New Source Performance Standards Review for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants; and Amendment to Subpart UUU Applicability, 19294-19316 [E9-9435]
Download as PDF
19294
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 https://www.regulations.gov index.
Certain other material, such as
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Industry ......................................
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
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:
neuffer.bill@epa.gov.
The
supplementary information presented in
this preamble is organized as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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?
NAICS
code 1
Category
VerDate Nov<24>2008
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
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.
212311
212312
212313
212319
212321
212322
212324
212325
212391
212393
212399
221112
324121
327121
327122
327123
327124
Jkt 217001
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:
Examples of regulated entities
Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying.
Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying.
Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying.
Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying.
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining.
Industrial Sand Mining.
Kaolin and Ball Clay Mining.
Clay and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining.
Potash, Soda, and Borate Mineral Mining.
Other Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining.
All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining.
Fossil-Fuel Electric Power Generation.
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing.
Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing.
Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile Manufacturing.
Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing.
Clay Refractory Manufacturing.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Category
NAICS
code 1
Federal government ...................
State/local/tribal government .....
327310
327410
327420
327992
....................
....................
1
Examples of regulated entities
Cement Manufacturing.
Lime Manufacturing (Dolomite, Dead-burned, Manufacturing).
Gypsum Product Manufacturing.
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing.
Not affected.
Not affected.
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 https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN
provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19295
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
19296
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE FINAL AMENDMENTS TO SUBPART OOO
Citation
Change
§ 60.670(a)(2) ..................................
Exempt wet material processing operations; clarify rule does not apply to plants with no crushers or grinding mills.
Amend to clarify that like-for-like replacements have no emissions increase.
Revise to conform with amended Table 1 to subpart OOO.
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’’.
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.
Reserve because superseded by Table 3 to subpart OOO.
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.
Consolidate paragraphs to refer to Table 2 to subpart OOO.
Remove 60.672(h) and reserve 60.675(h) because wet material processing exempted.
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.
Add text to clarify that the 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).
Cross reference exceptions to Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–3) or Method 17 (40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A–6).
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.
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.
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.
Correct cross references.
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.
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).
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.
Remove reference to upper limits on scrubber pressure and liquid flow rate.
Edit to conform to wet material processing exemption and/or relevant opacity limits.
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.
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).
Move to end of subpart OOO, shorten to include only exceptions to the General Provisions, and update
comments.
Add table to specify the stack PM limits and testing/monitoring requirements for affected facilities based on
applicability dates.
Add table to specify the fugitive opacity limits and testing/monitoring requirements for affected facilities
based on applicability dates.
§ 60.670(d)(1) ..................................
§ 60.670(f) .......................................
§ 60.671 ...........................................
§ 60.672(a) and (b) .........................
§ 60.672(c) ......................................
§ 60.672(e) ......................................
§ 60.672(f) and (g) ..........................
§§ 60.672(h) and 60.675(h) ............
§ 60.674 ...........................................
§ 60.675 and various other sections
referencing test methods.
§ 60.675(b)(1) ..................................
§ 60.675(c) ......................................
§ 60.675(d) ......................................
§ 60.675(e) ......................................
§ 60.675(f) .......................................
§ 60.675(g) ......................................
§ 60.675(i) .......................................
§ 60.676(b) ......................................
§ 60.676(d) ......................................
§ 60.676(f) and (g) ..........................
§ 60.676(h) ......................................
§ 60.676(k) ......................................
Table 1 to subpart OOO .................
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Table 2 to subpart OOO .................
Table 3 to subpart OOO .................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
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).
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
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.’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
• Vents (as defined in § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19297
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 § 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19298
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 6minute 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 § 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 § 60.674(b) and § 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 30minute 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
reconstruction commenced on or after
April 22, 2008, is located inside the
building.
Seasonal shut downs. As proposed,
we are adding § 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 § 60.674(b) and
§ 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 § 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The requirement to complete corrective
action as expediently as practical was
added in response to public comment.
We added § 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 § 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 § 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
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 § 60.7(a)(2) in § 60.676(h) to
be consistent with changes made to
subpart A. We are also adding new rule
language for § 60.676(h) to waive the
§ 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 § 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 § 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
inspections for baghouses will be
required to keep the records specified in
§ 60.676(b)(2). Plants opting to follow
the continuous compliance
requirements of Subpart AAAAA of Part
63 must keep the records specified in
§ 63.7132(a)(3) and (b) of 40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAAA. According to
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19299
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
§ 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 standalone 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
§ 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19300
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 § 60.675(c)(3) that the
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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
§ 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 § 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
§ 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
§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19301
§ 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 § 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19302
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 60.675(e)(4)
specifically to address low flow rate
conditions from building vents. No
comments were received on the
proposed language and § 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 § 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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, subaqueous (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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 § 60.674(b) and § 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.
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
3 Inadequate monitoring concerns were raised by
EPA in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPR) published on February 16, 2005 (70 FR
7905).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
controlled by water carryover from
upstream water sprays if the upstream
water sprays are inspected according to
the requirements in § 60.674(b) and
§ 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 § 60.674(b) and
§ 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 § 60.674(b) and
§ 60.676(b) by NMPP wishing to exempt
selected affected facilities from the 5year 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 § 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 (§§ 60.675(e)(2)(i) and (ii))
are being promulgated as proposed.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19303
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
§ 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 weatherrelated 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 § 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.
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
19304
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
months but are turned off during wet
months when precipitation is adequate
to suppress fugitive dust.
The commenter suggested that
language be included in § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 §§ 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 § 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
requirement in § 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 semiannually, 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
§§ 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 baghousecontrolled 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 weatherrelated delays are already addressed in
§ 60.8(d) where staff work under the 7day 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19305
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 30day 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 § 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
§ 60.674(b), (c), and (d) and
§ 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-forlike replacement language in
§ 60.670(d)(1) to add the phrase ‘‘and
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
19306
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
there is no increase in the amount of
emissions.’’ The commenter requested
that the version of § 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 § 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-forlike 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
19307
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 that commence construction,
modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008
Total capital cost
[$1,000]
Potential annual
emission
reductions
[tons/yr]
Total annual
cost
[$1,000/yr]
Potential
costeffectiveness
[$/ton]
Revisions to emission limits .............................................................
Revisions to MRR requirements ......................................................
1,400
(1,800)
300
630
130
370
2,300
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.)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
§ 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19308
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19309
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.
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]
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart OOO—[AMENDED]
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
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19310
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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 § 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 § 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
§ 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
§ 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 §§ 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
§ 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 §§ 60.672, 60.674
and 60.675.
(e) An affected facility under
paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction, modification,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
§ 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 § 60.670 (b) and
(c).
Portable plant means any nonmetallic
mineral processing plant that is
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
§ 60.672
(PM).
Standard for particulate matter
(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 § 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 § 60.11. The
requirements in Table 3 of this subpart
apply for fugitive emissions from
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19311
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 § 60.671) must not exceed 7
percent opacity; and
(2) Vents (as defined in § 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.
§ 60.673
Reconstruction.
(a) The cost of replacement of orecontact 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 § 60.15. Ore-contact surfaces are
crushing surfaces; screen meshes, bars,
and plates; conveyor belts; and elevator
buckets.
(b) Under § 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.
§ 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:
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19312
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(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 § 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 § 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
§ 60.11 of this part and § 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
(for example, water from recent rainfall),
the logbook entry required under
§ 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 § 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 sitespecific 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;
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(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.
§ 60.675
Test methods and procedures.
(a) In conducting the performance
tests required in § 60.8, the owner or
operator shall use as reference methods
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 § 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 § 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 °C (250 °F), to
prevent water condensation on the
filter.
(2) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this
part and the procedures in § 60.11 shall
be used to determine opacity.
(c)(1) In determining compliance with
the particulate matter standards in
§ 60.672(b) or § 60.672(e)(1), the owner
or operator shall use Method 9 of
Appendix A–4 of this part and the
procedures in § 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 § 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 6minute averages).
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19313
(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
§ 60.672(b) or § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 60.11 to show compliance
with the opacity limit in § 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
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
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.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
ve =
Qf
Ae
(Eq. 1)
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).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:14 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 214001
(f) To comply with § 60.676(d), the
owner or operator shall record the
measurements as required in § 60.676(c)
using the monitoring devices in § 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
§ 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
§ 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.
§ 60.676
Reporting and recordkeeping.
(a) Each owner or operator seeking to
comply with § 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 §§ 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 § 60.674(b) or (c),
including dates and any corrective
actions taken, in a logbook (in written
or electronic format). The owner or
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 60.672(b), (e) and (f).
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
ER28AP09.007
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(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 § 60.672(b)
and the emission test requirements of
§ 60.11.
(h) The subpart A requirement under
§ 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)
19315
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 § 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 ...................
60.7, Notification and recordkeeping .......
Yes ...................
60.8, Performance tests ...........................
Yes ...................
60.11, Compliance with standards and
maintenance requirements.
Yes ...................
60.18, General control device ..................
No .....................
Except in § 60.4(a) and (b) submittals need not be submitted to both the EPA Region and delegated State authority (§ 60.676(k)).
Except in (a)(1) notification of the date construction or reconstruction commenced
(§ 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
(§ 60.675(g)).
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 (§ 60.675(g)).
Except in (b) under certain conditions (§§ 60.675(c)), Method 9 (40 CFR part 60,
Appendix A–4) observation is reduced from 3 hours to 30 minutes for fugitive
emissions.
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
For * * *
The owner or operator must meet
a PM limit of * * *
And the owner or operator must
meet an opacity limit of * * *
The owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with these
limits by conducting * * *
Affected facilities (as defined in
§§ 60.670 and 60.671) that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 31, 1983 but before April
22, 2008.
0.05 g/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) a .......
7 percent for dry control devices b
Affected facilities (as defined in
§§ 60.670 and 60.671) that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after
April 22, 2008.
0.032 g/dscm (0.014 gr/dscf) a .....
Not applicable (except for individual enclosed storage bins).
7 percent for dry control devices
on individual enclosed storage
bins.
An initial performance test according to § 60.8 of this part and
§ 60.675 of this subpart; and
Monitoring of wet scrubber parameters
according
to
§ 60.674(a) and § 60.676(c), (d),
and (e).
An initial performance test according to § 60.8 of this part and
§ 60.675 of this subpart; and
Monitoring of wet scrubber parameters
according
to
§ 60.674(a) and § 60.676(c), (d),
and (e); and
Monitoring of baghouses according to § 60.674(c), (d), or (e)
and § 60.676(b).
a Exceptions
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
b The
to the PM limit apply for individual enclosed storage bins and other equipment. See § 60.672(d) through (f).
stack opacity limit and associated opacity testing requirements do not apply for affected facilities using wet scrubbers.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
19316
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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 points on belt conveyors,
bagging operations, storage bins,
enclosed truck or railcar loading
stations or from any other affected facility (as defined in
§§ 60.670 and 60.671) * * *
For * * *
Affected facilities (as defined in
§§ 60.670 and 60.671) that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 31, 1983 but before April
22, 2008.
Affected facilities (as defined in
§§ 60.670 and 60.671) that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after
April 22, 2008.
The owner or operator must meet
the following fugitive emissions
limit for crushers at which a capture system is not used * * *
The owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with these
limits by conducting * * *
10 percent opacity ........................
15 percent opacity ........................
An initial performance test according to § 60.11 of this part and
§ 60.675 of this subpart.
7 percent opacity ..........................
12 percent opacity ........................
An initial performance test according to § 60.11 of this part and
§ 60.675 of this subpart; and
Periodic inspections of water
sprays according to § 60.674(b)
and § 60.676(b); and
A repeat performance test according to § 60.11 of this part and
§ 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
§ 60.674(b) and § 60.676(b) are
exempt from this 5-year repeat
testing requirement.
[FR Doc. E9–9435 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am]
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\28APR2.SGM
28APR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19294-19316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://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 https://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: neuffer.bill@epa.gov.
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 https://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 p