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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for each new

or existing potline, paste production operation, and anode bake furnace

associated with a primary aluminum reduction plant. The major hazardous

air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by the facilities covered by this

proposed rule include hydrogen fluoride (HF) and polycyclic organic

matter (POM). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are included in

the chemical group POM. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been

reported to produce carcinogenic, reproductive, and developmental

effects as well as toxic effects on blood, the liver, eyes and the

immune system. The proposed rule will result in a 50 percent reduction

in fluoride and POM emissions from the current level of 11,000 tons per

year (tpy); a substantial reduction in emissions of nonHAP pollutants,

such as particulate matter, also would be achieved.

The proposed standards implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air

Act as amended (the Act) and are based on the Administrator's

determination that primary aluminum plants may reasonably be

anticipated to emit several of the 189 HAPs listed in section 112(b) of

the Act from the various process operations found within the industry.

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept comments on the proposed rule

until November 25, 1996.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a

public hearing by October 17, 1996, a public hearing will be held on

October 28, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m. For more information, see VII, B

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in

duplicate, if possible) to Docket No. A-92-60 at the following address:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be

sent to the contact person listed below. The docket is located at the

above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor) and may be

inspected from 8:30 a.m. to noon, and from 1 to 3 p.m., Monday through

Friday. The proposed regulatory text, proposed Method 315, the Basis

and Purpose Document, Technical Support Document, and other materials

related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket.

Copies of this information may be obtained by request from the Air

Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket materials.

The public hearing will be held at the EPA Office of Administration

Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Fruh, Policy, Planning, and

Standards Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2837.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by this action are those that emit

or have the potential to emit HAPs listed in Sec. 112(b) of the Act.

Regulated categories and entities include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

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

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this

action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware

could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities

not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether

your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine

the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.840 of the proposed rule. If you

have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Technology Transfer Network

A detailed evaluation and rationale for this notice of proposal are

provided in the Basis and Purpose Document. The Basis and Purpose

Document, proposed regulation, and this preamble also are available on

the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin

boards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various

areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for the

cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 with a modem of up to 14,400

baud per second (BPS). If more information on the TTN is needed, call

the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Outline

The information in this preamble is organized as shown below.

I. Statutory Authority

II. Introduction

A. Background

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

C. Overview of the Industry

D. Health Effects of Pollutants

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Applicability

B. Subcategories

C. Emission Control Technology

D. Emission Limits

E. Emission Monitoring and Compliance Provisions

F. Emission Averaging

G. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

B. Cost and Economic Impacts

V. Selection of Proposed Standards

A. Selection of Pollutants

B. Selection of Emission Limits

VI. Public Participation

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

B. Public Hearing

C. Executive Order 12866

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive

Order 12875

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

H. Clean Air Act

I. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections

101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.

7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Introduction

A. Background

This proposed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard

was developed as a pilot demonstration of EPA's Share-A-MACT program.

Under this rulemaking approach, EPA works with State regulatory

agencies and tribal governments to resolve major issues while working

in a cooperative effort with industry and professional associations to

identify data needs and

[[Page 50587]]

to collect, exchange, and analyze the information and data. For

example, on this project emission tests were conducted with shared

funding from EPA, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the

aluminum industry.

The proposed standard is based on a combination of control

techniques that either prevent the escape of emissions or capture the

pollutants and return them to the process. These pollution prevention

measures include work practices, equipment modifications, operating

practices, housekeeping measures, and in-process recycling. The overall

effect of the proposed standard will be to raise the control

performance of nearly half of the industry to the level of control

achieved by the best performing plants. Currently, over 11,000 tpy of

fluoride and POM are emitted nationwide; these emissions would be

reduced by more than 50 percent, and higher reductions would be

achieved at particular sites. Emissions of total particulate matter

also would be reduced by 16,000 tpy. These reductions will lower

ambient air concentrations of these pollutants and, consequently, lower

levels of exposure. The deposition of fluorides and POM on waters, such

as the Great Lakes, also would be reduced. These benefits will be

achieved with no plant closures predicted and without any significant

adverse economic impacts on the industry. According to the economic

analysis, the price of aluminum is projected to increase by less than 1

percent, and total revenue and employment will decrease by less than 1

percent. Total capital expenditures are estimated as $160 million, with

a total annualized cost of $40 million per year.

The proposed standard provides flexibility to the owner or operator

with an incentive for improved performance. For example, the proposed

monitoring requirements allow less frequent sampling at plants that

show consistent performance below the level of the standard; provisions

for similar potlines allow a reduction in manual sampling and the use

of less expensive alternative sampling; and provisions are included for

emission averaging. Additional time for achieving compliance also is

allowed for existing sources, depending on the extent of changes needed

to meet the standards.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

Section 112(b) of the Act lists 189 HAPs and directs the EPA to

develop rules to control all major and some area sources emitting HAPs.

On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), the EPA published a list of major and

area sources for which NESHAP are to be promulgated, and primary

aluminum production was one of the 174 categories of sources listed.

The listing was based on the Administrator's determination that primary

aluminum plants may reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the

189 listed HAPs in sufficient quantity to be designated as major

sources. The EPA schedule for promulgation of the MACT standards was

published on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941), and requires that rules

for the primary aluminum source category be promulgated by November 15,

1997.

C. Overview of the Industry

Primary aluminum plants produce aluminum metal through the

electrolytic reduction of aluminum oxide (alumina) by direct current

voltage in an electrolyte (called ``cryolite'') of sodium aluminum

fluoride. There are 23 primary aluminum plants currently located in a

total of 14 States. Many of these plants are concentrated in the

Northwest in close proximity to hydroelectric power sources. The 23

plants have 91 potlines that produce aluminum, each plant has a paste

production operation, and 17 of these plants have anode bake furnaces.

The major HAPs emitted by these facilities are HF and POM.

Primary aluminum plants are subject to varying State emission

limits for TF developed pursuant to section 111(d) of the Act. A total

of 5 potlines at 4 plants are subject to New Source Performance

Standards (NSPS) for primary aluminum reduction plants (40 CFR part 60,

subpart S). The EPA is considering removing the NSPS and incorporating

any necessary provisions into this proposed rule to avoid duplicative

control requirements, eliminate redundant monitoring provisions, and to

reduce paperwork. Removal of the NSPS would probably require certain

changes to this rule for those specific cases that would have otherwise

triggered the NSPS. For sources that would have been subject to the

NSPS, these changes could include incorporating the part 60 provisions

for modifications, establishing the NSPS limits when appropriate, and

adopting the NSPS opacity limits. The EPA is requesting comments on the

concept of removal of the NSPS and the specific additional provisions

that would need to be incorporated into this proposed rule.

D. Health Effects of Pollutants

The Clean Air Act was created in part ``to protect and enhance the

quality of the nation's air resources so as to promote the public

health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.''

[See section 101(b)(1).] Section 112 of the Act establishes a control

technology-based program to reduce stationary source emissions of HAPs.

The goal of the section 112(d) MACT standards is to apply such control

technology to reduce emissions and thereby reduce the hazard of HAPs

emitted from stationary sources.

This proposed rule is technology-based, i.e., based on MACT. The

MACT strategy avoids depending on a detailed and comprehensive risk

assessment for MACT standards for control of air toxics for the

following reasons: (1) some of the HAPs emitted from stationary sources

are unknown, and (2) many of the HAPs about which EPA has emissions

information lack complete data with which to describe health hazards.

The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health

resulting from the most significant emissions identified can range from

mild to severe. The extent to which the effects could be experienced

depends upon the ambient concentrations and exposure time. The latter

is further influenced by source-specific characteristics such as

emission rates and local meteorological conditions. Human variability

factors also influence the degree to which effects to health occur:

genetics, age, pre-existing health conditions, and lifestyle.

Available emission data, in conjunction with development of the

proposed standard, show that HF and POM are the HAPs that are most

significant and that have the potential for reduction by implementation

of the standard. The emission limits in the proposed standard would

reduce emissions of both HF, a gaseous inorganic compound, and POM. The

proposed standard also would reduce emissions of particulate matter

(PM), which is controlled under the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) as a ``criteria'' pollutant. Following is a summary

of the potential health effects caused by emissions of pollutants that

would be reduced by the standard.

Short-term inhalation exposure to gaseous HF and related fluoride

compounds can cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including

severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Long-term inhalation exposure to

low levels of HF by humans has been reported to result in irritation

and congestion of the nose, throat, and bronchi while damage to liver,

kidney, and lungs has been observed in animals. There is generally a

lack of information on human health effects associated with exposures

to HF at current ambient air concentrations

[[Page 50588]]

near primary aluminum plants. Occupational studies have not

specifically implicated inhaled fluoride as a cause of cancer, and the

Agency has not classified HF with respect to potential carcinogenicity.

Emission test results reveal that primary aluminum reduction plants

may emit POM, which includes a combination of PAHs such as anthracene,

benzo(a)pyrene, and naphthalene, among others. Several of the PAH

compounds, including benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,

benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, are probable human

carcinogens. Cancer is the major concern from exposure to these PAHs.

Specifically, long-term exposure to benzo(a)pyrene has been reported to

result in toxic effects on skin, irritation to eyes and cataracts in

humans, and toxic effects on liver, blood, and the immune system in

animal studies. Reproductive and developmental effects from

benzo(a)pyrene have also been reported in animal studies.

The health effects of ``criteria'' pollutants reduced by this

proposed standard (e.g., particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in

diameter [PM10]) are described in EPA's criteria documents that

support the NAAQS. For example, particles addressed by the PM10

standard have been associated with aggravation of existing respiratory

and cardiovascular disease and increased risk of premature death.

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Applicability

The proposed standard would apply to emissions of HF, measured

using total fluorides (TF) as a surrogate, and POM (as measured by

methylene chloride extractables) from each affected source associated

with primary aluminum reduction. Affected sources are each potline of

reduction cells, each anode bake furnace, and each paste production

plant, except for one off-site anode bake furnace that is subject to

the State MACT determination under section 112(l) of the Act.

B. Subcategories

Section 112(d) of the Act requires EPA to establish emission

standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources.

Section 112(d)(1) of the Act states that ``the Administrator may

distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a

category * * * in establishing such standards * * *.'' In establishing

subcategories, EPA has considered factors such as air pollution control

engineering differences, process operations (including differences

between batch and continuous operations), emission characteristics,

control device applicability, and opportunities for pollution

prevention.

The EPA's analysis of existing aluminum production processes and

operations resulted in the designation of seven subcategories for

potlines. For the subcategories of potlines, the distinctions are based

primarily on differences in the process operation, process equipment,

emissions, and the applicability of control devices. Additional

information on the subcategorization is included in the Basis and

Purpose Document for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants.

One of the subcategories was developed for center-worked prebake

potlines with wet primary control systems. These potlines produce a

high purity aluminum for a specialized market, and they can do so only

because metal impurities are removed with the sludge from the wet

scrubbers. If these potlines were required to be equipped with dry

alumina scrubbers, the contaminants would be returned to the reduction

cell and contaminate the aluminum. The company claims that if they must

meet MACT for the prebake subcategory of modern potlines with dry

alumina scrubbers, they could lose their market for high purity

aluminum. The EPA is requesting comments on the issue of a separate

subcategory for potlines that produce high purity aluminum.

C. Emission Control Technology

The control option for primary emissions from the reduction process

for six of the seven subcategories of existing potlines and for all new

potlines is the installation of a dry alumina scrubber (with a baghouse

to collect the alumina and other particulate matter) at those plants

that do not have them. The control option for prebake plants producing

high purity aluminum is a wet scrubber that removes impurities that

would otherwise contaminate the aluminum. The MACT technology used to

establish the floor of performance for potline secondary emission

control involves the use of wet roof scrubbers for side-worked prebake

potlines and one type of Soderberg potline. Work practice programs,

inspection procedures, and maintenance programs for repairing or

replacing damaged hoods and seals provide the most efficient control

for secondary emissions from other types of existing and new potlines.

Based on EPA's MACT floor analyses, the dry alumina scrubber also is

the MACT floor technology for new and existing anode bake furnaces, and

a capture system vented to a dry coke scrubber is the MACT floor

technology for new and existing paste production operations.

For the one bake furnace plant not located with a primary aluminum

reduction plant, the MACT floor control technology (dry alumina

scrubbers) does not apply because the plant does not have access to

alumina as do other bake furnaces, and there are no potlines onsite to

use the reacted alumina. Consequently, EPA placed this plant in a

separate subcategory and proposes to adopt the State MACT determination

for this facility. This approach is consistent with EPA's policy of

working with the States, adopting MACT determinations from State

programs when appropriate, and avoiding regulatory duplication.

No additional control options were identified that had been

demonstrated to be more effective than the MACT floor technologies at a

reasonable cost or that would achieve significant additional reductions

in HAP emissions. Consequently, the technologies associated with the

MACT floor were also determined to represent the MACT technology.

Additional information on EPA's beyond-the-floor analysis is included

in the Basis and Purpose Document.

D. Emission Limits

Analyses of available data led EPA to conclude that the emission

levels shown in Table 1 for existing sources and Table 2 for new

sources represent the MACT floor and MACT for each emission source.

Table 1.--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for Existing Sources

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

Source Emission limit

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

Potlines........................................................... TF Emission Limits:

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

produced for CWPB1 \1\ potlines.

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

produced for CWPB2 \1\ potlines.

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

produced for CWPB3 \1\ potlines.

[[Page 50589]]

0.80 kg/Mg (1.6 lb/ton) of aluminum

produced for SWPB \1\ potlines.

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

produced for VSS1 \1\ potlines.

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

produced for VSS2 \1\ potlines.

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

produced for HSS \1\ potlines.

POM Emission Limits:

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

produced for HSS potlines.

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

produced for VSS1 potlines.

1.85 kg/Mg (3.7 lb/ton) of aluminum

produced for VSS2 potlines.

Paste Production................................................... POM Emission Limit: Install, operate, and

maintain equipment for capture of

emissions and vent emissions to a dry coke

scrubber.

Anode Bake Furnace (located with a primary aluminum plant)......... TF Emission Limit: 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton)

of anode.

POM Emission Limit: 0.09 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/

ton) of anode.

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

\1\ Abbreviations defined:

CWPB1=Center-worked prebake potline with the most modern reduction cells; includes all center-worked prebake

potlines not specifically identified as CWPB2 or CWPB3.

CWPB2=Center-worked prebake potlines located at Alcoa in Rockdale, Texas; Kaiser Aluminum in Mead, Washington;

Ormet Corporation in Hannibal, Ohio; Ravenswood Aluminum in Ravenswood, West Virginia; Reynolds Metals in

Troutdale, Oregon; and Vanalco Aluminum in Vancouver, Washington.

CWPB3=Center-worked prebake potline that produces very high purity aluminum, has wet scrubbers as the primary

control system, and is located at the primary aluminum plant operated by NSA in Hawesville, Kentucky.

HSS=Horizontal stud Soderberg potline.

SWPB=Side-worked prebake potline.

VSS1=Vertical stud Soderberg potline at Northwest Aluminum in The Dalles, Oregon, or at Columbia Aluminum in

Goldendale, Washington.

VSS2=Vertical stud Soderberg potlines at Columbia Falls Aluminum in Columbia Falls, Montana.

Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Emission Limits for New Sources

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

Source Emission limit

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

Potlines.......................... TF Emission Limit: 0.6 kg/Mg (1.2 lb/

ton) of aluminum produced.

POM Emission Limit: 0.32 kg/Mg (0.63

lb/ton) of aluminum produced.

Paste Production.................. POM Emission Limit: Install,

operate, and maintain equipment for

the capture of emissions and vent

emissions to a dry coke scrubber.

Anode Bake Furnace................ TF Emission Limit: 0.01 kg/Mg (0.02

lb/ton) of anode.

POM Emission Limit: 0.025 kg/Mg

(0.05 lb/ton) of anode.

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

The limits for potlines are in the same format as the NSPS (40 CFR

part 60, subpart S)--kilogram of pollutant per megagram of aluminum

(kg/Mg) or pound of pollutant per ton of aluminum (lb/ton). A similar

format, lb/ton of anode, is used for emission limits for anode bake

plants.

An equipment standard requiring installation of a capture system

and the routing of emissions through a closed system to a dry coke

scrubber or equivalent alternative control device is proposed for paste

production. If an alternative to the dry coke scrubber is used, the

control device must achieve a POM removal efficiency of at least 95

percent for continuous paste mixing operations and at least 90 percent

for batch operations. The capture system must be designed and operated

to meet generally accepted engineering standards for minimum exhaust

rates.

E. Emission Monitoring and Compliance Provisions

The proposed standard requires monthly sampling of TF secondary

emissions from each potline using Methods 13 and 14 (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A) or an approved alternative method and quarterly sampling of

POM for Soderberg potlines using proposed Method 315 or an approved

alternative method. For secondary emissions, the owner or operator

would perform at least three runs per month for TF and at least one run

per month (three runs per quarter) for POM from Soderberg potlines.

Annual sampling of TF using Method 13 and POM (for Soderberg

potlines) using Method 315 would be required for the primary emission

control system for potlines. To demonstrate compliance, the owner or

operator would compute a monthly average for TF and a quarterly average

for POM using the results of at least three runs for secondary

emissions of TF (or POM), the aluminum production rate, and the most

recent compliance test for the primary control system. If the primary

control system has been sampled more than once in the previous 12-month

period, then the average of all runs during the 12-month period is to

be used to determine the contribution from the primary system.

Annual sampling of TF using Method 13 and POM using proposed Method

315 would be required for the anode bake furnace stack. Compliance with

the applicable emission limits for anode bake plants would be

determined by the average of at least three runs annually.

The proposed standard also would require the monitoring of control

device parameters. For example, plants with dry alumina scrubbers must

perform a daily visual inspection of the stack and install devices to

monitor the flow of alumina and air. The control device parameters

would be evaluated from data collected during the initial performance

test and from historical performance tests to determine upper and/or

lower limit(s), as appropriate, for each process parameter. The owner

or operator may redetermine the upper and/or lower operating limits, as

appropriate, based on historical data and other information and submit

an application to the regulatory authority to change the applicable

limit(s). A corrective action program would be triggered if the control

device is operating outside of the acceptable range for the specified

parameters. Failure to initiate corrective actions within one hour

after exceeding the limit is a violation. A violation also occurs if

the operating limit for a parameter is exceeded more than 6

[[Page 50590]]

times in any semiannual reporting period. For the purpose of

determining the number of exceedances, no more than one exceedance

would be attributed in any given 24 hour period.

Typically, EPA has considered the exceedance of established

operating parameters for the control device to be a violation. However,

several factors indicated that triggering a corrective action program

would be more appropriate for this application of control device

monitoring. An important consideration was that a change in a control

device's operating parameter does not directly correlate with an

increase in emissions and does not provide reasonable assurance that

the emission limit was exceeded when the parameter changed. The

acceptable range for the operating parameter that is monitored is

established during performance testing. However, if the source is

performing well below the emission limit during the performance test,

the range established for the monitoring parameter would not be

representative of operation at a level when actual emissions are close

to (but still below) the applicable emission limit. In other words, the

operating parameter may be outside the limit established during the

performance test while emissions are still below the applicable limit.

The primary value of monitoring the control device parameters is to

detect a potential problem with the device's operation as soon as

possible and to promptly investigate and correct the cause.

The owner or operator also must install devices to measure the

daily weight of aluminum produced and the weight of anodes placed in

the furnace for an operating cycle. This information is needed to

determine the average production rate used in compliance equations. The

total weight of all anodes placed in the furnace may be measured, or

the number of anodes placed in the furnace and a representative weight

may be measured to determine the total weight.

Similar Potlines. Provisions also are included in the proposed

standard to allow the owner or operator to perform manual sampling of

only one potline in a group of similar potlines and to use less

expensive monitoring techniques for the other similar potlines. To show

that a potline is similar, the owner or operator must demonstrate that

the level of emission control is equivalent for all of the potlines in

the group according to the requirements included in the proposed

standard. Hydrogen fluoride continuous emission monitors (CEMs) and

Alcan cassette samplers are approved to show that the performance of

similar potlines is the same as or better than that of the potline

sampled using Methods 13 and 14. After demonstrating that the potlines

are similar, EPA methods must be used to monitor one potline, and the

other similar potlines must be monitored using an approved alternative

procedure.

The EPA is also considering work practice inspections as an option

to show similar performance among potlines. However, this issue is

unresolved because every specific work practice and its corresponding

effect on emissions are difficult to identify and quantify, and there

is no evidence that a work practice ``score'' is relatable to emission

rates. For this approach to be acceptable, the owner or operator must

demonstrate the validity of the approach and correlate the results of

work practice inspections to measured emissions. The EPA specifically

requests comments on the acceptability of work practice inspections as

a measure of emission control performance.

Reduced Sampling. The owner or operator of a plant that

demonstrates consistent compliance with an applicable emission limit

and low variability may apply for a reduced sampling frequency, such as

quarterly sampling instead of monthly sampling.

Alternative Method. Under the proposed standard, the owner or

operator can use an approved alternative method for measuring

emissions. An approved alternative may include an HF CEM or the Alcan

cassette sampling system. Continuous emission monitors are currently

being evaluated at several plants and have shown promise as a process

control tool as well as for monitoring secondary emissions at a lower

cost than manual methods. The EPA decided not to require the use of an

HF CEM, but is including provisions for its use in the rule. However,

the new HF monitors do not operate on the same principles as other CEMs

for which EPA has developed performance specifications and quality

assurance/quality control provisions. Until these specifications are

developed, EPA does not believe the new monitors should be required.

However, the Agency encourages their development and use by accepting

the use of the monitors as an approved alternative to monthly sampling

on a case-by-case basis for those plants that show it to be an

acceptable alternative to Methods 13 and 14.

To show that another method is an acceptable alternative, the owner

or operator would be required to develop a correlation with results

from the applicable methods in the rule (such as Methods 13, 14, and

315) to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority. For fluoride

measurements, the alternative method must account for or include

gaseous fluoride and cannot be based on measurement of particulate

matter or particulate fluoride alone because HF, the HAP of interest,

is in gaseous form. The EPA and industry are currently investigating

the use of Alcan cassettes as an alternative to Methods 13 and 14. If

this method development is completed successfully, the Alcan cassette

will be approved as an applicable method for TF under this proposed

rule.

F. Emission Averaging

The proposed standard contains provisions allowing the owner or

operator to demonstrate compliance through averaging emissions of TF

from all existing potlines, POM from Soderberg potlines, and TF and POM

from anode bake furnaces. The provisions in the proposed standard limit

averaging to like sources (i.e., TF emissions from a potline can be

averaged only with TF emissions from another potline) and to those

sources located on the plant site and within the same State or

regulatory jurisdiction. Averaging between pollutants (TF and POM) is

not allowed. Emission averaging would not be allowed in any State that

selects to exclude this option from its approved permitting program.

The emission limits for emission averaging are summarized in Table

3. This approach requires that the monthly average of TF emissions from

the group of sources not exceed the average performance demonstrated as

the MACT level of control (increased by a small amount to account for

variability).

[[Page 50591]]

Table 3.--Potline TF and POM Limits for Emission Averaging

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

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

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

Monthly TF limit (lb/ton) for given number of potlines

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

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

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

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

VSS1...................................... 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

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

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

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

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

Quarterly POM limit (lb/ton) for number of potlines

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

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

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

VSS2...................................... 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0

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

Monthly TF and quarterly POM limits for each group of potlines (two

or more lines) are included in the rule. Under this approach, the owner

or operator would sample TF and/or POM emissions from at least three

runs each month/quarter for each potline in the group to determine the

average emissions from each potline. The sum of emissions from each

potline would be divided by total aluminum production from all of the

potlines for the month (or for the quarter for POM) to determine the

emissions in lb/ton for comparison to the applicable emission limit.

Emission averaging limits for TF and POM from anode bake furnaces

were also developed and allow the annual testing of bake furnaces to be

averaged across multiple bake furnaces. The applicable emission limits

are given in Table 4.

To implement emissions averaging, the owner or operator would be

required to include the information specified in the rule in the

application for a part 70 permit or in an Implementation Plan (if the

application has already been submitted) for approval by the applicable

regulatory authority. The regulatory authority would review and approve

or disapprove the plan within a specified time period based on the

criteria included in the standard.

Table 4.--Anode Bake Furnace Limits for Emission Averaging

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

Emission limit (lb/ton

of anode)

Number of furnaces -------------------------

TF POM

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

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

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

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

5............................................. 0.070 0.17

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

The information to be provided in the permit or plan would include

the type of plan selected, the emission sources to be averaged, and the

applicable limit assigned to each source. The owner or operator may

submit a request to revise the plan, or if emission averaging is not

selected initially, the owner or operator may submit a request to

implement emission averaging after the compliance date.

The emissions averaging system in this rule is intended to provide

a facility with flexibility to achieve the required emissions

reductions in the most cost effective way. Consistent with EPA policy

on regulatory flexibility expressed in the economic incentive program

rule (59 FR 16690, April 7, 1994), the use of emissions averaging under

this rule should reduce pollution as well as benefit regulated

entities. Compliance through averaging is expected to achieve somewhat

greater emissions reductions than would occur without averaging.

G. Notification, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements

Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for MACT

standards are included in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part

63, subpart A). The proposed standard would incorporate all of these

provisions, except that the existing performance specifications for CEM

are not applicable to an HF CEM because such specifications have not

yet been developed for that device.

The proposed requirements would include one-time notifications of

applicability, intent to construct or reconstruct, anticipated startup

date, actual startup date, date of performance test, compliance status,

and, if applicable, the intent to use an HF CEM. The owner or operator

also would submit a report of performance test results (which can be

sent as part of the compliance status notification) and semiannual

reports of excess emissions, if any excess emissions occurred. If

excess emissions are reported, quarterly reports are required until

compliance has been demonstrated for 1 year. A startup, shutdown, and

malfunction plan also would be required with semiannual reports of

events that are not managed according to the plan. The plan must also

include the corrective actions to be taken if the limit for a control

device's operating parameter is exceeded.

Recordkeeping requirements for all MACT standards are established

in section 63.10(b) of the General Provisions. In addition to these

requirements, the proposed standard would specifically require plants

to maintain records of the corrective actions taken when a control

device's operating parameter is exceeded and the daily production rate

for aluminum and anodes.

If an HF CEM were used as an alternative monitoring method, the

owner or operator would be required to submit a report to the

applicable regulatory authority containing the correlation and

information showing how the correlation was derived.

All records must be retained for at least 5 years following the

date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action,

report, or record. The records for the most recent 2 years must be

retained on site; records for the remaining 3 years may be retained off

site but still must be readily available for review. The files may be

retained on microfilm, on microfiche, on a computer, or on computer or

magnetic disks.

Compliance with the standard must be demonstrated at startup for

new sources and in 2 to 4 years from the effective date of the final

rule for existing sources. All plants would be allowed at least 2

years. The EPA

[[Page 50592]]

believes that additional time beyond the 2-year period should be

allowed for sources that must make major capital investments to achieve

compliance. An extension for a fourth year may be granted by the

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

IV. Summary of Impacts

A. Environmental Impacts

Nationwide emissions from primary aluminum potlines are estimated

at 6,400 tpy of TF. After implementation of the proposed standards,

these emissions would decrease by almost 50 percent to 3,400 tpy.

Polycyclic organic matter emissions would be reduced by about 45

percent, from 3,200 tpy to 1,800 tpy. TF emissions from the anode bake

furnaces are estimated at 700 tpy; POM emissions are estimated at 555

tpy. After control of all bake furnaces, TF emissions would be reduced

by 97 percent and an 84-percent reduction would be achieved for POM

emissions. Polycyclic organic matter emissions from paste production

plants, estimated at 147 tpy at baseline, would be reduced by about 130

tpy, to about 16 tpy--an 89 percent reduction from current levels.

Emissions of other HAPs included in the TF and POM emissions would also

be reduced, as would non-HAP pollutants such as PM. For example, PM

emissions would be reduced by 16,000 tpy.

The generation of solid waste and wastewater will be reduced when

at least one plant replaces its wet scrubber system with a dry alumina

scrubber. The dry alumina scrubber captures fluorides and other

pollutants and returns them to the reduction cell. The proposed rule is

estimated to have no significant effect on energy consumption.

B. Cost and Economic Impacts

The total capital cost of the proposed rule is estimated as about

$160 million with a total annualized cost of $40 million per year. The

estimated nationwide capital and annual costs of the proposed standards

for potlines are estimated at $104 million and $23 million per year,

respectively. The major cost impacts expected arise from the

installation of dry alumina scrubbers for the primary control system at

one plant and work practices, operating procedures, maintenance and

repair, and equipment modifications at most plants. A few plants may

incur capital costs to replace or upgrade hoods or doors and to install

automated equipment for improved emission control.

The cost estimates for paste production assume that the 18 plants

without dry coke scrubbers for the control of POM emissions will each

install one. However, some plants may be able to meet the proposed

performance standard with dry alumina scrubbers or other control

devices, or they may be able to utilize many of the components of their

existing system. The total capital cost is estimated at $26 million and

the estimated total annualized cost is $6.1 million per year. The total

capital cost for control of anode bake furnaces, estimated at $20.6

million, assumes that the 5 of 17 plants without a dry alumina scrubber

must each install one. The total annualized cost is estimated at $6.2

million per year.

Currently, about one-third of existing potlines are sampled for TF

on a regular basis. Because of the flexibility provided in the rule,

many plants are expected to take advantage of the use of HF CEMs and

Alcan cassettes for similar potlines, both of which are much less

expensive than manual sampling using Methods 13 and 14. The nationwide

capital cost estimate of $7 million for monitoring equipment includes

new Method 14 manifolds, HF CEMs, and Alcan cassettes. The total

annualized cost of monitoring (including capital recovery) is estimated

as about $4 million per year after all plants are subject to the rule.

These costs may be reduced significantly as plants qualify for reduced

sampling frequency (e.g., quarterly instead of monthly). The CEM will

have value as a process monitoring tool in addition to its use for

monitoring to determine compliance.

The market price increase calculation indicated that implementing

the controls will result in a primary aluminum market price increase of

less than 1 percent. As a result of the low market price increase and

relatively inelastic demand, the corresponding changes in output,

employment, and total revenue were also low (all less than 1 percent).

Therefore, the economic impact analysis estimates that the proposed

rule will not result in significant economic impacts for the primary

aluminum industry.

V. Selection of Proposed Standard

A. Selection of Pollutants

Total Fluoride. Historically, the combination of gaseous and

particulate fluorides emitted from aluminum plants have been measured

and regulated as emissions of TF. Methods 13A and 13B, originally

promulgated in 1975, have been used for TF sampling and analyses, along

with Method 14, which specifies the equipment and sampling procedures

for emission testing of potroom roof monitors.

Traditionally, fluoride captured by the front-half filter has been

called ``particulate fluoride,'' and fluoride captured in the back-half

impingers has been called ``gaseous fluoride'' (GF). However, the

method has been validated only as a measure of TF expressed as the sum

of the front-half and back-half catches. Thus, TF has been used for

many years as a surrogate to represent this mixture of gaseous and

particulate fluorides, and most emissions data currently available

result from sampling and analysis for TF.

During the development of the proposed standards, EPA discussed

with State and industry representatives various options for measuring

gaseous HF, the listed HAP, and the use of GF or TF as surrogate

measures for HF. Several factors were considered in these discussions

that led to the choice of TF as a measure of emission control

performance. A major consideration was the absence of a validated,

accurate method for measuring HF or GF. Studies by EPA in the

development of Method 13 identified problems in attempts to obtain an

accurate split between particulate and gaseous fluoride. Hydrogen

fluoride is highly reactive and reacts with glass in the sampling probe

to form silicon tetrafluoride. The reactivity of HF has also been a

problem in developing an analytical standard; currently, there is no

EPA analytical standard that can be used to determine the accuracy of

attempts to measure HF. During sampling, particulate matter in the

front half of the train adsorbs GF, where it is then measured as

particulate fluoride. Fine particulate matter that passes through the

filter is measured as GF in the back half of the train. These factors

produce confounding effects in attempts to measure HF or GF with biases

in different directions. In addition, the quantity of HF or GF that is

formed is affected by humidity and the water content of raw materials.

A large historical database for TF was available to characterize

the emission control performance of the industry, to identify the best

controlled potlines, and to develop the MACT floor and MACT level of

control. There was a discussion among many different parties as to

whether the MACT performance standard should be based on TF or GF, and

EPA concluded that TF provides the most defensible basis to ensure that

the MACT level of control is achieved. However, EPA recognizes the

importance of identifying the contribution of gaseous HF to adverse

health effects when exposure modeling

[[Page 50593]]

is performed in the future. Consequently, the split between particulate

and gaseous fluoride from Methods 13A and 13B will continue to be

reported, and an attempt will be made to improve the accuracy and

consistency of this determination. In addition, EPA is encouraging the

development and application of HF CEMs as an improved monitoring tool

for HF emissions.

Comments are requested on EPA's understanding of the issue of

emission limits based on TF versus GF and on the potential to use back-

half measurements from Method 13 to establish GF limits, even after

considering the uncertainty described above. Any comments should be

accompanied by information and data supporting the commenter's

position. If public comments change EPA's perspective on this issue,

EPA will announce the availability of data or additional information

and will ask for comment on it.

POM. The choices for measuring POM included expensive sampling and

analysis to identify and quantify each of the numerous individual

compounds that might be present or to develop a reasonable surrogate

measure for POM. During the MACT test program jointly funded by the

EPA, the State of Washington Department of Ecology, and the industry,

sampling and analysis were performed for both individual species and

for a surrogate measure. The surrogate approach uses methylene chloride

extractables from both the front and back halves of a modified Method 5

procedure. The testing program indicated that methylene chloride

extractables provided an adequate surrogate measure of the total POM

species at a fraction of the cost associated with speciation. The

various parties involved in the rulemaking agreed that proposed Method

315 was the most feasible approach for measuring POM emissions.

Consequently, the MACT level of POM control was defined from data for

methylene chloride extractables, and Method 315, developed during the

test program, is being proposed for POM compliance determinations for

the primary aluminum industry.

B. Selection of Emission Limits

Potlines. The data analysis for each median potline, representing

the average emission limitation achieved by the top five performing

potlines, was based generally on the monthly averages of total fluoride

emissions. The data for each of the MACT floor potlines were evaluated

to determine the monthly average limit that had been achieved by the

potline and to establish the MACT floor level of emission control.

There are no monthly averages in the data set that exceed the proposed

emission limits. Additional details on the derivation of emission

limits and a complete listing of the data are given in the Basis and

Purpose Document.

An exception to this procedure was developed for the CWPB3

subcategory (potlines producing very high purity aluminum and using wet

scrubbers for the primary emission control system). For the CWPB3

subcategory, the MACT level was determined to be a level of control

achieved by upgrading existing emission control equipment and

procedures rather than the higher emission levels associated with

historical performance. After considering improvements in control to

date at these potlines and projected future improvements based on data

for emissions and costs provided by the affected facility, the MACT

level for CWPB3 was determined to be 2.5 lb TF/ton, which is the level

of control that has been required historically for prebake potlines

subject to the NSPS.

The POM limits for Soderberg potlines were determined from the data

collected during the MACT test program. Because of the absence of valid

POM data for the VSS2 subcategory, emissions data from the VSS1

subcategory measured before control by wet roof scrubbers were used.

The VSS2 subcategory does not have wet roof scrubbers; consequently,

this approach provides MACT emission limits that have been achieved for

VSS2 potlines.

Anode Bake Furnaces. For anode bake furnaces, POM limits were

developed from the best performing furnaces in the industry with the

MACT technology (dry alumina scrubbers), which were the only ones for

which EPA had adequate data to determine the MACT level of control. The

TF limit for bake furnaces is based on emissions data that were used to

determine the MACT level of control, which is equivalent to the level

associated with the NSPS. The NSPS limit applies to eight existing

anode bake furnaces.

Paste Production. Based on the POM data for paste plants, the EPA

concluded that it was not practical to set an emission limit because

there were too few data to characterize the control performance that

could be achieved by the various types of paste plants and because of

uncertainty in the limited existing data. The high level of uncertainty

would cause EPA to set a standard that could be impractical on a

technological basis. The EPA considered drafting a standard that would

require each owner or operator to conduct measurements to set limits on

a case-by-case basis; however, the cost of this approach was not

considered to be reasonable, especially given the reasonableness and

effectiveness of specifying a design and equipment standard.

Consequently, the proposed rule requires the installation of a capture

system that collects and vents emissions to a dry coke scrubber (or

equivalent alternative control device) for all paste production plants.

New Source MACT. The emission limits proposed for new and

reconstructed sources are based on the data for the best-controlled

potline and anode bake furnace. The limit applies to all new potlines,

and no distinction is made for the different subcategories that were

developed for existing potlines. As provided in the definition of

``reconstruction'' in the proposed rule, two criteria must be met for a

source to be considered reconstructed and subject to new source MACT:

(1) All of the major components of the source must be replaced (for

example, the major components of a potline include the raw material

handling system, reduction cells, superstructure, hooding, ductwork,

etc.), and (2) it must be technically and economically feasible for the

reconstructed source to meet new source MACT.

The EPA believes that it is unlikely that an existing potline could

be reconstructed in such a manner that it would be technically feasible

for the potline to meet new source MACT unless the criteria described

above are met. For example, the conversion of a Soderberg potline to a

prebake potline, while retaining some of the major components of the

original potline, is expected to subject the source to emission limits

for existing prebake potlines rather than triggering new source MACT.

Similarly, if an existing potline is modified to increase capacity

(e.g., by adding more reduction cells), the modified potline would

continue to be subject to MACT for existing sources.

VI. Public Participation

The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final

decisions and strongly encourages comments on all aspects of this

proposal from all interested parties. Whenever applicable, full

supporting data and detailed analyses should be submitted to allow EPA

to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be directed to

the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-92-60

(see ADDRESSES). Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before

the date specified in ``DATES.''

Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for

[[Page 50594]]

consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other

comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information''

(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be

sent directly to the Emission Standards Division CBI Office, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (MD-13), Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711, with a copy of the cover letter directed to the contact

person listed above. Confidential business information should not be

sent to the public docket. Information covered by such a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and

by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies the submission when it is received by EPA,

it may be made available to the public without further notice to the

commenter.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information

considered by EPA in developing this rulemaking. The docket is a

dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking

development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the

public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.

Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,

the contents of the docket will serve as the record in case of judicial

review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)

B. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the

proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.

Persons wishing to attend or to make oral presentations on the proposed

standards should contact EPA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). To

provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, oral

presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the

public may file a written statement for the public hearing on or before

October 28, 1996. Written statements should be addressed to the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES), and refer to

Docket No. A-92-60. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written

statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public

inspection and copying, or be mailed upon request, at the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).

C. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA

must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and

therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order

defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to

result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients

thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

The OMB has classified this rule as potentially significant and has

requested review. Under the current regulatory agenda, this proposed

rule will be submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to

OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public

record. Any written EPA response to those comments will be included in

the docket listed at the beginning of today's notice under ADDRESSES.

The docket is available for public inspection at EPA's Air Docket

Section, the location of which is listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this preamble.

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order 12875, EPA has involved State,

local, and tribal Governments in the development of this proposed rule.

These governments are not directly affected by the rule; i.e., they are

not required to purchase control systems to meet the requirements of

this rule. However, they will be required to implement the rule; e.g.,

incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. They will

collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resources burden of

implementing the rule. State representatives and one tribal Government

have been included in rule development meetings with EPA under the

Share-A-MACT approach. Comments have been solicited from the State and

tribal partners and have been carefully considered in the rule

development process. In addition, all States are encouraged to comment

on this proposed rule during the public comment period, and EPA intends

to fully consider these comments in developing of the final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.

L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal

governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA

generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that

may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in

the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any

one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement

is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify

and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt

the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205

do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,

section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that

alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under

section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely

input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant

Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and

advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory

requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private

sector in any one year. In addition, EPA has determined that small

governments will not be significantly or

[[Page 50595]]

uniquely affected by this proposed rule because it contains no

regulatory requirements that apply to such governments or impose

obligations upon them. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to

the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), as amended, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, EPA

certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small businesses and therefore no initial

regulatory flexibility analysis under section 604(a) of the Act is

required. EPA has determined that none of the 23 facilities in this

industry could be classified as a small entity.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document

has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. ____), and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M Street SW; Washington, DC

20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.

The proposed information collection requirements include mandatory

notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, Subpart A). These information collection

requirements are needed to confirm the compliance status of major

sources, to identify any nonmajor sources not subject to the standards

and any new or reconstructed sources subject to the standards, to

confirm that emission control devices are being properly operated and

maintained, and to ensure that the standards are being achieved. Based

on the recorded and reported information, EPA can decide which plants,

records, or processes should be inspected. These recordkeeping and

reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of

the Act (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the Agency for

which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according

to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. (See 41 FR 36902,

September 1, 1976; 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251,

September 28, 1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this

collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the

effective date of the rule) is estimated to total 54,600 hours for the

23 respondents and to average 2,400 hours per respondent (i.e., per

plant). Each respondent would report semiannually. The annualized cost

of monitoring equipment is estimated as $390,000 per year, with an

operation and maintenance cost of $39,000 per year (excluding labor

hours included in the previous total). Burden means the total time,

effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;

develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for

collecting, validating, and verifying information; process and maintain

information and disclose and provide information; adjust the existing

ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of

information; search existing data sources; complete and review the

collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the

information.

Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,

the accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for

minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated

collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE

Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(2136); 401 M Street SW; Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,

Washington, D.C. 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Office for EPA.''

Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Because OMB is required

to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after

September 26, 1996, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it by October 28, 1996. The final rule will

respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

H. Clean Air Act

In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this

proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory

committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.

This regulation will be reviewed 8 years from the date of promulgation.

This review will include an assessment of such factors as evaluation of

the residual health risks, any overlap with other programs, the

existence of alternative methods, enforceability, improvements in

emission control technology and health data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference, Primary aluminum reduction

plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 22, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 63 of title 40,

chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended

as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart LL to read as follows:

Subpart LL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants

Sec.

63.840 Applicability.

63.841 Incorporation by reference.

63.842 Definitions.

63.843 Emission limits for existing sources.

63.844 Emission limits for new or reconstructed sources.

63.845 Emission averaging.

63.846 Performance tests.

63.847 Emission monitoring requirements.

63.848 Test methods and procedures.

63.849 Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

63.850 Applicability of general provisions.

63.851 Delegation of authority.

63.852-63.859 [Reserved]

Appendix A to Subpart LL of Part 63--Applicability of General

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) To Subpart LL

Subpart LL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants

Sec. 63.840 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the

requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator of each new

or existing potline, paste production plant, or anode bake furnace

associated with primary aluminum production and located at a major

source as defined in Sec. 63.3.

(b) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to the owner or

operator

[[Page 50596]]

of an existing anode bake furnace that is not located on the same site

as a primary aluminum reduction plant. The owner or operator shall

comply with the MACT determinations established by the applicable

regulatory authority pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act.

Sec. 63.841 Incorporation by reference.

(a) The following material is incorporated by reference in the

corresponding sections noted. This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal Register on ____ [Insert date

of approval] in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. These

materials are incorporated as they exist on the date of approval and

notice of any change in the materials will be published in the Federal

Register. Revisions to ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of

Recommended Practice'' (22 ed.) are applicable only after publication

of a document in the Federal Register to amend subpart LL to require

use of the new information.

(1) Chapters 3 and 5 of ``Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of

Recommended Practice'', American Conference of Governmental Industrial

Hygienists, 22nd edition, 1995, IBR approved for Secs. 63.843(b) and

63.844(b); and

(2) ASTM D 2986-95, Standard Practice for Evaluation of Air Assay

Media by the Monodisperse DOP (Dioctyl Phthalate) Smoke Test, IBR

approved for section 7.1.1 of Method 315 in appendix A to this part.

(b) The materials incorporated by reference are available for

inspection at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street NW., Suite 700, 7th Floor, Washington, DC and at the Air and

Radiation Docket Center, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC.

The materials also are available for purchase from one of the following

addresses:

(1) Customer Service Department, American Conference of

Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1330 Kemper Meadow Drive,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45240, telephone number (513) 742-2020; or

(2) American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Bar Harbour

Drive, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428, telephone number (610)

832-9500.

Sec. 63.842 Definitions.

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act as

amended (the Act), in Sec. 63.2, or in this section as follows:

Anode bake furnace means an oven in which the formed green anodes

are baked for use in a prebake process. This definition includes

multiple anode bake furnaces controlled by a common control device

(i.e., bake furnaces controlled by a common control device are

considered to be one source).

Center-worked prebake (CWPB) process means a method of primary

aluminum reduction using the prebake process in which the alumina feed

is added down the center of the reduction cell.

Center-worked prebake one (CWPB1) means all existing center-worked

prebake potlines not defined as center-worked prebake two (CWPB2) or

center-worked prebake three (CWPB3) potlines.

Center-worked prebake two (CWPB2) means all existing center-worked

prebake potlines located at Alcoa in Rockdale, Texas; Kaiser Aluminum

in Mead, Washington; Ormet Corporation in Hannibal, Ohio; Ravenswood

Aluminum in Ravenswood, West Virginia; Reynolds Metals in Troutdale,

Oregon; and Vanalco Aluminum in Vancouver, Washington.

Center-worked prebake three (CWPB3) means all existing center-

worked prebake potlines that produce very high purity aluminum, have a

wet scrubber for the primary control system, and are located at the NSA

primary aluminum plant in Hawesville, Kentucky.

Horizontal stud Soderberg (HSS) process means a method of primary

aluminum reduction using the Soderberg process in which the electrical

current is introduced to the anode by steel rods (studs) inserted into

the side of a monolithic anode.

Paste production plant means the processes whereby calcined

petroleum coke, coal tar pitch (hard or liquid), and/or other materials

are mixed, transferred, and formed into briquettes or paste for

vertical stud Soderberg (VSS) and HSS processes or into green anodes

for a prebake process. This definition includes all operations from

initial mixing to final forming (i.e., briquettes, paste, green anodes)

within the paste plant, including conveyors and units managing heated

liquid pitch.

Polycyclic organic matter (POM) means organic matter extractable

by methylene chloride as determined by Method 315 in appendix A to this

part or by an approved alternative method.

Potline means a single, discrete group of electrolytic reduction

cells electrically connected in series, in which alumina is reduced to

form aluminum.

Prebake process means a method of primary aluminum reduction that

utilizes a baked anode, which is introduced into the top of the

reduction cell and consumed as part of the reduction process.

Primary aluminum reduction plant means any facility manufacturing

aluminum by electrolytic reduction.

Reconstruction means the replacement of components of a source to

such an extent that:

(1) All of the major components of the source are replaced (for

example, the major components of a potline include the raw material

handling system, reduction cells, superstructure, hooding, ductwork,

etc.); and

(2) It is technologically and economically feasible for the

reconstructed source to meet the standards for new sources established

in this subpart.

Roof monitor means that portion of the roof of a potroom building

where gases not captured at the cell exit from the potroom.

Side-worked prebake (SWPB) process means a method of primary

aluminum reduction using the prebake process, in which the alumina is

added along the sides of the reduction cell.

Soderberg process means a method of primary aluminum reduction in

which the anode paste mixture is baked in the reduction pot by the heat

resulting from the electrolytic process.

Total fluorides (TF) means elemental fluorine and all fluoride

compounds as measured by Method 13A or 13B in appendix A to part 60 of

this chapter or by an approved alternative method.

Vertical stud Soderberg (VSS) process means a method of primary

aluminum reduction using the Soderberg process, in which the electrical

current is introduced to the anode by steel rods (studs) inserted into

the top of a monolithic anode.

Vertical stud Soderberg one (VSS1) means all existing vertical stud

Soderberg potlines located either at Northwest Aluminum in The Dalles,

Oregon, or at Columbia Aluminum in Goldendale, Washington.

Vertical stud Soderberg two (VSS2) means all existing vertical stud

Soderberg potlines located at Columbia Falls Aluminum in Columbia

Falls, Montana.

Sec. 63.843 Emission limits for existing sources.

(a) Potlines. The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere any emissions of TF or POM in excess

of the applicable limits in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this

section.

(1) TF limits. Emissions of TF shall not exceed:

(i) 0.95 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each CWPB1

potline;

[[Page 50597]]

(ii) 1.5 kg/Mg (3.0 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each CWPB2

potline;

(iii) 1.25 kg/Mg (2.5 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each CWPB3

potline;

(iv) 0.8 kg/Mg (1.6 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each SWPB

potline;

(v) 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS1

potline;

(vi) 1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS2

potline; and

(vii) 1.35 kg/Mg (2.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each HSS

potline.

(2) POM limits. Emissions of POM shall not exceed:

(i) 2.35 kg/Mg (4.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each HSS

potline;

(ii) 1.2 kg/Mg (2.4 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS1

potline; and

(iii) 1.85 kg/Mg (3.7 lb/ton) of aluminum produced for each VSS2

potline.

(3) Change in subcategory. Any potline, other than a reconstructed

potline, that is changed such that its applicable subcategory also

changes shall meet the applicable emission limit in this subpart for

the original subcategory or the new subcategory, whichever is more

stringent.

(b) Paste production plants. The owner or operator shall install,

operate, and maintain equipment for the capture and control of POM

emissions from each paste production plant.

(1) The emission capture system shall be installed and operated to

meet the generally accepted engineering standards for minimum exhaust

rates as published by the American Conference of Governmental

Industrial Hygienists in ``Industrial Ventilation: A Handbook of

Recommended Practice'' (incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.841); and

(2) Captured emissions shall be routed through a closed system to a

dry coke scrubber; or

(3) The owner or operator may submit a written request for use of

an alternative control device to the applicable regulatory authority

for review and approval. The request shall contain information and data

demonstrating that the alternative control device achieves a POM

emission reduction efficiency of at least 95 percent for plants with

continuous mixers and a POM emission reduction efficiency of at least

90 percent for plants with batch mixers.

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner or operator shall not discharge

or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any emissions of TF or

POM in excess of the limits in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this

section.

(1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/

ton) of green anode; and

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM shall not exceed 0.09 kg/Mg (0.18

lb/ton) of green anode.

Sec. 63.844 Emission limits for new or reconstructed sources.

(a) Potlines. The owner or operator shall not discharge or cause to

be discharged into the atmosphere any emissions of TF or POM in excess

of the limits in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

(1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not exceed 0.6 kg/Mg (1.2 lb/

ton) of aluminum produced; and

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM shall not exceed 0.32 kg/Mg (0.63

lb/ton) of aluminum produced.

(b) Paste production plants. The owner or operator shall meet the

requirements in Sec. 63.843(b) for existing paste production plants.

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner or operator shall not discharge

or cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any emissions of TF or

POM in excess of the limits in paragraph (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this

section.

(1) TF limit. Emissions of TF shall not exceed 0.01 kg/Mg (0.02 lb/

ton) of green anode; and

(2) POM limit. Emissions of POM shall not exceed 0.025 kg/Mg (0.05

lb/ton) of green anode.

Sec. 63.845 Emission averaging.

(a) General. The owner or operator of an existing potline or anode

bake furnace in a State that does not choose to exclude emission

averaging in the approved operating permit program may demonstrate

compliance by emission averaging according to the procedures in this

section.

(b) Potlines. The owner or operator may average TF emissions from

potlines and demonstrate compliance with the limits in Table 1 of this

subpart using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this

section. The owner or operator also may average POM emissions from

potlines and demonstrate compliance with the limits in Table 2 of this

subpart using the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this

section.

(1) Monthly average emissions of TF and/or quarterly average

emissions of POM, calculated from the total emissions from all potlines

over the period divided by the quantity of aluminum produced for the

period, from a given number of potlines making up each averaging group,

shall not exceed the applicable emission limit in Table 1 of this

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

emissions).

(2) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit in

Table 1 of this subpart (for TF emissions) and/or Table 2 of this

subpart (for POM emissions), the owner or operator shall determine the

monthly average emissions (in lb/ton) from all potlines from at least

three runs each month for TF secondary emissions and/or the quarterly

average emissions from at least one run each month for POM emissions.

Table 1.--Potline TF Limits for Emission Averaging

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

Monthly TF limit (lb/ton) [for given number of potlines]

Type ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

VSS1...................................... 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

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

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

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

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

[[Page 50598]]

Table 2.--Potline POM Limits for Emission Averaging

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

Quarterly POM limit (lb/ton) [for given number of potlines]

Type ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

VSS2...................................... 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0

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

The owner or operator shall combine the results of secondary TF

monthly average emissions with the TF results for the primary control

system and/or the results of quarterly average POM emissions with the

POM results for the primary control system and divide total emissions

by total aluminum production.

(c) Anode bake furnaces. The owner or operator may average TF

emissions from anode bake furnaces and demonstrate compliance with the

limits in Table 3 of this subpart using the procedures in paragraphs

(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. The owner or operator also may

average POM emissions from anode bake furnaces and demonstrate

compliance with the limits in Table 3 of this subpart using the

procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section.

(1) Annual emissions of TF and/or POM from a given number of anode

bake furnaces making up each averaging group shall not exceed the

applicable emission limit in Table 3 of this subpart in any one year;

and

(2) To determine compliance with the applicable emission limit in

Table 3 of this subpart for anode bake furnaces, the owner or operator

shall determine TF and/or POM emissions from the control device for

each furnace at least once a year using the procedures and methods in

Secs. 63.846 and 63.848.

Table 3.--Anode Bake Furnace Limits for Emission Averaging

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

Emission limit (lb/ton

of anode)

Number of furnaces -------------------------

TF POM

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

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

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

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

5............................................. 0.070 0.17

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

(d) Implementation Plan. Unless an operating permit application has

been submitted, the owner or operator shall develop and submit an

Implementation Plan for emission averaging to the applicable regulatory

authority for review and approval according to the following procedures

and requirements:

(1) Deadlines. The owner or operator must submit the Implementation

Plan no later than 6 months before the applicable compliance date.

(2) Contents. The owner or operator shall include the following

information in the Implementation Plan or in the application for an

operating permit for all emission sources to be included in an

emissions average.

(i) The identification of all emission sources (potlines or anode

bake furnaces) in the average;

(ii) The assigned TF or POM emission limit for each averaging group

of potlines or anode bake furnaces;

(iii) The specific control technology or pollution prevention

measure to be used for each emission source in the averaging group and

the date of its installation or application. If the pollution

prevention measure reduces or eliminates emissions from multiple

sources, the owner or operator must identify each source;

(iv) Results of an initial performance test conducted according to

the procedures and methods in Secs. 63.846 and 63.848 to determine the

TF or POM emissions and emission reduction from each source in the

averaging group, and supporting documentation (all equations,

calculations, procedures, measurement data, and quality assurance/

quality control procedures);

(v) The operating parameters to be monitored for each control

system or device and the operating limits established according to

Sec. 63.846(g)(1);

(vi) If the owner or operator requests to monitor an alternative

operating parameter pursuant to Sec. 63.847(l):

(A) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored and an

explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s); and

(B) A description of the methods and procedures that will be used

to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of the

control device; the frequency and content of monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping requirements; and a demonstration, to the satisfaction of

the applicable regulatory authority, that the proposed monitoring

frequency is sufficient to represent control device operating

conditions; and

(vii) A demonstration that compliance with each of the applicable

emission limit(s) will be achieved under representative operating

conditions.

(3) Approval criteria. Upon receipt, the regulatory authority shall

review and approve or disapprove the plan or permit application

according to the following criteria:

(i) Whether the content of the plan includes all of the information

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

(ii) Whether the plan or permit application presents sufficient

information to determine that compliance will be achieved and

maintained.

(4) Prohibitions. The applicable regulatory authority shall not

approve an Implementation Plan or permit application containing any of

the following provisions:

(i) Any averaging between emissions of differing pollutants or

between differing sources. Emission averaging shall not be allowed

between TF and POM, and emission averaging shall not be allowed between

potlines and bake furnaces;

(ii) The inclusion of any emission source other than an existing

potline or anode bake furnace or the inclusion of any potline or anode

bake plant not subject to the same operating permit;

(iii) The inclusion of any potline or anode bake furnace while it

is shutdown; or

(iv) The inclusion of any periods of startup, shutdown, or

malfunction, as described in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction

Plan required by Sec. 63.6(e)(3), in the emission calculations for the

Implementation Plan.

(5) Term. Following review, the applicable regulatory authority

shall approve the plan or permit application, request changes, or

request additional information. Once the applicable regulatory

authority receives any additional information requested, the applicable

regulatory authority shall approve or disapprove the plan or permit

application within 120 days.

(i) The applicable regulatory authority shall approve the plan for

the term of the operating permit;

(ii) To revise the plan prior to the end of the permit term, the

owner or

[[Page 50599]]

operator shall submit a request to the applicable regulatory authority;

and

(iii) The owner or operator may submit a request to the applicable

regulatory authority to implement emission averaging after the

applicable compliance date.

(6) Operation. While operating under an approved Implementation

Plan, the owner or operator shall monitor the operating parameters of

each control system, keep records, and submit periodic reports as

required for each source subject to this subpart.

Sec. 63.846 Performance tests.

(a) Compliance dates. The owner or operator of a primary aluminum

plant shall demonstrate initial compliance with the requirements of

this subpart by:

(1) ____ [Insert date 2 years following the effective date of the

final rule], for an owner or operator of an existing plant or source;

(2) ____ [Insert date 3 years following the effective date of the

final rule], for an existing source, provided the owner or operator

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority

that additional time is needed to install or modify the emission

control equipment;

(3) ____ [Insert date 4 years following the effective date of the

final rule], for an existing source that is granted an extension by the

regulatory authority under section 112(i)(3)(B) of the Act; or

(4) Upon startup, for an owner or operator of a new or

reconstructed source.

(b) Potlines and anode bake furnaces. During the first month

following the compliance date, the owner or operator shall conduct an

initial performance test to determine and demonstrate compliance with

the applicable TF and POM emission limits for each new or existing

potline and anode bake furnace. The owner or operator shall conduct the

initial performance test (and subsequent performance tests) according

to the requirements in Sec. 63.7 and in this section.

(c) Test plan. The owner or operator shall prepare a site-specific

test plan prior to the initial performance test according to the

requirements of Sec. 63.7(c)(2). The test plan must include procedures

for conducting the initial performance test and for subsequent

performance tests required in Sec. 63.847 for emission monitoring. In

addition to the information required by Sec. 63.7, the test plan shall

include:

(1) Procedures to ensure a minimum of three runs are performed

annually for the primary control system for each source;

(2) For a source with a single control device exhausted through

multiple stacks, procedures to ensure that at least three runs are

performed annually by a representative sample of the stacks

satisfactory to the applicable regulatory authority;

(3) For multiple control devices on a single source, procedures to

ensure that at least one run is performed annually for each control

device by a representative sample of the stacks satisfactory to the

applicable regulatory authority;

(4) Procedures for sampling single stacks associated with multiple

anode bake furnaces;

(5) For plants with roof scrubbers, procedures for rotating

sampling among the scrubbers;

(6) For a VSS1 potline, procedures to ensure that one fan (or one

scrubber) per potline is sampled for each run;

(7) For a SWPB potline, procedures to ensure that the average of

the sampling results for two fans (or two scrubbers) per potline is

used for each run; and

(8) Procedures for establishing the frequency of testing to ensure

that at least one run is performed before the 15th of the month, at

least one run is performed after the 15th of the month, and that there

are at least 6 days between two of the runs during the month, or that

secondary emissions are measured according to an alternate schedule

satisfactory to the applicable regulatory authority.

(d) Initial performance test. Following approval of the site-

specific test plan, the owner or operator shall conduct an initial

performance test in accordance with the requirements of the general

provisions in subpart A of this part, the approved test plan, and the

procedures in this section.

(1) TF emissions from potlines. For each potline, the owner or

operator shall measure and record the emission rate of TF exiting the

outlet of the primary control system for each potline and the rate of

secondary emissions exiting through each roof monitor, or for a plant

with roof scrubbers, exiting through the scrubbers. Using the equation

in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, the owner or operator shall

compute and record the average of at least three runs to determine

compliance with the applicable emission limit. Compliance is

demonstrated when the emission rate of TF is equal to or less than the

applicable emission limit in Secs. 63.843, 63.844, or 63.845.

(2) POM emissions from Soderberg potlines. For each Soderberg (HSS,

VSS1, and VSS2) potline, the owner or operator shall measure and record

the emission rate of POM exiting the primary emission control system

and the rate of secondary emissions exiting through each roof monitor,

or for a plant with roof scrubbers, exiting through the scrubbers.

Using the equation in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the owner or

operator shall compute and record the average of at least three runs to

determine compliance with the applicable emission limit. Compliance is

demonstrated when the emission rate of POM is equal to or less than the

applicable emission limit in Secs. 63.843, 63.844, or 63.845.

(3) Previous control device tests. If the owner or operator has

performed more than one test of primary emission control device(s) for

a potline during the previous consecutive 12 months, the average of all

runs performed in the previous 12-month period shall be used to

determine the contribution from the primary emission control system.

(4) TF and POM emissions from anode bake furnaces. For each anode

bake furnace, the owner or operator shall measure and record the

emission rate of TF and POM exiting the exhaust stack(s) of the primary

emission control system for each anode bake furnace. Using the

equations in paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this section, the owner or

operator shall compute and record the average of at least three runs to

determine compliance with the applicable emission limits for TF and

POM. Compliance is demonstrated when the emission rates of TF and POM

are equal to or less than the applicable TF and POM emission limits in

Secs. 63.843, 63.844, or 63.845.

(e) Equations. The owner or operator shall determine compliance

with the applicable TF and POM emission limits using the following

equations and procedures:

(1) Compute the emission rate (Ep) of TF from each potline

using Equation 2:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.003

[[Page 50600]]

where

Ep=emission rate of TF from a potline, kg/Mg (lb/ton);

Cs1=concentration of TF from the primary control system, mg/dscm

(mg/dscf);

Qsd=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);

Cs2=concentration of TF as measured for roof monitor emissions,

mg/dscm (mg/dscf);

P=aluminum production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr);

K=conversion factor, 106 mg/kg (453,600 mg/lb);

1=subscript for primary control system effluent gas; and

2=subscript for secondary control system or roof monitor effluent

gas.

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

Equation 2,

where

Ep=emission rate of POM from the potline, kg/mg (lb/ton); and

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

collected during the installation and startup of a cathode shall not be

included in Cs.

(3) Compute the emission rate (Eb) of TF from each anode bake

furnace using Equation 3,

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE96.004

where

Eb=emission rate of TF, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of green anodes produced;

Cs=concentration of TF, mg/dscm (mg/dscf);

Qsd=volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dscm/hr (dscf/hr);

Pb=quantity of green anode material placed in the furnace, Mg/hr

(ton/hr); and

K=conversion factor, 106 mg/kg (453,600 mg/lb).

(4) Compute the emission rate of POM from each anode bake furnace

using Equation 3,

where

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

(5) Determine the weight of the aluminum tapped from the potline

and the weight of the green anode material placed in the anode bake

furnace using the monitoring devices required in Sec. 63.847(j).

(6) Determine the aluminum production rate (P) by dividing 720

hours into the weight of aluminum tapped from the potline during a

period of 30 days before and including the final run of a performance

test.

(7) Determine the rate of green anode material introduced into the

furnace by dividing the number of operating hours into the weight of

green anode material used during an operating cycle.

(f) Paste production plants. Initial compliance with the standards

for existing and new paste production plants in Secs. 63.843(b) and

63.844(b) will be demonstrated through site inspection(s) and review of

site records by the applicable regulatory authority.

(g) Parameter operating range for control devices. The owner or

operator shall determine the operating limits for each of the control

devices that is to be monitored as described in Sec. 63.847(f).

(1) For potlines and anode bake furnaces, the owner or operator

shall determine upper and/or lower operating limits, as appropriate,

for each monitoring device from the values recorded during each of the

runs performed during the initial performance test and from historical

data from previous performance tests conducted by the methods specified

in this subpart.

(2) For a paste production plant, the owner or operator shall

specify parameters to be monitored and operating limits for the capture

and control devices in the application for a part 70 operating permit

(or an administrative amendment to the part 70 operating permit if a

permit has already been issued).

(3) The owner or operator may redetermine the upper and/or lower

operating limits, as appropriate, based on historical data or other

information and submit an application to the applicable regulatory

authority to change the applicable limit(s). The redetermined limits

shall become effective upon approval by the applicable regulatory

authority.

Sec. 63.847 Emission monitoring requirements.

(a) TF emissions from potlines. Using the procedures in Sec. 63.846

and in the approved test plan, the owner or operator shall monitor

emissions of TF from each potline by conducting monthly performance

tests. The owner or operator shall compute and record the monthly

average from at least three runs for secondary emissions and the

previous 12-month average of all runs for the primary control system to

determine compliance with the applicable emission limit. The owner or

operator must include all valid runs in the monthly average.

(b) POM emissions from existing Soderberg potlines. Using the

procedures in Sec. 63.846 and in the approved test plan, the owner or

operator shall monitor emissions of POM from each Soderberg (HSS, VSS1,

and VSS2) potline every three months. The owner or operator shall

compute and record the quarterly (3-month) average from at least one

run per month for secondary emissions and the previous 12-month average

of all runs for the primary control systems to determine compliance

with the applicable emission limit. The owner or operator must include

all valid runs in the quarterly (3-month) average.

(c) TF and POM emissions from anode bake furnaces. Using the

procedures in Sec. 63.846 and in the approved test plan, the owner or

operator shall monitor TF and POM emissions from each anode bake

furnace on an annual basis. The owner or operator shall compute and

record the annual average of TF and POM emissions from at least three

runs to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits. The

owner or operator must include all valid runs in the annual average.

(d) Similar potlines. As an alternative to monthly monitoring of TF

or POM secondary emissions from each potline, the owner or operator may

perform a monthly performance test for one potline to represent a

similar potline(s). A similar potline must be in the same operating

condition, have the same cell and hooding design, share the same work

practices, and have the same or better level of emission control

performance than the potline tested by the applicable test methods.

(1) To demonstrate (to the satisfaction of the regulatory

authority) that the level of emission control performance is the same

or better, the owner or operator shall perform an emission test using

an alternative monitoring procedure for the similar potline

simultaneously with an emission test using the applicable test methods.

The results of the emissions test using the applicable test methods

must be in compliance with the applicable emission limit for existing

or new potlines in Secs. 63.843 or 63.844. An alternative method:

[[Page 50601]]

(i) For TF emissions, must account for or include gaseous fluoride

and cannot be based on measurement of particulate matter or particulate

fluoride alone; and

(ii) For TF and POM emissions, must meet or exceed Method 14

criteria.

(2) The following methods are approved alternatives for the

monitoring of TF secondary emissions:

(i) An HF continuous emission monitoring system; and

(ii) The Alcan cassette sampling system.

(3) An owner or operator electing to use an alternative monitoring

procedure shall establish an equivalent alternative emission limit

based on at least nine simultaneous runs using the applicable test

methods and the alternative monitoring method. All runs must cover a

full process cycle.

(4) The owner or operator shall derive an equivalent alternative

emission limit for the HF continuous emission monitor, the Alcan

cassette sampling system, or an alternative method using either of the

following procedures:

(i) Use the highest value associated with a simultaneous run by the

applicable test methods that does not exceed the applicable emission

limit; or

(ii) Correlate the results of the two methods (the applicable test

method results and the alternative monitoring method) and establish an

emission limit for the alternative monitoring system that corresponds

to the applicable emission limit.

(5) The owner or operator shall submit the results of the

correlated value or the highest value that does not exceed the

applicable emission limit and all supporting documentation to the

applicable regulatory authority for approval along with a request for a

part 70 operating permit (or an administrative amendment to the part 70

operating permit if a permit has already been issued).

(6) Following approval by the applicable regulatory authority, the

owner or operator shall perform monthly emission monitoring using the

approved alternative monitoring procedure to demonstrate compliance

with the equivalent alternative emission limit for each similar potline

rather than the applicable TF emission limit.

(e) Reduced sampling frequency. The owner or operator may submit a

written request to the applicable regulatory authority to establish an

alternative testing requirement that requires less frequent testing for

TF and POM emissions from potlines or anode bake furnaces.

(1) In the request, the owner or operator shall provide information

and data demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the applicable

regulatory authority, that the emissions from these sources have low

variability during normal operations.

(2) The regulatory authority may evaluate the alternative testing

requirement based on the approach used in ``Primary Aluminum:

Statistical Analysis of Potline Fluoride Emissions and Alternative

Sampling Frequency'' (EPA-450-86-012, October 1986), which is available

from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

(3) An approved alternative requirement must include a test

schedule and the method to be used to measure emissions for the purpose

of performance tests.

(4) The applicable regulatory authority shall publish the approved

alternative monitoring requirement in the Federal Register.

(5) The owner or operator of a plant that has received approval of

an alternative sampling frequency under Sec. 60.194 of this chapter is

deemed to have approval of the alternative sampling frequency under

this subpart.

(6) If emissions in excess of the applicable TF or POM limit occur,

the approved alternative sampling frequency is no longer in effect and

the owner or operator shall immediately return to the monthly sampling

schedule required by paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section until

another request for an alternative sampling frequency is approved by

the applicable regulatory authority.

(f) Monitoring devices. The owner or operator shall install,

operate, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device(s) for each

emission control system as follows:

(1) For dry alumina scrubbers, devices for the measurement of

alumina flow and air flow;

(2) For dry coke scrubbers, devices for the measurement of coke

flow and air flow;

(3) For wet scrubbers as the primary control system, devices for

the measurement of water flow and air flow;

(4) For electrostatic precipitators, devices for the measurement of

voltage and secondary current; and

(5) For wet roof scrubbers for secondary emission control:

(i) A device for the measurement of total water flow; and

(ii) The owner or operator shall inspect each control device at

least once each operating day to ensure the control device is operating

properly and record the results of each inspection.

(g) Visible emissions. The owner or operator shall visually inspect

the exhaust stack(s) of each control device on a daily basis for

evidence of any visible emissions indicating abnormal operation.

(h) Corrective action. If a monitoring device for a primary control

device measures an operating parameter outside the limit(s) established

pursuant to Sec. 63.846(g); if visible emissions indicating abnormal

operation are observed from the exhaust stack of a control device

during a daily inspection, or if a problem is detected during the daily

inspection of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary emission

control, the owner or operator shall initiate the corrective action

procedures identified in the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan

within 1 hour. Failure to initiate the corrective action procedures

within 1 hour or to take the necessary corrective actions to remedy the

problem is a violation.

(i) Exceedances. If the limit for a given operating parameter

associated with monitoring a specific control device is exceeded 6

times in any semiannual reporting period, then any subsequent

exceedance in that reporting period is a violation. For the purpose of

determining the number of exceedances, no more than one exceedance

shall be attributed in any given 24 hour period.

(j) Weight of aluminum and green anodes. The owner or operator of a

new or existing potline or anode bake furnace shall install, operate,

and maintain a monitoring device to determine the daily weight of

aluminum produced and the weight of green anode material placed in the

anode bake furnace during an operating cycle. The weight of green anode

material may be determined by monitoring the weight of all anodes or by

monitoring the number of anodes placed in the furnace and determining

an average weight from measurements of a representative sample of

anodes.

(k) Accuracy and calibration. All monitoring devices required by

this section must be certified by the manufacturer to meet the accuracy

requirements specified by the applicable regulatory authority in the

part 70 operating permit and must be calibrated in accordance with the

manufacturer's instructions.

(l) Alternative operating parameters. The owner or operator may

monitor alternative control device operating parameters subject to

prior written approval by the applicable regulatory authority.

(m) Other control systems. An owner or operator using a control

system not identified in this section shall request that the applicable

regulatory authority include the recommended parameters

[[Page 50602]]

for monitoring in the facility's part 70 permit.

Sec. 63.848 Test methods and procedures.

(a) The owner or operator shall use the following reference methods

to determine compliance with the applicable emission limits for TF and

POM emissions:

(1) Method 1 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for sample

and velocity traverses;

(2) Method 2 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for velocity

and volumetric flow rate;

(3) Method 3 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for gas

analysis;

(4) Method 13A or Method 13B in appendix A to part 60 of this

chapter, or an approved alternative, for the concentration of TF where

stack or duct emissions are sampled;

(5) Method 13A or Method 13B and Method 14 in appendix A to part 60

of this chapter or an approved alternative method for the concentration

of TF where emissions are sampled from roof monitors not employing wet

roof scrubbers;

(6) Method 315 in appendix A to this part or an approved

alternative method for the concentration of POM where stack or duct

emissions are sampled; and

(7) Method 315 in appendix A to this part and Method 14 in appendix

A to part 60 of this chapter or an approved alternative method for the

concentration of POM where emissions are sampled from roof monitors not

employing wet roof scrubbers.

(b) The owner or operator of a VSS potline or a SWPB potline

equipped with wet roof scrubbers for the control of secondary emissions

shall use methods that meet the intent sampling requirements of Method

14 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter and that are approved by

the State. Sample analysis shall be performed using Method 13A or

Method 13B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter for TF, Method 315

in appendix A to this part for POM, or by an approved alternative

method.

(c) References to ``potroom'' or ``potroom group'' in Method 14 in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter shall be interpreted as

``potline'' for the purposes of this subpart.

(d) For sampling using Method 14 in appendix A to part 60 of this

chapter, the owner or operator shall install one Method 14 manifold per

potline in a potroom that is representative of the entire potline, and

this manifold shall meet the installation requirements specified in

section 2.2.1 of Method 14 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

(e) The owner or operator may use an alternative test method for TF

or POM emissions providing:

(1) The owner or operator has already demonstrated the equivalency

of the alternative method for a specific plant and has received

previous approval from the Administrator or the applicable regulatory

authority for TF or POM measurements using the alternative method; or

(2) The owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the

applicable regulatory authority that the alternative method results are

correlated to the sampling results from simultaneously sampling using

Methods 13 and 14 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter and the

alternative method for TF or Method 315 in appendix A to this part,

Method 14 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, and the alternative

method for POM.

Sec. 63.849 Notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Notifications. As required by Sec. 63.9 (b) through (d), the

owner or operator shall submit the following written notifications:

(1) Notification for an area source that subsequently increases its

emissions such that the source is a major source subject to the

standard;

(2) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where

the initial startup is before the effective date of the standard;

(3) Notification that a source is subject to the standard, where

the source is new or has been reconstructed, the initial startup is

after the effective date of the standard, and for which an application

for approval of construction or reconstruction is not required;

(4) Notification of intention to construct a new major source or

reconstruct a major source; of the date construction or reconstruction

commenced; of the anticipated date of startup; of the actual date of

startup, where the initial startup of a new or reconstructed source

occurs after the effective date of the standard, and for which an

application for approval of construction or reconstruction is required;

[See Sec. 63.9 (b)(4) and (b)(5).]

(5) Notification of special compliance obligations;

(6) Notification of performance test;

(7) Notification of compliance status. The owner or operator shall

develop and submit to the applicable regulatory authority, if

requested, an engineering plan that describes the techniques that will

be used to address the capture efficiency of the reduction cells for

gaseous hazardous air pollutants in compliance with the emission limits

in Secs. 63.843, 63.844, and 63.845; and

(8) Notification for continuous emission monitor.

(b) Performance test report. As required by Sec. 63.10(d)(2), the

owner or operator shall report the results of the initial performance

test as part of the notification of compliance status required in

paragraph (a)(7) of this section.

(c) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan and reports. The owner

or operator shall develop and implement a written plan as described in

Sec. 63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed for

operating the source and maintaining the source during periods of

startup, shutdown, and malfunction and a program of corrective action

for malfunctioning process and control systems used to comply with the

standard. In addition to the information required in Sec. 63.6(e)(2),

the plan shall include:

(1) Procedures, including corrective actions, to be followed if a

monitoring device measures an operating parameter outside the limit(s)

established under Sec. 63.846(g), if visible emissions from an exhaust

stack indicating abnormal operation of a control device are observed by

the owner or operator during the daily inspection required in

Sec. 63.847(g), or if a problem is detected during the daily inspection

of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary emission control required

in Sec. 63.847(f)(5)(ii); and

(2) The owner or operator shall also keep records of each event as

required by Sec. 63.10(b) and record and report if an action taken

during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction is not consistent with the

procedures in the plan as described in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iv).

(d) Excess emissions report. As required by Sec. 63.10(e)(3), the

owner or operator shall submit a report (or a summary report) if

measured emissions are in excess of the applicable standard. The report

shall contain the information specified in Sec. 63.10(e)(3)(v) and be

submitted semiannually unless quarterly reports are required as a

result of excess emissions.

(e) Recordkeeping. The owner or operator shall maintain files of

all information (including all reports and notifications) required by

Sec. 63.10(b) and by this subpart.

(1) The owner or operator must retain each record for at least 5

years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance,

corrective action, report, or record. The most recent 2 years of

records must be retained at the facility. The remaining 3 years of

records may be retained off site;

[[Page 50603]]

(2) The owner or operator may retain records on microfilm, on a

computer, on computer disks, on magnetic tape, or on microfiche;

(3) The owner or operator may report required information on paper

or on a labeled computer disc using commonly available and compatible

computer software; and

(4) In addition to the general records required by Sec. 63.10(b),

the owner or operator shall maintain records of the following

information:

(i) Daily production rate of aluminum;

(ii) Production rate of green anode material placed in the anode

bake furnace for each operating cycle;

(iii) A copy of the Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Plan;

(iv) Records of design information for paste production plant

capture systems;

(v) Records of design information for an alternative emission

control device for a paste production plant;

(vi) Records supporting the monitoring of similar potlines

demonstrating the performance of similar potlines is the same or better

than that of potlines sampled by manual methods;

(vii) Records supporting a request for reduced sampling of

potlines;

(viii) Records supporting the correlation of emissions measured by

a continuous emission monitoring system to emissions measured by manual

methods and the derivation of the alternative emission limit derived

from the measurements;

(ix) The current Implementation Plan for emission averaging and any

subsequent amendments;

(x) Records, such as a checklist or the equivalent, demonstrating

the daily inspection of a potline with wet roof scrubbers for secondary

emission control has been performed as required in

Sec. 63.847(f)(5)(ii), including the results of each inspection;

(xi) Records, such as a checklist or the equivalent, demonstrating

the daily visual inspection of the exhaust stack for each control

device has been performed as required in Sec. 63.847(g), including the

results of each inspection;

(xii) For a potline equipped with an HF continuous emission

monitor, records of information and data required by Sec. 63.10(c);

(xiii) Records documenting the corrective actions taken when the

limit(s) for an operating parameter established under Sec. 63.846(g)

were exceeded, when visible emissions indicating abnormal operation

were observed from a control device stack during a daily inspection

required under Sec. 63.847(g), or when a problem was detected during

the daily inspection of a wet roof scrubber for potline secondary

control required in Sec. 63.847(f)(5)(ii); and

(xiv) Records documenting any POM data that is invalidated due to

the installation and startup of a cathode.

Sec. 63.850 Applicability of general provisions.

(a) The requirements of the general provisions in subpart A of this

part that are not applicable to the owner or operator subject to the

requirements of this subpart are shown in Appendix A of this subpart.

Sec. 63.851 Delegation of authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a

State under section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities contained in

paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator

and not transferred to a State.

(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: No

authorities are retained by the Administrator.

(c) Each State may elect to exclude the provisions of Sec. 63.845,

Emission Averaging, from their permitting program and the operating

permits issued under that program.

Sec. 63.852-63.859 [Reserved]

Appendix A to Subpart LL of Part 63--Applicability of General

Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A) to Subpart LL

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

General provisions citation Requirement Applies to subpart LL Comment

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

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

63.2 Definition of ``reconstruction'' ........................ No.................... Subpart LL defines

``reconstruction''.

63.6(c)(1)........................... Compliance Date for No.................... Subpart LL specifies

Existing Sources. compliance date for

existing sources.

63.6(h).............................. Opacity/VE Standards.... No.................... Subpart LL does not

require COMS, VE or

opacity standards.

63.8 (c)(4)-(c)(8)................... CMS Operation and No.................... Subpart LL does not

Maintenance. require COMS/CMS or

CMS performance

specifications.

63.8(d).............................. Quality Control......... No.................... Subpart LL does not

require CMS or CMS

performance

evaluation.

63.8(e).............................. Performance Evaluation No.................... .......................

for CMS.

63.9(f).............................. Notification of VE or No.................... Subpart LL does not

Opacity Test. include VE/opacity

standard.

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

Notification.

63.10(d)(3).......................... VE/Opacity Observations. No.................... Subpart LL does not

require COM or include

VE/opacity standard.

63.10(e)(2).......................... Reporting Performance No.................... Subpart LL does not

Evaluations. require performance

evaluation for CMS.

63.11 (a)-(b)........................ Control Device No.................... Flares not applicable.

Requirements.

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

[[Page 50604]]

3. Appendix A to part 63 is amended by adding, in numerical order,

Method 315 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 315--Determination of Particulate and Methylene Chloride

Extractable Matter (MCEM) From Selected Sources at Primary Aluminum

Production Facilities

1.0 Scope and Application

1.1 Analyte. Particulate matter (PM). No CAS Number assigned.

Methylene Chloride extractable matter (MCEM). No CAS number

assigned.

1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable for the

simultaneous determination of PM and MCEM when specified in an

applicable regulation. This method was developed by consensus with

the Aluminum Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and has limited precision estimates for MCEM; it should

have similar precision as Method 5 for PM in 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A since the procedures are similar for PM.

2.0 Summary of Method

Particulate matter (PM) and MCEM is withdrawn isokinetically

from the source. PM is collected on a glass fiber filter maintained

at a temperature in the range of l20 14 deg.C (248

25 deg.F) or such other temperature as specified by an

applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the

Administrator, for a particular application. The PM mass, which

includes any material that condenses on the probe and is

subsequently removed in an acetone rinse or on the filter at or

above the filtration temperature, is determined gravimetrically

after removal of uncombined water. MCEM is then determined by adding

a methylene chloride rinse of the probe and filter holder,

extracting the condensable hydrocarbons collected in the impinger

water, adding an acetone rinse followed by a methylene chloride

rinse of the sampling train components after the filter and before

the silica gel impinger, and determining residue gravimetrically

after evaporating the solvents.

3.0 Definitions

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

Bws=Water vapor in the gas stream, proportion by volume.

Ca=Acetone blank residue concentration, mg/g.

Cs=Concentration of particulate matter in stack gas, dry basis,

corrected to standard conditions, g/dscm (g/dscf).

I=Percent of isokinetic sampling.

La=Maximum acceptable leakage rate for either a pretest leak

check or for a leak check following a component change; equal to

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

rate, whichever is less.

Li=Individual leakage rate observed during the leak check

conducted prior to the ``ith'' component change (I=1, 2,

3...n), m3/min (cfm).

Lp=Leakage rate observed during the post-test leak check,

m3/min (cfm).

ma=Mass of residue of acetone after evaporation, mg.

mn=Total amount of particulate matter collected, mg.

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

Pbar=Barometric pressure at the sampling site, mm Hg (in. Hg).

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

Pstd=Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).

R=Ideal gas constant, 0.06236 [(mm Hg)(m3)]/[( deg.K) (g-mole)]

{21.85 [(in. Hg) (ft3)]/[( deg.R) (lb-mole)]}.

Tm=Absolute average DGM temperature (see Figure 5-2 of Method

5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), deg.K ( deg.R).

Ts=Absolute average stack gas temperature (see Figure 5-2 of

Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), deg.K( deg.R).

Tstd=Standard absolute temperature, 293 deg.K (528 deg.R).

Va=Volume of acetone blank, ml.

Vaw=Volume of acetone used in wash, ml.

Vt=Volume of methylene chloride blank, ml.

Vtw=Volume of methylene chloride used in wash, ml.

Vlc=Total volume liquid collected in impingers and silica gel

(see Figure 5-3 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), ml.

Vm=Volume of gas sample as measured by dry gas meter, dcm

(dcf).

Vm(std)=Volume of gas sample measured by the dry gas meter,

corrected to standard conditions, dscm (dscf).

Vw(std)=Volume of water vapor in the gas sample, corrected to

standard conditions, scm (scf).

Vs=Stack gas velocity, calculated by Equation 2-9 in Method 2,

40 CFR part 60, appendix A, using data obtained from Method 5, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A, m/sec (ft/sec).

Wa=Weight of residue in acetone wash, mg.

Y=Dry gas meter calibration factor.

H=Average pressure differential across the orifice meter

(see Figure 5-2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A), mm

H20 (in. H30).

a=Density of acetone, 785.1 mg/ml (or see label on bottle).

w=Density of water, 0.9982 g/ml (0.002201 lb/ml).

t=Density of methylene chloride, 1316.8 mg/ml (or see label

on bottle).

=Total sampling time, min.

l=Sampling time interval, from the beginning of a run

until the first component change, min.

i=Sampling time interval, between two successive

component changes, beginning with the interval between the first and

second changes, min.

p=Sampling time interval, from the final (nth)

component change until the end of the sampling run, min.

13.6=Specific gravity of mercury.

60=Sec/min.

l00=Conversion to percent.

4.0 Interferences [Reserved]

5.0 Safety

This method may involve hazardous materials, operations, and

equipment. This method does not purport to address all of the safety

problems associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the

user of this method to establish appropriate safety and health

practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations

prior to performing this test method.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

Note: Mention of trade names or specific products does not

constitute endorsement by the EPA.

6.1 Sampling train. A schematic of the sampling train used in

this method is shown in Figure 5-1, Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A. Complete construction details are given in APTD-0581

(Reference 2 in section 17.0 of this method); commercial models of

this train are also available. For changes from APTD-0581 and for

allowable modifications of the train shown in Figure 5-1, Method 5,

40 CFR part 60, appendix A see the following subsections.

Note: The operating and maintenance procedures for the sampling

train are described in APTD-0576 (Reference 3 in section 17.0 of

this method). Since correct usage is important in obtaining valid

results, all users should read APTD-0576 and adopt the operating and

maintenance procedures outlined in it, unless otherwise specified

herein. The sampling train consists of the following components:

6.1.1 Probe nozzle.

6.1.1.1 Glass or glass lined with sharp, tapered leading edge.

The angle of taper shall be 30 deg., and the taper shall

be on the outside to preserve a constant internal diameter. The

probe nozzle shall be of the button-hook or elbow design, unless

otherwise specified by the Administrator. Other materials of

construction may be used, subject to the approval of the

Administrator.

6.1.1.2 A range of nozzle sizes suitable for isokinetic

sampling should be available. Typical nozzle sizes range from 0.32

to 1.27 cm (\1/8\ to \1/2\ in.) inside diameter (ID) in increments

of 0.16 cm (\1/16\ in.). Larger nozzle sizes are also available if

higher volume sampling trains are used. Each nozzle shall be

calibrated according to the procedures outlined in section 10.0 of

this method.

6.1.2 Probe liner.

6.1.2.1 Borosilicate or quartz glass tubing with a heating

system capable of maintaining a probe gas temperature at the exit

end during sampling of 120 14 deg.C (248

25 deg.F), or such other temperature as specified by an applicable

subpart of the standards or approved by the Administrator for a

particular application. Since the actual temperature at the outlet

of the probe is not usually monitored during sampling, probes

constructed according to APTD-0581 and utilizing the calibration

curves of APTD-0576 (or calibrated according to the procedure

outlined in APTD-0576) will be considered acceptable.

6.1.2.2 Either borosilicate or quartz glass probe liners may be

used for stack temperatures up to about 480 deg.C (900 deg.F);

[[Page 50605]]

quartz liners shall be used for temperatures between 480 and

900 deg.C (900 and 1,650 deg.F). Both types of liners may be used at

higher temperatures than specified for short periods of time,

subject to the approval of the Administrator. The softening

temperature for borosilicate glass is 820 deg.C (1,500 deg.F), and

for quartz glass it is 1,500 deg.C (2,700 deg.F).

6.1.3 Pitot tube. Type S, as described in section 6.1 of Method

2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or other device approved by the

Administrator. The pitot tube shall be attached to the probe (as

shown in Figure 5-1 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A) to

allow constant monitoring of the stack gas velocity. The impact

(high pressure) opening plane of the pitot tube shall be even with

or above the nozzle entry plane (see Method 2, Figure 2-6b, 40 CFR

part 60, appendix A) during sampling. The Type S pitot tube assembly

shall have a known coefficient, determined as outlined in section

10.0 of Method 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.

6.1.4 Differential pressure gauge. Inclined manometer or

equivalent device (two), as described in section 6.2 of Method 2, 40

CFR part 60, appendix A. One manometer shall be used for velocity

head (Dp) readings, and the other, for orifice differential pressure

readings.

6.1.5 Filter holder. Borosilicate glass, with a glass frit

filter support and a silicone rubber gasket. The holder design shall

provide a positive seal against leakage from the outside or around

the filter. The holder shall be attached immediately at the outlet

of the probe (or cyclone, if used).

6.1.6 Filter heating system. Any heating system capable of

maintaining a temperature around the filter holder of 120

14 deg.C (248 25 deg.F) during sampling,

or such other temperature as specified by an applicable subpart of

the standards or approved by the Administrator for a particular

application. Alternatively, the tester may opt to operate the

equipment at a temperature lower than that specified. A temperature

gauge capable of measuring temperature to within 3 deg.C (5.4 deg.F)

shall be installed so that the temperature around the filter holder

can be regulated and monitored during sampling. Heating systems

other than the one shown in APTD-058l may be used.

6.1.7 Condenser. The following system shall be used to

determine the stack gas moisture content: Four glass impingers

connected in series with leak-free ground glass fittings. The first,

third, and fourth impingers shall be of the Greenburg-Smith design,

modified by replacing the tip with a 1.3 cm (\1/2\ in.) ID glass

tube extending to about 1.3 cm (\1/2\ in.) from the bottom of the

flask. The second impinger shall be of the Greenburg-Smith design

with the standard tip. The first and second impingers shall contain

known quantities of water (section 4.1.3 of this method), the third

shall be empty, and the fourth shall contain a known weight of

silica gel, or equivalent desiccant. A temperature sensor, capable

of measuring temperature to within 1 deg.C (2 deg.F) shall be placed

at the outlet of the fourth impinger for monitoring purposes.

6.1.8 Metering system. Vacuum gauge, leak-free pump,

temperature sensors capable of measuring temperature to within

3 deg.C (5.4 deg.F), dry gas meter (DGM) capable of measuring volume

to within 2 percent, and related equipment, as shown in Figure 5-1

of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Other metering systems

capable of maintaining sampling rates within 10 percent of

isokinetic and of determining sample volumes to within 2 percent may

be used, subject to the approval of the Administrator. When the

metering system is used in conjunction with a pitot tube, the system

shall allow periodic checks of isokinetic rates. Sampling trains

utilizing metering systems designed for higher flow rates than that

described in APTD-0581 or APTD-0576 may be used provided that the

specifications of this method are met.

6.1.9 Barometer. Mercury, aneroid, or other barometer capable

of measuring atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm (0.1 in.) Hg.

Note: The barometric reading may be obtained from a nearby

National Weather Service station. In this case, the station value

(which is the absolute barometric pressure) shall be requested and

an adjustment for elevation differences between the weather station

and sampling point shall be made at a rate of minus 2.5 mm (0.1 in.)

Hg per 30 m (100 ft) elevation increase or plus 2.5 mm (0.1 in) Hg.

Per 30 m (100 ft) elevation decrease.

6.1.10 Gas density determination equipment. Temperature sensor

and pressure gauge, as described in section 6.3 and 6.4 of Method 2,

40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and gas analyzer, if necessary, as

described in Method 3, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The temperature

sensor shall, preferably, be permanently attached to the pitot tube

or sampling probe in a fixed configuration, such that the tip of the

sensor extends beyond the leading edge of the probe sheath and does

not touch any metal. Alternatively, the sensor may be attached just

prior to use in the field. Note, however, that if the temperature

sensor is attached in the field, the sensor must be placed in an

interference-free arrangement with respect to the Type S pitot tube

openings (see Method 2, Figure 2-4, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A). As

a second alternative, if a difference of not more than 1 percent in

the average velocity measurement is to be introduced, the

temperature sensor need not be attached to the probe or pitot tube.

(This alternative is subject to the approval of the Administrator.)

6.2 Sample recovery. The following items are needed:

6.2.1 Probe-liner and probe-nozzle brushes. Nylon bristle

brushes with stainless steel wire handles. The probe brush shall

have extensions (at least as long as the probe) constructed of

stainless steel, Nylon, Teflon, or similarly inert material The

brushes shall be properly sized and shaped to brush out the probe

liner and nozzle.

6.2.2 Wash bottles. Glass wash bottles are recommended;

polyethylene wash bottles may be used; however this may introduce a

positive bias due to contamination from the bottle. It is

recommended that acetone not be stored in polyethylene bottles for

longer than a month.

6.2.3 Glass sample storage containers. Chemically resistant,

borosilicate glass bottles, for acetone and methylene chloride

washes and impinger water, 500-ml or 1000-ml. Screw cap liners shall

either be rubber-backed Teflon or shall be constructed so as to be

leak-free and resistant to chemical attack by acetone or methylene

chloride. (Narrow mouth glass bottles have been found to be less

prone to leakage.) Alternatively, polyethylene bottles may be used.

6.2.4 Petri dishes. For filter samples, glass, unless otherwise

specified by the Administrator.

6.2.5 Graduated cylinder and/or balance. To measure condensed

water, acetone wash and methylene chloride wash used during field

recovery of the samples, to within 1 ml or 1 g. Graduated cylinders

shall have subdivisions no greater than 2 ml. Most laboratory

balances are capable of weighing to the nearest 0.5 g or less. Any

such balance is suitable for use here and in section 6.3.4 of this

method.

6.2.6 Plastic storage containers. Air-tight containers to store

silica gel.

6.2.7 Funnel and rubber policeman. To aid in transfer of silica

gel to container; not necessary if silica gel is weighed in the

field.

6.2.8 Funnel. Glass or polyethylene, to aid in sample recovery.

6.3 Analysis. For analysis, the following equipment is needed:

6.3.1 Glass or teflon weighing dishes.

6.3.2 Desiccator. It is recommended that fresh desiccant be

used to minimize the chance for positive bias due to absorption of

organic during drying.

6.3.3 Analytical balance. To measure to within 0.1 mg.

6.3.4 Balance. To measure to within 0.5 g.

6.3.5 Beakers. 250-ml.

6.3.6 Hygrometer. To measure the relative humidity of the

laboratory environment.

6.3.7 Temperature sensor. To measure the temperature of the

laboratory environment.

6.3.8 Allihin tubes. 30 ml. size, fine (02 or

S03, the filter material must be of a type that is unreactive

to S02 or S03. Reference 10 in section 17.0 of this method

may be used to select the appropriate filter.

7.1.2 Silica gel. Indicating type, 6- to 16-mesh. If previously

used, dry at 175 deg.C (350 deg.F) for 2 hours. New silica gel may

be used as received. Alternatively, other types of desiccants

(equivalent or better) may be used, subject to the approval of the

Administrator.

7.1.3 Water. When analysis of the material caught in the

impingers is required,

[[Page 50606]]

deionized distilled water shall be used. Run blanks prior to field

use to eliminate a high blank on test samples.

7.1.4 Crushed ice.

7.1.5 Stopcock grease. Acetone-insoluble, heat-stable silicone

grease. This is not necessary if screw-on connectors with Teflon

sleeves, or similar, are used. Alternatively, other types of

stopcock grease may be used, subject to the approval of the

Administrator. [Caution: many stopcock greases are methylene

chloride soluble. Use sparingly and carefully remove prior to

recovery to prevent contamination of the MCEM analysis.]

7.2 Sample recovery.

7.2.1 Acetone--Acetone with blank values 5.6 C (68

10 deg.F) and ambient pressure for at least 24 hours,

and weigh at intervals of at least 6 hours to a constant weight,

i.e., 14 deg. C (248

25 deg. F), or such other temperature as specified by

an applicable subpart of the standards or approved by the

Administrator.

8.1.5.1 For each run, record the data required on a data sheet

such as the one shown in Figure 5-2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A. Be sure to record the initial reading. Record the DGM

readings at the beginning and end of each sampling time increment,

when changes in flow rates are made, before and after each leak-

check, and when sampling is halted. Take other readings indicated by

Figure 5-2 of Method 5, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A at least once at

each sample point during each time increment and additional readings

when significant changes (20 percent variation in velocity head

readings) necessitate additional adjustments in flow rate. Level and

zero the manometer. Because the manometer level and zero may drift

due to vibrations and temperature changes, make periodic checks

during the traverse.

8.1.5.2 Clean the portholes prior to the test run to minimize

the chance of sampling deposited material. To begin sampling, remove

the nozzle cap, verify that the filter and probe heating systems are

up to temperature, and that the pitot tube and probe are properly

positioned. Position the nozzle at the first traverse point with the

tip pointing directly into the gas stream. Immediately start the

pump, and adjust the flow to isokinetic conditions. Nomographs are

available, which aid in the rapid adjustment of the isokinetic

sampling rate without excessive computations. These nomographs are

designed for use when the Type S pitot tube coefficient (Cp) is

0.850.02, and the stack gas equivalent density (dry

molecular weight) is equal to 294. APTD-0576 details the

procedure for using the nomographs. If Cp and Md are

outside the above stated ranges, do not use the nomographs unless

appropriate steps (see Reference 7 in section 17.0 of this method)

are taken to compensate for the deviations.

8.1.5.3 When the stack is under significant negative pressure

(height of impinger stem), take care to close the coarse adjust

valve before inserting the probe into the stack to prevent water

from backing into the filter holder. If necessary, the pump may be

turned on with the coarse adjust valve closed.

8.1.5.4 When the probe is in position, block off the openings

around the probe and porthole to prevent unrepresentative dilution

of the gas stream.

8.1.5.5 Traverse the stack cross-section, as required by Method

1, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A or as specified by the Administrator,

being careful not to bump the probe nozzle into the stack walls when

sampling near the walls or when removing or inserting the probe

through the portholes; this minimizes the chance of extracting

deposited material.

8.1.5.6 During the test run, make periodic adjustments to keep

the temperature around the filter holder at the proper level; add

more ice and, if necessary, salt to maintain a temperature of less

than 20 deg. C (68 deg. F) at the condenser/silica gel outlet. Also,

periodically check the level and zero of the manometer.

8.1.5.7 If the pressure drop across the filter becomes too

high, making isokinetic sampling difficult to maintain, the filter

may be replaced in the midst of the sample run. It is recommended

that another complete filter assembly be used rather than attempting

to change the filter itself. Before a new filter assembly is

installed, conduct a leak-check (see section 8.1.4.2 of this

method). The total PM weight shall include the summation of the

filter assembly catches.

8.1.5.8 A single train shall be used for the entire sample run,

except in cases where simultaneous sampling is required in two or

more separate ducts or at two or more different locations within the

same duct, or, in cases where equipment failure necessitates a

change of trains. In all other situations, the use of two or more

trains will be subject to the approval of the Administrator.

8.1.5.9 Note that when two or more trains are used, separate

analyses of the front-half and (if applicable) impinger catches from

each train shall be performed, unless identical nozzle sizes were

used in all trains, in which case, the front-half catches from the

individual trains may be combined (as may the impinger catches) and

one analysis of the front-half catch and one analysis of the

impinger catch may be performed.

8.1.5.10 At the end of the sample run, turn off the coarse

adjust valve, remove the probe and nozzle from the stack, turn off

the pump, record the final DGM reading, and then conduct a post-test

leak-check, as outlined in section 8.1.4.3 of this method. Also

leak-check the pitot lines as described in section 8.1 of Method 2,

40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The lines must pass this leak-check, in

order to validate the velocity head data.

8.1.6 Calculation of percent isokinetic. Calculate percent

isokinetic (see calculations, section 12.11 of this method) to

determine whether a run was valid or another test run should be

made. If there was difficulty in maintaining isokinetic rates

because of source conditions, consult the Administrator for possible

variance on the isokinetic rates.

8.2 Sample recovery.

8.2.1 Proper cleanup procedure begins as soon as the probe is

removed from the stack at the end of the sampling period. Allow the

probe to cool.

8.2.1.1 When the probe can be safely handled, wipe off all

external PM near the tip of the probe nozzle, and place a cap over

it to prevent losing or gaining PM. Do not cap off the probe tip

tightly while the sampling train is cooling down. This would create

a vacuum in the filter holder, thus drawing water from the impingers

into the filter holder.

8.2.1.2 Before moving the sample train to the cleanup site,

remove the probe from the sample train, wipe off the silicone

grease, and cap the open outlet of the probe. Be careful not to lose

any condensate that might be present. Wipe off the silicone grease

from

[[Page 50608]]

the filter inlet where the probe was fastened, and cap it. Remove

the umbilical cord from the last impinger, and cap the impinger. If

a flexible line is used between the first impinger or condenser and

the filter holder, disconnect the line at the filter holder, and let

any condensed water or liquid drain into the impingers or condenser.

After wiping off the silicone grease, cap off the filter holder

outlet and impinger inlet. Either ground-glass stoppers, plastic

caps, or serum caps may be used to close these openings.

8.2.1.3 Transfer the probe and filter-impinger assembly to the

cleanup area. This area should be clean and protected from the wind

so that the chances of contaminating or losing the sample will be

minimized.

8.2.1.4 Save a portion of the acetone and methylene chloride

used for cleanup as blanks. Take 200 ml of each solvent directly

from the wash bottle being used, and place it in glass sample

containers labeled ``acetone blank'' and ``methylene chloride

blank'' respectively.

8.2.1.5 Inspect the train prior to and during disassembly, and

note any abnormal conditions. Treat the samples as follows:

8.2.1.5.1 Container No. 1. Carefully remove the filter from the

filter holder, and place it in its identified petri dish container.

Use a pair of tweezers and/or clean disposable surgical gloves to

handle the filter. If it is necessary to fold the filter, do so such

that the PM cake is inside the fold. Using a dry Nylon bristle brush

and/or a sharp-edged blade, carefully transfer to the petri dish any

PM and/or filter fibers that adhere to the filter holder gasket.

Seal the container.

8.2.1.5.2 Container No. 2.

8.2.1.5.2.1 Taking care to see that dust on the outside of the

probe or other exterior surfaces does not get into the sample,

quantitatively recover PM or any condensate from the probe nozzle,

probe fitting, probe liner, and front half of the filter holder by

washing these components with acetone and placing the wash in a

glass container.

8.2.1.5.2.2 Perform the acetone rinse as follows: Carefully

remove the probe nozzle, and clean the inside surface by rinsing

with acetone from a wash bottle and brushing with a Nylon bristle

brush. Brush until the acetone rinse shows no visible particles,

after which make a final rinse of the inside surface with acetone.

Brush and rinse the inside parts of the Swagelok fitting with

acetone in a similar way until no visible particles remain.

8.2.1.5.2.3 Rinse the probe liner with acetone by tilting and

rotating the probe while squirting acetone into its upper end so

that all inside surfaces will be wetted with acetone. Let the

acetone drain from the lower end into the sample container. A funnel

(glass or polyethylene) may be used to aid in transferring liquid

washes to the container. Follow the acetone rinse with a probe

brush. Hold the probe in an inclined position, squirt acetone into

the upper end as the probe brush is being pushed with a twisting

action through the probe; hold a sample container underneath the

lower end of the probe, and catch any acetone and particulate matter

that is brushed from the probe. Run the brush through the probe

three times or more until no visible PM is carried out with the

acetone or until none remains in the probe liner on visual

inspection. With stainless steel or other metal probes, run the

brush through in the above prescribed manner at least six times

since metal probes have small crevices in which particulate matter

can be entrapped. Rinse the brush with acetone and quantitatively

collect these washings in the sample container. After the brushing,

make a final acetone rinse of the probe as described in this

section. It is recommended that two people clean the probe to

minimize sample losses. Between sampling runs, keep brushes clean

and protected from contamination.

8.2.1.5.2.4 After ensuring that all joints have been wiped

clean of silicone grease, clean the inside of the front half of the

filter holder by rubbing the surfaces with a Nylon bristle brush and

rinsing with acetone. Rinse each surface three times or more if

needed to remove visible particulate. Make a final rinse of the

brush and filter holder. Carefully rinse out the glass cyclone, also

(if applicable).

8.2.1.5.2.5 After rinsing the nozzle, probe and front half of

the filter holder with acetone, the entire procedure is to be

repeated with methylene chloride and saved in a separate Container

No. 2M.

8.2.1.5.2.6 After acetone and methylene chloride washings and

particulate matter have been collected in the proper sample

container, tighten the lid on the sample container so that acetone

and methylene chloride will not leak out when it is shipped to the

laboratory. Mark the height of the fluid level to determine whether

leakage occurred during transport. Label each container to identify

clearly its contents.

8.2.1.5.3 Container No. 3. Note the color of the indicating

silica gel to determine whether it has been completely spent, and

make a notation of its condition. Transfer the silica gel from the

fourth impinger to its original container, and seal. A funnel may

make it easier to pour the silica gel without spilling. A rubber

policeman may be used as an aid in removing the silica gel from the

impinger. It is not necessary to remove the small amount of dust

particles that may adhere to the impinger wall and are difficult to

remove. Since the gain in weight is to be used for moisture

calculations, do not use any water or other liquids to transfer the

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

procedure for Container No. 3 in section 11.3 of this method.

8.2.1.5.4 Impinger water. Treat the impingers as follows:

8.2.1.5.4.1 Make a notation of any color or film in the liquid

catch. Measure the liquid that is in the first three impingers to

within 1 ml by using a graduated cylinder or by weighing it to

within 0.5 g by using a balance (if one is available). Record the

volume or weight of liquid present. This information is required to

calculate the moisture content of the effluent gas.

8.2.1.5.4.2 Following the determination of the volume of liquid

present, rinse the back half of the train with water and add it to

the impinger catch and store it in a container labeled 3W(water).

8.2.1.5.4.3 Following the water rinse, rinse the back half of

the train with acetone to remove the excess water to enhance

subsequent organic recovery with methylene chloride and

quantitatively recover to a container labeled 3S(solvent) followed

by at least three sequential rinsings with aliquots of methylene

chloride. Quantitatively recover to the same container labeled 3S.

Record separately the amount of both acetone and methylene chloride

used to the nearest 1 ml or 0.5 gram.

Note: Because the subsequent analytical finish is gravimetric it

is okay to recover both solvents to the same container. This would

not be recommended if other analytical finishes were required.

8.3 Transport. Whenever possible, containers should be shipped

in such a way that they remain upright at all times.

9.0 Quality Control

9.1 The following quality control procedures are suggested to

check the volume metering system calibration values at the field

test site prior to sample collection. These procedures are optional.

9.1.1 Meter orifice check. Using the calibration data obtained

during the calibration procedure described in section 5.3 of this

method, determine the H@ for the metering system

orifice. The H@ is the orifice pressure differ

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.