[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52384-52428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25882]
[[Page 52383]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9, 60, and 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 52384]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 60, and 63
[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5898-5]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for each
new or existing potline, paste production plant, and anode bake furnace
associated with a primary aluminum reduction plant, and for each new
pitch storage tank associated with a primary aluminum production plant.
In addition, the new source performance standard for primary aluminum
plants is amended and most of the requirements are incorporated in the
final national emission standards. This action also adds Method 315 for
the measurement of extractable organic matter to appendix A of part 63
and Method 14A for the measurement of total fluoride (TF) to appendix A
of part 60.
The major hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities
covered by this 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 final 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 will be achieved.
These 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 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act from the
various process operations found within the industry.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 1997. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section concerning judicial review.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
October 7, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this rulemaking containing the
information considered by the EPA in development of the final rule is
Docket No. A-92-60. This docket is available for public inspection
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal
holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7548. The docket
is located at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground
floor). A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
Background Information Document. A background information document,
titled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants--Background Information
for Promulgated Standards, Summary of Public Comments and Responses,''
has been prepared summarizing the significant public comments made on
the proposed rule and the Administrator's response to those comments.
This document is available in the docket for this rulemaking and also
is available for downloading from the Technology Transfer Network under
the Clean Air Act Amendments, Recently Signed Rules.
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,
electronic mail address, ``[email protected]''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that emit
or have the potential to emit HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act.
Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Primary aluminum reduction
plants.
Federal government:
Not affected
State/local/tribal government:
Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 final 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.
Judicial Review
This NESHAP for primary aluminum reduction plants was proposed on
September 26, 1996 (61 FR 50586). This notice promulgating a NESHAP for
primary aluminum reduction plants constitutes final administrative
action concerning that proposal. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing
a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by December 8, 1997. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the
Act, only an objection to this rule which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the
requirements established by today's final action may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceeding brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Technology Transfer Network
The Technology Transfer Network is one of the EPA's electronic
bulletin boards. The Technology Transfer Network 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-
5472 for up to a 14,400 bps modem. The Technology Transfer Network is
also accessible through the Internet at ``http://
ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov.'' If more information on the Technology Transfer
Network is needed, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Outline
The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble
to the final rule.
I. Statutory Authority
II. Purpose
III. Background
A. Primary Aluminum Source Category
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
[[Page 52385]]
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
IV. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Emission Limits and Standards
C. Incorporation of the NSPS
D. Emission Averaging
E. Compliance Provisions
F. Emission Monitoring
G. Test Methods
H. Time Limit for Approval or Disapproval of Submissions
I. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements
J. Display of OMB Control Numbers
V. Summary of Impacts
VI. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
A. Subcategories
B. Format of the Standard
C. Achievability of Emission Limits
D. Incorporation of the NSPS
E. Time Limit for Approval by the Regulatory Authority
F. Relationship to Other Rules
G. Reduced Sampling Frequency
H. Approval of Alcan Cassette Method (Method 14A)
I. Estimates of Costs for Control and Monitoring
J. Exceeding an Operating Parameter Limit
K. Pitch Storage Tanks
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. Clean Air Act
I. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this rule 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. Purpose
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
technology-based program to reduce stationary source emissions of HAPs
from new and existing sources.
Section 112(d) of the Act requires the regulations to reflect the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs that is achievable
taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission reduction,
any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT). 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 final rule is technology based, i.e., based on MACT. In
essence, these MACT standards ensure that all major sources of air
toxic emissions achieve the level of control already being achieved by
the better controlled and lower emitting sources in each category. This
approach provides assurance to citizens that each major source of toxic
air pollution will be required to effectively control its emissions. At
the same time, this approach provides a level economic playing field,
ensuring that facilities that use cleaner processes and good emission
controls are not disadvantaged relative to competitors with poorer
controls.
III. Background
A. Primary Aluminum Source Category
Section 112(c) of the Act requires the EPA to list each category of
major and area sources, as appropriate, emitting one or more of the
HAPs listed in section 112(b) of the Act. The term ``major source'' is
defined by the Act to mean:
* * *Any stationary source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits
or has the potential to emit, considering controls, in the aggregate
10 tons per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per year or more of
any combination of 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
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.
The primary aluminum source category includes facilities engaged in
producing primary aluminum by electrolytically reducing alumina. The
NESHAP for primary aluminum production applies to all primary aluminum
production plants because all of these sites are major sources.
B. NESHAP for Source Categories
The control of HAPs is achieved through the promulgation of
technology-based emission standards under section 112(d) and design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards under section 112(h)
for categories of sources that emit HAPs. Emission reductions may be
accomplished through the application of measures, processes, methods,
systems, or techniques including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the
volume of, or eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process
changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; (2)
enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting,
capturing, or treating such pollutants when released from a process,
stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; (4) design, equipment,
work practice, or operational standards (including requirements for
operator training or certification) as provided in subsection (h); or
(5) a combination of the above. (See section 112(d)(2).)
A statutory minimum or baseline level of HAP emission control that
the EPA can select to be MACT for a particular source category is
defined under section 112(d)(3) of the Act and is referred to as the
``MACT floor.'' For new sources, the MACT floor is the level of HAP
emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled
similar source. The statute allows standards under a NESHAP for
existing sources to be less stringent than standards for new sources.
The determination of MACT floor for existing sources depends on the
nationwide number of existing sources within the source category. The
floor is based on the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources for categories and
subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the best-performing 5 sources
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.
Once the MACT floors are determined for new and existing sources in
a source category, the EPA must establish standards under a NESHAP that
are no less stringent than the applicable MACT floors. The
Administrator may promulgate standards that are more stringent than the
MACT floor when such standards are determined by the EPA to be
achievable taking into consideration the cost of implementing the
standards as well as any non-air quality health and environmental
impacts and energy requirements.
Section 112(d) of the Act requires EPA to establish emission
standards for
[[Page 52386]]
each category or subcategory of major and area sources. Section
112(d)(1) of the Act provides that the Administrator may distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category in
establishing such standards. In establishing subcategories, EPA
considers 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.
C. Health Effects of Pollutants
Available emission data, collected in conjunction with development
of the standard, show that the pollutants that are listed in section
112(b)(1) and are emitted by primary aluminum plants include HF, a
gaseous inorganic compound, and POM. Following is a summary of the
potential health effects caused by emission of pollutants that will 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. 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.
There is generally a lack of information on human health effects
associated with exposures to HF at current ambient air concentrations
near primary aluminum plants. In their comments on the proposed rule,
the aluminum industry asserted that there was no evidence of adverse
effects on human health or the environment from HF emissions from
aluminum production at the industry's current level of emission
control.
Emission test results reveal that primary aluminum reduction plants
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, cataracts in
humans, and toxic effects on the liver, blood, and the immune system in
animal studies. Reproductive and developmental effects from
benzo(a)pyrene have also been reported in animal studies.
In addition to HAPs, this final standard also would reduce
emissions of particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter
(PM10), which are controlled under the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The health effects of 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.
The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which the
health effects may be experienced depends upon: (1) The ambient
concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as influenced by emission
rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain), (2) the frequency of
and duration of exposures, (3) characteristics of exposed individuals
(e.g., genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle),
which vary significantly with the population, and (4) pollutant-
specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-life in the environment,
bioaccumulation, and persistence).
IV. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
Changes have been incorporated into the final NESHAP for primary
aluminum reduction plants in response to comments on the proposed rule.
The principal changes made since proposal are summarized below.
A. Applicability
As proposed, the final standard applies to emissions of HF,
measured using TF as a surrogate, and POM (as measured by methylene
chloride extractables) from each affected source associated with
primary aluminum reduction and located at a major source.
Under the proposed standard, affected sources included each new and
existing potline of reduction cells, anode bake furnace, and paste
production plant, except for one off-site anode bake furnace that is
subject to the State MACT determination established by the applicable
regulatory authority. No changes were made to the final standard
affecting the applicability of the rule to these affected sources.
In response to public comments, the applicability of the proposed
rule was revised to include new pitch storage tanks. The control
technology and standards applicable to this affected source are
summarized in section IV.B of this document.
Following proposal, the EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) received
information that one primary aluminum plant has recently installed a
new process designed to recycle spent potliner from aluminum reduction
cells. Spent potliner is listed as a hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. This process vitrifies the waste into a
glass material and recovers sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride for
use in the aluminum production process. Although the process is not
defined as an affected source under the final MACT rule, the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and OSW are working in
cooperation with the State agency and the plant to evaluate potential
air emissions (e.g., emission testing will be performed in the near
future) and to determine whether additional emission control
requirements beyond those currently required by the State are needed.
B. Emission Limits and Standards
No changes were made to the control options serving as the basis of
the proposed standards. The emission control technology selected as the
basis of the standards is discussed in section III.C of the proposal
preamble document (61 FR 50588, September 26, 1996).
Three changes were made to the emission limits and standards in
Secs. 63.843 and 63.844 of the proposed rule. The POM emission limit
for the VSS2 subcategory was reduced from 3.7 lbs/ton to 3.6 lbs/ton
based on data received for the MACT floor potline from that
subcategory. Section 63.843(b)(3) of the proposed rule concerning use
of an alternative control device for paste production plants was
revised to encourage pollution prevention options. Section 63.844 of
the proposed rule also was revised to include new paragraph (d)
containing provisions for new pitch storage tanks. No other changes
were made to the proposed limits and standards for potlines or anode
bake furnaces. These limits are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 of the
proposal preamble document (61 FR 50588-50589, September 26, 1996).
No changes were made to the proposed equipment standard developed
under section 112(h) of the Act that required a dry coke scrubber for
the paste production plant. The EPA
[[Page 52387]]
concluded that it was not feasible or practicable to develop a
defensible quantitative emission limit because there were too few POM
data available. However, the available information and engineering
judgement indicated that the best POM control technology in use for
paste plants was the dry coke scrubber, which was determined to
represent MACT.
The proposed provisions in Sec. 63.843(b)(3) that qualify
alternatives to the dry coke scrubber for paste production plants were
revised in response to public comments to encourage pollution
prevention measures, such as reducing the quantity of POMs used in
paste production. The control efficiency standard that was proposed was
replaced with POM emission limits for batch and continuous mixers in
terms of pounds of POM per ton of paste. With this approach, an
affected plant would not be penalized for using pollution prevention
measures that reduce uncontrolled emissions. This change will encourage
innovative or pollution prevention measures, such as reducing the
quantity of POMs used in the paste operation. The alternative limit in
lb/ton does not preclude plants from petitioning for other alternative
means of emission limitation under section 112(h)(3) of the Act based
on demonstrating an equivalent or greater emission reduction. A
detailed discussion is provided in section VI.B of this document.
Section 63.844 of the proposed rule was revised to include new
paragraph (d) establishing standards for new pitch storage tanks. New
paragraph (d) requires that each new pitch storage tank be equipped
with an emission control system designed and operated to reduce inlet
emissions of POM by 95 percent or greater. Compliance and monitoring
provisions are summarized in sections IV.E and IV.F of this document.
C. Incorporation of the NSPS
In response to comments on this issue, the EPA incorporated the
provisions of the new source performance standard (NSPS) in subpart S
of part 60 into a new section (Sec. 63.845) of the final rule and added
appropriate definitions from the NSPS. Also, the NSPS was amended to
allow the owner or operator to comply with either the NSPS or with the
special provisions that were incorporated into Sec. 63.845. With this
change, any modified, reconstructed, or new potroom group that would
have triggered the NSPS may now use the special provisions in the
NESHAP to demonstrate compliance. Sampling and monitoring were
streamlined by using the MACT requirements and by developing a single
emission limit for a potline rather than overlapping limits for both
the potline and the affected potroom group. The NSPS opacity limit was
also incorporated.
D. Emission Averaging
Only one change was made to the emission limits in Sec. 63.845 of
the proposed NESHAP pertaining to emission averaging for potlines and
anode bake furnaces. The POM limits for the VSS2 subcategory were
reduced based on data collected for the MACT floor potline from that
subcategory. The proposed limits are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 of
the proposal preamble document (61 FR 50591, September 26, 1996). This
section is renumbered as Sec. 63.846 in the final rule.
The final standard contains provisions allowing the owner or
operator to demonstrate compliance through averaging emissions of TF
from all existing potlines, POM from existing Soderberg potlines, and
TF and POM from existing anode bake furnaces (i.e., averaging is not
allowed for new sources). Averaging between pollutants (TF and POM) is
not allowed. The final standard also limits averaging to like sources
(i.e., TF emissions from a potline can be averaged only with TF
emissions from another potline at the same plant site). Emission
averaging would not be allowed in any State that selects to exclude
this option from its approved permitting program.
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 samples 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. A minor revision was made to the
wording in Sec. 63.845(d)(2) of the proposed NESHAP (Sec. 63.846(d)(2)
of the final rule) to clarify that monthly average potline emissions
are determined from each potline from at least three runs per potline
each month for TF secondary emissions and/or the quarterly average
emissions from at least one run each month for POM emissions using the
procedures and methods in Secs. 63.847 and 63.849 of the final rule
(emphasis added). As proposed, the sum of emissions from each potline
is 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.
Section 63.846(d) of the NESHAP describes the requirements for an
emission averaging implementation plan. The proposed standard required
that unless an operating permit application has been submitted, the
owner or operator must develop and submit an implementation plan for
emission averaging to the applicable regulatory authority for review
and approval. This language was revised to remove the misleading phase,
``unless an operating permit application has been submitted'' to
clarify that each owner or operator desiring to participate in emission
averaging must develop and submit an implementation plan. Paragraph
(d)(2) of this section clearly states that the owner or operator must
include the specified information in an implementation plan or in the
application for an operating permit.
The language in Sec. 63.845(d)(1) of the proposed NESHAP pertaining
to the deadline for submission of the plan also was revised. Section
63.846(d)(1) of the final rule clarifies that the plan is to be
submitted 6 months before the facility intends to comply with the
emission averaging limits rather than 6 months before the applicable
compliance date.
The content of the implementation plan is described in
Sec. 63.846(d)(2) of the final rule. The proposed rule required that
this information include the emission sources to be averaged, the
applicable limit assigned to each averaging group, the specific control
technology or measure to be used for each source in the group, the
results of an initial performance test, the operating parameters to be
monitored (with additional information if an alternative parameter is
monitored), and a demonstration that compliance with each of the
applicable limits will be achieved under representative operating
conditions. A clarifying change was made in the final rule to delete
the requirement for submission of the results of an initial performance
test to determine the TF or POM emissions and emission reduction from
each source in the averaging group. This provision was replaced with a
requirement for a test plan to measure TF or POM emissions in
accordance with the performance test requirements in Sec. 63.847.
Section 63.847 requires a performance test to be conducted during the
first month following the applicable compliance date.
As proposed, 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.
[[Page 52388]]
This standard is not the first NESHAP to include provisions
permitting emission averaging. However, the mechanism by which EPA has
previously permitted owners and operators to average emissions has been
to define the affected source governed by the standard broadly enough
such that it includes all emission points to be averaged. Under this
model, which was first employed in the Hazardous Organics NESHAP
(``HON''), 59 FR 19402, 19425-34, April 22, 1994, compliance by
particular units within a broadly defined source is only an element in
determining the overall compliance with the standard by the aggregate
source. For this type of standard, conformity of the quantitative
standard to the MACT floor provision in section 112(d)(3) is determined
for the source as a whole, and averaging or trading between discrete
emission points within the source presents no potential conflict with
the MACT floor provision.
The HON approach to averaging affords substantial flexibility, by
permitting averaging of dissimilar emission points and differing
pollutants. However, there are also potential disadvantages to this
approach to averaging. Heterogeneous emission points are deemed to be
part of one affected source, rather than discrete sources that can be
subcategorized and regulated in relatively homogeneous groups. New
sources often must be defined more narrowly than existing sources in
order to ensure that state-of-the-art controls are required for
technically discrete new units.
The final primary aluminum NESHAP takes a different approach to
averaging from the HON approach. In this standard, owners or operators
are permitted to average across sources in determining overall
compliance with the standard. In the HON rulemaking, EPA expressed
concern that averaging across sources could be incompatible with the
MACT floor provisions. However, upon further analysis, EPA has decided
that averaging across affected sources is neither expressly permitted
nor expressly precluded by the Clean Air Act. Thus, in construing the
statute, EPA has focused instead on identifying those circumstances in
which averaging across sources would be fully consistent with the
overall statutory intent.
In general, EPA has concluded that it is permissible to establish
within a NESHAP a unified compliance regimen that permits averaging or
trading across affected sources subject to the standard under certain
conditions. Averaging across affected sources is permitted only if it
can be demonstrated that the total quantity of any particular HAP that
may be emitted by that portion of a contiguous major source that is
subject to the NESHAP will not be greater under the averaging mechanism
than it would be if each individual affected source complied separately
with the applicable standard. Under this rigorous test, the practical
outcome of averaging is equivalent in every respect to compliance by
the discrete sources, and the statutory policy embodied in the MACT
floor provisions is therefore fully effectuated. A construction of the
Act which permits EPA to establish a unified compliance regimen in
these limited circumstances promotes economic efficiency and has no
adverse environmental consequences. In a NESHAP incorporating such a
unified compliance regimen, EPA would construe compliance with the
overall regimen to constitute compliance for each of the affected
sources.
Strict limits on the scope and nature of averaging across sources
are necessary to ensure that no HAP is emitted by that portion of a
major source subject to a NESHAP in quantities that are greater than
those that would result from compliance by each discrete affected
source within the facility. These limits include: (1) No averaging can
be permitted between differing pollutants, (2) no averaging can be
permitted between sources that are not part of the same major source,
(3) no averaging can be permitted between sources within the same major
source that are not subject to the same NESHAP, (4) statistical
discounts must be derived and applied to account for the variability in
emissions by the sources to be averaged, and (5) no averaging can be
permitted between existing sources and new sources.
This NESHAP fully satisfies each of these criteria. Accordingly,
EPA has concluded that the averaging of emissions across affected
sources permitted by this NESHAP is consistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, EPA notes that the provision in this NESHAP that requires
each facility that intends to utilize emission averaging to submit an
implementation plan provides additional assurance that the necessary
criteria will be adhered to.
E. Compliance Provisions
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 existing plants would be allowed at
least 2 years. An extension for a fourth year may be granted by the
regulatory authority under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act.
Few changes were made to Sec. 63.846 of the proposed rule
concerning requirements for performance tests. Following approval of a
site-specific test plan, Sec. 63.847 of the final rule requires the
owner or operator to conduct an initial performance test during the
first month following the compliance date. A clarification was made to
Sec. 63.846(d) of the proposed rule (Sec. 63.847(c) of the final rule)
that not all of the primary emission control devices have to be sampled
during the first month of compliance. If valid emission test results
are available for the control device from tests during the preceding 12
months, those results can be used to determine the contribution of the
primary control system to the total emissions for the initial
performance test.
Section 63.847(d), which contains instructions for determining
compliance, also includes clarifying revisions. Sections 63.847(d)(1)
of the final standard clarifies that to determine compliance for TF
emissions from potlines, the owner or operator must compute and record
the average of at least three runs each month for secondary emissions
and at least three runs each year for the primary control device.
Section 63.847(d)(2) clarifies that to determine compliance for POM
emissions from Soderberg potlines, the average of at least three runs
each quarter (one run per month) for secondary emissions and at least
three runs each year for the primary control system is required.
Compliance with the applicable emission limits for anode bake plants is
determined by the average of at least three runs each year. Section
63.847(d)(3) clarifies that the provisions for previous control device
tests include anode bake furnaces as well as potlines.
Section 63.847(e) of the final rule also includes minor changes to
clarify the equations used to determine compliance. Editorial changes
were made to correct misnumbering of Equations 1 and 2. In Equation 1,
the definition of Qsd was clarified to read as the
volumetric flow rate of effluent gas ``corresponding to the appropriate
subscript location'' with units of dry standard cubic meters per hour
(dscm/hr) or dry standard cubic feet per hour (dscf/hr). The
instructions for determining the aluminum rate (P) in
Secs. 63.846(e)(6) and (e)(7) also were revised. Sections 63.847(e)(6)
and (e)(7) of the final rule require the owner or operator to determine
the aluminum production rate by dividing the number of hours in the
calendar month into the weight of aluminum tapped from the
[[Page 52389]]
potline during the calendar month that includes the three runs of a
performance test. The rate of green anode material introduced into the
furnace is determined by dividing the number of operating hours in the
calendar month into the weight of green anode material used during the
calendar month in which the performance test was conducted.
No changes were made to the proposed performance test provisions
for paste production in Sec. 63.847(f) of the final rule. Initial
compliance with the equipment standards for new and existing plants is
demonstrated through site inspections(s) and review of site records by
the applicable regulatory authority.
A new paragraph, Sec. 63.847(g), was added to describe compliance
provisions for new pitch storage tanks. The owner or operator may elect
one of two methods of demonstrating compliance: (1) Submit a design
evaluation documenting that the control device being used achieves the
required control efficiency for POM (95 percent or more) during a
reasonably expected maximum filling rate; or (2) submit the results of
a performance test. Specific information to be included under either
method of compliance is described in the rule. The owner or operator
also would include a description of the parameters to be monitored to
ensure the control device is being properly operated and maintained, an
explanation of the criteria used to select that parameter, and the
frequency with which monitoring will be performed.
Section 63.846(g) of the proposed rule was renumbered as
Sec. 63.847(h) in the final rule to accommodate the addition of the
preceding paragraph. Minor changes were made to clarify the wording in
paragraph (h), which requires that the owner or operator determine the
parametric operating limits and monitoring frequency for each control
device. Section 63.847(h)(1) of the final rule clarifies that for
potlines and anode bake furnaces, the owner or operator must determine
upper and/or lower operating limits, as appropriate, for each
monitoring device ``for the emission control system'' from the values
recorded during each of the runs performed during the initial
performance test and from historical data from previous performance
tests. The wording of Sec. 63.847(h)(2) also was clarified to require
the owner or operator of a paste production plant to specify parameters
to be monitored and operating limits for the emission control device
(rather than the emission capture and control devices). References to
the part 70 operating permit were deleted.
F. Emission Monitoring
Few changes were made since the proposal in the emission monitoring
requirements of Sec. 63.848. The final standard requires the owner or
operator to perform 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. Emissions of POM from Soderberg potlines
are monitored by performing quarterly sampling of POM using Method 315
or an approved alternative method. The monthly average for TF and the
quarterly average for POM are computed using the results of at least
three runs per month for secondary emissions of TF and at least one run
per month (three runs per quarter) for POM from Soderberg potlines, the
aluminum production rate, and the most recent compliance test for the
primary control system. Sections 63.848(a) and (b) clarify that the
duration of each run for secondary emissions must cover a complete
operating cycle. Under Sec. 63.848(b), the primary control system for
POM emissions must be sampled over an 8-hour period, unless site-
specific factors dictate an alternative sampling time, subject to the
approval of the regulatory authority. Annual sampling of TF using
Method 13 and POM (for Soderberg potlines) using Method 315 is required
for the primary emission control system for potlines. Annual sampling
of TF using Method 13 and POM using Method 315 is required for the
anode bake furnace stack.
Section 63.848(d) of the rule provides an alternative to monthly
monitoring of TF or POM secondary emissions from each potline by
allowing the owner or operator to conduct a monthly performance test
for one potline using reference test methods and to monitor similar
potline(s) using approved alternative methods. In response to public
comment, the criteria for similar potlines were revised to require that
their structure, operability, type of emissions, and volume and
concentration of emissions be substantially equivalent.
Section 63.848(d) provides that a similar potline is to be
monitored using an alternative method meeting the requirements in the
rule. An approved alternative may include an HF continuous emission
monitor (CEM). Because the Alcan cassette method is included in the
final rule as Method 14A, references to this method as an approved
alternative for monitoring similar potlines were unnecessary and were
deleted from the rule.
To show that another method is an acceptable alternative, the owner
or operator must 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
final rule also requires the owner or operator to derive an alternative
limit for the HF CEM or other alternative monitoring method. The owner
or operator must demonstrate that the alternative method and limit will
result in a level of emission control that is the same as or better
than the level that would have otherwise been achieved. 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.
Under Sec. 63.848(e) of the final standard, 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. This
section of the proposed rule was changed after proposal to provide a
simplified procedure to obtain reduced sampling frequency, including
removal of the requirement to publish the approval of reduced sampling
in the Federal Register. This reduced sampling provision was clarified
to apply only to the monthly sampling requirement for TF from potroom
roofs. If a facility achieves a long-term average over 24 months of
sampling that is no more than 60 percent of the applicable limit and no
monthly average exceeds 75 percent of the limit, then monthly sampling
for TF can be reduced to quarterly sampling.
Proposed provisions governing excess emissions also were revised.
Under the final rule, if emissions in excess of the applicable TF limit
occur while performing quarterly sampling (under an approved
alternative), the owner or operator must return to monthly sampling for
at least 12 months and may reduce to quarterly sampling when: (1) The
average of all tests performed over the most recent 24-month period
does not exceed 60 percent of the applicable limit and (2) no more than
one monthly performance test in the most recent 24-month period exceeds
75 percent of the
[[Page 52390]]
applicable limit. If emissions in excess of the applicable TF limit
occur while performing quarterly sampling (under an approved
alternative), the owner or operator must return to the monthly sampling
schedule until another request for an alternative sampling frequency is
approved.
The final standard requires 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 are
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 is triggered if the control
device is operating outside of the acceptable range for the specified
parameters. Failure to initiate corrective actions within 1 hour after
exceeding the limit is a violation. A violation also occurs if the
operating limit for a parameter is exceeded more than six times in any
6-month reporting period. For the purpose of determining the number of
exceedances, no more than one exceedance will be attributed in any
given 24-hour period.
A clarification was made to Sec. 63.848(f) with respect to the
selection of monitoring parameters and frequency. Whenever practicable,
the EPA expects the owner or operator to install a continuous parameter
monitoring system as defined in the general provisions and this
subpart. At a minimum, the owner or operator must submit a description
of the parameters and a rationale for selecting the operating limits
and monitoring frequency. A discussion of how the selected parameters
would relate to emission controls must be included.
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. 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.
G. Test Methods
Section 63.849 of the final rule adds Method 14A to appendix A of
40 CFR part 60 as an approved alternative method for measuring TF from
potroom roofs. Minor changes were made to Method 315 (added to appendix
A of 40 CFR part 63) as a result of public comment. For example,
section 6.1 of Method 315 was revised to acknowledge that the use of
grease for sampling train components is not recommended because many
greases are soluble in methylene chloride. Section 6.2 of Method 315
was revised to include the use of Teflon bristle brushes and
tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) wash bottles. A Buchner fritted funnel was
substituted for Allihin tubes in section 6.3.8 and other sections.
Section 63.849(e) of the final rule was clarified in terms of
procedures and criteria to qualify an alternative test method. The
alternative method must be evaluated from simultaneous sampling using a
reference test method. Approval is granted only if the owner or
operator demonstrates that the level of emission control from an
alternative method and alternative emission limit is the same as or
better than the level that would have otherwise been achieved.
H. Time Limit for Approval or Disapproval of Submissions
The proposed rule was revised to add a new section (Sec. 63.851)
that places a 60-day limit on the amount of time for the regulatory
authority to indicate the need for additional time to review the
applications and requests for changes allowed under this rule or to
approve or disapprove applications and requests for changes allowed
under the rule. The 60-day period begins after the owner or operator
has been notified that the submission is complete. This provision
applies to the compliance test plan, an application to change control
device parameter operating limits, requests for alternative monitoring
for similar potlines, requests for approval of alternative methods for
sampling and analysis, and requests for reduced sampling frequency.
I. 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). Section 63.850 of the final standard incorporates 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 notification requirements include one-time notifications of
applicability, intent to construct or reconstruct, anticipated startup
date, actual startup date, date of performance test, compliance status,
compliance approach (if applicable), and the intent to use an HF CEM
(if applicable) for each affected source. The notification of special
compliance obligations was deleted because it does not apply to this
source category. The proposed rule also was revised to indicate that
the notification of the intent to use an HF CEM was a one-time event
per affected source.
The owner or operator is required to submit a report of performance
test results (which can be sent as part of the compliance status
notification), an annual summary of all subsequent tests, 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 Sec. 63.10(b) of the general provisions. In addition to these
requirements, the standard requires plants to maintain records of
information needed to determine compliance. Section 63.850(e)(4)(ii) of
the final rule clarifies that the owner or operator must maintain the
daily production rate of green anode material placed in the anode bake
furnace (rather than the production rate for each operating cycle). A
new recordkeeping requirement was also added in response to public
comment. Section 63.850(e)(4)(xv) requires records documenting the
portion of TF that is captured and measured as particulate matter and
the portion that is captured and measured as gaseous. This requirement
provides potentially useful information to EPA and the States at no
additional cost.
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 onsite; records for the remaining 3 years may be retained
offsite 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.
[[Page 52391]]
J. Display of OMB Control Numbers
In a separate rulemaking action taken in conjunction with the final
rule adopting a NESHAP for primary aluminum reduction plants, EPA is
amending the table of currently approved information collection request
(ICR) control numbers issued by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for various regulations. This separate amendment updates the
table to accurately display those information requirements contained in
the NESHAP. This display of the OMB control number and its subsequent
codification in the Code of Federal Regulations satisfies the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.
The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior
to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds there is ``good cause'' under
section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)] to amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to
the technical nature of the table, further notice and comment would be
unnecessary. For the same reasons, EPA also finds that there is good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
V. Summary of Impacts
Nationwide emissions from primary aluminum potlines are estimated
at 6,400 tpy of TF. After implementation of the final standards, these
emissions will decrease by almost 50 percent to 3,400 tpy. Polycyclic
organic matter emissions will 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 will be reduced by 97
percent, and POM emissions will be reduced by 84 percent. Polycyclic
organic matter emissions from paste production plants, estimated at 147
tpy at baseline, will 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 will also be reduced, as will non-
HAP pollutants such as PM. For example, PM emissions will 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.
The total capital cost of the proposed rule is estimated as about
$160 million, with a total annualized cost of $40 million per year. As
discussed in section VI.I of this document, cost estimates supplied by
the industry's trade association were much higher than the EPA
estimates. The major cost impacts for potlines are expected to come
from the installation of dry alumina scrubbers for the primary control
system at one plant and from 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 controlling POM emissions will each
install one. However, some plants may be able to meet the 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 estimated cost for control of anode bake furnaces assumes that the
5 of 17 plants without a dry alumina scrubber must each install one.
Currently, about one-third of existing potlines are sampled for TF
regularly. 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 rule will
not result in significant economic impacts for the primary aluminum
industry.
VI. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
The EPA proposed the NESHAP for primary aluminum reduction plants
on September 26, 1996 (61 FR 50586). The proposed regulatory text of
the rule, the Basis and Purpose Document, and the Technical Support
Document that presented information used in developing the proposed
rule were made available to the public for review and comment. A 60-day
comment period from September 26, 1996, to November 25, 1996, was
provided to accept written comments from the public on the proposed
rule. The opportunity for a public hearing was provided to allow
interested people to present oral comments to the EPA on the
rulemaking. However, the EPA did not receive a request for a public
hearing, so a public hearing was not held.
The EPA received a total of 15 comment letters regarding the
proposed NESHAP for primary aluminum reduction plants. A copy of each
comment letter is available for public inspection in the docket for the
rulemaking (Docket No. A-92-60; see the ADDRESSES section of this
document for information on inspecting the docket). The EPA has had
follow-up discussions with various commenters regarding specific issues
initially raised in their written comments that were submitted to the
Agency during the comment period. Copies of correspondence and other
information exchanged between the EPA and the commenters during the
post-comment period are available for public inspection in the docket
for the rulemaking.
All of the comments received by the EPA were reviewed and carefully
considered by the Agency. Changes to the rule were made when the EPA
determined it to be appropriate. A summary of responses to selected
major comments received on the proposed rule is presented below.
Additional discussion of the EPA's responses to public comments is
presented in the Background Information Document (see the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble).
A. Subcategories
Comment: Several commenters supported the subcategories that were
developed for potlines, and two commenters questioned the number of and
basis for the subcategories. Specific questions were raised about the
subcategories for the older vintage
[[Page 52392]]
prebake potlines (CWPB2), for potlines producing high-purity aluminum
(CWPB3), and for the vertical stud Soderberg potlines (VSS2).
Response: The development of subcategories is discussed in detail
in the Basis and Support Document. In general, the subcategories are
based primarily on differences in the process operation, process
equipment, emissions, and the applicability of control devices.
A distinction was made between the larger and more modern prebake
potlines in CWPB1 and the smaller and older potlines in CWPB2. The
CWPB2 potlines have somewhat higher emissions than the CWPB1 potlines
because they are more difficult to control and there are more
opportunities for fugitive emissions to escape. A major factor is that
these smaller potlines require more frequent anode changes and more
frequent opening of the reduction cells, both of which result in more
fugitive emissions' escaping from the cells.
The potlines in the CWPB3 subcategory that produce high-purity
aluminum can do so only because they use wet scrubbers as the primary
control device and do not return the contaminants removed with the
pollution control residue back to the process. In contrast, the
potlines in the CWPB1 subcategory use dry alumina scrubbers as the
primary control device and return pollution control residue, including
contaminants and fluorides, back to the process. If the CWPB3 potlines
were forced to install dry alumina scrubbers, an adequate quantity of
high-purity aluminum could not be produced and their market would be
lost.
A distinction was made between two types of vertical stud Soderberg
potlines (VSS1 and VSS2) because of differences in the applicability of
control devices. The VSS1 group of potlines uses wet roof scrubbers to
control fugitive emissions from the cells, and the VSS2 group of
potlines uses work practices and equipment maintenance to control the
escape of fugitive emissions from the cells (i.e., they focus on
pollution prevention for emission control). A major concern in
requiring the installation of wet roof scrubbers on the VSS2 potlines
was that other plants with wet roof scrubbers had reported operational
problems in cold weather (i.e., freezing conditions), and the VSS2
potlines operate in the cold climate of northern Montana. Consequently,
the technology was judged not to be adequately demonstrated for the
VSS2 potlines. Another concern was that roof scrubbers could provide a
disincentive for the VSS2 potlines to continue their efforts to prevent
the escape of emissions because the emissions would be subsequently
controlled by the scrubbers. Currently, the VSS2 potlines have much
lower levels of fugitive emissions in terms of the quantity that
actually escapes from the reduction cells compared to the VSS1
potlines, which rely in large part on the roof scrubbers for additional
fugitive emission control.
B. Format of the Standard
Comment: Two State commenters asked that EPA consider developing
work practice standards for potlines, and some commenters also
suggested that an emission limit be developed for paste plants instead
of an equipment standard.
Other commenters supported the development of an equipment standard
for paste plants. Commenters also asked that EPA consider alternatives
for the paste plant that would allow and encourage pollution
prevention, as well as other control alternatives that might be
equivalent to or better than the equipment standard that was proposed
(dry coke scrubber).
Response: Section 112(h) of the Act only allows development of a
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard when it is
not feasible or practicable to establish an emission standard.
Consequently, a work practice standard was not developed for potlines
because there was an extensive database on TF emissions on which to
base an emission standard. An emission standard allows the owner or
operator to meet the emission limit using any combination of control
techniques, including work practices, upgrading equipment, process
modifications, pollution prevention, etc. It also provides flexibility
for developing innovative controls or pollution prevention measures in
the future that may be more cost effective by not mandating work
practice techniques. The owner or operator will find it necessary to
have adequate work practices in place to meet the emission limits in
the rule; consequently, it is not necessary to develop a work practice
standard.
The first choice was also the development of an emission standard
for paste production plants; however, there were too few POM data (only
two data points) to develop defensible and achievable limits. One
reason for this is that the control technology is relatively new, and
there were no data collected by EPA test methods prior to this
rulemaking. Therefore, the development of a quantitative standard was
not feasible or practicable. The problem was also complicated by the
numerous variations in the design and operation of paste plants.
However, the available information and engineering judgement indicated
that the best POM control technology in use for paste plants was the
dry coke scrubber, which was determined to represent MACT. For these
reasons, an equipment standard requiring the use of a dry coke scrubber
or equivalent alternative control for paste production was developed
under section 112(h) of the Act.
Comments were received from both the industry and States asking for
consideration of control techniques, including pollution prevention,
that might provide a level of control equivalent to or better than a
dry coke scrubber. After consideration, EPA decided that a streamlined
approach could be used to implement more efficiently section 112(h)(3)
of the Act, which allows the development of an alternative means of
emission limitation if it achieves an emission reduction at least
equivalent to that achieved by the design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standard. An emission limit for POM in lb/ton of paste was
developed from the limited data associated with two of the best
controlled plants in the industry. Although the limit may represent a
level of emission control more stringent than the equipment standard
that was determined to be MACT, an alternative standard in lb/ton of
paste will provide opportunity for pollution prevention measures (such
as reducing the quantity of POM used in paste production). The
alternative standard also provides the opportunity to qualify other
types of emission controls that might be developed in the future that
are more efficient than the dry coke scrubber.
The alternative limit in lb/ton does not preclude plants from
petitioning for other alternative means of emission limitation under
section 112(h)(3) of the Act based on demonstrating an equivalent or
greater emission reduction. However, it provides one method to
implement the provisions for alternative standards more efficiently. As
required in section 112(h)(4) of the Act, when EPA has sufficient data
to replace both parts of the current standard for paste production
plants with a quantitative emission limit, EPA will revise that
standard accordingly.
C. Achievability of Emission Limits
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the emission
limits for anode bake furnaces might not be achievable and requested
that the rule acknowledge that these limits may
[[Page 52393]]
need to be increased as more data are collected. One commenter
questioned the achievability of the POM limit for HSS potlines, and
another commenter supported the HSS limits and submitted additional
data for the MACT floor potlines to show that it had been achieved. One
commenter questioned the POM limits for VSS2 potlines because the
limits were based on data from VSS1 potlines.
Response: The data for anode bake furnaces support that the
proposed emission limits for both new and existing sources are
achievable. Opportunities for improved control other than the
installation of dry alumina scrubbers are available, and each owner or
operator should investigate these opportunities thoroughly. For
example, careful cleaning of recycled anodes to remove fluorides has
been demonstrated to reduce fluoride emissions from anode bake
furnaces. Careful control and optimization of combustion conditions
improve destruction of POM compounds and reduce POM emissions.
The EPA believes that the data show that the POM limit is
achievable for the HSS subcategory by plants using the MACT floor
technology. Note that the control technology used for the primary
system for the MACT floor plant is a dry alumina scrubber, whereas the
plant concerned about the achievability uses an electrostatic
precipitator. Improvements may be needed in the electrostatic
precipitator primary control system and in the potline's capture system
to reduce fugitive emissions to achieve the same level of control
achieved by the MACT floor plant.
The proposed POM limit for the VSS2 subcategory was based on data
from VSS1 potlines because there were no valid data available for POM
emissions from VSS2 potlines. Following proposal, POM data were
collected for the MACT floor VSS2 potline, and a commenter for the
company asked that EPA consider their data in establishing the POM
limit. The EPA analyzed the new POM data and concluded that the POM
limit for the VSS2 subcategory should be reduced from 3.7 lbs/ton to
3.6 lbs/ton. The emission test reports and EPA's analysis are
documented in the rulemaking docket. [See Docket Item IV-B-1.] The EPA
appreciates the effort of the company to perform emission testing and
to provide data that improve the technical basis of the POM limit for
VSS2 potlines.
D. Incorporation of the NSPS
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the NSPS for primary
aluminum plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart S) be removed and any
necessary provisions be incorporated into the NESHAP. These commenters
believed that the higher TF limits in the amended NSPS should be
incorporated instead of the lower limits in the original NSPS because
the amendment concluded that the original emission limits were not
achievable 100 percent of the time. In addition, the NESHAP general
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) require that control equipment
be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the
level required by all relevant standards. Therefore, these commenters
concluded that this requirement overlaps the ``exemplary operation''
requirement of the NSPS, and by complying with the general provisions,
a source qualifies for the higher limits in the NSPS. State agency
commenters thought that the more stringent limits in the original NSPS
should be used for incorporation into the NESHAP.
Some commenters stated that the opacity requirements of the NSPS
were a monitoring provision and not an emission limit. They pointed out
that the proposed NESHAP contained more provisions than the NSPS to
ensure the control equipment was operating properly, such as monitoring
the air and alumina flow to the dry alumina scrubbers and a daily
visual inspection of the control equipment rather than only a monthly
observation of opacity, which the NSPS requires. Consequently, they
believed the opacity standard in the NSPS could be removed without any
loss of stringency. Another commenter stated that the NSPS opacity
limit was not applicable for wet emission control systems because of
interferences and observer error and recommended that facilities with
wet emission control systems be allowed to develop an alternative
opacity limit if they could demonstrate that the mass emission limit
for TF was being met. State agency commenters stated that the opacity
standard should be retained when the NSPS is incorporated into the
NESHAP.
In general, State agency commenters agreed that the NSPS could be
incorporated into the NESHAP, but only if all of the NSPS provisions
are retained. These include the lower emission limits in the original
NSPS, retention of the modification and reconstruction provisions of
part 60, and maintenance of the opacity limits.
Response: The EPA had stated in the original proposal when
requesting comments on this issue that incorporating the NSPS into the
NESHAP should result in a standard that would be no less stringent than
if both standards remained in place. Following the receipt of comments
and no indication that anyone was opposed to incorporation of the NSPS,
EPA conducted additional discussions with all stakeholders.
Representatives from each of the 14 States that have primary aluminum
reduction plants were contacted and were provided the opportunity to
discuss the issues and provide comments. Similar discussions were held
with the Aluminum Association and industry representatives, who also
provided comments.
Based on these discussions, a general consensus was reached on how
the NSPS could be incorporated into the NESHAP. First, the NSPS was
amended to allow an affected facility to comply either with the NSPS or
with the special provisions incorporated into the NESHAP. Second, the
NSPS requirements were included in a separate section of the NESHAP,
and these provisions apply only to emissions of TF. They apply only to
Soderberg potlines and prebake potlines in the CWPB2 and CWPB3
subcategories because other types of existing potlines are subject to
TF emission limits under the NESHAP that are more stringent than the
NSPS limits. Anode bake furnaces are not included because the NESHAP
limits for existing bake furnaces are equivalent to those in the NSPS,
and the NESHAP limits for new bake furnaces are much more stringent
than those in the NSPS.
The result of these discussions was general agreement that the
definitions of ``modification'' and ``reconstruction'' should be
incorporated so that any new, modified, or reconstructed potroom group
would trigger the NSPS provisions that have been included in the
NESHAP. In other words, any potroom group that would have become
subject to the NSPS because of the part 60 provisions would become
subject to the special provisions incorporated into subpart LL of part
63. This was accomplished by adding definitions for ``potroom group
modification'' and ``potroom group reconstruction'' that matched the
requirements in part 60. The modification would occur if there was an
increase in the total or overall TF emissions from the potroom group
(i.e., changes that result in a decrease in emissions in one part of
the potroom group and an increase in another part of the group are not
modifications if total emissions from the group do not increase).
The EPA decided not to incorporate only the lower NSPS limits as
suggested
[[Page 52394]]
by some commenters or only the higher limits recommended by other
commenters. Instead, both sets of limits were incorporated into the
NESHAP with the same language as that used in the amended NSPS. In
other words, the lower limits apply unless the owner or operator can
meet the exemplary operation requirements as stated in the NSPS, in
which case the upper limits would apply. This requires that the owner
or operator demonstrate that exemplary operation and maintenance
procedures were used with respect to the emission control system and
that control equipment was operating properly at the potline during the
performance test.
Additional insight into proper operation and maintenance is given
in the proposal preamble for the amended NSPS (45 FR 44203), which
lists these items as basic to good control of emissions from prebake
plants:
(1) Hood covers should fit properly and be in good repair;
(2) The hood exhaust rate should be increased for individual pots
when hood covers are removed (if there is an adjustable air damper
system);
(3) Hood covers should be replaced as soon as possible after each
potroom operation;
(4) Dust entrainment should be minimized during materials handling
operations and sweeping of the working aisles;
(5) Only tapping crucibles with functional air return systems
should be used; and
(6) The primary control system should be regularly inspected and
properly maintained.
For horizontal stud Soderberg potlines, Items (4) through (6)
apply, but Items (1) through (3) are replaced by the following because
of differences in pot design:
(1) Side and end doors should fit properly and be in good repair;
(2) The exhaust rate should be increased for individual pots when a
side or end door is open (if there is an adjustable air damper system);
and
(3) Side and end doors should be closed as soon as possible after
each potroom operation.
The following variations apply to vertical stud Soderberg potlines:
(1) An ore cover should be maintained on the pot;
(2) The collector skirt and burner should be in good repair; and
(3) Tap holes should not be opened too far in advance of the tap.
Another issue was related to the fact that the NSPS limits apply to
a potroom group, whereas the NESHAP limits apply to a potline. Because
of many variations in the configuration of potrooms and potlines in the
industry, limits for both would result in a somewhat confusing
situation of duplicative emission limits and other requirements for
certain reduction cells and unnecessary requirements associated with
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for both potroom groups and
the potline. To resolve this issue, a method was devised in the NESHAP
to combine the limit for the NSPS potroom group with that for the
NESHAP potline based on the production capacity of the reduction cells
that would be subject to each set of limits. The result is a single TF
emission limit for the entire potline that maintains equivalent
stringency, and it has the additional advantage of allowing the use of
the NESHAP potline requirements for monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping to avoid unnecessary duplication.
The opacity issue was resolved by incorporating the 10 percent
limit for potroom groups from the NSPS into the NESHAP. However, the
provisions in part 60 that allow the development of an alternative
opacity limit when the facility demonstrates that the mass emission
limits are being met were also included in the NESHAP. The alternative
opacity limit cannot exceed 20 percent. Historically, opacity has been
measured routinely for the discharge stacks of primary control systems.
However, the EPA has no indication that the opacity of a potroom group
roof monitor has been measured using Method 9.
The EPA decided that additional provisions for anode bake furnaces
were not necessary because the NESHAP requires that existing furnaces
be controlled at levels equivalent to what the NSPS would have required
for new, modified, or reconstructed furnaces. This ensures that the
MACT floor control technology (dry alumina scrubbers) or the equivalent
will be installed on all bake furnaces to control emissions. There was
no need to incorporate the NSPS opacity limit of 20 percent for bake
furnaces because the MACT floor technology will achieve lower opacity
levels, the NESHAP monitoring requirements for the control device are
more comprehensive, there is no loss in stringency, and most States
already have general opacity limits of 20 percent for stationary point
sources.
In consolidating the two rules, the EPA decided to use the sampling
frequency and monitoring provisions of the NESHAP. They offer several
advantages over the NSPS provisions alone, there is no effect on the
relative stringency or the emission reductions achieved, and they will
reduce unnecessary monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. In
addition, the NESHAP requires that any new, modified, or reconstructed
potroom group be sampled for TF emissions, which is what the NSPS would
have required. Sampling can be performed effectively for the potroom
group with the addition of new monitoring equipment or the expansion or
adaptation of existing monitoring equipment in the same potline if the
sampling system is determined to be representative of the entire
potline and if the relevant regulatory authority determines that the
sampling system meets the requirements of the reference test methods.
In addition, the sampling of that potroom group may be used to
determine emissions from the total potline if they are representative
of the entire potline. To be representative of the entire potline, the
sampling system must not cover only or primarily new reduction cells,
which would be expected to have better hooding and emission control
than older cells.
E. Time Limit for Approval by the Regulatory Authority
Comment: Several industry commenters recommended that the final
rule include a time limit for regulatory authority review, approval,
and/or action on submissions. Examples include the compliance test
plan, the implementation plan for emission averaging, an application to
change control device parameter operating limits, requests for
alternative monitoring for similar potlines, requests for approval of
alternative methods for sampling and analysis, requests for reduced
sampling frequency, and requests to modify the startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan. According to the commenters, each submission should
be given automatic approval if no action or response is taken by the
applicable regulatory authority within some time period (generally
within 30 days of receipt).
Response: The proposed rule contained provisions for a time limit
of 120 days for regulatory approval or disapproval of the
implementation plan for emission averaging, and this provision was kept
in the final rule. In addition, the general provisions in subpart A of
40 CFR part 63 allow the owner or operator to revise the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan without submitting it for approval. The
owner or operator must keep the previous (superseded) version and make
it available upon request for a period of 5 years after the revision.
With respect to other submissions, the rule was
[[Page 52395]]
revised to give the regulatory authority 60 days after the submission
is deemed to be complete to approve or disapprove the submission. The
60-day period applies to the facility's test plan used to determine
compliance, requests for changes in operating parameter limits,
applications for similar potline monitoring, requests for reduced
sampling frequency, and requests for alternative test methods.
F. Relationship to Other Rules
Comment: Several commenters asked about the relationship of the
NESHAP to other rules. One commenter asked for discussion of how
existing new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) rules affect the NESHAP, and another asked for
clarification of what TF emission limit would apply in the event of a
modification under the NSPS. Another commenter believes that conversion
and installation of equipment in order to comply with this rule should
not trigger the NSPS. The commenter requested that the language of the
preamble and the rule be changed to reflect that modifications made to
affected sources to come into compliance with the primary aluminum
NESHAP are exempted from NSPS applicability. Several industry
commenters recommended that the final rule include a provision
acknowledging that the monitoring provisions in the rule, including the
approved methods and alternatives, satisfy the monitoring provisions
under section 114 of the Act and the title I monitoring requirements
for PM emissions. Other commenters asked that certain alternatives
allowed by the rule, such as requests to change monitoring parameters
or to implement emission averaging, be identified within the rule as
``administrative changes'' to the operating permit issued under the
part 70 permit program.
Response: The NSR and PSD requirements are not changed or directly
affected by the provisions in the NESHAP. However, the NESHAP
incorporates the NSPS provisions for primary aluminum reduction plants,
which will reduce duplicative monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements while maintaining equivalent stringency in the applicable
emission limits. In addition, the incorporation of the NSPS includes
language from part 60 that excludes from the definition of
``modification'' the addition of an emission control system that
results in the reduction of air pollutants, as the commenter suggested.
As several commenters suggested, the compliance assurance monitoring
(CAM) rule would not apply to the sources and pollutants regulated
under the NESHAP. Standards promulgated after 1990 are not subject to
the CAM under the assumption that the prescribed monitoring in such
rules would meet the requirements equivalent to those required for CAM.
The EPA determined that it is not appropriate to specify within the
NESHAP whether changes to permits should be considered administrative
or as permit modifications. This is accomplished more directly through
the permit writer, who can incorporate the alternatives allowed by the
NESHAP into the permit. By adding the NESHAP provisions to the permit,
the flexibility allowed by the NESHAP is maintained with respect to
implementation of emission averaging and other provisions. In addition,
the source may suggest to the permit writer that certain flexible
provisions are important to the source based on the compliance approach
that the source anticipates implementing.
G. Reduced Sampling Frequency
Comment: One commenter did not think there is any need for Federal
Register publication to provide public notification of approval of
reduced sampling frequency. Another commenter asked that criteria for
qualifying for reduced sampling frequency be included in the rule and
suggested using the approaches that had been used in other rules, with
reductions in the frequency after demonstrating compliance over some
period of time.
Several commenters recommended that monitoring provisions in the
final rule be expanded to allow less frequent monitoring for POM upon
demonstration of good emission control performance, as is allowed for
TF.
State agency commenters supported the concept of reduced sampling
if a facility consistently achieves compliance with an emission limit
and has low variability. However, the commenters asked that EPA specify
a minimum measure of acceptable variability for reduced sampling
frequency to ensure consistent evaluations of these requests and to
ease the burden on the regulatory authority.
Response: The EPA agrees that the provisions for qualifying for
reduced sampling can be improved by making them easier to implement and
that there is no need for publication in the Federal Register. In
addition, if they are structured properly, provisions for reduced
sampling frequency can be used to obtain control performance well below
the emission limit, which will result in additional emission
reductions.
The EPA reviewed the performance of plants that had qualified for
reduced sampling under the NSPS and also examined the average
performance, variability, and emission limits achieved by the MACT
floor plants. Based on this review, a procedure was developed that was
designed to ensure that plants that qualified for reduced sampling had
low variability, consistently met the limit, and achieved an average
long-term performance that was well below the limit. The proposed rule
was revised to allow the monthly sampling of a potline's secondary
emissions of TF to be reduced to quarterly if: (1) The overall average
after 24 consecutive months of sampling was no more than 60 percent of
the applicable limit and (2) no monthly average during the 24
consecutive months exceeded 75 percent of the applicable emission
limit.
If an exceedance occurs while under the reduced sampling frequency,
the plant must return to monthly sampling for at least 12 months. The
plant can qualify for a reduction to quarterly sampling again when: (1)
The average of all results over the most recent 24-month period is no
more than 60 percent of the limit and (2) no more than one monthly
average during the 24-month period exceeds 75 percent of the limit.
As an alternative, the facility can petition for reduced sampling
based on the statistical approach given in the EPA guidance document,
``Primary Aluminum: Statistical Analysis of Potline Fluoride Emissions
and Alternative Sampling Frequency'' (EPA-450/3-86-012, October 1986).
A copy of this document is included in the docket (docket item II-A-
10). This document also is available from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22161.
Reduced sampling was not considered for POM because the sampling is
already reduced relative to sampling for TF. The rule contains
provisions for reducing TF sampling of secondary emissions from monthly
to quarterly, and it only requires quarterly sampling for POM secondary
emissions (and only annual sampling for POM from the primary control
system). The quarterly sampling is necessary to ensure compliance and
is particularly important for POM because of the potential risk
associated with the POM compounds.
H. Approval of Alcan Cassette Method (Method 14A)
Comment: Several commenters stated that the Alcan cassette
monitoring
[[Page 52396]]
method should be included as an approved method to determine compliance
for emissions monitoring, as it is approved for demonstrating similar
potlines. The final rule should also allow the method to be used in
developing correlations of emissions for alternative monitoring
devices, such as the HF CEM. Another commenter asked for the results of
the investigation of the use of Alcan cassettes as an alternative to
Methods 13 and 14, including information on accuracy, precision, and
any biases.
Response: The EPA's intent to evaluate and approve the Alcan
cassette method as an acceptable alternative to Method 14 was discussed
in the proposal preamble. Numerous comments were received supporting
the method, and no comments were received that were opposed to the
method as an alternative to Methods 13 and 14. The method had been
previously approved for sampling and analysis of TF for the NSPS, and
additional data from comparison testing (available in the docket)
confirmed it to be an acceptable alternative. Consequently, the EPA has
approved the Alcan cassette method as an alternative to Method 14 and
has included it as Method 14A in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60.
I. Estimates of Costs for Control and Monitoring
Comment: The industry commenters contended the capital costs of the
proposed rule are higher than the EPA's estimates and asked that the
estimates presented at promulgation be revised to incorporate their
higher estimates of cost. The cost estimates submitted by the Aluminum
Association included a capital cost estimate of $555 million and a
total annual cost of $126 million compared to the EPA cost estimate of
$160 million in capital and a total annual cost of $40 million. Another
commenter believes the monitoring costs estimates are low and asked for
information on the monitoring scenario that was used for costing.
Response: The limited information supplied with the industry's cost
estimates suggests that these costs may be overstated; relevant points
are discussed below. The industry's report states that the largest
component of their capital cost estimate of $555 million is for
removing existing primary control systems and installing dry alumina
scrubbers, which they say is 60 percent of the total capital cost. The
EPA worked closely with the industry to develop the MACT floor, and
based on numerous discussions with the industry, only one plant was
identified as likely to install new dry alumina scrubbers. This plant
estimated a cost of $120 million; however, this total capital
investment includes costs for controls that are not directly
attributable to the MACT standard (e.g., it includes the cost of sulfur
dioxide scrubbers that are required by the State but are not required
by the MACT standard). In addition, there is an indication that the
company's decision to install dry alumina scrubbers may not have been
made only because of the impending MACT standard but also in
consideration of State and local agency concerns. Another company that
included the capital cost of new dry scrubbers in its estimate
submitted by the Aluminum Association has subsequently confirmed that
new dry scrubbers will not be installed to meet MACT. Instead, they
will upgrade their existing control equipment at a much lower cost.
Included in the industry's estimate are costs for several potlines
that have been idled, and it has not been determined when these
potlines will operate at capacity. If they are not restarted, it is
obvious that large investments to improve emission control will not be
made.
Significant cost estimates are included in the industry's estimates
for MACT floor potlines, which are lines that by definition are already
achieving the MACT level of control (because the proposed emission
limits for MACT are based on the floor). Apparently these companies
included the routine capital and operating costs currently being
incurred or planned for the near future, probably to meet existing
State limits, and attributed this cost to MACT. The cost due to MACT is
the incremental cost above what would be spent in the absence of MACT
and should not include what is being spent to meet existing
regulations.
The few details that are available in the industry's report
indicate that some of the estimated capital investment is for
improvements or modernization of the process that is not necessarily
being done only to improve emission control. In addition, companies
will save operating expenses through improved efficiency and operation
from these improvements, and no credit (cost savings) is identified for
these improvements.
The information available for the cost of dry coke scrubbers
indicates that the industry's estimate is overstated by a factor of at
least two. The EPA estimate is based on the actual installation cost
reported by one company and was verified by another company that
obtained an actual construction cost estimate prior to installing a new
coke scrubber. The source of the industry's estimate is undocumented.
In addition, more recent information from a few plants indicates that
they may be able to improve the control efficiency of existing control
equipment without installing dry coke scrubbers. The EPA cost estimate
assumes that all plants without dry coke scrubbers will install one.
J. Exceeding an Operating Parameter Limit
Comment: Several industry commenters stated that an exceedance of
an enforceable operating parameter limit for which the owner or
operator has submitted a request for redetermination should not count
toward the six allowable exceedances or automatically constitute a
violation. Another commenter felt that exceedances should be a matter
of enforcement discretion and any mention of what would constitute a
violation should be deleted from the rule. One commenter asked for
EPA's basis in deciding that a violation has occurred only after there
have been six exceedances of a monitoring parameter (in any 6-month
reporting period).
Response: The proposal preamble discussed at length why any single
exceedance of the parametric monitoring limits should not be considered
an exceedance of the emission limit and a violation of the standard.
However, a limit was placed on the number of exceedances (six) allowed
in a 6-month period to provide incentive to correct any problems with
control devices promptly and to avoid recurring difficulties with
control devices. Consequently, any exceedance of an enforceable
operating parameter limit will count toward the six allowable
exceedances, or will constitute a violation if a source has already had
six exceedances. The fact that a facility has submitted a request for a
redetermination of its operating parameter limits is no shield against
enforcement of the existing permit limits. This is because the owner or
operator could submit requests for redetermination to avoid a violation
whenever control device monitoring indicates a problem. While the
commenter is correct in pointing out that EPA may exercise
prosecutorial discretion, such discretion is independent from the
identification of a violation.
K. Pitch Storage Tanks
Comment: Several commenters requested that the proposed rule be
clarified to indicate that pitch storage
[[Page 52397]]
tanks are not included as part of the paste production plant.
Response: Based on comments that pitch storage tanks are not a part
of the paste production operation, the EPA reexamined this issue and
determined that pitch storage tanks not located within the paste
production plant should be defined as a separate affected source. Pitch
storage tanks located within the boundaries of the paste production
plant, such as day tanks or feed tanks that manage heated pitch, are
included in the definition of paste production plant and must be
controlled as required for the paste plant. An examination of the
available data for pitch storage tanks that are not a part of the paste
production plant indicated that the MACT floor and MACT for existing
sources was no control. However, one plant was found to have installed
controls on a recently constructed pitch storage tank. In addition, the
EPA found that a new pitch storage tank planned for installation in
Canada would be installing a catalytic oxidizer to control pitch fumes
with a control efficiency of at least 95 percent. Consequently, EPA
determined that new source MACT for pitch storage tanks would require
at least 95 percent control of POM, and these provisions were added to
the final rule.
There are several types of emission control techniques that can
achieve 95 percent control or better, including combustion devices, dry
scrubbers, and carbon adsorption. A question arose about the
acceptability of vapor balancing, in which emissions displaced from the
pitch storage tank during loading are returned to the tank truck or
rail car as it is emptied. This technique would be an acceptable
alternative if the owner or operator demonstrates (to the satisfaction
of the applicable regulatory authority) that emissions from the
transport vessel are controlled when it is refilled and that POM
emissions from the pitch storage tank are ultimately controlled at 95
percent or better.
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of information
considered by the EPA in the development of a rulemaking. The docket is
a dynamic file because information is added throughout the rulemaking
development process. 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.] The official
rulemaking record, including all public comments received on the
proposed rule, is located at the address in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 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.
Although this is a significant regulatory action OMB has waived
Executive Order 12866 review because there was no significant negative
comment on the proposed rule.
C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the EPA involved State
regulatory experts in the development of the rule. The EPA also
coordinated with tribal governments having an interest in the
rulemaking. State and local governments and tribal governments are not
directly affected by the rule, i.e., they are not required to purchase
control systems to meet the requirements of the rule. However, State
and local governments will be required to implement the rule; i.e.,
incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will
collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resource burden of
implementing the rule. Comments were solicited from States and tribal
governments and have been considered in the development of the final
rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 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 developing EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates; and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The 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. The total annualized cost of the final standard
is estimated at $40 million per year--well under the $100 million per
year threshold. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.
E. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct
[[Page 52398]]
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and
comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule.
None of the 23 facilities in this industry is classified as a small
entity. The EPA has determined that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements for this NESHAP 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 the EPA (ICR No. 1767.02), and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. The information requirements
are not effective until OMB approves them.
The 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 collecting
this information (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective
date of the rule) is estimated to total 52,544 hours for the 23
respondents and to average 2,300 hours per respondent (i.e., per
plant). Each respondent is required to 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.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
H. Clean Air Act
The NESHAP for primary aluminum reduction plants will be reviewed 8
years from the date of promulgation. This review will include an
assessment of such factors as residual health risks, any duplication
with other air programs, the existence of alternative methods,
enforceability, improvements in air emission control technology and
health data, and the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.
40 CFR Part 63
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Primary aluminum reduction plants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 19, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 9, 60, and 63 of
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1342,
1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-
1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-
1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3,
300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-
9657, 11023, 11048.
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended by adding new entries under the
indicated heading in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB control
40 CFR citation No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories \3\
* * * * *
63.846(d).................................................. 2060-0360
63.847(b), (g)............................................. 2060-0360
63.848(d)(5), (e),.........................................
(f)(5)(ii), (g), (k), (m).................................. 2060-0360
63.850..................................................... 2060-0360
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ICRs referenced in this section of the Table encompass the
applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
which are not independent information collection requirements.
[[Page 52399]]
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
3. The authority for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7429, 7601
and 7602.
Sec. 60.17 [Amended]
4. Section 60.17(a)(22) of subpart A is amended by adding the
phrase ``; Method 14A, par. 7.1'' to the end of the paragraph.
5. Section 60.190 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.190 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, any
affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences
construction or modification after October 23, 1974, is subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
(c) An owner or operator of an affected facility under paragraph
(a) of this section may elect to comply with the requirements of this
subpart or the requirements of subpart LL of part 63 of this chapter.
6. Appendix A to part 60 is amended by revising the appendix
heading and adding, in numerical order, Method 14A to read as follows:
Appendix A To part 60--Test Methods
* * * * *
Method 14A--Determination of Total Fluoride Emissions from Selected
Sources at Primary Aluminum Production Facilities
Note: This method does not include all the specifications (e.g.,
equipment and supplies) and procedures (e.g., sampling) essential to
its performance. Some material is incorporated by reference from
other methods in this part. Therefore, to obtain reliable results,
persons using this method should have a thorough knowledge of at
least the following additional test methods: Method 5, Methods 13A
and 13B, and Method 14 of this appendix.
1.0 Scope and Application.
1.1 Analytes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyte CAS No. Sensitivity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total fluorides................. None assigned..... Not determined.
Includes hydrogen fluoride...... 007664-39-3....... Not determined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable for the
determination of total fluorides (TF) emissions from sources
specified in the applicable regulation. This method was developed by
consensus with the Aluminum Association and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
2.0 Summary of Method.
2.1 Total fluorides, in the form of solid and gaseous
fluorides, are withdrawn from the ascending air stream inside of an
aluminum reduction potroom and, prior to exiting the potroom roof
monitor, into a specific cassette arrangement. The cassettes are
connected by tubing to flowmeters and a manifold system that allows
for the equal distribution of volume pulled through each cassette,
and finally to a dry gas meter. The cassettes have a specific
internal arrangement of one unaltered cellulose filter and support
pad in the first section of the cassette for solid fluoride
retention and two cellulose filters with support pads that are
impregnated with sodium formate for the chemical absorption of
gaseous fluorides in the following two sections of the cassette. A
minimum of eight cassettes shall be used for a potline and shall be
strategically located at equal intervals across the potroom roof so
as to encompass a minimum of 8 percent of the total length of the
potroom. A greater number of cassettes may be used should the
regulated facility choose to do so. The mass flow rate of pollutants
is determined with anemometers and temperature sensing devices
located immediately below the opening of the roof monitor and spaced
evenly within the cassette group.
3.0 Definitions.
3.1 Cassette. A segmented, styrene acrylonitrile cassette
configuration with three separate segments and a base, for the
purpose of this method, to capture and retain fluoride from potroom
gases.
3.2 Cassette arrangement. The cassettes, tubing, manifold
system, flowmeters, dry gas meter, and any other related equipment
associated with the actual extraction of the sample gas stream.
3.3 Cassette group. That section of the potroom roof monitor
where a distinct group of cassettes is located.
3.4 Potline. A single, discrete group of electrolytic reduction
cells electrically connected in series, in which alumina is reduced
to form aluminum.
3.5 Potroom. A building unit that houses a group of
electrolytic reduction cells in which aluminum is produced.
3.6 Potroom group. An uncontrolled potroom, a potroom that is
controlled individually, or a group of potrooms or potroom segments
ducted to a common primary control system.
3.7 Primary control system. The equipment used to capture the
gases and particulate matter generated during the reduction process
and the emission control device(s) used to remove pollutants prior
to discharge of the cleaned gas to the atmosphere.
3.8 Roof monitor. That portion of the roof of a potroom
building where gases, not captured at the cell, exit from the
potroom.
3.9 Total fluorides (TF). Elemental fluorine and all fluoride
compounds as measured by Methods 13A or 13B of this appendix or by
an approved alternative method.
4.0 Interferences and Known Limitations.
4.1 There are two principal categories of limitations that must
be addressed when using this method. The first category is sampling
bias and the second is analytical bias. Biases in sampling can occur
when there is an insufficient number of cassettes located along the
roof monitor of a potroom or if the distribution of those cassettes
is spatially unequal. Known sampling biases also can occur when
there are leaks within the cassette arrangement and if anemometers
and temperature devices are not providing accurate data. Applicable
instruments must be properly calibrated to avoid sampling bias.
Analytical biases can occur when instrumentation is not calibrated
or fails calibration and the instrument is used out of proper
calibration. Additionally, biases can occur in the laboratory if
fusion crucibles retain residual fluorides over lengthy periods of
use. This condition could result in falsely elevated fluoride
values. Maintaining a clean work environment in the laboratory is
crucial to producing accurate values.
4.2 Biases during sampling can be avoided by properly spacing
the appropriate number of cassettes along the roof monitor,
conducting leak checks of the cassette arrangement, calibrating the
dry gas meter every 30 days, verifying the accuracy of individual
flowmeters (so that there is no more than 5 percent difference in
the volume pulled between any two flowmeters), and calibrating or
replacing anemometers and temperature sensing devices as necessary
to maintain true data generation.
4.3 Analytical biases can be avoided by calibrating instruments
according to the manufacturer's specifications prior to conducting
any analyses, by performing internal and external audits of up to 10
percent of all samples analyzed, and by rotating individual
crucibles as the ``blank'' crucible to detect any potential residual
fluoride carry-over to samples. Should any contamination be
discovered in the blank crucible, the crucible shall be thoroughly
cleaned to remove any detected residual fluorides and a ``blank''
analysis conducted again to evaluate the effectiveness of the
cleaning. The crucible shall remain in service as long as no
detectable residual fluorides are present.
5.0 Safety.
5.1 This method may involve the handling of hazardous materials
in the analytical phase. This method does not purport to address all
of the potential safety hazards associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and
health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory
limitations prior to performing this test method.
5.2 Corrosive reagents. The following reagents are hazardous.
Personal protective equipment and safe procedures are useful in
preventing chemical splashes. If contact occurs, immediately flush
with copious amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. Remove
clothing under shower and
[[Page 52400]]
decontaminate. Treat residual chemical burn as thermal burn.
5.3 Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). Causes severe damage to eyes and
skin. Inhalation causes irritation to nose, throat, and lungs.
Reacts exothermically with limited amounts of water.
5.4 Perchloric Acid (HClO4). Corrosive to eyes,
skin, nose, and throat. Provide ventilation to limit exposure. Very
strong oxidizer. Keep separate from water and oxidizable materials
to prevent vigorous evolution of heat, spontaneous combustion, or
explosion. Heat solutions containing HClO4 only in hoods
specifically designed for HClO4.
216.0 Equipment and Supplies.
6.1 Sampling.
6.1.1 Cassette arrangement. The cassette itself is a three-
piece, styrene acrylonitrile cassette unit (a Gelman Sciences
product), 37 millimeter (mm), with plastic connectors. In the first
section (the intake section), an untreated Gelman Sciences 37 mm,
0.8 micrometer (m) DM-800 metricel membrane filter and
cellulose support pad, or equivalent, is situated. In the second and
third segments of the cassette there is placed one each of Gelman
Sciences 37 mm, 5 m GLA-5000 low-ash PVC filter with a
cellulose support pad or equivalent product. Each of these two
filters and support pads shall have been immersed in a solution of
10 percent sodium formate (volume/volume in an ethyl alcohol
solution). The impregnated pads shall be placed in the cassette
segments while still wet and heated at 50 deg.C (122 deg.F) until
the pad is completely dry. It is important to check for a proper fit
of the filter and support pad to the cassette segment to ensure that
there are no areas where gases could bypass the filter. Once all of
the cassette segments have been prepared, the cassette shall be
assembled and a plastic plug shall be inserted into the exhaust hole
of the cassette. Prior to placing the cassette into service, the
space between each segment shall be taped with an appropriately
durable tape to prevent the infiltration of gases through the points
of connection, and an aluminum nozzle shall be inserted into the
intake hole of the cassette. The aluminum nozzle shall have a short
section of tubing placed over the opening of the nozzle, with the
tubing plugged to prevent dust from entering the nozzle and to
prepare the nozzle for the cassette arrangement leak check. An
alternate nozzle type can be used if historical results or
scientific demonstration of applicability can be shown.
6.1.2 Anemometers and temperature sensing devices. To calculate
the mass flow rate of TF from the roof monitor under standard
conditions, anemometers that meet the specifications in section
2.1.1 in Method 14 of this appendix or an equivalent device yielding
equivalent information shall be used. A recording mechanism capable
of accurately recording the exit gas temperature at least every 2
hours shall be used.
6.1.3 Barometer. To correct the volumetric flow from the
potline roof monitor to standard conditions, a mercury (Hg),
aneroid, or other barometer capable of measuring atmospheric
pressure to within 2.5 mm [0.1 inch (in)] Hg shall be used.
Note: The barometric reading may be obtained from a nearby
National Weather Service Station. In this case, the station value
(which is absolute barometric pressure) shall be requested and an
adjustment for elevation differences between the weather station and
the sampling point shall be made at a rate of minus 2.5 mm (0.1 in)
Hg per 30 meters (m) [100 feet (ft)] elevation increase or plus 2.5
mm (0.1 in) Hg per 30 m (100 ft) elevation decrease.
6.2 Sample recovery.
6.2.1 Hot plate.
6.2.2 Muffle furnace.
6.2.3 Nickel crucible.
6.2.4 Stirring rod. Teflon'.
6.2.5 Volumetric flask. 50-milliliter (ml).
6.2.6 Plastic vial. 50-ml.
6.3 Analysis.
6.3.1 Primary analytical method. An automated analyzer having
the following components or equivalent: a multichannel proportioning
pump, multiposition sampler, voltage stabilizer, colorimeter,
instrument recording device, microdistillation apparatus, flexible
Teflon heating bath, vacuum pump, pulse suppressers and
an air flow system.
6.3.2 Secondary analytical method. Specific Ion Electrode
(SIE).
7.0 Reagents and Standards.
7.1 Water. Deionized distilled to conform to ASTM Specification
D 1193-77, Type 3 (incorporated by reference in Sec. 60.17(a)(22) of
this part). The KMnO4 test for oxidizable organic matter
may be omitted when high concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present.
7.2 Calcium oxide.
7.3 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Pellets.
7.4 Perchloric acid (HClO4). Mix 1:1 with water.
Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) may be used in place of
HClO4.
7.5 Audit samples. The audit samples discussed in section 9.1
shall be prepared from reagent grade, water soluble stock reagents,
or purchased as an aqueous solution from a commercial supplier. If
the audit stock solution is purchased from a commercial supplier,
the standard solution must be accompanied by a certificate of
analysis or an equivalent proof of fluoride concentration.
8.0 Sample Collection and Analysis.
8.1 Preparing cassette arrangement for sampling. The cassettes
are initially connected to flexible tubing. The tubing is connected
to flowmeters and a manifold system. The manifold system is
connected to a dry gas meter (Research Appliance Company model
201009 or equivalent). The length of tubing is managed by
pneumatically or electrically operated hoists located in the roof
monitor, and the travel of the tubing is controlled by encasing the
tubing in aluminum conduit. The tubing is lowered for cassette
insertion by operating a control box at floor level. Once the
cassette has been securely inserted into the tubing and the leak
check performed, the tubing and cassette are raised to the roof
monitor level using the floor level control box. Arrangements
similar to the one described are acceptable if the scientific sample
collection principles are followed.
8.2 Test run sampling period. A test run shall comprise a
minimum of a 24-hour sampling event encompassing at least eight
cassettes per potline (or four cassettes per potroom group). Monthly
compliance shall be based on three test runs during the month. Test
runs of greater than 24 hours are allowed; however, three such runs
shall be conducted during the month.
8.3 Leak-check procedures.
8.3.1 Pretest leak check. A pretest leak-check is recommended;
however, it is not required. To perform a pretest leak-check after
the cassettes have been inserted into the tubing, isolate the
cassette to be leak-checked by turning the valves on the manifold to
stop all flows to the other sampling points connected to the
manifold and meter. The cassette, with the plugged tubing section
securing the intake of the nozzle, is subjected to the highest
vacuum expected during the run. If no leaks are detected, the tubing
plug can be briefly removed as the dry gas meter is rapidly turned
off.
8.3.2 Post-test leak check. A leak check is required at the
conclusion of each test run for each cassette. The leak check shall
be performed in accordance with the procedure outlined in section
8.3.1 of this method except that it shall be performed at a vacuum
greater than the maximum vacuum reached during the test run. If the
leakage rate is found to be no greater than 4 percent of the average
sampling rate, the results are acceptable. If the leakage rate is
greater than 4 percent of the average sampling rate, either record
the leakage rate and correct the sampling volume as discussed in
section 12.4 of this method or void the test run if the minimum
number of cassettes were used. If the number of cassettes used was
greater than the minimum required, discard the leaking cassette and
use the remaining cassettes for the emission determination.
8.3.3 Anemometers and temperature sensing device placement.
Install the recording mechanism to record the exit gas temperature.
Anemometers shall be installed as required in section 6.1.2 of
Method 14 of this appendix, except replace the word ``manifold''
with ``cassette group'' in section 6.1.2.3. These two different
instruments shall be located near each other along the roof monitor.
See conceptual configurations in Figures 14A-1, 14A-2, and 14A-3 of
this method. Fewer temperature devices than anemometers may be used
if at least one temperature device is located within the span of the
cassette group. Other anemometer location siting scenarios may be
acceptable as long as the exit velocity of the roof monitor gases is
representative of the entire section of the potline being sampled.
8.4 Sampling. The actual sample run shall begin with the
removal of the tubing and plug from the cassette nozzle. Each
cassette is then raised to the roof monitor area, the dry gas meter
is turned on, and the flowmeters are set to the calibration point,
which allows an equal volume of sampled gas to enter each cassette.
The dry gas meter shall be set to a range suitable for the specific
potroom type being sampled that will yield valid data known from
previous experience or a range determined by the use of the
calculation in section 12 of this method.
[[Page 52401]]
Parameters related to the test run that shall be recorded, either
during the test run or after the test run if recording devices are
used, include: anemometer data, roof monitor exit gas temperature,
dry gas meter temperature, dry gas meter volume, and barometric
pressure. At the conclusion of the test run, the cassettes shall be
lowered, the dry gas meter turned off, and the volume registered on
the dry gas meter recorded. The post-test leak check procedures
described in section 8.3.2 of this method shall be performed. All
data relevant to the test shall be recorded on a field data sheet
and maintained on file.
8.5 Sample recovery.
8.5.1 The cassettes shall be brought to the laboratory with the
intake nozzle contents protected with the section of plugged tubing
previously described. The exterior of cassettes shall carefully be
wiped free of any dust or debris, making sure that any falling dust
or debris does not present a potential laboratory contamination
problem.
8.5.2 Carefully remove all tape from the cassettes and remove
the initial filter, support pad, and all loose solids from the first
(intake) section of the cassette. Fold the filter and support pad
several times and, along with all loose solids removed from the
interior of the first section of the cassette, place them into a
nickel crucible. Using water, wash the interior of the nozzle into
the same nickel crucible. Add 0.1 gram (g) [0.1
milligram (mg)] of calcium oxide and a sufficient amount of water to
make a loose slurry. Mix the contents of the crucible thoroughly
with a Teflon'' stirring rod. After rinsing any adhering residue
from the stirring rod back into the crucible, place the crucible on
a hot plate or in a muffle furnace until all liquid is evaporated
and allow the mixture to gradually char for 1 hour.
8.5.3 Transfer the crucible to a cold muffle furnace and ash at
600 deg.C (1,112 deg.F). Remove the crucible after the ashing phase
and, after the crucible cools, add 3.0 g (0.1 g) of NaOH
pellets. Place this mixture in a muffle furnace at 600 deg.C
(1,112 deg.F) for 3 minutes. Remove the crucible and roll the melt
so as to reach all of the ash with the molten NaOH. Let the melt
cool to room temperature. Add 10 to 15 ml of water to the crucible
and place it on a hot plate at a low temperature setting until the
melt is soft or suspended. Transfer the contents of the crucible to
a 50-ml volumetric flask. Rinse the crucible with 20 ml of 1:1
perchloric acid or 20 ml of 1:1 sulfuric acid in two (2) 10 ml
portions. Pour the acid rinse slowly into the volumetric flask and
swirl the flask after each addition. Cool to room temperature. The
product of this procedure is particulate fluorides.
8.5.4 Gaseous fluorides can be isolated for analysis by
folding the gaseous fluoride filters and support pads to
approximately \1/4\ of their original size and placing them in a 50-
ml plastic vial. To the vial add exactly 10 ml of water and leach
the sample for a minimum of 1 hour. The leachate from this process
yields the gaseous fluorides for analysis.
9.0 Quality Control.
9.1 Laboratory auditing. Laboratory audits of specific and
known concentrations of fluoride shall be submitted to the
laboratory with each group of samples submitted for analysis. An
auditor shall prepare and present the audit samples as a ``blind''
evaluation of laboratory performance with each group of samples
submitted to the laboratory. The audits shall be prepared to
represent concentrations of fluoride that could be expected to be in
the low, medium and high range of actual results. Average recoveries
of all three audits must equal 90 to 110 percent for acceptable
results; otherwise, the laboratory must investigate procedures and
instruments for potential problems.
Note: The analytical procedure allows for the analysis of
individual or combined filters and pads from the cassettes provided
that equal volumes (10 percent) are sampled through each
cassette.
10.0 Calibrations.
10.1 Equipment evaluations. To ensure the integrity of this
method, periodic calibrations and equipment replacements are
necessary.
10.1.1 Metering system. At 30-day intervals the metering system
shall be calibrated. Connect the metering system inlet to the outlet
of a wet test meter that is accurate to 1 percent. Refer to Figure
5-4 of Method 5 of this appendix. The wet-test meter shall have a
capacity of 30 liters/revolution [1 cubic foot (ft\3\)/revolution].
A spirometer of 400 liters (14 ft\3\) or more capacity, or
equivalent, may be used for calibration; however, a wet-test meter
is usually more practical. The wet-test meter shall be periodically
tested with a spirometer or a liquid displacement meter to ensure
the accuracy. 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 min. with the
orifice manometer indicating a median reading as expected in field
use to allow the pump to warm up and to thoroughly wet the interior
of the wet-test meter. Then, at each of a minimum of three orifice
manometer settings, pass an exact quantity of gas through the wet-
test meter and record the volume indicated by the dry gas meter.
Also record the barometric pressure, the temperatures of the wet
test meter, the inlet temperatures of the dry gas meter, and the
temperatures of the outlet of the dry gas meter. Record all
calibration data on a form similar to the one shown in Figure 5-5 of
Method 5 of this appendix and calculate Y, the dry gas meter
calibration factor, and H@, the orifice
calibration factor at each orifice setting. Allowable tolerances for
Y and H@ are given in Figure 5-6 of Method 5 of
this appendix.
10.1.2 Estimating volumes for initial test runs. For a
facility's initial test runs, the regulated facility must have a
target or desired volume of gases to be sampled and a target range
of volumes to use during the calibration of the dry gas meter. Use
Equations 14A-1 and 14A-2 in section 12 of this method to derive the
target dry gas meter volume (Fv) for these purposes.
10.1.3 Calibration of anemometers and temperature sensing
devices. If the standard anemometers in Method 14 of this appendix
are used, the calibration and integrity evaluations in sections
10.3.1.1 through 10.3.1.3 of Method 14 of this appendix shall be
used as well as the recording device described in section 2.1.3 of
Method 14. The calibrations or complete change-outs of anemometers
shall take place at a minimum of once per year. The temperature
sensing and recording devices shall be calibrated according to the
manufacturer's specifications.
10.1.4 Calibration of flowmeters. The calibration of flowmeters
is necessary to ensure that an equal volume of sampled gas is
entering each of the individual cassettes and that no large
differences, which could possibly bias the sample, exist between the
cassettes.
10.1.4.1 Variable area, 65 mm flowmeters or equivalent shall be
used. These flowmeters can be mounted on a common base for
convenience. These flowmeters shall be calibrated by attaching a
prepared cassette, complete with filters and pads, to the flowmeter
and then to the system manifold. This manifold is an aluminum
cylinder with valved inlets for connections to the flowmeters/
cassettes and one outlet to a dry gas meter. The connection is then
made to the wet-test meter and finally to a dry gas meter. All
connections are made with tubing.
10.1.4.2 Turn the dry gas meter on for 15 min. in preparation
for the calibration. Turn the dry gas meter off and plug the intake
hole of the cassette. Turn the dry gas meter back on to evaluate the
entire system for leaks. If the dry gas meter shows a leakage rate
of less than 0.02 ft3/min at 10 in. of Hg vacuum as noted
on the dry gas meter, the system is acceptable to further
calibration.
10.1.4.3 With the dry gas meter turned on and the flow
indicator ball at a selected flow rate, record the exact amount of
gas pulled through the flowmeter by taking measurements from the wet
test meter after exactly 10 min. Record the room temperature and
barometric pressure. Conduct this test for all flowmeters in the
system with all flowmeters set at the same indicator ball reading.
When all flowmeters have gone through the procedure above, correct
the volume pulled through each flowmeter to standard conditions. The
acceptable difference between the highest and lowest flowmeter rate
is 5 percent. Should one or more flowmeters be outside of the
acceptable limit of 5 percent, repeat the calibration procedure at a
lower or higher indicator ball reading until all flowmeters show no
more than 5 percent difference among them.
10.1.4.4 This flowmeter calibration shall be conducted at least
once per year.
10.1.5 Miscellaneous equipment calibrations. Miscellaneous
equipment used such as an automatic recorder/ printer used to
measure dry gas meter temperatures shall be calibrated according to
the manufacturer's specifications in order to maintain the accuracy
of the equipment.
11.0 Analytical Procedure.
11.1 The preferred primary analytical determination of the
individual isolated samples or the combined particulate and gaseous
samples shall be performed by an automated methodology. The
analytical
[[Page 52402]]
method for this technology shall be based on the manufacturer's
instructions for equipment operation and shall also include the
analysis of five standards with concentrations in the expected range
of the actual samples. The results of the analysis of the five
standards shall have a coefficient of correlation of at least 0.99.
A check standard shall be analyzed as the last sample of the group
to determine if instrument drift has occurred. The acceptable result
for the check standard is 95 to 105 percent of the standard's true
value.
11.2 The secondary analytical method shall be by specific ion
electrode if the samples are distilled or if a TISAB IV buffer is
used to eliminate aluminum interferences. Five standards with
concentrations in the expected range of the actual samples shall be
analyzed, and a coefficient of correlation of at least 0.99 is the
minimum acceptable limit for linearity. An exception for this limit
for linearity is a condition when low-level standards in the range
of 0.01 to 0.48 g fluoride/ml are analyzed. In this
situation, a minimum coefficient of correlation of 0.97 is required.
TISAB II shall be used for low-level analyses.
12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations.
12.1 Carry out calculations, retaining at least one extra
decimal point beyond that of the acquired data. Round off values
after the final calculation. Other forms of calculations may be used
as long as they give equivalent results.
12.2 Estimating volumes for initial test runs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.000
Where
Fv = Desired volume of dry gas to be sampled, ft\3\.
Fd = Desired or analytically optimum mass of TF per
cassette, micrograms of TF per cassette (g/cassette).
X = Number of cassettes used.
Fe = Typical concentration of TF in emissions to be
sampled, g/ft \3\, calculated from Equation 14A-2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.001
Where
Re = Typical emission rate from the facility, pounds of
TF per ton (lb/ton) of aluminum.
Rp = Typical production rate of the facility, tons of
aluminum per minute (ton/min).
Vr = Typical exit velocity of the roof monitor gases,
feet per minute (ft/min).
Ar=Open area of the roof monitor, square feet
(ft2).
12.2.1 Example calculation. Assume that the typical emission rate
(Re) is 1.0 lb TF/ton of aluminum, the typical roof vent gas
exit velocity (Vr) is 250 ft/min, the typical production
rate (Rp) is 0.10 ton/min, the known open area for the roof
monitor (Ar) is 8,700 ft2, and the desired
(analytically optimum) mass of TF per cassette is 1,500 g.
First calculate the concentration of TF per cassette (Fe) in
g/ft3 using Equation 14A-2. Then calculate the
desired volume of gas to be sampled (Fv) using Equation 14A-
1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.002
[[Page 52403]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.003
This is a total of 575.40 ft3 for eight cassettes or
71.925 ft3/cassette.
12.3 Calculations of TF emissions from field and laboratory
data that would yield a production related emission rate can be
calculated as follows:
12.3.1 Obtain a standard cubic feet (scf) value for the volume
pulled through the dry gas meter for all cassettes by using the
field and calibration data and Equation 5-1 of Method 5 of this
appendix.
12.3.2 Derive the average quantity of TF per cassette (in
g TF/cassette) by adding all laboratory data for all
cassettes and dividing this value by the total number of cassettes
used. Divide this average TF value by the corrected dry gas meter
volume for each cassette; this value then becomes TFstd
(g/ft3).
12.3.3 Calculate the production-based emission rate
(Re) in lb/ton using Equation 14A-5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.004
12.3.4 As an example calculation, assume eight cassettes
located in a potline were used to sample for 72 hours during the
run. The analysis of all eight cassettes yielded a total of 3,000
g of TF. The dry gas meter volume was corrected to yield a
total of 75 scf per cassette, which yields a value for
TFstd of 3,000/75=5 g/ft3. The open
area of the roof monitor for the potline (Ar) is 17,400
ft2. The exit velocity of the roof monitor gases
(Vr) is 250 ft/min. The production rate of aluminum over
the previous 720 hours was 5,000 tons, which is 6.94 tons/hr or
0.116 ton/min (Rp). Substituting these values into
Equation 14A-5 yields:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.005
12.4 Corrections to volumes due to leakage. Should the post-
test leak check leakage rate exceed 4 percent as described in
section 8.3.2 of this method, correct the volume as detailed in Case
I in section 6.3 of Method 5 of this appendix.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 52404]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.020
[[Page 52405]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.021
[[Page 52406]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.022
BILLING CODE 6560-50-L
[[Page 52407]]
* * * * *
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
7. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
8. 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 Incorporation of new source performance standards for
potroom groups.
63.846 Emission averaging.
63.847 Compliance provisions.
63.848 Emission monitoring requirements.
63.849 Test methods and procedures.
63.850 Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
63.851 Regulatory authority review procedures.
63.852 Applicability of general provisions.
63.853 Delegation of authority.
63.854-63.859 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart LL--Potline TF Limits for Emission Averaging
Table 2 to Subpart LL--Potline POM Limits for Emission Averaging
Table 3 to Subpart LL--Anode Bake Furnace Limits for Emission
Averaging
Appendix A to Subpart LL--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
pitch storage tank and 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. 63.2.
(b) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to any 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
State MACT determination established by the applicable regulatory
authority.
(c) An owner or operator of an affected facility (potroom group or
anode bake furnace) under Sec. 60.190 of this chapter may elect to
comply with either the requirements of Sec. 63.845 of this subpart or
the requirements of subpart S of part 60 of this chapter.
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 October 7, 1997, 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'' (22nd 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) Chapter 3, ``Local Exhaust Hoods'' and Chapter 5, ``Exhaust
System Design Procedure'' 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 2986-95A, 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
(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.
Continuous parameter monitoring system means the total equipment
that may be required to meet the data acquisition and availability
requirements of this subpart, used to sample, condition (if
applicable), analyze, and provide a record of process or control system
parameters.
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.
Modified potroom group means an existing potroom group to which any
physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, results in
an increase in the amount of total fluoride emitted into the atmosphere
by that potroom group.
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.
Pitch storage tank means any fixed roof tank that is used to store
liquid
[[Page 52408]]
pitch that is not part of the paste production plant.
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.
Potroom means a building unit that houses a group of electrolytic
cells in which aluminum is produced.
Potroom group means an uncontrolled potroom, a potroom that is
controlled individually, or a group of potrooms or potroom segments
ducted to a common control system.
Prebake process means a method of primary aluminum reduction that
uses an anode that was baked in an anode bake furnace, 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.
Primary control system means the equipment used to capture the
gases and particulate matter evacuated directly from the reduction cell
and the emission control device(s) used to remove pollutants prior to
discharge of the cleaned gas to the atmosphere. A roof scrubber is not
part of the primary control system.
Primary emissions means the emissions discharged from the primary
control system.
Reconstructed potroom group means an existing potroom group for
which the components are replaced to such an extent that the fixed
capital cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable entirely
new potroom group, and for which it is technologically and economically
feasible to meet the applicable emission limits for total fluoride set
forth in this subpart.
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.
Secondary emissions means the fugitive emissions that are not
captured and controlled by the primary control system and that escape
through the roof monitor or through roof scrubbers.
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 Methods 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 Goldendale 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;
(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) 1.8 kg/Mg (3.6 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 to capture and control 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 Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation:
A Handbook of Recommended Practice'' (incorporated by reference in
Sec. 63.841 of this part); 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 POM
emissions less than 0.011 lb/ton of paste for plants with continuous
mixers or POM emissions less than 0.024 lb/ton of paste for plants with
batch mixers. The POM emission rate shall be determined by sampling
using Method 315 in appendix A to this part.
(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.
[[Page 52409]]
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 from Soderberg potlines 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 paragraphs (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.
(d) Pitch storage tanks. Each pitch storage tank shall be equipped
with an emission control system designed and operated to reduce inlet
emissions of POM by 95 percent or greater.
Sec. 63.845 Incorporation of new source performance standards for
potroom groups.
(a) Applicability. The provisions in paragraphs (a) through (i) of
this section shall apply to any Soderberg, CWPB2, and CWPB3 potline
that adds a new potroom group to an existing potline or that is
associated with a potroom group that meets the definition of ``modified
potroom group'' or ``reconstructed potroom group.''
(1) The following shall not, by themselves, be considered to result
in a potroom group modification:
(i) Maintenance, repair, and replacement that the applicable
regulatory authority determines to be routine for the potroom group;
(ii) An increase in production rate of an existing potroom group,
if that increase can be accomplished without a capital expenditure on
that potroom group;
(iii) An increase in the hours of operation;
(iv) Use of an alternative fuel or raw material if, prior to the
effective date of this subpart, the existing potroom group was designed
to accommodate that alternative use;
(v) The addition or use of any system or device whose primary
function is the reduction of air pollutants, except when an emission
control system is removed or is replaced by a system that the
applicable regulatory authority determines to be less environmentally
beneficial; and
(vi) The relocation or change in ownership of an existing potroom
group.
(2) The provisions in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of
this section apply when the applicable regulatory authority must
determine if a potroom group meets the definition of reconstructed
potroom group.
(i) ``Fixed capital cost'' means the capital needed to provide all
the depreciable components.
(ii) If an owner or operator of an existing potroom group proposes
to replace components, and the fixed capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new potroom group, he/she shall notify
the applicable regulatory authority of the proposed replacements. The
notice must be postmarked 60 days (or as soon as practicable) before
construction of the replacements is commenced and must include the
following information:
(A) Name and address of the owner or operator;
(B) The location of the existing potroom group;
(C) A brief description of the existing potroom group and the
components that are to be replaced;
(D) A description of the existing air pollution control equipment
and the proposed air pollution control equipment;
(E) An estimate of the fixed capital cost of the replacements and
of constructing a comparable entirely new potroom group;
(F) The estimated life of the existing potroom group after the
replacements; and
(G) A discussion of any economic or technical limitations the
potroom group may have in complying with the applicable standards of
performance after the proposed replacements.
(iii) The applicable regulatory authority will determine, within 30
days of the receipt of the notice required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this section and any additional information he/she may reasonably
require, whether the proposed replacement constitutes a reconstructed
potroom group.
(iv) The applicable regulatory authority's determination under
paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section shall be based on:
(A) The fixed capital cost of the replacements in comparison to the
fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a comparable
entirely new potroom group;
(B) The estimated life of the potroom group after the replacements
compared to the life of a comparable entirely new potroom group;
(C) The extent to which the components being replaced cause or
contribute to the emissions from the potroom group; and
(D) Any economic or technical limitations on compliance with
applicable standards of performance that are inherent in the proposed
replacements.
(b) Lower TF emission limit. The owner or operator shall calculate
a lower TF emission limit for any potline associated with the modified
potroom group, reconstructed potroom group, or new potroom group using
the following equation:
L1=f1 x LPG1 + (1-f1) x
LPL
Where
L1=the lower TF emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton);
f1=the fraction of the potline's total aluminum production
capacity that is contained within all modified potroom groups,
reconstructed potroom groups, and new potroom groups;
LPG1=0.95 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) for prebake potlines and 1.0
kg/Mg (2.0 lb/ton) for Soderberg potlines; and
LPL=the TF emission limit from Sec. 63.843(a)(1) for the
appropriate potline subcategory that would have otherwise applied to
the potline.
(c) Upper TF emission limit. The owner or operator shall calculate
an upper TF emission limit for any potline associated with the modified
potroom group, reconstructed potroom group, or new potroom group using
the following equation:
L2=f1 x LPG2 + (1-f1) x
LPL
Where
L2=the upper TF emission limit in kg/Mg (lb/ton); and
LPG2=1.25 kg/Mg (2.5 lb/ton) for prebake potlines and 1.3
kg/Mg (2.6 lb/ton) for Soderberg potlines.
(d) Recalculation. The TF emission limits in paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section shall be recalculated each time a new potroom group is
added to the potline and each time an additional potroom group meets
the definition of ``modified potroom group'' or ``reconstructed potroom
group.''
(e) Emission limitation. The owner or operator shall not discharge
or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere emissions of TF from any
potline
[[Page 52410]]
associated with the modified potroom group, reconstructed potroom
group, or new potroom group that exceed the lower emission limit
calculated in paragraph (b) of this section, except that emissions less
than the upper limit calculated in paragraph (c) of this section will
be considered in compliance if the owner or operator demonstrates that
exemplary operation and maintenance procedures were used with respect
to the emission control system and that proper control equipment was
operating at the potline during the performance test.
(f) Report. Within 30 days of any performance test that reveals
emissions that fall between the lower limit calculated in paragraph (b)
of this section and the upper limit calculated in paragraph (c) of this
section, the owner or operator shall submit to the applicable
regulatory authority a report indicating whether all necessary control
devices were online and operating properly during the performance test,
describing the operating and maintenance procedures followed, and
setting forth any explanation for the excess emissions.
(g) Procedures to determine TF emissions. The owner or operator
shall determine TF emissions for the potline using the following
procedures:
(1) Determine the emission rate of TF in kg/Mg (lb/ton) from
sampling secondary emissions and the primary control system for all new
potroom groups, modified potroom groups, and reconstructed potroom
groups using the procedures, equations, and test methods in
Secs. 63.847, 63.848, and 63.849.
(2) Determine the emission rate of TF in kg/Mg (lb/ton) from
sampling secondary emissions and the primary control system for potroom
groups or sections of potroom groups within the potline that are not
new potroom groups, modified potroom groups, or reconstructed potroom
groups according to paragraphs (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i) Determine the mass emission rate of TF in kg/Mg (lb/ton) from
at least one potroom group within the potline that is not a new potroom
group, modified potroom group, or reconstructed potroom group using the
procedures, equations, and test methods in Secs. 63.847, 63.848, and
63.849, or
(ii) Use the results of the testing required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this section to represent the entire potline based on a demonstration
that the results are representative of the entire potline.
Representativeness shall be based on showing that all of the potroom
groups associated with the potline are substantially equivalent in
terms of their structure, operability, type of emissions, volume of
emissions, and concentration of emissions.
(3) Calculate the TF emissions for the potline in kg/Mg (lb/ton)
based on the production-weighted average of the TF emission rates from
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this section using the following
equation:
E=f1 x EPG1 + (1-f1) x
EPL
where
E=the TF emission rate for the entire potline, kg/Mg (lb/ton);
f1=the fraction of the potline's total aluminum production
rate that is contained within all modified potroom groups,
reconstructed potroom groups, and new potroom groups;
EPG1=the TF emission rate from paragraph (g)(1) of this
section for all modified potroom groups, reconstructed potroom groups,
and new potroom groups, kg/Mg (lb/ton); and
EPL=the TF emission rate for the balance of the potline from
paragraph (g)(2) of this section, kg/Mg (lb/ton).
Compliance is demonstrated when TF emissions for the potline meet
the requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.
(4) As an alternative to sampling as required in paragraphs (g)(1)
and (g)(2) of this section, the owner or operator may perform
representative sampling of the entire potline subject to the approval
of the applicable regulatory authority. Such sampling shall provide
coverage by the sampling equipment of both the new, modified, or
reconstructed potroom group and the balance of the potline. The
coverage for the new, modified, or reconstructed potroom group must
meet the criteria specified in the reference methods in Sec. 63.849. TF
emissions shall be determined for the potline using the procedures,
equations, and test methods in Secs. 63.847, 63.848, and 63.849.
Compliance is demonstrated when TF emissions for the potline meet the
requirements in paragraph (e) of this section.
(h) Opacity. Except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section,
the owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to be discharged
into the atmosphere from the modified potroom group, reconstructed
potroom group, or new potroom group any emissions of gases that exhibit
10 percent opacity or greater.
(i) Alternative opacity limit. An alternative opacity limit may be
established in place of the opacity limit in paragraph (h) of this
section using the following procedures:
(1) If the regulatory authority finds that a potline is in
compliance with the applicable TF standard for which performance tests
are conducted in accordance with the methods and procedures in
Sec. 63.849 but during the time such performance tests are being
conducted fails to meet any applicable opacity standard, the regulatory
authority shall notify and advise the owner or operator that he/she may
petition the regulatory authority within 10 days of receipt of
notification to make appropriate adjustment to the opacity standard.
(2) The regulatory authority will grant such a petition upon a
demonstration by the owner or operator that the potroom group and
associated air pollution control equipment were operated and maintained
in a manner to minimize the opacity of emissions during the performance
tests; that the performance tests were performed under the conditions
established by the regulatory authority; and that the potroom group and
associated air pollution control equipment were incapable of being
adjusted or operated to meet the applicable opacity standard.
(3) As indicated by the performance and opacity tests, the
regulatory authority will establish an opacity standard for any potroom
group meeting the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this
section such that the opacity standard could be met by the potroom
group at all times during which the potline is meeting the TF emission
limit.
(4) The alternative opacity limit established in paragraph (i)(3)
of this section shall not be greater than 20 percent opacity.
Sec. 63.846 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)(3) of this
section.
(1) Monthly average emissions of TF and/or quarterly average
emissions of POM shall not exceed the applicable
[[Page 52411]]
emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart (for TF emissions) and/or
Table 2 of this subpart (for POM emissions). The emission rate shall be
calculated based on the total emissions from all potlines over the
period divided by the quantity of aluminum produced during the period,
from all potlines comprising the averaging group.
(2) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit in
Table 1 of this subpart for TF emissions, the owner or operator shall
determine the monthly average emissions (in lb/ton) from each potline
from at least three runs per potline each month for TF secondary
emissions using the procedures and methods in Secs. 63.847 and 63.849.
The owner or operator shall combine the results of secondary TF monthly
average emissions with the TF results for the primary control system
and divide total emissions by total aluminum production.
(3) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit in
Table 2 of this subpart for POM emissions, the owner or operator shall
determine the quarterly average emissions (in lb/ton) from each potline
from at least one run each month for POM emissions using the procedures
and methods in Secs. 63.847 and 63.849. The owner or operator shall
combine the results of secondary POM quarterly average 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. 63.847 and 63.849.
(d) Implementation plan. 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 date that the facility intends
to comply with the emission averaging limits.
(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) The test plan for the measurement of TF or POM emissions in
accordance with the requirements in Sec. 63.847(b);
(v) The operating parameters to be monitored for each control
system or device and a description of how the operating limits will be
determined;
(vi) If the owner or operator requests to monitor an alternative
operating parameter pursuant to Sec. 63.848(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 existing 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 shut down; or
(iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction, as described in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction
plan required by Sec. 63.850(c), in the emission calculations.
(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 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. 63.847 Compliance provisions.
(a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator of a primary aluminum
plant shall demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements of
this subpart by:
(1) October 7, 1999, for an owner or operator of an existing plant
or source;
[[Page 52412]]
(2) October 9, 2000, 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) October 8, 2001, 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) 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) of this part. The test plan must include
procedures for conducting the initial performance test and for
subsequent performance tests required in Sec. 63.848 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 or other procedures to obtain
representative samples as approved by the applicable regulatory
authority;
(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.
(c) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-
specific test plan, the owner or operator shall conduct an initial
performance test during the first month following the compliance date
in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (d) of this section. If
a performance test has been conducted on the primary control system for
potlines or for the anode bake furnace within the 12 months prior to
the compliance date, the results of that performance test may be used
to determine initial compliance.
(d) Performance test requirements. The initial performance test and
all subsequent performance tests shall be conducted 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 each month for
secondary emissions and at least three runs each year for the primary
control system 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 63.846.
(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
each quarter (one run per month) for secondary emissions and at least
three runs each year for the primary control system 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 63.846.
(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 or for a bake furnace 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 stacks(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
each year 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 63.846.
(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 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.006
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 corresponding to
the appropriate subscript location, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);
Cs2=concentration of TF as measured for roof monitor
emissions, mg/dscm (mg/dscf);
[[Page 52413]]
P=aluminum production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr);
K=conversion factor, 10\6\ 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 1,
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 2,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.007
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, 10\6\ mg/kg (453,600 mg/lb).
(4) Compute the emission rate of POM from each anode bake furnace
using Equation 2,
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. 63.848(j).
(6) Determine the aluminum production rate (P) by dividing the
number of hours in the calendar month into the weight of aluminum
tapped from the potline during the calendar month that includes the
three runs of a performance test.
(7) Determine the rate of green anode material introduced into the
furnace by dividing the number of operating hours in the calendar month
into the weight of green anode material used during the calendar month
in which the performance test was conducted.
(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) Pitch storage tanks. The owner or operator shall demonstrate
initial compliance with the standard for pitch storage tanks in
Sec. 63.844(d) by preparing a design evaluation or by conducting a
performance test. The owner or operator shall submit for approval by
the regulatory authority the information specified in paragraph (g)(1)
of this section, along with the information specified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this section where a design evaluation is performed or the
information specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this section where a
performance test is conducted.
(1) A description of the parameters to be monitored to ensure that
the control device is being properly operated and maintained, an
explanation of the criteria used for selection of that parameter (or
parameters), and the frequency with which monitoring will be performed;
and
(2) Where a design evaluation is performed, documentation
demonstrating that the control device used achieves the required
control efficiency during reasonably expected maximum filling rate. The
documentation shall include a description of the gas stream that enters
the control device, including flow and POM content under varying liquid
level conditions, and the information specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)
through (g)(2)(vi) of this section, as applicable.
(i) If the control device receives vapors, gases, or liquids, other
than fuels, from emission points other than pitch storage tanks, the
efficiency demonstration is to include consideration of all vapors,
gases, and liquids, other than fuels, received by the control device;
(ii) If an enclosed combustion device with a minimum residence time
of 0.5 seconds and a minimum temperature of 760 deg.C (1,400 deg.F) is
used to meet the emission reduction requirement specified in
Sec. 83.844(d), documentation that those conditions exist is sufficient
to meet the requirements of Sec. 83.844(d);
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section,
for thermal incinerators, the design evaluation shall include the
autoignition temperature of the organic HAP, the flow rate of the
organic HAP emission stream, the combustion temperature, and the
residence time at the combustion temperature;
(iv) If the pitch storage tank is vented to the emission control
system installed for control of emissions from the paste production
plant pursuant to Sec. 63.843(b), documentation of compliance with the
requirements of Sec. 63.843(b) is sufficient to meet the requirements
of Sec. 63.844(d);
(v) For carbon adsorbers, the design evaluation shall include the
affinity of the organic vapors for carbon, the amount of carbon in each
bed, the number of beds, the humidity of the feed gases, the
temperature of the feed gases, the flow rate of the organic HAP
emission stream, and if applicable, the desorption schedule, the
regeneration stream pressure or temperature, and the flow rate of the
regeneration stream. For vacuum desorption, the pressure drop shall be
included; and
(vi) For condensers, the design evaluation shall include the final
temperature of the organic HAP vapors, the type of condenser, and the
design flow rate of the organic HAP emission stream.
(3) If a performance test is conducted, the owner or operator shall
determine the control efficiency for POM during tank loading using
Method 315 in appendix A to this part. The owner or operator shall
include the following information:
(i) Identification of the pitch storage tank and control device for
which the performance test will be submitted; and
(ii) Identification of the emission point(s) that share the control
device with the pitch storage tank and for which the performance test
will be conducted.
(h) Selection of monitoring parameters. The owner or operator shall
determine the operating limits and monitoring frequency for each
control device that is to be monitored as required in Sec. 63.848(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 for the emission control system 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 and provide the basis or rationale for selecting parameters to
be monitored and the associated operating limits for the emission
control device.
(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
[[Page 52414]]
effective upon approval by the applicable regulatory authority.
Sec. 63.848 Emission monitoring requirements.
(a) TF emissions from potlines. Using the procedures in Sec. 63.847
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. The
duration of each run for secondary emissions must represent a complete
operating cycle.
(b) POM emissions from Soderberg potlines. Using the procedures in
Sec. 63.847 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. The duration of each run for
secondary emissions must represent a complete operating cycle. The
primary control system must be sampled over an 8-hour period, unless
site-specific factors dictate an alternative sampling time subject to
the approval of the regulatory authority.
(c) TF and POM emissions from anode bake furnaces. Using the
procedures in Sec. 63.847 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 using the test methods in
Sec. 63.849, the owner or operator may perform monthly monitoring of TF
or POM secondary emissions from one potline using the test methods in
Secs. 63.849 (a) or (b) to represent the performance of similar
potline(s). The similar potline(s) shall be monitored using an
alternative method that meets the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(7) of this section. Two or more potlines are similar if the
owner or operator demonstrates that their structure, operability, type
of emissions, volume of emissions, and concentration of emissions are
substantially equivalent.
(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 emission 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:
(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) An HF continuous emission monitoring system is an approved
alternative for the monitoring of TF secondary emissions.
(3) An owner or operator electing to use an alternative monitoring
procedure shall establish an alternative emission limit based on at
least nine simultaneous runs using the applicable test methods and the
alternative monitoring method. All runs must represent a full process
cycle.
(4) The owner or operator shall derive an alternative emission
limit for the HF continuous emission monitor or an alternative method
using either of the following procedures:
(i) Use the highest value from the alternative method associated
with a simultaneous run by the applicable test method 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 results) 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 required in
paragraph (d)(4) of this section and all supporting documentation to
the applicable regulatory authority for review and approval.
(6) The regulatory authority shall review and approve or disapprove
the request for an alternative method and alternative emission limit.
The criterion for approval shall be a demonstration (to the
satisfaction of the regulatory authority) that the alternative method
and alternative emission limit achieve a level of emission control that
is the same as or better than the level that would have otherwise been
achieved by the applicable method and emission limit.
(7) If the alternative method is approved 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 alternative emission limit for each
similar potline.
(e) Reduced sampling frequency. The owner or operator may submit a
written request to the applicable regulatory authority to establish an
alternative testing requirement to reduce the sampling of secondary TF
emissions from potlines from monthly to quarterly.
(1) In the request, the owner or operator shall provide information
and data demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the applicable
regulatory authority, that secondary emissions of TF from potlines have
low variability during normal operations using the procedures in
paragraphs (e)(1)(i) or (e)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i) Submit data from 24 consecutive months of sampling that show
the average TF emissions are less than 60 percent of the applicable
limit and that no monthly performance test in the 24 months of sampling
exceeds 75 percent of the applicable limit; or
(ii) Submit data and a statistical analysis that the regulatory
authority may evaluate 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.
(2) An approved alternative requirement must include a test
schedule and the method to be used to measure emissions for performance
tests.
(3) 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.
(4) If emissions in excess of the applicable TF limit occur while
performing quarterly sampling approved under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of
this section, the owner or operator shall return to monthly sampling
for at least 12 months and may reduce to quarterly sampling when:
[[Page 52415]]
(i) The average of all tests performed over the most recent 24-
month period does not exceed 60 percent of the applicable limit, and
(ii) No more than one monthly performance test in the most recent
24-month period exceeds 75 percent of the applicable limit.
(5) If emissions in excess of the applicable TF limit occur while
performing quarterly sampling approved under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of
this section, the owner or operator shall immediately return to the
monthly sampling schedule required by paragraph (a) of this section
until another request for an alternative sampling frequency is approved
by the applicable regulatory authority.
(f) Monitoring parameters for emission control devices. The owner
or operator shall install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a
continuous parameter monitoring system for each emission control
device. The owner or operator shall submit for approval by the
regulatory authority a description of the parameter(s) to be monitored,
the operating limits, and the monitoring frequency to ensure that the
control device is being properly operated and maintained. An
explanation of the criteria used for selection of the parameter(s), the
operating limits, and the monitoring frequency, including how these
relate to emission control also shall be submitted to the regulatory
authority. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, the
following monitoring devices shall be installed:
(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. 63.847(h), 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 six
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. 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. The owner or operator shall submit
recommended accuracy requirements to the regulatory authority for
review and approval. All monitoring devices required by this section
must be certified by the owner or operator to meet the accuracy
requirements 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 for monitoring
in the facility's part 70 permit.
Sec. 63.849 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 or Method 14A 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 of the 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 an approved
alternative method.
(c) Except as provided in Sec. 63.845(g)(1), 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.
[[Page 52416]]
(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 results from the alternative
method meet the criteria specified in Secs. 63.848(d)(1) and (d)(3)
through (d)(6). The results from the alternative method shall be based
on simultaneous sampling using the alternative method and the following
reference methods:
(i) For TF, Methods 13 and 14 or Method 14A in appendix A to part
60 of this chapter; or
(ii) For POM, Method 315 in appendix A to this part and Method 14
in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
Sec. 63.850 Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Notifications. 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 Secs. 63.9(b)(4) and (b)(5)];
(5) Notification of initial performance test;
(6) Notification of initial compliance status;
(7) One-time notification for each affected source of the intent to
use an HF continuous emission monitor; and
(8) Notification of compliance approach. 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 63.846.
(b) Performance test reports. 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)(6) of this section.
Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner or
operator shall submit a summary of all subsequent performance tests to
the applicable regulatory authority on an annual basis.
(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. The plan does not have to be submitted with the permit
appplication or included in the operating permit. The permitting
authority may review the plan upon request. In addition to the
information required in Sec. 63.6(e)(3), 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. 63.847(h), 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. 63.848(g), or if a problem is detected during the daily inspection
of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary emission control required
in Sec. 63.848(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 offsite;
(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) Daily production rate of green anode material placed in the
anode bake furnace;
(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 that the performance of similar potlines is the same as
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
that the daily inspection of a potline with wet roof scrubbers for
secondary emission control has been performed as required in
Sec. 63.848(f)(5)(ii), including the results of each inspection;
(xi) Records, such as a checklist or the equivalent, demonstrating
that the daily visual inspection of the exhaust stack for each control
device has been performed as required in Sec. 63.848(g), including the
results of each inspection;
(xii) For a potline equipped with an HF continuous emission
monitor,
[[Page 52417]]
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. 63.847(h)
were exceeded, when visible emissions indicating abnormal operation
were observed from a control device stack during a daily inspection
required under Sec. 63.848(g), or when a problem was detected during
the daily inspection of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary
control required in Sec. 63.848(f)(5)(ii);
(xiv) Records documenting any POM data that are invalidated due to
the installation and startup of a cathode; and
(xv) Records documenting the portion of TF that is measured as
particulate matter and the portion that is measured as gaseous when the
particulate and gaseous fractions are quantified separately using an
approved test method.
Sec. 63.851 Regulatory authority review procedures.
(a) The applicable regulatory authority shall notify the owner or
operator in writing of the need for additional time to review the
submissions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section or of
approval or intent to deny approval of the submissions in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section within 60 calendar days after
receipt of sufficient information to evaluate the submission. The 60-
day period begins after the owner or operator has been notified that
the submission is complete.
(1) The test plan in Sec. 63.847(b);
(2) Request to change limits for operating parameters in
Sec. 63.847(h)(3);
(3) Request for similar potline monitoring in Sec. 63.848(d)(5);
(4) Request for reduced sampling frequency in Sec. 63.848(e); and
(5) Request for an alternative method in Sec. 63.849(e)(2).
(b) The applicable regulatory authority shall notify the owner or
operator in writing whether the submission is complete within 30
calendar days of receipt of the original submission or within 30 days
of receipt of any supplementary information that is submitted. When a
submission is incomplete, the applicable regulatory authority shall
specify the information needed to complete the submission and shall
give the owner or operator 30 calendar days after receipt of the
notification to provide the information.
Sec. 63.852 Applicability of general provisions.
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. 63.853 Delegation of authority.
In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a State
under section 112(d) of the Act, all authorities are transferred to the
State.
Secs. 63.854-63.859 [Reserved]
Table 1 To Subpart LL--Potline TF Limits for Emission Averaging
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly TF limit (1b/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 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart LL--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......................................................... 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 to Subpart LL--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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 52418]]
Appendix A to Subpart LL--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 ..................... No................................ Subpart LL defines
``reconstruction''. ``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. Only in Sec. 63.845.............. Opacity standards
applicable only when
incorporating the
NSPS requirements
under Sec. 63.845.
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 No
evaluation for CMS.
63.9(e)....................... Notification of No................................ Subpart LL specifies
performance test. notification of
performance tests.
63.9(f)....................... Notification of VE or Only in Sec. 63.845.............. Notification is
opacity test. required only when
incorporating the
NSPS requirements
under Sec. 63.845.
63.9(g)....................... Additional CMS No
notification.
63.10(d)(2)................... Performance test No................................ Subpart LL specifies
reports. performance test
reporting.
63.10(d)(3)................... Reporting VE/opacity Only in Sec. 63.845.............. Reporting is required
observations. only when
incorporating the
NSPS requirements
under Sec. 63.845.
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
requirements. applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 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
Note: This method does not include all of the specifications
(e.g., equipment and supplies) and procedures (e.g., sampling and
analytical) essential to its performance. Some material is
incorporated by reference from other methods in this part.
Therefore, to obtain reliable results, persons using this method
should have a thorough knowledge of at least the following
additional test methods: Method 1, Method 2, Method 3, and Method 5
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
1.0 Scope and Application.
1.1 Analytes. 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 to Method 5 for PM in 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A since the procedures are similar for PM.
1.3 Data quality objectives. Adherence to the requirements of
this method will enhance the quality of the data obtained from air
pollutant sampling methods.
2.0 Summary of Method.
Particulate matter and MCEM are 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. [Reserved]
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 Sample collection. The following items are required for
sample collection:
6.1.1 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 use of grease for sealing sampling train components is
not recommended because many greases are soluble in methylene
chloride. The sampling train consists of the following components:
6.1.1.1 Probe nozzle. 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. A range of nozzle sizes suitable for isokinetic
sampling should be available. Typical nozzle
[[Page 52419]]
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.
6.1.1.2 Probe liner. Borosilicate or quartz glass tubing with a
heating system capable of maintaining a probe gas temperature at the
exit end during sampling of 12014 deg.C
(24825 deg.F), or such other temperature as specified by
an applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the
Administrator for a particular application. Because the actual
temperature at the outlet of the probe is not usually monitored
during sampling, probes constructed according to APTD-0581 and using
the calibration curves of APTD-0576 (or calibrated according to the
procedure outlined in APTD-0576) will be considered acceptable.
Either borosilicate or quartz glass probe liners may be used for
stack temperatures up to about 480 deg.C (900 deg.F); 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).
6.1.1.3 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.
6.1.1.4 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.
6.1.1.5 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).
6.1.1.6 Filter heating system. Any heating system capable of
maintaining a temperature around the filter holder of
12014 deg.C (24825 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-0581 may be used.
6.1.1.7 Temperature sensor. A temperature sensor capable of
measuring temperature to within 3 deg.C (5.4 deg.F)
shall be installed so that the sensing tip of the temperature sensor
is in direct contact with the sample gas, and the temperature around
the filter holder can be regulated and monitored during sampling.
6.1.1.8 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 8.3.1 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.
6.1.1.9 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.
6.1.1.10 Sampling trains using 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.
6.1.2 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.
6.1.3 Gas density determination equipment. Temperature sensor
and pressure gauge, as described in sections 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 required for
sample recovery:
6.2.1 Probe-liner and probe-nozzle brushes. Nylon or
Teflon 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 or tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) wash bottles may be used,
but they may introduce a positive bias due to contamination from the
bottle. It is recommended that acetone not be stored in polyethylene
or TFE 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 1,000 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 Sample analysis. The following equipment is required for
sample analysis:
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 material during drying.
6.3.3 Analytical balance. To measure to within 0.l 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.
[[Page 52420]]
6.3.7 Temperature sensor. To measure the temperature of the
laboratory environment.
6.3.8 Buchner fritted funnel. 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, 18 mm deep and with an inside diameter of approximately 60 mm.
7.0 Reagents and Standards.
7.l Sample collection. The following reagents are required for
sample collection:
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 2986-95A (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.841 of this
part). 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 l6 mesh. If previously
used, dry at l75 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, 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. The following reagents are required for
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 may be 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 its
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 may be 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: A least one vendor quotes <1 mg/l for Environmental
Analysis Solvents-grade methylene chloride.
7.3 Sample analysis. The following reagents are required for
sample analysis:
7.3.l 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 in 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.
8.1l Pretest preparation. It is suggested that sampling
equipment be maintained according to the procedures described in
APTD-0576.
8.1.1 Weigh several 200 g to 300 g portions of silica gel in
airtight containers to the nearest 0.5 g. Record on each container
the total weight of the silica gel plus 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.
8.1.2 A batch of glass fiber filters, no more than 50 at a
time, should 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.
8.1.3 Desiccate the filters at 20 5.6 deg.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 longer 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.
8.2 Preliminary determinations.
8.2.1 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 to make 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.
8.2.2 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).
8.2.3 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.
8.2.4 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.
8.2.5 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 eliminate
timekeeping errors.
8.2.6 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.
8.3 Preparation of sampling train.
8.3.1 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 l00 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.
8.3.2 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.
8.3.3 When glass liners are used, install the selected nozzle
using a Viton A 0-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.
8.3.4 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
[[Page 52421]]
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.
8.3.5 Place crushed ice around the impingers.
8.4 Leak-check procedures.
8.4.1 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 5-2 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 1 minute. A loss of pressure on the manometer indicates a leak
in the meter box; leaks, if present, must be corrected.
8.4.2 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.
8.4.2.1 After the sampling train has been assembled, turn on
and set the filter and probe heating systems to the desired
operating temperatures. Allow time for the temperatures to
stabilize. If a Viton A 0-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.
8.4.2.2 If an asbestos string is used, do not connect the probe
to the train during the 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 8.4.2.1 of this method). Then connect the probe to the train
and perform the 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.
8.4.2.3 The following leak check instructions for the sampling
train described in APTD-0576 and APTD-058l 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.
8.4.2.4 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.
8.4.3 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 8.4.2 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 8.4.2 of this method should be used.
8.4.4 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 8.4.2 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 12.4 of this method, or void
the sampling run.
8.5 Sampling train operation. During the sampling run, maintain
an isokinetic sampling rate (within l0 percent of true isokinetic
unless otherwise specified by the Administrator) and a temperature
around the filter 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.
8.5.1 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.
8.5.2 Clean the portholes prior to the test run to minimize the
chance of sampling deposited material. To begin sampling, remove the
nozzle cap and 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 0.85 # 0.02 and the stack gas equivalent density
(dry molecular weight) is 29 4. 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.
8.5.3 When the stack is under significant negative pressure
(height of impinger stem), 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.
8.5.4 When the probe is in position, block off the openings
around the probe and porthole to prevent unrepresentative dilution
of the gas stream.
8.5.5 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.
8.5.6 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.
8.5.7 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 8.4.3 of this method). The total
PM weight shall include the summation of the filter assembly
catches.
8.5.8 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
[[Page 52422]]
a change of trains. In all other situations, the use of two or more
trains will be subject to the approval of the Administrator.
Note: 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.
8.5.9 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 8.4.4 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.
8.6 Calculation of percent isokinetic. Calculate percent
isokinetic (see Calculations, section 12.12 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.
8.7 Sample recovery.
8.7.1 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.
8.7.2 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.
8.7.3 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 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. Ground-glass
stoppers, plastic caps, or serum caps may be used to close these
openings.
8.7.4 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.
8.7.5 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.
8.7.6 Inspect the train prior to and during disassembly and
note any abnormal conditions. Treat the samples as follows:
8.7.6.1 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.
8.7.6.2 Container No. 2. 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. Perform the acetone rinse as follows:
8.7.6.2.1 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.
8.7.6.2.2 Brush and rinse the inside parts of the Swagelok
fitting with acetone in a similar way until no visible particles
remain.
8.7.6.2.3 Rinse the probe liner with acetone by tilting and
rotating the probe while squirting acetone into its upper end so
that all inside surfaces are 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 under the lower end of the probe, and
catch any acetone and PM 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-described manner at least
six times, since metal probes have small crevices in which PM 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 above.
8.7.6.2.4 It is recommended that two people clean the probe to
minimize sample losses. Between sampling runs, keep brushes clean
and protected from contamination.
8.7.6.2.5 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).
8.7.6.2.6 After rinsing the nozzle, probe, and front half of
the filter holder with acetone, repeat the entire procedure with
methylene chloride and save in a separate No. 2M container.
8.7.6.2.7 After acetone and methylene chloride washings and PM
have been collected in the proper sample containers, tighten the lid
on the sample containers 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 occurs during
transport. Label each container to identify clearly its contents.
8.7.6.3 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 the container. 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 11.2.3 of this
method.
8.7.6.4 Impinger water. Treat the impingers as follows:
8.7.6.4.1 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.
8.7.6.4.2 Following the determination of the volume of liquid
present, rinse the back half of the train with water, add it to the
impinger catch, and store it in a container labeled 3W (water).
8.7.6.4.3 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 0.5g.
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.
8.8 Sample transport. Whenever possible, containers should be
shipped in such a way that they remain upright at all times.
9.0 Quality Control.
9.1 Miscellaneous quality control measures.
[[Page 52423]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality control
Section measure Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.4, 10.1-10.6.................. Sampling and Ensure accurate
equipment leak measurement of
check and stack gas flow
calibration. rate, sample
volume.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.2 Volume metering system checks. 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.
9.2.1 Meter orifice check. Using the calibration data obtained
during the calibration procedure described in section 10.3 of this
method, determine the Ha for the metering
system orifice. The Ha is the orifice pressure
differential in units of in. H20 that correlates to 0.75
cfm of air at 528 deg.R and 29.92 in. Hg. The
Ha is calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.008
Where
0.0319 = (0.0567 in. Hg/ deg.R)(0.75 cfm)2;
H = Average pressure differential across the orifice
meter, in. H20;
Tm = Absolute average DGM temperature, deg.R;
= Total sampling time, min;
Pbar = Barometric pressure, in. Hg;
Y = DGM calibration factor, dimensionless;
Vm = Volume of gas sample as measured by DGM, dcf.
9.2.1.1 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
Ha 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] TR07OC97.009
Where
Yc = DGM calibration check value, dimensionless;
10 = Run time, min.
9.2.1.2 Compare the Yc value with the dry gas meter
calibration factor Y to determine that: 0.97 Y < Yc <
1.03Y. If the Yc value is not within this range, the
volume metering system should be investigated before beginning the
test.
9.2.2 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 box, may
be used as a quality control check by following the procedure of
section 16.2 of this method.
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/revolution (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 Ha (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 Ha 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, either the test series shall 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. 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 temperature monitoring
capabilities do not require calibration.
Note: The probe heating system shall be calibrated before its
initial use in the field.
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 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.
11.2 Handle each sample container as follows:
11.2.1 Container No. 1.
11.2.1.1 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
[[Page 52424]]
(overnight desiccation is a common practice). 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
three weighings are required, note this in the results for the
subsequent MCEM results.
11.2.1.2 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 Buchner fritted funnel. 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 to 20 ml methylene
chloride, decant into the Buchner fritted funnel 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. Reweigh 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.
11.2.2 Container No. 2.
11.2.2.1 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 10.5 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.
11.2.2.2 MCEM analysis. Add 25 ml 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 11.2.1.2 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 Buchner fritted
funnel twice between samples with 5 ml solvent using pressure
filtration. After the second rinse, continue the flow of air until
the glass frit is completely dry. Clean the Buchner fritted funnels
thoroughly after filtering five or six samples.
11.2.3 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.
11.2.4 Container 3W (impinger water).
11.2.4.1 MCEM analysis. Transfer the solution into a 1,000 ml
separatory funnel quantitatively with methylene chloride washes. Add
enough solvent to total approximately 50 ml, if necessary. Shake the
funnel for 1 minute, allow the phases to separate, and drain the
solvent layer into a 250 ml beaker. Repeat the extraction twice.
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.
Reweigh the dish after a 30-minute equilibration in the balance room
and determine the weight to the nearest 0.1 mg.
11.2.5 Container 3S (solvent).
11.2.5.1 MCEM analysis. Transfer the mixed solvent to 250 ml
beaker(s). Evaporate and weigh following the procedures detailed for
container 3W in section 11.2.4 of this method.
11.2.6 Blank containers. Measure the distilled water, acetone,
or methylene chloride in each container either volumetrically or
gravimetrically. Transfer 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 11.2.4.1 of this
method.) Desiccate for 24 hours, and weigh to a constant weight.
Report the results to the nearest 0.l 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 Nomenclature.
An = 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
= l, 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 dry gas meter (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
H2O (in H2O).
= Density of acetone, 785.1 mg/ml (or
see label on bottle).
= Density of water, 0.9982 g/ml
(0.00220l lb/ml).
= Density of methylene chloride,
1316.8 mg/ml (or see label on bottle).
= Total sampling time, min.
1 = Sampling time interval, from the beginning
of a run until the first component change, min.
1 = 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.
[[Page 52425]]
60 = Sec/min.
100 = Conversion to percent.
12.3 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).
12.4 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] TR07OC97.010
Where
Kl = 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 the 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:
[Vm--(Lp--La) ]
(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] TR07OC97.011
and substitute only for those leakage rates (Li or
Lp) which exceed La.
12.5 Volume of water vapor condensed.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.012
Where
K2 = 0.001333 m3/ml for metric units;
= 0.04706 ft3/ml for English units.
12.6 Moisture content.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.013
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).
12.7 Acetone blank concentration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.014
12.8 Acetone wash blank.
Wa = Ca Vaw a Eq. 315-5
12.9 Total particulate weight. Determine the total PM catch
from the sum of the weights obtained from Containers l and 2 less
the acetone blank associated with these two containers (see Figure
315-1).
Note: Refer to section 8.5.8 of this method to assist in
calculation of results involving two or more filter assemblies or
two or more sampling trains.
12.10 Particulate concentration.
cs = K3 mn/Vm(std)
Eq. 315-6
where
K = 0.001 g/mg for metric units;
= 0.0154 gr/mg for English units.
12.11 Conversion factors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To Multiply by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ft \3\......................... m \3\............ 0.02832
gr............................. mg............... 64.80004
gr/ft\3\....................... mg/m\3\.......... 2288.4
mg............................. g................ 0.001
gr............................. lb............... 1.429 x 10-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.12 Isokinetic variation.
12.12.1 Calculation from raw data.
[[Page 52426]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.015
where
K4 = 0.003454 [(mm Hg)(m3)]/[(m1)( deg.K)] for
metric units;
= 0.002669 [(in Hg)(ft3)]/[(m1)( deg.R)] for English
units.
12.12.2 Calculation from intermediate values.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.016
where
K5 = 4.320 for metric units;
= 0.09450 for English units.
12.12.3 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.
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:
mmcem = total - wa
- wt - fb
13.0 Method Performance. [Reserved]
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 16.1 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 ft \3\/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 ft
\3\/rev) and be 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] TR07OC97.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.018
Where
K1 = 0.3858 for international system of units (SI); 17.64
for English units;
Pbar = Barometric pressure, mm Hg (in Hg);
Vw = Wet test meter volume, liter (ft\3\);
tw = Average wet test meter temperature, deg.C ( deg.F);
tstd = 273 deg.C for SI units; 460'F for English units;
= Run time, min;
tds = Average dry gas meter temperature, deg.C ( deg.F);
Vds = Dry gas meter volume, liter (ft\3\);
p = Dry gas meter inlet differential pressure, mm
H2O (in H2O).
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 DGMs 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.
6.2 Critical orifices as calibration standards. Critical
orifices may be used as
[[Page 52427]]
calibration standards in place of the wet test meter specified in
section 10.3 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 that has 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 Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix
A. 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 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 315-1 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 x 20 mm
sleeve type, into a 0.5 in 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 6.1.1.9 of this method to calibrate the
critical orifices. Other schemes may be used, subject to the
approval of the Administrator.
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 bypass 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
Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. 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
bypass 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 a 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 6.1.2 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 315-11.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07OC97.019
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).
16.2.2.2.7 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:
Vm(std) = K1 Vm [Pbar +
(H/13.6)]/Tm Eq. 315-12
Vcr(std) = K' (Pbar )/
Tamb1/2 Eq. 315-13
Y = Vcr(std)/Vm(std) Eq. 315-14
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
[[Page 52428]]
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.
18.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data
TABLE 315-1. Flow Rates for Various Needle Sizes and Tube Lengths.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate Flow rate
Gauge/length (cm) (liters/ Gauge/length (cm) (liters/
min) 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....................................... 20.67 115/10.2.............................. 10.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)....... ....................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final weight Tare weight Weight gain
(mg) (mg) (mg)
Container No. 1.............. .............
Container No. 2.............. .............
------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............
Less Acetone blank........... .............
Weight of particulate matter. .............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final volume Initial Liquid
(mg) volume (mg) collected
(mg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moisture Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tare of Methylene
Container No. Final aluminum Weight gain Acetone wash chloride wash
weight (mg) dish (mg) volume (ml) volume (ml)
MCEM Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................
2+2M............................
3W..............................
3S..............................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total....................... ........... ........... <3-ln-grk-S>mtot <3-ln-grk-S>Vaw <3-ln-grk-S>Vtw
al
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less acetone wash blank (mg) (not to exceed 1 mg/l of wa = capa <3-ln-grk-S>Vaw
acetone used).
Less methylene chloride wash blank (mg) (not to exceed wt = ctpt <3-ln-grk-S>Vtw
1.5 mg/l of methylene chloride used).
Less filter blank (mg) (not to exceed . . . (mg/ Fb
filter).
MCEM weight (mg)...................................... mMCEOM = <3-ln-grk-S>mtotal - wa - wt - fb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 97-25882 Filed 10-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P