.21 from
 sources located In the State'of Minnesota
 shall be submitted to the Minnesota Pol-
 lution  Control  Agency, Division of Air
 Quality,  1935  West County  Road B-2.
 Rosevllle. Minn. 56113.


 PART  60—STANDARDS  OF  PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
     Subpart A—General Provisions
  1.  Section 60.4 is amended by adding
a new paragraph (b) (Y) as follows:
 §60.4   Addreu.
    •      •       •       »      «
  (b) • • •

(T) Minnesota Pollution  Control  Agency,
 Dlvlilon ot Air Quality, 1936 We»t County
 Road  B-2, Rosevllle. Minn. Ml 13.
           noiSTH, VOL 41, NO. 1

     TUISOAY, JANUARY I, 1*7*
                                                   IV-214
-------
  79
  PART 60—STANDARDS Of «RFORMANd
      FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

      R«vl»lon of R«ftr*nc« Method 11

 AGENCY: Environmental  Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY: This action revises refer-
 ence method 11. the method for deter-
 mining the hydrogen  sulfide  content
 of  fuel  gas  streams.  The  revision  Is
 made because EPA found  that inter-
 ferences  resulting  from  the  presence
 of  mercaptans In some  refinery  fuel
 gases can lead to erroneous test data
 when the current method fs used. This
 revision  eliminates  the problem  of
 mercaptan Interference  and  insures
 the accuracy of the test. data.

 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 1978.
 ADDRESSES: Copies of the comment
 letters responding to the proposed re-
 vision published In the  FEDERAL REGIS-
TER on May  23,  1977 (42 PR 26222),
 and a summary  of the  comments with
 EPA's  responses  are  available  for
 public Inspection and  copying at the
 U.S.     Environmental    Protection
 Agency, Public Information Reference
 Unit (EPA Library), Room 2922. 401  M
 Street SW., Washington,  D.C. 204GO. A
 copy of the summary of comments and
 EPA's responses may be obtained by
 writing  the  Emission  Standards  and
 Engineering  Division  (MD-13), Envi-
 ronmental   Protection  Agency.  Re-
 search Triangle  Park,  N.C.   27711.
 When   requesting   this  document,
 "Comments and Responses Summary:
 Revision  of  Reference  Method  11,"
 •hould be specified.

 FOR   FURTHER   INFORMATION
 CONTACT:

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

 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 On March 8, 1974,  the  Environmental
 Protection Agency  promulgated stan-
 d&rds of performance  limiting emis-
 •lons of sulfur dioxide from new, modi-
 fled,  and reconstructed fuel gas com-
 bustion  devices  at  petroleum  refiner-
 ies.   At   the  same  time,   reference
 method  11  was  promulgated as  the
 performance test method for measur-
 ing ILS in the fuel gases. It was  found
 after the promulgation of  method 11
that  Interference resulting from  the
presence of mercaptans in some refin-
ery fuel  gases can lead  to erroneous
test results in those cases where mer-
captans  were present  in  significant
concentrations.
      RULES  AN&  REGULATIONS


  Following studies of  the problems
 related to reference method 11,  it was
 decided  to  revise the method  and the
 revision was proposed in the  FEDKRAL
 REGISTKH on May  23, 1977.  The  major
 change in the proposed revision from
 the-original promulgation  was a sub-
 stitution  of a  new absorbing  solution
 that  Is essentially  free  from  merc;ip-
 tan  interference.  New  sections  were
 also added  which  described the  range
 anu sensitivity, interferences, and pre-
 cision and accuracy of the revision.
  7'hnrr were seven comments  received
 concerning  the proposed revision. Five
 were received from industry, one frcni
 R local environmental control agency
 Rild one  from  ;\ research'laboratory.
 Nous of the comments warranted any
 significant char.pcs of the proposed re-
 vision. The  final revision differs from
 the revision  proposed on May 23. 1977.
 in  only  one   respect:  Phenylarsine
 oxide  standard  solution has  been in-
 cluded as an acceptable  titrant in lieu
 of sodium thiosulfate.
  The effective date of this regulation
 is  January   10,  1978. because section
 lll(b)UKB) of the Clean Air Act pro-
 vides that standards of performance or
 revisions  of them  become effective
 upon promulgation.
  NOTE.—The   Environmental   Protection
 Agency has determined that this document
 does not contain a. major proposal requiring
 preparation of an economic Impact analyst:
 under Executive -Orders  11821 and 11949
 and OMB Circular A-107.
  Dated. December 29, 1977.
               DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                     Administrator.
 Part 60 of Chapter I of Title  40 of
the  Code of Federal  Regulations  is
amended by  revising Method 11 of Ap-
pendix A—Reference Methods as fol-
lows:
     APPENDIX A.—REFERENCE METHODS
        1 I--DETERMINATION  OF HYT5RCKJIN
         CONTENT OF FUEL GAS STREAMS IN
  PETROLEUM RFFINERIES

  1. Principle and applicability. 1.1  Princi-
ple. Hydrogen sulfide  is collected from
n source in a series of midget implngers and
absorbed In pH 3.0 cadmium sulfatc (CdSO.)
solution to  form cadmium  sulfide (CdS).
The latter compound is then measured iodo-
metrically. An implnpor containing hydro-
gen peroxide is included to remove SO, AS
an interfering species. This method Is a revi-
sion of the HiS method originally published
In the FKDKHAL REC.ISTKR. Volume 39. No. 47.
dated Friday. March 0, 1074.
  1.2  Applicability. This method Is applica-
ble  for the determination of the hydrogen
sulfkie content of fuel gas streams at petro-
leum refineries.
  2. Range and scr.silii'ity. The lower limit
of detection is  approximately 8 mg/m1 (6
ppm). The maximum of  the range is 740
     ' (520 ppm i.
  3.  Interferences. Any compound that re-
 duces iodine or oxidizes iodide ion will inter-
 fere  in this procedure, provide it Is collected
 in the cadmium sulfate  implngers.  Sulfur
 dioxide in concentrations  of up to 2.600 mg/
 m' is eliminated by '.he hydrogen peroxide
 solution.  Thiols precipitate with hydrogen
 sulfide. In the absence of  H,S, only co-traces
 of thiols  are collected. When methane- and
 cthane-thioU at a total level of 300 mg/m'
 are present In  addition to H.S. the results
 vary from 2 percent low  at an H,S conceh-
 tratJor. of 400 mg/m' to 14 percent high at
 an H,S concentration of 100 mg/m'. Carbon
 oxysulfidc at a concentration of 20 percent
 does  not interfere. Certain carbon.vl-con-
 tatning compounds react  with  Iodine and
 Fro(!::ci' recurring end points. However, ac-
 e:.i!;ii-::yde and acetone at concentrations of
 1 an:! ? percent, respectively, do not  Inter-
 fere.
  Eiitrained hydrogen peroxide produces a
 negative interference equivalent to 100 per-
 cent  of that of an equimolar quantity of hy-
 dropi'n sul.'idc  Avoid Ihe  ejection of hydro-
 gen peroxide into the cadmium sulfate im-
 pincers.
  4. Precision and accuracy. Collaborative
 testing has shown the within-laboratory co-
 efficient of  variation to be 2.2  percent and
 the overall  coefficient of variation to be 5
 percent The method bias was shown  to be
 —4.8 percent when only H,S was present. In
 the presence of the  interferences cited In
 section 3. the bias was positive  at low HrS
 concentrations  and negative at higher con-
 centrations. At 230 mg HtS/m', the level o(
 the compliance standard,  the bias was +2.7
 percent. Thiols had no effect on the preci-
sion.
  6. Apparatus.
  5.1  Sampling apparatus.
  5.1.1  Sampling line. Six to 7 mm (V« in.)
Teflon' tubing to connect  the sampling
 train to the sampling valve.
  5.1.2 Impingers. Five  midget Implngers,
each with 30 ml capacity. The Internal di-
ameter of the Impinger tip must be  1 mm
 ±0.05 mm. The Impinger tip must be posi-
 tioned 4 to 6 mm from the bottom of the 1m-
pinger.
  5.1.3 Glass or  Teflon connecting tubing
for the Implngers.
  5.1.4 Ice bath container. To maintain ab-
sorbing solution at a low temperature.
  5.1.5 Drying  tube. Tube packed with 6- to
 16-mesh Indicating-type silica gel. or  equiv-
alent, to dry the gas sample and protect the
meter and pump. If the silica gel has been
used  previously, dry at 175' C'(350' F) for 2
hours.  New silica  gel  may  be  used  at re-
ceived. Alternatively, other types of  destc-
cants (equivalent or  better) may  be  used.
subject to approval of the  Administrator.

  NOTE.—Do not use more than 30 g of silica
gel Silica gel absorbs gases such as propane
from the  fuel gas stream, and use of  exces-
sive  amounts of  silica  gel could result in
errors  In the  determination   of sample
volume.
  6.1.8  Sampling  valve.  Needle valve  or
equivalent to adjust gas flow rale. Stainless
•toe)  or other corrosion-resistant material.
  5.1.7 Volume meter. Dry gas meter, suffi-
ciently accurate  to  measure  the sample
volume within  2 percent, calibrated at the
•elected flow rate (-1.0 liter/mini and con-
ditions actually encountered  during  sam-
pling. The meter shall  be equipped with  a
temperature gauge (dial thermometer or
equivalent)  capable of measuring tempera-
ture  to within 3' C (S.I' F). The gas  meter
should have a petcock. or equivalent, on the
outlet connector which can be closed during
the leak check. Oas volume for one revolu-
tion of the meter must not be more than 10
liters.

  'Mention of trade names of specific prod-
ucts does  not constitute endorsement by the
Environmental  Protection Agency.
                                                      IV-2]
-------
                                                   tUlIS AND REGULATIONS
  6.1.8  Flow  meter.  Rotameter or  equlv-
•lent, to measure now rates in the range
from 0.5 to 2 Hters/min (1 to 4 cfh).
  (.1.9  Graduated cylinder. 25 ml size.
  6.1.10 Barometer.  Mercury, aneroid, or
other barometer capable of measuring at-
mospheric  pressure  to within 2.5  mm  Hg
(0.1 In.  Hg). In many cases, the barometric
reading may be obtained from a nearby Na-
tional  Weather Service station, In  which
cue, the station value (which Is the abso-
lute barometric pressure) shall be requested
and an  adjustment for elevation differences
between the weather station  and the sam-
pling  point shall be applied at a rate of
minus 2.5 mm Hg (0.1 In. Hg) per 30 m  (100
ft) elevation Increase or vice-versa for eleva-
tion decrease.
  S.I.11 U-tube manometer. 0-30 cm water
column. For leafc check procedure.
  5.1.12 Rubber squeeze bulb. To pressur-
tase train for leak check.
  5.1.13 Tee, plnchclamp.  and connecting
tubing.  For leak check.
  6.1.14 Pump. Diaphragm pump, or equiv-
alent Insert • onall surge Unk between the
pump and rate meter to eliminate the pulsa-
tion effect of the diaphragm pump  on  the
rotameter. The pump is used  for  the air
purge  at the end of the sample run;  the
pump  Is not ordinarily used during sam-
pling, because fuel gas streams are usually
sufficiently  pressurized to force sample gas
through the train at  the required flow rale.
The pump need not be leak-free unless It is
used for sampling.
  5.1.15  Needle valve or critical orifice. To
set air purge flow to 1 llter/mln.
  5.1.16 Tube packed  with  active carbon.
To filter air during purge.
  6.1.17  Volumetric flask. One 1.000 ml.
  6.1.18  Volumetric pipette. One 15 ml.
  5.1.19  Pressure-reduction  regulator.  De-
pending on  the sampling stream pressure, a
pressure-reduction regulator may be needed
to reduce the pressure of the gas stream en-
tering the Teflon sample line to a safe level.
  5.1.20  Cold trap.  If condensed water or
•mine Is present in  the sample stream, a
corrosion-resistant cold  trap  shall be used
Immediately after the sample tap. The trap
•hall not be operated below 0' C (32' F) to
•void condensation  of C, or C. hydrocar-
bons.
  6.2  Sample recovery.
  6.1.1  Sample   container.   Iodine  flask,
(lacs-stoppered: 500 ml size.
  6.2.2  Pipette. 50 ml volumetric type.
  6.1.3  Graduated  cylinders.  One  each 25
and 250 ml.
  5.2.4  Flasks. 125 ml. Erlenmeyer.
  6,2.5  Wash bottle.
  6.2.6  Volumetric flasks. Three 1.000 ml.
  5.3  Analysis.
  6.3.1  Flask. 500 ml glass-stoppered Iodine
flask.
  6.3.2  Burette. 50 ml.
  6.3.3  Flask. 125 ml. Erlenmeyer.
  64.4  Pipettes, volumetric. One 25 ml;  two
each 50 and 100 ml.
  6J.S  Volumetric  flasks.  One 1.000  ml;
two 500 ml.
  6.3.6  Graduated  cylinders. One  each 10
•nd 100 ml.
  6. Reagents. Unless otherwise indicated. It
to Intended  that all reagents conform to the
specifications established by the Committee
on  Analytical Reagents  of the American
Chemical Society, where such specifications
•re available. Otherwise, use  best available
grade.
  •.1  Sampling.
  •.1.1  Cadmium  sulfate  absorbing  solu-
tion. Dissolve 41 g of  3CdSO.8H,O and 15
ml of 0.1 M sulfuric acid in  a Miter volumet-
ric flask that contains approximately y. liter
of  delonlzed  distilled  water.   Dilute  to
volume with delonized water. Mix thorough-
ly. pH  should be 3±0.l. Add 10 drops of
Dow-Corning Antlfoam B. Shake well before
use. If Antifoara B is not used, the alternate
acidified Iodine extraction procedure (sec-
tion 7.2.2) must be used.
  8.1.2  -Hydrogen  peroxide.  3   percent.
Dilute 30 percent hydrogen peroxide to 3
percent as needed. Prepare  fresh dally.
  6.1.3  Water. Delonized.  distilled to con-
form   to  ASTM  specifications  Dl 193-72.
Type 3. At the option of  the analyst, the
KMnO. test  for oxidizable organic matter
may be omitted when high  concentrations
of organic matter  are not expected to be
present.
  6.2  Sample recovery.
  6.2.1  Hydrochloric  acid solution (HC1).
3M. Add 240 ml of concentrated HC1 (specif-
ic gravity 1.19) to 500 ml  of deionized. dis-
tilled water  In a 1-liter volumetric flask.
Dilute to 1 liter with delonized water. Mi::
thoroughly.
  6.2.2  Iodine solution 0.1 N. Dissolve 24 g
of potassium Iodide (KI) In 30 ml of delon-
ized,  distilled water. Add  12.7 « of resub-
Umed Iodine (I,) to the potassium Iodide so-
lution. Shake the mixture until the iodine Is
completely dissolved. If possible,  let the so-
lution stand  overnight In  the dark. Slowly
dilute the solution to 1 liter with deionized.
distilled water, with swirling. Filter the so-
lution  If It Is  cloudy. Store' solution In  a
brown-glass reagent bottle.
  6.2.3  Standard Iodine solution.  0.01 N. Pi-
pette 100.0 ml of the 0.1 N Iodine  solution
Into a 1-llter volumetric  flask and dilute to
volume with delonlzed. distilled water. Stan-
dardize dally as In  section  8.1.1.  This  solu-
tion must be protected from light. Reagent
bottles and flasks must be kepi tightly stop-
pered.
  6.3  Analysis.
  6.3.1  Sodium thiosulfate solution,  stan-
dard 0.1 N. Dissolve 24.6 g of sodium  thlo-
tulfate pentahydrate (Na^fi.0,5H,O) or 15.8
f of anhydrous sodium thiosulfate (NaAO,)
In 1  liter of  delonlzed. distilled water and
add 0.01 g of anhydrous sodium  carbonate
(Na,CO.) and  0.4 ml of chloroform (CHC1.)
to stabilize. Mix thoroughly  by shaking or
by aerating with nitrogen for approximately
15 minutes and store In a glass-stoppered.
reagent  bottle. Standardize  as In section
8.1.2.
  6.3.2  Sodium thiosulfate solution, stan-
dard 0.01 N. Pipette 50.0 ml of the standard
0.1 N thiosulfate solution Into a volumetric
flask  and dilute to 500 ml  with  distilled
water.

  NOTE.—A 0.01 N phenylarslne oxide  solu-
tion may be prepared instead of 0.01 N thlo-
sul/at-e (see section 6.3.3).

  6.3.3  Phenylarslne  oxide solution, stan-
dard 0.01 N. Dissolve 1.80 g of phenylarslne
oxide (C.H,AsD) In 150 ml  of 0.3 N sodium
hydroxide. After settling, decant  140 ml of
this solution  Into 800 ml of distilled water.
Bring the solution to pH 6-7 with  6N hydro-
chloric  acid and dilute to 1 liter.  Standard-
ize as In section 8.1.3.
  6.3.4  Starch Indicator solution. Suspend
10 g of soluble starch In 100 rnl of delonlzed.
distilled water and add  15 g of  potassium
hydroxide  (KOH)  pellets.  Stir  until dis-
solved, dilute with 900 ml  of delonlzed dis-
tilled  water and let stand'for 1 hour.  Neu-
tralize the alkali with concentrated hydro-
chloric acid, using an Indicator paper similar
to Alkacld test ribbon, then add 2 ml of gla-
cial acetic acid as a preservative.
  NOTE.—Test starch  indicator solution for
decomposition  by  titrating,  with 0.01 N
Iodine solution. 4 ml of starch solution In
200 ml of distilled  water that contains 1 g
potassium Iodide. If more than 4 drops of
the 0.01 N  Iodine solution  are required to
obtain the blue color, a fresh  solution must
be prepared.
  7. Procedure.
  7.1   Sampling.
  7.1.1  Assemble  the  sampling  train  as
shown  In figure  11-1. connecting the  five
midget impingers In series. Place 15 ml of 3
percent hydrogen peroxide solution In  the
first  Impinger. Leave the  second Impinger
empty. Place 15 m! of the cadmium sulfate
absorbing solution In  the third, fourth,  and
fifth  Impingers. Place the Impinger assem-
bly  In an  Ice bath  container  and  place
crushed Ice around the impingers. Add more
Ice during the run. if needed.
  7.1.2  Connect the rubber bulb and mano-
meter to first Impincer.  as shown In  figure
11-1.  Close the  petcock on the  dry gas meter
outlet. Pressurize the train to 25-cm  water
pressure with the bulb and close off tubing
connected to rubber  bulb. The train must
hold  a 25-cm water pressure with not more
than  a 1-cm drop in pressure  In a 1-minute
interval. Stopcock grease is acceptable for
sealing ground  glass Joints.

  NOTE.—This leak  check procedure  is op-
tional at the beginning of the sample run.
but  Is mandatory at the conclusion. Note
also that if the pump Is used for sampling. It
Is recommended (but not required) that the
pump be leak-checked  separately, using a
method consistent with the leak-check pro-
cedure for  diaphragm  pumps  outlined in
section 4.1.2 of reference method 6, 40 CFR
Part 60. Appendix A.

  7.1.3  Purge  the connecting  line between
the sampling valve and first   Impinger. by
disconnecting the line  from  the first  Im-
pinger, opening the sampling  valve, and al-
lowing process  gas to flow through the  line
for a minute or two. Then, close the sam-
pling valve and reconnect the line to the im-
plngcr train. Open the petcock on the  dry
gas meter outlet. Record the Initial dry gas
meter reading.
  7.1.4  Open the sampling valve and then
adjust the valve to obtain a rate of approxi-
mately 1 llter/mln.  Maintain  a constant
(±10  percent)  flow rate during  the  test.
Record the meter temperature.
  7.1.5  Sample for  at least 10 mln. At  the
end of the  sampling time, close  the sam-
pling valve and record the final volume  and
temperature readings. Conduct a leak check
as described  in Section 7.1.2 above.
  7.1.6  Disconnect the Impinger train from
the sampling  line. Connect  the charcoal
tube and the pump, as shown In figure 11-1.
Purge the train (at a rale of 1 Hter/min)
with  clean ambient air  fpr 15 minutes to
ensure that  all  H,S  is removed from the hy-
drogen peroxide.  For sample  recovery,  cap
the open ends and remove  the InpSngfr
train to a  clean area  thai  Is awt.y from
sources of heat.  The  area should hr well
Hunted, but not exposed to direct sunlight.
  7.2  Sample recovery.
  7.2.1  Discard the contents  of the hydro-
gen peroxide Impinger. Carefully rinse  the
contents of  the third, fourth,  and fifth im-
pingers Into a 500 ml Iodine flask.
                                                           IV-216
-------
                                                  RULES  AND REGULATIONS
                                                                     (FOR AIR PURGE!
                                                            PUMP
                          Figure 11-1. H2S tamplins ''»'"•
  Noir.—The Implngen normally hive only
a thin film of cadmium  sulflde remaining
after a water rinse, li Antlfoam B was not
used or  If significant quantities of yellow
cadmium sulflde remain  In the Implngers,
the alternate recovery procedure described
below must be used.
  7.2.2 Pipette  exactly  80 ml of  0.01  N
Iodine  solution  Into a  125 ml  Erlenmeyer
flask. Add 10 ml of 3 M HC1 to the solution.
Quantitatively  rinse  the acidified' Iodine
Into the  Iodine flask. Stopper the flask Im-
mediately and shake briefly.
  7.2.2 (Alternate). Extract the remaining
cadmium sulflde from the third, fourth, and
fifth Implngers using the acidified Iodine so-
lution. Immediately after pouring the acidi-
fied Iodine Into an Implnger. stopper It and
shake for a few moments, then transfer the
liquid to the Iodine flask. Do not  transfer
any rinse portion from  one Implnger to an-
other: transfer It directly to the Iodine flask.
Once the acidified Iodine solution haa been
poured Into any glassware containing cadmi-
um sulflde,  the container must be tightly
stoppered at all times except when adding
more  solution,  and  this  must  be  done as
quickly   and carefully  as  possible. After
adding any acidified Iodine solution to the
Iodine flask, allow a few minutes for absorp-
tion of the H£ before adding any  further
rinses. Repeat the Iodine extraction until all
cadmium sulflde I* removed  from  the Im-
plngers. Extract that part of the connecting
glassware that contains visible cadmium sul-
fide.
  Quantitatively rinse all of the Iodine from
the Implngers.  connectors, and  the  beaker
Into the Iodine flask using delonlzed,  dis-
tilled water.  Stopper the flaak  and  shake
briefly.
  7.2.3  Allow  the  Iodine  flask to  stand
about 30 minutes in the dark for absorption
of the HrS Into the Iodine, then complete
the tltratlon analysis as In section 7.3.
  NOTE.—Caution!  Iodine  evaporates from
acidified iodine solutions. Samples to which
acidified Iodine have been added  may not be
stored,  but must be analyzed in the time
schedule stated In section 7.2.3.
  7.2.4  Prepare a blank by adding 45 ml of
cadmium sulfate absorbing solution  to an
Iodine flask. Pipette exactly &0 ml of 0.01 N
Iodine solution  Into a  125-ml  Erlenmeyer
flask. Add  10 ml of 3 M HC1.  Follow  the
same implnger extracting and quantitative
rinsing  procedure carried out  In   sample
analysis. Stopper the flask, shake briefly,
let stand 30 minutes  In the dark, and titrate
with the samples.

  NOTE.—The blank must be handled by ex-
actly the same procedure as that used for
the samples.

  7.3  Analysis.

  NOTE.—Tltratlon analyses should  be con-
ducted at the sample-cleanup area In order
to prevent  loss of Iodine from  the sample.
Tltratlon should never be made In  direct
sunlight.
   7.3.1  Using 0.01 N sodium thlosulfate so-
  lution (or 0.01 N phenylarsine oxide, If ap-
  plicable), rapidly titrate each sample In an
  Iodine flask using gentle mixing, until solu-
  tion is light yellow. Add 4 ml of starch Indi-
  cator solution and continue titrating slowly
  until the blue color  Just disappears. Record
  Vr,. the  volume of sodium thlosulfate solu-
  tion used,  or  VAT. the volume  of  phenylar-
  sine oxide solution used (ml).
   7.3.2  Titrate  the  blanks m  the same
  manner  as  the samples.  Run  blanks each
  day until replicate values agree within 0.05
  ml.  Average the replicate  tltratlon  values
  which agree within 0.05 ml.
   8. Calibration and  standard*.
   8.1 Standardizations.
   6.1.1  Standardize  the 0.01 N Iodine solu-
  tion dally as  follows: Pipette 25 ml of the
  Iodine solution  Into  a  125  ml Erlenmeyer
  flask. Add 2 ml  of 3  M  HC1. Titrate rapidly
  with standard 0.01 N thlosulfate solution or
  with 0.01 N phenylarsine oxide until the so-
  lution Is light yellow, using gentle mixing.
  Add four drops of starch  Indicator solution
  and continue titrating slowly until the blue
  color Jusl disappears. Record VT. the volume
  of  thiosulf&te solution  used,  or  VAt.  the
  volume of phenylarsine oxide solution used
  (ml). Repeat  until  replicate values agree
  within 0.05  ml.  Average the  replicate tltra-
  lion values which agree within 0.05 ml  and
  calculate the exact normality of  the Iodine
  solution  using  equation  6.3.  Repeat  the
  standardization dally.
   8.1.2  Standardize  the 0.1 N thlosulfaU
  solution  as follows: Oven-dry potassium dl-
  chromale (K.Cr.O,) at 180 to 200' C (380 to
  390' F). Weigh to the nearest milligram. 2 g
  of potassium  dlchromate. Transfer the  dl-
  chromale to a 600 ml volumetric flask, dis-
  solve in delonlzed. distilled water and dilute
  to exactly 500 ml. In a 500 ml  Iodine flask,
  dissolve  approximately 3  g o(  potassium
  Iodide (KI)  In 45 ml of delonlzed. distilled
  water, then add 10 ml of  3 M hydrochloric
  acid solution.  Pipette 50 ml  of the dlchro-
  mate solution  Into  this  mixture.  Oently
  swirl the solution once and allow It to stand
  In the dark for  5 minutes. Dilute the solu-
  tion with 100 to 200 ml of  delonlzed distilled
  water, washing down the  sides of the flaak
  with part of the water. Titrate with 0.1 N
  thlosulfate until the  solution Is light yellow.
 Add 4 ml of starch Indicator and continue ti-
 trating slowly to a green end point. Record
 V,.  the volume of thlosulfate solution used
  (ml). Repeat until replicate analyses agree
 within 0.05 ml. Calculate  the  normality
 using equation 8.1. Repeat the  standardiza-
 tion each week, or  after each test series,
'  whichever time Is shorter.
   8.1.3 Standardize  the 0.01  N  Phenylar-
  sine oxide  (if applicable) as follows: oven
  dry  potassium dlchromate (K.Cr.O,) at  160
  to 200- C <360  to 390- F). Weigh to the near-
  est  milligram. 2 g of the  K.Cr.O,: transfer
  the dichromate to a 500 ml volumetric flask,
  dissolve  In delonlzed, distilled water, and
  dilute to exactly 600 ml. In a 600 ml Iodine
  flask, dissolve  approximately 0.3 g of potas-
 sium Iodide (KI) In 45 ml of delonlzed, dis-
  tilled water; add 10 ml  of 3M hydrochloric
 •eld. Pipette 5 ml of the K.Cr.O,  solution
  Into the  iodine flask. Oently swirl  the con-
  tents of the flask once and allow to stand In
  the dark for 5 minutes. Dilute  the solution
  with  100 to 200 ml  of delonlzed,  distilled
  water, washing down the Bides of  the flaak
  with part of the water. Titrate with 0.01 N
  phenytarslne  oxide  until  the solution ii
  light yellow. Add 4  ml of starch  Indicator
  and continue titrating slowly to a green end
  point. Record  VA, the volume of phenylar-
 slne oxide used (ml). Repeat until replicate
  analyses  agree within 0.05 ml. Calculate the
 normality using equation  9.2.  Repeat  the
  standardization each week or after each test
  series, whichever time Is shorter.
                                                          IV-217
-------
  8.2  Sampling train calibration. Calibrate
the sampling train components as follows:
  8.2.1 Dry gas meter.
  8.2.1.1  Initial  calibration.  The  dry  gas
meter shall be calibrated before Its Initial
use In the field. Proceed as follows: First, as-
semble the following companents  In series:
Drying tube, needle valve, pump, rotameter,
and  dry  gas meter. Then,  leak-check  the
system as follows: Place a vacuum gauge (at
least 760 mm Hg) at the Inlet to the drying
tube 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.
  Next, calibrate  the dry gas meter (at the
sampling flow  rate specified by the method)
as follows: Connect  an appropriately sized
wet test meter (e.g., 1 liter per revolution) to
the Inlet of the drying tube. Make three In-
dependent calibration  runs,  using  at least
five  revolutions  of the  dry gas meter  per
run. Calculate the calibration factor, V (wet
test meter calibration volume divided by the
dry gas meter volume, both volumes adjust-
ed to the same  reference temperature  and
pressure), for each run, and average the re-
sults. If any Y value deviates by more than 2
percent from the average, the dry gas meter
Is unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use the
average as the calibration factor for subse-
quent test runs.
  8.2.1.2  Post-test calibration check.  After
each  field test series, conduct a calibration
check as In section 8.2.1.1. above, except Tor
the following variations: (a) The leak check
Is not to be conducted, (b) three or more
revolutions  of the dry  gas meter  may be
used, and  (3) only  two independent  runs
need  be made. If  the calibration factor does
not deviate by more than 5 percent from
the initial calibration factor (determined In
section 8.2.1.1.). then the dry gas meter vol-
umes obtained during the test series are ac-
ceptable. If the calibration factor  deviates
by more  than  5 percent, recalibrate the dry
gas meter as In section 8.2.1.1, and for the
calculations, use  the calibration factor (ini-
tial or recallbration)  that yields the  lower
gas volume for each test run.
  8.2.2 Thermometers.  Calibrate  against
mercury-ln-glass thermometers.
  8.2.3 Rotameter. The rotameter need not
be  calibrated, but should be cleaned  and
maintained according to the manufacturer's
Instruction.
  8.2.4 Barometer. Calibrate against a mer-
cury barometer.
  9. Calculations. Carry out calculations re-
taining  at least  one extra decimal figure
beyond that of the acquired data. Round off
results only after the final calculation.
  9.1  Normality  of the  Standard  (-0.1 N)
Thlosulfate Solution.

              N.-2.039W/V,
where:
W-Wetght of  K.Cr.O, used, g.
V,-Volume of Na,S,O, solution used, ml.
NI -Normality of standard thlosulfate solu-
    tion, g-eq/liter.
2.039-Conversion factor

(8 eq. I,/mole KiCr.O,) (1.000 ml/llter)/ =
  (294.2 g K.Cr.O,/mole) (10 aliquot factor)
  •.2  Normality  of Standard Phenylarsinc
Oxide Solution (If applicable).

            N,-0.2039 W/VA
        RULES AND REGULATIONS


where:
W-Welfiht of K.Cr.O, used. g.
V^Volume of C.H-.A.O used. ml.
N»= Normality  of  standard  phenylarsine
    oxide solution, g- eq/liter.
0.2039 = Conversion factor
(6  eq. I,/mole  K.Cr.OO (1.000  ml/liter)/
  (249.2  g   K,Cr,O,/mole)  (100  aliquot
  factor)
  9.3  Normality  of  Standard Iodine Solu-
tion.
where:
N, = Normality of standard iodine solution.
   g-eq/liter.
V,= Volume of  standard  iodine solution
   used. ml.
N,-Normality of standard (-0.01 N)  thlo-
   sulfate solution: assumed to be 0.1 N,, g-
   eq/liter.
V7- Volume of thiosulfate solution used. ml.

  NOTE.— If  phenylarsine  oxide  Is   used
intead of  thlosulfate. replace  N, and V, In
Equation  9.3 with N, and V«j. respectively
(see sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.3).
  9.4  Dry Gas Volume  Correct the sample
volume measured by  the dry  gas meter to
standard conditions (20' C) and 760 mm Hg.
where:
Vn,[11 (1.000 litors/m') (1.000
  mg/B)/=(1.000 ml/liter) (2H,Seq/mole)
              of   standard  iodine  solu-
    tion-50.0 ml.
N, = Normality of standard iodine  solution,
    g-eq/litrr.
Vr, = Volume of standard (-0.01 N) sodium
    thiosulfate solution, ml.
NT = Normslily of standard sodium thiosul-
  .  fatp solution, g-eq/liter.
Vnum^-Dry  gas volume at standard condi-
    tions, liters.
  NOTE.--If  phenylarslne oxide  U used In-
stead of thiosullate. replace  NT and VT, In
Equation  9.5 with NA and  VAT. respectively
(see Sections 7.3.1 and 8.1.3).
  10.  Stability. The absorbing solution  Is
stable (or at least 1 month. Sample recovery
and analysis should begin within  1 hour of
sampling to minimize oxidation of the acidi-
fied cadmium su'fidi?. Once Iodine has been
added to the sample, the remainder  of the
analysis  procedure  must be completed  ac-
cording to sections 7.2.2 through 7.3.2.
  11. Bibliography.
  11.1  Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide,
Ammoniacal  Cadmium  Chloride  Method.
API Method 772 54. In: Manual on Disposal
of Refinery Wastes, Vol. V: Sampling and
Analysis  of Waste  Gases  and Particulate
Matter.   American   Petroleum   Institute,
Washington. D.C.. 1954.
  11.2  Tentative Method of Determination
of Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercaptan  Sulfur
In Natural  Gas. Natural Gas Processors As-
sociation. Tulsa.  Okla .  NGPA Publication
No. 2265-65. 1965.
  11.3  Knoll. J  E.. and M. R. Midgett. De-
termination of  Hydrogen Sulfide in  Refin-
ery Fuel  Gases.  Environmental Monitoring
Series. Office of  Research  and Develop-
ment. USEPA. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
27711. EPA 600/4-77-007.
  11.4  Schelll,  G.  W.,  and M.  C.  Sharp.
Standardization  of  Method  11 at  a  Petro-
leum  Refinery, Midwest Research Institute
Draft Report  for  USEPA.  Office  of Re-
search and Development. Research Triangle
Park. N.C.  27711. EPA Contract  No.  68-02-
1098.  August   1976.  EPA   600/4-77-088R
(Volume  1) and EPA 600/4-77-088b (Volume
2).

(Sees. 111. 114.  301(a). Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411. 7414. 76011.)
   IFR Doc. 78-482 Filed 1-9-78: 8:45 am]


   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOt. 4J, NO. 6

     TUESDAY,  JANUART JO,  197*
                                                           IV-218
-------
80
     Tltl« 40—Prot« All applications and other infor-
mation  required  pursuant  to  §52.21
from sources located in the Common-
wealth of Kentucky shall be submitted
to the Division of Air Pollution Con-
trol,  Department  for  Natural  Re-
sources  and Environmental Protection,
West  Frankfort Office Complex, U.S.
127. Frankfort, Ky. 40601,  instead of
the EPA Region IV office.
  PART 60—STANDARDS OF
     FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

  Part 60 of Chapter I. Tltlo 40. Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
  3.  In  §60.4,  paragraph  (bXS)  Is
added as follows:

§ 60.4  Address.
  (b)' « •

  (S) Division of Air Pollution Control. De-
partment for Natural Resources and Envi-
ronmental Protection. U.S.  127,  Frankfort,
Ky. 40601.
 PART 61—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS
     FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

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

§ 61.04  Address.
  (b) • • •

  (S) Division of Air Pollution Control. De-
partment for Natural  Resources &nd Envi-
ronmental Protection. UJS. 127, Prank/ort.
Ky. 40601.
  [FR Doc. 78-2032 Filed 1-24-78: 8:45 
-------
81
     THI« 40—Protectlvn «f Environment

 CHAPTER l-ENVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION
              AGENCY

       SUBCHAmk C—Att MOOIAM5
             CTRL 858-1)

  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

 Delegation of Authority to Slot* of Dclowar*

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document  amends
regulations concerning air programs to
reflect delegation to the State of Dela-
ware of  authority to  implement and
enforce certain  Standards of Perfor-
mance for New Stationary Sources.
EFFECTIVE  DATE: February  16,
1978.
FOR  FURTHER  INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Stephen R, Wassersug, Director, En-
  forcement  Division, Environmental
  Protection Agency, Region  III, 6th
  and  Walnut Streets,  Philadelphia.
  Pa. 19106. 215-597-4171.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

            I. BACKGROUND

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

   II. REGULATIONS ATFECTED BY THIS
             DOCUMENT

  Pursuant  to the delegation  of au-
thority for  certain Standards of Per-
formance for New Stationary Sources
to the State of Delaware, EPA is today
unending 40 CFR 60.4, Address, to re-
flect this delegation. A Notice  an-
nouncing this delegation  (was)  pub-
lished on February 15,  1978,  in the
FEDERAL   REGISTER.   The   amended
f 80.4, which adds the address of the
Delaware Department of  Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Control, to
which all reports, requests,  applica-
tions, submlttals, and communications
to the Administrator pursuant to this
part  must also be  addressed, is set
forth below.
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
            III. GENERAL

  The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice and
for making  this rulemaklng  effective
immediately In that .'t is an  adminis-
trative change and not one of substan-
tive content. No additional substantive
burdens are  Imposed on the parties af-
fected. The delegation which is reflect-
ed by this administrative amendment
was effective on September 30,  1977,
and it serves no purpose to delay the
technical change of this address to the
Code of Federal Regulations.
  This rulemaking Is effective Immedi-
ately, and is issued under the author-
ity of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857c-6.
  Dated: January 31,1978.
                JACK J. SCHRAMM,
            Regional Administrator.
  Part 60 of Chapter I. Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Is amend-
ed as follows:
  1. In J 60.4, paragraph (b) is amend-
ed  by  revising subparagraph (I) to
read as follows:

$ 60.4  Address.
  (b)
  (I) State of Delaware (for fossil fuel-tired
•team  generators; Incinerators;  nitric acid
plants; asphalt concrete plants: storage ves-
sels for petroleum liquids: and sewage treat-
ment plants only): Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Con-
trol, Edward Tatnall Building. Dover, Del
19901.
  [FR Doc. 78-4266 Piled 2-15-78; 8:48 am]
  ' fEDERAl REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. S3


    THURSDAY, PEMUARY, H, 1971
                                                  IV-220
-------
                                           RULES  AND REGULATIONS
82
   Till* 40—f iot«ctlon of th« tnvlronmtnl

 CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
               AGENCY

       SUBCHAPH* C-AIR MOO1AMI

             [FRL 833-11

  PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
      FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

            Kraft Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The standards limit emis-
sions of total  reduced sulfur (TRS)
and   particulate  matter  from  new,
modified, and reconstructed kraft pulp
mills. The standards  Implement the
Clean Air Act  and are based on the
Administrator's   determination  that
emissions from kraft pulp mills con-
tribute  significantly to air  pollution.
The intended effect of  these standards
is to require new, modified, and recon-
structed kraft  pulp  mills to  use the
best demonstrated system of continu-
ous emission reduction.

EFFECTIVE  DATE:   February  23,
1978.
ADDRESSES: The Standards Support
and  Environmental Impact Statement
(SSEIS) may  be obtained  from the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle  Park,  N.C.  27711  (specify
"Standards Support  and Environmen-
tal Impact Statement,  Volume 2: Pro-
mulgated Standards of Performance
for Kraft Pulp  Mills" (EPA-450/2-76-
014b)). Copies of all comment letters
received from  interested persons par-
ticipating in this rulemaking are  avail-
able for inspection and copying during
normal business hours at EPA's Public
Information  Reference Unit,  Room
2922 (EPA Library). 401 M Street SW..
Washington, D.C.

FOR  FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Don R.  Goodwin,  Emission  Stan-
  dards  and Engineering Division, En-
  vironmental Protection Agency, Re-
  search Triangle Park. N.C. 27711,
  telephone No. 919-541-5271.

SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
On September 24. 1B76 (41 FR 42012),
standards of performance  were pro-
posed for new, modified,  and recon-
structed kraft pulp mills under section
111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
The significant comments  that were
received  during the public  comment
period have been carefully reviewed
and considered and. where determined
by the Administrator to be appropri-
ate,  changes have  been included  in
this notice of final rulemaking.
           THE STANDARDS

  The standards limit emissions of par-
ticulate matter from three affected fa-
cilities at kraft pulp mills. The limits
are: 0.10 gram per dry standard cubic
meter  (g/dscm) at 8 percent oxygen
for recovery furnaces, 0.10 gram per
kilogram  of  black  liquor solids  (dry
weight) (g/kg BLS)  for smelt dissolv-
ing tanks,  0.15 g/dscm  at  10  percent
oxygen for lime  kilns when burning
gas,  a.nd  0.30 t/dscm at 10  percent
oxygen for lime  kilns when burning
oil. Visible emissions  from  recovery
furnaces  are  limited  to  35  percent
opacity.
  The standards also limit emissions of
TRS from eight  affected facilities at
kraft pulp mills. The limits are: 5 parts
per million (ppm) by volume at 10 per-
cent  oxygen from the digester  sys-
tems,  multiple-effect evaporator  sys-
tems,   brown  stock  washer  systems,
black  liquor oxidation  systems,  and
condensate stripper systems; 5 ppm by
volume at  8 percent  oxygen from
straight  kraft  recovery furnaces,  8
ppm  by volume at 10 percent oxygen
from lime kilns; and 25 ppm by volume
at 8 percent oxygen from cross recov-
ery furnaces, which are defined as fur-
naces burning at  least 7 percent neu-
tral  sulfite   semi-chemical   (NSSC)
liquor and  having a green liquor sulfi-
dity of at least 28 percent. In addition,
TRS emissions from smelt  dissolving
tanks are limited to 0.0084 g/kg BLS.
  The proposed TRS standard for the
lime kiln has been changed, a separate
TRS standard for cross recovery  fur-
naces has been developed, and the  pro-
posed  format of  the standards  for
smelt  dissolving tanks, digesters, mul-
tiple-effect evaporators,  brown stock
washers, black liquor oxidation  and
condensate   strippers   have  been
changed. The TRS, particulate matter
and opacity standards for the other fa-
cilities,  however,  are essentially  the
same as those proposed.
  It should be noted that standards of
performance  for  new  sources estab-
lished under section 111 of the Clean
Air Act reflect emission limits achiev-
able with  the best adequately demon-
strated  technological system  of con-
tinuous emission reduction considering
the cost of achieving such emission re-
ductions  and  any  nonair  quality
health, environmental, and energy im-
pacts.  State  implementation  plans
(BIP's)  approved   or   promulgated
under section  110 of the Act, on the
other  hand, must  provide for the at-
tainment and maintenance of national
ambient    air    quality    standards
(NAAQS)  designed to protect public
health and welfare. For that purpose
SIP's  must  in  some cases  require
greater emission reductions than those
required by standards of performance
for new sources. Section 173(2) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended In 1977, re-
quires, among other things, that a  new
or modified source constructed in  an
area which exceeds the NAAQS must
reduce emissions to the level which  re-
flects the "lowest  achievable emission
rate" for  such category  of  source,
unless the owner  or operator demon-
strates that the source cannot achieve
such an emission rate.  In no event can
the emission  rate  exceed any applica-
ble standard of performance.
  A similar situation may arise when a
major emitting facility is  to be con-
structed  in a geographic area which
falls under the prevention of  signifi-
cant deterioration  of air quality provi-
sions of the Act (Part C). These provi-
sions require,  among  other  things,
that major emitting  facilities  to  be
constructed in such areas are  to  be
subject to best available control tech-
nology. The term  "best available con-
trol  technology" (BACT) means "an
emission limitation based on the maxi-
mum degree of reduction of each pol-
lutant subject to regulation under this
Act  emitted  from or which  results
from any major  emitting   facility.
which the permitting  authority, on a
case-by-case basis,  taking into account
energy,  environmental, and economic
impacts and other costs, determines it
achievable for such facility  through
application  of  production  processes
and  available methods, systems, and
techniques, including fuel cleaning  or
treatment or innovative fuel combus-
tion  techniques for control  of each
such pollutant. In no event shall appli-
cation of 'best available control tech-
nology' result in emissions of any pol-
lutants  which  will exceed the emis-
sions allowed by any applicable stan-
dard established pursuant to section
111 or 112 of this Act."
  Standards  of performance  should
not  be  viewed as  the  ultimate  In
achievable  emission   control   and
should not preclude the Imposition  of
a more  stringent  emission  standard,
where appropriate. For example, cost
of achivement  may  be an important
factor in  determining standards of per-
formance applicable to all areas of the
country (clean  as well  as dirty). Costs
must be accorded far less weight in de-
termining the "lowest achievable emis-
sion  rate" for new  or modified sources
locating in areas violating statutorlly-
mandated health  and  welfare stan-
dards. Although there may  be emis-
sion  control technology available that
can  reduce  emissions below  those
levels required to  comply  with stan-
dards of  performance, this technology
might not be selected  as the basis  of
standards of performance due to costs
associated with its use. This in no way
should preclude Its  use in situations
where  cost is a lesser consideration.
such as determination of the "lowest
achievable emission rate."
  In  addition, States are free under
section 116 of the Act to establish even
more stringent  emission limits than
                            FfDERAL REGISTER, VOL 49. NO. 17—THURSDAY, KMUARY 23, 1978
                                                 IV-221
-------
                                          RULES AND REGULATIONS
those established under section 111 or
those necessary  to attain or maintain
the NAAQS under section  110. Thus,
new sources may Ln some cases be sub-
ject to limitations more stringent than
standards of performance  under sec-
tion 111, and prospective owners and
operators of new sources  should be
aware  of this possibility In planning
(or such facilities.

 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

  The  promulgated  standards  will
reduce paniculate emissions about 50
percent  below   requirements  of the
Average  existing  State regulations.
TRS  emissions  will  be reduced by
About 80 percent below requirements
of the average existing State regula-
tions, and this  reduction will  prevent
odor problems  from  arising  at most
new kraft pulp  mills. The secondary
environmental Impacts of the promul-
gated standard will be slight increases
In  water  demand  and  wastewater
treatment requirements. The energy
Impact of the promulgated standards
will be  small,   Increasing  national
energy consumption  in 1S80  by the
equivalent of only 1.4 million barrels
per year of No.  6 oil. The economic
Impact will  be  small  with fifth-year
annuallzed costs being estimated at
$33 million.

        PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  Prior to proposal of the standards,
Interested  parties  were  advised by
public  notice In  the FEDERAL REGISTER
of a meeting of the National Air Pollu-
tion  Control  Techniques  Advisory
Committee.  In addition, copies of the
proposed standards and the Standards
Support  and Environmental  Impact
Statement (SSEIS) were distrublted to
members of the kraft  pulp  Industry
and several environmental groups at
the time of proposal.  The public com-
ment period extended from September
24, 1976,  to March 14. 1077, and result-
ed  In 42 comment letters with  28 of
these letters coming  from  the indus-
try, 12 from various regulatory agen-
cies, and two from U.S. citizens. Sever-
al comments resulted In  changes to
the proposed standards. A detailed dis-
cussion of the comments and changes
which resulted is presented In  Volume
2 of the SSEIS. A summary Is present-
ed here.

 BioNincANT COMMENTS AND CHANGES
 MADE IN TRZ PROPOSED REGULATIONS

  Most  of  the  comment  letters re-
ceived contained multiple  comments.
The most significant  comments and
changes made to the proposed regula-
tions are discussed below.

  IMPACTS Or THE PROPOSED STANDARDS

  Several commenters expressed  con-
cern about the increased energy con-
sumption which would result  from
compliance with proposed  standards.
These commenters felt that this would
conflict with the Department of Ener-
gy's  goal to reduce  total energy con-
sumption In the pulp and paper indus-
try by 14 percent. This factor was con-
sidered in the analysis of the energy
impact associated with the standards
and  Is discussed In  the  SSEIS. Al-
though the standards will increase the
difficulty of attaining this energy re-
duction goal, the 4.3 percent increase
In energy usage  that will  be required
by new, modified, or reconstructed by
kraft pulp mills to  comply with the
standards is considered  reasonable In
comparison to the benefits which will
result from the  corresponding reduc-
tion  In  TRS and  participate matter
emissions.

    EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

  Most of the comments received re-
garding emission control  technology
concerned the application of this tech-
nology to either  lime kilns or recovery
furnaces. A few comments, however,
expressed concern with the use of the
oxygen correction factor  Included in
the proposed standards  for both lime
kilns and  recovery  furnaces.  These
commenters pointed out that adjust-
ing  the  concentration of partlculate
matter and TRS emissions to 10 per-
cent oxygen for  lime kilns and 8 per-
cent  oxygen  for  recovery  furnaces
only when the oxygen  concentration
exceeded   these  values   effectively
placed more stringent  standards  on
the  most  energy-efficient operators.
To ensure that the standard is equita-
ble  for  all  operators,  these  com-
menters suggested that  the measured
partlculate matter and  TRS concen-
trations should always be  adjusted to
10 percent oxygen for  the  lime kiln
and 8 percent oxygen for the recovery
furnace.
  These comments are  valid. Requir-
ing a lime kiln or  recovery furnace
with a low oxygen  concentration to
meet the same emission  concentration
as a lime kiln or recovery furnace with
a high oxygen concentration would ef-
fectively  place a more stringent emis-
sion  limit on the kiln or furnace with
the low oxygen concentration. Conse-
quently,  the promulgated standards
require   correction   of  participate
matter and TRS concentrations to 10
percent or 8 percent oxygen, as. appro-
priate, in all cases.
  Lime  Kilnt.  Numerous  comments
were received on Ihe emission control
technology for lime  kilns.  The  main
points questioned by  the commenters
were: (a)  Whether caustic scrubbing Is
effective  In reducing TRS  emissions
from lime kilns;  (b) whether an over-
design of the  mud washing facilities at
lime kiln E  was responsible for the
lower TRS emissions  observed at this
lime kiln; and (c) the adequacy of the
data base used In developing the TRS
standard.
  The effectiveness of caustic  scrub-
bing Is substantiated by comparison of
TRS  emissions  during  brief periods
when caustic was not being added to
the scrubber at, lime kiln E. with TRS
emissions during normal operation at
lime  kiln E when caustic Is  beir.g
added to the scrubber. These observa-
tions  clearly indicate  that TRS emis-
sions  would be higher If caustic  was
not used In  the scrubber. The ability
of caustic scrubbing  to  reduce TRS
emissions Is also substantiated by the
experience at another kraft pulp  mill
which was  able to  reduce TRS emis-
sions  from  its  lime kiln from 40-50
ppm  to  about  20 ppm merely  by
adding caustic to the  scrubber.  These
factors,  coupled  with  the emission
data  showing  higher TRS  emissions
from those lime kilns which employed
only efficient mud  washing and good
lime kiln process control, clearly show
that  caustic scrubbing  reduces TRS
emissions.
  The mud  washing facilities at lime
kiln E are larger than those at other
kraft pulp mills of equivalent pulp ca-
pacity.  This   "overdeslgn" resulted
from  initial plans  of the company to
process  lime mud  from waste  water
treatment.  These  waste water treat-
ment plans were  later  abandoned.
Since the quality or efficiency of mud
washing has been  shown to be a sig-
nificant factor  In reducing  TRS emis-
sions  from  lime kilns, the larger mud
washing facilities at lime kiln  E un-
doubtedly contributed to the low TRS
emissions observed  at this  kiln. With
the data available,  however, It  is not
possible to separate the relative contri-
bution of these mud washing facilities
to the low  TRS emissions observed
from  the  relative contributions of
good process operation of the lime kiln
and caustic scrubbing.
  Comments questioning  the adequacy
of the data base used  In  developing
the  standards  for lime kilns  were
mainly directed toward  the following
points; the TRS standard was based on
only  one  lime  kiln;  sampling  losses
which may have occurred during test-
ing were not taken into  account;  and
no lime kiln met both the  TRS stan-
dard and the partlculate standard.
  As mentioned above, the  TRS stan-
dard Is based upon the emission  con-
trol  system installed  at lime  kiln  E
(I.e., efficient mud  washing,  
-------
                                           RULES  AND REGULATIONS
all new,  modified,  or reconstructed
lime kilns and achieve the same reduc-
tion in emissions as observed at lime
kiln E. Section  111  of  the  Clean Air
Act requires that "standards of perfor-
mance reflect the degree of emission
reduction achievable through the ap-
plication of the best system of con-
tinuous  emission   reduction  which
(taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and
any nonair quality health and environ-
mental impact  and  energy  require-
ments) the Administrator determines
hai been adequately demonstrated for
that category of sources." Litigation of
standards of performance has resulted
In clarification of the term "adequate-
ly demonstrated." In Portland Cement
Association v. Ruckelshaus (486 F.  2d
176, D.C. Circuit. 1973), the standards
of  performance were viewed by the
Court  as "technology-forcing." Thus,
while a system  of emission  reduction
must be available for use to  be consid-
ered adequately demonstrated, it does
not have to be in routine use. Howev-
er, in order to ensure that the numeri-
cal emission limit selected was consis-
tent with proper operation and main-
tenance of  the emission control system
on lime kiln E, continuous monitoring
data was examined. This analysis indi-
cated that an emission source test  of
lime kiln E would  have  found TRS
emission above 5 ppm greater than 5
percent of  the time. This analysis also
indicated,  however,  that it was  very
unlikely that  an emission source test
of lime kiln E would have found TRS
emissions above 8 ppm. Thus, it ap-
peared that the  5 ppm TRS numerical
emission limit - Included In   the  pro-
posed standard for lime kilns was too
stringent. Accordingly, the numerical
emission limit included in the promul-
gated TRS standard  for lime kilns has
been revised to 8 ppm.  As discussed
later in this preamble, consistent with
this change in the numerical emission
limit, the  excess emissions  allowance
Included within  the emission monitor-
ing requirement* has been eliminated.
  This does not reflect a change in the
basis for the standard. The standard is
still based on the best system of emis-
sion reduction,  considering  costs, for
controlling TRS emissions from  lime
kilns (i.e., efficient mud washing, good
lime kiln process operation,  and caus-
tic scrubbing).  This system, or one
equivalent  to it, will still be required
to comply with the standard.
  Since proposal  of the  standards,
sample losses of  up  to  20  percent
during  emission source testing have
been confirmed.  Although these losses
were not  considered  in selecting the
numerical  emission limit  Included  in
the proposed TRS emission standard,
they have been considered in selecting
the numerical emission limit included
in  the promulgated standard.  Also,
since the amount of sample loss  that
occurs within the TRS emission mea-
surement system during source testing
can  be determined, procedures have
been added to Reference Method  18
requiring determination of these losses
during each  source test and adjust-
ment of the emission data obtained to
take these losses into account.
  With regard to the ability of a lime
kiln  to comply with  both  the TRS
emission standard and  the paniculate
emission   standard   simultaneously,
caustic scrubbing will tend to Increase
partlculate emissions due to release of
sodium  fume  from  the  scrubbing
liquor. Compared to the concentration
of particulate matter permitted In the
gases discharged to the atmosphere,
however, the potential  contribution of
sodium fume from caustic scrubbing is
quite small. Consequently, with proper
operation  and maintenance,  sodium
fume due to caustic scrubbing will not
cause  partlculate  emissions  from  a
lime kiln  to exceed  the  numerical
emission limit included in the promul-
gated standard.
  Recovery Furnace. A number of com-
ments  were received regarding both
the proposed TRS  emission standard
and the proposed partlculate emission
standard for recovery  furnaces. Basi-
cally, the major issue  was  whether a
cross recovery  furnace could  comply
with  the 5  ppm  TRS  standard  or
whether a separate standard was nec-
essary.
  Review of the data and Information
submitted with these comments Indi-
cates that the operation of cross recov-
ery furnaces  is substantially different
from that  of straight  kraft recovery
furnaces. The sulfldity of the black
liquor  burned In cross recovery fur-
naces  and  the heat content  of  the
liquor, "both of which  are  significant
factors Influencing TRS emissions, are
considerably different from the levels
found  in straight kraft recovery fur-
naces.
  Analysis of the data indicated that
TRS  emissions  were  generally  less
than 25 ppm, with only occasional ex-
cursions  exceeding  this level. Conse-
quently,  the  promulgated TRS emis-
sion  standard has been revised to  in-
clude a separate TRS numerical emis-
sion  limit of 25 ppm for cross recovery
furnaces.
  Smelt Dissolving   Tank.  Numerous
comments  were received concerning
the format of the proposed TRS and
partlculate  emission  standards  for
smelt  dissolving  tanks.  These com-
ments  pointed  out  that  standards  in
terms of emissions per unit of air-dried
pulp were  Inequitable  for kraft pulp
mills which produced  low-yield pulps
since both  TRS and partlculate emis-
sions from the smelt dissolving tanks
are proportional to the tons of black
liquor  solids fed into the tanks. The
black liquor solids produced per ton of
air-dried  pulp, however, can vary sub-
 stantially from mill to mill. A standard
 in terms of emissions per unit of air-
 dried pulp, therefore, requires greater
 control of emissions at kral t pulp mills
 which  use  low-yield  pulps  (higher
 solicls-to-pulp ratio).
   Review  of these  comments  does
 Indeed indicate that the format of the
 proposed standards  was  inequitable.
 The format of the promulgated  stan-
 dards, therefore, has been revised to
 emissions per unit  of black liquor
 solids fed   to  the  smelt dissolving
 tanks. Since the percent solids  and
 black liquor flow rate to the recovery
 furnace Is routinely monitored at kraft
 pulp mills,  the weight  of black liquor
 solids corresponding to a particular
 emissions period will be easy to deter-
 mine.
   Brown  Stock Washers. Several  com-
 ments expressed concern  about  com-
 bustion of  the high  volume-low  TRS
 concentration gases  discharged from
 brown stock washers and black liquor
 oxidation facilities in recovery  fur-
 naces without facing a serious risk of
 explosions.  As discussed In the SSEIS.
 information obtained from two kraft
 pulp mill operators indicates that this
 practice  is both safe and reliable when
 It Is accompanied by  careful  engineer-
 ing and operating practices. Danger of
 an explosion occurring is essentially
 eliminated  by introducing the gases
 high in the furnace.  Since some older
 furnaces  do not have the capability to
 accept  large volumes  of  gases  at
 higher combustion  ports, this practice
 may not be safe for some existing fur-
 naces. In addition, the costs associated
 with altering these furnaces  to accept
 these gases are frequently  prohibitive.
 Consequently, the  promulgated stan-
 dards  Include an exemption  for  new,
 modified,   or  reconstructed  brown
 stock washers and  black liquor oxida-
 tion  facilities within  existing kraft
 pulp mills where combustion of these
 gases in  an existing facility Is not fea-
 sible from a safety  or economic stand-
 point.

       CONTINUOUS  MONITORING

   Numerous comments were received
 concerning'  the proposed  continuous
 monitoring  requirements.  Generally,
 these  comments questioned  the re-
 quirement to Install TRS monitors In
 light of   the absence of performance
 specifications for these monitors.
   At the  time of proposal of  the stan-
 dards, both EPA and the kraft  pulp
 mill industry were engaged in develop-
 ing performance  specifications  for
 TRS continuous emission  monitoring
 systems.  It  was expected that  this
 work would lead to performance speci-
 fications  for these monitoring systems
,by the time the standards of  perfor-
'mance  were promulgated.  Unfortu-
 nately, this is not the case. In a joint
 EPA/industry effort,  the compatibility
 of various  TRS  emission  monitoring
                            KDOAl RKMSTO, VOL 41, NO. 17—THURSDAY, HMUAtY S3, 1971
                                                IV-223
-------
                                           RULES AND  REGULATIONS
methods with Reference  Method 16,
which Is the performance  test method
to determine TRS emissions, is  still
under study. There is little doubt but
that these TRS emission monitoring
systems will be shown to  be  compati-
ble with Reference Method 16,  and
that  performance  specifications  for
these systems will be developed. Con-
sequently, the promulgated standards
Include TRS continuous emission mon-
itoring  requirements.  These require-
ments, however, will not become effec-
tive  until performance specifications
for TRS continuous emission monitor-
Ing systems have been developed. To
accommodate this situation,  not  only
for  the promulgated  standards  for
kraft pulp mills, but also for standards
of performance that may be developed
in the future that  may also  face this
situation, section 60.13 of  the General
Provisions for subpart 60 is  amended
to provide that continuous monitoring
systems need not  be Installed until
performance  specifications for these
systems are  promulgated under Ap-
pendix  B  to  subpart  60. This  will
ensure that all facilities which are cov-
ered by standards of performance will
eventually Install continuous emission
monitoring systems where required.

          EXCESS EMISSIONS

  Numerous comments were received
which were concerned with the excess
emission allowances and the reporting
requirements for  excess emissions. In
general, these  comments reflected a
lack of  understanding with  regard to
the concept of excess  emissions. Con-
sequently, a brief  review  of  this  con-
cept Is appropriate.
  Standards of performance have two
major objectives. The  first Is Installa-
tion of the best system of emission re-
duction, considering  costs;   and  the
second  is  continued proper  operation
and   maintenance   of  the  system
throughout  Its useful life. Since the
numerical emission limit  included In
standards of performance Is selected
to reflect the performance of the best
system  of emission reduction  under
conditions  of proper  operation  and
maintenance,  the  performance  test,
under 40 CFR 60.8 represents the abil-
ity of the source to meet  these objec-
tives. Performance  tests, however, are
often time consuming and complex. As
a result, while the performance test Is
an excellent mechanism for achieving
these objectives, it is  rather cumber-
some and Inconvenient for routinely
achieving these objectives. Therefore.
the  Agency .believes  that continuous
monitors must play an important role
In meeting these objectives.
  Excess emissions are defined as emis-
sions exceeding the  numerical emis-
sion limit included in a  standard of
performance.   Continuous   emission
monitoring, therefore, identifies  peri-
ods of excess emissions and when com-
bined with the requirement that these
periods be reported to EPA, it provides
the Agency with a useful mechanism
for  achieving  the   previously men-
tioned objectives.
  Continuous   emission   monitoring,
however, will  identify  all  periods of
excess  emissions,   Including  those
which are not the result of Improper
operation and maintenance.  Excess
emissions due to start-ups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions, for example, are un-
avoidable or beyond  the control of an
owner or operator and cannot be at-
tributed  to  Improper  operation  and
maintenance.  Similarly,  excess emis-
sions as a result of some Inherent vari-
ability or fluctation  within a process
which Influences emissions cannot be
attributed to improper operation  and
maintenance, unless  these fluctations
could be controlled by  more carefully
attending to  those  process operating
parameters during routine  operation
which have, little effect on operation
of the process,  but which may have a
significant effect on emissions.
  To quantify the potential for excess
emissions due to Inherent variability
in a  process,  continuous monitoring
data are used whenever possible to cal-
culate an excess  emission allowance.
For TRS emissions at kraft pulp mills,
this allowance is defined as follows. If
a calendar quarter is divided into dis-
crete contiguous 12-hour time periods,
the excess  emission  allowance Is  ex-
pressed  as  the percentage of these
time  periods.  Excess emissions may
occur as the result of unavoidable vari-
ability within  the  kraft  pulping  pro-
cess.  Thus,   the   excess  emissions
allowance represents the  potential for
excess emissions under conditions of
proper operation and maintenance In
the absence of start-ups,  shutdowns
and  malfunctions,  and  Is  used as a
guideline or  screening mechanism for
interpreting the data generated by the
excess  emission  reporting  require-
ments.
  Although the excess emission report-
Ing requirements provide a mechanism
for achieving the objective of proper
operation and maintenance of the  best
system  of  emission  reduction,  thus
mechanism is not necessarily a direct
Indicator of Improper  operation  and
maintenance.   Consequently,   excess
emission reports must be reviewed and
interpreted for proper decislonmaklng.
  In general, the comments received
concerning the excess emission report-
Ing requirements Questioned: (1)  The
adequacy of the TBS excess emission
allowance for  lime  kilns and (2) the
lack  of  a  TRS   excess   emission
allowance for recovery furnaces.
  With regard to the adequacy of the
TRS  excess emissions allowance  for
lime kilns, a revaluation of the TRS
emission data from lime kiln E led the
Agency to the conclusion that, for a
TRS  emission limit of  5 ppm,  an
 excess emission allowance of 6 percent
 was appropriate.  However,  a  similar
 analysis also indicates that an excess
 emission allowance is not appropriate
 at a TRS emission level  of 8 ppm. Ac-
 cordingly, the  excess emission  report-
 ing requirements Included In the pro-
 mulgated standard for lime kilns con-
 tains  no excess  emission  allowance.
 This  does  not represent a  change in
 the basis of the standard. The stand-
 ard will still require Installation of the
 best system of emission reduction, con-
 sidering costs (i.e., efficient mud wash-
 Ing, good lime kiln  process operation,
 and caustic scrubbing;  or an alterna-
'live system equivalent to the  perfor-
 mance of this system).
  With regard to  the lack of  a TRS
 excess emission allowance for recovery
 furnaces, at the time of proposal of
 the standards, no  TRS  continuous
 emission monitoring data were avail-
 able from a well-controlled and well
 operated recovery  furnace which could
 be  used to  determine  an excess emis-
 sion  allowance.  Several  months  of
 TRS continuous emission monitoring
 data,  however, were  submitted  with
 the comments  received from the oper-
 ator of recovery furnace D concerning
 this point.
  A review of the data Indicates that,
 while some of the excursions of TRS
 emissions above 5  ppm reflected either
 Improper operation and maintenance,
 or  start-ups, shutdowns, or malfunc-
 tions, most of these excursions reflect-
 ed  unavoidable normal  variability in
 the operation of a kraft pulp mill re-
 covery furnace. Discounting those  ex-
 cursions in emissions from the data
 which were due to Improper operation
 and maintenance,  or  start-ups, shut-
 downs, or malfunctions  Indicates that
 an excess emission allowance of 1 per-
 cent  is  appropriate for all recovery
 furnaces.
  Including   an   excess   emissions
 allowance  In the  promulgated stan-
 dards  for recovery  furnaces, but  not
 for lime kilns.  Is a reversal of the pro-
 posed requirements. Including such an
 allowance  for  recovery  furnaces  but
 not for lime kilns, however, is consis-
 tent with the  nature of the different
 emission control systems which were
 selected as the bases for these stan-
 dards.  The  emission  control  system
 upon which the TRS standard for re-
 covery  furnaces is  based consists of
 black  liquor oxidation and good pro-
 cess operation  of the recovery furnace
 for direct recovery furnaces, and good
 process operation alone for Indirect re-
 covery furnaces. Neither of these emis-
 sion control systems are particularly
 well suited  to  controlling fluctuations
 in  the  kraft pulping process. Thus,
 fluctuations In the process tend to
 pass  through  the  emission  control
 system and show up as fluctuations in
 TRS emissions.
  The  emission control system upon
 which the TRS standard for lime kilns
                            KDCKAl MOISTH, VOL 4), NO. *7—THUtSDAY, KMUARY », 1971
                                                  IV-224
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
Is  based  consists  of  efficient  mud
washing, good process operation of the
lime kiln, and caustic scrubbing of the
gases discharged from  the lime kiln.
As  with the emission control system
upon which the standard for recovery
furnaces Is  based, the first two emis-
sion  control  techniques  (I.e.,  mud
washing and good  process operation)
are not particularly well suited to con-
trolling fluctuations in the kraft pulp-
Ing process.  The third emission control
technique, however, caustic scrubbing,
is an "add-on" emission control tech-
nique that can be designed to accom-
modate fluctuations In TRS emissions
and minimize or essentially eliminate
these fluctuations.

          EMISSION TESTING

  A   few  comments  were   received
which questioned the validity of the
results obtained by Reference Method
16,  due  to  sample losses  and  sulfur
dioxide (SO,) Interference.
  With regard to the validity of the re-
sults  obtained  by Reference  Method
16,  as mentioned earlier,  during  the
emission testing  program, it  was not
widely known that sample losses could
occur within the TRS  emission mea-
surement system. Since proposal  of
the standards, however,  sample losses
of up to  20 percent during emission
eource testing  have been confirmed.
Although these losses were not consid-
ered In selecting the numerical emis-
sion limits  Included In  the proposed
TRS  emission standards,  they  have
been  considered  In selecting  the  nu-
merical emission limit included In the
promulgated standards. Also, since the
amount  of  sample  loss  that occurs
within  the  TRS emission measure-
ment system during source testing can
be determined, procedures have been
added to Reference Method 16 requir-
ing  determination  of   these  losses
during  each source test and  adjust-
ment of the emission data obtained to
take  these  losses Into  account. This
will  ensure  that  the TRS  emission
data  obtained  during  a performance
test are accurate.
  It has also been confirmed that high
concentrations  of SOi  will interfere
with the determination of TRS emis-
sions  to some  extent. At  this  point,
however,  It Is  not known what SO,
concentration levels will result in a sig-
nificant loss of accuracy in determin-
ing TRS emissions. The ability of a ci-
trate  scrubber to selectively  remove
SOi  prior to measurement  of TRS
emissions Is now being tested.  In addi-
tion,  various  chromatographlc  col-
umns might exist which would effec-
tively resolve this problem. As soon as
an appropriate technique Is developed
to overcome this problem, Reference
Method 16 will be amended.
  This  problem  of  SO,  Interference
will not present major  difficulties to
the use of Reference Method 16. Rela-
tively  high SO,  concentration  levels
were observed In only one EPA emis-
sion source test. Accordingly, high SO,
concentration levels are probably not
a  frequent occurrence  within  kraft
pulp mills. More Importantly, howev-
er, high SO, concentrations only Inter-
fere with the determination of methyl
mercaptan In the  emission  measure-
ment  system outlined In Reference
Method 16. Since methyl mercaptan is
usually only a  small contributor  to
total   TRS   emissions,   neglecting
methyl mercaptan where this Interfer-
ence occurs should not seriously  affect
the determination  of TRS emissions.
Consequently, Reference Method  16
can be used to enforce the promulgat-
ed standards without major difficul-
ties.
  Miscellaneous: The effective date of
this  regulation Is February  24, 1976.
Section HKbXlXB) of the Clean Air
Act provides that standards of perfor-
mance or revisions of them become  ef-
fective upon  promulgation and  apply
to affected facilities, construction  or
modification of which was commenced
after the date of  proposal (September
24, 1976).
  NOTE.—An economic assessment has been
prepared as required  under section  317 of
the Act. This also satisfies the requirements
of Executive Orders 11821 and OMB Circu-
lar A-107.
  Dated: February 10, 1978.
                   BARBARA BLUM,
              Acting Administrator.

  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title  40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
ed as follows:

      Subpart A—Gtncrol Provlilont

  1. Section 60.13  Is amended  to clarify
the provisions in  paragraph (a) by  re-
vising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

{60.13  Monitoring requirements.
  (a) For the purposes of this section,
all continuous monitoring systems  re-
quired under applicable subparts shall
be subject to the provisions of this sec-
tion upon promulgation  of perfor-
mance specifications for continuous
monitoring system  under Appendix B
to this part, unless:
  (1)   The   continuous  monitoring
system is subject to the provisions of
paragraphs (c)(2) and  (c)(3) of this
section, or
  (2) otherwise specified in an applica-
ble subpart or by the Administrator.
  2. Part 60 Is amended by adding sub-
part BB as follows:

IwbpiH II—Itandardi tf Pirf»rminu f»r KM* Pulp
                Mill,

Sec.
60.280 Applicability and designation of af-
   fected facility.
60.281 Definition*.
60.282  Standard for paniculate matter.
60.283  Standard for  total  reduced sulfur
   (TRS).
60.284  Monitoring of emissions and oper-
   ations.
60.288  Test methods and procedures.
  AUTHORITY: Bees. 111. 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act,  aa amended  [-42 U.S.C.  7411,
7601(a>], and additional  authority as noted
below.

  Sub port (ft—-Standard! of Performance for
            Kroh Pulp  Mill!

60,280  Applicability and designation of af-
   fected facitity.
  (a)  The  provisions  of this  subpart
are applicable to the  following affect-
ed facilities In kraft pulp mills: digest-
er system, brown stock washer system,
multiple-effect  evaporator   system,
black liquor oxidation system,  recov-
ery furnace,  smelt  dissolving  tank,
lime  kiln,  and  condensate stripper
system. In pulp  mills  where  kraft
pulping Is combined with neutral sul-
flte semlchemical  pulping, the  provi-
sions  of  this  subpart are applicable
when  any  portion  of   the  material
charged to an affected facility is pro-
duced by the kraft pulping operation.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section  that  commences con-
struction or  modification  after  Sep-
tember 24, 1976, Is subject to the re-
quirements of this subpart.

} 60.281  Definitions.
  As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein  shall  have  the same
meaning given them in the Act and in
Subpart A.
  (a) "Kraft pulp mill" means any sta-
tionary source which produces pulp
from   wood  by  cooking  (digesting)
wood  chips In  a  water solution  of
sodium hydroxide and sodium  sulfide
(white liquor)  at  high  temperature
and  pressure.  Regeneration " of  tlie
cooking chemicals through a recovery
process Is also  considered part of  tlie
kraft pulp mil).
  (b)  "Neutral  sulfite   semlchtmlcal
pulping operation" means any oper-
ation  in which pulp is produced from
wood   by   cooking  (digesting)  wood
chips  in  a  solution of sodium sulfiie
and sodium bicarbonate, followed by
mechanical deflbrating (grinding).
  (c)  "Total  reduced sulfur  (TRS)"
means the  sum  of the sulfur com-
pounds hydrogen sulfide, methyl mer-
captan, dimethyl sulfide,  and dimethyl
dlsulflde, that are released during  r.he
kraft  pulping operation and measured
by Reference Method  16.
  (d)  "Digester  system" means each
continuous digester or each batch di-
gester used for the cooking of  wood in
white  liquor,   and  associated  fla.-,h
tank(s), below tank(s), chip steamerCs),
and condenser(s).
  (e)  "Brown  stock  washer system"
means brown stock washers and associ-
ated knotters,  vacuum pumps, and fil-
                            FIDIRAl MOUTH, VOL. 41, NO. J7—THUMOAY, FIIIUAIY U, 1971
                                                 IV-225
-------
                                           RULES  AND REGULATIONS
trate tanks used to wash the pulp fol-
lowing the digester system.
  (f)    "Multiple-effect   evaporator
system"  means  the  multiple-effect
evaporators       and      associated
condenser(s)  and  hotwell(s) used to
concentrate  the spent cooking liquid
that Is separated from the pulp (black
liquor).
   Any owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall In-
stall, calibrate, maintain, and  operate
the following continuous monitoring
devices:
  (DA  monitoring device which mea-
sures the combustion temperature  at
the point of incineration of effluent
gases which are emitted from any di-
gester  system, brown  stock  washer
system,  multiple-effect   evaporator
system, black liquor oxidation  system,
or condensate stripper system where
the  provisions  of  §60.283(aXl)(lll)
apply. The monitoring device is  to be
certified by the manufacturer to be ac-
curate  within ±1 percent of the  tem-
perature being measured.
  (2) For any lime kiln or smelt dis-
solving tank using a scrubber emission
control  device:
  (I) A monitoring device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the pressure
loss  of  the gas stream  through the
control  equipment.  The monitoring
device is to be certified by the manu-
facturer to  be accurate to within a
gage pressure of ±500 pascals  (ca. ±2
inches 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  ±16 percent  of
design  scrubbing liquid  supply  pres-
sure. The pressure sensor or tap  is  to
                                   uotmt, VOL 43, NO. sr—THURSDAY, miuAtr », w«
                                                 IV-226
-------
                                            RULES AND REGULATIONS
be located close to the scrubber liquid
discharge point.  The  Administrator
m&y be consulted for approval of alter-
native locations.
  (c) Any owner or operator subject to
the  provisions of this subpart shall,
except   where   the  provisions   of
J60.283(a)(l)(iv) '   or   §60.283(a)(4)
apply.
  <1)  Calculate and  record on a dally
basis 12-hour average TRS concentra-
tions for the two consecutive periods
of each  operating day. Each  12-hour
average  shall be  determined as the
arithmetic mean of the appropriate  12
contiguous  1-hour  average  total  re-
duced sulfur  concentrations provided
by each continuous monitoring system
Installed  under paragraph   of this section.
  (3)  Correct all 12-hour average TRS
concentrations to 10 volume  percent
oxygen,  except that all  12-hour aver-
age TRS concentration from a recov-
ery  furnace shall be corrected to '8
volume  percent  using the  following
equation:
       €««,„= C^,x(2i -X/21 - y>
where:
C^r^the   concentration   corrected   lor
   oxygen.
C«-1=the  concentration uncorrected  for
   oxygen.
X-the volumetric oxygen concentration In
   percentage to be corrected to (8 percent
   for recovery furnaces and 10 percent for
   lime kilns,  incinerators, or other  de-
   vices).
K=the measured 12-hour average  volumet-
   ric oxygen concentration.
  (d) For the purpose of reports  re-
quired under {60.7(c), any  owner  or
operator  subject to  the  provisions  of
this  subpart  shall  report periods  of
excess emissions as follows:
  (1)  For emissions from any recovery
furnace  periods  of  excess  emissions
are:
  (1)  All  12-hour averages of  TRS con-
centrations above 5 ppm by volume for
straight  kraft recovery  furnaces  and
above 26 ppm by  volume for cross re-
covery furnaces.
  (11)  Ail 6-minute  average  opacities
that exceed  35 percent.
  (2) For emissions from any  lime kiln,
periods of excess emissions are all  12-
hour  average  TRS  concentration
above 8 ppm by volume.
  (3)  For emissions from any digester
system,  brown stock washer  system.
multiple-effect   evaporator  system,
black liquor oxidation system, or con-
densate  stripper  system  periods  of
excess emissions are:
  (i) All  12-hour average TRS concen-
trations above 5 ppm by volume unless
the provisions of J60.283(a)(l) (i), (11),
or Civ) apply; or
  (11) All periods in excess of 5 minutes
and  their duration during  which the
combustion temperature at the  point
of incineration  is less than  1200° F.
where     the      provisions     of
§ 60.283(a)(l)(il) apply.
  (e) The Administrator will not con-
sider  periods  of  excess  emissions  re-
ported under paragraph (d) of this sec-
tion to be indicative of a violation of
§ SO.lKd) provided that:
  (1) The percent  of the total number
of  possible  contiguous  periods  of
excess emissions in a quarter (exclud-
ing periods of startup, "shutdown, or
malfunction and periods when the fa-
cility is  not  operating) during  which
excess  emissions  occur   does  not
exceed:
  (i) One percent for TRS emissions
from recovery furnaces.
  (11) Six percent for average opacities
from recovery furnaces.
  (2)  The Administrator  determines
that the affected facility, Including air
pollution control equipment.  Is main-
tained  and  operated  in  a  manner
which Is consistent with good air pol-
lution control practice for minimizing
emissions  during  periods  of  excess
emissions.

§ 60.285  Test methods and procedures.
  (a) Reference  methods in Appendix
A of  this part, except  as provided
under  { 60.8(b), shall be used to deter-
mine  compliance  with J60.282(a) as
follows:
  (1) Method 5 for the concentration
of paniculate matter and the associat-
ed moisture content,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3)  When  determining  compliance
with § 60.282(a)(2). Method 2 for veloc-
ity and volumetric flow rate,   k
  (4) Method 3 for gas  analysis, and
  (6) Method 9 for visible emissions.
  (b) For Method &, the sampling time
for each run shall be  at least 60 min-
utes and the sampling rate shall be at
least  0.85 dscm/hr  (0.53  dscf/min)
except that  shorter  sampling  times,
when necessitated by process variables
or other factors, may  be approved by
the  Administrator.  Water  shall  be
used as the cleanup solvent Instead of
acetone In the sample recovery proce-
dure outlined in Method 6.
  (c)  Method 17  (In-stack  filtration)
may be used as an alternate method
for Method 5 for determining compli-
ance  with }80.282(a)(lXi): 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 tempera-
 ture is no greater than 205' C (ca. 400'
 F). Water shall be used as the cleanup
 solvent  Instead   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).  (4), and (5),  the following  refer-
 ence methods shall be used:
  (1) Method  16 for the concentration
 of TRS,
  (2) Method 3 for gas analysis, and
  (3) When determining compliance
 with  g60.283(a)(4), use the  results of
 Method 2, Method 16, and  the  black
 liquor solids feed  rate In the following
 equation to determine the TRS emis-
 sion rate.
Where:
£ = mass of TRS emitted per unity of black
   liquor solids (g/kg) (Ib/ton)
Cm = average concentration at hydrogen
   sulfide (H^)  during  the  test  period.
   PPM.
CH.IB = average concentration  of  methyl
   mercaptan  (MeSH)  during the 'test
   period. PPM.
CUM = average  concentration of dimethyl
   sulfide (DMS)  during the test period.
   PPM.
CDMJS - average concentration  of dimethyl
   disulflde (DMDS) during the test period.
   PPM.
FTO = 0.001417 g/m* PPM (or metric units
  = 0.08844 lb/ft« PPM for English units
F*OH = 0.00200 g/m1 PPM for metric units
  = 0.1248 lb/ff PPM for English units
Fnu - 0.002583 g/m' PPM for metric units
    = 0.1612 tb/ft- PPM for English units
Fount = 0.003917 g/m1 PPM for metric units
    = 0.2445 lb/ff PPM for English units
QMI = dry volumetric stack  gas flow rate cor-
   rected  to standard conditions,  dscm/hr
   (dscf/hr)
BLS = black liquor solids  feed  rate, kg/hr
   (Ib/hr)

  (4)  When determining whether  a
furnace is straight kraft recovery fur-
nace   or  a  cross  recovery  furnace,
TAPPI Method T.624 shall be used to
determine sodium sulfide, sodium  hy-
droxide and sodium carbonate. These
"determinations shall be made  three
times daily from the green liquor and
the dally average values shall  be con-
verted  to sodium  oxide (Na.O) and
substituted Into  the following  equa-
tion to determine the green liquor sul-
fidity:
   OLS = 100  CH.,VCN.,' 4- C»rf» -f CK.XO,
Where:
OLS = percent green liquor sulfidity
CH.* = average  concentration of No*  ex-
   pressed as Na*O (mg/1)
CV.OH <= average concentration of  NaOH
   expressed as Na,O (mg/1)
CiuiCO, - average concentration of Na,CO,
   expressed as Na,O (mg/1)

  (e) All concentrations of particulate
matter and TRS required to be mea-
sured by  this section from lime kilns
or incinerators shall be  corrected  10
volume percent oxygen  and those con-
centrations  from  recovery furnaces
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. V—THURSDAY, FEMUARY 23, 197*
                                                  IV-227
-------
                                                tULES AND REGULATIONS
•hall be corrected to 8 volume percent
oxygen.  These  corrections shall  be
made  In  the  manner  specified  in
|60.284(c)(3>.

   APPENDIX A—RDTRZNCE METHODS

  (8) Method 16 and  Method 17  are
added to Appendix A as follows:
IUTHOD 1«. «EKICONTINt>OUS DETERMINATION
  or iutrun  EMISSIONS  ntou  STATIONARY
  •OTOCM

              Introduction

  The  method described below  uses  the
principle of gu chromatographlc separation
and name  photometric  detection.  Since
there are many systems or sets of operating
conditions that represent usable methods oi
determining sulfur emissions, all systems
which employ this principle, but  differ only
In details of equipment and operation, may
be  used as  alternative methods, provided
that the criteria set below are met.
  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. A gas sample Is extracted
from the emission source and diluted with
clean dry air. An  aliquot  of the  diluted
•ample  Is then analyzed for hydrogen sul-
fide (HUS). methyl  mercaptan CMeSH), di-
methyl sulflde (DMS) and  dimethyl dlsul-
flde (DMDS) by gas chromatographlc (OC>
separation and flame photometric detection
(FPD).  These four compounds  are known
collectively as total reduced sulfur (TRS).
  1.2  Applicability. This method Is applica-
ble for determination of TRS compounds
from  recovery  furnaces, lime  kilns,  and
smelt dissolving tanks at kraft pulp mills.
  2. Range and ScruUivity,
  2.1  Range. Coupled with a gas chromato-
graphic  system  utilizing  a ten mllllliter
•ample size, the maximum limit of the FPD
for each sulfur compound Is approximately
1 ppm. This limit Is expanded by dilution of
the sample  gas before analysis.  Kraft mill
gas samples  are normally  diluted  tenfold
(0:1), resulting in an upper limit  of about 10
ppm for each compound.
  For sources with emission levels between
10  and 100 ppm, the measuring range can be
best extended by reducing  the sample size
to  1 mllllliter.
  3.2 Using the  sample  size, the minimum
detectable  concentration Is approximately
00  ppb.
  3. Interferences.
  3.1  Moisture  Condensation.  Moisture
 condensation in the sample delivery system,
 the analytical column, or  the FPD  burner
 block can cause losses or Interferences. This
 potential Is  eliminated  by  heating the
 •ample line, and by conditioning the sample
 with dry dilution air to lower Ita dew point
 below  the  operating  temperature   of the
 OC/FPD analytical system prior to analysts.
  1.2  Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Diox-
 ide. CO and CO.  have substantial desensitiz-
 ing effect on the flame  photometric detec-
 tor even after 9:1 dilution. Acceptable sys-
 tems  must  demonstrate  that  they  have
 eliminated this Interference by some proce-
 dure  such  as  elutlng  these  compounds
 before any of the compounds  to be  mea-
 sured.  Compliance with this  requirement
 can be demonstrated by submitting chroma-
 tograms of calibration gases with and with-
 out COi in the  diluent  gas. The CO. level
 thould be approximately 10 percent for the
 ewe with CO. present. The two chromato-
graphs should show agreement within the
precision limits of Section 4.1.
  3.3  Paniculate   Matter.    Paniculate
matter in gas samples can  cause Interfer-
ence by eventual clogging of the analytical
system. This Interference must be eliminat-
ed by use of a probe filter,
  3.4  Sulfur Dioxide.  BO. Is not a specific
Interferent but may be present In such large
amounts  that It cannot be effectively sepa-
rated from other  compounds of Interest.
The procedure must be designed to elimi-
nate this problem either by the choice of
separation columns or by removal  of SO.
from the sample.
  Compliance with this section can be dem-
onstrated by submitting chromatographs of
calibration gases with SO,  present in the
same Quantities expected from the emission
source to be tested.  Acceptable  systems
•hall show baseline separation with the am-
plifier attenuation set so that the reduced
sulfur compound of concern Is at least SO
percent of full scale. Base line separation Is
defined as a return to eero ± percent In the
Interval between peaks.
  4. Precision and Accuracy.
  4.1  OC/FPD and Dilution System Cali-
bration Precision. A series of three consecu-
tive Injections of the  same  calibration gas,
at any dilution, shall produce results which
do not vary by more than ±3 percent from
the mean of the three Injections.
  4.2  OC/FPD and Dilution System Cali-
bration DrUt. The calibration  drift deter-
mined from the mean  of three injections
made at the beginning and end of  any  g.
hour period shall not exceed ± percent.
  4.3  System Calibration  Accuracy.  The
complete system must quantitatively trans-
port and analyze with  an accuracy of 20 per-
cent. A  correction factor Is developed  to
adjust calibration accuracy to 100 percent.
  6. Appamtut (See Figure 16-1).
  6.1.1  Probe. The probe must be made  of
inert material  such  as  stainless  steel  or
glass. It should be designed to Incorporate a
filter and to allow calibration gas to enter
the probe at or near the sample entry point.
Any portion of the probe not exposed to the
stack gas must be heated to prevent mois-
ture condensation.
   6.1.2  Sample Line.  The sample line must
be made of Teflon.' no greater than 1.3 cm
(V4) Inside  diameter.  All pans  from the
probe to the dilution system must be ther-
mostatically heated to 120* C.
   6.1.3  Sample  Pump. The sample  pump
 shall be a leakless Teflon-coated diaphragm
 type or equivalent. If the pump Is upstream
 of the dilution system, the pump head must
 be heated to 120' C.
   5.2  Dilution System. The dilution system
 must be constructed  such  that all  sample
 contacts  are made of Inert materials (e.g.,
 stainless steel or Teflon). It must be heated
 to 120' C. and be capable of approximately a
 9:1 dilution of the  sample.
   S.3  Qas Chromatograph. The gas chro-
 tnatograph must have at least the following
 components:
   6.3.1  Oven. Capable of maintaining the
 separation column at the proper operating
 temperature ±1* C.
   6.3.2  Temperature   Oauge.  To  monitor
 column  oven, detector,  and exhaust tem-
 perature ± r C.
   6.3.3  Flow System. Oas metering system
 to measure sample,  fuel,  combustion gas,
 and carrier gas flows.
   'Mention of trade names or specific prod-
 ucts does not constitute endorsement by the
 Environmental Protection Agency.
  5.3.4  Flame Photometric Detector.
  6.3.4.1  Electrometer. Capable of full scale
amplification of linear ranges of 10~* to 10~*
amperes full scale.
  5.3.4.2  Power Supply.  Capable  of deliver-
ing up to 760 volts.
  6.3.4.3  Recorder.  Compatible  with the
output voltage range of the electrometer.
  6.4  Oas  Chromatograph  Columns. The
column system must be demonstrated to  be
capble  of resolving the four major reduced
sulfur  compounds: H.S. MeSH. DMS, and
DMDS. It must also demonstrate freedom
from known Interferences.
  To demonstrate that adequate  resolution
has been achieved, the tester must submit a
Chromatograph of a calibration gas contain-
ing all four of the TRS compounds In the
concentration range of the applicable stan-
dard. Adequate resolution will be defined as
base line separation of adjacent peaks when
the amplifier attenuation Is set so that the
smaller peak is at least 60  percent of full
scale. Base line separation U defined In Sec-
tion 3.4. Systems not meeting this criteria
may be considered  alternate methods sub-
ject to the approval of the Administrator.
  6.6.   Calibration System. The calibration
system must contain the following compo-
nents.
  6.6.1   Tube Chamber. Chamber of glass or
Teflon of  sufficient dimensions  to  house
permeation tubes.
  6.6.2  Flow System. To measure air flow
over permeation tubes at ±2 percent. Each
flowmeter  shall be  calibrated after a com-
plete test series with a wet test meter. If the
How measuring device differs from the wet
test meter by 6 percent, the completed test
shall be discarded. Alternatively, the tester
may elect to use the flow  data that would
yield the lowest flow measurement. Calibra-
tion with a wet test meter before a test is
optional.
  6.6.3  Constant Temperature Bath. Device
capable  of  maintaining   the  permeation
tubes at the calibration temperature within
±0.1' C.
  6.6.4  Temperature Oauge. Thermometer
or equivalent to monitor bath temperature
within ±1'C.
  S. Reo.gen.tt.
  6.1   Fuel.  Hydrogen  -------
                 RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  7.1  After  the  complete  measurement
system  has been  set  up at the site  and
deemed to be operational, the following pro-
cedures should be completed before sam-
pling is initiated.
  7.1.1   Leak Test. Appropriate  leak  test
procedures should be employed to verify the
Integrity of all  components, sample lines,
and connections. The following leak  test
procedure Is suggested: For components up-
stream  of  the sample pump,  attach the
probe end  of the sample line to  a ma- no-
meter or vacuum gauge, start the pump and
pull greater than 50 mm  (2 In.) Hg vacuum.
close off the pump outlet, and then stop the
pump and ascertain that there is no leak for
1 minute. For components  after the pump,
apply a slight positive pressure and check
for leaks by applying a liquid (detergent  in
water,  for example) at each Joint Bubbling
indicates the presence of a leak.
  7.1.2   System  Performance.  Since  the
complete system Is calibrated following each
test, the precise calibration of each compo-
nent is not critical. However, these compo-
nents  should  be verified  to be  operating
properly. This verification can be performed
by observing the response of flowmeters  or
of the OC output to changes in flow rates  or
calibration  gas  concentrations   and  ascer-
taining the response to be  within predicted
limits.  In any component, or if the complete
system fails to respond In a normal and pre-
dictable manner, the source of the discrep-
ancy should be  identified and  corrected
before  proceeding.
  8. Calibration. Prior to any sampling run,
calibrate the  system using  the following
procedures. (If more  than  one  run is  per-
formed during any 24-hour period, a calibra-
tion need  not  be  performed prior to the
second and any subsequent runs. The  cali-
bration must, however, be verified  as  pre-
scribed in  Section 10, after the last run
made within the 24-hour period.)
  8.1  General Considerations. This section
outlines steps to be followed for use of the
OC/FPD and the dilution system. The pro-
cedure  does  not  Include detailed Instruc-
tions because the operation of these systems
is complex, and It requires  a understanding
of the  individual system being used. Each
system should Include a written operating
manual describing  In detail  the  operating
procedures associated with  each component
in the measurement system. In addition, the
operator should be familiar with the operat-
ing principles of the components; particular-
ly  the  OC/FPD. The citations  In the  Bib-
liography at the end of this method are rec-
ommended for review for this purpose.
  8.2  Calibration Procedure. Insert the per-
meation  tubes  Into  the  tube  chamber.
Check   the bath  temperature  to   assure
agreement  with the calibration temperature
of the  tubes within ±0.1* C. Allow 24 hours
for the tubes to equilibrate. Alternatively
equilibration may  be verified by injecting
samples of calibration gas  at 1-hour Inter-
vals. The permeation tubes can be assumed
to have reached equilibrium when consecu-
tive hourly samples agree within the preci-
sion limits of Section 4.1.
  Vary the amount of air flowing over the
tubes to produce the desired concentrations
for calibrating  the analytical and dilution
systems. The air flow across the tubes must
at all times exceed the flow requirement  of
the analytical systems. The concentration  in
parts per million generated by a tube  con-
taining a specific permeant can  be calculat-
ed as follows:           p

               C  •  K f£
                            Equation 16-1
           where:

           C-Concentration of permeant produced In
              ppm.
           P,-Permeatlon rate ol the tube in >ig/mln.
           M-Molecular weight of the permeant 
-------
                                                RULES  AND REGULATIONS
  11.3  Average TRS. The average TRS will
be determined as follows:
                       N
                       I  TRS
         Average TRS-
Average TRS-Average total reduced suflur
   In ppra, dry basis.
TRS,-Total reduced sulfur In ppm as deter-
   mined by Equation 16-2.
N-Number of samples.
B.,-Fraction  of volume of water vapor In
   the gas stream as determined by method
   4—Determination of Moisture In Stack
   Oases (36 FR 24887).

  11.4 Average concentration of Individual
reduced sulfur compounds.
                    N
                    I s
                    1 •
where:
                          Equation 16-3
S,-Concentration  of  any  reduced sulfur
   compound  from the  Ith sample Injec-
   tion, ppm.
C-Average concentration of any one of the
   reduced sulfur compounds for the entire
   run, ppm.
N-Number of Injections In any run period.

  12. Example Svsttm. Described below Is a
•yatem utilized by EPA In gathering NSPS
data. This system  does not now reflect all
the latest developments In equipment and
column  technology, but  It does  represent
one system that has been demonstrated to
work.
  12.1  Apparatus.
  12.1.1  Sampling System.
  12.1.1.1  Probe. Figure 16-1 Illustrates the
probe used In  lime kilns and other sources
where  significant  amounts  of  participate
matter are present, the  probe Is  designed
with the deflector shield placed between the
sample and the gas Inlet holes  and the glass
wool plugs to  reduce clogging of the  filter
and possible adsorption of sample gas. The
exposed portion of the probe  between the
sampling port  and  the sample line Is heated
with heating tape.
  12.1.1.2  Sample Line Vn Inch Inside diam-
eter  Teflon  tubing, heated to  120' C. This
temperature Is controlled by a thermostatlc
heater.
  12.1.1.3  Sample  Pump.  Leakless Teflon
coated diaphragm  type or equivalent. The
pump head Is heated to 120' C by enclosing
It In the sample dilution box (12.2.4 below).
  12.1.2 Dilution System. A schematic dia-
gram of the  dynamic dilution system  Is
given In Figure 16-2. The dilution system Is
constructed  such that all sample contacts
are made of Inert materials.  The dilution
system which Is heated to 120'  C must be ca-
pable  of  a minimum of  9:1  dilution of
sample. Equipment  used In  the dilution
system is listed below:
  12,1.2.1  Dilution Pump.  Model  A-1BO
Kohmyhr  Teflon  positive   displacement
type, nonadjustable  150 cc/mln.  ±2.0 per-
cent, or equivalent, per dilution stage.  A 9:1
dilution of sample Is accomplished by com-
bining  150  cc  of  sample with 1.3SO  cc  of
clean dry air as shown in Figure 16-2.
  12.1.2.2 Valves.  Three-way Teflon sole-
noid or manual type.
  12.1.2.3 Tubing. Tenon tubing and  fit-
tings are used  throughout from the sample
probe to the GC/FPD  to present an Inert
surface for sample gas,
  12.1.2.4 Box. Insulated "box. heated and
maintained at  120' C, of sufficient dimen-
sions to house  dilution apparatus.
  12.1.2.5 Flowmeters.    Rotameters    or
equivalent to measure flow from 0 to 1600
ml/mln ±1 percent per dilution stage.
  12.1.3 Oas   Chromatograph  Columns.
Two types of columns are used for separa-
tion of low and  high  molecular weight
sulfur compounds:
  12.1.3.1 Low Molecular  Weight  Sulfur
Compounds Column (OC/FPD-1).
  12.1.3.1 Separation Column. 11 m by 2.16
mm (36 ft  by 0.085 In) Inside  diameter
Teflon  tubing packed  with  30/60  mesh
Teflon  coated  with  5  percent polyphenyl
ether  and   O.OS  percent  orthophosphoric
acid, or equivalent (see Figure 16-3).
  12.1.3.1.2   Stripper or Precolumn. 0.6 m
by 2.16 mm (2 ft by 0.08S In) Inside diameter
Teflon tubing packed as In 5.3.1.
  12.1.3.1.3   Sample  Valve. Teflon 10-port
gas sampling valve, equipped with a  10  ml
sample  loop,  actuated  by compressed  air
(Figure 16-3).
  12.1.3.1.4   Oven.  For  containing sample
valve,   stripper   column  and  separation
column. The  oven should  be  capable  of
maintaining an elevated temperature rang-
ing from ambient  to 100* C. constant within
±1'C.
  12.1.3.1.5   Temperature Monitor. Thermo-
couple pyrometer to measure column oven.
detector, and exhaust temperature ±1' C.
  12.1.3.1.0   Flow   System.  Oas  metering
system  to measure sample flow, hydrogen
How, and oxygen flow (and nitrogen carrier
gas flow).
  12.1.3.1.7   Detector. Flame  photometric
detector.
  12.1.3.1.8   Electrometer. Capable of  full
scale amplification of linear ranges of  10->
to 10-' amperes full scale.
  12.1.3.1.9   Power Supply. Capable of deli-
vering up to 750 volts.
  12.1.3.1.10  Recorder.   Compatible   with
the output  voltage  range of the electrom-
eter.
  12.1.3.2  High  Molecular  Weight  Com-
pounds Column (OC/FPD-11).
  12.1.3.2.1.  Separation  Column. 3.05 m by
2.16 mm (10 ft by 0.0885 In) Inside diameter
Teflon  tubing packed  with  30/60  mesh
Teflon coated with 10 percent Triton X-305.
or equivalent.
  12.1.3.2.2   Sample Valve. Teflon 8-port gas
sampling valve  equipped  with  a  10  ml
sample  loop,  actuated  by compressed  air
(Figure 16-3).
  12.1.3.2.3   Other Components. All compo-
nents same as In 12.1.3.1.4 to  12.1.3.1.10.
  12.1.4 Calibration.   Permeation    tube
system (figure 16-4).
  12.1.4.1  Tube Chamber. Olass chamber
of  sufficient dimensions  to  house perme-
ation tubes.
  12.1.4.2  Mass  Flowmeters. Two  mass
flowmeters in  the range  0-3 1/mln. and 0-10
1/mln. to measure air flow over permeation
tubes at ±3  percent. These flowmeters shall
be cross-calibrated at the beginning of each
test. Using  a  convenient  flow rate In the
measuring  range  of both flowmeters,  set
and monitor the  flow rate of gas over the
permeation  tubes. Injection  of calibration
gas generated at this flow rate as measured
by one flowmeter followed by Injection of
calibration gas at the same flow rate as mea-
sured by the other flowmeter should agree
within the specified precision limits. If they
do not,  then there Is a  problem  with  the
mass  flow measurement. Each mass flow-
meter shall  be calibrated prior to the first
teat with a wet teat meter and thereafter, at
least once each year.
  12.1.4.3  Constant Temperature Bath. Ca-
pable of maintaining permeation tubes at
certification temperature of 30' C. within
±0.1'C.
  12.2  Reagents
  12.2.1   Fuel.  Hydrogen (H,)  prepurlfled
grade or better.
  12.2.2.  Combustion Gas. Oxygen (O.) re-
search purity or better.
  12.2.3   Caq-ier Oas. Nitrogen (N.) prepurl-
fled grade or better.
  12.2.4   Diluent. Air containing  less than
60 ppb total sulfur compounds and less than
10 ppm each of moisture and total hydro-
carbons,   and  filtered  using  MSA  filters
46727 and 79030. or equivalent. Removal of
sulfur compounds can.be verified  by Inject-
ing dilution air  only, described In Section
8.3.
  12.2.5   Compressed Air. 60 pslg for OC
valve actuation.
  12.2.6   Calibrated   Oases.    Permeation
tubes gravlmetrically calibrated and certi-
fied at 30.0' C.
  12.3  Operating Parameters.
  12.3.1   Low-Molecular    Weight   Sulfur
Compounds. The operating parameters for
the OC/FPD system  used for low molecular
weight compounds are as follows: nitrogen
carrier gas flow  rate of  50 cc/mln, exhaust
temperature of 1101 C, detector temperature
of 108* C, oven temperature of 401 C, hydro-
gen flow rate of 80 cc/mln, oxygen now rate
of 20 cc/mln, and sample flow  rate between
20 and 80 cc/mln.
  12.3.2  High-Molecular  "Weight  Sulfur
Compounds. The operating parameters for
the  OC/FPD  system for  high molecular
weight compounds are the same as In 12.3.1
except:  oven temperature of 70' C, and ni-
trogen carrier gas flow of 100 cc/mln.
  12.4 Analysis Procedure.
  12.4.1   Analysis.   Aliquot*   of   diluted
sampje   are Injected simultaneously  into
both  OC/FPD analyzers for analysis.  OC/
FPD-I Is used to measure the low-molecular
weight reduced sulfur compounds. The low
molecular weight compounds Include hydro-
gen sulflde. methyl mercaptan,  and di-
methyl  sulflde.  OC/FPD-I1 Is used  to re-
solve the high-molecular weight compound.
The high-molecular weight compound Is di-
methyl dlsuUIde.
  12.4.1.1 Analysis    of   Low-Molecular
Weight  Sulfur  Compounds.  The  sample
valve Is  actuated for 3  minutes  In  which
time an aliquot of diluted sample Is Injected
Into  the stripper column  and analytical
column.  The valve Is then deactivated for
approximately  12  minutes In which  time,
the analytical column continues to be fore-
flushed,  the stripper column Is backflushed,
and the sample loop  Is refilled. Monitor the
responses. The elutlon time for each com-
pound will  be determined during calibra-
tion.
  .13,4.1,2 Analysis   of   High-Molecular
Weight Sulfur Compounds. The  procedure
Is essentially the same as above except that
no stripper column Is needed.
  13.  Bibliography.
  13.1 O'Keeffe, A.  E.  and O. C. Oilman.
"Primary Standards for Trace Oas Analy-
                                PINKA1 RiailTlft, VOL 41, NO. «7-THlrt$DAY, NMUAAY », I«7I
                                                        IV-230
-------
                                               RULES AND  REGULATIONS

iU." Analytical Chemical  Journal, 38.760   Compounds Related to  Kraft Mill Aetlvl-     13.5  Orlmley, K. W., W. S. Smith, and R.
(1966).                                   ties." Presented at the 12th Conference on   M. Martin. "The Use of a Dynamic Dilution
  13.2  Stevens. R. K., A. E. O'Keeffe, and   Methods In Air Pollution and Industrial Hy-   System In the Conditioning  of Stack Oases
O. C. Ortman.  "Absolute Calibration  of  a   giene Studies. University of Southern Call-   for Automated Analysis by  a Mobile Sam-
Flame Photometric  Detector  to  Volatile   fornla, Los Angeles, CA. April 6-8. 1971.       pllng  Van." Presented at  the 63rd Annual
Sulfur Compounds at Sub-Part-Per-Mllllon     J3   rvyonald R H R S  Serenim and   APCA Meeting: In St. Louis, Mo. June 14-19,
Levels." Environmental Science and Tech-     "_* ., Tvo.nala' R' H- R' s'  sere"lus' vna   1970
nology, 3:7 (July, 1969).                     £.  D. Mclntyre. "Evaluat on  of the Flame     „ g  Genera] Reference. Standard Meth-
  13.3  Mullck, J. D..  R. K. Stevens, and R.   Photometric Detector for Analysis of Sulfur   ods o{ chemical Analysis Volume III A  and
Baumgardner.  "An Analytical System  De-   Compounds." Pulp and Paper Magazine of   B  Instrumental  Methods.  Sixth  Edition.
iigned to Measure  Multiple  Malodorous   Canada, 73,3 (March, 1972).                  Van Nostr&nd Relnhold Co.
                                       KIOIITK, VOL 43, NO. 17-THUKSDAY, HMUAIY M, 1971
                                                       IV-231
-------
10

OJ
       O
       0

       u
       c
       >
                                                                                                                                >


                                                                                                                                O
                               Figure 16-1. Probe used for sample gas containing high particulate loadings.
-------
—1


PROSE
FILTER
(GLASS WOOL)

3
5 s*<
r






x
STACK TO GC/FPO ANALYZERS
WALL
10:1 102:1

FILTER







£ HEATED
5 SAMPLE
1 LINE
m
< ? 1
to -"
00 0
OJ •
c*
1
m
C
J
**
3

- -- "^^ " ' ' — '




HuSiTi'v't
DISPLACEMENT
PUMP
(1 50 cc/min) —

PERMEATION
TUBE
CALIBRATION
GAS
j


	 ^ *
T. jf
DIAPHRAGM
\
t

\


U 	
PU£V
(HEATED) '


\ i

. -i • •• • • •• -






^S^
• •••

)
^~~^ — v











T^
T
s^

i

— — —
DILUENT AIR






• • »

3 -WAY
,X VALVE ^_
f~ x ^ iy *"
i _











i
1350 co
il
•& i
111
I—I L.



1
mil)
ID
C
: FLOWMETER 5
o
ID
m
Q

6
25PS.
CLEAN
DRY AIR




" DTLUTiONloTHEATED
TO 100°C
                VENT
Figure 16- 2. Sampling and dilution apparatus.
-------
                       SAMPLING VALVE
                          GC/FPD-I
       o
       m
       >
       o
M
<
 I
NJ
       I
       c
       X!
        3>
        a
        C
        J>
                                                    STRIPPER
                                                    Q1M1
                     SAMPLE
                       LOOP
  SAMPLE ^.
    OR   **
CALIBRATION
    GAS
                                             VACUUM
                      SAMPLING VALVE FOR
                           GC/FPD-II
                      VACUUM
                       SAMPLE .T-a
                         OR
                    CALIBRATION
                        GAS
                                                                                                        FLAME PHOTOMETRIC DETECTOR


                                                                                                     EXHAUST
                                                                                                                7SOV
                                                                                                            POWER SUPPLY
                                                                                SEPARATION
                                                                                  COLUMN
                                                                                     H2
                                                                               OVEN
                                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                                      5
                                                -CARRIER
                                                             •^•"10 GC/FPO-II
                                                            Figure 16-3- Gas chrcmatograpbic-f lane photometric analyzers.-
-------
                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
          TO INSTRUMENTS
               AND
          DILUTION SYSTEM
  CONSTANT
TEMPERATURE
    BATH
                  THERMOMETER
                                           FLOWMETER
                                                                    DILUENT

                                                          DRIER  >*-.A0'RR
                                                                    NITROGEN
                                        STIRRER
0
                                                  GLASS
                                                CHAMBER
                 PERMEATION
                    TUBE
                  Figure 16-4. Apparatus for field calibration.
                     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 43, NO. 37-THURSOAY, KBROARY 23, 1978
                                     IV-235
-------
                                    VENT
                                                                                                                VENT
        5
                             i
                                                PBOBE
                        u
i
to

cr»
p

*•«
       O
       >
                                                                  SAMPLE

                                                                   LINE
                                                                                                  SAMPIE

                                                                                                   PUMf-
                                                                                                            DILUTION

                                                                                                            SYSTEM
O
c
                                                                                                                      GAS

                                                                                                                CHROMAT06RAPH
                                                 Figure 16-  5. Determination of sample line loss.
-------
                                                 RULES  AND REGULATIONS
METHOD 17. DETERMINATION  OT PABTICULATE
  EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES (IN-
  STACK FILTRATION METHOD)

               Introduction

  Particulate  matter  Is  not an  absolute
quantity; rather.  It Is a function of tempera-
ture and  pressure.  Therefore,  to  prevent
variability  in  paniculate matter  emission
regulations and/or associated test methods.
the temperature and pressure at which par-
ticulate matter is to be  measured must  be
carefully defined. Of the two variables (i.e.,
temperature and pressure), temperature has
the greater effect upon the  amount of par-
ticulate matter in an effluent gas stream: In
most stationary source categories, the effect
of pressure appears to be negligible.
  In method 5.  250' F Is established  as a
nominal   reference   temperature.  Thus.
where Method 5 is specified in an applicable
subpart of the standards, paniculate matter
Is  defined with respect to temperature.  In
order to maintain a  collection temperature
of 250' F. Method 5 employs a heated glass
sample  probe and  a heated filter holder.
This  equipment is somewhat cumbersome
and requires care  in Its operation. There-
fore,  where  particulate  matter concentra-
tions (over the normal range of temperature
associated with a specified source category)
are known to be Independent of  tempera-
ture.  It is  desirable to eliminate the glass
probe and  heating  systems, and sample  at
stack temperature.
  This method describes an in-stack sam-
pling system and sampling  procedures for
use in such cases. It is intended to be used
only when specified by an applicable sub-
part of  the standards, and  only  within the
applicable temperature limits (if specified),
or when otherwise  approved by the Admin-
istrator.
  1. Principle and Applicability.
  1.1  Principle. Particulate matter is with-
drawn Isokinetically from  the  source  and
collected on a glass  fiber filter maintained
at stack temperature. The particulate mass
is determined gravimetrically after removal
of uncomblned water.
  1.2  Applicability. This method applies to
the determination of particulate emissions
from  stationary  sources for  determining
compliance  with  new source performance
standards, only when specifically provided
for in an applicable  subpart of the stan-
dards. This  method  is  not applicable  to
stacks that  contain  liquid droplets  or  are
saturated with water vapor. In addition, this
method shall not be used as written if  the
projected cross-sectional  area of  the probe
extension-filter  holder  assembly   covers
more  than 5 percent of the  stack cross-sec-
tional area (see Section 4.1.2).

  2. Apparatus
  2.1  Sampling Train. A schematic  of  the
sampling train used in this method is shown
in  Figure  17-1.  Construction  details  for
many, but not  all. of  the train  components
are given In APTD-0581  (Citation 2 in Sec-
tion 7);  for changes  from  the  APTD-OS81
document and  for allowable modifications
to Figure 17-1.  consult with the Administra-
tor.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL.  43, NO. 37—THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23,  1978
                                                        IV-237
-------
                            TEMPERATURE     IN-STACK
                               SENSOR      FILTER HOLDER
                  z>7.6 cm (3 in.)*
M
<
 I
M
Ul
CO
        O
O
        o
       >
                                          TYPES
                                        PITOTTUBE
                                         TEMPERATURE
                                            SENSOR
                                     SAMPLING
                                      NOZZLE

                                      IN STACK
                                      FILTER
                                      HOLDER
                                REVERSE-TYPE
                                 PITOTTUBE
                                                                                           IMPINGER TRAIN OPTIONAL. MAY Bf REPLACED
                                                                                                 BY AN EQUIVALENT CONDEhSER
                                                                                                                                     THERMOMETER
                                                                                                                                   CHECK
                                                                                                                                   VALVE
                                              ORIFICE MANOMETER
                         1 SUGGESTED (INTERFERENCE FREE) SPACINGS
S  PITOT MANOMETER L—
                                                                                                                   AIR-TIGHT
                                                                                                                     PUMP
                                                                                 DRY GAS METER
                                                                                                                                    VACUUM
                                                                                                                                      LINE
>

O
JO
m
O
                                                     Figure 17-1. Paniculate-Sampling Train. Equipped with In-Stack Filter.
-------
                                                  RULES  AND REGULATIONS
  The operating  and  maintenance  proce-
dures for many of the sampling train com-
ponents  are described In  APTD-0576 (Cita-
tion 3 in Section  7).  Since correct usage is
Important in  obtaining  valid  results,  all
users should read the APTD-0576 document
and adopt the operating and maintenance
procedures outlined in It, unless otherwise
specified  herein. The  sampling train con-
sists of the following components:
  2.1.1  Probe  Nozzle.  Stainless steel  (316)
or glass, with  sharp, tapered leading  edge.
The angle of  taper shall be 030'  and the
taper shall be  on  the outside to preserve a
constant  internal  diameter.   The  probe
nozzle shall be of  the button-hook  or elbow
design, unless otherwise specified by the Ad-
ministrator. If made of stainless steel, the
nozzle shall  be constructed from  seamless
tubing. Other materials of construction may
be used subject to the approval of the Ad-
ministrator.
  A  range of  sizes suitable  for Isokinetic
sampling  should be  available,  e.g.. 0.32 to
1.27 cm  
-------
                                                 RULES  AND REGULATIONS
values (00.001 percent) shall be used. In no
case shall  a blank value of  greater than
0.001  percent of the weight of acetone used
be subtracted from the sample weight.
  3.3  Analysis.
  3.3.1  Acetone. Same as 3.2.
  3.3.2  Deslccant. Anhydrous calcium sul-
fate.  indicating type.  Alternatively, other
types of deslccants may be used, subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
  4. Procedure.
  4.1  Sampling.  The  complexity  of  this
method is such that, in order to obtain reli-
able results, testers should  be trained and
experienced with the test procedures.
  4.1.1  Pretest  Preparation.   All  compo-
nents shall be maintained and calibrated ac-
cording  to  the  procedure  described  In
APTD-0576,   unless  otherwise   specified
herein.
  Weigh several  200  to  300 g portions of
silica gel in air-tight containers to the near-
est 0.5  g.  Record the total  weight of  the
silica gel plus container,  on each container.
As an alternative, the silica gel need not be
prewelghed, but may be weighed directly in
Its Implnger or sampling holder just prior to
train assembly.
  Check filters visually against light for Ir-
regularities  and  flaws  or  plnhole leaks.
Label filters of the proper size on the  back
side near the  edge using numbering ma-
chine ink. As an alternative, label the ship-
ping containers (glass or plastic petrl dishes)
and keep  the  filters In these  containers at
all times except during sampllrg and weigh-
ing.
  Desiccate the filters at 20±8.6' C (68±10*
F)  and ambient  pressure for at least  24
hours and weigh at Intervals  of at least 6
hours  to  a  constant weight,  i.e.,  OO.S mg
change from previous  weighing;  record re-
sults to the  nearest 0.1  mg.  During  each
weighing the filter must not be exposed to
the  laboratory  atmosphere  for  a period
greater than 2 minutes  and a relative hu-
midity  above  50   percent.   Alternatively
(unless otherwise specified by the Adminis-
trator), the filters may be oven dried at 105'
C (220' F) for 2 to 3 hours, desiccated  for 2
hour;, and weighed. Procedures other  than
those described, which account for relative
humidity  effects,  may be used,  subject to
the approval of the Administrator.
  4.1.2  Preliminary Determinations. Select
the sampling site and the minimum number
of sampling points according to Method 1 or
as specified by the  Administrator. Make a
projected-area model of the probe  exten-
sion-filter holder assembly, with the pilot
tube face openings positioned along the cen-
terline of the stack, as shown in Figure 17-2.
Calculate the estimated cross-section block-
age, as shown in Figure 17-2. If the blockage
exceeds 5 percent of the duct cross sectional
area, the tester  has  the following options:
(1) a suitable out-of-stack filtration method
may be used Instead of In-stack filtration: or
(2) a special in-slack  arrangement, In which
the  sampling and  velocity measurement
sites are separate, may  be  used; for  details
concerning this approach, consult with  the
Administrator (see also Citation  10 in Sec-
tion 7). Determine the stack pressure, tem-
perature, and the range of velocity heads
using Method 2;  it is recommended  that a
leak-check of the pilot lines (see  Method 2.
Section 3.1) be  performed. Determine  the
moisture' content   using   Approximation
Method 4 or Its alternatives for the purpose
of making isokinetic  sampling rate settings.
Determine  the  stack,  gas dry  molecular
weight, as  described In Method  2.  Section
3.6; If integrated Method 3  sampling  Is used
for molecular weight determination,  the In-
tegrated bag sample  shall be taken simulta-
neously with, and for the same total length
of time'as, the particular sample run.
                                 nOIRAl tEOISTER, VOL 43, NO. 37—THURSDAY, RMtUARV  23, 1978
                                                         IV-240
-------
                           RULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                         STACK
                                                         WALL
        IN-STACK FILTER
       PROBE EXTENSION
          ASSEMBLY
                     ESTIMATED
                     BLOCKAGE
  fsH APED AREA]
' |_ DUCT AREATJ
X  100
Figure 17-2. Projected-area model of cross-section blockage (approximate average for
a sample traverse) caused by an in-stack filter holder-probe extension assembly.
               MOIIAl MOUTH, VOL. 49, NO. IT-THURSDAr, HMUARV IS, 1971
                                  IV-241
-------
                                                RULES AND REGULATIONS
  Select a nozzle size based on the range of
velocity heads, such that It Is not necessary
to change the nozzle size In order to main-
tain  isokinetic sampling rates.  During the
run,  do not change the nozzle size.  Ensure
that  the proper differential pressure gauge
Is chosen for the range of velocity heads en-
countered (see Section 2.2 of Method 21.
  Select a probe extension length such that
all traverse points can be sampled. For large
stacks,  consider  sampling  from  opposite
sides of the stack to  reduce  the length of
probes.
  Select a total sampling time greater than
or equal to the  minimum  total  sampling
time specified In  the test procedures for the
specific industry  such that (1) the sampling
time per point Is  not less than 2 minutes (or
some  greater time  Interval  If specified by
the  Administrator), and  (2) the  sample
volume  taken (corrected to standard condi-
tions)  will exceed  the required minimum
total gas sample  volume. The latter is based
on an approximate average sampling rate.
  It  is recommended that the number of
minutes sampled at each point be an integer
or an Integer plus one-half  minute. In order
to avoid timekeeping errors.
  In  some circumstances, e.g., batch  cycles.
It  may  be  necessary to sample for  shorter
times at the  traverse points  and to  obtain
smaller gas sample volumes. In  these cases,
the Administrator's approval must  first be
obtained.
  4.1.3  Preparation  of  Collection   Train.
During  preparation and  assembly  of the
sampling train, keep all openings where con-
tamination can  occur  covered  until  just
prior to assembly or until sampling is about
to begin.
  If  Impingers are  used to condense stack
gas moisture, prepare them as follows: place
100 ml of water In each of the first two Im-
pingers.  leave the third  impinger  empty,
and transfer approximately 200 to 300  g of
prewcighed silica gel  from its container to
the fourth Impinger. More silica gel  may be
used, but care should be taken to  ensure
that it is not entrained and carried out from
the  impinger  during sampling. Place the
container In a clean place for  later  use In
the  sample  recovery.  Alternatively,  the
weight  of the silica gel plus impinger  may
be determined to the nearest 0.5 g  and re-
corded.
  If  some  means  other than Impingers  Is
used to condense moisture, prepare the con-
denser  (and, if  appropriate, silica  gel for
condenser outlet) for use.
  Using a tweezer  or clean  disposable surgi-
cal gloves, place  a labeled (identified) and
weighed filter In  the filter holder. Be sure
that the filter Is property centered and the
gasket properly placed BO as not to allow the
sample gas stream to circumvent the filter.
Check filler for tears after assembly Is com-
pleted. Mark the probe extension with heat
resistant tape or  by some other method  to
denote the proper distance into the stack  or
duct for each sampling point.
  Assemble the t'_ ..i as In Figure 17-1, using
a very light coat of sllicone grease on all
ground  glasj, joints and greasing only the
outer portion (see APTD-0576) to avoid pos-
sibility  of contamination by the  sllicone
grease.  Place  crushed  Ice around the Im-
pingers.
  4.1.4  Leak Check Procedures.
  4.1.4.1  Pretest  Leak-Check.  A  pretest
leak-check  Is recommended,  but  not  re-
quired. If the tester opts to conduct the pre-
test leak-check,  the  following procedure
shall be used.
  After  the  sampling train has been assem-
bled, plug the Inlet to the probe nozzle with
a material that will be able to withstand the
stack temperature.  Insert the filter holder
Into the stack and wait approximately 5
minutes (or longer, if necessary) to allow
the system to come to equilibrium with the
temperature of the stack gas stream. Turn
on the pump and draw a vacuum of at least
380 .mm Hg (15  in. Hg); note that a lower
vacuum may be used, provided that It is not
exceeded  during  the  test.  Determine the
leakage rate. A leakage rate in excess of 4
percent of  the  average sampling rate  or
0.00057  m'/min.  (0.02  cfm), whichever  Is
less, is unacceptable.
  The following  leak-check instructions  for
the sampling train described in APTD-0576
and  APTD-0581 may be helpful. Start the
pump with  by-pass valve  fully open  and
coarse adjust  valve completely  closed. Par-
tially open  the  coarse  adjust  valve  and
slowly .close the by-pass valve until the  de-
sired  vacuum  is reached. Do not reverse di-
rection  of  by-pass valve.  If the  desired
vacuum is  exceeded,  either leak-check  at
this higher vacuum or end the leak-check as
shown below and start over.
  When the leak-check is completed, first
slowly remove the plug from the Inlet to the
probe nozzle and immediately turn off the
vacuum pump. This prevents  water from
being forced backward and  keeps silica  gel
from being entrained backward.
  4.1.1.2 Leak-Checks During Sample Run.
If,  during the sampling run, a component
(e.g., filter assembly or impinger) change be-
comes necessary,  a  leak-check shall be con-
ducted  immediately before  the change  is
made. The leak-check shall be done accord-
Ing to the procedure outlined  in  Section
4.1.4.1 above,  except that it shall be done at
a vacuum equal to or greater than the maxi-
mum value recorded up to that point In the
test. If the leakage rate is found to be no
greater than 0.00057 m'/min (0.02 cfm) or 4
percent  of   the   average  sampling  rate
(whichever Is less), the results are accept-
able, and no  correction will need to be ap-
plied to the total volume of dry gas metered;
If, however, a  higher leakage rate is ob-
tained, the tester  shall  either record  the
leakage rate and plan to -correct the sample
volume  as shown In  Section 6.3  of  this
method, or shall void the sampling run.
  Immediately  after  component changes,
teak-checks are optional; if such leak-checks
are done, the procedure outlined in Section
4.1.4.1 above shall be used.
  4.1.4.3  Post-Test Leak-Check.  A  leak-
check  Is mandatory  at  the conclusion of
each sampling run. The leak-check shall be
done in accordance with the procedures out-
lined in Section 4.1.4.1, except that It shall
be conducted at a vacuum equal to or great-
er than the maximum value reached during
the sampling run. If the leakage rate is
found to be no greater than 0.00057 m'/min
(0.02 cfm) or 4  percent of the average  sam-
pling rate (whichever  is less), the results are
acceptable, and no correction need  be ap-
plied to the total volume of dry gas metered.
If.  however,  a higher leakage rate is ob-
tained, the tester shall  either  record the
leakage rate and correct the sample volume
as shown  In Section  6.3 of this method, or
shall void the sampling run.
  4.1.8 Particulate    Train    Operation.
During the sampling  run,  maintain  a  sam-
pling  rate such that  sampling is within 10
percent of true isokinetic,  unless otherwise
specified by the Administrator.
  Por each run, record the data required on
the example data sheet shown In Figure 17-
3. Be sure to record the initial dry gas meter
reading. Record the dry gas meter readings
at the beginning and  end of each sampling
time Increment, when changes in flow rates
are made, before and after each leak check,
and when sampling  is halted. Take other
readings  required  by  Figure 17-3 at  least
once at each sample point during each  time
Increment and additional readings when sig-
nificant changes (20 percent variation in ve-
locity head readings)  necessitate additional
adjustments in flow rate. Level and zero the
manometer.  Because  the manometer  level
and zero  may drift due to vibrations  and
temperature changes, make periodic checks
during the traverse.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 37—THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1978
                                                         IV-242
-------
H
<
 I
NJ
      ^
      to
      m
      2
      <
      o
      o
      o
      c
               PLANT	
               LOCATION,
               OPERATOR.
               DATE	
               RUN NO	
               SAMPLE BOX NO..
               METER BOX NO. _
               METER a H.
°C (°F)














VELOCITY
HEAD
(A PS),
mm H20
(in-HaO)














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















GAS SAMPLE
VOLUME,
n>3 (ft3)














GAS SAMPLE
AT DRY C
INLET.
°C(°F)












Avf|
Avg
TEMPERATURE
AS METER
OUTLET,
°C (°F)












Avci

TEMPERATURE
OF GAS
LEAVING
CONDENSER OR
LAST IMPINGER,
°C(°F)














                                                     c
                                                     m
                                                     1/1

                                                     O
                                                     m
                                                     O
                                                                                                                                          O
                                                                                                                                          tn
                                                            Figure 17-3. Participate field data.
-------
                                                 RULES  AND REGULATIONS
  Clean the portholes prior to the test run
to minimize the chance of sampling the de-
posited material. To begin sampling, remove
the nozzle cap and verify that the pltot tube
and  probe  extension  are  properly  posi-
tioned. Position the nozzle at the first tra-
verse point with  the lip pointing  directly
Into the  gas stream. Immediately start the
pump and adjust  the flow to laokinetic con-
ditions. Nomographs  are available, which
aid In the rapid adjustment to the isoklnetlc
sampling rate  without  excessive computa-
tions. These  nomographs are designed for
use when the Type 8 pltot tube  coefficient
is 0.85±0.02, and  the stack gas  equivalent
density (dry  molecular  weight)  Is equal  to
29±4. APTD-0576 details the procedure for
using the nomographs. If C, and M« are out-
side the above stated ranges, do not use the
nomographs  unless appropriate  steps (see
Citation  7  In  Section 7) are taken to com-
pensate for the deviations.
  When the stack Is under significant nega-
tive pressure (height  of  Impinger stem),
take care to close the  coarse adjust valve
before Inserting the probe extension assem-
bly into  the stack to prevent water from
being  forced  backward. If necessary, the
pump  may be turned on  with  the coarse
adjust valve closed.
  When  the probe Is  In position, block off
the openings around the probe and porthole
to prevent  unrepresentative dilution of the
gas stream.
  Traverse  the stack cross section, as re-
quired by Method 1 or as specified by the
Administrator, being  careful not to bump
the probe nozzle  into the stack  walls when
sampling near the walls or when removing
or  Inserting  the  probe  extension through
the  portholes, to minimize  chance of ex-
tracting deposited material.
  During  the  test run,  take  appropriate
steps (e.g., adding crushed ice  to  the  Im-
pinger ice bath) to maintain a temperature
of less than 20* C (68* F) at the condenser
outlet; this will prevent excessive moisture
losses. Also, periodically check the level and
zero of the manometer.
  If the  pressure drop across the filter be-
comes too high, making Isoklnetlc sampling
difficult  to maintain, the filter  may be re-
placed In the midst of a sample run.  It  is
recommended that another complete filter
holder assembly  be used  rather than at-
tempting to change the  filter Itself. Before a
new filter holder  Is installed, conduct a leak
check, as outlined In Section  4.1.4.2. The
total paniculate  weight sball  Include  the
summation of all  filter assembly  catches.
  A single train shall  be used for the entire
sample run, except in cases where  simulta-
neous  sampling is required In two  or more
separate ducts or at two or more different
locations within the same duct,  or, In cases
where  equipment failure  necessitates  a
change of trains.  In all other situations, the
use of two or more trains will be subject to
the  approval of   the  Administrator. Note
that when two or more train*  are used, a
separate analysis of  the collected panicu-
late from  each  train shall  be   performed,
unless Identical nozzle sizes were  used on all
trains, in which case the particular catches
from the Individual trains may be combined
and a single analysis performed.
  At the end of the sample run, turn off the
pump, remove the probe extension assembly
from the alack, and record the final dry gas
meter reading. Perform a leak-check, as out-
lined In  Section 4.1.4.3, Also, leak-check the
pilot lines as described In Section 3.1  of
Method  3; the lines must paw thli leak-
check, In order to validate the velocity head
data.
  4.1.6 Calculation of  Percent Isoklnetlc.
Calculate percent  Isoklnetlc  (see  Section
6.11) to determine whether another test run
should be  made. If there is difficulty  In
maintaining Isoklnetlc rates  due to  source
conditions, consult  with the  Administrator
for possible variance on the Isoklnetlc rates.
  4.2  Sample  Recovery.   Proper cleanup
procedure begins as soon as  the probe ex-
tension assembly is removed from the stack
at the end of the sampling period. Allow the
assembly to cool.
  When the assembly can be safely handled,
wipe off all external paniculate matter near
the tip of the probe nozzle arid place a cap
over it to prevent losing or gaining partlcu-
late  matter. Do not cap off  the probe tip
tightly while the sampling train is cooling
down as  this would create  a vacuum In the
filter holder, forcing condenser water back-
ward.
  Before moving the sample train  to the
cleanup  site, disconnect the filter holder-
probe nozzle assembly  from  the probe ex-
tension; cap the open Inlet of the probe ex-
tension. Be careful not  to  lose  any conden-
sate,  If present.  Remove the  umbilical  cord
from  the  condenser  outlet  and  cap the
outlet. If a flexible line is used  between the
first Impinger (or condenser)  and the probe
extension,  disconnect the line at the probe
extension and let any  condensed  water  or
liquid drain Into the Implngers or condens-
er. Disconnect the probe extension from the
condenser; cap the probe extension  outlet.
After wiping off the slllcone grease, cap off
the condenser inlet. Ground  glass stoppers,
plastic caps, or  serum caps (whichever are
appropriate)  may be  used to close these
openings.
  Transfer both  the  filter  holder-probe
nozzle assembly and  the  condenser to the
cleanup area. This area should  be clean and
protected from the wind so that the chances
of contaminating or losing the sample will
be minimized.
  Save a portion  of the  acetone used for
cleanup as a blank. Take 200 ml of this ac-
etone directly from the wash  bottle being
used and place It in a glass  sample container
labeled "acetone blank."
•  Inspect the train prior to and during dis-
assembly and note any abnormal conditions,
Treat the samples as follows:
   Container No. 1.  Carefully  remove the
filter from the filler holder and place It in
Its identified petri dish container. Use a pair
of tweezers and/or clean disposable surgical
gloves to handle the filter. If It Is necessary
to fold the filter, do so such that the panic-
ulate cake is inside the fold. Carefully trans-
fer to the petrl  dish any paniculate matter
and/or  filter  fibers which adhere  to the
filter holder  gasket, by using a dry Nylon
bristle brush  and/or a sharp-edged blade.
Seal the container.
   Container No. 2.  Taking care to see that
dust  on  the outside of  the probe  nozzle or
other exterior surfaces does not get Into the
sample,  quantitatively  recover paniculate
matter  or  any condensate from  the probe
nozzle, fitting, and front half  of  the filter
holder by  washing these components  with
acetone and placing the wash In a glass con-
tainer. Distilled water may be  used  instead
of acetone when approved by the Adminis-
trator and shall be used when specified  by
the  Administrator; In  these cases,  save a
water blank and follow Administrator's  di-
rections  on analysis, Perform  the acetone
rinses as follows:
  Carefully remove  the  probe nozzle and
clean  the inside surface by rinsing with ac-
etone from a wash bottle and brushing with
a Nylon bristle brush. Brush until  acetone
rinse shows no  visible particles, after which
make a final rinse of the Inside surface with
acetone.
  Brush and rinse with acetone the Inside
parts of the fitting In a similar way  until no
visible particles remain. A funnel (glass  or
polyethylene) may be used to aid In trans-
ferring liquid washes to the container.  Rinse
the brush  with acetone and quantitatively
collect these  washings In the sample con-
tainer.  Between   sampling  runs,  keep
brushes clean and protected  from contami-
nation.
  After  ensuring  that all joints are  wiped
clean of slllcone grease (if applicable), clean
the inside  of  the front  half of  the  filter
holder by rubbing the surfaces with  a Nylon
bristle  brush   and  rinsing  with   acetone.
Rinse each surface three times or  more if
nee-ded to remove visible  paniculate.  Make
final  rinse of  the brush  and filter holder.
After all acetone washings and paniculate
matter are collected in the sample  contain-
er, tighten the  lid on the sample container
so that acetone will not leak out when It Is
shipped to the  laboratory. Mark the height
of the fluid level to  determine whether  or
not  leakage   occurred  during  transport.
Label the  container  to clearly Identify its
contents.
  Container No. 3. if silica gel is used in the
condenser system  for moslture content de-
termination, note the color of the gel  to de-
termine If it  has been  completely spent;
make a notation  of  its condition. Transfer
the silica  gel back to Its  original container
and  seal.  A funnel may  make It easier  to
pour  the  silica gel without spilling,  and  a
rubber policeman may be used as an  aid In
removing the silica gel. It Is not necessary to
remove  the small  amount of dust particles
that may  adhere  to the walls and are diffi-
cult to remove.  Since the gain in weight Is to
be used for moisture calculations, do not use
any  water  or other  liquids  to transfer the
silica gel. If  a balance is available in the
field, follow  the procedure  for  Container
No. 3 under "Analysis."
  Conderwer Water. Treat the condenser or
Impinger water at follows: make a  notation
of any color or  film in the liquid catch. Mea-
sure the liquid volume to within ±1  ml  by
using a graduated cylinder or, If a balance Is
available,  determine  the liquid weight  to
within ±0.8 g.  Record the total volume or
weight of liquid present. This information Is
required to calculate the moisture  content
of the effluent gas. Discard the liquid after
measuring and recording the  volume  or
weight.
  4.3  Analysis. Record the data required on
the  example sheet shown In Figure  17-4,
Handle each sample container as follows:
  Container No. 1. Leave the contents  in the
shipping container or transfer the filter and
any  loose paniculate from the sample con-
tainer to a tared glass weighing dish.  Desic-
cate for 24 hours In a desiccator containing
anhydrous calcium sulfate. Weigh to  a con-
stant weight and report the results to the
nearest 0.1 mg. For purposes of this Section,
4.3, the term "constant weight" means a dif-
ference of  no more than 0.8 mg or 1 percent
of total weight  less tare weight, whichever Is
greater, between two consecutive weighings,
with  no less than 6 hours of desiccation
time between weighings.
  Alternatively, the  sample may  be  oven
dried at the  average stack  temperature or
                                 FEDIRAL RIOISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 37-THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1978
                                                         IV-244
-------
                                           RULES AND REGULATIONS
105' C (220* P), whichever is less, for 2 to 3   lied by the Administrator. The tester may   whichever is less, for 2 to 3 hours, weigh the
hours, cooled in the desiccator, and weighed   also opl to oven dry the sample at the aver-   sample, and  use  this weight  as  a  final
to a constant weight, unless otherwise speci-   age stack temperature or 105' C (220' F).   weight.
                    Plant.
                    Date.
                    Run No._
                    Filter No.
                   Amount liquid lost during transport
                    Acetone blank volume, ml	
                    Acetone wash volume, ml	
                    Acetone black concentration, mg/mg (equation 17-4)
                    Acetone wash blank, mg (equation 17-5)  	
CONTAINER
NUMBER
1
2
TOTAL
WEIGHT Of PARTICIPATE COLLECTED.
mg
FINAL WEIGHT


_Z^x^
TARE WEIGHT


^xCT
Less acetone blank
Weight of paniculate matter
WEIGHT GAIN






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




SILICA GEL
WEIGHT.
9



fl" ml
                         * CONVERT WEIGHT OF WATER TO VOLUME BY DIVIDING TOTAL WEIGHT
                           INCREASE BY DENSITY OF WATER (1g/ml).
                                                          INCREASE- 8  - VOLUME WATER, ml
                                                             1 g/m!

                                                Figure 17-4. Analytical  data.

                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 37—THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1978
                                                  IV-245
-------
                                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
  Container No. 2. Note the level of liquid in
the container and confirm on the analysis
sheet  whether  or -not  leakage  occurred
during transport. If a noticeable amount of
leakage has occurred, either void the sample
or use methods, subject to the approval of
the Administrator,  to correct the final re-
sults. Measure the  liquid  in this  container
either volumetrlcally to ±1 ml or gravlme-
trically to ±0.5 g. Transfer the contents to a
tared 250-ml beaker and evaporate to dry-
ness at ambient temperature and pressure,
Desiccate for  24 hours and weigh to a con-
stant weight. Report the results to the near-
est 0.1 mg.
  Container No. 3. This step may  be con-
ducted In the field. Weigh the spent silica
gel (or silica gel plus impinger) to the near-
est 0.5 g using a balance.
  "Acetone Blank" Container. Measure ac-
etone In this container either volumetrlcally
or gravlmetrlcally. Transfer the acetone to a
tared 250-ml beaker and  evaporate to dry-
ness at ambient temperature  and pressure.
Desiccate for  24 hours and weigh to a con-
stant weight. Report the results to the near-
est 0.1 mg.
  NOTE.—At the option of  the tester,  the
contents of Container No. 2 as well as the
acetone blank container may be evaporated
at temperatures higher  than ambient. If
evaporation Is done at an  elevated tempera-
ture, the temperature must be  below  the
boiling point of  the solvent; also,  to prevent
"bumping," the evaporation process must be
closely supervised,  and the contents of the
beaker must be  swirled occasionally  to
maintain an even temperature. Use extreme
care, as  acetone is highly flammable  and
has a low flash point.
  6.  Calibration. Maintain a laboratory log
of all calibrations.
  5.1  Probe Nozzle. Probe nozzles  shall be
calibrated before their  initial use  In  the
field.  Using  a  micrometer,  measure  the
Inside diameter  of the nozzle to the nearest
0.025  mm (0.001 In.). Make three separate
measurements  using different  diameters
each  time, and obtain the  average of the
measurements. The difference between the
high and low numbers shall not exceed 0.1
mm  K0.004  In.).  When  nozzles  become
nicked,  dented, or corroded, they shall be
reshaped,  sharpened,   and   recalibrated
before use. Each nozzle shall be permanent-
ly and uniquely Identified.
  5.2  Pilot Tube. If the pilot tube Is placed
in an  Interference-free arrangement with re-
spect to the other probe assembly compo-
nents. Its baseline (Isolated tube) coefficient
shall  be determined as outlined In Section 4
of Method 2. If the probe assembly Is not In-
terference-free, the pilot tube assembly co-
efficient shall be determined by calibration,
using methods subject  to  the approval  of
the Administrator.
  5.3  Metering  System. Before  Its Initial
use in the field, the metering system shall
be calibrated according to the  procedure
outlined In APTD-0576. Instead of physical-
ly adjusting the dry gas meter dial readings
to correspond to the wet test meter read-
ings,  calibration  factors  may be  used  to
mathematically correct the gas meter dial
readings to the proper values.
   Before calibrating the metering system, It
 Is suggested that a leak-check be  conducted.
 For  metering systems  having  diaphragm
 pumps,  the normal leak-check  procedure
 will not detect leakages within  the pump.
 For  these cases  the following  leak-check
 procedure Is  suggested: make a 10-mlnute
 calibration run  at 0.00057 m'/mln  (0.02
 cfm); at the end of the  run, take the differ-
 ence of the measured  wet test meter and
 dry gas meter volumes; divide the difference
 by 10,  to  get the leak  rate. The leak rate
 should  not  exceed  0.00057 m'/mln  (0.02
 cfm).
   After each field use. the calibration of the
 metering system shall  be  checked by per-
 forming three calibration runs at a single,
 Intermediate orifice  selling (based on the
previous field test), with the vacuum set at
the maximum value reached during the test
series. To adjust the vacuum, insert a valve
between the wet test meter and the  inlet of
the metering system. Calculate the average
value of the calibration factor. If the cali-
bration has changed by more  than 5 per-
cent,  recalibrate  the meter over the full
range of  orifice settings, as  outlined in
APTD-0576.
  Alternative procedures, e.g., using  the ori-
fice meter coefficients, may be used, subject
to the approval of Ihe Admlnlslrator.
  NOTE.—If the dry gas meter coefficient
values obtained  before and  after  a test
series differ by more than 5  percent, the
test series shall either be voided, or  calcula-
tions for the test series shall be performed
using whichever  meter  coefficient  value
(i.e.. before or after) gives the lower value of
total sample volume.
  5.4  Temperature Gauges. Use the proce-
dure In Seclion 4.3  of Method  2 to calibrate
In-stack temperature gauges. Dial thermom-
eters, such as are used for  the dry gas meter
and condenser outlet, shall  be calibrated
against mercury-ln-glass thermometers.
  5.5  Leak Check  of Metering  System
Shown in Figure 17-1. That portion of the
sampling train from the pump to the orifice
meter should be leak checked prior to Initial
use and after each  shipment. Leakage after
the pump will result in less volume being re-
corded than Is actually sampled. The follow-
ing procedure Is suggested (see Figure 17-5).
Close Ihe  main  valve on the meter box.
Insert a   one-hole rubber  stopper  with
rubber tubing attached into the orifice ex-
haust pipe. Disconnect  and vent the low side
of the orifice manometer.  Close off the low
side orifice tap. Pressurize the  system to 13
to 18 cm (5 to 7 in.) water column by blow-
Ing into  the rubber tubing. Pinch  off Ihe
tubing and observe the manometer for one
minute. A loss  of  pressure on the mano-
meter Indicates a  leak In the meter box;
leaks, If present, must be corrected.
                                 FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 37—THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1978
                                                         IV-246
-------
        2
        I*
to
4^
-J
        O
                                    RUBBER
                                    TUBING
                        RUBBER
                        STOPPER
                                                            ORIFICE
                                                                                               VACUUM
                                                                                                GAUGE
 BLOW INTO TUBING
 UNTIL MANOMETER
READS 5 TO 7 INCHES
  WATER COLUMN
                     ORIFICE
                   MANOMETER
                                                                                                  AIR-TIGHT
                                                                                                    PUMP
                                                                                                                                         JO
                                                                                                                                         C
                                                                                                                                         rti
                                                                                                                                         (/>

                                                                                                                                         Z
o
c
                                                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                                                         z
                                                                                                                                         tn
                                                           Figure 175. Leak check of meter box.
-------
                                                 RULES AND REGULATIONS
  (.6  Barometer. Calibrate against a mer-
cury barometer.
  6. Calculations. Carry out calculations, re-
taining  at  least  one  extra decimal figure
beyond that of the acquired data. Round off
figures  after the final calculation. Other
forms of the equations may be used as long
as they give equivalent results
  6.1  Nomenclature.
A. »Cross-sectional area of nozzle, m1 (ft1).
'B»,=«'Wii'ier  tr'ai/M in. the gas stream, propor-
    tion by volume.
C.-Acetoiie blank  rescue concentration.
    mg/g.
c," Concentration of  participate  matter in
    stack gas. dry basis, correv^d to stan-
    dard condition*, g/dscm (g/dsif).
1-Percent of lsoktnet,ic sampling.
L.IMaximum acc...t«ible  leakage rate  for
    either a pretest lea& ->heck or for a leak
    check  following  a compo^^  cnange;
    *qual to 0.00057  m'/mlr (0 02 cfm) or 4
    Vrcenf of  the averaR, sampling rate.
    whichever is less.  .
 b,- Individual leakage rat* nbstrved during
    the  leak check condu;ted p_,or w  the
    "I"" component chanjc ((, i, jt 3 . . . Vli.
    mVG'.'n (elm).
 U-Leakage IT1* ot*€rved during the post-
    test leak che'.n. m'/mln (cfm).
HV- Total  amov-nt of  paniculate matter col-
    lected, mg.
M,-Molecular  weight of  water, 18.0 g/g-
    mole (18.0 lb/lb-mole).
m.= Mass of residue  of acetone after evapo-
    ration, mg.
Pt., = Barometric pressure  at the sampling
    site, mm Hg  (In. Hg).
P. = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.
    Hg).
Pud = Standard  absolute  pressure, 760 mm
    Hg (29.92 In. Hg).
R = Ideal gas constant, 0.06236 mm Hg-m'/
    •K-g-mole (21.85 in. Hg-ff/'R-lb-mole).
Tm"Absolute arerage dry gas meter  tem-
    perature (see Figure 17-3). 'K  CR).
T. = Absolutr average stack gas temperature
    (see Figure 17-3),  'K CR).
T1U, = Standard absolute temperature, 293'K
    (528'R).
V.= Volume of acetone blank, ml.
V., = Volume of acetone used In wash, ml.
Vk=Total volume of  liquid collected In 1m-
    plngers  and  silica gel  (see Figure 17-4).
    ml.
V^ = Volume of  gas sample as measured by
    dry gas meter, dcm (dcf).
V„(.«, = Volume  of gas sample measured by
    the dry  gas meter, corrected to standard
    conditions, dscm (dscf).
Vrf.u,i = Volume  of water vapor  in  the gas
    sample, corrected to  standard condi-
    tions, scm (scf).
v. = Stack gas velocity, calculated by Method
    2.  Equation  2-9,  using  data obtained
    from Method 17, m/sec (ft/sec).
W.=Weight of residue In acetone wash. mg.
Y-Dry gas meter calibration coefficient.
AH = Average  pressure differential across
    the orifice meter  (see Figure  17-3),  mm
    H,O(in. H,O).
p. = Denslty of acetone, mg/ml (see  label on
    bottle).
 s.-Density of water. O.B982 g/ml (0.002201
    Ib/ml).
e=Total sampling time. mln.
e, = Sampling time Interval, from  the begin-
    ning of a run until the first component
    change, mln.
fl,-Sampling time interval, between  two
    successive component  changes, begin-
    ning with the Interval  between  the first
    and second changes, mln.
^.-Sampling time Interval,  from the final
   (n"1) component change, until the end of
   the sampling run. min.
13.6-Speclflc gravity of mercury.
60-Sec/min.
100=Conversion to percent.

  8.2  Average  dry gas meter temperature
and average orifice pressure drop. See data
sheet (Figure 17-3).
  6.3  Dry Oas  Volume. Correct the sample
volume  measured by the dry gas meter to
standard conditions (20*  C.  760 mm Hg or
68* F, 29.92  In.  Hg) by using Equation 17-1.
   Vstd)
 8.6  Acetone Blank Concentration.
p
r K V Y Oai"
KlV
+ (AH/13.6)
Tm
                          Equation 17-1
where:

K,-0.3858'  K/mm  Hg for  metric  units;
   17.64' R/ln. Hg for English units.
  NOTE.—Equation 17-1 can be used as writ-
ten unless the leakage rate observed during
any of the mandatory leak checks (I.e.. the
post-test leak check  or leak checks conduct-
ed prior to component changes) exceeds L,.
If L, or L, exceeds L,. Equation 17-1 must be
modified as follows:
  (a) Case I. No component changes made
during sampling run. In this case,  replace
V0 In Equation 17-1  with the expression:
              CV«-(U,-L.>e]

  (b)  Case  II. One or more  component
changes made during the  sampling  run. In
this case, replace V,, In Equation 17-1 by the
expression:
                        - 
-------
  1 Addendum to Specifications for Inciner-
ator  TesUngaV F^lera!  Facilities.  PHS.
NCAPC. December 8, 1867.
  2 Martin. Robert M, Construction Details
of 'isoklnetlc Source-Sampling Equipment.
Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Re-
search  Triangle Pwk.  N.C. APTD-0581.

A3riRom.1Jerome J., Maintenance. Calibra-
tion  and Operation of Isokinetlc Source-
Sampling Equipment. Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency.  Research  Triangle  Park.
N C AFTD-0676. March. 1672.
  4  Smith. W. 8.. R. T. Shlgehara. and W
F Todd. A  Method of  Interpreting  Stack
Sampling Data. Paper Presented at the 63rd
Annual Meeting of the  Air Pollution  Con-
trol Association. St. Louis. Mo. June U-19.

17°8inlth. W. 8.. et iJ.. Stack Gas Sampling
Improved and Simplified with New Equip-
ment. APCA Paper No. 67-119.1B67.
  6 Specifications for Incinerator Testing at
PWeral Facilities. PHS. NCAPC. 1967.
  1  Shlgehara, R. T., Adjustments In the
IPA Nomograph for Different Pilot Tube
Coefficients and Dry  Molecular Weights.
Stack Sampling News 3:4-11. October.  1974.
  8  Vollaro. R. P., A Survey of Commercial-
ly Available Instrumentation for the  Mea-
surement of Low-Range Gas Velocities. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Emission
Measurement  Branch.  Research Triangle
Park. N.C.  November.  1976  (unpublished
paper).
  9. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part
M  Gaseous  Fuels: Coal and Coke; Atmo-
spheric Analysis. American Society for Test-
ing and Materials. Philadelphia. Pa.  1974.
pp. 417-622.
  10 Vollaro, R. F.. Recommended Proce-
dure for Sample Traverses in Ducts Smaller
than 14 Inches tn Diameter  V.3. -Environ-
mental Protection Ar-'ncy, Emission  Mea-
surement Branch, research Triangle Park.
N.C. November. M76.
  CFR Doc. 7a-«795 Filed 2-33-78; 8:48 am]
    HOItAl MOISTIR, VOL. 43, NO. 37


     THURSDAY, FIIRUARY 23, 1978
     RULES AND REGULATIONS

13
  TWt 40 — Protection of Environment
              CTRL 848-2]
    CHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY

 PART 40— STANDARDS  OF  PERFOR-
   MANCE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY
   SOURCES

 PART   61— NATIONAL   EMISSION
   STANDARDS FOR  HAZARDOUS AIR
   POLLUTANTS

    Revision of Authority Citation*
 AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rule.
 SUMMARY:  This action amends the
 authority cltiatlons  for Standards of
 Performance    for   New   Stationary
 Sources and  National Emission Stan-
 tarda  for  Hazardous Pollutants. The
 amendment adopts  the redeslgnation
 of classification numbers as changed
 In the 1977 amendments to the Clean
 Air Act. As amended, the Act formerly
 classified to 42 U.8.C. 1857 et seq. has
 been transferred and is now  classified
 U>42T3.S.C. 7401etseq.
              DATE: March 3, 1978.
 FOB   FURTHER  INFORMATION
 CONTACT:
   Don  R.  Goodwin, Emission  Stan-
   dards and Engineering Division, En-
   vironmental Protection Agency, Re-
   search  Triangle  Park, N.C.  27711
   telephone 919-541-5271.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 This action  is being taken In  accor-
 dance with the requirements of 1 CFR
 21.43 and Is authorized  under lection
 SOl(a)  of the Clean Air Act, as amend-
 ed, 42  U.S.C. 760Ua).  Because  the
 amendments are clerical  In nature and
 affect no substantive rights or require-
 ments, the Administrator finds  it un-
 necessary to propose and invite public
 comment.
   Dated: February 24, 1978.
               DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                     Adminiitmtor.
   Parts 60 and 61 of Chapter I. Title
 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
 are revised as follows:
   1. The authority  citation following
 the table of sections In  Part 60 Is re-
 vised to read as follows:
   AtrrKOMTYi Sec. Ill, 30Ha) of the Clean
 Air Act  as  amended (43 U.8.C.  7411,
 7601(a», unlesi otherwise noted.
 |{ 80,10 and 60.24  [Amended]
   2. Following 55 90.10 and 80.24Cg) the
 following authority citation IB added:
 (Sec, 116 of the Clean Air Act u amended
 (48U.8.C. 7416)).
             , 60.11,  60.13, 60.45.
             60.54,  60.63,  60.64,
             60.84,  60.85,  60.93.
             60.113,60.123,60.133,
             60.154, 60.165, 60.166.
             60.185,60.186,60.194.
             60.204,60.213,60.214.
             60.233.60.234,60.243,
             60.254. 60.264, 60.265.
              60.274, 80,275,  and
             B, C, and D [Amend-
J! 60.7, 60.8. 60.9
    60.46,  60.53,
    60.73,  60.74,
    60.105,60.106,
    60.144,60.153,
    60.175.60.178,
    60.195.60.203,
    60.223, 60.224,
    60.244.60.253,
    60.266,  60.273,
    Appendices A,
    ed]

  3. The following authority citation is
added to the  above sections and ap-
pendices:
(Sec. 114. Clean Air  Act  is amended  (42
U.S.C. 7414)).
ttOUAl RKMSTWt, VOL 49, NO. 49


    FRIDAY, MARCH I, 1f7l
                                                   IV-249
-------
84
PART 60— STANDARDS OF PER FOR-
  MANGE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY
  SOURCES

   Lignite-Fired Steam Generators

AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY:  This  final  rule  estab-
lishes  standards  of performance  for
new or  modified lignite-fired  steam
generators  with heat Input rates great-
er than 73  megawatts (250 million Btu
per hour)  and  limits emissions of ni-
trogen oxides  to 260 ng/J of heat
Input except that  340  ng/J of heat
input  is allowed from cyclone-fired
units which  are fired with lignite
mined  In  North   Dakota.   South
Dakota,  or Montana.  Steam  gener-
ators contribute significantly to  air
pollution, and  the  intended effect of
this  final rule is to require new steam
generators  which burn  lignite to  use
the best control  system for reducing
emissions of nitrogen oxides.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7. 1978.
ADDRESSES:  The  "Standards  Sup-
port and Environmental Impact State-
ment (SSEIS), Volume 2: Promulgated
Standards of Performance for Lignite-
Fired Steam Generators" (EPA-450/2-
76-030b)  may  be obtained  by writing
the  U.S. EPA  Library  (MD-35).  Re-
search  Triangle Park,  N.C.  27711.
Volume  1  of  the  SSEIS,  "Proposed
Standards of Performance for Lignite-
Fired Steam Generators" (EPA-450/2-
76-030a), is also available at the same
address. Please specify both the title
and EPA number of the document de-
sired. These documents  and all public
comments  may be inspected at  the
Public Information  Reference  Unit
(EPA  Library). Room  2922.  401 M
Street SW.. Washington. D.C.
FOR  FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
     RULES AND REGULATIONS

  Don R. Goodwin, Director, Emission
  Standards and Engineering Division
  (MD-13), Environmental Protection
  Agency, Research  Triangle  Park,
  N.C. 27711. telephone 919-541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On December 23, 1971 (36 FR 24877),
EPA established under Subpart D of
40 CFR Part 60 standards of perfor-
mance  for new steam generators with
heat input  rates  greater  than  73
megawatts (250 million Btu per hour).
Steam  generators which burn llgnltie
were  exempted from the  emission
standards for  nitrogen oxides  (NO,)
because too little operating experience
was available to  adequately character-
ize NO, emissions. (Lignite-fired steam
generators were not  exempted  from
the standards  for sulfur  oxides  and
paniculate matter,  however.)  Since
1971. EPA has gathered additional in-
formation on   lignite-fired  facilities,
and  on December  22,  1976 (41 FR
55791), the Agency proposed to amend
Subpart D by establishing a standard
of performance of 260 nanograms per
Joule (ng/J) of  heat input (0.6  pound
per million  Btu) for  NO,  emissions
from new lignite-fired steam  gener-
ators. Supporting information for the
proposed  standard  was published In
Volume 1 of the  SSEIS  for  lignite-
fired steam generators. After review-
Ing issues raised  during  the  public
comment  period which followed the
proposal, EPA decided to  promulgate
standards which will permit  the limit-
ed  use of cyclone-fired  faculties to
burn lignite mined  In North Dakota,
South  Dakota,  and JMontana (which
causes  severe fouling and slagging In
pulverlzed-flred units). Supporting In-
formation for these final standards of
performance appears  In Volume 2 of
the SSEIS.

          FINAL STANDARDS

  NO,   emissions  from  lignite-fired
steam  generators are  limited to 260
ng/J of heat in put (0.6 lb/10« Btu)
except  that 340  ng/J (0.8 lb/10« Btu)
is allowed from cyclone-fired  steam
generators burning lignite mined in
North  Dakota,  South  Dakota,  and
Montana. Both  standards apply only
to boilers which burn lignite, with
heat input  rates  greater  than  73
megawatts (250 million Btu per  hour),
and for which  construction or modifi-
cation  began after December 21, 1976.

   RATIONAL! FOR FINAL STANDARDS

  The  NO, standard originally pro-
posed  by  EPA,  260 ng/J, may have
prevented the   use  of cyclone-fired
boilers, since it  has not been demon-
strated that  emislsons  from  these
units can be consistently controlled to
levels  below  260  ng/J.  During  the
public  comment period, several com-
menters argued that the utilization of
cyclone-fired  boilers  Is necessary to
overcome the serious fouling and slag-
ging problems  which develop  when-
ever the sodium content of the lignite
burned exceeds about 6 percent,  by
weight. These high sodium content re-
serves are believed  to be  widespread.
especially  in North Dakota,  and the
utilities claim that  their low sodium
content reserves are being rapidly de-
pleted. The  commenters said that cy-
clones  have inherently lower fouling
and  Blagging rates  than other  large
boiler designs because much less ash Is
carried through the boiler convective
passes. In  addition, they  contended
that In the Dakotas there has actually
been very little operating  experience
with pulverlzed-fired boilers, the alter-
native  to  large cyclones,  and  It  is
doubtful  that  these units can  burn
high sodium lignite without experienc-
ing severe problems. Thus, the com-
menters concluded that the proposed
standard  might restrict the use of
valuable resources of high sodium lig-
nite fuel by prohibiting the utilization
of  cyclone-fired  boilers.   The  com-
menters also argued that the proposed
standard  would place  an  economic
burden on the  electirc power utilities
which burn lignite by limiting compe-
titve bidding for new boilers.
  EPA agrees that at present there Is
too little  operating experience with
pulverized-  or cyclone-fired boilers to
be  able  to  predict their reliability
when burning  high  sodium  lignite.
Furthermore,  the  Agency  does not
want to  establish a standard  which
might inhibit future efforts to  find a
successful  way  to  burn this trouble-
some fuel. Consequently, EPA has es-
tablished a  separate nitrogen  oxides
emission standard of 340 ng/J (0.8 lb/
10' Btu) for new cyclone-fired boilers
which  burn North  Dakota,  South
Dakota, or Montana lignite. This stan-
dard will permit the limited utlization
of cyclone-fired boilers and assure the
continued  use of our country's abun-
dant  resources of  lignite. Lignite
mined In Texas, the only other known
major lignite formation, generally has
low sodium content  and has been suc-
cessfully  burned  in  pulverized-fired
units for years. The standard Is sup-
ported by emission test data and other
information  contained In Volume I of
the SSEIS. Nitrogen oxides emissions
from  pulverized-fired boilers will  be
limited to 260 ng/J (0.6 lb/10« Btu), as
originally proposed.
. Cyclone-fired  boilers could account
for 10 to 20 percent of all new lignite-
fired steam generators, based on EPA
estimates of  lignite consumption for
the year 1980. EPA estimates that NO,
emissions from  new cyclone-fired boil-
ers may be reduced by as much as 20
percent as  a result of the standard.
The combined effect of both standards
will be to  reduce total NO, emissions
from all new boilers  which burn lignite
by about 25 percent.
                                                  IV-250
-------
                                           fcULES AND REGULATIONS
   It should be noted that standards of
 performance  for  new  sources  estab-
 lished under-section  111 of the Clean
 Air Act reflect the degree of emission
 limitation achievable through applica-
 tion  of  the best adequately demon-
 strated technological  system of con-
 tinuous   emission  reduction  (taking
 Into consideration the cost of achiev-
 ing such  emission reduction, any non-
 air quality health and environmental
 Impact  and  energy   requirements).
 State implementation plans (SIPs) ap-
 proved or promulgated under section
 110 of the Act, on  the  other  hand,
 must provide for the attainment and
 maintenance of  national ambient air
 quality standards (NAAQS) designed
 to protect public health  and welfare.
 For that  purpose, SIPs must in some
 cases require greater  emission  reduc-
 tions than those required by standards
 of performance for  new sources. Sec-
 tion  173  of the  Act requires, among
 other  things, that a new or modified
 source constructed in an  area  which
 exceeds the NAAQS must reduce emis-
 sions to  the level which reflects the
 "lowest achievable emission  rate" for
 such category of source as defined in
 section 171(3), unless the owner or op-
 erator demonstrates that the source
 cannot achieve such an emission rate.
 In no event can the emission rate
 exceed any applicable standard of per-
 formance.
   A similar situation may arise when a
 major emitting facility is to be con-
 structed  In a geographic  area  which
 falls under the prevention of signifi-
 cant deterioration of air quality provi-
 sions of the Act (Part C). These provi-
 sions  require,  among  other things,
 that major  emitting  facilities  to  be
 constructed in such areas are  to  be
 subject to best available control tech-
 nology. T'he term "best available con-
 trol technology" (BACT) means  "an
 emission limitation based on the maxi-
 mum degree of reduction of each pol-
 lutant subject to regulation under this
 Act emitted from  or  which  results
 from  any  major   emitting  facility,
 which the permitting authority, on a
 case-by-case basis, taking  Into account
.energy, environmental, and economic
 Impacts and other costs, determines Is
 achievable  for such  facility  through
 application of  production processes
 and available methods,  systems, and
 techniques, including fuel cleaning or
 treatment or Innovative fuel  combus-
 tion  techniques  for  control  of each
 such pollutant. In no event shall appli-
 cation of 'best available control tech-
 nology' result in  emissions of any pol-
 lutants which  will  exceed the  emis-
 sions allowed by any applicable stan-
 dard established pursuant to section
 111 or 112 of this Act."
   Standards of  performance should
 not be  viewed  as  the  ultimate  In
 achievable   emission'  control   and
 should not preclude the Imposition of
a  more "stringent emission standard,
where appropriate. For example, while
cost of achievement may be an impor-
tant  factor in  determining standards
of performance applicable  to all areas
of the country (clean as well as dirty).
costs must be accorded far less weight
in determining the "lowest achievable
emission rate" for new or  modified
sources  locating In areas violating sta-
tutorily-mandated health and welfare
standards.  Although  there  may  be
emission control  technology available
that can reduce emissions below those
levels required to comply with stan-
dards of performance, this technology
might not  be selected as the  basis  of
standards of performance due to costs
associated with its use. This In no way
should preclude  its use in situations
where cost is a  lesser  consideration.
such  as determination of the "lowest
achievable  emission rate."
  In  addition, States are  free under
section 116 of the Act to establish even
more stringent emission limits than
those established  under  section 111 or
those necessary to attain or maintain
the NAAQS  under section 110. Thus,
new sources may  In some cases be sub-
ject to limitations more stringent than
EFA's standards of performance under
section  111.  and prospective owners
and operators of new sources  should
be aware of this possibility in planning
for such facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

  The Impact  of the  NO.  emission
standards will be most  significant  In
North Dakota and Texas where most
new lignite-fired  boilers  will be locat-
ed. Although ambient  NO. levels  in
these areas are now low. emission reg-
ulations  are important  because:  (1)
The standards will maintain low ambi-
ent NO, concentrations In areas where
population and industrial growth  Is
expected in the future;  (2) the stan-
dards will reduce  the potential for de-
velopment  of rural smog  which can
form  in  regions  having initially low
ambient  NO, concentrations;  and  (3)
the standards will reduce long distance
transport of  NO, to areas having  air
pollution problems. In addition, since
nationwide levels  of NO, are expected
to rise in the future despite NO, con-
trol  regulations,  the  NO,  emission
standards for lignite-fired boilers will
help to alleviate this problem.
  The standards  will cause  total NO,
emissions from  all new  lignite-fired
steam generators to  be  reduced  by
about 25 percent. By comparison, NO,
emissions would have been reduced by
about 29 percent if the use of cyclones
had been restricted by  the standard
originally proposed. Thus, the contin-
ued  use  of cyclone-fired boilers will
have  only a minor adverse Impact on
air quality.
  The NO,  emission standards  will
have  no Impact  on  water  pollution.
solid waste disposal, sulfur dioxide and
particulate  emissions, or energy con-
sumption at new  lignite-fired  steam
generators.  In addition, the standards
will  not prohibit the use of any lignite
reserves  or  adversely affect any other
natural resources. Additional Informa-
tion about  the environmental  Impact
of the standards appears In Volumes 1
and  2 of  the SSEIS.
  The NO.  emission standards  will
cause capital costs for new lignite-fired
plants to Increase by, at most, only 0.5
percent  and operating costs will rise
even less. Therefore,  capital and oper-
ating expenses will rise only nominal-
ly. Since the price consumers pay for
electric power is generally proportion-
al to  the  electric utility's operating
costs, consumer power price  Increases
will  be negligible. The boiler manufac-
turers will  experience  no significant
market  disadvantages  because  the
standards effectively permit the sale
of all boiler designs and provide no
sales advantages for  any manufactur-
er. The small increases in capital costs
resulting from  the standards will not
affect the  boiler  -Industry's  overall
sales. More  information about the eco-
nomic Impact of the standards  can be
found in Volumes  1 and  2 of the
SSEIS.

          PUBLIC COMMENTS

  Seventeen comment letters were re-
ceived during  the  public  comment
period. -Many of  the comments  were
critical of the Information EPA used
to support restriction of  the cyclone-
fired boiler. In particular, these argu-
ments were  made"  (1) None of the pul-
verized-fired boilers which EPA tested
operate reliably when burning lignite
with a sodium content above about  5
percent;  (2) the front-wall-flred plant
cited by  EPA has never burned lignite
with an  8 percent sodium content for
an extended period of time, as  EPA
has  reported. Also, the plant's capac-
ity factor has averaged about 72 per-
cent, not 86 percent as stated by EPA;
(3)  although It is true that a North
Dakota  electric utility  has  recently
agreed to purchase two tangentially-
flred boilers, these units are guaran-
teed  to  bum  lignite containing no
more than  4.8  percent sodium.  Also.
the decision to  purchase these  boilers
may have been influenced by the utili-
ty's  concern that EPA might prohibit
the use of cyclones; (4) recent experi-
ments by the Energy Research and
Development   Administration    have
demonstrated that cyclone-fired  boil-
ers have  significantly lower ash depo-
sition rates  than pulvertzed-fired boil-
ers. This confirms arguments that cy-
clones have much  lower fouling and
slagging potentials when burning high
sodium content lignite.
  EPA agrees that there has not  been
enough successful  operating experi-
ence  with   pulverized-flred  boilers
                               KDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 45—TUISDAY, MARCH 7, 197S
                                                  IV-251
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
 which  burn high sodium content lig-
 nite to  justify eliminating cyclones
 from the market.  Consequently, the
 Agency has decided to establish a sep-
 arate  NO, emission standard  for cy-
 clones  burning Dakota lignite  which
 permits their use.
   Another issue raised during the com-
 ment period concerned the potentially
 high NO, emissions which could occur
 when Texas lignite with a high nltro-
•gen content Is burned. It was argued
 that these emissions could exceed the
 standard  even If the best  system of
 emission reduction  were employed. In
 support  of this  contention,  a  com-
 menter submitted data which indicate
 that  the  fuel-nitrogen  content  of
 Texas  lignites ranges well  above ex-
 pected values. EPA  has determined,
 however,  that these  data were accu-
 mulated  around the turn of the cen-
 tury and are inconsistent with present-
 day  values.   Information  from  the
 Bureau of Economic Geology at the
 University of Texas and the  Texas
 Railroad  Commission indicates that
 Texas  lignite  nitrogen  contents are
 typically  low and  should  not cause
 MO, emissions from a well  controlled
 plant to exceed the  standard.
   These  and all other comments are
 discussed in detail in Volume 2, Chap-
 ter 2 of the SSEIS.
   The effective date of this  regulation
 is (date  of publication),  because sec-
 tion HKbXlXB) of the Clean Air Act
 provides   that standards of  perfor-
 mance or revisions  thereof become ef-
 fective upon promulgation.

   Wort—The  Environmental  Protection
 Agency has determined that  this document
 does not contain a major proposal requiring
 preparation of an Economic  Impact Analy-
 sis under Executive Orders 11821 and 11949
 and OMB  Circular A-107.

   Dated:  March 2,1978.

               DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                      Administrator.
   Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
 ed by revising Subparts A  and D as fol-
 lows:
    Subport A—General Provisions

   1. Section 60.2 is amended by substi-
 tuting the  International  System of
 Units (81) in paragraph (1) as follows:

 {60.2  Definitions.
   (1)  "Standard conditions" means a
 temperature of 293 K (68' F)  and a
 pressure of 101.3 kilopascals (29.92 in
 Hg).
  Subport D—Standard* of Performance
  for Poull Fuel-Fired Steam Generator*

   3. Section 60.40 is'amended by revis-
  ing paragraph (c) and by adding para-
  graph (d) as follows:
860.40  Applicability  and designation of
   affected facility.
  (c) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, any facility under
paragraph (a) of this section that com-
menced construction or modification
after August 17, 1971, is subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
  (d)     The    requirements    -of
J§60.44(a)(4), (a)(5), (b), and  (d), and
60.45(f)(4)(vi) are applicable to lignite-
fired steam generating units that com-
menced construction or modification
after December 22,1976.
  3.  Section  60.41  is  amended  by
adding paragraph (f) as follows:

(60.41  Definitions.
  (f) "Coal" means all solid fuels clas-
sified as anthracite, bituminous, subbi-
luminous, or lignite by the American
Society for Testing Material. Designa-
tion D 388-66.
  4.  Section  60.44   is  amended  by
adding paragraphs (a)(4) and 
-------
                                          RULES AND REGULATIONS
 85
 THI* 40—ProHctkm of Environment

   CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
       PROTECTION AGENCY

     SUftOiAPTU C-AM MOORAMS

             IFRL 835-2]

PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFOR-
  MANCE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY
  SOURCES

     Ume Manufacturing Plant*

AGENCY: Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY:  This  rule  establishes
standards of  performance which limit
emissions of  paniculate matter from
new, modified, and reconstructed lime
manufacturing  plants. The standards
Implement the  Clean Air Act and are
based on the Administrator's determi-
nation that lime manufacturing plant
emissions  contribute  significantly to
air pollution. The Intended effect of
setting these standards Is to require,
new, modified, and reconstructed lime
manufacturing  plants to use the best
demonstrated system  of  continuous
emission reduction.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March  7,1978.
ADDRESSES:  A  support  document
entitled, "Standard Support and Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement. Volume
II: Promulgated Standards  of Perfor-
mance   for   Lime   Manufacturing
Plants" (EPA-450/2-77-007b), October
1977, has been prepared and la avail-
able.  This  document  Includes  sum-
mary economic  and  environmental
Impact statements as well as EPA's re-
sponses  to the  comments on the pro-
posed standards. Also available  is the
supporting  volume for  the proposed
standards entitled, "Standard Support
and Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume  I: Proposed Standards of Per-
formance  for  Lime Manufacturing
Plants"   
-------
                                           lULES AND REGULATIONS
from  any  major  emitting  facility.
which the permitting authority, on a
case-by-caie basis, taking into account
energy,  environmental,  and economic
impacts and other costs, determines is
achievable for such facility through
application  of  production  processes
and available methods, systems, and
techniques,  including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative fuel combus-
Udn  techniques for control- of each
•uch pollutant. In no event shall appli-
cation of  'best available control tech-
nology' result in emissions of any pol-
lutants  which  will  exceed  the emis-
sions allowed by any applicable stan-
dard established pursuant to section
111 or 112 of this Act."
  Standards  of performance  should
not  be  viewed as  the  ultimate  in
achievable   emission   control  and
should not preclude the Imposition of
a more stringent emission  standard,
where appropriate. For  example while
cost of achievement may be an Impor-
tant factor  La determining  standards
of performance applicable to.all areas
of the country (clean as well as dirty),
•tatutorily,  costs do not play such a
role in determining the "lowest achiev-
able  emission rate" for new or modi-
fied sources locating in  areas violating
statutorlly-mandated health and wel-
fare standards. Although there may be
emission control technology available
that can reduce emissions below those
levels required to comply with stan-
dards of performance, this technology
might not be selected as  the  basis of
standards of performance due to costs
associated with Its use. This in no way
should preclude its use in  situations
where  cost  is a lesser  consideration,
such as determination of the "lowest
achievable emission rate."
  In  addition, States are free under
section 116 of the Act to establish even
more  stringent  emission  limits than
those established under section 111 or
those necessary to attain or maintain
the NAAQS under  section 110. Thus,
new sources may in some cases be sub-
ject to limitations more  stringent than
EPA's standards ot performance under
section  111, and prospective owners
and operators of new sources should
be aware of  this possibility in planning
for such facilities.

MISCELLANEOUS:  The   effective
date of this  regulation is  March 7,
1978. Section lil(bXlXB) of the Clean
Air Act  provides that standards of per-
formance  or revisions of them become
effective upon promulgation and apply
to affected  facilities, construction or
modification of .which was commenced
after  the date  of  proposal (May 3,
1877),

  No«.—The  Environmental  Protection
Agency hai determined that thl* document
does not  contain a major proposal requiring
an Economic  Impact AnalyaU under Execu-
tive Order* 11821 and 11949 and OMB Cir-
cular A-107.
  Dated: March 1,1978.

              DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                    Administrator.

  Part 60  of  Chapter I  of Title 40 of
the Code of Regulations is amended as
follows:
  1. By adding subpart EH as follows:

Subparl  HH—Standards  el  Perfor-
  mance   for   Urn*  Manufacturing
  Plant*

Bee.
90.340  Applicability and designation of af-
   fected facility.
60.341  Definitions.
60.342  Standard for paniculate matter.
60.343  Monitoring of emissions and oper-
   ations.
60.344  Test method* and procedures.
  AUTHORITY: Sec, 111 and  301(a) of the
Clean Air Act. as amended (42 C.6.C. 7411,
1501), and additional authority as noted
below.

{60.340  Applicability and designation of
    affected facility.
  (a)  The  provisions  of this  subpart
are applicable to the following affect-
ed facilities used in the manufacture
of lime: rotary lime kilns and lime hy-
drators.
  (b)  The  provisions  of this  subpart
are not applicable  to facilities used in
the manufacture of lime at kraft pulp
mills.
  (c) Any  facility under paragraph (a)
of this section  that commences con-
struction or modification after May 3,
1977. is subject to the requirements of
this part.

{60.341  Definitions.
  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 calci-
nation. Hydratlon of the lime product
is also  considered  to be  part  of  the
source.
  (b)  "Lime product" means the prod-
uct of the calcination process includ-
ing,  but not limited to, calcltlc lime,
dolomltlc  lime, and dead-burned dolo-
mite.
  (c) "Rotary lime kiln" means a unit
with an inclined rotating  drum which
is used to produce a lime product from
limestone  by calcination.
  (d)  "Lime  hydrator"  means  a unit
used  to produce hydrated lime prod-
uct.

{ 60.342  Standard for participate matter.
  (a)  On and after the date on which
the performance test required  to  be
conducted  by {60.8  Is completed, no
owner or operator subject  to the provl-
sions of this subpart shalTcause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere:
  (1) Prom  any rotary lime kiln any
gases which:
  (i) Contain  particulate  matter  In
excess  of 0.15 kilogram per megagram
of limestone feed (0.30 Ib/ton).
  (ii)  Exhibit  10  percent  opacity  or
greater.
  (2)  Prom  any lime  hydrator any
gases which contain particulate matter
in excess of 0.075  kilogram  per mega-
gram of lime feed (0.15 Ib/ton).

{60.343  Monitoring of emission*  and op-
    erations.
  
-------
                                            tULES AND REGULATIONS
kiln and the DIMS rat* of lime feed to
any affected lime hydrator. The mea-
suring device used must be  accurate to
within  ±5  percent of the mass rate
over Its operating range.
  (e) For the purpose  of  report* re-
quired  under   560.7(0).  periods  of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as all six-minute periods
during  which the average opacity of
the plume from any lime kiln subject
to  paragraph (a) of this subpart Is 10
percent or greater.

(8«c 114 of the Clean Air Art, as amended
(42U.S.C. 7414).)

8M.344  Test methods and procedures.

  (a) Reference methods In Appendix
A  of  this  part,  except as  provided
under J60.8(b), shall be used to  deter-
mine compliance with  {60.322ca> w
follows:
  (1) Method  8 for  the measurement
of partlculate matter,
  (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses,
  (3) Method  2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate,
  (4) Method S for gas analysis,
  (6) Method 4 for stack gas moisture.
and
  (fl) Method 9 for visible emissions.
  (b) For Method 6, the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 60 min-
utes and the sampling rate shall be at
least 0.85 std m'/h. dry  basis  (0.63
 Because  of the  high moisture
content (40 to 85 percent  by volume)
 of  the exhaust gases from hydrators,
 the Method 5  sample  train may be
modified to Include a calibrated orifice
 Immediately  following the sample
 nozzle when testing  lime hydrators. In
 this configuration, the  sampling  rate
 Decenary  for  maintaining  isokinetlc
 conditions  can  be directly related to
 exhaust gas velocity without a correc-
 tion for moisture content. Extra  care
 ahould be exercised when cleaning the
 •ample train  with the orifice in this
 position following the test runs.
 (Sec. 114 of the Clean Air Act. as amended
 (4JU£.C.1414).)


   CFB Doc. 7B-B974 Piled 3-«-78; 8:46 am]

     NDMAl IMtSm. VOi.«, MO. 41

        TMSOAY, MARCH 7, IffTI
 86
 Tlflt 40—Protection of Environment

    CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
       PROTECTION AGENCY

     SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS

             [FRL 836-1]

PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFOR-
  MANCE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY
  SOURCES

   Petroleum Refinery Clout Sulfur
          Recovery Plants

AGENCY: Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY:   This  rule   establishes
standards of performance  which will
limit emissions of sulfur dioxide (Sd)
and reduced  sulfur  compounds  from
new. modified, and reconstructed pe-
troleum refinery Claus sulfur recovery
plants. The  standards Implement the
Clean Air Act and are based  on the
Administrator's  determination  that
emissions from  petroleum refinery
Claus sulfur  recovery  plants contrib-
ute significantly to air pollution. The
Intended effect of the standards is to
require   new,   modified, and  recon-
structed  petroleum  refinery   Claus
sulfur recovery plants  to use the best
technological  system  of  continuous
emission  reduction.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15,  1978.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the standard
support documents are available on re-
quest from  the  U.S.  EPA Library
(MD-35),  Research   Triangle  Park,
N.C.  27711.  The  requestor  should
specify "Standards Support and Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement. Volume
I: Proposed Standards of Performance
for  Petroleum Refinery Sulfur Recov-
ery Plants" (EPA-450/2-76-016a) and/
or "Standards  Support and Environ-
mental Impact Statement. Volume II:
Promulgated   Standards  of  Perfor-
mance for Petroleum Refinery Sulfur
Recovery  Plants"   (EPA-450/2-76-
016b). Comment letters responding to
the proposed  rules published  In the
FEDERAL  REGISTER on  October  4, 1976
(41  FR 43866), are available for public
Inspection and copying at the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Public
Information  Reference Unit (EPA Li-
brary), Room 2922, 401 M Street SW.,
'Washington, D.C.

FOR   FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Don  R. Goodwin,  Emission Stan-
  dards   and   Engineering  Division
  (MD-13), Environmental  Protection
  Agency, Research  Triangle  Park,
  N.C. 27711, telephone number 919-
  641-6271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

             SUMMARY

  On  October 4, 1976 (41 FR 43866).
EPA  proposed standards of  perfor-
mance  for  new  petroleum  refinery
Claus sulfur recovery plants under sec-
tion 111  of  the Clean  Air Act, as
amended. The promulgated standards
are essentially the same as those  pro-
posed,   although  an  exemption  for
small petroleum refineries has been In-
cluded in the promulgated standards.
The standards are based on the use of
tall gas scrubbing systems which have
been determined to be the best tech-
nological system of continuous emis-
sion reduction, taking into  consider-
ation the cost of achieving such emis-
sion reduction,  any  nonair  quality.
health, and environmental Impact and
energy requirements. Compliance with
these  standards will Increase the over-
all sulfur recovery efficiency of a typi-
cal refinery Claus  sulfur  recovery
plant  to about 99.9 percent, compared
to a recovery efficiency  of  about 94
percent for  an uncontrolled  refinery
Claus sulfur recovery plant, or a recov-
ery efficiency of about 99  percent for a
Claus sulfur recovery plant complying
with typical State emission  control
regulations for these plants.
  The   promulgated  standards  will
apply to: (l)"any Claus sulfur recovery
plant  with a sulfur production capac-
ity of more than 20 long  tons per  day
(LTD)  which Is associated with a small
petroleum refinery  (i.e.,  a petroleum
refinery having a crude oil processing
capacity of 50,000  barrels per stream
day (BSD) or less which is owned or
controled by a  refiner  whose total
combined crude oil processing capacity
Is 137,500 BSD or less) and (2) any  size
Claus sulfur recovery plant associated
with a large petroleum refinery. Spe-
cifically, the  standards limit the con-
centration of sulfur dioxide (Sd) In
the gases discharged  into the atmo-
sphere to 0.025 percent by volume at
zero percent oxygen on  a dry basis-
Where the emission control system In-
stalled to comply with these standards
discharges residual  emissions  of  hy-
drogen sulfide (HtS), carbonyl sulflde
(COS), and carbon dlsulflde (CS.),  the
standards limit the concentration of
HtS and  the  total concentration of
H,S. COS and CS, (calculated as SO,)
In  the gases  discharged Into the atmo-
sphere to 0.0010 percent and 0.030 per-
cent by volume at zero percent oxygen
on a dry basis, respectively.
 Compliance  with these  standards
will reduce nationwide sulfur dioxide
emissions by some 55,000 tons per year
by  1980.  This   reduction  will  be
achieved without any significant  ad-
verse Impact on other aspects of envi-
ronmental quality, such as solid waste
disposal, water  pollution,  or  noise.
This reduction in emissions  will also
be accompanied by a reduction In  the
                                                   IV-255
-------
                                        RULES AND REGULATIONS
growth of natlonl energy consumption
equivalent to about 90,000 barrels of
fuel oil per year by 1980.
  The economic impact of the promul-
gated standards Is reasonable. They
will result in an Increase in the annual
operating costs of the petroleum refin-
ing industry by some $16 million per
year in 1980. An individual refiner who
installs  alternative  II  controls  will
need to increase his prices from 0.1 to
1 percent to maintain his profitability.
  It should be noted that standards of
performance  for  new  sources  estab-
lished under section 111 of the Act re-
flect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through application of the
best adequately demonstrated techno-
logical system of  continuous emission
reduction (taking Into consideration
the cost of achieving such emission re-
duction, any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and  energy re-
quirements).  State  implementation
plans (SIPs) approved or promulgated
under section 110 of the Act, on the
other hand, must  provide for the at-
tainment and maintenance of national
ambient    air    quality   standards
(NAAQS) designed to protect public
health and welfare. For that purpose,
SIPs must in some cases require great-
er emission reduction  than those re-
quired by  standards ot  performance
for new sources. Section  173(2) of the
Act requires, among other things, that
a new or modified source constructed
in an area which  exceeds the NAAQS
must reduce emissions  to the  level
which reflects the "lowest  achievable
emission rate"  for such category of
source, unless the owner or operator
demonstrates that  the source cannot
achieve such an emission rate.  In no
event can the emission rate exceed any
applicable standard of performance.
  A similar situation may arise when a
major emitting facility is to be con-
structed  in a geographic area which
falls under the prevention of signifi-
cant deterioration of air quality provi-
sions of the Act (part C). These provi-
sions require,  among  other  things,
that major emitting facilities  to be
constructed in  such areas  are  to be
subject  to the  best available control
technology. The term "best available
control  technology"  (BACT)  means
"an emission limitation based on the
maximum degree of reduction of each
pollutant  subject  to regulation  under
this Act emitted from or which results
from  any major  emitting  facility,
which the  permitting authority,  on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account
energy,  environmental, and economic
impacts and other costs, determines Is
achievable for  such facility through
application of  production processes
and  available methods, systems,  and
techniques, including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative fuel combus-
tion  techniques for control of  each
such pollutant. In no event shall appli-
cation of  'best available control tech-
nology' result in emissions of any pol-
lutants which will exceed  the  emis-
sions allowed by  any applicable stan-
dard  established  pursuant to section
111 or 112 of  this Act."
  Standards  of  performance should
not  be viewed  as  the  ultimate  in
achievable   emission   control   and
should not preclude the imposition of
a more stringent emission  standard,
where appropriate. For example, while
cost of achievement may be  an impor-
tant factor in determining  standards
of performance applicable to all areas
of the country (clean as well as dirty),
costs must be accorded far less weight
in determining the "lowest achievable
emission  rate"  for new or  modified
sources locating in areas violating sta-
tutorily-mandated health and welfare
standards. Although there  may  be
emission control technology available
that can reduce emissions below  those
levels  required  to comply with stan-
dards of performance, this technology
might not be selected as the basis of
standards  of  performance due to costs
associated with its use. This  in no way
should  preclude its use in  situations
where cost is 9 lesser consideration,
such as determination of  the "lowest
achievable emission rate."
  In addition, States are free under
section 116 of the Act to establish even
more stringent emission  limits  than
those established  under section 111 or
those necessary to attain or maintain
the NAAQS  under  section 110. Thus,
new sources may in some cases be sub-
ject to limitations more stringent than
standards  of  performance under sec-
tion 111,  and prospective  owners and
operators  of  new sources should be
aware  of  this possibility in planning
for such facilities.

        PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  Prior to proposal of the standards,
interested  parties  were  advised  by
public notice  in the FEDERAL REGISTER
of a meeting of the National  Air Pollu-
tion  Control Techniques  Advisory
Committee to discuss the  standards
recommended for proposal. This meet-
ing was open to the public  and each
person attending was given ample  op-
portunity  to  comment  on  the  stan-
dards recommended for proposal. The
standards  were proposed on October 4,
1976, and  copies of the proposed stan-
dards and the Standards Support and
Environmental   Impact  Statement
(SSEIS) were distributed to members
of the petroleum refining industry and
several environmental groups at this
time. The public  comment period  ex-
tended  from  October 4,  1976, to De-
cember 3,  1976.
  Twenty-two comment  letters  were
received on the proposed standards of
performance.  These comments  have
been  carefully considered and, where
determined to be  appropriate by the
Administrator,   changes  have  been
made in the standards which were pro-
posed.

          MAJOR COMMENTS

  Comments on  the proposed  stan-
dards were received from several oil in-
dustry representatives, State and local
air pollution control agencies, a vendor
of emission source testing equipment,
and  several Federal  agencies. These
comments  covered four major areas:
the  costs of implementing  the  stan-
dards, the  ability of emission control
technology to meet the  standards, the
environmental  impacts  of the  stan-
dards, and the energy impacts of the
standards.

               COSTS

  The major   comments  concerning
costs were  that the costs of the  emis-
sion  control systems required to meet
the  standards  were  underestimated,
that these  costs were  excessive; and
that small sulfur recovery plants, or
small petroleum refineries should be
exempt from the standard.
  The basic cost data used to  develop
the cost estimates were  obtained from
pretroleum refinery sources. No specif-
ic data or information was provided in
the public  comments, however, which1
would indicate that these costs are sig-
nificantly in error.
  In  the  preamble  to  the proposed
standards, comments were specifically
Invited concerning the  impact of the
standards on the small  refiner. After
considering  these comments, EPA has
concluded that some relief  from the
standards is appropriate.  The major
factor involved in  this decision was a
consideration of the cost effectiveness
of the standards on large and small re-
finers. The incremental  cost per incre-
mental unit of sulfur emissions that
must be  controlled to meet the  stan-
dards is substantially greater  for the
small refiner than for the large refin-
er. Furthermore, the impact of these
costs on the  small  refiner  is  more
severe than the impact on the large re-
finer, because the small  refiner cannot
readily pass on the  cost  of emission
control  equipment. Consequently, as
discussed in volume II  of the Stan-
dards  Support and Environmental
Impact  Statement (SSEIS), the pro-
mulgated  standards  include  a lower
size cutoff for small petroleum refiner-
ies and Claus  sulfur  recovery plants.
Claus sulfur recovery plants  with  a
sulfur production capacity of 20 long
tons per  day or less associated with a
petroleum  refinery with a crude  oil
processing capacity of 50,000 BSD or
less,  which is owned or controlled by a
refiner whose total combined crude oil
processing capacity Is 137,600 BSD or
less,  are  exempt from the standards.
This definition of a small petroleum
refinery is consistent with that includ-
ed in section 211 of the Clean Air Act,
as amended.
                                                  IV-256
-------
                                              RULES AND  REGULATIONS
     EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

   A  major  concern  of many  com-
 menters  was the  limited amount  of
 source test data used in support of the
 numerical emission limits included  in
 the standards and the fact that some
 of these data were collected at refiner-
 ies where the emission control system
 was operating below  design capacity.
 Also, some commenters questioned the
 ability of the alternative II  emission
 control systems to continuously oper-
 ate at a 99.9 percent control efficiency
 because of the adverse Impact of Claus
 sulfur recovery plant fluctuations and
 CO,-rich  waste gas streams.
   In  arriving at  the numerical  emis-
 sions limits Included in the standards,
 source test data collected by a local
 agency at times  when  the  emission
 control systems  were  operating   at
 normal capacities,  Information  from
 vendors  of  emission  control  equip-
 ment, published literature on  emission
 control technology, and  contractor re-
 ports  on  the  performance of  emission
 control technology were  considered,  in
 addiMon  to the data collected during
 EPA's source  tests. Based on the infor-
 mation and  data from  these  sources
 and the lack  of any new Information
 and  data  submitted by  the  com-
 menters,  no  change In  the  emission
 limits of  the standards  is warranted.
 Furthermore, the  numerical  emission
 limits in the standards contain an ade-
 quate safety  margin to  allow for  in-
 creased emissions due  to Clause sulfur
 recovery plant fluctuations.
  With repect to  the potential adverse
 Impact of high CO> gas streams, this is
 not likely to  Impair the overall emis-
 sion  control  system efficiency  since
 high   CO»  gas  streams  are  seldom
 found in  the gases treated in  refinery
 Claus sulfur recovery plants.

        ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

  Several  commenters felt that the as-
 sessment  of the environmental impact
 of  the standards was, in some cases,
 biased  and not  always clear.  One  of
 these  commenters suggested  that  a
 thorough  environmental  Impact state-
 ment should be prepared to clarify the
 impacts of the standards.
  Litigation  involving  standards  of
 performance  has   established  that
 preparation of a formal environmental
 Impact statement  under  the National
 Environmental Policy Act is not neces-
 sary for actions under section 111  of
 the Clean  Air Act.  While a formal en-
 vironmental impact statement is not
 prepared,  the  beneficial as well as the
 adverse impacts of standards of per-
 formance  are considered. The  promul-
 gated   standards   will  significantly
 reduce emissions of sulfur from petro-
leum  refineries  without resulting  in
any significant adverse environmental.
energy, or economic Impacts.
  Other commenters felt  that stan-
dards based on 99 percent control (al-
ternative I) would be essentially as en-
vironmentally beneficial  as standards
based  on 99.9  percent  control  and
would be less costly to the public. This
argument was based  on  the premise
that most State  regulations do not re-
quire control of Claus  sulfur plant
emissions at  the 99 percent level as
claimed  in volume I of  the  SSEIS.
Hence, standards based on alternative
I would  significantly  reduce  national
sulfur  emissions from refinery Claus
sulfur recovery plants.
  A  review  of  State  regulations  for
controlling  emissions  from  refinery
sulfur recovery plants has shown that
the majority of the States with the
largest petroleum  refining capacities
require 99 percent control of emissions
from new and existing sulfur recovery
plants. Since refinery sulfur recovery
plant growth will likely occur in these
States, the conclusion that standards
based  on 99  percent control  would
have little or no beneficial  Impact is
essentially correct.

           ENERGY IMPACT

  Several commenters questioned the
conclusion that compliance with stan-
dards based  on alternative II could
lead to an energy savings, compared to
standards based on alternative I.  A
review of the  information  and data
available confirms this conclusion. In
any case, the important consideration
is whether the energy impact of the
standards is  reasonable.  No informa-
tion was submitted which would Indi-
cate that the energy impact of the
standards is unreasonable.

        OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

  At proposal comments were request-
ed relative to EPA's decision to regti-
late  reduced sulfur compound emis-
sions, which are designated pollutants,
without  Implementing section  lll(d)
of the Clear  Air Act at this time. The
one commenter who responded to this
issue was in agreement with this deci-
sion.
  As discussed in both the preamble to
the proposed standards and volumes I
and II of the SSEIS,  petroleum refin-
ery Claus sulfur recovery plants  are
sources of SO, emissions, not reduced
sulfur  compound  emissions. One of
the emission control  technologies for
reducing SO, emissions, however,  first
converts these emissions to reduced
sulfur  compounds and then controls
these compounds.  Consequently,  this
technology  may  discharge  residual
emissions  of  reduced   sulfur  com-
pounds to the atmosphere.
  Currently, there are about 30 refin-
ery Claus sulfur recovery plants in the
United States which have installed re-
duction  emission control systems to
reduce  SO,  emissions.   A review of
these plants indicates that these emis-
sion control systems are  well designed
and  well maintained and  operated.
Emissions  of  reduced  sulfur  com-
pounds  are less  than  0.050  percent
(i.e., 500 ppm), which is only  slightly
higher  than  the numerical emission
limit  included in  the  promulgated
standard. Thus, there is little  to gain
at this time by requiring States to de-
velop regulations  limiting  emissions
from these sources. Consequently, sec-
tion lll(d) will not be  implemented
until  resources  permit, taking  into
consideration  other  requirements  of
the Clean Air Act, as amended, which
EPA must implement.
  Several commenters were concerned
that Reference Method 15 might not
be practical for use In a refinery envi-
ronment. The basis for most of these
objections  was that  the commenters
thought this method was  being  pro-
posed  as  a   continuous monitoring
method. However, Reference  Method
15 was not proposed for use as a con-
tinuous monitoring  method.  Perfor-
mance  specifications for continuous
monitors  for  reduced  sulfur  com-
pounds  have  not been developed and
therefore  such monitors are  not  re-
quired  to  be installed until  perfor-
mance specifications for these moni-
tors are proposed  and  promulgated
under Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60.
  Reference Method 15  has been re-
vised to allow greater flexibility in op-
erating  details and equipment choice.
The user  is now permitted to design
his own sampling and analysis system
as long  as he preserves the operating
principle of gas chromatography with
flame   photometric   detection   and
meets the design and performance cri-
teria.

           MISCELLANEOUS

  The effective date  of this regulation
is March 15. 1978. Section UHbKlXB)
of  the  Clean Air Act  provides that
standards of  performance or revisions
of  them become effective  upon  pro-
mulgation and apply to affected facili-
ties, construction  or modification  of
which was commenced after the date
of proposal (October  4,  1976).
  ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT: An econom-
ic assessment has been prepared as required
under section 317 of the Act. This also satis-
fies the  requirements of Executive Orders
11821 and 11949 and OMB Circular A-107.
  Dated: March 1, 1978.
              DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                    Administrator.
  1. Section 60.100 is amended as fol-
lows:

$60.100  Applicability  and  designation of
    affected facility.
  (a)  The  provisions of this  subpart
are applicable to the following affect-
ed  facilities  in  petroleum refineries:
fluid  catalytic cracking  unit  catalyst
regenerators, fuel  gas combustion de-
vices, and all  Claus sulfur recovery
plants except Claus  plants of  20 long
                                                   IV-257
-------
                                           RULES AND  REGULATIONS
tons per day (LTD) or less associated
with a small petroleum refinery. The
Claus sulfur recovery plant need not
be  physically   located  within  the
boundaries of a petroleum refinery  to
be an affected facility, provided it pro-
cesses gases produced within a petro-
leum refinery.
  (b) Any fluid catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerator of fuel gas com-
bustion device under paragraph (a)  of
this section which  commences  con-
struction  or modification after June
11, 1973. or any  Claus sulfur recovery
plant under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion which commences construction  or
modification after October 4,  1976. is
subject to  the  requirements  of this
part.
(Sees.  Ill  and 30Ua). Clean  Air  Act,  as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601 (a)), and ad-
ditional authority as noted below.)
  2. Section 60.101 is amended as fol-
lows:

$60.101  Definitions.
  (i)  "Claus sulfur recovery  plant"
means a process unit  which recovers
sulfur from hydrogen sulfide  by  a
vapor-phase  catalytic  reaction   of
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.
  (J)   "Oxidation  control  system"
means  an  emission   control system
which reduces  emissions  from sulfur
recovery plants  by converting  these
emissions to sulfur dioxide.
  (k)   "Reduction   control  system"
means  an  emission   control system
which reduces  emissions  from -Sulfur
recovery plants  by converting Iwese
emissions to hydrogen sulfide.
  (1)  "Reduced  sulfur   compounds"
mean hydrogen sulfide (H>S), carbonyl
sulfide  (COS)  and carbon  dlsulfide
(CS,).
  (m)  "Small   petroleum   refinery"
means a petroleum  refinery which has
a  crude  oil processing  capacity  of
50,000 barrels per stream day or less.
and which Is owned or controlled by a
refinery  with a total combined  crude
oil  processing capacity of 137,500 bar-
rels per stream day  or less.
  3. Section 60.102  is amended by re-
vising paragraph (a) introductory text
and paragraph (b) as follows:

{60.102  Standard for paniculate matter.
  (a)  On and after  the date on which
the performance test  required  to  be
conducted  by §80.8 Is completed,  no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall discharge or
cause the  discharge into  the  atmos-
phere from any  fluid  catalytic crack-
ing unit catalyst regenerator:
  (b) Where the gases discharged by
 the fluid catalytic cracking unit cata-
 lyst regenerator pass  through an in-
cinerator or waste heat boiler in which
auxiliary  or  supplemental  liquid  or
sold fossil  fuel Is burned, paniculate
matter in excess of that permitted  by
paragraph  (aXl) of this section  may
be emitted to  the atmosphere, except
that the incremental rate of particu-
late matter emissions shall not exceed
43.0 g/MJ (0.10 Ib/milllon Btu)  of
heat input attributable to such liquid
or solid fossil fuel.
  4. Section 60.104  is amended as fol-
lows:

160.104  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
  (a) On and after  the date on which
the performance test required to  be
conducted  by  §60.8 is completed,  no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall:
  (1) Burn in any fuel gas combustion
device any fuel gas which contains hy-
drogen  sulfide In excess of 230  nig/
dscm  (0.10 gr/dscf).  except  that the
gases resulting from the combustion of
fuel gas may be  treated  to control
sulfur  dioxide emissions provided the
owner or operator demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the  Administrator  that
this is as effective in preventing sulfur
dioxide emissions to  the atmosphere
as restricting the H,  concentration  in
the fuel gas to 230 mg/dscm or  less.
The combustion in  a flare of process
upset gas, or fuel gas which is released
to the  flare as a result of relief valve
leakage,  Is ' exempt from  this  para-
graph.
  (2) Discharge or cause the discharge
of any  gases Into the atmosphere from
any Claus sulfur recovery plant  con-
taining in excess of:
  (i) 0.025 percent by volume of sulfur
dioxide at zero percent  oxygen on a
dry basis if emissions are controlled  by
an  oxidation  control  system, or a  re-
duction control system followed by  in-
cineration, or
  (11) 0.030 percent by  volume of  re-
duced  sulfur  compounds and 0.0010
percent by volume of hydrogen sulfide
calculated  as  sulfur  dioxide  at  zero
percent oxygen on a dry basis if emis-
sions  are controlled  by a  reduction
control system not  followed by Incin-
eration.
  (b) [Reserved]
  5. Section 60.105  is amended as fol-
lows:

§60.105  Emission monitoring.
  (a)»  • •
  (2) An instrument  for continuously
monitoring and recording the concen-
tration of carbon  monoxide In  gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from
fluid catalytic cracking  unit catalyst
regenerators.  The  span of  this  con-
tinuous  monitoring system  shall  be
1,000 ppm.
  (3)'  • •
  (4) An Instrument  for continuously
monitoring and  recording concentra-
tions of hydrogen sulfide In fuel gases
burned  in  any  fuel  gas combustion
device.     If     compliance    with
§60.104(a)(l) Is achieved by removing
HjS  from  the  fuel  gas before it Is
burned; fuel gas combustion devices
having a common source of fuel  gas
may be monitored at one location, if
monitoring at this location accurately
represents the concentration of H,S in
the fuel gas burned. The span of this
continuous monitoring system shall be
300 ppm.
  (5) An instrument for continuously
monitoring  and recording  concentra-
tions of SO> in the gases  discharged
into the atmosphere  from any  Claus
sulfur recovery plant  if compliance
with §60.104(a)(2) is achieved through
the use of an oxidation control system
or a reduction control system followed
by incineration. The span of this con-
tinuous monitoring  system  shall  be
sent at 500 ppm.
  (6) An instrument(s) for continuous-
ly monitoring and recording the con-
centration of H,S and reduced sulfur
compounds  in  the gs^es  discharged
into the  atmosphere  from any  Claus
sulfur  recovery plant  if compliance
with §60.104(a)(2) Is achieved through
the use of a reduction control system
not  followed  by incineration.  The
span(s) of this continuous monitoring
system(s) shall be set at 20 ppm for
monitoring and recording the concen-
tration of H,S and 600 ppm for  moni-
toring and recording the concentration
of reduced sulfur compounds.
  (e)*  • •
  (!>•••
  (2) Carbon monoxide. All hourly pe-
riods during which the average carbon
monoxide concentration in  the  gases
discharged into the atmosphere from
any fluid catalytic cracking  unit cata-
lyst regenerator subject to §60.103 ex-
ceeds 0.050 percent by volume.
  (3) Sulfur dioxide,  (i)  Any three-
hour period during which the average
concentration  of H,S in any fuel  gas
combusted in any fuel gas combustion
device subject  to §60.104(a)(l) exceeds
230 mg/dscm (0.10 gr/dscf),  If compli-
ance is achieved by removing H,S from
the fuel gas before it Is burned; or any
three-hour period during which  the
average concentration of SO, in  the
gases discharged into the atmosphere
from any fuel gas combustion device
subject to §60.104CaXl) exceeds  the
level specified  in §60.104(a)(l), if com-
pliance Is  achieved by removing SO,
from the combusted fuel gases.
  (11) Any  twelve-hour period during
which  the  average  concentration  of
SO, In the gases discharged into  the
atmosphere from any Claus sulfur re-
covery plant subject  to §60.104(a)(2)
exceeds  250  ppm  at zero  percent
oxygen on a dry basis if compliance
with §60.104(b) Is  achieved through
the use of an oxidation control system
                                                   IV-258
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
or a reduction control system followed
by incineration;  or any  twelve-hour
period during which the average con-
centration  of H,S. or reduced sulfur
compounds  in the  gases  discharged
into  the  atmosphere of  any  Claws
sulfur  plant subject to  §60.104(a>(2)
(b) exceeds 10 ppm or 300 ppm. respec-
tively, at zero percent oxygen and on a
dry basis  if compliance  is  achieved
through the use of a reduction control
system not followed by incineration.
  6. Section 60.106 is amended as fol-
lows:

§ 60.106  Test methods and procedures.
  (c) For  the purpose of determining
compliance     with     §60.104.
  APPENDIX A—REFERENCE METHODS

  7. Appendix A is amended by adding
a new reference method as follows:

METHOD  15. DETERMINATION  OF HYDROGEN
  SUICIDE.  CARBONYL SUUIDE. AND CARBON
  DISULFIDE EMISSIONS  FROM  STATIONARY
  SOURCES

             INTRODUCTION
  The method described  below  uses the
principle of gas chromatographic separation
and  flame photometric  detection (FPD).
Since there are many systems or sets of op-
erating conditions  that  represent  usable
methods of determining sulfur emissions, all
systems which employ this principle, but
differ only in details of equipment and oper-
ation, may be used as alternative methods,
provided that the criteria set below are met.

      1. Principle and applicability

  1.1 Principle. A gas sample is  extracted
from the  emission source and diluted with
clean dry  air. An aliquot of  the diluted
sample  is  then analyzed for hydrogen sul-
fiSe  CH,S), carbonyl sulfjde  (COS),  and
carbon disulfide .
  1.2 Applicability. This  method Is. applica-
ble  for determination of the above sulfur
compounds from tail gas control units of
sulfur recovery plants.

        2. Ranye and sensitivity

  2.1 Range. Coupled with a gas chromto-
graphic system utilizing a 1-muliUter sample
size, the maximum  limit of  the PPD for
each sulfur compound is  approximately 10
ppm. It may be necessary to dilute gas sam-
ples from sulfur  recovery  plants hundred-
fold  (99:1) resulting  In an upper limit of
about 1000 ppm for each compound.
  2.2 The  minimum  detectable  concentra-
tion of the FPD Ls also dependent on sample
size and would be about 0.5 ppm for a 1 ml
sample,

            3. Interferences
  3.1 Moisture Condensation. Moisture con-
densation in the sample delivery system, the
analytical column, or the FPD burner block
can cause losses  or Interferences. This po-
tential is eliminated  by heating the sample
line, and by conditioning the sample with
dry dilution air to lower its dew point below
the operating temperature of the OC/FPD
analytical system prior to analysis.
  3.2 Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide.
CO and CO, have substantial desensitizing
                                                      IV-259
-------
                                                RULES  AND REGULATIONS
effects on the flame  photometric detector
even after 9:1 dilution. (Acceptable systems
must demonstrate that they have eliminat-
ed this Interference  by some procedure such
as eluding CO and  COi before any of the
sulfur compounds to be measured.) Compli-
ance with this requirement can be demon-
strated  by  submitting  chromatograms of
calibration gases  with and without Cd In
the diluent gas. The CO. level should be ap-
proximately 10 percent for the  case with
COi present.  The  two   chromatographs
should show agreement within the precision
limits of section 4.1.
  3.3 Elemental Sulfur. The condensation of
sulfur vapor In the sampling line can lead to
eventual coating  and  even blockage of the
sample line. This  problem  can be eliminated
along with the moisture problem by heating
the sample line.

               4. Precision

  4.1 Calibration Precision. A series of three
consecutive  Injections of  the same calibra-
tion gas, at any dilution,  shall produce re-
sults which  do not  vary by more than ±13
percent from the mean of the three  Injec-
tions.
  4.2 Calibration Drift. The calibration drift
determined  from the mean of three  Injec-
tions made at the beginning and end of any
8-hour period shall  not exceed  ±5 percent.

               5. Apparatus

  5.1.1 Probe.  The  probe  must be made of
Inert material  such  as  stainless steel or
glass. It should be designed to Incorporate  a
filter and to allow  calibration  gas to enter
the probe at or near the sample entry point.
Any portion of the  probe not exposed to the
stack gas must be  heated to prevent mois-
ture condensation,
  6.1.2 The sample line must  be made of
Teflon,' no greater  than l.S cm (Vt In) inside
diameter. All parts  from the probe to the di-
lution  system  must  be  thermostatically
heated to 120' C.
  8.1.3  Sample  Pump.  The  sample  pump
•hall be a leakless Teflon coated diaphragm
type or equivalent.  If the pump is upstream
of  the dilution system, the pump head must
be heated to 120* C.
  6.2 Dilution System. The dilution system
must be constructed such that  all sample
contacts are made of  Inert material (e.g.
stainless iteel or Teflon!. It must be heated
to  120* C and be capable of approximately a
0:1 dilution of the sample.  .
  8.3 Gas Chromatograph. The gas chroma-
tograph must have at least the  following
components:
  6.3.1  Oven,  Capable  of maintaining  the
separation column  at the proper operating
temperature ±1'C.
  6.3.2  Temperature  Gauge.  To monitor
column oven, detector,  and exhaust  tem-
 perature ±1* C.
   6.3.3 Plow System. Gas metering system to
 measure sample, fuel, combustion gas, and
 carrier gas flows.
  6.3.4 Flame Photometric Detector.
  6.3.4.1 Electrometer, Capable of full scale
 amplification of linear ranges of 10"' to 10'*
 amperes full scale.
   8.3.4.2 Power Supply. Capable of deliver-
 ing up to 760 volts.
   8.3.4.8  Recorder.  Compatible with  the
 output voltage range of the electrometer.
   'Mention of trade names or specific prod-
 uct! does not constitute an endorsement by
 the Environmental Protection Agency.
  5.4  Gas  Chromatograph Columns. The
column system must be demonstrated to be
capable  of resolving three major reduced
sulfur compounds: H,S. COS, and CS,.
  To demonstrate that adequate resolution
has been achieved the tester must submit a
Chromatograph of a calibration gas contain-
ing all three reduced  sulfur compounds in
the concentration  range of the applicable
standard.  Adequate resolution  will be de-
fined  as  base line separation ol adjacent
peaks when the amplifier attenuation Is set
so that the smaller peak 1> at least 50 per-
cent of full scale. Base line separation is de-
fined  as a return to zero ±5 percent In the
Interval between peak*.  Systems not meet-
Ing this criteria may be considered alternate
methods subject to the approval of the Ad-
ministrator.
  8.6.1 Calibration  System, The calibration
system must contain the  following compo-
nents.
  8.6.2 Plow  System. To measure  air flow
over permeation tubes at ±2 percent. Each
flowmeter shall be calibrated after a com-
plete  teat series with a wet test meter. If the
flow measuring device differs .from the wet
test meter by 5 percent, the completed test
shall  be discarded. Alternatively, the tester
may elect to use the flow data that would
yield  the lowest flow measurement. Calibra-
tion with  a wet test meter before a teat is
optional.
  8.6.3 Constant Temperature Bath. Device
capable   of  maintaining  the  permeation
tubes at the calibration  temperature within
±1.1'C.
  6.5.4 Temperature  Gauge.  Thermometer
or equivalent to monitor bath temperature
within ±r C.

               «. Reagent*

  6.1 Fuel. Hydrogen (Hi) prepurlfled grade
or better.
  6.2  Combustion Gas. Oxygen (Oi)  or air.
research purity or better.
  6.3  Carrier Gas. Prepurlfled  grade  or
better.
  6.4  Diluent. Air  containing leas than  0.6
ppm  total sulfur compounds and lets than
10  ppm each of moisture and total  hydro-
carbons.
  6.6  Calibration Oases, Permeation tubes,
one each of HiS, COS, and CS,, gravlmetrl-
cally  calibrated and certified at some conve-
nient operating  temperature. These tubes
consist of hermetically  sealed FEP Teflon
tubing In which  a liquified gaseous sub-
stance Is enclosed.  The enclosed gas perme-
ates through the tubing wail at a constant
rate.  When  the temperature is  constant,
calibration gases covering a wide range of
known concentrations can be generated by
varying and accurately measuring the flow
rate of  diluent gas passing over the tubes.
These calibration gases are used to calibrate
the  OC/PPD  system  and  the  dilution
system.

           7. Pretett Procedures

  The following procedures are optional but
would be helpful in preventing any problem
which might occur later and Invalidate the
entire test.
  7.1  After  the  complete  measurement
system  has  been  set up at the  site  and
deemed to be operational, the following pro-
cedures should be completed before sam-
pling Is initiated.
  7.1.1 Leak Test. Appropriate leak test pro-
cedures should be employed to verify the In-
tegrity of all components, jam pie lines, and
connections. The following leak test proce-
dure Is suggested: For components upstream
of the sample pump, attach the probe end
of the  sample  line  to  a  manometer or
vacuum  gauge,  start  the pump  and  pull
greater than 50 mm (2 In.) Hg vacuum, close
off the  pump  outlet,  and  then  stop the
pump and ascertain that there Is no leak for
1 minute. For components after the pump,
apply a slight positive pressure and check
for leaks by applying  a liquid (detergent In
water, for example) at each  joint. Bubbling
Indicates the presence  of a leak.
  7.1.2 System Performance.  Since the com-
plete system Is calibrated  following  each
test,  the precise calibration of each  compo-
nent Is not critical. However, these  compo-
nents should  be verified to be  operating
properly. This verification can be performed
by observing  the response of flowmeter! or
of the OC output to changes In flow rates or
calibration gas  concentrations  and  ascer-
taining the response to be within predicted
limits. If any component or the complete
system falls to respond In a normal and pre-
dictable manner, the source of  the discrep-
ancy  should  be Identlfed  and  corrected
before proceeding.

              8. Calibration

  Prior to any  sampling  run, calibrate the
system using the following  procedures. (If
more than one run Is performed during any
24-hour  period,  a calibration need  not be
performed prior to the second and any sub-
sequent runs. The calibration must, howev-
er, be verified  as  prescribed In section 10,
after the last run made within  the 24-hour
period.)
  8.1  General Considerations. This* section
outlines steps to be followed for use of the
GC/FPD and the dilution system. The pro-
cedure does  not Include  detailed Instruc-
tions because the operation of these systems
Is complex, and it requires an understanding
of the Individual system  being used.  Each
system should  Include a written  operating
manual describing  In detail the  operating
procedures associated  with each component
In the measurement system.  In addition, the
operator shuld be familiar with the operat-
ing principles of the components; particular-
ly the GC/FPD, The citations  in the Bib-
liography at the end of this method are rec-
ommended for review for this purpose.
  8.2 Calibration Procedure.  Insert the per-
meation tubes Into the tube chamber. Check
the bath temperature to  assure agreement
with  the calibration  temperature  of the
tubes within ±0.rc. Allow 24 hours for the
Cubes to equilibrate. Alternatively equilibra-
tion  may be verified by injecting samples of
calibration gas at 1-hour intervals. The per-
meation  tubes  can be  assumed to  have
reached   equilibrium  when   consecutive
hourly samples  agree within the precision
limits of section 4,1.
  Vary the amount of air flowing over the
tubes to  produce the desired concentrations
for calibrating the analytical and dilution
systems. The air flow  across the tubes must
at all times exceed the flow  requirement of
the analytical systems. The concentration in
parts per million generated  by  a bube con-
taining a specific permeant can  be calculat-
ed aa follows:
                          Equation 16-1
where:
  C- Concentration of permeant produced
     in ppm.
  Pr- Permeation rate of the tube In pf/
     mln,
                                                         IV-260
-------
                                                    RULES AND REGULATIONS
  M = Molecular weight of the permeant: g/
     g-mole.
  L=Flow rate. 1/min. of air over permeant
     @ 20'C. 760 mm Hg.
  K = Oas constant at  20'C and  760 mm
     Hg = 24.04 1/gmole.
  8.3 Calibration of analysis system. Gener-
ate a series of three or more known concen-
trations  spanning  the linear  range of  the
PPD (approximately  0.05 to  1.0 ppm>  for
each of the four major sulfur compounds.
Bypassing the dilution system, inject these
standards in to the GC/FPD analyzers and
monitor  the responses.  Three  injects  for
each concentration must yield the precision
described in section 4.1. Failure to attain
this precision  is an indication of a problem
in the  calibration or analytical system. Any
such problem must  be  identified  and cor-
rected  before proceeding.
  8.4 Calibration Curves. Plot the GC/FPD
response in  current (amperes) versus their
causative concentrations in  ppm on log-log
coordinate graph paper for each  sulfur com-
pound. Alternatively, a least squares equa-
tion may be generated from the calibration
data.
  8.5 Calibration of Dilution System. Gener-
ate a know  concentration of hydrogen  sul-
fled using  the  permeation  tube  system.
Adjust the flow rate  of diluent air for  the
first dilution stage so that the desired level
of dilution Is approximated.  Inject the dilut-
ed calibration gas  into the GC/FPD system
and  monitor Its response. Three Injections
for each dilution  must yield  the  precision
described in section 4.1.  Failure to attain
this precision in this step is  an indication of
a problem in the dilution system. Any such
problem must be  identified and corrected
before  proceeding. Using  the  calibration
data for H»S  (developed  under 8.3) deter-
mine the diluted calibration gas concentra-
tion in ppm.  Then calculate the dilution
factor  as the ratio  of  the  calibration  gas
concentration before dilution to the diluted
calibration  gas  concentration  determined
tinder  this  paragraph.  Repeat  this proce-
dure for each stage of dilution required. Al-
ternatively,  the GC/FPD system may  be
calibrated by generating a series oi three or
more  concentrations  of each sulfur com-
pound  and diluting these samples before in-
jecting them into the OC/FPD system. This
data will then serve as the  calibration data
for the unknown samples and a separate de-
termination of the dilution factor will  not'
be  necessary. However, the  precision  re-
quirements of section 4.1 are still applicable.

    9.  Sampling and Analysis Procedure
  9.1 Sampling. Insert the  sampling  probe
Into the test port making certain that no di-
lution  air enters the stack through the port.
Begin  sampling and dilute  the  sample  ap-
proximately 9:1 using the dilution system.
Note that the precise dilution factor is that
which  is determined in paragraph 6.5. Con-
dition  the entire system with sample for &
minimum of 16 minutes prior to commenc-
ing analysis.
  9.2 Analysis. Allquots  of  diluted sample
are Injected into the GC/FPD analyzer for
analysis.
  9.2.1  Sample Run. A sample run is com-
posed of 18 individual analyses (Injects) per-
formed over a period of not less than  3
hours or more than 8 hours.
  9.2.2  Observation for Clogging of Probe. If
reductions In sample concentrations are ob-
served  during a sample  run  that cannot be
explained by process conditions, the sam-
pling must  be interrupted  to determine if
the sample probe is clogged with particulate
matter. If the probe is found to be clogged.
the test must be stopped and the results up
to that point discarded. Testing may resume
after cleaning the probe or replacing It with
a  clean one. After  each run. the sample
probe must be  Inspected and. If necessary.
dismantled and cleaned.

         10. Post-Test Procedures

  10.1 Sample Line Loss. A  known concen-
tration of hydrogen sulflde  at the level of
the applicable standard.  ±20 percent, must
be introduced  Into  the sampling system 8t
the opening of the probe In sufficient quan
titles  to ensure  that there is an excess of
sample which must be vented to the atmo-
sphere.  The sample must be  transported
through the entire  sampling  system to the
measurement system in the normal manner.
The  resulting   measured   concentration
should be compared to the known value to
determine the sampling system loss. A sam-
pling system loss of more than 20 percent te
unacceptable. Sampling losses  of 0-20 per-
cent must  be corrected by dividing the re-
sulting sample  concentration by the frac-
tion of recovery. The known gas sample may
be generated using permeation  tubes. Alter-
natively,  cylinders  of  hydrogen  sulfide
mixed in air may be used provided they are
traceable to permeation tubes. The optional
pretest procedures provide a good guideline
for determining if  there are leaks in the
sampling system.
  10.2  Recallbration. After  each  run.  or
after a series of runs made within a 24-hour
period, perform a partial recalibration using
the procedures  in section 8.  Only H.S (or
other  permeant) need be used to recalibrate
the GC/FPD analysis system (8.3) and the
dilution system (8.5).
  10.3 Determination of  Calibration Drift.
Compare  the  calibration curves obtained
prior to the runs, to the calibration curves
obtained under paragraph 10.1. The calibra-
tion drift  should not exceed  the limits set
forth  in paragraph  4.2. If the drift exceeds
this limit,  the  intervening  run  or  runs
should be considered not valid. The tester.
however, may instead  have the option of
choosing the  calibration data set  which
would give the highest sample values.

             11. Calculations

  11.1  Determine the concentrations of each
reduced sulfur compound detected directly
from the  calibration curves.  Alternatively.
the concentrations may be calculated using
the equation for the least squares line.
  11.2 Calculation of SO, Equivalent.  SO,
equivalent will be determined for each anal-
ysis made by summing the concentrations of
each  reduced  sulfur  compound  resolved
during the given analysis.

    BO, equivalent = I(K,S, COS. 2 CS,)d

                          Equation 15-2
where:
  SO,  equivalent^The  sum of  the concen-
     tration of each of the measured com-
     pounds (COS. H,S,  CS,) expressed as
    sulfur dioxide in ppm.
  H,S«= Hydrogen sulfide, ppm.
  COS-Carbonyl sulfide.  ppm.
  CS,-Carbon dtsulfide, ppm.
  d»Dilutlon factor, dlmenslonless.
  11.3  Average SO, equivalent will be deter-
mined as follows:
 Average SO^ equivalent
N
I    -2
i =  1
                               SO,
                            tTTl - ISwoj
                                      '5-3
where:
  Average  SO,  equivalent, = Average  SO,
     equivalent in ppm, dry basis.
  Average SO, equivalent^ SO, in ppm as
    • determined by Equation 15-2.
  N = Number of analyses performed.
  Bwo = Fraction of volume of  water  vapor
     in the gas stream as determined  by
     Method 4—Determination of Moisture
     in Stack Gases (36 FR 24887).

           12. Example System

  Described  below is  a system  utilized  by
EPA in gathering  NSPS data. This system
does not now reflect all the latest develop-
ments in equipment and column technology,
but it  does  represent one  system that has
been demonstrated to work.
  12.1 Apparatus.
  12.1.1 Sample System.
  12.1.1.1 Probe. Stainless steel tubing. 6.35
mm (V, In.) outside diameter, packed with
glass wool.
  12.1.1.2 Sample Line. Vis inch inside diam-
eter Teflon  tubing heated to  120' C.  This
temperature Is controlled by a thermostatlc
heater.
  12.1.1.3  Sample  Pump.  Leakless Teflon
coated diaphragm  type or equivalent. The
pump head is heated to 120* C by enclosing
it in the sample dilution box  (12.2.4 below).
  12.1.2 Dilution System. A schematic dia-
gram of the  dynamic  dilution  system is
given in Figure 15-2. The dilution system is
constructed  such that  all  sample contacts
are made of inert materials.  The  dilution
system which is heated to 120' C must be ca-
pable of  a  minimum  of  9:1  dilution  of
sample. Equipment  used  in  the  dilution
system Is listed below:
  12.1.2.1 Dilution Pump. Model A-150 Koh-
myhr Teflon  positive  displacement  type.
nonadjustable 150  cc/min.  ±2.0 percent, or
equivalent, per dilution stage. A 9:1 dilution
of sample is accomplished by combining 150
cc of sample with 1350 cc of clean dry air as
shown in Figure 15-2.
  12.1.2.2 Valves. Three-way Teflon solenoid
or manual type.
  12.1.2.3 Tubing. Teflon tubing and fittings
are used throughout from the sample probe
to the OC/FPD to present an inert surface
for  sample gas.
  12.1.2.4 Box.  Insulated box,  heated and
maintained at 120'C. of sufficient dimen-
sions to house dilution apparatus.
  12.1.2.5 Flowmeters. Rolameters or equiv-
alent to  measure flow from 0 to 1500 ml/
mln. ±1 percent per dilution stage.
  12.1.3.0 Gas Chromatograph.
  12.1.3.1 Column—1.83  m (6  ft.) length  of
Teflon tubing. 2.16 mm  <0.085 in.) inside di-
ameter, packed with deactivated  silica gel.
or equivalent.
  12.1.3.2 Sample Valve. Teflon six port gas
sampling valve, equipped with a 1 ml sample
loop, actuated by compressed air (Figure 15-
1).
  12.1.3.3  Oven.   For   containing  sample
valve,  stripper  column   and  separation
column.  The  oven should be capable  of
maintaining an elevated temperature  rang-
ing  from ambient to 100* C. constant within
±rc.
                                                            IV-261
-------
  12.1.3.4 Temperature  Monitor.  Thermo-
couple pyrometer to mfasure column oven.
detector, and exhaust temperature ±PC.
  12.1.3.6  Plow  System.  Gas   metering
system to measure sample flow, hydrogen
flow, oxygen flow and nitrogen carrier gas
flow.
  12.1.3.6 Detector, name photometric de-
tector.
  12.1.3.7 Electrometer. Capable of full scale
amplification of linear ranges of 10''to 10''
amperes full scale.
  12.1.3.8 Power Supply. Capable of deliver-
ing up to 750 volts.
  12.1.3.9 Recorder. Compatible  with the
output voltage range of the electrometer.
  12.1.4   Calibration.   Permeation   tube
system (Figure 15-3).
  12.1.4.1 Tube Chamber. Glass chamber of
sufficient dimensions to house permeation
tubes.
  12.1.4.2 Mass Flowmeters. Two mass flow-
meters In the range 0-3 1/mln. and 0-10 I/
min. to  measure air flow over permeation
tubes at ±2 percent. These flowmeters shall
be cross-calibrated at the beginning of each
teat. Using a convenient  flow rate In the
measuring  range  of  both flowmeters, set
and monitor the flow rate of  gas over the
permeation tubes.  Injection of calibration
gas generated at this flow rate as measured
by one  flowmeter followed by Injection of
calibration gas at the same flow rate as mea-
sured by the other flowmeter  should agree
within the specified precision limits.  If they
do not,  then there Is a problem  with the
mass  flow  measurement.  Each mass flow-
meter shall be calibrated  prior to the first
test with a  wet test meter and  thereafter at
least once each year.
  12.1.4.3 Constant Temperature Bath. Ca-
pable of maintaining permeation 4ubes at
certification temperature of  30'C  within
±0,1-C,
  12.3 Reagents.
  12.2.1  Fuel.  Hydrogen  (H,) prepurlfled
grade or better.
  12.2.2  Combustion Oas. Oxygen (Oi) re-
search purity or better.
  12.2.3  Carrier Gas. Nitrogen (N,) prepurl-
fied grade or better.
  12.2.4  Diluent. Air containing less than 0.5
ppm total sulfur compounds and  less  than
10 ppm each of moisture and total hydro-
carbons, and  filtered  using  MSA filters
46727 and 79030, or equivalent. Removal of
sulfur compounds can be  verified by Inject-
ing dilution air only, described  In  section
8.3.
  12.2.S  Compressed  Air. 60  pslg for OC
valve actuation.
  12.2.6   Calibration  Oases.  Permeation
tubes gravlmetrlcally calibrated  and certi-
fied at 30.0' C.
  12.3 Operating Parameters. The operating
parameters for the OC/FPD system are as
follows:  nitrogen carrier gas flow rate of 100
cc/mln,  exhaust temperature of 110* C, de-
tector temperature  105' C,  oven tempera-
ture of  40*  C. hydrogen flow rate of 80 cc/
minute, oxygen flow rate of 20 cc/mlnute.
and sample flow rate of 80 cc/mlnute.
  12.4 Analysis, The sample valve Is actu-
ated for 1 minute In which time an aliquot
of diluted sample  Is Injected onto the sepa-
ration column. The valve Is then deactivated
lor the remainder of analysis cycle in which
time the sample loop is refilled and the sep-
aration  column continues  to be foreflushed.
The elutlon time for each compound will be
determined during calibration.
                                              RULES AND REGULATIONS
            13. Bibliography
  13.1 O'Kpefte. A. E. and O. C. Ortman.
"Primary Standards  for Trace Gas Analy-
sis." Anal. Chem. 38,760 (1966).
  13.2 Stevens,  R.  K.. A. E.  O'Keeffe, and
G. C. Ortman. "Absolute  Calibration of a
Flame  Photometric  Detector  to Volatile
Sulfur Compounds at Sub-Part-Per-Million
Levels." Environmental Science and Tech-
nology 3.7 (July, 1989).
  13.3 Mulick, J. D.,  R. K. Stevens, and R.
Baumgardncr.  "An Analytical System De-
signed to  Measure  Multiple  Malodorous
Compounds  Related to Kraft Mill Activi-
ties." Presented at the 12th  Conference on
Methods In Air Pollution and Industrial Hy-
giene Studies, University of Southern Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles. Calif. April 6-8, 1971.
  13.4 Devonald, R. H.. R. S. Screnius. and
A. D. McJntyre. "Evaluatior. of the Flame
Photometric DeU-ctor for Analysis of Sulfur
Compounds." Pulp and Paper  Magazine of
Can?da. 73.3 (March, 1972).
  13.5 Grimley. K. W.. W. S. Smith, and
R M. Martin. "The Use of a Dynamic Dilu-
tion System In the  Conditioning of  Stack
Oases /or Automated Analysis by a Mobile
Sampling:  Van"  Presented  at  the   63rd
Annual APCA Meeting In St. Louis, Mo.
June 14-19,1970.
  13.6  Geneva! Reference. Standard Meth-
ods of Chemical Analysis Volume III A and
B Instrument!  MHhod:;. Sixth Edition.
Van Most rand Retnhold Co.

  [FR Doc. 78-6633 Filed 3-14-78; 8:45 ami
     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 51

       WEDNESDAY, MARCH IS, Wi
87
  Tifl« 40—Protection of Environment

    CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY

              CPRL 870-4)

PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFOR-
   MANCE  FOR  NEW  STATIONARY
   SOURCES

  Amendments to Reference Methods
            1-8; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental  Protection
Agency.

ACTION: Correction.
SUMMARY:  This  document correct*
typographical errors to certain Refer-
ence Methods and makes amendments
to others for purpose* of clarification.
These  Reference Methods were  pub-
lished  as  final  rules  In  the FEDERAL
REGISTER for Thursday. 42 FR 41754,
August 18, 1977, In FR Doc, 77-13808.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23.1978.
FOR   FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Don  R. Goodwin,  Emission  Stan-
  dards  and  Engineering   Division
  (MD-13). Environmental  Protection
  Agency,  Research  Triangle  Park.
  N.C. J7711. telephone 919-641-5371.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
After publication of revisions to Refer-
ence Methods 1-8 on August 18, 1977,
we found  many typographical  errors.
We   also  received   comments  which
showed that  the procedures In Refer-
ence Methods 1, 4, 6, and 7 needed ad-
ditional clarification or revision. Addi-
tional explanation  of the procedure!
to be used are provided by this correc-
                                                       IV-262
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
tkm notice. In addition to the errors in
the  methods  themselves,  two  typo-
graphical errors were discovered In the
preamble.   On  page   41754,  under
"Method 7," the phrase "variable wave
length"  Is  corrected  to read "single
and double-beam."  On page  41755,
under "Method 8," the word "content"
(In point No.  4) U corrected to  read
"components."
 JJOTI.—The  Environmental  Protection
Agency hai determined that this document
doe* not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analy-
ti*.
  Dated: March 13,1D78.
             DAVID A. HAWKINS,
           Assistant Administrator
      for Air and Waste Management.
  Part 60 of  Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
ed as follows:

   APPENDIX A—REFERENCE METHODS

  In Method 1  of Appendix A, Sections
2.3.1,  2.3.2, and 2.4 and Table 1-1 are
amended as follows:
  1. In Section 2.3.1, the word "adcord-
ing" In the second line is  corrected to
read "according."
  2. In  Section 2.3.2,  Insert after  the
first paragraph the f oUowing:

 U the tester desires to use more than the
minimum   number  of   traverse  points.
expand the "minimum  number of traverse
polntt" matrix (see Table 1-1) by adding the
extra traverse points  along one or the other
or  both legs of the matrix; the final matrix
need not be balanced. For example. If a 1x3
"minimum number of points" matrix were
expanded to  M  point*,  the  final matrix
could be Bx4 or  12x3, and would not neces-
sarily have to be 6x6. After constructing the
final matrix, divide the  stack cross-section
Into as many  equal rectangular, elemental
area* ai travene point*,  and  locate a tra-
»er»* point at the centrold of each eo.ua)
area.
  3. In Section 2.4, the word "travrse"
In  the  fifteenth  line  of the second
paragraph is corrected to read "tra-
verse."
  4.  In  Table  1-1, more  the words
"Number  of traverse  points" to  the
left, so that they  are  centered above
the numbers  listed  in the left-hand
column.
  In Method 2  of Appendix A, Sections
2.1,  2.2,  2.4,  3.2. 4.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.4.1,
4.1.5.2, and 6 are amended as follows;
  1. In Section 2.1. "±" Is inserted in
front of the "5 percent"  in the four-
teenth line of the third paragraph.
  2. In Section 2.2. "measuremen t" in
the next-to-the last  line  of the first
paragraph is corrected to  read "mea-
surement."
  3. In  Section 2.4, "Type X" in  the
fifth  line  IB corrected to read "Type
B."
  4. In  Sectioh *.J, "ma" In the first
line is corrected to  read "ma-."
  6. In Section 4.1. "R," in the seventh
line of  the  second  paragraph  is re-
placed with 'TV*
  6. In  Section  4.1.2.  "B."  is Inserted
between the words "other." and "Cali-
bration."
  7. In  Section  4.1.4.1. "Cp^Type  S
pilot tube coefficient" is corrected to
read '•Cr^ = Type  S pilot  tube coeffi-
cient."
  8.  In  Section  4.1.5.2.  the  words
"pilot-nozzel" in the third line are cor-
rected to read "pitot-nozzJe."
  9. In Section 6,  Citations 9. 13, and
18 are amended  as follows:
  a. In  No. 9, the word  "Tiangle"  is
corrected to read "Triangle."
  b. In No. 13, the "s"  in "Techniques"
is deleted.
  c. In  No. 18.  the word  "survey"  is
corrected to read "Survey."
  In Method 3 of Appendix A, Sections
1.2, 3.2.4, 4.2.6.2. 6.2. and 7 are amend-
ed as follows:
  1. In Section 1.2. the title ".U. S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency." is in-
serted at the  end  of the  second para-
graph.
  2. In Section 3.2.4. "CO" in the tenth
line Is corrected to read "COi."
  3. In  Section  4.2.6.2(b). the phrase
"or  equal to"  is  Inserted  between
"than" and "15.0."
  4. In Section 6.2, Equation 3-1 is cor-
rected to read as follows:
               10, • o si a
  porarily  attached to tbe  dry  f&£  meter
  outlet to determine the leakage rate.  A leak
  rate not  in excese of 2 percent of the aver-
  age sampling rate is acceptable.
   Non—Carefully release  the probe Inlet
  plug before turning off the pomp.
   8. In Section 3.3.1, add the following
  definition to the list:

- Y-Dry gas meter calibration factor.

  Also, "OIT" is corrected to read "p,".
   8. In  Section  3.3.3, Equation  4-6 is
  corrected to read as follows:
          '|irw..'.]":.~r:.a?'. 5 i' TTT , I0!
  B. In Section 7,  Bibliography, No. 2,
the word "with"  Is  inserted between
the words "Sampling" and "Plastic."
  In Method 4 of Appendix A. Sections
2.1.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.3. 2.3.1. 3.1.8, 3.2.1, 3.3.1,
3.3.3, 3.3.4, and Figure'4-2 are amend-
ed as follows:
  1. In Section 2.1.2. the word "neasur-
ement" In the third line of the third
paragraph is corrected to read "mea-
surement."
  2.  In  Section   2.2.1.   the  word
"travers" in the sixth line is corrected
to read "traverse."
  3. In Section 2.2.3. the work "eak" in
the last  sentence  is corrected to  read
"leak."
  4. In Figure 4-2, the word "ocation"
in the second line  on top of the figure,
la corrected to read "Location."
  &. In Section 2.3.1. "Mw" is changed
to read "M." and. "F,"  k changed to
read "p^"
  6. In  Section  3.1.8. "31  pm" 1* cor-
rected to read "3 1pm".
  7. In Section 3.2.1. delete all of first
paragraph except the first  tentence
and Insert the following:
  Leal check the campling  train M follows:
Temporarily  Insert  a  rmcuum gauge  at or
near the probe inlet: then, plug  the probe
Inlet and pull a vacuum of  at leait 250 mm
Hg (10  In. Hg).  Note,  the  time  rate of
change  of the dry gas meter dial: alternati-
vely, i rotameter (0-40 ccYxiln) maj be tern-
    10. In Section 3.3.4. Equation 4-7 is
  corrected to read as follows:

                                 • U.075)

    In Method S of Appendix A, Sections
  2.1.1,  2.2.4,  4.1.2.  4.1.4.2, 4.2. 6.1,  6.3.
  6.11.1.  and 6.11.2 are amended as  fol-
  lows:
    1. In Section 2.1.1. the word "proble"
  in the  fourth line is corrected to read
  "probe."
    2. In Section 2.2.4, "polO-" Is correct-
  ed to read "poly-".
    S.  In Section 4.1.2,  the  sentence
  "The   sampling time at  each  point
  shall be the same." is Inserted  at  the
  end of  the fifth paragraph.
    4. In  Section 4.1.4.2. the word "It" m
  the seventh line is corrected to read
  "it."
    B. In Section  4.2, the word "nylon"
  in the  seventh,  ninth, and thirteenth
  paragraphs   is   corrected  to  read
  "Nylon."
    6.  In  Section  6.1  Nomenclature,
  "C.=Acetone blank residue concentra-
  tions,  mg/g"  is  corrected  to  read
  "C.=Acetone blank residue concentra-
  tion, mg/g"  and  "V,"  Is  changed to
  read "v,."
    7.  In   Section   6.3,  page  41782,
  "m,-0.3858  cK/mm  Hg  for metric
  units"  is corrected to read "K,»0.3838
  °K/mm Hg for metric units."
    fi. In Section 6.11.1, Equation 5-7 U
  corrected to read as follows:
    9. In Section 6.11.2, the second form
  of Equation 5-6 la corrected to read as
  follows:
    In Method 6 of Appendix A, Sections
  2.1,  2.1.6,  2.1.7, 2.1.6.  2.1.11.  2.1.12,
  2.3.2, 8.3.4.  4.1.2, 4.1.3.  and 5.1.1  are
  amended as follows:
                                                   IV-263
-------
                                               RULES AND  REGULATIONS
  1. In Section 2.1,  the word "periox-
Ide" in the  fourth line of the second
paragraph IB corrected to read "perox-
ide."
  2. In Section 2.1.6. the word "slllac"
In the third line if corrected to read
"silica,"
  3. In Section 2.1.7. the word "value",
which  appears twice Is corrected  to
read "valve."
  4. In Section 2.1.8, the word "diaph-
ragm" Is  corrected   to   read  "dia-
phragm" and the word "*urge" U In-
serted between the words "small" and
"tank."
  5, In Section 2.1.11, the uortJ "amer-
old" is corrected to read "aneroid."
  6. In Section 2.1.12,  the phrase "and
Rotameter."  Is  Inserted  after  the
phrase  "Vacuum  Gauge"  and  the
phrase "and 0-40 cc/mln rotameter" is
inserted  between  the  words "gauge"
and ", to."
  7. In Section 2.3.2, the phrase "and
100-ml size" Is corrected to read "and
1000-ml size."
  8. In Section -3.3.4, the word "sopro-
panol" in the fourth  line is  corrected
to read "isopropanol."
  fl. In Section 4.1.2, delete the  last
sentence  of the last paragraph. Also
delete  the  second paragraph and  re-
place it with the following paragraphs:

  Temporarily attach a suitable (e.g., tMO
tx/mln) rotameter to the outlet  of the dry
gas meter and place a vacuum gauge at or
near the probe Inlet. Plug the probe Inlet,
poll a vacuum of at least 250 nun Hg <10 tn.
Hg), and note the flow rate as Indicated by
the rotaroeter. A leakage rate not In excess
of 2 percent of the average sampling rate is
acceptable.

  More Carefully release the probe Inlet
{dug before turning oft the pump.

  It U  suggested (not mandatory) that  the
pump  be  leak-checked  separately, either
prior to or after the sampling run. If done
prior to the  sampling  run, the purap teak-
check shall precede  the teak, check of  the
sampling train described Immediately above;
U done after the sampling run. the pump
leak-check shall follow the train  leak-check.
To leak check the pump, proceed as follows:
Disconnect the drying tube from the probe-
Implnger assembly. Place a vacuum gauge at
the inlet to either  the drying tube or  the
pump,  pull & vacuum of 250 mm (10 to.) Hs.
plug or pinch off the outlet of the  flow
meter  and then turn  off the pump. The
vacuum should remain stable for at least 30
seconds.

  10. In Section 4.1.3,  the sentence "If
a leak is  found, void the test run" on
the sixteenth line IB corrected to read

"If a leak  Is found, void the test  run. or use
procedures acceptable to the Administrator
to adjust the sample volume for the leak-
age."

  11. In Section 5.1.1, the word "or" on
the sixth line is corrected to read "of."
  In Method 7 of Appendix A, Sections
2.3.2, 2.3.7. 4.2. 4.3. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 6 and 7
are amended as follows:

  1.  In Section  2.3.2,  a semicolon re-
places the comma  between  the words
"step" and "the."
  2.  In Section 2.3.7, the phrase "(one
for each sample)"  In  the first line is
corrected  to  read  "(one  for  each
sample and each standard)."

  3.  In Section  4.2, the letter "n"- in
the  seventh line is corrected to read
"in."
  4. In Section 4.3,  the word "poyleth-
ylene" in the  seventeenth line is cor-
rected to read  "polyethylene."
  5.  In Section 5.2.1. delete the entire
section and insert the  following:

  Optimum  Wavelength  Determination.
Calibrate the wavelength scale of the spec-
trophotometer every 6 months. The calibra-
tion  may be accomplished  by using an
energy source with an Intense line emission
such as a mercury lamp, or  by using a series
of glass  filters spanning  the  measuring
range of the spectrophotoroeter. Calibration
materials are available  commercially  and
from  the National  Bureau  of Standards.
Specific details on the use of such materials
should be supplied by the vendor; general
Information  about calibration techniques
can  be  obtained  from  general reference
books on analytical chemistry. The wave-
length scale of the spectrophotometer must
read correctly within  ± 5 nm at all calibra-
tion  points; otherwise,  the  spectrophoto-
meter shall  be  repaired and recalibrated.
Once the wavelength  scale of the spectro-
photometer Is In proper calibration, use 410
nm as the optimum wavelength for the mea-
surement of the  absorbanc* of the stan-
dards and samples.
  Alternatively,  a  scanning procedure may
be employed to  determine  the proper mea-
suring wavelength. If the  Instrument is a
doable-beam spectrophotometer, scan  the
spectrum between 400 and  415  nm using a
100 pg NO, standard solution  in the sample
cell and a blank solution in  the reference
cell.  If a  peak does not occur, the spectro-
photometer Is probably malfunctioning and
should be repaired. When a peak Is obtained
within the 400 to  416 nm range, the wave-
length at which this peak occurs shall be
the optimum wavelength for the measure-
ment of Bbsorbance of both  the standards
and the samples. For  B single-beam spectro-
photometer, follow the scanning procedure
described above, except that the blank and
standard  solutions shall be scanned sepa-
rately. The optimum  wavelength shall be
the wavelength  at which the  maximum dif-
ference in absorbance between the standard
and the blank occurs.

  6.  In Section  5.2.2,  delete the first
seven lines and Insert the following:

  Determination  of   Spectrophotoraeter
Calibration Factor B^_ Add 0.0 ml, 3 ml. 4
ml, 6 ml, and 8 ml of the KNO,  working
standard  solution  (1 ml -100  ng NO.) to a
series of  five 50-mJ  volumetric flasks. To
each flask, add 25 ml  of absorbing solution,
10 ml delonlzed, distilled  water, and sodium
hydroxide (1 N)  dropwlse until the pH Is be-
tween B and 12 (about 25 to 35 drop« each).
Dilute to the mark with deionlzed. distilled
water. Mix thoroughly and pipette a  25-ml
aliquot of each solution into a separate por-
celain evaporating dish.


  7. In Section 6.1. the word "Hass" in
the  tenth  line  is  corrected to  read
"Mass."

  8. In Section 7, the word "Vna" In
(1) is corrected  to read "Van."  The
word  "drtermination" in (6) is correct-
ed to  read "Determination."
  In Method 8 of Appendix  A, Sections
1.2. 2.32. 4.1.4, 4.2.1, 4.3.2, 6.1, and 6.7.1
are amended as follows:

  1. In Section  1.2,  the phrase "U.S.
EPA," is Inserted in  the fifth line of
the  second  paragraph  between  the
words  "Administrator,"   and  "are."
Also,  delete the  third paragraph  and
Insert the following:


  Piltersble partlculate matter may be de-
termined along with SO, and SO, (subject to
the approval of the Administrator) by in-
serting a heated glass fiber Hirer between
the probe and isopropanol impinger (see
Section 2.1 of  Method 6). If this option  is
chosen,  paniculate analysis is gravimetric
only; H.SO. acid mist is not determined sep-
arately.
                                                       IV-264
-------
                                          RULES AND REGULATIONS
  2. In Section 2.3.2,  the  word "Bur-
rette" is corrected to read "Burette."

  3, In Section 4.1.4,  the stars	"
tie corrected to read as periods "...".

  4. In Section 4.2.1, the word "net" on
the eighth line of the second para-
graph is corrected to read "the."

  5, In Section 4.3.2, the number "40"
is Inserted In the fourth line  between
the words "Add" and "ml."

  6. In Section'8.1, Nomenclature, the
following  are  corrected to  read  u
shown with  subscripts "QAorf, Cioi.
P*» P.U. T,u, V.1.U). and VMta."

  7. In Section 6.7.1,  Equation 8-4 is
corrected to read as follows:
(Beet  111, 114, !01(a), Clean Air Act u
amended (42 U.8.C. 7411, 7414, 76011.)
  FR Doc. 78-7686 Filed 3-32-78; 8:45 am]


   KDHAL RfOISTER, VOL 41, NO.  57


    THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1971
  88
  Title 40— ProUdion of Environment

     CHAPTER I— ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY

              CFRL 841-6]

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

    Rcile Oxygen Proettt  Furnoe»»!
          Opacity  Standard

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency.

 ACTION: PinaJ rule.

 SUMMARY:  This action establishes
 an  opacity standard for basic oxygen
 process furnace (BOPF)  facilities.  In
 March 1874  (39  FR  9308), EPA pro-
 mulgated a standard limiting the con-
 centration of particulate matter emis-
 sions from BOPF's, however, an opac-
 ity  standard was not promulgated  at
 that time becuase of Insufficient data
 to  define  variations  in visible  emis-
 sions  from  well-controDed facilities.
 An  opacity  standard  had been pro-
 posed on  June 11,  1973 (38 FR 15406)
 and was reproposed on March 2, 1977
 (42  FR 12130).  Additional data have
 provided  the basis for  the  opacity
 standard  which will help Insure that
 control equipment  is properly operat-
 ed  and maintained. Like  the  concen-
 tration standard, this opacity standard
 applies to BOPF  facilities the con-
 •truction or modification of which was
 commenced after June 11, 1973 since
 both standards were proposed on that
 date.

 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 13, 1978.

 ADDRESS. The public comments re-
 ceived may be Inspected and copies at
 the  Public  Information  Reference
 Unit (EPA Library), Room 2922, 401 M
 Street SW., Washington, D.C.

 FOR r'UH'lUKK INFORMATION:

  Don  R.  Goodwin, Emission  Stan-
   dards  and  Engineering  Division
   (MD-13), Environmental Protection
  Agency,  Research  Triangle  Park,
  North Carolina 27711, telephone No.
  619-641-5271.

' SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                        A total of 10 comment letters were
                                      received— 4 from Industry. 5 from gov-
                                      ernmental agencies, and 1 from an en-
                                      vironmental Interest group. The  sig-
                                      nificant comments  received  and EPA's
                                      responses are presented here.
                                        Three  co mm enters  expressed  the
                                      need for establishing an opacity stan-
                                      dard for fugitive emissions. Fugitive
                                      emissions  occur when off gases from
                                      the furnace are not completely cap-
tured by  the furnance hood (which
ducts  waste  gases  to  the  control
device). During some operations, the
fugitive emissions can be significant.
The fugitive emissions escape to the
atmosphere through roof monitors.
  EPA recognizes that fugitive emis-
sions from BOPF shops are an Impor-
tant problem,  However,  it was  cot
within the scope of this evaluation to
consider an opacity standard for fugi-
tive emissions. The particulate concen-
tration  standard  coven  only tuck
emissions. The purpose of the opacity
standard for stack emissions is to serve
•s a means for enforcement personnel
to insure  that the particulate matter
control system is being properly oper-
ated and maintained.  EPA will be re-
viewing the standards of performance
for new BOPF's  in  accordance with
the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air
Act. This review will address the need
for limits on fugitive emissions as  well
as any revisions of the paniculate  con-
centration and opacity standards.
  It should be noted that the absence
of  standards  for  fugitive emissions
under this part does not preclude the
establishment  of standards as part of
the new source review (NSR) and  pre-
vention  of  significant  deterioration
(PSD) programs of the Agency or as
part of the  programs of State  and
local agencies.
  Two  commenters questioned   how
the standard  would  apply to BOPF
shops that have plenums  to  exhaust
the emissions from more than one fur-
nace into a single control device. They
reasoned that  if the production cycles
overlap, it would be Impossible to de-
termine when an  opacity of greater
than 10 percent Cbut less than 30  per-
cent) was attributable to a violation by
one furnace or an acceptable emission
by  another furnace  during  oxygen
blowing. EPA was aware that this situ-
ation would occur during the  develop-
ment of the opacity standard. Several
of the plants at which visible emission
tests were  conducted had a «Ingle con-
trol device serving more than  one  fur-
nace. The furnace production cycle
data were  recorded and it was not dif-
ficult to correlate the opacity  data
with the  production  cycle. Enforce-
ment personnel can evaluate a plant's
operation  (length of cycle, degree of
overlapping, etc.)  prior to completing
an  inspection  and correctly  Identify
probable violations from a correlation
of  their  opacity  readings with  the
plant's production  and monitoring re-
cords. Correlation of the data and the
synchronization   requirements   de-
scribed later will prevent the  enforce-
ment problems described by the com-
menters.  Promulgation of an  unduly
complex standard  that addresses  the
peculiarities of every  BOPF  installa-
tion would complicate rather than
simplify enforcement, Although tt U
unlikely that two furnaces will be it-
                                                IV-265
-------
                                           RULES AND REGULATIONS
multaneously started on a blow, pro-
duction data should be examined for
euch  peculiarities before drawing any
conclusions from the opacity data.
  Other   issues  raised  include the
effect of  oxygen  "reblows"  on the
standard and a request for a more le-
nient monitoring requirement. One in-
dustry commenter claimed that there
would be  a  "significant" number of
production cycles with more than one
opacity reading greater than 10 per-
cent due to the blowing of additional
oxygen (after the initial oxygen blow)
Into a furnace  to  obtain the  proper
composition.  The  opacity  standard,
however,  is  based  on 73  hours of
BOPP operation during which numer-
ous reblows  occurred.  It was found
that although  the  opacities could be
very large at these times, they were of
short enough duration that  the six-
minute average was still 10 percent or
less.
  EPA agrees with  the comment that
the requirement for reporting of in-
stantaneous scrubber differential and
water  supply pressures that are less
than  10 percent of the average main-
tained during the most recent perfor-
mance test needs further clarification.
The requirement has been revised so
that any  deviation of more  than 10
percent over a three hour averaging
period must  be reported. The  three
hour  averaging  period was  chosen
since  it is the minimum duration of a
performance  test. Thus instantaneous
monitoring    device    measurements
caused by routing process fluctuations
will  not  be  reported. The  reports
needed are the periods of time when
the average scrubber pressure drop is
below  the  level used to demonstrate
compliance at the  time of the perfor-
mance test. In addition, the require-
ment  for a water pressure monitor has
been  retained (despite the  comment
that  It will  not Indicate  a  plugged
water line) since it will perform the
function  of assuring that  the water
pumps have  not shut  down.  A flow
monitoring device  was not specified
because they are susceptible  to plug-
ging.
  To  provide for the  use  of certain
partial combustion systems on BOPFs,
new requirements have been added to
the monitoring section  and two  clarifi-
cations added to the test methods and
procedures section.  A partial  combus-
tion system uses a closed hood to limit
gas combustion  and exhaust  gas vol-
umes. To recover combustible exhaust
gases, the system may be designed to
duct Its emissions away from the stack
to a gas  holding tank  during  part of
the steel production cycle. Steel plants
In this country may begin to  make
more  use  of  this approach due to its
significant  energy benefits. This type
of control/recovery system  presents
two problems for enforcement person-
nel. First  is the problem of  knowing
when the diversion of exhaust  erases
from  the stack  occurs. The new re-
quirements of paragraphs  (a),  (b)(3),
and (b)(4) of §60.143 address this ques-
tion. Second is the problem of how to
sample  or observe  stack   emissions.
New provisions under  §60.144 clarify
this   question  for  determining  the
opacity of emissions (paragraph (a)(5))
and for determining the concentration
of emissions (paragraph (O).
  In  addition to addressing the  prob-
lem  posed by exhaust  gas diversion,
the new  requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b>(3), and (b)(4)  of §60.143 are
also designed to minimise errors to re-
cording the time  and duration of the
steel production cycle for all types of
BOPFs. Accurate  records are essential
for determining compliance with the
opacity  standard. Likewise the  syn-
chronization  of  dally  logs with the
chart recorders of monitoring devices
is necessary for determining that ac-
ceptable  operation  and  maintenance
procedures are being used as required
by paragraph (d) of §60.11.
  A.n  alternative  to  the  manual
method  of  synchronization  under
paragraph (b>(3) of §60.143  which may
minimize  costs of  this  requirement
would be  to have the chart recorder
automatically mark  the beginning and
end of the steel production cycle and
any period of gas diversion from the
stack. Such marking could be electri-
cally  relayed  from  the   production
equipment and exhaust duct damper
operation in order to be fully automat-
ic. Source  owners or  operators  who
wish to employ this method or equiv-
alent  methods in  lieu of the synchro-
nization procedure prescribed by the
regulations may submit their plans to
the Administrator for approval under
paragraph 60.13(1).
  The concentration standard promul-
gated in March, 1974, applies to both
top and bottom-blown BOPPs. In de-
veloping  the  proposed opacity  stan-
dard,  data from both types of BOPFs
were  considered.  Scrubber-controlled
top and  bottom-blown BOPPs  were
demonstrated capable of meeting the
opacity limits proposed and here pro-
mulgated. Thus the promulgated opac-
ity standard applies to bottom as well
as top-blown BOPPs.
  Although there was no  announced
Intentions to utilize electrostatic preci-
pitators  (ESPs)  as a  control  device
(rather   than   venturi    scrubbers).
during the development of the  pro-
posed standard,  one  Industry  com-
menter   asserted  that  ESPs   may
become more attractive In the future,
especially in the  semi-arid  regions of
the West where the- water and energy
demands of scrubbers are  not easily
met. If a BOPF furnace Is constructed
with an ESP control device, the estab-
lishment  of a site-specific opacity stan-
dard may be necessary. Upon request
by the owner or operator of the BOPF
furnace, a determination will be made
by EPA pursuant to §60.11(e)  if  per-
formance  tests  demonstrate compli-
ance  with  the mass  concentration
standard.

           MISCELLANEOUS

  It should be noted that standards of
performance for new  sources  estab-
lished under section 111 of the Act re-
flect emission limits achievable with
the  best   adequately   demonstrated
technological  system  of -continuous
emission reduction (taking into consid-
eration  the  cost of  achieving such
emission reduction,  and any non&ir
quality  health  and  environmental
Impact  and  energy  requirements).
State Implementation plans (SIPs) ap-
proved or promulgated  under section
110 of the  Act, on  the other hand,
must provide for the attainment  and
maintenance of  national ambient air
quality  standards (NAAQS) designed
to protect public health and welfare.
For that purpose, SIPs must in some
cases require greater emission  reduc-
tions than those required by  standards
of performance  for  new sources.  Sec-
tion  173(2)  of the Clean Air Act, re-
quires,  among other things, that a new
or modified source constructed In an
area which  exceeds  the NAAQS must
reduce  emissions to the level which re-
flects the  "lowest achievable emission
rate"  for  such  category of  source,
unless  the  owner or operator demon-
strates that the source cannot achieve
such an emission rate. In no  event can
the emission rate exceed any applica-
ble standard of performance.
  A similar situation may arise when a
major  emitting  facility Is to be  con-
structed In  a geographic area  which
falls under  the  prevention of signifi-
cant deterioration of air quality provi-
sions of the Act  (Part C). These provi-
sions  require,  among   other  things.
that major  emitting  facilities  to be
constructed  In  such areas are to be
subject to best available control tech-
nology. The term "best available  con-
trol technology" (BACT) means  "an
emission limitation based on  the maxi-
mum degree of reduction of each pol-
lutant subject to regulation under this
Act emitted from  or  which results
from  any   major emitting  facility.
which the permitting authority, on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account
energy, environmental,  and  economic
impacts and other costs, determines is
achievable for such facilities through
application  of  production  processes
and available methods, systems,  and
techniques.  Including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative  fuel combus-
tion  techniques  for  control  of each
such pollutant. In no event shall appli-
cation  of 'best available  control tech-
nology' result In emissions of any pol-
lutants  which will  exceed the emis-
sions allowed by any applicable stan-
dard established pursuant  to section
111 or 112  of this Act."
                                                 IV-266
-------
                                             RULES AND REGULATIONS
  Standards  of  performance  should
 not  be  viewed  as the  uHirr.aie  in
 achievable   emission   control   and
 should not. preclude the imposition  of
 a more  stringent  emission  standard.
 where appropriate. Tor example, while
 cost ol achievement may  be  an impor-
 tant  factor In determining  standards
 of  performance applicable to all areas
 of  the country (clean as well as dirty).
 costs must be accorded for less weight
 in  determining the "lowest achievable
 emission rate for the new or modified
 sources locating In areas violating sta-
 tutorDy-mandated health and  welfare
 standards. Although  there  may  be
 emission control technology available
 that  can reduce emissions below the
 level  required to comply with  stan-
 dards of performance,  this technology
 might be selected  as the basis  of stan-
 dards of performance  due to costs as-
 sociated  with its use.  This in  no way
 should preclude  Its use in  situations
 where cost Is  a lesser consideration.
 such  as  determination  of the  "lowest
 achievable  emission  rate."  Further-
 more, since  partial combustion  sys-
 tems  and bottom  blown BOPFs have
 been  shown to be inherently less pol-
 luting, more stringent emission limits
 may be placed on such sources  for the
 purposes  of  defining  "best  available
 control technology" (under Prevention
 of  Significant  Deterioration  regula-
 tion)  and "lowest  achievable emission
 rate" in non-attainment areas.
  In  addition,  States  are  free under
 section 116 of the Act to establish even
 more  stringent emission  limits  than
 those established under section 111 or
 those necessary to attain or  maintain
 the NAAQS  under secton 110. Thus.
 new sources may in softe cases  be sub-
 ject to limitations  more stringent than
 standards of performance under sec-
 tion 111, and prospective owners and
 operators of new sources should  be
 aware of this possibility  in  planning
 for such facilities.
  The effective date of this regulation
 Is (date  of publication), because  sec-
 tion lllCbXIXB) of the Clean  Air Act
 provides  that  standards  of  perfor-
 mance or re\isions thereof become ef-
 fective upon promulgation.
  The opacity standard, like the con-
 centration standard, applies to  BOPPs
 which commenced  construction  or
 modification after June 11, 1973. That
 Is the date  on which  both standards
 were  originally proposed.  The  opacity
standard  will  add  no  new  control
 burden to  the sources affected,  but
will provide  an  effective means  of
 monitoring the compliance of these fa-
 cilities.  The  relief provided  under
}60.1Ke)  Insures  that  the   opacity
standard  requires no greater reduction
 In emissions  than  the concentration
standard.

  NOTE—The  Environmental   Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
 preparation of BJI Economic Impact  Analy-
 sis under Executive  Orders 11821 and 11949
 and OMB Circular A-107.

   Dated: April 1. 1978.

               DODGLAS M. COSTLE.
                     Administrator.

   Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of  the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
 ed as follows:

 Subporl  N—Standords  of   Perfor-
   mance for Iron  and Steel Plants

   1. Section  60.141  is amended  by
 adding paragraph  (c) as follows:

 §60.141   Definitions.
   (c) "Startup means  the setting into
 operation for the first  steel production
 cycle of a relined  BOPF or a  BOPF
 which has been out of  production for a
 minimum continuous  time period  of
 eight hours.

   2. Section  60.142  is  amended  by
 adding paragraph (a)(2) as follows:

 § 6l».142  Standard for paniculate matter.
   (a) • •  •
   (2) Exit from a  control device and
 exhibit 10 percent  opacity or greater,
 except that  an opacity of greater than
 10 percent  but less than  20 percent
jmay occur once per steel production
 cycle.

 (Sees. ill. 301 A monitoring device for the con-
tinous measurement   of the   water
supply pressure to  the control equip-
ment. The monitoring  device is  to be
certified by the manufacturer to  be ac-
curate within ±5 percent of the design
water supply  pressure. The monitoring
device's pressure sensor or  pressure
  tap must be located close to the water
  discharge  point.  The Administrator
  may be consulted for approval of alter-
  native  locations   for  the  pressure
  aeasor or tap.
   (3)  All  monitoring devices shall be
  synchronized each  day with the time-
  measuring  Instrument  used   under
  paragraph  (a)  of  this  section. The
  chart recorder error directly after syn-
  chronization shall cot exceed 0.08 cm
  (Vsi Inch).
   (4) All monitoring devices shall use
  chart recorders  which  are operated at
  a minimum chart speed  of  3.8 cm/hr
  (1.5in/hr).
   (5) AH monitoring devices are to be
  recalibreated annually, and  at  other
  times as  the  Administrator may re-
  quire. In  accordance with  the proce-
  duces under § 60.13(b)(3).
   (c) Any owner  or operator subject to
 requirements under  paragraph (b!  of
 this section  shall report  for each cal-
 endar quarter all measurements over
 any three-hour  period that average
 more than 10 percent below the aver-
 age levels maintained during the most
 recent  performance  test  conducted
 under § 60.8  in which the affected fa-
 cility demonstrated  compliance wiih
 the standard under  § 60.142(aXl). The
 accuracy  of  the  respective  measure-
 ments, not to exceed the values speci-
 fied in paragraphs (bXl) and (b)(2)  of
 this section, may be taken into consid-
 eration when  determining the  mea-
 surement results that must be report-
 ed.
  4. Section  60.144  Is amended  by
 adding  paragraphs  (a)(5) and  (c) as
 follows:

 { 60.144  Test methods and procedures.
  (a) • • •
  (5) Method 9 for visible  emissions.
 For the purpose of this subpart. opac-
 ity observations taken at 15-second in-
 tervals immediately before and after a
 diversion  of  exhaust gases from the
 stack may be considered to be consecu-
 tive for the purpose  of computing  an
 average  opacity   for  a  six-minute
 period. Observations taken during a di-
 version shall  not  be  used  in determin-
 ing compliance with the opacity stan-
 dard.
     •      •      *      •     •

  (c) Sampling of  Hue gases  during
each steel production cycle  shall  be
discontinued  whenever  all flue gases
are diverted from the stack and shall
be   resumed   after   each  diversion
period.

(Sees 111.  114. SOKa).  Clean AJr Act  as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414. 7601).)

  tTR Doc. 78-9679 Filed 4-12-78; 8:45 am]

     FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL  43, NO. 72
       THURSDAY, AMU 13, 197*
                                                  IV-267
-------
89
 THIt 40—Prote>etlon of Environment
             tPRL 882-61
   CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
       PROTECTION AGENCY

       Subchaptof C—Air Program

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

D«l«getlon  of  Authority to Slot*/
  Local Air  Pollution Control Agon-
  clot In  Arizona,  California,  and
  Novada

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final Rulemaklng.
SUMMARY: The Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) is amending 40
CFR 60.4 Address by adding  addresses
of agencies  to reflect new delegations
of authority from  EPA to  certain
state/local air pollution control agen-
cies   In   Arizona,   California,   and
Nevada. EPA has delegated  authority
to these agencies,  as  described  in a
notice appearing elsewhere In today's
FEDERAL  REGISTER,  in order  to imple-
ment  and  enforce  the standards of
performance   for    new  stationary
sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16,1978.
FOR   FURTHER    INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Oerald Katz (E-4-3),  Environmental
  Protection Agency,  215  Fremont
  Street, San Francisco,  Calif. 94105,
  415-856-8005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Pursuant to delegation of  authority
for the standards of performance for
new   stationary  sources (NSPS) to
State/Local air pollution control agen-
cies In Arizona, California, and Nevada
from  March 30, 1977 to January 30,
1978,  EPA Is today amending 40 CFR
60.4 Address, to reflect these actions. A
Notice announcing this delegation  is
published elsewhere In  today's FEDKR-
At REGISTER. The amended (60.4 is set
forth below. It adds the address of the
air pollution  control  agencies, to
which must  be  addressed all reports,
requests, applications, submittals, and
communications pursuant to this  part
by sources subject to the NSPS locat-
ed within these agencies' jurisdictions.
  The Administrator finds good cause
for foregoing prior public notice  and
for making  this rulemaking effective
Immediately In that  It  ts an adminis-
trative change and not one of substan-
tive content. No additional substantive
burdens are Imposed on the parties af-
fected, The delegation  actions which
are reflected in  this  administrative
amendment  were  effective  on  the
                                            RULES  AND REGULATIONS
dates of delegation and  It serves no
purpose to delay the technical change
on these additions of the air pollution
control  agencies'  addresses   to  the
Code of Federal Regulations.
(Sec. lU, Clean Air  Act, as amended (42
C.8.C. 7411).)
  Dated: April 5,1978.
           SHEILA M. PRINDIVILLE,
    Acting Regional Administrator,
     Environmental     Protection
     Agency, Region IX.
  Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
ed as follows:
  1. In § 60.4 paragraph (b) is amended
by revising subparagraphs D. F, and
DD to  read as follows:
9 60.4  Address.
     •      •      •      •      •
  (b)*"
  (D) Arizona:
  Marlcopa  County Department of Health
Services, Bureau of Air Pollution Control,
1825 East Roosevelt  Street, Phoenix. AZ
86006.
  Plma County  Health  Department, Air
Quality Control District. 151  West Congress.
Tucson, AZ 86701.
   • •      «      •      •      •
  (F) California:
  Bay Area Air Pollution Control District,
939 Ellis Street. San Francisco, CA 94109.
  Del Norte County  Air Pollution Control
District,  Courthouse, Crescent  City, CA
95531.
  Fresno County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 515  S.  Cedar  Avenue,  Fresno, CA
93102.
  Humboldt County Air Pollution Control
District,  6600 S.  Broadway,  Eureka, CA
96501.
  Kern County Air Pollution  Control Dis-
trict. 1700 Flower Street (P.O. Box 097). Ba-
kersfleld, CA 93302.
  Madera County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 135 W. Yosemlte Avenue, Madera, CA
93637.
  Mendoclno County  Air Pollution Control
District,  County  Courthouse, Uklah, CA
94582,
  Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Con-
trol  District, 430  Church Street  (P.O. Box
487), Salinas, CA 93901.
  Northern Sonoma County Air  Pollution
Control District, 3313 Chanate Road,  Santa
Roia, CA 95404.
  Sacramento County Air Pollution Control
District, 1701  Branch Center Road, Sacra-
mento, CA 90827.
  Ban Diego County  Air Pollution Control
District, 9160 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego,
CA 9213S,
  Ban Joaquln County Air Pollution Control
District, 1601 E. Kaeelton Street (P.O. Box
J009), Stockton, OA96301,
  Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Con-
trol  District, 4440 Calle  Real, Santa Bar-
bara, CA 93110.
  Shasta County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, 1856 Placer Street, Redding, CA 96001.
  South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict, 9430 TelsUr Avenue, El Monte, CA
91731.
  Stanislaus County Air  Pollution Control
District, 820 Scenic  Drive, Modesto.  CA
95360.
  Trinity County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict, Box AJ. Weavervtlle, CA 96093.
  Ventura  County Air Pollution Control
District, 625 E. Santa Clara Street, Ventura,
CA 93001.
     •       »      •     •      •
  (DD) Nevada:
  Nevada Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmen-
tal  Protection,  201  South Fall  Street,
Carton City, NV 89710.
  Clark County County District Health De-
partment. Air Pollution  Control Division,
625 Shadow Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89106.
  Washoe County District  Health Depart-
ment, Division of Environmental Protection,
10 Klrman Avenue, Reno, NV 89502.
     »       •      •     •      •
  [FR Doc. 78-13011 Filed 5-15-78: 8:45 ami

     FEDERAL MOUTH, VOl. 43, NO. 99

       TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1978
                                                    IV-268
-------
                                           RULES AND  REGULATIONS
    90
      Title 40—Protection of th«
            Environment

    CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
        PROTECTION AGENCY

      SUBCHAPTER C—AIR PROGRAMS

             [FRL 907-2]

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

           Grain Elevator*

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The standards limit emis-
sions of participate matter from new,
modified, and  reconstructed grain ele-
vators.  The standards  implement the
Clean Air Act and are based on the
Administrator's  determination  that
emissions from grain elevators contrib-
ute significantly to air pollution. The
intended effect of these standards is to
require  new,   modified,  and  recon-
structed grain  elevators to use the best
demonstrated  system  of continuous
emission reduction, considering costs.
nonair  quality  health, environmental
and energy impacts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 3, 1978.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the standards
support documents are available on re-
quest  from the U.S.  EPA Library
(MD-35), Research  Triangle  Park,
N.C. 27711. telephone 919-541-2777  or
(FTS) 629-2777. The requester should
specify  "Standards Support and Envi-
ronmental Impact Statement, Volume
I: Proposed Standards of Performance
for Grain Elevator Industry,"  (EPA-
450-77-OOla) and/or "Standards Sup-
port and Environmental Impact State-
ment, Volume 2: Promulgated Stand-
ards of Performance for Grain  Eleva-
tor  Industry,"  (EPA-450/2-77-001b).
Copies of all comment letters received
from interested persons participating
in this rulemaking are available  for in-
spection and copying during normal
business hours at EPA's Public Infor-
mation  Reference  Unit, Room  2922,
EPA Library, 401 M Street SW., Wash-
ington, D.C.
FOR  FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Don R. Goodwin, Director Emission
  Standards and Engineering Division
  (MD-13), Environmental Protection
  Agency, Research Triangle  Park,
  N.C. 27711, telephone 919-541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On  January  13, 1977, standards of per-
formance were proposed for the grain
elevator  industry (42 FR 2842)  under
 the  authority  of  section 111 of  the
 Clean Air Act. Public comments were
 requested on the proposal in the FED-
 ERAL  REGISTER  publication.  Approxi-
 mately 2,000 comments were received
 from grain elevator operators, vendors
 of equipment. Congressmen, State and
 local  air  pollution  control  agencies,
 other Federal agencies, and  individual
 U.S. citizens. Most of these  comments
 reflected a  general  misunderstanding
 of the  proposed standards  and  were
 very general in nature. A number of
 comments, however, contained a  sig-
 nificant amount of useful data and in-
 formation. Due to the time required to
 review these comments, the  standards
 were suspended on June 24,  1977. This
 action was necessary to avoid creating
 legal uncertainties for those grain ele-
 vator operators who might have  un-
 dertaken various expansion  or  alter-
 ation projects before promulgation of
 final standards.
  On August 7, 1977, Congress amend-
 ed the  Clean  Air  Act. These amend-
 ments contained a provision  specifical-
 ly exempting  country grain elevators
 with less than 2.6 million bushels of
 grain storage capacity from  standards
 of performance  developed under sec-
 tion 111 of the Act.
  Following  review of the public com-
 ments, a draft of the final  standards
 was  developed  consistent   with  the
 adopted amendments to the  Clean Air
 Act. A report responding to the major
 issues raised in  the  public comments
 and containing the draft final stand-
 ards  was mailed on August 15. 1977, to
 each  individual, agriculture  associ-
 ation,  equipment vendor, State and
 local government, and member of Con-
 gress who submitted comments. Com-
 ments  were requested on  the  draft
 final standards by October  15,  1977.
 One hundred comments were received,
 and the final standards reflect a  thor-
 ough evaluation of these comments.
  The proposed standards are reinstat-
ed elsewhere in this  issue of the FED-
 ERAL REGISTER.

          THE STANDARDS

  The  promulgated  standards apply
only  to new, modified, or reconstruct-
ed grain elevators with a permanent
 grain storage  capacity of more  than
88,100 m ' (ca. 2.5 million U.S. bushels)
 and  new,  modified,  or reconstructed
 grain storage elevators at wheat  flour
 mills, wet corn  mills, dry corn  mills
 (human consumption), rice  mills,  or
soybean oil  extraction plants with a
permanent grain storage capacity  of
more  than 35,200 m' (ca.  1 million
 U.S. bushels).
  The   standards  limit   particulate
matter emissions from nine types  of
affected facilities at grain elevators  by
limiting the  visibility of emissions  re-
leased to the atmosphere. The affect-
ed facilities are each truck loading sta-
 tion, truck unloading station,  railcar
 loading station, railcar unloading sta-
 tion, barge  or ship loading  station,
 barge or ship unloading station, grain
 dryer, all  grain handling  operations
 and each emission control device.
  The standards can be summarized as
 follows:
  (a) Truck  loading  station—visible
 emissions may not exceed  10 percent
 opacity.
  (b) Truck unloading station,  railcar
 loading station, and railcar unloading
 station—visible  emissions  may  not
 exceed 5 percent opacity.
  (c) Ship  or barge loading station-
 visible emissions may not  exceed 20
 percent opacity.
  (d) Ship or bargp unloading station-
 specified equipment or its  equivalent
 must be used.
  (e) Grain  dryer—visible  emissions
 may not exceed 0 percent opacity.
  (f) All grain  handling  operations-
 visible emissions may not exceed 0 per-
 cent opacity.
  (g) Emission  control devices—visible
 emissions may  not  exceed  0 percent
 opacity: and  the concentration of par-
 ticulate matter in  the exhaust gas dis-
 charged  to  the atmosphere may  not
 exceed 0.023  g/dscm (ca. 0.01 pr/dscf).
  These standards are different from
 those proposed in the following areas.
 The  visible emission limits for truck
 unloading stations and railcar loading
 and unloading  stations  have been  in-
 creased from 0 -percent opacity to 5
 percent opacity. The visible emission
 limit for barge  and ship  loading  has
 been increased  from 10 percent opac-
 ity  during normal loading and 15 per-
 cent opacity during "topping off" load-
 ing, to  20  percent opacity  during  all
 loading operations.  The applicability
 of  the visible emissi&n  standards for
 column grain  dryers has  been nar-
 rowed from  dryers  with  perforated
 plate hole sizes of greater than 0.084
 inch diameter to dryers  with perforat-
 ed  plate hole  sizes of greater than
 0.094 inch diameter.
  The August 1977 amendments to the
 Clean Air Act authorize  the  promulga-
 tion of design,  equipment, work prac-
 tice, or operational standards if  devel-
 opment of  a  numerical emission limit
 is  not  feasible.  Numerical  emission
 limits may not be feasible where emis-
 sions are not confined or where emis-
 sions cannot be measured due to tech-
 nological or economic limitations. Ob-
 servation of visible emissions at  barge
 unloading stations led to  the conclu-
 sion that a  numerical emission limit is
 not feasible for  this  facility. The visi-
 ble  emissions data showed an extreme-
ly wide range  with some  6  minute
averages above 65 percent opacity.  Be-
cause of this  wide  range  of  visible
emissions, an opacity numerical emis-
sion limit cannot be established that
would ensure  the  use of  the  best
                                                 IV-269
-------
                                          RULES AND REGULATIONS
system  of continuous emission reduc-
tion.  An equipment standard, there-
fore, rather than an emission standard
is being promulgated  for barge and
ship unloading stations.
  Another change from the proposed
standards is that section 60.14 (modifi-
cation)  of the general provisions has
been clarified to ensure that only capi-
tal  expenditures which are spent di-
rectly on an affected facility are used
to determine whether the annual asset
guideline repair allowance percentage
Is exceeded. The annual  asset guide-
line repair allowance percentage has
been defined to be 6.5 percent.
  The remaining change from the pro-
posed standards is that four types of
alterations  at  grain elevators have
been exempted from consideration as
modifications.  The  exempted  alter-
ations are:
  (1) The addition of gravity load-out
spouts  to  existing grain  storage or
grain transfer  bins.
  (2)  The  installation  of automatic
grain weighing scales.
  (3) Replacement of motor and drive
units driving existing grain handling
equipment.
  (4)  The  Installation  of  permanent
storage  capacity with  no Increase in
hourly grain handling capacity.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

  The   promulgated  standards  will
reduce   uncontrolled     particulate.
matter emission  from new grain eleva-
tors by more than 99 percent and will
reduce particulate matter emissions by
70 to 90 percent compared to emission
limits contained in State  or local air
pollution regulations. This reduction
in emissions will result in a significant
reduction of ambient air concentration
levels of particulate  matter in the vi-
cinity of grain  elevators.  The  maxi-
mum 24-hour average ambient  air par-
ticulate  matter concentration at a dis-
tance of 0.3  kilometer  (km)  from a
typical  grain  elevator,  for example,
will be  reduced  by 50 to  80 percent
below the  ambient air  concentration
that would result from   control of
emissions to the level  of the typical
State or local air pollution regulations.
  Several of the changes  to the pro-
posed standards reduce the estimated
primary Impact of the proposed stand-
ards in terms of reducing emissions of
particulate  matter from grain eleva-
tors. The promulgated standards, for
example, apply only to large grain ele-
vators.  These   changes  will  permit
more emissions  of particulate matter
to the atmosphere.  It  was estimated
that the proposed  standards  would
have  reduced  national   particulate
matter  emissions  by  approximately
21,000  metric  tons over  the  next B
years; it is now estimated that the pro-
mulgated standards will reduce partic-
ulate  matter  emissions  by  11,000
metric tons over the next 5 years.
  The secondary  environmental  im-
pacts associated with the promulgated
standards will be  a small increase in
solid  waste handling and disposal and
a small increase In noise  pollution. A
relatively minor amount of particulate
matter,  sulfur dioxide and  nitrogen
oxide emissions will be discharged into
the  atmosphere  from  steam/electric
power plants supplying the additional
electrical energy  required to operate
the emission control devices needed to
comply with the  promulgated stand-
ards.  The  energy Impact associated
with  the promulgated  standards will
be small and will lead to an Increase In
national energy consumption In 1981
by the equivalent of only 1,600 mj (ca.
10,000 barrels) per year of No. 6 fuel
oil.
  Based  on  information contained  In
the comments submitted during the
public comment periods, approximate-
ly 200  grain  terminal  elevators  and
grain storage  elevators &t grain pro-
cessing plants will be  covered by the
promulgated standards over the next 5
years. The total incremental  costs re-
quired to control  emissioiiS  at these
grain  elevators to comply  with the
promulgated  standards,  above  the
costs  necessary to  control emissions at
these elevators to comply with State
or local  air pollution  control regula-
tions,  is $15 million in capital  costs
over this 5-year period  and $3 million
in annualized  costs in  the fifth year.
Based on this estimate  of the national
economic Impact,  the  promulgated
standards will have   no  significant
effect on the supply and  demand  for
grain products, or on  the growth  of
the domestic grain industry.

        PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

  Prior to proposal of the standards,
Interested  parties  were  advised  by
public notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER
of a meeting of the National Air Pollu-
tion  Control   Techniques   Advisory
Committee.  In addition, copies of the
proposed standards and the Standards
Support and  Environmental  Impact
Statement  (SSEIS) supporting these
standards were distributed to members
of the grain elevator Industry and sev-
eral environmental groups at  the time
of  proposal.  The public  comment
period extended from January 13,  to
May 14, 1977. During this period 1,817
comments were received  from grain
elevator  operators, vendors of equip-
ment,  Congressmen. State and  local
air  pollution control  agencies, other
Federal agencies,  and  individual U.S.
citizens.
  Due to the time required to review
these comments, the proposed stand-
ards were suspended on June  24, 1977.
This action was necessary to avoid cre-
ating   legal  uncertainties  for those
 grain  elevator operators who  might
 have undertaken various expansion or
 alteration  projects before  promulga-
 tion of final standards.
  Following review of the public com-
 ments, a draft of the final standards
 was developed  consistent  with  the
 August.  1977, amendments  to  the
 Clean  Air Act. A report responding to
 the major issues raised in the public
 comments  and containing  the draft
 final standards was mailed on August
 15, 1977,  to each individual, agricul-
 ture  association,  equipment vendor,
 State  and  local  government,   and
 member  of Congress  who  submitted
 comments. Comments were requested
 on the draft final standards by Octo-
 ber 15, 1977.
  One  hundred  and  one  comments
 were received and the final standards
 reflect a thorough evaluation of these
 comments. Several comments resulted
 in changes to the proposed standards.
 A detailed  discussion of the  comments
 and changes  made  to  the  proposed
 standards is contained In volume 2 of
 the SSEIS,  which  was  distributed
 along  with a copy of the final stand-
 ards to all interested parties prior to
 today's promulgation of final stand-
 ards.

       SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS

  Most of  the  comment letters re-
 ceived  by   EPA  contained  multiple
 comments.  The most significant com-
 ments  and changes made to the pro-
 posed standards are discussed below:

         NEED FOR STANDARDS

  Numerous  commenters  questioned
 whether grain elevators should be reg-
 ulated  since the  Industry is a  small
 contributor to nationwide emissions of
 particulate matter  and grain dust is
 not hazardous or toxic.
  The  standards were proposed under
 section 111 of the Clean Air Act. This
 section of the act requires that stand-
 ards of performance be established for
 new stationary sources which contrib-
 ute to air  pollution. Existing sources
 are not affected unless they are recon-
 structed, or modified in such a way as
 to increase  emissions. The overriding
 purpose of standards of performance
is to prevent new air pollution  prob-
 lems  from  developing  by  requiring
 maximum feasible control of emissions
 from new,  modified, or reconstructed
sources at the time of their construc-
tion. This Is helpful in attaining and
maintaining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard WAAQS) for sus-
pended particulate matter.
  The  Report of the  Committee on
Public  Works of  the United  States
Senate In   September  1970 (Senate
Report No. 91-1196), listed grain eleva-
 tors as a source for which standards of
performance should  be developed. In
 addition, a  study of 200 Industrial cat-
                                                 IV-270
-------
                                           RULES AND REGULATIONS
egorles of sources, which were evaluat-
ed to develop a long-range plan for set-
ting standards of performance for par-
tlculate matter, ranked grain elevators
relatively high.  The categories were
ranked In order  of priority based on
potential decrease In emissions.  Var-
ious grain handling operations ranked
as follows: Grain processing—4; grain
transfer—6;  grain cleaning and screen-
Ing—8;  and  grain drying—33. There-
fore,  grain elevators are a significant
source of particulate matter emissions
and standards  of performance have
been  developed for this  source catego-
ry.
  Many  commenters felt,   however,
that  it was  unreasonable to require
small country elevators to comply with
the  proposed standards  because of
their  remote  location  and   small
amount  of emissions. This  sentiment
was reflected In the 1977 amendments
to the Clean Air  Act which  exempted
country elevators with a grain storage
capacity of less than  88,100 m '(ca. 2.5
million U.S.  bushels) from  standards
of  performance.  Consequently,  the
scope of the proposed standards has
been  narrowed and  the promulgated
standards apply only to new. modified,
or reconstructed facilities within grain
elevators with a permanent storage ca-
pacity in excess of 88,100 m '.
  A number  of commenters also felt
small flour mills should not be covered
by standards of  performance because
they are also small sources of particu-
late matter emissions and handle less
grain  than  some country  elevators
which were  exempted from  standards
of performance  by the  1977  amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act. These pro-
cessors are considered to be relatively
small  sources of  particulate matter
emissions that are best  regulated by
State  and local  regulations. Conse-
quently,  grain storage  elevators at
wheat flour mills, wet corn  mills, dry
corn mills (human consumption), rice
mills,  and  soybean oil  extraction
plants with  a storage capacity of less
than  35,200  m»  (ca. 1  million  U.S.
bushels)  of grain are exempt from the
promulgated standards.
  With regard to the  hazardous nature
or toxiclty of grain dust,  the promul-
gated standards  should  not be Inter-
preted to Imply that  grain dust Is con-
sidered hazardous or toxic, but merely
that the grain elevator Industry Is con-
sidered a significant source of particu-
late matter emissions. Studies Indicate
that,  as a general  class, particulate
matter causes adverse health and wel-
fare effects. In addition, some studies
Indicate that dust from grain elevators
causes adverse health effects to eleva-
tor  workers  and  that grain dust emis-
sions  are a  factor contributing to an
Increased incidence of asthma attacks
in the general population living in the
vicinity of grain elevators.
    EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

  A number of commenters were con-
cerned with the reasonableness of the
emission control technology which was
used  as  the basis for the  proposed
standards limiting emissions from rail-
car  unloading  stations   and  grain
dryers.
  A number of commenters believed It
was  unreasonable  to  base the stand-
ards on  a four-sided shed to capture
emissions from rsilcar unloading  sta-
tions at grain elevators which use unit
trains. The  data supporting the pro-
posed standards were based on obser-
vations of visible emissions at a grain
elevator  which used this type of shed
to control emissions from the unload-
ing of rallcars.  This  grain  elevator,
however, did not use unit trains. Based
on Information included in a number
of comments,  the lower rail rate for
grain shipped  by unit  trains places a
limit on  the amount  of time a grain
elevator  can hold  the unit train. The
additional time required to uncouple
and  recouple  each car  individually
could cause a grain elevator subject to
the proposed standards to exceed this
time limit and thus lose the cost bene-
fit gained by the use of unit trains. In
light of this fact, the  proposed visible
emission limit for  rallcar unloading  is
considered unreasonable. The promul-
gated standards, therefore, are based
upon the use of a two-sided shed for
railcar   unloading   stations.   This
change in the control  technology re-
sulted In a change to the visible emis-
sion  limit for ratlcar  unloading sta-
tions and Is discussed later.
  A  number  of comments were  re-
ceived concerning the proposed stand-
ard for  column dryers.  The proposed
standards would have permitted  the
maximum hole size in the perforated
plates used in column dryers to be no
larger than 2.1 mm (0.084 Inch)  In di-
ameter for the dryer to automatically
be in compliance with the standard. A
few comments contained visible  emis-
sion data taken by certified opacity ob-
servers which  indicated  that column
dryers with perforated plates contain-
ing holes of 2.4 mm (0.094 Inch) diame-
ter could meet  a  0-percent  opacity
emission limit. Other comments indi-
cated that sorghum cannot be dried in
column dryers with a hole size smaller
than  2.4  mm (0.094  inch) diameter
without plugging problems. In light of
these data and information, the speci-
fication  of 2.1 mm diameter holes is
considered unreasonable and the pro-
mulgated standards  apply  only  to
column  dryers containing  perforated
plates with hole sizes greater than 2.4
mm in diameter.

    STRINGENCY OF THE STANDARDS

  Many    commenters    questioned
whether  the standards for various af-
fected facilities could be achieved even
 if the best system of emission reduc-
 tion  were installed,  maintained, and
 properly  operated. These commenters
 pointed out that a number of variables
 can affect the opacity of visible emis-
 sions during unloading,  handling, and
 loading of grain and  they  questioned
 whether  enough opacity observation
 toad  been taken to  assure that the
 standards could  be attained under all
 operating conditions.  The variables
 mentioned most  frequently were wind
 speed and type,  dustiness, and  mois-
 ture content of grain.
  It Is true that wind speed could have
 some effect  on the opacity of visible
 emissions.  A  well-designed   capture
 system should be able to compensate
 for this effect to a certain extent, al-
 though some dust may escape if wind
 speed Is  too high.  Compliance with
 standards of performance, however, Is
 determined only  under conditions rep-
 resentative  of normal operation, and
 Judgment by State and Federal en-
 forcement personnel  will  take  wind
 conditions Into account  in  enforcing
 the standards.
  It is also true  that  the type, dusti-
 ness, and moisture  content of  grain
 affect  the  amount  of  particulate
 matter emissions generated during un-
 loading,   handling,  and  loading  of
 grain. A well-designed capture  system,
 however,  should  be designed  to cap-
 ture dust  under adverse conditions and
 should, therefore, be able to compen-
 sate for these variables.
  In developing the data base  for the
 proposed  standards,   over  60 plant
 visits were made  to grain terminal and
 storage elevators. Various  grain un-
 loading,  handling,  and  loading  oper-
 ations were inspected under a wide va-
 riety of conditions. Consequently, the
 standards were not  based on  conjec-
 ture or surmise, but on observations of
 visible emissions by certified  opacity
 observers  at  well-controlled  existing
 grain elevators operating under rou-
 tine conditions. Not all grain elevators
 were  visited, however, and not all op-
 erations  within grain elevators  were
 Inspected  under  all conditions. Thus,
 while  the proposed  standards  were
 based  upon a sufficiently broad data
 base  to   allow extrapolation  of  the
 data, particular attention was  paid to
 those comments submitted during the
 public comment period which included
 visible emission data taken by certified
 observers  from operations at grain ele-
vators which  were  using  the same
 emission control systems the proposed
 standards were based upon. Evaluation
 of these data Indicates that the visible
 emission limit for truck unloading sta-
 tions  and  rallcar  loading  stations
should be 5 percent opacity instead of
0 percent  opacity which was proposed.
The promulgated standards, therefore,
limit  visible emissions from these fa-
cilities to 5 percent opacity,
                                                  IV-271
-------
                                          «Ulf$ AND REGULATIONS
  As  discussed  earlier,  the emission
control  technology selected as  the
bash for the visible emissions standard
for   railcar  unloading   has   been
changed from a four-sided shed to a
two-sided shed.  Visible emission data
included with the public comments In-
dicate that emissions from a two-sided
shed will not exceed 5 percent opacity.
Consequently, the promulgated stand-
ards limit visible emissions from rail-
car unloading  stations  to  5 percent
opacity.
  A number of comrnenters  also indi-
cated that the opacity limit Included
in the proposed standards for  barge
loading was too stringent.  One  com-
menter indicated that the elevator op-
erator had no control over when the
"topping  off"  operation commenced
because the ship captain and the ste-
vedores decide when to start "topping
ofl." Several State  agencies comment-
ed that  the standards should  be at
least  20 percent opacity.  Based  on
these  comments,  the  standards  for
barge  and  ship loading  operations
have  been  increased  to 20 percent
opacity during  all loading  operations.
The   comments  indicate  that  this
standard will still require  use of the
emission  control  technology  upon
which  the  proposed standards  were
based.
  Data included with the public com-
ments  confirm that a visible emission
limit of 0 percent opacity is  appropri-
ate  for  grain  -handling equipment.
grain  dryers,  and   emission control
equipment.  Consequently,  the visible
emission limits for these facilities have
not been changed.

              OPACITY

  Many  comrnenters  misunderstood
the concept of opacity and how it is
used  to measure  visible   emissions.
Other comrnenters stated that opacity
measurements   were  not   accurate
below 10 to 15  percent opacity and a
standard below these levels was unen-
forceable.
  Opacity Is a measure of  the degree
to which paniculate matter or  other
visible  emissions reduce the  transmis-
sion  of light and obscure the view of
an object in the background. Opacity
Is expressed on  a scale of 0 to 100 per-
cent with a totally opaque  plume as-
signed a value of 100 percent opacity.
The concept of opacity has been used
in the field of  air pollution control
since the turn of the century. The con-
cept   has  been upheld  in  courts
throughout  the  country as a reason-
able and effective means of measuring
visible emissions.
  Opacity for purposes of determining
compliance  with the standard is  not
determined with instruments but is de-
termined by a  qualified observer  fol-
lowing a  specific procedure. Studies
have demonstrated that certified ob-
servers can accurately  determine the
opacity of visible emissions. To become
certified, an Individual must be trained
and must pass an examination demon-
strating his ability to accurately assign
opacity levels to visible emissions.  To
remain certified, this training must be
repeated every 6 months.
  In accordance with  method  0, the
procedure followed In making opacity
determinations  requires that an ob-
server be located In a position  where
he has a clear  view of the  emission
source  with the sun at his  back. In-
stantaneous opacity observations are
recorded every 15 seconds for 6 min-
utes (24 observations). These observa-
tions are recorded In 5 percent Incre-
ments  (I.e., 0, 5,  10, etc.). The arithme-
tic average of  the 24 observations,
rounded off  to the  nearest  whole
number (I.e., 0.4 would be rounded off
to 0), is the value of the opacity used
for determining compliance  with visi-
ble emission standards. Consequently,
a 0 percent opacity standard does not
necessarily mean there are no visible
emissions. It means either  that visible
emissions during a 6-mlnute period are
not sufficient  to cause  a certified ob-
server  to record them as 5 percent
opacity, or  that the average of  the
twenty-four 15-second  observations  is
calculated to be less than 0.5 percent.
Consequently, although emissions re-
leased  into  the  atmosphere  from  an
emission source may be visible to  a
certified observer, the source may still
be found in compliance with a 0 per-
cent opacity standard.
  Similarly,  a 5-percent opacity stand-
ard permits visible emissions to exceed
5 percent opacity occasionally. If, for
example, a certified observer recorded
the following twenty-four 15-second
observations over a 8-minute period: 7
observations at 0 percent  opacity;  11
observations at 5 percent opacity; 3 ob-
servations at 10 percent opacity; and 3
observations at 16 percent opacity, the
average opacity would be calculated as
5.4 percent.  This  value  would  be
rounded off to 5 percent opacity and
the source  would be  In compliance
with a  5 percent opacity standard.
  Some of  the  commenters felt the
proposed standards were based only on
one 6-mlnute reading of the opacity of
visible  emissions at various grain ele-
vator facilities. None of the standards
were based on a single 6-mlnute read-
Ing of  opacity. Each of the standards
were  based on  the highest opacity
readings recorded over a period  of
time, such as 2 or 4 hours, at a number
of grain elevators.
  A number of commenters  also felt
the visible emission standards were too
stringent in light of the maximum ab-
solute  error of 7.5 percent  opacity as-
sociated with a single opacity observa-
tion. The methodology used to develop
and enforce visible emission standards,
 however, takes into  account this ob-
 server error. As discussed above, visi-
 ble  emission  standards  are  based on
 observations recorded by certified ob-
 servers at well-controlled  existing fa-
 cilities operating under  normal condi-
 tions.  When  feasible,  such  observa-
 tions are made under conditions which
 yield  the  highest  opacity   readings
 such as the use of a highly contrasting
 background.  These   readings  then
 serve as the basis for establishing the
 standards. By  relying on the  highest
 obsei-vations, the standards Inherently
 reflect the highest positive error intro-
 duced by the observers.
  Observer error is also  taken into ac-
 count in enforcement of visible emis-
 sion standards.  A number of observa-
 tions are normally made before an en-
 forcement action is initiated. Statisti-
 cally, as the number  of observations
 increases,  the error  associated  with
 these observations taken  as  a group
 decreases.  Thus,  while  the absolute
 positive error associated with a single
 opacity observation may be  7.5 per-
 cent, the  error  associated  with  a
•number of opacity observations, taken
 to form  the basis for an enforcement
 action, may be considerably less than
 7.5 percent.

          ECONOMIC IMPACT

  Several commenters felt the estimat-
 ed economic impact of  the  proposed
 standards  was  too  low. Some  com-
 menters  questioned  the  ventilation
 flow rate volumes used  In developing
 these estimates. The  air  evacuation
 flow rates and equipment costs used in
 estimating the  costs  associated  with
 the standards, however, were based on
 Information obtained from grain ele-
 vator operators during visits to facili-
 ties  which were  being operated  with
 visible emissions meeting the proposed
 standards.  These air  evacuation flow
 rates and equipment costs were also
 checked  against equipment vendor es-
 timates and found to be  in reasonable
 agreement.  These  ventilation  flow
 rates, therefore,  are compatible  with
 the opacity standards. Thus, the unit
 cost  estimates  developed for the pro-
 posed standards are considered reason-
 ably accurate.
  Many commenters felt  that the total
 cost  required  to reduce emission? to
 the  levels  necessary  to  comply  with
 the visible emission standards  should
 be assigned to the standards. The rele-
 vant costs,  however, are those  incre-
 mental costs required to comply with
 these standards  above the costs re-
 quired to comply with existing State
 or  local  air   pollution  regulations.
 While it Is true that some States have
 no regulations, other States have regu-
 lations as stringent as the  promulgat-
 ed standards.  Consequently, an  esti-
 mate of  the costs required to comply
 with the typical or average State regu-
                                                  IV-272
-------
                                          RULES AND REGULATIONS
 latlon,  which lies between these ex-
 tremes, Is subtracted  from the  total
 cost of complying with the standards
 to identify the cost Impact directly as-
 sociated with these standards.
  Most State and local regulations, for
 example,  require  asprtatlon of  truck
 dump pit  grates and Installation of cy-
 clones  to  remove partlculate matter
 from the  aspirated air before release
 to the  atmosphere.  The promulgated
 standards would require the addition
 of a blfold door and the use of a fabric
 filter baghouse  instead of a cyclone.
 The cost  associated  with  the promul-
 gated standards, therefore, is only the
 cost of the bifold doors and the differ-
 ence  In cost  between a  fabric  filter
 baghouse  and a cyclone.
  In conclusion, the  unit  cost  esti-
 mates   developed  for  the proposed
 standards  are essentially  correct and
 generally  reflect the costs  associated
 with the promulgated  standards. As a
 result, the economic impact of the pro-
 mulgated  standards  on an  individual
 grain  elevator  Is considered  to be
 about  the same  as  that  of the  pro-
 posed standards. The maximum addi-
 tional cost that  would be imposed on
 most grain elevators subject to compli-
 ance with the promulgated standards
 will probably  be  less than a cent per
 bushel.  The Impact of these additional
 costs imposed on an Individual  grain
 elevator will be small,
  Based on information contained In
 comments submitted by the National
 Drain and Feed Association, approxi-
 mately  200 grain terminal elevators
 and  grain  storage elevators at  grain
 processing plant*  will be covered by
 the standards over the next 5  years,
 Consequently, over this 5-year period
 the total Incremental costs to control
 emissions  at these grain elevators to
 comply with the promulgated  stand-
 ards, above the  cost* to control  emis-
 sions at these elevators to comply 'with
 State or local air pollution control re-
 quirements, is $15 million In capital
 costs  and  $3 million  in  annuallzed
 costs In the 5th year. Based on this es-
 timate  of  the  national  economic
 Impact, the  promulgated  standards
will have  no significant effect on the
•upply and demand of grain or  grain
 products, or on the growth of the do-
mestic grain Industry.

           tNCROY IMPACT

  A number of  commenten believed
 that the energy Impact associated with
 the proposed standards had been un-
 derestimated and that the true impact
 would be much greater. At pointed out
above,•the major reason for this dis-
 agreement la probably  due to the fact
 that these oommentera assigned the
 full Impact of air pollution control to
 the proposed  standards, whereas the
 Impact  associated  with  compliance
with existing State and local air pollu-
 tion control requirements  should be
 subtracted.  In  the example discussed
 above  concerning  costs, the additonal
 energy requirements associated with
 the  promulgated  standards  Is simply
 the  difference  in  energy required to
 operate a fabric filter baghouse com-
 pared to a cyclone.
  For emission control equipment such
 as  cyclones and  fabric  filter  bag
 houses, energy consumption is directly
 proportional to   the  pressure  drop
 across the equipment. It was assumed
 that the  pressure drop across a cy-
 clone required to comply with existing
 State and local requirements would be
 about  80 percent of that  across  a
 fabric   filter  baghouse  required  to
 comply with th.e  promulgated stand-
 ards. This is equivalent  to an Increase
 In energy consumption required to op-
 erate air pollution control equipment
 of about 25 percent. This represents
 an increase  of less than 5 percent In
 the totl energy consumption of a grain
 elevator.
  Assuming   200    grain    elevators
 become subject  to  the  promulgated
 standards over the next 5  years, this
 energy  Impact  will  increase national
 energy consumption by less than 1,600
 m1 (ca. 10,000 U.S.  barrels) per year in
 1982. This amounts to less than 2 per-
 cent of the capacity of a large marine
 oil tanker and  la  an Insignificant in-
 crease in energy consumption.

            MODIFICATION

  Many commenters were  under  the
 mistaken impression that all existing
 grain elevators would have to comply
 with the proposed  standards and that
retrofit of air pollution control equip-
ment on existing facilities within grain
 elevators would  be  required. This Is
 not the case. The  proposed standards
 would have applied only to  new, modi-
fied, or reconstructed faculties within
 grain elevators. Similarly, the promul-
 gated standards apply  only to new,
modified,  or reconstructed  facilities
 and not existing facilities.
  Modified  facilities are  only subject
 to the standards  If the  modification
results In Increased emissions  to  the
 atmosphere  from  that  facility. Fur-
thermore, any alteration which Is con-
sidered routine maintenance  or repair
Is  not  considered  a  modification.
Where an alteration is considered a
modification,  only  those  'facilities
which  are  modified have  to comply
with the  standards, not the  entire
grain  elevator.   Consequently,   the
standards  apply  only to major alter-
ations of Individual facilities at exist-
ing grain elevators which result in In-
creased emissions  to the atmosphere,
not to alterations which are consid-
ered routine maintenance and  repair.
Major alterations that do not result In
increased  emissions,  such  as  alter-
ations  where  existing  air   pollution
 control  equipment  is  upgraded  to
 maintain emissions  at  their previous
 level, are not considered modifications.
   The  following  examples  Illustrate
 how the promulgated standards apply
 to a grain elevator under various cir-
 cumstances.  The proposed  standards
 would have applied in the same way.
   (1) If a completely new grain eleva-
 tor were built, all  affected facilities
 would be subject to the standards.
   (2) If a truck unloading station at an
 existing grain elevator  were modified
 by making a capital expenditure to In-
 crease unloading capacity and this re-
 sulted in Increased emissions to the at-
 mosphere  in  terms  of pounds  per
 hour, then only that affected facility
 (i. e., the modified truck unloading sta-
 tion) would  be subject to  the stand-
 ards. The remaining facilities  within
 the grain elevator would not be sub-
 ject to the standards.
   (3)  If  a  grain elevator'  contained
 three grain dryers and one grain dryer
 were replaced with a new grain dryer,
 only the new grain dryer  would  be
 subject to the standards.
  The  initial assessment of the poten-
 tial for modification  of existing facili-
 ties concluded that  few modifications
 would  occur. The few  modifications
 that were considered  likely to take
 place would  Involve primarily the  up-
 grading of existing country  grain ele-
 vators Into high throughput grain ele-
 vator terminals. A  large number  of
 commenters, however,  indicated that
 they   believed  many   modifications
 would  occur  and  that  many existing
 grain elevators  would be required  to
 comply with  the standards.
  To resolve  this confusion and  clarify
 the meaning of modification, a meet-
 ing was  held with representatives  of
 the grain elevator Industry to identify
 various alterations to existing facilities
 that might  be considered  modifica-
 tions. A  list  of  alterations was devel-
 oped which  frequently  occur within
 grain elevators, primarily  to reduce
 labor costs or to  Increase grain han-
 dling capacity, although not necessar-
 ily annual  grain  throughput. The
 impact of considering four of these al-
terations as  modifications, subject  to
 compliance  with the standards, was
 viewed as unreasonable, Consequently,
 they are exempted from consideration
as modifications in  the promulgated
standards,
  In particular, the  four alterations
 within grain  elevators which are spe-
cifically exempt from the promulgated
standards are (1) The addition of graV-
 Ity load-out  spouts  to  existing  grain
storage or grain transfer bins; (3) the
 addition of electronic automatic grain
 weighing   scales   which   increases
 hourly grain  handling capacity; (3) the
 replacement of motors and drive trains
 driving existing grain handling  equip-
 ment with  larger  motors  and  drive
                                                IV-273
-------
                                           RULES  AND REGULATIONS
trains which  increases  hourly grain
handling capacity; and (4) the addition
of grain storage capacity with no in-
crease in hourly grain handling capac-
ity.
  If  the first alteration were consid-
ered a modification, this could require
installation of a load-out shed thereby
requiring substantial reinforcement of
the grain storage or grain transfer bin
to support the weight of emission  con-
trol  equipment. In  light of the rela-
tively  small  expenditure usually  re-
quired  to  Install  additional  gravity
load-out spouts  to existing grain stor-
age or transfer bins, and the relatively
large expenditure that  would be re-
quired to install a load-out shed or to
reinforce the storage or transfer  bin.
consideration of this sort of alteration
within an existing grain elevator  as a
modification  was viewed as unreason-
able.
  Under the general modification  reg-
ulation which applies to all standards
of performance, alteration two, the ad-
dition of electronic automatic grain
weighing scales, would be considered a
change in the method of operation of
the  affected  facility if it were to in-
crease the hourly grain throughput. If
this  alteration  were to increase emis-
sions to the atmosphere  and require a
capital  expenditure, the grain receiv-
ing or loading  station whose method
of operation  had  changed (i.e.,  In-
creased grain throughput), would be
considered a  modified facility subject
to the standards. Consideration of this
type of alteration, which would result
in only minor changes to a facility, is
viewed as unreasonable in light of the
relatively  high  expenditure this could
require for existing  grain elevators to
comply with the standards.
  Alterations three  and  four, replace-
ment of existing motors  and drives
with larger motors and drives and ad-
dition of  grain  storage capacity with
no increase In  the hourly grain han-
dling capacity,  would probably not be
considered modifications  under  the
general modification regulation. Since
It is  quite evident that there was  con-
siderable confusion concerning modifi-
cations, however, alterations three and
four, along with alterations one  and
two  discussed  above,  are  specifically
exempt from consideration as modifi-
cations in the promulgated standards.
  The modification provisions  in 40
CFR 60.14(e) exempt certain physical
or operational  changes  from  being
considered  as   modifications,   even
though an Increase  in emission  rate
•occurs. Under 40 CFR 60.14(e)(2), if an
increase in production rate of an exist-
ing facility can be accomplished with-
out  a capital expenditure on the sta-
tionary source containing that facility,
the change is not considered a modifi-
cation.
  A capital  expenditure is defined as
any amount of  money exceeding the
product of the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice  (IRS)  "annual  asset  guideline
repair allowance  percentage"  times
the basis of the facility, as defined by
section 1012 of  the Internal Revenue
Code. In the case of  grain elevators,
the IRS has not listed an annual asset
guideline repair allowance percentage.
Following discussions with the  IRS,
the Department of Agriculture,  and
the   grain   elevator  Industry,   the
Agency determined that 6.6 percent is
the appropriate percentage  for  the
grain  elevator industry. If  the capital
expenditures required to increase the
production rate  of an  existing facility
do not exceed the amount  calculated
under the IRS formula, the change in
the facility is not considered a modifi-
cation. If the expenditures exceed the
calculated amount, the change in op-
eration  is  considered  a modification
and  the  facility must  comply  with
NSPS.
  Often  a  physical   or operational
change to  an existing faculty to  in-
crease production rate will result in an
Increase in the production  rate of an-
other existing facility, even though It
did not undergo a physical or oper-
ational change.  For example, If new
electronic weighing scales were added
to a  truck  unloading  station to  in-
crease grain receipts,  the  production
rate and  emission rate would Increase
at the unloading station. This could
result in an increase in production rate
and emission rate at other existing fa-
cilities  (e.g.,  grain  handling  oper-
ations) even though physical  or oper-
ational changes did not occur. Under
the present  wording of the regulation,
expenditures made throughout a grain
elevator to  adjust for Increased pro-
duction rate would have to  be consid-
ered  in determining  If a capital ex-
penditure had been made on  each fa-
cility  whose operation is altered by the
production Increase.  If the capital ex-
penditure made on the truck unload-
ing station were considered to be made
on  each  existing  facility   which  in-
creased its production rate,  it is possi-
ble that the alterations on  each such
facility would qualify as modifications.
Each  facility would, therefore, have to
meet the applicable NSPS.
  Such a  result is inconsistent  with
the  intent  of  the  regulation.  The
Agency Intended that only capital ex-
penditures made for  the changed  fa-
cility  are to  be considered in determin-
ing if the change is a modification. Re-
lated  expenditures  on other  existing
facilities-are not to be considered In
the calculation.  To clarify the regula-
tion, the phrase "the stationary source
containing" is being deleted.  Because
this is a clarification of intent and not
a change in policy, the amendment is
being promulgated as a  final regula-
tion without prior proposal.

          PERFORMANCE TEST

  Several commenters were concerned
about the costs of conducting perform-
ance tests on fabric  filter baghouses.
These  commenters   stated  that  the
costs involved might be a very substan-
tial  portion of  the costs of the fabric
filter  baghouse   itself,   and  several
baghouses may be Installed at a mod-
erately sized grain elevator. The com-
menters  suggested that a fabric filter
baghouse should be assumed to be in
compliance without   a  performance
test  if It were properly sized. In addi-
tion, the opacity standards  could be
used to demonstrate compliance.
  It  would not be wise to waive  per-
formance tests  in all cases. Section
60.8(b) already  provides  that a  per-
formance test may be waived If "the
owner  or  operator  of a source  has
demonstrated by other means to the
Administrator's  satisfaction  that  the
affected  facility is in  compliance with
the  standard."  Since  performance
tests are heavily weighed in court  pro-
ceedings,  performance test  require-
ments must be retained to insure ef-
fective enforcement.

       SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

  In December  1977,  and   January
1978, several grain elevators exploded.
Allegations were made by  various indi-
viduals within  the grain elevator in-
dustry contending that  Federal  air
pollution control  regulations were  con-
tributing to an increase in the risk of
dust explosions  at grain  elevators by
requiring that building doors and win-
dows be  closed and  by concentrating
grain dust in emission control systems.
Investigation of these allegations indi-
cates they are false.
  There  were no  Federal regulations
specifically  limiting  dust  emissions
from grain elevators which  were in
effect at the time of these grain eleva-
tor explosions. A number of State  and
local air  pollution control  agencies.
however,  have   adopted  regulations
which  limit particulate matter emis-
sions from  grain  elevators.  Many of
these regulations were developed by
States and Included In their implemen-
tation plans for  attaining and main-
taining  the  NAAQS  for  particulate
matter. Particulate matter, as a gener-
al class,  can cause adverse health ef-
fects; and the NAAQS.  which were
promulgated on April 30, 1971, were
established at levels necessary to  pro-
tect  the public health and welfare.
  Although compliance with State or
local air  pollution control regulations.
or the promulgated standards of  per-
formance, can be achieved in some in-
stances by closing building doors  and
windows, this is  not  the  objective of
these regulations and Is not an accept-
                                                  IV-274
-------
                                           RULES AND  REGULATIONS
 able means of compliance. The objec-
 tive of State and local regulations and
 the promulgated  standards  of  per-
 formance is  that dust be captured at
 those  points within  grain  elevators
 where it is generated through the use
 of  effective  hoods  or  enclosures with
 air aspiration, and removed  from the
 grain elevator to an air pollution con-
 trol device. This is the basis for the
 promulgated ' standards of  perform-
 ance. Compliance  with air  pollution
 control regulations and the  promul-
 gated standards of performance does
 not require that windows and doors in
 buildings  be  closed to prevent escape
 of  dust and  this practice may  in fact
 be  a major safety hazard.
  Fabric filter baghouses  have  been
 used for many years to collect combus-
 tible dusts such as  wheat flour. There
 have been extremely few incidences of
 dust explosions or fires caused by such
 emission control  devices in the flour
 industry. In  the grain elevator indus-
 try, no air pollution control device has
 been identified as the cause of a grain
 elevator   explosion.   Consequently,
 fabric  filter   baghouses, or  emission
 control  devices in  general, which are
 properly designed, operated, and main-
 tained will not contribute to  an in-
 creased risk of dust  explosions at grain
 elevators.
  These conclusions were supported at
 a joint meeting  between representa-
 tives of EPA; the  Federal Grain In-
 spection Service (FOIS) of the Depart-
 ment of Agriculture; the Occupational
 Safety  and   Health  Administration
 (OSHA); the  grain elevator Industry;
 and the fire Insurance industry. Instal-
 lation and use of  properly designed,
 operated, and maintained air pollution
control systems were found to be con-
sistent with State and local air pollu-
 tion regulations, OSHA  regulations,
and national  fire codes. Chapter 6 of
the National  Fire Code for Grain Ele-
vators  and Bulk  Grain Handling  Fa-
cilities (NFPA No.  61-B), which was
prepared by the National Fire Protec-
tion Association,  for example, recom-
mends that "dust shall be collected at
 all  dust producing  points within  the
processing  facilities." The  code then
goes on to specially recommend  that
all  elevator  boots,   automatic scales,
scale  hoppers, belt loaders,  belt dis-
charges, trippers, and discharge heads,
and all machinery  such as  cleaners,
scalpers, and similar devices be  pro-
vided with enclosures  or dust hoods
and air aspiration.
  Consequently, compliance with  ex-
 isting State or local air pollution regu-
lations,  or the promulgated standards
of performance, will not increase the
 risk of dust explosions at grain eleva-
 tors if  the approach  taken  to  meet
 these regulations is capture and con-
trol of dust at those points within an
elevator where it is  generated. If. how-
 ever, the approach taken is merely to
 close doors, windows, and other open-
 ings to trap dust within the grain ele-
 vator,  or the  air  pollution  control
 equipment Is allowed to deteriorate to
 the point where it is no longer effec-
 tive in  capturing dust as it  is generat-
 ed,  then ambient concentrations  of
 dust within the elevator will increase
 and the risk of explosion will  also in-
 crease.
  The House  Subcommittee on Com-
 pensation, Health, and  Safety is  cur-
 rently  conducting  oversight hearings
 to determine if something needs to be
 done to prevent these disastrous grain
 elevator explosions. The FGIS. EPA.
 and OSHA testified at these oversight
 hearings  on January 24 and 25, 1978.
 The  testimony indicated  that  dust
 should  be captured and collected  in
 emission  control devices in order to
 reduce  the  incidence  of dust explo-
 sions at grain elevators, protect  the
 health  of employees  from such  ail-
 ments as "farmer's lung," and prevent
 air pollution.  Consequently, properly
 operated and maintained air pollution
 control  equipment will  not increase
 the risk of grain elevator explosions.

           MISCELLANEOUS

  It should be noted that standards of
 performance  for new sources estab-
 lished under section 111 of  the Clean
 Air Act reflect the degree of emission
 limitation achievable through applica-
 tion of the best  adequately  demon-
 strated  technological system  of  con-
 tinuous  emission   reduction  (taking
 into consideration the cost  of achiev-
 ing  such  emission  reduction,  any
 nonair quality health and environmen-
 tal  impact and energy requirements).
 State Implementation plans (SIP'S) ap-
 proved  or promulgated under section
 110 of  the act, on the other hand,
 must provide far the attainment and
 maintenance  of national ambient air
 quality  standards  (NAAQS) designed
 to protect public health and welfare.
 For that purpose, SIP's must In some
 cases require greater emission reduc-
 tions than those required by standards
 of performance for new sources.  Sec-
 tion 173 of the act requires,  among
 other things, that a new or modified
source constructed in an area In viola-
 tion of the NAAQS must reduce emis-
sions to the level which reflects the
 "lowest  achievable emission rate"  for
such category of source  as defined In
section  171(3).  In no  event can the
emission rate  exceed any  applicable
standard of performance.
  A similar situation may arise when a
major emitting facility is to be con-
structed In a  geographic area which
 falls under the prevention  of signifi-
cant deterioration of air  quality provi-
sions of the act (part C). These provi-
sions  require,  among  other  things,
 that major  emitting  facilities to be
 constructed  In  such areas are to be
 subject to best  available control tech-
 nology  for  all  pollutants  regulated
 under the act. The term "best availa-
 ble control technology" (BACT), as de-
 fined  in section  169(3).  means  "an
 emission limitation based on the maxi-
 mum degree of  reduction of each pol-
 lutant subject to regulation under this
 act  emitted from  or  which results
 from  any  major  emitting   facility.
 which the permitting authority, on a
 case-by-case basis, taking into account
 energy, environmental, and economic
 impacts and other costs, determines is
 achievable for  such facility  through
 application of  production  processes
 and available methods,  systems,  and
 techniques, including fuel cleaning or
 treatment or innovative fuel combus-
 tion techniques for control  of each
 such pollutant. In no event shall appli-
 cation of 'best available control tech-
 nology' result In emissions of any  pol-
 lutants which  will  exceed  the emis-
 sions allowed by any applicable stand-
 ard  established  pursuant  to  sections
 111 or 112 of this Act."
  Standards  of   performance  should
 not  be  viewed   as  the  ultimate in
 achievable  emission   control   and
 should not preclude the  imposition of
 a  more  stringent emission standard,
 where appropriate. For example, while
 cost of achievement may be an Impor-
 tant factor in determining standards
 of performance  applicable to all areas
 of the country (clean as well as dirty),
 statutorlly, costs do not  play  such  a
 role in determining the "lowest achiev-
 able emission rate"  for new or modi-
 fied sources locating in areas violating
 statutorily mandated health and wel-
 fare standards. Although there may be
 emission  control technology available
 that can  reduce  emissions below those
 levels required to comply with stand-
 ards of performance, this technology
 might not be selected as  the  basis of
 standards of performance due to costs
 associated with its use. This in no way
 should preclude  its  use  in  situations
 where  cost Is a  lesser  consideration.
 such as determination of the "lowest
 achievable emission rate."
  In addition, States are free under
 section 116 of the act to establish even
 more stringent  emission  limits than
 those established under section 111 or
 those necessary  to attain  or maintain
 the NAAQS under section 110. Thus.
 new sources may in some cases be sub-
 ject to limitations more stringent than
standards of  performance under sec-
 tion  111.  and prospective owners and
 operators of  new sources should be
 aware of this possibility  in planning
 for such facilities.

    ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT

  An economic  assessment  has been
prepared as required under section  317
of the Act."
                                                  IV-275
-------
                                           RULES  AND REGULATIONS
  Dated: July 26,1978.

              DOXJOIAS M. COSTUE,
                     Administrator.

             REFERENCES
  1. "Standards Support and Environmental
Impact  Statement—Volume  I:  Proposed
Standards of Performance for Grain Eleva-
tor Industry." U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency-OAQPS, EPA-480/2-77-0018.
Research Triangle Park, N.C., January 1977.
  2. "Draft—For Review Only: Evaluation of
Public Comments: Standards of Perform-
ance For Drain  Elevators."  U.S. Environ-
mental  Protection  Agency—OAQPS,  Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C., August 1977.
  3. "Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement—Volume II: Promulgated
Standards of Performance for Grain Eleva-
tor Industry," U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency-OAQPS, EPA-460/2-77-001D.
Research Triangle Park, N.C., April 1978.

  Part 60 of  chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
ed as follows:

   Subpart A—Otntrat Provision*

  1. Section 60.2 Is amended by revis-
ing paragraph  (v). The revised para-
garaph  reads as follows:

860.2  Definitions.
  (v) "Partlculate matter" means any
finely divided solid or liquid material,
other  than   uncomblned  water,  aa
measured by  the reference methods
specified under each  applicable sub-
part, or an equivalent or alternative
method.
|60.U  {Amended]
  3. Section 60.14 is amended by delet-
ing the words "the  stationary source
containing" from paragraph (e)(2).
  3. Part 60 is amended by adding sub-
part DD aa follows:

  Ivbparl DD— Itandirds «f Performance for
            Orain llwaton

Sea.
60.300  Applicability and designation of af-
   fected facility.
60.301  Definitions.
60,302  Standard for partloulaU matter.
60.803  Test methods and procedures.
60.304  Modification.
  AUTHORITY: Sees,  ill and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act, ai amended (43 U.8.C. 7411,
7601(t», and additional authority as noted
below,

     Subpart DD—Standard* of
   ••dormant* for Orain llovstort

160.800 Applicability  and dull-nation of
    affected facility,
  (a) The  provisions  of  this subpart
apply  to each affected facility at any
grain  terminal elevator or  any grain
storage elevator,  except as provided
under  {60.304(b).  The affected facili-
ties are each truck unloading station,
truck loading station, barge and ship
unloading station,  barge and ship load-
ing station,  railcar  loading  station,
ratlcar unloading station, grain dryer,
and all grain handling operations.
  (b) Any facility under paragraph  (a)
of this section which commences con-
struction, modification, or reconstruc-
tion after (date of reinstatement of
proposal) Is  subject to the  require-
ments  of this part.

{60.301  Definition*.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the act and In subpart A
of this part.
  (a) "Orain" means corn, wheat, sor-
ghum,  rice, rye,  oats, barley, and soy-
beans.
  (b)   "Grain elevator"  means  any
plant or installation at which grain is
unloaded,  handled,  cleaned,  dried,
stored, or loaded.
  (c) "Grain terminal elevator" means
any grain elevator which has a perma-
nent storage capacity of  more  than
88,100  m* (ca. 2,5 million U.S. bushels),
except those located at animal food
manufacturers, pet  food manufactur-
ers, cereal manufacturers, breweries,
and livestock feedlots.
  (d)  "Permanent  storage capacity"
means  grain storage capacity which is
inside a building, bin, or silo,
  (e) "Railcar" means railroad hopper
car or boxcar.
  (f) "Grain  storage elevator" means
any  grain elevator  located  at any
wheat  flour mill,  wet corn mill, dry
corn mill (human  consumption), rice
mill, or  soybean oil extraction plant
which  has a permanent grain storage
capacity of 35,200 m1  (ca. 1 million
bushels).
  (g) "Process  emission"  means  the
partlculate matter which  is collected
by a capture system.
  (h> "Fugitive emission"  means the
partlculate matter which is not collect-
ed by a capture system and is released
directly into the atmosphere from an
affected facility at a grain elevator.
  (1) "Capture  system"   means  the
equipment such aa sheds, hoods, ducts,
fans, dampers, etc. used to collect par-
tlculate matter generated by an affect-
ed facility at a grain elevator.
  (J) "Grain unloading station" means
that portion of a grain elevator where
the grain la transferred frbm a truck,
ralloar, barge, or  ship to  a  receiving
hopper,
  (k) "Orain loading station" means
that portion of a grain elevator where
the grain la transferred from the ele-
vator to a truck, railcar, barge, or ship.
  (1) "Orain handling operations"  In-
clude bucket elevators or legs (exclud-
ing legs  used  to  unload barges  or
ships), acale  hoppers and surge bins
(garners), turn heads, scalpers, clean-
ers, trippers, and the headhouse and
other such structures.
  (m)  "Column  dryer"  means  any
equipment used  to  reduce the  mois-
ture content  of  grain in which the
grain flows from the top to the bottom
in one or more continuous packed col-
umns between two  perforated metal
sheets.
  (n)  "Rack dryer" means any equip-
ment used  to reduce the moisture con-
tent of grain in which the grain flows
from  the top  to  the  bottom in a cas-
cading flow  around  rows  of  baffles
(racks).
  (o) "Unloading leg" means a device
which includes a bucket-type elevator
which is used to  remove grain from a
barge or  ship.

j 60.302  Standard for partlculate matter.
  (a)  On and after the 60th  day of
achieving  the maximum  production
rate at which  the affected facility will
be  operated,  but no  later than 180
days after  initial startup,  no owner or
operator subject  to  the provisions of
this subpart  shall cause  to  be dis-
charged  into, the  atmosphere  any
gases which exhibit greater  than  0
percent opacity from any:
  (1) Column dryer with column plate
perforation exceeding 2.4  mm diame-
ter (ca. 0.094 inch).
  (2)  Rack dryer in  which  exhaust
gases pass  through  a screen  filter
coarser than 50 mesh.
  (b) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted  by  (60.8 Is  completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall  cause to be
discharged into the  atmosphere from
any  affected  facility  except  a  grain
dryer any process emission which:
  (1)  Contains paniculate  matter in
excess of 0,023 g/dscm (ca. 0,01 gr/
dscf).
  (2) Exhibits greater than 0 percent
opacity.
  (c) On and  after  the 60th  day of
achieving  the  maximum  production
rate at which the affected  facility will
be  operated,  but no  later than 180
days after initial  startup,  no owner or
operator subject  to  the provisions of
this subpart  shall cause  to  be dis-
charged into the atmosphere any fugi-
tive emission from:
  (1) Any  individual  truck unloading
station,  railcar unloading  station, or
railcar loading station, which exhibits
greater than 5 percent opacity.
  (2)  Any  grain handling operation
which exhibits greater than 0 percent
opacity.
  (3) Any truck loading station which
exhibits  greater than 10 percent opac-
ity.
  (4) Any barge or ship loading station
which exhibits greater than 20 percent
opacity.
                                                  IV-276
-------
                                            RULES  AND REGULATIONS
   (d)  The owner or operator of any
 barge or ship unloading station shall
 operate as follows:
   (1) The unloading leg shall be  en-
 closed from  the  top (Including the re-
 ceiving  hopper)  to the  center line  of
 the bottom pulley and ventilation to a
 control  device shall be maintained on
 both sides of the leg and the grain re-
 ceiving hopper.
   (2) The total rate of  air ventilated
 shall  be at  least  32.1  actual  cubic
 meters per cubic meter of grain han-
 dling capacity (ca. 40 ft'/bu).
   (3) Rather than meet the require-
 ments of subparagraphs CD and (2), of
 this paragraph the owner or operator
 may use other  methods  of  emission
 control if it is demonstrated to the Ad-
 ministrator's  satisfaction  that  they
 would reduce emissions  of particulate
 matter to the same level  or less.

 § 60.303  Test methods and  procedures.
   (a) Reference methods in appendix
 A  of  this  part,  except as provided
 under § 60.8(b). shall be  used to deter-
 mine compliance with  the standards
 prescribed under § 60.302 as follows:
   (1) Method 5 or method 17 for con-
 centration of particulate  matter  and
 associated moisture content;
   (2) Method  1 for sample and velocity
 traverses;
   (3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
 metric flow rate;
   (4) Method 3 for gas analysis; and
   (5) Method 9 for visible emissions.
   (b) For method  5,  the  sampling
 probe and filter holder shall be operat-
 ed without heaters. The sampling time
 for  each  run,  using method  5  or
 method  17, shall  be at  least 60  min-
 utes. The minimum sample volume
 shall be 1.7 dscm (ca. 60 dscf).
 (Sec. 114. Clean Air Act. as  amended (42
 U.S.C. 7414).)

 § 60.304  Modifications.
  (a) The factor  6.5 shall be used in
 place  of  "annual  asset  guidelines
 repair allowance percentage," to deter-
 mine whether a capital expenditure as
 defined by § 60.2(bb) has  been made to
 an existing facility.
  (b) The following physical changes
 or changes in  the method of operation
 shall not by themselves be considered
 a modification of any existing facility:
  (1) The addition of gravity loadout
 spouts to  existing grain  storage  or
 grain transfer bins.
  (2)  The installation  of  automatic
 grain weighing scales.
  (3) Replacement of motor and drive
 units driving  existing grain  handling
 equipment.
  (4) The  installation of  permanent
storage capacity  with no  increase  in
hourly grain handling capacity.

  [FR Doc. 78-21444 Filed 8-2-78; 8:45 am]

   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. ISO

     THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1978
 91
 Title 40—Protection of Environment

    CHAFFER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
       PROTECTION AGENCY

     SUBCHAPTER C—AW PKOGRAMS

             [FRL 921-7)

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

   Amendment* to Kraft Pulp Mills
 Standard and Reference Method 16

AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY.  This action amends the
standards  of performance  for Kraft
pulp mills  by adding a provision for
determining compliance of affected fa-
cilities which use a control system in-
corporating a process other than com-
bustion. This amendment is necessary
because the  standards  would place
cor.trol systems other  than combus-
tion at a disadvantage.  The intent of
tin's amendment is to remove any  pre-
clusion of now and  improved  control
systems. This action  also amends Ref-
erence Method 16 to insure that the
testing procedure  is consistent with
trie promulgated standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE:  August 7, 1978.

FOR   FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:

  Don  R.  Goodwin.  Emission Stand-
  ards and Engineering Division. Envi-
  ronmental  Protection  Agency,  Re-
  search  Triangle  Park, N.C.  27711.
  telephone 919-541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY  INFORMATION:
S'.&ndards of performance  for Kraft
puip mills were  promulgated on Febru-
ary 23. 197S.  On March 31, 1978. the
National Coi;::cil  for Air and Stream
Improvement (NCAS1) requested  two
changes to  these standards  to prevent
their   interpretation  in  a  manner
which  was  inconsistent with their
intent. The purpose  of these amend-
ments, therefore,  is to clarify  the
intent of the standards.

    OXYGEN CORRECTION FACTORS

  In §60.283(a>(l), the percent oxygen
to which TRS emissions must be  cor-
rected  was  specified. The purpose of
this specification was to provide a con-
sistent basis for the  determination of
TRS emissions. Ten percent was se-
lected  because it reflected  the  ob-
served oxygen concentrations on facili-
ties controlled by the  best system of
emission reduction which was Inciner-
ation. The NCASI pointed out. howev-
 er, that the specification oi  a 10-per-
 cent  oxygen  leve!  on sources which
 characteristically cor.lain higher levels
 would effectively discourage the devel-
 opment of control  technologies other
 than  incineration.
  The purpose of an emission standard
 is to  reduce  tola! emissions to the at-
 mosphere. If an emission control tech-
 nique should evolve which is capable
 of  achieving  the same ma,ss rate  of
 emissions from a given facility, use of
 that  technique  should  be permitted.
 The standard, as written, could have
 inhibited  the development   of  new
 technologies, if misinterpreted. There-
 fore. to remove this potential  source of
 misinterpretation, § 60.283(aK IXv) has
 been  added to the standard to provide
 for correction to  untreated oxygen
 concentration in the case of brown
 stock  washers, black liQucr oxidation
 systems, or digester  system.-:.

        REFERENCE METHOD ifi

  The second point  of corvccrn. to the
 NCASI was the correction fac:or to b<
 applied for  sasnpiing  system li/.-.5es
 contained in the po.-st-ies: procfJ-r-a
 (paragraph  10. 11 of method  16. The
 specific concern  wa.; the spe--;f;rst:ot5
 that a test gas be ir.trocluecd et the be-
 giuniDg of  the  probe  to  del ermine
 sample loss in the sampling train. The
 daia base for the promulgated stand-
 ard co'.isiderei only TRS losr.es in '.he
 sampling train, not the probe  or probe
 filler. Consequently, the post-tost pro-
 cedures are amended to require the de-
 termination  of sampling train losses
 by introducing the  test  gss after the
 probe  filter consistent with the data
 base   supporting   the   promulgated
 standards.

           MISCELLANEOUS

  The Administrator finds  that coo.'.l
 cause  exists for  omitting prior nolii e
 a.'icl public comment on  these amend-
 ments and for making them  immtdi-
 Btely  effective because they simply
 clarify  the  exiiUnK regulations  and
 impose  no additional substantive re-
quirements.
  Section  317 of  the  Clean Air Act re-
quires the Administrator to prepare an
economic  impact  assessment  for revi-
sions determined by  the Administrator
 to be  substantial. Since the  costs asso-
ciated with the proposed amendments
woulct have a negligible impact on con-
sumer costs, the Administrator has de-
termined  that the  proposed  amend-
ments are not substantial and do not
require preparation  of  an economic
 Impact assessment.
  Dated: August 1, 1978.
              DOUGLAS M. COSTT.E.
  Part  60 of chapter I. title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amend-
ed to read as follows:
                                                   IV-277
-------
  1.  In §60.283.  paragraph  (a)(l) is
amended to read as follows:
§ 60.283  Standard Tor (olul reduced sulfur
   (TRS).
  (a)' • •
  ni • • •
  (v)  The gasrs  from  the  digester
system, brown stock washer system.
condensate stripper system, or black
liquor oxidation system are controlled
by a means other than combustion. In
this case,  these systems shall not dis-
charge any  gases  to the atmosphere
which contain TRS in excess of 5 ppm
by volume on a dry basis, corrected to
the actual oxygen content of the un-
treated gas stream.
    •      •      •      •     •

  2. In appendix A, paragraph 10.1 of
method 16 is amended to read as fol-
lows:
    •      •      •      •     •

       10. POST-TEST PROCEDURES

  10.1   Sample line loss. A known concen-
tration of hydrogen sulflde at the level of
the applicable standard. ± 20 percent, must
be Introduced Into the sampling system in
sufficient quantities U) insure that there Is
en excess of sample which must be vented
to the atmosphere. The sample must be in-
troduced Immediately after the probe and
filter and transported through the remain-
der of the sampling system to the measure-
ment system in the normal manner. The re-
sulting measured concentration should be
compared to the known value to determine
the sampling system loss.
  For sampling  losses greater than 20 per-
cent in a sample run. the sample run Is not
to be used when determining the arithmetic
mean of the performance test. For sampling
losses  of 0-20 percent, the sample concen-
tration must be corrected by dividing the
sample concentration by the fraction of re-
covery. The fraction of recovery Is equal to
one  minus  the ratio  of the measured con-
centration  to  the  known concentration of
hydrogen sulfide In the sample line loss pro-
cedure. The known gas sample may be gen-
erated using permeation tubes. Alternative-
Is, cylinders of hydrogen suKlde mixed in
air may be  used provided they are traceable
to permeation tubes. The  optional pretest
procedures  provide a good guideline for de-
termining if there are leaks In the sampling
sys'.em.
(Sec. 111. 301ia)), Clean Air Act as amended
(42U.S.C. 7411. 7601
-------
                     HANDBOOK DISTRIBUTION RECORD

This edition of the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources - A Compilation has
been designed to permit selective replacement of outdated material as new standards are proposed
and promulgated or existing standards are revised. A NSPS Handbook distribution record has been
established and will be maintained up to date so that future revisions and additions to the document
may be distributed to Handbook users: (These supplements will be issued at approximately six-
month intervals.)   In order to enter the Handbook user's name and address in the distribution
record system, the card shown below must be filled out and mailed to the address indicated on the
reverse side of card. Any future change in  name and/or address should be sent to the following:
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                       Library Services Office, MD-35
                       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                       Attn: NSPS Regulations Information
                                (cut along dotted line)
                      DISTRIBUTION RECORD CARD
NSPS Handbook 	   Date
User                  (Last name)          (First)       (Middle initial)
Address to send  	
future revisions                              (Street)
and additions    	
                          (City)                   (State)               (Zip code)
 If address is an employer
 or affiliate (fill  in)  	
                                         (Employer or Affiliate name)
 I have received a copy of the NSPS Handbook (EPA-340/1-77-015). Please send me any revisions
 and new additions to the Handbook".
-------
 SECTION V
 STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR
NEW STATIONARY
    SOURCES

   Proposed Amendments
-------
                                              PROPOSED  RULES
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

      [40 CFR Porli SI, 52, 53, SB, 60]

             [FRL 807-1]

   AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE AND DATA
              REPORTING

      Propottd (Ugulctory Rtvltlont

AGENCY: Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed  rule.
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to
revise  the requirements for ambient
air quality monitoring for purposes of
the   State   implementation   plans
(SIP's)  and for reporting air quality
data to  EPA  as required by section
110(a)(2XC) of the Clean Air Act (act).
The new regulations would be in a new
part 58 entitled, "Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance."  This new  part  would
contain the requirements and criteria
concerned  with  ambient air  monitor-
ing. Also Included in the new part 58
would be provisions which would  ad-
dress other requirements of the act in-
cluding  provisions for  monitoring  cri-
teria and air quality index reporting as
required by section 319. "Air Quality
Monitoring"; provisions for  data,  re-
porting which  would enable EPA to
satisfy  the  requirements  of section
313, "Additional Reports to Congress";
and provisions for public notification
of Information related to air quality
standards violations which would sat-
isfy  the  requirements of section 127,
"Public Notification."
  PART W— STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
     FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

  EPA proposes to  amend  part 60 of
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations,
as follows:
  Section   60.25, paragraph  (e),  Is
amended by changing the reference to
a semiannual report required by § 51.7
to  an  annual  report required  by
.§51.321. As amended, §60.25 reads as
follows:

160.25  Emission  inventories,  source sur-
    veillance, reports.
  (e) The State shall submit reports on
progress In  plan  enforcement to the
Administrator on an  annual (calendar
year) basis, commencing with the first
full report period after approval of a.
plan or after promulgation  of a plan
by the Administrator. Information re-
quired under this paragraph must be
included in the annual report required
by §51.321 of part 51 of this chapter,
          FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43. NO. 152—MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1978
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY
            (40 CFR Part 60)
             [FRL 933-3)
  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
         STATIONARY SOURCES
 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Proposed Rule and Notice of
 Public Hearing.
 SUMMARY:  This  action  contains
 EPA's proposed list of major source
 categories for which standards of per-
 formance must be  promulgated  by
 August  1982.  The  Clean  Air  Act
 Amendments of 1977 require EPA to
 publish by August 1978.  a list of the
 categories of major stationary sources
 which have not been previously listed
 as source categories for which stand-
 ards of perforamce will be established.
 The intent of this  action is to provide
 interested parties  an  opportunity to
 comment on the proposed list.
  A public hearing will be held to pro-
 vide interested persons an opportunity
 for oral presentation of data, views, or
 arguments  concerning the  proposed
 list.
  Comments. Comments  must be re-
 ceived on or before October 30, 1978.
  Public  Hearing. The public hearing
 will be held on Friday, September 29.
 1978.
  Request to Speak  at Hearing. Per-
 sons wishing to attend the hearing or
 present oral testimony  should contact
 EPA by September 25, 1978.
  Comments. Comments  should  be
 submitted  to Gary D.  McCutchen,
 Standards Development Branch (MD-
 13), Emission Standards and Engineer-
 ing  Division. Environmental Protec-
 tion  Agency, Research  Triangle Park.
 N.C. 27711.
  Public  Hearing. The  public hearing
 will  be  held Friday,  September 29.
 1978, at 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.. in room 3906.
 Waterside Mall, 401  M  Street  SW..
 Washington.  D.C. Persons wishing to
 present oral  testimony should notify
 Mary Jane Clark, Emission Standards
 and  Engineering  Division   (MD-13).
 Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. tele-
phone number 919-541-5271.
  Background Document.  The  back-
ground document for the proposed pri-
ority  list may be obtained from  the
U.S.  EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle  Park,  N.C.  27711, telephone
number 919-541-2777. Please refer to
"priorities for New  Source  Perform-
ance Standards Under  the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1971 (EPA-450/3-
78-019)."
  Docket EPA has determined that a
docket is not required for this action,
but public  comments received and a
copy of the background report used in
                                                                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. A3, NO.

                                                                               170—THURSDAY, AUGUST 31,  1971
                                                 V-A-1
-------
the  development  of  this list will be
available  for public  inspection  and
copying  at  the  Public  Information
Reference Unit. Room  2922,  401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR  FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Mr.  Gary  McCutchen,   Emission
  Standards and Engineering Division
  
-------
                                                PROPOSED  RULES
by-case  basis.  Moreover, some  NSR
programs such as prevention of signifi-
cant deterioration have separate and
distinct  criteria for  defining a major
source (e.g.,  100 tons per year poten-
tial for  certain  source  types and 250
tons per year for others).
  Two groups of sources In addition to
minor sources are not Included on the
proposed  list.   One  group Includes
sources which could not be evaluated
due to insufficient data. This  lack of
data  suggests  that  these sources,
which  are identified  In  the back-
ground report,  "Priorities  for  NSPS
under the Clean Air Act of 1977," have
not previously been regulated or stud-
led and, therefore,  are probably not
major sources.  Nevertheless, EPA will
continue to investigate these sources
and will add  to the list any which are
identified as being major.
  The second group of unlisted source
categories  consists of  those already
listed   under   section  HKbXlXA).
These are:
Fossll-fuel-flred steam generators.
Incinerators.
Protland cement plants.
Nitric add plants.
SuUurlc acid plants.  •
Asphalt concrete plants.
Petroleum refineries.
Storage vessels for petroleum liquids.
Secondary lead smelters.
Secondary brass  and bronze Ingot  produc-
  tion plants.
Iron and steel plants.
Sewage treatment plants.
Primary copper smelters.
Primary zinc smelters.
Primary lead smelters.
Primary aluminum reduction plants.
Phosphate fertilizer Industry: Wet process
  phosphoric aeld plants.
Phosphate fertilizer Industry:  Superphos-
  phoric add plants.
Phosphate fertilizer Industry: Dlammonlum
  phosphate plants,
Phosphate fertilizer  Industry: Triple super-
  phosphate plants.
Phosphate  fertilizer Industry:  Or&nular
  triple superphosphate storage facilities.
Coal preparation plants.
Ferroalloy production facilities,
Steel plants: Electric arc furnaces,
KraU pulpnMlli.
Lime plants,
Qratn elevators.
Stationary gu turbines,
There are, however, tome facilities (or
subcategorles) within these source cat-
egories for which NSPS have not been
developed, but which  may  by them-
•elves be ilgnlficant tourcei of air pol-
lution,  A  number of  these facilities
were evaluated  as if they were sepa-
rate  source  categories; three  which
ranked  high In priority are included
on the priority list to indicate that
BPA  plans to  develop  standards for
them:   Petroleum  refinery fugitive
emissions,  industrial  fossll-fuel-fired
steam  generators, and industrial-com-
mercial  incinerators. In  addition  to
these,  EPA will continue to evaluate
affected  facilities  within  listed source
categories and may from  time to time
add these to the list. Sintering plants
In the Iron and steel industry Is an ex-
ample of a facility now being studied.
Although the growth rate for new sin-
tering capacity  is presently very  low,
giving this  facility a very low priority,
EPA  Is  continuing to assess  emission
control  and  measurement  technology
with  a view  toward possible develop-
ment of a standard for sintering plants
at a later date.

      DETERMINING PRIORITIES

  The methodology used to establish
priorities is explained in  detail in the
report "Priorities for New Source Per-
formance Standards Under the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977." The de-
scription  that  follows   conveys  the
basic  concepts  used, but   does  not
detail the entire procedure.
  The first task In the ranking proce-
dure was to develop a method for  ap-
plying the  three criteria specified by
the CAA amendments to each of the
nine pollutants. The second task  was
to establish goals for each pollutant so
that  a single multipollutant  priority
list could be compiled,
  The first CAA criterion, quantity of
emissions, is  represented  by the emis-
sions  an NSPS would prevent after
being in effect for a specified period of
time;  in this case. 10 years. Emissions
for 1990  are  first calculated assuming
that the present level of control con-
tinues to be applied to new sources;
the resulting 1990  emission  level  Is
termed  T,.  Then  1990 emissions are
calculated  assuming  a best  level of
control, representative of an NSPS, Is
applied to all new sources constructed
between 1980 and 1990; this 1990 emis-
sion level Is termed TN.*The emissions
that could  be prevented  by an NSPS
after  10  years Is  represented by the
difference  between  T, and TN. The
value of  (Ti-TN)  represents the first
CAA criterion.
  The approach used to  derive an ob-
jective  measure  of  the  impact  or
extent to which public health or wel-
fare  could  be endangered consists of
first determining the ambient air con-
centration  (X) for each  pollutant in
the vicinity of  a typical facility. This
Involves  several  assumptions, Includ-
ing the tape of meteorology  and  dis-
persion  equations,  concentration  and
quantity of  emissions,  and  average
stack heights and stack  gas emission
flow rates and temperatures, Since one
pollutant could have no discernible ef-
fects  at a concentration at  which an-
other pollutant  could be  dangerous, a
method was  needed to relate each of
these ambient air concentrations to
their  health or welfare  effects, The
approach selected was to divide each
ambient  air  concentration  by an ap-
propriate   ambient  threshold value
 High (T,-Th),  medium X/ATV,  mov-
able.
  (4) High (T,-TN), medium X/ATV, nonmo-
vable,
  (5) High (T,-T,), low X/ATV, movable.
  (8) High (T,-T»>, low X/ATV, nonmova.
ble.
  <7> Medium (TrTs), high X/ATV.  mov-
able.
  <8> Medium (Ti-Tk). high X/ATV, nonmo-
vable,
  (0) Medium  (T,-TB).  medium  X/ATV,
movabler-
  (10) Medium  ,  medium X/ATV,
nonmovablo.
  (11') Medium  , low X/ATV,  mov-
able.
  (13) Medium (Ti-T*), low X/ATV, nonmo-
Table,
  (13) Low (T.-T,,), high X/ATV, movable.
  (14) Low (T,-TN), high X/ATV. nonmova-
ble,
                             HOIRAl RIOISTCft, VOL. 43, NO. 170-THURSOAY, AUOUST 31, 1971
                                                  V-A-3
-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES
  (15) Low (TS-TS). medium X/ATV,  mov-
able.
  (16) Low (T5-T,,). medium X/ATV, nonmo-
vable.
  (17) Low (Ts-TO. low X/ATV, movable.
  (18) Low (TS-TN>. low X/ATV,  nonmova-
ble.
  This  provides  a  separate  priority
ranking for each pollutant. Developing
a combined multipollutant priority list
requires  the  selection  of  pollutant
goals.
  A computer program was written to
calculate 1990 emissions  from  each
source/pollutant   combination,  then
determine  which 1990 pollutant  esti-
mate was furthest  from its goal. This
became the priority pollutant, and the
top priority source  category from  that
pollutant  list  was selected  and an
NSPS (EN level of  emissions)  assumed
for new  sources in  that category from
that  time  on. It  was assumed  that
NSPS were promulgated at the same
time for any other pollutants emitted
from that  source category. The com-
puter program then recalculates  1990
emissions, selects the new priority pol-
lutant, and repeats the  selection  pro-
cedure. A standard-setting rate was as-
sumed that, beginning in 1980, results
in the  promulgation  by  the end  of
1982 of NSPS for all  the source cate-
gories listed. The resulting list can be
found in the background report (Table
3-12, p.  113),  and is the basis for the
listing of major source categories  that
appears in  this notice.
  The goals for PM, SO,, NO,, HC, and
Pb were determined by assuming all
NSPS are promulgated in  1980  and
then  calculating  1990  emissions based
on NSPS control  of  all  new sources
during that  10-year  period.  For  SO,
and  NO,, emissions will still  increase,
but  for  PM, HC. and Pb.  1990 emis-
sions would be lower  than 1980 emis-
sions despite  growth. Although  EPA
cannot set all NSPS in 1980, the emis-
sion changes that result from such an
assumption provide reasonable  goals
to aim for.
  These  goals are summarized below:

              1990 emission    1990 goal
            without NSPS.4  percent change
   Pollutant    percent change    from 1980
               from 1980     emlssipns"
               emissions
Paniculate
matter (PM)....
Sulfur dioxide
(SO.)
Nitrogen oxides
(NO ) 	
Hydrocarbons
(HC) 	
Lead ...
Fluorides (F) 	


+ 30
+ 135

+ 30
+ 35


"0
"0

"0
"0
 •Does not take Into account emission reductions
that will accrue from Stale Implementation Plan
revisions or New Source Review decisions (including
prevention of significant deterioration and emission
offsets).
 "Determined by assuming that all NSPS are ef-
fective In 1980 and apply to all new sources con-
structed during the 10-year period 1980-90.
  • Does not take into account emission reductions
that will accrue from State implementation plan re-
visions or new source review  decisions (Including
prevention of significant deterioration and emission
offsets).
  "SeuinR a goal  of 0 percent change has the
effect of deemphasizlng these pollutants since re-
ductions below 1980 emission levels are possible.

  At  the  beginning of the  computer
program,  the priority  pollutant is de-
termined  by the  difference in tons of
emissions per  year  between  the  first
column (projected 1990 emissions) and
the second column (the 1990 emissions
goal).

 IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCE CATEGORIES

  There are some differences between
the  list  in  the  background  report
(table 3-12) and the list which appears
below. These differences are primarily
a result of aggregation of subcategor-
ies which had been subdivided for size
classification   and  priority  ranking
analysis. Nonmetallic mfneral mining,
for example, is composed of nine sub-
categories, eight of which were  ana-
lyzed  separately  (stone,  sand  and
gravel, clay,   gypsum,  lime,  borax,
fluorspar, and phosphate rock mining)
and one of which is considered a minor
source  (mica mining).  EPA  plans  to
study  the entire non-metallic mining
Industry at one  time,  since many  ol
the processes and  control techniques
are similar. For this reason, the indus-
try is identified by a single listing.
This does not necessarily imply that a
single standard  would  apply  to all
sources  within  the listed  category.
Rather, as described below in the case
of synthetic organic chemical  manu-
facturing,  the  nature  and  scope  of
standards  will   be  determined  only
after  a  detailed  study  of  sources
within the category.
  Also,   in  addition  to  the  major
sources,  three  source  categories  not
identified as being major  source cate-
gories have been added to the list—or-
ganic  solvent   degreasing,  industrial
surface coating: metal  furniture, and
lead acid battery manufacture.
  Organic   solvent   degreasing  was
chosen  for  study because this  source
category accounts for some  5 percent
ol stationary  source  emissions in  a
typical   air  quality control   region.
Thus, although  individual  facilities
typically emit less than 100  TPY. this
is a significant source of organic emis-
sions and EPA considers it prudent to
continue the development of a stand-
ard for this source category.
  The metal furniture coating indus-
try is also a significant source of or-
ganic emissions, and there are over 300
existing facilities with the potential to
emit  more  than 100 TPY. For this
reason, EPA  has placed  this  source
category on the list.
  Lead acid battery manufacture is a
significant  source  of  lead  emissions.
An NSPS  for  this source category  is
expected to assist in attainment of the
proposed National Ambient  Air Qual-
ity Standard for lead.
  EPA initiated work to develop stand-
ards for each of these source catego-
ries prior to the 1977 amendments to
the CAA and plans to  continue work
on them. Interrupting  work on these
categories  is not considered justified,
as this would require that a significant
amount of work be repeated.
  One listed source category  which de-
serves special attention is the synthet-
ic organic chemical  manufacturing in-
dustry  (SOCMI).   Preliminary  esti-
mates indicate  that  there may be over
600 different processes included in this
source category, but only 27 of these
processes have been evaluated and pri-
ority-ranked. For the other 575, there
was not enough information available.
As is the case with several  other aggre-
gate source categories, EPA expects to
use generic standards to cover as many
of the 600 processes  as possible,  so sep-
arate NSPS for each process are  un-
likely. Based on an effort which has
been underway within EPA for 2 years
to study this complex source category,
the generic standards  could regulate
nearly-all emissions by covering four
broad areas: process facilities; storage
facilities;  leakage; and  transport and
handling losses.  Also, since  a number
of the pollutants emitted are  poten-
tially toxic or carcinogenic, regulation
under section  112,  national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 170—THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1978
                                                   V-A-4
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
(NESHAP) rather than NSPS may be
more appropriate. Therefore, SOCM1
is  listed  as a single source  category.
The 27 processes evaluated are consid-
ered  the  most  likely  candidates for
NSPS or  NESHAP coverage through
generic   standards,  and  are  listed
below:

 Acrylonltrile Plants.
 Acetic Acid Plants.
 Acrylic Acid.
 Acetic Anhydride Plams.
 Cyelohexane Plants.
 Cyclohexanol/Cyclohexanone Plants.
 Dimethyl Terephthalp.te Plants.
 Ethylene Dichloride Plants.
 Ethylene Oxide Plants.
 Ethylbenzene Plants.
 Elhylene Plants.
 Ethylene Glycol Plants.
 Formaldehyde Plants.
 Maleic Anhydride Plants.
 Methanol Plants.
 Methyl Methacrylale Plants.
 Phenol Plants.
 Propylene Oxide Plants.
 Terephthalic Acid Plants.
 Vinyl Acetate Plants.
 Phthalic Anhydride (PAN) Plants.
 Acetone Plants.
 Carbon Tetrachloride Plants.
 Adipic Acid Plants.
 Methyl Chloroform Plants.
 Styrene Plants.
 Allyl Chloride Plants.

 Additional  information has resulted
In  the exclusion from the list of some
source categories which  are  shown In
the  background report.  Mixed  fuel
boilers and feed and grain milling are
regulated  by the NSPS for fossil-fuel
steam generators and  grain elevators,
respectively.  Beer manufacture has a
much lower  emission  level than had
been  assumed  in  the  background
report, and whiskey  manufacture was
deleted  due to a lack  of any demon-
strated control technology.

        PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

 The CAA requires that EPA, prior to
promulgating this list  of source  cate-
gories, consult  with   Governors  and
State air  pollution  control  agencies.
An invitation was extended on Febru-
ary 28, 1978, to the State and Territo-
rial Air Pollution Program Administra-
tors (STAPPA) and the National  Gov-
ernors'  Association (NGA) to attend
the  first   Working  Group  meeting,
March 16, 1978. and review the draft
background report and  the methods
used  to apply the criteria. On March
24, 1978, EPA notified each Governor
and the director of each State air pol-
lution control agency by letter of this
project, inviting them to  participate
and/or comment:
 (1)  At the  April 5-6, 1978, National
Air Pollution Control Techniques Ad-
visory Committee NAPCTAC) meeting
in  Alexandria, Va.;
 (2)  When  the _ final  background
report was mailed to them;
   (3) When the list is proposed in the
 FEDERAL REGISTER; or
   (4) At a public hearing to be held on
 the proposed list.
   The  draft  background report  was
 mailed to all NAPCTAC members, five
 of which represent State or local agen-
 cies, two of which  represent environ-
 mental groups, and  eight of which rep-
 resent industry. Copies were mailed to
 six environmental  groups and  three
 consumer groups at  the same  time,
 and to a representative of the NGA.
   Copies of the final report were sent
 to the  Governors. State, and local air
 pollution control agencies, NAPCTAC
 members, environmental groups,  the
 NGA, and  other requesters in  early
 July.
   A public hearing will be held to dis-
 cuss the proposed priority list in ac-
 cordance with section lll(g)(8) of the
 Clean  Air  Act.   Persons wishing to
 make oral  presentations should con-
 tact  EPA at  the address above. Any
 member of the public may file a writ-
 ten  statement   with   EPA  before,
 during,  or  within 30 days  after  the
 hearing. Written statements should be
 addressed to Mr.  Gary D. McCutchen
 at the address above.
   A verbatim transcript of the hearing
 and written statements  will be availa-
 ble for public inspection and  copying
 during normal working hours in Wash-
 ington, D.C., at the U.S. Environmen-
 tal Protection Agency's  Public Infor-
 mation Reference Unit  (address same
 as above).
   Note that application for revision of
 the list at any time by  a Governor is
 specifically   permitted   In   section
 lll(g). EPA must evaluate an  applica-
 tion  within 90 days, explain  why an
 application is not accepted, and imple-
 ment acceptable applications following
 a  public  hearing  on  the  proposed
 action. Applications relating to NSPS
 may be to (1) add a major source cate-
 gory to the list, (2)  add a source cate-
 gory to  the  list, whether  major or
 minor, if it has the potential to endan-
 ger health or welfare. (3) revise  prior-
 ities if the criteria specified in the Act
 have not been properly  applied,  or (4)
 revise a  promulgated NSPS that  no
 longer  reflects  best control technol-
 ogy.

      DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS

   When the list of source categories is
 promulgated in the  FEDERAL REGISTER,
 EPA will undertake a program to pro-
 mulgate  standards  for  those source
 categories by August 7, 1982. EPA has
 already  initiated  the  development of
' standards for nearly half of the source
 categories listed;, work on the  remain-
 ing source categories will be initiated
 within the next 2 years.
   It should  be pointed out that several
 of the source categories listed could be
 subject  to  standards  which may  be
adopted under section  112 of  the
Clean   Air   Act  (national  emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
or NESHAP). Included are byproduct
coke ovens and several source catego-
ries  within   the petroleum  transport
and  marketing industry.  If standards
are developed  under section 112 for
these or any other source categories
on the list being proposed today, then
standards would not be developed for
those source categories under section
111.
  The priority  ranking is  indicated by
the number to the left of each source
category and will be used  to decide the
order in which new projects are initi-
ated, although this is not necessarily
an indication of the order  in  which
projects will  be completed. In  fact,
higher priority source categories often
present difficult technical and regula-
tory  problems,  and may be among the
later  source  categories   for  which
standards are promulgated.
  It  should  be noted  also  that  the
source  categories   identified on this
proposed  list are  not subject  to  the
provisions   of   section   lll(bXlXB)
which would require proposal 120 days
after adoption  of the list. Rather, the
promulgation of standards for sources
contained on the  list  being proposed
here will be undertaken in accordance
with the time  schedule prescribed in
section  HUfXl) of the Clean Air Act
amendments. That is. 25  percent are
to be promulgated  by August 1980. 75
percent by August 1981, and all of the
standards by August 1982.
  Dated: August 24. 1978.
              DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                    Administrator.
  It Is  proposed to amend Part 60 of
Chapter I of Title 40  of  the Code of
Federal Regulations by adding §60.16
to Subpart A as follows:

§60.16  Priority List.
Priority
number '

    STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION

16.  Fossil-fuel-fired steam generators:
   Industrial boilers.
14.  Stationary  internal  combustion
   engines.

      METALLURGICAL PROCESSES

10.  By-product coke ovens.
23.  Foundries: Grey iron.
41.  Foundries: Steel.
42.  Secondary aluminum.
20.  Secondary copper.
66.  Secondary zinc.
67.  Uranium refining.

         MINERAL PRODUCTS

57.  Asphalt roofing.
  •Low numbers have highest priority: e.g..
No. 1 is high priority, No. 72 is low priority.
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 17ft—THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1978
                                                 V-A-5
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
40.  Brick and related clay products.
60.  Cast able refractories.
58.  Ceramic clay.
48.  Fiberglass.
38.  Glass.
45.  Gypsum.
19.  Metallic mineral processing.
13.  Mineral wool.
18.  Non-metallic mineral processing.
64.  Perllte.
21.  Phosphate rock preparation.
43.  Sintering: Clay and flyash.

        POLYMERS  AND RESINS

54.  Polymera and resins: ABS-SAN
   resins.
12.  Polymers  and   resins:   Acrylic
   resins.
50.  Polymers  and  resins:  Phenolic
   resins.
62.  Polymers and resins:  Polyester
   resins.
30.  Polymers and resins: Polyethyl-
   ene.
55.  Polymers and resins: Polypropy-
   lene.
53.  Polymers and  resins: Polystyrene.
61.  Polymers and resins: Urea-mela-
   mine resins.

       POOD AND AGRICULTURAL

68.  Alfalfa dehydrating.
44.  Ammonium sulfate.
59.  Ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
69.  Animal feed defluorlnatlon.
63.  Starch.
70.  Urea  (for fertilizer and polymers).
27.  Vegetable oil.

        WASTE INCINERATION

11,  Incineration:  Industrial-commer-
   cial.

    BASIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURE

 1.  Synthetic Organic Chemical Man-
   ufacturing.
61.  Borax and boric acid.
47.  Hydrofluoric acid.
65,  Phosphoric add:  Thermal  proc-
   ess.
40,  Potash.
46.  Sodium carbonate.

  CHEMICAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURE

62.  Ammonia.
 2.  Carbon black.
31.  Charcoal.
71,  Detergent,
17,  Explosives.
 7,  Fuel conversion,
34.  Printing ink.
35.  Synthetic fibers.
28.  Synthetic rubber.
29.  Varnish.
      EVAPORATIVE Loss SOURCES
 8.
 9.
16.
    Dry cleaning.
    Oraphlc arts.
    Industrial surface coating: Auto-
   mobiles.
 3.  Industrial surface coating: Cans.
 8,  Industrial surface coating: Fabric,
                                      37.  Industrial surface coating:  Large
                                         appliances.
                                      32.  Industrial surface coating:  Metal
                                         coll.
                                       5.  Industrial surface coating: Paper.

                                              PETROLEUM INDUSTRY

                                      25.  Crude oil and natural gas produc-
                                         tion.
                                      72.  Gasoline additives.
                                       4.  Petroleum   refinery:   Fugitive
                                         sources.
                                      33.  Transportation and marketing.

                                                WOOD PROCESSING

                                      24.  Chemical wood pulping: Acid sul-
                                         We.
                                      22.  Chemical wood pulping:  Neutral
                                         sulflte (NSSC).
                                      36.  Plywood manufacture.

                                              CONSUMER PRODUCTS
                                      56.  Textile processing.

                                            MINOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
                                      Lead acid battery manufacture.'
                                      Solvent metal cleaning (degreasing).'
                                      Industrial surface coating: metal  fur-
                                         niture. '
                                       AUTHORITY: Section 111 and 301(a) of the
                                      Clean  Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7411,
                                      7601).
                                       [FR Doc. 78-24441 Filed 8-30-78: 8:45 am]
                                        'Not prioritized, but Included on list. See
                                      explanation In preamble.
                             HDIRAl MOUTH, VOL. 43, NO. 170-THURiDAY, AUOUST II, 1971
                                               V-A-6
-------
 ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
      AGENCY
ELECTRIC  UTILITY  STEAM
  GENERATING UNITS

   Proposed Standards of
Performance and Announcement
of Public Hearing on Proposed
       Standards
       SUBPART D,
-------
                                               PROPOSED  RULES
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

            140 CFR Pert 60]

             IFRL 967-1]

  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
         STATIONARY SOURCES

    EUdrlt Utility St*om Generating Unltt

AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The  proposed standards
of performance would limit emissions
of  sulfur  dioxide  (SO,),  partlculate
matter,  and  nitrogen  oxides  (NO.)
from new, modified, and reconstructed
electric utility steam generating units
capable of combusting more than  73
megawatts (MW) heat input (250 mil-
lion Btu/hour) of fossil fuel.  A new
reference method for determining con-
tinuous compliance with SO, and NO,
standards Is also proposed. The Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977 require
EPA to revise the current standards of
performance for  fossil  fuel-fired sta-
tionary sources. The intended effect of
this proposal Is to require  new, modi-
fied, and reconstructed electric utility
steam generating units to use the best
demonstrated systems of  continuous
emission reduction and to  satisfy the
requirements  of  the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977.
  The  principal Issue associated with
this proposal is whether electric utility
steam   generating  units  firing  low-
sulfur-content coal should be required
to achieve the same percentage reduc-
tion In  potential  SO»  emissions  as
those burning  higher sulfur content
coal. Resolving this question of full
versus  partial control Is difficult  be-
cause of the significant environmental.
energy, and economic implications as-
sociated with  each  alternative,  The
Administrator has  not made a decision
on which of the alternatives should be
adopted In the final standard and so-
licits additional data on these Impacts
before  promulgating the final regula-
tion.
  The conference report for the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977 says  in
pertinent part:
  • • • In establishing a national percent re-
duction  for new fossil fuel-fired sources, the
conferees agreed that the Administrator
may, In  his discretion, set a range of pollut-
ant  reduction  that  reflects varying fuel
characteristics. Any departure from the uni-
form national percentage reduction require-
ment, however, must be accompanied by a
finding that  such a departure does  not un-
dermine  the basic purposes of the House
provision and other  provisions of the act,
such as maximizing the use of locally availa-
ble fuels.
  This proposal sets forth the full, or
uniform control  alternative  and sets
forth other alternatives for comment
as well.  It should be  noted  that  the
Clean  Air  Act  provides  that  new
source  performance standards  apply
from the date they are proposed and it
would  be easier for powerplants that
start construction during the proposal
period to scale down to partial control
than to scale up to  full control should
the final standard differ from the pro-
posal.
  The  final decision on the appropri-
ate level of control will be made only
after  analyses  are  completed  and
public comments evaluated.  Because
the decision will require a careful bal-
ancing of environmental, energy, and
economic impacts,  the Administrator
believes  that extensive public  involve-
ment is  essential. Comments on  the
factual  basis  for the  standards and
suggestions  on the  interpretation  of
data are  actively solicited.
DATES:  Comments. Comments  must
be received on or before November 20,
1978.
  Public hearing. A separate  notice Is
published in today's FEDERAL REGISTER
announcing the time  and  place  of a
public  hearing on the proposed stand-
ards.
ADDRESSES:  Comments.  Comments
should   be  submitted to  Jack   R.
Farmer,  Chief,  Standards Develop-
ment  Branch   (MD-13),   Emission
Standards  and Engineering Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
  Background information. The  back-
ground  information  documents (refer
to section on studies) for the proposed
standards may be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research
Triangle Park  N.C.  27711, telephone
919-541-2777.  In addition,  a  copy is
available for Inspection in  the Office
of Public  Affairs in  each Regional
Office, and  in  EPA's Central Docket
Section In Washington, D.C.
  Docket. Docket No.  OAQPS-78-1,
containing all supporting information
used by  EPA  in  developing the  pro-
posed standards, Is available for public
inspection and copying between 8 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at
EPA's  Central  Docket Section,  room
2903B. Waterside Mall, 401  M Street
SW., Washington. D.C.  20460.
  The docket is an organized and com-
plete file of all the information  sub-
mitted to or otherwise considered by
EPA In the development of this  pro-
posed  rulemaklng.  The  docketing
system Is Intended  to  allow members
of the public  and industries  Involved
to readily  Identify  and locate docu-
ments  so that  they can intelligently
and effectively participate In the rule-
making process. Along  with the state-
ment of basis and purpose of the pro-
mulgated rule and EPA responses to
significant comments, the contents of
the docket will serve as  the record in
case   of  judicial  review   (section
307(d)(a)).
FOR   FURTHER  INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Don R. Goodwin, Director. Emission
  Standards and  Engineering  Division
  (MD-13). Environmental Protection
  Agency,  Research  Triangle  Park,
  N.C. 27711, telephone 919-541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Summary of  proposed  standards; ra-
tionale; background; applicability: SO)
standards; particulate matter stand-
ards;  NO, standards: studies; perform-
ance testing; and  miscellaneous.

   SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS

            APPLICABILITY

  The proposed standards would apply
to  electric  utility steam  generating
units that are capable of firing more
than  73 MW (250 million Btu/hour)
heat input of  fossil fuel and for which
construction  Is commenced after Sep-
tember 18, 1978.

            SOfEMISSIONS

  The proposed SO« standards would
limit  SO, emissions to  520 ng/J  (1.2
Ib/mtUlon Btu) heat Input for  solid
fuel (except for 3 days per month) and
340  ng/J  (0.80  Ib/milllon Btu)  for
liquid and gaseous fuel (except for  3
days  per month).  Also,  uncontrolled
SO8 emissions from solid,  liquid,  and
gaseous fuel  would be required  to be
reduced  by  85  percent.  Compliance
with  the  SO, emission limitation  and
percent  reduction would  be deter-
mined on a 24-hour daily basis. The
85-percent requirement would apply at
all times except for 3 days  per month.
when only a  75-percent  SO, reduction
requirement would apply. The percent
reduction  requirement   would   not
apply if  SO,  emissions Into the atmo-
sphere are less than 86 ng/J (0.20 lb/
million Btu) heat input.
  The percent  reduction  would be
•computed on the basis of overall  SO,
removed by all types of SO, and sulfur
removal  technology Including  flue gas
desulfurlzatlon (FGD)  systems   and
fuel pretreatment  systems (such  as
coal cleaning,  coal  gasification,  and
coal liquefaction). Sulfur  removed by a
coal pulverizer or In bottom ash  and
flyash would  also be Included in  the
computation.

    PARTIClfLATE MATTER EMISSIONS

  The  proposed   partlculate  matter
emission standard  would limit  emis-
sions to 13 ng/J (0.030 Ib/mlllion Blu)
heat  input.   The  proposed  opacity
standard  would  limit the  opacity of
emissions to 20 percent (6-minute aver-
age).  If  an  affected facility exhibits
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43. NO. 182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1», 1978
                                                 V-D-2
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
opacity levels higher than 20 percent,
while at the same time demonstrating
compliance   with   the  participate
matter standard, then a source-specific
opacity  standard may be established
under 40 CFR 60.life).

           NO, EMISSIONS

  The proposed  NO, emission  stand-
ards vary  according to fuel character-
istics as  follows:
  (1)  210  ng/J (0.50 Ib/mlllion Btu)
heat  Input  from the combustion  of
subbituminous coal,  shale oil, or any
solid, liquid,  or  gaseous fuel  derived
from coal.
  (2)  260  ng/J (0.60 Ib/million Btu)
heat input from  the  combustion of bi-
tuminous coal.
In  addition,  separate standards are
being proposed for gaseous and liquid
fuels  not  derived from coal,  lignite
from certain areas, and coal refuse.

             RATIONALE

           SOi STANDARDS

  Under section  Hlfa)  of the  Act. a
standard of  performance must  reflect
the degree of emission limitation and
percentage   reduction    achievable
through the application of the  best
technological  system  of continuous
emission reduction taking Into consid-
eration  cost  and any nonalr  quality
health and environmental impacts and
energy  requirements.  In  addition,
credit is to be given lor any cleaning of
the  fuel,  or reduction  In  pollutant
characteristics   of   the   fuel,   after
mining and prior to combustion.
  The 1977 amendment* substantially
changed  the criteria for  regulating
new powerplants by  requiring  the ap-
plication of  technological methods  of
control to minimize SO, emissions and
to maximize the use of locally  availa-
ble coals. Under  the statute,  these
goals are to  be achieved through revi-
sion of the standards of performance
for  new  fossil  fuel-fired  stationary
sources to specify (1) an emission limi-
tation and (2) a percentage reduction
requirement.  According to legislative
history  accompanying  the  amend-
ments, the  percentage reduction  re-
quirement should be applied uniform-
ly, on a nationwide  basis,  unless the
Administrator finds  that varying re-
quirements applied to coals of  differ-
ing characteristics will not undermine
the objectives'of the  House bill and
other Act provisions.
  The principal issue to be resolved in
this rulemaklng  is  whether a  plant
burning low-sulfur coal should be re-
quired to achieve the same percentage
reduction in  potential SO, emissions as
those burning higher sulfur content
coals.
  Prior  to framing   alternative  SO,
standards,  EPA  evaluated  control
technology in terms  of performance,
costs, energy requirements, and  envi-
ronmental  impacts. EPA has conclud-
ed that the proposed emission  limits
and control efficiencies are achievable
with  well-designed,  maintained, and
operated flue  gas desulfurizatlon sys-
tems but has not determined whether
uniform application of these  require-
ments  is necessary to  satisfy section
111 of the Act. EPA's final decision on
this issue must be based on an assess-
ment of the  national, regional, and
local  environmental  (air, water, and
solid waste), economic, and energy im-
pacts of both  the uniform percentage
reduction  requirement  and  the  other
alternatives under consideration.
  Toward this  end, EPA performed ex-
tensive analyses  of the potential im-
pacts associated with each of the alter-
natives at the national, regional, and
plantslte levels. Economic models were
used for the  purpose  fo  forecasting
the nature of the utility industry in
future years.  Evaluation  of the  data
revealed that the results predicted  by
the model were very sensitive to such
assumptions as the rate of growth pre-
dicted  for  the industry, coal  and  oil
prices, and transportation costs. Pore-
casts which assume low  growth in elec-
tricity  demand and high  oil and rail
transportation prices  resulted  In  mod-
eled  estimates which show relatively
small differences  in the Impacts of the
alternatives at the national level. On
the other hand, If assumptions of high
growth in demand for  electricity are
combined  with low oil  and rail trans-
portation prices, more significant eco-
nomic, energy, and environmental Im-
pacts are predicted.
  The Agency believes that it would be
Inappropriate  to  make a decision  on
the choice between the full and partial
control alternatives without additional
analyses of the modeling  results. The
model Is being refined, with particular
emphasis being placed on  the assump-
tions used.  Comment on the appropri-
ateness  of the selected assumptions
and the relative  significance of  envi-
ronmental, energy, and economic im-
pacts are invited.
  At the plant level,  the  partial con-
trol alternative would  result  in  sub-
stantlallymore SO, emissions than full
control when  low-sulfur coal is  fired.
For example, a Western plant burning
low-sulfur coal could emit as much as
four times as much SO, under the par-
tial control alternative as under full
control. However,  there  are many
plant locations where the cost of man-
dated emission control equipment can
be an Important factor  In the  utility's
choice of  coal to be  fired.  If partial
control  is permitted  when low-sulfur
coal  is burned, the lower capital and
operating  costs  associated  with the
control equipment may justify a  deci-
sion  to use more  expensive low-sulfur
coal.  The  same   plant might   have
chosen cheaper high-sulfur coal if the
same control equipment were required
for all coals. In such a case, a partial
control approach  could result  in lower
emissions  than  a  full   control  ap-
proach. For example, a 500 MW low-
sulfur coal plant with partial control
might emit 10.000 tons per year while
the  same  plant  burning hiph-sulfur
coal  under full  control  might  emit
some 15.000 tons per year.
  The benefits of  such  shifts from
high- to  low-sulfur coal must  be com-
pared to  the costs associated with fore-
going Increased local coal production.
When considering local coal impacts.
it must be noted  that coal production
will  Increase  over current levels in all
areas of  the country under all control
aternatives. This means local coal pro-
duction Impacts will affect the level of
new production  rather than  displace
existing  production. The  Administra-
tor seeks comment on the relative sig-
nificance of  new  coal  production
versus existing coal production as it
pertains  to  the 'consideration of coal
Impacts in the final decision.
  The economic impact of the stand-
ard  can  be  viewed In  a number  of
ways,  depending  on  the  economic
measures selected and the manner  in
which they are used. While the capital
and  operating costs  of control can be
shown to  be significant  in  absolute
terms (e.g., billions of dollars), they
can  also  be  shown to be  relatively
small when compared to the hundreds
of billions of dollars in new capital in-
vestment planned by the industry or
to  the  approximately  $100  billion
annual revenue requirement projected
for 1990.  If the Impact Is considered in
terms of  monthly cost to  the  average
consumer,  the  alternatives   do not
appear to have a major Impact. How-
ever, when computed as a  total cost to
an average family over a 30- to 40-year
period, the impacts can appear  much
more significant.  In view  of this, the
Administrator solicits comments  on
which economic  Indicators  are  most
appropriate and how the comparisons
should be made.
  A  consideration In establishing the
new  source performance standards for
powerplants  is their relationship to
the prevention of  significant deteriora-
tion  (PSD) program. Since virtually all
new  powerplants  will have to comply
with  both  the standards  of perform-
ance  and PSD requirements, concern
has  been expressed  that the case-by-
case best available control technology
review under PSD creates the poten-
tial for prolonged public  debate as to
the adequacy of the control proposed
for a given source. The likelihood of
such debate, and the associated delays,
would increase  II   a  less  stringent
standard  of performance  is  adopted.
Consideration must  also be given to
the  impact that  a source complying
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl 43, NO. 113—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1971
                                                V-D-3
-------
                                               PROPOSED  RULES
with the revised standard of perform-
ance will have on the air quality incre-
ment. A source with  lower emissions
will  use less  of  the  available incre-
ment, thus providing a greater margin
for growth. As mentioned above, the
impact of this standard can be either
to Increase or to  decrease emission
rates for a given plant depending on
the selection of the coal to be fired. In
view of the above,  the Administrator
solicits  comments  as  to  how much
weight should be given to PSD consid-
erations  when establishing the final
standard of performance requirement.

    PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS

  The proposed standards would limit
the emissions of partlculate matter to
13  ng/J (0.03 Ib/million  Btu) heat
input and would require a 99-percent
reduction  in  uncontrolled emissions
from solid  fuels and a 70-percent re-
duction for liquid fuels. No particulate
matter control would be necessary for
units firing gaseous fuels alone, and
thus a percent reduction would not be
required. The  20-percent  opacity (6-
mlnute  average) standard that Is cur-
rently applicable to steam electric gen-
erating  units <40 CFR Part 60, Sub-
part D) would be retained under the
proposed standard to insure proper op-
eration and maintenance of the partic-
ulate matter control system.
  The proposed standards are based on
the  performance of a well designed
and operated baghouse or electrostatic
precipitator (ESP).  EPA  has  deter-
mined that these control systems are
the best adequately demonstrated sys-
tems of continuous  emission reduction
(taking  into consideration  the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and
any nonair quality health and environ-
mental  impact,  and  energy require-
ments).
  This  determination  was  reached
after analyzing  emission  test results
from  steam  generators  firing both
high- and low-sulfur coal and employ-
ing either  ESP's or  baghouses. Al-
though  the baghouse data were based
on units of less than 44 MW, EPA has
concluded that there  are  no  techno-
logical barriers  that  would preclude
their application on larger units. In
addition, a  number of large  Instala-
tlons are now under construction, and
a  350-MW facility equipped  with  a
baghouse for particuJate emission con-
trol recently began operation.
  EPA considered a standard of 21 ng/
J <0.05 Jb/million Btu) which could be
met by wet particulate matter scrub-
bers  in  addition  to  baghouses  and
ESPs, but rejected this option because
using scrubbers could Increase  emis-
sions of fine particulate matter. A 21
ng/J standard would result in 60 per-
cent  higher emissions which could
have an adverse effect on visibility. On
the other hand, an advantage to allow-
ing the  use of scrubbers is that  a
single scrubber may be able to control
both SO, and particulate matter.
  It should  be  noted  that  there were
no  plants  available  for  testing  at
which  a well designed ESP or  bag-
house  was   followed  by  an  PGD
system; thus, the proposed standards
are based on emission  measurements
taken  at the particulate matter  con-
trol device discharge prior to any PGD
unit. Since there Is the potential for
an FGD system to affect  particulate
emissions. EPA is continuing  to assess
this situation. Of particular concern is
the potential contribution  of sulfuric
acid mist to the measured  particulate
matter  emissions.  This  issue is dis-
cussed in more detail under the partic-
ulate matter standards section of this
preamble. EPA solicits comments and
available data on this matter.
  The  proposed limit  of 13 ng/J (0.03
Ib/mlllion Btu) will  effectively  pre-
clude   the use  of  ESPs on  facilities
using  low sulfur coal  and require bag-
house control. DOE and the utility in-
dustry believe that baghouse technol-
ogy has not been demonstrated suffi-
ciently to require its use on utility size
facilities. Because of this, DOE recom-
mends that  the standard  be no less
than  21 ng/J  (0.05  Ib/miliion  Btu)
while   the  industry  recommends   a
standard of  34 ng/J  (0.08 Ib/million
Btu). EPA requests comments on this
this  recommendation  as  well  as on
EPA's proposal.

           NO, STANDARDS

  The proposed NO, standards for dif-
ferent  fuels  are based on the  emission
limitations achievable through  com-
bustion modification techniques. Com-
bustion modification limits NO, forma-
tion in the  boiler  by reducing flame
temperatures and  by minimizing the
availability of oxygen during combus-
tion. The levels to which  NO, emis-
sions can be reduced with combustion
modification depend upon the type  of
fuel burned, boiler design,  and boiler
operating practice.
  When  considering   these  factors,
EPA concluded that a uniform stand-
ard could not be applied to  all fossil
fuels or boiler types. In addition, EPA
took into consideration the adverse
side effects of low NO, operation such
as boiler tube wastage. As a result, dif-
ferent  requirements  were developed
for bituminous and  subbltuminous
coals.
  The   limitations  for  coal-derived
liquid and gaseous fuels and  shale oil
are based on limits  achievable with
subbituminous  coals.  The  limitations
for liquid and  gaseous fuels are the
same  as those promulgated  in  1971
under  40 CFR  part 80  subpart D for
large steam  generators. These require-
ments  were  not reexamined since few,
if any, new oil- or  gas-fired  power
plants are expected to be built. The re-
cently promulgated limitations for lig-
nite combustion  (43  FR 9276) have
been  Incorporated  into these regula-
tions  without change because no new
data have become available since their
promulgation. Similarly,  the exemp-
tion for combustion of coal refuse has
also been retained.

             BACKGROUND

  In December 1971. under section  111
of the Clean Air Act. the Administra-
tor promulgated standards of perform-
ance to limit emissions of SOi. particu-
late matter, and NO,  from new,  modi-
fied, and reconstructed fossil-fuel-fired
steam generators  (40 CFR  60.40  et
seq.).  Since  that time, the technology
for controlling these emissions has im-
proved, but  emissions of SO,, particu-
late matter, and NO,  continue to be a
national problem. In 1976, steam elec-
tric generating units  contributed  24
percent of the particulate matter.  65
percent of the SOi, and 29 percent of
the NO, emissions on a national basis.
  The utility Industry is  expected  to
have   continued   and   significant
growth; approximately 300 new fossil-
fuel-fired  power plant boilers are  to
begin operation within  the next  10
years. Associated with utility growth is
the continued  long-term increase  in
utility coal  consumption from  some
650 million  tons/year in  1975  to  be-
tween 1.400  and  1,800 million  tons/
year in  1990. Under the current per-
formance  standards for power plants,
national SO, emissions are projected
to increase approximately 15 to 16 per-
cent between 1975 and 1990.
  Impacts will be more dramatic on a
regional basis. For example, in the ab-
sence of more stringent controls, util-
ity SO.  emissions are expected to in-
crease tenfold to over  2 million tons by
1990 in the West South Central region
of the country (Texas, Oklahoma.  Ar-
kansas, and Louisiana).
  EPA was  petitioned on August  6.
1976,  by  the Sierra  Club  and the
Oljato and Red Mesa Chapters of the
Navaho Tribe to revise the SO, stand-
ard so as to require a 90 percent reduc-
tion in  SO,  emissions from  all coal-
fired  power  plants.  The  petition  in-
cluded information  to  support the
claim that  advances  in technology
since  1971 called for a revision of the
standard,  and EPA agreed to investi-
gate the matter thoroughly. On Janu-
ary 27,  1977 (42  FR  5121),  EPA an-
nounced that it had initiated a study
to  complete the  technological,  eco-
nomic,  and  other   documentation
needed to determine  to  what extent
the SO, standard  for fossil-fuel-fired
steam generators should be revised.
  On  August 7, 1977, President Carter
signed into  law  the Clean  Air Act
Amendments of 1977. The provisions
under section lll(b)(6) of the Act. as
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                                  V-D-4
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
amended, require EPA to revise  the
standards of  performance for  fossil-
fuel-fired electric utility steam gener-
ators within 1 year after enactment.
  After the  Sierra  Club petition of
August 1976. EPA initiated studies to
review the advancement made on  pol-
lution control systems at power plants.
These  studies were  continued  follow-
ing the amendment of the Clean Air
Act. In order to meet the  schedule es-
tablished by the Act, a preliminary as-
sessment of  the ongoing  studies  was
made in late  1917. A National Air Pol-
lution  Control  Techniques  Advisory
Committee (NAPCTAC)  meeting  was
held on December 13 and 14. 1977, to
present EPA preliminary data. The
meeting was open  to  the public  and
comments were solicited.
  The  Clean  Air Act Amendments of
W77 required the standards  to be re-
vised by August 7, 1978. When it ap-
peared that EPA would not meet this
schedule, the Sierra Club  filed  a com-
plaint  on July 14, 1978, with the U.S.
District Court for the District  of Co-
lumbia requesting injunctlve relief to
require, among other things, that EPA
propose  the  revised  standards  by
August 7, 1978.  A consent order  was
developed and Issued by the  court re-
quiring the EPA Administrator to (1)
deliver  the  proposal package  to  the
office of the  Federal Register by Sep-
tember 12, 1978, and  (2) promulgate
the final  standards  within 6 months
after proposal
  The purpose of this proposal is to re-
spond  to the petition  of  the Navaho
Tribe and Sierra Club, and to Initiate
the rulemaking required under section
lll(b)<6)of the Act.

           APPLICABILITY

  The proposed standards  would apply
to all electric utility steam generating
units (1) capable of firing more than
73  MW (250 million  Bty/per  hour)
heat input of fossil fuel (approximate-
ly 25 MW of  electrical energy output)
and (2) for which construction Is com-
menced after September 18, 1978.
  On December 23, 1971, EPA promul-
gated,  under  subpart  D  of  40 CFR
Part 60, standards of performance for
fossil-fuel-fired steam generators used
in electric utility and  large  industrial
applications.  The  proposed standards
will not apply to electric utility steam
generating units originally subject to
those standards (subpart D) unless the
affected facilities are modified or re-
constructed.

  ELECTRIC UTILITY STEAM GENERATING
                UNITS
  An electric utility steam generating
unit la  defined as any steam electric
generating unit that is physically con-
nected to a power distribution system
and la  constructed for the purpose of
selling for use by the general public
more than one-third of its maximum
electrical  generating  capacity.  Any
steam  that  could be sold to  produce
electrical power for sale is also includ-
ed when determining  applicability of
the standard.

        INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES

  Industrial  steam electric generating
units with heat  Input  above  73 MW
that are constructed for the  purpose
of selling more than one-third of their
maximum electrical  generation capac-
ity (or steam generating capacity used
to produce electricity  for sale) would
be covered under the proposed stand-
ards. Industrial steam generating units
with a heat input above 73 MW that
produce only steam  or that were con-
structed for the purpose of selling less
than one-third of their electric genera-
tion  capacity are not  covered by  the
proposed standards,  but will continue
to be covered under subpart D.

            COGENERATION

  Electric  cogeneratlon  units  (steam
generating units that would  produce
steam used for electric generation  and
process heat)  would  be  considered
electric utility steam generating units
If they: (1) Were capable of combust-
ing more  than 73 MW  of fossil fuel
and  (2) would be physically connected
to a  power distribution system for the
purpose of selling for use by the gen-
eral  public  more than  one-third  of
their maximum electrical generating
capacity. Cogeneratlon facilities  that
would  produce  power  only for "in-
house" industrial use would be consid-
ered industrial boilers  and would  be
covered under subpart D if applicable.

      RESOURCE RECOVERY UNITS

  Steam electric generating units that
combust nonfossll fuels such as wood
residue, sewage sludge, wa&te material,
or municipal refuse (either aone or in
combination  with fossil  fuel) would
only be covered by the proposed stand-
ards if the steam generating unit Is ca-
pable of firing more than 73 MW of
fossil fuel.  If only  municipal refuse
were fired and the unit was not capa-
ble of  being  fired with more  than 73
MW of fossil fuel, the  unit would be
considered   an   incinerator and  the
standards  under  subpart  E  would
apply.  Similarly,  the standards under
subpart O for sewage treatment plants
would  apply if  only  sewage  sludge
were burned.

     COMBINCD-CYCLI  OAS TURBINES

  The proposed standards would cover
boiler emissions from electric utility
combined-cycle  gas turbines that  are
capable of being fired with more than
73 MW (250 million Btu-hour) heat
Input of fossil fuel In the steam gener-
ator, and where the unit is constructed
for the purpose of selling more  than
one-third of its electrical output ca-
pacity to the general public. Electric
utility  combined-cycle  gas  turbines
that use only turbine exhaust gas to
heat  a steam  generator (waste  heat
boiler) or that are not capable ol being
fired with more than 73 MW of fossil
fuel In the steam generator would not
be covered by the proposed standards.

       ISSUES ON APPLICABILITY

  Noncontinental areas. There are sev-
eral Island areas that would be affect-
ed by the proposed standards. Because
ot the unique characteristics of these
areas,  it is expected  that all of their
future power plants will use oil rather
than coal. The Issue  Is whether these
new oil-fired units should be subject to
the  proposed  85  percent reduction,
which  would  effectively require  the
use of FOD or equivalent  systems, or
to allow the use of low sulfur oil. After
considering  the  costs  of  requiring
FOD  systems in light  of the limited
land area available for sludge disposal.
EPA has decided to  propose  an exep-
tion for these facilities from the  85
percent reduction  requirement.  They
would  have to comply with  the pro-
posed Sd  limit for  oil-fired facilities
of 340 ng/J  (0.80 Ib/million Btu)  as
well as all other proposed standards
(see section 4.4 of EPA 450/2-78-007a-
1).
  Anthracite  coal  and Alaskan coal.
The proposed standards would  cover
facilities combusting  low  sulfur  an-
thracite  coal or Alaskan coal in the
same manner as all other coals.
  EPA realizes, however, there are ar-
guments in favor of allowing less strin-
gent standards because of unique fac-
tors for both coals.
  With  respect to  Alaskan coal,  It is
argued that the unique climatic condi-
tions In Alaska coupled with  the very
low sulfur content of the coal makes it
unreasonable to apply  the same per-
cent reduction requirement  for SO,
emissions to  power plants located  in
that State. Anthracite is also low  in
sulfur  content, but it is more expen-
sive  to produce  than other locally
available coals. In view of this, propo-
nents of anthracite argue that if con-
trol cost were reduced through a less
stringent  standard,  anthracite  could
then  compete  with  locally  available
high sulfur content  bituminous  coal
(see section  4.7.2  of  EPA  450/2-78-
007a-l).
  Emerging    technologies.   Various
groups expressed concern that if the
proposed standards  were rigidly ap-
plied,  the  development of new  and
promising technologies might be dis-
couraged. They suggested that the In-
novative technology waiver provisions
under the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 are not adequate to encourage
certain   capital-intensive,   front-end
                            FIDIRAl RtOISTM, VOl 41, NO. IM-TUIIDAY, SIPTIMUI 19, 1971
                                               V-D-5
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
control technologies. Under the inno-
vative technology  waiver  provisions
(section lll(j) of the Act) the Admin-
istrator may errant waivers for a period
of up to 7 years from the date of Issu-
ance  of the waiver or  up to 4 years
from  the start of operation of a facili-
ty, whichever  Is less.  Although this
amount of time may be  sufficient to
amortize the cost  of tail-gas control
devices that  do  not  achieve  their
design control level, it does not appear
to be sufficient for amortization  of
high-capital-cost,   front-end  control
technologies. For most  front-end con-
trol technologies,  modification or re-
trofit may be economically unreason-
able.
  To mitigate the potential  Impact on
emerging front-end technologies. EPA
proposes  to establish  slightly less
stringent requirements  for initial full-
scale   demonstration   plants.   This
should insure that  these standards do
not preclude the development of new
front-end   technologies   and  should
compensate for problems  that  may
arise when applying them to commer-
cial-scale facilities. The  85 percent SO,
control requirement and the 210-ng/J
NO, standard will  provide developers
of new technologies a  clear environ-
mental  control objective  for commer-
cial facilities. However, If the Adminis-
trator subsequently finds that a given
emerging technology (taking Into con-
sideration all areas of  environmental
impact, Including  air,  water,  solid
waste, toxics, and land  use) offers su-
perior overall environmental perform-
ance,  alternative standards would then
be established by the Administrator.
  Under the proposal, the Administra-
tor (in consultation with the Depart-
ment  of Energy) would  issue commer-
cial  demonstration  permits for the
first three full scale demonstration fa-
cilities  of  each of the  technologies
listed in the  following table.  These
technologies have been shown to have
the potential to achieve the standards
established for  commercial facilities.
Under such permits, an 80 percent Sd
control  level (24-hour  average) or  a
300 ng/J  (0.70  Ib/million Btu)  NO,
emission limitation for  liquid fuel de-
rived  from bituminous coals would be
established. If  the Administrator (in
consultation with the Department  of
Energy) finds that additional demon-
stration of a given technology is neces-
sary, additional permits  may be issued.
No more than  15,000 MW equivalent
electrical capacity  would  be allocated
for the purpose of commercial demon-
strations under this proposal. This ca-
pacity would be allocated as follows:
      Technology
Pollutant
Equivalent
                              MW
                            electrical
                            capacity
Solvent refined coal	  SO,   6.000-10.000
Fluldteed bed combustion  SO,     400-3.000
  (atmospheric).
Fluidlzed bed combustion  SO,     200-1.200
  (pressurized).
Coal liquefaction	  NO.    750-10.000

  The  capacity Is presented  In ranges
because  of  uncertainty  as to  the
amount that will be required for any
one  technology.  This use of ranges
should not be construed to mean that
more than 15,000  MW would be allo-
cated for purposes of commercial dem-
onstration permits.
  It  should be noted  that these  per-
mits would only apply to the applica-
tion of this standard and would not su-
percede the new source  review proce-
dures and prevention of significant de-
terioration requirements under section
110 of the Act.
  Finally, concern has been expressed
as to whether emerging technologies
should be required to comply with the
proposed  particulate standard.  Since
this  concern  is based on the same ar-
guments that  have been offered in
regard  to  conventional  technologies,
consideration of special provisions will
be tied to the final decision on the par-
ticulate emission limitation.
  Modifications.  The  question   has
been raised whether the use of shale
oi) coal-based fuels such  as coaJ/oi]
mixtures or solvent-refined  coal  In  a
boiler originally designed for oil firing
is considered a modification  under 40
CFR 60.14(c). In response, EPA pro-
poses that shifting an existing oil-fired
steam  generator to coal/oil  mixtures,
shale oil. or coal-derived fuels, would
not be considered  a modification  and
the facility would not be subject to the
proposed standards.

           SO, STANDARDS

  General  Requirements.  The  pro-
posed  standards  for  SO, emissions
would require:
  1. Reduction of potential SO, emis-
sions for solid, liquid,  and  gaseous
fuels by 85 percent (24-hour average
control efficiency)  except for 3  days
per month when no less than 75 per-
cent is allowed.
  2.  Maximum  allowable   emissions
from solid fuel of 520 ng/J (1.2 lb/mil-
lion  Btu) heat input 24-hour average
except for the 3 days per month when
the 75 percent is allowed.
  3.  Maximum  allowable  emissions
from liquid or gaseous  fuels of 340 ng/
J (0.80 Ib/million Btu) heat  Input 24-
hour average  except  for 3  days  per
month.
  4. Maximum control level of 86 ng/J
(0.20  Ib/million  Btu) heat input  24-
hour  average.

             DISCUSSION

  The proposed standards are based on
emission levels and the percentage re-
duction  achievable  with  a well  de-
signed,  operated, and  maintained flue
gas  desulfurlzation   (FGD)  system.
EPA  believes the following types of
FGD systems are capable of achieving
the proposed standards: lime,  limes-
tone,    Wellman-Lord,    magnesium
oxide, and double alkali. In determin-
ing that  FGD is the best system of
continuous  emission  reduction  that
has been  adequately demonstrated  for
removal of SO,, EPA assessed the costs
of  achieving the proposed standards
and the nonair quality health and  en-
vironmental impacts  and energy  re-
quirements.  Although the  proposed
standards are based  on  the perform-
ance  of FGD systems,  the use of other
systems should not be discouraged. In
this  regard, a  number  of  emerging
technologies show promise.
  The proposed  percentage reduction
requirement would apply to the com-
bustion of all fossil  fuels unless the
emission level of 86 ng/J (0.20  Ib/mil-
lion 'Btu) is constantly  attained (24-
hour  average basis).  In effect, this
means that all coal-fired and residual-
oil-fired plants would be required to
install FGD or  equivalent  SO,  emis-
sion  control systems. On  the  other
hand, the emission  level of 86  ng/J
would permit certain  clean fuels, such
as wood waste, to be  burned without
FGD  or at a very low percentage of re-
duction.
  The emission limitations of 520 ng/J
(1.2 Ib/million Btu) for solid fuels and
340 ng/J  (0.80  Ib/million Btu) for
liquid and gaseous fuels would place a
maximum limit  on SO,  emissions  re-
gardless of  percentage of  SO,  reduc-
tion  attained and thus  restrict  the
amount of sulfur  In the fuel fired.
  In  determining that FGD systems
were  adequately demonstrated and
that  they could  attain  the proposed
limitations,  EPA has  conducted  a
number of studies either  directly  or
through consultants.  To evaluate the
relative performance of FGD systems,
EPA  has  conducted  tests at various
sites.  Several absorber designs and ab-
sorbents were tested  at  the Shawnee
10-MW  test facility,  emission  tests
were  performed  at various full-scale
operations,  and  performance results
from  other test facilities  and scrubber
installations  were surveyed, both  in
the United  States and Japan.  A de-
tailed summary   of the  results from
these  studies Is provided  in section 4.2
of the supplement to  the Background
Information document for SO,  (EPA
450/2-78-007a-1). In  addition,  all  of
the study reports are available  in the
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. K2-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                               V-D-6
-------
                                               PROPOSED  RULES
docket for review (see listing set forth
later in this preamble).

  PERCENTAGE REDUCTION REQUIREMENT

  In establishing the  percentage re-
duction requirement for potential SO>
emissions for solid, liquid, and  gaseous
fuels. EPA considered the SO,  removal
efficiency  of  prototype,  pilot-scale,
and  commercial-scale  FGD  systems.
EPA's  considerations  included meas-
ured variability of  percentage reduc-
tion,  effects  of scrubber  and  coal
sulfur  variability on performance, ef-
fects of a spare module on scrubber re-
liability,  and  effects of design  changes
and maintenance practices on scrubber
reliability.
  To establish  the  variation of FGD
system removal  efficiency and the ef-
fects of varying  sulfur content of coal
on measured 24-hour-average  SO, re-
movals.  EPA   obtained   continuous
monitoring data from the Cane  Run
and  Bruce  Mansfield  powerplants.
These data were analyzed to establish
the  geometric  standard  deviations.
Based on these analyses. EPA  project-
ed the mean SO. removal needed  to
comply with  the proposed percentage
reduction requirement. At the  99.99
percent confidence level, EPA conclud-
ed that  an FGD  system  that could
achieve  a  92 percent long-term  (30
days  or  more) mean SOa   removal
would  comply  with  the proposed 85
percent  (24-hour   average)   require-
ment.
  With respect  to long-term  SO, re-
moval  efficiency, EPA has concluded
that with certain practical changes in
design,  operation,  and  maintenance
practices, lime/limestone  FGD  sys-
tems can achieve long-term  SO, re-
moval of 92 percent. FGD technologies
employing  more reactive  absorbents
such  as  magnesium   oxide,   additive
magnesium-oxide-enriched lime,  and
sodium-based liquors can  achieve SO,
removal levesls of greater than 92 per-
cent. For a more detailed discussion of
these findings,  please refer to section
4.2 of EPA 450/2-78-i;07a-l.
          FGD AVAILABILITY

  With respect to conditions that may
affect FGD availability,  EPA  has in-
vestigated such problems as:
  1. Formation of scale in the absorber
and associated equipment in lime and
limestone systems leading to plugging
and reduced capacity.
  2. Plugging of mist eliminators, lines.
and some types of absorbers.
  3.  Failure  of ancillary  equipment
such  as  pumps, piping,  pH-sensing
equipment,   reheaters,   centrifuges,
fans, and duct and stack linings.
  4.  Inadequate absorbent make-up
preparation.
EPA has concluded that these prob-
lems  can  and  have  been   solved
through  the  Improved design  of com-
ponents, proper selection of construc-
tion materials,  appropriate  sparing,
good  operating practices,  and good
maintenance. As a result, the availabil-
ity of full-scale scrubbing facilities has
increased steadily. (See EPA 600/7-78-
032b.) When determining FGD avail-
ability, one  must  recognize that FGD
systems are composed of FGD mod-
ules, each of which Is a separate scrub-
bing system.  Because FGD  modules
are  not  generally  manufactured  in
sizes  over  125-MW  capacity,  large
powerplants use  multiple FGD mod-
ules in parallel. When FGD modules,
even those averaging 90 percent avail-
ability,  are  integrated into an FGD
system,  the  probability that  all mod-
ules in  the system  will be  simulta-
neously  available diminishes  in  pro-
portion  to  the number of modules:
therfore, spare FGD  modules will  be
needed in most Instances. Such spares
were Included  in EPA's  estimates  of
FGD  costs. Even when  high FGD
module  availabilities  are attained, the
FGD  module  will not  be  in  service
some of the time  because of regularly
scheduled maintenance operations  or
repairs needed to  restore loss of scrub-
bing efficiency. Although the amount
of time  for  such  maintenance  can  be
considerable (even continuous), there
should  be little  adverse  impact  on
plant operation. With spares, a module
can be  rotated out  of  operation  for
maintenance even at full  electrical
load conditions. Several plants now in
operation employ  such a system. At re-
duced electrical loads, all FGD mod-
ules will not be needed for SO, control.
Periodically, the entire plant is taken
out  of service for servicing non-FGD
system related components providing
an  opportunity for  scheduled FGD
maintenance.
  EPA acknowledges  that even  with a
good maintenance program and use of
spare FGD modules it may not be pos-
sible  to  maintain   complete   FGD
system  control for  a portion of a
plant's  operating hours.  At   these
times, the proposed  standards  would
require  that the electric generating
load be  shifted to an  alternative elec-
tric generating plant. This procedure
is necessary to prevent bypassing  of
uncontrolled SO,  emissions to the at-
mosphere.
  Load shifting Is normally  feasible,
but It will not be  possible when emer-
gency  conditions exist.  Emergency
conditions are  considered to be periods
when a  powerplant and other electri-
cal  generating equipment  owned  by
the associated utility company are
being operated at  full operating capac-
ity less the capacity equal to the larg-
est  single unit In the system.  Under
emergency conditions, the  proposed
standards would allow flue gas to be
bypassed around  an  Inoperable FGD
module   provided  the   facility   Is
equipped  with  at  least  one  spare
module.   The   proposed   standards
would not require plants having capac-
ity of less than 125 MW to have  a
spare module. Bypassing an FGD unit
except  under  emergency  conditions
would be a violation of  the standards.
  The emergency condition  provisions
are necessary to maintain the electric
utility's  capability  to  meet  electric
demand  when  excess generating re-
serves are not  available. A minimal
amount of spinning reserves must be
kept  separate from  the load shifting
procedures  to   prevent "blackouts."
Please refer to section 4.6 of EPA 450/
2-78-007a-l for a more detailed discus-
sion of this matter.

       ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

  A major consideration with respect
to nonregenerable FGD  systems  is the
disposal of sludge  and  contamination
from  wastewater; therefore. EPA had
its consultants examine these  poten-
tial problems in detail.
  With respect  to sludge disposal, the
consultant examined a number of pa-
rameters including  the  quantification
of solid wastes that would be generat-
ed  by  different regulatory options.
plant sizes,  coal sulfur  contents, and
scrubbing processes. In addition, un-
treated  wastes  were characterized by
effects of scrubbing process variables
on sludge chemistry,  trace element
content,  and  physical  and chemical
properties. Finally, the  environmental
impacts and  costs  of various disposal
processes  and practices  were assessed.
("Controlling  SO,  Emissions   from
Coal-Fired Steam Electric Generators:
Solid  Waste  Impact." EPA  600/7-78-
044.)
  From    a    companion    analysis
("Review of New Source Standards for
SO, Emissions from Coal-Fired Utility
Boilers," vol. 1, sec. 3).  it is  estimated
Chat  under  the 85-percent  reduction
requirement  the quantity  of sludge
generated will increase  from some 12
million metric tons dry  basis (current
standard) to some  55 million metric
tons dry basis In 1995.  These figures
are conservative since they  assume a
high-growth rate In electrical demand
(5.8 percent through 1985. and 5.5 per-
cent  thereafter).  The   quantity of
sludge generated would  be  less  under
regulatory options  that do not require
a  uniform application of the 85-per-
cent reduction requirement.
  To  estimate the  cost  of sludge dis-
posal, EPA  assumed that  dewatered
sludge would be fixed with lime and
fly ash  and be Impounded In a clay-
lined  pond. Based on this assumption.
EPA estimates that the  cost of dispos-
al would be some  $19 per dry metric
ton Including land costs.
  In addition, a field disposal study.
which has been  underway for 3  years
at  TVA's Shawnee  powerplant  site,
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 182— TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 197S
                                                V-D-7
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
has not revealed any significant prob-
lems  from  impoundment  of  treated
POD wastes.
  EPA has concluded from these stud-
ies that sludge can be disposed of in an
environmentally sound manner  at rea-
sonable costs.  EPA  will continue to
evaluate the costs  and effectiveness of
alternative disposal methods as part of
the economic analyses to be conducted
during the proposal period. Comments
on alternative control methods  are in-
vited.
  With respect to  the potential water
pollution impact, EPA's consultant ex-
amined alternative standards in terms
of their effects on  the quality and
quantity of powerplant waste-water ef-
fluents, and the amount of water con-
sumption. In addition, alternative SO,
control systems were examined reia-
tlve to their impact on the above. The
potential environmental effects  of SO>
control on effluents were also  exam-
ined, and  alternative  treatment proc-
esses were evaluated.
  The  water pollution  Impact  report
"Controlling SO, Emissions from Coal-
Fired   Steam  Electric Generators:
Water Pollution Impact." EPA  600/7-
78-045, concluded  that  in  the  aggre-
gate the volume and quality of waste
streams from SOa  control systems are
affected very  little  by alternative
standards    and  that   a!)   effluent
streams can be treated to  acceptable
levels   using   proven,   commercially
available  technologies.   Similarly,  a
more  stringent standard would have
little  effect on water  demand when
compared  to total plant consumptive
water use.

       ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY

  A potential alternative to wet FOD
systems is dry  SO, scrubbing.  One of
the more effective  designs  Incorpo-
rates  the  use  of  a spray  dryer and
baghouse.  In this system a spray dryer
(similar to a wet SO, scrubber) is used
with lime, soda ash, or other reactants
to scrub SO> from the flue gases. Be-
cause of the minimal use of water In
the spray  dryer (by design), no addi-
tional reheating is  required. Following
the spray dryer, a  baghouse Is used to
collect all paniculate matter (includ-
ing SOi reactants).
  Spray drying has been tested at pilot
plants,  and  it  may  be  capable of
achieving  85  percent   removal with
lime, soda ash, and other reactants.
Due to cost considerations, the system
is principally limited to coals with less
than 1.5-percent sulfur if lime is used.
Full-sized    spray-drying  units  for
powerplant application  have been or-
dered and are expected  to begin oper-
ation In the  early 1980's. (Refer to sec.
4,3 Of EPA 450/2-78-007a-l.)
  In addition, a combination of physi-
cal cleaning  of the fuel In conjunction
with FOD systems, may be a  viable
option for reducing SO,, depending on
the  particular  characteristics of the
coal being used.

     MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSION
             LIMITATION

  In selecting the proposed maximum
allowable emission  limitation.  EPA
had to take into consideration two pri-
mary factors:  FGD  performance and
the impact of the  timitatlon  on  high-
sulfur  coal reserves.  In  effect,  FGD
performance  determines  the  maxi-
mum sulfur content of coals  that can
be fired  in achieving compliance with
the maximum allowable emission limi-
tation. To estimate coal sulfur content
which  can be used. EPA projected SO,
emissions based upon minimum  FGD
system performance (i.e., 75 percent
SO, removal  3  days per month) and
maximum dally average  sulfur con-
tent. Two alternative maximum  al-
lowable  emission  levels were consid-
ered: (a) 520  ng/J with three exemp-
tions per month that would be coinci-
dent with the proposed percentage re-
duction requirement, and (b)  520 ng/J
with no exemptions.
  An analysis of national and regional
coal production in 1990 was performed
for each option. There would  be no
significant .differences in total nation-
al production with either  option. The
analysis  included use of cleaned, mid-
western coal when coal cleaning would
be necessary to  attain compliance with
the  limitation. Sufficient  reserves
would  be available to satisfy  national
demand  with either option. However,
on a regional basis a limitation  with-
out exemptions could have the poten-
tial  of dislocating  some coal produc-
tion in the Midwest.
  Under  either option,  midwestern
coal production  would   increase  to
about  300 million  tons; however, the
use of  some coal reserves  in this area
would  be restricted by the limitation
without  exemptions. In the States of
Ohio,  Illinois,  and  in western  Ken-
tucky,  60 or more percent of reserves
might  be restricted  even If coal clean-
ing were used.
  On the other hand,  this  analysis
may overstate  the  potential impacts
since coal mixing or other methods of
reducing the  maximum daily average
coal sulfur content were not fully con-
sidered. In view of  this,  the Agency
will continue to examine the  need for
exemptions and the appropriateness
of more  stringent maximum  emission
levels such as 410 ng/J (1.0 Ib/million
Btu) or 340 ng/J (0.80 Ib/milllon Btu)
during the comment period. (See sec-
tion 4.7.1 of EPA 460/2-78-007a-l for
a more detailed  discussion.)
  Based  on our present estimates of
the potential Impact upon midwestern
coal reserves and production, EPA has
proposed that the maximum allowable
emission limitation  should have B 3-
day exemption coincident with  the  3
days of 75-percent control in the per-
cent reduction standard. However, the
Agency specifically requests comments
on the level of the emission limit and
the appropriateness  of the  3-day ex-
emption.

       MAXIMUM CONTROL LEVEL

  Under the proposed SO, standard,  a
maximum control level would be es-
tablished. Compliance  with  that con-
trol level would constitute compliance
with the percentage reduction require-
ment.  In  developing  the   proposed
standard, EPA has considered two al-
ternatives.  The first  would  establish
the level of 86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/million
Btu).  The  second would establish  a
higher level.  Values  from  215 ng/J
(0.50 Ib/million Btu) to 340 ng/J (0.80
Ib/million Btu) have been considered.
  In essence,  these options  focus on
the question of whether a powerplant
burning low-sulfur coal should be re-
quired to achieve the same percentage
reduction as those burning high-sulfur
coal. The emission level  of  86 ng/J
would  require  virtually all  coal-fired
plants to reduce potential emissions by
85 percent.  In addition, it would re-
quire  the installation of FGD systems
on  oil-fired powerplants.  Therefore,
this option is commonly referred to as
full scrubbing or full control. On the
other hand, an emission level in the
range of 215-340 ng/J would  permit
plants firing low-sulfur coal to reduce
their  emissions by  less than 85 per-
cent, hence the term partial scrubbing.
  Proponents   of  partial  scrubbing
have argued that adoption of a limita-
tion  in the  range of  215-340 ng/J
would  reduce scrubber  costs  and
permit bypassing of  a portion of the
flue gas  and thus alleviate the need
for  plume  reheat   and  associated
energy costs, since low-sulfur coal in-
herently emits less SO,, proponents of
partial scrubbing maintain that these
benefits  can  be  obtained  by partial
scrubbing without  a  significant  in-
crease in emissions nationally. Finally,
it is argued that since  coal-fired units
would be cheaper to build and operate
if partial scrubbing were allowed, less
dependence would be  placed  on exist-
ing oil-fired units and turbines, and  a
significant saving of oil would be real-
ized.
  On  the other hand, proponents  of
full  control   have  maintained  that
plants firing low-sulfur coal should be
subject to the  same reduction require-
ment  as those burning  high-sulfur
coal. They argue that the statutory re-
quirements and legislative  history of
section  111  of the  Clran  Air Act
Amendments of 1977  require  a  uni-
form  percentage  reduction   require-
ment. They also point out that apply-
ing full scrubbing to low-sulfur coal is
technologically less  demanding  and
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl 43, NO. 1I2-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                               V-D-8
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
less  expensive  than  applying   full
scrubbing to high-sulfur coal and that
emissions from  a  plant burning low-
sulfur coal would be  up to four times
greater under partial scrubbing  than
under full control. Finally, it is argued
that adoption of full  control will tend
to promote the use of locally available.
higher sulfur content coals, particular-
ly in the Midwest.

      ALTERNATIVE SO. STANDARDS

  The following  alternative standards
for SO, have been suggested by DOE:
  1. Eighty-five  percent reduction of
potential SO, emissions during  each
calendar month.
  2. A maximum control  level of 340
ng/J (0.80 Ib SO,/million  Btu), not to
be   exceeded  during  any   24-hour
period.
  3. A minimum of 33-percent reduc-
tion of potential SO, emissions. The
alternative standards would have the
following operational  characteristics:
  Monthly averaging.  There would be
no  daily restriction on the percent re-
duction  in  potential SO, emissions.
The requirement would be that  the
total sulfur  emissions  summed  over
each calendar month  be no more  than
15 percent of the total sulfur content
of the coal consumed. There would be
no restriction on bypassing some or all
of the flue gas, so long as the monthly
percent reduction requirement Is met.
If  the  monthly requirement  is  not
met, enforcement  penalties would  be
applied on  the basis of the number of
Individual   24-hour   periods   during
which the  percent reduction was less
than 85 percent.
  Maximum control level  of 340  ng/J
(0.80 Ib SO,/million Btul. Under this
alternative,  a sliding-scale-percent re-
duction would be required; the full 85-
percent reduction  would  be  required
only when high-sulfur coals were used.
Only the minimum percent reduction
requirement would be enforced for 24-
hour  periods when  SO,  emissions
would be 340 ng/J or less. Any 24-hour
period  when emissions are  greater
than  340 ng/J  and  reduction is less
than 85 percent  will be  a violation of
the  percent reduction  requirement.
There would be  no  waivers or exemp-
tion for this daily requirement.
  Minimum percent reduction require-
ment of 33 percent. Regardless  of
whether the resulting emissions would
be lower than the 340 ng/J  (0.80 Ib/
million  Btu)  emissions requirement,
33-percent reduction In  potential SO,
emissions would be  required. This
would  assure that continuous  emis-
sions reduction  technology Is applied
to all coals, Including those with the
lowest naturally  occurring sulfur con-
tent.
  In addition to the DOE proposal, the
utility Industry, through  the  Utility
Air Regulatory  Group  (UARO), has
also  suggested  an  alternative  SO,
standard. The  industry  proposal con-
templates  a sliding scale percentage
production standard for  sulfur-dioxide
emissions under which  the required
percent  reduction  declines as  sulfur
content in the coal  declines. Under the
Industry proposal,  there would  be a
ceiling of 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide
and the  required  percent reduction
would range between 85-percent  re-
moval on  a coal  with   uncontrolled
emissions'  of 8 pounds  to  20-percent
removal  on  coals  with   uncontrolled
emissions of 1  pound or less. Specifi-
cally, for coals with uncontrolled emis-
sions of 5.0 pounds of sulfur dioxide or
greater,  the  constraining  emissions
limit would be  1.2  pounds of  sulfur
dioxide.  For coals  with   uncontrolled
sulfur-dioxide emissions of 5 pounds of
sulfur dioxide,  percent removal  would
be  76  percent  and, in the range be-
tween  5  pounds and 4 pounds of un-
controlled emissions, percent removal
would decline by 0.1 percentage point
for each 0.1-pound  decrease in uncon-
trolled emissions. For coals with un-
controlled  emissions of  4 pounds of
sulfur dioxide, percent removal  would
be 75 percent and,  between 4 pounds
and 3 pounds  of uncontrolled emis-
sions, percent removal would decline
by  0.9 percentage point for each 0.1
pound decrease  in  uncontrolled emis-
sions. For coals with 3 pounds of un-
controlled emissions, percent removal
would  be 66 percent, and between 3
pounds of sulfur dioxide  and 2 pounds
of  sulfur  dioxide,  percent removal
would decline by  1.3 percentage points
for each 0.1-pound  decrease in  uncon-
trolled emissions. At 2 pounds of un-
controlled emissions percent removal
would  be 53 percent, and between 2
pounds and 1 pound of uncontrolled
emissions, percent removal  would de-
cline by 3.3 percentage points for each
0.1   pound  decline in  uncontrolled
emissions. For coals with 1 pound or
less  of uncontrolled emissions percent
removal would be 20 percent.
  Compliance with  these sulfur-diox-
ide standards would be determined  on
a 30-day average.  Industry  has also
recommended  that  consideration  be
given to establishing an  emission ceil-
ing of 1.5 pounds for coal with uncon-
trolled emissions over 8 pounds.
  Comments  on   these   alternative
standards are invited.

      ANALYSES OF ALTERNATIVES
  In order to determine the appropri-
ate form and level  of control for the
  'Uncontrolled emissions of sulfur dioxide
are defined as twice the sulfur content of
the  coal measured  In pounds per million
Btu.  For  the  purposes  of  this standard.
sulfur content of the coal can be measured
at the plant for unwashed coals and at the
mine prior to washing, (or washed coals. In
calculating percent removal, sulfur content
of the flue gas as It leaves the stack Is com-
pared with the uncontrolled emissions ol
the coal.
 proposed  standards.  EPA  has  per-
 formed extensive analyses of the  po-
 tential  national  impacts  associated
 with the  alternative  standards.  The
 Agency employed economic models to
 forecast the structure and operating
 characteristics of the utility  industry
 In future years. These models project
 the   environmental,  economic,  and
 energy Impacts of  alternative  stand-
 ards for the electric  utility industry.
 The major analytical  efforts  were a
 preliminary  analysis   completed   in
 April  1978 and a revised assessment
 completed In August 1978. While these
 analyses are preliminary and subject
 to change, the issues examined  and
 the  results obtained  are summarized in
 this  section  and   in  the  following
 tables. Further details of thr analyses
 can  be found in "Background Informa-
 tion for Proposed SO,  Emission Stand-
 ards-Supplement,"   EPA  450/2-78-
 007a-l.
  Impacts  analyzed. The environmen-
 tal  impacts of the  alternative  stand-
 ards were examined  by projecting  pol-
 lutant emissions. The emissions were
 estimated nationally and by geograph-
 ic region  for  each  plant  type, fuel
 type, and age category. The Agency is
 also  evaluating  the  significance  of
 waste products generated by the con-
 trol  technologies  and  their environ-
 mental impacts.
  The economic and financial  effects
 of  the alternatives were  examined.
 This assessment included an estima-
 tion of the utility capital expenditures
 for  new plant and  pollution control
 equipment as well as the fuel costs  and
 operating  and  maintenance  expenses
 associated  with the  plant and  equip-
 ment.  These costs were examined in
 terms of annualized  costs and annual
 revenue requirements. The Impact  on
 consumers was determined by analyz-
 ing  the effect  of the  alternatives  on
 average consumer costs and  average
 monthly residential  bills. The alterna-
 tives were  also examined in terms of
 cost  per ton of SO,  removal.  Finally,
 the present value costs of the alterna-
 tives were calculated.
  The effects of  the alternative pro-
 posals on energy production and con-
 sumption were also analyzed. National
 coal  use  was  projected  and broken
 down in  terms  of production  by geo-
 graphic region and  consumption   by
 region. The amount of western coal
shipped to the  Midwest and East was
 also  estimated. In addition, utility con-
sumption of oil and  gas was analyzed.
  Major assumptions. Two types of as-
sumptions have an important effect on
 the results of the analyses. The first
 group  involves the  model structure
and  characteristics. The second  group
 includes  the  assumptions used   to
specify future economic conditions.
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER  19,  197*
                                                V-D-9
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
  The  utility model selected for this
analysis can be characterized as a cost
minimizing economic model. In meet-
ing demand, it  determines the most
economic  mix of plant capacity and
electric  generation   for  the  utility
system, based on  a consideration  of
construction  and operating costs  for
new plants and variable costs for exist-
ing plants. It also determines the opti-
mum  operating  level for new and ex-
isting plants. This economic-based de-
cision criteria should be kept in mind
when  analyzing the  model  results.
These criteria imply, for example, that
all utilities base decisions  on  lowest
costs and  that neutral risk is associat-
ed with alternative choices.
  Such assumptions may not represent
the utility decisionmaking process in
all cases.  For example, the model as-
sumes that a utility  bases supply deci-
sions  on  the cost of constructing and
operating new capacity versus the cost
of operating existing  capacity.  Envi-
ronmentally, this  implies  a tradeoff
between  emissions from  new and  old
sources.  The cost  minimization  as-
sumption  implies that In meeting  the
standard a new powerplant will fully
scrub high-sulfur coal if this option is
cheaper than fully  or partially scrub-
bing low-sulfur coal. Often  the model
will have  to make such a decision, es-
pecially in the midwest where utilities
can choose between burning local high
or imported western low-sulfur coal.
The assumption of  risk neutrality im-
plies that a utility will always choose
the low-cost option. Utilities, however,
may perceive full scrubbing as involv-
ing more  risks and  pay a premium to
be able to partially scrub the coal. On
the other hand, they may perceive
risks associated with long-range trans-
portation  of coal, and thus opt for full
control even though "partial control is
less costly. Comments are solicited re-
garding the use  of a cost optimization
model to simulate utility decisions.
  The  assumptions  used in the analy-
ses to represent economic  conditions
in a  given  year  have a  significant
impact on the  final results reached.
The  major assumptions used In  the
EPA analyses are shown in table 1 and
the significance  of these parameters is
summarized below.  Comments are so-
licited  regarding   the  assumptions
used.
  The growth rate in demand for elec-
tric power is very Important since this
rate determines  the amount of new ca-
pacity which will be needed and thus
directly affects the emission estimates
and the  projections of pollution con-
trol  costs.  A  high  electric demand
growth rate  results  In a larger emis-
sion reduction associated with the pro-
posed  standards and  also  results  In
higher costs. The April analysis used a
relatively high-growth rate consistent
with last year's national energy policy
studies. The August  analysis used  a
lower growth projection which is more
in  line  with  current  estimates  of
demand growth.
  The  nuclear capacity assumed to be
installed in a given year  is also impor-
tant to the analysis.  Because nuclear
power  is less expensive, the model will
predict construction  of  new  nuclear
plants  rather than new coal plants.
Hence, the  nuclear capacity assump-
tion affects the amount of new coal ca-
pacity  which will be required to meet a
given electric demand level.  In prac-
tice, there are a number  of constraints
which  limit the amount  of nuclear ca-
pacity  which can be constructed. The
assumptions used in the  EPA analyses
assume high  (April) and moderate
(August) growth In nuclear rapacity.
  The   oil  price  assumption  has  a
major  impact on the  amount of  pre-
dicted  new coal  capacity, emissions,
and oil consumption.  Since the model
makes  generation  decisions based on
cost, a low oil price relative to the  cost
of building and operating a new  coal
plant will result in more oil-fired gen-
eration and less coal utilization.  This
results in less new  coal capacity which
reduces capital costs  but Increases oil
consumption and fuel costs because oil
is more expensive  per BTu than  coal.
This shift  In capacity utilization  also
affects emissions, since an existing oil
plant generally has a  higher emission
rate than a new coal  plant even when
only partial control is allowed on the
new plant.
  Coal transportation  and mine labor
rates both affect the delivered price of
coal. The assumed transportation  rate
is generally  more  important to  the
predicted  consumption  of low-sulfur
coal since that Is the coal type which
Is most often shipped long distances.
The assumed mining labor cost is more
Important  to  eastern coal costs  and
production  estimates  since this   coal
production  Is  generally  much  more
labor intensive than western coal.  The
model  does not Incorporate the Agen-
cy's  PSD regulations  or forthcoming
requirements to protect  and enhance
visibility. These requirements may be
Important  factors  for   new  power-
plants.
  Summary of results. The results of
the EPA analyses which  were complet-
ed in April  and August  1978 are  pre-
sented in  tables 2  through 8 and dis-
cussed below. Pour alternative stand-
ards were evaluated.  Each of the op-
tions  presented  includes 85-percent
control of inlet Sd (24-hour  average).
except for  3 days  per month, a maxi-
mum SOa emission limit of 520  ng/J
(1.2 lb/million Blu) except for 3  days
per month, a particulate  matter stand-
ard of  13 ng/J (0.03 lb/million Btu).
and the proposed NO, standards.  The
partial control options  in the tables
represent alternative  levels  for  the
maximum control le\-el required on  a
24-hour basis.
  The  projected  SO, emissions from
utility  boilers are shown by plant type
and  geographic  region  in  tables  2
through 5. Table  2 details the 1990 na-
tional  SO,  emissions  resulting from
different plant types and age groups.
As is expected, the proposed standards
result in a significant reduction of SO,
emissions  as compared to tin- current
standards. This reduction ranb'rs from
10 to 12 percent  depending  on  the al-
ternative  examined  and the assump-
tions used.  The  emissions  from new
plants  directly  affected by the stand-
ards are reduced  by up to 73 percent.
However,  the model predicts that  tin-
proposed standards will delay the con-
struction of new plants (note the total
coal capacity changes) causing existing
coal- and oil-fired plants to be utilized
more than they would have been with-
out  the  proposed   standards. This
causes  an increase in emissions from
existing plants which offsets part of
the reduction achieved by new  plants.
As discussed above, this shift in capac-
ity  utilized  is predicted by the costs
minimization model as a result of in-
creased pollution control cost for new
coal-fired  plants.  This shift in the gen-
eration mix has important implica-
tions for  the decisionmaking process.
For  example,  If  a  national  energy
policy  phases  out oil use for electric
power   generation,  then  the  April
study's prediction  (table  6)  of  in-
creased oil  use  in   1990 (over  1975
levels)  will  not be  allowed to occur.
With such  a policy, oil consumption
impacts would  be  similar  to  those
shown  for the August analysis in table
6.
  A summary of the projected 1990 re-
gional  SO3 emissions under the alter-
native  control levels is shown in table
3. The  combined  emissions in the East
and  Midwest are  reduced about 7 per-
cent as compared to predictions under
the  current standards.  These emis-
sions are  not affected greatly  by  the
various  control   options,  although
there is a slight increase shown under
the  340 ng/J  (0.80 lb/million Btu)
option  in the April analysis. The com-
bined emissions in the west south-cen-
tral  and west  regions show a greater
variation on a percentage basis. In the
analysis, the full  control and 210 ng/J
(0.50  lb/million  Btu)  options both
result  in a  36-percent reduction from
emission  levels  under  the  current
standards, while the 340 ng/J (0.80 lb/
million Btu) option results In a  28-per-
cent decrease.
  Regional  emissions  from  the  new
plants  directly affected by  the  pro-
posed  standards  are shown for  the
years 1990 and 1995 in tables 4 and 5.
These  tables also project the coal con-
sumption and emission factors (million
tons of Sd per  quadrillion Btu)  for
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl 43, NO. 183—TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                                v-o-in
-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES
 the new plants. The latter  figures are
 shown-  to  illustrate  the  effect  of
 changes in the amount of  neu- capac-
 ity and variations in the utilization of
 the new capacity. As noted above, the
 1990 emissions from new plants  drop
 dramatically  under   the   proposed
 standards  to a level only  about  one-
 third  that which would result under
 the current standards.  This emission
 reduction  is due in part to lower emis-
 sion  factors  and  In part  to reduced
 coal  consumption  predicted by  the
 model. Coal consumption in the  East
 is virtually unchanged, but  in the Mid-
 west coal  consumption  In  new  plants
 drops by one-third  as a result  of the
 proposed standards. In the west south-
 central  and  west  regions  coal  con-
 sumption  drops 5 to 10  percent which
 is about the same as the decline in na-
 tional coal consumption at new  plants.
 The reduced coal consumption  in new
 plants  results from a  delay  in  new
 plant  construction  due to  the  in-
 creased  cost  of generation from new
 coal plants. Reduced coal consumption
 by new  plants means a shift to more
 coal and oil burned in existing plants
 or new  turbines,  and this  causes the
 increase  in emissions  from  existing
 and oil-fired, plants which was men-
 tioned earlier. Table 5  shows  that in
 1995 the emission reduction due to the
 proposed standards  is still of the same
 magnitude as the  1990 reduction. Also,
 since coal  capacity Is similar under all
 options by 1995, the coal consumption
 impact, of  the  proposed standards is
 less pronounced. Changes in coal con-
 sumption  in 1995 are almost entirely
 due to variations  in the utilization of
 the new  plants.
   Table  6  Illustrates the effect  of the
 proposed standards on  1990 national
 coal production, western coal shipped
 east, and utility oil and gas consump-
 tion. This  table shows some large dif-
 ferences  between  the  two analyses
 which are  caused by different  model
 assumptions.  For  example,  in   the
 model, higher oil  prices decrease  oil
 demand  and increase coal use. Increas-
 ing transportation costs Increases the
• delivered price of western coal  and  re-
 duces demand.  These  two  factors
 along  with the lower growth rate ac-
 count for   most  of  the difference  in
 fuel use estimates between the April
 and August results. However, the con-
 clusions drawn from the analyses are
 similar. For example, In terms of coal
 production,  both  analyses  show  that
 total production will Increase in all re-
 gions  of the  country as compared to
 1975 levels.
   Compared to production  under  the
 current  standards, the  April  analysis
 predicts. an Increase  in eastern  coal
 production under  all but the 340 ng/J
 (0.80 Ib/mllllon Btu) option. Midwest-
 ern production increases under  all op-
 tions,  and  western  production  de-
creases under  all but  the 340 ng/J
(0.80  Ib/million Btu) option. Western
coal shipped east is lower under all op-
tions  than under the current standard,
but is still 14 to 20 times higher than
1975 levels. Finally, the April analysis
projcrts that oil consumption by utili-
ties would be  Increased by the pro-
posed  standards. The increase  varies
from  300,000 barrels  per  day  for  the
full control option to 100.000 barrels
per day for the 210 ng/J (0.50 lb/mil-
lion Btu) and 340 ng/J (0.80 Ib/million
Btu) options.
  The August figures  predict a smaller
increase in 1990  eastern coal  produc-
tion than would be expected under the
current standards. Midwestern produc-
tion increases by 15 to 43 million tons
and western production decreases up
to  56  million  tons.  The  amount  of
western coal shipped east is reduced
by 30 million tons by  both  full control
and 210 ng/J (0.50 Ib/million Btu) op-
tions, and is essentially unchanged by
the higher options. Due to the high
assumed oil price, oil consumption is
reduced from  current levels, but  the
1990  difference between  the  options
and the current  standards is  still an
increase of 200,000 to 300,000 barrels
per day.  This  increased oil consump-
tion results from  the predicted shift
toward existing  oil-fired   plants and
turbines as a result of higher pollution
control costs   for  new  coal  plants.
Table  8 shows  that as high oil  prices
are assumed (August analysis), there is
no difference in 1995 oil consumption
among the options. Finally, the  DOI/
DOE  coal  leasing study (see  "Other
Studies") shows a difference of  about
50.000 barrels per day In 1990 between
full and partial  scrubbing.
  The  economic  effects of the pro-
posed standards are shown in table 7
for 1990. Utility  capital expenditures
between 1979 and  1990 increase under
all options as compared to the $500 to
$750 billion estimated to  be required
In the absence of a change  in the
standard.  The  capital  estimates  In
tables  7 and 8 are  Increments over the
expenditures under the  current stand-
ard and Include both plant  capital (for
new capacity)  and pollution  control
expenditures. As shown  in table 2, the
model  estimates total industry capac-
ity  is  to be 10 QW to 15 GW  greater
under  the partial  control  option, and
the cost of this extra capacity makes
the total  utility capital expenditures
higher under the  210 ng/J (0.50  lb/
million Btu) and 340 ng/J (0.80 Ib/mil-
lion Btu) options,  even  though pollu-
tion control  capital  is lower  than
under the full control  option.
  Annualized cost  Includes  a levelized
capital charge, fuel  costs, and  oper-
ation  and  maintenance costs associat-
ed with utility  equipment.  All of the
options cause  an  Increase In  annua-
llzed cost  over  the current standards.
This increase varies, depending on the
assumptions modeled, from $300 mil-
lion to $2 billion or a 1- to 2-percent
increase over the $90 to $100 billion.
  The   average monthly  residential
electric bill is  predicted to  increase
only slightly by any of the options, up
to  a  maximum  2-percent   increase
shown  for  full control  in  the April
analysis.  The  large total increase  in
the monthly bill over  1975 levels is due
in large part to a more than 50-percent
increase in the amount  of  electricity
used by each customer. Pollution con-
trol  expenditures, including  those  to
meet  the  current standards,  account
for about 15 percent of the increase in
the average monthly bill while the re-
mainder of the cost increase is due to
capacity  expansion and  general  cost
escalations.
  The  average  monthly  bill  is deter-
mined by estimating  utility  revenue
requirements which are a function  of
capital  expenditures, fuel costs,  and
operation  and  maintenance costs.
Therefore, due to changes in  the pat-
tern of expenditures, the selection  of
the  specific year  examined  has an
Impact on the costs shown. For exam-
ple, the August analysis shows slightly
higher cost in  1990 for the partial con-
trol options as compared to  full  con-
trol. This is due to  the larger amount
of new capacity and the higher associ-
ated capital costs under these  options.
By 1995,  the amount of  new  coal ca-
pacity  under each option has approxi-
mately  equalized,  and the  estimates
show full  control to be most  expensive
but by only 12 cents a month over the
average bill under the 340 ng/J (0.80
Ib/million Btu) option (table 8).
  The Incremental costs per ton of SO,
removal are also shown in table 7. The
figures are determined by dividing the
change in  annuallzed  cost  by  the
change In annual  emissions,  as com-
pared to the current standards. These
ratios are  a measure of the cost effec-
tiveness of the  options,  where lower
ratios  represent a  more  efficient re-
source  allocation.  All  the  options
result In higher cost per  ton than the
current standards with the full control
option being the most  expensive.
  Another measure  of cost  effective-
ness is the average  dollar-per-ton  cost
at the plant level.  This  figure com-
pares total pollution control cost  with
total  SOi emission  reduction for  a
model  plant.  This  average  removal
cost varies depending on the  level of
control  and the coal sulfur  content.
The range for full control is from  $260
per ton on high-sulfur coal  to $1.600
per ton on low-sulfur coal. The partial
scrubbing  range is from $900  per ton
on low-sulfur coal to $2,000 per ton on
very low sulfur coal.
  The economic analysis  also estimat-
ed the present  value cost In order to
facilitate comparison of the options by
                             FEDEBAl REOISTH, VOL 43, NO. 182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 197S
                                                   V-D-11
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
reducing the streams -of capital, fuel,
and  operation  and  maintenance  ex-
penses to one number. A present value
estimate allows  expenditures  occur-
ring  at different times to be evaluated
on a similar basis by discounting  the
expenditures back to a fixed year. Two
types of present value costs have been
estimated in the analysis.
  First, an  estimate  was made  of  the
present value  of costs  which will  be
faced by the  consumers. Essentially,
this  represents  the  present value of
utiMty revenue requirements. This  cal-
culation for the August results shows
a 1990 present value of  $26 billion for
the full control  option and $15 billion
for the 340 ng/J (0.80 Ib/million Btu)
option  as  compared to the  current
standards.
  Second, an "economic" or "real re-
source" present value was  estimated.
Real  resource   present  value  is  de-
signed to measure the level of national
resources committed to  the standards.
In computing this  resource commit-
ment,  construction costs, labor costs,
and  other resource costs were consid-
ered, but financing flows and transfer
payments   were   excluded.   Thus,
allowance for  funds during construc-
tion, depreciation, interest, taxes, and
other  indirect flows  were  excluded.
This  second  type  of  present  value
figure gives an estimate of the costs to
society of the options. The calculation
of this value based  on  the August
analysis results In a 1990 present value
of $9.8 billion  for  full control  and
$10.4 billion for the 340 ng/J (0.80 lb/
million  Btu)  option.  Both  types of
present value costs were estimated as
an increment over the current stand-
ards  for  the years  1990 and   1995.
These figures include capital costs of
plants installed through that date and
operation and maintenance  costs for
30 years after the  cutoff date. Com-
ments are solicited regarding the cal-
culation and use  of present values for
this  decision. Comments are also solic-
ited  on the  appropriateness of using
present value costs  to the utility or
present value resources costs to soci-
ety.
  A 'summary of the  1995 impacts of
the  proposed standards is shown in
table 8 based on the August analysis.
The total  coal capacity figure shows
that by 1995 all the options have equal
capacity. Thus, the options reflect dif-
ferences in amount  of low-sulfur coal
use. control, equipment, and variation
in capacity utilization.  In general, full
control  results in slightly lower emis-
sions, less Western  coal shipped East.
higher   capital  expenditures,   and
slightly  higher  average  residential
bills  than would result under the par-
tial control options.
  Other  studies.  In addition  to the
studies  described above. EPA is aware
of three other major studies of the im-
pacts resulting from  several  recom-
mended  standards  for  powerplants.
One of these studies was performed as
a  joint  effort of the Department  of
the Interior and Energy for studying
coal  leasing policies. Another analysis
was   done  by  the  Department  of
Energy, and the third study was spon-
sored by a segment of the electric util-
ity industry. These studies were per-
formed for the purpose of analyzing
the impacts of their respective recom-
mended standards along with the EPA
options discussed above. The results of
these studies have  been considered  by
EPA in developing the proposed stand-
ards. More detail  on the results  of
these studies  is given in the supple-
ment to the  background  document
.
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 182-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBE4 19,  1978
                                              V-D-12
-------
                                               PKOPOSED RLH.ES

                                     Table  I.  COMPARISON OF ASSUMPTIONS

                                         April 1978 and August 1978
   Assumption

   Growth rates


   Nuclear capacity



   Oil prices ($ 1975)



   General Inflation rate

   Annual emissions  I? 0.5 floor

   Coal transportation


   Coal mining labor costs


   Miscellaneous
      April
                        August
 1975-1985:
 1985-1995:
5.8X/yr
5.5X
 1985:  108 GW
 1990:  177
 1995:  302

 1985:  $13/bb1
 1990:  $13
 1995:  $13

 5.51/yr

0.5 Ib S02/ra1ll1on Btu

 Increases at general
 Inflation rate

Increases at general
Inflation rate
 1975-1985:  4.8X/yr
 19fl5-19
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
                       Table 3.  SUMMARY  OF  1990 REGIONAL SO? EMISSIOHS FOR  UTILITY BORERS4
                                                    (million tons)

                                                            Level of Control
1975 Current Full
Actual Standards Control

Total National Emissions
Regional Emissions
Eastb
M1dwestc
West South Centra)**
West6
Total Coal Capacity (GW)


18.6
9.1
8.8
0.2
0.5
205
SOURCE: Background Information for
APR
23.3
10. B
8.7
2.6
1.3
465
Proposed
AUG APR
21.4 21.1
10.2 9.7
7.8 8.5
2.3 1.8
1.3 1.1
• -Partial Control
210 nq/J 290 ng/J
AUG APR
18.
9.
7.
1.
0.
451 444 428
SO? Emission Standards
9 21.3
0 9.6
6 8.4
5 2.0
8 1.2
460
-Supplement
AUG
18.8
9.0
7.6
1.4
0.9
439
, EPA
APR AUG
18.9
8.9
7.6
1.5
0.9
- 440
450/2-78-0071-1,
340 ng/J
APH AUG
22.3 19.1
10.2 9.0
8.6 7.6
2.3 1.6
1.3 1.0
460 444
         Chapters 2 and 3, August 1978.
*Results  of  EPA  analyses completed 1n  April  1978 and August 1978.
 New England, Middle Atlantic,  South Atlantic, and East South Central  Census Regions.
°East North  Central and West North Central Census Regions.
 West South  Central Census Region.
'Mountain and Pacific Census Regions.
                 Table 4.  SUMMARY OF 1990 SO, EMISSIONS  BY  PLANTS SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED STANDARDS:
                                            '     AUGUST 197.8 ANALYSIS
                                                                        Level of Control
East*
Total New Plant Emissions (million tons)
Coal Consumption (10" Btu) h
Emission factor (fS/lO' Btu)
M1dwestc
Total New Plant Emissions (million tons)
Coal Consumption (10" Btu) h
Emission Factor (IS/10' Btu)
West South Central
Total Mew Plant Emissions (million tons)
Co»l Consumption (10" Btu) h
Emission Factor (tS/10'/Btu)°
West6
Total New Plant Emissions (million tons)
Coal Consumption (10" Btuj h
Emission Factor (IS/101 /Btu)
SOURCE: Background Information for Proposed
Current
Standards

2.1
3.47
0.60

0.60
1.17
0.48
1.2
1.93
0.60
0.6.
1.25
0.40
SO. Emission
Full
Control

0.7
3.41
0.21

0.2
0.79
0.21
0.2
1.67
0.14
0.1
1.19
0.09
Standards -

210 ng/J 290 ng/J 340 ng/J

0.7
3.43
0.21

0.2
0.80
0.21
0.3
1.97
0.14
0.2
1.18
0.14
Supplement, EPA

0.7
3.48
0.22

0.2
0.81
0.23
0.4
1.96
0.18
0.2
1.19
0.19
450/2-78-007a-l,

0.8
3.47
0.23

0.2
0.81
0.26
0.5
1.95
0.24
0.3
1.24
0.24
            Chapter 3,  August  1978.
   *ttew England, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic,  and               cEast North Central  and West North lentral
    East South Central  Census  Regions.                              Census Regions.
   bRat1os may not be obtained exactly from figures                 dWest south Central  census kegion.
    shown here due to rounding.                                    e.
                                                                  'Mountain and Pacific Census Regions.
                          FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 182-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                                 V-D-14
-------
                                             PROPOSED RULES
                        Table  5.  SUMMARY OF  1995 SO, EMISSIONS BY PLAN1S SUBJECT TO THE
                                 PROPOSED STANDARDS: AUGUST 1973 ANALYSIS
Level of Control
East"
Total New Plant Emissions (million tons)
Coal Consumption (101S Btu) h
Emission Factor (rS/IO* Btu;
Midwestc
Total New Plant fmisslons (million tons)
Coal Consumption (10" Btu) h
Emission Factor (#S/106 Btu)
West South Centrald
Total New Plant {missions (million tons)
Coal Consumption (101S Btu) h
Emission Factor (f$/)0s Btu)
West6
Total New Plant Emissions (million tons)
Coal Consumption (IOIS Btu) b
Emission Factor (0S/106 Btu)
SOURCE: Background, Information for Prooosed
Current
Standards

4.0
6.73
0.60
1.2
2.21
0.53
1.6
2.63
0.60
1.1
2.28
0.44
_SOr Emission
Full
Control

1.3
6.J9
0.21
0.4
1.94
0.21
0.4
2.77
0.15
0.2
2.32
0.09
Standards

210 ng/J 290 ng/J 340 ng/J

1.3
6.47
0.21
0.4
1.92
0.21
0.4
2.73
0.15
0.3
2.29
0.13
- Supplement.

1.4
6.49
0.21
0.5
1.99
0.23
0.5
2.70
0.19
0.4
2.27
0.19
EPA 450/2-78-007a-l.

1.5
6.6/
0.22
0.5
2.00
0.26
0.7
2.68
0.2b
0.5
2.27
0.22
         Cnapter  3, August 1978
4New England.  Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic,
 and East South Central Census Regions.
 Ratios may not be obtained exactly from
 figures  shown here due to rounding.
           East North Central  and West North Central
           Census Regions.
           West South Central  Census Region.
          eMountain and Pacific Census Regions.
   U.S. .Coal  Production
       (million  tons)

            East

            Midwest

            West

              TOTAL

   Western  coal shipped east
        (million  tons)

   Oil/gas  consumption in power
     plants (million bbl/day)
                                     TABLE 6.  SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON FUELS  IN  1990


                                                          Level of Control
                                      1975
                                      Actual
   Current
  Standards
                      Full       ----- Partial Control	
                      Control    210 ng/J    290 ng/J   340 ng/J
396

151


100

647


 21


 3.1
 APR    AUG   APR   ML  APR   ML  APR
                                                                                             APR  .ML
 441    465    467    449   464   450

 298    275    375    318   353   316

1027    785    870    736   938   752

1767   1525   1711   1502  1755  1517


 455    149    299    118   346   117


 3.0    1.2    3.3    1.5   3.1   1.4
-   450  413   449

-   294  307   290


-   779 1055   784

-  1523 1780  1523


-   147  429   152


-   1.4  3.1   1.4
   SOURCE:    Background  Information for Proposed SO? Emission  Standards - Supplement, LPA 450/2-78-007a-l,
             Chapter 243, August 1978

   Results of EPA analyses completed in April  1978  and  August  1978.


                         FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. IW-TUESDAV, SEPTEMBER 19. 1978
                                          V-D-15
-------
Average monthly  resi-
  dential  bills
  (S/month)

Incremental  Utility
  capital  expenditures,
  cumulative 1976-1990
  (J billions)

Incremental  Annualized
  cost (i  billions)

Incremental  Cost of
  S0  Reduction  ($/ton)
                                              PROPOSED RULES

                                Table 7.   SUMMARY OF  1990 ECONOMIC IMPACTS8


                                                     Level of Control
                                       Current          Full          -	partial  Control
                                     Standards        Control        2)0 ng/J        290 n:j/0
                                    APR      AUG
                 APR     AUG
                                  APR
                                          AUG     APH  AUG
45.31   43.89     16.39   44.22    46.20   44.48
                   10
15
                  2.0      1.9      1.3     1.7
                 005      754      640     642
                  44.30    45.17   <-..2S
                   1.3      0.3
                   511
3C3     425
SOURCE:   Background  Information for Proposed  SO., Emission Standards - Supplement.
         EPA  4W2-78-007a-l, Ch~apl'c?T7T'3/AT)^7$YT7J7ir


'Results  of EPA  analyses completed In April.19/0 and August 1970.




                           Table 8.   SUMMARY OF 1995 IMPACTS: AUGUST  )978 ANALYSIS


                                                               Level  of Control
1975
Actual
National Emissions 18.6
(million tons)
New Plant Emissions*
(million tons)
U.S. Coal Production 647
(million tons)
Western Coal Shipped East 21
(million tons)
Oil /Gas Consumption 3.1
(million bbl/day)
Incremental Cumulative Capital -
Expenditures (1975 J billion)
Incremental Annual 1zed Cost -
(1975 J billion)
Average Monthly Residential _
Bill (1975 {/month )
Total Coal Capacity (GW) 198
SOURCE: Background Information for Proposml
tnapttr 3, August 1979,
Current
Standards
23.3
7.9
1865
210
0.8
-
-
45.34
so;
SO? Emission

Full
Control
18.5
2.4
1865
130
0.9
32
2.6
46.22

210 ng/J
18.5
2.5
1858
133
0.9
26
2.3
46.13
580 680
Standards-Supplement. EPA


Partial Control
290 ng/J
18.7 .
2.0
I860
190
0.9
20
2.0
46.12
580
460/2-78-00/a-l,
340 rvj/J
19.0
3.2
1066
196
0.9
10
l.'j
46.10
SCO
 'Plants  subject to the revised standards.
                           HOIRAL MOUTH, VOl. 49. NO. 1M—TUESDAY, S If TIMBER 19, W»
                                              V-D-16
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
    PARTICULATE MATTER STANDARDS

  The proposed standards would limit
the emissions of particulate matter to
13  ng/J  C0.03 Ib/million  Btu)  heat
input and would  require a 99-percent
reduction in  uncontrolled  emissions
from  solid fuels and a 70-percent re-
duction for liquid fuels. No particulate
matter control would be necessary for
units  firing gaseous fuels  alone, and
thus a percent reduction would not be
required for gaseous fuels. The 20-per-
cent opacity (6-minute average) stand-
ard that is  currently applicable  to
steam electric generating  units  (40
CFR  Part 60. Subpart  D) would be re-
tained under the proposed standards.
An opacity  standard  is proposed  to
insure proper  operation and  mainte-
nance of the particulate  matter con-
trol  system.   If an affected  facility
were  to comply  with  all applicable
standards except opacity, the owner or
operator may request the Administra-
tor under 40  CFR 60.1 Ke) to establish
a source specific opacity standard for
that affected facility.
  The proposed standards are based on
the performance of  a well designed
and operated baghouse or electrostatic
precipitator  (ESP).  EPA  has deter-
mined that these control  systems are
the best adequately demonstrated sys-
tems of continuous  emission reduction
(taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and
any nonair quality health and environ-
mental impact and  energy  require-
ments).
  EPA has evaluated data from more
than  50  emission test  runs conducted
at eight  baghouse-equipped. coal-fired
steam generating units. The data from
two tests exceeded the proposed stand-
ard,  however,  it is EPA's  judgment
that  the  emission  levels  at the two
units  which  had measured emission
levels  above  the proposed  standards
could be reduced  to  below the  pro-
posed standards through an improved
maintenance   program. EPA  believes
that  baghouses with  an  air-to-cloth
ratio  of 0.6  actual  cubic meters  per
minute per square meter (2 ACFM/ftz)
would achieve the proposed standards
at pressure drops of less than 1.25 kilo-
pascals (5 in.  H2O). EPA has concluded
that this air/cloth  ratio and pressure
drop  are reasonable when considering
cost,  energy,  and  nonair  quality  im-
pacts.
  EPA collected emission data  from 21
ESP-equipped,  coal-fired steam gener-
ating  units. The  nominal sulfur  con-
tent of the coals  being fired ranged
from  0.4 percent to  1.9 percent. None
of the 21 units tested were designed to
achieve an emission level  equal to or
below the proposed  standard of 13 ng/
J  (0.03  Ib/million  Btu)  heat Input;
however, emissions  from 9 of the 21
units  were below the proposed stand-
ard. All of the units tested which were
firing coal with a sulfur content great-
er than 1 percent and had a hot side
ESP  with a  specific  collection area
greater than 89  square  meters per
actual cubic meter per second (452 ftV
1,000 ACFM), or a cold side ESP with
a specific collection  area greater than
85  square meters  per  actual cubic
meter  per   second  (435   ft'/l.OOO
ACFM). had  emission levels below the
proposed  standards. EPA evaluated
emission levels from units burning rel-
atively  low-sulfur coal because it  is
more difficult for an  ESP to collect
particulate matter emissions  generat-
ed  by the combustion of low-sulfur
coal than high-sulfur  coal. ESP's  re-
quire a larger specific collection area
when  applied to  units  buring low-
sulfur coal than to units burning high-
sulfur coal, because the resistivity of
the fly ash is higher  with low-sulfur
coal. To meet the proposed standard,
EPA believes that an ESP used on low-
sulfur coal would have to  have a spe-
cific collection area  from  around 130
(hot side) to 200 (cold side) square
meters  per  actual  cubic  meter  per
second  (650   to  1.000  ft2 per  1.000
ACFM) while an ESP  used  on high-
sulfur coal (3.5 percent sulfur) would
only require  around 72 square meters
per actual cubic meter per second (360
ft'per 1,000 ACFM).
  ESP's have been traditionally used
to control  particulate  emissions from
powerplants.   High-sulfur  coal  pro-
duces fly ash with a low electrical re-
sistivity which can be readily collected
with an ESP.  However, low-sulfur coal
produces fly  ash with high  electrical
resistivity,  which is  more  difficult to
collec^ The problem of high electrical
resistivity fly ash can be  reduced by
using a  hot   side  ESP (ESP  located
before  combustion   air   preheater)
when firing low-sulfur coal. Higher fly
ash  collection temperatures  improve
ESP performance by reducing fly ash
resistivity for most types of low-sulfur
coal (for example, increasing  the fly
ash collection temperature from 177°
C  (350°  F) to 204' C (400°  F)  can
reduce electrical resistivity of  fly ash
from low-sulfur coal  by approximately
50 percent).
  While EPA believes that ESP's can
be applied to high-sulfur coal at rea-
sonable costs to meet the  proposed
standards, it  recognizes that applying
a large, high  efficiency ESP to a facili-
ty using low-sulfur  coal to meet the
proposed standards  will be more ex-
pensive. In view of this, EPA believes
that a baghouse control system could
be  applied  on  utility-size  facilities
firing low-sulfur coal at a lower cost
than  an ESP. Although   the  largest
baghouse-controlled  coal-fired  steam
generator for which  EPA  has particu-
late  matter emission data is 44 MW,
several larger installations are current-
ly  under construction, and EPA plans
to  test  a 350-MW powerplant con-
trolled with a baghouse which recent-
ly  began operation. Since  baghouses
are designed and constructed in mod-
ules rather than  as one larger unit.
there should be no technological bar-
riers  to  scaling them  up to a  utility
sized  facility. Twenty-four  baghouse-
equipped coal-fired utility steam gen-
erators are scheduled to be operating
by  the end of  1978 and an  additional
30 units  are planned to start operation
after  1978. About two-thirds of these
planned  units will be larger than 150-
MW  electrical output  capacity, and
more  than one-third of these planned
baghouse systems  will be  for units
being fired with coal containing more
than  3 percent sulfur. EPA therefore
believes  that  baghouses have been
adequately demonstrated  for even  the
largest utility-sized facility.
  EPA  collected   emission  test data
from seven coal-fired steam generators
controlled by wet  particulate  matter
scrubbers. Data from five of the seven
resulted  in emission levels less than 21
ng/J  heat input (0.05 Ib/million Btu).
Data  from only one of the seven were
less than 13 ng/J (0.02 Ib/million Btu)
heat  input. In view of this. EPA be-
lieves  that  wet  particulate  matter
scrubbers would   not  be capable  of
complying with the proposed  stand-
ards under most conditions.
  EPA considered proposing  the stand-
ard at a level of 21 ng/J  (0.05  Ib/mil-
lion Btu) in order to allow the applica-
tion of wet particulate matter  scrub-
bers  in  addition  to  baghouses and
ESP's. This  option was rejected,  be-
cause  EPA  believes  that  allowing
scrubbers would cause an increase in
the  emissions  of  fine  particulate
matter without compensating  advan-
tages. In addition to 60 percent higher
emissions, a particulate matter  scrub-
ber would require three times as much
energy  to operate as  a  dry control
system, and would also increase water
consumption  and  waste water  treat-
ment requirements. An increase in fine
particulate emissions  would have an
adverse effect on visibility. The prima-
ry suggested advantage to allowing the
use of scrubbers for particulate matter
control  would  be  to  allow  a  single
scrubber to control both SO, and par-
ticulate matter emissions which would
result in  a cost savings.
  The  Department of  Energy  (DOE)
and others believe  that the proposed
standard  of  3  ng/J (0.03 Ib/million
Btu) will preclude the use of ESP's on
facilities using  low-sulfur  coal and re-
quire baghouse control which they be-
lieve has not been demonstrated on
utility-size facilities. Because  of this.
DOE  recommends that the  standard
be no less than 21 ng/J (0.05  Ib/mil-
lion Btu). The  Utility Air Regulatory
Group (UARG) also  maintains that
baghouses have not been adequately
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 187—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                               V-D-17
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
demonstrated,    particularly    when
firing high-sulfur coal. They  further
believe that ESP's cannot achieve the
proposed standard of 13 ng/J at rea-
sonable cost. In  view of this, UARG
recommends an emission limitation  of
34 ng/J (0.08 In/million Blu). In  doing
so.  they  maintain a 34-ng/J standard
would  encourage  baghouses  but not
eliminate precipltators from use.
  EPA has investigated  the possibility
that FGD control systems affect par-
ticulate matter emissions. Three  possi-
ble mechanisms  were invesligated: (1)
POD system  sulfate carryover  from
the  scrubber  slurry,  (2)  paniculate
matter removal  by the PGD  system,
and (3) particulate matter generation
by the FGD system through condensa-
tion of sulfuric acid mist (HaSO,).
  To address  the first  mechanism,
EPA obtained data from three differ-
ent  steam generators  thai, were all
equipped with FGD systems and that
had low partirulate matter  emission
levels at the FGD inlet. The data from
all  three facilities indicated that par-
ticulate  emissions  did not  increase
through the FGD system. Proper mist
eliminator design and maintenance Is
important   in   preventing scrubber
liquid entrainment which could  cause
the  outlet   particulate  loading   to
exceed inlet particulate loading.
  In relation  to  the second  mecha-
nism. FGD system removal of particu-
late matter,, the  data from the  three
FGD systems available to EPA indicat-
ed  that particulate  matter emissions
were reduced by  the FGD systems  in
all three cases. Thai is. the particulate
matter discharge concentration  from
the  FGD system was less than the
concentration  at  the FGD inlet. This
property has been  particularly nctsd
at  steam generators equipped  with
ESP's upstream of FGD systems.
  The third mechanism is  the poten-
tial condensation of sulfuric acid mist
(IlaSO.) from sulfur trioxide  (SO,)  in
the flue gas. At a typical steam gener-
ator,  97  to 99  percent of the  fuel
sulfur is  converted  to SO,  and 1  to 3
percent is converted to SO>. Typical
stack gas temperatures at a coal-fired
steam  generator  without  an  FGD
system are between 150° C  and 200' C
<300' F to 400' F).  At  these tempera-
tures, most SO,  remains in a gaseous
state and does not form sulfuric acid.
At  lower  temperatures,  water vapor
condenses and combines with SO,  to
form sulfuric acid. The dewpoint tem-
perature for sulfuric acid  ranges be-
tween 120' C (250- F) and  175' C (350°
F).  The lower temperature would cor-
respond to low-sulfur coal  and higher
temperature   would  correspond   to
high-sulfur coal.
  Available test data indicate that an
FGD system would  remove about 50
percent of the SO, In the flue gas and
thus reduce the potential for sulfuric
acid mist formation. However, if sulfu-
ric  acid  mist is  formed  in  the  flue
gases, there is a potential  for its inter-
ference with  the particulate  matter
performance test. Under  method 5.  a
sample  is extracted  at a probe  tem-
perature of about 160° C (320° F).  This
assures that SO, does not  condense on
the  sampling  filter  when  sampling
powerplants  that do not have FGD
systems.  However,  when   sampling
powerplants  with FGD systems (par-
ticularly when combusting high-sulfur
coal), there is a potential for sulfuric
acid mist to form at the  reduced flue
gas temperatures. If acid mist forms,  it
may  interact  within   the  sampling
train  to form sulfate compounds  that
are not vaporized at the  ICO' C (320°
F) sampling  temperature. Also, sulfu-
ric  acid  mist may  remain deposited
within the test probe itself. In either
case,  the  net result  could be  a  high
measurement of paniculate matter.
  EPA obtained data from three FGD
equipped  powerplants  to determine
acid mist formation  potential.  All  of
these  plants  were  firing low-sulfur
coal. The data indicate that  SO,  con-
version  to sulfuric acid mist is not  a
problem. EPA believes  these data sup-
port  the conclusion  that an FGD
system on low-sulfur coal-fired  power-
plants does  not  increase particulate
emissions through sulfuric acid  forma-
tion. Thus,  EPA believes compliance
with the proposed paniculate  matter
standard is demonstrated to be achiev-
able when firing low-sulfur coal.
  In a case  where an FGD system  is
used with higher sulfur coal, sufficient
data  have not  become  available  to
fully assess the effect of  sulfuric acid
formation  on  measured   particulate
matter.  The  proposed   standard   is
based on emission test data at the par-
ticulate  matter  control  device  dis-
charge prior to any FGD system. EPA
plans to continue investigating  this
subject  and  will consider any  data
availabale on the impact of sulfuric
arid  mist on  the particulate matter
standard.
  The 1977 amendments require  that
EPA specify, in addition  to  an emis-
sion limitation, a percent  reduction  in
uncontrolled  emission levels for fossil
fuel-fired stationary sources. The  pro-
posed standard would require a  99-per-
cent reduction for solid fuels and a 70-
percent reduction for liquid fuels. Be-
cause of the difficulty of sampling par-
ticulate matter upstream  of  the  con-
trol device (due to the complex  partic-
ulate matter sampling conditions), the
proposed standard would  not require
direct performance testing for the par-
ticulate  matter  emission  reduction
level.  The  percent  reduction  is  not
controlling,  and  performance testing
for  the emission limitation would sat-
isfy the requirements for performance
testing.
  EPA is requesting comments on  the
proposed  level   of   the   paniculate
matter standard and the basis for  the
standard.

                NO,

  The  proposed NO,  emission  stand-
ards  are  based  on  emission   levels
achievable with a properly  designed
and  operated  steam  generator which
utilizes combustion modification tech-
niques to  reduce NO, formation. The
proposed standards are as follows:
  (1) 86 ng/J  heat input (0.20 !b 'mil-
lion  Btu)  from the combustion of any
gaseous fuel,  except gaseous fuel  de-
rived from coal;
  (2) 130 ng/J heat input (0.30 Ib/inil-
lion  Btu)  from the combustion of any
liquid fuel, except shale oil and  liquid
fuel  derived from coal;
  (3) 210 ng/J heat input (0.50 Ib/rr.il-
lion  Btu) from the combustion of sub-
bituminous coal, shale oil, or any solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived  from
coal;
  (4)  340  ng/J  (0.80  lb/mi!licn Btu)
from the combustion in a slag tap fur-
nace of any  fuel containing more than
25 percent,  by weight, lignite  which
has  been  mined  in  North  Dakota,
South Dakota, or Montana;
  (5) Combustion of a fuel containing
more than 25  percent, by weight, coal
refuse would be  exempt from the NO,
standards  and  monitoring  require-
ments;
  (6)  260  ng/J  (0.60  lb/miilion Btu)
from the combustion of any solid fuel
not specified under (3). (4), or (5);
  (7)  Percent  reductions  in uncon-
trolled NO, emission  levels would be
required; however, the percent reduc-
tion  would  not  be  controlling, and
compliance  with  the  NO,  emission
limits (ng/J) would assure compliance
with  the  percent reduction  require-
ments, the National Apprals Board
  Most new  electric utility steam gen-
erating untis are expected to burn pul-
verized coal.  Consequently,  the NO,
studies used to develop the  proposed
standards  have  concentrated on the
combustion  of pulverized  coal. The
proposed standards for pulverized coal
are based on  the application of com-
bustion  modification  techniques (i.e..
staged combustion, low excess air, and
reduced heat release  rate) which EPA
has concluded  represent the best dem-
onstrated  system of continuous  emis-
sion  reduction (taking into considera-
tion  the cost  of achieving such  emis-
sion  reduction,  any  norair  quality
health and environmental impact, and
energy requirements)  for electric util-
ity power plants.
  The proposed standard?  would  re-
quire continuous compliance (based on
a 24-hour average), except during peri-
ods of startup, shutdown, or  malfunc-
tion  as provided  under 40  CFR 60.8.
Percent reduction requirements are in-
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl 43, NO.  182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                               V-D-18
-------
                                                PROPOSED  RULES
eluded in the proposed standards as a
result   of  provisions  in  the  1977
Amendments. As  with the  proposed
paniculate  matter standard, the per-
cent reductions for NO,  are not con-
trolling,  and  compliance  testing for
the  NO,  emission limitations (ng/J)
would satisfy all compliance testing re-
quirements  for NO,.
  Combustion modification techniques
limit the formation of  NO,  in the
boiler by reducing flame temperatures
and  by  minimizing the availability of
oxygen  during  combustion.  Elevated
temperatures  and high oxygen levels
would  otherwise enhance the forma-
tion of NO,. The  levels to which NO,
emissions can  be reduced with combus-
tion modifications depend on the type
of fuel burned, the  boiler design, and
boiler operating practices. All  lour of
the major boiler manufacturers utilize
combustion  modification techniques in
their modern units;  however,  some
manufacturers'  techniques  may  be
more effective than others.
  EPA has  conducted NO, emmission
tests at  six  modern electric utility
steam  generating  units  which  burn
pulverized coal,  representing  two  of
the major boiler manufacturers. These
tests indicate  that during low NO, op-
eration   of  modern  units,  emission
levels below 210 ng/J heat input (0.50
Ib/million Btu) are easily attainable.
If the potential side effects associated
with low NO, operation were not con-
sidered, it would be reasonable to es-
tablish an NO, emission limit for pul-
verized  coal-fired  units at 210  ng/J
heat input.
  The side effects  EPA has considered
include:  Boiler  tube wastage  (corro-
sion): slagging; increased  emissions of
particulates, carbon monoxide,  poiycy-
clic organic  matter, and other hydro-
carbons:   boiler   efficiency   losses;
carbon loss  in the ash; low steam tem-
peratures; and possible operating haz-
ards (including  boiler explosions).  In
EPA's judgment only boiler tube  wast-
age  could be  a potential  problem at
NO, emission  levels necessary to  meet
a standard of 210 ng/J.
  Tube wastage is the deterioration of
boiler tube  surfaces due to the corro-
sive  effects of ash in the presence of a
reducing  atmosphere.  A  reducing
atomsphere  often results  from  oper-
ation of  a boiler under conditions re-
quired to minimize NO, emissions. The
severity of tube wastage is believed to
vary with several factors,  but especial-
ly with the quality of the coal burned.
For example,  high sulfur  Eastern coal
generally  causes more of  a tube  wast-
age problem than low sulfur Western
coal. Serious tube wastage can shorten
the life of a  boiler and result in expen-
sive repairs.
  Because of  the  potential  problem
from tube wastage. EPA does  not be-
lieve that an emission limit below the
proposed level of 260 ng/J heat input
for Eastern bituminous coals would be
reasonable even though emission data
alone would tend to support a lower
limit. For  low  rank  Western  coals,
however, there is a much smaller tube
wastage potential at low NO, levels.
and a lower emission limit Is justified.
Hence. EPA is proposing an emission
limit of 210 ng/J heat imput for units
burning low rank Western coals. These
coals  are   classified in the  proposed
standards as subbituminous, according
to ASTM  methods. EPA believes that
the  proposed  distinction  made  be-
tween low  rank  Western (subbitumin-
ous) coal  and other coals represents
the best method for distinguishing be-
tween coals  with  low and high  tube
wastage potentials.
  Although most new utility power
plants will fire pulverized  coal, other
fuels  may  also  be  burned.  Emission
limits for  these fuels are also pro-
posed.
  The proposed  NO,  emission  limits
for units which burn liquid  and gas-
eous fuels are at the same levels as the
emission limits originally promulgated
in 1971  under  subpart D for large
steam generators which burn oil and
gas. EPA  did not conduct a  detailed
study of combustion modification  or
NO, flue gas treatment for oil- or gas-
fired boilers because few, if any. oil- or
gas-fired electric utility power plants
are expected to be built in the future.
  Several studies have been conducted
which  indicate  that emissions from
the combustion  of  liquid and gaseous
fuels  which are derived  from coal,
such as solvent  refined coal and  low
Btu synthetic gas, may exceed the pro-
posed emission limits  for liquid fuels
(130 ng/J>  and gaseous fuels (86 ng/J).
The  reason  is because fuels derived
from coal will have fuel bound nitro-
gen  contents  which   approach  the
levels found in coal  rather than in nat-
ural  gas and oil.  Based  on  limited
emission data from pilot-scale facilities
and on the known emission character-
istics  of coal, EPA believes  tiiat an
achievable   emission  limit for  solid.
liquid, of  gaseous fuels derived from
coal would  be 210 ng/J (0.50 Ib/million
Btu;.  Tube  wastage of olher boiler
problems  are not expected  to  occur
from boiler operation at levels as  low-
as 210 ng/J when firing these fuels be-
cause of their low sulfur and ash con-
tents.
  Very little is known about the emis-
sion characteristics of shale oil. How-
ever,  since  shale oil typically has  a
higher  fuel-bound   nitrogen  content
than fuel oil. it may be impossible for
a well-controlled unit burning shale oil
to achieve  the proposed NO,  emission
limit  for liquid  fuels. Shale oil does
have  a  similar  nitrogen content  to
coal, and   it is  reasonable to  expect
that the emission control  techniques
used  for  coal  could  also  be used  to
limit  NO,  emissions  from  shale  oil
combustion.  Consequently, EPA  pro-
poses  to  limit NO,  emissions  from
units burning  shale  oil to 210 ng/J,
the same limit proposed for subbitu-
minous coal. There is no evidence that
tube wastage or other boiler problems
would result from operation of a boiler
at 210 ng/J when shale oil is burned.
  The combustion  of  coal refuse  was
exempted from the subpart D  stand-
ards because the only furnace design
believed  capable   of  burning   coal
refuse, the slag tap furnace, inherent-
ly produces  NO, emissions  in excess of
the NO, standard. Since no new infor-
mation  has  become  available.  EPA
would continue the coal refuse exemp-
tion under the  proposed standards.
  The proposed emission limits for  lig-
nite combustion were  developed earli-
er  as  amendments  to  the  original
standards under subpart D. Since no
new  information   on  NO,  emission
rates resulting from  lignite  combus-
tion in electric  utility power plants has
become available,  the  lignite  limits
have been incorporated into these pro-
posed standards without revision.
  While EPA  believes  that  the pro-
posed emission limitations for bitumi-
nous  and  subbituminous coals can be
achieved  without   adverse  effects.
UARG  recommends that the present
NO, emission  limitation of  300 np/J
(0.7 Ib/million  Btu) be retained. In so
doing, they argue  that  the  potential
adverse side effects  that  ma>  result
from  operating a boiler unuer condi-
tions  required  to meet  the  proposed
standards have not been  adequately
studied  over  the long term. They also
expressed concern  that  the  proposed
standards could have an an;u-ompeti-
tive  effect,  since they believe  there
may be only one  boiler  vendor who
could meet the proposed stanor.rds on
a continuous ba.s-is.  Finally, they ques-
tion whether there is sufficient con-
tinuous mor.itorinK  experience to war-
rant basing  compliance on continuous
monitoring resuiis.

               STUDIES

  The background information includ-
ing environmental  and  i'Lonrl; with
a title and a document nuir.bir as  fol-
lows:

 "Electric Utility Steam Oenrratitip Dints:
Background Informal inn lor F'ror.i'scd  NO,
Emission Standards. EI'A -JftO/Z-'a OOfia;
 •'Electric Utility Su-.im Ooncratitii; Unas:
Background Information for propnsrd Par
ticulate Manor Enus-ion Standards." EI5A
450/2-78-006a:
 "Electric Utility Steam Generating i;mts:
Background Information for Proposed  SO,
Emission Standards."  EPA 450/2-78-OOIa;
and
 "Electric Utility Steam Generating Units:
Background Information for Propnsrd  SO,
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO  18J-TUESOAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                                V-D-19
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
Emission  Standards—Supplement."  EPA
450/2-78-007a-l.

  Much of the supporting information
within  the   background  information
documents was obtained from consul-
tant studies  sponsored by  EPA.  Re-
ports covering these studies are includ-
ed in the docket at EPA headquarters
and are available for Inspection during
normal office hours at each EPA  re-
gional  office. The  titles of the consul-
tant studies are as  follows:

  1.  "Flue Gas  Desulfurlzatlon  Systems:
Design  and Operating Parameters, SO, Re-
moval  Capabilities.  Coal  Properties  and
Reheat."
  2. "Flue Gas Desulfurlzatlon  System Ca-
pabilities for Coal-Fired Steam Generators."
  3  "Boiler Design and Operating Variables
Affecting Uncontrolled Sulfur  Emissions
from Pulverized  Coal-Fired Steam  Gener-
ators."
  4. "Effects of Alternative New Source Per-
formance Standards on Flue Gas Desulfuri-
zation System Supply and Demand."
  5. "Evaluation of Physical Coal Cleaning
as an Sd Emission Control Technique."
  6. "The Impact of Modification/Recon-
struction of Steam Generators on SO, Emis-
sions."
  7. "The Energy Requirements for Control-
ling SO, Emissions from Coal-Fired Steam/
Electric Generators."
  8. "The Solid Waste Impact of Controlling
SO, Emissions  from Coal Fired Steam-Elec-
tric Generators."
  9. "Water Pollution Impact of Controlling
SO, Emissions  from Coal-Fired Steam/Elec-
tric Generators."
  10. "Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide Emis-
sion  Control   CosLs  for  Large Coal-Fired
Boilers."
  11. "Review  of New Source Performance
Standards for  SO, Emissions  from Coal-
Fired Utility Boilers."
  12. "The Effect of  Flue Gas Desuifuriza-
tion Availability on Electric Utilities."
  13. "Effects  of  Alternative  New  Source
Performance Standards for Coal Fired Elec-
tric Utility Boilers on the Coal Markets and
Utility Capacity Expansion Plans."
  14. "Flue Gas  Desulfurlzalion  System
Manufacturers Survey."
  15. "Assessment of Manufacturer Capacity
to Meet Requirements for Particulate Con-
trol in Utility and Industrial Boilers."
  16. "Flue  Gas Desulfurization  Cost  for
Large Coal-Fired Boilers. August 10. 1978."
  17. "The Ability of Electric Utilities with
FGD to Meet Energy Demands."

  In addition  to the consultant studies,
EPA  studies were  performed.  One
study involved the installation and op-
eration of continuous SO, monitors on
the  inlet and  outlet  of  commercial-
scale PGD units. The purposes  of the
study  were to determine:  CD The  sta-
tistical characteristics  of  coal-fired
boiler and PGD operation, (2) the vari-
ability of SO, inlet concentrations.  (3)
the ability of PGD to "damp out" SO,
variability, and (4) SO, emissions as a
function of averaging period.
  A second EPA study included a dif-
fusion modeling analysis to estimate
the maximum ground-level concentra-
tion of SO,  that woyld occur around
small, medium, and large power plants
for emission rates with and without
flue gas reheat. The study also exam-
ined the estimated SO, concentrations
that would  occur  around multi-boiler
facilities. Surface  and upper-air mete-
orological data for eight different geo-
graphical areas were used in the study.
  EPA has also supplemented the eco-
nomic,  energy,  and  environmental
impact assessment set forth  In  the
background  information document for
the SO, standard (EPA 450/2-78-007a)
by conducting two additional analyses.
The first was initiated in  February
1978,  and results  became available in
late April. The second, which was com-
pleted in August, used revised assump-
tions   pertaining  to  utility  growth
rates,  oil  prices,  etc. The  results of
these studies are presented in sections
2 and 3 of the "Electric Utility Steam
Generating  Units: Background Infor-
mation for   Proposed  SO5  Emission
Standards—Supplement."  EPA 450/2-
78-007a-l.
  EPA has also taken into  considera-
tion studies  prepared by other Gov-
ernmental   Agencies.  One   study   is
"The  Demand for Western  Coal  and
Its  Sensitivity to Key Uncertainties,"
draft  report.  2nd  edition,  June 1978.
which assessed the potential  impact of
this proposal on  coal demand.  This
report was  prepared  by a consultant
for the Department  of Interior  anpl
the Department of Energy. In addition
the analysis of alternative standards
prepared  by  the   Department  of
Energy, and transmitted  to  EPA  by
Mr. John P.  O'Leary,  Deputy Secre-
tary,  on  July 6 and  August 11, 1978.
was also considered.
  A task  force of American  experts in
scrubber  technology  visited  Japan to
evaluate  Japanese scrubber perform-
ance.  The  findings  (Maxwell, Elder
and Morasky. "Sulfur Oxides Control
Technology  in Japan." June 30. 1978)
were also considered by EPA.

        PERFORMANCE TESTING

       PARTICULATE STANDARDS

  Compliance with the proposed par-
ticulate matter standards would be de-
termined by using  EPA method 5 oper-
ated  at  a  filter  temperature up to
160°C  (320'F).  As  an option,  EPA
method 17 may be used for  stack gas
temperature  less  than 160°C.  EPA
method 3 would be used to determine
oxygen or carbon dioxide concentra-
tions.  These  concentration  measure-
ments would then  be used to compute
paniculate  emissions  in units of  the
standard as  specified  in proposed EPA
method 19.
  Compliance with opacity standards
could be determined at any time  by
visual observations using EPA  method
9. Except during startups, shutdowns,
and malfunctions,  all data from visual
observations would be ued for deter-
mining compliance with the proposed
opacity standard.
  A continuous monitoring system for
opacity would be required in the stack
except when firing only gaseous fuels.
The opacity data from the continuous
monitor  would not be  used to deter-
mine compliance  with the opacity
standard. It would be used to assist in
assuring  the  particulate  matter  con-
trol  system is properly operated and
maintained.

        SO, AND NO, STANDARDS

  Performance tests. Compliance  with
the proposed  SO, and  NO, standards
would be determined  using the  data
obtained from the required continuous
monitoring systems. If an FGD system
were used for SO, control, continuous
SO,  emission monitors would be  re-
quired both upstream and downstream
of the PGD system and used to deter-
mine compliance with the proposed 85
percent SO,  reduction. As.  an option.
compliance  with  the  proposed  SO,
standards could  be determined  using
both an "as fired" fuel sampler to de-
termine the sulfur content and heat-
ing  value  of the  fuel fired to  the
boiler, and a continuous SO, emission
monitor  after the  PGD   system  to
measure  SO, emissions discharged into
the atmosphere.  In addition to credit-
ing  the  SO,  removed by  the  FGD
system,   this  option  would  provide
credit for sulfur  removed by coal pul-
verizers and by the bottom ash and  fly
ash. The SO, percent reduction  re-
quirement  and  emission  limitation
would both be based on emission levels
averaged over a 24-hour (daily) period.
If fuel is treated prior to combustion
to reduce SO, emissions, a sulfur  re-
moval  credit  would also be allowed.
Procedures for determining sulfur  re-
moval  credits  are proposed  under
§ 60.48a with EPA method 19.
  Performance testing to  determine
compliance with the NO, emission lim-
itation (ng/J) would be determined  on
a continuous basis through  the use of
a  continuous NO, emission monitor.
NO. emission data would be averaged
over a 24-hour (daily) period. Perform-
ance testing  to determine  compliance
with the percent  reduction  require-
ments for NO, would not be required.
An affected facility would be assumed
to be in  compliance with the NO,  re-
duction requirements provided the  fa-
cility is in compliance with the appli-
cable NO, emission limitation.
  When  the NO, or SO,  continuous
monitoring  system  fails to  operate
properly, the source owner or operator
would obtain emission data by:
  1. Operation of a second monitoring
system, or
  2.  Conducting  manual tests  using
EPA  reference  methods during  the
period  the   continuous   monitoring
system is inoperative.
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO.  182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                                 V-D-20
-------
                                                PROPOSED  RULES
  Operation  of a second monitoring
system  would  mean  that the source
owner would have a second system in
operation at  all times. Conducting the
manual  tests  would  mean  that the
source owner would have  trained man-
power available on an immediate basis
to collect samples while  the  continu-
ous monitoring system is inoperative.
Manual test runs \vould be required on
an hourly ba.iis.
  Since  compliant with the proposed
SO,  and NO, standards would be de-
termined  by  continuous  monitors,
EPA is currently developing additional
quality   assurance procedures.  These
procedures would not change the pres-
ent  performance  specifications  for
continuous  monitoring  systems,  but
would provide additional periodic field
tests  to assure t'^e accuracy  of the
monitoring dara. Appendix E under 40
CFR  Part 60  is  being  reserved for
thrsf- addUiji-ai quality assurance pro-
cedures. Electric  utility  powerplants
that would be subject to the proposed
standard would be subject to the qual-
ity assurance procedures under appen-
dix E when completed.  This should
not pose a problem since new sources
affected by this proposed action are
not expected to begin operation until
about 1984.
  Fuel pretreatment. Pretreatment of
a  fuel  to remove sulfur or  increase
heat content  would be credited toward
the  SO, percent reduction  require-
ment. For example, by preti-eatment
of a 2.3 percent sulfur fuel (equivalent
to 1.000 ng/J)  to 1.7  percent sulfur
(750  ng/J; 25 percent sulfur removal),
the FGD system SO, control require-
ment would  be reduced from 85 per-
cent to  80 percent  (750 ng/J reduced
to 150 ng/J). An 85 percent emission
reduction (1.000 ng/J  to 150  ng/J)
would be necessary for an FOD system
if the fuel were fired untreated.
  Fuel pretreatment credits would be
given for removal of sulfur from fuel,
including the resulting Increase in fuel
heat content. Examples of the type of
equipment or   processes  for which
credit would be given are:
  1. Physical coal cleaning.
  2. Solvent refining of coal.
  3. Liquidation  of coal.
  4. Gas!f'ration of coal.
  Rotary breakers  or  coarse screens
used to  separate rock and other mate-
rial from raw coal prior to processing
or shipment are considered an Integral
part  of  the coal mining  process and
would not be considered  as  fuel pre-
treatment (see  section  4,5.2.2 of EPA
460/2-78-007a-l).
  The proposed standard would not re-
quire fuel to  be  pretreated  before
firing but would allow  credit for pre-
treatment  if  used.  The amount  of
sulfur removed by a fuel pretreatment
process would be determined following
procedures in EPA method 19 tappen-
dix A). The owner or operator of the
electric  utility  who  would  use the
credit  would be- responsible for insur-
ing thai the  t.PA miihod 19 proce-
dures are iollowt-d  in determining SO,
removal credit for prrtreatment equip-
ment.

           MISCELLANEOUS

  As prescribed  by section  111, estab-
li?hmert of standards of performance
for tic-ctric  utiMy  steam  generating
units was preceded by the Administra-
tor's determination that these sources
contribute  significantly to  air pollu-
tion which causes or contributes to the
endangernipnt of public lif-altli or wel-
fare. In accordance with section 117 of
the Act. publication  of thi.s  proposal
was preceded by consultation  with ap-
propriate advisory committees,  inde-
pendent experts, and Federal depart-
ments  and agencies.  The Administra-
tor will welcome comments on all  as-
pects of the proposed regulation,  in-
cluding  economic  and  technological
issues,  and on the proposed  test meth-
ods.
  Under EPA s "new" sunset policy for
reporting requirements in regulations,
the reporting requirements in  this reg-
ulation will  automatically expire  5
years from  the  dale of promulgation
unless  EPA takes affirmative action to
extcna  them  To accomplish this,  a
provision  automatically  terminating
the  reporting  requirements  at that
time will be  Included in the text of the
final regulations.
  It should be noted that standards ol
performance lor  new  fossil fuel fired
stationary  sources established under
section  111  of  the Clean Air  Act re-
flect:
  • ' ' application of tne best technological
system  of  continuous emission  reduction
which itaking Into consideration the cost of
achieving such  emission redaction,  any
nonair  qup.Iity  heahh and  environmental
impact  and energy requirements) the Ad-
ministrator determines has been adequately
demonstrated. [Section llKaKD)
  Although  there  may  be  emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels re-
quired   to comply with standards  of
performance,  this  technology  might
not be selected as the bac,;s of stand-
ards of  performance due to  costs asso-
ciated with its use. Accordingly, stand-
ards of  performance  should   not  be
viewed  as the ultimate In achievable
emission control. In fact, the  Act re-
quires (or has potential for  requiring)
the imposition  of  a  more stringent
emission standard in  several  situa-
tions,
  For example, applicable costs do not
play as prominent a role  In determin-
ing the  "lowest  achievable emission
rate" for new or modified sources lo-
cated   in  nonattalnment areas, I.e.,
those areas where statutorily-mandat-
 ed health and  welfare  sta.nrln.rds  are
 being violated. In this respi-< i. section
 173  cf the act requires  that a new or
 modifn-d source const nicle.'l in an area
 which exceeds the National  Ambie-m
 Air  Quality Standard (NAAQS) must
 reduce emissions to the level wturh re-
 flects the "lowest achievable  emission
 rate" (LAER),  as  df-fined  in section
 171(3).  for  such  catcpory  of soyc*-.
 The statute define.- LAL'R a.-, that rate
 of emission which reflects:
  (A) The  most strinponl  err.:, -irr !i:r,ita-
 tion  which Is coniairird  in the ir'.^f menta-
 tion  plan of any Stat- fnr such rla.-s or cate-
 gory of source, unless the owner o: operator
 of thp proposed sour-•>• di-mo'> .t.'aic.s i:iat
 such Imitations arc nc; arh>(» aL.'  cir
  (B> Thr  most stniiue-ti' cnv "-n 'imita-
 tion  which is arhiexfd in pra(" •• - by S'.IVP
 class or  category of source, w' irln-ver is
 more sirmgenl.
  In no  event can the  emis^dn rate
 exceed any applicable new so'i^e per-
 formance standard (section )7h3».
  A  similar situation  may anst- under
 the prevention of significant deteriora-
 tion of air  quality provision", of the
 Act  (part C).  These provisions require
 that certain sources (referred to in sec-
 tion  169!!))   employ  "best  available
 control technology" (as defined in sec-
 tion 169i3)) for a!) pollutant.-' regulat-
 ed under  the  Act. Best  ava:-iV>le con-
 trol  technology (BACTj must be deter-
 mined on a case-by-case ba*;.v taking
 energy,  environmei.tal and economic
 Impacts, and other costs into  account.
 In no event  may the appJicaiion of
 BACT result  in emissions of  any pol-
 lutants  which v ill exceed  th° emis-
 sions allowed  by any applkaui" stand-
 ard  established  pursuant to  section
 111 (or 112) of the Act.
  In all events. State  implementation
 plans (SIPs) approved or promulgated
 under section  110 of the  Act must pro-
 vide for  the   attainment  and  mainte-
 nance of national Ambient Air Quality
 Standards designed to protect public
 health and welfare. For  this purpose,
 SIPs must In some cases  require great-
 er emission'reductions than those  re-
 quired by standards  of   performance
 for new sources.
  Finally, States are free  under section
 116 of the Act to establish even more
 stringent  emission  limits than those
 established under section 111 or those
necessary  to  attain  or  maintain the
 NAAQS under section 110. According-
ly, new sources may in some cases  be
subject to limitations  more stringent
than EPA's standards  of performance
under  section 111,  and prospective
owners and operators  of new sources
should be aware of this  possibility  In
planning for such facilities.
  EPA will  review  this  regulation  4
years from the date of promulgation.
this  review will include an assessment
of such factors as the need for Integra-
tion  with other  programs,  the exis-
                             FEDERAL MOISTIK, VOL 43, NO. 182-TUESDAY, SEPTSMIEft  19,  1971
                                                 V-D-21
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
tence of  alternative methods,  enfor-
ceability,  and improvements  in  emis-
sion control technology.
  Executive Order 12044, dated March
24. 1978, whose objective is to improve
Government regulations, requires  ex-
ecutive  branch  agencies  to  prepare
regulatory  analyses for  regulations
that may have major economic conse-
quences. The proosed standards meet
the criteria for preparation of a regu-
latory analysis as outlined in the Ex-
ecutive  order. Therefore, a regulatory
analysis  has been  prepared as  re-
quired.  The analysis  is contained  in
the   background  information   docu-
ments for the proposed standards. The
regulatory analysis  is not being pub-
lished as a separate  document because
the work was begun before the Presi-
dent's Executive order was published.
However, in order to present a better
understanding of the analyses  con-
tained in the background information
documents, a summary of the analyses
is included in the preamble. The sum-
mary discusses  in detail the alterna-
tives considered.
  Section 317 of the Clean Air Act re-
quires the Administrator to prepare an
economic Impact assessment  for revi-
sions determined by  the Administrator
to be substantial. The Administrator
has   determined  that  the  proposed
amendments are substantial  and has
prepared  an economic impact  assess-
ment and included the required infor-
mation  in thebackground information
documents.
  Dated: September  11. 1978.
              DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                     Administrator.
  It is proposed that 40 CFR Part  60
be amended by  revising  the heading
and §60.40 of Subpart D. by  adding a
new Subpart Da. by adding a new ref-
erence method to Appendix A, and by
reserving Appendix E as follows:
  1. The heading for Subpart D is re-
vised to read as follows:

Subparl  D—Standard*  of  Performance  for
  Fouil-Fuel-Fired  Steam Generator!  Con-
  Mructed After Auguit  17, 1971

  2.  Section 60.40   is  amended   by
adding paragraph (a)(3) as follows:

J 60.40  Applicability  and  designation  of
    affected facility.
  (a)* • •
  (3) Is not subject to the provisions of
Subpart Da.
(Sec.  Ill,  301(a) of the Clean  Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601(a)U
  3. A new Subpart Da Is added as fol-
lows:
Subpart Do—ttondordi of  Performance for Electric
 Utility Steam Generating Unili for Which Cenitnic-
 tton It Commenced After September It, 1978

Sec.
60.40a Applicability and designation of af-
   fected facility.
60.41 a Definitions.
60.42a Standard for paniculate matter.
60.43a Standard tor sulfur dioxide.
60.44a Standard for nitrogen oxides.
60.45a Commercial demonstration permit.
60.46a Compliance provisions.
60.47a Emission monitoring.
60.48a Compliance  determination   proce-
   dures and methods.
60.49a Reporting requirements.
 AUTHORITY: Sec. ill. SOira) of the Clean
Air  Act  as amended  (42  U.S.C.  7411,
7601(a». and additional authority as noted
below.

Subpart Da—Standard*  of Performance  for
  Electric Utility  Steam  Generating Unitt for
  Which Contraction  It Commenced After Sep-
  tember 18, 1978

§60.40a  Applicability  and designation  of
    affected facility.
  (a)  The  affected  facility  to  which
this subpart applies  is  each electric
utility steam generating unit:
  (1) Which Is capable of combusting
more than 73 megawatts (250 million
Btu/hour) heat  input of fossil fuel
(either alone  or  in  combination with
any other fuel); and
  (2) For which  construction or  modi-
fication is commenced after Septem-
ber 18. 1978.
  (b)  This  subpart applies to electric
utility combined  cycle  gas  turbines
that are capable of combusting more
than  73 megawatts  (250  million Btu/
hour) heat input  of fossil fuel  in the
steam  generator.  Only  emissions  re-
sulting from combustion  of fossil fuel
in the steam generator are subject  to
this subpart.  (The  gas  turbine  emis-
sions are subject to Subpart GG.)

§60.4la  Definitions.
  As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall  have the meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart
A of this part.
  (a)  "Steam  generating  unit"  means
any furnace,  boiler, or  other  device
used for combusting fuel for the pur-
pose  of  producing  steam (including
fossil fuel-fired steam generators asso-
ciated with combined cycle  gas tur-
bines;  nuclear steam generators are
not included). A steam generating unit
Includes the following systems:
  (1) Fuel  combustion system (includ-
ing bunker, coal  pulverizer, crusher,
stoker,  and fuel burners, as applica-
ble).
  (2) Combustion air system.
  (3)  Steam  generating system (fire-
box, boiler tubes, etc.).
  (4)  Draft  system  (excluding the
stack).
  (b) "Electric utility steam generating
unit" means any steam electric gener-
ating unit that  is constructed for the
purpose of supplying more than one-
third of its maximum design electrical
output capacity to an electrical distri-
bution system for sale. Any steam dis-
tribution system  that  is constructed
for the purpose of providing steam to
a steam-electric generator that would
produce  electrical energy for  sale  is
also considered  in  determining  the
electrical  energy  output capacity  of
the affected facility.
  (c) "Fossil fuel" means natural gas.
petroleum, coal, and any form of solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel  derived from
such material for the purpose of creat-
ing useful heat.
  (d) "Subbituminous coal" means coal
that is classified as  subbitumlnous A,
B, or C according to the American So-
ciety   of  Testing   and  Materials'
(ASTM)  Standard  Specification  for
Classification of Coals by Rank D388-
66.
  (e) "Lignite" means coal that is clas-
sified as lignite A or  B  according to
the American Society  of Testing  and
Materials'  (ASTM) Standard Specifi-
cation for  Classification of  Coals  by
Rank D388-66.
  (f) "Coal refuse" means waste prod-
ucts from  coal  mining, physical coal
cleaning, and  coal refining operations
(e.g. culm, gob, or other rejects) con-
taining coal, ash matrix material, clay,
and organic and inorganic material.
  (g) "Potential  combustion concentra-
tion" means the theoretical  emissions
(ng/J, Ib/mlllion  Btu)  that would
result from combustion of a fuel in an
uncleaned state  (without emission con-
trol systems) and:
  (1) For particulate matter is:
  (1) 3.000 ng/J  heat Input (7.0 Ib/mil-
lion Btu) for solid fuel; and
  (ii) 75 ng/J  heat input (0.17 Ib/mil-
liq/i Btu) for liquid fuels.
  (2) For sulfur dioxide is determined
under §60.48a(b).
  (3) For nitrogen oxides is:
  (i) 290  ng/J heat input (0.67 Ib/mil-
lion Btu) for gaseous fuels;
  (ii) 310 ng/J heat input (0.72 Ib/mil-
lion Btu) for liquid fuels; and
  (Hi) 990 ng/J heat Input (2.3 Ib/mil-
lion Btu)'for solid fuels.
  (h) "Combined cycle gas turbine"
means a stationary gas  turbine system
where heat is recovered from the ex-
haust  gases by passing  the  exhaust
gases through a steam generating unit.
fossil fuel  may  also be combusted in
the steam generating unit.
  (i)  "Utility  company" means  the
largest organization, business, or gov-
ernmental entity that owns the affect-
ed  facility (e.g. a holding  company
with operating subsidiary companies).
  (J)  "System   capacity" means  the
sum of the rated  electrical output ca-
pacity of all electric generating equip-
                             FEDERAL REGISTEK, VOl 43, NO.  182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                                  V-D-22
-------
                                                PROPOSED  RULES
ment which is  owned  by the  utility
company and which is being operated
or is capable of being operated (includ-
ing fossll-fuel-fired steam generators,
Internal combustion engines,  gas tur-
bines, and nuclear power plants). The
electrical generating capacity of elec-
tric generating equipment under mul-
tiple ownership Is prorated based on
ownership.
  (k)  "System  emergency reserves"
means the rated capacity of the single
largest  steam electric generating  unit
(Including fossil-fuel-fired steam  gen-
erators,  Internal combustion  engines.
gas  turbines,  and  nuclear   power
plants)  owned by the utility company.
The electric  generating capacity of
electric  generation  equipment  under
multiple ownership  is prorated based
on ownership.
  (1)  "Available  system  capacity"
means the capacity determined by sub-
tracting  the system  load and  the
system  emergency  reserves from the
system capacity.
  (m) "Spinning reserve" means the
sum of the unutilized capacity of all
units of the utility company that are
synchronized to the power distribution
system  and .that are capable of imme-
diately  accepting additional load.  The
electrical generating capacity  of elec-
tric generation equipment under mul-
tiple ownership is prorated based on
ownership.
  (n)  "Emergency  condition"  means
that period  of time:
  (1)  When the  electric generation
load on an affected facility with a mal-
functioning  flue gas  desulfurization
system  cannot be shifted because all
available system capacity is being op-
erated, or
  (2) When  all available system capac-
ity  Is not being utilized and  electric
generation  load  is  being shifted as
quickly  as possible from the affected
faculty  to:
  (I) One or more electric generating
units held in spinning reserve, or
  (ii)  Another  electrical generation
system  through the  purchase of elec-
tric power.
  (o)  "Noncontinental  areas"  means
the State of Hawaii  the Virgin  Is-
lands, Guam, American  Samoa,  and
the Commonwealths of  Puerto Rico
and the Northern Mariana Islands.
  (p)    "Commercial    demonstration
plant" means:
  (1) An affected facility commercially
demonstrating an emerging technol-
ogy, or
  (2) Any of the affected facilities that
combust  the coal-derived  fuel pro-
duced at a commercial  demonstration
coal conversion plant,  demonstrating
an emerging technology.
  (Q)  "24-hour  period"  means  the
period of time between  12:01 a.m. and
12:00 midnight.
§ 60.42a  Standard for partirulate matter.
  (a)  On and after the date on which
the performance  test required to be
conducted  under  § 60.8  is  completed,
no  owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause
to be discharged into the atmosphere
from  any affected facility any gases
which contain  particulate matter in
excess of:
  (1)  13 ng/J  heat input (0.03 Ib/mil-
lion Btu) derived from the combustion
of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel:
  (2)  1 percent  of  the potential com-
bustion concentration (99 percent re-
duction) when co.mbusting solid fuel:
and
  (3)  30 percent of potential combus-
tion concentration (70 percent  reduc-
tion)  when combusting liquid fuel.
  (b)  On and after the date the partic-
ulate  matter   performance  test  re-
quired to be conducted under §60.8 is
completed, no owner or  operator  sub-
ject to the  provisions of this subpart
shall  cause  to be  discharged  into the
atmosphere  from any affected facility
any gases which exhibit greater than
20 percent opacity, except for one 6-
minute  period per hour of not more
than  27 percent  opacity.

§ 60.43a  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
  (a)  On and after the date on which
the initial performance  test required
to be conducted under § 60.8 is com-
pleted, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions  of this subpart shall
cause to be  discharged into the atmo-
sphere from any affected  facility  any
gases  which contain sulfur dioxide in
excess of:
  (1) 340 ng/J heat input (0.80 Ib/mil-
Hon Btu) derived from the combustion
of any liquid or gaseous fuel:
  (2)  520 ng/J heat Input  (1.2 Ib/mil-
lion Btu) derived from the combustion
of any solid fuel  except as provided
under, paragraph (b) of this section;
and
  (3)  15 percent  of the potential com-
bustion  concentration (85  percent re-
duction)   when   combusting   solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel, except as pro-
vided  under paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section.
  (b)  The sulfur dioxide emissions al-
lowed under paragraph (a) of this  sec-
tion may be exceeded up to three 24-
hour  periods  during any  calendar
month,  however,  the sulfur dioxide
emissions must be reduced to less than
25 percent of the potential  combustion
concentration  (76  percent  reduction)
at all  times.
  (c)  The requirements  under para-
graph (a)(3) of this section do  not
apply when  any  of the following con-
ditions are met:
  (1) The sulfur  dioxide emitted to the
atmosphere  Is  less than  86 ng/J heat
input  (0.20 Ib/million Btu).
  (2) The affected facility is located in
 a noncontinental area.
  (3) The affected facility is operated
 under an SO, commercial demonstra-
 tion permit issued by the Administra-
 tor in accordance with the provisions
 of §60.45a.
  (d)  For  purposes  of  determining
 compliance with  provisions of  para-
 graph (a)(3) of this section, any reduc-
 tion in potential sulfur dioxide  emis-
 sions resulting from the following may
 be   credited   in   accordance   with
 §60.48a(b):
  (1) Fuel pretreatment.
  (2) Coal pulverizers.
  (3) Bottom  ash  and fly ash  interac-
 tion.
  (e)  When  different fuels  are  com-
 busted simultaneously, the applicable
 standard  is determined by proration
 using the following formula:

 PS!0,= x(340) + y(520)/100
 where:
 PSxn  is the  prorated  standard for sulfur
   dioxide when combusting different  fuels
   simultaneously (ng/J heat input).
 x is the percentage of total  heat Input de-
   rived from  the combustion of  gaseous
   and liquid fuel.
 y is the percentage of total  heat input de-
   rived from the combustion of solid fuel.

 § 60.44a Standard for nitrogen oxides.
  (a) On and  after the date on which
 the  initial performance test required
 to be  conducted  under § 60.8  is  com-
 pleted, no owner or operator subject to
 the  provisions of  this subpart shall
 cause  to be discharged  into the atmo-
 sphere from any affected facility  any
 gases which contain nitrogen oxides in
 excess of:
  (1) 86 ng/J heat input  C0.20  Ib/mil-
 lion Btu) derived from the combustion
 of any gaseous fuel, except  gaseous
 fuel derived from coal;
  (2) 130 ng/J heat Input (0.30  Ib/mil
 lion Btu) derived from the combustirn
 of any liquid fuel, except shale  oil pnd
 liquid fuel derived from coal;
  (3) 210 ng/J heat input (0.50  ItVmil-
 lion Btu) derived from the combastion
 of:
  (1) Subbitumtnous coal,
  (ii) Shale oil, or
  (ill) Any solid, liquid, or gaseous  fuel
 derived from  coal; except as provided
 under paragraph (c) of this section.
  (4) 260 ng/J heat Input  (0.60  Ib/mil-
 llon Btu) derived from the combustion
 of any solid fuel not specified under
 paragraphs (a)(3),  (a)(5) or (b)  of  this
 section;
  (5) 340 ng/J heat Input  (0.80  Ib/mil-
 lion Btu) derived from the combustion
 in a slag tap furnace of any fuel con-
 taining more  than  25  percent, by
 weight, lignite which has been mined
 in North  Dakota, South Dakota, or
Montana;
  (6) 75 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (25 percent re-
                             KDMAL REOISTEt, VOl 43, NO. JW-TOISOAY, SfPTIMBH 19, W»
                                                V-D-23
-------
                                                MtOPOSED  tULES
ductlon)   when  combusting  gaseous
fuel;
  (7) 70 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (30  percent re-
duction) when combusting liquid fuel;
and
  (8) 35 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (65  percent re-
duction) when combusting solid fuel.
  (b) Combustion of a fuel containing
more than 25 percent, by weight, coal
refuse  is exempt from both the provi-
sion.1; of  §60.47a(a)(3)  and paragraph
(a) of this section.
  (c) The  requirements under  para-
graph  (a) of  this section do not apply
when an  affected facility  Is operated
under  an  NO, commercial  demonstra-
tion permit issued by the Administra-
tor  in  accordance  with  the provisions
of § 60.45a.
  (d) When two or more fuels, except
as provided under paragraphs (a)(5) or
(b)  of  tills section, are combusted si-
multaneously, the applicable standard
is determined by pi-oration using the
following  formula:
PSs,*ir<86> + tt 1 SOX^-irt210>•**<260>/100
where
^Svo, Is the applicable standard for nitrogen
   oxides when multiple fuels are combust-
   ed simultaneously (ng/J heat Input);
u- is the percentage of total heat Input de-
   rived from  the combustion of fuels sub-
   ject to the  86 ng/J heat input standard;
z Is the percentage of total heat Input de-
   rived from  the combustion of fuels sub-
   ject to the 130 ng/J heat Input standard:
V is the percentage of total heat Input de-
   rived from  the combustion of fuels sub-
   ject to the 210 ng/J heat Input standard;
   and
t is the percentage of total heat Input de-
   rived from  the combustion of fuels sub-
   ject to the 260 ng/J heat Input standard.

{60*45a Commercial      demomtration
   permit.
  (a) An owner or operator  of an  af-
fected  facility proposing  to  demon-
strate  an  emerging technology may
apply to the  Administrator for a com-
mercial  demonstration  permit. The
Administrator will issue a commercial
demonstration permit  In  accordance
with  paragraph  (d)  of this section.
Commercial   demonstration  permits
may only be issued by the Administra-
tor, and this authority will not be dele-
gated,
  .
§6(1.47a  Ettm»ion monitorinx-
  (a) The owner or operator of an  af-
fected facility shall install,  calibrate.
maintain, and  operate a  continuous
monitoring system  for measuring the
opacity of emissions discharged to the
atmosphere,  except  where  paseous
fuel  is the only  fuel  combusted. If
opacity interference exists in the stack
(for example, from  the use of an FGD
system), the  opacity is  monitori-d up-
stream of the interference (fit the inlet
to the FGD system). If opacity inter-
ference is experienced at  all locations
(botli  at the inlet  and outlet of the
sulfur dioxide control system), alter-
nate parameters indicative of the par-
ticulate matter  control system's per-
formance are monitored (subject  to
the approval of the Administrator).
  (b) The owner or operator of an  af-
fected facility shall install,  calibrate.
maintain, and  operate a  continuous
monitoring   system  for   measuring
sulfur dioxide emissions, except where
natural gas is the only fuel combusted.
as follows:
  (1)   Sulfur  dioxide   emissions  are
monitored at both the inlet  and outlet
of the sulfur dioxide control device.
  (2)  For a  facility  which  qualifies
under  the  provisions  of  §60.43aic),
sulfur dioxide emissions are only mon-
itored  as  discharged  to  the  atmo-
sphere.
  (3)  An  "as  fired"  fuel  monitoring
system (upstream of  coal pulverizers)
meeting  the  requirements of method
19 (Appendix A) may be used to deter-
mine   potential  sulfur  dioxide emis-
sions  in  place of a continuous sulfur
dioxide emission  monitor at the inlet
to the sulfur dioxide control device as
required  under  paragraph  (b)(l)  of
this section.
  (4) If a facility which complies with
§60.43a(a) solely through  the provi-
sions   under  §60.43a(d),  then  sulfur
dioxide emissions are only  monitored
at the outlet of  the sulfur  dioxide
contol device.
  (c) The owner or operator of an  af-
fected facility shall install,  calibrate.
maintain, and  operate a  continuous
monitoring system  for  measuring  ni-
trogen oxides emissions discharged to
the atmosphere.
  
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
  (2) A maximum  of  eight (8) hours
per month for routine maintenance.
  (f)  During periods of operation of
the affected facility when continuous
monitoring systems (and spare moni-
toring systems if used)  are not oper-
able,  the owner or  operator of the af-
fected facility shall conduct perform-
ance tests consisting of manual testing
each  hour until the continuous moni-
tor system is returned  to service. Each
hourly test Is performed as follows:
  (1) Reference methods 3. 6, and 7, as
applicable,  are  used.  The  sampling
locatlonCs) are the same  as those used
for the continuous monitoring system.
  (2) For method 6, the minimum sam-
pling time shall  be 20 minutes and the
minimum sampling volume 0.02 dscm
(0.71  dscf) for each sample. The arith-
metic mean of  two samples taken at
approximately   30-minute   intervals
constitutes one run. The arithmetic
mean of the runs obtained during a 24-
hour period is reported as the average
for that  period. For determination of
FGD  removal   efficiency,  inlet  and
outlet sampling is conducted simulta-
neously.
  (3)  For  method 7, each run consists
of at least four  grab samples taken at
approximately   15-minute   intervals.
The  arithmetic mean of  the four sam-
ples  constitutes the 1-hour run. The
arithmetic mean of the runs obtained
during a 24-hour period  is  reported as
the average for that-period.
  <4)  For  method  3,  the  oxygen or
carbon dioxide sample is obtained si-
multaneously at the same location in
the duct as the samples collected using
methods 6 and  7. For method-7,  the
oxygen sample  is  obtained using  the
grap sampling and analysis procedures
of method 3.
  (5) For each run using method 19 in
appendix A to this part,  the emissions
expressed in ng/J (Ib/million Btu) are
determined. The arithmetic  mean of
the runs performed during a 24-hour
period is reported as the average for
that  period.
  (g)  The following procedures  are
used for monitoring system  perform-
ance  evaluations under  |60.13(c)  and
calibration checks under §60.13(d):
  (1) Reference  method 0 or 7, as ap-
plicable,  is used for  conducting per-
formance  evaluations of sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides continuous moni-
toring systems.
  (2) Sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides,
as applicable, is used  for preparing
calibration  gas  mixtures  under per-
formance  specification 2 of appendix
B to  this part.
  (3)  For  affected facilities  burning
only fossil fuel, the span value for a
continuous  monitoring  system  for
measuring opacity  is between  60  and
80 percent and for a continuous moni-
toring  system  measuring  nitrogen
oxides is determined as follows:
                                                  [Pans per million]
         Fossil fuel
                         Spivn value for
                         nitrogen oxides
Gas	
LJQuld	
Solid	
Combinations	
                        500 (I.
   500
   500
  1.000
> 1.000;
where:
i = the fraction of total heat input derived
   from gaseous fossil fuel.
y=the  fraction total  heat Input derived
   from liquid fossil fuel, and
2 = the fraction of total heat input derived
   from solid fossil fuel.
  (4) All span values computed  under
paragraph (b)(3) of this  section for
burning combinations of  fossil  fuels
are rounded to the nearest  500 ppm.
  (5)  For  affected  facilities  burning
fossil fuel,  alone or in combination
with non-fossil  fuel,  the  span  value of
the sulfur-dioxide continuous monitor-
ing system at the inlet to  the sulfur-
dioxide-control  device is 200 percent of
the  potential emissions of  the fuel
fired, and at the outlet of the sulfur-
dioxide-control  device is  50 percent of
potential emissions. When  the percent
fuel sulfur content changes by 0.5 (24-
hour average) or more, the continuous
monitoring system shall be respanned.

-------
                                                  ntorosED RULES
used  In conjunction with the  24-hour
nltrogen-oxid«s emission  data collect-
ed under § 60.47a to determine compli-
ance   with  the  applicable  nitrogen
oxides standard under § 60.44a.
    Electric utility combined cycle
gas turbines are performance tested
for particulat* matter,  sulfur  dioxide,
and  nitrogen oxides  using  the proce-
dures of method 19 (appendix  A). The
sulfur  dioxide  and  nitrogen  oxides
emission  rates from  the gas  turbine
used  in method 19 (appendix A) calcu-
lations are determined when  the gas
turbine  is  performance tested under
subpart GO. The  potential   uncon-
trolled  paniculate  matter  emission
rate from a gas turbine  is defined as 17
ng/J  (0.04 lb/mi\lion Btu) heat input
(Sec.  114,  Clean Air  Act  as amended (42
U.S.C. 7414).)

5 C6.49a  Reporting requirement*.
  (a)   For   sulfur  dioxide,  nitrogen
oxides, and  paniculate matter emis-
sions, the  performance  test data from
the initial performance test and from
the  performance  evaluation  of  con-
tinuous monitors are submitted to the
Administrator.
  (b)  For sulfur dioxide and  nitrogen
oxides, all emission  data (24-hour daily
average)  collected  subsequent to  the
Initial performance test are submitted
to  the Administrator.  The  required
data  include the following information
for each 24-hour period:
  (1)  Calendar date;
  (2)   Sulfur  dioxide  and  nitrogen
oxides emission  rates (ng/J or lb/mil-
lion Blu. 24-hour average);
  (3)  Percent reduction of  the poten-
tial   combustion   concentration   of
sulfur dioxide (24-hour average) (not
required for nitrogen  oxides):
  (4)  Number of hours of  valid emis-
sion  data  collected  during each 24-
hour daily period;
  (5)  Identification of  periods when
emissions exceed the applicable stand-
ards under either § 60.43a or § 60.44a;
  (6)  Identification of periods of star-
tup or shutdown that resulted in emis-
sions exceeding  the applicable stand-
ards under either § 60 43a or $ 60.44a:
  (7)  Identification of  periods when
control system malfunction resulted in
emissions in excess  of applicable nitro-
gen oxides standards under  § 60.44a;
  (8)  Identification  of "F" factor used
for calculations, and type of fuel  com-
busted; and
  (9)  Identification of  periods when
any  continuous  monitoring   systems
are not operating and identification of
pollutant to be monitored.
  (c)  If any  standards  under §60.43a
are exceeded daring emergency condi-
tions because of control system  mal-
function, the owner or operator of the
affected facility shall submit a signed
statement;
  (1)   Indicating  if  conditions   of
§§60.41a(n) and  60.46a(d)  were  met
during each period; and
  12) Listing the:
  (i) Time periods the emergency con-
dition existed;
  (ii> Electrical output and demand on
the owner's or operator's electric util-
ity system and the affected facility;
  (iii)  Amount   of  power  purchased
from   the  Interconnected  reliability
council during the emergency period;
  (iv) Percent  reduction  in emissions
achieved;
  (v) Atmospheric emission rate (ng/J)
of the pollutant discharged; and
  (vi) Actions taken to correct control
system modification.
  (d)   If  fuel   pretreatment  credit
toward   the  sulfur  dioxide emission
standard under §60.43a is claimed, the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility shall submit a signed  statement:
  (1)   Indicating   what   percentage
cleaning credit was taken for the cal-
endar quarter, and whether the credit
was determined in accordance with the
provisions of  § 60.43a  and method  19
(appendix A); and
  (2) Listing the  quantity heat content
and  date  each   pretreated  fuel ship-
ment was received during the  previous
quarter,  the name and location of the
fuel pretreament facility,  and the total
quantity and total heat content of all
fuels received at the affected facility
during the previous quarter.
  (e) For the purposes of the reports
required under § 60.7, periods of excess
emissions  are defined as all 6-minute
periods  during  which   the  average
opacity exceeds the applicable opacity
standard  under  §60.42a(b).  Opacity
levels In excess of the applicable opac-
ity standard and the date of such ex-
cesses  are submitted to the Adminis-
trator each calendar quarter.
  (f) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall submit the written
reports  required under  this  section
and  subpart A.  to  the Administrator
for every  calendar quarter. All quar-
terly reports shall  be postmarked by
the 30th day following the end of each
calendar quarter.
(Sec. Ill Clean Air  Act as amended (42
D.S.C. 7414).)
  4. Appendix A  to part 60 is amended
by adding new reference method 19 as
follows:

     APPENDIX A—RETEBENCE METHODS
METHOD  l». DETERKTWATTOR OF SULFUR-DIOX-
  IDE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY AND PARTICIPATE,
  tmjVR DIOXIDE AND tTITKOGEN OXIDES EMIS-
  SIOR MATES rROM BLXCTRJC  UTILITT STEAM
  GENERATORS

  1. Principle tnd applicability.
  1.1 Principle,
  1.L1  Fuel samples from before and after
fuel pretreatment systems are collected and
analyzed for sulfur and heal content, and
Ihe percent sulfur dioxide ens/Joule. Ib/mil-
lion Btu) reduction is calculated on a dry
basis. (Optional procedure.)
  1.1.2  Sulfur   dioxide   and  oxygen  or
carbon'dioxide  concentration data obtained
from  sampling emissions  upslream  and
downstream  of sulfur-dioxide-control de-
vices are used to calculate sulfur-dioxide re-
moval efficiencies.  (Minimum requirement.)
As an  alternative to sulfur-dioxide monitor-
ing upstream of sulfur-dioxide-control de-
vices, fuel samples  may be collected in an as-
fired condition  and analyzed for sulfur and
heat content. (Optional procedure.)
  1.1.3  An overall sulfur dioxide emission
reduction efficency is calculated from the
efficiency ol  fuel pretreatment systems and
the efficiency of sulfur dioxide  control de-
vices.
  1.1.4  Paniculate, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and oxygen or carbon dioxide con-
centration  data obtained  from  sampling
emissions downstream from sulfur dioxide
control devices are  used along with P factors
to calculate paniculate, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrogen-oxides emission rates. F factors are
values  relating combustion gas volume to
the heat content of fuels.
  1.2  Applicability. This method is applica-
ble lor determining sulfur removal efficien-
cies of fuel pretreatment and sulfur-dioxide-
control devices  and the overall reduction of
potential sulfur dioxide emissions from elec-
tric .utility  steam, generators. This method is
also applicable for  the determination of par-
tlculate. sulfur  dioxide, and nitrogen oxides
emission rates.
  2. Determination of ittlfur-dioiidf remov-
al efficiency of fuel pret.retU.menl system!
(optional).
  2.1  Solid fossil fuel.
  2.1.1  Sample  increment  collection. Use.
ASTM D 2234.' type I. conditions A. B. or C,
and  systematic spacing.   Determine  the
number and  weight of increments required
per gross sample representing each coal tot
according to  table  2 or paragraph 7.1.5.2 of
ASTM D 2234." Collect one gross sample for
each raw coal lot and one gross sample for
each product coal lot.
  2.1.2  ASTM  lot  size. For the purpose of
section 2.1.1, the product  coal lot size is de-
fined  as the weight of product coal pro-
duced from one type of raw coal. The raw
coal lot size is the weight of  raw coal used to
produce one product coal lot. Typically, the
lot size Is the weight of coa! processed in a
1-day  (24 hours) period. If more than one
type of coal is  treated and produced in 1
day, then  gross samples must be collected
and analyzed for each type of coal A coal
lot size equaling the 90-day quarterly fuel
quantity for a  specific powerplant may be
used If representative  sampling can be con-
ducted for the raw  coal and product coal.
  NOTE.—Alternate definitions of fuel lot
sizes may be specified subject to prior ap-
proval of the Administrator.

  2.1.3  Gross sample analysis.  Determine
the percent sulfur content (percent S) and
gross calorific vaJue (GCV) of the solid fuel
on a dry basis  for each gross sample. Use
ASTM 2013'  for sample preparation. ASTM
D 3177' for  sulfur analysis, and ASTM D
3173*  for moisture analysis. Use ASTM D
3176* or D 2015* for gross calorific value de-
termination.
  2.2  Liquid fossil fuel.
  •Use the most recent revision or designa-
tion of the ASTM procedure specified.
                               KMftAl MOUTH, V(X 43. Ma IfcJ-TUESOAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1971
                                                  V-D-26
-------
                                                        PROPOSED RULES
   2.2.1  Sample collection.  Use ASTM  D
  270* following the practices outlines for con-
  tinuous sampling for each gross sample rep-
  resenting each fuel lot.
   2.2.2  Lot size. For the purposes of section
  2.2.1. the weight of product fuel from one
  prctreatment facility and Intended as one
  shipment 
 Where:

 Y, = The fraction of total mass Input derived
     from each type, k. of fuel.
 %S4 = Sulfur content of each fuel type, k, on
     a dry basis; weight percent.
 GCVV = Gross calorific value for  each fuel
     type, k, on a dry basis; kJ/kg (Btu/lb).
 n=The number of different types of fuels.

   3. Determination of sulfur removal effi-
• ciencs/ oj the sulfur dioxide control device.
                       3.1 Sampling. Determine 8Ot and CO, or
                     O.  oxygen concentrations at the Inlet and
                     outlet of the sulfur dioxide control system
                     according to methods specified In the appli-
                     cable subpart of the regulations.
                       (NOTE.—The downstream data are used to
                     calculate the SO, emission rate. See section
                     6.)  The Inlet sulfur  dioxide concentration
                     may  be determined through fuel analysis
                     (optional, see section 3.3).
                       3.2 Calculation. Calculate the percent re-
                     moval efficiency using the following equa-
                     tions as applicable:
                                                   2.0(tSf)
                        t R
                          9(o2)
                          * fi.
                                     100
                                         1 -I
Where:
%R,(O,)=Sulfur dioxide removal efficiency
    of the sulfur dioxide control device, O,-
    based calculation; percent.
%R.(CO,)=Sulfur dioxide removal efficien-
    cy  of the sulfur dioxide  control device,
    CO^based calculation; percent.
SOM=SO, concentration, dry basis; ppmv.
%COn=CO,concentration, dry basis; bolume
    percent.
%OW=CO, concentration, dry basis; volume
    percent.
1 = Inlet.
o = Outlet.

  NOTE.—For devices measuring concentra-
tion on a wet basis,  appropriate equations
which  account for moisture  differences are
approved in principle. See the appropriate
paragraph in section 5.3. Methods for meas-
uring moisture content  are  subject to ap-
proval of the Administrator.
  3.3  As-fired fuel analysis (optional proce-
dure). If the owner or operator of an elec-
tric utility steam generator chooses to deter-
mine the sulfur dioxide Input rate at the
inlet to  the sulfur  dioxide  control device
through  an as-fired fuel analysis in lieu of
data from  a sulfur dioxide control system
inlet gas monitor, fuel samples must be col-
lected  in accordance  with   the applicable
paragraph In section 2. The sampling can be
conducted upstream of any fuel processing,
e.g., plant coal pulverization. For the pur-
poses of this section,  fuel lot size is defined
as the  weight of fuel consumed on one day
(24  hours) and is directly related to the ex-
haust gas monitoring data at the  outlet of
the sulfur dioxide control system.
  3.3.1  Fuel analysis. Fuel samples must be
analyzed for suflur content and gross  calo-
rific value. The ASTM procedures for deter-
mining sulfur content are defined In the ap-
plicable paragraphs of section 2.
  3.3.2  Calculation of sulfur dioxide Input
rate, The sulfur  dioxide Input rate deter-
mined from fuel analysis Is calculated by.
                                                   2.0(15,
                                                              10'
                                                            *  10'
                                                                     for S.I- units.
                                                                     for
                                            Where:

                                            /. = Sulfur dioxide Input rale  from as-lired
                                                fuel analysis, ng/J (Ib/million Btu).
                                            %S/= Sulfur content of as-fired  fuel, on a
                                                dry basis; weight percent.
                                            GCV=Gross calorific value for as-fired fuel.
                                                on a dry basis; kJ/kg (Btu/lb).

                                              3.3.3  Calculation of sulfur  dioxide emis-
                                            sion reduction  using as-fired  fuel analysis.
                                            The sulfur dioxide emission reduction effi-
                                            ciency is calculated using the sulfur input
                                            rate from  paragraph 3.3.2  and  the sulfur
                                            dioxide emission  rate.  Eto<, determined in
                                            the applicable paragraph of Section 5.3. The
                                            equation for  sulfur dioxide  emission reduc-
                                            tion efficiency is:
                                                                                             so>
                                                                               • 100 K (1.0 • -:-£ )
                                                                                              s
                                                                  Where:

                                                                  %.Rnrt=Si'lfur dioxide removal efficiency of
                                                                     the sulfur dioxide control system  using
                                                                     as-fired fuel analysis data; percent.
                                                                  £M,=Sulfur  dioxide  emission  rate  from
                                                                     sulfur dioxide control system;  ng/J Ob/
                                                                     million Btu).
                                                                  /,=Su)/ur  dioxide Input rate from as-fired
                                                                     fuel analysis; ng/J (lb/mllllon Btu).

                                                                   4. Calculation of overall reduction tri  po-
                                                                  tential sulfur dioxide emission.
                                                                   •4.1 The overall percent sulfur dioxide re-
                                                                  duction calculation uses the sulfur dioxide
                                                                  concentration at the Inlet to the sulfur  diox-
                                                                  ide control  device as the  base  value.  Any
                                                                  sulfur reduction realized through fuel clean-
                                                                  Ing  is introduced into  the equation as  an
                                                                  average percent reduction, %R,.
                                                                   4.2 Calculate  the overall  percent sulfur
                                                                  reduction as:
                                                                                                100[1.0 - (1.0 -
                                                                                                                    (1.0
                                                                 Where:

                                                                 %R<,= Overall sulfur dioxide reduction, per-
                                                                     cent.
                                                                 %JZ/=Su)fur  dioxide  removal elfiriercy  of
                                                                     fuel pretreatment from Srcdon t. per-
                                                                     cent. Refer to applicable  subpart for
                                                                     definition   of   app'.icabir   averaging
                                                                     period.
                                 FEDERAL RKMSTER, VOl 43, NO. 183—TUESDAY, KPTEMBER 19,  T97I
                                                         V-D-27
-------
                               PROPOSED RULES
%fl»=Sulfur dioxide removal  efficiency of
   sulfur dioxide control device either d or
   CO,-based calculation or calculated from
   fuel analysis and emission data, from
  Section  3;  percent.  Refer to applicable
subpart for definition  of applicable averag-
ing period.
  5. Calculation of participate, juj/ur diox-
ide, and nitrogen oiidcs emission rates.
  5-1  Sampling. Use the outlet SOi and O,
or COi concentrations data obtained in sec-
tion  3.1. Determine the  particulate. NO,,
and Oi or CO, concentrations according to
methods specified in an applicable subpart
of the regulations.
  5.2  Determination of an F factor. Select
an average F factor (section 6.2.1) or calcu-
late an applicable F factor (section 5.2.2). If
combined fuels are fired, the selected or cal-
culated F factors are prorated using the pro-
cedures in section 5.2.3. F factors are  ratios
of the gas  volume released  during combus-
tion of a fuel divided by the heat content of
the fuel. A dry F factor (Fa Is the ratio of
the volume of dry flue gases generated to
the calorific value of the  fuel  combusted; a
wet /".factor (F*> Is the ratio of the volume
of wet flue gases generated to the calorific
value of the fuel combusted; and the carbon
f factor (F,) is tlie  ratio of the volume of
       carbon dioxide  generated  to the calorific
       value  of the fuel  combusted. When pollut-
       ant and oxygen concentrations have been
       determined In section 5.1. wpt or dry F tac-
       tors are  used.  (F.  factors  and  associated
       emission calculation procedures are not ap-
       plicable and  may not  be used after wet
       scrubbers; F,  or Fa factors and associated
       emission  calculation procedures are used
       after  wet  scrubbers.) When  pollutant and
       carbon dioxide concentrations have been de-
       termined in section 5.1. F, factors are used.
         5.2.1 Average F factors. Table 1 shows
       average P,. F».  and F, factors  (scm/J. scf/
       million Btul determined for commonly used
       fuels.  For fuels  not listed in  table 1. the F
       factors are calculated according to the pro-
       cedures outlined In Section 5.2.2 of this sec-
       tion.
         5.2.2 Calculating an F factor. If the fuel
       burned is not listed in table  1 or if  the
       owner or operator chooses to determine an
       F factor rather than use the tabulated data.
       F factors are calculated using the equations
       below. The sampling  and analysis proce-
       dures  followed In obtaining  data for these
       calculations are subject to the approval of
       the Administrator and the  Administrator
       should be consulted prior to data collection.
       For SI Units:
        227.0(%H) +  95.
 35.4(!liS)  x 8.6(%N) -  28.5(%0)
~
       347.4(%H)+95J(%C)+35.4(%S)+8.6(%N)-28.5(%0)+13.0(3(H20)<
                                        GCV.
f   *  20.0(%C)
 c    ~~GCV
For English Units:
 ,   =  106r3.64(SHH.53UC)-K).57(%S)+0.14(%N]-0.46(%0)]
 *"d                                GCV
** The %H-0 term may be omitted  if  %H and %Q  include  the  unavaiV
able  hydrogen  and  oxygen in  the  form of  O.
           FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl 43. NO. 1*2—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER  19, 1978
                                 V-D- 28
-------
                                                 TABLE 1.  F FACTORS FOR VARIOUS FUELS
 I
o

io
vo

Fuel -Type
Coal
Anthracite3
Bituminous3
Lignite
01lb
Gas
Natural
Propane
Butane
UrtnH
Unnrl Rark
ds<
J

2.72 x
2.64 x
2.66 x
2.48 x

2.35 x
2.35 x
2.35 x
? 49 x
? .RQ x
:m


ID'7
ID'7
io-7
io-7

io-7
io-7
10'7
in'7
dscf
IO6 Btu

(10140)
(9820)
(9900)
(9220)

(8740)
(8740)
(8740)
/Q90n\
fqfiam



2
2
3
2

2
2
2


wscm
J

.84 x 10
.87 x 10"7
.22 x 10"7
.78 x 10"7

.86 x 10"7
.75 x 10"7
.80 x 10"7


wscf
IO6 Btu

(10680)
(10680)
(12000)
(10360)

(10650)
(10240)
(10430)


<


0.486
0.486
0.515
0.384

0.279
0.322
0.338
OAQA
,H3H
n AGO
;cn
J

x
X
X
X

X
X
X

V
1


1C'7
ID'7
io-7
ID'7

ID'7
ID'7
ID'7
in'7
1 U
in'*
scf
IO6 Btu

(1810)
(1810)
(1920)
(1430)

(1040)
(1200)
(1260)
/i p/ir^
\ 1 OHU )
noAn\








PROPOSED RUI
fTt
U>

            a  As classified according  to ASTM D  388-66



               Crude, residual, or distillate
                                             FEDERAL REGISTER. VOl. 43. NO. 185—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19. 1978
-------
                                                     PROPOSED RULES
                                            CONVERSION FACTORS FOR CONCENTRATION
r  . 1° Lo i
Where:

P..  P., and F, have the units of  scm/J or
    scf/milllon Btu; %H. %C.  %S.  %N, %O.
    and  %H,O  are the concentrations  by
    weight (expressed  In percent)  of hydro-
    gen, carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen.
    and  water from an ultimate analysis of
    the fuel; and GCV is the  gross calorific
    value of the fuel In kJ/kg  or Btu/lb and
    consistent with the ultimate  analysis.
    Follow ASTM D 2015'  for solid fuels, D
    240' for  liquid fuels,  and D  1826'  for
    gaseous fuels as applicable in  determin-
    ing GCV.
  5.2.3  Combined  fuel firing  F factor. For
affected facilities  firing  combinations of
fossil fuels or fossil fuels and wood residue.
the Fa. Fw, and F, factors determined by Sec-
tions 5.2.1 or 5.2.2 of  this section shall be
prorated In accordance with  the applicable
formula as follows:
                                           From—
                                                               To-
                                Multlply
                                 by-
«/scm	  ng/scm	  10"
mg/scm	  ng/scm	  10'
Ib/scf	  ng/scm	  1.602x 10"
Ppm(SOi)	  ng/scm	  2.660x10'
Ppm are measured in the
flue gas on a dry  basis, the  following
equation is applicable:
              Vd ^20.9 -
                                             5.3.1.2  Wet basis. When  both the
                                           percent oxygen <%OO and the pollut-
                                           ant concentration  (Cw> are  measured
                                           in the flue gas on a wet basis, the fol-
                                           lowing    equations   are    applicable:
                                           (NOTE.—Fw factors are  not applicable
                                           after  wet scrubbers.)
  (I) B« =0.027. This factor may be used as &
constant value at any location.
  (11) B.» = Highest monthly  average of B«
which  occurred within a calendar year at
the nearest Weather Service Station.
  (ill)  .Bi=o = Highest daily average  of B»,
which  occurred within a calendar month at
the nearest Weather Service Station, calcu-
lated from the  data for the past  3 years.
This factor shall  be calculated  for  each
month and may be used as  an estimating
factor for the respective calendar month
 (b)
where:
                  F .  [
                            20.9
                     20.9
  i = Proportion by volume of water vapor in
   the stack gas.
                                             This equation is approved in principle. Ap-
                                           proval for actual practice is contingent upon
                                           demonstrating the ability  to accurately de-
                                           termine Bn such that any absolute error in
                                           Ba will  not cause an error of more than *
                                           1.5 percent in the term:
                                                                                                      20.9
                                                                       20.9
  • The %H,O term may be omitted If %H
 and %O Include the  unavailable hydrogen
 and oxygen In the form of H,).

 Where:
 Xi=The fraction of total heat input derived
    from each type of fuel, It.             .
 n=The  number of  fuels being  burned In
    combination.
   5.3  Calculation of emission rate.  Select
 from the following paragraphs the applica-
 ble calculation  procedure and calculate the
 paniculate,  SO,, and/NO,  emission  rate.
 The values In the equations are defined as:
 E=Pollutant emission rate, ng/JUb/mllllon
    Btu).
 C=pollutant concentration,  ng/scmdb/scf).
   NOTE.—It  is necessary In some  cases to
 convert measured concentration  units to
 other units  for these calculations. Use the
 following table for such conversions:
where:
£„ = Proportion by volume of water vapor
   In the ambient  air. Approval  may  be
   given for determination of Bm by on-site
   instrumental  measurement   provided
   that the absolute accuracy of the mea-
   surement technique can be demonstrat-
   ed  to be  within  +0.7 percent  water
    vapor. In Ueu of actual  measurement,
    Bm may be estimated as follows:
  NOTE.—The following estimating factors
 are  selected to assure that any  negative
 error introduced in the term
                 20.9
 will not be larger than -1.5 percent. Howev-
 er,  positive  errors, or  over-estimation  of
 emissions, of as much as 5 percent may  be
 introduced depending  upon the geographic
 location of the facility  and  the associated
 range of ambient moisture.
                                                                                        5.3.1.3.  Dry/Wet basis. When the pollut-
                                                                                      ant concentration (C») is measured on a wet
                                                                                      basis and  the  oxygen concentration C%O»)
                                                                                      or measured on a dry basis, the  following
                                                                                      equation is applicable:
                        20.9
                    L20.9 - XO,
                             '2d
  NOTE.—See section 5.3.1.2 on the usage of
B,,, When the pollutant concentration (C«)
is measured on a dry basis and the oxygen
concentration (%O«) Is measured on a wet
basis, the following equation is applicable:
                   20.9
                 20.9 -
                                FfDERAl REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER  19, 1971
                                                    V-D-30
-------
                                                   PROPOSED  RULES
  6.3.2 Carbon  Dioxide-Based  P Factor
 Procedure.
  6.3.2.1  Dry Basis. When both the percent
 carbon dioxide (%CO«) and the pollutant
 concentration (C,,) are measured In the flue
 gas on a dry basis, the following equation Is
 applicable:
                     10:
rate from the steam generator is calculated
as:
                  -
  5.3.2.2  Wet basis. When both the percent
 carbon dioxide <%CO«0 and the pollutant
 concentration  are measured on a wet
 basis, the following equation Is applicable:
                     100
  5.3.2.3  Dry/Wet basis. When the pollut-
 ant concentration (C«-> is measured on a wet
 basis  and  the   percent  carbon  dioxide
 (%CO^) is measured on a dry basis, the fol-
 lowing equation is applicable:
               C F
          E •
  NOTE.—See section  5.3.1.2  on the limita-
 tion on the usage of B*,.
  When the pollutant concentration (d) Is
 measured  on  a dry  basis and the percent
 carbon dioxide (%CO«)  is measured on a
 wet basis,  the following equation is applica-
 ble:
                            100
             ed-(i  -
  5.4  Calculation of emission rate from
 combined cycle-gas turbine systems. For gas
 turbine-steam generator combined cycle sys-
 tems, the emissions from supplemental fuel
 fired to the steam generator or the percent-
 age reduction  in potential  Sd) emissions
 cannot  be determined directly. Using mea-
 surements  from the gas turbine exhaust
 (performance test, subpart GO) and  the
 combined exhaust gases  from the steam
 generator, calculate the emission rates for
 these two points following the appropriate
 paragraphs In section 5.3 (NOTE.—/1,  factors
 shall  not be used to  determine emission
 rates from gas turbines because of the Injec-
• tlon of steam or to calculate emission rates
 after wet scrubbers; Fa or Ft factor and asso-
 ciated calculation procedures  are used to
 combine effluent emissions according to the
 procedure In paragraph  6.2.3.) The emission

where
E«.PDlVul&nt emission rate fiom Bteam gen-
   erator effluent. ng/J (Ib/mUIIon Btu).
£<=Pollutant  emission  rate  in  combined
   cycle effluent; ng/J (Ib/mlllfon Btu).
£,, = Pollutant emission rate from gas tur-
   bine effluent; ng/J (Ib/mllllon Btu).
AJ,=Praction of total heat Input from sup-
   plemental fuel fired to the steam gener-
   ator.
Xfi=Fraction of total heat  Input from gas
   turbine exhaust gases.
  NOTE.—The total heat Input to the steam
generator is the sum  of the heat Input from
supplemental fuel fired to the steam gener-
ator and the heat Input to the steam gener-
ator from the exhaust gases from the gas
turbine.
  6.5  Effect  of  wet  scrubber exhaust,
direct-fired  reheat fuel burning.  Some wet
scrubber systems require  that the tempera-
ture of the exhaust gas be raised above the
moisture dew-point prior to the gas entering
the stack.. One method used to accomplish
this is direct-firing of an auxiliary burner
Into the exhaust gas. The heat required for
such burners Is from  1 to 2 percent of total
heat Input  of the steam generating plant.
The effect of this fuel burning on the ex-
haust  gas components will be less than ±
1.0 percent and will have a similar effect on
emission rate  calculations. Because  of this
small effect, a determination of effluent gas
constituents  from   direct-fired  reheat
burners for correction of stack gas concen-
trations Is not necessary.

       APPENDIX E— [RESERVED]

  5. Appendix E IB added to part 60
and reserved.

(Sec. Ill, 114. and 301(a). Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7411, 7414. and 7601
-------
court order to promulgate final regula-
tions within 6 months of today's pro-
posal.  This  is  also  the  maximum
period  of time for promulgation per-
mitted  by  section  307(d)(l)  of  the
Clean  Air Act. To comply  with  the
schedule  set forth in the court's order.
but at  the same time to maximize the
public's involvement  in the rulemak-
ing,  the  Agency will provide over 14
weeks for public Input.

  The  public involvement period  will
be structured as follows: Written com-
ments  may be submitted by any inter-
ested  member  of the  public  for  a
period  of 60 days. Following the public
comment period,  2 days of hearings
will be  held. The hearings will be legis-
lative in  nature with Agency officials
empaneled  to receive  testimony  and
ask questions of all witnesses. Persons
interested in testifying at the hearing
should  advise the Agency as instructed
above.  Though no cross-examination
        PROPOSED RULES

will take place at the hearings, written
questions directed at witnesses testify-
ing at the hearing may be submitted
to the panel by members of the audi-
ence.
  It is the expectation of  the Agency
that the hearing testimony will con-
centrate on clarifying, supplementing,
and  rebutting  previously  submitted
written statements. The Agency recog-
nizes  that interested persons will  re-
quire  a period of time prior to  the
hearing to read  the  written submis-
sions  of other interested  parties so
that  an  informed comment may be
made at the public hearing. In addi-
tion,  all written comments received
will be  placed in the  docket (docket
No. OAQPS-78-1 > as soon after receipt
as practicable. All comments received
will" be on file no later than 2 calendar
days after the close of the  60-day com-
ment  period. The docket  is available
for public inspection and  copying  be-
tween 8  a.m.  and  4 p.m.,  Monday
through  Friday,  at EPA's   Central
Docket Section, Room 2903B, Water-
aide Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20460.
  As required by section 307cd)(5)(lv),
the  record of the public hearing will
remain open for 30 days after comple-
tion of the  hearing to provide an op-
portunity for  any  member  of the
public to  submit rebuttal and supple-
mentary information on the data pre-
sented at the hearing. Upon comple-
tion of this 30-day period..the record
will  be closed in order to provide suffi-
cient* time  for  the Administrator to
carefully weigh all evidence submitted
and  to make the final decision on the
basis of the  forma] record.
  Dated: September 11,1978.
             DAVID G. HAWKINS.
          Assistant Administrator
       for Air, Noise, and Radiation.
 [PR Doc. 78-26006 Filed 9-18-78: 8:45 am)
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl 43, HO. 112—TUESDAY, SEPTEMMJt 19, 197S
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

            [40 CFR Port 60]

            [PRL 1012-4]

  STANDARDS Of PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
         STATIONARY SOURCES

  Public Hearing on Propoitd Standard! lor
   Elortrlc Utility St»om Controtlng Unlti

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection
agency (EPA).
ACTION:   Extension   of   comment
period on proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This notice extends the
comment  period  and  changes  the
public hearing dates for the proposed
standards  of performance for electric
utility steam generating units  which
were proposed September 19. 1978 (43
FR 42183). EPA has been requested by
representatives of  Industry,  environ-
mental  groups,  and   governmental
aprncles to  allow more  lime to com-
ment on the proposed standards.

DATES: Public hearing: December 12-
14, 1978: 9:00 a.m. to  4:00 p.m. Com-
ments: Comments must be received on
or before  December 15.  1978. Public
hearing record:  The  public hearing
record will close January 15,1979.

ADDRESSES:   Hearing  held:   G3A
Auditorium, 18th and  F Streets NW.,
Washington, D.C..

FOR   FURTHER  INFORMATION
CONTACT:

  Mr.  Don  R.   Goodwin,   Director,
  Emission Standards and Engineering
  Division   (MD-13).  Environmental
  Prelection Agency, Research Trian-
  gle Park. N.C. 27711,  telephone 919-
  541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On SepUn-.oer 19. 1978, EPA proposed
standards of performance for electric
utility  steam generating units under
the authority  of section  111  of  the
Clean Air Act and announced a public
hearing.  Comments  were  to  be  re-
ceived on or before November 20, 1978.
the public hearing was scheduled to be
held on November 29-30, 1978. and the
record  of the public  hearing would
remain open for 30 days after comple-
tion of the hearing to  provide an op-
portunity for  any member of  the
public  to submit rebuttal and supple-
mentary  Information on the data pre-
sented  at the hearing.
  This  notice changes  those dates to
the following:
  Comments: Comments are to be  re-
ceived on or before December 15, 1978.
  Public  hearing:  The  public hearing
will be held December  12-14, 1978, be-
tween the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. The public  hearing  record  will
remain open until January 15,1979.
  EPA  has received requests to extend
the times for filing comments on the
proposed  standards from  the  Utility
Air Regulatory   Group,  the  Sierra
Club,  the Department of Commerce,
and  others. EPA believes  that  the
schedule  changes provided  in  this
notice should satisfy these requests.
  Persons wishing to  make oral pre-
sentations, which will be limited to 15
minutes  each,  should  notify EPA  by
November 30, 1978, by  contacting Ms.
Shirley Tabler,  Emission  Standards
 and  Engineering Division  (MD-13).
 Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
 search Triangle Park. North Carolina
 27711,  telephone 919-541-5421.  Any
 member of the public may file a  writ-
 ten  statement  with  EPA   before.
 during, or within 30 days after the
 hearing. Written statements should be
 addressed  to Mr.  Jack  R. Farmer.
 Chief. Standards Development Branch
 (MD-13), Emission Standards and En-
 gineering  Division,   Environmental
 Protection AKfncy, Research Triangle
 Park, N.C. 27711.
  The public hearing  will be les-'iiUaK t;
 in  nature  with  EPA  officials empan-
 eled to receive testimony and ask que.-i-
 tlons of all witnesses.  Persons interest-
 ed  in testifying at the hearitv.; shuuM
 advise  EPA  as  Instructed above. If
 time permits,  the  third day  of the
 hearing  may be used by the hf-arinj;
 officer to  have a panel discussion of
 the issues raised during the hearing. A
 verbatim transcript of the hearing and
 written  statements will be  available
 for public  inspection  and  copying
 during  normal  working  hours  at the
 Environmental   Protection  Agency's
 Central Docket Section, Room 2903B,
 Waterside Mall. 401   M Street,  SW.,
 Washington, D.C. 204GO (Docket No.
 OAQPS-78-1).
  In addition to revising ib'  comment
 period  and   hearing  srhi.'.ule.   the
 Agency also  recognizes that  ihe  orga-
 nization of  the public htnrir.g  itself
 will have to  be  changed. Initially, the
 public hearing was to serve as a forum
 for clarifying, supplementing, and rr-
 butting  previously  submitted written
 statements. This approach anticipated
                             FEDERAL RIOISTER, VOl. 43, NO. 227—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1978
                                               V-D-32
-------
that most  written statements would be
available for review  by the public in
advance of the close of the comment
period and that only a limited amount
of time would be required between the
close of Die common! period and the
public  hearing  for  review  of those
comments received near the dead'.ino.
However, a number of individuals have
indicated they will not  be abf" to com-
plete and submit their comments a;
early as  contemplated by this ap-
proach.
  The  extension  of  the  comment.
period in  response to the requests of
       PROPOSED RULES
these parties will make it impossible to
follow EPA's original   intention  of
having a nine-day interval between the
close  of the comment period and the
beginning  of  the hearing  and still
comply with the terms of the consent
order issued by the U.S.  District Court
for the  District of  Columbia. The
order requires the standards to be pro-
mulgated by March 20, 1979.  However.
all-interested persons will still be pro-
vided the opportunity to reply to one
another's comments  and submit sup-
plemental information,  as the record
 will be held open for thirty days after
 comments are due. Upon completion
 of this 30-day  period  (January  15,
 1979).  the record  will  be closed  in
 order to provide sufficient time for the
 Administrator to carefully weigh  all
 evidence submitted and to make the
 final  decision on  the  basis  of  the
 formal record.
 Dated. November 16, 1978.
            DAVID D. HAWKINS.
       Assistant Administrator for
         Air,  Noise, andRadiation.
IKR I Joe ?R 3282) FiU-d 11-22-78: 8:45 am)
                            FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 43, NO. 217—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER ?4,  1978
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

            [40 CFR Port 60]

             [FRL 1012-31

  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
         STATIONARY SOURCES

    ElKtrlc Utility Steam Generating Units;
    Corrtction and Additional Information

 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection
 Agency.
 ACTION: Corrections and Additional
 Information on proposed rule.
 SUMMARY: This notice corrects  in-
 formation that appeared in the FEDER-
 AL REGISTER on September 19. 1978 (43
 FR 42164 and 42168). and provides  in-
 formation on the additional analyses
 being conducted.
  On  September  19.  1978 (43  FR
 42154). EPA  proposed standards  of
 performance which  would limit emis-
 sions of  sulfur dioxide (SO,), particu-
 late matter, and nitrogen oxides (NO.)
 from new. modified and reconstructed
 electric utility steam generating units
 capable  of combusting more than  73
 megawatts (MW) nm inpui (250 mil-
 lion Btu/hour)  of  fossil fuel. In that
 proposal EPA  indicated  thai  a final
 decision  on full  versus  partial  SO,
 scrubbing would not be made unt.il thu
 analyses  of  various alternatives were
 completed and public comments evalu-
 ated. The purpose of this notice is to
 correct certain errors in Tables  7 and 8
 contained in the preamble: to  clearly
 identify  certain  documents   in  the
 docket (Docket Number OAQPS-7B-1);
 and to advise the  public  of the addi-
 tional analyses  that arc being   under-
 taken.
 DATES:  Comments on this informa-
 tion   may   be   submitted   to  EPA
 through January 15. 1979.
 ADDRESSES:   Comments should  be
 submitted to Jack R. Farmer,  Chief,
 Standards Development Branch. Emis-
 sion Standards  and Engineering Divi-
 sion (MD-13).  Environmental  Protec-
 tion Agency, Research  Triangle Park.
 North Carolina 21111.
 FOR   FURTHER  INFORMATION
 CONTACT:
   Mr   Don  R.  Goodwin.  Director,
   Emission Standards and Engineering
   Division  (MD-13).   Environmental
   Protection Agency, Research  Trian-
   gle Park. North Carolina 27711. tele-
   phone number (919) 541-5271.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 The corrections and additinal informa-
 tion follow.
   1. As a result of EPA's  continuing
 analysis of the costs of the  alternative
 standards, certain errors pertaining to
 average monthly residential bills and
 the incremental utility capital expend-
 itures were identified In Tables 7 and 8
 of the preamble of the September 19
 proposal. The corrected tables are pre-
 sented In this notice.
   2. The  "rea.1 resource" present value
 (presented  in  the  second  full para-
 graph  of column one [43 FR  42164))
 should also be corrected to  read $17.5
 billion for the full control option and
 $10.1 billion for the 340 ng/J (0.80 lb/
 million Btu) option as compared to the
 current standard.
   3. In addition, it is also necessary to
 correct  average  monthly  residential
 bills and the Incremental utility  capi-
 tal expenditures  In Tables 3-5 and 3-6
 found on pages 3-15 and  3-19. respec-
 tively,  of the document. "Background
 Information for  Proposed  SO, Emis-
 sion  Standards-Supplement,"  EPA-
 450/2-78-007a-l. The  corrected tables
 are presented in this notice.
                                   UttSTER, VOL 43, NO. 128—MONDAY, NOVEMKI 17, 1971
                                                V-D-33
-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES

                                        Table 7.  SUMMARY OF 1990 ECONOMIC  IMPACTS3
Average monthly residential bills
     (i/month)

Incremental Utility Capital            f
     Expenditures,  Cumulative 1976-1990
     ($ billions)

Incremental AnnualIzed  Cost
     (J billions)

Incremental Cost of SO, Reduction
     (J/ton)          e
                                                                    Level  of  Control
                                                Current
                                               Standards
                       Full
                     Control
         210 ng/J
             Partial Control
               290 ng/J     340 ng/J
 APR      AUG     APR     AUG     APR    AUG    APR    AUG    APR    AUG

45.31     43.83   46.39   44.17   46.20  44.43    --   44.21  45.47  44.19
                  10
-2
15
                2.0    1.9      1.3     1.7
                885    754      640     642
                             1.3    0.3   1.1
                             511    303   4fii
SOURCt:  Background Information  for Proposed SO., Emission  Standards - Supplement,  EPA-450/2-78-007a-l,
         Chapters 2 and 3,  August, 1978.


'Results of fPA analyses completed In April, 1978,  and  August, 1978.
                      Table 8.   SUMMARY  OF  1995 IMPACTS:  AUGUST,  1970, ANALYSIS

                                                         Level  of Control
National Emissions
(million tons)
New Plant Emissions*
(million tons)
U.S. Coal Production
(million tons)
Western Coal Shipped East
(million tons)
011 /Gas Consumption
(million bbl/day)
Incremental Cumulative Capital
Expenditures (1975 $ billion)
Incremental Annual Ized Cost
(1975 $ billion)
Averaue Monthly Residential Bill
(1975 I/month)
Total Coal Capacity (GW)
SOURCE: Backqrnund Information for
1975 Current
Actual Standards
18.6 23.3
7.9
647 1865
21 210
3.1 0.8
..
..
45.34
198 587
Proposed SO, Emission
Full
Control
18.5
2.4
1865
130
0.9
27
2.6
46.31
580
Standards -
210 ng/J
18.5
2.5
1858
133
0.9
22
2.3
46.10
580
Supplement,
Partial Control
290 ng/J 340 ng.'J
18.7
2.8
1868
190
0.9
15
2.0
46.02
580
, EPA-450/2-78-007a-l
19.0
3.2
1866
196
0.9
13
1.9
45.98
5PO
1
         ftapte'r 3,  August, 1978.
 Plants subject to the  revised standards.
                             FEDUAI MOUTH, VOL. 43, NO. Ml—MONDAY, NOVEMIER 37, 1971
                                                  v-n-34
-------
                                                  PROPOSED RULES
                                  Table  3-5.  RESIDENTIAL BILLS, CAPITAL  EXPENUIT'JftCS.
                                             PRESENT VALUES, AND ANNUAL I ZED  COSTS
                                                               Control  Options

Current NSPS

1990 monthly national avg 43.83
residential bills, S/mo
Utility capital expendi- 476.90
tures, $ bill ions
Present value - increase over --
cun-er.t NSPS - $ billions
Aiimi.ll izod cost - I billions 91.50
1095 nnithly national avg 45.34
residential bills, S/mo
Utility capital expendi- 730.20
lures, S billions
I'resunt value - increase over --
o.rriu'.t fiAPS - t billions
Ar.ti'jal ized cost, $ billions 125,60
Table 3-6.

0.
With
Exemptions
44.17

475.00

17.50

93.40
46.31

756.80

18.00

128.20
A COMPARISON
ASSUMPTIONS
2
Without
Exemptions E
44.30

474.30

22.10

93.80
46.63

757.30

27.20

129.20
0.5
With Without
xemptions Exemptions
44.43 44.55

462.60 481.30

15.30 H.«'j

93.20 93.60
46.10 46.30

752.20 750.30

17.10 24.40

127.90 12G.70
OF ALTERNATIVE OIL PRICE AND RAIL
0.07
With
Exemptions
44.21

478.50

11.10

9?. GO
46.02

745.40

14.30

127.60
RATC
O.I!
Willi
Exei..pt ions
44. ly

473.50

10.10

92.60
45.93

743.10

13.70

127. SO

UPON RESULTS FOR THE 0.2 (WITH EXEMPTIONS)
OPTION IN 1990 (CONTINUED)


D
Selected Economic Information
. Monthly National Avg.
Residential Bill, $/mo
. Utility Capital Expenditures,
BASE
CASE'


44.17
475.00
LOW
OIL
PRICE2


43.62
450.10
VERY LOW
OIL
PRICE3


42.57
405.70
NO RAH RATE
ESCALATION*


NA
NA






       I 6111 ions Cumulative
     .  Present  value - Increase Over
       Current  NSPS, $ Billions
     .  Annualized Cost, S Billions
                                               17.50

                                               93.40
11.00

91.30
12.31

87.10
NA

NA
  I9'JO oil  price of S20.00/bbl; rail  rate  escalation of IX over Inflation.
2 1900 oil  price of $17.00/bbl; rail  rate  escalation of IX over Inflation.
J 1990 oil  price of $12.70/bbl; rail  rate  escalation of IX over inflation.
4 1990 oil  price of $20.00/bbl; rail  rate  escalation of IX over inflation.
  Existing  plants subject to SIP*.
  Hew plants  required to meet the current  NSPS of 1.2 Ib S02/m1111on  Btu.
  Plants  required to meet the revised (alternative)  NSPS.
  All  economic data are presented in  1975  dollars.  All cost  Information Includes costs  for controlling
  particulatc emissions for new sources to 4 level of 0.03 Ibs  per million Btu.

                             nouAi uomet. VOL  «, NO. MI-MONDAY, NOVEMMI tr. i*ri
7
                                                   V-D-35
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
  4. It has come to EPA's  attention
that  some   interested  parties  are
having difficulty in-identifying  the
documents that  constitute  the  eco-
nomic impact assessment that was pre-
pared in  accordance with  Section 317
of the Clean Air Act. These documents
are:
  "Electric Utility Steam  Generating
Units:  Background  Information  for
Proposed  NO.  Emission  Standards."
EPA 450/2-78-006a
  "Electric Utility Sleam  General ing
Units:  Background  Information  for
Proposed Paniculate Matter Emission
Standards," EPA 450/2-78-002a
  "Electric Utility Steam  Generating
Units:  Background  Information  for
Proposed  SOi  Emission  Standards."
EPA 450/2 -78-007a
  "Electric Utility Steam  Generating
Units:  Background  Information  for
Proposed  SO,  Envission  Standards-
Supplement."  EPA 450/2-78-007a-01.
In addition. EPA has prepared the fol-
lowing list of doruments  which  pro-
vided background information for the
preparation  of the  economic impact
assessment. All  of these documents are
contained in Docket  Number OAQPS-
78-1. which is located at EPA's Centra)
Docket Section, Room 2903B. Water-
side  Mall. 401 M Street. S.W.. Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460.

          Catcyory and Title

1I-A-18  EPA-45/3-78  045, February.
  1977. Electrostatic Precipilator Costs
  for  Large  Coal-Fired Steam Gener-
  ators.
II-A-24  EPA-450/3-78-046.    August.
  1977. Fabric  Filter Costs for Large
  Coal-Fired Steam Generators.
II-A-47  EPA-45-/3-78/043,    Novem-
  ber. 1977,  Flue  Gas  Desulfurizanon
  System Manufacturers Survey.
II-A-64  EPA-450/3-78-007. February.
  1977, Paniculate and Sulfur  Dioxide
  Emission Control  Costs for Large
  Coal-Fired Boilers.
II-A-66  EPA-450/3-78-004. February,
  1978. Assessment  of  Manufacturers
  Capability to Meet Requirements for
  Paniculate Controls  on  Utility  and
  Industrial Boilers.
II-A-68  Review of New  Source  Per-
  lonr.ance  Standards  for Coal-Fired
  Utility  Boilers. Volume II. Economic
  and Financial Imp.ict.s. March. 1978.
  Teknekron. Inc.
II-A-85  The  Demand for  Western
  Coal and Its Sensitivity  to Key Un-
  certainties. Draft  Report,  Second
  Edition, June. 1978,  ICF, Inc. (Pre-
  pared for DOE.)
II-A-87  Draft   Report   (Update  of
  Item Number II-A-64) Flue Gas De-
  sulfurization  Costs for  Large Coal-
  Fired Steam Generators. PEDCo En-
  vironmental.
II-A-90  Effects  of  Alternative  New
  Source  Performance Standards for
  Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers on
  the Coal Markets and Utility Capac-
  tity Expansion Plans, Draft Reports.
  September. 1978, ICF, Inc. (Prepared
  for EPA.)
II-A-91  Further Analysis of Alterna-
  tive New Source Performance Stand-
  ards  for  Coal-Fired  Power Plants.
  Preliminary Draft,  September, 1978.
  ICF,  Inc.  (Submitted to  EPA and
  DOE.)
II-A-321  Letter from  Michael  Allen.
  Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc., to
  Lou Pugliaresi, Office  of  Planning
  and Evaluation, EPA. dated April 18.
  1978. Subject:  NSPS Analysis Re-
  sults.
II-D-420  Letter, Dave Watkins. ICF.
  Inc., to Dan Badger,  et.  al, Depart-
  ment of  Energy,  dated  August  7.
  1978. Subject: Summary sheets for
  scenarios involving  low oil prices and
  no rail escalation.
ll-D-435  Letter.   Michael    Allen.
  Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc., to
  Dave Shaver,  Office of Planning and
  Evaluation. EPA.  dated Augrust  23,
  1978. Subject:  NSPS Analysis Re-
  sults.
1I-F-4  Letter.  J. F.  O'Leary, Depart-
  ment of  Energy,  to D.  C. Costle.
  EPA. dated  July  6,  1978.  Subject:
  DOE Analysis of Alternative Propos-
  als.
IV-B-4  Memo  from Michael  Allen.
  Temple. Barker and Sloane, Inc., to
  Dave Shaver.  Office of Planning and
  Evaluation. EPA,  dated September
  29. 1978. Subject:  Changes in the
  TBS NSPS Analysis.
  5. EPA is continuing to analyze al-
ternative standards of performance for
limiting  the  emission of  BO,  from
power plants. As part  of this effort,
EPA staff  has  met  with  representa-
tives of  the Department of Energy
(DOE), the Council of Economic Advi-
sors, the Council on Wage and  Price
Stability, and others for the purpose
of reexamining the assumptions used
for the April and August analyses. As
a result of  these meetings, certain as-
sumptions  have been revised for the
analysis  currently  being conducted.
These  changes  include different  oil
prices from those used in the  April
and August analyses. For the current
round of analyses. EPA will  examine
the various alternative standards using
two ranges  of oil prices. These are pre-
sented below in  1975 dollars:
1985-S12.30.    1985-S12.90;    1990-
  $13.20,   1990-$16.40;  1995-S14.90.
  1995-S21.00.
  In determining which oil  prices to
use. EPA sought guidance from DOE
and others. Pending their final recom-
mendations. EPA selected oil  prices
which appeared to be most consistent
with those  being used in  the  most
recent analysis  of the national energy
plan.
  In addition to oil prices, adjustments
are also  being  made  to the  assumed
nuclear capacity. Scrubber costs have
also been refined. These changes will
be presented in detail when  the  new
analyses  are  released  prior  to  the
public hearing on the proposed stand-
ards. The other assumptions  used  in
the August  analysis (see Table 1. 43
FR 42165) will be retained.
  With respect to the analysis of alter-
native  standards, EPA is  reanalyzing
the proposed  full  control option a.s
well as the DOE and Utility Air RI-KIJ-
latory  Group  recommendations. EPA
is also  examining other forms of both
the full  and partial  control  options.
Under full control, different reduction
requirements,   maximum  allowable
emission  limitations,  and  maximum
control  levels  are  being  considered.
Under  partial control, other  options
would vary  the  percent reduction re-
quirement  and  maximum allowable
emission  limitation as a function of
coal sulfur content.
  EPA intends to make results of these
analyses  available so they can be  con-
sidered at the  public  hearing  sched-
uled for December 12, 13. 14 Washing-
ton. D.C. Interested persons  will  also
be afforded  an  opportunity to submit
written  comments  on the results of
these  analyses and  their underlying
assumptions  through  January   15.
1978.
  Dated: November 8, 1978.
             DAVID D. HAWKINS.
       Assistant Adininistra tor for
          Air, Noise, and'Raciiation.
 (FH Doc.  78-32S20 Filed  11-24-78. 8:-i5 am)
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43,  NO. 728—MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1978
                                                V-D-36
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

            [40 CfR Port 40)

            [FRL 1022-6]

  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
         STATIONARY SOURCES

   EUctric Utility Sttom Generating UnlHl
         Additional Information

AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency.

ACTION:  Additional  Information on
Proposed Rule.

SUMMARY: On  September  19,  1978
(43 FR 42154), EPA proposed  stand-
ards of performance which would limit
emissions of sulfur dioxide  (SO,), par-
ticulate matter, and  nitrogen  oxides
(NO,) from  new. modified,  and  recon-
structed electric utility steam generat-
ing units capable of  combusting more
than 73 megawatts (MW)  heat Input
(250 million Btu/hour) of  fossil  fuel.
In that proposal, EPA indicated that a
final decision  on full versus partial
SOi scrubbing  would not be  made until
the analyses  of  various alternatives
were completed and  public comments
evaluated. The purpose of  this  notice
Is  to advise  the public of the prelimi-
nary  results  of  additional  analyses
that have been undertaken since  Sep-
tember  19,  1978.  It  should be noted
that these results have not been fully
reviewed by the EPA  technical staff.
nor have the alternative standards un-
dergone policy review by the Agency.

DATES:  Comments  on this  Informa-
tion  may   be  submitted  to  EPA
through January 15, 1979.
ADDRESSES:  Comments  should be
submitted  to  Mr.  Jack R.  Farmer,
Chief.     Standards    Development
Branch, Emission Standards and Engi-
neering Division  (MD-13),  Environ-
mental  Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.

FOR   FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Mr.  Don  R.  Goodwin,  Director.
  Emission Standards and Engineering
  Division  (MD-13),   Environmental
  Protection Agency, Research  Trian-
  gle Park, North  Carolina 27711.  tele-
  phone number (919) 541-5271.

SUPPLEMENTAL  INFORMATION:
Since revisions to the standards of per-
formance for power  plants were  pro-
posed on September 19. 1978, EPA has
conducted additional analyses in order
to Identify the economic, environmen-
tal,  and  energy  impacts  associated
with various alternative sulfur dioxide
standards. As  part of this  effort, the
EPA staff met with representatives of
the Department of Energy, Council of
Economic Advisors, Council on Wage
and Price Stability, and others for the
purpose  of  reexamlnlng  the assump-
tions used for the August analysis and
to develop  alternative forms of the
standard for analysis. As  a result, cer-
tain assumptions were changed and a
number of new regulatory alternatives
were defined. EPA again employed the
economic model that was  used  In
August to project the national and re-
gional Impacts associated with each al-
ternative considered.

          IMPACTS ANALYZED

  The environmental impacts of the
alternative standards were  examined
by  projecting   pollutant  emissions.
Sulfur dioxide emissions were estimat-
ed  nationally   and  by   geographic
region for each  plant type, fuel type,
and age  category.  EPA has also esti-
mated the quantity of flue gas desul-
furization (FGD) sludge generated by
the various alternatives considered.
  The economic and financial effects
of the alternatives were  examined in
terms of capital and annualized costs.
This assessment Included an estima-
tion of the utility capital expenditures
for new  plant  and pollution control
equipment as well as the fuel costs and
operating and maintenance expenses
associated with  the plant and equip-
ment. The Impact on consumers was
determined by analyzing the  effect of
the alternatives on average  monthly
residential bills. The alternatives were
also examined in terms of cost per ton
of SOt removed. Finally, an  estimate
was made of the present value of util-
ity revenue  requirements for the var-
ious alternatives.
  The effects of the alternative stand-
ards  on  energy  production and con-
sumption were also analyzed.  National
coal use was projected In terms of pro-
duction and consumption by geograph-
ic region. The amount of Western coal
shipped to the Midwest and East was
also estimated. In addition, utility con-
sumption of oil and gas was analyzed.

         MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS

  A number of changes  have  been
made  in  the assumptions which will
have an  effect  on the results of the
analyses.  The  assumptions  changed
from the August analysis are summa-
rized  In  Table  1  and are  discussed
below.
  After  conferring  with  appropriate
Federal   agencies,  it  was  concluded
that  the  oil prices  assumed In  the
August analysis were too high. On the
other hand, no  firm guidance  was
available as  to what oil prices should
be used.  In view of this, EPA decided
that  the best course of action was to
use two sets of oil prices which reflect
the best estimates of those  govern-
mental entitles  concerned with pro-
jecting future oil prices. It was EPA's
intention to model each regulatory al-
ternative considered with both sets of
oil  prices. Unfortunately, the results
from  the analysis  Incorporating the
lower of the two new  oil prices were
not completed In time to  be  included
In this notice. A summary will be pre-
sented at  the Public Hearing on De-
cember 12, 1978.
  Reassessment  of  the  assumptions
made in the August analysis also re-
vealed that  the  Impact  of the  coal
washing credit had  not been consid-
ered In  the  modeling analysis.  Other
credits allowed by the September pro-
posal, such  as sulfur removed by the
pulverizers  or in  bottom  ash  and
flyash. were determined not to be sig-
nificant when viewed at the  national
and regional levels. The coal  washing
credit, on the other hand, was found
to have a significant effect on predict-
ed emissions levels and, therefore, was
taken into consideration in the results
presented here.
  As a result of this reassessment, re-
finements also have been made in the
flue gas desulfurizatlon (FGD)  costs
assumed. These  refinements Include
changes  in  sludge  disposal  costs,
energy penalties calculated for reheat,
and module sizing.  In addition, an
error  was corrected in the calculation
of  partial  scrubbing  costs.  These
changes  have resulted in relatively
higher partial scrubbing  costs  when
compared to full scrubbing.
  Changes  have  been made in  the
FGD availability assumption also. Pre-
vious  analyses assumed  100  percent
availability of FGD  systems. This as-
sumption was In  conflict  with  EPA's
estimates  on module availability. In
view of this,  three  selected  alterna-
tives In the current analyses were ana-
lyzed  at a  lower system  availability
consistent with a 90  percent availabil-
ity  for  Individual modules when the
system  Is equipped  with  one  spare.
EPA believes that the new approach
better reflects the performance of well
designed,  operated,  and  maintained
FGD systems. However, In order to ex-
pedite the  analyses, all  the  alterna-
tives were Initially  analyzed  with an
assumed system availability of 100 per-
cent,
  Additional  refinements  Included  a
change In the capital charge  rate for
pollution control equipment  to con-
form to the Federal tax laws on depre-
ciation, and the addition of 100 million
tons of coal reserves not previously ac-
counted for In the model.
  Finally, a number of less significant
adjustments were made. These Includ-
ed adjustments In nuclear capacity to
reflect a cancellation of a plant,  con-
sideration of oil consumption in trans-
porting  coal, and  the  adjustment of
costs to 1978 dollars rather than 1975
dollars.  It should be understood that
                             MDERAl KEOISTER, VOl. 43, NO. 2J7-FRIDAY, DICIMMI I, 1971
                                               V-D-37
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
all costs include the costs of complying
with the proposed participate  stand-
ard and nitrogen oxide standards, as
well as the sulfur dioxide alternatives.

    DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
             ANALYZED

  This section presents a description
of the alternatives analyzed since the
September 19 proposal. The short title
on each alternative corresponds to the
column headings used  in  the  tables
which  follow.  In structuring alterna-
tives, a range of options was developed
as a means of assessing the impacts of
emission control  requirements  which
are both more and less stringent than
those identified in the September pro-
posal.  These alternatives,  which are
described  below,  include  three  full
scrubbing  options requiring 90 percent
control, one full scrubbing option  re-
quiring 95  percent control, seven par-
tial scrubbing options, and three sensi-
tivity runs. In addition, EPA  under-
took analyses of alternatives specified
by  the  Utility Air Regulatory  Group
(UARO) and  the  Natural Resources
Defense Council  emissions.
This results  in varying control require-
ments ranging from 33 percent on low-
sulfur  coals to 90 percent for high-
sulfur  coals. In the model, the maxi-
mum  allowable   emission  limitation
precludes coals greater than 2150 ng/J
(5.0 Ib SO,/million Btu)tieat input.
  5. 90 Percent Control With  330 ng/J
Maximum  Control—This  alternative
requires 90  percent control of poten-
tial SO, emissions with a maximum al-
lowable emission limit of 340 ng/J (0.8
Ib SO,/million Btu)  heat input. The
maximum control level  is 330  ng/J
(0.77 Ib SO,/million  Btu) heat  input,
but a minimum  of 22 percent reduc-
tion in potential SO, emissions Is  re-
quired. The 330 ng/J ( 0.77 Ib  SO,/mil-
llon Btu) heat input maximum control
level will  allow partial  scrubbing  on
coals below  about 1510  ng/J (3.5 Ib
SOj/mlllion  Btu) heat input.
  6.  Sliding  Scale  With  90 Percent
Control in West—This option requires
90  percent  control of potential  SOj
emissions In the eleven western-most
States. Partial scrubbing  is allowed In
the  remaining States.   The  partial
scrubbing standard  is a  sliding  scale
emission control requirement based on
the sulfur content of coal burned. The
scale slides from  50 percent control of
potential SO, emissions for low-sulfur
coal up to 90 percent control  on high-
sulfur  coals. In the model, the maxi-
mum allowable  emissions  limitation
precludes coals greater than 2150 ng/J
(5.0 Ib SO,/million Btu) heat input.
  7.  240 ng/J Standard  With 90 Per-
 cent Control in West—This option cor-
 responds to the one above except that
 the  partial  scrubbing standard  for
 Eastern States has been modified. The
 modified partial scrubbing standard is
 a uniform  emission limit of 240 ng/J
 (0.55 Ib SO,/mllllon Btu) heat  input
 with a minimum control requirement
 of 33 percent reduction in potential
 SO,   emissions  (same standard  as
 option 4 above). In  the model, the
 maximum  allowable emission limita-
 tion  precludes coals greater than 2150
 ng/J (5.0  Ib SO,/million  Btu)  heat
 input.
  8. 90 Percent Control With ISO ng/J
 Maximum  Control—This  alternative
 requires  90 percent control of poten-
 tial SO, emissions with a maximum al-
 lowable emission limit of 260 ng/J (0.6
 Ib SO,/mlllion Btu) heat input. The
 maximum  control  level  is  150  ng/J
 <0.35 Ib SO,/million Btu) heat  input
 with a  minimum  requirement of 22
 percent  reduction  in  potential  SO,
 emissions. The 150 ng/J (0.35  Ib SO,/
 million Btu) heat input maximum con-
 trol  level will allow partial scrubbing
 on coals  below about 780 ng/J (1.8  Ib
 SO./million Btu) heat Input.
  ». 90 Percent Control With 240 ng/J
 Maximum  Control—This  alternative
 requires 90 percent control of poten-
 tial SO, emissions with a maximum al-
 lowable emission limit  of 24 ng/J (0.8
 Ib SO,/milllon Btu heat  input.  The
 maximum  control level  is 240  ng/J
 (0.55 Ib SO,/mlllion Btu) heat input
 with a minimum control requirement
 of 33 percent reduction in potential
 SO, emissions. The 240 ng/J (0.55 Ib
 SO,/million Btu) heat input maximum
 control level  will allow partial scrub-
 bing on coals below about 800  ng/J
 (2.8 Ib SO,/million Btu) heat input.
  10.  Sliding Scale With  520  ng/J
Limit—This  alternative is a  sliding
scale  percent  removal  requirement
 based on the sulfur content  of  coal
 burned. The  percent removal require-
ment varies from 20 percent on  low-
sulfur  coal to 82  percent on high-
sulfur coal. The maximum allowable
 emission limit is 520 ng/J (1.2 Ib SO,/
million Btu) heat input.

 C. 95 PERCENT CONTROL WITH 340 NG/J
               LIMIT

  This  alternative requires 95 percent
control of  potential SO, emissions.  A
maximum  allowable emission  limita-
tion of 340  ng/J (0.8 SO,/mlllion Btu)
heat input is specified.
  In  addition to different emission
control  requirements,  this case  con-
 tains  a cost  assumption that varies
from all the other cases being ana-
lyzed. It assumes that  flue gas desul-
furlzation (FGD) systems can achieve
a 95 percent control efficiency annual-
ly with the  use of scrubber slurry addi-
tives such  as adiplc acid. It was as-
                             FEDEtAl REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 237—FRIDAY, DECEMBER I, 1978


                                                 V-D-38
-------
                            PROPOSED RULES
sumed that the cost of such additives
will b« offset by a reduction In lime/
limestone use. Since the cost of the ad-
ditive handling equipment is small rel-
ative to total PGD costs, the same set
of FGD cost  functions  was  used  as
those for costing the 60 percent effi-
cient scrubbers assumed for the other
alternatives. Finally,  it was assumed
that the costs of building and  operat-
ing scrubbers would decline over time
as a result of design improvements and
competitive forces in the marketplace.
Costs were assumed to decline  to two-
thirds of the current cost in 1985 and
one-half of current cost in 1990.

       D. AVAILABILITY ANALYSES

  As indicated earlier, several alterna-
tives  were  analyzed  with  scrubber
system availabilities consistent with  90
percent  availability   for   individual
POD modules. In a manner consistent
with the emergency by-pass provision
of the September proposal, the analy-
ses assumed a mix of load-shifting and
by-pass around  the scrubber  during
periods  when the scrubber  was not
available for use. These analyses were
performed  for the following two full
scrubbing alternatives and one partial
control  alternative, each of which has
been described above:
90 Percent Control With 240 ng/J Limit
90 Percent Control Across Scrubber
240 ng/J Emission Limit

        SUMMARY or RESULTS

  The  results of these  analyses are
presented in Tables 2-8.  It should  be
noted  that  these  are  preliminary re-
sults that have not been fully reviewed
by  technical staff and therefore may
have to be changed to correct compu-
tational errors. In addition, the alter-
natives presented have not undergone
policy  review by the Agency.  There-
fore, it should not be construed that
the EPA  has made any  decision re-
garding the final  form  of  the SO,
standard.  The results of these analy-
ses are being released at  this time in
order to provide the public with infor-
mation on a wide range of alternatives
at the earliest possible time.
  The  summary results of the analy-
ses, which were used to prepare this
notice, have been compiled and  are
available In the public record (Docket
No. OAQPS-78-1). A detailed  report,
including  a description of the alterna-
tives and  modeling results as well as
regional  data,  will be  prepared and
placed in the record by January when
all  of the alternatives and sensitivity
analyses have been completed.
  Persons may comment on  these re-
sults at the Public Hearing scheduled
for December 12. 13, and  14  in Wash-
ington, D.C. Interested  persons also
will  be afforded  an  opportunity  to
submit written comments on the re-
sults of these analyses and their  un-
derlying  assumptions  through  Janu-
ary 15, 1978.
  Dated: December 6,  1978.
              EDWARD P.  TUERK.
    Acting Assistant Administrator
       for Air, Noise, and Radiation.
          KDERAl IKHSTM, VOL 43, NO. 237-flUDAY, QCCfMKft I, 1971
                                V-D-39
-------
                                                          Table 1.  COMPARISON OF ASSUMPTIONS
                                                                    August 1978 and November 1978
o
 i
*>.
o
                              Assumption

                          Growth rates


                          Nuclear capacity



                          Oil  prices ($ 1975)
General inflation rate

Coal transportation


Coal mining labor costs


Capital charge rate

Cost reporting basis

Coal cleaning credit

FGD Costs
                                           1975-1985:   4.8X/yr
                                           1985-1995:   4.0*

                                           1985:  97 GW
                                           1990:  165
                                           1995:  230
                                                                    1985:  $15/bbl
                                                                    1990:  $20
                                                                    1995:  $28

                                                                    5.5%/yr
                                        November

                                           same
                                           same

                                           same
                                    1990:   165 GW
                                    1995:   228
                                                                         Run 1
                                                                   1985:   $12.90/bb1
                                                                   1990:   $16.40
                                                                   1995:   $21.00
                                                   Run  2
                                                  $12.30/bbl
                                                  $13.20
                                                  $14.90
Increases at general inflation
rate plus 1%

U.M.W. settlement and 1% real
increase thereafter

10%

1975 dollars

NO
     same

     same


     same


12.5X

1978 dollars

Yes

Refined
                                              tfOCKAl UOOTfft. VOL 4S. NO. ZS7-AUDAY. DECCMBEt «, 197*
-------
a
 i
                           Table 2A.  ttATIONAL 1990 SO- EMISSIONS FROM UTILITY BOILERS WITH  100 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY3
                                                               (million tons)


                                                                        Level of  Control

Plant Category

SIP/NSPS Plants6
New Plants0
Oil Plants
Total National
Emissions

Total Coal
Capacity (GW)


1975 Current
Actual Standards
16.1
3.6
1.8

18.6 21.5
"

198 406


90% Control With
340 ng/J Limit
16.4
1.6
•
1.9

19.9


391


90% Control With
240 ng/J Limit
16.5
1.2
1.9

19.6


390


90% Control
Across Scrubber
16.5
1.1
1.9

19.5


390









3
0
O
§
M
                 aResults of joint EPA/DOE analyses completed  in  November  1978  based on oil  prices of $12.90, $16.40,
                 and $21.00/bbl in the years 1985, 1990, and 1995, respectively.

                 Vlants subject to existing State regulations or the  current NSPS  of 1.2 Ib S02/million Btu.

                 cPlants subject to the revised standards.
                                               FEDCIAL lEGISTEt, VOL 43, NO. M7—flUOAY. DtCEMBf* 8, l«7t
-------
          Table 2B.  NATIONAL'1990 SO- EMISSIONS FROM UTILITY BOILERS  WITH 100  PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY9
                                              (million tons)


                                                       Level of  Control

Plant Category

SIP/NSPS Plants5
New Plants0
Oil Plants
Total National
<. Emissions
f Total Coal
.*> Canacity (GW)
to


1975 Current
Actual Standards
16.1
3.6
1.8
18.6 21.5

198 406


240 ng/J
Emission Limit
16.5
1.6
1.9
20. Q

399

Part ia
90% Control
With 330 ng/J
Max. Control
16.4
2.2
1.8
20.4

401


Sliding Scale
With 90%
Control in West
16.5
1.3
1.9
19.7

394


240 ng/J Std.
With 90%
Control in West
16.4
1.4
1.9
19.7

398









PtOPOSED
•
c
aResu1ts of joint EPA/DOE analyses completed in November  1978  based  on  oil  prices  of $12.90, $16.40,
and $21.no/bbl in the years 1985, 1990, and 1995,  respectively.

 Plants subject to existing State regulations or the current NSPS  of 1.2  lb SOp/million Btu.

cPlants subject to the revised standards.
                                 FEDERAL UOISTO, VOL 43, NO. 237—TODAY. DECtMBM 8, 1971
-------
          Table 2C.  NATIONAL 1990 S02 EMISSIONS FROM UTILITY DOILERS WITH 100  PERCENT FGQ RELIABILITY

                                             (million tons)
                                                       Level of  Control







<
0
1
t . \

Plant Cateaory

SIP/MSPS Plantsb
f.'ew Plants0
Oil Plants
Total National
Emissions
Total Coal
Canacitv (M)



1975 Current
Actual Standards
16.1
3.6
1.8
18.6 21.5

198 406





90% Control
With 150 ng/J
Max. Control
16.6
1.3"
1.9
19.8

396




90% Control
With 240 ng/J
Max. Control
16.5
1.9
1.9
20.3

399




Sliding Scale
With 390 ng/J
Limit
16.2
3.1
1.8
21.1

401




95% Control
Uith 520 ng/J
Limit
16.4
0.8
1.8
19.0

400










2
0
o
V*
m
^Results of joint EPA/DOC analyses completed  in  November  1978  based on oil  prices of 512.90. 516.40,

and f21.r!0/bbl in the years 1985, 1990, and 1995,  respectively.



 plants subject to existinn State reflations or the current  NSPS of 1.2 Ib S00/million 3tu.
                                                                               c.


cP)ants subject to the revised standi--ds.
                                   FEOCtAl UKMSTE*, VOU 43. NO. 237-ftlDAT, DECEMBER B. 1978
-------
          Table ?D.  NATIONAL  1990  S02  EMISSIONS FROM UTILITY COILERS WITH 90   PERCENT FGO RELIABILITY
                                              (million tons)


                                                        Level of Control

Plant Catenorv

SIP/MSPS °1antsb
New Plants0
Oil Plants
Total National
Emissions
Total Coal
Canacitv (W)

1975 Current
Actual Standards
16.1
3.6
1.8
18.6 21.5
198 406

90% Control
With 240 ng/J
Limit
16.5
1.2
2.0
19.7
388

90% Control
Across Scrubber
16.5
1.1
2.0
19.6
388
Part i A 1 Cnntm 1
240 ng/J
Emission Limit
16.6
1.6
1.9
20.1
397
aResults of joint EPA/DOE analyses  completed  in November 1978 based on oil  pr;tes of S12.9C, S16.40,
and fZl.T/bbl in the years  1935, 1990,  and 1995, resoectively.

 Plants s.DJect to existinn  State regulations  or the current NSPS of 1.2  Ib S'.;.'nillion Bi...

°P1ants s-DJect to the  revised  standards.
                           FEDCIAL REOISTEK, VOL. 43, NO. J37—FIIDAT, DECEMBEt 8. 1978
-------
i
O
I
*-
en
                           Table 3A.  REGIONAL 1990 SO- EMISSIONS FROM UTILITY BOILERS WITH 100 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY
                                                                       (million tons)
                                                                        Level of Control
Total National Emissions   18.6

Regional Emissions
   Eastb
   East South Central0
   Midwestd
   Great Plains6
   West South Centralf
   West9

Total Coal Capacity (EW)     198

1975
Actual
18.6

—
—
—
—
-_

Current
Standards
21.5
7.0
3.2
5.4
2.4 •
2.2
1.3

90% Control With
340 ng/J Limit
19.9
6.6
3.0
5.5
2.3
1.6
0.9

90% Control With
240 ng/J Limit
19.6
6.4
2.9
5.5
2.3
1.6
0.9

90% Control
Across Scrubber
19.5
6.4
2.9
5.5
2.3
1.6
0.9





^
O
O
•••
o
                                                             406
391
390
390
                  Results of joint EPA/DOE analyses completed in
                 November 1978 based on oil prices of $12.90, f!6.40,
                 and $21.00/bbl in the years 1985, 1990, and 1995,
                 respectively.
                  New England, Middle Atlantic, and South Atlantic
                 Census Regions.
                 cEast South Central Census Region.
''East North Central Census Region.
eWest North Central Census Region.

 West South Central Census Region.
^Mountain and Pacific Census Regions.
                                              KMRAL ttettTB. VOL 43, NO. 237—ftlDAY, OECfMBB I.
-------
 i
o
(Ti
                            Table 38.   REGIONAL 1990 SO- EMISSIONS FROM UTILITY BOILERS WITH 100 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY"
                                                                        (million tons)

                                                                         Level of Control

1975
Actual
Total National Emissions la. 6
Regional Emissions
Eastb
East South Central0
Midwestd
Great Plains6
West South Central f
West9
Total Coal Capacity (GW) im>

Current
Standards
21.5
7.0
3.2
5.4
2.4
2.2
1.3
406
240 ng/J
Emission Limit
20.0
6.4
2.9
5.5
2,4
1.8
1.0
399
90% Control Sliding Scale 240 ng/J Std.
With 330 ng/J With 90% With 90%
Max. Control. Control in West Control in Wesl
20.4
6.6
3.0
5.5
2.4
1.9
1.1
401
19.7
6.4
2.9
5.4
2.5
1.7
0.9
394
19.7
6.4
2.9
5.4
2.4
1.8
0.9
398
                  Results of joint  EPA/DOE  analyses  completed  in
                 November 1978  based on oil  prices of $12.90,  $16.40,
                 and $21.00/bbl  in  the years 1985, 1990,  and 1995,
                 respectively.

                  New England,  Middle Atlantic,  and  South Atlantic
                 Census Regions.

                 cEast South Central Census  Region.
 East North Central Census Region.

eWest North Central Census Region.


 West South Central Census Region.

^Mountain and Pacific Census Regions.
                                                          i
                                                          o
                                                          S
                                                          o
                                                KMXAl tEOfSTR, VOU 43. NO. VST—flttDAr, DCCCMUt •, I97i
-------
 I
a
 i
                         Table  3C.  REGIONAL  1990 SOo  EMISSIONS  FROM UTILITY BOILERS WITH TOO PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY
                                                                      (million tons)

                                                                       Level of Control

1975
Actual
Total' National Emissions 18.6
Regional Emissions
Eastb
East South Central0
Midwestd
Great Plains6
r
West South Central
Westq

Current
Standards
21.5

7.0
3.2
5.4
2.4
2.2
1.3

90% Control
With 150 ng/J
Max. Control
19,8

6.4
2.9
5.6
2.3
1.6
1.0
Partial Pni
90% Control
With 240 ng/J
Max. Control
20.3

6.5
3.0
5.6
2.4
1.7
1.0
itrol -----
Sliding Scale
With 390 ng/J
Limit
21.1

6,9
3.2
5.5
2.4
2.0
1.2

95°s Control
With 520 ng/J
Limit
19,0

6.2
2.8
5.5
2.2
1.5
0.8







5
V*
Itl
0
                Total  Coal  Capacity  (CM)
198
406
396
399
401
400
                 Results  of joint  EPA/DOF  analvses  cc"iDleted in
                November  1978 based on  oil  prices or 512.90. $16.40,
                and  S21.00/bbl  in  the years 1985, 19?0,  and 1995,
                respectively.

                 flew Enqland,  Middle Atlantic,  and  Scuth Atlantic
                Census  Regions.

                 East South Centra]  Census  Region.
                                 East North Central Census Region.

                                el-/est North Central Census Region.
                                 West South Central  Census Region.

                                'Mountain  and Pacific Census Regions.
                                                      KfOUTfX. VCH. 43, NO. 237—HUOAY, DECfMU* », 197t
-------
o
J^
oo
                            'Table 3D.  REGIOHAL 1090 SG?  EMISSIONS  FROM UTILITY BOILERS WITH  90 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY3
                                                                         (nil lion tons)

                                                                          Level  of Control

1975
Actual
Total National Emissions 18.6
Regional Emissions
Eastb
East South Central0
Midwestd
Great Plains6
West South Centra lf
Hestq
Total Coal Canacity (GM) 198

Current
Standards
21.5
7.0
3.2
5.4
2.4
2.2
1.3
406
90% Control 90% Control
With 240 ng/J Across Scrubber
Limit
19.7
6.4
2.9
5.6
2.3
1.6
0.9
388
19.6
6.4
2.9
5.5
2.3
1.6
0.9
388
Partial Control
240 ng/J
Emission Limit
20.1
6.5
2.9
5.5
2.4
1.8
1.1
397


•»
I
4A
                   Results of joint EPA/DOF anaivs?! cc~oleted  -~
                  November 1978 based on oil prices of £12.90,  SJ5.40,
                  and S21.CO/bbl in the years 1985, 1990, and 1995,
                  respectively.
 New Enoland, Middle Atlantic,
Census Regions.
                                                   -n SC'Jth Atlar.-'.c
                  ctast South Central Census Regie-.
 East Morth Central Census Region.

eWest North Central Census Region.


 West South Central Census Reqion.

 Mountain and Pac'*:/: Census Regions.
                                              ffDOUU. nOttlR. VOL 41. NO. 2V—flUDAY, DfCZMia «,
-------
o
 I
*>.
VD
                                                Table 4A. IMPACTS ON  FUELS It; 1990 WITH 100  :ERCEKT  FG:  RELIABILITY'
                                                                               Level of Control
u.




1975
Actual
S. Coal Production
(million tons)
Appalachia
Midwest
Northern Great Plains
West
TOTAL 647
Western Coal Shioped East 21
(million tons)
Oi


1 Consumption by Power
Plants (million bbl/day)
Power Plants
Coal Transportation
TOTAL 3.1
Current
Standards

419
348
463
211
1441
84
1.8
0.1
1.9
Full
90% Control With
340 ng/J Limit

399
390
458
188
1435
62
2.0
0.2
2.2
Control
90% Control With
240 ng/J Limit

398
390
460
188
1436
64
2.1
0.1
2.2
90% Control
Across Scrubb'

398
390
461
188
1437
64
2.1
0.1
2.2





PROPOSED
»•
i


                  Results  of EPA analyses completed  in November 1978 based on oil prices  of 512.90, S16.40, and 521.00/bbl
                  in  the  years 1985, 1990, and 1995,  respectively.
                                                FEDERAL REOISTEt. VOC 43. HO. 237—ftlDAV, DKIM1W •, 1971
-------
                                                Table 4B.  IMPACTS  ON FUELS IN 1990 WITH 100 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY'
                                                                               Level  of Control
 I
a
 i
Ul
o
U.S. Coal Production
   (million tons)
     Appalachia
     Midwest
     Northern Great Plains
     West
          TOTAL
Western Coal Shi oped East
   (million tons)
Oil Consumption by Power
   Plants (million bbl/day)
     Power Plants
     Coal Transportation
          TOTAL

1975
Actual

..
__
—
647
21


—
—
3.1

Current
Standards
419
348
463
211
1441
84


1.8
0.1
1.9

240 ng/J
Emission
Limit
412
377
455
200
1444
62


1.9
0.1
2.0

90% Control
With 330 ng/J
Max. Control
415
373
451
202
1441
67


1.9
0.1
2.0
Part i a 1 Print f*nl
iQI I | Q I \^l/IILIUI
Sliding Scale
With 90%
Control in West
411
367
465
196
1439
85


2.0
0.1
2.1

240 ng/J Std.
With 90%
Control in West
411
377
459
197
1444
64


1.9
0.1
2.0






PROPOSED I
!•
m



                   Results of EPA analyses corroleted in November  1978  based  on oil  prices of 7.12.90, S16.40, and $21.00/bbl
                  in the years 1985, 1990, and 1995, respectively.
                                              FEDRAl tEGKTft, VOL 43, NO. W7—HMOAY, DECEMBER I, 1971
-------
 I
O
 I
                                             Table 4C. IMPACTS ON FUELS  IN  1990 WITH 100 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY5
                                                                            Level  of Control
u.





1975
Actual
S. Coal Production
(million tons)
Appalachia
Midwest
Northern Great Plains
West
TOTAL 647
Western Coal Shiooed East 21
(million tons)
Oi



1 Consumption by Power
Plants (million bbl/day)
Power Plants
Coal Transportation
TOTAL 3.1
Current
Standards


419
348
463
211
1441
84

1.8
0.1
1.9

90% Control
With 150 ng/J
Max. Control


403
392
445
199
1439
60

1.9
0.1
2.0
Partial Control
90% Control
With 240 ng/J
Max. Control


406
385
451
199
1441
60

1.9
0.1
2.0

Sliding Scale
With 390 ng/J
Limit


410
372
465
198
1445
76

1.9
0.1
2.0
95% Control
With 520 ngA
Limit


403
394
465
188
1450
62

1.9
0.1
2.0






PROPOSED 1
m
f
m
IM



              Results of  EPA  analyses completed in '.'oveniber  1978 based on oil prices of  S12.90,  S16.4Q, and S21.00/bbl
              in  the  years  1985,  1990, and 1995, ressectively.
                                               FEDBAl tKHSTU, VOL 43, NO. 237—FIIDAY, DECf MUR •, 1971
-------
                                            Table  4D.  IMPACTS ON FUELS IN 1990 WITH  90 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY'
                                                                           Level of Control
D
 I
Ul
tsj
U.S. Coal Production
   (million tons)

     Appalachia

     Midwest

     Northern Great Plains

     '.•lest

          TOTAL

Western Coal Shipped East
   (nillion tons)

Oil Consumption by Power
   Plants (million bbl/day)

     Dower Plants

     Coal Transportation

          TOTAL

1975 Current
Actual Standards
419
348
463
211
647 1441
21 84
1.8
0.1
3.1 1.9

r U 1 I
90% Control
With 40 ng/J
Limit
398
387
460
183
1428
65
2.1
0.1
2.2
f* f\r*^" v*f\ 1
90% Control
Across Scrubber
398
387
459
184
1428
64
2.1
0.1
2.2
Dar*4*Sal Print" v*nl
r art 1 a 1 LURl-rU 1
240 ng/J
Emission Limit
411
374
450
202
1437
63
1.9
0.1
2.1
o
v*
m
O
»
               Results of EPA analyses corseted  in  riove~Der 1978 based on oil prices of  '.12.90,  $16.40,  and S21.00/bbl
              in the years 1985, 1990, and  1995,  respect-vely.
                                              KDfkAl KEGISm. VOL 43, NO. 237—WIOAV, DECEMBEK 8, 1971
-------
 I
o
en
OJ
                                 Table 5A.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN 1990 WITH 100 PERCENT FGD  RELIABILITY
                                                              (1978 S)

                                                                                   Level  of Control
                                            Current
                                           Standards
Average monthly            50.52
   residential bills
   ($/month)

Incremental utility
   capital expenditures,
   cumulative 1976-1990
   ($ billions)

Incremental annualized
   cost ($ billions)

Incremental cost of
   S02 reduction ($/ton)
                                             90% Control With
                                              340 ng/J Limit
                                                                                  Full Control
51.32



 2.5




 1.9


1236
                    90% Control With
                     240 ng/J Limit
51.35



 2.4




 2.0


1041
                    90% Control
                  Across Scrubber
51.37



 2.5




 2.1


1010
O
o
                                                                                                                                tn
                                                                                                                                vt
                   Pxesults of EPA analyses completed in November 1978 based on oil  prices  of $12.90,  $16.40,  and $21.00/bbl
                  in the years 1985, 1990, and 1995, respectively.
                                              HMtAL UdSTEft. VOC «r NO. 237-fWDAY. MCEMSft •. »97»
-------
i
D
I
cn
                                 Table 5B. ECONOMIC IMPACTS  IN  1990 WITH 100  PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY3
                                                              (1978 $)

                                                                                    Level  of Control
                                                                               Partial Control
                                            Current     240 ng/J        90% Control     Sliding Scale    240 ng/J Std.
                                           Standards  Emission Limit   With 330 ng/J      With 90%          With 90%
                                                                        Max. Control   Control in West  Control in West
Average monthly
   residential bills
   (I/month)

Incremental utility
   capital expenditures,
   cumulative 1976-1990
   ($ billions)

Incremental annual 1 zed
   cost (S billions)

Incremental cost of
   S02 reduction ($/ton)
                                             50.52
51.18
                                                           5.5
51.04
                   4.8
51.30
                4.1
                                                                                                             51.28
                   6.0
1.5
955
1.1
1099
1.8
1014
1.7
958
                                                                                                                                8
                                                                                                                                m
                   Results of EPA analyses completed in November 1978 based on oil  prices  of $12.90, $16.40, and $21.00/bbl
                  1n the years 1985» 1990, and 1995, respectively.
                                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 237—FRIDAY, DECEMBER », 1*7*
-------
 i
U1
Ln
                                Table 5C.  ECONOMIC  IMPACTS  IN  1990 WITH TOO PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY'
                                                              (1978 S)

                                                                                   Level of Control
                                            Current
                                           Standards
Averaqe monthly            50.52
   residential bills
   (S/month)

Incremental utility
   capital expenditures,
   cumulative 1976-1990
   (S billions)

Incremental annualized
   cost (S billions)

Incremental cost of
   S02 reduction ($/ton)
                                          	 Partial Control 	

                                          90% Control      90% Control    sliding Scale   95% Controlb
                                         With 150 ng/J
                                          Max. Control
              With  240 ng/J  with  390  ng/J   With 520 ng/J
               Max.  Control      Llmit	Limit
51.35



 6.4




 1.8


1080
51.16



 5.5




 1.4


1090
50.90




 5,1




 0.7


2045
51.12



 5.5




 1.3


 524
O
3
                  Results of  EPA  analyses  coroleted  in  Nove~Der 1978 based on oil prices of  "12.90,  S16.40,  and $21.00/bbl
                  in  the years  1985,  1990,  and  1995,  respect:vely.

                 ^Modified hGD cost functions  used.
                                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 237—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1978
-------
I
Ul
                                Table 50.  ECONOMIC IMPACTS IN 1990 WITH  90 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY3
                                                             (1978 S)

                                                                                  Level of Control
                                           Current
                                          Standards
Average monthly            50.52
   residential bills
   (S/month)

Incremental utility
   capital expenditures,
   cumulative 1976-1990
   (S billions)

Incremental annualized
   cost (S billions)

Incremental cost of
   S02 reduction (S/ton)
	  Full  Control
 90% Control
With 240 ng/J
    Limit
   51.34



    0.0




    2.1


   1171
  90% Control
Across Scrubber
Partial Control
    240 ng/0
 Emission  Limit
   51.36



    0.2




    2.1


   1103
    51.23



     4.7




     1.6


    1115
                                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                                               5
                                                                                                                               M
                  Results  of  EPA  analyses  completed in ':ove~ber 1978 based on oil prices o*  S12.90,  516.40,  and $21.00/bb1
                 in  the years 1985,  1990,  and 1995, ressectively.
                                            FEDHUU. REOISTHt, VOL 43. NO. 137—HUOAY, DECEMBER I, 197*
-------
                         Table 6A.  SUMMARY  OF 1995 IMPACTS WITH 100  PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY'
                                                                  Level  o'  Control

1975
Actual
National Emissions 18.6
(million tons SO.,)
New Plant Emissions
(nil! ion tons S02)
U.S. Coal Production 647
(million tons)
i western Coal Shipped East 21
f (mill ion tons)
01
"^ Oil Consumption 3.1
(mill ion bbi /day)
Incremental Cumulative
Capital Expenditures
(1978 S billion)
Incremental Annual ized
Cost (1978 S billion)
Average Monthly Residential
Bill (1978 S/month)
Total Coal Capacity (GW) 198

Current
MSPS
23.7

7.1

1779

122

1-3

__


— _

53.03
552

90% Control With
340 ng/J Limit
20,5

3.2

1765

59

1.7

4.4


4.1

54.31
521

90% Control With
240 ng/J Limit
19.8

2.3

1767

77

1.7

4.4


4.3

54.37
520

90% Control
Across Scrubber
19.5

2.0

1768

77

1.7

5.0


4.3

54.40
520








3
o
3
v»
ni
C
w-
m
4A






 Results of joint EPA/DOE  analyses  cor.pleted in "November 1978 based on  oil  prices of 512.90, S16 40,
and S21.00/bbl in the years  1935,  1990,  and 1995, respectively.

 r" "ts sub>ct to the  revised  standards.
                                 FEOCRAl tfOUTEK. VOL 43, HO. 237-fllOAY. DECfMKI «, 197i
-------
                         Table 6B.  SUMMARY  OF 1995 IMPACTS WITH 100 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY*
                                                                  Level of Control

1975 Current 240 ng/J 90% Control Sliding Scale
Actual MSPS Emission Limit With 330 ng/J With 90%
Max. Control Control in West






<
i
o
i
Ui
oo



National Emissions 18.6 23.7 20.3 21.2
(million tons $02)
New Plant Emissions6 — 7.1 3.2 4.3
(million tons S02)
U.S. Coal Production 647 1779 1765 1762
(million tons)
Western Coal Shipped East 21 122 73 79
(million tons)

Oil Consumption 3.1 1.3 1.6 1.5
(million bbl/day)
Incremental Cumulative — — 5.9 3.7
Capital Expenditures
19.9

2.5

1769

92


1.6

9.0

240 ng/J Std,
With 90%
Control in West
20.0

2.8

1767

73


1.6

7.4








2
o
o
m
O
JO
c
m
u.
   (1978 $ billion)

Incremental Annualized
   Cost (1978 $ billion)

Average Monthly Residential
   Sill (1978 $/month)

Total Coal Capacity (GW)
198
          53.03
552
                         3.3
            54.08
534
                            2.6
              53.84
537
                              4.0
                                                       54.34
531
                                 3.7
                                54.24
533
 Results of joint EPA/DOE analysis completed  in -November 1978 based on oil prices of $12.90,  $16.40,
and $21.00/bbl in the years 1985, 1990,  and  1995,  respectively.
 Plants subject to the revised standards.
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43. NO. 237—FRIDAY, DECEMBER », 197«
-------
                                     Table 6C.  SUMMARY OF 1995 IMPACTS WITH 100  PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY
                                                                              Level  of Control
 i
ui

1975
Actual
National Emissions 18.6
(mill ion tons SO^)
Mew Plant Emissions
(mill ion tons S0?)
U.S. Coal Production 647
(million tons)
Western Coal Shiooed East 21
(million tons)
Oil Consumption" 3.1
(mil 1 ion bbl/day)
Incremental Cumulative
Capital Expenditures
(1978 S billion)
Incremental Annual i zed
Cost (1978 S billion)
Average Monthly Residential
Bill (1973 S/month)
Total Coal Capacity (GW) 198

Current
fISPS
23.7
7.1
1779
122
1.3
--
—
53.03
552
	 	 	 F
90% Control
With 150 ng/J
Max. Control
20.0
2.6
1762
68
1.6
8.1
4.0
54.33
531
'art i a 1 fnntrnl
CLi l> 1 O 1 LjUl 1 L. I U 1 ™
90% Control
With 240 ng/J
Max. Control
20.8
3.7
1765
69
1.6
5.7
3.1
54.04
534

Sliding Scale
With 390 ng/J
Limit
22.8
6.0
1765
83
1.5
3.6
1.9
53.64
537

95% Control
With 520 ng/J
Limit0
18.2
1.6
1799
54
1.5
7.2
0.8
53.31
542





PtOPOi
HI
0
c




             Results  of joint EPA/DOE analysis ccnpleted in November  1978  based on oil  prices of 512.90, S16.40,

            and  S21.00/bbl  in the years 1935, 1990, and 1=95, respectively.


                                                                cModified FGD cost functions  used.
Plants subject to the revised standards.
                                           FEDERAL lEGKTEft, VOL 41. NO. 237—HtlOAY, OECEMUC •. I»7i
-------
                         Table  60.  SUMMARY OF 1995 IMPACTS WITH  90 PERCENT FGD RELIABILITY'
                                                                   Level of Control
«»••••» c-..1 1 r>M.*.^uM."l
1975
Actual
National Emissions 18.6
(mill ion tons S0?)
New Plant Emissions
(mill ion tons S02)
U.S. Coal Production 647
(million tons)
-------
                                       PROPOSED RULES

                     Table 7.  SLUDGE GENERATED FROM UTILITY BOILERS3

                                 (million tons/year dry basis)


NSPS Alternative                          100% Reliability        90% Reliability

                                          1990        1995        1990       1995

Current standard                          17.7        23.0

90% control with
 340 yg/J limit                           33.'        55.1

90% control with
 240 yg/J limit                           33.3        53.7        32.2       52.1

90% control across
 scrubber                                 33.4        53.7        32.4       51.7

240 yg/J emission limit                   27.4        41.5        26.1       39.3

90% control with
 330 yg/J max control                     25.7        38.1

Sliding scale with
 90% control in West                      29.0        47.3

240 yg/J -standard
 with 90% control in West                 28.8        43.5

90% control with
 150 yg/J max control                     31.5        49.6

90% control with
 240 yg/J max control                     28.4        43.4

Sliding  scale with  390 ng/J  Limit         25<5        39-5

95?, control with  520 ng/J  Limit           36'°        62'2
 'Results  of  joint  EPA/DOE  analysis completed in flover-.ber 1978 based on oil prices of
 $12.90,  $16.40, and  $21.00/bb1  in the years 19S5, 1990, and 1995, respectively.
                          KOMAL MOlim, VOL 4J. MO. M7-WOAY, OKIMUI I, I»7I


                                     V-D-61
-------
                          TABLE 8.
                   PRESENT VALUE OF INCREMENTAL UTILITY REVENUE REQUIREMENTS  RELATIVE  TO  CURRENT STANDARDS3
                                                 (billions 1978 $)
o
 i
       NSPS Alternative

Current standard
90% control with 340 ng/J limit
30% control with 240 ng/J limit
90* control across scrubber
240 ng/J emission limit
90% control with 330 ng/J
  maximum control
Sliding scale with 90% control
  in West
240 ng/J standard with
  90% control in West
90% control with 150 ng/J
  maximum control
90% control with 240 ng/J
  maximum control
Sliding scale with 390 ng/J limit
95% control with 520 ng/J limitb
                                                                            100% Reliability
                                                                            1990         1995

                                                                            21.9         41.4
                                                                            21.8         43.4
                                                                            23.1         43.6
                                                                            16.5         33.0
                                                                            12.9
                                                                            20.1
                                                                            18.9
                                                                            20.7
25.8
39.7
37.3
40.0
                                                                            15.8         31.2
                                                                             8.3         18.6
                                                                            14.7         10.4
                 90% Reliability
                 1990       1995
                 23.5
                 24.0
                 17.9
46.2
46.5
34.7
                   Results  of  joint EPA/DOE analyses completed in November 1978 based on oil  prices  of $12.90, $16.40,
                  and  $21.00/bbl  in the years 1985, 1990, and 1995, respectively.   Revenue requirements  reflect total
                  plant capital and operating costs including pollution control equipment.
                  Modified FGD cost functions  used.
                                                       IPR Doc. 78-34506 Filed 12-7-78; 9:31 am)
                                           FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL. 43, NO. 237—FRIDAY. DECEMBER t, 197t
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
  PROTECTION
    AGENCY
 PETROLEUM LIQUID
 STORAGE  VESSELS

  Proposed Standards and
    Notice of Hearing

    SUBPART K and Ka
-------
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

            [40 CM Port 60]

             CPRL 870-5]

  STANDARDS Of PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
         STATIONARY SOURCES

    Storage VMM|» for Pctrotatm liquid*

AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The proposed standards
would limit emissions of hydrocarbons
from new, modified, and reconstructed
petroleum liquid storage vessels with a
capacity  greater  than  151.416 liters
(40,000 gallons). The standards Imple-
ment the Clean Air Act and are based
on a review of the current standards of
performance which indicated that the
technology for storage vessels  has 1m-
porved and it is appropriate to revise
the standards.  The current standards
for storage vessels require a single seal
to close  the space between the roof
edge and tank wall on external and in-
ternal floating roof tanks. The Intend-
ed effect of the proposed standard Is
to require double seals on external
floating roof tanks for which construc-
tion Is commenced after  (date of pro-
posal of the standards).
DATES:  Comments must be  received
on or before June 16, 1078. A public
hearing will be held on June 7, 1078; a
notice is published elsewhere  in this
FEDERAL REGISTER regarding the time
and place the hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES:  Comments should be
submitted to the Emission Standards
and  Engineering  Division (MD-13).
Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, At-
tention: Mr.  Jack  R. Farmer. Public
comments received and  other docu-
ments used In the development of the
proposed  standards   comprise   the
docket required by section 307(d) of
the  Clean  Air Act.  Included  In  the
docket is the economic impact assess-
ment of the proposed standards enti-
tled  "Financial and Economic Impacts
of Proposed Standards of Performance
for New Sources—Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids." The  docket, num-
bered OAQPS-78-2.  is  available for
public inspection  and copying at the
Public Information  Reference Unit,
Room 2622.  401 M Street SW., Wash-
ington, D.C. 20460.
FOR  FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT.
  Mr.  Don.  R. Goodwin,  Director,
  Emission Standards and Engineering
  Division  (MD-13),  Environmental
  Protection Agency, Research Trian-
  gle Park,  N.C.   27711,  telephone
  number 010-541-6271.
         PROPOSED  RULES

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 SUMMARY or PROPOSED STANDARDS AND
              IMPACTS

  The proposed standards of perform-
ance would apply to  storage vessels
which  have a capacity greater than
151,416  liters  (40,000  gallons)  and
which  are constructed after (proposal
date of these standards). The proposed
standards  differ  from  the   current
standards In that they contain more
stringent requirements for storage ves-
sels which have external floating roofs
or Internal-floating-type covers. The
current standards require that storage
vessels containing a petroleum liquid
with a true vapor pressure equal to or
greater than 78 ™™ Hg (1.5 psla) but
not  greater than 670 mm Hg (11.1
psia) be equipped with a floating roof,
a vapor recovery system, or equivalent.
Storage  vessels containing petroleum
liquids  with a  true  vapor pressure
greater than 570 mm Hg (11.1 psla) are
to be equipped with a vapor  recovey
system or its equivalent. The  current
standards remain in effect for those
affected  facilities which  began con-
struction, modification, or reconstruc-
tion  after the applicable date of, the
current standards (March 8, 1074,  for
vessels with capacities between 40,000
and 65,000  gallons and June 11, 1073,
for vessels with  greater than 65,000
gallon  capacity) and  before (date of
proposal of these standards).  Retrofit
of such facilities would not be required
by the proposed standards.
  The  proposed  standards would  re-
quire the use of double seals on exter-
nal floating roof  storage vessels. The
primary seal would have to be a metal-
lic shoe seal or equivalent with a seal
fabric having no holes, tears, or other
openings. Gaps between the tank wall
and the primary seal could not exceed
0.32 cm (Vi In.) in width for a cumula-
tive length of 60 percent 'of the cir-
cumference of the tank, 1.3 cm (V» in.)
in width for a cumulative length of 30
percent of  the circumference of the
tank, and 3.8 cm (1V4 in.) In width for
a cumulative length of 10 percent of
the circumference of the  tank. The
secondary seal would be required to
completely  cover the space between
the roof  edge and the tank wall. Gaps
between the tank wall and the  second-
ary seal  could not exceed 0.32 cm  (V4
In.) In  width for a cumulative length
of 05 percent of the circumference of
the tank, and  1.3 cm (K in.) in width
for a cumulative length of 5 percent of
the circumference of the tank.
  The proposal also specifies that the
Administrator approves as  equivalent
technology  the use of a nonmetallic
resilient  seal as the primary seal pro-
vided that the gaps between the tank
wall  and the primary seal  do  not
exceed 0.32 cm (W in.) in width for a
cumulative length of 05 percent of the
circumference of the tank and do not
exceed 1.3 cm (Vi In.) in width for a cu-
mulative length  of  the remaining 5
percent of the circumference of the
tank, and the gaps between the tank
wall and the secondary seal used above
the  nonmetallic resilient  seal do not
exceed 0.32 cm (M In.)  in  width over
the entire circumference of the tank.
  Since the current standards already
require at least single seals on floating
roof tanks, the maximum cost of the
proposed standards would be the  in-
cremental cost of using a shoe seal in-
stead of a nonmetallic resilient seal as
the  primary seal  and of  Installing a
second seal. These two  costs are esti-
mated to increase the cost of a new 61-
meter  (200-foot)  diameter   storage
vessel by about 0.0 to 1.9 percent.
  The proposed standards would have
a  positive  impact on environmental
quality. The estimated emission reduc-
tion attributed to the current stand-
ards  is  80  percent. The proposed
standards would further reduce emis-
sions from a new storage  vessel con-
taining a petroleum liquid by  about 75
percent. The total emission reduction,
therefore, would be about 05 percent.
The proposed standards would  have
no adverse  environmental or energy
Impacts.

            BACKGROUND

  On March 8,1074, under the author-
ity of section 111 of the Clean Air Act,
EPA promulgated standards of per-
formance  in Subpart K  of  40  CFR
Part 60 for hydrocarbon emissions
from petroleum liquid storage vessels
with a capacity greater than 151,416
liters (40,000 gallons). These standards
require that  new storage vessels con-
taining petroleum liquids with a true
vapor pressure  greater than  570 mm
Hg  (11.1  psla) be equipped with  a
vapor recovery system or  its equiva-
lent. For petroleum liquids with a true
vapor  pressure equal to   or greater
than 78  mm Hg  (1.5 psia)  but  not
greater than 570 mm Hg (11.1 psia),
new storage vessels are required to be
equipped with a floating roof (internal
or external),  a vapor recovery system,
or equivalent. The primary intent of
Subpart K was to prohibit the use of
fixed roofs on new storage vessels. A
floating roof or vapor recovery system
has  the potential  for reducing emis-
sions by 70  to 00  percent  more than
the  reduction achieved  with a fixed
roof only.
 An external floating roof tank con-
sists of a welded or riveted cylindrical
vessel equipped with a  deck or roof
which floats on the liquid surface and
rises and falls with the liquid level In
the tank.  The liquid surface is com-
pletely covered by the roof except for
the  space between the  roof  and  the
wall.  The current standards require
that a sliding seal be attached to the
roof to close the  space between  the
roof edge and the tank wall. The seals
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 97— THURSDAY, MAY K, 1*7*
                                               V-K)Ka-2
-------
                            PROPOSED RULES

In current use are metallic shoe seals   by installing a second seal over the pri-
or nonmetallic resilient seals 
-------
                                              PROPOSED RULES
TANK SHELL-
                    .SHOE

                        SEAL FABRIC
                                       ROOF
                                        COUNTERWEIGHT
                     CURTAIN SEAL
  TANK SHELL
                                                             SEAL ENVELOPE
                                                               RESILIENT
                                                               URETHANE
                                                                 FOAM
                                      ROOF
Figure 1.   Primary metallic shoe seal
                                                                                                  BUMPER
                   LIQUID LEVEL

Floure 2.   Primary nonmetalUc resilient  sea)
                             TANK
                            IHEll
                         VMOR '
                                           METALLIC SHOE  SECONDARYSSAL

                                                        SEAl FABRIC
                         Flgur* 3.  M*untc-thoA-typa s««1 with tecondtry seal


                               NOMAL UOmM, VOL 43, NO. fT-THOMOAY, MAY II, IfTt
                                            V-K,Ka-4
-------
                                               PROPOSED  RULES
  The proposed standards are in terms
of equipment specifications and main-
tenance  requirements   rather  than
mass emission  rates. It is extremely
difficult  to quantify  mass  emission
rates for petroleum liquid storage ves-
sels because of the varying loss mecha-
nisms and the number of variables af-
fecting loss rate. Section lll(hXl) of
the  Act   provides  that  equipment
standards  may  be established for  a
source category  if it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce a standard which
specifies an emission limitation. It also
requires that an equipment  standard
include  requirements  to Insure  the
proper operation and maintenance of
the  equipment. Therefore,  the  pro-
posed standards contain certain moni-
toring requirements.

  RATIONALE FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS

SELECTION OF THE SOURCE CATEGORY AND
          AFFECTED FACILITY

  Section  111  of the Act directs  the
Administrator to  establish standards
of performance for new and  modified
stationary  sources that  may contrib-
ute significantly to air pollution which
causes or contributes to the endanger-
ment of public health or welfare. EPA
considers petroleum liquid storage ves-
sels  to be  significant contributors to
air pollution. Based on  emission fac-
tors  (7,  2)  derived from equations in
American  Petroleum Institute  Bulle-
tins,  current nationwide hydrocarbon
emissions from petroleum liquid stor-
age tanks are estimated to be about
750  Cg (or about 850,000 tons)  per
year. This represents  about 4.5-'per-
cent  of the estimated  1975  national
hydrocarbon  emissions  from station-
ary sources. (5)
 In  a 1976 study of the petroleum re-
fining Industry,(4) EPA estimated that
the growth rate of domestic petroleum
demand would  be about 2V4 percent
annually for the period  1974 to 1985.
It is  assumed that the growth rate of
petroleum liquid storage tanks would
be the same. Although  this estimated
growth rate Is  subject  to change  de-
pending on the world energy situation
and the nation's energy  policy, growth
in the construction of new petroleum
liquid storage tanks is likely to contin-
ue at about this rate at least into the
near future. All new petroleum storage
tanks will  be  required by  EPA's cur-
rent standards of performance to have
floating roofs, vapor recovery systems,
or   equivalent.   Because  petroleum
liquid storage vessels are  significant
contributors to air pollution and it has
been  demonstrated  that  emissions
from these vessels which are equipped
with external floating roofs in compli-
ance with  the current standards can
be reduced further by installation of
double seals, petroleum liquid storage
vessels have been selected for  addi-
tional  regulation.  Petroleum   liquid
storage vessels for which construction
was  commenced before (date of pro-
posal of these standards) are still sub-
ject  to the existing  standards of per-
formance  and  those storage  vessels
equipped with external floating roofs
are required to have single seals only.

    SELECTION OP BEST TECHNOLOGY
         CONSIDERING COSTS
  Measurement of emissions to the at-
mosphere from commercial size petro-
leum liquid storage vessels with exter-
nal floating roofs using  conventional
measurement techniques  is virtually
Impossible  because the  emissions are
not confined! The proposed standards,
therefore, are based primarily on stud-
ies  conducted  recently  by  Chicago
Bridge and Iron  (CBI) for Standard
Oil of Ohio and Western Oil  and Gas
Association (5), (6), (7), U0). ill) on a
6-meter  (20-foot) diameter test  tank
which was enclosed for the purpose of
emission  measurement.  During the
CBI  studies,  pressure drop measure-
ments were made around the circum-
ference of  the tank  on the windward
and  leeward  sides.   Emissions  were
measured  under  a variety of  condi-
tions to determine the Impact of such
factors as  wind  speed,  the  use  of
double seals,  gap size between the
seals and tank wall,  shoe  seal tight-
ness, rim temperatures,  and product
vapor pressure on emission levels.
  It was found that most hydrocarbon
emission from storage vessels are due
to wind-induced pressure losses. Rela-
tive to reference atmospheric pressure,
pressure variations occur around the
edges of the roof of  a tank as a func-
 tion of wind velocity and position of
 the roof. With respert  to v.irid direc-
 tion, the pressure is higher on the lee-
 ward  side than on  \.l\f  windward side
 of the tank. The pressure differences
 on a tank roof are surh that fresh air
 flows downward through the spnce be-
 tween the tank wall  and the seal on
 the leeward side, across the liquid sur-
 face along  the  circumference  of  the
 tank,  and  out  the other  side. The
 spaces are saturated with hydrocarbon
 vapors, which are carried out  in  the
 flow of air. The true vapor pressure of
 the liquid being stored, which  deter-
 mines the hydrocarbon concentration
 in the spaces  between the  seal and
 tank wall and the roof and liquid sur-
 face,  and the type  and condition  of
 seals  are other  factors  which were
 found to significantly Influence emis-
 sions.
  Figure 4 shows the effect of various
 types of seals and seal  conditions on
 emission levels. The other two factors
 which were found  to have the most
 impact  on  emissions—wind  velocity
 and  vapor  pressure  of  the  stored
 liquid—are  held  constant.  Emission
 levels would deviate from those  shown
 in the figure if one of these conditions
 were changed. As indicated In Figure
 4. for both nonmetallic  resilient seals
 and shoe seals, using a secondary seal
 above the primary  seal and reducing
 the gaps between both  the primary
 and the secondary seals and the tank
 wall significantly reduce the emissions
resulting from wind-induced  pressure
losses.  Using double seals  reduces the
Impact of the size of the gap between
the primary seal and the tank wall on
emission  levels,  but  reducing  these
gaps still has a positive effect.
  The  CBI test data In Figure  4 also
 indicate that when  a nometalUc resil-
 kient  seal Is used as the primary seal
 and the secondary seal has a 1.3  cm (Mi
 in.) gap for 6 percent of the circumfer-
 ence  of  the vessel, emissions  are 5
 times higher than when a shoe  seal Is
 used as the primary seal and the sec-
 ondary seal has the same gaps.  Based
 on these data, it Is concluded that the
 use of a shoe seal achieves a greater
 reduction in emissions than the  use of
 a nonmetallic resilient seal.
                              KDMAL MOUTH, VOL 43, NO. 97-THUtlDAY, MAY II, 1971
                                                V-K,Ka-5
-------
                                                   tuns
fBJMABYSEAL
73
72
71
70
| 15
a.
£
I
CO
in
< 10
X
1
5

0
KOKMETALl
7- >





•*•«»


M«^


7.8
MMBH






1.0
n
CR£
n

^ '











S.'LIEMVSEAL METALLIC SI
WIT»
NO HOLES. 1
OPENINGS
SEAL FA
'






8.4




HMM





3.6
1.5
n A.
IDE SEAL
< 	
EARS OR
IN THE —
BRIC 	






—


4.5 	

1.7
n













NO NO [ U em WIDE OVER ( NO NO GAPS
GAP 6AP k— 5% OF — H CAP GAP WIDTH % CIRCUMFERENCE
1 CIRCUMFERENCE 1 3.8cm 10.
1
.3cm 30
0.32cm 60
SECONDARY SEAL

CAPS
(S% OF CIRCUMFERENCE)
NONE   YES   NONE   YES    YES
        NO
       GAP
Uem
NO
GAP
NONE   YES   NONE   YES

      NONE    -    Urn
                       Figure 4. Emissions from C8I test tank with various seals.
                           NOMAL MOttm, VOC 4J, NO. W-TMUtSOAY, MAY M,
                                        V-K,Ka-6
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
  It can also be seen In Figure 4 that a
primary metallic shoe seal with no gap
used in conjunction with  a secondary
seal with no gap achieves the lowest
emission level.  However. It Is difficult
to comply with a no gap  requirement
becuase In most cases the storage ves-
sels are not perfectly  round. A more
viable  regulatory approach would  be
to allow some small gaps  between the
seals and tank wall. Prom Figure 4 It
can be seen that even with small gaps,
the  hydrocarbon  emission level re-
mains  low.  Consequently, the  pro-
posed  standards  contain  certain gap
requirements  for  both the primary
and secondary seals.
  For a shoe seal used as  the primary
seal,  the permeability  of the  seal
fabric  used  to bridge  the space be-
tween  the shoe seal and  the floating
roof can be an Important factor affect-
ing emission levels. The use of fabric
with holes, tears, or openings increases
leakage   due   to  gas  penetration
through  the fabric. Therefore,  it is
concluded that requiring the use of a
metallic shoe seal with no holes, tears,
or openings would result in reduced
hydrocarbon emissions.
  Costs must be considered in setting
standards of performance under sec-
tion  111. Since the current standards
already require single seals on floating
roof storage vessels the costs associat-
ed with  the proposed standards are
only the incremental  costs of using a
metallic shoe seal instead  of a nonme-
talllc resilient seal as the primary seal
and the  costs  of adding  a secondary
seal. For a new 61-meter (200-foot) di-
ameter storage vessel, the  total in-
stalled cost  of a nonmetallic resilient
seal Is estimated to be approximately
$20.000 to $33,000, and the  total in-
stalled cost of a shoe seal  is estimated
to range  from $28,000 to $41.000,  or
approximately  $8,000  more than a
nonmetallic  resilient  seal. The  total
annualized cost for a shoe seal is esti-
mated  to be about $2,400 more  than
that for a nonmetallic resilient  seal.
EPA is not aware of any situations
where  technological or economic con-
siderations would preclude the instal-
lation  of shoe seals in lieu of nonme-
tallic  resilient  seals during  the  con-
struction  of new petroleum  storage
vessels.
  Adding a secondary seal Is estimated
to cost $12,600 to $19,000, and to in-
crease  total  annualized costs by $4,000
to $5,800 if It is assumed that there
are no savings  due  to retention of pe-
troleum   product.  Total   annualized
costs  would  be reduced  to between
$1,700  and $5,400, however, if a savings
in petroleum  product is  assumed. A
range is estimated because the amount
of  petroleum  product saved  would
depend on the true vapor pressure of
the petroleum liquid  and  wind veloc-
ity.
  The  cost of a new 61-meter diameter
storage vessel  is estimated to be about
$1,400,000 to $2,200,000. This cost in-
cludes  the  tank foundation, firewalls,
connections to refinery  pumps, lines,
etc. Thus, using a shoe seal instead of
a nonmetallic  resilient seal as the pri-
mary seal and installing a secondary
seal  would  increase the cost of a new
storage vessel  by only about 0.9 to 1.9
percent. By comparison,  the increased
cost  for a new storage vessel to comply
with the current standards is  12 to 25
percent. Therefore, the Increased cost
of complying with the proposed stand-
ards is  considered to be reasonable and
would not adversely affect the demand
for new vessels. Since the additional
cost would  not reduce the demand for
new  vessels, the economic Impact  of
the proposed  standard  on the manu-
facturers of storage vessels is small,
  EPA  also attempted to determine
the Impact of the proposed standards
on nonmetallic resilient seal manufac-
turers;  however, it was discovered that
the materials for  the seals  are  pur-
chased by the storage vessel manufac-
turers  who  then fabricate and Install
the seals. Nearly all the storage vessel
manufacturers have the expertise  to
Install  either  metallic  shoe  seals  or
nonmetallic resilient seals with most
manufacturers being  Indifferent  to
customer preference toward a certain
type of seal. One  manufacturer  does
stress  its expertise with nonmetallic
resilient seals; however, this emphasis
has not caused disproportion^ sales of
nonmetallic resilient seals over metal-
lic shoe seals.  Also,  since the  seals are
fabricated on site,  little or no  extra
capital would  be needed  to  convert
plant  and   equipment to  produce  a
greater quantity of metallic shoe seals.
In addition, storage vessel manufac-
turers generally do not maintain an in-
ventory of  nonmetallic  resilient seal
materials that would need to be liqui-
dated.<12) Consequently, any shift to-
wards  more installation of   metallic
shoe seals  caused  by  the proposed
standards would have little impact on
the storage vessel manufacturers.
  Three  companies in  the  United
States  currently supply the rubber
casings and urethane foam necessary
for the fabrication  of the nonmetallic
resilient seals. All three of these com-
panies  are  highly diversified and the
sale  of nonrnetalllc resilient seal mate-
rials makes  up only a small portion of
their total sales. The average losses in
sales of the three  companies due  to
the  proposed standard  would range
from about  0.5 to 1.4 percent of total
sales.(12) Consequently, the economic
impact  on  the nonmetallic  resilient
seal  materials  suppliers  would  be
small.
  Any  difference in maintenance re-
quirements  for metallic  shoe  seals  as
compared with  maintenance  require-
ments  for  nonmetallic  resilient seals
could also  Impact  the  storage vessel
purchasers.  Generally,  however, me-
tallic shoe seals last longer and require
less maintenance than nonmetallic re-
silient  seals.   (.12)  Therefore,  this
aspect  of   the  proposed  standards
would have no adverse impact on the
storage vessel purchasers.
  The longer life of the average metal-
lic shoe  seal  would also  Impact the
vessel  service   companies.  However,
since replacing  seals is only a  small
part of a vessel service company's busi-
ness, the economic impact of the pro-
posed standard would be small.
  There is expected to  be little, if any,
economic impact on existing storage
vessels as a result of modifications  of
existing vessels. The only change EPA
is presently aware of which could po-
tentially be considered a modification
is a change in the petroleum  liquid
being  stored.   However,   40   CFR
60.14(e)(4) states that a change in fuel
or raw material is not considered to be
a modification  if the existing facility
was designed to accommodate that al-
ternative use prior to the promulga-
tion  of standards  of performance for
that source type. There are likely  to
be few, if any, changes in the product
being stored which a storage  vessel
was not originally designed  to accom-
modate.
  Using the emission control technol-
ogy described  in the preceding  para-
graphs—double seals; shoe seals as the
primary  seals;  seal fabric  with  no
holes, tears, or openings and narrow
gap  widths—would have a  beneficial
impact   on  environmental  quality.
Compared with the current standards,
this  technology would reduce hydro-
carbon   emissions  from   petroleum
liquid storage  vessels  equipped with
external  floating roofs by 60 percent
assuming a metallic shoe seal was used
to meet the current standard, and up
to 98 percent assuming a nonmetallic
resilient seal was used to meet the cur-
rent standard.  These figures are based
on Figure 4 and the assumption that
the storage vessel is exposed to a wind
velocity of 3.58 m/s (8 mph) and con-
tains  a petroleum liquid with a true
vapor pressure of 258 mm Hg (5  psla),
The percentage reduction would be ex-
pected to vary  for different storage
vessels depending  on the  wind speed
and the true vapor pressure  of the pe-
troleum  liquid  being  stored.  There
would be no adverse Impacts on  other
environmental media. National energy
requirements would actually be de-
creased very slightly since this  tech-
nology would result in retention of pe-
troleum  products  that would  other-
wise  be lost as hydrocarbon emissions.
  Consequently, the  use of double
seals employing a shoe seal with a seal
fabric with no holes, tears, or openings
as  the   primary  seal, and  having
narrow gaps between both the primary
and secondary  seals and the storage
vessel wall,  has been selected as the
best demonstrated technology, consid-
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 97-THURSDAY, MAY II, 1971
                                                V-K,Ka-7
-------
                                               PROPOSED RULES
ering costs,  for  reducing  emissions
from petroleum liquid storage vessels.
Thus, the proposed standards require
either the  use of this technology or
technology demonstrated to be equiva-
lent.
  As can be observed In Figure 4, if a
nonmetallic resilient seal is used as
the primary seal and there are no gaps
(Le., gap widths of 0.32 cm or less) be-
tween the secondary seal and the stor-
age vessel wall, emissions are approxi-
mately the  same as when a shoe seal is
used as  the primary seal and the gaps
on the secondary seal are as much as
1.3 cm (Va in.) for 5 percent of the cir-
cumference of the tank. The proposed
regulation,  therefore, states that  the
Administrator approves the use of a
nonmetallic resilient seal as equivalent
to a shoe seal for the primary seal U
the secondary seal  above the nonme-
tallip resilient seal has gaps no greater
than 0.32 cm.
  Instead of approving  as  equivalent
technology the use of nonmetallic re-
silient seals in conjunction with  sec-
ondary seals with no gaps greater than
0.32  cm, the standards of performance
could require either the use of shoe
seals or the  use of nonmetallic resil-
ient  seals with the more stringent gap
requirement  for  nonmetallic resilient
seals. If the standard were written in
this  way,  nonmetallic resilient seals
would always be required to meet the
more stringent gap requirement. It Is
possible, however, that improvements
can  be  made  to nonmetallic resilient
seals to make them equivalent to me-
tallic shoe  seals  without  meeting a
more stringent gap requirement. It is
also  possible that other seals can be
developed that would be equivalent to
metallic shoe seals.  The  proposed
standards,  therefore, provide maxi-
mum flexibility for manufacturers to
make improvements In nonmetallic re-
silient seals or other types of seals and
demonstrate their equivalency to me-
tallic shoe seals.

     SELECTION OF MISCELLANEOUS
            REQUIREMENTS

  The current standards of perform-
ance do not apply  to storage vessels
for petroleum or condensate stored,
processed, and/or treated at a drilling
and  production facility prior to custo-
dy   transfer. These   vessels  were
exempted because many of them  are
normally bolted for purposes of mobil-
ity.  The proposed  standards  of  per-
formance,  however, would  apply to
storage  vessels at drilling and produc-
tion facilities  If the vessels are larger
than 161.416 liters (40,000  gallons).
Bolted vessels larger than the cut-off
size would not be  exempt because they
are no different from other large stor-
age vessels being covered with regard
to emissions, control technology, or
costs.
  The definition of "petroleum refin-
ery" has been expanded in both Sub-
parts K and Ka to include extracting.
This change is being made to ensure
that the definition covers all activities
at a petroleum refinery. "Extracting"
was not purposely excluded in Subpart
K and its addition should not change
the impact of the standard.

SELECTION Or TESTING, MONITORING, AND
     RECORDKZEPINO REQUIREMENTS

  The proposed standards  include a
section on testing (section 60.114a) for
determining compliance with the gap
requirements.  The current standards
of performance do not have a compa-
rable testing section because they do
not  contain  gap  requirements. Per-
formance  tests for most sources sub-
ject  to Part 60 are required within 60
days  after  achieving  the  maximum
production rate. The maximum pro-
duction rate for a storage vessel would
be the filling of the vessel with petro-
leum liquid. The proposed standards
for storage vessels provide the option
of doing the performance test before a
tank  is filled  with petroleum liquid
This  is based  on the reasoning that
the gaps between a primary seal and
the  tank  wall  have to be measured
when the secondary seal is not In place
when doing a performance test. This
means that the tank could not contain
petroleum liquid, since the  secondary
seal  is  required by  the standard to
cover the primary seal when the tank
is  in operation. The  gaps for the pri-
mary seal would be most easily  meas-
ured  during the  construction of the
tank before the secondary seal  is in-
stalled. If the owner or operator  chose
to do the measurements on the prima-
ry seal after the tank has been  filled
with petroleum liquid. It would be nec-
essary to empty the  tank and remove
the secondary seal. The secondary seal
gapa, on  the  other  hand, could  be
measured when the tank is filled with
petroleum liquid. The proposed stand-
ards would require that this perform-
ance test be repeated every five years.
  The proposed standards  would  re-
quire that the distance  between the
seals  and  the  tank wall  be measured
while the floating roof is placed at dif-
ferent levels. This could  be done by
putting different quantities of  water
into  the tank before the tank Is filled
with petroleum liquid. Measuring the
gaps at different levels is required  be-
cause the floating roof would be  locat-
ed at different levels while the tank la
in normal operation.  The proposed
standards would also require that the
gaps be measured around the circum-
ference of the tank. For each gap size,
the distances around the tank  which
have that gap size would need to  be ac-
cumulated. Gaps would be measured
with a probe having a diameter equiva-
lent  to one of the gap widths specified
in the  standard.  In the  process of
measuring  gaps,  those   gap  widths
which are between two sizes specified
in the standards  would be considered
equivalent to the larger of the two
sizes. For example, a gap between 0.32
cm (Vi In.) and 1.3 cm 
-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES
stems of the Act (Part C). These provi-
sions  require,  among  other  things.
that  major  emitting facilities  to  be
constructed  In  such areas are to  be
subject to best  available control tech-
nology for  all  pollutants  regulated
under the Act. The term "best availa-
ble control technology" (BACT), as de-
fined  in  section 168(3),  means "an
emission limitation based on the maxi-
mum degree of  reduction of each pol-
lutant subject to regulation under this
Act emitted  from  or  which  results
from  any  major  emitting   facility,
which the permitting authority, on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account
energy, environmental,  and economic
impacts and  other costs, determines is
achievable for  such facility through
application  of  production  processes
and available methods, systems, and
techniques, including fuel cleaning or
treatment or innovative fuel combus-
tion  techniques for control of each
such pollutant. In no event shall appli-
cation of 'best available control tech-
nology' result in emissions of any pol-
lutants which will  exceed the emis-
sions allowed by any applicable stand-
ard established  pursuant  to  section
111 or 112 of this Act."
  Standards  .of  performance  should
not be  viewed  as  the ultimate  in
achievable   emission   control  and
should not preclude the Imposition of
a more stringent emission  standard,
where appropriate. For example, while
cost of achievement may be an impor-
tant factor in determining standards
of performance  applicable to all areas
of the country (clean as well as dirty).
costs must be accorded far less weight
in determining the "lowest achievable
emission  rate"  for  new or  modified
sources locating in areas violating sta-
tutorily-mandated health and welfare
standards. Although  there  may  be
emission control technology  available
that can reduce emissions below those
levels  required to comply with stand-
ards of performance, this technology
might not be selected as the  basis of
standards of performance due to costs
associated with its use. This in no way
should preclude its use In situations
where cost la a lesser  consideration.
such  as determination of the "lowest
achievable emission rate."
  In addition. States are free  under
section 116 of the Act to establish even
more  stringent  emission limits than
those established under section 111 or
those  necessary to attain or maintain
the NAAQS  under section  110. Thus,
new sources may in some cases be sub-
ject to limitations more stringent than
standards  of  performance under sec-
tion 111,  and prospective owners and
operators  of  new  sources  should  be
aware of this possibility in  planning
for such facilities.
  Economic  impact  assessment:  An
economic impact assessment has been
prepared as required under section 317
of  the Act  and is  included  in  the
docket.

  Dated: May 2. 1978.

               DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
                     Administrator.

              RETERCNCKS
  (!', "Evaporation Loss from Floating Roof
Tanks," American Petroleum Institute Bul-
letin 2517, February 1962.
  <2> "Control of  Hydrocarbon Emission*
from Petroleum  Liquids."  EPA-600/2-7S-
042, September 1975.
  (3) "Control  ol Volatile Organic Emission*
from Existing Stationary Sources— Volume
1:  Control Methods  for  Surface— Coating
Operations," EPA-450/2-78-023, November
1976.
  (41 "Economic Impact of EPA's Regula-
tions on the Petroleum Refining Industry,"
EPA-2JO/ 13-76-004. Part  II. Section E,  p.
II -4.
  (5) "SOHIO/CBI Floating Roof Emission
Test Programs."  Final  Report.  Chicago
Bridge & Iron  Co., November 18, 1976.
  Cfi) "SOHIO/CBI floating roof  Emission
Test Program." Supplemental Report.  Chi-
cago Bridge & Iron Co., February 15. 1977.
  ( 7) "Western Oil  and Gas Association Me-
tallic Sealing Ring Emission Test Program."
Interim Report, Chicago  Bridge & Iron.
January 18, 1977.
  <«) Ball. D. A.. Putman. A. A, and Luce, R.
Q.. "Evaluation of Methods for Measuring
and  Controlling  Hydrocarbon  Emissions
from Petroleum Storage Tanks." U.S. EPA-
450/13-76-036. November 1976.
  «) "Hydrocarbon Emissions From Float-
ing Rool Storage Tanks." Prepared for the
Western Oil & Oas Association by Engineer-
ing-Science, Inc.. January 1977.
  (10) Western Oil and Oas Association Me-
tallic Sealing Ring Emission Test Program,
Supplemental  Report,  Chicago  Bridge  &
Iron. June 30, 1977.
  (Ji) Letter,  from Royce J. Laverman to
Mr. R. K. Burr. October 11, 1977.
  (12) "Financial and Economic Impacts of
Proposed  Standards  of  Performance for
New  Sources— Storage  Vessels for Petro-
leum Agency," Draft Report, Energy  and
Environmental Analysis, Inc., August 1977.
  It  is proposed  that 40  CFR Part 60
be amended  by  revising §60.11(a) of
Subpart  A,   by revising the heading
and  amending {§60.110 and 60.111 of
Subpart K, and by adding a new Sub-
part Ka as follows:
  1. §60.11(a) is revised to read as  fol-
lows:

§60.11  Compliance with standards  and
   maintenance requirements,
  (a)  Compliance with  standards  in
this  part, other than  opacity stand-
ards, shall be determined only by per-
formance tests established tfy §60.8.
unless  otherwise specified in the appli-
cable standard.
  2. The heading for Subpart
vised to read as follows:
                                is re-
Subpart K — Standard* of Performance for Slor-
  ogo VM»»!( for Petroleum Uquld* Con*frvct>
  •d Nor  to  (Dot* of Proposal  of ThoM
  Jf wtwQ rot }

  3.  Paragraphs  (cXl) and (c)(2)  of
§60.110 are revised to read as  follows:
                                        §60.110  Applicability and designation of
                                           affected facility.
                                          (c)• • •
                                          (1)  Has  a  capacity  greater  than
                                        151,416  liters (40,000 gallons), but not
                                        exceeding  246,052  liters (65.000 gal-
                                        lons), and commences construction  or
                                        modification after March 8, 1974, and
                                        prior to (date of  proposal of  these
                                        standards).
                                          (2)  Has  a  capacity  greater  than
                                        246.052 liters (65,000 gallons) and com-
                                        mences  construction or  modification
                                        after June  11. 1973, and prior to (date
                                        of proposal of these standards).
                                          4. Paragraph (c) of § 80.111 is revised
                                        to read as follows:

                                        §60.111  Definitions.
  (c) "Petroleum refinery" means any
facility engaged in producing gasoline,
kerosene,  distillate fuel  oils,  residual
fuel oils, lubricant, or other products
through  distillation of petroleum or
through  redistillation,  cracking, ex-
tracting,  or reforming  of unfinished
petroleum derivatives.

  5. A  new Subpart  Ka  Is added to
read as follows:

Sufcoort Ko—Standard* »f PwforaMiK* to tf*ra»»
  V»«wU to fOrelma  UauWt CaniHuctol M*  or
  After (Dot* of Proposal of TtwM Standard))
Sec.
60.110a  Applicability and designation of af-
    fected facility.
60.Ilia  Definitions.
60.112a  Standard (or hydrocarbons.
60.113a  Equivalent equipment.
60.1 Ha  Testing and  procedures.
60.116a  Monitoring of operations.

  AXTTHOIUTY: Sec. Ill, SOKa) of the  Clean
Air  Act  as  amended  (42  U.S.C.  7411,
7601
-------
                                               PROPOSED  RULES
0.0044kg/m«  (15 !b/in.'  gauge)  with-
out  emissions  to   the   Atmosphere
except under emergency conditions,
  (2)  Subsurface caverns  or porous
rock reservoirs, or
  (3) Underground tanks  if the total
volume of petroleum liquids added to
and taken from  a tank annually does
not exceed twice the volume of the
Unk.
  (b) "Petroleum liquids" means petro-
leum, condensate, and any finished or
Intermediate  products manufactured
In a petroleum refinery but  does not
mean Nos. 2  through 6  fuel oils as
specified In A.S.T.M. D396-69, gas tur-
bine fuel oils Nos. 2-OT through 4-OT
as specified  In A.S.T.M.  D2860-71, or
diesel fuel oils Nos. 2-D  and 4-D as
specified In A.^T.M. D975-68.
  (c) "Petroleum refinery" means any
facility engaged in producing gasoline,
kerosene, distillate  fuel oils, residual
fuel oils, lubricants,  or other products
through  distillation  of  petroleum or
through  redistillation,  cracking, ex-
tracting, or reforming of unfinished
petroleum derivatives.
  (d) "Petroleum" means the crude oil
removed from the earth and the oils
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
  
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
scribed In §60.112(a) shall be  deter-
mined as follows:
  (1)  The  owner or operator of any
storage vessel subject to this Subpart
which has an  external  floating roof
shall  meet the following requirements:
  (i)  Determine  the  gap  widths  be-
tween the primary seal and the tank
wall and  the secondary  seal and the
tank wall, and furnish the Administra-
tor with  a written report of the re-
sults. This shall de done either before,
or within  60 days  after,  the s.torage
vessel Is initially filled with petroleum
liquid, at least once every five  years
thereafter, and at other times as may
be  required  by  the   Administrator
under section 114 of the  Act. The gap
widths shall be determined according
to the following procedures:
  (A)  Measure the gaps at various roof
levels, including the lowest level  of the
roof legs, the maximum  roof height,
and   six  approximately   equidistant
points between  these two levels.
  CB)  Measure  the  gaps  continuously
around the circumference of the tank
and  determine the  accumulated dis-
tance for each gap width.
  (C)  Measure the gaps with probes of
diameter equal  to each gap width spec-
ified  in  §§60.112a(a)(l)   (i)(A) and
(ilKA). A gap is deemed to exist  under
the following conditions.
  (I) For  a primary seal,  the probe is
to touch  the liquid surface without
forcing, and
  (2) For a secondary seal, the probe is
to touch the  primary seal without
forcing.
  (D) Tabulate the gap  widths: gaps
less than or equal to 0.32 cm (Vs'in.)
are to be considered equivalent to 0.32
cm (Va in.), gaps greater than 0.32 cm
(Mi In.)  but less than or equal  to 1.3
cm. (Vi In.) are to be considered to be
equivalent to 1.3 cm O/z in.), and gaps
greater than 1.3 cm (Vi in.) but less
than or equal to 3.8 cm (1V4 in.)  are to
be considered equivalent to 3.8 cm UVz
In.).
  (il)  Provide  the  Administrator 30
days prior notice of the gap measure-
ment to afford the Administrator the
opportunity to  have  an observer pres-
ent.
  [Sec. 114 ol the Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414)3.

§60.115a.  Monitoring of operations.
  (a)  The  owner or operator of any
storage vessel  to which  this subpart
applies  shall for each storage  vessel
maintain a file of each type of  petro-
leum  liquid stored, of the  typical Reid
vapor pressure  of each type of  petro-
leum  liquid stored, and of the dates of
storage. Dates  on which  the  storage
vessel is empty shall be shown.
  (b)  The  owner or operator of any
storage vessel to which  this subpart
applies  shall for each-storage  vessel
determine  and  record  the  average
monthly storage temperature and true
vapor pressure of the petroleum liquid
stored at such temperature if:
  (1) The petroleum liquid has a true
vapor pressure, as stored, greater than
26 mm  Hg (0.5 psia)  but less than 78
mm  Hg  (1.5 psia) and  is stored in a
storage vessel other than one equipped
with an  external floating roof, an  in-
terval-floating-type cover, a vapor  re-
covery system or their equivalents; or
  (2) The petroleum liquid has a true
vapor pressure, as stored, greater than
470 mm Hg (9.1 psia) and Is stored in a
storage vessel other than one equipped
with a  vapor recovery  system or  Its
equivalent.
  (c)  The average  monthly  storage
temperature Is an arithmetic average
calculated for each calendar month, or
portion  thereof  if storage is  for less
than a month, from  bulk liquid  stor-
age temperatures  determined at  least
once every 7 days.
  (d) The true vapor pressure is to  be
determined  by the procedure In API
Bulletin  2517. This  procedure is de-
pendent  upon  determination of the
storage   temperature and  the   Reid
vapor pressure,  which  requires  sam-
pling of  the petroleum  liquids In the
storage vessels. Unless the Administra-
tor _requires in specific cases that the
stored  petroleum  liquid be  sampled,
the true vapor pressure may be deter-
mined by using  the average monthly
storage  temperature  and the typical
Reid vapor pressure. For those liquids
for which certified specifications limit-
ing the Reid vapor pressure exist, that
Reid vapor pressure may be used. For
other liquids,  supporting   analytical
data must be made  available on re-
quest to the Administrator when typi-
cal Reid vapor pressure is used.
  (e) In  order that the primary seal
may be  routinely inspected, the sec-
ondary seal  is to allow easy insertion
of probes up to  3.8 cm (IVi in.)  in di-
ameter  in at least four locations  to
measure  gaps in  the  primary seal on
storage vessels equipped with external
floating roofs.
  (Sec. 114 of  the Clean Air Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7414)).
 [FR. Doc. 78-13380 Piled 5-17-78; 8:45 am]
[6560-01]

            [40 CFR Par! 60]

             [FRL 895-41

  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
         STATIONARY SOURCES

  Public Hearing on Prapo>«d Slandardi for
     Petroleum Liquid Storage Vetteli

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection
Agency.

ACTION: Hearing on proposed rule.

SUMMARY:   This   document   an-
nounces a public hearing on the stand-
 ards  of performance  for  petroleum
 liquid storage  vessels which are pro-
 posed in this issue of the FEDERAL REG-
 ISTER.

 DATES:  Hearing  Date:  Wednesday.
 June 7,  1978. See  Supplementary In-
 formation for additional information.
 ADDRESSES:  Hearing held:   Room
 3906. Waterside  Mall,  401  M   Street
 SW.,  Washington.  D.C. See  Supple-
 mentary Information for additional in-
 formation.

 FOR  FURTHER    INFORMATION
 CONTACT:

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

 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 In accordance with  section 3.07(d)(5) of
 the Clean Air Act. a public hearing on
 the standards of performance for pe-
 troleum  liquid  storage vessels   which
 are proposed in this issue of the FED-
 ERAL REGISTER will  be held as follows:

 DATE: Wednesday, June 7, 1978.
 PLACE:  Room 3906, Waterside Mall,
 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C.
 TIME: 9:00 a.m.

 PURPOSE: Interested persons will be
 provided the opportunity for oral pres-
 entation of data, views, or arguments
 concerning the proposed standards of
 performance for petroleum liquid stor-
 age vessels. The hearing is open to the
 public.
  Persons wishing  to make oral pre-
 sentations, which will be limited to 15
 minutes each, or to  attend the hearing
 should notify EPA  by May 31 by con-
 tacting Ms. Mary  Jane Clark, Emission
 Standards  and Engineering Division
 (MD-13), U.S.  Environmental  Protec-
 tion Agency, Research Triangle  Park,
 N.C.  27711.  telephone 919-541-5271.
 Any member of the public may  file  a
 written  statement  with EPA  before,
 during,  or within  30  days  after the
 hearing. Written statements  should be
 addressed to Mr. Jack  R. Farmer at
the address above.
  A verbatim transcript of the hearing
 and written statements will  be availa-
ble  for public inspection and copying
during normal  working hours at the
U.S. Environmental Protection  Agen-
cy's   Public  Information  Reference
Unit.  Room 2922, Waterside Mall. 401
M Street SW., Washington, D.C.  20460
(Docket Number OAQPS-78-2).
  Dated: May 9. 1978.
               EDWARD F. Tmnuc,
    Acting  Assistant  Administrator
     for Air and  Waste  Manage-
      ment.
 CFR Doc. 78-13014 Piled 5-17-78; 8:45 am]
                               FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 97—THURSDAY, MAY IS, 1978
                                                V-K,Ka-ll
-------
                                             PROPOSED RULES
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             AGENCY

           [40 CFR Part 60]

            [FRL 870-6]

  STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
        STATIONARY SOURCES

   Storage V»n»li for PctroUum Liquids

            Correction

  In  FR Doc.  78-13380  appearing at
page 21616 In the issue for Thursday,
May 18, 1978. the date given for the
receipt of  comments  now  reading
"June  19.  1978"  should  have  read
"July 17.1978".
                             HDERAl RfcGISUR, VOL 43, NO. 101-WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1978
                                             V-K,Ka-12
-------
 ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
     AGENCY
 PRIMARY ALUMINUM
      INDUSTRY

Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources; Public
       Hearing

       SUBPART S
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

            (40 CFR Part 60]

              [FRL 915-5)

   STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
          STATIONARY SOURCES

        Primary Aluminum Industry

 AGENCY:  Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA).

 ACTION: Proposed rule  and notice of
 public hearing.

 SUMMARY:  The proposed  amend-
 ments would  require  primary alumi-
 num plant performance tests  to  be
 conducted at  least onco each month,
 allow  potroom emissions to  be above
 (.he level  of the current  standard (but
 not above a higher lirr.it  of 1.25 kg/Mg
 (2.5 lb/ton))  if  an owner or operator
 can establish  that the emission control
 system was properly operated at the
 time the  excursion above the current
 standard  occurred, revise the  refer-
 ence method  for determining fluoride
 emissions from potroom roof monitors,
 and clarify some provisions in the ex-
 isting  standard.  These  amendments
 are being proposed in response to ar-
 guments  raised   by  four  aluminum
 companies  who  filed   petitions  for
 review  of the standard of  perform-
 ance. The intended effect of the pro-
 posed  amendments is to account for
 the inherent variability of  fluoride
 emissions  from  the aluminum reduc-
 tion process and to require monitoring
 of fluoride emissions to  insure proper
 operation and maintenance of the pol-
 lution control systems.
   A public hearing will be held to pro-
 vide interested persons an opportunity
 for oral presentation of data, views, or
 arguments  concerning   tho  proposed
 standards.

 DATES:  Comments. Comments must
 be received on or  before  November 20,
 197B. Public hearing. The public hear-
 ing will  be held  on October 16, 1978,
 beginning at  9:30 a.m. and ending at
 4:30 p.m.  Request to speak at hearing.
 Persons wishing to attend the hearing
 or present oral testimony should con-
 tact EPA  by October 11.  1978.

 ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments
 should  be  submitted   to  Jack   R.
 Farmer.  Chief,   Standards  Develop-
 ment   Branch    (MD-13).   Emission
 Standards and  Engineering  Division,
 Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
 search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711.
.   Public hearing.  The public hearing
 wilt be held at Waterside Mall.  Room
 3906, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
 D.C. 20460. Persons wishing to present
 oral  testimony  should  notify  Mary
 Jane Clark.  Emission Standards and
 Engineering  Division (MD-13), Envi-
ronmental   Protection  Agency.  Re-
search Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, tele-
phone 919-541-5271.
  Standard  support  document.  The
support  document  for  the proposed
amendments may be  obtained  from
the U.S. EPA  Library  (MD-35), Re-
search Triangle Park. N.C. 27711, tele-
phone 919-541-2777.  Please  refer  to
Primary  Aluminum Background Infor-
mation: Proposed Amendments (EPA-
450/2-78-025a).
  Docket.   The   docket,    number
OAQPS-78-10.  is available for public
inspection  and copying  at  the EPA
Central Docket Section (A-130), Room
2903B, Waterside Mall. 401  M Street
SW., Washington. D.C. 20460.
FOR   FURTHER   INFORMATION
CONTACT:
  Don R. Goodwin. Director. Emission
  Standards and Engineering Division
  (MD-13), Environmental  Protection
  Agency,  Research  Triangle  Park,
  N.C. 27711. telephone 919-541-5271.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

       PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

  It is proposed to amend Subpart S—
Standards of Performance for Primary
Aluminum  Plants by  requiring  that
performance tests  be performed  at
least once each month during the life
of an  affected  facility. Previously, per-
formance tests were required  only  as
provided in 40  CFR 60.8(a) (i.e.. within
60 days after achieving the maximum
production rate, but not later than 180
days after initial start- up and at other
times as may  be  required by  the Ad-
ministrator  under section 114 of the
Clean  Air Act). The  proposed amend-
ments would also allow potroom emis-
sions  to be above the level of the cur-
rent standard (0.95 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton)
for prebake plants and 1.0 kg/Mg (2.0
lb/ton) for Soderberg plants),  but not
above  1.25 kg/Mg (2.5 lb/ton),  if an
owner or operator can establish  that
the emission control system was prop-
erly operated  and maintained at the
time the excursion above the  current
standard occurred. Emissions may not
be above 1.25 kg/Mg under any condi-
tion.  Other amendments  would (1)
clarify Reference  Method  14  proce-
dures; (2) clarify the definition of "po-
troom group;"  (3) replace English and
metric units of measure with  the In-
ternational System of  Units  (SI); (4)
allow  the owner or operator of a new
facility to apply to the Administrator
for an exemption from the monthly
testing requirement  for primary and
anode bake plant emissions;  and (5)
clarify the procedure  for determining
the rate of aluminum  production for
fluoride emission calculations.

            BACKGROUND

  A standard of performance for new
primary aluminum plants was promul-
gated  on January  26.  li)7(i (41  FH
3826), and shortly thereafter petitions
for review wore filod by four U.S. alu-
minum companies. The principal argu-
ment raised  by  the  petitioners was
that the standard  was too .striui.'cm
and could not be consistently complied
with by modern, well-controlled  facili-
ties. (Facilities which commenced con-
struction prior to October 23. 1974. are
not affected by the standard.) Follow-
ing  discussions  with  the  petitioning
aluminum companies. EPA conducted
an  emission test program at the Ana-
conda Aluminum Co. plant in Scbree.
Ky. The Sebree  plant is the newest.
primary aluminum plant in the United
States,   and   its  emisssion  control
system conforms with  what EPA has
defined  as   the best  technological
system of continuous emission  reduc-
tion for new facilities. The  purpose of
the test program was to aid EPA in its
reevaluation  of  the standard by  ex-
panding  the emission data base. The
test results were available in August, of
1977 and indicated that there is some
probability that the result of  a per-
formance test conducted at a modern.
well-controlled  plant would be above
the  existing standard.  EPA has  con-
cluded that this justifies revising the
standard.

             RATIONALE

  EPA's decision to amend the existing
standard is based primarily on the re-
sults of the Sebree  test program. The
test results may  be summarized as fol-
lows: (1) The measured emissions were
variable,  ranging from 0.43  to 1.37 kg/
Mg (0.85 to 2.74  lb/ton) for single test
runs; and (2) emission variability ap-
peared to be inherent  in the produc-
tion process and beyond the control of
plant  personnel. Since  the  Sebree
plant represents the latest  technology
for the aluminum industry, EPA  ex-
pects that new  plants covered by the
standard may  also exhibit emission
variability.
  An  analysis performed by  EPA on
the  results  of  the  nine Sebree test
runs indicates that there is about an 8-
percent probability that  a perform-
ance  test would  violate  the current
standard. (A  performance  test  is de-
fined in 40 CFR 60.8(f) as the arithme-
tic  mean of three separate test  runs.
except in situations  where a run must
be discounted or canceled and the Ad-
ministrator approves using the arith-
metic mean of two runs.) The petition-
ers have estimated  chances of viola-
tion ranging from about 2.5 to 10 per-
cent. Although the Sebree data base is
not large enough! to permit a  thor-
ough statistical  analysis, EPA believes
It is adequate to  demonstrate a need
for revising the current standard.
  EPA considered a number  of possible
solutions to the -emission  variability
problem Including raising the level of
                             FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 43, NO. 182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                                    V-S-2
-------
                                                PROPOSED  RULES
 the current  standard, allowing a cer-
 tain  number  of  monthly  tests  to
 exceed the current standard based on
 an expected  failure rate, and specify-
 ing an equipment standard in place of
 the current  emission standard.  These
 and other possible solutions were  re-
 jected because they did not satisfy the
 following criteria:  The revised  stand-
 ard  (1) must be  enforceable, (2) must
 provide  for  the  variability  of  emis-
 sions, and (3) must not allow emission
 levels  to  be  higher than  indicated by
 the  Sebree plant, which  employs the
 best system of emission reduction.
  The solution  EPA  proposes  is  to
 amend Subpart S to  allow a perform-
 ance Lest to  be above  the  current
 standard  provided the owner or  opera-
 tor submits  to EPA  a report  clearly
 demonstrating that the emission con-
 trol  system was properly operated and
 maintained  during   the  excursion
 above  Die standard. The report would
 be  used  as  evidence  that  the  high
 emission  level  resulted from  random
 and  uncontrollable emission variabil-
 ity, and  that the emission variability
 was entirely  beyond the control  of the
 owner or operator of the affected  fa-
 cility. Under no circumstances,  howev-
 er,  would performance  test  results  be
 allowed above 1.25 kg/Mg (2.5 Ib/ton).
 EPA  believes that emissions from  a
 plant equipped with  the proper con-
 trol system which is properly operated
 and  maintained  would  be below 1.25
 kg/Mg at all  times.
  Within  15  days of receipt of the re-
 sults of a performance test which fall
 between the  current standard and 1.25
 kg/Mg. the owner or operator of the
 affected  facility would be require*! to
 submit a  report  to the Enforcement
 Division  of the appropriate EPA Re-
 gional Office indicating that all  neces-
 sary control  devices were on-line and
 operating  properly  during  the per-
 formance  test,  describing the  oper-
 ation and maintenance procedures fol-
 lowed, and setting forth any explana-
 tion for the  excess emissions. EPA re-
 quests comments on additional criteria
 to be used by the Regional Offices to
 determine whether the control devices
 were  properly  operated and   main-
 tained during the performance test.
  The  proposed  amendments   would
 also require,  following the initial per-
 formance test required under 40 CFR
 60.8(a), additional performance testing
 at least once each month during the
 life  of  the  affected  facility.  During
 visits to existing plants, EPA person-
nel have  observed  that  the  emission
control systems are not always operat-
 ed and maintained as well as possible.
EPA believes that good operation and
maintenance  of control systems Is es-
sential and expects the monthly test-
ing requirement  to help achieve this
 goal. The Administrator has the au-
thority under section  114 of the  Clean
 Air Act to require additional testing if
 necessary.
  It is important  to  emphasize  that
 the  following  operating  and  mainte-
 nance procedures  are exemplary  of
 good control of emissions and should
 be implemented at all times: (I) Hood
 covers should  fit properly and  be  in
 good repair; (21 if equipped with an ad-
 justable  air damper system, the hood
 exhaust rate for individual pots should
 be increased whenever hood covers are
 removed  from &  pot (the  exhaust
 system should not  be overloaded by
 placing too  many pots  on  high  ex-
 haust); (3)  hood covers should be re-
 placed as soon as possible after each
 potroom  operation; (4)  dust entrain-
 ment should be minimized during ma-
 terials handling operations and sweep-
 ing of the working aisles; (5) only tap-
 ping crucibles  with  functional aspira-
 tor air return  systems (for  returning
 gases  under the  collection  hooding)
 should be used;  and (61  the primary
 control system should be  regularly in-
 spected and properly maintained. EPA
 believes  that  the  proposed  amend-
 ments are clearly achievable provided
 the  control  system  is  properly de-
 signed and  installed and, as a  mini-
 mum,  the six procedures noted above
 are emplemenled.
  The  proposed  amendments  affect
 not only prebake designs,  such as the
 Sebree plant,   but  also  Soderberg
 plants. Available  data   for  existing
 plants indicate that  Soderberg  and
 prebake plants have similar emission
 variability. Thus.  EPA feels justified
 in extrapolating its conclusions about
 the Sebree prebake plant to  cover So-
 derberg designs. Ill is unlikely that any
 new  Soderberg  plant will  be  built due
 to the high cost of emission  control
 for these designs.  However,  existing
 Soderberg plants may be modified to
 such  an  extent that  they would be
 subject to these regulations.
  Under  the   proposed  amendments
 anode  bake plants would be subject to
 the monthly testing requirement, but
 emissions  would not be allowed under
 any  circumstances to be above  the
 level of the current bake  plant stand-
 ard.  Since there  Is  no evidence that
 bake plant emissions are as variable as
 potroom emissions, there is no need to
 excuse  excursions  above the  bake
 plant standard.
  The  proposed  amendments  would
 allow the  owner or operator  of a new
 plant to  apply to the Administrator
 for  an exemption from the  monthly
 testing requirement for  the primary
control system and the  anode  bake
plant. EPA believes that the testing of
these systems  as often as once  each
month may  be  -unreasonable  given
that  (1) The contribution  of primary
fend bake plant emissions  to  the  total
emission   rate  is  minor,  averaging
about 2.5  and 5 percent, respectively:
 (2) primary  and bake plant emissions
 are much less variable than secondary
 emissions; and (3) the cost of primary
 and bake plant emissions sampling is
 high.  An application to the Adminis-
 trator for an exemption  from monthly
 testing would  be  required  to  include
 (11  evidence  that the  primary  and
 bake plajH emissions have low variabil-
 ity: (2) an alternative testing schedule;
 and (3) a representative value  for pri-
 mary emissions to be used in total flu-
 oride emission calculations.
   EPA  estimates the costs associated
 with monthly  performance testing to
 average about S4.000 for primary tests.
 $5.000 for  secondary  tests, and $4.000
 for bake plant  tests. These  estimates
 assume that (1) Testing  would be  per-
 formed by  plan!,  personnr!; (2> each
 monthly performance test would con-
 sist of  the average of 3  24-hour runs:
 (3) samptinc would  be performed by
 two crews  working 13-hour shifts:  (4)
 primary  control   system   sampling
 would be performed at a single point
 in the  stack; and (5)  Sebree mhouse
 testing costs would  be representative
 of average costs for otlier new plants.
 Although these assumptions may not
 hold  for all situations.  EPA believes
 they  provide a representative estimate
 of what testing costs would be for new-
 plants.
   Also  amended Is the procedure for
 determining the rate of aluminum pro-
 duction. Previously, the rate was based
 on the  weight of metal tapped during
 the  test period. However,  since  the
 weight  of  metal  tapped  does  not
 always equal the weight  of metal pro-
 ducexl.  undertapping or  overlapping
 during a test period would result in er-
 roneous porduction   rates.  EPA  be-
 lieves It would be  more reasonable to
 judge  the  weight  of  metal produced
 according to  the  average weight  of
 metal  tapped during  a 30-day  period
 (720 hours) prior to and including  the
 test date.  The 3-day  period  would
 allow for overtapping and  undertap-
 ping  to average out.  and  this would
 give a more  accurate estimate  of  the
 true production rate.
  Other amendments would (1) clarify
 the  definition  of  potroom  group  to
 cover situations where two  potroom
 segments are dueled to a common con-
 trol system; (2) incorporate use of  the
 International  System  of  Units (SI):
 and (3) make minor editorial changes
 in the regulations.

             METHOD 14
  The proposed amendments to  Refer-
ence Method  14 would update the test
method to  reflect EPA's  experiences
at the Sebree test program. Also, the
amendments  would make Method 14
consistent  with recent  revisions  of
Methods 1  through 8 (42 FR 41754)
The Intended effect  ol  the proposed
amendments is to clarify testing proce
                            KOCRAL RCOUTtt, VOL. 43, NO. 112—TUESDAY, SEFTEMU* )9, 197*
                                                       V-S-3
-------
                                                PROPOSED RULES
dures and to Improve the reliability of
the test method.
  The principal amendments would be
as follows: (1)  More detailed anemo-
meter  specifications and  calibration
procedures would be delineated; (2) a
performance  check  of each  anemo-
meter and each recorder (or counter)
would be required following each test
series (I.e.. following  each series of test
runs as  required  for  a performance
test under 40 CFR 60.8(f»; (3) data ad-
justment procedures would  be  includ-
ed for anemometers  and recorders (or
counters)  that fail  the performance
check; (4) to  be consistent with  the
new definition  of   "potroom  group"
more specific guidelines would be  In-
cluded for both  the location  of  the
sampling  manifold  and the number
and location of the  propeller anemo-
meters;   (5)  for  convenience, each
Method 14 test run could be divided
into "sub-runs"; (6) the use of  a sepa-
rate Method 13 train for each sub-run
would be  allowed, provided that  the
sampling  nozzle size for all trains  is
the same; (7) a procedure would be in-
cluded  for  calculating  the fluoride
concentration  when more  than  one
sampling train is used; (8)  the tester
would be  allowed greater freedom as
to the method  by which velocity esti-
mates are made for setting Isoklnetic
flow; (9) the limits  of acceptable  iso-
kinetic results  would be more  clearly
defined, and a data adjustment proce-
dure  would  be  included  for cases
where  the results  are outside these
limits; (10) the number and location of
points  for the  Method 13 sampling
runs would be determined according to
the revised Method 1; (11) the use of a
Type S pltot tube for making manifold
Intake nozzle  adjustments  would  be
disallowed; (12) the  use of a differen-
tial pressure gauge conforming to the
specifications of the revised Method 2
would be required for manifold intake
nozzle velocity measurements; and (13)
calibration of the thermocouple would
be  required  after   each  test  series,
using the procedure  outlined in the re-
vised Method 2.
  Due to the complexity of the amend-
ments,  the entire   test method  has
been rewritten  and is presented in re-
vised form.

           PUBLIC HEARING

  A public hearing will be held to dis-
cuss the proposed standards in  accord-
ance with section  307(d)(5)   of  the
Clean  Air Act.  Persons wishing  to
make oral presentations  should con-
tact EPA at' the address above. Any
member of the public may file a writ-
ten  statement  with  EPA   before,
during,  or within 30  days after  the
hearing. Written statements should be
addressed to Mr. Jack R. Farmer at
the address above.
  A verbatim transcript of the hearing
and written statements will be availa-
ble for public Inspection and copying
during normal working hours at EPA's
Central Docket Section in Washing-
ton, D.C. (address same as above).

           MISCELLANEOUS

  The docket is an organized and com-
plete  file of all the Information sub-
mitted to or otherwise considered  by
EPA in the development of this rule-
making. The principal purposes of the
docket are (1) to allow members of the
public and industries involved to  iden-
tify and participate in the  rulemaking
process, and (2) to serve as the record
for Judicial review. The docket is  re-
quired under section 307(d)  of the
Clean  Air Act, as  amended,  and  is
available  for public inspection and
copying at the address above.
  The  proposed  amendments would
not alter the applicability date of Sub-
part S.  Subpart S applies to all new
primary  aluminum  plants for which
construction or  modification began
after the original proposal  date (Octo-
ber 23, 1974).
  As prescribed by section 111 of the
Clean  Air Act,  promulgation  of the
original standard of performance (41
FR 3826)  was preceded by  the Admin-
istrator's  determination that  primary
aluminum  plants  contribute  signifi-
cantly to air pollution which causes or
contributes  to the  endangerment  of
public health or welfare.  In accord-
ance with section 117 of the act, publi-
cation of the original proposed stand-
ard (39 FR  37739)  was preceded  by
consultation with appropriate advisory
committees, independent experts, and
Federal  departments   and  agencies.
The Administrator will welcome  com-
ments on all aspects of the proposed
regulation,  Including  economic  and
technological  issues, and  on the  re-
vised test method.
  It should be noted that standards of
performance for new  sources estab-
lished under section 111 of the Clean
Air Act reflect:
  CTlhe degree of emission limitation and
the   percentage   reduction    achievable
through application of  the best technologi-
cal system of continuous emission reduction
which (taking Into consideration the cost of
achieving   such  emission  reduction, any
nonalr  quality  health  and environmental
impact and energy requirements)  the Ad-
ministrator determines  has been adequately
demonstrated (section lll(a)(D.)
  Although  there may be  emission
control technology available that can
reduce emissions below those levels re-
quired to  comply with  standards  of
performance,  this technology might
not be selected as the basis of stand-
ards of performance due to costs asso-
ciated with its use. Accordingly, stand-
ards  of  performance  should  not  be
viewed as the  ultimate in achievable
emission control. In fact, the  act re-
quires (or has potential for  requiring)
the  Imposition  of  a more stringent
emission  standard  in  several  situa-
tions.
  For example, applicable costs do not
necessarily play as prominent a role in
determining  the  "lowest  achievable
emission rate"  for new or  modified
sources  located  In  nonattainment
areas, i.e., those areas where statutorl-
ly-mandated health and welfare stand-
ards are being violated. In this respect,
section 173 of the act requires that a
new or modified source constructed in
an  area  which  exceeds the National
Ambient   Air   Quality   Standard
(NAAQS) must reduce emissions  to
the  level  which reflects  the "lowest
achievable emission  rate" (LAER), as
defined in section 171(3), for such cat-
egory  of source. The  statute  defines
LAER as that rate of emissions which
reflects:
  
-------
                                                WIOPOSED  RULES
ly.  new sources may in some  cruses be
subject to limitations  more stringent
than  KPA'.s standard:;  of  performance
under section  111. and  prospective
owners aiui operators  of  new sources
should be aware of this possibility in
planning for such facilities.
  The major costs incurred by the pro-
posed ajiiend.-m'ni.s  are a.riatcd with
the periodic emission  testing require-
ment. KPA  believes that  these  costs
are reasonable and  would  have a negli-
gible  impact  on: (1)  Potential  in/la-
tioiKuy  or  recessionary  effects;  (2)
compi lit;<'M with resjiee; ;o small busi-
ness;   !3i  consumer  costs:   and   (4)
energy use.  The Aclrnini.strator has de-
termined  thai  the  proposed amend-
ments are  not ''.substantial" ar.d do
nol require  preparation of an Econom-
ic Impact Assessment.

  Dated September 8. 1978.

               Doi'Gi.A? M COSTI.E.
                    Administrator.

  It is proposed to  amend Part  60 of
Chapter I. Title 40 of the Code of Fed-
eraa Regulations as follows:

      Subport A—Generol Provision!

  1. Section  60.8 is  amended hy  revis-
ing paragraph  (d) to read as follows:

§ fill.S  Performance tests.
  >d) The owner or operator of  an af-
fected  facility  shall  provide  the  Ad-
ministrator 30 days prior notice of any
performance  test,  except as specified
under  other  subparts.  to afford  the
Administrator the  opportunity to have
observers present.
  Subpart S—Standard* of Performance for
         Primary Aluminum PlanU

  2. Section 60.191  is amended by  de-
leting  paragraph (i)  and by  revising
paragraphs  and (f) as follows:

§60.191  Definitions.
  (d) ' Potrooin  group" means an un-
controlled polroom.  a potroom which
is controlled individually, or a group of
potrooms or polroom segments ducted
to a common control system.
  (f) "Aluminum equivalent" means an
amount of  aluminum  which can  be
produced  from a  Mg  of  anodes pro-
duced by an anode bake plant as deter-
mined by §60.195:"
  (g) By  adding new  paragraphs (a)
 and  (b). and by revising  rcde:s:gnated
 paragraph (f) as follows:

 § 60.195 Test methods and procedure*.
  (a) Following  the  initial  perform-
 ance test as required under §60.8'a>. an
 owner or operator shall conduct a per-
 formance  test  at  least  once  each
 month during the life of the affected
 facility, except when malfunction pre-
 vent representative  sampling,  as  pro-
 vided under § 60.8
-------
                                                     PROPOSED RULES
through several large nozzles. The sample is
transported  from the sampling manifold (o
ground level through a duct. The gas in the
duct is sampled using Method 13A or 13B—
Determination of Total Fluoride Emissions
from Stationary Sources.  Effluent velocity
and  volumetric  flow  rate  are  determined
with anemometers permanently  located in
the roof monitor.
  1.2  Applicability—This  method is appli-
cable for the determination of fluoride emis-
sions  from  stationary  sources  only when
specified by the test procedures for deter-
mining  compliance with  new source  per-
formance standards.
  2. Apparatus.
  2.1  Velocity measurement apparatus.
  2.1.1  ylm'Tnomeffrs-Propt'ller     anemo-
meters,  or  equivalent.  Each  anemometer
shall meet the  following specifications: (1)
Its propeller shall be  made  of polystyrene.
or similar material of  uniform  density. To
Insure  uniformity of  performance  among
propellers, it is desirable thai all propellers
be made from the same mold: (2) the propel-
ler shall be properly balanced,  to optimize
performance; (3) when  the  anemometer is
mounted horizontally. Its threshold velocity
shall not exceed 15 m/mln <50 fpm); (4) the
measurement  range  of the  anemometer
shall extend to  at least 600 m/min (2.000
fpm); C5)  the anemometer shall  be  able to
withstand prolonged  exposure to dusty and
corrosive  environments: one way of achiev-
ing this Is to continuously purge the bear-
Ings of the anemometer  with  filtered air
during operation;  (6)  all anemometer com-
ponents shall  be  properly shielded  or  en-
cased, such that the performance of the an-
emometer is uninfluenced by potroom mag-
netic field effects; (7) a known relationship
shall  exist  between  the  electrical  output
signal from  the  anemometer generator and
the propeller  shaft  rpm. at minimum of
three rpm  settings  between 60  and  1800
rpm; note that one of the three rpm settings
shall be within  25 percent of 60 rpm. Ane-
mometers having other types of output sig-
nals (e.g., optical) may be used, subject to
the appoval of the Administrator. If other
types of anemometers  are used, there must
still be a known relationship (as described
above)  betveen output  .sifci.al  and  .-.iir.fi.
rpm:  also,  each   anemometer  must  bo
equipped with  a .•suitable readout system.
  2 1.2  Installation of anemometers- 2.1.2.1
If the affected facility consists of a  single.
isolated potroom (or potroom segment), in-
stall  at  Icasl one anemometer for every 85
meters of roof  monitor length.  If the  length
of the roof monitor divided by 85 meters is
not a whole number, round the fraction 10
the nearest whole number to determine the
number of  anemometers  needed. For moni-
tors that are less than 130 m  in length, use
at least  two anemometers. Divide  the moni
tor cross-sort ion into as many  equal arras as
anemometers and locate  an anrmnmefr at
the centroid of each equal area
  2 1.2.2  If the affected  facility consists of
two  or  more  potrooms  (or  potroom  seg-
ments) dueled to a  common control device.
install anemomelers In  each  potroom  (or
segment) that  contains  a  sampling  man!
fold.  Install at lea-st  one anemometer  for
every 85 meters of  roof  monitor  length of
the potroom (or segment). If  the potroom
(or segment) length divided by 85 is not a
whole number, round  the  fraclion to the
nearest  whole  number  to determine the
number of  anemomelers  needed. If ihe po-
troom (or segment) lenpth  is less  than 130
m, use &l least two anemometers. Divide the
potroom (or segment) monitor cross-seciion
into  as  many  equal areas as anemometers
and locate  an  anemometer at the centroid
of each equal area.
  2.1.2.3  At least one-anemometer shall be
installed In the immediate  vicinity  (i.e..
within 10 m) of the center of the  manifold
(see §2.2.1). Make a velocity traverse of the
width of the roof monitor where an anemo-
meter is to be  placed. This traverse may be
made with  any suitable low velocity measur-
ing device,  and shall be made during normal
process  operating conditions. Install the an-
emometer  at  a point  of average velocity
along this traverse.
  2.1.3  Recorders— Recorders.      equipped
with  suitable  auxiliary  equipment  (e.g.
transducers)  for  converting   the output
signal from each anemometer  to a continu-
ous recording  of air flow velocity, or to an
integrated  measure of volumetric  flowrate.
For thr jii:; pels'- uf recording veioc:i;..  re:!
linuous ' shall  mean  one rcariou'  per  IS-
minute  or shorter tune initrva!.  A con-ian!
amount of time shall elapse between road
inns.  Volumetric f:ou  rate  may be deter
mined by an electrical count of anrmomcir-r
revolutions. The recorders or counters shall
permit  Identification  of the  velocities or
flow rate measured by each individual  am-
momeler.
  2.1.4  Pilot   tube—Standard-type   pitni
lube,  as described in § 2.7 of Method 2. and
having a coefficient of 0 99 •_ 0.01.
  2.1.5  Pilot   tube  loptionall— Isolated.
Type  S pilot tube,  as described  in $2.1 of
Method  2. The pilot lubi   shall  ha- c  a
known coefficient, determined a.s  ou;linr-d in
§4.1 of Method  2.
  2.1.6  Differential   pressure   gaiiQi:-\n
clined  manometer  or  equivalent, as  de
scribed In § 2.2 of Method 2.
  2.2  Roof  monitor air sampling *wlr>ii
2.2.1   Sampling ditclvork--A  minimum of
one manifold system  shall be installed for
each 'potroom group' (as defined  in Subpa.M
S. §60.191).  The manifold system  and  con
norting  duct shall be permanently installed
to draw an air sample from the roof monitor
to ground  level. A typical  installation ol
duct for drawing a sample from a roof moni-
tor lo ground level is  shown in figure 14-1
A  plan of a manifold system that' is located
in a  roof monitor  is shown  in figure 14 2.
These drawings represent a typical installa-
tion for a generalized  roof monitor  The di-
mensions on  these  figures may  be altered
slightly to make the manifold  system fit
into a particular roof  monitor, but the  gen-
eral configuration shall  be followed. There
shall be eight nozzles, each having a diame-
ter of 0.40  to 0.50 melers. Unless otherwise
specified by ihe Administrator,  iht-  length
of the manifold system from the  first nozzle
to the eife'hth shall be  35 meters or eight
percent of the length of the polroom tor po-
troom segment) roof monitor,  whichever is
greater. The duct leading from the roof
monitor manifold shall be round  with a di-
ameter of 0.30  to 0.40 melers.  As shown in
figure 14-2. each of the sample legs  of  the
manifold shall have a device, such as a blast
gate or  valve, to enable  adjustment of flow
into each sample nozzle.
                                FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO.  182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19,  1978
                                                              v-s-o
-------
                                                                                                 SAMPLE
                                                                                                MANIFOLD
                                                                                               W/8NOZZLES
                                                                                                                          ROOF MONITOR
                                                                          SAMPLE EXTRACTION
                                                                                DUCT
                                                                               35 cm I.D.
 I
u:
 I
                                                                                          SAMPLE PORTS IN
                                                                                           VERTICAL DUCT
                                                                                         SECTION AS SHOWN
                                                                                             7.5cmDIA.
                                                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                                 V*
                        EXHAUST BLOWER
                                                         Figure 14-1. Roof monitor sampling system.
                                                   FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 182—TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER 19. 1978
-------
                              PROPOSED RULES
DIMENSIONS IN METERS
    NOT TO SCALE
                                          t
                                         0.15
                                                      .0.45.
                                                       I.D.
               Figure 14-2. Sampling manifold and nozzles.
             FEDEXAl REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO 182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                  V-S-8
-------
                                                         PROPOSED RULES
  The manifold shall be located  in  the  im
medial vicinity of one of the propeller ane-
mometers (see § U.I.2.3) and as rlc-se us puss;
ble to the mid>eolion of the potroom (or po
troom segment).  Avoid  loea'inK  the  mam
fold near the rnd of a potroom or in a .sec-
tion where  the aluminum reduction  pot ar-
rangement  is not iypica:  of the rest of  the
potroom  (or pot room sequent) Cer.ter  the
sample nozzles in the  throat  of HIP ronf
monitor (see fig  14  1). Const run nil  sample-
exposed surfaces within the nozzles,  rr.ani-
fold and  sample duct of 31(i stainless steel.
Aluminum may  be used if a ,ievv  duel work
system is conditioned  with fluoride laden
roof monitor air  for a  period  of SIN weeks
prior to initial testing  Oilier  rn.Vci lais  of
construction  may  be used  if  it  is  demon
strated through  comparative  tesiin;: that
there is no loss  of fluondcs in !he  svslern
All connections  in  the  ductwork shall   be
leak free.
  Locate two  sample ports in a vertical sec
lion of the duct between the  roof monitor
and cxhaus; (an. The sample ports shall  be
at least  10 duct  diamec-rs downstream and
three  diameters upstream  from  any flou
disturbance such as  a  bend or contraction.
The two  sample ports  shall be situated  90
apart. One of (he sample ports  shall be situ
atcd .so that the duel can be traversed in the
plane of the nearest upstream duct bend.
  2.2.2  Exhaust  fen — An industrial  fan  or
blower shall  be attached to the sample duct
at ground level (see fip. 14-1). This exhaust
fan shall have a capacity such that a larpe
enough volume of air can be pulled through
the ductwork to maintain an isokinetic sain
pling rate in  all the sample nozzles  for all
flo* rales normally encountered in the roof
monitor.
  The exhaust  fan  volumetric  flow rate
shall  be adjustable so that the  roof monitor
air can  be  drawn  isokmencally  inlo the
sample nozzles. This  control of flow may  be
achieved by a damper on the inlet to the ex-
hauster or by any other  workable method.
  2.3  Temperature   measurement  appara-
tus. 2.3.1  TlirrrnocoMple—Install  a thermo-
couple in the roof monitor near the sample
duct.  The thermocouple  shall  conform  to
the  specifications  outlined  in  § 2 ,'t  of
M.-ihml 2
  '2T.2  Sic'Mi/ 7'.r:tis((:rtTT---Tr;\nsd'K-er. to
char.iie M.i" t IHT rni irmipii' vulta^c output to
a ' eri|>, i al \jre I ca; lout
  J 3 :i  7''ir."Wi«-i'!i;nV  H'jrr.-To  reach from
roof monitor tn signal transducer and  re-
Cl'.'ih I
  '2 .'t -3  AYi\'i-''eVr  ?i;r.able recorder to mon-
i'or  ihr  ceiiput  Iron;  the  thermocouple
signal  irar.Mi'.icer
  -' -1   .S'i.r»ij>:'"ii.'  lr;,'.<
  ;< 1   .S'(:iii;..'i'.-v' ami c'lalvsif  t'se reagents
de.-rnbecl ;:i Method UA or 13B
  •1  ('t;/;fm;<'iofj
  4 I   /';.:-j>n':',-r  nur>':o»irrcrs.  4  II  Initial
Ofi.'i.'/.-!:?;,! ii  Anemometers which meet the
Sl'ecific;rio::s outlined  in §211 need nol be
rahbiated. proudrd  that  a reliable perform-
aiiec   curve  relaunc  anemometer   signal
output lo ,-._: \, loritv H'overniB the velocity
raive  of ir.:' r:•-:;  is  available  from the man-
ufadur'i  f e.r the purposes of this method.
a "relialile" pc; fdrinance curve is defined a->
one  tl'.at  h.as been  derived  from primary
standard cahbratu.Mi  data, with  the anemo-
meter  moun'.ed  v i^r'. :c.il!v  "Primary  stand-
aril" data are obtainable by. U)  Direct cali-
bration n:  one or  more of the anemometers
by the N.i:ion*'if  B:jrca;; of Standard.s f.\BS>.
'2i N'EiS-traceabh  ralibration: or-,3) Calibra-
tion b\ direct measureir.ent of fundamen'.al
pHrarn< lers such, a^s length and time .per-
ideation No. 71. and  mea.-ui ::IM  :l.e  ou'put
sii:nal at  each seU;;u:   II.  at eaeh siitmf!.
tlie output signal is wit Inn  • .S pc rc-r;i'. of i!.s
oricmal value, the anc-moir,'•;• r  c :m  rort:)!-
ue to be used  If the  anernoriK !'T  C" r.'orm
ance  is  unsatisfac lory,  the  ant c-.iiiv.eU'r
shall  either be replaced or rcpai-'-d
  4 !  2.2 Check the  propeller condition. t>\
visually '.nspec'.JMc  the  proic !li r.  makiHK
:io;e  of ar.v  sit;:-.:?ii-anl (i.i':iat:i  -.••'' w ;;rp;\i>e.
damaged or (lefon;:ici  r.roj;* li--r- >!iali Oe it-
placed.

  41.2.3 Cheek the anemoi::."ii-r  ' :-.resl,.,ii:
velocity a,s iollows  \V;:h  tin  ar,.-::iomi-;i r
mounted as shown in f inure  14  -1  A   fa.iie''.
a  k:io«n  wpiph; (a slra.'i,'.'!:  ;>::i  u:!i  >,i//ice-
tc) the am mometer propeiiei. a', a  fixed di>
lance from ;he c-enter  of the prop'-ller shall
This will generate a known tore,•-..>-.  for ex-
ample, a 0.1 p weight, placed 1'1 c;v. frrni th--
center of the sl-.af'.. will tteiierate a '.Mrci.ie of
1.0 gem.  If the known  torc.-ur causes ih<'
propeller to rotate downward, r.ppruxur.ate-
ly 90  (see  fip.  14-4.B'!. il-.en  the  known
lorouo is Rreaier than or equal  to  the star!
ing torque; if  the propeller  fails  to  rotate
approximately 90 . the know;-, tore,up is IPSS
than the starting torque. F3> t.'-vi:it; differ
ent  combinations of  \ieti;hi and  distance.
the st.irtinc torque  of a particular  anemo
meter can be satisfactorily estimaicd Once
an estimate of the starting torciue  has been
obtained, the threshold  lelocny  of the ane
jnomeler  ifor  )ton?.oni:i] rwi.'iit.iK.1)  can be
estimated  from a graph  such, as furure 14 5
If tlie  horizontal threshold  velocity is  ac
ceptable (< 16 7m mm  (55  fpm' when  this
technique is  used),  the  anemometer  can
continue to be used  If the threshold veloc-
ity of an anemometer is found to be unar
ceptably high, the aneniomct'T shall either
be replaced or repaired
                                  FEDERAl REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO  182—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                                                v-s-y
-------
                POWER
                SUPPLY
                   \
                     a
                                                                TACHOMETER D.C. MOTOR
                                                                     COMBINATION
                                                                  (ACCURATE TO +%%)
 VOLTAGE
REGULATOR
CONNECTOri
II 1
0 1 r
P f C


                                                                                                               DIGITAL
                                                                                                             VOLTMETER
                                                                                                          (ACCURATE TO ±%mw)
                                                                                                                                             3
                                                                                                                                             o
tn
 I
                   Figure 14-3. Typical RPM generator.
                                                  FEDERAL REOISTEK, VOL. 43. NO. 18J—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
-------
                                              xmes
                 SIDE
(A)
FRONT
                 SJDE
(B]
 FRONT
Figure 14-4. Check of anemometer starting torque.  A "y" gram weight placed "x" centimeters
from center of propeller shaft produces a torque of "xy" g-cm.  The minimum torque which pro-
duces a 90° (approximately)  rotation of the propeller is the "starting torque."
                   FEOEtM MOtSTCR, VOL. 41, MO. M9—TUESDAr, EtttEMUR It, 1*7*
-------
                                  PROPOSED RULES
                 _    T
           a
           cc
           C9
           tr
           2   2
           V)
                 FfM
                (m/min)
20
(6)
 40
(12)
60
(18)
 80
(24)
100
(30)
120
(36)
140
(42)
                        THESHOLO VELOCITY FOR HORIZONTAL MOUNTING
Figure 14-5. Typica! curve of starting torque vs horizontal threshold velocity for propeller
anemometers.  Based on data obtained by P.M. Young Company, May, 1977.
                FtOEftAl REGISTEt, VOL. 43, NO. 182-TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1978
                                         •7-S-12
-------
                                                       PROPOSED 8UIES
  4.1.2.4 If an anemometer fails the post-
 lest performance-check (I.e., If repair or re-
 placement of any anemometer components
 Is necessary), proceed as  follows:  (1) Cali-
 brate the anemometer (before repairing it).
 using one of the three methods described in
 section 4.1.1. above. Alternatively,  the ane-
 mometer may be calibrated against, another
 propeller anemometer that meets the speci-
 fications of section  2.1.1  (a detailed proce-
 dure is described In  Citation 1 of section 7):
 (?)  referring  to  the calibration curve  ob-
 tained in step (1). recalculate (for each run)
 the average veloclty.(v) for the anemometer,
 using the data print-out obtained during the
 test  series: (3) Compare  each recalculated
 value of v against the reported value. If tho
 recalculated  value of v is  less than the re
 ported value, no adjustment in the  reported
 ovej-aJl  average velocity for the run shall be
 made.  If. however, the recalculated vaiue of
 v exceeds the reported value, replace the rr
 ported  vaJue of  v  with  the recalculated
 vaJue. and  then recompute the overall aver-
 age  velocity (and tola] flowrate),

  NOTE. —If the anemometer located  in the
 section of  the  roof  monitor containing the
 sampling manifold  fails  the  performance
 check, additional emission rate adjustments
 may be necessary (see section 6.1).
  4.2 Manifold Intake Nozzlci —Adjust the
 exhaust fan to draw a volumetric flow rate
 (refer  to equation 14-1) such  thit the en-
 trance  velocity  into «ach manifold  nozzle
 approximates the average effluent velocity
 in the  roof monitor.  Measure the velocity of
 the  air entering each nozzle by Inserting a
 standard pilot  tube  into a 2.5 cm or less di-
 ameter hole (see  fig.  14-2)  located  in the
 manifold between each blast gate (or valve)
 and  nozzle. Note  that a standard pilot tube
 is used, rather than a type S. to eliminate
 possible velocity measurement  errors  due to
 cross-section  blockage  In  the small (0.13 m
 diameter) manifold leg ducts. The pilot tube
 tip shall be positioned al the center of each
 manifold leg duct. Take care to insure that
 there is no leakage  around the pilot tube.
 which could affect the indicated  velocity in
 the  manoifold leg.  If the velocity  of  air
 being drawn into each  nozzle is  not ihe
same,  open  or  close  each  blast gate (or
 valve) until the velocity in each nozzle is ihe
same. Fasten each blast gale (or valve) so
 that it will remain in this  position and close
 the  pilot port  holes. This calibration shall
 be performed when  the manifold system is
 Installed.

  NOTE.—It is recommended that this cali-
 bration be repeated at least once a year.

  4.3 Thermocouple.—Afler each test  series.
the thermocouple shall be calibrated, using
the  procedures oullined  In  section  4.3 of
method 2.

  4.4  Recorders  and/or   Counters.—Afler
each test series,  check the calibration of
each recorder and/or counter that was used
(see  section  2.1.3). Check the recorder or
counter calibration at  a minimum of three
points, approximately spanning the  range of
velocities observed during  the test  series.
use the calibration procedures recommend-
ed by the  manufacturer,  or other  suitable
procedures (subject  to the approval of the
Administrator). If a  recorder or  counter Is
 found to be out of calibration, by an average
 artiouw greater than 5 percent for the three
 calibration  points, proceed  as follows: 
-------
                                                     PROPOSED  RULES
pllng duct, corresponding to each value of
V, obtained under § 6.1.1.
  6.1.3  Calculate the actual average veloc-
ity (r>> In the sampling duct for each run or
sub-run,  according  to  equation   2-9  of
method 2.  and  using  data  obtained  from
method 13.
  6.1.4  Express each value of it from §6.1.3
as a percentage  of  the corresponding  V*
value from  §6.1.2.
  6.1.4.1  If t>, is loss than or  equal to 120
percent of Va. the  results  are acceptable
(note that in  cases where the above calcula-
tions have been performed for each sub-run.
the results  are acceptable If the average per-
centage for all sub-runs is less than or equal
to 120 percent)
  6.1.4.2  If f, is more than  120 percent of
V«.  multiply  the reported emission  rate by
the following factor:

                 100 .
sampling  train was  used throughout the
run. calculate  the average fluoride concen-
tration for the roof monitor using equation
13A-5 of method 13A.
  6.4.2 If two or more sampling trains were
used (I.e.. one per sub-run), calculate the
average fluoride concentration for the run.
as follows:
  6.2 Average velocity of roof monitor gases.
Calculate the average roof monitor velocity
using all  the velocity or volumetric  flow
readincs from §5.1.2.
  6.3 Roof monitor  temperature. Calculate
the mean value of the temperatures record-
ed In §5.2.
  6.4  Concentration  of  fluorides in  roof
monitor air (in  mg  F/m">. 6.4.1 If a single
where:
C. = Average fluoride concentration In roof
    monitor air. mg F/dscm.
(P,).= Total  fluoride mass collected during a
    particular sub-run, mg F (from equation
    13A-4 of method 13A or equation  13B-1
    of method 13B).
 (V^.^il^Total volume of sample gas passing
    through the dry gas meter during a par-
    ticular sub-run. dsem 
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL
   PROTECTION
    AGENCY
  STATIONARY GAS

     TURBINES

 Standards of Performance for New
    Stationary Sources

       SUBPARTGG
-------
                                                 PROPOSED HUIIS
[6504-01]

  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
              AGENCY

          [4CCPRPtrt60J
             tPWi 7TT-41
     STATIONARY OAS TURBINE*
    Standards of Performance for New
          Stationary Soureti
AGENCY:  Environmental  Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY:  The  proposed  itandards
would limit emissions of nitrogen oxldei
and sulfur dioxide from new, modified
and reconstructed itatlonary  gets tur-
bine* to 78 ppm and  ISO ppm, respec-
tively. A new reference method for de-
termining the concentration of nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide and oxygen in the
exhaust gases from stationary gas tur-
bines Is also proposed. The standards
Implement  the  Clean  Air Act and  are
based on the Administrator's determina-
tion that  stationary gas turbine  emis-
sions contribute significantly to air pol-
lution, The Intended effect Is to require
new, modified and reconstructed station-
ary gas turbines to use the best demon-
strated system of emission reduction.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 2,1977.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sub-
mitted,  preferably In triplicate,  to the
Emission  Standards  and  Engineering
Division,   Environmental  Protection
Agency, Research  Triangle Park, N.C.
87711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Good win.
  The Standards Support and Environ-
mental Impact Statement (8SEIS) con-
taining the data and  Information upon
which the proposed standards are based
may be obtained from the Public Infor-
mation Center (PM-215), U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. 20460 (specify  "Standards Support
and Environmental Impact Statement,
Volume 1:  Proposed Standards of Per-
formance for Stationary Gas Turbines").
  The SSEIS and all public comments
received may be Inspected and copied at
the Public Information Reference Unit
(EPA Library), Room  2922, 401 M Street
SW., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:
  Don R.  Goodwin, Emission Standards
  and Engineering Division,  Environ-
  mental  Protection Agency,  Research
  Triangle Park, N.C.  27711, telephone
  No. 919-541-8271.
SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
          PROPOSED STANDARDS
  The proposed standards would apply
to  all new, modified and reconstructed
stationary gas turbines with a heat input
at peak load equal to or greater than 10.7
gigajoules per hour (about 1,000 horse-
power). The standards would apply to
simple and  regenerative cycle gas tur-
bines and to the gas turbine portion of a
combined  cycle steam/electric generat-
ing system.
  The  proposed  standards  would limit
the concentration of  nitrogen  oxldei
(NO,) In the exhaust gases from station-
ary gas turbines to 0.0076 percent by vol-
ume (75 ppm)  at 15 percent oxygen on a
dry basis.  This emission limit would  be
adjusted upward for turbines with ther-
mal efficiencies greater than 26 percent
and upward for  turbines burning fuels
with a  nitrogen  content greater than
0.016 percent by weight.
  The proposed standard would be ref-
erenced to International Standard Or-
ganization  (ISO) standard day condi-
tions of 288 degrees  Kelvin, 50 percent
relative humidity, and  101.3 kllopascala
(1 atmosphere) pressure. Measured NO,
emission levels, therefore, would be ad-
justed to ISO reference conditions by use
of an ambient condition correction fac-
tor Included In the standard or by a cus-
tom ambient condition correction factor
developed  by the gas turbine manufac-
turer, owner,  or  operator and approved
for use by EPA. Manufacturers, owners,
or operators electing to develop custom
ambient condition  correction  factors,
however, would  be required to develop
such factors in  terms  of the following
variables:  combustor inlet pressure, am-
bient air pressure, ambient air humidity,
and ambient air temperature. All correc-
tion factors would have to be substan-
tiated with data and approved for use by
the Administrator before they could  be
used for determining  compliance  wlt.h
the proposed standard.
  Stationary  gas turbines with a heat
Input at peak load from 10.7 to. and In-
cluding, 107.2 gigajoules per hour would
be  exempt from  the  NO- emission limit
for five years from the date of this pro-
posal. Emergency-standby gas turbines,
military gas turbines  and fireflghtlng gas
turbines would be exempt permanently
from  the  NO- emission limit. In addi-
tion, stationary  gas  turbines using wet
controls would be exempt temporarily
from  the  NO.  emission limit  during
those periods  when  Ice fog created  by
the gas turbine was deemed by the owner
or operator of the gas turbine to present
a traffic hazard. None of the exemptions
mentioned In this paragraph would ap-
ply to the  SO, emission limit.
  The proposed  standards would limit
the SO, concentration In  the exhaust
gases from stationary gas turbines  to
0.015 percent by volume (150  ppm) cor-
rected to  15  percent oxygen on a dry
basis, or would limit the sulfur content
of  the fuel used by  any stationary  gas
turbine to 0.8  percent by weight.
    SUMMARY  or  ENVTRONMENTAL AND
           ECONOMIC IMPACTS
  The proposed standards would reduce
NO, emissions from  stationary gas tur-
bines by about 70 percent. Based on In-
dustry  growth projections, by 1982  a
reduction  in  national  NO- emissions of
about  190/100 tons  per year would  be
realized. By 1987, the reduction in na-
tional NO,' emissions would reach about
400,000 tons per year.
  The advene water pollution impact of
the proposed standards would be mini-
mal. The quantity of water or steam re-
quired  for  injection into the gas  tur-
bins to  reduce  NO- emission would be
small, less than 6 percent of  the water
consumed by & comparable size steam/
electric  power plant using cooling tow-
en,
  The  solid waste impact of the pro-
posed standards  would  be   negligible.
There would also  be  no adverse noise
impact  resulting  from  the  proposed
standard!.
  The  energy impact of the proposed
standards would be small. Gas turbine
fuel consumption  would be  Increased
from 0  to 5 percent, depending largely-
on  the rate of water injection required
to comply with the proposed NO, stand-
ard. There would be no energy Impact
associated with the proposed SO, stand-
ard. Few turbines  will require the high
water injection rates (about 1:1  water-
to-fuel  ratios) which result in a 5  per-
cent fuel penalty. Assuming that all sta-
tionary gas turbines subject to the  pro-
posed NO, standard would require a 1:1
water-to-fuel ratio, the fifth year (1982)
energy impact of the standard on large
stationary gas turbines would be an in-
crease in fuel consumption of about 5,500
barrels of fuel oil per day. The fifth-year
(1987)  energy impact of the NO, stand-
ard on small  stationary  gas turbines
would be an Increase  In fuel consump-
tion of about 7,000 barrels of fuel oil per
day. This Is equivalent to an Increase in
projected 1982  and 1987 national crude
oil  consumption of less than 0.03  per-
cent. These estimates are based on as-
sumptions  which  yield the greatest
energy  Impacts and actual impacts are
expected to be much lower.
  The  economic Impact of the proposed
standards Is considered to be reasonable.
The proposed standards would Increase
the capital costs or purchase price of
a gas turbine for  most Installations by
about 1 to 4 percent. For offshore appli-
cations,  however,  such  as  oil and  gas
drilling platforms, the Increase could be
as  much as  7  percent. The  annuallzed
coets for a gas turbine In all applications
would be increased by about 1 to 4 per-
cent, with the largest application, utili-
ties, realizing less  than a 2  percent In-
crease.
  The   proposed  standards   would In-
crease  the  total capital investment re-
quirements for all users of large station-
ary gas turbines by about 36 million dol-
lars by  1982. For the period 1982 through
1987, the standards would  Increase the
capital  Investment requirements for all
users of both large and small stationary
gas turbines by about 67 million dollars.
Total  annuallzed  costs  would  be in-
creased by about  11  million dollars in
1982 and by  about 30 million dollars In
1987. These Impacts would result in price
Increases for the end products or serv-
ices provided by Industrial and commer-
cial users  of  stationary gas turbines
ranging from less than 0.01  percent in
the petroleum refining industry to about
0.1 percent in the  electric utility indus-
try.
                              KDERAl REGISTER,  VOL. 42, NO. 191—MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1977
                                                   V-GG-2
-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES
  The criteria for an action to be con-
sidered major, thereby  requiring devel-
opment of an Economic Impact Analysis
(EIA)  are:  (1) an Increase in the flfth-
yeur annualized costs of 100 million dol-
lars  (2) a major product price increase
of 5 percent,  or (3)  an Increase In na-
tional   energy consumption  of  25,000
barrels  of fuel oil per day. The  impacts
resulting from the proposed  standards
would  not exceed these criteria, except
possibly for  offshore applications, where
the proposed standards could Increase
the price of a gas turbine by about  7
percent. Most gas turbines used on off-
shore oil and gas drilling platforms, how-
ever, are likely to have a heat Input at
peak  capacity of less  than 107.2 giga-
Joules  per   hour (about  10,000  horse-
power) .  Consequently,  they  would be
considered small gas turbines and would
be exempt  from the standards  for five
years. In any event, stationary gas tur-
bines sold for offshore applications con-
stitute  such a small percentage  (esti-
mated at less than 3 percent)  of  the
overall market for gas turbines that they
are not considered a major product with-
in the  Intent of the  5 percent major
product price increase criteria for prep-
aration of  an EIA. Consequently,  the
proposed standards would not constitute
a major action and no EIA has been
prepared.
               RATIONALE

    SELECTION OF SOXJRCE FOR CONTROL

  Assuming  existing levels  of emission
controls, national NO, emissions from
stationary sources are projected to In-
crease by about 65 percent by 1985. Ap-
plying best technology to all new sources
would  reduce this Increase  to about 25
percent, but would  not prevent It from
occurring This unavoidable Increase in
NO. emissions is attributable largely to
the fact that few of the NO, emission
control  techniques currently available
can  achieve  large reductions  In  NO,
emissions. Consequently.  EPA has  as-
signed  a high priority  to the develop-
ment of standards of performance for
major NO,  emission sources wherever
significant  reductions In NO* emissions
can be achieved.
  Several studies  sponsored  by  EPA
have  ranked  stationary gas turbines as
major controllable sources of NO« emis-
sions. One study conducted by the Aero-
thenn Division of  Acurex  Corporation
estimated that oil-fired  ana gas-fired
stationary gas turbines accounted for 2.5
percent of the total NO> emissions from
stationary sources in the US. In 1972.
This same study ranked  gas-flred  tur-
bines as sixteenth and oil-fired gas tur-
bines as twenty-third in a priority list-
ing of 137 controllable stationary sources
of NO> emissions.
  In another study the Research Corp.
of New England (TRC) determined the
Impact which standards of performance
would have  on nationwide emissions of
partlculates, NO«, 8O2, HC (hydrocar-
bons) , and CO (carbon monoxide) from
stationary  sources. Sources were  then
ranked according to the impact a stand-
 ard promulgated.In 1975 would have on
 emissions  in  1985.  This ranking placed
 gas turbines  first  on a list of 40 sta-
 tionary NO, emission sources and eighth
 on a list of 41 stationary SOf emission
 sources.
   In 1974, 90 percent of all domestic sta-
 tionary gas turbine capacity was sold to
 the electric utility market, primarily for
 use as peaking units. It is expected that
 this large percentage of sales to utilities
 will continue in the future due to the
 many advantages  of gas  turbines  as
 peaking units. In addition, gas turbine
 peaking units are often located In large
 urban centers where power demands are
 greatest and pollution problems are often
 most severe.
   Stationary gas turbines, therefore, are
 significant contributors to total nation-
 wide emissions of NO*. They are ranked
 high on the various listings of sources
 for which standards  of performance
 should be  developed. In  addition, the
 turbines  coupled with  the probability
 that many gas turbines will tie installed
 near large urban centers underscores the
 need for standards of performance for
 stationary  gas turbines. Consequently,
 stationary gas turbines were selected for
 development of  standards  of  perform-
 ance.
        SELECTION OF POLLUTANTS
   The pollutants emitted from station-
 ary gns turbines are particulates,  NOi;
 80s, CO  and HC.  Combustor modlflce,-
 tloni (dry control)  and water Injection
 (wet control) are demonstrated tech-
 niques for reducing NO* emission* at rea-
 sonable  coet and depending on specific
 emission level selectee!, could reduce NOi
 emissions by up to 1DO.OOO tons per year
 In 1982. This  Is a significant decrease in
 total  nationwide  NO*  emissions.  For
 these reasons, NO* emissions from sta-
 tionary  gas turbines  were selected for
 control by  standards of performance.
   SOj emissions from stationary gas tur-
 bines depend on the sulfur content of the
 fuel since nearly 100 percent of the fuel
 sulfur  is converted to  SOj  during the
 co«nbuslion process. Due to the high vol-
 umes of exhaust Eases,  the cost of flue
 gas desulfiirization (FGD) to control SOi
 emissions from stationary  gas  turbines
 is considered  unreasonable. Control of
 SO* emissions, therefore, would require
 combustion of low sulfur  fuels rather
 than the application of PGD.  Selection
 of low sulfur fuels, however, Is consid-
 ered reasonable. Since gas  turt>ines are
 a major source of SO, emissions and fir-
 ing low sulfur fuels is considered an eco-
 nomically feasible control technique, BO,
 emissions from stationary gas  turbines
 were selected  for  control by standards
 of performance.
   HC and CO emissions from stationary
 gas turbines operating at peak load are
 relatively low because the higher the per-
 centage of peak load at which  a turbine
 operates, the  more efficient the combus-
 tion of the fuel. Oas  turbines normally
 operate at 80 to 100 percent of peak load
 with HC emissions averaging less than
' 60 ppm and CO emissions averaging less
 than 500 ppm at 15 percent oxygen. HC
and  CO  emissions from stationary gas
turbines, therefore, were not selected for
control by standards of performance.
  Particulate emissions from stationary
gas turbines depend on the ash content
of the fuel and are  minimal. Conse-
quently, particulate emissions from sta-
tionary  gas turbines  were not selected
for control by standards of performance.

   SELECTION OF AFFECTED FACILITIES

  Stationary gas turbines can be used  in
three different  configurations: simple
cycle, regenerative cycle, and combined
cycle. All of these  configurations emit
NO*  and SOj,  and all can be controlled
for NO* emissions by  water Injection  or
dry controls and for SO. by the firing  of
low sulfur fuels. Consequently, simple cy-
cle gas turbines, regenerative cycle gas
turbines  and the gas turbine portion  of
combined cycle steam/electric  generat-
ing systems were selected as the affected
facilities for standards of performance
limiting NO, and SO:  emissions.
  Gas turbines can burn either  liquid  or
guseous fuels. Dry and wet control  tech-
niques for the  control of NO* can be ap-
plied to  gas turbines  regardless of the
type of fuel burned. Similarly, the  firing
of low sulfur fuel lor  the control of SO:
emissions can  be applied to gas turbines
regardless  of  the type of fuel  burned.
EPA recognizes the fact that at the pres-
ent time gas turbines  firing coal-derived
fuels probably  could not meet the stand-
ards of performance. Coal-derived  fuels,
however, will  not be  available  in  com-
mercial quantities to gas turbines for  at
least ten years and EPA feels  that  by
that time the  emission control  technol-
ogy for clean  firing of these fuels  could
be developed. Consequently, gas turbines
burning all types of fuels are selected  as
affected  facilities for  standards of per-
formance.
  For many applications up to  about
10,000 hp stationary gas turbines  com-
pete with  internal  combustion  engines.
A standard of performance on one  of
these industries and not the other would
tend to give the non-regulated  industry
a competitive advantage to some extent.
  Currently, standards of performance
are being developed for stationary inter-
nal combustion engines. Although  rela-
tively few internal combustion engines  of
greater than 1.000 hp are produced, these
engines are responsible for 75 percent  of
the total NO, emissions from stationary
Internal combustion engines. Under 1,000
hp,  however,  the  number  of  Internal
combustion engines produced Increases
tremendously and enforcement of stand-
ards of performance would not be  feas-
ible in the absence of a certification pro-
gram similar  to that for automobiles.
Since the Clean Air Act docs not permit
standards of performance to be enforced
by a certification program, a lower size
cutoff of 1.000 hp for standards of per-
formance for  stationary internal  com-
bustion   engines Is considered  appro-
priate. Consequently, to be consistent a
lower size  cutoff of 10.7 glgajoules per
hour heat Input (about 1,000 hp) is se-
lected for standards of performance for
                              FfDEftAl UCISTIt, VOL 42, NO. 191—MONDAY, OCTOtH 3,  »t77
                                                    V-GG-3
-------
                                                  PROPOSED  RULES
stationary gas turbines. Qas turbines less
than 10.7 gigajoules per hour heat Input
(about 1.000 hp) account for less than 10
percent of the total NO- emissions from
stationary gas turbines. Below this cutoff
the standards limiting NO and SOt emis-
sions would not apply.
  Some stationary gas turbines are oper-
ated as a mechanical or electrical power
source  only when the primary  power
source for a facility has been rendered
inoperable by an  emergency situation.
This type of gas turbine  operates Infre-
quently, usually only for checkout and
maintenance;  therefore, it contributes
only a very small amount to total nation-
wide NO emissions. There also could be
operational problems with the water in-
jection system due to the long periods of
non-Qperatlon.   Consequently,   emer-
gency-standby  stationary gas  turbines
were exempted from  standards of per-
formance limiting NO emissions.
  Stationary gas turbines could contrib-
ute to the creation of ice  fog, which con-
sists of small ice crystals which are nu-
cleated by airborne paniculate. Ice  fog
occurs at temperatures below -28° C and
Is a serious problem in only a small
portion of the United States, primarily
Alaska. Ice fog severely restricts visibility
and, since the crystals are long-lived, can
plague auto and air traffic for extended
periods. The actual  impact of  water or
steam injection into gas  turbines on  the
formation of ice fog  is unknown; how-
ever,  water  or steam injection will  In-
crease the moisture content of the ex-
haust  gas discharged by gas  turbines.
Since Ice fog occurs only In a small por-
tion of the United  States and only under
special weather conditions, the impact on
air quality due to  Increased NOi  caused '
by  exempting gas turbines creating ice
fog would be  minimal.  Therefore,  gas
turbines using water  or  steam injection
for control of NO.  emissions would be ex-
empt from  the standards  limiting NOi
emissions when Ice fog created by the gas
turbine Is deemed by the owner or opera-
tor of the gas turbine to be a traffic haz-
ard.
  Stationary gas turbines are sometimes
used by the military in combat-type situ-
ations. The main advantage of these tur-
bines is their mobility, which would be
considerably restricted by  a  water  in-
jection system consisting of either water
treatment equipment or  a water storage
vessel.  Restriction of the mobility  of
these gas turbines could have an adverse
effect on national  defense;  therefore,
any military combat-type gas turbine for
use in  other than a  garrison facility is
exempt from the standards limiting NOi
emissions.
  The possibility of exempting some gas
turbines from the standard limiting SOi
emissions was also examined. Except for
exempting all turbines of lees than 10.7
gigajoules per hour heat  input  (about
1,000 hp), no exemptions were considered
necessary.

     SELECTION Or THE BEST SYSTEM OT
          EMISSION REDUCTION

   There are three possible control tech-
 niques for reducing NO> emissions from
stationary gas turbines: wet controls, dry
controls, and catalytic exhaust cleanup.
Wet controls Involve  the injection of
water or steam Into the combustion reac-
tion to reduce peak flame temperatures,
thereby reducing NO* formation. Wet
control  techniques  have  been demon-
strated  on  a few  large gas  turbines
(greater than 10,000 hp) used in utility
and Industrial applications. These in-
stallations have had good reliability over
long periods of operation. Wet controls,
however, have not been applied to small
production gas turbines (less than 10,000
hp), although the effectiveness of these
techniques for small gas turbines  has
been  demonstrated  in  laboratory  and
combustor rig tests. Thus, wet controls
can be applied immediately to large sta-
tionary  gas turbines, but manufacturers
estimate that at least three  years would
be required to incorporate and test wet
control  techniques on small production
gas turbines.
  Dry controls consist of operational or
design modifications which govern com-
bustion  conditions to reduce NOi forma-
tion. Although dry controls have been
demonstrated In laboratory and combus-
tor rig tests, manufacturers  estimate
that up to five years Is required for fur-
ther development, design, test, and in-
corporation of dry controls on large and
small stationary gas turbines.
  Catalytic exhaust gas cleanup consists
of  NO* reduction by  ammonia  in the
presence of a catalyst. While laboratory
tests  are very promising, this technique
is not demonstrated for stationary gas
turbines.
  The NOi  emission reduction achiev-
able with wet and dry control techniques
clearly favors the development of stand-
ards of performance based  on wet con-
trols. Reductions in  NO* emissions of
more than 70 percent have been demon-
strated using wet controls. Dry controls,
however, have demonstrated NOi emis-
sion reductions of only about 30 percent.
  Standards  at performance based on
wet controls  would  reduce national No,
emissions by  about  190,000 tons per year
in  1982. In  contrast, standards of  per-
formance based on dry  controls would
have  no Impact on national NOi emis-
sions in 1982,  due to the  necessity  of
allowing a five-year delay to incorporate
dry controls on gaa  turbines. By 1987,
standards based cm w«t controls would
reduce  national NO* emissions by about
400,000 tons per year, whereas standards
based on dry controls would reduce NO.
emissions by only about 00,000 tons per
year. Thus,  standards of performance
based on wet controls would  have a much
greater impact  on  national NOi emis-
sions than standards based on dry con-
trols.
   The water pollution impact of stand-
ards  based   on  wet  controls would  be
minimal. Water needed for  wet controls
may  be treated by the  same processes
used  to  treat  steam  boiler  make-up
water.  The  quality of the  wastewater
from this treatment is essentially the
same as the Influent water except that
the concentration  of  total  dissolved
solids  in  the effluent stream is 3  to  4
times that of the Influent. In most cases,
the effluent  may be sewered directly or
returned  to the  river  supplying  the
water. Where this is not  possible, the
effluent may be discharged  to an evapo-
ration pond.  Consequently,  the  water
pollution  Impact of standards based on
wet controls would be minimal.
  The quantity of water required by a
stationary gas turbine  using  wet con-
trols is relatively small. The upper limit
water-to-fuel ratio of  about 1 :.l re-
quires only about 5 percent of the quan-
tity of water consumed by a comparable
size steam boiler using cooling towers. A
water  treatment system  for five 28 MW
stationary  gas  turbines operating  10
hours per day using a water-to-fuel ratio
of 1  : 1, for  example, would treat 125,000
gallons of water and reject about 25,000
gallons of wastewater'per day. A steam
boiler of  comparable size  with cooling
towers would consume 20 times as much
water. In  fact, the usage rate of water for
wet controls Is small enough that the un-
likely prospect of having to truck water
50 miles was determined to be economi-
cally  reasonable  as  discussed  below.
Standards based on dry controls, how-
ever, would have  no  Impact on water
pollution  or water supplies.
  Standards based on wet controls would
have  a  negligible  solid waste Impact.
Also, there would be no adverse noise im-
pact  resulting from standards based on
either wet or dry controls.
  The potential energy impact of stand-
ards based  on  wet  controls Is  small.
Standards based on wet controls could
Increase the fuel consumption of a  gas
turbine from 0 to 5 percent, depending
on the rate  of water Injection required to
comply with the standard. Few turbines
will  require the  nigh water injection
rates  (about 1 : 1 water-to-fuel ratios)
which result in a 5 percent fuel penalty.
Assuming, however, that all stationary
gas  turbines subject to compliance with
standards would require a 1 : 1 water-to-
fuel ratio,  the energy  impact  on large
stationary gas turbines would be an In-
crease  In  fuel  consumption of about
6500 barrels of fuel oil per day In 1982.
The energy impact on small stationary
gas turbines would be an Increase in fuel
consumption of about 7,000  barrels  per
day of fuel oil in 1987, as a result of the
delayed  effective  date  of  the  proposed
standards on small turbines. Each  in-
crease represents less than  a 0.03 percent
 Increase In projected  crude oil consump-
tion  in the United States in 1982 and
 1987.  It should  also  be recognize^ that
these estimates are based on assumptions
which  yield  the  greatest energy im-
pacts. Actual energy impacts are  ex-
 pected to be much lower. The energy Im-
 pact of standards  based on wet controls,
 therefore, would be minimal. Standards
based on dry controls,  however, would
 have no energy Impact.
   Although wet controls would result In
a small adverse Impact on gas turbine
efficiency, the costs associated with this
increased fuel consumption for some ap-
 plications may be partially offset by an
 Increase in the gas turbine's rated power
 output capability. aBsed  on manufac-
 turer's estimates,  gas  turbine baseload
                               KDERAl IW15TH,  VOL 42, NO.  191—MONDAY, OCTOtlK 3, 1«77
                                                      V-GG-4
-------
                                                 PROPOSED RULES
capacity will be Increased by 8 to 4 per-
cent aa a result of water injection. In ap-
plication* where  turbine*  we  operated
at maximum capacity, such as  utility
power generation and pipeline compres-
sors stations, this increased baseload ca-
pacity essentially  reduces  the  Installed
costs  per kilowatt by the percentage In-
crease In the capacity of  the unit,  thus
slightly reducing  the  cost  Impact  of
standards based on wet controls.
  The economic Impacts associated  with
standards based on either wet or dry
controls  would be small  and are  con-
sidered reasonable. Dry control costs are
difficult  to  quantify.  Many manufac-
turers, however, have Indicated that the
cost  of dry controls  would  not  exceed
the cost of  wet controls.  Consequently,
the analysis' of the eonomic Impact  of
standards of performance was based on
the costs of wet controls  and assumes
that the costs of dry controls, and hence
the economic Impact of standards baaed
on dry controls, would be  comparable.
Standards   of  performance,  therefore,
based on either wet or dry controls would
Increase the capital cost of a eras turbine
for most applications by about  1  to  4
percent. For offshore industrial applica-
tions where desallnlzatlon equipment Is
required to  provide water  for wet  con-
trols, standards would result m a 7 per-
cent  Increase  in  the  capital cost  of
a gas turbine. The annual I red costs for
a stationary gas turbine in all applica-
tions would be Increased by about 1 to 4
percent, with utility applications  realiz-
ing less than a 2 percent increase.
  Although  it is unlikely that a station-
ary gas turbine would, of necessity,  be
installed in  an arid area, an analysis was
performed  which  assumed  that water
would have to be transported  to the
gas turbine  site br truck over a distance
of 50 miles.  This unlikely situation would
result in less than a  4 percent Increase
In the annuallzed cost of the gas turbine.
  Standards of performance based  on
wet  controls  would Increase the  total
capital Investment requirements  for  an
Industrial and commercial users of  large
stationary  gas  turbines  (greater  than
10,000 hp)  by about 36 million  dollars
by 1982. Total annualized costs would
be Increased by about 11 million  dollars
per  year In  1982.  Standards of  per-
formance based on  wet controls would
have an additional economic impact  on
users  of small stationary gas turbines
(less than 10.000 hp) beginning in  1987.
Thus, for-the period  of  1982 through
1987,  the   capital  investment require-
ments for all stationary gas turbine  users
would be about 57 million dollars. The
total annualized costs would be about 30
million dollars by 1987. These impacts
would translate .into  price increases for
the end products or services provided by
these industrial  and  commercial  users
of stationary gas turbines ranging  from
less  than 0.01  percent  in the petroleum
refining industry to about 0.1 percent In
the  electric utility Industry. Thus, the
economic Impact  of  standards of per-
formance based on wet-controls would
be very small.
  Standards  of  performance  based on
dry controls would have no economic im-
pact by 1982. Following 1982, however,
the eonomic  Impact of standards baaed
on  dry controls  would  be  comparable
to that of standards based on wet  con-
trols.
  Based on this' assessment of the im-
pact* of standards of performance based
on  wet controls and dry controls, wet
controls were selected as the	best
system of emission  reduction (consider-
ing cost)	for reduction of NO..
  There are  two possible control  tech-
niques for  reducing BO,  emission* from
stationary  gas turbines:  flue gas desul-
furleation (POD) and the firing of low
sulfur fuels.  POD,  however, would cost
about  two  to three times  as much as
the  gu turbine. The  economic impact
of standards  of performance for station-
ary gas turbines based on FOD,  there-
fore, is not-considered reasonable.
  Low sulfur fuels, such  as premium
distillate oils or natural gas, are now
being burned by nearly all stationary gas
turbines. These premium fuels are being
burned primarily because the increased
maintenance costs associated with firing
heavy fuel  oils are greater than the sav-
ings that would  be realized by buying
these cheaper heavy or residual fuel oils.
Over the  next five to ten  yean, how-
ever, as oil prices  continue to escalate,
the  price  differential between premium
distillate Jue] oils  and heavy fuel oils
will probably increase and the economic
Incentive to burn the premium fuels will
probably become marginal.
  In this situation and  In  the absence
of  regulations requiring stationary gas
turbines to fire specific fuels, the choice
between firing either premium distillate
fuel oils or  heavy  fuel  oils will  likely
be  decided on the  basis of  the  relative
fconvenlenoe  and  availability of  these
fuels.  Premium  distillate fuel oils are
•more  convenient to  burn  than heavy
fuel oils because they  have  a lower vis-
cosity and are easier  to handle. Heavy
fuel oils frequently require  heating, for
example, to reduce  their viscosity to the
point where they can be readily pumped
from one  location  to another. Even If
the price differential  between premium
distillate  fuel oils  and  heavy fuel oils
were to Increase to the point where the
firing of heavy fuel oils was marginally
attractive, the greater Inconvenience of
 scheduling and  performing  the  addi-
tional  maintenance  would  probably
cause a gas  turbine  owr-er or operator
to choose to fire the premium distillate
fuel oil. On the basis  of  convenience,
therefore,  stationary  gas  turbines are
likely  to continue  firing premium dis-
tillate fuel oils even If the economic In-
centive to  do so becomes manrtnal
  The Impact on ambient air quality of
standards of performance based on the
firing  of low sulfur premium distillate
fuel oils In gas turbines, therefore, would
be negligible. The economic impact would
also be negligible  for the  same reason
and there would be  no water,  energy,
solid waste  or  noise  Impact associated
with standards based on the firing of low
sulfur premium distillate fuel oils.
  Based on this assessment of the Im-
pacts of standards of performance based
on the firing of low sulfur fuel oils, this
control technique  Is selected as "• •  •
the best system  of  emission  reduction
(considering costs) • • •" for the reduc-
tion of BOt emissions,
axLicnoM or TOUUT rox  rax  SIANUUUJS
  A number of  different  formate  could
be selected to limit NO. emissions-from
stationary  gas turbines. Mass  standards
limiting emissions in terms of power out-
put (i.e.. mass of  emission! per unit of
power  output)  or concentration stand-
ards limiting the concentration of  emis-
sions in the exhaust gases discharged into
the atmosphere could be developed.
  While  mass standards  may appear
more meaningful In  the sense that they
relate directly to the quantity of  emis-
sions discharged Into the  atmosphere,
enforcement of mass standards is more
costly  and the results more subject to
error than enforcement of concentration
standards.
  Concentration   standards,   however,
must be written to Insure that the stand-
ards are not met merely  by addition of
dilution  air. For  combustion  processes,
this can be accomplished  by  correcting
measured  concentration to a reference
concentration of  O,  (oxygen). The  d
concentration in  the  exhaust gases  Is
related  to the excess  (or  dilution)  aJr.
Typical Oi concentrations in gas turbine
exhaust gases are about 15 percent.  Thus,
referencing  standards  to  15  percent
oxygen effectively precludes circumven-
tion by dilution. Consequently, concen-
tration standards referenced to 15 per-
cent oxygen were selected as the format
for standards of  performance for sta-
tionary gas turbines.
  Selection of a concentration format.
however,  could  penalize high  efficiency
gas turbines.  Higher  efficiencies  are
normally achieved by  Increasing  com-
bustor operating pressures and tempera-
tures and NO. formation generally in-
creases  exponentially  with  Increased
pressure and temperature. High efficiency
turbines,  therefore,  generally discharge
gases with higher NO, concentrations
than low efficiency turbines. A concen-
tration standard based on low efficiency
turbines could restrict  the use of  some
high efficiency  turbines.  Conversely,  a
concentration standard  based on  high
efficiency turbines could allow such high
NO. concentrations that  low  efficiency
turbines would require no controls. Con-
sequently, having selected  a concentra-
tion format for  standards of perform-
ance,  an  efficiency adjustment factor
needed to be selected to permit higher
NO. emissions from high efficiency gas
turbines.
  NO.  emissions  tend to  Increase ex-
ponentially with Increased efficiency.  It
Is not reasonable from an emission con-
trol viewpoint, however, to select an ex-
ponential  efficiency adjustment factor.
Such  an  adjustment  would  at   some
point allow very large Increases in emis-
sions for  very  small  Increases In  effi-
                               fltDERAL IEOISTM,  VOL 42, NO. 191—MONDAY, OCTOBER  3, 1977


                                                     V-GG-5
-------
                                                  PROPOSED ftULES
clency.  The  objective of  an efficiency
adjustment factor should be to give an
emission credit for the lower fuel  con-
sumption of high efficiency gas turbines.
Since the  relative fuel consumption of
gas  turbines  varies linearly  with  effi-
ciency,  a  linear efficiency adjustment
factor Is selected to permit Increased NO,
emissions from high efficiency gas tur-
bines.  A  linear  efficiency adjustment
factor also effectively  limits NO, emis-
sions to a  constant mass emission rate
per unit of power output.
  The efficiency adjustment factor  must
be  referenced  to  a baseline  efficiency.
Since most existing simple cycle gas tur-
bines fall In the range of 20 to  30 percent
efficiency, 25 percent was selected as the
baseline efficiency.  The   efficiency  of
stationary  gas turbines is usually ex-
pressed In terms of heat rate which is the
ratio of heat input, based on lower heat-
Ing  value  (LHV)  of  the fuel,  to the
mechanical power output. The heat rate
of a gas turbine operating at 25 percent
efficiency is 14.4  kllojoules per  watt-hr
(10,180 Btu per hp-hr). Thus, the linear
adjustment factor  as  presented In the
regulation  was  selected to permit In-
creased NO, emissions from  high effi-
ciency stationary gas turbines.
  The Intent of the  efficiency adjust-
ment factor Is to permit a linear Increase
In NO, emissions with Increased efficien-
cies above  25 percent. Consequently, the
adjustment factor would not be used to
adjust the emission limit  downward for
gas turbines with efficiencies of less  than
25 percent.
  The rationale for selection of'the for-
mat for SO. emissions  Is much the same
as  that discussed  above for NO, emis-
sions. Thus,  to be consistent with the
format selected for standards  limiting
NO. emissions, a concentration standard
is chosen  as the format for the SO,
standard. An emission limit In terms of
percent fuel sulfur content has also been
included in the SO: standard to give the
owner or operator the flexibility of either
measuring  the SO, concentration of the
exhaust gas or analyzing the  fuel being
fired in the  turbine. Either format for
the SO, standard can be used since nearly
all of the sulfur in the fuel is converted
to SO,.
  The efficiency factor associated  with
the NO. emission limit would not apply
to the BO, emission limit, however, be-
cause SO,  emissions do not  vary  with
turbine efficiency,
   SELECTION Or THE EMISSION LIMITS
  The available data on emission  from
stationary  gas turbines using wet  con-
trols come primarily from  simple  cycle
gas turbine and combustor rig tests. No
reliable data  was available concerning
NO. emissions from regenerative cycle
gas turbines using -wet controls, although
some dry  control  data was  obtained.
Careful  consideration, therefore,  was
given to the question of whether regen-
erative cycle gas turbines could be  con-
trolled  to  the same emission  levels  as
simple cycle gas turbines.
  There Is general agreement that wet
controls will  give essentially  the same
percentage reduction In NO, emissions
from regenerative cycle gas turbines as
from simple cycle gas turbines. Thus, the
question becomes whether uncontrolled
NO- emissions from regenerative cycle
gas turbines are higher than those from
simple cycle gas turbines. On first com-
parison, No, emissions from regenerative
cycle gas turbines  appear higher than
those from simple  cycle  gas  turbines.
Regenerative  cycle  gas turbines, how-
ever, frequently operate at higher ther-
mal efficiencies than simple cycle gas tur-
bines, and when NO. emissions are plot-
ted  against  gas turbine  thermal  effi-
ciency, emissions from regenerative and
simple cycle gas turbines do not appear
significantly different. As  a result,  the
application of wet controls to either re-
generative or simple cycle gas turbines of
comparable  thermal efficiencies should
reduce NO-  emissions to essentially the
same level.  Consequently,  regenerative
cycle gas turbines  would be subject to
the same emission limit as  simple cycle
gas turbines.
  The data also indicate that gas tur-
bines firing  gaseous fuels typically have
slightly lower controlled NO-  emission
levels than gas turbines firing  distillate
fuels. Again, considering only  the  data
representing major NO, control efforts.
controlled emissions  from gas  turbines
firing gaseous fuels  range from about
15 to 50 ppmv, while controlled emissions
from gas turbines firing distillate fuels
range from about 25 to 60 ppmv.  This
slight difference  In  controlled  emission
levels does not warrant the selection of
a separate emission limit for each  type
of fuel. Only  one emission limit, there-
fore, was selected which applies to gas
turbines burning all  types of fuel.
  Based on this emission data and allow-
ing for some uncertainty In the limited
data  base, 75 ppmv NO-  corrected to
15 percent oxygen  was  selected as  the
numerical emission limit for stationary-
gas turbines.
  The gaseous and premium  distillate
fuels  which  have,  traditionally been
burned  In stationary gas turbines con-
tain little or  no "fuel-bound"  or  "or-
ganic" nitrogen. However,  heavy resid-
ual fuel oils and crude  oils can contain
high levels of fuel-bound nitrogen. Total
NO* emissions  from any  combustion
source, including stationary gas turbines,
are a function of both thermal NO, and
organic NO, formation. Thermal NO, is
formed  in a well defined high tempera-
ture reaction betwe«n nitrogen and oxy-
gen  from the combustion  air.  Organic
NOx, however, is formed by the com-
bination of fuel-bound nitrogen with
oxygen during combustion. The reaction
mechanism Is  not fully  understood. Wet
controls are effective for reducing ther-
mal NOx. but are not  effective for re-
ducing  organic  NO,.
  Three alternatives were considered to
address the  fuel-bound  nitrogen contri-
bution to total NOx emissions from sta-
tionary gas  turbines. The first alterna-
tive would have exempted heavy or re-
sidual fuel oils from standards of  per-
formance. This approach would have al-
lowed gas turbines firing heavy residual
fuel oils to operate with no emission con-
trols.  In addition to the difficulties  of
distinguishing between premium and re-
sidual fuel oils in the standards, this ap-
proach would have encouraged owners
or operators  to  burn heavy or residual
fuel oils as a means of evading standards
of performance.
  The  second alternative  would  hav«
been to base standards of  performance
on the firing of low nitrogen fuels. This
approach  would  have required emission
controls on  all new,  modified, and  re-
constructed stationary gas  turbines, but
would have effectively precluded the flr-
Ing of  fuels other than those premium
gaseous and  distillate fuels which tur-
bines are now using. Firing of heavy or
residual fuel oils would have  required
major breakthroughs in  controlling or-
ganic  NO, formation, or additional re-
fining of these fuels to reduce their ni-
trogen content (as  well  as their  sulfur
content)  to a level  equivalent to that
of premium distillate fuels.
  The  third  alternative would include
an adjustment to the NO, emission limit
as a function of the fuel-bound  nitro-
gen level In the fuel fired. This approach
would require NOx  controls on all new
stationary gas turbines,  but would not
restrict  new, modified or reconstructed
gas turbines  to firing premium gaseous
and distillate fuels. Thus, stationary gas
turbines would not be penalized for fir-
ing heavy fuel oils, nor would there be
any added  impetus toward  the  firing
of heavy  or  residual fuel oils in  order
to evade standards of performance.
  As discussed earlier, low sulfur  fuels,
such as premium distillate fuel oils or
natural gas are now being fired by nearly
all  stationary gas turbines. These pre-
mium fuels are being fired primarily be-
cause the Increased maintenance  costs
associated with firing heavy fuel oils are
greater  than the savings that would be
realized by buying these less expensive
heavy or residual fuel oils. Over the next
five to ten years, however, as oil prices
continue to escalate, the price differen-
tial between premium distillate fuel oils
and heavy fuel oils  will probably in-
crease and economic Incentive to fire the
premium fuel oils will probably become
marginal.  It  is also  possible  that  there
could  be  limited supplies  of premium
distillate fuel  oils over the next five to
ten years due to declining production of
oil and natural gas in the United States,
Increased  demands for  these premium
fuels by users other  than  gas turbines
which cannot utilize  heavy or residual
fuel oils, and the uncertainty of  addi-
tional crude oil supplies In the  world
energy markets.  In  fact,  In anticipation
of the possibility of limited supplies of
premium  distillate  fuel  oils, approxi-
mately 50 percent of the new gas tur-
bines on order are being designed to al-
low the owner or operator the flexibility
of firing either  premium distillate fuel
oils, or residual or heavy fuel oils. Con-
sequently. In order to provide gas tur-
bine owners  and  operators the flexibility
to flre either premium or heavy and re-
sidual fuels, but 'to ensure that standards
                              KWIAl REOISTU, VOL 42, NO.  191—MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1977
                                                     V-GG-b
-------
                                                  PROPOSED  RULES
 of performance add no Impetus toward
 the firing of heavy fuel oils as a means
 of evading standards, alternative three
 to selected for standards of performance
 limiting  NOi emissions from stationary
 gas turbines.
  An allowance In the NO, emission limit
 dependent  on fuel-bound  nitrogen level
 with no upper limit on emissions, how-
 ever, could permit  extremely high NO,
 emissions when fuels with very high  ni-
 trogen contents  are fired.  Thus, It Is
 essential that restraints  be placed  on
 such an  emission allowance. Therefore,
 a fuel-bound nitrogen allowance was  de-
 veloped  that  allows approximately  60
 percent availability of the heavy fuel
 oils.  This corresponds to  a fuel-bound
 nitrogen  content of  0.25 percent. Firing
 a fuel with 055 percent nitrogen content
 Increases controlled NO,  emissions  by
 about BO ppm.
  The  effect  of ambient atmospheric
conditions  on NO,  emissions from sta-
 tionary eas turbines Is substantial. Large
 changes  in relative humidity, for  ex-
 ample, can cause NO, emissions to vary
 by a factor of 2 or more. In order to  in-
 sure that standards of performance  are
 enforced uniformly,  therefore, the  effect
 of  ambient  atmospheric  conditions
 was derived by extracting the  common
 elements from several ambient condi-
 tion corrrection  factors proposed by  gas
 turbine manufacturers. This correction
 factor, therefore, represents the general
 effect of ambient atmospheric conditions
on  NO,  emissions. Consequently,  the
ambient  condition correction factor, as
presented In the regulation, or an alter-
native correction factor as discussed be-
 low, will be used to adjust measured NO,
emissions during any performance test
 to determine compliance  with  the nu-
 merical emission limit.
  As an alternative, gas turbine manu-
 facturers, owners, or operators may elect
to develop  custom  ambient  condition
correction  factors for adjusting meas-
 ured NO, emissions from particular  gas
 turbine models to ISO standard ambient
 conditions  of pressure (101.3  kilopas-
 cals), humidity (60 percent relative hu-
 midity),  and temperature (288 degrees
 Kelvin).  Some  gas turbine manufac-
 turers have proposed ambient condition
 correction  factors which  include  vari-
 ables such as fuel-to-air ratios and com-
 bustor temperatures. These variables  are
 difficult to measure and  are operating
 parameters which may vary widely due
 to factors other than ambient conditions.
 For  this reason, any custom  ambient
 condition correction factor must b«  de-
 veloped in  .terms of the following vari-
 ables only:  combustor Inlet  pressure,
 ambient  air  pressure, ambient air hu-
 midity, and ambient air temperature. All
 ambient  condition  correction factors
 must be substantiated with data and
 then approved for  use by  EPA before
 they can be used in determining compli-
 ance with the NOi emission limit. Am-
 bient condition correction  factors will be
 applied to all performance tests, not only
 those In  which the  use of such factors
 would reduce measured emission levels.
   Some delay is required before the NO,
 standard of performance can be applied
 to small stationary gas turbines. A delay
 is necessary  to provide time for manu-
 facturers to Incorporate NO, controls on
 their  small  production  stationary  gas
 turbine  models.  It  is estimated  that
 about three years delay in the  effective
 date of the standard for small stationary
 gas  turbines  would be required  to allow
 manufacturers time to incorporate and
 test wet controls on  these gas turbines.
 Some manufacturers have  expressed op-
 timism at being  able to meet the NO,
 standards using  dry  controls  If  given
 about five years  delay. Since small  gas
 turbines represent only about 10 to 15
 percent of the total NO, emissions from
 stationary gas turbines,  the difference
 In environmental Impact of a three-year
 versus five-year  delay would be small.
 Additionally,  a three-year delay would
 essentially force these manufacturers to
 incorporate wet controls, whereas a five-
 year delay would provide  the flexibility
• to use wet controls or to develop and use
 dry  controls. Consequently,  five years
 was selected  as the delay  period for im-
 plementation of  the  NO,  emission limit
 on small stationary gas turbines.
   In selecting the size cutoff to differen-
 tiate between large and small stationary
 gas  turbines, consideration was given to
 the  purpose tor the cutoff  and the effect
 on competitive markets. The purpose of
 the  cutoff Is to differentiate  between
 large  gas turbines  where  wet  controls
 have been commercially  demonstrated
 and small gas turbines where wet con-
 trols although effective, have  not been
 generally applied on a commercial basis.
 Consideration of the market data reveals
 that there are  two  major competitive
 markets  for  stationary   gas  turbines
 which  can be  generally  described  as
 small gas turbines and large gas turbines.
 The size range of 6000 to 10,000 horse-
 power  essentially  separates  these  two
 markets.  All gas  turbines above  this
 range are manufactured  by companies
 which have developed wet control sys-
 tems for their stationary gas turbines.
 The size cutoff, therefore, between small
 and large gas turbines was selected as
 the  upper end of this range. Thus, large
 stationary gas turbines  are defined as
 those  with heat  input at peak load of
 greater than  107.2 gigajoules  per hour
 (approximately 10,000 horsepower for a
 25 percent efficient gas turbine).
   The best system of emission reduction,
 considering costs, selected for SO, emis-
 sions was the firing of low sulfur fuel oils.
 To be consistent with the objective of the
 fuel-bound nitrogen allowance NO, emis-
 sion limit and allow for  approximately
 60 percent availability of the residual and
 heavy fuel oils, the SO, emission limit Is
 selected as 150 ppm referenced to 15 per-
 cent O, which corresponds to a  fuel sul-
 fur content of 0.8 percent by weight.
   The five-year delay of the NO, emission
 limit applied  to small gas  turbines  (less
 than 10,000)  to  provide manufacturers
 time to incorporate wet  controls  onto
 their turbines would not  apply to  the
 SO,  emission, limit since the control tech-
nique of burning low sulfur fuels la now
available to all turbines.
  It should be noted  that standards of
performance for new sources established
under Section 111 of  the Clean  Air Act
reflect emission limits  achievable with
the best adequately demonstrated  sys-
tems of  emission reduction considering
the cost of such systems. State imple-
mentation  plans (SIP's)   approved or
promulgated  under Section 110 of the
Act, on the other hand, must provide for
the attainmnt and maintenance of Na-
tional Ambient  Air Quality  Standards
(NAAQS)  designed  to protect public
health and welfare. For  that purpose
SIP'S must in some cases require greater
emission reductions than those required
by  standards  of performance for  new
sources. For example,  EPA's Interpreta-
tive Ruling (41 FB 55524, December 21,
1976) on the  construction of  a  new or
modified source in an area that exceeds a
NAAQS  requires, among  other  things,
that the new source must meet an emis-
sion limitation which reflects the "lowest
achievable  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  demon-
strate 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 the
cost of achievement may be an important
factor in selecting a standard of perform-
ance for new sources applicable to all
areas of the country, the cost factor must
be accorded far less weight in determin-
ing an  appropriate emission limitation
for a source locating in an area violating
statutorlly-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  perform-
ance because of the consideration given
to costs, this technology would be  consid-
ered for purposes  of  determining the
'lowest   achievable  emission rate" for
such  type  of  sources. Consequently.
standards  of  '•performance   for  new
sources  should not be viewed as  the ul-
timate in achievable control and should
not limit the imposition of a more strin-
gent standard, where apppropriate.
  States are free under Section 116 of the
Act  to  establish even  more  stringent
emission limits  than  those established
under Section 111. or those necessary to
attain  or maintain the  NAAQS under
Section  110. Thus, new sources may in
some cases be subject to limitations more
stringent than EPA's  standards  of per-
formance under Section 111,  and  pro-
spective  owners and  operators of new
sources should be aware of this possibil-
ity in planning for such facilities.
SELECTION Or MONITORING MQUTRJMENTS

  To provide a convenient means for en-
forcement  personnel to Insure that an
                              FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO.  191—MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1977
                                                    V-GG-7
-------
                                                  PROPOSED  RULES
emission control system Installed to com-
ply with  standards at performance  la
properly operated and maintained, mon-
itoring  requirements are generally in-
cluded In standards of performance. For
stationary  gas  turbines,   the   most
straightforward means of Insuring proper
operation and maintenance is to monitor
emissions released to the atmosphere.
  EPA has establishing NO. monitoring
performance specifications in Appendix
B of 40 CFR Part 60 for large industrial
sources with well  developed velocity and
temperature profiles. Stationary gas tur-
bines, however, do not have well devel-
oped velocity and temperature profiles
In all  cases. Oas stratification of the
turbine exhaust, for example, makes the
location of the  sample point critical.
Also, since some gas turbines are started
remotely from  a  central location, spe-
cial systems and  data reporting proce-
dures would be necessary to  start and
maintain continuous monitors.
  Currently there are no NO, continuous
monitors operating on  gas turbines, and
resolution  of these  sampling problems
and development  of performance speci-
fications for continuous monitoring sys-
tems would entail a major development
program. For these reasons,  continuous
monitoring  of  NO.  emission  from gas
turbines would not be required by the
proposed standards.
  An effective means of ensuring opera-
tion of the water Injection system used
to control NO. emissions from gas tur-
bines is to monitor the water-to-fuel
ratio' being  fed  to the  turbine.  Both
water  and fuel  monitors  are readily
available  end  are  demonstrated  tech-
nology  for use on gas turbines. Conse-
quently, to ensure operation of water
injection  systems, the  proposed  stand-
ards for stationary gas turbines would
require continuous  monitoring of the
water-to-fuel ratio where water injec-
tion is  employed to comply  with  NO,
standard.
  Also,  an  effective means of ensuring
the firing of fuels  with the  proper ni-
trogen content  to control NO. emissions
caused by fuel bound nitrogen is to mon-
itor the nitrogen  content of the fuel
being fired. Consequently, any owner or
operator that uses the fuel-bound nitro-
gen allowance to  comply with NO. emis-
sion limit will be required by the stand-
ard  to  monitor the nitrogen content of
the fuel.
  The  continuous  monitoring  of SOi
emissions would  not be  required by the
proposed  standards for the same rea-
sons  continuous  monitoring of  NO,
emissions  would  not  be required.  A
means of ensuring the firing of low sulfur
fuels to control 8Ot emissions, however,
is to monitor the sulfur content of the
fuel being  burped, This  is  already a
common  practice  among gas  turbine
users. Consequently, to ensure  the use
of  low sulfur  fuels  by stationary  gas
turbines to comply with the 6Oi emission
limit, the standard would require moni-
 toring the sulfur content of the fuel.

 ULICTIOK Or PIRFORHANCt TEST METHODS

   Reference Method 20, "Determination
 of Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and
Oxygen Emissions from Stationary Oas
Turbines," was selected as the perform-
ance test  method to determine compli-
ance with the standards of performance
limiting NO,  emissions  for  stationary
gas turbines. This test method is based
on the EPA gas turbine  field tests and
on background data for continuous mon-
itoring  system specifications (FEDERAL
REGISTER,  October  6,  19*75). Reference
Method 20  includes  (1)  measurement
system design criteria, (2) measurement
system  performance  specifications  and
performance test  procedures, and  (3)
procedures for emission  sampling.  The
performance specifications include  the
span  drift,  aero  drift, linearity  check,
response time of the system, and inter-
ference checks.  This method allows a
choice of  instruments and will provide
reliable data if the performance specifi-
cations are met.
  Both the Society of Automotive Engi-
neers  (SAE)  and  Mobile Source  test
methods  are  acceptable   alternative
methods,  if the  selected   instrument
models are capable of meeting the  per-
formance specifications   of  Reference
Method 20.
  NO, emission measured by Reference
Method 20 will be affected by ambient
atmospheric  conditions.  Consequently,
measured NO, emissions  would be  ad-
Justed during any performance  test by
the ambient condition correction factor
discussed  earlier, or by custom correction
factors approved for use by the Admi"
istrator.
  In order to apply the fuel-bound nitro-
gen  allowance Included  as part  of the
NOx emission limit,  the  nitrogen  con-
tent of the fuel must be determined. The
analytical methods and procedures em-
ployed to  determine the nitrogen content
of the  fuel would be approved by the
Administrator and would be  accurate to
within plus or minus five percent.
  In lieu of determining the SO, concen-
tration of the exhaust gas from a gas
turbine by using Method 20. compliance
with the standard may be demonstrated
by determining the sulfur content of the
fuels being used by the gas turbine. Sul-
f ul content of the fuel will be determined
using  ASTM D2880-71 for  liquid  fuels
and ASTM D1072-70 for gaseous fuels.

             1CSCELLANXOT7S

   As prescribed by Section  111  of the
Act, this  proposal of standards has been
preceded  by the Administrator's deter-
mination that emissions from stationary
gas turbines contribute 'to air pollution
which causes or contributes to the en-
dangerment of public health or welfare,
and by his publication  of  this deter-
mination in this issue of the FEDERAL
REGISTER. In accordance with Section 117
of the Act, publication of these proposed
standards was preceded  by consultation
with appropriate advisory  committees,
 independent experts and Federal depart-
ments and  agencies.  The Administrator
will welcome comments on all aspects of
the  proposed regulations, including the
 designation of stationary gas turbines as
 a significant contributor to air pollution
which causes or contributes to the en-
dangerment of public health or welfare,
economic and technological issues,  and
on the proposed test methods.
  Comments are also specifically Invited
no the severity of the economic impact of
the proposed standards on stationary gas
turbines located offshore, since a num-
ber of interested parties  have  expressed
objection to not exempting the offshore
turbine from compliance with the stand-
ard. Any comments submitted to the Ad-
ministrator on this issue, however, should
contain  specific information  and "data
pertinent to an evaluation of the magni-
tude of this impact and its severity.
  Economic Impact  analysis:  The  cri-
teria for an action to be  considered  ma-
jor, thereby requiring development of an
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA)  are:
(1) an  increase in  the  fifth-year  an-
nuallzed costs of 100 million dollars, (2)
a major product price increase of 5  per-
cent,  or (3) an  increase  in national en-
ergy  consumption of  25,000 barrels of
fuel oil  per day. The  impacts resulting
from  the proposed standards would not
exceed these criteria,  except possibly for
those stationary gas  turbines sold for
offshore oil and gas  drilling platforms,
where the proposed standards could In-
crease the price of a gas turbine by about
7 percent. Most  gas turbines used in the
application, however, are likely to have
a  heat  input at peak capacity of less
than  107.2  gigajoules per  hour  (about
10,000 horsepower).  Consequently,  they
would be considered small gas turbines
and would be exempt from the standards
for five years following  proposal of the
standards.  In any event, however,  sta-
tionary  gas  turbines sold  for offshore ap-
plications constitute  such  a small  per-
centage (estimated at less than 3  per-
cent) of the overall  market for station-
ary gas turbines that  they are not  con-
slder/ed  a   major product within  the
meaning of the  6 percent major product
price increase criteria for an action to
be considered major,  thereby requiring
preparation of  an EIA. The Environ-
mental   Protection   Agency  has  de-
termined, therefore,  that  his proposed
action does  not constitute a major action
requiring  preparation of  an  Economic
Impact Analysis under Executive Orders
11821  and  11949 and  OMB Circular
A-107.

   Dated: September 21,  1977.

                DOUOLAS M. COSTLE,
                      Administrator.

   It is  proposed to amend Part 60  of
Chapter I, Title 40 of the  Code of  Fed-
eral Regulations as follows:
   1, By adding  subpart  OG as follows:
   Subpart OG—Standardi of Performance for
          Stationary Oj« Turbines
S«c
60.380  Applicability  and designation  of
        aflected facility.
60.331  Definitions.
60.332 Standard  for nitrogen oxldee.
80.833  Standard  for sulfur dioxide.
60.334 Monitoring of  operations.
60.33B Test methods and procedures.

   AUTHORITY: Sections 111  and 301 (a) ol the
Clean Air Act, as  amended, (42 U.8.C. 1857c-
7, 18B7g(a)), and  additional authority as
noted below.
                               FEDERAL REOISTIK, VOL. 42, NO. 191—MONDAY, OCTO«CR 1,
                                                     V-GG-8
-------
                                                   PROPOSED RULES
Subpart  6G—Standard* of Performance
       for Stationary Gas Turbines
i 60 330  Applicability  and designation
     of affected facility.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to the following affected facili-
ties- all stationary gas turbines with a
heat  input at  peak  load equal to or
greater than 10.7 gigajoules per hour,
based  on the  lower heating value of toe
fuel fired.
§ 60.331  Definition*.
  As used in  this subpart, all terms not
denned herein shall  have the  meaning
given them in the Act and in subpart A
of this part
  (a)  "Stationary gas  turbine"  means
any simple cycle gas turbine, regenerative
cycle gas turbine or any gas turbine por-
tion of a combined cycle steam/electric
generating system that is not  self-pro-
pelled. It may, however, be mounted on
a vehicle for portability.
  (b)  "Simple cycle gas turbine" means
any stationary  gas turbine  which  does
not recover heat from the gas turbine ex-
haust  gases  to  preheat the inlet com-
bustion air to the gas turbine,  or which
does not recover heat from the gas tur-
bine exhaust gases to heat water or  gen-
erate steam.
    "Regenerative  cycle gas  turbine"
mean  any stationary gas turbine which
recovers heat from the gas turbine ex-
haust  gases to preheat the inlent com-
bustion air to the gas turbine.
  (d)  "Combined cycle  gas  turbine"
means any stationary gas turbine which
recovers heat from the gas  turbine ex-
haust  gases  to  heat water or  generate
steam.
  (e)  "Emergency gas  turbine"  means
any stationary  gas turbine which op-
erates   as a  mechanical or  electrical
power  source only when the  primary
power  source for a facility has been ren-
dered Inoperable by an emergency situa-
tion.
  (f)  "Ice fog"  means  an atmospheric
suspension  of   highly  reflective   Ice
crystals.
  r»i-reference eombuator Inlet ebeolate prenure
                                                 it  101.i  Idlopascali  ambient pressure.
                                             Pitt-measured oombostor Inlet ebsoluu pressure
                                                 tt test ambient pressure.
                                             J?ob.-tpeclflc humidity of  ambient air tt test.
                                               (-tnuucendentol constant (2.7U).
                               FEDfRAl IWrSTiK, VOL  42, NO. 191—MONDAY, OCTOIIR  J, 1977
                                                      V-GG-9
-------
  The adjusted NO* emission level shall
be used to determine compliance with
180.332.
  -2382 for the lower heat-
Ing value of  liquid fuels and ASTM D-
1826 for the lower heating value of gas-
eous fuels.  These methods shall also be
used to comply with § 60.334
-------
nitrogen are required.  Nominal NO concen-
trations ol 25, 50. and  90 percent of the In-
strument  full scale  range  are needed. The
80 percent gas mixture  Is  used to set and
cback the Instrument span and Is referred to
as span gas. The 25 and 50 percent  gas mix-
tures shall be used to  validate the  analyzer
calibration, prior to each test.
  2.2 3   Oxygen Calibration Oases.  Ambient
air at 20.9 percent oxygen  shall be used as
the span gas (high range concentration gas).
A  mldscale  calibration gas  (approximately
13 percent O,  In nitrogen)  shall be used to
validate the analyzer calibration prior to each
test.
  2.24   Concentration   Validation.   Within
one  month prior test  use, calbratlon  gases
shall be analyzed, by  the  appropriate test
method specified In Section 6.2. to determine
their true concentration  levels. Gas concen-
trations that e.re traceable to the  National
Bureau  of Standards and which can be dem-
onstrated  to be stable are exempted  from the
analrsis requirements.
3.  Measurement System Per/ormance Specifi-
   cations and Performance Test Procedures.
  3.1 'Analyzer. "Span" Is denned as the con-
centration range (specified by manufacturer)
over  which an analyzer will give valid  read-
Ings. The spans for the  analyzers used In this
method shall be as follows:
                              PROPOSED RULES

                     S.I.I  Oxygen Analyzer: 0 to 26%  Ot.
                     S.I.2  NOi Analyzer: 0 to 120 ppm.
                     3.2  Analyzer Interferences  and Interfer-
                   ence Response  The "Interference  response"
                   of an analyzer Is defined as the output re-
                   sponse to a component  In  the sample gas
                   stream, other  than the gas component be-
                   ing  analyzed;  the analyzers  used  In  this
                   method shall not  have a total Interference
                   response of more than ±2 percent of span.
                     Paniculate matter and water vapor are the
                   primary Interfering species for most  Instru-
                   mental analyzers, but these may be removed
                   physically by  using filters and condensers.
                   Other  possible specific Interferents found In
                   turbine exhaust streams Include carbon mon-
                   oxide,  carbon  dioxide, nitrogen oxides,  sul-
                   fur dioxide and hydrocarbons. Each  analyz-
                   ing Instrument may respond to one or  more
                   of these  Interferents In ways  that alter the
                   desired measurement.
                     The  Interference response of an analyzer Is
                   determined by measuring the  total analyzer
                   response to the gaseous components (or mix-
                   tures)  listed In Table 20.1; these gases  may
                   either  be Introduced  Into the analyzer  sep-
                   arately, or as a single gas mixture. The total
                   Interference output response of the analyzer
                   to these  components. If any. shall be deter-
                   mined (In concentration units). The values
                   obtained  In an  Interference  response  test
                   shall be recorded on a form similar to Figure
                   20.2.
         TABLE  20.1   INTERFERENCE TEST GAS CONCENTRATIONS
                        CO

                        so2

                        NO/NOj

                        CO,
                       500 ppm

                       200 ppm

                       200 ppm

                       10X

                       20.92;  (Air)
                  FIGURE  20.2   INTERFERENCE RESPONSE
    Date  of Test:
   Analyzer Type:_
                              S/N
   Test  Gas
     Type
Cone.
Analyzer Output
    Response
% of Span
            % of Span
     Analyzer  Output Response
          Instrument Span
                     x   100
  It the sum of the Interference responses of
the test gases is greater than 2 percent ol U-.e
Instrument span, the analyzer  ahall not be
used In  the  measurement  system  of  this
method.
  An Interference  response test of each an-
alyzer shall be conducted  prior to Its Initial
use In  the field. Thereafter.  If  changes are
made  In the  Instrumentation  which could
alter the Interference response,  e.g.. changes
In the type of gas  detector, the Instruments
ehall be retested.
  In lieu of conducting the Interference re-
sponse Ust. Instrument vendor data, which
demonstrate that for the test gases of Table
20.1 the Interference performance specifica-
tion Is not exceeded, are acceptable. If these
data are  not  available, the  tests shall  be
made
  3.3  Analyzer Response  Time.  When   a
change In pollutant concentration occurs at
the Inlet  of the measurement  system (I.e..
at probe), the chanje Is not immediately reg-
istered by the analyzer;  "response time"  Is
denned as the  amount of time that It takes
for the  analyzer to register a concentration
value within 5 percent of the new Inlet con-
centration. The maximum response time for
the analyzers  used In this method  Is three
minutes.
  To determine response time, first Introduce
zero gas Into  the  system  until all readings
are stable; then, introduce span gas Into the
system The amount of time that It takes for
the analyzer to register 95 percent of the final
span gas  concentration Is the upscale  re-
sponse  time. Next,  relntroduce zero gas Into
the system: the length of time that It takes
for the analyzer output to come within 5 per-
cent of the final reading Is the downscale re-
sponse time. The upscale and downscnle re-
sponse  times shall each be measured three
times. The readings  shall  be averaged, and
the average upscale  or  downscale  response
time, whichever Is  greater, shall be reported
as the "response  time" for the analyzer. Re-
sponse time data are recorded on a form sim-
ilar to Figure 20.3.  A response time test shall
be conducted prior to the Initial field use of
the measurement  system, and  shall be re-
peated If changes are made In the measure-
ment system.
  3.4  Zero Drift. "Zero drift" IB the  change
In analyzer output during  a turbine per-
formance  test, when  the Input to the meas-
urement system Is  a pure  grade of nitrogen
(zero  gas).  The maximum allowable zero
drift for the analyzers used in  thU method
Is  ±2 percent of  the  specified  Instrument
span. The zero drift calculation Is made for
each gas for each  turbine test  run;  this  Is
done by taking the difference of the zero gas
concentration  values measured  at the start
and finish of the test (see Section a.l). The
zero drift  Is recorded as a  percentage of the
instrument span) on a form similar  to Fig-
ure 20.4.
  3.5  Span Drift. "Span drift" Is the  change
In the analyzer output during a turbine per-
formance  test, when  the Input to the meas-
urement system  is span gas. The maximum
allowable  span drift  for the  analyzers used
In this method Is *2 percent of the specified
Instrument span. The span drift calculation
Is  to be made  for each gas for each turbine
test run: this Is done by taking the difference
between the span  gas concentration values
measured  at the beginning and end of  the
test. Span drift Is recorded (as  a percentage
of Instrument span)  on a form similar to
Figure 20 4. Span drift must be corrected for
any zero drift  that occurred during  the test
period  (see Figure 20.4).
  4. Procedure /or Field Sampling.
  4.1  Selection of a Sampling  Site  and the
Minimum Number  of Traverse Points.
                                  FEDERAL  REGISTER, VOL. 42,  NO. 191—MONDAY, OCTOBER 3,  1977
                                                         V-GG-11
-------
                         PROPOSED RULES


                              RESPONSE TIKf
Date of Test
Analyzer Type_
                    S/N
Span Gas  Concentration.,

Analyzer  Span
                ,ppm
               jjpm
                                     seconds
Upscale
                seconds
                                     seconds
         Average upscale response
                                     seconds
                         seconds
 Downscale
                 seconds
                                     seconds
         Average downscale response        ^seconds

 System response time « slower average  time » _____
                                      seconds.
                                Figure  20.3

                     TURB1HE SAMPLING SYSTEM
  Turbine Tyot
Z«ro »nd Span Drift Data

              S/N
  Test Ho.:
  Analyzer:  Type
               S/N
                     initial
                   Calibration
                    ppm or X
              Final
           Callbrttton
            ppm or X
  Dlffsranee
!Mtfal«F
-------
                                                      PROPOSED  RULES
  4.1.1   Select a  sampling site  as  close as
practical to the exhaust of the turbine. Tur-
bJne geometry, stack configuration, Internal
baffling, and  point of Introduction of dilu-
tion air will  vary for different turbine de-
signs. Thus, each of these factors must be
given special consideration In order to  obtain
a representative  sample. Whenever possible,
the sampling site shall  be located upstream
of the  point  of Introduction of dilution air
Into the duct. Sample ports may be located
before  or alter the upturn  elbow, In order
to accommodate  the configuration  of the
turning vanes and  baffles and to permit a
complete, unobstructed traverse of the stack.
The sample ports shall not be located within
B feet  or 2 diameters (whichever is less) of
the gas discharge to atmosphere. Tor sup-
plementary-Bred, combined-cycle  plants, the
sampling site shall be  located between the
gas turbine and the boiler.
  4.1.3   The minimum diameter of the sam-
ple ports shall be 3-lncb nominal pipe size
(NFS).
  4.1.3   The minimum number of points for
the preliminary  O, sampling (Section 8.3.2)
shall be as follows: (1)  eight, for stacks hav-
ing cross-sectional  areas less than  l.E m*
(16.1 ft');  (2)  one  sample point for each
0.2 m"  (2.2 ft') of area, for  stacks of  1.5 m«
to 10.0 m' (16.1-107.8 ft') In cross-sectional
area;  and  (3)  one  sample point for  each
0.4 m'  (4.4  ft')  of area, for stacks  greater
than 10.0 m1 (107.6 ft') In cross-sectional
area. Note that for circular ducts, the num-
ber of sample points  must be a multiple of 4,
and for  rectangular ducts,  the  number of
points  must be one of those listed In Table
  4.3.2.1  At the start of a 8-run sample se-   minute  plus  the average  system response
n«»nf». cosltlon the probe at the first tra-   time.  Dete'inlne  the average  steady-state
  .  .  ,.  .ut and begin sampling. The mini-   concentration of Oi at each point and record
mum sampling time at each point shall be 1   the data on Figure 20.7.

                                   Figuro  R0.5

                                CALIURATIOK DATA
    Da to
    Analyzur Typc_
S/H_
    High Range Gas Cone.

    Hid Range  Gas Conc._

    Low Range  Gas Conc._

    Zero Gas	
% Full  Scale.

X Full  Scale_

% Full  Scale_

% Full  Scale
                                    Figure  20.6

                              STATIONARY GAS  TURBINE
points (upward), when appropriate.
TABLE 20.2. — Cross-sectional layout for
rectangular stacks
No. of traverse Mofrli
points: layout
0 	 8X3
12 	 4X3
18 	 „ . 4X4
20 	 	 BX4
25 	 	 . 6X8
30 6x5
38 	 . . 0X8
40 1 v A
49 	 - 	 7X7
4.3 Cross-sectional Layout and Location
of Traverse Points. After the number of tra-
verse points for the preliminary O, sampling
hat been determined, use Method 1 to locate
the traverse points.
4.S Measurement System Operation.
4.3.1 Preliminaries.
4.3.1.1 Prior to the turbine teat, the meas-
urement system shall have been demon-
strated to have met the performance speci-
fications for Interference response and re-
sponse time described In Sections 8.2 and 3.3.
4.3.1.2 Turn on the sample pump and In-
struments; allow the normal warmup time
required for stable Instrument operation.
4.3.1.3 After the Instrument* have itob-
lllted, the measurement system shall be cali-
brated using the procedure* detailed In Seo-
tlon 8,1, Transfer the cero and span gai cali-
bration dau from Figure 80,5 to a form
•Imllor to Figure 80,4.
4,8.1.4 At the beginning of etch NO, Wit
run and, M applicable, during the run, rec-
ord turbln* data M Indicated In Figure 80.6,
Also, record the location and number at the
traveree points on » diagram,
4,8 3 Preliminary Oxygen Sampling,
nDIRAl DM
TURBINE OPERATION RECORD
Test Operator Date
Type
Turbine ID
S/il
Plant
Location
City
Ambient Temperature
Ambient Humidity
Test Time Start
Test Timo Finish
Fuel Flow Rate
Vlater or Stonm
Flow Rato
Ambient Pressure
*u8scHb~e iiiuusuronviiu wclhofl, 1.
start finish volumes* otc.
**i,e,, Additional e 1 email U addoc

Ultimate Fuel
Analysis C
II


ti
S
Ash
H20

Trace Metals
Na
Va
K
* etc,**
* Oparatlnn Load

o.| continuous flow motor,
for smoke suppression,
ITU, VOl. 41, NO, HI— MONDAY, OCTOIH I, 1»77
V-GG-13
-------
                                PROPOSED  RULES

                                     FIGURE 20.7
                          Preliminary Oxygen Traverse
      Location
                Date
            Plant
            City,  State

      Turbine  ID

            Mfg.	
            Model, serial  number

            Sample Point
Oxygen Concentration
  4.3.2.2  Select the eight sample points at
which the lowest oxygen concentrations -were
obtained. These same point*  shall be used
for all  three runs which comprise the emis-
sion test. More points ma; be used, if desired.
  4.3.3  Emission Sampling.
  4.3.3.1  Position  the probe  at the  first
point determined la the  preceding section
and begin rampling. The minimum sampling
time at each point  shall  be 8 minutes  plus
tthe- average system response time. Determine
the average steady-state concentration of O,
and NO. & each point and record the d&te, on
Figure 20.3.
  4.8.2.2  After sampling the last point, con-
clude the test run by recording the final
turbine operating parameters  and by deter-
mining the zero and span drift, as described
in Sections 3.4 and 3.5. If the zero and/or
span drift exceed ± 2.0  percent the run  may
be considered  Invalid,  or  ma; be accepted
provided the calibration data •which results
  In  the  highest  corrected emission  concen-
  tration ia used.
   4.8.2.3  If  additional  turbine  runs  are
  conducted  within 4 hours of the previous
  run,  an  initial  calibration of the measure-
  ment system te not required.  If more than 4
  boura have elapsed between  runs, the pre-
  test calibration shall be done.
   4.4  An SO, determination  shall be made
  (using Method 8, or equivalent)  during the
  teat. A minimum of six total points, selected
  from those required for the  NO, measure-
  ment, shall be sampled; two points shall be
  used  for each sample run. The sample time
  at  each point shall be at least 10 minuets.
  The oxygen readings taken during the NO,
  test runs corresponding to the SO, traverse
  points (see Section 4.3.3.1) shall be averaged,
  and this average oxygen  concentration shall
  be  used  to correct the Integrated SO, con-
  centration  obtained by Utthod 8 to 16 per-
  cent O, (4Me Bquation 30-1).
              FEOEIAl KEOISTH, VOL 42, NO. 191—MONDAY, OCTOBER  3, 1977
                                      V-GG-14
-------
                                                      PROPOSED  RULES
                                                          Figure 20.8
                                                   STATIONARY  SAS TURBINE
                                                   GAS SAMPLE  POINT RECORD
  Turbine 10
  Location
               Mfg..
               Model & S/N_

               Plant	
               City_
                             Test  Operator Name_

                             02 Instrument Type_
                    J/N
               State
 Ambient Temp.
                             NO   Instrument Type_
                     S/N_
 Ambient  Press_
 Ambient Humidity.

 Date	
 Test Time Start
 Test  Time Finish
Sample Time 02* NO *
Point (M1n) (»} (ppm)
1
0


            *Average steady state value from'recorder  or instrument Readout.
0. Emission Calculations.
  6.1  Correction  to   15  Percent  Oxygen.
Using Equation 20-1, calculate the NO, and
SO, concentrations (adjutted  to IE percent
O,). The correction to 16 percent oxygen la
sensitive to the accuracy of the oxygen meas-
urement. At the level of analyzer drllt speci-
fied In the method {-±2 percent of full scale),
the change In the oxygen concentration cor-
rection can exceed 10 percent when the oxy-
gen content of the exhaust Is above 16 per-
cent O,. Therefore O, analyzer stability and
careful calibration are necessary.
Actual pollutant concentration (NO, or SOi)
              ».e%-0i% actual
         Pollutant concentration ad)uzt*4 to 15% Oi
where:
     5.9% b 20.e%-15% (the defined concentration
   basis).
     Oi artual is the sample point oxygen concentration
   (or A'O, calculation, and the average 0: concentra-
   tion (or SOi calculation.
  5.2  Calculate the average adjusted NO, concentration
ky gumming the point values and dividing by the num-
ber of sample points.
6. Calibration.
  6.1  Measurement  System.  Prior  to  each
turbine test, the measurement system  shall
b« calibrated according to the procedures de-
scribed below. The manufacturer's operation
and  calibration  Instructions  are also to be
followed as required for"each specific  ana-
lyzer.
  6.1.1  Turn on  all measurement  system
components and allow  them to  warm up
until  stable conditions  are  achieved. Next.
Introduce goro gas and each  of the calibra-
tion gases described In Section 6.2, one at a
                                   RDERAl MOISm, VOL 4J, NO. 191—MONDAY,  OCTOMK 3. 1977
                                                          V-GG-15
-------
                                PROPOSED  RULES
time,  Into the inlet of  the probe. The re-
•ponses of the analyzer  to these gases shall
be used to establish a calibration  curve or
to  verify  tbe  manufacturers  oallbratlon
curve. The data obtained InAhese procedures
shall be recorded on a form similar to Figure
30.4, If, for the mid-scale gases, the accuracy
of the manufacturer's  calibration  curve or
tbe expected response curve cannot be shown
to be ±3 percent of full scale (or better),
tbe calibration shall be considered Invalid
and corrective measures on the Instrument
shall  b«  taken.  The calibration procedure
shall  be repeated,  using only zero gas and
•pan  gas, at the  conclusion of test;  this
                      allows  calculation of cero and span drift
                      (Sections 8.3 and 8.3).
                        4.3   Calibration Oas Mixtures.
                        6.2.1  Within one month prior to the tur-
                      bine test,  the NOi calibration gas mixtures
                      shall be analyzed, using the phenoldlsulfonle
                      add procedure  (Method  7) for  nitrogen
                      oxides. A  minimum of three analyses shall
                      be done, and the average concentration of
                      each gas shall be reported as the true calibra-
                      tion gas value  (see Figure 30.9). Alternate
                      procedures may be employed, subject to the
                      approval of the Administrator, to determine
                      the calibration gas concentration.
                                   Figure 20.9

                     ANALYSIS OF CALIBRATION GAS MIXTURES
    CYLINUER GAS COMPOSITION

    Dote	
                             Reference Method Used
               Low Range Calibration  Gas Mixture

               Sample 1	ppm
               Sample 2_
               _ppm
               Sample  3_

               •Average_
                jpiti
                J>pn
               Hid flange Calibration Gas Mixture

               Sample  I         ,, ppm
               Sample  2_
                j>pm
               Sample  3.

               Average__
                _ppm
                _ppa
               High Range (span?  Calibration  Gas Mixture

               Sample I            ppm

               Sample 2'            cum
               Sample 3

               Average
                j>pw
                j>pm
   Hon.—Tbe NO,  calibraUon gas mixtures
 •hall contain nitric oxide (NO) In nitrogen.
 Instruments which require conversion of ons
 nitrogen  oxide  component  to another for
 total NO, measurement shall In checked to
 ensure that this conversion  u complete and
 reproducible,  as specified by the manufac-
 turer,
                         8.2.3 Ambient air may be used  u  the
                       oxygen span gas. The mid-scale calibration
                       gas concentration  shall be  certified  (by
                       vendor) as being within A3 percent o(  the
                       Indicated concentration.
                         [TO 000.71-86731 Filed 9-90-T7;»:iB am]
mum, voi. »J, NO.
                                                       , OCTMH »,
                                     V-GG-16
-------
  [6560-01]

            [ 40 CFR Part 60 ]
               |FRL 828-3]

       STATIONARY GAS TURBINES
  Standards  of  Performance for  New Sta-
    tionary Sources Extension of Comment
    Period
  AGENCY:  Environmental   Protection
  Agency  (EPA).
  ACTION:  Proposed rule.

  SUMMARY: The deadline for submlttal
  of comments on the  proposed standards
  of performance for stationary gas tur-
  bines, which were proposed on October 3,
  1977 (42 PR  53782), Is being extended
  from December 2, 1977, to January 31,
  1978.
  DATE: Comments must  be received on
  or before January 31, 1978.

  ADDRESSES: Comments should be sub-
  mitted  (preferably In triplicate)  to the
  Emission  Standards  and  Engineering
  Division (MD-13), Environmental  Pro-
  tection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
  N.C., attention: Mr.  Don R.  Goodwin.
  All  public comments received may be
  Inspected and copied at the Public In-
  formation Reference Unit  (EPA  Li-
  brary),  Room  2922,  401  M Street 6VV.,
  Washington, D.C.
  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
  TACT:'
    Don  R.  Goodwin,  Director. Emission
    Standards and Engineering Division
    (MD-13)  Environmental  Protection
    Agency,  Research Triangle Park, N.C.
    27711, 919-641-5271.
  SUPPLEMENTARY   INFORMATION:
  On  October 3, 1977  (42 FR 53782), the
  Environmental Protection Agency  pro-
  posed standards of performance for the
  control of  emissions from stationary gas
  turbines.  The  notice of  proposal re-
  quested public comments on the  stand-
  ards by December 2,1977. Due to a delay
  In the printing  and shipping of the
  Standards Support and Environmental
  Impact Statement, sufficient copies of the
  document have not been available to all
  Interested  parties In  time to allow their
  meaningful review and comment by De-
  cember 2,  1977, EPA has received a re-
  quest from the industry  to extend the
  comment  period  by  00  days through
  January 31, 1978. An extension of this
  length is justified since the printing and
  shipping delay has resulted in approxi-
  mately a seven week  delay in processing
  requests for the document.
    Dated: December 2,1977,
               EDWARD F. Tuinx,
            Assistant  Administrator
      for Air and Waste Management.
   I TO Doo.TT-JBjes HI id ll-*-77il:45 am]
HOIRAL MOlStlR, VOL. 41, NO, »»7—«IOAY, DICIMIIR •, W7
                                                     V-GG-17
-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 . REPORT NO.
  EPA 340/1-79-001
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
                                                            5. REPORT DATE
                                                              January  1979
                                                            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                              P/N 3370-3-DD
7. AUTHOR(S)
                                                            8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
  PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
  11499 Chester  Road
  Cincinnati, Ohio  45246
             11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
               68-01-4147,  Task 73
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
  Division of  Stationary Source Enforcement
  Washington,  DC   20460
                                                            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                              Supplement, Nov. 1977 to
             14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                    Jan.  197<
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  DSSE Project Officer:   Kirk Foster
16. ABSTRACT
  This document  contains those pages  necessary to update  Standards of Performance
  for New Stationary Sources - A Compilation, published by the U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency, Division of Stationary Source  Enforcement in November  1977
  (EPA 340/1-77-015).   It is only an  update and should be used in conjunction
  with the original  compilation.

  Included in the  update, with complete  instructions for  filing, are:  a new cover,
  title page, and  table of contents;  a new summary  table;  all  revised and new
  Standards of Performance; the full  text  of all revisions and standards
  promulgated since  November 1977; and all  proposed standards  or revisions.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C.  COSATI Field/Group
  Federal  Emission Standards
  Regulations
  Enforcement
 New Source  Performance
  Standards
13B

14D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
  Unlimited
                                               19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)

                                                 Unclassified	
                                                                          21. NO. OF PAGES
                                               20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)

                                                 Unclassified	
                                                                          22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                  
-------
                                                            January 1979

To holders of Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,
A Compilation:

This document contains those pages necessary to update the above men-
tioned publication through January 1, 1979.  It is only an update and
should be used in conjunction with the original compilation published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement in November 1977 (EPA 340/1-77-015).  Copies of Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources, A Compilation may be obtained
from:
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Office of Adminstration
                  General Services Division, MD-35
                  Research Triangle Park, NC   27711
Included in this update, with complete instructions for filing, are:  a
new cover, title page, and table of contents; a new Summary Table; all
revised and new Standards of Performance; the full text of all revisions
and standards promulgated since November  1977; and all proposed stan-
dards or revisions.

Any questions, comments or suggestions regarding this document or the
previous compilation  should be directed to:  Standards Handbooks,
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement  (EN-341), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C, ,  20460.
-------
                     INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING
Remove and discard the cover and title page of this document.
          Deletions

Cover and title page
 dated November 1977

Table of Contents:
 pages v through xv

Section II, Summary:
 pages I1-3 through 11

Section III, Standards:
 pages III-l through 46

Section III, Appendix A:
 pages A-l through A-34

 pages A-41 through A-54

Section III, Appendix B:
 pages B-ll and 12

Section III, Appendix C:
 page C-l

Section III, Appendix D:
 page D-l

Section IV, Full Text:
 pages vii and viii

 page IV-207

Section V, Proposed Amendments:
 All proposed items have been
 promulgated, therefore:
 Remove all pages from
 Section V
Place the new Technical Report Data
future reference.
              Additions

         Cover and title page
          dated January 1979

         Table of Contents:
          pages v through xviii

         Section II, Summary:
          pages II-3 through 18

         Section III, Standards:
          pages III-l through 51

         Section III, Appendix A:
          pages A-l through A-34

          pages A-41 through A-78

         Section III, Appendix B:
          pages B-ll and 12

         Section III, Appendix C:
          page C-l

         Section III, Appendix D:
          page D-l

         Section IV, Full Text:
          pages vii through x

          pages IV-207 through 278

         Section V, Proposed Amendments:
          New or amended regulations have
          been proposed for:

         Subpart A - General Provisions

         Subpart D, Da - Electric Utility
           Steam Generating Units

         Subpart K, Ka - Petroleum Liquid
           Storage Vessels

         Subpart S - Primary Aluminum
           Industry

         Subpart GG - Stationary Gas
           Turbines

page and this page in the back for
                                 iv
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            Office of Administration
            Library Services Office
                    MD 35
      Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
                                                       POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
                                                 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                                              EPA-33S

                                                        Special Fourth-Class Rate
                                                              Book
              OFFICIAL BUSINESS
        PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
       \N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
                 8
o
                                   If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label;
                                   tear off; and return to the above address.
                                   If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
                                   series, CHECK HERE l~|: tear off label, and return it to the
                                   above address.
                                    Publication  No. EPA-340/1-79-001
-------