p. 1



# OAR Box 1170 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 89 ) F
. R.Octobe r

2 , 199 0 Docket Number: 

# A-88-2 4

Printed 4/30/2008 10:49:06

AM Sheet 89 of 182P. 2

'^..r. 'r"^:0- 

### 'F^d^'it(%i8ter 7 VoI. : 

### v55^No>J9l ' / ^uesSay ' 'dctbt.e r

• £ J9^b ' /Rules'alMlfeg^feti&f e chargin g the^gfulatitjn . Th e regulation.' " ' '•'•'•• ' > i s adopte d a s firiaL' ••>.•(&••.-. • - ^. : A'technica l correctio n t o paragrap h (c)(3 ) is:bein g mad e b y addin g th e -.,: • phrase , "disablingeffectsdf/\This . v

. phras e wa s inadvertentl y omitte d i n th e ; proposedregulation ; N o substantive , changesSrebeingmade . • v VAha s determine d tha tthes e , ';.• • amende d regulation s d o ho tcontai n a ^najorrul e a s tha tter m i s define d i n •»" "
: ..j , ••••• • - p.&60utiye,Orferl2291rFederal ; « r.-...&.• . r ; i .Re^aUons i TTie.proposfdwi U ho thav e ^ > 3.''-- .- . : a $10 0 liiillio n annua l effec to n th e : ' . <V . . r ...,: « ecSnomy . wil l no tcaus e a major : : . • / • - ; -. _ -.••.'•-. : -v'-- ! increas e i n cost s o rprices , an d wil l co t :H- ;i ; '-'• ' .have'toylothe rsignifican tadvers e -. * -yeffect s o n th e economy. . .«_;, > ••-:•'• • r.-.'• Thes e regulator y amendment s ar e , . Lf- retroactivel y Effective . Thes e ar e •"'* . - .iflten>i«tive*uleswhibhimplement J " i 0 ''** . • ' statutor y provisions . Moreover , V A find s tha tgoo d caus e exist s fo rmakin g v thes e rules , liketh e sectio n o f the la w wliic h the y implement, retroactivel y effectiv e t

o the date o

f enactment. A . delaye d effectiv e dat e woul d b e . .contrar y t o statutor

y design ; woul d complicate implementatio n o f thi s provisio n o

f law ; an d migh

tresul ti n a denial of a benefi tt

o a veteran wh o i s entide d b y la w t

o tha tbenefi t. '\';.';'The^creta^:ipertifie8'thatthe8e ; ' amendment

s wil l not ; if

promulgated , / hav e a significanteconomi c impac to n a substantial numbe

r of smal l entitie s a s they ar e define d i h th e Regulator y Flexibilit y Ac t(RFA

) 5 U.S.C . 601-612 . Pursuant't

o 5 U.S.C.605(b) , thes e rule s are therefor

e exemp tfro

m th e initial an d fina l flexibilit

y analyse s requirement s o f ' section s 60

3 an d 604 . Th e reaso n fo r thi s certificatio n i s tha

tth e amendment

s onl y affec

tth e right

s of individua

l beneficiaries . N o ne w regulator y burdens ar

e impose d o n small entitie s b y thes e amendments . The Catalo g o

f Federa l domesti c Assistanc e numbe

r i s 64116 . Listo f Subjects i n 3 8 CF

RPar t2 1 Civi l rights , Claims , Education , Gran t programs , Loa

n programs , Reportin

g requirements , Schools . Veterans ; Vocationa

l education , Vocationa

l rehabilitation. ' Approved : Augus

t30,1990 .

. Edwar d J . Derwinski

, Secretary

of Veterans

Affairs. PAR T 21—[AMENDED ] 3 8 CF Rpar t21 , Vocationa l Rehabilitatio n an d Education , i s amende d b y revisin g paragrap h (c ) o f § 21.4 2 t o rea d a s follows : § 21.4 2 Basi c perio d o f eligibilit y deferred . [c] Medical condition prevents . .- initiation or

continuation. (1 ) The basi c 12-year perio d of

eligibilit y shal l ho t begi n t o ru n o r continu e t

o ru n durin g - any perio d of

3 0 day s o

r rhor e in which th e veteran' s participatio n i n vocational rehabilitatio n i s infeasibl e becaus e of th e veteran' s medical condition , .whic h conditio n ma

y includ e th e disablin g '••:•-.. .:.»-, effect s o f

chroni c alcoholism , subjectt o paragraph (c)(5 ) o

f thi s section . Th e 12 - yea r perio d shal l begi n o r resume whe n ; »:iti e feasiblefor'theveteran U)A - <• r-.-. ;. participat

e i n a vocationa l rehabilitatio n •program

, a s tha tter m i s definedi n " -AL ..•§,21.35.. -M-A-;^-:.'-i>-

: . .«•:...- ; yy-L.-. r \r.,

- , • A. (? ) Th e ten n "disablin g effect s o f A'. .;-.; chroni c alcoholism " mean s alcohol - ---f\ • induce d physica l o r menta l disorder s o r. both , suc h a s habitua l intoxication;'• . '•: .. . withdrawal , delirium , amnesia , A-'"'• . - dementia , an d othe rlik e manifestations , o f chroni c alcoholis m which , i n th e •< particula rcase : (i ) Hav e bee n medicall y diagnose d a s . manifestation s o f

alcoho l dependenc y o r chroni c alcoho l abuse ; and ; •-•.'•.'-• ' (ii ) Ar e determine d t o hav e prevente d commencemen to rcompletio n o f th e affecte d individual' s rehabilitatio n ..... . program . ••;.-

- -. V

.. . (3 ) A diagnosi s o f

alcoholism , chroni c alcoholism , alcoho l dependency , chroni c alcoho l abuse , etc. , i n an d o f itself , doe s no tsatisf y the . definitio n o f "disablin g effect s o f

chroni c ialc6hplism.* ! (4 ) Injur y sustaine d b y a Vetera n a s a proximat e an d immediat e resul to f 3 ? activit y undertake n b y th e veteran.while physicall y o rmentall y unqualifie d t o d o s o du e t o alcoholi c intoxicatio n i s ho t considere d a disablin g effec to f chroni c alcoholism. , (5 ) Th e disablin g effect s o f chroni c alcoholism , whic h preven tinitiatio n o r continuatio n o f

participatio n i n a vocationa l rehabilitatio n progra m after Novembe r17, 1988, shal l no tb e considere d t o b e th e resul to f willfu l misconduct. ' " : ••• • •"• ' ''-" * ' •*' " (Authority : 3 8 U.S. & lS03(b)(l).j?ubil_ . 100- : " 689 ) ."'.. ' ' - '*'. ' [FRDoc . 90-2329 4 File d -10-1^40 ; 8:4 5 am ] . BUima COO

E 832CM>i-

M . ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y ACTION : Fina l rule .

4 0 CF R Par t 6 0 [AD-FRL-3778-8 1 

# J

Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne w Stationar y Source s Amendment * t o Subpar t J (Petroleu m Refineries ) an d Additio n o f Performanc e Speci f Icatio n 7 t o Appendi x B AGENCY : Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA) . SUMMARY : Th e purpos e o f thi s actio n i s five-fold:; (1 ) T o requir e (a s oppose d t o bein g a n option ) th e monitorin g o f sulfu r dioxid e (SO. ) i n gase s discharge d .into ; ••'•. th e atmospher e fro m th e combustio n o f : fue l gase s or ; a s anelternatiye/thei T ' c , monitoriri

g of hydrogen 8ulfide(H_S ) ir i ;?'".'• • fue l gases ; (2 ) t o delet e th e mentio n of '"'.'.- controllin g SO . afte r combustio n o f fue l

_'4 :•:

- gasesip } to^detei^iho ^ requiremen

to f Ha S i h gase s discharged ^ : int o tihe atmospher e fro m Clau s sulfu r recovery plants , bu trequir e th e ; ij ; .- ; i-:~-y monitorin g o f

othe rreduce d sulfur '3L ': " S . compound s usin g continuou s emissio n ^ • • monitorin g 8y8temr(CEMS^ ) o r SO.-; , I ' CEMS'safte roxidizin g th e reduced . : Sulfu rcompound s t o SO_ ; (4 ) t o ad d :, '- . Performanc e Specificatio n (PS ) 7_.or.H_- . - CEMS's"to . Appendi x B o f thi s pait;?h_id ; (5 ) t o clarif y ambiguitie s i n th e existin g regulations . Al l affecte d fiie l ga s _ combustiondevice s an d Clau s plant s i n petroleu m refineries , subjec tto : subpar tJ . o f 4 0 CF Rpar t60 , Wi U b e require d t o instal l an d operat e CEMS' s withi n 1 yea ro f th e promulgatio n date . Thes e . ^monitorin g requirement s ar e no thew , bu tpreviou s Hj S an d reduce d sulfur;'_ ' CEM S instaUation s wer e contingen t; upo n th e Agency' s promulgatio n o f P S s .

. Thes e amendment s wer e publishe d i n . th e Federa l Registe ro n Marc h 1,198 9 (5 4 F R8564 ) an d Apri l 2 $ 198 9 (5 4 F R 

### •i83Q8j;..:.-''. ; 33"

A} 3033 .;. ' '••

. LOLL LO : DATES : Effective i^/iK^tobe r i li ^ ; . Judicial-review. Utide r section^'fivS J • 307(b)(1 ) o

f th e Clea n ^ Act . judicial revie w o f

th e action s take n b y this * ' v notic e i s availabl e onl y b y th e filing o f a petitio n for revie w ir

i th e U:S . Court'b

f Appeal s for th e Districto f Columbi

a Circui twithi n 6 0 day s o f

today's '3'" ' publicatio n of

thi s rule . Under sectio n . 307(b)(2) o

f th e Glea n Ai r Act . th e - requirenient

s tha tar e th e subjectof today' s notic e ma

y no tb e challenge d • : "- : '" !
- late r in civi l o r cnininal proceeding s brough tb y EP A t o eiiforc e thes e requirements. "'_

; .(!'. . ADDRESSES: Docket faocketNOiA^BB- ; 24 , containin g material ? relevan tt o thi s rulemaking , i s availabl e lo r publi c ; inspectio n an d copyin g betwee n 8:3 0 . a.m . an d 3:3 0 p^n „ Monda y throug h L Friday , atEM^aVUrDpcke tJSectipn ^ •• ; A;; : . Roo m M-1500,istJFloor , Watersidei.- . Mall , 401 M Stree tS Wi , Washington , D C 20460 . A reasonabl e fe e may.b e charge d forcopying. 7
. : • h , , o . FO R FURTHE R INFORMATIO N CONTACT : Fosto n Curti s o r Roge rT . Shigehara , : Emissio n Measuremen tBranc h (MD-19) , Technica l Suppor tDivision , U,S . •'..' • Environmenta l Protectio n Agency ; Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 27711 , telephon e numbe r(919 ) 541-1063 .P. 3

, • > .-•.. . 4017 2 : Fierie^RegJBiO T / Vol , 5&

y Nc v 18 * /-Tuesday s ;Qctohfegg2^193a/.iiftile s an d Rcguktidn s
SUPPLEMENTAR Y INFORMATION: . I . Th e Rulemaking Th e presen tntonitorir_

g requiren-jent

s fo * fue l ga s combustio n device s unde r S 6ai05(a ) (3 ) and (4 ) allow s fee option s of monitoring SOaafte r fuel gase s ar e combuste d o s monitorin g H_ 5 i n th e fue l gases . Sinc e Octobe r 6,187 5 (40 F R 46250) ; affecte d facilitie s choosin g t o monito r H3S i a th e fuel gase s hav e bee n exemptedfrom ihe . monitorin g requirement

s o f S 6O.105(aK4

) becaus e PS' 8 for . Ha S CEMS' s ha d no tbee n established . Thi a rulemaking wil l amend th e emissionmonitoringrequirement ^ t o en d thia exemptiop . Th e effec to f thi s rulemaking wfl l b e t o requir e affecte d facilitie s t

o monito r SO i after fuel ga s ^combustio

n ck , a s a n alternative * Ht S ir i the.fiielgas . -Whe n fiiel gase s ar

e burned i n a ' combustion , device , th e H_ S i s converte d t o SOa . Th e resulting SO

a concentratio n i s substantiall y les s tha

n th e correspondin g It S i n th e fuel ga s due t o dilutio n fro

m adde d combustionair.Th e amoun tof dilutio n ai r required fo

r complete fue

l ga s combustio n hinge s upon th e makeu

p of fuel ga s component

s (primaril y hydroge n an d hydrocarbons ) and thei r stoichiometri c nee d fo r oxygen . Th e EP

A investigate d a numbe

r o f typical fuel ga s composition s an d t h ei r combustio n products an d determine d that, a tzero percentexces s air, th e concentratio n o f

SO a forme d fro m combusting fue

l ga s containin g Hi S a tth e standard leve l (16

2 ppm) range d fro m 9 t o 2 5 ppm wit h th e majorit y o f value s between . 1 5 and 2

0 ppm . Thi s agree s with th e 15-t o 20-ppmSO i leve l note d i n th e backgroun

d documen

tto . th e propose d petroleu

m refinerie s standard . Realizin g th e complexit

y of establishin g th e SOa/Ha

S equivalency o n a case-by-cas e basis , EP A ha s selecte d 2 0 pp m t o representth e complianc e leve l fo r SO* . I n addition , rather tha n requirin g monitoring of

th e effluen tafter eac h combustion , device , EP A i s allowin g th e monitoring o f SOa . after only on e of

th e combustio n device s a s long a s tha

ton e locatio n accuratel y representsthe fuel ga s bein g burned b y al l of th e combustio n devices Daring 1978 and 1982 , EP

A conducte d evaluation s o f

HrS CEMS' s an d concluded 1 tha

tacceptabl e H. S CEMS' s wer e notavailable , (se e sectio n 4 o f P S 7). However , a Stat

e agenc y an d a loca l agency reported tha

tHi S CEMS' s hav e bee n installe d under thei r jurisdictio n tha tare operatin g satisfactorily . Certificatio n tes treports thathav e bee n submitted for Agenc y revie w indicate that, a tleas ti n thes e cases , acceptabl e CEM S accurac y an d calibratio n drif

t (CD

) ar e attainable . Othe

r data fro m regulator y agencie s hav e show n varyin g degree s of

succes s i n certifyin g an d * auditin g Hr

S CEMS's . Mos to

f thes e dat a wer e take n from HzSCEkfl * s o f th e sam e type , an d instrumentperformanc e appears t o b e linke d ta operato r an d maintenance proficiency . Thus..EP A ha s decide d to allo w th e us e of H_ S CEMS' s fo r fue l gase s as ; a n alternativ e to SO a y CEMS' s fo

r combuste d fue

l gaffes . Fo r thi s purpose , P S 7 wa s proposed . I n reviewin g th« regulations. EP A determine d thatth e optio n of controllin g SO a afte r combustin g th e fue l gase s wa s no tbein g used . Also , thi s optio n doe s notappear t o b e a n economicall y feasibl e alternativ e fo r futur e coi-sidetration . Therefore , mentio n o f thi s control optio n i s being delete d fro m th e regulation. Thi s action . however, : does i . notprohibitth e us e of

sue h contro l devices . I n th e future , source s tha

t desire t o bur n fuel gase s containin g H. S i n exces s o

f 230 mg/dsc m and control th e resulting SO

a emission s ma y petitio n th e Administrato r fo r a n alternativ e complianc e demonstration . Hydroge n sulfid e an d reduced sulfu r emitte d from Claus plants are regulate d b y standard s se tat1 0 and 300 ppm . respectively. Reduce d sulfur compounds , though : determined , separatel y fro

m HaS , ar e als o inclusiv e o f Ha S b y definition . Th e Agency ha s determined tha

ti ti s difficultt

o monitor th e disproportionat

e concentration s o

f Ha S and othe r reduce d sulfu r compound s o n a continua l basis , . especiall y atlevel s nea r th e standards . Therefore , a separat

e determinatio n of Hz S apar tfro m other reduce d sulfu

r . compounds wil l notb e required , bu t onl y th e continuou s monitoring o f reduced sulfur compounds . Performanc e Specificatio n 5 and Metho d 1 5 or 15 A wil l b e use d t o evaluate th e reduce d sulfu r CEM S performance . Fo r greate r flexibility . CEM S tha t oxidize s th e reduce d sulfu r t o SO * and • analyze s th e concentratio n of the resultin g SO

a wil l b e allowed ; Rathe

r tha n tryin g t o determine th e concentratio n o

f SO a equivalen tt o th e reduced sulfu

r concentration , EP

A wil l us e th e leve l o

f 25 0 pp m SO a (dr y basis , zero percentexces s air

) t o representth e SO a complianc e leve L Thi s concentratio n i s consisten twith the contro l optio n o f combusting th e effluen

t gase s unde

r § 60.102(a)(2](i) . I n additio n t

o th e abov e changes , ambiguities i n th e existin g regulation s ar e being-clarified b y correcting . . inconsistencie s an d b y specifyin g pertinen ttestin g procedure s tha t originally wer e only implied . Thi s rulemakin

g doe s no timpos e emissio n measuremen

trequirement

s beyon d tiios e specifie d i n th e current regulations , neithe r doe s i tchang e an y emission , standard 1 no r mak e i tmor e stringen tRather , th e rulemakin g wi B facilitat e th e us e c f

acceptabl e CEMS' s and allo w affecte d facilitie s t o compl y with'monitoring requirements t o whic h the y are alread y subjec t II . Publi c Pt^rticipation

. Lj.Ly-n's. «>W

f Th e opportunit

y t o hcvldpoblid r hearing s a t1 0 ajn . o a Marc h 22 ; 1S8S fo

r tii e propose d subpar

tprevision s an d Ma y 19,198 3 fo r propose d PS : 7 wa s presente d bu tn o on e desire d to>mak e a n oral : presentation . Th e publi c commen t period s wer e fro

m Mait h 1 ta Ju%

. 12 ; . " 198 9 fo r th e subpartJrevisioosan d fro m April 2 8 t o Ju_Fl2,198?'ftrR$7..<-'• ! " T ffl. SigiiificwtCommentsandChange s t o th a Propose d Rulemakin g . ;. r Seve n commentletter s wer e receive d fro m th e proposa

l o f th e rulemakings . The majo r comments an d response s ar e summarized i n thi s preamble . Mos to f th e commentletter s containe d multipl e comments . Th e significan tcomment s and subsequen tmetho d change s are : liste d here . 1 . On e commente r requested tha t.' . permeatio n tub e calibratio n system s and scrubbers b e allowe d a s alternative s t o Method s 3,6 , an d 1 1 for spa n calibratio n an d zer o check s of

CEMS's . "Hie

; '..'. commente r note d tha tcommercially availabl e syston s hav e bee n found t o b e extremel y accurat

e an d reliable for foe l ga s an d Claus plan tunits an d ar e fa r superio r to older ; labor-intensive , wet chenrica l procedures : ,. , Approvin g alternative s fo r specifi c calibratio n system s beyon d th e EP A referenc e method s i s no twithi n th e scop e o f th e rulemaking . Written request s fo r approva

l shoul d b e submitte d t

o th e Directo r of

EPA' s Technical Suppor

tDivision . Th e reques t mustinclud e a clearl y define d procedur e tha tca n b e uniforml

y followed, supporting dat a showin g th e alternative' s comparabilit y t o th e reference method , and : procedure s - addressin g th e appropriat e qualit y assuranc e (QA ) measures . 2 . Anothe r commenter strongly urged EP A t o take^ i "mor

e reasonable " approac h t o th e exemptio n from th e C O CEM S requiremen

tprovide d i n § 60.105(a)(2)(ii) . Th e followin g reasons wer e offered to suppor

tthi s stand : a . A demonstratio n tha

tC O emission s ar e les s tha n 5 0 pp m wa s thoughtf

o b e excessivel y restrictive . Instead , a limit o f 30 percentof

th e standar d shoul d b e ampl e t o sho w tha

ta uniti s designe d fo

r high-efficienc

y regeneratio n and thata CEM S i s notwarrante dP. 4



### Federa l Register,/.

- Vol, ; 55i No; v 

### 191^/;;Tue8dayrjOctober< 2, i 19SQ1 / Rtile s an d ffiegUations : 'J4Q17 3 b . Requirin

g 3 0 day s of

continuou s ' monitoring dat

a t o demonstrat

e a CEM S woul d notb e necessary . Althoug h thi s may b e desirabl e i n som e instances , i t wa s recommended tha

tperformanc

e tes t dat a b e allowe d i n lie u of

continuou s monitoring data . •,:.', ; :••- . . c . Th e languag e i n § 60.105(a)(2)(ii ) need s clarifying t

o requir e tha tEP A . . issu e a n exemptio n whe n the require d . . information i s submittedwith th e writtenreques tAs.proposed , a lack o f response from EP

A woul d leav e th e :,

. owne r oroperatprir i a

n unclear ......':.,

. complianc e status . .. . _»„•;'. - . ; d . I twa s ho tclea r t

o th e commenter i

f an y additional requirements wit h th e revision s (Le

M CEM S relative accuracy (RA) demonstrations ] affectowner s o r operators wh o submitte d requests.fo r . exemptio n unde r th e existing':'":- ]' A y , requirements. • • -0..-.' The Metho d 6 flo w rat

e of 2 liters/mi n i n S 60.105(a)(3)(iii ) was . questioned . Wit h th e Metho d 6 detectio n limita t3.4 . m g SO a whe n samplin g at1 liter/mi n fo r 2 0 minutes , I

twa s no tunderstoo d wh y a larger sampl e wa s needed , sinc e thi s i s approximately 6 percentof th e 20 pp m standard . Thi s chang e wa s considere d a n adde d complication , an d itwa s recommended tha

ti tb e reconsidered . I

f thi s chang e coul d b e trul

y justified , som e flexibilit

y i n th e sampling flo w rat e wa s requested , such a s "approximatel

y 2 liters/min. " Filially , th e commenter objecte d t o wha twa s though

tt o b e a chang e t o rolling 3-hbu

r averagin g period s fo

r determining complianc e wit h § 60.105(a

) (3 ) and (4) . I

twa s note d tha

tn o rational e for thi s chang e wa s discusse d i n th e supplementar

y information , and tha tthi s wa s clearl y a n adde d recordkeeping requirement , nota clarification . Curren

trule s wer e though

t t o require tha

tmonitoring record s b e kep tfo r 3-hou r block periods , o

f which ther e ar e eightper day . A198 6 EP A ^ memorandu

m t o directors of

EP A Regiona l ai r division s wa s cite d a s evidenc e o

f th e EP A policy of

using bloc k averages . B y increasin g th e requiremen

tt o rolling 3-hou

r periods , th e Agency woul d caus e a threefold increas e t o th e recordkeeping burde n and a tripl e counting of

an y extende d period s of exces s emissions . ; "ITi e propose d rule doe s notchange th e CEM S exemption 1 requirement s nor th e averagin g perio d o f

th e existin g regulation . Therefore , comment s t o thes e points and an

y subsequentchange s base d o n th e comment

s ar e beyon d th e scop e of thi s rulemaking . Concerning.the issuanc e o f a n exemption , th e intento

f th e wording in S 60.105(a)(2)(ii ) i s t o not e tha tth e exemptio n i s contingentupon th e Agency' s decisio n after reviewing th e

submitte d demonstratio n dat a and i •••, exemptio n reques tno tupon it s submission . Mentioning tha ta n exempte d sourc e i s notrequire d t o : : . perfor m additional CEMS.testin g requirement

s i s no tnecessar y sinc e a n exemptio n from monitoring implie s that . , n o CEM S wil l b e installe d t

p furthe r test . Unde r norma

l situations , a source tha

t ha s submitte d ar

i exemptio n reques ti s no trequired t

o perfor m additional i , : . testin g until.th e Agency make s a - *-• : decision . In som e case s though , th e .A0 Agenc y may nee d t o reques tinteri m c . tests . However , i

f th e decisio n i s such ..

. tha ta CEM S mustb e installed , thi s Ap A CEM S ma y b e subjecte d t o a n R

A test, . Th e requiremen

ti n 5 60.105(a)(3)(iii ) : t o operat e Metho d 6 at2 liters/mi n fo r ..' • atleas t3 0 minute s wa s mad e t o - minimiz e th e analytical erro r that , results from measuring small titration volumes . Fo r routine Metho d 6 analyses , sampl e .titration volume s o f

atleas t2 m

l are desire d t o minimiz e th e erro r contributed b y bure

tinaccuracy and th e averagin g of

duplicat e measurements . T o ad d flexibilit

y an d confor

m with th e guideline s give n i n Method 6, a n approximate , sampling flo w rat e of 2 liters/rni n wil l b e required . _ Finally , th e requirementfo r 3-hou r rolling SO

a average s i s no ta chang e from curren

tpractice . Th e block . averagin g perio d mentione d i n th e Marc h 1986 memorandu

m i s applicabl e - specificall y t

o determination s o

f complianc e with applicabl e nationa l ai r qualit y standards . Curren

tpolic y permit s emissio n limits establishe d t o comply wit

h such standard s t o b e expresse d eithe r a s block or rollin g averages . Th e sam e hold s tru e fo r complianc e wit

h emissio n contro

l requirement

s under applicabl e par

t6 0 standards . I

n th e cas e i n question , th e rolling averag e wa s th e origina l intent . Thu s today' s actio n i s nota change from th e presen trequirements. 3 . One commenter though ttha tP S 7 lef tmuc h t o b e desired . Basi c measure s of analyze r performance , such a s calibratio n error

, respons e time , an d

. . operationa

l tes tperio d wer e though

tt o b e needed . Havin g t

o meetth e C

D specificatio n o n onl y 6 outof 7 tes tday s woul d no tencourage adjustmen to f th e analyze r whe n drif

texceed s th e specification.'Complianc e wit h th e C D specificatio n withou texception s wa s preferred , wit

h short-ter

m and zero drif

t specification s als o included . A tth e ver y leas tlanguage indicatin g tha tState s ma y impos e additional o r mor e stringent specification s wa s desired . Th e commenter though

ttha tthe requiremen

tt o repor tonl y exces s emission s woul d notallo w a n agency t

o tak e int

o accoun tperformanc

e durin g - ; complianc e period s whe n determining enforcementaction . Requirin g source s t

o repor tdata fo r a) l time s period s wa s favore d sinc e a differen

tenforcement••• actio n ma y b e appropriat

e fo r a source thatoperate s mos tof

th e time near th e standard tha

n for a sourc e tha

tusuall y operate s wel l belo w th e standard . Continua l CEM S complianc e and , Appendi x F procedure s wer e no t.,..-'' • - mandate d for subpar

tJ sources . Th e P

S tes tprocedure' s ar

e no tdesigne d fo r '-'"'

. long-ter m evaluatio n nor for continua l complianc e bu

tt o provid e jfhe.initia

l ^ Chec k o f th e Instrument' s capabilitie s at

. th e tim e of

installation . Th^AgericyC : '•<*. feel s thatCEM

S dat a accuracy and -'} representativeness ca n b e dempristrated sufficientl y b y R

A ari d C D tests . A mor

e

. in-dept h evaluatio n o

f th e CEM S atthe discretio n o f

th e operato r i s encouraged , butthi s additional testiri g nee d no tb e required sinc e th e overal l qualit y o f monito r dat

a ca n b e determine d b y the R A an d C D tests . Th e R A and C D specification s are determine d from studie s o f CEM S " performanc

e ove r extende d period s o f time . I n a n Agenc y stud y o f

Ha S CEMS's, th e mos treliabl e instruments ' wer e onl y capabl e of

meetin g CD' s o

f 5 percep to r les s o n 6 o f

7 tes tdays . '

- Th e changing o f

reporting ._'-'•"<•

A.- A requirement

s i s beyon d the scop e o f

thi s : rulemaking . Th e purpos e of the V-y - ;_ - rulemaking i s t o revis e th e subpar tJ '. ' monitoring and testiri g requirement s t o ad d clarit y and additional information ; . tha twer e originally lef

tou tThi s doe s : no tinclud e revising th e reporting criteria tha

thav e becom e a standar

d procedur e fo r man y source categories . Regulation s governin g State' s authorit y are neithe r addresse d nor regulated i n subpar tJ . bu ti n othe r section s o

f th e regulations. 4 . A commenter note d tha tth e wordin g chang e to § 60.10 4 migh tb e construe d t

o limitth e exemptio n of

flar e ga s associate d with emergenc y malfunctio n situations . Thi s shoul d b e clarifie d b y revisin g th e wordin g t o recognize th e fac

tthatproces s upse t gases , eve n whe n no tth e direc tresul to f a n "emergenc

y malfunction', ' (e.g. , proces s uni

tupset s du e t

o changing - feedstock , etc.) , mustb e handle d b y a flar e syste m for safety considerations . Th e propose d wordin g ha s bee n clarifie d t o reflec tthis . 5 . Anothe r commenter sa w no technical reason.why th e SO a CEMS' s shoul d notb e use d fo

r directcomplianc e wit h SO a emissio n limitation s a

tsubpar t J sources . Th e propose d revision s wer e though tt o b e inconsisten twit

h th e subpar tD b rulin g which use s th e sam eP. 5

. . • * 

### AgfO-t .Fedoral;Bagfeter.-.-/-.VoL,S5 j No;,tat. /

Taeaday; , Ocfobe c 2,19 ^ / Rde s aiklRtegnJatkm s CEMS' s a s subpart ) fo r direc t- compMance^T__

e proposedruleab c aprpeare d to conflictvrit

h curren tEPA. polic y (a s suggeste d i n a

m EP A internal memorandum

) of usin g CEM

S data in . th e enforcementprocess . Becaus e ofth e qraaatit y o f SO . emission s fro

m refineries ; and . du e to pas texperienc e with severa l refinerie s unde r th e commenter'sjtBrtsdictioa . fee. . enforcemento

£ continuou s compliance : wit h SOa..emi«sionliinitat_o*- 9 wa s •• : though tto b e imperative. , ,.

_ Th e commenter als o fel tthat . • incinerator s following Qau s plants shotti d b e monitore d fortemperature . an d crxyge

a to ensur e total snifk r oxidatio n to SOs.i twa s note d tiiati n 5 6ai53(bM3) , flteoperatottof indner a tor

a locate d a tsewag e treatmen tplant s ar e leojaired t

o install , calibrate , inaintain , and operat e temperatur

e devices . Simila r languag e wa s desire d for subpar

tJ indnerators . Th e sam e commenter questione d th e flexibilit y of span s allowe d i n S 6 0 J05(aKl ) fo r opadl y CEMS's . Th e commente r argued that

, th e benefit s o

f additiona l accuracy refinement s d o no t justif y tha e cost s a s lon g a s Metho d 9 remain s th e sol e complianc e method . Th e commente r fel ttha

tth e argument

s fo r allowin g th e us e of

CEM S dat a i n lie u of Metho d 9 observation s fo r complianc e determination s wer e stil l vali d whe n th e CEM

S i s properl

y installed , certified , an d maintained i n accordanc e with PS I o

f appendixB . I t- wa s argued tha tth e Agenc y eithe r allo w th e CEM S dat a fo r direc

tcomplianc e o r eliminat e th e allowanc e fo r spa n flexibility . I twa s initiall y determined whe n th e subpar tJ regulation s wer e develope d tha tdi e monitoring dat

a woul d b e use d t o documen

texces s emissions . Thi s requiremen

tcanno tb e change d i n dii s rulemaking sinc e such a chang e woul d constitut e a major actio n instea d o f a clarificatio n and woul d requir e a separate assessmen tan d proposal wit h accompanyin g CEM

S Q A specifications . Th e oxidatio n efficiency o f th e contro l devic e wil l b e documente d throug h Metho d 1 5 testin g for reduce d sulfo r compounds , an d th e adde d requirement s for oxyge n an d temperatur e CEMS' s wil l no tb e necessary . . Th e ns e of

noncompliance CEMS' s i n th e propose d revision s i s no t inconsisten twith EP

A polic y mentione d i n th e memorandum. A s note d i n th e memorandum ; dat

a from: CEMS' s that ar e no tth e complianc e metho d "should b e use d to monito r th e continuou s complianc e of

source s and to initiate follow-up actio n includin g on-site inspections,-guestin g further information ; and issuin g a notic e of violation; " 6 . A CMmnente

r fro m industr y inquire d abou ta situatio n i n whic h " som e o f tiieir refinery' s faaBtie s wer e required b y tiie EP

A Regiona

l Offic e and th e Stat e agenc y t o instal l CEMSt e unde r applicabl e Preventio n o

f Significant Deterioratio n (PSDJand constructio n penni trequirements eve n thoug h fue l ga s combustio n device s hav e bee n exempte d for H ^ monitoring requirements sinc e 1975i . Thirteen analyzer s wer e installe d a ta significant cos tTwelv e o f

thes e an_dyzer

s wer e installe d betwee n 197

7 ad o 1983 during EPA' s performanc

e evaluatio n o f

H_ S CEMS's ; Althoug

h EP A condude d tha

t acceptabl e Hi S CEMS' s wer e no t avaUable , fee refinery wa s sti U required t o instal l whateve r analyzer s wer e availabl e a tthattime.In vie w o f this , • th e commentermad e fee foUowin g recommendations . a. Th e CEMS' s tha twer e required t o b e installe d b y State o r Federa l permit s prio r t o th e proposa

l dat e o f fee subject rul e shoul d b e exemp tfrom performanc e specificatio n tes t(PST

) requirements . b . Th e regulation s shoul d allo w benc h testin g an d certificatio n ofth e CEMS' s b y th e manufacturer. c . I f a facilit y ha s installe d mor

e tha n on e CEM S o f fee sam e mak e an d manufacturer

, onl y on e PS T nee d b e conducte d t

o certif y th e remaining CEMS's. The cos to f

certifyin g severa l identical analyzer s i s significantan d a n unnecessary expense . Fo r CEMS' s tha

thav e already bee n installe d unde

r Regiona l Offic e PS D requirements, exemption s or "grandfathering " o

f ne w monitoring requirements mus tb e requeste d o n a case-by-cas e basi s throug h th e Regiona

l Offic e tha tRequire d th e initial CEM

S installation . Th e Agency doe s no tfee l tha tCEM S benc h testin g and certificatio n b y th e manufacture

r represents a fail-saf

e mean s o f verifyin g instrumen t performance . Manufacturer s hav e a veste d interes ti n th e outcome o f such evaluations . Benc

h testin g ma

y b e routinel y don e to initiall y demonstrat e the reliability o

f the instrumen

tt o th e purchaser . However , thi s shoul d notb e substitute d fo

r a complet

e an d observe d PS T after th e CEM

S ha s bee n installe d and i s functioning unde

r actua l conditions . Al l CEMS' s tha

tar e notmonitoring th e sam e proces s strea

m wil l nee d t

o b e evaluate d b y PST , regardles s e f mak e o r manufacturer

. Experience.ha s show n tha teve n wit

h identical CEMS' s performanc

e ca n vary fro

m um tto uni t Factors tha taffec

tth e performanc

e o f CEMS' s indud e interria l malfunction s thatma y b e specifi c ta^individna l unit s a s wel l a s operationa l variable s feat reflectoperato r technique. Th e Initia l performanc

e of i eac h CEM

S ca n onl y b e verifie d b y testin g eac h uni tunde r actual installed , conditions. ; 7 - A commenter reconmBHide d tha ta n exemptio n shou

M beallowedwhe n it » demonstrate d feat feereducedsulfur Ha S emission s fro

m subjec tClau s units ; ar e weU belo w fee respectiveiSCXFand'l O pp m standard level s during routin e an d norma l operation . Wif

e Snifte n tai l ga s treating units , continuou s H_SCEMS" s ar e alread y utilize d an d fee reduce d sulfu r wa s reported tobe barel y detectable . Dni tupsetran d upetrea m operationa

l problem s wi

H reflectlos s o f optimu m operatin g cond?tion s long ; befor e any resultantincrease d Wemission s excee d th e reduce d sulfur , regulatory limi tTherefore , a n exemptio n from fee continuou s monitorin g o f

reduced sulfu r an d oxyge n from thes e source s shoul d h e allowed . I n addition , fee commente r recommended feat fee time perio d for CEM S installatio n ataffected " refinerie s b e extende d t

o atleas t1 8 month s t o allo w suffiden ttim e for procuremen t installation , and . calibration , o f th e instrumen tWher

e Ha S analyzer s ar e ._

• employe d a s standar d equipmen tfor Claus recovery plants, , th e analyze r ma y serv e a s fee CEMS , provide d itpasse s fee PS T an d reflects representativ e measurementof

emissions . Monitorin g exemption s ma

y b e considere d i n those , case s wher e emission s ar e routinel y muc h lowe r tha n th e standar d an d where ther

e i s a n economi c incentiv e to operat e th e devic e t o minimiz e operationa

l problem s an d upse t conditions . Exemption s fo r device s tha

t mee tthes e condition s ar

e bes t considere d on

. case-by-cas e requests sinc e such device s represen ta minorit y o f fee tota l i n operation . Th e Agency doe s no tthin k a n extensio n o f

th e CEM S installatio n perio d i s warranted . Affecte d source s ar e notifie d b y fee propose d rulemakin g o f fee intende d monitorin g needs . A n approximat

e perio d o f 1 yea r betwee n regulation proposa l an d promulgatio n affords time to surve y th e CEM S marke t I n conjunctio n wif

e th e 1-yea r installatio n period , thi s ha s prove n t o b e adequat e IV . Administrative Th e docke ti s a n organize d an d complet e file o f al l th e information considere d b y EP

A i n fee developmen t o f thi s rulemaking . Th e docke ti s a dynami c file, sinc e material i s adde d throughou

tth e rulemaking developmen tP. 6



### S^sdlffiEfiiJ-

; 

### K^gistoE : /^:V(>L;'S%;^,- : 

### l^.,/y.Tiiie|S^a^,',.pc'tober..2 , .IdSO.V.^tdes^'^ad^cstiilatiosits.-;
. 

## 25 - Th e docketin g syste mi s intende dto . - aMowariember s o f

Sh e publi c an d -...'.':.
. industrie s involve dt o identif y readily an d locat e document s s o tha t the y ca n effectivel y participatei n fee ralemaking process . Alon g wif

e fee statemen t

o f basi s an dpurpos e o f

th e propose dan d promulgate drevision s an d _3P A response s to significan t

comments , fee content s of

fee docke t

excep t for interagenc y revie w materials , wil l serv e a s fee recordi n cas e o f

judicia l revie w (section307tdK7HA)). ; AL-A. '•,/ ' :' " UnderExecutiv e Order12291 , EP A
. mus t judg e whethe r

aregulation i s "major " and , feerefore, siabjec t t o fee '<

- requiremen t

o f aregulator y impac
. analysis
. Th e Agenc y ha s determine d tha t thi s ruleinakjn g woul d mH result i n an y o f th e advers e economi c effect s se t forth i n section
. 1 o f

fee Orde r

a s ground s fo r

findin g a".najo r

(rule. " Th e Agenc y has , therefore , conclude d feat thi s regulatio n i s no t

a"majo r rule " unde r Executiv e Orde r

12291
. . Th e Regulatory Flexibility Ac t (RFA) of 198 0 require s fee identificatio n of potentiall y advers e impact s o f Federa l regulations upo n smal l busines s entities
. Th e Ac t specificall y require s th e completio n o

f a n RF A analysi s i n thos e instance s wher e smal l busines s impact s ar e possible
. Becaus e thi s rulemakin g impose s n o advers e economi c impacts , a n analysi s ha s no t

bee n conducted
. Pursuan t t o fee provision s of

5 U.S.C
. 605(b) , I hereb y certif

y feat fee promulgate drul e wil l no t hav e a n impac t o n smal l entitie s becaus e n o additiona l cost s wil l b e incurred
. Thi s rul e doe s no t

chang e an y informatio n collectio n requirements currentl y approve d b y OMB unde r fee Paperwork

Reductio n Ac t

o f 1980.4 4 U.SC
. 350 1 et

seq. Informatio n requirements containe di n 4 0 CF Rpar t 60 , Appendi x A ar e cleare dunde r OM B Contra
. Numbe r

2080-0022
. lis t o f Subject s i n m CF

Rfar t (S O Ai r pollutio n control
. Intergovernmenta l (relations
. Reportin g an drecordkeepin g requirements , Incorporatio n b y reference , an d Petroleu mrefineries
. Dated : Septembe

r 21,1930
. Willia mK
. Reiily , Administrator. 4 0 CF Rpar t 6 0 i s amende da s follows :
1
. Th e authorit y fo

r par t 6 0 continue s t o reach Authority : 4

2 U.S.C
. 7401
. 7411.7414.7416 , 7801
. .§6©.W'.|/to«n«_®«. J ...~;...'.' , ..-.., . ,,'.,- i In8«d.l7{aH«8 ) feroiigfa(59J
. mentio n o f

"f i 60.108(hJ{2) " i s revised to read"g«8.a(J8(jH2i). " §80;.0 3 IAnmm_e<9

] •'
. .,-;_.;. • 3
. I n .- § £0.103{a} , th e phras e "gase s .. . > whic h contai n carbon'monoxid e i n exces s of 0.05 0 percen t

h y volume. " i s revise dt o rea d"gase s feat contai n carbo n monoxid e (CO ) i n exces s o f 500 pp mb y volum e (dr y basis)."
. 4
. I n § B0.104 , paragraph s (a)f_ i PRi] , an d (2)(ii ) ar e revise d t o rea da s follows : §50..©< ) Stet«_S5^fwOMKi_ir'®ii!<!les
. {a)°A.° :. . - ';-,;.-•• ? (1 ) Bu mis
. an y fue l ga s combustio n devic e an y Hue
. ga s feat

contain s hydroge n suM.d

e p-JsS
. i n exces s o f

23 0 mg/dsCB

- $0.1 0 gr/dscf)
. Th e <cbn_bust_o n i n aflare o f

proces s upse S |is£ 8 o r

&e 8 - ga s thai._B{releasedtotthelaraaa'a

- ' : resul t o f relie f valv e leakag e o r

©fee r -- • emergenc y malfunction s i s exemp t from thi s paragraph
. - - • (2) ° (i ) Fo r a n oxidatio n contro l syste mo r areduction contro l syste mfollowe d b y incineration , 25 0 pp mby volum e (dr y basis ) of sulfu r dioxid e (SOa

) a t zer o percen t exces s air
. (ii ) Fo r areduction contro l syste mno t followe d b y indneration , 30 0 pp mb y volum e o f reducedsu.fur

compound s an d 1 0 pp mb y volum e o f hydroge n sulfid e (HaS) , eac h calculate da s pp m SO ab y volum e (dr y basis

j a t zer o percen t exces s air
. 5
. I n § S0.105
. (a)(1 ) throug h {aM7_
. (a)(13j(i) , (d) , an d fe ) ar s vevisied. an d (a)(14 ) i s removed to rea d a s follows : §60.20 5 Monitoring

Ar t emission s an d opsratlono
. (a ) * * ^ (1 ) Fo r flui d catalyti c crackin g uni t catalys t regenerator s subjec t

t o § &0.102(a)(2) , a n instrumen t fo r continuousl y monitorin g an d recording th e opacit y o f

emission s int o fee atmosphere
. Th e instrumen t shal l h e spanne d a t

60,70
. o r 8 0 percen t

opacity
. (2 ) Fo r flui d catalyti c crackin g uni t catalys t regenerators subjec t

to § ©0.103(a) , a n instrumen t fo r continuousl y monitorin g an drecordin g th e concentratio n h y volum e fdr y hasis ) o f C O emission s int o fee atmosphere , excep t a s provide d i n paragrap h (a)(2 ) (ii ) o f thi s section
. (i ) Th e spa n valu e fo r

thi s instrumen t i s 1,00 0 pp mCO
. (ii ) A C O continuou s monitorin g syste mnee d no t

b e installe di f

fee owne r o r operato r demonstrate s feat fee averag e C O emission s ar e les s tha n 5 0 pp m(dr y basis ) an dals o files awritte n reques t for exemptio n t o th e Administrato r an dreoei-ve s suc h an . • exemption
. Th e demonstratio n flhaii consis t o f continuousl y monitorin g G O emission s for

3 0 day s usin g a n instrumen t

feat shal l snee t

fee requirement s o

f fPerformsssce .-• • Specificatio n <

_o f Appendi x iBo f

thi s : j part
. The spa n valu e sha l Sss 100 pp m C O instea do f

1/88 0 ppm , an d fee relativ e accurac y limi t

shal l b e 1 0 percen t o f th e averag e O O emission s o r 5 pp mCO , whicheve r

is.greater, ' Fo r

-.< - - instalment s feat

ar e identica l to Metho d 1 0 an d emplo y fee sampl e coad i J-onim g syste mof Metho d 10A , th e ffijbtemative- • relative accurac y test

procedur e m - § 10. ao f JPerformanc e S_>ec_EcaSioi- 2
. . ma y b e use d i n plac e o f

fee rdathr e accurac y tes t

. (3 ) Fo r fuel ga s combustio n device s - subjec t S o % <30._.04(ap) , a n tetrunieriS for continuousl y monitorin g ari d recording th e concentratio n b y volum e (dr y basis , zer o percen t

exces s air ) o f SO aemission s int o fee atmospher e (excep t wher e a n HaS monito r

I s installe d unde r

paragrap h (a)(4 ) o f

thi s section)
. Th e monito r

shal l includ e a n oxyge n monito r

for correctin g fee dat a fo r exces s air
. (i ) Th e spa n value s for

thi s monito r ar e 5 0 ppr aSO aan d 1 0 percen t .oxygen (Oa)
. {ii ) Th e SO amomtorin g leve l equivalen t

t o fee H_ S standar d unde r § 60.104(a)(1 ) shal l b e 2 0 pp m{dr y basts , zer o percen t

exces s air)
. (iii ) Th e performanc e evaluation s fo r thi s SO amonito r

unde r % 60.13(c ) shal l us e Performanc e Specificatio n 2
. . . Method s 6 an d 3 shal l b e use d fo r conductin g fee relative accurac y evaluations
. Metho d S sample s shal l b e take n a t aflo w rat e o f

approximatel y 2 liters/mi n fo

r a t leas t 3 0 minutes
. Th e relative accurac y limi t

shal l b e 2 0 percen t o r 4 ppm , whicheve r

i s greater , an d fee calibratio n drif

t limi t shal l h e 5 percen t o f th e establishe d spa n value
. (iv ) Fue l ga s combustio n device s havin g acommo n sourc e of fue l ga s ma y b e monitore da t

onl y ori e locatio n (Le. , afte r on e o f fee combustio n devices) , i f monitorin g a t

fels locatio n accurately ' - represent s fee S aemission s int o th e atmospher e fromeac h o

f fee combustio n devices
. (4 ) I n plac e of

fee SO amonito r

i n paragrap h (a)(3 ) o

f thi s section , a n instrumen t

for continuousl y monitorin g an d recording fee concentratio n (dr y basis ) o f H_ S i n fuel gase s befor e bein g burne di n an y fue l ga s combustio n device
. (i ) Th e spa n valu e for

thi s instrumen t i s 42 5 mg/dsc mHaS
. (ii ) Fue l ga s combustio n device s havin g acommo n sourc e of fuel ga s ma yP. 7

Fatea l JRegsfer;/ r

Vol
. 55,^No.;19 1 /

Tuesday , Octobe r

2 , 1990, /

Rule s lan d Regulaticins J 

## 3y>i.r «r ~ b e monitore d a t

onl y on e location , i

f
. r monitorin g a t

thi s locatio n accuratel y represents fee cohcentratioh* ? o f Mi s i n : th e fuel'ga s bein g burned
. (iii ) Th e performanc e evaluation s fo r this'Ha S monito r

unde r § 60.13(c ) shal l ^ us e Performanc e Specificatio n 7. Mefeo d 1 1 shal l b e iise d for

conductin g fee '-.. , relativ e accurac y evaluations.
. - . (5 ) Fp r Clau s sulfur

recover y plant s wif e oxidatio n contro l system s o r ; .'.,.
. reduction contro l system s followe d b y .•-.'.* ' ±3%'. '•-. fecirief

atio n subjec t

t o § 60.104(a)(2)(i),:

_ 0' 1 - • ; • ; a n instrumen t fo r continuousl y v

. monitorin g an d recording fee 'cbhcentratio n (dr y basis , zer o percen t i •'_•'" • exces s ah ) of

SO

_emission s int o the ' j-v
. atmosphere
. Th e monito r shal l includ e i a n oxyge n monito r fo r correctin g fee dat afor exces s air. ; < -; j "•' (i ) Th e spa n value s fo r thi s monito r / . ; - ar e 500 ppinSO s an d 1 0 percen t Oa
. ""t:'- "
. (ii ) Th e performanc e evaluation s fo r thi s SO i monito r

unde r g 60.13(c ) shal l us e Performanc e Specificatio n 2
. Method s 6 an d 3 shal l b e use d fo r Conductin g fee relative accurac y evaluations
. ; (6 ) Fo r Clau s sulfur

recover y plant s wit h reduction contro l systemsno t " followe d b y incineratio n subjec t to '••..
. § 60.104(a)(2)(ii) , a n instrumen t fo r : -

. continuousl y monitorin g an d recording ' • ; • fee concentratio n of

reduced sulfu

r an d

. Q

_emission s int o fee atmosphere
. Th e reduce d sulfu

r emission s shal l b e • ; calculate d a s SO a(dry basis , zer o percen t exces s air)
. ' (i ) Th e spa n value s fo

r thi s monito r ar e 45 0 pp mreduced sulfu r an d 10 : ' percen t

Oa.'. 1

- '1''

•* ' •' ' '" " " (ii ) Th e performanc e evaluation s fo r thi s reduce d sulfu

r (an d Q_ ) monito r unde r § 60.13(c ) "shal

l Us e Performanc e Specificatio n 5 , excep t

fee calibratio n drif t specificatio n i s 2. 5 percen t of fee

, spa n valu e rathe r

tha n 5 percent
. Method s 1 5 o r

15 A an d Mefeo d 3 shal l b e use d fo

r conductin g fee relative accurac y evaluations
. I

f Mefeo d 3 yield s O aconcentration s belo w 0.25 percen t durin g fee performanc e specificatio n

. ' tes t fee O aconcentratio n ma y b e assume d t o b e zer o an d fee reduced sulfur CEM S nee d ho t

includ e a n O

a monitor
. (7 ) I n plac e o

f fee reduced sulfu

r monito r unde r paragrap h (a)(6 ) of

thi s section , a n instrumen t

usin g a n ai r

o r O a dilutio n an d oxidatio n syste mt o convert fee reduced sulfu

r t o SO afo r continuousl y monitorin g an d recordin g fee concentratio n (dr

y basis , zer o percen t exces s air ) o

f fee resultant

SO_
. Th e monito r

shal l includ e a n oxyge n monito r fo r correctin g th e dat afo

r exces s oxygen . (i ) Th e spa n value s fo

r thi s monito r ar e 37 5 pp mSO

aan d 1 0 percen t

O a p (ii ) Fo r

reportin g purposes.-fe e SOa'. ' exceedanc e leve l for

thi s monito r

i s 25 0 pp m(dr y basis , zer o percen t

exces s air) , (iii ) Th e performanc e evaluation s fo r thi s SO a(an d Oa

) monitor-unde r § 60.13(c ) shal l us e Performanc e Specificatio n 5
. Mefeod s 1 5 o r 15 A an d Metho d 3 shal l b e use d for conductin g fee relative accurac y evaluations
. ft ft ft ft ft ; ' (i3)>.• <r °•; ' •'•;:.': A.3 L .'•••
.

- (i ) Th e tes t

method s a s describe d i n .§6o.ib8(k),-;::;;:• ; 3". '.'••"'; V'". V

, tt '

. ' tt '

. ' : ft '

. ' ' ft '

. tt ' • ~ (d ) Fo r an y fluid catalyti c crackin g

. uni t catalys t regenerato r

unde r § 60.102 feat use s a n incinerator-wast e hea t
. boile r t o combus t

fee exhaus t

gase s fromfee catalys t

regenerator, fee owne r o r operato r shal l record dail y fee rat e of combustio n o

f liqui d o r soli d fossil-fuels , (liters/h r o r kg/hr ) an d fee hour s of operatio n durin g whic h Uquid o r soli d fossil-fuels ar e combuste d i n fee incinerator-wast e hea t

boiler
. (e ) Fo r fee purpos e o

f report s unde r § 60.7(c) , period s o

f exces s emission s feat shal l b e determine d an d reporte d ar e define d a s follows : Note : Al ! averages , excep

t fo r opacity , shal

l be determine

d a s the arithmetic averag e o f the applicable 1-hou

r averages , e.g. , the rollin g 3-hou r average shall be determine d a s the arithmetic averag e o

f three contiguou s 1

- hou r averages . (1 ) Opacity. Al l 1-hou

r period s feat contai n tw o o r

mor e 6-minut

e period s durin g whic h fee averag e opacit y a s measure d b y fee continuou s monitorin g syste munde r

§ 60.105(a)(1 ) exceed s 3 0 percent
. ••.-•• (2) Carbon monoxide. Al l 1-hou r period s durin g whic h fee averag e C O concentratio n a s measure d b y fee C O continuou s monitorin g syste munde r § 60.105(a)(2 ) exceed s 50

0 ppm . (3 ) Sulfur dioxide from fuel

gas combustion, (i ) Al l rollin g 3-hou r period s durin g whic h fee averag e concentratio n of SOaa s measure d b y fee SO a continuou s monitorin g syste munde r § 60.105(a)(3 ) exceed s 2

0 pp m(dr y basis , zer o percen t

exces s air) ; o r (ii ) Al l rolling 3-hou

r period s durin g whic h fee averag e concentratio n of Ha S a s measure d b y fee Ha

S continuou s monitorin g syste munde r § 60.105(a)(4 ) exceed s 23 0 mg/dsc m(0.1 0 gr/dscf)
. (4 ) Sulfur dioxide from Claus sulfur recovery plants, (i ) Al l 12-hou r period s durin g whic h fee averag e concentratio n o f SO aa s measure d b y fee SO a continuou s monitorin g syste munde r § 60.105(a)(5 ) exceed s 25 0 pp m(dr y basis , zer o percen t

exces s air) ; o r (ii ) Al l 12-hou

r period s durin g whic h th e averag e concentratio n o f reduce d sulfu r (a s SO_ ) a s measure d b y th e ' reduced sulfur continuou s in6nitoring? s -'"'" systemunde r

§ 60.105(a)(6 ) exceed s 30 0 ••' : ppm;o r ' ''-••••'••,' - ' : "•.-•••••' (iii ) Al l 12-hour

period s durin g Which th e averag e concentratio n o f SoVa s ] measure d b y fee SOa

' cohtinuou s J i,i ' : ' > ; monitorin g system'unde r § 60.105(a)(7 ) exceed s 25 0 pp m(di y basis , zero'•'.

- percen t exces s air)
. •. . 6 , I n § 60.108, ' paragraph s (a ) throug h (d ) ar e revised , paragraph s (e ) throug h (h ) ar e redesignate d a s (g) throug h (j) , ari d he w paragraph s (e) , (f j an d (k ) ar e adde d t o rea d a s follows:
. . :L.AyL § S0.H0S ~'j

^es t wiothod s and : proce(_urek (a ) I n conductin g fee performanc e test s required i n § 60.8 , fee owne r or : operato r shal l us e a s referenc e mefeod s an d procedure s fee tes t

method s i n Appendi x A o

f thi s par t o r othe rr.-Lmethod s an d procedure s a s specifie d i n thi s section , excep t

a s provide d ir

i § 60.8(b)
. " V (b ) Th e oi.vne

r o r operato r shal l determin e complianc e wit h fee particulat e matte r

(PM ) standard s i n § 60.102(a

) a s follows : (1 ) Th e emissio n rat e (E

) of P M shal l b e compute d fo

r eac h ru n usin g fee ••'-•• followin g equation : : ; '-
. '•.:"'• •

E=

- K c „ 0 3

•'• • Ki-- ' ; where : E=Emission rate o

f PM , kg/100 0 k g (lb/100 0 lb) o f cok e burn-pff.
. . . , Cg=Concentratio

n o f PM , g/dsc m(lb/dscf)
. Qo.—Volumetri

c flo w rate o f effluen t gas , - dscm/h r (dscf/hr)
. R<=Cok e burn-of f rate , k g coke/h r (100 0 l b coke/hr)
. K=Conversion factor
. 1.

0 (kg a /g)/(1000 kg

) (10 s lb/(10C

0 lb))
. (2 ) Metho d 5 shal l b e use d t o determin e fee concentratio n (c 0 ) ofP M an d volumetri c flow rat e (0* ) o f th e effluent gas . Th e samplin g time an d sampl e volum e fo

r eac h ru n shal l b e a t leas t 6 0 minute s an d 0.9 0 dsc m(31. 8 dscf)
. (3 ) Th e cok e burn-of

f rat e (R J shal l b e compute d fo

r eac h ru n usin g fee followin g equation : R^K , Q , (%CO_+9.CO)K

_Qo-K
. Qr [(%CO/2)+%CO_+%Oa

] where : R«=Cok e burn-of f rate , kg/h r (100 0 lb/hr)
. Q r =Volumetri c flo

w rat e o f exhaus t ga s fro m catalys t regenerato

r befor e enterin g th e emissio n control system , dscm/mi

n (dscf/min)
. Q_=Volumetri

c flow rate , o

f ai r t o FCC U regenerator , a s determine

d fro mth e fluid catalyti c crackin

g uni t control roo

m instrumentation , dscm/mi

n (dscf/min)
.P. 8

95(^=CariK_m<dk)^eoo--02nJiat_<Mj„ i; ^ •• "''^peiwrith y volum

e (dr y basis)
. %CO=Carbo

n monoxid e concentrat-oq , percen t by volum e (dr y basis)
. %Oi=Oxyge

n concentration , percen

t by volum e (dr y basis)
. Ki=Materia

l balanc e andconversio

n factor , 0.298 2 (_^i_iin)/(hr-d8cm-S)ia<n88Clb-
. min)/(hr-d8cf-»)J
. Ki=Materia

l balanc e an doeavsrs-d

n factor , 2JK8(kg^in)/tbj<i8cm-S.){0.aS0 3 (Ib

min)/(-_r-dsrf-«)]
. . , , --\-i. •'. •... K_=Materia

l balanc e andconversio

n factor, 0.099 4 ,(kg-min)/(_iisdBcm-^ i; ::- ^ - (0.0032 0b-min)/(hiHiscf5SH.

- ; ' \-.-:.--r. : --. I D Mefeo d2 shal l b e use dto. .•;"." " detennin e fee volumetri c flow rat e (QJ. ' ' {H ) Th e emissio n correctio n factor , integrate dsampling ari danalysi s " procedur e o f

Mefeo d3 shal l b e use dto' deterintaeCp2.CO,andO a" " coricentrttioris
. " r '
. .A- '',"'*: L (4 ) Mefeo d9 an dth e procedure s o f §'80.1 1 shal l b e use dto determin e opacity
. •'-•'
. -"'
. ' (c ) If auxiliar y liqui do r

soli dfossil

fuel s ar e burne di n a n incinerator-wast e hea t boiler , fee owne r

o r operato r shal l determin e fee emissio n rate of VM permitte di n § 80.102(b ) a s follows : (1 ) Th e allowabl e emissio n rat e (Eo ) o f P M shal l b e compute dfor

eac h ru n usin g th e followin g equation : E.=fl;0+A(H/RJ_ C : ' where : E_=Emis8io

n rat e o f E M aUowed

, kg/100 0 le g (lb/100 0 lb ) o f cok e bum-of f i n catalys t regenerator
. " l J 0=_-n_issio

n standard , b g ooke/tOG

O k g (lb fioke/lfflW-b). A=Allowabl e incrementa

l rate o f P M emissions , 0.1 8 g/miUjo

n cal (0.1 0 lb / millio n Btu)
. H=Kea t Inpu t rat e fro msolido r tiquidfossi

l
. fael
. millio n cal/h r (miffio n Btu/hr)
. R^srCok e WiM-iF f rate , k g coke/h r (1C0 0 ft coke/hr)
. K ' ^Conversio n facto

r l o unit s o f standard , t-0(kga /g)/(lCO O kg

) (10 atb/(lCC

0 lb]]
. (2 ) Procedure s subjec t

to fee approva l of fee Administrato r

shal l b e use dto determin e fee hea t

inpu t rate
. (3 ) Th e procedur e i n paragrap h (b)(3 ) otfthi s sectio n shal l b e -usedto determin e fee cok e burn-of f rat e (RJ
. (d j Th e owne r

o f operato r shal l determin e complianc e -wif e th e C O standar di n % 80.103(a

) ~bf usin g fee integrate dsamplin g tedhsriqu e o f Mefeo d1 0 to determin e fee C O •.-.. . concentratio n (dry basis)
. Th e sampling time fo r eac h ru n shal l b e ©

0 minutes
. (e ) Th e owne r

o r operato r shal l determin e cbmpliahci s wif e fee .H_ S standar di n % «ai04{a$(l ) a s follows: Mefeo d1 1 Sha

H b e use dt o detennin e fee H aconcentration
. Th e gase s enterin g fee sampling trai n shoul db e a t abou t atmospheri c pressure . I f

fee pressur e i n th e refiner

y Sue ! ga s line s i s relativel y high , aflow controlvalv e may b e use d t o reduce feepressure. If

fee line,.
. , pressur e i s hig h enoug h t o operat e th e samplin g trai n withou t

avacuu mpump , th e pum p ma y b e eliminate dfromth e samplin g train
. Th e sampl e shal l b e ' draw n fromanoin t

mea r fee centroi dof
. fee fuel ga s line
. Th e samplin g tim e an d sampl e volum e shal l b e a t leas t 1 0 minute s an d0.01 0 dsc m(0.3 5 dscf)
. Tw o sample s o f equa l eamplin g time s shal l b e take n a t

abou t l-J-Ourinfervals
. Th e arithiheti c averag e of

tiiese tw o sample s . shal l constitut e anin.'Pos-mos t fuel
. , . gases . oampEA

g times exceeding2 0 .';. • minute s ma y resul t

i n <3enleliaa

_of fee coHectio n solution , idfebiiag h fue l gase s containin g lo w concentration s o f H. S ma y necessitat e samplin g for longe r period s of time.

• ff ) Th e owne r

o r operato r shaH':.
. determin e complianc e wit h th e SO

_an d fee Ha S an dreduce dsulfu r

standard s I n 1 60.104(a)(2 ) a s follows : < • (1 ) Metho d6 shal l b e use dt o determin e fee SO aconcentration
. Ih e concentratio n i n mg/dsc m(lb/dscf ) obtaine d b y Mefeo d8 i s multiplie db y 0.375 4 t o obtai n fee concentratio n i n ppm . Ih e samplin g poin t

i n fee duc t shal l b e fee centroi do

f fee cros s sectio n i f fee cross-sectiona l are ai s les s tha n 5.0 0 m a {5 4 ft* ) o r

a t apoin t n o dose r to fee wall s tha n 1.0

0 m(3 9 in. ) i f

fee cross sectiona l are ai s 5.0

0 m a o r mor e an dfee centroi di s more tha n 1 mfrom fee wall
. Th e sampling time an dsampl e rolume shal l b e a t

leas t 1 0 minute s an d0.01 0 dsc m(0.3 5 dscf

) fo r eac h sample
. Eight
. samples , o f equa l sampling time s shal l - b e take n a t

abou t S0-minute intervals
. - The
. arithmeti c averag e c f thes e eigh t

. sample s slial l constitut e arun . Metho d4 shal l b e use dt o determin e fee moistur e conten t ofth e gases . Th e sampling poin t fo r Metho d<

_ shal l b e adjacen t

to fee samplin g poin t

for Mefeo dfi. Th e samplin g time for

ead
. sampl e shal l b e equa l t o fee time i t

take s fo r tw o Metho d 6 samples
. Th e moistur e conten t from thi s sampl e shal l b e use dto correc t fee. correspondin g Metho d6 sample s for moisture
. Fo r

documentin g fee oxidatio n efficienc y o f

fee contro l devic e fo r reduce dsulfu

r compounds , Mefeo d1 5 shal l b e use dfollowing th e procedure s o f paragrap h (f)(2 ) o f

fels section
. . (2 ) Metho d1 5 shal l b e use dt o determin e fee reduce dsulfur an dH. S concentrations
. Eac h ru n shal l consis t o f 1 8 sample s take n ove r

aminimu mof

3 hours
. Th e samplin g poin t shal l b e fee . sam e a s feat

describe dfo r

Method s i n paragrap h (fjfl ) o f

thi s section
. T o ensur e minimumresidenc e tim e fo r fee sampl e insid e feesamplelines, fee samplin g rat e sha

H b e a t .eas t 3.01pm (0.1 0 cfm)
. Th e SOaequivalen t for eac h ru n shal l b e calculate dafte r bein g correcte dfo r moistur e vaA-os^jgt^a^^ fee arithmeti c averag e o f

fes £CVfv;.| ? '•"•'" " equivalen t

far eac h sampS e durin g fee ' run . Metho d4 shal l b e use d to determin e fee moistur e conten t

o f fee gase s a s fee paragrap h (f)(1 ) of

tins section
. Th e -.:; <• samplin g tim e fo r

eac h sampl e shal l b e equa l t o th e tim e i t

take s for four.• ' i : Mefeo d1 5 samples
. • "••••..

- (3 ) Th e oxyge n concentratio n use dt o correc t fee emissionrat e fo r

exces s ai r shal l b e obtaine db y fee Integrated, , . -samplin g an danalysi s procedur e of f 3j>. Mefeo d3
. Th e samole s shal l b e take n simultaneousl y wit h fee SOa J reduce d sulfu r an dHaS , o f

moistur e samples
. Th e ~ SOa , reducedsulfur , an d H_Ssam__le 8 shal l b e correcte dto-zero percen t exces s ai r usin g th e equatio n In paragrap h (h)(3 ) of thi s section
. .

o * ' • • * • * ' ~ . • * • • • - . : (k ) Th e tes t mefeod s use d to supplemen t

continuou s monitorin g ••••••• syste mdat ato mee t

fee minimu mdat a requirement s i n § 60.104(d ) wil l b e use d a s describe dbelo w o r

a s otherwis e approve db y fee Administrator
. (i ) Mefeod s 8

b «B
. o r 8 ar e used
. Th e samplin g location(s ) ar e fee sam e a s thos e specifie dfo

r th e monitor
. (2 ) Fo r Mefeo d8 , fee minimu m samplin g tim e i s 2 0 minute s ari dfee minimu msamplin g volum e i s 0.02 dsc m (0.7 1 dscf ) for eac h sample
. Sample s ar e take n a t approximatel y 60-minute intervals
. Eac h sampl e represents a1

-

. hou r average . A minimu mof

1 8 vali d sample s i s requiredt o obtai n one . vali d da y of data
. (3 ) Fo r Mefeo d6B
. collectio n o f

a sampl e representin g aminimu mof 1 8 hour s i s require dto obtai n on e vali dda y o f data
. (4) Fo r Metho d8 , th e procedure s a s outline di n thi s sectio n ar e used
. Ih e equivalen t

o f 1 6 hour s of

samplin g i s require dto obtai n on e vali dda y o f data
. § S0.UCS {Anratdet- l • --.,. 7
. I n newl y redesignated § 80.108(h) (3) , (4)
. an d(5) , mentio n o f 

### " § eairafflp), " "8 aaioa(f)(ay ' o f "ffl " i s revised to rea d" J fi0.108(h}(2)," 

### " § eaiesftKiJ. " «

f "OO. " resjjecfively. §30.10 6 [Amended
. '

• -' • '" " S
. I n newl y redesignate d§ 60.iC8(i)

_ (i)(2)(i)
. an d(iX7) , mentio n of "fe)(12j. " " § eo.lC8(g)(3_

r o r "fe)(6 T I s revise dto rea d"(I)f-L2), " " 8 flQ.106(i](3);* o r -(iKS). " respectively. §60..0 8 9
. I n newl y redesignate d£6b.!_08(_}(7) , "(a)(4) M i s revised to rea d'Tbjp). "W17& ffedegall • Reg-Ster /AV61
. 55 , No.-'.19 1 h Tuesday; Octobe r 2. .-1980 /^Rule s an dRegulation s P. 9

io ; Ir i newl y redesignated 3rAr >\r.AA § 60.108(j)(3)(ii),"(h)(2) " i s revise dt o Tead"\i){2)."

rr $''60,107'

. \ [ Amended]'-
. ',
. ..... . .:;,,;'• '

- ;il.-In.B6bib7(b)(l)(ii),? , (a)(i4J , :;i s . revis&drea dto V

§ 6P.l08(k); " • , . \ vg6b!;io7._fAhiiwifel©<.]?. ^ 3-3 •'•''•'"".''•' ' 

### •..- . ^2; ^ eawtbjCz) , *•

§ ed.i06(g)(i2) " .,

, ^isrevisedtoreadt.g6O.i06(i)(l2). " 0- A.3 AAy:.A?A : ?..yAy3A': :,yr';;-\ • -p.^y f---. : _ r^'^toj:";."TM ^ LO 13 ; In•' $ miiDi7{c)(i)(i) , " § eO.lOSfl'M s . '^yi8^tii^^''i^08(hj,". J ..: , ;; • 0. ; $60.107'..lams'itded ]
... * ••.. • ;• " .'•.', • ."''"
. J^ilni S 60.107(c)(l)(ii) , " § 60.106(g) " i n bot h place s i s revise dt o read "§60.108(i). " •••'; LLA : 0 ,'§'60.107 ..[Amended]
. • • ••>;.•.'• ! 15
. Ir i § 60.107(c)(l)(iii)
. " § 60.108(h) " i s re\isedt p rea d*' § 60.108(j); " §60.10 8 [Amended ] 18
. I n § 60.108(d) , " § 60.106(g ) o r (h) " i s revised to read" § 60.106{i ) o r (j). " $60,10 9 [Amended ] .17
. I n § 60.109(b)(2)
. "60.108(g)(12) " i s revisedt o rea d"60.106(i)(12). " 18
. I n Appendi x B , b y addin g .'_•'•""
. Performanc e Specificatio n 7 t o rea da s follows : Appendi x E-Fe-fprmanc e Specification s Performaric e Specificatio n 7 — Specification s an dTes t

Procedure s fo

r Hydroge n Sulfid e Continuou s Emissio n Monitorin g System s i n Stationar y Source s 1. Applicability and

Principle • . 1. 1 Applicability. 1.1. 1 Thi s specificatio n i s t d b e use d fo

r evaluatin g the acceptabilit y o f hydroge n sulfid e (HsS) continuous emissio n monitorin

g system s (CEMS's

) atth e time o f orsoo n afte

r installatio n and wheneve r specifie d i n a n applicabl e subpar t -o f th e regulations . .. , • y ... . ,1.1. 2 Ihi s specificatio n i s no tdesigne d to.• • ; evaluate th e installe d CEM S performanc

e ._ . ove r a n extende d period o

f tim e no r doe s i t identif y specifi c calibratio n technique s and other auxiliar

y procedures t

o asses s CEM

S performance . Th e source owne r o roperator, however , i s responsibl e to calibrate , maintain , an d operat

e th e CEMS. T o evaluate CEM S performance, th e Administrator ma y ..require , unde r Sectio n 11 4 o

f the Act, the . source owne r or-operatbr t o conduc tCEM S " performanc

e evaluation s a

tother time s beside s th e initia

l test . See % 60.13(c) . • : 1.1. 3 Th e definitions , installatio n specifications , tes tprocedures , dat a reduction procedures fo

r determinin

g calibratio n drift

s (CO ) an d relativ e accurac

y (RA) , and reportin

g o f Performanc

e Specificatio n 2 (P S 2) , Sections".^,'"5 ; 6,'8i 3
• and 9 applyt o thi s specification . J;.." : 'A'. .' * 1. 2 Principle . Referenc

e method (RM), CD, an d R A test s ar e conducte d to determine tha t the CEM S conform

s t o the specification . 2. Performanceand

Equipment

Specif ications • 2. 1 Instrument

zero and span'. Thi s specificatio n i s the same a s Sectio n 4. 1 o f P S

' 2
. . . •'
. " , ' ' " : ' .",-•''"""'
. - ; 

### ''•'ii^'a'iW^tiph'LdH^'fhedsiL/s^LL, calibratio n mus

tnotdrif tordeviate fro

m the

- inference ; valu e o

f fee calibration ga s or..; • ;fr' \
• reference source b y mor e tha n 5 percen

to f f . ; . th e establishe d span valu e fo r6ou to f 7 ; tes t- : day s (e.g. , th e establishe d span valu e f s 30 0 ~ :; ' . pp m fo r subpar

tJ fue l ga s combustion devices) . ' ''- A'' '"•-.'. 2. 3 Relative accuracy. Th e R A ofth e . CEM S shal l b e n o greater tha

n 2 0 percen to f th e mea n valu e o f th e R M tes tdat

a i n term s o f th e unit s o f the emissio n stahdar

d or 1 0 percentb f th e applicabl e standard , whicheve r i s greater. " ; ; " . 3. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure 3. 1 Samplin

g Strateg y fo r R M Tests , Correlation o

f R M and CEM

S Dat a Numbe r o f R M Tests , an

d Calculations . Thes e ar

e th e sam e a s tha

tin P S 2 , § 7.1 , 7.2, 7.3 , an

d 7.5 , respectively . ' '' ' • 3.2 - Reference ' Methods . Unles s otherwis e specifie d I n a h applicabl e subpar

to f the regulation . Metho

d 1 1 i s the R

M fo r thi s PS ; • 4. Bibliography. •.:.-.- 1 . U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency . Standard s b

f Performanc

e fo r Ne w Stationar

y Sources ; Appendi

x B ; Performanc

e Specification s 2 and 3 for SO. , NO. , CO. , an d O a Continuous Emission Monitorin g Systems ; Fina l Rule . 4 8 CF

R23808 . Washington , D C U.S . Governmen

tPrintin g Office . Ma

y 25 , 1983 . . •..•;.-••: . 2 . U.S . Govemmen

tPrintin g Office . Gaseou s Continuous Emission Monitorin g Systems—Performanc

e Specificatio n Guideline s fo

r SO. , NO„

. CO_ , Oi , an d TRS . U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency . Washington , D. C EPA-450/3-82-O26 . Octobe r 1982.28p . , A.. 3. Maines , G.D , W. C Kelly (Scot t' Environmenta

l Technology , Inc.), ' and J.B. . • Homolya . Evaluation o f

Monitor s for '

. Measurin

g H. S iii Refiner

y Gas . Prepare

d fo r th e U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency . Researc h Triangl e Park , N. C Contrac

tNo ; 68-02-2707.'1978 . 8 0 p . ,4 . Ferguson . B.B., R.E

. Lester (Harmo

n . -. : Engineerin

g and Testing) , an d WJ . Mitchell . Field Evaluation o

f Carbo n Monoxid e and Hydroge n Sulfide Continuou

s Emission Monitor s a ta n Oi l Refinery . Prepare

d fo r the U.S . Environmenta

l Protection Agency . Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C . Publication No . EPA-600/4-82^054 . Augus t1982.10 0 p . (F RDoc . 90-2298

3 Filed 10-1-90 ; 8:4

5 am ] BILLING COO E 8S60-50- M ••4 6 ©F R Par t il S [CG D 86-067d ]

Alcotio O Tes-ta g oi ? ©ommeroJa

. Vesse l 

### -A6Et.cv
. CoasfGuii ^ ' y taCTJow: Firiairule t

W3A.f33 '^3^3 '; : " SUMMARV

. Thi s final Mepreyisestlie^pre

employmen t

dru g testin g requiremen t

fo r tw o categorie s of

marin e employers : . Larg e employer s (thos e havin g more . tha n 5 0 employees ) an dmediu m, . employer s (thos e havin g fro m1 1 t o 5 0 employees)
. Thi s chang e will minimiz e th e nee dfor

additiona l pre-employmen t testin g b y thes e larg e an dmediu m employer s unti l Decembe r 1990 an d relieve the mof

a n unintende deconomi c burde n cause db y implementatio n o f
. , preemploymen t

testin g befor e th e implementatio n o

f rando mtesting
. EFFECTIV E DATE : Thi s rul e i s effectiv e Octobe r 2,1990.; : .• : . ; . • FOH'iajl_mJEK,_MFORIMAT.O M eotwacTr:
. Lieutenan t

Commande r

T
. A
. Murphy , Projec t Manager , Marin e Investigatio n Divisio n (GrMMI)
. Offic e of Marin e Safety , Securit y an dEnvironmenta l Protection , U.S
. Coas t

Guar d.-.:• Headquarters , 2100 Secon dStreet , SW. , Washington , D C 20593-0001
. (202 ) 267

- 2215.••'"
. '•".'-•--A A-:A-3A- '.'• •'•"•• •

. SUPH_EMENTaBV0WFOiaimfBOra : V^e n . decidin g o n appropriate,exception s t o pre-eniployirien t

testiri g requirements , th e Departmen t

o f Transportatio n wa s : reviewin g dru g programrule s fo r si x differen t operatin g modes
. Th e moda l rule s generall y provide da n exceptio n t o pre-employmen t

testin g for

employee s wh o ha dbee n coveredfor aful l yea r b y arando mtestin g progra mconducte db y thei r previou s employer
. I t

wa s th e Department' s inten t

tha t afte r passin g a pre-employmen t

test , employee s woul d b e covere db y a n employer' s rando m testin g programan dwoul dno t nee d
. additiona l pre-employfnen t testin g whe n the y change djobs.
. y :.";...'.

- Man y larg e marin e employer s bega n pre-employmen t

testin g a s earl y a s May 1,1989
. Mediu memployer s bega n pre employmen t

testin g o n th e Decembe r

21 , 198 9 implementatio n date
. Th e curren t Coast Guar dregulations provid e tha t maritim e personne l subjec t t o a n employer' s rando mtestin g program continuousl y for

th e previousl y twelve"'
. month s may b e excepte dfrom apre employmen t

tes t whe n changin g jobs
. Coast Guar drando mtestin g wa s