[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19294-19316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9435]
[[Page 19293]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
New Source Performance Standards Review for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants; and Amendment to Subpart UUU Applicability; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 19294]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018; FRL-8896-7]
RIN 2060-AO41
New Source Performance Standards Review for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants; and Amendment to Subpart UUU Applicability
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments to the Standards of Performance
for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant(s) (NMPP). These final
amendments include revisions to the emission limits for NMPP affected
facilities which commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
on or after April 22, 2008. These final amendments for NMPP also
include: Additional testing and monitoring requirements for affected
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
on or after April 22, 2008; exemption of affected facilities that
process wet material from this final rule; changes to simplify the
notification requirements for all affected facilities; and changes to
definitions and various clarifications. We are not taking any final
action in this document regarding the amendment to the Standards of
Performance for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries discussed in
the proposed rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action which is Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants
Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Neuffer; Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division,
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02); Environmental Protection Agency;
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5435; fax
number: (919) 541-3207; e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information on Subpart OOO
III. Summary of the Final Amendments to Subpart OOO and Changes
Since Proposal
A. What are the final emission limits for NMPP (40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOO)?
B. How is EPA amending subpart OOO applicability and
definitions?
C. What are the final testing requirements for subpart OOO?
D. What are the final monitoring requirements for subpart OOO?
E. What are the final notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements for subpart OOO?
IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses on Subpart OOO
A. Need for New Source Performance Standards
B. Emission Limits
C. Applicability and Definitions
D. Testing Requirements
E. Monitoring Requirements
F. Notification, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
G. Construction, Modification, and Reconstruction
H. Cost Impacts
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
the Final Amendments to Subpart OOO
A. What are the impacts for NMPP?
B. What are the secondary impacts?
C. What are the economic impacts?
VI. No Final Action Taken With Respect To Subpart UUU Applicability
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially regulated by the final
amendments to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for NMPP (40 CFR
part 60, subpart OOO) include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS code
Category \1\ Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................................ 212311 Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying.
212312 Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and
Quarrying.
212313 Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying.
212319 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and
Quarrying.
212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining.
212322 Industrial Sand Mining.
212324 Kaolin and Ball Clay Mining.
212325 Clay and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining.
212391 Potash, Soda, and Borate Mineral Mining.
212393 Other Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining.
212399 All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining.
221112 Fossil-Fuel Electric Power Generation.
324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing.
327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing.
327122 Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile Manufacturing.
327123 Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing.
327124 Clay Refractory Manufacturing.
[[Page 19295]]
327310 Cement Manufacturing.
327410 Lime Manufacturing (Dolomite, Dead-burned,
Manufacturing).
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing.
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth
Manufacturing.
Federal government.............................. ........... Not affected.
State/local/tribal government................... ........... Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
final action. To determine whether your facility will be regulated by
this final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 60.670 (subpart OOO). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this final action to a particular entity, contact the
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this
final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas
of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
by June 29, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any
civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
II. Background Information on Subpart OOO
NSPS implement CAA section 111(b) and are issued for categories of
sources which cause, or contribute significantly to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or
welfare. The primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain and maintain
ambient air quality by ensuring that the best demonstrated emission
control technologies are installed as the industrial infrastructure is
modernized. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving
long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring cost-
effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed, or modified
sources.
Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the application
of the best system of emission reductions which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This
level of control is commonly referred to as best demonstrated
technology (BDT). Standards of performance for NMPP (40 CFR, subpart
OOO) were promulgated in the Federal Register on August 1, 1985 (50 FR
31328).
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review
and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect
improvements in methods for reducing emissions. The first action taken
with respect to the NMPP NSPS was completed on June 9, 1997 (62 FR
31351).
We proposed the current review of the NMPP NSPS on April 22, 2008
(73 FR 21559). We received a total of 26 comments from NMPP, industry
trade associations, and State environmental agencies during the comment
period. This final rule reflects our consideration of all the comments
we received. Detailed responses to the comments not included in this
preamble are contained in the Summary of Public Comments and Responses
document which is included in the docket for this rulemaking.
III. Summary of the Final Amendments to Subpart OOO and Changes Since
Proposal
The NMPP NSPS applies to affected facilities for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced on or after
August 31, 1983, at plants that process any of the following 18
nonmetallic minerals: Crushed and broken stone, sand and gravel, clay,
rock salt, gypsum (natural or synthetic), sodium compounds, pumice,
gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite, boron, barite, fluorospar, feldspar,
diatomite, perlite, vermiculite, mica, and kyanite. The affected
facilities are each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, bucket
elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin, and enclosed
truck or railcar loading station.
The final amendments to the NMPP NSPS (subpart OOO of 40 CFR part
60) are summarized in Table 1 of this preamble.
[[Page 19296]]
Table 1--Summary of the Final Amendments to Subpart OOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 60.670(a)(2)............... Exempt wet material processing
operations; clarify rule does not
apply to plants with no crushers or
grinding mills.
Sec. 60.670(d)(1)............... Amend to clarify that like-for-like
replacements have no emissions
increase.
Sec. 60.670(f).................. Revise to conform with amended Table
1 to subpart OOO.
Sec. 60.671..................... Add definitions of: Crush or
crushing, saturated material,
seasonal shut down, and wet
material processing operations.
Amend definition of screening
operation to exempt static
grizzlies.
Amend definition of nonmetallic
mineral to include gypsum (natural
or synthetic).
Amend definition of storage bin to
correct typographical error by
changing ``or'' to ``of''.
Amend definitions of ``capture
system'' and ``control device'' to
replace the words ``process
operations'' with ``affected
facilities''.
Sec. 60.672(a) and (b).......... Revise to reference Tables 2 and 3
to subpart OOO and to better match
General Provisions language
regarding compliance dates. Tables
2 and 3 to subpart OOO contain
revised emission limits and testing/
monitoring requirements.
Sec. 60.672(c).................. Reserve because superseded by Table
3 to subpart OOO.
Sec. 60.672(e).................. Revise cross-references. Replace
Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix
A-7) no visible emissions limit for
building openings with 7 percent
fugitive opacity limit.
Sec. 60.672(f) and (g).......... Consolidate paragraphs to refer to
Table 2 to subpart OOO.
Sec. Sec. 60.672(h) and Remove 60.672(h) and reserve
60.675(h). 60.675(h) because wet material
processing exempted.
Sec. 60.674..................... Renumber (a) and (b) as (a)(1) and
(2).
Add periodic inspections for
affected facilities that commence
construction, modification, or
reconstruction on or after April
22, 2008, that use wet suppression
or rely on water carryover from
upstream wet suppression water
sprays. Add monitoring requirements
for baghouses on affected
facilities that commence
construction, modification, or
reconstruction on or after April
22, 2008 (Method 22 visible
emission inspections or use of bag
leak detection systems).
Add paragraph (e) to cite as an
alternative the baghouse monitoring
requirements in the Lime
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAAA) for processed
stone handling operations subject
to the NESHAP.
Sec. 60.675 and various other Add text to clarify that the
sections referencing test methods. required EPA test methods are
located in Appendices A-1 through A-
7 of 40 CFR part 60 (formerly
Appendix A of 60 CFR part 60).
Sec. 60.675(b)(1)............... Cross reference exceptions to Method
5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3) or
Method 17 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix
A-6).
Sec. 60.675(c).................. Correct cross reference to amended
paragraph in (c)(1).
Expand (c)(2) into subparagraphs (i)
and (ii) to reduce the duration of
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix
A-4) stack opacity observations for
storage bins or enclosed truck or
railcar loading stations operating
for less than 1 hour at a time.
Revise (c)(3) and delete (c)(4) to
make the fugitive Method 9 testing
duration 30 minutes and specify
averaging time for all affected
facilities.
Sec. 60.675(d).................. Specify performance testing
requirements for the building
fugitive emission limit. Allow
prior Method 22 tests showing
compliance with the former no
visible emissions (VE) limit.
Sec. 60.675(e).................. Add paragraph (e)(2) to allow Method
9 readings to be conducted on three
emission points at one time if
specified criteria are met.
Add paragraph (e)(3) to allow Method
5I (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3)
as an option for determining PM
concentration from affected
facilities that operate for less
than 1 hour at a time.
Add paragraph (e)(4) to address flow
measurement from building vents
with low exhaust gas velocity.
Sec. 60.675(f).................. Correct cross references.
Sec. 60.675(g).................. Revise to reduce 30-day advance
notification time for Method 9
fugitive performance test to 7
days. Clarify that a wet material
processing operation that begins to
process unsaturated material
becomes subject to the opacity
limit at the time processing of
unsaturated material begins.
Sec. 60.675(i).................. Add section to state that initial
performance test dates that fall
during seasonal shut downs may be
postponed no later than 60 days
after resuming operation (with
permitting authority approval).
Sec. 60.676(b).................. Add requirement to previously
reserved paragraph (b) for
recording periodic inspections of
water sprays and baghouse
monitoring for affected facilities
that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction on
or after April 22, 2008.
Add recordkeeping requirements for
each affected facility
demonstrating compliance with the
Lime Manufacturing NESHAP baghouse
monitoring requirements.
Sec. 60.676(d).................. Remove reference to upper limits on
scrubber pressure and liquid flow
rate.
Sec. 60.676(f) and (g).......... Edit to conform to wet material
processing exemption and/or
relevant opacity limits.
Sec. 60.676(h).................. Delete reference to now reserved
60.7(a)(2). Waive requirement to
submit 60.7(a)(1) notification of
the date construction or
reconstruction commenced.
Sec. 60.676(k).................. Add section to state that
notifications and reports need only
be sent to the delegated authority
(or the EPA Region when there is no
delegated authority).
Table 1 to subpart OOO............ Move to end of subpart OOO, shorten
to include only exceptions to the
General Provisions, and update
comments.
Table 2 to subpart OOO............ Add table to specify the stack PM
limits and testing/monitoring
requirements for affected
facilities based on applicability
dates.
Table 3 to subpart OOO............ Add table to specify the fugitive
opacity limits and testing/
monitoring requirements for
affected facilities based on
applicability dates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19297]]
A. What are the final emission limits for NMPP (40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOO)?
For affected facilities that commence construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, the final emission limits
are being promulgated as proposed. This final rule requires a
particulate matter (PM) emission limit of 0.032 grams per dry standard
cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.014 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf)), for affected facilities with capture systems \1\ (i.e.,
affected facilities with stack emissions) and eliminates the stack
opacity limit for dry control devices. Baghouses that control emissions
from only an individual, enclosed storage bin are exempt from the PM
limit but must meet a final stack opacity limit of 7 percent. A
fugitive emission limit of 7 percent opacity is required for all types
of affected facilities with fugitive emissions, except for crushers
without capture systems which have a fugitive emission limit of 12
percent opacity. Fugitive emissions \2\ can be present when emissions
are not captured (e.g., at affected facilities without capture systems)
or when the capture system is not completely effective in capturing and
transporting emissions to a control device (such as a baghouse or wet
scrubber).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Capture system'' is defined in subpart OOO as ``the
equipment (including enclosures, hoods, ducts, fans, dampers, etc.)
used to capture and transport particulate matter generated by one or
more affected facilities to a control device.''
\2\ Fugitive emission'' is defined in subpart OOO as
``particulate matter that is not collected by a capture system and
is released to the atmosphere at the point of generation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission limits for affected facilities that commenced
construction, modification, or reconstruction before April 22, 2008,
remain unchanged. As in the original NSPS, affected facilities with
capture systems must meet a stack PM emissions limit of 0.05 g/dscm
(0.022 gr/dscf) and affected facilities with fugitive emissions must
meet opacity limits of 15 percent (for crushers without capture
systems) and 10 percent for all other types of affected facilities with
fugitive emissions.
An alternative set of emission limits is available for affected
facilities enclosed in buildings. These building emission limits are
being promulgated as proposed. Plants must either comply with the
emission limits stated above for each affected facility located in the
building, or alternatively, comply with the emission limits for the
building enclosing the affected facility. The building emission limits
are as follows:
Fugitive emissions from the building openings (except for
vents) must not exceed 7 percent opacity; and
Vents (as defined in Sec. 60.671) in the building must
meet the applicable stack emission limits. A building vent PM limit of
0.014 gr/dscf is required if the vent discharges emissions from an
affected facility that commenced construction, modification, or
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. A building vent PM limit of
0.022 gr/dscf and an opacity limit of 7 percent is required if the vent
discharges emissions from an affected facility that commenced
construction, modification, or reconstruction before April 22, 2008.
B. How is EPA amending subpart OOO applicability and definitions?
Synthetic gypsum. Consistent with the proposal preamble
clarification that synthetic gypsum is covered by subpart OOO, we are
amending the definition of ``nonmetallic mineral'' to include ``gypsum
(natural or synthetic)'' in place of ``gypsum.''
Wet material processing. As proposed, we are adding two definitions
and making other amendments to exempt from subpart OOO wet material
processing operations that have no potential for PM emissions. Wet
material processing operations include: (a) Wet screening operations
and subsequent screening operations, bucket elevators and belt
conveyors in the production line that process saturated materials up to
the first crusher, grinding mill or storage bin in the production line;
or (b) screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors in the
production line downstream of wet mining operations that process
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill or storage
bin in the production line. We also are adding a definition of
``saturated material'' to describe the type of material intended to be
exempted from this final rule. Through the definitions of ``wet
material processing operation'' and ``saturated material'' (as well as
other existing definitions of ``wet mining operation'' and ``wet
screening operation''), we are exempting from coverage under subpart
OOO mineral material that is wet enough on its surface to remove the
possibility of PM emissions being generated from processing of the
material through screening operations, bucket elevators and belt
conveyors. Material that is wetted solely by wet suppression systems
designed to add surface moisture for dust control is not considered to
be ``saturated material'' for purposes of this exemption. Examples of
saturated material include slurries of water and mineral material,
material that is wet as it enters the processing plant from the mine,
material that is wet from washing, material with a high percentage
moisture (considering mineral type), etc.
Grizzlies. As proposed, we are amending the definition of
``screening operation'' to clarify that all grizzlies associated with
truck dumping and static (non-agitating) grizzlies are not subpart OOO
affected facilities.
Crushers. We are adding the proposed definition of ``crush or
crushing'' which means to reduce the size of nonmetallic mineral
material by means of physical impaction of the crusher or grinding mill
upon the material. The new definition clarifies that crushers and
grinding mills do not include equipment that simply breaks up clumps of
material (e.g., certain deagglomerators, slicers or shredders
processing material that has become stuck together naturally or during
handling/processing) but does not further reduce the size of the
material.
C. What are the final testing requirements for subpart OOO?
Subpart OOO requires NMPP to conduct an initial performance test to
demonstrate compliance with the relevant stack or fugitive emission
limits.
Stack testing. Stack PM emissions are to be measured with EPA
Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3) or Method 17 (40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-6). As proposed, we are adding EPA Method 5I (40 CFR part
60, Appendix A-3)--``Determination of Low Level Particulate Matter
Emissions from Stationary Sources'' in Sec. 60.675(e)(3) as an
optional test method that can be used instead of Methods 5 or 17.
Method 5I is useful for low PM concentration applications, where the
total PM catch is 50 milligrams or less. With Method 5I, the sample
rate and total gas volume is adjusted based on the estimated grain
loading of the emission point and the total sampling time is a function
of the estimated mass of PM to be collected for the run. Thus, Method
5I can be used in situations where the minimum sampling volume of 60
dscf (required for Methods 5 and 17) cannot be obtained (e.g., for
affected facilities that operate for less than 1 hour at a time such
as, but not limited to, storage bins and loading stations).
Stack opacity must be measured with EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-4) for affected facilities with a stack opacity limit. As
proposed, we are reducing the Method 9 stack opacity test duration from
3 hours to the duration that the affected facility operates (but not
less than 30 minutes) for baghouses that control storage bins or
enclosed truck or railcar loading
[[Page 19298]]
stations that operate for less than 1 hour at a time.
Fugitive testing. The opacity from affected facilities with
fugitive emissions must be measured with EPA Method 9 (though the
duration of Method 9 readings is reduced in some cases as discussed
below). As proposed, this final rule requires a 30-minute fugitive
Method 9 test duration (five 6-minute averages) for all affected
facilities with fugitive emissions. Compliance with the applicable
fugitive emissions limit must be based on the average of the five 6-
minute averages recorded during the 30 minutes. A single visible
emission observer is allowed to conduct observations for up to three
subpart OOO emission points at a time (including stack and vent
emission points) provided that the three criteria in Sec. 60.675(e)(2)
are met. The third criterion was changed from proposal to state that
none of the three readings taken during each 15 second period can equal
or exceed the applicable standard. If this occurs, the observer must
stop taking readings for all three points and focus on the one that
equaled or exceeded the applicable standard.
The proposed rule would have required repeat Method 9 performance
testing (30-minute test) once every 5 years for affected facilities
that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after
April 22, 2008, with fugitive emissions that are controlled by water
carryover or other means (e.g., enclosures). This 5-year repeat testing
requirement is being promulgated as proposed, except that affected
facility fugitive emissions controlled by water carryover from upstream
water sprays that are inspected according to the requirements in Sec.
60.674(b) and Sec. 60.676(b) of subpart OOO are exempt from the 5-year
repeat testing requirement.
Buildings. Subpart OOO contains an optional compliance method that
allows emissions measurement from the building instead of each affected
facility within a building. As proposed, we are replacing the former no
VE limit and procedure for measuring fugitive emissions from building
openings (a 75 minute Method 22 test) with a 7 percent opacity limit
measured using a 30-minute EPA Method 9 test. Compliance with the 7
percent opacity limit will be demonstrated through initial testing.
Buildings that previously demonstrated compliance with the former
Method 22 no VE limit through performance testing are not required to
be retested to show compliance with today's Method 9 opacity limit
unless an affected facility for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced on or after April 22, 2008, is located inside
the building.
Seasonal shut downs. As proposed, we are adding Sec. 60.675(i) to
subpart OOO to allow plants, with approval from the appropriate
permitting authority, to postpone initial performance testing until 60
calendar days after resuming operation following a seasonal shut down
of an affected facility. A ``seasonal shut down'' is defined as the
``shut down of an affected facility for a period of at least 45
consecutive days due to weather or seasonal market conditions''.
D. What are the final monitoring requirements for subpart OOO?
Monitoring for fugitive emissions limits. Fugitive emissions from
subpart OOO affected facilities are often controlled by wet
suppression. In wet suppression systems, water (with or without
surfactant) is sprayed on nonmetallic minerals at various locations in
the process line but not necessarily at every affected facility.
Carryover of water sprayed at affected facilities upstream in the
process line is often sufficient to control fugitive emissions from
affected facilities downstream in the process. Partial enclosures or
other means may also be used to reduce fugitive emissions instead of or
in addition to water sprays or water carryover. Subpart OOO does not
specify any particular technique for reducing fugitive emissions.
Rather, subpart OOO specifies fugitive emission limits that must be
met. Continuous compliance requirements for wet suppression systems are
addressed in subpart OOO due to the prevalence of wet suppression as a
control technique for NMPP.
As proposed, monthly periodic inspections of wet suppression water
sprays are required for affected facilities with wet suppression that
commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after
April 22, 2008. The periodic inspections (which are specified in Sec.
60.674(b) and Sec. 60.676(b)) apply for affected facilities with
fugitive emissions that are controlled by either: (a) Direct water
sprays located at the affected facility, or (b) water carryover from
upstream water sprays (for affected facilities exempted from the 5-year
repeat performance test under Sec. 60.674(b)(1)). The purpose of the
inspections is to ensure that water is flowing to the discharge water
spray nozzles in the wet suppression system. If, during an inspection,
water is not flowing properly, corrective action must be initiated
within 24 hours and completed as expediently as practical. The
requirement to complete corrective action as expediently as practical
was added in response to public comment. We added Sec. 60.674(b)(1) to
this final rule to specify the testing exemption and to require NMPP to
designate (at the time of the initial performance test) which upstream
water spray(s) will be periodically inspected for water flow to
indicate continuous compliance with the fugitive emission limits for
each affected facility being exempted from the 5-year repeat
performance testing.
Baghouse monitoring. As proposed, the 7 percent stack opacity limit
is being replaced with ongoing monitoring for baghouses on affected
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
on or after April 22, 2008. This final rule contains three options for
monitoring of baghouses on affected facilities that commence
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22,
2008. The first two options are being promulgated as proposed. The
third option is being added to the final standards (as a result of
public comments) for affected facilities subject to the Lime
Manufacturing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP).
The first option is quarterly VE inspections using EPA Method 22
for 30 minutes. The VE inspections would be successful if no visible
emissions are observed. If any VE are observed, corrective action must
be initiated within 24 hours to restore the baghouse to normal
operation. If the baghouse normally displays some VE, a different
baghouse-specific success level for the VE inspections (other than no
VE) can be established by conducting a PM test simultaneously with a
Method 22 test to determine what constitutes normal VE from the
baghouse when it is in compliance with the subpart OOO PM concentration
limit. The revised VE inspection success level must be incorporated
into the operating permit.
The second option is the use of a bag leak detection system. The
bag leak detection system must be installed and operated according to
Sec. 60.674(d).
For affected facilities subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP,
we are offering a third option. This option is complying with the
continuous compliance requirements for baghouses on processed stone
handling operations in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA).
Wet scrubber monitoring. As proposed, we are revising Sec.
60.676(d) to delete reference to scrubber pressure gain and the upper
limit for scrubber liquid flow. Increases in these parameters would
only increase
[[Page 19299]]
scrubber PM removal efficiency and thus reduce PM emissions. We are not
making any further changes to the wet scrubber monitoring requirements
at this time because the Agency proposed Performance Specification 17
(PS-17) and Procedure 4 for continuous parameter monitoring systems
(which include pressure and liquid flow measurements) on October 9,
2008 (73 FR 59956). Following public comment and promulgation of PS-17
and Procedure 4, the procedures and requirements in PS-17 and Procedure
4 are intended to supersede the wet scrubber monitoring language in
subpart OOO for affected facilities with wet scrubbers installed on or
after October 9, 2008.
E. What are the final notification, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements for subpart OOO?
Notifications and reports. We are simplifying the notification
requirements in subpart OOO in several ways as proposed. We are
deleting reference to Sec. 60.7(a)(2) in Sec. 60.676(h) to be
consistent with changes made to subpart A. We are also adding new rule
language for Sec. 60.676(h) to waive the Sec. 60.7(a)(1) (subpart A)
requirement to submit a notification of commencement of construction/
reconstruction for NMPP affected facilities. We are adding a new Sec.
60.676(k) to subpart OOO stating that notifications generated under
subpart OOO are only to be sent to either the State (if the State is
delegated authority to administer NSPS) or to the EPA Region (if the
State has not been delegated authority), but not to both the State and
EPA Region. We are changing Sec. 60.675(g) to allow a 7-day advance
notification for performance tests involving only Method 9.
What are the final recordkeeping requirements for subpart OOO? As
proposed, we are requiring NMPP to keep records of periodic inspections
performed on water sprays (monthly checks that water is flowing) or
baghouses (quarterly Method 22 readings) controlling affected
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
on or after April 22, 2008. Each periodic inspection must be recorded
in a logbook which may be maintained in written or electronic format.
The logbook entries include inspection dates and any corrective actions
taken. The logbook must be kept onsite and either a hard copy or
electronic copy (whichever is requested) made available to EPA or
delegated authority upon request.
Plants opting to use bag leak detection systems in lieu of periodic
VE inspections for baghouses will be required to keep the records
specified in Sec. 60.676(b)(2). Plants opting to follow the continuous
compliance requirements of Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 must keep the
records specified in Sec. 63.7132(a)(3) and (b) of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA. According to Sec. 60.7(f), records are required to be
retained for a period of 2 years.
IV. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses on Subpart OOO
We received a total of 26 comments from NMPP, industry trade
associations, and State environmental agencies during the public
comment period for the proposed amendments to subpart OOO. Several
changes are being made to these final amendments in response to these
public comments. The major comments leading to rule changes and our
responses are summarized in the following sections. Along with comments
offering suggested changes, we received a number of comments offering
support for the amendments to subpart OOO. We received only supportive
comments for many of the proposed amendments including: omitting the
stack opacity limit for new affected facilities (except for baghouses
controlling individual enclosed storage bins), exempting static
grizzlies, eliminating upper limits on wet scrubber liquid flow and
pressure drop, allowing the use of Method 5I as a PM test method,
reducing the Method 9 stack testing time for storage bins and loadouts
that operate less than one hour at a time, and specifying that
compliance is based on the average of the five 6-minute averages
recorded during the 30 minute Method 9 tests for affected facilities
with fugitive emissions. These supporting comments are not included in
this preamble. A complete summary of all the comments received during
the comment period and responses thereto can be found in the docket for
the final amendments and new standards (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
1018). The docket also contains further details on the analyses
summarized in the responses below.
A. Need for New Source Performance Standards
Comment: In addition to other comments requesting exemption of the
salt industry from subpart OOO (which are addressed in the Summary of
Public Comments and Responses document), one commenter requested that
EPA exempt salt operations (rock salt and sodium chloride) from subpart
OOO because most salt operations do not operate crushers or grinders
above ground. The commenter stated that subpart OOO was intended to
cover open pit mining and noted that the applicability prerequisite of
the rule is that a facility must have a crusher or grinder. The
commenter stated that underground mines are exempt from the rule
(assuming there are no secondary or tertiary crushers above ground) yet
also have crushers/grinders located underground and can have screening
and process equipment above ground that produce emissions. The
commenter explained that salt is produced at three types of facilities
(solution mines, solar production, and traditional underground mines).
Some of the commenter's plants are subject to subpart OOO because they
operate small above ground crushers (which are located indoors) for one
production line at solution and solar operations. The commenter stated
that many salt operations are enclosed in buildings and operate with
dust collectors for product quality reasons and to reduce dust inside
the building.
Response: The 1997 NSPS action (62 FR 31351, June 9, 1997) added
Sec. 60.670(a)(2) to subpart OOO to clarify that the provisions of
subpart OOO do not apply to all facilities located in underground mines
and plants without crushers or grinding mills. It was noted in the
proposal and promulgation notices for the 1997 NSPS action that
emissions from crushers or other facilities in underground mines are
vented in the general mine exhaust and cannot be distinguished from
emissions from drilling and blasting operations which are mining
operations not covered by the standards. It was the original intent of
the NSPS that stand-alone screening operations at plants without
crushers or grinding mills are not subject to the NSPS (i.e., because
the original definition of ``nonmetallic mineral processing plant''
refers to equipment used to crush or grind nonmetallic minerals).
Consistent with the intent of the original NSPS and the 1997
clarifications, we are amending Sec. 60.670(a)(2) to clarify that
plants without crushers or grinding mills above ground are not subject
to subpart OOO. Plants with any above ground crushers or grinding mills
(including those located in buildings) for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction commenced after August 31, 1983, remain
subject to the provisions of subpart OOO. Subpart OOO specifically
addresses emissions from affected facilities located in buildings and
provides options for measurement of these emissions.
[[Page 19300]]
B. Emission Limits
Comment: Commenters questioned the basis for revising the emission
limits because the technology representing BDT has not changed. The
commenters argued that EPA is taking away the margin of compliance
available for facilities using the identified NSPS technologies.
Several commenters objected to the proposed stack PM limit of 0.014
gr/dscf and questioned the basis for the revision. Some commenters
agreed with the conclusion that setting a PM limit below 0.014 gr/dscf
could result in a level of control that may be difficult to continually
achieve.
Many commenters questioned the technical reasons for reducing the
fugitive emission limits from 15 to 12 percent opacity for crushers and
from 10 to 7 percent opacity for other affected facilities. Some
commenters questioned if reducing the fugitive emission limits is
necessary, given EPA's conclusion that the potential benefits cannot be
quantified and are likely to be similar to the current standard.
Commenters were particularly concerned with the proposed 7 percent
fugitive opacity limit and stated that an opacity standard within the
7.5 percent positive error of Method 9 is basically a ``no VE''
standard. Two commenters referred to Method 9 error as high as 14
percent in the document ``Air Pollution Control Techniques for Non-
Metallic Minerals Industry'' (EPA-450/3-82-014, August 1982). Other
commenters noted that it would make more sense for the limits to be in
increments of 5 percent since this is how opacity is read. The
commenters supported basing compliance on the average of the five 6-
minute averages collected during the 30-minute opacity test. Two
commenters supported the proposed fugitive emission limits.
Response: Section 111 of the CAA requires that NSPS reflect the
application of the best system of emission reductions which (taking
into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any
non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately
demonstrated. This level of control is commonly referred to as BDT.
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to periodically review and
revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to reflect
improvements in methods for reducing emissions. The subpart OOO
emission limits were established with the 1983 proposal and 1985
promulgation of subpart OOO, based on review of the performance of
technology and emissions data collected in the late 1970s. The emission
limits have not been reevaluated based on actual emissions testing in
over 20 years because the first action taken with respect to the NMPP
NSPS, completed on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31351), considered provisions
other than the emission limits.
For purposes of this (2008-2009) NSPS review, we reviewed more
recent actual emissions data from hundreds of emissions tests conducted
on a variety of subpart OOO affected facilities in many NMPP industries
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018-0085). These data revealed that the vast majority
of affected facilities perform substantially better than the current
subpart OOO emission limits. Therefore, we determined that it was
appropriate in this NSPS review to reduce the subpart OOO emission
limits for affected facilities commencing construction, modification,
or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. Further, because the
majority of existing affected facilities for which we have data meet
the revised standards (as discussed below), EPA concludes that all new
affected facilities should also be able to achieve them.
For affected facilities commencing construction, modification, or
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, we are retaining (as
proposed) the stack emission limit of 0.014 gr/dscf and we are
replacing the associated 7 percent stack opacity limit with a
continuous monitoring requirement. For affected facilities commencing
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22,
2008, we are promulgating the proposed fugitive emission limits of 12
percent opacity for crushers without capture systems and 7 percent
opacity for all other types of affected facilities with fugitive
emissions (including fugitive emissions from grinding mills, screening
operations, bucket elevators, belt conveyors, bagging operations,
storage bins, enclosed truck or railcar loading stations, and any other
affected facility).
The stack emissions data we reviewed to set the revised limits
included over 300 PM stack tests from 1990 and later. Ninety-one
percent of the PM stack test results achieved 0.014 gr/dscf or lower.
The control devices used for the affected facilities tested included
primarily baghouses and wet scrubbers. In addition, we reviewed more
than 700 fugitive emissions tests. For crushers without capture
systems, 98 percent of the fugitive emissions test averages were at or
below 12 percent opacity and 99 percent of the fugitive emissions test
averages for other types of affected facilities were at or below 7
percent opacity. The fugitive emission limits are most commonly met
through use of wet suppression (as needed), water carryover, or with a
partial enclosure. Affected facilities that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, can employ
the same control devices or fugitive emission reduction measures for
which test data were reviewed to meet the revised emission limits,
except that the small fraction of marginally performing controls would
no longer be acceptable for new, modified, or reconstructed affected
facilities. The small fraction of existing marginally performing
controls can be represented by the fraction of test data above the
revised emission limits (i.e., less than 10 percent of data, including
data from controls that failed to meet the original NSPS limits but
were later retested and met the limits). Such controls will no longer
be acceptable for new, modified, or reconstructed affected facilities.
This is consistent with the goal of NSPS review to reflect improvements
in methods for reducing emissions. In short, because the vast majority
of existing affected facilities for which we have data are achieving
these revised standards, EPA has concluded that all new affected
facilities should be able to achieve these revised standards as well.
We have no reason to believe that new affected facilities could not
meet the revised standards.
We disagree with assertions that the revised limits erase any
margin for error or fail to account for variability. To the contrary,
significant percentages of the test data achieved substantially lower
limits than are being promulgated for subpart OOO. Thus, a workable
compliance margin and provision for variability remains.
The emission reduction associated with lowering the fugitive
emission limits is not quantifiable because no reduction in mass
emission rate can be determined from opacity measurements. However,
that does not mean that there is no environmental benefit. The
environmental benefit is that higher emissions from marginally
performing controls (as described above) will no longer be acceptable
for fugitive emissions from affected facilities that commence
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22,
2008.
Although opacity is read in 5 percent increments, the test average
resulting from averaging the opacity observations is not limited to
increments of 5 percent opacity. In addition to reducing the fugitive
opacity limits, we are also specifying in Sec. 60.675(c)(3) that the
[[Page 19301]]
duration of the Method 9 observations must be 30 minutes (five 6-minute
averages) and that compliance with the fugitive emission limits must be
based on the average of the five 6-minute averages (which is equivalent
to the test average). Commenters unanimously supported this averaging
procedure.
Regarding the 7.5 percent error mentioned in Method 9 and the 14
percent error reflected in EPA-450/3-82-014, we note that these error
values are based on 6-minute average opacity results and represent
exceptions rather than norms. Therefore, we disagree that setting an
opacity standard below 7.5 percent is equivalent to establishing a ``no
visible emission'' standard. We further note that the averaging
procedure specified in Sec. 60.675(c)(3) requires averaging of more
than 6 minutes of observations which would dampen the effect of any
errors.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification on the rule language
in Sec. 60.672(f) regarding the limit for a baghouse controlling only
an individual enclosed storage bin that commenced construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. The
commenter, and another commenter, supported retaining the 7 percent
opacity limit for such baghouses. Another commenter suggested that
additional rows be added to Table 2 to illustrate the various scenarios
to replace the footnotes and exceptions.
Response: As proposed, the revisions to subpart OOO specify that a
baghouse controlling only an individual enclosed storage bin is exempt
from the stack PM concentration limit but must meet a 7 percent opacity
limit. The 7 percent opacity limit is being retained for baghouses
controlling only an individual enclosed storage bin that commences
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22,
2008, because such baghouses have no applicable PM concentration
requirements. We have modified the wording in Sec. 60.672(f) to
clarify this intent.
We requested comment in the preamble to the proposed rule on
whether the addition of Tables 2 and 3 to subpart OOO helped to improve
the readability of the rule and helped to distinguish between the stack
and fugitive emission limits. We considered adding rows to the proposed
Table 2 to subpart OOO to address the exceptions noted in the table
footnotes as suggested by one commenter. However, we found the
resulting table to be more cumbersome and difficult to read than the
proposed table with footnotes. Given that we only received one comment
regarding the tables, we concluded that the proposed tables are
acceptable to most stakeholders and have chosen not to overhaul the
rows of Table 2 to subpart OOO to prevent confusion. However, we
clarified the language in Sec. 60.672(f) cited in footnote ``a'' of
Table 2 to subpart OOO and corrected paragraph number references.
Affected facilities using wet dust suppression or other fugitive
emission reduction measures (but no control device) are subject to the
fugitive emission limits. The stack emission limits apply for affected
facilities using capture systems, which by definition in Sec. 60.671,
transport PM to a control device. It has come to our attention that
further clarification may be needed for circumstances when fugitive
emissions escape from a capture system that directs emissions to a
control device such as a baghouse or wet scrubber. Therefore, we are
modifying the title of the proposed Table 3 to subpart OOO and Sec.
60.672(b) to reflect that fugitive emissions escaping from a capture
system prior to reaching the control device are subject to the
applicable fugitive emission limits (and associated compliance
demonstration requirements) in Table 3 to subpart OOO. The captured
emissions routed to the control device would be subject to the
applicable stack emission limits (and associated compliance
demonstration requirements) in Table 2 to subpart OOO. We are also
rewording the proposed column headings in Table 3 to subpart OOO so the
table contains language from the original NSPS sections Sec. 60.672(b)
and (c) that distinguished between crushers without capture systems
(e.g., crushers controlled by wet suppression only) and other affected
facilities including crushers with capture systems as defined in Sec.
60.671 that allow fugitive emissions to escape (e.g., capture systems
not completely effective in transporting emissions to the control
device). These clarifications are consistent with the original
structure and intent of subpart OOO as described in the original 1983
proposal notice (see 48 FR 39571-39573 and 39577, August 31, 1983), the
1985 promulgation notice (see 50 FR 31335 and 31339, August 1, 1985),
and in the 1983 Background Information Document (EPA-450/3-83-001b).
Comment: Multiple commenters supported the replacement of the
Method 22 no VE standard for building openings with a 7 percent
fugitive opacity limit at the inlet and outlet points of a building
measured using a 30-minute Method 9 test with compliance determined as
stated in Sec. 60.675(c)(3). Some commenters argued that the limit
should be greater than 7 percent due to the error in Method 9
measurements. The commenters suggested that the fugitive opacity limit
be tied to that of the equipment with the highest allowable standard
located within the structure since the purpose of the structure is
typically for noise control or aesthetics and not emissions control. An
additional commenter stated that NSPS sources inside buildings should
have the option of either doing a performance test on the equipment
using the 30-minute Method 9, or testing the ingress and egress of the
building.
Two commenters suggested that building vents be exempt from the
stack PM concentration limit and associated performance testing (like
baghouses controlling emissions from individual enclosed storage bins).
The commenters stated that building vents and individual storage bin
baghouses have the same 7 percent opacity limit, and both are likely to
have very low velocities. The commenters noted there is the potential
for problems with isokinetic conditions, and long testing times to get
the required sample volume even with Method 5I. With a 7 percent
opacity limit and low velocities, the commenters stated that actual
mass emissions from a vent would be very low. The commenters noted that
vents are also more likely to be in locations difficult to access
without potential safety concerns.
Response: The emission limits specified for buildings are part of
an optional compliance method for affected facilities inside of
buildings. Rather than measuring the emissions from each affected
facility within a building (which is sometimes difficult due to close
equipment spacing and lighting), NMPP have the option of measuring
emissions from the building. For example, NMPP have the option of
conducting a 30-minute Method 9 on fugitive emissions from each of the
affected facilities within a building, or conducting a 30-minute Method
9 on the building openings (i.e., ingress and egress).
Emissions can escape buildings in two ways: (1) As fugitive
emissions through an unpowered building opening, or (2) as emissions
discharged through a powered building vent. ``Vent'' is defined in
Sec. 60.671 as, ``an opening through which there is mechanically
induced air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air
carrying particulate matter emissions from one or more affected
facilities.'' Because there are two ways emissions can escape from
buildings, two sets of
[[Page 19302]]
emission limits make up the optional building compliance procedure:
(1) A 7 percent opacity limit for fugitive emissions from building
openings, and/or
(2) The subpart OOO stack emission limits for building vents (i.e.,
0.022 gr/dscf and 7% opacity for affected facilities between August 31,
1983, and April 22, 2008; and 0.014 gr/dscf and ongoing monitoring for
affected facilities on or after April 22, 2008).
The 7 percent opacity limit for fugitive emissions from building
openings (measured with a 30-minute Method 9 test) is being promulgated
as proposed. The 7 percent opacity limit was proposed as a change from
the former no VE limit (measured with EPA Method 22) for building
openings. We disagree that the building fugitive opacity limit should
be higher than 7 percent due to Method 9 measurement error, because, as
stated previously, the measurement errors referenced by commenters were
atypical. We also disagree that the building fugitive limit should be
tied to that of the affected facility with the highest allowable limit.
The 7 percent opacity limit corresponds to the lower of the two
fugitive emission limits for affected facilities that may be housed in
a building. The 7 percent fugitive opacity limit also corresponds to
the 7 percent stack opacity limit required for building vents for
affected facilities that commenced construction, modification, or
reconstruction between August 31, 1983, and April 22, 2008.
We disagree with the commenters that building vents should be
exempted from the stack PM concentration limit and associated initial
performance testing. Building vents are treated differently from
baghouses controlling individual enclosed storage bins for several
reasons. First, testing of building vents is an optional method for
demonstrating compliance. Facilities may either measure emissions from
each affected facility within a building, or opt to measure emissions
from the building. Second, the revisions to subpart OOO contain rule
language in Sec. 60.675(e)(4) specifically to address low flow rate
conditions from building vents. No comments were received on the
proposed language and Sec. 60.675(e)(4) is being promulgated as
proposed. Third, Method 5I is an optional test method added to subpart
OOO to address low flows. Use of Method 5I is not limited to the
subpart OOO affected facility examples stated in Sec. 60.675(e)(3).
Method 5I may be used for building vents if it is helpful. Given the
number of options available for determining flow rate and testing PM,
the stack PM limit has been retained for building vents.
C. Applicability and Definitions
Comment: Several commenters supported exemption of wet material
processing operations from subpart OOO and the proposed definition of
``saturated material.'' However, one commenter noted that it may be
difficult to determine what is saturated. The commenter suggested that
EPA specify in the definition of ``saturated material'' that water is
visibly dripping from the processed material or that wet material be
restricted to subterranean, sub-aqueous (excavated) materials.
Response: We are promulgating the exemption for wet material
processing operations as proposed. The intent of the definition of
``saturated material'' is to define mineral material with sufficient
surface moisture (excluding material wetted by wet suppression systems)
such that PM emissions are not generated from processing of the
material through screening operations, bucket elevators and belt
conveyors. We disagree that water must be visibly dripping from
nonmetallic minerals in order for there to be sufficient surface
moisture to eliminate the potential for PM emissions from the handling
of the material. Therefore, we have not incorporated the commenters
suggested addition to the definition (nor have we restricted wet
material to subterranean, sub-aqueous excavated materials).
D. Testing Requirements
Comment: Numerous commenters stated that repeat fugitive emissions
testing every 5 years for affected facilities without direct water
sprays is unnecessary. The commenters noted that carryover moisture has
been demonstrated to control fugitive emissions as acknowledged in AP-
42 Chapter 11.9.2 for Crushed Stone Processing.
The commenters stated that the number of sources controlled by
water carryover or with partial enclosure that would be required to
conduct repeat tests every 5 years would be enormous, posing a burden
for industry and delegated regulatory agencies with minimal
environmental return. The commenters stated that there is no need to
conduct repeat tests if the affected facilities that rely on water
carryover have initial performance tests showing compliance with the
emission standard and monthly inspections showing that the controls
installed at the time of initial testing continue to function as
designed. Delegated agencies have the authority to request a Method 9
test at any time to verify compliance if there is a concern. Some
commenters noted that, in addition to the initial compliance test,
companies do various inspections to verify compliance and are also
routinely inspected by State and local regulatory agencies. One
commenter noted that sources are observed for a short time and often
enough to assure compliance with State regulations (without having to
go through a time consuming testing process).
Similarly, several commenters argued that a repeat performance test
should not be required for affected facilities located inside buildings
and controlled by either wet suppression or dry collection devices. In
addition, multiple commenters stated that repeat testing is unnecessary
for affected facilities inside buildings that do not have direct water
sprays. The commenters noted that if initial performance testing
conducted on these affected facilities shows compliance with the
emission limit using the existing controls, and the proposed monthly
inspections show that the controls are functioning, then a repeat
Method 9 test is not necessary.
Response: Continuous compliance requirements are included in this
final rule for affected facilities that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, as part of
an ongoing effort to improve compliance with various Federal air
emission regulations.\3\ As proposed, affected facilities (that
commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after
April 22, 2008) with fugitive emissions controlled by wet suppression
water sprays are required to conduct the initial Method 9 opacity test
and to conduct monthly inspections of the direct water sprays according
to Sec. 60.674(b) and Sec. 60.676(b). Repeat Method 9 testing is not
required (and was not proposed) for affected facilities with direct
water sprays because the monthly inspection requirements were
determined to be adequate for NMPP to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the fugitive emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Inadequate monitoring concerns were raised by EPA in an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published on February
16, 2005 (70 FR 7905).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree that water carryover can be an adequate control measure
for fugitive emissions for a number of affected facilities when
sufficient moisture is delivered by upstream water sprays. Therefore,
we are eliminating from this final rule the proposed 5-year repeat
Method 9 test for affected facilities that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, and have
fugitive emissions
[[Page 19303]]
controlled by water carryover from upstream water sprays if the
upstream water sprays are inspected according to the requirements in
Sec. 60.674(b) and Sec. 60.676(b) of subpart OOO. In many cases, the
upstream water spray(s) responsible for controlling fugitive emissions
from a subpart OOO affected facility (that commences construction,
modification, or reconstruction without water sprays on or after April
22, 2008) will already be subject to the subpart OOO water spray
inspection requirements in Sec. 60.674(b) and Sec. 60.676(b).
However, there may be cases where the upstream water spray(s)
responsible for controlling fugitive emissions from a subpart OOO
affected facility (without water sprays) are not subject to the subpart
OOO water spray inspection requirements (e.g., because the upstream
affected facility with water sprays predates the April 22, 2008,
applicability date for monitoring). Such upstream water spray(s) may
also be monitored according to Sec. 60.674(b) and Sec. 60.676(b) by
NMPP wishing to exempt selected affected facilities from the 5-year
repeat testing requirements. We leave to the discretion of the NMPP and
their permitting authority to determine which upstream water sprays
(and whether one or more of the upstream water sprays) require
monitoring. We have included Sec. 60.674(b)(1) in this final rule to
specify the 5-year repeat testing exemption and to require NMPP to
designate (at the time of the initial performance test) which upstream
water spray(s) will be periodically inspected for water flow to
indicate continuous compliance with the fugitive emission limits for
each affected facility being exempted from 5-year repeat performance
testing. It is necessary to specify which water sprays will be
monitored initially so it will be clear (for enforcement purposes)
which affected facilities controlled by carryover will rely on
monitoring of upstream water sprays versus a 5-year repeat Method 9
test.
This final rule retains the proposed 5-year repeat Method 9 testing
requirement for affected facilities with fugitive emissions that are
not controlled by direct water sprays or by carryover from upstream
water sprays. We acknowledge that some State permits contain continuous
compliance measures and some State and local agencies may routinely
perform inspections. However, some NMPP permits are devoid of
continuous compliance measures and the frequency of State and local
inspections can vary considerably for NMPP. It is appropriate for the
NMPP NSPS to include uniform continuous compliance measures for all
NMPP. We considered the costs and burden associated with various
frequencies of Method 9 testing and determined that the costs of the 5-
year repeat Method 9 (30-minute test) are reasonable. Our cost analysis
is documented in a memorandum available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-1018.
We have eliminated the proposed repeat 5-year testing requirement
for affected facilities enclosed in buildings. Buildings function as a
means of reducing fugitive emissions in addition to any control
measures that are applied to the affected facilities within the
building. The final monitoring requirements for affected facilities
located inside of buildings are the same as for affected facilities
that are not enclosed by a building (e.g., monthly inspections to
verify water sprays are operating or quarterly Method 22 inspections
for dry collection devices). These monitoring requirements apply for
affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008.
Comment: Multiple commenters noted that EPA is proposing to allow
Method 9 testing of up to three emission points at one time as long as
three conditions are met. Most commenters agreed with the first two
conditions but recommended that the third condition be eliminated if
EPA promulgates a 7 percent fugitive opacity limit for selected
equipment. As proposed, the third condition specified that if an
opacity reading for any one of the three points is within 5 percent
opacity from the applicable standard, then the observer must stop
taking readings for the other two points and continue reading just that
single point. Most commenters felt that the revised 7 percent opacity
limit would prevent reading of more than one point at a time since
opacity is read in 5 percent increments and a single reading of 5
percent would prevent multiple point testing. One commenter requested
that the second requirement that all points be within 70 degrees of
each other be changed to 90 degrees.
Response: We disagree that the three conditions for allowing Method
9 readings of up to three emission points at one time should be
eliminated. This provision and the three conditions were made available
for 40 CFR part 60, subparts LL and OOO in 1999 and are well
established alternative testing procedures. Therefore, the first two
conditions (Sec. Sec. 60.675(e)(2)(i) and (ii)) are being promulgated
as proposed.
However, we do agree with commenters that the third condition
limits the applicability of this provision for affected facilities
subject to the revised 7 percent fugitive emission limit. To remedy
this situation, we are changing the wording in Sec. 60.675(e)(2)(iii).
This revision will require the observer to focus on a single emission
point where a single opacity reading suggests the point may be close to
or exceeds the applicable standard, but does not unduly preclude an
observer from observing three points at a time, which is more cost
effective. We believe that this revision strikes the appropriate
balance between accurately determining compliance and allowing
facilities to conduct cost-effective observations.
Comment: Multiple commenters supported EPA's proposal to postpone
initial performance testing until no later than 60 calendar days after
resuming operation of the affected facility following a seasonal
shutdown. A few commenters noted that severe winter weather and
inventory control issues in certain parts of the country may require
NMPP to cease operations for several months, and in their experience,
these seasonal shut downs interfered with meeting the subpart OOO
performance testing deadlines. Most commenters supported the proposed
definition of ``seasonal shut down.''
One commenter stated that the requirement to obtain prior approval
for a seasonal shut down testing delay from the permitting authority
may be virtually unworkable in practice. Additionally, the commenter
suggested that a delay in performance testing should be allowed for
reasons beyond just ``seasonal market conditions'' as denoted in the
definition of ``seasonal shut down.'' The commenter stated that a shut
down may occur for weather-related reasons not directly related to
seasonal market conditions and also for cyclical reasons. According to
the commenter, there could also be scenarios of equipment failure or
weather-related shut down that are unforeseen and push the facility
past the compliance demonstration date, without the sufficient notice
to schedule around the shut down that EPA postulates. The commenter
requested that EPA broaden section Sec. 60.675(i) to allow deferral of
a compliance test if the deadline for the initial compliance test falls
at a time when the facility is shut down for a period of at least 30
days (regardless of the reason for the shut down), if the permitting
authority is notified of the shut down and the deferral of compliance
testing.
[[Page 19304]]
Response: It is not possible or necessary for subpart OOO to allow
for deferral of performance testing for every situation that could
affect testing. Some situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case
basis. Our intent with the proposed definition of ``seasonal shut
down'' and associated regulatory language in Sec. 60.675(i) was to
account for a common situation that occurs frequently in the
nonmetallic mineral processing industries. Section 60.675(i) allows
initial performance testing to be postponed up to 60 days after
resuming operation following a seasonal shut down. We are revising the
proposed definition of ``seasonal shut down'' to clarify our intent
that shut downs eligible for the Sec. 60.675(i) provision include
weather conditions. We consider shut downs occurring for cyclical
reasons or current economic conditions to be seasonal market conditions
eligible for the Sec. 60.675(i) provision as long as these conditions
last 45 consecutive days as specified in the definition of ``seasonal
shut down.'' It was not the intent of the Sec. 60.675(i) provision or
the definition of ``seasonal shut down'' to include equipment failures.
We believe testing delays due to equipment failures (which could
include failure of processing or control equipment) should be addressed
on a case-by-case basis. We believe equipment failures should be
treated on a case-by-case basis because the reasons for a given
equipment failure will vary from facility to facility and from instance
to instance. Further, the handling of a given equipment failure will
vary depending on such factors as how often the facility has
experienced a failure and what the facility has done to avoid equipment
failure.
We maintain that prior approval of the permitting authority is
necessary for extension of the performance testing deadline. However,
we are not restricting the timing or form (e.g., written, verbal, e-
mail) of such approval with a formal notification procedure.
E. Monitoring Requirements
Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed requirement of
monthly inspections to ensure that water is flowing to the spray
nozzles be amended to clarify that such inspections are not required
for equipment using wet suppression on a seasonal basis. Another
commenter generally supported the monthly inspection requirements for
wet suppression systems, but requested that EPA address freezing
hazards requiring wet suppression systems to be turned off during
winter months. The commenter noted that water sprays are often used on
transfer points during dry months but are turned off during wet months
when precipitation is adequate to suppress fugitive dust.
The commenter suggested that language be included in Sec.
60.674(b) stating that you must initiate corrective action within 24
hours if you find that water is not flowing properly during an
inspection of the water nozzles unless either (1) the temperature in
the affected facility is such that water spraying would create a danger
to personnel or equipment, or (2) the affected facility is not enclosed
and measurable precipitation has occurred at the facility each day
since the prior inspection. The commenter further suggested that in the
event of a low-temperature condition preventing operation of the spray
system or continuous precipitation eliminating the need for the spray
system, the owner/operator should record that fact in the logbook in
lieu of corrective action.
Response: We recognize that some NMPP may use wet suppression on a
seasonal or as needed basis (e.g., wet suppression may not be necessary
to reduce fugitive emissions following a rain event in some instances).
We also acknowledge the hazards that can be associated with wet
suppression systems during freezing conditions for those NMPP that
operate through winter months. Wet suppression water sprays are a
common control measure applied to reduce fugitive emissions from NMPP
affected facilities. The intent of the wet suppression water spray
nozzle inspections is to indicate continuous compliance with the
fugitive emission limits by detecting and correcting operational
problems with the water sprays, including inoperable water sprays
(regardless of the reasons for not operating). Affected facilities must
operate in compliance with the subpart OOO fugitive emission limits at
all times (except for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction as
described in the General Provisions). Therefore, we cannot simply refer
to vague conditions of ``temperature'' or ``measurable precipitation''
in subpart OOO, particularly since the duration of these conditions and
their effect on dust suppression can be quite variable and site-
specific (e.g., a small amount of precipitation on a hot day may
evaporate quickly and do nothing to control fugitive emissions).
Subpart OOO does not specify that any particular control technology
be used. Rather, subpart OOO specifies emissions limits that must be
met by affected facilities with fugitive emissions. NMPP can meet the
subpart OOO emission limits using whatever mechanisms they choose
(e.g., wet suppression water sprays, measurable precipitation, water
carryover, etc.). Regardless of the mechanism for control, the
emissions limits must be met continuously.
Plants must identify the control mechanisms they will use to attain
compliance with the applicable emission limits as part of the
construction and/or operating permitting process. Plants with wet
suppression water sprays that intend to cease operation of their water
sprays due to rainfall or freezing conditions should specify this in
their permit applications and/or permits. It will be at the discretion
of the NMPP and permitting authority as to how compliance with the
subpart OOO emission limits will be attained when the wet suppression
system is not operating (considering the frequency and duration of such
events). For example, if an affected facility will be operated for
weeks or months at a time without its wet suppression system, then the
permitting authority may request a Method 9 test while the wet
suppression system is turned off to verify that compliance with the
subpart OOO emission limits will be demonstrated. Once these details
are worked out with the permitting authority, then logbook entries
(made pursuant to Sec. Sec. 60.674(b) and 60.676(b)) indicating the
wet suppression system was not operating will be within the constraints
of the facility's permit. However, plants with wet suppression that do
not reveal during the permitting process their intent to, at times,
cease operation of their wet suppression system (and address how
subpart OOO compliance will be attained during such times) would be
subject to enforcement scrutiny if their wet suppression inspection
logbook reveals periods when the water sprays were not operated. We are
adding Sec. 60.674(b)(2) to clarify that the logbook entry must
identify any alternative control mechanism (e.g., rainfall) being used
at the time of the monthly inspection.
Comment: One commenter agreed that monthly inspection of discharge
spray nozzles to check water flow coupled with a requirement to
initiate corrective action within 24 hours (with each inspection and
corrective action being recorded in a logbook) is reasonable for wet
suppression technology. Another commenter requested that EPA set a
deadline for completion of repairs so the wet suppression system is
working properly (i.e., to finish what was started).
Response: For wet suppression inspections identifying water flow
problems, we are expanding the
[[Page 19305]]
requirement in Sec. 60.674(b) to initiate corrective action within 24
hours (with each inspection and corrective action being recorded in a
logbook) to also require that the corrective action must be completed
as expediently as practical.
Comment: One commenter requested that the baghouse monitoring
requirements in Table 6 to the lime manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAAA) be allowed as an alternative to the proposed subpart
OOO baghouse monitoring requirements (i.e., quarterly 30-minute Method
22 VE testing with corrective action within 24 hours or use of a bag
leak detection system). The commenter noted that the lime manufacturing
NESHAP has more stringent requirements for processed stone handling
(PSH) units (e.g., including PSH storage bins, conveying system
transfer points, etc.).
The commenter stated that the lime manufacturing NESHAP requires a
monthly Method 22 VE check. If VE are observed, within 1 hour of
observation, one 6-minute Method 9 test is required. If the opacity
limit is exceeded, corrective action is required in accordance with the
operation, maintenance and monitoring plan. If no VE are observed for 6
months, Method 22 frequency can be reduced to semi-annually, and can be
further reduced to annually if no VE are observed during the semi-
annual check (Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA).
The commenter noted that the lime industry has invested substantial
resources in developing environmental management systems, including
corrective action plans and lime plant operator training, in order to
maintain compliance with the lime manufacturing NESHAP.
Response: We agree that the VE observation requirements in the Lime
Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAAA) for PSH operations
are adequate for purposes of demonstrating continuous compliance with
subpart OOO because these requirements will ensure proper baghouse
operation. We are adding Sec. Sec. 60.674(e) and 60.676(b)(3) to
subpart OOO to refer to the VE observation requirements and associated
recordkeeping language in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. For affected
facilities subject to those requirements, the recordkeeping
requirements in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP replace the subpart OOO
requirements to maintain a logbook. Only affected facilities subject to
the requirements for PSH operations in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP
are allowed to use the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP alternative to the
subpart OOO baghouse VE inspections.
Comment: One commenter questioned the appropriateness of Method 22
VE inspections of baghouse-controlled sources and requested that the
duration of the Method 22 observations be reduced from 30 to 15 minutes
since the emission point can be viewed from one location. Another
commenter thought the 30 minute duration for a Method 22 test was
excessive, but supported use of Method 22 testing for monitoring
baghouse emissions. Although a third commenter believes the proposed
Method 22 and bag leak detector (BLD) monitoring provisions could
trigger corrective action requirements when the 7 percent opacity
standard is not exceeded, the commenter stated that the options as
proposed (which include the ability to obtain site specific exceptions)
are reasonable for baghouse technology. This commenter would not
support a requirement that all baghouse-controlled affected facilities
employ BLDs.
Response: We believe that a quarterly 30-minute Method 22 (40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A-7) is a reasonable and appropriate method for
determining the frequency of VE from baghouses. Although the method was
developed for measuring the frequency of fugitive emissions, it is not
limited to fugitive emissions points. Method 22 has been applied for
baghouse-controlled emission points in a number of permits and rules.
The use of BLD remains an alternative to the quarterly VE observations
in the promulgated standards.
F. Notification, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Comment: Multiple commenters supported reducing the 30-day advance
notice to a 7-day notice prior to performance testing for Method 9
tests. The commenters noted that many States are already relaxing this
requirement.
Conversely, another commenter from a state agency requested that
EPA retain the 30-day advance notice. The commenter stated that 7 days
is not enough time for their regulatory staff to review the plan and
determine if (based on site-specific circumstances) the presence of an
investigator is required. The commenter noted that weather-related
delays are already addressed in Sec. 60.8(d) where staff work under
the 7-day rescheduling process.
Response: As proposed, we are promulgating a 7-day advance notice
prior to NMPP performance tests involving only Method 9 observations.
We made this change because of the large number of NMPP that are
required to conduct only Method 9 testing for fugitive emissions from
affected facilities, because plans for NMPP Method 9 opacity readings
require little review, and because Method 9 tests are affected by
weather (visibility) and subject to rescheduling such that a 30-day
advanced notification can be impractical for NMPP. We believe that 7
days is a reasonable time frame for NMPP. However, State agencies
wishing to require a longer time period for advanced notice of Method 9
performance testing (e.g., 30 days instead of 7 days) have the
discretion to do so.
Comment: One commenter noted that the logbook discussed in Sec.
60.676(b)(1) must be made available upon request to the Administrator.
The commenter requested that a hard copy be made available even if the
logbook is kept electronically.
Response: We have incorporated the commenter's suggestion to
specify that hard copies of the logbook be made available to the
Administrator upon request. The Administrator (or permitting authority)
may request either a hard copy or electronic copy of the logbook for
inspection.
G. Construction, Modification, and Reconstruction
Comment: One commenter requested that EPA clarify wording in the
preamble and rule regarding applicability of the NSPS revisions. The
commenter noted that the date of commencement of construction,
modification, or reconstruction is of regulatory importance for NSPS
(not the date when construction, modification, or reconstruction is
fully completed). The commenter stated that the proposal preamble
references to ``future'' affected facilities are confusing and should
be replaced with the longer but more rigorous description for sources
for which construction has commenced.
Response: We are rewording Sec. 60.674(b), (c), and (d) and Sec.
60.676(b)(1) to replace the word ``installed'' with the terms used in
the General Provisions (e.g., for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced on or after April 22, 2008). We are also
omitting the term ``future'' and using language in the preamble to this
final rule to clearly indicate that the date for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction was commenced is the applicability date
for the NSPS provisions.
Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed amendment to the
like-for-like replacement language in Sec. 60.670(d)(1) to add the
phrase ``and
[[Page 19306]]
there is no increase in the amount of emissions.'' The commenter
requested that the version of Sec. 60.670(d)(1) that has been in
subpart OOO since 1985 be retained. The commenter stated that since no
replacement of equipment would ever trigger the NSPS or new source
review modification rules without an increase in the amount of
emissions, the effect of the proposed change would be to remove an
exemption that had applied to the replacement of equipment of equal or
smaller size, regardless of its effect on emissions.
Response: As indicated in the proposal, the addition of the
language providing that the like-for-like replacement provision is only
available where ``there is no increase in the amount of emissions'' was
intended as a clarification rather than a change. That is, the Agency
interprets the existing exemption in Sec. 60.670(d)(1) as being
limited to such circumstances where there is no increase in emissions.
While the commenter alleges that this is a change, they have not
identified any instance where the Agency interpreted the existing
provision to permit like-for-like replacements where an emissions
increase occurs (i.e., that the proposed language constitutes a change
rather than a clarification). Accordingly, we disagree that we are
narrowing or changing the regulation with the addition of the
clarifying language. Moreover, contrary to the commenter's contention,
limiting the exemption to like-for-like replacements that do not result
in an increase in emissions does not render the like-for-like exemption
meaningless. The provision continues to allow like-for-like
replacements that do not increase emissions, which we believe to be the
vast majority of cases because the replacement units must be of equal
or smaller size (e.g., rated capacity).
H. Cost Impacts
Comment: Several commenters argued that there are incremental costs
associated with meeting the revised stack limit of 0.014 gr/dscf and
requested that EPA analyze these costs. The commenters stated that
companies operate their equipment at a lower emission rate than the
applicable standard to have a compliance margin. Commenters stated that
the revised stack limit of 0.014 gr/dscf would require a higher-
efficiency baghouse design and bags, resulting in incremental capital
costs. One commenter stated that one or more of the following baghouse
design improvements may be required: Decreased air-to-cloth ratio,
upgraded bag material (i.e., membrane coated bags), additional baghouse
chambers, and bag leak detectors. Commenters also stated that increased
baghouse maintenance would be required if the tighter grain loading
standard is implemented (e.g., more frequent bag replacement) and that
the associated incremental costs should be considered.
Response: We disagree with commenters that significant upgrades to
baghouses would be required to meet a PM limit of 0.014 gr/dscf.
Ninety-one percent of the stack tests we reviewed achieved 0.014 gr/
dscf, and many of these tests achieved 0.014 gr/dscf with a substantial
compliance margin. A level of 0.010 gr/dscf was achieved in 86 percent
of the tests and a level of 0.005 gr/dscf was achieved in 68 percent of
tests. Given these test results, we concluded at proposal that control
systems that would be installed to meet a limit of 0.014 gr/dscf would
be the same as those installed to meet the NSPS limit of 0.022 gr/dscf.
Because there would be no change in control technology, we concluded
that the incremental costs would be very low or zero.
Although we disagree (based on the available NMPP stack emissions
data) that there are any incremental costs associated with reducing the
stack PM emission limit from 0.022 to 0.014 gr/dscf, we evaluated the
incremental costs suggested by commenters that could potentially be
incurred in the event that some facilities choose to upgrade the type
of baghouse they use for new affected facilities. Our incremental cost
analysis is documented in a memorandum available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-1018. We explored four scenarios in our costing analysis similar
to the suggestions by commenters (a baseline scenario with a limit of
0.022 gr/dscf and three other scenarios, A through C, each with a limit
of 0.014 gr/dscf). As suggested by commenters, the costs of more
frequent bag replacement were associated with scenarios A-C. We
disagree that bag leak detectors would be required to demonstrate
continuous compliance with a limit of 0.014 gr/dscf since the subpart
OOO revisions allow for a less expensive method of compliance (i.e.,
quarterly VE checks), and, therefore, we did not include BLD costs in
any of the scenarios explored. Assuming as a worst case that all
projected facilities would elect to upgrade the type of baghouse they
use, the 5-year nationwide incremental costs ranged from $1.1 to 1.6
million total capital cost and $0.18 to 0.30 million total annualized
cost. The worst case incremental cost effectiveness is less than $2,300
per ton of PM removed. We believe these worst case costs are acceptable
and reasonable. Therefore, we maintain that a stack limit of 0.014 gr/
dscf represents BDT for new, modified, and reconstructed NMPP affected
facilities and this limit is being promulgated as proposed.
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
Final Amendments to Subpart OOO
A. What are the impacts for NMPP?
We are presenting estimates of the impacts for these final
amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO that change the performance
standards. The cost, environmental, and economic impacts presented in
this section are expressed as incremental differences between the
impacts of NMPP complying with the subpart OOO revisions and the
current NSPS requirements of subpart OOO (i.e., baseline). The impacts
are presented for NMPP affected facilities for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction is expected to commence over the 5
years following promulgation of the revised NSPS. The analyses and the
documents referenced below can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-1018.
In order to determine the incremental impacts of this final rule,
we first estimated that 332 new NMPP would comply with subpart OOO in
the 5 years following promulgation. For further detail on the
methodology of these calculations, see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
1018.
The revisions to the subpart OOO emission limits for affected
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
on or after April 22, 2008, do not reflect use of new or different
control technologies, but are an adjustment of the limits to better
reflect the performance of current (baseline) control technologies. For
the most part, there is no difference in the control systems used to
meet baseline and those that would be used to meet the revised emission
limits for affected facilities that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. Therefore,
there would be no difference in control costs, water or solid waste
impacts, or actual emission reductions achieved as a result of the
revisions to the emission limits. However, as discussed previously, we
estimated potential incremental costs of upgrades to baghouse controls
(e.g., more frequent bag replacement, membrane coated bags, or use of a
multi-compartment baghouse) in the event that some NMPP choose to
operate with such upgrades. We
[[Page 19307]]
estimate the worst case potential increase in nationwide annualized
cost associated with baghouse upgrades to be $300,000 per year. The
effect of reducing the emission limits is to ensure that the typical
performance of today's control systems is achieved for affected
facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction
on or after April 22, 2008. The potential nationwide emission reduction
(the nationwide emission reduction associated with lowering the PM
limit from 0.022 to 0.014 gr/dscf) could be as much as 120 megagrams
per year (Mg/yr) (130 tons per year (tpy)) PM. These potential emission
reductions are overestimated because the majority of control systems
installed on affected facilities that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, would
likely have resulted in emissions at or below the emission limits even
in the absence of these revisions.
There are differences in notification; testing; monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping (MRR) costs between baseline and the final
revisions to subpart OOO. We are making some amendments to subpart OOO
that will reduce costs and other amendments that will increase costs
for affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. We estimate that the
increase in nationwide annual cost associated with the MRR revisions,
including annualized capital costs associated with performance testing,
is about $630,000. The potential emissions reductions associated with
the MRR revisions are estimated to be 330 Mg/yr (370 tpy) due to the
shortened duration that excess emissions could occur before being
corrected under these final testing and monitoring revisions.
The estimated nationwide 5-year incremental emissions reductions
and cost impacts for these amendments are summarized in Table 2 of this
preamble. The overall cost-effectiveness is about $1,900 per ton of PM
potentially removed. We estimate that 6 percent (or 28 Mg/yr (25 tpy))
of the potential reduction in PM shown in Table 2 is PM less than 2.5
microns in diameter (PM2.5).
Table 2--National Incremental Emission Reductions and Cost Impacts for NMPP Subject to Final Standards Under 40
CFR Part 60, Subpart OOO (Fifth Year After Promulgation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final revisions for affected facilities Potential annual
that commence construction, Total capital Total annual emission Potential cost-
modification, or reconstruction on or cost [$1,000] cost [$1,000/yr] reductions effectiveness
after April 22, 2008 [tons/yr] [$/ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revisions to emission limits............ 1,400 300 130 2,300
Revisions to MRR requirements........... (1,800) 630 370 1,700
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... (400) 930 500 1,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Negative numbers appear in parentheses. There is a negative capital cost because we are reducing the costs of
initial testing requirements by (a) allowing a 30-minute Method 9 test instead of a 1-hour test for fugitive
emissions; and (b) by omitting the 7 percent stack opacity limit and associated initial testing from subpart
OOO. The reduced testing costs offset the potential increase in capital cost due to baghouse upgrades.)
B. What are the secondary impacts?
Indirect or secondary air quality impacts are impacts that result
from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of
control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of criteria
pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that are required under this final rule. These revisions will
not result in secondary air impacts or increase in overall energy
demand because there is little (if any) incremental difference in the
control systems used to comply with these revisions.
C. What are the economic impacts?
We performed an economic impact analysis that estimates changes in
prices and output for nonmetallic minerals nationally using the annual
compliance costs estimated for this final rule. All estimates are for
the fifth year after promulgation since this is the year for which the
compliance cost impacts are estimated. The impacts to producers and
consumers affected by this final rule are very slightly higher product
prices and outputs. Prices for products (processed minerals) from
affected plants should increase by less than 0.1 percent for the fifth
year. The output of processed minerals should be affected by less than
0.1 percent for the fifth year. Hence, the overall economic impact of
this final rule on the affected industries and their consumers should
be negligible. For more information, please refer to the economic
impact analysis for this final rule that is in the public docket.
VI. No Final Action Taken With Respect to Subpart UUU Applicability
As part of the proposal notice, we requested comment on the
applicability of the NSPS for Mineral Calciners and Dryers (40 CFR Part
60, subpart UUU) to sand reclamation processes at metal foundries. We
proposed to amend Sec. 60.730(b) of subpart UUU to state that
``processes for thermal reclamation of industrial sand at metal
foundries'' are not subject to the provisions of subpart UUU. After
further consideration, we are not taking any final action with respect
to this proposed amendment to subpart UUU at this time.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
final action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may
raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
These final amendments to the existing standards of performance for
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants add monitoring requirements for
affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or
[[Page 19308]]
reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, while eliminating other
requirements. We have revised the information collection request (ICR)
for the existing rule.
These final amendments to the standards of performance for NMPP for
affected facilities include a reduction in Method 9 test duration for
fugitive emissions, exemption of wet material processing operations,
and changes to simplify the notification requirements. Additional
revisions to affected facilities that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008, include
changes to emission limits, elimination of the stack opacity limit, and
addition of periodic monitoring requirements. The monitoring
requirements include periodic inspections of water sprays and baghouse
VE. We have minimized the burden associated with these monitoring
requirements by selecting longer frequencies for the requirements
(e.g., repeat tests every 5 years as opposed to annually; monthly
inspections of water sprays as opposed to daily, etc.); minimizing
duplication of continuous compliance measures; and by not specifying
additional reporting requirements for the periodic inspection
provisions. These requirements are based on recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the NSPS General Provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart
A, and on specific requirements in subpart OOO which are mandatory for
all operators subject to NSPS. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 11,330 labor-hours per
year at a cost of $1,030,642 per year. The annualized capital costs are
estimated at $154,577 per year. There are no estimated annual operation
and maintenance costs. We note that information collection costs to
industry are also included in the incremental cost impacts presented in
section VII of this preamble. Therefore, the burden costs presented in
the ICR are not additional costs incurred by sources subject to subpart
OOO. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact of these revisions to subpart
OOO on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business
whose parent company has no more than 500 employees, depending on the
size definition for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small
Business Administration (SBA) size standards found at http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impact of these revisions to subpart
OOO on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We estimate that up to 96 percent (318) of the 332 entities of the
projected new NMPP could potentially be classified as small entities
according to the SBA small business size standards for industries
identified as affected by today's revisions. No small entities are
expected to incur an annualized compliance cost of more than 0.10
percent to comply with today's action. For more information, please
refer to the economic impact analysis that is in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
Although this action would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this action on small entities by reducing the test
duration for fugitive emissions, exempting wet material processing
operations, simplifying certain notification requirements, eliminating
the stack opacity limit, and selecting relatively low-cost repeat
testing and monitoring provisions. In addition, certain plants
operating at small capacities were exempted from subpart OOO due to
economic considerations when the standards were originally developed.
These revisions to subpart OOO do not affect these exempted small
plants; that is, they continue to be exempted from the standards.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final 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.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the estimated expenditures for
the private sector in the fifth year after promulgation are $0.93
million. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final action
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no
obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on
them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities
are owned or operated
[[Page 19309]]
by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This final action does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This final rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of
specified industrial facilities and not tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This final action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 18355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that this final rule
is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because the only
energy requirements associated with this action result from monitoring
equipment.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided to
use EPA Methods 5, 5I, 9, 17, and 22, of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A. The
Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCS. We
identified no standards for Methods 9 and 22, and none were brought to
our attention in public comments. While the Agency identified five VCS
as being potentially applicable to EPA Methods 5, 5I, or 17, we have
decided not to use them in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would
be impractical for the purposes of this final rule. See the docket of
this final rule for the reasons for these determinations on the
standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This final rule will reduce emissions of PM from all
new, reconstructed, or modified affected facilities at NMPP, decreasing
the amount of such emissions to which all affected populations are
exposed.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This final rule will be effective April 28, 2009.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 16, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart OOO--[AMENDED]
0
2. Revise subpart OOO to read as follows:
Subpart OOO--Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants
Sec.
60.670 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.671 Definitions.
60.672 Standard for particulate matter (PM).
60.673 Reconstruction.
60.674 Monitoring of operations.
60.675 Test methods and procedures.
60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping.
Tables to Subpart OOO of Part 60
Table 1 to Subpart OOO--Exceptions to Applicability of Subpart A to
Subpart OOO
Table 2 to Subpart OOO--Stack Emission Limits for Affected
Facilities With Capture Systems
Table 3 to Subpart OOO--Fugitive Emission Limits
Subpart OOO--Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants
Sec. 60.670 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (c), and (d)
of this section, the provisions of this subpart
[[Page 19310]]
are applicable to the following affected facilities in fixed or
portable nonmetallic mineral processing plants: each crusher, grinding
mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging
operation, storage bin, enclosed truck or railcar loading station.
Also, crushers and grinding mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that
reduce the size of nonmetallic minerals embedded in recycled asphalt
pavement and subsequent affected facilities up to, but not including,
the first storage silo or bin are subject to the provisions of this
subpart.
(2) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to the following
operations: All facilities located in underground mines; plants without
crushers or grinding mills above ground; and wet material processing
operations (as defined in Sec. 60.671).
(b) An affected facility that is subject to the provisions of
subparts F or I of this part or that follows in the plant process any
facility subject to the provisions of subparts F or I of this part is
not subject to the provisions of this subpart.
(c) Facilities at the following plants are not subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
(1) Fixed sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with
capacities, as defined in Sec. 60.671, of 23 megagrams per hour (25
tons per hour) or less;
(2) Portable sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with
capacities, as defined in Sec. 60.671, of 136 megagrams per hour (150
tons per hour) or less; and
(3) Common clay plants and pumice plants with capacities, as
defined in Sec. 60.671, of 9 megagrams per hour (10 tons per hour) or
less.
(d)(1) When an existing facility is replaced by a piece of
equipment of equal or smaller size, as defined in Sec. 60.671, having
the same function as the existing facility, and there is no increase in
the amount of emissions, the new facility is exempt from the provisions
of Sec. Sec. 60.672, 60.674, and 60.675 except as provided for in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(2) An owner or operator complying with paragraph (d)(1) of this
section shall submit the information required in Sec. 60.676(a).
(3) An owner or operator replacing all existing facilities in a
production line with new facilities does not qualify for the exemption
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and must comply with the
provisions of Sec. Sec. 60.672, 60.674 and 60.675.
(e) An affected facility under paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction, modification, or reconstruction after August
31, 1983, is subject to the requirements of this part.
(f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A
of this part 60 that do not apply to owners and operators of affected
facilities subject to this subpart or that apply with certain
exceptions.
Sec. 60.671 Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart, but not specifically defined in
this section, shall have the meaning given them in the Act and in
subpart A of this part.
Bagging operation means the mechanical process by which bags are
filled with nonmetallic minerals.
Belt conveyor means a conveying device that transports material
from one location to another by means of an endless belt that is
carried on a series of idlers and routed around a pulley at each end.
Bucket elevator means a conveying device of nonmetallic minerals
consisting of a head and foot assembly which supports and drives an
endless single or double strand chain or belt to which buckets are
attached.
Building means any frame structure with a roof.
Capacity means the cumulative rated capacity of all initial
crushers that are part of the plant.
Capture system means the equipment (including enclosures, hoods,
ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and transport particulate
matter generated by one or more affected facilities to a control
device.
Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to
reduce particulate matter emissions released to the atmosphere from one
or more affected facilities at a nonmetallic mineral processing plant.
Conveying system means a device for transporting materials from one
piece of equipment or location to another location within a plant.
Conveying systems include but are not limited to the following:
Feeders, belt conveyors, bucket elevators and pneumatic systems.
Crush or Crushing means to reduce the size of nonmetallic mineral
material by means of physical impaction of the crusher or grinding mill
upon the material.
Crusher means a machine used to crush any nonmetallic minerals, and
includes, but is not limited to, the following types: Jaw, gyratory,
cone, roll, rod mill, hammermill, and impactor.
Enclosed truck or railcar loading station means that portion of a
nonmetallic mineral processing plant where nonmetallic minerals are
loaded by an enclosed conveying system into enclosed trucks or
railcars.
Fixed plant means any nonmetallic mineral processing plant at which
the processing equipment specified in Sec. 60.670(a) is attached by a
cable, chain, turnbuckle, bolt or other means (except electrical
connections) to any anchor, slab, or structure including bedrock.
Fugitive emission means particulate matter that is not collected by
a capture system and is released to the atmosphere at the point of
generation.
Grinding mill means a machine used for the wet or dry fine crushing
of any nonmetallic mineral. Grinding mills include, but are not limited
to, the following types: Hammer, roller, rod, pebble and ball, and
fluid energy. The grinding mill includes the air conveying system, air
separator, or air classifier, where such systems are used.
Initial crusher means any crusher into which nonmetallic minerals
can be fed without prior crushing in the plant.
Nonmetallic mineral means any of the following minerals or any
mixture of which the majority is any of the following minerals:
(1) Crushed and Broken Stone, including Limestone, Dolomite,
Granite, Traprock, Sandstone, Quartz, Quartzite, Marl, Marble, Slate,
Shale, Oil Shale, and Shell.
(2) Sand and Gravel.
(3) Clay including Kaolin, Fireclay, Bentonite, Fuller's Earth,
Ball Clay, and Common Clay.
(4) Rock Salt.
(5) Gypsum (natural or synthetic).
(6) Sodium Compounds, including Sodium Carbonate, Sodium Chloride,
and Sodium Sulfate.
(7) Pumice.
(8) Gilsonite.
(9) Talc and Pyrophyllite.
(10) Boron, including Borax, Kernite, and Colemanite.
(11) Barite.
(12) Fluorospar.
(13) Feldspar.
(14) Diatomite.
(15) Perlite.
(16) Vermiculite.
(17) Mica.
(18) Kyanite, including Andalusite, Sillimanite, Topaz, and
Dumortierite.
Nonmetallic mineral processing plant means any combination of
equipment that is used to crush or grind any nonmetallic mineral
wherever located, including lime plants, power plants, steel mills,
asphalt concrete plants, portland cement plants, or any other facility
processing nonmetallic minerals except as provided in Sec. 60.670 (b)
and (c).
Portable plant means any nonmetallic mineral processing plant that
is
[[Page 19311]]
mounted on any chassis or skids and may be moved by the application of
a lifting or pulling force. In addition, there shall be no cable,
chain, turnbuckle, bolt or other means (except electrical connections)
by which any piece of equipment is attached or clamped to any anchor,
slab, or structure, including bedrock that must be removed prior to the
application of a lifting or pulling force for the purpose of
transporting the unit.
Production line means all affected facilities (crushers, grinding
mills, screening operations, bucket elevators, belt conveyors, bagging
operations, storage bins, and enclosed truck and railcar loading
stations) which are directly connected or are connected together by a
conveying system.
Saturated material means, for purposes of this subpart, mineral
material with sufficient surface moisture such that particulate matter
emissions are not generated from processing of the material through
screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors. Material
that is wetted solely by wet suppression systems is not considered to
be ``saturated'' for purposes of this definition.
Screening operation means a device for separating material
according to size by passing undersize material through one or more
mesh surfaces (screens) in series, and retaining oversize material on
the mesh surfaces (screens). Grizzly feeders associated with truck
dumping and static (non-moving) grizzlies used anywhere in the
nonmetallic mineral processing plant are not considered to be screening
operations.
Seasonal shut down means shut down of an affected facility for a
period of at least 45 consecutive days due to weather or seasonal
market conditions.
Size means the rated capacity in tons per hour of a crusher,
grinding mill, bucket elevator, bagging operation, or enclosed truck or
railcar loading station; the total surface area of the top screen of a
screening operation; the width of a conveyor belt; and the rated
capacity in tons of a storage bin.
Stack emission means the particulate matter that is released to the
atmosphere from a capture system.
Storage bin means a facility for storage (including surge bins) of
nonmetallic minerals prior to further processing or loading.
Transfer point means a point in a conveying operation where the
nonmetallic mineral is transferred to or from a belt conveyor except
where the nonmetallic mineral is being transferred to a stockpile.
Truck dumping means the unloading of nonmetallic minerals from
movable vehicles designed to transport nonmetallic minerals from one
location to another. Movable vehicles include but are not limited to:
Trucks, front end loaders, skip hoists, and railcars.
Vent means an opening through which there is mechanically induced
air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air carrying
particulate matter emissions from one or more affected facilities.
Wet material processing operation(s) means any of the following:
(1) Wet screening operations (as defined in this section) and
subsequent screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors in
the production line that process saturated materials (as defined in
this section) up to the first crusher, grinding mill or storage bin in
the production line; or
(2) Screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors in
the production line downstream of wet mining operations (as defined in
this section) that process saturated materials (as defined in this
section) up to the first crusher, grinding mill or storage bin in the
production line.
Wet mining operation means a mining or dredging operation designed
and operated to extract any nonmetallic mineral regulated under this
subpart from deposits existing at or below the water table, where the
nonmetallic mineral is saturated with water.
Wet screening operation means a screening operation at a
nonmetallic mineral processing plant which removes unwanted material or
which separates marketable fines from the product by a washing process
which is designed and operated at all times such that the product is
saturated with water.
Sec. 60.672 Standard for particulate matter (PM).
(a) Affected facilities must meet the stack emission limits and
compliance requirements in Table 2 of this subpart within 60 days after
achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility
will be operated, but not later than 180 days after initial startup as
required under Sec. 60.8. The requirements in Table 2 of this subpart
apply for affected facilities with capture systems used to capture and
transport particulate matter to a control device.
(b) Affected facilities must meet the fugitive emission limits and
compliance requirements in Table 3 of this subpart within 60 days after
achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility
will be operated, but not later than 180 days after initial startup as
required under Sec. 60.11. The requirements in Table 3 of this subpart
apply for fugitive emissions from affected facilities without capture
systems and for fugitive emissions escaping capture systems.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Truck dumping of nonmetallic minerals into any screening
operation, feed hopper, or crusher is exempt from the requirements of
this section.
(e) If any transfer point on a conveyor belt or any other affected
facility is enclosed in a building, then each enclosed affected
facility must comply with the emission limits in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section, or the building enclosing the affected facility or
facilities must comply with the following emission limits:
(1) Fugitive emissions from the building openings (except for vents
as defined in Sec. 60.671) must not exceed 7 percent opacity; and
(2) Vents (as defined in Sec. 60.671) in the building must meet
the applicable stack emission limits and compliance requirements in
Table 2 of this subpart.
(f) Any baghouse that controls emissions from only an individual,
enclosed storage bin is exempt from the applicable stack PM
concentration limit (and associated performance testing) in Table 2 of
this subpart but must meet the applicable stack opacity limit and
compliance requirements in Table 2 of this subpart. This exemption from
the stack PM concentration limit does not apply for multiple storage
bins with combined stack emissions.
Sec. 60.673 Reconstruction.
(a) The cost of replacement of ore-contact surfaces on processing
equipment shall not be considered in calculating either the ``fixed
capital cost of the new components'' or the ``fixed capital cost that
would be required to construct a comparable new facility'' under Sec.
60.15. Ore-contact surfaces are crushing surfaces; screen meshes, bars,
and plates; conveyor belts; and elevator buckets.
(b) Under Sec. 60.15, the ``fixed capital cost of the new
components'' includes the fixed capital cost of all depreciable
components (except components specified in paragraph (a) of this
section) which are or will be replaced pursuant to all continuous
programs of component replacement commenced within any 2-year period
following August 31, 1983.
Sec. 60.674 Monitoring of operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any affected facility subject to the
provisions of this subpart which uses a wet scrubber to control
emissions shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate the following
monitoring devices:
[[Page 19312]]
(1) A device for the continuous measurement of the pressure loss of
the gas stream through the scrubber. The monitoring device must be
certified by the manufacturer to be accurate within 250
pascals 1 inch water gauge pressure and must be calibrated
on an annual basis in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
(2) A device for the continuous measurement of the scrubbing liquid
flow rate to the wet scrubber. The monitoring device must be certified
by the manufacturer to be accurate within 5 percent of
design scrubbing liquid flow rate and must be calibrated on an annual
basis in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.
(b) The owner or operator of any affected facility for which
construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced on or after
April 22, 2008, that uses wet suppression to control emissions from the
affected facility must perform monthly periodic inspections to check
that water is flowing to discharge spray nozzles in the wet suppression
system. The owner or operator must initiate corrective action within 24
hours and complete corrective action as expediently as practical if the
owner or operator finds that water is not flowing properly during an
inspection of the water spray nozzles. The owner or operator must
record each inspection of the water spray nozzles, including the date
of each inspection and any corrective actions taken, in the logbook
required under Sec. 60.676(b).
(1) If an affected facility relies on water carryover from upstream
water sprays to control fugitive emissions, then that affected facility
is exempt from the 5-year repeat testing requirement specified in Table
3 of this subpart provided that the affected facility meets the
criteria in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(i) The owner or operator of the affected facility conducts
periodic inspections of the upstream water spray(s) that are
responsible for controlling fugitive emissions from the affected
facility. These inspections are conducted according to paragraph (b) of
this section and Sec. 60.676(b), and
(ii) The owner or operator of the affected facility designates
which upstream water spray(s) will be periodically inspected at the
time of the initial performance test required under Sec. 60.11 of this
part and Sec. 60.675 of this subpart.
(2) If an affected facility that routinely uses wet suppression
water sprays ceases operation of the water sprays or is using a control
mechanism to reduce fugitive emissions other than water sprays during
the monthly inspection (for example, water from recent rainfall), the
logbook entry required under Sec. 60.676(b) must specify the control
mechanism being used instead of the water sprays.
(c) Except as specified in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section,
the owner or operator of any affected facility for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction commenced on or after April 22, 2008,
that uses a baghouse to control emissions must conduct quarterly 30-
minute visible emissions inspections using EPA Method 22 (40 CFR part
60, Appendix A-7). The Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7) test
shall be conducted while the baghouse is operating. The test is
successful if no visible emissions are observed. If any visible
emissions are observed, the owner or operator of the affected facility
must initiate corrective action within 24 hours to return the baghouse
to normal operation. The owner or operator must record each Method 22
(40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7) test, including the date and any
corrective actions taken, in the logbook required under Sec.
60.676(b). The owner or operator of the affected facility may establish
a different baghouse-specific success level for the visible emissions
test (other than no visible emissions) by conducting a PM performance
test according to Sec. 60.675(b) simultaneously with a Method 22 (40
CFR part 60, Appendix A-7) to determine what constitutes normal visible
emissions from that affected facility's baghouse when it is in
compliance with the applicable PM concentration limit in Table 2 of
this subpart. The revised visible emissions success level must be
incorporated into the permit for the affected facility.
(d) As an alternative to the periodic Method 22 (40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-7) visible emissions inspections specified in paragraph (c)
of this section, the owner or operator of any affected facility for
which construction, modification, or reconstruction commenced on or
after April 22, 2008, that uses a baghouse to control emissions may use
a bag leak detection system. The owner or operator must install,
operate, and maintain the bag leak detection system according to
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and
requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations
of 1 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual
cubic foot) or less.
(ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of
relative PM loadings. The owner or operator shall continuously record
the output from the bag leak detection system using electronic or other
means (e.g., using a strip chart recorder or a data logger).
(iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm
system that will sound when the system detects an increase in relative
particulate loading over the alarm set point established according to
paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm must be located
such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant personnel.
(iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag leak detection system,
the owner or operator must establish, at a minimum, the baseline output
by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the
device, the alarm set points, and the alarm delay time.
(v) Following initial adjustment, the owner or operator shall not
adjust the averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time
without approval from the Administrator or delegated authority except
as provided in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this section.
(vi) Once per quarter, the owner or operator may adjust the
sensitivity of the bag leak detection system to account for seasonal
effects, including temperature and humidity, according to the
procedures identified in the site-specific monitoring plan required by
paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(vii) The owner or operator must install the bag leak detection
sensor downstream of the fabric filter.
(viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(2) The owner or operator of the affected facility must develop and
submit to the Administrator or delegated authority for approval of a
site-specific monitoring plan for each bag leak detection system. The
owner or operator must operate and maintain the bag leak detection
system according to the site-specific monitoring plan at all times.
Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (d)(2)(i)
through (vi) of this section.
(i) Installation of the bag leak detection system;
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection
system, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
(iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system, including quality
assurance procedures;
[[Page 19313]]
(iv) How the bag leak detection system will be maintained,
including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory
list;
(v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and
stored; and
(vi) Corrective action procedures as specified in paragraph (d)(3)
of this section. In approving the site-specific monitoring plan, the
Administrator or delegated authority may allow owners and operators
more than 3 hours to alleviate a specific condition that causes an
alarm if the owner or operator identifies in the monitoring plan this
specific condition as one that could lead to an alarm, adequately
explains why it is not feasible to alleviate this condition within 3
hours of the time the alarm occurs, and demonstrates that the requested
time will ensure alleviation of this condition as expeditiously as
practicable.
(3) For each bag leak detection system, the owner or operator must
initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 1 hour
of the alarm. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of this
section, the owner or operator must alleviate the cause of the alarm
within 3 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are
necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the
following:
(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags
or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in
PM emissions;
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise
repairing the control device;
(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;
(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe or otherwise
repairing the bag leak detection system; or
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
(e) As an alternative to the periodic Method 22 (40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A-7) visible emissions inspections specified in paragraph (c)
of this section, the owner or operator of any affected facility that is
subject to the requirements for processed stone handling operations in
the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA) may
follow the continuous compliance requirements in row 1 items (i)
through (iii) of Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of 40 CFR part 63.
Sec. 60.675 Test methods and procedures.
(a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec. 60.8, the
owner or operator shall use as reference methods and procedures the
test methods in appendices A-1 through A-7 of this part or other
methods and procedures as specified in this section, except as provided
in Sec. 60.8(b). Acceptable alternative methods and procedures are
given in paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the PM
standards in Sec. 60.672(a) as follows:
(1) Except as specified in paragraphs (e)(3) and (4) of this
section, Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this part or Method 17 of Appendix
A-6 of this part shall be used to determine the particulate matter
concentration. The sample volume shall be at least 1.70 dscm (60 dscf).
For Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-3), if the gas stream being
sampled is at ambient temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be
operated without heaters. If the gas stream is above ambient
temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be operated at a
temperature high enough, but no higher than 121 [deg]C (250 [deg]F), to
prevent water condensation on the filter.
(2) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of this part and the procedures in
Sec. 60.11 shall be used to determine opacity.
(c)(1) In determining compliance with the particulate matter
standards in Sec. 60.672(b) or Sec. 60.672(e)(1), the owner or
operator shall use Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of this part and the
procedures in Sec. 60.11, with the following additions:
(i) The minimum distance between the observer and the emission
source shall be 4.57 meters (15 feet).
(ii) The observer shall, when possible, select a position that
minimizes interference from other fugitive emission sources (e.g., road
dust). The required observer position relative to the sun (Method 9 of
Appendix A-4 of this part, Section 2.1) must be followed.
(iii) For affected facilities using wet dust suppression for
particulate matter control, a visible mist is sometimes generated by
the spray. The water mist must not be confused with particulate matter
emissions and is not to be considered a visible emission. When a water
mist of this nature is present, the observation of emissions is to be
made at a point in the plume where the mist is no longer visible.
(2)(i) In determining compliance with the opacity of stack
emissions from any baghouse that controls emissions only from an
individual enclosed storage bin under Sec. 60.672(f) of this subpart,
using Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4), the duration of the
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) observations shall be 1 hour
(ten 6-minute averages).
(ii) The duration of the Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4)
observations may be reduced to the duration the affected facility
operates (but not less than 30 minutes) for baghouses that control
storage bins or enclosed truck or railcar loading stations that operate
for less than 1 hour at a time.
(3) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions
standard for any affected facility described under Sec. 60.672(b) or
Sec. 60.672(e)(1) of this subpart, the duration of the Method 9 (40
CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) observations must be 30 minutes (five 6-
minute averages). Compliance with the applicable fugitive emission
limits in Table 3 of this subpart must be based on the average of the
five 6-minute averages.
(d) To demonstrate compliance with the fugitive emission limits for
buildings specified in Sec. 60.672(e)(1), the owner or operator must
complete the testing specified in paragraph (d)(1) and (2) of this
section. Performance tests must be conducted while all affected
facilities inside the building are operating.
(1) If the building encloses any affected facility that commences
construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22,
2008, the owner or operator of the affected facility must conduct an
initial Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) performance test
according to this section and Sec. 60.11.
(2) If the building encloses only affected facilities that
commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction before April
22, 2008, and the owner or operator has previously conducted an initial
Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-7) performance test showing zero
visible emissions, then the owner or operator has demonstrated
compliance with the opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(e)(1). If the owner
or operator has not conducted an initial performance test for the
building before April 22, 2008, then the owner or operator must conduct
an initial Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) performance test
according to this section and Sec. 60.11 to show compliance with the
opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(e)(1).
(e) The owner or operator may use the following as alternatives to
the reference methods and procedures specified in this section:
(1) For the method and procedure of paragraph (c) of this section,
if emissions from two or more facilities continuously interfere so that
the opacity of fugitive emissions from an individual affected facility
cannot be
[[Page 19314]]
read, either of the following procedures may be used:
(i) Use for the combined emission stream the highest fugitive
opacity standard applicable to any of the individual affected
facilities contributing to the emissions stream.
(ii) Separate the emissions so that the opacity of emissions from
each affected facility can be read.
(2) A single visible emission observer may conduct visible emission
observations for up to three fugitive, stack, or vent emission points
within a 15-second interval if the following conditions are met:
(i) No more than three emission points may be read concurrently.
(ii) All three emission points must be within a 70 degree viewing
sector or angle in front of the observer such that the proper sun
position can be maintained for all three points.
(iii) If an opacity reading for any one of the three emission
points equals or exceeds the applicable standard, then the observer
must stop taking readings for the other two points and continue reading
just that single point.
(3) Method 5I of Appendix A-3 of this part may be used to determine
the PM concentration as an alternative to the methods specified in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Method 5I (40 CFR part 60, Appendix
A-3) may be useful for affected facilities that operate for less than 1
hour at a time such as (but not limited to) storage bins or enclosed
truck or railcar loading stations.
(4) In some cases, velocities of exhaust gases from building vents
may be too low to measure accurately with the type S pitot tube
specified in EPA Method 2 of Appendix A-1 of this part [i.e., velocity
head <1.3 mm H2O (0.05 in. H2O)] and referred to
in EPA Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this part. For these conditions, the
owner or operator may determine the average gas flow rate produced by
the power fans (e.g., from vendor-supplied fan curves) to the building
vent. The owner or operator may calculate the average gas velocity at
the building vent measurement site using Equation 1 of this section and
use this average velocity in determining and maintaining isokinetic
sampling rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28AP09.007
Where:
Ve = average building vent velocity (feet per minute);
Qf = average fan flow rate (cubic feet per minute); and
Ae = area of building vent and measurement location
(square feet).
(f) To comply with Sec. 60.676(d), the owner or operator shall
record the measurements as required in Sec. 60.676(c) using the
monitoring devices in Sec. 60.674 (a)(1) and (2) during each
particulate matter run and shall determine the averages.
(g) For performance tests involving only Method 9 (40 CFR part 60
Appendix A-4) testing, the owner or operator may reduce the 30-day
advance notification of performance test in Sec. 60.7(a)(6) and
60.8(d) to a 7-day advance notification.
(h) [Reserved]
(i) If the initial performance test date for an affected facility
falls during a seasonal shut down (as defined in Sec. 60.671 of this
subpart) of the affected facility, then with approval from the
permitting authority, the owner or operator may postpone the initial
performance test until no later than 60 calendar days after resuming
operation of the affected facility.
Sec. 60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to comply with Sec. 60.670(d)
shall submit to the Administrator the following information about the
existing facility being replaced and the replacement piece of
equipment.
(1) For a crusher, grinding mill, bucket elevator, bagging
operation, or enclosed truck or railcar loading station:
(i) The rated capacity in megagrams or tons per hour of the
existing facility being replaced and
(ii) The rated capacity in tons per hour of the replacement
equipment.
(2) For a screening operation:
(i) The total surface area of the top screen of the existing
screening operation being replaced and
(ii) The total surface area of the top screen of the replacement
screening operation.
(3) For a conveyor belt:
(i) The width of the existing belt being replaced and
(ii) The width of the replacement conveyor belt.
(4) For a storage bin:
(i) The rated capacity in megagrams or tons of the existing storage
bin being replaced and
(ii) The rated capacity in megagrams or tons of replacement storage
bins.
(b)(1) Owners or operators of affected facilities (as defined in
Sec. Sec. 60.670 and 60.671) for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced on or after April 22, 2008, must record each
periodic inspection required under Sec. 60.674(b) or (c), including
dates and any corrective actions taken, in a logbook (in written or
electronic format). The owner or operator must keep the logbook onsite
and make hard or electronic copies (whichever is requested) of the
logbook available to the Administrator upon request.
(2) For each bag leak detection system installed and operated
according to Sec. 60.674(d), the owner or operator must keep the
records specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this
section.
(i) Records of the bag leak detection system output;
(ii) Records of bag leak detection system adjustments, including
the date and time of the adjustment, the initial bag leak detection
system settings, and the final bag leak detection system settings; and
(iii) The date and time of all bag leak detection system alarms,
the time that procedures to determine the cause of the alarm were
initiated, the cause of the alarm, an explanation of the actions taken,
the date and time the cause of the alarm was alleviated, and whether
the cause of the alarm was alleviated within 3 hours of the alarm.
(3) The owner or operator of each affected facility demonstrating
compliance according to Sec. 60.674(e) by following the requirements
for processed stone handling operations in the Lime Manufacturing
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA) must maintain records of visible
emissions observations required by Sec. 63.7132(a)(3) and (b) of 40
CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA.
(c) During the initial performance test of a wet scrubber, and
daily thereafter, the owner or operator shall record the measurements
of both the change in pressure of the gas stream across the scrubber
and the scrubbing liquid flow rate.
(d) After the initial performance test of a wet scrubber, the owner
or operator shall submit semiannual reports to the Administrator of
occurrences when the measurements of the scrubber pressure loss and
liquid flow rate decrease by more than 30 percent from the average
determined during the most recent performance test.
(e) The reports required under paragraph (d) of this section shall
be postmarked within 30 days following end of the second and fourth
calendar quarters.
(f) The owner or operator of any affected facility shall submit
written reports of the results of all performance tests conducted to
demonstrate compliance with the standards set forth in Sec. 60.672 of
this subpart, including reports of opacity observations made using
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) to demonstrate compliance with
Sec. 60.672(b), (e) and (f).
[[Page 19315]]
(g) The owner or operator of any wet material processing operation
that processes saturated and subsequently processes unsaturated
materials, shall submit a report of this change within 30 days
following such change. At the time of such change, this screening
operation, bucket elevator, or belt conveyor becomes subject to the
applicable opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(b) and the emission test
requirements of Sec. 60.11.
(h) The subpart A requirement under Sec. 60.7(a)(1) for
notification of the date construction or reconstruction commenced is
waived for affected facilities under this subpart.
(i) A notification of the actual date of initial startup of each
affected facility shall be submitted to the Administrator.
(1) For a combination of affected facilities in a production line
that begin actual initial startup on the same day, a single
notification of startup may be submitted by the owner or operator to
the Administrator. The notification shall be postmarked within 15 days
after such date and shall include a description of each affected
facility, equipment manufacturer, and serial number of the equipment,
if available.
(2) For portable aggregate processing plants, the notification of
the actual date of initial startup shall include both the home office
and the current address or location of the portable plant.
(j) The requirements of this section remain in force until and
unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under
section 111(c) of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an
alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In
that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of
the obligation to comply with the reporting requirements of this
section, provided that they comply with requirements established by the
State.
(k) Notifications and reports required under this subpart and under
subpart A of this part to demonstrate compliance with this subpart need
only to be sent to the EPA Region or the State which has been delegated
authority according to Sec. 60.4(b).
Table 1 to Subpart OOO--Exceptions to Applicability of Subpart A to Subpart OOO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart A reference Applies to subpart OOO Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.4, Address........................... Yes............................. Except in Sec. 60.4(a) and (b)
submittals need not be submitted to
both the EPA Region and delegated
State authority (Sec. 60.676(k)).
60.7, Notification and recordkeeping.... Yes............................. Except in (a)(1) notification of the
date construction or reconstruction
commenced (Sec. 60.676(h)).
Also, except in (a)(6) performance
tests involving only Method 9 (40
CFR part 60, Appendix A-4) require
a 7-day advance notification
instead of 30 days (Sec.
60.675(g)).
60.8, Performance tests................. Yes............................. Except in (d) performance tests
involving only Method 9 (40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A-4) require a 7-
day advance notification instead of
30 days (Sec. 60.675(g)).
60.11, Compliance with standards and Yes............................. Except in (b) under certain
maintenance requirements. conditions (Sec. Sec.
60.675(c)), Method 9 (40 CFR part
60, Appendix A-4) observation is
reduced from 3 hours to 30 minutes
for fugitive emissions.
60.18, General control device........... No.............................. Flares will not be used to comply
with the emission limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 to Subpart OOO--Stack Emission Limits for Affected Facilities With Capture Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner or operator
The owner or operator And the owner or must demonstrate
For * * * must meet a PM limit of operator must meet an compliance with these
* * * opacity limit of * * * limits by conducting *
* *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected facilities (as defined in 0.05 g/dscm (0.022 gr/ 7 percent for dry An initial performance
Sec. Sec. 60.670 and 60.671) that dscf) \a\. control devices \b\. test according to Sec.
commenced construction, 60.8 of this part
modification, or reconstruction and Sec. 60.675 of
after August 31, 1983 but before this subpart; and
April 22, 2008. Monitoring of wet
scrubber parameters
according to Sec.
60.674(a) and Sec.
60.676(c), (d), and
(e).
Affected facilities (as defined in 0.032 g/dscm (0.014 gr/ Not applicable (except An initial performance
Sec. Sec. 60.670 and 60.671) that dscf) \a\. for individual test according to Sec.
commence construction, modification, enclosed storage bins). 60.8 of this part
or reconstruction on or after April 7 percent for dry and Sec. 60.675 of
22, 2008. control devices on this subpart; and
individual enclosed Monitoring of wet
storage bins. scrubber parameters
according to Sec.
60.674(a) and Sec.
60.676(c), (d), and
(e); and
Monitoring of baghouses
according to Sec.
60.674(c), (d), or (e)
and Sec. 60.676(b).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Exceptions to the PM limit apply for individual enclosed storage bins and other equipment. See Sec.
60.672(d) through (f).
\b\ The stack opacity limit and associated opacity testing requirements do not apply for affected facilities
using wet scrubbers.
[[Page 19316]]
Table 3 to Subpart OOO--Fugitive Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The owner or operator
must meet the following
fugitive emissions
limit for grinding
mills, screening
operations, bucket
elevators, transfer The owner or operator The owner or operator
points on belt must meet the following must demonstrate
For * * * conveyors, bagging fugitive emissions compliance with these
operations, storage limit for crushers at limits by conducting *
bins, enclosed truck or which a capture system * *
railcar loading is not used * * *
stations or from any
other affected facility
(as defined in Sec.
Sec. 60.670 and
60.671) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected facilities (as defined in 10 percent opacity..... 15 percent opacity..... An initial performance
Sec. Sec. 60.670 and 60.671) that test according to Sec.
commenced construction, 60.11 of this part
modification, or reconstruction and Sec. 60.675 of
after August 31, 1983 but before this subpart.
April 22, 2008.
Affected facilities (as defined in 7 percent opacity...... 12 percent opacity..... An initial performance
Sec. Sec. 60.670 and 60.671) that test according to Sec.
commence construction, modification, 60.11 of this part
or reconstruction on or after April and Sec. 60.675 of
22, 2008. this subpart; and
Periodic inspections of
water sprays according
to Sec. 60.674(b)
and Sec. 60.676(b);
and
A repeat performance
test according to Sec.
60.11 of this part
and Sec. 60.675 of
this subpart within 5
years from the
previous performance
test for fugitive
emissions from
affected facilities
without water sprays.
Affected facilities
controlled by water
carryover from
upstream water sprays
that are inspected
according to the
requirements in Sec.
60.674(b) and Sec.
60.676(b) are exempt
from this 5-year
repeat testing
requirement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E9-9435 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P