p.1 

OAR Box 1170 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

89) F. R.October 2, 1990 

Docket Number: 

A-88-24 

Printed 4/30/2008 10:49:06 AM Sheet 89 of 182 
P.2 

'^..r. 'r"^:0- 'F^d^'it(%i8ter7 VoI.:

v55^No>J9l' / ^uesSay' 'dctbt.er •£ J9^b' /Rules'alMlfeg^feti&fe 

charging the^gfulatitjn. The regulation.'" ' 

'•'•'••' > is adopted as firiaL' ••>.•(&••.-. • - ^. : 

A'technical correction to paragraph 

(c)(3) is:being made by adding the -.,:• 

phrase, "disablingeffectsdf/\This. v 

. phrase wa s inadvertently omitted in the 

;

 proposedregulation; N o substantive, 

changesSrebeingmade . • v 

VAha s determined that these , 

';.•• amended regulations do hot contain a 

^najorrul e as that term is defined in •»"" 

:..j, •••••• - p.&60utiye,Orferl2291rFederal; « r .-...&.•. 

r

 ;i

 .Re^aUonsi TTie.proposfdwiU hot have ^> 

3.' '-- .-. :a $100 liiillion annual effect on the

 :'. <V. .r 

...,: « ecSnomy. will not cause a major : : .• /• -; -._ 

-.••.'•-.:-v'--! increase in costs or prices, and will co t 

:H-;i; '-'•' .have'toylother significant adverse -. * -yeffects on the economy.. .«_;, > ••-:•'•• r.-.'• 

Thes e regulatory amendments are ,. 

Lf- retroactively Effective. These are 

•"'*. - .iflten>i«tive*uleswhibhimplement J"

i 0 

''**. •' statutory provisions. Moreover, V A 

finds that good cause exists for making 

v

 these rules, likethe section of the law 

wliich they implement, retroactively 

effective to the date of enactment. A . 

delayed effective date would be . 

.contrary to statutory design; would 

complicate implementation of this 

provision of law; and might result in a 

denial of a benefit to a veteran who is 

entided by law to that benefit . 

'\';.';'The^creta^:ipertifie8'thatthe8e;' 

amendments will not; if promulgated, / 

have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined ih the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 

Pursuant'to 5 U.S.C.605(b), these rules 

are therefore exempt from the initial and 

final flexibility analyses requirements of 

' sections 603 and 604. The reason for this 

certification is that the amendments 

only affect the rights of individual 

beneficiaries. No new regulatory 

burdens are imposed on small entities 

by these amendments. 

The Catalog of Federal domestic 

Assistance number is 64116. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21 

Civil rights, Claims, Education, Grant 

programs, Loan programs, Reporting 

requirements, Schools. Veterans; 

Vocational education, Vocational 

rehabilitation.' 

Approved: August 30,1990. 

. Edward J. Derwinski, 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

PART 21—[AMENDED] 

38 CFR part 21, Vocational 

Rehabilitation and Education, is 

amended by revising paragraph (c) of 

§ 21.42 to read as follows: 

§ 21.42 Basic period of eligibility deferred. 

[c] Medical condition prevents. .-

initiation or continuation. (1) The basic 

12-year period of eligibility shall hot 

begin to run or continue to run during -

any period of 30 days or rhore in which 

the veteran's participation in vocational 

rehabilitation is infeasible because ofthe veteran's medical condition, .which 

condition may include the disabling '••:•-...:.»-, 

effects of chronic alcoholism, subject to 

paragraph (c)(5) of this section. The 12-

year period shall begin or resume when ; 

»:itie feasiblefor'theveteranU)A- <• r-.-.;. 

participate in a vocational rehabilitation 

•program, as that term is definedin " -AL 

..•§,21.35..-M-A-;^-:.'-i>-:. .«•:...-; yy-L.-.r\r., 

-, • A. (?) The tenn "disabling effects of A'..;-.; 

chronic alcoholism" means alcohol- ---f\ • 

induced physical or mental disorders or . 

both, such as habitual intoxication;'•. '•: ... 

withdrawal, delirium, amnesia, A-'"'•. -

dementia, and other like manifestations, 

of chronic alcoholism which, in the •< 

particular case: 

(i) Hav e been medically diagnosed a s . 

manifestations of alcohol dependency or 

chronic alcohol abuse; and; •-•.'•.'-•' 

(ii) Are determined to have prevented 

commencement or completion of the 

affected individual's rehabilitation ...... 

program. ••;.-- -. V 

... (3) A diagnosis of alcoholism, chronic 

alcoholism, alcohol dependency, chronic 

alcohol abuse, etc., in and of itself, doe s 

not satisfy the. definition of "disabling 

effects of chronic ialc6hplism.*! 

(4) Injury sustained by a Veteran as a 

proximate and immediate result of 3 ? 

activity undertaken by the veteran.whilephysically or mentally unqualified to do 

so due to alcoholic intoxication is hot 

considered a disabling effect of chronic 

alcoholism., 

(5) The disabling effects o f chronic 

alcoholism, which prevent initiation or 

continuation of participation in a 

vocational rehabilitation program afterNovember 17,1988, shall not be 

considered to be the result of willful 

misconduct.' ": •••• •"•' ''-"* ' •*'" 

(Authority: 38 U.S.& lS03(b)(l).j?ubil_. 100-: " 

689) ."'..' ' - '*'.' 

[FR Doc. 90-23294 Filed -10-1^40; 8:45 am] . 

BUima COOE 832CM>i-M . 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

ACTION: Final rule. 

40 CFR Part 60 

[AD-FRL-3778-81 

J 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources Amendment* to 

Subpart J (Petroleum Refineries) and 

Addition of Performance Specif Ication 

7 to Appendix B 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this action is 

five-fold:; (1) To require (as opposed to 

being an option) the monitoring of sulfur 

dioxide (SO.) in gase s discharged .into; ••'•. 

the atmosphere from the combustion of : 

fuel gases or; as anelternatiye/theiT ' c, 

monitoririg of hydrogen 8ulfide(H_S) iri ;?'".'•• 

fuel gases; (2) to delete the mention of '"'.'.-

controlling SO. after combustion of fuel _ '4:•: 

- gasesip} to^detei^iho^ 

requirement of HaS ih gases discharged^

 : 

into tihe atmosphere from Claus sulfur 

recovery plants, but require the ; ij; .-; i-:~-y 

monitoring of other reduced sulfur'3L':" S . 

compounds using continuous emission ^ •• 

monitoring 8y8temr(CEMS^) or SO.-;, I' 

CEMS'safter oxidizing the reduced. : 

Sulfur compounds to SO_; (4) to add :,'-. 

Performance Specification (PS) 7_.or.H_-. -

CEMS's"to. Appendix B of this pait;?h_id; 

(5) to clarify ambiguities in the existing 

regulations. All affected fiiel gas _ 

combustiondevice s and Claus plants in 

petroleum refineries, subject to: subpart J. 

of 40 CFR part 60, WiU be required to 

install and operate CEMS's within 1 

year of the promulgation date. Thes e . 

^monitoring requirements are not hew, 

but previous HjS and reduced sulfur;'_' 

CEMS instaUations wer e contingent ; 

upon the Agency's promulgation of PS s. 

. Thes e amendments wer e published in . 

the Federal Register on March 1,1989 

(54 FR 8564) and April 2 $ 1989 (54 FR 

•i83Q8j;..:.-''.; 33" A} 3033 .;.' '••. LOLL LO: 

DATES: Effective i^/iK^tober i li ^ ; . 

Judicial-review. Utider section^'fivSJ • 

307(b)(1) of the Clean ^ Act. judicial 

review of the actions taken by this* ' v 

notice is available only by the filing of a 

petition for review iri the U:S. Court'bf 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit within 60 days of today's'3'"' 

publication of this rule. Under section . 

307(b)(2) of the Glean Air Act. the -

requirenients that are the subject of 

today's notice may not be challenged •:"-:'"!-

later in civil or cnininal proceedings 

brought by EPA to eiiforce these 

requirements."'_; .(!'.. 

ADDRESSES: Docket faocket NOiA^BB-; 

24, containing material? relevant to this 

rulemaking, is available lor public

 ; 

inspection and copying between 8:30 . 

a.m. and 3:30 p^n„ Monday through L 

Friday, atEM^aVUrDpcke t JSectipn^ ••; A;;:. 

Room M-1500,istJFloor, Watersidei.-. 

Mall, 401M Street S Wi, Washington, DC 

20460. A reasonable fee may.be charged 

forcopying. 7 . :•

 h

 , ,o . 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Foston Curtis or Roger T. Shigehara, : 

Emission Measurement Branch (MD-19), 

Technical Support Division, U,S. •'..'• 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, telephone number (919) 541-1063. 
P.3 

, • > .-•.. . 

40172 : Fierie^RegJBiOT / Vol, 5&y Ncv 18* /-Tuesdays ;Qctohfegg2^193a/.iiftiles and Rcguktidns 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:. 

I. The Rulemaking 

The present ntonitorir_g requiren-jents 

fo* fuel gas combustion devices under 

S 6ai05(a) (3) and (4) allows fee options 

of monitoring SOaafter fuel gases are 

combusted os monitoring H_5 in the fuel 

gases. Since October 6,1875 (40 FR 

46250); affected facilities choosing to 

monitor H3S ia the fuel gases have been 

exemptedfromihe. monitoring 

requirements of S 6O.105(aK4) because 

PS'8 for. HaS CEMS's had not been 

established. Thia rulemaking will amend 

the emissionmonitoringrequirement^ to 

end thia exemptiop. The effect of this 

rulemaking wfll be to require affected 

facilities to monitor SOi after fuel gas 

^combustion ck, as an alternative* HtS iri 

the.fiielgas. 

-When fiiel gases are burned in a 

' combustion, device, the H_S is converted 

to SOa. The resulting SOa concentration 

is substantially less than the 

corresponding ItS in the fuel gas due to 

dilution from added combustionair.The 

amount of dilution air required for 

complete fuel gas combustion hinges 

upon the makeup of fuel gas components 

(primarily hydrogen and hydrocarbons) 

and their stoichiometric need for 

oxygen. The EPA investigated a number 

of typical fuel gas compositions and 

th eir combustion products and 

determined that, at zero percent excess 

air, the concentration of SOa formed 

from combusting fuel gas containing HiS 

at the standard level (162 ppm) ranged 

from 9 to 25 ppm with the majority of 

values between. 15 and 20 ppm. This 

agrees with the 15-to 20-ppmSOi level 

noted in the background document to. 

the proposed petroleum refineries 

standard. 

Realizing the complexity of 

establishing the SOa/HaS equivalency 

on a case-by-case basis, EPA has 

selected 20 ppm to represent the 

compliance level for SO*. In addition, 

rather than requiring monitoring of the 

effluent after each combustion, device, 

EPA is allowing the monitoring of SOa. 

after only one of the combustion devices 

as long as that one location accurately 

representsthe fuel gas being burned by 

all of the combustion devicesDaring 1978 and 1982, EPA conducted 

evaluations of HrS CEMS's and 

concluded1 that acceptable H.S CEMS's 

were not available, (see section 4 of PS 

7). However, a State agency and a local 

agency reported that HiS CEMS's have 

been installed under their jurisdiction 

that are operating satisfactorily. 

Certification test reports that have been 

submitted for Agency review indicate 

that, at least in these cases, acceptable 

CEMS accuracy and calibration drift 

(CD) are attainable. Other data from 

regulatory agencies have shown varying 

degrees of success in certifying and * 

auditing HrS CEMS's. Most of these data 

were taken from HzSCEkfl* s of the 

same type, and instrument performance 

appears to be linked ta operator and 

maintenance proficiency. Thus..EPA has 

decided to allow the use of H_S CEMS's 

for fuel gases as; an alternative to SOa y 

CEMS's for combusted fuel gaffes. For 

this purpose, PS 7 was proposed. 

In reviewing th« regulations. EPA 

determined that the option of controlling 

SOa after combusting the fuel gases was 

not being used. Also, this option does 

not appear to be an economically 

feasible alternative for future 

coi-sidetration. Therefore, mention of this 

control option is being deleted from the 

regulation. This action. however,: doesi . 

not prohibit the use of sueh control 

devices. In the future, sources that 

desire to burn fuel gases containing H.S 

in excess of 230 mg/dscm and control 

the resulting SOa emissions may petition 

the Administrator for an alternative 

compliance demonstration. 

Hydrogen sulfide and reduced sulfur 

emitted from Claus plants are regulated 

by standards set at 10 and 300 ppm. 

respectively. Reduced sulfur 

compounds, though: determined, 

separately from HaS, are also inclusive 

of HaS by definition. The Agency has 

determined that it is difficult to monitor 

the disproportionate concentrations of 

HaS and other reduced sulfur 

compounds on a continual basis, . 

especially at levels near the standards. 

Therefore, a separate determination of 

HzS apart from other reduced sulfur . 

compounds will not be required, but 

only the continuous monitoring of 

reduced sulfur compounds. Performance 

Specification 5 and Method 15 or 15A 

will be used to evaluate the reduced 

sulfur CEMS performance. 

For greater flexibility. CEMS that 

oxidizes the reduced sulfur to SO* and • 

analyzes the concentration of the 

resulting SOa will be allowed; Rather 

than trying to determine the 

concentration of SOa equivalent to the 

reduced sulfur concentration, EPA will 

use the level of 250 ppm SOa (dry basis, 

zero percent excess air) to represent the 

SOa compliance leveL This 

concentration is consistent with the 

control option of combusting the effluent 

gases under § 60.102(a)(2](i). 

In addition to the above changes, 

ambiguities in the existing regulations 

are being-clarified by correcting. . 

inconsistencies and by specifying 

pertinent testing procedures that 

originally were only implied. 

This rulemaking does not impose 

emission measurement requirements 

beyond tiiose specified in the current 

regulations, neither does it change any 

emission, standard1 nor make it more 

stringent Rather, the rulemaking wiB 

facilitate the use cf acceptable CEMS's 

and allow affected facilities to comply 

with'monitoring requirements to which 

they are already subject 

II. Public Pt^rticipation. Lj.Ly-n's. «>Wf 

The opportunity to hcvldpoblid

 r 

hearings at 10 ajn. oa March 22; 1S8S for 

tiie proposed subpart previsions and 

May 19,1983 for proposed PS: 7 was 

presented but no one desired to>make an 

oral: presentation. The public comment 

periods were from Maith 1 ta Ju%. 12; ." 

1989 for the subpart Jrevisioosand from 

April 28 to Ju_Fl2,198?'ftrR$7..<-'•! "T 

ffl. SigiiificwtCommentsandChanges 

to tha Proposed Rulemaking . ;.r 

Seven comment letters were received 

from the proposal of the rulemakings. 

The major comments and responses are 

summarized in this preamble. Most of 

the comment letters contained multiple 

comments. The significant comments 

and subsequent method changes are: 

listed here. 

1. One commenter requested that .'. 

permeation tube calibration systems and 

scrubbers be allowed as alternatives to 

Methods 3,6, and 11 for span calibration 

and zero checks of CEMS's. "Hie; '..'. 

commenter noted that commercially 

available systons have been found to be 

extremely accurate and reliable for foel 

gas and Claus plant units and are far 

superior to older; labor-intensive, wetchenrical procedures: ,., 

Approving alternatives for specific 

calibration systems beyond the EPA 

reference methods is not within the 

scope of the rulemaking. Written 

requests for approval should be 

submitted to the Director of EPA's 

Technical Support Division. The request 

must include a clearly defined procedure 

that can be uniformly followed, 

supporting data showing the 

alternative's comparability to the 

reference method, and: procedures -

addressing the appropriate quality 

assurance (QA) measures. 

2. Another commenter strongly urged 

EPA to take^i "more reasonable" 

approach to the exemption from the CO 

CEMS requirement provided in 

§ 60.105(a)(2)(ii). The following reasons 

were offered to support this stand: 

a. A demonstration that CO emissions 

are less than 50 ppm was thought fo be 

excessively restrictive. Instead, a limit 

of 30 percent of the standard should be 

ample to show that a unit is designed for 

high-efficiency regeneration and that a 

CEMS is not warranted 
P.4 

Federal Register,/.- Vol,; 55i No;v191^/;;Tue8dayrjOctober< 2,i 19SQ1/ Rtiles and ffiegUa tions: 'J4Q173 

b. Requiring 30 days of continuous ' 

monitoring data to demonstrate a CEMS 

would not be necessary. Although this 

may be desirable in some instances, it 

was recommended that performance test 

data be allowed in lieu of continuous 

monitoring data. •,:.',; :••-. . 

c. The language in § 60.105(a)(2)(ii) 

needs clarifying to require that EPA . . 

issue an exemption when the required .. 

information is submittedwith the 

writtenrequest As.proposed, a lack of 

response from EPA would leave the :,. 

owner oroperatpriri an unclear ......':.,. 

compliance status. ... _»„•;'.- . ; 

d. It was hot clear to the commenter if 

any additional requirements with the 

revisions (LeM CEMS relative accuracy 

(RA) demonstrations] affect owners or 

operators who submitted requests.for . 

exemption under the existing':'":-]'A y , 

requirements. • • -0..-.' 

The Method 6 flow rate of 2 liters/min 

in S 60.105(a)(3)(iii) was. questioned. 

With the Method 6 detection limit at 3.4. 

mg SOa when sampling at 1 liter/min for 

20 minutes, It was not understood why a 

larger sample was needed, since this is 

approximately 6 percent of the 20 ppm 

standard. This change was considered 

an added complication, and it was 

recommended that it be reconsidered. If 

this change could be truly justified, 

some flexibility in the sampling flow 

rate was requested, such as 

"approximately 2 liters/min." 

Filially, the commenter objected to 

what was thought to be a change to 

rolling 3-hbur averaging periods for 

determining compliance with § 60.105(a) 

(3) and (4). It was noted that no 

rationale for this change was discussed 

in the supplementary information, and 

that this was clearly an added 

recordkeeping requirement, not a 

clarification. Current rules were thought 

to require that monitoring records be 

kept for 3-hour block periods, of which 

there are eight per day. A1986 EPA ^ 

memorandum to directors of EPA 

Regional air divisions was cited as 

evidence of the EPA policy of using 

block averages. By increasing the 

requirement to rolling 3-hour periods, 

the Agency would cause a threefold 

increase to the recordkeeping burden 

and a triple counting of any extended 

periods of excess emissions. ; 

"ITie proposed rule does not change 

the CEMS exemption1 requirements nor 

the averaging period of the existing 

regulation. Therefore, comments to these 

points and any subsequent changes 

based on the comments are beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

Concerning.the issuance of an 

exemption, the intent of the wording in 

S 60.105(a)(2)(ii) is to note that the 

exemption is contingent upon the 

Agency's decision after reviewing the 

submitted demonstration data and i •••, 

exemption request not upon its 

submission. Mentioning that an 

exempted source is not required to : : . 

perform additional CEMS.testing 

requirements is not necessary since an 

exemption from monitoring implies that. , 

no CEMS will be installed tp further test. 

Under normal situations, a source that 

has submitted ari exemption request is 

not required to perform additional i , :. 

testing until.the Agency makes a - *-•: 

decision. In some cases though, the .A0 

Agency may need to request interim c. 

tests. However, if the decision is such ... 

that a CEMS must be installed, this Ap A 

CEMS may be subjected to an RA test,. 

The requirement in 5 60.105(a)(3)(iii) : 

to operate Method 6 at 2 liters/min for ..'• 

at least 30 minutes was made to -

minimize the analytical error that, results 

from measuring small titration volumes. 

For routine Method 6 analyses, sample 

.titration volumes of at least 2 ml are 

desired to minimize the error 

contributed by buret inaccuracy and the 

averaging of duplicate measurements. 

To add flexibility and conform with the 

guidelines given in Method 6, an 

approximate, sampling flow rate of 2 

liters/rnin will be required. _ 

Finally, the requirement for 3-hour 

rolling SOa averages is not a change 

from current practice. The block. 

averaging period mentioned in the 

March 1986 memorandum is applicable -

specifically to determinations of 

compliance with applicable national air 

quality standards. Current policy 

permits emission limits established to 

comply with such standards to be 

expressed either as block or rolling 

averages. The same holds true for 

compliance with emission control 

requirements under applicable part 60 

standards. In the case in question, the 

rolling average was the original intent. 

Thus today's action is not a change from 

the present requirements. 

3. One commenter thought that PS 7 

left much to be desired. Basic measures 

of analyzer performance, such as 

calibration error, response time, and 

.. operational test period were thought to 

be needed. Having to meet the CD 

specification on only 6 out of 7 test days 

would not encourage adjustment of the 

analyzer when drift exceeds the 

specification.'Compliance with the CD 

specification without exceptions was 

preferred, with short-term and zero drift 

specifications also included. At the very 

least language indicating that States 

may impose additional or more stringent 

specifications was desired. 

The commenter thought that the 

requirement to report only excess 

emissions would not allow an agency to 

take into account performance during -; 

compliance periods when determining 

enforcement action. Requiring sources to 

report data for a)l times periods was 

favored since a different enforcement ••• 

action may be appropriate for a source 

that operates most of the time near the 

standard than for a source that usually 

operates well below the standard. 

Continual CEMS compliance and , 

Appendix F procedures were not .,..-''• -

mandated for subpart J sources. The PS 

test procedure's are not designed for '-'"'. 

long-term evaluation nor for continual 

compliance but to provide jfhe.initial ^ 

Check of the Instrument's capabilities at 

. the time of installation. Th^AgericyC: '•<*. 

feels that CEMS data accuracy and -'} 

representativeness can be dempristrated 

sufficiently by RA arid CD tests. A more 

. in-depth evaluation of the CEMS at thediscretion of the operator is encouraged, 

but this additional testirig need not be 

required since the overall quality of 

monitor data can be determined by the 

RA and CD tests. 

The RA and CD specifications are 

determined from studies of CEMS " 

performance over extended periods of 

time. In an Agency study of HaS 

CEMS's, the most reliable instruments' 

were only capable of meeting CD's of 5 

percept or less on 6 of 7 test days. ' 

- The changing of reporting ._'-'•"<•A.-A 

requirements is beyond the scope of this 

: rulemaking. The purpose of the V-y- ;_-

rulemaking is to revise the subpart J '.' 

monitoring and testirig requirements to 

add clarity and additional information; . 

that were originally left out This does 

:

 not include revising the reporting 

criteria that have become a standard 

procedure for many source categories. 

Regulations governing State's authority 

are neither addressed nor regulated in 

subpart J. but in other sections of the 

regulations. 

4. A commenter noted that the 

wording change to § 60.104 might be 

construed to limit the exemption of flare 

gas associated with emergency 

malfunction situations. This should be 

clarified by revising the wording to 

recognize the fact that process upset 

gases, even when not the direct result of 

an "emergency malfunction',' (e.g., 

process unit upsets due to changing -

feedstock, etc.), must be handled by a 

flare system for safety considerations. 

The proposed wording has been 

clarified to reflect this. 

5. Another commenter saw no 

technical reason.why the SOa CEMS's 

should not be used for direct compliance 

with SOa emission limitations at subpart 

J sources. The proposed revisions were 

thought to be inconsistent with the 

subpart Db ruling which uses the same 
P.5 

. . • * 

AgfO-t .Fedoral;Bagfeter.-.-/-.VoL,S5j No;,tat./ Taeaday;, Ocfobec 2,19^ / Rdes aiklRtegnJatkms 

CEMS's as subpart) for direct -

compMance^T__e proposedruleabc 

aprpeared to conflict vrith current EPA. 

policy (as suggested in am EPA internal 

memorandum) of using CEMS data in. 

the enforcement process. Because ofthe 

qraaatity of SO. emissions from 

refineries; and. due to past experience 

with several refineries under the 

commenter'sjtBrtsdictioa. fee. . 

enforcement o£ continuous compliance: 

with SOa..emi«sionliinitat_o*-9 was ••: 

thought to be imperative., ,._ 

The commenter also felt that. • 

incinerators following Qaus plants 

shottid be monitored fortemperature . 

and crxygea to ensure total snifkr 

oxidation to SOs.it was noted tiiat in 

5 6ai53(bM3), flteoperatottof 

indnera tora located at sewage 

treatment plants are leojaired to install, 

calibrate, inaintain, and operate 

temperature devices. Similar language 

was desired for subpart J indnerators. 

The same commenter questioned the 

flexibility of spans allowed in 

S 60 J05(aKl) for opadly CEMS's. The 

commenter argued that, the benefits of 

additional accuracy refinements do not 

justify thae costs as long as Method 9 

remains the sole compliance method. 

The commenter felt that the arguments 

for allowing the use of CEMS data in 

lieu of Method 9 observations for 

compliance determinations were still 

valid when the CEMS is properly 

installed, certified, and maintained in 

accordance with PSI of appendixB. It -

was argued that the Agency either allow 

the CEMS data for direct compliance or 

eliminate the allowance for span 

flexibility. 

It was initially determined when the 

subpart J regulations were developed 

that die monitoring data would be used 

to document excess emissions. This 

requirement cannot be changed in diis 

rulemaking since such a change would 

constitute a major action instead of a 

clarification and would require a 

separate assessment and proposal with 

accompanying CEMS QA specifications. 

The oxidation efficiency of the control 

device will be documented through 

Method 15 testing for reduced sulfor 

compounds, and the added requirements 

for oxygen and temperature CEMS's will 

not be necessary. . 

The nse of noncompliance CEMS's in 

the proposed revisions is not 

inconsistent with EPA policy mentioned 

in the memorandum. As noted in the 

memorandum; data from: CEMS's that 

are not the compliance method "should 

be used to monitor the continuous 

compliance of sources and to initiate 

follow-up action including on-site 

inspections,-guesting further 

information; and issuing a notice of 

violation;" 

6. A CMmnenter from industry 

inquired about a situation in which " 

some of tiieir refinery's faaBties were 

required by tiie EPA Regional Office and 

the State agency to install CEMSte under 

applicable Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSDJand construction 

pennit requirements even though fuel 

gas combustion devices have been 

exempted for H ^ monitoring 

requirements since 1975i. Thirteen 

analyzers were installed at a significant 

cost Twelve of these an_dyzers were 

installed between 1977 ado 1983 during 

EPA's performance evaluation of H_S 

CEMS's; Although EPA conduded that 

acceptable HiS CEMS's were not 

avaUable, fee refinery was stiU required 

to install whatever analyzers were 

available at that time.In view of this, 

• the commentermade fee foUowing 

recommendations. 

a. The CEMS's that were required to 

be installed by State or Federal permits 

prior to the proposal date of fee subject 

rule should be exempt from performance 

specification test (PST) requirements. 

b. The regulations should allow bench 

testing and certification ofthe CEMS's 

by the manufacturer. 

c. If a facility has installed more than 

one CEMS of fee same make and 

manufacturer, only one PST need be 

conducted to certify the remaining 

CEMS's. The cost of certifying several 

identical analyzers is significant and an 

unnecessary expense. 

For CEMS's that have already been 

installed under Regional Office PSD 

requirements, exemptions or 

"grandfathering" of new monitoring 

requirements must be requested on a 

case-by-case basis through the Regional 

Office that Required the initial CEMS 

installation. 

The Agency does not feel that CEMS 

bench testing and certification by the 

manufacturer represents a fail-safe 

means of verifying instrument 

performance. Manufacturers have a 

vested interest in the outcome of such 

evaluations. Bench testing may be 

routinely done to initially demonstrate 

the reliability of the instrument to the 

purchaser. However, this should not be 

substituted for a complete and observed 

PST after the CEMS has been installed 

and is functioning under actual 

conditions. 

All CEMS's that are not monitoring 

the same process stream will need to be 

evaluated by PST, regardless ef make or 

manufacturer. Experience.has shown 

that even with identical CEMS's 

performance can vary from umt to unit 

Factors that affect the performance of 

CEMS's indude interrial malfunctions 

that may be specific ta^individnal units 

as well as operational variables feat 

reflect operator technique. The Initial 

performance ofi each CEMS can only be 

verified by testing each unit under 

actual installed, conditions.; 

7- A commenter reconmBHided that an 

exemption shouM beallowedwhen it » 

demonstrated feat feereducedsulfur 

HaS emissions from subject Claus units; 

are weU below fee respectiveiSCXFand'lO 

ppm standard levels during routine and 

normal operation. Wife Sniften tail gas 

treating units, continuous H_SCEMS"s 

are already utilized and fee reduced 

sulfur was reported tobe barely 

detectable. Dnit upsetrand upetream 

operational problems wiH reflect loss of 

optimum operating cond?tions long; 

before any resultant increased Wemissions exceed the reduced sulfur, 

regulatory limit Therefore, an 

exemption from fee continuous 

monitoring of reduced sulfur and oxygen 

from these sources should he allowed. 

In addition, fee commenter 

recommended feat fee time period for 

CEMS installation at affected" refineries 

be extended to at least 18 months to 

allow suffident time for procurement 

installation, and. calibration, of the 

instrument Where HaS analyzers are ._• 

employed as standard equipment for 

Claus recovery plants,, the analyzer may 

serve as fee CEMS, provided it passes 

fee PST and reflects representative 

measurement of emissions. Monitoring 

exemptions may be considered in those, 

cases where emissions are routinely 

much lower than the standard and 

where there is an economic incentive to 

operate the device to minimize 

operational problems and upset 

conditions. Exemptions for devices that 

meet these conditions are best 

considered on. case-by-case requests 

since such devices represent a minority 

of fee total in operation. 

The Agency does not think an 

extension of the CEMS installation 

period is warranted. Affected sources 

are notified by fee proposed rulemaking 

of fee intended monitoring needs. An 

approximate period of 1 year between 

regulation proposal and promulgation 

affords time to survey the CEMS market 

In conjunction wife the 1-year 

installation period, this has proven to be 

adequate 

IV. Administrative 

The docket is an organized and 

complete file of all the information 

considered by EPA in fee development 

of this rulemaking. The docket is a 

dynamic file, since material is added 

throughout the rulemaking development 
P.6 

S^sdlffiEfiiJ-;K^gistoE: /^:V(>L;'S%;^,-:l^.,/y.Tiiie|S^a^,',.pc'tober..2, .IdSO.V.^tdes^'^ad^cstiilatiosits.-;. 25-

The docketing system is intended to . -

aMowariembers of She public and -...'.':.. 

industries involved to identify readily 

and locate documents so that they can 

effectively participatein fee ralemaking 

process. Along wife fee statement of 

basis and purpose of the proposed and 

promulgated revisions and _3PA 

responses to significant comments, fee 

contents of fee docket except for 

interagency review materials, will serve 

as fee record in case of judicial review 

(section307tdK7HA)).; AL-A. '•,/' :'" 

UnderExecutive Order12291, EPA . 

must judge whether a regulation is 

"major" and, feerefore, siabject to fee '< 

- requirement of a regulatory impac. 

analysis. The Agency has determined 

that this ruleinakjng would mH result in 

any of the adverse economic effects set 

forth in section. 1 of fee Order as 

grounds for finding a ".najor (rule." The 

Agency has, therefore, concluded feat 

this regulation is not a "major rule" 

under Executive Order 12291. . 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980 requires fee identification of 

potentially adverse impacts of Federal 

regulations upon small business entities. 

The Act specifically requires the 

completion of an RFA analysis in those 

instances where small business impacts 

are possible. Because this rulemaking 

imposes no adverse economic impacts, 

an analysis has not been conducted. 

Pursuant to fee provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), I hereby certify feat fee 

promulgated rule will not have an 

impact on small entities because no 

additional costs will be incurred. 

This rule does not change any 

information collection requirements 

currently approved by OMB under fee 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.44 

U.SC. 3501 et seq. Information 

requirements contained in 40 CFR part 

60, Appendix A are cleared under OMB 

Contra. Number 2080-0022. 

list of Subjects in m CFR fart (SO 

Air pollution control. 

Intergovernmental (relations. Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Incorporation by reference, and 

Petroleum refineries. 

Dated: September 21,1930. 

William K. Reiily, 

Administrator. 

40 CFR part 60 is amended as follows: 

1. The authority for part 60 continues 

to reach 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401. 7411.7414.7416, 

7801. 

.§6©.W'.|/to«n«_®«.J ...~;...'.', ..-..,. 

,,'.,-i In8«d.l7{aH«8) feroiigfa (59J. 

mention of "fi 60.108(hJ{2)" is revised to 

read"g«8.a(J8(jH2i)." 

§80;.03 IAnmm_e<9] •'. .,-;_.;.• 

3. In .-§ £0.103{a}, the phrase "gases ... > 

which contain carbon'monoxide in 

excess of 0.050 percent hy volume." is 

revised to read "gases feat contain 

carbon monoxide (CO) in excess of 500 

ppm by volume (dry basis).". 

4. In § B0.104, paragraphs (a)f_i PRi], 

and (2)(ii) are revised to read as follows: 

§50..©<) Stet«_S5^fwOMKi_ir'®ii!<!les. 

{a)°A.° :. .- ';-,;.-••? 

(1) Bum is. any fuel gas combustion 

device any Hue. gas feat contains 

hydrogen suM.de p-JsS. in excess of 230 

mg/dsCB- $0.10 gr/dscf). The <cbn_bust_on 

in a flare of process upseS |is£8 or &e8 -

gas thai._B{releasedtotthelaraaa'a- ': 

result of relief valve leakage or ©feer --• 

emergency malfunctions is exempt from 

this paragraph. - - • 

(2)° 

(i) For an oxidation control system or 

a reduction control system followed by 

incineration, 250 ppm by volume (dry 

basis) of sulfur dioxide (SOa) at zero 

percent excess air. 

(ii) For a reduction control system not 

followed by indneration, 300 ppm by 

volume of reduced su.fur compounds 

and 10 ppm by volume of hydrogen 

sulfide (HaS), each calculated as ppm 

SOa by volume (dry basisj at zero 

percent excess air. 

5. In § S0.105. (a)(1) through {aM7_. 

(a)(13j(i), (d), and fe) ars vevisied. and 

(a)(14) is removed to read as follows: 

§60.205 MonitoringArt emissions and 

opsratlono. 

(a) * * ^ 

(1) For fluid catalytic cracking unit 

catalyst regenerators subject to 

§ &0.102(a)(2), an instrument for 

continuously monitoring and recording 

the opacity of emissions into fee 

atmosphere. The instrument shall he 

spanned at 60,70. or 80 percent opacity. 

(2) For fluid catalytic cracking unit 

catalyst regenerators subject to 

§ ©0.103(a), an instrument for 

continuously monitoring and recording 

the concentration hy volume fdry hasis) 

of CO emissions into fee atmosphere, 

except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) 

(ii) of this section. 

(i) The span value for this instrument 

is 1,000 ppm CO. 

(ii) A CO continuous monitoring 

system need not be installed if fee 

owner or operator demonstrates feat fee 

average CO emissions are less than 50 

ppm (dry basis) and also files a written 

request for exemption to the 

Administrator and reoei-ves such an. • 

exemption. The demonstration flhaii 

consist of continuously monitoring GO 

emissions for 30 days using an 

instrument feat shall sneet fee 

requirements of fPerformsssce .-• • 

Specification <_ of Appendix iBof this : j 

part. The span value shal Sss 100 ppm 

CO instead of 1/880 ppm, and fee 

relative accuracy limit shall be 10 

percent of the average OO emissions or 

5 ppm CO, whichever is.greater,' For -.<- -

instalments feat are identical to Method 

10 and employ fee sample coadi J-onimg 

system of Method 10A, the ffijbtemative- • 

relative accuracy test procedure m -

§ 10.a of JPerformance S_>ec_EcaSioi-2 .. 

may be used in place of fee rdathre 

accuracy test . 

(3) For fuel gas combustion devices -

subject So % <30._.04(ap), an tetrunieriS 

for continuously monitoring arid 

recording the concentration by volume 

(dry basis, zero percent excess air) of 

SOa emissions into fee atmosphere 

(except where an HaS monitor Is 

installed under paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section). The monitor shall include an 

oxygen monitor for correcting fee data 

for excess air. 

(i) The span values for this monitor 

are 50 ppra SOa and 10 percent .oxygen 

(Oa). 

{ii) The SOa momtoring level 

equivalent to fee H_S standard under 

§ 60.104(a)(1) shall be 20 ppm {dry basts, 

zero percent excess air). 

(iii) The performance evaluations for 

this SOa monitor under % 60.13(c) shall 

use Performance Specification 2. .. 

Methods 6 and 3 shall be used for 

conducting fee relative accuracy 

evaluations. Method S samples shall be 

taken at a flow rate of approximately 2 

liters/min for at least 30 minutes. The 

relative accuracy limit shall be 20 

percent or 4 ppm, whichever is greater, 

and fee calibration drift limit shall he 5 

percent of the established span value. 

(iv) Fuel gas combustion devices 

having a common source of fuel gas may 

be monitored at only orie location (Le., 

after one of fee combustion devices), if 

monitoring at fels location accurately' -

represents fee Sa emissions into the 

atmosphere from each of fee combustion 

devices. 

(4) In place of fee SOa monitor in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, an 

instrument for continuously monitoring 

and recording fee concentration (dry 

basis) of H_S in fuel gases before being 

burned in any fuel gas combustion 

device. 

(i) The span value for this instrument 

is 425 mg/dscm HaS. 

(ii) Fuel gas combustion devices 

having a common source of fuel gas may 
P.7 

Fatea l JRegsfer;/r Vol. 55,^No.;191 / Tuesday, October 2, 1990,/ Rules land RegulaticinsJ 3y>i.r «r~ 

be monitored at only one location, if .

 r 

monitoring at this location accurately 

represents fee cohcentratioh*?of Mis in 

:

 the fuel'gas being burned. 

(iii) The performance evaluations for 

this'HaS monitor under § 60.13(c) shall ^ 

use Performance Specification 7. Mefeod 

11 shall be iised for conducting fee '-.., 

relative accuracy evaluations.. -. 

(5) Fpr Claus sulfur recovery plants 

wife oxidation control systems or 

; .'.,.. reduction control systems followed by .•-.'.*' 

±3%'. '•-. fecirief ation subject to § 60.104(a)(2)(i),:_ 

0' 1 - •; •; an instrument for continuously

 v 

. monitoring and recording fee 

'cbhcentration (dry basis, zero percent 

i •'_•'"• excess ah) of SO_ emissions into the' 

j-v. atmosphere. The monitor shall include 

i an oxygen monitor for correcting fee 

data for excess air. ;< 

-;j "•' (i) The span values for this monitor 

/ . ; - are 500 ppinSOs and 10 percent Oa. 

""t:'-" . (ii) The performance evaluations for 

this SOi monitor under g 60.13(c) shall 

use Performance Specification 2. 

Methods 6 and 3 shall be used for 

Conducting fee relative accuracy 

evaluations. ; 

(6) For Claus sulfur recovery plants 

with reduction control systemsnot 

" followed by incineration subject to '••... 

§ 60.104(a)(2)(ii), an instrument for

 :

 -

. continuously monitoring and recording 

' •; • fee concentration of reduced sulfur and 

. Q_ emissions into fee atmosphere. The 

reduced sulfur emissions shall be 

•

 ; calculated as SOa (dry basis, zero 

percent excess air). ' 

(i) The span values for this monitor 

are 450 ppm reduced sulfur and 10: 

' percent Oa.'.1- '1'' •*' •'' '"" " 

(ii) The performance evaluations for 

this reduced sulfur (and Q_) monitor 

under § 60.13(c) "shall Use Performance 

Specification 5, except fee calibration 

drift specification is 2.5 percent of fee 

, span value rather than 5 percent. 

Methods 15 or 15A and Mefeod 3 shall 

be used for conducting fee relative 

accuracy evaluations. If Mefeod 3 yields 

Oa concentrations below 0.25 percent 

during fee performance specification 

.' test fee Oa concentration may be 

assumed to be zero and fee reduced 

sulfur CEMS need hot include an Oa 

monitor. 

(7) In place of fee reduced sulfur 

monitor under paragraph (a)(6) of this 

section, an instrument using an air or Oa 

dilution and oxidation system to convert 

fee reduced sulfur to SOa for 

continuously monitoring and recording 

fee concentration (dry basis, zero 

percent excess air) of fee resultant SO_. 

The monitor shall include an oxygen 

monitor for correcting the data for 

excess oxygen. 

(i) The span values for this monitor 

are 375 ppm SOa and 10 percent Oa 

p (ii) For reporting purposes.-fee SOa'.' 

exceedance level for this monitor is 250 

ppm (dry basis, zero percent excess air), 

(iii) The performance evaluations for 

this SOa (and Oa) monitor-under 

§ 60.13(c) shall use Performance 

Specification 5. Mefeods 15 or 15A and 

Method 3 shall be used for conducting 

fee relative accuracy evaluations. 

ft ft ft ft ft 

;

' (i3)>.•<r°•;' •'•;:.': A.3 L .'•••. 

- (i) The test methods as described in 

.§6o.ib8(k),-;::;;:•; 3".'.'••"'; V'".V 

, tt ' . ' tt ' . ' : ft '. ' ' ft ' . tt '• ~ 

(d) For any fluid catalytic cracking 

. unit catalyst regenerator under § 60.102 

feat uses an incinerator-waste heat . 

boiler to combust fee exhaust gases 

from fee catalyst regenerator, fee owner 

or operator shall record daily fee rate of 

combustion of liquid or solid fossil-fuels, 

(liters/hr or kg/hr) and fee hours of 

operation during which Uquid or solid 

fossil-fuels are combusted in fee 

incinerator-waste heat boiler. 

(e) For fee purpose of reports under 

§ 60.7(c), periods of excess emissions 

feat shall be determined and reported 

are defined as follows: 

Note: Al! averages, except for opacity, shall 

be determined as the arithmetic average of 

the applicable 1-hour averages, e.g., the 

rolling 3-hour a verage shall be determined as 

the arithmetic average of three contiguous 1-

hour averages. 

(1) Opacity. All 1-hour periods feat 

contain two or more 6-minute periods 

during which fee average opacity as 

measured by fee continuous monitoring 

system under § 60.105(a)(1) exceeds 30 

percent. ••.-•• 

(2) Carbon monoxide. All 1-hour 

periods during which fee average CO 

concentration as measured by fee CO 

continuous monitoring system under 

§ 60.105(a)(2) exceeds 500 ppm. 

(3) Sulfur dioxide from fuel gas 

combustion, (i) All rolling 3-hour periods 

during which fee average concentration 

of SOa as measured by fee SOa 

continuous monitoring system under 

§ 60.105(a)(3) exceeds 20 ppm (dry basis, 

zero percent excess air); or 

(ii) All rolling 3-hour periods during 

which fee average concentration of HaS 

as measured by fee HaS continuous 

monitoring system under § 60.105(a)(4) 

exceeds 230 mg/dscm (0.10 gr/dscf). 

(4) Sulfur dioxide from Claus sulfur 

recovery plants, (i) All 12-hour periods 

during which fee average concentration 

of SOa as measured by fee SOa 

continuous monitoring system under 

§ 60.105(a)(5) exceeds 250 ppm (dry 

basis, zero percent excess air); or 

(ii) All 12-hour periods during which 

the average concentration of reduced 

sulfur (as SO_) as measured by the ' 

reduced sulfur continuous in6nitoring?s -'"'" 

systemunder § 60.105(a)(6) exceeds 300 ••': 

ppm;o r ' ''-••••'••,'- ' :"•.-•••••' 

(iii) All 12-hour periods during Which 

the average concentration of SoVas ] 

measured by fee SOa' cohtinuous J i,i'

:

' >; 

monitoring system'under § 60.105(a)(7) 

exceeds 250 ppm (diy basis, zero'•'.-

percent excess air). •.. 

6, In § 60.108,' paragraphs (a) through 

(d) are revised, paragraphs (e) through 

(h) are redesignated as (g) through (j), 

arid hew paragraphs (e), (fj and (k) are 

added to read as follows: .. :L.AyL 

§ S0.H0S~'j^est wiothods and:proce(_urek 

(a) In conducting fee performance 

tests required in § 60.8, fee owner or: 

operator shall use as reference mefeods 

and procedures fee test methods in 

Appendix A of this part or other r.-Lmethods and procedures as specified in 

this section, except as provided iri 

§ 60.8(b). "V 

(b) The oi.vner or operator shall 

determine compliance with fee 

particulate matter (PM) standards in 

§ 60.102(a) as follows: 

(1) The emission rate (E) of PM shall 

be computed for each run using fee ••'-•• 

following equation:

 : ; '-. '•.:"'•• 

E=-

K c„ 0 3 

•'•• Ki-- '; 

where: 

E=Emission rate of PM, kg/1000 kg (lb/1000 

lb) of coke burn-pff.. . . , 

Cg=Concentration of PM, g/dscm (lb/dscf). 

Qo.—Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, -

dscm/hr (dscf/hr). 

R<=Coke burn-off rate, kg coke/hr (1000 lb 

coke/hr). 

K=Conversion factor. 1.0 (kga/g)/(1000 kg) 

(10s lb/(10C0 lb)). 

(2) Method 5 shall be used to 

determine fee concentration (c0) ofPM 

and volumetric flow rate (0*) of the 

effluent gas. The sampling time and 

sample volume for each run shall be at 

least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 

dscf). 

(3) The coke burn-off rate (RJ shall be 

computed for each run using fee 

following equation: 

R^K, Q, (%CO_+9.CO)K_ Qo-K. Qr 

[(%CO/2)+%CO_+%Oa] 

where: 

R«=Coke burn-off rate, kg/hr (1000 lb/hr). 

Qr=Volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas from 

catalyst regenerator before entering the 

emission control system, dscm/min 

(dscf/min). 

Q_=Volumetric flow rate, of air to FCCU 

regenerator, as determined from the fluid 

catalytic cracking unit control room 

instrumentation, dscm/min (dscf/min). 
P.8 

95(^=CariK_m<dk)^eoo--02nJiat_<Mj„i;^ •• 

"''^peiwrithy volume (dry basis). 

%CO=Carbon monoxide concentrat-oq, 

percent by volume (dry basis). 

%Oi=Oxygen concentration, percent by 

volume (dry basis). 

Ki=Material balance and conversion factor, 

0.2982 (_^i_iin)/(hr-d8cm-S)ia<n88Clb-. 

min)/(hr-d8cf-»)J. 

Ki=Material balance and oeavsrs-dn factor, 

2JK8(kg^in)/tbj<i8cm-S.){0.aS03 (Ibmin)/(-_r-dsrf-«)]. .,, --\-i. •'. •... 

K_=Material balance and conversion factor, 

0.0994 ,(kg-min)/(_iisdBcm-^

 i; ::- ^ -

(0.0032 0b-min)/(hiHiscf5SH.- ;' \-.-:.--r.: --. 

ID Mefeod 2 shall be used to. .•;"."" 

detennine fee volumetric flow rate (QJ.' 

' {H) The emission correction factor, 

integrated sampling arid analysis " 

procedure of Mefeod 3 shall be used to' 

deterintaeCp2.CO,andOa "" 

coricentrttioris. "r' . .A- '',"'*: L 

(4) Mefeod 9 and the procedures of 

§'80.11 shall be used to determine 

opacity. •'-•'. -"'. ' 

(c) If auxiliary liquid or solid fossilfuels are burned in an incinerator-waste 

heat boiler, fee owner or operator shall 

determine fee emission rate of VM 

permitted in § 80.102(b) as follows: 

(1) The allowable emission rate (Eo) of 

PM shall be computed for each run using 

the following equation: 

E.=fl;0+A(H/RJ_C

 : ' 

where: 

E_=Emis8ion rate of EM aUowed, kg/1000 leg 

(lb/1000 lb) of coke bum-off in catalyst 

regenerator. " 

lJ0=_-n_ission standard, bg ooke/tOGO kg (lb 

fioke/lfflW-b). 

A=Allowable incremental rate of PM 

emissions, 0.18 g/miUjon cal (0.10 lb/ 

million Btu). 

H=Keat Input rate from solid or tiquid fossil . 

fael. million cal/hr (miffion Btu/hr). 

R^srCoke WiM-iFf rate, kg coke/hr (1C00 ft 

coke/hr). 

K' ^Conversion factor lo units of standard, 

t-0(kga/g)/(lCOO kg) (10a tb/(lCC0 lb]]. 

(2) Procedures subject to fee approval 

of fee Administrator shall be used to 

determine fee heat input rate. 

(3) The procedure in paragraph (b)(3) 

otfthis section shall be -used to 

determine fee coke burn-off rate (RJ. 

(dj The owner of operator shall 

determine compliance -wife the CO 

standard in % 80.103(a) ~bf using fee 

integrated sampling tedhsrique of 

Mefeod 10 to determine fee CO •.-... 

concentration (dry basis). The sampling 

time for each run shall be ©0 minutes. 

(e) The owner or operator shall 

determine cbmpliahcis wife fee .H_S 

standard in % «ai04{a$(l) as follows: 

Mefeod 11 ShaH be used to detennine 

fee Ha concentration. The gases entering 

fee sampling train should be at about 

atmospheric pressure. If fee pressure in 

the refinery Sue! gas lines is relatively 

high, a flow controlvalve maybe used 

to reduce feepressure. If fee line,.. , 

pressure is high enough to operate the 

sampling train without a vacuum pump, 

the pump may be eliminated from the 

sampling train. The sample shall be ' 

drawn from anoint mear fee centroid of. 

fee fuel gas line. The sampling time and 

sample volume shall be at least 10 

minutes and 0.010 dscm (0.35 dscf). Two 

samples of equal eampling times shall 

be taken at about l-J-Ourinfervals. The 

arithihetic average of tiiese two samples . 

shall constitute a nin.'Pos-most fuel. ,. 

gases. oampEAg times exceeding20 .';.• 

minutes may result in <3enleliaa_ of fee 

coHection solution, idfebiiagh fuel gases 

containing low concentrations of H.S 

may necessitate sampling for longer 

periods of time. 

• ff) The owner or operator shaH':.. 

determine compliance with the SO_ and 

fee HaS and reduced sulfur standards In 

1 60.104(a)(2) as follows: <• 

(1) Method 6 shall be used to 

determine fee SOa concentration. Ihe 

concentration in mg/dscm (lb/dscf) 

obtained by Mefeod 8 is multiplied by 

0.3754 to obtain fee concentration in 

ppm. Ihe sampling point in fee duct 

shall be fee centroid of fee cross section 

if fee cross-sectional area is less than 

5.00 ma{54 ft*) or at a point no doser to 

fee walls than 1.00 m (39 in.) if fee crosssectional area is 5.00 ma

or more and fee 

centroid is more than 1 m from fee wall. 

The sampling time and sample rolume 

shall be at least 10 minutes and 0.010 

dscm (0.35 dscf) for each sample. Eight. 

samples, of equal sampling times shall -

be taken at about S0-minute intervals. -

The. arithmetic average cf these eight . 

samples sliall constitute a run. Method 4 

shall be used to determine fee moisture 

content ofthe gases. The sampling point 

for Method <_ shall be adjacent to fee 

sampling point for Mefeod fi. The 

sampling time for ead. sample shall be 

equal to fee time it takes for two Method 

6 samples. The moisture content from 

this sample shall be used to correct fee. 

corresponding Method 6 samples for 

moisture. For documenting fee oxidation 

efficiency of fee control device for 

reduced sulfur compounds, Mefeod 15 

shall be used following the procedures 

of paragraph (f)(2) of fels section. . 

(2) Method 15 shall be used to 

determine fee reduced sulfur and H.S 

concentrations. Each run shall consist of 

18 samples taken over a minimum of 3 

hours. The sampling point shall be fee . 

same as feat described for Methods in 

paragraph (fjfl) of this section. To 

ensure minimum residence time for fee 

sample inside feesamplelines, fee 

sampling rate shaH be at .east 3.01pm 

(0.10 cfm). The SOa equivalent for each 

run shall be calculated after being 

corrected for moisture vaA-os^jgt^a^^ 

fee arithmetic average of fes £CVfv;.|?'•"•'"" 

equivalent far each sampSe during fee ' 

run. Method 4 shall be used to determine 

fee moisture content of fee gases as fee 

paragraph (f)(1) of tins section. The -.:; <• 

sampling time for each sample shall be 

equal to the time it takes for four.•' i : 

Mefeod 15 samples. • "••••..-

(3) The oxygen concentration used to 

correct fee emissionrate for excess air 

shall be obtained by fee Integrated,,. 

-sampling and analysis procedure off 3j>. 

Mefeod 3. The samoles shall be taken 

simultaneously with fee SOaJ reduced 

sulfur and HaS, of moisture samples. The ~ 

SOa, reduced sulfur, and H_Ssam__le8 

shall be corrected to-zero percent excess 

air using the equation In paragraph 

(h)(3) of this section. . 

o * ' • • * • * ' ~ . • * • • • - . 

: (k) The test mefeods used to 

supplement continuous monitoring ••••••• 

system data to meet fee minimum data 

requirements in § 60.104(d) will be used 

as described below or as otherwise 

approved by fee Administrator. 

(i) Mefeods 8b «B. or 8 are used. The 

sampling location(s) are fee same as 

those specified for the monitor. 

(2) For Mefeod 8, fee minimum 

sampling time is 20 minutes arid fee 

minimum sampling volume is 0.02 dscm 

(0.71 dscf) for each sample. Samples are 

taken at approximately 60-minute 

intervals. Each sample represents a 1-

. hour average. A minimum of 18 valid 

samples is required to obtain one. valid 

day of data. 

(3) For Mefeod 6B. collection of a 

sample representing a minimum of 18 

hours is required to obtain one valid day 

of data. 

(4) For Method 8, the procedures as 

outlined in this section are used. Ihe 

equivalent of 16 hours of sampling is 

required to obtain one valid day of data. 

§ S0.UCS {Anratdet-l • --.,. 

7. In newly redesignated § 80.108(h) 

(3), (4). and (5), mention of 

"§ eairafflp)," "8 aaioa(f)(ay' of "ffl" 

is revised to read "J fi0.108(h}(2)," 

"§ eaiesftKiJ." «f "OO." resjjecfively. 

§30.106 [Amended. '• -'• '"" 

S. In newly redesignated § 60.iC8(i)_ 

(i)(2)(i). and (iX7), mention of "fe)(12j." 

"§ eo.lC8(g)(3_r or "fe)(6T Is revised to 

read "(I)f-L2)," "8 flQ.106(i](3);* or -(iKS)." 

respectively. 

§60..08 

9. In newly redesignated £6b.!_08(_}(7), 

"(a)(4)M is revised to read 'Tbjp)." 
W17& ffedegall • Reg-Ster/AV61. 55, No.-'.191 hTuesday; October 2..-1980 /^Rules and Regulations 

P.9 

io; Iri newly redesignated3rAr >\r.AA 

§ 60.108(j)(3)(ii),"(h)(2)" is revised to 

Tead"\i){2)." rr 

$''60,107'. \[ Amended]'-. ',. ...... .:;,,;'•' 

- ;il.-In.B6bib7(b)(l)(ii),?,(a)(i4J,:;is . 

revis&d read to 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'Ms . 

'^yi8^tii^^''i^08(hj,". J..:, ;;• 0. ; 

$60.107'..lams'itded] ...* ••..• ;•" .'•.',• 

."''". J^ilniS 60.107(c)(l)(ii), "§ 60.106(g)" in 

both places is revised to read 

"§60.108(i)." •••';LLA: 0 

,'§'60.107 ..[Amended]. • • ••>;.•.'•! 

15. Iri § 60.107(c)(l)(iii). "§ 60.108(h)" 

is re\ised tp read *'§ 60.108(j);" 

§60.108 [Amended] 

18. In § 60.108(d), "§ 60.106(g) or (h)" 

is revised to read "§ 60.106{i) or (j)." 

$60,109 [Amended] 

.17. In § 60.109(b)(2). "60.108(g)(12)" is 

revised to read "60.106(i)(12)." 

18. In Appendix B, by adding .'_•'•"". 

Performance Specification 7 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix E-Fe-fprmance Specifications 

Performarice Specification 7— 

Specifications and Test Procedures for 

Hydrogen Sulfide Continuous Emission 

Monitoring Systems in Stationary 

Sources 

1. Applicability and Principle • . 

1.1 Applicability. 1.1.1 This specification 

is td be used for evaluating the acceptability 

of hydrogen sulfide (HsS) continuous 

emission monitoring systems (CEMS's) at the 

time of or soon after installation and 

whenever specified in an applicable subpart 

-of the regulations. .., • y .... 

,1.1.2 Ihis specification is not designed to.•• 

;

 evaluate the installed CEMS performance ._. 

over an extended period of time nor does it 

identify specific calibration techniques and 

other auxiliary procedures to assess CEMS 

performance. The source owner or operator, 

however, is responsible to calibrate, 

maintain, and operate the CEMS. To evaluate 

CEMS performance, the Administrator may 

..require, under Section 114 of the Act, the. 

source owner or-operatbr to conduct CEMS 

" performance evaluations at other times 

besides the initial test. See % 60.13(c). • 

: 1.1.3 The definitions, installation 

specifications, test procedures, data 

reduction procedures for determining 

calibration drifts (CO) and relative accuracy 

(RA), and reporting of Performance 

Specification 2 (PS 2), Sections".^,'"5; 6,'8i3 

• and 9 applyto this specification. J;..": 'A' . .'* 

1.2 Principle. Reference method (RM), CD, 

and RA tests are conducted to determine that 

the CEMS conforms to the specification. 

2. Performanceand Equipment Specif ications • 

2.1 Instrument zero and span'. This 

specification is the same as Section 4.1 of PS 

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

; 

''•'ii^'a'iW^tiph'LdH^'fhedsiL/s^ LL, 

calibration must not drift or deviate from the 

- inference; value of fee calibration gas or..;• ;fr' \ 

• reference source by more than 5 percent of f . 

;. the established span value for 6out of 7; test -

: 

days (e.g., the established span value fs 300 ~

:;'. 

ppm for subpart J fuel gas combustion 

devices). ' ''- A' ' '"•-.'. 

2.3 Relative accuracy. The RA ofthe . 

CEMS shall be no greater than 20 percent of 

the mean value of the RM test data in terms 

of the units of the emission stahdard or 10 

percent bf the applicable standard, whichever 

is greater." ; ;". 

3. Relative Accuracy Test Procedure 

3.1 Sampling Strategy for RM Tests, 

Correlation of RM and CEMS Data Number 

of RM Tests, and Calculations. These are the 

same as that in PS 2, § 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.5, 

respectively. ' '' ' • 

3.2 - Reference' Methods. Unless otherwise 

specified In ah applicable subpart of the 

regulation. Method 11 is the RM for this PS; • 

4. Bibliography. •.:.-.-

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Standards bf Performance for New Stationary 

Sources; Appendix B; Performance 

Specifications 2 and 3 for SO., NO., CO., and 

Oa Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems; 

Final Rule. 48 CFR 23808. Washington, DC 

U.S. Government Printing Office. May 25, 

1983. . •..•;.-••: . 

2. U.S. Govemment Printing Office. 

Gaseous Continuous Emission Monitoring 

Systems—Performance Specification 

Guidelines for SO., NO„. CO_, Oi, and TRS. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Washington, D.C EPA-450/3-82-O26. 

October 1982.28p. , A.. 

3. Maines, G.D, W.C Kelly (Scott ' 

Environmental Technology, Inc.),' and J.B.. • 

Homolya. Evaluation of Monitors for ' 

. Measuring H.S iii Refinery Gas. Prepared for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Research Triangle Park, N.C Contract No; 

68-02-2707.'1978. 80 p. 

,4. Ferguson. B.B., R.E. Lester (Harmon . -.: 

Engineering and Testing), and WJ. Mitchell. 

Field Evaluation of Carbon Monoxide and 

Hydrogen Sulfide Continuous Emission 

Monitors at an Oil Refinery. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. Publication No. 

EPA-600/4-82^054. August 1982.100 p. 

(FR Doc. 90-22983 Filed 10-1-90; 8:45 am] 

BILLING COOE 8S60-50-M 

••46 ©FR Part ilS 

[CGD 86-067d] 

AlcotioO Tes-tag oi? ©ommeroJa. Vessel 

-A6Et.cv. CoasfGuii^ 'y 

taCTJow: Firiairulet W3A.f33 '^3^3';:" 

SUMMARV. This final Mepreyisestlie^preemployment drug testing requirement for 

two categories of marine employers: . 

Large employers (those having more. 

than 50 employees) and medium , . 

employers (those having from 11 to 50 

employees). This change will minimize 

the need for additional pre-employment 

testing by these large and medium 

employers until December 1990 and 

relieve them of an unintended economic 

burden caused by implementation of ., 

preemployment testing before the 

implementation of random testing. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective 

October 2,1990.;: .•:.; . 

• FOH'iajl_mJEK,_MFORIMAT.OM eotwacTr:. 

Lieutenant Commander T. A. Murphy, 

Project Manager, Marine Investigation 

Division (GrMMI). Office of Marine 

Safety, Security and Environmental 

Protection, U.S. Coast Guard .-.:• 

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20593-0001. (202) 267-

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

. SUPH_EMENTaBV0WFOiaimfBOra:V^en . 

deciding on appropriate,exceptions to 

pre-eniployirient testirig requirements, 

the Department of Transportation was : 

reviewing drug program rules for six 

different operating modes. The modal 

rules generally provided an exception to 

pre-employment testing for employees 

who had been covered for a full year by 

a random testing program conducted by 

their previous employer. It was the 

Department's intent that after passing a 

pre-employment test, employees would 

be covered by an employer's random 

testing program and would not need . 

additional pre-employfnent testing when 

they changed jobs.. y :.";...'.-

Many large marine employers began 

pre-employment testing as early as May 

1,1989. Medium employers began preemployment testing on the December 21, 

1989 implementation date. The current 

Coast Guard regulations provide that 

maritime personnel subject to an 

employer's random testing program 

continuously for the previously twelve"'. 

months may be excepted from a preemployment test when changing jobs. 

Coast Guard random testing was