52384 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 60, and 63

[IL–64–2–5807; FRL–5898–5]

RIN 2060–AE76

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source

Categories; National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Primary Aluminum Reduction

Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates

national emission standards for each

new or existing potline, paste

production plant, and anode bake

furnace associated with a primary

aluminum reduction plant, and for each

new pitch storage tank associated with

a primary aluminum production plant.

In addition, the new source performance

standard for primary aluminum plants

is amended and most of the

requirements are incorporated in the

final national emission standards. This

action also adds Method 315 for the

measurement of extractable organic

matter to appendix A of part 63 and

Method 14A for the measurement of

total fluoride (TF) to appendix A of part

60.

The major hazardous air pollutants

(HAPs) emitted by the facilities covered

by this rule include hydrogen fluoride

(HF) and polycyclic organic matter

(POM). Polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) are included in

the chemical group POM. Polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons have been

reported to produce carcinogenic,

reproductive, and developmental effects

as well as toxic effects on blood, the

liver, eyes, and the immune system. The

final rule will result in a 50 percent

reduction in fluoride and POM

emissions from the current level of

11,000 tons per year (tpy); a substantial

reduction in emissions of nonHAP

pollutants, such as particulate matter,

also will be achieved.

These standards implement section

112(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended

(the Act) and are based on the

Administrator’s determination that

primary aluminum plants may

reasonably be anticipated to emit

several of the HAPs listed in section

112(b) of the Act from the various

process operations found within the

industry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 7, 1997. See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

concerning judicial review.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the rule is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of October 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The docket for this

rulemaking containing the information

considered by the EPA in development

of the final rule is Docket No. A–92–60.

This docket is available for public

inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday except for

Federal holidays, at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (6102), 401 M Street

SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone:

(202) 260–7548. The docket is located at

the above address in Room M–1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor). A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

Background Information Document. A

background information document,

titled ‘‘National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for

Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants—

Background Information for

Promulgated Standards, Summary of

Public Comments and Responses,’’ has

been prepared summarizing the

significant public comments made on

the proposed rule and the

Administrator’s response to those

comments. This document is available

in the docket for this rulemaking and

also is available for downloading from

the Technology Transfer Network under

the Clean Air Act Amendments,

Recently Signed Rules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Fruh, Policy, Planning, and

Standards Group, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone

number (919) 541–2837, electronic mail

address, ‘‘fruh.steve@epamail.epa.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this

action are those that emit or have the

potential to emit HAPs listed in section

112(b) of the Act. Regulated categories

and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ..................... Primary aluminum reduction plants.

Federal government:

Not affected

State/local/tribal government:

Not affected.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the

applicability criteria in § 63.840 of the

final rule. If you have any questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Judicial Review

This NESHAP for primary aluminum

reduction plants was proposed on

September 26, 1996 (61 FR 50586). This

notice promulgating a NESHAP for

primary aluminum reduction plants

constitutes final administrative action

concerning that proposal. Under section

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, judicial

review of this final rule is available only

by filing a petition for review in the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit by December 8, 1997.

Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act,

only an objection to this rule which was

raised with reasonable specificity

during the period for public comment

can be raised during judicial review.

Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the

Act, the requirements established by

today’s final action may not be

challenged separately in any civil or

criminal proceeding brought by EPA to

enforce these requirements.

Technology Transfer Network

The Technology Transfer Network is

one of the EPA’s electronic bulletin

boards. The Technology Transfer

Network provides information and

technology exchange in various areas of

air pollution control. The service is free

except for the cost of a phone call. Dial

(919) 541–5472 for up to a 14,400 bps

modem. The Technology Transfer

Network is also accessible through the

Internet at ‘‘http://

ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov.’’ If more

information on the Technology Transfer

Network is needed, call the HELP line

at (919) 541–5384.

Outline

The following outline is provided to

aid in reading this preamble to the final

rule.

I. Statutory Authority

II. Purpose

III. Background

A. Primary Aluminum Source Category

B. NESHAP for Source Categories
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52385

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

IV. Summary of Final Rule and Changes

Since Proposal

A. Applicability

B. Emission Limits and Standards

C. Incorporation of the NSPS

D. Emission Averaging

E. Compliance Provisions

F. Emission Monitoring

G. Test Methods

H. Time Limit for Approval or Disapproval

of Submissions

I. Notification, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping Requirements

J. Display of OMB Control Numbers

V. Summary of Impacts

VI. Summary of Responses to Major

Comments

A. Subcategories

B. Format of the Standard

C. Achievability of Emission Limits

D. Incorporation of the NSPS

E. Time Limit for Approval by the

Regulatory Authority

F. Relationship to Other Rules

G. Reduced Sampling Frequency

H. Approval of Alcan Cassette Method

(Method 14A)

I. Estimates of Costs for Control and

Monitoring

J. Exceeding an Operating Parameter Limit

K. Pitch Storage Tanks

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Executive Order 12866

C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Submission to Congress and the General

Accounting Office

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Clean Air Act

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this rule is

provided by sections 101, 112, 114, 116,

and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as

amended; 42 U.S.C., 7401, 7412, 7414,

7416, and 7601.

II. Purpose

The Clean Air Act was created in part

‘‘to protect and enhance the quality of

the Nation’s air resources so as to

promote the public health and welfare

and the productive capacity of its

population.’’ [See section 101(b)(1).]

Section 112 of the Act establishes a

technology-based program to reduce

stationary source emissions of HAPs

from new and existing sources.

Section 112(d) of the Act requires the

regulations to reflect the maximum

degree of reduction in emissions of

HAPs that is achievable taking into

consideration the cost of achieving the

emission reduction, any non-air quality

health and environmental impacts, and

energy requirements. This level of

control is commonly referred to as the

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT). The goal of the

section 112(d) MACT standards is to

apply such control technology to reduce

emissions and thereby reduce the

hazard of HAPs emitted from stationary

sources.

This final rule is technology based,

i.e., based on MACT. In essence, these

MACT standards ensure that all major

sources of air toxic emissions achieve

the level of control already being

achieved by the better controlled and

lower emitting sources in each category.

This approach provides assurance to

citizens that each major source of toxic

air pollution will be required to

effectively control its emissions. At the

same time, this approach provides a

level economic playing field, ensuring

that facilities that use cleaner processes

and good emission controls are not

disadvantaged relative to competitors

with poorer controls.

III. Background

A. Primary Aluminum Source Category

Section 112(c) of the Act requires the

EPA to list each category of major and

area sources, as appropriate, emitting

one or more of the HAPs listed in

section 112(b) of the Act. The term

‘‘major source’’ is defined by the Act to

mean:

* * *Any stationary source or group of

stationary sources located within a

contiguous area and under common control

that emits or has the potential to emit,

considering controls, in the aggregate 10 tons

per year or more of any HAP or 25 tons per

year or more of any combination of HAPs.

On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the

EPA published a list of major and area

sources for which NESHAP are to be

promulgated, and primary aluminum

production was one of the 174

categories of sources listed. The listing

was based on the Administrator’s

determination that primary aluminum

plants may reasonably be anticipated to

emit several of the listed HAPs in

sufficient quantity to be designated as

major sources. The EPA schedule for

promulgation of the MACT standards

was published on December 3, 1993 (58

FR 63941), and requires that rules for

the primary aluminum source category

be promulgated by November 15, 1997.

The primary aluminum source

category includes facilities engaged in

producing primary aluminum by

electrolytically reducing alumina. The

NESHAP for primary aluminum

production applies to all primary

aluminum production plants because all

of these sites are major sources.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

The control of HAPs is achieved

through the promulgation of technologybased emission standards under section

112(d) and design, equipment, work

practice, or operational standards under

section 112(h) for categories of sources

that emit HAPs. Emission reductions

may be accomplished through the

application of measures, processes,

methods, systems, or techniques

including, but not limited to: (1)

Reducing the volume of, or eliminating

emissions of, such pollutants through

process changes, substitution of

materials, or other modifications; (2)

enclosing systems or processes to

eliminate emissions; (3) collecting,

capturing, or treating such pollutants

when released from a process, stack,

storage, or fugitive emissions point; (4)

design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standards (including

requirements for operator training or

certification) as provided in subsection

(h); or (5) a combination of the above.

(See section 112(d)(2).)

A statutory minimum or baseline

level of HAP emission control that the

EPA can select to be MACT for a

particular source category is defined

under section 112(d)(3) of the Act and

is referred to as the ‘‘MACT floor.’’ For

new sources, the MACT floor is the

level of HAP emission control that is

achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source. The statute

allows standards under a NESHAP for

existing sources to be less stringent than

standards for new sources. The

determination of MACT floor for

existing sources depends on the

nationwide number of existing sources

within the source category. The floor is

based on the average emission

limitation achieved by the bestperforming 12 percent of existing

sources for categories and subcategories

with 30 or more sources, or the bestperforming 5 sources for categories or

subcategories with fewer than 30

sources.

Once the MACT floors are determined

for new and existing sources in a source

category, the EPA must establish

standards under a NESHAP that are no

less stringent than the applicable MACT

floors. The Administrator may

promulgate standards that are more

stringent than the MACT floor when

such standards are determined by the

EPA to be achievable taking into

consideration the cost of implementing

the standards as well as any non-air

quality health and environmental

impacts and energy requirements.

Section 112(d) of the Act requires

EPA to establish emission standards for
52386 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

each category or subcategory of major

and area sources. Section 112(d)(1) of

the Act provides that the Administrator

may distinguish among classes, types,

and sizes of sources within a category in

establishing such standards. In

establishing subcategories, EPA

considers factors such as air pollution

control engineering differences, process

operations (including differences

between batch and continuous

operations), emission characteristics,

control device applicability, and

opportunities for pollution prevention.

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

Available emission data, collected in

conjunction with development of the

standard, show that the pollutants that

are listed in section 112(b)(1) and are

emitted by primary aluminum plants

include HF, a gaseous inorganic

compound, and POM. Following is a

summary of the potential health effects

caused by emission of pollutants that

will be reduced by the standard.

Short-term inhalation exposure to

gaseous HF and related fluoride

compounds can cause severe respiratory

damage in humans, including severe

irritation and pulmonary edema. Longterm inhalation exposure to low levels

of HF by humans has been reported to

result in irritation and congestion of the

nose, throat, and bronchi while damage

to liver, kidney, and lungs has been

observed in animals. Occupational

studies have not specifically implicated

inhaled fluoride as a cause of cancer,

and the Agency has not classified HF

with respect to potential

carcinogenicity.

There is generally a lack of

information on human health effects

associated with exposures to HF at

current ambient air concentrations near

primary aluminum plants. In their

comments on the proposed rule, the

aluminum industry asserted that there

was no evidence of adverse effects on

human health or the environment from

HF emissions from aluminum

production at the industry’s current

level of emission control.

Emission test results reveal that

primary aluminum reduction plants

emit POM, which includes a

combination of PAHs such as

anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, and

naphthalene, among others. Several of

the PAH compounds, including

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,

benzo(b)fluoranthene,

benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and

indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, are probable

human carcinogens. Cancer is the major

concern from exposure to these PAHs.

Specifically, long-term exposure to

benzo(a)pyrene has been reported to

result in toxic effects on skin, irritation

to eyes, cataracts in humans, and toxic

effects on the liver, blood, and the

immune system in animal studies.

Reproductive and developmental effects

from benzo(a)pyrene have also been

reported in animal studies.

In addition to HAPs, this final

standard also would reduce emissions

of particulate matter smaller than 10

microns in diameter (PM10), which are

controlled under the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The

health effects of PM10 are described in

EPA’s criteria documents that support

the NAAQS. For example, particles

addressed by the PM10 standard have

been associated with aggravation of

existing respiratory and cardiovascular

disease and increased risk of premature

death.

The EPA does recognize that the

degree of adverse effects to health can

range from mild to severe. The extent

and degree to which the health effects

may be experienced depends upon: (1)

The ambient concentrations observed in

the area (e.g., as influenced by emission

rates, meteorological conditions, and

terrain), (2) the frequency of and

duration of exposures, (3) characteristics

of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics,

age, pre-existing health conditions, and

lifestyle), which vary significantly with

the population, and (4) pollutantspecific characteristics (e.g., toxicity,

half-life in the environment,

bioaccumulation, and persistence).

IV. Summary of Final Rule and

Changes Since Proposal

Changes have been incorporated into

the final NESHAP for primary

aluminum reduction plants in response

to comments on the proposed rule. The

principal changes made since proposal

are summarized below.

A. Applicability

As proposed, the final standard

applies to emissions of HF, measured

using TF as a surrogate, and POM (as

measured by methylene chloride

extractables) from each affected source

associated with primary aluminum

reduction and located at a major source.

Under the proposed standard, affected

sources included each new and existing

potline of reduction cells, anode bake

furnace, and paste production plant,

except for one off-site anode bake

furnace that is subject to the State

MACT determination established by the

applicable regulatory authority. No

changes were made to the final standard

affecting the applicability of the rule to

these affected sources.

In response to public comments, the

applicability of the proposed rule was

revised to include new pitch storage

tanks. The control technology and

standards applicable to this affected

source are summarized in section IV.B

of this document.

Following proposal, the EPA’s Office

of Solid Waste (OSW) received

information that one primary aluminum

plant has recently installed a new

process designed to recycle spent

potliner from aluminum reduction cells.

Spent potliner is listed as a hazardous

waste under the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act. This process vitrifies

the waste into a glass material and

recovers sodium fluoride and calcium

fluoride for use in the aluminum

production process. Although the

process is not defined as an affected

source under the final MACT rule, the

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) and OSW are

working in cooperation with the State

agency and the plant to evaluate

potential air emissions (e.g., emission

testing will be performed in the near

future) and to determine whether

additional emission control

requirements beyond those currently

required by the State are needed.

B. Emission Limits and Standards

No changes were made to the control

options serving as the basis of the

proposed standards. The emission

control technology selected as the basis

of the standards is discussed in section

III.C of the proposal preamble document

(61 FR 50588, September 26, 1996).

Three changes were made to the

emission limits and standards in

§§ 63.843 and 63.844 of the proposed

rule. The POM emission limit for the

VSS2 subcategory was reduced from 3.7

lbs/ton to 3.6 lbs/ton based on data

received for the MACT floor potline

from that subcategory. Section

63.843(b)(3) of the proposed rule

concerning use of an alternative control

device for paste production plants was

revised to encourage pollution

prevention options. Section 63.844 of

the proposed rule also was revised to

include new paragraph (d) containing

provisions for new pitch storage tanks.

No other changes were made to the

proposed limits and standards for

potlines or anode bake furnaces. These

limits are summarized in Tables 1 and

2 of the proposal preamble document

(61 FR 50588–50589, September 26,

1996).

No changes were made to the

proposed equipment standard

developed under section 112(h) of the

Act that required a dry coke scrubber for

the paste production plant. The EPA
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52387

concluded that it was not feasible or

practicable to develop a defensible

quantitative emission limit because

there were too few POM data available.

However, the available information and

engineering judgement indicated that

the best POM control technology in use

for paste plants was the dry coke

scrubber, which was determined to

represent MACT.

The proposed provisions in

§ 63.843(b)(3) that qualify alternatives to

the dry coke scrubber for paste

production plants were revised in

response to public comments to

encourage pollution prevention

measures, such as reducing the quantity

of POMs used in paste production. The

control efficiency standard that was

proposed was replaced with POM

emission limits for batch and

continuous mixers in terms of pounds of

POM per ton of paste. With this

approach, an affected plant would not

be penalized for using pollution

prevention measures that reduce

uncontrolled emissions. This change

will encourage innovative or pollution

prevention measures, such as reducing

the quantity of POMs used in the paste

operation. The alternative limit in lb/ton

does not preclude plants from

petitioning for other alternative means

of emission limitation under section

112(h)(3) of the Act based on

demonstrating an equivalent or greater

emission reduction. A detailed

discussion is provided in section VI.B of

this document.

Section 63.844 of the proposed rule

was revised to include new paragraph

(d) establishing standards for new pitch

storage tanks. New paragraph (d)

requires that each new pitch storage

tank be equipped with an emission

control system designed and operated to

reduce inlet emissions of POM by 95

percent or greater. Compliance and

monitoring provisions are summarized

in sections IV.E and IV.F of this

document.

C. Incorporation of the NSPS

In response to comments on this

issue, the EPA incorporated the

provisions of the new source

performance standard (NSPS) in subpart

S of part 60 into a new section (§ 63.845)

of the final rule and added appropriate

definitions from the NSPS. Also, the

NSPS was amended to allow the owner

or operator to comply with either the

NSPS or with the special provisions that

were incorporated into § 63.845. With

this change, any modified,

reconstructed, or new potroom group

that would have triggered the NSPS may

now use the special provisions in the

NESHAP to demonstrate compliance.

Sampling and monitoring were

streamlined by using the MACT

requirements and by developing a single

emission limit for a potline rather than

overlapping limits for both the potline

and the affected potroom group. The

NSPS opacity limit was also

incorporated.

D. Emission Averaging

Only one change was made to the

emission limits in § 63.845 of the

proposed NESHAP pertaining to

emission averaging for potlines and

anode bake furnaces. The POM limits

for the VSS2 subcategory were reduced

based on data collected for the MACT

floor potline from that subcategory. The

proposed limits are summarized in

Tables 3 and 4 of the proposal preamble

document (61 FR 50591, September 26,

1996). This section is renumbered as

§ 63.846 in the final rule.

The final standard contains

provisions allowing the owner or

operator to demonstrate compliance

through averaging emissions of TF from

all existing potlines, POM from existing

Soderberg potlines, and TF and POM

from existing anode bake furnaces (i.e.,

averaging is not allowed for new

sources). Averaging between pollutants

(TF and POM) is not allowed. The final

standard also limits averaging to like

sources (i.e., TF emissions from a

potline can be averaged only with TF

emissions from another potline at the

same plant site). Emission averaging

would not be allowed in any State that

selects to exclude this option from its

approved permitting program.

Monthly TF and quarterly POM limits

for each group of potlines (two or more

lines) are included in the rule. Under

this approach, the owner or operator

samples TF and/or POM emissions from

at least three runs each month/quarter

for each potline in the group to

determine the average emissions from

each potline. A minor revision was

made to the wording in § 63.845(d)(2) of

the proposed NESHAP (§ 63.846(d)(2) of

the final rule) to clarify that monthly

average potline emissions are

determined from each potline from at

least three runs per potline each month

for TF secondary emissions and/or the

quarterly average emissions from at least

one run each month for POM emissions

using the procedures and methods in

§§ 63.847 and 63.849 of the final rule

(emphasis added). As proposed, the sum

of emissions from each potline is

divided by total aluminum production

from all of the potlines for the month (or

for the quarter for POM) to determine

the emissions in lb/ton for comparison

to the applicable emission limit.

Section 63.846(d) of the NESHAP

describes the requirements for an

emission averaging implementation

plan. The proposed standard required

that unless an operating permit

application has been submitted, the

owner or operator must develop and

submit an implementation plan for

emission averaging to the applicable

regulatory authority for review and

approval. This language was revised to

remove the misleading phase, ‘‘unless

an operating permit application has

been submitted’’ to clarify that each

owner or operator desiring to participate

in emission averaging must develop and

submit an implementation plan.

Paragraph (d)(2) of this section clearly

states that the owner or operator must

include the specified information in an

implementation plan or in the

application for an operating permit.

The language in § 63.845(d)(1) of the

proposed NESHAP pertaining to the

deadline for submission of the plan also

was revised. Section 63.846(d)(1) of the

final rule clarifies that the plan is to be

submitted 6 months before the facility

intends to comply with the emission

averaging limits rather than 6 months

before the applicable compliance date.

The content of the implementation

plan is described in § 63.846(d)(2) of the

final rule. The proposed rule required

that this information include the

emission sources to be averaged, the

applicable limit assigned to each

averaging group, the specific control

technology or measure to be used for

each source in the group, the results of

an initial performance test, the

operating parameters to be monitored

(with additional information if an

alternative parameter is monitored), and

a demonstration that compliance with

each of the applicable limits will be

achieved under representative operating

conditions. A clarifying change was

made in the final rule to delete the

requirement for submission of the

results of an initial performance test to

determine the TF or POM emissions and

emission reduction from each source in

the averaging group. This provision was

replaced with a requirement for a test

plan to measure TF or POM emissions

in accordance with the performance test

requirements in § 63.847. Section 63.847

requires a performance test to be

conducted during the first month

following the applicable compliance

date.

As proposed, the owner or operator

may submit a request to revise the plan,

or if emission averaging is not selected

initially, the owner or operator may

submit a request to implement emission

averaging after the compliance date.
52388 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

This standard is not the first NESHAP

to include provisions permitting

emission averaging. However, the

mechanism by which EPA has

previously permitted owners and

operators to average emissions has been

to define the affected source governed

by the standard broadly enough such

that it includes all emission points to be

averaged. Under this model, which was

first employed in the Hazardous

Organics NESHAP (‘‘HON’’), 59 FR

19402, 19425–34, April 22, 1994,

compliance by particular units within a

broadly defined source is only an

element in determining the overall

compliance with the standard by the

aggregate source. For this type of

standard, conformity of the quantitative

standard to the MACT floor provision in

section 112(d)(3) is determined for the

source as a whole, and averaging or

trading between discrete emission

points within the source presents no

potential conflict with the MACT floor

provision.

The HON approach to averaging

affords substantial flexibility, by

permitting averaging of dissimilar

emission points and differing

pollutants. However, there are also

potential disadvantages to this approach

to averaging. Heterogeneous emission

points are deemed to be part of one

affected source, rather than discrete

sources that can be subcategorized and

regulated in relatively homogeneous

groups. New sources often must be

defined more narrowly than existing

sources in order to ensure that state-ofthe-art controls are required for

technically discrete new units.

The final primary aluminum NESHAP

takes a different approach to averaging

from the HON approach. In this

standard, owners or operators are

permitted to average across sources in

determining overall compliance with

the standard. In the HON rulemaking,

EPA expressed concern that averaging

across sources could be incompatible

with the MACT floor provisions.

However, upon further analysis, EPA

has decided that averaging across

affected sources is neither expressly

permitted nor expressly precluded by

the Clean Air Act. Thus, in construing

the statute, EPA has focused instead on

identifying those circumstances in

which averaging across sources would

be fully consistent with the overall

statutory intent.

In general, EPA has concluded that it

is permissible to establish within a

NESHAP a unified compliance regimen

that permits averaging or trading across

affected sources subject to the standard

under certain conditions. Averaging

across affected sources is permitted only

if it can be demonstrated that the total

quantity of any particular HAP that may

be emitted by that portion of a

contiguous major source that is subject

to the NESHAP will not be greater under

the averaging mechanism than it would

be if each individual affected source

complied separately with the applicable

standard. Under this rigorous test, the

practical outcome of averaging is

equivalent in every respect to

compliance by the discrete sources, and

the statutory policy embodied in the

MACT floor provisions is therefore fully

effectuated. A construction of the Act

which permits EPA to establish a

unified compliance regimen in these

limited circumstances promotes

economic efficiency and has no adverse

environmental consequences. In a

NESHAP incorporating such a unified

compliance regimen, EPA would

construe compliance with the overall

regimen to constitute compliance for

each of the affected sources.

Strict limits on the scope and nature

of averaging across sources are

necessary to ensure that no HAP is

emitted by that portion of a major

source subject to a NESHAP in

quantities that are greater than those

that would result from compliance by

each discrete affected source within the

facility. These limits include: (1) No

averaging can be permitted between

differing pollutants, (2) no averaging can

be permitted between sources that are

not part of the same major source, (3) no

averaging can be permitted between

sources within the same major source

that are not subject to the same

NESHAP, (4) statistical discounts must

be derived and applied to account for

the variability in emissions by the

sources to be averaged, and (5) no

averaging can be permitted between

existing sources and new sources.

This NESHAP fully satisfies each of

these criteria. Accordingly, EPA has

concluded that the averaging of

emissions across affected sources

permitted by this NESHAP is consistent

with the Clean Air Act. In addition, EPA

notes that the provision in this NESHAP

that requires each facility that intends to

utilize emission averaging to submit an

implementation plan provides

additional assurance that the necessary

criteria will be adhered to.

E. Compliance Provisions

Compliance with the standard must

be demonstrated at startup for new

sources and in 2 to 4 years from the

effective date of the final rule for

existing sources. All existing plants

would be allowed at least 2 years. An

extension for a fourth year may be

granted by the regulatory authority

under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act.

Few changes were made to § 63.846 of

the proposed rule concerning

requirements for performance tests.

Following approval of a site-specific test

plan, § 63.847 of the final rule requires

the owner or operator to conduct an

initial performance test during the first

month following the compliance date. A

clarification was made to § 63.846(d) of

the proposed rule (§ 63.847(c) of the

final rule) that not all of the primary

emission control devices have to be

sampled during the first month of

compliance. If valid emission test

results are available for the control

device from tests during the preceding

12 months, those results can be used to

determine the contribution of the

primary control system to the total

emissions for the initial performance

test.

Section 63.847(d), which contains

instructions for determining

compliance, also includes clarifying

revisions. Sections 63.847(d)(1) of the

final standard clarifies that to determine

compliance for TF emissions from

potlines, the owner or operator must

compute and record the average of at

least three runs each month for

secondary emissions and at least three

runs each year for the primary control

device. Section 63.847(d)(2) clarifies

that to determine compliance for POM

emissions from Soderberg potlines, the

average of at least three runs each

quarter (one run per month) for

secondary emissions and at least three

runs each year for the primary control

system is required. Compliance with the

applicable emission limits for anode

bake plants is determined by the average

of at least three runs each year. Section

63.847(d)(3) clarifies that the provisions

for previous control device tests include

anode bake furnaces as well as potlines.

Section 63.847(e) of the final rule also

includes minor changes to clarify the

equations used to determine

compliance. Editorial changes were

made to correct misnumbering of

Equations 1 and 2. In Equation 1, the

definition of Qsd was clarified to read as

the volumetric flow rate of effluent gas

‘‘corresponding to the appropriate

subscript location’’ with units of dry

standard cubic meters per hour (dscm/

hr) or dry standard cubic feet per hour

(dscf/hr). The instructions for

determining the aluminum rate (P) in

§§ 63.846(e)(6) and (e)(7) also were

revised. Sections 63.847(e)(6) and (e)(7)

of the final rule require the owner or

operator to determine the aluminum

production rate by dividing the number

of hours in the calendar month into the

weight of aluminum tapped from the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52389

potline during the calendar month that

includes the three runs of a performance

test. The rate of green anode material

introduced into the furnace is

determined by dividing the number of

operating hours in the calendar month

into the weight of green anode material

used during the calendar month in

which the performance test was

conducted.

No changes were made to the

proposed performance test provisions

for paste production in § 63.847(f) of the

final rule. Initial compliance with the

equipment standards for new and

existing plants is demonstrated through

site inspections(s) and review of site

records by the applicable regulatory

authority.

A new paragraph, § 63.847(g), was

added to describe compliance

provisions for new pitch storage tanks.

The owner or operator may elect one of

two methods of demonstrating

compliance: (1) Submit a design

evaluation documenting that the control

device being used achieves the required

control efficiency for POM (95 percent

or more) during a reasonably expected

maximum filling rate; or (2) submit the

results of a performance test. Specific

information to be included under either

method of compliance is described in

the rule. The owner or operator also

would include a description of the

parameters to be monitored to ensure

the control device is being properly

operated and maintained, an

explanation of the criteria used to select

that parameter, and the frequency with

which monitoring will be performed.

Section 63.846(g) of the proposed rule

was renumbered as § 63.847(h) in the

final rule to accommodate the addition

of the preceding paragraph. Minor

changes were made to clarify the

wording in paragraph (h), which

requires that the owner or operator

determine the parametric operating

limits and monitoring frequency for

each control device. Section

63.847(h)(1) of the final rule clarifies

that for potlines and anode bake

furnaces, the owner or operator must

determine upper and/or lower operating

limits, as appropriate, for each

monitoring device ‘‘for the emission

control system’’ from the values

recorded during each of the runs

performed during the initial

performance test and from historical

data from previous performance tests.

The wording of § 63.847(h)(2) also was

clarified to require the owner or

operator of a paste production plant to

specify parameters to be monitored and

operating limits for the emission control

device (rather than the emission capture

and control devices). References to the

part 70 operating permit were deleted.

F. Emission Monitoring

Few changes were made since the

proposal in the emission monitoring

requirements of § 63.848. The final

standard requires the owner or operator

to perform monthly sampling of TF

secondary emissions from each potline

using Methods 13 and 14 (40 CFR part

60, appendix A) or an approved

alternative method. Emissions of POM

from Soderberg potlines are monitored

by performing quarterly sampling of

POM using Method 315 or an approved

alternative method. The monthly

average for TF and the quarterly average

for POM are computed using the results

of at least three runs per month for

secondary emissions of TF and at least

one run per month (three runs per

quarter) for POM from Soderberg

potlines, the aluminum production rate,

and the most recent compliance test for

the primary control system. Sections

63.848(a) and (b) clarify that the

duration of each run for secondary

emissions must cover a complete

operating cycle. Under § 63.848(b), the

primary control system for POM

emissions must be sampled over an 8-

hour period, unless site-specific factors

dictate an alternative sampling time,

subject to the approval of the regulatory

authority. Annual sampling of TF using

Method 13 and POM (for Soderberg

potlines) using Method 315 is required

for the primary emission control system

for potlines. Annual sampling of TF

using Method 13 and POM using

Method 315 is required for the anode

bake furnace stack.

Section 63.848(d) of the rule provides

an alternative to monthly monitoring of

TF or POM secondary emissions from

each potline by allowing the owner or

operator to conduct a monthly

performance test for one potline using

reference test methods and to monitor

similar potline(s) using approved

alternative methods. In response to

public comment, the criteria for similar

potlines were revised to require that

their structure, operability, type of

emissions, and volume and

concentration of emissions be

substantially equivalent.

Section 63.848(d) provides that a

similar potline is to be monitored using

an alternative method meeting the

requirements in the rule. An approved

alternative may include an HF

continuous emission monitor (CEM).

Because the Alcan cassette method is

included in the final rule as Method

14A, references to this method as an

approved alternative for monitoring

similar potlines were unnecessary and

were deleted from the rule.

To show that another method is an

acceptable alternative, the owner or

operator must develop a correlation

with results from the applicable

methods in the rule (such as Methods

13, 14, and 315) to the satisfaction of the

regulatory authority. For fluoride

measurements, the alternative method

must account for or include gaseous

fluoride and cannot be based on

measurement of particulate matter or

particulate fluoride alone because HF,

the HAP of interest, is in gaseous form.

The final rule also requires the owner or

operator to derive an alternative limit

for the HF CEM or other alternative

monitoring method. The owner or

operator must demonstrate that the

alternative method and limit will result

in a level of emission control that is the

same as or better than the level that

would have otherwise been achieved.

After demonstrating that the potlines are

similar, EPA methods must be used to

monitor one potline, and the other

similar potlines must be monitored

using an approved alternative

procedure.

Under § 63.848(e) of the final

standard, the owner or operator of a

plant that demonstrates consistent

compliance with an applicable emission

limit and low variability may apply for

a reduced sampling frequency, such as

quarterly sampling instead of monthly

sampling. This section of the proposed

rule was changed after proposal to

provide a simplified procedure to obtain

reduced sampling frequency, including

removal of the requirement to publish

the approval of reduced sampling in the

Federal Register. This reduced

sampling provision was clarified to

apply only to the monthly sampling

requirement for TF from potroom roofs.

If a facility achieves a long-term average

over 24 months of sampling that is no

more than 60 percent of the applicable

limit and no monthly average exceeds

75 percent of the limit, then monthly

sampling for TF can be reduced to

quarterly sampling.

Proposed provisions governing excess

emissions also were revised. Under the

final rule, if emissions in excess of the

applicable TF limit occur while

performing quarterly sampling (under

an approved alternative), the owner or

operator must return to monthly

sampling for at least 12 months and may

reduce to quarterly sampling when: (1)

The average of all tests performed over

the most recent 24-month period does

not exceed 60 percent of the applicable

limit and (2) no more than one monthly

performance test in the most recent 24-

month period exceeds 75 percent of the
52390 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

applicable limit. If emissions in excess

of the applicable TF limit occur while

performing quarterly sampling (under

an approved alternative), the owner or

operator must return to the monthly

sampling schedule until another request

for an alternative sampling frequency is

approved.

The final standard requires the

monitoring of control device

parameters. For example, plants with

dry alumina scrubbers must perform a

daily visual inspection of the stack and

install devices to monitor the flow of

alumina and air. The control device

parameters are evaluated from data

collected during the initial performance

test and from historical performance

tests to determine upper and/or lower

limit(s), as appropriate, for each process

parameter. The owner or operator may

redetermine the upper and/or lower

operating limits, as appropriate, based

on historical data and other information

and submit an application to the

regulatory authority to change the

applicable limit(s). A corrective action

program is triggered if the control

device is operating outside of the

acceptable range for the specified

parameters. Failure to initiate corrective

actions within 1 hour after exceeding

the limit is a violation. A violation also

occurs if the operating limit for a

parameter is exceeded more than six

times in any 6-month reporting period.

For the purpose of determining the

number of exceedances, no more than

one exceedance will be attributed in any

given 24-hour period.

A clarification was made to § 63.848(f)

with respect to the selection of

monitoring parameters and frequency.

Whenever practicable, the EPA expects

the owner or operator to install a

continuous parameter monitoring

system as defined in the general

provisions and this subpart. At a

minimum, the owner or operator must

submit a description of the parameters

and a rationale for selecting the

operating limits and monitoring

frequency. A discussion of how the

selected parameters would relate to

emission controls must be included.

The owner or operator also must

install devices to measure the daily

weight of aluminum produced and the

weight of anodes placed in the furnace

for an operating cycle. The total weight

of all anodes placed in the furnace may

be measured, or the number of anodes

placed in the furnace and a

representative weight may be measured

to determine the total weight.

G. Test Methods

Section 63.849 of the final rule adds

Method 14A to appendix A of 40 CFR

part 60 as an approved alternative

method for measuring TF from potroom

roofs. Minor changes were made to

Method 315 (added to appendix A of 40

CFR part 63) as a result of public

comment. For example, section 6.1 of

Method 315 was revised to acknowledge

that the use of grease for sampling train

components is not recommended

because many greases are soluble in

methylene chloride. Section 6.2 of

Method 315 was revised to include the

use of Teflon bristle brushes and

tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) wash bottles.

A Buchner fritted funnel was

substituted for Allihin tubes in section

6.3.8 and other sections.

Section 63.849(e) of the final rule was

clarified in terms of procedures and

criteria to qualify an alternative test

method. The alternative method must be

evaluated from simultaneous sampling

using a reference test method. Approval

is granted only if the owner or operator

demonstrates that the level of emission

control from an alternative method and

alternative emission limit is the same as

or better than the level that would have

otherwise been achieved.

H. Time Limit for Approval or

Disapproval of Submissions

The proposed rule was revised to add

a new section (§ 63.851) that places a

60-day limit on the amount of time for

the regulatory authority to indicate the

need for additional time to review the

applications and requests for changes

allowed under this rule or to approve or

disapprove applications and requests for

changes allowed under the rule. The 60-

day period begins after the owner or

operator has been notified that the

submission is complete. This provision

applies to the compliance test plan, an

application to change control device

parameter operating limits, requests for

alternative monitoring for similar

potlines, requests for approval of

alternative methods for sampling and

analysis, and requests for reduced

sampling frequency.

I. Notification, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping Requirements

Notification, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements for MACT

standards are included in the NESHAP

general provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A). Section 63.850 of the final

standard incorporates all of these

provisions, except that the existing

performance specifications for CEM are

not applicable to an HF CEM because

such specifications have not yet been

developed for that device.

The notification requirements include

one-time notifications of applicability,

intent to construct or reconstruct,

anticipated startup date, actual startup

date, date of performance test,

compliance status, compliance

approach (if applicable), and the intent

to use an HF CEM (if applicable) for

each affected source. The notification of

special compliance obligations was

deleted because it does not apply to this

source category. The proposed rule also

was revised to indicate that the

notification of the intent to use an HF

CEM was a one-time event per affected

source.

The owner or operator is required to

submit a report of performance test

results (which can be sent as part of the

compliance status notification), an

annual summary of all subsequent tests,

and semiannual reports of excess

emissions, if any excess emissions

occurred. If excess emissions are

reported, quarterly reports are required

until compliance has been demonstrated

for 1 year. A startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan also would be

required with semiannual reports of

events that are not managed according

to the plan. The plan must also include

the corrective actions to be taken if the

limit for a control device’s operating

parameter is exceeded.

Recordkeeping requirements for all

MACT standards are established in

§ 63.10(b) of the general provisions. In

addition to these requirements, the

standard requires plants to maintain

records of information needed to

determine compliance. Section

63.850(e)(4)(ii) of the final rule clarifies

that the owner or operator must

maintain the daily production rate of

green anode material placed in the

anode bake furnace (rather than the

production rate for each operating

cycle). A new recordkeeping

requirement was also added in response

to public comment. Section

63.850(e)(4)(xv) requires records

documenting the portion of TF that is

captured and measured as particulate

matter and the portion that is captured

and measured as gaseous. This

requirement provides potentially useful

information to EPA and the States at no

additional cost.

All records must be retained for at

least 5 years following the date of each

occurrence, measurement, maintenance,

corrective action, report, or record. The

records for the most recent 2 years must

be retained onsite; records for the

remaining 3 years may be retained

offsite but still must be readily available

for review. The files may be retained on

microfilm, on microfiche, on a

computer, or on computer or magnetic

disks.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52391

J. Display of OMB Control Numbers

In a separate rulemaking action taken

in conjunction with the final rule

adopting a NESHAP for primary

aluminum reduction plants, EPA is

amending the table of currently

approved information collection request

(ICR) control numbers issued by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for various regulations. This

separate amendment updates the table

to accurately display those information

requirements contained in the NESHAP.

This display of the OMB control number

and its subsequent codification in the

Code of Federal Regulations satisfies the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

and OMB’s implementing regulations at

5 CFR 1320.

The ICR was previously subject to

public notice and comment prior to

OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds

there is ‘‘good cause’’ under section

553(b)(B) of the Administrative

Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)] to

amend this table without prior notice

and comment. Due to the technical

nature of the table, further notice and

comment would be unnecessary. For the

same reasons, EPA also finds that there

is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

V. Summary of Impacts

Nationwide emissions from primary

aluminum potlines are estimated at

6,400 tpy of TF. After implementation of

the final standards, these emissions will

decrease by almost 50 percent to 3,400

tpy. Polycyclic organic matter emissions

will be reduced by about 45 percent,

from 3,200 tpy to 1,800 tpy. TF

emissions from the anode bake furnaces

are estimated at 700 tpy; POM emissions

are estimated at 555 tpy. After control

of all bake furnaces, TF emissions will

be reduced by 97 percent, and POM

emissions will be reduced by 84

percent. Polycyclic organic matter

emissions from paste production plants,

estimated at 147 tpy at baseline, will be

reduced by about 130 tpy, to about 16

tpy—an 89 percent reduction from

current levels. Emissions of other HAPs

included in the TF and POM emissions

will also be reduced, as will non-HAP

pollutants such as PM. For example, PM

emissions will be reduced by 16,000

tpy.

The generation of solid waste and

wastewater will be reduced when at

least one plant replaces its wet scrubber

system with a dry alumina scrubber.

The dry alumina scrubber captures

fluorides and other pollutants and

returns them to the reduction cell. The

proposed rule is estimated to have no

significant effect on energy

consumption.

The total capital cost of the proposed

rule is estimated as about $160 million,

with a total annualized cost of $40

million per year. As discussed in

section VI.I of this document, cost

estimates supplied by the industry’s

trade association were much higher than

the EPA estimates. The major cost

impacts for potlines are expected to

come from the installation of dry

alumina scrubbers for the primary

control system at one plant and from

work practices, operating procedures,

maintenance and repair, and equipment

modifications at most plants. A few

plants may incur capital costs to replace

or upgrade hoods or doors and to install

automated equipment for improved

emission control.

The cost estimates for paste

production assume that the 18 plants

without dry coke scrubbers for

controlling POM emissions will each

install one. However, some plants may

be able to meet the performance

standard with dry alumina scrubbers or

other control devices, or they may be

able to utilize many of the components

of their existing system. The estimated

cost for control of anode bake furnaces

assumes that the 5 of 17 plants without

a dry alumina scrubber must each

install one.

Currently, about one-third of existing

potlines are sampled for TF regularly.

Because of the flexibility provided in

the rule, many plants are expected to

take advantage of the use of HF CEMs

and Alcan cassettes for similar potlines,

both of which are much less expensive

than manual sampling using Methods

13 and 14. The nationwide capital cost

estimate of $7 million for monitoring

equipment includes new Method 14

manifolds, HF CEMs, and Alcan

cassettes. The total annualized cost of

monitoring (including capital recovery)

is estimated as about $4 million per year

after all plants are subject to the rule.

These costs may be reduced

significantly as plants qualify for

reduced sampling frequency (e.g.,

quarterly instead of monthly). The CEM

will have value as a process monitoring

tool in addition to its use for monitoring

to determine compliance.

The market price increase calculation

indicated that implementing the

controls will result in a primary

aluminum market price increase of less

than 1 percent. As a result of the low

market price increase and relatively

inelastic demand, the corresponding

changes in output, employment, and

total revenue were also low (all less

than 1 percent). Therefore, the economic

impact analysis estimates that the rule

will not result in significant economic

impacts for the primary aluminum

industry.

VI. Summary of Responses to Major

Comments

The EPA proposed the NESHAP for

primary aluminum reduction plants on

September 26, 1996 (61 FR 50586). The

proposed regulatory text of the rule, the

Basis and Purpose Document, and the

Technical Support Document that

presented information used in

developing the proposed rule were

made available to the public for review

and comment. A 60-day comment

period from September 26, 1996, to

November 25, 1996, was provided to

accept written comments from the

public on the proposed rule. The

opportunity for a public hearing was

provided to allow interested people to

present oral comments to the EPA on

the rulemaking. However, the EPA did

not receive a request for a public

hearing, so a public hearing was not

held.

The EPA received a total of 15

comment letters regarding the proposed

NESHAP for primary aluminum

reduction plants. A copy of each

comment letter is available for public

inspection in the docket for the

rulemaking (Docket No. A–92–60; see

the ADDRESSES section of this document

for information on inspecting the

docket). The EPA has had follow-up

discussions with various commenters

regarding specific issues initially raised

in their written comments that were

submitted to the Agency during the

comment period. Copies of

correspondence and other information

exchanged between the EPA and the

commenters during the post-comment

period are available for public

inspection in the docket for the

rulemaking.

All of the comments received by the

EPA were reviewed and carefully

considered by the Agency. Changes to

the rule were made when the EPA

determined it to be appropriate. A

summary of responses to selected major

comments received on the proposed

rule is presented below. Additional

discussion of the EPA’s responses to

public comments is presented in the

Background Information Document (see

the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).

A. Subcategories

Comment: Several commenters

supported the subcategories that were

developed for potlines, and two

commenters questioned the number of

and basis for the subcategories. Specific

questions were raised about the

subcategories for the older vintage
52392 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

prebake potlines (CWPB2), for potlines

producing high-purity aluminum

(CWPB3), and for the vertical stud

Soderberg potlines (VSS2).

Response: The development of

subcategories is discussed in detail in

the Basis and Support Document. In

general, the subcategories are based

primarily on differences in the process

operation, process equipment,

emissions, and the applicability of

control devices.

A distinction was made between the

larger and more modern prebake

potlines in CWPB1 and the smaller and

older potlines in CWPB2. The CWPB2

potlines have somewhat higher

emissions than the CWPB1 potlines

because they are more difficult to

control and there are more opportunities

for fugitive emissions to escape. A major

factor is that these smaller potlines

require more frequent anode changes

and more frequent opening of the

reduction cells, both of which result in

more fugitive emissions’ escaping from

the cells.

The potlines in the CWPB3

subcategory that produce high-purity

aluminum can do so only because they

use wet scrubbers as the primary control

device and do not return the

contaminants removed with the

pollution control residue back to the

process. In contrast, the potlines in the

CWPB1 subcategory use dry alumina

scrubbers as the primary control device

and return pollution control residue,

including contaminants and fluorides,

back to the process. If the CWPB3

potlines were forced to install dry

alumina scrubbers, an adequate quantity

of high-purity aluminum could not be

produced and their market would be

lost.

A distinction was made between two

types of vertical stud Soderberg potlines

(VSS1 and VSS2) because of differences

in the applicability of control devices.

The VSS1 group of potlines uses wet

roof scrubbers to control fugitive

emissions from the cells, and the VSS2

group of potlines uses work practices

and equipment maintenance to control

the escape of fugitive emissions from

the cells (i.e., they focus on pollution

prevention for emission control). A

major concern in requiring the

installation of wet roof scrubbers on the

VSS2 potlines was that other plants

with wet roof scrubbers had reported

operational problems in cold weather

(i.e., freezing conditions), and the VSS2

potlines operate in the cold climate of

northern Montana. Consequently, the

technology was judged not to be

adequately demonstrated for the VSS2

potlines. Another concern was that roof

scrubbers could provide a disincentive

for the VSS2 potlines to continue their

efforts to prevent the escape of

emissions because the emissions would

be subsequently controlled by the

scrubbers. Currently, the VSS2 potlines

have much lower levels of fugitive

emissions in terms of the quantity that

actually escapes from the reduction

cells compared to the VSS1 potlines,

which rely in large part on the roof

scrubbers for additional fugitive

emission control.

B. Format of the Standard

Comment: Two State commenters

asked that EPA consider developing

work practice standards for potlines,

and some commenters also suggested

that an emission limit be developed for

paste plants instead of an equipment

standard.

Other commenters supported the

development of an equipment standard

for paste plants. Commenters also asked

that EPA consider alternatives for the

paste plant that would allow and

encourage pollution prevention, as well

as other control alternatives that might

be equivalent to or better than the

equipment standard that was proposed

(dry coke scrubber).

Response: Section 112(h) of the Act

only allows development of a design,

equipment, work practice, or

operational standard when it is not

feasible or practicable to establish an

emission standard. Consequently, a

work practice standard was not

developed for potlines because there

was an extensive database on TF

emissions on which to base an emission

standard. An emission standard allows

the owner or operator to meet the

emission limit using any combination of

control techniques, including work

practices, upgrading equipment, process

modifications, pollution prevention, etc.

It also provides flexibility for

developing innovative controls or

pollution prevention measures in the

future that may be more cost effective by

not mandating work practice

techniques. The owner or operator will

find it necessary to have adequate work

practices in place to meet the emission

limits in the rule; consequently, it is not

necessary to develop a work practice

standard.

The first choice was also the

development of an emission standard

for paste production plants; however,

there were too few POM data (only two

data points) to develop defensible and

achievable limits. One reason for this is

that the control technology is relatively

new, and there were no data collected

by EPA test methods prior to this

rulemaking. Therefore, the development

of a quantitative standard was not

feasible or practicable. The problem was

also complicated by the numerous

variations in the design and operation of

paste plants. However, the available

information and engineering judgement

indicated that the best POM control

technology in use for paste plants was

the dry coke scrubber, which was

determined to represent MACT. For

these reasons, an equipment standard

requiring the use of a dry coke scrubber

or equivalent alternative control for

paste production was developed under

section 112(h) of the Act.

Comments were received from both

the industry and States asking for

consideration of control techniques,

including pollution prevention, that

might provide a level of control

equivalent to or better than a dry coke

scrubber. After consideration, EPA

decided that a streamlined approach

could be used to implement more

efficiently section 112(h)(3) of the Act,

which allows the development of an

alternative means of emission limitation

if it achieves an emission reduction at

least equivalent to that achieved by the

design, equipment, work practice, or

operational standard. An emission limit

for POM in lb/ton of paste was

developed from the limited data

associated with two of the best

controlled plants in the industry.

Although the limit may represent a level

of emission control more stringent than

the equipment standard that was

determined to be MACT, an alternative

standard in lb/ton of paste will provide

opportunity for pollution prevention

measures (such as reducing the quantity

of POM used in paste production). The

alternative standard also provides the

opportunity to qualify other types of

emission controls that might be

developed in the future that are more

efficient than the dry coke scrubber.

The alternative limit in lb/ton does

not preclude plants from petitioning for

other alternative means of emission

limitation under section 112(h)(3) of the

Act based on demonstrating an

equivalent or greater emission

reduction. However, it provides one

method to implement the provisions for

alternative standards more efficiently.

As required in section 112(h)(4) of the

Act, when EPA has sufficient data to

replace both parts of the current

standard for paste production plants

with a quantitative emission limit, EPA

will revise that standard accordingly.

C. Achievability of Emission Limits

Comment: Several commenters

expressed concern that the emission

limits for anode bake furnaces might not

be achievable and requested that the

rule acknowledge that these limits may
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52393

need to be increased as more data are

collected. One commenter questioned

the achievability of the POM limit for

HSS potlines, and another commenter

supported the HSS limits and submitted

additional data for the MACT floor

potlines to show that it had been

achieved. One commenter questioned

the POM limits for VSS2 potlines

because the limits were based on data

from VSS1 potlines.

Response: The data for anode bake

furnaces support that the proposed

emission limits for both new and

existing sources are achievable.

Opportunities for improved control

other than the installation of dry

alumina scrubbers are available, and

each owner or operator should

investigate these opportunities

thoroughly. For example, careful

cleaning of recycled anodes to remove

fluorides has been demonstrated to

reduce fluoride emissions from anode

bake furnaces. Careful control and

optimization of combustion conditions

improve destruction of POM

compounds and reduce POM emissions.

The EPA believes that the data show

that the POM limit is achievable for the

HSS subcategory by plants using the

MACT floor technology. Note that the

control technology used for the primary

system for the MACT floor plant is a dry

alumina scrubber, whereas the plant

concerned about the achievability uses

an electrostatic precipitator.

Improvements may be needed in the

electrostatic precipitator primary

control system and in the potline’s

capture system to reduce fugitive

emissions to achieve the same level of

control achieved by the MACT floor

plant.

The proposed POM limit for the VSS2

subcategory was based on data from

VSS1 potlines because there were no

valid data available for POM emissions

from VSS2 potlines. Following

proposal, POM data were collected for

the MACT floor VSS2 potline, and a

commenter for the company asked that

EPA consider their data in establishing

the POM limit. The EPA analyzed the

new POM data and concluded that the

POM limit for the VSS2 subcategory

should be reduced from 3.7 lbs/ton to

3.6 lbs/ton. The emission test reports

and EPA’s analysis are documented in

the rulemaking docket. [See Docket Item

IV-B–1.] The EPA appreciates the effort

of the company to perform emission

testing and to provide data that improve

the technical basis of the POM limit for

VSS2 potlines.

D. Incorporation of the NSPS

Comment: Several commenters

recommended that the NSPS for

primary aluminum plants (40 CFR part

60, subpart S) be removed and any

necessary provisions be incorporated

into the NESHAP. These commenters

believed that the higher TF limits in the

amended NSPS should be incorporated

instead of the lower limits in the

original NSPS because the amendment

concluded that the original emission

limits were not achievable 100 percent

of the time. In addition, the NESHAP

general provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A) require that control

equipment be operated and maintained

in a manner consistent with good air

pollution control practices for

minimizing emissions at least to the

level required by all relevant standards.

Therefore, these commenters concluded

that this requirement overlaps the

‘‘exemplary operation’’ requirement of

the NSPS, and by complying with the

general provisions, a source qualifies for

the higher limits in the NSPS. State

agency commenters thought that the

more stringent limits in the original

NSPS should be used for incorporation

into the NESHAP.

Some commenters stated that the

opacity requirements of the NSPS were

a monitoring provision and not an

emission limit. They pointed out that

the proposed NESHAP contained more

provisions than the NSPS to ensure the

control equipment was operating

properly, such as monitoring the air and

alumina flow to the dry alumina

scrubbers and a daily visual inspection

of the control equipment rather than

only a monthly observation of opacity,

which the NSPS requires. Consequently,

they believed the opacity standard in

the NSPS could be removed without any

loss of stringency. Another commenter

stated that the NSPS opacity limit was

not applicable for wet emission control

systems because of interferences and

observer error and recommended that

facilities with wet emission control

systems be allowed to develop an

alternative opacity limit if they could

demonstrate that the mass emission

limit for TF was being met. State agency

commenters stated that the opacity

standard should be retained when the

NSPS is incorporated into the NESHAP.

In general, State agency commenters

agreed that the NSPS could be

incorporated into the NESHAP, but only

if all of the NSPS provisions are

retained. These include the lower

emission limits in the original NSPS,

retention of the modification and

reconstruction provisions of part 60,

and maintenance of the opacity limits.

Response: The EPA had stated in the

original proposal when requesting

comments on this issue that

incorporating the NSPS into the

NESHAP should result in a standard

that would be no less stringent than if

both standards remained in place.

Following the receipt of comments and

no indication that anyone was opposed

to incorporation of the NSPS, EPA

conducted additional discussions with

all stakeholders. Representatives from

each of the 14 States that have primary

aluminum reduction plants were

contacted and were provided the

opportunity to discuss the issues and

provide comments. Similar discussions

were held with the Aluminum

Association and industry

representatives, who also provided

comments.

Based on these discussions, a general

consensus was reached on how the

NSPS could be incorporated into the

NESHAP. First, the NSPS was amended

to allow an affected facility to comply

either with the NSPS or with the special

provisions incorporated into the

NESHAP. Second, the NSPS

requirements were included in a

separate section of the NESHAP, and

these provisions apply only to

emissions of TF. They apply only to

Soderberg potlines and prebake potlines

in the CWPB2 and CWPB3 subcategories

because other types of existing potlines

are subject to TF emission limits under

the NESHAP that are more stringent

than the NSPS limits. Anode bake

furnaces are not included because the

NESHAP limits for existing bake

furnaces are equivalent to those in the

NSPS, and the NESHAP limits for new

bake furnaces are much more stringent

than those in the NSPS.

The result of these discussions was

general agreement that the definitions of

‘‘modification’’ and ‘‘reconstruction’’

should be incorporated so that any new,

modified, or reconstructed potroom

group would trigger the NSPS

provisions that have been included in

the NESHAP. In other words, any

potroom group that would have become

subject to the NSPS because of the part

60 provisions would become subject to

the special provisions incorporated into

subpart LL of part 63. This was

accomplished by adding definitions for

‘‘potroom group modification’’ and

‘‘potroom group reconstruction’’ that

matched the requirements in part 60.

The modification would occur if there

was an increase in the total or overall

TF emissions from the potroom group

(i.e., changes that result in a decrease in

emissions in one part of the potroom

group and an increase in another part of

the group are not modifications if total

emissions from the group do not

increase).

The EPA decided not to incorporate

only the lower NSPS limits as suggested
52394 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

by some commenters or only the higher

limits recommended by other

commenters. Instead, both sets of limits

were incorporated into the NESHAP

with the same language as that used in

the amended NSPS. In other words, the

lower limits apply unless the owner or

operator can meet the exemplary

operation requirements as stated in the

NSPS, in which case the upper limits

would apply. This requires that the

owner or operator demonstrate that

exemplary operation and maintenance

procedures were used with respect to

the emission control system and that

control equipment was operating

properly at the potline during the

performance test.

Additional insight into proper

operation and maintenance is given in

the proposal preamble for the amended

NSPS (45 FR 44203), which lists these

items as basic to good control of

emissions from prebake plants:

(1) Hood covers should fit properly

and be in good repair;

(2) The hood exhaust rate should be

increased for individual pots when

hood covers are removed (if there is an

adjustable air damper system);

(3) Hood covers should be replaced as

soon as possible after each potroom

operation;

(4) Dust entrainment should be

minimized during materials handling

operations and sweeping of the working

aisles;

(5) Only tapping crucibles with

functional air return systems should be

used; and

(6) The primary control system should

be regularly inspected and properly

maintained.

For horizontal stud Soderberg

potlines, Items (4) through (6) apply, but

Items (1) through (3) are replaced by the

following because of differences in pot

design:

(1) Side and end doors should fit

properly and be in good repair;

(2) The exhaust rate should be

increased for individual pots when a

side or end door is open (if there is an

adjustable air damper system); and

(3) Side and end doors should be

closed as soon as possible after each

potroom operation.

The following variations apply to

vertical stud Soderberg potlines:

(1) An ore cover should be maintained

on the pot;

(2) The collector skirt and burner

should be in good repair; and

(3) Tap holes should not be opened

too far in advance of the tap.

Another issue was related to the fact

that the NSPS limits apply to a potroom

group, whereas the NESHAP limits

apply to a potline. Because of many

variations in the configuration of

potrooms and potlines in the industry,

limits for both would result in a

somewhat confusing situation of

duplicative emission limits and other

requirements for certain reduction cells

and unnecessary requirements

associated with monitoring, reporting,

and recordkeeping for both potroom

groups and the potline. To resolve this

issue, a method was devised in the

NESHAP to combine the limit for the

NSPS potroom group with that for the

NESHAP potline based on the

production capacity of the reduction

cells that would be subject to each set

of limits. The result is a single TF

emission limit for the entire potline that

maintains equivalent stringency, and it

has the additional advantage of allowing

the use of the NESHAP potline

requirements for monitoring, reporting,

and recordkeeping to avoid unnecessary

duplication.

The opacity issue was resolved by

incorporating the 10 percent limit for

potroom groups from the NSPS into the

NESHAP. However, the provisions in

part 60 that allow the development of an

alternative opacity limit when the

facility demonstrates that the mass

emission limits are being met were also

included in the NESHAP. The

alternative opacity limit cannot exceed

20 percent. Historically, opacity has

been measured routinely for the

discharge stacks of primary control

systems. However, the EPA has no

indication that the opacity of a potroom

group roof monitor has been measured

using Method 9.

The EPA decided that additional

provisions for anode bake furnaces were

not necessary because the NESHAP

requires that existing furnaces be

controlled at levels equivalent to what

the NSPS would have required for new,

modified, or reconstructed furnaces.

This ensures that the MACT floor

control technology (dry alumina

scrubbers) or the equivalent will be

installed on all bake furnaces to control

emissions. There was no need to

incorporate the NSPS opacity limit of 20

percent for bake furnaces because the

MACT floor technology will achieve

lower opacity levels, the NESHAP

monitoring requirements for the control

device are more comprehensive, there is

no loss in stringency, and most States

already have general opacity limits of 20

percent for stationary point sources.

In consolidating the two rules, the

EPA decided to use the sampling

frequency and monitoring provisions of

the NESHAP. They offer several

advantages over the NSPS provisions

alone, there is no effect on the relative

stringency or the emission reductions

achieved, and they will reduce

unnecessary monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping. In addition, the NESHAP

requires that any new, modified, or

reconstructed potroom group be

sampled for TF emissions, which is

what the NSPS would have required.

Sampling can be performed effectively

for the potroom group with the addition

of new monitoring equipment or the

expansion or adaptation of existing

monitoring equipment in the same

potline if the sampling system is

determined to be representative of the

entire potline and if the relevant

regulatory authority determines that the

sampling system meets the requirements

of the reference test methods. In

addition, the sampling of that potroom

group may be used to determine

emissions from the total potline if they

are representative of the entire potline.

To be representative of the entire

potline, the sampling system must not

cover only or primarily new reduction

cells, which would be expected to have

better hooding and emission control

than older cells.

E. Time Limit for Approval by the

Regulatory Authority

Comment: Several industry

commenters recommended that the final

rule include a time limit for regulatory

authority review, approval, and/or

action on submissions. Examples

include the compliance test plan, the

implementation plan for emission

averaging, an application to change

control device parameter operating

limits, requests for alternative

monitoring for similar potlines, requests

for approval of alternative methods for

sampling and analysis, requests for

reduced sampling frequency, and

requests to modify the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan.

According to the commenters, each

submission should be given automatic

approval if no action or response is

taken by the applicable regulatory

authority within some time period

(generally within 30 days of receipt).

Response: The proposed rule

contained provisions for a time limit of

120 days for regulatory approval or

disapproval of the implementation plan

for emission averaging, and this

provision was kept in the final rule. In

addition, the general provisions in

subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 allow the

owner or operator to revise the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan

without submitting it for approval. The

owner or operator must keep the

previous (superseded) version and make

it available upon request for a period of

5 years after the revision. With respect

to other submissions, the rule was
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52395

revised to give the regulatory authority

60 days after the submission is deemed

to be complete to approve or disapprove

the submission. The 60-day period

applies to the facility’s test plan used to

determine compliance, requests for

changes in operating parameter limits,

applications for similar potline

monitoring, requests for reduced

sampling frequency, and requests for

alternative test methods.

F. Relationship to Other Rules

Comment: Several commenters asked

about the relationship of the NESHAP to

other rules. One commenter asked for

discussion of how existing new source

review (NSR) and prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) rules

affect the NESHAP, and another asked

for clarification of what TF emission

limit would apply in the event of a

modification under the NSPS. Another

commenter believes that conversion and

installation of equipment in order to

comply with this rule should not trigger

the NSPS. The commenter requested

that the language of the preamble and

the rule be changed to reflect that

modifications made to affected sources

to come into compliance with the

primary aluminum NESHAP are

exempted from NSPS applicability.

Several industry commenters

recommended that the final rule include

a provision acknowledging that the

monitoring provisions in the rule,

including the approved methods and

alternatives, satisfy the monitoring

provisions under section 114 of the Act

and the title I monitoring requirements

for PM emissions. Other commenters

asked that certain alternatives allowed

by the rule, such as requests to change

monitoring parameters or to implement

emission averaging, be identified within

the rule as ‘‘administrative changes’’ to

the operating permit issued under the

part 70 permit program.

Response: The NSR and PSD

requirements are not changed or directly

affected by the provisions in the

NESHAP. However, the NESHAP

incorporates the NSPS provisions for

primary aluminum reduction plants,

which will reduce duplicative

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements while

maintaining equivalent stringency in the

applicable emission limits. In addition,

the incorporation of the NSPS includes

language from part 60 that excludes

from the definition of ‘‘modification’’

the addition of an emission control

system that results in the reduction of

air pollutants, as the commenter

suggested. As several commenters

suggested, the compliance assurance

monitoring (CAM) rule would not apply

to the sources and pollutants regulated

under the NESHAP. Standards

promulgated after 1990 are not subject

to the CAM under the assumption that

the prescribed monitoring in such rules

would meet the requirements equivalent

to those required for CAM. The EPA

determined that it is not appropriate to

specify within the NESHAP whether

changes to permits should be

considered administrative or as permit

modifications. This is accomplished

more directly through the permit writer,

who can incorporate the alternatives

allowed by the NESHAP into the permit.

By adding the NESHAP provisions to

the permit, the flexibility allowed by the

NESHAP is maintained with respect to

implementation of emission averaging

and other provisions. In addition, the

source may suggest to the permit writer

that certain flexible provisions are

important to the source based on the

compliance approach that the source

anticipates implementing.

G. Reduced Sampling Frequency

Comment: One commenter did not

think there is any need for Federal

Register publication to provide public

notification of approval of reduced

sampling frequency. Another

commenter asked that criteria for

qualifying for reduced sampling

frequency be included in the rule and

suggested using the approaches that had

been used in other rules, with

reductions in the frequency after

demonstrating compliance over some

period of time.

Several commenters recommended

that monitoring provisions in the final

rule be expanded to allow less frequent

monitoring for POM upon

demonstration of good emission control

performance, as is allowed for TF.

State agency commenters supported

the concept of reduced sampling if a

facility consistently achieves

compliance with an emission limit and

has low variability. However, the

commenters asked that EPA specify a

minimum measure of acceptable

variability for reduced sampling

frequency to ensure consistent

evaluations of these requests and to ease

the burden on the regulatory authority.

Response: The EPA agrees that the

provisions for qualifying for reduced

sampling can be improved by making

them easier to implement and that there

is no need for publication in the Federal

Register. In addition, if they are

structured properly, provisions for

reduced sampling frequency can be

used to obtain control performance well

below the emission limit, which will

result in additional emission reductions.

The EPA reviewed the performance of

plants that had qualified for reduced

sampling under the NSPS and also

examined the average performance,

variability, and emission limits

achieved by the MACT floor plants.

Based on this review, a procedure was

developed that was designed to ensure

that plants that qualified for reduced

sampling had low variability,

consistently met the limit, and achieved

an average long-term performance that

was well below the limit. The proposed

rule was revised to allow the monthly

sampling of a potline’s secondary

emissions of TF to be reduced to

quarterly if: (1) The overall average after

24 consecutive months of sampling was

no more than 60 percent of the

applicable limit and (2) no monthly

average during the 24 consecutive

months exceeded 75 percent of the

applicable emission limit.

If an exceedance occurs while under

the reduced sampling frequency, the

plant must return to monthly sampling

for at least 12 months. The plant can

qualify for a reduction to quarterly

sampling again when: (1) The average of

all results over the most recent 24-

month period is no more than 60

percent of the limit and (2) no more

than one monthly average during the 24-

month period exceeds 75 percent of the

limit.

As an alternative, the facility can

petition for reduced sampling based on

the statistical approach given in the EPA

guidance document, ‘‘Primary

Aluminum: Statistical Analysis of

Potline Fluoride Emissions and

Alternative Sampling Frequency’’ (EPA–

450/3–86–012, October 1986). A copy of

this document is included in the docket

(docket item II–A–10). This document

also is available from the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS),

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

22161.

Reduced sampling was not considered

for POM because the sampling is

already reduced relative to sampling for

TF. The rule contains provisions for

reducing TF sampling of secondary

emissions from monthly to quarterly,

and it only requires quarterly sampling

for POM secondary emissions (and only

annual sampling for POM from the

primary control system). The quarterly

sampling is necessary to ensure

compliance and is particularly

important for POM because of the

potential risk associated with the POM

compounds.

H. Approval of Alcan Cassette Method

(Method 14A)

Comment: Several commenters stated

that the Alcan cassette monitoring
52396 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

method should be included as an

approved method to determine

compliance for emissions monitoring, as

it is approved for demonstrating similar

potlines. The final rule should also

allow the method to be used in

developing correlations of emissions for

alternative monitoring devices, such as

the HF CEM. Another commenter asked

for the results of the investigation of the

use of Alcan cassettes as an alternative

to Methods 13 and 14, including

information on accuracy, precision, and

any biases.

Response: The EPA’s intent to

evaluate and approve the Alcan cassette

method as an acceptable alternative to

Method 14 was discussed in the

proposal preamble. Numerous

comments were received supporting the

method, and no comments were

received that were opposed to the

method as an alternative to Methods 13

and 14. The method had been

previously approved for sampling and

analysis of TF for the NSPS, and

additional data from comparison testing

(available in the docket) confirmed it to

be an acceptable alternative.

Consequently, the EPA has approved

the Alcan cassette method as an

alternative to Method 14 and has

included it as Method 14A in appendix

A to 40 CFR part 60.

I. Estimates of Costs for Control and

Monitoring

Comment: The industry commenters

contended the capital costs of the

proposed rule are higher than the EPA’s

estimates and asked that the estimates

presented at promulgation be revised to

incorporate their higher estimates of

cost. The cost estimates submitted by

the Aluminum Association included a

capital cost estimate of $555 million and

a total annual cost of $126 million

compared to the EPA cost estimate of

$160 million in capital and a total

annual cost of $40 million. Another

commenter believes the monitoring

costs estimates are low and asked for

information on the monitoring scenario

that was used for costing.

Response: The limited information

supplied with the industry’s cost

estimates suggests that these costs may

be overstated; relevant points are

discussed below. The industry’s report

states that the largest component of their

capital cost estimate of $555 million is

for removing existing primary control

systems and installing dry alumina

scrubbers, which they say is 60 percent

of the total capital cost. The EPA

worked closely with the industry to

develop the MACT floor, and based on

numerous discussions with the

industry, only one plant was identified

as likely to install new dry alumina

scrubbers. This plant estimated a cost of

$120 million; however, this total capital

investment includes costs for controls

that are not directly attributable to the

MACT standard (e.g., it includes the

cost of sulfur dioxide scrubbers that are

required by the State but are not

required by the MACT standard). In

addition, there is an indication that the

company’s decision to install dry

alumina scrubbers may not have been

made only because of the impending

MACT standard but also in

consideration of State and local agency

concerns. Another company that

included the capital cost of new dry

scrubbers in its estimate submitted by

the Aluminum Association has

subsequently confirmed that new dry

scrubbers will not be installed to meet

MACT. Instead, they will upgrade their

existing control equipment at a much

lower cost.

Included in the industry’s estimate

are costs for several potlines that have

been idled, and it has not been

determined when these potlines will

operate at capacity. If they are not

restarted, it is obvious that large

investments to improve emission

control will not be made.

Significant cost estimates are

included in the industry’s estimates for

MACT floor potlines, which are lines

that by definition are already achieving

the MACT level of control (because the

proposed emission limits for MACT are

based on the floor). Apparently these

companies included the routine capital

and operating costs currently being

incurred or planned for the near future,

probably to meet existing State limits,

and attributed this cost to MACT. The

cost due to MACT is the incremental

cost above what would be spent in the

absence of MACT and should not

include what is being spent to meet

existing regulations.

The few details that are available in

the industry’s report indicate that some

of the estimated capital investment is

for improvements or modernization of

the process that is not necessarily being

done only to improve emission control.

In addition, companies will save

operating expenses through improved

efficiency and operation from these

improvements, and no credit (cost

savings) is identified for these

improvements.

The information available for the cost

of dry coke scrubbers indicates that the

industry’s estimate is overstated by a

factor of at least two. The EPA estimate

is based on the actual installation cost

reported by one company and was

verified by another company that

obtained an actual construction cost

estimate prior to installing a new coke

scrubber. The source of the industry’s

estimate is undocumented. In addition,

more recent information from a few

plants indicates that they may be able to

improve the control efficiency of

existing control equipment without

installing dry coke scrubbers. The EPA

cost estimate assumes that all plants

without dry coke scrubbers will install

one.

J. Exceeding an Operating Parameter

Limit

Comment: Several industry

commenters stated that an exceedance

of an enforceable operating parameter

limit for which the owner or operator

has submitted a request for

redetermination should not count

toward the six allowable exceedances or

automatically constitute a violation.

Another commenter felt that

exceedances should be a matter of

enforcement discretion and any mention

of what would constitute a violation

should be deleted from the rule. One

commenter asked for EPA’s basis in

deciding that a violation has occurred

only after there have been six

exceedances of a monitoring parameter

(in any 6-month reporting period).

Response: The proposal preamble

discussed at length why any single

exceedance of the parametric

monitoring limits should not be

considered an exceedance of the

emission limit and a violation of the

standard. However, a limit was placed

on the number of exceedances (six)

allowed in a 6-month period to provide

incentive to correct any problems with

control devices promptly and to avoid

recurring difficulties with control

devices. Consequently, any exceedance

of an enforceable operating parameter

limit will count toward the six

allowable exceedances, or will

constitute a violation if a source has

already had six exceedances. The fact

that a facility has submitted a request

for a redetermination of its operating

parameter limits is no shield against

enforcement of the existing permit

limits. This is because the owner or

operator could submit requests for

redetermination to avoid a violation

whenever control device monitoring

indicates a problem. While the

commenter is correct in pointing out

that EPA may exercise prosecutorial

discretion, such discretion is

independent from the identification of a

violation.

K. Pitch Storage Tanks

Comment: Several commenters

requested that the proposed rule be

clarified to indicate that pitch storage
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52397

tanks are not included as part of the

paste production plant.

Response: Based on comments that

pitch storage tanks are not a part of the

paste production operation, the EPA

reexamined this issue and determined

that pitch storage tanks not located

within the paste production plant

should be defined as a separate affected

source. Pitch storage tanks located

within the boundaries of the paste

production plant, such as day tanks or

feed tanks that manage heated pitch, are

included in the definition of paste

production plant and must be controlled

as required for the paste plant. An

examination of the available data for

pitch storage tanks that are not a part of

the paste production plant indicated

that the MACT floor and MACT for

existing sources was no control.

However, one plant was found to have

installed controls on a recently

constructed pitch storage tank. In

addition, the EPA found that a new

pitch storage tank planned for

installation in Canada would be

installing a catalytic oxidizer to control

pitch fumes with a control efficiency of

at least 95 percent. Consequently, EPA

determined that new source MACT for

pitch storage tanks would require at

least 95 percent control of POM, and

these provisions were added to the final

rule.

There are several types of emission

control techniques that can achieve 95

percent control or better, including

combustion devices, dry scrubbers, and

carbon adsorption. A question arose

about the acceptability of vapor

balancing, in which emissions displaced

from the pitch storage tank during

loading are returned to the tank truck or

rail car as it is emptied. This technique

would be an acceptable alternative if the

owner or operator demonstrates (to the

satisfaction of the applicable regulatory

authority) that emissions from the

transport vessel are controlled when it

is refilled and that POM emissions from

the pitch storage tank are ultimately

controlled at 95 percent or better.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of information considered

by the EPA in the development of a

rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic

file because information is added

throughout the rulemaking development

process. The docketing system is

intended to allow members of the public

and industries involved to readily

identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

rulemaking process. Along with the

proposed and promulgated standards

and their preambles, the contents of the

docket will serve as the record in case

of judicial review. [See section

307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.] The official

rulemaking record, including all public

comments received on the proposed

rule, is located at the address in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that is likely to result in

a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs, or the rights and

obligation of recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

Although this is a significant

regulatory action OMB has waived

Executive Order 12866 review because

there was no significant negative

comment on the proposed rule.

C. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875, the EPA involved State

regulatory experts in the development of

the rule. The EPA also coordinated with

tribal governments having an interest in

the rulemaking. State and local

governments and tribal governments are

not directly affected by the rule, i.e.,

they are not required to purchase

control systems to meet the

requirements of the rule. However, State

and local governments will be required

to implement the rule; i.e., incorporate

the rule into permits and enforce the

rule. They will collect permit fees that

will be used to offset the resource

burden of implementing the rule.

Comments were solicited from States

and tribal governments and have been

considered in the development of the

final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments; enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

developing EPA regulatory proposals

with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates; and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year. The

total annualized cost of the final

standard is estimated at $40 million per

year—well under the $100 million per

year threshold. Thus, today’s rule is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct
52398 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

The EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this final rule. None of the 23 facilities

in this industry is classified as a small

entity. The EPA has determined that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements for this NESHAP have

been submitted for approval to OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information

Collection Request (ICR) document has

been prepared by the EPA (ICR No.

1767.02), and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory

Information Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(2137), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,

DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260–2740.

The information requirements are not

effective until OMB approves them.

The information collection

requirements include mandatory

notifications, records, and reports

required by the NESHAP general

provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).

These information collection

requirements are needed to confirm the

compliance status of major sources, to

identify any nonmajor sources not

subject to the standards and any new or

reconstructed sources subject to the

standards, to confirm that emission

control devices are being properly

operated and maintained, and to ensure

that the standards are being achieved.

Based on the recorded and reported

information, EPA can decide which

plants, records, or processes should be

inspected. These recordkeeping and

reporting requirements are specifically

authorized by section 114 of the Act (42

U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted

to the Agency for which a claim of

confidentiality is made will be

safeguarded according to Agency

policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

(See 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; 43

FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR

42251, September 28, 1978; and 44 FR

17674, March 23, 1979.)

The annual public reporting and

recordkeeping burden for collecting this

information (averaged over the first 3

years after the effective date of the rule)

is estimated to total 52,544 hours for the

23 respondents and to average 2,300

hours per respondent (i.e., per plant).

Each respondent is required to report

semiannually. The annualized cost of

monitoring equipment is estimated as

$390,000 per year, with an operation

and maintenance cost of $39,000 per

year (excluding labor hours included in

the previous total).

Burden means the total time, effort, or

financial resources expended by persons

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose

or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time

needed to review instructions; develop,

acquire, install, and utilize technology

and systems for collecting, validating,

and verifying information; process and

maintain information and disclose and

provide information; adjust the existing

ways to comply with any previously

applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to

respond to a collection of information;

search existing data sources; complete

and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

An Agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

H. Clean Air Act

The NESHAP for primary aluminum

reduction plants will be reviewed 8

years from the date of promulgation.

This review will include an assessment

of such factors as residual health risks,

any duplication with other air programs,

the existence of alternative methods,

enforceability, improvements in air

emission control technology and health

data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

Environmental protection, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference.

40 CFR Part 63

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference,

Primary aluminum reduction plants,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: September 19, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, parts 9, 60, and 63 of title 40,

chapter I of the Code of Federal

Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 9—OMB APPROVALS UNDER

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

1. The authority citation for part 9

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y;

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671;

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33

U.S.C. 1251 et. seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321,

1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e),

1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971–

1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243,

246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 300g–3,

300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 300j–2,

300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 6901–

6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 11023,

11048.

2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by

adding new entries under the indicated

heading in numerical order to read as

follows:

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

* * * * *

40 CFR citation OMB control No.

* * * * *

National Emission Standards for Hazardous

Air Pollutants for Source Categories 3

* * * * *

63.846(d) ................................... 2060–0360

63.847(b), (g) ............................ 2060–0360

63.848(d)(5), (e), .......................

(f)(5)(ii), (g), (k), (m) .................. 2060–0360

63.850 ....................................... 2060–0360

* * * * *

3The ICRs referenced in this section of the

Table encompass the applicable general provisions contained in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,

which are not independent information collection requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52399

PART 60—STANDARDS OF

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW

STATIONARY SOURCES

3. The authority for part 60 continues

to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413,

7414, 7416, 7429, 7601 and 7602.

§ 60.17 [Amended]

4. Section 60.17(a)(22) of subpart A is

amended by adding the phrase ‘‘;

Method 14A, par. 7.1’’ to the end of the

paragraph.

5. Section 60.190 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) and adding new

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 60.190 Applicability and designation of

affected facility.

* * * * *

(b) Except as provided in paragraph

(c) of this section, any affected facility

under paragraph (a) of this section that

commences construction or

modification after October 23, 1974, is

subject to the requirements of this

subpart.

(c) An owner or operator of an

affected facility under paragraph (a) of

this section may elect to comply with

the requirements of this subpart or the

requirements of subpart LL of part 63 of

this chapter.

6. Appendix A to part 60 is amended

by revising the appendix heading and

adding, in numerical order, Method 14A

to read as follows:

Appendix A To part 60—Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 14A—Determination of Total

Fluoride Emissions from Selected

Sources at Primary Aluminum

Production Facilities

Note: This method does not include all the

specifications (e.g., equipment and supplies)

and procedures (e.g., sampling) essential to

its performance. Some material is

incorporated by reference from other

methods in this part. Therefore, to obtain

reliable results, persons using this method

should have a thorough knowledge of at least

the following additional test methods:

Method 5, Methods 13A and 13B, and

Method 14 of this appendix.

1.0 Scope and Application.

1.1 Analytes.

Analyte CAS No. Sensitivity

Total fluorides None assigned.Not determined.

Includes hydrogen fluoride.007664–39–3 Not determined.

1.2 Applicability. This method is

applicable for the determination of total

fluorides (TF) emissions from sources

specified in the applicable regulation. This

method was developed by consensus with

the Aluminum Association and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

2.0 Summary of Method.

2.1 Total fluorides, in the form of solid

and gaseous fluorides, are withdrawn from

the ascending air stream inside of an

aluminum reduction potroom and, prior to

exiting the potroom roof monitor, into a

specific cassette arrangement. The cassettes

are connected by tubing to flowmeters and a

manifold system that allows for the equal

distribution of volume pulled through each

cassette, and finally to a dry gas meter. The

cassettes have a specific internal arrangement

of one unaltered cellulose filter and support

pad in the first section of the cassette for

solid fluoride retention and two cellulose

filters with support pads that are

impregnated with sodium formate for the

chemical absorption of gaseous fluorides in

the following two sections of the cassette. A

minimum of eight cassettes shall be used for

a potline and shall be strategically located at

equal intervals across the potroom roof so as

to encompass a minimum of 8 percent of the

total length of the potroom. A greater number

of cassettes may be used should the regulated

facility choose to do so. The mass flow rate

of pollutants is determined with

anemometers and temperature sensing

devices located immediately below the

opening of the roof monitor and spaced

evenly within the cassette group.

3.0 Definitions.

3.1 Cassette. A segmented, styrene

acrylonitrile cassette configuration with three

separate segments and a base, for the purpose

of this method, to capture and retain fluoride

from potroom gases.

3.2 Cassette arrangement. The cassettes,

tubing, manifold system, flowmeters, dry gas

meter, and any other related equipment

associated with the actual extraction of the

sample gas stream.

3.3 Cassette group. That section of the

potroom roof monitor where a distinct group

of cassettes is located.

3.4 Potline. A single, discrete group of

electrolytic reduction cells electrically

connected in series, in which alumina is

reduced to form aluminum.

3.5 Potroom. A building unit that houses

a group of electrolytic reduction cells in

which aluminum is produced.

3.6 Potroom group. An uncontrolled

potroom, a potroom that is controlled

individually, or a group of potrooms or

potroom segments ducted to a common

primary control system.

3.7 Primary control system. The

equipment used to capture the gases and

particulate matter generated during the

reduction process and the emission control

device(s) used to remove pollutants prior to

discharge of the cleaned gas to the

atmosphere.

3.8 Roof monitor. That portion of the roof

of a potroom building where gases, not

captured at the cell, exit from the potroom.

3.9 Total fluorides (TF). Elemental

fluorine and all fluoride compounds as

measured by Methods 13A or 13B of this

appendix or by an approved alternative

method.

4.0 Interferences and Known Limitations.

4.1 There are two principal categories of

limitations that must be addressed when

using this method. The first category is

sampling bias and the second is analytical

bias. Biases in sampling can occur when

there is an insufficient number of cassettes

located along the roof monitor of a potroom

or if the distribution of those cassettes is

spatially unequal. Known sampling biases

also can occur when there are leaks within

the cassette arrangement and if anemometers

and temperature devices are not providing

accurate data. Applicable instruments must

be properly calibrated to avoid sampling bias.

Analytical biases can occur when

instrumentation is not calibrated or fails

calibration and the instrument is used out of

proper calibration. Additionally, biases can

occur in the laboratory if fusion crucibles

retain residual fluorides over lengthy periods

of use. This condition could result in falsely

elevated fluoride values. Maintaining a clean

work environment in the laboratory is crucial

to producing accurate values.

4.2 Biases during sampling can be

avoided by properly spacing the appropriate

number of cassettes along the roof monitor,

conducting leak checks of the cassette

arrangement, calibrating the dry gas meter

every 30 days, verifying the accuracy of

individual flowmeters (so that there is no

more than 5 percent difference in the volume

pulled between any two flowmeters), and

calibrating or replacing anemometers and

temperature sensing devices as necessary to

maintain true data generation.

4.3 Analytical biases can be avoided by

calibrating instruments according to the

manufacturer’s specifications prior to

conducting any analyses, by performing

internal and external audits of up to 10

percent of all samples analyzed, and by

rotating individual crucibles as the ‘‘blank’’

crucible to detect any potential residual

fluoride carry-over to samples. Should any

contamination be discovered in the blank

crucible, the crucible shall be thoroughly

cleaned to remove any detected residual

fluorides and a ‘‘blank’’ analysis conducted

again to evaluate the effectiveness of the

cleaning. The crucible shall remain in service

as long as no detectable residual fluorides are

present.

5.0 Safety.

5.1 This method may involve the

handling of hazardous materials in the

analytical phase. This method does not

purport to address all of the potential safety

hazards associated with its use. It is the

responsibility of the user to establish

appropriate safety and health practices and

determine the applicability of regulatory

limitations prior to performing this test

method.

5.2 Corrosive reagents. The following

reagents are hazardous. Personal protective

equipment and safe procedures are useful in

preventing chemical splashes. If contact

occurs, immediately flush with copious

amounts of water for at least 15 minutes.

Remove clothing under shower and
52400 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

decontaminate. Treat residual chemical burn

as thermal burn.

5.3 Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). Causes

severe damage to eyes and skin. Inhalation

causes irritation to nose, throat, and lungs.

Reacts exothermically with limited amounts

of water.

5.4 Perchloric Acid (HClO4). Corrosive to

eyes, skin, nose, and throat. Provide

ventilation to limit exposure. Very strong

oxidizer. Keep separate from water and

oxidizable materials to prevent vigorous

evolution of heat, spontaneous combustion,

or explosion. Heat solutions containing

HClO4 only in hoods specifically designed

for HClO4.

216.0 Equipment and Supplies.

6.1 Sampling.

6.1.1 Cassette arrangement. The cassette

itself is a three-piece, styrene acrylonitrile

cassette unit (a Gelman Sciences product), 37

millimeter (mm), with plastic connectors. In

the first section (the intake section), an

untreated Gelman Sciences 37 mm, 0.8

micrometer (μm) DM–800 metricel

membrane filter and cellulose support pad,

or equivalent, is situated. In the second and

third segments of the cassette there is placed

one each of Gelman Sciences 37 mm, 5 μm

GLA–5000 low-ash PVC filter with a

cellulose support pad or equivalent product.

Each of these two filters and support pads

shall have been immersed in a solution of 10

percent sodium formate (volume/volume in

an ethyl alcohol solution). The impregnated

pads shall be placed in the cassette segments

while still wet and heated at 50°C (122°F)

until the pad is completely dry. It is

important to check for a proper fit of the filter

and support pad to the cassette segment to

ensure that there are no areas where gases

could bypass the filter. Once all of the

cassette segments have been prepared, the

cassette shall be assembled and a plastic plug

shall be inserted into the exhaust hole of the

cassette. Prior to placing the cassette into

service, the space between each segment

shall be taped with an appropriately durable

tape to prevent the infiltration of gases

through the points of connection, and an

aluminum nozzle shall be inserted into the

intake hole of the cassette. The aluminum

nozzle shall have a short section of tubing

placed over the opening of the nozzle, with

the tubing plugged to prevent dust from

entering the nozzle and to prepare the nozzle

for the cassette arrangement leak check. An

alternate nozzle type can be used if historical

results or scientific demonstration of

applicability can be shown.

6.1.2 Anemometers and temperature

sensing devices. To calculate the mass flow

rate of TF from the roof monitor under

standard conditions, anemometers that meet

the specifications in section 2.1.1 in Method

14 of this appendix or an equivalent device

yielding equivalent information shall be

used. A recording mechanism capable of

accurately recording the exit gas temperature

at least every 2 hours shall be used.

6.1.3 Barometer. To correct the

volumetric flow from the potline roof

monitor to standard conditions, a mercury

(Hg), aneroid, or other barometer capable of

measuring atmospheric pressure to within

2.5 mm [0.1 inch (in)] Hg shall be used.

Note: The barometric reading may be

obtained from a nearby National Weather

Service Station. In this case, the station value

(which is absolute barometric pressure) shall

be requested and an adjustment for elevation

differences between the weather station and

the sampling point shall be made at a rate of

minus 2.5 mm (0.1 in) Hg per 30 meters (m)

[100 feet (ft)] elevation increase or plus 2.5

mm (0.1 in) Hg per 30 m (100 ft) elevation

decrease.

6.2 Sample recovery.

6.2.1 Hot plate.

6.2.2 Muffle furnace.

6.2.3 Nickel crucible.

6.2.4 Stirring rod. Teflon’.

6.2.5 Volumetric flask. 50-milliliter (ml).

6.2.6 Plastic vial. 50-ml.

6.3 Analysis.

6.3.1 Primary analytical method. An

automated analyzer having the following

components or equivalent: a multichannel

proportioning pump, multiposition sampler,

voltage stabilizer, colorimeter, instrument

recording device, microdistillation apparatus,

flexible Teflon heating bath, vacuum pump,

pulse suppressers and an air flow system.

6.3.2 Secondary analytical method.

Specific Ion Electrode (SIE).

7.0 Reagents and Standards.

7.1 Water. Deionized distilled to conform

to ASTM Specification D 1193–77, Type 3

(incorporated by reference in § 60.17(a)(22) of

this part). The KMnO4 test for oxidizable

organic matter may be omitted when high

concentrations of organic matter are not

expected to be present.

7.2 Calcium oxide.

7.3 Sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Pellets.

7.4 Perchloric acid (HClO4). Mix 1:1 with

water. Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) may be used in

place of HClO4.

7.5 Audit samples. The audit samples

discussed in section 9.1 shall be prepared

from reagent grade, water soluble stock

reagents, or purchased as an aqueous

solution from a commercial supplier. If the

audit stock solution is purchased from a

commercial supplier, the standard solution

must be accompanied by a certificate of

analysis or an equivalent proof of fluoride

concentration.

8.0 Sample Collection and Analysis.

8.1 Preparing cassette arrangement for

sampling. The cassettes are initially

connected to flexible tubing. The tubing is

connected to flowmeters and a manifold

system. The manifold system is connected to

a dry gas meter (Research Appliance

Company model 201009 or equivalent). The

length of tubing is managed by pneumatically

or electrically operated hoists located in the

roof monitor, and the travel of the tubing is

controlled by encasing the tubing in

aluminum conduit. The tubing is lowered for

cassette insertion by operating a control box

at floor level. Once the cassette has been

securely inserted into the tubing and the leak

check performed, the tubing and cassette are

raised to the roof monitor level using the

floor level control box. Arrangements similar

to the one described are acceptable if the

scientific sample collection principles are

followed.

8.2 Test run sampling period. A test run

shall comprise a minimum of a 24-hour

sampling event encompassing at least eight

cassettes per potline (or four cassettes per

potroom group). Monthly compliance shall

be based on three test runs during the month.

Test runs of greater than 24 hours are

allowed; however, three such runs shall be

conducted during the month.

8.3 Leak-check procedures.

8.3.1 Pretest leak check. A pretest leakcheck is recommended; however, it is not

required. To perform a pretest leak-check

after the cassettes have been inserted into the

tubing, isolate the cassette to be leak-checked

by turning the valves on the manifold to stop

all flows to the other sampling points

connected to the manifold and meter. The

cassette, with the plugged tubing section

securing the intake of the nozzle, is subjected

to the highest vacuum expected during the

run. If no leaks are detected, the tubing plug

can be briefly removed as the dry gas meter

is rapidly turned off.

8.3.2 Post-test leak check. A leak check is

required at the conclusion of each test run for

each cassette. The leak check shall be

performed in accordance with the procedure

outlined in section 8.3.1 of this method

except that it shall be performed at a vacuum

greater than the maximum vacuum reached

during the test run. If the leakage rate is

found to be no greater than 4 percent of the

average sampling rate, the results are

acceptable. If the leakage rate is greater than

4 percent of the average sampling rate, either

record the leakage rate and correct the

sampling volume as discussed in section 12.4

of this method or void the test run if the

minimum number of cassettes were used. If

the number of cassettes used was greater than

the minimum required, discard the leaking

cassette and use the remaining cassettes for

the emission determination.

8.3.3 Anemometers and temperature

sensing device placement. Install the

recording mechanism to record the exit gas

temperature. Anemometers shall be installed

as required in section 6.1.2 of Method 14 of

this appendix, except replace the word

‘‘manifold’’ with ‘‘cassette group’’ in section

6.1.2.3. These two different instruments shall

be located near each other along the roof

monitor. See conceptual configurations in

Figures 14A–1, 14A–2, and 14A–3 of this

method. Fewer temperature devices than

anemometers may be used if at least one

temperature device is located within the span

of the cassette group. Other anemometer

location siting scenarios may be acceptable as

long as the exit velocity of the roof monitor

gases is representative of the entire section of

the potline being sampled.

8.4 Sampling. The actual sample run

shall begin with the removal of the tubing

and plug from the cassette nozzle. Each

cassette is then raised to the roof monitor

area, the dry gas meter is turned on, and the

flowmeters are set to the calibration point,

which allows an equal volume of sampled

gas to enter each cassette. The dry gas meter

shall be set to a range suitable for the specific

potroom type being sampled that will yield

valid data known from previous experience

or a range determined by the use of the

calculation in section 12 of this method.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52401

Parameters related to the test run that shall

be recorded, either during the test run or after

the test run if recording devices are used,

include: anemometer data, roof monitor exit

gas temperature, dry gas meter temperature,

dry gas meter volume, and barometric

pressure. At the conclusion of the test run,

the cassettes shall be lowered, the dry gas

meter turned off, and the volume registered

on the dry gas meter recorded. The post-test

leak check procedures described in section

8.3.2 of this method shall be performed. All

data relevant to the test shall be recorded on

a field data sheet and maintained on file.

8.5 Sample recovery.

8.5.1 The cassettes shall be brought to the

laboratory with the intake nozzle contents

protected with the section of plugged tubing

previously described. The exterior of

cassettes shall carefully be wiped free of any

dust or debris, making sure that any falling

dust or debris does not present a potential

laboratory contamination problem.

8.5.2 Carefully remove all tape from the

cassettes and remove the initial filter,

support pad, and all loose solids from the

first (intake) section of the cassette. Fold the

filter and support pad several times and,

along with all loose solids removed from the

interior of the first section of the cassette,

place them into a nickel crucible. Using

water, wash the interior of the nozzle into the

same nickel crucible. Add 0.1 gram (g) [±0.1

milligram (mg)] of calcium oxide and a

sufficient amount of water to make a loose

slurry. Mix the contents of the crucible

thoroughly with a Teflon’’ stirring rod. After

rinsing any adhering residue from the stirring

rod back into the crucible, place the crucible

on a hot plate or in a muffle furnace until all

liquid is evaporated and allow the mixture to

gradually char for 1 hour.

8.5.3 Transfer the crucible to a cold

muffle furnace and ash at 600°C (1,112°F).

Remove the crucible after the ashing phase

and, after the crucible cools, add 3.0 g (±0.1

g) of NaOH pellets. Place this mixture in a

muffle furnace at 600°C (1,112°F) for 3

minutes. Remove the crucible and roll the

melt so as to reach all of the ash with the

molten NaOH. Let the melt cool to room

temperature. Add 10 to 15 ml of water to the

crucible and place it on a hot plate at a low

temperature setting until the melt is soft or

suspended. Transfer the contents of the

crucible to a 50-ml volumetric flask. Rinse

the crucible with 20 ml of 1:1 perchloric acid

or 20 ml of 1:1 sulfuric acid in two (2) 10 ml

portions. Pour the acid rinse slowly into the

volumetric flask and swirl the flask after each

addition. Cool to room temperature. The

product of this procedure is particulate

fluorides.

8.5.4 Gaseous fluorides can be isolated

for analysis by folding the gaseous fluoride

filters and support pads to approximately 1⁄4

of their original size and placing them in a

50-ml plastic vial. To the vial add exactly 10

ml of water and leach the sample for a

minimum of 1 hour. The leachate from this

process yields the gaseous fluorides for

analysis.

9.0 Quality Control.

9.1 Laboratory auditing. Laboratory

audits of specific and known concentrations

of fluoride shall be submitted to the

laboratory with each group of samples

submitted for analysis. An auditor shall

prepare and present the audit samples as a

‘‘blind’’ evaluation of laboratory performance

with each group of samples submitted to the

laboratory. The audits shall be prepared to

represent concentrations of fluoride that

could be expected to be in the low, medium

and high range of actual results. Average

recoveries of all three audits must equal 90

to 110 percent for acceptable results;

otherwise, the laboratory must investigate

procedures and instruments for potential

problems.

Note: The analytical procedure allows for

the analysis of individual or combined filters

and pads from the cassettes provided that

equal volumes (±10 percent) are sampled

through each cassette.

10.0 Calibrations.

10.1 Equipment evaluations. To ensure

the integrity of this method, periodic

calibrations and equipment replacements are

necessary.

10.1.1 Metering system. At 30-day

intervals the metering system shall be

calibrated. Connect the metering system inlet

to the outlet of a wet test meter that is

accurate to 1 percent. Refer to Figure 5–4 of

Method 5 of this appendix. The wet-test

meter shall have a capacity of 30 liters/

revolution [1 cubic foot (ft3)/revolution]. A

spirometer of 400 liters (14 ft3) or more

capacity, or equivalent, may be used for

calibration; however, a wet-test meter is

usually more practical. The wet-test meter

shall be periodically tested with a spirometer

or a liquid displacement meter to ensure the

accuracy. Spirometers or wet-test meters of

other sizes may be used, provided that the

specified accuracies of the procedure are

maintained. Run the metering system pump

for about 15 min. with the orifice manometer

indicating a median reading as expected in

field use to allow the pump to warm up and

to thoroughly wet the interior of the wet-test

meter. Then, at each of a minimum of three

orifice manometer settings, pass an exact

quantity of gas through the wet-test meter

and record the volume indicated by the dry

gas meter. Also record the barometric

pressure, the temperatures of the wet test

meter, the inlet temperatures of the dry gas

meter, and the temperatures of the outlet of

the dry gas meter. Record all calibration data

on a form similar to the one shown in Figure

5–5 of Method 5 of this appendix and

calculate Y, the dry gas meter calibration

factor, and ∆H@, the orifice calibration factor

at each orifice setting. Allowable tolerances

for Y and ∆H@ are given in Figure 5–6 of

Method 5 of this appendix.

10.1.2 Estimating volumes for initial test

runs. For a facility’s initial test runs, the

regulated facility must have a target or

desired volume of gases to be sampled and

a target range of volumes to use during the

calibration of the dry gas meter. Use

Equations 14A–1 and 14A–2 in section 12 of

this method to derive the target dry gas meter

volume (Fv) for these purposes.

10.1.3 Calibration of anemometers and

temperature sensing devices. If the standard

anemometers in Method 14 of this appendix

are used, the calibration and integrity

evaluations in sections 10.3.1.1 through

10.3.1.3 of Method 14 of this appendix shall

be used as well as the recording device

described in section 2.1.3 of Method 14. The

calibrations or complete change-outs of

anemometers shall take place at a minimum

of once per year. The temperature sensing

and recording devices shall be calibrated

according to the manufacturer’s

specifications.

10.1.4 Calibration of flowmeters. The

calibration of flowmeters is necessary to

ensure that an equal volume of sampled gas

is entering each of the individual cassettes

and that no large differences, which could

possibly bias the sample, exist between the

cassettes.

10.1.4.1 Variable area, 65 mm flowmeters

or equivalent shall be used. These flowmeters

can be mounted on a common base for

convenience. These flowmeters shall be

calibrated by attaching a prepared cassette,

complete with filters and pads, to the

flowmeter and then to the system manifold.

This manifold is an aluminum cylinder with

valved inlets for connections to the

flowmeters/cassettes and one outlet to a dry

gas meter. The connection is then made to

the wet-test meter and finally to a dry gas

meter. All connections are made with tubing.

10.1.4.2 Turn the dry gas meter on for 15

min. in preparation for the calibration. Turn

the dry gas meter off and plug the intake hole

of the cassette. Turn the dry gas meter back

on to evaluate the entire system for leaks. If

the dry gas meter shows a leakage rate of less

than 0.02 ft3/min at 10 in. of Hg vacuum as

noted on the dry gas meter, the system is

acceptable to further calibration.

10.1.4.3 With the dry gas meter turned on

and the flow indicator ball at a selected flow

rate, record the exact amount of gas pulled

through the flowmeter by taking

measurements from the wet test meter after

exactly 10 min. Record the room temperature

and barometric pressure. Conduct this test for

all flowmeters in the system with all

flowmeters set at the same indicator ball

reading. When all flowmeters have gone

through the procedure above, correct the

volume pulled through each flowmeter to

standard conditions. The acceptable

difference between the highest and lowest

flowmeter rate is 5 percent. Should one or

more flowmeters be outside of the acceptable

limit of 5 percent, repeat the calibration

procedure at a lower or higher indicator ball

reading until all flowmeters show no more

than 5 percent difference among them.

10.1.4.4 This flowmeter calibration shall

be conducted at least once per year.

10.1.5 Miscellaneous equipment

calibrations. Miscellaneous equipment used

such as an automatic recorder/ printer used

to measure dry gas meter temperatures shall

be calibrated according to the manufacturer’s

specifications in order to maintain the

accuracy of the equipment.

11.0 Analytical Procedure.

11.1 The preferred primary analytical

determination of the individual isolated

samples or the combined particulate and

gaseous samples shall be performed by an

automated methodology. The analytical
52402 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

method for this technology shall be based on

the manufacturer’s instructions for

equipment operation and shall also include

the analysis of five standards with

concentrations in the expected range of the

actual samples. The results of the analysis of

the five standards shall have a coefficient of

correlation of at least 0.99. A check standard

shall be analyzed as the last sample of the

group to determine if instrument drift has

occurred. The acceptable result for the check

standard is 95 to 105 percent of the

standard’s true value.

11.2 The secondary analytical method

shall be by specific ion electrode if the

samples are distilled or if a TISAB IV buffer

is used to eliminate aluminum interferences.

Five standards with concentrations in the

expected range of the actual samples shall be

analyzed, and a coefficient of correlation of

at least 0.99 is the minimum acceptable limit

for linearity. An exception for this limit for

linearity is a condition when low-level

standards in the range of 0.01 to 0.48 μg

fluoride/ml are analyzed. In this situation, a

minimum coefficient of correlation of 0.97 is

required. TISAB II shall be used for low-level

analyses.

12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations.

12.1 Carry out calculations, retaining at

least one extra decimal point beyond that of

the acquired data. Round off values after the

final calculation. Other forms of calculations

may be used as long as they give equivalent

results.

12.2 Estimating volumes for initial test

runs.

F Eq. 14A-1 v = ( ) F X( )

F

d

e

Where

Fv = Desired volume of dry gas to be

sampled, ft3.

Fd = Desired or analytically optimum mass of

TF per cassette, micrograms of TF per

cassette (μg/cassette).

X = Number of cassettes used.

Fe = Typical concentration of TF in emissions

to be sampled, μg/ft 3, calculated from

Equation 14A–2.

F

R R g lb

A V e

e p

r r

= ( )( )( ) ×

( )( )

4 536 108 . / μ

Eq. 14A-2

Where

Re = Typical emission rate from the facility,

pounds of TF per ton (lb/ton) of

aluminum.

Rp = Typical production rate of the facility,

tons of aluminum per minute (ton/min).

Vr = Typical exit velocity of the roof monitor

gases, feet per minute (ft/min).

Ar=Open area of the roof monitor, square feet

(ft2).

12.2.1 Example calculation. Assume

that the typical emission rate (Re) is 1.0

lb TF/ton of aluminum, the typical roof

vent gas exit velocity (Vr) is 250 ft/min,

the typical production rate (Rp) is 0.10

ton/min, the known open area for the

roof monitor (Ar) is 8,700 ft2, and the

desired (analytically optimum) mass of

TF per cassette is 1,500 μg. First

calculate the concentration of TF per

cassette (Fe) in μg/ft3 using Equation

14A–2. Then calculate the desired

volume of gas to be sampled (Fv) using

Equation 14A–1.

F

tons g lb

ft ft e = = Eq A ( )( )( ) ×

( )( )

20 855

1 0 0 1 4 536 10

8 700 250

14 3

8

2 . . . /min . /

, /min . lb/ton - μ
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52403

F ft g cassettes

g ft v = = Eq A ( )( )

( ) 575

1 500 8

20 855

14 3

3 .40 ,

. / . μ

μ

-4

This is a total of 575.40 ft3 for eight

cassettes or 71.925 ft3/cassette.

12.3 Calculations of TF emissions from

field and laboratory data that would yield a

production related emission rate can be

calculated as follows:

12.3.1 Obtain a standard cubic feet (scf)

value for the volume pulled through the dry

gas meter for all cassettes by using the field

and calibration data and Equation 5–1 of

Method 5 of this appendix.

12.3.2 Derive the average quantity of TF

per cassette (in μg TF/cassette) by adding all

laboratory data for all cassettes and dividing

this value by the total number of cassettes

used. Divide this average TF value by the

corrected dry gas meter volume for each

cassette; this value then becomes TFstd (μg/

ft3).

12.3.3 Calculate the production-based

emission rate (Re) in lb/ton using Equation

14A–5.

R

TF V A lb g

R e Eq A std r r

p

= ( )( )( )( ) ×

( )

− 2 2 10

14

9 . / . μ

-5

12.3.4 As an example calculation, assume

eight cassettes located in a potline were used

to sample for 72 hours during the run. The

analysis of all eight cassettes yielded a total

of 3,000 μg of TF. The dry gas meter volume

was corrected to yield a total of 75 scf per

cassette, which yields a value for TFstd of

3,000/75=5 μg/ft3. The open area of the roof

monitor for the potline (Ar) is 17,400 ft2. The

exit velocity of the roof monitor gases (Vr) is

250 ft/min. The production rate of aluminum

over the previous 720 hours was 5,000 tons,

which is 6.94 tons/hr or 0.116 ton/min (Rp).

Substituting these values into Equation 14A–

5 yields:

R

g ft ft ft lb g

ton Eq A

lb ton of

e = ( )( )( )( ) ×

( )

=

− 5 250 17 400 2 2 10

0 116

14

0

3 2 9 μ μ / /min , . /

. /min .

.41 /

-6

R aluminum produced. Eq.14A-7 e

12.4 Corrections to volumes due to

leakage. Should the post-test leak check

leakage rate exceed 4 percent as described in

section 8.3.2 of this method, correct the

volume as detailed in Case I in section 6.3

of Method 5 of this appendix.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
52404 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52405
52406 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 6560–50–L
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52407

* * * * *

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR

POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE

CATEGORIES

7. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

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

8. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart LL to read as follows:

Subpart LL—National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Primary

Aluminum Reduction Plants

Sec.

63.840 Applicability.

63.841 Incorporation by reference.

63.842 Definitions.

63.843 Emission limits for existing sources.

63.844 Emission limits for new or

reconstructed sources.

63.845 Incorporation of new source

performance standards for potroom

groups.

63.846 Emission averaging.

63.847 Compliance provisions.

63.848 Emission monitoring requirements.

63.849 Test methods and procedures.

63.850 Notification, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements.

63.851 Regulatory authority review

procedures.

63.852 Applicability of general provisions.

63.853 Delegation of authority.

63.854–63.859 [Reserved]

Table 1 to Subpart LL—Potline TF Limits for

Emission Averaging

Table 2 to Subpart LL—Potline POM Limits

for Emission Averaging

Table 3 to Subpart LL—Anode Bake Furnace

Limits for Emission Averaging

Appendix A to Subpart LL—

Applicability of General Provisions (40

CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart LL

Subpart LL—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Primary Aluminum Reduction

Plants

§ 63.840 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph

(b) of this section, the requirements of

this subpart apply to the owner or

operator of each new pitch storage tank

and new or existing potline, paste

production plant, or anode bake furnace

associated with primary aluminum

production and located at a major

source as defined in § 63.2.

(b) The requirements of this subpart

do not apply to any existing anode bake

furnace that is not located on the same

site as a primary aluminum reduction

plant. The owner or operator shall

comply with the State MACT

determination established by the

applicable regulatory authority.

(c) An owner or operator of an

affected facility (potroom group or

anode bake furnace) under § 60.190 of

this chapter may elect to comply with

either the requirements of § 63.845 of

this subpart or the requirements of

subpart S of part 60 of this chapter.

§ 63.841 Incorporation by reference.

(a) The following material is

incorporated by reference in the

corresponding sections noted. This

incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register on October 7, 1997, in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1

CFR part 51. These materials are

incorporated as they exist on the date of

approval, and notice of any change in

the materials will be published in the

Federal Register. Revisions to

‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of

Recommended Practice’’ (22nd ed.) are

applicable only after publication of a

document in the Federal Register to

amend subpart LL to require use of the

new information.

(1) Chapter 3, ‘‘Local Exhaust Hoods’’

and Chapter 5, ‘‘Exhaust System Design

Procedure’’ of ‘‘Industrial Ventilation: A

Manual of Recommended Practice,’’

American Conference of Governmental

Industrial Hygienists, 22nd edition,

1995, IBR approved for §§ 63.843(b) and

63.844(b); and

(2) ASTM D 2986–95A, Standard

Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay

Media by the Monodisperse DOP

(Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test, IBR

approved for section 7.1.1 of Method

315 in appendix A to this part.

(b) The materials incorporated by

reference are available for inspection at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street NW., Suite 700, 7th

Floor, Washington, DC, and at the Air

and Radiation Docket Center, U.S. EPA,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC. The

materials also are available for purchase

from one of the following addresses:

(1) Customer Service Department,

American Conference of Governmental

Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330

Kemper Meadow Drive, Cincinnati,

Ohio 45240, telephone number (513)

742–2020; or

(2) American Society for Testing and

Materials, 100 Bar Harbour Drive, West

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428,

telephone number (610) 832–9500.

§ 63.842 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Clean Air Act as

amended (the Act), in § 63.2, or in this

section as follows:

Anode bake furnace means an oven in

which the formed green anodes are

baked for use in a prebake process. This

definition includes multiple anode bake

furnaces controlled by a common

control device (bake furnaces controlled

by a common control device are

considered to be one source).

Center-worked prebake (CWPB)

process means a method of primary

aluminum reduction using the prebake

process in which the alumina feed is

added down the center of the reduction

cell.

Center-worked prebake one (CWPB1)

means all existing center-worked

prebake potlines not defined as centerworked prebake two (CWPB2) or centerworked prebake three (CWPB3) potlines.

Center-worked prebake two (CWPB2)

means all existing center-worked

prebake potlines located at Alcoa in

Rockdale, Texas; Kaiser Aluminum in

Mead, Washington; Ormet Corporation

in Hannibal, Ohio; Ravenswood

Aluminum in Ravenswood, West

Virginia; Reynolds Metals in Troutdale,

Oregon; and Vanalco Aluminum in

Vancouver, Washington.

Center-worked prebake three (CWPB3)

means all existing center-worked

prebake potlines that produce very high

purity aluminum, have a wet scrubber

for the primary control system, and are

located at the NSA primary aluminum

plant in Hawesville, Kentucky.

Continuous parameter monitoring

system means the total equipment that

may be required to meet the data

acquisition and availability

requirements of this subpart, used to

sample, condition (if applicable),

analyze, and provide a record of process

or control system parameters.

Horizontal stud Soderberg (HSS)

process means a method of primary

aluminum reduction using the

Soderberg process in which the

electrical current is introduced to the

anode by steel rods (studs) inserted into

the side of a monolithic anode.

Modified potroom group means an

existing potroom group to which any

physical change in, or change in the

method of operation of, results in an

increase in the amount of total fluoride

emitted into the atmosphere by that

potroom group.

Paste production plant means the

processes whereby calcined petroleum

coke, coal tar pitch (hard or liquid),

and/or other materials are mixed,

transferred, and formed into briquettes

or paste for vertical stud Soderberg

(VSS) and HSS processes or into green

anodes for a prebake process. This

definition includes all operations from

initial mixing to final forming (i.e.,

briquettes, paste, green anodes) within

the paste plant, including conveyors

and units managing heated liquid pitch.

Pitch storage tank means any fixed

roof tank that is used to store liquid
52408 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

pitch that is not part of the paste

production plant.

Polycyclic organic matter (POM)

means organic matter extractable by

methylene chloride as determined by

Method 315 in appendix A to this part

or by an approved alternative method.

Potline means a single, discrete group

of electrolytic reduction cells

electrically connected in series, in

which alumina is reduced to form

aluminum.

Potroom means a building unit that

houses a group of electrolytic cells in

which aluminum is produced.

Potroom group means an uncontrolled

potroom, a potroom that is controlled

individually, or a group of potrooms or

potroom segments ducted to a common

control system.

Prebake process means a method of

primary aluminum reduction that uses

an anode that was baked in an anode

bake furnace, which is introduced into

the top of the reduction cell and

consumed as part of the reduction

process.

Primary aluminum reduction plant

means any facility manufacturing

aluminum by electrolytic reduction.

Primary control system means the

equipment used to capture the gases and

particulate matter evacuated directly

from the reduction cell and the emission

control device(s) used to remove

pollutants prior to discharge of the

cleaned gas to the atmosphere. A roof

scrubber is not part of the primary

control system.

Primary emissions means the

emissions discharged from the primary

control system.

Reconstructed potroom group means

an existing potroom group for which the

components are replaced to such an

extent that the fixed capital cost of the

new components exceeds 50 percent of

the fixed capital cost that would be

required to construct a comparable

entirely new potroom group, and for

which it is technologically and

economically feasible to meet the

applicable emission limits for total

fluoride set forth in this subpart.

Reconstruction means the

replacement of components of a source

to such an extent that:

(1) All of the major components of the

source are replaced (for example, the

major components of a potline include

the raw material handling system,

reduction cells, superstructure, hooding,

ductwork, etc.); and

(2) It is technologically and

economically feasible for the

reconstructed source to meet the

standards for new sources established in

this subpart.

Roof monitor means that portion of

the roof of a potroom building where

gases not captured at the cell exit from

the potroom.

Secondary emissions means the

fugitive emissions that are not captured

and controlled by the primary control

system and that escape through the roof

monitor or through roof scrubbers.

Side-worked prebake (SWPB) process

means a method of primary aluminum

reduction using the prebake process, in

which the alumina is added along the

sides of the reduction cell.

Soderberg process means a method of

primary aluminum reduction in which

the anode paste mixture is baked in the

reduction pot by the heat resulting from

the electrolytic process.

Total fluorides (TF) means elemental

fluorine and all fluoride compounds as

measured by Methods 13A or 13B in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter or

by an approved alternative method.

Vertical stud Soderberg (VSS) process

means a method of primary aluminum

reduction using the Soderberg process,

in which the electrical current is

introduced to the anode by steel rods

(studs) inserted into the top of a

monolithic anode.

Vertical stud Soderberg one (VSS1)

means all existing vertical stud

Soderberg potlines located either at

Northwest Aluminum in The Dalles,

Oregon, or at Goldendale Aluminum in

Goldendale, Washington.

Vertical stud Soderberg two (VSS2)

means all existing vertical stud

Soderberg potlines located at Columbia

Falls Aluminum in Columbia Falls,

Montana.

§ 63.843 Emission limits for existing

sources.

(a) Potlines. The owner or operator

shall not discharge or cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere any

emissions of TF or POM in excess of the

applicable limits in paragraphs (a)(1)

and (a)(2) of this section.

(1) TF limits. Emissions of TF shall

not exceed:

(i) 0.95 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each CWPB1

potline;

(ii) 1.5 kg/Mg (3.0 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each CWPB2

potline;

(iii) 1.25 kg/Mg (2.5 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each CWPB3

potline;

(iv) 0.8 kg/Mg (1.6 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each SWPB

potline;

(v) 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of aluminum

produced for each VSS1 potline;

(vi) 1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each VSS2

potline; and

(vii) 1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each HSS

potline.

(2) POM limits. Emissions of POM

shall not exceed:

(i) 2.35 kg/Mg (4.7 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each HSS

potline;

(ii) 1.2 kg/Mg (2.4 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each VSS1

potline; and

(iii) 1.8 kg/Mg (3.6 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced for each VSS2

potline.

(3) Change in subcategory. Any

potline, other than a reconstructed

potline, that is changed such that its

applicable subcategory also changes

shall meet the applicable emission limit

in this subpart for the original

subcategory or the new subcategory,

whichever is more stringent.

(b) Paste production plants. The

owner or operator shall install, operate,

and maintain equipment to capture and

control POM emissions from each paste

production plant.

(1) The emission capture system shall

be installed and operated to meet the

generally accepted engineering

standards for minimum exhaust rates as

published by the American Conference

of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

in Chapters 3 and 5 of ‘‘Industrial

Ventilation: A Handbook of

Recommended Practice’’ (incorporated

by reference in § 63.841 of this part);

and

(2) Captured emissions shall be routed

through a closed system to a dry coke

scrubber; or

(3) The owner or operator may submit

a written request for use of an

alternative control device to the

applicable regulatory authority for

review and approval. The request shall

contain information and data

demonstrating that the alternative

control device achieves POM emissions

less than 0.011 lb/ton of paste for plants

with continuous mixers or POM

emissions less than 0.024 lb/ton of paste

for plants with batch mixers. The POM

emission rate shall be determined by

sampling using Method 315 in appendix

A to this part.

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner

or operator shall not discharge or cause

to be discharged into the atmosphere

any emissions of TF or POM in excess

of the limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(c)(2) of this section.

(1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not

exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of green

anode; and

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM

shall not exceed 0.09 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/

ton) of green anode.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52409

§ 63.844 Emission limits for new or

reconstructed sources.

(a) Potlines. The owner or operator

shall not discharge or cause to be

discharged into the atmosphere any

emissions of TF or POM in excess of the

limits in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of

this section.

(1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not

exceed 0.6 kg/Mg (1.2 lb/ton) of

aluminum produced; and

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM from

Soderberg potlines shall not exceed 0.32

kg/Mg (0.63 lb/ton) of aluminum

produced.

(b) Paste production plants. The

owner or operator shall meet the

requirements in § 63.843(b) for existing

paste production plants.

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner

or operator shall not discharge or cause

to be discharged into the atmosphere

any emissions of TF or POM in excess

of the limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(c)(2) of this section.

(1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not

exceed 0.01 kg/Mg (0.02 lb/ton) of green

anode; and

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM

shall not exceed 0.025 kg/Mg (0.05 lb/

ton) of green anode.

(d) Pitch storage tanks. Each pitch

storage tank shall be equipped with an

emission control system designed and

operated to reduce inlet emissions of

POM by 95 percent or greater.

§ 63.845 Incorporation of new source

performance standards for potroom groups.

(a) Applicability. The provisions in

paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section

shall apply to any Soderberg, CWPB2,

and CWPB3 potline that adds a new

potroom group to an existing potline or

that is associated with a potroom group

that meets the definition of ‘‘modified

potroom group’’ or ‘‘reconstructed

potroom group.’’

(1) The following shall not, by

themselves, be considered to result in a

potroom group modification:

(i) Maintenance, repair, and

replacement that the applicable

regulatory authority determines to be

routine for the potroom group;

(ii) An increase in production rate of

an existing potroom group, if that

increase can be accomplished without a

capital expenditure on that potroom

group;

(iii) An increase in the hours of

operation;

(iv) Use of an alternative fuel or raw

material if, prior to the effective date of

this subpart, the existing potroom group

was designed to accommodate that

alternative use;

(v) The addition or use of any system

or device whose primary function is the

reduction of air pollutants, except when

an emission control system is removed

or is replaced by a system that the

applicable regulatory authority

determines to be less environmentally

beneficial; and

(vi) The relocation or change in

ownership of an existing potroom

group.

(2) The provisions in paragraphs

(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section

apply when the applicable regulatory

authority must determine if a potroom

group meets the definition of

reconstructed potroom group.

(i) ‘‘Fixed capital cost’’ means the

capital needed to provide all the

depreciable components.

(ii) If an owner or operator of an

existing potroom group proposes to

replace components, and the fixed

capital cost of the new components

exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital

cost that would be required to construct

a comparable entirely new potroom

group, he/she shall notify the applicable

regulatory authority of the proposed

replacements. The notice must be

postmarked 60 days (or as soon as

practicable) before construction of the

replacements is commenced and must

include the following information:

(A) Name and address of the owner or

operator;

(B) The location of the existing

potroom group;

(C) A brief description of the existing

potroom group and the components that

are to be replaced;

(D) A description of the existing air

pollution control equipment and the

proposed air pollution control

equipment;

(E) An estimate of the fixed capital

cost of the replacements and of

constructing a comparable entirely new

potroom group;

(F) The estimated life of the existing

potroom group after the replacements;

and

(G) A discussion of any economic or

technical limitations the potroom group

may have in complying with the

applicable standards of performance

after the proposed replacements.

(iii) The applicable regulatory

authority will determine, within 30 days

of the receipt of the notice required by

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and

any additional information he/she may

reasonably require, whether the

proposed replacement constitutes a

reconstructed potroom group.

(iv) The applicable regulatory

authority’s determination under

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section shall

be based on:

(A) The fixed capital cost of the

replacements in comparison to the fixed

capital cost that would be required to

construct a comparable entirely new

potroom group;

(B) The estimated life of the potroom

group after the replacements compared

to the life of a comparable entirely new

potroom group;

(C) The extent to which the

components being replaced cause or

contribute to the emissions from the

potroom group; and

(D) Any economic or technical

limitations on compliance with

applicable standards of performance

that are inherent in the proposed

replacements.

(b) Lower TF emission limit. The

owner or operator shall calculate a

lower TF emission limit for any potline

associated with the modified potroom

group, reconstructed potroom group, or

new potroom group using the following

equation:

L1=f1 × LPG1 + (1¥f1) × LPL

Where

L1=the lower TF emission limit in kg/

Mg (lb/ton);

f1=the fraction of the potline’s total

aluminum production capacity that

is contained within all modified

potroom groups, reconstructed

potroom groups, and new potroom

groups;

LPG1=0.95 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) for prebake

potlines and 1.0 kg/Mg (2.0 lb/ton)

for Soderberg potlines; and

LPL=the TF emission limit from

§ 63.843(a)(1) for the appropriate

potline subcategory that would

have otherwise applied to the

potline.

(c) Upper TF emission limit. The

owner or operator shall calculate an

upper TF emission limit for any potline

associated with the modified potroom

group, reconstructed potroom group, or

new potroom group using the following

equation:

L2=f1 × LPG2 + (1¥f1) × LPL

Where

L2=the upper TF emission limit in kg/

Mg (lb/ton); and

LPG2=1.25 kg/Mg (2.5 lb/ton) for prebake

potlines and 1.3 kg/Mg (2.6 lb/ton)

for Soderberg potlines.

(d) Recalculation. The TF emission

limits in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this

section shall be recalculated each time

a new potroom group is added to the

potline and each time an additional

potroom group meets the definition of

‘‘modified potroom group’’ or

‘‘reconstructed potroom group.’’

(e) Emission limitation. The owner or

operator shall not discharge or cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere

emissions of TF from any potline
52410 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

associated with the modified potroom

group, reconstructed potroom group, or

new potroom group that exceed the

lower emission limit calculated in

paragraph (b) of this section, except that

emissions less than the upper limit

calculated in paragraph (c) of this

section will be considered in

compliance if the owner or operator

demonstrates that exemplary operation

and maintenance procedures were used

with respect to the emission control

system and that proper control

equipment was operating at the potline

during the performance test.

(f) Report. Within 30 days of any

performance test that reveals emissions

that fall between the lower limit

calculated in paragraph (b) of this

section and the upper limit calculated

in paragraph (c) of this section, the

owner or operator shall submit to the

applicable regulatory authority a report

indicating whether all necessary control

devices were online and operating

properly during the performance test,

describing the operating and

maintenance procedures followed, and

setting forth any explanation for the

excess emissions.

(g) Procedures to determine TF

emissions. The owner or operator shall

determine TF emissions for the potline

using the following procedures:

(1) Determine the emission rate of TF

in kg/Mg (lb/ton) from sampling

secondary emissions and the primary

control system for all new potroom

groups, modified potroom groups, and

reconstructed potroom groups using the

procedures, equations, and test methods

in §§ 63.847, 63.848, and 63.849.

(2) Determine the emission rate of TF

in kg/Mg (lb/ton) from sampling

secondary emissions and the primary

control system for potroom groups or

sections of potroom groups within the

potline that are not new potroom

groups, modified potroom groups, or

reconstructed potroom groups according

to paragraphs (g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this

section.

(i) Determine the mass emission rate

of TF in kg/Mg (lb/ton) from at least one

potroom group within the potline that is

not a new potroom group, modified

potroom group, or reconstructed

potroom group using the procedures,

equations, and test methods in

§§ 63.847, 63.848, and 63.849, or

(ii) Use the results of the testing

required by paragraph (g)(1) of this

section to represent the entire potline

based on a demonstration that the

results are representative of the entire

potline. Representativeness shall be

based on showing that all of the

potroom groups associated with the

potline are substantially equivalent in

terms of their structure, operability, type

of emissions, volume of emissions, and

concentration of emissions.

(3) Calculate the TF emissions for the

potline in kg/Mg (lb/ton) based on the

production-weighted average of the TF

emission rates from paragraphs (g)(1)

and (g)(2) of this section using the

following equation:

E=f1 × EPG1 + (1-f1) x EPL

where

E=the TF emission rate for the entire

potline, kg/Mg (lb/ton);

f1=the fraction of the potline’s total

aluminum production rate that is

contained within all modified

potroom groups, reconstructed

potroom groups, and new potroom

groups;

EPG1=the TF emission rate from

paragraph (g)(1) of this section for

all modified potroom groups,

reconstructed potroom groups, and

new potroom groups, kg/Mg (lb/

ton); and

EPL=the TF emission rate for the balance

of the potline from paragraph (g)(2)

of this section, kg/Mg (lb/ton).

Compliance is demonstrated when TF

emissions for the potline meet the

requirements in paragraph (e) of this

section.

(4) As an alternative to sampling as

required in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)

of this section, the owner or operator

may perform representative sampling of

the entire potline subject to the approval

of the applicable regulatory authority.

Such sampling shall provide coverage

by the sampling equipment of both the

new, modified, or reconstructed

potroom group and the balance of the

potline. The coverage for the new,

modified, or reconstructed potroom

group must meet the criteria specified in

the reference methods in § 63.849. TF

emissions shall be determined for the

potline using the procedures, equations,

and test methods in §§ 63.847, 63.848,

and 63.849. Compliance is

demonstrated when TF emissions for

the potline meet the requirements in

paragraph (e) of this section.

(h) Opacity. Except as provided in

paragraph (i) of this section, the owner

or operator shall not discharge or cause

to be discharged into the atmosphere

from the modified potroom group,

reconstructed potroom group, or new

potroom group any emissions of gases

that exhibit 10 percent opacity or

greater.

(i) Alternative opacity limit. An

alternative opacity limit may be

established in place of the opacity limit

in paragraph (h) of this section using the

following procedures:

(1) If the regulatory authority finds

that a potline is in compliance with the

applicable TF standard for which

performance tests are conducted in

accordance with the methods and

procedures in § 63.849 but during the

time such performance tests are being

conducted fails to meet any applicable

opacity standard, the regulatory

authority shall notify and advise the

owner or operator that he/she may

petition the regulatory authority within

10 days of receipt of notification to

make appropriate adjustment to the

opacity standard.

(2) The regulatory authority will grant

such a petition upon a demonstration by

the owner or operator that the potroom

group and associated air pollution

control equipment were operated and

maintained in a manner to minimize the

opacity of emissions during the

performance tests; that the performance

tests were performed under the

conditions established by the regulatory

authority; and that the potroom group

and associated air pollution control

equipment were incapable of being

adjusted or operated to meet the

applicable opacity standard.

(3) As indicated by the performance

and opacity tests, the regulatory

authority will establish an opacity

standard for any potroom group meeting

the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1)

and (i)(2) of this section such that the

opacity standard could be met by the

potroom group at all times during which

the potline is meeting the TF emission

limit.

(4) The alternative opacity limit

established in paragraph (i)(3) of this

section shall not be greater than 20

percent opacity.

§ 63.846 Emission averaging.

(a) General. The owner or operator of

an existing potline or anode bake

furnace in a State that does not choose

to exclude emission averaging in the

approved operating permit program may

demonstrate compliance by emission

averaging according to the procedures in

this section.

(b) Potlines. The owner or operator

may average TF emissions from potlines

and demonstrate compliance with the

limits in Table 1 of this subpart using

the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and

(b)(2) of this section. The owner or

operator also may average POM

emissions from potlines and

demonstrate compliance with the limits

in Table 2 of this subpart using the

procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and

(b)(3) of this section.

(1) Monthly average emissions of TF

and/or quarterly average emissions of

POM shall not exceed the applicable
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52411

emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart

(for TF emissions) and/or Table 2 of this

subpart (for POM emissions). The

emission rate shall be calculated based

on the total emissions from all potlines

over the period divided by the quantity

of aluminum produced during the

period, from all potlines comprising the

averaging group.

(2) To determine compliance with the

applicable emission limit in Table 1 of

this subpart for TF emissions, the owner

or operator shall determine the monthly

average emissions (in lb/ton) from each

potline from at least three runs per

potline each month for TF secondary

emissions using the procedures and

methods in §§ 63.847 and 63.849. The

owner or operator shall combine the

results of secondary TF monthly average

emissions with the TF results for the

primary control system and divide total

emissions by total aluminum

production.

(3) To determine compliance with the

applicable emission limit in Table 2 of

this subpart for POM emissions, the

owner or operator shall determine the

quarterly average emissions (in lb/ton)

from each potline from at least one run

each month for POM emissions using

the procedures and methods in

§§ 63.847 and 63.849. The owner or

operator shall combine the results of

secondary POM quarterly average

emissions with the POM results for the

primary control system and divide total

emissions by total aluminum

production.

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner

or operator may average TF emissions

from anode bake furnaces and

demonstrate compliance with the limits

in Table 3 of this subpart using the

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(c)(2) of this section. The owner or

operator also may average POM

emissions from anode bake furnaces and

demonstrate compliance with the limits

in Table 3 of this subpart using the

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(c)(2) of this section.

(1) Annual emissions of TF and/or

POM from a given number of anode

bake furnaces making up each averaging

group shall not exceed the applicable

emission limit in Table 3 of this subpart

in any one year; and

(2) To determine compliance with the

applicable emission limit in Table 3 of

this subpart for anode bake furnaces, the

owner or operator shall determine TF

and/or POM emissions from the control

device for each furnace at least once a

year using the procedures and methods

in §§ 63.847 and 63.849.

(d) Implementation plan. The owner

or operator shall develop and submit an

implementation plan for emission

averaging to the applicable regulatory

authority for review and approval

according to the following procedures

and requirements:

(1) Deadlines. The owner or operator

must submit the implementation plan

no later than 6 months before the date

that the facility intends to comply with

the emission averaging limits.

(2) Contents. The owner or operator

shall include the following information

in the implementation plan or in the

application for an operating permit for

all emission sources to be included in

an emissions average:

(i) The identification of all emission

sources (potlines or anode bake

furnaces) in the average;

(ii) The assigned TF or POM emission

limit for each averaging group of

potlines or anode bake furnaces;

(iii) The specific control technology or

pollution prevention measure to be used

for each emission source in the

averaging group and the date of its

installation or application. If the

pollution prevention measure reduces

or eliminates emissions from multiple

sources, the owner or operator must

identify each source;

(iv) The test plan for the measurement

of TF or POM emissions in accordance

with the requirements in § 63.847(b);

(v) The operating parameters to be

monitored for each control system or

device and a description of how the

operating limits will be determined;

(vi) If the owner or operator requests

to monitor an alternative operating

parameter pursuant to § 63.848(l):

(A) A description of the parameter(s)

to be monitored and an explanation of

the criteria used to select the

parameter(s); and

(B) A description of the methods and

procedures that will be used to

demonstrate that the parameter

indicates proper operation of the control

device; the frequency and content of

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements; and a

demonstration, to the satisfaction of the

applicable regulatory authority, that the

proposed monitoring frequency is

sufficient to represent control device

operating conditions; and

(vii) A demonstration that compliance

with each of the applicable emission

limit(s) will be achieved under

representative operating conditions.

(3) Approval criteria. Upon receipt,

the regulatory authority shall review

and approve or disapprove the plan or

permit application according to the

following criteria:

(i) Whether the content of the plan

includes all of the information specified

in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and

(ii) Whether the plan or permit

application presents sufficient

information to determine that

compliance will be achieved and

maintained.

(4) Prohibitions. The applicable

regulatory authority shall not approve

an implementation plan or permit

application containing any of the

following provisions:

(i) Any averaging between emissions

of differing pollutants or between

differing sources. Emission averaging

shall not be allowed between TF and

POM, and emission averaging shall not

be allowed between potlines and bake

furnaces;

(ii) The inclusion of any emission

source other than an existing potline or

existing anode bake furnace or the

inclusion of any potline or anode bake

plant not subject to the same operating

permit;

(iii) The inclusion of any potline or

anode bake furnace while it is shut

down; or

(iv) The inclusion of any periods of

startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as

described in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan required by

§ 63.850(c), in the emission calculations.

(5) Term. Following review, the

applicable regulatory authority shall

approve the plan or permit application,

request changes, or request additional

information. Once the applicable

regulatory authority receives any

additional information requested, the

applicable regulatory authority shall

approve or disapprove the plan or

permit application within 120 days.

(i) The applicable regulatory authority

shall approve the plan for the term of

the operating permit;

(ii) To revise the plan prior to the end

of the permit term, the owner or

operator shall submit a request to the

applicable regulatory authority; and

(iii) The owner or operator may

submit a request to the applicable

regulatory authority to implement

emission averaging after the applicable

compliance date.

(6) Operation. While operating under

an approved implementation plan, the

owner or operator shall monitor the

operating parameters of each control

system, keep records, and submit

periodic reports as required for each

source subject to this subpart.

§ 63.847 Compliance provisions.

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or

operator of a primary aluminum plant

shall demonstrate initial compliance

with the requirements of this subpart

by:

(1) October 7, 1999, for an owner or

operator of an existing plant or source;
52412 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(2) October 9, 2000, for an existing

source, provided the owner or operator

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

applicable regulatory authority that

additional time is needed to install or

modify the emission control equipment;

(3) October 8, 2001, for an existing

source that is granted an extension by

the regulatory authority under section

112(i)(3)(B) of the Act; or

(4) Upon startup, for an owner or

operator of a new or reconstructed

source.

(b) Test plan. The owner or operator

shall prepare a site-specific test plan

prior to the initial performance test

according to the requirements of

§ 63.7(c) of this part. The test plan must

include procedures for conducting the

initial performance test and for

subsequent performance tests required

in § 63.848 for emission monitoring. In

addition to the information required by

§ 63.7, the test plan shall include:

(1) Procedures to ensure a minimum

of three runs are performed annually for

the primary control system for each

source;

(2) For a source with a single control

device exhausted through multiple

stacks, procedures to ensure that at least

three runs are performed annually by a

representative sample of the stacks

satisfactory to the applicable regulatory

authority;

(3) For multiple control devices on a

single source, procedures to ensure that

at least one run is performed annually

for each control device by a

representative sample of the stacks

satisfactory to the applicable regulatory

authority;

(4) Procedures for sampling single

stacks associated with multiple anode

bake furnaces;

(5) For plants with roof scrubbers,

procedures for rotating sampling among

the scrubbers or other procedures to

obtain representative samples as

approved by the applicable regulatory

authority;

(6) For a VSS1 potline, procedures to

ensure that one fan (or one scrubber) per

potline is sampled for each run;

(7) For a SWPB potline, procedures to

ensure that the average of the sampling

results for two fans (or two scrubbers)

per potline is used for each run; and

(8) Procedures for establishing the

frequency of testing to ensure that at

least one run is performed before the

15th of the month, at least one run is

performed after the 15th of the month,

and that there are at least 6 days

between two of the runs during the

month, or that secondary emissions are

measured according to an alternate

schedule satisfactory to the applicable

regulatory authority.

(c) Initial performance test. Following

approval of the site-specific test plan,

the owner or operator shall conduct an

initial performance test during the first

month following the compliance date in

accordance with the procedures in

paragraph (d) of this section. If a

performance test has been conducted on

the primary control system for potlines

or for the anode bake furnace within the

12 months prior to the compliance date,

the results of that performance test may

be used to determine initial compliance.

(d) Performance test requirements.

The initial performance test and all

subsequent performance tests shall be

conducted in accordance with the

requirements of the general provisions

in subpart A of this part, the approved

test plan, and the procedures in this

section.

(1) TF emissions from potlines. For

each potline, the owner or operator shall

measure and record the emission rate of

TF exiting the outlet of the primary

control system for each potline and the

rate of secondary emissions exiting

through each roof monitor, or for a plant

with roof scrubbers, exiting through the

scrubbers. Using the equation in

paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the

owner or operator shall compute and

record the average of at least three runs

each month for secondary emissions

and at least three runs each year for the

primary control system to determine

compliance with the applicable

emission limit. Compliance is

demonstrated when the emission rate of

TF is equal to or less than the applicable

emission limit in §§ 63.843, 63.844, or

63.846.

(2) POM emissions from Soderberg

potlines. For each Soderberg (HSS,

VSS1, and VSS2) potline, the owner or

operator shall measure and record the

emission rate of POM exiting the

primary emission control system and

the rate of secondary emissions exiting

through each roof monitor, or for a plant

with roof scrubbers, exiting through the

scrubbers. Using the equation in

paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the

owner or operator shall compute and

record the average of at least three runs

each quarter (one run per month) for

secondary emissions and at least three

runs each year for the primary control

system to determine compliance with

the applicable emission limit.

Compliance is demonstrated when the

emission rate of POM is equal to or less

than the applicable emission limit in

§§ 63.843, 63.844, or 63.846.

(3) Previous control device tests. If the

owner or operator has performed more

than one test of primary emission

control device(s) for a potline or for a

bake furnace during the previous

consecutive 12 months, the average of

all runs performed in the previous 12-

month period shall be used to determine

the contribution from the primary

emission control system.

(4) TF and POM emissions from

anode bake furnaces. For each anode

bake furnace, the owner or operator

shall measure and record the emission

rate of TF and POM exiting the exhaust

stacks(s) of the primary emission control

system for each anode bake furnace.

Using the equations in paragraphs (e)(3)

and (e)(4) of this section, the owner or

operator shall compute and record the

average of at least three runs each year

to determine compliance with the

applicable emission limits for TF and

POM. Compliance is demonstrated

when the emission rates of TF and POM

are equal to or less than the applicable

TF and POM emission limits in

§§ 63.843, 63.844, or 63.846.

(e) Equations. The owner or operator

shall determine compliance with the

applicable TF and POM emission limits

using the following equations and

procedures:

(1) Compute the emission rate (Ep) of

TF from each potline using Equation 1:

E

C Q C Q

P K p Equation

s sd s sd = [ ] ( ) × + × ( )

( ) ×

1 1 2 2 ( )1

Where

Ep=emission rate of TF from a potline,

kg/Mg (lb/ton);

Cs1=concentration of TF from the

primary control system, mg/dscm

(mg/dscf);

Qsd=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas

corresponding to the appropriate

subscript location, dscm/hr (dscf/

hr);

Cs2=concentration of TF as measured for

roof monitor emissions, mg/dscm

(mg/dscf);
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52413

P=aluminum production rate, Mg/hr

(ton/hr);

K=conversion factor, 106 mg/kg

(453,600 mg/lb);

1 = subscript for primary control system

effluent gas; and

2 = subscript for secondary control

system or roof monitor effluent gas.

(2) Compute the emission rate of POM

from each potline using Equation 1,

Where:

Ep = emission rate of POM from the

potline, kg/mg (lb/ton); and

Cs = concentration of POM, mg/dscm

(mg/dscf). POM emission data

collected during the installation

and startup of a cathode shall not be

included in Cs.

(3) Compute the emission rate (Eb) of

TF from each anode bake furnace using

Equation 2,

E C Q

P K b Equation s sd

b

= ( ) ×

( ) ×

( ) 2

Where:

Eb = emission rate of TF, kg/mg (lb/ton)

of green anodes produced;

Cs = concentration of TF, mg/dscm (mg/

dscf);

Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent

gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);

Pb = quantity of green anode material

placed in the furnace, mg/hr (ton/

hr); and

K = conversion factor, 106 mg/kg

(453,600 mg/lb).

(4) Compute the emission rate of POM

from each anode bake furnace using

Equation 2,

Where:

Cs = concentration of POM, mg/dscm

(mg/dscf).

(5) Determine the weight of the

aluminum tapped from the potline and

the weight of the green anode material

placed in the anode bake furnace using

the monitoring devices required in

§ 63.848(j).

(6) Determine the aluminum

production rate (P) by dividing the

number of hours in the calendar month

into the weight of aluminum tapped

from the potline during the calendar

month that includes the three runs of a

performance test.

(7) Determine the rate of green anode

material introduced into the furnace by

dividing the number of operating hours

in the calendar month into the weight

of green anode material used during the

calendar month in which the

performance test was conducted.

(f) Paste production plants. Initial

compliance with the standards for

existing and new paste production

plants in §§ 63.843(b) and 63.844(b) will

be demonstrated through site

inspection(s) and review of site records

by the applicable regulatory authority.

(g) Pitch storage tanks. The owner or

operator shall demonstrate initial

compliance with the standard for pitch

storage tanks in § 63.844(d) by preparing

a design evaluation or by conducting a

performance test. The owner or operator

shall submit for approval by the

regulatory authority the information

specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this

section, along with the information

specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this

section where a design evaluation is

performed or the information specified

in paragraph (g)(3) of this section where

a performance test is conducted.

(1) A description of the parameters to

be monitored to ensure that the control

device is being properly operated and

maintained, an explanation of the

criteria used for selection of that

parameter (or parameters), and the

frequency with which monitoring will

be performed; and

(2) Where a design evaluation is

performed, documentation

demonstrating that the control device

used achieves the required control

efficiency during reasonably expected

maximum filling rate. The

documentation shall include a

description of the gas stream that enters

the control device, including flow and

POM content under varying liquid level

conditions, and the information

specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through

(g)(2)(vi) of this section, as applicable.

(i) If the control device receives

vapors, gases, or liquids, other than

fuels, from emission points other than

pitch storage tanks, the efficiency

demonstration is to include

consideration of all vapors, gases, and

liquids, other than fuels, received by the

control device;

(ii) If an enclosed combustion device

with a minimum residence time of 0.5

seconds and a minimum temperature of

760°C (1,400°F) is used to meet the

emission reduction requirement

specified in § 83.844(d), documentation

that those conditions exist is sufficient

to meet the requirements of § 83.844(d);

(iii) Except as provided in paragraph

(g)(2)(ii) of this section, for thermal

incinerators, the design evaluation shall

include the autoignition temperature of

the organic HAP, the flow rate of the

organic HAP emission stream, the

combustion temperature, and the

residence time at the combustion

temperature;

(iv) If the pitch storage tank is vented

to the emission control system installed

for control of emissions from the paste

production plant pursuant to

§ 63.843(b), documentation of

compliance with the requirements of

§ 63.843(b) is sufficient to meet the

requirements of § 63.844(d);

(v) For carbon adsorbers, the design

evaluation shall include the affinity of

the organic vapors for carbon, the

amount of carbon in each bed, the

number of beds, the humidity of the

feed gases, the temperature of the feed

gases, the flow rate of the organic HAP

emission stream, and if applicable, the

desorption schedule, the regeneration

stream pressure or temperature, and the

flow rate of the regeneration stream. For

vacuum desorption, the pressure drop

shall be included; and

(vi) For condensers, the design

evaluation shall include the final

temperature of the organic HAP vapors,

the type of condenser, and the design

flow rate of the organic HAP emission

stream.

(3) If a performance test is conducted,

the owner or operator shall determine

the control efficiency for POM during

tank loading using Method 315 in

appendix A to this part. The owner or

operator shall include the following

information:

(i) Identification of the pitch storage

tank and control device for which the

performance test will be submitted; and

(ii) Identification of the emission

point(s) that share the control device

with the pitch storage tank and for

which the performance test will be

conducted.

(h) Selection of monitoring

parameters. The owner or operator shall

determine the operating limits and

monitoring frequency for each control

device that is to be monitored as

required in § 63.848(f).

(1) For potlines and anode bake

furnaces, the owner or operator shall

determine upper and/or lower operating

limits, as appropriate, for each

monitoring device for the emission

control system from the values recorded

during each of the runs performed

during the initial performance test and

from historical data from previous

performance tests conducted by the

methods specified in this subpart.

(2) For a paste production plant, the

owner or operator shall specify and

provide the basis or rationale for

selecting parameters to be monitored

and the associated operating limits for

the emission control device.

(3) The owner or operator may

redetermine the upper and/or lower

operating limits, as appropriate, based

on historical data or other information

and submit an application to the

applicable regulatory authority to

change the applicable limit(s). The

redetermined limits shall become
52414 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

effective upon approval by the

applicable regulatory authority.

§ 63.848 Emission monitoring

requirements.

(a) TF emissions from potlines. Using

the procedures in § 63.847 and in the

approved test plan, the owner or

operator shall monitor emissions of TF

from each potline by conducting

monthly performance tests. The owner

or operator shall compute and record

the monthly average from at least three

runs for secondary emissions and the

previous 12-month average of all runs

for the primary control system to

determine compliance with the

applicable emission limit. The owner or

operator must include all valid runs in

the monthly average. The duration of

each run for secondary emissions must

represent a complete operating cycle.

(b) POM emissions from Soderberg

potlines. Using the procedures in

§ 63.847 and in the approved test plan,

the owner or operator shall monitor

emissions of POM from each Soderberg

(HSS, VSS1, and VSS2) potline every

three months. The owner or operator

shall compute and record the quarterly

(3-month) average from at least one run

per month for secondary emissions and

the previous 12-month average of all

runs for the primary control systems to

determine compliance with the

applicable emission limit. The owner or

operator must include all valid runs in

the quarterly (3-month) average. The

duration of each run for secondary

emissions must represent a complete

operating cycle. The primary control

system must be sampled over an 8-hour

period, unless site-specific factors

dictate an alternative sampling time

subject to the approval of the regulatory

authority.

(c) TF and POM emissions from anode

bake furnaces. Using the procedures in

§ 63.847 and in the approved test plan,

the owner or operator shall monitor TF

and POM emissions from each anode

bake furnace on an annual basis. The

owner or operator shall compute and

record the annual average of TF and

POM emissions from at least three runs

to determine compliance with the

applicable emission limits. The owner

or operator must include all valid runs

in the annual average.

(d) Similar potlines. As an alternative

to monthly monitoring of TF or POM

secondary emissions from each potline

using the test methods in § 63.849, the

owner or operator may perform monthly

monitoring of TF or POM secondary

emissions from one potline using the

test methods in §§ 63.849 (a) or (b) to

represent the performance of similar

potline(s). The similar potline(s) shall

be monitored using an alternative

method that meets the requirements of

paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(7) of this

section. Two or more potlines are

similar if the owner or operator

demonstrates that their structure,

operability, type of emissions, volume

of emissions, and concentration of

emissions are substantially equivalent.

(1) To demonstrate (to the satisfaction

of the regulatory authority) that the level

of emission control performance is the

same or better, the owner or operator

shall perform an emission test using an

alternative monitoring procedure for the

similar potline simultaneously with an

emission test using the applicable test

methods. The results of the emission

test using the applicable test methods

must be in compliance with the

applicable emission limit for existing or

new potlines in §§ 63.843 or 63.844. An

alternative method:

(i) For TF emissions, must account for

or include gaseous fluoride and cannot

be based on measurement of particulate

matter or particulate fluoride alone; and

(ii) For TF and POM emissions, must

meet or exceed Method 14 criteria.

(2) An HF continuous emission

monitoring system is an approved

alternative for the monitoring of TF

secondary emissions.

(3) An owner or operator electing to

use an alternative monitoring procedure

shall establish an alternative emission

limit based on at least nine

simultaneous runs using the applicable

test methods and the alternative

monitoring method. All runs must

represent a full process cycle.

(4) The owner or operator shall derive

an alternative emission limit for the HF

continuous emission monitor or an

alternative method using either of the

following procedures:

(i) Use the highest value from the

alternative method associated with a

simultaneous run by the applicable test

method that does not exceed the

applicable emission limit; or

(ii) Correlate the results of the two

methods (the applicable test method

results and the alternative monitoring

method results) and establish an

emission limit for the alternative

monitoring system that corresponds to

the applicable emission limit.

(5) The owner or operator shall

submit the results required in paragraph

(d)(4) of this section and all supporting

documentation to the applicable

regulatory authority for review and

approval.

(6) The regulatory authority shall

review and approve or disapprove the

request for an alternative method and

alternative emission limit. The criterion

for approval shall be a demonstration (to

the satisfaction of the regulatory

authority) that the alternative method

and alternative emission limit achieve a

level of emission control that is the

same as or better than the level that

would have otherwise been achieved by

the applicable method and emission

limit.

(7) If the alternative method is

approved by the applicable regulatory

authority, the owner or operator shall

perform monthly emission monitoring

using the approved alternative

monitoring procedure to demonstrate

compliance with the alternative

emission limit for each similar potline.

(e) Reduced sampling frequency. The

owner or operator may submit a written

request to the applicable regulatory

authority to establish an alternative

testing requirement to reduce the

sampling of secondary TF emissions

from potlines from monthly to quarterly.

(1) In the request, the owner or

operator shall provide information and

data demonstrating, to the satisfaction of

the applicable regulatory authority, that

secondary emissions of TF from potlines

have low variability during normal

operations using the procedures in

paragraphs (e)(1)(i) or (e)(1)(ii) of this

section.

(i) Submit data from 24 consecutive

months of sampling that show the

average TF emissions are less than 60

percent of the applicable limit and that

no monthly performance test in the 24

months of sampling exceeds 75 percent

of the applicable limit; or

(ii) Submit data and a statistical

analysis that the regulatory authority

may evaluate based on the approach

used in ‘‘Primary Aluminum: Statistical

Analysis of Potline Fluoride Emissions

and Alternative Sampling Frequency’’

(EPA–450–86–012, October 1986),

which is available from the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS),

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

22161.

(2) An approved alternative

requirement must include a test

schedule and the method to be used to

measure emissions for performance

tests.

(3) The owner or operator of a plant

that has received approval of an

alternative sampling frequency under

§ 60.194 of this chapter is deemed to

have approval of the alternative

sampling frequency under this subpart.

(4) If emissions in excess of the

applicable TF limit occur while

performing quarterly sampling approved

under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section,

the owner or operator shall return to

monthly sampling for at least 12 months

and may reduce to quarterly sampling

when:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52415

(i) The average of all tests performed

over the most recent 24-month period

does not exceed 60 percent of the

applicable limit, and

(ii) No more than one monthly

performance test in the most recent 24-

month period exceeds 75 percent of the

applicable limit.

(5) If emissions in excess of the

applicable TF limit occur while

performing quarterly sampling approved

under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section,

the owner or operator shall immediately

return to the monthly sampling

schedule required by paragraph (a) of

this section until another request for an

alternative sampling frequency is

approved by the applicable regulatory

authority.

(f) Monitoring parameters for

emission control devices. The owner or

operator shall install, operate, calibrate,

and maintain a continuous parameter

monitoring system for each emission

control device. The owner or operator

shall submit for approval by the

regulatory authority a description of the

parameter(s) to be monitored, the

operating limits, and the monitoring

frequency to ensure that the control

device is being properly operated and

maintained. An explanation of the

criteria used for selection of the

parameter(s), the operating limits, and

the monitoring frequency, including

how these relate to emission control

also shall be submitted to the regulatory

authority. Except as provided in

paragraph (l) of this section, the

following monitoring devices shall be

installed:

(1) For dry alumina scrubbers, devices

for the measurement of alumina flow

and air flow;

(2) For dry coke scrubbers, devices for

the measurement of coke flow and air

flow;

(3) For wet scrubbers as the primary

control system, devices for the

measurement of water flow and air flow;

(4) For electrostatic precipitators,

devices for the measurement of voltage

and secondary current; and

(5) For wet roof scrubbers for

secondary emission control:

(i) A device for the measurement of

total water flow; and

(ii) The owner or operator shall

inspect each control device at least once

each operating day to ensure the control

device is operating properly and record

the results of each inspection.

(g) Visible emissions. The owner or

operator shall visually inspect the

exhaust stack(s) of each control device

on a daily basis for evidence of any

visible emissions indicating abnormal

operation.

(h) Corrective action. If a monitoring

device for a primary control device

measures an operating parameter

outside the limit(s) established pursuant

to § 63.847(h), if visible emissions

indicating abnormal operation are

observed from the exhaust stack of a

control device during a daily inspection,

or if a problem is detected during the

daily inspection of a wet roof scrubber

for potline secondary emission control,

the owner or operator shall initiate the

corrective action procedures identified

in the startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan within 1 hour. Failure

to initiate the corrective action

procedures within 1 hour or to take the

necessary corrective actions to remedy

the problem is a violation.

(i) Exceedances. If the limit for a

given operating parameter associated

with monitoring a specific control

device is exceeded six times in any

semiannual reporting period, then any

subsequent exceedance in that reporting

period is a violation. For the purpose of

determining the number of exceedances,

no more than one exceedance shall be

attributed in any given 24-hour period.

(j) Weight of aluminum and green

anodes. The owner or operator of a new

or existing potline or anode bake

furnace shall install, operate, and

maintain a monitoring device to

determine the daily weight of aluminum

produced and the weight of green anode

material placed in the anode bake

furnace. The weight of green anode

material may be determined by

monitoring the weight of all anodes or

by monitoring the number of anodes

placed in the furnace and determining

an average weight from measurements

of a representative sample of anodes.

(k) Accuracy and calibration. The

owner or operator shall submit

recommended accuracy requirements to

the regulatory authority for review and

approval. All monitoring devices

required by this section must be

certified by the owner or operator to

meet the accuracy requirements and

must be calibrated in accordance with

the manufacturer’s instructions.

(l) Alternative operating parameters.

The owner or operator may monitor

alternative control device operating

parameters subject to prior written

approval by the applicable regulatory

authority.

(m) Other control systems. An owner

or operator using a control system not

identified in this section shall request

that the applicable regulatory authority

include the recommended parameters

for monitoring in the facility’s part 70

permit.

§ 63.849 Test methods and procedures.

(a) The owner or operator shall use

the following reference methods to

determine compliance with the

applicable emission limits for TF and

POM emissions:

(1) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60

of this chapter for sample and velocity

traverses;

(2) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60

of this chapter for velocity and

volumetric flow rate;

(3) Method 3 in appendix A to part 60

of this chapter for gas analysis;

(4) Method 13A or Method 13B in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter,

or an approved alternative, for the

concentration of TF where stack or duct

emissions are sampled;

(5) Method 13A or Method 13B and

Method 14 or Method 14A in appendix

A to part 60 of this chapter or an

approved alternative method for the

concentration of TF where emissions are

sampled from roof monitors not

employing wet roof scrubbers;

(6) Method 315 in appendix A to this

part or an approved alternative method

for the concentration of POM where

stack or duct emissions are sampled;

and

(7) Method 315 in appendix A to this

part and Method 14 in appendix A to

part 60 of this chapter or an approved

alternative method for the concentration

of POM where emissions are sampled

from roof monitors not employing wet

roof scrubbers.

(b) The owner or operator of a VSS

potline or a SWPB potline equipped

with wet roof scrubbers for the control

of secondary emissions shall use

methods that meet the intent of the

sampling requirements of Method 14 in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter

and that are approved by the State.

Sample analysis shall be performed

using Method 13A or Method 13B in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for

TF, Method 315 in appendix A to this

part for POM, or an approved alternative

method.

(c) Except as provided in

§ 63.845(g)(1), references to ‘‘potroom’’

or ‘‘potroom group’’ in Method 14 in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter

shall be interpreted as ‘‘potline’’ for the

purposes of this subpart.

(d) For sampling using Method 14 in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter,

the owner or operator shall install one

Method 14 manifold per potline in a

potroom that is representative of the

entire potline, and this manifold shall

meet the installation requirements

specified in section 2.2.1 of Method 14

in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
52416 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(e) The owner or operator may use an

alternative test method for TF or POM

emissions providing:

(1) The owner or operator has already

demonstrated the equivalency of the

alternative method for a specific plant

and has received previous approval

from the Administrator or the applicable

regulatory authority for TF or POM

measurements using the alternative

method; or

(2) The owner or operator

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

applicable regulatory authority that the

results from the alternative method meet

the criteria specified in §§ 63.848(d)(1)

and (d)(3) through (d)(6). The results

from the alternative method shall be

based on simultaneous sampling using

the alternative method and the

following reference methods:

(i) For TF, Methods 13 and 14 or

Method 14A in appendix A to part 60

of this chapter; or

(ii) For POM, Method 315 in appendix

A to this part and Method 14 in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

§ 63.850 Notification, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Notifications. The owner or

operator shall submit the following

written notifications:

(1) Notification for an area source that

subsequently increases its emissions

such that the source is a major source

subject to the standard;

(2) Notification that a source is subject

to the standard, where the initial startup

is before the effective date of the

standard;

(3) Notification that a source is subject

to the standard, where the source is new

or has been reconstructed, the initial

startup is after the effective date of the

standard, and for which an application

for approval of construction or

reconstruction is not required;

(4) Notification of intention to

construct a new major source or

reconstruct a major source; of the date

construction or reconstruction

commenced; of the anticipated date of

startup; of the actual date of startup,

where the initial startup of a new or

reconstructed source occurs after the

effective date of the standard, and for

which an application for approval of

construction or reconstruction is

required [see §§ 63.9(b)(4) and (b)(5)];

(5) Notification of initial performance

test;

(6) Notification of initial compliance

status;

(7) One-time notification for each

affected source of the intent to use an

HF continuous emission monitor; and

(8) Notification of compliance

approach. The owner or operator shall

develop and submit to the applicable

regulatory authority, if requested, an

engineering plan that describes the

techniques that will be used to address

the capture efficiency of the reduction

cells for gaseous hazardous air

pollutants in compliance with the

emission limits in §§ 63.843, 63.844,

and 63.846.

(b) Performance test reports. The

owner or operator shall report the

results of the initial performance test as

part of the notification of compliance

status required in paragraph (a)(6) of

this section. Except as provided in

paragraph (d) of this section, the owner

or operator shall submit a summary of

all subsequent performance tests to the

applicable regulatory authority on an

annual basis.

(c) Startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan and reports. The

owner or operator shall develop and

implement a written plan as described

in § 63.6(e)(3) that contains specific

procedures to be followed for operating

the source and maintaining the source

during periods of startup, shutdown,

and malfunction and a program of

corrective action for malfunctioning

process and control systems used to

comply with the standard. The plan

does not have to be submitted with the

permit appplication or included in the

operating permit. The permitting

authority may review the plan upon

request. In addition to the information

required in § 63.6(e)(3), the plan shall

include:

(1) Procedures, including corrective

actions, to be followed if a monitoring

device measures an operating parameter

outside the limit(s) established under

§ 63.847(h), if visible emissions from an

exhaust stack indicating abnormal

operation of a control device are

observed by the owner or operator

during the daily inspection required in

§ 63.848(g), or if a problem is detected

during the daily inspection of a wet roof

scrubber for potline secondary emission

control required in § 63.848(f)(5)(ii); and

(2) The owner or operator shall also

keep records of each event as required

by § 63.10(b) and record and report if an

action taken during a startup, shutdown,

or malfunction is not consistent with

the procedures in the plan as described

in § 63.6(e)(3)(iv).

(d) Excess emissions report. As

required by § 63.10(e)(3), the owner or

operator shall submit a report (or a

summary report) if measured emissions

are in excess of the applicable standard.

The report shall contain the information

specified in § 63.10(e)(3)(v) and be

submitted semiannually unless

quarterly reports are required as a result

of excess emissions.

(e) Recordkeeping. The owner or

operator shall maintain files of all

information (including all reports and

notifications) required by § 63.10(b) and

by this subpart.

(1) The owner or operator must retain

each record for at least 5 years following

the date of each occurrence,

measurement, maintenance, corrective

action, report, or record. The most

recent 2 years of records must be

retained at the facility. The remaining 3

years of records may be retained offsite;

(2) The owner or operator may retain

records on microfilm, on a computer, on

computer disks, on magnetic tape, or on

microfiche;

(3) The owner or operator may report

required information on paper or on a

labeled computer disc using commonly

available and compatible computer

software; and

(4) In addition to the general records

required by § 63.10(b), the owner or

operator shall maintain records of the

following information:

(i) Daily production rate of aluminum;

(ii) Daily production rate of green

anode material placed in the anode bake

furnace;

(iii) A copy of the startup, shutdown,

and malfunction plan;

(iv) Records of design information for

paste production plant capture systems;

(v) Records of design information for

an alternative emission control device

for a paste production plant;

(vi) Records supporting the

monitoring of similar potlines

demonstrating that the performance of

similar potlines is the same as or better

than that of potlines sampled by manual

methods;

(vii) Records supporting a request for

reduced sampling of potlines;

(viii) Records supporting the

correlation of emissions measured by a

continuous emission monitoring system

to emissions measured by manual

methods and the derivation of the

alternative emission limit derived from

the measurements;

(ix) The current implementation plan

for emission averaging and any

subsequent amendments;

(x) Records, such as a checklist or the

equivalent, demonstrating that the daily

inspection of a potline with wet roof

scrubbers for secondary emission

control has been performed as required

in § 63.848(f)(5)(ii), including the results

of each inspection;

(xi) Records, such as a checklist or the

equivalent, demonstrating that the daily

visual inspection of the exhaust stack

for each control device has been

performed as required in § 63.848(g),

including the results of each inspection;

(xii) For a potline equipped with an

HF continuous emission monitor,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52417

records of information and data required

by § 63.10(c);

(xiii) Records documenting the

corrective actions taken when the

limit(s) for an operating parameter

established under § 63.847(h) were

exceeded, when visible emissions

indicating abnormal operation were

observed from a control device stack

during a daily inspection required

under § 63.848(g), or when a problem

was detected during the daily

inspection of a wet roof scrubber for

potline secondary control required in

§ 63.848(f)(5)(ii);

(xiv) Records documenting any POM

data that are invalidated due to the

installation and startup of a cathode;

and

(xv) Records documenting the portion

of TF that is measured as particulate

matter and the portion that is measured

as gaseous when the particulate and

gaseous fractions are quantified

separately using an approved test

method.

§ 63.851 Regulatory authority review

procedures.

(a) The applicable regulatory

authority shall notify the owner or

operator in writing of the need for

additional time to review the

submissions in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(5) of this section or of

approval or intent to deny approval of

the submissions in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (a)(5) of this section within 60

calendar days after receipt of sufficient

information to evaluate the submission.

The 60-day period begins after the

owner or operator has been notified that

the submission is complete.

(1) The test plan in § 63.847(b);

(2) Request to change limits for

operating parameters in § 63.847(h)(3);

(3) Request for similar potline

monitoring in § 63.848(d)(5);

(4) Request for reduced sampling

frequency in § 63.848(e); and

(5) Request for an alternative method

in § 63.849(e)(2).

(b) The applicable regulatory

authority shall notify the owner or

operator in writing whether the

submission is complete within 30

calendar days of receipt of the original

submission or within 30 days of receipt

of any supplementary information that

is submitted. When a submission is

incomplete, the applicable regulatory

authority shall specify the information

needed to complete the submission and

shall give the owner or operator 30

calendar days after receipt of the

notification to provide the information.

§ 63.852 Applicability of general

provisions.

The requirements of the general

provisions in subpart A of this part that

are not applicable to the owner or

operator subject to the requirements of

this subpart are shown in appendix A of

this subpart.

§ 63.853 Delegation of authority.

In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State under

section 112(d) of the Act, all authorities

are transferred to the State.

§§ 63.854–63.859 [Reserved]

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART LL—POTLINE TF LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING

Type

Monthly TF limit (1b/ton)

[for given number of potlines]

2 lines 3 lines 4 lines 5 lines 6 lines 7 lines 8 lines

CWPB1 .................................................... 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4

CWPB2 .................................................... 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6

CWPB3 .................................................... 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

VSS1 ....................................................... 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

VSS2 ....................................................... 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4

HSS ......................................................... 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3

SWPB ...................................................... 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART LL—POTLINE POM LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING

Type

Quarterly POM limit (lb/ton)

[for given number of potlines]

2 lines 3 lines 4 lines 5 lines 6 lines 7 lines 8 lines

HSS ........................................................... 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3

VSS1 ......................................................... 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8

VSS2 ......................................................... 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART LL—ANODE BAKE FURNACE LIMITS FOR EMISSION AVERAGING

Number of furnaces

Emission limit (lb/ton of

anode)

TF POM

2 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.11 0.17

3 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.090 0.17

4 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.077 0.17

5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.070 0.17
52418 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART LL—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS

[40 CFR part 63, subpart A to Subpart LL]

General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart LL Comment

63.1(c)(2) .......................................... ........................................................... No ....................................... All are major sources.

63.2 Definition of ‘‘reconstruction’’ ... ........................................................... No ....................................... Subpart LL defines ‘‘reconstruction.’’

63.6(c)(1) .......................................... Compliance date for existing

sources.

No ....................................... Subpart LL specifies compliance

date for existing sources.

63.6(h) .............................................. Opacity/VE standards ....................... Only in § 63.845 ................. Opacity standards applicable only

when incorporating the NSPS requirements under § 63.845.

63.8(c)(4)–(c)(8) ................................ CMS operation and maintenance ..... No ....................................... Subpart LL does not require COMS/

CMS or CMS performance specifications.

63.8(d) .............................................. Quality control ................................... No ....................................... Subpart LL does not require CMS or

CMS performance evaluation.

63.8(e) .............................................. Performance evaluation for CMS ..... No

63.9(e) .............................................. Notification of performance test ....... No ....................................... Subpart LL specifies notification of

performance tests.

63.9(f) ............................................... Notification of VE or opacity test ...... Only in § 63.845 ................. Notification is required only when incorporating the NSPS requirements under § 63.845.

63.9(g) .............................................. Additional CMS notification .............. No

63.10(d)(2) ........................................ Performance test reports .................. No ....................................... Subpart LL specifies performance

test reporting.

63.10(d)(3) ........................................ Reporting VE/opacity observations .. Only in § 63.845 ................. Reporting is required only when incorporating the NSPS requirements under § 63.845.

63.10(e)(2) ........................................ Reporting performance evaluations No ....................................... Subpart LL does not require performance evaluation for CMS.

63.11(a)–(b) ...................................... Control device requirements ............ No ....................................... Flares not applicable.

9. Appendix A to part 63 is amended

by adding, in numerical order, Method

315 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 315—Determination of Particulate

and Methylene Chloride Extractable Matter

(MCEM) From Selected Sources at Primary

Aluminum Production Facilities

Note: This method does not include all of

the specifications (e.g., equipment and

supplies) and procedures (e.g., sampling and

analytical) essential to its performance. Some

material is incorporated by reference from

other methods in this part. Therefore, to

obtain reliable results, persons using this

method should have a thorough knowledge

of at least the following additional test

methods: Method 1, Method 2, Method 3,

and Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A.

1.0 Scope and Application.

1.1 Analytes. Particulate matter (PM). No

CAS number assigned. Methylene chloride

extractable matter (MCEM). No CAS number

assigned.

1.2 Applicability. This method is

applicable for the simultaneous

determination of PM and MCEM when

specified in an applicable regulation. This

method was developed by consensus with

the Aluminum Association and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

has limited precision estimates for MCEM; it

should have similar precision to Method 5

for PM in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A since

the procedures are similar for PM.

1.3 Data quality objectives. Adherence to

the requirements of this method will enhance

the quality of the data obtained from air

pollutant sampling methods.

2.0 Summary of Method.

Particulate matter and MCEM are

withdrawn isokinetically from the source.

PM is collected on a glass fiber filter

maintained at a temperature in the range of

l20 ± 14 °C (248 ± 25 °F) or such other

temperature as specified by an applicable

subpart of the standards or approved by the

Administrator for a particular application.

The PM mass, which includes any material

that condenses on the probe and is

subsequently removed in an acetone rinse or

on the filter at or above the filtration

temperature, is determined gravimetrically

after removal of uncombined water. MCEM is

then determined by adding a methylene

chloride rinse of the probe and filter holder,

extracting the condensable hydrocarbons

collected in the impinger water, adding an

acetone rinse followed by a methylene

chloride rinse of the sampling train

components after the filter and before the

silica gel impinger, and determining residue

gravimetrically after evaporating the solvents.

3.0 Definitions. [Reserved]

4.0 Interferences. [Reserved]

5.0 Safety.

This method may involve hazardous

materials, operations, and equipment. This

method does not purport to address all of the

safety problems associated with its use. It is

the responsibility of the user of this method

to establish appropriate safety and health

practices and determine the applicability of

regulatory limitations prior to performing

this test method.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies.

Note: Mention of trade names or specific

products does not constitute endorsement by

the EPA.

6.1 Sample collection. The following

items are required for sample collection:

6.1.1 Sampling train. A schematic of the

sampling train used in this method is shown

in Figure 5–1, Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A. Complete construction details

are given in APTD–0581 (Reference 2 in

section 17.0 of this method); commercial

models of this train are also available. For

changes from APTD–0581 and for allowable

modifications of the train shown in Figure 5–

1, Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, see

the following subsections.

Note: The operating and maintenance

procedures for the sampling train are

described in APTD–0576 (Reference 3 in

section 17.0 of this method). Since correct

usage is important in obtaining valid results,

all users should read APTD–0576 and adopt

the operating and maintenance procedures

outlined in it, unless otherwise specified

herein. The use of grease for sealing sampling

train components is not recommended

because many greases are soluble in

methylene chloride. The sampling train

consists of the following components:

6.1.1.1 Probe nozzle. Glass or glass lined

with sharp, tapered leading edge. The angle

of taper shall be ≤30°, and the taper shall be

on the outside to preserve a constant internal

diameter. The probe nozzle shall be of the

button-hook or elbow design, unless

otherwise specified by the Administrator.

Other materials of construction may be used,

subject to the approval of the Administrator.

A range of nozzle sizes suitable for isokinetic

sampling should be available. Typical nozzle
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52419

sizes range from 0.32 to 1.27 cm (1⁄8 to 1⁄2 in.)

inside diameter (ID) in increments of 0.16 cm

(1⁄16 in.). Larger nozzle sizes are also available

if higher volume sampling trains are used.

Each nozzle shall be calibrated according to

the procedures outlined in section 10.0 of

this method.

6.1.1.2 Probe liner. Borosilicate or quartz

glass tubing with a heating system capable of

maintaining a probe gas temperature at the

exit end during sampling of 120±14°C

(248±25°F), or such other temperature as

specified by an applicable subpart of the

standards or approved by the Administrator

for a particular application. Because the

actual temperature at the outlet of the probe

is not usually monitored during sampling,

probes constructed according to APTD–0581

and using the calibration curves of APTD–

0576 (or calibrated according to the

procedure outlined in APTD–0576) will be

considered acceptable. Either borosilicate or

quartz glass probe liners may be used for

stack temperatures up to about 480°C (900°F);

quartz liners shall be used for temperatures

between 480 and 900°C (900 and 1,650°F).

Both types of liners may be used at higher

temperatures than specified for short periods

of time, subject to the approval of the

Administrator. The softening temperature for

borosilicate glass is 820°C (1,500°F) and for

quartz glass it is 1,500°C (2,700°F).

6.1.1.3 Pitot tube. Type S, as described in

section 6.1 of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, or other device approved by the

Administrator. The pitot tube shall be

attached to the probe (as shown in Figure 5–

1 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A)

to allow constant monitoring of the stack gas

velocity. The impact (high pressure) opening

plane of the pitot tube shall be even with or

above the nozzle entry plane (see Method 2,

Figure 2–6b, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A)

during sampling. The Type S pitot tube

assembly shall have a known coefficient,

determined as outlined in section 10.0 of

Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

6.1.1.4 Differential pressure gauge.

Inclined manometer or equivalent device

(two), as described in section 6.2 of Method

2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. One

manometer shall be used for velocity head

(Dp) readings, and the other, for orifice

differential pressure readings.

6.1.1.5 Filter holder. Borosilicate glass,

with a glass frit filter support and a silicone

rubber gasket. The holder design shall

provide a positive seal against leakage from

the outside or around the filter. The holder

shall be attached immediately at the outlet of

the probe (or cyclone, if used).

6.1.1.6 Filter heating system. Any heating

system capable of maintaining a temperature

around the filter holder of 120±14°C

(248±25°F) during sampling, or such other

temperature as specified by an applicable

subpart of the standards or approved by the

Administrator for a particular application.

Alternatively, the tester may opt to operate

the equipment at a temperature lower than

that specified. A temperature gauge capable

of measuring temperature to within 3°C

(5.4°F) shall be installed so that the

temperature around the filter holder can be

regulated and monitored during sampling.

Heating systems other than the one shown in

APTD–0581 may be used.

6.1.1.7 Temperature sensor. A

temperature sensor capable of measuring

temperature to within ±3°C (5.4°F) shall be

installed so that the sensing tip of the

temperature sensor is in direct contact with

the sample gas, and the temperature around

the filter holder can be regulated and

monitored during sampling.

6.1.1.8 Condenser. The following system

shall be used to determine the stack gas

moisture content: four glass impingers

connected in series with leak-free ground

glass fittings. The first, third, and fourth

impingers shall be of the Greenburg-Smith

design, modified by replacing the tip with a

1.3 cm (1/2 in.) ID glass tube extending to

about 1.3 cm (1/2 in.) from the bottom of the

flask. The second impinger shall be of the

Greenburg-Smith design with the standard

tip. The first and second impingers shall

contain known quantities of water (section

8.3.1 of this method), the third shall be

empty, and the fourth shall contain a known

weight of silica gel or equivalent desiccant.

A temperature sensor capable of measuring

temperature to within 1°C (2°F) shall be

placed at the outlet of the fourth impinger for

monitoring.

6.1.1.9 Metering system. Vacuum gauge,

leak-free pump, temperature sensors capable

of measuring temperature to within 3°C

(5.4°F), dry gas meter (DGM) capable of

measuring volume to within 2 percent, and

related equipment, as shown in Figure 5–1 of

Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Other

metering systems capable of maintaining

sampling rates within 10 percent of

isokinetic and of determining sample

volumes to within 2 percent may be used,

subject to the approval of the Administrator.

When the metering system is used in

conjunction with a pitot tube, the system

shall allow periodic checks of isokinetic

rates.

6.1.1.10 Sampling trains using metering

systems designed for higher flow rates than

that described in APTD–0581 or APTD–0576

may be used provided that the specifications

of this method are met.

6.1.2 Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or

other barometer capable of measuring

atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm (0.1

in.) Hg.

Note: The barometric reading may be

obtained from a nearby National Weather

Service station. In this case, the station value

(which is the absolute barometric pressure)

shall be requested and an adjustment for

elevation differences between the weather

station and sampling point shall be made at

a rate of minus 2.5 mm (0.1 in) Hg per 30 m

(100 ft) elevation increase or plus 2.5 mm

(0.1 in) Hg per 30 m (100 ft) elevation

decrease.

6.1.3 Gas density determination

equipment. Temperature sensor and pressure

gauge, as described in sections 6.3 and 6.4 of

Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and

gas analyzer, if necessary, as described in

Method 3, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The

temperature sensor shall, preferably, be

permanently attached to the pitot tube or

sampling probe in a fixed configuration, such

that the tip of the sensor extends beyond the

leading edge of the probe sheath and does not

touch any metal. Alternatively, the sensor

may be attached just prior to use in the field.

Note, however, that if the temperature sensor

is attached in the field, the sensor must be

placed in an interference-free arrangement

with respect to the Type S pitot tube

openings (see Method 2, Figure 2–4, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A). As a second alternative,

if a difference of not more than 1 percent in

the average velocity measurement is to be

introduced, the temperature sensor need not

be attached to the probe or pitot tube. (This

alternative is subject to the approval of the

Administrator.)

6.2 Sample recovery. The following items

are required for sample recovery:

6.2.1 Probe-liner and probe-nozzle

brushes. Nylon or Teflon bristle brushes

with stainless steel wire handles. The probe

brush shall have extensions (at least as long

as the probe) constructed of stainless steel,

nylon, Teflon, or similarly inert material.

The brushes shall be properly sized and

shaped to brush out the probe liner and

nozzle.

6.2.2 Wash bottles. Glass wash bottles are

recommended. Polyethylene or

tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) wash bottles may

be used, but they may introduce a positive

bias due to contamination from the bottle. It

is recommended that acetone not be stored in

polyethylene or TFE bottles for longer than

a month.

6.2.3 Glass sample storage containers.

Chemically resistant, borosilicate glass

bottles, for acetone and methylene chloride

washes and impinger water, 500 ml or 1,000

ml. Screw-cap liners shall either be rubberbacked Teflon or shall be constructed so as

to be leak-free and resistant to chemical

attack by acetone or methylene chloride.

(Narrow-mouth glass bottles have been found

to be less prone to leakage.) Alternatively,

polyethylene bottles may be used.

6.2.4 Petri dishes. For filter samples,

glass, unless otherwise specified by the

Administrator.

6.2.5 Graduated cylinder and/or balance.

To measure condensed water, acetone wash

and methylene chloride wash used during

field recovery of the samples, to within 1 ml

or 1 g. Graduated cylinders shall have

subdivisions no greater than 2 ml. Most

laboratory balances are capable of weighing

to the nearest 0.5 g or less. Any such balance

is suitable for use here and in section 6.3.4

of this method.

6.2.6 Plastic storage containers. Air-tight

containers to store silica gel.

6.2.7 Funnel and rubber policeman. To

aid in transfer of silica gel to container; not

necessary if silica gel is weighed in the field.

6.2.8 Funnel. Glass or polyethylene, to

aid in sample recovery.

6.3 Sample analysis. The following

equipment is required for sample analysis:

6.3.1 Glass or Teflon weighing dishes.

6.3.2 Desiccator. It is recommended that

fresh desiccant be used to minimize the

chance for positive bias due to absorption of

organic material during drying.

6.3.3 Analytical balance. To measure to

within 0.l mg.

6.3.4 Balance. To measure to within 0.5 g.

6.3.5 Beakers. 250 ml.

6.3.6 Hygrometer. To measure the relative

humidity of the laboratory environment.
52420 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

6.3.7 Temperature sensor. To measure the

temperature of the laboratory environment.

6.3.8 Buchner fritted funnel. 30 ml size,

fine (<50 micron)-porosity fritted glass.

6.3.9 Pressure filtration apparatus.

6.3.10 Aluminum dish. Flat bottom,

smooth sides, and flanged top, 18 mm deep

and with an inside diameter of

approximately 60 mm.

7.0 Reagents and Standards.

7.l Sample collection. The following

reagents are required for sample collection:

7.1.1 Filters. Glass fiber filters, without

organic binder, exhibiting at least 99.95

percent efficiency (<0.05 percent penetration)

on 0.3 micron dioctyl phthalate smoke

particles. The filter efficiency test shall be

conducted in accordance with ASTM Method

D 2986–95A (incorporated by reference in

§ 63.841 of this part). Test data from the

supplier’s quality control program are

sufficient for this purpose. In sources

containing S02 or S03, the filter material must

be of a type that is unreactive to S02 or S03.

Reference 10 in section 17.0 of this method

may be used to select the appropriate filter.

7.1.2 Silica gel. Indicating type, 6 to l6

mesh. If previously used, dry at l75°C (350°F)

for 2 hours. New silica gel may be used as

received. Alternatively, other types of

desiccants (equivalent or better) may be used,

subject to the approval of the Administrator.

7.1.3 Water. When analysis of the

material caught in the impingers is required,

deionized distilled water shall be used. Run

blanks prior to field use to eliminate a high

blank on test samples.

7.1.4 Crushed ice.

7.1.5 Stopcock grease. Acetone-insoluble,

heat-stable silicone grease. This is not

necessary if screw-on connectors with

Teflon’’ sleeves, or similar, are used.

Alternatively, other types of stopcock grease

may be used, subject to the approval of the

Administrator. [Caution: Many stopcock

greases are methylene chloride-soluble. Use

sparingly and carefully remove prior to

recovery to prevent contamination of the

MCEM analysis.]

7.2 Sample recovery. The following

reagents are required for sample recovery:

7.2.1 Acetone. Acetone with blank values

< 1 ppm, by weight residue, is required.

Acetone blanks may be run prior to field use,

and only acetone with low blank values may

be used. In no case shall a blank value of

greater than 1E–06 of the weight of acetone

used be subtracted from the sample weight.

Note: This is more restrictive than Method

5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. At least one

vendor (Supelco Incorporated located in

Bellefonte, Pennsylvania) lists <1 mg/l as

residue for its Environmental Analysis

Solvents.

7.2.2 Methylene chloride. Methylene

chloride with a blank value <1.5 ppm, by

weight, residue. Methylene chloride blanks

may be run prior to field use, and only

methylene chloride with low blank values

may be used. In no case shall a blank value

of greater than 1.6E–06 of the weight of

methylene chloride used be subtracted from

the sample weight.

Note: A least one vendor quotes <1 mg/l for

Environmental Analysis Solvents-grade

methylene chloride.

7.3 Sample analysis. The following

reagents are required for sample analysis:

7.3.l Acetone. Same as in section 7.2.1 of

this method.

7.3.2 Desiccant. Anhydrous calcium

sulfate, indicating type. Alternatively, other

types of desiccants may be used, subject to

the approval of the Administrator.

7.3.3 Methylene chloride. Same as in

section 7.2.2 of this method.

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation,

Storage, and Transport.

Note: The complexity of this method is

such that, in order to obtain reliable results,

testers should be trained and experienced

with the test procedures.

8.1l Pretest preparation. It is suggested

that sampling equipment be maintained

according to the procedures described in

APTD–0576.

8.1.1 Weigh several 200 g to 300 g

portions of silica gel in airtight containers to

the nearest 0.5 g. Record on each container

the total weight of the silica gel plus

container. As an alternative, the silica gel

need not be preweighed but may be weighed

directly in its impinger or sampling holder

just prior to train assembly.

8.1.2 A batch of glass fiber filters, no

more than 50 at a time, should placed in a

soxhlet extraction apparatus and extracted

using methylene chloride for at least 16

hours. After extraction, check filters visually

against light for irregularities, flaws, or

pinhole leaks. Label the shipping containers

(glass or plastic petri dishes), and keep the

filters in these containers at all times except

during sampling and weighing.

8.1.3 Desiccate the filters at 20 ± 5.6°C (68

±10°F) and ambient pressure for at least 24

hours and weigh at intervals of at least 6

hours to a constant weight, i.e., <0.5 mg

change from previous weighing; record

results to the nearest 0.1 mg. During each

weighing the filter must not be exposed to

the laboratory atmosphere for longer than 2

minutes and a relative humidity above 50

percent. Alternatively (unless otherwise

specified by the Administrator), the filters

may be oven-dried at 104°C (220°F) for 2 to

3 hours, desiccated for 2 hours, and weighed.

Procedures other than those described, which

account for relative humidity effects, may be

used, subject to the approval of the

Administrator.

8.2 Preliminary determinations.

8.2.1 Select the sampling site and the

minimum number of sampling points

according to Method 1, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A or as specified by the

Administrator. Determine the stack pressure,

temperature, and the range of velocity heads

using Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A;

it is recommended that a leak check of the

pitot lines (see section 8.1 of Method 2, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A) be performed.

Determine the moisture content using

Approximation Method 4 (section 1.2 of

Method 4, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A) or

its alternatives to make isokinetic sampling

rate settings. Determine the stack gas dry

molecular weight, as described in section 8.6

of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; if

integrated Method 3 sampling is used for

molecular weight determination, the

integrated bag sample shall be taken

simultaneously with, and for the same total

length of time as, the particulate sample run.

8.2.2 Select a nozzle size based on the

range of velocity heads such that it is not

necessary to change the nozzle size in order

to maintain isokinetic sampling rates. During

the run, do not change the nozzle size.

Ensure that the proper differential pressure

gauge is chosen for the range of velocity

heads encountered (see section 8.2 of Method

2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

8.2.3 Select a suitable probe liner and

probe length such that all traverse points can

be sampled. For large stacks, consider

sampling from opposite sides of the stack to

reduce the required probe length.

8.2.4 Select a total sampling time greater

than or equal to the minimum total sampling

time specified in the test procedures for the

specific industry such that: (1) The sampling

time per point is not less than 2 minutes (or

some greater time interval as specified by the

Administrator); and (2) the sample volume

taken (corrected to standard conditions) will

exceed the required minimum total gas

sample volume. The latter is based on an

approximate average sampling rate.

8.2.5 The sampling time at each point

shall be the same. It is recommended that the

number of minutes sampled at each point be

an integer or an integer plus one-half minute,

in order to eliminate timekeeping errors.

8.2.6 In some circumstances (e.g., batch

cycles), it may be necessary to sample for

shorter times at the traverse points and to

obtain smaller gas sample volumes. In these

cases, the Administrator’s approval must first

be obtained.

8.3 Preparation of sampling train.

8.3.1 During preparation and assembly of

the sampling train, keep all openings where

contamination can occur covered until just

prior to assembly or until sampling is about

to begin. Place l00 ml of water in each of the

first two impingers, leave the third impinger

empty, and transfer approximately 200 to 300

g of preweighed silica gel from its container

to the fourth impinger. More silica gel may

be used, but care should be taken to ensure

that it is not entrained and carried out from

the impinger during sampling. Place the

container in a clean place for later use in the

sample recovery. Alternatively, the weight of

the silica gel plus impinger may be

determined to the nearest 0.5 g and recorded.

8.3.2 Using a tweezer or clean disposable

surgical gloves, place a labeled (identified)

and weighed filter in the filter holder. Be

sure that the filter is properly centered and

the gasket properly placed so as to prevent

the sample gas stream from circumventing

the filter. Check the filter for tears after

assembly is completed.

8.3.3 When glass liners are used, install

the selected nozzle using a Viton A 0-ring

when stack temperatures are less than 260°C

(500°F) and an asbestos string gasket when

temperatures are higher. See APTD–0576 for

details. Mark the probe with heat-resistant

tape or by some other method to denote the

proper distance into the stack or duct for

each sampling point.

8.3.4 Set up the train as in Figure 5-1 of

Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, using

(if necessary) a very light coat of silicone

grease on all ground glass joints, greasing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52421

only the outer portion (see APTD–0576) to

avoid possibility of contamination by the

silicone grease. Subject to the approval of the

Administrator, a glass cyclone may be used

between the probe and filter holder when the

total particulate catch is expected to exceed

100 mg or when water droplets are present

in the stack gas.

8.3.5 Place crushed ice around the

impingers.

8.4 Leak-check procedures.

8.4.1 Leak check of metering system

shown in Figure 5-1 of Method 5, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A. That portion of the

sampling train from the pump to the orifice

meter should be leak-checked prior to initial

use and after each shipment. Leakage after

the pump will result in less volume being

recorded than is actually sampled. The

following procedure is suggested (see Figure

5–2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A): Close the main valve on the meter box.

Insert a one-hole rubber stopper with rubber

tubing attached into the orifice exhaust pipe.

Disconnect and vent the low side of the

orifice manometer. Close off the low side

orifice tap. Pressurize the system to 13 to 18

cm (5 to 7 in.) water column by blowing into

the rubber tubing. Pinch off the tubing, and

observe the manometer for 1 minute. A loss

of pressure on the manometer indicates a

leak in the meter box; leaks, if present, must

be corrected.

8.4.2 Pretest leak check. A pretest leakcheck is recommended but not required. If

the pretest leak-check is conducted, the

following procedure should be used.

8.4.2.1 After the sampling train has been

assembled, turn on and set the filter and

probe heating systems to the desired

operating temperatures. Allow time for the

temperatures to stabilize. If a Viton A 0-ring

or other leak-free connection is used in

assembling the probe nozzle to the probe

liner, leak-check the train at the sampling site

by plugging the nozzle and pulling a 380 mm

(15 in.) Hg vacuum.

Note: A lower vacuum may be used,

provided that it is not exceeded during the

test.

8.4.2.2 If an asbestos string is used, do

not connect the probe to the train during the

leak check. Instead, leak-check the train by

first plugging the inlet to the filter holder

(cyclone, if applicable) and pulling a 380 mm

(15 in.) Hg vacuum. (See NOTE in section

8.4.2.1 of this method). Then connect the

probe to the train and perform the leak check

at approximately 25 mm (1 in.) Hg vacuum;

alternatively, the probe may be leak-checked

with the rest of the sampling train, in one

step, at 380 mm (15 in.) Hg vacuum. Leakage

rates in excess of 4 percent of the average

sampling rate or 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm),

whichever is less, are unacceptable.

8.4.2.3 The following leak check

instructions for the sampling train described

in APTD–0576 and APTD–058l may be

helpful. Start the pump with the bypass valve

fully open and the coarse adjust valve

completely closed. Partially open the coarse

adjust valve and slowly close the bypass

valve until the desired vacuum is reached.

Do not reverse the direction of the bypass

valve, as this will cause water to back up into

the filter holder. If the desired vacuum is

exceeded, either leak-check at this higher

vacuum or end the leak check as shown

below and start over.

8.4.2.4 When the leak check is

completed, first slowly remove the plug from

the inlet to the probe, filter holder, or cyclone

(if applicable) and immediately turn off the

vacuum pump. This prevents the water in the

impingers from being forced backward into

the filter holder and the silica gel from being

entrained backward into the third impinger.

8.4.3 Leak checks during sample run. If,

during the sampling run, a component (e.g.,

filter assembly or impinger) change becomes

necessary, a leak check shall be conducted

immediately before the change is made. The

leak check shall be done according to the

procedure outlined in section 8.4.2 of this

method, except that it shall be done at a

vacuum equal to or greater than the

maximum value recorded up to that point in

the test. If the leakage rate is found to be no

greater than 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm) or 4

percent of the average sampling rate

(whichever is less), the results are acceptable,

and no correction will need to be applied to

the total volume of dry gas metered; if,

however, a higher leakage rate is obtained,

either record the leakage rate and plan to

correct the sample volume as shown in

section 12.3 of this method or void the

sample run.

Note: Immediately after component

changes, leak checks are optional; if such

leak checks are done, the procedure outlined

in section 8.4.2 of this method should be

used.

8.4.4 Post-test leak check. A leak check is

mandatory at the conclusion of each

sampling run. The leak check shall be

performed in accordance with the procedures

outlined in section 8.4.2 of this method,

except that it shall be conducted at a vacuum

equal to or greater than the maximum value

reached during the sampling run. If the

leakage rate is found to be no greater than

0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm) or 4 percent of the

average sampling rate (whichever is less), the

results are acceptable, and no correction need

be applied to the total volume of dry gas

metered. If, however, a higher leakage rate is

obtained, either record the leakage rate and

correct the sample volume, as shown in

section 12.4 of this method, or void the

sampling run.

8.5 Sampling train operation. During the

sampling run, maintain an isokinetic

sampling rate (within l0 percent of true

isokinetic unless otherwise specified by the

Administrator) and a temperature around the

filter of 120 14°C (248 25°F), or such other

temperature as specified by an applicable

subpart of the standards or approved by the

Administrator.

8.5.1 For each run, record the data

required on a data sheet such as the one

shown in Figure 5–2 of Method 5, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A. Be sure to record the

initial reading. Record the DGM readings at

the beginning and end of each sampling time

increment, when changes in flow rates are

made, before and after each leak-check, and

when sampling is halted. Take other readings

indicated by Figure 5–2 of Method 5, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A at least once at each

sample point during each time increment and

additional readings when significant changes

(20 percent variation in velocity head

readings) necessitate additional adjustments

in flow rate. Level and zero the manometer.

Because the manometer level and zero may

drift due to vibrations and temperature

changes, make periodic checks during the

traverse.

8.5.2 Clean the portholes prior to the test

run to minimize the chance of sampling

deposited material. To begin sampling,

remove the nozzle cap and verify that the

filter and probe heating systems are up to

temperature and that the pitot tube and probe

are properly positioned. Position the nozzle

at the first traverse point with the tip

pointing directly into the gas stream.

Immediately start the pump and adjust the

flow to isokinetic conditions. Nomographs

are available, which aid in the rapid

adjustment of the isokinetic sampling rate

without excessive computations. These

nomographs are designed for use when the

Type S pitot tube coefficient (Cp) is 0.85 #

0.02 and the stack gas equivalent density (dry

molecular weight) is 29 ± 4. APTD–0576

details the procedure for using the

nomographs. If Cp and Md are outside the

above-stated ranges, do not use the

nomographs unless appropriate steps (see

Reference 7 in section 17.0 of this method)

are taken to compensate for the deviations.

8.5.3 When the stack is under significant

negative pressure (height of impinger stem),

close the coarse adjust valve before inserting

the probe into the stack to prevent water from

backing into the filter holder. If necessary,

the pump may be turned on with the coarse

adjust valve closed.

8.5.4 When the probe is in position, block

off the openings around the probe and

porthole to prevent unrepresentative dilution

of the gas stream.

8.5.5 Traverse the stack cross-section, as

required by Method 1, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A or as specified by the

Administrator, being careful not to bump the

probe nozzle into the stack walls when

sampling near the walls or when removing or

inserting the probe through the portholes;

this minimizes the chance of extracting

deposited material.

8.5.6 During the test run, make periodic

adjustments to keep the temperature around

the filter holder at the proper level; add more

ice and, if necessary, salt to maintain a

temperature of less than 20°C (68°F) at the

condenser/silica gel outlet. Also, periodically

check the level and zero of the manometer.

8.5.7 If the pressure drop across the filter

becomes too high, making isokinetic

sampling difficult to maintain, the filter may

be replaced in the midst of the sample run.

It is recommended that another complete

filter assembly be used rather than

attempting to change the filter itself. Before

a new filter assembly is installed, conduct a

leak check (see section 8.4.3 of this method).

The total PM weight shall include the

summation of the filter assembly catches.

8.5.8 A single train shall be used for the

entire sample run, except in cases where

simultaneous sampling is required in two or

more separate ducts or at two or more

different locations within the same duct, or

in cases where equipment failure necessitates
52422 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

a change of trains. In all other situations, the

use of two or more trains will be subject to

the approval of the Administrator.

Note: When two or more trains are used,

separate analyses of the front-half and (if

applicable) impinger catches from each train

shall be performed, unless identical nozzle

sizes were used in all trains, in which case

the front-half catches from the individual

trains may be combined (as may the impinger

catches) and one analysis of the front-half

catch and one analysis of the impinger catch

may be performed.

8.5.9 At the end of the sample run, turn

off the coarse adjust valve, remove the probe

and nozzle from the stack, turn off the pump,

record the final DGM reading, and then

conduct a post-test leak check, as outlined in

section 8.4.4 of this method. Also leak-check

the pitot lines as described in section 8.1 of

Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The

lines must pass this leak check in order to

validate the velocity head data.

8.6 Calculation of percent isokinetic.

Calculate percent isokinetic (see

Calculations, section 12.12 of this method) to

determine whether a run was valid or

another test run should be made. If there was

difficulty in maintaining isokinetic rates

because of source conditions, consult the

Administrator for possible variance on the

isokinetic rates.

8.7 Sample recovery.

8.7.1 Proper cleanup procedure begins as

soon as the probe is removed from the stack

at the end of the sampling period. Allow the

probe to cool.

8.7.2 When the probe can be safely

handled, wipe off all external PM near the tip

of the probe nozzle and place a cap over it

to prevent losing or gaining PM. Do not cap

off the probe tip tightly while the sampling

train is cooling down. This would create a

vacuum in the filter holder, thus drawing

water from the impingers into the filter

holder.

8.7.3 Before moving the sample train to

the cleanup site, remove the probe from the

sample train, wipe off the silicone grease,

and cap the open outlet of the probe. Be

careful not to lose any condensate that might

be present. Wipe off the silicone grease from

the filter inlet where the probe was fastened

and cap it. Remove the umbilical cord from

the last impinger and cap the impinger. If a

flexible line is used between the first

impinger or condenser and the filter holder,

disconnect the line at the filter holder and let

any condensed water or liquid drain into the

impingers or condenser. After wiping off the

silicone grease, cap off the filter holder outlet

and impinger inlet. Ground-glass stoppers,

plastic caps, or serum caps may be used to

close these openings.

8.7.4 Transfer the probe and filterimpinger assembly to the cleanup area. This

area should be clean and protected from the

wind so that the chances of contaminating or

losing the sample will be minimized.

8.7.5 Save a portion of the acetone and

methylene chloride used for cleanup as

blanks. Take 200 ml of each solvent directly

from the wash bottle being used and place it

in glass sample containers labeled ‘‘acetone

blank’’ and ‘‘methylene chloride blank,’’

respectively.

8.7.6 Inspect the train prior to and during

disassembly and note any abnormal

conditions. Treat the samples as follows:

8.7.6.1 Container No. 1. Carefully remove

the filter from the filter holder, and place it

in its identified petri dish container. Use a

pair of tweezers and/or clean disposable

surgical gloves to handle the filter. If it is

necessary to fold the filter, do so such that

the PM cake is inside the fold. Using a dry

nylon bristle brush and/or a sharp-edged

blade, carefully transfer to the petri dish any

PM and/or filter fibers that adhere to the

filter holder gasket. Seal the container.

8.7.6.2 Container No. 2. Taking care to

see that dust on the outside of the probe or

other exterior surfaces does not get into the

sample, quantitatively recover PM or any

condensate from the probe nozzle, probe

fitting, probe liner, and front half of the filter

holder by washing these components with

acetone and placing the wash in a glass

container. Perform the acetone rinse as

follows:

8.7.6.2.1 Carefully remove the probe

nozzle and clean the inside surface by rinsing

with acetone from a wash bottle and brushing

with a nylon bristle brush. Brush until the

acetone rinse shows no visible particles, after

which make a final rinse of the inside surface

with acetone.

8.7.6.2.2 Brush and rinse the inside parts

of the Swagelok fitting with acetone in a

similar way until no visible particles remain.

8.7.6.2.3 Rinse the probe liner with

acetone by tilting and rotating the probe

while squirting acetone into its upper end so

that all inside surfaces are wetted with

acetone. Let the acetone drain from the lower

end into the sample container. A funnel

(glass or polyethylene) may be used to aid in

transferring liquid washes to the container.

Follow the acetone rinse with a probe brush.

Hold the probe in an inclined position, squirt

acetone into the upper end as the probe

brush is being pushed with a twisting action

through the probe, hold a sample container

under the lower end of the probe, and catch

any acetone and PM that is brushed from the

probe. Run the brush through the probe three

times or more until no visible PM is carried

out with the acetone or until none remains

in the probe liner on visual inspection. With

stainless steel or other metal probes, run the

brush through in the above-described manner

at least six times, since metal probes have

small crevices in which PM can be

entrapped. Rinse the brush with acetone and

quantitatively collect these washings in the

sample container. After the brushing, make a

final acetone rinse of the probe as described

above.

8.7.6.2.4 It is recommended that two

people clean the probe to minimize sample

losses. Between sampling runs, keep brushes

clean and protected from contamination.

8.7.6.2.5 After ensuring that all joints

have been wiped clean of silicone grease,

clean the inside of the front half of the filter

holder by rubbing the surfaces with a nylon

bristle brush and rinsing with acetone. Rinse

each surface three times or more if needed to

remove visible particulate. Make a final rinse

of the brush and filter holder. Carefully rinse

out the glass cyclone also (if applicable).

8.7.6.2.6 After rinsing the nozzle, probe,

and front half of the filter holder with

acetone, repeat the entire procedure with

methylene chloride and save in a separate

No. 2M container.

8.7.6.2.7 After acetone and methylene

chloride washings and PM have been

collected in the proper sample containers,

tighten the lid on the sample containers so

that acetone and methylene chloride will not

leak out when it is shipped to the laboratory.

Mark the height of the fluid level to

determine whether leakage occurs during

transport. Label each container to identify

clearly its contents.

8.7.6.3 Container No. 3. Note the color of

the indicating silica gel to determine whether

it has been completely spent, and make a

notation of its condition. Transfer the silica

gel from the fourth impinger to its original

container and seal the container. A funnel

may make it easier to pour the silica gel

without spilling. A rubber policeman may be

used as an aid in removing the silica gel from

the impinger. It is not necessary to remove

the small amount of dust particles that may

adhere to the impinger wall and are difficult

to remove. Since the gain in weight is to be

used for moisture calculations, do not use

any water or other liquids to transfer the

silica gel. If a balance is available in the field,

follow the procedure for Container No. 3 in

section 11.2.3 of this method.

8.7.6.4 Impinger water. Treat the

impingers as follows:

8.7.6.4.1 Make a notation of any color or

film in the liquid catch. Measure the liquid

that is in the first three impingers to within

1 ml by using a graduated cylinder or by

weighing it to within 0.5 g by using a balance

(if one is available). Record the volume or

weight of liquid present. This information is

required to calculate the moisture content of

the effluent gas.

8.7.6.4.2 Following the determination of

the volume of liquid present, rinse the back

half of the train with water, add it to the

impinger catch, and store it in a container

labeled 3W (water).

8.7.6.4.3 Following the water rinse, rinse

the back half of the train with acetone to

remove the excess water to enhance

subsequent organic recovery with methylene

chloride and quantitatively recover to a

container labeled 3S (solvent) followed by at

least three sequential rinsings with aliquots

of methylene chloride. Quantitatively recover

to the same container labeled 3S. Record

separately the amount of both acetone and

methylene chloride used to the nearest 1 ml

or 0.5g.

Note: Because the subsequent analytical

finish is gravimetric, it is okay to recover

both solvents to the same container. This

would not be recommended if other

analytical finishes were required.

8.8 Sample transport. Whenever possible,

containers should be shipped in such a way

that they remain upright at all times.

9.0 Quality Control.

9.1 Miscellaneous quality control

measures.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52423

Section Quality control

measure Effect

8.4,

10.1–

10.6.

Sampling and

equipment

leak check

and calibration.

Ensure accurate

measurement

of stack gas

flow rate,

sample volume.

9.2 Volume metering system checks. The

following quality control procedures are

suggested to check the volume metering

system calibration values at the field test site

prior to sample collection. These procedures

are optional.

9.2.1 Meter orifice check. Using the

calibration data obtained during the

calibration procedure described in section

10.3 of this method, determine the >Ha for

the metering system orifice. The >Ha is the

orifice pressure differential in units of in. H20

that correlates to 0.75 cfm of air at 528°R and

29.92 in. Hg. The >Ha is calculated as

follows:

∆ ∆

Θ

H H

T

P Y V a

m

bar m

= 0 0319

2

2 2 ..

Where

0.0319 = (0.0567 in. Hg/°R)(0.75 cfm)2;

>H = Average pressure differential across

the orifice meter, in. H20;

Tm = Absolute average DGM temperature, °R;

Θ = Total sampling time, min;

Pbar = Barometric pressure, in. Hg;

Y = DGM calibration factor, dimensionless;

Vm = Volume of gas sample as measured by

DGM, dcf.

9.2.1.1 Before beginning the field test (a

set of three runs usually constitutes a field

test), operate the metering system (i.e., pump,

volume meter, and orifice) at the >Ha

pressure differential for 10 minutes. Record

the volume collected, the DGM temperature,

and the barometric pressure. Calculate a

DGM calibration check value, Yc, as follows:

Y

V

T

P c

m

m

bar

= 



 



 10 0 0319

1

. 2

Where

Yc = DGM calibration check value,

dimensionless;

10 = Run time, min.

9.2.1.2 Compare the Yc value with the dry

gas meter calibration factor Y to determine

that: 0.97 Y < Yc < 1.03Y. If the Yc value is

not within this range, the volume metering

system should be investigated before

beginning the test.

9.2.2 Calibrated critical orifice. A

calibrated critical orifice, calibrated against a

wet test meter or spirometer and designed to

be inserted at the inlet of the sampling meter

box, may be used as a quality control check

by following the procedure of section 16.2 of

this method.

10.0 Calibration and Standardization.

Note: Maintain a laboratory log of all

calibrations.

10.1 Probe nozzle. Probe nozzles shall be

calibrated before their initial use in the field.

Using a micrometer, measure the ID of the

nozzle to the nearest 0.025 mm (0.001 in.).

Make three separate measurements using

different diameters each time, and obtain the

average of the measurements. The difference

between the high and low numbers shall not

exceed 0.1 mm (0.004 in.). When nozzles

become nicked, dented, or corroded, they

shall be reshaped, sharpened, and

recalibrated before use. Each nozzle shall be

permanently and uniquely identified.

10.2 Pitot tube assembly. The Type S

pitot tube assembly shall be calibrated

according to the procedure outlined in

section 10.1 of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A.

10.3 Metering system.

10.3.1 Calibration prior to use. Before its

initial use in the field, the metering system

shall be calibrated as follows: Connect the

metering system inlet to the outlet of a wet

test meter that is accurate to within 1

percent. Refer to Figure 5–5 of Method 5, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A. The wet test meter

should have a capacity of 30 liters/revolution

(1 ft3/rev). A spirometer of 400 liters (14 ft3)

or more capacity, or equivalent, may be used

for this calibration, although a wet test meter

is usually more practical. The wet test meter

should be periodically calibrated with a

spirometer or a liquid displacement meter to

ensure the accuracy of the wet test meter.

Spirometers or wet test meters of other sizes

may be used, provided that the specified

accuracies of the procedure are maintained.

Run the metering system pump for about 15

minutes with the orifice manometer

indicating a median reading, as expected in

field use, to allow the pump to warm up and

to permit the interior surface of the wet test

meter to be thoroughly wetted. Then, at each

of a minimum of three orifice manometer

settings, pass an exact quantity of gas through

the wet test meter and note the gas volume

indicated by the DGM. Also note the

barometric pressure and the temperatures of

the wet test meter, the inlet of the DGM, and

the outlet of the DGM. Select the highest and

lowest orifice settings to bracket the expected

field operating range of the orifice. Use a

minimum volume of 0.15 m3 (5 cf) at all

orifice settings. Record all the data on a form

similar to Figure 5–6 of Method 5, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A, and calculate Y (the

DGM calibration factor) and >Ha (the orifice

calibration factor) at each orifice setting, as

shown on Figure 5–6 of Method 5, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A. Allowable tolerances for

individual Y and >Ha values are given in

Figure 5–6 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A. Use the average of the Y values

in the calculations in section 12 of this

method.

10.3.1.1. Before calibrating the metering

system, it is suggested that a leak check be

conducted. For metering systems having

diaphragm pumps, the normal leak check

procedure will not detect leakages within the

pump. For these cases the following leak

check procedure is suggested: make a 10-

minute calibration run at 0.00057 m3/min

(0.02 cfm); at the end of the run, take the

difference of the measured wet test meter and

DGM volumes; divide the difference by 10 to

get the leak rate. The leak rate should not

exceed 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm).

10.3.2 Calibration after use. After each

field use, the calibration of the metering

system shall be checked by performing three

calibration runs at a single, intermediate

orifice setting (based on the previous field

test) with the vacuum set at the maximum

value reached during the test series. To

adjust the vacuum, insert a valve between the

wet test meter and the inlet of the metering

system. Calculate the average value of the

DGM calibration factor. If the value has

changed by more than 5 percent, recalibrate

the meter over the full range of orifice

settings, as previously detailed.

Note: Alternative procedures, e.g.,

rechecking the orifice meter coefficient, may

be used, subject to the approval of the

Administrator.

10.3.3 Acceptable variation in calibration.

If the DGM coefficient values obtained before

and after a test series differ by more than 5

percent, either the test series shall be voided

or calculations for the test series shall be

performed using whichever meter coefficient

value (i.e., before or after) gives the lower

value of total sample volume.

10.4 Probe heater calibration. Use a heat

source to generate air heated to selected

temperatures that approximate those

expected to occur in the sources to be

sampled. Pass this air through the probe at

a typical sample flow rate while measuring

the probe inlet and outlet temperatures at

various probe heater settings. For each air

temperature generated, construct a graph of

probe heating system setting versus probe

outlet temperature. The procedure outlined

in APTD–0576 can also be used. Probes

constructed according to APTD–0581 need

not be calibrated if the calibration curves in

APTD–0576 are used. Also, probes with

outlet temperature monitoring capabilities do

not require calibration.

Note: The probe heating system shall be

calibrated before its initial use in the field.

10.5 Temperature sensors. Use the

procedure in section 10.3 of Method 2, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A to calibrate in-stack

temperature sensors. Dial thermometers, such

as are used for the DGM and condenser

outlet, shall be calibrated against mercury-inglass thermometers.

10.6 Barometer. Calibrate against a

mercury barometer.

11.0 Analytical Procedure.

11.1 Record the data required on a sheet

such as the one shown in Figure 315–1 of

this method.

11.2 Handle each sample container as

follows:

11.2.1 Container No. 1.

11.2.1.1 PM analysis. Leave the contents

in the shipping container or transfer the filter

and any loose PM from the sample container

to a tared glass weighing dish. Desiccate for

24 hours in a desiccator containing

anhydrous calcium sulfate. Weigh to a

constant weight and report the results to the

nearest 0.1 mg. For purposes of this section,

the term ‘‘constant weight’’ means a

difference of no more than 0.5 mg or 1

percent of total weight less tare weight,

whichever is greater, between two

consecutive weighings, with no less than 6

hours of desiccation time between weighings
52424 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(overnight desiccation is a common practice).

If a third weighing is required and it agrees

within ±0.5 mg, then the results of the second

weighing should be used. For quality

assurance purposes, record and report each

individual weighing; if more than three

weighings are required, note this in the

results for the subsequent MCEM results.

11.2.1.2 MCEM analysis. Transfer the

filter and contents quantitatively into a

beaker. Add 100 ml of methylene chloride

and cover with aluminum foil. Sonicate for

3 minutes then allow to stand for 20 minutes.

Set up the filtration apparatus. Decant the

solution into a clean Buchner fritted funnel.

Immediately pressure filter the solution

through the tube into another clean, dry

beaker. Continue decanting and pressure

filtration until all the solvent is transferred.

Rinse the beaker and filter with 10 to 20 ml

methylene chloride, decant into the Buchner

fritted funnel and pressure filter. Place the

beaker on a low-temperature hot plate

(maximum 40°C) and slowly evaporate

almost to dryness. Transfer the remaining last

few milliliters of solution quantitatively from

the beaker (using at least three aliquots of

methylene chloride rinse) to a tared clean dry

aluminum dish and evaporate to complete

dryness. Remove from heat once solvent is

evaporated. Reweigh the dish after a 30-

minute equilibrium in the balance room and

determine the weight to the nearest 0.1 mg.

Conduct a methylene chloride blank run in

an identical fashion.

11.2.2 Container No. 2.

11.2.2.1 PM analysis. Note the level of

liquid in the container, and confirm on the

analysis sheet whether leakage occurred

during transport. If a noticeable amount of

leakage has occurred, either void the sample

or use methods, subject to the approval of the

Administrator, to correct the final results.

Measure the liquid in this container either

volumetrically to ±1 ml or gravimetrically to

1±0.5 g. Transfer the contents to a tared 250

ml beaker and evaporate to dryness at

ambient temperature and pressure. Desiccate

for 24 hours, and weigh to a constant weight.

Report the results to the nearest 0.1 mg.

11.2.2.2 MCEM analysis. Add 25 ml

methylene chloride to the beaker and cover

with aluminum foil. Sonicate for 3 minutes

then allow to stand for 20 minutes; combine

with contents of Container No. 2M and

pressure filter and evaporate as described for

Container 1 in section 11.2.1.2 of this

method.

Notes for MCEM Analysis

1. Light finger pressure only is necessary

on 24/40 adaptor. A Chemplast adapter

#15055–240 has been found satisfactory.

2. Avoid aluminum dishes made with

fluted sides, as these may promote solvent

‘‘creep,’’ resulting in possible sample loss.

3. If multiple samples are being run, rinse

the Buchner fritted funnel twice between

samples with 5 ml solvent using pressure

filtration. After the second rinse, continue

the flow of air until the glass frit is

completely dry. Clean the Buchner fritted

funnels thoroughly after filtering five or six

samples.

11.2.3 Container No. 3. Weigh the spent

silica gel (or silica gel plus impinger) to the

nearest 0.5 g using a balance. This step may

be conducted in the field.

11.2.4 Container 3W (impinger water).

11.2.4.1 MCEM analysis. Transfer the

solution into a 1,000 ml separatory funnel

quantitatively with methylene chloride

washes. Add enough solvent to total

approximately 50 ml, if necessary. Shake the

funnel for 1 minute, allow the phases to

separate, and drain the solvent layer into a

250 ml beaker. Repeat the extraction twice.

Evaporate with low heat (less than 40°C)

until near dryness. Transfer the remaining

few milliliters of solvent quantitatively with

small solvent washes into a clean, dry, tared

aluminum dish and evaporate to dryness.

Remove from heat once solvent is

evaporated. Reweigh the dish after a 30-

minute equilibration in the balance room and

determine the weight to the nearest 0.1 mg.

11.2.5 Container 3S (solvent).

11.2.5.1 MCEM analysis. Transfer the

mixed solvent to 250 ml beaker(s). Evaporate

and weigh following the procedures detailed

for container 3W in section 11.2.4 of this

method.

11.2.6 Blank containers. Measure the

distilled water, acetone, or methylene

chloride in each container either

volumetrically or gravimetrically. Transfer

the ‘‘solvent’’ to a tared 250 ml beaker, and

evaporate to dryness at ambient temperature

and pressure. (Conduct a solvent blank on

the distilled deionized water blank in an

identical fashion to that described in section

11.2.4.1 of this method.) Desiccate for 24

hours, and weigh to a constant weight.

Report the results to the nearest 0.l mg.

Note: The contents of Containers No. 2,

3W, and 3M as well as the blank containers

may be evaporated at temperatures higher

than ambient. If evaporation is done at an

elevated temperature, the temperature must

be below the boiling point of the solvent;

also, to prevent ‘‘bumping,’’ the evaporation

process must be closely supervised, and the

contents of the beaker must be swirled

occasionally to maintain an even

temperature. Use extreme care, as acetone

and methylene chloride are highly flammable

and have a low flash point.

12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations.

12.1 Carry out calculations, retaining at

least one extra decimal figure beyond that of

the acquired data. Round off figures after the

final calculation. Other forms of the

equations may be used as long as they give

equivalent results.

12.2 Nomenclature.

An = Cross-sectional area of nozzle, m3 (ft3).

Bws = Water vapor in the gas stream,

proportion by volume.

Ca = Acetone blank residue concentration,

mg/g.

Cs = Concentration of particulate matter in

stack gas, dry basis, corrected to standard

conditions, g/dscm (g/dscf).

I = Percent of isokinetic sampling.

La = Maximum acceptable leakage rate for

either a pretest leak check or for a leak

check following a component change;

equal to 0.00057 m3/min (0.02 cfm) or 4

percent of the average sampling rate,

whichever is less.

Li = Individual leakage rate observed during

the leak check conducted prior to the

‘‘ith’’ component change (I = l, 2, 3...n),

m3/min (cfm).

Lp = Leakage rate observed during the posttest leak check, m3/min (cfm).

ma = Mass of residue of acetone after

evaporation, mg.

mn = Total amount of particulate matter

collected, mg.

Mw = Molecular weight of water, 18.0 g/gmole (18.0 lb/lb-mole).

Pbar = Barometric pressure at the sampling

site, mm Hg (in Hg).

Ps = Absolute stack gas pressure, mm Hg (in.

Hg).

Pstd = Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg

(29.92 in. Hg).

R = Ideal gas constant, 0.06236 [(mm

Hg)(m3)]/[(°K) (g-mole)] {21.85 [(in.

Hg)(ft3)]/[(°R)(lb-mole)]}.

Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter (DGM)

temperature (see Figure 5–2 of Method 5,

40 CFR part 60, appendix A), °K (°R).

Ts = Absolute average stack gas temperature

(see Figure 5–2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part

60, appendix A), °K(°R).

Tstd = Standard absolute temperature, 293°K

(528°R).

Va = Volume of acetone blank, ml.

Vaw = Volume of acetone used in wash, ml.

Vt = Volume of methylene chloride blank, ml.

Vtw = Volume of methylene chloride used in

wash, ml.

Vlc = Total volume liquid collected in

impingers and silica gel (see Figure 5–3

of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A), ml.

Vm = Volume of gas sample as measured by

dry gas meter, dcm (dcf).

Vm(std) = Volume of gas sample measured by

the dry gas meter, corrected to standard

conditions, dscm (dscf).

Vw(std) = Volume of water vapor in the gas

sample, corrected to standard conditions,

scm (scf).

Vs = Stack gas velocity, calculated by

Equation 2–9 in Method 2, 40 CFR part

60, appendix A, using data obtained

from Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A, m/sec (ft/sec).

Wa = Weight of residue in acetone wash, mg.

Y = Dry gas meter calibration factor.

>H = Average pressure differential across

the orifice meter (see Figure 5–2 of

Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A),

mm H2O (in H2O).

ρa = Density of acetone, 785.1 mg/ml (or see

label on bottle).

ρw = Density of water, 0.9982 g/ml (0.00220l

lb/ml).

ρt = Density of methylene chloride, 1316.8

mg/ml (or see label on bottle).

Θ = Total sampling time, min.

Θ1 = Sampling time interval, from the

beginning of a run until the first

component change, min.

Θ1 = Sampling time interval, between two

successive component changes,

beginning with the interval between the

first and second changes, min.

Θp = Sampling time interval, from the final

(nth) component change until the end of

the sampling run, min.

13.6 = Specific gravity of mercury.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52425

60 = Sec/min.

100 = Conversion to percent.

12.3 Average dry gas meter temperature

and average orifice pressure drop. See data

sheet (Figure 5–2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part

60, appendix A).

12.4 Dry gas volume. Correct the sample

volume measured by the dry gas meter to

standard conditions (20°C, 760 mm Hg or

68°F, 29.92 in Hg) by using Equation 315–1.

V V Y

T P H

T P

V K V Y

P H

T m Eq

std bar

m std

m

bar

m

=

+ 





 = =

+ 







∆ ∆

13 6 13 6

1 315 . . . -1

Where

Kl = 0.3858 °K/mm Hg for metric units,

= 17.64 °R/in Hg for English units.

Note: Equation 315–1 can be used as

written unless the leakage rate observed

during any of the mandatory leak checks (i.e.,

the post-test leak check or leak checks

conducted prior to component changes)

exceeds La. If Lp or Li exceeds La, Equation

315–1 must be modified as follows:

(a) Case I. No component changes made

during sampling run. In this case, replace Vm

in Equation 315–1 with the expression:

[Vm—(Lp—La) Θ]

(b) Case II. One or more component

changes made during the sampling run. In

this case, replace Vm in Equation 315–1 by

the expression:

V L L L L L L m a i a i p a p

i

n

− − ( ) − − ( ) − − ( ) 



 



 =

1 1 ∑

2

Θ Θ Θ

and substitute only for those leakage rates (Li

or Lp) which exceed La.

12.5 Volume of water vapor condensed.

V V

RT

M P w std c K V Eq w std

w std

( ) c = = . 1 2 1 315 ρ -2

Where

K2 = 0.001333 m3/ml for metric units;

= 0.04706 ft3/ml for English units.

12.6 Moisture content.

B

V

V V ws Eq w std

m std w std

= +

( )

( ) ( )

. 315-3

Note: In saturated or water droplet-laden

gas streams, two calculations of the moisture

content of the stack gas shall be made, one

from the impinger analysis (Equation 315-3),

and a second from the assumption of

saturated conditions. The lower of the two

values of Bws shall be considered correct. The

procedure for determining the moisture

content based upon assumption of saturated

conditions is given in section 4.0 of Method

4, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. For the

purposes of this method, the average stack

gas temperature from Figure 5–2 of Method

5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A may be used

to make this determination, provided that the

accuracy of the in-stack temperature sensor is

±1°C (2°F).

12.7 Acetone blank concentration.

C M

V a a

a a

= ρEq. 315-4

12.8 Acetone wash blank.

Wa = Ca Vaw ρa Eq. 315–5

12.9 Total particulate weight. Determine

the total PM catch from the sum of the

weights obtained from Containers l and 2 less

the acetone blank associated with these two

containers (see Figure 315–1).

Note: Refer to section 8.5.8 of this method

to assist in calculation of results involving

two or more filter assemblies or two or more

sampling trains.

12.10 Particulate concentration.

cs = K3 mn/Vm(std) Eq. 315–6

where

K = 0.001 g/mg for metric units;

= 0.0154 gr/mg for English units.

12.11 Conversion factors.

From To Multiply by

ft 3 ................. m 3 ............. 0.02832

gr .................. mg ............. 64.80004

gr/ft3 .............. mg/m3 ....... 2288.4

mg ................. g ................ 0.001

gr .................. lb ............... 1.429×10¥4

12.12 Isokinetic variation.

12.12.1 Calculation from raw data.
52426 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

I

T K V V Y

T

P H

V P A Eq

s c m

m

bar

s s n

=

+ 



 



 + 





 100

13 6

60

315 7

4 1

∆

Θ

. . -

where

K4 = 0.003454 [(mm Hg)(m3)]/[(m1)(°K)] for metric units;

= 0.002669 [(in Hg)(ft3)]/[(m1)(°R)] for English units.

12.12.2 Calculation from intermediate values.

I

T V P

T V A P B

K

T V

P V A B

s m std std

std s n s ws

s m std

s s n ws

= ( ) − = ( ) −

( ) ( ) 100

60 1 1 5 Θ Θ Eq. 315-8

where

K5 = 4.320 for metric units;

= 0.09450 for English units.

12.12.3 Acceptable results. If 90 percent ≤

I ≤ 110 percent, the results are acceptable. If

the PM or MCEM results are low in

comparison to the standard, and ‘‘I’’ is over

110 percent or less than 90 percent, the

Administrator may opt to accept the results.

Reference 4 in the Bibliography may be used

to make acceptability judgments. If ‘‘I’’ is

judged to be unacceptable, reject the results,

and repeat the test.

12.13 Stack gas velocity and volumetric

flow rate. Calculate the average stack gas

velocity and volumetric flow rate, if needed,

using data obtained in this method and the

equations in sections 5.2 and 5.3 of Method

2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

12.14 MCEM results. Determine the

MCEM concentration from the results from

Containers 1, 2, 2M, 3W, and 3S less the

acetone, methylene chloride, and filter

blanks value as determined in the following

equation:

mmcem = Σμtotal ¥ wa ¥ wt ¥ fb

13.0 Method Performance. [Reserved]

14.0 Pollution Prevention. [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management. [Reserved]

16.0 Alternative Procedures.

16.1 Dry gas meter as a calibration

standard. A DGM may be used as a

calibration standard for volume

measurements in place of the wet test meter

specified in section 16.1 of this method,

provided that it is calibrated initially and

recalibrated periodically as follows:

16.1.1 Standard dry gas meter calibration.

16.1.1.1. The DGM to be calibrated and

used as a secondary reference meter should

be of high quality and have an appropriately

sized capacity, e.g., 3 liters/rev (0.1 ft 3/rev).

A spirometer (400 liters or more capacity), or

equivalent, may be used for this calibration,

although a wet test meter is usually more

practical. The wet test meter should have a

capacity of 30 liters/rev (1 ft 3/rev) and be

capable of measuring volume to within 1.0

percent; wet test meters should be checked

against a spirometer or a liquid displacement

meter to ensure the accuracy of the wet test

meter. Spirometers or wet test meters of other

sizes may be used, provided that the

specified accuracies of the procedure are

maintained.

16.1.1.2 Set up the components as shown

in Figure 5–7 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A. A spirometer, or equivalent,

may be used in place of the wet test meter

in the system. Run the pump for at least 5

minutes at a flow rate of about 10 liters/min

(0.35 cfm) to condition the interior surface of

the wet test meter. The pressure drop

indicated by the manometer at the inlet side

of the DGM should be minimized (no greater

than 100 mm H2O [4 in. H2O] at a flow rate

of 30 liters/min [1 cfm]). This can be

accomplished by using large-diameter tubing

connections and straight pipe fittings.

16.1.1.3 Collect the data as shown in the

example data sheet (see Figure 5–8 of Method

5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Make

triplicate runs at each of the flow rates and

at no less than five different flow rates. The

range of flow rates should be between 10 and

34 liters/min (0.35 and 1.2 cfm) or over the

expected operating range.

16.1.1.4 Calculate flow rate, Q, for each

run using the wet test meter volume, Vw, and

the run time, q. Calculate the DGM

coefficient, Yds, for each run. These

calculations are as follows:

Q K P V

t t

bar w

w std

= ( ) + 1 Θ Eq. 315-9

Y

V T T P

V T T P p ds

w ds std bar

ds w std bar

= ( ) +

( ) + + 







∆

13 6.

Eq. 315-10

Where

K1 = 0.3858 for international system of units

(SI); 17.64 for English units;

Pbar = Barometric pressure, mm Hg (in Hg);

Vw = Wet test meter volume, liter (ft3);

tw = Average wet test meter temperature, °C

(°F);

tstd = 273°C for SI units; 460’F for English

units;

Θ = Run time, min;

tds = Average dry gas meter temperature, °C

(°F);

Vds = Dry gas meter volume, liter (ft3);

∆p = Dry gas meter inlet differential pressure,

mm H2O (in H2O).

16.1.1.5 Compare the three Yds values at

each of the flow rates and determine the

maximum and minimum values. The

difference between the maximum and

minimum values at each flow rate should be

no greater than 0.030. Extra sets of triplicate

runs may be made in order to complete this

requirement. In addition, the meter

coefficients should be between 0.95 and 1.05.

If these specifications cannot be met in three

sets of successive triplicate runs, the meter is

not suitable as a calibration standard and

should not be used as such. If these

specifications are met, average the three Yds

values at each flow rate resulting in five

average meter coefficients, Yds.

16.1.1.6 Prepare a curve of meter

coefficient, Yds, versus flow rate, Q, for the

DGM. This curve shall be used as a reference

when the meter is used to calibrate other

DGMs and to determine whether

recalibration is required.

16.1.2 Standard dry gas meter

recalibration.

16.1.2.1 Recalibrate the standard DGM

against a wet test meter or spirometer

annually or after every 200 hours of

operation, whichever comes first. This

requirement is valid provided the standard

DGM is kept in a laboratory and, if

transported, cared for as any other laboratory

instrument. Abuse to the standard meter may

cause a change in the calibration and will

require more frequent recalibrations.

16.1.2.2 As an alternative to full

recalibration, a two-point calibration check

may be made. Follow the same procedure

and equipment arrangement as for a full

recalibration, but run the meter at only two

flow rates (suggested rates are 14 and 28

liters/min [0.5 and 1.0 cfm]). Calculate the

meter coefficients for these two points, and

compare the values with the meter

calibration curve. If the two coefficients are

within 1.5 percent of the calibration curve

values at the same flow rates, the meter need

not be recalibrated until the next date for a

recalibration check.

6.2 Critical orifices as calibration

standards. Critical orifices may be used as
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 52427

calibration standards in place of the wet test

meter specified in section 10.3 of this

method, provided that they are selected,

calibrated, and used as follows:

16.2.1 Selection of critical orifices.

16.2.1.1 The procedure that follows

describes the use of hypodermic needles or

stainless steel needle tubing that has been

found suitable for use as critical orifices.

Other materials and critical orifice designs

may be used provided the orifices act as true

critical orifices; i.e., a critical vacuum can be

obtained, as described in section 7.2.2.2.3 of

Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

Select five critical orifices that are

appropriately sized to cover the range of flow

rates between 10 and 34 liters/min or the

expected operating range. Two of the critical

orifices should bracket the expected

operating range. A minimum of three critical

orifices will be needed to calibrate a Method

5 DGM; the other two critical orifices can

serve as spares and provide better selection

for bracketing the range of operating flow

rates. The needle sizes and tubing lengths

shown in Table 315–1 give the approximate

flow rates indicated in the table.

16.2.1.2 These needles can be adapted to

a Method 5 type sampling train as follows:

Insert a serum bottle stopper, 13 x 20 mm

sleeve type, into a 0.5 in Swagelok quick

connect. Insert the needle into the stopper as

shown in Figure 5–9 of Method 5, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A.

16.2.2 Critical orifice calibration. The

procedure described in this section uses the

Method 5 meter box configuration with a

DGM as described in section 6.1.1.9 of this

method to calibrate the critical orifices. Other

schemes may be used, subject to the approval

of the Administrator.

16.2.2.1 Calibration of meter box. The

critical orifices must be calibrated in the

same configuration as they will be used; i.e.,

there should be no connections to the inlet

of the orifice.

16.2.2.1.1 Before calibrating the meter

box, leak-check the system as follows: Fully

open the coarse adjust valve and completely

close the bypass valve. Plug the inlet. Then

turn on the pump and determine whether

there is any leakage. The leakage rate shall

be zero; i.e., no detectable movement of the

DGM dial shall be seen for 1 minute.

16.2.2.1.2 Check also for leakages in that

portion of the sampling train between the

pump and the orifice meter. See section 5.6

of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A for

the procedure; make any corrections, if

necessary. If leakage is detected, check for

cracked gaskets, loose fittings, worn 0-rings,

etc. and make the necessary repairs.

16.2.2.1.3 After determining that the

meter box is leakless, calibrate the meter box

according to the procedure given in section

5.3 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A. Make sure that the wet test meter meets

the requirements stated in section 7.1.1.1 of

Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

Check the water level in the wet test meter.

Record the DGM calibration factor, Y.

16.2.2.2 Calibration of critical orifices.

Set up the apparatus as shown in Figure 5–

10 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

16.2.2.2.1 Allow a warm-up time of 15

minutes. This step is important to equilibrate

the temperature conditions through the DGM.

16.2.2.2.2 Leak-check the system as in

section 7.2.2.1.1 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A. The leakage rate shall be zero.

16.2.2.2.3 Before calibrating the critical

orifice, determine its suitability and the

appropriate operating vacuum as follows:

turn on the pump, fully open the coarse

adjust valve, and adjust the bypass valve to

give a vacuum reading corresponding to

about half of atmospheric pressure. Observe

the meter box orifice manometer reading, DH.

Slowly increase the vacuum reading until a

stable reading is obtained on the meter box

orifice manometer. Record the critical

vacuum for each orifice. Orifices that do not

reach a critical value shall not be used.

16.2.2.2.4 Obtain the barometric pressure

using a barometer as described in section

6.1.2 of this method. Record the barometric

pressure, Pbar, in mm Hg (in. Hg).

16.2.2.2.5 Conduct duplicate runs at a

vacuum of 25 to 50 mm Hg (1 to 2 in. Hg)

above the critical vacuum. The runs shall be

at least 5 minutes each. The DGM volume

readings shall be in increments of complete

revolutions of the DGM. As a guideline, the

times should not differ by more than 3.0

seconds (this includes allowance for changes

in the DGM temperatures) to achieve ±0.5

percent in K′. Record the information listed

in Figure 5–11 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A.

16.2.2.2.6 Calculate K′ using Equation 315–

11.

K

K V Y P H T

P T

m bar amb

bar m

' . =

+ 





 1

1

2

13 6

∆

Θ Eq. 315-11

where

K′ = Critical orifice coefficient, [m3)(°K)1/2]/

[(mm Hg)(min)] {[(ft3)(°R)1/2)]/[(in.

Hg)(min)]};

Tamb = Absolute ambient temperature, °K

(°R).

16.2.2.2.7 Average the K′ values. The

individual K’ values should not differ by

more than ±0.5 percent from the average.

16.2.3 Using the critical orifices as

calibration standards.

16.2.3.1 Record the barometric pressure.

16.2.3.2 Calibrate the metering system

according to the procedure outlined in

sections 7.2.2.2.1 to 7.2.2.2.5 of Method 5, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A. Record the

information listed in Figure 5–12 of Method

5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

16.2.3.3 Calculate the standard volumes

of air passed through the DGM and the

critical orifices, and calculate the DGM

calibration factor, Y, using the equations

below:

Vm(std) = K1 Vm [Pbar + (>H/13.6)]/Tm Eq.

315–12

Vcr(std) = K′ (Pbar Θ)/Tamb1/2 Eq. 315–13

Y = Vcr(std)/Vm(std) Eq. 315–14

where

Vcr(std) = Volume of gas sample passed

through the critical orifice, corrected to

standard conditions, dscm (dscf).

K′ = 0.3858 °K/mm Hg for metric units

= 17.64 °R/in Hg for English units.

16.2.3.4 Average the DGM calibration

values for each of the flow rates. The

calibration factor, Y, at each of the flow rates

should not differ by more than ±2 percent

from the average.

16.2.3.5 To determine the need for

recalibrating the critical orifices, compare the

DGM Y factors obtained from two adjacent

orifices each time a DGM is calibrated; for

example, when checking orifice 13/2.5, use

orifices 12/10.2 and 13/5.1. If any critical

orifice yields a DGM Y factor differing by

more than 2 percent from the others,

recalibrate the critical orifice according to

section 7.2.2.2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A.

17.0 References.

1. Addendum to Specifications for

Incinerator Testing at Federal Facilities. PHS,

NCAPC. December 6, 1967.

2. Martin, Robert M. Construction Details

of Isokinetic Source-Sampling Equipment.

Environmental Protection Agency. Research

Triangle Park, NC. APTD–0581. April 1971.

3. Rom, Jerome J. Maintenance, Calibration,

and Operation of Isokinetic Source Sampling

Equipment. Environmental Protection

Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. APTD–

0576. March 1972.

4. Smith, W.S., R.T. Shigehara, and W.F.

Todd. A Method of Interpreting Stack

Sampling Data. Paper Presented at the 63rd

Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control

Association, St. Louis, MO. June 14–19, 1970.

5. Smith, W.S., et al. Stack Gas Sampling

Improved and Simplified With New

Equipment. APCA Paper No. 67–119. 1967.

6. Specifications for Incinerator Testing at

Federal Facilities. PHS, NCAPC. 1967.

7. Shigehara, R.T. Adjustment in the EPA

Nomograph for Different Pitot Tube

Coefficients and Dry Molecular Weights.

Stack Sampling News 2:4–11. October 1974.

8. Vollaro, R.F. A Survey of Commercially

Available Instrumentation for the

Measurement of Low-Range Gas Velocities.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Emission Measurement Branch. Research

Triangle Park, NC. November 1976

(unpublished paper).

9. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part

26. Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke;

Atmospheric Analysis. American Society for
52428 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 7, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA.

1974. pp. 617–622.

10. Felix, L.G., G.I. Clinard, G.E. Lacy, and

J.D. McCain. Inertial Cascade Impactor

Substrate Media for Flue Gas Sampling. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Research

Triangle Park, NC 27711. Publication No.

EPA–600/7–77–060. June 1977. 83 p.

11. Westlin, P.R., and R.T. Shigehara.

Procedure for Calibrating and Using Dry Gas

Volume Meters as Calibration Standards.

Source Evaluation Society Newsletter.

3(1):17–30. February 1978.

12. Lodge, J.P., Jr., J.B. Pate, B.E. Ammons,

and G.A. Swanson. The Use of Hypodermic

Needles as Critical Orifices in Air Sampling.

J. Air Pollution Control Association. 16:197–

200. 1966.

18.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and

Validation Data

TABLE 315–1. FLOW RATES FOR VARIOUS NEEDLE SIZES AND TUBE LENGTHS.

Gauge/length

(cm)

Flow rate

(liters/min)

Gauge/length

(cm)

Flow rate

(liters/min)

12/7.6 ................................................................................. 32.56 14/2.5 ............................................................................... 19.54

12/10.2 ............................................................................... 30.02 14/5.1 ............................................................................... 17.27

13/2.5 ................................................................................. 25.77 14/7.6 ............................................................................... 16.14

13/5.1 ................................................................................. 23.50 15/3.2 ............................................................................... 14.16

13/7.6 ................................................................................. 22.37 15/7.6 ............................................................................... 11.61

13/10.2 ............................................................................... 20.67 115/10.2 ........................................................................... 10.48

Figure 315–1. Particulate and MCEM Analyses

Particulate Analysis

Plant ...................................................................................................................................

Date ....................................................................................................................................

Run No. ..............................................................................................................................

Filter No. ............................................................................................................................

Amount liquid lost during transport ....................................................................................

Acetone blank volume (ml) ................................................................................................

Acetone blank concentration (Eq. 315–4) (mg/mg) ...........................................................

Acetone wash blank (Eq. 315–5) (mg) ..............................................................................

Final

weight

(mg)

Tare

weight

(mg)

Weight gain

(mg)

Container No. 1 ............................................................................................................................................

Container No. 2 ............................................................................................................................................

Total ......................................................................................................................................................

Less Acetone blank ......................................................................................................................................

Weight of particulate matter .........................................................................................................................

Final

volume

(mg)

Initial

volume

(mg)

Liquid

collected

(mg)

Moisture Analysis

Impingers ...................................................................................................................................................... Note 1 Note 1

Silica gel .......................................................................................................................................................

Total ......................................................................................................................................................

Note 1: Convert volume of water to weight by multiplying by the density of water (1 g/ml).

Container No. Final weight

(mg)

Tare of aluminum dish

(mg)

Weight

gain

Acetone

wash volume (ml)

Methylene

chloride

wash volume (ml)

MCEM Analysis

1 ......................................................................................................................

2+2M ...............................................................................................................

3W ...................................................................................................................

3S ....................................................................................................................

Total ......................................................................................................... .................... .................... 7mtotal 7Vaw 7Vtw

Less acetone wash blank (mg) (not to exceed 1 mg/l of acetone used) ......................................................... wa = capa 7Vaw

Less methylene chloride wash blank (mg) (not to exceed 1.5 mg/l of methylene chloride used) ................... wt = ctpt 7Vtw

Less filter blank (mg) (not to exceed . . . (mg/filter) ........................................................................................ Fb

MCEM weight (mg) ........................................................................................................................................... mMCEOM = 7mtotal ¥ wa ¥ wt ¥ fb

[FR Doc. 97–25882 Filed 10–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P