Citation: 52 Fed. Reg. 8723 1987

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)Tue Mar 1 17:14:06 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

ThursdayMarch 19, 1987

Part IV*

'Environmental-ProtectiOn Agency40 CFR Part 61National Emission Standards foriHazardous Air Pollutants; Review andRevision of the Standards for Mercury;Final Rule; Review,

-- -- -- -- --

8724 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 53 / Thursday,' March '19, 1987 1 Riles and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 61(AD.-FRL-3072-71

National Emission Standards forHazardous AIrPollutants; Review andRevision of. the Standards for Mercury

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Final Rule; Review.

SUMMARY: Today's action promulgatesrevisions to the national emissionstandards for the hazardous airpollutant mercury [Chemical AbstractService (CAS) Registry Number 7439-97-61. Revisions were proposed in theFederal Register on December 26, 1984.These revisions add monitoring,reporting, and one-time emission testingrequirements to the standards formercury-cell chlor-alkali plants andallow an owner or operator the option ofdeveloping and submitting for approvala plant-specific monitoring plan. Therevisions also allow the owner oroperator of any facility affected by 40CFR Part 61, Subpart E, up to15 days toverify the validity of source test data,prior to reporting the results to theAdministrator. : "

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19,1987. Theserevisions become effective uponpromulgation and apply to all new and

* existing, affected facilities.Under section 307(b](1) of the Clean

Air Act, judicial review of the actionstaken by this notice is available.only bythe filing.of a petition for review in theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit within 60 daysoftoday's publication. Under section307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, there.quirements that are the subject oftoday's notice may not be challenged'later in civil or criminal proceedingsbrought by EPA to enforce these'requirements,.ADDRESSES:.Review Documents. Thedocument summarizing emissions, -information gathered during the reviewof the standards maybe obtained fromthe EPA Library (MD-35), Research

* Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,telephone number (919) 541-2777. Pleaserefer to "Review of National EmissionStandards for Mercury," EPA-450/3-84-014b.

The document summarizing currentinformation on the potential healtheffects associated with mercuryexposures may be obtained from theNational Technical Information Service,U.S. Department of Commerce,Springfield, Virginia 22161, telephone

number (703) 487-4650 (NTIS stocknumber PB-85-123925). Refer to"Mercury Health Effects Update," EPA-600/8-84-019F, August 1984. The price ofthe document, including shipping, is$19.95.

Docket. Docket No. A-82-41,containing information considered byEPA in developing the revisions, isavailable for public inspection andcopying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday, at EPA'sCentral Docket Section, West TowerLobby, Gallery 1, Waterside Mall; 401 MStreet, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Areasonable fee may be charged forcopying.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Policy issues: Ms. Dianne Byrne or Mr.Gil Wood, Standards DevelopmentBranch, Emission Standards andEngineering Division (MD-13), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711, telephone number (919) 541-5578Technical issues: Mr. John Copeland orDr. James Crowder, Industrial StudiesBranch, Emission Standards andEngineering Division (MV-13), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711, telephone number (919) 541-5601.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of Review and Revisions

The national emission standards formercury limit emissions from mercuryore processing facilities, sludge-incineration and drying plants, andmercury-cell chlor-alkali plants. Duringits-review of the standards, the EPAidentified two areas in which revisionswere.warranted. The first area pertainsto the appropriate amount of time,following completion of performancetests, that should be provided forreporting the results of those tests to theAdministrator. The standards allowed30 days following completion of theperformance tests for the samples to beanalyzed and emissions to bedetermined and required that the resultsbe reported on the day after thedetermination was made. These*revisions change that requirement. Anowner or operator is now alloWed 15days after the determination ofemissions to notify the Administrator ofthe test results. The additional 2 weeksare to provide time. for the results to bereviewed and verified at the sourcebefore they are sent to theAdministrator.

The second area in which revisions tothe standards were warranted pertainsto the monitoring and recordkeepingrequirements for chlor-alkali plants.Compliance data for the hydrogen and

end box ventilation streams at mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants indicated that,while many plants emit at levels just.below the standard during normaloperations, excess emissions haveoccurred during periods of controlsystems failures. To ensure that controlsystems are properly operated andmaintained on a continuousbasis,specific monitoring, recordkeeping, andreporting requirements have been addedto the standards as well as arequirement for a one-time performancetest. These requirements were fullydescribed in the preamble to theproposed revisions (49 FR 50146,December 26, 1984).

In response to comments received onthe proposed requirements, analternative monitoring/recordkeeping/reporting provision has been added tothe standards. This alternative allowseach owner or operator of a mercury-cell chlor-alkali plant the option ofdeveloping and submitting for approvala plant-specific monitoring plan. To beapproved, an alternative monitoringplan must adhere to the guidelines thatare provided in the regulation.

The proposed standards required eachowner or operator of a mercury-cellchlor-alkali plant thatluseshousekeeping practices to comply withthe standard for cell room ventilationsystems to maintain daily records of allleaks.or spills of mercury in the cellroom.,These requirements have notchanged.

As explained in the preamble to theproposed revisions and in thebackground document for thepromulgated standards, the review ofthe standards did not indicate a need torevise the emission limits for the three'source categories that are covered bythe standards or to regulate additionalsources of mercury emissions underthese standards at this time.

II. Summary of Impacts of the Revisions

'Extending the time limit for thesubmission of test data is intended toimprove the quality of test results thatare submitted and should have noenvironmental, economic, cost or energyimpacts.

The addition of monitoring,recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements for mercury-cell chlor-alkali plants will benefit theenvironment by encouraging plantoperators to adopt the best practices foroperating and maintaining processequipment and control devices. Theadditional reduction in mercury , ,emissions has not been quantified. Theaverage yearly cost to each plant duringthe first 3 years that the revisions are in

Federal Register /" Vol. 52, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

effect would be approximately $9,000.Most of this cost is attributable to theone-time performance test.

lI. Public Participation

Prior to proposal of the revisions,interested parties were advised bypublic notice in the Federal Register (48FR 50606, November 2, 1983) of ameeting of the National Air PollutionControl Techniques AdvisoryCommittee to discuss recommendedrevisions to the mercury standard. Thismeeting was held on November 29, 1983.The meeting was open to the public, andeach attendee was given an opportunityto comment on the standardsrecommended for proposal.

The proposed revisions werepublished in the Federal Register onDecember 26, 1984 (49 FR 50146). Thepreamble to the proposed revisionsdiscussed the availability of the reviewdocument, which summarized theemissions information gathered duringthe review, and of the health effectsdocument, which summarized currentinformation on potential health effectsassociated with mercury exposures.Public comments were solicited at thetime of proposal, and copies of thedocuments were distributed tointerested parties.

To provide interested persons theopportunity for oral presentation ofdata, views, or arguments concerningthe proposed standards, the opportunityfor a public hearing was provided.However, a public hearing was notrequested. The public comment periodwas from December 26, 1984, to March13, 1985. Ten comment letters werereceived concerning issues relative tothe proposed revisions and to theconclusions drawn as a result of thereview. The comments have beencarefully considered and, wheredetermined to be appropriate by theAdministrator, changes have been madein the proposed revisions.

IV. Major Comments Received andChanges to the Proposed Revisions

The Agency received two majorcomments on the proposed monitoringand recordkeeping requirements formercury-cell chlor-alkali plants. Chlor-alkali plant representatives commentedthat the standards should allowsubmittal (to the Administrator) ofplant-specific compliance plans as analternative to the proposed monitoringrequirements. Various reasonssupporting such a provision wereprovided by the commenters (and aresummarized in section 2.1 of the reviewdocument). In response to thesecomments, the standards were revisedto provide for the option of submittal of

alternative plant-specific monitoringplans. Owners and operators who electto submit such plans must adhere to theseven guidelines stated in § 61.55(c) ofthe regulation. The monitoring plan mustensure not only compliance with theemission limits but also properoperation and maintenance of emissionscontrol systems.

Several commenters believed that therequirement to record all incidences ofmercury leaks or spills should bechanged to require recording onlyincidences of unpredictable orsignificant leaks or spills that requireimmediate corrective actions. While theAgency agrees that the leaks or spills ofprimary interest are those that are"significant," neither the Agency norrepresentatives from several chlor-alkalicompanies could offer an acceptabledefinition of a "significant" leak or spill.Without such a definition, thecommenters' request could not beadopted.

One major comment was received inthe area of EPA's evaluation of indirectexposures to mercury emissions. Thecommenter claimed that the Agency'sambient air guideline of 1.0 microgramof mercury per cubic meter of air wasbased solely on the health effects ofinhaled mercury and ignored exposuresto mercury emissions that are depositedon land, water, or other surfaces. Thiscommenter believed a re-evaluation ofthe ambient guideline level waswarranted and that the re-evaluationshould take into account total humanexposures to mercury, includingdeposited mercury in its more toxicmethylated forms.

As stated in section 2.5 of the reviewdocument, the Agency consideredmercury exposures from dietaryingestion as well as from inhalation insetting the ambient air guideline level.The guideline level also includes asafety factor of ten. However, the effectsof mercury emissions on otherenvironments (such as drinking water)and the accumulation of methyl mercuryin food (primarily fish) were not fullyaddressed in the NESHAP review. TheEPA is presently reviewing availableinformation concerning these effects,and studies are currently underway togather the necessary data. These includestudies of biochemical mechanisms (for.example, the biochemical cycling ofmercury) and health and environmentaleffects (for example, thebioaccumulation of methylmercury infish) from the deposition of mercury. Apreliminary report of the results ofstudies addressing the bioaccumulationof mercury in fish (the primary source ofingested mercury) is scheduled for 1989with an integrated report on mercury

bioaccumulation scheduled for 1992. Asthe results of these studies becomeavailable, the Agency will take action asappropriate. However, at this time, theAgency does not have a sufficient basisfor revising the ambient guideline level.One commenter believed the Agencyshould re-evaluate its decision not toregulate mercury emissions from powerplants. This commenter believed theAgency should revise its calculations ofmercury emissions to include coals withhigher mercury contents than thoseassumed in the calculations. Thecommenter referred to reports ofmercury concentrations in someAmerican coals as high as 1.6 parts permillion (ppm), a level four times higherthan the concentration that was used inthe Agency's analysis. He stated thatthe Agency cannot conclude that theambient guideline will not be exceededuntil an analysis of the ambientconcentrations expected from plantsburning high-mercury coals iscompleted.

The commenter also objected to EPA'sapproach to regulating toxic emissionsfrom coal-fired boilers. He stated that byanalyzing toxic components of boileremissions one-by-one, there is a strongbias against control since only a fractionof the total health risk is compared withthe total control cost. The commenterbelieved that EPA should abandon thisapproach and should require the use ofparticulate control techniques to captureall toxic emissions, including mercury.

To examine the potential for mercuryemissions from coal-fired power plantsto exceed the ambient air guideline, theAgency reviewed the data on themercury content of coals available inthe United States (Docket item IV-B-1)..The highest mercury level reported forthe 48 contiguous states is 8 parts permillion (ppm) for subbituminous coaland 3.3 ppm for bituminous coal with anaverage of 0.1 ppm for subbituminouscoal and 0.21 ppm for bituminous coal.The worst case estimates for a large4000 megawatt (MW) coal-fired powerplant firing 8 ppm subbituminous coal is870 pounds of mercury per day.According to dispersion estimates, a4000 MW plant emitting 790 pounds ofmercury per day would cause amaximum ground level concentration of1.0 jg/m3. This indicates that in theextreme case a large coal-fired powerplant could emit mercury at levels highenough to exceed the ambient guideline.However, typically, mercury emissionsfrom coal-fired power plants areexpected to be well below the ambientguideline level.

The Agency is currently studying the.combined effect of identified trace

8725

8726 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

element (including mercury) emissionsfrom fossil-fuel combustion. Formercury, estimates are being made ofnationwide emissions and of maximumconcentrations associated with foursectors of coal burning: utility,industrial, commercial, and residentialcombustors. The results of this studywill be used to determine the need andappropriate mechanism for regulatingmercury emissions from fossi-fuelcombustion.

Another major comment receivedpertained to mercury emissions fromsynthetic fuel processes. The commenterstated that there are data indicating thatmercury emissions from oil shale retortoperations can equal or exceed .emissions from the currently regulatedsource categories. He believed thesedata demonstrate the need to set anational emission standard for mercuryemissions from oil shale retorting and.the need to examine the potential formercury emissions from other syntheticfuel processes that are under activeconsideration.. At the present time there is only one

retort plant in operation in the UnitedStates that is capable of processingmore than 100 tons per day of raw shaleto produce crude oil. Estimates ofmercury emissions from this operationindicate that ambient mercury levelswould, be less than 0.04 g/m3 . alevelwell below the ambient guideline levelof 1.0 Lg/ml (Docket item IV-A-2).

Construction of new retort operationsor startup of existing plants that havebeen shut down is not anticipated in'thenear future. Furthermore, projections ofmercury emissions from hypotheticalcommercial-scale operations indicatethat emissions from a large size facilitywould still be below the ambientguideline level (Docket item IV-A-2).

In view of the low level of emissionsfrom the oil shale retort that is currentlyin operation and the lack of anticipatedgrowth in this industry in the nearfuture, oil shale retorting operations arenot being added as a source category tobe regulated by the current mercuryNESHAP. If oil shale retort operationsbecome economically feasible, theAgency will review its decision not toregulate mercury emissions from theseoperations under these standards.

V. AdministrativeThe docket is an organized and

complete file of all the informationconsidered by EPA in the developmentof this rulemaking. The docket is adynamic file, since material is addedthroughout the rulemaking development.The docketing system is intended toillow members of the public andindustries involved to readily identify

and locate documents so that they caneffectively participate in the rulemakingprocess. Along with the statement ofbasis and purpose of the proposed andpromulgated standards and EPAresponses to significant comments, thecontents of the docket, except forinteragency review materials, will serveas the record in case of judicial reviewIsection 307(d}{7)(A}].

As prescribed by section 112, thepromulgation of these standards waspreceded by the Administrator's earlierdetermination that mercury is ahazardous air pollutant. Thisdetermination was based on the findingthat previously unregulated mercuryemissions might cause or contribute toan increase in serious irreversible, orincapacitating reversible, illness. Theintent of the standards is to protect thepublic health with an ample margin ofsafety. In accordance with section 117 ofthe Act, publication of thesepromulgated standards was preceded byconsultation with appropriate advisorycommittees, independent experts, andFederal departments and agencies.

This regulation will be reviewed again5 years from the date of thispromulgation. This review will includean assessment of such factors as theneed for integration with otherprograms, the existence of alternativecontrol methods, enforceability,improvements in emission controltechnology, and reporting requirements.

Information collection requirementsassociated with this regulation (thoseincluded in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart Aand Subpart E) have been approved bythe Office of Management and Budget(OMB) under the provisions of thePaperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have beenassigned OMB control number 2060-0097.

Under Executive Order 12291, EPA isrequired to judge whether a regulation isa "major rule" and therefore subject tothe requirements of a regulatory impactanalysis (RIA). The Agency hasdetermined that this regulation wouldresult in none of the adverse economiceffects set forth in Section I of the Orderas grounds for finding a regulation to bea "major rule." This regulation will nothave an annual effect on the economy of$100 million or more, result in a majorincrease in costs or prices, or havesignificant adverse effects oncompetition, employment, investmentproductivity, or innovation. The Agencyhas, therefore, concluded that thisregulation is not a "major rule" underExecutive Order 12291.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980requires the identification of potentiallyadverse impacts of Federal regulations

upon a substantial number of smallbusiness -entities. The Act specificallyrequires the completion of a RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis in those instances-where small business impacts arepossible. None of the companiesaffected by these revisions meets theSmall Business Administrationdefinition of a small business, and thus,no regulatory flexibility analysis wasrequired.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.605(b), 1 hereby certify that this rule willnot have a significant economic impacton a substantial number of smallentities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

Air pollution control, Asbestos,Beryllium. Hazardous substances,Mercury, Radionuclides, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Vinylchloride.

Dated: March 11, 1987.Lee M. Thomas,Administrator.

PART 61-NATIONAL EMISSIONSTANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIRPOLLUTANTS

For reasons set out in the preamble, 40CFR Part 61, Subpart E, is amended asset forth below.

1. The authority citation for Part 61continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412,7414, and 7601(a).

2. Section 61.53 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a)[4), (b)(4), (c)(4),and (d)(5) to read as follows:

561.53 Stack sampling.(a) * **(4) All samples shall be analyzed and

mercury emissions shall be determinedwithin 30 days after the stack test. Eachdetermination shall be reported to theAdministrator by a registered letterdispatched within 15 calendar daysfollowing the date such determination iscompleted.

(b) * *(4) All samples shall be analyzed and

mercury emissions shall be determinedwithin 30 days after the stack test. Eachdetermination shall be reported to theAdministrator by a registered letterdispatched within 15 calendar daysfollowing the date such determination iscompleted.

(c) * * *

(4) An owner or operator may carryout approved design, maintenance, andhousekeeping practices. A list of,approved practices is provided in

Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix A of "Review of NationalEmission Standards for Mercury," EPA-450/3-M-014a, December 1984. Copiesare available from EPA's Central DocketSection, Docket item number A-84-41,Ill-B-1.

(d) * **(5) All samples shall be analyzed and

mercury emissions shall be determinedwithin 30 days after the stack test. Eachdetermination shall be reported to theAdministrator by a registered letterdispatched within 15 calendar daysfollowing the date such determination iscompleted.

3. Section 61.54 is amended byrevising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 61.54 Sludge sampling.

(f) All sludge samples shall beanalyzed for mercury content within 30days after the sludge sample iscollected. Each determination shall bereported to the Administrator by aregistered letter dispatched within 15calendar days following the date suchdetermination is completed.

4. Section 61.55 is amended byrevising the title and paragraph (a) andby adding paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) asfollows:

§ 61.55 Monitoring of emissions andoperations.

(a) Wastewater treatment plantsludge incineration and drying plants.All the sources for which mercuryemissions exceed 1,600 g per 24-hourperiod, demonstrated either by stacksampling according to § 61.53 or sludgesampling according to § 61.54, shallmonitor mercury emissions at intervalsof at least once per year by use ofMethod 105 of Appendix B or theprocedures specified in § 61.53 (d) (2)and (4). The results of monitoring shallbe reported and retained according to§ 61.53(d) (5) and (6) or § 61.54 (f) and(g).

(b) Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants--hydrogen and end-box ventilation gasstreams.

(1) The owner or operator of eachmercury cell chlor-alkali plant shall,within 1 year of the date of publicationof these amendments or within 1 year ofstartup for a plant with initial startupafter the date of publication, perform amercury emission test that demonstratescompliance with the emission limits in§ 61.52, on the hydrogen stream byReference Method 102 and on the end-box stream by Reference Method 101 forthe purpose of establishing limits forparameters to be monitored.

(2) During tests specified in paragraph(b)(1) of this section, the followingcontrol device parameters shall bemonitored, except as provided inparagraph (c) of this section, andrecorded manually or automatically atleast once every 15 minutes:

(i) The exit gas temperature fromuncontrolled streams;

(ii) The outlet temperature of the gasstream for the final (i.e., the farthestdownstream) cooling system when nocontrol devices other than coolers anddemisters are used;

(iii) The outlet temperature of the gasstream from the final cooling systemwhen the cooling system is followed bya molecular sieve or carbon adsorber

(iv) Outlet concentration of availablechlorine, pH, liquid flow rate, and inletgas temperature of chlorinated brinescrubbers and hypochlorite scrubbers;

(v) The liquid flow rate and exit gastemperature for water scrubbers;

(vi) The inlet gas temperature ofcarbon adsorption systems; and

(vii) The temperature during theheating phase of the regeneration cyclefor carbon adsorbers or molecularsieves.

(3) The recorded parameters inparagraphs (b)(21{i) through (b)(2)(vi) ofthis section shall be averaged over thetest period (a minimum of 6 hours) toprovide an average number. The highesttemperature reading that is measured inparagraph (b)(2)(vii) of this section is tobe identified as the referencetemperature for use in paragraph(b)(6)(ii) of this section.

(4)(i) Immediately followingcompletionf of the emission testsspecified in paragraph (b)() of thissection, the owner or operator of amercury cell chlor-alkali plant shallmonitor and record manually orautomatically at least once per hour thesame parameters specified inparagraphs (b)(2)[i) through (b)(2)(vi) ofthis section.

(ii) Immediately following completionof-the emission tests specified inparagraph (b)(1) of this section, theowner or operator shall monitor andrecord manually or automatically,during each heating phase of theregeneration cycle, the temperaturespecified in paragraph (b)(2)(vii) of thissection.

(5) Monitoring devices used inaccordance with paragraphs (b)(2) and(b)(4) of this section shall be certified bytheir manufacturer to be accurate towithin 10 percent, and shall be operated,maintained, and calibrated according tothe manufacturer's instructions. Recordsof the certifications and calibrationsshall be retained at the chlor-alkali plantand made available for inspection by

the Administrator as follows:Certification, for as long as the device isused for this purpose: calibration for aMinimum of 2 years.

(6)(i) When the hourly value of aparameter monitored in accordance withparagraph (b)(4](i) of this sectionexceeds, or in the case of liquid flowrate and available chlorine falls belowthe value of that same parameterdetermined in paragraph (b)(Zl of thissection for 24 consecutive hours, theAdministrator is to be notified withinthe next 10 days.

(iH) When the maximum hourly valueof the temperature measured inaccordance with paragraph (b)(4)(ii) ofthis section is below the referencetemperature recorded according toparagraph (b)(3) of this section for threeconsecutive regeneration cycles, theAdministrator is to be notified withinthe next 10 days.

(7) Semiannual reports shall besubmitted to the Administratorindicating the time and date on whichthe hourly value of each parametermonitored according to paragraphs(b)(4)(i) and (b)(4)(ii) of this section felloutside the value of that sameparameter determined under paragraph(b)(3) of this section; and correctiveaction taken, and the time and date ofthe corrective action. Parameterexcursions will be considered,unacceptable operation andmaintenance of the emission controlsystem. In addition, while compliancewith the emission limits is determinedprimarily by conducting a performancetest according to the procedures in§ 61.53(b), reports of parameterexcursions may-be used as evidence injudging the duration of a violation that isdetermined by a performance test.

(8) Semiannual reports required inparagraph (b)(7) of this section shall besubmitted to the Administrator onSeptember 15 and March 15 of eachyear. The first semiannual report is 'to besubmitted following the first full 6 monthreporting period. The semiannual reportdue on September 15 (March 15) shallinclude all excursions monitoredthrough August 31 (February 28) of thesame calendar year.

(c) As an alternative to'themonitoring, recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements in paragraphs (b](2)through (8) of this section, an owner oroperator may develop and submit for theAdministrator's review and approval aplant-specific monitoring plan. To beapproved, such a plan must ensure notonly compliance with the emission limitsof § 61.52(a) but also proper operation

- and maintenance of emissions controlsystems Any site-specific monitoring

8727

8728 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 53 / Thursday, March 19, 1987 / Rules and Regulations

plan submitted must, at a minimum,include the following:

(1) Identification of the criticalparameter or parameters for thehydrogen stream and for the end-boxventilation stream that are to bemonitored and an explanation of whythe critical parameter(s) selected is thebest indicator of proper control systemperformance and of mercury emissionrates.

(2) Identification of the maximum orminimum value of each parameter (e.g.,degrees temperature, concentration ofmercury) that is not to be exceeded..Thelevel(s) is to be directly correlated to theresults of a performance test, conductedno more than 180 days prior to submittalof the plan, when the facility was incompliance with the emission limits of§ 61.52(a).

(3) Designation of the frequency forrecording the parameter measurements,with justification if the frequency is lessthan hourly. A longer recordingfrequency must be justified on the basisof the amount of time that could elapseduring periods of process or controlsystem upsets before the emission limitswould be exceeded, and consideration is

to be given to the time that would benecessary to repair the failure.

(4) Designation of the immediateactions to be taken in the event of anexcursion beyond the value of theparameter established in 2.

(5) Provisions for reporting,semiannually, parameter excursions andthe corrective actions taken, andprovisions for reporting within 10 daysany significant excursion.

(6) Identification of the accuracy ofthe monitoring device(s) or of thereadings obtained.

(7) Recordkeeping requirements forcertifications and calibrations.

(d) Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants-cell room ventilation system.

(1) Stationary sources determining cellroom emissions in accordance with§ 01.53(c)(4) shall maintain daily recordsof all leaks or spills of mercury. Therecords shall indicate the amount,location, time, and date the leaks orspills occurred, identify the cause of theleak or spill, state the immediate stepstaken to minimize mercury emissionsand steps taken to prevent futureoccurrences, and provide the time and

date on which corrective steps weretaken.

(2) The results of monitoring shall berecorded, retained at the source, andmade available for inspection by theAdministrator for a minimum of 2 years.(Approved by the Office of Management andBudget under control number 2060-0097)

5. Section 61.56 is added to Subpart Eto read as follows:

§ 61.56 Delegation of authority.(a) In delegating implementation and

enforcement authority to a State'undersection 112(d) of the Act, the authoritiescontained in paragraph (b) of thissection shall be retained by theAdministrator and not transferred to aState.

(b) Authorities which will not bedelegated to States: Sections 61.53(c)(4)and 61.55(d). The authorities notdelegated to States listed are in additionto the authorities in the GeneralProvisions, Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 61,that will not be delegated to States[§§ 61.04(b), 61.12(d)(1), and61.13{h}{1}{ii}}.

[FR Doc. 87-5W3 Filed 3-18-87; 8:45 amlBILLING CODE 6S0-5"o