[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations] [Pages 61743-62273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19099]

[ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES, part 60, subpart AA and AAA starts on page 8.]

[[Page 61743]]

Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 60, 61, and 63

Amendments for Testing and Monitoring Provisions; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 201 / Tuesday, October 17, 2000 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 61744]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63
[FRL-6523-6] RIN 2060-AG21

Amendments for Testing and Monitoring Provisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule: amendments.

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

SUMMARY: In this rule, we, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  are making final minor amendments to our stationary source testing and  monitoring rules. These amendments include miscellaneous editorial  changes and technical corrections that are needed. We are also  promulgating Performance Specification 15, which contains the criteria  for certifying continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) that use  fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). In addition, we are  changing the outline of the test methods and CEMS performance  specifications already listed in Parts 60, 61, and 63 to fit a new  format recommended by the Environmental Monitoring Management Council  (EMMC). The editorial changes and technical corrections update the  rules and help maintain their original intent. Performance  Specification 15 will provide the needed acceptance criteria for FTIR  CEMS as they emerge as a new technology. We are reformatting the test  methods and performance specifications to make them more uniform in  content and interchangeable with other Agency methods. The amendments  apply to a large number of industries that are already subject to the  current provisions of Parts 60, 61, and 63. Therefore, we have not  listed specific affected industries or their Standard Industrial  Classification codes here. 

DATES: Effective Date. This regulation is effective October 17, 2000. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-97-12, contains information relevant to  this rule. You can read and copy it between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.,  Monday through Friday, (except for Federal holidays), at our Air and  Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260- 7548. Go to Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). The docket  office may charge a reasonable fee for copying.

     Summary of Comments and Responses Document. You may obtain the  Summary of Comments and Responses Document over the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc; choose the ``Methods'' menu, then choose the  ``Summary of Comments and Responses'' hypertext under Category A.

  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Foston Curtis, Emission  Measurement Center (MD-19), Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis  Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina 27711; telephone (919) 541-1063; facsimile number (919)  541-1039; electronic mail address ``[email protected]''.

  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information presented in this  preamble is organized as follows: 

I. Why were these amendments made?
II. What does the new EMMC Format for methods look like?
III. What were the significant public comments and what resulting 
changes were made since proposal?
    A. Updates to the ASTM Methods
    B. Performance requirements for continuous instrumental methods 
of Part 60--Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, and 20
    C. Method 18 (Part 60)
    D. Method 25 (Part 60)
    E. Performance Specification 15 (Part 60)
IV. What revisions were made that were not in the proposed rule?
V. What are the administrative requirements for this rule?
    A. Docket
    B. Office of Management and Budget Review
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. E.O. 13132--Federalism
    G. E.O. 13084--Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments
    H. Executive Order 13084--Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Plain Language in Government Writing

 Why Were These Amendments Made?
         
     We have compiled miscellaneous errors and editions that are needed  for the test methods, performance specifications, and associated  regulations in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63. The corrections and  revisions consist primarily of typographical errors, technical errors  in equations and diagrams, and narrative that is no longer applicable  or is obsolete. Some of the revisions were brought to our attention by  the public. The major changes to the rule proposed on August 27, 1997  that resulted from public comments are discussed in Section III. Please  note that, although numerous technical corrections were made to Parts  60, 61, and 63 rules, none affected a compliance standard or reporting  or recordkeeping requirement. Revisions were only made to sections that  pertain to source testing or monitoring of emissions and operations.  

II. What Does the New EMMC Format for Methods Look Like?

    The new EMMC format we have adopted for analytical methods was  developed by consensus and will help integrate make consistent the test  methods written by different EPA programs. The test methods and  performance specifications being restructured in the new format are  shown in Table 1. 



  Table 1.--Test Methods and Performance Specifications Restructured in the EMMC Format
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 40 CFR 60 App. A   40 CFR 60 App. B      40 CFR 61         40 CFR 63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1, 1A             PS-2               101, 101A         303, 303A
 2, 2A, 2B, 2C,    PS-3               102               304A, 304B
 2D, 2E
 3, 3A, 3B         PS-4, PS-4A        103               305
 4                 PS-5               104               306, 306A, 306B
 5, 5A, 5B, 5D,    PS-6               105
 5E, 5F, 5G, 5H
 6, 6A, 6B, 6C     .................  106
 7, 7A 7B, 7C,     .................  107, 107A
 7D, 7E
 8                 .................  108, 108A, 108B,
                                       108C
 10, 10A, 10B      .................  111
 11
 12

[[Page 61745]]

 
 13A, 13B
 14
 15, 15A
 16, 16A, 16B
 17
 18
 19
 20
 21
 22
 23
 24, 24A
 25, 25A, 25B,
 25C, 25D, 25E
 26, 26A
 27
 28, 28A
 29
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methods and specifications listed in Table 1 were restructured  in the format shown in Table 2. Only in a few instances were there  deviations from this recommended format. 
                          Table 2.--EMMC Format
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Section No.                        Section heading
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0....................................  Scope and Application.
2.0....................................  Summary of the Method.
3.0....................................  Definitions.
4.0....................................  Interferences.
5.0....................................  Safety.
6.0....................................  Equipment and Supplies.
7.0....................................  Reagents and Standards.
8.0....................................  Sample Collection,
                                          Preservation, Storage and
                                          Transport.
9.0....................................  Quality Control.
10.0...................................  Calibration and
                                          Standardization.
11.0...................................  Analytical Procedure.
12.0...................................  Calculations and Data Analysis.
13.0...................................  Method Performance.
14.0...................................  Pollution Prevention.
15.0...................................  Waste Management.
16.0...................................  References.
17.0...................................  Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts,
                                          and Validation Data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Were the Significant Public Comments and What Resulting Changes Were Made Since Proposal?

    We asked that public comments on the August 27, 1997 proposal (62  FR 45369) be submitted by October 27, 1997. On November 18, 1997, we  reopened (62 FR 61483) the comment period to allow additional time for  review and comment. We received comments from facility owners and  operators, trade associations, State and Local air pollution control  agencies, environmental consultants, and private citizens. Their  comments were considered in developing this final action. A detailed  discussion of all comments are contained in the Summary of Comments and  Responses Document (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble). The major  public comments and the Agency's responses are summarized below. 

A. Update to ASTM Methods

    Several commenters supported our updating the references to ASTM  Standards to include the dates of the most recent versions. However,  some were concerned that updated standards not supplant the versions  previously allowed and those promulgated with the original regulation.  The ASTM recommended we follow the tradition of other governmental  agencies and list only the latest version of each standard. This would  present the latest, most improved standard. They felt that previously  approved versions would still be acceptable for future use, and this  could be noted in the preamble to the final rule.     

	On January 14, 1998, we published a supplementary Federal Register  notice to solicit public comments on this idea. We received three  comment letters. All commenters objected to the idea of listing only  the latest version of the ASTM standard. The commenters noted problems  that would be encountered with State Implementation Plans (SIP) wherein  only the specific ASTM standards listed in the subparts would be  allowed. They feared that listing only the latest version of the  standard would change the current allowance to use earlier versions.  This could potentially change the intent of the original emission  standard. Most commenters didn't think a preamble explanation was  sufficient assurance for continued allowance of earlier versions since  preambles are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. There  were additional concerns for laboratories using currently acceptable  versions who would need to upgrade their practice to reflect the latest  version of a standard. The commenters were not amenable to only listing  the latest standard unless [[Page 61746]]language were added to the General Provisions of each part stating that  previously allowed versions of the standards were still allowed at the  discretion of the source. We feel the commenters have valid concerns  and have decided to continue the convention of listing all acceptable  versions of the ASTM standards including the new updates. The intent of  this action is to allow any of the yearly-designated versions of a  specific standard to be used in the applications where cited. 

B. Performance Requirements for Continuous Instrumental Methods of Part 
60--Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, and 20

    Several commenters thought the preamble language for this proposal  gave inadequate notice of the changes being made. Commenters stated  that, in the proposal, we did not provide an adequate basis and purpose  statement and misled the readers into thinking that the proposal  contained no substantive changes to these test methods. Based on the  number of substantive changes in this proposal, and in light of the  Section 307(d) requirements, the commenters felt that we must address  these issues in a new proposal before the revisions can go final with  the rest of the package. We agree with the commenters that the preamble  to the proposed rule may not have given adequate public notice for some  of the revisions. The revisions to the continuous instrumental methods  (Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, and 20) may be considered substantive, but  were not enumerated in the preamble nor was a supporting rationale  given. Therefore, the revisions to Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, and 20 will  be reproposed as a separate rule. The comments already received on the  proposal of these methods will be held for consideration with any  future comments that result from the reproposal. 

C. Method 18 (Part 60, Appendix A)

    One commenter thought Method 18 was difficult to follow. The  commenter suggested that, to simplify organization of the method, we  should divide the method into five categories. Each title would begin  with ``Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography''  but have the following subtitles: 
18A--Evacuated container sampling procedure.
18B--Bag sampling procedure.
18C--Direct interface procedure.
18D--Dilution interface procedure.
18E--Adsorption tube sampling procedure.

    Another commenter suggested dividing the method into two different  methods, one for the direct extractive technique, and the other for  sample collection into bags, flasks, or adsorbents.

    The method is currently divided according to the various sampling  procedures; for example, Section 8.2.2 is the Direct Interface Sampling  and Analysis Procedures, Section 8.2.3 is Dilution Interface Sampling  and Analysis Procedures, and so on. We do not believe that multiple  sampling procedures warrant dividing Method 18 into separate methods.  We feel a single method allowing different procedures offers the source  greater flexibility than citing specific procedures for particular  situations. One commenter noted that the proposed method requires  triplicate injections for analysis of the calibration standards used  for preparing the pre-test calibration curve, triplicate injections of  the test samples, and triplicate injections for construction of the  post-test calibration curve. The commenter questioned the additional  accuracy expected for the extra hours spent in sample analysis and  calibration while in the field conducting a source test compared to the  current method which requires two consecutive analyses for pre- and  post-test calibration and sample analyses meeting the same criteria for  acceptance. We are increasing the calibration requirement to triple  injections to tighten the method's quality assurance procedures.  Triplicate calibration injections is the normal procedure prevalent in  the analytical community, as well as in other Agency methodologies. It  is difficult to establish precision and accuracy with duplicate  injections. However, triplicate injections provide a reasonable measure  of analytical precision without being overly burdensome. We do not feel  the increase in time and costs associated with the third injection will  significantly affect a typical test, considering the added benefits to  data quality that are gained.

    Several commenters asked us to revise and clarify various aspects of Section 10. We have made these modifications to address their concerns.

    Regarding Section 13.1, one commenter noted that Method 18 is not a method in the general sense, but is more of a guideline on how to develop and document a test method. The commenter therefore felt that  any prospective method should be written up and submitted to us along  with the proper documentation that includes recovery study results. We  disagree with this commenter. Method 18, which has been cited and used  for many years, is a specific gas chromatography method with specific  sampling, analytical, and data quality requirements. The method was  written to accommodate many test sites having many possible target  compounds and gas matrices. The tester has been given numerous  sampling, separation, and analytical system options to make the method  adaptable to the needs of various compliance demonstrations.

     Several commenters asked us to clarify the 5 to 10 percent relative standard deviation (RSD) requirement for calibration standards in Section 13.1.

    We have added clarity to Section 13.1. The 5 to 10 percent RSD is not a precision criterion for calibration standards but a typical precision range for analyzing field samples. Five percent RSD is required for triplicate injections of calibration standards.

D. Method 25 (Part 60, Appendix A)

    One commenter noted that Method 25 has limitations due to  conditions that may exist in stack gas. If such conditions exist, the  commenter recommends interfacing a nonmethane analyzer directly to the  source or use Method 25A or 25B to measure the emissions. The commenter  recommended modifying Method 25 to allow instruments that are able to  determine the methane and nonmethane portions using components  different from those described by Method 25 when the analyzer is  directly interfaced to the source. The commenter feels that Method 25  would be more practical for determining methane/nonmethane emissions at  the field site if the method could be modified to allow these other  analyzers. The commenter feels that it will also be necessary that  fixed performance specifications be defined in the method, such as  those for Method 6C. We believe these comments address method changes  that are beyond those covered in the proposal and are, therefore,  beyond the scope of this action. The commenter is encouraged to pursue  these method changes through other appropriate channels such as  submitting a request to use them as an alternative method. 

E. Performance Specification 15 (Part 60, Appendix B)

    One commenter noted that the statement of applicability for the  demonstration is limited to the criteria we gave. The commenter stated  that, with performance based measurement systems, the focus is on data  quality objectives (DQO) where the performance specifications are  coupled with the DQO. We believe the purpose of reference methods and,  in this case  [[Page 61747]]  performance specifications, is to provide standard procedures for  sources to follow in order to provide quality emission data. However,  we do provide latitude to sources by publishing performance-based  methods and PS whenever possible. This performance specification is one  such procedure; as long as an FTIR sampling system meets the  requirements of the performance specifications, it can be used for any  regulated pollutant.

     Based on public comments and upon further deliberation, we have  removed the system calibration requirement from Section 10.3 of PS-15.  Since both a system calibration and the calibration transfer standard  measurement basically test instrument function, having both of these  requirements in the performance specifications is redundant.

    One commenter felt that the number of runs should be given as  ``guidance'' rather than made a requirement. We set the requirement for  nine runs (when comparing the FTIR to a reference method) and 10 runs  (when comparing the FTIR to a reference monitor) because these are standard procedures for performance specifications. We note that this  performance specification also allows analyte spiking as an option;  therefore, a revision on this point is not necessary.

    One commenter noted that Section 11.1.1.4.3 states ``if the RM is a CEM, synchronize the sampling flow rates of the RM and the FTIR CEM.'' The commenter noted that instrumental analyzers are currently used for reference methods. EPA Methods 6C, 7E, 3A, and 10 measure SO2, NOX, O2, CO2, and CO on a continuous basis for a short period of time and are referred to as instrumental analyzers and not CEMs. The commenter felt the statement should read ``if the reference method is an instrumental analyzer, synchronize the sampling flow rates of the RM and the FTIR.'' We agree with the commenter and have made the noted change.

IV. What Revisions Were Made That Were Not in the Proposed Rule?

    A revision was made to Section 6.6 of Method 21 of Part 60 to  clarify the VOC monitoring instrument specifications. The requirement  for the instrument to be intrinsically safe for Classes 1 and 2,  Division 1 conditions has been amended to require them to be  intrinsically safe for Class 1 and/or Class 2, Division 1 conditions,  as appropriate. The performance test provisions of Sec. 60.754(d) for  determining control device efficiency when combusting landfill gas were  amended to allow the use of Method 25 as an alternative to Methods 18  and 25C. The tester has the option of using either Method 18, 25, or  25C in this case. These amendments were not published in the proposed  rule. 

Dated: January 10, 2000. Carol M. Browner, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, The Environmental Protection Agency amends title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES [ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES]

    1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7413, 7414, 7416, 7601, and 7602.

Sec. 60.274  [Amended] [ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES, part 60, subpart AA]


    85. Amend Sec. 60.274 as follows:
    a-b. Paragraph (a)(4) is amended by revising the words ``under paragraph (e) of this section'' to read ``under paragraph (f) of this section.''
    c. In Sec. 60.274, paragraph (i), the first sentence is amended by revising the words ``required by Sec. 60.275(c)'' to read ``required by Sec. 60.276(c).''
    d. In Sec. 60.274, by revising paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 60.274  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) Continuous opacity monitor or Method 9 data.
* * * * *


Sec. 60.275  [Amended]

    86. Amend Sec. 60.275 as follows:
    a. Paragraph (e)(2) is amended by revising the words ``more then one control'' to read ``more than one control.''
    b. Paragraph (e)(4) is amended by revising the words ``the test runs shall be conducted concurrently'' to read ``the Method 9 test runs shall be conducted concurrently with the particulate matter test runs.''
    c. In paragraph (i), the fifth sentence is amended by revising the words ``In the case, Reference Method 9'' to read ``In this case, Method 9.''


Sec. 60.276  [Amended]

    87. Amend Sec. 60.276 by:
    a. Paragraphs (a) and (c)(6)(iv) are revised.
    b. In paragraph (b), the second sentence is amended by revising the words ``postmarked 30 days prior'' to read ``postmarked at least 30 days prior.''

    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 60.276  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    (a) Operation at a furnace static pressure that exceeds the value established under Sec. 60.274(g) and either operation of control system fan motor amperes at values exceeding 15 percent of the value established under Sec. 60.274(c) or operation at flow rates lower than those established under Sec. 60.274(c) may be considered by the  Administrator to be unacceptable operation and maintenance of the affected facility. Operation at such values shall be reported to the Administrator semiannually.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) * * *
    (iv) Continuous opacity monitor or Method 9 data.
* * * * *


Sec. 60.274a  [Amended] [ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES, part 60, subpart AAa]

    88. Amend Sec. 60.274a by:
    a. In paragraph (c), the first sentence is revised, and paragraph (h)(4) is revised.
    b. Paragraph (f) is amended by adding the following sentence after the first sentence: ``The pressure shall be recorded as 15-minute integrated averages.''
    c. In paragraph (h), the first sentence is amended by revising the words ``required by Sec. 60.275a(d)'' to read ``required by Sec. 60.276a(f).''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec. 60.274a  Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *
    (c) When the owner or operator of an EAF is required to demonstrate  compliance with the standards under Sec. 60.272a(a)(3), and at any other time that the Administrator may require (under section 114 of the  Act, as amended), either the control system fan motor amperes and all damper positions or the volumetric flow rate through each separately  ducted hood shall be determined during all periods in which a hood is operated for the purpose of capturing emissions from the affected facility subject to paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * * * *

    (h) * * *
    (4) Continuous opacity monitor or Method 9 data.
* * * * *


Sec. 60.275a  [Amended]

    89. In Sec. 60.275a, paragraph (e)(4) is amended by revising the  words ``the test runs shall be conducted concurrently'' to read ``the  Method 9 test runs shall be conducted concurrently with the particulate  matter test runs.''   

Sec. 60.276a  [Amended]      

    90. Amend Sec. 60.276a as follows:

 In paragraph (e), the second sentence is amended by revising the words ``postmarked 30 days prior'' to read ``postmarked at least 30  days prior.''
        
     b. Paragraph (f)(6)(iv) is amended by revising as follows:  

Sec. 60.276a  Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  

* * * * *

     (f) * * *

     (iv) Continuous opacity monitor or Method 9 data. 

* * * * * 
