[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 188 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50586-50614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24284]



[[Page 50585]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary 
Aluminum Reduction Plants; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 188 / Thursday, September 26, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 50586]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5602-1]
RIN 2060-AE76


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for each new 
or existing potline, paste production operation, and anode bake furnace 
associated with a primary aluminum reduction plant. The major hazardous 
air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities covered by this 
proposed rule include hydrogen fluoride (HF) and polycyclic organic 
matter (POM). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are included in 
the chemical group POM. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been 
reported to produce carcinogenic, reproductive, and developmental 
effects as well as toxic effects on blood, the liver, eyes and the 
immune system. The proposed rule will result in a 50 percent reduction 
in fluoride and POM emissions from the current level of 11,000 tons per 
year (tpy); a substantial reduction in emissions of nonHAP pollutants, 
such as particulate matter, also would be achieved.
    The proposed standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air 
Act as amended (the Act) and are based on the Administrator's 
determination that primary aluminum plants may reasonably be 
anticipated to emit several of the 189 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of 
the Act from the various process operations found within the industry.

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule 
until November 25, 1996.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by October 17, 1996, a public hearing will be held on 
October 28, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m. For more information, see VII, B 
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in 
duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-92-60 at the following address: 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be 
sent to the contact person listed below. The docket is located at the 
above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor) and may be 
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to noon, and from 1 to 3 p.m., Monday through 
Friday. The proposed regulatory text, proposed Method 315, the Basis 
and Purpose Document, Technical Support Document, and other materials 
related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket. 
Copies of this information may be obtained by request from the Air 
Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials.
    The public hearing will be held at the EPA Office of Administration 
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Fruh, Policy, Planning, and 
Standards Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2837.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that emit 
or have the potential to emit HAPs listed in Sec. 112(b) of the Act. 
Regulated categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                  Examples of regulated  entities 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................  Primary aluminum reduction plants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware 
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities 
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether 
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.840 of the proposed rule. If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Technology Transfer Network

    A detailed evaluation and rationale for this notice of proposal are 
provided in the Basis and Purpose Document. The Basis and Purpose 
Document, proposed regulation, and this preamble also are available on 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin 
boards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for the 
cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 with a modem of up to 14,400 
baud per second (BPS). If more information on the TTN is needed, call 
the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Outline

    The information in this preamble is organized as shown below.

I. Statutory Authority
II. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. NESHAP for Source Categories
    C. Overview of the Industry
    D. Health Effects of Pollutants
III. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Applicability
    B. Subcategories
    C. Emission Control Technology
    D. Emission Limits
    E. Emission Monitoring and Compliance Provisions
    F. Emission Averaging
    G. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
IV. Summary of Impacts
    A. Environmental Impacts
    B. Cost and Economic Impacts
V. Selection of Proposed Standards
    A. Selection of Pollutants
    B. Selection of Emission Limits
VI. Public Participation
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Public Hearing
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive 
Order 12875
    E. Unfunded Mandates Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Clean Air Act

I. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Introduction

A. Background

    This proposed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard 
was developed as a pilot demonstration of EPA's Share-A-MACT program. 
Under this rulemaking approach, EPA works with State regulatory 
agencies and tribal governments to resolve major issues while working 
in a cooperative effort with industry and professional associations to 
identify data needs and

[[Page 50587]]

to collect, exchange, and analyze the information and data. For 
example, on this project emission tests were conducted with shared 
funding from EPA, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the 
aluminum industry.
    The proposed standard is based on a combination of control 
techniques that either prevent the escape of emissions or capture the 
pollutants and return them to the process. These pollution prevention 
measures include work practices, equipment modifications, operating 
practices, housekeeping measures, and in-process recycling. The overall 
effect of the proposed standard will be to raise the control 
performance of nearly half of the industry to the level of control 
achieved by the best performing plants. Currently, over 11,000 tpy of 
fluoride and POM are emitted nationwide; these emissions would be 
reduced by more than 50 percent, and higher reductions would be 
achieved at particular sites. Emissions of total particulate matter 
also would be reduced by 16,000 tpy. These reductions will lower 
ambient air concentrations of these pollutants and, consequently, lower 
levels of exposure. The deposition of fluorides and POM on waters, such 
as the Great Lakes, also would be reduced. These benefits will be 
achieved with no plant closures predicted and without any significant 
adverse economic impacts on the industry. According to the economic 
analysis, the price of aluminum is projected to increase by less than 1 
percent, and total revenue and employment will decrease by less than 1 
percent. Total capital expenditures are estimated as $160 million, with 
a total annualized cost of $40 million per year.
    The proposed standard provides flexibility to the owner or operator 
with an incentive for improved performance. For example, the proposed 
monitoring requirements allow less frequent sampling at plants that 
show consistent performance below the level of the standard; provisions 
for similar potlines allow a reduction in manual sampling and the use 
of less expensive alternative sampling; and provisions are included for 
emission averaging. Additional time for achieving compliance also is 
allowed for existing sources, depending on the extent of changes needed 
to meet the standards.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

    Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAPs and directs the EPA to 
develop rules to control all major and some area sources emitting HAPs. 
On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published a list of major and 
area sources for which NESHAP are to be promulgated, and primary 
aluminum production was one of the 174 categories of sources listed. 
The listing was based on the Administrator's determination that primary 
aluminum plants may reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the 
189 listed HAPs in sufficient quantity to be designated as major 
sources. The EPA schedule for promulgation of the MACT standards was 
published on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), and requires that rules 
for the primary aluminum source category be promulgated by November 15, 
1997.

C. Overview of the Industry

    Primary aluminum plants produce aluminum metal through the 
electrolytic reduction of aluminum oxide (alumina) by direct current 
voltage in an electrolyte (called ``cryolite'') of sodium aluminum 
fluoride. There are 23 primary aluminum plants currently located in a 
total of 14 States. Many of these plants are concentrated in the 
Northwest in close proximity to hydroelectric power sources. The 23 
plants have 91 potlines that produce aluminum, each plant has a paste 
production operation, and 17 of these plants have anode bake furnaces. 
The major HAPs emitted by these facilities are HF and POM.
    Primary aluminum plants are subject to varying State emission 
limits for TF developed pursuant to section 111(d) of the Act. A total 
of 5 potlines at 4 plants are subject to New Source Performance 
Standards (NSPS) for primary aluminum reduction plants (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart S). The EPA is considering removing the NSPS and incorporating 
any necessary provisions into this proposed rule to avoid duplicative 
control requirements, eliminate redundant monitoring provisions, and to 
reduce paperwork. Removal of the NSPS would probably require certain 
changes to this rule for those specific cases that would have otherwise 
triggered the NSPS. For sources that would have been subject to the 
NSPS, these changes could include incorporating the part 60 provisions 
for modifications, establishing the NSPS limits when appropriate, and 
adopting the NSPS opacity limits. The EPA is requesting comments on the 
concept of removal of the NSPS and the specific additional provisions 
that would need to be incorporated into this proposed rule.

D. Health Effects of Pollutants

    The Clean Air Act was created in part ``to protect and enhance the 
quality of the nation's air resources so as to promote the public 
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.'' 
[See section 101(b)(1).] Section 112 of the Act establishes a control 
technology-based program to reduce stationary source emissions of HAPs. 
The goal of the section 112(d) MACT standards is to apply such control 
technology to reduce emissions and thereby reduce the hazard of HAPs 
emitted from stationary sources.
    This proposed rule is technology-based, i.e., based on MACT. The 
MACT strategy avoids depending on a detailed and comprehensive risk 
assessment for MACT standards for control of air toxics for the 
following reasons: (1) some of the HAPs emitted from stationary sources 
are unknown, and (2) many of the HAPs about which EPA has emissions 
information lack complete data with which to describe health hazards.
    The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health 
resulting from the most significant emissions identified can range from 
mild to severe. The extent to which the effects could be experienced 
depends upon the ambient concentrations and exposure time. The latter 
is further influenced by source-specific characteristics such as 
emission rates and local meteorological conditions. Human variability 
factors also influence the degree to which effects to health occur: 
genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle.
    Available emission data, in conjunction with development of the 
proposed standard, show that HF and POM are the HAPs that are most 
significant and that have the potential for reduction by implementation 
of the standard. The emission limits in the proposed standard would 
reduce emissions of both HF, a gaseous inorganic compound, and POM. The 
proposed standard also would reduce emissions of particulate matter 
(PM), which is controlled under the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) as a ``criteria'' pollutant. Following is a summary 
of the potential health effects caused by emissions of pollutants that 
would be reduced by the standard.
    Short-term inhalation exposure to gaseous HF and related fluoride 
compounds can cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including 
severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Long-term inhalation exposure to 
low levels of HF by humans has been reported to result in irritation 
and congestion of the nose, throat, and bronchi while damage to liver, 
kidney, and lungs has been observed in animals. There is generally a 
lack of information on human health effects associated with exposures 
to HF at current ambient air concentrations

[[Page 50588]]

near primary aluminum plants. Occupational studies have not 
specifically implicated inhaled fluoride as a cause of cancer, and the 
Agency has not classified HF with respect to potential carcinogenicity.
    Emission test results reveal that primary aluminum reduction plants 
may emit POM, which includes a combination of PAHs such as anthracene, 
benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene, among others. Several of the PAH 
compounds, including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, 
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, 
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, are probable human 
carcinogens. Cancer is the major concern from exposure to these PAHs. 
Specifically, long-term exposure to benzo(a)pyrene has been reported to 
result in toxic effects on skin, irritation to eyes and cataracts in 
humans, and toxic effects on liver, blood, and the immune system in 
animal studies. Reproductive and developmental effects from 
benzo(a)pyrene have also been reported in animal studies.
    The health effects of ``criteria'' pollutants reduced by this 
proposed standard (e.g., particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in 
diameter [PM10]) are described in EPA's criteria documents that 
support the NAAQS. For example, particles addressed by the PM10 
standard have been associated with aggravation of existing respiratory 
and cardiovascular disease and increased risk of premature death.

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Applicability

    The proposed standard would apply to emissions of HF, measured 
using total fluorides (TF) as a surrogate, and POM (as measured by 
methylene chloride extractables) from each affected source associated 
with primary aluminum reduction. Affected sources are each potline of 
reduction cells, each anode bake furnace, and each paste production 
plant, except for one off-site anode bake furnace that is subject to 
the State MACT determination under section 112(l) of the Act.

B. Subcategories

    Section 112(d) of the Act requires EPA to establish emission 
standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources. 
Section 112(d)(1) of the Act states that ``the Administrator may 
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a 
category * * * in establishing such standards * * *.'' In establishing 
subcategories, EPA has considered factors such as air pollution control 
engineering differences, process operations (including differences 
between batch and continuous operations), emission characteristics, 
control device applicability, and opportunities for pollution 
prevention.
    The EPA's analysis of existing aluminum production processes and 
operations resulted in the designation of seven subcategories for 
potlines. For the subcategories of potlines, the distinctions are based 
primarily on differences in the process operation, process equipment, 
emissions, and the applicability of control devices. Additional 
information on the subcategorization is included in the Basis and 
Purpose Document for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants.
    One of the subcategories was developed for center-worked prebake 
potlines with wet primary control systems. These potlines produce a 
high purity aluminum for a specialized market, and they can do so only 
because metal impurities are removed with the sludge from the wet 
scrubbers. If these potlines were required to be equipped with dry 
alumina scrubbers, the contaminants would be returned to the reduction 
cell and contaminate the aluminum. The company claims that if they must 
meet MACT for the prebake subcategory of modern potlines with dry 
alumina scrubbers, they could lose their market for high purity 
aluminum. The EPA is requesting comments on the issue of a separate 
subcategory for potlines that produce high purity aluminum.

C. Emission Control Technology

    The control option for primary emissions from the reduction process 
for six of the seven subcategories of existing potlines and for all new 
potlines is the installation of a dry alumina scrubber (with a baghouse 
to collect the alumina and other particulate matter) at those plants 
that do not have them. The control option for prebake plants producing 
high purity aluminum is a wet scrubber that removes impurities that 
would otherwise contaminate the aluminum. The MACT technology used to 
establish the floor of performance for potline secondary emission 
control involves the use of wet roof scrubbers for side-worked prebake 
potlines and one type of Soderberg potline. Work practice programs, 
inspection procedures, and maintenance programs for repairing or 
replacing damaged hoods and seals provide the most efficient control 
for secondary emissions from other types of existing and new potlines. 
Based on EPA's MACT floor analyses, the dry alumina scrubber also is 
the MACT floor technology for new and existing anode bake furnaces, and 
a capture system vented to a dry coke scrubber is the MACT floor 
technology for new and existing paste production operations.
    For the one bake furnace plant not located with a primary aluminum 
reduction plant, the MACT floor control technology (dry alumina 
scrubbers) does not apply because the plant does not have access to 
alumina as do other bake furnaces, and there are no potlines onsite to 
use the reacted alumina. Consequently, EPA placed this plant in a 
separate subcategory and proposes to adopt the State MACT determination 
for this facility. This approach is consistent with EPA's policy of 
working with the States, adopting MACT determinations from State 
programs when appropriate, and avoiding regulatory duplication.
    No additional control options were identified that had been 
demonstrated to be more effective than the MACT floor technologies at a 
reasonable cost or that would achieve significant additional reductions 
in HAP emissions. Consequently, the technologies associated with the 
MACT floor were also determined to represent the MACT technology. 
Additional information on EPA's beyond-the-floor analysis is included 
in the Basis and Purpose Document.

D. Emission Limits

    Analyses of available data led EPA to conclude that the emission 
levels shown in Table 1 for existing sources and Table 2 for new 
sources represent the MACT floor and MACT for each emission source.

                       Table 1.--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for Existing Sources                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Source                                               Emission limit              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potlines...........................................................  TF Emission Limits:                        
                                                                        0.95 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of aluminum     
                                                                         produced for CWPB1 \1\ potlines.       
                                                                        1.5 kg/Mg (3.0 lb/ton) of aluminum      
                                                                         produced for CWPB2 \1\ potlines.       
                                                                        1.25 kg/Mg (2.5 lb/ton) of aluminum     
                                                                         produced for CWPB3 \1\ potlines.       

[[Page 50589]]

                                                                                                                
                                                                        0.80 kg/Mg (1.6 lb/ton) of aluminum     
                                                                         produced for SWPB \1\ potlines.        
                                                                        1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of aluminum      
                                                                         produced for VSS1 \1\ potlines.        
                                                                        1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of aluminum     
                                                                         produced for VSS2 \1\ potlines.        
                                                                        1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of aluminum     
                                                                         produced for HSS \1\ potlines.         
                                                                     POM Emission Limits:                       
                                                                        2.35 kg/Mg (4.7 lb/ton) of aluminum     
                                                                         produced for HSS potlines.             
                                                                        1.2 kg/Mg (2.4 lb/ton) of aluminum      
                                                                         produced for VSS1 potlines.            
                                                                        1.85 kg/Mg (3.7 lb/ton) of aluminum     
                                                                         produced for VSS2 potlines.            
Paste Production...................................................  POM Emission Limit: Install, operate, and  
                                                                      maintain equipment for capture of         
                                                                      emissions and vent emissions to a dry coke
                                                                      scrubber.                                 
Anode Bake Furnace (located with a primary aluminum plant).........  TF Emission Limit: 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton)
                                                                      of anode.                                 
                                                                     POM Emission Limit:  0.09 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/  
                                                                      ton) of anode.                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Abbreviations defined:                                                                                      
CWPB1=Center-worked prebake potline with the most modern reduction cells; includes all center-worked prebake    
  potlines not specifically identified as CWPB2 or CWPB3.                                                       
CWPB2=Center-worked prebake potlines located at Alcoa in Rockdale, Texas; Kaiser Aluminum in Mead, Washington;  
  Ormet Corporation in Hannibal, Ohio; Ravenswood Aluminum in Ravenswood, West Virginia; Reynolds Metals in     
  Troutdale, Oregon; and Vanalco Aluminum in Vancouver, Washington.                                             
CWPB3=Center-worked prebake potline that produces very high purity aluminum, has wet scrubbers as the primary   
  control system, and is located at the primary aluminum plant operated by NSA in Hawesville, Kentucky.         
HSS=Horizontal stud Soderberg potline.                                                                          
SWPB=Side-worked prebake potline.                                                                               
VSS1=Vertical stud Soderberg potline at Northwest Aluminum in The Dalles, Oregon, or at Columbia Aluminum in    
  Goldendale, Washington.                                                                                       
VSS2=Vertical stud Soderberg potlines at Columbia Falls Aluminum in Columbia Falls, Montana.                    


      Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for New Sources     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Source                           Emission limit           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potlines..........................  TF Emission Limit: 0.6 kg/Mg (1.2 lb/
                                     ton) of aluminum produced.         
                                    POM Emission Limit: 0.32 kg/Mg (0.63
                                     lb/ton) of aluminum produced.      
Paste Production..................  POM Emission Limit: Install,        
                                     operate, and maintain equipment for
                                     the capture of emissions and vent  
                                     emissions to a dry coke scrubber.  
Anode Bake Furnace................  TF Emission Limit: 0.01 kg/Mg (0.02 
                                     lb/ton) of anode.                  
                                    POM Emission Limit: 0.025 kg/Mg     
                                     (0.05 lb/ton) of anode.            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The limits for potlines are in the same format as the NSPS (40 CFR 
part 60, subpart S)--kilogram of pollutant per megagram of aluminum 
(kg/Mg) or pound of pollutant per ton of aluminum (lb/ton). A similar 
format, lb/ton of anode, is used for emission limits for anode bake 
plants.
    An equipment standard requiring installation of a capture system 
and the routing of emissions through a closed system to a dry coke 
scrubber or equivalent alternative control device is proposed for paste 
production. If an alternative to the dry coke scrubber is used, the 
control device must achieve a POM removal efficiency of at least 95 
percent for continuous paste mixing operations and at least 90 percent 
for batch operations. The capture system must be designed and operated 
to meet generally accepted engineering standards for minimum exhaust 
rates.

E. Emission Monitoring and Compliance Provisions

    The proposed standard requires monthly sampling of TF secondary 
emissions from each potline using Methods 13 and 14 (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A) or an approved alternative method and quarterly sampling of 
POM for Soderberg potlines using proposed Method 315 or an approved 
alternative method. For secondary emissions, the owner or operator 
would perform at least three runs per month for TF and at least one run 
per month (three runs per quarter) for POM from Soderberg potlines.
    Annual sampling of TF using Method 13 and POM (for Soderberg 
potlines) using Method 315 would be required for the primary emission 
control system for potlines. To demonstrate compliance, the owner or 
operator would compute a monthly average for TF and a quarterly average 
for POM using the results of at least three runs for secondary 
emissions of TF (or POM), the aluminum production rate, and the most 
recent compliance test for the primary control system. If the primary 
control system has been sampled more than once in the previous 12-month 
period, then the average of all runs during the 12-month period is to 
be used to determine the contribution from the primary system.
    Annual sampling of TF using Method 13 and POM using proposed Method 
315 would be required for the anode bake furnace stack. Compliance with 
the applicable emission limits for anode bake plants would be 
determined by the average of at least three runs annually.
    The proposed standard also would require the monitoring of control 
device parameters. For example, plants with dry alumina scrubbers must 
perform a daily visual inspection of the stack and install devices to 
monitor the flow of alumina and air. The control device parameters 
would be evaluated from data collected during the initial performance 
test and from historical performance tests to determine upper and/or 
lower limit(s), as appropriate, for each process parameter. The owner 
or operator may redetermine the upper and/or lower operating limits, as 
appropriate, based on historical data and other information and submit 
an application to the regulatory authority to change the applicable 
limit(s). A corrective action program would be triggered if the control 
device is operating outside of the acceptable range for the specified 
parameters. Failure to initiate corrective actions within one hour 
after exceeding the limit is a violation. A violation also occurs if 
the operating limit for a parameter is exceeded more than 6

[[Page 50590]]

times in any semiannual reporting period. For the purpose of 
determining the number of exceedances, no more than one exceedance 
would be attributed in any given 24 hour period.
    Typically, EPA has considered the exceedance of established 
operating parameters for the control device to be a violation. However, 
several factors indicated that triggering a corrective action program 
would be more appropriate for this application of control device 
monitoring. An important consideration was that a change in a control 
device's operating parameter does not directly correlate with an 
increase in emissions and does not provide reasonable assurance that 
the emission limit was exceeded when the parameter changed. The 
acceptable range for the operating parameter that is monitored is 
established during performance testing. However, if the source is 
performing well below the emission limit during the performance test, 
the range established for the monitoring parameter would not be 
representative of operation at a level when actual emissions are close 
to (but still below) the applicable emission limit. In other words, the 
operating parameter may be outside the limit established during the 
performance test while emissions are still below the applicable limit. 
The primary value of monitoring the control device parameters is to 
detect a potential problem with the device's operation as soon as 
possible and to promptly investigate and correct the cause.
    The owner or operator also must install devices to measure the 
daily weight of aluminum produced and the weight of anodes placed in 
the furnace for an operating cycle. This information is needed to 
determine the average production rate used in compliance equations. The 
total weight of all anodes placed in the furnace may be measured, or 
the number of anodes placed in the furnace and a representative weight 
may be measured to determine the total weight.
    Similar Potlines. Provisions also are included in the proposed 
standard to allow the owner or operator to perform manual sampling of 
only one potline in a group of similar potlines and to use less 
expensive monitoring techniques for the other similar potlines. To show 
that a potline is similar, the owner or operator must demonstrate that 
the level of emission control is equivalent for all of the potlines in 
the group according to the requirements included in the proposed 
standard. Hydrogen fluoride continuous emission monitors (CEMs) and 
Alcan cassette samplers are approved to show that the performance of 
similar potlines is the same as or better than that of the potline 
sampled using Methods 13 and 14. After demonstrating that the potlines 
are similar, EPA methods must be used to monitor one potline, and the 
other similar potlines must be monitored using an approved alternative 
procedure.
    The EPA is also considering work practice inspections as an option 
to show similar performance among potlines. However, this issue is 
unresolved because every specific work practice and its corresponding 
effect on emissions are difficult to identify and quantify, and there 
is no evidence that a work practice ``score'' is relatable to emission 
rates. For this approach to be acceptable, the owner or operator must 
demonstrate the validity of the approach and correlate the results of 
work practice inspections to measured emissions. The EPA specifically 
requests comments on the acceptability of work practice inspections as 
a measure of emission control performance.
    Reduced Sampling. The owner or operator of a plant that 
demonstrates consistent compliance with an applicable emission limit 
and low variability may apply for a reduced sampling frequency, such as 
quarterly sampling instead of monthly sampling.
    Alternative Method. Under the proposed standard, the owner or 
operator can use an approved alternative method for measuring 
emissions. An approved alternative may include an HF CEM or the Alcan 
cassette sampling system. Continuous emission monitors are currently 
being evaluated at several plants and have shown promise as a process 
control tool as well as for monitoring secondary emissions at a lower 
cost than manual methods. The EPA decided not to require the use of an 
HF CEM, but is including provisions for its use in the rule. However, 
the new HF monitors do not operate on the same principles as other CEMs 
for which EPA has developed performance specifications and quality 
assurance/quality control provisions. Until these specifications are 
developed, EPA does not believe the new monitors should be required. 
However, the Agency encourages their development and use by accepting 
the use of the monitors as an approved alternative to monthly sampling 
on a case-by-case basis for those plants that show it to be an 
acceptable alternative to Methods 13 and 14.
    To show that another method is an acceptable alternative, the owner 
or operator would be required to develop a correlation with results 
from the applicable methods in the rule (such as Methods 13, 14, and 
315) to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority. For fluoride 
measurements, the alternative method must account for or include 
gaseous fluoride and cannot be based on measurement of particulate 
matter or particulate fluoride alone because HF, the HAP of interest, 
is in gaseous form. The EPA and industry are currently investigating 
the use of Alcan cassettes as an alternative to Methods 13 and 14. If 
this method development is completed successfully, the Alcan cassette 
will be approved as an applicable method for TF under this proposed 
rule.

F. Emission Averaging

    The proposed standard contains provisions allowing the owner or 
operator to demonstrate compliance through averaging emissions of TF 
from all existing potlines, POM from Soderberg potlines, and TF and POM 
from anode bake furnaces. The provisions in the proposed standard limit 
averaging to like sources (i.e., TF emissions from a potline can be 
averaged only with TF emissions from another potline) and to those 
sources located on the plant site and within the same State or 
regulatory jurisdiction. Averaging between pollutants (TF and POM) is 
not allowed. Emission averaging would not be allowed in any State that 
selects to exclude this option from its approved permitting program.
    The emission limits for emission averaging are summarized in Table 
3. This approach requires that the monthly average of TF emissions from 
the group of sources not exceed the average performance demonstrated as 
the MACT level of control (increased by a small amount to account for 
variability).

[[Page 50591]]



                           Table 3.--Potline TF and POM Limits for Emission Averaging                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Type                      2 lines   3 lines   4 lines   5 lines   6 lines   7 lines   8 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Monthly TF limit (lb/ton) for given number of potlines                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWPB1.....................................       1.7       1.6       1.5       1.5       1.4       1.4       1.4
CWPB2.....................................       2.9       2.8       2.7       2.7       2.6       2.6       2.6
CWPB3.....................................       2.3       2.2       2.2       2.1       2.1       2.1       2.1
VSS1......................................       2.0       1.9       1.8       1.7       1.7       1.7       1.7
VSS2......................................       2.6       2.5       2.5       2.4       2.4       2.4       2.4
HSS.......................................       2.5       2.4       2.4       2.3       2.3       2.3       2.3
SWPB......................................       1.4       1.3       1.3       1.2       1.2       1.2       1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Quarterly POM limit (lb/ton) for number of potlines                              
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSS.......................................       4.1       3.8       3.7       3.5       3.5       3.4       3.3
VSS1......................................       2.1       2.0       1.9       1.9       1.8       1.8       1.8
VSS2......................................       3.4       3.2       3.2       3.1       3.1       3.0       3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Monthly TF and quarterly POM limits for each group of potlines (two 
or more lines) are included in the rule. Under this approach, the owner 
or operator would sample TF and/or POM emissions from at least three 
runs each month/quarter for each potline in the group to determine the 
average emissions from each potline. The sum of emissions from each 
potline would be divided by total aluminum production from all of the 
potlines for the month (or for the quarter for POM) to determine the 
emissions in lb/ton for comparison to the applicable emission limit.
    Emission averaging limits for TF and POM from anode bake furnaces 
were also developed and allow the annual testing of bake furnaces to be 
averaged across multiple bake furnaces. The applicable emission limits 
are given in Table 4.
    To implement emissions averaging, the owner or operator would be 
required to include the information specified in the rule in the 
application for a part 70 permit or in an Implementation Plan (if the 
application has already been submitted) for approval by the applicable 
regulatory authority. The regulatory authority would review and approve 
or disapprove the plan within a specified time period based on the 
criteria included in the standard.

       Table 4.--Anode Bake Furnace Limits for Emission Averaging       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Emission limit (lb/ton 
                                                        of anode)       
              Number of furnaces               -------------------------
                                                     TF          POM    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.............................................         0.11         0.17
3.............................................        0.090         0.17
4.............................................        0.077         0.17
5.............................................        0.070         0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information to be provided in the permit or plan would include 
the type of plan selected, the emission sources to be averaged, and the 
applicable limit assigned to each source. The owner or operator may 
submit a request to revise the plan, or if emission averaging is not 
selected initially, the owner or operator may submit a request to 
implement emission averaging after the compliance date.
    The emissions averaging system in this rule is intended to provide 
a facility with flexibility to achieve the required emissions 
reductions in the most cost effective way. Consistent with EPA policy 
on regulatory flexibility expressed in the economic incentive program 
rule (59 FR 16690, April 7, 1994), the use of emissions averaging under 
this rule should reduce pollution as well as benefit regulated 
entities. Compliance through averaging is expected to achieve somewhat 
greater emissions reductions than would occur without averaging.

G. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements

    Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for MACT 
standards are included in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A). The proposed standard would incorporate all of these 
provisions, except that the existing performance specifications for CEM 
are not applicable to an HF CEM because such specifications have not 
yet been developed for that device.
    The proposed requirements would include one-time notifications of 
applicability, intent to construct or reconstruct, anticipated startup 
date, actual startup date, date of performance test, compliance status, 
and, if applicable, the intent to use an HF CEM. The owner or operator 
also would submit a report of performance test results (which can be 
sent as part of the compliance status notification) and semiannual 
reports of excess emissions, if any excess emissions occurred. If 
excess emissions are reported, quarterly reports are required until 
compliance has been demonstrated for 1 year. A startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan also would be required with semiannual reports of 
events that are not managed according to the plan. The plan must also 
include the corrective actions to be taken if the limit for a control 
device's operating parameter is exceeded.
    Recordkeeping requirements for all MACT standards are established 
in section 63.10(b) of the General Provisions. In addition to these 
requirements, the proposed standard would specifically require plants 
to maintain records of the corrective actions taken when a control 
device's operating parameter is exceeded and the daily production rate 
for aluminum and anodes.
    If an HF CEM were used as an alternative monitoring method, the 
owner or operator would be required to submit a report to the 
applicable regulatory authority containing the correlation and 
information showing how the correlation was derived.
     All records must be retained for at least 5 years following the 
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, 
report, or record. The records for the most recent 2 years must be 
retained on site; records for the remaining 3 years may be retained off 
site but still must be readily available for review. The files may be 
retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, or on computer or 
magnetic disks.
    Compliance with the standard must be demonstrated at startup for 
new sources and in 2 to 4 years from the effective date of the final 
rule for existing sources. All plants would be allowed at least 2 
years. The EPA

[[Page 50592]]

believes that additional time beyond the 2-year period should be 
allowed for sources that must make major capital investments to achieve 
compliance. An extension for a fourth year may be granted by the 
regulatory authority under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act.

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

    Nationwide emissions from primary aluminum potlines are estimated 
at 6,400 tpy of TF. After implementation of the proposed standards, 
these emissions would decrease by almost 50 percent to 3,400 tpy. 
Polycyclic organic matter emissions would be reduced by about 45 
percent, from 3,200 tpy to 1,800 tpy. TF emissions from the anode bake 
furnaces are estimated at 700 tpy; POM emissions are estimated at 555 
tpy. After control of all bake furnaces, TF emissions would be reduced 
by 97 percent and an 84-percent reduction would be achieved for POM 
emissions. Polycyclic organic matter emissions from paste production 
plants, estimated at 147 tpy at baseline, would be reduced by about 130 
tpy, to about 16 tpy--an 89 percent reduction from current levels. 
Emissions of other HAPs included in the TF and POM emissions would also 
be reduced, as would non-HAP pollutants such as PM. For example, PM 
emissions would be reduced by 16,000 tpy.
    The generation of solid waste and wastewater will be reduced when 
at least one plant replaces its wet scrubber system with a dry alumina 
scrubber. The dry alumina scrubber captures fluorides and other 
pollutants and returns them to the reduction cell. The proposed rule is 
estimated to have no significant effect on energy consumption.

B. Cost and Economic Impacts

    The total capital cost of the proposed rule is estimated as about 
$160 million with a total annualized cost of $40 million per year. The 
estimated nationwide capital and annual costs of the proposed standards 
for potlines are estimated at $104 million and $23 million per year, 
respectively. The major cost impacts expected arise from the 
installation of dry alumina scrubbers for the primary control system at 
one plant and work practices, operating procedures, maintenance and 
repair, and equipment modifications at most plants. A few plants may 
incur capital costs to replace or upgrade hoods or doors and to install 
automated equipment for improved emission control.
    The cost estimates for paste production assume that the 18 plants 
without dry coke scrubbers for the control of POM emissions will each 
install one. However, some plants may be able to meet the proposed 
performance standard with dry alumina scrubbers or other control 
devices, or they may be able to utilize many of the components of their 
existing system. The total capital cost is estimated at $26 million and 
the estimated total annualized cost is $6.1 million per year. The total 
capital cost for control of anode bake furnaces, estimated at $20.6 
million, assumes that the 5 of 17 plants without a dry alumina scrubber 
must each install one. The total annualized cost is estimated at $6.2 
million per year.
    Currently, about one-third of existing potlines are sampled for TF 
on a regular basis. Because of the flexibility provided in the rule, 
many plants are expected to take advantage of the use of HF CEMs and 
Alcan cassettes for similar potlines, both of which are much less 
expensive than manual sampling using Methods 13 and 14. The nationwide 
capital cost estimate of $7 million for monitoring equipment includes 
new Method 14 manifolds, HF CEMs, and Alcan cassettes. The total 
annualized cost of monitoring (including capital recovery) is estimated 
as about $4 million per year after all plants are subject to the rule. 
These costs may be reduced significantly as plants qualify for reduced 
sampling frequency (e.g., quarterly instead of monthly). The CEM will 
have value as a process monitoring tool in addition to its use for 
monitoring to determine compliance.
    The market price increase calculation indicated that implementing 
the controls will result in a primary aluminum market price increase of 
less than 1 percent. As a result of the low market price increase and 
relatively inelastic demand, the corresponding changes in output, 
employment, and total revenue were also low (all less than 1 percent). 
Therefore, the economic impact analysis estimates that the proposed 
rule will not result in significant economic impacts for the primary 
aluminum industry.

V. Selection of Proposed Standard

A. Selection of Pollutants

    Total Fluoride. Historically, the combination of gaseous and 
particulate fluorides emitted from aluminum plants have been measured 
and regulated as emissions of TF. Methods 13A and 13B, originally 
promulgated in 1975, have been used for TF sampling and analyses, along 
with Method 14, which specifies the equipment and sampling procedures 
for emission testing of potroom roof monitors.
    Traditionally, fluoride captured by the front-half filter has been 
called ``particulate fluoride,'' and fluoride captured in the back-half 
impingers has been called ``gaseous fluoride'' (GF). However, the 
method has been validated only as a measure of TF expressed as the sum 
of the front-half and back-half catches. Thus, TF has been used for 
many years as a surrogate to represent this mixture of gaseous and 
particulate fluorides, and most emissions data currently available 
result from sampling and analysis for TF.
    During the development of the proposed standards, EPA discussed 
with State and industry representatives various options for measuring 
gaseous HF, the listed HAP, and the use of GF or TF as surrogate 
measures for HF. Several factors were considered in these discussions 
that led to the choice of TF as a measure of emission control 
performance. A major consideration was the absence of a validated, 
accurate method for measuring HF or GF. Studies by EPA in the 
development of Method 13 identified problems in attempts to obtain an 
accurate split between particulate and gaseous fluoride. Hydrogen 
fluoride is highly reactive and reacts with glass in the sampling probe 
to form silicon tetrafluoride. The reactivity of HF has also been a 
problem in developing an analytical standard; currently, there is no 
EPA analytical standard that can be used to determine the accuracy of 
attempts to measure HF. During sampling, particulate matter in the 
front half of the train adsorbs GF, where it is then measured as 
particulate fluoride. Fine particulate matter that passes through the 
filter is measured as GF in the back half of the train. These factors 
produce confounding effects in attempts to measure HF or GF with biases 
in different directions. In addition, the quantity of HF or GF that is 
formed is affected by humidity and the water content of raw materials.
    A large historical database for TF was available to characterize 
the emission control performance of the industry, to identify the best 
controlled potlines, and to develop the MACT floor and MACT level of 
control. There was a discussion among many different parties as to 
whether the MACT performance standard should be based on TF or GF, and 
EPA concluded that TF provides the most defensible basis to ensure that 
the MACT level of control is achieved. However, EPA recognizes the 
importance of identifying the contribution of gaseous HF to adverse 
health effects when exposure modeling

[[Page 50593]]

is performed in the future. Consequently, the split between particulate 
and gaseous fluoride from Methods 13A and 13B will continue to be 
reported, and an attempt will be made to improve the accuracy and 
consistency of this determination. In addition, EPA is encouraging the 
development and application of HF CEMs as an improved monitoring tool 
for HF emissions.
    Comments are requested on EPA's understanding of the issue of 
emission limits based on TF versus GF and on the potential to use back-
half measurements from Method 13 to establish GF limits, even after 
considering the uncertainty described above. Any comments should be 
accompanied by information and data supporting the commenter's 
position. If public comments change EPA's perspective on this issue, 
EPA will announce the availability of data or additional information 
and will ask for comment on it.
    POM. The choices for measuring POM included expensive sampling and 
analysis to identify and quantify each of the numerous individual 
compounds that might be present or to develop a reasonable surrogate 
measure for POM. During the MACT test program jointly funded by the 
EPA, the State of Washington Department of Ecology, and the industry, 
sampling and analysis were performed for both individual species and 
for a surrogate measure. The surrogate approach uses methylene chloride 
extractables from both the front and back halves of a modified Method 5 
procedure. The testing program indicated that methylene chloride 
extractables provided an adequate surrogate measure of the total POM 
species at a fraction of the cost associated with speciation. The 
various parties involved in the rulemaking agreed that proposed Method 
315 was the most feasible approach for measuring POM emissions. 
Consequently, the MACT level of POM control was defined from data for 
methylene chloride extractables, and Method 315, developed during the 
test program, is being proposed for POM compliance determinations for 
the primary aluminum industry.

B. Selection of Emission Limits

    Potlines. The data analysis for each median potline, representing 
the average emission limitation achieved by the top five performing 
potlines, was based generally on the monthly averages of total fluoride 
emissions. The data for each of the MACT floor potlines were evaluated 
to determine the monthly average limit that had been achieved by the 
potline and to establish the MACT floor level of emission control. 
There are no monthly averages in the data set that exceed the proposed 
emission limits. Additional details on the derivation of emission 
limits and a complete listing of the data are given in the Basis and 
Purpose Document.
    An exception to this procedure was developed for the CWPB3 
subcategory (potlines producing very high purity aluminum and using wet 
scrubbers for the primary emission control system). For the CWPB3 
subcategory, the MACT level was determined to be a level of control 
achieved by upgrading existing emission control equipment and 
procedures rather than the higher emission levels associated with 
historical performance. After considering improvements in control to 
date at these potlines and projected future improvements based on data 
for emissions and costs provided by the affected facility, the MACT 
level for CWPB3 was determined to be 2.5 lb TF/ton, which is the level 
of control that has been required historically for prebake potlines 
subject to the NSPS.
    The POM limits for Soderberg potlines were determined from the data 
collected during the MACT test program. Because of the absence of valid 
POM data for the VSS2 subcategory, emissions data from the VSS1 
subcategory measured before control by wet roof scrubbers were used. 
The VSS2 subcategory does not have wet roof scrubbers; consequently, 
this approach provides MACT emission limits that have been achieved for 
VSS2 potlines.
    Anode Bake Furnaces.  For anode bake furnaces, POM limits were 
developed from the best performing furnaces in the industry with the 
MACT technology (dry alumina scrubbers), which were the only ones for 
which EPA had adequate data to determine the MACT level of control. The 
TF limit for bake furnaces is based on emissions data that were used to 
determine the MACT level of control, which is equivalent to the level 
associated with the NSPS. The NSPS limit applies to eight existing 
anode bake furnaces.
    Paste Production. Based on the POM data for paste plants, the EPA 
concluded that it was not practical to set an emission limit because 
there were too few data to characterize the control performance that 
could be achieved by the various types of paste plants and because of 
uncertainty in the limited existing data. The high level of uncertainty 
would cause EPA to set a standard that could be impractical on a 
technological basis. The EPA considered drafting a standard that would 
require each owner or operator to conduct measurements to set limits on 
a case-by-case basis; however, the cost of this approach was not 
considered to be reasonable, especially given the reasonableness and 
effectiveness of specifying a design and equipment standard. 
Consequently, the proposed rule requires the installation of a capture 
system that collects and vents emissions to a dry coke scrubber (or 
equivalent alternative control device) for all paste production plants.
    New Source MACT. The emission limits proposed for new and 
reconstructed sources are based on the data for the best-controlled 
potline and anode bake furnace. The limit applies to all new potlines, 
and no distinction is made for the different subcategories that were 
developed for existing potlines. As provided in the definition of 
``reconstruction'' in the proposed rule, two criteria must be met for a 
source to be considered reconstructed and subject to new source MACT: 
(1) All of the major components of the source must be replaced (for 
example, the major components of a potline include the raw material 
handling system, reduction cells, superstructure, hooding, ductwork, 
etc.), and (2) it must be technically and economically feasible for the 
reconstructed source to meet new source MACT.
    The EPA believes that it is unlikely that an existing potline could 
be reconstructed in such a manner that it would be technically feasible 
for the potline to meet new source MACT unless the criteria described 
above are met. For example, the conversion of a Soderberg potline to a 
prebake potline, while retaining some of the major components of the 
original potline, is expected to subject the source to emission limits 
for existing prebake potlines rather than triggering new source MACT. 
Similarly, if an existing potline is modified to increase capacity 
(e.g., by adding more reduction cells), the modified potline would 
continue to be subject to MACT for existing sources.

VI. Public Participation

    The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final 
decisions and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this 
proposal from all interested parties. Whenever applicable, full 
supporting data and detailed analyses should be submitted to allow EPA 
to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be directed to 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-92-60 
(see ADDRESSES). Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before 
the date specified in ``DATES.''
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for

[[Page 50594]]

consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information'' 
(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be 
sent directly to the Emission Standards Division CBI Office, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (MD-13), Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, with a copy of the cover letter directed to the contact 
person listed above. Confidential business information should not be 
sent to the public docket. Information covered by such a claim of 
confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and 
by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of 
confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by EPA, 
it may be made available to the public without further notice to the 
commenter.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by EPA in developing this rulemaking. The docket is a 
dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking 
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the 
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents 
so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process. 
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, 
the contents of the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial 
review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)

B. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act. 
Persons wishing to attend or to make oral presentations on the proposed 
standards should contact EPA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). To 
provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, oral 
presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the 
public may file a written statement for the public hearing on or before 
October 28, 1996. Written statements should be addressed to the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES), and refer to 
Docket No. A-92-60. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written 
statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public 
inspection and copying, or be mailed upon request, at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    The OMB has classified this rule as potentially significant and has 
requested review. Under the current regulatory agenda, this proposed 
rule will be submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to 
OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public 
record. Any written EPA response to those comments will be included in 
the docket listed at the beginning of today's notice under ADDRESSES. 
The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Air Docket 
Section, the location of which is listed in the ADDRESSES section of 
this preamble.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
12875

    In compliance with Executive Order 12875, EPA has involved State, 
local, and tribal Governments in the development of this proposed rule. 
These governments are not directly affected by the rule; i.e., they are 
not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of 
this rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule; e.g., 
incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will 
collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resources burden of 
implementing the rule. State representatives and one tribal Government 
have been included in rule development meetings with EPA under the 
Share-A-MACT approach. Comments have been solicited from the State and 
tribal partners and have been carefully considered in the rule 
development process. In addition, all States are encouraged to comment 
on this proposed rule during the public comment period, and EPA intends 
to fully consider these comments in developing of the final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. In addition, EPA has determined that small 
governments will not be significantly or

[[Page 50595]]

uniquely affected by this proposed rule because it contains no 
regulatory requirements that apply to such governments or impose 
obligations upon them. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to 
the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), as amended, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, EPA 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small businesses and therefore no initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis under section 604(a) of the Act is 
required. EPA has determined that none of the 23 facilities in this 
industry could be classified as a small entity.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. ____), and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M Street SW; Washington, DC 
20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    The proposed information collection requirements include mandatory 
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, Subpart A). These information collection 
requirements are needed to confirm the compliance status of major 
sources, to identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards 
and any new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, to 
confirm that emission control devices are being properly operated and 
maintained, and to ensure that the standards are being achieved. Based 
on the recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which plants, 
records, or processes should be inspected. These recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of 
the Act (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the Agency for 
which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according 
to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. (See 41 FR 36902, 
September 1, 1976; 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, 
September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)
    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the rule) is estimated to total 54,600 hours for the 
23 respondents and to average 2,400 hours per respondent (i.e., per 
plant). Each respondent would report semiannually. The annualized cost 
of monitoring equipment is estimated as $390,000 per year, with an 
operation and maintenance cost of $39,000 per year (excluding labor 
hours included in the previous total). Burden means the total time, 
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a 
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for 
collecting, validating, and verifying information; process and maintain 
information and disclose and provide information; adjust the existing 
ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of 
information; search existing data sources; complete and review the 
collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE 
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2136); 401 M Street SW; Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, D.C. 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Office for EPA.'' 
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB is required 
to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 
September 26, 1996, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full 
effect if OMB receives it by October 28, 1996. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.

H. Clean Air Act

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation. 
This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of 
the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the 
existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in 
emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Primary aluminum reduction 
plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 22, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    1. The authority for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart LL to read as follows:
Subpart LL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
Sec.
63.840  Applicability.
63.841  Incorporation by reference.
63.842  Definitions.
63.843  Emission limits for existing sources.
63.844  Emission limits for new or reconstructed sources.
63.845  Emission averaging.
63.846  Performance tests.
63.847  Emission monitoring requirements.
63.848  Test methods and procedures.
63.849  Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
63.850  Applicability of general provisions.
63.851  Delegation of authority.
63.852-63.859  [Reserved]
Appendix A to Subpart LL of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) To Subpart LL

Subpart LL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants


Sec. 63.840  Applicability.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each new 
or existing potline, paste production plant, or anode bake furnace 
associated with primary aluminum production and located at a major 
source as defined in Sec. 63.3.
    (b) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or 
operator

[[Page 50596]]

of an existing anode bake furnace that is not located on the same site 
as a primary aluminum reduction plant. The owner or operator shall 
comply with the MACT determinations established by the applicable 
regulatory authority pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act.


Sec. 63.841  Incorporation by reference.

    (a) The following material is incorporated by reference in the 
corresponding sections noted. This incorporation by reference was 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register on ____ [Insert date 
of approval] in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These 
materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of approval and 
notice of any change in the materials will be published in the Federal 
Register. Revisions to ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice'' (22 ed.) are applicable only after publication 
of a document in the Federal Register to amend subpart LL to require 
use of the new information.
    (1) Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of 
Recommended Practice'', American Conference of Governmental Industrial 
Hygienists, 22nd edition, 1995, IBR approved for Secs. 63.843(b) and 
63.844(b); and
    (2) ASTM D 2986-95, Standard Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay 
Media by the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test, IBR 
approved for section 7.1.1 of Method 315 in appendix A to this part.
    (b) The materials incorporated by reference are available for 
inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol 
Street NW., Suite 700, 7th Floor, Washington, DC and at the Air and 
Radiation Docket Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC. 
The materials also are available for purchase from one of the following 
addresses:
    (1) Customer Service Department, American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive, 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45240, telephone number (513) 742-2020; or
    (2) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Bar Harbour 
Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428, telephone number (610) 
832-9500.


Sec. 63.842  Definitions.

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act as 
amended (the Act), in Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:
    Anode bake furnace means an oven in which the formed green anodes 
are baked for use in a prebake process. This definition includes 
multiple anode bake furnaces controlled by a common control device 
(i.e., bake furnaces controlled by a common control device are 
considered to be one source).
    Center-worked prebake (CWPB) process means a method of primary 
aluminum reduction using the prebake process in which the alumina feed 
is added down the center of the reduction cell.
    Center-worked prebake one (CWPB1) means all existing center-worked 
prebake potlines not defined as center-worked prebake two (CWPB2) or 
center-worked prebake three (CWPB3) potlines.
    Center-worked prebake two (CWPB2) means all existing center-worked 
prebake potlines located at Alcoa in Rockdale, Texas; Kaiser Aluminum 
in Mead, Washington; Ormet Corporation in Hannibal, Ohio; Ravenswood 
Aluminum in Ravenswood, West Virginia; Reynolds Metals in Troutdale, 
Oregon; and Vanalco Aluminum in Vancouver, Washington.
    Center-worked prebake three (CWPB3) means all existing center-
worked prebake potlines that produce very high purity aluminum, have a 
wet scrubber for the primary control system, and are located at the NSA 
primary aluminum plant in Hawesville, Kentucky.
    Horizontal stud Soderberg (HSS) process means a method of primary 
aluminum reduction using the Soderberg process in which the electrical 
current is introduced to the anode by steel rods (studs) inserted into 
the side of a monolithic anode.
    Paste production plant means the processes whereby calcined 
petroleum coke, coal tar pitch (hard or liquid), and/or other materials 
are mixed, transferred, and formed into briquettes or paste for 
vertical stud Soderberg (VSS) and HSS processes or into green anodes 
for a prebake process. This definition includes all operations from 
initial mixing to final forming (i.e., briquettes, paste, green anodes) 
within the paste plant, including conveyors and units managing heated 
liquid pitch.
     Polycyclic organic matter (POM) means organic matter extractable 
by methylene chloride as determined by Method 315 in appendix A to this 
part or by an approved alternative method.
    Potline means a single, discrete group of electrolytic reduction 
cells electrically connected in series, in which alumina is reduced to 
form aluminum.
    Prebake process means a method of primary aluminum reduction that 
utilizes a baked anode, which is introduced into the top of the 
reduction cell and consumed as part of the reduction process.
    Primary aluminum reduction plant means any facility manufacturing 
aluminum by electrolytic reduction.
    Reconstruction means the replacement of components of a source to 
such an extent that:
    (1) All of the major components of the source are replaced (for 
example, the major components of a potline include the raw material 
handling system, reduction cells, superstructure, hooding, ductwork, 
etc.); and
    (2) It is technologically and economically feasible for the 
reconstructed source to meet the standards for new sources established 
in this subpart.
    Roof monitor means that portion of the roof of a potroom building 
where gases not captured at the cell exit from the potroom.
    Side-worked prebake (SWPB) process means a method of primary 
aluminum reduction using the prebake process, in which the alumina is 
added along the sides of the reduction cell.
    Soderberg process means a method of primary aluminum reduction in 
which the anode paste mixture is baked in the reduction pot by the heat 
resulting from the electrolytic process.
    Total fluorides (TF) means elemental fluorine and all fluoride 
compounds as measured by Method 13A or 13B in appendix A to part 60 of 
this chapter or by an approved alternative method.
    Vertical stud Soderberg (VSS) process means a method of primary 
aluminum reduction using the Soderberg process, in which the electrical 
current is introduced to the anode by steel rods (studs) inserted into 
the top of a monolithic anode.
    Vertical stud Soderberg one (VSS1) means all existing vertical stud 
Soderberg potlines located either at Northwest Aluminum in The Dalles, 
Oregon, or at Columbia Aluminum in Goldendale, Washington.
    Vertical stud Soderberg two (VSS2) means all existing vertical stud 
Soderberg potlines located at Columbia Falls Aluminum in Columbia 
Falls, Montana.


Sec. 63.843  Emission limits for existing sources.

    (a) Potlines. The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to 
be discharged into the atmosphere any emissions of TF or POM in excess 
of the applicable limits in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) TF limits. Emissions of TF shall not exceed:
    (i) 0.95 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each CWPB1 
potline;

[[Page 50597]]

    (ii) 1.5 kg/Mg (3.0 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each CWPB2 
potline;
    (iii) 1.25 kg/Mg (2.5 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each CWPB3 
potline;
    (iv) 0.8 kg/Mg (1.6 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each SWPB 
potline;
    (v) 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS1 
potline;
    (vi) 1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS2 
potline; and
    (vii) 1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each HSS 
potline.
    (2) POM limits. Emissions of POM shall not exceed:
    (i) 2.35 kg/Mg (4.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each HSS 
potline;
    (ii) 1.2 kg/Mg (2.4 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS1 
potline; and
    (iii) 1.85 kg/Mg (3.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS2 
potline.
    (3) Change in subcategory. Any potline, other than a reconstructed 
potline, that is changed such that its applicable subcategory also 
changes shall meet the applicable emission limit in this subpart for 
the original subcategory or the new subcategory, whichever is more 
stringent.
    (b) Paste production plants. The owner or operator shall install, 
operate, and maintain equipment for the capture and control of POM 
emissions from each paste production plant.
    (1) The emission capture system shall be installed and operated to 
meet the generally accepted engineering standards for minimum exhaust 
rates as published by the American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists in ``Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook of 
Recommended Practice'' (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.841); and
    (2) Captured emissions shall be routed through a closed system to a 
dry coke scrubber; or
    (3) The owner or operator may submit a written request for use of 
an alternative control device to the applicable regulatory authority 
for review and approval. The request shall contain information and data 
demonstrating that the alternative control device achieves a POM 
emission reduction efficiency of at least 95 percent for plants with 
continuous mixers and a POM emission reduction efficiency of at least 
90 percent for plants with batch mixers.
    (c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner or operator shall not discharge 
or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any emissions of TF or 
POM in excess of the limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/
ton) of green anode; and
    (2) POM limit. Emissions of POM shall not exceed 0.09 kg/Mg (0.18 
lb/ton) of green anode.


Sec. 63.844  Emission limits for new or reconstructed sources.

    (a) Potlines. The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to 
be discharged into the atmosphere any emissions of TF or POM in excess 
of the limits in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not exceed 0.6 kg/Mg (1.2 lb/
ton) of aluminum produced; and
    (2) POM limit. Emissions of POM shall not exceed 0.32 kg/Mg (0.63 
lb/ton) of aluminum produced.
    (b) Paste production plants. The owner or operator shall meet the 
requirements in Sec. 63.843(b) for existing paste production plants.
    (c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner or operator shall not discharge 
or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any emissions of TF or 
POM in excess of the limits in paragraph (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not exceed 0.01 kg/Mg (0.02 lb/
ton) of green anode; and
    (2) POM limit. Emissions of POM shall not exceed 0.025 kg/Mg (0.05 
lb/ton) of green anode.


Sec. 63.845  Emission averaging.

    (a) General. The owner or operator of an existing potline or anode 
bake furnace in a State that does not choose to exclude emission 
averaging in the approved operating permit program may demonstrate 
compliance by emission averaging according to the procedures in this 
section.
    (b) Potlines. The owner or operator may average TF emissions from 
potlines and demonstrate compliance with the limits in Table 1 of this 
subpart using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 
section. The owner or operator also may average POM emissions from 
potlines and demonstrate compliance with the limits in Table 2 of this 
subpart using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) Monthly average emissions of TF and/or quarterly average 
emissions of POM, calculated from the total emissions from all potlines 
over the period divided by the quantity of aluminum produced for the 
period, from a given number of potlines making up each averaging group, 
shall not exceed the applicable emission limit in Table 1 of this 
subpart (for TF emissions) and/or Table 2 of this subpart (for POM 
emissions).
    (2) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit in 
Table 1 of this subpart (for TF emissions) and/or Table 2 of this 
subpart (for POM emissions), the owner or operator shall determine the 
monthly average emissions (in lb/ton) from all potlines from at least 
three runs each month for TF secondary emissions and/or the quarterly 
average emissions from at least one run each month for POM emissions.

                               Table 1.--Potline TF Limits for Emission Averaging                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Monthly TF limit (lb/ton)  [for given number of potlines]     
                   Type                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2 lines   3 lines   4 lines   5 lines   6 lines   7 lines   8 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWPB1.....................................       1.7       1.6       1.5       1.5       1.4       1.4       1.4
CWPB2.....................................       2.9       2.8       2.7       2.7       2.6       2.6       2.6
CWPB3.....................................       2.3       2.2       2.2       2.1       2.1       2.1       2.1
VSS1......................................       2.0       1.9       1.8       1.7       1.7       1.7       1.7
VSS2......................................       2.6       2.5       2.5       2.4       2.4       2.4       2.4
HSS.......................................       2.5       2.4       2.4       2.3       2.3       2.3       2.3
SWPB......................................       1.4       1.3       1.3       1.2       1.2       1.2       1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50598]]


                               Table 2.--Potline POM Limits for Emission Averaging                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Quarterly POM limit (lb/ton)  [for given number of potlines]    
                   Type                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2 lines   3 lines   4 lines   5 lines   6 lines   7 lines   8 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSS.......................................       4.1       3.8       3.7       3.5       3.5       3.4       3.3
VSS1......................................       2.1       2.0       1.9       1.9       1.8       1.8       1.8
VSS2......................................       3.4       3.2       3.2       3.1       3.1       3.0       3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner or operator shall combine the results of secondary TF 
monthly average emissions with the TF results for the primary control 
system and/or the results of quarterly average POM emissions with the 
POM results for the primary control system and divide total emissions 
by total aluminum production.
    (c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner or operator may average TF 
emissions from anode bake furnaces and demonstrate compliance with the 
limits in Table 3 of this subpart using the procedures in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. The owner or operator also may 
average POM emissions from anode bake furnaces and demonstrate 
compliance with the limits in Table 3 of this subpart using the 
procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.
     (1) Annual emissions of TF and/or POM from a given number of anode 
bake furnaces making up each averaging group shall not exceed the 
applicable emission limit in Table 3 of this subpart in any one year; 
and
    (2) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit in 
Table 3 of this subpart for anode bake furnaces, the owner or operator 
shall determine TF and/or POM emissions from the control device for 
each furnace at least once a year using the procedures and methods in 
Secs. 63.846 and 63.848.

       Table 3.--Anode Bake Furnace Limits for Emission Averaging       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Emission limit (lb/ton 
                                                        of anode)       
              Number of furnaces               -------------------------
                                                     TF          POM    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.............................................         0.11         0.17
3.............................................        0.090         0.17
4.............................................        0.077         0.17
5.............................................        0.070         0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Implementation Plan. Unless an operating permit application has 
been submitted, the owner or operator shall develop and submit an 
Implementation Plan for emission averaging to the applicable regulatory 
authority for review and approval according to the following procedures 
and requirements:
    (1) Deadlines. The owner or operator must submit the Implementation 
Plan no later than 6 months before the applicable compliance date.
    (2) Contents. The owner or operator shall include the following 
information in the Implementation Plan or in the application for an 
operating permit for all emission sources to be included in an 
emissions average.
    (i) The identification of all emission sources (potlines or anode 
bake furnaces) in the average;
    (ii) The assigned TF or POM emission limit for each averaging group 
of potlines or anode bake furnaces;
    (iii) The specific control technology or pollution prevention 
measure to be used for each emission source in the averaging group and 
the date of its installation or application. If the pollution 
prevention measure reduces or eliminates emissions from multiple 
sources, the owner or operator must identify each source;
    (iv) Results of an initial performance test conducted according to 
the procedures and methods in Secs. 63.846 and 63.848 to determine the 
TF or POM emissions and emission reduction from each source in the 
averaging group, and supporting documentation (all equations, 
calculations, procedures, measurement data, and quality assurance/
quality control procedures);
    (v) The operating parameters to be monitored for each control 
system or device and the operating limits established according to 
Sec. 63.846(g)(1);
    (vi) If the owner or operator requests to monitor an alternative 
operating parameter pursuant to Sec. 63.847(l):
    (A) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored and an 
explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s); and
    (B) A description of the methods and procedures that will be used 
to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of the 
control device; the frequency and content of monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements; and a demonstration, to the satisfaction of 
the applicable regulatory authority, that the proposed monitoring 
frequency is sufficient to represent control device operating 
conditions; and
     (vii) A demonstration that compliance with each of the applicable 
emission limit(s) will be achieved under representative operating 
conditions.
    (3) Approval criteria. Upon receipt, the regulatory authority shall 
review and approve or disapprove the plan or permit application 
according to the following criteria:
    (i) Whether the content of the plan includes all of the information 
specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) Whether the plan or permit application presents sufficient 
information to determine that compliance will be achieved and 
maintained.
    (4) Prohibitions. The applicable regulatory authority shall not 
approve an Implementation Plan or permit application containing any of 
the following provisions:
    (i) Any averaging between emissions of differing pollutants or 
between differing sources. Emission averaging shall not be allowed 
between TF and POM, and emission averaging shall not be allowed between 
potlines and bake furnaces;
    (ii) The inclusion of any emission source other than an existing 
potline or anode bake furnace or the inclusion of any potline or anode 
bake plant not subject to the same operating permit;
    (iii) The inclusion of any potline or anode bake furnace while it 
is shutdown; or
    (iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, as described in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 
Plan required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), in the emission calculations for the 
Implementation Plan.
    (5) Term. Following review, the applicable regulatory authority 
shall approve the plan or permit application, request changes, or 
request additional information. Once the applicable regulatory 
authority receives any additional information requested, the applicable 
regulatory authority shall approve or disapprove the plan or permit 
application within 120 days.
    (i) The applicable regulatory authority shall approve the plan for 
the term of the operating permit;
    (ii) To revise the plan prior to the end of the permit term, the 
owner or

[[Page 50599]]

operator shall submit a request to the applicable regulatory authority; 
and
    (iii) The owner or operator may submit a request to the applicable 
regulatory authority to implement emission averaging after the 
applicable compliance date.
    (6) Operation. While operating under an approved Implementation 
Plan, the owner or operator shall monitor the operating parameters of 
each control system, keep records, and submit periodic reports as 
required for each source subject to this subpart.


Sec. 63.846  Performance tests.

    (a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator of a primary aluminum 
plant shall demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements of 
this subpart by:
    (1) ____ [Insert date 2 years following the effective date of the 
final rule], for an owner or operator of an existing plant or source;
    (2) ____ [Insert date 3 years following the effective date of the 
final rule], for an existing source, provided the owner or operator 
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority 
that additional time is needed to install or modify the emission 
control equipment;
    (3) ____ [Insert date 4 years following the effective date of the 
final rule], for an existing source that is granted an extension by the 
regulatory authority under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act; or
    (4) Upon startup, for an owner or operator of a new or 
reconstructed source.
    (b) Potlines and anode bake furnaces. During the first month 
following the compliance date, the owner or operator shall conduct an 
initial performance test to determine and demonstrate compliance with 
the applicable TF and POM emission limits for each new or existing 
potline and anode bake furnace. The owner or operator shall conduct the 
initial performance test (and subsequent performance tests) according 
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7 and in this section.
    (c) Test plan. The owner or operator shall prepare a site-specific 
test plan prior to the initial performance test according to the 
requirements of Sec. 63.7(c)(2). The test plan must include procedures 
for conducting the initial performance test and for subsequent 
performance tests required in Sec. 63.847 for emission monitoring. In 
addition to the information required by Sec. 63.7, the test plan shall 
include:
    (1) Procedures to ensure a minimum of three runs are performed 
annually for the primary control system for each source;
    (2) For a source with a single control device exhausted through 
multiple stacks, procedures to ensure that at least three runs are 
performed annually by a representative sample of the stacks 
satisfactory to the applicable regulatory authority;
    (3) For multiple control devices on a single source, procedures to 
ensure that at least one run is performed annually for each control 
device by a representative sample of the stacks satisfactory to the 
applicable regulatory authority;
    (4) Procedures for sampling single stacks associated with multiple 
anode bake furnaces;
    (5) For plants with roof scrubbers, procedures for rotating 
sampling among the scrubbers;
    (6) For a VSS1 potline, procedures to ensure that one fan (or one 
scrubber) per potline is sampled for each run;
    (7) For a SWPB potline, procedures to ensure that the average of 
the sampling results for two fans (or two scrubbers) per potline is 
used for each run; and
    (8) Procedures for establishing the frequency of testing to ensure 
that at least one run is performed before the 15th of the month, at 
least one run is performed after the 15th of the month, and that there 
are at least 6 days between two of the runs during the month, or that 
secondary emissions are measured according to an alternate schedule 
satisfactory to the applicable regulatory authority.
    (d) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator shall conduct an initial 
performance test in accordance with the requirements of the general 
provisions in subpart A of this part, the approved test plan, and the 
procedures in this section.
    (1) TF emissions from potlines. For each potline, the owner or 
operator shall measure and record the emission rate of TF exiting the 
outlet of the primary control system for each potline and the rate of 
secondary emissions exiting through each roof monitor, or for a plant 
with roof scrubbers, exiting through the scrubbers. Using the equation 
in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the owner or operator shall 
compute and record the average of at least three runs to determine 
compliance with the applicable emission limit. Compliance is 
demonstrated when the emission rate of TF is equal to or less than the 
applicable emission limit in Secs. 63.843, 63.844, or 63.845.
    (2) POM emissions from Soderberg potlines. For each Soderberg (HSS, 
VSS1, and VSS2) potline, the owner or operator shall measure and record 
the emission rate of POM exiting the primary emission control system 
and the rate of secondary emissions exiting through each roof monitor, 
or for a plant with roof scrubbers, exiting through the scrubbers. 
Using the equation in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the owner or 
operator shall compute and record the average of at least three runs to 
determine compliance with the applicable emission limit. Compliance is 
demonstrated when the emission rate of POM is equal to or less than the 
applicable emission limit in Secs. 63.843, 63.844, or 63.845.
    (3) Previous control device tests. If the owner or operator has 
performed more than one test of primary emission control device(s) for 
a potline during the previous consecutive 12 months, the average of all 
runs performed in the previous 12-month period shall be used to 
determine the contribution from the primary emission control system.
    (4) TF and POM emissions from anode bake furnaces. For each anode 
bake furnace, the owner or operator shall measure and record the 
emission rate of TF and POM exiting the exhaust stack(s) of the primary 
emission control system for each anode bake furnace. Using the 
equations in paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this section, the owner or 
operator shall compute and record the average of at least three runs to 
determine compliance with the applicable emission limits for TF and 
POM. Compliance is demonstrated when the emission rates of TF and POM 
are equal to or less than the applicable TF and POM emission limits in 
Secs. 63.843, 63.844, or 63.845.
    (e) Equations. The owner or operator shall determine compliance 
with the applicable TF and POM emission limits using the following 
equations and procedures:
    (1) Compute the emission rate (Ep) of TF from each potline 
using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.003


[[Page 50600]]


where

Ep=emission rate of TF from a potline, kg/Mg (lb/ton);
Cs1=concentration of TF from the primary control system, mg/dscm 
(mg/dscf);
Qsd=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
Cs2=concentration of TF as measured for roof monitor emissions, 
mg/dscm (mg/dscf);
P=aluminum production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr);
K=conversion factor, 106 mg/kg (453,600 mg/lb);
1=subscript for primary control system effluent gas; and
2=subscript for secondary control system or roof monitor effluent 
gas.

    (2) Compute the emission rate of POM from each potline using 
Equation 2,
where

Ep=emission rate of POM from the potline, kg/mg (lb/ton); and
Cs=concentration of POM, mg/dscm (mg/dscf). POM emission data 
collected during the installation and startup of a cathode shall not be 
included in Cs.

    (3) Compute the emission rate (Eb) of TF from each anode bake 
furnace using Equation 3,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.004

where

Eb=emission rate of TF, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of green anodes produced;
Cs=concentration of TF, mg/dscm (mg/dscf);
Qsd=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
Pb=quantity of green anode material placed in the furnace, Mg/hr 
(ton/hr); and
K=conversion factor, 106 mg/kg (453,600 mg/lb).

    (4) Compute the emission rate of POM from each anode bake furnace 
using Equation 3,

where

Cs=concentration of POM, mg/dscm (mg/dscf).

    (5) Determine the weight of the aluminum tapped from the potline 
and the weight of the green anode material placed in the anode bake 
furnace using the monitoring devices required in Sec. 63.847(j).
    (6) Determine the aluminum production rate (P) by dividing 720 
hours into the weight of aluminum tapped from the potline during a 
period of 30 days before and including the final run of a performance 
test.
    (7) Determine the rate of green anode material introduced into the 
furnace by dividing the number of operating hours into the weight of 
green anode material used during an operating cycle.
    (f) Paste production plants. Initial compliance with the standards 
for existing and new paste production plants in Secs. 63.843(b) and 
63.844(b) will be demonstrated through site inspection(s) and review of 
site records by the applicable regulatory authority.
    (g) Parameter operating range for control devices. The owner or 
operator shall determine the operating limits for each of the control 
devices that is to be monitored as described in Sec. 63.847(f).
    (1) For potlines and anode bake furnaces, the owner or operator 
shall determine upper and/or lower operating limits, as appropriate, 
for each monitoring device from the values recorded during each of the 
runs performed during the initial performance test and from historical 
data from previous performance tests conducted by the methods specified 
in this subpart.
    (2) For a paste production plant, the owner or operator shall 
specify parameters to be monitored and operating limits for the capture 
and control devices in the application for a part 70 operating permit 
(or an administrative amendment to the part 70 operating permit if a 
permit has already been issued).
    (3) The owner or operator may redetermine the upper and/or lower 
operating limits, as appropriate, based on historical data or other 
information and submit an application to the applicable regulatory 
authority to change the applicable limit(s). The redetermined limits 
shall become effective upon approval by the applicable regulatory 
authority.


Sec. 63.847  Emission monitoring requirements.

    (a) TF emissions from potlines. Using the procedures in Sec. 63.846 
and in the approved test plan, the owner or operator shall monitor 
emissions of TF from each potline by conducting monthly performance 
tests. The owner or operator shall compute and record the monthly 
average from at least three runs for secondary emissions and the 
previous 12-month average of all runs for the primary control system to 
determine compliance with the applicable emission limit. The owner or 
operator must include all valid runs in the monthly average.
    (b) POM emissions from existing Soderberg potlines. Using the 
procedures in Sec. 63.846 and in the approved test plan, the owner or 
operator shall monitor emissions of POM from each Soderberg (HSS, VSS1, 
and VSS2) potline every three months. The owner or operator shall 
compute and record the quarterly (3-month) average from at least one 
run per month for secondary emissions and the previous 12-month average 
of all runs for the primary control systems to determine compliance 
with the applicable emission limit. The owner or operator must include 
all valid runs in the quarterly (3-month) average.
    (c) TF and POM emissions from anode bake furnaces. Using the 
procedures in Sec. 63.846 and in the approved test plan, the owner or 
operator shall monitor TF and POM emissions from each anode bake 
furnace on an annual basis. The owner or operator shall compute and 
record the annual average of TF and POM emissions from at least three 
runs to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits. The 
owner or operator must include all valid runs in the annual average.
    (d) Similar potlines. As an alternative to monthly monitoring of TF 
or POM secondary emissions from each potline, the owner or operator may 
perform a monthly performance test for one potline to represent a 
similar potline(s). A similar potline must be in the same operating 
condition, have the same cell and hooding design, share the same work 
practices, and have the same or better level of emission control 
performance than the potline tested by the applicable test methods.
    (1) To demonstrate (to the satisfaction of the regulatory 
authority) that the level of emission control performance is the same 
or better, the owner or operator shall perform an emission test using 
an alternative monitoring procedure for the similar potline 
simultaneously with an emission test using the applicable test methods. 
The results of the emissions test using the applicable test methods 
must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit for existing 
or new potlines in Secs. 63.843 or 63.844. An alternative method:

[[Page 50601]]

    (i) For TF emissions, must account for or include gaseous fluoride 
and cannot be based on measurement of particulate matter or particulate 
fluoride alone; and
    (ii) For TF and POM emissions, must meet or exceed Method 14 
criteria.
    (2) The following methods are approved alternatives for the 
monitoring of TF secondary emissions:
    (i) An HF continuous emission monitoring system; and
    (ii) The Alcan cassette sampling system.
    (3) An owner or operator electing to use an alternative monitoring 
procedure shall establish an equivalent alternative emission limit 
based on at least nine simultaneous runs using the applicable test 
methods and the alternative monitoring method. All runs must cover a 
full process cycle.
    (4) The owner or operator shall derive an equivalent alternative 
emission limit for the HF continuous emission monitor, the Alcan 
cassette sampling system, or an alternative method using either of the 
following procedures:
    (i) Use the highest value associated with a simultaneous run by the 
applicable test methods that does not exceed the applicable emission 
limit; or
    (ii) Correlate the results of the two methods (the applicable test 
method results and the alternative monitoring method) and establish an 
emission limit for the alternative monitoring system that corresponds 
to the applicable emission limit.
    (5) The owner or operator shall submit the results of the 
correlated value or the highest value that does not exceed the 
applicable emission limit and all supporting documentation to the 
applicable regulatory authority for approval along with a request for a 
part 70 operating permit (or an administrative amendment to the part 70 
operating permit if a permit has already been issued).
    (6) Following approval by the applicable regulatory authority, the 
owner or operator shall perform monthly emission monitoring using the 
approved alternative monitoring procedure to demonstrate compliance 
with the equivalent alternative emission limit for each similar potline 
rather than the applicable TF emission limit.
    (e) Reduced sampling frequency. The owner or operator may submit a 
written request to the applicable regulatory authority to establish an 
alternative testing requirement that requires less frequent testing for 
TF and POM emissions from potlines or anode bake furnaces.
    (1) In the request, the owner or operator shall provide information 
and data demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the applicable 
regulatory authority, that the emissions from these sources have low 
variability during normal operations.
    (2) The regulatory authority may evaluate the alternative testing 
requirement based on the approach used in ``Primary Aluminum: 
Statistical Analysis of Potline Fluoride Emissions and Alternative 
Sampling Frequency'' (EPA-450-86-012, October 1986), which is available 
from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal 
Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
    (3) An approved alternative requirement must include a test 
schedule and the method to be used to measure emissions for the purpose 
of performance tests.
    (4) The applicable regulatory authority shall publish the approved 
alternative monitoring requirement in the Federal Register.
    (5) The owner or operator of a plant that has received approval of 
an alternative sampling frequency under Sec. 60.194 of this chapter is 
deemed to have approval of the alternative sampling frequency under 
this subpart.
    (6) If emissions in excess of the applicable TF or POM limit occur, 
the approved alternative sampling frequency is no longer in effect and 
the owner or operator shall immediately return to the monthly sampling 
schedule required by paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section until 
another request for an alternative sampling frequency is approved by 
the applicable regulatory authority.
    (f) Monitoring devices. The owner or operator shall install, 
operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device(s) for each 
emission control system as follows:
    (1) For dry alumina scrubbers, devices for the measurement of 
alumina flow and air flow;
    (2) For dry coke scrubbers, devices for the measurement of coke 
flow and air flow;
    (3) For wet scrubbers as the primary control system, devices for 
the measurement of water flow and air flow;
    (4) For electrostatic precipitators, devices for the measurement of 
voltage and secondary current; and
    (5) For wet roof scrubbers for secondary emission control:
    (i) A device for the measurement of total water flow; and
    (ii) The owner or operator shall inspect each control device at 
least once each operating day to ensure the control device is operating 
properly and record the results of each inspection.
    (g) Visible emissions. The owner or operator shall visually inspect 
the exhaust stack(s) of each control device on a daily basis for 
evidence of any visible emissions indicating abnormal operation.
    (h) Corrective action. If a monitoring device for a primary control 
device measures an operating parameter outside the limit(s) established 
pursuant to Sec. 63.846(g); if visible emissions indicating abnormal 
operation are observed from the exhaust stack of a control device 
during a daily inspection, or if a problem is detected during the daily 
inspection of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary emission 
control, the owner or operator shall initiate the corrective action 
procedures identified in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan 
within 1 hour. Failure to initiate the corrective action procedures 
within 1 hour or to take the necessary corrective actions to remedy the 
problem is a violation.
    (i) Exceedances. If the limit for a given operating parameter 
associated with monitoring a specific control device is exceeded 6 
times in any semiannual reporting period, then any subsequent 
exceedance in that reporting period is a violation. For the purpose of 
determining the number of exceedances, no more than one exceedance 
shall be attributed in any given 24 hour period.
    (j) Weight of aluminum and green anodes. The owner or operator of a 
new or existing potline or anode bake furnace shall install, operate, 
and maintain a monitoring device to determine the daily weight of 
aluminum produced and the weight of green anode material placed in the 
anode bake furnace during an operating cycle. The weight of green anode 
material may be determined by monitoring the weight of all anodes or by 
monitoring the number of anodes placed in the furnace and determining 
an average weight from measurements of a representative sample of 
anodes.
    (k) Accuracy and calibration. All monitoring devices required by 
this section must be certified by the manufacturer to meet the accuracy 
requirements specified by the applicable regulatory authority in the 
part 70 operating permit and must be calibrated in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions.
    (l) Alternative operating parameters. The owner or operator may 
monitor alternative control device operating parameters subject to 
prior written approval by the applicable regulatory authority.
    (m) Other control systems. An owner or operator using a control 
system not identified in this section shall request that the applicable 
regulatory authority include the recommended parameters

[[Page 50602]]

for monitoring in the facility's part 70 permit.


Sec. 63.848  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) The owner or operator shall use the following reference methods 
to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits for TF and 
POM emissions:
    (1) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for sample 
and velocity traverses;
    (2) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for velocity 
and volumetric flow rate;
    (3) Method 3 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for gas 
analysis;
    (4) Method 13A or Method 13B in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter, or an approved alternative, for the concentration of TF where 
stack or duct emissions are sampled;
    (5) Method 13A or Method 13B and Method 14 in appendix A to part 60 
of this chapter or an approved alternative method for the concentration 
of TF where emissions are sampled from roof monitors not employing wet 
roof scrubbers;
    (6) Method 315 in appendix A to this part or an approved 
alternative method for the concentration of POM where stack or duct 
emissions are sampled; and
    (7) Method 315 in appendix A to this part and Method 14 in appendix 
A to part 60 of this chapter or an approved alternative method for the 
concentration of POM where emissions are sampled from roof monitors not 
employing wet roof scrubbers.
    (b) The owner or operator of a VSS potline or a SWPB potline 
equipped with wet roof scrubbers for the control of secondary emissions 
shall use methods that meet the intent sampling requirements of Method 
14 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter and that are approved by 
the State. Sample analysis shall be performed using Method 13A or 
Method 13B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for TF, Method 315 
in appendix A to this part for POM, or by an approved alternative 
method.
    (c) References to ``potroom'' or ``potroom group'' in Method 14 in 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter shall be interpreted as 
``potline'' for the purposes of this subpart.
    (d) For sampling using Method 14 in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter, the owner or operator shall install one Method 14 manifold per 
potline in a potroom that is representative of the entire potline, and 
this manifold shall meet the installation requirements specified in 
section 2.2.1 of Method 14 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (e) The owner or operator may use an alternative test method for TF 
or POM emissions providing:
    (1) The owner or operator has already demonstrated the equivalency 
of the alternative method for a specific plant and has received 
previous approval from the Administrator or the applicable regulatory 
authority for TF or POM measurements using the alternative method; or
    (2) The owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
applicable regulatory authority that the alternative method results are 
correlated to the sampling results from simultaneously sampling using 
Methods 13 and 14 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter and the 
alternative method for TF or Method 315 in appendix A to this part, 
Method 14 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, and the alternative 
method for POM.


Sec. 63.849  Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9 (b) through (d), the 
owner or operator shall submit the following written notifications:
    (1) Notification for an area source that subsequently increases its 
emissions such that the source is a major source subject to the 
standard;
    (2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where 
the initial startup is before the effective date of the standard;
    (3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where 
the source is new or has been reconstructed, the initial startup is 
after the effective date of the standard, and for which an application 
for approval of construction or reconstruction is not required;
    (4) Notification of intention to construct a new major source or 
reconstruct a major source; of the date construction or reconstruction 
commenced; of the anticipated date of startup; of the actual date of 
startup, where the initial startup of a new or reconstructed source 
occurs after the effective date of the standard, and for which an 
application for approval of construction or reconstruction is required; 
[See Sec. 63.9 (b)(4) and (b)(5).]
    (5) Notification of special compliance obligations;
    (6) Notification of performance test;
    (7) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator shall 
develop and submit to the applicable regulatory authority, if 
requested, an engineering plan that describes the techniques that will 
be used to address the capture efficiency of the reduction cells for 
gaseous hazardous air pollutants in compliance with the emission limits 
in Secs. 63.843, 63.844, and 63.845; and
    (8) Notification for continuous emission monitor.
    (b) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2), the 
owner or operator shall report the results of the initial performance 
test as part of the notification of compliance status required in 
paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
    (c) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan and reports. The owner 
or operator shall develop and implement a written plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed for 
operating the source and maintaining the source during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of corrective action 
for malfunctioning process and control systems used to comply with the 
standard. In addition to the information required in Sec. 63.6(e)(2), 
the plan shall include:
    (1) Procedures, including corrective actions, to be followed if a 
monitoring device measures an operating parameter outside the limit(s) 
established under Sec. 63.846(g), if visible emissions from an exhaust 
stack indicating abnormal operation of a control device are observed by 
the owner or operator during the daily inspection required in 
Sec. 63.847(g), or if a problem is detected during the daily inspection 
of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary emission control required 
in Sec. 63.847(f)(5)(ii); and
    (2) The owner or operator shall also keep records of each event as 
required by Sec. 63.10(b) and record and report if an action taken 
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not consistent with the 
procedures in the plan as described in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iv).
    (d) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3), the 
owner or operator shall submit a report (or a summary report) if 
measured emissions are in excess of the applicable standard. The report 
shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) and be 
submitted semiannually unless quarterly reports are required as a 
result of excess emissions.
    (e) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator shall maintain files of 
all information (including all reports and notifications) required by 
Sec. 63.10(b) and by this subpart.
    (1) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5 
years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, 
corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of 
records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of 
records may be retained off site;

[[Page 50603]]

    (2) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, on a 
computer, on computer disks, on magnetic tape, or on microfiche;
    (3) The owner or operator may report required information on paper 
or on a labeled computer disc using commonly available and compatible 
computer software; and
    (4) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b), 
the owner or operator shall maintain records of the following 
information:
    (i) Daily production rate of aluminum;
    (ii) Production rate of green anode material placed in the anode 
bake furnace for each operating cycle;
    (iii) A copy of the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan;
    (iv) Records of design information for paste production plant 
capture systems;
    (v) Records of design information for an alternative emission 
control device for a paste production plant;
    (vi) Records supporting the monitoring of similar potlines 
demonstrating the performance of similar potlines is the same or better 
than that of potlines sampled by manual methods;
    (vii) Records supporting a request for reduced sampling of 
potlines;
    (viii) Records supporting the correlation of emissions measured by 
a continuous emission monitoring system to emissions measured by manual 
methods and the derivation of the alternative emission limit derived 
from the measurements;
    (ix) The current Implementation Plan for emission averaging and any 
subsequent amendments;
    (x) Records, such as a checklist or the equivalent, demonstrating 
the daily inspection of a potline with wet roof scrubbers for secondary 
emission control has been performed as required in 
Sec. 63.847(f)(5)(ii), including the results of each inspection;
    (xi) Records, such as a checklist or the equivalent, demonstrating 
the daily visual inspection of the exhaust stack for each control 
device has been performed as required in Sec. 63.847(g), including the 
results of each inspection;
    (xii) For a potline equipped with an HF continuous emission 
monitor, records of information and data required by Sec. 63.10(c);
    (xiii) Records documenting the corrective actions taken when the 
limit(s) for an operating parameter established under Sec. 63.846(g) 
were exceeded, when visible emissions indicating abnormal operation 
were observed from a control device stack during a daily inspection 
required under Sec. 63.847(g), or when a problem was detected during 
the daily inspection of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary 
control required in Sec. 63.847(f)(5)(ii); and
    (xiv) Records documenting any POM data that is invalidated due to 
the installation and startup of a cathode.


Sec. 63.850  Applicability of general provisions.

    (a) The requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this 
part that are not applicable to the owner or operator subject to the 
requirements of this subpart are shown in Appendix A of this subpart.


Sec. 63.851  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a 
State under section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities contained in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator 
and not transferred to a State.
    (b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: No 
authorities are retained by the Administrator.
    (c) Each State may elect to exclude the provisions of Sec. 63.845, 
Emission Averaging, from their permitting program and the operating 
permits issued under that program.


Sec. 63.852-63.859  [Reserved]

Appendix A to Subpart LL of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart LL

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     General provisions citation              Requirement         Applies to subpart LL          Comment        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(c)(2)...........................  ........................  No....................  All are major sources. 
63.2 Definition of ``reconstruction''  ........................  No....................  Subpart LL defines     
                                                                                          ``reconstruction''.   
63.6(c)(1)...........................  Compliance Date for       No....................  Subpart LL specifies   
                                        Existing Sources.                                 compliance date for   
                                                                                          existing sources.     
63.6(h)..............................  Opacity/VE Standards....  No....................  Subpart LL does not    
                                                                                          require COMS, VE or   
                                                                                          opacity standards.    
63.8 (c)(4)-(c)(8)...................  CMS Operation and         No....................  Subpart LL does not    
                                        Maintenance.                                      require COMS/CMS or   
                                                                                          CMS performance       
                                                                                          specifications.       
63.8(d)..............................  Quality Control.........  No....................  Subpart LL does not    
                                                                                          require CMS or CMS    
                                                                                          performance           
                                                                                          evaluation.           
63.8(e)..............................  Performance Evaluation    No....................  .......................
                                        for CMS.                                                                
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE or     No....................  Subpart LL does not    
                                        Opacity Test.                                     include VE/opacity    
                                                                                          standard.             
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS            No....................  .......................
                                        Notification.                                                           
63.10(d)(3)..........................  VE/Opacity Observations.  No....................  Subpart LL does not    
                                                                                          require COM or include
                                                                                          VE/opacity standard.  
63.10(e)(2)..........................  Reporting Performance     No....................  Subpart LL does not    
                                        Evaluations.                                      require performance   
                                                                                          evaluation for CMS.   
63.11 (a)-(b)........................  Control Device            No....................  Flares not applicable. 
                                        Requirements.                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 50604]]

    3. Appendix A to part 63 is amended by adding, in numerical order, 
Method 315 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 315--Determination of Particulate and Methylene Chloride 
Extractable Matter (MCEM) From Selected Sources at Primary Aluminum 
Production Facilities

1.0  Scope and Application

    1.1  Analyte. Particulate matter (PM). No CAS Number assigned. 
Methylene Chloride extractable matter (MCEM). No CAS number 
assigned.
    1.2  Applicability. This method is applicable for the 
simultaneous determination of PM and MCEM when specified in an 
applicable regulation. This method was developed by consensus with 
the Aluminum Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and has limited precision estimates for MCEM; it should 
have similar precision as Method 5 for PM in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A since the procedures are similar for PM.

2.0  Summary of Method

    Particulate matter (PM) and MCEM is withdrawn isokinetically 
from the source. PM is collected on a glass fiber filter maintained 
at a temperature in the range of l20  14  deg.C (248 
 25  deg.F) or such other temperature as specified by an 
applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the 
Administrator, for a particular application. The PM mass, which 
includes any material that condenses on the probe and is 
subsequently removed in an acetone rinse or on the filter at or 
above the filtration temperature, is determined gravimetrically 
after removal of uncombined water. MCEM is then determined by adding 
a methylene chloride rinse of the probe and filter holder, 
extracting the condensable hydrocarbons collected in the impinger 
water, adding an acetone rinse followed by a methylene chloride 
rinse of the sampling train components after the filter and before 
the silica gel impinger, and determining residue gravimetrically 
after evaporating the solvents.

3.0  Definitions

n=Cross-sectional area of nozzle, m3 (ft3).
Bws=Water vapor in the gas stream, proportion by volume.
Ca=Acetone blank residue concentration, mg/g.
Cs=Concentration of particulate matter in stack gas, dry basis, 
corrected to standard conditions, g/dscm (g/dscf).
I=Percent of isokinetic sampling.
La=Maximum acceptable leakage rate for either a pretest leak 
check or for a leak check following a component change; equal to 
0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of the average sampling 
rate, whichever is less.
Li=Individual leakage rate observed during the leak check 
conducted prior to the ``ith'' component change (I=1, 2, 
3...n), m3/min (cfm).
Lp=Leakage rate observed during the post-test leak check, 
m3/min (cfm).
ma=Mass of residue of acetone after evaporation, mg.
mn=Total amount of particulate matter collected, mg.
Mw=Molecular weight of water, 18.0 g/g-mole (18.0 lb/ lb-mole).
Pbar=Barometric pressure at the sampling site, mm Hg (in. Hg).
Ps=Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg).
Pstd=Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
R=Ideal gas constant, 0.06236 [(mm Hg)(m3)]/[( deg.K) (g-mole)] 
{21.85 [(in. Hg) (ft3)]/[( deg.R) (lb-mole)]}.
Tm=Absolute average DGM temperature (see Figure 5-2 of Method 
5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A),  deg.K ( deg.R).
Ts=Absolute average stack gas temperature (see Figure 5-2 of 
Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A),  deg.K( deg.R).
Tstd=Standard absolute temperature, 293 deg.K (528 deg.R).
Va=Volume of acetone blank, ml.
Vaw=Volume of acetone used in wash, ml.
Vt=Volume of methylene chloride blank, ml.
Vtw=Volume of methylene chloride used in wash, ml.
Vlc=Total volume liquid collected in impingers and silica gel 
(see Figure 5-3 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), ml.
Vm=Volume of gas sample as measured by dry gas meter, dcm 
(dcf).
Vm(std)=Volume of gas sample measured by the dry gas meter, 
corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf).
Vw(std)=Volume of water vapor in the gas sample, corrected to 
standard conditions, scm (scf).
Vs=Stack gas velocity, calculated by Equation 2-9 in Method 2, 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, using data obtained from Method 5, 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, m/sec (ft/sec).
Wa=Weight of residue in acetone wash, mg.
Y=Dry gas meter calibration factor.
H=Average pressure differential across the orifice meter 
(see Figure 5-2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), mm 
H20 (in. H30).
a=Density of acetone, 785.1 mg/ml (or see label on bottle).
w=Density of water, 0.9982 g/ml (0.002201 lb/ml).
t=Density of methylene chloride, 1316.8 mg/ml (or see label 
on bottle).
=Total sampling time, min.
l=Sampling time interval, from the beginning of a run 
until the first component change, min.
i=Sampling time interval, between two successive 
component changes, beginning with the interval between the first and 
second changes, min.
p=Sampling time interval, from the final (nth) 
component change until the end of the sampling run, min.
13.6=Specific gravity of mercury.
60=Sec/min.
l00=Conversion to percent.

4.0  Interferences [Reserved]

5.0  Safety

    This method may involve hazardous materials, operations, and 
equipment. This method does not purport to address all of the safety 
problems associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the 
user of this method to establish appropriate safety and health 
practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations 
prior to performing this test method.

6.0  Equipment and Supplies

    Note: Mention of trade names or specific products does not 
constitute endorsement by the EPA.

    6.1  Sampling train. A schematic of the sampling train used in 
this method is shown in Figure 5-1, Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. Complete construction details are given in APTD-0581 
(Reference 2 in section 17.0 of this method); commercial models of 
this train are also available. For changes from APTD-0581 and for 
allowable modifications of the train shown in Figure 5-1, Method 5, 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A see the following subsections.

    Note: The operating and maintenance procedures for the sampling 
train are described in APTD-0576 (Reference 3 in section 17.0 of 
this method). Since correct usage is important in obtaining valid 
results, all users should read APTD-0576 and adopt the operating and 
maintenance procedures outlined in it, unless otherwise specified 
herein. The sampling train consists of the following components:

    6.1.1  Probe nozzle.
    6.1.1.1  Glass or glass lined with sharp, tapered leading edge. 
The angle of taper shall be 30 deg., 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. Other materials of 
construction may be used, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator.
    6.1.1.2  A range of nozzle sizes suitable for isokinetic 
sampling should be available. Typical nozzle sizes range from 0.32 
to 1.27 cm (\1/8\ to \1/2\ in.) inside diameter (ID) in increments 
of 0.16 cm (\1/16\ in.). Larger nozzle sizes are also available if 
higher volume sampling trains are used. Each nozzle shall be 
calibrated according to the procedures outlined in section 10.0 of 
this method.
    6.1.2  Probe liner.
    6.1.2.1  Borosilicate or quartz glass tubing with a heating 
system capable of maintaining a probe gas temperature at the exit 
end during sampling of 120  14 deg.C (248  
25 deg.F), or such other temperature as specified by an applicable 
subpart of the standards or approved by the Administrator for a 
particular application. Since the actual temperature at the outlet 
of the probe is not usually monitored during sampling, probes 
constructed according to APTD-0581 and utilizing the calibration 
curves of APTD-0576 (or calibrated according to the procedure 
outlined in APTD-0576) will be considered acceptable.
    6.1.2.2  Either borosilicate or quartz glass probe liners may be 
used for stack temperatures up to about 480 deg.C (900 deg.F);

[[Page 50605]]

quartz liners shall be used for temperatures between 480 and 
900 deg.C (900 and 1,650 deg.F). Both types of liners may be used at 
higher temperatures than specified for short periods of time, 
subject to the approval of the Administrator. The softening 
temperature for borosilicate glass is 820 deg.C (1,500 deg.F), and 
for quartz glass it is 1,500 deg.C (2,700 deg.F).
    6.1.3  Pitot tube. Type S, as described in section 6.1 of Method 
2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or other device approved by the 
Administrator. The pitot tube shall be attached to the probe (as 
shown in Figure 5-1 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to 
allow constant monitoring of the stack gas velocity. The impact 
(high pressure) opening plane of the pitot tube shall be even with 
or above the nozzle entry plane (see Method 2, Figure 2-6b, 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A) during sampling. The Type S pitot tube assembly 
shall have a known coefficient, determined as outlined in section 
10.0 of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    6.1.4  Differential pressure gauge. Inclined manometer or 
equivalent device (two), as described in section 6.2 of Method 2, 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A. One manometer shall be used for velocity 
head (Dp) readings, and the other, for orifice differential pressure 
readings.
    6.1.5  Filter holder. Borosilicate glass, with a glass frit 
filter support and a silicone rubber gasket. The holder design shall 
provide a positive seal against leakage from the outside or around 
the filter. The holder shall be attached immediately at the outlet 
of the probe (or cyclone, if used).
    6.1.6  Filter heating system. Any heating system capable of 
maintaining a temperature around the filter holder of 120 
 14 deg.C (248  25 deg.F) during sampling, 
or such other temperature as specified by an applicable subpart of 
the standards or approved by the Administrator for a particular 
application. Alternatively, the tester may opt to operate the 
equipment at a temperature lower than that specified. A temperature 
gauge capable of measuring temperature to within 3 deg.C (5.4 deg.F) 
shall be installed so that the temperature around the filter holder 
can be regulated and monitored during sampling. Heating systems 
other than the one shown in APTD-058l may be used.
    6.1.7  Condenser. The following system shall be used to 
determine the stack gas moisture content: Four glass impingers 
connected in series with leak-free ground glass fittings. The first, 
third, and fourth impingers shall be of the Greenburg-Smith design, 
modified by replacing the tip with a 1.3 cm (\1/2\ in.) ID glass 
tube extending to about 1.3 cm (\1/2\ in.) from the bottom of the 
flask. The second impinger shall be of the Greenburg-Smith design 
with the standard tip. The first and second impingers shall contain 
known quantities of water (section 4.1.3 of this method), the third 
shall be empty, and the fourth shall contain a known weight of 
silica gel, or equivalent desiccant. A temperature sensor, capable 
of measuring temperature to within 1 deg.C (2 deg.F) shall be placed 
at the outlet of the fourth impinger for monitoring purposes.
    6.1.8  Metering system. Vacuum gauge, leak-free pump, 
temperature sensors capable of measuring temperature to within 
3 deg.C (5.4 deg.F), dry gas meter (DGM) capable of measuring volume 
to within 2 percent, and related equipment, as shown in Figure 5-1 
of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Other metering systems 
capable of maintaining sampling rates within 10 percent of 
isokinetic and of determining sample volumes to within 2 percent may 
be used, subject to the approval of the Administrator. When the 
metering system is used in conjunction with a pitot tube, the system 
shall allow periodic checks of isokinetic rates. Sampling trains 
utilizing metering systems designed for higher flow rates than that 
described in APTD-0581 or APTD-0576 may be used provided that the 
specifications of this method are met.
    6.1.9  Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other barometer capable 
of measuring atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) Hg.

    Note: The barometric reading may be obtained from a nearby 
National Weather Service station. In this 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 made at a rate of minus 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) 
Hg per 30 m (100 ft) elevation increase or plus 2.5 mm (0.1 in) Hg. 
Per 30 m (100 ft) elevation decrease.

    6.1.10  Gas density determination equipment. Temperature sensor 
and pressure gauge, as described in section 6.3 and 6.4 of Method 2, 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and gas analyzer, if necessary, as 
described in Method 3, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The temperature 
sensor shall, preferably, be permanently attached to the pitot tube 
or sampling probe in a fixed configuration, such that the tip of the 
sensor extends beyond the leading edge of the probe sheath and does 
not touch any metal. Alternatively, the sensor may be attached just 
prior to use in the field. Note, however, that if the temperature 
sensor is attached in the field, the sensor must be placed in an 
interference-free arrangement with respect to the Type S pitot tube 
openings (see Method 2, Figure 2-4, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A). As 
a second alternative, if a difference of not more than 1 percent in 
the average velocity measurement is to be introduced, the 
temperature sensor need not be attached to the probe or pitot tube. 
(This alternative is subject to the approval of the Administrator.)
    6.2  Sample recovery. The following items are needed:
    6.2.1  Probe-liner and probe-nozzle brushes. Nylon bristle 
brushes with stainless steel wire handles. The probe brush shall 
have extensions (at least as long as the probe) constructed of 
stainless steel, Nylon, Teflon, or similarly inert material The 
brushes shall be properly sized and shaped to brush out the probe 
liner and nozzle.
    6.2.2  Wash bottles. Glass wash bottles are recommended; 
polyethylene wash bottles may be used; however this may introduce a 
positive bias due to contamination from the bottle. It is 
recommended that acetone not be stored in polyethylene bottles for 
longer than a month.
    6.2.3  Glass sample storage containers. Chemically resistant, 
borosilicate glass bottles, for acetone and methylene chloride 
washes and impinger water, 500-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 or methylene 
chloride. (Narrow mouth glass bottles have been found to be less 
prone to leakage.) Alternatively, polyethylene bottles may be used.
    6.2.4  Petri dishes. For filter samples, glass, unless otherwise 
specified by the Administrator.
    6.2.5  Graduated cylinder and/or balance. To measure condensed 
water, acetone wash and methylene chloride wash used during field 
recovery of the samples, 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 the nearest 0.5 g or less. Any 
such balance is suitable for use here and in section 6.3.4 of this 
method.
    6.2.6  Plastic storage containers. Air-tight containers to store 
silica gel.
    6.2.7  Funnel and rubber policeman. To aid in transfer of silica 
gel to container; not necessary if silica gel is weighed in the 
field.
    6.2.8  Funnel. Glass or polyethylene, to aid in sample recovery.
    6.3  Analysis. For analysis, the following equipment is needed:
    6.3.1  Glass or teflon weighing dishes.
    6.3.2  Desiccator. It is recommended that fresh desiccant be 
used to minimize the chance for positive bias due to absorption of 
organic during drying.
    6.3.3  Analytical balance. To measure to within 0.1 mg.
    6.3.4  Balance. To measure to within 0.5 g.
    6.3.5  Beakers. 250-ml.
    6.3.6  Hygrometer. To measure the relative humidity of the 
laboratory environment.
    6.3.7  Temperature sensor. To measure the temperature of the 
laboratory environment.
    6.3.8  Allihin tubes. 30 ml. size, fine (<50 micron) porosity 
fritted glass.
    6.3.9  Pressure filtration apparatus.
    6.3.10  Aluminum dish. Flat bottom, smooth sides and flanged 
top. Approximately 60 mm inside diameter and 18 mm deep.

7.0  Reagents.

    7.1  Sampling. The reagents used in sampling are as follows:
    7.1.1  Filters. Glass fiber filters, without organic binder, 
exhibiting at least 99.95 percent efficiency (<0.05 percent 
penetration) on 0.3-micron dioctyl phthalate smoke particles. The 
filter efficiency test shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM 
Method D 2986-95 (Reapproved 1995) (incorporated by reference in 
Sec. 63.841). Test data from the supplier's quality control program 
are sufficient for this purpose. In sources containing S02 or 
S03, the filter material must be of a type that is unreactive 
to S02 or S03. Reference 10 in section 17.0 of this method 
may be used to select the appropriate filter.
    7.1.2  Silica gel. Indicating type, 6- to 16-mesh. If previously 
used, dry at 175  deg.C (350  deg.F) for 2 hours. New silica gel may 
be used as received. Alternatively, other types of desiccants 
(equivalent or better) may be used, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator.
    7.1.3  Water. When analysis of the material caught in the 
impingers is required,

[[Page 50606]]

deionized distilled water shall be used. Run blanks prior to field 
use to eliminate a high blank on test samples.
    7.1.4  Crushed ice.
    7.1.5  Stopcock grease. Acetone-insoluble, heat-stable silicone 
grease. This is not necessary if screw-on connectors with Teflon 
sleeves, or similar, are used. Alternatively, other types of 
stopcock grease may be used, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator. [Caution: many stopcock greases are methylene 
chloride soluble. Use sparingly and carefully remove prior to 
recovery to prevent contamination of the MCEM analysis.]
    7.2  Sample recovery.
    7.2.1  Acetone--Acetone with blank values <1 ppm, by weight 
residue, is required. Acetone blanks may be run prior to field use 
and only acetone with low blank values used. In no case shall a 
blank value of greater than 1E-06 of the weight of acetone used be 
subtracted from the sample weight.

    Note: This is more restrictive than Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. At least one vendor (Supelco Incorporated located in 
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania) lists <1 mg/l as residue for their 
Environmental Analysis Solvents.

    7.2.2  Methylene chloride--Methylene chloride with a blank value 
<1.5 ppm, by weight, residue. Methylene chloride blanks may be run 
prior to field use and only methylene chloride with low blank values 
used. In no case shall a blank value of greater than 1.6E-06 of the 
weight of methylene chloride used be subtracted from the sample 
weight.

    Note: At least one vendor quotes <1 mg/l for Environmental 
Analysis Solvents grade methylene chloride.

    7.3  Analysis.
    7.3.1  Acetone. Same as in section 7.2.1 of this method.
    7.3.2  Desiccant. Anhydrous calcium sulfate, indicating type. 
Alternatively, other types of desiccants may be used, subject to the 
approval of the Administrator.
    7.3.3  Methylene chloride. Same as section 7.2.2 of this method.

8.0  Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport

    Note: The complexity of this method is such that, in order to 
obtain reliable results, testers should be trained and experienced 
with the test procedures.

    8.1  Sampling.
    8.1.1  Pretest preparation. It is suggested that sampling 
equipment be maintained according to the procedures described in 
APTD-0576.
    8.1.1.1    Weigh several 200- to 300-g portions of silica gel in 
air-tight containers to the nearest 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.
    8.1.1.2  A batch of glass fiber filters, no more than 50 at a 
time, should be placed in a soxhlet extraction apparatus and 
extracted using methylene chloride for at least 16 hours. After 
extraction check filters visually against light for irregularities, 
flaws, or pinhole leaks. Label the shipping containers (glass or 
plastic petri dishes), and keep the filters in these containers at 
all times except during sampling and weighing.
    8.1.1.3  Desiccate the filters at 20  5.6 C (68 
 10  deg.F) and ambient pressure for at least 24 hours, 
and weigh at intervals 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 50 percent. Alternatively (unless 
otherwise specified by the Administrator), the filters may be oven 
dried at 104  deg.C (220  deg.F) for 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.
    8.1.2  Preliminary determinations.
    8.1.2.1  Select the sampling site and the minimum number of 
sampling points according to Method 1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or 
as specified by the Administrator. Determine the stack pressure, 
temperature, and the range of velocity heads using Method 2, 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A; it is recommended that a leak-check of the 
pitot lines (see section 8.1 of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A) be performed. Determine the moisture content using Approximation 
Method 4 (section 1.2 of Method 4, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A) or 
its alternatives for the purpose of making isokinetic sampling rate 
settings. Determine the stack gas dry molecular weight, as described 
in section 8.6 of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; if 
integrated 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 
particulate sample run.
    8.1.2.2  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 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 encountered (see 
section 8.2 of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    8.1.2.3  Select a suitable probe liner and probe length such 
that all traverse points can be sampled. For large stacks, consider 
sampling from opposite sides of the stack to reduce the required 
probe length.
    8.1.2.4  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 as specified by the Administrator); and
    (2) The sample volume taken (corrected to standard conditions) 
will exceed the required minimum total gas sample volume. The latter 
is based on an approximate average sampling rate.
    8.1.2.5  The sampling time at each point shall be the same. 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.
    8.1.2.6  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.
    8.1.3  Preparation of sampling train.
    8.1.3.1  During 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 each of the first two impingers, leave the third 
impinger empty, and transfer approximately 200 to 300 g of 
preweighed 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 recorded.
    8.1.3.2  Using a tweezer or clean disposable surgical 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 to prevent the sample gas stream from 
circumventing the filter. Check the filter for tears after assembly 
is completed.
    8.1.3.3  When glass liners are used, install the selected nozzle 
using a Viton A O-ring when stack temperatures are less than 
260 deg.C (500 deg.F) and an asbestos string gasket when 
temperatures are higher. See APTD-0576 for details. 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.
    8.1.3.4  Set up the train as in Figure 5-1 of Method 5, 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A, using (if necessary) a very light coat of 
silicone grease on all ground glass joints, greasing only the outer 
portion (see APTD-0576) to avoid possibility of contamination by the 
silicone grease. Subject to the approval of the Administrator, a 
glass cyclone may be used between the probe and filter holder when 
the total particulate catch is expected to exceed 100 mg or when 
water droplets are present in the stack gas.
    8.1.3.5  Place crushed ice around the impingers.
    8.1.4  Leak-check procedures.
    8.1.4.1  Pretest leak-check. A pretest leak-check is 
recommended, but not required. If the pretest leak-check is 
conducted, the following procedure should be used.
    8.1.4.1.1  After the sampling train has been assembled, turn on 
and set the filter and probe heating systems at the desired 
operating temperatures. Allow time for the temperatures to 
stabilize. If a Viton A O-ring or other leak-free connection is used 
in assembling the probe nozzle to the probe liner, leak-check the 
train at the sampling site by plugging the nozzle and pulling a 380 
mm (15 in.) Hg vacuum.
    Note: A lower vacuum may be used, provided that it is not 
exceeded during the test.
    8.1.4.1.2  If an asbestos string is used, do not connect the 
probe to the train during the

[[Page 50607]]

leak-check. Instead, leak-check the train by first plugging the 
inlet to the filter holder (cyclone, if applicable) and pulling a 
380 mm (15 in.) Hg vacuum. (See Note in section 8.1.4.1.1 of this 
method). Then connect the probe to the train, and leak-check at 
approximately 25 mm (1 in.) Hg vacuum; alternatively, the probe may 
be leak-checked with the rest of the sampling train, in one step, at 
380 mm (15 in.) Hg vacuum. Leakage rates in excess of 4 percent of 
the average sampling rate or 0.00057 m\3\/min (0.02 cfm), whichever 
is less, are unacceptable.
    8.1.4.1.3  The following leak-check instructions for the 
sampling train described in APTD-0576 and APTD-0581 may be helpful. 
Start the pump with the bypass valve fully open and the 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 the direction of the bypass valve as this 
will cause water to back up into the filter holder. If the desired 
vacuum is exceeded, either leak-check at this higher vacuum or end 
the leak-check as shown below, and start over.
    8.1.4.1.4  When the leak-check is completed, first slowly remove 
the plug from the inlet to the probe, filter holder, or cyclone (if 
applicable), and immediately turn off the vacuum pump. This prevents 
the water in the impingers from being forced backward into the 
filter holder and the silica gel from being entrained backward into 
the third impinger.
    8.1.4.2  Leak-checks during sample run. If, during the sampling 
run, a component (e.g., filter assembly or impinger) change becomes 
necessary, a leak check shall be conducted immediately before the 
change is made. The leak-check shall be done according to the 
procedure outlined in section 8.1.4.1 of this method, 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 be no greater than 0.00057 m\3\/min (0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of 
the average sampling rate (whichever is less), the results are 
acceptable, and no correction will need to be applied to the total 
volume of dry gas metered; if, however, a higher leakage rate is 
obtained, either record the leakage rate and plan to correct the 
sample volume as shown in section 12.3 of this method, or void the 
sample run.

    Note: Immediately after component changes, leak-checks are 
optional; if such leak-checks are done, the procedure outlined in 
section 8.1.4.1 of this method should be used.

    8.1.4.3  Post-test leak-check. A leak-check is mandatory at the 
conclusion of each sampling run. The leak-check shall be performed 
in accordance with the procedures outlined in section 8.1.4.1 of 
this method, except that it shall be conducted at a vacuum equal to 
or greater than the maximum value reached during the sampling run. 
If the leakage rate is found to be no greater than 0.00057 m\3\/min 
(0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of the average sampling rate (whichever is 
less), the results are acceptable, and no correction need be applied 
to the total volume of dry gas metered. If, however, a higher 
leakage rate is obtained, either record the leakage rate and correct 
the sample volume as shown in section 12.3 of this method, or void 
the sampling run.
    8.1.5  Sampling train operation. During the sampling run, 
maintain an isokinetic sampling rate (within 10 percent of true 
isokinetic unless otherwise specified by the Administrator) and a 
temperature around the filter of 12014 deg. C (248 
 25 deg. F), or such other temperature as specified by 
an applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the 
Administrator.
    8.1.5.1  For each run, record the data required on a data sheet 
such as the one shown in Figure 5-2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. Be sure to record the initial reading. Record the DGM 
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 indicated by 
Figure 5-2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A at least once at 
each sample point during each time increment and additional readings 
when significant changes (20 percent variation in velocity 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.
    8.1.5.2  Clean the portholes prior to the test run to minimize 
the chance of sampling deposited material. To begin sampling, remove 
the nozzle cap, verify that the filter and probe heating systems are 
up to temperature, and that the pitot 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, and adjust the flow to isokinetic conditions. Nomographs are 
available, which aid in the rapid adjustment of the isokinetic 
sampling rate without excessive computations. These nomographs are 
designed for use when the Type S pitot tube coefficient (Cp) is 
0.850.02, and the stack gas equivalent density (dry 
molecular weight) is equal to 294. APTD-0576 details the 
procedure for using the nomographs. If Cp and Md are 
outside the above stated ranges, do not use the nomographs unless 
appropriate steps (see Reference 7 in section 17.0 of this method) 
are taken to compensate for the deviations.
    8.1.5.3  When the stack is under significant negative pressure 
(height of impinger stem), take care to close the coarse adjust 
valve before inserting the probe into the stack to prevent water 
from backing into the filter holder. If necessary, the pump may be 
turned on with the coarse adjust valve closed.
    8.1.5.4  When the probe is in position, block off the openings 
around the probe and porthole to prevent unrepresentative dilution 
of the gas stream.
    8.1.5.5  Traverse the stack cross-section, as required by Method 
1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 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 
through the portholes; this minimizes the chance of extracting 
deposited material.
    8.1.5.6  During the test run, make periodic adjustments to keep 
the temperature around the filter holder at the proper level; add 
more ice and, if necessary, salt to maintain a temperature of less 
than 20 deg. C (68 deg. F) at the condenser/silica gel outlet. Also, 
periodically check the level and zero of the manometer.
    8.1.5.7  If the pressure drop across the filter becomes too 
high, making isokinetic sampling difficult to maintain, the filter 
may be replaced in the midst of the sample run. It is recommended 
that another complete filter assembly be used rather than attempting 
to change the filter itself. Before a new filter assembly is 
installed, conduct a leak-check (see section 8.1.4.2 of this 
method). The total PM weight shall include the summation of the 
filter assembly catches.
    8.1.5.8  A single train shall be used for the entire sample run, 
except in cases 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 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.
    8.1.5.9  Note that when two or more trains are used, separate 
analyses of the front-half and (if applicable) impinger catches from 
each train shall be performed, unless identical nozzle sizes were 
used in all trains, in which case, the front-half catches from the 
individual trains may be combined (as may the impinger catches) and 
one analysis of the front-half catch and one analysis of the 
impinger catch may be performed.
    8.1.5.10  At the end of the sample run, turn off the coarse 
adjust valve, remove the probe and nozzle from the stack, turn off 
the pump, record the final DGM reading, and then conduct a post-test 
leak-check, as outlined in section 8.1.4.3 of this method. Also 
leak-check the pitot lines as described in section 8.1 of Method 2, 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The lines must pass this leak-check, in 
order to validate the velocity head data.
    8.1.6  Calculation of percent isokinetic. Calculate percent 
isokinetic (see calculations, section 12.11 of this method) to 
determine whether a run was valid or another test run should be 
made. If there was difficulty in maintaining isokinetic rates 
because of source conditions, consult the Administrator for possible 
variance on the isokinetic rates.
    8.2  Sample recovery.
    8.2.1  Proper cleanup procedure begins as soon as the probe is 
removed from the stack at the end of the sampling period. Allow the 
probe to cool.
    8.2.1.1  When the probe can be safely handled, wipe off all 
external PM near the tip of the probe nozzle, and place a cap over 
it to prevent losing or gaining PM. Do not cap off the probe tip 
tightly while the sampling train is cooling down. This would create 
a vacuum in the filter holder, thus drawing water from the impingers 
into the filter holder.
    8.2.1.2  Before moving the sample train to the cleanup site, 
remove the probe from the sample train, wipe off the silicone 
grease, and cap the open outlet of the probe. Be careful not to lose 
any condensate that might be present. Wipe off the silicone grease 
from

[[Page 50608]]

the filter inlet where the probe was fastened, and cap it. Remove 
the umbilical cord from the last impinger, and cap the impinger. If 
a flexible line is used between the first impinger or condenser and 
the filter holder, disconnect the line at the filter holder, and let 
any condensed water or liquid drain into the impingers or condenser. 
After wiping off the silicone grease, cap off the filter holder 
outlet and impinger inlet. Either ground-glass stoppers, plastic 
caps, or serum caps may be used to close these openings.
    8.2.1.3  Transfer the probe and filter-impinger assembly 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.
    8.2.1.4  Save a portion of the acetone and methylene chloride 
used for cleanup as blanks. Take 200 ml of each solvent directly 
from the wash bottle being used, and place it in glass sample 
containers labeled ``acetone blank'' and ``methylene chloride 
blank'' respectively.
    8.2.1.5  Inspect the train prior to and during disassembly, and 
note any abnormal conditions. Treat the samples as follows:
    8.2.1.5.1  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 PM cake is inside the fold. Using a dry Nylon bristle brush 
and/or a sharp-edged blade, carefully transfer to the petri dish any 
PM and/or filter fibers that adhere to the filter holder gasket. 
Seal the container.
    8.2.1.5.2  Container No. 2. 
    8.2.1.5.2.1  Taking care to see that dust on the outside of the 
probe or other exterior surfaces does not get into the sample, 
quantitatively recover PM or any condensate from the probe nozzle, 
probe fitting, probe liner, and front half of the filter holder by 
washing these components with acetone and placing the wash in a 
glass container.
    8.2.1.5.2.2  Perform the acetone rinse as follows: Carefully 
remove the probe nozzle, and clean the inside surface by rinsing 
with acetone from a wash bottle and brushing with a Nylon bristle 
brush. Brush until the acetone rinse shows no visible particles, 
after which make a final rinse of the inside surface with acetone. 
Brush and rinse the inside parts of the Swagelok fitting with 
acetone in a similar way until no visible particles remain.
    8.2.1.5.2.3  Rinse the probe liner with acetone by tilting and 
rotating the probe while squirting acetone into its upper end so 
that all inside surfaces will be wetted with acetone. Let the 
acetone drain from the lower end into the sample container. A funnel 
(glass or polyethylene) may be used to aid in transferring liquid 
washes to the container. Follow the acetone rinse with a probe 
brush. Hold the probe in an inclined position, squirt acetone into 
the upper end as the probe brush is being pushed with a twisting 
action through the probe; hold a sample container underneath the 
lower end of the probe, and catch any acetone and particulate matter 
that is brushed from the probe. Run the brush through the probe 
three times or more until no visible PM is carried out with the 
acetone or until none remains in the probe liner on visual 
inspection. With stainless steel or other metal probes, run the 
brush through in the above prescribed manner at least six times 
since metal probes have small crevices in which particulate matter 
can be entrapped. Rinse the brush with acetone and quantitatively 
collect these washings in the sample container. After the brushing, 
make a final acetone rinse of the probe as described in this 
section. It is recommended that two people clean the probe to 
minimize sample losses. Between sampling runs, keep brushes clean 
and protected from contamination.
    8.2.1.5.2.4  After ensuring that all joints have been wiped 
clean of silicone grease, 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 a final rinse of the 
brush and filter holder. Carefully rinse out the glass cyclone, also 
(if applicable).
    8.2.1.5.2.5  After rinsing the nozzle, probe and front half of 
the filter holder with acetone, the entire procedure is to be 
repeated with methylene chloride and saved in a separate Container 
No. 2M.
    8.2.1.5.2.6  After acetone and methylene chloride washings and 
particulate matter have been collected in the proper sample 
container, tighten the lid on the sample container so that acetone 
and methylene chloride will not leak out when it is shipped to the 
laboratory. Mark the height of the fluid level to determine whether 
leakage occurred during transport. Label each container to identify 
clearly its contents.
    8.2.1.5.3  Container No. 3. Note the color of the indicating 
silica gel to determine whether it has been completely spent, and 
make a notation of its condition. Transfer the silica gel from the 
fourth impinger to its original container, and seal. A funnel may 
make it easier to pour the silica gel without spilling. A rubber 
policeman may be used as an aid in removing the silica gel from the 
impinger. It is not necessary to remove the small amount of dust 
particles that may adhere to the impinger wall and are difficult to 
remove. Since the gain in weight is to be used for moisture 
calculations, do not use any water or other liquids to transfer the 
silica gel. If a balance is available in the field, follow the 
procedure for Container No. 3 in section 11.3 of this method.
    8.2.1.5.4  Impinger water. Treat the impingers as follows:
    8.2.1.5.4.1  Make a notation of any color or film in the liquid 
catch. Measure the liquid that is in the first three impingers to 
within 1 ml by using a graduated cylinder or by weighing it to 
within 0.5 g by using a balance (if one is available). Record the 
volume or weight of liquid present. This information is required to 
calculate the moisture content of the effluent gas.
    8.2.1.5.4.2  Following the determination of the volume of liquid 
present, rinse the back half of the train with water and add it to 
the impinger catch and store it in a container labeled 3W(water).
    8.2.1.5.4.3  Following the water rinse, rinse the back half of 
the train with acetone to remove the excess water to enhance 
subsequent organic recovery with methylene chloride and 
quantitatively recover to a container labeled 3S(solvent) followed 
by at least three sequential rinsings with aliquots of methylene 
chloride. Quantitatively recover to the same container labeled 3S. 
Record separately the amount of both acetone and methylene chloride 
used to the nearest 1 ml or 0.5 gram.

    Note: Because the subsequent analytical finish is gravimetric it 
is okay to recover both solvents to the same container. This would 
not be recommended if other analytical finishes were required.

    8.3  Transport. Whenever possible, containers should be shipped 
in such a way that they remain upright at all times.

9.0  Quality Control

    9.1  The following quality control procedures are suggested to 
check the volume metering system calibration values at the field 
test site prior to sample collection. These procedures are optional.
    9.1.1  Meter orifice check. Using the calibration data obtained 
during the calibration procedure described in section 5.3 of this 
method, determine the H@ for the metering system 
orifice. The H@ is the orifice pressure differential 
in units of in. H2O that correlates to 0.75 cfm of air at 
528 deg.R and 29.92 in. Hg. The H@ is calculated as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.005

where

H=Average pressure differential across the orifice meter, 
in. H2O;
Tm=Absolute average DGM temperature,  deg.R;
Pbar=Barometric pressure, in. Hg;
=Total sampling time, min;
Y=DGM calibration factor, dimensionless;
Vm=Volume of gas sample as measured by DGM, dcf;
0.0319=(0.0567 in. Hg/ deg.R) (0.75 cfm)2.

    Before beginning the field test (a set of three runs usually 
constitutes a field test), operate the metering system (i.e., pump, 
volume meter, and orifice) at the H@ pressure 
differential for 10 minutes. Record the volume collected, the DGM 
temperature, and the barometric pressure. Calculate a DGM 
calibration check value, Yc, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.006

where

Yc=DGM calibration check value, dimensionless;
10=Run time, min.

    Compare the Yc value with the dry gas meter calibration 
factor Y to determine that: 0.97 Yc< 1.03Y. If the Yc 
value is not within this range, the volume metering system should be 
investigated before beginning the test.
    9.2  Calibrated critical orifice. A calibrated critical orifice, 
calibrated against a wet test meter or spirometer and designed to be 
inserted at the inlet of the sampling meter

[[Page 50609]]

box, may be used as a quality control check by following the 
procedure of section 7.2 of this method.
    9.3  Miscellaneous quality control measures. [Reserved]

10.0  Calibration and Standardization.

    Note: Maintain a laboratory log of all calibrations.

    10.1  Probe nozzle. Probe nozzles shall be calibrated before 
their initial use in the field. Using a micrometer, measure the ID 
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 (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.
    10.2  Pitot tube assembly. The Type S pitot tube assembly shall 
be calibrated according to the procedure outlined in section 10.1 of 
Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    10.3  Metering system.
    10.3.1  Calibration prior to use. Before its initial use in the 
field, the metering system shall be calibrated as follows: Connect 
the metering system inlet to the outlet of a wet test meter that is 
accurate to within 1 percent. Refer to Figure 5-5 of Method 5, 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A. The wet test meter should have a capacity 
of 30 liters/rev (1 ft3/rev). A spirometer of 400 liters (14 
ft3) or more capacity, or equivalent, may be used for this 
calibration, although a wet test meter is usually more practical. 
The wet test meter should be periodically calibrated with a 
spirometer or a liquid displacement meter to ensure the accuracy of 
the wet test meter. Spirometers or wet test meters of other sizes 
may be used, provided that the specified accuracies of the procedure 
are maintained. Run the metering system pump for about 15 minutes 
with the orifice manometer indicating a median reading as expected 
in field use to allow the pump to warm up and to permit the interior 
surface of the wet test meter to be thoroughly wetted. Then, at each 
of a minimum of three orifice manometer settings, pass an exact 
quantity of gas through the wet test meter, and note the gas volume 
indicated by the DGM. Also note the barometric pressure, and the 
temperatures of the wet test meter, the inlet of the DGM, and the 
outlet of the DGM. Select the highest and lowest orifice settings to 
bracket the expected field operating range of the orifice. Use a 
minimum volume of 0.15 m3 (5 cf) at all orifice settings. 
Record all the data on a form similar to Figure 5-6 of Method 5, 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A, and calculate Y, the DGM calibration 
factor, and H@, the orifice calibration factor, at 
each orifice setting as shown on Figure 5-6 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A. Allowable tolerances for individual Y and 
H@ values are given in Figure 5-6 of Method 5, 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A. Use the average of the Y values in the 
calculations in section 12 of this method.
    10.3.1.1.  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 m3/min (0.02 cfm); at the end of the run, take the 
difference of the measured wet test meter and DGM volumes; divide 
the difference by 10, to get the leak rate. The leak rate should not 
exceed 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm).
    10.3.2  Calibration after use. 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 the inlet of the 
metering system. Calculate the average value of the DGM calibration 
factor. If the value has changed by more than 5 percent, recalibrate 
the meter over the full range of orifice settings, as previously 
detailed.

    Note: Alternative procedures, e.g., rechecking the orifice meter 
coefficient, may be used, subject to the approval of the 
Administrator.

    10.3.3  Acceptable variation in calibration. If the DGM 
coefficient values obtained before and after a test series differ by 
more than 5 percent, the test series shall either be voided, or 
calculations 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.

    10.4  Probe heater calibration.
    Note: The probe heating system shall be calibrated before its 
initial use in the field. Use a heat source to generate air heated 
to selected temperatures that approximate those expected to occur in 
the sources to be sampled. Pass this air through the probe at a 
typical sample flow rate while measuring the probe inlet and outlet 
temperatures at various probe heater settings. For each air 
temperature generated, construct a graph of probe heating system 
setting versus probe outlet temperature. The procedure outlined in 
APTD-0576 can also be used. Probes constructed according to APTD-
0581 need not be calibrated if the calibration curves in APTD-0576 
are used. Also, probes with outlet temperatures monitoring 
capabilities do not require calibration.

    10.5  Temperature sensors. Use the procedure in section 10.3 of 
Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A to calibrate in-stack 
temperature sensors. Dial thermometers, such as are used for the DGM 
and condenser outlet, shall be calibrated against mercury-in-glass 
thermometers.
    10.6  Leak check of metering system shown in Figure 5-1 of 
Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 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 recorded than is actually sampled. 
The following procedure is suggested (see Figure 5-4 of Method 5, 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A): Close the main valve on the meter box. 
Insert a one-hole rubber stopper with rubber tubing attached into 
the orifice exhaust 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 blowing into 
the rubber tubing. Pinch off the tubing, and observe the manometer 
for one minute. A loss of pressure on the manometer indicates a leak 
in the meter box; leaks, if present, must be corrected.
    10.7  Barometer. Calibrate against a mercury barometer.

11.0  Analytical Procedure

    11.1  Record the data required on a sheet such as the one shown 
in Figure 315-1 of this method. Handle each sample container as 
follows:
    11.1.1  Container No. 1.
    11.1.1.1  PM analysis. Leave the contents in the shipping 
container or transfer the filter and any loose PM from the sample 
container to a tared glass weighing dish. Desiccate for 24 hours in 
a desiccator containing anhydrous calcium sulfate. Weigh to a 
constant weight, and report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg. For 
purposes of this section, the term ``constant weight'' means a 
difference 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 (overnight desiccation is a common practice).

              Figure 315-1.--Particulate and MCEM Analyses              
                                                                        
                                                                        
                          Particulate Analysis                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant..................................  ...............................
Date...................................  ...............................
Run No.................................  ...............................
Filter No..............................  ...............................
Amount liquid lost during transport....                                 
Acetone blank volume (ml)..............  ...............................
Acetone blank concentration (Eq. 315-4)                                 
 (mg/mg).                                                               
Acetone wash blank (Eq. 315-5), (mg)...  ...............................


[[Page 50610]]


                                                                                                                
                                          Final weight (mg)         Tare weight (mg)         Weight gain (mg)   
Container No. 1......................                                                    .......................
Container No. 2......................                                                    .......................
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............................                                                    .......................
    Less acetone blank...............                                                    .......................
    Weight of particulate matter.....                                                    .......................


                                                                                                                
                                                Moisture Analysis                                               
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Final volume (mg)       Initial volume (mg)     Liquid collected (mg) 
Impingers............................           Note 1                   Note 1          .......................
Silica gel...........................                                                    .......................
      Total..........................                                                    .......................
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
Note 1: Convert volume of water to weight by multiplying by the density of water (1 g/ml).                      


                                                                                                                
                                                  MCEM Analysis                                                 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Tare of                                        Methylene  
          Container No.            Final weight    aluminum dish    Weight gain    Acetone wash    chloride wash
                                       (mg)            (mg)                        volume  (ml)    volume  (ml) 
1...............................                                                                                
2+2M............................                                                                                
3W..............................                                                                                
3S..............................                                                                                
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................                                  mtota                                
                                                                               l    vaw    vtw


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less acetone wash blank (mg) (not to     wa=caavaw    
 exceed 1 mg/l of acetone used).                                        
Less methylene chloride wash blank (mg)  wt=cttvtw    
 (not to exceed 1.5 mg/l of methylene                                   
 chloride used).                                                        
Less filter blank (mg) (not to exceed .  Fb                             
 . . mg/filter).                                                        
MCEM weight (mg).......................  mMCEOM=mtotal-wa-wt-fb
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a third weighing is required and it agrees within 
0.5 mg, then the results of the second weighing should 
be used. For quality assurance purposes, record and report each 
individual weighing; if more than 3 weighings are required, note 
this in the results for the subsequent MCEM results.
    11.1.1.2  MCEM analysis. Transfer the filter and contents 
quantitatively into a beaker. Add 100 ml of methylene chloride and 
cover with aluminum foil. Sonicate for 3 minutes then allow to stand 
for 20 minutes. Set up the filtration apparatus. Decant the solution 
into a clean Allihin tube. Immediately pressure filter the solution 
through the tube into another clean dry beaker. Continue decanting 
and pressure filtration until all the solvent is transferred. Rinse 
the beaker and filter with 10-20 mls of methylene chloride, decant 
into the Allihin tube and pressure filter. Place the beaker on a low 
temperature hot plate (maximum 40 deg.C) and slowly evaporate almost 
to dryness. Transfer the remaining last few milliliters of solution 
quantitatively from the beaker (using at least three aliquots of 
methylene chloride rinse) to a tared clean dry aluminum dish and 
evaporate to complete dryness. Remove from heat once solvent is 
evaporated. Re-weigh the dish after a 30-minute equilibrium in the 
balance room and determine the weight to the nearest 0.1 mg. Conduct 
a methylene chloride blank run in an identical fashion.
    11.1.2  Container No. 2.
    11.1.2.1  PM analysis. Note the level of liquid in the 
container, and confirm on the analysis sheet whether 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 results. Measure 
the liquid in this container either volumetrically to 1 
ml or gravimetrically to 0.5 g. Transfer the contents to 
a tared 250-ml beaker, and evaporate to dryness at ambient 
temperature and pressure. Desiccate for 24 hours, and weigh to a 
constant weight. Report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg.
    11.1.2.2  MCEM analysis. Add 25 mls of methylene chloride to the 
beaker and cover with aluminum foil. Sonicate for 3 minutes then 
allow to stand for 20 minutes, combine with contents of Container 
No. 2M, and pressure filter and evaporate as described for Container 
1 in section 11.1.1.2 of this method.
    Notes for MCEM analysis:
    1. Light finger pressure only is necessary on 24/40 adaptor. A 
Chemplast adapter #15055-240 has been found satisfactory.
    2. Avoid aluminum dishes made with fluted sides as these may 
promote solvent ``creep'' resulting in possible sample loss.
    3. If multiple samples are being run, rinse the Allihin tube 
twice between samples with 5 mls of solvent using pressure 
filtration. After the second rinse, continue the flow of air until 
the glass frit is completely dry. Clean the Allihin tubes thoroughly 
after filtering 5 or 6 samples.
    11.1.3  Container No. 3. Weigh the spent silica gel (or silica 
gel plus impinger) to the nearest 0.5 g using a balance. This step 
may be conducted in the field.
    11.1.4  Container 3W (impinger water).
    11.1.4.1   MCEM analysis. Transfer the solution into a 1000 ml 
separatory funnel quantitatively with methylene chloride washes. Add 
enough solvent to total approximately 50 mls, if necessary. Shake 
the funnel for one minute, allow the phases to separate and drain 
the solvent layer into a 250 ml beaker. Repeat the extraction twice 
again. Evaporate with low heat (less than 40 deg.C) until near 
dryness. Transfer the remaining few milliliters of solvent 
quantitatively with small solvent washes into a clean dry tared 
aluminum dish and evaporate to dryness. Remove from heat once 
solvent is evaporated. Re-weigh the dish after a 30-minute 
equilibration in the balance room and determine the weight to the 
nearest 0.1 mg.
    11.1.5  Container 3S (solvent).
    11.1.5.1  MCEM analysis. Transfer the mixed solvent to 250 ml 
beaker(s). Evaporate and weigh following the procedures detailed for 
container 3W in section 11.1.4 of this method.
    11.1.6  Blank containers. Measure the distilled water, acetone, 
or methylene chloride in each container either volumetrically or 
gravimetrically. Transfer

[[Page 50611]]

the ``solvent'' to a tared 250-ml beaker, and evaporate to dryness 
at ambient temperature and pressure. (Conduct a solvent blank on the 
distilled deionized water blank in an identical fashion to that 
described in section 8.4.4.1 of this method.) Desiccate for 24 
hours, and weigh to a constant weight. Report the results to the 
nearest 0.1 mg.

    Note: The contents of Containers No. 2, 3W, and 3M as well as 
the blank containers may be evaporated at temperatures higher than 
ambient. If evaporation is done at an elevated temperature, 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 and methylene chloride are highly flammable and have a low 
flash point.

12.0  Data Analysis and Calculations

    12.1.  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.
    12.2  Average dry gas meter temperature and average orifice 
pressure drop. See data sheet (Figure 5-2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A).
    12.3  Dry gas volume. Correct the sample volume measured by the 
dry gas meter to standard conditions (20 deg.C, 760 mm Hg or 
68 deg.F, 29.92 in. Hg) by using Equation 315-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.007

where
K1=0.3858 deg.K/mm Hg for metric units;
    =17.64 deg.R/in. Hg for English units.

    Note: Equation 315-1 can be used as written unless leakage rate 
observed during any of the mandatory leak checks (i.e., the post-
test leak check or leak checks conducted prior to component changes) 
exceeds La. If Lp or Li exceeds La, Equation 
315-1 must be modified as follows:

    (a) Case I. No component changes made during sampling run. In 
this case, replace Vm in Equation 315-1 with the expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.008

    (b) Case II. One or more component changes made during the 
sampling run. In this case, replace Vm in Equation 315-1 by the 
expression:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.009

    and substitute only for those leakage rates (Li or Lp) 
which exceed La.
    12.4  Volume of water vapor.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.010
    
where

K2=0.001333 m3/ml for metric units;
    =0.04706 ft3/ml for English units.

    12.5  Moisture content.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.011
    
    Note: In saturated or water droplet-laden gas streams, two 
calculations of the moisture content of the stack gas shall be made, 
one from the impinger analysis (Equation 315-3), and a second from 
the assumption of saturated conditions. The lower of the two values 
of Bws shall be considered correct. The procedure for 
determining the moisture content based upon assumption of saturated 
conditions is given in section 4.0 of Method 4, 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. For the purposes of this method, the average stack gas 
temperature from Figure 5-2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A 
may be used to make this determination, provided that the accuracy 
of the in-stack temperature sensor is 1 deg.C (2 deg.F).
    12.6  Acetone blank concentration.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.012
    
    12.7  Acetone wash blank.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.013
    
    12.8  Total particulate weight. Determine the total particulate 
matter catch from the sum of the weights obtained from Containers 1 
and 2 less the acetone blank associated with these two containers 
(see Figure 315-1).

    Note: Refer to section 4.1.5 of this method to assist in 
calculation of results involving two or more filter assemblies or 
two or more sampling trains.

    12.9  Particulate concentration.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.014
    
where

K=0.001 g/mg for metric units;
    =0.0154 gr/mg for English units.

    12.10  Conversion factors. Use the factors in Table 315-1 to 
convert from English to metric units.
    12.11  Isokinetic variation.
    12.11.1  Calculation from raw data.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.015
    

[[Page 50612]]


where

K4=0.003454 [(mm Hg)(m3)]/[(ml) ( deg.K)] for metric 
units;
    =0.002669 [(in. H g)(ft3)]/[(ml) ( deg.R)] for English 
units.

    12.11.2  Calculation from intermediate values.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.016
    
where

K5=4.320 for metric units;
    =0.09450 for English units.

                    Table 315-1.--Conversion Factors                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          From                      To                  Multiply by     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ft3....................                 m3                 0.02832      
gr.....................                 mg                64.80004      
gr/ft3.................              mg/m3                  2288.4      
gr.....................                 lb            1.429 x 10-4      
mg.....................                  g                   0.001      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12.13  Stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. Calculate 
the average stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate, if needed, 
using data obtained in this method and the equations in sections 5.2 
and 5.3 of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    12.14  MCEM results. Determine the MCEM concentration from the 
results from Containers 1, 2, 2M, 3W and 3S less the acetone, 
methylene chloride, and filter blanks value as determined in the 
following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.017

13.0  Method Performances

    13.1  Acceptable results. If 90 percent  I 
 110 percent, the results are acceptable. If the PM or 
MCEM results are low in comparison to the standard, and ``I'' is 
over 110 percent or less than 90 percent, the Administrator may opt 
to accept the results. Reference 4 in the Bibliography may be used 
to make acceptability judgments. If ``I'' is judged to be 
unacceptable, reject the results, and repeat the test.

14.0  Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]

15.0  Waste Management. [Reserved]

16.0  Alternative Procedures

    16.1  Dry gas meter as a calibration standard. A DGM may be used 
as a calibration standard for volume measurements in place of the 
wet test meter specified in section 5.3 of this method, provided 
that it is calibrated initially and recalibrated periodically as 
follows:
    16.1.1  Standard dry gas meter calibration.
    16.1.1.1  The DGM to be calibrated and used as a secondary 
reference meter should be of high quality and have an appropriately 
sized capacity, e.g., 3 liters/rev (0.1 ft3/rev). A spirometer 
(400 liters or more capacity), or equivalent, may be used for this 
calibration, although a wet test meter is usually more practical. 
The wet test meter should have a capacity of 30 liters/rev (1 
ft3/rev) and capable of measuring volume to within 1.0 percent; 
wet test meters should be checked against a spirometer or a liquid 
displacement meter to ensure the accuracy of the wet test meter. 
Spirometers or wet test meters of other sizes may be used, provided 
that the specified accuracies of the procedure are maintained.
    16.1.1.2  Set up the components as shown in Figure 5-7 of Method 
5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. A spirometer, or equivalent, may be 
used in place of the wet test meter in the system. Run the pump for 
at least 5 minutes at a flow rate of about 10 liters/min (0.35 cfm) 
to condition the interior surface of the wet test meter. The 
pressure drop indicated by the manometer at the inlet side of the 
DGM should be minimized [no greater than 100 mm H2O (4 in. 
H2O) at a flow rate of 30 liters/min (1 cfm)]. This can be 
accomplished by using large diameter tubing connections and straight 
pipe fittings.
    16.1.1.3  Collect the data as shown in the example data sheet 
(see Figure 5-8 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Make 
triplicate runs at each of the flow rates and at no less than five 
different flow rates. The range of flow rates should be between 10 
and 34 liters/min (0.35 and 1.2 cfm) or over the expected operating 
range.
    16.1.1.4  Calculate flow rate, Q, for each run using the wet 
test meter volume, Vw, and the run time, q. Calculate the DGM 
coefficient, Yds, for each run. These calculations are as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.018

where

K1=0.3858 for international system of units (SI); 17.64 for 
English units;
Vw=Wet test meter volume, liter (ft3);
Vds=Dry gas meter volume, liter (ft3);
tds=Average dry gas meter temperature,  deg.C ( deg.F);
tstd=273 deg. C for SI units; 460 deg. F for English units;
tw=Average wet test meter temperature,  deg.C ( deg.F);
Pbar=Barometric pressure, mm Hg (in. Hg);
p=Dry gas meter inlet differential pressure, mm H2O 
(in. H2O);
=Run time, min.

    16.1.1.5  Compare the three Yds values at each of the flow 
rates and determine the maximum and minimum values. The difference 
between the maximum and minimum values at each flow rate should be 
no greater than 0.030. Extra sets of triplicate runs may be made in 
order to complete this requirement. In addition, the meter 
coefficients should be between 0.95 and 1.05. If these 
specifications cannot be met in three sets of successive triplicate 
runs, the meter is not suitable as a calibration standard and should 
not be used as such. If these specifications are met, average the 
three Yds values at each flow rate resulting in five average 
meter coefficients, Yds.
    16.1.1.6  Prepare a curve of meter coefficient, Yds, versus 
flow rate, Q, for the DGM. This curve shall be used as a reference 
when the meter is used to calibrate other DGM's and to determine 
whether recalibration is required.
    16.1.2  Standard dry gas meter recalibration.
    16.1.2.1  Recalibrate the standard DGM against a wet test meter 
or spirometer annually or after every 200 hours of operation, 
whichever comes first. This requirement is valid provided the 
standard DGM is kept in a laboratory and, if transported, cared for 
as any other laboratory instrument. Abuse to the standard meter may 
cause a change in the calibration and will require more frequent 
recalibrations.
    16.1.2.2  As an alternative to full recalibration, a two-point 
calibration check may be made. Follow the same procedure and 
equipment arrangement as for a full recalibration, but run the meter 
at only two flow rates [suggested rates are 14 and 28 liters/min 
(0.5 and 1.0 cfm)]. Calculate the meter coefficients for these two 
points, and compare the values with the meter calibration curve. If 
the two coefficients are within 1.5 percent of the calibration curve 
values at the same flow rates, the meter need not be recalibrated 
until the next date for a recalibration check.
    16.2  Critical orifices as calibration standards. Critical 
orifices may be used as calibration standards in place of the wet 
test meter specified in section 5.3 of this method, provided that 
they are selected, calibrated, and used as follows:
    16.2.1  Selection of critical orifices.
    16.2.1.1  The procedure that follows describes the use of 
hypodermic needles or stainless steel needle tubing which have been 
found suitable for use as critical orifices. Other materials and 
critical orifice designs may be used provided the orifices act as 
true critical orifices; i.e., a critical vacuum can be obtained, as 
described in section 7.2.2.2.3 of this method. Select five critical 
orifices that are appropriately sized to cover the range of flow 
rates between 10 and 34 liters/min or the expected operating range. 
Two of the critical orifices should bracket the expected

[[Page 50613]]

operating range. A minimum of three critical orifices will be needed 
to calibrate a Method 5 DGM; the other two critical orifices can 
serve as spares and provide better selection for bracketing the 
range of operating flow rates. The needle sizes and tubing lengths 
shown in Table 315-2 give the approximate flow rates indicated in 
the table.
    16.2.1.2  These needles can be adapted to a Method 5 type 
sampling train as follows: Insert a serum bottle stopper, 13- by 20-
mm sleeve type, into a \1/2\ inch Swagelok quick connect. Insert the 
needle into the stopper as shown in Figure 5-9 of Method 5, 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A.
    16.2.2  Critical orifice calibration.
    The procedure described in this section uses the Method 5 meter 
box configuration with a DGM as described in section 2.1.8 of this 
method to calibrate the critical orifices. Other schemes may be 
used, subject to the approval of the Administrator.

                  Table 315-2.--Approximate Flow Rates                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Flow rate                 Flow rate 
        Gauge/length (cm)            (liters/      Gauge/      (liters/ 
                                       min)     length (cm)      min)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/7.6...........................        32.56       14/2.5        19.54
12/10.2..........................        30.02       14/5.1        17.27
13/2.5...........................        25.77       14/7.6        16.14
13/5.1...........................        23.50       15/3.2        14.16
13/7.6...........................        22.37       15/7.6        11.61
13/10.2..........................        20.67      15/10.2        10.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16.2.2.1  Calibration of meter box. The critical orifices must 
be calibrated in the same configuration as they will be used; i.e., 
there should be no connections to the inlet of the orifice.
    16.2.2.1.1  Before calibrating the meter box, leak check the 
system as follows: Fully open the coarse adjust valve, and 
completely close the by-pass valve. Plug the inlet. Then turn on the 
pump, and determine whether there is any leakage. The leakage rate 
shall be zero; i.e., no detectable movement of the DGM dial shall be 
seen for 1 minute.
    16.2.2.1.2  Check also for leakages in that portion of the 
sampling train between the pump and the orifice meter. See section 
5.6 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A for the procedure; make 
any corrections, if necessary. If leakage is detected, check for 
cracked gaskets, loose fittings, worn 0-rings, etc., and make the 
necessary repairs.
    16.2.2.1.3  After determining that the meter box is leakless, 
calibrate the meter box according to the procedure given in section 
5.3 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Make sure that the wet 
test meter meets the requirements stated in section 7.1.1.1 of this 
method. Check the water level in the wet test meter. Record the DGM 
calibration factor, Y.
    16.2.2.2  Calibration of critical orifices. Set up the apparatus 
as shown in Figure 5-10 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    16.2.2.2.1  Allow a warm-up time of 15 minutes. This step is 
important to equilibrate the temperature conditions through the DGM.
    16.2.2.2.2  Leak check the system as in section 7.2.2.1.1 of 
Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The leakage rate shall be 
zero.
    16.2.2.2.3  Before calibrating the critical orifice, determine 
its suitability and the appropriate operating vacuum as follows: 
Turn on the pump, fully open the coarse adjust valve, and adjust the 
by-pass valve to give a vacuum reading corresponding to about half 
of atmospheric pressure. Observe the meter box orifice manometer 
reading, DH. Slowly increase the vacuum reading until stable reading 
is obtained on the meter box orifice manometer. Record the critical 
vacuum for each orifice. Orifices that do not reach a critical value 
shall not be used.
    16.2.2.2.4  Obtain the barometric pressure using a barometer as 
described in section 2.1.9 of this method. Record the barometric 
pressure, Pbar, in mm Hg (in. Hg).
    16.2.2.2.5  Conduct duplicate runs at a vacuum of 25 to 50 mm Hg 
(1 to 2 in. Hg) above the critical vacuum. The runs shall be at 
least 5 minutes each. The DGM volume readings shall be in increments 
of complete revolutions of the DGM. As a guideline, the times should 
not differ by more than 3.0 seconds (this includes allowance for 
changes in the DGM temperatures) to achieve 0.5 percent 
in K'. Record the information listed in Figure 5-11 of Method 5, 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A.
    16.2.2.2.6  Calculate K' using Equation 315-9.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.019
    
where

K'=Critical orifice coefficient, [m\3\)( deg.K)\1/2\]/[(mm 
Hg)(min)] {[(ft\3\)( deg.R)\1/2\)]/[(in. Hg) (min)]};
Tamb=Absolute ambient temperature,  deg.K ( deg.R).

    Average the K' values. The individual K' values should not 
differ by more than 0.5 percent from the average.
    16.2.3  Using the critical orifices as calibration standards.
    16.2.3.1  Record the barometric pressure.
    16.2.3.2  Calibrate the metering system according to the 
procedure outlined in sections 7.2.2.2.1 to 7.2.2.2.5 of Method 5, 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Record the information listed in Figure 
5-12 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    16.2.3.3  Calculate the standard volumes of air passed through 
the DGM and the critical orifices, and calculate the DGM calibration 
factor, Y, using the equations below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.021


[[Page 50614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.022


where

Vcr(std)=Volume of gas sample passed through the critical 
orifice, corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf).
K'=0.3858  deg.K/mm Hg for metric units
    =17.64  deg.R/in. Hg for English units.

    16.2.3.4  Average the DGM calibration values for each of the 
flow rates. The calibration factor, Y, at each of the flow rates 
should not differ by more than 2 percent from the 
average.
    16.2.3.5  To determine the need for recalibrating the critical 
orifices, compare the DGM Y factors obtained from two adjacent 
orifices each time a DGM is calibrated; for example, when checking 
orifice 13/2.5, use orifices 12/10.2 and 13/5.1. If any critical 
orifice yields a DGM Y factor differing by more than 2 percent from 
the others, recalibrate the critical orifice according to section 
7.2.2.2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

17.0  References.

    1. Addendum to Specifications for Incinerator Testing at Federal 
Facilities. PHS, NCAPC. December 6, 1967.
    2. Martin, Robert M. Construction Details of Isokinetic Source-
Sampling Equipment. Environmental Protection Agency. Research 
Triangle Park, NC. APTD-0581. April 1971.
    3. Rom, Jerome J. Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation of 
Isokinetic Source Sampling Equipment. Environmental Protection 
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. APTD-0576. March 1972.
    4. Smith, W.S., 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 Control Association, St. Louis, MO. 
June 14-19, 1970.
    5. Smith, W.S., et al. Stack Gas Sampling Improved and 
Simplified With New Equipment. APCA Paper No. 67-119. 1967.
    6. Specifications for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facilities. 
PHS, NCAPC. 1967.
    7. Shigehara, R.T. Adjustment in the EPA Nomograph for Different 
Pitot Tube Coefficients and Dry Molecular Weights. Stack Sampling 
News 2:4-11. October 1974.
    8. Vollaro, R.F. A Survey of Commercially Available 
Instrumentation for the Measurement of Low-Range Gas Velocities. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Measurement Branch. 
Research Triangle Park, NC. November 1976 (unpublished paper).
    9. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part 26. Gaseous Fuels; Coal 
and Coke; Atmospheric Analysis. American Society for Testing and 
Materials. Philadelphia, PA. 1974. pp. 617-622.
    10. Felix, L.G., G.I. Clinard, G.E. Lacy, and J.D. McCain. 
Inertial Cascade Impactor Substrate Media for Flue Gas Sampling. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711. Publication No. EPA-600/7-77-060. June 1977. 83 p.
    11. Westlin, P.R. and R.T. Shigehara. Procedure for Calibrating 
and Using Dry Gas Volume Meters as Calibration Standards. Source 
Evaluation Society Newsletter. 3(1):17-30. February 1978.
    12. Lodge, J.P., Jr., J.B. Pate, B.E. Ammons, and G.A. Swanson. 
The Use of Hypodermic Needles as Critical Orifices in Air Sampling. 
J. Air Pollution Control Association. 16:197-200. 1966.

[FR Doc. 96-24284 Filed 9-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P